I mean that literally--after a speech by Lindsay Graham so boring and anodyne that I nearly slipped into a coma, the RNC is playing the biographic video that was supposed to go on last night, before Rudy Giuliani preempted it with . . . whatever it was he said. I was busy pawing through the medicine cabinet for my inhaler.
This is having the effect of elevating Palin to a more central place than most VP's get in a campaign--her speech last night apparently pulled nearly as many viewers as Obama's last week. I wonder if that is a feature or a bug for McCain. Polling The Swing Voter (aka my mother) confirms my sense that she did well last night, although The Swing Voter would like to see her talk about something a little more substantive than how awesome her kids are. And I remain convinced that she's very hard for the Obama campaign to attack without dealing itself considerable damage.
Of course, it doesn't look very good for McCain to be upstaged by his VP. On the other hand, there is, I think, a certain subtle confirmation to a cultural role we're comfortable with: the strong husband/wife team. I'm not saying that there is some romantic aspect to their candidacy, but rather that I think there's a way to build on that partnership image that gives her a central role without making McCain look weak. Maybe. I'll have to see how things develop.
Copyright © 2009 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
Coolidge really really hated it when Dawes upstaged him, and froze him out.
I'm not saying that there is some romantic aspect to their candidacy
Not "romantic" perhaps, but gender roles in work relationships classically have elements of sexuality in them. But this looks a lot less like "the strong husband-wife team" than like "the old, fading CEO who prefers an attractive young woman as his new personal assistant rather than an attractive young man." When I told my wife McCain had picked an inexperienced unknown woman as his VP, her first question was, "Is she pretty?"
Obama won't attack her. They've barely mentioned her since she was picked. They've been attacking the way mccain picked her, and what the pick says about him, but they've basically left her alone, except when they're asked about her.
She's a vp. She's not the one they have to worry about. Stay on message going after mccain. he's the one voters will have to decide on.
I saw the Guiliani mention, then looked up, and sure enough: posted at 9:11.
Also, you never told us what your mom thinks. An anxious nation awaits!
Is it just me or does Lindsey Graham seem like the kind of guy who has a secret collection of women's clothing that fits him just right?
Can we agree to a moratorium on use of the phrase "a feature or a bug?"
Don't get me wrong, it's not a bad string of words, but this is all just too much too soon for me.
Didn't you mean the father/"daughter" team?
You should listen to your mom. Even she wants you to talk about something more substantiative.
I don't watch television. I have, as far as I can remember, never heard either Obama's or McCain's voices. But, I read two newspapers each day on dead trees, and a lot more news from the web.
You probably can't do it now, having heard the speeches live, but try reading them. Obama's was full of plans for the future, Palin's was a mean-spirited diatribe against the opponents. I realize that plans for the future are a politician's stock in trade, and he probably has no more idea than I do how to accomplish them, but at least it was positive.
I was a lifelong Republican who voted against Reagan, but maintained the registration. Bush finally caused me to switch an register as a Democrat. In reality, I'm at least a half-assed Libertarian. I've voted Libertarian twice.
I have come to believe that both major parties are owned by the major corporations, so there is really little difference between them. But, as long as there is a little hope that a new administration will undo some of the current administration's more egregious policies, I'm going to vote for Obama.
It's been less than a week since Palin was selected. Soon enough much of the fuss will die down and we won't be hearing about her ad nauseum.
What's interesting about the situation is that pundits have been debating whether Palin or Obama is more qualified to be President, in terms of experience. This is bound to remind voters that McCain is unquestionably more qualified than either of them.
Wow, going to sleep seems to invite change these days. First Palin is a liability, now she is a strength? Dubious distinctions aside this is becoming a tale of whimsy. So I'm now curious as to how people think this woman can handle the largely useless position of Vice-president? Unless McCain kicks it quick her overall responsibility is not very large nor is her word going to be of particular importance. I mean look at Cheney being Cheney in Georgia (NATO, Georgia will be lucky to avoid being controlled by Russian interests) a lot of talk that really means nothing.
