Demonizing "Community Organizers"?
But why? Billmon has some shrewd interpretations that point to dog whistle messages to hard right GOPers that amount to racism. What a surprise.
2 weeks ago
Thursday, September 04, 2008
Wednesday, September 03, 2008
The Big Chill
After the Palin speech and the media reception, I have little to add that I didn't write this morning, well in advance of the event. The media in general is fauning all over her, in precisely the terms I predicted.
The viewing audience may be a different story. Some will either already know or will even read stories about the many inaccuracies, which being intentional and repeated, are simply lies. But even those who just discount most of what politicians say about each other will have noted what several MSNBC panelists called sarcasm, insult and condescension towards Barack Obama. Others mentioned that it is one thing to hear this kind of rhetoric from a voice you know, and another from someone who has tried to introduce herself moments before.
So to add to the earlier list of voting groups Palin probably loses, I think she turned off independents, who are also most likely to be troubled by her lack of qualifications. Being a moose-hunting mother is not much in the way of credentials for being next in line as Commander in Chief. Her only mention of the vice-presidency was that she would be an advocate for special needs children and their families. While laudable, it doesn't bear on the vice presidency.
Where Palin obviously scored was with the people at the convention. But who are they? Many Republican office-holders and especially reelection-seekers skipped this convention. The people who are there are Bush Cheney hard right Karl Rove fans, mostly old and mostly white. The McBush people may be trying to pin sexism on liberal media, but Palin's tone and the images of that convention make you really wonder about racism.
So the hard right wing base is fired up--apparently money and volunteers are coming in. The TV audience Tuesday was a bit over the 20 million threshhold--not as big as the Dems at the start, but respectable. Palin's speech was late--she finished past 11 eastern. I'm not sure this helped with anybody other than the people in the hall, the rabid rightists at home, and of course, the media.
Tom Edsall wrote this: "John McCain's selection of Sarah Palin puts his campaign firmly on track toward a hard-edged drive to mobilize the GOP's conservative base, threatening to erase what remains of his centrist maverick image and his appeal to moderate and independent voters...McCain and Palin now head a ticket that is emerging as more red-bloodedly conservative than Bush-Cheney in 2004 -- when conservatism would have appeared to have reached its zenith -- with a platform substantially further to the right on issues ranging from education to immigration."
The gamble is that with an energized base, McBush might be able to hoodwink enough people into forgettting he's the Republican candidate and believing he's for change, too. (Though when supporting this idea, Palin used the most mean-spirited and personally insulting lines aimed at Obama: "In politics, there are some candidates who use change to promote their careers. And then there are those, like John McCain, who use their careers to promote change.")
McCain is betting that the politics of resentment, the small politics that worked for Bush, would allow him to squeak through in another close election.
So now it's clear if it wasn't before: this election is a struggle for the soul of America.
After the Palin speech and the media reception, I have little to add that I didn't write this morning, well in advance of the event. The media in general is fauning all over her, in precisely the terms I predicted.
The viewing audience may be a different story. Some will either already know or will even read stories about the many inaccuracies, which being intentional and repeated, are simply lies. But even those who just discount most of what politicians say about each other will have noted what several MSNBC panelists called sarcasm, insult and condescension towards Barack Obama. Others mentioned that it is one thing to hear this kind of rhetoric from a voice you know, and another from someone who has tried to introduce herself moments before.
So to add to the earlier list of voting groups Palin probably loses, I think she turned off independents, who are also most likely to be troubled by her lack of qualifications. Being a moose-hunting mother is not much in the way of credentials for being next in line as Commander in Chief. Her only mention of the vice-presidency was that she would be an advocate for special needs children and their families. While laudable, it doesn't bear on the vice presidency.
Where Palin obviously scored was with the people at the convention. But who are they? Many Republican office-holders and especially reelection-seekers skipped this convention. The people who are there are Bush Cheney hard right Karl Rove fans, mostly old and mostly white. The McBush people may be trying to pin sexism on liberal media, but Palin's tone and the images of that convention make you really wonder about racism.
So the hard right wing base is fired up--apparently money and volunteers are coming in. The TV audience Tuesday was a bit over the 20 million threshhold--not as big as the Dems at the start, but respectable. Palin's speech was late--she finished past 11 eastern. I'm not sure this helped with anybody other than the people in the hall, the rabid rightists at home, and of course, the media.
Tom Edsall wrote this: "John McCain's selection of Sarah Palin puts his campaign firmly on track toward a hard-edged drive to mobilize the GOP's conservative base, threatening to erase what remains of his centrist maverick image and his appeal to moderate and independent voters...McCain and Palin now head a ticket that is emerging as more red-bloodedly conservative than Bush-Cheney in 2004 -- when conservatism would have appeared to have reached its zenith -- with a platform substantially further to the right on issues ranging from education to immigration."
The gamble is that with an energized base, McBush might be able to hoodwink enough people into forgettting he's the Republican candidate and believing he's for change, too. (Though when supporting this idea, Palin used the most mean-spirited and personally insulting lines aimed at Obama: "In politics, there are some candidates who use change to promote their careers. And then there are those, like John McCain, who use their careers to promote change.")
McCain is betting that the politics of resentment, the small politics that worked for Bush, would allow him to squeak through in another close election.
So now it's clear if it wasn't before: this election is a struggle for the soul of America.
On the Media
In defense of the media, Joe Klein wrote this, responding to the orchestrated attack by McCain and the Republican convention: "There is a tendency in the media to kick ourselves, cringe and withdraw, when we are criticized. But I hope my colleagues stand strong in this case: it is important for the public to know that Palin raised taxes as governor, supported the Bridge to Nowhere before she opposed it, pursued pork-barrel projects as mayor, tried to ban books at the local library and thinks the war in Iraq is "a task from God." The attempts by the McCain campaign to bully us into not reporting such things are not only stupidly aggressive, but unprofessional in the extreme. "
In his convention wrap-up Wednesday, Brian Williams of NBC quoted that paragraph in full. According to one report, when Sarah Palin criticized the media from the podium, the shouted approval from the crowd included some hostile chants of NBC, NBC.
