Site Presented By
Saturday, Nov 7, 2009
I thought that they really overstretched themselves, between the odd attacks on 'community organizers' amongst other things, as well as the repeated, already old invocations of 9/11 that came off as heavyhanded.
Still...the media seems to already be characterizing it as a home-run (indeed, Associated Press seemed to already have their reaction piece to Palin's speech ready before the speech even went out, much like they did with Obama's speech), which may be the tipping point.
The Trollop with a Wallop
There is a big difference between now and the election of 1980. Now, we have a track record of what happens when you put mean-spirited dumbasses in control of the White House (20 out of the last 28 years) and of the Congress (12 out of the last 14 years.
It's worked out so well.
If the American electorate puts McSame and Hail Mary in the White House, it will be because, as a nation, we deserve no better.
Besides the petty viciousness, the hypocrisy of the speech was staggering. The McCain campaign has been screaming for the last couple of days that the Media coverage of Palin and her family should have been “off limits.” So what does she do? Drag the whole tribe up on stage including the knocked-up teenage daughter (who was conspicuously feeding her brother during the evening) and her soon to be husband for a great big photo op. I guess the message here is that family is off limits unless they’re being used to score political points.
What I wonder is this. In an election cycle where so many people have been motivated by the Obama’s difference in tone, his appeal to a post partisan ideal, is this really going to play? I can’t imagine that with so many people (myself included) feeling energized by his candidacy, are people really going to wallow in what divides us?
Constitutional lawyer, teacher, Community organizer, two-term state senator, freshman U.S. Senator=Not Qualified
Small town mayor, freshman governor, hockey mom, PTA member, fisherman =Supremely Qualified
Damn, I'm living in the wrong world.
I agree with you, Glenn. There was never a time in the Democratic convention when the crowd openly booed at mentions of McCain or his policies. Yet, booing Obama and "liberals" was a regular theme at the Republican convention last night.
On the other other, as good as the republican attack machine is, they are also experts at playing the persecuted victim. By trotting out the liberal media thing and then turning anything negative Obama says into an "angry black man" thing, it probably wouldn't help the democrats if they decide to start throwing mud.
I heard on the NPR hourly news summary this morning that Palin's speech addressed "Obama's criticisms" that she is inexperienced. While I don't follow every statement released by Obama, I'm pretty sure *he* never made that criticism. He has been complimentary to a fault, even called to congratulate her, and even so the media is buying into the republican playbook.
Which is better? Try to run a clean campaign while your opponent goes for personal attacks, or get into the mudslinging and give them even more fodder for personal attacks?
This is why the republicans keep winning elections. It's certainly not because they have the best interest of the voters at heart.
The Republicans are only interested in winning the election, and have no guiding principles but that - as we've seen.
The Democrats have actual principles to an extent. Thus, unless the people see the flaws in the Republican approach, they won't be inclined to vote for Democrats.
Secondly, I think some of this is a game of chicken. The Republicans will gladly tear this country apart and go for vicious lies and pandering. They don't care about leaving smoking ruins.
The Republicans have nothing but negatives to work with. They have no plan, no vision, nothing other than an intent to enrich themselves at the expense of the rest of us.
Given that, the Democrats could certainly respond more aggresively against these attacks. The Democrats could also attack in kind.
My question for you Glenn is who is this column's intended audience? Is it the Obama campaign or the readers of Salon? If the former, lets hope they read it and take it to heart. If it is the latter then your column is unfinished. If I'm your intended reader, I'm left frustrated. What can I do about it? What actions can I take that might positively affect the situation for Democrats?
A great term to summarize the phenomenon. The other factor that is striking is how stupid and immature such a huge part of the electorate is - how much they never advanced beyond adolescence with its mocking, sacrasm, shallowness, and social clicks.
That McCain and company have gone ahead and given up on any thought of trying to appeal to moderates. They have clearly decided that firing up tyhe Hate-R-Us crowd is the only way they'll get anywhere.
What I find appaling though is that every time I think that so-called journalists may be getting hip to his game, they turn around and fall right back into their old habits.
On the Left and in the Center, one wins an argument by introducing the most salient points and supporting those points with evidence.
On the Right, one wins an argument by calling the opponent the most vile names and generally screaming louder.
Hence, the Left / Center will give Palin points for style (she is a smooth talker), but not substance (because there was none), while the Right will declare this to be one of the greatest speeches in American political history (bacause she mocked her opponent).
Sarah Palin lied many times in her speech last night. The repubs do not really have much choice. O&B do not need to lie in order to make a much stronger case than they have. I think they better get to work.
That McCain and company have gone ahead and given up on any thought of trying to appeal to moderates.
I don't agree. One of the brilliant aspects of the Palin pick is that as extremist and ideological as she is, it's very hard to depict her as such because she doesn't appear to be a fire-breathing Dobson-ite. She doesn't look like or carry herself like Dick Cheney. She can simultaneously electrify the GOP base while appealing to moderates and independents.
Her speech was brutal and vicious but it wasn't ideological. The ideological parts were spoken in code -- those who want to see it will, but those who don't may not.
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
The Maine fight was supposed to be the dress rehearsal for repealing California's Prop. 8 -- but gay marriage lost
Once one obtains Seriousness credentials in the Washington media, they are irrevocable no matter one's conduct.
Salon headlines in your mailbox
