kimmy

uh, has this dude been living in a cave the past week? He does a swell job of mentioning legitimate aspects of their coverage of Sarah Palin, but seems to have a rather selective memory about other aspects of their coverage. He'd be a more credible defender of the media coverage if he'd actually bothered to follow it. -k

Well, it's nice that the Swift Boat Veterans have been able to find work again. -k

Are you suggesting that millions of working mothers with non-special needs children are not constrained in any way by their circumstances, by the needs of their children? Are you saying the needs of their children never cause them to make compromises in the vocations they pursue or would like to pursue? Are you saying that a non-special needs child has no impact on a mother's or father's life? Are you saying that a parent who is engaged in a job that demands their full attention and most of their time can give their non-special needs child all the care they need? I'm saying that working moms with special needs children, like my cousin, are not "abandoning their children", as you accused Palin of doing. I'm saying that working moms with special needs children find ways to make it work. And they do it without all of the resources that will be available to Sarah Palin. The backpedaling and hedging and rationalizing has been fun to watch. It's not that she's a working mom, it's that she's a working mom with an infant! It's not that she's a working mom with an infant, it's that she's a working mom with a special needs child! It's not that she's a working mom with a special needs child, it's that she's a working mom with a special needs child who wants to have a really tough job! Maybe you should go back to making fun of the beauty pageant angle; that was working better for you. -k

You haven't heard a speech from either campaign at either convention that wasn't created without help from speechwriters. Why is the use of speechwriters suddenly an issue for Palin, when it wasn't for Obama or Hilary? Obama and Hilary use teleprompters too. However, I'm not sure if coverage of their speeches has ever been quite so blunt about choosing camera angles that show the teleprompter as it was during Palin's speech. The bottom line is that Palin's performance was so compelling that her detractors are left grasping at straws in their efforts to undermine it. -k

If you're just reading a few quotes taken from the speech, you really can't appreciate what a strong performance it was. I doubt that most who watched it is still asking "so why'd they pick her? What does she bring to the table?" People who saw the speech, like it or hate it, now know what she brings to the table, and like it or hate it, she will have to be reckoned with. I doubt the Democrat strategists are laughing tonight. -k

Life's rough, wear a helmet. Obama thought making light of her background as a small-town mayor was a good idea; maybe a guy who lists "community organizer" as a major portion of his resume, maybe that's a risky stone to be casting. If Obama wants to go to the American people and have the debate that "community organizer" is actually a tougher job than Palin made it sound, I am sure the Republicans would welcome having that debate during the course of the campaign. -k

I thought the parts directed at Obama were very well done, actually. I thought the line about the styrofoam pillars, in particular, was brilliant, not just as a piece of comedy, but as a cleverly chosen bit of symbolism. Crafting the image of a guy who has written 2 memoirs but no bills, the comparison between a "community organizer" and a mayor, the line that Obama has used "change" to further his career while McCain has used his career to further change, and the quip that running for president is not supposed to be a journey of self discovery... I thought it was all quite skillfully done, and delivered with a superb comic touch. -k

I think all of the above are applicable to some degree, but I bolded the ones I thought were most applicable. Yep, I think it was a "home run", not just by low-bar "at least she didn't spontaneously combust" standards, but by the standard of what could have been hoped for from any candidate McCain could have selected. I think it was an excellent speech, extremely well-delivered. We'll have to wait and see, but I don't think that's just an apologist talking. As one of the CBS analysts put it tonight, "I think the Democrats will be taking this a lot more seriously now." -k

They are neither trivial or remarkable.....people do it every day. So what's the big deal? I wanted to emphasize this exchange, because I thought it was stated so simply and yet eloquently by BC2004. From the tone of some of these comments, you'd think Sarah Palin was in utterly unique circumstances. In fact, no. Her circumstances are challenging, but not remarkable. It is a fact of life that people face, and deal with. My cousin is a working mother of two autistic children. The stuff being said about Palin applies equally to people like my cousin, and to millions of women who face challenges and soldier on. People need to remember that these are not hypotheticals, these are real families. Not just Sarah Palin's. If you're condemning Sarah Palin's decision to continue working after having a special needs child, you're also condemning my cousin, and literal millions of working mothers who have special needs children. -k

And conservatives are not a monolith either. And when I see people like Drea... ...complaining about the hypocrisy of conservatives supporting Palin while vilifying working moms, I am wondering what conservatives she is talking about. There are Republicans who think mothers should be home with the children, but to ascribe that position to conservatives in general or to people supporting Palin in particular is just a straw-man. The Republican Party in the US, as with the Conservative Party in Canada, contains a wide range of view points ranging from very social conservative, to people who don't have socially conservative views but find themselves more closely aligned with the Republicans than the Democrats because of other issues. -k

