The Democrats off balance and off message
Sen. Barack Obama's campaign has been dazed by Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, the unqualified and yet wildly popular running mate chosen by Sen. John McCain. With time short, Democrats need to get back on message — economic and fiscal issues — and take aim squarely at the top of the GOP ticket, says Crosscut's national-politics writer. The public will figure out Palin for itself.
I belong to a committee of correspondents which includes a number of Democrats who have served in previous Democratic administrations and national campaigns. The following is my contribution, made Saturday, Sept. 13, to the dialogue, in response to comments by others that Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin's TV interview with ABC anchor Charles Gibson sank her candidacy once and for all.
The language is blunt because we are friends, and that is how we express ourselves. Here it is:
I disagree that Palin's interview with Gibson did grave damage to her credibility and to the Sen. John McCain-Palin ticket. On the contrary, it probably helped the ticket.
First, Gibson's demeanor toward Palin was patronizing: glasses halfway down his nose. Quite literally talking down to her, from an elevated position, as if he were the knowledgeable, substantive authority having to explain things to the empty housewife in front of him. Fact is, when Gibson tried to nail Palin with a "gotcha" on the Bush Doctrine, he was the one who got it wrong. He obviously knew no more than that which was on the crib sheet in his lap — which is about all that most TV talking heads know when they undertake such interviews.
Media hostility toward Palin is helping the McCain-Palin ticket immeasurably. There is a huge populist shift taking place in the country right now. On one side are Palinistas — Reagan Democrats, Hillary Democrats, whatever we want to call them — and on the other are what they regard as smug political/media elites who see them as inferior proles. Palin, at least for now, is the hero of the populists.
I got an e-mail the other day from a Seattle friend passing along a memo by Deepak Chopra, of all people, characterizing Palin as representing reactionary forces of darkness and Sen. Barack Obama as representing enlightened forces of light. New Age nonsense. The people sticking up for Palin are the same people who have abandoned the Democratic Party in varying numbers since 1968. They are not racists or reactionary dopes. They are, characteristically, people who work hard for a living, are saving to send their kids to college and for their retirement, may have kids or relatives in military service, go to church, do volunteer work, and fly the American flag on their porches on patriotic holidays. Typically, they are hard-pressed economically. They see themselves as idealists playing by the rules and trying to live the American Dream. They see their critics as self-involved and selfish snobs, often insulated from hard daily life, with intellectual pretensions not backed up by IQ. Media pundits, according to the populist view, rate a minus-5 on a scale of 1-to-10 when it comes to integrity. Whom the pundits attack, the populists admire — if the attackee fights back.
There is something else going on here. Obama, at the outset of his campaign, excited all of us with his "Yes we can" Message. It was a message that lifted all of us — and millions of independent and young voters, as well. It held out the promise that we could reach across partisan and ideological divisions to address together tough national problems. No more petty politics and gridlock. In fact, the opposite. Yes we can.
Gradually, Obama — I think without recognizing it — has morphed into a Kerry or Edwards clone. His inspiring Denver acceptance speech needlessly contained the usual boilerplate litany of interest-group promises that characterizes most Democratic national candidacies. Obama has defended recently his earlier pledge that all but a few Americans would get tax cuts in his presidency. But if you read his Denver laundry list, you recognize that his promised agenda cannot be attempted without huge tax increases across the board. The GOP has not yet gotten onto this. They are, after all, still The Dumb Party. But it is hard to believe they won't get it and react to it soon.
In recent days, Obama, after his meeting with former President Bill Clinton, seems to have signaled his campaign to adopt the self-pitying, victimized, the-other-guys-are-lying approach that Clinton himself so often used when under political and legal fire during his presidency. This, too, is a mistake — if, in fact, such a conscious decision was made. One reason the Obama candidacy was so welcome was it represented an exorcism of Clintonism from our party — a return to expression of a higher, more hopeful agenda and withdrawal from the low-politics, next-news-cycle tactical partisanship practiced by Clinton. Obama must be large and above petty partisanship. A Bill Clinton imitation is the last thing called for.
