Friday, September 05, 2008

The Wrong Strategy

The Politico reports the following:

As Sarah Palin transforms herself from obscure Alaska governor tothe Republican Party's newest rising star and most effective attack dog, Barack Obama's campaign will largely sit back, watch her rise and hope she falls.

The Obama campaign has no silver bullet to use against the Palin. Instead, Obama has decided to largely avoid directly engaging her and will instead keep his focus largely on John McCain and on linking the Republican ticket to President George W. Bush. The Obama campaign will leave Palin to navigate the same cycle of celebrity that Obama has weathered, and the same peril that her nascent image will be defined by questions and contradictions from her Alaska past.
Attention Obama campaign: this is an exceptionally ill-advised strategy. Yes, it's possible that new dirt about Palin will be uncovered or she will commit a few "potatoe" moments on the campaign trail and end up being a drag on the ticket. But sitting around and hoping that something like that will happen is not a good plan. Here's why.

John McCain's decision to pick a running mate who is virtually unknown to most Americas and members of the media provided the Obama campaign with a rare opportunity. It's very seldom in politics that you get the chance to define your opponent at the ground floor level. Right now, the public image of Sarah Palin is still very much in flux. Opinions of her, both among voters and members of the media, are not fully formed. They're just impressions that haven't yet hardened.

But it doesn't take long for impressions to harden and once they do, they're very hard to budge. That's why John McCain is still perceived to be a "maverick" and a "straight-talker" in the minds of many voters, even though it's been years since he did anything to warrant those descriptions.

I understand the tendency among long time political veterans to discount the importance of the vice presidential pick. Vice presidential candidates usually don't end up making much of a difference even when they're poorly received (see, e.g., Dan Quayle). But there's good reason to believe this year will be very different. First, there's no precedent for Palin. She's a young, socially conservative woman who has instantly reached rock star status among movement conservatives and has dominated news coverage. She's not going to disappear into the background as running mates often do. Second, and more importantly for the Obama campaign, there's reason to believe that--if defined effectively--she could become a major drag on the Republican ticket.

Nate Silver breaks down the day-by-day data for both the Rasmussen and Gallup daily tracking polls and what he finds is interesting. Obama's best day of polling, by far, was the day that news of Bristol Palin's pregnancy broke. He was up +10 and +11 in those polls respectively. You have to be really careful reading too much into polls, but if I had to guess, I'd say that news of Palin's daughter's pregnancy underscored in people's minds the fact that they really didn't know anything about this woman and probably caused them to question McCain's judgment in choosing her.

But since then, Palin has been introduced to the country in a very carefully choreographed way. The McCain campaign is trying hard to define her to the public as a reformer, a maverick from the Wild Frontier, a sort of Davy Crocket-like figure. And judging from the movement in the tracking polls, it seems to be working.

But the doubts are still there. Impressions are fresh. Opinions are still in the formative stage and can be changed. But that's not going to happen unless the Obama campaign makes an affirmative effort to do so. They have to try to define her and they only have a narrow window of time to do so. They need to push back against the reformer/maverick image that the McCain campaign is constructing and raise doubts about her readiness to be president. They also need to aggressively highlight the parts of the Palin myth (e.g. the Bridge to Nowhere) that are outright lies. She is not a straight-talker, and voters need to know that.

Obviously the Obama campaign needs to be careful about how they do this, but that's no excuse for not trying. If they can succeed in planting doubts about her in the minds of independents and swing voters, they'll accomplish two important things: 1) they'll undermine her popularity in her own right, and 2) they'll cause these voters to question McCain's judgment and devalue his experience.

You get very few chances in presidential campaigns to paint on a blank canvass, to influence voters' very first impressions of a rival candidate. That's the opportunity the Obama campaign has been presented with here, and if they just sit back and allow others to do all the painting, it'll be political malpractice.
Digg!

36 Comments:

Blogger Toby said...

Offense on Palin has to be Biden's job.

Obama made it clear in his press conference yesterday that he is running against John McCain. Sarah Palin is just a representative of John McCain. He will focus on his main adversary, and that is as it should be.

The GOP have taken a strange stance towards Palin. She is being hustled out of the limelight back to Alaska. Some weird stuff seems to be happening there.

I saw a clip of her reading a speech somewehre in Iowa with McCain in the background. It was a (badly read) very hesitant standard list of McCain's wisdom, courage, leadership, etc with the old geezer himself standing there. Its as if the old rooster wants his yard back. There were a few shots at Obama over Iraq.

