[I'm borrowing the pun from Michael Bérubé]
In the absence of any more “game changing” impulsive madness from Walnuts, all eyes will probably be on the Veeps debate on Friday – although our friends in the House Republicans or more spectacular crashes on Wall Street might diminish the focus a tad. Sarah Palin won’t be able to pull a McCain though, and “suspend” her campaign, after that trick spectacularly failed as Walnuts slunk out of Washington calling for bipartisanship on one hand while slagging off Obama on the other, after fairly poor reviews of whatever contribution he may have made to the crisis from his fellow Republicans. Nor will Palin be dropped from the ticket – I think (presuming there’s any rationality to the McCain strategy). As Nate Silver observes, there are at least three good reasons why it would be dumb (but again, I’m thinking dumb is the name of the McCain game). And the last time a Veep candidate was dumped – Thomas Eagleton in 72 – McGovern dropped 7 points in the polls.
Anyway, that’s that for the moment, but in this increasingly bizarre campaign which in true postmodern style seems to have as fictive a relationship to the real world as all that fictitious capital swirling around Wall Street waiting for the government to buy it, who knows what lies ahead, or even what lies lie ahead. My main purpose in posting was to draw attention to two excellent pieces from two of my favourite Stateside online writers on the bizarre phenomenon that is the Palin pick, something I continue to believe deserves more analysis than just political calculation or the desire to diss implies.
First, from the aforesaid Michael Bérubé, who has been kind enough to have “suspended [his] blog retirement so that I could see us through this crisis.”
I’ve been reading the GOP campaign as being not merely an assault on liberal elites—like I say, that’s old news—but a frontal attack on the very idea of standards of plausibility in argument. To friends and family (and one or two inquiring reporters), I’ve been calling it the National Insult My Intelligence Tour 2008. It’s as if they’re simply trying to see how much amazing shit they can get away with (like this amazing shit!), even though (as many people have noted) this strategy requires them to run against the very constituency McCain had courted for over a decade—the elite Beltway punditocracy, McCain’s base.
And in so doing, they’re laying a fairly obvious trap for actual liberal elitists like me.
Secondly, the fabulous Rebecca Traister at Salon:
Everyone seems to be oozing sympathy for the fumbling vice-presidential nominee. Please. Cry me a freaking river.
Do take the time to go read both!
Bible Spice wll do just fine in the debate, simply by turning up. She’s red-meat to the base, Biden will have to handle her VERY gently, and it makes absolutely no difference that her responses to questions are the verbal equivalent of just picking out words at random and flnging them about the room like monkey poo.
The important thing is not what she says. It’s how she says it and how she comes across: Confident, feisty, a real person (as opposed to those hideous, awful, latte drinkers in Kennebunkport, or wealthy baseball-team owners), and an outsider.
Oh yeah. Somebody ya can have a beer with! Just like last time!
Except GW doesn’t drink.
How did that work out? Not so much.
re the debate, Amanda has a good post at Hoyden that made me stop worrying and love the Biden.
No wait, how come nobody told me Bérubé was back?!
(I probably could’ve picked it up from Crooked Timber if I’d read it properly…)
Kim,
Have you seen the Fibertarian Party’s campaign being organized on Franklin Habit’s blog, The Panopticon? Dolores Van Hoofen is their candidate, and is threatening to sue SP for violating copyright. The two relevant blog entries on the-panopticon.blogspot.com are
(1)Campaign Update Sept 24th
(2)A Thousand Points of Light? Sept 29th
Enjoy!
Thanks, tweetiepie, and cheers, Shaun, for the link to Amanda’s post.
Must say that I was mildly uplifted by Biden video on Hoyden: Palin may be toast.
Sorry, but keyboard possibly FUBAR. Does not recognise apostrophes. Gaagghh.
I would have thought Rebecca would have more sympathy for Joe.
Off you go to mudflats for all things Palin. From Alaska. It’s riveting.
Like a really, bad, train-wreck:
http://mudflats.wordpress.com
Quick. Hurry. Shoo!
