I am sad to inform you that it's PAY-lin, not PAL-in. Or is it?
My wife and I were sitting in an undisclosed Arizona Motor Vehicles Department office, switching our licenses and registering our vehicle, when, of course, the dude at the window started talking politics. It makes sense--we registered to vote (except there was a problem with mine) and we were obviously Mormon and therefore conservatives, even though neither of us registered as a member of a party.
He said, "So, my brother-in-law is always watching Fox News--now everyone says Fox News is biased, but, you know, they're out there on their own, and you know, it's usually the lone wolf out there that's the one that's right--so, and I saw McCain's running mate, that Sarah ['pejlIn], and you know who she reminds me of?"
I was really hoping Elaine from Seinfeld. I really think she looks like Elaine.
"You know, Lynda Carter from the old Wonder Woman days? Yeah..."
"I always thought she looked like Elaine from Seinfeld."
"Hey, that's a good one, but I think she's way better-looking than Elaine from Seinfeld. So, you know, dress McCain up in his military uniform and ['pejlIn] up in the Wonder Woman outfit, and it's like Major [Steve Trevor] and Wonder Woman--"
"What a presidency!"
Yikes. a) Yikes. b) Cindy would transform into a thing that makes the Cloverfield monster look like Barney and eat Washington whole. And I wouldn't blame her.
Yes, my friends, this is the Palin Effect, other than torquing me royal 'cause I think it should be pronounced ['pælIn]. Comparisons to the girl next door, to Elaine, and to Wonder Woman. Life into people who were afraid to be Republicans. It's as if Bob Dole were to have been given Adam Sandler as his VP candidate instead of, wow I really have to look this up, Jack Kemp! Right! Kemp! All of a sudden, McCain's gone from boring old guy to boring old guy with cool running mate.
Anyhow, that's the Palin Effect--making Slate writers coach Biden in fear. Making the polls look neck-and-neck. Making "lipstick on a pig" comments inappropriate. Making DMV workers say really strange things. Is it "Star Power" or just a flash in the pan? The world will only know in November.
Thursday, September 11, 2008
Monday, September 8, 2008
The New Numbers
Why reports about national polling numbers can be safely ignored.
Big news! Polls taken after the Republican National Convention have John McCain up by as much as ten points! How can Barack Obama possibly recover from this? Is the election already wrapped up?
Hardly. Pundits tend to emphasize national polling numbers as a way of taking the pulse of the nation as a whole, but that's not the way presidents are elected. As we learned in high school civics class, the electoral college is responsible for choosing a new president, and those electors are chosen on a state-by-state basis. It's the individual state polls we need to look at, and those mask a significant advantage for the Barackstar.
Pollster.com is a great source for analyzing current numbers for any of the states. Using that as a guide, we see that Obama holds statistically significant leads (at least five points) in enough states to account for 243 electoral votes. That's huge, considering a candidate only needs 270 to win. John McCain, on the other hand, can only claim safe leads enough to pick up 179 votes. That leaves 116 votes in swing states, though it's telling that most of those states have been safely Republican in recent elections. Let's examine, shall we?
Traditionally Republican Swing States (90)
One last harrowing thought - if each set of swing states holds like we have laid them out here, then the electoral vote will be tied at 269, throwing the decision to the House of Representatives. Are you any happier than I am about the prospect of Nancy Pelosi choosing our nation's next president?
Big news! Polls taken after the Republican National Convention have John McCain up by as much as ten points! How can Barack Obama possibly recover from this? Is the election already wrapped up?
Hardly. Pundits tend to emphasize national polling numbers as a way of taking the pulse of the nation as a whole, but that's not the way presidents are elected. As we learned in high school civics class, the electoral college is responsible for choosing a new president, and those electors are chosen on a state-by-state basis. It's the individual state polls we need to look at, and those mask a significant advantage for the Barackstar.
Pollster.com is a great source for analyzing current numbers for any of the states. Using that as a guide, we see that Obama holds statistically significant leads (at least five points) in enough states to account for 243 electoral votes. That's huge, considering a candidate only needs 270 to win. John McCain, on the other hand, can only claim safe leads enough to pick up 179 votes. That leaves 116 votes in swing states, though it's telling that most of those states have been safely Republican in recent elections. Let's examine, shall we?
