The Terrapin Syndrome

by publius

In thinking about the semi-panicked reaction of many Dems this morning, I thought back to the Maryland basketball team. This analogy won’t work well for non-college basketball fans, but bear with me.

When I was in law school (circa 2003), the Maryland squad got beaten regularly by Duke. It wasn’t just that Duke beat them – Duke snatched victory from defeat in the most heartbreaking and crushing of ways. Maryland, for instance, was up 20 in the first half in the Final Four, but got beat. In another game, they got up 10 in the last minute and got beat in overtime in one of the craziest finishes I’ve ever seen.

It got to the point that Maryland had simply internalized defeat. It didn’t matter if the game was going well. It didn’t matter if they were up 20 with 2 minutes left. In the heart of every Terrapin fan, they saw a Duke comeback. Any foul, any travel – these were not merely routine events, but terrifying omens of the inevitable defeat to come.

I think that, in the wake of 2000 and 2004, the Democrats have developed a bit of the Terrapin Syndrome. In the nightmarish recesses of their minds, Palin’s speech is a foreshadowing of yet another defeat. I understand these fears, but I think everyone should calm down.

Specifically, everyone needs to take an Obama/Axelrod long-term Zen view of these things. The greatest strategic error of the McCain campaign has been its decision to run a “rally the base” 2004-style campaign. That works well in a 49/49 race like 2004. But McCain has been polling in the low 40s pretty much forever. That, coupled with fundamentals, means that McCain has to expand the pie or he will lose. That’s why Schmidt’s obsessive focus on the daily tactical news cycles is misplaced – McCain needed to reclaim the middle ground, but he hasn’t really even tried.

Palin is just another example of the same ol’ problem. News cycle won – check. Palin bounce? – quite probable. But even if it comes, it’s likely to be fleeting. That’s because Palin’s speech was designed to win over the already-persuaded. It was a rally the base speech. And it seems to have been quite effective in achieving that objective.

But – here’s the key – the objective is flawed. To win, McCain needs to expand the pie – the Dems win a “base versus base” election (at least this year they do). It’s hard to see how Palin’s speech convinced a single undecided voter given its nastiness, inaccuracies, and lack of substance.

The next reason to calm down has been provided by Nate Silver. You should just go read the whole thing, but the nickel version is that Palin hasn’t established the credibility to drastically change people’s minds about Obama yet. He writes:

[B]ut the fact remains that Barack Obama is extremely well known and Palin is largely unknown, and when that is the case, your perception of the known commodity is more likely to influence your perception of the unknown commodity than the other way around. If there's a certain Italian restaurant that you've been going to for years, and some stranger stops you on the street and tells you that they don't know how to cook their pasta, you're going to think that the stranger is a kook -- not that the restaurant is poor.

And not only is Barack Obama exceptionally well known, but perceptions of him are exceptionally well entrenched.

So relax people – even Maryland finally got their NCAA championship.

Comments

[david kilmer]

Either the inside of Nate's mind is a scary place or he is pulling cognitive theories out of his butt.

[Nell]

the semi-panicked reaction of many Dems this morning

Such as who?

[rob!]

great post! TESTIFY!

[ericblair]

Yes, thank you. I remember panics over Giuliani (911 mayor!), and Fred Thompson (TV star!), and, hell Huckabee (fundie with a folksy style!). Each of them was the doom of the Democratic party.

The speech that Palin gave last night probably did her in with anyone on the fence. This was the wrong speech for someone whose experience and competence are under serious question. If it was delivered by someone with white-haired Gravitas, maybe it would have told moderates that, look, even somber, serious me has had it with the Democratic party and its policies and its candidate. As it was, it looked like another spittle-flecked zero-credibility Fox News nutjob throwing shit through the zoo fence. Of course the delegates liked it: that's what they watch on the teevee all day.

