Apparently John McCain’s campaign manager is contending that Palin is being shielded from the media, not because she can’t handle an interview, but because they’re gonna be mean to her:
“Why would we want to throw Sarah Palin into a cycle of piranhas called the news media that have nothing better to ask questions about than her personal life and her children?” he asked. “So until at which point in time we feel like the news media is going to treat her with some level of respect and deference, I think it would be foolhardy to put her out into that kind of environment,” he said.
Three things occur to me:
1) If McCain’s people were taking this position with a male candidate, the perception would be that he’s weak and inept. So McCain’s people are banking on the concept that her being a woman will preclude that criticism, because anyone who says that will be tagged as being insulting and anti-feminist.
2) This sounds unbelievably patronizing to her and monumentally arrogant to the media. They’re saying she can’t handle tough questions, or at least shouldn’t have to, and they are endeavoring to dictate terms as to how the media has to treat her in order to rate an interview.
3) Someone who needs this much handling and protection doesn’t exactly inspire confidence in contemplating her being toe-to-toe with various foreign dictators and strong men, particularly if a stilled heartbeat thrusts her into the presidency anytime after January 2009. Golda Meir didn’t need insulation. Neither did Margaret Thatcher, to whom Palin has ludicrously been compared. Well…NOW Thatcher needs insulation, because she has dementia. So basically Sarah Palin needs as much protection as a former world leader who has trouble recalling her husband is dead. Make of that what you will.
PAD
• 
Scott said:
“Looks like you forgot to take your medication this moring.”
Nope. I take them morning, noon, and night for the rest of my life.
Bill brought back something that I’d meant to comment on before but, well, I forgot. We hear ad nauseum about the Left, the Right, the Red, the Blue, Us, Them. Doesn’t anyone believe in working together for everyone anymore? Or, at least, not reducing the discussion to something my son’s first grade classmates would call childish? Or is it just the really extreme sides have the loudest voices so that’s what we hear?
“I am waiting for the inevitable who is the interior minister for IDONTGIVEAHOOTASTAN?”
Isn’t it Woodsie the Owl?
Sean: Doesn’t anyone believe in working together for everyone anymore?
Sean, everyone believes in that. McCain talks about reaching across the aisle and Obama talks about bringing people together. All the people on this board who are disagreeing are only talking to each other at all because we had enough in common to all come here.
However, voting is about making a decision between two candidates. We may be willing to work together, but we can’t vote for both of them. So the discussion has to be about their differences.
The “childish” part comes out when unfair accusations are made. Flag pin discussions? Not good. Baby swapping rumors? Not helpful. And there’s plenty more like that. But I think most of the discussion isn’t childish.
Just a quick aside to say how much I love Peter David’s writing. It gets lost with the rest of my claptrap.
Alan Coil, I apologize if I made it seem that I was somethign I was not. Not unpurpose by any means.
And yes, I use lefty way too much, but I am posting between work breaks gotta make it quick
James M Bryant Re Iraq war thank you for the opportunity. Of course if you steadfastly claim all war is bad no matter what then there is no reason to debate becasue essentialy you are right…kinda….
When did the first 90’s Iraq Gulf war end? The answer is March 2003
There was never a declaration to end the first war. There was a negotiated peace where Saddam would keep power (A MISTAKE) as long as he complies with certain demands made by the worldwide force that fought against his land and oil grab of Kuwait. The war never ended, It was at a negotiated détente. Never an end to the war.
Well what happened since the early 90’s. Well the Democratic President Clinton(1st black president) and the then “good guy” Tony Blair (not yet the brainwashed lap dog of the evil genius and yet retarded Boy King George W) bombed the living hëll out of Iraq many times?
Protests, hëll it was the 90’s things were great!! No worries. Tony Blair putting up all those cameras, no need to get crazy he is with the Labour party and Labour much like the Democrats are the good guys. As long as the foxes run free and unmolested Brittania will be strong!! Nothing to see here move along.
Oh they both had to take care of a tiny little genocide in a small little part of the world, not sure if you have heard of it, it’s a touch backwards and has a taste for violence…Europe. Please note, when the world went to war against Slobodan, neither Blair nor Clinton went to the UN to get approval, Bush tried. Also Note, who were we helping generally in Kosovo? Oh Muslims. Boy, am I glad they are grateful for that!
