Laexile wrote:

seke2 wrote:

Laexile wrote:

Monkeyboy wrote:There's no defense for her performance. She's the VP pick. This isn't freshmen political science class. She shouldn't be graded on a curve -- oh, not bad for a beginner, give her a chance to learn as she goes, etc.

That's exactly how we're grading Obama.

I disagree with that so much. Who is taking it easy on Obama because of his inexperience and making excuses for his inability to even converse fluently about any sort of relevant political topic? Nobody took it easy on Obama after his "above my pay grade" comment which I suppose is the closest recent parallel to Palin's interview flubs.

No one is taking it easy on Obama and I'm sure many people are critical of his answers. But it's how we're expected to grade those answers. Ask anyone about his qualifications and you'll hear things like:

He's not from Washington
He has new fresh ideas
He wants to change things
He's post-partisan
He's going to help the little guy
He's smart and cares

You don't hear that Obama is an expert on any issue. Obama's inexperience is one of the cornerstones of his campaign. People who have a ton of Washington experience are the problem, while his inexperience means he can bring change to Washington. He's not a politician. He fights for the people. So it doesn't matter that he keeps giving different answers on the economy. He'll surround himself with smart people. That's the curve we're supposed to grade him on.

This is inane.

I won't be voting for Obama for any of the reassons you sight above, and this twisted comparison I will give you this point very limited but i'll give you that this aspect of Obama could be paralleled to Palin. That is, the experience factor (which I think it bogus) is bogus to both, not just Obama. I still don't see them as apples to apples. Being a Senator even for a short time is a steeper climb but ok, she made governor, that's not nothing either.

The issue is and remains, that McCain's experience, personality and loylaties are not what I want in the White House, Palin in the on-deck circle for a 72 year old sitting president is also not what I want. Not because I think she'd ever really be able to do much on her own, though the country would "rally round our lady prez", but because it would be as bad or worse as W, because she'd be a totoal puppet to the worst elements in this country and govt that I abhor.

As people, Obama impresses 20X to Palin, I prefer his intellect over her religious mysticism. He is far more expert on issues of the day and his leanings are much more aceeptbale to me.

We can talk Palin this or that all day long. She's been a clever lucky move in some regards. From that standpoint it can be discussed. But she's no heavyweight and she's the VP candidate, not the prez. Talk to me about McCain.

On further review, I think that piece I posted earlier only gets it half-right. I agree that liberal Democrats have a failure of empathy and a certain arrogance when it comes to Republican voters--but the opposite is also absolutely true, and from my (admittedly biased perspective), the scorn, bordering on flat-out loathing and wishing of actual harm, is a lot stronger from right to left than vice-versa.

It's ironic that such a big part of the original appeal for both McCain and Obama was their stated willingness to see the supporters of the other side as full and equal Americans--as was clearly not the case in the Bush '04 campaign. That McCain (who previously had probably the better case that he'd lived this, not just said or written it), through the Palin pick most blatantly but also the general sneer and smear tactics of the last two months, has chosen to work the seam discovered by Nixon and strip-mined by Rove is sad enough. That it could very well win the election for him is much worse.

Steve Erickson wrote a few years ago that that each side sees its patriots and traitors, that we're champions of two diametrically opposed Americas--embodied, in his metaphor, by Cotton Mather (right) and Thomas Paine (left). On bad days, I think the problem is that liberals would prefer to find a way for those two Americas to reconcile, or at least co-exist in toleration, while many on the right would really rather just destroy ours.

jerseyhoya wrote:[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8eypiqtAdvg&e[/youtube]

This is such a fun race to follow.

Of course this makes me want to vote for him more, i'd move to that state JUST to vote for him. See, if this was some Limbaugh or Oreilly, it would be all about how they don't pull punches and play nicey nice.

Everyone knows Franken's background as a performer, entertainer, comedian. Didn't Jesse Ventura make it in as governor over there? How bout we pull some of his footage out.

I love this ad! GO Al!

dajafi wrote:I just stumbled across this--seems pretty interesting. The author, obviously a big liberal, might have put his finger on why the Dems so often lose...

Smart sound stuff written by some academic type

I dunno. I'm highly skeptical of highly general pseudo-anthropological psychologizing of crowds.

