McCain picks woman for VP slot

[kimmy]

Because they had something of a history. They were known qualities/quantities. This was Palin's first speech on the big stage and some people are suggesting that the words spoken were such as to prove that she is something great. In reality, she likely played no part in choosing the words to the speech. The words were crafted by others.

Now I don't know about Hillary, but I've read that Obama actually takes a very hands-on approach and does a lot of his own writing, which speaks well of him (no pun intended)

Of course you've heard he takes a hands-on approach. Who'd possibly say otherwise?

Obama has something of a history of doing of about the same thing as Palin did last night. He's a known quantity for doing about the same thing as Palin did last night.

You found it compelling?

Absolutely. I think it was the best speech I've heard this year that wasn't delivered by Obama himself.

-k

[M.Dancer]

Stay classy, Dancer.

Pardon? What am I misisng? Are democratic families suddenly off limits? Everyone knows Chelsea is a special needs kid....how come no one yelped at bill or hillary abandon her for their ambition?

[M.Dancer]

Stay classy, Dancer.

Funny, you haven't admonished Mr Best and the shit of Palin crew for the same thing....Hippo Crit?

[bush_cheney2004]

Absolutely. I think it was the best speech I've heard this year that wasn't delivered by Obama himself.

Agreed...it was remarkable because expectations were heightened and she had to deliver the biggest speech of her life in front of her first national audience. Gov Palin had to nail it...and she did. Comparisons to Sen Obama's pressure speech in Philadelphia are appropriate.

[Black Dog]

Pardon? What am I misisng? Are democratic families suddenly off limits? Everyone knows Chelsea is a special needs kid....how come no one yelped at bill or hillary abandon her for their ambition?

Because Chelsea isn't a special needs kid?

Funny, you haven't admonished Mr Best and the shit of Palin crew for the same thing....Hippo Crit?

Except I have spent the entire thread doing just that. Go sleep it off.

[kimmy]

Ummm. Because August1991 said: I didn't listen to the speech but I was certain that "the Left" would immediately step in and claim that someone else wrote it, so I was pointing out that someone else did write it. I didn't realize that would "suddenly make it an issue." I guess I should have ignored the comment and carried on as if she did write it? Would that have been better?

I'm sure you were well aware that August's point was not to wonder whether she wrote the speech herself, but to predict that the Democrats and Obama supporters would seize on that as a major talking point...

I couldn't care less about how "good" her speech was. It was written by someone who met her a week ago, so if her speech was good, it tells me that he wrote a good speech. I'm much more interested in her words, which so far haven't impressed me in the least.

...as you've demonstrated, along with bloggers and party people and internet geeks by the thousands.

It's a tack seized on by people who are too dumb to know that speechwriters aren't a big part of the conventions, or by people who hope others are too dumb to know that, or by people who are desperately trying to think of negative things to say about Palin's speech.

If you're "not sure," I guess you have no point.

My point was that I can't recall seeing an Obama speech or Hilary speech where the director took such a lingering look at the teleprompter. They stayed with a shot from behind Palin, looking either at her right shoulder, or at the teleprompter. Since there was nothing particularly unusual about her right shoulder, or anything else on the back of her jacket, I am assuming the point of interest was the teleprompter.

I can't personally recall seeing coverage of another speech where the person directing the camerawork was so interested by a teleprompter. Perhaps I just haven't watched the right speeches, or perhaps the person directing the production felt it particularly notable that Palin was using a teleprompter, even though it's a standard practice at almost any major speech.

I have no desire to praise it or undermine it since she merely read the words someone else had carefully written for her. But keep feeling her "performance" (you got that right, it was nothing more than a performance) was "so compelling" that we have to "grasp at staws," because that says a lot more about you than it does her "detractors."

Only a very naive person would doubt that the speeches they saw at the DNC were "performances" in the exact same sense, and I know you're not a naive person.

Such "performances" matter. Obama's rise is proof of how much "performances" matter.

