pageok
pageok
pageok
Gallup Tracking Poll Shows McCain Ahead 48-45%.

In the 3-day Gallup tracking poll released today, McCain leads Obama by 3% — 48% to 45%. This is a 5-point jump from yesterday's tracking poll, which means that Saturday's respondents were a staggering 14-16% more favorable to McCain than Wednesday's respondents (polled before Palin's speech).

The Rasmussen tracking poll showed a smaller, but still large, bounce of 8-10% between Wednesday's respondents and Saturday's. It appears that McCain/Palin is getting a big bounce from the convention.

Cornellian (mail):

It appears that McCain/Palin is getting a big bounce from the convention.


Let's see if it continues past the day when Palin stands up before the Washington press corps and offers to take questions. Or is the McCain team planning on restricting her to carefully scripted speeches all the way to election day?
9.7.2008 2:27pm
Floridan:
If her handlers watched Biden on Meet the Press, they probably won't let her out of the hotel room a minute before they absolutely have to.
9.7.2008 2:31pm
great unknown (mail):
Methinks Cornellian is falling prey to the same hubris that affected MSM before "the Palin speech." He would be well- advised to check out her interviews and speeches from Alaska.
I suspect Palin is being used first to spread a contagious enthusiasm throughout the GOP base. Then, and only then, will she condescend (accent on the descend) to be interviewed by the "impartial, ethical, credible" Washington press corps.
In a confrontation between Palin and "the Press", who do you think the public will be rooting for? And why?
9.7.2008 2:33pm
James Lindgren (mail):
I read that Palin gave 3 press interviews the other day; I didn't hear with whom (probably only friendly media).

When Ferraro was first made available to the press in 1984, they were actually asked not to ask her questions about either the Middle East or foreign policy generally (I can't remember which).

And, as you may recall, Obama was criticized during the primaries for going a long time (weeks, perhaps?) not taking questions from the press who were following him around.

Once Palin has been prepped, I will be surprised if Palin doesn't adopt the same press strategy as Obama did in the primaries. Like Obama, Palin is better in prepared speeches.
9.7.2008 2:38pm
JunkYardLawDog (mail):
Will America show it has learned its lesson from the Clinton years?

Will America have learned that family values count, and electing a president who grew up in a broken and dysfunctional home molds that child into an adult of seriously dangerous character flaws.

Witness Clinton, growing up in a broken home, surrounded by Alcoholic adults, irrational behavior, and violence. An idiot savant for political achievement but bereft of honor and the character needed to really fulfill the potential in his savant side.

Now we are faced with another candidate from a broken dysfunctional home. Obama born to an 18 year old unmarried woman, of mixed race, with a father who turned the black community role of fathering children and abandoning them into a globe trotting competition fathering children here and there all around the globe.

Obama a child who was confused in his upbringing with Muslim stepfather, enrolled in Muslim schools as a muslim, then told he was a Christian, shipped off by his natural mother to be raised by his white grandmother. No wonder that he could be so unfeeling and so ungrateful as to throw that white grandmother under the bus by comparing her to the America hating Reverend Wright and calling her a racist.

Such an upbringing in such a profoundly dysfunctional environment, abandoned by his father and rejected by his mother has to inevitably resulted in the creation of a tremendously and deeply flawed individual in need of a lot of psychological help. An individual so deeply flawed that he can not be trusted with the Presidency. It is too dangerous for the country to help Obama explore the depths of his dysfunctions in his journey of personal discovery by making him President.

Says the "Dog"
9.7.2008 2:41pm
Angus:
Palin didn't give any press interviews the other day, McCain did. The McCain campaign announced today that Palin would be available for her first questions in "a few days."
Link
9.7.2008 2:43pm
A.W. (mail):
Jim

As much as I want to believe in these polls that show mccain ahead, to me there is no poll more accurate than Rasmussen. But Rasmussen hasn't yet fully accounted for mccain's speech, and while it was not a firey one for the most part, it did tell people his biography, which is a strong card for him, and is less known than us political-obsessed types say.

Cornellian

> Let's see if it continues past the day when Palin stands up before the Washington press corps and offers to take questions. Or is the McCain team planning on restricting her to carefully scripted speeches all the way to election day?

Way to repeat a meme.

But you are right. I mean look how terrible Obama is when he is asked questions and has to think.

Q: when does life begin?
A: Well, um, uh, gee, I think its above my pay grade.

Maybe so, dipsh**, but you do have to make laws based on your understanding of that. Then again, he opposed a law that would have banned infanticide, so maybe that is why. He thinks it is not only above his pay grade to protect the unborn, but the unintentionally born as well.

Floridan

I'm sorry, I am not following your point, here.

Great unknown

Don't say that! We don't want to warn them!
9.7.2008 2:44pm
Hoosier:
"great unknown:
Methinks Cornellian is falling prey to the same hubris that affected MSM before "the Palin speech." He would be well- advised to check out her interviews and speeches from Alaska. "

No kidding. I know Coreliian and I are on different sides of this election. But whtever side you take, it makes no sense to drive down expectations for the other guy ('gal' in this case), at least until you are damned sure that she will choke. This was the misstep that Carter never recovered from in 1980. His team played up the "Reagan is a senile moron" story. And then Reagan came to the debate, didn't drool, and was proclaimed the winner.

