Your Campaign Thread

Your [re]views of the Denver Convention and McCain's selection of Sarah Palin

I will desist.

 

Good summary DC, me like.

 

If his gamble pays off, she will help him with Clinton supporters, and younger voters and if they try and beat her up, she may get sympathy votes because the two dudes are going after the soccer mom. Since she is so unknown, people will care more about her being attacked, if they do attacker her of course, than they did with Hilary. Nice choice. Still need to see what she is all about though. Check back with you later.

 

First, Denver. From a republican standpoint, I'd be worried after watching both Biden's and Obama's speeches. The traditional democratic pratfall has been putting their pet social issues up front. The problem is that those issues are devisive between the two parties and conservatives hold an edge when they're put to the fore. Rove capitalized on it in each of the previous two elections. Biden completely avoided the liberal social agenda and Obama played to the middle of it and only gave it a brief mention towards the end of his speech. If that's the message they run with and can refrain from reminding the fence sitters about their primary difference/fear with the dems in the first place, this could put them over the hump this time.

Regarding Palin, my primary concern would be how transparent this is seen by swing voters. They may not view it that way, but given her lack of experience and prominence in the political arena, I have a feeling more people will see pandering over substance (and it just may be, who knows). If you were going to go the female VP route, I wonder if Kay Bailey wouldn't have been a safer choice b/c it would be difficult to question whether she'd "earned" it and more difficult to label it a ploy. The second concern is that it looked like the experience angle was one of the primary cards McCain was going to play. Given his age and her experience, I think this selection weakens that stance.

As for Palin herself, I've heard good things but don't know near enough about her to have an opinion as to whether she's a good selection. Given her conservative values, she may make good bait to get the dems on their abortion, gun control, gay rights bandwagon or as someone said earlier to curb the ability of the dems to attack. So may ways this can play out; it will be interesting to watch it unfold.

 

Interesting observations AG. I would read her experience as more than Obama's as she has direct executive experience albiet recent but so is Obama's Senatorial experience and he no real executive experience that I am aware of. So they can still play that card. This could be a tactically masterful move. She is everything Obama is without the celebrity angle. Young, successful, mother, women, Governor and is being portrayed as change agent as well. We'll see how the Dems respond. I agree, it should be interesting. I make no predictions.

 

Well, I spent most of yesterday chasing down Palin-talk on the net. Including delving into possible skeletons the lady has in her closet {Any that there are require a LOT of imagination but that's for another thread}.

I'm gonna lay it out here, and I dont want anyone to shoot at the messenger.

For the first time in this entire campaign, McCain has done something to cause everyone to talk about his campaign in a positive manner. The last time he generated this much activity and talk, it certainly WAS NOT positive. When it became apparent he was it, the disgruntled base even went so far as to attempt to form a new party. I know... I was one of those who originally signed up. But that didnt last long when I looked around and saw what my fellow caucussers were saying and doing.

Anyway, not only has McCain finally got the conservatives' attention he's got them cheering. That would not have happened if he had picked ANY other person with the possible exception of Pawlenty.
But Palin has a feature, Pawlenty doesnt. She captures the attention and imagination of the PUMA's and Dem feminists behind Hillary's campaign, who felt they were constantly belittled and attacked by the MSM.. and particularly MSNBC.. and by 'Obamatons' {their term}on the net, including Kos and HuffPo.
In fact, I spent a lot of time on two of their sites and they are re-energized in their vitriol by what's being said against Palin. They're spitting mad. To be sure, they dont intend to change their votes to McCain/Palin for the most part, but some of them do intend to do just that, at the present.

In that regard, McCain's selection of Palin was genius and that's not just my view, that's the PUMA view. Thing is... they recognized that before I did.
I want to make my view perfectly clear. This election was the DNC's to lose. Whatever my political views are dont matter, I saw the path clear to Obama being elected in a walkover, unless the Dems shot themselves in the foot. If things continue to go as they are, they are doing just that.. and a large part of that damage can be written off to MSNBC, particularly Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews. And the GOP and conservative blogs dont have to do a damn thing but sit back and watch.

I dont usually encourage people to read reader comments on lefty blogs but I make exception here. These, for the most part, are passionate but thinking posters. They might get the facts wrong but they dont just sling crap and run.
The Reclusive Leftist

Big Tent Democrat on TalkLeft

After reading those sites, you'll understand why the Obama campaign is tippy-toeing around Sarah Palin.
- - - - - - - - - -
And Don, I think you'll find that her path in Alaska politics was forged by her stint on the Alaska Oil and Gas Commission... not {just} her Mayoral term.
BTW: those who think being Mayor of a small town is duck-soup evidently never lived in one or forgot what goes on in lots of those small towns. Or they never paid attention.

 

What the hell you saying? That I'm trying to lower expectations?