It would be a shame if we lost this election. Obama does, I believe, represent a sea change our party badly needs. He has already been through many more campaign events, interviews, and so on than McCain. McCain won his nomination much earlier and without the struggle Obama had to enture. Obama clearly is tired and needs to find second wind. There comes a time in any national campaign — usually toward the end of September or early October — when both candidates really hit their strides and their themes. I think that is likely to happen in this campaign when the vice-presidential and presidential debates take place.
Like what you just read? Support high quality local journalism by becoming a member of Crosscut.com today!
Comments:
Posted Mon, Sep 15, 4:55 a.m. inappropriate
Experience Matters: Obama is fading because the attention on Sarah Palin's qualifications is causing people to take another look at Obama's curriculum vitae and what they see is a former "community organizer" with 140 working-days in the Senate and zero executive experience. He is an unqualified lightweight and the only reason the party elders selected him over Hillary is because of the color of his skin. Obama is the recipient of a great affirmative action award.
Obama may still convince more Americans to vote for him, but he will have to earn it. The easy free ride he's been receiving from the media is over.
Posted Mon, Sep 15, 9:47 a.m. inappropriate
Experience?: Lady Be Good makes some great points.
Why does anybody who criticizes Palin's experience think that Obama has the experience necessary to be a good president?
I found the "outrage" voiced by community organizers across the country to be disingenuous in a humorous way. Nobody is criticizing community organizers --- they do valuable work. But if that is a candidate's sole job experience before entering politics, then that candidate does not have the experience necessary to be a good president. Period. (I know that Obama was also a non-tenure track, part-time lecturer at the Univ of Chicago Law School. I'm an alum of that fine school, and don't believe that that adds to the experience needed to be a good president.)
Obama claims that managing his big campaign gives him the executive experience needed to be president. Who is he kidding? By that circular logic, any individual could start running for president at birth, never take a job, but manage enough campaign staff to be qualified to be president. Give me a break.
I've also heard the argument that says "Obama went to Harvard Law School and was President of the Law Review, so he must be qualified." I hope I hear that a lot more --- it is further evidence of the elitist attitude that alienates most Americans, and will only help McCain.
Obama seems to be a fine, intelligent man, who gives a good speech so long as his teleprompter isn't broken. But what has he actually DONE or ACCOMPLISHED that demonstrates that he has the EXPERIENCE necessary to be a good president? I'm waiting for that answer...
Posted Mon, Sep 15, 10:13 a.m. inappropriate
Obama's qualifications: I'm supporting Obama because I think he's qualified to be President, more so than any of the other candidates this year. There's no simple way to measure readiness. It's not just the number of years on your resume. I think the most important thing is the way a candidate's mind works, the way they make decisions, the values they defend and hold.
If you think a good President is one who makes quick, unreflecting "gut" decisions and who uses black-and-white thinking to divide the world into those who are "with us" or "like us" and those who are "evil", then you probably voted for Bush and you've probably realized that didn't work out so well.
I think a good President is one who can reflect on and care about different constituencies and needs which are often in conflict. Workers need one thing, stockholders need something different. People need health care, and people need to have their tax burden kept as light as possible. A good President doesn't shut his or her eyes to moral complexity, but does share and passionately defend the basic values that make this nation a good place to live.
The most important qualification in a President is that he or she be reality-based, that he learn from experience.
When I first heard about Barack Obama, I thought, "Who's this guy who's running for President already?" But the more I saw of the way he operates, the more impressed I became. I think he has vision and a gift for the kind of leadership that can bring people together and bring out the best in them. I also think he's a solid manager; he hires good people and listens to what they have to say. He opens doors. And he stays himself. He doesn't say whatever people will find most flattering; he challenges people.
That doesn't seem like snake oil to me. This guy is no Messiah-wannabe. His message is, basically, "Get off your ass, we've all got a lot of work to do to keep our country great, and we can do it." That's the hope he's talking about--realistic hope based on our taking responsibility for our future.
