I like quoting Gloria Steinem to speak for all Liberals too!

I also enjoy attacking both sides of an issue for being fools, and switching every once in a while. It makes me seem both smart AND nonpartisan!

...[a] broader vision for American families, American prosperity and freedom, and American security; a vision of conservatism, not only a nimbus of populism.

Such majestic and original points, plus the word "nimbus?" *swoon*

Levin's unqualified characterization of Mayor/Governor Palin as a "good-government reformer" ignores much that we now know about her actual spending and lobbying activities. It's as if the first few paragraphs of the piece were written under the spell of her initial lie about the "Bridge to Nowhere."

----

I admit that a great deal of what Levin says about cultural elitist objections to Palin applies to me. However, I believe that a large part of my attitudinal objection to her comes from patriotism. I remember the moment when I said to myself, "No way I can vote for her." It was this moment in her Convention speech:

Al Qaeda terrorists still plot to inflict catastrophic harm on America, and he’s worried that someone won’t read them their rights.

Call it cultural elitism if you want, but I can't support a would-be leader of our country who heaps such scorn on our Constitution. She was not making a nuanced statement about the correctness of the Miranda ruling; she was mocking those who would even think to "worry" about upholding the rule of law when dealing with our current enemies, or individuals accused of being such. This aspect of populism is in danger of sliding into fascism, and the American in me is revolted.

I think it was a well-written article and an interesting read, but too simplistic in its easy categorization of the electorate into elites and non-elites.

My impression as an ordinary midwesterner from a working class town is that we regular folks are a little more complex than imagined. Some of Palin's so-called "populist" ideas were a bit too exclusive (or, maybe, divisive?) for many of us.

Ordinary Americans are more live-and-let-live than conservative Republicans sometimes assume. I think Obama tapped into a different sort of more-inclusive cultural populism that Palin seemingly rejected. After 8-years of George Bush, the country (including we regular folks) were ready to hear a different sort of "cultural" argument.

I really thought Sarah Palin would be able to tap into the deep-seated yearnings of the lower middle class for, above all else, government to get out of their way. How odd that it didn't work out like that.

The essay is kind of funny when it scoffs at the intellectual elites who view foreign policy - even moreso than domestic policy, apparently! - as an "intellectual exercise." A non-elite way of expressing is that thought is that some voters believe you ought to actually know something. Perhaps if the country hadn't had such a bad experience with the last President to rule by gut instinct.

They couldn't make their case with truth so they had to lie. They swore and lied and spewed spittle and lied and sneered and lied.

Just because your opponents are lying doesn't mean you are right. Palin was a disaster for completely separate reasons than those suggested by the liberals--primarily that she believed, as you seem to, that insulting your opponents is a substitute for making your own case.

I have no problem with the tactic of working the refs--it's the strategy of doing so that's the problem. Everyone calls the other side out-of-touch radicals, liars, etc; everyone accuses the media of bias against them. But the more you do that, and the more your campaign hinges on that becoming conventional wisdom, the more it seems that you have no actual ideas. (In the spirit of bipartisan criticism, this is what I think sank the Kerry campaign--in his case, whining about swiftboating and calling Middle America stupid took the place of whining about the Couric interview and making allusions to terrorism).

JB.
True. That my opponents lie doesn't mean I'm right. It does mean, however, that they are wrong. I might be right. I might not. But if you have to lie to make your case, you've proven you're wrong.
So Palin's opponents proved they were wrong by making it clear they'd assessed the truth and decided it wouldn't suit their purposes.
I, on the other hand, being respectfully mindful of my place in this world, don't mind being called a bitter clinger, a fundie, a radical reactionary, a homophobe, an idiot. Because, see, the people calling me that are the elite. So I wasn't insulted, exactly. How could I be? I'm not the elite. I have no place to complain. Whine. Whatever.

Anyone who carps about Palin's lack of qualifications and does not apply the same criteria to Biden is a demonstrably dishonest partisan hack whose opinions are not worth responding to.
Which would apply to someplace north of 99% of Palin's critics.

Richard Aubrey
That my opponents lie doesn't mean I'm right. It does mean, however, that they are wrong.

They may be wrong about the lie itself, but it doesn't mean they're wrong about the subject of your opposition.

A potent essay covering a potent set of topics. It only begins a serious exploration, but it is a sound and intriguing beginning, not at all a tepid one.

From the Norah O'Donnells and others among the smilingly affected, to far more overt displays of elitist snide and facile, arrogated contempt, as reflected in the Olbermans, the Matthewses, the Rick Sanchezes, et al. - the long knives and dirks will be out, glistening and razor sharp and eager beyond measure for deep thrusts and a thousand slices and cuts. The joy.

That, of course, reflects upon MSM "news" types only. The academic cum ideologue types come next, likewise in the pursuit of a reined in "public opinion," followed by the politicos themselves, bringing up the rear. The meta story in all of this is The Fourth and Fifth Estates taking on the characteristics of the First and Second Estates. And loving it, assuming it to be their rightful, high-born due.

Whether or not so many among the unwashed, the demos, the hoi polloi, will continue to play their assigned role, more or less unthinkingly, is among the more critical questions that will present themselves.

The article makes many good points. however, it is plainly wrong in the facts. The Anchorage Daily News exposed a lot of her lies, and they were lies. The firing of the trooper, her lying about the bridge to nowhere funds, her lying about the clothes that were bought for her, and so on. No, she didn't try to ban books, she merely asked the librarian several times about removing certain books, and when she didn't, she got fired. Several senior Republican party officials were quoted as having been stabbed in the back-- they supported her initial campaigns, only to have her turn on them. Several bloggers did fact checks on her statements and kept a running tab of things that were proven to be lies, or so incredible as to reach the level of a lie.

So I wouldn't conclude that all the attacks on her were unfounded. They may have been over the top, or overwhelming, but certainly not unfounded.

And anyone who would make the claim that she knows all about Russia because her state is next door -- well, that just made her the laughing stock of the nation. That was bad enough. But then to keep repeating it, and elaborating on it, that was beyond farce.

aultimer, I missed the post about the subject of my opposition.
If they have to lie, it means the truth won't serve them. They know the truth won't serve them.
So they're wrong.
They may be lying because they can't think of a way to explain how they're actually right. That would be a common failing of the self-designated intellectual elite, right?
And Palin was not a matter of Palin vs. the standards of those whose only accomplishment is verbal agility. She was running against Joe Biden. To choose against Palin meant choosing for Joe Biden. Luck with that.
That Palin was compared to....something or other, whatever could be hauled out to make her look bad, even if they had to lie to do it, rather than to Biden, is telling. Very telling.

Anyone who carps about Palin's lack of qualifications and does not apply the same criteria to Biden is a demonstrably dishonest partisan hack whose opinions are not worth responding to.

Ok, I'll bite. What are the criticisms of Biden's qualifications? If anything, I think Obama was the more effective counterpoint to Palin's critics.

requiring all issues of law to be argued in the presence of the jury

Why would this be beneficial?

Poor Republicans.

I was amazed by Levin's declaration "there could be no denying Palin's real deficiencies." And yet, right here on VC, we heard them denied by the contributors, not just commenters, day after day after day.

