I agree with the liberal pundits that the Democrats had a good convention this week. Obama’s acceptance speech yesterday at Mile High Stadium was a bit stern and preachy, but overall the public was impressed. This can be seen by Obama’s bump-up in the daily tracking polls.
Obviously the blogging world has said a whole lot about the political festivities in Denver over the past four days, and there isn’t too much that I can add. But I will offer a quick review of Al Gore’s speech early yesterday evening. First off, Al was introduced by an old tune from the Fifth Dimension, recorded way back around 1969; i.e., the second half of “Age of Aquarius”, a.k.a. “Let the Sun Shine In”. Yes, the song was appropriate; Gore is both an oldie and a solar powered child (at least at heart; his large carbon footprint is repeatedly noted by the conservative bloggers and talk show cranks). After a quick round of applause, he gave a speech that was surprisingly animated. Some pundits claim that he was rushing through it, but I think he was actually putting on some enthusiasm, as compared with his usual plodding speaking style. Also, he now speaks with a slight southern twang in his voice, something entirely lacking during his vice-presidential term and his run for the Presidency in 2000. Who knows, had he used that verve and twang back in 2000, perhaps he would have gotten the extra 530 votes that he needed to win Florida. Ahhh, what might have been.
One more odd thought: Al Gore now looks a lot like the late, great comedian Rodney Dangerfield. I would have loved it had Gore fingered his collar while complaining about the heat from climate change, followed by a few one-liners about how he gets no respect from the Bush administration. Unfortunately, the Democrats traditionally haven’t had much of a sense of humor (and Obama continues this grim legacy). McCain recently made a comment about how his campaign is trying to inject some levity into his messaging. He may be on to a Democratic vulnerability.
As to McCain’s choice of Sarah Palin for GOP vice president: I perused the NY Times and Washington Post web sites, and the reviews of McCain’s choice were unrelievedly negative. Ah, but this is the liberal media, after all. It must mean that they are quite worried about Palin! (And ticked off at McCain for stealing the afterglow of the Dem convention with a bold VP pick; as to Palin’s particulars for the job, I won’t get into that at present. But whether or not she would be right for the job, it certainly was a gutsy move on McCain’s part).
P.S. — The Democratic criticisms about Palin are that she is inexperienced and that she’s not ready for national politics let alone being one 72-year-old heartbeat away from the Presidency. Hmmmmm, sounds much like what people were saying twelve months ago about a young tyro from Illinois (and Kansas, and Hawaii, and the world at large perhaps) who had national ambitions. Hilary Clinton banked her national ambitions on the experience rationale — and lost. Time will tell if Sarah Palin turns out to be as masterful (and lucky) a politician as Barack Obama is.
In sum — the Democrats would seemingly describe the Palin pick with the following word: audacity.
P.P.S. — I’ve already seen liberal pundits accusing McCain of tokenism. If I were part of the liberal cheerleader team for Obama, I would NOT go there. And ditto for the conservatives who hope that Palin will make Biden look like an old fossil. Now that these surface issues have reached deadlock, perhaps the candidates and the national audience will get on to the policy issues? Oh, sorry, this is America. What was I thinking?
Jim,
Once again, I offer an opinion from a slightly different perspective. Regarding McCain’s trying to inject some levity into the campaign: I think he got on the bandwagon in that regard a little late. Obama and Clinton were on late night shows, even Saturday Night Live, before McCain was. I think McCain is finally trying to catch up.
As to Palin for the Republican VP: I watched McCain’s announcement that she was his choice. I was truly interested that he chose a woman (in fact, there was about a 1% chance I might have voted for the Republicans if he had chosen his VP well, as I saw it). But I found myself “put off” by his smile as he made the announcement. I wondered why his smile bothered me. Then I got it. His smile did not seem to be a smile that said, “I’ve got the best here.” Rather, it said, “Gotcha!” How strange I tho’t. Then I began to wonder if his choice was a cynical choice, a choice that was saying, “well, if you want a woman, I’ve got one.”
Could she be any more conservative? Big oil–definitely not critical of it–her husband is in oil production. She’s hardly going to have anything bad to say about big oil and drilling in Alaska; her entire family depends on it for their living. (Does this aspect relate to one’s “carbon footprint?”)
Then too there is the fact that every Alaskan this year is getting over $2000 tax free dollars just because of all the oil they are getting out of the state. Then this a.m. (when nobody in the world is up, it seems except me)I found, purely by chance, Maria Bartaromo (sp?) interviewing the “Governor of Alaska” about oil drilling in Alaska. I must say: Palin was most articulate in regard to expressing a favorable opinion of more and more such drilling. I’d be for such drilling too if I were getting even more money just to allow big oil to drill on land in Alaska above the North Pole (up where the ice is melting and seems it will not freeze over this year) and next to Canada.
I also respectfully ask: Does Sarah Palin have a clue at all about what goes on in the big cities of the lower 48? Even in her speech when McCain nominated her, she referred to “fishing and hunting” as major issues–yes for Alaskans.
