Democrat National Convention

[Troy McClure]

I thought I would create a new thread regarding the Democrat National Convention. So far I thought it's been fairly successful in just about every way, particularly Senator Clinton and President Clinton. The governor of Montana was also very entertaining Tuesday night.

I'm looking forward to seeing Senator Obama speak tomorrow night. Should be exciting, which just happens to be the 45th anniversary of Dr. King's 'I Have a Dream Speech' in DC.

Apologies if I sound really giddy.

ps to Cacophony -- I'm very enthused about Senator Biden. Kudos to you for showing us what a good guy he is.

Thoughts?

-Jason

[gambit]

The governor of Montana was also very entertaining Tuesday night.Hey, I voted him into office! Glad Brian Schweitzer got a chance to speak at the national convention right before Hillary. :)

[Troy McClure]

Hey, I voted him into office! Glad Brian Schweitzer got a chance to speak at the national convention right before Hillary. :)

I hope what I said about Governor Schweitzer didn't come across as a slight against him. I kept thinking while watching him, 'Man I hope Senator Obama asks him to campaign with him'. I was completely impressed by his natural candor. --Jason

[chuck]

Wait. Jesse Ventura was at the DNC?

And I missed it?

Dammit. ;)

We're getting quite a bit of radio and TV coverage down here - going to hook up my Daily Show torrent queue to get all the best bits though.

[Deckard]

Biden and Clinton - both superb. And if we're talking soundbites for the masses, this one from Bill was about as good as they come:

"People the world over have always been more impressed by the power of our example than by the example of our power."

The kind of message you won't be hearing next week in Minnesota.

Not had time to watch Kerry yet but I've heard he was on form too.

Feeling a little anxious about Obama's speech though. Someone made what I thought to be a valid point - apparently the backdrop being set up at Mile High Stadium will have him framed by huge great Roman columns. Now given the running theme in the Republican attacks being fired at him (celebrity, rockstar, messiah, etc), do we really think this was a wise choice? Might it not have been much more inspired for him to have gone totally counter-intuitive and given his acceptance speech in a smallish venue, to a selected audience of mostly white and working-class families?

It was a fair point, I thought. Huge venue, roman columns... you can hear the Republican response even before they've aired it. This runs the risk of not living up to its own hype.

We'll soon see, though.

I just hope the security's up to scratch.

[cacophony]

ps to Cacophony -- I'm very enthused about Senator Biden. Kudos to you for showing us what a good guy he is.

Yeah well I should warn you that I'm a terrible jinx. Whatever or whoever I support usually loses. So cross your fingers and hope my magical jinx power is broken for the next few months. ;)

[cured]

The republicans are going to rip into Obama something fierce next week, make no mistake about that. They don't have much of a leg to stand on, otherwise, and they'll perpetuate a lot of falsehoods about their own administration that is going to rally their base. I don't think the democrats have done a good enough job going after McCain in this convention. It's been a good convention but not a great one, thus far.

Having said that, this race won't be decided until Obama eviscerates McCain in the debates, which is what I think will happen.

[IsiliRunite]

a good guy he is.

I really hope this is sarcasm.

[gambit]

I hope what I said about Governor Schweitzer didn't come across as a slight against him. I kept thinking while watching him, 'Man I hope Senator Obama asks him to campaign with him'. I was completely impressed by his natural candor. --JasonNah, no slight was around. It'd be nice if he campaigned with Obama, but he has to campaign for his job this year, so that may only be minimal.

[Deckard]

OK, just lost another post, so let's try and recap what I just wrote...

I agree with you Cured about the Republicans ripping into Obama next week far far more than the Dems ripped into McCain this week. The Dems spent a lot of time talking about change and unity, and apart from Biden, not as much on McCain as they might have. Given the way the Republican base appears to have somewhat begrudgingly accepted the reality of McCain rather than enthusiastically championed him, it will be more canny for him to keep the focus on the flaws of Obama. Expect them to run with "Obama is all hype and no trousers and not one of us" and "the world is a dangerous place".

When it comes to the debates later on, I'm far less sure that Obama will get much electoral mileage from those. And that worries me, given how things stand at present. You'll have the homely aw-shucks well-fed veteran hero, prone to almost celebrating his ignorance on certain things, versus the so-called inexperienced, skinny "in-tel-lec-tual" (that word deliberately over-enunciated to make it sound like an alien concept).

If memory serves, Kerry was much more effective than Bush in the debates of 2004. Yet Bush walked away with it. Bush emphasized toughness, he emphasized certainty, and even though Kerry's rebuttals were spot on and demonstrated far better reasoning, it seems that this was more detail than many American viewers/voters needed in a president. They wanted their apple pie, and that's what I fear will happen this year, even moreso than 4 years ago. That demonstrating logical argument and underlying principles come second place to how people will feel.

Also, the international situation could yet swing it to McCain in a big way. I'm still wondering whether Israel plans to go ahead with their strike on Iran before the year is up.

[kagenaki koe]

i felt Kerry was the only Dem that really went after McCain:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Low2It3dA40

the good stuff starts at 4:04

[cured]

The 2004 election wasn't really decided on the debates. Most people knew which side of the fence they were on. What got conservatives riled up was Bush's promise to put attention on the amendment to ban gay marriage. This single issue got a lot of conservative voters to the polls; those same conservative voters felt betrayed when nothing happened and threatened to stay home in the last election cycle, which a lot of them did.

