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.

I have to agree. It all comes back to the focus, and moving away from the issues and onto the personality. Billmon has a post up on dKos which explores/explains the real meaning of "community organizaers" and how it is dog-whistle for something completely different to that crowd.

And I sure don't expect her to come out speaking in tongues, though her church since 12 is about as fundamentally evangelical pentecostal as you can get, and they still practice this. I don't expect her to ever again say the Iraq war was a mission from God, literally a crusade, even though she said that two months ago to children at her church, on film. I don't expect her to define her energy policy as praying to god, although she also said that on film, to the same kids; that they should pray for an oil pipeline to be funded for Alaska.

She's a zealot and an hyper-radical fundamental christianist, but they'll never actually say that or provide any evidence of that. It's why they locked her in the hotel for 5 days without media access; she had to realize what she can and cannot say.

What you've written represents a damning and cynical critique of the American voting population. Surely there is a more constructive and effective way of countering the Republican strategy. What you are essentially counseling is that the Democrats use the same tactics as the Republicans to ensure that voters will not vote based on a rational assessment of policy issues (or even self-interest). Such advice may win elections, but won't it cause even further damage to your political system over the longer term?

I must admit to being pretty cynical myself with respect to Mr. Obama's agenda, but I have to profess much admiration for his consistent refusal to play the game in the shallow and dirty manner of the Republicans. More particularly, he appears to be doing it in the name of giving the voters the credit they deserve. Are you suggesting that hope be abandoned when it comes to the wisdom of the American electorate and accept that US politics is a reality-show cage match?

Let's assume for a moment that Palin represents a major threat to Obama-Biden.

If you're a machiavellian Democrat, you decide to (a) attack her perceived strength; (b) dehumanize her; (c) re-frame her in a negative cultural stereotype.

(a) - thrash her on her "family values" FUBAR. Abstinence-only, eh, Granny Palin? If you are so blatantly ignored by your own family, how to you expect anyone to be believe you are up to the Veep job.

(b) - [cf. Republican's Hillary Clinton manual]

(c) - She's the equivalent of a political gold-digger. She caught Mav'rick's eye, seduced the old coot, in the hope to inherit Airforce 1. Anna Nicole Smith with a PAC? There she is.

Just an idea.

A feeble statement here and there won't do it. She [Hillary] needs to take Palin on big time. But will she?

-- CarolynC

Hillary Clinton should take on the assignment of fact check monitor of that speech for starters. There is a gold mine of exposure to be had just from that one speech about not only what Sarah Palin's history in government has been about, but the lengths Sarah Palin will go to cover up and lie about her record in government, including her mayoral record.

Hillary Clinton has partly earned and partly been mythologized for her ability to take on all comers. Put that reputation to good use. Build on that reputation when it really counts by substantially exposing what has been a flood of information that has come out in just the past few days about Palin's political shenanigans and her typical right wing style of governing and politicking.

Smart ass...

The point isn't whether or not I know who the President of Pakistan is...and what makes you think I didn't know the answer to that trick question?

Not only is my point valid (I'll pay you a hundred clams if Palin can answer this question correctly, if asked spontaneously), but it's a riff on when they asked BUSH in 2000 who the president of Pakistan is--and he stuttered incoherently, as per his usual method.

I have not been very optimistic about the Democrats winning this election; cautiously hopeful, perhaps, at least until Hope™, itself, became the operational plan.

It will be immeasurably painful to watch the Democrats lose because they were behind the curve from the very beginning. It would seem that the Democrats want to depend on the voters to see through the lies, obfuscations, and sleight of hand on their own. But, surely they understand that work creates dis-utility, people have a notoriously short planning horizon, and a more immediate time rate of preference. One doesn't have to look much further than the successes of American Idol, state lottery programs, or the diet industry to see the ways in which people would prefer to remake their world if they could.

It really is going to come down to the voters. It would seem that the Democrats expect the voters to make their case against the GOP for them. I can't see how that can happen.

I just hate slow motion train wrecks.

She's as condescending and insulting as Dick Cheney, only without the experience.

Dick Cheney! Dick Cheney! They want us to vote for a female Dick Cheney!

Who will control David Addington in a McSarah administration?

the Dems will cluck their tongues and tsk tsk and say they are above it all. Of course they will. How else would you be the party of failure?