home

Ebert on Palin

By TChris, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 04:39:45 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Movie critic Roger Ebert turns political critic in this column noting Sarah Palin's appeal as an American Idol version of a political candidate. He'd rather have the real thing.

I trust the American people will see through Palin, and save the Republic in November. The most damning indictment against her is that she considered herself a good choice to be a heartbeat away. That shows bad judgment.

< A Rush to Judgment By Gov. Rell | McCain on Palin (and Other Issues) >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Ebert on Palin | 107 comments (107 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Matt Damon and now Roger Ebert (5.00 / 8) (#2)
    by JAB on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 04:44:29 PM EST
    Ok - I'm convinced!

    you sound awfully elitist. (5.00 / 2) (#52)
    by byteb on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 05:47:08 PM EST


    Parent
    Roger Ebert! (5.00 / 7) (#4)
    by sancho on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 04:47:21 PM EST
    well noted feminist and thoughtful social commentator. thank god his voice endures.

    Gene Siskel was the smart one (5.00 / 0) (#25)
    by myiq2xu on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 05:13:56 PM EST
    But neither one ever made a movie, they just criticized the work of others.

    Parent
    Ebert wrote a screenplay. (none / 0) (#35)
    by Lysis on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 05:22:06 PM EST
    Beyond the Valley of the Dolls, I think.

    Parent
    Watch it sometime and you will know (2.00 / 1) (#62)
    by PssttCmere08 on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 06:01:54 PM EST
    why you should NOT care what Ebert has to say.

    Parent
    I must say (none / 0) (#74)
    by pelgal on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 07:04:45 PM EST
    I have read Ebert for years and he is an icon here in Chicago.  His essay after the stolen 2000 election made me cry and was one of the most eloquent pieces on the topic I ever saw.  He is a die-hard Democrat and his movie reviews are often brilliant.  I love Roger (but I'm still not voting for the chosen one--the Dems are not the progressive party they claimed to be--very disappointing).

    Parent
    I rest my case (none / 0) (#80)
    by myiq2xu on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 07:48:34 PM EST


    Parent
    C'mon . . (none / 0) (#111)
    by pelgal on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 11:04:19 PM EST
    have you actually seen Beyond the Valley of the Shadow of the Dolls (snark)--it's a classic!

    Parent
    In these times of alternate reality... (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by Aqua Blue on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 04:56:43 PM EST
    where black is white and white is black...and

    truth tellers are rare in the media...propaganda seems the only thing that the masses believe.

    I say fight fire with fire.

    Go Ebert!   Go celebs!  

    What does Quagmire think about Palin? (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by tootired on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 05:01:29 PM EST
    Seriously, if he says don't vote for her, I'll listen.

    He weighed in last week. (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by Lysis on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 05:23:31 PM EST
    She's giggity-giggity-good.

    Parent
    I wonder if Gene ... (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by Robot Porter on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 05:03:29 PM EST
    would have disagreed?

    Good point Rog.... (5.00 / 3) (#21)
    by kdog on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 05:04:49 PM EST
    be wary of anyone who says they are 100% ready for the job no sane person wants.  Odds are they are a psychopath, as my main man Kurt V. said.

    ha (none / 0) (#102)
    by connecticut yankee on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 10:09:27 PM EST
    Yeah, I agree with that.  I'm always watching them for signs of instability.  McCain has a few issues, Obama has ego maybe,  Palin has the christo-fascist aura.  Biden seems like safest but that probably means he's the crazy one. Going by movie logic anyway.

    Parent
    Yes, stick with substantive, not celebrity (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by KVFinn on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 05:09:36 PM EST
    I agree I'd rather see links to substantive criticism than celebrity stuff.  Honestly, linking to Matt Damon and whatnot just makes us look a little petty.  I agree with Matt, but it shouldn't be our argument to the people.

    Here's a few starting points:

    Her big accomplishment, the "largest private-sector infrastructure project in North American history."?  It's just contract to hire a CA company to file legal paperwork.  They haven't even started getting companies to the table to figure out where the 40 billion is coming from.

    Her ethics reform?  A bill proposed by democrats before she was elected.  It finally passed the legislature when the FBI raiding lawmakers offices.

    Bridge to Nowhere?  She did cancel the funding for the bridge after campaigning strongly for it a year earlier, but the state kept the money. What she really said was "thanks but no thanks but we'll keep the money anyway".

    Elected on claims of bringing transparency back to the government?  Now claiming executive privilege left and right to avoid the Trooper investigation.

    She kills animals... (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by desertswine on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 05:22:29 PM EST
    from airplanes.

