EXTREME: Sarah Palin video "ad"
A relative of mine who's only ever used a computer for Web browsing and email was so inspired by Sarah Palin that he decided to try his hand at making a video ad touting her virtues. He says, "It's simple but hey I'm not Scorsese." I think it's quite effective. EXTREME (YouTube)
the latest
latest episodes
Where does she stand on Pastafarianism ?
Is she willing to teach that in our schools too?
She clearly has not been touched by the noodly appendage (praise be).
Palin did NOT say that the Iraq war was God's will.
What she said is
“Pray ... our leaders, our national leaders, are sending [U.S. soldiers] out on a task that is from God, ... That’s what we have to make sure that we’re praying for, that there is a plan and that that plan is God’s plan.”
This is almost the opposite of saying "I know God's mind, and God backs this war." This is instead saying "we should only do things that are God's will, and we are doing this, so pray that understand his will".
This is a pretty common formulation in Christian prayers. It's a trope, and it's got a fixed meaning.
Your relative got this one wrong.
It seems that people who frequent blogs, read articles online and/or actually pursue items of inquiry are the intended audience here.
Message received, and agreed with.
But what about the assumed 40% of voters that ignorant by choice, whether by de facto party affiliation, insufficient television coverage, apathy or irrational premises.
Can those hypothetical people be reached? And how?
Last time I checked, W had a 26% approval rating-- I cannot fathom why Obama would not win 74% landslide this autumn.
Maybe I shouldn't be worried-- however, I keep thinking about 2000 and 2004 elections.
The book banning thing is actually a hoax. This statement was made by the mayor that she beat to become mayor herself. The librarian at the time has so far been "unavailable for comment". The list of books that she supposedly wanted banned contains books that weren't even published when this banning request was to have taken place.
#5 smells like plastic grass
let the trolling begin!
MORTEGO @5, Can you please point to a reputable source proving that Palin's interest in banning books was a hoax?
Congratulations, Mortego, on your very first post!
@#3
*"This is almost the opposite of saying "I know God's mind, and God backs this war." This is instead saying "we should only do things that are God's will, and we are doing this, so pray that understand his will".*
So, what she was 'really' saying was, "We're doing this, so it must be God's will. If we're lucky, we'll understand why we're doing what we're doing."
Gott mit uns.
Palin's book-banning request is not a hoax, Mr First-time Commenter.
Here we go again:
http://news.yahoo.com/story//politico/20080902/pl_politico/13084_2
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/sep/06/uselections2008.sarahpalin
isn't god always on 'our' side in a war?
Not sure which Stranger staffer(s) wrote this 'new column' but the names they gave the fictitious children are genius.
http://slog.thestranger.com/2008/09/welcome_to_the_palindrome
Urggh...on the one hand, I'd agree that Palin has extreme views that should disqualify her from Veepship. On the other, I have to fault this video for the same sort of oversimplification that we see in far too many political ads. On creationism, to take just one example, while Palin is an extremist in considering it a legitimate alternative to real science, she also has not attempted to change Alaska's curriculum to require that creationism be taught--during her campaign for governor, she explicitly ruled out such a requirement:
--Anchorage Daily News, 10/27/06Compared to most advocates of creationism, who want to "teach the controversies," Palin seems surprisingly moderate--hardly a friend of real science, but not a raving advocate of dismantling existing curricula, either.
I know, I'm wishing that a 30-second spot could handle nuance...but I don't think political discussion is helped by oversimplification. I dunno--I want to see her lose, but I also would like it if MY side didn't resort to the low-road rhetoric that Palin herself uses.
@#10
No, you're incorrect. She saying, "We are in this war, so let us pray that it is God's will."
It's kind of an empty prayer if you ask me, but it is certainly a far cry from "This war is God's will."
I don't know, based on behavior I have seen of the US in the last decade, these statements don't seem to extreme...
I think that the "Iraq was is God's will" think is probably the lease effective part of the ad (if the aim is to swing voters, not just preach to the choir).