Gwen Ifill is hosting the debate. That would be this Gwen Ifill. Does having a book due for release called “The Breakthrough – Politics and Race in the Age of Obama” constitute a conflict of interest? Does she stand to gain monetarily from the subject of her book occupying the White House? Has the book’s release date, due 20 Jan 09 (coincidentally the day the next POTUS is sworn in), been selected to maximise sales?
Richard, next time your copy Michelle Malkin’s talking points, make sure you include the bit about moderators needing to be ‘nonpartisan’.
Anyway, if Ifill gave a paper at this conference would that balance things out for you? http://flowtv.org/?p=1711
Err, um, don’t publishers always try to maximise sales? It’s the free market and private enterprise, dude. Get with it!
Christy Hardin Smith @ Firedoglake on debate “expectations”:
http://firedoglake.com/2008/10/01/the-biden-juggernaut-versus-the-palin-mystique-wheres-the-coffee/
Thanks Richard,
My god. The Repug trolls have certainly got the world sewn up, don’t they?
How do you do it, exactly? Just spewing out your stupid talking points on this nice little blog, so far removed from the main action in a recently failed state?
CK, I’m sure they know full well how many thousands of votes in key battleground states will be swung by well timed talking point comments on Australian blogs. Or something.
Is it just me or is this the US version of Pauline? A sort of body double – like they’ve done for Kath & Kim.
I second praise for Mudflats. I’ve been reading it since the Palin pick was announced, lots of fun and good info.
It amazes me how bad the McCain is at trying to spin situations. It is sort of like, if you dont stand for something, you stand for nothing. So reactive and deceptive.
http://www.palinspin.com the scandals, incompetence, lies and deceptions of Sarah Palin!
http://www.obamamate.com social news for the Barack Obama nation
Desperately Seeking Sarah:
As Jeff Goldberg puts it, the problem isn’t so much that she doesn’t have the right answers, it’s that she doesn’t seem to have enough of a grasp on the questions to bluff her way through with something vague but halfway cogent sounding. This suggests that she’s either profoundly ignorant on economic and foreign policy questions, in a deep and architectonic way unlikely to be remedied by a few briefings geared toward filling in the lacunae, or that she’s just not terribly bright.
Does having a book due for release called “The Breakthrough – Politics and Race in the Age of Obama” constitute a conflict of interest?
And how, exactly, does pointing out the fact that having a POC Presidential candidate constitutes a breakthrough, constitute a conflict of interest?
See if you can keep up. You write a book, not an academic paper, but a book for sale and personal profit. The subject of your book is the rise to prominence of a particular candidate. Should this candidate win the election, the marketability of your commercial venture is greatly increased. You are now invited to moderate a debate which will have some impact on the election outcome, thereby having an impact on your earnings. Does this constitute a conflict of interest?
It may have absolutely no impact on the debate, but any perceived bias will be exploited. She may in fact end up having to go easier on Palin to avoid any such accusation. There are 350 million people in the US. Surely there is someone capable of moderating a debate who is not in a position to gain financially from either candidate winning.
Yes Kim, publishers will seek to market the book. That’s the capitalism we all know and love. How much better would it be for them if Obama won? They can then market the book about the rise of Obama, his election win, and then release the whole package the day he swears the oath. Perhaps they could even point out that the author was instrumental in making that happen………………….. or maybe not.
Wouldn’t an assassination increase an Obama bio even more?
Should Gwen Ifill be allowed to own a Mannlicher-Carcano?
AFAIK the book is not about Obama, as in a bio of him. It is about race and politics over the last few decades, which takes the signifcant event of Obama’s nomination as a hook. His nomination will still be a significant event even if he loses the election. There will be plenty to write about whether he wins or loses.
Gaming the ump is a venerable tradition leading up to big sporting matches, people can see it for what it is.
