Blog-A-Round
Sep 7th, 2008 at 7:59 pm by Susie
Matt Stoller’s right:
When Palin came on, I saw an incredibly charming and hilarious performer, who expressed a secure sense of mockery towards Democratic leaders and a down home sense of self. She’s obviously an alpha girl in the mean girl high school sense, but she’s also extraordinarily bright and grounded in a conservative view of the world. She’s tough and accomplished and that can’t be denied. What her accomplishments are should be debated, since much of them involves high oil prices, corruption, and a white Christian dominionist view of the world (as Bruce Wilson makes clear). But that she is a powerful political figure who has appeal can’t be denied.
And yet that’s what I saw among many progressives who told me how awful Palin is and how she isn’t taking care of her family or any such crap. I felt like I was among insiders during Stephen Colbert’s white house correspondent’s dinner, insiders that insisted he wasn’t funny because they were the butt of his jokes and they couldn’t see it.
She was great. And she’s a strong politician we must take seriously, or else she’s going to be our President. And frankly, it’s about time we have a strong woman in high office. I would just hope it’s not a female Nixon.
So’s Karl Martino:
A McCain staffer said “This election is not about issues,”.. “This election is about a composite view of what people take away from these candidates.”
They mean it, folks. The marketing and the packaging bear that out. They are marketing directly to a large population of Americans who are angry and afraid of the future since so many of the cornerstones that were relied on have been knocked away.
And Jane Hamsher:
Say what you will, the angry broads who refused to vote for anyone until they were appeased managed to do what the blogosphere couldn’t — they brought their issues front and center in this campaign, and to the victor go the spoils. Those who signed themselves over early can look forward to being Sistah Souljah’d as the campaign goes forward, but with the female vote in play the Republicans coughed up Palin as a VP candidate and the Obama campaign is now taking a stronger pro-choice stance in swing states than we’ve ever heard a Democratic presidential candidate dare before.
So it comes down to which party will America choose? The one that uses divisive marketing to divide us into warring camps, to cast blame, or the other which reminds us that we worship a mighty God in the blue states as well as the red, that we’re in this together.
Boy, I can’t agree at all that Stoller’s right on this. He mentions that he’d heard how “terrible” Palin’s speech had been, before he saw it, and I have to think he fell into the old diminished expectations trap. She’s a capable speaker, didn’t melt down or any such thing, though she did appear rather stiff to my eye.
But I think that people who saw a lot of red meat being thrown to the yahoos have it right. The difference from Colbert is that Colbert skewered the right wingers with the truth, as he does so well, while Palin’s jabs were mostly founded on lies about who “liberals” are and what they stand for. It’s a profound difference, between truth and falsehood.
Much is made of Palin’s representation of “core values” of the religious right. I don’t actually care much about a candidate’s personal values, I just care about their policies, that’s what impacts us. And I wouldn’t care at all about Palin’s personal life were it not for the fact that she’s running as this “family values social conservative”. Yeah, one who by all appearances cheated on her husband, who advocates “abstinence only” sex education and cut funding for pregnant teens support programs, but whose own teenage daughter is preggers (guess a condom works better than ignorance and prayers in preventing pregnancy) … who fired the local Wasilla librarian when she said she wouldn’t remove books from the shelves, who advocates the teaching of Creationism in science classes (I don’t care what her personal beliefs are, but where’s the science in Creationism?) … who believes the war in Iraq is “God’s work” (great let’s have a full on Holy War) … who believes that being mayor of a podunk small town (I can say that, as one who lives in a podunk small town) is better job prep than being a U.S. Senator, who believes that global warming is a hoax (as the snows of Kilimanjaro melt and the Arctic wastes away - there’s that science problem she has again) …
I could go on, with things we’ve all read about - anti gay, troopergate, etc., etc. . This woman is a horror show. Plain and simple. Stoller and other Palin boosters (however muted their praise may be) have lost sight of all this. They’re attempting to play the “fair and balanced” game, while the Republicans are playing “slash and burn”. No. What’s called for here is Watertiger style ridicule in heavy doses. These people are laughable, and we should acknowledge that. The hell with McCain, the hell with Palin, and the moose she rode in on.
