Governor, you're no Hillary Clinton (or Dumb and Dumber)
Those who know my writing here are aware that I have little love for Hillary Clinton. Had she won the nomination, I would have voted for her but not happily. But whatever her flaws, Clinton is extremely intelligent. She has a better command of public and foreign policy than any other candidate who participated in the primaries. Barack Obama, of course, is brilliant in his own right, as is Joe Biden.
John McCain is not a complete idiot, but policy details are obviously not his strong suit. Not just economic issues, which he has famously confessed to not understanding, but also foreign affairs, an area in which he has made a number of public gaffes, most notably confusing the religious affiliation of Al Qaeda, repeatedly. Can any of you imagine Clinton or Obama or Biden making the same error? Repeatedly?
And now we have Sarah Palin, the Republican Hillary by virtue of her ovaries. If any Clinton supporters fall for this cynical gender play, then shame on them. For Sarah Palin is in truth the un-Hillary. As Clinton is knowledgable, Palin is ignorant. As Clinton is cerebral, Palin is superficial. As Clinton is brilliant, Palin is, I'm sorry to say, a dumbass.
I hope that as the McCain campaign is forced to let Governor Palin answer questions about something other than motherhood and oil pipleines, a taste of which we've received in the namby-pamby Charlie Gibson interview, her cluelessness will become as obvious as lipstick on a polar bear. Because Governor Palin, I don't know Hillary Clinton, and she's no friend of mine, but I can say with confidence, you're no Hillary Clinton.
John McCain is not a complete idiot, but policy details are obviously not his strong suit. Not just economic issues, which he has famously confessed to not understanding, but also foreign affairs, an area in which he has made a number of public gaffes, most notably confusing the religious affiliation of Al Qaeda, repeatedly. Can any of you imagine Clinton or Obama or Biden making the same error? Repeatedly?
And now we have Sarah Palin, the Republican Hillary by virtue of her ovaries. If any Clinton supporters fall for this cynical gender play, then shame on them. For Sarah Palin is in truth the un-Hillary. As Clinton is knowledgable, Palin is ignorant. As Clinton is cerebral, Palin is superficial. As Clinton is brilliant, Palin is, I'm sorry to say, a dumbass.
I hope that as the McCain campaign is forced to let Governor Palin answer questions about something other than motherhood and oil pipleines, a taste of which we've received in the namby-pamby Charlie Gibson interview, her cluelessness will become as obvious as lipstick on a polar bear. Because Governor Palin, I don't know Hillary Clinton, and she's no friend of mine, but I can say with confidence, you're no Hillary Clinton.
Advertisement





She is a dumbass and. I'm not sorry to say it in the least. Did you notice how Charlie Gibson almost explained the Bush Doctrine up front when he realized she didn't know what it was, then pulled back and asked "What does it mean to you?" Then, when she gave a totally stupid answer, he went on to explain it. Not bad, Charlie. Not bad at all.
September 11, 2008 11:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Agreed. Charlie redeemed himself. He played it perfectly. Cannot be accused of being mean because he wasn't, and let her hang herself.
September 12, 2008 1:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'll just say that he surpassed my low expectations
September 12, 2008 10:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
Lipstick on a Dan Quayle.
(Apologies to Quayle)
September 11, 2008 11:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't wear lipstick.
And I no longer vote Republican.
And I know a superficial VP when I see one.
And I know pandering when I see it.
And I feel pretty confident that the more Palin is viewed by members of her own party, she will make even them cringe.
And I know that Obama is going to win this. And I know that we are all gonna have a SERIOUS party afterwards.
September 11, 2008 11:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly right.
September 12, 2008 8:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
Unfortunately, guys, you're missing the point. Palin is not there to get votes from rational Republicans, or even regular self-absorbed what's in it for me country-club Republicans. She's there for the fundies.
Over the last thirty years, we've allowed the fundementalists to create an entire parallel school system in this country. Millions of children have been educated in this system--two, going on three, generations. These schools have their own very special U.S. history books and teach almost no world history and zero science, and yet, year after year, they get the seal of approval from the state board of education. Fearful of the shitstorm that would follow any effort to try to force these schools to teach, well, actual knowledge, state officials have turned a blind eye to what's going on in those schools.
