home

McCain: The Election is Not About Issues

By Jeralyn, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 03:18:32 PM EST
Tags: John McCain, Sarah Palin (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Straight from the mouth of the John McCain campaign:

Rick Davis, campaign manager for John McCain's presidential bid, insisted that the presidential race will be decided more over personalities than issues during an interview with Post editors this morning.

"This election is not about issues," said Davis. "This election is about a composite view of what people take away from these candidates."

And Gov. Sarah Palin's Wednesday speech was pre-written.

Davis said a generic, "masculine" speech was being prepared before the pick was made and, now that Palin is the choice, she is adapting the speech to her own needs and personality.

More support for the suggestion that McCain was hoping for Lieberman or Ridge, got the nix from the radical right, and hastily decided on Palin instead. [More...]

Up until midweek last week, some 48 to 72 hours before Mr. McCain introduced Ms. Palin at a Friday rally in Dayton, Ohio, Mr. McCain was still holding out the hope that he could choose a good friend, Senator Joseph I. Lieberman, independent of Connecticut, a Republican close to the campaign said. Mr. McCain had also been interested in another favorite, former Gov. Tom Ridge of Pennsylvania.

But both men favor abortion rights, anathema to the Christian conservatives who make up a crucial base of the Republican Party. As word leaked out that Mr. McCain was seriously considering the men, the campaign was bombarded by outrage from influential conservatives who predicted an explosive floor fight at the convention and vowed rejection of Mr. Ridge or Mr. Lieberman by the delegates.

Perhaps more important, several Republicans said, Mr. McCain was getting advice that if he did not do something to shake up the race, his campaign would be stuck on a potentially losing trajectory.

< Gallup: Obama Hits 50% For First Time | AP: McCain's Comparison of Palin and Obama Falls Short >

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

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    McCain: The Election is Not About Issues | 104 comments (104 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Masculine speech? (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by TChris on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 03:25:25 PM EST
    Is there a difference between a "masculine" political speech and a "feminine" political speech?  I guess if the speech isn't about issues, maybe there is, but I can't fathom how a generic speech was written to sound "masculine." Lots of chest pounding and promises to bayonet terrorists?

    The Dems planned a personality-based election (1.00 / 0) (#59)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 06:18:28 PM EST
    and the GOP is responding in kind. So McCain's campaign adviser says:

    "This election is not about issues," said Davis. "This election is about a composite view of what people take away from these candidates."

    --------------------------------------------------

    That exactly mirrors what the Obama campaign has been saying from the outset. From the NYTimes, Obama's Narrator:

    Axelrod [Obama's campaign manager] says that the way to cut through all the noise is to see campaigns as an author might, to understand that you need not just ideas but also a credible and authentic character, a distinct politics rooted in personality.

    This, Axelrod says, is what Karl Rove understood about George W. Bush. "One of the reasons Bush has succeeded in two elections"...

    For Obama, because of Senator Hillary Clinton's far-greater experience and establishment backing, this is a particularly essential project. "If we run a conventional campaign and look like a conventional candidacy, we lose," Axelrod says.



    Parent
    Thank you Thanin... (none / 0) (#62)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 06:25:36 PM EST
    Your troll rating just kicked my comment up to the top of the page. Nice.

    Parent
    Actually... (none / 0) (#78)
    by Thanin on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 07:15:56 PM EST
    its the parent comment that was kicked to the top by the two 5 ratings TChris got, but your welcome.

    Parent
    It depends... (none / 0) (#86)
    by Thanin on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 07:31:05 PM EST
    on who is rating you...

    Parent
    Personality is all they have. (none / 0) (#64)
    by MyLeftMind on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 06:29:21 PM EST
    ... and the GOP is responding in kind.

    Obama and Hillary were similar on the issues.  Dems and Repubs are opposite.

    The maverick label is McSame's best shot.  Palin fits with that.  But the personality distraction is nothing new to Repubs, because they've been wrong on the issues since Reagon.  

    Parent

    She can't sound too strong (none / 0) (#39)
    by VelvetElvis on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 05:26:25 PM EST
    otherwise she'll get a nutcracker made in her likeness.  The GOP base hates strong women.


    Parent
    So does the DNC (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by Dr Molly on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 05:45:23 PM EST


    Parent
    Aw, c'mon Dr. Molly (5.00 / 0) (#52)
    by MyLeftMind on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 06:11:11 PM EST
    Bill Clinton was more of a barrier to Hillary's success than Hillary's gender.  Our party supports women's issues, and is full of strong feminists.  Their party has pretend stuff like "Feminists for Life."  We're a big tent and we can claim to be in the right on most of the issues.  Your issues and mine.

    Dr. M, we need you in this fight.  You have good ideas and are what I'd consider a solid Democrat.  

    C'mon back.  Please.


    Parent

    Not Dr. Molly, but (5.00 / 3) (#65)
    by Ardeth on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 06:31:07 PM EST
    wow....the condescension.  What gives you the right to decide who is a "solid Democrat"?  And how big is your tent when you declare Bill Clinton, the most successful Democratic president in recent memory, to have been the barrier to Hillary's success?

    And even if you were right (which you're not), you obviously STILL DON'T GET IT that women are sick of being judged by the accomplishments and failures of their husbands.  

    Send someone else to invite women who supported Hillary back into the Tent, because you're going a lousy job of it.

    Parent

    Ha, you funny. (none / 0) (#103)
    by MyLeftMind on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 12:21:49 AM EST
    Dr. Molly doesn't need others to stand up for her.  I've followed her posts and ranked quite a few as 5. My opinion that Dr. M is a solid Democrat comes simply from her posts here.  (BTW, Dr. M, I didn't post about nut crackers.  I hate that kind of humor.)

    We're in the Big Tent and Bill is here with us.  Big tent means there are lots of different types of people with as many or more different ideas.  That doesn't mean I have to accept what he (Bill) did and does in the world.  There's no question in my mind that Bill Clinton is the reason so many people rejected Hillary this spring.  For all his popularity when he was Prez, he threw it all away with his juvenile antics in the Oval Office.  He handed our opponents exactly what they needed to prove Democrats are worthless.  And it's not just the sex, it's the fact that the most powerful man in the free world got his you know what sucked by a young subordinate and then looked us right in the eye (on TV) and lied about it.  He single handedly destroyed his own reputation and the legacy our party built during his tenure in the White House.    

    Bill's weaknesses and his actions gave us Republican Rule.  Republicans gave us Iraq.  Now our economy is collapsing as we fight a $5000/minute war that props up oil prices so billionaires can get even richer.  I want better, and I expect more from our Dem leaders.  He proved the Republicans correct (in their eyes) when they falsely claimed they are the moral majority. Like Edwards and his stupid affair, putting our entire party at risk, our entire country for that matter, given how easy Republicans win when our guys pull this kind of juvenile, unethical stuff..  Just because we're Democrats doesn't mean we don't expect our leaders to be faithful in their relationships, or at least honest.  Get a divorce from your cancer-ridden wife before screwing someone else, or at least realize your lies take down our party and our issues when you're caught.  

    From the information that came out about the Columbia trade deal in the makings this past year, I'd say he's still squandering his legacy.  Today there's really no way to tell who Hillary really is without Bill and the people who back them.  I'd love to see a strong woman make her own way in politics and lead us with strong feminist and Democratic values.  Instead, we have Hillary coming to power possibly because her husband bought the NY Hispanic vote by pardoning Hispanic terrorists. That kind of politics is why people chose to look beyond Hillary to the other Dem contenders.  I don't think we'll ever know who Hillary really is, and that's a shame.


    Parent

    How many times (none / 0) (#104)
    by suki on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 04:29:25 AM EST
    are you going to use the phrase 'getting his you know what sucked' in regards to President Clinton?
    It's disgusting and unnecessary in making your point, which would seem to be:  Bad Bill = Republican rule = Iraq war

    I guess you really believe that since you've written this comment multiple times, but I think you're ignoring a whole lot of recent political history between those equations.

    And if sexual indescretions had the power to 'take down' political parties there would be none left.


    Parent

    Indiscretions? (none / 0) (#107)
    by MyLeftMind on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 03:21:34 PM EST
    Sex with a subordinate in the Oval Office?  Lying about it.  Getting impeached for lying under oath.  Throwing away the good work of millions of Democrats.  

    BTW, Bill did the act, but you're mad at me for saying it, for describing it, for speaking about it.  

    Uh, huh...

    Why are liberals so afraid to say what Bill did?  Why couch it in such innocuous words, like indiscretions?  Are we supposed to just say boys will be boys or something?  Or maybe, Powerful Men have Powerful Needs!  I don't care about him having sex, I care about the dishonesty and manipulation.  And the political ramifications.  

    It's as lame as McSame picking someone who would seriously damage our country should she become President, just because he needs a media circus to engage his base.  I'm tired of the same old politics.


    Parent

    Irony alert (none / 0) (#108)
    by suki on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 04:04:57 PM EST
    Tired of the same old politics? And yet you're the one talking about 'sucking his you know what'?

    I'm not 'mad' because you're discussing it, and I'm certainly not excusing what he did. I said I found your phrase disugusting and unnecessary. I'll now add juvenile to that.

    I also find your repetitive posts tiring, but hey, knock yourself out.

    Parent

    My post is no more disgusting that what Bill did. (none / 0) (#109)
    by MyLeftMind on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 11:34:34 PM EST
    Feel free to not read my posts if they offend you.  Better yet, work for elected officials who can behave themselves so we don't have to have this kind of conversation.

    But, by all means, let's not pretend he didn't do anything.  

    Parent

    I feel very free. Thank you. (none / 0) (#110)
    by suki on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 05:12:48 PM EST


    Parent
    Well, since you said please.....:) (none / 0) (#81)
    by Dr Molly on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 07:24:14 PM EST
    Kidding.

    But, seriously, your comment about the nutcracker really gets me. Don't try to tell me that the dem men didn't laugh at those things, buy those things, and say and do much much worse on the blogs. Don't insult me and pretend that I didn't see what I saw. I maintain that dems are just as sexist as republicans, and that's not just an opinion anymore it's based on facts. I won't change my mind on that until I see evidence to support changing my mind.

