Look Long & Hard At This Photograph, America. I Mean Really Long & Hard

Refreshing that we're moving away from the politics of fear. /sarcasm

Take long, slow breaths, Shaun.

We realize the panic Palin’s pick has caused in the democrat party, but try to remain calm.

Take long, slow breaths, Shaun.

It’s just starting to sink in how someone like Palin will appeal to the swing center of the electorate, that prime section of America made up of soccer moms, single mothers, blue collar workers and traditional families.

Take long, slow breaths, Shaun.

As liberals and the media pound on Palin, the very demographic groups the left depends on in tight elections will know the people denigrating her are actually denigrating them. Yes, this is going to be a change election.

This is the politics of reality, of well-founded fear. Not unjustified, idiotic fear. It's idiotic and unjustified to, say, tell people to be afraid of Barack Obama simply because he's African-American. It is well-founded fear to be afraid of the possibility of a total world affairs noob assuming the mantle of most powerful person in the world if John McCain croaks. This is called "being realistic."

Shaun:

It is sad, but from the comments thusfar, apparently true.

Many will much rather take a long, long deep breath and read "Obamanation" in its entirety (and believe everything in it), than take a long and hard look and fathom the significance of the photo you have shown and its implications.

Sad...

Of course, this is coming from someone who is excited that national politics will soon be like Philadelphia politics.

Maybe is Shawn cared at all that Robert Byrd will be in charge of all appropriations with a governmetn totally controlled by the Democrats, Shawn would have some credibility on his concerns.

You know, I have yet to see this so-called hysteria of the democrats. Disbelief, sure. Confusion, you bet. Hysteria, not so much. We just haven't figured out why McCain would risk his candidacy on an untested, under-qualified, scandal-ridden VP pick. My guess is that as Palin becomes more well-known, she'll help McCain shore up the Republican base of evangelicals and hard core social conservatives. But I sincerely doubt that her anti-choice, anti-sex ed stance is going to appeal to more than a handful of soccer moms who, in my experience, tend to be more pragmatic when it comes to dealing with the various sex-related issues that crop up as a parent. She is John McCain's very heavy-handed attempt at pandering to angry Clinton supporters. The ones who truly supported Clinton's policies won't be swayed by Palin.

Amanda,

“The ones who truly supported Clinton's policies won't be swayed by Palin.”

You are absolutely correct. People who vote on issues and who agreed with Hillary won’t vote for Palin.

These aren’t’ the people McCain is targeting by this pick. He is going for the soft center of the electorate who doesn’t pay attention to politics, as well as shoring up his conservative base. True identity politics.

OK - if we are supposed to be scared shit-less at the thought of someone as young and inexperienced as Palin POSSIBLY becoming President if McCain should die in office, why in the world should we consider voting for the equally young and inexperienced Obama for President directly?

Seriously the thought of an inexperienced Obama taking over the white house is a much more eminent threat to the security of this nation than Palin (who is more experienced than Obama) takining over the Vice Presidency.

Anyone who tries to make the Palin experience an issue to not support the McCain ticket better be voting third party if they don't want the hypocrite label to apply to them.

Just as anyone who is trying to make Obama's experience an issue needs to vote third party or have the hypocrite label apply to them.

Since the Palin pick is more indicative of McCain's lack of judgement and his inclination to make rash poorly thought out decisions, I have no problem voting for Obama.

jwest - you just confirm the problem - this is all about electing McCain and nothing about having someone ready to step in as President if something happens. This goes to the heart of McCain's judgement problem.

Yes, the race really is between Biden and Palin after all....

Thanks for pointing that out. Who knows? Maybe even Nancy Pelosi will be raising her hand with the other on the Bible? She is the next candidate for the Oval Office should either VP be unfit. Biden suffers from health issues, doesn't he?

We sure could use Clinton in a pinch like this...

Hillary Clinton/Colin Powell. What a ticket. Tight and strong.

