I think the critical moment was seeing watching Obama's speech in the "rock star" motif of the Grecian columns, where he promised everything to everyone at what will be my expense, and he didn't even come right out and respectfully acknowledge that he is asking for a sacrifice from me and the rest of the aspiring upper-middle class. Just a "let's go tax those bad guys and that will fix everything".
i do thing there was language made toward referencing it and that you extended the motif a little too far. I think it is relatively implied what the financial burdens would be in such a tax plan and am a bit surprised that he would have to deliberatly say that people would have to have some increased taxes. I would think this should be understood.
I do consider myself more concerned with the issues than personality, but I've said from the beginning, based on what I know about Obama's "campaign" tactics in the Illinois senate race, as well as the spin tactics that the core bought into against Hillary at many stages in the primary, I have been critical from the start and really do believe history will show that he is the Richard Nixon of the Democratic party. (Someone mentioned that originally Nixon was a "clean campaigner" who lost to Kennedy and the Daley Chicago Democratic machine, so it's probably more accurate to say that Obama is the heir to the Kennedy legacy, but noone would understand that I mean behind the scenes dirty politics and not Camelot). I was still willing to support Obama despite my dislike of his politics, if I believed he would do what is going to get the country back on track.
I think whatever spin tactics were or were not engaged are just as much the fault of Hillary massively bungling the primary race and hanging around far too long. While i dont think she left an indelible mark on the obama campaign, I feel she caused the potential for a lot of problems, in a manner that i think lost sight of the fact that she should have viewed obama as better for the country than mccain. Obviously obama is not a saint, but to assume everyone else is or to demonize him beyond what might be required is probably pushing things too far.
And my series of posts in here is just trying to respond, with some incredulity, to the character assassinations that are going on against Sarah Palin. But she connected in a way that was genuine... in a way that you can't fake with rhetoric. She claims to be for fiscal responsibility. She claims to be for social programs that are needed to support a productive workforce. And I believe she is committed to those things because of her personal beliefs and experiences, not pollster math. At the end of the day, do I believe that the family that "left big law" to have a quality of life with their children while still drawing down $500,000 a year is going to be committed to affordable childcare for working parents, or to protection of workers pensions and the right to organize in order to challenge the 'market first' forces that have been destabilizating American communities everywhere? Not at all. The Obamas are the jet set. And they talk the talk but don't walk the walk.
looking at this as objectively as possible: is it not safe to assume the charcter assassination has a lot to do with the relatively obscurity of the candidate involved. Like most people Palin has some skeletons in the closet, or things that could be confused for them. However, unlike most VP nominees, she has essentially appeared out of nowhere and thrust into an incredible amount of media spotlight. I ask what you think was going to happen in an era where bloggers of every different political slant have access to essentially everything and no qualms about finding it and using it.
About her ability to connect: While she certainly has geninue appeal and charisma, how much of this is an effect of the intial bump and bits of obscurity. If you have someone who is passionate and committed about what they believe in, there is no reason to believe that they will not crush the first pitch sent their way. Ill make an awkward baseball analogy. A lot of times a pitcher or new player will have incredible success the first time around the league, simply because no one knows what to look for. Then everyone settles down into what the player does and doesnt do and they regress to the mean a bit. There are some geniune platform issues that she has made statements toward or has statements that are reflect about that are unappealing at best. Give the woman some time to show us a balanced picture of her platform and of her political savvy before we call her the great populist republican of this time.