Those are fairly pointless arguments. Katz, should we keep a 24 hr watch on Ifill to stop her assassinating Obama to increase her book sales? No. Should she be moderator for the debate? No. Amanda, so the book is only kinda about Obama, just enough to be in the title, but not really about him. The key question is not really what percentage of the book is actually about Obama, nor is it that Obama just a “hook” to talk about racist politics. The question is; does she stand to profit from an Obama victory? If so, should she be allowed to influence the election? It is pretty simple really. You can keep arguing shades of grey if you like, but it is a poor decision that I would have thought that the fine proponents of democracy at this site would also disagree with. My mistake I guess.
Well, put Amanda. A single headline on Ifill rather than the ‘Regular Joe Six-Pack, Putin head rearing’ blubber that will spring forth will constitute a victory for the hacks.
Expectations are now so low for Palin that anything better than a humiliation will be a victory for her.
And as pointed out, she’s not there to win over the swinging voters anyway.
What evidence is there that Ifill would profit more from an Obama victory than an Obama loss?
Doesn’t Ifill stand to profit from the fact that an election is occurring? Anything that tends to increase public interest in the election can therefore be construed as grist for Ifill’s commercial mill.
Perhaps Ifill should be banned from making any comment at all about this election, or about any election, or about any matter of public interest at all.
Yep, gaming the ump.
How precisely is Ifill supposed to sabotage Palin’s chances?
By asking her questions perhaps?
Hmm. Beyond Palindome. Two men enter. One man…
I think I should sleep.
Katz & Kim, there’s a joke in there somewhere, but I’ll leave it alone. You’re both missing the point. She’s perfectly entitled to comment on whatever she wants to – democracy remember? Participating is a different issue. I also never said she would sabotage Palin. In fact, I said she would probably have to go easier on her to avoid any question of bias. Whether she does or doesn’t is irrelevant, there is a conflict of interest that precludes her from any participation other than at the ballot box. Note that participation does not mean commentary, she can say whatever the hell she likes.
“In fact, I said she would probably have to go easier on her to avoid any question of bias.”
Aha! That must be why the McCain campaign approved of her selection.
Gad those cunning Republicans, they’re more cunning than cunning Mr Cunningham of Cunning Lodge, Cunningshire, three time winner of the “Mr Cunning” award.
Ah, but are they cunning enough to stick a tail on it and call it a weazel?
Richard Sharpe you are rushing to judgment. Gwen Ifill should be judged on her performance and not by extraneous issues such as her authorship of a future book on Obama. That would be a factor if she were obviously unfair, a judgment that can only be made after the debate and one that is unlikely to be sustained except by the most one-eyed partisans.. There are a number of logical inconsistencies in your diatribe. The first is that she is not moderating a debate in which Obama is involved directly. Or are you suggesting that Ifill was selected so she could be sure Sarah Palin loses the debate? History would suggest that being scrupulously fair is enough to accomplish that. Or is perhaps you premise that Biden is so inexperienced that he needs protecting against the super debater Palin? Another logical inconsistency is the reality that the result of this debate is likely to have a marginal effect on the Presidential election. Or are you one of those who believe the divine Sarah will suddenly reignite the McCain camp if only the liberal media will give her a fair shake? It’s also illogical to suggest that Ifill would would not regonise that it’s not very smart to give an appearance of bias when there has been so much publicity about her book. Richard, why not wait and see the debate and decide on that basis, rather than a ludicrous objection that she is writing a book about Obama.
It is a no-win situation. Regardless of how the debate turns out, there will be questions raised about the impartiality of the moderator. If it turns out to be a Biden win, it leaves Ifill open to suggestions of bias. If Palin wins, it leaves her open to criticism that she went easy on her to avoid those same accusations. She is compromised either way. It is a poor choice purely because there is a conflict of interest. Having a conflict of interest doesn’t make her an evil person, it just means she is not the person to be moderating a debate that may or may not have implications on the election result. It is a situation that should be fixed before the event, because it can’t be undone after.
Again Richard, what on earth makes you think that either particular outcome in the election would favour Ifill? Hence why would anyone worry about accusations of bias (or repeatedly make them as you are doing)?
