Sarah Palin is currently being vetted by the press, so of course people are talking about her. It won't last much longer. As soon as she starts screwing up in interviews and on the campaign trail, the McCain camp will put her on a plane and send her back to Alaska. Then the race will turn back to Obama v. McCain. Except that in the meantime, McCain will have alienated the press and convinced most of them that he's a sleazy, dishonest politician--completely unlike the John McCain they thought they knew and thought they admired. And then we will see if this is indeed a horse race, or if it is a slaughter.

I just wanted to make clear that I am absolutely not criticizing criticism of Governor Palin and I'm not questioning and I understand the need to engage in negative campaigning in an overall sense. I also recognize a distinction between the Obama campaign and bloggers like Josh (who are not charged with staying on campaign message). I do submit that it is not a good thing that the campaign has turned into a fight over Palin. It is not a good thing because it has altered the dialogue away from all of the reasons that we have real and genuine reason to believe that Senator Obama will be our next president.

The press will cover sensational topics, and right now, that's Palin. They just don't care about policy. However, I believe that the tenor and focus will shift somewhat when the debates start.

In the meantime, what to do? We can't let the Repubs define Sarah, there does have to be pushback on that. And, more constructively, we have about 3 weeks left to keep registering voters in those swing states. That may just be what ends up making the difference in what could be an extremely close vote. And if you're not the sort to do door-to-door canvassing or phone banking, talking to friends, neighbors, and associates about the election. Get people engaged and make sure they're informed and ready to vote.

Bruce, I agree with Carol and others. Palin is already a force in the election, much more so than Biden. If every campaign surrogate and liberal blog stopped referring to her, she would still be a force in the election b/c America is fascinated with her.

Given that her presence in the race has an impact, now is the time to define her. Show her to be liar and a pinhead to deflate the enthusiasm. Then move back to the primary target.

Hi Bruce --

I wanted to say how much I like your posts. I've always enjoyed your flair and your tone, as well as your points.

The thing about Palin is that she's fun. It's fun to call her stupid. It's fun to call McCain stupid for picking her. It's fun to call - or think -- of her supporters as stupid. it makes us look at our eloquent nominee and his experienced VP choice and feel like we are so much smarter than them. So much smarter, so much better, so much superior to our opponents and their supporters.

And add to that, the fun of a scandal. It was fun to make insinuations about the baby. It's fun to look for all these little scandals and assume they all combine into something nefarious, as if no politician has ever exaggerated an achievement, as if no politician has tried to get money for their home state or town, as if no politician has ever used their office to pursue a personal vendetta. We're having so much fun that we don't realize that none of these scandals -- none of them -- amount to much of anything in the scheme of national or even local politics. But it's fun to do. Maddow gets to refer to Todd Palin as the First Dude with an appropriate smirk. Olbermann gets to have a special comment, and we all applaud. See how much better we are? And then we get to call her a liar. That's fun, too. Fun to toss insults.

But none of them are really lies. She did pull against the bridge. Did she flip her position from originally supporting it? Sure. Last week on O'Reilly, Obama said the surge worked. Seems like a flip. Did she try to bring in earmarked funds? Sure. Is anyone undecided going to hold that against her, even when she claims she didn't? Maybe, but I doubt it. That's what politicians do.

She's about emotion, after all, because she seems familiar. She seems like she's one of us, one of them. She's everybody's abrasive friend. She chose life. She raised her family. it doesn't matter what she says, because her campaign is about how she makes them feel.

Which we should understand, because that's what Obama's campaign has been about. He makes us feel good, feel hopeful, feel positive about the future. He's light on specifics -- yeah, I know, read the website or his books -- and if anyone who has backed him says otherwise, I guess I'll just have to say "fine" because there's no point arguing about it. But there's not a lot there. Not much time in the Senate, not much time even as a state senator. Not a lot to pull from.

To me, that's okay. I don't really care about qualifications -- I think BC was right -- no one is ready for the job. After all, Presidents have the best support staff in the world -- what I need from a President is the ability to analyze information and make a good decision. I don't know enough about either of them to know who does better on that front -- we never really do. So we move on faith. I have faith Barak Obama is a good man who can look at a big picture and make a courageous and thoughtful decision.

But there's no evidence that Sarah Palin is any different. She might not have that ability. I just don't know. Neither do most people.

What I do know is that she's not stupid. She's too quick to be stupid. I know she's decisive. I know I disagree with a lot of her positions, and would hate to see many of them put into law. But I also know we're exaggerating a lot of them, too, because it's fun.

And I know the more fun we have at her expense -- the more little scandals we try to turn into big ones, the more we talk about her lack of qualifications, the more we drive people to her. It's fun, after all. But fun can come with a price.