As for the rousing speeches by both Palin and Obama anybody want to start the pool as to how quickly they're forgotten. I say by the end of the month.
A gambler rides a streak. Palin has had more impact that anything else McCain has done, and he is playing catch up. It may all blow up, bit she's his best chance to win. PA, OH, MI, WI, CO, NM could all be in play. He can choose to highlight the points where they echo each other
The metaphor I keep gravitating back to is McCain as 'father of the bride.'
My mom is an oracle of sorts: she last voted for a winning candidate in 1964. (She voted for Bush in 2000, but he lost the popular vote.) She's jumped back and forth between Obama and McCain a few times in the past couple of weeks. It's making my wife (a loyal Republican) a nervous wreck.
Father/daughter is much closer than husband/wife. Have you ever seen a father who looked bad because his daughter did well? Picking Palin was surprising and controversial, and McCain invested a lot of credibility in the pick. Her doing well can't do anything but make him look good.
"Obama's was full of plans for the future, Palin's was a mean-spirited diatribe against the opponents." Dick it might be more helpful if you compared Palin's speech to Biden's and compare Obama's to McCain.
I think the one problem for Republicans is that they continue to underestimate Obama's ability to duck, dodge, and weave around the culture war -- probably one of the places where HLR was a good education for him.
As you point out, Palin has done well with the rural vote. But the bicoast urban elites tend to forget that this was Obama's strength as well: He kicked open the door in Iowa, racked up his delegate leads in Idaho, Alaska, Colorado, Montana, and Maine and -- characteristically -- kept New Hampshire close by winning most of the rural areas in the North and West.
Of course the dynamic changes in the general election, but perhaps less than we might expect.
When I told my wife McCain had picked an inexperienced unknown woman as his VP, her first question was, "Is she pretty?"
Well, sure. But if you had told your wife that McCain had picked Sarah Palin, it would have been a somewhat different statement.
At this point, though, the relative qualifications and fame are less important than the fact that we have an African-American and an old, rich, white man versus an old, rich, white man and a pretty woman. This is Identity Politics Theater at its finest (or worst, if you prefer) and I intend to follow the rest of it with a detached sense of amusement and a bucket of popcorn.
"This is having the effect of elevating Palin to a more central place than most VP's get in a campaign" - I think this is a big part of the reason that conservatives were doing backflips over Palin's choice. She is obviously the most exciting part of McCain's campaign, in a way that Romney, Pawlenty, or Huckabee carrying water for McCain could never have been. Eventually, of course, he'll be president and she'll just be vice president. But in the meantime, McCain chose to give over the central focus of the campaign to the values and message of the conservative wing of the party.
If McCain wins, it will be as a care taker for the next President. Unlikely but possible, people may cast a vote for the President of 2012 in 2008.
Ann says: "This is bound to remind voters that McCain is unquestionably more qualified than either of them."
If you actually think that's unquestionable you're unquestionably unqualified to offer a sensible opinion.
John McCain is an ancient old git who was never especially bright to begin with. His lack of judgment is on display in his support for the Iraq War in the first place and his selection of a vapid crackpot as his would-be VP.
Megan,
I am a big fan, but your chronic health complaints are both pathetic and annoying.
You're starting to remind me of my 80-year old uncle. Not in a good way . . .
When The Swing Voter decides please let us know. She might be more reliable than polling.
Wow - comments much improved after the warning.
ML&J - I even appreciated your post! Very well articulated the uncormfortable feeling that made me turn the channel.
I have to disagree with the whole "ignore Gov. Palin" idea, especially after this "kick the bums out" speech. The more you look at Sarah Palin's history the more she looks like George Bush redux.
McCain is not the husband figure, he is the father figure who got to present to the Republican Party their new icon. He was proud as punch and not upset at all about how she upstaged him.