    Parent
    "She" or the Dept of F&G for (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by nycstray on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 06:11:20 PM EST
    population control?

    Parent
    She supports the killing... (none / 0) (#92)
    by desertswine on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 09:03:30 PM EST
    of wolves and other predators from the air in a particularly cruel and heinous way of "population control."  The animals are chased to exhaustion and then you never get a clean kill. Often the animals are left to bleed to death. It's merely sadistic sport and totally unnecessary. In my part of the country, we have to kill the exploding population of deer because there are no wolves. There is no evidence that it effectively "controls" the wolf population.

    Parent
    AK ain't your part of the country (none / 0) (#118)
    by daryl herbert on Sat Sep 13, 2008 at 01:49:06 AM EST
    It's merely sadistic sport and totally unnecessary.

    No, by bringing down the wolf population, there are more prey animals (moose and similar animals).  Many Alaskans, including Eskimos/Inuit, rely on hunting to feed their families.  Hunting wolves from the air is about making sure that those people get a chance to support themselves.

    Parent

    I'm simply so SICK of this image thing (5.00 / 0) (#29)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 05:16:18 PM EST
    and Hollywood commentary, and no a movie critic? We can either get back to issues or we can deliver up a Princess for America to fuss about because we seem to miss not having a monarch to worship and hold in hearts above ourselves and our own children.  She was on the cover of People mag when I was at the grocery store just now holding her new little special needs baby and her teenage daughter next to her.  They are just weathering storms, just like the rest of us......except they aren't.  They are far more priveleged and just reading about the storms of the priveleged or debating the images of the priveleged and the opinions of the priveleged makes nobody else's life any better or more priveleged other than the already priveleged.

    Sorry I can't type, I'm just so frustrated this (5.00 / 2) (#33)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 05:21:04 PM EST
    afternoon.  I'm a stupid soldier's wife and he willfully serves a bunch of buffoons who in my opinion deserve no such service, but he believes in his heart of hearts that the truth and liberty will eventually prevail if only he remains resolute and keeps his honor during these horrible times......yes he believes.  I'm dog tired of getting the shaft by Republicans and Democrats both.  When will the real people of America, the average people of America matter again?

    Parent
    Tracy, might be time ... (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by Robot Porter on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 05:45:25 PM EST
    to take a weekend off from politics.

    Do something fun, take your mind off all this.

    It will be here when you get back.

    Parent

    Odd (5.00 / 3) (#60)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 06:00:13 PM EST
    you say that. My husband said the exact same thing today. Neither candidate has a clue as what needs to be done. CNN was on and the pundits were talking about nonissues to most people again. He turned the channel.

    Parent
    well (none / 0) (#104)
    by connecticut yankee on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 10:13:24 PM EST
    I dont think you should rely on the American people for sound decision making.  They supported Iraq, they supported vietnam, they tend to believe negative ads that don't even make sense. I could go on....  

    I think you can believe in America without believing in the American people.

    Parent

    Well, this has been very helpful, (5.00 / 8) (#38)
    by JavaCityPal on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 05:24:01 PM EST
    But, I'll be able to make a much more informed decision after I've heard what the Jonas Brothers think of the candidates.
    *falls of chair laughing* (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by JimWash08 on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 06:19:28 PM EST
    Oh, you truly are Superior in your how you make your decisions, JCP! :)

    Parent
    And I have to give Ebert Two Thumbs Down. (4.25 / 4) (#64)
    by PssttCmere08 on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 06:06:25 PM EST


    Parent
    Again (5.00 / 2) (#43)
    by TChris on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 05:34:26 PM EST
    a good number of comments have been deleted for going off topic.  The post is not about the primaries.

    And instead of bashing Robert Ebert for having opinions about something other than movies, why don't you try reading and debating his opinions?

    Two Thumbs Down (5.00 / 4) (#81)
    by Tom Spaulding on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 07:48:49 PM EST
    I did read it. He claims The Republic is at risk. That's an hysterical point of view that can;t be debated. If we start with that, then I'll have to claim the same result will happen if Obama wins. Roger hopes we are all as wise and worldly as him and we make the right decision.

    I've visited and worked in dozens of countries in Europe and South America: Russia, Estonia, Latvia, Argentina, Brazil, England, France, blah blah blah. So what?

    Being a tourist is not a qualification for anything other than a passport. What magic insights was I supposed to glean? All I knew for sure upon coming home was that this is the best country in the world, hands down. Electing a Republican will not leave it in ruins. Roger's a world traveler like me, and he doesn't even know that much. I can't take him seriously.