-k

Edited September 5, 2008 by kimmy

[Guest American Woman]

I'm sure you were well aware that August's point was not to wonder whether she wrote the speech herself, but to predict that the Democrats and Obama supporters would seize on that as a major talking point...

...as you've demonstrated, along with bloggers and party people and internet geeks by the thousands.

It's a tack seized on by people who are too dumb to know that speechwriters aren't a big part of the conventions, or by people who hope others are too dumb to know that, or by people who are desperately trying to think of negative things to say about Palin's speech.

My point was that I can't recall seeing an Obama speech or Hilary speech where the director took such a lingering

Only a very naive person would doubt that the speeches they saw at the DNC were "performances" in the exact same sense, and I know you're not a naive person.

Such "performances" matter. Obama's rise is proof of how much "performances" matter.

-k

I wasn't any more interested in Obama's DNC performance than I was Palin's RNC performance. But thanks just the same for all the references to "internet geeks" and "people who are too dumb to know" anything, apparently. I think just as highly of you.

[kimmy]

I wasn't any more interested in Obama's DNC performance than I was Palin's RNC performance. But thanks just the same for all the references to "internet geeks" and "people who are too dumb to know" anything, apparently. I think just as highly of you.

As you're always one for semantics, note that I didn't actually call you either of those things.

-k

[Moonlight Graham]

Agreed...it was remarkable because expectations were heightened and she had to deliver the biggest speech of her life in front of her first national audience. Gov Palin had to nail it...and she did. Comparisons to Sen Obama's pressure speech in Philadelphia are appropriate.

Hers was definately a very good speech. But i think it has been elavated because of the expectations & pressure she had (and rightly so). However, if you just look at the speeches on their own merit, i think there's been a few good speeches as good as hers. For instance, i thought Joe Biden's DNC speech was really good also.

[bush_cheney2004]

Hers was definately a very good speech. But i think it has been elavated because of the expectations & pressure she had (and rightly so). However, if you just look at the speeches on their own merit, i think there's been a few good speeches as good as hers. For instance, i thought Joe Biden's DNC speech was really good also.

Yes...Sen Biden did a fine job, but he is a seasoned politician. He didn't have nearly the newcomer (in many ways) burdens of Sarah Palin. John McCain bet his candidacy on a virtual unknown, and she scored a hat trick for him.

The Obama camp is busy figuring out how to wrest the momentum back, and I'm not sure that Joe Biden can do it for a traditional Veep role in the general campaign. The news media are comparing Palin to Obama, not Biden.

[WIP]

I've changed my mind about Sarah Palin. My concerns about her deciding to campaign to be John McCain's Vice President while needing to care for a teenage daughter going through an unwanted pregnancy and a special needs child have been answered. I read the many posts on this forum. I read reports in the mainstream and the independent press. After all that I find myself agreeing wholeheartedly now with Bonnie Fuller, a mother of a 17 year old daughter, who wrote in the Huffington Post, "Is Sarah Palin ready to take the mantle of worst mother of the year from Lynne Spears? Has Todd Palin wrestled the title of worst father from Billy Ray Cyrus?

Sarah Palin may be running for Vice President but is she any different from the woman who sold the story of her daughter Jamie Lynn's pregnancy to a magazine for $1 million, or from the father that allowed 15-year-old Miley Cyrus to be photographed semi-nude for Vanity Fair supposedly to further her career?"

Read Fuller's article, and I think you'll agree she makes a compelling, irrefutable case that Sarah and Todd Palin are possible the worst parents in America.

My minds now settled, and will not be changed by further posts on this matter.

I don't think Bonnie Fuller and most people who are not very religious get it! Most secular-minded folk observing how the Palins tried to cover up this story until the National Enquirer started calling them, thought that the social conservative base would be offended by this scandal and demand that Sarah Palin be removed and replaced with another candidate for VP. But Christians base their opinions of other people's moral character more on what they believe, than on what they do or practice. It's okay if you're a womanizing drunk, as long as you ask for forgiveness. But, if you fall short of what they consider to be Christian, you can be faithfully married for 20 years, but you're still going to burn in hell anyway!