I think that a large proportion of Americans, particularly the people one might hope to swing, agree with some or all of that statement. They believe that fighting Muslim fundamentalists is God's plan (whether or not the war is actually about fighting fundamentalists).
I think that her statements that "God wants us to build an oil pipeline" (or words to that affect) are a much stronger argument about her kookiness. I imagine that few Americans can seriously consider the idea that God's plans involve the details of drilling companies and businesses without laughing at her... I think this (good) ad would be better off changing that line.
The book banning incident was a 'misconstrued comment'. She asked the librarian about censorship when it was a hot topic in the town, and shortly thereafter tried to fire the librarian -- and about a half-dozen other city department heads when she took office.
The librarian overstated the bookbanning comment and tried to turn it into a PR piece linked to her termination to make her dismissal seem outrageous -- it worked , and she kept her job.
Palin is a bit of a 'nightmare' to many of us -- but this is such a non-story when there are much better stories about her out there.
I always interpreted the Palin god/iraq quote as this:
"""Let's pray that god wants us to be in iraq and causing all this war and is okay with us torturing people and the 'collatoral damage', because if he's not , shit, we're pretty fucked and are going to burn in hell for all of eternity, because that's what us evangelicals do when we commit atrocities like this. fuck, shit. please please please let this be gods will. i so don't want to go to hell. i mean, heck, i even spend my free time advocating against abortions in rape cases!"""
george bush has a 33% approval rating actually
God knows why you've posted this. He's right - he's no Scorsese. Why is it so short? There's a wealth of good material to work with. For starters he could of had a field day with Palin's wacky Wasilla Assemblies of God church's "Official Statement of Fundamental Truths". Like #8 -
"WE BELIEVE... The Initial Physical Evidence of the Baptism in the Holy Spirit is ‘Speaking in Tongues,’ as experienced on the Day of Pentecost and referenced throughout Acts and the Epistles."
and #15 -
"WE BELIEVE...A Final Judgment Will Take Place for those who have rejected Christ. They will be judged for their sin and consigned to eternal punishment in a punishing lake of fire."
Sort of goes right against the general underlying tenet of Christianity - FORGIVENESS - doesn't it.
God help us all if this whacko gets up. And that goes double if McCain pops it and Palin steps into his shoes to become President. I daresay we'll all be speaking in tongues then.
The list is a common one around the web, including all books challenged in the U.S., and its origin with Palin (apparently first posted on librarian.net) was also disproven in the same thread less than a dozen comments after it was posted.
Still, it's hard to argue that she didn't want to ban books when a) she had a conversation with the librarian about what it would take to ban books, b) she's known to fire people who disagree with her position, and c) she did indeed fire the librarian who refused to help her censor books, and only rehired her after protest from the citizens. That the librarian left the city a few years later is probably not unrelated since Palin was reelected in 1999.
@#18
*The librarian overstated the bookbanning comment and tried to turn it into a PR piece linked to her termination to make her dismissal seem outrageous -- it worked , and she kept her job.*
No, not really.
http://www.adn.com/sarah-palin/story/515512.html
Mortego is "unavailable for comment."
OKay, all evidence says that the book-banning was half- hearted at best, and the reference to the "list" she wanted to ban.. well I've never seen a list, Mortego. Perhaps you'd like to link it, so we can all read it?
And the second thing I have to say is... I hate negative political ads. Okay this is third- party made (ie by someone with no direct affiliation with a political party) but the tendency to highlight why you shouldn't vote for someone as opposed to why you SHOULD vote for someone else is kind of annoying. And goes against the basic idea of democracy. You should vote for the person you want to win, not against the person you don't.
george bush has a 33% approval rating actually
Where? On August 27, 2008 a Fox News poll gave him an approval rating of 28%:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,144315,00.html
You know, an Obama/Palin ticket is one I could get behind... as long as it was Michael Palin we're talking about.