I don't think Obama's perfect, and I'm sure he'll disappoint in one way or another. But I do think his message is the right one for this country, and that tells me that he's using good judgment.
That's real strength. I wish I were seeing it in the Republican ticket this year. I would love to trust that, whoever wins, we'll be led in a spirit of integrity and love for our *whole* country.
I wish I thought John McCain still knew what he stood for, but I've seen him reverse himself on everything I used to think mattered to him, such as truthfulness. I think he personally rejects the kind of sleazy, polarizing "us versus them" crap he's now using to propel himself higher in the polls. I mean, he knows better, but he's doing this anyway.
And it works, for a while. People get fired up. We remember our wounds and resentments. Conservatives feel slighted and threatened by liberals. Liberals feel attacked by conservatives. We all start acting and thinking like kids in junior high school. Suddenly it seems possible that we'll attack Russia, with no coherent reason except someone's "gut feeling." If we were thinking more clearly we'd remember how many sacrifices our troops are already making on our behalf, and we'd realize that we have work to do to resolve the wars we've already begun in Iraq and Afghanistan.
I'm praying for a return to sanity before November.
Posted Mon, Sep 15, 10:23 a.m. inappropriate
Palin More Qualified Than Obama: Gov. Sarah Palin is as qualified as many other VPs have been in the past, and more so than Obama is for President. She has executive experience, which he does not. He may have more legislative experience (in Ill) but that is not the same as running a city, however small, or being the Chief Executive of a State. Strip him of his race and he would never have made it this far if it hadn't been for his opponents scandals in Ill. Tell me which of our Washington State legislators you think is ready to be POTUS. The old boys club of the DNC figured he would strip Hillary of her black supporters - and it worked. So now we have a charming, eloquent, sexist candidate - a poster boy for the worst of affirmative action. (yes, he is sexist, lipstick was only the most recent of his coded sexist attacks, ignored by the fawning media - and women know it.) You have been gamed by DNC with race as the first card and are now trying to put lipstick on a pig.
Posted Mon, Sep 15, 10:33 a.m. inappropriate
McCain Is A Sleazy Liar: John McCain, who would not sell his soul to win his party's nomination, is ready to sell every piece of his soul to win the presidency.
Posted Mon, Sep 15, 11:30 a.m. inappropriate
RE: Palin More Qualified Than Obama: I'm a woman and I don't think Obama's sexist. Whatever it is you've heard him saying, would you mind being specific about it? I think he's surrounded by strong, self-respecting women and girls--his wife, his daughters, many of his campaign staff and advisors--who wouldn't put up with him if he were sexist.
And the idea that his race has helped him get where he is--what are you basing this on? Whether or not you agree with him, how can you dismiss the effectiveness and stamina he's demonstrated over the past two years of campaigning? He's managed an effective campaign with unprecedented success in organizing and fundraising. And he's managed to stay on-message almost the whole time. Whether or not you like him, his skills are undeniably his own.
I think racism is as real as sexism, and if you wanted to sift through the commentary and opinions about all the candidates you could find as much to offend you on Obama's behalf as on Hillary Clinton's or anyone else's.
Posted Mon, Sep 15, 1:07 p.m. inappropriate
No, it's worse: She said we can't afford another New Deal. Here's a clue, lady. We couldn't afford the Great Depression that conservatives brought us, and that liberals got us out of.
We always clean up the messes that conservatives bring us. Conservatism has always failed us and always will. People like Ted Van Dyk, who for some unknown reason gets paid to repeat, ad infinitum, the perfectly obvious, won't ever say that. But I will, and cheerfully.
As for Lainie, cut her some slack. She neglected to get her rabies shot this month.
