WingColors

Actually from what I heard of last night's speech (I couldn't stomach listening to more than just a couple of minutes), the lady sounds like the continuation of the current administration's environment of permanent campaign. While I was OK on McCain for President (I don't agree with him on many issues, but think overall he's a good guy for the position), the idea of Palin just one heartbeat away from the Presidency scares the hell out of me.

As soon as I was done watching her speech last night I went to the Obama website and donated funds. In addition, I intend to volunteer for the campaign.

The Obama campaign has done a much more thorough job debunking all of Palin's lies during the speech. Wow, there are a lot of them.

I thought it was funny when she talked about being so close to victory in Iraq. A pointless war with no manageable aims where hundreds of people who shouldn't have been there have lost their lives. Yeah that's a victory waiting to happen.

I thought it was hilarious when she kept referring to whoever she was referring to as "my opponent" and "him". Anybody who has seen a large portion of The West Wing will see the similarities there. It's ridiculous not to address people correctly. You making claims about them without naming them and you look like a moron.

And fuck me sideways! Is it me or does she have the scratchiest, whingiest, whiney little voice in politics?! It's horrible to listen to.

All in all, what she said made her sound like an ultra-conservative Republican. I'm sure that's what some people are looking for.

I'm not even going to bother addressing the crap in here but I do have to say one thing...

Why don't we just put McCain/Palin/Obama/Biden in a big cage and the two left alive are the President and the VP.... end all this bullshit from both sides.

You know as well as I do that Obama and Biden will tell you anything you want to hear to get your vote... and so will McCain and Palin. It's called politics.

Nothing is going to change either way... I stand by that.

Why don't we just put McCain/Palin/Obama/Biden in a big cage and the two left alive are the President and the VP.... end all this bullshit from both sides.

I've always thought that's how we should choose our leaders.

The cage idea might work, though I am not sure if McCain could make it for more than a few minutes. I have seen him in person and he looks pretty frail to me.

man, you lefties sure are scared of a little 'ol woman from podunk Alaska

The very idea that this person (woman or not is irrelevant) could be the President of the United States if McCain buys the farm (though you righties would appreciate a farm joke) is enough to terrify anybody. Her speech was like a schoolyard argument, "my dad's bigger than your dad" crap.

Oh c'mon folks. Don't you have any real opinions that weren't pulled from the standard talking points brochure?

lol, agreed fuscom.

"I don't like Sarah Palin, and here's a list I cribbed from DailyKos to tell you why!"

so the opinions on Daily Kos are what...... artificial, made of hemp, a figment of Rush Limbaugh's imagination?

biased, distorted, over exaggerated, deranged...I could go on.

Oh c'mon folks. Don't you have any real opinions that weren't pulled from the standard talking points brochure?

I take mild offence that because my opinion is the same as something you've seen elsewhere it's not "real". Fuck.

Not sure why you're offended Oli. My comment wasn't directed at you at all.

@fuscon, @TJenkins: You do know that fairly intelligent, like minded folks will often come to similar conclusions when presented with the same evidence when left to their own devices, right? Or are your heads so burried in Hugh Hewitt's page that you can't seem to understand the concept of judging for yourself, rather than having been spoonfed your opinions? Of course, the way you act will paint your reality, so maybe you DO all really believe that the only way to formulate an opinion is to stick to talk show hosts and bloggers. In that case I've seriously overestimated both of you.

So you deride us for calling your opinions nothing but talking points gleamed from biased bloggers....then accuse us of getting all our opinions from Hugh Hewitt, talk shows and bloggers? Interesting tactic.

You missed the point entirely. Try reading it again. Particularly that last sentence.

Nope, read it again and still got the same thing. You call us out for pointing out your lame, DNC approved talking points by claiming we are using lame, RNC approved talking points. It's the classic "no, you suck" argument all gussied up with more verbiage.

Alright, let me try to break it down for you:

You do know that fairly intelligent, like minded folks will often come to similar conclusions when presented with the same evidence when left to their own devices, right?