What is going on in them is nothing less than full-blown indoctrination in Orwellian "reality control." When you talk to a graduate of one of these schools about evolution, they all get this same rabbit hypnotized by a snake look on their faces and they do the intellectual equivelent of sticking their fingers in their ears and shouting "LA-LA-LA-LA-LA CAN'T HEAR YOU!" Big Bang? "LA-LA-LA-LA-LA CAN'T HEAR YOU!" Evidence that homosexuality has a biological basis? "LA-LA-LA-LA-LA CAN'T HEAR YOU!"
And unfortuantely, the Republicans figured out a long time ago that they will naturally apply this same mental training to politics. It's why they love George Bush and think he's been a good president. Its why they think Dick Cheney is a public spirited good-hearted public servant. And its why they love Sarah Palin. They look at one of their own (all they need to know about her is that she's "pro life") suddenly lifted from obscurity to become the vice presidential candidate of a guy they don't like very much who's 72 years old, and they think that, maybe, just maybe, they're seeing the next step in their Old Testament Comics Cecil B. DeMille Jehovah god's magical plan to turn American into a theocratic paradise.
No evidence that she's a complete and utter dolt, a vicious, petty pathological liar, that she's too dangerously stupid to be let within 50 miles of that stern-faced officer who carries the "football" will penetrate their defenses. "LA-LA-LA-LA-LA CAN'T HEAR YOU!"
September 12, 2008 9:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ah, but Steve, you miss the point - the fundies are a small (and shrinking) percentage of Christian Americans and don't take up quite as many seat in the choir this year.
What democrats should remember is that the persuadable voters won't be found in Obama's choir. They should look to the pews instead.
I am not even a little worried about Barack winning the election. The majority of American voters will be on point this year.
September 12, 2008 1:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think you're off the mark here, JEM. First of all, the republican base is not just the fundies. But the most important thing about the base is that they have a formidable GOTV system in place. We'll see if the Dems can match it for a change.
September 12, 2008 4:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
I said that was the biggest part of their base, certainly not the whole thing. They ahve the Rich Motherfucker crowd as well as the Rapture Right. However, what used to be a part of their religious base is what I call the Jimmy Carter evangelicals and they seem to be leaning Obama's way this year.
September 12, 2008 7:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Over the last thirty years, we've allowed the fundementalists to create an entire parallel school system in this country.
---------------------------------------------------
We've allowed? jeezz and you wonder why democrats keep losing elections. What do you suggest, that all children be forced to attend public school? Maybe we should just have re-education camps I hear they worked great in China. You do realize that Obama has opted out of the public school system and his children attend private school don't you? Oh wait, that's a liberal private school so its ok, right?
September 12, 2008 7:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am late in reading/commenting on this post, as I was directed to do earlier. Party? I can't wait! I will be wearing lipstick and hopefull that doesn't make me a pig or a pitbull or a moose or even a polar bear.
Palin isn't dumb, but she is ignorant and uninterested in truly learning the things you need to learn to be president. If she was interested, she would know them already, and wouldn't have to learn so much right now.
It's like those actors on the show ER. You know they aren't real doctors, but you also they aren't stupid. In a way, you have to think they are smarter than you, because you could never memories pages and pages of dialogue about performing surgery. So you are impressed. And they even look pretty while they say their lines. But they STILL AREN'T really doctors! (or, the same analogy can be made about the politicians on the West Wing but I refuse to disparage the West Wing).
September 13, 2008 3:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
And I know that we are all gonna have a SERIOUS party afterwards.
Damn right!
And then, on Jan 20 when Bush finally steps down, I hope there are so much parties that you hear a roar no matter where you are.
September 11, 2008 11:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Gibson's questions were totally unfair and out of line. Here are the sort of questions a responsible journalist would have asked:
1. Who was a better President: Dennis Haysbert in 24 or Martin Sheen in The West Wing?
2. Glenn Close was kind of wishy-washy as the VP who had to take over in Air Force One when Harrison Ford and the plane were taken captive by Russian terrorists. Would you be a better job than her?
3. Speaking of those Russian terrorists in Air Force One, why hasn't President Bush taken action against them, and what will you and McCain do to show them we mean business?
