tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4119943.post92310316948004944..comments2023-09-29T06:57:06.991-07:00Comments on Anglachel's Journal: Willie Brown on PalinAnglachelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01110546252851760414noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4119943.post-59005774025836124732008-09-08T10:14:00.000-07:002008-09-08T10:14:00.000-07:00No one knows exactly how Palin will do in the gene...No one knows exactly how Palin will do in the general. Not you, not me, not Willie Brown. Not much dust has settled.<BR/><BR/>But the first returns are mixed. I realize that McCain and Palin are trying to claim the mantle of "change." They will have some initial success. But, as has been widely and obviously commented, if Obama is halfway awake, it is pretty hard for McCain to claim that he represents change considering his party's control of the government and his decades in the Senate. It will always be a hard argument. It seems to me that McCain's best argument is the one he has been using: that he is a moderate, makes tough choices that sometimes displease everyone, and has decades of experience, as opposed to Obama, who is a popular, lightweight, inexperienced crowd pleaser.<BR/><BR/>When surrogates start touting leadership of the National Guard as a foreign policy credential, they have badly damaged their experience argument. To suggest this is a pay grade issue COULD be true in another world, but the world we live in is one in which McCain has diluted the experience qualifications - not one in which they made another argument that talked more of potential than "being close to Russia, etc." There is no sign so far of the affirmative action assault on Obama. <BR/><BR/>And there isn't any reason to expect this assault, because again Palin dilutes it, and McCain hasn't given a hint of moving in that direction. <BR/><BR/>The early polls show that Palin energizes the bases of each party. McCain needed this. But it is a two edged sword. And the early polls show that Palin is not persuading the Clinton holdouts. She hasn't reached the middle. She might someday, but not today.<BR/><BR/>In other words, there is absolutely no indication that there is anything special here. Just a VP selection that isn't going to be a major factor in the race - as usual. It is possible that the evidence may change. But I'm not sure why people are out projecting, just because the Palin choice was high drama for the media for a few days.<BR/><BR/>There isn't any sign that McCain is running a very good campaign, in fact. Regardless of whether Palin turns out to be a good pick in the end, McCain was caught flat footed. His convention speech was uninspired. He has had some serious gaffes - his answer on the houses (although having more than one house is no sin, or a rich wife) was a bad fumble. <BR/><BR/>I think Obama is the worst candidate the Democrats have run in years. I think his presidency will be a failure, and set the Democrats back. I think that Clinton would have been the best Democratic president of my lifetime. BUT, that doesn't mean that Obama is going to lose. He is smart. He has a great ground game. This is a bad bad year for Republicans. <BR/><BR/>This could be Mondale's year.Kanzeonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12708971136367353796noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4119943.post-36182110634848782802008-09-07T09:57:00.000-07:002008-09-07T09:57:00.000-07:00I second Willie's take on this. I keep getting ema...I second Willie's take on this. I keep getting emails from Dems about how AWFUL Palin is on the issues. <BR/><BR/>I know.<BR/><BR/>But I can also take a step back and look at her the way my neighbor, who is barely paying attention, will see her. I can look at her the way my neighbor who has bought the Republican line that Dems are out of touch and Republicans "get" everyday Americans and see that she has appeal. And to him, that's all that matters.<BR/><BR/>The elections of the last two decades should be informing the Democrats that people don't vote laundry lists. They vote narrative. And that's where the Democrats fail over and over again.<BR/><BR/>And it can't be just a narrative of "change," because, as recent events have shown, John McCain just called them and raised them on that one.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4119943.post-90364251820768858332008-09-07T06:14:00.000-07:002008-09-07T06:14:00.000-07:00I think you worry too much about Palin. Despite th...I think you worry too much about Palin. Despite the initial buzz about her the fizz will die as quickly as champagne bubbles and most people's initial reaction - Sarah who? - will prove to be the lasting story ie who is this person and what a ridiculous pick to be a heart beat away from the presidency. Palin shores up McCain's GOTV issues for sure but he desperately needed to get out the usual base just to prevent a landslide, he's a long way from being able to stay close enough for the Repubs to steal it this time.<BR/>Please note, this is not because of any prowess on Obama's part, it's simply the reality of the effect of the tanking economy which destroys any credibility the Repubs may have had with swing voters. <BR/>Lastly with Palin, the challenge to the press has been thrown down and I believe this year they'll take it and expose her for the pathological liar she is. For instance Frank Rich today takes her apart a huge difference from his behavior in 2000 and 2004.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00719929454674876182noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4119943.post-26586180461793819852008-09-07T04:26:00.000-07:002008-09-07T04:26:00.000-07:00The question, "What do Democrats stand for?" has n...The question, "What do Democrats stand for?" has not come to the forefront just because of this election or Palin although it is front and center now. In the two years since the congressional elections of 2006, they (the Dems) still haven't been able to define what they stand for as they have capitulated to Bush's every whim time and time again. They took impeachment off the table, giving the Republicans a pass on all corruption as they voted to fund the war time after time after time. And let's be honest, they did so because they are under the old misguided notion that it is better to keep Bush and his war around during an election to remind people of how awful they are. Except we do remember that they had opportunities to change things at least somewhat and took a pass instead. They barely challenged Bush on his Supreme Court nominees, one of whom which I will remind you, Obama was all set to vote for until told it wasn't expedient. So if the question is being asked, "What do the Dems stand for" it's one they haven't even tried to answer for the past two years. But I can. They stand for whatever they consider political expedient for their careers. Nothing less, nothing more. Just like the Republicans.Clydehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07086641597544817325noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4119943.post-23831525085679601962008-09-07T01:44:00.000-07:002008-09-07T01:44:00.000-07:00The smartest thing I've read all week is Brown's s...The smartest thing I've read all week is Brown's statement that:<BR/><BR/><B>"I actually went back and watched Palin's speech a second time. I didn't go to sleep until 1:30 a.m. I had to make sure I got the lines right."</B><BR/><BR/>So many of the responses/comments/broadsides against Palin that I've seen this week almost <B>seemed</B> to have been written before she even spoke, with a snippet of her speech (often clumsily) shoehorned into the mix. <BR/><BR/>I'm not sure that this sort of quick-draw response is very effective against an opponent who's as sharp as Palin seems to be. But I guess it's the flavor of the season.Erick L.https://www.blogger.com/profile/11323270061972971616noreply@blogger.com