Or, to put it differently, I think the problem starts with the Port Huron Statement and the new left, which was a conceit by young people attending elite institutions that they somehow had something in common with blue collar workers and Black folks fighting for civil rights.

Anyone with a real job realizes that college students, especially college students at elite institutions, form one of the most privileged groups of people the world has ever seen--sex, drugs, parties, all on mom and dad's dime.

Or, to put it another way, real people hate hippies, for good reason, and the Democrats never cut their ties with those hippies. Obama, at least at first, was clearly not a hippie. And Clinton, he was kind of a hippie, but since he had a real Southern Accent, it didn't quite count. Kerry, Gore--those guys were clearly dirty pot smoking elitists, accustomed to treating their help just like members of the family as they handed their made the mud soaked clothes they fouled at Woodstock. Real Americans want to tell these people, hey, asshole, try working for a living before you tell us what's best for us.

Or, in a more serious sense, post materialist cultural issues only resonate with people who are secure in their material well-being. The inability of democratic elites to understand real insecurity (again, I think Clinton's success is explained by the fact that he's an exception to this) and real class resentment makes them tone deaf when it comes to a quest for some certainty in an increasingly uncertain world. Like many on this very board, they don't understand why people need to believe that Americans are good guys, and that there are eternal moral truths. If that goes, for many Americans, the whole game is over.

Or, even more simply, Democrats stated interests in an more equitable distribution is unconvincing. They can't mean it, because they're really no different from the Mitt Romneys who seem to take real pleasure in screwing us over every payday.

Camp Holdout wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:
Krauthammer thinks you are wrong.

he doesnt think im wrong. because what i think is that it is ridiculous that she didn't know what it was, had never heard it.. actually look at that, he agrees with me! from the article you just quoted "Yes, Sarah Palin didn't know what it is." i dont care if Gibson only was speaking about 1 aspect of the doctrine and not the malleable nature of the term.

sorry man. you should probably stop trying to defend ms palin in this matter, its just not going to work from any angle. it's insanity that she didn't know how to respond to that question. actually, fine fair enough... even if we accept that she may have been confused as to which part of the doctrine Charlie wanted her to respond to. he asked point blank to do that! "how do you interpret it?"

i guess the answer that krauthammer wanted to hear from her (as i did) would be something like "well, there are a few different bush stances that have been linked to this so-called bush doctrine. let me respond to this one..."

i would have been fine with that.

its just sad man. i want to be proud of this country again, i love this country, and watching her react to that question is just embarrassing. there are a few things out there on this topic by the way... krauthammer may have used the term first, but he certainly doesnt own the definition. http://www.google.com/products?oe=utf-8 ... rine+books

Jh and Lax cannot win on this one. give it up.

Additionally, what could Palin talk about without memorizing talking points? What does she just know and believe on her own as a supposedly educated adult and politician with executive chops? Will we ever hear her speak without flash cards, tele prompter, pre-approved questions or civil friendly interviewers?

Philly the Kid wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8eypiqtAdvg&e[/youtube]

This is such a fun race to follow.

Of course this makes me want to vote for him more, i'd move to that state JUST to vote for him. See, if this was some Limbaugh or Oreilly, it would be all about how they don't pull punches and play nicey nice.

Everyone knows Franken's background as a performer, entertainer, comedian. Didn't Jesse Ventura make it in as governor over there? How bout we pull some of his footage out.

I love this ad! GO Al!

Yeah, god forbid you put in someone who believes in what he's saying. Certainly that's something Norm Coleman, liberal Democrat turned right-wing toadie and enabler of war profiteers, knows nothing about.

Thanks for posting this, to both of you. It reminded me anew of how much I can't stand that weasel, and how it turns my stomach to this day that he sits in Paul Wellstone's seat. For all my doubts about Franken, this has inspired me to kick him some green.

Oh fuck, my brilliant half drunk essay is the bottom of page 23, and now no one will see it. And Dajafi ignored my comment regarding Norm Coleman's ad, and I get scooped by PtK.

Time for more wine.

Don't worry about me, though. My new copy of De La Soul's 3 feet high and rising just arrived, and I'm listening to Pot Holes in my Lawn, a great song from the golden era of Hip Hop.