Libfree is right, I always thought Mccain as a "do no harm president". With Palin the GOP is voting in the 2012 President.
The glee he showed when he said just wait until he introduces her to Washington was pure mischief and pure McCain.
Dick, I used to read W's speeches in the paper, and so didn't understand why everyone complained about them. Then I saw the video on the White House website in which he describes the Oval Office, and could not believe how bad he was, even when speaking about personal items. I can just imagine how bad his delivery was of every speech I read.
I finally saw Palin's speech last night (though I skimmed a bit, skipping most of the family stuff) and while I would like to have heard more about policy, I thought she spoke well and engaged the audience. Delivery does count for something.
I think this is just brilliant game-theory at work. I think the Dem's made a big mistake in the primary by nominating Obama. IMHO, Bill Richardson and even Chris Dodd (or Hillary) brought more gravitas to the ticket and would be more likely to carry the middle.
People will argue that he "electrified" people. But I think that's just another way of acknowledging his celebrity status.
Whether you like hMcCain or not, he's not capable of functioning as a celebrity. By picking Palin, McCain now has a celebrity. And by bringing her out now, she will claim the media spotlight. I mean, a moose hunter? That's just brilliant. (No, I don't hunt, but it does get one's attention).
Also, b/c she is lightweight, she forces this to be a comparison between the GOP VP and the Dem POTUS candidates, which lowers Obama's status.
Regardless of political party affiliation, I think this is great strategy.
I, of course, think the librarians should rise up and burn her at the stake, but I'm weird like that.
"I, of course, think the librarians should rise up and burn her at the stake, but I'm weird like that." JL
TR: Depending on the nature of what happened I think this is a cause for concern. Either way I find it intriguing that a librarian in a town of 9,000 is now a "player", of a sort, in national politics.
Although the librarian isn't a 100% critical of Palin. She does think she's "gutsy", unlike Sullivan, but otherwise is mostly negative. (She makes her sound vaguely like the Reese Witherspoon character in "Election") I think she has a blog or something.
As for the Obama camp I don't know if they should totally ignore her, but I think Obama should. He should leave any counter-attacks to Biden I'd think.
Heavens yes, Thomas R - if Obama himself attacks her, he only fuels the comparisons between his resume and hers - and those comparisons don't reflect too bloody well on the person who hopes to be inaugurated as President next year, no matter what they do for the person who hopes to be sworn in as VP on that same day.
ML&J, in what way is any of the other three more qualified to be President than McCain? I understand from your comment that you don't agree with McCain, but honestly, can you reasonably claim that Obama, Palin, or even Biden has the background and experience that McCain does? I disagree with virtually everything Obama says policy-wise, but I'm just as disturbed over his lack of depth as I am about his positions. I disagree with some of McCain's policy points, but I'm quite confident that his life has prepared him adequately for the job he's seeking. (If McCain were running against a longtime Democrat governor, I might be biting my nails.)
Jamie asks: "ML&J, in what way is any of the other three more qualified to be President than McCain? I understand from your comment that you don't agree with McCain, but honestly, can you reasonably claim that Obama, Palin, or even Biden has the background and experience that McCain does?"
I think Obama's background is quite impressive. Unlike McCain, he's a self-made man. McCain just went into the family business and then gigoloed his way into a fortune. (Or at least that's how most conservatives put it about John Kerry and Teresa Heinz.)
Biden and McCain have equal qualifications background-wise. And no, I don't see McCain's military background as a factor one way or another.
I think Obama has a much better temperament for the job than McCain does. McCain has been an impulsive hothead his entire life. The last 7 years have shown the problem with having an impulsive gunslinger type in the White House - and if anything, McCain is even more bellicose than Dumbya is.
His selection of Palin for VP is disturbing as hell - I don't believe for a moment that much thought was put into it, and she's abominably underqualified for the job, and picking her is just another example of McCain's poor judgment.