Well, RevDave, I'd say that you confirm the problem that this is all about electing Obama. If you really believe that the Palin pick proves that McCain's judgment is lacking, then what does that say about your judgment and that of all Obama supporters, who want to elect him to POTUS?

Of course, you could also step back and admit that people might actually have differing opinions on what kind of experience is valuable, and what kind of judgments are the right ones. Experience isn't just counted in years (if it was, then Obama only barely beats out Palin), it's what you've accomplished in that time. And judgment will be evaluated differently depending on what political/ideological lens you view a situation through. Plus, assessments of judgment can't be based strictly on one instance, as many people try to do with Obama's speech about the Iraq War in 2002.

RevDave,

I’ve paid attention to Biden for years and I truly believe he would be a disaster as president, so I would be much more comfortable with Palin.

Palin is the new Jimmy Stewart in “Mr. Smith Goes To Washington”. She’s the bright eyed reformer that the media and the elites treat like a bumpkin.

It may be identity politics for the swing vote, but for me, I like the promise of a Palin administration.

I wish this could be sent to all media outlets for them to look at and discard the nonsense about babies, teenagers, ect. And remember what the real issue is.
The media took for granted that mcCain was right for the job because of his time in Washington and never looked at his judgment and temperment and if he is right for the job.
Palin is not the one at fault here. It's is McCain. It's his failure in the most basic and important part of the so called Commander in Chief test. Vetting and picking a veep. He failed. He showed a lack of judgment and did not vet this choice. He left his slogan, Country First, on the highway while he went with Base first.
Then look at Obama and how he is reported to have conducted the most intense vetting process and chose wisely.
I would say Obama passed the c in c test while McCain failed.

jwest wrote: She’s the bright eyed reformer that the media and the elites treat like a bumpkin.
Apparently you have not been paying close attention. Palin is not a reformer. She hired a lobbyist firm to stoke up big money for her tiny town and was for the Bridge to nowhere before she was against it. She also was very involved in Sen. Stevens PAC operation.
The more you learn about this woman the more you find her marketed image is very different from the reality.

>>...equally young and inexperienced...<<

That's easy to answer - because your very question is patently false to begin with. You are comparing Obama and Palin as equals in terms of experience, which is, well, laughable. Please come back to the grown-ups table when you are able to make a cogent argument.

Anyone who says Palin is more experienced than Obama is absolutely bonkers. Jeebus. Grow up people. How can you possibly claim this?

Please read and confirm the truth.To counter the absurd statrments by the Republican pundits on how Palin has more experience than Obama, I would like to point out this positive list of Obama's experience and compare it to Palin's.

State Senator 1997-2004, seven years.
U.S. Senator 2004-2008
Commitees: Foreign Affairs, Veterans Affairs, Education, Labor & pensions.
Homeland Security.
Trips to the Middle East & Europe.
Lobbied for electoral fraud, climate change, nuclear terrorism.
Graduate of Harvard.
Taught Constitutional Law.
Gave up huge salaries to work in Chicago's slums to help create a better life for poor people. Good grief, these people just toss out lies and mislead the American people with impunity from the American Press.

Palin is underexperienced for the job
Obama is underexperienced for the job.

Those are the facts. The difference between the two? Palin has a foundation, however much we disagree with it's substance. Obama simply has no substance at all. He is a repetitive empty-worded buffoon.

The only issue worth considering in this race since the people are like a host of clowns at this point. is the BigOil monopoly. In fact, I think BigOil is deleriously elated that we have such a cast of numbskulls to freak out and obsess over so we won't notice how they're running the place after all.

I still say "BigOil owns the GOP" will win the election for the otherwise unelectable Obama.

In the end, with people shaking their heads about the cast of characters, they all will drive past gas pumps on their way to the polls this November and they will notice the gouging...I think of it every day...They will remember the $80 they just had to take from their grocery money to fill the tank, the expensive war they don't want any part of..all for BigOil..and they'll look at their beaches in CA and imagine their only source of big revenue, tourist dollars, down the toilet in a filthy slurry of black sludgey sand.. and they will cast their vote accordingly..

