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
• 
If you like train wrecks. 🙂
As ugly as it is and will get, people who talk about how “unprecedented” the ugliness is–and you have people who say this for every single election–it’s nothing compared to some of the past elections. When it’s over people will continue to work together. really, compared to what goes on in most other countries we’re as ferocious as honey gliders.
That said, if the race stays this close it will be very painful for whoever loses. A month or two ago most Republicans were ready to lose, has come to terms with it. Now you can see they’ve gotten fired up, which would make losing all that more painful. On the Democrat side most have been licking their chops at the way Obama looked like a shoo in.
So here’s my can’t fail prediction: The 5 steps of post election grief that both parties will go through if they lose
DEMOCRATS:
1. Denial: “We did not lose. It was the Diebold machines!”
2. Anger: “Well of course the bigoted guntoting sister shagging intolerant name calling cretyins that make up this country don’t deserve a qualified candidate!”
3. Bargaining: “If we don’t win a veto proof majority in the next congressional election I’m moving to Canada. And this time I mean it.”
4. Depression: “This was our last chance…it’s all over now…might as well just wait for the end of democracy.”
5. Acceptance: “Oh well, at least Bush isn’t president any more.”
REPUBLICANS:
1. Denial: “Yeah, I wonder how many dead people from Chicago voted?”
2. Anger: “Ðámņ the liberal media!”
3. Bargaining: “Beginning? With what? We got nothing!”
4. Depression: “IOh Sarah, Sarah. Why did you lift my hopes just to dash them?”
5. Acceptance: “Oh well, anything bad happens now they can’t blame us.”
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.
I have no reason to doubt you. My point was that a lot of people, not just Luigi, must think that Chicago is the capital of Illinois. It is disconcerting to read political discourse from people who let basic facts elude them.
That’s a completely valid point, George. I’m a little ashamed of the fact that until this week, I thought Anchorage was the capital of Alaska. I think I knew at one time that it was Jueno, but I forgot.
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.
Hey Jason, I know you were playing it straight when you posted that link–the head line does indeed say McCain Campaign: ‘John McCain Doesn’t Speak for Us’ but when I went to it and read it at no point did Tucker Bounds say “John McCain does not speak for the McCain campaign.”.
And that kind of surprised me since, well, the headline and all. Then i noticed that what I thought were quotation marks were actually apostrophes. So that was not in fact a quote, it was just the writer’s interpretation.
Bill, I read the whole article and I wasn’t just going by the headline. I consider that headline to be a valid interpretation of what the man said.
It’s a matter of what ‘us’ referes to. After all, who cares what he thinks? Nobody asked what his policy positions are, John McCain made the statement and John McCain is the one running for President. The interpretation that makes sense to me is that he was saying something bigger than that John McCain didn’t speak for the people standing in the room with him. ‘Us’ meant the organisation.
Plus, check out the links in the update to that article. The McCain campaign has said at other times that what John McCain has said in Town Hall meetings is not the official policy of the McCain campaign.
There’s definitely a pattern of McCain campaign people telling reporters not to listen to John McCain.
Well, to each his own. I think that’s pretty thin gruel.
Oh and Carol Fowler just apologized, though it was one of those mealy mouthed “I apologize to anyone who finds my comment offensive” type of apologies. She’s married to the guy who just apologized for chortling about a hurricane heading for the republican convention, confirming the theory that diarrhea of the mouth is contagious.
Micha –
I may be wrong, because my knowledge of fables and fairy tales is second-hand, but the interesting thing for me is that the European fairy tales are the ones that seem rustic and backwards in their original forms. Conversely, the Arabian Nights stories seem sexier, cosmopolitan, and more sophisticated.
It’s intriguing that things have become reversed, with Western society becoming more open and secular and rational, while the Middle-Eastern region has become more oppressive and medieval, burkas replacing belly dancing.
Maybe that was Bill Willingham’s point?
Bill Mulligan: Well, to each his own. I think that’s pretty thin gruel.
Well, the discussion was about how much control the candidates have over their own campaigns. Even if Tucker Bounds wasn’t saying that McCain doesn’t speak for McCain, he still wasn’t on message. If all he was saying was that McCain doesn’t speak for the people in his campaign (I can’t think of another interpretation of “us”), then it’s still a pretty out of line move to say that you don’t agree with the policies of the canidate that you work for.
Jason, I must be missing something; what is this “us” quote you put so much import into?
The article at the link has Tucker Bounds quoted as saying “No, Megyn, there is no imaginable circumstance where John McCain would raise payroll taxes. It’s absolutely out of the question.” and “no.”
So…what am I missing? Is it in a link?
Jerome, two and a half days ago:
Luigi,
Well thought-out post, as always. I will definitely answer your well thought-out responses, point-by-point in the other thread in the next 24 hours.
Jerome, now:
[chirp…] [chirp…]
I wouldn’t count on him addressing you substantively, Luigi. Doesn’t seem to be in the M.O.
TWL
Good Morning America‘s report on Sarah Palin and the library book issue: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZII0GjcJMus
AnthonyX: 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……Yes its Biden but can you imagine if it was McCain..”Signs of Dementia set in” the headlines would read!
Luigi Novi: ???? Yes, it was Biden. So why did you say it was Bush?
George Haberberger: Uh, you are aware that the capital of Illinois is Springfield and not Chicago, right?
Luigi Novi: Ack. Sorry about that. I remembered that Obama’s from Chicago, and accidentally misremembered it as the capital, despite being fairly good with state capitals. Thanks for the correction, George.
