The Obama vs. Palin election

Just a day or two ago, you told us you were now considering voting for McCain because of what Sarah Palin brings to the ticket. Now you're telling us that Palin is not a revolutionary figure when it comes to policy oand ideology. Which is it? Why is she so compelling? I'd really like to know.

Here's another take, from the very perceptive Tigerhawk:

"The received wisdom has been that John McCain selected Sarah Palin to attract women, including those who might have voted for Hillary Clinton had she been the Democratic nominee. I have thought since the weekend -- an eternity! -- that the received wisdom is wrong. I believe that Sarah Palin will attract male voters, including particularly "Reagan Democrats" who do hard physical work in their jobs, hunt, fish, love sports, fly the flag, believe in American national greatness, and cannot understand why we would not drill for oil anywhere there might be oil, but who are insecure in their economic circumstances and do not trust big business or politicians of either party. . . .

Imagine my delight to read that Sarah Palin has emerged from her speech Wednesday night not only more popular than all of Barack Obama, Joe Biden, or John McCain, but more popular among men than women:

She earns positive reviews from 65% of men and 52% of women. The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll shows that Obama continues to lead McCain among women voters while McCain leads among men."

Imagine my delight to read that Sarah Palin has emerged from her speech Wednesday night not only more popular than all of Barack Obama, Joe Biden, or John McCain, but more popular among men than women:

She earns positive reviews from 65% of men and 52% of women. The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll shows that Obama continues to lead McCain among women voters while McCain leads among men."

Oh yeah, her appeal to men is really hard to pin down. :eyeroll:

I mean, I'm sure her redneck/conservative bona-fides don't hurt with the huntin' and fishin' and snowmobilin' set, but there the whole fact that she's a really good-looking woman. If she had been an overweight, pasty white man in his 50s with the same basic background, no one would be nearly as interested in her as they are now, escpecially not men. I agree with her on a lot less than I agree with John McCain, but I find her far more likeable.

A caution for the McCain/Palin handlers--If Palin keeps up the Pit Bull routine too long and keeps taking jabs at Obama, she risks moving from Cool to Mean. There would be a cognitive dissonance between the conservative/Christian identity and her attack-dog role in the campaign. Call it the "B" factor.

"A senior McCain campaign official advises that, despite the gaggle of requests and pressure from the media, Gov. Sarah Palin won't submit to a formal interview anytime soon."

...ready to serve...after we tell her what to say.

Kirk: Haven't you ever watched Love American Style?

Maaann, are you dating yourself! Unfortunately, I have seen it (not in reruns), so I guess I'm dating myself, too....

Well, Joe, something Andrew Sullivan seems to have overlooked is that the business partner who tried to seal his divorce records is NOT the same business partner about whom the Enquirer is making allegations.

This has not stopped the DU sorts from creating hypothetical "Desperate Housewives Alaska Edition" scenarios in which Gov. Palin has multiple flings with just about every male in Wasilla, but I think that's rather farfetched, to say the least.

I like Sarah Palin, really I do. But this election is about Iraq and Iran. My conscience says I cannot vote for a McCain ticket because it means supporting a war that I believe is immoral. I also have a significant concern that McCain will involve us in military conflict with Iran. If Palin and McCain can convince me that they aren't the party of perpetual war, then I might get back in line with my historial Republican roots. On most social issues, I agree more with McCain and Palin, but the war is a huge obstacle to overcome.

This has nothing to do with this thread, but there was some wild stuff floating around on the very last thread about a new civil war, or some such nonsense, and I didn't like it one bit. It was coming from one sides. This is Rod's blog, and I think he does a great job of keeping things civil.

But I would implore everyone to think of something Megan McArdle recently wrote on her blog: "...the rule I'll mainly be using is really fairly simple ... if you wouldn't say it to my face, or the face of the commenter you're addressing, don't say it here. Imagine you're at a debate tournament, or a cocktail party."

McArdle also writes: "I'm also going to delete/ban commenters--you know who you are (and if you don't, you're about to find out) who drive things in circles by getting into long pointless arguments about trivia where they refuse to concede any ground."

Hmmm, good reminders for us all - me included.

Here's her entire post: http://meganmcardle.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/09/announcement_on_comments.php

Thanks MikeinTexas. This is exactly what amazes me. Its deja vu all over gain. In someways I'm not surprised at how well this worked but I have to say I'm really surprised at how easily Rod took the bait and ran with it.

Casey, it's called playing hard to get. Haven't you ever watched Love American Style?
Posted by: Kirk | September 5, 2008 4:18 PM

Great, now I can't get that theme song out of my head.