    But I like you too:)

    Parent

    I'm one of the "Dem men" (none / 0) (#94)
    by glanton on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 08:22:24 PM EST
    You're diatribing about, and I voted for Hillary Clinton, and I argued on her behalf until the writing was on the wall. Her campaign was not a feminist, ideologically doctrinal campaign.  It was policy-based and it was impelled by an understanding of GOP dangerousness.  

    Dangerousness not just to women, but to everyone. God, Hill herself has got to be embarrassed by what has happened to a great many of her supporters, as testified by this blog.

    You say "Dems are just as sexist" and you won't change your mind until you see evidence. Well, you and yours are about to see some evidence all right.  The geriatric ward of the Supremes is on the way out.  

    Parent

    Palin is not good on the environment (5.00 / 0) (#56)
    by MKS on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 06:13:44 PM EST
    and is very conservative....She tells us what kind of appointments McCain would make....

    Parent
    I know MKS (5.00 / 0) (#82)
    by Dr Molly on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 07:25:45 PM EST
    And I'm not voting for her. But I won't stand by and be silent in the face of what they are doing to her. And I would feel the same if it was a man.

    Parent
    I am trying to do what I can at (none / 0) (#90)
    by MKS on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 07:45:39 PM EST
    Big Orange....Most of the really nasty stuff gets deleted, or festooned with all kinds of negative comments...

    Talk Left has been clear on this....

    Parent

    That's nice to hear (none / 0) (#91)
    by Dr Molly on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 07:47:53 PM EST
    But I believe (sadly) that it's pointless.

    Parent
    Spoken for Truth! (none / 0) (#50)
    by Brookhaven on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 06:01:38 PM EST
    At least we now know where we fully stand as women with them.  Knowledge is power and I feel powerful right now having learned that about my Party.  

    Parent
    The GOP hates strong women more than the Dems? (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 06:23:23 PM EST
    Is there any evidence of that in the '08 campaign? Any at all?

    Parent
    The AP will study the issue and get back to us. (none / 0) (#63)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 06:28:28 PM EST


    Parent
    Palin's views (none / 0) (#66)
    by MKS on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 06:32:35 PM EST
    are not all that pro-woman.  Starting with Roe, and her calling Hillary a whiner, and laughing when her female poltical opponent was called a b*tch....

    If you are an atheist, the revival of the religious right due to the Palin pick should give you great pause....

    The social conservatives have been quiet recently not because they have become more reasonable and less likely to use the goverment to coerce their views.  No, they have been quiet because they have felt defeated....If Palin becomes VP, you will see a tremendous wave of more theocratic power.   McCain will owe the social conservatives....

    We are one election away from defeating the social conservatives permanently.  They are demoralized, having waited since 1980 to criminalize abortion.  Instead of that, they got gay rights, and most likely a popular vote this November in California favoring gay marriage....If they lose again at the national level, they will abandon politics....

    The social conservatives need validation from the government, the greatest authority in America.  If they don't get it, they feel humiliated.  One more election and they will be done...

    Parent

    Excellent Post (none / 0) (#95)
    by glanton on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 08:31:43 PM EST
    But I no longer believe that the So-Cons are going to go down in the manner you describe.  It may well be that Sarha Palin, Rick Santorum;s ideological equivalent, will incredibly pick off enough independent and even liberal women in swing states to make the difference.  All appeals to sanity notwithstanding.

    Sad.  But as has been irrevocably proven in 2008, identity politics trumps ideology and policy in America. Such a proud moment for our Republic, this election has been.

    Parent

    Again, thanks for the rating... (none / 0) (#70)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 06:39:45 PM EST
    Where's the written response to back it up?

    Parent
    Have you seen... (none / 0) (#79)
    by Thanin on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 07:18:15 PM EST
    how many troll ratings have zero posts to back them up around here?

    Parent
    Seriously? (none / 0) (#41)
    by Democratic Cat on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 05:36:54 PM EST
    You don't think there's a difference in how men and women communicate?

    Parent
    A Kinsley Gaffe (5.00 / 3) (#2)
    by AF on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 03:26:29 PM EST
    Not being about issues equals not being about the economy.  We're going to be hearing a lot more about this one.  

    Not being about issues equals (none / 0) (#49)
    by Edger on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 05:59:23 PM EST
    avoiding responsibility and pretending history doesn't exist and that people are as dumb as McCain believes they are.

    Is he the P.T. Barnum of politics? Or the Charlie McCarthy?

    Parent

    if the election is about issues, McCain loses (5.00 / 4) (#3)
    by andgarden on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 03:29:10 PM EST
    Obama's camp seems to understand this, which is why they aren't heavy on Palin.

    McCain is dead if its about issues (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by litigatormom on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 04:12:54 PM EST
    Three years ago, McCain admitted on MTP that he is not different from Bush on most issues.

    MR. RUSSERT: It is interesting. The Washington Post put up these numbers. Hillary Clinton has an 81 percent approval among Dems; 55 percent approval amongst Independents; 20 with the GOP. You have a 59 percent approval with Democrats; 59 with Independents; and just 56 with Republicans. And what people point to--and this is an article in your hometown paper, the Arizona Republic, "At Odds With Bush. John McCain repeatedly has taken maverick positions that have put him at odds with President Bush's administration, and rankled his party's right wing. ... The fact is you are different than George Bush.