The only benefit to McCain I can see from getting the nuts riled up is that it gives him some desperately needed ground game. However, it seems a little late for that to make serious difference, especially since the leadership and organization at the local level is almost nonexistent. The cost of this was the moderates, who don't particularly like Fox News spokesclowns, and the establishment media, who don't particularly like That Kind of People in close proximity.

[Tom]

Thanks for the Terrapins reference. I was at Maryland from '96 to 2002 and know exactly what you mean. (I imagine being a Red Sox fan before 2004 was similar.) It's a truly amazing feeling when your beloved team of losers finally defeats the [Blue Devils/Republicans/Yankees]. I'm not counting my chickens yet, but there will be some great partying in November if Obama wins. Hopefully without too much random sports-fan-like vandalism.

[Angela]

Follow the money seems to be apply here. Maybe independents, such as myself, are voting with their pocketbook, like I did. Obama has raised $8million, McCain $1mil.

[Lee]

I think there are a few interesting points on how John McCain survived as a POW that come into play now. He reportedly railed against his captors from time to time, but he cooperated enough to get out alive.

So what did he learn from that life altering lesson? Well, sometimes you just do what you gotta do. He has acknowledged his support for the Confederate flag in a southern state to be sheer pandering for the sake of votes--which afterwards left him ashamed. But the shame did not dissuade him from the practice.

McCain got clobbered trying to run a different kind of Republican race in 2000. He still swore he would run differently this time, too. But bit by bit he has reversed himself, caved in, even hired the smearmongers who savaged him; people he claimed have a "special place in Hell." I guess that is a place he is willing to go, now. McCain, who perhaps imagined himself a hero who would show his better self is showing a truly Rovian expediency in pursuit of power. Politics of personal destruction, fear, smears, lies, and trickery is just fine--do what you gotta do-- whatever works.

Are we seeing a kind of Stockholm syndrome play out in his embrace of all the right wing templates? Has he sold his maverick soul in hopes of becoming President John-don't-ask-about-honor-McCain?

[Jeff]

[B]ut the fact remains that Barack Obama is extremely well known and Palin is largely unknown, and when that is the case, your perception of the known commodity is more likely to influence your perception of the unknown commodity than the other way around.

Wasn't there this argument, but with Hillary Clinton for Barack Obama and Obama for Palin in the primary? I don't think that Palin has the organization or the wisdom to overcome the recognityion factor the way Obama did, just pointing out the deja vu all over again of this quote.

[Gary Farber]

"Has he sold his maverick soul in hopes of becoming President John-don't-ask-about-honor-McCain?"

No offense intended, but: duh. (That's without debating how much of a wonderfully admirably mavericky soul, rather than just an ego, he ever had in the first place.)

[Adam W]

Nate Silver hasn't hidden his Olbermannish devotion to Obama, and he's overlooking the obvious: to him, and to Obama's base, and to the Beltway crowd, Obama is "extremely well known." But a huge amount of the voting public simply doesn't know much about him yet, and will only now begin to pay attention to the election.

Indeed, to compare him to "a certain restaurant that you've been going to for years" shows how far around the bend Silver's gone.

As for my friend Publius's own analysis: his premise is completely wrong.

Palin's speech wasn't crafted merely to rally the GOP base. (Although it did accomplish that.) It was intended to expand that base far enough to reach swing-state voters in Pennsyvania, Michigan, Ohio, Minnesota, and elswhere -- voters who, as noted above, simply don't know much yet about Obama. Palin's devastating remarks regarding "community organizers" and Giuliani's comments on voting "present" are aimed precisely at those voters who are not yet confident that Obama is ready to be our President.

Furthermore, Publius's comments about a lack "substance" are, of course, silly. She substantively addressed such issues as energy infrastructure and tax increases.

Of course, I don't remember Publius complaining about a lack of substance in Obama's 2004 speech. Or complaining about "nastiness" when Barack Obama complained of people who "cling" to guns or religion or racism. And he certainly doesn't bemoan "inaccuracy" when people lamely call McCain "McSame" or throw ridiculously inaccurate allegations at Sarah Palin.

