Game On
It will be interesting to see how Sarah Palin's speech plays. There's no doubt that she delivered it well, but it was a remarkably smug and condescending speech, especially toward the end. She took a number of very cheap and dishonest shots at both Obama and Biden, both of whom have been nothing but respectful toward her, even coming to her defense several times. I think it's going to be pretty hard for the McCain campaign to keep playing the victim card like they've been doing the last few days. If Palin's going to take cheap shots at her opponents' records, then the gloves are going to come off. And there's a lot of material to work with.
For instance, Palin repeated her rather audacious "Bridge to Nowhere" lie. But not only is she on record supporting it, there are pictures of her wearing "nowhere" shirts to show her support. That's a ready-made commercial and its devastating to her credibility given it's one of her few supposed accomplishments.
Again, I'm not always good at predicting how things will play politically, but for someone who the McCain campaign touts as a "breath of fresh air," there was a lot of old-fashioned political venom coming from the podium tonight.
UPDATE: I just finished scanning through a number of conservative blogs. It's hilarious how deeply and utterly smitten they are with Palin. These are the same people who have been endlessly mocking the way Democrats have fallen for Obama. And here they are in a deep state of swoon because an unknown Republican delivered a good speech.
The sad part, though, is that unlike Obama's 2004 speech--which was all about hope and finding common ground--this speech was incredibly divisive and full of cheap partisan attacks. I guess that figures.
For instance, Palin repeated her rather audacious "Bridge to Nowhere" lie. But not only is she on record supporting it, there are pictures of her wearing "nowhere" shirts to show her support. That's a ready-made commercial and its devastating to her credibility given it's one of her few supposed accomplishments.
Again, I'm not always good at predicting how things will play politically, but for someone who the McCain campaign touts as a "breath of fresh air," there was a lot of old-fashioned political venom coming from the podium tonight.
UPDATE: I just finished scanning through a number of conservative blogs. It's hilarious how deeply and utterly smitten they are with Palin. These are the same people who have been endlessly mocking the way Democrats have fallen for Obama. And here they are in a deep state of swoon because an unknown Republican delivered a good speech.
The sad part, though, is that unlike Obama's 2004 speech--which was all about hope and finding common ground--this speech was incredibly divisive and full of cheap partisan attacks. I guess that figures.
posted by A.L. at 11:06 PM
26 Comments:
You libs must be pretty damn scared after that speech.
She will clean Biden's clock in the debates. Shes a pit bull with lipstick!
VC, she went into negatives territory that haven't been visited by the candidates until this evening. She bit first (well Giuliani bit first).
The gloves are off. The press was insulted by the repeat of lies like bridge to nowhere that they've already investigated. Obama and Biden were personally insulted.
People can now feel free to indulge in mockery of McCain/Palin (Bush/Cheney) without a twinge of guilt.
I suggest ignoring your partisan feelings for now, or at least supplement them with poll results and prediction market odds.
It will be all tied up next week again. How can the Democrats lose? Yet that's exactly what you're doing.
Tied in the polls next week (within margin of error), the election is just as close as 2000 and 2004.
You used the word "snide" in a previous post when discussing Palin's speech. Now I'm reading that word elsewhere in the blogosphere.
VC, she went into negatives territory that haven't been visited by the candidates until this evening. She bit first (well Giuliani bit first).
It is to laugh. I read Obama's speech. He spent a third of it bashing John McCain.
I just finished scanning through a number of conservative blogs. It's hilarious how deeply and utterly smitten they are with Palin.
Smitten? Try again. Just because liberals are condescending towards women doesn't mean conservatives are. What a truly liberal perspective.
...this speech was incredibly divisive and full of cheap partisan attacks.
Again, Obama spent a third of his speech backing McCain. Spare me the "outrage".
Speaking of being incredibly divisive and partisan, Biden said yesterday that a possible Obama administration might pursue criminal charges against President Bush. This from a guy who voted FOR the 2002 AUMF with all the same information that the administration had. Let's see: Democrats have had control of Congress for 21 months, have launched what...600...700...800 investigations against the Bush administration. Tell me how this has been respectful and a way to find common ground with the opposition. And I haven't even started on how the liberals have tried to call political differences illegal these last several years.
