September 12, 2008
Still not getting Palin

Joni Balter yesterday:

Palin is the kind of brash, good-looking, in-your-face candidate who connects with working-class women. She's more like everymoms than Obama. Yes, sure, he was raised by a single mother and grandparents, but in the end, he went to Harvard.

Somehow, an election supposedly about issues has devolved into a campaign about personal narrative, and that is how McCain wants it.

I suspect the Palin effect will fade in the days and weeks ahead. She is one deer-in-the-headlights answer away from scaring the very same people currently embracing her.

All the enthusiasm and rooting for this woman will give way to a realization that she has too much on her plate. She is being asked to manage a steep learning curve on national and international issues and still be a mom in a family with five kids, including a special-needs baby and a pregnant daughter.

Enthusiasm for Sarah Palin's presence on the GOP ticket might fade. But, it's not likely to for the reasons Balter enunciates. For part of the reason why, see this lucid moment from Joe Klein in the middle of his near-What's the Matter with Kansas style assessment:

We haven't been a nation of small towns for nearly a century. It is the suburbanites and city dwellers who do the fighting and hourly-wage work now, and the corporations who grow our food. But Palin's embrace of small-town values is where her hold on the national imagination begins. She embodies the most basic American myth -- Jefferson's yeoman farmer, the fantasia of rural righteousness -- updated in a crucial way: now Mom works too. Palin's story stands with one foot squarely in the nostalgia for small-town America and the other in the new middle-class reality. She brings home the bacon, raises the kids -- with a significant assist from Mr. Mom -- hunts moose and looks great in the process. I can't imagine a more powerful, or current, American Dream.

Part of the foremost appeal of the McCain-Palin ticket is you know they're going to be no friend to establishment Washington, DC. Yet the common-man - or woman! - appeal is more powerful than people realize (I repeat, read this book).

That's not going to fade if Palin can't give an intricate answer on the best way to restart the Doha round of WTO talks on harmonizing international trade. Nor will they recede if she isn't entirely comfortable explaining the difference between HMO's and PPO's in the Medicare Advantage program.

Sarah Palin is popular because she is...Sarah Palin. Her life story and record getting here isn't going change. Likewise, neither is the gravitational pull some in the electorate feel towards her.

Besides, belittling the VP nominee and presuming they would drag down the ticket worked so well in 1988 - with a VP pick who was just slightly less electrifying.

Cross-posted at the Examiner.

Posted by Eric Earling at September 12, 2008 07:08 AM | Email This
Comments
1. Well, I guess this has to be the final word on Sarah Palin. I mean if Pam Anderson tells her to Suck It?, I guess we can decisivly conclude that she would not be a good VPOTUS. WTF???...over!

Posted by: Duffman on September 12, 2008 07:09 AM
2. Joni and others, that is 4 kids and one grown Man (caps for emphasis). And the older daughters take care of the little ones. Coming from a huge family, my mom used to say that raising 10 was the same as raising four because everyone chipped in and helped out.

I just don't think the left gets it. Whether religion, morals or what we want in leaders.

Posted by: swatter on September 12, 2008 07:25 AM
3. Well, obviously if someone with the video evidence to support the admonition to "suck it" like Pam Anderson does, it has to be taken seriously. :)

Posted by: Smokie on September 12, 2008 07:28 AM
4. Somehow, an election supposedly about issues has devolved into a campaign about personal narrative, and that is how McCain wants it.

It's laughable that the left and the MSM (I know, redundant) always carps about how Obama wants the campaign to stick to talking about the issues, and McCain wants otherwise. It's like they forgot the week long barrage by Obama and his media arm regarding the number of McCain houses, as if this is a real "issue".

Posted by: Palouse on September 12, 2008 07:42 AM
5. Balter is rehashing what she read from her peers in the Leftstream Media. Pretty lame. She's not even coming up with anything original. Balter says she suspects Palin's appeal will fade. Translation: she "hopes" it will fade. Just like she is voting and reporting for "Hope and Change."

Posted by: Jeff B. on September 12, 2008 08:04 AM
6. Palouse, I want a man for president, not some mamby-pamby who talks gymrat. Seeing as how the glass ceiling will be broke, I can rephrase it to say I want someone with a spine and backbone. Palin fits that bill.

For the fourth or eighth time, Obama said he was going to get tough with McCain and the gloves are off.

Posted by: swatter on September 12, 2008 08:05 AM
7. Admittedly Sarah was a bit weak on her answer to Charlie's question on the 'Bush Doctrine'. Had she just admitted that she wasn't totally up on it (because of Governing the largest State in the Nation) it would have been better. No doubt the Obama/Biden folks will run with this. :)

Posted by: Duffman on September 12, 2008 08:25 AM
8. Hey Duffer.
Does anyone really care what Pam (I was married to a weird guy) Anderson say's?

LOL

I just love it, when a loser calls you a loser. 0-:

Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on September 12, 2008 08:28 AM
9. If the left still thinks The One is not the One Who Cannot Think On His Feet - let's see both candidates go head to head at a couple of "town hall" type events and see just how bright thier little Barry is.

