In an earlier post, I looked at the relative absence of sarcasm in Sarah Palin’s attacks on Barack Obama and Democrats in her acceptance speech.
At 42 minutes, Obama’s acceptance speech was only about 6 minutes longer than Palin’s. In Obama’s speech, there were only three statements that were probably sarcastic:
These three assertions should probably be viewed as sarcastic because when he says “The market will fix it,” he actually believes the opposite. The same applies to his statements about bootstraps and “Tough Luck.” (However, these three statements might be viewed as not sarcastic because, though he is speaking sarcastically, these comments are part of a larger argument about the views prevalent in (Republican) Washington.)In Washington, they call this the Ownership Society, but what it really means is — you're on your own.
Out of work? Tough luck.
No health care? The market will fix it.
Born into poverty? Pull yourself up by your own bootstraps — even if you don't have boots.
Like Palin, Obama generally prefers to attack without using sarcasm. Also like Palin, Obama sometimes uses hyperbole to characterize his opponents’ views.
Here are the other passages in which Obama attacks McCain, Republicans, or Republican administrations:
If one compares Palin’s speech to Obama’s, it appears to me that they used similar amounts of sarcasm (not much), but Obama made considerably more extensive negative comments about McCain and Republican administrations than Palin did about Obama and Democrats. Palin’s negative comments, however, were on balance funnier, better written, and more pointed than Obama’s. Neither candidate’s comments were entirely fair in every characterization of their opponents’ positions.1. John McCain likes to say that he'll follow bin Laden to the gates of hell — but he won't even go to the cave where he lives.
2. I don't know what kind of lives John McCain thinks that celebrities lead, but this has been mine.
3. Because next week, in Minnesota, the same party that brought you two terms of George Bush and Dick Cheney will ask this country for a third. And we are here because we love this country too much to let the next four years look like the last eight. On November 4, we must stand up and say: "Eight is enough."
4. John McCain has voted with George Bush 90 percent of the time. Sen. McCain likes to talk about judgment, but really, what does it say about your judgment when you think George Bush has been right more than 90 percent of the time? I don't know about you, but I'm not ready to take a 10 percent chance on change.
5. For over two decades, he's subscribed to that old, discredited Republican philosophy — give more and more to those with the most and hope that prosperity trickles down to everyone else.
6. America, we are better than these last eight years. We are a better country than this. . . . We are more compassionate than a government that lets veterans sleep on our streets and families slide into poverty; that sits on its hands while a major American city drowns before our eyes.
7. The truth is, on issue after issue that would make a difference in your lives — on health care and education and the economy — Sen. McCain has been anything but independent.
8. He said that our economy has made "great progress" under this president.
He said that the fundamentals of the economy are strong.
And when one of his chief advisers — the man who wrote his economic plan — was talking about the anxiety Americans are feeling, he said that we were just suffering from a "mental recession," and that we've become, and I quote, "a nation of whiners."
A nation of whiners? Tell that to the proud autoworkers at a Michigan plant who, after they found out it was closing, kept showing up every day and working as hard as ever, because they knew there were people who counted on the brakes that they made. Tell that to the military families who shoulder their burdens silently as they watch their loved ones leave for their third or fourth or fifth tour of duty. These are not whiners.
9. Now, I don't believe that Sen. McCain doesn't care what's going on in the lives of Americans. I just think he doesn't know. Why else would he define middle class as someone making under 5 million dollars a year?
10. How else could he propose hundreds of billions in tax breaks for big corporations and oil companies but not one penny of tax relief to more than 100 million Americans?
How else could he offer a health care plan that would actually tax people's benefits, or an education plan that would do nothing to help families pay for college, or a plan that would privatize Social Security and gamble your retirement?
11. It's not because John McCain doesn't care. It's because John McCain doesn't get it.
12. Well, it's time for them to own their failure. It's time for us to change America.
13. Tonight, more Americans are out of work and more are working harder for less. More of you have lost your homes and even more are watching your home values plummet. More of you have cars you can't afford to drive, credit card bills you can't afford to pay, and tuition that's beyond your reach. These challenges are not all of government's making. But the failure to respond is a direct result of a broken politics in Washington and the failed policies of George W. Bush.
14. Change means a tax code that doesn't reward the lobbyists who wrote it, but the American workers and small businesses who deserve it. Unlike John McCain, I will stop giving tax breaks to corporations that ship jobs overseas, and I will start giving them to companies that create good jobs right here in America.
15. Washington's been talking about our oil addiction for the last 30 years, and John McCain has been there for 26 of them. In that time, he's said no to higher fuel-efficiency standards for cars, no to investments in renewable energy, no to renewable fuels.
16. And just as we keep our keep our promise to the next generation here at home, so must we keep America's promise abroad. If John McCain wants to have a debate about who has the temperament, and judgment, to serve as the next commander in chief, that's a debate I'm ready to have.
17. For while Sen. McCain was turning his sights to Iraq just days after 9/11, I stood up and opposed this war, knowing that it would distract us from the real threats we face. When John McCain said we could just "muddle through" in Afghanistan, I argued for more resources and more troops to finish the fight against the terrorists who actually attacked us on 9/11 and made clear that we must take out Osama bin Laden and his lieutenants if we have them in our sights.
18. And today, as my call for a time frame to remove our troops from Iraq has been echoed by the Iraqi government and even the Bush administration, even after we learned that Iraq has a $79 billion surplus while we're wallowing in deficits, John McCain stands alone in his stubborn refusal to end a misguided war. That's not the judgment we need. That won't keep America safe. We need a president who can face the threats of the future, not keep grasping at the ideas of the past.
19. John McCain wants to follow George Bush with more tough talk and bad strategy, that is his choice — but it is not the change we need.
20. The Bush-McCain foreign policy has squandered the legacy that generations of Americans — Democrats and Republicans — have built, and we are here to restore that legacy.