(Publius, you and I will have to catch up on this in our email conversation. I'd check back in on the blog, but I think I can predict what sort of comments will follow!)

[Nell]

@publius: I hope you'll check the comments here, and that if you do you'll answer my question before responding to any later comments.

[von]

But – here’s the key – the objective is flawed. To win, McCain needs to expand the pie – the Dems win a “base versus base” election (at least this year they do).

I think you're understating McCain's problem. McCain needs to both rally the base and expand the pie. He has gone a long way to achieving the former, but, as you note, he has a way to go on the latter.

[Ugh]

Uhhh...I thought Nate Silver's forte was statistical analysis and (maybe) polling; not psychoanalyzing speechifying.

[ericblair]

Palin's devastating remarks regarding "community organizers" and Giuliani's comments on voting "present" are aimed precisely at those voters who are not yet confident that Obama is ready to be our President.

Apparently, the "community organizer" slag has really pissed off a wide range of people. There are a lot of non-partisan, religious people who identify themselves as community organizers and have gotten personally offended by this. The bumper sticker slogan that is going around the intertubes now is:

"Jesus was a Community Organizer, Pontias Pilate was a Governor."

[Turbulence]

"Jesus was a Community Organizer, Pontias Pilate was a Governor."

Um...wow. I like it, I really do, but I'm sure the right would pounce on it for implying that Obama thinks he's Jesus or an emperor or something. Never mind such small presumptions as writing letters to people claiming that you're God.

It is a very cute turn of phrase.

[Tony P.]

Furthermore, Publius's comments about a lack "substance" are, of course, silly. She substantively addressed such issues as energy infrastructure and tax increases.

I listened to Palin's speech. (And posted my real-time notes in the RNC speeches thread.) I would like to believe that I just plain missed Palin's "substance" on tax increases. So help me out here, Adam: what substantive points did Palin make about taxes?

--TP

[Justin Slotman]

"It was intended to expand that base far enough to reach swing-state voters in Pennsyvania, Michigan, Ohio, Minnesota, and elswhere -- voters who, as noted above, simply don't know much yet about Obama."

To quote Olbermannish Obama devotee Mike Murphy: "You know, because I come out of the blue swing state governor world: Engler, Whitman, Tommy Thompson, Mitt Romney, Jeb Bush. I mean, these guys -- this is how you win a Texas race, just run it up. And it's not gonna work."

And I don't think any variation of "panicked" is the right way to describe Obamaland's reaction to Palin. More worried? Sure, anything that activates the microphone fiends is worrisome. But panicking? I'm not seeing it. The only panic seems to be coming from the fictional liberals that exist in Hannity's head.

[br]

Tony and Eric,

Adam flatly admitted to drive-by trolling, so no need to engage him.

I'll second Nell's question, publius. Who are the semi-panicked Dems?

[the puzzled one]

Jeff:
Obama v Clinton wasn't about telling people Hillary is the worst thing since whole bread. It was about people getting to know the new guy.
Here, it is about smearing the other guy. And not much more. Since people have opinions of Obama already, it is preaching to the choir. She (Palin) would do so much better with a speech that delves on making the GOP case, even a lightweight one (with some policy & substance thrown in).

[publius]

consider it anecodotal from both email discussions, TV chatter, and conversations. the response to the speech was overwhelmingly positive on the TV, and several people I talked too were concerned.

if you dispute this premise (though i think people generally agree with the vibe it created), then obviously the argument doesn't work

[Gary Farber]

"I'd check back in on the blog, but I think I can predict what sort of comments will follow!"

Conversations with the voices in your head are much more satisfying, anyway.

[Gary Farber]

"I understand these fears, but I think everyone should calm down."

Where do you get the idea that everyone needs calming down from? How is it you've surveyed "everyone," anyway?