Of course Palin has deficiencies. Who doesn't? Please inform me of the deficiencies the contributors denied. I think one of the real problems was the time and effort it took to combat all of the lies about Palin took time away from getting the real message out.

I don't know why anyone is bothering with Sarah Palin anymore. She was far too intellectual for the Republicans.

Joe the Plumber is the future! He's already conducting their Middle East negotiations and developing their economic plans.

hawkins
First, we have to agree to use the same standards.
Okay, the discussion is over.

The firing of the trooper

ahhhhhh, Randy, if you're going to say "Palin lied", at least get your facts right. The trooper was never fired. (although tazing his step-son on the grounds that that 10-year-old, IMO, demonstrates enough lack of judgment that he should have been fired before he decides to shoot someone and say "they asked for it").

What bothers me most about your comment, is what it indicates. You're fairly well read and usually accurate. That you'd make such a basic false assertion indicates the basic lack of truth in the "reporting" about Palin.

They may be wrong about the lie itself, but it doesn't mean they're wrong about the subject of your opposition.

You mean that the story's a lie, but the lie is the truth, so that it's OK for American "elites" and "journalists" to repeat lies because the lies are the truth?
Aultimer -- there's some very Orwellian implications in your statement in the context of this thread. I think you mean that you oppose Palin because you disagree with her on positions. That's legitimate. But, I see a main point of the article was that instead of reporting her positions so they could be debated, what was "reported" as her record was materially distorted to the point of falsehood, and those falsehoods were repeated and repeated, even after shown to be false. That's the Orwellian part.

I agree with the intro for the article, and the positions ascribed to both sides.

However, that is where my agreemnt stops. The Palin story is that the media will destroy who they are told to destroy.

Palin came out of the gate strong for the GOP, so the left wing buzzed for a few days and fed their media minons several lines of slurs. Those were piled on over and over until they worked.

The lesson of Palin is that the media is left wing and will do whatever it takes to ruin someone who is on the right and may gain power.

The Palin story is that the media will destroy who they are told to destroy.

Palin came out of the gate strong for the GOP, so the left wing buzzed for a few days and fed their media minons several lines of slurs. Those were piled on over and over until they worked.

The lesson of Palin is that the media is left wing and will do whatever it takes to ruin someone who is on the right and may gain power.

I found it very strange that the media fawned over her so much right out of the gate, and then turned on her. Both the initial adulation and the subsequent criticism were extreme. Did not make much sense.

hawkins
Is that "huh" aimed at me?

Example. Education. Palin's Bachelor accumulated at several schools is in journalism, iirc.
Biden graduated near the bottom of his class at a third-tier law school. That's what one VC commenter said, so let's not screw around trying to unsay what one of the never-wrong intellectuals said. He had to take time off for plagiarism, not the last time. Does he have the markedly bulging brain in this pair?

Knows what he's talking about? France and the US pushed Hizbollah out of Lebanon. The only reason that isn't played up is that the MSM didn't follow it up. They didn't run that on SNL--although it was what he said--but they had to make up "I can see Russia from my house" which is not, if it had been said, as stupid as Biden's gaffe.

See what I'm saying?

Same standards. It would be a brand new approach. In fact, it might require a lengthy lie-down among those new to the practice.

So, since it isn't going to happen, the discussion is over.

Clear?

Roger.
But saying stupid things is not evidence of lack of qualifications. Sometimes.
Other times, having stupid things put in your mouth is a decider.

The most important reason why Sarah Palin was a disaster is that she continually violated this precept of Socratic ignorance (and practical wisdom). Her intellectual shortcomings would have been less offensive, had they not been combined with her own utter certitude in her own brilliance.

One of the things I find fascinating about Palin is the awesome amount of pretentious, pseudo-intellectual nonsense her detractors seem compelled to wallow in. It's as though she possesses some magical ability to turn ordinary liberals and progressives into barely coherent gasbags.

Palin was on the campaign trail for barely 9 weeks. During this time her public statements were, by necessity, limited to regurgitating fairly standard Republican platitudes and talking points written out for her by McCain's campaign staff and absorbed via marathon cram sessions.

If she truly displayed excessive levels of confidence in some of her gamier statements (which is an odd claim given how her interviews with the press actually went), it would be nothing out of the ordinary for a professional politician of either party. Such individuals are typically capable of confidently claiming to be best prepared vice-president in history, explaining how FDR got on TV and explained the consequences of the stock market crash, to have run primaries in 57 states and to be concerned about 500 million job losses a month, all without a trace of embarrassment or self-doubt.

Anyone who thinks the absence of "Socratic ignorance" is an unusual failing among American politicians really needs to spend more time paying attention and less time re-reading Plato's Apology.

The conservatives who keep trying to draw equivalences between Biden and Palin are really just shooting themselves in the foot.

Yes, Biden is often ridiculous, he went to a crappy school, whatever. But he's had almost 40 years of federal experience, and does possess a fairly large amount of knowledge on foreign and domestic policy.

Palin couldn't name a freaking magazine she reads.

It just makes you look silly and Palin look even more unqualified, folks. But I really hope the Republicans do keep pushing her because she's culturally divisive and fairly stupid. You guys might have a chance if you ran someone like Huckabee who's divisive but somewhat smart. Palin will guarantee you're stuck in the mud.

Andy.
Frederick The Great's mule went on forty campaigns. Nobody was pushing him for a spot on the Grossgeneralstab.

Biden's experience might have made him smarter, but given the kinds of things he says, he must have started out behind the pet rocks.
So, Andy, there are two questions. One is how come somebody as stupid as Biden--FDR got on television to discuss the crash-- got picked for VP and the other is how come nobody thought it disqualified him. A third is how come that sank like a rock, while Palin's comment that being a border state governor gives one at least potential experience with a foreign country was held against her endlessly. She had the real thing, with Canada.

See, Hawkins? Same standards. Makes you guys all crazy.

Richard, it's strange how you still don't understand that trying to attack Biden on his foreign relations experience, which most all of the Congressional Republicans agree is impressive, as a way of boosting Palin, isn't helping Palin.

This line of argument completely failed during the campaign. Because it's plainly stupid.

It is much easier to make the case that Biden is an idiot, and is now the least intelligent VP that we have had in decades.

I want to see the guy who thinks Jackie Robinson didn't have it any tougher than Barry Bonds make the case that Joe Biden is less intelligent than Dan Quayle. That should be entertaining.

The differences cited between Republicans and Democrats make sense -- Sarah Palin is actually the female version of George W. Bush, if his Yale and Harvard degrees are discounted. Both are "git 'r done" nonintellectuals.

Sarah Palin's use of the power of her office to attempt to get her ex-brother-in-law fired was a character flaw that the news media never adequately probed. Putting a mean, petty, and vindictive woman, however attractive, "a heartbeat away" was not appealing

All she has to do is name GOP rising star Joe the Plumber as her running mate and they'll be unbeatable in 2012

I thought this was Sarcastro till I read "Cornellian."