21. So I've got news for you, John McCain. We all put our country first.
By continuing to spread false memes about the nature of Sarah Palin's speech as if they were true, the press marches forward in the most biased season of political reporting I've seen since at least 1998.
When it comes to Fox News, I don't think anyone could seriously consider them real journalists, so they don't count.
Now, considering the fact that the Repubs have controlled congress and the white house for most of the past eight years, and we have a prez whose ratings are the worst in history, you would think that Obama had plenty of negative comments. There's just too much to criticize there.
The difference between their two speeches in their negative comments is this: Obama's criticisms were broad, covering this administration's handling of everything from the war in Iraq, to diplomacy, to energy policy, to health care, and to the ecomony. Palin's negative comments were confined pretty much to Obama.
Oh, and to that big bad Press who actually asked questions of her that she didn't like.
As for the others, most of them are policy oriented rather than questioning McCain's motives or his worth as a person. Most focus on McCain's or the Republican party's stands on specific issues or votes. I'd classify only #9, 11, and 18 (one word, "stubborn") as including anything personal.
Contrast that with Palin's mocking of Obama as lacking responsibility, being on an ego trip for self-discovery, his supposed two-face nature in campaigning, the language he uses in speeches, etc. Only a few of Palin's hits were about Obama's policies.
Why do you think adding up the numbers is the best way to evaluate this? Or do you? Is it possible, for example, that some of these comments are qualitatively more negative than others, or negative in different ways? Or that a direct attack on the sitting administration that doesn't include a reference to McCain is not comparable to an attack directly on one of the candiates by the other?
"Neither candidate’s comments were entirely fair in every characterization of their opponents’ positions."
Okay. Which of Obama's charaterizations were not 'entirely fair"?
I'm sorry, but you've lost it. You simply cannot compare an artful attack based on policy with the petty barbs in Palin's speech (styrofoam pillars, fake seal, etc.).
Also, I wouldn't ascribe Palin's speech to her personally. She had almost nothing to do with writing it. For all we know, she is drier than a desert and enjoys physical comedy. We really know nothing at this point about how she prefers to attack.
In other words, rapiers are for the elites, bludgeons are for the people. Why do you and Palin such elistists?
Well, that, and the fact that most Americans don't like most of his policies either. Which is a pretty big weakness.
And you can hardly complain about running against Bush when McCain boasts of voting with him 90% of the time?
If you think Palin's jabs were funny..... You may be a Re
dneckpublican.(Apologies to Jeff Foxworthy)
I have yet to see any prominent Republican make that argument in this campaign season. Are they hiding that belief from the public at large? Perhaps the reason Bush didn't appear at the convention was the party's fear that he would remind us of how much better Bush is than McCain could be? Hard to imagine.
Obama obviously respects McCain, and his political opponents, and has a long record of doing so.
Palin's speech was dripping with condescension. Not to mention a few outright lies.
Contrast and criticism are a necessary and vital part of politics. Ad hominem slander -- "my opponent would rather lose a war than an election -- is symptomatic of a disloyal opposition that has been reduced to propaganda. Did you hear? Republicans love their country. They manage to love the country while having contempt for nearly (or more) than half its citizens.
You can fool some of the people some of the time...
Nice strategy, folks.
Did he boast about it?! I know the Dems used the votes meme a lot, but I don't recall McCain boasting about this (IIRC by the time the R primaries were going, it seemed that everyone was distancing themselves from W). I also don't recall the D's claiming the McCain boasted about the statistical alignment with Bush.
I'm sure at some point (2004 R convention, for example) McCain boasted of supporting Bush about various things.
Sarah: How a Hockey Mom Turned Alaska's Political Establishment on Its Ear
Rock it, Sarah.
In McCain's own words:
Video Link
That's a laughable assertion. Perhaps in liberal fantasy land the AP is uncritical of Bush, but in reality the AP has repeatedly published liberal talking points disguised as journalism. As one example of thousands, Jennifer Loven has published scores of articles over the last 4-5 years that are nothing other than liberal hit jobs. She is married to a former Clinton official who was an advisor to John Kerrey's campaign. In one article, Loven even cribbed verbiage from her hubby's criticism of Bush [http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/007971.php]. Despite the subsequent rowback by the AP, it falsely reported that people booed at a 2004 Bush campaign event when Bush wished Bill Clinton a speedy recovery from heart surgery and that Bush didn't stop them. Nothing of the sort happened. [http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/007712.php]. The AP, like the New York times, like MSNBC, like CBS etc. has been nothing other than and adjunct of the Democrat party for the last eight years.
I guess this is a taste of running against Putin in Russia. Only here they go in the tank voluntarily.
The point is the same one I made in a comment under an earlier post:
Palin's popularity is going to blow-away all petty (and double-standard-based) bickering about whether her speech was "sarcastic." The Left and the mainstream media - while discussing "sarcasm" and "small town mayor" - are going to be caught flat-footed when McCain-Palin win the election.
There - that clear enough for you?
21. So I've got news for you, John McCain. We all put our country first.
this is an attack on McCain?
And after the media gnawing, gnashing party for 7 days, when NOBODY has vetted Obama and his anti-American activities...it also speaks of hypocrisy!
Main stream media has not even TOUCHED the suit filed in Federal Court to make him prove up his citizenship...again, very biased! Especially when so many Americans are demanding it.
Frankly Obama's bashing and rhetoric seemed more propaganda than motivational! I can go to church on Sunday morning if I wanted to be motivated to do what I know is right!
the big opportunity to cut a swathe down obama's largely absurd views on economics was there. it was an EASY one. a gimme. and she failed to say anything but, 'oh he'll raise taxes". that's nice sarah, that's nice you know Hannity's talking points. But do you understand the fundamental problems of taxation? The consequences of raising them? Why did you not bring these up? (of course, i guess all comments made to her speech are made to her speechwriter).