Posted Mon, Sep 15, 1:17 p.m. inappropriate
RE: Palin More Qualified Than Obama: His comment about lipstick on a pig in the context of his speech was clearly a reference to Gov. Palin. Watch the video - the audience got it, gasped and then laughed, much like the black audience when Obama's priest friend was vilifying Hillary Clinton. (Watch the Christians in the front rows in that one.) Obama said this man was his mentor and long standing friend. (I know who my racist family members and friends are, why would Obama not know this.) The he gave Hillary the finger in another speech to supporters - slick, puerile but sexist. And of course palying the "bitch" rap song when he won in Iowa. He coded his lipstick comment in the same way. If I told you in the context of this discussion that some pigs are black, you would get who I am referring to, wouldn't you. Do you hear me Now?
And forget the racism ploy. Women my age (70's) have experience with blacks in many settings. We can look beyond color. I've been in jail on civil rights issues, caucused for Jesse Jackson, vote for black candidates, donated to black causes, taught the first wave of Affirmative Action students, worked with and for black colleagues for years, and sat in anti-war and civil rights strategy sessions with them. (Could have slept with one or two.) Your man is attractive but not qualified. He is a creature of the white male establishment and will do their bidding. You are the one using racism. Give it up. Many of us have.
Posted Mon, Sep 15, 2:30 p.m. inappropriate
RE: No, it's worse: Economic fiddling by both Hoover and Roosevelt got us into the Great Depression and Roosevelt's 10 years of additional fiddling extended it. Both men knew nothing about economics, but they persued an active strategy of government action to lessen the effects of what could have been a passing major recession and instead codified it into law by such actions (under Roosevelt) as government-set minimum prices, a tight money policy that lead to deflation of the dollar and failure of small banks, and government competing rather than working with business in such areas as agriculture and energy. One thing ended the Depression: World War II. As Roosevelt himself said, it was time for the country to retire "Doctor New Deal" and replace him with "Doctor Win the War", much to the chagrin of the dictator-worshipping members of his staff.
Posted Mon, Sep 15, 4:28 p.m. inappropriate
Palin is the Reincarnation of Washington's Congresswoman Linda Smith: I agree that Palin is unqualified and that she will implode given enough time. The question is whether there is enough time. I also agree that McCain and not Palin should be the target. The economy is the issue and the shame is that the Democrat's have let McCain take the energy issue portion of the economy away from them.
But for those who wonder about the populist fascination with Palin, look no further than the political rise of former Washington State Congwoman Linda Smith.
Posted Mon, Sep 15, 6:58 p.m. inappropriate
RE: No, it's worse: Mr. Breneman,
It may be that Roosevelt's policies deepened or extended the Great Depression - I don't think that's correct, but I admit that it could be possible - but there is no way that Roosevelt had anything to do with getting us into the Great Depression.
Seeing as it is generally regarded as starting in 1929 and Roosevelt isn't elected until 1933.
Posted Mon, Sep 15, 7:02 p.m. inappropriate
RE: Palin More Qualified Than Obama: His comment about lipstick on a pig in the context of his speech was clearly a reference to Gov. Palin. Watch the video - the audience got it
It is clearly a reference to Gov. Palin's speech, but it refers to the policies of the last eight years (which is what the literal words preceding the lipstick quip said). Obama was no more calling her a pig then her comments made of herself were intended to indicate that she thinks of herself as a dog.
Posted Mon, Sep 15, 8:40 p.m. inappropriate
OBAMA next speech "I am Third": Maybe Obama has some special insight into the failure/ takeover of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, afterall he is the 3rd largest recipient of donations from those two organizations. $126,000 in under three years on the job. Maybe his oversight got blinded by his ambition. Many high profile Dems made millions after "Government Service" at Fannie Mae, Johnson , Raines, Goerlich well over $100 MILLION in BONUSES BETWEEN THEM. Will Obama call for a special counsel? Or will he take the money and run...for higher office.
Posted Mon, Sep 15, 9:12 p.m. inappropriate
RE: OBAMA next speech "I am Third": Man, that astroturf really gets around, don't it?