Then too: A life-long member of the NRA? It’s bad enough that the Supreme Court has in effect ruled in favor of people owning fire arms. Does she have a clue about big city gangs; does she have a clue of what a “drive-by” shooting may be? Does she have a clue of all the killing of young people that is going on in big cities? (To say nothing of the Supreme Court.)
I question also Palin’s bucking of the “business as usual” approach with her “gutsy” refusal of the “bridge to nowhere.” I don’t see that as particularly gutsy. What I would see as gutsy would be bucking the push to do further drilling in the ANWR section of Alaska. Now that would take some guts–she’d have all Alaska on her case. Don’t forget the more drilling they do in Alaska the more tax free money each citizen gets from the oil that comes out of Alaska.
Then I have to say that Rush Limbaugh’s reaction to her announcement as VP nominee was to say: “We’ve got a babe!” Frankly, that reinforced the cynical aspect of her nomination. Yes, the conservatives are all for a woman–as long as she meets all the criteria a woman “should” meet–be beautiful, have many children Here I am not disrespecting Palin and her having had 5 children. If she and her husband want even more children, I say they should go for it; the question of number of children a married couple wants to have is ENTIRELY their own and everybody else should butt out. What I am doing is questioning the fact that the conservative men seem to think that being beautiful AND fertile AND young is what is important in a candidate. Why else would Hillary be called all the names they spewed on her and this woman be a “babe”? Because she holds to conservative ideas? I tend to think not.
I found an piece on AOL’s news articles
Comment by MCS — August 31, 2008 @ 9:25 am
Jim,
Once again, I offer an opinion from a slightly different perspective. Regarding McCain’s trying to inject some levity into the campaign: I think he got on the bandwagon in that regard a little late. Obama and Clinton were on late night shows, even Saturday Night Live, before McCain was. I think McCain is finally trying to catch up.
As to Palin for the Republican VP: I watched McCain’s announcement that she was his choice. I was truly interested that he chose a woman (in fact, there was about a 1% chance I might have voted for the Republicans if he had chosen his VP well, as I saw it). But I found myself “put off” by his smile as he made the announcement. I wondered why his smile bothered me. Then I got it. His smile did not seem to be a smile that said, “I’ve got the best here.” Rather, it said, “Gotcha!” How strange I tho’t. Then I began to wonder if his choice was a cynical choice, a choice that was saying, “well, if you want a woman, I’ve got one.”
Could she be any more conservative? Big oil–definitely not critical of it–her husband is in oil production. She’s hardly going to have anything bad to say about big oil and drilling in Alaska; her entire family depends on it for their living. (Does this aspect relate to one’s “carbon footprint?”)
Then too there is the fact that every Alaskan this year is getting over $2000 tax free dollars just because of all the oil they are getting out of the state. Then this a.m. (when nobody in the world is up, it seems except me)I found, purely by chance, Maria Bartaromo (sp?) interviewing the “Governor of Alaska” about oil drilling in Alaska. I must say: Palin was most articulate in regard to expressing a favorable opinion of more and more such drilling. I’d be for such drilling too if I were getting even more money just to allow big oil to drill on land in Alaska above the North Pole (up where the ice is melting and seems it will not freeze over this year) and next to Canada.
I also respectfully ask: Does Sarah Palin have a clue at all about what goes on in the big cities of the lower 48? Even in her speech when McCain nominated her, she referred to “fishing and hunting” as major issues–yes for Alaskans.
Then too: A life-long member of the NRA? It’s bad enough that the Supreme Court has in effect ruled in favor of people owning fire arms. Does she have a clue about big city gangs; does she have a clue of what a “drive-by” shooting may be? Does she have a clue of all the killing of young people that is going on in big cities? (To say nothing of the Supreme Court.)
I question also Palin’s bucking of the “business as usual” approach with her “gutsy” refusal of the “bridge to nowhere.” I don’t see that as particularly gutsy. What I would see as gutsy would be bucking the push to do further drilling in the ANWR section of Alaska. Now that would take some guts–she’d have all Alaska on her case. Don’t forget the more drilling they do in Alaska the more tax free money each citizen gets from the oil that comes out of Alaska.
Then I have to say that Rush Limbaugh’s reaction to her announcement as VP nominee was to say: “We’ve got a babe!” Frankly, that reinforced the cynical aspect of her nomination. Yes, the conservatives are all for a woman–as long as she meets all the criteria a woman “should” meet–be beautiful, have many children Here I am not disrespecting Palin and her having had 5 children. If she and her husband want even more children, I say they should go for it; the question of number of children a married couple wants to have is ENTIRELY their own and everybody else should butt out. What I am doing is questioning the fact that the conservative men seem to think that being beautiful AND fertile AND young is what is important in a candidate. Why else would Hillary be called all the names they spewed on her and this woman be a “babe”? Because she holds to conservative ideas? I tend to think not.