    Parent

    Just because (none / 0) (#126)
    by dead dancer on Sat Sep 13, 2008 at 10:44:00 AM EST
    The man is just as qualified for the VP position as any of the current candidates, and yet I'm reading lots of comments that Hollywood types are laughable. No creds!

    Just substitute "hockey mom" for Hollywood. Is that your argument?

    Parent

    I wasn't aware that Ebert (none / 0) (#132)
    by tree on Sat Sep 13, 2008 at 02:26:55 PM EST
    has been a governor for the last year and a half, or a Senator for the last 3 and a half.

    Should we substitute "community organizer" for Hollywood? Is that your argument?

    Parent

    Maybe movie critics should (5.00 / 2) (#46)
    by Coral on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 05:40:54 PM EST
    be the ones commenting on our presidential election politics, since the entire thing is beginning to feel like a horror film.

    Actually, I think this is a help. Someone has to bring these people down. It is just too dangerous to have McCain/Palin in office. The Republic is facing ruin...and with global warming, energy crisis, and the need for intelligent diplomacy in a dangerous world, we need competent leadership.

    Have you ever managed anyone or anything? (none / 0) (#120)
    by cymro on Sat Sep 13, 2008 at 03:11:57 AM EST
    If not, I understand why you still think it's OK to say things like "Someone has to bring these people down." But in life, people do not rise to the top by "bringing people down," they are given more authority because they are demonstrably better at the job.

    So the reality of elections is that to get competent leadership in government, we, the people, need to select competent candidates. It's too late to bemoan the inability of our candidates to demonstrate their superiority and their readiness for leadership after we have selected them.

    Parent

    Ebert Comment (5.00 / 2) (#57)
    by dailygrind on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 05:55:18 PM EST
    a) I think he's right. If you study filmmaking (as I have) , you understand that Palin is the Hollywood version of what DC is about. For lack of a better example- Palin is the movie Dave, if Dave were conservative. The simple do goer goes to Washington. The GOP is very good at using Hollywood stage craft to its own end, whether that's John Wanye, Ronald Reagan or the Terminator.  She represents what Americans would like to think Washington is, if the stagecraft of good and down to earth is felt rather than is actually the case. She represents what women would like to think about other women, that they are all for women's rights by virtue of gender, rather than what she is. This is my constant struggle with politics these days. Knowing filmmaking you start to realize how you manipulate your audience.

    b) I think your posters here from my vantage as someone in the industry are amusing. The reason why Hollywood is uniquely positioned to talk about stage craft is because that's what we do for a living. Yet they poo poo Hollywood for talking about stage craft. Who is in a better position to talk about story telling than someone who critiques it for a living? I  know- I know. This is politics. But- really it's not. It's story telling. We know how to make fantasy seem realer than real. That's what Palin is. Fantasy seem real. There is a great book I always recommend to people by Walter Murch called Blink of a Eye. It's about film editing. It's  a great book because Murch early in the book point blank says if you hook them with emotions, story, character, facts- nothing else matters as much.

    This is Palin a nutshell. A great Hollywood story. I await the comments about Obama as if they change what I just wrote above about Palin.

    It's not that McCain or Palin are that great (5.00 / 2) (#82)
    by Prabhata on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 07:51:34 PM EST
    It's that the Democratic candidate is not very good.  When Democrats admit that Dukakis, Kerry, and Obama are just not very electable, then maybe the Democrats will pick a candidate that appeals to regular Americans.  Just because a candidate talks pretty doesn't mean that he/she is a good candidate that connects with Americans.  Al Gore was more electable, but he had the misfortune to listen to Brazile.

    Parent
    That's bs (1.00 / 1) (#88)
    by dailygrind on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 08:24:05 PM EST
    I know many of you dont bother to check polls but people actually have a pretty high favorable rating of Obama. So please stop projecting what you feel into a discussion.

    You also glossed over my point. My point is that what you define as a 'great candidate' can be manipulated by stage craft. ie, George Bush is like everyone else despite the fact he bought that ranch in 2000 and comes from an ultra wealthy family. The governor of Ca is the governator like his character in the Terminator flicks. It's the manipulation of image. Reagan sounding like John Wayne with regarding to Russia wasn't happenstance. It's stagecraft. As an actor Reagan understood the point of acting the part. It allows folks like yourself to project onto them without knowing that's what you are doing. They are pushing buttons you don't realize you have.

    This is why on a certain level I find it difficult to talk to some of you. You are manipulable, but don't realize that you are. You think you are beyond Hollyw'ood/Madison Avenue but in fact are exactly the type to be manipulated by story technique because you refuse to aknowledge what's happening.

