Are we underestimating Palin?

[You kip if you want to...]

?

Obama had some bad interviews, but his best wasn't in the same league as her best, displayed here.  His worst isn't in the same universe as her worst, displayed in the Couric interviews I rewatched a few weeks ago.  I couldn't imagine a candidate for mayor of my hometown (population: 3,000) sounding so utterly incompetent.

Obama has no history of hiring bad people to represent him, quite the opposite in fact.

He's acted presidential since his 2004 DNC speech.

?

Obama is good at talking the talk, but look at his cabinet picks, three or four of them had to step down or had tax problems, that is doing a good job at picking the people around you. Also, Obama has never ran anything in his life before, unlike Sarah who ran a city and is currently running a state.

And it will matter in 2012, why?

[Devilman88]

?

Obama had some bad interviews, but his best wasn't in the same league as her best, displayed here.  His worst isn't in the same universe as her worst, displayed in the Couric interviews I rewatched a few weeks ago.  I couldn't imagine a candidate for mayor of my hometown (population: 3,000) sounding so utterly incompetent.

Obama has no history of hiring bad people to represent him, quite the opposite in fact.

He's acted presidential since his 2004 DNC speech.

?

Obama is good at talking the talk, but look at his cabinet picks, three or four of them had to step down or had tax problems, that is doing a good job at picking the people around you. Also, Obama has never ran anything in his life before, unlike Sarah who ran a city and is currently running a state.

And it will matter in 2012, why?

It won't because Obama isn't going to win in 2012.

[Swedish Rainbow Capitalist Cheese]

It won't because Obama isn't going to win in 2012.

You keep thinking that Dan if it makes you happy.

Maybe Palin had more experience than Obama in 2008, in 2012 he will have been running the most powerful nation on earth for four years. He'll have more than enough experience.

[Beet]

No, I am not underestimating her, at least as much as others... I think she is the favorite for the Republican nomination, and that Republican chances are higher that they are currently being estimated, given the economic situation, and Obama's relative inexperience. The main thing she has working for her is her competitive relationship with the liberal aspects of the media. As long as she can play victim to liberal men who as we learned in 2008 (and continue to learn in 2009) can never handle a woman they oppose without straying into sexism, she can drum up her victimhood ideology and win support from the conservative base. Basically she is also their culture war wet dream. It could still all fall apart for her, you never know, but she has some key advantages, particularly for a state like Iowa.

[pbrower2a]

?

Obama had some bad interviews, but his best wasn't in the same league as her best, displayed here.  His worst isn't in the same universe as her worst, displayed in the Couric interviews I rewatched a few weeks ago.  I couldn't imagine a candidate for mayor of my hometown (population: 3,000) sounding so utterly incompetent.

Obama has no history of hiring bad people to represent him, quite the opposite in fact.

He's acted presidential since his 2004 DNC speech.

?

Obama is good at talking the talk, but look at his cabinet picks, three or four of them had to step down or had tax problems, that is doing a good job at picking the people around you. Also, Obama has never ran anything in his life before, unlike Sarah who ran a city and is currently running a state.

And it will matter in 2012, why?

It won't because Obama isn't going to win in 2012.

Oh, really?

In 2012 Obama will either run on his record successfully or try to run from it and fail. It is that simple. All that suggests that Obama will have a more difficult time in winning the Presidency than his substandard predecessor will be a rise in the standards -- standards that would now flunk such a poseur as Dubya.  Obama will have raised those standards.

So far about the only dissent that one can have with the Obama Administration is that one dislikes his ideology and prefers that of Dubya. That's not enough unless the President is a commie, fascist, or theocrat. His diplomacy is far more effective. He has set new standards -- better ones -- for the conduct of soldiers in the field and for the treatment of those who end up as our captives. He is a superb rhetorician and orator, and that has proved a core determiner of whether a President succeeds or fails. He is decisive. His language has little room for ambiguity; he says what he means and he means what he says. That's the lawyer in him; he recognizes the necessity for clarity.

So far he shows more signs of a great President than of a poor one. Strange things can happen, but anyone who expects Obama to fail as President must expect strange things to happen.

