In many ways, electoral politics is like any other career: you enter as a grunt and "pay your dues" for many years before you eventually have the chance at the big-fish posts. Leaders around the world have made their way in this manner, slowly gaining credibility inside and outside the political establishments within which they reside. Boxes need to be checked and experience accrued, with the issues of security, economy, and social understanding at the top.
In Germany, Chancellor Angela Merkel was elected in 1990 to serve as a backbencher for the Christian Democrats, before in 1994 becoming Minister of Environment, and CDU opposition party chair in 2000. She spent five years in this leadership post before finally becoming chancellor following the 2005 federal elections. Similarly, Gordon Brown has spent more than 25 years as a MP from the Scottish council area (county) of Fife, rising from opposition spokesperson on trade issues to Chancellor of the Exchequer, before becoming PM in 2007.
In the U.S., classic examples of the slow-but-steady pol include Sen. Ben Cardin (D-MD), Sen. Roger Wicker (R-MS), who both served for many years in their respective state houses and in the U.S. House of Representatives before getting an opening to run for the Senate.
Two politicians in the US in recent years have been able to buck this trend, however, through the time-tried method of aggressive and opportunistic carpe diem. Rather than methodically trudging through the ranks, both Barack Obama and Sarah Palin managed to catapult themselves ahead at a rapid, almost precipitous, pace. The former leapt from the Illinois State to the White House in just four years, after less than one term in U.S. Senate, while the latter transformed from small-town Wasilla, AK mayor in 2002 to vice-presidential hopeful in 2008, with a half-term stopover as Governor of Alaska.
Palin's fascinating, if not bizarre, decision to step down as Governor on Friday after a bruising post-election period, therefore, might indicate that her star has risen to its peak. The decision seemed to be made out of frustration with the overwhelming attention on her family, a thirst for something sexier than the post of top executive Alaskan, mixed with a twist of characteristically impulsive ("you can't blink") day-seizing. While Palin's public towel-throwing has signalled a capitulation, if temporary, to the allegations against her, including unethical behavior and incompetance, perhaps the more interesting question is why her rapid-rising opponent has managed not to stumble in the same fashion.
Since he annouced his intention to run for President in early 2007, Obama was dogged by allegations that his thin national public record, including no executive experience at any level, overly intellectual style of argumentation, and Chicago Democratic machine roots would bring him down. Rather than hamper his administration, however, questions of experience, qualification and fitness for office almost completely dissolved following the election. Today, only wing-nut argumentation has persisted, such as the conspiracy theories about Obama's secret birth in Kenya, rather than Hawaii as his birth certificate verifies.
Perhaps this is in part the winner's spoils, with the benefit of the doubt going with the White House turf. Since Obama managed to win with a resounding 365 electoral votes, and has a amassed a formidable and experienced team, the proof will be in the pudding. Palin, however, has continued to play a starring role in the "what if" game of the 2008 election, with highly divergent tales of her, alternatively as a charismatic ticket boost and as a moronic non-team player.
Nonetheless, the key for Obama has been a combination of shark-like opportunism, combined with a level of brand and image control that puts GM and Microsoft to shame. Palin, while a master of the first component, never has been able to discipline her messaging in a way that clearly defines her in a positive and transformational light, as testified to by Friday's rambling resignation. It is likely that a minor reboot is in store, with Palin reemerging to focus at the national level to rebuild her reputation and financial resources, with an eye towards better branding whether 2012 is the diem she wants to grab.
---
Renard Sexton is FiveThirtyEight's international columnist and is based in Geneva, Switzerland. He can be contacted at sexton538@gmail.com
7.05.2009
Obama & Palin: Carpe Diem
@ 6:53 AM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
164 comments
No offense, but more than a minor reboot will be needed to repair the political damage. She wanted to be a TV sportscaster originally, I think she is destined to be the female Glenn Beck throwing out wacky red meat to her fans.
Another point is that Obama has been able to handle his situations with obvious intelligence and political deftness. During the campaign, he was able to sidestep some waves that threatened to swamp his ship. Palin has not: She's just tried to re-define the new orientation of her boat as being "up right".
You can't really use carpe diem as a noun. It would be like saying sache faire instead of savoir faire.
You need something like carpendum diei, or at a stretch raptio diei.
Apologies for this pointless, irrelevant and probably inaccurate post.
As a remarkably disciplined and intelligent person, Obama seized many many days. First through education with prep school, Columbia and Harvard Law and years of teaching/learning in front of all those U Chicago students, and in many other ways... keeping friends, having a tremendous eye for talent, marrying michelle, etc etc. He is Ted Williams and Sandy Koufax in one person. Palin has great gifts, but her lack of discipline and the long list of people who used to be her supporters who arent anymore will be her undoing... except perhaps as a succcessful Fox commenter/rubber chicken circuit millionaire.
Not only is this post pointless, but it is quite poorly written. I expect more from this wonderful blog.
Victor is correct. There are more than a few problems with this post.
This paragraph in particular is disturbing:
Palin's fascinating, if not bizarre, decision to step down as Governor on Friday after a bruising post-election period, therefore, might indicate that her star has risen to its peak. The decision seemed to be made out of frustration with the overwhelming attention on her family, a thirst for something sexier than the post of top executive Alaskan, mixed with a twist of characteristically impulsive ("you can't blink") day-seizing. While Palin's public towel-throwing has signalled a capitulation, if temporary, to the allegations against her, including unethical behavior and incompetance, perhaps the more interesting question is why her rapid-rising opponent has managed not to stumble in the same fashion.
If it indicates that her star has "risen to it's peak", then why is the decision made "out of a thirst for something sexier" than her current position?
And what exactly about her action "signalled a capitulation to the allegations against her, including unethical behavior and incompetance"? In fact, the allegations of unethical behavior have all been dismissed, and the only thing "incompetant" I see is this post, and it's atrocious spelling and grammar.
"[P]erhaps the more interesting question is why her rapid-rising opponent has managed not to stumble in the same fashion". Or perhaps the more interesting question is why the author thinks she has stumbled at all.
Is there some way I can subscribe to just Nate's posts? I'm increasingly disinterested in what the "guest authors" on this blog have to say. If I wanted to read DKos, HuffPo, or OpenLeft, I would read them (and in fact, I often do). I come here for Nate's numerical analysis and breakdown of polls. Nothing more. Nothing less. If the signal-to-noise ratio on this blog keeps degenerating, I will have to find some other way to get this kind of analysis.
grr...I complain about grammar and then I have an "it's" that should be an "its".
What goes around comes around.
I don't think you can say Palin "catapaulted herself" into the nation spotlight. She was catapaulted by McCain's selection of her. If not for that, I find it inconceivable that she would have been know at all outside of Alaska.
But I've been known to be wrong before. :)
Polt,
In the same way you could say that without Obama's speech at the 2004 DNC, no one would know who he was.
I can forgive this part of the article. They both took advantage of opportunities when they came along. That's what "carpe diem" means. Obama could've declined the invitation to speak. In the same way, Palin could've said no to McCain.
As for being unknown outside of AK, well, that's probably true. I knew of her, as did some others who follow this sort of thing. But, Joe SixPack (or should I say "Joe the Plumber"?) had no clue who she was, you're correct.
The American system has always thrown up politicians who haven't "served their apprenticeship" in the way European politicians can typically expect to. Even at the time of World War 1, President Wilson scoffed at the 'ancient leadership' Europe had. Even the oldest American Presidents have not had the same sense of apprenticeship, at least in a political arena. Eisenhower came from the military, Reagan had only 2 terms as Governor of California as any kind of elected experience. Compare that to say Winston Churchill, who had had a lifetime of political experience before arriving in Downing street. (Never mind 25 years in Parliament, Churchill had been in and out of government positions for 30 years or so before he became Prime Minister).
Some of this is due to the way America elects its President. People are voting for a leader, not for a party. (Typically at least, I am sure there are exceptions). I think also though on the reverse of that, with European leaders, typically, serving shorter times in office, it means that a leader can be tailored to the moment more. In American politics it tends to be that the man makes the moment more.
It is all about the money...
It isn't about "something sexier," it is about something more lucrative. "sexy" is only applicable if it makes her richer.
The Palins don't care about governing per se; they care about money. The "carpe diem" should be "carpe aurum", seize the gold.
Here is the situation: After the recent unfavorable article on her, and because Obama is rising, the people's obsession with Palin is fading. They want to cash in on her fame, but it is a rapidly depreciating asset.
This resignation is a way to temporarily pump up her fame quotient and give her the ooomph she needs to vault into a permanent FOX news seat; a la Joe Scarborough on MSNBC.
The brutal facts of celebrity-hood in the USA is the need for relentless exposure; our attention span barely gets us through the summer rerun season for TV series. If Palin doesn't start getting on TV a lot her fame will fade, and they will have let rot literally tens of millions of dollars worth of exposure.
People like Chris Matthews and Keith Olbermann and Rush Limbaugh make millions every year. The Palins need to strike while the iron is hot; and the iron in fact is cooling rapidly.
She has drawing power now but TV executives are very familiar with the steep curve on which fame deteriorates. Olbermann is the top-rated politics show on MSNBC, if he quit tomorrow than a year from now he would hardly be missed; much like Tim Russert.
So maybe they told her that, or maybe they figured it out themselves. But what they want is cash in the form of book deals, TV hosting gigs, guest gigs, TV specials, speaking engagements, you name it. These are self-serving lying hypocrites and it all comes down to cash, estates, cars, servants, and a life of leisure in which you get paid a river of money for saying whatever you want off the top of your head, and are never held to account for lying because it is all just entertainment. Plus you can demand insane perks like $5000 tailored silk suits for your husband and it is all perfectly legal.
That is the life, and that is why she has to quit and get started.
@Polt - It is possible that Palin came to national attention when she gave her position speech vilifying Stevens, Murkowski and Young for their excessive government spending. Alaska is one of the country's wealthiest states and Palin said said that the pork-barrel politics that have been the lifeblood of one of the most politically powerful congressional delegations were unnecessary and perhaps even counter-productive. That took a great deal of political moxie in a Party that takes significant effort to mandate uniformity of opinion from the top-down. Slapping down that particular congressional cabal, especially over this issue, was a long needed move and did indeed take political courage to do. What we did not know at that time is that her own politics were not based on that limited-government conservatism of her speech but instead on personal animosity. She was the outsider trying to break in and resented the "old dogs" who had been in the limelight for over four decades. If we, and the Republican Party leadership, had fully realized that then it is unlikely she would have ever been anything more than a disgruntled governor of a small-population state.
I come here for quality analysis. If I had wanted to read another one sided opinion piece I can certainly find that on Huffpo or MSNBC.
That brings me to my point. The reason that Obama has been able to escape any scathing commentary is that he manipulates, and controls the media as exampled by the recent Chip Reid Helen Thomas blow up over how he controlled the town hall meeting. Furthermore, Palin and her family have been viciously attacked, and ridiculed by the state run media. To try and say that Palin's star has risen and is fading is pointless. Everyone is up in arms that she resigned her position. Biden,Obama, Clinton resigned there positions in the Senate before there terms were finished. What gives us the right to question and portray Palin as being weak and a quitter.
Stick to the numbers and analysis and layoff the opinion pieces. It will be the downfall of this wonderful website.
There is something very Machiavellian about the rise of Sarah Palin, and this maneuver strikes me as just one more manifestation in search of the ultimate prize. I believe she is going to start an organization outside the Republican mainstream with herself as the central figure--a manufactured personality cult, if you will--and attempt to use it to hijack the GOP nomination in three years. As someone pointed out earlier, it's all about Sarah. She couldn't do this cooped up in Juneau; the people who really count--the American electorate--are her target, and being governor of Alaska was just in the way.
Mindless piffle - what happened to the quality of perspective here Nate?
As if Palin being plucked like a little flower by McCain is comparable to Obama working his way up by his talent and ability stretches reality beyond understanding.
As if?
Palin may have Obama like charisma but she lack Obama like discipline. Without that discipline she won't go very far. Even people who admitted Obama wasn't as experienced as some of the other polls running valued his discipline, his intelligence, and his judgment. These three things can often be a substitute for experience. Palin doesn't project; discipline (dropping big news suddenly), intelligence (there were excessive exclamation points, ums, randomly capitalized and quotationed mark words in her OFFICIAL transcript), and her judgment is to say the lease "questionable". Combine that with her thin skinned personality and you really have to wonder how far this train wreck will go before the GOP pulls the plug. I am buying plenty of popcorn to watch this horror flick.
I'm afraid it has a lot more to do with the fact that Obama is extremely intelligent and soaked up all his experience, political, educational and organizational, like a sponge, surrounded himself with equally intelligent and focused people and presented it as a complete package as opposed to Palin who was plucked from a pretty backwater mess because of her up front conservative appeal and shock factor, continues to display complete incoherence, which sunk McCain's bid and blythely continue to believe there is some larger faction of the public that will think she is some kind of polar wunderkind despite continued ineptness and displays of an inability to finish anything (college, mayorship, governorship) of epic proportions as "seizing the day". No comparison.
One of the big differences between the European rise slowly to the top model aka Peterson Principle and the American model is that the American model isn't controlled by party insiders.
