Tuesday, September 02, 2008

The 'left' goes right (and it's not pretty)

Barbara Starr (CNN) reports US Secretary of Defense "Robert Gates is expected to present proposals to cut U.S. troop levels in Iraq to President Bush, along with proposals for beefing up American forces in Afghanistan".  Barring some huge change of direction at this week's Republican Party convention, the two major parties will both be offering the American people cuts and calling them "withdrawal."  Turning to the US presidential race, not content to disgrace themselves on the front page of the New York Times today, the press decided to do so at the White House.  "One last question for you," a reporter who will remain nameless asks, "because this is another on that you hear a lot --  this issue is raising a lot of questions and sort of prompting a lot of debate about -- the idea of Sarah Palin, mother of five, soon to be grandmother of one, coming to Washington potentially as a vice president, in the most demanding job one could imagine. Any issues raised there about the whole motherhood-work divide?"  Pay attention to Dana Perino (White House flack) responding because even WMC blows it (and Feminist Wire Daily still doesn't appear to have noticed a woman had been named as a running mate), " You know, I don't think that those questions would be asked if it was Todd Palin that was the nominee. And I think that Sarah Palin has proven that you can choose as a woman to be a mother and be a strong executive, and to have a wonderful, loving family. And that's what she's chosen to do. And I think that's why the party has rallied around her so fully."  Exactly right.  Dana Perino got something 100% right today -- a rare thing for her.  But not only was it rare for her, it's too much for many 'lefties.'  The question WOULD NOT and HAS NOT been asked of a man.  But Palin, John McCain's running mate pick if he gets the GOP nomination, is being 'probed' in what should damn well remind many of the crap Kimba Woods and others had to put up with over 15 years ago.  It wasn't right then, it's not now.  The paper of little record tries to hide behind "Mommy Wars" to 'cover' the non-story.  Susan (Random Thoughts) gets right to the point, noting no one gives a damn about Barak's two children while he's on a ticket but Palin is supposed to be uanble to have kids and run for VP: "The article reeks of sexism. The message is clear: If you're a woman and you've just had kids, don't bother running for high political office."  Joseph (Cannonfire) notes the garbage that's been thrown at Palin already (false rumors) and where it's coming from: The Daily Toilet Scrubber and Andrew Bareback Mountain Sullivan.  Somehow Bob Somerby, covering similar terrain, can only hiss at Andy Sullivan -- well Somerby's always been scared of his own shadow.  As for a non-rumor regarding Palin's family that is also non-news, my opinion is here and Anglachel offers her own here.  It's a real shame that Stephanie Miller (who wants no one digging through her closets) has chosen to demonstrate just how trashy she is on this topic and it's even sadder that Women's Media Center finds her to be a voice worth quoting in an article.  As pointed out here last night, "And 'scoring' a 'win' for Barack via smut only further adds to the perception that he has nothing to run on and no qualifications. Why else would you be tearing into a young girl?"
The RNC is currently holding their convention and will select their presidential nominee (presumably John McCain).  Amy Goodman's already found attention getting stunts to get her name in the headlines.  She could have pulled the same stunts in Denver and faced the same police treatment.  But Denver was about her selling the Democratic Party and Minneapolis is about her tarring and feathering the RNC.  (Most years, we generally let the RNC tar and feather itself.  But it's CrackPot time these days.)  Ava and I addressed Goody's garbage Sunday but two things need to be noted Obama Groupie Patricia Wilson-Smith LIED on air and got away with it.  She said early on (sticking with the talking point) that she was for Hillary originally, as she became more heated she wanted the whole world to know about the work she's been doing: ". . . I've been working so tirelessly over the last year and a half for Senator Obama".  It's not both ways.  Wilson-Smith lied.  Get used to it.  You'll see a lot more woman trying to tell you they were Hillary supporters at the start and then went over to Barack with the implication being that you can as well!  Don't believe liars.  Do what you want, but don't believe liars.  The second thing is that, as noted, there was no convention bounce for Barack.  As Ava and I noted:
The Thursday speech was a whimper (and as we feared last week, no one taught Barack to modulate). The entire week was a Love-In. Only, unlike past love-ins, it wasn't about "us" (however, you define the noun), it was about Barack. 

Try to get it if you support Barack (we don't) because you (his supporters and the media) continue to hurt his chances of winning in November. Americans want to elect a president to work for them. Americans aren't electing a Love God, a Second Coming, a Homecoming King. James Carville has famously (and rightly) called the first night as a disaster. It was a disaster. The disaster continued all week, with few exceptions.  

The convention was supposed to bring America on board. What was being sold? It wasn't the Democratic Party. It wasn't a need to make the country better. It was Barack, Barack, Barack, Barack. Over and over.  

Here's reality that the campaign better start accepting: Barack is not experienced. 

That's a reality. America will gladly take a chance on a candidate if they believe the candidate has something to offer them. You need to accept the reality and you need to drop the testimonials. If you're serious about getting Barack into the White House (we plan to offer advice when we cover the GOP convention as well), you need to start making it about America and not about Barack.  

It was a vanity parade. It was grown adults embarrassing themselves like Baby Soxers. It was never about where American can go, only that Barack could lead.  

"Change to what?" was the question created during the primaries by the campaign refusing to be specific. "Lead us where?" is the question they replaced it with as a result of the convention. And, just like during the primaries, they had no answer to the question their actions raised. Four nights of non-stop infomercials told you there was a product named Barack and that you should buy it. But no one could ever tell you what Barack could or would do. Now people may buy a number of things from infomercials. They might buy a treadmill or a hair care product or anything else. But the infomerical has to tell you what it does. Repeating "It's great!" over and over doesn't sell the product. 

And the convention didn't sell to America. It may have picked up a few converts. It didn't provide what Barack needed or anything he could build on. Four percent is what we're told the 'bounce' was. Four percent isn't a bounce and isn't even beyond the statistical margin of error. In other words, four four days, a non-stop infomercial ran and it didn't sell a damn thing.

No comments: