The mishandling of Sarah Palin


There they go again. The attack dogs drooling over every small piece of personal history in an attempt to drive someone from the stage. In this case it was attack dogs from the blogosphere's Democratic side, and the target, Sarah Palin, is an extremist harpy who is, in fact, unqualified to be on the national stage. However, by focusing on details of her family and personal life, they played into her hands. This is because by making the question as to whether Sarah Palin, the mother and family member is qualified to be on the national stage, they made it so that her speech simply had to be about her ability to read a speech well. The reactions from the Guardian UK: "Sarah Palin storms convention with prime-time speech" and New York Times: "Palin Assails Critics and Electrifies Party", coupled with the glowingly flattering pictures, underline the depth of the Cannaesque blunder of the attack dogs.

Rather than defining her as a frenetic extremist who is a bundle of contradictions: a supposed free-marketeer whose state's residents get large checks from the government, a clean government campaigner who wins elections based on bringing home government pork, a Christianist extremist who is bent on reducing rights while claiming to be part of the Leave-us-alone coalition, they allowed her to defend her family. Suddenly she was not an empty suited attack dog, but a mother defending her family and her way of life, not a politician defending why she should impose that way of life on others, and have others subsidize her choices.

And in doing so they undermined Obama's own post-partisan narrative, since personal attacks are precisely what ordinary Americans define as "partisan politics."

Find this story interesting? Please rec it at Buzzflash, NewsHeat and reddit.

Palin's appointment underlines how far to the right America's political dialog has shifted. To nominate someone in a similar position to Palin, the Democratic Party would have had to nominate, not Russ Feingold, but Cynthia McKinney, as Vice-President. Someone from deep inside of the Democratic urban core with a penchant for reaching farther than the evidence sometimes permits, and whose constituencies thrive on the reddest of red meat politically. It is not an exageration to say that Sarah Palin is less moderate that Ron Paul, or Bob Barr, among Republicans. No Democratic politician, however, would be allowed close to the national stage being as vicious and vociferous as Palin is.

The important thing to realize about Palin is that she is, and was, and will remain, a defensive play by the Republicans. In attacking her directly the blogosphere made one of the oldest mistakes in online politics: do not feed the trolls. By feeding the troll, all the troll had to do was prove, not competence, but ordinary humanity. Palin has been groomed for years for this moment. She was not an unready pick by McCain, but a calculated choice by backers like The Club for Growth.

As a defensive play she is the creature of the "one acre one vote" constituencies of the Republican Party, of the Christianist extremists, of the NASCAR widow moms. A person from the world of anti-choice women, because in that world a woman being anti-choice publicly is part and parcel of a strategy. It is a way of a woman signaling that she isn't going to drain a man's resources in return for just sex, but that he has a chance of producing offspring, and if there are offspring, they will live. The story of her pregnant daughter underlines how this process works: her boyfriend is now a father to be and husband to be and not just a prop on the way to an ultimate marriage. Sperm competition in action.

As a defensive play her job was to engage, in a way they had not been engaged, the far right wing hinterlands, and the attack dogs of the right. McCain, as a tired old wax candle that is more than half way to melting, excites little love among them. The energy for McCain was in 2000-2004, but as soon as McCain-Feingold was passed, so too was his political moment. His entire campaign now is that he is a successful gambler. That the surge was a gamble that worked. Now Palin adds to it. McCain took a gamble, she paid off last night.

Thus instead of marginalizing Palin, the attacks made her mainstream. Even extremists have children.

-:-

What lessons should be drawn from this? The first lesson is the simplest. Media abhors a message vacuum. The reason for the attacks from the left is that the left has little reason to vote. Provided with a surrogate in their own personal narrative of escaping a sexually charged, and yet sexually repressed, reactionary family under a domineering parent, they could not resist attacking it. They are also not excited about Obama. Who is talking about Obama's speech now? Who talked about it the moment Palin was announced? The clear failure of Obama's strategy of making himself a messiah figure with arena rock overtones - REO Speedwagon, or in a nod to Chicago those rock Reaganites, Styx, set to politics - is seen by a simple fact. As soon as Palin was released his big power ballad was blown right out of number one.

It is also a sign of the abject failure of Obama's ability to harness the blogosphere. Rather than providing message that could be followed, Obama's campaign was adrift on Palin message, and this created the void that angry and bored bloggers flowed into.

The second lesson is one of audience. Palin is poisonous in her politics to the middle: she represents the leeches that are sucking their blood through higher oil prices. She represents the ex-urbanite war voters who adhere, still, to Bushims. She is, however, rather much like them in their personal lives. She wants to raise good children who mind their parents. So too do Hillary voters, Obama voters, and almost every other voter. Now that evolution and society require that children take chances and make choices, is something that they struggle with, but Palin's prescription: lay down harsh rules and clean up the mess, is not unfamiliar as a parenting style across the country. Palin's person is that of a suburban sports mom, or small time family trying to make ends meet. It isn't the reality of her carefully vetted and carefully crafted rise to power, but it is how she presents.

The audience should then, have been to the person who is paying too much for gasoline, who is tied to the metropolitan growth economy. Palin's politics, despite their differences, are not far from Hugo Chavez' politics: oil socialism and moralizing about the state of her people. By attacking her personal life, this was obliterated.

The last lesson is flexibility. Having followed the Village-Americans down the road of personal attacks, the blogosphere needs to learn not, not ever, follow the Village-Americans in their narratives. The Village attacked her person as a way of seeing if she would play on a national stage, to see if she had the June Cleaver Teflon. Having made it through this, the Village-Americans, and even their British counter-parts, are now throwing themselves at the latest Republican creation. Palin is not going to be dragged down, but lifted up after having been knocked, and not too hard.

The blogosphere must now make the best of a bad thing. Palin is proof that politics has not changed, that we are given the average between a soft Reaganite like Obama, a bankruptcy bill loving Biden, and a warhead McCain, and extremist Palin. This covers the American political spectrum from about L to X, and thus averages, where it has for some time, on R.

Having attacked, she cannot be attacked for what she plainly is: Ann Coulter who doesn't need a face lift and facial feminization surgery. Having been vetted, all carping about her past is now old news. She's on the stage. The strategy is to get people to think about what her politics means, and how she is a series of contradictions. She's a welfare queen Republican. And that is what she needs to be portrayed as.

Her politics don't add up. She's a free market socialist: her state lives on checks from oil socialism. She's an anti-family June Cleaver, voting to slash funds for other people's disabled children, even as she has ridden on Easy Street up the ladder. She's an anti-choice libertarian: for a broad reading of the 2nd amendment, and a narrow reading of all the others. She's small government on libraries, and big government on bridges and hockey rinks. Lower taxes on home owners, while she pries pennies from children for their afternoon snack.

Palin doesn't make sense as a politician. And it as a politician that she needs to be attacked.


Stirling Newberry September 4, 2008 - 7:17am
( categories: USA: Campaign 2008 )

great comment. the Obama campaign needs to get more aggressive on the right issues, and it is clear that most progressive bloggers completely misunderstand Palin's appeal.

you mean Secessionist Sarah delivered her speech well, i suppose. she is a politician, and she had 5 days to practice the speech. according to Andrea Mitchell on NBC, the speech was written before she was even interviewed, and then edited to suit her after she was picked.

i just hope the dems point out how as mayor of 5000 pop town she did so badly they asked her to hire a city manager. and how she left them in 22 million debt. or her connection to a secessionist (terrorist?) group that her hubby belongs to.

on the one hand the way the GOP has been spinning this is so funny it's like watching laugh-in or saturday night live. on the other hand, it is verrrrry scary. lotsa peeps around the bible belt are loving Palin and identifying with her. and she and McCain will trot out her pregnant child every chance they get as a badge of their anti-abortion credentials. the scary thing is there are alot of people in this country that think that is what america oughta look like. she will solidify their base. the question is whether her appeal goes beyond that. if the former, they lose big. if the latter... America is gonna be taken down and field-dressed by the plunderers who have been running this country the past 8 years.

joe in oklahoma September 4, 2008 - 9:01am

Are you equating the desire for freedom and independence and self-determination with terrorism? That's a bizarre, not to mention profoundly and deeply un-American suggestion. Haven't you ever heard of the Declaration of Independence? Doesn't really make sense either, considering that the federal government is itself engaged in institutionalized terrorism - so secession really could be seen as one method of combating terrorism.

Support for the federal government certainly constitutes support for the military-industrial complex and for perpetual war, no one can seriously deny that at this point. And no one can possibly claim with a straight face that there is any chance that the Democrats or Republicans will change anything. Obama and McCain are both equally committed to expanding the military. Secession, devolution or disbanding the union, or something on those lines, may not be the answers, but it's more than obvious that the 18th century federal model and union are no longer functioning and are breaking down, and it is essential and urgent that we begin to explore alternatives and figure out a way to govern all of the peoples that constitute America. Referring to people who have the vision and courage to consider that there might possibly be better ways of running this country as terrorists doesn't really accomplish much but perpetuate the military-industrial complex and cause more people to die.

jonbrown September 4, 2008 - 1:40pm

America fought the Civil War over this issue. Case closed.

tjfxh September 4, 2008 - 1:43pm

will never be closed, so long as humans exist and are human.

Bolo September 4, 2008 - 4:53pm

freedom and independence, secession from the Union is considered to be an an extremist position in America. Moreover, a war was fought to prevent its happening. Anyone who thinks that the situation is now up for change is not only an extremist but deluded as well. Especially Republicans. The founder the GOP was Abraham Lincoln, whose mission as president of the United States was to "preserve the union" all any cost. Palin doesn't seem to know her American history very well.

tjfxh September 4, 2008 - 5:40pm

good point!
usually in this country we try to change things not destroy them.

joe in oklahoma September 4, 2008 - 6:23pm

well, wait till foreigners start buying up more property and/or resources via "investments" and "soverign investment funds!"

i.e. I envision that most humans will have as much importance as the animals which scurry around ANWR.

mrmx September 4, 2008 - 7:07pm

as we speak, it appears she will not be doing interviews or taking questions. Firedoglake has more but the site seems to be having problems right now.

Tina September 5, 2008 - 1:34pm

FDL
and here.

Tina September 5, 2008 - 1:46pm

of course i am not equating the desire for freedom with terrorism. that is absurd. i agree that our government for many years has served corporate interests more than the people, and i am not head-over-heals in love with Obama. but it seems to me that responsible citzenship should try to change who governs in the current system b4 trying to destroy the system.
the AIP is a rightwing libertarian group that has called for the destruction of the US government. and the founder is buried in canada, because he hated the US. that is completely different that trying to change the government. these people are not interested in freedom.

joe in oklahoma September 4, 2008 - 5:33pm

Fox News was on at the barbershop last night as I was waiting to get my hair cut. I couldn't believe what these idiots had handed them.

I almost wish I had a car so I could get a bumpersticker:

Obama/Biden - The other side's even worse!

Beto September 4, 2008 - 9:07am

Some blame has to be put on the KOS blog with its premature - unconfirmed - rumour mongering about her Down's syndrome child really being the daughter's. Huge mistake. ROOKIE mistake. This is the kind of mistake neophytes make.

I can't believe we're not hearing more about her association with the Alaska secessionist party.

Lesson: Keep your powder dry and you don't fire at the first sight ot the enemy - wait till you see the whites of their eyes.

KingElvis September 4, 2008 - 9:10am

as far as I can tell. On Monday the first, he said there was not sufficient evidence for it. What happened is some obscure user posted it in a kos diary. Anyone can post a kos diary; it doesn't imply editorial endorsement. The McCain campaign, and following their lead the MSM, have chosen to treat this as something Kos said, just as they earlier held moveon responsible for the Hitler ad posted on their site. To my knowledge, no major bloggers ran with this. We can't support narratives like this that are ultimately aimed at undermining the open comment nature of the internet by holding site proprietors responsible for everything said, which they can only be if they impose fairly thorough censorship.

OF course, kos has left himself open for this by practicing half-assed censorship. Certain types of diaries will be deleted from dailykos as a matter of policy, and probably others from discretion. This makes it a little harder for kos to claim that a failure to censor does not constitute a tacit endorsement. And he has erred on the other side. The Foley scandal first broke on kos as an email from an claimed insider compaining about Foley hitting on pages. Since anyone can claim inside information about anything on the Internet, such claims cannot be taken seriously without further support. Kos deleted it. Very defensibly: if he's going to delete anything , he should delete stuff like that. Nonetheless, that turned out to be true.

Really, though, kos gets hundreds of posts a day; he can't really monitor them all, especially when a charge like this would require investigation to evaluate. I think kos just looks for specific things, like 9/11 conspiracy theories, to censor. Bristol Palin is not anything he nor anyone else would be looking for. It's the same problem with AOL's position: you can be a common carrier or you can have editorial control, but splitting the difference will create accountability problems. This is intrinsic to what we do here, so we should be very wary about accepting such attacks, much less joining them.

mbento September 4, 2008 - 6:55pm

all the diaies, that is what he has helpers for. He allows stuff like that to stay up/be posted because it serves a purpose, it does the dirty work for Obama - which is why I believe Obama has made a point of distancing himself from the bloggers. Shitty deal the way I see it.

Just like the boyz allowed their blogs to eviserate Hillary(that way Obama could say his campaign didn't do it, even tho he himself made a few sexist statements), which is why the a-listers have lost a lot of respect from those on the net with a conscious.