Posted by: JDH on September 12, 2008 08:40 AM
10. Haha...yeah AM/V...only those with a libido...DOWN BOY! :)

Posted by: Duffman on September 12, 2008 08:46 AM
11. I think perhaps the most humorous aspect of the Sarah phenomon is that the left does get it. And it's driving them up the wall.

The Joni Balter's of the world have assumed since 1969 that the country is hungry for European style socialism. Gosh, everyone they know in Seattle thinks so.

I've lost count of the times liberals have accused myself and other commentors here of having a "narrow world view". It's one of their "we are smarter than you" talking points.

Liberals are finding out suddenly that they don't understand America at all. They may not understand Europe either which, like Canada, is beginning to figure out that socialism is a failed ideology.

Posted by: Bill Cruchon on September 12, 2008 09:13 AM
12. Well, I've lost any respect of the little I had for Charlie Gibson. After Palin answered his question, asked condecendingly "can you look the American peoople in the eye and tell them you're ready to be President...", he amazingly gave her HIS ALMIGHTY OPINION - "that takes a lot of HUBRIS". Hubris, according to the Websters dictionary means 'exaggerated pride or self confidence". So Charlie was basically saying she's full of $hit.
What politician would EVER say they are not ready for the job? You have to have a lot of confidence to be in politics. To tell her she has a lot of hubris is a sexist insult from a press elitist! Would he have said that to Obama who has now admitted he can't claim more experience than Palin?
Palin is the sitting Governor of a state! Why would you have to have a lot of hubris to think the next logical step in the political process, Vice President, is a huge step from there? It's a logical next step. Ask Reagan, Clinton, Carter, if they had a lot of hubris to even THINK of running for President. But they were MEN weren't they Charlie?!
Nobody told Obama it took a lot of hubris to think a mere "community organizer" can run for US Senator, (State Congressman experience left out on purpose just like Palin's Governor experince was in so many Obama comparisons).
Personally, I think the office of President of the United States is something that, on your first day - if you sit down in the Oval office and you aren't absolutely scared to death, you have a lot of hubris. Palin has as many tools as anyone who's recently occupied the office, maybe more than some. Is she absolutely ready for a nuclear attack on day one? Nobody would be, not even the Messiah Obama. Not even Charlie Gibson, although I bet he thinks he's more qualified than Palin...

Posted by: scott on September 12, 2008 09:13 AM
13. Ha--re Balter's statement: it's funny how the same women who said we could "have it all", suddenly don't approve when a woman "has it all" & "does it all."

Just as with their silence on Bill Clinton when he was caught womanizing (again), they are outting themselves as not being entirely credible, with their latest outburst against Palin.

Posted by: Michele on September 12, 2008 09:14 AM
14. The most significant aspect of the pick of Palin is that it's forcing liberal Democrats to show the country exactly who they are. Something they avoid at all costs.

The mean attacks on Palin are awakening Americans who ordinarily don't pay a lot of attention to politics and vote knee-jerk for Democrats. I don't want to read too much into all of this, but I do believe the Democrats are falling on their own swords.

Posted by: Bill Cruchon on September 12, 2008 09:34 AM
15. Well looks like Ms Palin and Sen McCain might have to deal with this little Sweetheart should they take office?

Posted by: Duffman on September 12, 2008 09:38 AM
16. McCain just challanged Obama to a townhall debate on The View. I hope McCain makes this challenge every day until election day.

Posted by: Moondoggie on September 12, 2008 09:39 AM
17. Yeah, McCain has been challenging Obama to debate for months and Obama is scared to death. Not a single word about that from the leftist media.

But Sarah Palin hadn't been the veep nominee for more than a couple days and that same media was screaming "why won't she go on Meet The Press and Face the Nation, huh, huh huh?". Knowing full well she would run into what they hoped was a cleverly planned trap.

Like I've been saying, the left is showing themselves for who they are and Americans are starting to get it. It's about time.

Posted by: Bill Cruchon on September 12, 2008 09:49 AM
18. #10. Ahhh, Duffie. Spending at night with her could "really" kill you and don't mean having a good time.

And it's not the superclap that I was to take care of, when you didn't listen to us. (-:

She even makes (Dumb-Blondes) look smart.

Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on September 12, 2008 09:52 AM
19. I'll bet the AP writer, who cleans up Obama's quotes by pulling out all the UHs is raking in the overtime.

Posted by: Moondoggie on September 12, 2008 09:54 AM
20. @ 1~ Isn't Pamela Lee Anderson known for a certain video out there on the net? Her choice of the words "she can suck it" ring awfully familiar....Just ask Tommy Lee.

Posted by: Rick D. on September 12, 2008 09:56 AM
21. Bill Cruchon @ 11 & 14, et al.:

I think you will appreciate "Proof of Obama's Marxism; Spread the Word!" on SP's Public Blog. It jibes with your well-considered views.

Posted by: The Pirate on September 12, 2008 09:59 AM
22. @ 22~ ...and what state did Barack Obama govern? Hell, he doesn't even run his own household.