This is a refutation of your statement, and indicates exactly what it says, that people often reach the same conclusions. (Implicit is the "without the need of a conductor.") It was phrased in the form of a question... mostly for effect, although I presumed you to be intelligent enough to understand the rhetorical nature of the question, and the pure absurdity of honestly believing that people couldn't reach similar conclusions without having talking points thrown at them.

Or are your heads so burried in Hugh Hewitt's page that you can't seem to understand the concept of judging for yourself, rather than having been spoonfed your opinions?

This was a continuation of the absurdity methodology used before, ratchetted up so it at once shows how idiotic the very concept is and how silly your prior statement sounded.

Of course, the way you act will paint your reality, so maybe you DO all really believe that the only way to formulate an opinion is to stick to talk show hosts and bloggers.

This statement builds a framework under which your statement can be construed as something other than satire, but rather an actual belief. The meaning is that if you DO actually believe that we're all getting our points from DailyKos or wherever, then perhaps it's because you do the same, but from Hugh Hewitt, Rush Limbaush, Sean Hannity, Little Green Footballs... wherever. In that case...

In that case I've seriously overestimated both of you.

That I'm questioning the intelligence of the person delivering the statement IF the satirical construct turns out to be true should be self evident, although perhaps I should have used "gave too much credit" instead of "seriously overestimated". Additionally, it was a complement to our conversations past indicating that I have come to expect intelligence from you, despite our disagreements.

In any case, perhaps this makes clear that I wasn't insulting you directly, but that your believing this has made it so.

I'm a little confused as to how pointing out facts somehow makes me a left-winger talking point regurgitater? I don't even read Dailykos. I posted my opinions about her as a politician and then pointed out some hypocrisies regarding points in her speech.

@TJenkins, please elaborate on which "DNC approved talking points" I had in my original post that are false. McCain's involvement in the Keating Five scandal.... him marrying his current wife while still married.... what's false here?

Gnorb -
I don't know about all that other stuff. My point was in response to the whole "I'm scared..." answer which has now seemingly taken over the standard "Bush's fault..." response for most thimgs.

I have no issue with what Rundle or you posted here. All I have an issue with is empty thoughts like "I'm scared". Which comes straight from the brochure.

Alright, let me try to break it down for you:

So "the pure absurdity of honestly believing that people couldn't reach similar conclusions without having talking points thrown at them." is countered by claiming I get all my "talking points" from Hugh Hewitt and bloggers? You honestly don't see that you are using the same "absurdity" against me that you claim I used against you? I guess when you use the same tactic it's erudite and nuanced though, right?

I have no issue with what Rundle or you posted here. All I have an issue with is empty thoughts like "I'm scared". Which comes straight from the brochure.

Fact is I haven't seen the brochure. The "scared" feeling I get is that Palin reminds me completely of Bush: polarizing, party-first mentality, and prone to attack rather than present ideals. Honestly, had McCain chosen someone more like himself, I would've been almost indiferent about who won the election: both Obama and McCain are good men who have over the years earned my admiration for the work they have done. Heck, except for the war issue and taxes issue I could have seen myself easily voting McCain, since I side with him on most social issues. (And I could argue for, and honestly support, either side of the war issue.) In short, the feeling really IS an honest opinion: the fact that someone like that is "one 72-year old heart beat away" from the presidency (as has been said before by... someone, either here or a pundit, I don't remember where) is what's frightening to me. On a personal level, I like Palin, I really do. I don't know that I'd want her to be President should something happen to McCain.

Then again, she could end up being like Gov. Charlie Crist of FL, in which case I'll very openly admit that I was wrong. (Turns out he's been a far better governor than I expected.)

Gnorb --

Even though I don't see squarely with you on some issues, I do respect you and your, usually, well thought out opinions. As an intelligent man, I trust you know what I mean by the "brochure".

I can understand perhaps some reservations about Palin, I have them too honestly. In fact, I have serious reservations about all 4 of the folks in this political game. I'm not frightened though, it's not like any one (or pair) of these candidates can bring the country to its knees by him or herself. Not even everyone's favorite scapegoat has been able to do it.

