You Are Quite Feeble

America learned a lot more about Joe Biden tonight than they did about Sarah Palin.

I think he looked presidential, and at the same time, like someone who knows about government but didn't forget why government was important to the average person. He came across as having a deep knowledge of foreign policy, and why the McCain administration would not serve the best interests of the middle class.

She sounded much more confident than on any of her YouTube greatest hits. No major gaffes, no stumbles. She gave McCain supporters an opportunity to safely take the focus off of her, which was really the best case scenario.

They both exceeded my expectations.

However, Governor Palin's stock coming into tonight was so low that I have to give her the win. Plenty of people tuned in tonight expecting to see more "In what respect" moments, and were instead treated to a woman who seemed very poised and confident. Considering the worst case scenario, the fact that her answers lacked much depth will be overlooked by most of these casual viewers.

So at least for the moment, she isn't the colossal burden on the ticket she was a few hours ago. Now the focus goes back to the top of the tickets.

Is it sexism that we never asked the following of Governor George W. Bush of Texas back in 2000:

- Would a Bush White House look to make significant shifts in US monetary policy? Why or why not?
- What newspapers or magazines did you read regularly before running for president?
- What are some Supreme Court decisions that you disagree with?

On the other hand, we did get memorable answers asking him about:

- The Clinton Doctrine
- his lack of foreign policy credentials



Whatever happened to this Sarah Palin?

I'd like to go on record as saying Thursday night's much-anticipated VP debate is going to be an absolute snore.

There are only two reasons why it might be entertaining. Either Joe Biden gets in Governor Palin's face, or she continues to parrot some of the same nonsensical tripe we've been treated to for the last couple of weeks.

First off, Biden's not going to do anything interesting.

Modern debates are structured like this: Candidate 1 makes a statement. Then Candidate 2 makes a statement, and subsequently takes the opportunity to rebut details presented in Candidate 1's statement if advantageous to do so. Candidate 1 might then be allowed time to say some more, depending on format. Modern debates suck.

It's true that per the VP debate rules pushed for by McCain's people, opportunities for interaction ('response and discussion periods') between the candidates will be even more limited than usual.

But Governor Palin isn't going to make any concrete points that will merit (or even allow) a response from Senator Biden. With her feeble grasp of both the issues and her own supposed policies, her statements are all going to be a vague cloud of mush.

And she obviously isn't going to specifically discuss any details from Joe Biden's statements. She's going to use his speaking time as a reminder to breathe. Relax. Maybe while the 'Meow Mix' song loops through her head. But she won't be listening to him.

Even putting the rules aside, Senator Biden will be wary of confronting Governor Palin directly. He's going to be instructed by his people to stay out of her way and let her do the damage herself.

And that's what we're all hoping for, too. But nothing's going to happen.

It's true, the interview clips keep getting more and more surreal. Moments like "In what respect, Charlie", "You can actually see Russia", "I'll bring 'em to you" and "I read all newspapers" will likely serve as fond memories for all of us for years to come. (Unless, of course, Sarah Palin becomes President and destroys the planet as an unintended consequence of nuking wolves from the air.)

But by now we've had enough time to dissect her mistakes and pretty clearly diagnose what her issues are. Put simply, she's a Miss Alaska-class bullshitter who suddenly finds herself in a Miss Universe-class bullshitting contest, and she doesn't yet realize she's in over her head.

Most of her embarrassing interview moments were a direct result of either:

a) cramming for a test for which she didn't know the exact questions (e.g. repeating verbatim her Fannie Mae lobbyist answer)
b) probably never having an actual interest in any of these issues (e.g. not knowing what a foreign policy 'Doctrine' is, let alone the Bush one)
c) resorting to buzzwords and general nonsense when pressed on the specifics of an unfamiliar topic (e.g. bailout = health care reform)
c) being too afraid of follow up questions to divulge any information in the first place (e.g. inexplicably refusing to mention the name of a single news publication when pressed repeatedly)

Unfortunately, this debate provides her with the perfect cover to look passable in front of a much larger audience than either of her network news interviews.

Debate topics are generally less specific than those addressed in a one-on-one interview. The moderator will likely avoid any pointed questions having to do with any of the gaffes, disputed claims or controversial statements attributed to either Governor Palin or the McCain campaign, in favor of more general questions intended to invite an open discussion to which both candidates can contribute.

