Here, it takes all the running you can do to stay in the same place
Posted by aogThursday, 09 October 2008 at 10:24 TrackBack Ping URL

McCain was booooring! We’re gonna lose! Welcome to your new socialism, start stocking up on ammo… OMGWTFBBQOBAMAWONTHEDEEBATE!!!ELEVEN!!!

Oh, sorry, I’ll behave now.

What I find interesting is the amount that Senator Obama is spending vs. Senator McCain. What does it say about Obama’s underlying popularity that he has to massively (and I mean massively) outspend McCain and have Old Media in the tank for him to maintain a slim lead? At least now I know what he needed all that money for.

Comments — Formatting by Textile
Robert Duquette Thursday, 09 October 2008 at 13:43

I don’t know if it’s a matter of needing it as it is of having it. Remember, most Dems expected both Gore and Kerry to beat Bush, they can’t imagine how Bush could manage to get himself elected to dog catcher, let alone president. So the rich white liberal coffers are wide open for the raceless man from Chigago, should he need it. No taking chances this time.

The race is as tight as it is because there’s still a red/blue divide.

cjm Thursday, 09 October 2008 at 13:45

i think the results are going to be surprising come the day after.

here’s one datapoint: the last time i voted was for reagan, in 1980 (i know, me bad). i just registered yesterday, so i can vote against obama this year. not sure if it will do any good since i live in the socialist paradise of california, but i have been moved to unsheath excalibur.

nothing will change my mind; i don’t read pundits or blogs anymore (regarding the election).

maybe obama will win, and maybe those giant crowds at palin events point to another outcome.

Robert Duquette Thursday, 09 October 2008 at 14:46

Palin will benefit most from an Obama victory. She will be the presumptive heir to the Republican nomination in 2012, and will probably ride a wave of disgust with the Obama administration to victory. You heard it here first!

Annoying Old Guy Thursday, 09 October 2008 at 14:51

Actually, I heard it from the voices in my head first, but you can claim first reading.

Bret Thursday, 09 October 2008 at 18:00

I don’t see a benefit to Palin from an Obama victory. Part of the disgust of Obama will be due to that fact that at least some of the blunders he makes will be from (or thought to be from) his woeful lack of experience. Alaska is just not that big and Palin won’t be seen as terribly experienced in four more years either.

Andrea Harris Thursday, 09 October 2008 at 19:28

“Who’s your daddy?” (SPANK)


Annoying Old Guy Thursday, 09 October 2008 at 19:41

The benefit to Palin from Obama will be the same as the benefit of Bush for Obama. Palin 4 years from now will be far more experienced than Obama is this time.

cjm Thursday, 09 October 2008 at 23:20

obama won’t win. mccain won’t seek a second term. palin will be president in 2012.

Ali Choudhury Friday, 10 October 2008 at 13:53

Four more years in Alaska won’t benefit Palin much, unless she plans to run for election in Brunei.

cjm Friday, 10 October 2008 at 15:06

ali, you have missed the point of aog’s comment. it’s not 4 more years as govenor that will benefit her, its 4 more years of gaining leadership of the gop and working on her “media game”. the govenorship will however be a great incubator for ideas to be tried out.

erp Friday, 10 October 2008 at 15:20

Ali, did you feel the same about Clinton? He was governor of a small state with only a failed stint as attorney general before becoming governor. His wife’s initiative at improving education resulted in Arkansas dropping from 48th to 49th and his carousing was the stuff of legend with state troopers trolling for women. Add Hillary’s commodity sleight of hand, their real estate investments … they were a disaster.

All he had is the same thing Obama has — an ability to make the weak-minded swoon. With Clinton it was only women. Apparently Obama can turn girly men’s heads as well.

It seems Palin’s gender that bothers you. That and the fact that she didn’t attend an ivy league school.

Ali Choudhury Saturday, 11 October 2008 at 02:27

I come from a country which was going down the plughole until Thatcher rescued it, so no, the gender of a politician does not bother me. The lack of an Ivy league degree is irrelevant. The best US presidents after WW2 went to West Point, no college and Eureka College respectively.

Palin bothers me because she is an obvious identity politics pick who has neither the experience nor long-standing interest in national and international issues to succeed a 70+ year-old cancer survivor who underwent five years of torture. Alaska has a population of about half a million and 80% of revenues come from oil. It is too atypical for executive experience gained there to be much of value elsewhere. Arkansas is much better in that respect.