I think Obama has a much better temperament for the job than McCain does. McCain has been an impulsive hothead his entire life. The last 7 years have shown the problem with having an impulsive gunslinger type in the White House - and if anything, McCain is even more bellicose than Dumbya is.
Crap, I have to agree again. And I'm gradually coming around to the view that decades in the Senate should be regarded as a liability, not a qualification. But Obama's WAY to the left of me, so I'm left voting for McCain (who's only slightly to the left of me) and hoping Palin winds up taking over when he dies/retires suddenly.
Rob Lyman writes: "But Obama's WAY to the left of me, so I'm left voting for McCain (who's only slightly to the left of me) and hoping Palin winds up taking over when he dies/retires suddenly."
Holy Crap, Batman! You seriously think Palin is up to the job?
You extremists never quite learn, do you?
You seriously think Palin is up to the job?
Not sure, but I don't think she's half so "unqualified" as her critics make out, or that Obama is half as qualified as his supporters claim. Smart is overrated.
No surprise you\'d say that, fuckwit.
Polling The Swing Voter (aka my mother) confirms my sense that she did well last night, although The Swing Voter would like to see her talk about something a little more substantive than how awesome her kids are.
This is the response I got from my Swing Voter (college roommate who has voted for Bush I, Clinton, Bush II, and Kerry in that order in his adult life). He thought the substance-free nature of the speech and the sarcastic tone was much more suited to an election for class president.
No surprise you\'d say that, fuckwit.
I've become rater drearily predictable, I know.
Rob Lyman replies: "Smart is overrated."
I realize SuperChristians don't see it as a virtue at all, but I've been watching an idiot in the White House for the past 7 years, and it has gotten way beyond old.
Sarah Palin is a creationist, and that right there marks her as too stupid for the job.
My reason for being against her are that she'd bean extremist an old heartbeat away from the Presidency. Do we want a woman who conducted purges and tried to censor her library in her town? This is the United States, not the old Soviet Union.
I think Obama's background is quite impressive. Unlike McCain, he's a self-made man.
Huh, kind of like Palin.
His selection of Palin for VP is disturbing as hell - I don't believe for a moment that much thought was put into it, and she's abominably underqualified for the job
And that's why I'm now loving this election. There are huge flashing neon signs in front of the trap and you guys insist on walking straight into it. Even if Obama wins his battle with Palin, he loses. "That utterly incompetent and woefully inexperienced VP candidate? Yeah, I'm slightly more qualified than her".
The correct way to deal with her would have been something like: "Governor Palin is a fine choice for those who would continue the failed policies of the Bush Administration. While we're pleased that Sen. McCain agrees that there are more important qualifications for the White House than how many years someone has spent in Washington, we have very different ideas on the direction of this country, and Joe Biden and I look forward to vigorous debates..." etc.
Or the left can try to make an issue of her nutty church. That's sure to work and not backfire in any way.
Do we want a woman who conducted purges and tried to censor her library in her town?
The library censorship is troubling and possibly disqualifying, but I've yet to see any detail other than a single sentence about "asking" the librarian. The context of that discussion is relevant, and I hope she's asked to explain it. Meanwhile she hasn't seemed bent on turning Alaska into a theocracy, so I'm cautiously optimistic that she's more interested in keeping government out of her religion than imposing it on everyone.
Brian 2 writes: "And that's why I'm now loving this election. There are huge flashing neon signs in front of the trap and you guys insist on walking straight into it. Even if Obama wins his battle with Palin, he loses. "That utterly incompetent and woefully inexperienced VP candidate? Yeah, I'm slightly more qualified than her"."
There's a vast gulf between his education and hers. He taught Constitutional Law for over a decade while she packed fish. I realize the right sees no value at all in his experience teaching law, but then the past 7 years have shown that you folks despise the Constitution and are suspicious of anyone that understands it.
McCain has outlived his experience. He's now a broken-down old man who has sold off every last scrap of his integrity over the past several years. He and Ted Stevens can now retire together and Palin can go back to her bizarre SuperChristian fantasies in Alaska.