Meanwhile in the UN there were 18 Resolutions against Saddam during that time frame.. hmmmm what could those, (usually) anti-American, pro-anything else bášŧárdš at the UN be angry with him about. It’s a puzzle.
Even though they complied with and were found mostly guilty of the now infamous yet under reported Saddam coordinated “UN oil for food scandal” (Google that for some fine reading) there was still enough of a hubbub to get them moving and write there infamous “letters of DOOM” Those letters which are currently frightening the Iranians to there very core.
Well let us see 18 UN resolutions from 1993- to 2000. What could they be: Tax fraud? Late child support payments? Polygamy? Unpaid parking ticket violations? Jay walking? Noise violations. I hear his bass on his car stereo was BOOMING! His car, the Iroc of course Bwahahahah. I am here all week. Try the veal!
Oh what this?? Weapons manufacturing and military build ups? Unpossible??? plus other things yes…
Well all of this led to UN weapons inspectors. Question. Why if Saddam had no weapons, why did we need UN weapons inspectors? Befuddling I know!
Did the evil Neo Con Genius Retard Boy King George Bush have his tentacles in the mix in the late 90’s????
Of course weapons inspectors found, get this,……… weapons (!) which led to the resolutions. So what happened next…….Uncle Saddam kicks out the UN weapons inspectors from 1998-2001. Kicks them out while proclaiming loudly his “Death to America” policy. He had a great Iraqi bike lane for every road policy that had to be put aside for now. Too bad.
Why pray tell, did he kick them out: Stepping on Royal green lawns? Spoiling his wifes surprise party? Loitering?
And during those 4 Years, count em 4 years, what was he doing with his time. What did every single Iraqi defector say was happening?
Weapons. Chemical weapons, nuclear weapons. All western nations were concerned all made it public, even the smelly French! Clinton pulled out the Official Iraqi regime change policy all Democrats voted for.
So where are the weapons. A few options:
1) The popular opinion: he never had any. Really? Is it that simple, after all of the evidence seen above?
2) Another opinion is that he “thought” he had them. But the US led policy of isolation crippled his resources more than he knew and his underlings faked it enough that they would live.
3) Next, He did not have them, but he acted like he did, fearing invasion from the West or Iran.
4) and my fave, he had them, was creating them, was planning to use them. Lets extrapolate, it’ll be fun.
Q: So where are the weapons of MD???
ME: Well Syria?
Q: How do you know?
ME: Israel has satellite pictures of them?
Q: Israel is a NAZI apartheid state and they cannot be trusted and they are of course the brainwashed lap dog of the evil genius and yet retarded Boy King George W.
ME: So because they are an ally we cannot trust what they say. I guess Canada and France are considered allies and they said no to the Iraqi war so they cannot be trusted?
Let us look at it from this point of view. Talk started in early 2002 to get Saddam out of there. He had a year plus to remove the weapons? You don’t think any reasonable tyrant seeing the opposition to Bush and the Yanks would milk the “I have no weapons, come and check” line after deploying them to nearby Syria? He knew, much like the Palestinians there only hope would be the biased lefty press. Oops sorry.
And to put it simply many weapons plants were found, and in enough working condition that they would have caused a threat. Hardly any reported.
Also see this link:
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1195127544177&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
Next, Saddam himself: In the great gay Democratic 90’s ABC News had a wonderful thought out expose on the relationship between Saddam and Al Qeada. Yup the relationship was there. Was he involved with the attack on the World Trade Centre??? Why Yes……in 1993!!!!!!!!! Documents all led to Saddam being the one to finance that operation and the remaining planners and perpatrators of that crime who were found to have been in Baghdad.
What of the financial compensation to the family of suicide bombers in Israel. Abu Nidal, one of the most wanted me before Osama showed up, found to have been a royal guest in Iraq.
The Czech version of Scotland Yard or MI 5 still claim that Mohammed Atta met with Iraqi agents in that fine country!
Next come the simply fascist state of Iraq. Many people use the “Orwellian” 1984 comparison for many a silly things. “Blockbuster videos policy of returns is so Orwellian Man. Saddams Iraq was 1984. Mass grave after mass grave was found and yes under reported.
Abu Ghirab still being talked about. Waterboarding still being talked about. How many people have been waterboarded in Iraq. The official and under reported #…………..3. Three persons.