This should have been be a learning experience for both parties: If you make the other guy the issue, and voters end up LIKING the other guy, you can't get out of the hole.
9.7.2008 2:46pm
Norman Bates (mail):
And this from Gallup, which has shown a bias towards overestimating Democrat support. I'm using bias in the statistical sense. My sense is that non-response issues and bias introduced by respondent-interviewer interactions have been creating serious problems for the accuracy of Gallup polling figures over at least the past decade.
9.7.2008 2:46pm
Hoosier:
"Or is the McCain team planning on restricting her to carefully scripted speeches all the way to election day? "

Doen't really matter if the teleprompter doesn't work right. So she'll be ready to wing it, just in case.
9.7.2008 2:47pm
Hoosier:
(And I have once again "learned" that I can't type while holding a 2 y o girl on my knee. Apologies for the misspelling of your name, Cornellian. And everything else!)
9.7.2008 2:49pm
Angus:
Norman,
Gallup's house effect actually favors Republicans, as does Rasmussen's. You can find an analysis of various pollsters and their house effects at Pollster.com:


That said, my feel is that McCain is about 2-3 points ahead at this point. I think Rasmussen and Gallup will have him up by about 3-5 tomorrow.
9.7.2008 2:52pm
MD-JD:
Floridian:

Do you mean the Biden that failed a law school class because of plagiarism? Then, some 20 years later he plagiarizes a speech? Where is MSM on this? Is it stale? Is it unreasonable to conclude that Biden might simply have a problem with intentionally deceiving people? Biden claimed 20 years ago that the law school failure was secondary to his confusion over citation rules. We all know here that citation is not rocket science and that this is a lame excuse. But, then again Biden finished 76th out of a class of 85 at the University of Syracuse school of law when he claimed the finished in the top 1/2 of the class.

Mrs. Palin will do fine with Joe Biden. In fact, if he tries to attack her, she can just charmingly point out the facts above along with a litany of others.

In the end, it is Obama who will regret not choosing Hillary. What a horrible decision! Like many other republicans, that is the ticket we most feared.
9.7.2008 2:54pm
Angus:
Let's try that Pollster.com link again:
Link
9.7.2008 2:55pm
fullerene:

I read that Palin gave 3 press interviews the other day; I didn't hear with whom (probably only friendly media).


Despite my best efforts, I have been unable to locate these interviews. They might exist, but they are really, really hard to find. Furthermore, the McCain campaign has said that Palin is not doing media interviews right now. I am not sure why it would say this if it could claim otherwise.

Having said this, doing a media interview is not all that difficult. Even the supposedly legendary Tim Russert would basically take any answer from anyone no matter how nonsensical it was. Repeating talking points about small town values, cutting taxes, "concern" about Russia, bringing jobs to the middle class, and helping out struggling homeowners will get her through in flying colors. People who are pinning their hopes on the media exposing Palin's lack of depth are going to be seriously disappointed. In the history of politics, no candidate for political office has been as badly exposed as many are hoping Palin will be. The media itself is pretty much out of its depth on most issues, so it is a lot to ask that it expose someone else's ignorance.
9.7.2008 2:55pm
Cornellian (mail):
Then, and only then, will she condescend (accent on the descend) to be interviewed by the "impartial, ethical, credible" Washington press corps.

I haven't said the press corps is any of those things. Reporters have biases, just like the rest of us and not always the same direction. I'm sure the reporter from Fox and the reporter from the NYT will ask different questions.

How exactly is she planning on staring down Vladimir Putin (for example) if she runs away from the prospect of getting a tough question from a reporter?

Maybe she'll do fine at that press conference, maybe she won't but the point is we're not going to know that until we see it and a fireside chat with the lifestyle editor of some local paper up in Alaska isn't going to cut it.
9.7.2008 2:57pm
theobromophile (www):
And I have once again "learned" that I can't type while holding a 2 y o girl on my knee.

Hoosier,

Once she's old enough to type, will y'all be HoosierDaughter and HoosierDaddy on the blogs?
9.7.2008 2:59pm
Dave N (mail):
Howard Fineman's Newsweek column suggests it was always the McCain campaign's plan to let her go back to Alaska for a short period.

Remember, she has not been back there since her secret trip to Arizona the day before she was announced. I am sure she has a long list of things she would like to do both personally and professionally before hitting the campaign trail (and leaving Alaska) full-time between now and November.
9.7.2008 3:00pm
JK:
This is some pretty amazing movement for a popular VP pick, we'll see if it holds.
9.7.2008 3:00pm
taney71:
I think this race is far from over. Just wait till the VP and Presidential debates come. We should see some big swings then.
9.7.2008 3:00pm
ObeliskToucher:
Let's not forget that Palin has a son who is shipping out to fairly soon (this week, I've heard, although I can't find the link again)...
9.7.2008 3:00pm
Cornellian (mail):
Even the supposedly legendary Tim Russert would basically take any answer from anyone no matter how nonsensical it was.

Quite true, the media in this country are mostly lapdogs for the people in power, ever willing offer softball questions in return for access to them. The British press corps are pitbulls compared to the poodles we have over here. So a press conference isn't much of a test, but it's better than going all the way to election day without knowing anything about her.

And by the way for all you Palin fans - what exactly makes you so sure she's not going to be the VP equivalent of David Souter who was also trumpeted for his small town background and got on the Supreme Court without anyone knowing much about him. What do you really know about Palin other than what you knew about Souter before he got appointed?
9.7.2008 3:02pm
ObeliskToucher:
shipping out to Iraq, that is...
9.7.2008 3:02pm
Smokey:
Some of today's comments by Willie Brown, former Mayor of San Francisco, and long time Speaker of the California state Assembly:

The Democrats are in trouble. Sarah Palin has totally changed the dynamics of this campaign.

Period.

Palin's speech to the GOP National Convention on Wednesday has set it up so that the Republicans are now on offense and Democrats are on defense. And we don't do well on defense.

Suddenly, Palin and John McCain are the mavericks and Barack Obama and Joe Biden are the status quo, in a year when you don't want to be seen as defending the status quo.

From taxes to oil drilling, Democrats are now going to have to start explaining their positions.

Whenever you start having to explain things, you're on defense.

I actually went back and watched Palin's speech a second time. I didn't go to sleep until 1:30 a.m. I had to make sure I got the lines right.

Her timing was exquisite. She didn't linger with applause, but instead launched into line after line of attack, slipping the knives in with every smile and joke.

And she delivered it like she was just BS-ing on the street with the meter maid.

She didn't have to prove she was "of the people." She really is the people.