Mortego's idiotic comment @5 is a good illustration of why scrupulous attention to detail is a good idea. As JohnofJack @21 points out, the "list of books" is the only part of the book-banning story that has been conclusively proven wrong. All it took was one idiot posting that list to the librarian.net comments, and the thing went viral, confusing the issue--and then when the list was debunked, some Palin supporters crowed that the entire book-banning story had somehow been debunked.
On the other hand, there's not quite enough evidence to prove the blanket statement that Palin "wanted to ban books"--she asked the librarian about how some "offensive" books might be removed from the library, but beyond that, didn't take further action on actually removing the books. Definitely awful enough, in my opinion, but something short of storming the library with a torch. While this one is more accurate than saying that Palin "wants to teach creationism," it still leaves out a lot of nuance.
I know, this is America. We don't DO nuance. And lord knows Palin herself doesn't seem overly concerned with accuracy. I just want "us" to be better than that.
@ #10(Grimic)
I think you're right and I think that's what makes it even more scary.
Not only she misunderstands god but she knows she does and hopes he's doing wrong too, in order to justify war.
...and of course I meant #15.
Look, all of this is moot. Everyone has scandal-fatigue with her by now and she'll drop out in October. She's not going to survive the news interview process and McCain will bring in Ridge or Lieberman.
I am a longtime reader of BB, first time commenter.
I had to comment because it's sad that the BB authors feel that this election is so important that it's alright for them to abandon a weird, nuanced, and wonderful understanding of the world in favor of broad polemics.
These anti-Palin screeds make me respect BB less. I'll continue to read the site until the day I don't.
I'm with #3 here. A prayer that something be God's will is a hope that we mortals have it right, it's not meant (generally) as an argument to the other folks in the room that we mortals indeed have it right.
28: Christian theology on the intersection of God's will (which is comprehensive and includes the fall of a sparrow, war, tsunamis, pipelines, and womens's shelters) rulership (which is commonly seen as "ordained by God" (Romans 13), even bad/evil rulership) and political decisions is complex.
Point is, you can hardly tell enough from what she said to some students to pray for her tasks as governor. Its not like she declared the pipeline must be accepted because God told her it must be.
I'm reasonably certain she saw getting the pipeline as a discharge of her responsibilities to the people of her state, and is so doing, she wanted prayer that God's will would coincide in this instance with her political choice.
Seconded, Zippy @#27!
Reminds me of the Dan Rather incident. The documents were proven fake, but the heart of the story, Bush's (lack of) attendance record with the ANG may have been true. You notice how after the dust settled no journalist would touch that one? Funny how adding over the top evidence or details to a story, and then disproving them, makes the whole thing just go away.
So what have we learned?: "They will be judged for their sin and punished by being punishingly consigned to eternal punishment in a punishy, punishing lake of fire. And lo, they shall be punished. Also, burned. Badly.
While I dislike that she even for a minute considered banning books, I think it is highly probable that in the following 13 years of being in leadership positions she has learned to be more cooperative and reasonable. She has matured and grown as a leader. This is reflected in her high current approval rate, her backing of teaching contraception, wanting evolution taught in schools, etc.
Similarly there are statements that Obama made years ago (specifically in his first memoir) that the right tries to use to demonize him. Like Palin (and many of us) he was a young idealist. He, too, has matured.
This isn't advanced psychology, folks.
Palin is McCains soulmate...after meeting once?
Why all this arguing over whether Palin is a right-wing extremist Christian nutbar? If it walks like a duck....
I just found this browsing YouTube -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sMbv2bAiFtE
The video is a remix of McCain's RNC speech and "Triumph of the Will." The video pretty much beats you over the head, but Sarah Palin's fascist tenancies would surely bring us one step closer to repeating history.
pdoggie, so it's ALL god's will, eh?
@#35
Yes, and all those years "maturing and growing" as a leader led to her (allegedly) abusing power as governor.