TenuredVulture wrote:Oh $#@!, my brilliant half drunk essay is the bottom of page 23, and now no one will see it. And Dajafi ignored my comment regarding Norm Coleman's ad, and I get scooped by PtK.

Time for more wine.

I read your essay. Didn't see the Coleman comment.

C'mon, you're like the last person I'd ignore here.

edit: but by all means keep drinking. I'd be getting wasted right now if I didn't have to drive to Virginia tomorrow morning. There's at least a slight chance I'll do so anyway.

dajafi wrote:

TenuredVulture wrote:Oh $#@!, my brilliant half drunk essay is the bottom of page 23, and now no one will see it. And Dajafi ignored my comment regarding Norm Coleman's ad, and I get scooped by PtK.

Time for more wine.

I read your essay. Didn't see the Coleman comment.

C'mon, you're like the last person I'd ignore here.

The coleman thing was right after JH posted the ad. Back on page 21 or something.

Governor Palin, I do believe your pants are on fire...

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kvqH6GnE3k0[/youtube]

Can we just admit that if a Democrat had said this, it would be the most brazen, despicable act of dishonesty since, I dunno, Benedict Arnold or Judas Iscariot?

Laexile wrote:Estimates are that Obama will get 98% of Black vote, up from 88% in 2004. If African-American voting increases by 20% then Obama will end up with 5 million more African-American votes than Kerry got. It's fair to say that most of those 5 million are voting for him because he's Black. I know a few White people who give one of their primary reasons for voting for Obama is because he's Black. They might have voted for the Democrat anyway.

Can you explain why 6:1 Black evangelicals voted for Kerry?

Race is an issue. It's one of the big reasons why poor white people vote for people like Bush and likely now, McCain, it's why they become "ditto heads" and their kids become neo-nazi.

Tim Wise:

Wise argues that racism in the United States is institutionalized, due to past overt racism, and the ongoing effects of that past racism, along with current-day discrimination. Although he contends that personal, overt bias is less common than in the past (or at least less likely to be openly articulated), Wise argues that institutions have been set up to privilege those who are white, and that subtle, impersonal, and even facially race-neutral policies contribute to racism and racial inequality today.

above from Wiki

from me:

I'm paraphrasing of course -- but Wise' argues that the origins go back to when the artistocrats that fomented cecession from England, they gave limited property rights to poor white farmers. In the old country/world, they were serfs for generations and had few rights if any. In doing this, they created a separation from people of color, blacks-slaves, natives, women etc... and so if they have nothing else, they have their "I'm a white man in American goddamit" and its that crowd that feeds in to the pyscho-analysis stuff that Dajafi posted back a few pages...

This is a big reason why people vote against their class interests. Because I might be down n out, but I'm still better than those people... and that's why they were so susceptible to hating on Islamic Terrorists.

Any person can see how Terrorists has replaced Commie. It's the bogeyman. McCarthy had the Red Scare, Bush has the Terror Scare. They tried the way on drugs for a while, Narco Terrorists was in their for a while, but it didn't ahve the same legs.

How many times did Palin say Islamic Terroritst. How many times has Bush/Cheney said "nine one one"?! Give me a break...

So while it may be true that MANY African Americans will vote for Obama to finally "put a brutha in the White House" (and as pointed out already, most of them vote democratic anyway) FAR MORE poor white people will vote against Obama BECAUSE he is Black. They may hide it -- but it will be their root reason.

What has been interesting is to hear people in rallies or at the convention, like the second article Dajafi referenced, Judy W or other -- that woman she spoke with -- they were all waiting to be told the reasons -- they needed a story and it's not about Palin connected to anything real, it's the story they have to hold on to justify their voting republicans. They need a story and one has been provided. It has nothing to do with reality.

Anyone who thinks race is not a MAJOR factor this year and every year, is simply missing it.

Philly the Kid wrote:

Laexile wrote:Estimates are that Obama will get 98% of Black vote, up from 88% in 2004. If African-American voting increases by 20% then Obama will end up with 5 million more African-American votes than Kerry got. It's fair to say that most of those 5 million are voting for him because he's Black. I know a few White people who give one of their primary reasons for voting for Obama is because he's Black. They might have voted for the Democrat anyway.