4. How would you compare yourself to Joan Allen as the prospective VP in The Contender?
5. M*A*S*H or China Beach?
September 12, 2008 12:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
That would be an interview we could believe in.
September 12, 2008 1:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
Joe Biden made a dumb comment yesterday which annoyed me, he said Hillary Clinton “a truly close personal friend and she is qualified to be President of the United States of America, she’s easily qualified to be Vice President of the United States of America and quite frankly it might have been a better pick than me,. To call her qualified is fine, but to say she might have been a better pick is really a stupid thing to say.
After he said it I had this image: Biden will need to bow out for some reason and Hillary will step in as VP, it will take place a week or less before the VP debates.
Wouldn't that be about the most unbelievable, sensational, shocking twist in this absolutely crazy election season?
September 12, 2008 1:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obama needs to keep his republicans and right-leaning independents. Pushing Biden aside for Hillary wouldn't do that.
September 12, 2008 8:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
I really wish you people could stop fantasizing Hillary back into the race, because its not helpful. It would be seen, and portrayed, as a desparation gambit, sign of a sinking campaign and further evidence that Democrats are disorganized, chaotic weaklings whose men are all kinda gay and whose women are all angry bulldykes. Everyone at the top, and even down to the mid-level knows this at the same gut level that they know "air contains oxygen and water is wet."
September 12, 2008 9:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, I'm sure Joe Biden going a bit off-message in a way that will upset nobody portends a major shake-up in Obama's campaign.
Maybe you should go read a book. Or write a poem. Or make a sandwich.
'Cause you're a bust at this "commenting" stuff.
September 12, 2008 10:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
Biden was being a friend, a good campaigner, and a gentleman of a certain generation who would almost be expected to make a self-effacing comment like that. (I can say as someone of that generation also.) He was just fine and did good .... and WILL be the candidate and, it looks now, the next VP.
Genghis, loved your post. I was so perturbed by Hillary during the primaries (at least until about the last month) that I was one of those planning to vote for McCain .... thinking he was still John McCain, 2000 version. (Actually, that would have gone out of the window after his comments on the habeas corpus decision.) But watching that interview I was livid, utterly LIVID on her behalf!! How dare they think that this perhaps nice and spunky (perky?) small town woman with a nice presence and shallow mind would deserve to "follow in the footsteps" of Sen. Clinton! What an insult to her (Clinton) and to women in general. And what a disservice to Gov. Palin, for that matter.
Someday maybe we'll be able to learn how that decision, to offer the position to her, was really made. John McCain is not THAT dumb - to some extent he had to be relying on someone, or several someones, who badly, badly misled him.
September 12, 2008 2:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
I was an Obama supporter like Genghis, but I am the first to say Sen. Clinton has behaved in a classy way since she's conceded.
I don't know why ANY Clinton supporter would vote for McCain because I think McCAIN INSULTED CLINTON & ALL HER SUPPORTERS when he gambled that he could use a younger, prettier & supremely dumber spunky know-nothing reactionary as a "second Hillary" in the same callous, calculating way he dumped his first wife for his second. I HAVE met Hillary Clinton, and Sarah Palin is no Hillary Clinton.
September 12, 2008 5:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
Seconded.
September 12, 2008 3:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Palin isn't dumb, but she is ignorant of foreign affairs. Whether she's as intellectually lazy as McCain is hard to say.
September 12, 2008 7:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Dumb" is a relative term. I expect far more from my leaders than from from my neighbors. Nonetheless, you are correct that I'm conflating intelligence and ignorance. I excuse the latter in children and in people who haven't had the opportunity to learn, but damn it, how do you get to be governor without having enough interest in foreign affairs to know something as basic as the Bush doctrine? Clinton, Biden, and Obama probably knew more about foreign affairs as college students than Palin does as a 44-year-old governor and VP candidate. Did anyone in the McCain campaign ask her about her foreign policy views? Do they give a shit?
September 12, 2008 9:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
And, what, pray tell, is your evidence for that?
Palin acted exactly like an undergrad who skipped class and didn't read all year trying to bullshit her way through an oral exam on the basis of a 48 hour cram session. She clearly doesn't even know enough about foreign policy to be able to tell good advice from bad.