    SEN. McCAIN: No. No. I--the fact is that I'm different but the fact is that I have agreed with President Bush far more than I have disagreed. And on the transcendent issues, the most important issues of our day, I've been totally in agreement and support of President Bush. So have we had some disagreements on some issues, the bulk--particularly domestic issues? Yes. But I will argue my conservative record voting with anyone's, and I will also submit that my support for President Bush has been active and very impassioned on issues that are important to the American people. And I'm particularly talking about the war on terror, the war in Iraq, national security, national defense, support of men and women in the military, fiscal discipline, a number of other issues. So I strongly disagree with any assertion that I've been more at odds with the president of the United States than I have been in agreement with him.



    Parent
    heh (none / 0) (#22)
    by andgarden on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 04:19:28 PM EST
    So much for "the original maverick."

    Parent
    When (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 04:52:51 PM EST
    are they going to start with the issues advertising? I just saw their new ad and it was more "I'm not McCain". Maybe in the end that's enough but it does nothing for you if you make it into office. It's the Jimmy Carter and George W. Bush thing all over again.

    Parent
    Great post (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by glanton on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 03:34:42 PM EST
    One of the only moments of honesty we have seen from that camp, yet.

    One can only hope that in the end the elctorate will reject Senator McCain's cynical, exploitative campaign for the Presidency.  

    Obama was right: it is time we said "Enough."

    you know what? (5.00 / 3) (#7)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 03:36:13 PM EST
    sadly

    he is right.  this election will not be decided on issues.  it will be decided by who most voters think understands their point of view, daily problems and concerns.
    when voters, lets just consider the largest block of undecides - suburban women, look at the four candidates, who do you think that will be?

    Given the way the polls are going (none / 0) (#9)
    by TChris on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 03:43:24 PM EST
    it looks like it will be Obama/Biden.  As it should be.  The notion that McCain ("the economy is strong") understands the concerns of average middle class Americans isn't selling.

    Parent
    the campaign only started last week. (none / 0) (#11)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 03:45:50 PM EST


    Parent
    Really? (none / 0) (#14)
    by Dave B on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 03:57:35 PM EST
    I would urge you to check the polls back in 2004...

    Parent
    No (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 04:54:09 PM EST
    Kerry was ahead until 10 days after the convention. After the GOP convention will tell the story.

    Parent
    Nope (none / 0) (#34)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 05:11:14 PM EST
    Prior to the RNC convention Kerry had already started losing momentum in the polls.  

    A Time poll taken during the RNC convention had Bush with a 10 point lead

    Gallup had Bush leading as early as 8/1/2004.

    Parent

    Not comparable to this year (none / 0) (#35)
    by Democratic Cat on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 05:15:39 PM EST
    Because this year the conventions are back-to-back.

    Parent
    Fine (none / 0) (#37)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 05:19:58 PM EST
    But any objective analysis would clearly show that  Obama is doing considerably better than Kerry did in the polls this far out.

    I tend to agree that the polls still mean much.  But certainly I would rather be winning than losing.

    Parent

    Always better to be winning than losing. (none / 0) (#40)
    by Democratic Cat on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 05:29:11 PM EST


    Parent
    Of course the election's not about issues, (5.00 / 3) (#25)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 04:35:29 PM EST
    it's about hope. And change. And stuff like that.

    Every day the election isn't about issues (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by Manuel on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 04:45:57 PM EST
    is a day wasted for Democrats.  The election must be abut the economy, health care, education, energy policy, the environment, and the war.  Hoping that the media jackals drag some dirt from the Republicans closet is at best a distraction and at worst falling into McCain's trap.

    Not about the issues.... (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by Oje on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 05:38:14 PM EST
    That just about says it for me...

    It is evident that the "vetting of Sarah Palin" on the left blogs has little to do with democratic discourse. These folks are engaged in an ideological battle with their counterparts on the right to define Sarah Palin, and "truth" has little to do with any of it on both sides (citing Somerby's critique of Palin and TPM). The basic ideology of the left now (like the right for many years) is that the American people must be manipulated by good and bad press. This is the effort we are witnessing at this blog and others (doing the unmentionables). If we accept the notion that the Republicans are little disturbed by the machinations of the left blogs and media, then it must be recognized that this agitprop effort is directed at Democrats and left-leaning independents.

    Certainly, it is evident in the bloggers' efforts to goad "the media" (still exempting themselves from the media effect they wish to have) as "having already begun to run with the stories," where they want to catapult their efforts. None of this is about the issues, on either side, it is about the painting of a "composite view" with falsehoods and truths, without really caring if the two types of statements can be distinguished any longer (again thinking of Somerby's criticism of the new left [or new left authoritarians, as I like to call them]).

    I am definitely learning things about Sarah Palin's politics that make her a questionable candidate for Vice President (the office for which she was selected). But, to what extent has my thinking been polluted by the work of the 'creative class' ideologists? Why has the bad press during the primaries (HuffPo, TPM, etc.), has become the good media in the general election? IOKIYAFO (It is okay if you are for Obama)? Sure talk about family can be "banned," but like Republicans, our new Democratic party is enjoying slinging vicious rumors and exploiting the outcome, as a kind of a high-minded gutter-politics!

    Vaporized....