I realize the right sees no value at all in his experience teaching law
Yes, possibly because it has no more to do with the job of the presidency than packing fish. Hell, it has only slightly more to do with the practice of law than packing fish, and less than being an active participant in an small business.
I know something of law professors, and law reviews, for that matter, and they are a major reason why I say that smart is overrated.
Obama has decent (not awe-inspiring, but certainly better than anyone else in this race) qualifications for the Supreme Court, if only that's what he were up for.
For the past week I have felt like I went down the rabbit hole and wound up in a pastiche of the real world...but sadly this situation is very real.
Let me say first I am a die hard liberal cliche--atheist, vegetarian, the whole bit. McCain alone does not scare me too much, other than my fear of our nuclear annihilation in another war, but vis a vis social issues I sleep pretty decently, although I am for gay marriage, abortion, etc, but I in a worst case scenario I could handle the status quo. BUT Palin has me scared s**tless. She is cruel (hunting for fun? how very medieval of her), and her beliefs would push us into a dark, dark period. Guys, it might be hard to imagine, but think of a victim of rape or incest being forced to endure nine months carrying a baby that reminds her of a traumatic incident 24/7. How much would that hurt?
Or that she banned books....really? is this the 21st century? She comes off as facist Barbie. I would call her Big Brother ish but she doesn't deserve the Orwellian reference. She would push us into the anti science, anti intellectualism that we have already sunk into...we have become the laughing stock of the world, and she would only perpetuate the stereotype of the dumb, arrogant american. Bush is dumb, Cheney is evil, Palin is both. I am embarrassed and ashamed for America and fear, as others elsewhere have said, that we will go the route of the Romans if elected....
Lastly, I hope the election doesn't dissolve into a personality quiz. This fixation with being "average" and JUST LIKE US plays into the US weekly demographic. I didn't relate to Kerry but supported him knowing that he would do the country best...will Palin? Remember people, Bush almost CHOKED ON A PRETZEL. Life really is that fragile. I shudder thinking of her meeting with Chavez, Putin, Mugabe, etc. Sorry for the diatribe but needed to get this out.
Rob Lyman replies: "Yes, possibly because it has no more to do with the job of the presidency than packing fish. Hell, it has only slightly more to do with the practice of law than packing fish, and less than being an active participant in an small business.
I know something of law professors, and law reviews, for that matter, and they are a major reason why I say that smart is overrated.
Obama has decent (not awe-inspiring, but certainly better than anyone else in this race) qualifications for the Supreme Court, if only that's what he were up for."
Since you've been a Dumbya supporter I can understand why you think an understanding of the law is no asset for a president. How could you think otherwise, given the circumstances and your ongoing support for that gang of criminals?
Of course Obama has also practiced, and none of you GOP diehards credit that, either. You were bigtime impressed with Dumbya's record of failed businesses and being a drunken fool, though.
I can understand why you think an understanding of the law is no asset for a president.
I think that because it is, although not strictly true the way you've put it, at least partly true.
Any "constitutional" decision a president makes is driven entirely by politics, and involves roughly zero personal consideration of the detailed doctrines and exceptions with which law professors and practicing lawyers must be familiar.
There is perhaps some advantage to having a personal knowledge of constitutional law, but then there's some advantage to having a personal knowledge of accounting, economics, military history, engineering, or even tax law, administrative law, environmental law, or any of a thousand other disciplines which the government's work touches. Given that the government is stuffed with lawyers, advice is easily available.
To the extent that any president wishes to engage in independent constitutional theorizing--which I frankly wish more of them would do when, for instance, wielding a veto pen--the pronouncements of courts should be no more than a guideline or starting place. There's no reason a president shouldn't veto a law the courts would likely find constitutional, or sign one the courts would likely overturn, if in the president's judgment, the courts are wrong.