The sad part, though, is that unlike Obama's 2004 speech--which was all about hope and finding common ground--
You know, that is what Barack Obama is about: talk. He, like most liberals, talks a lot about this and that, about crossing the aisle, about bipartisanship. That's all it is, talk. He says he wants to talk about race, then throws out the race card at least twice. Yeah, he can talk. I'm still waiting to find out what he's actually done as a politician. Unlike Obama, McCain and Palin have actually done what Obama talks about.
Mocking Gandhi and MLK will come back to bite them.
On reflection, after reading commentary on the speech, I was struck this morning how little the speech reflected any underlying process of thought. How unlike Obama's speeches, which are filled with evidence of his thoughtfulness.
It's been said that the current incarnation of the GOP is a "know nothing" party. I'd say, based on the content of the speeches so far, and especially Palin's, that they're the "no thinking allowed" party.
What is that smell coming from the left? Whoa, it is powerful. What could it be?
Fear.
I'm still stunned by the attacks on community organizers. Talk about out of touch. What's next? Attacks on people who volunteer to work in homeless shelters?
I'm still stunned by the attacks on community organizers.
I'm still stunned by the attacks on small-town mayors. You know...people who actually have to run something.
This argument is really to dumb to be engaged, but here goes. No one has attacked small town mayors. We've just questioned whether someone was just recently the mayor of a town of 9000 people is really qualified to be the President. I'm sure most small town residents don't think their mayor should be president.
Second. The republicans really did mock community organizers. Twice last night.
It's probably also worth noting that Obama was a community organizer two decades ago, not a few years ago. It was his first job. Not his most recent.
SteveIL, your "fear" comment really represents the mindset many conservatives have. That is, "success," to you, means that people you disagree with must FEAR you. There are few attitudes that are less compatible with democracy.
Guess what, though? I absolutely positively fear another four years of a Republican administration. You can feel better about yourself now.
It's not just the left that fears a McCain presidency. Just listen to conservative Republican Senator Thad Cochran of Mississippi who has known McCain for more than three decades:
"The thought of his being president sends a cold chill down my spine," Cochran said about McCain by phone. "He is erratic. He is hotheaded. He loses his temper and he worries me."
a.l.,
Like Obama did earlier this week, you forget that Palin IS the current governor of the state of Alaska, which is naturally a larger entity than a small town. It's also got more people than every city and town in Illinois other than Chicago, which, by the way, Obama never ran. In fact, it's larger than anything Obama ever claimed to have run, including his campaign.
You know, this race isn't just about experience, it's about experience as a leader. Argue it if you want, but McCain and Palin have experience being leaders and taking on controversy. Obama has never handled leadership well, as exhibited by his recent lying about his voting record on the Illinois BAIPA. Obama talks about change and reform to get ahead, then doesn't do anything. To put it simply, he can talk the talk but has never walked the walked.
All I have to do to prove it is to take a look at the corrupt slugs infesting the governments of Illinois and the City of Chicago, many of whom will be on their way to jail on corruption charges, and these are the people he supports.
McCain and Palin have taken on their own party's establishments (and forget that whole McCain voted 90% with Bush garbage). Obama, nothing.
But Steveil, we can't forget about McCain's lockstep support for even the most insane of George Bush's policies. Perhaps you could recommend some of your medications to help us?
Steveil is absolutely right about the cities. After all, only about 20 cities in the USA have more population than the entire state of Alaska. And three states have lower population!
Whether governing a city of 100,000, all packed into an area of a few square miles, is more of a challenge than governing the state of Alaska, with its stream of oil revenues, lack of roads and other infrastructure, and scattered population, I'll leave the reader to mull over.
Steveil's particular bugaboo is the evil Democrats who have ruled Chicago for decades. One wonders, given his repulsion for Illinois government, he hasn't moved to somewhere with lily-pure Republican control. Say, South Dakota, or Wyoming, or -- here's a thought -- Alaska.
One wonders, given his repulsion for Illinois government, he hasn't moved to somewhere with lily-pure Republican control.
Funny you should mention that. I am moving out of Illinois. No, I won't tell you where.
Palin's speech was a perfect example of why America cannot stand four more years of the Bush-McCain mentality. She was saracastic, belittling, divisive, sneering, hypocritical, and above all patently dishonest and devoid of policy content.