    I hope she tosses out (none / 0) (#4)
    by oculus on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 03:29:18 PM EST
    the generic "masculine" speech as I'd like to hear what she has to say.

    I was just going to post this... (none / 0) (#5)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 03:29:22 PM EST
    ...on the Open Thread.  Get out of my head, JM!

    Ditto! But there's more... (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by NWC80 on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 03:54:27 PM EST
    I also wanted to highlight one other nugget by Mr. Davis

    Davis demurred when asked when Palin will sit for interviews with major news organizations, pointing out that now would not be the right time given the "combative" attitude the media has seemingly adopted toward Palin. Pressed on the issue, Davis insisted that "we allot a lot more access in our campaign than any campaign in modern political history....we'll get around to it."

    Comic gold. We didn't vet our prospective Veep, so we sure as hell ain't gonna let any of you pesky press types ask any questions. They sure as hell don't give her much credit, do they?

    In case anyone had any doubt about how the campaign insiders REALLY view Gov. Palin.


    Parent

    Heh (5.00 / 0) (#19)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 04:13:21 PM EST
    So their official story is they are shielding the Vice-Presidential nominee from the big mean media?

    It couldn't possibly be that they are desperately trying to get her up to speed on the litany of issues she has no public record on.  

    Palin is going to try to steer every interview towards her life story and drilling for oil.  Good luck with, Sarah.

    Parent

    It doesn't matter what you or I think (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by americanincanada on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 04:23:56 PM EST
    or believe. it matters what the public thinks. And from what I am seeing online and hearing when I talk to people back home...the media is coming off as the villian here. Obama is not faring much better with them either.

    Parent
    You're kidding? (none / 0) (#27)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 04:46:31 PM EST
    so why is Obama coming off badly?  What has his campaign done?

    Or is this one of those comments which isn't based on actual events but a mythical narrative being created that is not consistent with what's actually going on?

    Parent

    Immediately (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 04:56:10 PM EST
    ridicule her background. It's ticking people off and making her look sympathetic. It reminds people of Obama's treatment of Hillary. It reeks of sexism.

    Parent
    Yeah except (none / 0) (#32)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 05:01:55 PM EST
    they aren't the ones attacking Palin.

    So you're just going for a generic charge of sexism on this one?  Nothing specific?  Just general sexism?

    Parent

    Well (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 05:17:31 PM EST
    plenty of people are reminded of Obama's attitude and the attitude of the press towards Hillary. And there are stories bubbling up that the Obama campaign has been shopping the story.

    McCain has set a trap and Obama has walked right into it. The fact that we're discussing the qualifications of a Republican VP vs. a Dem presidential candidate seems to be lost on some.

    Obama is inadvertently making the argument that he isn't qualified to be President every time he talks about Palin's lack of experience.

    Parent

    Obama has not shopped the story (5.00 / 0) (#58)
    by MKS on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 06:18:18 PM EST
    That is just plain false...

    Parent
    Nope (none / 0) (#75)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 07:10:33 PM EST
    I said there were stories bubbling up not that they were true. You should be aware of what MIGHT come up.

    Parent
    Spreading unsourced gossip (none / 0) (#88)
    by MKS on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 07:42:01 PM EST
    that undermines Obama....

    How can one prepare against a rumor you start here that has no source or support?

    Parent

    Check (none / 0) (#93)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 07:56:57 PM EST
    the right wing blogs. I learned too late to do that in 2004. Learn from my mistakes.

    Parent
    You are confusing (2.00 / 1) (#38)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 05:22:55 PM EST
    your own personal and biased view with others.

    Obama can do no right in your eyes. Even though Obama has stayed out of this circus, you choose to blame him.

    McCain didn't set a trap.  This was a ham fisted move by McCain and Obama is simply letting it unfold on its own.

    One more time.  WE ARE NOT comparing the credentials of Obama to Sarah Palin.  YOU ARE.  

    Parent

    right, you are not (none / 0) (#43)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 05:42:25 PM EST
    but when you make that argument every neutral observer will.

    Parent
    Who is making the argument (none / 0) (#53)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 06:11:59 PM EST
    McCain is making the argument.  McCain surrogates are making the argument.

    I am not making the argument because I think it is irrelevant.

    Parent

    Can we stop the WE vs. YOU nonsense? (none / 0) (#46)
    by Ardeth on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 05:53:30 PM EST
    What ever happened to the hope of party unity?

    It sure looks to me like the McCain folks set a trap with Sarah Palin, and more and more dems are rushing into it.

    Parent

    You have GOT to be kidding (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by Dr Molly on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 05:58:53 PM EST
    What ever happened to the hope of party unity?


    Parent
    Remember Saddleback, Dr. Molly (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by MKS on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 06:17:26 PM EST
    The Palin pick is right out of that world view.

    Parent
    You crack me up MKS (none / 0) (#84)
    by Dr Molly on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 07:29:35 PM EST
    I'm not sure I like you remembering all my comments!

    Parent
    Did I mention the environment? n/t (none / 0) (#89)
    by MKS on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 07:43:12 PM EST


    Parent
    Why, yes, I believe you did (none / 0) (#92)
    by Dr Molly on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 07:49:12 PM EST
    Environment.
    Theocracy.