Why you would think Obama had anything to do with the Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac takeover, I'll never know. Wasn't that Sect. Paulson of the Bush administration orchestrating that? No real congressional role their that I can find.
Posted Tue, Sep 16, 1:32 a.m. inappropriate
Beauty does not trump brains: Back in May Obama cockily proclaimed he would debate Sen. John McCain "anywhere, anytime." But in June, Obama said no to McCain's challenge to have 10 one-on-one town hall meetings. If Obama had agreed to McCain's proposal for 10 town hall-style debates we would be hearing a lot more substance instead of this silly name calling. However, Obama was afraid to engage McCain in ten debates on issues of substance because he knew that he would look untested, inexperienced and uninformed. He was correct, beauty contestants usually don't do so well when they have to rely on their brains instead of their looks.
Posted Tue, Sep 16, 7:29 a.m. inappropriate
RE: Palin More Qualified Than Obama: Hm. I disagree about the "lipstick" comment--I've seen the video and I don't think Obama's comment was a sexist slam on Gov. Palin. I don't see any signs in his manner or the context of his comment that he's doing anything other than using a common idiom. As for the "some pigs are black" comment--that would sound odd since it's not a turn of phrase people use. But if someone were to say, "that's the pot calling the kettle black," I wouldn't automatically take it as a reference to Obama.
What I remember about the Rev. Wright situation is that Wright's comments contributed to Obama's ending their relationship. My impression was that Obama was pained by Wright's inflammatory, polarizing and disrespectful behavior during the campaign. I don't think any of us can know what our friends or associates will do in advance--I got the impression that Obama was surprised by Wright's behavior.
I have never heard of the finger-giving moment, or the "bitch" rap song. Are there any links to video on those?
And I don't think I'm trying a "ploy." I don't think I'm using racism, either, and I don't see where you find the basis for accusing me of racism.
Posted Tue, Sep 16, 7:53 a.m. inappropriate
Politicjock: At least have the courtesy to give credit to the person whom you quoted. Thomas Friedman.
Posted Tue, Sep 16, 8:04 a.m. inappropriate
RobC: Leftist's always resort to calling someone names when they disagree with them. Their childishness is annoying and predictable.
Fact: Never in history has a less experienced and unaccomplished and virtual unknown man been nominated for president than Obama. His proposals weren't that much different than Hillary's. He hasn't accomplished anything of significance unless you count writing two books about himself.
Racist? Who made an issue of his being a black man? The MSM who as soon as he announced his candidacy for president, began gushing over "the first black nominee for president" (how quickly they forgot that Clinton was the first black president) and haven't stopped. So I'm a racist because here is an unaccomplished unknown who suddenly leaps to the top and becomes the winner of the Democratic nomination for president and the media falls all over themselves that he is black. To take down the Clinton machine is no small feat. So with little difference between Hillary and Obama, what gave him the edge? I'd suggest his color. Also, how about the fact that over 90% of blacks support him? Could that be construed as racism? No, of course not.
I'd say Obama is a racist. His support of abortion (and infanticide) has served to decimate the black population who have resorted to abortion in greater numbers than Hispanics or whites. Blacks also have a 70% rate of illegitimate births. Encouraging blacks to kill millions of their future generations and raising those born without the benefit of both a father and mother in a stable home environment doesn't appear to me to be either compassionate or supportive and in fact, seems to be an attack on the half of his race that is black.
Religious bigotry? I suppose you, like Obama, believe we can just sit down at a Starbuck's and convince Islamic terrorist's not to kill us. If Obama is elected one thing is guaranteed. Terrorist's will be emboldened. Negotiating with them has not worked, will never work and any sane person knows that. Is it religious bigotry not to deny the fact that every single attack against America and other western countries since at least 1979 has been done by followers of Islam? And is it not true that Islamic fanatics have consistently said their goal is to take down the Great Satan and implement Islamic law throughout the entire world? Should we just close our eyes and take an extra sip of our Starbuck's, ignore reality and hope Obama really is a new messiah? Get ready to get out your prayer rug.