Since I was a little kid and learned about the system of checks and balances, and the three tiers of government, I've had a faith that things would work out for this country. As corny as it sounds, some 100 years later, I still hold true to that hope.

In my humble opinion, we have four ditzes running for first or second chair in the symphony known as the US. My hope and faith lies in the rest of the orchestra hitting the right notes and tempo, more than anything else -- and for any of the 4 of them, this will be the one and only Opus they participate in. However, as in your opinion of the governor of Florida turning out to be ok -- I'll give this bunch the ~60 days or so to make their impression on me, and convince me why they need to have the big chairs.

In regards to this post specifically, I side with RightOn in that the first few replies were crap responses to Mike's post (in particular the second half). Thank you for being a bit more transparent in your most recent reply.

@fuscom: Thanks. I'd also like to thank you for your transparency. The "brochure" comment did seem like shallow bait. By further explaing (and thereby asking me to explain myself) the meaning behind that statement it showed me that I took the tone of the comment wrongly.

As far as who's running, the fact is I felt much more comfortable in this election than I have in any I've actually been able to get somewhat involved with. (My political curiosity extends back to the Bush/Clinton/Perot race of 1992. I liked Perot in that one, then Bush when he started looking kooky. Then again, I was only 12.) I like Obama, I like McCain, I've thought fairly well of Biden, and was really hoping McCain picked someone like Crist. But then, Palin was selected. After her speech, it suddenly became a much more divided, much more attack-oriented election.

Yeh, my first remembrances of political curiosity was at about the same age...although for me, it was Carter's fireside chats regarding the energy crisis.

Oh I love this insinuation that Palin's speech suddenly made this election so darn mean, as if Obama has conducted his campaign like some latter day Jesus or something.

oops, wrong place..... move on, nothing to see here!

Some of my problems with Palin.

The speech: Rather snarky speech full of attacks not on policy or issues at all, and though they did not directly attack the the people they did not attack their opponents positions on the issues at all, they attacked the concept without defining the concept. I don't think one policy or issue was argued at all, though I may be mistaken, there may have been one thrown in.

I've always been liberal, but am not under any illusion that the Republicans and Democrats are much different, there are extreme factions on either end, but in the very large middle sits really one party trying to grab votes for their end.

Daily Kos is one of the most biased places to get information, if you ever bother to fact check. They do not lie like "Red State" does,( fact check Red State sometime, but they mislead often by leaving out key facts and statistics. I haven't read them in a couple of years because of that.

My biggest problem is that we can't question her beliefs on abstinence and sex ed, because that is attacking her family. We should be able to question any belief which could lead to policy which would affect us all, and the fact the policy/ideology she is rather rabid in support of did not work for her family, in my opinion, make questions about it fair necessary. We can't question her non support of stem cells as Biden did today, because she has a disabled child and therefore that is off limits despite the fact that to many Americans that research matters. Her support of creationism In public schools should be discussed, even though she retracted that immediately due to public outcry, this should not beoff limits at all because it is a belief based on her idoelogy and it could certainly have ramifications for us all.

We should be able to question this women, who would be a stones throw away from the Presidency, on any policy she heavily supports, or ideology she is glued to if it potentially affects us.

We should certainly be able to know her foreign policy awareness or lack off because, and I know people will ho ha this, McCain is old and he does not always look like he will last another 4 years. This women could be president, and she should not be protected from the questions of real journalists, of which Charlie Gibson is not one.

My biggest problem is that we can't question her beliefs on abstinence and sex ed, because that is attacking her family.

Why can't I question her beliefs on abstinence as it has caused her to side with Bush and only advocate abstinence-only education? His personal/religious beliefs led him to think that abstinence-only education is the way to go when all research shows the opposite. Her doing the exact same thing because of her personal/religious beliefs is causing harm to the teenagers who need sex-related advice the most. That's a political flaw.

While I think it's pretty rude to bring families into politics, everyone knows that's going to happen. It has happened for centuries if not millennia, and you damned well better grow some thick skin if you plan on being a public figure of any sort.