Obama's an adequate candidate for the Supreme Court and a very good one for a circuit court. So what? Call me when you decide Scalia would be a great president.
condenasty - From what I've read, Sarah Palin eats what she hunts - one of her favorite meals is something like Moose stew. How is that any worse than those of us meat eaters who get their food from the industrial farm system?
She is cruel (hunting for fun? how very medieval of her)
So I guess Hillary is unacceptable as well? This is the attitude of cultural superiority that Palin has been successfully calling out. They may be uncivilized savages, but they still vote.
and her beliefs would push us into a dark, dark period
Again, what are the indications that she wants to use government to forcibly impose her religious views? The one example is the library censorship for which there is no detail or context. On the other hand we have her specifically not wanting to include creationism/ID in the school curriculum, vetoing the anti-gay bill because she knew it was unconstitutional, and not mentioning any cultural issues in her acceptance speech. Not terribly impressive for a rabid Dominionist.
I've often heard that fundamentalists in western states are far less interested in enforcing Biblical law at gunpoint than those in the south. The available evidence points to this being the case with Palin.
Brian 2 says: "The library censorship is troubling and possibly disqualifying, but I've yet to see any detail other than a single sentence about "asking" the librarian."
We could ask Palin about the details... oh, but the McCain people have so little confidence in her abilities and intellect that they're squirreling her away and not letting her answer any questions.
Oops.
Rob Lyman again: "To the extent that any president wishes to engage in independent constitutional theorizing--which I frankly wish more of them would do when, for instance, wielding a veto pen--the pronouncements of courts should be no more than a guideline or starting place. There's no reason a president shouldn't veto a law the courts would likely find constitutional, or sign one the courts would likely overturn, if in the president's judgment, the courts are wrong.
Obama's an adequate candidate for the Supreme Court and a very good one for a circuit court. So what? Call me when you decide Scalia would be a great president."
I don't - but then there's no variety to Scalia's political experience. He has nothing else going for him but his knowledge of the law.
You cons like to isolate Obama's experiences and discuss them one at a time. Obviously you can't run on the past 7 years and McCain's part in them, so you're going with what you have. You're all rather good at the party loyalty thing.
But pretending that Sarah Palin is qualified to be president when she's not even seen by her own campaign as being up to a press conference makes me wonder why you hate America. You might as well make Britney Spears president.
Brian 2, as I admitted, I categorize MYSELF as part of that uber-liberal group. But don't you want someone who is elite in office, rather than a person who has been on the national stage for a week and reeks of mediocrity? I don't want an average person dealing with some of the most complex issues.
R/e the gay bill, right that she vetoed it for being unconstitutional but she has said she would support a ban on gay marriage if it abided by the constitution. On the Hillary note, not quite sure what you're getting at...were there some photos of her wielding a gun at defenseless animals that I didn't see? Palin is a man's woman....Republican men LOVE her because she is totally nonthreatening, unlike Hillary who has proved that she can share the sandbox with the big boys. Palin is liked by male Repubs because she is attractive and totally panders to the crowd that likes their women in the kitchen and bedroom and nowhere else. BUT LOOK, you say, A WOMAN IN OFFICE. To paraphrase McCain's spokespeople, she is "learning at the feet of the master." She will always be a puppet for her party, sad she doesn't know it. OH and no mention of the whole rape/incest dilemma?
I don't - but then there's no variety to Scalia's political experience. He has nothing else going for him but his knowledge of the law.
I see. So all Scalia has to do is get a few years in the a legislature and half at term in the Senate and you'll support him over Obama? All Palin needs is to get in two full terms as Governor and you'll support her to be VP?
Is there any chance--even the slightest one--that you support Obama because you agree with his politics, not because he has so much wonderful and essential experience? Any chance at all that if this were Freshman Republican Senator v. crabby old 5-term Democrat, you'd be mocking FRS's resume?
You might as well make Britney Spears president.
Don't be ridiculous. She's not even 35 yet.
But don't you want someone who is elite in office[?]