Obama wasn't the choice of the Democratic Party leadership. No, they would have preferred Hillary Clinton who had been heavily involved in politics since her husband started the DCC. Even then, she was a rather politically active first lady, then a Senator before she even thought of running. She has shown herself to be tough, confident, smart, and knowledgeable.
Most of the Democratic leadership looked at Obama as smart, capable, but needs more work. They would have loved to see him as a Senator longer, and then see him take a post in a Clinton administration -- maybe even as veep.
However, we don't let party leaders choose our presidents anymore. Instead, we have a grueling string of primaries that test your mettle and political skills. Obama ran through fifty separate elections before he ran for president. That's a lot of experience.
In those fifty primaries, Obama grew as a campaigner. His first test was the issue with Reverend Wright. He was being tarred with the accusation that he supported Reverend Wright's rather anti-American statements because he belonged to Reverend Wright's church.
Obama handled it grace. His speech (which I think will be considered one of the best campaign speeches in American history) answered the accusation with grace and intelligence. He explained his view, why Reverend Wright would say such things, and why we should be able to separate out his views from Reverend Wright's views.
Obama went against one of the best organized opponents who happened to have raised the second most amount of money ever for a presidential run and after fifty grueling primaries, won.
There are many differences between Palin and Obama. Obama is much more intellectually curious and is anxious to hear and understand other view points. He wants you to argue with him and win. Palin is the opposite. She attacks anyone who might have a different view point and allows no dissent in her administration. You're either for her or against her.
The really big difference is how they stand up under pressure. I look at Obama in a hostile environment and I think "Damn, how does he remain so cool under fire?". He just doesn't seemed to ever get fazed by anything. When Palin is under pressure, however, she pouts, whines, complains, and even will storm out.
Palin will be around for quite a while, but I don't think she'll be as powerful as she wants to be. She's treading on the same supporters as Huckabee, and I believe Huckabee is a better politician.
Huckabee can go on the Daily Show, spar with Jon Stewart about his views on issues, support his stand, and get Stewart and the entire audience to admire him as a statesman. Palin will never be able to do that.
As a liberal Democrat, I have no worry about Palin. It's Huckabee who scares me. (Dammit! Why is he so nice and lovable!)
M. Sexton:
Please find another blog than 538 for your dubious thoughts - and simultaneously raise the average IQ of both blogs.
No offense, but I found this post unimaginative. It is obvious to a duck that any successful career must be a combination of talent and experience. Palin and Obama have talent (yes I think she is a telented rabble rouser) but this is not a distinctly american trait - e. g. the meteoric rise of Vladimir Putin.
I would not put Ben Cardin and Roger Wicker in the same category of "slow but steady pols" who rose through the ranks.
Wicker was appointed to the Senate first before he was first elected to that office. That gave him a big leg up on his opponent, former governor Ronnie Musgrove. Had those two faced off head to head in a battle for an open seat, the race would have been closer.
Cardin ran for an open seat in Maryland and won it against Lt. Governor Michael Steele. Cardin had 30 years of prior elective office experience, Wicker had only 21 years.
To me, Senator Chuck Schumer (New York) had a tougher road to the Senate than Wicker did, having served 24 years in the State Assembly and U.S. House before winning a 3-way primary and defeating 3-term incumbent senator Al D'Amato in the general election.
Senator Debbie Stabenow (Michigan) climbed through the ranks, too, having served 26 years in local legislature, state house, state senate, and U.S. House before becoming a U.S. Senator in 2001 by beating an incumbent senator, Spencer Abraham.
@Dopper:
You ever heard Obama attempt to speak without a teleprompter? There's an "um", "ah", or "uh" after every word.
Obama sounds intelligent when his teleprompter tells him what to say because he has great skills as an orator. Not so much when he's on his own.
@ GROG (all caps for cheap, watered down rum):
Obama may speak in a halting (indeed, irritating) manner, but he can deliver AND write one hell of a speech.
I'm rather more impressed with the mind that can fashion the speech, aren't you? No, I guess not. You're cheap, watered down rum.
Some of this has been said in different ways by other posters, but the fact that the US has open primaries means that there is no one path to the top spots. You don't need to have held a state legislative position to run for Congress. You don't need to be a Governor or U.S. Represenative to run for the Senate. You don't need much experience as a Governor or Senator to run for President.
In most parliamentary systems, the leadership is chosen (at least in part) by the members of parliament. As such, most leaders tend to have worked their way from back bencher to junior positions in the government (or equivalent positions as opposition spokespersons) to cabinet level positions -- often holding portfolios in several different areas over the course of their rise.
In both systems, you have to seize your opportunities when they arise. The difference is that in the US system that opportunity tends to be running on your own before your "turn" whereas in other countries that opportunity is choosing the right person to ally with on the way up.
Actually Grog, you poor idiotic, neocon moron, most highly intelligent people have that um and uh issue due to the fact that their mind usually moves faster than their mouth can accommodate. It's been actually proven through teaching studies. In you case, you get out all your meaningless stupidity no one would ever take seriously all at once, so congrats
@GROG your actually making my case. That's the difference between live talking and an official transcript that you yourself post. Have you ever read a resume that someone doesn't proof read? Palin transcript was like that. Gov. Palin capitalized words at random - whole words, like "TO," "HELP," and "AND," and the first letter of "Troops." She put her son's name in quotations marks. Why? Who knows. She writes, "I promised efficiencies and effectiveness!?" Was she exclaiming or questioning? I get it: both! I don't even know what to make of a sentence that reads:
*((Gotta put First Things First))*
Basically this was the worlds longest political text message! If Mark Sanford basically went from sounding like a 13 year old love sick boy crying to the nation, to a 13 year old love sick girl reading her diary out loud to the nation. Palin sounds like a 13 year old texting the nation about her personal life.
By the way would you like to see pictures of Ronald Reagan using a teleprompter? I counted dozens from desperate occasions. Or I'm assuming if Saint Reagan "the great communicator" had different clothes on it's from different occasions. But then again since he is a saint who knows if they change their clothes? Here is the link (not that fact change conservative opinions).
http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&q=reagan+teleprompter&um=1&ie=UTF-8&ei=O8dQSsmoH6GJtgeJ1dDtCw&sa=X&oi=image_result_group&ct=title&resnum=4
Now that we have dozens of pictures of Reagan, what was your point about a teleprompter and great leaders?
STepper and John:
I was responding to Dopper's post at 9:51 commenting on Palin's use of "ums".
This is a good illustration of how differently Palin and Obama are treated by liberals.
Palin is criticized for saying "um" in a speech by Dopper. Nothing is said by STepper. I point out that Obama uses "ums", "ahs", and "uhs" quite often when not in front of the telepromter and all hell breaks loose. The anger filled insults fly.
There has been such a drastic difference in the way Palin has been treated by the media compared to Obama. Obama has gotten a free pass on everything, and the media has attempted to destroy Palin.
Palin is the left wing media's worst nightmare. She's charasmatic, intelligent, coservative, and worst of all a woman. Just like Clarence Thomas before her. The liberals hate the fact the he's coservative and black and they did all they could to destroy him. It didn't work with Thomas and it won't work with Palin.
By the way I caught my typos. If this was going to be submitted to the national press, I would have had my wife proof read it. But then I'm probably an elitist who thinks our president (or someone running to fill the job) shouldn't embarrass themselves by posting juvenile speeches. Especially when you post if several hours after you have given it.
GROG - Palin's speeches are masterpieces of illiteracy. Her most recent stream-of-consciousness was total blather. She had time to write the speech. (Unless she is being ridden out of town on a rail.) She receives scorn for such things not because of a double standard but precisely because she is being compared by the same standard as Obama.
The fact that you can't see that, and propose the opposite, shows a lack of intellectual honesty to make a cheap -- and provably false -- point. Hey, maybe you should be Palin's new speechwriter.
Dopper:
Of course all politicians use teleprompters. The point is that Obama has a lot of trouble speaking effectively without one and he uses one now virtually all the time.
There all all kinds of examples of Obama rambling on during speeches, losing his train of thought, being incoherent. I'll spare you the links. You can easily find them yourself.
GROG...you do realize that not everyone who hates Palin and wishes her to go away is a liberal right? You do realize that less than half of the people who voted for Obama would be classified as "liberal" right? You do realize that not being a hard-core conservative does not automatically make one a "liberal" right? It's ignorance like yours that gives Palin credibility.
@GROG I have decided that every time conservatives complain about "liberal bias" I'm going to cry about "racial bias". Why should only conservatives get to be the whiners? I remember when the rightwing had "balls" now they are a bunch of cry babies! Remember when conservatives told minorities to "get over it", "stop complaining that the whole world is against you","that the media is unfair" etc. Well take your own advice.
The media went after Obama, Americans just decided they liked him. Sorry if you can't deal with that, and you have to belly ache about being discriminated on because of your beliefs. Everyone at one time had to go through it, but then again you probably don't like what I said because you realized I'm black!
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
This post dramatically misses the point. The difference between Obama and Palin is that Obama is a highly intelligent person, whereas Palin is virtually incapable of speaking English. Obama has been quite interested in politics and policy for many years and thus accrued knowledge despite not holding elective office, whereas Palin continually demonstrated that she lacked more than the most trivial understanding of the issues facing the holders of the offices she's sought. And Obama has a natural demeanor that endears him to the people who work with him, whereas Palin has habitually alienated allies and handlers with behavior they consistently describe as narcissistic.
In short, the difference is talent.
Here's the "problem" with the blog. Nate's on vacation, op-ed pieces are funning, and the real issue that showed up is ignored. While every one is focused on Palin, no one has submitted a thing on Powell's statement that President Obama is trying to do too many very expensive things at once. At presnt, we have boots on the ground in two "hot wars", semi-clandestine involvement in a third one, troops deployed in a "cold war", major naval deployments in Asia and East Africa, nascent international political crises in East Asia, South Asia, Eastern Europe, a couple of simmering sitations in the Middle Eastobscene amounts of money being spent to preserve the financial markets, the banks, and run one major manufacturing firm, a US Supreme Court nomination that has a whiff of "politically correct" positioning for the committee hearings, high level appointments in many departments still not made, budget issues for the next fiscal year outstanding (Fiscal '10 starts in only three months.) and a national economy that's still in the tank. And let's not forget that 2010 midterm election campaigns, which should kick off onthe traditional Labor Day schedule. That's what is on the president's plate right now. Let's see some analysis of this situation...IMHO, President Obama may well be getting into the same thing that "the Shrub" (thanks to the late Molly Ivens for that nickname) was panned for doing: relying on trusted subordinates to run a lot of things.
There's one reason and one reason only that liberals hate Palin.
Because she's a woman.
There have been a lot of conservative political canditates with the same viewpoints as Palin, but none have angered the left like Palin. None have caused Army's of so called journalist to go on missions to destroy a canditate like they have for Palin.
You guys have similar hatred for Michael Steele. And he's black. Huh. Clarence Thomas. Black. Condi Rice. Black and a woman. Double Wammy.
Dopper said:
The media went after Obama.
You have got to be kidding.
No offense, but it seems the author is being disingenuous (or not thinking even close to critically). A better comparison to Palin is Jesse Ventura (from Brooklyn Park mayor to MN governor to meltdown). Forget about political views for a moment -- Obama is highly intelligent, hard working, organized, and focused. Palin is none of those things. That's obvious to anyone with a modicum of intelligence and observation skills. It doesn't help that people in the media keep suggesting that there is more to Palin that there obviously is. There's no need to keep dumbing down America -- enough of our citizens (and journalists) are dumb enough already.
What I heard listening to her resignation announcement was, "you won't have Sarah Palin to kick around any longer." And continuing with echos of Nixon, we will soon be hearing, "I am not a quitter."
I think that with little (and declining) support in Alaska for her national ambitions, along a real lack of national GOP leadership, this risky move wasn't such a bad plan. She will be a community organizer on a national scale.
First, Obama had much more state-level experience than Palin, in addition to a few years in national politics. Maybe she would have more credibility if she was mayor of Anchorage, but Wasilla just doesn't cut it.
Second, Obama earned his wings when he won the primary. He proved he could handle the game better than Clinton. Palin? This recent move epitomizes how she reacts in the face of a challenge.
She got lucky because McCain got desperate.
@JP: You're right. Palin has no path to improving her career options by staying in Alaska -- except nominally.
So she made a calculation to make the "pass" to the Lt. Gov. at risk to her reputation as an administrator, which in any case is irrelevant to her political ambitions unless she is locked up in jail for something.
Since she had no control over anything happening in Alaska, it was time to move her tent. And get rich and famous in the "lower 48".
It's been decades since I've hated a politician. Their job is to get elected. Obama is the most skilled politician to come onto the scene in more than a generation.
Palin appeals, for the moment, to a crowd larger than the ones to whom people like Paul and Keyes appeal, but her fate will be the same. She's done as an upwardly-mobile elected official. She's probably done as a public official of any type, but there are electoral populations of limited size here and there where she probably could command a majority among the voters during the next couple of years. The Republic, thankfully, has been spared.
GROG wrote:
"Palin is the left wing media's worst nightmare. She's charismatic, intelligent, conservative, and worst of all a woman. Just like Clarence Thomas before her."