Tina September 5, 2008 - 2:29am

If I post a diary or comment here and Sean or you do not delete it, can you be taken to endorse the contents? Even if you explicitly disavow it? That is the standard you are defending Tina. This is not an attack on Kos; it is an attack on the blogosphere. Indeed, most of the media coverage generalizes the responsibility to the liberal blogosphere. If site proprietors cannot permit ideas and claims to be posted without an endorsement being inferred, this medium is finished. After all, there can be no dialog without opposing views, and under this standard site proprietors would have to censor views or claims they don't endorse. And you're going to endorse this because you're still pissed about what some kos diarists said about Hillary?

mbento September 5, 2008 - 12:19pm

I don't agree with but if I or someone ask for some credible backup it is expected that members supply it. It is the pattern of behavior at kos that lowers their credibility. The endless sexist misogynist statements made by their members can only say that the site owner did not have a problem with what was being written or recommended.

I don't have a problem with people disagreeing, it is how they disagree that matters. It is the words they use and the attitude they portray. I'm sure things have been missed on this site that probably should not have been posted, but we have removed things when it has been brought to our attention. Btw dkos lost me way before the primaries, the primaries only sealed the deal.

Tina September 5, 2008 - 1:04pm

Kos can recruit all the helpers he wants, but the sheer number of diaries and comments - ye gods, the comments! - would overwhelm a government bureau, let alone an efficient organization.

Sean-Paul and the editors welcome opinions and fact-based cites here regardless of their POV - so long as trolling, stalking, and crude personal attacks on other posters are avoided - and especially threats or expressions of Bad Things against any person, public or private though they may be. Yes, it's always a judgement call. Yes, some folks have been kicked from here, after much "Agonized" discussion among the editorial crew. No, Sean-Paul and his editors don't imply support of any viewpoint unless expressly stated, nor do they necessarily agree with the rebuttals to a post or comment. What is encouraged here is the civil exchange of ideas and opinions without the baggage of talking points or tin foil. Perfect? Absolutely not! Moderated? yes, to maintain a semblance of rationality. Censored? Not unless an individual wants to piss on our legs and insist it's raining.

All this is to say that I don't agree with Tina (sorry, I love you Candy!) that silence must mean agreement; no committee of humans could police a site with the traffic of Daily Kos. I don't share the opinion that everything posted there bears Markos' seal of approval - he's too busy trying to build a career to vet the posts of 175,000+ members. I don't believe that's true of Red State or O'Reilly's site either, but who would bother posting contrary opinions there? The Kool-Aid drinkers prevail.



"What we have here is, failure to communicate"

Rick September 5, 2008 - 4:07pm

the volume it is impossible but I'm talking about the recommended diaries that the fp'ers participate in, those are not hidden or buried. I do think the tone is set by the owner, the members post what they can get away with, which is about anything. And it isn't just about Hillary, look at the attacks on Palin and her daughter. There is so much to attack Palin on without sinking to such a low level. And yano Rick I only play a prude where anyone in the world can read. :D I'm done with dkos, my new bitch is at Talk Left lol

Tina September 5, 2008 - 6:26pm

Those comments leave me speechless. I am without speech.



"What we have here is, failure to communicate"

Rick September 5, 2008 - 10:48pm

and I'm not sure even deleting all the stuff will bring it back. I went there to read BTD but he stopped posting over it. I see he is back but I don't know why. I would not want to be associated went any of that. Jeralyn had all these posts on the FP about not attacking the Palins and then flipped and went Cheney.

I didn't read the whole thread(sedation comment) I got the link from a thread at Corrente. I can't believe she is an attorney. What ammo against her.

Tina September 5, 2008 - 11:11pm

Simple road. Three things. All negative. All about the other side.

Palin: You pay for her at the pump.

Stirling Newberry September 4, 2008 - 9:32am

This is why I voted "great choice" in the poll a few days ago. She was picked to energize a particular segment of the population that was not quite as on-board the McCain train as the Republicans would have liked. The initial lib/Dem attacks against her were clearly failing, although I hadn't realized the extent of the failure until reading this post. The one thing that has struck me most prominently is how Obama's "great, historic, blah blah blah" speech in Denver was pretty much dropped from the news cycle as soon as Palin was announced.

Bolo September 4, 2008 - 10:15am

The GOP strategy is identity politics. "I'm like you and the other guy is not." They are so far from being issue-oriented they think that they have the right to lie about the facts to "create reality." (Finally, the AP called Palin out on stretching the truth in her speech, i.e., the speech written for her that she read effectively.)