We have had our economic meltdown -- the result of a corrupt boom that left millions with worthless or compromised assets. Of course, Obama can do nothing to recover the once-bloated speculative values of assets... but he can set economic objectives that allow people to rebuild wealth in other ways.



Big government spending may be the most reliable way, with benefits trickling through contractors to employees.  So it was in the New Deal era, and FDR got away with economic growth that never could recapture the heady days of illusory prosperity as in the late 1920's:

   

If you look at years "3 to 8 (1932-1937)" for the gray line, you get to see what FDR got away with.  Those are recovery years. He won re-election in a landslide in the seventh year. Then came a sort of crash and another recovery. Try those with Obama and see whether people will find things adequate -- if not perfect.

Maybe we will have to live as if it were the 1950s again, only without Jim Crow, Joe McCarthy, the Red Scare, and the blatant anti-feminism of the time. Housing will be more affordable, and savings rates will be higher. Economic inequality will be less severe. We won't scrap later technologies (including medical technologies that can extend life if we don't throw them away with obesity and street drugs), but we will find that furnishing the affordable housing won't be so cheap. We maybe priced out of many imports that have gutted jobs and drained wealth from our country. That's not all bad; we would be better off without stuff that goes from China through Wal*Mart to our homes and then the landfill when they break or go obsolete. .   
 

[12th Doctor]

While I do think that much of the criticism that is piled on her is unjust, and would not be hurled at a man, I also think that there are many people out there who think way too much of her.

[Mechaman]

Holy sh$t, was that a decent Sarah Palin interview I just watched (actually I watched the first three minutes then turned it off due to drama)?

Honestly, we could be underestimating Palin. If she has more interviews like this and avoids serious gaffes (like telling anyone that she thinks Africa is a country) she would be pretty competitive in the primaries. General election? Hope for a massive Obama fail in the next four years.

[Lunar]

She won't win the GOP primary if her schtick is defending political correctness. 


That's a stupid liberal issue and I doubt Republicans want to borrow it for anything but cheep thrills

[exopolitician]

No. I still think if she runs she wont win.

[Mechaman]

She won't win the GOP primary if her schtick is defending political correctness. 


That's a stupid liberal issue and I doubt Republicans want to borrow it for anything but cheep thrills

Sorry,  I was referring to the first three minutes. I just stopped watching after Matt asked about the whole Letterman incident. If she bitched about political correctness, than I agree with your assessment.

[pogo stick]

Everyone is underestimating her. Did any ever think Obama would be president ? NO.

You just assume Palin is a retard because she gave a few bad interviews ,was strangled by the McCain Campaign. made many gafts, isn't a liberal ,a opposite of most woman politically, a viable threat to the democrat establishment.

The media unfairly trashed her. I highly doubt  the media would attack Stephanie Herseth , Kay Hagan, or any other Female democrat.

 Palin is free from the retarded campaign people of McCain. She can now prove she's a viable politician. She has been talking more and more about economic issues. And she is making less gafts. Palin can and probably will be ready to bounce back with a fiery fist.


Sarah Palin could have a future in politics, unlike Huckabee who shouldn't run because the last time he ran a incompetent  campaigner got nominated and got his ass handed to him.

Palin must get rid off the Brianless MILF Whore image the media gave her.


I'm not talking as a Palin supporter, i'm talking as a political pundit  would.


Nothing is set in stone in politics.


Palin 2012
   

[Mint]

Everyone is underestimating her. Did any ever think Obama would be president ? NO.

I'm sorry, what?

[Mechaman]

Everyone is underestimating her. Did any ever think Obama would be president ? NO.

I'm sorry, what?

I totally remember this issue. I also have the February 22, 2007 issue of Rolling Stone magazine that details Obama's roots. It includes details such as Obama's church in Chicago, a badass cool picture of Barack in his old school days as the head of the Harvard Law Review, a picture of his mom (damn she was hot), and even an embarrasing note about how Obama forgot to buy shower curtains when he first moved into his apartment in Washington . Also included in the article is a segment called "Can he win?" It has four strategies Obama should folow to win the primaries and eventually the presidency, according to Ben Wallace-Wells:

1. Move Beyond "Hope": "He's got to do something to back up the idea that he represents something completely different," as Joe Trippi called it.
2. Be the Commander: How Obama would react to a Swift Boat-like smear campaign?
3. Own the Black vote: Self explanatory. Suggest he try to get 3/4ths of all the black ballots in the primaries.
4. Keep the Race Alive: "Extend the contest" to where other candidates aren't as focused on.