September 12, 2008 10:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
I recommend the James Fallow article which Josh links on the front page:
http://jamesfallows.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/09/the_palin_interview.php
He offers a more thorough and convincing analysis of the Bush Doctrine gaffe than I have.
September 12, 2008 10:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Election 1998: Dan Quayle was no John F. Kennedy as Lloyd Bentsen pointed out, but George H.W. Bush still got elected to office.
Election 2000: The brains Al Gore had the election stolen from him by the phony cowboy, have a beer with him dunce GWB.
Election 2004: The elitist John Kerry was defeated by the Foolish Preemptive War President/dunce GWB.
Dem Primaries 2008: Hillary the policies & knowledgeable got edged by Obama the personality/hopemongerer.
So somehow I am doubtful that this argument Sarah Palin is a dumbass is likely to convince those voters in the middle that we need to win this election and might even cause a backlash against those elitist brainy Dems by bitter folks around the country.
September 12, 2008 9:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
I know it. Ronald Reagan proved that long ago. But is there no limit, no point at which Americans say, "I like her, but she's just not smart enough?"
September 12, 2008 9:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'd like to hope this year will be different. Palin is not dumb and she's still 10 times smarter than our current President who had Condi Rice basically giving spoon feeding him foreign policy info. GWB came off much less knowledgable about foreign policy etc. than Palin in her interview during his campaign. He could barely speak a sentence without mangling his words and he WON!
I just don't see how the Palin is stupid argument helps Obama. It's going to be a sympathy ploy used by the GOP - see how they look down on her and they look down on YOU too. The more we personalize the arguments against her, the more people make decisions based on identification or likability rather than real issues that matter. Don't attack her as stupid - attack the stupid ass policies she and McCain stand for.
September 12, 2008 9:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think we attack her as stupid. But I do think her manifest ignorance of the basics can't help but make a lot of undecideds pay more attention to McCain's age.
Reagan-Bush was one thing, Bush-Quayle was another. But how do you think Reagan-Quayle would have played? Whatever you thought about Bush I, he was clearly ready to step into the office, even in middle of a crisis, so people didn't worry much about his age. Bush I wasn't at that age where one's physical health and mental acuity can suddenly slide all to hell in a matter of months. McCain is. People McCain's age know it and a lot of people related to people McCain's age know it.
September 12, 2008 10:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
I get it Steve - but we elected a BUFFOON as our president at least once. Someone out there voted for him despite his lack of a basic grasp of foreign policy, geography, economic matters, the English language etc. And while I may not know much of Palin, I doubt she can come up with stunning evidence of her own stupidity like this:
http://www.slate.com/id/76886/
In fact he used that anti-intellectualism to appeal to voters. They are going to do the same with Palin and the scary thing is it might work - again.
September 12, 2008 1:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
I like her Reagan-Quayle analogy, but I feel like what we have here is Reagan and George W. Bush. Now that is a scary thought.
September 13, 2008 3:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree that "Palin is stupid" is not a winning campaign message, but I don't represent the Obama campaign and don't post in order to convince America to elect him. I wrote this post because I'm genuinely appalled by the choice of Palin as VP, and the more I learn about her, the more appalled I become.
PS I actually do think that Palin is dumber, or at least more ignorant than GW, but I don't know enough about her yet to know for sure.
September 12, 2008 10:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, I don't think she's brilliant, but I do think that she is smarter than she seems. She seems stupid because she is trying to defend stupid policies. She is trying to do too many things at once that contradict one another. She is trying to do what someone else is telling her to do so they can get elected when their ideas are not what is right for this country. So she sounds stupider than she really is.
On the other hand, I agree with what Genghis said about expected more from a presidential/VP nominee than his neighbor. She's a ALOT smarter than my neighbor. But Obama is so much smarter than her it isn't even in the same ballpark. I just don't see how something like that doesn't matter.
September 13, 2008 3:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
That is a bit revisionist. While Reagan ran against Carter by being a Washington "outsider", the "elitist game" wasn't yet invented - at least not in the form being discussed here.
In fact, it was Nixon who initially invented the elitist thing in the modern era, but it wasn't until later we had it codified by people like Atwater (who was with Reagan in 1980, but didn't really get the "modern" ball rolling until 1988 and GHWB). Ironically, GHWB was classic elitist!