The Dems are primarily issue-oriented, and they seek to establish identity through issues, based on reasoning from factual evidence and commonly agreed upon presuppositions and norms. The GOP easily attacks them as hypocrites since they are not poor, struggling workers (like Palin) or ex-POW war heroes (like McCain), but elitist Washington insiders who are out of touch (never mind the facts).

The Dems have to learn to (1) attack the Republicans as unlike the vast majority of voters, and (2) to establish themselves as like voters not only with respect to issues but also symbols.

Dems may not like the GOP symbols like jingoism masking as patriotism, social control pretending to be family values, bluster posing as strength, etc. but they had better figure out their own version of such symbols that works.

Attacking GOP symbols directly instead of as right wing code coupled with hypocrisy comes across as attacking patriotism, family values, national and personal strength, etc. Being too issue-oriented comes across as being weak and wonky. Actually, Bill Clinton got it about right, but he had enormous charisma and yet he also had to triangulate to do it, or at least thought he did.

The Dems need to attack John McCain as a flawed man — a philanderer who dumped his first wife for a trophy (As his fist wife said, "John wanted to be 25, not 40"), a corrupt politician (the Keating Five) who was reprimanded by the Senate Ethics Committee for his role in the S&L scandal, a flip-flopper who has thrown over all his supposed principles to pander to the extremist right wingnut base, who has a reputation for an uncontrollable temper, and who is getting senile if he is not just plain stupid (doesn't know the difference between Shia and Sunni). Did I forget anything?

Palin is a side issue, a distraction. And the Dems need to do a lot more than remind the voters that John McCain voted with George Bush 90 % of the time.

The Dems need to utterly destroy McCain as a credible political choice, and if they have any guts and savvy, it won't be hard to do, given his character record.

Progressives may bemoan it, but there is no credible left in the US at this point. We may on the verge of a new Zeitgeist (I wrote a dairy on this previously) but the conservative Zeitgeist ushered in by Goldwater and brought to power by Reagan is not yet played out and the left is still having to triangulate, with the Overton window being shifted so far to the right.

However, what is unsustainable cannot continue forever, and the reckoning will come sooner or later, at which point the Zeitgeist will shift again, either lurching further right into fascism or to the left, as progressives get their chance to clean up the mess and launch the country in a fresh direction.

Looming on the horizon, however, is the rise of China. What's in store was foreshadowed by the Chinese determination to beat the US in the Olympics by getting more gold -- which they did handily once they focused their energy and intention (qi, yi) on it. The West, principally the Brits, raped China economically in the past, and the Chinese have not forgotten this. There is payback coming, although it may take a couple of decades.

I bring this up here because the longer the conservative era lasts, and the degree to which eventually change does not completely disavow it, the worse the Chinese reaction against the West will be when they take over the reins of global economic might, hence power. A McCain/Palin administration would be disastrous in this regard. McCain would not be able to restrain himself from attempting to further antagonize and humiliate China, and Palin's pseudo-Christian bluster would be even more offensive to them (and Islam) then Cheney's jingoistic war-mongering and Bush's "moral" posturing. The Chinese really, really do not like being humiliated, and they will repay in kind. Be assured of that. I'll be gone by then, but if I were younger, I'd be paying great attention to this — and everything else Liu has to say (he is writing chiefly to inform and influence the Chinese leadership here).

tjfxh September 4, 2008 - 10:29am

The Dems are primarily issue-oriented, and they seek to establish identity through issues, based on reasoning from factual evidence and commonly agreed upon presuppositions and norms.

do you have proof, like IQ scores, that party affiliation translates into intelligence?

i.e. I know plenty of intelligent democrats and plenty of intelligent republicans.

mrmx September 4, 2008 - 12:52pm

I have never seen a study relating IQ to party affiliation, but here is one by red state/blue state. Here's a funny graphic on this. I have seen studies on occupation and party affiliation, although I don't have the reference handy. As I recall, the GOP base is largely conservative working and lower middle class, especially those who regard themselves as very religious — many Southerners and Reagan Dems, small business owners, and corporate execs. The Dem party major categories comprise the severely disadvantaged, union workers, professionals, educators and other more highly educated members of the middle class, as well as a surprisingly significant portion of the really wealthy. Of course, both parties have a distribution of other demographics but they share these other categories. The ones cited are the stand-outs.

tjfxh September 4, 2008 - 1:28pm

the other question is: how many democrats are democrats because of personal conviction or because of the bottom line?