There is one thing she should have done: announced when her 17-year-old daughter and the teenage father of the girl's unborn child are getting married and invited all of us to the wedding. It should be like Sunday at church.

As for Palin herself, she is going to be very, very effective on the campaign trail, especially if McCain's people can figure out how to gently keep her from getting into confrontations with the press.

If she can answer questions like she handled herself at the convention, Palin will turn out to be the most interesting person in all of politics, and the press will treat her like they treated Obama when he was first discovered.

And remember, the Palin bandwagon needs to roll for only two months.


[source]

And remember that Willie, like Barry, is a Democrat and an African American.
9.7.2008 3:02pm
SG:
The media itself is pretty much out of its depth on most issues, so it is a lot to ask that it expose someone else's ignorance.

Ain't that the truth. It drives me nuts how the media typically doesn't ask even the most basic of followup questions. One often gets the impression that they view there job function more as public relations than actual journalism.
9.7.2008 3:04pm
Hoosier:
"How exactly is she planning on staring down Vladimir Putin (for example) if she runs away from the prospect of getting a tough question from a reporter? "

OK. So now I pull out the boilerplate?

I doubt she'll run from Putin for as long as Obama hid from FOX.

OR

You mean she'll be like Obama, and blame Russias victims. Before he changes his mind and suggests sending the issue to the UN Security Council (Hmm. I hope *Palin* knows that Russia has a veto there, since Obama certainly didn't.) And THEN he comes around to McCain's position, after three days.

You mean like that? Because I'm not sure why we'd want her to, to be quite honest.
9.7.2008 3:04pm
Hoosier:
"Even the supposedly legendary Tim Russert would basically take any answer from anyone no matter how nonsensical it was. "

I don't agree re: Russert. He could be a bulldog. Obama had serious trouble with him on the Sunday before Super Tuesday. And, as we learned, it didn't matter.
9.7.2008 3:06pm
Angus:
Smokey,
You managed to completely miss the main point that he was making: that in Palin, image is winning out over substance.
9.7.2008 3:08pm
James Lindgren (mail):
Angus, thanks for the link about the non-interviews.
9.7.2008 3:09pm
Asher (mail):
Saturday's respondents were a staggering 14-16% more favorable to McCain than Wednesday's respondents

Staggering, I suppose, though Dukakis came out of his convention with a 17-point lead, but according to the good poll-obsessed folks at fivethirtyeight.com, Wednesday's respondents went to Obama by a margin of 7.8 points, so McCain only led yesterday's respondents by about 7.2. That could, and will, wash away in days.
9.7.2008 3:11pm
Federal Dog:
"How exactly is she planning on staring down Vladimir Putin (for example) if she runs away from the prospect of getting a tough question from a reporter?"

She was named eight days ago. I do not consider giving her a bit of time to prepare for the attack unusual or unreasonable. That is hardly running away; it is responsibly preparing for media that have proven themselves to be openly hostile and deceptive about her and her family.
9.7.2008 3:12pm
James Lindgren (mail):
Angus, I agree that McCain is probably really now about 2-3% ahead.
9.7.2008 3:13pm
theobromophile (www):
Let's not forget that Palin has a son who is shipping out to fairly soon (this week, I've heard, although I can't find the link again)...

She said in her acceptance speech that he leaves on 9/11. IIRC, the Boston Globe said this morning that he'll be working in security over there (whatever that means).
9.7.2008 3:14pm
Jon Roland (mail) (www):
From studying videos of Palin's previous unscripted appearances, and comparing them to Biden's, or for that matter, to both Obama and McCain, one finds that Palin does even better in unscripted enounters, and better than the other three. She has faced hostile interviewers before, and if it is about an issue for which she does not have a well-developed position, she can always make a thoughtful reply that has her analyzing the issue on the spot, not reaching a conclusion, but leaving the viewer with the hope that she might come to a conclusion he likes. So far, no one has dared to demand she take a yes or no position on an issue she hasn't thoroughly explored, and if someone did, she would just explore it then and there.

Although Palin hasn't had to take positions on a wide range of national issues yet, she exhibits the traits of a serious policy wonk, not unlike Bill Clinton or Al Gore, but actually better able to make the viewer feel comfortable with how she is handling the question.

In informal polling of acquaintances, I find that the main source of the bounce is not her speech before the Republican Convention, but all the buzz about her since her debut. After more than a week, all the talk is still about Palin, to the exclusion of the other three. People, even those who think they disagree with her (but who are becoming less sure about that), are fascinated by her. Star power does fade, but usually lingers for a few months, and that takes her through the election. If she continues to take the wind out of the sails of the Democrats, this election may become a referendum on Sarah Palin, and if it does, she, and McCain, win.

I am already seeing "Vote for Palin" bumperstickers that don't mention McCain, who seems to have deliberately picked a VP who overshadows him, and is delighted about it. I am also getting a lot of favorable comments about McCain as the guy who had the good judgment to pick Palin.

Interestingly, I am also getting a lot of support for Palin from a segment that is especially concerned about police abuse, because of her alleged attempts to get a rogue cop fired. Nobody cares if the way she may have tried to do it was improper. They think the ways cops are protected from being fired are improper.

The Palin pick has turned this into a really interesting election.
9.7.2008 3:17pm
JunkYardLawDog (mail):
it is responsibly preparing for media that have proven themselves to be openly hostile and deceptive about her and her family.

Federal Dog that's putting it mildly. The New York Times has run more stories on her 17 year old daughter's sex life than they have on Obama's long term association with felons (Rezko) and leaders of organized crime rings (Ayers) responsible for the murders of several people including one Policeman.

Says the "Dog"
9.7.2008 3:19pm
Cornellian (mail):
She was named eight days ago. I do not consider giving her a bit of time to prepare for the attack unusual or unreasonable. That is hardly running away; it is responsibly preparing for media that have proven themselves to be openly hostile and deceptive about her and her family.

