Half agree. I think that, yes, Obama should focus on McCain. However, it's an error not to point out that Palin is part of the lie perpetuating machine. She lies, he lies, they all lie. What's so Maverick-y about that? It's an inroad to be made, an argument to be expanded upon.
Did you expect me to tell you to f-off? Thing is, I DO have critical thinking skills. Check it out, I'll apply them: You see everything through a frame of hurt because the Democrats in your view destroyed your icon (as seen in another diary.) I read Lakoff's book, several times. I understand identity politics, and why people vote against their interests. I know identity politics wins elections.
Look, I've been reading this site for 6 months, and, since the primaries have ended, every comment, including your signature, just is designed to remind everyone how upset you are, and anything possibly positive about Obama is competely wiped out by some negative. I get it. Everyone on the site gets it. You don't like Obama. You'll never vote Obama. I just find the fact that, in an anonymous forum, you make that the center of your persona, puzzling. I ask this genuinely: don't you have something positive to contribute?
You know, above, where you didn't like having words put into your mouth? Other people don't like it either. The commenter obviously was commenting on the subject of not relating to identity politics. Yeah, they're going to play a large part in this election, gender and race. I know your main function on this blog is to yell "look at me, I'm OBSTINATE," but you really can and should do better than that. I'm out of here.
This was my first thought, too. I've been reading this blog since February, and the amount of navel gazing that goes on here is sickening. You want to know why the Republicans win? Because no matter how bad they thought Palin was three weeks ago, they all heart her now. We're still bitching and moaning about the primaries. I think for a lot of Dems the "I told you so" is worth losing the election. God, I'm so disgusted right now. Know what? We used to have a saying, trite but true: lead, follow, or get the f*** out of the way. We need to embrace that, NOW.
I admit, there is a part of me that is distincly paranoid about it really being #1. (See my handle, it's more than just an X-Files ref.)
I think the underestimation is a real problem, from what I see across the Internets. GOPers are very good at playing the media (hence this diary, obviously.) I think the calls to stay on message are warranted, and, more importantly, if the media misses this one, well, save us all. Nice diary. Rec if I could. :-)
Wait, so, using women surrogates telegraphs "we're desperate and don't know how to counter Palin?" I disagree. It would be more disingenuous to not see the women of the party take an active role.
Also, I thought that Clinton's appeal (and thus her success among the white working class voters) was part identity politics, especially during the end of the primary season. I think that will carry over into the general. She's not a hockey mom (most overused phrase so far!), but she has more populist appeal than some of the other surrogates.
I think it would be a bit odd to see other prominent Democratic women like Sibelius attacking Palin, and not Clinton. Plus it would keep the (erroneous) media story alive that Clinton is not throwing her full weight behind Obama. This is an all hands on deck campaign, and Hillary should be a part of that.
Here's the gender card should not be used by the Republicans: They can't even convince themselves of what they are saying.
Case in point: Alex Castenellos on CNN last night said that Sarah Palin's story is the Annette Benning story, the one where the girl can get the high powered job...(not bad so far, but then he continued)...and find true love, and marry Michael Douglas.
I actually watched that with my husband 3 times; it's like he was trying to do a 180 on saying Hillary was justifiably called a "bitch," but couldn't quite hold it, and went the whole way back around again.