One thing that leapt out of the essay for me: her teenage daughter’s decision to bring to term an unplanned pregnancy and to marry the baby’s father. So far, there is no indication that Bristol Palin will ever marry the father of her child.

is how come somebody as stupid as Biden--FDR got on television to discuss the crash-- got picked for VP

Because that was the kind of lapsus linguae that most adults are familiar with -- the network broadcast of that era was radio, now it is television; the stock market crash is conflated with the Great Depression it led to.

It is much easier to make the case that Biden ... is now the least intelligent VP that we have had in decades.

I think that's going quite a bit too far, unless you've personally met Biden and spent enough time with him to fairly make that evaluation. However, it is quite clear that whatever critical-thinking facilites he does have are totally disengaged whenever he begins speaking.

It amuses me that somewhere around 90% of the posts above validate the author's points about all sides of the Palin divide.

Andy.
Nice to know you honestly think something for which you have no proof but visceral hate.
Tony. The point is not that he's stupid about the FDR thing. The point is that only a dem can get away with that (losing "500 million jobs" a month). It goes in the memory dump and nobody tasks you with it again.
Occasional lapses are expected. But Biden got away with more than the occasional lapses. If he's smart, his mouth doesn't know it.

wohjr
The WaPo article on Pakistan is interesting. It means Biden has come to the same conclusion as everybody else with more brains than a tapeworm. And, considering he will never, ever have to implement it against the grit the real world provides, it's cheap talk.
And, wohjr, you are unclear as to whether you think Palin actually said she can see Russia from her house. Hint. It was Tina Fey. But that appears to count as current events education among the illiterati. I mean the elite.

Isaac, face it, your problem with Sarah Palin is cultural. You do not have the U.S. Constitution to hide behind to justify your bias. National security conservatives are not doing damage to the U.S. Constitution by using mocking language to criticize liberals for caring less about protecting the country from the loss of American life from radical jihadist al Qaeda terror than about an unprecedented extension of constitutional rights to radical jihadists (also known as combatants who do not wear uniforms). People such as you are simply full of hooey in supposedly getting righteous about the U.S. Constitution in response to the jibe made by Sarah Palin. Governor Palin is right to mock Obama about caring more about reading rights to the radical jihadists than protecting the country from al Qaeda terrorism.

This is what I thought most interesting:

In American politics, the distinction between populism and elitism is further subdivided into cultural and economic populism and elitism. And for at least the last forty years, the two parties have broken down distinctly along this double axis. The Republican party has been the party of cultural populism and economic elitism, and the Democrats have been the party of cultural elitism and economic populism. Republicans tend to identify with the traditional values, unabashedly patriotic, anti-cosmopolitan, non-nuanced Joe Sixpack, even as they pursue an economic policy that aims at elite investor-driven growth. Democrats identify with the mistreated, underpaid, overworked, crushed-by-the-corporation “people against the powerful,” but tend to look down on those people’s religion, education, and way of life. Republicans tend to believe the dynamism of the market is for the best but that cultural change can be dangerously disruptive; Democrats tend to believe dynamic social change stretches the boundaries of inclusion for the better but that economic dynamism is often ruinous and unjust.

Also, this:

Many of those (including especially those on the Right) who reacted badly to Palin on intellectual grounds understand themselves to be advancing the interests of lower-middle-class families similar to Palin’s own family and to many of those in attendance at her rallies who greeted her arrival on the scene as a kind of deliverance. But it is hard to escape the conclusion that while these members of the intellectual elite want the government to serve the interests of such people first and foremost, they do not want those people to hold the levers of power. They see lower-middle-class populists like Palin and their supporters as profoundly ill-suited for governance, because they lack the accoutrements required for its employment—especially in foreign policy, which, even more than domestic affairs, is thought to be an intellectual exercise. It is for this reason that Barack Obama, who actually has far less experience in executive governance than Palin, was not dismissed as unprepared for the presidency. Palin may have been elected governor of Alaska, but his peers in Cambridge had elected Obama editor of the Harvard Law Review. He is thoroughly fluent in the parlance of the college town, and in the eyes of the new American elite, Washington is the ultimate college town.

After four years of the opposition blocking our government's efforts to deal with the messes left by the previous one, Palin will be a fitting last president for this doomed republic.

Allan, I thought that the MESSIAH didn't have to worry about the opposition, because the waters would recede and the sun would shine down from heaven and hope would spring anew and change would come, etc.

So Obama's failure is the fault of the Republican opposition, now? That's the new talking points? Heh.

Dissent is patriotic! Woo hoo!

pluribus:

What makes you think that Republicans are open to such a message? ... Do these things comport with libertarianism?

Some Republicans are. Just because most of the Republican leadership caters to social conservatives doesn't mean they accept it personally. Most just roll their eyes at it. But they go along to get the votes from people holding such views. Notice that they usually don't effectively support those positions on anything very important.

I come to this as a leading member of both the National and Texas Libertarian Platform Committees, and head of the Constitutional Society (a church under IRC 508), so I can fairly speak to the point that the litany of positions you cited does not comport with libertarian or constitutionalist views.

Why do many of us libertarian scholars hang out with social conservatives in the Federalist Society? It's not because we agree with many of their positions, but because to have any effect we have to work with them.

I will have to say, however, that even though many social conservatives get it wrong on constitutional issues, they seem more educable than most of the progressives. I can talk to them, they listen, and I can usually bring them around. The kinds of people I tend to find at American Constitution Society meetings seem to have their minds made up and think they have nothing to learn from anyone who challenges their views.

What is sometimes discouraging is how seemingly educated people, able to engage in subtle reasoning in specialized fields, will turn off their intellectual skills and go with their guts, passionately, on complex policy issues. Faced with matters they can't hope to understand, they go ape while trying to borrow status from their credentials as specialists.

wohjr
I was right. She didn't say it. But you apparently hoped somebody would believe she had.
Some days you win, some days you lose.
As I said, governing a border state gives one potential and sometimes actual dealings with a foreign power.
I recall when the SS20s were being based up toward the Kamchatka peninsula. The Alaskans were going to learn foreign policy pretty quick. Easier to snigger at the idea when it takes thirty minutes to get to you instead four.
I'd be asking O about his foreign policy experience. The problem is that where he lived can lead to some problematic conclusions. It's not like he lived with an American family abroad for GM.

You can learn a lot by living abroad. I have a nephew who is a genius, literally, if my sister is to be believed. He has spent about two years in Russia on grad programs in lit and drama. I asked him about Russia. Sometimes, he said, the people--meaning in general, not his particular friends--are kind and generous and sometimes they are deeply, blithely evil. The countryt "should be locked up", except for the thousands of megatons of nukes "which deeply creep me out".
Since my nephew has lived abroad, his moral and intellectual authority are absolute.
I doubt anybody who lived abroad and learned this--which I don't guess requires a passport if you can read--would get anywhere explaining what he learned.
You're supposed to learn that we're all alike and all we have to fear is Ronald Reagan.

hawkins

requiring all issues of law to be argued in the presence of the jury

Why would this be beneficial?