I don't think you realize how condescending this seems. You're the one person who realizes what's going on, and is fit to instruct "everyone"? This could be, I suggest, much improved with a bit of thought about rephrasing before committing to posting.

"Those who are over-reacting might consider calming down," for instance.

[MeDrewNotYou]

But a huge amount of the voting public simply doesn't know much about him yet...

I know Adam likely won't be back, but can anyone explain that line to me? I've heard it quite a bit with the right-wing talking heads but I just don't buy it. The man has 2 autobiographical works, has been on the national stage since 2004, running for president for 18mos, and just got out of a vicious primary where just about everything about him was exposed. My personal opinion is that sentiment is just a cover for racism, since that black guy must be so different we can't know about him!

So really, what I'm asking is if anyone thinks voters don't know Obama. And if that isn't the case, is there a liklier explanation than racism?

Also, my local Fox affiliate just said McCain will be delivering the 'speech of a lifetime' and that they'll be carrying it live. You know what was on when Obama accepted the nomination? Are You Smarter Than A 5th Grader. (And is it me, or are the questions on that show a joke to anyone with 2 or more brain cells?)

[Jeff]

So really, what I'm asking is if anyone thinks voters don't know Obama. And if that isn't the case, is there a liklier explanation than racism?

In the case of my office-mate, it's more abortion is TEH Eeeeeeeeeevil! And McCain will rescue all the cute lil' fluffy babies that Obama want to eat! (And in vitro fertilization does result in embryos being killed!)

[Roger Moore]

But a huge amount of the voting public simply doesn't know much about him yet, and will only now begin to pay attention to the election.

Which also means that they won't get many of Palin's digs. Her speech was targeting political junkies who have been following the campaign. Her oblique references to community organizers and bitterness aren't going to make sense to anyone who hasn't been following the election fairly closely.

[Bernard Yomtov]

much improved with a bit of thought about rephrasing before committing to posting.

"Those who are over-reacting might consider calming down," for instance.

Can't resist Farbering Farber.

Those who are over-reacting should definitely calm down, not just consider it. What some might consider is whether or not they are over-reacting.

[MeDrewNotYou]

Jeff: I think I tend to underestimate the importance of abortion, but I'm not so sure here. Abortion is something people are usually comfortable about denouncing, pro-lifers tend to be a vocal bunch.

If I didn't like Obama's abortion positions, I think I'd be comfortable with saying so, while if I didn't like Obama's being black, I'd probably cover it up. Stigma of being labled racist and all that.

[Nell]

Sorry, publius, that's "the lurkers support me in email" lame.

Name one Democratic-leaning blogger, pundit, TV talker, or elected official/surrogate/pol who sounded even semi-panicked about the Palin speech.

You thought it was worth writing a response to, so who was it that was a bit panicked? Might it have been... you? After reading people like Mike Allen, and listening to the idiot media whores on TV?

[Carleton Wu]

It was intended to expand that base far enough to reach swing-state voters in Pennsyvania, Michigan, Ohio, Minnesota, and elswhere -- voters who, as noted above, simply don't know much yet about Obama. Palin's devastating remarks regarding "community organizers"...

If you think that was a devastating comment, then
1)you're already on her side &
2)that's blinding you to what independent voters might find devastating
I mean, she didn't say much of anything about community organizers, except to point out that it's not an executive role. Oooh, how can Obama recover from such a brutal attack? Has she crossed the lines of propriety? Did the networks have to bleep it out as unfit for young ears?

Using Hillary's 3am ad against Obama is tough. There are other tough arguments to make with independents. Palin's speech didn't have anything remotely that compelling to non-wingers.

[Adam]

Less eponymous trolls please.

[Indeterminate]

One simple point amid the panic:

A poll showing Obama up by 3 in NORTH DAKOTA. Wrap your minds around that, and ask whether it's time to panic.

[Gary Farber]

"Less eponymous trolls please."

Fewer etc., please.