Bill Mulligan: The 5 steps of post election grief that both parties will go through if they lose…
Luigi Novi: LOL, Bill. Even though the Kübler-Ross model has no basis in science, that was still a funny post. Thanks. 🙂
Alan Coil: AnthonyX wrote a couple things like he was directly involved with our voting process, although I suspected he wasn’t American. Micha and El Hombre never tried to hide that they were not from here.
Luigi Novi: I looked through all of Anthony X’s posts on this thread, and in the five previous election-related threads, and did not find any statement on his part that indicated or implied that he was an American, or any position presented that required him to be. I did, however, find a post in this thread in which he flat-out stated, without prompting or being cornered from anyone else, that he was a Canadian. The only way this assertion of yours has any merit is if you’re opining that in order to express strong opinions about American politics on this site, that one must be American. This is not only untrue, since the rest of world has a vested interest in who becomes the next President, but as aforementioned, inconsistent with your lack of having expressed this idea with other non-American visitors to this site.
Obviously, you could not articulate a more intelligent rebuttal to Anthony’s posts, so you made a crude appeal to nationalism. When one considers that there is material in Anthony’s posts that can legitimately criticized or refuted, this is pretty inept on your part.
This isn’t an “attack”, and you’re not a victim of any. It’s simply criticism of your behavior, and a refutation of your arguments, which is no different than I’ve done with anyone else I’ve disagreed with on this site, whether Micha, the two Bills, Jerome, or Peter himself. (If you missed my September 8, 4:30pm post, or the first exchange in this one, you’ll see I disagreed with Anthony as well.)
But feel free to pretend otherwise.
Tim, I don’t know if you’re indicating that he has a habit of not responding to refutations/rebuttals (as I myself seen habitual instances of this as a question of a debater’s character), but I haven’t noticed him do so offhand. He has, however, complimented me on my posts, even when disagreeing with me, so I’d cut him a bit of slack here, since he said he’s been sleep-deprived of late.
Bill Mulligan: Jason, I must be missing something; what is this “us” quote you put so much import into?
It’s exactly the “us” quote that *you* put so much import into, Bill. When you said there was a distinction between ‘John McCain Doesn’t Speak for Us’ and “John McCain does not speak for the McCain campaign.”
Let me retrace this again. I said that a minor slip by one of Obama’s surrogates, which was almost immediately pulled back by Obama himself, is not something that reflects significantly badly on Obama.
Then you said, “I meant to say the Obama campaign. Which, I have assumed, was being directed by Obama–but I’m wondering about that now.” You seemed to be implying that Obama didn’t have much control over his campaign.
I then showed several things the McCain surrogates had said that implied much less control than what Obama had shown in that comment from his surrogate. Which is where you thought there was a distinction between ‘us’ and ‘the campaign’.
Thus, Obama is running his campaign pretty tightly. He didn’t prepare his people for exactly how to respond to every possible VP pick, including the one that nobody expected, but he corrected quickly and his campaign has been consistent since then. Meanwhile, McCain spokespeople are telling the press that McCain doesn’t represent the McCain campaign (or at least he doesn’t represent them) and that his policies are not the official policies. I’d say McCain has much less control than Obama.
I’m not alone in this. I’ve seen a lot of articles written about in-fighting in the Clinton and McCain campaigns (when there was a Clinton campaign) but reporting on the Obama campaign seems to agree that it runs very smoothly with little conflict.
but I haven’t noticed him do so offhand.
Fine. I have. Repeatedly.
As a teacher with a 4-year-old, I understand sleep deprivation very well. Under those circumstances, I try not to make promises about doing something “within the next 24 hours” if I think there’s a good chance I won’t be able to keep it.
I hope to get more involved in some of the more substantive stuff here (lots of things to say about Palin’s earmarks, the intensely stupid “lipstick on a pig” thing, and the ad linking Obama to “sex ed for kindergarteners,” but at the moment I don’t think time’s going to permit for a while. Back to semi-lurking.
TWL
Oh, and the parts you’re missing, Bill, are the parts where McCain’s people were contradicting McCain.
Like when his chief economic advisor told reporters, “”He has certainly I’m sure said things in town halls” that don’t jibe perfectly with his written plan. But that doesn’t mean it’s official.” It’s not good when a politician’s staff says that he sometimes says stuff that he doesn’t mean. Or perhaps he’s saying that McCain does not fully understand his own plan, which is just as bad.
Also, there’s the part where McCain’s people refused to say whether they stood behind McCain’s support of a ballot initiative.
OK, I’m willing to admit I’m dense here, because I’m just missing it. Just so I’m clear; McCain said that taxes were on the table, then a spokesman said that no, there’s no way McCain would raise taxes. yes, that’s certainly a contradiction. McCain himself later said he wouldn’t raise taxes so I guess he didn’t really mean it when he said everything was on the table. Perfectly valid point for criticism.
But getting anything remotely like McCain Campaign: ‘John McCain Doesn’t Speak for Us’ is just silly. Overkill like that just lets people get away with things that actually deserve to get discussed. I think that’s what has been so much to Palin’s benefit; her opponents were going for the big kill and as a result they will have a harder time getting any traction on the legitimate critiques. Boy who cried wolf and all that.
At this point ZI don’t know why anyone who wants Obama elected would not argue for a change in strategy vis a vis Palin. I’m not arguing they should dump Biden and get Hillary to come in (though one can argue what the effect of having Hillary on the ticket would have been–it’s doubtful McCain would have picked Palin had it been Obama/Clinton) (and if Obama loses, boy are the Clintons going to be making the rounds with the I Told You So Tour) but someone needs to talk to Biden. If Obama wasn’t having such a bad 10 days more people would have noticed that Biden was having a terrible 10 days. Unless this is all to lower expectations for the debate.
