Blood in the Water
(updated below)
Perhaps the most surprisingly thing about McCain's selection of Sarah Palin as his running mate is his campaign's complete and utter failure to anticipate how the press would react to it. Aren't the Republicans usually the ones who understand how the press works?
The reality is pretty simple. If you make a surprise VP pick and the person you select is someone who is completely unknown to the media and the public, you're going to trigger a mad scramble by every news outlet to be the first to report various heretofore unknown facts about that person. You have to expect that. By choosing someone to be VP, you are instantly elevating that person to enormous notoriety and potentially putting him/her a heartbeat away from being the most powerful person in the world. If the person you select is an unknown commodity, there's a huge information vacuum that needs to be filled. Nature abhors a vacuum and so does the media.
Furthermore, when you know that this initial flurry of media activity is bound to unearth a number of juicy rumors, some of which are true (e.g., that her 17 year old daughter is pregnant), you have to expect that the media vetting will grow even more intense. Republicans are irate at what they perceive to be a liberal media conspiracy to destroy Palin. But there's nothing liberal or conspiratorial about it. For a party that claims to worship the market, Republicans often show little understanding for how market forces work.
What's going now is not ideological at all. The media simply smells blood in the water. They know that Palin is from the most remote state in the union. They know she's never undergone any serious vetting. They know that some damaging facts have already been uncovered, and they suspect there may be more. It's the journalistic equivalent of a gold rush.
Every reporter in Alaska right now (and there are a lot of them) wants to be the person that breaks the Big Story. They want to be the one that triggers an Eagleton scenario, because they know that if they do that, they'll instantly make a name for themselves. In other words, this feeding frenzy is driven by opportunism, not ideology.
And it's precisely because this is not about ideology that the McCain camp should be worried. There are a lot of reporters on the ground in Alaska right now and they're all fishing around. And even if none of them finds their Moby Dick, they'll all feel the need to justify their presence there by cranking out story after story about their smaller catches. That's likely to create a drip, drip, drip effect of negative coverage for at least a few more weeks.
It's possible, of course, that Palin will give a bravura performance tonight and prove to be an effective campaigner and all the initial stories about her will eventually be forgotten. That's certainly what the McCain campaign is hoping. But they can't be encouraged by what they've seen so far.
UPDATE: Jack Shafer says it better than I did.
UPDATE: Wow. Conservatives are really going crazy right now. They're livid about the media's "shameful" conduct this week. And it's not just faux outrage. Many of them are genuinely irate. They're very non-specific in their criticism, though. What exactly did "the media" do that was so shameful?
The reality is that no one in the mainstream media ever so much as mentioned Bristol Palin until the Palins themselves announced that she was pregnant (apparently in response to a National Inquirer story that was about to be published). And then the coverage was almost entirely of the "how will this news affect the campaign" variety. And the other stories that have come out have been one of two general types: 1) process stories discussing the McCain vetting/selection process, and 2) stories exploring Palin's public record in Alaska and comparing it to her most recent statements. That kind of coverage is not only completely fair, but it's exactly how you'd expect the press to react to the announcement of surprise VP candidate who no one really knew much about.
I think what conservatives are really reacting to is the fact that most pundits don't seem to think this was as smart a pick as they do. Members of the media have genuine questions about her readiness to be president and those concerns haven't been placated as easily as the McCain campaign had hoped they would. I think conservatives are beginning to panic because it's dawning on them how risky a selection this was and that panic is expressing itself in the form of anger and frustration with the media.
Perhaps the most surprisingly thing about McCain's selection of Sarah Palin as his running mate is his campaign's complete and utter failure to anticipate how the press would react to it. Aren't the Republicans usually the ones who understand how the press works?
The reality is pretty simple. If you make a surprise VP pick and the person you select is someone who is completely unknown to the media and the public, you're going to trigger a mad scramble by every news outlet to be the first to report various heretofore unknown facts about that person. You have to expect that. By choosing someone to be VP, you are instantly elevating that person to enormous notoriety and potentially putting him/her a heartbeat away from being the most powerful person in the world. If the person you select is an unknown commodity, there's a huge information vacuum that needs to be filled. Nature abhors a vacuum and so does the media.