It boggles my mind that there is ANYONE in the U.S. who thinks that Palin is even remotely qualified to be VP. The rest of the world is watching us and they are just as baffled.
perhaps after eight years of bush junior, the term "qualified" must be re-thought.
wait til pdoogie gets done with ya! talk about bafflin!
Bottom line- there are just too many backward, uneducated people in this country (the U.S.). The Republicans know this and realize that they can lie about pretty much everything. She's a good mouthpiece for them.
Snopes.com wasn't too convinced on the book-banning accusation, particularly the extremist version that's been going around in e-mails.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/palin/bannedbooks.asp
Now I don't like either candidate but as an agnostic I can't help but feel that some form of creationism should be taught in schools. I don't mean teaching any specific religion but I believe the basic concepts of what it means to believe in that type of theory should be taught to students. It's not like creationism is some barbaric thing of the past, it's something that is practiced by billions and should be acknowledged.
GUMSHOE@46:
Sure, in your history or other social science class, it is perfectly appropriate to mention that billions of people believe (or used to believe) that everything in the universe was conjured up by magic in an absurdly short amount of time. It is also very appropriate to discuss it in the context of the scientific, social, and political upheaval caused by the publishing of Darwin's work and in regards to the Scopes trial and the continuing efforts to have it taught as "science". It is also appropriate to discuss it in a government class, where it can illustrate how some people try to force their religious dogma on others and how that is constitutionally wrong in the U.S.
Where it shouldn't be taught is in a biology classroom.
I had a hard-core creationist for basic science in junior high and even she said "You can believe what you want to believe, but you have to provide the correct textbook answers on the test." She did all too frequently share her religious opinions with us (worst science teacher I ever had), but at least she didn't put it on the tests or just skip the chapter entirely (although she did skim over it quite a bit).
CMPalmer,
Snopes pretty much agrees with the version that has been doing the rounds on BB. According to Anne Kilkenny, Palin asked whether she would be prepared to remove books from the library, if the need arose.
I think you'll find, it's only the astroturfers who've mentioned the "list", which is actually what the snopes article is debunking, rather than the notion that Palin enquired over the censorship procedures.
eg.
#46:
"It's not like creationism is some barbaric thing of the past, it's something that is practiced by billions . . ."
Huh? How to you "practice" creationism? Are people saying "LET THERE BE LIGHT!" and creating pocket universes full of populated planets they get to bully around?
That actually sounds cool. More fun that Spore even.
#47:
I think you misunderstood what I intended. Creationism isn't science in the same way that science isn't philosophy. You can't gain total understanding from either science or philosophy alone and the two should be subject to the same critical approach. They are two different areas that must be approached in different ways.
#46:
You're hilarious, no really.
More fun: Palin was asked about her opinion of the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac takeover by the Bush administration. She stated that they had become "too big and too expensive to taxpayers." Of course, they are privately owned corporations, or were until this weekend, when they suddenly became funded by... well, taxpayers. OMG she is totally going to help McCain win this election, because America does not understand stuff either.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/08/palin-makes-her-first-gaf_n_124792.html
#30, Neener,
PUH-lease. Fat chance of that happening when the corporate-owned "Liberal Media" mollycoddles her by asking innocuous questions and not pausing for even a second to scrutinize her answers.
The affably benign Charlie Gibson will be interviewing her, with a warm embrace, no doubt.
Greenwald knows what's up.
#41 & 42: Clearly experience is not a major concern. Obama has many great qualities, but chief executive level experience is certainly not one of them.
#44: Not all people who disagree with you are backward and uneducated. Pretty much all Americans agree that: the economy is weak, the Republicans have been awful for the last 8 years, and the war was a mistake. Yet the Democrats don't have a commanding lead in the race for the White House. If your explanation for that is general stupidity of the masses, perhaps you should get out more.
@46
"It's not like creationism is some barbaric thing of the past"
It's all about a myth that's been around for thousands of years, so, yeah, it's fair to say that creationism *is* a barbaric thing from the past.