If after eight days she's still not ready for a press conference how much time will she need before she's ready to meet foreign leaders who will be far more hostile and deceptive than a NYT reporter?
9.7.2008 3:28pm
BCrago77 (mail):
I half-suspect that the McCain campaign's strategery here is to keep Palin from the press for about another 10 days, knowing the MSM/Obama-partisan press will, inevitably, let us all know who and what they are, with sexist and culturally bigoted remarks calling her a ditz or "former beauty-queen," etc.

Then Palin will reinforce her image as a populist heroine when she aces the press conference with know-nothing jerk reporters.
9.7.2008 3:29pm
great unknown (mail):
"I had to meet my responsibilites to the people who elected me. My son shipped out on 9/11. I consider those items as having a higher priority than meeting with press. Other than making some reporters wait another week, nothing is lost, since I am now answering your questions." Response of Sarah Palin when asked why she delayed meeting the press.
"It would be totally irresponsible to abandon the job I was elected to without tying up loose ends. What do you think I am, a Senator from Illinois?"
9.7.2008 3:39pm
Cornellian (mail):
From Reuters today:

McCain, who along with Palin was nominated last week for the top spots in the November 4 election, was asked by Bob Schieffer on CBS' "Face the Nation" when that might be.

"Within the next few days and I'm strongly recommending that she come on 'Face the Nation' with Bob Schieffer," McCain said in an interview that was taped on Saturday.

But McCain's campaign manager, Rick Davis, would not go that far.

"She'll agree to an interview when we think it's time and when she feels comfortable doing it," David said on "Fox News Sunday."


She's about eight weeks from the election and still not comfortable doing an interview????
9.7.2008 3:45pm
Federal Dog:
In the week since she was nominated, she's been up to her neck with other obligations. You may have noticed?

It took Obama years before he'd go on Fox. If he needed years to prepare for that, how much time will he need to meet foreign leaders far more hostile and deceptive toward the United States than Bill O'Reilly?
9.7.2008 3:49pm
The Editors, American Federalist Journal (www):

"Even the supposedly legendary Tim Russert would basically take any answer from anyone no matter how nonsensical it was."


There's at least an argument for letting your audience analyze and decide for themselves how nonsensical (or not) an answer was, isn't there?


...to meet foreign leaders who will be far more hostile and deceptive than a NYT reporter?


Why is that a given?
9.7.2008 3:52pm
JunkYardLawDog (mail):
Cornellian:

Obama is 8 weeks away from the election and still not comfortable doing a townhall meeting and debate with McCain. What is he hiding from? He's been preparing for this since being elected to the Senate and right after he had previously declared himself to be unqualified to be president and without intention to run for president. So why is Obama hiding from McCain.

Cornellian:
to meet foreign leaders who will be far more hostile and deceptive than a NYT reporter?

Uh no, they won't be.

The MSM's sexist and partisan behavior is so over the top that they don't deserve an interview with Palin. They need her not the other way around. She should tour the country doing interviews with the local evening news anchors and bypass the corrupt elitist members of the washington press corp.

She should do an interview just as soon as Obama does a single townhall meeting debate with McCain. Surely, since Obama's ascension into the heavens at the conclusion of his acceptance speech, he has been infused with the power of the lord to stand up to a townhall meeting with McCain. Surely the weeping angels would hold him up and keep him from falling in such a situation. So what is the One hiding from exactly.

Says the "Dog"
9.7.2008 3:57pm
donaldk2 (mail):
Cornellian, you are a kibitzer in a high stakes bridge game. Your speculations are about as valuable as the players at the table would find them.
9.7.2008 4:02pm
Ben P (mail):

Federal Dog that's putting it mildly. The New York Times has run more stories on her 17 year old daughter's sex life than they have on Obama's long term association with felons (Rezko) and leaders of organized crime rings (Ayers) responsible for the murders of several people including one Policeman.


This might even be halfway true if you qualified it with "in the last two weeks."

Otherwise, it's pretty much totally false.

12 Articles by the NYT that mention both Rezko and Obama (16 that mention rezko alone)

16 Articles mentioning both Obama and Ayers (and 754 that mention Ayers alone)

and 8 articles that mention Bristol Palin. - several of which appear to be less politically oriented articles than discussions on the subject in general brought about by the revelation of Bristol Palin's pregnancy.
9.7.2008 4:09pm
BCrago77 (mail):
donald2,

Can I be the "kibitzer in a high stakes bridge game" instead? That has such a cool sound to it, I just might adopt it without attribution for myself.
9.7.2008 4:09pm
Angus:

In the week since she was nominated, she's been up to her neck with other obligations. You may have noticed?
It's been impossible to take a 1/2 hour between campaign stump speeches to talk to the reporters covering her campaign?
9.7.2008 4:09pm
JunkYardLawDog (mail):
Ben P,

How many on the front page? Unlike the sex life of Sarah Palin's 17 year old daughter whose breaking news warranted at least 3 front page news stories on the SAME DAY.

How many of the Obama Rezko and Obama Ayers articles were pro Obama there is nothing here move along stories versus the hard hitting news accounts of Sarah Palin's 17 year old daughters sex life?

GMAFB

Says the "Dog"
9.7.2008 4:14pm
Henry Schaffer (mail):
The large changes in poll results from week to week, or even within one week, should suggest that we take all of these poll %s with a grain of salt.

Yet, the MSM and the blogosphere tend to go ballistic over a 1% change - it must be that real news and real analysis are much too hard.
9.7.2008 4:17pm
Ben P (mail):

How many of the Obama Rezko and Obama Ayers articles were pro Obama there is nothing here move along stories versus the hard hitting news accounts of Sarah Palin's 17 year old daughters sex life?


"Hard Hitting" news accounts of a teen pregnancy? Seriously? I think I'll just accept this quibbling about your subjective interpretations of articles as evidence that you have really nothing to stand on and move along.
9.7.2008 4:18pm
Dave N (mail):
Donald2,

I am a fairly avid bridge player. I have never played it for any stakes at all, let alone "high stakes."