I was more concerned with homework. cricket and videogames when Clinton was starting his nomination run, so I do not recall thinking much about it. I suppose I would have been against him based on his sleazy personal life, which would have blown up in his face sooner or later. I can see why people went for him though. In a time of economic hardship, he was offering a lot of ideas and energy while his opponent did not seem to have any. His lack of experience in foreign policy was not as big a hindrance since the US faced no significant challenges abroad, due to Reagan’s vision and George HW’s prowess in seeing out the aftermath. And it would have been apparent that he was interested enough in foreign policy issues to know his way around major topics in reasonable depth.

cjm Saturday, 11 October 2008 at 10:49

you think she is an identity pick, we think she is the second coming of Joan D’Arc

you couldn’t be more wrong, but are welcome to cling to your views.

erp Saturday, 11 October 2008 at 11:52

cjm - I hope not. Remember what happened to St. Joan.

Ali, Clinton is a policy wonk. He knows all about the all issues, but comes to the wrong conclusions.

Better be like the president, he sets the policy and then lets the experts on the various issues fill him in so he can make the ultimate decision.

Ali Choudhury Saturday, 11 October 2008 at 12:31

cjm: Serious question, no snark intended. What do you find so remarkable about her? I suppose I would like her a lot more if I were an evangelical Christian whose number one issue was abortion.

Annoying Old Guy Saturday, 11 October 2008 at 17:26

Mr Choudhury;

If there is one thing Palin isn’t, it’s an identity politics pick. I would think Mr. Weidner’s observation of how Palin turned the conservative base from “eh, maybe I’ll vote, if I’m not busy that day” to “GO GO GO!” overnight would make such a claim farcial on its face. My reading is that this is a common view in the UK, but it demonstrates a deep misunderstanding of the American political scene.

As for her not having a “long-standing interest in national and international issues” — when an American conservative thinks of people like that, his blood pressure rises and he has to resist foul mouthed invectices. The State Department is filled with people like that who, in my opinion, more often than not work actively against American interests. Far better to have good instincts and a love of country than even 20 years of Harvard level post-graduate education in “foreign affairs”.

What do I like about Palin? Hmmm.

  1. She’s not carrying nearly as much baggage as most of the other options.
  2. She hasn’t done things that I flat out despise, unlike the other three Presidential / Vice Presidential candidates.
  3. She actively took on and beat entrenched, corrupt political interests and was “same as the old boss” afterwards.
  4. She speaks forth rightly, as Thatcher and Reagan did, of themes and beliefs that are dear to me, such as love of country, family, self responsibility. I hate to use the word, but she’s an authentic in a world of increasing cheap plastic imitations.
  5. She’s happy. Not giggly, or smug, or elitists, but just a happy person. Happy people make better decisions.
  6. She seems to have a good common sense, rather than the other worldy wonkishness that permeates so much of our political class, where neat ideas or good speeches are not just a substitute, but considered superior to successful action.
  7. The e-mail hacking was a big thing for me. An (admittedly amateur) opposition researcher hacks her private email, reads through, and find nothing worth reporting. Heck, you couldn’t do that with me, much less a standard issue politician.

But, since I have answered your question, let me ask why, in the UK, there is so much visceral hate for her? I mean, if she’s just a fluffy looker picked for being the right gender, why not just laugh? I don’t mean you personally, but the Brit Blogs I read are full of that kind of thing, just looking for the smallest fig leaf on which to hang a vicious attack on Palin. Even Harry’s Place was slamming her as an incompetent because she has a peculiar accent and used the word “doggone” in the debate. That’s not, frankly, what I consider serious political analysis.

erp Saturday, 11 October 2008 at 18:36


8. She isn’t a lawyer.

Annoying Old Guy Saturday, 11 October 2008 at 19:11

Ouch! How could I forget that? Except it shouldn’t be 8, it should be 1.

Annoying Old Guy Sunday, 12 October 2008 at 07:42

Let’s add

9. She’s also not a smug, condescending elitist Light Worker. It’s hard to explain to the average European just how much that grates.

10. Palin drives the people I most despise politically absolutely foaming at the mouth bonkers just by showing up. Gotta love that! Plus, those people are so consistently and intensely wrong that their hate counts as a strong endorsement for me.

Ali Choudhury Monday, 13 October 2008 at 14:12

There’s no view on Palin in the UK. I doubt one out of ten people could recognise her. Coverage of the US election died down after the Dem nomination. Most news has been on the economy and domestic issues.

You seem to like her based more on what she isn’t than what she is. Having a good knowledge level doesn’t mean you’re destined to be a prevaricating Beltway\Foggy Bottom type. It means you’re able to quickly detect BS, recognise good ideas and make prompt corrections when the situation demands. Thatcher and Reagan were both great communicators but both were effective as chief executives because they really knew their stuff. It took them years of very unglamorous work to get that good.

Annoying Old Guy Monday, 13 October 2008 at 20:00

I will admit that it is not so much that Palin shines so bright, as the field is so dark. I also see no evidence that Palin doesn’t have a good knowledge level. The claim that she is not smart or educated is simply the standard trope rolled out by the MAL and Old Media for every popular GOP candidate (just look at the history of the last 5 or 6 GOP Presidents for classic examples).

