JFK, Tucson & fear

In the wake of the Tucson shootings and liberal concerns about political rhetoric, our honorable opposition on the right has taken to yelling, “FOUL!” Right-wing commentators claim that progressives’ concerns about rhetoric aren’t real concerns; they’re politics. This scream has been so powerful it has sucked the air out of the post-Tucson debate.

The problem is that conservatives are missing the point. Their protest is based on a false premise, at least it’s false if I’m the liberal under discussion. My alarm about the words, images and narratives of Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh and Tea Party leaders is not a ploy to win elections or to triumph in policy debates. My concern comes from my own raw fear.

Continue reading →

As Sarah Turns: The Palin soap opera continues

Some claim Sarah Palin -- the now out-going governor of Alaska -- is quitting her post to concentrate on running for president, but I don't see it. At the very least, she looks flaky to not even complete one term as governor. Wouldn't she be better served by showing how great she is as a chief executive? What is really going on here, or am I just too politically naive? Also, what a strange time to make this announcement if she wants to increase her political profile. Most folks have already started their 4th of July holiday. This is take-out-the-garbage time, not throw-your-hat-in-the-ring time.

Curiouser and curiouser.

Lieberman vs. Palin: The tale of two almost vice presidents

Here’s a tidbit for the political geeks among us: Barack Obama’s campaign feared that John McCain could win the election if McCain picked Joe Lieberman as his running mate. McCain’s campaign knew he couldn’t do that because of opposition from the GOP’s socially conservative base.

That word came today from Steve Hildebrand, deputy campaign manager for Obama, and Sarah Simmons, McCain director of strategy, and Christian Ferry, McCain deputy campaign manager. The three spoke at a Post-Election Conference at the Dole Institute of Politics at the University of Kansas.

Hildebrand said the Obama campaign worried that if McCain picked one-time Democrat Lieberman it would cement McCain’s credentials for reaching across the aisle. That would plump up McCain’s maverick image and make it harder for Obama to win the support of independent voters.

Simmons and Ferry said they knew going into September that they faced a difficult convention. Former presidential candidate Mike Huckabee’s presence on their far right made the situation even tighter. That meant picking Lieberman was unthinkable.

Both Simmons and Ferry argued vigorously that Sarah Palin was a net plus for the McCain campaign. She energized volunteers and donors, they said. While acknowledging those arguments, most of the rest of the folks at the conference, including reporters and pollsters, scoffed at the idea that Palin ultimately did anything except hurt McCain.

If Palin really did cripple McCain’s presidential ship, then we now know: It was the GOP’s ultra-conservative, religious base that lead to her selection. I admit that this isn't new news, but it's nice to get official confirmation of what many have long suspected.

The real problem with Palin's $150,000 wardrobe

By Nancy Jane Moore

Joan Walsh on Salon summed up the real problem with the McCain campaign spending $150,000 to outfit "the already beautiful Palin":

Sarah Palin didn't need the best clothing and stylists money could buy; she needed tutoring and coaching on the issues. ... The fact that the highest paid staffer on the troubled McCain team this month is Palin's makeup person is also ludicrous; you can't make this stuff up. But it proves that the campaign values Palin primarily for her star power.

It also destroys any remaining claim that the McCain/Palin ticket is "feminist." Obviously the campaign honchos think it's more important for Palin to look good than to know what she's talking about. You can't come up with a more traditional way of marginalizing women than that.

Of course, Palin was picked as the VP candidate to shore up McCain with the extreme religious right, not just to be attractive. And given the apparent depth of Palin's ignorance of the important issues of the day -- which appears to rival or perhaps even exceed Bush's -- perhaps the campaign figured coaching her on the issues was impossible. If so, that just emphasizes what a bad choice she was, given the mess the country's in.

It was a big enough insult to women in this country for the Republicans to assume that women would flock to a female VP candidate whose policies as governor and stated political and religious beliefs undermine the rights we've worked so hard to attain. But to now treat that candidate as if she were running for first lady instead of vice president is even worse.

Sarah Palin is nothing but a token. How embarrassing for the Republicans; how personally humiliating for Palin. I just hope this campaign destroys her political future so thoroughly that her current political office is her last one.