Furthermore, when you know that this initial flurry of media activity is bound to unearth a number of juicy rumors, some of which are true (e.g., that her 17 year old daughter is pregnant), you have to expect that the media vetting will grow even more intense. Republicans are irate at what they perceive to be a liberal media conspiracy to destroy Palin. But there's nothing liberal or conspiratorial about it. For a party that claims to worship the market, Republicans often show little understanding for how market forces work.
What's going now is not ideological at all. The media simply smells blood in the water. They know that Palin is from the most remote state in the union. They know she's never undergone any serious vetting. They know that some damaging facts have already been uncovered, and they suspect there may be more. It's the journalistic equivalent of a gold rush.
Every reporter in Alaska right now (and there are a lot of them) wants to be the person that breaks the Big Story. They want to be the one that triggers an Eagleton scenario, because they know that if they do that, they'll instantly make a name for themselves. In other words, this feeding frenzy is driven by opportunism, not ideology.
And it's precisely because this is not about ideology that the McCain camp should be worried. There are a lot of reporters on the ground in Alaska right now and they're all fishing around. And even if none of them finds their Moby Dick, they'll all feel the need to justify their presence there by cranking out story after story about their smaller catches. That's likely to create a drip, drip, drip effect of negative coverage for at least a few more weeks.
It's possible, of course, that Palin will give a bravura performance tonight and prove to be an effective campaigner and all the initial stories about her will eventually be forgotten. That's certainly what the McCain campaign is hoping. But they can't be encouraged by what they've seen so far.
UPDATE: Jack Shafer says it better than I did.
UPDATE: Wow. Conservatives are really going crazy right now. They're livid about the media's "shameful" conduct this week. And it's not just faux outrage. Many of them are genuinely irate. They're very non-specific in their criticism, though. What exactly did "the media" do that was so shameful?
The reality is that no one in the mainstream media ever so much as mentioned Bristol Palin until the Palins themselves announced that she was pregnant (apparently in response to a National Inquirer story that was about to be published). And then the coverage was almost entirely of the "how will this news affect the campaign" variety. And the other stories that have come out have been one of two general types: 1) process stories discussing the McCain vetting/selection process, and 2) stories exploring Palin's public record in Alaska and comparing it to her most recent statements. That kind of coverage is not only completely fair, but it's exactly how you'd expect the press to react to the announcement of surprise VP candidate who no one really knew much about.
I think what conservatives are really reacting to is the fact that most pundits don't seem to think this was as smart a pick as they do. Members of the media have genuine questions about her readiness to be president and those concerns haven't been placated as easily as the McCain campaign had hoped they would. I think conservatives are beginning to panic because it's dawning on them how risky a selection this was and that panic is expressing itself in the form of anger and frustration with the media.
posted by A.L. at 9:45 AM
44 Comments:
Overreach? I think you guys are the ones that have to worry about overreach.
Obama used to play down abortion, now hes talking about how much he loves the "right" to have an abortion.
You can kiss a lot of states good-bye by taking that tack.
I thought a lot of the negatives we're hearing about Palin now were common knowledge a few months ago when her name was floated as a potential Veep. There was a lot of speculation at the time that she wouldn't get picked because of the kerfuffle over the state trooper firing. People aren't digging anything up - their just recycling old news reports at this point.
A.L.
I agree with everything you say, with the exception of your characterizing the GOP as being authentically surprised or outraged by the media frenzy.
The Palin selection gives them license once again to call the media liberal conspirators. That's all part of the plan, and the gamble, and in certain highly conservative corners, it's sure to work.
The question is simply whether the the base they're now galvanizing with such "liberal conspiracy" talk comprises a larger or smaller percentage of the voting population than the independents they're currently losing.