Posted by: Rick D. on September 12, 2008 10:03 AM
23. Did you know that the term 'largest' can sometimes refer to size..there Einstein...now be a good boy and crawl back under your rock. :)

Posted by: Duffman on September 12, 2008 10:04 AM
24. Did you know that the term 'largest' can sometimes refer to size..there Einstein

Heard on my afternoon radio show:

Isn't it funny that someone who was so smart as Einstein, that his name is most commonly used as an insult when referring to something stupid?

Posted by: Palouse on September 12, 2008 10:10 AM
25. That god forsaken tundra seems mighty important mercifurious when we want to drill for oil in a miniscule portion of it. Good grief.

Posted by: Bill Cruchon on September 12, 2008 10:11 AM
26.
Excellent post...totally agree.

Posted by: John Bailo on September 12, 2008 10:13 AM
27. What has the liberals really upset, whether they be male or female, is that she's more of both genders than they are...this intimidates liberals beyond belief.

She's comfortable in her own skin and they're still looking for excuses why they're still a "work in progress".

Posted by: Rick D. on September 12, 2008 10:17 AM
28. Mercifurious #22 Palin had 25,000 employees spread out over almost a million square miles. 75% of the Democrates in Alaska say they like the job she is doing. To not admit that she has done a great job is foolish

Posted by: Moondoggie on September 12, 2008 10:18 AM
29. Come on, make nice with the Duffman; at least till after the election; we have his vote on president and governor. We don't want to upset his applecart till then, do we?

The McCain camp picked Gibson for a reason. Gibson was loaded with questions from his also liberal journalists, so she did super. The liberals want her comments so they can pounce on. They demand they want to know more about her as if there was a snowball's chance they ever would vote R.

Posted by: swatter on September 12, 2008 10:18 AM
30. Ok Swatter.....

Gezzzzzzzzz Sorry Duff. LOL

Good buddie.

Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on September 12, 2008 10:54 AM
31. Rick D - What really torques the leftists about Palin is that she is more woman than they (leftists of either gender) will ever have and she is also more of a man than they (leftists of either gender) could ever hope to ever be. Remember what I said about six months ago about the Democrat Party being all about the Politics of Envy? This is just one more example of that dynamic.

Posted by: JDH on September 12, 2008 11:19 AM
32. Re #7: Your wrong Paalin's answers regarding the Bush doctrine were fine. It is Charlie Gibson who is the ignorant one. He tried to trap Sarah without understanding the subject upon which he was questioning.

See: http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2008/09/what_exactly_is_the_bush_doctr.asp

As you can see asking about the Bush Doctrine is a vague question to which Palin responded by asking Gibson to clarify it. Gibson failed to do so.

Posted by: Paddy on September 12, 2008 11:25 AM
33. Palin has governed a state that is one fifth of the US. How much of the US has the Obamessiah governed? Stae senators do not govern!

Posted by: pbj on September 12, 2008 11:31 AM
34. Duff@15, I was thinking that too about Chavez and playing his oil games. But I noticed one of the arab countries thumbed their nose at OPEC and said they'd fill any void.
On another note though, wouldn't it serve the media right if they kept getting turned down for interviews because Sarah tells them "Between the job and kids, I just don't have time for you"

Posted by: PC on September 12, 2008 11:34 AM
35. THAT would be VERY COOl pc...but alas she appears to have more class than that. You know she exemplifies the adage that 'if you want to get a task done, give it to a busy person'. I like her! (and I guess that's obvious) Pamela Anderson - eat your heart out! :)

Posted by: Duffman on September 12, 2008 11:43 AM
36. Want to email pompous Charlie Gibson?

Here's his address:

http://abcnews.go.com/Site/page?id=3271346&cat=World%20News%20with%20Charles%20Gibson

Posted by: The Pirate on September 12, 2008 11:43 AM
37. The Pirate @#21, that's it exactly in a nutshell. Obama, and Hillary are both closet Marxists in the tradition of Saul Alinsky.

It is very telling that the same media that is examining every facet of Sarah's life has totally ignored the very obvious links between Obama and Alinsky.

You know, I used to be a leftist. I grew up around 1960's radicals like Hillary. When I realized they were communists I'd had enough of them. Obama is a product of those people. The big debate in those days was do we bring the system down through "revolution" or undermine the country by "working within the system"? Well, that's what Hillary, and Obama are committed to, breaking down capitalism from within the system. Leftists all know this and the media protects their nasty secret because they are closet Marxists like Paul Krugman.

Posted by: Bill Cruchon on September 12, 2008 12:07 PM
38. ``That lack of charitable giving at that level of income would definitely be outside the range of what we say is normal,'' yes it is even for a Democrat. It is documented that leftists are skinflints when it comes to charitable giving, but this goes beyond the pale.

Oh, and why do I say; Democrats are documented skinflints? Well read the book Who Really Cares by Arthur C Brooks, he lays it all out for you. I will include an excerpt from the book below the Biden article.

Biden Gave Average of $369 Annually to Charity in Last Decade
upi via email no link | 9/12/8


Sept. 12 (UPI) -- Delaware Senator Joe Biden, the Democratic nominee for vice president, and his wife reported giving less than half of one percent of their income to charity during the past decade, below the national average, tax records show.