This country has just suffered through eight years under a person who holds extreme right wing religious beliefs, doesn't understand the important issues of the day, and prides himself on his lack of intellectual curiosity. It can't afford another president like that.

In fact, it can't afford any more senators and governors like that, either.

Why McCain & Palin's tactics matter

I dissect John McCain and Sarah Palin's tactics in my latest column. Can you say "lipstick on a pig?"

Tom Toles: A picture is worth a thousand words

Sometimes a picture really is worth a thousand words. Tom Toles sets the record straight. The entire cartoon is available here.

Must Reads: Sarah Palin as president

In case you missed them on Sunday, do go back and read the New York Times and Washington Post stories reporting on Sarah Palin's governing style. Both stories provide a vivid look at how a Sarah Palin presidency might work. It isn't a pretty picture.

This election isn't about lipstick on a pig

This morning it's worth noting the conjunction of the crisis on Wall Street with the McCain-Palin outrage over Barack Obama's use of a common saying about pigs and lipstick. Our financial system is teetering, and the Republicans are furious over a manufactured, non-existent slight. The issues we confront are too serious for that kind of stupidity.

Here is today's most chilling sentence. From Princeton Economist Paul Krugman:

Will the U.S. financial system collapse today, or maybe over the next few days? I don’t think so — but I’m nowhere near certain

Sarah Palin vs. The Big, Bad Media; or how did she do on her home turf in front of a lone interviewer?

[updated]
I was unable to watch last night for a variety of reasons, but the first reviews are kind of interesting.

Apparently, in the most low-key of settings with a sweet, ole' guy interviewer, Palin didn't do too well, except if you're judging on personality and tone. And as the New York Times TV reviewer reminds us, that may be all that matters to some. (Apparently the Times thinks American voters are a tad stupid.)

Slate: The ABC News anchor flummoxes the GOP amateur

Salon: Making a mockery of 9/11. Writer and Salon Editor-in-Chief Joan Walsh gets the award for the best line of the day. In talking about the Palin interview, she wrote:

It's the day we learned beyond any doubt that John McCain put his manhood in a blind trust to win the presidency.

New York Times: Showing a confidence in prepared answers. The Times TV reviewer thought tone mattered more than, well, expertise or competency.

Kevin Drum does his own review of reviews and notes one attitude from the right: The idea that Charlie Gibson had some gall to actually ask Palin substantive questions and expert real answers from a person who could become president.

James Fallows: Palin's lack of knowledge of the Bush Doctrine probably disqualifies her for the job.

What Sarah Palin revealed is that she has not been interested enough in world affairs to become minimally conversant with the issues. Many people in our great land might have difficulty defining the "Bush Doctrine" exactly. But not to recognize the name, as obviously was the case for Palin, indicates not a failure of last-minute cramming but a lack of attention to any foreign-policy discussion whatsoever in the last seven years.

Josh Marshall calls this moment "painful" and provides the video to prove it.

[updated 11:21 a.m. Central]

More links to reviews.

Hat tip to Media Bistro for providing the first few links in its Morning Newsfeed.

Gloria Steinem on Sarah Palin

In the Los Angeles Times, feminist icon Gloria Steinmen writes:

Selecting Sarah Palin, who was touted all summer by Rush Limbaugh, is no way to attract most women, including die-hard Clinton supporters. Palin shares nothing but a chromosome with Clinton. Her down-home, divisive and deceptive speech did nothing to cosmeticize a Republican convention that has more than twice as many male delegates as female, a presidential candidate who is owned and operated by the right wing and a platform that opposes pretty much everything Clinton's candidacy stood for -- and that Barack Obama's still does. To vote in protest for McCain/Palin would be like saying, "Somebody stole my shoes, so I'll amputate my legs."

Oh yeah.

Today's Must Read: An "apology" to Sarah Palin

Sometimes I'm downright proud to be a journalist. Today's must read is Roger Simon's "apology" to Sarah Palin over at Politico. Best of all, he quotes the wonderful Lily Tomlin: “No matter how cynical I get, it’s just never enough to keep up.”