Words for the wise ; )

Vwcat,

As you will remember, the political machine and evil media also tried to paint Jimmy Stewart with trumped up scandals.

If the public likes Palin as I suspect they will, all of these overblown or false rumors will boomerang against Obama.

Okay, I've just stared at the picture long and hard. I'm not sure, but I THINK the guy in the middle is Lyndon Baines Johnson. He was selected as JFK's running mate in order to shore up Texas' electoral votes and to reassure the country that the young, unproven Democratic standard-bearer would have an experienced Congressional hand at his side.

Here's the problem, however: For all of his experience, LBJ proved to be an utter disaster for the country. His approach to Vietnam practically tore the country apart. His big-government "solutions" to social problems proved catastrophic to the very groups he was supposedly trying to help. Apart from the Civil Rights Act, his presidency was a complete failure.

Clearly, "experience" is not all it's cracked up to be.

I think focusing on people is a moot point. BigOil is the issue of the day. It's very clear. The GOP is pro-BigOil monopoly and empire expansion, the dems, AND MOST AMERICANS aren't. From this point on, no other issue should concern the dems as much as their one and possibly ONLY real point of leverage..

Words for the wise..

For my generation, this picture brings back sad memories ...and loads of painful souvenirs. Jackie in a trance covered in blood ... to imagine Cindy or Michelle living that nightmare, no, no more , not again...
Not only for their sakes , but for our country because at each time , foreigners look down at us like oh yes those american barbarians...
then Robert K then MLK
Then an attempt on Reagan
This is not tolerable.

Yet it opens the door of unsuitable Veeps
I think it is fair to assume that what is good for the gander is good for the goose hence if we think-rightlyy so that BHO is fit so is Palin
what differentiates one from the other is that- mercifully Obama is not a nutball believing in creationnism and is pro choice

2 final thoughts
on evolution
rightwing so called christian nuts should be made aware that in catholic christian schools in europe evolution is taught and not creationnism as in fact there are so many wonders in evolution that it is in fact the proof of a intelligent design
on bristol
bristol is out boundaries but not her mom as her daughter actual pb is the sanction of very poor sexual education....

(said in best Bevis and Butthead voice...)

Uhhhhh... Huhuhuhuh He said long and hard.

OK, I never said she was more experienced. They are both inexperienced is the point, in different ways.

She first held elected office in 1992, was elected Mayor the year before Obama became a State Senator, and has been a Governor as long as Obama has been a US Senator.

Neither is very experienced, but there really is no experience to prepare you for the Presidency, This is a wash, with the exception that she is the under-card, not the standard-bearer. I was just making the point (I thought) that it is a silly argument.

I actually agree with those that state the real issue is what it says about McCain. But here is another question. What if he had gone with another rising star, Bobby Jindal (who apparently said thanks, but no thanks)? What would be said about that choice? Impossible to know, but I would bet a lot less.

If we are distracted long enough with personalities, we won't notice the one real issue that will make or break the campaign for either side: The fact that MOST americans are opposed to the antics, manipulations and monopoly of BigOil and its war in Iraq that no one wants.. the global warming from fossil fuel burning.. And that the GOP is BigOil personified.

Words to the wise..

BTW - glad to see the Obama campaign continues to take the high road -

""Palin was a supporter of [MSNBC analyst] Pat Buchanan, a right-winger or as many Jews call him: a Nazi sympathizer," Obama spokesman Mark Bubriski wrote in an email."

Of course, the fact that she supported Steve Forbes, and that she bumped into Buchanan at someone else's fundraiser is irrelevant, especially when you are committed to the highest ethical standards in your campaign.

All it shows, again, is that both side are wallowing in the slime, and neither can claim the high ground.

True true. And while wallowing in slime it's hard to focus on the real issue facing our country...BigOil owning the GOP.

Words to the wise..

