home

Thursday Open Thread 2

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Blog Related
Posted on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 12:27:34 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Regarding my earlier post on the Palin speech, some interesting focus group findings from Greenberg Quinlan:

Based on focus groups conducted live last night and new polling data from an oversample of married and unmarried women, Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research released the following findings about women voters’ reactions to Governor Sarah Palin[:]

[More...]

# After viewing the acceptance speech of the first female vice presidential candidate for the Republican party, there was no positive electoral movement toward the Republican ticket among either married or unmarried women in these groups. Some unmarried women moved toward the Republican ticket, but an equal number moved against McCain and Palin. Notably, the Obama speech which we reported on last week did change electoral positioning for some focus participants. This outcome is particularly notable among Hillary supporters, where she also failed to move voters. This speech clearly succeeded in the convention hall and was generally well received in the groups, but among these women, it did not fundamentally change the character of the race....

# Fundamental to the unmarried women in these groups, however, she did not sufficiently address key issues in their lives. This is particularly true of the economy, where unmarried women claim to have heard almost nothing of relevance to their economic standing. One single woman said point-blank “I didn’t get anything about the economy.”

This is an Open Thread.

< 'Books Are Weapons': Remembering Richard Wright | Insurers Will Pick Up Tab For Police Brutality in St. Paul >

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

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Thursday Open Thread 2 | 216 comments (216 topical)
    John Stewart was great last night (5.00 / 4) (#1)
    by elonepb on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 12:32:12 PM EST
    http://www.comedycentral.com/videos/index.jhtml?videoId=184086

    Dose of right wing hypocrisy anyone?

    I bet you like Bill Maher too (2.50 / 4) (#63)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 01:12:10 PM EST


    Parent
    insulting comparison (none / 0) (#120)
    by dws3665 on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 01:39:47 PM EST
    Stewart and Maher have little in common besides snark. Maher is all misogynistic puffery, and Stewart is more biting satire.

    Parent
    Maher (none / 0) (#178)
    by TomStewart on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 02:11:13 PM EST
    is quite different from Stewart. Did you clink on the link? Stewart is basically showing what a bunch of hypocrites people are being over the VP selection. And yes, he makes of of dems too.

    Parent
    He's brilliant. (none / 0) (#53)
    by domerdem on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 01:05:30 PM EST


    Parent
    Since it is Open Thread- thought I'd share this (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by GeekLove08 on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 12:32:59 PM EST
    cute moment from last night
    "Little Palin Puts a Spit Shine on Brother Trig's Head"

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GliQjmuf8_s

    Very reminiscent of my mom (none / 0) (#74)
    by oculus on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 01:17:52 PM EST
    giving us "spit baths," as she called it.

    Parent
    Saw that last night (none / 0) (#180)
    by TomStewart on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 02:12:10 PM EST
    very funny.

    Parent
    I'm (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 12:33:12 PM EST
    not surprised at those focus group results. My own little focus group showed very little change. Anecdotally, the Lieberman speech did more to sway people to McCain. Person: "If Joe Lieberman, who was Al Gore's running mate in 2000 thinks the party is out of touch then it must be" was what I got from them. Anyway, I don't think that Lieberman really gave them a reason to vote FOR McCain only a reason to vote against Obama. Frankly, neither campaign so far is really advocating voting for them so much as against the other imo.

    Gallup and Ras both say that Joe did nothing (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by andgarden on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 12:35:49 PM EST
    for McCain.

    Parent
    Well (none / 0) (#9)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 12:37:08 PM EST
    I was talking "anecdotally" and not using any polls to back up my statement.

    Parent
    sure (5.00 / 3) (#11)
    by andgarden on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 12:37:43 PM EST


    Parent
    In my one person focus group, my wife, was (5.00 / 3) (#19)
    by eric on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 12:44:51 PM EST
    so repelled by Palin that she pledged money to Obama.  She was a Hillary supporter and was very sceptical of Obama before this.  The key moment last night was when Palin ridiculed the idea that Obama would be worried about someone being read their rights.  That and the generally anti-intellectual reactionary rhetoric has solidified our household for Obama.  That is quite a feat considering where we were a few months ago.

    Parent
    The anti-intellectualism (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by MKS on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 12:55:37 PM EST
    is very clear.  And McCain is now all-in with this.....

    Palin had a run-in with the librarian when she became Mayor.  How does one do that?  A political fight with a librarian?

    Parent

    Well, from what I've read, the librarian (5.00 / 3) (#47)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 01:01:52 PM EST
    is one of several city positions that in the city of Wasilla, AK, that serve "at the pleasure of the mayor," and this librarian pulled the major stoopid political stunt of writing a letter of loyalty to the incumbent mayor that Palin defeated in a somewhat bitter election. That's how.

    Parent
    Palin has admitted (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by MKS on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 01:19:31 PM EST
    that she had a "rhetorical" discussion about banning books from the library.  Others have said the dispute was about banning books.

    She has to fire the librarian because she supported the incumbent Mayor?   That is something Palin could not get over?  She had to have payback against a librarian?....Sounds like a Nixon wannabe.  Or more recently,....

    After Monica Goodling, and the U.S. Attorney's firings, this "serving at the pleasure" of the boss, has a very troubling gloss.  It appears you have taken the Bush administration view of hiring and firing those who are less than fully loyal.  
     

    Parent

    boss, gloss, good alliteration. (none / 0) (#154)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 01:58:55 PM EST
    By city charter, the librarian holds her position only at the pleasure of the existing mayor. She chose to get involved in politics by signing an oath of loyalty to the ex-mayor that Palin defeated in a bitter contest.

    Also, point of information, Palin did not fire this woman.

    The librarian, Mary Ellen Baker, couldn't be reached for comment, but news reports from the time show that Palin had threatened to fire her for not giving "full support" to the mayor.

    And, it's not just a Bush admin view, it's virtually every political entity in the US - probably in the world - whether large and small, that has appointed positions that serve at the pleasure of the boss.

    Some of these relatives were criticized as less qualified than other applicants or entirely unqualified, yet still got the positions. The late senator Strom Thurmond, R-S.C., secured confirmation of his son as a U.S. attorney, despite the fact that the then-28-year-old had prosecuted only seven cases on his own in his two years as an assistant state attorney. Likewise, Sen. Jim Bunning, R-Ky., lobbied for a federal judgeship for his 35-year-old son, despite his "unqualified" American Bar Association rating.

    Nepotism has always plagued our system to some degree. John F. Kennedy appointed his brother as attorney general, and Bill Clinton made his wife the head of a powerful federal commission on health care. Former House speaker Tom Foley, D-Wash., made his wife, Heather, his chief of staff. Bellow points to such cases as recent evidence of a practice that has existed since the earliest forms of government. Of course, inbreeding also has a long history [too], but it's hardly a model for good family planning.



    Parent
    So what Bush and Gonzales did (5.00 / 1) (#160)
    by MKS on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 02:04:30 PM EST
    is okay because everyone does it?

    The "everyone does it" defense for governmental abuse.  An oldy but goody.....Nixon's defense.  With an elbow to Hillary for good measure....

    Parent

    How exactly do you spell s-t-r-a-w-m-a-n? (5.00 / 1) (#193)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 02:22:55 PM EST


    Parent
    Alaska does things somewhat differently. (none / 0) (#175)
    by Christy1947 on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 02:10:01 PM EST
    It appears that, unlike what most in the lower 48 know, Alaska really likes strong executives with lots of discretion. the only thing that restrains them is whatever Federal and AK civil rights law says you can't fire for, race, national origin and that well known list on which 'GLbt' may not appear there.  A huge number of people who would be union or civil service down here serve at the pleasure of the Mayor/Governor, and Mrs. Palin understands that literally. Hence the loyalty oaths, her own Legislative Aide who got fired for dating the soon to be ex of one of her husband's friends, the police chief of Wasilla, the Public Safety directior who wouldn't take the hint and fire Wooten.

    This is why an analysis of her judgement in using this power is so important.  She would inherit the widespread and illegal executive prerogatives Bush and Cheney have created, augmented by the new FBI rules which allow wire tapping and searches of your house and your employment, credit and medical records and other things without the necessity of the agency believing you are associated with any crime at all. If she had acted properly and decently, one result, but another if she had acted abusively. Up to you on that.

    Parent

    my anecdotal poll (5.00 / 3) (#44)
    by sancho on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 12:58:39 PM EST
    among people i know says that many college educated people whose friends often or always vote dem but say they are undecided shifted to obama last night.

    my regular-churchgoing-suspicious-of-intellectual-family members and student thought she "rocked."

    i'm coming to think that the palin choice makes a certain kind strategic sense for mccain in many many ways--on paper.

    but in the end he may still get caught in a different version of the sexist trap that caught hillary.

    will people (and here I mean whoever is willing to vote republican in any national election since 1980) vote for a woman with a strong personality in enough numbers to give the old warrior a win?

    i'm beginning for the first time to think btd is right and obama will be hard to displace as the winner.

    i know its still early.


    Parent

    she rocked (5.00 / 2) (#85)
    by addy on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 01:22:25 PM EST
    My husband, Independent, was very impressed with her so much he said he'd vote for her but not McCain. But the "read them their rights" line lost him in terms of policy. It reminded him of why he didn't like the current crop of Republicans in the first place.
    Same thing for me. I am a strong Hillary supporter and was going to possibly sit out the election. But based on the excellent red meat speech Obama gave at the convention and Palin's crack about civil rights I moved right into Obama territory. Loved her speech overall though, I thought she was terrific. But she reminded me why I don't and won't vote Republican.

    Parent
    wow (5.00 / 1) (#137)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 01:48:18 PM EST
    a sane response.  imagine that.


    Parent
    didn't realize (3.25 / 4) (#164)
    by dws3665 on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 02:05:15 PM EST
    you were the arbiter of sanity. good to know.

    Parent
    Knock it off with the antagonism (none / 0) (#198)
    by shoephone on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 02:24:28 PM EST


    Parent
    You're going to decide (none / 0) (#190)
    by lizpolaris on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 02:19:52 PM EST
    how to vote based on speeches at conventions?  Really?

    Parent
    BTD's argument (none / 0) (#103)
    by MKS on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 01:29:30 PM EST
    about Obama being the darling of the press, and moreso than McCain, always struck me as odd.

    But, now that McCain is at war with the press, and the press perhaps not backing down, the theory may play out....