Well why would you trust the Americans to tell the truth. Well I would trust them because….who broke the Abu Ghirab story…. Tthe Americans put it out on a press relaease that they are investigating abuses in the prison. It went ignored because the great and free press usually looked at Yank press releases last, as they are of course propaganda! Meanwhile CNN plays videos shot and produced by the “insurgents”
Anthony,
It’s complicated. I’m not sure comparing Bush to Luthor is necessarily a sign of lack of patriotism. Not all the people that disagree with certain American policies do so because they hate America (though some of them do, particularly outside the US).
But as soon as the early 1970s we’ve had plenty of mainstream superhero comics that took a cynical view of American society. President Luthor isn’t a more extreme criticism than Englehart making Nixon into a suicide evil madman in the pages of Captain America.
AnthonyX: James M Bryant Re Iraq war thank you for the opportunity. Of course if you steadfastly claim all war is bad no matter what then there is no reason to debate becasue essentialy you are right…kinda….
When the hëll did I ever claim that all war is bad no matter what?
I’m not even bothering to read the rest of your post. There’s no point.
Sure her family should be off limits but only until it starts to conflict with her views. But to softball her because it might be misogynistic is unconscionable.
To quote Dirty Harry from The Enforcer (of all things) “She wants to play lumberjack, she’s going to have to learn to handle her end of the log.”
Jason Bryant wrote:
“I’m not even bothering to read the rest of your post. There’s no point.”
You should read it, It’s well-written, informative, makes a lot of good points and it’s funny.
Susan O. said:
“Ignoring the fact I think her politics belong up there with Mao and Mussolini, as a mother I will continue to point my finger at a woman who glorifies herself as the perfect mother whose daughter was chosen for virgin birth (the only kind, when you abstain), but in reality puts herself and her ambition above her family.”
— Wow, that was quite a rant. So, Palin’s politics really stands side-by-side with the likes of Mao and Mussolini? Wow… And if you don’t mind, could you please point out where Sarah Palin has ever “glorifie[d] herself as the perfect mother”? Just where are you getting this unfounded and overly emotional charge(s)? And just because she wants to have a political career you automatically condemn her with “in reality puts herself and her ambition above her family”? Wow… Is it simple jealously that fuels such words from you? I just would like to understand better how a rant like yours spews forth with such ease. Enlighten me…
George Haberberger : You should read it, It’s well-written, informative, makes a lot of good points and it’s funny.
I’ll take your word for it. AnthonyX has been spitting distortions all over this board. He finally said something reasonable, I responded to it in en effort to have a decent conversation, and he completely distorted what I said. I’m done with him, it’s not worth it.
I don’t have enough time to answer everything at present. It’s kind of late.
Anthony, please keep Israel out of the Iraq war. We didn’t tell the US to go there, seem to have been pretty much as clueless about WMD in Iraq as everybody else, and did not really benefit from that war very much. Any money that Saddam gave to Palestinian suicide bombers that were attacking Israelis only is not the problem of the US.
Rene, the writer of Fables seems to like Israel too, but that was not what I’m refering too. In the erly issues he emphasized how liberterian Fable society was, and how minimal government they had, which was interesting + some other small things. Things started going down hill when he introduced the Arabian nights fables. Unfortunately his bias toward Muslims was so great he was unable to treat these characters like serious characters. Afterwards he had a war story in which the Fables side was so superior it made the story pretty dull, at which point I quit.
I’m pretty fed up with Muslims right now, but if I was going to write about them, I’d like to do it in a serious not condescending way.
Some right wing people support Israel for the wrong reasons. some left wing people (not on this thread) hate Israel for the wrong reasons. Obviously I prefer the former, but I prefer that people will like Israel and criticize Israel for the right reasons, and like the Palestinians and criticize the Palestinians for the right reasons.
Micha, I don’t really think the Arabian Nights stuff in Fables was supportive of Muslims. I think it’s just a matter of the Arabian Nights stories being really cool.
I’ve read Chinese stories, but they don’t relate to my opinions about communism. Most of the myths I’m familiar with come from Europe, but they’re religious and political views don’t really enter into it.
I enjoyed the Arabian Nights story in Fables. It was nice to see a different set of fables than the European ones that dominate American fantasy, especially since he had to have the two worlds interact. I didn’t really see what you saw in it.
Jason M Bryant, brother…you misread that line seriously. I was not being malicous in anyway and I really was not misquoting you.
I was just saying that my overly long post was defending a war, which seen at a certain light is unseemly.
Take a look when you have time, though it is long.