The reason why I feel Obama will emerge from the debates ahead of McCain isn't simply he's the better speaker but the issue of inexperience won't be on display as much as a discussion on the problems and solutions will. Although Obama and McCain both will accuse each other of flip-flopping, McCain has ahad a real problem getting facts straight over the past few months and, if he isn't sharp when the debates start, simple, lowest common denominator logic won't fly.

[dubman]

i agree with deckard, kerry schooled him on debates and it didnt chnage shit. bush openly flopped on the first go-around ("uh....jim?") and he still squeaked in.
i watched the aftermath of that minister meeting bullshit between the two and mccain supposedly came out on top because according to some pundit obama seemed "too thoughtful"

i laughed and turned the tv off.

theres every expectation that mccain will hunker down with his talking points like gollum and his ring when obama eats him for breakfast, and the debate will cater to that because ol fudders shouldnt be outright embarassed.

[cured]

You just outlined a problem Obama has, though: he's too smart in his responses for most voters. A lot of voters are idiots. I've discussed issues with McCain supporters who can't list even a single policy stance he has. They only come up with "he's got the experience" but can't expand on that or define how that translates into good policy making.

Obama is really going to have to dumb down some of what he says.

[dubman]

ok, but i hope that hasnt gone so far into practicality that it's not still depressing to hear.
obama isnt hard to follow, and the sooner we can shake this "a simple man for tough times" mentality through acts or by declaration the better. we've done the guy-who-knows-what-he-knows-and-it-aint-relativity gamble and it's panned out to be the worst decision in a time when we needed someone with multi-faceted judgement and perspective. obama's run his campaign on nebulous principles backed up by fantastic speeches and elaboration. if he dumbs it down it's just more hammy sloganeering than what we're already getting.
if he can remain 'thoughtful' and pull this off (which i think he should try, because despite this 'dead heat' talk i think it's the case simply because we havent seen enough of mccain in action, and all of this undecided business is going to get practical for democrats and their party when it comes voting time) it might set a better example for future campaigns.

[Deckard]

The 2004 election wasn't really decided on the debates.
Yeah I accept that. My point was that Kerry's (IMO) superior performance at debating did nothing to raise his standing in the opinion polls. It didn't do much to save him.

(and btw let me just add that I'm not saying that everyone who voted for Bush in '04 voted in the simplistic way I previously implied. Just that, um, probably a lot did ;) )

What got conservatives riled up was Bush's promise to put attention on the amendment to ban gay marriage.
As a matter of interest, is gay marriage set to be much of an issue this year? I'm not seen too much talk of it this time round.

The reason why I feel Obama will emerge from the debates ahead of McCain isn't simply he's the better speaker but the issue of inexperience won't be on display as much as a discussion on the problems and solutions will. Although Obama and McCain both will accuse each other of flip-flopping, McCain has ahad a real problem getting facts straight over the past few months and, if he isn't sharp when the debates start, simple, lowest common denominator logic won't fly.
You could well have a point there.

we've done the guy-who-knows-what-he-knows-and-it-aint-relativity gamble
Hahaha!

[dubman]

i really hope they jump on it hard if mccain blows the debates. it'd make a really strong case for their angle of Bush Pt. 3 to do comparisons if mccain can mirror some of that floundering incompetence on display back in 00 and 04

[cured]

Gay marriage isn't an issue in this cycle...I think people have realized that the government is really quite powerless on this singular issue and that it's something that individual states are better equipped to handle.

The reason why I say Obama has to dumb it down is the general populace will remember simple catch phrases. Someone on CNN noted that people who want to go to their local boosters club will want to take direct quotes from candidates to push the message. If there is an elaborate statement with a lot of big words that simple people have a hard time passing through word of mouth, the message will be lost. That's why McCain has kept it really simple and has caught up, among other things.

Once the debates start and McCain can't behind the excuse of Obama's inexperience, he'll fall behind in the polls. I'm just hoping Iran keeps cool and so do we in relation to them.

In other news, is Hurricane Gustav going to be Katrina, the sequel?

[Deckard]

From an interview with McCain that Time posted (http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1836909,00.html) yesterday:

There's a theme that recurs in your books and your speeches, both about putting country first but also about honor. I wonder if you could define honor for us?
Read it in my books.

I've read your books.
No, I'm not going to define it.

But honor in politics?
I defined it in five books. Read my books.

(Your) campaign today is more disciplined, more traditional, more aggressive. From your point of view, why the change?
I will do as much as we possibly can do to provide as much access to the press as possible.

But beyond the press, sir, just in terms of ...
I think we're running a fine campaign, and this is where we are.

Do you miss the old way of doing it?
I don't know what you're talking about.

Umm... a little strange, no?

I mean, ok, it could have been worse (he could have called him a c***) but still, an unusual way to handle an interview at a time like this.

Maybe these upcoming debates will not work as well for him as I initially thought....

[Deckard]

Gay marriage isn't an issue in this cycle...I think people have realized that the government is really quite powerless on this singular issue and that it's something that individual states are better equipped to handle.
I see.

Hopefully Ellen DeGeneres and Portia de Rossi's "normal" wedding will have taken another brick out the wall as well.

[dubman]

lol
there's a small part of me that wants him to be rather prepared for a debate.
but mostly i want to see a roast.