Silly? You quote exactly what happened and call thinking that it happened silly?
Bill, you’re giving the McCain campaign way more benefit of the doubt than you’re giving Obama’s people. Saying that Palin’s insults to community organisers were justified because of one not-even-all-that-rough comment from a surrogate is silly. Saying that Obama doesn’t seem to have control over his people, when McCain clearly has less control over his, that’s silly.
If you honestly believe that McCain’s values line up with yours, I have no problem with that. You should vote for him if you fairly come to that conclusion. Just make sure you come to it fairly.
Bill, you don’t think the criticism directed at McCain applies to him. Why did you bother portraying yourself considering voting for the candidate you say all criticism sticks to over the candidate you say no criticism applies to?
Something that might be relevant…
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/10/AR2008091001829.html
Is the McCain/Palin ticket ready to keep this sort of corruption out the agency their “drill, drill, drill” strategy relies on?
Luigi,
Thank you for your understanding and “cutting me slack”. I look forward to finally answering your rebuttals with substantive arguments of my own very soon. I had planned on doing so tonight, but if you look at the time for this post, it simply didn’t happen.
Tim Lynch,
Could you please take the arrogant, condescending chip off your shoulder? Thank you very much. Just because I can’t lurk here as much as I’d like to doesn’t mean I am “dodging” anyone. Do you not think, with as juiced as I am over the announcement of Palin and the subsequent events up to now, I would not enjoy going back and forth here?
I just always have lived by the adage, “Better to speak silent and be thought a fool than speak and leave no doubt”. I don’t – usually – like to answer you guys or anyone for that matter without sourced/informed facts or opinions. I would like my comments to be more substantive than “Well, Palin’s hot and we’re winning, so nyah,nyah, nyah.”
When I made my comment to Luigi, not only did I intend to answer him, I was looking forward to doing so. But some stuff happened, some serious stuff, that I did not expect.
For now, given the hour, I will simply respond to your asking me, if I recall correctly, whether I am doubting Obama’s love of country, etc. when I agree with McCain’s line, “I want to bring our troops home from the war as well. The difference is I want to win it first.”
To which I can only say: When has Obama ever said he wants us to win the war? Or has a strategy for doing so? he seems to act tough when saying he will act against Pakistan, but why there – a country that has the capacity to inflict much greater harm on our troops than a country we are already in?
But the answer whenever McCain says that line or that he would rather lose an election than lose a war is that he is questioning Obama’s patriotism.
No. No feigning outrage here. This isn’t about a flag pin or the Pledge of Allegiance or anything like that.
If Obama wants Americans to think he wants to win the Iraq War, here’s a nutty idea: SAY “I think winning the Iraq War is important” or “I think victory in Iraq would be a good thing and reflect well on our men and women in uniform.”
Why is that so hard?
Jerome,
It’s not arrogant or condescending. It’s observation. There are many times over the years that people have asked you to make substantial responses, and the majority of the time you haven’t done so, in my experience. It’s not as though I’ve been keeping records or anything, so I can’t cite any data, but certainly that’s the feeling that’s built up in my mind over the years. Simple as that. If you do engage Luigi substantively, I look forward to reading it.
As for my question, you still haven’t answered it. I asked you to define what you mean by the term “win”. What, to you, are measurable, verifiable factors saying that we have achieved “victory” in Iraq? Not only have you not answered that yet, but neither has your candidate.
And to give a response to your response, I think insisting that Obama SAY he wants us to “win” is a somewhat silly position to take. Unless you really are in the business of accusing the opposition of treason, I think you can make a default assumption that people would rather the US win than lose.
If Obama said, for example, that he’s against tossing puppies in front of oncoming steamrollers, would you take seriously a demand from his supporters that McCain take an explicit position on that?
So yes, I think the implicit message of “the difference is that I want to win it first” is absolutely questioning the opponent’s patriotism, and I think the Obama campaign could do a lot more in pointing out the absurdity of some of these demands.
TWL
Jason, let me put it this way; sometime over the summer Obama went to give a speech to AIPAC and said that Jerusalem should be the undivided capital of Israel which was consistent with other statement he has made. After the Palestinians went ballistic he stated that he had phrased it poorly and meant to say that the status of Jerusalem was open to negotiation.
Is it your position that a perfectly fair and valid headline could be Obama: ‘I Don’t Speak for Me’?
Now what brought all this on was my statement that it seemed like the Obama campaign wasn’t entirely under Obama’s control. There’s nothing in that which indicates that I think McCain’s is or isn’t running like a well oiled machine. But if one were just going by the last few weeks it would seem that the loose cannons in Obama’s campaign are hurting their candidate far more than McCain’s often sloppy organization are hurting McCain.
I also don’t think that this is Obama’s fault–nobody can micro manage something that big. If he is to blame for anything it might be a reluctance to cut off people who are doing him no good (or, as in Wright’s case, possibly actively working to undercut him).
But let’s agree to disagree on this one. You make too many good and valid arguments for me to want to get bogged down on minutia.
Posted by: Rene at September 10, 2008 09:01 PM
“Micha –
I may be wrong, because my knowledge of fables and fairy tales is second-hand,”
Me too.
“but the interesting thing for me is that the European fairy tales are the ones that seem rustic and backwards in their original forms.”
some are, some aren’t. I thing the difference is that some of the European fables are folk tales, while Arabian nights are based on a written collection.
“Conversely, the Arabian Nights stories seem sexier, cosmopolitan, and more sophisticated.
It’s intriguing that things have become reversed, with Western society becoming more open and secular and rational, while the Middle-Eastern region has become more oppressive and medieval, burkas replacing belly dancing.”