Traditionally Republican Swing States (90)
- Montana (3)
- Colorado (9)
- North Dakota (3)
- Virginia (13)
- North Carolina (15)
- Florida (27)
- Ohio (20)
- Nevada (5)
- Michigan (17)
- New Hampshire (4)
One last harrowing thought - if each set of swing states holds like we have laid them out here, then the electoral vote will be tied at 269, throwing the decision to the House of Representatives. Are you any happier than I am about the prospect of Nancy Pelosi choosing our nation's next president?
Pop Politics
Is your party alignment really dependent upon what you call a carbonated beverage? Just a little bit.
While up late eating everything in our pantry, I realized this one thing: There's a cultural divide in America. What? you say. This is a big discovery, you say. I know, I know. I'm just brilliant like that. No, hear me out. There's a cultural divide in America, and it should be visible in American English. Cultural divides very often create language shifts. It seems cultural boundaries fit themselves to linguistic boundaries, and vice versa. Well, my friends, it seems that the "Pop vs. Soda" site is backing me up on this one. Note:
Places that use "soda" primarily are definitely blue (Democrat, not blue on the map, though this is the case).
Places that use "coke" primarily are definitely red (Republican, see above).
Places that use "pop" primarily are mostly red.
Places that are sparsely populated:
If they're mostly "pop" they're probably red.
If they're mostly soda, with a significant mix of either or both of the others, they're probably swing states.
Washington, Oregon, and Arizona are a little weird here, but that may be because it's an internet poll, and people like to prove their own points, inappropriately.
Indiana. What the crap?
Further, note that there's a divide, geographically between West Coast and East Coast Dems, but that there's the coke/pop divide between Red States, which corresponds mostly to the Western Republican/Southern (Christian) Republican divide apparent in U.S. Politics.
So, in the end, look at this nice county map of it all and wonder, why didn't we think of this before? I'm going to start calling Arizonans "soda Republicans" and that's that.
*Special thanks to David Bowie (not the rather more famous rock star of the same name) of University of Central Florida for apprising me of this map's existence.
While up late eating everything in our pantry, I realized this one thing: There's a cultural divide in America. What? you say. This is a big discovery, you say. I know, I know. I'm just brilliant like that. No, hear me out. There's a cultural divide in America, and it should be visible in American English. Cultural divides very often create language shifts. It seems cultural boundaries fit themselves to linguistic boundaries, and vice versa. Well, my friends, it seems that the "Pop vs. Soda" site is backing me up on this one. Note:
Places that use "soda" primarily are definitely blue (Democrat, not blue on the map, though this is the case).
Places that use "coke" primarily are definitely red (Republican, see above).
Places that use "pop" primarily are mostly red.
Places that are sparsely populated:
If they're mostly "pop" they're probably red.
If they're mostly soda, with a significant mix of either or both of the others, they're probably swing states.
Washington, Oregon, and Arizona are a little weird here, but that may be because it's an internet poll, and people like to prove their own points, inappropriately.
Indiana. What the crap?
Further, note that there's a divide, geographically between West Coast and East Coast Dems, but that there's the coke/pop divide between Red States, which corresponds mostly to the Western Republican/Southern (Christian) Republican divide apparent in U.S. Politics.
So, in the end, look at this nice county map of it all and wonder, why didn't we think of this before? I'm going to start calling Arizonans "soda Republicans" and that's that.
*Special thanks to David Bowie (not the rather more famous rock star of the same name) of University of Central Florida for apprising me of this map's existence.
Saturday, September 6, 2008
Why the World Doesn't Need Google Chrome
It's because Firefox still exists!
Man, I don't know that I need to say more than that. Yes, Chrome, Google's new browser, is designed to be faster. Yes, it is supposed to keep one site from crashing the whole app. The tab shuts down, but not the browser. Awesome. Now, does it have the open-source developer support that can block the wretched banners from appearing on facebook? Answer: hecks no. Mozdev is awesome. That is all. Bye.
P.S. I still think that Google is a good company, and not the demon some people make it out to be.