[cured]

From an interview with McCain that Time posted (http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1836909,00.html) yesterday:



Umm... a little strange, no?

I mean, ok, it could have been worse (he could have called him a c***) but still, an unusual way to handle an interview at a time like this.

Maybe these upcoming debates will not work as well for him as I initially thought....

That's a prime example of his problems. When he's in a debate and he's given a question and two minutes to respond to it, he's really going to have to have everything rehearsed and his memory is going to have to not fail him. What I think he'll have the biggest problem with are the responses that Obama will send back his way. I'm not sure if McCain is prepared to respond to a rebut at this point.

[cacophony]

very savvy campaign strategy on the mccain campaign's part tonight. they released the information that mccain has settled on a VP running mate and timed it to reach the media in the gap between biden's speech and obama's speech. so now all of the media pundits are spinning their wheels talking about, "who could it be?" and repeating mccain's name when they would otherwise be winding up to obama's appearance. and in fact CNN spent several minutes showing the convention floor but mccain's news and name is all over the crawl. they're now back to talking about obama but i guarantee they'll revisit mccain's news as they're trying to come up with enough brainless chatter to fill the moments before the speech.

the announcement included a statement that they wouldn't reveal the name until tomorrow because tonight is obama's night. smart. they'll reveal the name tomorrow and usurp some of the continuing rehashing of obama's speech and get mccain's name rolling around and taking some of the spotlight back.

i've got to hand it to them. pretty smart move.

[cured]

It makes sense...their convention is next week. I wouldn't call it smart, just appropriate.

[cured]

oh, and I forgot to mention...Amy Holmes is having my children!

[gambit]

Okay, no thoughts on Obama's speech?

I watched it, and he delivered big time. McCain will need to answer this big time next week if he's going to have a shot at winning.

[cured]

Alright...FINE. I guess I can talk about this little speech he gave.

In short, Obama took off the gloves and bitch slapped McCain. Maybe its better to say he pimp slapped him. In 2004, Kerry shriveled when he was swift-boated. Obama took on his criticisms head on. The republican response was sophomoric and I don't think they were expecting him to come out and take a swing back. For certain, the republican slime machine is going to eat at him all of next week but the stage has been set. Soon we'll have the debates and soon we'll see the real main event.

I said Obama was going to have to dumb it down in terms of not having his diction fly over everyone's heads and he did that. He also humanized himself. And he laid out his vision.

Now that the gloves are off, you can fast forward through next week. Let me spoil it for you: Obama is inexperienced, he doesn't care for his own half-brother so how can he care for your family, he's going to bankrupt the US and the terrorists are going to drive small boats in droves across the atlantic and bring the fight to us. We can't be safe with Obama, he'll give your country away to the poor, the small businesses we depend on for job growth are going to go under, he'll bring witch doctors in to socialize your medicine, he isn't smart enough to find oil in our own country and, oh, and he's really famous. Lastly, God has chosen John McCain to succeed Premier Bush. And God can kick Allah's ass any time of the week.

Did I miss anything?

[Troy McClure]

Alright...FINE. I guess I can talk about this little speech he gave.

In short, Obama took off the gloves and bitch slapped McCain. Maybe its better to say he pimp slapped him. In 2004, Kerry shriveled when he was swift-boated. Obama took on his criticisms head on. The republican response was sophomoric and I don't think they were expecting him to come out and take a swing back. For certain, the republican slime machine is going to eat at him all of next week but the stage has been set. Soon we'll have the debates and soon we'll see the real main event.

I said Obama was going to have to dumb it down in terms of not having his diction fly over everyone's heads and he did that. He also humanized himself. And he laid out his vision.

Now that the gloves are off, you can fast forward through next week. Let me spoil it for you: Obama is inexperienced, he doesn't care for his own half-brother so how can he care for your family, he's going to bankrupt the US and the terrorists are going to drive small boats in droves across the atlantic and bring the fight to us. We can't be safe with Obama, he'll give your country away to the poor, the small businesses we depend on for job growth are going to go under, he'll bring witch doctors in to socialize your medicine, he isn't smart enough to find oil in our own country and, oh, and he's really famous. Lastly, God has chosen John McCain to succeed Premier Bush. And God can kick Allah's ass any time of the week.

Did I miss anything?

I can think of some stuff, but I don't want to type it out.

I thought the 'America Voices Program' segment before Dick Durbin was very effective. Senator Obama's speech brought the goods. He took on McCain with no mercy. To quote Chris Matthews on MSNBC tonight after listing the McCain tactics used so far '...a great way of throwing back the other side's (McCain) best shots, and saying it's full of crap'.

Jason

[Deckard]

I thought it was a very impressive speech. Yes the stage management and razzmattazz was always going to appear a bit cringeworthy to some of us not used to such things, but the speech had substance, he managed to address lots of areas, tick lots of boxes, come across as human, and I felt there were a good selection of soundbites for the evening news...

"Now is the time to end this addiction, and to understand that drilling is a stop-gap measure, not a long-term solution. Not even close."

"John McCain likes to say that he'll follow bin Laden to the Gates of Hell - but he won't even go to the cave where he lives."

"You don't defeat a terrorist network that operates in 80 countries by occupying Iraq."

"So let us agree that patriotism has no party. I love this country, and so do you, and so does John McCain."