I'm having a hard time taking anything (positive or negative) Peggy Noonan writes seriously anymore after her open-mic snafu this wee. But I think she gets it just about right in this description of the new media wars:

"The old combatants were old school gentlemen, Eric Sevareid and Walter Cronkite; the new combatants are half-crazy cable anchors, the lower lurkers of the Internet, and the anonymous posters on the comment thread on the radical website."

"Half-crazy cable anchors" - heh. I can't tell if she's talking about Keith Olbermann or Bill O'Reilly here.

Probably both.

I've noticed a shift in tone of many of the commenters who are critical of Sarah. Many of them now preface their remarks with an obligatory "I like Sarah, she's spunky!" or some variation thereof before proceeding to say whatever it is they came to this blog to say.

It's an interesting shift, and kind of hilarious, actually.

I think there's a disconnect between media commenters and the rank and file. I liked the McCain speech last night -- so did all four of the middle of the road (and probable Obama voters) friends I talked to in my blue state. If it wasn't for Palin, McCain would have a good shot at my vote. For all of us, it was McCain's talk about the transformational power of his capture. I have doubts about whether McCain can be trusted, temperament-wise, but last night i felt I could trust him. But there's no way I'd vote for a ticket with Palin on it.

Palin has many positives, but she also has real negatives. I fear "dazzle" is overdoing substance, especially for journalists.

This is not Obama vs Palin and if it becomes that then McCain really has made a terrible mistake for everyone. Because Palin is not going to be President anytime soon. (Sorry, but I just don't believe in the "McCain will fall-over dead in 6 months" theory) She's shown herself to be a good learner in her career, but on a national level she still has things to learn.

This is McCain vs Obama. That McCain is not dynamic I think is a real plus, not a negative. The last 8 years have been very exciting. Do you want more excitement? Well I don't. not really. Granted as a journalist a Palin or Obama Presidency bringing excitement means paydirt, but I think most of us don't make our living as journalists or bloggers.

Thomas R @ 4:02 AM gets large parts of this right.

Every good campaign strategist above the town-council level knows that elections are won by doing three things: 1) Getting enough money in the coffers to mount a solid TV/media effort; 2) Having a candidate who is at least semi-presentable to potential contributors, and 3) Getting your base out to the polls and (volunteers to the precinct-station tables) in quantities.

The money's there; the bundlers in the corporate crowd have seen to that. Presentability of the candidate isn't a problem; the "War Hero John" meme went viral ages ago. Enthusiasm of the base was McCain's problem. Sarah Palin's selection was all about playing to that base, or at least to that segment of the GOP base known as the "Religious Right".

We should not make the mistake of believing that the McCain campaign (or even McCain himself) is actually going to serve the interests of the commoners in his base. The handlers know that the Senate and House are going to be in "opposition" hands for the likely duration of any McCain Administration, so they know that there isn't going to be any prospect of, say, two more Scalia- or Thomas-style judges on the Supreme Court. Which means Roe stays on the books. They also know that there aren't going to be any serious tax or spending cuts in the offing, courtesy of the Boomer retirements coming up. Translation: bye-bye small-business-owner support.

They know there's nothing in the pipeline of any substance to offer the base; the only tactic remaining is the one to which the RRs and a television-raised working-class base are particularly susceptible: cheap theatricalism, followed by a generous dose, once in office, of "I tried, but those SOBs in Congress were too tough for me". The Palin selection and the convention speeches were cheap theatricalism at its very kitschy best. I doubt Palin would be the No. 2 if she wasn't very easy on the eyes.

The McCain people are hoping to win a probable "squeaker" election on on raw emotionalism and a new face that is attractive to working- and lower-middle-class males (their base). Once in office, things will revert to the State/Corporate deal-making that looks after the interests of the big campaign contributors. (Who will be there to notice, and what will anyone who doesn't like it be able to DO about it ?)

The interests of the American commoner will, of course, be completely ignored. To coin a phrase "If God had not wanted them shorn, he would not have made them sheep." And so it goes, until the whole thing comes tumbling down.

Your servant,

Lord Karth

"In the modern age, cynicism is a necessary and valuable survival skill. It is the eye-opener in the Kingdom of the Blind."

PALIN MAKES OBAMA LOOK LESS COOL?

ONLY TO REPUBLICANS,EVERYONE ELSE FEELS EVEN WORST IT SEEMS ABOUT THE MCCAIN CAMPAIGN WITH PALINS EXTREME RIGHT VIEWS.

PALINS POPULARITY IS AMONG HER BASE,WHITE REDNECKS!

OBAMAS IS AMONG A PLETHORA OF DIFFERENT KIND.