    Parent

    BTD is right (5.00 / 1) (#213)
    by BernieO on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 02:32:01 PM EST
    the media does prefer Obama. They don't like it that McCain is no longer the maverick. Also he is yesterday's news.
    For example yesterday Wolf Blitzer was swooning over how well Obama uses the teleprompter - so well that we in TV land can't even tell. Like other polticians don't do that. Heck Bill Clinton once gave a great State of the Union when they had put the wrong speech in! Clinton gave the right speech as if nothing was amiss. But Wolf didn't mention that. As far as I know Wolf hasn't mentioned the fact that Palin's teleprompter wasn't working for her either. It kept scrolling during applause so it was not showing what she was saying. Apparently it happened to Rudy, too. I thought the professional speech maker seemed rattled during the applause, but it did not throw her even though she is an amateur. That is really amazing.
    McCain on the other hand is really bad with a teleprompter. He's better off the cuff Obama is better making a speech.  

    Parent
    Interesting that the Miranda (5.00 / 2) (#82)
    by oculus on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 01:21:45 PM EST
    rights/Obama comment by Gov. Palin caused your wife to donate to the Obama campaign.  The remark immediately highlighted Obama's FISA vote in my mind.  I thought:  Palin's off on her facts.

    Parent
    Greenberg Quinlan is off base IMO (5.00 / 4) (#24)
    by fercryinoutloud on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 12:47:09 PM EST
    They compare the Palin speech to the Obama speech? A number 2 to a number 1? A known to an unknown?
    How about comparing apples to apples - Palin to Biden - there you have a wash as neither boosted the ticket.

    As for Greenberg Quinlan's comment on the economy, Palin did address that very briefly but it was obviously lost on some voters but I remembered it. Let's face it, last night was a meta-speech whose main purpose was to introduce her. So far from what I have read she did a good job of doing that and helped herself, not hurt herself. That is a plus for her and McCain regardless of the silly comparison that Greenberg Quinlan made.

    Parent

    Her speech was read meat for social (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by MKS on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 12:57:47 PM EST
    conservatives.  Sarcastic and snide.  By her own account, a pit bull with lipstick.  

    Parent
    But also for people from (5.00 / 2) (#99)
    by BernieO on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 01:28:10 PM EST
    small towns and rural areas who are sick of the condescension from the DC crowd who like to think of those people as living in flyover land. I grew up in a small town in rural Ohio but went to a college in the east and I know first hand just how biased a lot of people are. I still have friends from college who would not live any where but in California or the Northeast even though it is bankrupting several of them. They think we are crazy for living in NC.

    Parent
    You're not kidding (5.00 / 2) (#109)
    by Steve M on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 01:32:55 PM EST
    One of my clients in New York once called me up to ask for advice on traveling to Montana because "you're from that part of the country, right?"  I am from Michigan.

    As a test, I asked a lawyer in my office if she could name a state that borders Iowa.  She thought for a long time and finally came up with Ohio.  Oh well.

    Mind you, I don't want to be guilty of reverse snobbery here, but these stories represent more of the rule than the exception.  It's like, particularly in NYC, they already have everything right here so there's never any need to go anywhere else.  Iowans vacation in places like New York all the time, but why would a typical New Yorker ever go to Des Moines?

    Parent

    For the pork tenderloins... (5.00 / 1) (#130)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 01:43:59 PM EST
    ...the Maidrites and people who will actually look you in the eye and say hello when you walk down the street, of course!  

    Parent
    Plus the Iowa State Fair, corn on the cob, (5.00 / 1) (#162)
    by oculus on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 02:05:05 PM EST
    steak, and the Drake Relays.

    Parent
    heh (5.00 / 1) (#133)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 01:45:34 PM EST
    I went to college with someone from NJ who went to high school at an elite private school in NYC.  she thought Madison was a state.  Had never been west of Florida (!).

    Parent
    Heh, (none / 0) (#132)
    by Faust on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 01:45:15 PM EST
    NY New Yorkers are that way about everything outside of the city. They don't even know where Geneseo New York is let alone where other states are.

    Parent
    Actually, "the City" means (none / 0) (#171)
    by MKS on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 02:07:12 PM EST
    San Francisco for those in the Bay Area....

    Parent
    Hey don't diss us all, (none / 0) (#218)
    by vicndabx on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 02:35:48 PM EST
    I went to college in Syracuse, I know where Genesee is.   :-)

    Parent
    David Frum on NPR (5.00 / 4) (#110)
    by MKS on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 01:33:01 PM EST
    addressed this....

    He said she was dividing America into small town versus everybody else....but that everybody else, including suburbia, is 75% of the country....

    She wasn't just from small town and proud of it--she was derisive of everyone else....like the kids in school who made fun of the nerds....

    Parent

    She addresses working class from a working class (5.00 / 1) (#182)
    by hookfan on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 02:12:52 PM EST
    vocabulary and experience. Last I knew working class also inhabited the cities. The fact that many working class people are stating that they haven't heard their issues addressed means they are listening to her. Don't underestimate this. This speech was an introduction, not the complete statement from Palin. I'm informed from my friends in Alaska that she has a marvelous sense of timing, and very effective speaking skills. You ought to compare the difference from Palin from her speech when the teleprompter went on the glitch, to Obama when he's experienced the same thing. She remained unruffled and smooth. He's become stutter butter.
       She, imo, is a political hunter. She'll respond to working class issues when she perceives the time and conditions are right-- and she'll be effective. There is politically veteran, ex-incumbent Alaskan governor that will confirm that.

    Parent
    The problem is that (none / 0) (#196)
    by MKS on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 02:23:48 PM EST
    the Republicans have no plan for the economy....More Bush style tax cuts...Nothing on health care, nothing for new forms of energy.....

    That is why they attack Democrats.....

    Parent

    Yup (5.00 / 0) (#149)
    by Eleanor A on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 01:56:03 PM EST
    It's a little shocking how some folks think they don't have to do much to help Dems in the South get elected - based on the big-city tilt of the Party on social issues - but then everyone's in a panic during Presidential years when the electoral votes are close...

    Parent
    My father is always saying (none / 0) (#212)
    by Grace on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 02:31:20 PM EST
    "We've got 50 different states and they are like 50 different countries."  It's so true.  

    Parent
    I'm having difficulty figuring out (5.00 / 1) (#230)
    by oculus on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 03:34:49 PM EST
    why my emotional reaction to Palin's speech was much more positive than the reaction of Steve's wife and most people commenting here today.  The issues I care most about are a woman's right to choose and getting out of Iraq.  Obviously Gov. Palin's position on those two issues is the opposite of mine.

    But, I reacted to her speech with a sense of pride that a woman who has been so relentlessly criticised and condemned since Friday, with calls for her to drop out before last night, etc., strided out on the stage and stood her ground.

    I grew up in Springfield, Illinois, which was maybe 50,000 population at the time (although I thought it was a huge city, as we had moved there from a very rural area of Illinois).  Then we moved to the "fifth largest city in the state of Iowa," which consisted of 30,000 people.  Then I went to college, which had 30,000 students.

    So, maybe my reaction is impacted by my roots?  Who knows.  

    No, I don't support the McCain/Palin ticket.    

    Parent

    but it had a big impact (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by Turkana on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 12:34:53 PM EST
    among media hacks...

    I guess (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 12:42:38 PM EST
    she's the new media darling as they are probably starting to tire of the old one.

    Parent
    And that is no small thing (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by BernieO on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 01:17:50 PM EST
    The media almost always get their favorites elected. Clinton  was the big exception -twice! No wonder they hate him But the media were a big factor in torpedoing Gore. They were so bamboozled by Bush's faux macho posturing that they were enamored of him and were willing to repeat dishonest Republican talking points as if they were true. So if they now like Palin, this is not good for Democrats.

    As for her not moving people towards McCain, I don't think that is too surprising. Even if these people loved her, she is not at the top of the ticket. It is up to McCain to win them on the issues that matter, which I doubt he will.

    I think McCain could get some traction if his speech makes it clear that he intends to clean up the corruption in his party, appoint qualified professionals to run government departments, especially Justice instead of cronies and ideologues. He signalled this when he picked Palin. Apparently she really did take on the entrenched corrupt Republican forces in her state. I just heard a reporter from an Alaskan paper say that she passed several bipartisan bills, including ethics reform, and almost all of her opponents were Republican power brokers. (It was on NPR's Here and Now.) However this is not the same as McCain directly addressing the issue. I would love to hear him say he will offer David Iglesias and the other fired US Attorneys their jobs back if he wins.  If McCain has the guts to do this it will be hard for Republicans to complain that they prefer being the party of cronyism and corruption. I think it could win over a lot of swing voters. I am not holding my breath waiting for him to do it, but it sure would bring back his maverick status.


    Parent

    U S Attorneys (none / 0) (#220)
    by shoephone on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 02:37:26 PM EST
    I doubt they would want their jobs back. Iglesias and McKay are doing a great job blasting the Bush DOJ and both seem happier in their new gigs. (Iglesis as author, McKay as law professor at Seattle University).

    I did notice a few months back, though, that McKay's brother Mike McKay, who was our US Atty before John, had given some big money to the McCain campaign.

    Parent

    I disagree (none / 0) (#90)
    by MKS on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 01:23:59 PM EST
    The new paradigm is McCain and Palin's war against the media....

    McCain cancels his CNN interview with Larry King, Larry King?, because Campbell Brown asked too many questions about Palin's "command" of the Alaska National Guard.  McCain is not giving interviews and has not held a press conference in a long time.  

    Palin is hidden from the press.

    This reminds me of Nixon.....

    McCain is now running against the press....

    Parent

    But that usually intimidates (none / 0) (#107)
    by BernieO on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 01:32:11 PM EST
    the media. They are really afraid of offending Republicans, probably because they are the party of corporate America. Why do you think MSNBC fired Phil Donahue even though he had their highest rated show in 2001? It was only after Bush's polls dropped so low that MSNBC had the guts to let Olberman go after Bush but that won't last if the right reorganizes and starts threatening sponsors with boycotts again then the corporations threaten NBC with pulling their ads. Democrats still have not caught on to this very effective strategy.

    Parent
    Could well happen (5.00 / 2) (#123)
    by MKS on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 01:40:09 PM EST
    But snubbing Larry King?

    And check out Joe Klein's Declaration of Defiance from His Maverickyness.  Tom Brokaw read the entire last paragraph on the air right after Palin's speech.

    Parent

    thing have (ahem) changed (none / 0) (#203)
    by wystler on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 02:26:27 PM EST
    Then: Donahue fired
    Now: Maddow hired

    It's pretty clear that the media's current storyline has a Dem hero. I don't see anything about Ms. Palin's entry that's powerful enough to change the current narrative.