Don’t confuse urban and sophisticated with secular, rational and cosmopolitan. During the middle ages Muslim society was richer, more urban and more sophisticated than the west, but not secular or rational like modern society. Sophisticated in the 12 cent. is different from sophisticated in the 21st.
There were tensions between secular forces and rationalistic forces in Muslim society in the past. But there are such tensions pretty much every where in every time. If there were Muslim philosophers (falsafa) who went in a rational direction, there were religious purists who went against them. If there was a religiously lax society, there were fundamentalists who fought it. Similiar things happened in Europe. But Muslim society was a religious patriarchal society by our standards.
When western culture became richer and more urban this process of modernization also resulted in rationalism and secularism. Muslim society kind of fell behind relatively, because the processes didn’t happen exactly like they did in the west. Now Muslim society is more traditional, more patriarchal than the west, although of course there are tensions and differences. If you take the bus here in Jerusalem you can see arab women in religious clothing (long sleeves, head scarfs) sitting next to women in modern clothing. You can also see religious Jewish women with various head coverings and russian and catholic nuns.
There is a tendency in the modern west to look down at cultures that did not seem as sophisticated. Sometimes people try to cast this attitude at he past having the Muslims play the role of the west, sophisticated, and Europe playing the role now played by Muslims. It tells you more about our society than about the past.
“medieval, burkas replacing belly dancing”
There is a reaction to modernization and to the difficulties in Muslim society adapting to it which results in turning back to religion. To a lesser degree you see the same thing in Christian and Jewish and Hindu societies. So you have fundementalists trying to push toward more strict religion especially when it comes to women and gays. But again you have to remember that there are tensions and contradictions in societies and also local differences. Afghanistan, I think was always more extrem than anybody else. They are the ones with the burkas. I think even in Saudi Arabia or Iran people think they are nuts. I think they stil have belly dancing in Egypt, but the Muslim Brotherhood may have worked against it.
re: sexier
I think the image of Arabian nights being sexy is partially the result of the perception of puritanical Europeans in Victorian times. But I’m not sure. I think everybody thinks that somewhere else is sexier, except maybe in Brazil 😉
By the way, if you want sexy, I suggest googling the name Haifa Wehbe. Go ahead, do it now. I’ll wait. She is a very sexy Lebanese singer who got some criticism from clerics in Baharain for her very sexy clips, but who also supports the Hezbolla. Talk about contradictions.
“Maybe that was Bill Willingham’s point?”
I wish, but I don’t think so. IMHO Willingham wasn’t able to treat his Muslim characters as real characters, but only as these strange others. He didn’t portray the Arab fables as different, he portrayed them as backward, until the western fables teach them better. It’s very condescending, and also prevented him from actually exploring these characters. They were more like caricatures. But that’s just my POV.
Anyway, very long winded answer here.
Obama changing his mind isn’t inherently a tolerance of inconsistency interests. Obama’s correction speaks for Obama. It’s not an open issue for anyone with a conventional understanding of the sequential unfolding of reality.
The McCain campaign has demonstrated a pattern of publicly denying their candidate represents his own sales-pitch. Unlike Obama, McCain and his campaign’s incompatible positions on issues leaves anyone with a conventional understanding of the sequential unfolding of reality wondering what the current McCain campaign position is.
Bill, if McCain can do no wrong, as you keep trying to demonstrate, why did you represent yourself as considering voting for Obama? You’re just trying to ease in your criticisms of Obama, aren’t you. Is implementing deception to build consensus what friends do to each other?
Try getting him to waive the right to curse at someone for their accuracy.
No idea if anyone caught this last night by Keith Olbermann, but it’s well worth passing around: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/26649407#26649407
I’d love to see PAD’s reaction/comment about it.
Since PAD is traveling (as per Kath’s blog), Kevin, I doubt you’ll get any response from him all that fast — but I’d certainly like to know as well.
TWL
Hey, Micha
I suppose it’s a bit hard for me, I automatically see strong religious values as opposed to cosmopolitan and sophisticated, because it’s the way the conflict is characterized today (“metro” vs “retro”, that is a good one). And also, it’s a bit how it is in Brazil.
I also admit that I have a view of the Middle East that is hard to shake, of Islamism regulating all aspects of everyday life.
I’m not into women, but this Haifa Wehbe is sexy. I’ve also read an article recently that the Palestinians watch “Friends” and also a local soap opera that has all the dirty secrets and pre-marital sex that one mught expect of soaps.
It’s a bit difficult for me to reconcile such things with sharia and fatwas and suicide bombers and stuff. But I have to remember that the Middle East is a big place.
Brazil, sexy? Take into account that I live in Sao Paulo, that is more like New York. 🙂 Brazilian sexiness is more associated with Rio de Janeiro and Bahia, and places like that.
Speaking of religion, I’ve been invited by a married lesbian couple I know (they do my make-up when I feel like going out dressed as a girl), to visit their church. It’s very much like an Evangelical / Pentecostal church, but totally accepting of LGBT people. I’m still not sure if I’ll accept the invitation. I have trouble reconciling organized Christian faith with LGBT causes.
Jerome Maida: When has Obama ever said he wants us to win the war? Or has a strategy for doing so?