Short answer is that many of the statutes and precedents under which many cases are tried, especially federal criminal cases, are unconstitutional, and the only way more jurors are going to learn to doubt the constitutionality of the "law" they are "given" by the bench is to hear argument that raises that doubt. There are other reasons as well. See this web page on Jury Reform.

"cultural elite" is the fancy new way to say "liberal."

Richard Aubrey, you are not being fair to Senator Biden. He has learned lots of things that you and I never learned.

Like that FDR was president of the US in 1929.

Or that there were TV broadcasts in 1929 to the millions of Americans who then had TV sets in their home.

Or that the VPUS plays no role in the Senate.

I'm pilling on here. I did want to point out that the differences between Palin &Obama here... the difference is that the "Obama is green behind the ears" line didn't work in the debates because Obama was able to talk so clearly about the issues. Every time McCain said "Obama will do this..." Obama had a clear, succinct and (largely predictable) response. It kept the charge from sticking. Wether or not everything he said was accurate is a different conversation, but he had a descent answer.

On the other hand there's Palin, who had no answer. I have no problem believing that she has foreign policy experience on border issues. I have no trouble believing that she's intelligent. I have no trouble believing that she's a reformer, or that she's stood up to her party on pork projects. But she needed to demonstrate (in either speech, or accomplishments) that she had done so consistently. I'm not going to believe her just because she said so. Other than "the bridge", I could not find a second example.

Instead, I read stories about THE OTHER bridge, the hockey rink bogged down in court, Pro-Life mayoral elections, and interviews/debates where she could not name 1 concrete, specific thing she would do.

Nothing infuriates me more (or makes me want to vote for you less).

I really think that a big part of the problem is that Palin is not a member of the cultural elite. She didn't go to the right school, and she doesn't do what cultural elites do. Even Bush (43) was not totally disconnected from it, with his prep school, two Ivy League degrees, and a grandfather who had been a Senator from Connecticut.


Not totally disconnected? Um.... not to pick nits (heh), but how would you propose that President Bush be more culturally elite? I liked the brush clearin' photo ops as much as the next guy, but just to review:

1. Great grandfather: Samuel Bush, railroad executive, steel co. president, Fed. Govt. official (weapons contractors), Fed. Reserve Bank board.
2. Grandfather: Prescott Bush, a Wall Street Banker and US Senator.
3. Father: GHW Bush, oil millionaire, Congressman, Ambassador to UN, Chair of RNC, Director of CIA, Vice President, President
4. Bush: Andover, Yale (3d Generation Legacy), Harvard MBA.

I'm not even going to go into Kennebunkport. I find it hard to fathom someone more culturally elite, except perhaps the infamous Vandy von Vanderbilt VIII.

(As for Reagan- he wasn't exactly un-elite either.)

Sorry, this was just so wrong I had to comment.

Palin's real political threat to the left and Democrats is that her whole life exposes as lies their claims to represent, and and advance, the interests of ordinary Americans. She's the real thing while they are fakes.

I'm not going to believe her just because she said so.

Exactly. That's what I meant above by "Socratic ignorance." Sorry that's too highbrow a concept, but I think the average "dumb" American would get it.

Palin seems to believe that we should trust her not because she gives reasons or arguments or explains the significance of her experience, but because she said so. We saw that for 8 years with Bush and it didn't go very well. The few times she offered any reasons why we should trust her expertise, it was even scarier: e.g. I learned about Russia because you can see it from Alaska and we share airspace, and that was indeed her justification. I see above that for some of you, that's sufficient. I think most people have a higher standard, even among the supposedly unwashed ignorant masses.

I'm not saying that other politicians do NOT suffer from Socratic ignorance, believing themselves to know things that they don't, to be things that they are not. All I'm saying is that Palin does, and it was obvious to anyone who listened to her speak. I'm also not saying that Biden or Obama give good reasons or arguments for their views, but they do give them, and that's a major improvement over nothing.

I really think that a big part of the problem is that Palin is not a member of the cultural elite. She didn't go to the right school, and she doesn't do what cultural elites do. Even Bush (43) was not totally disconnected from it, with his prep school, two Ivy League degrees, and a grandfather who had been a Senator from Connecticut. Nor, of course, was his father. But Reagan was not a member, and so was despised by many of those who are.

I don't know that I buy this. I read a lot of lefty blogs in the runup to the election, and I think I only read one comment about Palin that went in this direction -- that she never traveled to Europe. (Commenters on the blogs, of course, said all kinds of nasty things.)

I think that if Palin had showed any sort of ability to intelligently discuss substantive national issues, or had displayed any significant degree of intellectual curiosity, then the fact that her degree was from Moscow instead of Cambridge or New Haven would have been a point in her favor. (If there is one thing that unites both lefties and righties in the media, it is their professed love for "real Americans," i.e., people who come from small towns and states instead of big towns or states.)

But she didn't. She was inexperienced in government in general, had no experience at all in federal government, lacked impressive academic credentials, and appeared more interested in mocking experts than becoming one.

(I myself think that Palin provided a good example of why governors are rarely chosen as VP candidates -- they usually don't have the necessary familiarity with federal issues.)

See, Sarah's smart but doesn't need to show it cause she's so unelite she doesn't care what the MSM thinks at all!

Palin knows we don't need intellectuals. Did intellectuals help us when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor? Patton wasn't an intellectual, was he? And he knew, when ya gotta shoot a donkey, you! Shoot! That! Donkey!

What we need is a real American, to lead with her Gut! Cause of all her life is training about how to be a Real American. Cause everyone knows Common Sense is partisan, and leans waaay right.

I have no doubt she'll win all the Real American votes in the election of my heart!

wohjr.
Please. Try to keep up. Biden said something moderately sensible. Good. How many others would say the same thing?

My reference to my nephew came after a segue to living abroad--which some have said broadened O's views--and which Palin has not done.


I am not saying Palin is bright. I'm not saying she isn't.
I'm saying that anybody who claims she isn't and does not apply the same scrutiny to the embarrassment-of-riches Biden is dishonest.

Palin is not running against Bush, and, technically, not against Obama.

That leaves Biden.

No, Cobra is not a new name for He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named. I've seen him leaving the same macro on another board.

"cultural elite" is the fancy new way to say "liberal."

Not really. There have always been such in the Republican party, and at one time, it was the party of the cultural elites. I am thinking that it may have been FDR, a card carrying member of such, who put together his famous Democratic coalition, who really started the movement from the Republican party to the Democratic one.

To some extent, we are talking about the people who went to the right schools, or at least not the wrong ones, like the right things, like art museums instead of hunting, and share some common values, including, I think, that they are smarter than the rest of the people and therefore should be leading the rest of us.

But there are still plenty of Republicans who have qualified. Both Presidents Bush have impeccable credentials. And then there was Wm. F. Buckley, Jr., George Will, etc. But note that Bush (43) had to tone that down, and play up his conservative Texan roots to get elected, something his father was never really able to do in Texas (and didn't need to at the national level when he was elected President).

Actually, wohjr.
Biden wrote something sensible. Probably. Maybe he writes with middling sensibility, like most of us. When he speaks....
Anyway, the point is that Palin's actual or putative ignorance was the point of the attacks on her, while Biden's many examples meant nothing to those pretending to be concerned about intellectual ability and experience.
Key word "pretending". It would have been different, or harder to prove, anyway, if you'd had a reasonably smart individual running for dem VP. There'd be no wonderfully apt comparison.
But there was.