If people want to teach it in schools, then teach it as religious studies; and include creation myths from all cultures and religions. 7 Days, Giant Turtles, Winged Snakes et al. are all alike.
But teaching creationism as a science is ludicrous.
Think they's a chance she'll go on Colbert?
Well, it is easier to ask easy questions and softball (pre-vetted) questions. It's also easy to ask "Have you stopped beating your wife?" type leading questions or "How do you feel about [the scandal du jour]?" questions if you are looking for a sound-bite or hoping for a gaffe.
What is hard for journalists (particularly television "reporters" who are looking for a sound-bite) is to understand the issues themselves, ask hard questions in a way that the politician's handlers don't cut the interview short, listen to the answers, and come up with logical follow-up questions on the fly. Even harder is to find someone who can do this in a way that it doesn't break down into yelling or partisan name-calling.
What I'd like to see instead of interviews or speeches or debates is a presidential (and vice-presidential) essay contest. Give them 10 questions, a handful of pencils, a few blue books, and some basic reference books, put them in a room and tell them to write at least two pages on five of the 10 topics without being able to consult their advisors, speech writers, spouses, or helpers.
When they are done, take the blue books, scan them, and put the scans on the Internet for everyone to review/rip apart.
With the right set of balanced questions, I think we'd learn much more about the candidate's knowledge, intelligence, and communication skills than any number of debates, rehearsed speeches, and impromptu sound bites.
Palin on Colbert would be epic. Also, not a chance. The conservative machine has pretty much wised up to the Report and knows that it can't be reliably scripted.
I believe that says that George Bush is god or that George Bush speaks to god and god told him to send our troops over there (task that is from god).
Now George Bush has claimed to have had a nice conversation with god where god told George what to do. I imagine Sarah simply believes George is a prophet.
Deviant-
Believing the crock of s**t that the Republican ticket keeps repeating (after it's been shown as a wide collection of lies)? Seems stupid.
Voting for someone because they look like you, or because you can "relate to them"? - Hmmm, yeah, that's stupid. I want the smartest person in the room as my leader, thanks.
Terrible economy, been led in the wrong direction for 8 years, but still afraid of a try at something different? Yep, that sounds pretty stupid and backwards also.
#56, CMPalmer: I love your essay contest idea. But I always had a strange fetish for blue books in college, so maybe I'm biased.
In regards to the gaffe-baiting "scandal du jour" questions, I'm not sure that would pan out for "hard-hitting" journalism either. The current media fixation with completely nonsensical scandals surrounding Palin's family are completely irrelevant and only serve as political sleight of hand. So yes, that question will definitely get asked, but it will only further rally "the base" and distract from the real issues. Also, Palin gets to act indignant, which really ignites her core demographic.
#60, SISYPHUS
Regarding the essays, I doubt any candidate would ever agree to it, but on the other hand, I would feel bad voting for anyone who refused to do it or who did poorly on it.
Regarding journalist questions - that's what I was talking about. No matter what "bias" the media or particularly journalist is exhibiting (if any), they know that more people, sadly, are going to be obsessed and tune in over gossip and scandal than on substantive issues. In Palin's case, the left of center crowd delights in every contradiction in ethics and family embarrassment, and the right of center crowd loves to claim harassment over the same things. Meanwhile, everyone wants to interview her, but they'll concentrate much more on her past, her personal life, and on how the scandal reporting makes her "feel" than on her current beliefs and policies.
Personally, I don't care about what she did (or didn't do) in college or in the PTA any more than I care about whether Obama thought about joining the Army after high school, but decided not to because there wasn't a war going on (since, darn it, the Vietnam War was over). We all do stupid things and say stupid things, but hopefully we learn from them and change over time.
The "wants to teach Creationism" thing has been debunked.
It's nice to see critical thinking is alive and well. No offense, but they were better off as Luddites. All of that has been debunked or vastly overstated and misunderstood.