Macjazz, you missed the point of the post. Matt Stoller is not a Palin booster; neither is Jane Hamsher, and neither is Susie, nor am I. The point of the post is that Palin is a formidable candidate, who has captured the imagination of a significant portion of the electorate.
And for democrats to demean her for her religion, or for being white trash who wasn’t even educated back east, will only serve to enrage that portion of the electorate.
Talk about the issues, of course; Hillary’s supporters won’t vote en masse for McCain/Palin because Palin has a vagina, and her stand on the issues is horrifying to me. What these posters are saying is that the democrats demean and patronize her at their peril.
No, I got that. I think Stoller et al didn’t acknowledge how truly awful Palin’s positions are, nor what a lame exercise in feeding the animals her speech really was. Analagous to Colbert’s performance??? Puhleeze. Like I said, the difference between lies and truth.
And I do think she should be ridiculed, not because of some weakness on her part, but because she is, in fact, ridicuous. It’s like when Harry Potter had to defeat the Boggart … what was the charm for that? “Ridiculus!!”
I’m of the opinion that, for the moment, we can let the National Enquirer do our work for us. They LOVE this kind of family disfunction stuff, and it’s one thing that might give some bible thumpers pause about Palin.
And I wouldn’t care at all about Palin’s personal life were it not for the fact that she’s running as this “family values social conservative”. Yeah, one who by all appearances cheated on her husband…
I mised the story about SP cheating on her hubby. Can you provide some details or links?
Mac, you seem to think that, if only people were properly educated on the correct positions, on the truth as it were, then surely they would vote for those who will fulfill those goals.
Republican positions on the issues are just as legitimate as democratic ones. They’re just (really, really) different. I think that the republican positions on the issues have brought us to the brink of ruin, but others think differently.
You want to believe that those who disagree with you are ignorant unwashed masses, and perhaps they are. The operative word is masses. They’re not animals. They’re Americans. They get to vote too. And remember how the last couple of elections have turned out.
no, i think mac is right, and stoller isn’t. if it weren’t for the extremely low expectations people had for palin, the speech would never have been seen as great as it is.
i agree that palin is a formidable politician. but that doesn’t mean that he speech was another other than a brainless stream of one-liners, many of them factually inaccurate and all of them little more than throwing meat to the base. if we had a real press, the big story the next day would be the fact that palin got virtually every fact wrong. but we don’t have a real press. it’s a sad state of affairs that the villagers think that zingers like “like a community organizer but with actual duties” makes something a good speech. that’s the big difference with steven colbert’s speech at the correspondents dinner colbert’s speech made fun of the correspondents by pointing out the truth about them. palin did nothing even remotely like that.
in other words, the only reason that palin is a formidable politician is because our press sucks. her entire appeal depends on not having to undergo any actual scrutiny of what she says. why else would she make a lie, her claimed opposition to the “bridge to nowhere” the centerpiece of her campaign? if we had a critical press, the speech would be remembered as a well-delivered pile of crap. instead, the dittoheads who evaluate these things can’t distinguish between well-delivered crap and a good speech. the weird thing is that the bowers graff suggests that he can’t make the same distinction either.
and by “bowers”, of course, i meant “stoller” (sorry, chris!)
“Republican positions on the issues are just as legitimate as democratic ones.”
No, they’re not. Global warming? “War on terror”? War on Iraq? Drill our way out of the current oil crunch? The Republicans (Palin specifically) are empirically wrong on these issues. If you don’t already know that, you need to do some studying.
There are also positions which are merely abhorent, but not a matter of empirical verification, such as tax cuts for the rich, cuts in social programs, violent opposition to true universal health care, active pursuit of a neoconservative agenda, etc., etc.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aRu8hbT5meQ
– –
“I missed the story about SP cheating on her hubby. Can you provide some details or links?”