There won't be follow up questions from the moderator on any inaccuracies in Governor Palin's statements. Joe Biden's not going to call those out, either.

All of this means that canned responses from Governor Palin will probably suffice (where they failed in her televised interviews), as long as they appear to touch upon the general policy realm. She won't revert to buzzword nonsense because the initial question will be sufficiently vague and she doesn't have to worry about follow ups. Republicans will rejoice at hearing the complete sentences, fully formed, as practiced.

So what's left for us to watch? Something like this:

Sarah Palin makes a statement, mostly mush that was lifted line for line from a stump speech, and/or a canned line that her handlers have preprogrammed.

Biden follows up with his own unrelated statement, likewise preprogrammed (although in most cases he will actually understand the words coming out of his own mouth).

Rinse, repeat.

"Responses"? No. Debate? Not a chance in hell.

Naturally, I hope to god that I'm wrong. I will have the popcorn out.

haha!

I love that I can simply say "haha" and link to official, undoctored footage of an interview by a major network and it's understood. I don't have to say "haha... listen to what she says at 2:32" or find some obscure 'thought the mic was off' moment.

She is simply in over her head. If the GOP can keep her from becoming a (complete) laughingstock before November 4th, my hat's off to them.

"I thought it was extraordinary how well she played her and how much she looked like her... personally I felt we didn't need the Hillary stuff, I'd like her to go even harder. I want her to decimate this woman. This woman, I can't believe there hasn't been more about it... It's just unbelievable to me this woman is actually running for vice president."

-Chevy Chase (on Tina Fey's portrayal of Sarah Palin)

This is coming from a dead ringer for George W. Bush who let the last eight years go by without a peep!



Hot/Creepy Related News: Apparently Sarah Palin once dressed up as Tina Fey for Halloween.

Sometimes we're too quick to dismiss people we don't know well enough.

This is a person who admittedly has a complete lack of leadership experience at the highest levels, but it says something that the people behind the scenes thought this person could step in and handle the challenge, if needed. They wouldn't have put this person in this position unless they believed that. And we should trust their judgment.

( Read more... )

But an examination of her swift rise and record as mayor of Wasilla and then governor finds that her visceral style and penchant for attacking critics — she sometimes calls local opponents “haters” — contrasts with her carefully crafted public image.

Once Elected, Palin Hired Friends and Lashed Foes (New York Times)

(I realize this was just an excuse to make a terrible joke in the post title, but it's my blog. And actually that is a fascinating article, if you put aside the fact that I now know more about the backroom politics of Wasilla than I ever imagined I could.)



Full transcript ("full excerpts"?) of Governor Palin's three-part ABC interview is here.

Second interview goes to Sean Hannity of Fox News. I am not making this up.

Everyone has seen this by now:


You can watch more of the interview here. This segment by itself is interesting enough... but in context it's a little more telling, because it is that much more obvious that she is giving prepared answers and canned lines when they even slightly work for Charles Gibson's more pointed questions. In the first few seconds of the above video, you can see and hear her defeat in realizing she doesn't have a response for this one.

I have maintained for the past couple of weeks that Sarah Palin is clearly a smart woman and handles herself well. All of us know people who can bullshit with the best of them, and whether you like them or not, they are generally people who make things happen. Clearly this quality has already served her well in her career, and I have no doubt that she actually has a depth of knowledge and sincere interest in the day-to-day business of the state of Alaska. But Palin and other Republicans' efforts to try to compare that experience to the big leagues of possibly becoming President is simply comical to watch.

Even more to the point-- it's not that (in the above video) she was faced with a 'gotcha' question and wasn't ready for it. It's the fact that she clearly didn't recognize a term that she should have, unless she does not and has not had even a passing interest in the foreign policy decisions of this country for the last several years.

A well-written perspective on why this disconnect is so disturbing in a Vice Presidential candidate:

What Sarah Palin revealed is that she has not been interested enough in world affairs to become minimally conversant with the issues. Many people in our great land might have difficulty defining the "Bush Doctrine" exactly. But not to recognize the name, as obviously was the case for Palin, indicates not a failure of last-minute cramming but a lack of attention to any foreign-policy discussion whatsoever in the last seven years.

