Re: Palin and Obama

I hate to play the Jeremiah card, but let's not forget that Obama belonged for twenty years to a church which preached overt racial hatred as well as bizarre conspiracy theories regarding the poisoning of black babies and the like. I am not attacking Barack's religion, but the politics of his church. The church openly supported the Nation of Islam in Chicago and was actively a part of black liberation theology.

Note, I am not saying the political aspects of that theology are per se bad. If one can defend them, they should do so. What I find strange, however, is that Barack would now have us believe that he never subscribed to any such things, even though he recently stated that he went to church there about two times per week over that twenty year period. Without belaboring the point, BLT is way outside the mainstream of American political thought. So, was Barack too dumb to understand his own church; has he renounced its strange teachings; is he still pretending he skipped the controversial Sundays; is he a closet nut?

Now, I am sure someone will retort that Palin's religion is out of the mainstream, and that some guest pastors here and there have made politically bizarre statements. But I don't think there is anything comparable there to Jeremiah.

I can honestly say I would be completely comfortable with Palin as president.

I also offer two short explanations, to show I am not hopelessly unreasonable. First, I have a low opinion of senators, McCain included. I have an equally low opinion of most journalists, so watching these people tango on TV does not impress me re: intellectual credibility.

Second, only select politicians get truly challenged. I recall Jesse Jackson running for president many years ago, going on the old David Brinkley Sunday show, and George Will asking him gotcha questions about legislation he had never heard of. Will was obviously trying to embarrass him, and it worked. It was a very strange performance, in part because journalists rarely went directly at someone like that, much less when that person is a venerated liberal icon. It occurred to me then: if everyone got this treatment, they would all look very stupid.

Now, as soon as Palin was selected and before we knew anything about her, I started hearing talk on cable about "is she qualified" and "should she be a heartbeat away" -- things that were never asked about "Bathroom" Johnny Edwards upon his VP selection, with all of six years public experience. Johnny never got any gotcha questions either, because the MSM credited him with smarts via his own presidential campaign.

I guess what I am saying is that the Charlie Gibson tactics of splicing quotes, misrepresenting what you said, etc. are reserved for certain people, and have a magnifying effect. I see through it, and look for other variables besides whether you can play the MSM's games. I have posted tonight on why I think Palin has those talents, and Obama/Biden do not.

There may be a fair consensus here that Palin is of above average intelligence, but certainly not a brain like Bill Clinton. She seems to have a knack for coming out on top, whether it be her high school state basketball championship or becoming an unlikely PTA mom turned governor. I wonder: did the Bushies have to goad Pakistan's president into gushing, "I see why America is crazy about her," or did he do that on his own? I agree with Matt Damon that all of this would make a very bad Disney movie, but then again, America is that kind of place.

As for foreign policy, this clearly is not her strong suit. And, you do have wonder, if she were president, would she still be a McCainiac neocon, or does she harbor different views? Part of the challenge is not just getting up to speed generally; she must get up to speed with McCain's template talking points and not make any retractable gaffes along the way. Whether or not she articulates herself to everyone's taste, it seems clear to me that she supports Bush foreign policy all the way down the line, just like McCain.

As for Russia, it should be repeated that McCain is the one who brought this up, as a resume point. Palin only talked about it to Charlie Gibson because he asked, and the same thing happened again with Katie. Both answers could have been better, but it's not as if Palin is going around saying, "look at me, the foreign policy guru based on my telescopic view of Russia." I suspect she would like to get to election day without ever mentioning Russia again.

Final thought for the realists out there. On inauguration day, 1969, LBJ remarked to Nixon that the Democratic VP candidate, Muskie, was beloved by the media but helped the ticket not at all, while Agnew, ridiculed constantly, helped Nixon carry the border states and the election. Put aside for the moment Agnew's criminality, and just focus on the 1968 snapshot. Same thing could happen again here.