The only way for Ifill to benefit is by means, as Katz said, of there being an election with Obama in it. Which I’m sure you’ll agree is more or less a done deal. Unless her urge to appear disinterested is so great as to do something to derail the entire election process, she wins, and nobody need worry about bias.
Unless, as it seems with you, they REALLY want to.
If it turns out to be a Biden win, it leaves Ifill open to suggestions of bias.
I can hear the turbines of spin warming up even as we speak…
FDB, if you’d care to point out where I accused her of bias, that would validate your point. I’ll repeat this again, just for the sake of hoping that someone reading this will grasp the point rather than going off on tangents. Ifill stands to gain financially from an Obama victory in the election. This creates a conflict of interest. A conflict of interest is a bad thing for a moderator to have.
A good post from Zeno on the rationale for Palin:
http://zenoferox.blogspot.com/2008/10/rationale-for-sarah-palin.html
Forget Obama, I think we’re in the Age of the Concern Troll.
Actually the debate’s more or less irrelevant. Palin’s numbers have tanked with all but GOP partisans. Its only significance is whether parts of the base start to peel off if they decide that being able to organise a Rapture or a moose hunt isn’t enough to make Palin qualified.
Yes, what an irrelevancy. If this is the best that RACTs (Repulican Always Concern Trolls) can come up with they’re in deep trouble. Frankly, I couldn’t give a RACT’s arse.
“Ifill stands to gain financially from an Obama victory in the election.”
In other words, you’re not accusing her of bias?
I think all this spinning is making you dizzy.
And you’ve yet to explain why an Obama win would benefit her more than a defeat, Richard, nor even to acknowledge the question.
Exactly, FDB.
Whoever wins, it’s been a very interesting election and people are going to want to read about it – and the Obama campaign.
This is just a crock.
I have to reluctantly agree with Richard. An Obama win will almost certainly increase sales of any book with “Obama” in the title, no matter what it’s actually about. It could well mean Ifill stands to gain from an Obama win by the tune of a several thousand dollars, possibly more.
Do I personally think it will significantly affect her conduct in the debate? Probably not. Do I personally think her presence will have the slightest impact on the election result? No. But she will inevitably be accused of it doing so.
I wouldn’t surprise me that the Republic party happily endorsed her knowing this, as they except Palin to struggle in the debate, but are counting on the inevitable accusations of moderator bias distracting from this, and perhaps even being enough to prevent a few waverers changing their votes on the basis of Palin’s performance.
I’m not so sure. The whole “Palin piled on by meejah” narrative is falling apart as Palin increasingly shows that she can’t even grasp the questions let alone give persuasive answers. The list of right wingers who are now bemoaning her selection grows almost daily.
Wow, several thousand dollars! That much? I wish I had several thousand dollars coming my way, I’d retire tomorrow.
.
Kim, that sentence is class.
.
BTW Speaking of Ms Palin and irrational feminists: yuck. Truly. And I used to be a fan.
I can’t see how accusations of bias will have any significance for the campaign whatsoever unless Ms Ifill actually demonstrates egregrious bias during the debate itself (which has a zero probability of occurring). Otherwise, the accusations are no more than a trivial addition to the huge volumes of partisan flak already filling the campaign air.
Nabakov, don’t confuse bias with a conflict of interest. I accused her of the latter, not the former. That will have to wait until after the debate.
FDB, if Obama loses he becomes John Kerry. Where is he now? I think he turned up at the DNC, but otherwise he is now a virtual nobody. If Obama becomes President, he is the leader of the free world and people will want to read about him. Books about his rise to power will sell well. I’m not sure why that is a hard concept to understand.
But books about Obama losing the election will sell even better, Kingsley. Bitterness is big business in the States. Stuff anodyne tales of victory – if people feel “We wuz robbed”, they’ll fork out the cash to read about it. So by your reasoning, it’s in Ifill’s best interests to fuck over Biden.
And conflict of interest is such a lame, late charge to throw after eight years of Dick Cheney.