Bush, for example, has fought universities and secured more positions for conservatives.

thus, when the "group think" is busted, we'll see, perhaps, different statistics since the underlying causes were chronyism and gerrymandering.

I say this mostly because educational institutions used to rely more heavily on government funding and democrats, of course, embraced big government. in today's world, some of these institutions have huge endowments and are funded by debt so perhaps that would push an ideological shift? especially since government grants can no longer fuel the desired growth at universities.

mrmx September 4, 2008 - 2:22pm

Palin was carefully selected to appeal to Joe Sixpack and the Hockey moms by tne CNP. The idiots who played right into their hands with the pregnancy thing were unbelievably naive.

Norquist, LaHaye and the rest of the CNP are probably slapping each other on the back right now.

Look for Palin to do the heavy campaign speechifying at places like auto plants, Wal-Marts and other hangouts of the proletariat.

The media flacks are already conjuring up the spirit of Harry Truman.

Petronius September 4, 2008 - 11:19am

McCain has to keep his base while winning enough independents. Palin is red meat for the base, but can she pass muster as "one of us" of independents. Dunno about that.

She's really pretty much an extremist. More so than just about any of the Bush crowd that hasn't been in the background. Most of the extremists of this level have been "operatives" instead of mainstream elected politicians outside really red states.

The headline in the local paper in AM was a Repub operative hailing Palin as a "maverick" trying to flog her to independents as one of the them. Most independents I know aren't creationist fundies who think that climate change isn't man-made, etc.

I think this is going to be a tough sell for the GOP, especially if the Dems stop attacking her superficially and go for the political throat — her extremism that puts her out of the mainstream and very far right of the center. Palin is at the right edge of the Overton window as it is presently position, and that window has been moving left since the 2006 elections.

tjfxh September 4, 2008 - 12:55pm

But rather to the rural Ohioans, particularly the males, ironically enough. A Christian gun-toting mommy.

Petronius September 4, 2008 - 1:01pm
mauberly September 4, 2008 - 7:50pm

I have a feeling that a lot of people voted for Reagan because he reminded them of their (daddy, uncle, grandpa). Of course, those who had to endure his mangling of California as governor knew better.

How many presidential elections are actually about the issues?

Petronius September 4, 2008 - 8:00pm

her extremism that puts her out of the mainstream and very far right of the center.

I don't think she's all that extreme. I supported Dennis Kucinich and he was pro-life because he couldn't imagine anything else and I truely weep for those who have to abort life. Pro-life, I'd say, is at the core of nationalism since it's about the extreme security of knowing that individuals are protected in a society and, most importantly, that my own diversity is protected.

She also waves around the 2nd admendment and, certainly, guns are an important, powerful, unconcious symbol of self determination and self protection.

Certainly, pro-life, pro-gun folks will never achieve such a society but their motivations, I think, come from the right place.

What makes Palin mainstream and contemporary, in my mind, is that she uses her mind to secure the good life and, in this era of globalization, that psychology connects: we're in it together as long as I can perform!

Obama's narrative struggles since, in this post 9/11 chaotic world, it almost ludacris to envision a world organized around peace and social justice.

mrmx September 4, 2008 - 1:16pm

She is for the secession of Alaska from the Union (it's "our" oil taken to the extreme), believes that it is "God's will" that the US is in Iraq. This is pretty extreme. And KO and Rachel Maddow haven't even done their stuff yet, not to mention Stewart and Colbert.

Oh, and she is also a proven liar.

tjfxh September 4, 2008 - 1:38pm

well, some claim that we're in Iraq for the oil (secular reasons) while others say it's God (empire). I'm certainly extreme since I don't believe that any war is legal but, yes, the genie is out of the bottle and caught our imaginations in different ways.

mrmx September 4, 2008 - 2:39pm

McCain's not a fool, but he's not temperamentally capable of "carefully selecting" a donut. People grow over the years, but this is something McCain hasn't addressed for one simple psychological reason: he thinks it's a virtue rather than a disability.

This seems to me to be precisely what it is on its face: a rash, hurried decision, taken in the heat of battle, a decision not without some arguable merit (because he's rash but he's not an idiot), but from the gut, and with minimal consultation and the bare minimum of research.

The spin machine is trying to portray it as brilliant because to do otherwise is to spotlight his unfitness to be trusted with decisions. The base is delighted. The intelligentsia are secretly appalled.

Peggy Noonan nailed it: it's over. It's obvious Palin wasn't even cursorily vetted - she's one more Harriet Miers/Bernie Kerik-shaped nail in the GOP's coffin.