There have been rumors floating around for a while about this, and the National enquirer ran the story on their most recent cover. The Enquirer actually has a pretty good track record on these things lately (John Edwards, Roger Clemens, anong others). Palin’s husband’s business partner, with whom she’s rumored to have had the affair (talk about stabbing a guy in the back) petitioned to have his divorce records sealed just one step ahead of the Enquirer story - MIGHTY suspicious timing, if there’s nothing to all this. Hubby and business partner disolved their business in the corresponding time frame, with the alleged affair, as well. My own opinion is that in this case, where there’s smoke there’s fire.
Again, I don’t generally care all that much about a candidate’s personal life, but if you’re in a street fight, you’ll take any help you can get.
If someone puts on a magic show, and you note how much the audience responded to it, does that mean you believe in magic? Of course not. Stoller is simply acknowledging the effectiveness of how she plays the game. He’s right. It has nothing to do with logic or facts, and insisting it does is why Democrats lose.
I think acknowledging that Palin was warm and telegenic is not the same as saying she was great. She was good - she delivered the punch lines well, and she’s clearly got a warmth that Republicans, often men, after all, lack. Still, not only is it not believing in magic… what she has is not magic. And it’s not unbeatable.
In the end, what she offered is what Republicans these days seem to only have to fall back on: it was a laundry list of cynicism and sarcasm and entirely light on proposals of things she actually wanted to do as VP and really rather thin on accomplishments, even as a leader. Yes, many people may not see that while enjoying the entertainment of watching people make fun of others not like them. But that doesn’t mean we have no way to respond.
I agree with Stoller, more fundamentally, on tne point that some lefties seem to think that “I don’t like her” amounts to a crtique. It doesn’t. And for the Democrats - and expecially Joe Biden - to deal with her effectively, means focusing on specifics and policies and proposals and not getting bogged down in personalities and zingers. Palin’s skill with scripted sarcasm means little ultimately - little to how she’d be as VP, and little to the issues we care about. We shouldn’t lose sight of that. Even as we admit that her performance this week was something that has an appeal. The appeal it has, really, is part of the problem.
Suzie, I think Snuzy answered the point your making, earlier -
“… in other words, the only reason that palin is a formidable politician is because our press sucks. her entire appeal depends on not having to undergo any actual scrutiny of what she says. why else would she make a lie, her claimed opposition to the “bridge to nowhere” the centerpiece of her campaign? if we had a critical press, the speech would be remembered as a well-delivered pile of crap. ”
And her less than magic Magic Show was being delivered to a hand-picked audience, preaching to the choir, the faithful-est of the faithful, Repub-wise. How could she fail to get a good response with juicy red meat she was feeding them?
As I (and others, in slightly different words) said before her speech: Unless she pukes onstage, or starts throwing feces at the crowd while screaming “Praise Jesus!” at the top of her lungs, I don’t think she has a chance of doing worse than expectations.
So if we’re talking about “how she plays the game”, well it’s a rigged game, how could she lose? You’re talking about the danger of underestimating her. I’m talking about the danger of overestimating her. Of buying into this meme that she gave a great speech, and is a more than ordinary politician. She didn’t, she’s not.
She’s NOT Steven Colbert, in fact she’s rather the opposite, spouting lies, not truth. It’s a profound difference, and one that Stoller and others fail to recognize. And the way to beat her at this game is to puncture her hot air balloon with the truth. With facts, and with ridicule for her lies. And with the National Enquirer, if that’ll work.
I’ll add that it’s not Obama’s style to do any of those things I just mentioned. He’s not inclined to be that direct. And that’s fine, maybe he shouldn’t be … he has “people” for that, right? Maybe even including us, on a micro level. Though, obviously, it requires people with major media access to really get it to happen. Someone like, say … Hillary? Damn straight!
We know how Hill can bring it on when she wants to, how feisty and on target she can be. If there’s one person on the scene today who can point out that Palin is completely full of shit, in an acceptable mainstream way, it’s Hillary. One person who can point out clearly and convincingly that Palin’s policies do not have women’s interests at heart. Hillary, for sure. And I certainly expect she will, when the time seems right.
John Kerry lost the last election by not being agressive enough, by not countering the bullshit as it piled up. The hell with respecting Palin, and McCain. They don’t deserve it. It may be that no politician today does, but those two most certainly don’t. Damn the torpedoes, straight ahead!!!