Now I am first to admit that I am duly chagrined. When McCain announced Palin as his VP choice I only saw a far Right extremist unknown to most of America and with no qualifications to be a heartbeat away. I was confident that McCain was making a transparent desperate move and that he was really totally “forked.” To me the inanity of her as a choice was self-evident.
Well turns out she can deliver a speech very well and that America likes her, they really really like her. So far at least she has been Teflon coated, solidifying the Far Religious Right who know very well just how extreme she is, while somehow appealing to others with her novelty and down-home folksiness.
I am not yet (as some had described any of us who had criticized her) “scared” of her, but I do now recognize that she, as currently she is defined in the eyes of many voter, is a real threat to an Obama-Biden victory.
Part of the lack of anything sticking to her has been, I think, an information overload, combined oddly enough, with a media afraid of being painted as beating up on her. Some charges have been overstated. Some venom has been too mean-spirited. And all of it gets lost in the shuffle.
So what should be the themes of response?
Should the focus go exclusively on what positive messages about Obama-Biden?
Or a generous helping of attacking McCain and marginalizing Palin?
Or does Palin need to be defined some by the Obama-Biden side - issues only - making it clear exactly how extreme RR she is and how some of her claims of being a reformer are quite overstated?
Or are any of the other issues relating to her judgment that are more Springer-esque worthy of focus?
My take is that the last are in truth very relevant to her judgment and character but needlessly dilute the more important message: McCain with Palin is not just more of Bush - it is Bush plus. It is all of the simplistic jingoistic worldview and then some. It is all of the partisan divide and nastiness and then some. It is more of the same economic policy and then some. Palin (and illustrate here with quotes of what she has said contrasted with the facts eg. the reality of her stand on the bridge to no where, and quotes that illustrate her extremism) is the same cloth as McCain (same kinds of quotes) and is just Bush on steroids.
Balance with some positive ads of course. But letting Team McCain has free reign to define her falsely unchallenged cannot happen. And the defining needs to be focused: not her lack of qualifications; not her odd behaviors regarding her last childbirthing, not her parenting; but how she proves that McCain is Bush supersized and that alone.
They need to forget about Palin and concentrate on McCain. If they attack Palin they should attack her by attacking McCain’s judgment for picking her. What purpose does it serve the country to have Palin as VP? How does McCain think someone with no national policy experience will serve the nation?
Other than that they need to focus on McCain and how supporting Bush’s failed policies will only hurt the nation.
The Palin pick is turning out to be a real smart political move by McCain. He is closing the gap on Obama in the polls. He might come out clearly ahead within the next few days.
Well, she’s difficult to define because, except for a few controlled outings, she is pretty much an unknown who has not made herself available to the press.
Obama/Biden would handle her best by sticking to the scant few facts we know about her, and simply waiting for her unveiling. I think it’s OK for them to say this, too.
She is supposed to grant her first big interview mid to late-week. It seems as if there is not much to say until she makes her debut. Charles Gibson has stated he will not ask ‘family’ questions. I’m relieved at that, and also pleased as that will leave more time for more important questions.
I’m curious to see how she will handle her debate.
Her religious right stances. She is anti-abortion in all circumstances, is against sex education and birth control, and believes that the war in Iraq is “a task that is from God” and that a plan to build a natural gas pipeline in Alaska is “God’s will”.
Also, Troopergate, at first blush, looks like it might not do her any good. Also also, the fact that she was for earmarks before she was against them is fair game.
It is already happening and it plays right into the Democratic theme. In her acceptance speech she called herself a “pitbull with lipstick” - now she is being called "George Bush in Lipstick".
I think this response works.
From her hard-right stances on abortion and contraception and the deep affection she engenders from conservative evangelical leaders, to her involvement in a possible “abuse of power” scandal in Alaska and even her charming demeanor, some see in Palin the second coming of the 43rd president.
This is what I think the Obama campaign should do (and I think will do - Obama’s a smart cookie):
First, go on the offensive against the media, in support of Palin. Not really in support, but against the attacks on her family, on her qualifications, and with the snide sexist comments, such as that her speech was ‘shrill’. Tell the media they behaved despicably. Tell them that Palin is clearly gifted, she’s apparently done a good job as Governor, you accept that her qualifications are fine, and you expect better behavior from the media in the future.