;-)

I just got another email from my good pal, Barack, btw -- we're very close correspondents:

Gary --

Why would the Republicans spend a whole night of their convention attacking ordinary people?

With the nation watching, the Republicans mocked, dismissed, and actually laughed out loud at Americans who engage in community service and organizing.

Our convention was different. We gave the stage to everyday Americans who hunger for change and stepped up to make phone calls, knock on doors, and raise money in small amounts in their communities.

You may have missed it, but we also showed the country a video with the faces and voices of those organizers, volunteers, and donors from every corner of the country.

What you didn't hear from the Republicans at their convention is a single new idea about how to make the healthcare system work, get our economy moving for the middle class, or improve education.

Just attacks -- on me, and on you.

But what the McCain attack squad doesn't understand is that people like you -- who devote part of their busy lives to organizing and building their communities -- have the power to change this country.

With your help, that's exactly what we're going to do.

Thank you,

Barack

With a link to this video.

[MeDrewNotYou]

A poll showing Obama up by 3 in NORTH DAKOTA.

To channel John Cole at Balloon Juice, that's good news. FOR JOHN MCCAIN!

Gary: Weird. I got the same letter, but with 'Drew' at the top.
I know its a bit 'lame,' but I really like the emails I get from the campaign. I know I'm just a wee cog here, but the letters make me feel a little important, if only because I'm a part of such an important undertaking.

You can now flame away at me. ^.^

[HAL]

"An eponym is the name of a person, whether real or fictitious, which has (or is thought to have) given rise to the name of a particular place, tribe, era, discovery, or other item."

Phrase "eponymous trolls" does not compute. Does not compute. Does not... com.....

[Gary Farber]

"Gary: Weird. I got the same letter, but with 'Drew' at the top."

I can't believe that Barack is two-timing me. At least you don't hear from my even closer pal, David Plouffle, or my secret love, Michelle. They'd never betray our monogamous relationship!

[MeDrewNotYou]

They'd never betray our monogamous relationship!

Well... About that...

No, nevermind. Ignorance is bliss. ^.^

[DonBoy]

I've long decided that anyone who reports that a recent ad/speech/article is "devastating" is writing out of hope and bravado; wait until we see what effect it had on people who aren't you.

For those worried after Palin's speech -- hey, I'll be one of those people, OK? -- bear this in mind: they had a good day yesterday, and they'll have another good one tonight. Did we think they weren't going to have two good days during their convention?

[Priest]

Publius: "That works well in a 49/49 race like 2004. But McCain has been polling in the low 40s pretty much forever."

It would be useful to remember Democratic Presidential candidates do not often win a popular vote majority of any kind, much less a significant majority. In fact, only three people running as Democrats have won 51.0% or more of the vote: LBJ (aftermath of JFK assassination/Goldwater), FDR (Depression/WWII), and . . . Andrew Jackson. That's it.

Obviously, the outcomes in the states are what ultimately matter, but as a target I would guess that 49.5% or more nationally means Obama wins. Unless the economy takes a very bad turn for the worse, this is a 49/49 election.

[Brett Bellmore]

I think the distinction between bringing out the base, and expanding the base, is not so clear cut as you imagine. The Republicans have had a serious problem since '94: Way too many people who would normally be inclined to consider themselves part of the Republican base are demoralized by the knowledge that Republican candidates don't actually MEAN much of what they say. This is a large part of why the base contracted.

To some extent Palin remedies this problem, since she seems to actually walk the walk.

[jesurgislac]

To some extent Palin remedies this problem, since she seems to actually walk the walk.

When her speeches are written for her, at least.

[Jeff]

To some extent Palin remedies this problem, since she seems to actually walk the walk.

On some issues (like abortion), yes. On other ("No Lobbyists", "No Earmarks", "No to Big Oil"), not so much.

Did she take a pay cut when she became Governor? Or does she believe that some women should earn less than their male counter-parts, but not her?

[bedtimeforbonzo]

Seeing how he was editorializing, I don't think publius was being condescending.