September 12, 2008 1:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
I just meant that Reagan was an example of the voters electing people who aren't that sharp.
September 12, 2008 3:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Startling analysis and so on target.
We all voted for Barack over Hillary because he is a "hope monger" and she was too smart. Made us feel bad about ourselves.
Your list not withstanding (not to mention your strange denigration hope) this election is not so nearly black and white as you would like to make it.
No wonder the democrats have lost 7 out of the last 10 presidential elections.
September 12, 2008 10:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not saying Obama didn't have substance. But thematically Hillary ran on experience and policies while Obama ran on change and hope. I know plenty of folks who preferred Hillary's policies, but voted for Obama because he was a different, new kind of politics (or because they really really hated Hillary on a personal level).
September 12, 2008 10:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Most of the people I know who preferred Obama over Hillary did so on pragmatism and vision in addition to a willingness to rethink how things are done in Washington. Hillary ran as the incumbent and lost.
September 12, 2008 11:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
What is REALLY making me angry now is that McCain/Palin are running two sides of the coin at once. Experience/New, Old/Change, Reliable/Risky. So people can see what they want to see in it.
September 13, 2008 3:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
Not fair to all the other dumbasses . . .
September 12, 2008 9:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
An ignorant superficial dumb-ass? Let's not forget cocky. Now, lemme see, who does THAT sound like?
Palin = Bush with lipstick.
September 12, 2008 9:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think the most effective argument against Palin is that she has come out of the gate lying, plus the ethics investigation. She isn't trustworthy. The whole Pentecostal thing is downright scary too. But the focus needs to get back on McCain. I'm so sick of the media obsession with Palin. I'd like to see a campaign with the theme "Where's John McCain?" that focuses on him being unrecognizable as the maverick he once was, and also "where's John McCain?" on the issues - that he doesn't address issues and focuses on shallow stuff.
September 12, 2008 10:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
As I mentioned elsewhere, I am fairly well convinced at this point that it is only a matter of time (and not even a long period of time, at this rate) before the Republicans nominate a chimpanzee for president and run on the platform that the Democrats' criticism of the chimpanzee's obvious lack of intelligence (or ability even to communicate his wishes and judgments) demonstrates that they are snotty elitists who hate real Americans. The current Republican ticket is really only a few degrees removed from this absurdity.
All I can say is that, as an eternal optimist, I am counting on America to see through this inanity. Please, dear God, do not let me be disappointed in this hope.
September 12, 2008 10:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, I'm sure Joe Biden going a bit off-message in a way that will upset nobody portends a major shake-up in Obama's campaign.
Maybe you should go read a book. Or write a poem. Or make a sandwich.
'Cause you're a bust at this "commenting" stuff.
September 12, 2008 10:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, I'm sure Joe Biden going a bit off-message in a way that will upset nobody portends a major shake-up in Obama's campaign.
Maybe you should go read a book. Or write a poem. Or make a sandwich.
'Cause you're a bust at this "commenting" stuff.
September 12, 2008 10:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, I'm sure Joe Biden going a bit off-message in a way that will upset nobody portends a major shake-up in Obama's campaign.
Maybe you should go read a book. Or write a poem. Or make a sandwich.
'Cause you're a bust at this "commenting" stuff.
September 12, 2008 10:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Pillsy, I believe that it's quite obvious who is a "bust at this commenting stuff."
September 12, 2008 11:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
Please read. Voters">http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/09/voters-dont-vote-on-the-issues.php>Voters Don't Vote On the Issues or How Obama Can Win!
September 12, 2008 11:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
Please read. Voters">http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/09/voters-dont-vote-on-the-issues.php>Voters Don't Vote On the Issues or How Obama Can Win!
September 12, 2008 11:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
Please read. Voters">http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/09/voters-dont-vote-on-the-issues.php>Voters Don't Vote On the Issues or How Obama Can Win!
September 12, 2008 12:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Please read. Voters">http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/09/voters-dont-vote-on-the-issues.php>Voters Don't Vote On the Issues or How Obama Can Win!