A Biden spokesman said the couple has given more to charity than they claimed on their taxes.

Biden and his wife, Jill, earned $319,853 in adjusted gross income and paid $72,787 in federal taxes last year, including $2,721 in alternative minimum taxes. They claimed $995 in deductions for charitable giving, about triple what they deducted in any of the nine previous years. Over the past decade they reported giving an average of $369 to charity.

Their deductions for charitable giving -- about two-tenths of one percent of their income -- is lower than the national average of about 3.1 percent, according to JustGive.org, a nonprofit organization that connects donors with charities.

``That lack of charitable giving at that level of income would definitely be outside the range of what we say is normal,'','' said Russell James, a professor at the University of Georgia who researches charitable giving.

Biden spokesman David Wade said the deductions on the tax forms ``are not the sum of their annual contributions to charity.'' The Bidens ``contribute to their church, and they also contribute to their favorite causes.'' He said the Bidens also do volunteer work with military families and for other causes.

Is Compassionate Conservatism an Oxymoron?

The conventional wisdom runs like this: Liberals are charitable because they advocate government redistribution of money in the name of social justice; conservatives are uncharitable because they oppose these policies. But note the sleight of hand: Government spending, according to this logic, is a form of charity.

Let us be clear: Government spending is not charity. It is not a voluntary sacrifice by individuals. No matter how beneficial or humane it might be, no matter how necessary it is for providing public services, it is still the obligatory redistribution of tax revenues. Because government spending is not charity, sanctimonious yard signs do not prove that the bearers are charitable or that their opponents are selfish. (On the contrary, a public attack on the integrity of those who don't share my beliefs might more legitimately constitute evidence that I am the uncharitable one.)

To evaluate accurately the charity difference between liberals and conservatives, we must consider private, voluntary charity. How do liberals and conservatives compare in their private giving and volunteering? Beyond strident slogans and sarcastic political caricatures, what, exactly, do the data tell us?

The data tell us that the conventional wisdom is dead wrong. In most ways, political conservatives are not personally less charitable than political liberals--they are more so.

First, we must define "liberals" and "conservatives." Most surveys ask people not just about their political party affiliation but also about their ideology. In general, about 10 percent of the population classify themselves as "very conservative"; and another 10 percent call themselves "very liberal." About 20 percent say they are simply "liberal," and 30 percent or so say they are "conservative." The remaining 30 percent call themselves "moderates" or "centrists." In this discussion, by "liberals" I mean the approximately 30 percent in the two most liberal categories, and by conservatives I mean the 40 percent or so in the two most con­servative categories.

So how do liberals and conservatives compare in their charity? When it comes to giving or not giving, conservatives and liberals look a lot alike. Conservative people are a percentage point or two more likely to give money each year than liberal people, but a percentage point or so less likely to volunteer.

But this similarity fades away when we consider average dollar amounts donated. In 2000, households headed by a conservative gave, on average, 30 percent more money to charity than households headed by a liberal ($1,600 to $1,227). This discrepancy is not simply an artifact of income differences; on the contrary, liberal families earned an average of 6 percent more per year than conservative families, and conservative families gave more than liberal families within every income class, from poor to middle class to rich.

If we look at party affiliation instead of ideology, the story remains largely the same. For example, registered Republicans were seven points more likely to give at least once in 2002 than registered Democrats (90 to 83 percent).

The differences go beyond money and time. Take blood donations, for example. In 2002, conservative Americans were more likely to donate blood each year, and did so more often, than liberals. If liberals and moderates gave blood at the same rate as conservatives, the blood supply in the United States would jump by about 45 percent.

The political stereotypes break down even further when we consider age: "Anyone who is not a socialist before age thirty has no heart, but anyone who is still a socialist after thirty has no head," goes the old saying. And so we imagine crusty right-wing grandfathers socking their money away in trust funds while their liberal grandchildren work in soup kitchens and save the whales. But young liberals--perhaps the most vocally dissatisfied political constituency in America today--are one of the least generous demographic groups out there. In 2004, self-described liberals younger than thirty belonged to one-third fewer organizations in their communities than young conservatives. In 2002, they were 12 percent less likely to give money to charities, and one-third less likely to give blood. Liberal young Americans in 2004 were also significantly less likely than the young conservatives to express a willingness to sacrifice for their loved ones: A lower percentage said they would prefer to suffer than let a loved one suffer, that they are not happy unless the loved one is happy, or that they would sacrifice their own wishes for those they love.

The compassion of American conservatives becomes even clearer when we compare the results from the 2004 U.S. presidential election to data on how states address charity. Using Internal Revenue Service data on the percentage of household income given away in each state, we can see that the red states are more charitable than the blue states. For instance, of the twenty-five states that donated a portion of household income above the national average, twenty-four gave a majority of their popular votes to George W. Bush for president; only one gave the election to John F. Kerry. Of the twenty-five states below the national giving average, seventeen went for Kerry, but just seven for Bush. In other words, the electoral map and the charity map are remarkably similar.