Micha,
I support Israel for the very rightists of reasons. I want you to LIVE in peace and live in general!!
Sincerely, a proud memeber of the lost 13th tribe.
I tried to read your post, AnthonyX, I really did. But rambling, incoherent paragraphs, and sentences seemingly constructed from fragments of other people’s thoughts, lose me quickly.
One point, though – when did the First Gulf War end? It never began. At least, from the US point of view, there has never been a legally-declared war with Iraq. The Constitution clearly states that only Congress can declare war – they can’t pass the responsibility off to someone else, no matter how many “resolutions of force” they vote for. What’s going on right now is an unconstitutional arrogation of power by the Executive, in defiance of the Legislative branch, and with the quiet acquiescence of that selfsame Legislative. It may be a “war” de facto, in that bullets are flying and people are dying, but it is not a war de jure, and (as far as I have been able to ascertain) lacks even a casus belli.
By the way, according to the Scrolls of Pythia, aren’t we all part of the lost thirteenth tribe? 🙂
Oh, and as regards the whole “left/right” thing, I think David Brin has a more useful set of political definitions in this article (warning, it’s rather long):
http://www.davidbrin.com/realculturewar1.html
So, anybody want to place bets on how long Palin’s indoctrination into the McCain campaign will take?
So far, it’s broken record speeches and refusals to take questions. Oh, but at least she’s granting an interview this week, right?
Yep, she’s ready for the White House.
This has probably been said a dozen times though, but
I find it amusing that the McCain campaign complains that the media has an Obama bias, but maybe that’s because Obama’s answering questions.
“Micha, I don’t really think the Arabian Nights stuff in Fables was supportive of Muslims. I think it’s just a matter of the Arabian Nights stories being really cool.”
Jason, I didn’t explain myself well. My problem wasn’t that the Arabian Nights story in Fables was too pro-Muslim. My problem was that it was too anti-muslim. Maybe not anti-Muslim, but very condescending toward the Arabs. I was really looking forward to the addition of new, non European fables. I thought they would then go to other regions. But instead the writer treated the Arabian fables in a very shallow condescending way, like Bush in Iraq. The idea was to show them the greatness of the Western Fable society and get them to adapt. The ones that didn’t adapt were evil or backwards. The ones that did were praised but not treated as full fledged characters. Very regrettable. But that’s just my POV.
Oh. Hmmm.
I didn’t really get that either. Some of them were good, some were bad. I just saw the adaption thing as a culture clash. Unfortunately, I lost my trade paperback of that storyline, so I can’t go back and check.
Oh boy. Obama uses the phrase “lipstick on a pig” in reference to Bush & McCain’s economic policies and clearly mentions the last 8 years, and the McCain campaign goes on the warpath that Obama is being sexist toward Palin.
It seems to me that McCain’s camp really does think we’re that dumb as to not see through this card playing.
Yeah, it’s depressing that they think the American people are that dumb.
What’s more depressing is that it is probably going to work.
It’s going to get ugly. Already you have Democrats talking about the Obama campaign being derailed by Palin and the need to go on the attack. Randi Rhodes even decided to accuse McCain of being a collaborator during his POW days. You have the republicans jumping ugly on the “lipstick on a pig” reference (I don’t think Obama meant Plain, though I suspect some in the crowd thought he did). You have the govorner of New York informing us that “community organizer” is code for black. (So when republicans say that Obama was a community organizer they are secretly telling us that he is black. Wow, what will happen if that revelation gets out?).
It’s the dumb season now and you have the additional factor of a race that seemed pretty in the bag now anything but. Obama is in the totally unfamiliar place of not being the one who is getting the most attention and he seems rattled. Up to now he’s been unflappable, even when times were tough. He needs to get his mojo back fast. It’s tough because some of his dimmer supporters have so poisoned the well that any criticism of Palin will now run the risk of being linked to the sewer spewers and. of course, the mcCain team will certainly do what they can to make that link, fair or not.
I’m seeing it being mentioned elsewhere, and I think there’s a good chance of it being true: that if McCain wins, due to his over the top attacks, he’s merely guaranteeing that that his presidency will not be able to accomplish anything, that he’ll have the Democrats so pìššëd øff that they’ll simply give him the finger.
After all, once the election is over, the rest of the party will have no reason to follow Obama’s lead should he lose, and things will only get worse.
Unfortunately, McCain doesn’t seem to care.