"The best-informed man is not necessarily the wisest. Indeed there is a danger that precisely in the multiplicity of his knowledge he will lose sight of what is essential."

- Dietrich Bonhoeffer

Escher Sketch September 4, 2008 - 3:28pm
  • After viewing Palin’s speech, a greater number of respondents across all parties believe that McCain’s selection of the first-term Alaska governor will help his campaign. Republicans were especially positive, with nearly three-quarters suggesting the pick will “definitely” help.
  • After viewing the speech, 70 percent of Republicans say they will “definitely” vote for the McCain/Palin ticket.
  • After viewing the speech, there is a 9 percent increase in the number of Independents that will “probably’ or “definitely” vote McCain/Palin.
  • Palin’s speech proved to be equally effective in swaying votes for both men and women.
  • Among Independents who watched Palin’s speech, respondents who reported they will “probably” or “definitely” vote for McCain increased by 10 percent across both genders -- around 38 percent for females and 36 percent for males.

[SOURCE]

mrmx September 4, 2008 - 3:33pm

it's a choice that is not without some defensible merits, McCain's not an idiot.

But this is Week One stuff. Wait for the real fruits of the decision to mature. It's over.

[edited to add - Frank Luntz focus group, Minnesota, undecided voters: ]


"The best-informed man is not necessarily the wisest. Indeed there is a danger that precisely in the multiplicity of his knowledge he will lose sight of what is essential."

- Dietrich Bonhoeffer

Escher Sketch September 4, 2008 - 3:35pm

But this is Week One stuff. Wait for the real fruits of the decision to mature. It's over.

I think that, statistically, the "he said" versus "she said" will be a wash.

almost every progressive identified person I know wasn't happy with Obama's FISA vote and the difference they saw evaporated.

mrmx September 4, 2008 - 5:22pm

Watch the Luntz video. You might find it's not very much concerned with what you're dismissing as the "he said, she said". A lot of the voiced concerns are about far more easily verifiable and less malleable truths - her non-entity, her hard-right-wing, out-of-the-mainstream views, her utter lack of relevant experience.

almost every progressive identified person I know wasn't happy with Obama's FISA vote and the difference they saw evaporated.

She's anti-choice, pro-gun and pro-drilling, a hard right-winger, but "progressives" told you the differences they saw evaporated. OK, sure. If you say so.


"The best-informed man is not necessarily the wisest. Indeed there is a danger that precisely in the multiplicity of his knowledge he will lose sight of what is essential."

- Dietrich Bonhoeffer

Escher Sketch September 4, 2008 - 5:58pm

as you know, everyone has their hot button isssues.

The wedge issue for progressives. I think, is "education" and I think that folks are ready for vouchers and privatization.

Thus, voters will ignore choice, guns and drilling and support mccain on education. Of course, I could be agressive with the timing...

mrmx September 4, 2008 - 6:09pm

Really. Out of all the issues in play in this election - that's what you think the wedge issue is going to be for progressives - education.

OK.


"The best-informed man is not necessarily the wisest. Indeed there is a danger that precisely in the multiplicity of his knowledge he will lose sight of what is essential."

- Dietrich Bonhoeffer

Escher Sketch September 4, 2008 - 6:23pm

at the university, I was told that the american military spends more on education than anyone else so education is really a non-partisan issue.

what I do see is a change from our human based approach to one based on metrics and based on work like The Numerati.

Corportations, of course, have long been profiling their employees and this technogly should find its way into mainstream classrooms.

My vision is that we're going to move away from "teacher quality" towards "learning ability" since educational institutions are supposed to create humans which are capable of using their minds to advance humanity.

I say this based on the published warnings of several piano masters: "remember, practicing won't get you where you want to go since it's all about mental concentration!"

an analogy would be Patrick Swayze in the movie Ghost with Demi Moore.

mrmx September 4, 2008 - 7:28pm

was this irony? I sincerely hope so.

I say this based on the published warnings of several piano masters: "remember, practicing won't get you where you want to go since it's all about mental concentration!"


"The best-informed man is not necessarily the wisest. Indeed there is a danger that precisely in the multiplicity of his knowledge he will lose sight of what is essential."

- Dietrich Bonhoeffer

Escher Sketch September 4, 2008 - 10:37pm

no, not at all. lance armstrong-- that famous biker, was talking about "genetic doping" and fantasized that it wouldn't be detectible and I think it's just a matter of time until "genetic doping" impacts intelligence.

another example: one of my of my piano pedagogy books claims that the introduction of the piano killed music since composures and the rest of the world standardized on the chromatic scale.