    Environment.
    Theocracy.

    Environment.
    Theocracy.

    Parent

    The emphasis, for multiple reasons... (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by Ardeth on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 06:34:48 PM EST
    ...was on the word hope ;)

    Parent
    Ah, gotcha! (none / 0) (#85)
    by Dr Molly on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 07:30:20 PM EST


    Parent
    There are (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 06:12:48 PM EST
    certain posters here that are determined to see Obama fail.  Simple reality.  

    Parent
    No (none / 0) (#76)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 07:14:18 PM EST
    I did not blame him. I said the whole circus is reminding people of Obama's behavior in the primary. It's picking at scabs.

    Obama compared himself to Palin on Anderson Cooper did he not? And the narrative is Obama vs. Palin which imo is dumb.

    You want to help Obama? Quit talking about Palin and start talking about issues.

    Parent

    See Obama campaign's first statement on Palin (none / 0) (#71)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 06:53:04 PM EST
    LINK: I posted a comment about this on August 30/08 when Bill Burton, Obama's campaign spokesman, summed up Sarah Palin as follows:

    "Today, John McCain put the former mayor of a town of 9,000 with zero foreign policy experience a heartbeat away from the presidency."


    Parent
    Obama Repudiated that Statement (none / 0) (#105)
    by daring grace on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 10:12:50 AM EST
    and every statement since has been more respectful (within the context of a political campaign).

    From Politico

    "At a stop in Monaca, Pa., Barack Obama seemed to distance himself from his campaign's first, harshly critical response to the Palin pick.

    "I think that...campaigns start getting these hair triggers and the statement that Joe and I put out reflects our sentiments," he said, according to the pool report, apparently criticizing his staff for going overboard, as he did occasionally in the primary.

    He was referring to a more gracious statement of congratulations he issued later with Biden, which he then reiterated.

    "I haven't met her before. She seems like a compelling person ... with a terrific personal story.

    "I'm sure that she will help make the case for Republicans, unfortunately the case is more of the same, and so ultimately John McCain is at the top of the ticket."

    "He wants to take the country in the wrong direction, I'm assuming Gov. Palin agrees with him and his policies," he said.

    "But the fact that she ... will soon be nominated ... is one more indicator of this country moving forward ... one more hit against that glass ceiling. I congratulate her and look forward to a vigorous debate.""


    Parent

    AIC, I've been wondering whether the MSM (none / 0) (#69)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 06:36:23 PM EST
    is actually in cahoots with the GOP.

    i.e. The MSM is beating up on Palin; this serves the dual purpose of generating public sympathy for the GOP candidate (Palin), while also perpetuating the GOP meme that the media has a "liberal bias".

    It's a big old GOP two-fer.

    Parent

    Yeah (none / 0) (#77)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 07:15:32 PM EST
    and I don't know why more people don't see this.

    Parent
    I don't know what to think anymore (none / 0) (#8)
    by CST on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 03:43:09 PM EST
    This weekend I ran into a hard-core republican who wanted to vote for Obama, despite the fact that this person was clearly racist, and had no idea what his positions were on anything.  They were just so fed up with Bush that they were ready to switch anyway.  The world is officially upside down.

    Is that a vote on personality or issues or neither?

    If a (5.00 / 4) (#10)
    by TChris on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 03:45:47 PM EST
    Republican is fed up with Bush, he must be fed up because of issues. Incompetence to govern is an issue. Eight years of telling lies to the public is an issue. Appointing cronies is an issue. Refusing to admit or correct mistakes is an issue.

    Parent
    I Think (none / 0) (#15)
    by flashman on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 03:58:36 PM EST
    some of these things... like honesty and being able to admit mistakes are considered under the general attribute of "character."  Many voters continued to believe through much of GWB's administration, that he believed in what he was doing, though he was often wrong.  That is different, I think, from "issues" positions, like abortion, health care, etc.  The problem with voting based on character ( or perhaps the parallel idea of "personality" ) is that skilled politicians are able to feign those attributes successfully.

    Parent
    None of those would matter (none / 0) (#17)
    by Manuel on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 04:10:49 PM EST
    if the economy were better and the war wasn't an issue.  Lies to the public, appointing cronies, and refusing to admit mistakes didn't stop Reagan.

    Parent
    Does Anyone Else See The Irony? (none / 0) (#12)
    by flashman on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 03:47:32 PM EST
    Conservatives seem to have nixed the Lieberman pick.  But will they support a woman VP?  Remember the way they went after Harriet Miers?

    They went after Miers (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by litigatormom on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 04:17:42 PM EST
    because they didn't believe she was stridently anti-choice. I think they would have done the same if Miers had been a man.

    Whatever else she is or isn't, Palin is stridently anti-choice. Not to mention her support for abstinence-only sex education, teaching creationism in the public schools, and unilaterally banning books she finds offensive in the public libraries.

    Parent

    McCain was getting cranky in interviews (none / 0) (#20)
    by litigatormom on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 04:15:13 PM EST
    even before he picked Palin.

    McCain's Prickly TIME Interview

    Make it about issues (none / 0) (#28)
    by Realleft on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 04:47:07 PM EST
    Obama should make it about the issues. Biden should make it about the issues.  Liberal blogs should make it about the issues. The MSM should insist upon discussing issues.