Palin may be a Washington outsider, but she's very much an Alaska insider. How she has behaved in power there is relevant to what she would do in Washington. We already know that she was an avid seeker of pork projects and that she was for the Bridge to Nowhere before she was against it. Now comes the allegation of her ties to the same dirty Veco money that got Sen. Stevens indicted:
"WASHINGTON — GOP vice presidential pick Sarah Palin accepted at least $4,500 in campaign contributions in the same fundraising scheme at the center of a public corruption scandal that led to the indictment of Sen. Ted Stevens.
The contributions, made during Palin's failed 2002 bid to become Alaska's lieutenant governor, were not illegal for her to accept. But they show how Palin, a self-proclaimed reformer who has bucked Stevens and his allies, is nonetheless a product of a political system in Alaska now under the cloud of an ongoing FBI investigation."
Too many Alaska Republicans are examples of extreme cronyism, self-dealing, and corruption. How may senior officials are under indictment - I lost count - nine? If she took money from the Veco folks that is the smoking gun. Maybe that is really why she lawyered up.
Forget the daughter and follow the money.
How about America First slogan - Palin joined the Alaskan Independence Party who want to form their own country. Are we voting for the VP of Alaska?
Phyllis Schlafly of the extreme theocratic group Eagle Forum LOVES Palin. I think I said on this forum that she was a Schlafly think-alike. This is the woman who wants other women - not herself, of course - to return home and remain barefoot and pregnant. Well, we're back to God, guns and gays. But gays are off the table because Schlafly's son IS one and abstinence education only should be OFF the table because it DOESN'T WORK. Gotta love that philosophy. Check out the pastors of HER 2 churches. Jewish people better pay special attention. I will be posting their comments even though the Repugs have tried to remove them. Too late...
AL, I think this may be a good time for you to go back and read your "For Once Surprise Us" post of Aug. 18.
Briefman, touche. I've definitely been reconsidering the wisdom of that post this week. In my (partial) defense, though, my suggestion wasn't so much that Obama surpise us with someone we'd never heard of. It was that he surprise us with a well known figure who we didn't think was in the running.
Or Palin could be a carefully planned smokescreen to divert attention from something far more nefarious they're doing behind the scenes.
The AIP story was false. More BS from the NYT. Palin has been a Republican her whole life.
VC,
The story wasn't BS. Several sources, including the head of the organization, were on the record saying that Palin had been member. She's since changed her tune, but that doesn't mean the press was wrong for running with it. Plus, her husband was a card-carrying member as late as 2002 and she has attended and addressed the party's convention more than once.
Just because some screwball claims she was doesn't make it so. Her records indicate that she was never a member. She was always a registered Republican, even the NYT has admitted that.
virginia conservative tries the ever-persistent talking point about abortion, that as usual and intentionally completely misses the point. Obama (for example) doesn't "'love' the right to have an abortion", but - like me - loves the "right" to have a choice. If humanly possible the best choice is to keep and raise the child.
Case in point, a possible scenario: a seventeen-year-old daughter announces to her parents that she's some months pregnant. She isn't married. The family sits down together and has a serious, heartfelt discussion, and decides to keep the child, and plan for the daughter to marry her boyfriend.
That is the pro-choice position in a nutshell: the right to choose.
What the Right wants is to take away that choice. No discussion, no decision. Simply follow the law or suffer the consequences.
It's clear - by their actions - where the Palin family falls on this issuue: there are obviously pro-choice.
Yes, the choice to vacuum out a human life. How lovely and noble.
vc it doesn't matter what you think about the Palin's decision, they still made a choice. It was their choice, and they didn't have to ask you.
By definition they are pro-choice.
If you want to dress it up in lurid, graphic detail to get yourself excited, go ahead. That won't change the fact that they allowed themselves to make a decision: pro-choice.
The decision was between marrying the guy and adoption, not between giving birth and killing.
The AIP story was BS. Speaking of vetting:
Furthermore, when you know that this initial flurry of media activity is bound to unearth a number of juicy rumors, some of which are true (e.g., that her 17 year old daughter is pregnant), you have to expect that the media vetting will grow even more intense.