(Clarence Thomas is a woman?)
This is just more of the impotent fist-shaking from the Right that the nation has seen since 2006.
Prior to the 2006 election, pundits on the Right made incredibly off-base predictions of Republican gains. One might also look at Karl Rove's history of making bold predictions that never pan out.
The point is that there is no "downside" on the Right for making ridiculously optimistic predictions. It is, in fact, expected of True Believers to do so.
After the 2006 mid-terms, it was years of fist-shaking and promises of vengeance in 2008. Now we have dark scenarios from the Right about the 2010 midterms, in which the GOP will be seen as a saviour from the impending economic Apocalypse.
Most of us here are also familiar with the steady stream of wildly optimistic predictions from wingnuts on this very blog all the way up to the election in November.
Recently, after the "Tea Bag" protests fell a bit short of the hype, we told by the fist-shakers to expect vast protests from an invigorated tea bag movement on July 4 - based mostly on scenarios of the imminent economic collapse that we were supposed to be seeing by now.
Well, that day came and went. How did that work out for the fist-shakers?
So the latest narrative of Palin in 2012 is simply a continuation of the fist-shaking Right's profound inability to escape their own spin. Yes, there was a time when the GOP had its finger on the pulse of public opinion, but that time has passed. The Party, almost as a whole, stopped listening to anyone but their base in 2005.
There are still, however, an absurd number of pundits (and commenters here) who completely overlook the past history of horribly wrong predictions and grant the Right far more credibility than their track record merits.
So now Palin is the Left's "worst nightmare", says the same choir. All of the national polling during the election campaign showing high negatives and "unfavourables" can be dismissed summarily by the wingnuts, because this is a fresh start and the old wisdom no longer applies.
This time for sure, though. Or not.
re:"GROG...There's one reason and one reason only that liberals hate Palin.Because she's a woman."
This is the common canard that the right has used since Palin was selected.
And, as I have told all Palin supporters since then - B.S.!
IF McCain had selected Senators Hutchison, Snowe, or Collins, or ex-Governor Whitman, there would have been little to none of this carping about how unqualified those nominees would have been (there would, of course, have been disagreements on their policies).
The 'just because she's a woman' argument is plain wrong.
Once again bullshit. Obama has betrayed his allies and refused to take risks time and time again, not getting involved until Congress has already neutered bills or letting the walking imbecile that is Harry Reid shephard it. Again and again he has refused to take risks, pandering only to the right.
If you wonder why Obama has not stumbled very much (and make no mistake, with the gay issue he has fallen on his face and tried to bury his head in the ground immediately after) it is because he has not taken the stands he promised to in his campaign.
In short, because he is a lying coward.
I think debating speaking habits really isn't an issue. All politicians use teleprompters now. What's the big deal??
And as for "Saint" Reagan, I'm pretty sure it was his ideology(greed is good) that put us in the mess we're in today.
Biden,Obama, Clinton resigned there positions in the Senate before there terms were finished. What gives us the right to question and portray Palin as being weak and a quitter.
I know this is the internet, but is a little intellectual honesty too much to ask? A politician resigning because he/she has been elected (or in Hillary's case appointed) to a higher office is nowhere close to what Palin did, and you know it.
If around, say, 2006, Obama had abruptly resigned his senate seat in a rambling speech, for a vague and undefined "higher calling", he would have been finished in politics. Conservatives would have ripped him apart as a "quitter", and they would have been right. He'd have been a non-factor in the primaries and Hillary would have coasted to the nomination. So let's stop pretending there's some "double standard" because the media didn't cover Obama resigning from the senate after he'd been elected president(I believe it would have been unconstitutional for him to keep his senate seat AND become president) the same way it's covering Sarah Palin's bizarre resignation as governor.
The Defenders of Sarah Palin have provided quite a bit of levity this morning.
It is nonsense to compare the president and Sarah Palin on anything other than a completely superficial basis. Regardless of um- and er- content of their speeches, when Obama opens his mouth, he says something. Palin merely rattles.
Obama speaks unscripted at press conferences. Palin, after being named the GOP nominee for VP, was hustled offstage and kept from speaking to the press for two weeks while they frantically tried to cram some facts or at least sense into her. Then, when she was finally given two opportunities to answer questions, in interviews that her handlers had arranged to be as minimally taxing as possible, she still fluffed it.
American conservatism, when exercised sensibly, is an honorable perspective; I consider myself a conservative on a great many issues. But conservatism in the US has become so entangled with mindless fealty to clods of such obvious idiocy that it has ceased entirely to be a coherent philosophy. Nobody sees the issues any more—all they see are the bobble heads, of which Sarah Palin’s bobs the most crazily.
@Todd Dugdale:
(Clarence Thomas is a woman?).
When you quote someone, try not to edit entire sentences out of the quote.
This is the whole quote.
Palin is the left wing media's worst nightmare. She's charasmatic, intelligent, coservative, and worst of all a woman. Just like Clarence Thomas before her. The liberals hate the fact the he's coservative and black and they did all they could to destroy him. It didn't work with Thomas and it won't work with Palin..
GROG…
Your arguments are beyond ridiculous. Liberals don’t “hate the fact” of Clarence Thomas’s conservatism (whatever that means), they simply object to a person of such evident low intellect being named to the Supreme Court, which is completely unrelated to his race, gender or political philosophy.
This is borne out by the fact that in the past three years Thomas has not once opened his mouth to either ask a question or participate in discussion on the bench. It’s not from shyness or the fact that he is a sobersides either; Thomas is well known on the social scene as something of a cutup. I expect Supreme Court justices to be probative and thoughtful, and Clarence Thomas is neither.
There's one reason and one reason only that liberals hate Palin.
Because she's a woman.
Really GROG?
You are one of the few conservative posters I whose comments I read, but I may have to reconsider this after that statement.
I do not hate Palin. I do not know her, nor has she done anything to affect my life, or the life of anyone I know. Perhaps if I lived in Alaska I would.
Most liberals view her as a joke. I don't see her as a threat to be elected to an another office, so all of her rambling incoherence and giving press conferences in front of turkeys being slaughtered is just another opportunity for me to make fun of her.
How does the fact that she is a woman come into it? It wasn't like no one made fun of Dan Quayle for being ignorant. Stupid is funny regardless of gender.
Palin upsets liberal to no end because she is a living, breathing refutation of their style of feminism -- which is intellectually bankrupt and seems to stand for nothing any more except increasing the number of abortions, encouraging teenage girls to act like skanks, and pointless whining about the "patriarchy." Sarah Palin represents a different style of woman: the conservative feminist. She's had a successful career, raised a big family, and has done it all without aborting an "inconvenient" child or complaining about men keeping her down. The idea that Sarah Palin could become the new role model for feminists terrifies liberals and it has inspired them to ramp up the barrage of hatred that they typically launch at conservative women, which is extraordinarily venomous to begin with.
Whether it's Sarah Palin, Ann Coulter, Michelle Malkin, or Carrie Prejean, there are few things on earth that liberals hate more than strong, conservative women. (Except strong conservative blacks.)
@MN
have a little hope. One, the only major bill to have been passed so far has been the stimulus bill. Obama by reaching out to the GOP and letting them slap him in the face, he won the PR battle (think Clinton v. Newt and the budget show down that shut down government). Obama has also studied both the Clinton healthcare failure, and the Civil Right bill success story. For all the talk of Johnson marshaling that bill through congress, it was more complex. The house version of the bill didn't get to the senate floor, they had to pass a weaker senate bill, the house then voted on the senate version (to prevent a resubmission filibuster) etc. My point is big complex bills that change major parts of America aren't passed quickly, like a hour "Law and Order" episode.
The major social changes bills will come through after the big economic changes are enacted (Clinton did it the other way and stymied his own 1st term). It is much better from an electoral standpoint to enact and end to DADT and immigration reform after 2010 then before. Obama won't give the right an excuse to turn out their base in a midterm.
Midterms are lower turn affairs, and the bases matter more. Also Latino and other minorities have much lower turnouts in midterms, and this a major part of Obama's base. After the 2010 going into a general election expect these changes. The GOP will worry more about pissing off Latinos when it come to winning the electoral college, instead of midterm races where local issues predominate. DADT is similar (to a much lesser extent) to this, being more important in state wide races, than in a "National election".
Pragamtus wrote:
"But conservatism in the US has become so entangled with mindless fealty to clods of such obvious idiocy that it has ceased entirely to be a coherent philosophy."
I would contend that "conservatism in the U.S." has become a quasi-religion, rather than a political movement or philosophy.
Just on GROG's point on Obama's slightly stalting speaking style in an interview. Thats the sound of someone thinking about an answer instead of just reverting to talking points. Its the sound of a politician giving an honest answer, rather than one programmed by handlers. (I am sure Obama does rehearse some answers, but you do get the feeling he is a guy whose advisers have enough confidence in him to leave their preparation shorter than say Clinton or Dubya's advisers would have done.)
Grog -
I think you miss the point about the critique that was made regarding Palin's speech by Dopper. He was referring to the transcript of her statement that was posted to her official Alaska state webpage. Specifically, he was referring to this sentence - "Um, by the way, sure wish folks could ever, ever understand that we all could learn so much from someone like Trig - I know he needs me, but I need him even more... what a child can offer to set priorities right – that time is precious... the world needs more "Trigs", not fewer."
It is one thing to pause and use vocal fillers in one's casual or unprepared remarks. It is something completely different to place these types of mental stops in one's written remarks. Similarly odd are these excerpts:
- "we can ALL learn from our selfless Troops"
- "*((Gotta put First Things First))*"
- "Nah, only dead fish "go with the flow"."
You harp about others not reading or parsing your comments directly when a big part of your comments are taken up with obsessing about Obama's verbal speech when the statement was made about Palin's written speech.
@GROG
now the hatred of Clinton, John Edwards, Soros, and Harry Reid make sense. They both come from groups (Southern white males, billionaires, Mormons) that you would expect to be conservative. They are all successful, but remain liberals. Therefor by "deductive reasoning" the only reason you hate them is that they are successful liberal white males. There is no other "logical" explanation. Can't be by your logic it's their beliefs combined with their genitalia.
To paraphrase GROG "there are few things on earth that conservatives hate more than strong, liberal white men (except religious wealthy conservative white men).
remember conservatives are victims of psychological projection, so it's always fun to turn their arguments on their heads
Clarence Thomas is charismatic? The hell?
He certainly is not brilliant, but he isn't stupid either (he did graduate from law school and pass the bar) so I won't debate the intelligent part, but charismatic? Again, I say, huh?
By the way, my issue with Clarence Thomas was the same as my issue with Bob Packwood, sexual harassment and abuse of subordinates. And, yes, I have the same issue with Bill Clinton.
GROG, you are now officially in Pete Kent territory.
1. Malkin and Coulter are kooks. Prejean is a fricking beauty queen.
2. Why do us liberals hate Bachmann? Is it her conservative values, or that she is batshit crazy?
3. Strong women don't quit when budgets get tight and the media spotlight is bright honey. They keep going. If Palin's reasons are what she gave, she is a sissy. If she quit to follow the money, then good for her.
Todd Dugdale…
Amen!
:)
GROG…
Why is it that people like you have to frame everything in terms of “hate”? Why would anybody hate Sarah Palin? She is of no consequence, and hatred requires an expenditure of effort I consider unwarranted. If I put myself out for something, I expect some return proportional to my effort, and believe me, Palin isn’t worth it. I don’t hate Sarah Palin, or any other wingnut for that matter, any more than I hate the flies that buzz around when I am trying to barbecue outside. They, like Palin, are merely a nuisance, although I have to admit she can be a lot more entertaining than any fly.
@mikeybackwards:
You are correct. I stand corrected.
@GROG
now the hatred of Clinton, John Edwards, Soros, and Harry Reid makes sense. They all come from groups (Southern white males, billionaires, Mormons) that you would expect to be conservative. They are all successful, but remain liberals. Therefor by "deductive reasoning" the only reason you hate them is that they are successful liberal white males. There is no other "logical" explanation. Can't be by your logic it's their beliefs combined with their genitalia.
To paraphrase GROG "there are few things on earth that conservatives hate more than strong, liberal white men (except religious wealthy conservative white men).
remember conservatives are victims of psychological projection, so it's always fun to turn their arguments on their heads
Sorry I'm laughing so hard at GROG I keep posting too early.
Again Grog (conventiently) ignores the point that there are a number of Republican women in high elected office that would have passed the 'qualified to be President' test that Palin could not pass.
Of course, in Grog's cro-magnon mind, women such as Senators Hutchison, Snowe & Kassebaum, or Governer Whitman are sufficiently conservative.
Dugdale:
And liberalism hasn't become a quasi-religeon?
Should have read that Grog would NOT consider those GOP women conservative enough.
Gawd, how lovely it would be if ineptness with the English language disqualified one from the Presidency: we would not have had Bush. While her speaking style is chalk on the blackboard to those who care about the English language, carping about it only reinforces her claim that the elites are out to get her.
Confusing her problems with the English language with a lack of intelligence further compounds the problem.