That doesn't mean I want somebody who thinks s/he is elite in office. Elitism is a state of mind, not measurable by objective factors like whether you hunt or how many houses you own.
I don't like people who look down on me (like you, for instance) and I'm not likely to vote for them no matter how brilliant they are.
Rob Lyman again: "I see. So all Scalia has to do is get a few years in the a legislature and half at term in the Senate and you'll support him over Obama? All Palin needs is to get in two full terms as Governor and you'll support her to be VP?
Is there any chance--even the slightest one--that you support Obama because you agree with his politics, not because he has so much wonderful and essential experience? Any chance at all that if this were Freshman Republican Senator v. crabby old 5-term Democrat, you'd be mocking FRS's resume?"
I'm not supporting Obama due to his experience. I'm supporting him because he seems like a very bright and competent guy who I generally agree with on the issues, and his level and variety of experience seems fine to me.
Beyond that I think McCain is a cranky old bastard with poor judgment, bad temperament, and he's too closely tied with the worst president we've ever had. I also think he doesn't give a rat's ass about the economy - he never has. I just can't make a case for him being any better a president than the current scumbag-in-chief is, even though he's a better man than Bush is.
Then again, Manuel Noriega and Jack Abramoff are better men than Bush is. It's not much of a standard.
today Mr. Coates posted a comment lammenting the word uppity combined with Michele Obama while he dismissed sexist attacks agasint the female candidate.
Femisex responded with the addition of some words we find sexist and =ly objetionable. Mr Coates banned Femisex from posting on his site.
let's see how Atlanic scores on this blog??
For the full story see our posting on www.femisex.com
(femisex is run by msm journos giving what we in the industry call Pushback. )
Here is more on the library episode. Apparently Palin never actually tried to ban any books; instead she posed the hypothetical as a "loyalty test". On the one hand it weakens the argument that she's an authoritarian fundamentalist; on the other hand, it's a rather strange management approach.
We could ask Palin about the details... oh, but the McCain people have so little confidence in her abilities and intellect that they're squirreling her away and not letting her answer any questions.
Or we could ask the people making the allegation to provide the details, given that they are the ones who claim she did this. What books were going to be banned? When did she propose this? What is the evidence?
For a member of the so-called "reality based community", my alter ego seems to take quite a bit on faith.
Ah, somehow I missed the comment right before mine. No wonder the other me didn't want to give details.
Oh, so she didn't name any specific books. She just wanted to know that the librarian would bend over and take it at the whim of Queen Sarah.
That makes me feel a whole lot better. Palin's a shitty little tyrant with delusions of grandeur. We have one of those in the White House now, and it's worked out swell if you don't count the constant fuckups and the major catastrophes.
"I have to disagree with the whole "ignore Gov. Palin" idea, especially after this "kick the bums out" speech. The more you look at Sarah Palin's history the more she looks like George Bush redux."
Not to belabor my point, but after further review of the record, I'd just like to amend "George W. Bush" to "Richard M. Nixon".
I especially appreciate (in the sense of "get") this post in context of having listened to your recent BHTV work (via podcast). I think that people enamored of either side ignore your points relative to each at their own peril.
I'm a longtime reader here, and if this is not my first comment, it must be close to it. You keep getting better and better on the blog, as you do on BHTV. For myself, the combo is the key, though I'm not sure how to explain why.
Thanks.
"Unlike McCain, he's a self-made man."
TR: He's more self-made than McCain, but his grandmother is a bank Vice-President and he attended a private school in Hawaii whose alumni include
Sun Yat-Sen
Congressman Otis Pike
Territorial governor Lawrence M. Judd
Forbes 400 member Charles Gates, Jr.
He was on food stamps for a time because his Mom was seeking her doctorate in anthropology. He's not from money, but he's not from nothing either.
TR replies: "He's more self-made than McCain, but his grandmother is a bank Vice-President and he attended a private school in Hawaii whose alumni include
Sun Yat-Sen
Congressman Otis Pike
Territorial governor Lawrence M. Judd
Forbes 400 member Charles Gates, Jr. "
Gee. THE Lawrence M. Judd? I take it back, Obama is basically the fucking Dauphin.