Luigi Novi: The problem I see with this is that the Iraq War is not a hot war, but a guerilla war/occupation, and with no concrete, clearly defined criteria for victory that anyone advocating our continued presence in Iraq is willing to provide. Conventional combat ended years ago, and the former regime is gone. We don’t belong there. The Republican want us to stay there for….what? Because they think Osama bin Laden is going to show up? Because they want to help Iraq stabilize into a democracy in which everyone gets along, and does not devolve into civil war? Even if such a thing were the job of the U.S. (it’s not), how does this objective constitute a “war”? And if we were involved in an actual war, do you honestly think that Obama would not want us to win it, or that his desire to do so would actually be in question, such that he’d have to say it? He is on record as saying that there should be a phased withdrawal from Iraq, with a residual force remaining in the region to conduct targeted counter-terrorism missions, and train and support the Iraq forces. He is also on record as saying that Iraq War diverted forces from Afghanistan, where our duties there have not finished. When have you or Bush ever said you want us to win the war in Afghanistan, Jerome? Do you have a strategy for doing so? He also has plans protecting our chemical plants, keep track of spent nuclear fuel, protecting the public from radioactive releases, toughening up presidential diplomacy and economic pressure as part of his foreign policy, strengthening NATO, seeking new partnerships in Asia, strengthening the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, rebuilding our military, fully equipping our troops in order to answer failures of the current administration (body armor, armored vehicles), and reduce our dependence on foreign oil by expanding our use of other sources.
Doesn’t this count as “strategy”?
Sure is more than I see on McCain’s site.
McCain has no Foreign Policy section on his site, his idea for Iraq is to stay there, and his National Security plan is entirely military-oriented. Add his desire to overturn Roe v. Wade, and Obama is clearly the better candidate.
The “lipstick” imbroglio is ridiculous…except that it might work. And before anyone gets upset that a politician would dare take his opponents words out of context for political gain…you must live in candyland.
I say it might work because Obama has already been hurt by just this sort of thing once before. When Hillary was asked a question about her “likeability” at one of the debates, he chimed in “You’re likable enough, Hillary.”
When I read that and heard how pìššëd øff a lot of women got about it I assumed they were right, that he’d been snarky and condescending, which I thought was a mistake.
Then I saw the video. And there is no way you can see that and conclude his intent was to be a douchebag, which is how it comes off in print. It was a gentle joke and it seemed to be taken that way. Only later, when people read it in print, did it seem to reflect badly.
Well, I’m here to tell you the same thing is happening. Most of the women here–at least the ones who are not committed to Obama–seem to have taken the lipstick comment badly. And some of the Obama fans took it the same way, only they approved of it. And I don’t think going on Leno and explaining that even if he HAD meant it that way Palin would have been the lipstick and not the pig was a great strategy. Whatever chance he had to make lemonade out of this probably flew out the window when Carol Fowler opened her mouth. Meme of the day–name calling. (Biden didn’t help with his trying to score points with linking Downs Syndrome and stem cell research either but nobody seems to be paying much attention to Biden).
Obama should be hitting McCain on the sex ed kindergarten ad. Why he’s letting what seems like a good way to get justifiably angry over an ad that may be technically accurate but misleading in a particularly ugly way and also gain some family friendly points by explaining that the measure was designed to protect kids from pedophiles…well, I don’t know. Seems a pretty winning issue but instead the campaign is trying to convince people of something that can’t be proven–the intent of the candidate and the way his words were interpreted.
One good thing for Obama–Palin is peaking too fast, too early. Oversaturation will bring her down to earth, though a good performance on the debate (when IS the VP debate anyway) could start it up again.
And it will come down to the presidential debates, more than I would have guessed. Who will lose their cool? McCain has done so in the past, can Obama get him to do it again? As much as people may like Palin, they are unlikely to vote for someone who looks angry and reckless to get her in office. Maybe that’s the tact to take with her–encourage women voters to wait until the Republican put her at the top of the ticket, like in 2012 or 2016 (and right now you’d have to say that if McCain loses she may well be seen as a likely nominee next time).
It probably says something about me that I refrain from replying to the political stuff, but feel that I HAVE to speak up when Fables becomes a topic.
Micha–The only counterargument I can really offer is that with a cast of literally thousands, the Arabian fables are hardly the only caricatures in the series, by necessity, and, generally speaking, Willingham has done a good job on shifting the spotlight from the focused fables to look at other folk.
At the same time, much as I’d love to be able to argue otherwise, I think I have to agree to your overall point, although I’d qualify it somewhat: it’s not that Willingham is proposing a strict Western superiority over Eastern fables–I think it’s more that modern Western society is superior to EVERYONE. In the latest Fables arc, for example, the war with the Adversary just concluded, and for nearly the last dozen or so issues, things have been so far titled towards the Western fables with “modern” warfare plan and weaponry that that it’s kind of gotten a bit boring. And afterwards (SPOILER), the Adversary is magnanimously granted amnesty, with the tacit assumption that he’ll see the errors of his ways after some time in Fabletown.
Admittedly, in a lot of ways, the Western superiority thing isn’t really any more palatable than a direct, biased opinion on the West vs. East thing; in a weird way, it seems like a reflection of the same sort of smug superiority found in the worst of the left-leaning comics.
Last: It may have been my imagination, but it looked like Willingham is gearing up to fix that caricature in terms of the Eastern Fables… the best known, Sinbad, looks to be in position to be the next Mayor of Fabletown. Well, that, or he’s hinting that Sinbad’s a treacherous villain, which returns us to your argument…
Posted by: Rene at September 11, 2008 12:53 PM
“I automatically see strong religious values as opposed to cosmopolitan and sophisticated, because it’s the way the conflict is characterized today (“metro” vs “retro”, that is a good one). And also, it’s a bit how it is in Brazil.”
That’s the way its been in Europe and South America for the last 200-300 years. Also in the US, but less. This same division was imported from Europe to the Muslim world. Back in the 50s-70s the strong ideology in the Arab world was secular nationalism + socialism = Baath. But even then Islamic tradition was such a strong part of society there was no real deep process of secularism like in the west (although even there Christianity is still a strng force). Also, because the Europen ideas of nationalism and socialism failed to restore the arab world to its former greatness, some people turned to something familiar — Islam.