I think its important that Obama NOT get into a squabble with Palin directly. That will inflate her importance. Don't feed the troll.
Biden should have Obama's back. Or maybe Hilary, or even Michelle Obama.

Ok, suppose the Obama campaign were to put together some attack ads ... ready to lead? Do you really know Sarah Palin? But they are attacking the VP, the number 2, again feeding the troll.. like the pointlessness of attacking Dan Quayle.

The must attack Palin AND McCain... poor choice, poor vetting, reckless etc... its how she reflects on McCain that counts.

2:40 PM  
Blogger A.L. said...

I agree, Toby. I don't think Obama himself should engage much here (other than in response to a direct question). But I do think other campaign surrogates should be aggressively pushing back against the image of her that the McCain campaign is trying to cultivate.

2:58 PM  
Anonymous Jason Williams said...

Two words: Hillary Clinton.

3:23 PM  
Blogger LongHairedWeirdo said...

Nod. If I was in the driver's seat, the definition would be "politician".

"She was a very effective mayor, doing what she could to win earmarks; that's the mark of a good politician. And when she saw the bridge to nowhere was going nowhere, she was opposed to it, because she's a cunning politician. And look at her speech! The mark of a fine, skilled politician."

Mark her with the one obvious tag that she can't avoid, that nevertheless has significant negatives.

4:10 PM  
Anonymous SteveIL said...

An observation, not a smear. McCain took the axiom "the best defense is a good offense" to heart when he put Palin on the ticket. Call it erratic, call it poor vetting, call it throwing a "Hail Mary", whatever. He did it. Obama was caught completely off-guard on this and after a week is still playing catch-up.

First impressions matter. America has obviously taken a huge liking to Sarah Palin, and has believed the stories that she's been trashed by the media (which she was). Add that she came out with energy and confidence and that's why things are going good for her.

I agree it's not too late for Obama, but he has made two mistakes. The first I mentioned. The second: not only is Obama playing catch-up, he's now playing catch-up after America has gotten to know a little about Palin. He's made all this doubly tough on himself.

4:36 PM  
Blogger Virginia Conservative said...

This post has been removed by the author.

4:40 PM  
Blogger Virginia Conservative said...

By picking Palin McCain is now McGenius!

I'd like to see Obama or Biden field dress a moose!

4:42 PM  
Blogger C2H50H said...

Picking Palin doesn't make McCain a genius -- yet. One week does not prove how 10 weeks will go.

I have to disagree with A.L. here. It's not wise for Obama or his surrogates to attempt to define Palin. The right wing specializes in playing the victim card, and there is simply no way the Democrats can make the charges that need to be made.

Let the gutter press and the real journalists ferret out the dirt on Palin. If there isn't any, I will be very surprised, but that just means that Palin is not corrupt, and shouldn't be attacked for being so.

The only thing the Democrats should push is to have Palin give interviews, appear in public explaining her positions on abortion, on teaching creationism, on AGW, on industrial regulation, on regressive versus progressive taxes.

She's got extreme beliefs. Let her justify them to the American public. She could start with justifying her stand on the "one nation under God" wording in the pledge of allegiance.

They could start by making it plain that they don't know (as the public also doesn't know) what Palin's real beliefs are. (There's an opportunity for some satire there to also wonder what McCain's real beliefs are. The RNC, up to his speech, was one long partisan screech -- and then he comes out and says he wants to go all post-partisan? Please.)

I'd like to see Giuliani dress a moose -- would it be in gingham, do you suppose? Or basic black?

4:59 PM  
Anonymous SteveIL said...

Picking Palin doesn't make McCain a genius -- yet. One week does not prove how 10 weeks will go.

This is one statement I can agree with. It's still early yet.

5:07 PM  
Blogger Toby said...

There is still an uneasiness about Palin in the GOP .... why this hustling her back to Alaska, and sheltering her from the press?

If she is such a star, why not keep up the momentum and and the offense?

There are still scandals back in Alaska, maybe they are only mini-scandals as yet. A former business associate has tried to seal his divorce papers, and failed. That seems to involve a story similar to Troopergate. There's a scandal story in a national rag, one which recently outed a prominent Democrat as father of a love child. And the Troopergate report has been brought forward to early October.

At the moment these rumours are only slightly stronger than the ones about Obama being a Muslim and went to a madrasa, but they raise doubts about John McCain's vetting and decision-making. He even got the e-bay story wrong ... the state jet was on e-bay but was sold by a private consultant, not by e-bay.