But folks here seem to have so much confidence in Barack Obama that I see where they might object to his "semi-panicked" observation.

Me, I can't say I'm overly confident after being bashed in the head by two straight George W. Bush victories.

Palin may appeal to swing voters in the "bitter" states like Pennsylvania, Ohio and Michigan, but I'd wait a couple weeks -- when the hubbub of the conventions is in our rearview mirror -- to draw any firm conclusions.

Finally, if I'd call anybody semi-panicked last night, it be Keith Olbermann.

P.S. Gary, Drew -- I guess you guys don't get mail from Hillary Clinton like I still do.

[gwangung]

To some extent Palin remedies this problem, since she seems to actually walk the walk.

On some issues (like abortion), yes. On other ("No Lobbyists", "No Earmarks", "No to Big Oil"), not so much.

Yes, but I think that's a net win for the base. Might be for the center, given the greed and moral corruption they saw from Republicans the past few years.

[Bernard Yomtov]

Republican candidates don't actually MEAN much of what they say.

There's a name for people like that, Brett. They're called "liars." And Republican candidates, I must agree, are exceptionally good liars.

[MeDrewNotYou]

BTFB: I hate to be the one to break it to you, but... Hillary is seeing Barack now. Its over between you guys.

And before you ask, I'm fine with Barack being in an open relationship with millions. He's one handsome dude, after all.

On a more serious note, I agree that it seems ObWi liberals are pretty confident, but I'm not so sure that its irrational. Overall, Sarah Palin is probably a good candidate for the Dems, but she does have a few things we should be cautious about. She's not the perfect gift-wrapped inaugural gift for Obama and Biden, but we couldn't have asked for much better.

That being said, considering roughly half of voters went for Bush 2 elections in a row is worrisome. But things are different now, and barring something that totally ruins Obama, the situation is hopeful. Color me 'cautiously optimistic.'

[redwood]

It’s hard to see how Palin’s speech convinced a single undecided voter given its nastiness, inaccuracies, and lack of substance.

publius! a sports metaphor and a food metaphor in the same post!

well, I suppose that's pushing an envelope.

but the statement above is not true. plenty of undecided voters were looking for the comfort factor, and the bombshell gave them that.

it's time to realize that Aristotle in rhetorica was right: Character, not logic, wins the day.

It's time to start seriously questioning McCain's "imprisonment," which he's using as authority over us.

Was he tortured both before and after he decided not to leave?

[byrningman]

Palin reminds me a great deal of GW Bush, which is funny since by picking her McCain is supposed to be distancing himself from this administration. That the media seems to be largely accepting that argument is just depressing.

She reminds me of Bush in the sense that her only strong convictions are in the area of extremely conservative social policy; her foreign policy is essentially nonexistent other than a knee-jerk support for anything sounding nationalist and agressive; and her economic policies are only slightly more developed and -- again, like Bush -- completely contradictory: ie, she sings the small-government song, but in reality she sees the federal government as a cow to be milked mercilessly for her own constituents' benefit.

The idea that this party hack represents any sort of change with the status quo is laughable -- she is the epitome of the status quo: yet another local politician makes it to Washington to scream partisan vitriol while gorging at the earmark trough.

[redwood]

ie, she sings the small-government song, but in reality she sees the federal government as a cow to be milked mercilessly for her own constituents' benefit.

I'd like to see an index of oil revenues to US government hand-outs.

let's see where Alaska falls.

I'll bet it's up there with Iraq.

[bedtimeforbonzo]

"BTFB: I hate to be the one to break it to you, but... Hillary is seeing Barack now. Its over between you guys."

Just got home from work and that gave me a good laugh. Thanks.

I'd go with "cautiously optimistic."

One thing about Palin: She's a newsmaker.

Upon logging on just now, my Comcast home page screamed: "Palin Attended Five Colleges in Six Years."