On the minus side, and it's a big one, I was very disappointed--though not thoroughly surprised--that the media did not strongly cover the arrest of Amy Goodman and members of her reporting and production staff from Democracy Now! Whatever their politics, the media should defend these reporters, and they don't appear to be doing so. Moreover, in the absense of media outcry, felony charges against Goodman and the others are still pending, they have not been dropped.
In defense of the media, Joe Klein wrote this, responding to the orchestrated attack by McCain and the Republican convention: "There is a tendency in the media to kick ourselves, cringe and withdraw, when we are criticized. But I hope my colleagues stand strong in this case: it is important for the public to know that Palin raised taxes as governor, supported the Bridge to Nowhere before she opposed it, pursued pork-barrel projects as mayor, tried to ban books at the local library and thinks the war in Iraq is "a task from God." The attempts by the McCain campaign to bully us into not reporting such things are not only stupidly aggressive, but unprofessional in the extreme. "
In his convention wrap-up Wednesday, Brian Williams of NBC quoted that paragraph in full. According to one report, when Sarah Palin criticized the media from the podium, the shouted approval from the crowd included some hostile chants of NBC, NBC.
On the minus side, and it's a big one, I was very disappointed--though not thoroughly surprised--that the media did not strongly cover the arrest of Amy Goodman and members of her reporting and production staff from Democracy Now! Whatever their politics, the media should defend these reporters, and they don't appear to be doing so. Moreover, in the absense of media outcry, felony charges against Goodman and the others are still pending, they have not been dropped.
Where Palin is Failin
Tonight she's the center of attention, and we're likely to see her whip the hard right crowd into a frenzy. But including Palin on the ticket has its costs:
1. The national security wing of the Republican party, with a VP nominee that is less qualified to be commander in chief than anyone ever within a heartbeat of that office. The "open mike" comments of a couple of longtime GOPer insiders that are making the blog rounds today is but one indication that this is being taken seriously.
2. environmentalists who thought that McCain was pretty good on the environment for a Republican. Whatever hope McCain had of picking up some college student votes is now gone.
3. Older voters who are skeptical of Obama's experience, and aren't hoodwinked by talking points saying hers is equivalent or better. They've been hearing about Obama for at least a year, and they never heard of Palin. They know all too well what that heartbeat means. They also have to wonder about McCain's judgment in doing this.
4. Women who resent the cynicism of this pick. Women who would like to have the right to choose. Women who right now are calling in to talk shows expressing their misgivings about a woman with a Downs Syndrome infant, and a teenage daughter about to give birth, who is suddenly thrown into an intense presidential campaign.
5. If today's revelation about Palin being present for an overtly anti-Jewish sermon make the rounds--and in certain parts of Florida, for instance, that's pretty much guaranteed--then Jewish voters are not going to support McCain--with Palin as the deal-breaker.
The number I'm looking for right now is the TV ratings. The preliminary indications from the rough broadcast network ratings (excluding cable, and since CNN has been beating the networks at times, that's significant) show last night's audience was smaller than for any night of the Dem convention. Everyone is expecting a big audience tonight for Palin--but how big is big? I think the ratings are going to be a more significant indicator than daily flucuations in the tracking polls.
Tonight she's the center of attention, and we're likely to see her whip the hard right crowd into a frenzy. But including Palin on the ticket has its costs:
1. The national security wing of the Republican party, with a VP nominee that is less qualified to be commander in chief than anyone ever within a heartbeat of that office. The "open mike" comments of a couple of longtime GOPer insiders that are making the blog rounds today is but one indication that this is being taken seriously.
2. environmentalists who thought that McCain was pretty good on the environment for a Republican. Whatever hope McCain had of picking up some college student votes is now gone.
3. Older voters who are skeptical of Obama's experience, and aren't hoodwinked by talking points saying hers is equivalent or better. They've been hearing about Obama for at least a year, and they never heard of Palin. They know all too well what that heartbeat means. They also have to wonder about McCain's judgment in doing this.
4. Women who resent the cynicism of this pick. Women who would like to have the right to choose. Women who right now are calling in to talk shows expressing their misgivings about a woman with a Downs Syndrome infant, and a teenage daughter about to give birth, who is suddenly thrown into an intense presidential campaign.
5. If today's revelation about Palin being present for an overtly anti-Jewish sermon make the rounds--and in certain parts of Florida, for instance, that's pretty much guaranteed--then Jewish voters are not going to support McCain--with Palin as the deal-breaker.
The number I'm looking for right now is the TV ratings. The preliminary indications from the rough broadcast network ratings (excluding cable, and since CNN has been beating the networks at times, that's significant) show last night's audience was smaller than for any night of the Dem convention. Everyone is expecting a big audience tonight for Palin--but how big is big? I think the ratings are going to be a more significant indicator than daily flucuations in the tracking polls.
Failin but not Flailin?
Except with the very hard core Republican base, the Palin VP pick is failing. The latest to weigh in is the New York Times editorial this morning:
If John McCain wants voters to conclude, as he argues, that he has more independence and experience and better judgment than Barack Obama, he made a bad start by choosing Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska.
But all the revelations of the past few days, could yet be followed by redemption. And that's perhaps the scariest part of this whole repulsive episode.
Sarah Palin is scheduled to speak at the Republican convention tonight. She hasn't been heard from in days. She cancelled all scheduled interviews and appearances. So the stage is set.
If she gives a rousing good speech, will all be forgiven? Will the media as well as the GOPers in the room forget that she is the most extreme Rabid Right vice presidential candidate in history?