So let the press chase the scandal stories. I don't think Obama has any catching up to do. The polls say that its McCain who got desperate and is trying to catch up.

Obama was cool and undisturbed at his press conference. He just shrugged off her and Giuliani "That's what they do, ... I've been called worse on the basketball court".

Its onto the debates. McCain is running out of time. Palin could still break him.

5:22 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I wonder if this is just a head fake by the Obama campaign.

5:33 PM  
Blogger Virginia Conservative said...

"There is still an uneasiness about Palin in the GOP .... why this hustling her back to Alaska, and sheltering her from the press?"

Her son is about to deploy to Iraq. She wants family time with him before he goes to war, be a little sensitive!

5:34 PM  
Blogger C2H50H said...

You know, we only have about 9 weeks left to get to know Sarah Palin before we'll vote.

It is more critical to get to know her than it is for her to spend a few days with her son. After all, Iraq is very quiet now, and she will have every opportunity she could wish to go visit him, if she's elected (or even if she isn't) after the election.

She's not like Josephine Bloe, in Elk River, who can't go to Iraq to visit her son Joe, you know.

5:51 PM  
Anonymous SteveIL said...

How much anyone want to bet that the ramping up of the Troopergate non-scandal is part of Obama's strategy? The guy leading this political witch-hunt in Alaska is an Obama supporter. Obama won't admit to it, since it would bring up obvious ethics violations against him. But it is curious that the same kind of smears were used against his U.S. Senate rivals in 2004, and Obama benefited. Very suspicious.

6:50 PM  
Blogger C2H50H said...

Steveil,

This was underway long before "McGenius" chose Sarah Palin for VP. If Obama is smart enough to start scandals so far in advance in the off chance he'll need it, he's absolutely the man we want for president, because he's going to run rings around Putin, Achmedinejad (sic), or Kim. I mean, that is god-like wisdom.

Wasn't it you who was castigating someone yesterday for being paranoid? Sheesh.

7:01 PM  
Blogger A.L. said...

This was underway long before "McGenius" chose Sarah Palin for VP. If Obama is smart enough to start scandals so far in advance in the off chance he'll need it, he's absolutely the man we want for president

Ha. Well put.

8:38 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The DNC should start doing what the RNC did when Obama started winning.

For one, they need to look at the apocalyptic church she attended for 20 years before she became politically involved and listen to the discussion of the "end times" which will precede the "rapture." I don't think we want this kind of thinking so close to the red phone. (BTW, that church has, since the nomination, pulled down its web page and pulled its sermons off of You Tube - they learned a lot from Rev. Wright.)

In the NYT today the McSame Campaign said "we won't go there" (i.e., discuss her religion) I don't see why it should be their choice.

They, and you, may wish to read this:
http://community.adn.com/adn/node/130537

and this:
http://WWW.samefacts.com/archives/campaign_2008_/2008/09/palin_v_reality.php

Finally, lets always remember that Jesus was a community organizer and Pontius Pilate was a Governor.

Thanks for you blog, and for allowing anonymous comments!

10:19 PM  
Anonymous michael z said...

I think the Obama campaign are genuinely flustered how to deal with Palin. In a way, she should be easy game - she's not particularly likeable, has a track record of incompetence and corruption, and also has some rather extreme views to boot. However, exactly the same things were said about Bush in 2000 and we saw what happened when the Democrats went for him: the Republicans portrayed them as bullies who couldn't pick on someone their own size. Palin's gender adds an extra twist to the tale, because now you can add an accusation of "sexism". No matter how vacuous, these terms stick. It's quite ironic when you consider that the Republicans would otherwise have absolutely no qualms bullying and smearing their opponents like there was no tomorrow (and they won't be a tomorrow if we continue to elect these dolts into office), and are always the first to cry "Tokenism" whenever the Democrats field an ethnic minority- or woman candidate (they did the same with Obama and Clinton, lest we forget) -- but then I would expect nothing less than outright hypocrisy from the Republicans.

So I think the Obama campaign doesn't quite know how to handle this - you can't say nothing because then you leave plenty of room for McCain and Palin to say whatever the f*** she likes about Obama, including outright lies ("He's gonna raise your taxes!". Err, no, he won't for 95% of working Americans).

Perhaps it might be wise to wait until the debates, because that's where Obama's bound to shine. If anything, it will give him an opportunity to take McCain to task for the constant lies, smears and misrepresentations on a face-to-face basis.