GROG, have you gone on a bender? She's charasmatic, she puts on "conservative" airs, and underneath all her buffoonery I expect she has a decent spark of intellegence. But she is a national joke because everything about her personality seems to drive her to be as deep as a puddle. She believes the world works with appearane trumps substance to the point that substance isn't required. But, like all people that go so far down that road, she reveals herself at the first brush with adversity.
The Katie Couric interview was an inevitability, and one that is bound to repeat. Because Sarah Palin in her heart of hearts believes she doesn't need to back the image with substance. Whatever intellegence she has is not brought to bear on doing the actual job she campaigned for. She cuts corners and gets by on that by skating fast.
Which brings us to the key difference between her rise and Obama's...
Nate: ... and Chicago Democratic machine roots would bring him down.
That wasn't a liability because he didn't give into cutting corners, taking the way that is prevalent in an environment ripe with corruption. He won his State Senate seat in an unopposed vote because unlike every single other of his opponents he wasn't sloppy and lazy with his filing paperwork. The "machine" told to take a number, it wasn't his turn on the senoirity list. He told them, with a hardball exclamation point, to get bent. And he beat them by following the rules, backed by hard, dilegent work.
Quote: "While her speaking style is chalk on the blackboard to those who care about the English language, carping about it only reinforces her claim that the elites are out to get her."
A lot of it is the accent and the cadence. When transcripted, all those awkward sentence clauses actually translate to a "higher reading level":
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/03/debate.words/
Articles like that make me feel better about hating high school english class. :-)
@Dwight (and the rest)
There is this notion that Obama such an amazingly brilliant and superior man and politician.
What brilliant thing has he ever done while in office (not running for office.)?
GROG-
Speech in Cairo - briliant, done more for the middle east that three bush wars
Healthcare reform - he is coopting both pharma and the hospitals to be for it via short term solutions while driving long term change
Countries change in view throughout world - Russia is letting us fly through their airspace for first time, re-opening dialogues throughout world
Political analyses like today's post seem to alienate those who want 538 to be all number crunching, all the time. But some of us within Nate's sphere of influence don't mind seeing a little human-interest angle thrown into the mix once in a while.
And Renard is clearly on to something here. Obama and Palin are the leading figures in parallel universes, as polar opposite on every axis as matter and anti-matter, but in some strange indefinable kinda way, adversaries who'll be utterly inseparable in the public discussion leading up to to 2012.
Obama can speak well without a teleprompter. The claim that he can't is typical projection from the right of Bush's inability to give non-prepared speeches or answers to questions.
For a famous example watch the "joe the plumber" video where Obama responds to questions from "joe" for a good two minutes with great clarity.
This teleprompter blather is an attempt to attack one of obama's strengths and to confuse recollections of one of bush's weaknesses.
From a reader’s email to the Daily Dish. I couldn’t agree more!
"Part of Sarah Palin's irresistible appeal to her fundamentalist base is her ability to look at the camera with utter conviction and declare black to be white.
The ability to lie well is a valuable part of the fundamentalist psychology. My son isn't gay, he just hasn't found the right woman! Those rocks aren't 50 million years old, they just look like it as a test of our faith! My sexless marriage isn't foundering, it is filled with God's spirit! The minister isn't molesting little Maria, they're just very close! It isn't torture, it is being tough on terrorists!
Fundamentalists can recognize a truly audacious and talented liar from miles away. Instead of running the other way, as you might expect, they gather around the powerful liar, for they know that their own lies will be respected and protected by a leader who understands the paramount importance of preserving their whole system of denial."
Nate, you may just ned to shut this blog down when you're on vacation. This Sexton fella ain't cutting it.
Obama and Palin are indeed two end of a pole, and this augurs good things for Palin in 2012 unless the economy recovers.
Obama is the liberal elite's wet dream and was, contra David, the choice of Democratic insiders desperate not to see the Clintons dominate the party and American politics for another decade. He was not the choice of the people. Remember primaries like Pennsylvania, Indiana, and Kentucky where he outspent Hillary 4-1 with the media baying for Hillary's blood and still lost?
He's the first such person to reach the White House since at least JFK, and the media will protect him to the end because he is their creation. All this will do is make Palin look better to people in 2012, because both Obama and the media will be thoroughly discredited by his failure. The media hate Palin to the point that jokes about raping her children are considered good sport; all this will do is put them in more agony when she follows in the footstpes of Nixon, Reagan, and Bush II.
I find this entire post ludicrous. Pointing out that Obama and Palin have in common a rapid rise to their present positions and then puzzling over their differences is like observing that a banana and a parakeet are both yellow, and trying to figure out how they're different.
There is no puzzle. One similarity does not imply any others, so there is no need to hunt for differences.
Russ Jackson completely misses the point of the criticisms of Sarah Palin's bailing out of her job. Citing Obama, Biden and Clinton as having "quit" is not a valid comparison: they were selected for higher office, and resigned their previous job to take the position. The relevant Republican equivalents are George W. Bush, and various of his cabinet appointments (Tom Ridge, Tommy Thompson, Dirk Kempthorne, etc.). Nobody criticized them for "quitting" because it was understood that they were moving on to serve the public in a position of greater responsibility.
Sarah Palin is resigning the governorship to do... well, she can't really be specific. That's quitting.
It would have been more respectable if she'd been up front with people. While it's politically incorrect for her to say that she's stepping down because her family's financial future would be better served with her in the private sector, or that she has presidential aspirations that can't be pursued from Alaska, at least she'd score some points for honesty, and probably take fewer shots in the public square as well. But why do that when you can complain about the media. Some pitbull, indeed.
Either she's too inarticulate to say the above (which I suppose wouldn't be a surprise), or she's too self-serving to (no surprises there, either).
Bradford:
What has his speech in Cairo done in the Middle East? It hasn't done anything.
Absolutely nothing has been accomplished on health care reform.
I think Russia has its own self interests in mind.
He's been in the Illinois Senate, US Senate, and US Presidency and that's all you can up with? How did we know he was brilliant before he was elected?
Sigh. Idiots have been demanding that Nate and his co-bloggers refrain from any non-numbers posts since the day this blog was created, and they're no more right today than they were then.
Here's a clue: This blog has never been "just about numbers". Nate has never hidden his political views, the blog has been a success because he has just made it clear that his stats posts are about the stats, and not (like too many blogs and professionals) shaded to produce results in line with his politics.
Opinion and analysis have been here from the beginning, and are not going to be "the downfall of this site."
Demanding that the proprietor of a site not post things you don't want to read is extremely rude. You're not the only one here. No one is forcing you to read everything; if you only want stats posts, just skip over the others. If you can't handle that, Get Your Own Blog.
GROG-
Iranian street protestors have cited his speech, his speech has re-opened a whole part of the world to us.
Healthcare reform is farther down the pike than I ever thought it could go. Something will pass.
Did Russia's self interest change in the last 6 months? Their policy did.
He was the ed. of the Harvard Law Review and on the faculty of one of the best law schools in the country, in addition to his ability to write, think, and build consensus.
GROG: What brilliant thing has he ever done while in office (not running for office.)?
Besides Bradford's examples, just not having imploded, but actually thriving, during these first several months since the election approaches a level of stellar compitence.
Of course the limited number of "brilliance" moments in office that is part of his fast rise. He's constantly been running for office since before you heard of him, and he didn't hold a public office as an "executive" where he could shine as that lone leader. Although as Harvard Law Review would likely count as "executive", and he did a examplar job of juggling the needs of the Review against the expectations that as a that black guy he was going to have an "affirmative action" agenda dominate his term or giving diference to placing minority candidates to positions (which was definitely not the case).
Of course that isn't the GOP story, right? That he's actually done pretty damn well in difficult times, right? So I guess if you buy into that screaming about how it has all been a disaster, well I guess you aren't going to get it. *shrug*
By way of comparison, look at the "achievements" that Palin rattled off from her two years as Governor.
Most, if not all, of those things would have come to pass had she spent the past two years in a coma.
IOW, she stayed out of the way. Brilliant!
So he was elected leader of the free world and his most brilliant accomplishments were ed. of the Harvard Law Review and on faculty of one of the best law schools in the country.
Any accomplishments in Ill Senate or US Senate?
There has been a lot of talk about Sarah Palin on the site the last few days and weeks it seems. I have one theory why she is disliked by liberals. Its not difficult to understand, its not hard to decipher, its simply this. Its because she is a proud conservative. Its exactly the same reason why liberals had the same dislike for Nixon, Reagan, and Bush (and many many others as well). Its nothing to do with the fact she is a woman. Its not even that much to do with her lack of ability [perceived or otherwise]. It really is all down to the fact that she is a proud, uncompromising conservative.
And I think demanding achievement from a President after 6 months in office is a bit tough. By this time in his Presidency what had George W Bush achieved in his political career? Or Ronald Reagan? And I actually do think that passing the stimulus bill that was passed under Obama was a hell of an achievement really, I do think that Obama has achieved a better atmosphere around the world for peace than has existed for perhaps 20 years, and I think that a lot of the groundwork for healthcare reform and other things has been happening beneath the surface. I think Obama gave in 2004 a political speech for the ages, whatever has happened to him and the nation since, in a way that very few politicians could have given, and I don't think that is something to be sneezed at. He has been involved in the senate on legislation involving ethics reforms. And to contrast with his immediate predecessor he has been a man of achievement throughout his life, without having been given the natural life advantages Bush had. I think he has been a spokemsman for family responsibility, an early critic of a mistake of a war. He's run a national campaign of extraordinary strategy and focus. I could go on.
137 bills sponsored in the Senate: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_bills_sponsored_by_Barack_Obama_in_the_United_States_Senate
Obama held assignments on the Senate Committees for Foreign Relations, Environment and Public Works and Veterans' Affairs through December 2006.[96] In January 2007, he left the Environment and Public Works committee and took additional assignments with Health, Education, Labor and Pensions and Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.[97] He also became Chairman of the Senate's subcommittee on European Affairs.[98] As a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Obama made official trips to Eastern Europe, the Middle East, Central Asia and Africa. He met with Mahmoud Abbas before he became President of the Palestinian Authority, and gave a speech at the University of Nairobi condemning corruption in the Kenyan government.
Obama voted in favor of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 and cosponsored the Secure America and Orderly Immigration Act.[79] In September 2006, Obama supported a related bill, the Secure Fence Act.[80] Obama introduced two initiatives bearing his name: Lugar–Obama, which expanded the Nunn–Lugar cooperative threat reduction concept to conventional weapons,[81] and the Coburn–Obama Transparency Act, which authorized the establishment of USAspending.gov, a web search engine on federal spending.[82] On June 3, 2008, Senator Obama, along with Senators Thomas R. Carper, Tom Coburn, and John McCain, introduced follow-up legislation: Strengthening Transparency and Accountability in Federal Spending Act of 2008.[83]
Obama and U.S. Sen. Richard Lugar (R-IN) visit a Russian mobile launch missile dismantling facility in August 2005.[84]
Obama sponsored legislation that would have required nuclear plant owners to notify state and local authorities of radioactive leaks, but the bill failed to pass in the full Senate after being heavily modified in committee.[85] Obama is not hostile to tort reform and voted for the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 and the FISA Amendments Act of 2008 which grants immunity from civil liability to telecommunications companies complicit with NSA warrantless wiretapping operations.[86]
In December 2006, President Bush signed into law the Democratic Republic of the Congo Relief, Security, and Democracy Promotion Act, marking the first federal legislation to be enacted with Obama as its primary sponsor.[87] In January 2007, Obama and Senator Feingold introduced a corporate jet provision to the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act, which was signed into law in September 2007.[88] Obama also introduced Deceptive Practices and Voter Intimidation Prevention Act, a bill to criminalize deceptive practices in federal elections[89] and the Iraq War De-Escalation Act of 2007,[90] neither of which has been signed into law.
Later in 2007, Obama sponsored an amendment to the Defense Authorization Act adding safeguards for personality disorder military discharges.[91] This amendment passed the full Senate in the spring of 2008.[92] He sponsored the Iran Sanctions Enabling Act supporting divestment of state pension funds from Iran's oil and gas industry, which has not passed committee, and co-sponsored legislation to reduce risks of nuclear terrorism.[93][94] Obama also sponsored a Senate amendment to the State Children's Health Insurance Program providing one year of job protection for family members caring for soldiers with combat-related injuries.[
Can you really fault Palin for leaping at the chance to make a difference in the destiny of the nation when McCain asked her to be his running mate? Taking her at her word Palin is a person of strong conviction who wants to have an impact.
In many respects Palin is much like Obama, but with the handicaps of lacking an “Eastern/Ivy League patina” and having to deal with a hostile, as opposed to an adoring, media. Like Obama, she is fresh and authentic and she commands attention.
Nate recognizes these similarities and then goes onto to launch a hatchet job, writing her obituary as a personage at her zenith, questioning her motives.
All of that may or may not become clear. .
A poll I saw suggested that she is at about equipoise at 43-43 approve/disapproval. Not far for her to go to get to 50. Her base is a great deal larger than her opponents will acknowledge. She may not hold the views of all, but she is a crucible for the hunger of a large, perhaps a majority of the population to have its voice heard and feels it is not really being listened to.