That she believes God makes political decisions. That she supports teaching creationism as science, and doesn't believe the science of global heating. That a librarian who wouldn't let her censor books in the public library in the town where she was mayor deserved to be fired for that. That her beliefs mean that rape or incest victims can't legally have the choice to terminate that pregnancy, that birth control should not be taught in schools, and that pregnant teenagers should not be helped if they are in need? It's her God's way--her interpretation of her God's way--or you get fired, you're on your own, or you go to jail?
The bar is now so low, and the attention so pitched, that the reviews of her speech can be written right now. She's feisty, she's funny, she's poignant, she's real, she can dish out the red meat, she's a breath of fresh air. That she's also ignorant, out of her depth, a religious zealot whose dogmatic decision-making can be masked by the apparent pragmatism of the image she assumes. Sarah Palin is not a joke. She is dangerous.
John McCain, already an old and frequently addled man with a hair-trigger temper and no center to him except blind egotism and a heart of bile and resentment he's learned to mask in affable smiles and a soft voice, has shown himself to be even more cynical than Cheney. Only a cynical opportunist and a reckless gambler would nominate a completely unqualified and unknown person for vice president, and force his party to squirm through idiotic lies and transparently dishonest gambits (every criticism of Palin is sexism--those sexist liberals! After being lambasted for decades because they promoted sexual equality, now liberals are chauvanists! These people really have no shame.)
Once again the Republican Party is the party of resentment, the party of unconsciousness and projection, of primitive rage masquerading as religion. The march to the Dark Ages could get its clarion call tonight. And the media, caring only about a sensational story line, will amplify it.
Except with the very hard core Republican base, the Palin VP pick is failing. The latest to weigh in is the New York Times editorial this morning:
If John McCain wants voters to conclude, as he argues, that he has more independence and experience and better judgment than Barack Obama, he made a bad start by choosing Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska.
But all the revelations of the past few days, could yet be followed by redemption. And that's perhaps the scariest part of this whole repulsive episode.
Sarah Palin is scheduled to speak at the Republican convention tonight. She hasn't been heard from in days. She cancelled all scheduled interviews and appearances. So the stage is set.
If she gives a rousing good speech, will all be forgiven? Will the media as well as the GOPers in the room forget that she is the most extreme Rabid Right vice presidential candidate in history?
That she believes God makes political decisions. That she supports teaching creationism as science, and doesn't believe the science of global heating. That a librarian who wouldn't let her censor books in the public library in the town where she was mayor deserved to be fired for that. That her beliefs mean that rape or incest victims can't legally have the choice to terminate that pregnancy, that birth control should not be taught in schools, and that pregnant teenagers should not be helped if they are in need? It's her God's way--her interpretation of her God's way--or you get fired, you're on your own, or you go to jail?
The bar is now so low, and the attention so pitched, that the reviews of her speech can be written right now. She's feisty, she's funny, she's poignant, she's real, she can dish out the red meat, she's a breath of fresh air. That she's also ignorant, out of her depth, a religious zealot whose dogmatic decision-making can be masked by the apparent pragmatism of the image she assumes. Sarah Palin is not a joke. She is dangerous.
John McCain, already an old and frequently addled man with a hair-trigger temper and no center to him except blind egotism and a heart of bile and resentment he's learned to mask in affable smiles and a soft voice, has shown himself to be even more cynical than Cheney. Only a cynical opportunist and a reckless gambler would nominate a completely unqualified and unknown person for vice president, and force his party to squirm through idiotic lies and transparently dishonest gambits (every criticism of Palin is sexism--those sexist liberals! After being lambasted for decades because they promoted sexual equality, now liberals are chauvanists! These people really have no shame.)
Once again the Republican Party is the party of resentment, the party of unconsciousness and projection, of primitive rage masquerading as religion. The march to the Dark Ages could get its clarion call tonight. And the media, caring only about a sensational story line, will amplify it.
Tuesday, September 02, 2008
Palin On
She is the governor elected to throw out the corrupt, who is under investigation for acts of corruption. She was for the Bridge to Nowhere before she was against it. She's supposed to support McCain's supposed campaign against earmarks, and in today's Washington Post: "Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin employed a lobbying firm to secure almost $27 million in federal earmarks for a town of 6,700 residents while she was its mayor, according to an analysis by an independent government watchdog group.
In introducing Palin as his running mate on Friday, Sen. John McCain cast her as a compatriot in his battle against wasteful federal spending. McCain, the Republican presidential candidate, hailed Palin as a politician "with an outstanding reputation for standing up to special interests and entrenched bureaucracies -- someone who has fought against corruption and the failed policies of the past, someone who's stopped government from wasting taxpayers' money." McCain's crusade against earmarks -- federal spending sought by members of Congress to benefit specific projects -- has been a hallmark of his campaign. "
And in the department of "Ya think?" The New York Times intones: "A series of disclosures about Gov. Sarah Palin, Senator John McCain’s choice as running mate, called into question on Monday how thoroughly Mr. McCain had examined her background before putting her on the Republican presidential ticket."
She is the governor elected to throw out the corrupt, who is under investigation for acts of corruption. She was for the Bridge to Nowhere before she was against it. She's supposed to support McCain's supposed campaign against earmarks, and in today's Washington Post: "Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin employed a lobbying firm to secure almost $27 million in federal earmarks for a town of 6,700 residents while she was its mayor, according to an analysis by an independent government watchdog group.
In introducing Palin as his running mate on Friday, Sen. John McCain cast her as a compatriot in his battle against wasteful federal spending. McCain, the Republican presidential candidate, hailed Palin as a politician "with an outstanding reputation for standing up to special interests and entrenched bureaucracies -- someone who has fought against corruption and the failed policies of the past, someone who's stopped government from wasting taxpayers' money." McCain's crusade against earmarks -- federal spending sought by members of Congress to benefit specific projects -- has been a hallmark of his campaign. "
And in the department of "Ya think?" The New York Times intones: "A series of disclosures about Gov. Sarah Palin, Senator John McCain’s choice as running mate, called into question on Monday how thoroughly Mr. McCain had examined her background before putting her on the Republican presidential ticket."