OMG Bruce, you called Palin a horse! Horse-faced is a sexist insult. Just ask Sarah Jessica Parker!

All joking aside... I really doubt that many presidential campaigns have been won by the strategy of sending your top guy in to take down the opponent's running mate.

Palin really irks me. She's exactly the kind of person I hate. But she's Veep. Most voters think that the Veep does nothing every day. Heck, during the 90s I thought that about Al Gore (I really kind of imagined Clinton saying something like "I'm going to run the place while you go, uh... reinvent government or whatever.")

When Sarah Palin said "I don't even know what the vice president does every day," a lot of us here saw that as a gaffe. But I think that the less politically obsessed, to the extent that they registered the remark at all, probably shrugged and said "me neither."

Aside from being runner-up in the beauty pageant, the VP job isn't important to people. We can't afford to focus our campaign on Palin when, if McCain wins and lives out his four years, she'll do little but champion a few initiatives, meet with a few foreign leaders and spend her time grooming herself for a 2012 run. Ironically, I think that if we run against her, we risk giving away 4 years of McCain and then 8 years with Palin, resulting in an incredible 20 year long Bush doctrine that we will not emerge from as a first world nation.

You've got a point but it's not the fault of the bloggers or even the MSM. Democrats have no brand. Democrats have no message. The whole "centrist" premise is to be reactive. Watch what the other side does and then slide on over thataway. All that does is leave the Republicans entirely in control of both the strategy and the tactics. Consider the head fake on Georgia. Now, any dispassionate person should have known that Americans couldn't find Georgia on a map (even our own Georgia) and couldn't care less about it. But Obama was intimidated into picking a gray beard foreign policy wonk because of the faux hysteria over Georgia. Then surprise, surprise, it's the small town babe.

If Democrats had a message they were authentically determined to sell come hell or high water (and the Republicans seem to have brought the country both hell and high water) they wouldn't be lead down the garden path.

Bruce,

I have three points to make:

1) She is important. People are voting for John McCain because she was selected. Prior to her nomination, far right wing blogs (All American Blogger comes to mind) and conservatives refused to cover McCain. They were always going to vote for McCain, if they went to vote at all, but there was no excitement. These investigations ARE having an impact, it reduces their enthusiasm. Best case is that her fans see her as just another politician, worst case... will not dwell on that,

2) Obama is campaigning on the issues, but as MsJoanne noted, the media will not cover the substantive issues, because they are fascinated with Palin. What to do? Can't ignore her. The media has every intention of defining her, so we have to help with unearthing as much information as possible. This helps Point 1.

3) The debates will help refocus the public on what matters, not lipstick, Britney or Hilton (I hope). In the meantime the Obama is trying to hijack the news cycle using the same techniques as the McCain campaign.

Frame the attacks going forward as McCain faults, such as she is unprepared, McCain failed the judgment test, she is unprepared, McCain failed the country first test, she is a liar, McCain will dishonor himself and this country to become president. He will not have your back, it will be more for big oil, less for our economy and pocketbooks.

I'll quibble with two points here. First, Obama has been campaigning and talking about his message, whether or not we here have.

Second, "freeing ourselves from the dependence on foreign oil" is a red herring. This will never happen. We will either free ourselves from dependence on oil or not at all. American oil production peaked in the 1970s. We only produce 25% of what we consume. Face facts: We will never be free from dependence on foreign oil until we stop using it. So, let's talk about that instead of continuing to use this erroneous talking point.

And please, spare me the drilling rigamarole unless you want to come with some hard numbers. In doing so, you'll save me the time of having to explain why it's irrelevant.

Keep pressing. I don't think she's even qualified to be President of the Senate.

It's not an ideal world and the American electorate is far from ideal. Based on the disaster of the last eight years Obama should be at about 70 no matter what. There are other, largely irrational factors (racism, gender politics, etc).

Most people do not see the world in numeric or logical terms. They see the world in terms of narrative. Two weeks ago Sarah Palin, a complete unknown (and therefore an unforgivably irresponsible choice for McCain to foist upon the electorate for this very important position) was known only by her narrative, which was shaped by Rovian spin-meisters interrupted (somewhat fortuitously) by a firestorm of wild and not-so-wild but definitely trashy and disturbing rumors from the Great White Northwest.

It is necessary to frame a more relevant narrative: extreme ideas, audacious and continual lies, and subtle questions about her character which are starting to disquiet a lot of people. Who does she remind you of: a person who really cares about other people, or one who only cares about herself and will say and do anything to advance her own interests? Who does she remind you of in your own life, the aunt who came over and cared for you when you were sick or the friend's mother who sent him to boarding school while she climbed the social ladder?

There's another narrative besides the one her handlers are spinning, and now is the time to get that one out.