Great idea about the essays CMPalmer, but maybe they'll want to lower the bar a little and just have them go on "Are you smarter than a fifth grader?" I think it would still be somewhat helpful, btw.
But in all seriousness, you're right. I get very tired of the distractions and dumbing down. But as you point out, it's much easier on the media and the voters to ignore issues and concentrate on sound byte sensationalism.
The debates are no longer even based on the issues, and are increasingly leaning in that direction as well. The ABC Democratic primary debate hosted by Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos comes to mind. "Senator Obama, Does Jeremiah Wright love America as much as you?"
GAH.
Bender, just to make sure I'm understanding you, if I'm not an Obama supporter then I must believe Republican lies and be a racist? Is it really that simple?
#64: That debate may have been awful, but at least they asked Obama if he'd raise capital gains taxes even if it meant a decrease in revenue from that tax--i.e., does he value his definition of fairness over objective results. It's probably the single best policy question he's been asked, since it really gets at how he makes his decisions.
@Deviant and @Bender,
If I may be so bold--I certainly would be averse to the gross generalizations that Bender has made, but as anyone who tuned in to Day 4 of the RNC can attest, the way the delegates howled their epithets, "Drill, Drill," "USA, USA," and (loathingly) "NBC, NBC" struck me as slimy and proto-human.
That's sort of the name of the game, though--pander to the lowest common denominator because it delivers proven results. Thanks, Karl, for cultivating this system of fear-mongering, schoolyard politics.
As an aside, I think Obama's intricate financial ties to Wall Street have just as much potential as "100 more years" to further erode our country.
Deviant-
"just to make sure I'm understanding you, if I'm not an Obama supporter then I must believe Republican lies and be a racist? Is it really that simple?"
The racist part- not necessarily. I wasn't even thinking Obama to tell you the truth. I was thinking of the sound bites of some mothers who are thrilled to see a working mom in the race.
The lies part? Nope, but I can't see any other reason to believe that an administration that is pretty much in step with the last eight years economic policies will somehow turn this thing around.
BOTH candidates are talking tax cuts as the deficit climbs higher and higher, AND higher ( a massive amount of it happened under the current "conservative" administration). The constant pandering of tax cuts from both parties is also nuts. But if a candidate were to speak the cold truth, they wouldn't have a snowballs chance. See? I recognize that there are fools on both sides of the aisle.
I don't know how an attack on any candidate can be considered a "wonderful thing"...
Would the editors kindly consider not adding to the partisan rancor? Or maybe make another site (boingboing Politics)?
I read boingboing for entertainment, not to get further disgusted with the state of politics in this country.
Thanks.
Jeff
#4 Versh:
I cannot fathom why Obama would not win 74% landslide this autumn.
I'll be saying this often in the weeks to come — as I've often said it in the weeks past — but Obama is not going to win, and it is because he is black. The racist vote will beat him. It is a hidden vote, to be sure, because secret racists won't publicly admit to their loathsome prejudices.
We learned many years ago not to trust people who simply tell you they harbor no racial prejudice. By "we" I mean those of us who were or are civil rights activists. We learned not to trust uninvolved sympathizers; they were often liars. Unless you put your ass on the line we didn't believe you. We won some things, some very big things, but they were achieved against the wishes of a majority of American voters who were too timid do resist an outraged moral minority.
The recent "surge" in McCain's popularity is explained as voter approval of that pathetically unqualified redneck woman from Alaska. Nonsense! She is simply the excuse for their sudden enthusiasm. She is merely a cover for their cowardly unvoiced racism. Much of that "Silent Majority" the GOP discovered forty years ago was made up of secret racists too craven to admit to their true feelings. We left them behind after we won in the streets and in the courts. Nixon and Reagan and the Bushes got rich off of those cowards. They are now fewer in number, thanks to the spread of liberal and progressive ideas among the young, but there are still enough of them to swing an election, especially this one.