You seem like a very bright person, Liam, so I am sure you know full well that the Democrats will be doing the exact same thing after the speech, with their own set of talking points (I haven't read enough of their stuff to distill 16 handy sound bites yet; I am sure that "lacking in substance" and talking about how much better Hilary's speeches were will figure prominently, unless they don't want to remind people that they can't actually vote for Hilary.) Of course, there is no way that Palin's speech, regardless of how good it is, will do anything to impress those who've already decided that she sucks. As confident as you are that "apologists" will find reasons to like the speech, I am equally confident that you guys will find reasons why it was a terrible speech. I have to point out that you guys (sorry, I haven't figured out something as perjorative as "apologist" to describe you guys) have worked so hard to lower expectations for Palin over the past 5 days that unless she spontaneously combusts during the speech, it'll be a "home run". -k

How on earth could Layton be an "Obama" in this election? Obama is a figure whose arrival has energized voters of all stripes and has changed the dynamics of the election. Jack Layton? This is his 3rd? 4th? federal election as NDP leader, and he has never been able to energize anybody (aside from former MLW member Maplesyrup, of course.) We used to hear more positive things about Layton. He used to have a higher profile, and he used to fare better in this sort of poll. Layton had a bit of a profile at the time when the Liberals had a majority and he was free to speak boldly on any issue he wished. He had even more profile when he was the guy Paul Martin needed to keep his minority government afloat. But for the past 33 months, he's just been one of 3 guys afraid to make the decision to bring down the Harper minority. You'd think that with a right-leaning party in power, the leader of the left wing would be at his most vocal... but for almost 3 years Layton has been laying low, perhaps reluctant to remind people that he's been standing on the sidelines and allowing Harper to do his thing. Agreed with others about Dion, though. The Liberal party decided that Ignatieff was too something, Rae was too something else, Kennedy was too some other thing, and the only choice left was a guy who wasn't much of anything. -k

Thanks for sharing. That's cute! I had thought it was 48-44 Obama last week, and read Dobbins' 49-43 poll earlier. I should have researched it further. Still, after perusing GC's polls, it still doesn't seem to bear out the predicted Obama Beatlemania, or the anticipated Hindenburg effect that Palin was supposed to have. People may still not have heard all the latest pregnant teen news, I suppose. But I have a hunch that the worst is over for Palin from either that or "Troopergate" (which, in my view, is the only strike against her that has real merit.) I think Palin is scheduled to speak tomorrow night, and I suspect that from that point on she will either sink or swim based on how people respond to her, rather than to the so-called scandals. If people like her, the pregnant daughter thing is not going to hurt in the least, and will probably only add to the sense that she's a regular parent. If people don't like her, it's just not going to be because her daughter got pregnant, it'll be because she didn't deliver a good speech. For a lot of people, whether they like her or dislike her will have a lot to do with their preconceived views. Republican supporters will no doubt accentuate even the smallest positives in the speech, while Obama supporters will undoubtedly find reasons to dislike her. But there's still people open to being swayed one way or the other. I have still not actually seen her speak. Her background and track record in elections gives me the hunch that she's probably good at this sort of thing, but I won't find out for sure until I actually see the speech, and that also goes for most American voters. I hope she does well, not because of her views, but because I really want to see a woman do well with this opportunity. -k

-k

Ok, so I'm confused. The Republicans have just picked what is alleged to be one of the worst VP candidates of all time, a choice that many (both in this thread and on a multitude of blogs) have solemnly attested have all of their Republican friends baffled and stunned. A choice that many have already declared to be the move that cost McCain the election. Meanwhile, the Democrats are coming off of their convention, with Barack Obama receiving all of these great endorsements, and team unity behind him 100%, and his big speech that is said to have redefined the entire universe (or at least the politics portions of it.) So with all that great news for the Democrats and terrible news for the Republicans, how is it that the polls that came out yesterday show that Obama's lead over McCain has only widened by a point by what it was prior to the DNC? -k

"I'm a feminist! Shame on Sarah Palin! A mother's place is with her children!" That's awesome, Drea! I hope the Democrats use something like that in their ads. -k

Not disarray, August, indignation. The left has been thrown into indignation. A certain segment of it, at least (I'll spare Black Dog the trouble of pointing out that "the left" is not a monolithic entity.) There's plenty on the left who are looking at this rationally and strategically, of course. There are many on the left who looked at Palin, weighed her merits, said "Lame pick, old-dude," and, uh, moved on. Which is a position I completely respect (and kind of agree with.) But there's also a certain segment of the left that is responding to this as if the Republicans stole their stuff and are furious about it. There's a degree of venom in a lot of what I have read that says these people have other issues on their mind than Palin's qualifications. People are generally pretty tickled when they think their opponents screwed up bigtime (I recall CPC supporters being pretty happy when Stephane Dion won the Liberal leadership, for instance.) So why so much sourness from the Obamarama side of things? It seems almost as if some on the Democrat side are of the opinion that having a female candidate was *their* prerogative. -k