    Frankly, I don't much like the media disconnect from reality, and their preference to sticking to storylines, no matter how bullfeather-ridden they may be. But, given the mass of low-information voters depend on traditional broadcast, cable and print outlets, and wind up taking those phantom sims into the voting booth with them, it's good to see that it's our side succeeding in the media slant.

    Parent

    Since (none / 0) (#168)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 02:06:43 PM EST
    when has that NOT worked to the GOP's favor? Anytime they start on the "liberal media" stuff, the media does exactly what they want.

    Parent
    Well, that was very predictable (5.00 / 4) (#18)
    by andgarden on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 12:44:02 PM EST
    The bar for Palin was in the floor.

    Parent
    the first gore-bush debate (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by Turkana on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 12:46:53 PM EST
    everyone i knew thought gore waxed him. a pew poll showed most people who watched it felt gore won it. the media was so excited that bush was able to pronounce the names of foreign leaders that they declared it a tie. saturday night live parodied gore's sighs, and a week later, most americans thought bush had won it.

    Parent
    Indeed (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by andgarden on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 12:56:26 PM EST
    Of course, the media were in the tank for Bush. I think that made all of the difference in 2000.

    Parent
    You bet (5.00 / 2) (#83)
    by BernieO on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 01:21:54 PM EST
    One reporter actually said publicly that the journalists who were in a sound-proof press room for one debate (New Hampshire I think) actually booed and mocked Gore! As I have said repeatedly, these fools act like this is high school and they don't want to associate themselves with the smart kid so they pander to the bully. Howard Fineman actually described Obama as the cool, exotic exchange student who is more appealing than Hillary, the prissy smart girl. Is it any wonder our country is in such a mess.

    Parent
    the media liked Dubya (none / 0) (#211)
    by wystler on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 02:30:09 PM EST
    The nicknames and cameraderie on the campaign trail had much to do with the seeming compliance in advancing the positive GWB memes and the negative Gore memes.

    Shoe's on the other foot this time around.

    Parent

    Let's not forget (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by Lahdee on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 01:16:34 PM EST
    the right. I'll bet there was dancing in Colorado Springs last night and that really is her purpose isn't it, to fire up the religious right.

    Parent
    Dancing is not allowed... (5.00 / 4) (#89)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 01:23:42 PM EST
    ...in the Springs!  It's the Devil's tool.  :>)

    Parent
    Who apparently turned on a dime. (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by oculus on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 01:26:44 PM EST
    [I say "apparently" because I didn't watch the cable folk from the Friday announcement through her speech last night.  Then I watched and they were fawning.  

    Parent
    Indeed (5.00 / 6) (#6)
    by andgarden on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 12:35:04 PM EST
    If Obama can close the deal on the kitchen table issues, he'll win.

    On a different front, I'm hearing from various people that the Guiliani was a huge mistake, and that he came off as being scary.

    It's the teeth. (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by Faust on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 12:36:12 PM EST


    Parent
    Deranged and Crazy (5.00 / 3) (#14)
    by bjorn on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 12:39:07 PM EST
    he was too over the top.  He had about two really good lines.  He apparently adlibed quite a bit, and his speech went twice as long as the time he was given.  

    Parent
    Scary but effective (5.00 / 0) (#29)
    by fercryinoutloud on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 12:49:08 PM EST


    Parent
    fercryinoutloud (none / 0) (#34)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 12:53:01 PM EST
    you are a new user today. New users are limited to 10 comments a day in 24 hours.

    I suspect you are a previously banned commenter using a new screen name, but since you have a previously unused IP address, I can't tell that.

    So, please read the comment rules and stick to no more than 10 comments a days.

    Thank you.

    Parent

    Rudy (none / 0) (#76)
    by TomStewart on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 01:18:42 PM EST
    has always been scary, it's just really coming out in the past few years.

    Parent
    I watched Rudy's speech. I thought (none / 0) (#102)
    by oculus on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 01:29:13 PM EST
    Lieberman and Thompson were much more effective on behalf of McCain the night before,  Based on what is sd. here so often about Rudy, I didn't expect him to help the Republican cause one iota.  But, since my expectations were so low, I thought he did o.k. but talked way too long.

    Parent
    I thought (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by BernieO on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 01:33:39 PM EST
    Thompson was a snooze fest as usual.

    Parent
    Guiliani (none / 0) (#174)
    by sas on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 02:09:49 PM EST
    hit the nail on the head when it comes to Obama.  That was the scary part for me.

    Parent
    Pretty much backs you assertion from thread N/T (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by Marvin42 on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 12:38:48 PM EST


    My wife tells me (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by Steve M on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 12:41:52 PM EST
    that on the "mommy blogs" she's finding a lot of Democratic women this morning who are talking about volunteering or donating to Obama for the very first time, because they were so upset by last night's speech.

    Palin obviously gave a polarizing speech, but it was REALLY polarizing among women, it seems to me.  There's more than one base out there to be rallied.

    Why? (5.00 / 3) (#26)
    by nycstray on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 12:47:27 PM EST
    Did they say what it was that made them suddenly want to volunteer for Obama? And what do they think they will gain from Obama?

    Parent
    Not really (5.00 / 6) (#31)
    by Steve M on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 12:50:14 PM EST
    But my general sense is that a lot of Dems and Dem-leaners, folks who maybe supported Clinton and have their doubts about Obama on a personal level, have been getting more enthusiastic about the Democratic ticket as the conventions have reminded them of the ideological stakes in this election.  They're realizing that it's about the Democratic agenda more than it's about one guy.

    Parent
    My 73 year old mother... (5.00 / 2) (#60)
    by EddieInCA on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 01:09:45 PM EST
    ... did something this morning she's never done in her life.

    She donated to a political campaign.  Obama's.  

    $250.

    My 42 year old sister matched her.

    Both of their comments were almost exactly the same. They thought the speech was:

    Sarcastic.
    Mean.
    Snide (my sister).
    Demeaning (my mother).

    And that was just for Palin. I can't repeat what they said about Guliani.

    I guess I should note that my mother was a "community organizer" for the better part of a decade.

    Yeah, she took the Palin speech as a personal attack.

    Parent

    Wow (none / 0) (#64)
    by eric on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 01:12:18 PM EST
    you just can't make this stuff up.  The reactions are so similar it is uncanny.

    Parent
    Is this necessary (3.50 / 2) (#140)
    by flyerhawk on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 01:49:54 PM EST
    Do you really need to call other posters liars simply because you don't like what they said?

    Parent
    Your implication (3.50 / 2) (#167)
    by dws3665 on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 02:06:39 PM EST
    intended or not, was clear.

    Parent
    The original poster (none / 0) (#201)
    by flyerhawk on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 02:26:12 PM EST
    was not selling ginsu knives.  

    One person made a statement.  Another person agreed by saying "you can't make this up. Same thing happened to me".  

    You choose to point out that this can be made up, thus casting aspersions on the likelihood that this happened to both of them.  

    There was no other reason to make the comment.  I think we all realize that you can't believe everything said on an Internet message board.  We don't have any reason to believe ANYTHING if we don't want to.

    Parent

    From my wife's perspective (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by eric on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 12:51:19 PM EST
    it was that she was so obviously vicious and cynical.  She wasn't positive and didn't talk about other people (other than to attack Obama with snide comments).  At some point my wife got so wound up that was threatening to move to Canada if Palin were to be the VP.  It was a strong reaction.

    Parent
    I felt the same as your wife. It was (5.00 / 2) (#55)
    by independent voter on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 01:06:37 PM EST
    frightening to watch and hear. She reminds me of people that laugh at others misery, that somehow get joy from it. She really gives me the creeps.

    Parent
    She seemed to enjoy her slashes (5.00 / 3) (#81)
    by byteb on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 01:21:42 PM EST
    and digs. She was so comfortable with doing it.  It reminded me of the leaders of the high school cliques.

    I donated $500 to Obama last night. My first since FISA.

    Parent

    horror of horrors (5.00 / 4) (#88)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 01:23:36 PM EST
    a politician who enjoys mixing it up.
    unbelievable.  or is it just because she is a woman that this is so unbelievable to you all?


    Parent
    Didn't a lot of (5.00 / 4) (#124)
    by BernieO on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 01:41:05 PM EST
    commentators criticize the Democrats for not being hard enough on McCain? I have read and heard a lot of the ridiculous attacks on Palin this week so her speech seemed a pretty reasonable response given how nasty the attacks have been on her. And it was Obama who made the disparaging remark about her being mayor of a small town which was way stupid given the bitter flack that cost him badly in Pa and Ohio.
    Had she not been dragged through the mud, my reaction would have been a lot more negative. Besides she followed Rudy who was really nasty and bizarre. And he is the "professional speaker" as Andrea M. made a point of saying. Palin made both those vaunted professionals, Fred and Rudy, look like losers which I did enjoy. I guess is dislike the media even more than the right wing.

    I did not think about how this speech would sound to people who had not been paying a lot of attention to the attacks on her, however, so maybe it will backfire especially now that the media is highlighting the negative statements and ignoring most of the positive.

    Parent

    Nothing that the Republicans do (5.00 / 0) (#181)
    by Jeannie on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 02:12:45 PM EST
    will match the nastiness towards Hillary and now Palin that came from so-called 'progressives'.
    I know..... the horror of someone critizing Obama is really upsetting - but deserved. Did they think that their ugly slander would go by with no backlash?
    The faux outrage against Palin's speech is quite amusing. One commenter on MyDD said that Palin never even thanked Obama for coming to her defense!

    Parent
    I am a woman, and I wanted to at least (5.00 / 3) (#169)
    by independent voter on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 02:06:50 PM EST
    be proud of her for this opportunity(even though I do not agree with her positions and I cannot support her). I feel that she mocked and belittled. I do not consider that "mixing it up" like it's all in good sport. Her delivery was smug, derisive, and condescending. It is not necessary to be cruel, that is the point of "new politics"

    Parent
    I didn't get nastiness at all. Maybe (5.00 / 2) (#223)
    by hairspray on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 02:47:05 PM EST
    because some of the things she said about Obama, experience etc. were not far off the mark. What I noticed is that she knew one or two things quite well, but didn't have much to offer to the other half of America who are financially in trouble. Except for disabled people.  Her whole schtick was about energy security and how to get there with oil and gas.  She did mention other fuels and nuclear power, and clean coal, but she seemed to be all about oil/drilling.  There wasn't much compassion for the people there.  But she was right on about the snobbery from the eastern liberals and that is a fact.  Remember Hillary and Bill were nothing but smucks from the sticks?  Sally Quinn and company are still there.