Joe Klien of Time magazine summed it up best when he told the press why not to give into the McCain campaign's attempts to bully them into silence:
"But I hope my colleagues stand strong in this case: it is important for the public to know that Palin raised taxes as governor, supported the Bridge to Nowhere before she opposed it, pursued pork-barrel projects as mayor, tried to ban books at the local library and thinks the war in Iraq is "a task from God." The attempts by the McCain campaign to bully us into not reporting such things are not only stupidly aggressive, but unprofessional in the extreme."
The speech and Palin did not focus well with people other than the already committed Republicans. Independents in Michigan did not respond well. The Rovian attack form of politics assume that people are either dumb or not paying attention. I don't believe that this is the case this election.
http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080903/NEWS15/80904002
From early polling results on Palin and her speech, it was well received, but less enthusiastically than she and her boss might have liked.
She energized the base, but did not attract moderates.
Nate Silver reckons she is not well enough known for her attacks on Obama to carry weight. Obama's favourable ratings are in the 55-60% zone, and an unknown young woman from Alaska will not change them much.(http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/)
The Obama team need to get more focussed ... point out that if you dressed Dick Cheney in a skirt, gave him spectacles and lipstick, take out the Alaska bits and the speech would be the same. It was written by a Bush speechwriter, anyway. This might galvanize them, too.
The message is still that McCain-Palin is really more of Bush-Cheney.
Biden can snipe away at Palin, that's his job. Palin is still only the number 2, she won't bring in moderate votes.
Interesting to see if Obama responds tonight on Bill O'Reilly.
Oh noes, the gloves are off!
Liberals are too weak to fight back, it will be like 2000 and 2004 all over again.
the only thing i fear is that this election will prove me right...that we're working toward having a majority of americans who are too lazy and self-involved to be informed beyond a photo-op and sound bite
the truth of the matter is that republicans have shown they have no regard for the constitution
republicans have ONLY fear as a weapon, which, true enough, actually works, especially when folks are too lazy and self-involved to pay attention
am i mistaken or weren't the republicans in charge for 6 of the last 7.5 years..?
"Liberals are too weak to fight back, it will be like 2000 and 2004 all over again."
Now, that's just plain silly.
Actually, if its "like" 2000 and 2004, the Dems will win.
2000, Al Gore won the popular vote & had the election stolen. Chances of the Republicans getting away with that twice in 8 years ... pretty slim I would say.
2004, Bush, a war President, sqeaked home in a tight race because he just shaded it with Middle America on the terrorism issue. But there's enough stories out there to suspect the Ohio votes were rigged. Either way, the Dems have lawyered up this time & Obama's campaign is way better than Kerry's. Yet, Kerry almost won, swiftboats and all!
Ultimately, the Dems are going to win both Houses of Congress so a McCain-Palin Presidency with 0 new ideas will be faced with having to work with Obama, Biden and Clinton on Capitol Hill. That should be interesting!
re: Liberals are too weak to fight back...
Well, it depends on how your definition of "fighting back." My observation has been that Democrats fight back by talking about the issues that face our country, citing voting records etc. Republicans seem to resort to name calling and dancing around direct questions.
Hmmm...wasn't it John McCain who threw a hissy after a reporter asked a representative to name one decision Palin had made as "commander of the Alaska National Guard?" Instead of simply answering, the republicans start screaming sexism. I mean, really. This is a presidential election, how on earth is it sexism asking pertinent questions?
re: 2004 election
let's also remember that the "liberal" media helped w. secure his second term... had the "liberal" ny times not taken direction from the white house to hold the nsa story until after the election, i doubt very seriously that w. would have "won"
as i recall, there was outrage across the board (except for the 25% neocons) that w. decided it was ok to illegally spy on american citizens...
Toby-
You're a kook. I guess you'll blame the evil satanic Diebold Machines once again when the Messiah loses. OH NOES! DIEBOLD! ROFL!
virginia conservative,
When someone calls me a "kook", I know I've hit a nerve.
Pity those machines gave us the worst President in American history. Oh sorry, I forgot, ... it was people like you who did that.
Fact is: Palin is not going down well with independents, so lets get over the swoonfest. Two focus groups (one composed of Hilary supporters only) in Nevada and Michigan found it too divisive.
The people who are swooning over Palin are the same old faces who were swooning over Bush and Cheney four years ago. Lets take note and move on.
See:
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/09/michigan-indepe.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/04/female-clinton-supporters_n_123794.html
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home