    The same techniques that Hollywood uses to get you to lean forward in your seat when a pivotal moment of suspense is to occur explains why the unexpected announcement of Palin riveted the news media. Or,  by analogy, as Hitchcock said- suspense is in the anticipation fo the explosion, not the  explosion. Similarly, the idea and emotions of Palin is what is turning most of you on about her. Not what she is. Its what hollywood does- uses your projects, aspirations, ideas, cliches you have about what is a leader to push your button. Next time you go see a movie like Die Hard check out how it works rather than passively viewing it.  It is excellent narrative and story making with the right tension at the right moment. SImilarly the GOP creates the illusion of leadership but it's not real because there is no accountability for it. To hve that  in a democracy requires an electorate that can get beyond being passive observers in their on political process who take in whatever is being feed with out realizing how those things are basic story telling techniques, the same as Hollywood.

    Parent

    ha (none / 0) (#110)
    by connecticut yankee on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 10:32:54 PM EST
    It has nothing to do with that.  It has to do with negative ads and the democratic tendency to not use them as effectively as the GOP.

    Democrats need to stop pretending issues matter.  They dont really.  McCain learned that in 2000.  Talking about issues is what you do while you are waiting for your next attack ad to air.

    If the democrats were smart they'd hit McCain on sexism, child molestation, canibalism or whatever they can make slide.

    Parent

    be afraid... (none / 0) (#125)
    by marian evans on Sat Sep 13, 2008 at 04:03:42 AM EST
    ...then god help democracy in the US, because thence fascism lies...

    In fact, it seems to me, "issues" lie at the core of the left perception of the human project.

    Traditionally, the left worldview is premised on a perception of humanity as aspirational. The job of the left is to work to achieve a society in which individuals can reach their potential...in which the barriers of class, gender, race etc do not prevent people from full development. These are the "issues" that lie at the heart of liberal thought.

    When did the left start believing that controlling the tools of manipulation was a worthy goal?

    Parent

    Everybody's a critic. (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 06:00:18 PM EST
    Roger Ebert turns political critic in this column noting Sarah Palin's appeal as an American Idol version of a political candidate.


    'The most damning endictment' Oh my sweet (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by WillBFair on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 09:08:18 PM EST
    lemon swirl. Could he sound more elitist? Yeah. That's just the way to convince Americans. Talk like an intellectual snob.

    I don't think that American Idol criticisms help, (4.55 / 9) (#1)
    by GeekLove08 on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 04:41:45 PM EST
    since I believe Obama has been accused of the same.

    Plus, I think that the more Hollywood (5.00 / 8) (#3)
    by GeekLove08 on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 04:45:54 PM EST
    types that come out criticizing McCain/Palin, the more it hurts Obama's campaign.

    Recently, we've had Matt Damon, Pamela Anderson, and the idiots on the MTV VMA awards.  The "celebrity" criticisms against Obama worked.  I don't think they need further reminders of that when his poll numbers are down.

    Parent

    Au contraire, (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by Aqua Blue on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 04:53:15 PM EST
    The masses pay more attention to movies and reality show.

    A movie critic has cred with them.

    Parent

    then the Republic really is in (5.00 / 3) (#8)
    by bjorn on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 04:55:23 PM EST
    danger!

    Parent
    exactly.... (5.00 / 2) (#31)
    by Aqua Blue on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 05:18:16 PM EST
    The general citizenry has had public education weakened by inadequate funding and school vouchers.   No longer is adequate government being taught.   No longer are citizens being taught that they can lose their democracy if they don't get informed.  No longer is there accurate information easily available.

    All of us political junkies are the exception.   We are for the most part well educated and know how to get accurate information.

    Is the country in real danger?   H@ll yes.

    Parent

    Everyone's stupid but us. (4.60 / 10) (#34)
    by Lysis on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 05:21:19 PM EST
    Thank God for us.  

    Anyone in the mood for arugula?

    Parent

    Nice misrepresentation of what (3.00 / 2) (#41)
    by byteb on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 05:31:27 PM EST
    the commenter was saying.

    Anyone in the mood for a side of snide?

    Parent

    Sounds exactly like what the (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by tree on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 05:59:11 PM EST
    commenter was saying.

    All of us political junkies are the exception.   We are for the most part well educated and know how to get accurate information.

    I've known a lot of ignorant political junkies. They are not exceptions.

    Parent

    well (none / 0) (#105)
    by connecticut yankee on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 10:17:15 PM EST
    The ignorant are out there.  That's why they run silly commercials.