If the subject is Jamie Lynn Spears, this same crowd will condemn her (just like OReilley did) for her loose morals, and condemn her parents for not teaching her proper Christian values. But when the subject is Bristol Palin, the daughter of a Christian Right political leader who is almost off the chart, she is so far right on social issues, the line from the convention is more along the lines of 'oh well we're all sinners' and at least she kept the baby' and 'even the best parents can't keep their kids out of trouble,' and the like.

Well, Jamie Spears kept the baby too, and has jeopardized a TV career that may never get back on track. So, what's the difference? She is assumed to be wanton and carnal because her older sister represents everything that sends Christian fundamentalist parents to the medicine cabinet, looking for the valium. So, they couldn't possibly be real Christians now could they? But the Palins check off all of the right boxes on the Christian litmus test -- so all is forgiven!

[WIP]

Last night wasn't about that. Obama's been making love to the public with rhetoric for months. It's only fair the Reps even the score a bit.

But your comment is revealing: as republicans, we believe in cycles and laissez fair. Sure, there4 may be some good policy changes that could tweak up the confidence in the financial system or ensure solid future lending practices, but to expect the government to rescue you from the plight of your now extinct GMC truck manufacturing job is a democratic sentiment, not a republican one.

I wouldn't call a multibillion dollar deal to sell a bankrupt investment bank "tweak up the confidence!" Laissez faire capitalism means hands-off, no bailouts for FannieMae and FreddieMac, no favours to keep anyone in business, even if they are wealthy Republican campaign contributors! The only difference between Democrats and Republicans, is who they want to bail out.

[WIP]

I am curious how many moderate Americans realize this. I also think his race is a big advantage in his favour. He will get 95%+ of the black vote and for every red neck that won't vote for a black guy there is a middle of the road white yuppie who feels obligated to give the black guy a chance even if his policies are dubious. IOW - I think Obama will win but McCain has made it a race by picking Palin no matter what her faults. I think McCain would have been facing an electoral collage shutout If he had went with a 'experienced-white-guy' for VP.

There may be a significant segment of independents who are supporting Obama because they are sick of the damage the Republicans have done on so many fronts, and want no more conservative judges on the Supreme Court -- it can't happen without throwing all of the bums out, since McCain would keep on nominating conservative judges and appointing Republicans to management positions in all government departments.

And on the economic front, McCain's track record is pretty left for a Republican, and once the campaign rhetoric dies down, he'll almost certainly reverse is tax pledge once elected. McCain is on record a number of times, calling the Bush tax cuts unaffordable, and the primary contributor to increasing deficits. McCain's primary interests are War On Terror and looking for new places to invade. He even admits, himself, that the economy is a secondary interest to foreign policy. And, after the mess Bush has made of the economy, it's hard to argue that Democrats are going to be worse!

[Liam]

Thoughts on McCain's speech:

- I was completely underwhelmed. he was never going to win on style points (not against Obama, Biden and Palin), but this speech sounded more like a career-end valedictory than someone who needs push the country forward into a new century. Whoever was managing the visuals behind McCain should never work in that town again. I know the large screen showed fields of grass, but on close-up, all we saw on TV was that damn green background behind McCain again. It made him look old and washed out.

- Seeking bipartisanship is a noble objective and I wish there was more of it. That was good. His acknowledgment of Obama was decent of him. McCain showed that there might still be a decent man inside the Bush shill he became over the past 8 years. What I feel for McCain is akin to what I felt about Dole: a decent senior statesmen who is better and more reasonable than the young pups of his party but, sadly, a voice from the past who won't win "tomorrow" for voters.

- McCain's wartime biography was about the only interesting thing in the speech. The rest was shockingly dull, poorly delivered, clumsy and awkward sounding. He talked through some applause lines and got no applause in some spots.