It was the potency of Palin’s middle class authenticity and the reality of being the very avatar of an outsider that electrified the nation to her possibilities. She was what Obama was only posing at being - -an authentic trailblazer from outside the establishment. And like Obama a true believer.
A person like Sarah Palin gets once shot like this in a lifetime. If she were Governor of Kansas she might have a few extra shots left in her, but for Palin when McCain picked her, she saw her one and only chance to leave the farm and truly make a difference in the world.
The proof for Obama will be in his results, but if most economists are right we are in for a prolonged period of stubbornly high unemployment, which will be accompanied by incomprehensible changes in energy and health care policy, all of which will cost more money than the nation has spent in the entirety of history. Only an incompetent opposition should lose to this.
Thus the left wing dissemination machine continues spread the meme of GOP incompetence, of leaderlessness. They make much of the destruction of our leaders (Ensign and Sanford) while appointing straw men to destroy (Rush) while ignoring those who speak reasonably and comprehensively about policy and our values (Newt, Romney, Cheney, Boehner, Mitchell, Ryan, Pawlenty) while being sure to demonize the one popular threat out there, Palin.
Obama is being seen more and more as a packaged product, something out of P&G. Contrary to Nate’ assertion, Palin’s rambling home spun announcement with her hard to quantify motives (for you all, I guess) will only add to the legend of her authenticity.
Wait till it is she who unmasks Obama as the Emperor who is wearing no clothes! She has the second biggest megaphone in the nation and is its freshest, most interesting (if polarizing voice).
ROMNEY – PALIN ’12
petekent01 (on twitter)
markymark:
I agree that he's a brilliant campaigner and delivers amazing speeches. What I don't see are brilliant political accomplishments having to do with his actual jobs.
I don't think we can chalk the stimulus bill up as brilliant. The dangers of that bill will be paid for for generations. That's another whole argument.
STATE:
Obama was elected to the Illinois Senate in 1996, succeeding State Senator Alice Palmer as Senator from Illinois's 13th District, which at that time spanned Chicago South Side neighborhoods from Hyde Park-Kenwood south to South Shore and west to Chicago Lawn.[45] Once elected, Obama gained bipartisan support for legislation reforming ethics and health care laws.[46] He sponsored a law increasing tax credits for low-income workers, negotiated welfare reform, and promoted increased subsidies for childcare.[47] In 2001, as co-chairman of the bipartisan Joint Committee on Administrative Rules, Obama supported Republican Governor Ryan's payday loan regulations and predatory mortgage lending regulations aimed at averting home foreclosures.[48]
Obama was reelected to the Illinois Senate in 1998, defeating Republican Yesse Yehudah in the general election, and was reelected again in 2002.[49] In 2000, he lost a Democratic primary run for the U.S. House of Representatives to four-term incumbent Bobby Rush by a margin of two to one.[50][51]
In January 2003, Obama became chairman of the Illinois Senate's Health and Human Services Committee when Democrats, after a decade in the minority, regained a majority.[52] He sponsored and led unanimous, bipartisan passage of legislation to monitor racial profiling by requiring police to record the race of drivers they detained, and legislation making Illinois the first state to mandate videotaping of homicide interrogations.[47][53] During his 2004 general election campaign for U.S. Senate, police representatives credited Obama for his active engagement with police organizations in enacting death penalty reforms.[54] Obama resigned from the Illinois Senate in November 2004 following his election to the U.S. Senate.[55]
I could have gone to Wiki to read his resume. What's your point?
William Kristol thinks Palin is resigning to prepare herself for a presidential bid in 2012.
Since Kristol is always spectacularly wrong about everything, we know that this can't be the case.
At this time in his career as president, George W. Bush was mired in the middle of the Salvation Army scandal, where it was outed that the organization had agreed to pay the administration six figures a month in "advertising money" for Bush's faith-based charities program in return for a special exemption so that they could discriminate on the basis of religion and sexual preference while at the same time still receiving federal handouts under the program. This was also the time in the Bush administration where he made the infamous $43 million payment to the Afghan Taliban as part of his anti-drug crusade, an act that would have very serious repurcussions for the nation in the long-term. The Salvation Army scandal had the potential to bring down the administration but the reaction to the 9/11 attacks shortly thereafter made it very quickly forgotten.
Reagan's biggest accomplishment in his first eight months was to put the lives of every American who uses air travel at risk, dismantling a system that took twenty years, billions of dollars and the deaths of hundreds of Americans to rebuild.
markymark…
I would take issue with your characterization of Palin as an uncompromising conservative. I detect more convenience in her attitude than unwillingness to compromise—look at the “bridge to nowhere” for instance. She was all in favor of sopping up those federal dollars, until it became a national cause célèbre of the anti-pork lobby, and then she was quick to repudiate the bridge, while not so quick to spurn the money, in fact the cash never went back to the U.S. Treasury. I fail to see much consistency in that, or anything honorable at all. Then there was all her hooey about “family values”. We found out later that these included allowing her seventeen-year-old daughter to bring her boyfriend home (Sarah’s home, that is) for sleepovers, and although Sarah subsequently claimed she was shocked, shocked! to discover that Bristol and Levi were having sex during these encounters the whole thing smacks of cafeteria-style family values, wherein you only sample those dishes that serve your ends at any particular moment.
Notice how Grog and the other conservatives here have NO response to my rejoinder that IF McCain had just picked one of the highly qualified Women I mentioned that their whole "Palin is criticised because she's a woman" argument goes down in flames??
Tis the same everytime I use that argument to Palin supporters. They either deflect or fall back on some non sequitor GOP talking point like "Obama was just a community organizer!!".
Corner a conservative like Grog and they can't argue the facts, just toss out more recyled GOP talking points....
Prgmatus of all people should credit that politicans are nothing if not pragmatic. Palin is no exception andneither is Obama.
Markymark had a rare moment of honesty is characterizing the reason for liberal dislike of Palin -- she is their antithesis. Tony C provided evidence as well -- his hatred is one of ideas, not people.
petekent01 (on twitter)
Pragmatus, my point was not that she always follows conservative dogma, simply that she is in your face with her conservatism. Political ideology is never an exact science.
And Grog, I didn't necesarily say that the stimulus bill was fantastic. I said that passing it was a decent achievement in the circumstances. (Actually I tend to think of it as a necesary evil myself, might be a bad thing but not having it, in the end, would be much worse.)
And PK, everything I post on the blogs here is honest. You may not agree with it, but its always my honest opinion.
But what about the dislike of Palin by many conservatives, people who feel that she was the personification of every liberal negative stereotype of conservatives and that by unwittingly playing into the liberals' hands, she effectively became one of their biggest selling points?
If I had been McCain and felt that I needed to specifically have a female running mate in order to make the party more attractive to moderates and some liberals, I would have chosen a different governor: Jodi Rell. Of course the GOP leadership's problem with Rell is that she won't spout the Party's totalitarian theological doctrine and would never be acceptable to the religious extremists in the South who dominate the Party today...which is the whole point. The are a base that no longer needs to be appeased.
We really have to wonder why the Republicans keep pandering to a base who will no longer vote for federal Democrat under any circumstances and most certainly would never have voted for Obama. Is the GOP actively trying to become a regional party instead of a national one?
GROG said...
So he was elected leader of the free world and his most brilliant accomplishments were ed. of the Harvard Law Review and on faculty of one of the best law schools in the country.
Any accomplishments in Ill Senate or US Senate?
For a guy that shits on others for not fully reading your posts (fair enough) you certainly are demonstrating poor reading comprehension.
Again; Those are not "executive" type positions. They aren't about being the figurehead. So the don't lend well to the very public stand-out examples that I think you are fishing for. As a legislative position the "brilliance" tends to be much quieter, by nature. *shrug*
Really the same with a lot of running his campaigns, the compitence is hidden within internal meetings around organization.
Also no, his most brilliant accomplishment before being elected POTUS was clearly his Philly race relations speech in regards to Wright. The close second was the more quiet, although I think ultimately stronger keeping his head when McCain lost his over the finance bill.
Yes, it is "just running" for office. But it clearly demonstrated just how ready he was to be put in an incredibly tough spot, with huge pressure, and deliver a steady, measured and thoughtful response that got to the matter. As imperfect as running for office is for measuring just how well being in office is, those where two moments where there was clear overlap of running and being a figurehead in office.
joestemmex :
For one, the women you listed are not really conservatives. They fall in line with the Democrats so you leave them alone.
I cannot remember a conservative politician ever being attacked as viciously as Palin, including Bush. And she's no more conservative than other promimant Republicans. The liberals and media cannot stand to have a woman or minority in powerful conservative positions. It's been that way for 30 years. It's nothing new.
PeteKent…
Why is it that when someone writes something that conforms to your ideology he suddenly becomes “honest”, and when he disagrees with your friends in the GOP he is guilty of “hatred”?
In all your years of schooling (granted, I am guessing here) did you never run across the concept of the “value judgment”, and how to spot them when they are disguised as something else?
Just wondering…
GROG said...
There's one reason and one reason only that liberals hate Palin.
Because she's a woman.
Let's see.
I think GROG (watered down wine?) would admit that I'm a liberal. So according to GROG, I would never have voted for a woman.
I've voted for several women, idiot TROLL GROG.
I've voted for women candidates in primaries and general elections for more than 30 years now.
I've voted for women candidates running for the Baltimore City Council; Baltimore City Council President; and (though not for the current Mayor), for candidates for Mayor of the City of Baltimore.
I've voted for women running for the Maryland House of Delegates and for the Maryland Senate.
I've voted for women running for the US House of Representatives and for the US Senate.
I did NOT vote for Hillary Clinton in the Democratic Primary in 2008 because I felt that Barack Obama's views, policies and political philosophy were closer to what my views on those subjects were, AND I felt he had a better opportunity to lead this country in the correct direction - away from the greediness that started with Ronnie Ray-Gun that ran through the little shrub administration.
So GROG, this proud liberal, also a gay male (and we KNOW gay men HATE women, don't we?), HAS in fact voted for women running for elective office at many levels of the political spectrum.
I don't look at the gender of the candidate, but at what they state are their views, policies and political philosophy, and then decide if their views, policies and political philosophy agree with mine or not. If they do, I consider them more closely and compare them to the other candidates whose views, policies and political philosophy agree with mine, and make my decision of which candidate I would prefer on that comparative basis.
Mike in Maryland
My Blogger ID is http://www.blogger.com/profile/02848893412251095965
GROG, if you can't remember Bush being attacked as visciously as Palin, then you have zero memory. Every significant politician gets attacked in this way. Its one of the reasons that Americans often vote for a fresh face, because they haven't been ripped apart. Bush, Clinton, other Bush, Reagan, Carter, Nixon all attacked, yes visciously, bu there opponents. But thats the game! Its like a QB complaining he keeps getting rushed by the defense.
GROG…
Since careful reading seems to be one of the topics of the day, please read the following. It is Sarah Palin’s response to Katie Couric’s question as to why the Bush $700 billion stimulus money was going to the banks instead of middle-class families who were being squeezed—
That’s why I say I, like every American I'm speaking with, were ill about this position that we have been put in where it is the taxpayers looking to bail out. But ultimately, what the bailout does is help those who are concerned about the health-care reform that is needed to help shore up our economy, helping the—it's got to be all about job creation, too, shoring up our economy and putting it back on the right track. So health-care reform and reducing taxes and reining in spending has got to accompany tax reductions and tax relief for Americans. And trade, we've got to see trade as opportunity, not as a competitive, scary thing. But one in five jobs being created in the trade sector today, we've got to look at that as more opportunity. All those things under the umbrella of job creation. This bailout is a part of that.
This from someone who was running for Vice-President and stood a very fair chance of being president, given the age and health history of the other person on the ticket.
The attacks on Sarah Palin weren’t vicious or unfair, nor did they result from her being a woman or a conservative. She was attacked, and quite mildly, if you bother to look, because she appeared to have no common sense beyond what to do with her hair when she got up in the morning.
Next time you feel the urge to claim that Sarah Palin was unfairly jumped on, please reread that stunning answer of hers. It’s a flippin’ miracle that she wasn’t tarred and feathered.
I could add that Ted Kennedy, Dan Quayle, Geraldine Ferraro, Mike Dukakis, Bob Dole, Barry Goldwater and Hillary Clinton all received very viscious attention.
I think sometimes what offends conservatives about the attention Palin gets is that they assume that because she is a woman she is due an amount of chivalry. Whereas her opponents see that because she is in the big leagues now she is fair game.
@Mike in MD:
You obviously haven't taken the time to read my posts thoroughly. I'm not saying you hate all women, you just hate conservative women.
If Palin were a man, she would just be another white conservative male. There's nothing that would seperate her from any other conservative.
But the fact that she's a woman absolutely enrages the left. Women are supposed be like blacks and fall back in line with liberals or else you will pay the price.
GROG,
do you honestly think that say Anne Coulter and Rush Limbaugh are thought of differently by Libs? I think the whole 'its because she is a woman' thing is easy for conservatives to trot out, but its flat wrong.
@Grog
Would you have any respect for a politician who writes this absurdity?