"But don't you want someone who is elite in office, rather than a person who has been on the national stage for a week and reeks of mediocrity? I don't want an average person dealing with some of the most complex issues."
She's not an average person, she's an outstanding person from a normal, modest background. Obama had 'elite' advantages: an expensive private school in Hawaii, an Ivy League college education. Sarah Palin was a normal person but her extraordinary determination, energy and vision led her to become a leader, first as Mayor and then as Governor.
There's a saying - some people go into politics to do big things, while others go into politics to be big people. Palin from the start has worked to get things done. Obama has avoided controversy because his own personal advancement was always more important to him than the issues. How many times was it that he voted "present" in the Illinois State Legislature?
It's sad that liberals would assume that anyone without an elite education must therefore be mediocre. Sarah Palin is far from average, as Democrats will find during the campaign.
Fine, but Sun Yat-Sen is one of the most important figures in world history.
That said I discovered he did earn his way to that school. I guess he was super-smart even at 10. Whereas Palin went to a high school that's been called "a drop-out factory." In intelligence and experience Obama really is a much better choice for Vice-President.
Still he's basically a conventional liberal Democrat. He's like a Christopher Dodd, but more inspiring. I wouldn't vote for Dodd either. I understand the urge to punish Republicans and that's going to make him attractive to independents. What's odd is the conservative pundits who go further than that and really seem to embrace him. There is nothing to indicate he is independent of his party at all, except that he seems to be much more religious than most of them. (Unlike Palin his speech mentioned "scripture" and even specific passages quite often) The things he co-sponsored with Republicans were pretty much all popular with Democrats. He is not a moderate by any reasonable standard.
And we've had two years of Reid and Pelosi. The Congress does matter, especially on economic issues. Have those two been such a success we need that kind of outlook in our President as well?
Still it would be amazing, almost preposterous, if Obama did lose. An unpopular President pretty much always screws it up for the next guy of his party. Hence Stevenson lost to Eisenhower, Humphrey lost to Nixon, and Ford lost to Carter. Coolidge won after Harding's scandals, but Coolidge was way different than Harding and the era was different.
TR says: "Still it would be amazing, almost preposterous, if Obama did lose. An unpopular President pretty much always screws it up for the next guy of his party. Hence Stevenson lost to Eisenhower, Humphrey lost to Nixon, and Ford lost to Carter. Coolidge won after Harding's scandals, but Coolidge was way different than Harding and the era was different."
Obama's still black. I know conservatives like to pretend that doesn't matter any more, but like hell it doesn't. I'm saying that gives McCain 5 points to play with. It still shouldn't be enough, given the massive atrocity of the Bushpig era, but it could be.
Ann writes: "Obama had 'elite' advantages: an expensive private school in Hawaii, an Ivy League college education."
That's purely idiotic. Obama EARNED those credentials. It's not his fault Sarah Palin went through her early life with the intellectual curiosity of a dead cat.
"Palin from the start has worked to get things done."
Yes, to suck earmarks out of lobbyists. To run up a huge debt for her small town. To abuse the power of her office with a personal vendetta. To be for the Bridge to Nowhere before she was against it.
Very impressive.
By the way, Megan, could you please explain the "margin" again to economics dropouts? I will scream if I hear one more angry feminist idiot (not an idiot because she's an angry feminist, an idiot because of what she's about to say:) say, I am incredibly insulted by the the choice of Sarah Palin for VP. How dare McCain imagine that I would vote for him just because she's a woman!
I don't really see what all the fuss is about with the alleged censorship. The ALA is always getting into fights with conservative groups over what's appropriate, particularly if children have access to the material. One expects there to be some debate on where to draw the line.
These are resources that are paid for by the public. That makes this about as far as possible from being a free speech issue.