Would you say that Joe Biden's speech -- you know, the other VP candidate -- was less negative than Palin's?
Would you say that John McCain's speech -- you know, the other candidate for President -- was any less positive than Obama's?
Oh, sure, having a Panamanian strongman in the White House doesn't bother you, but a Hawaii-born youth does. Talk about your double standards.
Palin and to a lesser extent Obama are still the newcomers. McCain and Biden have both run for national office years ago.
The press was stunned. They were expecting Daisy Mae from the Berverly Hillbillies. They laughed when she was announced as teh selction. They dragged her family through every bit of mud they could find. They expected her to fold. And she rolled right over them without a bump.
McCain is hurt, possibly, just because Palin has become such an instant star that she is outshining him and taking the focus off the top of the Republican ticket. However there are some pluses in this, any talk that McCain didn't know what he was doing when he picked Palin becomes ridiculous. If Palin was a poor choice why is the other parties Presdential nominee, and all of his supporters, trying so hard to compare Obama to her?
Ah, politicians...
It's things like this that make it hard to discuss across partisan lines anymore. The italicized portion is particularly relevant. I do believe that Randy R. actually believes this is true and people (including 'responsible' jounalists) have repeated this to him so many times that he actually believes it is true and uses it to justify his argument, however it just isn't true and gives him a distorted view of the current president's approval in historical terms.
Let me clarify, if you squint real hard and play fast and loose with definitions you can just about agree that there is way in which it might be true that the current Prez (sic) has the lowest approval ratings. There is a survey by ARG which give Bush II the lowest approval numbers ever given to a president, although they are also the highest numbers ARG has even give to a president (ARG has only given regular approval numbers to the current president, they may have done some intermittent polling of Clinton and no approval polling before that, also ARG is notorious for being way off from other polls). To get an accurate picture we should try to be as consistent as possible, which means using the numbers from Gallup, which although they have changed their methodology and will admit that the numbers cannot be used for strict comparisons at least puts us in the range of comparing Mackintoshes to Red Deliciouses instead of apples to oranges (or apples to car seats if we use the ARG numbers). Gallup has only been doing presidential approval polling since FDR, and not for all of FDR's term so there are only 11 presidents of the 43 for whom we have numbers, but since that is the best data we have we'll just have to suffer, and it should give us at least an idea of how Bush II rates approval wise.
What do the Gallup numbers show anyway about Bush II's popularity? Well Gallup has never had his approval rating dip below 30, where it is currently hanging. The last president to have an approval below 30 was George Bush, yes his father, 2 presidents ago the president had a lower approval rating that the current office holder. Of the 11 president who Gallup has produced numbers for the full term of, there are 4 who have had lower approval ratings than the current bum squating in the oval office. Yes, Bush II is the 5th most hated president of the last 11.
Wait, Bush II is less hated by the public than Bush I? This cannot be true, Bush II is the worst thing ever to happen and everyone hates him, or maybe not. Unless the last half century has produced the most despised presidents in US history, it might be more reasonable to conclude that as far as presidential approval goes, the current president is in the middle of the pack, maybe a hair below the middle (with sample size 1/4th of the total population I'd go safe with middle of the pack but wouldn't be upset with bottom of the middle).
This an entirely different picture of the landscape than dealing with the president with lowest rating in history. Now this doesn't mean there isn't a lot to criticize about Bush II, but it looks like he has the support of a fairly average amount of the population for a president, and he certainly hasn't turned the entire country against him and his policies.
But alas, enjoyable as it is to comment on how (mis)-perceptions distort people's view of things, I am experienced enough to know that people prefer to continue in their same patterns and dislike looking at things objectively. It does however make reasonable discussion difficult when you have to first decipher someone's worldview and then frame your arguments to fit it.
****"responsible' journalists has the scare quotes not to indicate partisanship but instead to indicate sensationalism, President has lowest approval ratings in history as recorded by a polling company with a real bad record or President has average approval ratings just doesn't have the zip of President has lowest approval ratings in history.
Maybe you had to see it, but just reading that description I cannot decide whether he is saying it was awful or good. Admittedly anyone who would say such a thing has serious problems with metaphor construction, did he also call it a one point hat-trick in the 3d period?
I disagree with several aspects of your post. First, you say that Palin's negative comments were funnier. That's subjective, and likely colored by the listener's political perspective. Further, Obama's sarcasm was more general in nature, as his sarcasm was usually aimed at general policy points (e.g., the Washington establishment); conversely, Palin's sarcasm generally consisted of pointed indictments against Obama, which some might consider more funny.
Second, you say that this is the most biased media coverage in a long time. This is also colored by the listener's perspective. McCain, like Obama, has several glaring blemishes on his public and personal record (e.g., recent allegations of an affair with a lobbyist) that have gone largely unreported. However, one can not escape coverage of Obama's scandals. I assume that your media bias claim is aimed at the media's treatment of Palin. If this is the case, then you miss the mark. Palin -- unlike McCain, Obama, and Biden -- is new to the national political scene, she has never been subjected to the powerful national media's vetting, and the public has the right and desire to know who Palin is. Further, for every liberal news source you can name -- MSNBC, NYT, etc -- I can name a conservative news source -- Fox, WSJ, etc.
Thirdly, and this point has been made above, I am not sure that a tally of negative sentences is the right measure of the question at hand. Tone and criticism type if probably more important.
Fourthly, even if a tally is appropriate, the two speeches do not lend themselves to comparison. Palin's was shorter. Further, Obama's speech reached substance very quickly, while Palin's lingered on non-substantive matters for quite a while (if memory serves); thus, Obama had a much longer time period to make critiques, and thus it shouldn't be a surprise that Obama used more personal attacks.