Can you explain why 6:1 Black evangelicals voted for Kerry?

Race is an issue. It's one of the big reasons why poor white people vote for people like Bush and likely now, McCain, it's why they become "ditto heads" and their kids become neo-nazi.

Tim Wise:

Wise argues that racism in the United States is institutionalized, due to past overt racism, and the ongoing effects of that past racism, along with current-day discrimination. Although he contends that personal, overt bias is less common than in the past (or at least less likely to be openly articulated), Wise argues that institutions have been set up to privilege those who are white, and that subtle, impersonal, and even facially race-neutral policies contribute to racism and racial inequality today.

above from Wiki

from me:

I'm paraphrasing of course -- but Wise' argues that the origins go back to when the artistocrats that fomented cecession from England, they gave limited property rights to poor white farmers. In the old country/world, they were serfs for generations and had few rights if any. In doing this, they created a separation from people of color, blacks-slaves, natives, women etc... and so if they have nothing else, they have their "I'm a white man in American goddamit" and its that crowd that feeds in to the pyscho-analysis stuff that Dajafi posted back a few pages...

This is a big reason why people vote against their class interests. Because I might be down n out, but I'm still better than those people... and that's why they were so susceptible to hating on Islamic Terrorists.

Any person can see how Terrorists has replaced Commie. It's the bogeyman. McCarthy had the Red Scare, Bush has the Terror Scare. They tried the way on drugs for a while, Narco Terrorists was in their for a while, but it didn't ahve the same legs.

How many times did Palin say Islamic Terroritst. How many times has Bush/Cheney said "nine one one"?! Give me a break...

So while it may be true that MANY African Americans will vote for Obama to finally "put a brutha in the White House" (and as pointed out already, most of them vote democratic anyway) FAR MORE poor white people will vote against Obama BECAUSE he is Black. They may hide it -- but it will be their root reason.

What has been interesting is to hear people in rallies or at the convention, like the second article Dajafi referenced, Judy W or other -- that woman she spoke with -- they were all waiting to be told the reasons -- they needed a story and it's not about Palin connected to anything real, it's the story they have to hold on to justify their voting republicans. They need a story and one has been provided. It has nothing to do with reality.

Anyone who thinks race is not a MAJOR factor this year and every year, is simply missing it.

Wow, direct confirmation of points raised in my drunken rant/essay.

Philly the Kid wrote:This is inane.

I won't be voting for Obama for any of the reassons you sight above, and this twisted comparison I will give you this point very limited but i'll give you that this aspect of Obama could be paralleled to Palin. That is, the experience factor (which I think it bogus) is bogus to both, not just Obama. I still don't see them as apples to apples. Being a Senator even for a short time is a steeper climb but ok, she made governor, that's not nothing either.

The issue is and remains, that McCain's experience, personality and loylaties are not what I want in the White House, Palin in the on-deck circle for a 72 year old sitting president is also not what I want. Not because I think she'd ever really be able to do much on her own, though the country would "rally round our lady prez", but because it would be as bad or worse as W, because she'd be a totoal puppet to the worst elements in this country and govt that I abhor.

As people, Obama impresses 20X to Palin, I prefer his intellect over her religious mysticism. He is far more expert on issues of the day and his leanings are much more aceeptbale to me.

We can talk Palin this or that all day long. She's been a clever lucky move in some regards. From that standpoint it can be discussed. But she's no heavyweight and she's the VP candidate, not the prez. Talk to me about McCain.

What I'm saying is insane, yet your reasons for voting for Obama stated here are McCain would make a bad President, Obama has superior intellect, and Obama stands where you do on issues. The first and third reasons would be your reason for voting for any Democrat. I didn't include these because they don't have anything to do with Obama. Since I cited "He's smart" I think I covered the second reason.

Obama certainly comes off as smarter than Palin. He probably is. After running for President for a year and a half he has a far better grasp of the issues than she does. Being the smartest guy around isn't a prerequisite to be President. Ronald Reagan went to Eureka College. LBJ went to Southwest Texas State Teachers' College. Jimmy Carter, on the other hand, was involved with the nuclear Navy. I have no idea if Palin is a "religious whacko" but it's not like Presidents haven't been very religious before. She has a ridiculously high approval rating in Alaska. So she must have some idea what she's doing.

ptk you're perfectly justified in voting for Obama for the reasons above and disliking Palin for who you think she is. You don't seem to think her fitness for public office is open to discussion. I don't invalidate any of your reasons. Don't invalidate mine.