Palin's real political threat to the left and Democrats is that her whole life exposes as lies their claims to represent, and and advance, the interests of ordinary Americans. She's the real thing while they are fakes.

To a very great extent, I think this is accurate. As the article points out, Republican leaders often pretend to be culturally conservative to get elected, while Democrats pretend to have common roots and to understand the common man in order to represent them, but often are about as far from them as possible. In Palin, we not only had a cultural conservative (which the article suggest that she never played up in Alaska), but also someone who could speak to the middle class of this country because she was unabashedly of that class. Sure, Joe Biden claimed that he was from it. But that is the significant different there - Biden was from it, but Palin was still of it.

Keep in mind that one of the biggest power blocks in the Democratic coalition since well before FDR has been the blue collar worker (and, in particular, Roman Catholics there). Talking their language is something that the top Democratic politicians have to do every 2, 4, or 6 years, and then they go back to their wine and brie parties until the next electionm cycle. Palin doesn't do that, but rather lives like this segment of voters does all the time. She has the same sorts of worries and concerns that they do, worships as they do, does the same sort of recreation as they do, etc. She is one of them, and the Democrats who every election cycle have to come back down and win their votes are not.

What in the heck does Obama know about economics?

Has he ever run a business? Has he ever met a payroll?

The manager of the local 7/11 knows more about economics than the President. That manager also has more management experience!!!

I'd listen to the nearest 7/11 manager about economics, cause he has my concerns!

It was to say that a large swath of the "conservative" public will accept a candidate who is profoundly ignorant of the issues, profoundly disrespectful of traditional American values (banning books!? really?!) ... and who -- just like Mr. Bush! -- can't even raise her kids to meet the "purity" standards the right-wingers preach for everyone else.

But it is those on the left who hold those on the right who transgress, or, worse in this case, have children who transgress, to such a high standard, while holding their own politicians to no standard at all, except maybe to liking wine over beer and maybe coming from the right schools.

The reason that Palin's daughter did not kill Palin with many Republicans, and even some Democrats, is that they see themselves in her travails. Seventeen year old girls have been getting pregnant for hundreds of thousands of years, and during much of that time, formal wedlock was not necessary. Any parent of a teenaged girl who hasn't agonized over the possibility of what happened here to the Palins hasn't taken their childrearing seriously.

Quoting the Christian Scientists Monitor and then talking about anti-intellectualism?

For decades, the Monitor has been one of the top five US newspapers in terms of its international coverage. A real intellectual would be aware of this.

You're talking to people celebrating someone who can't name a single newspaper that she reads.

You think they're going to aware of facts like yours?

As the article points out, Republican leaders often pretend to be culturally conservative to get elected, while Democrats pretend to have common roots and to understand the common man in order to represent them, but often are about as far from them as possible.

I think this argument is a little misleading, because Democrats and Republicans pretend to have common roots and to understand the common man in order to represent them. In the last Presidential election, it was the Republican candidate and spouse who grew up privileged, and the Democratic candidate and spouse who did not -- who lived in families where they actually had to worry about money, and who were worrying about repaying student loans up until a few years ago.

I think it's false to say that Palin was an "ordinary American." Heck, she came from a small rural town. That's not ordinary. An ordinary American comes from a suburb or a city.

Except for his time spent living abroad, Barack Obama is/was just as much of an ordinary American as Sarah Palin. But then Obama got interested enough in the problems facing Americans and chose to forego a big payday to work to organize Americans so they could better deal with those problems. He also worked hard enough to learn a lot about the problems facing the US and to be able to speak about them intelligently.

Palin, on the other hand, chose to mock.

Steve,

I'm not Bruce, but I don't (as you imagine conservatives must) condemn people because their children screw up--whether it be underage drinking or underage sex. I certainly counseled my own children but I also knew I could not follow them around 24/7 and hoped the values I taught them would stick.

I do say that those who screw up have to bear the consequences for their actions and I would hope that the family (regardless of the family's political beliefs) will rally around their children and support them.

I always appreciate how conservatives are stereotyped so inaccurately.

What does Sarah Palin have to do with fighter jets?

The reason that Palin's daughter did not kill Palin with many Republicans, and even some Democrats, is that they see themselves in her travails. Seventeen year old girls have been getting pregnant for hundreds of thousands of years, and during much of that time, formal wedlock was not necessary. Any parent of a teenaged girl who hasn't agonized over the possibility of what happened here to the Palins hasn't taken their childrearing seriously.

That's funny, I don't recall too many prominent Republicans running on the platform of "Seventeen your old girls have been getting pregnant for hundreds of thousands of years." (Or even for all six thousand years.) I seem to recall a lot more Republican moralizing against any premarital sex whatsoever.

To the contrary, it has been the Democrats who have been pointing out for decades that sex happens, even among teens.

There's only one reason why Palin's daughter did not kill her with Republicans: Palin is a Republican.


It's also false to say that "it is those on the left who hold those on the right who transgress, or, worse in this case, have children who transgress, to such a high standard." I am not aware of anyone on the left holding Palin or her daughter to a particularly high standard.

Can you cite a prominent lefty who said that Palin or her daughter failed to live up to his or her moral standards because the daughter got pregnant?

Lots of lefties took joy in the embarrassment of a prominent supposedly-morally-superior Republican. And they pointed out the hypocrisy of Republicans, who have spent decades claiming to have superior "family values," who suggest that teens who have sex are promiscuous, and who trumpet the effectiveness of abstinence only, suddenly being so understanding and compassionate about a teen pregnancy.

But I don't think anyone on the left actually claimed that Palin failed to live up to lefty standards. They simply pointed out that Palin (or her daughter) failed to live up to the standards that conservatives espouse.

(And Dave N, a big part of the conservative platform for the past thirty years has been to question the morals of people who engage in unapproved sex. You may not do that, and that's great if you don't, but that has been pretty standard Republican fare since the Reagan days.)

And Dave N, a big part of the conservative platform for the past thirty years has been to question the morals of people who engage in unapproved sex.

Really? I must have missed the memo.

wohjr.
What does Palin have to with fighter jets?

Like those of us who grew up in the Fifties, and those who were near large cities in mid-September 2001, you hear a jet and you automatically say, "Hope it's one of ours." I grew up near Detroit, which is a long way from the Bering Strait.
If anything starts with the Russians, the Alaskans are going to know about it first.
Palin governs a state whose borders are approached by nuclear-capable Russian aircraft.
Concentrates the mind wonderfully.

Short Richard Aubrey: Palin will get nuked 15 minutes sooner than the lower 48 if the Russians decided to start WW3. That makes her fully qualified to be Vice President. Of my cold war dreams.

Brie, I meant

Actually, I read the news quite regularly--and, in fact, have been quite active in Republican politics over the years.

What I have observed first hand and what I have subsequently seen reported are two very different things.

Oh, that's right, there isn't any bias in the media. I HAVE eeen THAT meme.