    Obsessively talking about Palin leads to two topics: (1) Real and perceived sexism in politics and the media.  (2) Experience comparison between the Dem's Pres pick and the Rep's VP pick.  

    These are not winners for the Democrats. Not this year.

    Now is the time to link McCain with the far-right agenda, which is what his VP choice actually shows.  Palin was not picked because McCain is a maverick or is interested in making any kind of historical change in governing the US.  McCain turned over much of his platform to the far right a few years ago, and this is simply following that path.

    Corporate power.
    Theocracy.
    The miltary-industrial-governmental complex.
    Expanding the police state.
    Crushing the middle class.
    Etc.

    The Democrats are not innocent in these matters and Obama himself has voted in non-progressive ways and expressed non-progressive opinions.  But he remains far more progressive than McCain, and in partnership with Democratic legislature, will be in a position to reverse or at least slow these trends.  

    But these are not Obama's issues. (none / 0) (#67)
    by VicfromOregon on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 06:33:48 PM EST
    Those are Nader's issues.  And, we don't want to look too closely at Obama's stances because they have change so much.  So, I think the hope/change thing is what the Dem's have chosen and must stick with.  Don't change the horse in the middle of the race as they say.

    McCain changed horses because he had to, and the choice, as was agreed on Charlie Rose last night by everyone, is either brilliant or insane.

    The Republicans always, always, always, since Reagan, vote on social issues.  Palin, unless she is found to have engaged in some abhorant act or other will continue to excite the base.  They can identify with her.

    Parent

    They are Obama issues as well (none / 0) (#87)
    by Realleft on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 07:40:25 PM EST

    I'm sure more could be added, but for a start:

    Corporate power - Obama is for government that is responsive to people over lobbies, open databases re: contracting, openness in earmark requests, public disclosure of proposed laws before presidential signature,

    Theocracy - Obama is for secular government, separation of church and state, translation of religious ideas into universal values for consideration in public, pro- Roe v. Wade.

    The miltary-industrial-governmental complex - Obama is for diplomacy before military action, cooperative rather than autonomous military excursions when necessary, reform in government defense contracting, and civilian assistance corps.

    Police state - Obama supports expansion and enforcement of civil rights statutes, expansion of drug courts instead of jail time for drug violations, fairness in criminal justice arrest and sentencing.

    Middle class - Obama is for middle-class tax relief, adult education and job retraining, creating new green jobs that cannot be exported, supporting union rights and linking the minimum wage to inflation, bankruptcy reform, and expanding the family medical leave act.

    Parent

    Oh, what a topsy-turvy world! (none / 0) (#33)
    by eustiscg on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 05:02:47 PM EST
    Rick Davis steering the media away from issues, while Lindsay friggin' Lohan is saying, "[the pregnancy story is] distracting from the real issues, the real everyday problems that this country experiences."

    That's right.  Rick Davis doesn't want to talk policy, but Lindsay Lohan does.  Have we gone through the looking-glass?

    I can top that (or at least match it) (none / 0) (#45)
    by CoralGables on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 05:50:11 PM EST
    The Republican lawyer for Alaska's Republican Governor has said he is afraid that Alaska's Republican Legislature's investigation of Palin will turn into a Ken Starr witch hunt.

    Parent
    Bravo! (none / 0) (#51)
    by eustiscg on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 06:08:04 PM EST
    Well done, well done.  O brave new world that hath such people in't!

    Parent
    It's not about the issues, it's about God (none / 0) (#48)
    by steviez314 on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 05:59:15 PM EST
    From a Sarah Palin speech

    "Pray for our military men and women who are striving to do what is right. Also, for this country, that our leaders, our national leaders, are sending [U.S. soldiers] out on a task that is from God," she exhorted the congregants. "That's what we have to make sure that we're praying for, that there is a plan and that that plan is God's plan."

    and

    "I think God's will has to be done in unifying people and companies to get that gas line built, so pray for that,"

    Don't be confused.  She is the Joan d'Arc of the Republican Theocracy, and as a liberal Jew I am more and more concerned that she might be near the White House.

    I grew up amongst the fundies ... (none / 0) (#55)
    by eustiscg on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 06:13:06 PM EST
    ... and this kind of thinking is commonplace.  They take the idea of a "personal God" to shocking levels of literality.

    I remember my family getting a card notifying us that some acquaintances had found a new house.  It claimed that over many months God had helped them find the perfect house.

    God is a military commander, a gas line negotiator, and a real estate agent.  Where does he find the time?

    P.S.  Do you think he cooks and cleans?  My partner's been out of town and I've been working long hours lately ...

    Parent

    If she gets to be VP, she will likely (none / 0) (#60)
    by MKS on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 06:21:55 PM EST
    get to be President at some point....

    She has a theocratic world view--you can see that a mile away.....

    For people who like Hillary, any support for Palin doesn't really make a lot of sense....You have to jettison a lot of issues and causes to get there.....

    Hillary can still be President, even in 2016....But it will be harder if Palin is VP in 2012.

    Parent

    Palin's role is not to get Hillary voters. (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by VicfromOregon on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 06:53:45 PM EST
    As someone pointed out on this site long ago, women are not interchangeable.