Now, "high stakes p*o*k*e*r game" makes more sense--and I have also played a bit of p*o*k*e*r in my time, too. Perhaps you started off with that analogy, I just discovered the word p*o*k*e*r (without the * between each letter) is verbotin on this site.
9.7.2008 4:55pm
The Editors, American Federalist Journal (www):
NY Times articles that mention Ayers in the context of "those mean Republicans are smearing Obama about Bill Ayers" do not at all resemble NY Times articles examining the years-long relationship between Obama and Ayers (the latter which so far seem not to exist).

You know they (and other DeMSM outlets) would do a lengthy investigation and series of articles on the front page if McCain had any analogous relationships.
9.7.2008 4:59pm
Bill Kilgore:
And by the way for all you Palin fans - what exactly makes you so sure she's not going to be the VP equivalent of David Souter who was also trumpeted for his small town background and got on the Supreme Court without anyone knowing much about him. What do you really know about Palin other than what you knew about Souter before he got appointed?

I don't know if I'm a Palin fan, but I do know that she will be subject to election, unlike Souter.
9.7.2008 5:00pm
TCO:
I would love it if we could build up a meme that Palin is hoilding back from interviews and that the Sunday Morning hosts will crucify her. Will be just like the speech where the drama drive more viewership and the low expectations allowed her to declare more of a victory.
9.7.2008 5:05pm
JunkYardLawDog (mail):
Cornellian,

One reason Palin won't be a Souter is that Palin has a normal life, and isn't a dysfunctional single man in his 50's whose either a closet gay or so dysfunctional that he is unable to have ever formed a meaningful relationship with another adult.

For another reason what Bill Kilgore said.

Says the "Dog"
9.7.2008 5:13pm
David Warner:
"How exactly is she planning on staring down Vladimir Putin (for example) if she runs away from the prospect of getting a tough question from a reporter?"

She's not running away from the press, she's running against the press, a time tested Republican strategy and one that is more in McCain's short-term interest than her long-term. Hope she does better than Bush's two front war against the press and Iraq.

As for staring down Putin, you might want to ask Barry how he's feeling. Or Phillip about Elizabeth, the Sun King about Queen Anne, or half the world about Victoria. Feminine heads of state have a proud history in the English-speaking tradition, perhaps a bit too proud.
9.7.2008 5:27pm
TJIT (mail):
Cornellian you said,
Let's see if it continues past the day when Palin stands up before the Washington press corps and offers to take questions. Or is the McCain team planning on restricting her to carefully scripted speeches all the way to election day?

How exactly is she planning on staring down Vladimir Putin (for example) if she runs away from the prospect of getting a tough question from a reporter?
Cornellian hate to break the news to you but Obama has done the exact same thing during his campaign.


Obama's Waffle Controversy


as Jay Newton-Small at Time's Swampland explains, Obama hasn't given a press conference in 10 days and the reporters had no other opportunity to ask him.

Obama just doesn't give the press much access, sometimes shutting them down for weeks at a time.
9.7.2008 5:50pm
Smokey:
"If after eight days she's still not ready for a press conference... & blah, blah, etc., etc."
This is great! Governor Palin is setting the agenda, and all the liberals can do is snivel and whine that she's not doing things their way.
9.7.2008 5:51pm
JunkYardLawDog (mail):
Ben P


"Hard Hitting" news accounts of a teen pregnancy? Seriously?

They were all on the front page of the New York Times, they must be hard hitting news stories by definition. If you find it offensive that accounts of a 17 year old girls sex life are treated as hard news by the New York Times, then take it up with them, but don't use it as an excuse to run away and hide from me (as well as your own comments).

Says the "Dog"
9.7.2008 5:54pm
Hoosier:
David Warnerthe Sun King about Queen Anne

Yow. I was just reading about "Queen Anne's War" last night.

That is an incredibly odd coincidence. Or you have my home office under surveillance.
9.7.2008 6:26pm
Hoosier:
Cornellian:

If after eight days she's still not ready for a press conference how much time will she need before she's ready to meet foreign leaders who will be far more hostile and deceptive than a NYT reporter?

OK. Now I'm not a lawyer. But I am a diplomatic historian. And I can assure you that the Geneva Summit of 1961 was a rather uncommon occurence. High-level meetings are scripted very tightly; there is quite a bit of staff work involved; and foreign secretaries, if they want to be nasty, call in the ambassador (poor guy) and chew him out. They don't do this to a head of state, except on rare occasions. Now, the talk sometimes gets a little "tense." You can tell because the State Department will say that the disucssions were "frank." Or, if worse, "full and frank." (Not joking. That's the code.)

Veeps don't get sent for "full and frank discussions." That's for the State Department. Usually the deputy sec, or the relevant under sec, gets to be the flak catcher, to use Tom Wofle's phrase. But just watch how infrequently the next president--whoever he may be--has "full and frank discussions" with an adversary.
9.7.2008 6:37pm
Bad English:
Perhaps the posters demanding that she address the press between appearances can post their personal in-depth knowledge of her schedule, including travel commitments.

That, or admit you don't have the faintest clue what you're talking about and are just running your mouths against someone you obviously hate.
9.7.2008 6:38pm
Asher (mail):

One reason Palin won't be a Souter is that Palin has a normal life, and isn't a dysfunctional single man in his 50's whose either a closet gay or so dysfunctional that he is unable to have ever formed a meaningful relationship with another adult.


That was uncalled for.
9.7.2008 7:13pm
TruthInAdvertising:
I'm waiting to see when/if Palin is asked whether she'll support Ted Stevens re-election. If anyone but Stevens was running, it would be a slamdunk win for the GOP. But the corruption charges against Stevens are giving the Dems. a chance at the seat. Can the Republicans afford to lose another Senate? Can Palin simply remain silent on the biggest race in her state?
9.7.2008 7:24pm
omarbradley:
Cornellian, there's 90 days between the election and the inauguration. I think that's enough time for her to get up to speed to br able to perform the superhuman task of casting the tiebreaking vote in the Senate. The VP never stands up to any foreign leaders. Did Al Gore ever stand up to anyone when he was VP? Did he face anyone down? Did Quayle? Did Bush 41? Mondale? Get real.