Red-baiting: Of course we are to dismiss Obama's mentoring and ties with Communists, Marxists, terrorists, racists and America-haters. He has surrounded himself, his entire life, with extreme radicals and groomed by the corrupt Chicago political machine led by Mayor Daly. But none of these people have had a bit of influence on him?
Obama's economic proposals, proposal for socialized medicine, the establishment of a government funded civilian military corps (remember Hitler's youth corps?), call for "sacrifice" to pay for his billions of dollars redistribution of wealth plan to "save the planet", put billions of dollars into early childhood education (i.e., begin indoctrination and brainwashing as soon as possible ), and extreme liberal voting record as a senator all reveal his Communist leanings.
And of course his extreme liberal partisanship makes it clear that he is the one to unify us. To bring us together. He never reached across the aisle for a compromise as a senator. Snakeoil salesman he is. And a chameleon.
Posted Tue, Sep 16, 8:28 a.m. inappropriate
Franklin Raines, Jamie Gorelick Made Millions!: Who instituted the Bonus program at Fannie Mae? ( See Franklin Raines) Who recieved Multi-Million Dollar bonuses? (See Raines and Gorelick) Why did Obama recieve $126,000 in contributions from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac? What is it that he did or did not do like Chris Dodd?
Posted Tue, Sep 16, 9:42 a.m. inappropriate
RE: No, it's worse: Roosevelt was inaugurated in 1933, that's true. But the depression didn't become great until after he took office. As bad as it was, the downturn of 1929 was basically a margin call, a bubble that burst, and would have corrected itself. Despite Hoover's meddling (he was a technocrat, after all, a guy with a reputation for solving problems) things were slowly turning around. By 1934 the outlook was much more bleak. As bad a job as Hoover did, Roosevelt deepened and extended the depression far more. But, in the 1930s, dictators were the modern, streamlined way to run a government, and Roosevelt's petty dictatorship over the economy was seen by many (even to this day) as therapeutic. It was not.
Posted Tue, Sep 16, 12:41 p.m. inappropriate
RE: No, it's worse: I call -ahem- bullshit.
From wikipedia:
"In dollar terms, American exports declined from about $5.2 billion in 1929 to $1.7 billion in 1933; but prices also fell, so the physical volume of exports only fell by half. Hardest hit were farm commodities such as wheat, cotton, tobacco, and lumber. According to this theory, the collapse of farm exports caused many American farmers to default on their loans, leading to the bank runs on small rural banks that characterized the early years of the Great Depression."
Thus, for many Americans, it was not getting better between 1929 and 1933. I suggest you read 'The Worst Hard Time' for a discussion of falling commodity prices and their impact on agricultural families.
Even Ben Bernanke (Essays on the Great Depression) disagrees with your synopsis, instead positing that monetary contraction policies of the Federal Reserve between 1929 and 1933 are what made a recession into the Great Depression.
Posted Tue, Sep 16, 1:07 p.m. inappropriate
RE: Franklin Raines, Jamie Gorelick Made Millions!: Who else is on the list? < href="http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2008/09/update-fannie-mae-and-freddie.html">Read this.
Number six: Spencer Bachus. Ranking Republican on the House Committee on Financial Services, former Chairman of the Banking Oversight Committee.
Number seven: Roy Blunt. House Minority Whip.
In fact, if you look at the top ten, the list splits evenly, five Democrats, five Republicans.
None of which makes me happy that Obama received money from Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac. I wish he hadn't. But it's a pretty good stretch to get from donation to being at fault for our current financial crisis. The guy isn't even on a relevant committee or a member of the Senate leadership (generally donations go to individuals on significant committees or to leadership positions).