    Parent
    Anyone that would listen to (5.00 / 4) (#14)
    by Cards In 4 on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 04:59:34 PM EST
    Ebert's political views and be swayed by them is already voting for Obama.  

    Parent
    well (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by connecticut yankee on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 05:41:35 PM EST
    There are plenty of people who barely follow politics.  All endorsements have the potential to help.

    I'm sure if Hollywood supported republicans you'd see them use it for all it was worth.   Like they do Nashville and Nascar celebrities.

    Parent

    When you think about McCain's Decision to (3.88 / 9) (#16)
    by GeekLove08 on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 05:00:27 PM EST
    pick Palin as his V.P., the amazing thing is that "most" criticism against Palin, you can turn around and say the  same about Obama, except she's in the #2 spot. For example:

    1.  Gibson yesterday: You've never met a world leader before.  Neither has Obama prior to this campaign.
    2.  What experience does Palin have to be CIC?  Ditto for Obama.
    3.  Palin is an American Idol/celebrity candidate.  So is Obama.

    And Obama for the nth time in this campaign vowed to "put the gloves on" and fight back with the silly commercial attacking McCain's glasses since Palin's are so hip.  Geez...

    Parent
    Obama was a member of (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by byteb on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 05:41:42 PM EST
    the Senate Arms Service Committee and before his campaign began had traveled overseas and met foreign dignitaries in 2005 in Russia, 10 Downing Street, Ukraine and Azerbaijan..and that's what I discovered after only a very brief Google search. Google is a helpful search engine.

    Parent
    Uh ... Nope, you're wrong there. (5.00 / 4) (#71)
    by JimWash08 on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 06:28:45 PM EST
    Hillary Clinton is on the Senate Committee on Armed Services, and three of its subcommittees.

    Barack Obama is on the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations (of which Joe Biden is the Chair). He only attended ONE meeting in all his time in the Senate.

    Parent

    This is not true! (none / 0) (#89)
    by wasabi on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 08:34:39 PM EST
    According to ABC News, "Of the three Afghanistan-related hearings that the Senate Foreign Relations Committee has had over the past 22 months, Obama, the presumptive Democratic candidate, has only attended one."

    According to the article, McCain has attended NONE of them.

    Parent

    heh (1.00 / 1) (#106)
    by connecticut yankee on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 10:20:46 PM EST
    Dont interrupt JimWash08 when he's bashing Obama. It's his only hobby.

    Parent
    Yes, I know, but sadly this was all within 2 years (none / 0) (#53)
    by GeekLove08 on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 05:48:19 PM EST
    of the announcement of his candidacy.

    I am not saying that the exact same criticism can be applied to both.  But if your response to that criticism is for you to bring up something that happened 3 years ago, this will only make people realize how little "experience" he has because ultimately, it will be trumped by McCain's decades of experience.  And Obama is after all running against McCain, not Palin.

    Parent

    Well, first you said that (none / 0) (#58)
    by byteb on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 05:58:27 PM EST
    he "hadn't" met any foreign dignitaries prior to becoming a candidate.

    Now, however, you're saying that he did but it doesn't count because it was within some kind of strange SOL for meeting foreign dignitaries prior to becoming a candidate that you've now created. Sure.

    Plus, now you're arguing that to bring up ANY foreign policy experience Obama has is not a good idea because it will be matched against McCain's and McCain is running as POTUS.,,which, of course,  ignores the fact that YOU just did attempt to compare Palin and Obama's foreign policy experience...and you were shot down.

    I do give kudos to Sara for getting a passport a couple of years ago...who dare say, she's a provincial?

    Parent

    I stand corrected. . . (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by GeekLove08 on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 06:13:57 PM EST
    I was mostly talking in generalities.  I am not saying that there is A SOL on meeting foreign dignitaries as Palin said last night that she spoke with Saakashvili and if "meeting foreign dignitaries" is what qualifies a person for CIC, I am sure that they can arrange a brief European Tour.  

    What I am getting at is what I think BTD has been saying -- attack the Republican platform.  Obama is not running against Palin.

    Parent

    I agree that (none / 0) (#72)
    by byteb on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 06:40:14 PM EST
    Democrats are on thin ice to debate who is the more experienced but Gibson did the questioning and (even when I detest the questions for a variety of reasons), I think it's fine and even necessary for Gibson or Brokaw or whomever to pose the questions if for no other reason then to see how the candidate handles a curveball or an idiotic questions or a 'gotcha' question. Furthermore, given the fact that Palin has been in the public eye so little and the election is so close, I think each interview the McCain campaign makes her available should be non-deferential and filled with every silly or serious or whatever type question the interviewer can conjure up. We should be able to see Palin unscripted.