Man, I don't know that I need to say more than that. Yes, Chrome, Google's new browser, is designed to be faster. Yes, it is supposed to keep one site from crashing the whole app. The tab shuts down, but not the browser. Awesome. Now, does it have the open-source developer support that can block the wretched banners from appearing on facebook? Answer: hecks no. Mozdev is awesome. That is all. Bye.
P.S. I still think that Google is a good company, and not the demon some people make it out to be.
Friday, September 5, 2008
Wait, What Just Happened?
Content notwithstanding, Mac's acceptable acceptance speech gets contradictory reports of review.
Id est, The Guardian, well known for reporting from the hip, claims that everyone though Mac's spiel was a one way ticket to Boresville, or more appropriately to the outlet, Borington Cross. The U.S. News and World Report says everyone liked it. Now, the USNWR is also known for being a one-way ticket to Dull County, but really, did everyone like it or everyone hate it? The Beeb says the reactions were mixed and Salon calls it empty (you can search for Salon yourself, I refuse to link to it).
Here's what he said: I'm a maverick. Let's stop spending so much. Obama, I shake hands with you before we go at it, octagon-style. It wasn't a bad speech. It wasn't a great speech. It was a decent speech, and what he mostly talked about was, strangely enough, change. It's interesting to note that Obama galvanized the primaries with Hope and Change and then switched to Explaining My Platform and Mac went from Explaining My Platform to Hope and Change. Funny things, these elections.
Obama. Biden. McCain. Sarah. None of these people is a demon.
This is what I learned from the RNC: Mac is not actually a doddering old fool. I thought he was, and I guess I listened to a lot of blue rhetoric there, but having defended Obama so hard in the past was wading through the same kind of crap, delivered by red-staters. I still don't think he's the man for the job, but if he [Mac] wins, I won't move to Canada. Necessarily. I might move to Canada anyway, but it won't be because I'm afraid of our president. It's 'cause Canada has awesome food.
Id est, The Guardian, well known for reporting from the hip, claims that everyone though Mac's spiel was a one way ticket to Boresville, or more appropriately to the outlet, Borington Cross. The U.S. News and World Report says everyone liked it. Now, the USNWR is also known for being a one-way ticket to Dull County, but really, did everyone like it or everyone hate it? The Beeb says the reactions were mixed and Salon calls it empty (you can search for Salon yourself, I refuse to link to it).
Here's what he said: I'm a maverick. Let's stop spending so much. Obama, I shake hands with you before we go at it, octagon-style. It wasn't a bad speech. It wasn't a great speech. It was a decent speech, and what he mostly talked about was, strangely enough, change. It's interesting to note that Obama galvanized the primaries with Hope and Change and then switched to Explaining My Platform and Mac went from Explaining My Platform to Hope and Change. Funny things, these elections.
Obama. Biden. McCain. Sarah. None of these people is a demon.
This is what I learned from the RNC: Mac is not actually a doddering old fool. I thought he was, and I guess I listened to a lot of blue rhetoric there, but having defended Obama so hard in the past was wading through the same kind of crap, delivered by red-staters. I still don't think he's the man for the job, but if he [Mac] wins, I won't move to Canada. Necessarily. I might move to Canada anyway, but it won't be because I'm afraid of our president. It's 'cause Canada has awesome food.
Thursday, September 4, 2008
Barrow
Another in an increasingly oddly named series of worbticles about Sarah Palin's ability or inability to lead. Today, it's about why the Democrats' rhetoric is misplaced, why Sarah's rhetoric is misplaced, and why I prefer to call her Sarah.
So, I've only read the text of the speech--I didn't listen to Sarah's inflection--but I'll tell you this: I don't think McCain's selection was off the cuff or anything of the sort. Gut feelings vs. safe choices aside, I think that this was thought out by the Mac Camp. Perhaps they even knew about Bristol, although I bet the seventeen-year-old didn't tell her mommy until the nomination was in the bag. That's how teenagers think.
On, on to the economy, stupids. Sarah talks about drilling Alaska. Drill Alaska, she says. That was the whole idea, but she took a long time on it. In fact, despite that CNN labels her speech an Obama-bash, the oil economy is her primary focus. Let's not deny it, this is an ingenious move if this is why Mac chose her (and come on, I'm pretty sure this is). Americans want to be rid of foreign oil dependency. I want to be rid of oil in general, but America's not ready for that, at least on the right.