I'm still waiting for the media to actually do...you know...vetting. The AIP story is utter rubbish, and the sources are so confused as to barely know how to handle the questions from the media. As far as Bristol Palin being pregnant, that was started by the Kos "people" who said Palin's youngest child was actually a grandchild; the McCain camp headed that off right away.
What's going now is not ideological at all.
Yes, it is. Just about every one of these smears is nothing more than some "reporters" parroting what is being said on the Kos hate site. The AIP story was retracted by the NYT because it was wrong. Stories about Palin's so-called ethics violations in the phony-baloney Troopergate will need to be retracted, Paul Kane's ridiculous hit piece from today will have to be retracted, the vetting stories are based on how the "reporter" does vetting and not actual reporting on how the McCain did their vetting, and so on and so on.
And why are all these smears coming out? Because Barack Obama should be, and it could be confirmed tonight, scared to death of losing this election. And the media that has been so instrumental in helping him win can't stand the idea of that happening.
It's possible, of course, that Palin will give a bravura performance tonight and prove to be an effective campaigner and all the initial stories about her will eventually be forgotten. That's certainly what the McCain campaign is hoping. But they can't be encouraged by what they've seen so far.
I agree with all but the last sentence. Even if she does very well, and how conservatives see things are completely different than the way the liberals do, the liberal media will continue on their merry way with their smears.
I said this yesterday, and I'll repeat it. McCain had the guts to name Palin to the ticket, which is a reflection of the "maverick" he has always been, while Obama went with a tired old has-been like Biden on his, and Obama continues to show himself as nothing more than a retread of Biden.
But, I'll concede that much of this is on Palin. If she does suck, then I'll add my voice to those who are asking what was McCain thinking of in picking her.
The smears from the angry left like MSNBC and Kos are already backfiring badly. People don't want to tear down a Hockey Mom and her family, even if the liberal elites do.
Virginia,
Sadly, not all situations in life involve a choice that is "lovely and noble". There are also the situations in which no option available has anything in store but pain and sadness.
It is, sadly, not within the bounds of human ability to prevent people from having these situations thrust upon them, even if they and their family are, like the Palins, salt-of-the Earth Republicans. If you honor their decisions to keep their babies, then you must admit that it's because they had the choice not to.
Without the choice, there can be no respect. Kinda what free will is all about, isn't it?
Oh, and Steveil? No, you won't ever admit that she sucked. You are incapable of the level of free will that it would take to objectively assess a right-winger's performance.
Here's a prediction: she's going to throw red meat at the base, abortion, cut taxes, drill, drill, drill, 9-11, 9-11. There won't be enough thoughtfulness apparent in her speech to wet a microscope slide. There won't even be a nod in the direction of answering some of the questions that have come up -- because the "base" doesn't want to know.
The surprise pick generated much media buzz and sparked a backlash against the "liberal" press. Who says that was by mistake?
...and who says the press is really liberal? The "liberals" need to find a new name since they are not liberal at all. I firmly believe that voting for someone based on gender or skin color is sexist, racist and wrong. Now the "liberals" tell us that only whites can be racists and blacks are justified in supporting their race. Huh??? Now the "liberated" party is attacking Sarah for being a woman while the conservatives give her their full support. Since Obama turns out not to be liberated, we need to call him and his media circus what it is - socialist.
Lor! vc you're one sad person, with scary people like 'liberal elites' making you feel inferior. I wish I knew some 'liberal elites' but they only live in your closet - a place I do NOT want to visit.
Here's something new: How about actually talk about an issue, explain why your perspective is better? All you do is smear and hate - and somehow think it's coming from somewhere else. Great, you've shown you can spew bile. Now why not try actually making a point?
steve,
I know it's easier to believe that this stuff was all invented by "Kos people", but that's just stupid. All that happened was a Kos diarist went public with a rumor that was already widespread in Alaska and well known to every news organization (who were already pursuing it). I had heard it from my friends in Alaska well before it was ever published on any blog. And by the way, they went public with the pregnancy news because the National Inquirer was about to break that story. It had nothing to do with liberal blogs.
And the other stuff: her bridge to nowhere flip-flop, earmark lobbying, the AIP stuff, troopergate, etc. None of that came from Kos people, but from mainstream news outlets.