September 12, 2008 12:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obviously, Palin ain't no HRC. And well put, Genghis. Yes, to the extent some ex-Clinton supporters might drift in her direction, that matters. But that's not the comparison that worries. The real conundrum posed by Palin is the comparison with Barack. Bear with me for a sec, I understand there is no real comparison. Barack is an accomplished person and politician, but with a comparatively thin resume. This to some degree inoculates Palin from criticism of her glaring lack of qualifications. To do so invites comparison to Obama and allows the Republicans to paint him as unqualified - which we know is bunk. So the question becomes how do we expose her as the sallow, callow, shallow, punchline-spewing, thoughtless petty tyrant she seems to be without framing it in the context of her "lack of foreign policy experience," which is how it is being discussed? Put another way, how do we get past the platitudes to the complete absence of any thought given to the serious national and international issues that will face the next President? That is a tricky task.
September 12, 2008 12:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
One word: ignorance
September 12, 2008 12:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Please do not drag Hillary into this mess.
Thank you and hope you will vote for her next cycle.
September 12, 2008 12:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Great post, Genghis. Dija, I don't think Palin is ten times smarter than Bush, or even smarter than Bush, not at all.
There is a tone-deafness and cluelessness to her posturing, both pre and post nomination. To paraphrase William Hung, she clangs.
I think what has happened here is the TV-talk-show-ization of the Pres and VP. We Democrats tore down the mantle of the older white Christian man as the only ticket-inhabitants. People can imagine anyone on the ticket now. And the Republicans have fallen into, no they aren't smart enough to have envisioned this, but they have fallen into the "she looks like me" thing.
It's how TV shouty shows ostensibly about social topics but really about daily dramas arose in the 70s. Palin is the analog to the breaking of that barrier between journalism and onanism. She's not real, like a national figure is real, but her base doesn't give a shit, and there are enough independents who'd like to carpool with her, or go to church with her, or hear her thoughts about life over coffee. They are largely low-information, Perot-like independents.
That's the problem with the 45-45-10 split in the electorate. The remaining 10% who don't have commitments in the major arguments of our time are bought off by Phil Donahue and Sally Jessy Raphael. At least we still have Oprah, our true secret weapon against Sarah Palin.
September 12, 2008 12:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
And Paris Hilton
September 12, 2008 12:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Articleman writes: "I think what has happened here is the TV-talk-show-ization of the Pres and VP." (I would use block quotes, but, like McCain, am too inept.
I agree, but isn't the Obama phenomenon part of that TV-talk-show-ization? As Obamawan and I have pointed out, Obama won the nomination despite (or perhaps because of) his concededly thin resume. His strengths were his outsider status, his anti-Washington, bi-partisan appeal, his ability to move people, his persona. I doubt he won many votes because of his record or accomplishments as a Constitutional law lecturer, state or feder legislator. Against this backdrop, the selection of Palin is a canny bit of jiu jitsu. "Look, we can put up someone with limited 'foreign affairs' experience, who can give a good speech, and answer questions on talk shows with bromides and talking points. You want change? She's a real-life outsider, mom, hunter, small towner, etc. Come on, try to tear her down. Make my day."
I'm not saying there isn't a world of difference between Obama's experience, accomplishments and depth. The comparison is ludicrous - as ludicrous as the one with Hillary. But that was a risk in nominating someone with as little background as he. The Dems may wind up hoisted by our own petard.
September 12, 2008 3:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
G, you are a very confusing person. You hate her but she had the best grasp of what is happening in this world and she still didn't get your vote?
Anyway, as others have pointed out your missing the point. Obama's thin resume only gives credence to Palin. You/I/We can't win that argument with Joe-bag-o-donuts and that is really the person that counts. He doesn't give a rats if Obama went to Harvard or is an accomplished lawyer. He only sees a pretty well off guy who is smart and makes good speeches. On the other side he sees Palin who is a mom that hunts and fishes, has a husband that snow mobiles cross country, has 5 kids, etc etc....For Joe-bag-o-donuts it will be up to Obama to change this game back in his favor......
September 12, 2008 1:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
I had a number of reasons for preferring Obama to Clinton, which I detailed many times during the primary and have no wish to rehash now, but that doesn't mean that I can't recognize her strengths.