I will bite. You mention the WSJ and Fox News. I'll toss in the Washington Times and New York Post for good measure. I'll even agree with the WSJ for the sake of argument because of its rather conservative editorial page--though its news coverage is not really conservative
You mentioned, MSNBC and NYT. I can add WaPo, Reuters, Boston Globe, the 3 major networks, and CNN. So by my count, 4 generally conservative media outlets versus 9 generally liberal media outlets. That means it's your turn to name 5.
Jim Lindgren may see the latter as red meat, but I'm a republican vegetarian, and that's not even quorn.
(For the record, Jim's series of posts on Obama's "volunteerism" ideas was the most powerful criticism of Obama I've ever encountered, and pushed me from strong Obama support into more or less neutrality, so I know he can do it right. Let's have a few more of those, and he'll swing my vote entirely).
You have way too much time on your hands.
History has anointed me to save our country
The warning light on this issue started flashing a long time ago. During the primaries, the MSM was so far in the tank for the One, that even an SNL skit made fun of them.
I have a suggestion. Don't cite Power Line if you expect to be taken seriously. They are reliably unreliable. One of many examples can be found here.
That's one way to look at the numbers. Here's another one: pay attention to who has been at low levels very consistently for a very long time. You might get a different answer.
I'm merely saying that there isn't just one ideal way to look at the numbers, so you shouldn't pretend there is.
The McCain blemish" you mentioned was reported by the NYT even though they didn't have any real, you know, "evidence". Unlike Obama's Tony Rezko connections, which are, you know, "real" or his friendship with Bill Ayres, which also are "true."
And MQuinn also said:
Yes, because the MSM has been so tough on Obama. Like how they've blasted him repeatedly for, um....No I mean all the reports on his dealings with um....Or how they went after his wife &kids over...Hmmm, I seem to be drawing a blank. Perhaps you can enlighten us on how the MSM has been a hard-hitting dynamo when "vetting" Obama.
And MQuinn also said:
Um, WSJ is conservative? Other than the opinion page, it's one of the most liberal papers out there. You've got Fox on the conservative side. Fox and, um....
On the liberal side, I can come up with, off the top of my head:
TV News:
NBC
ABC
CBS
CNN
MSNBC
BBC America
PBS
BET
Bloomberg TV
Newspapers:
USA Today
The Wall Street Journal
New York Times
Los Angeles Times
Denver Post
The Washington Post
Philadelphia Inquirer
Minneapolis Star Tribune
Boston Globe
Atlanta Journal Constitution
Cleveland Plain Dealer
San Francisco Chronicle
The Seattle Times
St. Louis Post
Milwaukee Journal Sentinel
The San Diego Tribune
The Baltimore Sun
Portland Oregonian
The Miami Herald
Kansas City Star
Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
The Detroit News/Free Press
The Sacramento Bee
San Jose Mercury News
Fresno Tribune
Most certainly the local paper in your area
TV Programs that aren't really news that way too many people get their news from:
Daily Show
Colbert Report
Oprah
The View
ABC/NBC/CBS morning shows
Web News/News Aggregators:
Yahoo News/Yahoo front page
Google News
MSN
(those three are the web portals for the majority of web users, IIRC)
Nancy Pelosi and the Congressional Democrats?
Also how petty, nasty and not on the subject of the country problems Palin's speech was.
Also, thanks for reminding us , that you are extremely biased partisan
Welcome to representative government.
Palin had it tough if she had to comment on policy issues in regards to Obama. Obama really has no record of accomplishing anything substantive in his political career and adapts his (stated) policy positions to suit the current polling numbers.
that Obama gave the kind of ideological speech that was targeted to excite social liberals; (if you hate GB, you'll love "O")
that Palin gave the kind of speech that addressed all the "outsider" and "unqualified" issues that the press had raised when they got caught flatfooted by her selection by making (in my view, valid) comparisons with Big O, and did so in a way that highlighted the philosophical differences between the parties ... which pisses Democrats off;
and that everyone views the speeches through their own political lens.
In the end, probably very few people that comment at this site are going to change their minds based on these speeches. But I think Palin has done a great job of diminishing Obama's attractiveness to the big bloc of ambivalent and generally disinterested voters who tend to vote for "celebrities". He looks much weaker and more ineffectual.
As for why his "policies" weren't countered by Palin, I'd have to say that I think it's because he doesn't have much of substance to go after. He's just the next pretty boy liberal to come along. He's all about amorphous nice sounding concepts like Hope, which to me come across more like Hype.
Palin is the only one of the four who comes across as a real ordinary person ... the other 3 are all career politicians. I think she's free of an awful lot of unfavorable baggage just because of that. And the press attacks just made that more evident, not less, which is why their criticisms have blown back into their faces (which is amusing to see their disgruntlement and surprise ... Here's a news flash for you Main Stream Media ... America hates you almost as much as it hates politicians!) "Sarcastic" is just MSM code for "bitchy", which they can't use because their hypocrisy would be too self-evident.
And #10 is more like two attacks.
And 21 is defensive again.
In fact, I will stop and say that this is part of the jujitsu. Obama has a thin skin and I don’t think he looked very presidential being so defensive. He spent a lot of time tearing down, hoping you would assume he was better, but that was a mistake. After all, it is never good enough to say only, “he sucks.” You also have to say, “and I am better.”
Now compare and contrast that with Palin’s comment that a community organizer is like a mayor, only a mayor has responsibilities. That does two things. It pulls obama down, but it also picks her up.
Or compare guiliani’s evisceration of Obama’s response to Russian aggression, talking about how mccain got it right, right away, and Obama stumbled around, even with 300 advisors, and eventually came around to mccain’s position. Again, it tears down obama while lifting up mccain.
Obama did far too little of that.
And in response to the claim that Palin was more personal. The judged him for the content of his character and it came up wanting. I can’t believe there are millions of people in the Midwest who are thinking of voting for obama even after he insulted them. I find it amazing that he insulted the entire middle of America, and when she calls him on that, that people are bizarrely partisan enough to call that unfair. Obama was unfair. She just responded.