"...the change we need doesn't come from Washington. Change comes to Washington. Change happens because the American people demand it - because they rise up and insist on new ideas and new leadership"

"What the nay-sayers don't understand is that this election has never been about me. It's been about you."

Also, after describing various struggling Americans – business owners, factory workers, young students...
" I don't know what kind of lives John McCain thinks that celebrities lead, but this has been mine. These are my heroes."

*smack*!!!

I thought he took a risk with this one though...
"If you don't have a record to run on, then you paint your opponent as someone people should run from."

Hmm.

In short, I think he got almost everything right (including the name-check to Hillary so early on) primarily by making it about the audience, by empathisizing, by offering some specifics, and by keeping everything hooked into the theme of change and the future. I thought he laid into McCain very effectively, making him look a joke on economic issues in particular.

Most of us know Obama is not the Second Coming, and we realise that after a couple of years, we'll/you'll probably be feeling let down by him in the way that Tony "things can only get better" Blair let us Brits down. He will almost certainly disappoint when it comes to the degree of change he can realistically offer, and it would be easy, in anticipation of that, to buy into the mood of cynicism about him. But for now, at this point in time, this guy – to me at least – seems so many streets ahead of the choices America has previously had in their presidential candidates (issue of race aside), it would be a tragedy if they just let him slip by and voted in the Republican.

[Deckard]

Oh, and I thought those roman columns were fine - didn't even notice for most of the speech which was framed in close-up.

Had to laugh at the way our BBC commentator at the end had to reassure viewers (or probably listeners) that the loud bangs were fireworks and not gun shots!

[cacophony]

It makes sense...their convention is next week. I wouldn't call it smart, just appropriate.

it was no coincidence. i checked CNN and CNN mobile after the speech. mccain's name dominated every headline.

[Deckard]

very savvy campaign strategy on the mccain campaign's part tonight. they released the information that mccain has settled on a VP running mate and timed it to reach the media in the gap between biden's speech and obama's speech. so now all of the media pundits are spinning their wheels talking about, "who could it be?" and repeating mccain's name when they would otherwise be winding up to obama's appearance. and in fact CNN spent several minutes showing the convention floor but mccain's news and name is all over the crawl. they're now back to talking about obama but i guarantee they'll revisit mccain's news as they're trying to come up with enough brainless chatter to fill the moments before the speech.

the announcement included a statement that they wouldn't reveal the name until tomorrow because tonight is obama's night. smart. they'll reveal the name tomorrow and usurp some of the continuing rehashing of obama's speech and get mccain's name rolling around and taking some of the spotlight back.

i've got to hand it to them. pretty smart move.
Very clever of them, though pretty much all the news sources I've seen today are pointing out that McCain's VP announcement/speculation has been timed to pop Obama's balloon.

Latest speculation by the way is Alaska Governor Sarah Palin.

[Troy McClure]

Very clever of them, though pretty much all the news sources I've seen today are pointing out that McCain's VP announcement/speculation has been timed to pop Obama's balloon.

Latest speculation by the way is Alaska Governor Sarah Palin.

Every major news source is confirming that it is her. Interesting choice.

[Deckard]

Wow, that's a VERY clever move by them.

[cured]

She's pro-life and she's a woman but she's also 44 and a heartbeat away from the presidency. So much for needing experience. She's got ties to the oil industry and her husband is in the oil biz. That may be fodder for the democrats.

Now that she's in the fight, though, she's going to be given a trial by fire. She's going to be debating Joe Biden soon and when that conversation heads into the foreign policy area, is she going to be regurgitating talking points handed to her on a sheet of paper or is she going to demonstrate some insight that can parry whatever Biden says. After all, one of the them is the chair of the senate foreign relations committee, the other is a fisherman from Alaska.

[cured]

Most of us know Obama is not the Second Coming, and we realise that after a couple of years, we'll/you'll probably be feeling let down by him in the way that Tony "things can only get better" Blair let us Brits down. He will almost certainly disappoint when it comes to the degree of change he can realistically offer, and it would be easy, in anticipation of that, to buy into the mood of cynicism about him. But for now, at this point in time, this guy – to me at least – seems so many streets ahead of the choices America has previously had in their presidential candidates (issue of race aside), it would be a tragedy if they just let him slip by and voted in the Republican.

The big bonus about an Obama victory would be there is a democratic congress looking to redeem themselves. They've been at odds with the Bush administration and Obama will have the party backing to actually push some of these ideas through. If the US troops are pulled back in late 2010, well, that's right before the next election cycle starts and he has a finger to wag in the GOPs face.

He isn't the messiah but, standing next to Premier Bush, he certainly seems like it. I think it'll be great for our country in regards to race relations and the re-enfranchisement of minority voters who think this is just a white man's game.

[cacophony]

Wow, that's a VERY clever move by them.

interesting the way each candidate has selected someone to counterbalance their perceived weaknesses.

obama's perceived weaknesses - he's inexperienced, he might be a muslim, and he's *gasp* black. so he picks a sparklingly white roman catholic with 35 years experience.

mccain's perceived weaknesses - he's old, he's the same "old white guy" type as every other politician, and he's entrenched in washington. so he picks a young, contemporary woman who presides over a state that's as far from washington as you can get.

too bad she's under investigation for abuse of power. (http://www.ktva.com/ci_10026165)

[Deckard]

...although she's "cool" about that.