Israel has the same very strong conflict between secular, anti-religious left and a religious conservative right. When I was in the peace movement we had guests from a Swedish peace group who were religious. some of my friends found this idea hard to comprehend because they always associated religion with the right.
“I also admit that I have a view of the Middle East that is hard to shake, of Islamism regulating all aspects of everyday life.”
It is more prevasive than in any western country. But, like even before there was secularism there was tension between secular forces in societies and religious forces. A famous institution in Catholic countries that reflects that tension is the Carnival / Mardi Gras.
“I’m not into women, but this Haifa Wehbe is sexy.
I’ve also read an article recently that the Palestinians watch “Friends” and also a local soap opera that has all the dirty secrets and pre-marital sex that one mught expect of soaps.”
I don’t know a lot about that. When I was younger we used to watch Jordanian TV in English. They had shows like Knightrider in the 80s, ER it the 90s. But they used to cut kisses. I don’t know if they had Friends. I doubt the Palestinians show it on their TV, especially now with the hamas, controlling Gaza. But they might watch it on cable/satelite or on Israeli TV. We have reruns. I don’t know about local soap operas. I don’t think it will be accepted. But a major hit in the Arab world is a dubbed Turkish Soap Opera called, I think, Nour, or Nur. The male star is supposed to be very sexy too, but I don’t know his name. Anyway, the show is a big hit partially because Turks allow themselves things that are unacceptable in Arab society.
“It’s a bit difficult for me to reconcile such things with sharia and fatwas and suicide bombers and stuff.”
It is difficult for them too. But remember, the west has tensions like that too, if less intesly or violently. My impression during my very brief visit was that Brazil is relatively more religious than Argentina (the other country I visited).
“Speaking of religion, I’ve been invited by a married lesbian couple I know (they do my make-up when I feel like going out dressed as a girl), to visit their church. It’s very much like an Evangelical / Pentecostal church, but totally accepting of LGBT people. I’m still not sure if I’ll accept the invitation. I have trouble reconciling organized Christian faith with LGBT causes.”
I know that evangelicals are trying to convert catholics in South america. I saw a local evangelical/pentacostal one in Rio preaching. But it’s good if more liberal churches are there too, I suppose. I think it is better to find religious liberal allies then to reject them, so I think you should go. Ultimately the division is not religious vs. secular or left vs. right but narrow-minded vs open-minded.
———————-
Posted by: mj at September 11, 2008 03:33 PM
“The only counterargument I can really offer is that with a cast of literally thousands, the Arabian fables are hardly the only caricatures in the series,”
I agree. The goblins are treated badly too, but they don’t have an advocacy group. It’s true that here is a caricaturish nature to many of the characters, and that’s OK. But I felt it really caused a problem with the Arabian Fables storyline.
“by necessity, and, generally speaking, Willingham has done a good job on shifting the spotlight from the focused fables to look at other folk.”
It didn’t seem to me that way. He always seemed to me to try to move to other charcters but then return to the small ingroup.
“it’s not that Willingham is proposing a strict Western superiority over Eastern fables–I think it’s more that modern Western society is superior to EVERYONE.”
It’s true. He’s like Heinlein that way — the characters he associates with himself with are ideal, everybody else isn’t. I think the difference for me was that at the beginning he presented how wonderful the liberterian Fable society is, and that was how he showed they were superior. I didn’t have to agree with him, but I appreciated the point. In the Arabian story he showed his superiority by looking down on the Arabs, which was a problem both politically and for the development of the story. Its like, if you said the US is a great country, I wouldn’t find it offensive (it is). But if you started talking about how lousy other countries are it would seem too smug, even if I personaly agreethat he US is betterthan say arab countries.
“things have been so far titled towards the Western fables with “modern” warfare plan and weaponry that that it’s kind of gotten a bit boring.”
I stuck around until the end of the war hoping things would improve, or that the story will end with the war. But now I’ve dropped it from my list.
“in a weird way, it seems like a reflection of the same sort of smug superiority found in the worst of the left-leaning comics.”
I’m against smugness whereever it comes from. I support the left more than the right, but the smugness did turn me away from the organized left — they were not nearly as smart or as right as they thought. Which does not mean I supprt the right either.
“Last: It may have been my imagination, but it looked like Willingham is gearing up to fix that caricature in terms of the Eastern Fables… the best known, Sinbad, looks to be in position to be the next Mayor of Fabletown. Well, that, or he’s hinting that Sinbad’s a treacherous villain, which returns us to your argument…”
In the Arabian storyline Sinbad was the good Arab because he wholeheartedly became western, but his character was never explored from the inside. It would be nice if things changed for him, but I’m not going to keep reading Fables to find out, since I’ve been disappointed too long already. There’s too much of a risk that he will continue treating him as a thin poster boy to the greatness of adopting western values. Like I said, I certainly like the west better than the alternative, but I don’t like smugness, and I do like complex character development.
I believe, with all my heart, in the superiority of Western, secular, democratic society over all other contenders. I wonder if that makes me right-wing?
Micha –
That was the one, Nour. I’ve read that it’s quite a hit in Palestine.
Brazil is very religious, in a way. But it has almost never been that kind of muscular, crusading religiosity that you may find in the US. It’s a sort of quiet catholicism that is also a bit cynical about how fallible men is.
We also have spiritualism, African religions, and some old-style Evangelicals. The newer, born-again Evangelicals are a emerging force, and are very much like US Evangelicals. Somewhat harsh and hot in their faith, uses TV and radio to preach, and target the poor and the uneducated. They already converted 10% of the populace.