No... you posted months ago that you thought McCain would win. I didnt agree then. I dont agree it's a 'lock' now. I thought he had more a chance than most people thought but my intuition said it wouldnt be that easy.

Ordinarily I'm an optimist {you'll note even AFTER the 06 election} but I dont think you're gonna find any rosy-posting by me since you declared your view.

I dont get how posting what I really think, in lieu of rah-rah cheerleading denials, is 'poor-mouthing'.

 

Don, I agree with Petty on this point to some degree. I don't think he is being disingenous. I do think this election, pre-Obama/Clinton shoot out, was the Dems to lose for all the reasons you stated in your post before the last one. I think most of the country dislikes Bush, I'm not one of them as you know, Iraq, Economy, Rebublican scandals, etc, etc, etc. Bush's approval ratings were below 30% at one point, may still be however I stopped looking cause it is what it is.

It is not Obama's fault really, I think, that he is in a close competitive battle. I thought he would win 3 months ago, no problem. I told my wife this and told her again last night I'm not so sure anymore, however I do think he now can lose. My gut tells me the inability of the Democratic majority in the house and Senate, that they gained in the last mid-terms, to get much done, has given the independent voters pause regarding whether voting the other party now IS really a better idea. McCain's ads maybe effective. Congressional approval ratings are near all time lows. I think this in combination with the experience concerns, and most likely other factors keeps it close. Now, I admit, 6 months ago I may have been misreading the voter, I thought 'everyone hates Bush' so no way does another Republican, who has been a staunch supporter of the Iraq war, get a victory into the White House. You know maybe I was wrong. Maybe the voters really want a divided government to keep the parties in check, maybe they still believe national defense is a priority and still believe the Repub's are still the party for strong defense or maybe the experience perception is stronger than anyone will let on or something else I am not reading.

Remember, people's voting decisions are rarely about logic. They are emotional decisions that are later supported by some logic. Maybe Petty was thinking some of the same things I did, or maybe a different set of reasons. I think you can appreciate and have probably been in the situation where the guy that you want to win, doesn't look like he is going to because the other guy seems to get all the press and have what appears as 'tidal wave' like momentum. That's me when I was looking at Obama 3-6 months ago.

Anyway, my 4 cents. These days, I care a bit less about who wins than I have in the past as I am much less passionate than I was 8 and 16 years ago about these things. I only seem to get really fired up when I see folks rewrite history.

What does intrigue me though is the 'chess game'. It should be interesting given the recent announcement. Ok I am done.

 

I think Palin was an ... interesting ... choice. It's kind of like the Battle of Midway gamble. If it works, it may be enough to win the war; if it doesn't, it will go down as one of the biggest disasters in history.

Conservative base - she helps a bit in this regard, but the buzz I'm hearing is that she hasn't done much to truly establish her conservative credentials and conservatives will tend to have more concerns about the "one heartbeat away" issue, given her lack of experience and the fact that they're, well, conservative.

Hillary Supporters - this is the real coup in this choice. IF it works, it could really tear the Democratic party apart. Hillary is more moderate than Obama on most issues and, with McCain being a moderate/RINO, it's not that big of a stretch to see disgruntled Hillary supporters swing over to support him.

What's the catch? I see two.

1. How will McCain both court the Hillary supporters AND court the conservative base? If he goes for the former, and WINS, it could mean the end of the GOP as we know it (and could lead to the potential formation of a 3rd party). If he goes for the latter, it may not be enough to win an election which is still, at this point, Obama's to lose.

2. McCain is a maverick who has a history of going against GOP leadership. So is Palin, though her methods are different. One idea, which only partially reeks of conspiracy theory, is that the GOP is planning to lose this election. By giving McCain, and the moderates/mavericks that he represents, their chance on the ticket, it could potentially set them up for a failure too big to recover from. A big loss would leave that segment of the GOP licking their wounds with their tail between their legs and forced to remain quiet while they support the "new, focused" ... and conservative, GOP...for 2012.

Whatever happens, I see changes happening to the GOP due to the aftermath of this election. We should know by the end of the GOP convention whether we have a race on our hands or whether the election is just a formality (i.e., with an Obama win). The one twist is that Hurricane Gustav might change the agenda for the convention, which would weaken the McCain/Palin message, thereby delaying the "do we have a contest?" determination.

Still, we live in interesting times. We'll either have a black man in the white house or a woman in the white house come January.

Oh, and if it helps provide any context, I'm a "conservative Democrat"; i.e., social conservative, but more Democrat on other issues. In other words, NEITHER candidate make me real happy, so I'm about as close to a "neutral observer" as you can find among Americans

 

I'd like something perfectly clear, from my vantage point. Meaning my finger in the wind:

The only place 'race' is a negative for Obama is MAYBE in Appalachia. Everywhere else, it's a positive. People are generally sick and tired of the 'race' debate. Many folks think getting Obama elected will help push it aside.
- The assoc with Wright and Trinity will come up again, but only an issue on how Obama waffles in his stated outlook. The core debate on that is over.