So, that's a good plan, if you've got one. But, in the end, what this proves is that we can't just throw away Sarah 'cause her daughter's pregnant, and we can't throw away Mac if his plan is to Drill the Heck out of the Great White American North.
Also, she doesn't really look like a VP, but she does look like someone you'd chat with at the PTA or whatnot. Hockey mom image accurate or not, I can't call her Palin anymore, and will reserve that for the Python of the same name.
So, I've only read the text of the speech--I didn't listen to Sarah's inflection--but I'll tell you this: I don't think McCain's selection was off the cuff or anything of the sort. Gut feelings vs. safe choices aside, I think that this was thought out by the Mac Camp. Perhaps they even knew about Bristol, although I bet the seventeen-year-old didn't tell her mommy until the nomination was in the bag. That's how teenagers think.
On, on to the economy, stupids. Sarah talks about drilling Alaska. Drill Alaska, she says. That was the whole idea, but she took a long time on it. In fact, despite that CNN labels her speech an Obama-bash, the oil economy is her primary focus. Let's not deny it, this is an ingenious move if this is why Mac chose her (and come on, I'm pretty sure this is). Americans want to be rid of foreign oil dependency. I want to be rid of oil in general, but America's not ready for that, at least on the right.
So, that's a good plan, if you've got one. But, in the end, what this proves is that we can't just throw away Sarah 'cause her daughter's pregnant, and we can't throw away Mac if his plan is to Drill the Heck out of the Great White American North.
Also, she doesn't really look like a VP, but she does look like someone you'd chat with at the PTA or whatnot. Hockey mom image accurate or not, I can't call her Palin anymore, and will reserve that for the Python of the same name.
Wednesday, September 3, 2008
Live from St. Paul...
It's Wednesday night.
The Worb's coverage of the Republican National Convention has been a bit sparser than the DNC. My apologies - I was actually watching Home Alone tonight with my wife. In the few speeches I've taken in, however, I've noticed somewhat of a theme - national security. That's the watchword for the Republicans this year, and it's a good one. Most of America associates the Democratic Party with the phrase "soft on terror." Nearly every speaker has hit hard on the fact that if nothing else, President Bush has kept us safe, as evidenced by the fact that there have been no terrorist attacks on U.S. soil since September 11, 2001. (Personally, I don't know that he can claim such to his credit any more than he could claim credit for the attacks themselves, but that's neither here nor there.) Security, security, security. A vote for Obama is a vote for defeat. Vote for Obama and the terrorists win. It's repetitive, sure, but it's also effective. This is the party's strongest weapon, and you'd better believe they'll keep using it.
However, what you won't hear about here is the economy. As much as the Republicans would like to place the blame for the souring economy on the shoulders of the Democrat-led Congress, most of America associates the economic slowdown with the Republican Party. You heard a lot about the economy during the DNC. That's their strong point. So essentially, the election in November looks like it will come down to one issue: which do Americans value more, national security or the economy? If I'm a betting man, I'm picking the economy. After all, that's more or less how it turned out in 1992. Bush was a war hero and had successfully managed the Gulf War. People thought he was a shoo-in in November, until the economy turned south. And that's when the old catch phrase showed up: it's the economy, stupid. (Actually, if you follow that link and look at the three tenets of Clinton's campaign, you'll find that it could be Obama's campaign this year.)
In other news, the speakers at the RNC have been, more or less, stand up comedians. Everyone wants to take a jab at Obama. (Can you blame them? The DNC speakers did the same thing with McCain.) Rudy Giuliani got some nice zingers in tonight, such as, "I'm sorry that Barack Obama feels that [Sarah Palin's] hometown isn't cosmopolitan enough. ... Maybe they cling to religion there." Even Laura Bush got in on the action last night, saying that her husband's accomplishments were "change you can really believe in." Ooh dang! Here's looking forward to more zingers from the main man himself tomorrow night.