Palin's real political threat to the left and Democrats is that her whole life exposes as lies their claims to represent, and and advance, the interests of ordinary Americans. She's the real thing while they are fakes.

The problem is that there's no evidence that Sarah Palin made significant inroads into the traditional Democratic base, none at all. There are plenty of lower-middle class folks who have been voting Republican for years for whatever reason; that's nothing new. And the rural areas and small towns full of "real Americans" have been largely voting Republican for some time. In fact, Barack Obama did better in these regions than most Democratic candidates, despite the presence of ordinary American Sarah Palin on the Republican ticket.

I grew up solidly middle class in Middle America. Some of us are Republicans today, some of us are Democrats. We've drawn different lessons from the same set of experiences; some of us are New Dealers and some of us think government needs to get out of the way. Those of us who voted for John Kerry certainly didn't do so because we thought he was just like us and understood our middle-class problems deep down in his soul. The reality is that no one, including Sarah Palin, gets to be the One True Voice of Middle America.

It's kinda funny that you accused me of generalizing about conservatives, and then you come up with the howler that "the left" - ah yes, that monolithic Left - could not fathom why Palin didn't abort her baby. Yeah, we were all really scratching our heads over that one.

@ Isaac 2.6.2009 9:25am:

The trouble with this statement of yours:

"Al Qaeda terrorists still plot to inflict catastrophic harm on America, and he’s worried that someone won’t read them their rights. - Sarah Palin"


Call it cultural elitism if you want, but I can't support a would-be leader of our country who heaps such scorn on our Constitution. - Isaac

Is that it shows the contempt for and/or lack of understanding you have for the constitution and the laws and treaties made pursuant to it. The very best an Al Qaeda inclined person can hope for is that they have fought us in a manner congruent with the laws of war, and therefore they merit the rights accorded to POWS. This excludes the vast majority of them, who in fighting for AlQadea have nullified their own rights by their own actions, and who should expect a short rope and a long drop--whatever else befalls them is a mercy extended at our convenience.

They are criminals not against the civil and domestic criminal law, where the bill of rights applies, but are criminals against the laws of war. They should have no recourse to the civilian judicial system, as POWs and unlawful combatants have had none in the past.

The constitution has not been amended in that respect since then.

Yours, TDP, ml, msl, &pfpp

Short Richard Aubrey: Palin will get nuked 15 minutes sooner than the lower 48 if the Russians decided to start WW3. That makes her fully qualified to be Vice President. Of my cold war dreams.

Cool, Andy. Point is, it's not chump change, and other governors are no better. To say it means nothing is silly. To say it means a lot is silly. But it doesn't mean nothing. And it means she's been paying attention, unlike Biden who thinks France and the US pushed hizzies out of Lebanon.

What a stupid, self-serving article. It almost completely focuses on the class-warfare dynamic, and ignores the two Palin issues that sealed McCain's doom:

1) The GOP's pushing of her reformer and fiscal conservative credentials, which very quickly fell apart for both fair (Bridge to Nowhere, pork requests for Alaska, the fact that it's a socialist welfare state) and unfair ($150K wardrobe) reasons.

2) The Palin pick eviscerated McCain's argument that these dangerous times require a experienced hand on the tiller. The McCain campaign went from "Obama is dangerously inexperienced", which was a compelling issue that gained some traction, to "Alaska is near Russia". This made McCain look like an opportunist, and destroyed the meme of the old warrior reluctantly doing what's best for America.

The elitist stuff is fun to talk about, but I think that washed out in the end compared to the other two issues.

The problem with Palin wasn't her thin resume -- and it was thin. So was Barack Obama's. Or her unimpressive educational credentials -- and they were unimpressive. So were Joe Biden's. There are ways to overcome such things, like hard work on a variety of issues over a long time (Biden), or the ability to explain and articulate what you mean to do and why you think it's a good idea (Obama). Palin didn't do any of that or show any ability to do any of that. Whether she has the sheer mental horsepower to be President or Vice President I don't pretend to know. (FWIW, I always thought W had the horsepower but never cared to use it -- a far more disabling flaw than innate lack of brainpower.) What I do know is that she committed a number of unforced errors.
Take foreign policy. Her experience is thin. So was Barack Obama's. That is hardly disabling. Few plausible candidates really have much in the way of foreign policy experience because there's no place they would get it. People who hold sub-cabinet jobs in State or Defense, or command rank in the military, or C-suite jobs in international business are not the stuff of which we make Presidents. Most of what passes for "foreign policy experience" is listening to people drone on in committee hearings. All you can really do with the sort of people who actually run for President is get a sense of whether they have clear sight, good judgment, and have "been places and 'et in ho-tels."
So what does Palin do? Instead of saying "yes, it's true, I don't have much foreign policy experience," and then saying something that exhibits good judgment despite her lack of experience, she makes the hilarious unforced error about how being governor of a state not too far from the ass-end of Russia counts as a qualification. I'm not going to look it up, but on a much longer and more exposed campaign trail than Palin traveled, Barack Obama must have been asked a number of times about foreign policy and his relative lack of experience. Had he said anything comparably stupid, it would have been a huge story.
That's why Barack Obama got over the thin resume and Sarah Palin didn't.

Steve,

You might be unaware of this, but the Republican nominee for President in 2008 was Senator John McCain, not Governor Sarah Palin, and voters generally vote for the top of the ticket, not the bottom.

Vice-presidential nominees rarely, if ever, have more than a 0.5% effect on general election returns. They are generally chosen to affect the outcome of their own state or region. Lyndon Johnson was very successful at this for John Kennedy in 1960 - LBJ's nomination as Kennedy's running mate made the difference in the closest election in history.

AFAIK, Sarah Palin's selection had significantly more effect on the general election than the average non-boring VP nominee (@ 1.3% +/- 0.2% of the popular vote), but nowhere near as much as LBJ's more effective sectional appeal.

As Yuval's article mentioned, it wasn't Palin's job to make a case for McCain that he couldn't make for himself. Her job was to energize the GOP base and she did. She clearly saved the GOP's bacon in the Senate.

Sarah Palin was clearly the most successful Vice-Presidential nominee since Lyndon Johnson in terms of affecting an election's outcome. She is already THE single best fund-raising asset the GOP has, and will be for the next few years. This means a lot in Presidential politics.

I can be objective here. I used to be a Democrat, and loathed Ronald Reagan when he was Governor. But, as a semi-pro then, I also recognized his political ability and appeal.

Your side underestimates Sarah Palin at your peril. You did before with Ronald Reagan with results you side prefers to forget.

Please keep up the good work.

And c.gray, while the Religious Right has trained its guns more specifically on gays and abortion lately, during the Reagan-Bush years and beyond "unwed mothers" were routinely demagogued. Not on a one-by-one basis, but as a group.

Until I see or hear of an actual example, I continue to call this claim an example of Bullshit. With a capital "B". Frankly, it doesn't even rise to the level of a straw man. Anyone who believes the "Religious Right" has been concerned about abortion "lately" knows nothing about that movement's actual history.


But its like talking to a wall anyway.