    Parent
    Obama is loosing the Experience Argument to Palin (none / 0) (#73)
    by GeekLove08 on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 06:53:24 PM EST
    47 percent say Obama lacks the proper experience
    36 percent who had the same criticism about Palin

    Parent
    He was last season's winner (4.22 / 9) (#24)
    by myiq2xu on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 05:12:03 PM EST
    It's a whole new season now

    Parent
    ROFL - - - (4.00 / 4) (#27)
    by GeekLove08 on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 05:16:12 PM EST
    Yep, America has moved on.  I wonder if he's contacted Taylor Hicks yet?

    Parent
    At least American Idol (none / 0) (#76)
    by litigatormom on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 07:14:17 PM EST
    requires the contestants to face the public every week and stand before Simon Cowell for the ritual "Thaht wuz DREADful!" each week.

    Palin's ascent to the political and media stardom is the opposite of American Idol; it's as if the winner never competed on the show at all, and instead was plucked out of obscurity by Paula Abdul.

    Parent

    this is again a part of the story building (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by dailygrind on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 08:35:22 PM EST
    It reminds me of Catwoman from the first Batman series in the 1990s with Michelle P in the title role. She's going toe to toe with Batman in a fight on the roof top. He's shocked. When he hits back- she falls down and says "how dare you, I am a woman." When he goes to her to make sure she is okay, she claws in him the stomack with her metal nails, saying "I am a woman, and I m not to be taken for granted." Palin in that way is the perfect trojan horse (an inpendent woman friend of mine used that term). This friend really doesn't like Palin because looking at her record she says she's really bad for women.  However in the political process if you criticize her, then you are being sexist or deranged. On the one hand there is some real sexism out there toward her based on people talking about her family, but then on the other you see an equal kind of sexism that she can't be treated as an equal like everyone else. To do so, is "hitting a woman." But when she strikes, you are suppose to just take it. There is a lot of emotional buttons being pushed with this pick. That's why, in part, McCain choose her. It's the ability that she has to fight, but not then be fully attacked without such discussions being labeled as unfair.

    Parent
    This ad may have been out for a few (none / 0) (#96)
    by litigatormom on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 09:35:05 PM EST
    days, but I just saw it today -- it says that Obama is being "disrespectful" to Palin by saying that she's been lying.

    Well, it's very convenient when calling a lie a lie is "disrespectful." Is it disrespectful because she's a woman? Are other women supposed to be more concerned about whether she's being "respected" than whether she is lying?  Are we supposed to do another "some say this, some say that"? Isn't THAT disrespectful to our intelligence?

    Parent

    By using the identiy politics (none / 0) (#107)
    by dailygrind on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 10:24:43 PM EST
    they know most will never move beyond the first emotions they feel. That's the reality of how this works. It's a very smart use of human psychology. The ingroup is always going to feel like you are a ttacking it so long as you managed to define and in and out group. The first instinct is to circle the wagons. Not is someone in my group lying?

    Parent
    She and I are not in the same (none / 0) (#114)
    by litigatormom on Sat Sep 13, 2008 at 12:10:51 AM EST
    group just because we both have breasts.

    Parent
    you aren't the target audience (none / 0) (#115)
    by dailygrind on Sat Sep 13, 2008 at 12:47:38 AM EST
    they are looking mostly for low income white women who are borderline independents who they can siphon off who may lead, but aren't commited to either candidate. it only takes a few points in each state to swing the race. that or two point or three point swing. despite all the hyperbole online that's the central reality. the difference between a landslide and lose is a small percentage of the vote.

    Parent
    forgot to add (none / 0) (#116)
    by dailygrind on Sat Sep 13, 2008 at 12:49:21 AM EST
    this move was also meant to reach low information voters such as my friend's mother who knew nothing of palin but "liked" her simply because she's a woman. I talked to an indie today who was pissed at another friend who wanted to support palin, but couldn't say one thing she supported about her.

    Parent
    Funny thing is (none / 0) (#122)
    by tree on Sat Sep 13, 2008 at 03:38:21 AM EST
    that some voters are the same way about Obama, they want to support him but can't say one thing about why they support him, outside of "hope" and "change".