The Worb's coverage of the Republican National Convention has been a bit sparser than the DNC. My apologies - I was actually watching Home Alone tonight with my wife. In the few speeches I've taken in, however, I've noticed somewhat of a theme - national security. That's the watchword for the Republicans this year, and it's a good one. Most of America associates the Democratic Party with the phrase "soft on terror." Nearly every speaker has hit hard on the fact that if nothing else, President Bush has kept us safe, as evidenced by the fact that there have been no terrorist attacks on U.S. soil since September 11, 2001. (Personally, I don't know that he can claim such to his credit any more than he could claim credit for the attacks themselves, but that's neither here nor there.) Security, security, security. A vote for Obama is a vote for defeat. Vote for Obama and the terrorists win. It's repetitive, sure, but it's also effective. This is the party's strongest weapon, and you'd better believe they'll keep using it.
However, what you won't hear about here is the economy. As much as the Republicans would like to place the blame for the souring economy on the shoulders of the Democrat-led Congress, most of America associates the economic slowdown with the Republican Party. You heard a lot about the economy during the DNC. That's their strong point. So essentially, the election in November looks like it will come down to one issue: which do Americans value more, national security or the economy? If I'm a betting man, I'm picking the economy. After all, that's more or less how it turned out in 1992. Bush was a war hero and had successfully managed the Gulf War. People thought he was a shoo-in in November, until the economy turned south. And that's when the old catch phrase showed up: it's the economy, stupid. (Actually, if you follow that link and look at the three tenets of Clinton's campaign, you'll find that it could be Obama's campaign this year.)
In other news, the speakers at the RNC have been, more or less, stand up comedians. Everyone wants to take a jab at Obama. (Can you blame them? The DNC speakers did the same thing with McCain.) Rudy Giuliani got some nice zingers in tonight, such as, "I'm sorry that Barack Obama feels that [Sarah Palin's] hometown isn't cosmopolitan enough. ... Maybe they cling to religion there." Even Laura Bush got in on the action last night, saying that her husband's accomplishments were "change you can really believe in." Ooh dang! Here's looking forward to more zingers from the main man himself tomorrow night.
Tuesday, September 2, 2008
Nome
More about - surprise - the Sarah Palin circus.
Ben, I hope I didn't come across as overtly criticizing Palin. I'm certainly not implying that the Obama camp should start criticizing her. In fact, she's about the one thing about the McCain campaign that they can't touch. The issue is that her inexperience and associated liabilities are very different than Obama's.
Having children in difficult life circumstances doesn't disqualify her from the vice presidency. Almost the opposite, actually - blue-collar Americans can identify with the situation she's in. I'm just worried that with all the emphasis she's put on her family lately, at some point she will choose family over duty, which is something I'd prefer not to see from our vice president. (The VP does do some important things, actually. Dick Cheney has made the position far more important and powerful than the "warm bucket of spit" the office used to be.) Obama has two young children as well, and so one could conceivably turn the tables, except that Obama hasn't made as big a deal of his family as Palin has. It's not quite the same thing.
The issue of inexperience is worth looking at, too. Both have had relatively little time in major political offices, but I'd have to give the experience edge to Obama. While he's only had four years on the national stage, his four years have come in the Senate. He knows the people he will have to work with in Congress should he become the president. He's had a chance to gain some foreign policy experience. While Palin has had experience actually governing in her two years over Alaska, one has to remember that it's Alaska. If Alaska were a metro area, it would be slightly larger than Knoxville, but slightly smaller than Akron. It's governing experience, yes, but on a far smaller stage than the national one. And while it's true that she'll only be the vice president, in McCain's case it's a real worry that she could have to take over for him, possibly even in the first term. (We all wish John McCain a long and healthy life, but you have to consider the possibilities.) Her inexperience is far more pronounced than Obama's.
Let's also apply the final smell test. Say each of these to yourself: "President Obama." "President Palin."
The real issue, though, is that this pick isn't so much about Palin's weaknesses and flaws as McCain's. This is the first big decision he's had to make as the Republican nominee, and there are some real worries about it. It's becoming increasingly clear that he made it very quickly, possibly in as little as two days. Sound a little like the Decider to anyone else? For a campaign that has been trying as hard as possible to convince people that a McCain term would not be a third term for Bush, the nominee has been more than a little off-message.