I don't know how thorough the McCain camp was in its vetting, but at least the media seems to be picking up the slack -- seems to be a lot still out there.

Another Comcast headline: "Analysis: Palin More Than Her Resume."

And yet another told me 37 million watched Palin last night, right up there with Obama -- so interest in the race seems to be back to where it was during Clinton v. Obama.

Well, it's onto football and McCain. (If anyone's interested, the Giants were leading the Redskins, 16-7, well into the third quarter, last I looked.)

Good night.

[Bernard Yomtov]

Maryland basketball, bah!

If you're looking for a talent for losing, try Vanderbilt football.

[Justin Slotman]

Yeah, but Vandy never ever wins! We want a metaphor that evokes losing but finally overcoming, like Maryland, or the Red Sox, or (god help me as an Elway hater) the Denver Broncos.

[Gary Farber]

Incidentally, I keep thinking that most of the younger Republican delegates tend to look like the guy on the left and the woman on the right here, and otherwise like these folks.

I'm biased, to be sure.

[Gary Farber]

"Me, I can't say I'm overly confident after being bashed in the head by two straight George W. Bush victories."

I haven't had "confidence" in a Democratic win at least since the first month or so of primaries, but let's not go into why in every detail. I've said here a number of times that I've lived through Richard Nixon being elected twice, Ronald Reagan twice, and three Bush presidencies, so I have no illusions about the American people seeing things the way I see them just because the choice seems very clear to me.

But, no, I never got mail from Senator Clinton. I'm just happy that she's on the team.

[Lucia]

I did wonder fleetingly today if my fear that the GOP would pull it out yet again might be at all related to my being a lifelong Red Sox fan. (Yes, they've now won twice in three years, but that was after 40+ years in my lifetime of always finding a spectacularly stupid way to lose.)

Damn, I hope you're right, but I'm staying nervous. (Go Sox!)

[Roger Moore]

If you're looking for a talent for losing, try Vanderbilt football.

Try my alma mater. Our basketball team is so pathetic somebody even made a documentary about them. Though to make the analogy, our sports record is less like the Democrats and more like the Peace and Freedom party.

[wonkie]

Well I'm scared. Publius has done an excellent job of describing me. This helped though ( from Political animal):

The Detroit Free Press conducted a focus group last night, and found that independents weren't impressed at all. They were looking for reassurances about her ability to hold national office, and Palin didn't deliver.

"Sarah Palin came across as the small town girl who made good. I knew that I disagreed with her on some issues before this evening. After listening to her speech ... it appears that once she makes up her mind, that is the end of it. We live in a gray world, not every answer is black and white." -- Diane Murphy, 42, Sterling Heights independent

"I was completely underwhelmed. She was a Republican novelty act with a sophomoric script. It was not even a speech I would expect for a someone running for the local PTA, much less for vice president." -- George Lentz, 66, Southfield independent

"Who is Sarah Palin? I'm sorry but I still don't know anymore about this young lady tonight than I did last night ... The way it looks to me, she's the Republican vice presidential nominee for one reason: because Hillary wasn't selected." -- Mike Kosh, 38, West Bloomfield independent

"Sarah Palin is a self-described 'pitbull with lipstick.' She spent little time helping Americans learn who she is. She is a cool, poised speaker, but her speech contained few statements about policy or the party platform.... I am not convinced that Palin's experience as a mayor or governor in Alaska meet the qualifications to be vice president much less one stroke or heart attack away from being commander in chief." -- Ilene Beninson, 52, Berkley independent

"Nothing worked for me. I found her barrage of snide remarksand

Oops. clipped off part, my bad.

As I was driving home today I was thinking about the pitbull quote which I saw on the news at my client's house.

It's cute and funny etc (although I had heard it before so not all that funny) but really is it very Presidential or Vice-Presidential to promote oneself as a hockey mom? Her message seemed to be: "I am the ideal fundamentalist nutcase mother. I have lots of kids. I shoot guns. I have a job. I can be mean . I have good teeth and I practice smiling front of the mirror."