The best part about this is the fact that it has become a Palin-Obama debate almost everywhere.

I wonder if the Republican Brains had this in mind? NAHHHH

McCain is skating right now when he could be under the microscope that the potential VP is under. Not that you'd find anything since he is so old his cells might not even register.

dajafi wrote:Thanks for posting this, to both of you. It reminded me anew of how much I can't stand that weasel, and how it turns my stomach to this day that he sits in Paul Wellstone's seat. For all my doubts about Franken, this has inspired me to kick him some green.

I like Norm Coleman a lot. I'd say he's my second favorite endangered GOP senator after Sununu.

Philly the Kid wrote:[Race is an issue. It's one of the big reasons why poor white people vote for people like Bush and likely now, McCain, it's why they become "ditto heads" and their kids become neo-nazi.

While it may be a factor, I don't know that it's a MAJOR factor. Many of the people you describe would vote for someone like Colin Powell, who, although a moderate, appeals to their sensibilities. What they're afraid of is income redistribution and the welfare state, along with the threat to their moral values. Many of their kids don't grow up to be neo-nazis, but actually grow up to be productive citizens. They look at Obama and see the East Coast/West Coast mentaility, which is something they want to avoid.

Laexile wrote:

Philly the Kid wrote:This is inane.

I won't be voting for Obama for any of the reassons you sight above, and this twisted comparison I will give you this point very limited but i'll give you that this aspect of Obama could be paralleled to Palin. That is, the experience factor (which I think it bogus) is bogus to both, not just Obama. I still don't see them as apples to apples. Being a Senator even for a short time is a steeper climb but ok, she made governor, that's not nothing either.

The issue is and remains, that McCain's experience, personality and loylaties are not what I want in the White House, Palin in the on-deck circle for a 72 year old sitting president is also not what I want. Not because I think she'd ever really be able to do much on her own, though the country would "rally round our lady prez", but because it would be as bad or worse as W, because she'd be a totoal puppet to the worst elements in this country and govt that I abhor.

As people, Obama impresses 20X to Palin, I prefer his intellect over her religious mysticism. He is far more expert on issues of the day and his leanings are much more aceeptbale to me.

We can talk Palin this or that all day long. She's been a clever lucky move in some regards. From that standpoint it can be discussed. But she's no heavyweight and she's the VP candidate, not the prez. Talk to me about McCain.

What I'm saying is insane, yet your reasons for voting for Obama stated here are McCain would make a bad President, Obama has superior intellect, and Obama stands where you do on issues. The first and third reasons would be your reason for voting for any Democrat. I didn't include these because they don't have anything to do with Obama. Since I cited "He's smart" I think I covered the second reason.

Obama certainly comes off as smarter than Palin. He probably is. After running for President for a year and a half he has a far better grasp of the issues than she does. Being the smartest guy around isn't a prerequisite to be President. Ronald Reagan went to Eureka College. LBJ went to Southwest Texas State Teachers' College. Jimmy Carter, on the other hand, was involved with the nuclear Navy. I have no idea if Palin is a "religious whacko" but it's not like Presidents haven't been very religious before. She has a ridiculously high approval rating in Alaska. So she must have some idea what she's doing.

ptk you're perfectly justified in voting for Obama for the reasons above and disliking Palin for who you think she is. You don't seem to think her fitness for public office is open to discussion. I don't invalidate any of your reasons. Don't invalidate mine.

I said inane, not insane.

Listen -- you are right, it's highly unlikely I'd ever vote for a republican, I can think of about 2-3 ever I respected as politicians... I think there was a guy years ago in Oregon or something...

And I'm tired of the Obama vs Palin distortion. It's Obama vs. McCain. And let's not talk about "fitness" for the office. If we really get down to it, anyone could do the job given the rules, structure, advisors etc... and there is nothing in the consititution that says you have to be college educated or educated at all.