Looking back on his race to the top, I see Obama seems to accomplish all but number 3 on here (I think during the primary Clinton was pretty competitive with the black vote at some point, could be wrong though). But if there is one quote that I found real memorable in this article it was probably from Frank Luntz, advisor to past GOP candidates: "With every other Democratic candidate, I can tell you already how Republicans will go after them. Hillary Clinton doesn't have a heart. John Edwards panders. Joe Biden can't answer a single question in under twenty-four hours. But Obama - he's the one Democratic candidate where I'm not sure how you can take him down."

Obama's rise to power was forecasted long before election season.

I'm not sure if you could say the same about Palin. She was suddenly thrust into the limelight and wasn't ready to handle what the big heads in the media were going to attack her with. Everytime I see her she is getting off on how people make jokes about her and crap instead of doing other things, like uh GOVERNING ALASKA?! There was a village in Alaska that was starving to death and low on heating resources while she was busy being the media's lil orphan Annie. It's like I said I had to stop three minutes into the Matt Lauer interview because everytime I listen to a Sarah Palin interview it's at most 30% actual political and 70% media whore drama. I really doubt any opponent of hers would ignore such an event when campaigning against her. If anything, I say she is making her own political grave........

[Mint]

I'd totally disagree with you on the black vote. Yes early on Hillary was competitive, but if it wasn't for the outrageous black turn out in states like north carolina both during and after the primaries he would never have been the nominee. We'd be looking at our first female president now. Either that or the 'democratic wing of the democratic party' would have rallied behind Edwards and committed electoral suicide again.

[Vepres]

Yes. Here's a post of mine in another thread concerning her selection as McCain's VP.

Actually, Palin was great VP choice in theory. She was a popular governor, she took on the establishment as a reformer, she excited the base, and was fairly young. In fact, I thought she was a great pick strategically until the Charlie Gibson and Katie Couric interviews.

The flaw in picking her was that she was from Alaska, a state with far different issues than the lower 48. She knew a lot about oil and energy. Russian and Canada were a big deal to her and other Alaskans, just not to the general public.

If she was the VP choice 4 years from now, I doubt she would've made all the mistakes she did this time.

She didn't come off as smart because Alaskan issues are very different than in the lower 48. She knew a lot about oil, and Canada and Russia were much more important to her than most Americans.

Plus, she had little warning before being thrust on the national stage. No time to prepare, no time to become familiar with McCain's positions (the ones that mattered).

So yes, I think she being underestimated. Do I think she could win a general election, probably not. Do I personally like her positions on social issues? Absolutely not.

[Nutmeg]

Palin facts:
1. She's #1 on Yahoo Search

She also uses/d Yahoo Mail to conduct official state business.

And I heard she was very popular with WebTV, GeoCities, and Windows 3.1 users...

[12th Doctor]

Everyone is underestimating her. Did any ever think Obama would be president ? NO.

I'm sorry, what?

Yeah.  Since the Obama candidacy was primarily a media invention, I would say that we are talking about totally different circumstances here.

[You kip if you want to...]

?

Obama had some bad interviews, but his best wasn't in the same league as her best, displayed here.  His worst isn't in the same universe as her worst, displayed in the Couric interviews I rewatched a few weeks ago.  I couldn't imagine a candidate for mayor of my hometown (population: 3,000) sounding so utterly incompetent.

Obama has no history of hiring bad people to represent him, quite the opposite in fact.

He's acted presidential since his 2004 DNC speech.

?

Obama is good at talking the talk, but look at his cabinet picks, three or four of them had to step down or had tax problems, that is doing a good job at picking the people around you. Also, Obama has never ran anything in his life before, unlike Sarah who ran a city and is currently running a state.

And it will matter in 2012, why?

It won't because Obama isn't going to win in 2012.

Saying that is just as bad as when Democrats say no one can beat him and he'll win in a 45 state landslide.

[pbrower2a]

Everyone is underestimating her. Did any ever think Obama would be president ? NO.