    Parent
    But remember the backup Repub response (5.00 / 1) (#191)
    by Christy1947 on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 02:20:40 PM EST
    that came out the same night. their opponents are sexists.  the media are sexists. Everyone who didn't love the speech is a sexist. Translation: they know she was terrible and would produce backlash, and are trying the stigmatize the backlash even as it comes out.

    the problem is that if you are saying that to men, it's wasted, and if you are saying that to women, even Carly Fiorina saying it, women form their own opinion of what is or is not sexist. The Palin speech will have women making their own conclusions about its appropriateness and tone, and everything else about her, and then judge the sexism charge after that, based on their conclusions. If they think she was acting badly, the sexism chargers look like PC jerks or someone abusing the term.

    And from the focus postings on all the websites I read regularly, a lot of women did not like what they saw. Putting lipstick on a pig to them does not change the fact that they are looking at a pig, and calling it a pit bull rather than a pig doesn't change the outcome. they don't like pit bulls either, except for a few.

    Parent

    Of course, it's that she's a woman. (2.33 / 3) (#176)
    by byteb on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 02:11:04 PM EST
    How clever of you. I would never have thought of that one without your help.

    She was nasty, mean and vindictive and over-the-top. Rudy was nasty, mean and vindictive and over-the-top. Does that make it better for you?

    You're so predictable.

    Parent

    I cheered. (5.00 / 4) (#187)
    by Jeannie on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 02:16:00 PM EST
    I am an old 72 year old bitter white woman, I guess, from a small town. I was a huge Hillary supporter and I don't like or trust Obama at all. Just my opinion. And I cheered Gov. Palin as she made fun of Obama. LOL! This is what is happening to many Dems - mostly women.

    Parent
    Today (5.00 / 2) (#135)
    by Lil on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 01:47:36 PM EST
    I will make my first donation to Obama. The Republican Party at this point is a dangerous cult, IMO.

    Parent
    My guess (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 12:52:40 PM EST
    is that over the past months many voters thought the election was in the bag for Obama. Now, after Palin hit the scene, they're not so sure, so they figure they better do something to help out.

    I think this is true for both blue and red voters.

    Parent

    Don't Know About Those Mommies (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by limama1956 on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 01:28:00 PM EST
    But this Mommy got back on the Democratic train after McCain picked Palin. There is just something about her that I cannot stomach.

    Parent
    Once Again (5.00 / 4) (#30)
    by JimWash08 on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 12:50:07 PM EST
    The authors of these "mommy blogs," in all likelihood, are hardcore liberals who were behind Hillary from the beginning. And this is not the group that Palin and Co. are trying to reach out there. Maybe Fiorina is, but not Palin. They aren't, and never will be indicative of a sudden movement against her.

    In fact, a colleague of mine who is a self-confessed 'mommy blogger' and an early Hillary supporter said quite the opposite -- the appearance of Palin has only strengthened the resolve of many of her fellow 'mommy bloggers' NOT to vote for Obama.

    And she isn't a PUMA, which means she's just not voting at the top, or is sitting the election out.

    Parent

    Yes (5.00 / 4) (#36)
    by Steve M on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 12:54:08 PM EST
    And the conservative base that was rallied by Palin's speech was never going to vote for Obama, so thanks for once again playing the role of Captain Obvious in the discussion.  I really appreciated your inane comment to me last night that Palin's speech was not intended to appeal to liberals, as if that was supposed to come as a revelation to me.

    The point, which is easy to understand if you're not determined to resist it, is that if a bunch of people who were previously sitting on their hands suddenly become motivated to donate and volunteer, that makes a difference in the outcome.  The conventional wisdom is that Palin's speech only had that effect with the conservative base, but from what I'm seeing the speech has galvanized additional members of the liberal base as well.

    Parent

    I think it's a mistake to (5.00 / 3) (#57)
    by frankly0 on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 01:07:45 PM EST
    believe she was only appealing to the Conservative base.

    By what she said, and more importantly by who she demonstrated herself to be, she appealed to a broad swath of small town and rural America.

    Parent

    I doubt that (none / 0) (#94)
    by TomStewart on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 01:25:41 PM EST
    unless I see some numbers from those areas. My bother and sister in law like her, but they were already her base anyway. She rallies the ever-shrinking repub base, which was her job, but it's the top of the ticket that people will be voting for, and that's still McCain.

    Parent
    Well, Let Me Be Clear Then (3.50 / 4) (#59)
    by JimWash08 on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 01:08:52 PM EST
    I really appreciated your inane comment to me last night that Palin's speech was not intended to appeal to liberals, as if that was supposed to come as a revelation to me.

    If you don't need these "revelations," then don't make "inane" posts that try to make it sound like some movement is forming of Hillary women supporters against Palin. It's a lame talking point that I'm seeing everywhere now. Are you all on some mailing-list that sends out the buzz words for the day?

    The point, which is easy to understand if you're not determined to resist it, is that if a bunch of people who were previously sitting on their hands suddenly become motivated to donate and volunteer, that makes a difference in the outcome.

    All those contributions seem, frankly, a waste. He's collected two or three times more than McCain over the last year and outspent him several times over, yet he's still neck-and-neck in this election cycle that is should be a shoo-in.

    I hate to bring it up, but he even outspent Hillary in every state, yet she trounced him in nine of the final 13 Primaries -- several of them handily -- and she still managed to get the popular vote.

    If a speech from the opponent gets all of you fired up to whip open your wallets for Obama, but the results are still so underwhelming, I think the conclusion is quite clear. That money has gone down the drain.

    Parent

    Give me a break (5.00 / 6) (#75)
    by Steve M on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 01:18:14 PM EST
    This is verging on a personal attack here.  I share what my wife told me this morning, and you want to suggest that it's a fiction I created because of some mailing list?

    You know what, I was as staunch a supporter of Hillary Clinton as anyone during the primary, and I am sick and tired of getting treated like some Obamabot just because I share an observation that doesn't fit someone's preferred narrative.

    To be clear, I recognize that I am presenting anecdotal evidence, and I have absolutely no problem with you presenting your own anecdotal evidence that suggests the reverse effect.  But I have a real problem with your aggressive, in-your-face presentation of your own anecdotes, as if they somehow "debunk" mine.  Back off.

    Parent

    Steve M (none / 0) (#177)
    by dws3665 on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 02:11:08 PM EST
    I totally agree with your point here, but I think you are unaware of how the tone of some of your posts comes across. I understand Jim's reaction, though I think he is in the wrong on the points. The condescension in some of your posts reads as a personal insult.

    Just an observation, not an attack. I like your contributions to the discussion quite a bit.

    Parent

    Comment #2 of the 4 I'm allotted today (5.00 / 2) (#122)
    by Eleanor A on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 01:40:09 PM EST
    If there in fact is a Hillary-supporters-against-Palin movement (I've seen no evidence, personally), it shouldn't be assumed said movement is automatically pro-Obama.  A lot of we PUMA types are planning to leave the top of the ticket blank or vote for McKinney.

    Parent
    Welllllll.... (5.00 / 3) (#225)
    by Mike H on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 02:54:25 PM EST
    I never quite entered PUMA territory, but I sympathized for quite some time, given how rude SOME of the Obama supporters had been to me, and some of the outrageous things that were said by them about Hillary Clinton.

    However, the Democratic Convention turned things around for me.  The speeches by Hillary, Bill, and Barack, in particular, were a real revelation in many ways.  I'm proud of what all three of them said, and what they stand for.

    The primary process itself may indeed be broken; the misogyny of some Democrats clearly cannot be ignored; the ignorance and bullying of some Obama supporters should not be forgiven.

    But in the end, I think that doesn't add up to enough reason to NOT vote for Obama, especially when it's so clear that McCain-Palin would be dangerous for the country.  

    I've become a solid -- if not super enthusiastic -- supporter of Obama, primarily because of Hillary Clinton's support of him.  Palin has indeed sealed that for me.

    Parent

    Is this the "law of unintended (none / 0) (#221)
    by Christy1947 on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 02:37:59 PM EST
     consequences" or "No good deed goes unpunished"?

    Parent
    Yes, (5.00 / 5) (#52)
    by frankly0 on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 01:04:30 PM EST
    I think people should realize that the real appeal of Palin is to people very similar to her in background: working class people in small towns, male and female.

    Those aren't really the same class of people as most who have declared themselves "PUMAs", and organized as such. They are not your typical self described feminist.

    But I think a lot of working class women will identify with Palin and her family, and admire her gutsiness.

    In the end, the goal of Palin's speech is to turn herself from a real liability into a net positive -- which I think she has done, so far. If a 2 pt swing in McCain's favor might be attributed to her speech, it would a very positive outcome, considering she's just the VP candidate. But at 2 pts, the effect would be hard to measure without a number of polls being aggregated together.

    Beyond 2 pts or so, it's likely going to be up to McCain himself to get a further bounce.

    Parent

    Yes (5.00 / 3) (#91)
    by Steve M on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 01:24:18 PM EST
    Palin will resonate with voters in the rural areas and small towns.  Democrats still haven't made real inroads in these areas.

    However, while I love small-town America, Republicans have constructed this narrative of America as nothing but one small town after another that just isn't so.  Plenty of people live in small towns, but there's also plenty of people who live in urban areas and suburbs.

    Urban areas will continue to vote Democratic.  It's the realignment of the suburbs from Republican to Democratic that clobbered the GOP in 2006 and, in my estimation, will continue to clobber them.  I don't think working-class folks in the suburbs got nearly the rise out of Palin's speech as did their counterparts in rural America.

    Republicans used to be able to bring home suburban voters with nothing more than their standard "liberalism is evil" narrative.  But liberalism no longer seems as threatening to the suburbs as it did in the 70s and 80s, and Republicans are going to have to find a way to address the current concerns of these voters if they want to keep a foothold in the suburbs.  Reheating the rhetorical leftovers from the Nixon/Reagan era will not cut it.

    Parent

    Clinton won (5.00 / 2) (#129)
    by BernieO on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 01:43:55 PM EST
    the small town and rural areas. The "western strategy" deliberately discounts them, which I think isn't smart. Clinton appealed both to the urban and rural/small town people which worked well. TWICE. The suburbs will probably always swing back and forth.