Your narrative just isn't true. The press is jumping all over this because she is so unknown; there's a knowledge vacuum that they are filling.
VC, you may be right that all this media coverage will create some sort of sympathy backlash, but I think it's too early to tell. The people "outraged" by this right now may just be the people who were already in her column. The polls indicate a post-Palin bump for Obama, indicating that the pick went over poorly initially. That could certainly change, but again, it's too early to tell.
Me? Fear and smear? What have you guys been doing with Palin the last week?
SCARY SECESSIONIST RELIGIOUS NUT BOOGAH BOOGAH BOOGAH REDNECK WHITE TRASH BOOGAH BOOGAH.
That is Daily Kostic in a nutshell since Palin was revealed.
I think the polls stomped on Obama's bounce and it would have been higher without it, but honestly there is no way to prove that.
Pamela,
do you know what the word "socialist" means?
VC,
If the idea of an abortion bothers you, don't have one. No one will strap you down and do the procedure.
Donna, if you don't like the idea of murder, don't murder. You have the choice to be a murderer or not.
If you don't like slavery, don't by a slave. No one will force you to be a slave owner.
See how much sense that makes?
"What have you guys been doing with Palin the last week?"
Following the news, just like you. All your caps - that's you, not me or any of the blogs *I* read (including Kos). OK, she might be a religious nut and yes some sensible people have a problem with that. But what's all the 'BOOGAH BOOGAH' crap?
Once again, try actually making a point. It really isn't very hard. What IS your point? We shouldn't read the news? we shouldn't have an opinion about anything? I'd add 'shouldn't disagree' but you have yet to make a case for anything, except to spew bile, so there's nothing to disagree with other than your insulting tone.
Obama's bounce would have been higher if the polls hadn't stomped?? I guess you think he did a REALLY good job - no, wait, wait, it's the scary liberal media forcing everyone to *think* Obama's wonderful, and you're too clever to fall for it, aren't you?
BTW, I read a lot of liberal blogs but I haven't even HEARD the phrase 'white trash' or 'redneck' relative to this until your post above. Think about that.
A.L - sorry for engaging the troll I'm just in an argumentative mood. I'll stop now.
Your narrative just isn't true. The press is jumping all over this because she is so unknown; there's a knowledge vacuum that they are filling.
I don't think so. Campbell Brown was quoted by Howard Kurtz today, explaining how her interview with McCain spokesman Tucker Bounds [emphasis mine]:
"The interview was totally fair," Brown said. "I was trying to get an answer. I was persistent, but I was respectful. That's my job. Experience is a legitimate issue when John McCain raises it about Obama, and it's also legitimate for us to raise it about Palin."
Kurtz doesn't follow up on what Brown meant by "us", whether she means the media, or she means the Obama campaign, thus indicating she is part of it. John McCain is raising this issue about Obama, not the media. So why would in the media, who is supposed to be raising the issue for both Palin and Obama, sounds like she is referring to herself as part of the Obama campaign?
This is just indicative of exactly what conservatives are talking about. And I won't dismiss her comment as just something in the way she said this.
I have no problem with a media digging up information on Palin, provided its correct and accurate. So far, it hasn't been. All those items you've mentioned are on their way into the "round file" where they already were. The bridge flip-flop: she was for it until she became governor, then dumped it (not a flip-flop); earmark lobbying: she's not in Congress putting them into federal legislation; AIP stuff: thoroughly debunked, by the AIP members themselves; Troopergate: a big nothing since the guy who was fired said it had nothing to do with his handling of the brother-in-law. Garbage, smears, all attempts by the media to get Obama elected.
steve,
The idea that the media is somehow actively trying to get Obama elected is just paranoid garbage. Cambell Brown was clearly refering to the media and not implying that she's a member of the Obama camp. Have you watched her on CNN at all?
And by the way, here question was completely fair and predictable. Tucker just didn't have an answer because the point he was making was so monumentally dumb.