Monday, September 01, 2008
Palin Pre-Panned
Two of MSNBCs more conservative commentators
are among those panning Palin as vp choice, before
McCain announced her. Several therefore were
against her before they were for her. TPM catalogs
the Palin revelations of just today.
Two of MSNBCs more conservative commentators
are among those panning Palin as vp choice, before
McCain announced her. Several therefore were
against her before they were for her. TPM catalogs
the Palin revelations of just today.
Bounce
Update: Chris Bowers makes this point: these polls show the "undecideds" shrinking in number, so the Obama bounce is actually larger--and maybe longer lasting--than it appears at first. "Relative to the number of undecideds needed to win the election, Obama's advantage has actually quadrupled."
The standard for bounce measurement is Gallup, and today's USA Today/Gallup poll story begins like this: "The Democratic National Convention significantly boosted Americans' views of Barack Obama as a strong leader who "shares your values" and can manage the economy and Iraq, a USA TODAY/Gallup Poll taken Saturday and Sunday finds.Republican John McCain's advantage in handling terrorism was dramatically reduced and his "unfavorable" rating ticked up to its highest level this year."
On personal characteristics, Obama has eliminated McCain's advantage over him as "a strong and decisive leader." By 46%-44%, those surveyed say that characteristic applies more to Obama than McCain. Before the convention, McCain held an eight-point advantage. Obama has a 13-point advantage as someone who "shares your values," double the edge he held before the convention. He has an eight-point advantage as someone who is "honest and trustworthy; before the convention, they were ranked equally on that quality."
Obama leads by 7 points, and significantly, is at 50% (50-43%.) Crossing the 50% threshhold would be better, but this is good news. It also factors in immediate reaction to the Palin pick.
Though the CNN poll yesterday showed negligible movement, two other polls today showed Obama did get a convention bounce. The Gallup tracking poll shows a 4 point bounce, "fairly typical" of past conventions. It's Obama 49% to McCain 43%. A CBS poll gives Obama an 8 point lead, 48-40%. Obama made significant gains among women and independents in this poll.
The convention bounce is usually temporary, but I am still looking for the point where Obama consolidates a lead. It's true that these national polls don't mean a lot--state by state means more, and even those don't always reflect reality, based on models used, cell phones, etc. But people notice the national polls, if not on their own then through media coverage. And people are more comfortable with their voting decision if it is shared by others. This used to be called the bandwagon effect. It's about enthusiasm as well as numbers.
So far enthusiasm seems to be holding. The Gallup: In the poll, Democrats continue to benefit from a "enthusiasm gap." By 57%-28%, Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents say they are more enthusiastic than usual about voting this year. By 47%-39%, Republicans and Republican-leaning independents say they are less enthusiastic than usual.
How people feel about qualities and issues can also change, but gaining ground in these areas can be like gas prices--when they go down, they don't end up where they were before they started going up.
Obama is more patient about this than I am. He doesn't expect things to take shape until mid October, according to his 60 Minutes interview yesterday.
Update: Chris Bowers makes this point: these polls show the "undecideds" shrinking in number, so the Obama bounce is actually larger--and maybe longer lasting--than it appears at first. "Relative to the number of undecideds needed to win the election, Obama's advantage has actually quadrupled."
The standard for bounce measurement is Gallup, and today's USA Today/Gallup poll story begins like this: "The Democratic National Convention significantly boosted Americans' views of Barack Obama as a strong leader who "shares your values" and can manage the economy and Iraq, a USA TODAY/Gallup Poll taken Saturday and Sunday finds.Republican John McCain's advantage in handling terrorism was dramatically reduced and his "unfavorable" rating ticked up to its highest level this year."
On personal characteristics, Obama has eliminated McCain's advantage over him as "a strong and decisive leader." By 46%-44%, those surveyed say that characteristic applies more to Obama than McCain. Before the convention, McCain held an eight-point advantage. Obama has a 13-point advantage as someone who "shares your values," double the edge he held before the convention. He has an eight-point advantage as someone who is "honest and trustworthy; before the convention, they were ranked equally on that quality."
Obama leads by 7 points, and significantly, is at 50% (50-43%.) Crossing the 50% threshhold would be better, but this is good news. It also factors in immediate reaction to the Palin pick.
Though the CNN poll yesterday showed negligible movement, two other polls today showed Obama did get a convention bounce. The Gallup tracking poll shows a 4 point bounce, "fairly typical" of past conventions. It's Obama 49% to McCain 43%. A CBS poll gives Obama an 8 point lead, 48-40%. Obama made significant gains among women and independents in this poll.
The convention bounce is usually temporary, but I am still looking for the point where Obama consolidates a lead. It's true that these national polls don't mean a lot--state by state means more, and even those don't always reflect reality, based on models used, cell phones, etc. But people notice the national polls, if not on their own then through media coverage. And people are more comfortable with their voting decision if it is shared by others. This used to be called the bandwagon effect. It's about enthusiasm as well as numbers.
So far enthusiasm seems to be holding. The Gallup: In the poll, Democrats continue to benefit from a "enthusiasm gap." By 57%-28%, Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents say they are more enthusiastic than usual about voting this year. By 47%-39%, Republicans and Republican-leaning independents say they are less enthusiastic than usual.
How people feel about qualities and issues can also change, but gaining ground in these areas can be like gas prices--when they go down, they don't end up where they were before they started going up.
Obama is more patient about this than I am. He doesn't expect things to take shape until mid October, according to his 60 Minutes interview yesterday.
Sunday, August 31, 2008
Palin Drone
More reaction. Reported by Time correspondents: Another week, another Frank Luntz/AARP focus group of undecided voters--this one in Minneapolis and with some bad news for John McCain: they don't like the choice of Sarah Palin for vice president. Only one person said Palin made him more likely to vote for McCain; about half the 25-member group raised their hands when asked if Palin made them less likely to vote for McCain. They had a negative impression of Palin by a 2-1 margin...