Of course there's a huge difference in such matters as rhetorical power, effectiveness in establishing a campaign apparatus, choosing places in which to campaign, fund raising, exuding optimism, establishing an agenda, damage control, and the like.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

She is not a retard. She has serious flaws that establish her obvious limits as a leader. Bad interviews? She gave more than her share -- and she failed to undo the damage. She looked like a political choice that had superficial attractiveness and a semblance of strategic value but proved all in all to be a blunder. The Republican Party is not that short of talent, and John McCain could have chosen someone more suited to the role of President in the event of you-know-what.  Think of Dick Lugar, who had experience as a big city mayor and a Senator and has been well-regarded as both.

So she isn't a liberal? So what? Conservatism is not dead in America. But if we are to get a conservative, at least let that conservative have some quality as a political figure.   

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Unfair? Conservative media such as FoX Propaganda Channel and the Weekly Standard trash just about anyone liberal. When the issue is "too liberal" one has ideology. When the issue is basic competence, that is another issue altogether.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sure, she is -- she can show herself to be the political fool that the McCain people had to put on a short leash.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The Peter Principle (in any hierarchy a person tends to rise to his/her level of incompetence) has shown that she had better be content with Governor of Alaska.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It is very difficult to change one's intellectual style in one's forties. She seemed very unreflective, shooting from the hip... a bad trait in international politics.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Oh, yes some things are -- especially the word "loser".

You must be logged in to read this quote.

   
Believe what you want. She has been exposed as a scatterbrain who would offend 55% of America at the least.

[Stranger in a strange land]

I think she's been damaged beyond repair. The "Moron" label is a difficult one to shake. A better politician could have recovered from a few bad interviews, but she just kept piling on the gaffes.

[Mechaman]

I'd totally disagree with you on the black vote. Yes early on Hillary was competitive, but if it wasn't for the outrageous black turn out in states like north carolina both during and after the primaries he would never have been the nominee. We'd be looking at our first female president now. Either that or the 'democratic wing of the democratic party' would have rallied behind Edwards and committed electoral suicide again.

Thanks for the correction.

[Stranger in a strange land]

Palin is a strong public speaker. Nobody is disputing that, and I'll give credit where credit's due. The problem is that she abhors silence, and tries to fill the hole of silence with whatever comes out of her mouth, and this often does not end well.

[pbrower2a]

From the responses in this thread, the answer is an uncategorical yes.  The problem with liberals is that they live in a bubble-world where everything they perceive is reality, and when confronted with the facts they answer, "Reality has a liberal bias."  The myth that "Sarah Palin destroyed the McCain campaign" needs to die.  Palin single-handedly saved the McCain campaign and attracted unprecedented crowds for a vice-presidential candidate.  When Palin was picked, the donations to the McCain campaign wouldn't stop coming.  For once, the attention was on the Republican candidate, and the playing field was leveled.  The real damage to the McCain campaign came when the economy collapsed and he could not distance himself from Bush.

The fault isn't her intelligence; the fault is her lack of political maturity. She was able to appeal to the base, as is shown in the fundraising.  John McCain was close to winning the election going into September -- one big goof by Obama from winning. Nothing says that such a goof was forthcoming, but nothing says that it wasn't. She became a brittle target for the Democrats due to her Kerry-like statement in which she said "Thanks but no thanks" to the funding of the so-called "Bridge to Nowhere" as evidence of fiscal restraint... only to show that she found other uses for the budgeted funds. Her "Real America" nonsense energized the opposite base. Sure, there was more that wrecked McCain's candidacy, including the fervent right-wing rhetoric during the Republican National Convention, rhetoric  more strident than anything before associated with McCain. People had to wonder whether they were voting for John McCain or for a maintenance of a Hard Right ideology -- but Sarah Palin didn't know when to shut up. Some things are best left unsaid.