In the context of such stunning incompetence, it is maddening and downright insulting that this woman was proffered to the American people as ready to pick up where Hillary Clinton left off.

Of all the hysterical hand-wringing the McCain campaign has been doing in the last couple of weeks, playing up an assumed undercurrent of sexism anytime Palin is criticized has been the most annoying.

Which is more sexist:

1) Holding Palin to the same standards as any man, and pointing out that she would never be in this position if we were talking about a Mr. Sam Palin, 20 months as governor of Alaska, immediately after serving as mayor of a town of 6,000.

2) Assuming that the women of America were excited about Hillary Clinton mostly because she has a vagina. Taking note of an accomplished and qualified woman's unprecedented march right up to the threshold of the highest office in the land... and then pretending that a bible-thumping hockey mom with a journalism degree might prove an acceptable surrogate.

I was out and about today and happened to witness firsthand the effect that Sarah Palin is already having on your average (i.e. witless) American voter. In this case, a woman who was a rabid Hillary supporter a few months ago, and in most respects a perfectly intelligent lady. She is firmly committed to voting McCain/Palin after last night's speech. I tried to engage her as much as possible without either of us flying off the handle, and my conclusion was that it was just about 50% personal, seething rage at Obama and 50% ebullience at seeing a woman get up on stage in that context and pull no punches.

I've taken solace for the past several days in the hope that people will see the smoke and mirrors for what they are. But... jesus, does that seem like a logical thing to hope for?

I have more to say on this, but I'm trying to get to sleep by 4 AM.





BWAHAHAHAHhahahahahahahah. Good for him.

http://www.puma08.com/

After a full primary season of perfectly executed graphical design flourishes (Multi-faceted and attractive 'O' logo. Misty web design motif. Consistent and tasteful use of the 'Gotham' font.), Obama '08 finally booted one.



What. The. Crap.

I can't write with any credibility on how Tim Russert was a good man.

Of course he must have been. Those of us who pay some attention know that family and his relationship with his father and his son meant more to him than life itself. He wore his love for his hometown of Buffalo on his sleeve. He seemed, through our televisions, to be a person of genuine warmth and enthusiasm... an oddity among characters and peers who seemed to excel at either faking those same qualities or revelling in their decided lack of them.

But what do I know, I'm just the guy with a remote control and an opinion.

Aside from that most immediate tragedy; the loss of the man that is being felt so profoundly by his colleagues, competition, political figures on both sides of the aisle, and certainly viewers, there is an even more depressing side to this development.

( Read more... )

"You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing’s replaced them... And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not... And it’s not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or antitrade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."

Well, that was a stupid thing to say.

If you're wondering how Senator Obama could make these comments in front of the very Pennsylvanians who he was making these sweeping generalizations about... he did not. He made them at a fundraiser in San Francisco a week ago, in front of well-heeled California Democrats.

The fallout has actually been kinder to Obama in the analysis than it might have been. The media focus has largely come down on the word "bitter"... and while Obama apologists might concede that it wasn't the best word to use, they continue to defend (as with each of his recent gaffes) the sentiment behind it. Obama himself actually repeated the B-word, with purpose, in a stump speech a few days ago. And if it had initially only been used that way; to show the disillusionment of the average voter, it would have been ill-advised but ultimately understandable.

Unfortunately, in its original context there is a more disturbing undertone.

He made these remarks while trying to explain why Hillary has carried unwavering support from the "blue collar" set, especially in the context of the time and money spent in Pennsylvania with little to no momentum in that demographic. Obama is essentially saying, "The people who aren't voting for me blame the country for their problems, and are clinging to guns or religion or nationalism or xenophobia to make themselves feel better. It's not possible that these individuals could logically come to a conclusion of supporting Hillary; so all of her blue-collar supporters must be rednecks with lingering issues, and it's going to be tough for me to get through to them."

Basically, Barack Obama thinks Pennsylvania is full of guys like this.

In that context, McCain's charges of "breathtaking" elitism and condescension actually don't sound that hysterical.

So the short-term fallout (and keeping in mind that Pennsylvania votes on April 22nd):

Hillary Clinton is suddenly the candidate of optimism and hope. Barack Obama is making speeches in front of people he considers to be empty and bitter.