These results are not an artifact of close elections in key states. The average percentage of household income donated to charity in each state tracked closely with the percentage of the popular vote it gave to Mr. Bush. Among the states in which 60 percent or more voted for Bush, the average portion of income donated to charity was 3.5 percent. For states giving Mr. Bush less than 40 percent of the vote, the average was 1.9 percent. The average amount given per household from the five states combined that gave Mr. Bush the highest vote percentages in 2003 was 25 percent more than that donated by the average household in the five northeastern states that gave Bush his lowest vote percentages; and the households in these liberal-leaning states earned, on average, 38 percent more than those in the five conservative states.

People living in conservative states volunteer more than people in liberal states. In 2003, the residents of the top five "Bush states" were 51 percent more likely to volunteer than those of the bottom five, and they volunteered an average of 12 percent more total hours each year. Residents of these Republican-leaning states volunteered more than twice as much for religious organizations, but also far more for secular causes. For example, they were more than twice as likely to volunteer to help the poor.

Surely Jimmy Carter would have been surprised to learn that the selfish Americans he criticized so vociferously were most likely the very people who elected him president.

Reprinted with permission © Basic Books - 2007

Posted by: JDH on September 12, 2008 12:14 PM
39. Based on my personal experience with liberals, the ones I've known are notorious cheapskates. And they are lousy tippers.

They are simply unable to make the connection between buying goods and services and an economy that is healthy and provides decent jobs for people. They somehow think it is some mystical function of the government to do these things.

I got so exasperated with a particularly skinflint liberal acquaintance on one occasion that I said, "don't you realize that the entire economy would collapse if everyone was as cheap as you are?"

Posted by: Bill Cruchon on September 12, 2008 12:37 PM
40. My favorite lament to date is that Jesus was a community organizer, and Pontius Pilate was a governor, implying in a back-handed way that Obama is a deity and Palin a Jesus killer. Lame idiots. For the last decade at least they have been villifying Christianity and pi$$ing on Jesus, literally in art, metaphorically in rhetoric, and practically in trying to ban any mention of Him in the pubic domain. Now, suddenly, he is a hero that they compare Obama to? Give me a frigging break!

Posted by: katomar on September 12, 2008 02:27 PM
41. Is Sarah Palin the first VP candidate to possibly be indicted? I honestly cannot think of another candidate this has happened to.

History being made.

Posted by: whynot on September 12, 2008 02:29 PM
42. Is Sarah Palin the first VP candidate to possibly be indicted? I honestly cannot think of another candidate this has happened to.

History being made.

Posted by: whynot on September 12, 2008 02:30 PM
43. Yes "whynot" history is indeed being made. Not exactly what you and all your nasty lawyers and journalists are hoping for though.

Posted by: Bill Cruchon on September 12, 2008 02:39 PM
44. The Democrats really remind me of my dog. Not the DOG itself, but the way she tries to play/fight with my big main coon cat. She comes at him from one direction, and he takes a big paw and throws her off. She tries another angle, he shrugs her off. She jumps on his back and flops over and with his back feet catapults her onto her side. It's really funny to watch, and so are the Democrats. They will try to bork her, they'll try to thomas her, they'll try to quayle her. But the harder they try the more they look like the Republicans did trying to get to Bill Clinton. The results are the same. Wildly popular Palin gets stronger with every attack. Keep it up Dems!

Posted by: scott on September 12, 2008 03:20 PM
45. whynot #42 If Palin did NOT fire the head of the state patrol because he would not can a trooper who tazered his 10 years old step son I would be upset.

Posted by: Moondoggie on September 12, 2008 03:21 PM
46. I think Obama should take McCain up on maybe one Town Hall. But there are a couple of reasons not to. Number one, sorry, why should Obama go for McCain's favorite set-up? The debate format is how it is usually conducted. (However, we haven't had a "real" debate in a long time.)

Second, McCain's Town Halls are populated with carefully selected crowds. There is no way his handlers let in just whoever showed up.

So if you have a Town Hall with both of them it stands to reason the place would be peppered with operatives from both sides and both sides vying to see who could clap the loudest, hoot the loudest and hiss the opposition the loudest? And that would serve what purpose?

And, I hope Sarah gives lots more interviews. The first one was certainly entertaining. And if we are so busy with Iraq, Afghanistan, Russia and Iran, it would seem we will need a draft but no Rep is going to admit that now. But we all know it's coming.

Posted by: westello on September 12, 2008 04:21 PM
47. KO here's the bottom line on the Gibson interview - Palin has been running a State, NOT boning up on National issues in order to run for VP. She did fine, as this progresses and she shifts her focus she will improve. She's a quick study. McCain and Biden, to a lesser extent, have been governing. They should be sharp, The One has been polishing his image and it shows. He has not been governing AND he has not really come up to speed. He is a gaff machine still after campaigning for two years against Hillary and Biden et all. Hillary really bested him on substance, he won on style points.

McCain's team is owning him, they don't have to worry about offending the Democrat base like Hillary. He CANNOT hope to gain the knowledge to best McCain in the debates. He hasn't been engaged for long enough to make up lost ground. Give McCain one single town hall and it will be a wipe out. Obama can't risk it,and McCain's team will force the issue with three weeks to go.