    Parent
    funny thing is I wasn't talking about obama (none / 0) (#127)
    by dailygrind on Sat Sep 13, 2008 at 11:31:43 AM EST
    and that's why some of you every 4 years vote based on pure emotions and get the same thing everytime. I wills ay this, if you vote for mccain this time after the last 8 years based on the silliness that's been happening, then you deserve as a co untry what you are going to get. me personally, i got the abilities to move on either way. its you who will suffer.

    Parent
    I know you weren't, but (none / 0) (#130)
    by tree on Sat Sep 13, 2008 at 02:15:19 PM EST
    my point is that that some voters on both sides are voting on identity and pure emotions so its silly to castigate just one side for this. And I'm not just talking about blacks who wish to vote for a black man, I'm also talking about whites who think that voting for a black man proves something about how progressive they are, or believe that because Obama's black he must be a liberal, or that he will be a change agent just because his ethnic background is different than past Presidents, or who are voting for him because he's young or because they think it makes them hip and cool. If Obama wins it won't be because the voters have given up on voting on emotions, it will be because more voters were emotionally attached to Obama than to McCain. Unfortunately, since neither candidate has based their campaigns on issues, issues won't be as big a factor this year. Both candidates are to blame for that.

    Me, I figure the country is going to suffer either way. And I will probably survive no matter what. It doesn't leave me feeling smug and superior, because frankly I consider those EMOTIONS rather shallow. It leaves me sad.    

    Parent

    Obama talks about issues (none / 0) (#133)
    by TChris on Sat Sep 13, 2008 at 05:30:28 PM EST
    every single day.  And he's getting the support of many of us because we like most of his positions and dislike most of McCain's.  Some people will vote based on identity but many of us voters care about issues.  Our votes can also make a difference in swing states.

    Parent
    The Republic... (4.42 / 7) (#5)
    by Tom Spaulding on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 04:49:43 PM EST
    ...is at stake? Really?

    What kind of judgment does the screenwriter of "Beyond the Valley of the Dolls" have and why should I trust his judgment on Sarah Palin's judgment?

    Z-man? Anyone?

    Actually it might be (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by Socraticsilence on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 05:04:06 PM EST
    I think by now its clear that McCain/Palin are more dagerous than Bush-Cheney, think about it just in terms of say Women's Rights, Palin provides a perfect stroy on which Abortion could be banned, after all why would any woman be so selfish as to kill a baby when the VP was able to do it, seriously I think they'll be able to soft-pedal a deeply frightening social agenda while pursuing FP with far less judgement than Cheney and Rumsfiled showed.

    Parent
    "Oooh, scary white people" (3.66 / 3) (#28)
    by tree on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 05:16:16 PM EST
    isn't any better than "scary black people" as a reason to vote one way or another, when its only based on one's own stereotypes. Nor is  
    "scary evangelicals" any better than "scary Muslims" as a meme. You've got to judge people individually if you want to get past your prejudices.

    I'd take pretty much anyone over Cheney and Rumsfeld. Are we now trying to push that McCain is WORSE than Bush meme? McCain equals Bush is a hard sell. McCain is worse than Bush only sells to a small subset of voters who are already in Obama's camp.  

     

    Parent

    Abortion Banned? (3.00 / 2) (#30)
    by Tom Spaulding on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 05:17:41 PM EST
    By whom? The Democratic Congress? Do you currently take cues from VP Cheney's personal life choices and suggest/suppose that laws be passed on that basis?

    Should lawyers be "banned" from walking into kill zones on a bird hunt?

    Parent

    well (none / 0) (#108)
    by connecticut yankee on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 10:25:36 PM EST
    Roe versus Wade is certainly dead if McCain wins.  Then it will be a matter of women going to a blue state (some of them) to get an abortion. Or Canada.

    Next will be a state by state battle by fundamentalists which will go on for decades and never get fully resolved.


    Parent

    lol....Zman Barzel....why you're a ..... lmao (none / 0) (#63)
    by PssttCmere08 on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 06:02:45 PM EST


    Parent
    This (4.33 / 6) (#17)
    by sas on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 05:00:40 PM EST
    is a joke right, TChris?  Haha, lol, oh boy you had me going there a minute.  What a graet parody - movie critic rates candidates,  haha, hehe, so clever of you,  hoho, what a sense of humor you have ....

    ha (5.00 / 2) (#49)
    by connecticut yankee on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 05:45:02 PM EST
    They criticize hollywood celebrities and then trot out nashville stars like royalty.  Its pure bs. I'm sure the GOP would love to have hollywood support.

    Parent
    And you (5.00 / 2) (#55)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 05:53:07 PM EST
    know what? I don't think either do a hill of beans for the candidate. Do you honestly think tha country music stars are actually going to get votes for McCain? I don't and I don't think hip hop stars are going to help Obama either.