McCain had gone relentlessly personal and negative on Obama for a month or two, with commercials suggesting that Obama was on the level of Paris Hilton, with accusations that Obama was a borderline traitor seeking to lose the Iraq war so that he could win an election.
Remember any of that, Professor Lindgren? Of course you don't.
Obama went into his speech facing a great deal of concern whether he would be able to "fight back" against McCain, or whether he was a spineless Dem liberal who could talk policy but couldn't put up his dukes when he needed to.
In that context, Obama's balance of the need to attack with the duty to keep his criticisms fair ... well, I think he did a damn fine job of it.
But he's not cute or perky.
Hell, your "2. I don't know what kind of lives John McCain thinks that celebrities lead, but this has been mine" alone shows your obvious bias, if not delusions. That line wasn't an attack against McCain, it was a defense against McCain's ad.
As for negative attacks, it's kinda odd, isn't it, that the Right Wing blogosphere has gone absolutely nuts over the past few days, saying that attacks on family members of candidates are out of line, and yet Michelle Obama has been taking shots from Republicans for the past several months? Moreover, it's odd that while her surrogates are claiming that Democrats going her family are way out of line, Sarah Palin's speech included the line about how she has always been proud of her country. What meaning does that line have beyond an attack at the Michelle Obama quote? So it's OK for the GOP VP nominee to attack the Democrat Prez-nominee's wife, but random, non-campaign affiliated people going after the GOP VP nominee's daughter, against the explicit instructions of said Democrat Prez-nominee, shows how he is an evil, desperate man. Right.
--Barak "thin skinned" Obama, attacking Sarah Palin.
Your comments on Palin and Obama seem to be biased enough that commenters are now questioning whether you are simply a Republican party hack. Your attempts at "objective" analysis of the candidates' speeches would be more convincing if you could reassure us that you are not advocating for one ticket or the other. So have you decided who you will support in November?
(In the interest of full disclosure, I strongly support Obama.)
How does one respond to this sort attempt to exert the discursive hegemony of the constructed narrative of the insidious other, aside from once again reminding the would-be discursive hegemons that they are ignoring Searle's huge invisible ontology of constructed social reality that provides the individual consciousness with sufficient institutional facticity to resist a hegemonic reification of the left's proposed discursive normativity?
And I'm getting sick and tired of having to keep stating the obvious.
I am, however, somewhat fascinated with one comment:At what point in our history did we decide that "ordinary" was the goal to strive for? Did it coincide with the popularity of Roseanne?
Perhaps what was meant was that she exhibited empathy for the issues important in the lives of the middle-class wage-earners, retirees on fixed incomes and single parents, among other "ordinary" people.
But to my mind, this is reminiscent of the "which candidate would you rather have a beer with?" tripe. Certainly this would not be a criterion for selecting a surgeon, accountant or lawyer, especially if one wanted to be healthy, wealthy and stay outside the slammer.
I would hope that Americans had somewhat loftier standards in picking a president.
Really?
Here's Obama's response to Palin's taunts about "community organizer":
"This is very curious," Obama said. "So this is work I did [20] years ago. They haven't talked about the fact that I was a civil rights lawyer; they haven't talked about the fact that I taught constitutional law; they haven't talked about my work in the state legislature or in the United States Senate. They're talking about the three years of work that I did right out of college as if I'm making the leap from two or three years out of college into the presidency.
"So, look, I would argue that doing work in the community to try to create jobs, to bring people together, to rejuvenate communities that have fallen on hard times, to set up job training programs in areas that have been hard hit when the steel plants closed. That that's relevant only in understanding where I'm coming from, who I believe in, who I'm fighting for and why I'm in this race. And the question I have for them is that why would that kind of work be ridiculous? Who are they fighting for? What are they are advocating for? They think that the lives of those folks who are struggling each and every day, that working with them to try to improve their lives is somehow not relevant to the presidency?
"I think maybe that's the problem -- that's part of why they're out of touch and they don't get it 'cause they haven't spent much time working on behalf of those folks."
Sounds like an ordinary, intelligent guy to me.
> Obama went into his speech facing a great deal of concern whether he would be able to "fight back" against McCain, or whether he was a spineless Dem liberal who could talk policy but couldn't put up his dukes when he needed to.
I got to say, I love how democrats only talk about fighting in the political context. They only talk about victory when it comes to elections. “Yes we can” on everything but winning the war in Iraq. Then it becomes “no we can’t.” Then suddenly they sound like Sir. Robin’s choir, in Monty Python and the Holy Grail. “When danger reared its ugly head/he bravely turned his tail and fled.”
> In that context, Obama's balance of the need to attack with the duty to keep his criticisms fair ... well, I think he did a damn fine job of it.
See my criticisms above. Palin did a much better job of hitting obama and elevating herself at the same time.
And his attacks on McCain were so over the top to be laughable. Starting with his silly claim that McCain won’t get bin Laden. It discredited him.
> But he's not cute or perky.
Oh man, talk about drinking the koolaid. How many women have described his eyes as dreamy, and so on. Maybe he is not cute to you, which makes sense if you are a straight man, but you have to be a fool to ignore the women who drooled over him in that swimsuit, or Andrew Sullivan’s fantasizing.
Randy R.
Wow, this line is clueless:
> AP has a history of being rather favorable and uncritical to Bush and the Republicans.
Riiiiight.
> When it comes to Fox News, I don't think anyone could seriously consider them real journalists.
Okay try this. Which news organization reported more accurately on the national guard documents story?
Fox news. Game, set, match.
> Palin's negative comments were confined pretty much to Obama.
Well, that is right. because mccain is running, not the entire republican party. I am old enough to remember back when the Democrats wanted McCain to be Kerry’s vice president. Now today they claim he is Bush the third. It’s a sign of how much the left has drank the koolaid that you guys repeat that crap.