    Parent
    Well, oddly, (5.00 / 1) (#163)
    by frankly0 on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 02:05:13 PM EST
    I mostly agree with you.

    I think Palin's basic appeal is to a segment of the voting population that is only shrinking. She's a fresh new face on a tired idea and with a dwindling audience.

    But it takes a long time for basic demographics to change, and small town America is still a major force to be reckoned with. They are shown disrespect at electoral peril.

    Certainly the voters she might persuade may be large enough in this election, combined with the independents that "maverick" McCain might bring in, to win it.

    Parent

    No. She will probably look either familiar (5.00 / 1) (#216)
    by Christy1947 on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 02:34:36 PM EST
    to them or a caricature of 'familiar to them', but that  supposed familiarity does not translate to support. If I may do a bad thing, she's trying to look like white trash in order to capture the votes of white trash, but the problems with this are that (1) there are a whole lotta folks who are thought of or think of themselves as white trash or rednecks next to harvard, but are wonderful decent people who wouldn't act like that in public, talk that rudely and snidely, troop their families about, or be misled about someone trying to pitch to their perceived caricature prejudices rather than to their real values and needs, or who is running on a a jokey cartoon of them, itself inherently disrepectful and don't they know it. they tend to vote for people whom they respect and who respects them, not what they saw last night. Her caricature is insulting and debasing of real white trash, aside from wildly cynical.(2) they also know what she left out of her speech and will be asking themselves if she is pandering, or trying to conceal some of the things about her which they know differently than we do. Conservative rural church is not always Dominionist A of G and Jews for Jesus lovers. Conservative social mores think differently about someone who ran for office as soon as she got married and never stopped and never went home to mother for any of it, and waved the baby around at a convention when he is too little even to be there. Backlash from those things coming there, because putting her up there is not issue driven exactly, but cultural personality driven, and cultures do decide who is of them and who is not when being of them is all she is running on.

    Parent
    considering (none / 0) (#183)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 02:14:01 PM EST
    how poorly the Dems that suburbanites elected in 2006 have done, don't count on them for 2008. It's not that I think they'll necessarily vote for McCain, I think the danger is of them not showing up to vote at all.

    Parent
    I'm a PUMA (5.00 / 2) (#113)
    by Eleanor A on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 01:36:09 PM EST
    Although I'm gonna work for Dem races downticket...

    I think a lot of us just feel like there's nowhere to go.  I don't see a hardcore movement toward the GOP just due to Palin -

    • She's hardcore anti-choice
    • She's a global warming denier
    • She's for drilling

    Why am I not surprised the GOP simply thinks they can substitute one pol in a skirt for another and none of us will notice, for crying out loud?  

    She's no Hillary.  Not by a long shot.

    (#1 of my 4 anti-Obama posts allotted for today)

    Parent

    Not sure that this one quite counts as an (none / 0) (#172)
    by JoeA on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 02:08:13 PM EST
    anti Obama post.  

    Parent
    I think Biden got the response right today (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by lilburro on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 01:01:01 PM EST
    and yes, it is time to go to work.  Palin scared me too.  

    Parent
    Nope. See Glenn Greenwald (none / 0) (#97)
    by oldpro on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 01:27:11 PM EST
    today in Salon. (Link is in the righthand column).

    HE got it right.

    Parent

    And then there will be a dozen more that (3.25 / 4) (#37)
    by PssttCmere08 on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 12:55:04 PM EST
    say the exact opposite.  Palin did her job, to tout McCain and energize the republicans...if you were expecting more, I believe you were wrong.  NOW, she can set about placating the "ladies" if she feels that is what she has to do.

    Parent
    Exactly my wife's reaction (none / 0) (#22)
    by eric on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 12:46:42 PM EST
    I posted about it above.

    Parent
    If this is true of general reaction (none / 0) (#27)
    by Marvin42 on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 12:47:37 PM EST
    Then the democratic ticket has it made and they will win.

    Parent
    more evidence (none / 0) (#217)
    by wystler on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 02:34:59 PM EST
    Detroit Free Press conducted their own focus group among indies.

    results here

    Parent

    Will "The View" Be Palin-ized? (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by JimWash08 on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 12:42:50 PM EST
    After last night's ground-shaking speech, I'm wondering if the ladies on The View are filing requests to have Sarah Barracuda on the show.

    I don't watch it but I've seen clips of when the main candidates and their spouses appeared. Anyone know if Elizabeth Hasselback, the lone Conservative on the panel, is a Palinite?

    I posted this on the other open thread (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by JAB on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 12:47:24 PM EST
    but it was kind of late

    Ras is showing today that:

    Last night's polling shows that, by a ten-to-one margin, voters believe reporters are trying to hurt Palin's campaign rather than help.

    This poll was taken before she gave her speech.

    Well, reporters aren't (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by TomStewart on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 01:29:06 PM EST
    supposed to be helping. For the most part, they're doing their job, the same job they would do with any barely known candidate, the job the McCain campaign should have done a month ago.

    Parent
    Considering (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by JAB on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 01:36:29 PM EST
    People hate the media more than they hate politicians, the fact that McCain is running against the media can only help

    Parent
    McCain running against the media (none / 0) (#147)
    by TomStewart on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 01:54:17 PM EST
    that too funny. No wonder they're getting in a snit.

    Parent
    not important (none / 0) (#222)
    by wystler on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 02:38:22 PM EST
    Those people who "hate the media"?

    Exceting the slim minority who get their information electronically, the people get their overview from the media. It's the only simulation they're provided.

    Running against the media is a death sentence for McCain's campaign.

    Parent

    The media is supposed to help (5.00 / 2) (#202)
    by demchick on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 02:26:12 PM EST
    but they are not supposed to be trying to hurt either. THAT'S what has people so angry. The media is not supposed tobe taking sides and picking one candidate or party over another.

    And anyone who says the media has not done that has not been paying attention since tyhe primaries.

    Parent

    Perhaps I'm Just Thinking Logically (5.00 / 6) (#35)
    by Strick on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 12:53:38 PM EST
    But you folks realize that Palin doesn't have to reach all women.  All she has to do is solidify the conservative base and pick up a small percentage of women who wouldn't have voted Republican otherwise.

    Don't forget, this is going to be yet another very close race.  A small change will pay big dividends.

    Heck, all she has to do is solidify McCain's lead in Florida and Ohio and overcome Obama's very slight lead in Colorado and McCain wins in the Electoral College.

    Just a thought here.  Don't get too excited because most women you know don't buy Palin.  All that has to happen is enough women buy Palin.  And whatever most people seem to think here, she's good.

    At 4-6 points behind, the Electoral College (none / 0) (#41)
    by andgarden on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 12:57:37 PM EST
    is pretty much out of reach.

    McCain needs a game changer.

    Parent

    The Map (5.00 / 5) (#143)
    by Cairo Faulkner on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 01:52:00 PM EST
    RealClearPolitics has got a great editable map online, highlighting the swing states: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/maps/obama_vs_mccain/

    They put NV, NM, CO, MI, OH, NH, VA, NC, FL as swing states, totalling 115 votes. Obama has 238 secure, McCain 185. Now, I think McCain will win NV, NC and FL, though Obama will be closer (particularly in the first two) than usual. Obama will win NM and MI comfortably, and NH. That leaves us with CO, OH and VA. Big prizes each of them, each gone for Bush both times. CO and OH went comfortably for Bush, but have trended downwards. VA went strongly for Bush and actually trended slightly upwards, despite what state level politics may suggest.

    Now this prediction is merely a combination of gut thinking and educated guessing, but I think all three of those - CO, OH and VA - will go McCain. I'm not going to bet money on it, but this is why I think it: Palin will play well in CO and OH, where Obama's lead is minimal in the former, and McCain has a minimal lead in the latter. That Obama has such a narrow lead in CO at this time suggests to me CO cannot be relied upon. Jeralyn and other Coloradans may well have differing views though.

    OH is still putting McCain in the lead, which amazes me frankly. I think McCain will just squeeze by there. As for VA, I just can't see it going blue: despite changing demographics, VA went Bush both times by over 8%.

    Within the next two months, I expect fiercer and dirtier attacks on Obama, by the McCain campaign and by 527ers. We're going to hear about Rezko, about God Damn America, about Clinging to Guns, about Clinging to Religion (if the Republicans are clever, they'll get two attacks for the price of one there), about the Most Liberal Senator, etc. These will chip away at Obama's minute lead in CO, end the tie in VA, and strengthen McCain in OH. I also think Palin will play well there.

    That leaves us at Obama 264, McCain 274. What do you guys think? This is the worst case scenario for Obama as I say it. I think this election will be fought in Colorado, Ohio and Virginia, and I think Obama will make huge inroads in each - but never enough to win.

    ps. I put Hillary on 311, McCain 227, giving her McCain's FL and OH.
    pps. I love maps and the electoral college, haha.

    Parent

    My read exactly (5.00 / 1) (#152)
    by Strick on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 01:58:10 PM EST
    Look for Palin to spend a lot of time in Colorado and Ohio and Leiberman in Florida.

    Parent
    Mine as well (none / 0) (#173)
    by Eleanor A on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 02:08:50 PM EST
    Based on quite a bit of campaign experience in Virginia.

    Parent
    OH comfortably? (none / 0) (#204)
    by indiependy on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 02:26:31 PM EST
    Not quite sure that winning 51-48 reflects that. Also be interested in seeing what the numbers in FL start looking like soon, seeing as HRC is headed there this week to make a big push.

    Parent
    Ditto for Colorado... (none / 0) (#214)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 02:33:01 PM EST
    ...I wouldn't consider 3 points "comfortable".

    Parent
    What? (none / 0) (#56)
    by JAB on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 01:06:53 PM EST
    4-6 points behind is not "out of reach". That's flipping one small state.  

    And remember, the important numbers start 10 days after a convention and McCain could get a convention bounce.  Next week is when any numbers really start to count.

    Parent

    Um... Not really... (none / 0) (#71)
    by EddieInCA on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 01:17:00 PM EST
    When Reagan won his historic landslide against Carter, he still only got 50.7% of the popular vote. Carter got 41.0%

    Jimmy Carter beat Ford handily in 1976 in the electoral college with only a %1.9 advantage in popular vote.

    Bush crushed Dukakis in the 1988 electoral college with only a 7.6% advantage in the popular vote.

    So a 4-6 point win in the popular vote gets you probably 330 electoral votes, an easy win.

    It's certainly a whole lot more than flipping one small state.