Also, Obama becomes elitist and hopelessly out-of-touch with the common man. (Quite a reversal when the opposing candidate has just released her Trump-esque tax returns.)

There's a report that says Jimmy Carter and Al Gore are planning to ask Hillary to step down for the good of the party. I wonder if it's true, and I wonder if she would listen.



The return of The Office on Thursday was terrific. Unfortunately, I can't get Hunter's brain-meltingly awful song out of my head. (Was anyone else waiting for a line in the lyrics that ended with 'Jan'?)



Friday Night Lights -

"Friday Night Lights" (season 1, at least) -

Go figure.

You know, John McCain wants to continue a war in Iraq perhaps as long as 100 years.

-Barack Obama. (Multiple times. Hillary says it too.)

It all started when Senator McCain was asked a question regarding a statement by George Bush that troops might be in Iraq for the next 50 years. This is what McCain said, and I believe that this is what he meant:

Maybe 100 [years]. We've been in Japan for 60 years, South Korea for 50 years or so. That'd be fine with me, as long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed, it's fine with me and I hope it would be fine with you if we maintain a presence in a very volatile part of the world where al Qaeda is training, recruiting, equipping and motivating people every single day.

As unstable as the region is, especially in the context of Iraq's ethnic makeup (which will always seem ready to dissolve into further infighting), it's completely understandable to posit a scenario in which the war draws down but a much smaller force is kept behind in peacetime. As we currently have in many places around the world.

I'm not arguing that this is the way things need to unfold, I'm simply saying that McCain's hypothetical is more than reasonable.

I find it hard to believe that Senator Obama actually thinks McCain meant we should be fine with 95 more years of the current levels of violence. There are plenty of things to criticize John McCain about, but replaying a "10,000 years" soundbite and misstating his position is not very Obama-like, is it?

"Once, I believe, she was motivated by good intentions and even now, I don't think she believes she is advancing anything but the common good. But she can never believe that her interests and the common good could ever be in conflict, which is to say, she has lost a moral compass beyond narcissism. That is sad in a human being and we are all prey to it. But in a potential president, it is very dangerous. And she has so long excused all her moral transgressions by the fact that her foes must always be worse (yes, for [Hillary spokesperson Howard] Wolfson, who has long internalized the sociopathy of the Clintons, even Obama is Ken Starr to her), she has long lost the ability to ask herself, deep down, who she really is any more. She is a lost and dangerous soul, as her husband still is. She is, in my view, unfit to be president. Truly, deeply unfit. And at some point, someone in the Democratic party has to take her aside and tell her the damage she is doing to herself, her party and her country is enough."

- Andrew Sullivan

Which President does that first part remind you of? Freedom on the march, anyone? Granted, a drunk-with-power Hillary would probably lead to generally warmer and fuzzier results than Bush, but why deal with another chief executive who feels she is beyond reproach when there is an alternative?

It's not just about the 'sniper fire' comments... it's less about the literal point she was trying to make at the time (getting involved in dangerous situations overseas) and more about the idea that she will say whatever she needs to say, true or not, without giving it a second thought. And then repeat the fabrication multiple times because she has made it part of her message, and she believes her message is true.

Many of these mud-slinging firestorms are silly when examined individually, but overall you do get a clearer picture if you honestly consider a) the factual events that started things and b) how the candidate reacted. Having declared my support for Obama a while ago, I am wary of seeing everything through rose-colored glasses at this point. But it seems to me that Hillary is mostly accused of things unethical politicians do (e.g. make detailed stories up to sound more experienced), and responds to the charges in unsatisfying ways ("I was sleep-deprived and misspoke for the first time in 12 years").

Meanwhile, Obama is accused of things that probably apply to lots of people but don't become issues until you're a presidential candidate (e.g. his pastor doesn't speak for him). But responds in a courageous way, even when he shouldn't have to ("OK, let's talk about it. Hey, there are racist people in this country that are part of our families!").

Several weeks ago, I wrote that "it's not you, Hillary. It's us." The longer she stays in this thing and exposes herself as just another politician, the more absurd that statement looks.