And conflict of interest is such a lame, late charge to throw after eight years of Dick Cheney.
That’s why I’m a little surprised at the vehemence of denial on this blog. After 8 years of hurling invective at Cheney about this very subject, when it is applied to a journalist they tend to agree with, the song changes.
FWIW, I agree with Richard, and I’m not sure why so many people are trying to shut him up, except, as he suggests, because they don’t like the fact that he seems to be picking on one of us.
A conflict of interest is not a good thing, no matter whose it is, whether Cheney or Ifill. There are so many other possible moderators for this debate, including many just as capable and informed as Ifill. She should have recused herself (or whatever that Judge-y term is) from this, and gone and had a cup of tea. Nope, this is the US, she’d have to have bad coffee in an overlarge cardboard cup.
Richard – I’m impressed with how reasonable you managed to be, despite all the half-hearted put-downs.
Yaz, disagreement is hardly equivalent to trying to shut someone up.
I’d also note that the topic of the thread – the two excellent articles which Kim sought to draw attention to – has almost entirely been ignored in favour of Richard’s views on Ifill.
Let me get this clear Rifle Officer Sharpe. You’re arguing without proof or precedent that Ifall stands to benefit financially from an Obama win. So therefore to avoid the perception of bias, she’s likely to take it easy on Palin. But in the highly unlikely event that Palin turns in a less than impressive performance, the possibility of a conflict of interest by Ifull can be spun to the benefit of the McCain campaign.
So what’s your problem here? As someone who doesn’t want an Oval Obama, you should be delighted by this win-win scenario, chuckling away here while the Obama supporters cluck and spin.
And yet the opposite is happening. How can this be?
Perhaps because as has already been pointed out here, that unless Palin comes up with an extempore Gettysburg address for the 21st century or Biden suddenly whips out his Kinnock and shouts “kneel”, the Veep Deebate is unlikely to shift the polls by more than a point or so either way.
The real damage lately has already been done by McCain’s performance during Bailout ‘08. Like an overexcited dog at a drunken domestic, running between everyone’s legs, barking away, jumping up and adding nothing to the occasion except more noise and confusion.
I’m really starting to feel sorry for the poor old bugger. It’s blatantly clear he’s not enjoying this at all and it’s way past his bedtime. “Who do you trust to answer the phone at 3am?” “JUST FUCK OFF WHY DON”T YOU!”
However I doubt this thing is far from signed, sealed and delivered. I never make predictions and I predict I never well but I’m confident the most entertaining PrezRace in decades will still keep delivering more twists and turns.
For example I really hope the McCain campaign goes for broke and wires up Palin for the debate the way Dubya was in 2004. Then we could well be treated to the utterly endearing spectacle of the Governor of Alaska answering a question on fiscal policy by asking the dispatcher to repeat the address and number of passengers.
Incidentally Rifle Officer Sharp, if you like Bernard Cromwell, you should check out George Shipway. Historical military novels for grownups.
If Ifill were working for Obama she would have a conflict of interest. She doesn’t have one, and claims that she does are a bunch of dishonest whining.
Fun fact: Ifill was the moderator in the 2004 Cheney/Edwards debate.
56. ….and was accused of bias.
54. While I am a big fan of the Sharpe series, hence the nom de guerre, these days I read more non-fiction military history books than fiction.
Oh, and the author of those books is Bernard Cornwell.
Oks, back on topic please, no more Gwen Ifill discussion.
“No more Gwen Ifill discussion.”
That’ll be a relief for Rifle Officer Sharpe. I don’t think his little incursion here worked out quite as he planned.
Following on from Berube’s observations, it does appear the McCain campaign is now taking its lead from the Jerry Stringer Show while the Obama campaign is hoping for “The West Wing” and settling for “All Things Considered.” One side is crazybrave but has no convictions at all while the other side has plenty of convictions but little courage.
One’s lashing wildly, the other is jujitsu calm.