Ben, I hope I didn't come across as overtly criticizing Palin. I'm certainly not implying that the Obama camp should start criticizing her. In fact, she's about the one thing about the McCain campaign that they can't touch. The issue is that her inexperience and associated liabilities are very different than Obama's.
Having children in difficult life circumstances doesn't disqualify her from the vice presidency. Almost the opposite, actually - blue-collar Americans can identify with the situation she's in. I'm just worried that with all the emphasis she's put on her family lately, at some point she will choose family over duty, which is something I'd prefer not to see from our vice president. (The VP does do some important things, actually. Dick Cheney has made the position far more important and powerful than the "warm bucket of spit" the office used to be.) Obama has two young children as well, and so one could conceivably turn the tables, except that Obama hasn't made as big a deal of his family as Palin has. It's not quite the same thing.
The issue of inexperience is worth looking at, too. Both have had relatively little time in major political offices, but I'd have to give the experience edge to Obama. While he's only had four years on the national stage, his four years have come in the Senate. He knows the people he will have to work with in Congress should he become the president. He's had a chance to gain some foreign policy experience. While Palin has had experience actually governing in her two years over Alaska, one has to remember that it's Alaska. If Alaska were a metro area, it would be slightly larger than Knoxville, but slightly smaller than Akron. It's governing experience, yes, but on a far smaller stage than the national one. And while it's true that she'll only be the vice president, in McCain's case it's a real worry that she could have to take over for him, possibly even in the first term. (We all wish John McCain a long and healthy life, but you have to consider the possibilities.) Her inexperience is far more pronounced than Obama's.
Let's also apply the final smell test. Say each of these to yourself: "President Obama." "President Palin."
The real issue, though, is that this pick isn't so much about Palin's weaknesses and flaws as McCain's. This is the first big decision he's had to make as the Republican nominee, and there are some real worries about it. It's becoming increasingly clear that he made it very quickly, possibly in as little as two days. Sound a little like the Decider to anyone else? For a campaign that has been trying as hard as possible to convince people that a McCain term would not be a third term for Bush, the nominee has been more than a little off-message.
Day One of the RNC
Nothing in this world scares me more than Cindy McCain.
I mean, John's oldest son, Douglas, is only five years younger than her. She is also creepy-looking, like a cheerleader for First Lady. Just go watch the First Lady Nominee Presumptive and the First Lady banter. Say what you will about Dubya, but I still think Laura is a classy lady. She makes me feel like she's America's Mom, even when Dad is going through a steady mental decay. It's sad really.
Either way, day one was mostly a bunch of governors talking about Gustav, which thankfully did not destroy New Orleans for good. Other than that, to recap: Laura = nice, Cindy = frightening.
I mean, John's oldest son, Douglas, is only five years younger than her. She is also creepy-looking, like a cheerleader for First Lady. Just go watch the First Lady Nominee Presumptive and the First Lady banter. Say what you will about Dubya, but I still think Laura is a classy lady. She makes me feel like she's America's Mom, even when Dad is going through a steady mental decay. It's sad really.
Either way, day one was mostly a bunch of governors talking about Gustav, which thankfully did not destroy New Orleans for good. Other than that, to recap: Laura = nice, Cindy = frightening.
Anchorage
In defense of hockey mom vice presidents.
Note: Ben always has to start with "Now, I'm not really a Republican, but..."
I think my counterpart may have been a little too hard on Sarah Palin.
A couple of points: Sarah and Todd gave a great little speech about little Bristol's huge tiny mistake, which showed a) they're not afraid of this becoming public, and they were wise enough to bring the media to their backyard instead of getting invaded and b) they're nice folk whose daughters actually marry their baby daddies.
The joy of Palin for the GOP is that, like Optimistic said, they won't hit her hard over Bristolgate cause it alienates the single mother demographic. Also, if they want to avoid the "elitist" image O's trying so hard to shake, they won't say a thing. Or about her other kids, especially the one with Down's. Seriously, what are going to say? "Why did you birth a retard?" That's real nice.