One face to face, unscripted, face off and Obama is yesterday's news if not totally eviscerated and we are through with him for good. In his heart of hearts he knows this and has to just ride this one out without taking the bait if he wants to remain relevant on the National stage beyond 2008.

The Obama team is in an untenable position and he needs to emerge with the ability to scape goat his team in order to come back in two years and take on either McCain or Palin.

He must retain the aura, with a sound thrashing he knows he's totally finished. He cannot accept blame himself and he won't. Go into a town hall and it's all over but the boo hoo hoo.

If it becomes inevitable that it will be a wipe out his base will not participate. If behind and unlikely but possible his base will participate and he might emerge the Democrat front runner for 2012. With Palin, the R base will turn out. No question.

The Messiah has been relying on the college and nutroots as a foundation. Fickle? Yes, to the extreme - once it is inevitable that it's over they will turn their attention to legalizing pot once again.

Obama's task will soon be to keep it somewhat close. Then if he is to come back he needs to "do a Hillary" and take his position in the Senate seriously. Hillary is a lot of things, but one thing she ain't all about is instant gratification. She deliberately and systematically built a solid foundation to enter the General with while Obama was polishing his image. That works with college coeds, but not with the voters in a General. The Dems really had a perfect storm wipe her out and take the Presidency she had a fighting chance for, if not won, away from her.

And that is the way it is.

Posted by: JDH on September 12, 2008 05:55 PM
48. I've been unable to take Joni Balter seriously since about 10 years ago, when she to task Justice Richard Sanders for wearing a German Army uniform at a Holloween party.

She did a whole column about it, and seriously considered it a problem. This was when Sanders ran against Greg Canova--can't remember the exact year.

Posted by: russell garrard on September 12, 2008 06:36 PM
49. You know, Obama has to do something since voters consider Sarah Palin more qualified and experienced than Obama:

The poll suggests that perceived inexperience is more of a problem at the top of the Democratic ticket than in the No. 2 spot for Republicans.

Eighty percent say McCain, with nearly three decades in Congress, has the right experience to be president. Just 46 percent say Obama, now in his fourth year in the Senate, is experienced enough.

Fully 47 percent say Obama lacks the proper experience - an even worse reading than the 36 percent who had the same criticism about McCain running mate Sarah Palin, serving her second year as Alaska governor after being a small-town mayor.

Obama's an empty suit, has no ideas other than Marxist economic Slavery, and refuses to answer questions openly for fear of letting the little Fascist in him get out.

The US population is starting to see through him, and the fact that he is considered less experienced and qualified than Palin is absolutely damning.

Experience and qualifications are with the Republicans. Marxism, fascism, and Slavery are with Team Obama.

So you know, Westello, the reason Obama won't do a town hall meeting with McCain is not only will he show himself to be unqualified to tie McCain's shoes, but his inner Stalin would leak out, killing the Slavery Party for decades.

Posted by: Shanghai Dan on September 12, 2008 07:15 PM
50. You guys are getting pretty good. Now read "Proof of Obama's Marxism; Spread the Word!" on SP's Public Blog for some real meat. We must all insist that Obama resign and forfeit the election because of his Marxist community organizing. Rush will run an expose' next week.

Posted by: The Pirate on September 12, 2008 08:36 PM
51. A town hall type forum is the most honest. If bHo can't face citizens without a preared text, why the hell should anyone think he's prepared to answer the "phone at 3am"?

So if you have a Town Hall with both of them it stands to reason the place would be peppered with operatives from both sides and both sides vying to see who could clap the loudest, hoot the loudest and hiss the opposition the loudest? And that would serve what purpose? -Posted by westello at September 12, 2008 04:21 PM

Give me a break.

Did you bother to watch the "Service Forum" last night? Before we cover the "audience" let's talk about those fair minded moderators.
Did you happen to notice bHo did NOT get the same questions as McCain?
Did you happen to notice they neglected to mention whether bHo was able to listen to McCains answers?
Did you happen to notice the 6 second delay (to filter protestors) preventing TV audiences from hearing McCains complete answers?
Did you happen to lose count as to how many times it happened?
Did you happen to notice bHo didn't have that problem?
Did you happen to notice that those fairminded adults in the audience cheered and rooted when bHo gave the very same answer that they heckled McCain for?

bHo is a liar (I'll debate anywhere any time") and a coward. He knows he's as dull as rusty blade without his teleprompter. I cannot wait till the debates.

I cannot wait.

Someone said that bHo cannot answer even the simplest of yes/no questions in under 50 words!

Um, er, you know, now wait, now listen, let me tell you....blah blah blah... all his ways of getting his foot rearranged in his mouth.... even WITH fawning, liberal syncophant "moderators".

Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on September 12, 2008 09:02 PM
52. Westello says "...it would seem we will need a draft but no Rep is going to admit that now. But we all know it's coming."

Only if we are stupid enough to elect Obama and keep control of Congress in Dem hands. You guys are the only ones who think a draft would be a good idea--you all have fond memories of the riots in the 60's. Why would a professional, volunteer army want a bunch of liberal pansies who don't want to be there?