The fact that there will be such a thing as a vice-presidential ‘debate’ (!) between two non-entities such Sarah Palin and Joe Biden numbs the mind. Two idiot savants mano a mano. I am predicting Biden to narrowly edge out Palin in the savant stakes, with a dead heat on the idiot side of things.
BBB
“the other is jujitsu calm.”
Until you fall on your arse – at which point it gets spun as too passive.
Look I reckon Obama will probably be better than McCain for America – if only on ability to handle the basic job demands. O’s a youngish tough ruthless unprincipled Chicago pollie with plenty of energy, M’s a cranky old fading warhorse hocking his principles for one last shot at the title. Who would you rather have as the US’s CEO at this time?
And after several months in office, I reckon it’ll become pretty clear to even his most diehard supporters that Obama is just politics as usual. But on the other hand, that should make a nice break from the past eight POTUS years. Give me competent corruption over incompetent corruption any day.
Not really Nabakov, I achieved quite a bit. Collectively you’ve spun yourselves in circles trying to deny what I said. They included a blanket acceptance of capitalist greed, denying the commercial value of the book, vapid comments about Obama’s assassination being a better selling point than his election win (I loved that one), a cunning plot by the Republicans, blithe acceptance of a wait-and-see if the conflict of interest rears its head, sweeping generalisations of the American people and questioning my motives. Collectively, you’re not as amenable to openness and impartiality as you’d like to believe. Despite vehement criticism of Cheney and defence of David Hicks, you’re not as open to transparency and fairness as you’d like to think either.
Smarmy schoolboy comments about Rifle Officer Sharpe didn’t add anything to the discussion, and actually made you look silly for someone who reads “military history for grownups”. Rifle Officer is not, nor ever has been, a form of address or a rank.
I’ve been calm, rational, and reasonable throughout this whole discussion, which is more than I can say for a significant number of the responses I’ve had. I don’t take that personally, I just think that a genuine lack of a coherent and legitimate response means that you don’t have one. I’m fine with that.
Mark, it’s been enlightening. I take the hint. Move along, there’s nothing to see here. Move along.
Well through the magic of linkiness, Richard, I see you’re claiming that your dissent has been crushed!
http://sharpessortie.blogspot.com/2008/10/crushing-dissent.html
As I said, I thought your point had more than its fair share of debate, and I don’t have a book coming out about this thread! You might care to note on the comments policy that we discourage threads turning into ones about the opinions of a single commenter, and it’s not actually an open Palin debate thread, but one about the stuff the post actually talked about.
Did you like that? I thought it was very David marr.
Nabs: I read the Ryan Lizza piece in the nyorker too, just sayin’ that team O’s campaign strat is more rope-a-dope than knockout punch.
They’ve got time, resources, issues, organisation and $$$ on their side so they don’t have to join in the trashing and snarling that Senator You Kids Get Off My Lawn has to do to keep profile up. The Empress of Wasilla is a good example – he picked her out of total desperation, won two whole weeks of news cycles and ten-days of poll bounce until everyone realised what a nong she was. That the whole value of her selection was to rev up the base speaks to the dire situation McCain is faced with.
“Rifle Officer is not, nor ever has been, a form of address or a rank.”
Not a rank true but a form of address yes. You may want to take this up further with Bernard Cornwell.
And why so petulant? You came here looking for a fight, got one and lost. No shame in that. Even Nosey and Boney suffered the odd defeat. Though I don’t recall ‘em trying to so frantically spin their reverses on their own blogs.
C’mon Dickie, stuff upper lip and all that.
Could anyone stand to read Napoleon’s Blog?
Day Three: crushed the Austrians, again. Think I might get them to make a huge bronze statue of me wanking off in Maria Teresa’s face as part of the peace deal. God I’m awesome.
“stuff upper lip and all that.”
Yes, that was a typo but now I’m warming to claiming it was intentional.
“team O’s campaign strat is more rope-a-dope than knockout punch.”
Perhaps. But I reckon the Democratic machine is just as hidebound as the Republican one. If it is rope-a-dope, it’s more improvised tactics than cunning strategy. While the Republicans now appear to have neither.