But your comment back to my original point, which is that 4 years is, in fact, years, during which Palin can get herself polished on various subjects.

Ali Choudhury Wednesday, 15 October 2008 at 13:50

Heather Mac Donald on Palin as identity pick

Annoying Old Guy Wednesday, 15 October 2008 at 14:15

Yes, I have read that before. I think MacDonald is flat out wrong. I didn’t like Palin’s intial gender pandering, but that seems more of a McCain Crew intervention, based on Palin’s past history. I will also note that MacDonald simply asserts the gender bias without much evidence beyond the fact of Palin’s gender. MacDonald fails to mentiona single viable alternative, which I see as telling because once you start doing that, Palin (as I noted in my previous comment) starts looking a lot better.

P.S. I should have noted this previously —

It means you’re able to quickly detect BS, recognise good ideas and make prompt corrections

I would say that of the four candidates, Palin does the best at this. Biden can’t even recognize his own BS and is almost the archetype of the bloviating Foggy Bottom educated to completely cluelessness archetype. Obama spouts vague sophistries which are BS, but I think he realizes that. McCain still can’t figure out why the conservative base is upset with him.

Ali Choudhury Wednesday, 15 October 2008 at 15:32

I’d disagree that Palin was the best pick. McCain’s biggest weakness has been an inability to convincingly communicate why Republicans are better for the wallets of the middle-class - which hasn’t been helped by using airtime to harp on about Ayers. Palin can’t help with that. Pawlenty or even Romney could have. If he wanted a reformer, Jindal would have been better. For a hard-core conservative, Mark Sanford.

Annoying Old Guy Wednesday, 15 October 2008 at 16:23

I am not claiming Palin is the best pick. I am claiming one can plausibly make that case. For instance, the rallying of the conservative base. It doesn’t matter whether Romney (who I preferred) would have been a better VP if selecting him means a massive lack of enthusiasm and financial support. Even MacDonald acknowledges Palin’s positives.

I had to laugh, though, at your suggestion of Jindal after going on about Palin’s lack of experience. As for reform, what reform has Jindal actually accomplished? I like him, I think he’s going to do very well, I think he’ll rack up a great record over the next four years, I would have voted for him, but how can you seriously claim he’s got a better record at reform now?

Sanford would have been good, although if you’re reaching down there I would prefer Tom McClintock. If I could pick anyone at all, it would be him.

Ali Choudhury Thursday, 16 October 2008 at 14:35

Yeah, the base got (weirdly) revved up but Palin’s (and McCain’s) numbers among independents have been steadily dropping as they hear more from her. McCain’s campaign management has been terrible. It seems like he’s decided to win over the GOP voters that shunned him during the primaries instead of a national election.

Jindal’s work in reforming Louisiana’s Medicaid program was a great achievement for someone so young. He’s been working on heavy-duty policy for over a decade, unlike Palin whose mayoral and gubernatorial jobs were part-time ones. Given healthcare costs are a prime electoral worry, his work there would have been a bigger selling-point than Alaskan ethics reform.

Annoying Old Guy Thursday, 16 October 2008 at 19:47

It seems like he’s decided to win over the GOP voters that shunned him during the primaries instead of a national election.

You mean by promoting a plan to rescue the prolifigate yuppies at the expense of tax payers by buying their mortgages at par? I think McCain doesn’t have a clear idea of who he is trying to win over.

It was presumed when he picked Palin that she was a sop to the conservative base so McCain could woo the muddle. But that required calling Obama out on Obama’s hidden and shady past, or Obama’s outright lies, or Obama’s everywhere on the map policies, which McCain wouldn’t do until Obamas had already structured the battlespace.

I also heard that Jindal explicitly turned down the VP slot, because he had only been governor for a few months and wanted to get some things done in LA while he had the chance, which I think speaks well of him. But I still think that as bad as the “no experience” hits on Palin have been, it would ahve been worse with Jindal. I may be wrong, but again I am not arguing that Palin was the obvious best choice, only that there was no other obvious best choice.

Given healthcare costs are a prime electoral worry, his work there would have been a bigger selling-point than Alaskan ethics reform.

I just don’t believe that. There is an amazing amount of anger on the American Street about our dysfunctional political class. I don’t see promoting handing over our health care to a group of people with a 12%? 9%? approval rating being an election winning plan. I think Palin’s elite busting efforts could have done much better, if they had been played up. But McCain’s just too embedded in the collegial Senate to name names, which is really what’s broken his campaign.

Tracked from Political News and Blog Aggregator: Newsweek: McCain's "dishonorable" Obama attack on 09 October 2008 at 18:22

The McCain-Palin ad distorts BarackObama's remark on Afghanistan and support for troop-funding bills

Post a comment