I found an piece on AOL’s news articles by Linda Bergthold–seems to have some very good credentials–who says she can hear Biden already: ” ‘Sarah Palin, you are NO Hillary Clinton!’ ” Bergthold too read McCain’s choice as cynical. So I’m not alone in that tho’t.
I must also respectfully disagree with your comment that the Dems would consider the Palin pick “audacious.” I certainly don’t. It seems a direct slap in the face to Hillary.
Then too there is the problem: Consider Sarah Palin as president should anything happen to McCain. Surely, the Republicans have some much more experienced woman in their ranks who could fill the VP nominee slot. I wonder what some of the Republican women think. Are they biting their tongues? If something should happen to McCain (he’s had melanoma twice), perhaps Palin would prove to be a wonderful president and surprise us marvelously. Yet I wonder if there are not some more experienced Republican women who could have filled the slot of VP nominee.
I have also noticed that it is the 20 year old women who seem to see Palin as a wonderful choice. Yes, to the 20 and early 20 year olds, Sarah Palin is well experienced.
Unfortunately, I do not see her as a brilliant choice for Republican VP nominee. I see McCain’s choice of her as cynical. Palin herself is in a no-win situation; I feel for her—except from one standpoint: She is getting national exposure for what she may want to do in the future. She is bringing attention to Alaska and what is going on up there to the attention of the lower 48.
MCS
Comment by MCS — August 31, 2008 @ 9:25 am
Jim,
Once again, I offer an opinion from a slightly different perspective. Regarding McCain’s trying to inject some levity into the campaign: I think he got on the bandwagon in that regard a little late. Obama and Clinton were on late night shows, even Saturday Night Live, before McCain was. I think McCain is finally trying to catch up.
As to Palin for the Republican VP: I watched McCain’s announcement that she was his choice. I was truly interested that he chose a woman (in fact, there was about a 1% chance I might have voted for the Republicans if he had chosen his VP well, as I saw it). But I found myself “put off” by his smile as he made the announcement. I wondered why his smile bothered me. Then I got it. His smile did not seem to be a smile that said, “I’ve got the best here.” Rather, it said, “Gotcha!” How strange I tho’t. Then I began to wonder if his choice was a cynical choice, a choice that was saying, “well, if you want a woman, I’ve got one.”
Could she be any more conservative? Big oil–definitely not critical of it–her husband is in oil production. She’s hardly going to have anything bad to say about big oil and drilling in Alaska; her entire family depends on it for their living. (Does this aspect relate to one’s “carbon footprint?”)
Then too there is the fact that every Alaskan this year is getting over $2000 tax free dollars just because of all the oil they are getting out of the state. Then this a.m. (when nobody in the world is up, it seems except me)I found, purely by chance, Maria Bartaromo (sp?) interviewing the “Governor of Alaska” about oil drilling in Alaska. I must say: Palin was most articulate in regard to expressing a favorable opinion of more and more such drilling. I’d be for such drilling too if I were getting even more money just to allow big oil to drill on land in Alaska above the North Pole (up where the ice is melting and seems it will not freeze over this year) and next to Canada.
I also respectfully ask: Does Sarah Palin have a clue at all about what goes on in the big cities of the lower 48? Even in her speech when McCain nominated her, she referred to “fishing and hunting” as major issues–yes for Alaskans.
Then too: A life-long member of the NRA? It’s bad enough that the Supreme Court has in effect ruled in favor of people owning fire arms. Does she have a clue about big city gangs; does she have a clue of what a “drive-by” shooting may be? Does she have a clue of all the killing of young people that is going on in big cities? (To say nothing of the Supreme Court.)
I question also Palin’s bucking of the “business as usual” approach with her “gutsy” refusal of the “bridge to nowhere.” I don’t see that as particularly gutsy. What I would see as gutsy would be bucking the push to do further drilling in the ANWR section of Alaska. Now that would take some guts–she’d have all Alaska on her case. Don’t forget the more drilling they do in Alaska the more tax free money each citizen gets from the oil that comes out of Alaska.
Then I have to say that Rush Limbaugh’s reaction to her announcement as VP nominee was to say: “We’ve got a babe!” Frankly, that reinforced the cynical aspect of her nomination. Yes, the conservatives are all for a woman–as long as she meets all the criteria a woman “should” meet–be beautiful, have many children Here I am not disrespecting Palin and her having had 5 children. If she and her husband want even more children, I say they should go for it; the question of number of children a married couple wants to have is ENTIRELY their own and everybody else should butt out. What I am doing is questioning the fact that the conservative men seem to think that being beautiful AND fertile AND young is what is important in a candidate. Why else would Hillary be called all the names they spewed on her and this woman be a “babe”? Because she holds to conservative ideas? I tend to think not.
I found an piece on AOL’s news articles
Comment by MCS — August 31, 2008 @ 9:25 am