Rather than just being an empty doomsday prediction, signs are already there that the prolonged contest is going to tear the Democratic party apart. Hillary has an unreasonably slim chance of reclaiming the popular vote or pledged delegate lead before the convention, so clearly she's going to stick around as long as there's a mere sliver of hope left. Whether it's relying solely on superdelegates, or a scorched earth policy of actively pursuing the other candidate's pledged delegates. And all of that only ends in August.

Where do these polls head by then without one Democratic candidate to give a consistent party message? With five months ahead of Clinton vs Obama rhetoric accompanied by minimal discussion about issues facing the country, would you blame independent voters for taking a serious look at McCain? And how effective can any general election campaign be with two months to get its message out?

Someone please tell me I'm overreacting and it's not as bad as it seems.

I wish I could be a Hillary supporter.

Maybe it's too much time spent hanging around Wellesley grads, but there's absolutely a part of me that would love to see Hillary in the White House... almost regardless of her personal politics. I'm a borderline feminist when it comes to these barriers to gender equality that still persist, but I don't buy that Hillary Clinton is the one to break through this particular ceiling just yet.

It would be ridiculous of me to question her intelligence, or her commitment to public service. Or the impact she made as a First Lady, traveling to 79 countries and playing a role in the unprecedented international support the United States enjoyed during Bill's term. Yet I do think her Washington experience (as both a First Lady and senator) leaves something to be desired, in terms of electability and aspects of her platform. And, frankly, she sets herself up for this examination when she continually touts an advantage of being prepared 'on Day 1'.

( her record )

At the end of the day, I'm not sure that an Obama administration would be practically very different from a Hillary administration. It's just kind of hard to ignore that Obama has a lot less baggage, while Hillary spends an inordinate amount of time defending herself. And maybe it's not her fault.

So let's be clear about it-- it's not you, Hillary. It's us.

( continued... )

A few years ago after it became clear that Bush had won a second term, I wrote, in disappointment:

i never said it was the end of the world. i have faith that America always figures itself out eventually. I just never wanted to live in the part that went so wrong.

We've never seen such gross incompetence and disregard for the public trust by an administration, and at every possible level:

( a quick recap )

So here's my problem. Lots of people sat by and watched and acquiesced and put on their flag pins while much of this went on for the last seven years.

Here's something else I wrote back then:

i've read about times where the American people were happy that their president was a policymaker and a leader. i'm finding it hard to imagine someone new coming in and inspiring that optimism again.

I can choose one of three things to say with my vote:

( continued... )

Mike: O Matt: HUCK! Matt: i mean... uh Matt: O, yes Mike: i wish there were a headline that read "Iowa voters voice preference for BO" Mike: you know, 'cause those are his initials Mike: but it also-- Mike: whatever, it's early here Matt: i wish mike huckabee's campaign people did t-shirts that said I HEART HUCKABEE'S on the front and ...TOUGH STAND ON ILLEGALS on the back Mike: haha Mike: what type of bizarre administration appointment is chuck norris going to get if he wins? Matt: ? Matt: secretary of education, obviously Matt: cause he'll learn you some manners if you don't fall in line Mike: you know Mike: if the cylons attack us, that means he'll become president Mike: that's one of the few political landscapes where i would welcome the idea

Eight Months Ago, In an (Only Slightly) Alternate Universe

MODERATOR: I’m curious, is there anybody on the stage that does not agree -- believe in evolution?

(Senator Brownback, Mr. Huckabee, Representative Tancredo raise their hands.)

HUCKABEE: Can I -- can I just respond to that?

MODERATOR: 30 seconds.

HUCKABEE: There is no theory of evolution. Just a list of creatures Chuck Norris allows to live.

I am swooning over just about everything this guy has to say. (Aside from "let the 2nd amendment take care of airport security"). Congressman Paul is a true Jeffersonian, and modern Republicans consider him a punchline. Incredible.

Running for president is a very, very difficult thing. I'm not even talking about the money or the logistics or planning that is involved in launching a nationwide campaign. Just the incredible tightrope act that modern politicians are forced to do from the second they step out their front doors in the morning.

I have to admire Romney's composure here. If he, if anyone, gets ambushed by someone who doesn't understand an issue, there is no way to have a reasonable discussion without creating a scene and making oneself look like a bully. Just another in a long line of examples of why politics is a lot of things, but it certainly isn't fair.

Whoever messes up the least will win. Messages don't matter.