(*Though accusations of sexism can be avoided by ensuring that Hillary, and only Hillary, goes after Palin. The Obama campaign really needs Clinton now, and I believe she can be a HUGE asset when going after Palin.)

5:24 AM  
Anonymous SteveIL said...

This was underway long before "McGenius" chose Sarah Palin for VP.

I've read the articles in the Anchorage Daily News. This wasn't a witch hunt until after the announcement of Palin for VP.

If Obama is smart enough to start scandals so far in advance in the off chance he'll need it, he's absolutely the man we want for president,...

I would agree with you, if that were going to occur. But Democrats Carter and Clinton snookered the American people into believing they were tough, and look what happened; they were very, very weak against America's enemies and rivals. The Soviet Union, radical Islamists (the Republicans weren't strong here either, but not like Democrats), North Korea, etc. Democrats running for President have shown themselves to be con men, and that would include Mondale, Dukakis, Gore, and Kerry (pictured going hunting, in camo gear no less).

Like I said, if Obama were to be this way against America's rivals and enemies as he is with other Americans, that's fine. History hasn't shown this to be the case.

And remember this; John McCain led the committee in the investigation that ultimately got Jack Abramoff put into prison, even though it damaged fellow Republicans (he's principled). Obama is friends with criminals like Ayers, Rezko, Kwame Kilpatrick, and Rod Blagojevich.

7:25 AM  
Blogger LongHairedWeirdo said...

Steveil:

I agree with you, it was just an ordinary, routine investigation until Sarah Palin was important to the Republicans, and then it was called a "non-scandal" and a "witch hunt".

Of course, if she was important to the Democrats chances of success in November, then it would be a "pressing issue, demanding a full investigation".

It's kind of like offshore drilling... it was a stupid idea, until a Republican strategist thought it was a useful game to play. But if it was important to Democrats, it would be a cynical election year ploy.

We know how the game is played. No need to state the obvious, but since you brought it up, yes, the Republicans *are* very good at making shit up if they think it will help them win elections.

7:43 AM  
Blogger C2H50H said...

Steveil,

It remains a fact that Palin, while governor, may have illegally and unethically intervened in the troopergate scandal, and then lied about it. Don't you think it's in the public interest, not merely for Alaska, but now for the nation, to find out?

You imagine relationships where there is no evidence that anyone has presented that there were any. This is paranoia, plain and simple.

You imagine that John McCain was prosecutor and judge, when, in fact, he was neither. It was prosecutors that brought the charges, it was Abramoff himself who copped a plea, and it was John McCain who didn't push for finding out just how deeply into the White House the scandal went.

But thanks for sharing with us the fruits of your fevered imagination.

8:48 AM  
Blogger A.L. said...

And remember this; John McCain led the committee in the investigation that ultimately got Jack Abramoff put into prison, even though it damaged fellow Republicans (he's principled). Obama is friends with criminals like Ayers, Rezko, Kwame Kilpatrick, and Rod Blagojevich.

This is so not even close to true. Abramoff was investigated and prosecuted by the DOJ. Federal prosecutors did all of the work every step of the way. The Committee investigation was, as usual, little more than a show to make the public think they were looking into something. It had nothing to do with the actual investigation or prosecution.

9:04 AM  
Blogger TheRadicalModerate said...

This thread seems indicative of the basic problem. Palin's pick is wonderful bait for diverting Democratic attention from attacks on McCain. But at the end of the day, she's still just a friggin' VP nominee!

I expect the GOP to use Palin in the traditional attack dog role to keep up the steady drip-drip-drip of attacks on Obama, while the Democrats spend huge amounts of intellectual capital looking to discredit Palin.

They'll fail. It's pretty obvious that she's got some skeletons but she doesn't have enough of a paper trail to have done anything that will cripple the ticket. Meanwhile, any attacks on her that actually score (and there will be a few) are easily offset with Biden's long and illustrious history of saying moderately dumb things. It takes heat off of McCain and riles up the GOP base.

This was pretty clearly a good gut call on McCain's part. There's a lot of skepticism about presidents that go with their guts, given the fact that our pal George has a notoriously bad gut. But overall, a guy with the ability to make these kinds of calls on ambiguous information is not necessarily a political liability.

10:47 AM  
Blogger A.L. said...

This thread seems indicative of the basic problem. Palin's pick is wonderful bait for diverting Democratic attention from attacks on McCain. But at the end of the day, she's still just a friggin' VP nominee!