Jrshay,

yes people are bonkers for recognizing Obama has zero executive experience beyond running a campaign, do we want our nation run like a political campaign? Not I, but if thats the experiece you seek in the next for years, by all means vote for the man of rhetoric.

Bonkers indeed, ROTFLMAO.

Has Obama ever used a veto?

Has Obama ever commanded troops?

Has Obama ever managed a governemnt department?

Has Obama ever appointed a judge?

Has Obama ever cut funding to a program?

Has Obama ever negoatied a multibillion dollar business deal with a foreign power?

http://www.medaloffreedom.com/JohnFKennedy23.jpg
Look long and hard at this photograph, America. I mean really long and hard. Now, squint a little and picture Barack Obama raising his right hand to take the oath of office. Not just a disturbing thought, but a nightmarish one because the Democratic presidential nominee radical liberal wingnut with a walk-in closet full of skeletons in a fit of pique.

Hmmmmm

Which one of the four people on the ticket have taken on Big Oil and won?

Why that would be.......

Sarah Palin.

There's nothing moderate about this blog any more, but an inexperienced tyro like Obama is just as scary as a Palin, who by the way knows more about oil, gas, and other energy issues than any other candidate who ran for POTUS. And she stands for real American women rather than the feminazi hysterics who hate her just as Jesse & Sharpton hated Clarence Thomas. The reason they hate Palin is because she made it on her own, from a local mayor to governor to VP candidate, not someone who rode on her cheatin' hubby's coattails.

Palin is more of an executive than half-term Senator Obama....

The hysterics on the Dem left makes me think the ladies do protest too much!

They are aware that McCain has pulled the rug out from under their pretensions.

She may understand energy issues, but she also is ready to sell out her duty to protect the environment of her own state so that the Republican mantra of drill, drill, drill will become a reality instead of Exxon-mobil's wet dream. Palin was mayor of a town with less than 500 people which in no way qualified her to be governor of a state that has nothing in common with the lower 48.

As we saw with former CEO's like Don Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney- executive experience may not lead to an ability to function with Washington bureaucrats.

There's nothing moderate about daveinboca. Mindless repetition of talking points does not an argument make dave... it makes your online persona shallow. But to be fair, your 'McCain has pulled the rug' joke was pretty funny.

daveinboca,

I pretty much agree with you. Joe himself is still pretty fair in his blogging, but some of the other contributors have jumped the shark, ala Andrew Sullivan. Kinda a shame as many other moderate bloggers have stopped posting or chosen sides. I'm guilty of this myself as I am a fan of McCain, but I enjoyed coming here to get some perspective from time to time, but the recent flurry of Palin posts has confrimed my fears that this blog has also taken one of the branches in the road. I can't really fault them for that, since as I admitted freely, so have I, but I can mourn the loss of a balanced reasource.

I still do, however look forward to reading the posts written by Joe, I think he is for Obama but at least he presents rational arguments and observations.

Well, as someone who has been at TMV for many years, I can say it is hard to stay here and be moderate if you are right-leaning.

Most of the old moderate right posters gave up long ago, and vamoosed. CStanley is one of the few that stayed, but has managed to keep from lashing out in frustration (I certainly haven't been able to show such restraint at times)

Do you realize that we are in day five of the Sarah Palin story? When you take into account the long holiday weekend, a cat 3 hurrican hitting Louisiana and the shock of the announcement on Friday, this is the first full business day her name has been out there?

Whether you have taken sides or not, there is not doubt that the vultures are circling. We have heard all of the known stories

- Troopergate, and then replacing the fired director with a known sex offender.
- Being for the bridge to no where before she was against the bridge to no where.
- Being opposed to earmarks while accepting 27 million over 4 years

And now other things are coming out. Like when she tried to fire (and was forced to reinsate) the city librarian because she refused to follow her book banning order. That's right==she didn't like some of the books in the library and she was going to fire the librarian.

As a rational person, I would question her judgement. Like when she gave the speech to the governors meeting in Houston whle she was in the eigth month of her pregnancy with the downs child. Her water broke and she started to go into contractions. Instead of going to a hospital in Houston, she flew a connecting flight thorugh Seattle to Anchorage and then drove to her clinic in her home town to deliver the baby. If you described that set of facts TO ANYONE they will tell you that she is insane.

Unlike many of the people out there, I don't begrudge her the shot at the VP spot even though she has a 17 yo pregnant daughter and a child with downs syndrome. As a parent with two autistic kids, I know how tough it can be, but also that you can make steps to work around it. In most situations the presumption is that the "other" spouse will handle things. I would love to here what her plans are to take care of her children---Is her husband going to be a stay at home dad, or will family help?--before I were to make a judgement.

However, her track record does not speak positively. Just sayin.

AustinRoth said: "Most of the old moderate right posters gave up long ago, and vamoosed..."

They didn't give up AustinRoth... The 'moderate right' has stopped being moderate. Those of you who are still here have increasingly lashed out at centrists and the moderate left as if we were the cause of the schism you and yours are going through but it's not us... it's you.

Mouse over your screen ID (or daveinbocas) and read the last 10 comments you've made. Do you think they are moderate? Do you think they invite reasoned discussion from people that disagree with your position? I don't think they are but I may be mistaken.

I do believe though that if you would 'moderate' the way you present your position(s) you'd be surprised to find that people on 'the other side' would actually start replying instead of shooting back in kind.

Did I not say I have issues lately staying moderate, given the amount of vitriol being spewed at the right? Those that are still here, with few exceptions, as I said, are those who ARE more belligerent, as you have to be to stand up to the gale force winds directed at us.

And I gave credit to CStanley for doing a better job than me staying civil. I used to be, but haven't been for a long time. I am on the occasional post, but I get attacked just as much, because it is not my tone that offends, it is the content of my messages.

Too bad, then, that Palin is more qualified than Obama is.

Try whining and "exaggerating" about something else. [sigh]

"And she stands for real American women rather than the feminazi hysterics who hate her just as Jesse & Sharpton hated Clarence Thomas. The reason they hate Palin is because she made it on her own, from a local mayor to governor to VP candidate, not someone who rode on her cheatin' hubby's coattails."

Straying off the PC-Dem-monopoly planation, literally, in the first case and out of the PC-Dem-monopoly kitchen-nursery in the second.

Leonidas asks:







Has Obama ever used a veto? You mean like George W. Bush? Vetoeing bills to halp the poor, cure the sick, and support out troops

Has Obama ever commanded troops? You mean like Bush's Texas national Guard service, or like his disaster called Iraq?

Has Obama ever managed a governemnt department? You mean like Bush's FEMA, etc.?

Has Obama ever appointed a judge? You mean like those rightwing judges appointed by Bush who condone torture and have thrown habeas corpus out of the White House window?

Has Obama ever cut funding to a program? You mean like Bush attempting to cut funding for the GI Bill of Rights, or actually doing it for health care, for MEDICAID, MEDICARE, or for social security, or for CHIPS, or for so many other social programs?

Has Obama ever negoatied a multibillion dollar business deal with a foreign power? You mean like Bush's attempt to give Kuwait control of our ports, etc.,?

Gee this group would have turned down Abe Lincoln, himself. Lincoln never did any of those things before he ran and won as the presidential candidate for the nascent Republican party. Anyone want to make the case that he was unqualified to run the country during wartime???

Incorrect on certain parts, D. E.Rodriguez, but correct on point. The issue isn't really experience but judgment. Sometimes they go hand in hand. Sometimes all the experience in the world can't give a body good judgment. Sometimes good judgment comes entirely separate from experience. It's usually a toss of the dice, and I find that it's best to keep in mind the stock market disclaimer, "Past performance is no indicator of future performance."

Thanks for the shoutout, Austin. As I'm sure most of the long time regulars have noticed, I definitely don't comment as often as I used to because I have gotten tired of the slant too, and tired of attempting conversations with some people who really aren't open to considering anything that contradicts a leftist or center left viewpoint.