    Parent

    not speaking for him (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 01:25:18 PM EST
    but I think the more important point he was making is that the campaign starts this week.
    polls are completely meaningless at this point.

    Parent
    Only 4-6 Points (none / 0) (#119)
    by Strick on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 01:39:15 PM EST
    Behind after the Democrat's Convention bounce.  We'll see if that holds after the Republican Convention ends Monday.

    Don't know what the impact of the speech will be, but consider this survey result.

    Flemington, NJ, September 4, 2008 - Results from a national survey group conducted tonight among 1,000 self-reported Democrats, Republicans and Independents revealed that perceptions of GOP vice presidential pick Governor Sarah Palin improved after viewing her acceptance speech...

    here is a positive change in how independents anticipate voting in the Presidential election after viewing Palin's speech, with a 9% increase among independents indicating that they will probably or definitely vote for the McCain/Palin ticket after watching the speech.

    Palin's speech proved to be equally effective in swaying votes for both men and women.  Among the independents who watched her speech, respondents who report that they will "probably" or "definitely" vote for McCain increased by 10% across both genders, around 38% of female independents and 36% of their male counterparts.

    Americans Say Palin Helps McCain

    Parent

    By... (none / 0) (#127)
    by Strick on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 01:43:23 PM EST
    "after the Republican Convention ends Monday", I mean the convention ends and after new polls are taken over the weekend.

    Parent
    270towin.com (none / 0) (#126)
    by Eleanor A on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 01:42:47 PM EST
    The EC is very nearly tied right now without any tossup states.

    See also: electoral-vote.com

    Parent

    "Referred to are poll points" (none / 0) (#150)
    by Strick on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 01:56:07 PM EST
    Yes, I understand.  

    Talk to us after the Republican's Convention bounce and we'll see where things stand.

    Remember that Kerry was polling 50% at this point in 2004.

    Parent

    There's red meat, and there's hate (5.00 / 2) (#46)
    by magster on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 01:01:50 PM EST
    No one could mistake in Palin's speech the level of hate that is the foundation of the Republican world view, to the point that any truly independent voter or truly open-minded Democrats would have been repulsed.

    It's Hope v. Contempt.

    Different Approaches to Government (none / 0) (#228)
    by santarita on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 03:09:04 PM EST
    There will always be those who believe that it is ok to hate someone who holds a different opinion.  

    Don't you think that there are Republicans out there who feel that Democrats hate them and that the Republican ideology represents the best hope for mankind?

    The contrast between the two approaches, at least with regard to domestic policy,  is as stark as I've seen in many years.  The Democratic challenge in this election is to convince the electorate to choose its approach.  

    Parent

    The assumption that she was picked to attract (5.00 / 3) (#54)
    by esmense on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 01:05:59 PM EST
    Hillary voters is wrong-headed. Her style, message and biography are all wrong for that -- but perfect to help shore up support with the disaffected Rush/Hannity crowd.

    Like the Democrats, this convention has had to devote a lot of time to healing rifts in the party -- and Palin has been the vehicle for that.

    I think Peggy Noonan, who does understand Republicans, made an important observation in her most recent column -- that the party's leaders, erroneously, still think their base is most representative of typical voters. In Palin they just have put a new face on old attitudes and tactics. Attitudes and tactics that still work with their base but are increasingly out of step with everyone else.

    Palin, despite being a woman, sounded an awful lot like yesterday's angry, white male.

    Women, because they are perceived as more honest (than men), often run effectively as reformers. But they are also expected to be more compassionate -- so tough talk alone won't do.

    Patty Murray got a lot out of being a "mom in tennis shoes" -- an outsider and reformer (as Palin claims to be), but with a heart.

    If Palin isn't able to add that third element, she won't be very attractive to women outside the Republican base.

    Yes and no. (5.00 / 1) (#148)
    by oldpro on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 01:54:39 PM EST
    Agree that Palin wasn't picked to attract Hillary voters...particularly women except for that tiny few who were voting Hillary 'just because she's a woman.'

    Disagree that angry white males are 'yesterday.'  Those are the Reagan Democrats who listened to Hillary but not to Barack and who will listen to Sarah...for different reasons.

    White males...that's the demographic to watch and McCain and Palin are, once again, appealing to them, their sense of grievance, their anger, their need to blame government (but not, infuriateingly, Republican government)!  They will be urged to identify with 'the hero,' the maverick, and the gun-totin' babe at his side.

    Parent

    I agree that it is the guys she is appealing to (none / 0) (#184)
    by esmense on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 02:14:55 PM EST
    ... but I'm not sure that they are as important and large a part of the electorate as they were in, for instance, '94.

    In my view, both campaigns appear to be depending on some iffy demographics for their victory -- Obama is depending on an unprecedented turnout among younger voters, McCain is hoping to energize an older demographic that may be waning.

    This is why I wouldn't place my bet on either candidate at this time.

    Parent

    Younger voters (none / 0) (#208)
    by oldpro on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 02:29:30 PM EST
    come in all stripes and while Obama may have the edge with them IF they vote, they're not the reliable demographic.

    The reliable demographic is my group...72, white, always vote, damn mad, not reassured by unidentified change vaguely offered by the least-qualified job applicant evah.

    Hillary would have sealed the deal and foolish, foolish Obama made the wrong call...again.

    For some, he is 'the hope.'  For others, he is the problem.

    Now it's all up for grabs.  And not looking great.

    See Glenn Greemwald today in Salon.

    Parent

    I am worried (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by CST on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 01:08:44 PM EST
    That McCain can still salvage this with a "meat and potatoes" speech.  The problem McCain has is that he doesn't have many "meat and potatoes" on the economy - which is what people are looking for.  So we'll have to wait and see if he can pull it off.

    He could (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by Steve M on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 01:26:51 PM EST
    but I just don't think that's who he is.  Obama showed a lot of versatility when he gave an acceptance speech that emphasized kitchen-table issues instead of the lofty rhetoric we've seen from him in the past.  McCain just seems too wedded to modern Republican ideology, and too incurious about policy issues, to really deliver that sort of message.

    Parent
    McCain never seems happy (none / 0) (#155)
    by TomStewart on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 02:00:59 PM EST
    going too far from his usual talking points, and comes off as stiff on teleprompter. Since Palin didn't really lay out any plans, McCain should be doing that tonight. He's got to tell people what he's for, for a change, rather than what he's against. We already know what he's against, that's all he defined himself with, we need to know what he's really for.

    That's what we should hear tonight, with some specifics to back them up.

    And some distortions and lies thrown in to keep himself in the game. Oh, and change....lots of change.

    Parent

    which BTW (none / 0) (#84)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 01:21:56 PM EST
    makes sense to me.  assuming he talks economy.  seems to me that is more his job.

    Parent
    Yea (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by CST on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 01:28:22 PM EST
    I think that's his plan, or it should be.  But I am getting more optimistic that McCain can't give that speech effectively.  I'm hoping for a catastrophe of "green screen" proportions.  It's a baseless hope, but one I'm holding onto nonetheless.

    Parent
    Yes, his timing is great (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by domerdem on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 01:31:56 PM EST
    It will be interesting to watch him trying to talk up the economy tonight after a 300 point loss in the market.

    Parent
    what I dont get (none / 0) (#128)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 01:43:46 PM EST
    is if you are so sure, why do you seem so worried?

    Parent
    You are confusing excitement and worry (none / 0) (#197)
    by domerdem on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 02:23:54 PM EST
    It's going to be a great eight years for Obama and our nation.

    Parent
    Here's some good news from NC: (5.00 / 3) (#66)
    by domerdem on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 01:12:52 PM EST
    Hagan (D) 50
    Dole (R) 45

    That is good news (none / 0) (#159)
    by TomStewart on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 02:03:45 PM EST


    Parent
    Great!! (none / 0) (#165)
    by gtesta on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 02:06:18 PM EST
    I've met kay Hagan a few times now and I live in a remote part of NC (Outer Banks).  Kay is working hard. I hope she makes it.

    Parent
    Roland Martin: How not to get it, Part 28394723742 (5.00 / 4) (#68)
    by Ellie on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 01:13:55 PM EST
    He was on CNN earlier in triumphal mode about Obama's* quick response to Palin's (purported) slam on community organizers.

    I've been one on a myriad of issues and not just at the community level. What Palin referred to was the difference between Executive (leadership) decisions -- where the buck stops -- and participatory experience, which is great, but not leadership, and she was right.

    Martin's excitement related to Obama's* quick response: namely that David Plouffe immediately tapped into the vaunted O-Database of organizers, and fomented the slam into an email asking for money.

    Woo, um, hoo.

    This isn't defending the honor of community organizers. It isn't fighting for an issue. It's not addressing leadership.

    It doesn't address what Palin said. It doesn't add votes or voters to the fold.

    It doesn't move the Dems forward. It doesn't improve Obama's cred.

    All it does is pat the campaigners on the back for  translating miffed feelings into fund-raising and wave the glitter in front of money-obsessed Dems' eyes.

    As I've said before, make this about people's needs and rights and Obama will win.

    Make this about back-slapping his campaign, especially about teh awesome fundraising, and he won't. All that Martin's soundbump (coinage alert: soundbyte and fist bump) impelled me to wonder was what it would take for Dems to be fighting Dems ... FOR ME.

    This tired Dem pattern of saying, 'The Repugs called YOU a name again ... give me money!' is one of the reasons I remain Indy until I see some sign the party is ready, willing and able to fight for people's needs.

    *I'm no longer pretending that unless Obama explicitly said something, he has no freakin' idea what his campaigners are doing.

    Martin was quite unbelievable last night (5.00 / 2) (#79)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 01:21:06 PM EST
    I imagine the McCain campaign is praying the entire left of center takes his advise.

    Parent
    Tell it to my mother... (5.00 / 2) (#80)
    by EddieInCA on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 01:21:21 PM EST
    .... who, based on that ONE sentence, decided to back Obama and donate money.

    First time in her life.

    You go, Mom.

    Oh, and my mother was one of those people who believed the whole "Obama is a Muslim smear" because it came via the net from friends of her. It took some work by my sister and I to dispel that myth.

    Parent

    yeah (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by connecticut yankee on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 01:31:29 PM EST
    My mother believed that as well. But now supports Obama. I didnt even lobby her, she just realized what was going on.

    Parent
    Whatever -- I'll see your mom and Donna Brazile's (5.00 / 2) (#158)
    by Ellie on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 02:02:09 PM EST
    ... and raise you three sisters and a bunch of aunts who would rather "endure" four years of Sarah Palin to shatter the Exec Office glass ceiling than wait another thirty years for Dems to do it.