As for the NYT and Ayers if you look at your link, you'll see that ALL of them were after Stephanopolous asked him about it on the April 16 debate and the response to that. Most were about the Republicans attacking him over it.

By that point he'd been on the national scene for close to 4 yrs and had been running for President for more than a year. And there was not one NYT article about Ayers and Obama. Not one. Nada. Nothing questioning it or investigating it until it was literally thrown in their face on nat'l televison. Even then they've never investigated it.

Compare to the number of articles on Bristol Palin in a span of a few days.
9.7.2008 7:35pm
Constantin:
Maybe Palin should just get up and leave, in her first interview, after "like 8 questions." It worked for Obama.
9.7.2008 8:03pm
Angus:

Even then they've never investigated it.
Or they investigated it and came to a conclusion you didn't like.
9.7.2008 8:04pm
Malvolio:
I'm now officially bored with the "MSM is in the tank for Obama" complaints.

Yes, they're in the tank for him.

No, it won't help him much, if at all.

A chicken, when its head is severed, runs about at random; a media property, when its sources of income and social relevancy are severed, does roughly the same thing.
9.7.2008 8:11pm
great unknown (mail):
Angus:
Which said conclusion, and the evidence therefore, they presented where?
9.7.2008 8:16pm
Amador LuLu (mail):
McCain's bounce so far has brought him dead even with(or 3% ahead of, depending on whether we look at Gallup or Rasmussen)Obama. But the polling websites (RCP, Fivethirtyeight, Pollster.com etc) continue to have McCain running far behind Obama in electoral votes. Here's a question I posed by e-mail to RCP's Jay Cost early in August: State polling shows Obama up by 15% in two very populous states, NY and CA. How can this possibly square with him being up in electoral votes nationwide when the nationwide popular vote polling shows essentially a deadheat? In other words, Obama's 48% of the popular vote includes an abundance of overflow votes in two solid blue states. The only really large state going for McCain is Texas, which is less populous than NY or CA, and in any event, his advantage there is only 10%. This must mean that for McCain to be polling with 48% of the popular vote nationwide, he must be ahead in several of the flyover red states that polling websites are currently calling as giving their electoral votes to Obama.

Jay's answer to me: Too soon to put much stock in the polls and, anyway, the single state polls by local pollsters are not dependable.

My comment now: If McCain is pulling ahead in the nationwide popular vote, he must also be ahead in the electoral college.
9.7.2008 8:22pm
JunkYardLawDog (mail):
Asher,

My comment may be harsh but it is something that is highly relevant to why Souter turned out to be almost as liberal and activist as Breyer and not the conservative he was sold to us to be. Bush the first and his team were idiots because it doesn't take a mental giant to look at a man in his 50s who has never been married and figure out he is either a closet gay (i.e. likely to be a liberal and not a conservative after getting that lifetime appointment) or has some serious dysfunctions in his personality. Either way not someone who should have ever been appointed to the Supreme court to be a new conservative voice on the court.

There is also one other likely fact I left out. Souter likely lied his arse off when being interviewed about his political philosophies and constitutional leanings in order to get that lifetime appointment as a new conservative voice on the court.

Says the "Dog"

If not for Souter we wouldn't have had a whole rash of irrational and unconstitutional 5 to 4 decisions over the past several years since his appointment.
9.7.2008 8:27pm
Lady on the Left:

Now we are faced with another candidate from a broken dysfunctional home. Obama born to an 18 year old unmarried woman, of mixed race, with a father who turned the black community role of fathering children and abandoning them into a globe trotting competition fathering children here and there all around the globe.



We shouldn't vote for Obama because he's "of mixed race"? Are you serious?

Being of mixed race is not generally considered "dysfunctional." At least not in 2008. I would have hoped that was one thing we could all agree on.
9.7.2008 8:33pm
Cornellian (mail):
Cornellian, you are a kibitzer in a high stakes bridge game. Your speculations are about as valuable as the players at the table would find them.

Well then, lucky for me that I say what I do because I feel like saying it, not because I care whether anyone else wants to hear it.
9.7.2008 8:38pm
JunkYardLawDog (mail):
Lady on the left,

That isn't what I wrote. Being of mixed race brings additional pressures and problems in one's self image and problems, especially if you are in a totally dysfunctional family situation otherwise. No father figure and a mother who rejects you and sends you to live with grandmother. Now your muslim, now your a christian, etc etc.

Please read all the words in the sentences and consider them all in context of each other instead of seeing racism and hoods everywhere you look.

What I wrote was that someone from a broken dysfunctional home doesn't likely make a good candidate for being President because it isn't the kind of background for developing a full well rounded personality.

Why do you think Obama had the *need* to write two autobiographies by the time he was 45 and not a single piece of meaningful legislation? Because his damaged self-image from his dysfunctional home life gives him a driving need for self aggrandizement.

Says the "Dog"
9.7.2008 8:42pm
Cornellian (mail):
Now we are faced with another candidate from a broken dysfunctional home. Obama born to an 18 year old unmarried woman, of mixed race, with a father who turned the black community role of fathering children and abandoning them into a globe trotting competition fathering children here and there all around the globe.

We shouldn't vote for Obama because he's "of mixed race"? Are you serious?


I think JunkYardDog is perfectly serious about that, and in believing that it's "the black community role of fathering children and abandoning them." Apparently this is what passes for "conservative" these days.
9.7.2008 8:43pm
JunkYardLawDog (mail):
Angus,

Of course the NYT came to the conclusion there is no there there for Ayers. The NYT supports leaders of communist crime organizations dedicated to bombing our institutions of government and actually committing indiscriminate killings of innocent civilians and policeman.