Apparently.

My initial reaction is that Clinton supporters - not only those who were still dead set against Obama, but also those who painfully switched their allegiance to him - might now drift away.

It will be interesting to see how widepread views like this (from the BBC story of it) actually are....

I was leaning towards Obama but with this choice I think I've changed my vote
Tim, Stanford, USA

[gambit]

I get the feeling that McCain picked Palin largely because she's a woman. He's been running commercials lately trying to appeal to those people who would've voted for Clinton, so on the surface, I can see a good chunk of people changing their minds and voting for McCain because of Palin.

[cured]

I can't talk politics at work anymore. The women here are stupid. One told me they'd vote for McCain because he has a woman on the ticket (they've never heard of her and don't know her positions) and others said they won't vote for Obama because they think he was mean to Hillary. Another woman, a smart co-worker of mine, told me that voting based on gender doesn't mean people are less informed, it's just their choice. The level of absurdity around here is absolutely horrifying.

[Deckard]

Another woman, a smart co-worker of mine, told me that voting based on gender doesn't mean people are less informed, it's just their choice.
Presumably she also thinks it's "informed" if someone votes for a candidate because he's a man and not a woman?

Ask her if her gender rule applies to race as well (including in the negative sense)

[cured]

We had that discussion, too. Her idea basically is a person's vote doesn't have to make sense to anyone but themselves. While I agree with that, I asked if actually knowing something about the candidates makes someone more or less informed, to which she replied it doesn't matter.

[dubman]

oh dear me.
and i thought hillary was transparently cynical

pick a running mate that somehow adds a modicum of dudely fantasies to ol' fudders' ticket (look! look! a woman who pro guns and drillings and life and she's a woman that you can look at waowowowoww) and suddenly john mccains prospects have got legs. as cured aptly demonstrated, there are some who'll vote them in just because she's a woman, making it the most dangerously gimmicky gab at hillary supporters yet.

two things democrats have to attack on off the bat:

mccain can now shut up about obama lacking experience, he's just picked a running mate who's a newly minted governor as second in command of the entire country.

just because she's a woman doesnt mean she's a hillary. strikes one, two, and three: she feels good for republicans, those in the "good ol' boys" club that she's quick to deride, by being the same old vanilla conservative stand-by in all but gender. it's a gimmick and it shouldnt work but it will if they dont pounce on her for practically hemorraging the party line, especially when it comes to talking about natural resources, being an avid supporter of solution-for-the-now drilling.

what would be awesome:
if hillary dissuaded the impulse vote by ripping apart not only this gimmicky, insulting ploy, but also this person to shreds on the sideline. she's not hillary, and she's not on ball with mccains relative moderation. shes what republicans are actually relieved about. she thinks she's going to set mccain right and in party lines on some issues. this needs to be highlighted: MCCAIN HAS SWERVED THIS TICKET AWAY FROM INDEPENDENTS AND INTO SOLID-RIGHT-WING TERRITORY

what to look out for:
mccains found his answer against biden by replicating his own situation against obama: the televised contrast of someone really old against some who looks fresh, young, and signifies a kind of shift (regardless of substance). biden will school her left and sideways in debates, but if she stays on ball well enough it's biden that can look like the flustered oldsie she "held her own against"

politically its a smart move, but has lots of cracks to expose. idealogically this is just contemptible all around

actually the more i think about it the more i think this move is made for a practical purpose with a very obvious bonus.
he's trying to rope in hillary supporters and evangelicals in one, and all hillary has to do is trounce that crap for the insulting bullshit it is, but he's still bringing around the bible belt to make it more republican. so while it's only got a sorta-shot against hillary-supporters apparently blinded by bitterness, voters might be dumb enough (and when are they not, amirite) to make that angle work as well, thereby getting the hillary bonus along with the primary goal of getting the hardline conservatives in.

[cured]

I just want to point out Alaska's population is smaller than Rhode Island. Hell, if you doubled the size of the city of Pasadena, you'd have roughly the same population as Alaska.

[dubman]

well delaware aint exactly a powerhouse either

[cured]

Right but Delaware is 1/100 the size of Alaska. I don't want people looking at the map and saying "wow Alaska is a big state" in comparison to California and Texas when that landscape, especially politically, couldn't be any bigger.

[dubman]

i think the public consciousness of alaska hasnt changed much since america bought it, to wit: it's a goddamn icebox wtf

[gambit]

And Wyoming has less people than Alaska, and we still got a vice president out of it (though Cheney had more experience than Palin).

Well, so much for McCain's experience argument. He's 72, and if something were to happen to him as president, Palin's experience makes Obama look like one of those damned "Washington insiders." I know a lot of Hillary supporters and women are going to vote for McCain now because his VP is a woman, but now, they can't use that experience argument. If they vote for McCain, then it's because they wanted a woman as president, and they didn't give a shit about issues.

[cured]

^ well that's the thing. I've talked to some real stupid women at my office who are looking at the McCain ticket for no other reason than he's picked a woman. I've tried having discussion about it but I can't get any reason from them. They were big time Hillary supporters and said they were with her on her policies, then mcCain picks Palin and suddenly McCain is on the right side of policy. Incredible. Oh well, Mark Twain once said we elect the government we deserve. Now what's worrying me is the focus of this race is going to be on her quite often and that takes a lot of fire from the Obama campaign. by the way, McCain had only met Palin once before "tapping" her as the VP.