Obama is smart and savvy enough to recognize what many of his supporters are simply too dumb to recognize: There's little to gain by attacking Palin's personal choices or her children, and a lot to lose. I'm sure that Republican strategists won't mind a bit if Obama supporters disregard his advice and continue to pursue this line of attack against Palin. I'm sure that he's a very decent human being who is sincere when he says he'd like to run a respectful campaign. But more than that, he's a smart guy who knows that it is not going to help him if it looks like his campaign is bullying a 17 year old girl. edit: he'll leave that kind of stuff up to people who aren't directly connected with him. Turds like Bill Maher, for instance. I'm not sure if Maher's intention here is commentary, comedy, or to create a caricature of the frothing "progressives" who are going after Palin. Whatever the intention was, the result is that Maher has created an instructional video for Obama supporters on how *not* to approach Palin. Ultimately, Maher winds up saying not much about Palin, but a lot about himself with this performance, which should be a cautionary tale for people who have it in their heads to "help" Obama with similar antics. -k

McCain's biggest worry is not shoring up evangelicals, it is attracting voters who might consider voting Republican except that they're tired of Bush and everything associated with Bush. The Obama campaign didn't arrive at the "McSame" message by accident. Palin should solidify McCain's standing among the religious right community, which is an important consideration, but she also gives McCain at least a chance of convincing voters that he's not "McSame", which would have been utterly hopeless had Rice or Ridge been his VP nominee. If McCain can't convince some portion of those middle-ground voters that he's not McSame, then the election is McOver. Oh, sure. I don't question that Jindal was probably overlooked because of optics rather than qualifications. I don't question that the selection of Palin was primarily a matter of optics. I don't see a lot to support the claim that he'd have been "far superior" for governing reasons. He has a resume that's moderately longer than Palin's, but hardly "far superior". I think the main point of interest here is the claim that he is a "known quantity" and Palin is "obscure". Why is that? It's because Jindal has been at conventions a few times, and on "Meet the Press" and "F*** the Nation" and so on a few times, and when he is, he is introduced as Rising Star ™ Bobby Jindal, or Bright Young Republican ™ Bobby Jindal. And when your friends see him they think to themselves, "ah, it's Bright Young Republican ™ Bobby Jindal." However, I tend to suspect that a lot of the reason Jindal would be in these photo-ops in the first place is also a matter of optics. He's Ethnic Republican ™ Bobby Jindal. I can't name more than a handful of governors, and yet Bobby Jindal is one I'd had heard of. Why? Is he just that much more capable than the 40+ that I've never heard of, or is it because he provides optics that the Republicans need? Pardon my cynicism. -k

Do you agree with my view that putting Rice or Ridge on the ticket would have guaranteed defeat? Because McCain first and foremost had to choose somebody who can help him win, or at very least not doom the campaign before it even starts. And Palin has her work as ethics commissioner and chairing the oil and gas committee. Most of this argument boils down to Bobby Jindal having a higher profile than Sarah Palin, and to some degree I suspect that is a result of the "see, there's colored folks in the Republican Party too!" thing that has become an unfortunate necessity due to their opponents' tactics. Interesting aside, Palin didn't just defeat one governor, she defeated two. She defeated former 2-term governor Tony Knowles in the election, but before she did that, she first defeated the incumbent Republican governor, Frank Murkowski, in the Republican primaries. Think about that for a moment. How many incumbents, at any level, have been prevented from seeking a new term in office because somebody in their own party defeated them to take the party's nomination? People who have already made up their minds that she is a lightweight might want to reflect on that accomplishment. Translated: Jindal has a modest amount of celebrity, and Palin doesn't. Someone earlier in the thread mentioned Ralph Klein; if you're not aware of him, he was a former Alberta premier, and a guy with some interesting parallels to Palin. Like Palin, Klein is from a broadcasting background. She is probably as at home in front of a microphone as Ralph. Like Palin, Klein had a reputation as a social conservative (though unlike Palin, with Klein the key word is reputation.) Both seem to have a folksy quality. Klein was known for parking his butt in pubs and downing a few (or more than a few) while shooting the breeze with whoever was handy. Everything about him from his rumpled, portly appearance to his manner of speaking created the sense that this was just a regular guy. Palin seems to carry off the same type of thing, calling herself a hockey mom, talking about hunting and moose-burgers. She has a bunch of kids, she has a husband with a real job. Like Palin, Klein rose to power in his own party by defeating party insiders who were better connected and better backed by the party brass. Like Palin, Klein enjoyed absurdly high levels of popularity among his constituents. Klein's opponents and critics tried to attack his educational background or his general level of intelligence. In Ralph's case, that never worked. In Palin's case, we shall see. As much as it infuriated Klein's opponents and critics, Ralph Klein was an extremely formidable politician. In Palin's case, we shall see. -k