Obama should do this whether or not he really believes she’s been treated that unfairly, for the simple reason that it will allow him to grab the high ground, and it will dispel the notion that he and the media are in bed together.
It will also defuse the whole experience thing, which is a HUGE loser for the Democrats. you do not want your candidate being compared seriously against the other side’s Vice Presidential candidate - it’s an argument you can’t win. You also don’t want to keep reminding people that, on paper, Obama is the most unqualified Presidential candidate in a long, long time. Obama does not need to be going on talk shows at this point and explaining why ‘community organizing’ is a serious bullet point on a Presidential resume, because it’s not. It might show good character, but it’s meaningless in terms of experience.
Once Obama does this, and neutralizes the whole experience/sexism thing, he will then be more free to attack Palin for her right-wing positions, and start laying out a positive, progressive message to Americans.
Next, he has to connect with small-town people in the flyover states. He’s got a serious problem there, and he needs those states to win. That ‘bitterness’ comment hurt him more than any of us thought at the time. This is also why he should praise Palin. He should be the first one to stand up and say, “Listen, running a small town is hard. They have incredible challenges today. Budgets are smaller, the real-estate meltdown caused by the Bush Administration is hurting the people and cutting tax bases. Sarah Palin is right - being mayor of a town IS community organizing, and is to to be honored and not disrespected.”
It wouldn’t hurt him if he even made a visible attempt to understand. Not in some cynical photo-op way, like having your picture taken holding a shotgun, but by being humble and honest about it. If Obama went to a gun range and sincerely said, “Explain the appeal to me. Show me how to shoot one of these things. Take the mystery away. I want to know, so I can understand better.”, and then he came out of there claiming that he had a new-found respect and understanding of it, and that he had been wrong about people ‘clinging to their guns’, he’d help himself tremendously.
Obama isn’t going to win the election by playing defense. He’s not going to win by trying to prove that he’s more experienced than the soccer mom from Wasilla. He has to win by doing what he does best, which is to be an inspirational leader who exudes a positive, ‘can do’ spirit and raises people’s hopes. The longer he stays on the mat arguing process and experience, the harder it is to rise back up and inspire. And he has to win by being the guy who can inspire everyone, and not just the lefties on the coasts and in the big cities.
If he does that, or things of that nature, and if he can shut up the loony left when they get out of control (or even publicly slap them down), he’ll win.
Watch Obama move in that direction unless Palin flames out with some gaffe soon.
Well, they shouldn’t try to turn the election on her, but the Republicans will be criticizing Biden to a certain extent, and she should get her fair share.
I’ve said it before, and will likely say it again: in my lifetime, this is the election where the vice-presidential candidates have mattered the most. I would hope they’ll get a bit more scrutiny from the electorate than usual.
I’m confused by her explanation. Condoms don’t count as “explicit” education? In all seriousness, what does count as explicit education? I mean, people don’t think that schools are offering pointers do they? Is it a matter of degree? “Use a condom to stop pregnancy and protect against STDs” vs “This is how you put on a condom, here practice on a cucumber” vs “I find astroglide works best as a lubricant, and if you really want to get the most out of the experience, try the reverse cowgirl position.” Because, honestly, when I hear that somebody is against sexual education in schools (explicit or otherwise) it seems that they’re against anything beyond, “Save sex for marriage.” But I would like to understand the stance I’m arguing against, and I don’t grok what she means.
You don’t win by reacting, you win by acting. You take the fight to your opponent, you don’t just defend yourself.
Obama has to hammer McCain where he’s vulnerable: 8 years of following the Bush line won’t lead to “change”. It’s atrocious that somehow the McCain campaign has managed to seize “change”.
Don’t worry about Palin. She’s got no more depth than Quayle, and it will show when the spotlight is on. Biden knows what to do then. Let the corruption stories keep dribbling out of Alaska, let the Troopergate report come out, let the natural course of events occur over the next 2 months. But don’t attack now, that just looks meanspirited and will backlash. Let her become better known, and the gloss will be off when it needs to be off.
The GOP candidate is McCain. Focus on him. Keep putting his fealty to Bush out in the open, expose his hypocrisies and shallowness. Don’t go after him personally either; there’s no need and it will backlash too.
Oh, and presenting some specific program proposals of his own would help Obama quite a bit too. Obama can’t let the notion that “Neither of them really knows what to do, so I’ll probably go with the older, experienced guy” concept take hold. And that has to be done right fucking NOW, or it will.