    Palin is the young Margaret Thatcher who is rallying the base and also pulling in the conservative Independents.

    And, unless she has done something extraordinarily corrupt, the media frenzy will be viewed as harrassment per Republican media manipulation that only they can do.  And, well, much of it is hounding, which makes the R's job even easier.

    The media is a predictable phenomenon that is wired to follow what moves and bleeds.  You don't get 8 years of Bush without knowing how to handle ALL the media.

    Is Palin a trap?  Like flies to honey.  The Left won't be able to resist.  She is every hot button issue the Republican's relish the Democrats to push.  And, then look like saliva spitting flaming liberals.

    Be polite, acknowldege her, then IGNORE her and get back on message.  But, who in the Democratic party has that kind of restraint?  As Liberals, we just can't keep ourselves from calling "foul" when we see it.  Trying to take down Palin is already distracting the direction of the campaign.

    Parent

    You going to flag... (none / 0) (#80)
    by Thanin on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 07:21:13 PM EST
    everyone who does this?  Or just be hypocritical and flag me?  Psstcmere08 or whatever their name is does this regularly.

    You cannot rate a comment as a "1" (none / 0) (#102)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 12:19:05 AM EST
    because you disagree with the point of view. All of Thankn's comment ratings have been erased.

    Parent
    I'm not a scholar of that kind of motion pic, but (none / 0) (#97)
    by Christy1947 on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 09:27:13 PM EST
    it sort of sounds like the Repubs are  intentionally running Palin as the lead in "Legally Blonde" or another one of those movies where the brash working class girl beats all the smart sophisticated types at their own game by a lotta pluck/brass and spectacular luck, vindicating the virtue of the working class girl. That's why they're now talking about personality, she is the fantasy in their minds of all those Rust Belt working class family women who wanted better but instead settled down and raised families. Here she is, having it all, a single husband, five kids, a great job,  popularity with the voters who vindicate and confirm her as she is, a 'reformer', the whole nine yards, she even dresses and wears her hair the way you do, now running for president on pluck and not expertise. Vote for her and vindicate the fantasy.It's an odd way to go for GOP and it may be out of desperation, but I think they are counting on nobody but policy geeks analyzing Palin's real career and going with this image as best they can. It only has to be salable until November, and no amount of truth will change anything after that.

    (Please feel free to nominate a more appropriate chick flick, but I think you know what I mean)

    9 to 5? (none / 0) (#99)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 12:02:47 AM EST


    Parent
    Well we're even on the making sick front (none / 0) (#98)
    by glanton on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 09:46:13 PM EST
    You think women ought to be immune from being called out on their diatribes?  What tripe.  But then, how common these days.

    Fred Thompson just gave a classic diatribe a few minutes ago in St. Paul.  There are plenty of them more to come after him at their convention, including the one from Governor Palin.

    When they called Bill Clinton a racist they robbed the term of its meaning.  By making everything sexist you and other commenters here are robbing the term of any cogent meaning.  Well done to the lot of you who worship at the altar of identity politics.    

    A transcendent sadness has overtaken the level of discussion in this election, and your comments are symptomatic of it.  

    the comment you are replying to (5.00 / 0) (#101)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 12:16:17 AM EST
    by Dr. Molly has been deleted. Dr. Molly is suspended from the site. I've had enough of her hateful diatribes.

    Parent
    Dr Molly's a pistol, g-man. (none / 0) (#100)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 12:11:28 AM EST
    Remember the days when you and I went at it over actual issues? Ah well, if Obama screws the pooch in this election like Kerry did in the last, you and I'll be back to old times, I'd imagine.

    Keep well,

    Sarcasmo.

    Parent

    Hey sarcasmo (none / 0) (#106)
    by glanton on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 11:24:49 AM EST
    (Forgive the rant.  But at the sight of a reasonable commenter and an old internet buddy, I must vent)

    Yeah.  The primary was bad for American politics, and the after-effects don't seem to be going away anytime soon.  Watching self-proclaimed progressives circling the wagons for politicians eager to quash their entire agenda is about as sickening as it gets.  There is no way McCain and Palin aren't laughing at these people in private, even as they smilingly court them in public.

    Unlike you, of course, I will be saddened by a McCain victory, but I suspect you will agree with me that in light of all that has happened and continues to happen, that a McCain victory would be the perfect cumulative moratorium for "liberals'" obsession with identity politics.  

    You know what?  It may turn me into a practitioner of identity politics as well.  
    Why should I, after all, as a heterosexual white man, continue to prioritize gay rights, women's rights, and racial justice at the top of my political priorities, when after all I am only one of the "Dem men" who is sexist by default?  If "Hillary supporters" find Sarah Palin preferable to a guy like me, then doesn't that just speak volumes about the state of this country?

    Hmmmmm.  Maybe it is time that male Democratic politicians and voters like me to follow this Election to its logical, self-centered conclusion and throw in the towel on Roe once and for all?  It would certainly remove the greatest albatross the Dem party has ever weathered.  If they gave up on abortion rights, they'd find all kinds of voters open to their economic agenda and their reluctance to go to war.  

    Sigh.

     

    Parent

    McCain: The Election is Not About Issues | 104 comments (104 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment