So what is that very special something that makes Republicans near Sarah Palin behave as though they’ve eaten catnip? Patrik Etschmayer of Switzerland’s Nachrichten newspaper thinks he has the answer - an answer that will no doubt create some controversy.
“A man who criticizes a female politician quickly draws accusations of sexism and chauvinism. … But - as painful as this may be for feminists - incompetence and unethical behavior are by no means limited to the male gender. And the generally better social skills of women also results in a superior ability - if they see fit - to lie better than most men. In politics, this is a core-competence. … Therefore when a female politician is attacked, one should look very carefully at what the criticism is and who is screaming, ‘Sexism!’”
“If one removes the two X-chromosomes and regards Palin as a non-gendered entity, only one thing is left: a power-hungry politician, inhabiting a universe of yes-men [and women], unable or unwilling to see any wrongdoing in herself and regarding all people who hold dissenting opinions as political enemies, not least because she sees herself on a mission from God on her way to changing the world. … And here’s the solution to the puzzle - of why Palin was chosen, the source of her popularity among conservatives and what makes her so dangerous: She is the female version of George W. Bush, a W with two X chromosomes.”
This is the time of the presidential campaign for “game-changing” moments, whether it is a huge outdoor acceptance speech in the shadow of the Rocky Mountains or the vice presidential selection of a largely unknown young female governor from Alaska.
It is a potentially pivotal time in an historic election.
But what the campaign of Barack Obama is ultimately looking for is a “map changer,” a path to an Electoral College majority that they hope will take them through plenty of Republican terrain….
If there ever was a doubt that a lie repeated often enough can supplant the truth in people’s perceptions of reality, take a look at the two graphs below. The first is from the Tax Policy Center and compares the after-income effects of the McCain and Obama tax proposals.
Now, take a look at what Americans believe each candidate’s tax proposal will do:
Although only 1% of Americans will see an actual tax increase under Obama’s plan, 53% believe he will increase their taxes. I was a little curious why Republicans hammered Obama so hard on taxes during the convention when his policy actually benefits most Americans more than McCain’s. I guess they just thought they wouldn’t getcalled on it.
One thing that the selection of Sarah Palin shows about John McCain, is that in terms of sheer inventiveness, he is at least Obama’s equal. This is the thesis of Le Figaro’s chief editorial writer Pierre Rousselin.
“The flood of revelations, intended to harm the suddenly praised unknown, has in fact served the Republican ticket by mobilizing his supporters, who once more are convinced they are being targeted by the left-wing media. One wonders, moreover, if this sequence of criticism wasn’t deliberately orchestrated by Republican strategists.”
“The Republicans succeeded in doing what was most important: they are campaigning as if George W. Bush never existed and have seized the theme of change that Barack Obama had confiscated for his own benefit and on which he had brilliantly based his entire campaign.”
Exasperation over the standard of debate in the U.S presidential race is definitely global, and in ‘Old Europe,’ this exasperation centers on how sex and religion insert themselves into a debate that ought to be about better public policy.
“What I don’t understand is all the fuss about Sarah Palin. She, the clueless, internationally inexperienced Governor of the pygmy state of Alaska has been chosen by John McCain to be the Vice President of the United States, and all the media can get animated over is the fact that her 17-year-old unmarried daughter is expecting a child?”
“Why should I be at all interested in their husbands or wives, their mothers or children?
What does it matter if Palin’s husband was driving drunk, if her teenage daughter’s sex is good or bad, or whether Barrack Obama’s stepfather taught him to box in Indonesia? Why during an out-sized mass-gathering in Denver, do I have to witness Obama’s two little daughters standing in the spotlight waving like little dolls whose batteries are about to run out? Why should whether John McCain and his wife Cindy are happy be relevant?
“As far as I’m concerned, Sarah Palin’s children might not have sex at all, John McCain could be single and Obama’s children could play at home with their slot cars. They could all be bad husbands or wives, frequent brothels and subsequently lie to their families about it.”
It probably won’t come as a surprise that along with the rest of the world, Iraqis who aren’t struggling every moment of the day and night to keep body and soul together are watching the American presidential race with great interest.
The writer, Sati’ Noureddine, doesn’t appear to favor Obama or McCain, says nothing of Palin’s fundamentalist Christian beliefs, and only mentions her daughter’s pregnancy in the context of how Obama allowed an electoral attack opportunity pass him by, for fear of Republican retribution.
Perhaps I’m overdrawing here, but it seems as though what interests this Iraqi author are the strategies and tactics of campaigning in a democracy. From an American point of view, perhaps that is cause for hope.
“She’s the seductress of the American election and her charms are new. Mrs. Sarah Palin retains much of the good looks she was blessed with when she was in her 20s. And she is showing off the rhetorical skills gained since she launched her plan in that state far away at the edge of the world, to move from beauty pageants and sporting contests into political affairs and oil. And now it’s on to the White House.”
“The Democratic Party has made the process of choosing leaders from outside traditional institutions a standard practice. This has been repeated in many presidential, legislative and executive election battles, culminating with Black Democratic candidate Barack Obama, a man whose origins, thinking and religion even today, remain unknown to many Americans. They don’t even know whether or not he drinks beer.”
“But the Republican Party and its leading figures have always emphasized a desire not to shock American public opinion, stressing caution when choosing candidates from outside a select political circle. It takes many years and even decades of public works before a member of the club reaches the top rank … But with the choice of Mrs. Palin, who has leaped with unbelievable speed to the head of the class - and perhaps to the top of the decision-making tree, it seems that it was time for this to change.”
It seems that both in and out of the United States, the things that concern people the most about Sarah Palin - John McCain’s running mate - is her age, his age, and Palin’s fundamentalist Christian upbringing.
In speech after speech at last week’s RNC, Republicans argued that one of Sarah Palin’s virtues as a candidate is her upbringing in a small town. It was a way for voters to connect with her and at the same time provided an opportunity to attack Obama for the cardinal sin of being too “cosmopolitan” (a phrase uttered without irony by the former mayor of one of the biggest cities in the world).
This is, at its core, political pandering and another type of identity politics. I won’t get into that too much here, but you can find my take on it over at Ablogistan. (For the record, I grew up in a town so small it could barely sustain a single movie theater or bowling alley, and I think there’s a ridiculous double standard: You’re accused of being elitist if you call someone from a small town bitter, but you can vilify another person because he/she happens to live in a city on one of the coasts).
But this is also interesting to examine as a (possibly effective) campaign strategy. Take a look at almost any electoral map and you’ll see concentrated spots of blue in a sea of varying shades of red. For a variety of reasons, including demographics, Democrats win major metropolitan areas in most regions of the country, and Republicans take smaller towns and rural areas, even in traditionally-Democratic states like California and Massachusetts. This trend will probably be even stronger this year considering the high concentrations of minorities in urban areas that will likely turn out for Obama.
The McCain campaign knows this. They aren’t going to win America’s cities. So they have two options: Try to compete in cities to narrow the margin of victory or isolate the urban areas and make sure the rest of the map is as red as possible.
If McCain can boost turnout in rural America, he might be able to offset Obama’s gains in urban America. Sarah Palin may be able to pull that off.
Whether it works depends on how effective Palin is when she finally submits to interviews, as well as turnout levels for Obama in both settings.