A wiser Republican nominee for Vice President -- let's say Richard Lugar -- would have made far fewer mistakes, would have delivered a state that McCain absolutely had to win (Indiana), and might have played well in some states fairly similar to Indiana in their politics -- Ohio, Virginia, North Carolina, and perhaps Iowa and Wisconsin. He would have been fare more effective as a campaigner because nobody would have had to keep him from saying something unwise. 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Ronald Reagan is a good parallel.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

She got her fifteen minutes of fame and mishandled it. She showed her level of incompetence as a leader. She left no doubt about her inadequacy for the greatest responsibility as Vice-President: to be ready to take over the Presidency in the event of the Unthinkable.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That was a whopper! Even if it were a joke, she created more questions about her wisdom and the relevance of any claims to any special expertise on foreign affairs. It had been shown that she had little experience in foreign travel. Had she ever visited Russia? No. Did she know any conversational Russian? No. Had she ever hosted a Russian delegation in Alaska? Never. About the only cultural connection that she could have had to Russia was to have heard some music by Tchaikovsky. She probably believed that Fyodor Dostoevsky was a KGB chief and that Lev Tolstoy was a political associate of Lenin. She has probably never been inside a Russian Orthodox Church -- in a state that was Russian territory until 1867.  

You must be logged in to read this quote.

See above.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, she is a mediocrity. You can tolerate a mediocrity doing a very routine job -- but nothing so complicated as surgery or diplomacy.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

In every 'quiet time' immediately after a Convention, the Party that just held the convention gets a so-called "bump". During the week of the convention, the other Party gets little attention while all journalistic attention is focused on the Convention. There was no gap between the Democratic National Convention and the Republican National Convention, so the Democrats never got the "bump" in which they looked as if they were about to make Texas a swing state, but the Republicans got theirs.

But let's remember the definitive answer to the question of how and why Obama won. It was number 43, and that is not a reference to a highway between Green Bay and Milwaukee. After eight years of the most deceitful, corrupt, incoherent, and incompetent President in American history we were ready for the antithesis.   

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Liberals are more tolerant of liberal bumbling and bromides; conservatives are more tolerant of conservative bumbling and bromides.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Obama now has the tools with which to make electoral dominance of the Democratic Party possible. He controls the agenda, and he seems to handle that role far better than did Dubya. 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Huckabee is a right-wing populist at a time in which such can win only in the South. Romney is a corporatist whose cultural ties mostly are to parts of the country in which he has little chance of winning in the general election. Palin can win the Republican base of Christian Fundamentalists, but that is not enough.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

We won't have a five-year economic meltdown. Obama is likely to get political capital from an economic turnaround that cannot quickly return America to the heady days of a speculative boom again. Obvious economic progress from a lower level -- mostly the result of people doing things that create wealth before they create the possibility of personal indulgence -- will be enough. High inflation? We have no chance of an overheated economy for the next few years. International turmoil? A reduction would aid Obama greatly, and his administration began with international turmoil at a very high point (our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan; genocide in Sudan; and nuke programs in Iran and North Korea). 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

 

True! Ideological warriors are always high-risk propositions.
[/quote]

[Beet]

Everyone is underestimating her. Did any ever think Obama would be president ? NO.

You just assume Palin is a retard because she gave a few bad interviews ,was strangled by the McCain Campaign. made many gafts, isn't a liberal ,a opposite of most woman politically, a viable threat to the democrat establishment.

The media unfairly trashed her. I highly doubt  the media would attack Stephanie Herseth , Kay Hagan, or any other Female democrat.

 Palin is free from the retarded campaign people of McCain. She can now prove she's a viable politician. She has been talking more and more about economic issues. And she is making less gafts. Palin can and probably will be ready to bounce back with a fiery fist.


Sarah Palin could have a future in politics, unlike Huckabee who shouldn't run because the last time he ran a incompetent  campaigner got nominated and got his ass handed to him.

Palin must get rid off the Brianless MILF Whore image the media gave her.


I'm not talking as a Palin supporter, i'm talking as a political pundit  would.


Nothing is set in stone in politics.


Palin 2012
   

Are you kidding? The media was far kinder to Sarah Palin than it was to Hillary Clinton.

The only reason that Palin's prospects for the Presidency today are better than Clinton's is that American culture is more ready to accept a less threatening female Republican than a (feminist) female Democrat.

[Vepres]

The only reason that Palin's prospects for the Presidency today are better than Clinton's is that American culture is more ready to accept a less threatening female Republican than a (feminist) female Democrat.