[cacophony]

Her idea basically is a person's vote doesn't have to make sense to anyone but themselves.

oops, she's confused politics with religion.

[cacophony]

mccain can now shut up about obama lacking experience, he's just picked a running mate who's a newly minted governor as second in command of the entire country.

and obama can now shut up about mccain having a long term of service mired in the continuing problems of washington, he's just picked a running mate who has served even longer.

it's very odd the way they each picked a running mate that makes it impossible for them to use their first line of attack without pointing out their running mates' weaknesses.

[mmm skyscraper]

it's very odd the way they each picked a running mate that makes it impossible for them to use their first line of attack without pointing out their running mates' weaknesses.

balance has been returned to the force

[gambit]

I honestly can't wait to see the VP debate. Since Palin is so new to the national scene, she's going to be on the defensive, and it'll be interesting to see how she handles it.

And I'm getting something of a Harriet Miers vibe from her for some reason, but that may be just me.

[Troy McClure]

And I'm getting something of a Harriet Miers vibe from her for some reason, but that may be just me.

good call.

Okay, I just watched the msnbc.com video feed. Things I noticed were McCain had to look at his note cards when saying who he had picked as a running mate. He did not shake her hand when Gov. Palin came onstage. They immediately hugged. Shouldn't they have shook hands first? Shouldn't women see that as just a little bit insulting to their intelligence or power? They even hug again after she says what an honor it is to run with him. She couldn't correctly pronounce nuclear. Palin obviously had no issue with bringing up that one of her kids is in active duty. At the end McCain finally, albeit weakly, shakes her hand. McCain consistently was eyeballing and looking over her during her speech. That was creepy.

I'm trying to figure how to say this without being an ass and demeaning Palin or women in general, but appearance wise, when you look at them together, it looks like Senator McCain is the CEO of a company who just asked his assistant to join the board of directors.

-Jason

[cured]

I'm trying to figure how to say this without being an ass and demeaning Palin or women in general, but appearance wise, when you look at them together, it looks like Senator McCain is the CEO of a company who just asked his assistant to join the board of directors.

Good call.

One interesting point I read was that this woman has a 4 month-old son with Down Syndrome that is likely to be neglected because his mom is going to have to do a LOT of campaigning and a LOT of studying up on domestic and foreign issues. It seems like an interesting choice to basically take a leave of absence from your son so you can play politics.

[Deckard]

Troy, you need to submit your question to him for one of the debates (in the style of Mrs Merton (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lj-9lSEBBm0))...

"So Mr McCain, tell me, why did you opt for attractive former beauty queen Sarah Palin as running mate?" :D

If he wanted a woman, why not one of the other more experienced female candidates like Hutchison (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kay_Bailey_Hutchison) or Snowe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olympia_Snowe)? Prior to this announcement, both of those were discussed in the media here as very able women candidates.

I hear the arguments about choosing a Governor rather than another Senator, and about choosing someone more youthful. But still, undermining one of the central pillars of your campaign's attack against Obama - that's very brave. As is choosing someone for VP (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/08/29/how-mccain-chose-palin/) who.....

John McCain first met Sarah Palin only six months ago and had just one conversation with the Alaska governor before offering her the vice presidential slot on the Republican ticket, the Arizona senator's campaign said Friday.

For someone so relatively unknown, then based on this information, she must have made quite an impression on him.

And he says he chose her because she's "someone with strong principles, a fighting spirit and deep compassion, she's got the grit, the integrity and commitment to the common good which are exactly what we need in Washington today". That's fair enough, although I'd say those are all qualities that would have been used to describe any other VP choice, male or female, and I'm still left wondering, why risk your own platform of attack by choosing someone so unknown? Is this REALLY just the Clinton factor?

McCain himself didn't speak with the Alaska governor until last Sunday — one day after Barack Obama named Joe Biden to his ticket.
Holding off on this decision until one day after Obama played his hand. It's possible it still might have been her of course....

I should add, these things aren't remotely, in themselves, criticisms of her as a candidate - hopefully that's obvious (though I think there's a fair bit to challenge, not least her views on homosexuality and atheism), but rather a wincing at the way these decisions are made. I'm at least heartened to read that she's a prominent member of Feminists for Life, so presumably she can't be all that bad.... can she?

To expand on what Cacophony has already said, it's also interesting how both presidential candidates are completely silent on what they themselves lacked, and sought to gain in their choice of running mate. Instead we get these nebulous endorsements, but it's never straight-up admitted. It's quite funny.

[Deckard]

One result of this is that we're now hearing more about all the other possible Republican women he could have chosen - plenty of others in addition to the two I mentioned who might have been more suitable - not just with rather more experience (thus leaving McCain's attack strategy unchanged) but people able to speak with more knowledge on the economy, which, from what I can tell, is McCain's dangerously weak point. Perhaps he already approached them and they said no.

Not seen the clip, but apparently one commentator on NBC news sitting next to Katie Couric: "McCain has "tapped" Palin"...he was attracted to her...he saw part of himself in her...he saw McCain junior in her"

Oh dear! I see this 'adulterer hires ex beauty queen' thing running and running on the satire circuit....