Whether people would see Romney or Ridge or Rice as potentially the VP is a purely academic question if they're on a ticket that has zero chance of winning. And I just can't convince myself that people would have thsat kind of reaction if McCain had chosen a male. Is it just experience? Would it be different if she were in her 2nd term as governor instead of her first? Is it just that Alaska is just inherently funny? Would it be different if it were some less funny small state like Vermont or North Dakota? Is it that Alaska is a small state? Would it be different if she was governor of some inherently funny medium-sized state like Minnesota or Nevada? I simply don't buy it. I could imagine a male equivalent to Palin getting reactions like "bad choice" or "who?" or most likely just yawns, but not the shock or "is this a joke?" type reactions you've said your friends have had. -k

You have him confused with Barack Obama. You have him confused with John Kerry. Yes, that whole Air Force thing is tailor-made for slackers and layabouts. -k

You can't be serious. Both are hopelessly tainted by long association with Dubya's regime. People probably would have understood the pick, but does that matter? How does nominating a VP who spent months explaining to people why John McCain is the wrong man for the job help to convince people that John McCain is the right man for the job? And for all the talk about Palin's experience, Romney's political resume is even shorter than Palin's. Because what better way of putting the Bush regime behind the party than to make the original Mr Homeland Security the VP nominee. Rice or Ridge might have better qualifications to be Vice President than Palin does, but does that make them smart choices? I suggest that either of them would have been the exact opposit of a smart choice at this particular time. Nominating figures so closely tied to the Bush regime would have been complete and utter political suicide. I think it is likely that some of these people will want to run for President in the future, which would be difficult to do with a crushing defeat as VP candidate on their resume. And this is the part I find most puzzling. I can certainly understand people thinking there were better choices, but I'm at a loss as to whypeople have come to the conclusion that Palin is a joke of some kind. -k

Hence my comment that Obama will have to tread carefully with regard to women. Nor would I. But if things got to the point where I didn't think it actually mattered which party was in power, I wouldn't hesitate to vote for the female candidate just because I think there is an intrinsic value in breaking the "glass ceiling". Obama just has to make sure never gives anyone reason to doubt whether he's really any different from his opponents. I'm sure he was, in a general sense. But when both Obama and Biden make statements about how positive it is to have a woman nominated for vice president and breaking barriers, their message is really tailored to women who want to see women succeed in politics. They're saying "hey, we understand, we feel the same way." I will try and find it. However, I don't doubt for a moment that Obama understands extremely well what a fine line he has to walk. Note Obama's public statements regarding Palin, and the Democrats' first commercial regarding her, don't have actually discuss her specifically. "Great to have a woman in the race, she seems like an excellent person, but it's really all about McCain and let's get back to discussing him." The only official Democrats discussing her in negative terms are people who are geographically far away from Obama and discussing her entirely in terms of her political background. I'd bet money that you won't hear an official representative of the party say the words "beauty queen" or "beauty pageant" during the entire campaign. They'll leave that side of things up to bloggers and youtube and gossip websites and message board nerds. No male politician has to deal with the sort of stuff that's being directed towards Palin. That sort of argument, whether coming from the Democrats themselves, or from their supporters, would be an extremely bad idea. It'll just make people wonder how the "change!" message would sound if it was being delivered by a light-skinned fellow named Barry Dunham instead of a dark-skinned fellow named Barack Obama. -k

I think you're underestimating the allure of identity. Case in point: sometime back in spring, August provided me with a statistic that blacks were supporting Obama over Hilary by a ratio of about 10 to 1. While I am sure that there were those who were not influenced by either color or gender, I can't believe for a moment that blacks' overwhelming preference for Obama over Clinton was strictly because they liked his policies better. I don't know about you, but personally I hope to see a woman become President of the United States some day. I don't know if it'll happen during my lifetime (if Hilary couldn't do it, what chance has any other woman got?) but I would like to see it. I think there are probably lots of women who feel the same. I think that a lot of women who don't like Sarah Palin's politics will still at least feel some amount of empathy for her because they want to see women have a bigger role in politics. When Joe Biden said Palin's nomination "is one more indicator of this country moving forward ... one more hit against that glass ceiling," he's certainly speaking to women voters who don't share Palin's views but still want to see women have a bigger presence in politics. And if all the Obama supporters were as respectful of Palin as Biden was, there'd be nothing to worry about. But I read a blog posting earlier today that Obama is already warning his staffers and supporters to watch what they say about Palin, just as he earlier had to warn them to mind their manners when it came to how they talked about Hilary. Another couple of months of this and this and this and I am going to want to see her win just to wipe the sneers off the faces of the douchebags who are writing this kind of garbage. She's been nominated for less than 48 hours and I'm already sick of the tone of the attacks being made against her. -k