I expect the GOP to use Palin in the traditional attack dog role to keep up the steady drip-drip-drip of attacks on Obama, while the Democrats spend huge amounts of intellectual capital looking to discredit Palin.


RM, two things. First, I'm not suggesting that the Obama campaign "spend huge amounts of intellectual capital looking to discredit Palin." I'm just talking about adding a few pointed statements to Obama and Biden's stump speeches and distributing a few talking points to surrogates. That's all.

Second, if this is done right, it won't be a diversion from attacking McCain, but an effective way of attacking McCain. I'm working on a post right now about this.

10:53 AM  
Anonymous SteveIL said...

The Committee investigation was, as usual, little more than a show to make the public think they were looking into something. It had nothing to do with the actual investigation or prosecution.

You mean like those 600...700...800 (what's the count up to now?) investigations launched by the 110th Congress about the "crimes" of the Bush administration? How many convictions have come from those? I can tell you exactly how many: 1 less than the investigation by McCain's committee. If you do the math, that's a big fat zero. All pro baseball players (other than pitchers) would be out of pro baseball who would go 0 for 800.

It remains a fact that Palin, while governor, may have illegally and unethically intervened in the troopergate scandal, and then lied about it. Don't you think it's in the public interest, not merely for Alaska, but now for the nation, to find out?

Really? Where did she lie?

By the way, does anybody here know if Howard Gutman, a member of the Obama campaign, has been fired by Obama for his (Gutman's) personal attacks on Palin's family during an interview he gave on Laura Ingraham's show?

12:45 PM  
Blogger No Blood for Hubris said...

McCain/Palin = even worse than Bush/Cheney, if one can even imagine that.

A dream ticket for dittoheads, but triggering trauamtic memories of the eight-year Bushist fascist national nightmare for everyone else.

1:22 PM  
Blogger C2H50H said...

Steveil,

Did you miss the "may have" in that statement? We don't know for sure if she either intervened or lied about it, and I'm not claiming she did.

What you appear to think is that, if it can't be proved now that she lied, then there should be no investigation, but ... isn't that what an investigation is for?

As for Gutman, the right has finally found someone connected with the Obama campaign (although just how is a bit obscure) who said something that can be interpreted as critical! Bring out the fainting couch! Cue the violins!

I'm sure that Obama will, if the issue isn't resolved properly, take the steps through the appropriate channels to terminate whatever connection this individual has with the campaign.

We shouldn't expect him to blow his top and start firing people -- that methodology has been patented by Palin and McCain, and we wouldn't want a patent infringement suit.

1:22 PM  
Anonymous SteveIL said...

Did you miss the "may have" in that statement?

No, I didn't miss it. I'm asking you where she lied. I've searched through the documents, and I can't find any lie by Palin. Or are you going to wait for the Obama-supporting Sen. French to tell you what you want to hear?

I'm sure that Obama will, if the issue isn't resolved properly, take the steps through the appropriate channels to terminate whatever connection this individual has with the campaign.

Excuse me, but Obama is the boss of the campaign. I have no doubt he didn't hear the interview (I wouldn't have expected him to; and I'm not being sarcastic); but he's got, what, 2500 people on his staff. I'm sure somebody heard it and would have passed the information on by now, which is going on 24 hours. And Obama has said he would fire anyone in his campaign who made attacks on the opponents' families, which Gutman clearly did. Obama firing Gutman is the only proper resolution, as stated by Barack Obama. If he doesn't, it will just further show he doesn't keep his word and isn't really the boss of his own campaign. Which has all kinds of implications.

1:40 PM  
Blogger TheRadicalModerate said...

A.L.--

First, I'm not suggesting that the Obama campaign "spend huge amounts of intellectual capital looking to discredit Palin." I'm just talking about adding a few pointed statements to Obama and Biden's stump speeches and distributing a few talking points to surrogates. That's all.

Yeah, but the really interesting, delightfully insidious thing about Palin is that she's an almost irresistible target. Kinda like a bug-zapper for Democrats.

I think your position would be mostly reasonable if the Democratic party apparatus could support the kind of discipline you're advocating. But your strategy is meta-stable. Obama can either ignore Palin or he can act as a cheering section for a bazillion attacks. The middle course between these two choices is just too difficult. The same thing goes doubly for the media: they're going to have all kinds of fun (and decent ratings) trying to rip her apart. It sucks a lot of oxygen out of the room.

At this point, mod some real-time, self-inflicted, egregiously stupid statement by Palin (probability maybe 25%), McCain has passed the "what was he thinking?" test, which was the only thing that could really hurt him. Palin can now absorb a lot of damage and still have her positives outweigh her negatives. Obama should take the heavy hit and move on--but I'm guessing he won't.