It's amazing how she manages to get away with lying her ass off, or bending the truth beyond credibility, with little or no challenge. wait...... she doesn't do press conferences, that's how she does it!

My amazement isn't in her lying (all politicians lie) but rather in the media swallowing her talking points without really caring about whether they're true or not, caring more about what makes a good article or headline, or what attracts more viewers. She says that she opposes the Bridge To Nowhere so, hell, let's all talk about her opposition. Don't forget about her running her campaign as governor on the promises of the Bridge, or how after "she killed it" she still kept the money and just used it on other projects. Those points aren't interesting, so let's talk about things that get ratings.

The media has been doing that for a long time too. I think they're just a bit off balance because she's such an unknown. Give them some time and they'll slice her to ribbons (assuming it makes good headlines and attracts more viewers).

Why can't I question her beliefs on abstinence as it has caused her to side with Bush and only advocate abstinence-only education?

@ Mike I presented that poorly you certainly can and we should be able to but it seems that when anyway did they were getting fingers pointed at them and called sexist, or told the family was off limits.

The media thing is rather startling the Stump has an interesting post on the restrictions they put on reporters at a McCain event in Lancaster the other day, and also in his campaign, since before the convention actually, so some of it may not be just her. It looks like they have been restricting access and the ability of the press core which follows him around for awhile now.

McCain Neuters His Press

Is it possible that the real answer is just a little more simple?

Her daughter has already been raked through the coals because of the family's stance on the issue. You gotta know at this point, with the race heating up and the attacks (on both sides) ramping up a new level every day, that ANYTHING Palin says regarding sex education / abstinence will be met with the "...but her daughter..." attack dogs -- no matter how much Obama publicly decries such a response as off limits.

Could it be she just wants to let the topic cool down a bit before responding, in order to protect her daughter? I'd certainly do the same, as I'm sure you would, if it were your child's actions that raised the collective neck hair of a nation in the midst of an election battle.

then Ms Palin ought not to put out press releases telling the media her daughter is pregnant. if it's a personal matter then why do that? They do that because she, Ms Palin, is going to be embarrassed that her political policies are not reflected in her own daughter and people will, rightly, say how dare you preach to us when your own family is just like everybody else.

the press and everybody else will also, rightly, bring up the point that her daughter chose to keep the baby, she does, in fact, have a choice which is firmly at odds with her mothers position regarding abortion.

Ms Palin brought this situation into the public eye, crying about the press asking questions of her just doesn't wash!

@fuscom - If she wanted to protect her daughter she wouldn't have run for office. Anyone with an ounce of sense had to know her daughter would be ripped to shreds if only from past history. Chelsea and the Bush kids? Yeah, always under a microscope. Her thoughts on anything regarding children in general would be placed under a microscope.

If it were me my daughter would come first. My grandchild would come first. My daughter having a stress-free pregnancy would come first. My child with Downs would come first. VP wouldn't be the route I would take. Palin did and I won't hold it against her until her personal life begins to bleed into her responsibilities. No hand holding. No sympathy. If she can't take the heat get out of the kitchen.

And yes, I'm voting for Obama but I'm not blinded by him. As with every election I feel like neither choice is the optimal choice so I pick what I feel is the best one.

For the record, the jury's still out with me on who I'm voting for. I agree with you, we're not dealing with optimal choices here on either side -- period.

That said though, I think we're (generally speaking) getting caught up here in the "what if" scenario of Palin actually sitting in the chair of power one day. Sure the Bush twins and Chelsea had their fair share of undeserved attention, but we're talking about the children of Presidents here, not VPs. Honestly how much have you ever known (or cared) about the family of a VP?

For instance, how much do you know (or care) about Hunter Biden?

Also just to be clear, I never suggested Palin makes wise choices regarding her work / life balance.

fuscom: I do not think someone within 8 weeks of taking that office has the right to make the decision to let it calm down. If there are issues that she doesn't want addressed at a certain time then sorry, she really should not be running. I just feel we have the right to ask questions, at any time, to a candidate about her ideology when it could turn to her supporting a policy which could affect us.