I have been lectured by many, including even some old comrades, that I am "out of date," "out of touch" with the new America; that the times have changed, and that old war horses like me should be put out to pasture; that there are new generations of Americans free of the racism that for centuries has been our nation's open wound. I call Bullshit. I say don't just do the math from the polls, but recognize that a critical number of those being polled are nothing but racist liars. And it will be those liars who will elect John McCain.
This election IS about race. And it will be decided by race. Any other Democrat but Obama could win by ten points. It was a mistake to nominate that fine talented man to head their ticket. Sarah Palin won't beat him; the color of his skin will beat him. Those racist liars, those simpering creepy-crawly cowards, will cast votes instead of stones.
Goddamn them all to hell.
Damn, Buddy. All I can say is I fear you may be right, but I'm hoping with everything I've got that you are wrong.
Buddy, you voiced a big, silent fear...
But what about African American votes? No doubt we will see record numbers this election.
Anthony,
It better be a voter drive that puts Freedom Summer to shame. It's picking up here in Michigan...
Not so hidden racism:
http://www.flickr.com/search/?q=+obama+racism&m=text
Buddy66, you are seeing only about 1-2% of what is happening. Obama may lose some votes to the "bubba" voter, but he is gaining far more simply because he is black. Many people, myself included, want to see the old-white-guy barrier broken in the White House. No chance that a guy with his qualifications would have a shot in hell at winning if he were white and 47 years old. Edwards was extremely charismatic, had similar policy ideals, and was even more qualified, yet he could never gain much traction.
Democrats struggle mightily to win the Presidency, and it isn't because Republicans are better liked by the voters. Simply put, Republicans have fewer disparate factions within their party: only the libertarian-leaners and the conservative right. Compare this to the half dozen factions within the Democrat party who often have exact opposite views on major issues: environmentalists, union members, farmers, blacks, feminists, etc. It is a nightmare to keep the platform semi-coherent. Plus, the nation, as a whole, leans slightly right.
You want to point at someone who is stealing the election, but that ain't reality. Obama gains more votes for being black than he loses--by a wide margin.
Speculations all around I suppose.
Show me the numbers.
I didn't say "stealing." I said lying.
I'm not talking about the peckerwoods; I'm talking about the guy you work with, whose only chance to oppose the fashionable egalitarianism of situation comedies and talk shows is in the voting booth. He's the GOP vote. And they know it.
Deviant, you and I live in different America's. Mine is much more complicated than that.
He's not motivating anyone because of his skin color, he's motivating them because he grew up in an apartment with a single mother, and has lived in his car, and gave back to his neighborhood after college.
We can all hope to be the son of an Admiral and marry an heiress, or may secretly wish that our mom is Governor when we get in over our heads, but really, there's not enough wealth and privilege in the world.
So we hope that with work and a little luck we can prove our worth and get ahead, and that with the right opportunities, because of their realized potential rather than their parents connections and inheritances - our kids can do as well as is their wont, and as well as they deserve.
We're getting there, but we're not there yet.
It's about hope, not about some cynical labels a pundit invented to over-caricature the real issues that divide the parties.
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/sliming_palin.html
Because people need more exposure to the facts before "Sarah Palin" and "ill-informed flamewar" become synonymous.
While I agree with DEVIANT in that there are likely many Americans who will vote for Obama because he is black, whether it be from a genuine desire to be part of the culmination of the civil rights efforts in America or out of "reverse racism/white guilt", BUDDY66 does make a strong and valid point.
There are probably quite a few white voters who are moderate, undecided, maybe Libertarian, who aren't keen on the Obama/Biden Democratic ticket (for whatever) reasons who are saying, "Whew. At least now I can vote against them and not feel guilty since at least my vote is going for a ticket with a woman on it, even if she scares me as well."
As far as "hidden" racism goes, studies have shown some polling bias towards minority candidates, particularly when the poll is done in person or by phone because the person being questioned wants to appear non-racist and unbiased against minorities, but in the privacy of the voting booth (if they bother to vote at all), they back away from actually voting for the minority candidate.