Now the idea in one of Heinlein's books (Starship Troopers) was interesting. In that book, you did not have to join the military, but only those that who volunteered for Federal Service were able to vote or hold office. I think that would be a good alternative to those that propose mandatory national service (either military or Americorp type work).

Posted by: Bill H on September 12, 2008 09:18 PM
53. OhDrama won't agree to the town hall debates because he's a coward.

Good God... if that punk won't take on McCain every hour on the hour if necessary, how the hell can we trust that arrogant little ass to take on Putin, that moron running Iran or the psycho running Venezuela?

Every time he fails to take up McCain's challenge, he's cementing his image as, among other things, a fricking coward.

THAT'S why he should take McCain up on it... and if you had a clue, or weren't a complete political ignorant, you would have known that.

After all, what's the worst that could happen? He could lose?

Well, hell... he's doing a damned fine job of that as it is.

Posted by: hinton on September 12, 2008 10:27 PM
54. Anybody been to Vegas lately? What are the odds Biden pulls out and Hillary gets the nod?

Posted by: PC on September 12, 2008 11:28 PM
55. Two words:

1. Andrew

2. Jackson

McCain-Palin just might pull this off.
What a rousing turn of events.
From a coronation to contention.

Posted by: zapporo on September 12, 2008 11:53 PM
56. NANNY'S TOOK CARE OF PALINS KIDS. A NANNY IS A HIGH PAID BABYSITTER! I DON'T TRUST PALIN. WAKE UP, PEOPLE. IF YOU ARE A WOMAN VOTING FOR PALIN SIMPLY BECAUSE SHE IS A WOMAN THEN YOU BETTER RE-THINK YOUR DECISION.

IF MCCAIN AND PALIN WIN THEN WOMEN CAN KISS THEIR REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS GOODBYE! MCCAIN AND PALIN WILL NOMINATE THE SUPREME COURT JUSTICE THAT WILL OVER-TURN ROE VS. WADE. MCCAIN AND PALIN WILL ALSO NOMINATE SUPREME COURT JUSTICES WHO WILL DESTROY OUR FIRST AMMENDMENT RIGHTS TO FREE SPEECH AND OUR 4TH AMMENDMENT RIGHTS TO PRIVACY. MCCAIN AND PALIN WILL TAKE OUR COUNTRY BACK TO THE HORSE AND BUGGY DAYS.

PALIN WANTED BOOKS BANNED FROM A LIBRARY WHEN SHE WAS A MAYOR OF A SMALL TOWN. I DON'T TRUST HER.

I FEEL SORRY FOR WOMEN IF MCCAIN AND PALIN WIN. WOMEN WILL HAVE THEIR REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS DESTROYED. VOTE ON REAL ISSUES, NOT ON MEDIA HYPE OR SIMPLY BECAUSE PALIN IS A WOMAN.

PALIN IS THE EXACT OPPOSITE OF HILLARY CLINTON ON THE ISSUES, SO WHY IN THE HELL WOULD ANY WOMAN VOTE FOR MCCAIN AND PALIN?

VOTE FOR BARACK OBAMA AND LETS GET A DEMOCRAT WIN IN NOVEMBER!

Posted by: Dan1967 on September 13, 2008 12:21 AM
57. This book banning charge that leftists continue to crow about despite it having been proven to be untrue tells all of us what real creeps these people are.

These are same fine folks who want to "hush Rush", bring back the "fairness doctrine", and think Bill Moyers is an unbiased commentator.

I like the "take us back to the horse and buggy days" comment as well. Hmmm, if the left has its way we wouldn't even be able to cut down the trees to make the wheels for the buggy. Goofballs!

Posted by: Bill Cruchon on September 13, 2008 05:29 AM
58. "PALIN IS THE EXACT OPPOSITE OF HILLARY CLINTON ON THE ISSUES, SO WHY IN THE HELL WOULD ANY WOMAN VOTE FOR MCCAIN AND PALIN?" Perhaps because they have style, class and dignity and therefore identify with Palin.

Posted by: JDH on September 13, 2008 08:10 AM
59. I'm amazed how many on the left keep bringing up this sexist "She should be at home with the kids" crap. When a man is running for office, nobody cares how many kids he has, how old they are or what special needs they may have. When Joe Biden ran for Senate in 1972, his three children were ages one to three, and nobody said that he ought to stay at home with the kids. When his wife and daughter died in a car accident a few weeks later, leaving his toddler sons critically injured, nobody said he ought to be at home with the kids or complained about his kids being raised by the help so that he could pursue his career. Why are these alleged feminists and women's rights activists on the left telling Sarah Palin she ought to stay at home with the kids now? Because she's a woman, and a conservative, and she embodies what actual feminism looks like. And that scares them.

"PALIN IS THE EXACT OPPOSITE OF HILLARY CLINTON ON THE ISSUES, SO WHY IN THE HELL WOULD ANY WOMAN VOTE FOR MCCAIN AND PALIN?" Let me get this straight Dan: you don't think women should vote for McCain-Palin because Palin's a woman, but you do think they ought to support Hillary Clinton because she's a woman? You must not have a very high opinion of women if you think we're incapable of thinking outside our vaginas and need men like you to come set us straight.