- It's clear that McCain has an enormous job cut out for himself if he thinks he is going to refocus the GOP from being the quasi-religious entity it is to going back to Reaganite basics. The crowd simply did not get on board with some of his declarations (e.g., acknowledging that his own party played a role in the massive expansion of government under Bush -- you could almost hear the crickets). The loudest applause came for a shout out to Palin and for insistence that we drill oil wells everywhere. Perhaps the only way for the GOP to sit back and retool is to lose and lose big. I don't see how continued success will allow them to see how far they've gone from being a mostly secular party that believed in individual responsibility and little government intervention to being a party with religious orthodoxy requirements and a paternalistic view of government meddling into individuals' private lives. The crowd in the hall represented the latter.

- Job training? I didn't know what the heck that meant when Clinton said it in 1992 and I sure don't understand why the GOP would have gone down that path. It sounds like either an expansion of government handouts or a continuation of some Bush-like compassionate conservative claptrap. he shouldn't have gone there. The crowd didn't like it.

- Barely a mention of W. McCain only referred to him by title, not by name, and then intimated that he played a big part in leading the party astray. Very true, but Ouch.

[White Doors]

I've changed my mind about Sarah Palin. My concerns about her deciding to campaign to be John McCain's Vice President while needing to care for a teenage daughter going through an unwanted pregnancy and a special needs child have been answered. I read the many posts on this forum. I read reports in the mainstream and the independent press. After all that I find myself agreeing wholeheartedly now with Bonnie Fuller, a mother of a 17 year old daughter, who wrote in the Huffington Post, "Is Sarah Palin ready to take the mantle of worst mother of the year from Lynne Spears? Has Todd Palin wrestled the title of worst father from Billy Ray Cyrus?

Sarah Palin may be running for Vice President but is she any different from the woman who sold the story of her daughter Jamie Lynn's pregnancy to a magazine for $1 million, or from the father that allowed 15-year-old Miley Cyrus to be photographed semi-nude for Vanity Fair supposedly to further her career?"

Read Fuller's article, and I think you'll agree she makes a compelling, irrefutable case that Sarah and Todd Palin are possible the worst parents in America.

My minds now settled, and will not be changed by further posts on this matter.

You presume to think that we care what you think?

[Stephen Best]

You presume to think that we care what you think?

You must care deeply about what I think because you keep responding to my posts--just as you have now. Do you not know your own mind, grasshopper, as I know mine?

[Stephen Best]

I think that I can safely put you down as someone who wants to "bring the troops home".

Doesn't everyone want to bring the troops home? I suspect that most of the troops would rather go home, too. Do you not want to bring the troops home? Can I safely put you down as someone who does not want to bring the troops home?

[moderateamericain]

I trully love it when people judge other peoples parenting abilities. Because everyone is a hypocrite when it comes to parenting because Aint nobody perfect at it. If they want to label her as the worst parent of the year maybe that writer needs to get dropped off in Down town Detroit in the hood and see what REAL bad parenting is. Those kids will be given the very best opportunities if she becomes VP. Terrible parents my rear end. Get off your fucking soap box.

Edited September 5, 2008 by moderateamericain

[Argus]

What's this tax and spend bull? It's the liberals who, every time, pull countries like the United States, Canada, and the United Kingdom out of the fiscal mess left by conservatives who tax, spend, and borrow.

That's silliness, of course. In Canada, it's been Liberal governments which racked up the debt, in the US it's been the Democrats, in the UK the Labour party. In all three countries the conservatives have been the ones who were and are more fiscally responsible. Granted, the currente occupant of the White House doesn't seem to care about such things, but he's not really much of a conservative.

[Liam]

I was probably still a bit groggy ths morning when I posted about McCain's speech. One thing I failed to mention is that I think it was designed to speak to people outside the arena and, in that regard, it may be viewed as more successful than I seemed to give it credit earlier. I don't think it will be considered the most memorable speech of the convention by a long shot, but it might help McCain a bit with moderates and independents.