Like social conservative beliefs about the "cultural elite", progressive beliefs about the "Religious Right" have a very high Bullshit-to-fact content ratio. In both cases, each projects a set of attitudes and beliefs on their perceived political adversaries that have far more to do with their own anxieties than anything their opponents actually do or say. These views tend to be completely impervious to appeals to reason, or even common sense. Requests for factual foundation are dismissed with variations of "Everyone knows" or some other form of table pounding.

Of course, this is probably what lies at the heart of the "Palin phenomenon". What I found most shocking about the weird hysteria surrounding her was how closely her detractors more over-the-top claims seemed to match exactly what a social conservative true believer would imagine a member of the "cultural elite" saying about her.

It's well known among educators that no one gains any understanding of anything as a child!

voters generally vote for the top of the ticket, not the bottom.

Here, the top of the ticket was unusually running to be the oldest person ever to become President. The next-oldest such person thoughtfully picked a qualified VP nominee.

Tony, my liberal Democratic wife said, when Obama selected Biden, that Dan Quayle was a one-trick pony while Joe Biden would provide endless fun as vice-president. He makes Senator Byrd seem presidential.

I am praying for Obama's good health. So should we all.

I also note that you haven't disputed any of my points.

you haven't disputed any of my points.

Generalizations from other Presidential campaigns should not have been expected to apply to the importance of the running mate of this exceptionally elderly Presidential candidate.

My wife loathes Palin because Palin is more attractive.

To be fair, being more attractive than Nixon isn't so hard to do.

c.gray,

You seem to believe that nothing happened until you were born. The religious right has been around a lot longer than that. Furthermore, status as a wowser is dependent on internal psychic needs to control the lives of others, not on political leanings. Consider the food Nazis who tried to ban hot dogs at the 2008 Democratic National Convention.

Sarah Palin failing as a candidate had nothing to do with "elite" opinion. She opened her mouth and proved she was no learned enough to be president, which is the one requirement a vice president needs. For McCain to claim that Sarah Palin knew more about energy than anyone else in the country shows the lunacy that gripped the GOP this fall.

I don't buy that at all, given the foot in mouth disease shown repeatedly by her opponent, even to this day. And what do about the Speaker? The current challenge is to find the best thing that she is as smart as: I have heard rock, brick, etc.

Another thing that did her in: women simply did not like her. I heard this time and again from accomplished women. She was the embodiment of a pretty but empty headed female who gets ahead by charming me. All the "winkin" and the tortured syntax; we guys saw a hot babe who was kinda cute. Women saw a numbskulled harpy who thought she could sashay her way into the presidency.

Well, I will agree that women are shrews when it comes to other women, which is why Hillary is ok, and Palin was not for them. Hillary couldn't steal their man from them if her life depended on it, but these other women could bed hers any time.

But if these women really did hate Sarah Palin, let me suggest that it was more a question of those women being part of that cultural elite that we were talking about earlier, and Palin not. Palin is plenty accomplished - just not in the same way that these women are. Obviously, they don't respect what Palin has done, and I am sure that it is reciprocated. Palin is plenty accomplished, and did it on her own, as compared with so many of the cultural elite. She doesn't share their values of what is important to them, and so fails to live up to their standards. But I am sure that she would think the same of them, and, indeed, many of the women going bonkers over her in middle America would probably be as insensitive to what was important to those women you are talking about as Palin is.

wohjr:

You asked for an example of Biden demonstrating a reasonable awareness of foreign policy matters. I asked the same of you for Ms. Palin.

If you recall, one of the gaffes Gov. Palin supposedly made came in response to a hypothetical question about how to deal with Russia and the former Soviet republic of Georgia during the Gibson interview. This is what I said on another forum:

Sarah's response to the question about Russia and Georgia was not only not a gaffe, it was handled nearly perfectly. Some media types with limited powers of comprehension did not understand that it was a hypothetical question, asking whether we should take Georgia's side *IF* Georgia were admitted to NATO and this were to be followed by a Russian invasion. Georgia is not a member of NATO, but the question was framed that way, and there are plenty of people on both sides of the aisle who support their bid to join.

There are really only four ways to answer such a question: Yes, No, Maybe, Don't Know. Sarah understood perfectly well that the NATO charter calls upon members to defend another member state if attacked.

If she had answered "No, we should not come to their aid", she would have been pilloried for cowardice and not knowing our responsibilities as a member of NATO.

If she had answered "Yes indeed, both guns blazing", she would have been pilloried for belligerent warmongering.

If she had begged off from answering the question, she would have been pilloried for indecision and ignorance.

Her answer, "Perhaps so", was close to the Platonic ideal of diplo-speak in response to such a loaded question, and this was confirmed by none other than Henry Kissinger.

As it turned out, she got pilloried for warmongering anyway, which should give you an idea of the obstacles the left-wing media threw in her path all through the campaign.

The article hits several high notes, with my favorite being the one already highlighted by CJColucci:

"But having finally gotten voters to listen, neither Palin nor McCain could think of anything to say to them. Palin’s reformism, like McCain’s, was essentially an attitude devoid of substance"

That's the bottom line, and had she delivered here, I suspect that the rest would have fallen by the wayside except for a few pockets of haters of various persuasions. The problem was that Rove's attempt to remake the Republican coalition proved nonviable (Huck was the natural successor there), and merely returning to the Reagan limited government formula would have been perceived, rightly given the previous four years, as incredible.

It would have taken a miracle for anyone to come up with a unifying new vision out of whole cloth on the fly, and so its no surprise that the Old Bull fell short. The best hope was indeed someone completely new, but it was always a long shot.

The one dimension Levin misses is the generational one noted on this blog. Alot of the hate for Palin was the usual partisan vitriol that any candidate would have generated (well, other than someone like Pawlenty, who would have just been ignored). There was an added edge to the Palin-hate, however, and I saw it overwhelmingly among Boomers. As the first clearly post-Boomer national politician (Obama is debatable), Palin does the one unforgivable thing - she reminds Boomers of their imminent mortality.

If lattes are for the elitists, why is there a coffee shop on every corner?

That comment is so 2004. Today's elitists have given up lattes for arugula, or at least that's what we were doing last year.

sealawyer:

all of the lies about Palin

Several people have made reference to this idea, that lies have been told about Palin. This thread and the Levin article contain (together) about 24,000 words, but those words include this many documented, specific examples of a lie told about Palin: zero. Can anyone show the most significant examples of those lies? Exact quotes, please.

Meanwhile, it's easy to find proof that Palin lied repeatedly. She practically set a new standard for a politician telling lies that are incredibly brazen and obvious. One nice example is here. A bunch of other thoroughly documented examples are here.

Levin used these terms in connection with Palin: "moral constancy" and "obsessed with honest dealing." I guess he's gunning for a job at The Onion.

He also mentioned "her unexceptional academic record." Actually, it is exceptional to attend five colleges in six years.

He also said "Palin was running for Vice President with a foreign-policy expert at the top of the ticket." Really? My idea of a "foreign-policy expert" is someone who can get his facts straight without Lieberman whispering corrections in his ear (video). And McCain didn't make that mistake just once.