I’m curious about this inclusive church my friends belong to, but I dunno. It’s not only their intolerance against gays that turns me off Abrahamic faiths. It’s also their knife-edge distinctions: heaven vs. hëll, dámņëd vs. saved, body vs. soul. It just makes me uncomfortable.
The Arabian Fables have their chauvanistic, privileged characters. But the western Fables have Jack and Bigby, who both have a history of being dìçkš. When western Fables grow as characters, there’s no corresponding criticism that it’s from them becoming “more western” as there is with Willingham’s treatment of the Arabian Fables.
I think Willingham speaks as much on the Arabian Fables as he can, and no more. Maybe even too much. By contrast, Gaiman only did like one issue of Sandman to Arabian themes.
I agree Willingham approaches Fables from a solidly conservative point of view, but it isn’t because he’s in denial. In the issue where Pinochio speculates with awe on the mundies’ reaction to invasion, he doesn’t shy away from what he presumes will be their exploitation of conquered Fable lands. And I think the Good Prince solidly counter-balances it with Fly-catcher’s bleeding-heart approach to establishing his kingdom. (That’s as far as I’ve read of the series)
Here’s a nice break from the usual politics; McCain and Obama jointly appear at 9/11 functions and agree to suspend their negative ads about each other for the day. http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D934LKH80&show_article=1
“I believe, with all my heart, in the superiority of Western, secular, democratic society over all other contenders. I wonder if that makes me right-wing?”
There’s nothing wrong with thinking that your group is better or your opinions better. It’s how you behave about it that matters. There’s also another thing. I think part of the supriority of the west/democracy is that we are open to the idea that we are not always superior. As for religion, philosdophically speaking I don’t think it is justified, but there are enough narrow minded and stupid seculars and smart and oen minded religious people + relligion has enriched humanity in so many ways.
“That was the one, Nour. I’ve read that it’s quite a hit in Palestine.”
In all the Arab speaking Middle East, not just Palestine.
“Brazil is very religious, in a way. But it has almost never been that kind of muscular, crusading religiosity that you may find in the US. It’s a sort of quiet catholicism that is also a bit cynical about how fallible men is.”
I think it results from the confidence of not being threatened and being sure of its place in socity. In places where religion findds itself questioned and threatened it might react by being more militant (nationalism too). We’ll have to see if there is no catholic reaction to the evangelicals. Then again, Brazil’s catholicism seems to co-exist nicely with pagan religions. In Indonesia there is a similar thing with Islam — a kind of relaxed Islam alongside paganism. But it did not prevent fundementalism. There are also probably cultural differences between the US and Brazil and between catholic and protestant countries. But I don’t know enough about it.
“It’s also their knife-edge distinctions: heaven vs. hëll, dámņëd vs. saved, body vs. soul. It just makes me uncomfortable.”
These distinctions exists in these religions, but the weight given to them varies depending on the attitude of the congregation in question.
Well, we saw the Nightline, and sure enough, Palin knows how to sling the bûllšhìŧ. Some highlights:
Charlie Gibson asks her what she thinks of the Bush Doctrine. She apparently didn’t know what it is, and Gibson had to explain to her what it was. She thought it was simply Bush’s “worldview”. He had to explain that it was Bush’s plan formed in the wake of the 9/11 attacks, and published in September 2002.
Asked about her statement in a mass earlier this year that sending our soldiers into the Iraq War was a mission from God, she replied by making a reference to a quote by Abe Lincoln, who cautioned against presuming to know what God’s will is, by saying that it is better to make sure one is on God’s side than to assert that God is on our side. Obviously, this is a canned, prepared response that she came up with when she realized she’d have to answer for that earlier comment, because these two statements have nothing to do with one another. If anything, they appear to be contradictory, since claiming that a war is a mission from God certainly sounds like a statement by one who knows what God is thinking.
Gibson asked her if cross-border attacks into Pakistan from Afghanistan without approval by Pakistan could be an acceptable option. Gibson had to ask the question four times, because Palin refused to give a clear yes or no, instead giving euphemistic answers, though her final version/answer seemed to be an implied “yes”.
Gibson asked her if she has ever met a foreign head of state. She said no, and speculated that this would be the answer given by many other VP candidates in history. In fact, every VP candidate for the past 30 years has met foreign heads of state, as pointed out by ABC News. She also adds that Russia is our neighbor, and that we can actually “see” Russia from Alaska. When Gibson asks the relevance of this, she says that it reminds one of how small this world is. Completely irrelevant to foreign policy, of course.
Gibson asked her about whether being governor of the U.S. state closest to Russia qualified her in terms of foreign policy experience. She responds that her campaign is about reform of government, and that this “has to do with” foreign policy. Nice little non sequitur.
Gibson pointed out that in 2007, she said she wasn’t focused on the Iraq War as governor of Alaska. He asked if someone who said this should be VP. She responds that she is focused on Iraq. One wonders when this changed. Was it only after being selected by McCain?
Gibson asked her if we have the right to make preemptive strikes.
Oops, that last part was not supposed to be part of the post. Sorry about that.
Gibson pointed out that in 2007, she said she wasn’t focused on the Iraq War as governor of Alaska. He asked if someone who said this should be VP. She responds that she is focused on Iraq. One wonders when this changed.
Possibly around the time her oldest kid expressed an interest in going their to fight?
Asked about her statement in a mass earlier this year that sending our soldiers into the Iraq War was a mission from God, she replied by making a reference to a quote by Abe Lincoln, who cautioned against presuming to know what God’s will is, by saying that it is better to make sure one is on God’s side than to assert that God is on our side. Obviously, this is a canned, prepared response that she came up with when she realized she’d have to answer for that earlier comment, because these two statements have nothing to do with one another. If anything, they appear to be contradictory, since claiming that a war is a mission from God certainly sounds like a statement by one who knows what God is thinking.