The Republican National Convention descends into the politics of ridicule

I know I shouldn't be this naive, but I'm stunned by what I saw last night at the RNC. In particular, Rudy Giuliani and Sarah Palin ridiculed their political opponents with quips and sarcasm suitable for junior high cafeterias. And then the Republican delegates responded with the kind of laughter, hand gestures and yelling that one would expect from 14-year-olds. (Note: I'm a mother with a son in his early 20s, so I remember that stage VERY well.)

The Republicans seemed to think it was particularly hilarious that someone would be a community organizer. Think about the arrogance of that. Here is the party that oversaw the destruction of the economy for the last eight years and made Jack Abramoff a star -- the party that claims that it's for the common man and against the elites -- roaring with laughter at the idea of organizing to battle elites.

I wasn't laughing. I bet I wasn't alone.

Is Palin Mrs. Pritchard and other entertaining bits from the news

By Nancy Jane Moore

Joel Achenbach has the best take so far on the Republicans:

So far the Republican National Convention has gone according to script. Unfortunately the script was written by John Waters.

New York Times columnist Bob Herbert makes a good point about the Palin pick:

Palin is the latest G.O.P. distraction. She's meant to shift attention away from the real issue of this campaign -- the awful state of the nation after eight years of Republican rule.

Herbert cautions us to avoid getting caught up in the distraction.

On the other hand, is anyone else besides me taken with the parallel between Sarah Palin and the main character of the British program on PBS, "The Amazing Mrs. Pritchard"? For those of you who don't watch PBS -- I only saw this show because it comes on after the British mysteries, which are much more satisfying than "CSI and Order" and their many clones -- Mrs. Pritchard is an ordinary working class British woman who gets outraged and ends up as prime minister. (I've only seen bits and pieces, so I don't know how all that happened.)

There are lots of differences between Mrs. Pritchard and Palin, of course, the most obvious being that Mrs. Pritchard is actually trying to do something about global warming instead of cheering for the oil companies. And clearly a strong network of women politicians has rallied around her, because virtually all of her ministers and assistants are women. It's hard to watch the program and not root for her.

But Mrs. Pritchard represents that desire many people have for so-called "common sense" leaders who speak their minds (and often shoot from the hip) and Palin's public image is precisely that: an ordinary woman taking care of business. Of course, Palin is actually a pretty ruthless politician -- not to mention a religious right extremist -- judging from what I've read about her and Alaska politics, but image has a tendency to overpower truth in these matters.

Palin candidacy death watch gathers steam

Over at Daily Kos, they've already started a death watch thread on the vice presidential candidacy of Sarah Palin. Intrade has already started trading on whether or not Palin will be forced to withdraw. Personally, I think it's way too early to tell if Palin's candidacy will be a rerun of Tom Eagleton's 1972 aborted run for veep, but stay tuned.

Meanwhile, the steady drip, drip, drip of Palin revelations continues.

Greg Sargent at TPM ElectionCentral has a great rundown of the controversies stacking up against Palin. The Washington Post reports today that the allegedly anti-earmark Palin was pro-earmark when she was mayor of tiny Wasilla. She hired a lobbying firm and helped bring $27 million to the town of 6,700 people. The New York Times weighs in with a detailed piece on the not-so-active vet of Palin. The Los Angeles Times quotes one Republican strategist "with close ties to the campaign" as saying that the vet was little more than a Google search.

Today's Must Read: John McCain's desperation

Politico does a nice job of running down the six things picking Sarah Palin as veep says about John McCain. Point #1? "He's desperate."

Sarah Palin: Not such a bad idea?

Rebecca Traister makes some good points about how Sarah Palin helps John McCain. Traister wonders if Barack Obama really should have picked Hillary Clinton.

McCain's Hail Mary vice presidential pick

William Greider makes the point at The Nation that John McCain's choice of Sarah Palin as vice president shows the GOP's desperation. Uh huh.

Sarah Palin: Not a stunning pick at all

"It's a girl!" Slate enthuses in announcing John McCain's new veep-mate, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin. It sure is a girl, and by naming Palin, McCain makes one thing clear: The only way he thinks he can win in November is by picking off Hillary's female supporters. This isn't exactly news.

But how the heck can he do that by naming a running mate with almost no experience who is anti-choice? Hillary Clinton's selling points, among others, were that (a) she had the experience and (b) she was pro-woman. Does McCain think women voters are too stupid to notice Palin's record?