SteveK, you can believe what you want, but the fact is that even when people like myself or Austin are moderate in tone, we often don't get moderate responses in reply. I work at being as non-emotive as possible in my comments, though even I have found it impossible at times. I think if you note my comments, you'll see that I do try to actually debate issues and present alternate viewpoints, and I'll engage anyone who'll respond in kind.

Those who've been visiting TMV for a while know that it used to be routine to have in depth debates in the comment section that wen't on for hundreds of comments, without much trolling or insulting going on. I found those discussions very engaging, and learned a lot about viewpoints that were further left than my own. I found it very helpful to get a better perspective on why people held the political views that they held; now, though, the discussions rarely enlighten in that way because people regurgitate talking points in most cases.

And no, the center right hasn't disappeared; they've just gone elsewhere or given up on blogs entirely.

Dr. E, your comment strikes me as the way this campaign is being run though- against GWB. I think the commenter who asked those questions was comparing the experience of a legislator (Obama) with that of someone who's had a similar amount of experience but in the executive branch (Palin.)

True enough that it's what you have done with that experience that matters though, and certainly some people can effectively argue that Bush's decisions in those cases were often wrongheaded.

CStanley said: "SteveK, you can believe what you want, but the fact is that even when people like myself or Austin are moderate in tone, we often don't get moderate responses in reply."

I certainly appreciate you giving me permission to believe as I wish... That's mighty big of you... You're welcome to your opinion(s), too.

Facts are funny things CStanley so I know you'll understand that some might see your comment as condescending and self-righteous. Especially those of us who remember you walking away from TMV during an exodus of 'pro-censorship' wingnuts... Wingnuts who, though wielding the power of censorship, felt put upon and abused.

Um, OK, Steve, sure. Thanks for providing an illustration of the typical 'moderate' response, which goes something like this:
1. A commenter who has a perspective which is further right than the status quo here posts a comment.
2. Rather than respond to the substance of the comment, one or more of the regular commenters respond by calling the person a wingnut (or a similar remark.) This of course is the logical fallacy commonly known as 'begging the question'. You define everyone whose perpective is more conservative than yours as a wingnut, and then you use that definition to lump people who disagree with you in that category, and dismiss them. Then you use that as proof that there are no reasonable people who disagree with you. The problem is that you assume that neutral observers don't notice that the initial commenter didn't say anything that warranted that kind of dismissive treatment- he/she simply presented an alternative viewpoint that contradicted the accepted narrative.

Even your recap of past events isn't factual. I never 'walked away', I simply started expressing the fact that I was beginning to feel that it was a waste of my time to comment here, and began doing so less frequently. Even expressing that sentiment brought hysterical criticism, just like your ridiculous characterization of some of the right of center former bloggers as 'pro-censorship wingnuts'. The people who gave up attempting to blog here did so not because they were 'pro-censorship', but because they were tired of the comment policy being enforced for some bloggers but not others (certain bloggers couldn't be personally criticized in the comment section, while others had insults continuously posted which were ignored.)

It's my opinion that this kind of atmosphere leads to an echo chamber, where commenters read only what they agree with and insult bloggers or commenters with whom they disagree until those people give up and go away. That doesn't strike me as very intellectually honest, nor does it strike me as healthy for our country's political atmosphere. If you disagree with that, fine, but I think many observers will note that in your disagreement with me, you provided the example of exactly what I'm referring to.

I don't get the argument of the post. I guess I'm supposed to picture Joe Biden as ready to lead, but nothing is adduced for that point. Then I guess I'm supposed to hate on Sarah Palin because of the name-calling the poster indulges in.

The comments, mercifully, move away from the post and just rant about whatever they like, which range from hitting Obama's record to calling everyone right-of-center a wingnut.

Does anyone on the Internet actually talk to other people, or is all their communication done by shouting at strangers in comment threads?