Posted Tue, Sep 16, 1:29 p.m. inappropriate
RE: No, it's worse: Well, RobC, I'm not going to counter your childish taunt with more foul language, but I will offer a history of the depression that doesn't fall prey to Roosevelt boosterism, Amity Shlaes' _The Forgotten Man: A New History of the Great Depression_. From the Publishers Weekly review, which is not a partisan publication:
"This breezy narrative comes from the pen of a veteran journalist and economics reporter. Rather than telling a new story, she tells an old one (scarcely lacking for historians) in a fresh way. Shlaes brings to the tale an emphasis on economic realities and consequences, especially when seen from the perspective of monetarist theory, and a focus on particular individuals and events, both celebrated and forgotten (at least relatively so). Thus the spotlight plays not only on Andrew Mellon, Wendell Wilkie and Rexford Tugwell but also on Father Divine and the Schechter brothers–kosher butcher wholesalers prosecuted by the federal National Recovery Administration for selling "sick chickens." As befits a former writer for the Wall Street Journal, Shlaes is sensitive to the dangers of government intervention in the economy–but also to the danger of the government's not intervening. In her telling, policymakers of the 1920s weren't so incompetent as they're often made out to be–everyone in the 1930s was floundering and all made errors–and WWII, not the New Deal, ended the Depression. This is plausible history, if not authoritative, novel or deeply analytical. It's also a thoughtful, even-tempered corrective to too often unbalanced celebrations of FDR and his administration's pathbreaking policies."
Posted Tue, Sep 16, 1:38 p.m. inappropriate
Three former or current Democratic Presidential candidates top the list. Why?: Obama is half way through his first term, why is he in the top 3? What about Obama drew this level of contribution from Fannie and Freddie? Dems have been running the House and the Senate for 2 years now, where is the oversight? These agencies were being run by Democratic insiders and are being sued by stockholders. Why no investigation?
Posted Tue, Sep 16, 4:48 p.m. inappropriate
Van Dyk comment: Good response to a timely topic. One thought: Both Obama and McCain would do best, in the end, to state their views on major issues and to compare them with their opponent's. That, after all, is what campaigns are supposed to be about. Presently both campaigns are exchanging charges about issues that do not matter to the American people.
Posted Tue, Sep 16, 5:11 p.m. inappropriate
The up-side down ticket: It is very telling that when the experience question is brought up in this campaign, the bottom of the GOP ticket is compared to the top of the Democrat ticket. The gorilla in the front room here is that the head of the Democrat ticket is very light in the experience department as well. Obama defenders may say that he has more experience that Palin but truth be known is that if Obama has more experience than Palin it is marginal at best. AND THIS IS AT THE TOP OF THE DEMOCRAT TICKET.
In reality, the Veep spot is largely symbolic and inexperience isn't anywhere near the negative than it is at the top of the ticket ala' Obama. You can say that she is a "heartbeat" away from the big chair but McCain isn't dead yet. Moot point. And when you look at his 90+ year old mother following him on his campaign, his longevity becomes a real non-issue.
In years past it has always been commonly accepted that governors make better presidents and vice presidents than senators because they have actually run things (budgets, personnel decisions, etc.) and solved problems relating to actual governance, it's called executive experience. By that metric Palin gets plus points over Obama. By length of service Palin also gets plus points as she's been in government a bit longer than Obama. "Community organizer" doesn't count but even if it did she still wins. The more that the Obama left wants to talk about experience the more that it will highlight Obama's lack of it.
In leaving, I'd like to counter that latest BS to circulate in the media:
Jesus was a carpenter,
Carl Marx was a Community Organizer
And Pilot was a governor.
Posted Wed, Sep 17, 2:52 a.m. inappropriate
The Downfall: The horrifying truth that has Democrats second guessing themselves is the simple and inescapable fact that Obama was the absolute wrong choice and they should have gone for Hillary. When Obama/Biden go down in humiliating defeat (and they will) who will the Democrats blame? Howard Dean? The Rules Committee? The candidate himself?
Posted Thu, Sep 25, 12:34 p.m. inappropriate
Fading?: Wrong... as of this week, it is OBAMA that's ahead in the polls. This is an election that is his to win or lose. Quite frankly, I believe he will win. Mark my words.