I partly disagree with your earlier post, though. Palin has, so far, energized the religious right. If, against all expectations, she is going to inspire the religious right to vote in droves this year, there has to be a clear message of her stances going out to the independents, and also that message needs to go to the Clintonistas (if you don’t mind).
I find the reassuring attitude that “the vice-presidential candidate doesn’t matter” to be dangerously reassuring, especially given that so far it apparently does matter to a not insignificant proportion of the electorate.
Bluntly, what else were they going to do? McCain has shored up his base, at least for the moment (the RR’s don’t like corruption much, either), but at the cost of alienating the moderate independents who decide elections.
The “Clintonistas” already fucking *know *- if you don’t mind.
It isn’t meant to be reassuring, only as a reminder to focus on what needs to be focused upon. Obama can’t let McCain determine his strategy for him, and that’s exactly what focusing on Palin would be.
How can you say those in consecutive sentences? You’re wrong, anyway, the religious right has never been part of McCain’s base, till now.
Then get over it already. Sheesh. Where is the press release from PUMA that they now support Obama with all their heart?
You’re advocating “Don’t worry about Palin.” That’s short-sighted. Focus on McCain - yes, of course - but if Palin is going to allow McCain to count on a segment of the electorate that he could not previously count on then it is simply stupid - and, yes, dangerously short-sighted - not to attempt to counter that in other segments of the electorate.
Obama should continue to vigorously condemn any attacks on Palin’s family. But he shouldn’t spend that much time on it. Defending the other team isn’t his job and no one expects it to be, and he only has so much airtime to get his actual message out.
He should make sure that the nation knows that she’s anti-abortion even in the case of rape. That’ll make even some pro-lifers think twice, and will make the vast majority of women who were excited to vote for a mom think again. (Not that it appears from early polls that there’s very many of those)
But the main weakness that they should attack Palin with is the earmarks. And the bridge to nowhere. She’s no maverick, she’s just another quasi-corrupt politician begging for pork. Make sure we know that she hired a lobbyist (with Abramoff connections!) and that she requested $26M for a town of 6,000, and that while she ultimately didn’t build that bridge, she still kept the money. But all of these are just examples to use to undermine McCain’s claims of being a maverick.
There’s more to complain about (the firing of anyone not totally loyal is a good start), but really, the focus should be McCain, and the earmarks are the most obvious target.
Huh? He’s the Republican candidate. The RR is the *Republican *base. They may have preferrred a different nominee, but as I said, what else are they going to do? Vote for the “liberal”?
You brought that up, including using that cute terrorist-inspired nickname.
Who the hell do you think constitutes PUMA? :dubious: If *that *is what constitutes your “point” there, then the concept of “getting over it” would certainly be better applied to your own hatred, whatever its source, which I truly don’t care about. But you do need to get over it anyway.
But he pretty much could. That’s the point of the “shoring up his base” observation. :rolleyes:
Be a bit more careful there, would you?
Which is what focusing on the independents and their view of McCain would be. Which, if you were replying to a post instead o a poster, you would have understood is what I said.:rolleyes: To use your word: “Sheesh”.
I also don’t think that Biden needs to be particularly careful in attacking Palin. This idea that he’ll come across as a bully attacking a woman is nonsense. One thing that Obama can achieve by praising Palin’s experience and competence is that it sends the message that she’s an equal, and that means Biden can take the gloves off.
Obama can even use that as a bit of ju jitsu - if the Republicans come out and call Biden ‘mean’, Obama can use that to reclaim the moderate women by saying that it’s a sexist argument to say that a man has to treat a woman in some special way to avoid hurting her sensibilities, and he has enough respect for Palin to treat her like anyone else.
The Obama campaign is trying to downplay Palin and say they’re running against McCain, and while that’s true on paper, it really isn’t true. The right wingers are voting for Palin, not McCain. Palin can’t be ignored.
What they should do, and should do aggressively, is run ads and force the media to talk about right wing she really is, her theocratic bent, her lack of qualifications, her fraudulence as a “reformer” and her history of abusing power. They need to stay completely away from the Jerry Springer stuff and just go hard at her on public policy and on her ethical problems.
They need to stay completely away from anything to do with her being a working mother too. That’s just bullshit, and actually is sexist.
Or an asparugus, as appropriate.