I personally hope that vouchers bring diversity back into education!

mrmx September 4, 2008 - 11:22pm

Let's teach creationism right along with evolution. Discuss earth-centered cosmology with the same zeal as Copernicus' discoveries. Teach astrology and astronomy one after the other!

More metrics are also the wave of the future - it's working out really well these days under NCLB! Soon all of our schools will fail, and we'll just have to privatize in order to compete! That' the trifecta! Corporate welfare, religious indoctrination at the public expense, and crush the unions! Let's all hop right on that bus.

Anyway - that's enough food for tonight.


"Frankly, we've lost a lot in recent years." - General Colin Powell

Raja September 4, 2008 - 11:38pm

don't we all value diversity

well, you mentioned corporate and religous indoctrination to identify groups of humans that you feel angry and/or isolated from. I'm not taunting you; everyone has their boundries.

Soon all of our schools will fail...

our schools will be collaterl damage since the underlying culture is changing as globalization heats up and resources are allocated differently; the vikings, romans, etc... all faced change and had to yield.

and it's not about hopping on the bus since you'll either be dragged along or roadkill.

mrmx September 5, 2008 - 1:13am

Well, those views on the chromatic scale are a bit... wacky and extreme.

I suppose if you were to define music so narrowly as to exclude Duke Ellington, Art Tatum, Keith Jarrett, Chick Corea, McCoy Tyner, Cecil Taylor et al the world might look as bizarre as that.

But it's not an insight. It's an artifact generated by limiting the scope of the argument to the point of absurdity. Personally, I'd invest in a broader selection of books.

As far as this quote:

"remember, practicing won't get you where you want to go since it's all about mental concentration!"

- as phrased - and I stress that because I don't know how it was originally put - it's complete crap. It's not "all about mental concentration" at all. It's partly about mental concentration, but an enormous part of performance is "athleticism written small"; musicians build a library of movements through intensive training.

Flatly: no debutante is going to "mental concentration" their way through 32nd-note arppegios at 116 BPM on a violin. That's all about trained musculature, and trained kinesthetic appreciation of precisely how the intervals compress in distance as one progresses up the neck. Because you don't get to "correct" at that tempo, by the time you've heard the note you just played you're three notes further into the passage. Your fingers need to land in the correct position completely without mental concentration, through rigorous and disciplined training of good habits.

So as expressed, because I leave room for an otherwise intelligent observation to have been mangled in the transmission through misunderstanding, it's every bit as ridiculous a statement as telling an Olympic athlete "remember, training won't get you where you want to go since it's all about mental concentration!"

In short, it's a fine thing to tell a person who's already training intensively. By itself, any musician would recognize it as ridiculous.

And that's totally leaving aside the question of "where you want to go". Woody Guthrie, Julian Bream and Jimi Hendrix wanted to go to different places.


"The best-informed man is not necessarily the wisest. Indeed there is a danger that precisely in the multiplicity of his knowledge he will lose sight of what is essential."

- Dietrich Bonhoeffer

Escher Sketch September 6, 2008 - 11:38am

...

ww September 6, 2008 - 12:02pm

Chickadee September 6, 2008 - 5:49pm

the writer seems like a good person and he taught at Harvard, Oxford and the University of Chicago, so i'll give him some slack. moreover, every book I have repeats that line that it's all mental and: "once you start hitting the key, it's over" especially because you have to start thinking about your next note.

your comment about olympic atheletes seem archaic; if you read the september issue of "Fast Company," you'd see how much elective surgery that atheletes are having these days simply to increase their performance and extend their carears; moreover, it was well publicized that the US olympic swimmers had their lactic acid levels checked betwen races and wore Speedo Swimsuits which dispersed water more efficently than skin. On top of this, the olympic pool was deeper and wider so reflected waves wouldn't slow the swimmers down.

Of course you can stick your head in the sand and believe in pure humanism, but that's your choice. But it's fairly clear that the author of the book I read was intelligent and aware and was simply saying that insanity is about doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results; I found his book compeling because he seemed really good at efficiently improving his skills.

no debutante is going to "mental concentration" their way through 32nd-note arppegios at 116 BPM on a violin.

when I play high BPM's like that, it's all mental because I can't verbalize the rhythm; thus, it has to be internally generated. your comment about "muscle memory" misses the mark since something has to train the muscles and it's the mind; moreover, a 10 minute yoga warmup helps me a lot more than practicing 10 more minutes.

mrmx September 6, 2008 - 5:55pm

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.