Palin's husband is a member of the United Steelworkers Union. She disclosed that but what's telling is that she said it in a speech to a hall full of conventioneers from a party that had traditionally blamed organized labor for choking up the economy. There was a very muted applause, but she had the guts to say it, even though it was unpopular, and when the chips are down, I think she is going to execute on the issues in a way that I support, and for the other issues where I don't support her personal view (like creationism), there are two things: those are areas protected by constitutional case law, and the measures they can constitutionally implement don't bother me. And are there fundamentalists that would put a right to life amendment on the ballot - sure. But what the Republicans are doing by spotlighting someone with street cred on the abortion issue is saying, look, here's an example that not everyone in the world runs out to get an abortion just because the law allows it, even when there are medical issues and even when its and unwed mother. And we as a country can advance the ideals of real choice for mothers to-be without striking down Roe and forcing them to carry a child to term. That's what Palin's nomination says to me, at least, and it's very close to what the Democrats adopted as their party plank which panders to anti-abortion voters saying they are going to advance the value of inutero life but not take on Roe. I would like abstinence taught in school, along with all the rest of sex ed., and I am certainly not a bible toter in the least. And I take those quotes about dinosaurs being devil's servants, ask where did the depiction of the devil and demons come from? Whether or not the devil is real, the depictions are man made - the horns, the tails, and fangs, etc. Someone dug up some bones and that's what they saw. As an anthropologist, you can say, those dinosaur remains sitting in the ground are nothing but what's left of such a wonderful gift, that all it gave us was the conceptualization of demons on earth. But the point of the statement is just this - when you look at the quote here's what I suspect it would mean in context: "I don't give a crap about what the preservationists want to preserve. They are idiots. Compared to the realities of an energy crisis, the remains of a bunch of dead, extinct species are here for us to exploit." That's all the quote was mostly likely meant to convey if you were to track down the context and treat the hyperbole as what is is, an exclamation point on the conviction of the speaker. And if you are making the speach in response to zealots who claim that the environment is the most precious gift we have, you make the point by saying that there are other ways of looking at this gift folks, in terms of human utility.
I ask that in regards to constitutional things you consider again the likelyhood of the shift of balance of power within supreme court justices in the likely next administration (whoever it is). While i do not mean to be alarmist in any sense of the word, possibly one of the few long term guaranteed locks is that the next president will be able to have a fair amount of influence over the supreme court. I have no interest in allowing the potential for an election which otherwise could be debated on issues like the economy, energy policy, foreign policy and healthcare to get hijacked under the value votes issues which have done a number on the last few elections. Inadvertently, a palin nomination puts the wheels in motion for this to happen. Relatively dissatisfied with the presidents inability to push through the moral legislation as they had hope i can think of nothing more that would entice politicized religious conservatives than the idea that the supreme court is at stake and that palin will make sure to steer it the right way with her counsel.
I have the belief that you don't solve the country's problems with hope and popular promises. I don't think Obama can do anything but that. And if his promises require unpopular means to deliver them... do I think a person of his pedigree is going to suck it up and do what needs to be done (i.e., cut entitlements, trim government, control costs of higher education, revitalization of organized labor and restriction of imports and the consumer driven economy), or will he flip flop over to the next "popular" pipe dream, like "green jobs"? He's already done it with NAFTA.
Are you arguing that Mccain is planning on doing any of those things? I have not seen serious motions by mccain to cut entitlements or do anything that realistically trims government. He says nothing about education and is i believe platform opposed to the last part of issues you have said. Essentially if those are some of the issues and the must fixes of this election i am hard pressed to understand how it is that a mccain-palin ticket is going to do a better job of that than an obama-biden.
Ive often said obama cant possibly make good on all of the things he wants to do, any voter should be able to spot that. The difference between the best of what obama cant accomplish and the worst of what mccain likely will, is noticeable enough that i would need to see much stronger evidence for a mccain vote.
And the diversion from that weakness is name calling by his supporters. Many are not ashamed to call Palin "trailer trash" publicly. Has anyone called Obama an Oreo? A privileged minority from a white suburb? We're all much to above board for that sort of talk, right?
I go back to the obscurity issue and her timing as an entrant into what is likely to be an ugly campaign. Your probably just seeing the emergence of a backlashing democratic movement which is upset with the highly effective but aggressive way the republicans have managed the last few elections. The republican attack ads are highly prevalent, its possible the corollary (since obama isnt attacking much himself) is the far less guided and likely impotent response as thus.
Also i think your giving this palin hate too much of a mainstream. Obviously the intial crass shock is to blast palin, i think that will ebb in the time to come. There are however as i think you are failing to admit, plenty of fringe people firing away at obama for a number of things. Palin has been overly demonized, but outside of the media (where obama is treated fantastically well) it is not as if everyone has only been trashing on the right.
and Facebook!!!!!!!
are registered trademarks of Backglass Heavy Industries.
(yes I is bais)