Do you guys ever stop to ask yourself why your support your guy and hate their guy? Does the thought ever get beyond “grrr… democrats good, republicans bad”?
Nate:
> You simply cannot compare an artful attack based on policy with the petty barbs in Palin's speech (styrofoam pillars, fake seal, etc.).
Its not petty to point out that the man is all talk. For instance, Obama is great at talking about bipartisanship, but when has actually done anything bipartisan. You don’t have to go with mere hope. In 3 years he could have built up some record of it. The man is so utterly partisan, he wouldn’t even allow a law banning infanticide to leave his committee.
And he is against corruption? Well, Sarah Palin has battled corruption. When has Obama done so? He came up from the Chicago machine but somehow never managed to see any corruption. How exactly does that work? That may be personal, but it is pointing out that his words don’t match his deeds. He’s a giant phony.
The man is an empty suit. I can’t believe you folks are falling for this.
ScottS
> Palin's speech was dripping with condescension.
Yeah, Obama was very respectful when he said small town people cling to god and guns. Or does it not count when he merely insults an entire group of people to which Palin belongs?
> Ad hominem slander -- "my opponent would rather lose a war than an election" -- is symptomatic of a disloyal opposition that has been reduced to propaganda.
Yeah, unless it is true. And it is. He is bound and determined to make sure we lose there, even though victory is in sight.
> Republicans love their country. They manage to love the country while having contempt for nearly (or more) than half its citizens.
And meanwhile obama has contempt for everyone who clings to God and guns in the small towns of America. I wonder what percentage of the population that would be?
Js5
> But do you understand the fundamental problems of taxation? The consequences of raising them?
Of course she does. She also knows the American people are smart enough to understand them, too, and not to condescend to them.
> i guess all comments made to her speech are made to her speechwriter
See, I find this entire stupid meme to be incredibly sexist. Do you really think Obama wrote his speech? Or biden?
Clint
To be fair, no one watched Biden’s speech. :-)
Tony
> Palin and to a lesser extent Obama are still the newcomers.
True enough. But you see Obama is trying to be president, like McCain, but he has trouble stacking up to Palin let alone McCain.
Marty
> And she rolled right over them without a bump.
It was like a Rocky movie, only in politics. It was cool.
Kazinski
> and speechifying (jury is still out).
Its pretty easy to know who won on the better speech, fwiw. Name two lines obama said in his speech. Personally I can only name one, that ridiculous bit about mccain not being willing to chase Osama. Now try to name two lines from Palin’s. She said things that are being remembered and talked about, and not for being bizarre and unfair. Point to Palin.
Ohio
> The warning light on this issue started flashing a long time ago. During the primaries, the MSM was so far in the tank for the One, that even an SNL skit made fun of them.
Because it was being directed against a fellow dem for once. But that is the beauty part. Those Hillary voters feel aggrieved, like their gal was treated unfair. So then mccain introduces a woman as veep and she is treated visciously. And best of all in ways that hit on women’s issues. Teen pregnancy. Or tasergate, where Palin was accused to trying to throw her weight around to remove a state trooper who tasered his son, beat Palin’s sister and threatened to killer Palin’s father. Most people would say to that, well, shouldn’t he be fired for that? And more importantly, women would say that—they would see in Palin a woman standing up to a wife-beater. Good for her.
McCain was smart to pick her, but bluntly I don’t think even he realized how well this would work out. I expected the media to be unfair, but my cynical mind was surprised at just how bad it was. And I can’t help but think those aggrieved Hillary voters will start to get a sense of déjà vu.
Juke:
Yeah, powerline was only right about the killian memos.
The pattern is repeated over and over. I have seen almost zero "MSM" that actually questioned Gov. Palin's qualifications, ability, or ethics based on her having a three-month old special needs child or a pregnant teen. Am I just missing it? On the other hand it seems like I see over and over angry, strident defenses from the vicious MSM attacks based on this.
Anyway, my opinion is that on average the print and television media do have a slight bias in favor of the Democrats (somewhat created by the Republican strategy), but that it is about one-tenth of what the Republican party makes it out to be. Furthermore it is evened out by what I view to be a similar pro-Republican bias on the radio, where at least in my area, it's virtually impossible to find anything other than a proudly conservative radio host.
Uhhhhh .... Prof Lindgren, are you going to get around to writing a post about how Palin's speech caused the stock market to fall (see http://www.chicagotribune.com/business /chi-fri-wall-europe-asia-0905-sep05,0,694572.story), just like you wrote that it did as a result of Obama clinching the nomination (see http://volokh.com/posts/1212513723.shtml)????
Seriously, you need to check those complaints of the "most biased season of political reporting" .... Maybe you should try "biased reading" ...
Using some sort of quantitative analysis to measure the relative sarcasm of a speech is truly bizarre. (On par, I'd say, with grading a law school Torts exam by counting up thew number of times each student uses the words "negligence," "reasonable," "duty," and the like.) Of the many things in life that cannot be measured objectively, sarcasm has to be close to the top.
The bottom line: many people (in their personal and subjective opinions) find mocking someone's service as a community organizer more objectionable than saying "ownership society: you're on your own."
To say the least, your extremely novel methodology for measuring sarcasm does not support your conclusion that the media is biased. (Of course, the media can be an often is biased, but you just presented zero relevant evidence to make that point).
Um, I'm quite sure the concern was the attacks on Palin's children.
But feel free to conflate the issue.
But you knew that already.
I haven't seen any attacks on the children . . . I have seen comments on the irony of Palin (and McCain) advocating abstinence-only "education" and her own daughter getting pregnant -- but nothing directed toward the teenager.
Help us out -- give us some links to attacks on the Palin children.
I love the delusions people like you are under.
Um, which "policy" is this again?
give more and more to those with the most and hope that prosperity trickles down to everyone else.
Um, which "policy" is this again?