Um, by the way, sure wish folks could ever, ever understand that we ALL could learn so much from someone like Trig - I know he needs me, but I need him even more... what a child can offer to set priorities RIGHT - that time is precious... the world needs more "Trigs", not fewer.
Is she advocating that we strive to have more babies with Down syndrome?
And for her to say (paraphrasing now) that to be a lame duck means you go on junkets (and apparently go hiking on the Appalachian trail in Argentina) and that she is going to be different by quitting, makes absolutely no sense. By her measure, she could be a "different" lame duck by simply continuing to do her job.
The derision most people with IQs higher than room temperature feel for Sarah Palin is because she is a person of limited intellectual gifts. I wouldn't allow her to be the receptionist in my law firm.
GROG said...
@Mike in MD:
You obviously haven't taken the time to read my posts thoroughly.
BINGO!!
I'll readily admit that I don't read your posts thoroughly, if at all, along with PK's, the rider of the horse/donkey offspring, the Doctor who isn't a doctor, the idiot from Canada who disparages my home state of Indiana in his screen name, et. al.
Why?
Why should I waste my time reading TROLL drivel?
And, I do not hate conservative women. I don't agree with the current conservative views, policies and political philosophy, so I don't even consider voting for ANY conservative, man OR woman.
The bigger question is why do you HATE, HATE, HATE liberals?
Mike in Maryland
My Blogger ID is http://www.blogger.com/profile/02848893412251095965
@Markeymark you stole my thunder with:
do you honestly think that say Anne Coulter and Rush Limbaugh are thought of differently by Libs? I think the whole 'its because she is a woman' thing is easy for conservatives to trot out, but its flat wrong.
By the way do the rest of you notice how the conservative here still haven't answered my retort about how they hate Bill Clinton, John Edwards, Soros, and Harry Reid because their white males from groups (Southerners, Billionares, and Mormons) that are suppose to be conservatives? They attack them more than they do other NothEast liberals. These conservative guys just hate men! They can't believe white men would support Obama.
Sigh. Idiots have been demanding that Nate and his co-bloggers refrain from any non-numbers posts since the day this blog was created, and they're no more right today than they were then.
I'm not asking for Nate and the co-bloggers refrain from non-numbers posts. I just want a separate category for numbers related post (such as "Numbers") so I can subscribe to just those, and more easily ignore the "noise" of the other posts.
Dave said...
I would not put Ben Cardin and Roger Wicker in the same category of "slow but steady pols" who rose through the ranks.
You might want to look at Senator Cardin's bio:
First elected to the Maryland House of Delegates in 1966, and served in that body for 20 years, the last eight years as Speaker of the House of Delegates. When first elected, he was still attending law school and age 23.
In 1986 (at age 43), he ran for the US House seat that Barbara Mikulski had held. Cardin held that House seat for 20 years.
So right there we have 40 years of experience, not the "30 years of prior elective office experience" you stated.
As to an 'easy' win for the Senate seat? In the general election, a qualified "Yes". However, if you consider an 18 person primary field, including former Congressman and NAACP President Kweisi Mfume (not to mention wildly popular and greatly respected in the City of Baltimore and Prince Georges County, two of the four largest jurisdictions in the state; and not to mention very popular and highly respected in Baltimore and Montgomery Counties, the other two of the four largest jurisdictions in the state), to be an easy contest, along with several other big-name politicos in Maryland, including Dennis F. Rasmussen, Allan Lichtman, and Josh Rales (wealthy enough to self-finance), I'm not sure someone here understands what an 'easy' primary is.
Mike in Maryland
My Blogger ID is http://www.blogger.com/profile/02848893412251095965
I think the whole point is that politics, especially on the national stage, is a very grubby and nasty business. Don't even think about going there if you don't have a thick thick skin, whatever sex you are.
I sometimes think Palin was pushed forward in the hopes that she wouldn't get attacked as much, because she was a woman, and could go in and attack Obama and the Democratic Party as much as possible with little comeback. I think the big mistake in the end though was that firstly the McCain camp didn't really find out enough about her, and secondly Palin was honest enough with herself about whether she could really go out onto the national stage having just given birth to a Downs baby, and with a teenage, unmarried, pregnant daughter as well. I don't mean interms of Post Partum stuff. I mean in terms of what all that means in terms of how people will assess her and her character. To me, male or female, in those conditions I would not raise my head over the parapet for a long while, if for no other reason to protect my family. Palin didn't seem to flinch in those circumstances.
Here's an IMPORTANT point!!! Obama and Palin bare no resemblance to each other. The title of this post it was very obvious to me was not written by Nate because the idea is silly. Yes they both attempt to capitalize on opportunities in politics before many think they're ready...however, that's where the similarities end. Sarah Palin has nothing to offer in politics of any value. Never has, never will. Obama will go down as one of the top 10 Presidents we'll ever have in my opinion, maybe higher. He's a huge batch of obvious, and over time, realized potential. Sarah Palin is an absolute zero with a pretty face, the right values for a dying party, and guts. Please never compare the two politicians again. It's offensive to Obama.
I can't hold my tongue anymore. I am a student of politics, so I don't say this lightly. Sarah Palin has no value as a potential national leader whatsoever. The idea that she would considered by a major party for their candidate is an absolute absurdity. If she is the 2012 GOP candidate, I expect by 2016, there will be a brand new Conservative party with little resmbalnce to the GOP party of Reagan, Bush, Cheney, and Palin. It will be an offense to women for her to go down as the first female candidate for a majorparty in the country's history, and to a certain extent an offense to our country itself. I believe there are at least 1,000,000 adults between 35-85 yrs old that are more highly qualified and would make a better President than Sarah Palin. The Republican party makes me nauseous and excited at the same time. Excited for the propsect that after 28 years in the wilderness, the Dems get a chance to undo all of the crap that the Reagan Conservatives have built up. We get a whole generation to fix things, while the Republicans figure out who they want to be. I have a recommendation GOP, look at Dwight Eisenhower, Abraham Lincoln, the Rockefellers, Teddy Roosevelt to get some ideas. Right now, you're a useless party. Balance might be a good thing. See you in about 2024...hopefully by then you'll figure something out. Fiscal conservatism is a winner, extreme conservative social values no longer is, nor is extreme militarism, lastly nor is dumb candidates.
But the fact that she's a woman absolutely enrages the left.
She doesn't enrage anyone is what you do not seem to understand. Liberals talk about her, beacuse it is easy and enjoyable to mock her. It is the same with Rush, Hannity, Ann Coulter (her adam's apple and complete lack of humanity make her extra fun to mock), Michelle Bachmann. It is the same reason that conservatives like to go after Ted Kennedy and Dennis Kucinich.
Now, GWB enraged me because he fucked this country up. Palin, Rush, Man Coulter and the rest are all just big, fat (Hey Rush!) jokes to much of us. They cannot do much actual harm to anyone so why hate them when everything out of their mouth is like hillbilly theatre of the absurd, and hilarious. What is sad is that there are people who take them seriously and think we on the left do to.
I believe there are at least 1,000,000 adults between 35-85 yrs old that are more highly qualified and would make a better President than Sarah Palin.
Dear Lord. What does that say about the other 299 million Americans?
SarahPAC can start by getting the woman some anti-reflective coating on her glasses.
Polling on Palin in 2012 is not encouraging for Republicans.
"Monthly national PPP surveys looking at the 2012 contest for President have consistently found Palin as the most popular of the likely Republican candidates with Republican voters. Around 75% of them have a positive opinion of her, ranking her above Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney, and Newt Gingrich every time we've polled it.
When it comes to the general election though, she does the worst of the GOP contenders against Barack Obama. Our four surveys on it so far have shown her trailing the President by an average of 16 points nationally, an outcome that would likely give Obama well over 400 electoral votes."
(emphasis mine)
We have seen for several years now that Republicans truly believe that what appeals to their base will appeal to the nation as a whole. We have also seen that both the leadership and the rank-and-file believe that they can win on the national level with just their base. Rasmussen, ever-optimistic, now places Republicans as 33% of the electorate.
The wingnuts, of course, are already screaming that Obama's high numbers will come down. They said in January that those numbers would be in steep decline by now, as well. They will predict unpopularity until the day he leaves office. It's what they do.
But Palin is also vulnerable. Everyone already knows her, so there is little "headroom" for her approval numbers to rise. All of those who are likely to like her already do, and she has a relatively long time for new scandals to unfold or for new gaffes to be badly spun. She is also an intensely polarising figure, with higher "unfavourables" now than Obama had at his worst stage of the campaign.
From the same PPP article:
"For her to get elected in 2012 she would have to change the minds of a significant number of independent and Democratic votes about her- and it's a lot easier to make a positive first impression than it is to change a negative one once it's already been formed."
After reading some of the stupid, outlandish, and just plain idiotic statements from some of the TROLLs here, I think they would think the perfect ticket for the GOOPers in 2012 and/or 2016 presidential election would be:
Palin/Bachmann
The GOOPers would have TWO! count 'em, TWO! HOT! women on the same ticket, and all the GOOPer men would have orgasm after orgasm just looking at pictures of those TWO HOT! HOT! HOT! WOMEN on the same ticket.
After all, if a man can't have an orgasm while looking at a picture of a 'beautiful babe', what's the use in even finding out what they stand for?
[OK - sarcasm off, except for the orgasm comments.]
Mike in Maryland
My Blogger ID is http://www.blogger.com/profile/02848893412251095965
Mike in MD - I am a committed heterosexual, but the ticket of Palin/Bachman might force me to become a eunuch.
Thank you for that last post Mike in Maryland, except I was eating Spree candy and spit it out of my mouth from laughing.
One question though, Michelle Bachmann is beautiful? I don't think Palin is either (she is reasonably attractive for a woman her age and in really good shape), but she is better looking than Bachmann.
STepper- It might make you want to become a eunuch, but I may have to get a sex change out of sheer embarassment.
I see this as a matter of political seasoning--Obama's abundance of it and Palin's dearth of it. Palin got just the kind of attention that any politician who came charging out of a local setting onto the national stage should expect in today's age of 24 hour news and online blogging. Sure it was vicious; do you really think Barak the Magic Negro wasn't? But Palin just didn't know how to handle it when it happened, when to stop picking at the scab, which stories to own and which to ignore.
Bottom line is, Obama had years to develop a facility with these challenges, while Palin never had to even face them before McCain tapped her. I'm no Palin fan, but by yanking her into the spotlight before she was ready the Republican party brought on her downfall before she even started to rise.
Example: Instead of letting his parentage become a scandal, Obama ran on his parent's mixed marriage and being abandoned by his father and raised by a single mother who had to go on public assistance at one point. Imagine the scandal if he had kept this on the down low!
In contrast, Palin's husband's libertarian/separatist politics were unremarkable in Alaska, but the word "separatist" would brand him as a wacko with Democrats and ever-more-important independents. Palin could have brought that out early with a narrative that would have rendered it less bizarre. Instead, she let the press dig it out, then denied it, then defended it, instead of standing up and owning it.
So Palin's out of the picture for 2012, and probably 2016 too, but if she were to get some training (even as a Fox host), let her reputation fade a little, and come back as a state legislator with a little more skill and political savvy, Palin could start making her way while maintaining her small-town hockey-mom image. My guess is that she'll churn along for a while as a gadfly, gain a little sophistication, and then start looking like a politician again.
Chris of Rights: just set up an RSS feed in your browser and read the blog posts that are about numbers. If you're not sure, scan the home page. Don't read the ones you don't want to.
Even the most wonky Nate-ish posts draw nasty political squabbles, so either skip the comments section or learn to skip the skirmishes. Every polling blog has the same kind of thing, no matter how technical the blogger is. 'Tis the nature of the blogosphere.
to be fair as a die hard obamamniac, sarah palin is a decent speaker, obama is a good speaker, but i think the real thing that seperates the two is that sarah palin comes off as the peppy soccer mom, and while sarah may connect to people by saying she understands them, the reason she hurt the mccain campiagn is that americans dont want a soccer mom running the country, they want a competent, cool under fire, intilligent thinker, because when you've got that 3am phonecall, i think people want to believe that they have there best and brightest on the job. that is why palin can never become president
Add me to the count of commenters who think this entry was a waste of time. Sorry, Mr. Sexton, but I got nothing but piffle from your post. Yes, Obama's political history is fairly slim, but his personal history, temperament, education, political awareness and intellectual abilities put him on a completely different level from Palin - whether you agree with his politics or not. To say that Obama merely has better image control is absurd.
Nate, be pickier about what runs on your site.
Lenore,
I know how to set up a feed, thanks.
It's easier for me if 538 did it for me in a way that made sense.
And I do typically ignore the comments. I only commented on this one, because the post itself was so poor.
pollster.com is a great wonk site, they even link to everyone else's wonky posts.
Jen,
I never stated that I think Palin and/or Bachmann are hot (although I can see where you thought I implied it. And if so, my apologies.). My apologies about the 'Spree candy' incident, too! VBG
My point was intended to show that most GOOPer males, especially the TOLLs here at 538.com, must think they're HOT! HOT! HOT! All you have to do is skim their comments to see that attitude clearly displayed.
STepper: You've got the eunuch thing incorrect. They still have the sex drive (that's centered in the brain [the one above the shoulders, not the one below the belt]). They just can't cause the ladies to pop out kiddies.