I suspect there may be a danger looming on the horizon for McCain, and the reaction of the crowd last night tipped me off to this. I didn't get the impression that people in the audience, the inner members of the GOP, were all that happy to be told they abused the public's trust. I think some of them, while feeling better about the GOP ticket's prospects in November, are probably back to being a little concerned that McCain might not be one of them and that, if elected, might actually try to compromise or seek middle ground on issues that are most dear to them. You could tell that some of the lines in the speech fell flat, and not only because of its delivery but because of content and implication.

I don't think the right will trust McCain to deliver on the issues that are most important to them (abortion, gay marriage, creationism, etc.) and I know they think they've been shown the back of the bus before. Palin goes a long way in closing that trust gap, but the campaign is going to need to tone down Palin's out-of-the-middle views or at least de-emphasize them in order to appeal to the middle. I think there's a strong possibility that the right wingers will want Palin to be the voice of the campaign and will not sit back and stay quiet if she is muzzled.

[Argus]

Second, Clinton raised taxes to cover existing government spending - and Clinton was a fiscal conservative. Obama has X, Y, Z scheme to improve America by making the US government bigger and spending more. Obama will raise taxes and spend more money. He's tax and spend.

And McCain? He wants to raise defense spending and lower taxes. As far as the half trillion deficit is concerned, he blithely dismisses it as something which can be gotten under control by "elminating government waste". Huh? Eliminate half a trillion in spending? Give us details, John! What exactly would you cut to eliminate that much spending? More, actually, since he wants to cut taxes while increasing spending on the military. Where at the details, John?

If Obama became president, there would be a long, long line of people, bowl extended, who will expect payback.

And not for McCaine? Come on. He's already mortgaged his soul to the Christian Right, giving them their choice of VP, promising them whatever judges they want, vetos on programs which deal with social issues, and of course, guns, guns, guns for everyone!

[Liam]

That's silliness, of course. In Canada, it's been Liberal governments which racked up the debt, in the US it's been the Democrats, in the UK the Labour party. In all three countries the conservatives have been the ones who were and are more fiscally responsible. Granted, the currente occupant of the White House doesn't seem to care about such things, but he's not really much of a conservative.

Not entirely true. Remember deficit clocks during the Reagan years? Deficit spending became necessary when Reagan cut taxes and was the way government fed itself. Bush I wasn't all that good at balancing budgets, either (and he had to go back on his no new taxes pledge). Bush II is simply hopeless.

The only era of halfway decent deficit and budget management since the 70's was under Bill Clinton. I don't give him credit, I give credit to the fact that government was divided and there were balances in place.

[Stephen Best]

That's silliness, of course. In Canada, it's been Liberal governments which racked up the debt, in the US it's been the Democrats, in the UK the Labour party. In all three countries the conservatives have been the ones who were and are more fiscally responsible. Granted, the currente occupant of the White House doesn't seem to care about such things, but he's not really much of a conservative.

You are living in an alternate reality or the distant past. Get real or get current.

[Liam]

And McCain? He wants to raise defense spending and lower taxes. As far as the half trillion deficit is concerned, he blithely dismisses it as something which can be gotten under control by "elminating government waste". Huh? Eliminate half a trillion in spending? Give us details, John! What exactly would you cut to eliminate that much spending?

Maybe the savings will come from curtailing Cindy's wardrobe choices? (snark)

http://www.vanityfair.com/online/politics/...000-outfit.html

[bush_cheney2004]

That's silliness, of course. In Canada, it's been Liberal governments which racked up the debt, in the US it's been the Democrats, in the UK the Labour party. In all three countries the conservatives have been the ones who were and are more fiscally responsible. Granted, the currente occupant of the White House doesn't seem to care about such things, but he's not really much of a conservative.

Well, I guess you are half right, but really missed the mark with respect to Conservative spending as well. In the US, as mentioned above, the Republicans are famous for running up the federal deficit with or without a Democrat controlled Congress. Mulroney compounded Trudeau's debt.