Newsflash: not all women are bowing down to the altar of abortion, and not all of us are single-issue voters who only care about NARAL ratings. Plenty of us care about silly little things like national security, the death penalty, same-sex marriage, health care, privatization of social security, stuff like that. Could us silly lil' women possibly be supporting McCain-Palin because we agree with them on those issues more so than we agree with Obama-Biden? Gawrsh, I sure think so!

Posted by: ClobberGirl on September 13, 2008 10:30 AM
60. I do not really mind these anti-Palin smears, since with each new smear McCain-Palin's poll numbers seem to go up.

Even I was a little peeved, though, when I turned on 'Brian and the judge' on the radio the other night, and Ed Koch was on. He said that Palin 'scared' him due to the book banning incident, and they let it go unchallenged. To me the book-ban story has been completely debunked. She did not ban any books, nor request any ban, she just asked the librarian what her reaction would be if there were a request. It's hard to say exactly what she had in mind. Snopes.com lists it as a false story.

Posted by: russell garrard on September 13, 2008 10:48 AM
61. @60 I was almost run of campus when in college by a bunch of screaming bra-less leftwing kooks because I made the statement that they could replace all of their sundry bumper stickers, yard signs, t-shirts etc with a generic message - Vote Your C___. Basically the message they were promoting was that these women identify as little more than a life support system for their genitalia, and all I was doing was pointing it out to them.

Posted by: JDH on September 13, 2008 11:15 AM
62. Last time kids so do keep up.

She didn't try to ban books. I get that.

What she did do, however, was not innocent. She didn't ask the question rhetorically as she said she did. She asked the librarian what she would do if she (Mayor Palin0 asked her to ban a book. That is a completely different question than a get-a-lay-of-the-land question like "What do you do if a patron asks for a book to be banned?"

When your boss asks you the question, it's a different question than if it's a patron. And you know this but yet again, want to protect Lady Palin. She needs to run on her full and complete record (including the Bridge which she DID and it has BEEN proven that she did support).

Posted by: westello on September 13, 2008 02:55 PM
63. And to be fair westello, (and I know how fair you leftists always are), Obama ought to run on his "complete and full record" as you put it. That includes his 20-year association with a racist pastor, his friend the Marxist bomber, and his skimpy legislative record.

I mean, just to be fair, right?

Posted by: Bill Cruchon on September 13, 2008 03:01 PM
64. Westello give it up. You are trying to make a slik purse out of a sows ear.

The "book banning" nonsense is just that and has been debunked ad infinitem here and everywhere else. As has just about everything you lefties threw out there to smear her. Today's lastest outrage is your drunken pal Randi Rhodes intimating that Governor Palin molests teen boys.

I'm amazed that with your virulent mouth you don't have the courage to simply say you just hate the woman; that she strikes fear in your heart because deep down you are not all that convinced of veracity your own beliefs... if you actually know what they are.

You might do well to read ...and understand... what another liberal woman has to say on Governor Palin and American women.

No Laughing Matter

No, it wasn't funny, my morning with the hockey and the soccer moms, the homeschooling moms and the book club moms, the joyful moms who brought their children to see history in the making and spun them on the lawn, dancing, when music played. It was sobering. It was serious. It was an education.

"Palin Power" isn't just about making hockey moms feel important. It's not just about giving abortion rights opponents their due. It's also, in obscure ways, about making yearnings come true -- deep, inchoate desires about respect and service, hierarchy and family that have somehow been successfully projected onto the figure of this unlikely woman and have stuck.

Read the rest, then come back after you throw up over the knowledge that how very wrong you are is being exposed from one end of this country to the other.


Furthermore, before you use the word LIES in the same sentence as bHo. you might consider HIS concerning the economy as it is now, as it relates to how (badly) he'll affect it and especially in regards to how he manages (fails to manage) HIS personally.

Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on September 13, 2008 03:22 PM
65. last time, westello, she asked what the librarian's reaction would be if she were asked to remove books from the shelf.

There are several possibilitiesl here:

1) she wanted to ban any and all anti-Bush, anti-Palin, pro-Democrat material;
2) she wanted to ban possibly objectionable material (but not ban people from buying it on their own). My local library (Bellevue), for example has a subscription to Playboy;

3) she just wanted to get the librarian's reaction.

How do we know which was the case, apart from reading Sarah Palin's mind?

Posted by: russell garrard on September 13, 2008 07:48 PM
66. Of course, because Republicans NEVER lie about the issues. The GOP under Karl Rove perfected the "Big Lie" technique. For example, the entire "Obama will raise everyone's taxes" is utter, total and complete bullshit.

How about the "Obama is a Muslim" lie..the "Obama kills babies" lie..the "Obama hates the troops" lie. Hell, the McCain campaign lies got so bad that KARL ROVE himself publically called them out on it. Now..thats pretty pathetic. When you're lying so much even Karl can't stand it, you know you've got to get out the hip waders

Posted by: Proteus on September 17, 2008 05:03 PM
Post a comment
Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember info?