    Parent
    well (none / 0) (#56)
    by connecticut yankee on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 05:55:04 PM EST
    I couldnt say, I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy of complaining about it.

    Parent
    I don't know... (none / 0) (#86)
    by indie in CA on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 08:13:42 PM EST
    Chuck Norris came awfully close to endorsing McCain the other night during his crazy spat with Arianna on Larry King. I am on pins and needles waiting.

    Parent
    Is the Chuck Norris endorsement (none / 0) (#98)
    by litigatormom on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 09:37:39 PM EST
    supposed to make me vote for the endorsee, or against?  Because right now, I'm thinking against.

    Parent
    it's to be racked up (none / 0) (#101)
    by indie in CA on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 10:04:51 PM EST
    with all the other celebrity endorsements.

    Parent
    yeah (none / 0) (#109)
    by connecticut yankee on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 10:29:42 PM EST
    Norris was previously a McCain supporter I thought.  He came across as McCain partisan to me and was dismissive of Obama but he still acted like he was a third party man. I was pretty unconvinced.  

    I was wondering why they had two pro-mccain guys against Huffington unil I realized Norris was playing possum.

    Parent

    And people like Ebert who put down Palin ... (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by cymro on Sat Sep 13, 2008 at 02:46:47 AM EST
    ... using elitist put-downs directed at viewers of American Idol are exactly what is going to drive all those American-Idol-watching voters to synpathize with Palin and dismiss Obama as another Democratic elitist who thinks he's superior to them and will NEVER get their vote no matter how much he and his supporters keep telling them they are stupid to vote for Mccain -- in fact, they'll probably vote for McCain just to spite him and to prove that he and his supporters who are talking about small minds and hobgoblins really don't have a clue.

    I would, if I were American-Idol-watching voter reading this blog. Luckily for you, I've never watched a single episode. But I did read that column by Roger Ebert, and was appalled by his superior attitude. But not surprised, because I've been seeing it from Obama and his more vocal supporters for the last six months. Sadly, that's why McCain is going to win.

    Parent

    Why would you (none / 0) (#123)
    by gentlyweepingguitar on Sat Sep 13, 2008 at 03:47:00 AM EST
    look to Ebert as a man you should stand up against? Who the Hell is Ebert? Not that he is not deserving of our respect, but who is he? And why should you drive off into American-Idol land as a result of anything he said? Ebert  is dying of cancer. He may not live long enough to see the result of this election.

    Parent
    Why? Why? (none / 0) (#124)
    by gentlyweepingguitar on Sat Sep 13, 2008 at 03:52:46 AM EST
    Aren't you looking at the issues?

    Parent
    Ebert isn't looking at the issues. (none / 0) (#131)
    by tree on Sat Sep 13, 2008 at 02:22:25 PM EST
    He's lamenting that Palin's American Idol-like presence has eclipsed Obama's. He's complaining about a "tiny little sneer" when Palin mentioned Ivy League schools and then bashing her schooling. He's talking up traveling to foreign countries as if that fact alone makes one competent on foreign policy. Its an elitist bash back at someone he perceives as against elitists. Its a shallow hit piece. He should be ashamed.

    Parent
    You miusunderstand me (none / 0) (#128)
    by cymro on Sat Sep 13, 2008 at 01:07:55 PM EST
    I did not say anything about my own opinion and whether it was influenced by Ebert. I certainly did not say I was going to "drive off into American-Idol land." In fact I said exactly the opposite -- I said had never been there. And I have no plans to go there now.

    Yes, elections should be about the issues. But it doesn't matter how much I personally focus on the issues, because I am not a famous and widely-read commentator. Ebert, however, is famous and widely-read, and that's why I am appalled at his comments. Because -- like those of a lot of Obama's vocal and visible supporters -- they are elitist. And as such, they are not are helping the Democratic cause in this election.

    Parent

    99% pro-McCain snark here. OK, here goes: (none / 0) (#44)
    by Don in Seattle on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 05:38:39 PM EST
    Who here thinks Gov. Sarah Palin is a good choice to be a heartbeat away from the presidency? If you think so, could you share why?

    well (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by connecticut yankee on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 05:50:16 PM EST
    She doesnt know what the Bush doctrine is and thus would be unable to repeat it.   Unless she just guessed, and wouldnt that be something if she guessed right.

    Must be luck.

    Parent

    Apparently, there are so many definitions (none / 0) (#129)
    by JavaCityPal on Sat Sep 13, 2008 at 01:46:31 PM EST
    no one really knows