Mike in Maryland
My Blogger ID is http://www.blogger.com/profile/02848893412251095965
Mike in Maryland-
Don't forget Dem women hate her because she is so hawt.
Mike in MD - Well I guess I will have to start wearing a burka and hiding myself if Palin/Bachman run.
Problem is, Bachman will make Palin look like a fuckin' mainstream genius.
I love the irony of all the SarahPAC ads on your blog.
THIS IS GREAT NEWS FOR NATE SILVER!!
Everyone, be sure to click on the SarahPac adverts on this site often. Sign up, even, for emails. Maybe you can get something illiterate from Sarah. But more importantly, Sarah will be paying Nate Silver for the privilege of advertising with click throughs on his site.
Get-in2 NEWSFLASH: Mark my words today July 4th 2009. Sarah Palin will run in 2012 as a Independent presidential candidate with every pissed off GOP and Democrat victimized by the Big Zero and sellout liberal Socialist Congressmen voting for her. She'd out do any Indy Party candidate in history. She might not win, but no one else will either, without her Indy party throwing HER votes to them under a Contract with America... under Sarah's terms. She can checkmate both the GOP and Democrats by organizing the majority of mainstream America into a Indy Party. She can now express outrage in the way Congress is selling out to special interests and the Whitehouse is demanding our country turns into a Marxist socialist experimental disaster. That folks is real change we can all believe in... as Sarah exits the Republican Party.
Watch this American Lady of principle raise the USA Flag and charge the lines of those who'd destroy the America way of life she grew up loving. We already saw what she had to offer in just 60 days as the 2008 VP candidate and America, not the America Haters, want more of Sarah Palin. I sure hope she's willing to devote her life to preserving the US Constitution from the failed policies of the GOP & Donkey Party. She can't do that with the hit job/back stabbing GOP handlers assigned her by limp wristed GOP political party hacks. Go Indy --- Go Palin - Go form the Common Sense or Revolution Party in 2012
Meteoric rises are hardly anything new in politics. Grover Cleveland went from Mayor of Buffalo, NY, to governor, to President in 4 years. Woodrow Wilson went from President of Princeton to Governor of New Jersey to President in less than two years. Spiro Agnew went from county council to Governor of Maryland to Vice-President in less than four years. Chester Alan Arthur was a tariff collector for the Port of New York, then Vice-President for 9 months before becoming president.
'Tis not Palin's dearth of elective experience that is the problem, it's her dearth of political experience... Obama cut his teeth getting curb-stomped by Bobby Rush in 2000, then facing a grueling 8-way primary in 2004 and emerging victorious against a nationally known former GOP presidential candidate. Compare that with Hillary (who had never faced a serious political opponent) and Edwards (who bought his Senate seat with $$$). It seems unlikely to me that Palin would prevail over a master operator like Obama, but before she can even do that she'll have to make it past veteran pols like Romney, Huckabee and Gingrich.
Mike from Maryland,
Yes, my bad. I maintain a spreadsheet which contains the elective office history of each U.S. Senator and Governor. Cardin's elective office history is just what you stated and matches what I have in my spreadsheet. My goof was failing to count correctly the number of years he had served prior to becoming a U.S. senator. Thank you for pointing that out - and my apologies to Cardin for shortchanging his elective office experience. :)
I know Cardin had to get by a crowded primary field to get the Democratic nomination. My main point was that Cardin's rise to the senate was much tougher and longer than Wicker's was.
PeteKent wants ROMNEY-PALIN 2012 but Quitty McQuitterson didn’t resign the governorship to become Mitt Romney’s second banana. Truth be told, she doesn’t have a second banana gene in her entire body.
So would it be ROMNEY-PALIN or PALIN-ROMNEY in 2012?
Trick question!
Romney would not support either ticket. Same goes for PALIN-GINGRICH, PALIN-JEB, PALIN-BARBOUR, PALIN-JINDAL, PALIN-HUCKABEE, PALIN-PAWLENTY, etc. The GOP “listening tour” from May included Mitt Romney, Jeb Bush, Bobby Jindal, Haley Barbour, and Sen. John McCain. But Sarah Palin wasn’t invited.
“Discussing the Republican listening tour … Rush Limbaugh said they are "embarrassed" by Sarah Palin. Limbaugh said the underlying issue of these speaking engagements is that Bush and Romney "hate" and "despise" the Alaska Governor and former running-mate of John McCain. “
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2009/05/04/rush_on_jeb_bush_romney_they_hate_and_despise_palin.html
None of the serious GOP contenders would ever run first or second with Palin. Running first, they know she‘s uncontrollable (ask McCain about dropping the campaign in Michigan, or agreeing to not talk about her wardrobe) and controlling (ask whoever labeled her “wackjob“ and “diva“). Running second, their egos would curl up and die at the thought of taking orders from an uneducated-and-proud-of-it inexperienced upstart. They'd see a Palin VPOTUS/POTUS as a career-destroying train wreck and steer well clear of it.
Sure, the GOP can use Sarah Q. Palin for fundraising but she’ll never see a position of real power as long as she remains a Republican. She’s relegated to the fringes. She’ll have to start a fringe third party and take the godsquads with her, which might be the party cleansing that the non-religious-right, non-wingnuts in the Republican Party pray for.
But whatever, I’d still rather think that the iceberg is coming. So sue me, Van Flea.
Running second, their egos would curl up and die at the thought of taking orders from an uneducated-and-proud-of-it inexperienced upstart.
They did with W. Was it his last name or his wiener that made him palpatable, because it wasn't his brains.
If she can deliver the votes and keep the pork rolling to corporate interests, they will easily swallow their egos.
I also think something is a-brewing in Palinland though. It could be an about to break scandal or it could be good old fashioned greed. Either way, it takes her out of a position where she can do real harm to people.
It is well to remember that the president with perhaps the thinnest national résumé was—Abraham Lincoln. His time in Washington was limited to one term in the House almost ten years before his inauguration as president. His only other political experience was a term in the Illinois state legislature.
Does anyone else think Sarah Palin is A LOT like Peggy Hill from king of the hill?
1) same glasses and "look"
2) same intelligence level
3) same annoying narcissistic attitude and inflated sense of self-worth.
Only difference is Peggy Hill does not have the victim complex that Sarah Palin does...which makes Sarah Palin even more annoying. Which is ironic because Peggy Hill is intended to be an annoying character.
Anyone who watches King Of the Hill knows what im talking about.
It's time again to play "Spot the Looney!" Read the most recent posts on this topic and see if you can spot the looney!
BZZZZ!
That's right, thank you! Five points for all readers who gave the correct answer, EcomCity.com! Come back soon for another edition of "Spot the Looney!"
Dermott Trellis said: She’ll have to start a fringe third party and take the godsquads with her, which might be the party cleansing that the non-religious-right, non-wingnuts in the Republican Party pray for.
It's been what I've been praying for for the last thirty years. The problem is that the current GOP has made it exceptionally clear that us Goldwater-conservatives are no longer welcome in the Republican Party. If you want to see a limited-government conservative running today, it will either be as an independent or as a Republican who switched to the Dems in frustration, like Jack Davis and Eric Massa.
I do not understand why conservatives are so hot and bothered about Sarah Palin.
Do any of you really think she's versed in the writings of Edmund Burke, or even Barry Goldwater? For goodness' sake, she RAISED TAXES ON BUSINESS so she could REDISTRIBUTE THE MONEY! Sorry for the looney caps. But you know, it gets awfully tiresome for conservatives to throw their values around when they themselves don't hew to them. Reagan raised taxes. X numbers of conservative politicians have violated their marriage vows. Et cetera.
Now, none of this would matter if conservatives did not preach their values as absolutes--rather than goals. And if the conservatives did not hold Palin up as a paragon of those virtues.
Sarah Palin is not an intellectual conservative (I don't mean she's stupid, but that she is not steeped in that tradition and scholarship). She has not practiced conservative values as governor. And she obviously hasn't passed on those values to her children. So what on earth can she offer the Republican party? I'm serious here.
I have a friend who's a Yale-educated lawyer. Yet he is under the Palin spell. He has faith in her "innate conservatism." If that exists I have no idea what it might be or represent.
I don't think SP is a total fool and she is a charismatic politician. But it seems pretty clear that she has no intellectual curiosity and no sense that anything besides what she wants might be of interest to her.
If any of you have seen the movie "Election," she's Tracy Flick.
I believe that Goldwater conservatives and Democrats might find some common ground in these times. Government ain't going to shrink, but I'm willing to cut subsidies and tax breaks for corporations, and I am certainly ready to go with vouchers and whatever else it takes to break the teachers unions.
Perhaps Sarah Palin would like to study these issues instead of how a point guard plays.
Franci - Before her selection by McCain, Palin was a typically inconsistent, petty governor. She spent most of her time getting revenge on her political enemies and doling out oil revenues to the citizens of her state, making Alaska the model for socialism in the United States.
But after McCain selected her it all changed.
She is now a conservative everywoman. She is not only anti-abortion, even for rape and incest victims, but while she "believes" in evolution ("my parents, after all, were school teachers"), she believes that evolution was directed by God. And occurred over the last 6000 years (or so).
She quit on July 3 because her state's oil revenues are way down and the governor later this year (no longer her) is going to have to preside over a whopping tax increase for all Alaskans, and/or cut off the oil revenues that each Alaskan looks upon as his/her due.
Since raising taxes, much like abortion, is anathema to Republicans, she had no choice but to quit in order to answer her "higher calling."
In other words, she is a first class hypocite along with everything else. And this moron had the gall to complain about the politics of personal destruction even as she whipped up crowds while attempting personally to destroy Obama with lies. Pallin around with terrorists. Yes, one of the candidates was and was actually sleeping with a successionist.
So, Sarah Palin's Wikipedia entry is not to be relied upon. It's all made up bullshit. Just like her.
You betcha.
You know, I do hate that Palin is a woman. Why do I hate this? Because she represents and re-enforces the exact incompetent-but-good-looking, overreaching ditz stereo-type that my daughter is likely have to fight to be taken seriously.
But really that anger is aimed the corrrect target. No, not Palin. She just gets derision, and at times a little pity. Instead my anger is aimed at the elements of the GOP who harbour in their minds this stereotype, whose projection of there idea of what "woman" means and what women have to offer, whoses twisted ideas of "affirmative action" and tokenism makes this circus possible. :(
Call me when Palin is sworn in as POTUS in Jan. 2013. But don't blame me when you turn blue waiting for that to happen.
Francis said...
. . . I am certainly ready to go with vouchers and whatever else it takes to break the teachers unions.
So, Francis, are you against public education?
If so, why?
And just what is it that makes you HATE the teachers unions? An explanation would seem to be in order. And not an explanation that just says "They're greedy", but a rational basis for a list of reasons for your obvious hatred of the teachers unions.
Mike in Maryland
My Blogger ID is http://www.blogger.com/profile/02848893412251095965
The funny thing, Grog, is the fact that Sarah Palin is a woman is the ONLY thing I like about her, even a little bit. It is her one redeeming value.
Same thing with Ann Coulter. If only that skinny blonde would keep her pie-hole shut, I could maybe like on her a lot!
Definitely Condoleezza Rice, too. And maybe even Michelle Malkin.
As opposed to, say, "conservative males" such as Newt Gingrich, Karl Rove, Glenn Beck, Lou Dobbs, and especially Rush Limbaugh, all of whom can find absolutely no use for whatsoever...
@flcounselor: How come you give bonus points to Sarah Palin just for being female.
Its stuff like this I hate. OH MY GOD A WOMAN CAN DO THIS!
As a male I see this as giving special privliges/credit to women. Many women view this type of thing as condescending.
Its 2009. We should not have to treat women with kid gloves. Palin has done nothing more than use her looks and gender to get her way. And its a real shame because not all female politicians are like this.
Even worse she enforces pretty much every single stereotype:
(x) Uses her gender to get her way
(x) Uses her looks to get her way
(x) narcissistic
(x) ditz
(x) over inflated sense of worth
(x) victim complex
When guys give bonus points to a female for being an attractive woman in fuels women to try to use their looks/gender to their advantage rather move up the ladder on their own merit.
When women go the other way and just use their gender and looks to coast through life (the sarah palin method) all it does is fuel sexism in both directions. Women will complain that men will only give good looking women a chance to move up the ladder and men will complain that good looking women get whatever they want in life by abusing the power their looks and gender give them over men.
Durbin got elected to the US Senate in 1996 suceeding the great Paul Simon after serving 14 years in the US House of Representatives. In 2004 Durbin was elected Senate Democratic Whip.
And to think a lot of people back then thought Durbin would not be liberal enough to succeed the bespectacled prairie progressive properly.
@Francis - What is considered to be "conservatism" has a very different meaning today than it did forty years ago, largely because of the passing of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the success of Nixon's "Southern Strategy" that weaned the Dixiecrats and Wallace supporters away from the Democratic Party (and the brief split into the AIP) and into the GOP. By the time Reagan rolled around, the people who ideologically the Republican Party was expressly formed to oppose were the dominant force in the Party and by 1994 they had absolute control, something they have not yet relinquished.