I'm not writing for Joe-bag-o-donuts, who does not read my posts as far as I know, and I'm not advocating "Palin is ignorant" as a campaign message. I'm just noting for the TPM cafe audience that the contrast between Palin and Hillary couldn't be greater.
September 12, 2008 1:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't write for you either, Mr. Smartypants
September 12, 2008 1:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
I happen to agree with Genghis's assessment of Sen. Clinton as well, Obe, and I didn't vote for her in the primary either.
But it's OBVIOUS to anyone who isn't afflicted with "Clinton Derangement Syndrome" that Sen. Clinton is extremely intelligent and competent -- not just on foreign policy but on ANY of the challenges a president would have to deal with.
If Sen. Clinton were the Democratic nominee for president or vice president, I would vote for her and know that the country would be safely in competent hands.
We should be afraid of Sarah Palin's incompetence. She is perhaps even less prepared to lead this nation than George W. Bush was in 2000.
This situation genuinely scares the hell out of me.
September 12, 2008 2:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
I wish you paid more attention during the primary season, Genghis. It was clearly stated that Hillary had balls.
September 12, 2008 1:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
There is another issue here that I think is huge and hasn't received any attention. I have seen in comments in locations all over the web and heard from others an argument from women that goes something like this:
"I don't agree with Sarah Palin on abortion but I like her (enter something here relating to image/personality, not issues). I'm not worried about the abortion issue because they won't be able to overturn it. Congress would never allow it, women would march, there's too much opposition to making it illegal."
I keep hearing this - I think this view is prevalent in the women who are drawn to Palin. These women need somehow to be reached so they understand that roe vs. wade will indeed be overturned with McCain. That it is a supreme court decision not congress and that the next president will have the opportunity to appoint supreme court justices in his administration and McCain states explicitly that he will appoint justices to overturn it.
September 12, 2008 1:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
And the grand republican plan to dumb down America is complete.
Well, maybe we'll get these women's attention when they waltz into their OB/GYN's office and can't get a refill for their pills or receive a nice letter stating that they'll have to have their IUDs removed because they're now classified as abortofacients. That's where all of this is headed and that's where it's going to end up if some people don't pull their heads of the sand and start taking some time to learn about the issues instead of voting for someone's super-awesome up-do.
September 12, 2008 4:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
I suggest taking the following steps.
(1) Gather numerous interview clips, articles and video clips with McCain repeatedly stating his anti-Roe stance.
(2) Put them together into a tightly written, massively sourced blog entry.
(3) E-mail the blog entry permalink - or reproduce the blog entry - to lots of people. Make a special point of putting it on the "mommy blogs", where I've seen a lot of those comments as well.
September 12, 2008 4:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
So why isn't Obama talking about this? (Abortion, supreme court).... maybe something in the debates?
Today Palin was talking all about her "personal opinion" about Abortion and Stem Cell research and refused to say what her policies would be.
September 13, 2008 3:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
Love it! Great post! So true too.
I too have the virtue of ovaries. Perhaps Obama should have picked me for VP. Just saying. ;)
September 12, 2008 6:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
B. Hussein Obama is no Hillary. Barry = Loser.
McCain 2008; Clinton 2012!
September 12, 2008 7:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Liberal Democrats and Obama are more sexist than normal population or for that matter even Republicans.
The evidence:
Had Hillary Clinton been a white Man instead of a white woman, with 18 million votes, he/she would have been offered VP ticket. This is the ultimate evidence for sexism in Liberal Democratic Party
September 12, 2008 7:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
If Hillary were a man then she would not have been married to Bill, and IMO he's the reason she wasn't picked for VP.
September 12, 2008 8:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have to object to the "We all..." part. I had no beef with either Obama or Clinton being smart - in fact, I prefer my Presidents to be academically accomplished.
Besides, Obama certainly came across as "smart". In fact, before the Iowa Jefferson-Jackson dinner in late '07, the rap against Obama was that he was too professorial on the trail. He held a lot of town hall-type campaign stops, and people felt he was too wonky. Then, after he lit up the J-J dinner, he went to big rallies.
I can't speak for everyone else, but Hillary Clinton's academic and political intelligence were selling points for me, and the reasons why I started out pulling for her in late 2006.
September 12, 2008 7:42 PM | Reply | Permalink