[cacophony]

One interesting point I read was that this woman has a 4 month-old son with Down Syndrome that is likely to be neglected because his mom is going to have to do a LOT of campaigning and a LOT of studying up on domestic and foreign issues. It seems like an interesting choice to basically take a leave of absence from your son so you can play politics.

i would be very careful with statements like that.

[cured]

I'm not campaigning so I don't have to be.

[gambit]

Not seen the clip, but apparently one commentator on NBC news sitting next to Katie Couric: "McCain has "tapped" Palin"...he was attracted to her...he saw part of himself in her...he saw McCain junior in her"Damn, that's just full of punch lines! I can see Jon Stewart or Stephen Colbert having a field day with that. (And Katie Couric is on CBS now.)

[gambit]

The only thing I'll say regarding her son is that maybe she thought if she won, she'd have better healthcare in D.C. rather than Juneau.

[gambit]

http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=183521&title=john-mccain-chooses-a-running

"Sarah Palin may be the ideological opposite of Hillary Clinton, but she's her gynecological twin."

[dubman]

"she does have international experience because RUSSIA... is right next to ALASKA!"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IwWGS73v4_k

I'm not campaigning so I don't have to be.

well it's still a dumb thing to hone in on. how many guys have neglected their home responsibilities to go and run for any kind of office? and it was okay that they did because public office is a larger responsibility. bringing it up in this instance is basically re-iterating that her responsibilities, her place, is better suited at home with the kids and not running for office.
they're married, you know.. there's a dad there. so while that means there's going to be fomula feeding instead of the real thing (which isnt the best for newborns but thats their thing), he can be a parent too.

[Deckard]

Our prime minister has a 2 year old son with cystic fibrosis.

Not only that, the man likely to be our next prime minister has a 6 year old son with cerebral palsy and severe epilepsy.

I've never heard anyone question whether either one of these MEN should be taking on the roles they have because of their disabled children.

[cacophony]

I'm not campaigning so I don't have to be.

During the August 29 edition of CNN Newsroom (http://mediamatters.org/items/200808290010), CNN anchor John Roberts said to congressional correspondent Dana Bash: "There's also this issue that, on April 18, she [Palin] gave birth to a baby with Down syndrome. The baby is just slightly more than 4 months old now. Children with Down syndrome require an awful lot of attention. The role of vice president, it seems to me, would take up an awful lot of her time, and it raises the issue of how much time will she have to dedicate to her newborn child?" Bash replied: "That's a very good question, and, I guess -- my guess is that perhaps the line inside the McCain campaign would be, if it were a man being picked who also had a baby, but, you know, four months ago with Down syndrome, would you ask the same question?"

if anyone here actually has experience raising a child with down syndrome and can actually speak to the necessary demands, please speak up.

otherwise let's entertain a discussion about how little time obama will have to spare for his daughters, who are at an incredibly impressionable age where their father's consistent presence in their lives is most important.

nothing ever changes here.

[cacophony]

so while that means there's going to be fomula feeding instead of the real thing (which isnt the best for newborns but thats their thing), he can be a parent too.

not necessarily. i will be working full time away from home and breastfeeding twins. it means i'll be spending quite a bit of time pumping but it is certainly a doable job. especially if she's only having to pump enough quantity to support one. breastmilk stores in the freezer for 5 months and up to 5 days in the refrigerator. even with a busy schedule she can certainly pump enough to support her child. additionally, her child is currently 4 months old, which means he will be 9-ish months by the time the inauguration will roll around. the current recommendation for breastfeeding is 1 year but 9 months is certainly sufficient and exceeds the national average for what most mothers do.

regardless, while there is quite a bit of evidence to support the arguments for breastfeeding, there is no evidence to suggest that formula feeding results in a sacrifice to health and welfare. don't forget that many moms try breastfeeding and through no fault of their own are unable to produce milk at all or in sufficient quantities and have no choice but to bottlefeed formula. still other mothers face issues where babies lack the muscular strength to suckle from a breast, which is significantly harder than suckling at a latex nipple. premature or underweight babies frequently are prohibited from breastfeeding because the effort burns more calories than the milk/colostrum contains and the exertion can result in weight loss. finally, even with hormonal stimulation adoptive mothers rarely produce significant quantities of milk and these babies formula feed as a necessity.

it's all a bit off topic, but if we're going to make the republican VP's breastfeeding options our business, we ought to be properly informed about all of the factors as well as the realistic ramifications of her options.

[dubman]

yeah it's no ones business really but i'm more just emphasizing there isnt much that only a woman can do paternally except breastfeed, and also the image of a guy doing that is hilarious.
my gf mom is a doctor in nutrition and lactation, so if we're getting into how bad/not bad formula is i'd just be asking her all day for specifics, but they seem to be convinced formula should be for emergencies only...

[chuck]

John Oliver - direct from Mile High - the heart of hopeness (http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=183520&title=the-heart-of-hopeness).

"Feed me hope"

"It just makes you want to do something spontaneous...."

baahahaha... superb.