I realize that it doesn't hurt for a candidate to be a lightweight or a flake or a nutcase or an ignoramus. Dingbats get elected all the time in America. But, in order to get elected President, doesn't one have to project an image of solid, dependable stregnth? An image, mind you. Could be complete bullshit, but an image sufficisnt to con 51% out of their votes.

I'm too biased to tell but she sure didn't seem like calm, solid, strength to me. And McCain looks more and more like a ghost everytime I see him. She isn't running for office as his daughter or his girl Friday or a surrogate on the camopaign trail. She's running as his replacement. I just don't think that people outside the bubble of the thirty percenters are going to see her as Presidential material.

So I am calming down a little.

[John Spragge]

I guess we see a different election.

When I watched the primaries I saw, at least in part, a contest between two Democratic Parties. One, the DLC conservatives, accepted the social contract that came out of the "Reagan revolution", and argued in favour of implementing it more efficiently and humanely. It seemed to me that Hillary Clinton represented those people. On the other hand, another part of the Democratic Party had a vision of going beyond the post-Reagan social contract, and forging a new consensus that included respect and decent treatment for the "bottom" 90% of the American public.

If this election actually means something more than a choice between two mechanics for the same machine, if it involves real and pressing questions of policy and direction, then Senator Obama can lose if he squeaks into office and spends the next four years explaining why he can't corral the votes to get his policies through Congress, and he can win even if Senator McCain pulls every lever and panders to every constituency and squeaks into office as the final heir of a collapsing consensus.

That explains why I consider tactics, such as speeches and families paraded on the platform and getting the cheers and energizing the base matter less than the ideas. Push the ideas, and you can turn even a defeat into a long term victory.

[Gary Farber]

"But, in order to get elected President, doesn't one have to project an image of solid, dependable stregnth?"

Tell me how that worked for Vice-President Spiro Agnew, and Vice-President Dan Quayle, please.

[Gary Farber]

Incidentally, Joe Biden is flirting with me now.

[hilzoy]

I expressed my concern by maxing out again, even though I truly cannot afford it.

[MeDrewNotYou]

Incidentally, Joe Biden is flirting with me now.

I hear Biden is a big tease. A friend of mine got together with him back in December, and by January it was like there was never a relationship in the first place.

[felix culpa]

Imagining the ecstasy, the big knowing grins in church on Sunday:

Sarah Palin is a Freudian joke, and the jubilation of Christian soccer moms and their confederates is misplaced; but McCain sure won the dog-whistle sweepstakes. Assuming Rove had nothing to do with it he must be deep deep shades of green with deep deep envy.

[magistra]

Imagining the ecstasy, the big knowing grins in church on Sunday

I don't want to divert this onto another discussion of Palin's judgement about her family, but is there really a large constituency (particularly of women voters) out there who believe BOTH that it's OK for mothers of small children to work full-time AND that a teenager who gets pregnant should marry the father and start a family? I can see someone believing either of these two things, but both together seems an odd combination. Or am I underestimating the mental confusion of the Christian right?

[Brett Bellmore]

"but is there really a large constituency"

Yes. And where's the contradiction?

[Original Lee]

"Jesus was a community organizer, Pontius Pilate was a governor."

Let's not go there - we already have problems with the meme that Obama thinks he is the Messiah. Plus, in some circles, the narrative is that Pontius Pilate was forced to crucify Jesus because of incredible pressure from the Jewish elite.

Better:
"Martin Luther King was a community organizer. George Wallace was a governor."

[Original Lee]

Ergh.

"MLK Jr. was a community organizer. George Wallace was a governor."

Gotta proofread better.

[david kilmer]

HAL - It's the troll from "A Troll Called Troll"

[Carleton Wu]

Or am I underestimating the mental confusion of the Christian right?

I think being a member of the bombs-and-jesus crowd automatically implies a certain amount of ideological flexibility.