Gibson sandbagged her there, either out of ignorance or deliberate distortion.
GIBSON: You said recently, in your old church, “Our national leaders are sending U.S. soldiers on a task that is from God.” Are we fighting a holy war?
PALIN: You know, I don’t know if that was my exact quote.
GIBSON: Exact words.
PALIN: But the reference there is a repeat of Abraham Lincoln’s words when he said — first, he suggested never presume to know what God’s will is, and I would never presume to know God’s will or to speak God’s words.
But what Abraham Lincoln had said, and that’s a repeat in my comments, was let us not pray that God is on our side in a war or any other time, but let us pray that we are on God’s side.
That’s what that comment was all about, Charlie.
GIBSON: I take your point about Lincoln’s words, but you went on and said, “There is a plan and it is God’s plan.”
Ok. Here’s her exact words:
“Pray for our military men and women who are striving to do what is right. Also, for this country, that our leaders, our national leaders, are sending [U.S. soldiers] out on a task that is from God,” she exhorted the congregants. “That’s what we have to make sure that we’re praying for, that there is a plan and that that plan is God’s plan.”
She’s praying that the U.S. plan is God’s plan. Just as she said to Gibson.
The only out Gibson has is that e probably was relying on the AP report that said Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin told ministry students at her former church that the United States sent troops to fight in the Iraq war on a “task that is from God.”…
“Our national leaders are sending them out on a task that is from God,” she said. “That’s what we have to make sure that we’re praying for, that there is a plan and that plan is God’s plan.”
By taking out the first line they turn what is a hope into an assertion.
Incidentally, one person reported to the NRO website that the west coast feed of the interview cut out the part where Gibson said “exact words”. If true, that’s even more dishonest.
Did I hear this [w]itch right on the news this morning? Palin not only admits she’s never even MET a foreign dignitary, but she’s in favor of a war with Russia if they invade Ossetia? And she thinks she’s ready to take on the Presidency if necessary???
Why oh why aren’t the Democrats running with that? If that’s not a deadly soundbite, I don’t know what is.
Oh well. I speak Russian, and there’s a fallout shelter just up the street.
Your mind is so made up, you don’t even understand that wasn’t Gibson’s question. She refused to say no.
Again, if McCain/Palin 2008 can do no wrong, as you insist on demonstrating, why did you represent yourself as considering voting for Obama? Is implementing deception to build consensus what friends do to each other?
You’re just pretending you haven’t made up your mind when you already have, to get everyone to accept your criticisms of Obama regardless of the truth. It’s called “concern-trolling.”
Ah, Keith Olbermann, the Ann Coulter of the left.
Accidentally posted before I was finished.
Ah, Keith Olbermann, the Ann Coulter of the left.
How hypocritcal is it of him to accuse the McCain campaign of using 9/11 when Olbermann’s entire rant is using 9/11?
I’m not sure that Keith Olbermann wouldn’t be happier if Obama lost. If Obama wins and the Democrats keep control of both the House and the Senate–still the most likely scenario–who does Olbermann blame for whatever goes wrong?
Similarly, I doubt that Rush Limbaugh will be crying in his beer if he has to face 4 years of mocking Obama instead of 4 years of defending McCain.
Olbermann never defended torture, and he never expressed regret terrorists ever failed to kill Americans, or anyone for that matter.
How hypocritcal is it of him to accuse the McCain campaign of using 9/11 when Olbermann’s entire rant is using 9/11?
Is Olbermann running for president?
“I’m not sure that Keith Olbermann wouldn’t be happier if Obama lost. If Obama wins and the Democrats keep control of both the House and the Senate–still the most likely scenario–who does Olbermann blame for whatever goes wrong?”
Actually, years back in his first run at news on the national level, Olbermann worked for (I believe) MSNBC during the end of Bill Clinton years. His comments on the failings of Clinton got him tagged as a right wing critic by some Clinton fans.
I’m not always a fan of Olbermann, but he does seem to aim his barbs at any leader who is failing in his or her promises or potential. Right now it’s just that the R’s are the biggest jáçkáššëš on the block.
Possibly around the time her oldest kid expressed an interest in going their to fight?
Luigi Novi: So she’s governor of a U.S. state, yet had no interest in the Iraq War until one of her kids wanted to fight in it, yet wants to be Vice President?
Sorry, no thanks. Joe Biden would make a far better Vice President.
Scott: Ah, Keith Olbermann, the Ann Coulter of the left.
Luigi Novi: Really? Which group of 9/11 widows did he accuse of enjoying their husband’s deaths, and suggest they pose in Playboy? When did he say we should invade other countries, kill their leaders, and convert them to Christianity? When has he referred to homosexuals as “fággøŧš”? When has he stated that the other party doesn’t value courage? When did she refer to Obama’s book Dreams From My Father as “Dimestore Mein Kampf”? When did Olbermann falsely accuse a publication of not sufficiently covering Dale Earnhardt’s death as a way to accuse it of elitism or bigotry? When has Olbermann claimed that Joe McCarthy was a great American patriot? When did Olbermann falsely claim that Canada sent troops to Vietnam? When did Olbermann lament that Timothy McVeigh did not go to the building of a publication he disliked? When has he referred to Arabs as “ragheads” and “çámël jøçkëÿš”? When did he say that Christians were “Perfected Jews”? When has he indicated to be a creationist? Or claimed that liberals are all godless? Coulter is a bigot. I don’t regularly watch Olbermann, but if you have evidence the he’s a bigot too, please present it.