This reinforces my feeling that the Palin ploy was going to work worst with the demographic that Obama seemed to be having the most trouble with: older voters. Palin may help in Alaska (but maybe not), but she may have lost Florida, and there are a lot more older voters in PA than Rabid Right true believers.
This from Joshua Green via Ambinder, reporting from the GOPer convention. These are Republicans he's talking about, remember: Most Republicans have never met Sarah Palin and are processing the news of her selection as VP with the stunned-but-well-meaning emotions you might feel toward an acquaintance who just came out of the closet. Those given to caution when discussing such things at a brunch with journalists put a hopeful, might-be-a-stroke-of-genius spin on their astonishment. Those less inhibited--who are also better people--generally see the pick as irresponsible and politically motivated (and not in a good way). No one believes Palin was fully vetted. And no one has any idea how this will play out.
The best analogy I heard came from a bright young Republican operative, who--borrowing from the sports world, as the secret Republican-operative rulebook stipulates one must--likened the Palin pick to an NFL team using the top pick in the draft to select an unheralded, but promising, player from a small college. Looks great on paper: you just hope and pray they can adjust to the speed of the professional game. It's a useful analogy because it gives a good sense of the odds--for every Phil Simms (quick: name his alma mater*) there have been countless small-college players who put up great stats but never caught on in the pros.
More reaction. Reported by Time correspondents: Another week, another Frank Luntz/AARP focus group of undecided voters--this one in Minneapolis and with some bad news for John McCain: they don't like the choice of Sarah Palin for vice president. Only one person said Palin made him more likely to vote for McCain; about half the 25-member group raised their hands when asked if Palin made them less likely to vote for McCain. They had a negative impression of Palin by a 2-1 margin...
This reinforces my feeling that the Palin ploy was going to work worst with the demographic that Obama seemed to be having the most trouble with: older voters. Palin may help in Alaska (but maybe not), but she may have lost Florida, and there are a lot more older voters in PA than Rabid Right true believers.
This from Joshua Green via Ambinder, reporting from the GOPer convention. These are Republicans he's talking about, remember: Most Republicans have never met Sarah Palin and are processing the news of her selection as VP with the stunned-but-well-meaning emotions you might feel toward an acquaintance who just came out of the closet. Those given to caution when discussing such things at a brunch with journalists put a hopeful, might-be-a-stroke-of-genius spin on their astonishment. Those less inhibited--who are also better people--generally see the pick as irresponsible and politically motivated (and not in a good way). No one believes Palin was fully vetted. And no one has any idea how this will play out.
The best analogy I heard came from a bright young Republican operative, who--borrowing from the sports world, as the secret Republican-operative rulebook stipulates one must--likened the Palin pick to an NFL team using the top pick in the draft to select an unheralded, but promising, player from a small college. Looks great on paper: you just hope and pray they can adjust to the speed of the professional game. It's a useful analogy because it gives a good sense of the odds--for every Phil Simms (quick: name his alma mater*) there have been countless small-college players who put up great stats but never caught on in the pros.
Palin Comparison
The reviews are coming in, decidedly mixed, trending negative. Despite some reports of an enthusiastic crowd in Washington, PA (though when Palin mentioned Hillary, the crowd booed) and among the Rabid Right, the first polls are mixed and the first editorials are negative. Historians are blown away, but not in a good way, cf: “ I think she is the most inexperienced person on a major-party ticket in modern history,” said presidential historian Matthew Dallek.
A lacerating review in Salon that begins, "It is hard to think of a more cynical and contemptuous political act this year than John McCain's selection of Sarah Palin as his vice-presidential running mate," is one thing. But big thumbs down from the two biggest newspapers in Alaska, something else. Editorials in other newspapers were no better.
Polls show the lowest percentage ever recorded for confidence that Palin is qualified, and slightly more women seem turned off--or angered--by the choice than view it positively. 9% of female Hillary voters are more inclined to vote McCain now--but 15% are LESS likely. This political analysis in Politico about why McCain made this choice is pretty acute.
But the bigger news at this hour is hurricane Gustav, a major threat to the Gulf and zeroing in on New Orleans, though it may make landfall a little west or as far west as Texas. It doesn't necessarily get better after it hits Monday night, either. Jeff Masters at Wunderblog suggests it could go offshore again and gather strength for a return somewhere (just as Katrina did), influenced perhaps by the storm right behind it, currently tropical storm Hanna.
Sunday the Republicans will decide how best to exploit the storm for political advantage. McCain and Palin are already planning a photo op in Mississippi, and McCain's acceptance address may be a movable feast: anywhere there happens to be enough photogenic wreckage. Like everything else dramatic, this is unpredictable. The split screen coverage of the storm and the convention could get the convention more viewers than it would have alone. But how will viewers react? Will they believe the images the Republicans hope to try to manufacture, of GOPer led state and feds doing a heck of a job? Or will it look like the Curse of Katrina?
Frank Rich has outdone himself this Sunday--I can't quote this without quoting it all, so go read it. He's right that the hot air networks got it wrong about the conflict at the Dem convention--I was particularly offended by the comparisons with 1968, when some of my compatriots had their heads smashed. But the phony drama may have gotten more folks to tune in.
The reviews are coming in, decidedly mixed, trending negative. Despite some reports of an enthusiastic crowd in Washington, PA (though when Palin mentioned Hillary, the crowd booed) and among the Rabid Right, the first polls are mixed and the first editorials are negative. Historians are blown away, but not in a good way, cf: “ I think she is the most inexperienced person on a major-party ticket in modern history,” said presidential historian Matthew Dallek.