The funniest thing about all this is to see John McCain, a guy who has gotten the best press coverage of any politician in America for the last decade, a guy who once referred to the press as his "base," suddenly lash out at the supposedly biased media.
Do you really not think we would have seen a similar frenzy if Obama had picked an unknown governor who'd served for only 18 months?
steveil - That's utterly ridiculous. After months of letting the most inane charges and insinuations against Obama go by she finally did her job - and you see an Evil Plot.
Did you watch the clip? How can asking for an example of Palin's leadership be a a damning example of "Liberal Media"?? The story wasn't that "they" (and I mean the media - sheesh) asked (that's called "journalism") but that the campaign guy didn't have an answer and should have.
Good lord, the 'experience' issue has been front and center with the McCain campaign since the beginning. And suddenly questions about experience are off limits??
Any rational person - even (especially) on McCain's side - would want an answer too.
From the front page of our local paper today:
http://www.newsobserver.com/politics/story/1204252.html
The idea that the media is somehow actively trying to get Obama elected is just paranoid garbage.
Oh is it? They want a Democrat elected, and Obama being the Democratic candidate is beyond perfect for them. But the bottom line is they want a Democrat in the White House, and I can prove it to be true. Explain to me why all of the same media people sat on the John Edwards story for at least 8 months, while he was still a Presidential candidate, allowing the rag National Enquirer to break the story. Forget the media's phony concern about Elizabeth Edwards they claimed to have, since they obviously don't give a rat's tuchus about a pregnant teenager, except in a sexist sort of way. Oh that's right; Edwards is a Democrat.
Do you really not think we would have seen a similar frenzy if Obama had picked an unknown governor who'd served for only 18 months?
They haven't done it with Obama yet. Obama claims to be a reformer, someone for change; yet, his record has never been one of change, and the media have almost never called him on it. Why would they do it with anybody he picked, including a newbie?
Good lord, the 'experience' issue has been front and center with the McCain campaign since the beginning. And suddenly questions about experience are off limits??
No, you have it wrong. Our "press" has purposely avoided saying what is obvious; Palin has way more experience than Obama with her work in government. What McCain and conservatives want asked of Obama by the media is what has he actually done other than run for office for the last six years (his first seven years were spent doing less than that). Obama's living on the false rhetoric about himself and nothing else.
Cambell Brown was clearly refering to the media and not implying that she's a member of the Obama camp.
Somehow, that explanation isn't cuttin' it.
Steveil,
If you actually think you know the national press really "wants" a Democrat elected, then you appear to be deeply delusional.
Do you get this information in the form of voices, or does it just come from reading the WSJ editorial page to many times?
If you actually think you know the national press really "wants" a Democrat elected, then you appear to be deeply delusional.
Most of the things that have come out about Obama happened more than four years ago, before he was elected to be a U.S. Senator. None of the Chicago papers bothered to vet him one bit, and were caught off guard by the revelations this year. The Chicago press did manage to do hit jobs on both of Obama's main opponents in 2004 (I wonder who fed the press those stories), primary challenger Blair Hull (claims of wife-beating; never charged) and his Republican opponent Jack Ryan (the media got a judge to open sealed records); yet, they didn't know about the racist Jeremiah Wright or the records at UIC noting Obama's involvement with the terrorist Bill Ayers. It would have been nice for the voters to know these things.
And now, the national media is getting dragged into stories about Obama, dismissing them as soon as they can. Hanging out with a racist for 20 years should have killed Obama's campaign; but, the press has given him one of many passes during this election season.
Allow me to offer one or two corrections.
I think what conservatives are really reacting to is the fact that most pundits don't seem to think this was as smart a pick as they do.
That should read:
I think what conservatives are really reacting to is the fact that most liberal pundits don't seem to think this was as smart a pick as they do.
Members of the media have genuine questions about her readiness to be president and those concerns haven't been placated as easily as the McCain campaign had hoped they would.
And it would be nice if the members of the media would ask these genuine questions about Obama's readiness to be President (the job he is running for, unlike Palin), which they haven't.