    Cool I just won that anecdotal, unverifiable hand!

    I don't want to wait another XX-year lag (like the one between Ferraro and Sen Clinton).

    I'm not excited by Obama's timeline (his little girls being grown up) for women's "turn" to run for the highest offices without the Oboiz and media nincompoops not to freak the hell out about it.

    A strong Congress rather than a do-nothing one is what matters (to me and my Aunt Comity who never donated to a candidate blah blah blah but loves Pain.)

    Parent

    Roland Martin's parents were community organizers (none / 0) (#87)
    by steviez314 on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 01:23:09 PM EST
    so I think he was just personally a little p.o.'ed.

    Parent
    Martin Luther King (none / 0) (#166)
    by TomStewart on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 02:06:38 PM EST
    was a community organizer.

    Parent
    The trouble with telling people you're a (5.00 / 1) (#185)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 02:15:04 PM EST
    "community organizer" is that it's as amorphous as telling someone you're an actor, or a writer.

    There are community organizers and then there are community organizers.

    Parent

    Actually, even the actor/writer analogies are (none / 0) (#205)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 02:27:16 PM EST
    not good.

    How about it's as amorphous as saying you're an "investor."

    Parent

    good (5.00 / 3) (#92)
    by connecticut yankee on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 01:25:08 PM EST
    Thank god.

    My mom actually didnt like Obama much (super Hillary supporter, like me) but is now fully onboard because she "can't reward Bush for this mess".  She also thinks this woman "is dangerous".

    I'm very happy with that.

    My father actually gave money to the McCain camp in 2000 and wouldnt blank on him if he was on fire today.

    From Yahoo News-AP (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by BarnBabe on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 01:35:29 PM EST
    Poll: 51 percent say reporters are trying to hurt Palin

    Over half of U.S. voters (51%) think reporters are trying to hurt Sarah Palin with their news coverage, and 24% say those stories make them more likely to vote for Republican presidential candidate John McCain in November.

    From this mornings RAS. What do the numbers mean as I do not look at them but watch a few of you disect them for me. Thanks BTW.

    I go back and forth on the Palin speech (5.00 / 5) (#115)
    by Coral on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 01:36:37 PM EST
    Many points of view expressed here -- some contradictory -- are persuasive. Guess we'll have to wait and see how it plays out over the next week.

    One thing -- I have friends, acquaintances, and family who can relate strongly to Palin's life story. They are the kind of people who may be taken by her speech and feisty manner. Her rhetorical stance is reminiscent of working-class female speakers, and I think there is an appeal there. So my tendency is not to be too quick to dismiss her. What wouldn't work for a Democratic female politician, could very well work with the Republican attack machine behind her as a cheering section.

    I worry about Ohio, Michigan, Florida, and western PA. I'm familiar with people with lower middleclass, blue- and pink-collar backgrounds from those states, and I don't think they will be as turned off by the speech as people here tend to believe.

    Obama and Biden do need to appeal to those very voters, and to attack on GOP economic policies. They are doing it, but I want to see more.

    Some interesting Ras Palin #s (5.00 / 1) (#116)
    by Exeter on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 01:37:27 PM EST
    Among independent voters, 49% believe reporters "are trying to hurt Palin."

    37% of independent voters believe that Palin has MORE experience than Obama.  

    48% of all women believe there is a double-standard in the coverage of Palin.

    Among all voters, 69% believe the msm is clearly biased for one candidate or another--and only 14% of those believe the bias is toward McCain.

    and (5.00 / 1) (#118)
    by isaac on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 01:38:59 PM EST
    she has scary eyes

    I agree... (5.00 / 3) (#134)
    by gtesta on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 01:46:55 PM EST
    I believe that we will now see the second coming of Harry Truman in McCain tonight.  SP hinted as much last night.

    Also, this study is seriously flawed if they limited it to only women's reactions.

    As a 40 year resident of Western Pennsylvania (now thankfully living in NC), I can see clearly that SP's job is going to appeal to voters up and down appalachia - men and women.  My first impressions are that men in those areas are really going to like Sarah Palin.

    Palin didn't scare me at all (5.00 / 2) (#157)
    by cawaltz on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 02:01:38 PM EST
    I could see myself voting for her. The DNC screwed up big time.

    (I will refrain from commenting further but figured that the site might want to realize that Palin did not come off as scary or snide to everyone.)

    Commander Palin (5.00 / 1) (#161)
    by Lahdee on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 02:04:42 PM EST
    After reading the McClatchy story "Official: Palin's never issued an order to Alaska Guard" Phil Gramm rushed to consult with Senator McCain on the impact.

    You realize John that she's never given an order?
    No, no I didn't Phil. Gen. Campbell said that eh?
    Yep.
    How do we fix it?
    She's visited with them, Kuwait I think.
    Ahh, yeah, what about...
    Maybe...
    Well we could, but, you know...
    Yes. I think we could make a case.
    Okay then lets go with it.
    Great I'll call Rick and tell him the play is she has given orders to the guard. Something like, While expressing support for the troops the governor told them not to get shot and to come home soon.
    Good start Phil. Can we add something more personal?
    Well, we could add say she reminded them about brushing their teeth.
    Okay. That it then?
    Yes, it is John.
    What's next?
    That's it for now, we're done.

    I spoke with two undecideds this morning... (5.00 / 1) (#170)
    by tres on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 02:07:11 PM EST
    Both women; both Hillary supporters. Both said that she is mean spirited..still haven't decided on who they will vote in November. My mom on the hand called her a not fit for typing name..my 65 year old mom.

    Interesting bit of news... (5.00 / 1) (#229)
    by ks on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 03:33:16 PM EST
    From RCP:

    "ST. PAUL -- The McCain campaign must be giddy with this news, just out from Nielsen: Sarah Palin's speech generated 37.2 million viewers, just a 1.1 million viewers fewer than watch Barak Obama's Invesco Field acceptance speech. As Nielsen notes, only six networks carried Palin's speech compared with ten for Obama's."

    Sorry (4.00 / 2) (#139)
    by TomStewart on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 01:49:41 PM EST
    but what filth? I really haven't seen that much by the 'left' that would qualify as 'filth'. I've seen lots of people question her experience (rightly so, but a dead end), her record in Alaska (fertile ground there), and her 'story'. If you want to lump the press in with the 'left', then maybe you could gin up some real outrage, but I wouldn't accept that, and neither would most people who consider themselves 'left'.

    I've seen you pushing this theme of the 'mean filthy left' treating Palin different from any male politician and frankly I don't believe it. It's starting to border on concern troll territory.

    Is she being treated differently than any other nearly unknown candidate would be? I don't thin so. We're discovering more and more about her record and reign as of Governor of Alaska that is troubling to say the least. Her personal life is being examined, which should be out of bounds, but the repubs have thrown it into the mix in the past twenty years, and it's going to be examined by the media no matter what. Now, should we be treading softly here, if at all? Yes. As some posters and bloggers gone over the line? Probably. Should we judge that as 'the Left' and condemn them? No. They are not the left, anymore than I am. There are blogs I used to read that I no longer bother with because I don't care for what they have to say anymore, but I don't think of them as 'the left'. Actually I think the left has been too polite in it's reaction to McCain/Palin.

    Really, you want to read vile filth, go read the freepers or the Corner for awhile, or better yet, go back and listen to the speeches before Palin's, or listen a little more closely to Palin's speech itself.

    the filth comments were deleted (none / 0) (#144)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 01:52:06 PM EST
    I said yesterday commenters may not insult and name call other blogs and bloggers. If you don't like what you read elsewhere, tell them, don't bring it here and use name-calling.

    Open threads are subject to our comment rules.

    Parent

    Good, but (none / 0) (#188)
    by TomStewart on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 02:17:08 PM EST
    Capt Howdy was talking about the left, as if it was some of massive thought beast, roaming the internets sliming Sarah Palin. I took it to mean more than just a few people here at TalkLeft, even the one I saw before they were deleted, we just a few, usually coming from new posters or reliably cranky ones.

    I think he doth protest too much.

    Parent

    Let's try this again (3.50 / 2) (#189)
    by sas on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 02:17:30 PM EST
    Palin was tough and mean spirited in my view.  I could see why some would not like that in her speech. I did not like that either.  I disagree with her on some issues, and it reminded me of why I have never voted Republican.

    She did hit the nail on the head, as did Guiliani, in describing Obama, however.  

    Obama is still unready and unqualified., regardless of what transpired last night.

    Doube post = Serendipity (3.50 / 2) (#219)
    by IndiDemGirl on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 02:35:50 PM EST
    in this case.  You only get 2 more comments today!

    Parent
    RE: sadly we have nominee who on his record can't (2.00 / 1) (#231)
    by Bornagaindem on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 03:53:26 PM EST
    even compete with small town mayor and 20  month governor of the 4th least populous state in the union. Palin hit it out of the park with her speech- I think she out Obama'd Obama.  

    Lots of nonsense from the media about how they didn't hear anything about how she would govern, what her plans were for when she gets to Washington. Is is just me or since when does the VP have these responsibilities -to set the policy of the administration? And the double standard just gets worse.

    Glad to are back BTD no reason to read this blog if it is just the other two.

    I predict (none / 0) (#3)
    by Faust on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 12:33:11 PM EST
    The initial wave of postive reviews on this speech will collapse into something quite different after McCain's speech tonight and the next several days of polling. I predict no significant bounce or poll shifting for the GOP. Normally I don't make predictions because I only have my gut, but my gut has more nerve endings than my brain so I'm going to go with it.

    The risk of the Palin pick is this:

    If she gets traction of any significance a narrative will solidify on the "brilliance" of the Maverick pick.

    If not, I think it will go the other way, and quite strongly.

    We'll see over the next few days how this pans out.

    BTW, BTD (none / 0) (#10)
    by andgarden on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 12:37:24 PM EST
    the analysis you're quoting from is by Margie Omero, with Momentum Analysis. In all honestly, the polls I've seen from Momentum have been pretty cruddy.

    Oops, maybe from somewhere else (none / 0) (#12)
    by andgarden on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 12:38:40 PM EST
    got a link?

    Parent
    Thanks for the abundant Open Threads (none / 0) (#20)
    by BarnBabe on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 12:45:36 PM EST
    I think we needed a few and they have been filling up so quickly that holding that thought for the next one doesn't work when you are over 50 if you know what I mean.