A lacerating review in Salon that begins, "It is hard to think of a more cynical and contemptuous political act this year than John McCain's selection of Sarah Palin as his vice-presidential running mate," is one thing. But big thumbs down from the two biggest newspapers in Alaska, something else. Editorials in other newspapers were no better.
Polls show the lowest percentage ever recorded for confidence that Palin is qualified, and slightly more women seem turned off--or angered--by the choice than view it positively. 9% of female Hillary voters are more inclined to vote McCain now--but 15% are LESS likely. This political analysis in Politico about why McCain made this choice is pretty acute.
But the bigger news at this hour is hurricane Gustav, a major threat to the Gulf and zeroing in on New Orleans, though it may make landfall a little west or as far west as Texas. It doesn't necessarily get better after it hits Monday night, either. Jeff Masters at Wunderblog suggests it could go offshore again and gather strength for a return somewhere (just as Katrina did), influenced perhaps by the storm right behind it, currently tropical storm Hanna.
Sunday the Republicans will decide how best to exploit the storm for political advantage. McCain and Palin are already planning a photo op in Mississippi, and McCain's acceptance address may be a movable feast: anywhere there happens to be enough photogenic wreckage. Like everything else dramatic, this is unpredictable. The split screen coverage of the storm and the convention could get the convention more viewers than it would have alone. But how will viewers react? Will they believe the images the Republicans hope to try to manufacture, of GOPer led state and feds doing a heck of a job? Or will it look like the Curse of Katrina?
Frank Rich has outdone himself this Sunday--I can't quote this without quoting it all, so go read it. He's right that the hot air networks got it wrong about the conflict at the Dem convention--I was particularly offended by the comparisons with 1968, when some of my compatriots had their heads smashed. But the phony drama may have gotten more folks to tune in.
Saturday, August 30, 2008
Friday, August 29, 2008
Obamacans
While all the political calculations about Sarah Palin go on, you have to wonder what's going on in the mind of, say, Chuck Hagel. Here's a Republican U.S. Senator who seems genuinely torn on who to support for President: his old friend and fellow GOPer, John McCain, or Barack Obama, who he traveled to Iraq with, who he has defended against scurrilous attack, and who he agrees with on a number of issues.
Did Sarah Palin just make up his mind? Responsible Republicans who care about foreign policy issues, the defense of the country, the role of America in the world, must be appalled by this choice. And the judgment will come down, not on Sarah Palin, but on John McCain for choosing her to be a potential heartbeat from the presidency, when that heartbeat belongs to a 72 year old with a history of cancer.
Chuck Hagel--and Colin Powell, and perhaps others--may forgive McCain many things, but can they forgive him this?
Bush-Cheney marginalized Republicans like Hagel, Powell, Lugar. McCain, who was once closer to their point of view than Bush-Cheney's, may have pushed them completely out.
This may not matter much. I'm not sure how many votes Chuck Hagel brings with him to whoever he supports. And though he and Powell may wind up supporting Obama in public, it's not clear that many others will follow, in public. After all, responsible Republicans have stood by while Bush-Cheney have shredded the Constitution, institutionalized torture and domestic spying, and de-professionalized the Dept. of Justice and who knows how many other departments with neocon Evangelical loyalty tests. They might just stand by as John McCain demonstrates contempt for the office of President.
Then again, they might not.
While all the political calculations about Sarah Palin go on, you have to wonder what's going on in the mind of, say, Chuck Hagel. Here's a Republican U.S. Senator who seems genuinely torn on who to support for President: his old friend and fellow GOPer, John McCain, or Barack Obama, who he traveled to Iraq with, who he has defended against scurrilous attack, and who he agrees with on a number of issues.
Did Sarah Palin just make up his mind? Responsible Republicans who care about foreign policy issues, the defense of the country, the role of America in the world, must be appalled by this choice. And the judgment will come down, not on Sarah Palin, but on John McCain for choosing her to be a potential heartbeat from the presidency, when that heartbeat belongs to a 72 year old with a history of cancer.
Chuck Hagel--and Colin Powell, and perhaps others--may forgive McCain many things, but can they forgive him this?
Bush-Cheney marginalized Republicans like Hagel, Powell, Lugar. McCain, who was once closer to their point of view than Bush-Cheney's, may have pushed them completely out.
This may not matter much. I'm not sure how many votes Chuck Hagel brings with him to whoever he supports. And though he and Powell may wind up supporting Obama in public, it's not clear that many others will follow, in public. After all, responsible Republicans have stood by while Bush-Cheney have shredded the Constitution, institutionalized torture and domestic spying, and de-professionalized the Dept. of Justice and who knows how many other departments with neocon Evangelical loyalty tests. They might just stand by as John McCain demonstrates contempt for the office of President.
Then again, they might not.
Thirty-Eight Million
To the record 84,000 who saw Obama's acceptance speech live, add another first: the biggest television audience for an acceptance address ever. At an estimated 38 million, it was a bigger American audience than watched the opening of the Olympics, the Oscars or the finale of American Idol. It is twice as many people who watched Kerry's acceptance speech four years ago.
Sarah Palin may have turned the head of the news people today, but for most people who even heard about it, the response was more likely to be: who?
To the record 84,000 who saw Obama's acceptance speech live, add another first: the biggest television audience for an acceptance address ever. At an estimated 38 million, it was a bigger American audience than watched the opening of the Olympics, the Oscars or the finale of American Idol. It is twice as many people who watched Kerry's acceptance speech four years ago.
Sarah Palin may have turned the head of the news people today, but for most people who even heard about it, the response was more likely to be: who?
Palin
John McCain named Sarah Palin as his VP. My first thought was judging McCain's assessment of the race: he doesn't think he's close. This is a big gamble, with potentially big dividends and drawbacks. It also may be a short term gain. The one area where it can be safely predicted that Palin will have lasting benefit to McCain is with Evangelicals and other anti-choicers.