Personally, I like Palin more than Biden, even though my conscience constrains me not to vote for Mac. Why? I like the hockey mom thing. I like that she's got kids at home. I like that she's like the rest of the flipping country, trying to make some sense out of their daughter getting pregnant at 17.
What does a Vice President do anyway? If Quayle can do it, anyone can.
Note: Ben always has to start with "Now, I'm not really a Republican, but..."
I think my counterpart may have been a little too hard on Sarah Palin.
A couple of points: Sarah and Todd gave a great little speech about little Bristol's huge tiny mistake, which showed a) they're not afraid of this becoming public, and they were wise enough to bring the media to their backyard instead of getting invaded and b) they're nice folk whose daughters actually marry their baby daddies.
The joy of Palin for the GOP is that, like Optimistic said, they won't hit her hard over Bristolgate cause it alienates the single mother demographic. Also, if they want to avoid the "elitist" image O's trying so hard to shake, they won't say a thing. Or about her other kids, especially the one with Down's. Seriously, what are going to say? "Why did you birth a retard?" That's real nice.
Personally, I like Palin more than Biden, even though my conscience constrains me not to vote for Mac. Why? I like the hockey mom thing. I like that she's got kids at home. I like that she's like the rest of the flipping country, trying to make some sense out of their daughter getting pregnant at 17.
What does a Vice President do anyway? If Quayle can do it, anyone can.
Monday, September 1, 2008
Juneau
Even more drama to the Sarah Palin pick.
As if the Sarah Palin pick wasn't already surprising enough, there's another fun little tidbit to think about now - Palin's 17-year old daughter Bristol was revealed today to be teen pregnant. (I really wish I could claim the title of this post as my own, but it's borrowed from Slate's XX Factor blog.) This is just the latest development in the Palin candidacy that is fast becoming a five-ring circus. Who is this woman? Is she even qualified to take office? What's the deal with the state trooper she fired who turned out to be her brother-in-law? What about her son she chose to deliver, even though he has Down syndrome?
This makes a sticky situation for the Democrats, who would love to tear this woman apart, yet are afraid to do so and risk alienating their already fragile base of women voters. Even still, this bears examination under a nonpartisan microscope. Is this someone we really want to be in the White House, even as a vice president? Consider the following things that could demand her attention in a meeting:
The whole saga is starting to remind me of Tom Eagleton in 1972, who accepted the VP spot under George McGovern only to retract it 18 days later after reports surfaced that he had undergone electroshock therapy for physical and nervous exhaustion. Eagleton ended up on a ticket because he was only cursorily vetted, something that campaigns go to great pains to avoid today. One wonders if McCain's campaign may have made the same mistake. Palin was probably chosen to draw new attention to the McCain campaign, but this may have been more than they bargained for.
As if the Sarah Palin pick wasn't already surprising enough, there's another fun little tidbit to think about now - Palin's 17-year old daughter Bristol was revealed today to be teen pregnant. (I really wish I could claim the title of this post as my own, but it's borrowed from Slate's XX Factor blog.) This is just the latest development in the Palin candidacy that is fast becoming a five-ring circus. Who is this woman? Is she even qualified to take office? What's the deal with the state trooper she fired who turned out to be her brother-in-law? What about her son she chose to deliver, even though he has Down syndrome?
This makes a sticky situation for the Democrats, who would love to tear this woman apart, yet are afraid to do so and risk alienating their already fragile base of women voters. Even still, this bears examination under a nonpartisan microscope. Is this someone we really want to be in the White House, even as a vice president? Consider the following things that could demand her attention in a meeting:
- A young baby with Down syndrome.
- News from her son in Iraq.
- A teenage daughter with a child of her own and a teenage husband.
- Her other two children, aged fourteen and seven.
The whole saga is starting to remind me of Tom Eagleton in 1972, who accepted the VP spot under George McGovern only to retract it 18 days later after reports surfaced that he had undergone electroshock therapy for physical and nervous exhaustion. Eagleton ended up on a ticket because he was only cursorily vetted, something that campaigns go to great pains to avoid today. One wonders if McCain's campaign may have made the same mistake. Palin was probably chosen to draw new attention to the McCain campaign, but this may have been more than they bargained for.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)