I'm not blinded by any of this though. I know where I stand on certain issues, and those issue wouldn't allow me to vote another way at this time.

I thin all this smoke and mirrors is just ridiculous in light of the fact that the election is only a few weeks away.

Cooper --

I agree with you generally. However, I also believe that within 8 weeks of the election we're worrying too much about Palin. She's second fiddle to the man actually running for President. I'd much prefer hearing and debating the platform he's proposing than hearing anymore about Palin's bridge to nowhere and her daughter's sexual activities.

Honestly, I think all this attention to her speaks volumes to how off message the Obama campaign seems to have become and lends credence, in my opinion, to this article.

Actually, it would seem to me that Palin sitting out of the spotlight would be an instant and free opportunity for the Dems to take on McCain and his policies directly, without her distraction. Yet no...the focus is still on Palin, and thus an opportunity to discuss the PRESIDENTIAL candidates and their platform is blown.

She's not running the show, and McCain (should he win) is going to have a difficult enough time as it is running his stuff through a democratic congress.

@fuscom

The media has as much to do with this as anything, but I do believe as do many people that McCain was really a non issue before Palin. It seems only natural to address the one who appears to have the power. The Republicans are so breathing a sign of relief, because though the race might have been close in some places it really did look like no contest. I think they are trying to discredit her, as they should because, she is really the only reason McCain now has a breath of fresh air.

If you rememeber one of McCains campaign managers (or adviser, something like that I honestly can't remember and don't have time to look it up), was quoted as saying to the Washington Post something to the effect "it is not about the issues, sure we'll address them but it's about the story" as he alluded to the fact they would making the story compelling. This country is long on voting on identity not issues, and the McCain campaign may be right.

In light of that, as much as I think the issues matter, I do not think what we are seeing now with McCains surge is issue based at all it is identity politics, so I'm not sure anyone is going to knock the nation back to issues. Especially with our history.

The issue of whether Obama's campaign stops focusing on Palin really may be moot, and remember we can hardly get them( Repubs) to address issues. You heard the Repub speech, not one issue addressed except conceptually. The Lancaster event was not really issue based at all it was a pep rally.

"...McCain was really a non issue before Palin. It seems only natural to address the one who appears to have the power..."

Seems to me then, that paying so much attention to her is only feeding that perceived power with the public. If McCain was a non-issue before Palin, wouldn't it stand to reason that he would return to that status if she were ignored (or at least returned to a "normal" coverage for a VP candidate) as the non-factor the dems are playing her up to be?

If it's all about identity politics, then ignore the identity -- right?

I pretty much guarantee you all of this attention on Palin by the Dems is playing right in to the hands of the Repubs. Because as we all know, all PR is good PR. Just ask Britney Spears.

I pretty much guarantee you all of this attention on Palin by the Dems is playing right in to the hands of the Repubs. Because as we all know, all PR is good PR.

"There is only one thing in life worse than being talked about, and that is not being talked about." -- Oscar Wilde (from "The Picture of Dorian Gray")

I have to agree with fuscom... the GOP is loving all this free press and the poll numbers are showing why.

I'll wager it's a temporary bump and the more Ms Palin is exposed to real questions and real debate the more hollow she will appear.

"...I'll wager it's a temporary bump and the more Ms Palin is exposed to real questions and real debate the more hollow she will appear..."

I'll wager you're wrong using just two words and a little history..."Dan Quayle"

He was only 41 when a 64 year old Bush picked him for VP. Was just as "naive" (if you will) as some are making Palin out to be, and faced the exact same "not ready to be President" concerns.

Of course, Bush / Quayle beat Dukakis, the dem candidate who also had a much stronger VP candidate in Lloyd Bentsen.

In fact, I'll ne very surprised if you don't hear an exchange very much like this in an upcoming debate...

big difference, 20 years ago, no internet. Al Gore hadn't invented it yet! ;o)