It could be brilliant, if it works. It steals the morning after buzz of Obama's speech, although 36 million Americans watched it-- a lot more than saw McCain's announcement. It's great counter-programming: an old/young ticket to go against the Obama young/old ticket, but with the wild card of a woman candidate who is anti-choice. It's going to make the VP debate quite tricky: Palin has zero foreign policy cred and Biden has a lot--can he keep from looking like he's bullying her?
She might be able to energize McCain, and give some new life to the maverick image. But longterm, her inexperience is likely to be the deal-breaker for working voters. I don't think she'll play in PA. But you have to give the McCainers credit--they've lived to play another day.
Update: Pat Buchanan, who is ecstatic about this choice since she is a follower of his politically, did say one astute thing about Sarah Palin's utility: McCain can send her to the conservative audiences he needs but isn't all that comfortable with--and they aren't all that comfortable with him. That frees him to concentrate more on swing states and independents, where he tries to revive his maverick image. The question is whether he's able to change directions of his campaign in time, after the Dems hammered him for a week about being a Bush clone. If he indeed pivots from the experience mantra, and positions himself in a more positive vein as a change candidate, then the dynamics change a bit. But enough? It depends on whether perception of him from 2000, as a maverick, can be successfully revived. Suddenly, the campaign becomes no longer about Obama as much as McCain.
After today, Palin has the potential to become this year's Dan Quayle. She has already admitted that she knows little about Iraq, even though her own son will soon be deployed there. I think most mothers of soldiers, let alone vp candidates, inform themselves about Iraq.
Jonathan Alter of Newsweek is underwhelmed: Happy birthday, Johnny Mac! You're 72 now, a cancer survivor, and a presidential candidate who has said on many occasions that the most important criteria for picking a vice president is whether he or she could immediately step in if something happened to the president. Your campaign against Barack Obama is based on the simple idea that he is unready to be president. So you've picked a running mate who a year and a half ago was the mayor of Wasilla, Alaska, a town of 8,500 people. You've selected a potential leader of the free world who knows little or nothing about the major issues of the day beyond energy. Oh, and she's being probed in her state for lying and abuse of power.
John McCain named Sarah Palin as his VP. My first thought was judging McCain's assessment of the race: he doesn't think he's close. This is a big gamble, with potentially big dividends and drawbacks. It also may be a short term gain. The one area where it can be safely predicted that Palin will have lasting benefit to McCain is with Evangelicals and other anti-choicers.
It could be brilliant, if it works. It steals the morning after buzz of Obama's speech, although 36 million Americans watched it-- a lot more than saw McCain's announcement. It's great counter-programming: an old/young ticket to go against the Obama young/old ticket, but with the wild card of a woman candidate who is anti-choice. It's going to make the VP debate quite tricky: Palin has zero foreign policy cred and Biden has a lot--can he keep from looking like he's bullying her?
She might be able to energize McCain, and give some new life to the maverick image. But longterm, her inexperience is likely to be the deal-breaker for working voters. I don't think she'll play in PA. But you have to give the McCainers credit--they've lived to play another day.
Update: Pat Buchanan, who is ecstatic about this choice since she is a follower of his politically, did say one astute thing about Sarah Palin's utility: McCain can send her to the conservative audiences he needs but isn't all that comfortable with--and they aren't all that comfortable with him. That frees him to concentrate more on swing states and independents, where he tries to revive his maverick image. The question is whether he's able to change directions of his campaign in time, after the Dems hammered him for a week about being a Bush clone. If he indeed pivots from the experience mantra, and positions himself in a more positive vein as a change candidate, then the dynamics change a bit. But enough? It depends on whether perception of him from 2000, as a maverick, can be successfully revived. Suddenly, the campaign becomes no longer about Obama as much as McCain.
After today, Palin has the potential to become this year's Dan Quayle. She has already admitted that she knows little about Iraq, even though her own son will soon be deployed there. I think most mothers of soldiers, let alone vp candidates, inform themselves about Iraq.
Jonathan Alter of Newsweek is underwhelmed: Happy birthday, Johnny Mac! You're 72 now, a cancer survivor, and a presidential candidate who has said on many occasions that the most important criteria for picking a vice president is whether he or she could immediately step in if something happened to the president. Your campaign against Barack Obama is based on the simple idea that he is unready to be president. So you've picked a running mate who a year and a half ago was the mayor of Wasilla, Alaska, a town of 8,500 people. You've selected a potential leader of the free world who knows little or nothing about the major issues of the day beyond energy. Oh, and she's being probed in her state for lying and abuse of power.
The problem is that politics, like all professions, isn't as easy as it looks. Palin's odds of emerging unscathed this fall are slim. In fact, she's been all but set up for failure. ..But what does she know about Iranian nukes, health care or the future of entitlement programs? And that's just a few of the 20 or so national issues on which she will be expected to show basic competence. The McCain camp will have to either let her wing it based on a few briefing memos (highly risky) or prevent her from taking questions from reporters (a confession that she's unprepared). Either way, she's going to belly-flop at a time when McCain can least afford it.
Alter also goes into detail to show how the current ethics investigation of Palin in Alaska could blow up in McCain's face as well as hers.
By the way, I just saw the PBS News Hour and interviews on the convention with several columnists from papers around the country, including Jack Kelly of the Pittsburgh Post Gazette. Too bad--that paper has a number of astute writers. Kelly isn't one of them. He wasn't even well informed enough to know that nobody is yet measuring the convention bump in the polls--that won't be until Monday at the earliest. Although Obama is eight points ahead in the daily tracking today.
Mile High Home Run
The TV commentators gushed, even Pat Buchanan was beside himself with enthusiasm. And now the print reviews are starting to come in, with raves like this and this and this from the New York Times, this and this and especially this (E.J. Dionne) from the Washington Post, and this from the Guardian, just to skim off the top of the list.
(A lot of them have photos and excerpts, but not as good as mine.)