Republican policies are wrong. And while I believe there are some perhaps many (Lax, you are probably one of them) well intentioned good hearted, intelligent and caring republicans -- there are also those who are the legacy of the Carnegies, and Fords and Rockefeller fortunes, now mixed in with the even scarier CHeney Bushes of the world. People with world views that really are my fear of "terror". And I find them to be the most dishonest, cheating, manipulating and propogandized -- and while the Dems in power are nothing to get excited about, they are a bit better. That's my entire basis for voting for them. It's not about who I'd want in there. I'd take a Green or Nader over either of tehse two.

You are entitled to your reasons Lax. I think you are quite passionate and sincere. I know you ahve been around McCain and like him personally. I know you think republican economic policies are sound in many instances, etc etc...

But you are also picking at all these nyah nyah points on Obama. And then throwing up the things said against Palin as if the counter is equal. She's teh VP slot, not the top dog slot.

It's not about experience. It's not even about intellect. It's about who's bidding will you be doing. Because when they say they are doing the peoples' work, there are a lot of people here, 300million and they don't all agree and don't all share the same interests or values. McCain Palin are farther from my values than Obama biden, not bya lot since Obama and Biden won't do much I approve of -- but they are slightly closer.

The rest is just fodder for threads like these...

dajafi wrote:Governor Palin, I do believe your pants are on fire...

Can we just admit that if a Democrat had said this, it would be the most brazen, despicable act of dishonesty since, I dunno, Benedict Arnold or Judas Iscariot?

Lost in all of this is that for a governor she's been fairly anti-earmarks, as a shift of where she was from as mayor. As Ben Smith (the Dem blogger at Politico) puts it: "The reality seems to be that, as governors go, she's really quite skeptical of earmarks, but not the sort of categorical foe of the projects that McCain has been -- and as really only a federal official can be. It's very difficult for local officials to actually oppose federal money for their communities, and in fact, Palin sought it; it's the attempt to cast her has a principled earmark foe that's gotten her into trouble."

If the McCain campaign was willing to be a little more nuanced on the issue, they would be in good standing. Of course, you and many of the other liberals who have been attacking her on it have the same lack of nuance in looking at it. I know you were being dramatic, but we're not exactly looking at the most brazen, despicable act of dishonesty in modern political history here.

See also, a pretty decent piece on Palin and earmarks - http://www.adn.com/news/alaska/story/516743.html

jerseyhoya wrote:

dajafi wrote:Thanks for posting this, to both of you. It reminded me anew of how much I can't stand that weasel, and how it turns my stomach to this day that he sits in Paul Wellstone's seat. For all my doubts about Franken, this has inspired me to kick him some green.

I like Norm Coleman a lot. I'd say he's my second favorite endangered GOP senator after Sununu.

I think I get why you would like him: he's a loyal (well, now...) Republican, but not an extremist on culture war issues. Much like you. Personally I have a bit more regard for Sununu, but that's probably just because he fits my (totally irrelevant, I grant) idea of what a Republican should do: focus like a laser on possibly excessive/wasteful spending. The same reason I kinda like Coburn, aside from Coburn's problematic nutbaggery on social issues.

My loathing of Coleman has to do mostly with my veneration of Wellstone--who was a good bit to my left, but I just loved the guy and thought he was a real hero.

dajafi wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:

dajafi wrote:Thanks for posting this, to both of you. It reminded me anew of how much I can't stand that weasel, and how it turns my stomach to this day that he sits in Paul Wellstone's seat. For all my doubts about Franken, this has inspired me to kick him some green.

I like Norm Coleman a lot. I'd say he's my second favorite endangered GOP senator after Sununu.

I think I get why you would like him: he's a loyal (well, now...) Republican, but not an extremist on culture war issues. Much like you. Personally I have a bit more regard for Sununu, but that's probably just because he fits my (totally irrelevant, I grant) idea of what a Republican should do: focus like a laser on possibly excessive/wasteful spending. The same reason I kinda like Coburn, aside from Coburn's problematic nutbaggery on social issues.

My loathing of Coleman has to do mostly with my veneration of Wellstone--who was a good bit to my left, but I just loved the guy and thought he was a real hero.

Coleman didn't crash Wellstone's plane.