Its the sex lives of 17 year old girls that is front page news to the NYT. Reports are currently they are readying another new hard news report (not Ayers the crime leader and good friend of Obama, who also hates america along with the good reverend Wright), but another hard news investigatory piece on Sarah Palin's down syndrome baby. Should be good for at least 4 stories above the fold. All negative of course, because how could the liberals forgive a woman who chooses not to murder her unborn down syndrome baby (or in Obama's case murder the baby after its born alive and throw it out with the medical waste).

Says the "Dog"
9.7.2008 8:56pm
Angus:

Which said conclusion, and the evidence therefore, they presented where?
If you investigate something and find no evidence, what story would you expect them to write apart from the ones being written: that the connections between Ayers/Rezko and Obama are minimal.

The only evidence I've seen tying them together is:
-Obama once visited Ayers' house for a party;
-Each was on the boards of multiple community organizations, two of which overlapped. So they might have met in a formal setting for a couple of hours every 3 months or so.
-And...that's it.
Oh, plus the far out ones:
-a supporter of Obama used to be on an editorial board with Ayers' brother. Which is practically the same thing as Obama and Ayers making out in the parking lot while planting a bomb!
-Ayers' father once made a donation to the same charity as did Obama's church
9.7.2008 9:11pm
rarango (mail):
I honestly do not understand this fixation on "interviews" Too many people thinking inside the box here--here's two suggestions: 1) arrange to have bloggers from left center and right (and from VC to cover the libertarian stuff) inverview palin. No Andrea Mitchels, anderson coopers, george wills, or the like. How would that be? Or better yet, how about a town hall forum with no MSM moderator and no plants from opposing campaigns--would that elicit the kind of information you are looking for?

And what is it anyway--this fixation on Palin ignores the fact that Obama is running agains McCain, not Palin. And unless you are thinking in your heart of hearts that McCain is a dead man walking, why should it matter?
9.7.2008 9:42pm
David Warner:
Hoosier,

"Yow. I was just reading about "Queen Anne's War" last night."

Churchill's Marlborough here. The current Democrats remind me very much of Queen Anne's Tories with their established Church of the Media/Education/Pop Culture axis vs. the Republican Whigs of the City (WSJ) and various Dissenters often dismissed by the Tories as being beyond the pale.

It was the Tory backlash against Queen Anne's War that nearly destroyed Marlborough, but the backlash against the backlash ushered in an era of Whig dominance under Walpole. Could Obama be St. John/Bolingbroke? Time will tell...
9.7.2008 9:45pm
Dave N (mail):
Angus,

It wasn't just a casual cocktail party they both showed up for. It was among the VERY first campaigns events for Obama's very first campaign. I know I always invite strangers over to host campaign events for them. So don't insult our intelligence by making it sound like they just happened to bump into each other at someone else's cocktail party.
9.7.2008 9:50pm
Dave N (mail):
oh--and I should have included, it was held at the Ayers home.
9.7.2008 9:52pm
Lady on the Left:

That isn't what I wrote. Being of mixed race brings additional pressures and problems in one's self image and problems, especially if you are in a totally dysfunctional family situation otherwise. No father figure and a mother who rejects you and sends you to live with grandmother. Now your muslim, now your a christian, etc etc.


JYLD,

That is what you wrote. Although I didn't copy the whole post, I did read it all and copied the significant section that I was referring to. You consider being of mixed race to be one part of dysfunctional environment. I disagree.

Being of mixed race may bring extra stress, that's true. We do live in a race-conscious society, and that undoubtedly has an affect on a multiracial person's identity. I'm sure Barack Obama and other multiracial people have struggled with this from time to time. I just don't think that disqualifies him or anyone else from being president. Actually, I think that facing difficult situations probably helps prepare someone to be president.

There are many reasons why a reasonable person might vote for McCain instead of Obama. Obama is less experienced than McCain, and obviously if you are conservative then McCain's policies are preferable to Obama's. A dignified debate would focus on these issues, and not on personal ones. In fact, all I've been hearing from conservatives is that we should focus on Palin's policies and not her personal and family life. So why not do the same for Obama? He certainly couldn't choose who his parents were or how he grew up. Even if you disagree with his liberalism, I think it should be acknowledged that he's done remarkably well for someone who came from a "dysfunctional" background. By all accounts, he is a good husband and father, despite not having a role model in that area. He's well-educated, intelligent, and reasonable. Is he also maybe a little full of himself? Sure, that's why he became a politician.

Additionally, I'd rather vote for someone who's gone through some tough times than someone who's always had it easy. GWB had a nearly perfect upbringing, married parents of the same race, well-off, no dysfunction to speak of. It hasn't made him a good president.

Also: the "your" you were looking for in the above passage is "you're." And I think the idea that Obama was ever a Muslim has been pretty much debunked. Of course you can go on thinking that he is, and your counterparts on the left will go on thinking that Sarah Palin's baby is really her grandbaby. Both sides can play crazy rumors if they want, and it doesn't help anyone.
9.7.2008 10:05pm
LM (mail):
This is the long anticipated Lindgren bounce. Undecided voters have been waiting for Jim to get off the fence and declare his candidate.

Now that it's settled, I'll stop following the election. Unless the polls change. But that's not possible, is it?
9.7.2008 10:14pm
LM (mail):

But whtever side you take, it makes no sense to drive down expectations for the other guy ('gal' in this case), at least until you are damned sure that she will choke.

Absolutely true. It obviously had disaster written all over it, but no one would listen to me. Even if I had tried to tell them.
9.7.2008 10:19pm
Hoosier:
Cornellian:

"Apparently this is what passes for "conservative" these days."

Only if you can't understand all the big words in Roger Scruton's books. (Can you, Corny?)
9.7.2008 10:33pm
JunkYardLawDog (mail):
Lady on the Left,

Being of mixed race may bring extra stress...I just don't think that disqualifies him or anyone else from being president.