'Hussein' - gimme a break, people know Obama now and that's only an issue/talking point in certain immigrant groups and in the Middle East. The latter dont have a vote. I'd like to point out what Limbaugh said a long time ago; on middle east policy and Iraq. "Between Clinton and Obama, forget it .. they're both libs but they're both Americans and that will settle itself, once either is elected."

 

I've been out of the loop the last couple days, so I just found out what PUMA meant this morning. First off, that has to be the dumbest acronym assigned to a voting demographic I've seen in a long time. Second, given that they're referring to Hillary supporters (unless I'm mistaken) I'm a little surprised women aren't taking major offense given it's similarities to the term cougar.

I'm starting to think Gustav may be a benefit for the rep convention. It gives them a responsible, thoughtful way out of a convention that wasn't going to be able to compete with the dems in firepower and spares them from having to come up with an unconventional contrast. It also takes the focus off of Obama/Biden and cools the bounce they'd picked up.

Regarding Don's ongoing Lou Holtz vision of the election, I don't know what more favorable set of circumstances the dems could have hoped for going into '08. Now if their candidate selection and other choices leading up to the election diminish that lead, that doesn't mean it wasn't originally a should-be victory. As for the war argument, we've got a new candidate either way and we've got a war that the vast majority either don't want to be in or at least think should be handed over to the Iraqis now. I don't see how that gives McCain the edge.

I agree with whoever said that the dem stranglehold on the legislature is Obama's biggest deterrent. As much as I don't like McCain and his Iraq and economic policies, I dislike any one party having control of both branches even more. I am starting to wonder if a rep legislature and dem executive isn't the best pairing. I'd be curious if research has been done on the various mixes over time in correspondence to the most effective presidencies. If that's been done and anyone has a link, please share.

 

Here's an interesting view of the Mile High speech

-there's more

Yeah, BUT.....

It doesnt matter... there were only what, 80,000 there?

And they're voting for Obama, anyway. Plus the rest watching on tv didnt much notice or watch closely for enthusiasm. They watched and saw what they expected to see. If there'd been dead silence instead of whooping and hollering... maybe. But the right noises were there at the right time.

So, it doesnt really matter anyway, unless there's more doom and gloom in the mainstream press.

 

Science Debate 2008 is a group trying to get both presidential candidates to address important science issues that our nation faces and to have a debate that is exclusively about such issues. They have asked the candidates 14 questions regarding their views on science issues.

Obama's answers

 

That is an excellent article. I only have quibbles on two posits.

It has NOT been proven that humanity has overtly influenced climate change. But my position on that is not new. Using the Climate Change {was Global WARMING, now it's not because it's cooling} is a ploy to enrich favored organizations and individuals and exercise draconian government control over energy and resource use, PERIOD!

Embryonic Stem Cell research: In fact research has not been handcuffed and in fact research on ESC has gone on and in fact Adult and Placental Stem Research has given the far more promising advances. Opening new lines will only result in more research, that's good... but in a few years, ESCR will have been abandoned by most or all private research facilities, and the only ongoing programs will be publicly funded. FOREVER.

Of course, that doesnt disqualify Obama's programs. They are, in fact well rounded, overall and show thought has been put into them. He's reliant on 'expert opinion' there. He doesnt have the expertise on this any more than I do.

But he DOES have the staff manpower to do more than parrot favored opinion, doing some research into opposing views and evaluate those. If I can do it, so can he.

- - - -- - - - - - - - -

Change topic:
Oh crap, here we go again! Obama on This week with G Stehanopoulis

 

'Fog I agree with you on global warming but the conservative approach should be to assume carbon emissions could be detrimental and pursue the development of alternative energy. This is also true so we can reduce our dependence on foreign oil and hopefully support domestic energy companies and domestic jobs. So for those reasons, the global warming politics dont really bother me. Obama's goals seem gradual enough that I dont think they would threaten our economy.

The only answer of his that I take issue with is his answer regarding education:

It is no mystery how to teach these subjects; it doesnt need to be studied. That is a waste of time. Our society needs to realize that STEM education is important and more 'American students need to study these subjects and go into related fields. The US is probably the only country on earth that views math and science as too hard, boring, or geeky. Obama says he believes in charasmatic leadership; this is an area where he should use it to motivate.

 

Mo, I'm pretty sure that he sees the answer as ways to motivate and inculcate into the young fresh mind... he just didnt say it.

And I'm on record as in favor of tech solutions to Climate Change issues. Cant hurt and will bring in a lot new technology. CO2 isnt the problem but it would be good if we could fix it anyway, would teach us a lot. Just dont hamstring the country's wealth while doing it.

Meaning in shorthand: Drill, drill, drill.. oil is NEVER gonna go below $80 and that creates whole new opportunities to only use it as a lubricant/plastics base in the future.