Bill Mulligan: So when republicans say that Obama was a community organizer they are secretly telling us that he is black. Wow, what will happen if that revelation gets out?).
Well, no. The implication is that when the Republicans *laugh* at Obama for being a community organizer, they’re laughing at him being Black. I’m not so sure I see that, but that’s what the accusation is.
To me it sounds more like community organizer is a city thing, while mayor is a town thing. Under that connotation, Palin joking about community organisers is another way of saying that city folk only think they’re working hard while small town people have good, wholesome values and believe in real work. Why that particular attitude of “we’re better than you” is supposed to be better than “elitism”, I don’t know.
Well, in fairness, Palin’s snark at Obama for being a community organizer came after the Obama campaign tried to belittle her experience by describing her merely as a former mayor of a small town.
Personally I think teh McCain people missed a great opportunity–as soon as people atarting wondering of Obama had been referring to Palin as a pig in lipstick they should have laughed it off and just had Palin pause in the middle of her stump speech to apply some lipstick. The crowd would have gotten it. It’s helped her so far to have not seemed hurt by any of the attacks, no point in changing that now, especially on something that can’t be proven.
Bill Mulligan: Palin’s snark at Obama for being a community organizer came after the Obama campaign tried to belittle her experience by describing her merely as a former mayor of a small town.
Did they? I seem to remember one press release, but I can’t remember how harsh it was. Do you have a link to the stuff you remember seeing? I’d like to refresh my memory.
The McCain campaign has also launched a completely slanderous attack. They’ve got an ad calming that Barack Obama voted for a bill to teach comprehensive sex education to kindergarteners. In actual fact, it was a bill to teach kids to avoid sexual predators. Basically one of those things where people go to schools and tell kids not to talk to strangers and tell an adult if someone wants to touch them in the bathing suit areas. So Obama voted for a bill to protect kids against sexual predators, but the ad is making it sound like he’s trying to corrupt kindergarteners.
It’s funny how I keep finding myself writing “the McCain campaign.” I don’t think McCain has much real control over this stuff, I think he’s just letting his people do whatever they want.
It’d come out better if she emphasized that she had actual political power; the joke among community organizers is that they have all the responsibility of politicians, but none of the power.
Bill, nevermind. I dug through the MSNBC.com archives and found the Obama campaign’s comments.
“Today, John McCain put the former mayor of a town of 9,000 with zero foreign policy experience a heartbeat away from the presidency. Governor Palin shares John McCain’s commitment to overturning Roe v. Wade, the agenda of Big Oil and continuing George Bush’s failed economic policies — that’s not the change we need, it’s just more of the same,” said Bill Burton, Obama Campaign Spokesman.
Honestly, that is a little belittling. A *little* belittling. A surrogate sent out a press release where the former mayorship was one detail out of five. The number of people who actually saw this comment is probably in the hundreds of thousands. Press release responses and comments by surrogates don’t get as much attention, and rightfully so.
Palin, an actual candidate, belittled Obama to an audience of 37 million. That’s an escalation.
So we’ve got a bad comment by a surrogate I’ve never heard of vs. an escalation from someone people are actually asked to vote for. I think Palin’s comments were worse.
Bill Mulligan: Well, in fairness, Palin’s snark at Obama for being a community organizer came after the Obama campaign tried to belittle her experience by describing her merely as a former mayor of a small town.
Luigi Novi: Palin said that community organizers have no actual responsibilities, and Giuliani mocked community organizers rhetorically. Neither of these things are true with respect to the Obama campaign’s comments about Palin. One can be fair and wonder who wrote that comment, and why they referenced her work as mayor and not governor (a mistake?), but even so, the central point about her complete lack of foreign policy experience (as contrasted with such experience that Obama actually does have) is a valid point, and doesn’t come anywhere near attacking all mayors, or saying that they don’t have “actual experience”. Obama was a state senator and U.S. senator of a state whose capital alone has four times the population of the ENTIRE STATE of Alaska.
Comparing the two, or arguing that the latter comment was a reasonable reaction to the former, is just plain wrong.
I seem to recall that when Palin was announced, all the Democratic talking heads started on about her being a mayor. Even Obama as well.
Ahh, look, McCain is now using an ad to try and link Obama’s campaign to the anonymous attacks on Palin a day after accusing Obama of smearing Palin.