While the GOP still claims to be the party of limited-government conservatism that hasn't been true in reality since the late '60s. The politics of today's GOP is is effectively Stalinist Communism with a Southern Baptist veneer slapped over it bolstered by exceptional marketing skills.
You want to see who is really reducing the size and power of big-government? Here is the data from 1985-2005 regarding federal civilian employment from the OPM. According to the old definition of conservatism, the most conservative president we've had in the last 25 years was Clinton.
9/85 - Reagan - 1,831,912
9/86 - Reagan - 1,811,895
9/87 - Reagan - 1,856,980
9/88 - Reagan - 1,854,898
9/89 - Bush I - 1,878,221
9/90 - Bush I - 1,879,821
9/91 - Bush I - 1,905,840
9/92 - Bush I - 1,899,086
9/93 - Clinton - 1,841,539
9/94 - Clinton - 1,780,110
9/95 - Clinton - 1,717,931
9/96 - Clinton - 1,662,907
9/97 - Clinton - 1,607,813
9/98 - Clinton - 1,582,186
9/99 - Clinton - 1,562,830
9/00 - Clinton - 1,551,689
9/01 - Bush II - 1,568,543
9/02 - Bush II - 1,608,513
9/03 - Bush II - 1,603,386
9/04 - Bush II - 1,631,894
9/05 - Bush II - 1,638,155
9/06 - Bush II - 1,631,008
Federal civilian employment, which was already high during the Reagan years, kept climbing until the peak of 1991. During the Clinton years they went down every single year, sometimes quite dramatically early on in his administration when he had a Democratic congress. When he had a Republican congress, the decreases were generally smaller but still present. When Bush Jr. was inaugurated the federal civilian employment rate went back up again although not quite to the level of the Reagan/Bush Sr. years.
Note that these are the civilian employment rates. Military employment is not included in these figures (I haven't looked for them) but it is probably safe to assume that because of the strong military policies of the Republican presidencies combined with the figures shown above that overall federal employment under Republican administrations was significantly higher than it has been under Democratic administration.
If there is any political party that is using big-government to create jobs, it is the Republicans. The civilian federal government was
roughly 20% smaller when Clinton left office as compared to when Bush Sr. left office. The era when the GOP was the party of small-
government ended very dramatically with Reagan.
Here's an interesting idea. Perhaps the other shoe is not corruption or whether or not Trig (side note: why a devout Christian woman would name her child after a pagan god is beyond me) is her child, but rather, perhaps, given the rumors that Palin had had an affair with Todd's business partner, perhaps Trig is actually not Todd's.
Here's an interesting idea. Perhaps the other shoe is not corruption or whether or not Trig (side note: why a devout Christian woman would name her child after a pagan god is beyond me) is her child, but rather, perhaps, given the rumors that Palin had had an affair with Todd's business partner, perhaps Trig is actually not Todd's.
And perhaps Obama's not human, he's actually a cyborg.
Seriously, where do you people come up with these things? And why do you bother?
Grog,
If you think Palin is intelligent, then you are more stupid then you have shown thus far.
No one is afraid of her, people hold her stupidity against her and rightly so.
Chris of Rights -
We come up with them from the running soap opera and serial infidelities of politicians in general and Republican politicians in specific. The rumors of a possible affair were sparked after the "First Dude's" business partner's wife filed for divorce and the Palins subsequently petitioned to have the divorce filings and proceedings sealed. How is an affair such a stretch given our recent entertain by "Don't Cry for Me Argentina (because I'll do it while vititing you)" Sanford's peccadilloes?
@Francis - The reason vouchers have failed so spectacularly is because they break the Blaine Amendments in the state constitutions that have them (39 of the 50 states, to be specific).
It is supremely ironic that the main reasons Blaine Amendments exist is because Christian fundamentalists were afraid of government funding Catholic schools, thereby giving them what they believed to be theological legitimacy. Now those same fundamentalists want the Blaine Amendments repealed because their churches are in financial trouble (despite paying no tax) and need a bailout from big-government because they can't stand on their own.
How is an affair such a stretch given our recent entertain by "Don't Cry for Me Argentina (because I'll do it while vititing you)" Sanford's peccadilloes?
Last I checked, she and Sanford are not the same person.
And it wasn't just an affair you were assuming (a debunked one, mind you), but a bastard child. You went from stupid to ridiculous in one easy step.
By your logic, I should assume that all Democrats like to drive off bridges and kill people.
Or that they all keep $100,000 in fridges in their offices.
Or that they all have 6 rent-controlled apartments in New York.
Or that they all are friends of Angelo.
Sell crazy someplace else. We're all stocked up here.
Chris Of Rights,
Ever hear of literary allusion and/or comparison with a recent and quite topical situation?
Probably not, since you are apparently a GOOPer. And we KNOW the average curiosity factor of the GOOPers, and ability of GOOPers to do research, is quite low - actually almost non-existent.
(Warning - Your personal average may differ, higher or lower, from the total average.)
Mike in Maryland
My Blogger ID is http://www.blogger.com/profile/02848893412251095965
Obama has been thinking about and studying with discipline important public policy issues (like nuclear proliferation) since he was a youth. He was a community organizer where among other things he led a hugely successful get out the vote effort, a harvard law student, an attorney, a constitutional law professor, a state and then national senator.
Palin, on the other hand, has been a beauty queen, a sportscaster, a city council member then mayor of a town of 6000, and then a less than half term governor.
In each position Obama excelled. Talk to his peers and superiors from any of his past positions and they rave about him. Can Palin claim anything similar?
It would take a lifetime to bridge the talent, intelligence, discipline, and experience gap between Obama and Palin. When you factor those things in, and why shouldn't you, the comparison in this article is ridiculous. Obama appears to be have rocketed out of nowhere, but if you really look at his experience, he's been preparing for the Presidency for at least 20+ years, arguably much longer.
In comparing Obama and Palin, it is odd that you leave substance completely out of the discussion. The biggest difference between the two is not message control, but message: when you ask Obama a question, you get an answer that relates to the question and is generally indicative of familiarity with the issue at hand, and with a policy position if appropriate; when you ask Palin a similar question, it is difficult to characterize what you get, but it's clearly not the same kind of answer. This has nothing to do with whether or not you agree with either's position on any issue. It means that Palin's flakiness is not the result of loose message control, but of lack of message content. Obama's "gravitas", if you will, comes not from steely message control, but from a lot of message content. Which would make experience an irrelevant variable, and what you do with the experience more important.
Renard wrote:
Palin . . . never has been able to discipline her messaging in a way that clearly defines her in a positive and transformational light
AP News reports:
Sarah Palin's decision to step down as Alaska governor was driven in part by her wish to help Republican candidates across the country, associates say.
But in New Jersey and Virginia, both of which have competitive governors' races this year, the prospect of a visit from the party's 2008 vice presidential nominee has so far drawn a muted response from the GOP contenders in both states.
and
For their part, Democrats in both New Jersey and Virginia were eager to link their rival GOP contenders to Palin.
Since it's an AP News story, it will be reprinted in many newspapers on Wednesday. Another method of finding the full story is to go to the AP News site (http://www.ap.org), use the '7 Day Search' option, and type 'Palin' as the search criteria, then look for one title as, or similar to, "GOP candidates in Va., NJ wary of Palin".
And yes, let her be the 2012 GOOPer candidate. Her margin of defeat would probably make Goldwater's look close.
Mike in Maryland
My Blogger ID is http://www.blogger.com/profile/02848893412251095965
@Mike
So doubt she's dead, at times poisonous, weight in a lot of states. But there are going to be states at the edges of the D advance, Blue Dog territory and such, where she'd be helpful for the GOP candidate. How much damage that'd do overall for the GOP in the long run, how much would it delay getting out of this rump situation they are in? Hard to say, but right now I suspect there is a lot of pressure to just win back those seats (like in Idaho) where the loss was a complete, utter embarrassment to the GOP.
Dwight,
The AP article concentrated on the gubernatorial contests in Virginia and New Jersey that occur this year, and did not even mention the Congressional races that will be in 2010.
My feeling is that those Blue Dog Congressional Democratic incumbents and candidates would also welcome Palin to campaign for their opponents, as she excites not only the GOOPer base, but also the Democrats (base plus others) but in the opposite direction, and drives the independents away from the GOOPers. If polls show the D incumbent winning by a more comfortable margin if Palin campaigns in their district, it should allow some of them to drift a bit more to the left and give more support to President Obama's proposals.
So all in all, I think it's an almost all around win for the Democratic candidates if she chooses to campaign anywhere in this year's gubernatorial races in VA and NJ. After all, wherever she campaigns, she's in someone's Congressional District. But she won't campaign much, if at all, in the districts with a very heavy Dem lean, thus NOT the home of almost all non-Blue Dog Democrats. The same scenario also applies in the 2010 campaign season.
Mike in Maryland
My Blogger ID is http://www.blogger.com/profile/02848893412251095965
If polls show the D incumbent winning by a more comfortable margin if Palin campaigns in their district, it should allow some of them to drift a bit more to the left and give more support to President Obama's proposals
Exactly what the breakpoint from positive to negative is the big question. As well though she is polarizing, there might be some wiggle room to skate from area to area within a given electorate since it isn't actually her being elected, in much the same way that Presidential (or Governor, Senator, etc.) coattails are used selectively.
But she won't campaign much, if at all, in the districts with a very heavy Dem lean,
It is going to be very hard for her NOT to if she still has designs on a Republican POTUS candidate nomination. Watching that resignation speech says to me that she does, although maybe I'm misreading between the lines?
It is one thing to count on "red states" for the core of your victory and another to completely ignore blue and purple states. It would be the antithesis of Obama's "there are only the united states" that proved critical. Sure the Republican primaries, with more winner-take-all states, might get her closer than as a Democrat. But she' still has to get an outright majority of delegates on her side and she has to give the appearance of being elected nationally (as opposed to fearing it) because there is a significant number of primary voters that vote strategically.
That of course brings up the nightmare scenario for the GOP. Where she comes close but can't quite seal the deal with enough delegates and Sarah holds out harder than Hillary did. You know the press is going to be cheerleading, playing that up, and fanning any flames just as this did last year with the Democratic Party. There are some really stubborn chunks of the GOP that I imagine going to be behind Palin (think Ron Paul and his shadow convention) that could give some real substance to this without the natural healer like Bill Clinton waiting in the wings.
WV: shirksi - the act of shrugging off and distancing yourself from Palin's support for your candidacy when talking to anyone outside The Base
P.S. What is the arabic translation for Al Queda, again? :)
Of course a 2012 nomination run could set her up for a Jesse Jackson type career, as such one where success is not measured in whether she gets the nomination. She then becomes a walking mouth piece, fluttering from controversy flashpoint to controversy flashpoint. Unelectable because of her storm crow reputation and polarizing personality. Now there is a fit.
Dwight,
In a state-wide campaign (such as for governor or senator in 2009 or 2010, or both and President in 2012), Palin could campaign in many areas that are GOOPer strongholds, but skip entirely the Dem strongholds.
Look back to 2008 - When Palin campaigned in Virginia, she stayed out of Northern Virginia almost entirely. If I remember correctly, the closest she came to NoVa was one campaign rally in Fredericksburg, which is basically a border city to NoVa, with a lot of GOOPer strength very close by (Quantico Marine Corps. base, for instance). Most of her campaign appearances in Virginia were in the Shenandoah Valley, Southwest Virginia, and parts of the Tidewater - all traditional GOOPer strongholds.
When Palin campaigned in Pennsylvania, she almost exclusively campaigned in the "T", not in Southeast or Southwest PA, the Democratic strongholds.
When Palin campaigned in Ohio, she almost exclusively campaigned in areas that were strong GOOPer strongholds, staying out of Cleveland and Toledo (although in the exurbs of those two cities), and (again if I remember correctly), she made one appearance in Columbus - a joint appearance with McCain - but Columbus was considered to be more a toss-up area than favoring one candidate over the other.
She is so polarizing to the electorate that I don't think she will do much campaigning (for others in 2009 or 2010 for others, or for others and herself in 2012) in areas where her appearance will polarize the independents and moderate GOOPers (in the primaries) and Democrats (in the general) into action against her.
If you think I'm wrong, please point out several campaign appearances she made in heavy Dem strongholds in the 2008 campaign. I've wracked my memory, and can't think of any.
Mike in Maryland
My Blogger ID is http://www.blogger.com/profile/02848893412251095965
If you think I'm wrong, please point out several campaign appearances she made in heavy Dem strongholds in the 2008 campaign. I've wracked my memory, and can't think of any.
I don't disagree with that or that she'd create problems for the candidate she'd be trying to help by going into the Dem heavy areas. I also think with state-wide races she and the candidate will have some room to maneuver to target her appearances and keep her support low key in areas where she could do damage. I agree with that entirely, that is effectively what my posts have said.
However for her to be a serious contender for the GOP nomination, rather than running just to set herself up as a power broker with the keys to The Base (for another VP nomination? after how badly things went between her and the McCain team?), she's going to have to go into hostile territory.
That is when the sparks are going to fly and the local candidates are going to duck-and-cover.
Post a Comment