The points of view are interesting. Pat Buchanan thought it was centrist, Dionne a fulfillment of Civil Rights, and Kos is thrilled that it's solidly progressive. And they all loved it. So did T. Goddard, and he supplies some other gushers.
In a way I find all this amusing, because my first impression of the speech was that it was Barack's Greatest Hits. Almost everything in it I've heard before, which supports my contention that the people braying for Obama to say this or that just haven't been listening. David Gergen likened it to a symphony, and that's a great way of describing it: it was new in its combinations, its moods and sharpened expression. It was what he chose to put in it, how he arranged it and delivered it.
With the rumor that McCain had selected Pawlenty as VP, the folks as MSNBC seemed to fear that the McCain campaign might just vaporize. The drama of the oncoming storm Gustav may be the only thing that will produce any interest in the GOP convention next week. It may not be that drastic, but I've been waiting for the point that Obama seals the deal. He may be on his way. It may not even take the debates, but I suspect it won't really be sealed until after the first one at least. But the bounce is coming, and people are going to be talking about this speech for awhile.
What seemed to interest the commentators was Obama's "new" combativeness. Some of it was new, like the word "temperament" when Obama talked about a debate on who has the temperament and judgment to be Commander in Chief. It signals an escalation--McCain campaign's attacks have been so scurrilous we may have lost track of how brutal they are. Well, temperament is a real McCain weakness (his temper or at least sourness increasingly evident to the media, as in this interview), and real weaknesses are harder to defend than fictional ones.
I've said here before however that Obama always said he would engage his opponent in the general election in ways he wouldn't engage fellow Democrats in the primary--and by the way, didn't that pay off big time? Bill Clinton, Hillary, Al Gore, John Kerry, Bill Richardson, etc. all made invaluable and specific contributions to his candidacy during this very successful convention. And Joe Biden is his running mate.
And I've pointed out that the pre-convention strategy involved organizing, fundraising and putting together the resume, from the overseas trip to rolling out economic and energy plans. The convention starts the head-to-head, and Obama took this on himself. Democrats are ecstatic, the media has a fight to cover, while the convention did a great job of telling and showing Obama's story, which he used to relate directly to voters with the issues.
Now Obama and Biden campaign together, starting in Pittsburgh. They'll hammer the economic issues, and I expect as we get into late September and October, the economic argument--barring intervening extra-campaign events--will increasingly focus on health care.
Finally, several of the NBC commentators--starting with Brian Williams--noted the notes in the speech that seem straight out of that wonderful couple of minutes in the film (that surprisingly they all knew as well as I do), "The American President." I pointed out the similarity of something Obama said to this speech before. I'll have to look for that post, and maybe post the YouTube clip. Later.
The TV commentators gushed, even Pat Buchanan was beside himself with enthusiasm. And now the print reviews are starting to come in, with raves like this and this and this from the New York Times, this and this and especially this (E.J. Dionne) from the Washington Post, and this from the Guardian, just to skim off the top of the list.
(A lot of them have photos and excerpts, but not as good as mine.)
The points of view are interesting. Pat Buchanan thought it was centrist, Dionne a fulfillment of Civil Rights, and Kos is thrilled that it's solidly progressive. And they all loved it. So did T. Goddard, and he supplies some other gushers.
In a way I find all this amusing, because my first impression of the speech was that it was Barack's Greatest Hits. Almost everything in it I've heard before, which supports my contention that the people braying for Obama to say this or that just haven't been listening. David Gergen likened it to a symphony, and that's a great way of describing it: it was new in its combinations, its moods and sharpened expression. It was what he chose to put in it, how he arranged it and delivered it.
With the rumor that McCain had selected Pawlenty as VP, the folks as MSNBC seemed to fear that the McCain campaign might just vaporize. The drama of the oncoming storm Gustav may be the only thing that will produce any interest in the GOP convention next week. It may not be that drastic, but I've been waiting for the point that Obama seals the deal. He may be on his way. It may not even take the debates, but I suspect it won't really be sealed until after the first one at least. But the bounce is coming, and people are going to be talking about this speech for awhile.
What seemed to interest the commentators was Obama's "new" combativeness. Some of it was new, like the word "temperament" when Obama talked about a debate on who has the temperament and judgment to be Commander in Chief. It signals an escalation--McCain campaign's attacks have been so scurrilous we may have lost track of how brutal they are. Well, temperament is a real McCain weakness (his temper or at least sourness increasingly evident to the media, as in this interview), and real weaknesses are harder to defend than fictional ones.
I've said here before however that Obama always said he would engage his opponent in the general election in ways he wouldn't engage fellow Democrats in the primary--and by the way, didn't that pay off big time? Bill Clinton, Hillary, Al Gore, John Kerry, Bill Richardson, etc. all made invaluable and specific contributions to his candidacy during this very successful convention. And Joe Biden is his running mate.
And I've pointed out that the pre-convention strategy involved organizing, fundraising and putting together the resume, from the overseas trip to rolling out economic and energy plans. The convention starts the head-to-head, and Obama took this on himself. Democrats are ecstatic, the media has a fight to cover, while the convention did a great job of telling and showing Obama's story, which he used to relate directly to voters with the issues.
Now Obama and Biden campaign together, starting in Pittsburgh. They'll hammer the economic issues, and I expect as we get into late September and October, the economic argument--barring intervening extra-campaign events--will increasingly focus on health care.
Finally, several of the NBC commentators--starting with Brian Williams--noted the notes in the speech that seem straight out of that wonderful couple of minutes in the film (that surprisingly they all knew as well as I do), "The American President." I pointed out the similarity of something Obama said to this speech before. I'll have to look for that post, and maybe post the YouTube clip. Later.
Thursday, August 28, 2008
I've now posted my recollections of the March on Washington, with photos, here. If I get real ambitious I'll post it all here, too. Without photos, it also tops the Rescued list at Daily Kos.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