Apparently it’s ok to accuse others of a smear campaign when you’re up to your own elbows in horse sh*t. The double-standards being applied here by the McCain campaign really are sickening.
“I seem to recall that when Palin was announced, all the Democratic talking heads started on about her being a mayor. Even Obama as well.”
Yes, he touted his own executive experience that has prepared him for the presidency – managing his campaign for the presidency.
So we’ve got a bad comment by a surrogate I’ve never heard of
He’s Obama’s National Press Secretary, not just some guy off the street. What he says in his capacity as national press secretary is supposed to reflect the campaign.
Now, to Obama’s credit, he gave a much more gracious response later.
Obama was a state senator and U.S. senator of a state whose capital alone has four times the population of the ENTIRE STATE of Alaska.
Howard Dean was Governor of Vermont, the second least populated state in the country. I don’t recall that being considered a major strike against him by Democrats.
At any rate, it amazes me that Obama has focused on Palin’s lack of experience–both because he should be going after McCain and because it will make people discuss an issue better left off the table if he wants to win.
Bill Mulligan: He’s Obama’s National Press Secretary, not just some guy off the street. What he says in his capacity as national press secretary is supposed to reflect the campaign.
Bill, If I’d meant to say that he was a guy off the street, I would have said that he’s a guy off the street.
There are dozens of guys in both campaigns that have titles just as impressive as national press secretary. I see names I’ve never seen before on press releases all the time. That means there are a lot of people sending out comments on both sides. If Obama says something, that’s huge. If David Plouffe says something, I’ve seen him a bunch of times so I know that he’s close to Obama. If someone I’ve never heard of sends out a press release, that *could* mean it is okay with Obama, or it could mean that one person out of a huge staff sent out something before Obama talked to anyone about it. Given how quickly this went out after the announcement of Palin as VP, I’d say it was the later.
A surrogate sent out a statement with a comment that slightly belittled her experience, then that stopped. It’s fairly clear that Obama is not supporting that tactic since neither he nor anyone who represents him have said anything like that again.
Palin, in a prepared speech, derided something Obama had done.
These things are not equivalent. Palin does not deserve leniency for her comments because of Bill Burton’s comment.
Also, Obama has *not* been focusing on Palin’s lack of experience. The only times I’ve heard him mention it is when talking about all the months that John McCain was talking about experience. That’s completely fair, McCain made a pick that completely contradicted the standards he said were important. That’s a reasonable thing to point out.
What Obama *has* done is talk about her judgment. In an interview last night he talked about how the things she’s done have shown her to have the same policies as Bush and Cheney. That’s completely fair.
Also, Palin’s time as mayor is not remotely off limits. He has every right to talk about it, just like McCain has every right to talk about Obama’s time as a state senator. People *need* to be talking about Palin’s time as mayor, that’s the bulk of her political career.
Yikes. This is what I mean. People are going nuts.
” South Carolina Democratic chairwoman Carol Fowler sharply attacked Sarah Palin today, saying John McCain had chosen a running mate ” whose primary qualification seems to be that she hasn’t had an abortion.”
http://www.politico.com/blogs/jonathanmartin/0908/SC_Dem_chair_Palin_primary_qualification_is_she_hasnt_had_an_abortion_.html?showall
Do you remember that time when “W” that idiot retard cowboy asked an older guy to get up and acknowledge his applause, when he was looking straight at him and he was in a wheelchair……
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SRV5Y1JCGRI&eurl=http://hotair.com/archives/2008/09/10/bidens-stevie-wonder-moment/
Yes its Biden but can you imagine if it was McCain..”Signs of Dementia set in” the headlines would read!
Anthony, your tact seems now to be to simply play off the same garbage the McCain campaign is, like “lipstick on a pig”, as if it’s headline news. It isn’t.
Where are the issues that McCain AND Palin are running for?
We keep asking, but we are not receiving.
What I am seeing, however, is McCain letting his ego get in the way of what was generally considered great character before this campaign started.
Also, Obama has *not* been focusing on Palin’s lack of experience. The only times I’ve heard him mention it is when talking about all the months that John McCain was talking about experience. That’s completely fair, McCain made a pick that completely contradicted the standards he said were important. That’s a reasonable thing to point out.
I meant to say the Obama campaign. Which, I have assumed, was being directed by Obama–but I’m wondering about that now.