===============
ex parte:

Like Aultimer, Levin's assertion, set off by dashes for emphasis, that "she is, clearly, highly intelligent" made me want to ask "In what respect, Charlie?"

Very funny. You're obviously talking about this: t-shirt, video. And here's the obvious answer: "All of them."

===============
accountant:

I, too, sincerely hope that the Republican ticket in 2012 is Sarah Palin and Joe the Plumber. With Rush Limbaugh as the head spokesman and policy analyst of the party. It would be great for the country.

Exactly. The GOP is now firmly in the hands of Palin, Wurzelbacher and Limbaugh, and this is great news for all non-Republicans.

===============
holsinger:

Palin was clearly the most successful Vice-Presidential nominee since Lyndon Johnson in terms of affecting an election's outcome.

That's a nice example of how "clearly" often means 'not very clear.' This is what Pew said:

Sarah Palin's impact on McCain's fortunes will no doubt be long debated, and the results of the exit polls are somewhat mixed. Fully 60% of Americans casting ballots said that Palin is not qualified to be president should it be necessary; 81% of these voters favored Obama. Yet those who cited Palin's selection as a factor in their vote -- 60% of all voters -- favored McCain by 56% to 43%.

===============
steve:

What do you think the typical Republican perspective would have been if the Obamas had a teenage daughter who was pregnant out of wedlock? Sheer, unadulterated empathy? … I just find it hard to believe … that the same Republican politicians and pundits who cheered for Bristol Palin would have had nothing negative to say if it were the Obamas who had an unmarried and pregnant teenage daughter.

Exactly. Someone else made the same point:

If the Obamas had a 17 year-old daughter who was unmarried and pregnant by a tough-talking black kid, my guess is if that they all appeared onstage at a Democratic convention and the delegates were cheering wildly, a number of conservatives might be discussing the issue of dysfunctional black families.

That's quite an understatement. And pay attention to who said it.

dave n:

I suspect that while a few loons would criticize the President if one of his daughters became pregnant, I doubt there would be the condemnation you IMAGINE …Your imagining that it will occur with a hypothetical Obama teenage pregancy does not make it so

It's interesting to notice who disagrees with you.

=================
hayden:

Seventeen year old girls have been getting pregnant for hundreds of thousands of years

That might be especially true among Bristol's ancestors. Sarah Palin herself got pregnant with Track before she was married (either that, or he was born at least 4 weeks premature). This pattern seems to run in the family.

BTW, I'm not claiming Palin was 17. She wasn't. I'm referring to the pattern of getting pregnant outside of marriage.

=================
c gray:

"Demagoging unwed mothers and the like" exists primarily as a fantasy of the left.

Try this:

birth and adoption are the purview of married heterosexual couples

Dobson is hardly a minor figure.

===============
aubrey:

If anything starts with the Russians, the Alaskans are going to know about it first.

Maps are flat, but the Earth is not. Have you seen a globe? Air routes from Russia to the US don't necessarily go near Alaska (especially if the destination is an East Coast target).

bgates:

Palin's statement was, first off, basically correct - the Russians have been prompting "US fighter jets...to scramble to intercept Russian bombers on an increasingly regular basis."

You're implying that the article you cited talks about Russian bombers approaching Alaska. But it doesn't. It said they were flying "close to North American airspace," and "over the North Pole." That doesn't necessarily mean they were near Alaska.

And as wohjr pointed out, "what does Sarah Palin have to do with fighter jets?" Pay attention to this headline:

NORAD: Sarah Palin has no role in guarding U.S. airspace despite claims in Katie Couric interview

=================
warner:

As the first clearly post-Boomer national politician

The Boom is usually defined as 1946-1964. Palin's DOB is 2/11/64. How does that make her "clearly post-Boomer?" This is another nice example of how "clearly" means 'not clear.'

Obama's DOB is 8/4/61. The age gap is just 2.5 years. It's hard to picture how that's very significant, one way or another.

And if Palin is "the first clearly post-Boomer national politician," it's interesting to notice that post-Boomers voted against her overwhelmingly. Voters under 30 picked Obama, 66%/32%. Only two other demographic factors were substantially stronger predictors: being black or being Jewish.

I seem recall someone in New York City saying in 1972 that she couldn't figure out how Nixon won, as none of the people she talked to had voted for him.

Versions of that statement are usually attributed to Pauline Kael. There seems to be no actual evidence of her having said it though.

I consider both Palin and Obama to be post-Boomer

I agree (even though they are both technically Boomer, based on a literal interpretation of their birthdates). Thanks for explaining.

It seems to me that there's been a lot of talk about "family values" over the years from folks on that side of the aisle, a lot of condemnation expressed towards people who make unwise life choices, and then suddenly when one of their own turns up in the same situation they realize hey, this happens to people all the time and it's no big deal.

The "condemnation" is not expressed towards people who make unwise life choices. It's towards people who make unwise life choices and then demand that the government help them escape the consequences.

That's funny, I don't recall too many prominent Republicans running on the platform of "Seventeen your old girls have been getting pregnant for hundreds of thousands of years." (Or even for all six thousand years.) I seem to recall a lot more Republican moralizing against any premarital sex whatsoever.

And? How does this contradict anything? Condemning behavior is not condemning the person. This is not "hypocrisy."

Certainly you're not claiming that the left-wing media made up the Moral Majority, opposition to Plan B, opposition to teaching about sex in school, abstinence-only education, resistance to distributing contraceptives on campus or in school (even resistance to contraception in general).

Nobody "made up" those things, although they may have distorted them -- but opposition to these government policies is not the same as condemning a "teenager" who gets pregnant. ("Teenager" is such a slippery word, isn't it? It lets the speaker elide the difference between a 13-year old middle schooler and an 18-year old adult.)

David Warner writes:

"If you think that's a bad thing, then why are you joining them with your facile bigotry?"

The average attendee at a Sarah Palin rally probably couldn't define the word "facile", my friend. I doubt Sarah Palin could herself.

That's partly my point. But I'm not condemning her. She should be proud of her accomplishments in life thus far. Hell, I'll never become Governor of anything. I just don't want her anywhere near the position of leading the free world.

Why is that so unfathomable to many of you?

People have described both myself and my posts with some "colorful" words, but simplistic hasn't really been one of them. Bigotry? Well, I can't say right wingers haven't attacked me that way. It would be interesting if you could point to where that bigotry occurred in my posts, however.

--Cobra

Cobra,

"It would be interesting if you could point to where that bigotry occurred in my posts, however."

Sure. Here you go:

"The average attendee at a Sarah Palin rally probably couldn't define the word "facile", my friend."

Ever been to a Palin rally? I have. Plenty of English speakers there, some with a bigger vocabulary than you and I combined. Then again, I've been to Obama rallies chock full of people with common sense, so maybe I've just been lucky.

Cobra,

Just for comparison's sake, if you had casually opined that the average attendee at an Obama rally was too shiftless to make it to the polls, it would still be bigotry even if JBG backed it up with a raft of statistics on voting rates. In either case, the relevant dynamics do not lend themselves well to, yes, facile analysis, and even if they did, it doesn't matter.

It's just not the done thing.