[cacophony]

yeah it's no ones business really but i'm more just emphasizing there isnt much that only a woman can do paternally except breastfeed, and also the image of a guy doing that is hilarious.
my gf mom is a doctor in nutrition and lactation, so if we're getting into how bad/not bad formula is i'd just be asking her all day for specifics, but they seem to be convinced formula should be for emergencies only...

there's a spectrum of thought on it, stretching from the la leche league breastmilk nazis to the "whatever works works" camp. most lactation consultants fall somewhere in the middle.

all i know is i'm having two hungry babies and i've only got two tits and two hands and i'm going to do my best. my best may include supplementing with formula. my best may mean i can't even make it 4 months exclusively breastfeeding. my husband is going to dispense as much milk as i do, he's just going to be using a bottle and nipple. we're both going to be nurturers and if he gets home before i do and he picks hungry babies up from daycare before i arrive then he's going to be the primary feeder for the evening. we may be hiring a doula to help, and guess what, hired help can heft a bottle as well as anyone. as you said, mommies aren't the only ones who can care for babies.

all i know is, i'll be damned if i'm going to accept the suggestion that this woman is an inappropriate choice for this job simply because she has a child, or that her job will somehow make her less of a mom. or that her vagina makes her obligated to be home, or that she's a failure of a mother if she chooses to serve the greater good and accept the assistance of her spouse and possibly hired help in raising her kids.

it's absolutely absurd that this even came up, that her womanliness came into it, that her motherhood came into it. and i might as well tack onto this rant that if you have to start your statement with, "i don't want to sound sexist but..." then just stop. because you're about to sound sexist.

she looks like someone promoted the CEO's assistant? she's sacrificing her child's welfare to "play" politics? it's just the most absurd bullshit i've ever read. it's sickening and it's completely baffling that this is coming from the "liberal" camp that loves to criticize the conservatives for their backwards-ass caveman-like views on the "traditional" family structure.

as i said with biden, criticize someone on their record and experience. if you have to fall back on what your gut is telling you (she should be at home raisin' her babies, or 35 years means he's entrenched in washington) then you're simply exposing yourself as a voter who would rather forgo the responsibility of intelligent thought than actually learn and evaluate someone on actual qualifications.

[cacophony]

Our prime minister has a 2 year old son with cystic fibrosis.

Not only that, the man likely to be our next prime minister has a 6 year old son with cerebral palsy and severe epilepsy.

I've never heard anyone question whether either one of these MEN should be taking on the roles they have because of their disabled children.

also, thank you for providing these examples.

[kagenaki koe]

well from the news footage so far as McCain and Palin go campaigning, i see she brought her family with her (except for the baby).

[dubman]

there's a spectrum of thought on it, stretching from the la leche league breastmilk nazis to the "whatever works works" camp. most lactation consultants fall somewhere in the middle.

all i know is i'm having two hungry babies and i've only got two tits and two hands and i'm going to do my best. my best may include supplementing with formula. my best may mean i can't even make it 4 months exclusively breastfeeding. my husband is going to dispense as much milk as i do, he's just going to be using a bottle and nipple. we're both going to be nurturers and if he gets home before i do and he picks hungry babies up from daycare before i arrive then he's going to be the primary feeder for the evening. we may be hiring a doula to help, and guess what, hired help can heft a bottle as well as anyone. as you said, mommies aren't the only ones who can care for babies.

all i know is, i'll be damned if i'm going to accept the suggestion that this woman is an inappropriate choice for this job simply because she has a child, or that her job will somehow make her less of a mom. or that her vagina makes her obligated to be home, or that she's a failure of a mother if she chooses to serve the greater good and accept the assistance of her spouse and possibly hired help in raising her kids.

it's absolutely absurd that this even came up, that her womanliness came into it, that her motherhood came into it. and i might as well tack onto this rant that if you have to start your statement with, "i don't want to sound sexist but..." then just stop. because you're about to sound sexist.

she looks like someone promoted the CEO's assistant? she's sacrificing her child's welfare to "play" politics? it's just the most absurd bullshit i've ever read. it's sickening and it's completely baffling that this is coming from the "liberal" camp that loves to criticize the conservatives for their backwards-ass caveman-like views on the "traditional" family structure.

as i said with biden, criticize someone on their record and experience. if you have to fall back on what your gut is telling you (she should be at home raisin' her babies, or 35 years means he's entrenched in washington) then you're simply exposing yourself as a voter who would rather forgo the responsibility of intelligent thought than actually learn and evaluate someone on actual qualifications.
it's reasonably clear that i wasnt arguing otherwise, yea?

i think this angle is just floating as part of the initial group of angles reacting to her nomination, the reasoning being that if she wants to plug herself as a modest mom then this is what she's doing for the sake of politics.
it's a terrible idea and i really, *really* hope that they dont pursue it, overtly or otherwise.

that last bit though... i mean, we dont *really* criticize politicians based purely on policy, at least not these days. it should initiate the humor first but a large amount of ridicule stems from public appearances and gaffes (and much more so in the last 8 years). so if i want to point out that the press photo she's distributing out to everyone looks like her manic-eyes-and-teeth headlight moment, it's not far off from me replacing mccain's name with "ol fudders".

oh, and apparently a large constituancy of la leche league (who are almost hostile) are comprised of researchers and doctors who've been approached with large sums of cash for "studies" on behalf of carnation and co., and are thus totally outraged. they assert that if there's a well publicized study that says anything different or compromises their message, it's been bought. it's such a private war it's a little hilarious to be on the outside looking in.

[cacophony]

it's reasonably clear that i wasnt arguing otherwise, yea?

totally clear. i was just using your post as a springboard, not trying to argue anything with you.