Side note: it didn't matter who McCain picked, liberal pundits would've hated the choice and used many of the same methods they have used on Palin. With Palin, however, they've gone over the top using outright horse manure in their coverage. Every story you mentioned and I responded to are big nothings.
And it would be nice if the members of the media would ask these genuine questions about Obama's readiness to be President (the job he is running for, unlike Palin), which they haven't.
Are you kidding me? Did you just sleep through the last year and half? The experience question has plagued Obama and he's been pressed on the issue countless times. It was raised in every debate. It was raised in countless Clinton ads and covered endlessly. He was just pressed on it again over the weekend in a CNN interview.
So isn't it reasonable for the same questions to be asked of Palin, who is considerably less experienced? Good grief.
And you're totally wrong about how the media would have reacted to the other potential VPs. There was endless coverage of Romney, Pawlenty, Ridge, and Lieberman in the weeks leading up to the announcement. There were lots of stories about their backgrounds, experience, etc. No conservatives complained.
The backlash against the media is just beginning and will not only include conservatives, but moderate Republican and independent women, as well as rural voters.
a.l., I don't know why you try to talk to them. If someone is so unwilling to even consider a reality other than the one they have fashioned for themselves, there's not much hope that they'll listen to rational arguments.
I have to say, it's pretty depressing to see so many paranoids who just wish the real world would conform to their lunatic views.
evil, biased, liberal, sexist pro-abortion anti-republican pro-obama media goons! everywhere! issuing forth with criminally deceitful questions about things like palin's 'experience'! where are they getting this stuff from ??? who put them up to it ???
IT WAS THE OBAMA CAMP!!! no one else has brought up this 'experience' of which they speak!
am i right steve ?? virginia conservative??
lawwds ta mercy gawd save us all from the anti-mccain press corps!
Are you kidding me? Did you just sleep through the last year and half? The experience question has plagued Obama and he's been pressed on the issue countless times.
And yet, he still makes obvious mistakes and doesn't get called on them. He recently talked about how great the Chinese infrastructure was for the Olympics, forgetting the cost in real human suffering caused by the Communist Chinese government upon their own people. Did the media ask him about this? Not a peep. Obama wants a UN Security Council resolution against the illegal Russian invasion of Georgia, except that it is a given that Russia (and probably China) would veto it anyway. Did the media ask him about this? Not a peep. How about Wright? They gave him a pass. Rezko? Pass. Ayers? Pass. His recent statements on abortion at Saddleback and his vote on the Illinois BAIPA? How about the reform he hasn't ever done in Illinois and Chicago government? Nothing here either. Pass. Pass. Pass. Pass. Nothing. Nada. This is his experience, or lack thereof. And we the people get nothing except cover for Obama from the same media asking if Palin is being a responsible mother running for Veep while she has a pregnant teenage daughter. How ridiculously sexist and condescending. Anybody bother to ask if Obama is being a responsible father who may have to take care of his young daughters when one them gets sick (and it will happen; they are kids, kids get sick)? No? Why not?
Sure, he's been asked about his experience. And they've been buying every crappy answer he gives and giving him another pass until someone (a conservative) brings it up again.
By the way, the experience guy, Biden, has made his third mistake this week regarding the difference between a battalion and a brigade. Biden wasn't in the military, but he's been in the Senate for 36 years, votes on military matters, and should have figured this out. Think anybody other than ABC is going to say something to Biden? What odds you givin'?
Sit back and watch tonight, libs. You're going to be blown away when she gives the speech of a lifetime.
Everyone will forget the propaganda from the elite liberal MSM and the smears from Daily Kostic once she hits one out of the park with a dynamic speech!
VC,
Don't misunderstand. No one thinks Palin is stupid. I'm sure she'll give a fine speech. I can't remember anyone who has given a bad speech in this kind of situation. Even Quayle did fine. The question is whether she's qualified (and whether McCain could have possibly determined that she was qualified based on meeting her once). And no matter how well she does tonight, she's not going to be able to prove that she's qualified or validate McCain's reckless judgment.
Well, the speech by The Vicious Mrs. (Palin) certainly galvanized me!
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home