I don’t think Obama’s any Ali but the other hand McCain’s certainly a Gerry Cooney.
Nabs: I think you’re underselling what is shaping to be a truly terrifying political machine. Bear in mind, these guys kicked the shit out the Clintons in what was by all rights their nomination. Improvisation played a role, but so did mammoth feats of organisation and deep, piercing analysis of the state of play. They’ve been running an incredibly well-organised, well-funded ground operation from day one and it’s paying massive dividends one month out.
Electorally, McCain’s only hope is to hold Ohio and grab Michigan and Pennsylvania. That’s his sole path to victory, while Obama has the Kerry States + New Mex and Iowa solidly in his column and Colorado leaning. The Republican base is depressed and still disorganised and it has to defend, in depth, places it’s never had to defend before – Nevada, Indiana, Virginia, North Carolina. That’s unprecedented for them in recent history and they don’t know how to handle it.
“what is shaping to be a truly terrifying political machine”
Well it’s true Obama cut his teeth in one of the powerhouse crucibles of American politics, Chicago while McCain basically married into an ‘us guys” desert sinecure.
But I retain much confidence in the ability of nervous and entrenched party bureaucracies to fuck up in the final stretch. Having said that, and barring acts of god, force majeure and Biden getting caught pants down and coked up with a moose in a wetsuit in a West Hollywood hotel, I’m calling it for Obama by a spread of around eight to a dozen electoral votes.
Ditto, but spread of 24-30
Having just visited
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com
and
http://www.electoral-vote.com
I now reserve my right to adjust my predictions after the event.
And all facetious comments aside, I do believe this recent growing shift to Obama has been driven by McCain’s completely cynical and ultimately quite useless stunts during the whole bailout hoo-ha – aided and abetted by the Republicans in general trying to game the outcome and blowing it. Which is not say the Democrats didn’t try to do the same as well. But for once their ineffectualism worked for them.
I really don’t think the US electorate is of a mind to enjoying gameplaying at the moment.
#
I’ve been calm, rational, and reasonable throughout this whole discussion, which is more than I can say for a significant number of the responses I’ve had. I don’t take that personally, I just think that a genuine lack of a coherent and legitimate response means that you don’t have one. I’m fine with that.
Mark, it’s been enlightening. I take the hint. Move along, there’s nothing to see here. Move along.
# 65
FFS, you are erroneously assuming that the Australian reading public gives a shit about the moderator-of-the-Veep-debate’s book and whether that gives some minor fillip to Obama in the “debate”. We don’t think this stupid PR exercise is going to determine the outcome of the US election and no matter what the outcome of the “debate”, Sara Palin’s meanderings and body language will be spun to represent (1) the best thing EVAH and (2) Bullied by the nasty Dem, whatever the outcome.
Your obsessive concern about this minor point is comical to say the least.
Uh, not enough coffee yet today for proper syntax. And by “stupid PR exercise” I need to clarify that I meant the debate itself, not the book launch.
Helen, you’re absolutely right: the debates are pure theatre, and they reinforce existing preferences rather than changing minds. Even if one is disappointed in one’s favoured candidate’s performance, all that ensues is rationalisation of how all that lack of scintillation just reflects [insert perceived strength here} and that’s what really matters.
Possibly, just possibly, if one’s favoured candidates gets totally steamrollered in an embarrassing fashion, it might make one decide to stay home instead of going to the polls on the big day. I wonder just how strong that effect is.
Still, I appreciate the theatre. Bring on the beer and nachos!
Nabs: Thought you might after that…
I think it will tighten up come the day – there’s usually some kind of regression to the partisan mean, but the way the underlying structural trends are going I am not ruling out a 360~ Obama landslide.
On todays debate: I will not be watching, her accent makes Baby Jesus cry.
The Huffington Post is reporting that the McCain campaign has given up on Michigan.
An appropriate LOLmacro from PunditKitchen:
see Sarah Palin pictures
Heh!