    The Republicans I know loved the speech. Love her. The Dems say it was not a good speech at all and they do not like her. Kinda follows down the middle. So she appealed to her base but missed her chance for the fence sitters.

    BTD, I woke up this morning hoping (none / 0) (#28)
    by independent voter on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 12:49:08 PM EST
    you would come out of your self-imposed exile and comment on last night. Thank you!
    (If I were Sarah Palin, I would thank God for answering my prayers and having you do His will by posting today/snark)

    Nokia and At&T (none / 0) (#40)
    by flashman on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 12:57:04 PM EST
    Today, I returned to the AT&T store with my two month old Nokia Model 2610.  My complaint was that the phone was constantly turning itself off, even in the middle of conversations.  The counter jockey refused to help me at all, accusing me of trying to return a phone which has been submersed in water.  There are stickers attached to the inside of the phone, which supposedly turn a different color when the phone gets wet.  Evidently, high humidity can turn the color too.  AT&T and Cingular refused to stand behind their products.

    I took the phone home and cleaned some corrosion off the battery.  It seems to be working fine now, no thanks to AT&T's customer service.  Beware of their one-year warrenty scam.

    Aha (none / 0) (#61)
    by eric on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 01:10:51 PM EST
    that explains why that little sticker that used to be white is now red.  But it did turn slightly red before I dunked it in the lake, so I do agree that high humidity probably can trigger it.

    FWIW, I have had pretty good luck with AT&T.  Have you tried to call their national number?

    Parent

    Right (none / 0) (#86)
    by flashman on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 01:22:25 PM EST
    It's a white sticker that turns red.  I didn't call the national number.  The nonservice rep gave me a 800 number for Nokia with the admonishment that they will not replace the phone due to the sticker indicator.  At any rate, I think that cleaning the battery was the solution.  Sadly however, the warranty is no good in case something else happens.

    Parent
    where were Colin Powell and Condy Rice??? (none / 0) (#43)
    by laila on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 12:58:30 PM EST
    You know what I found eerie was the lack of diversity at the RNC convention.  I am not trying to throw out the race card but where the heck were they?  
    There are a few black republican politicians or war hero's that are Repub.  I think the only black guy I saw was a hulking cowboy on the stage playing the music(mind you, which is reminiscent of a history I don't like).  I was concerned, I really was, and still am, for a woman's rights, for minority rights, for everything...I don't know what to make of their absences.  Maybe they were there and I missed them?

    Condi won't say who she is voting for (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by IndiDemGirl on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 01:02:06 PM EST
    and Colin Powell is flirting with supporting Obama.

    Parent
    Michael Steele was there, maybe not last night (none / 0) (#50)
    by GeekLove08 on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 01:02:32 PM EST
    but the fact that we can count on one hand is troubling.

    Parent
    Colin for Obama? (none / 0) (#78)
    by laila on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 01:19:38 PM EST
    This I didn't know, but still surprised that Condy Rice was not there.  Up until now she was one of the most powerful women in the US, so why isn't she there?  I find it odd? Troubling really?  I mean I see nothing wrong with majority white since that is the demographics of the country but I don't think that this crowd is representative at all. So do you think she is a secret Obama supporter?  I also noticed that not once has Palin congratulated Obama on his nomination, no graciousness at all.

    Parent
    Not very young, either (none / 0) (#138)
    by themomcat on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 01:49:03 PM EST
    And it seemed predominantly middle aged to older men. This was just the impression I got from news videos and still shots. I could be wrong. It would be interesting to compare the demographic breakdown between the 2 conventions.


    Parent
    Some pretty prominent part-Native Americans. (none / 0) (#207)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 02:29:29 PM EST
    Like Palin's husband and kids.

    Parent
    It's the economy, stupid...hmm..where I have heard (none / 0) (#51)
    by steviez314 on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 01:03:53 PM EST
    that before?

    And as I write, the Dow Jones is down another 285 points, as the economic s**tstorm approaches Cat 5.

    Looks like it will hit 300 (none / 0) (#192)
    by TomStewart on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 02:21:36 PM EST


    Parent
    Relying on the media (none / 0) (#67)
    by Manuel on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 01:12:57 PM EST
    Somerby shows why we should have no faith that the media will do a good job. The best we can hope for is that they do no harm.  The MSM is easily distracted.  How can we get them back to focusing on the issues and the McCain/Bush connection?  

    prediction (none / 0) (#69)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 01:14:13 PM EST
    McCains speech will be mostly vegetarian.  thats Palins job. which she did rather brilliantly IMO.
    mostly no red meat. maybe a cocktail sausage or two.

    God's plan (none / 0) (#104)
    by laila on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 01:31:03 PM EST
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9H-btXPfhGs
    Apparently it is a God's plan foreign policy approach this year.  I hope I don't lose my brother out there because of "God's plan"...oh and drilling is also God's plan?  
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Q9MMJESywA&NR=1

    Big Surprise, But Still Disappointing (none / 0) (#145)
    by daring grace on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 01:52:38 PM EST
    From Politico:

    "Only Palin missing on Sunday shows

    Joe Biden, Calderone reports, is doing "Meet the Press" Sunday.

    McCain is doing "Face the Nation" and Obama "This Week,"

    Which means that Palin is the only one skipping the elite media circuit that she derided last night."

    So glad you are back, BTD. (none / 0) (#151)
    by lizpolaris on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 01:56:47 PM EST
    We need some objectivity here again.

    In other news... (none / 0) (#153)
    by eric on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 01:58:12 PM EST
    we are essentially living under marshal law here in Minneapolis and St. Paul.  My wife was downright alarmed last night when she left work because there were cops everywhere downtown Minneapolis.  And now we read why:  there was a rock concert!

    This is downtown MINNEAPOLIS, not St. Paul where the convention is.  St. Paul is 10 miles away.

    This is really, really outrageous.   People here in the Twin Cites are very trusting of the police generally, and are pretty deferential to them.  It is clear that this has been turned against us because they have turned this place into a military occupation zone.  I can only hope that all of this will go away after tomorrow, but it I fear that once you give the police this kind of power, they won't give it back.

    I've been wondering... (none / 0) (#206)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 02:28:26 PM EST
    ...how you Twin City residents were holding out.  Hope you haven't got caught in the middle of any of the nasty stuff!

    Who was playing that required such a massive police presense?

    Parent

    Does anyone know? (none / 0) (#179)
    by SomewhatChunky on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 02:11:53 PM EST
    To me, the "90% McCain voted with Bush" argument is effective.  

    Does anyone know if it has substance?  

    My question is what percentage of votes are actually non-partisan routine matters - regular govt business as usual.  Bush rarely vetos, so it seems almost anything passed by Congress he signs.  

    A quick test would be how many times has Kennedy or Obama voted with Bush?  

    Just curious.

    I'm not sure the exact stats (none / 0) (#195)
    by JoeA on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 02:23:27 PM EST
    but the Obama campaign keep using a video clip in their Ads of McCain boasting that he voted with Bush over 90% of the time.

    Parent
    Yes (none / 0) (#186)
    by sas on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 02:15:50 PM EST
    Plin was tough and mean spirited in my view.  I could see why some would not like tha in her speech. I did not like that either.  I disagree with hr on some issues, andi reminded me of why I have ever voted Republican.

    She did hit the nail on the head, as did Guiliani, in describing Obama, however.  

    Obama is still unready and unqualified., regardless of what transpired last night.

    hottest governor (none / 0) (#194)
    by Jlvngstn on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 02:23:17 PM EST
    coldest state....

    What was up with that?

    Don't be so sexist /snark (none / 0) (#200)
    by JoeA on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 02:25:06 PM EST


    Parent
    Todd's comment (none / 0) (#209)
    by indiependy on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 02:29:31 PM EST
    Todd's comment was an off the cuff reaction and does not reflect the numerous focus group results coming out today. In addition to the one BTD mentioned there are 2-3 others that have recently been released with similar results.

    Biden continues his ... (none / 0) (#210)
    by Robot Porter on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 02:29:50 PM EST
    letter-perfect reactions to Palin.  You can watch it here.

    He's doing his job exactly right.

    Obama's reply even better (5.00 / 1) (#215)
    by IndiDemGirl on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 02:33:33 PM EST
    You heard a lot about McCain and a lot about me -- but nothing about you.

    Parent
    I'm going to (none / 0) (#224)
    by Monda on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 02:48:35 PM EST
    shift the discussion a little bit.  Let me just say that her speech is a B for the audience and a C for independents.  
    Having said that, I would like to point out one thing about the Miranda issue.  Let's not take it out of context.  That was mentioned in relations to terrorists and Al Qaida.  
    This story just hit the news the other day.  Three 18 year old girls in a village in Pakistan, who swore to marry for love, and not forced marriage by their parents, were shot and buried alive the other day.  Nobody read their "rights" before shooting them.  Looking at the bigger picture, as a someone who has studied the Middle East and further, who knows about sharia law and its implications etc, I would like people to bear in mind that we are talking about different things here.  
    Not for one moment I would advocate for abuse of power.  However, let's not kid ourselves that fondamentalism does not exist, (whether islamic, christian, etc) and reading the Miranda rights to it cannot be the first priority.  

    I'm a democrat, however, I come from a country who was occupied by the Ottoman Empire for 5 centuries, and I know first hand its consequences.  At the moment, there is a threat of extreme islam growing, albeit in small parts of the society.  It's there, and it's scary.  

    gov. palin wasn't brought (none / 0) (#227)
    by cpinva on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 02:59:34 PM EST
    on board, by the mccain campaign, to attempt to woo disaffected female clinton supporters. she was nominated to shore up mccain's weak support among the right-wing religious. that's who her speech was directed at.

    gov. palin has little intellectually or ideologically in common with your average "PUMA", aside from the fact that she's female. i suspect that isn't sufficient for many clinton supporters to suddenly change to mccain. i know it isn't for me.

    aside from all that, i was underwhelmed by gov. palin; she was trite and cliche'. if you're working on a 10th grade level, maybe she was exciting, i just found her boring. in fairness, i wasn't all that impressed with obama or biden either.

    I just got in, and (none / 0) (#232)
    by NYShooter on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 07:38:20 PM EST
    this may be old news here, but I thought I heard that a new CBS poll, conducted Mon thru Wed, calls it even. It was Obama +8 over the weekend.
    Anybody else?
    If not, I'll check out the source/

    Hey, BTD (none / 0) (#233)
    by dkmich on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 04:56:44 AM EST
    Been awhile and I just wanted to say hello and wish you well.

    Thursday Open Thread 2 | 216 comments (216 topical)