I've got news for you, John McCain. We all put our country first.
Otherwise, you do realize that Palin was responding to criticisms of her experience coming from the Obama campaign, right?
I think we can all agree that Andrew Sullivan is an ass, because he spread that cockandbull story, thus giving it credibility. But I don't see how spreading that story would have helped Obama. In fact, by garnering sympathy and attention for Palin, that story helped the GOP ticket.
> "The press is biased against us, so don't believe anything negative you read, and take anything positive times two." It's a nice little strategy. It works for deflecting all blame. It's easy to convince people that the media are biased against them.
It works because it is true. I mean, my God, look at what happened last cycle. CBS news put forward fake documents, that were exposed within hours as not only fakes but laughable ones at that. And how long did it take to even get it reported in the media? If it was not for LGF and Powerline, we might be talking about Kerry’s reelection rather than the end of Bush’s term.
> How many people do you know who are convinced that the commentators (or sports columnists) are biased against their favorite team?
Well, I think the sport metaphor is a perfect example. Everyone knows the local sports guy on your nightly news will boost the local team. The bias is transparent. But too many in the media treat the democrats as “their team.”
> Also it is somewhat self-fulfillng--if your primary message is that the media are lying scum, they're bound to develop some bias against you.
Give me a break. The media bias came first.
> I have seen almost zero "MSM" that actually questioned Gov. Palin's qualifications, ability, or ethics based on her having a three-month old special needs child or a pregnant teen. Am I just missing it?
Yes, you are missing it. Cnn brought that up. And the MSM are investigating whether Palin is really the mother of her most recent child, because some idiot on the daily kos said so. By comparison where was the questions about Edwards and his relationship with Hunter?
Charlie
Exactly.
Fennel
> mocking someone's service as a community organizer more objectionable than saying "ownership society: you're on your own."
And Obama did a bang up job of it. look how organized those slums are.
Joe
> Instead, Republicans want each party to perform stand-up routines criticizing the other candidates personally.
Wow, its amazing to watch a meme develop. Now we shouldn’t talk about how Obama is the least qualified candidate in over 100 years because that is personal. Gotcha. We shouldn’t mention that 400 times he couldn’t figure out whether he was for something or against it, so voted present. We shouldn’t mention that he never found any corruption in Chicago.
No, no, no. if a politician promises to do X, we shouldn’t ask whether the person has a record of achieving that, or for that matter anything else. Obama promises to make the seas recede, and to make gas prices go down, and that mere promise is good enough for me. You know, because every politician is honest and competent.
Palin and McCain have done all the things that Obama has merely promised to do. Bipartisanship, cleaning up corruption, even fighting for us. Maybe it’s a “personal” attack, but its utterly fair.
Oh, and pointing out that Barack Obama is two faced is relevant too. What good is a man’s promises when he is only saying what he thinks you want to hear?
Jed
> the Right Wing blogosphere has gone absolutely nuts over the past few days, saying that attacks on family members of candidates are out of line, and yet Michelle Obama has been taking shots from Republicans for the past several months?
Michelle has been going out there and campaigning substantively for him. She put herself “in bounds.” Meanwhile Todd Palin, who has sat on the sidelines exactly like the traditional role of a campaign spouse had his 20 year old DUI conviction brought up. At the same time, Obama was doing coke. Funny, you don’t hear that much in the media.
Liberals always harped on the unfounded allegations that bush was a cokehead. But here we have an admitted one, and suddenly it doesn’t matter. Gotchya.
Floridian
> I have seen comments on the irony of Palin (and McCain) advocating abstinence-only "education" and her own daughter getting pregnant -- but nothing directed toward the teenager.
Nah, they are only taking her private life and publicizing it for the world to see. How transparent can you get?
If Obama says he will raise taxes and the Rebublicans point that out, have they personally attacked Obama or have they criticized his policy to raise taxes?
Floridan: Ordinary as comparing Palin to the electorate as a whole or ordinary as comparing Palin to her peers in elected office?
I urge you to reread the comments your respond to.
Do you mean like this?
Or do you mean like this?
How about these gems?
And this, justifying it all:
Oh, and these gems from the Daily Kos:
And:
And:
Carry on in your delusions now.
Here's Paul Kane of the Washington Post using "irony".
Ha. Isn't that just hilarious to use a candidate's teenage daughter for cannon fodder to fill the void in a story misleading the readers about the nature of decrease in the amount of a pledged increase that in the end is still a 2.9 million dollar increase? Oh the irony.
How dare you respond with viscious facts. don't you know that is unfair? :-)
/sarcasm.
seriously, high five.
Irony?
So you're suggesting that Bristol practiced what her mom preached and got pregnant anyway? Either you don't know what irony means, or we have something quite miraculous going on here.
I especially hated how the liberal media *forced* Palin to bring her baby to the convention and have her family pass Trig around eleven times during her speech.
And *forced* Palin to have her daughter's boyfriend, the self-described "fucking redneck" (we know half of that is true, certainly), appear at the convention &be greeted by John McCain on the tarmac.
Curse you, liberal media, for forcing Palin's private life onto the convention floor!
Your evidence of media bias and unfair attacks on Palin is:
Andrew Sullivan
Daily Kos
and editorial writers from CNN and the Washington Post?
Does that mean I can show unfair attacks on Obama as proof there's a conservative media by quoting newsmax, fox news editorialists, townhall, glenn beck, etc?
He opened himself up to that by refusing to acknowledge her governship and refering to her as the Mayor of podunk "Wasilly."
Mayors are accountable to the community. Community organizers are not. Perfectly valid observation.
And I urge you to proofread your comments before posting.
However, I believe my comment is approporiate whether comparing Palin to the electorate or to elected officials. Of course the post I was responding to used the term "real ordinary" so there might be hidden meaning in there.
Obama actually said "they", so he was probably referring to both Palin's comments and those of other speakers. Giuliani simply stated the term "community organizer" and then laughed out loud. Is that a valid observation?
Criticize Obama all you want.
But if working with local churches to help the community for 2 or 3 years is a *negative* to you, then you have gone off the deep end.
Pick something else, but don't keep banging your heads into the "community organizer" shtick just because your Republican Masters have issued that ill-fated talking point.
I think Barack was actually impressed that someone finally had the stones to treat him like a grown man. In a lot of ways, its a post-racist, post-sexist showdown. It's also an indictment of the pathetic Boomer generation that they both had to be rushed on the scene so prematurely due to the dearth of compelling Boomer alternatives.
Argue the point out with Clinton's handlers. They singled out Fox coverage as having treated her fairly, while other networks openly sacrificed journalism for Obama advocacy.
FedDog: Fox was jonesing for a Clinton nomination. They were *salivating* for it.
What better ratings booster than [Insert GOP Nominee Here] vs. OH NOES A CLINTON!!!! ...?
Of course they were supporting her in their primary coverage. They were founded by a GOP op as a tool of the party -- Pravda for Profit. What would you expect?
They weren't local to Barack, and evidently, he didn't have much luck getting localized. The most effective community organizers are from the community itself. Those who come down from on high, especially from college, rarely succeed in doing anything but padding their own fragile self-esteem. Sad but true.
OK. You've raised the real issue. Palin is probably Gen-X. Is Obama a tail-end Boomer? B. 1961--Too early for Gen-X? I've always thought you can't be labelled an Xer if you were old enough to remember when the Beatles broke up.
Other thoughts?
So?
Let me spell it out -- Sarah Palin publicly advocates an abstinence-only policy for teenagers for what reason? One would have to assume because she thinks that is the most effective method of avoiding unwanted pregnancy (and STDs).
Also, one could reasonably assume that she followed this path with her own children; not providing any information on birth control methods. Again, because she thought that giving teenagers that information would be counterproductive and equivocating.
Sarah Palin's expected result of this was a chaste daughter; the actual result was something else. That the unexpected consequences of her advocacy hit so close to home, I would call ironic.
Are you kidding me with this post? A couple of points:
(1) Liberal media accusation. Someone please prove it. Don't just launch accusations, prove it. Also, ask yourselves why would the media be liberally biased? What does the media gain from this bias? Nothing. The media went along with George Bush's "panic the nation" fearmongering (recall: red and orange "danger" level warnings?) If anything, the media should be free speech, a libertarian value. Make the case for why the media would be biased, or at the very least, what explains the media's left-wing bias?
(2) Some of the points you listed aren't even hyperbole! For e.g., where is the hyperbole in this?:
"Because next week, in Minnesota, the same party that brought you two terms of George Bush and Dick Cheney will ask this country for a third. And we are here because we love this country too much to let the next four years look like the last eight. On November 4, we must stand up and say: 'Eight is enough.'"
This is absolutely true. Maybe you've been duped (as is their plan) into believing the McCain is not part of the same GOP that Bush is, but NEWS FLASH: IT'S THE SAME PARTY! They even use that cute little elephant symbol to clue you in.
(3) I think Palin's speech came off as rude-toned because here she is coming out of nowhere, having never said ANYTHING to the nation-at-large, and all she has to say is negative. She doesn't offer any solutions or any substance whatsoever, she just comes out of the ring fighting. Sorry, Palin, but we don't even know you. The difference is that Obama has led a (relative to McCain) smear-free (or at least low-smear) campaign. He hasn't said much negative about his opposition. After having inspired us with his ideas and what he has to offer, he throws in some quips about McCain and the current administration. So, if you want to be accurate, you should not compare speech to speech, you should compare the relative amount of national airtime Palin has devoted to slamming Obama/Biden to the relative amount of national airtime that Obama spent slamming McCain/Palin. If you did that, Palin's percentage would be MUCH higher, guaranteed, especially considering that this one speech and maybe two others comprise the limit of her national exposure.
Okay, so Bush II doesn't have the worst ratings in history, he is only among the worst. I stand corrected. Thanks for clearing that up.
Floridian: "At what point in our history did we decide that "ordinary" was the goal to strive for? Did it coincide with the popularity of Roseanne?"
About the same time the Republicans started complaining about the 'elites' running the country. You see, if you actually know something about a topic, if you are an expert, then you are an elite who thinks he knows better than you or I. Therefore, you are bad for America.
Of course, it you are an elite in terms of money or power, say a Richard Scaife or a Sean Hannity, that's good for America.
There's ample reason to understand that they are unpopular because they've been so feeble in pushing back against Bush. It would be nice if we had a two-party system.
Not as much as you think:
Not exactly. It's a sign of how much McCain has changed.
I guess you mean the way she "battled corruption" by getting caught lying.
Please try to get your facts straight. No Palin has claimed that Wooten "beat Palin’s sister."
A stopped clock etc. I showed proof that Power Line is dishonest. I notice you have no substantive response to that proof. Please explain why anyone should trust a source with a proven track record of dishonesty.
And I could show you many other very clearly-documented examples.
In all fairness, we need to take into account the flaming moonbat who said this:
Please try to get your facts straight. She copies him on many official emails. He has done government business from her office. She claims the emails are covered by executive privilege because he is supposedly one of her closest advisors. That's not exactly 'sitting on the sidelines.'
And he was a member of an organization that features the following quote prominently and approvingly at their web site:
What a great American.
You're joking, right? This is the woman who presented her special needs infant to the press (reporters and photographers) when he was three days old. This led to the obvious headlines that excited her base. In my opinion, using a special-needs infant as a political prop is spectacularly despicable. And Levi was just used as a prop in a similar way.
She has invited us to evaluate her parental decisions, so we should. Just as Dr Laura has done.
This is the second time you've done that (at least). If you claim those are from Kos, then show us a link to Kos. You haven't d