Part of the problem may be that while Obama was able to call the shots effectively in the smaller venue of the primary, he now has to rely on a lot more people to do the job now that he’s in the campaign. One problem with being an outsider is that a lot of the insiders you inevitably have to rely on at this point probably think they are better able to run a national campaign than you are. Carol Fowler, mentioned above, probably thought she was helping the campaign. I would hazard a guess that right now Obama disagrees.
Most of the talking points I heard from the Democrat surrogates was focusing on experience issues. Even here in this forum it was a major point of discussion. And I simply state that this is not a helpful thing for Obama. There are far more fruitful avenues to explore.
I make no great claims of great political acumen; this election has had twists and turns I never expected. But I thought from the time Palin was picked that the response to her from her opponents was going to hurt them more than her. Given the polls, given the crowds, given the general tone from both camps at this point, can anyone tell me why that prediction hasn’t been borne out?
And here’s another problem–a few weeks ago Obama could have and would have sternly told Fowler that such talk has no place in the campaign. Now he faces a bad set of options–disavow Fowler and hear the rising chorus of Democrats who are telling him he is being swiftboated and to stop taking it and learn how to fight, grow a pair, etc etc (I’m not exaggerating–if the polls don’t improve expect to see some real anger directed at Obama from his fair weather friends) or let the comment stand and get further tagged as engaging in ugly politics.
And here’s another problem–a few weeks ago Obama could have and would have sternly told Fowler that such talk has no place in the campaign. Now he faces a bad set of options–disavow Fowler and hear the rising chorus of Democrats who are telling him he is being swiftboated and to stop taking it and learn how to fight, grow a pair, etc etc (I’m not exaggerating–if the polls don’t improve expect to see some real anger directed at Obama from his fair weather friends) or let the comment stand and get further tagged as engaging in ugly politics.
It’s a bit late for that, Bill. Already, some hard-core lefties are calling on Obama to take the gloves off, and those on the opposite side are already saying that Obama is now personally on the attack, so he’s a flip-flopper.
I honestly don’t know what the answer is, but it’s already ugly, and unfortunately I think it’ll get a lot uglier (as in, several more election cycles) before it may finally get better.
Luigi Novi wrote:
Obama was a state senator and U.S. senator of a state whose capital alone has four times the population of the ENTIRE STATE of Alaska.
According to the census report from the year 2000, the population of Alaska was 626,932.
The population of the capital of Illinois was 116,482.
So the population of Alaska is 5 times the population of the capital of Illinois.
Uh, you are aware that the capital of Illinois is Springfield and not Chicago, right?
Bill Mulligan: I meant to say the Obama campaign. Which, I have assumed, was being directed by Obama–but I’m wondering about that now.
Compared to McCain, Obamma has all of his surrogates in a Vulcan mind lock.
McCain said he would run a respectful campaign. Then he hired people who worked for Karl Rove. He even hired Tucker Eskew, the man behing the “John McCain has a black baby” smear from the 2000 campaign. Now the McCain campaign is running ads saying that Obama is trying to pervert kindergartners.
If the McCain campaign looks under control, it’s not because John McCain is doing a better job of controlling his surrogates. It’s the other way around.
George, here’s a better statistic. The district that Obama served as an Illinois State Senator had 780,000 people in it, 100,000 more than the state of Alaska.
In case you don’t believe me about McCain not having control of his own campaign, here’s this:
http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/93377/mccain_campaign:_'john_mccain_doesn't_speak_for_us'/
Tucker Bounds, spokesman for McCain, said that John McCain does not speak for the McCain campaign.
Everyone look at Bill Mulligan criticize Obama for campaigning for president.
He’s starting his campaign for the general election, and even as McCain has climbed even with his attacks, you more-or-less call for Obama to suspend his campaign. If he tries to stop that guy’s fist from hitting his face, it’ll make his face getting hit undignified! To you, he’s not even entitled to defend himself.
Craig, I am just sitting back and enjoying the show and posting here and there.
As a student of the human condition this is fascinating to observe.
I posted the Carol Fowler to show you how ugly it has gotten. And I am just gobsmacked that most cannot see that the ugliness towards Palin has helped her immensly.
MTV- While Brand was celebrated, this will hurt Obama
That BBC world Poll- Yikes, that will hurt.
Matt Damon’s comments…another negative. Why do you think Clooney decided to hold a fundraiser in Geneva.
George Haberberger: Thanks for the kind words!
As a student of the human condition this is fascinating to observe.
If you like train wrecks. 🙂