1:56 PM  
Blogger C2H50H said...

Steveil,

Your research skills aren't very strong, are they? here.

So was what Gutman said (which he has said was taken out of context and for which he has apologized) a criticism of Palin's family, or of Palin? It seems that one can't point out that Palin's acceptance of the nomination has put an additonal strain on a family that is already under stress without having folks like you hyperventilating.

Whatever. Molehill into mountain. This seems altogether another manufactured outrage. When it's been resolved, I expect to see a congratulatory message from you about how well it was handled. Ha, ha, just kidding.

2:19 PM  
Anonymous SteveIL said...

Your research skills aren't very strong, are they?

Been there, seen that. Did you see the date on the emails shown to the Post? Feb. 7, 2007 and July 17, 2007. Monegan was let go on July 11, 2008, more than a year after the second email. Neither the Post, nor anyone else, report on how many emails Monegan provided to the Post. One would logically think that if he had something more current, which would certainly be more damaging, then he would have done so. But, and I'll concede this, he may have given more current emails only to those conducting the investigation. Even so, Monegan has stated that nobody told him to fire the ex-brother-in-law.

As I've mentioned, I've look at documents that have been made publicly available in this case, not reports from the media.

Gutman questioned the parenting skills of both Todd and Sarah Palin.

It seems that one can't point out that Palin's acceptance of the nomination has put an additonal strain on a family that is already under stress without having folks like you hyperventilating.

That's right, you can't. How would you like me to tell you how to run your family? How you would you like me to tell Obama how to run his family? Based on what I've seen, Obama is a great family man, and that's all that really needs to be said.

And how do you know there's a strain on Palin's family? In fact, how does Gutman know? What are his qualifications? Oh that's right; he's a member of Obama's finance committee.

3:55 PM  
Blogger C2H50H said...

Steveil,

I have no idea what the blazes you are talking about with the dates. It seems a complete non sequitur. She interfered, then claimed she hadn't. If it turns out she had, then she lied. That won't matter to you, of course. You will find a way to interpret her lies as redounding to her honor. But the fact remains, she lied.

As far as the rest, if I were running for VP, and I had anything out of the ordinary going on in my family, then, yes, it would be a matter of public debate, since I would be a public figure. If there were anything at all, no matter how small, that could be criticized about Obama's family, the right would be on it like a tick. It's one reason he was chosen of Hillary, you know. Your remarks are a version of the "post hoc, ergo proctor hoc" logical fallacy so beloved of the right wing.

Look, Steveil, you can go on trying to twist the facts and the logic to suit your arguments. I've got other things to do, and I think we've established that you won't be happy no matter what Obama does, so there's no point in continuing this.

Feel free to imagine that running for office is a carefree affair, with rose petals strewn at every step, and no scrutiny for the family and all their doings.

4:19 PM  
Anonymous SteveIL said...

As far as the rest, if I were running for VP, and I had anything out of the ordinary going on in my family, then, yes, it would be a matter of public debate, since I would be a public figure. If there were anything at all, no matter how small, that could be criticized about Obama's family, the right would be on it like a tick.

I can understand why you say this. The left does it, so you believe the right would do it too. That's called projection. You don't cite any evidence, just imagine that would occur. It's utter rubbish, but hey, this is America.

I criticized Michelle Obama for many of the statements she's made when she's acted on behalf of her husband's campaign. But I haven't seen anyone who's said anything remotely like what the left and the media have said about the Palins, and I know I haven't. And we do have a lot of fodder to pick from, believe me.

But believe what you want.

5:38 PM  
Blogger C2H50H said...

Steveil,

Excuse me? Do you have a goddamn clue? What happened when the right discovered that Obama had a step-brother he'd never met, apparently, in Kenya?

Clean out your ears.

6:00 PM  
Blogger mls said...

AL

This is unrelated to the current thread (where, I am disappointed to see, c2h50h has sunk back to his usual level of discourse).

At NRO, Mark Hemingway has a piece about Obama's community organizing, where he quotes a "Democratic blogger" as saying that Jesus was a community organizer and Pontius Pilate was a Governor. Did that originate with you? Just curious.

6:36 PM  
Blogger A.L. said...

mls,

Possibly, but I don't think so. I only made that reference in the comment section here. But I later saw it in a few other prominent blogs. I'm not sure which came first.

6:48 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home