Neither do I, and I did not write otherwise.

I also did not write that being the child of single mother disqualifies you from running for president. I also didn't write that not having a father growing up disqualifies you from being president. I didn't write about any of these things as a single concept unconnected from the others. It is your mind and limited comprehension that is causing you to make your erroneous conclusions.

I wrote that being from a dysfunctional family background is something to consider in deciding for whom to vote because dysfunctional families breed dysfunctional children. That is what I wrote. I wrote that the combined problems and dysfunctions of being a child of an 18 year old single mother, a child of mixed race without a father figure as a role model, now your a muslim, now you aren't, etc., ultimate rejection by your mother and packed off to be raised by your grandmother all show a very dysfunctional background that very likely produced a dysfunctional child.

That is what I wrote, and that I believe is an accurate statement of the facts. Now construct your next straw man and argue against it. It still won't change what I wrote.

You can distort and misinterpret what I wrote all you want, that is up to you. It doesn't change however what I actually wrote, your less than adequate comprehension of same notwithstanding.

Says the "Dog"
9.7.2008 10:53pm
JunkYardLawDog (mail):
Dave N,

Don't forget that Ayers and Obama worked closely together at the head of that Annenberg Foundation for two years, and the Annenberg Foundation sealed the records until they had time to cleanse them ala Sandy Burglar of any information revealing anything about the close ties of the organized crime leader and Obama.

Says the "Dog"
9.7.2008 10:59pm
LM (mail):

But I am a diplomatic historian.

In the sense of diplomacy being war by other means?
9.7.2008 11:04pm
Lady on the Left:
JYLD,

I understand what you wrote. I respectfully disagree with it, but that doesn't mean I can't comprehend it. My feeble, non-comprehending mind would like to make two more points, and then I'm done.

First, there is a difference between a dysfunctional family and a less-than-perfect one. I used to teach inner-city public school and I currently work in inner-city law enforcement, so I've seen my fair share of dysfunctional families and dysfunctional people. A dysfunctional family usually involves abuse, abandonment, addiction, etc. Dysfunctional children usually grow up to be dropouts, drug dealers or addicts, prostitutes, abusive parents themselves, etc.

By contrast, many children do quite well being raised in less than perfect families, by grandparents, single parents, etc. Changing religions (although I don't believe Barack Obama ever did this) also doesn't really qualify as dysfunction. There are lots of children raised by parents of different faiths who turn out just fine. By all accounts Obama had a good relationship with his mother and his grandparents, was not abused, was well-cared for, etc. So, although Obama's family background is unusual and less than perfect, I don't really think it qualifies as "dysfunctional."

Secondly, even if his background was dysfunctional, not all children raised in dysfunctional families become dysfunctional themselves. Some beat the odds. You may not agree with his politics, but Barack Obama is a highly functional individual. He completed college and graduate school. He has been a productive, contributing member of society for his entire life. He has an entirely traditional, nuclear family. There is no indication that he has any addictions to alcohol, sex or drugs. He hasn't committed any crimes. By any measure, he's functioning, and functioning well. Writing two books may be a sign of a big ego, but not a dysfunctional person. You can try to paint Obama as the new Bill Clinton--a person who did have some dysfunction, which he himself referred to as his "demons"--but saying it doesn't make it so.
9.7.2008 11:20pm
anon789:
And even if Bill Clinton was indeed dysfunctional, he was a better President than the current, supposedly functional President.
9.8.2008 12:10am
Floridan:
MD-JD: "Do you mean the Biden that failed a law school class because of plagiarism? Then, some 20 years later he plagiarizes a speech?"

No I meant the Biden that answered the questions asked intelligently, showing a firm grasp of the issues.
9.8.2008 12:41am
Hoosier:
"Being of mixed race may bring extra stress..."

Here's the problem as I see it: Dog is getting trashed as a dumb right-winger for saying this. Repeatedly.

In higher ed, this is taken for granted, and taught in sensitivity-training seminars. One is not bien pensant in academe unless one says this. Over and over. Whenever the opportunity arises.
9.8.2008 12:42am
JunkYardLawDog (mail):
Looks like the bounce is much bigger than cited in JL's original post.

USA Today/Gallup poll shows a 10 POINT McCain lead among likely voters and a 4 POINT lead among registered voters. Both polls with a plus or minus margin of error of 3%.

WOW, gotta love those MSM idiots attacking Sarah Palin unfairly and driving huge audience to hers and McCain's speeches.

Gotta love the law of unintended consequences!!!!!!!!

Usually, the law of unintended consequences comes back to bite the american people when liberals get to making things happen, but this time its come back to bite them right in the shorts. LOL.

Says the "Dog"
9.8.2008 1:24am
David Warner:
Hoosier,

"In higher ed, this is taken for granted, and taught in sensitivity-training seminars. One is not bien pensant in academe unless one says this. Over and over. Whenever the opportunity arises."

You'd think they might find it more useful to point out that we're all mixed race, that's kinda what America is about, or rather I'd argue aspirationally post-racial. If you go back far enough we're all African anyway.

That's one thing that got me juiced about Palin's otherwise disappointing (for people who actually knew about her) speech - she took on Obama like a grown man, not a black man. Post-sexist meets post-racial.
9.8.2008 2:57am
Hoosier:
David Warner:

But what Plain did is not a good option in academia. At least if you care about your career.

The frustration I have is with the hypocrisy:

Academics are liberal to left on labor issues. But they fight unionization of staff and grad assistants; and they run research universities and urban public colleges on the backs of exploited adjuncts.

They support race-based affirmative action, but consider it benighted to suggest that African Americans at their own institution could not get in on the basis of standard criteria. (And I'm a supporter of much AA. I just don't see how you can hoestly hold both of these opinions in the same brain at the same time.)

They bemoan the fact that senior faculties are overwhelmingly male, but will do nothing to alter tenure schedules or work loads for junior women with families.

And, on, and on, and on . . .
9.8.2008 11:54am