This is something I'm sure the DNC is worried about as long as the polls stay within 5-10% either way leading up to the election, because a certain percentage of those voters may defect or choose not to vote.
As far as I can see, there are two prongs to the anti-Palin sentiment. On one hand are those die-hard, knee-jerk politico types who will do and say anything to bring her down, simply because she is the republican (iffy accusations, shady attempts at character assassination, flamewar, etc).
On the other, there are those who feel that someone unknown to the vast majority of US citizens until less than two months before the election, who had no known national political aspirations, and has dubious qualifications, is not worth the gamble.
I know many will say that Obama is equally unqualified. But at least he is much more of a known quantity. He's been running for president for well over a year and his history has been under scrutiny for even longer.
Anyone keeping up with God's approval rating?
I hear it's not quite what Palin's people would have you believe.
@ #24 posted by Baldhead
"You should vote for the person you want to win, not against the person you don't."
When you only have 2 parties isn't this the same thing? If you want Obama to win, then you don't want McCain to win. Whilst I certainly want Obama to win the election, I mainly want that because Bush and the Republicans have helped turn the US into a scary place. Unfortunately I don't live there and therefore can't vote against them.
I also think Democracy should be able to vote against people. In Australia there are a number of parties that come out of the emerge every few years that seem to gain a lot of attention for extremist views the most famous of the last 2 decades being Pauline Hanson from One Nation Party. When she first came about she did gain a lot of First preference votes, however because of our preferential voting system she got put last on a lot of ballet papers and One Nation ended up with practically no power at all.
Not because a lot of people didn't want her to get in, they did, but because the vast majority of the Country wanted her racist scum bag face off this Earth.
If Obama loses because he is black, it won't be because he is black. Ok... let me explain. "Real" racist that just hate anyone who isn't white are already not going to be voting democrat. He isn't going to lose because white people hate black people. If he loses because of his race, it is because white people are mortified by racist, and they think that Obama is a racist.
Jessie Jackson will win the nomination for the democrats roughly about the time when hell has frozen over because the guy comes off as a racist. He judges people based upon their race. In Jessie Jackson's head, a person's race is one the first things to register, and how he treats that person is strongly racially tinged. Obama's greatest feat as a black politician was keeping white people from flying off in terror that he is going to hate them for being white. It isn't so much white people hating blacks in America, it is white people hating being hated by blacks in America.
Personally, I think the entire thing is ridiculous. I don't agree with every single policy of Obama, but I believe that Obama will do what he thinks is best for America with no regard for what race one American or another is. Obama's problem is that white people are REALLY jittery when it comes to racial politics. It takes just tiny whiff of racial politics and they have run away in terror. To have any shot of winning, he needs to convince a non-trivial portion of the white population of the US that he doesn't hate him. McCain on the other hand just needs to sow a little doubt that deep down inside Obama loathes the white man to get them to run in terror.
So, while Obama's race is an issue, it really doesn't have much to do with white people hating black people. The real "I hate all black people" racist were not going to vote for a democrat anyways, and are more than made up for by the "I will vote for any black guy as president" people. The "real" battle has everything to do with white people hating to be hated by black people. Why are white Americans so incredibly touchy where it takes just a wiff of dislike to get them to run in terror? Eh, I'll leave that question to sociologist.
Whatever the case, Obama needs to try his damndest to appear as non-threatening as humanly possible. McCain just needs to innuendo Obama to death with implications that Obama hates America...and by America, I mean white people. Thus far, Obama has done a pretty good job of not scaring anyone, especially considering how little innuendo it takes to spawn a herd of white people running in terror.
A really interesting POV...I spend so much time listening to the media, that views that don't fit into yhr modal, everyday establishment and anti-establishment dialogues filter out of my awareness. Thanks, Rindal.
My answer/interpretation would be that people in power rarely hate those who aren't. Those who actively hate and fear marginalized groups are not in charge of anything - they're dumb rednecks who get manipulated by the actual elite group.
The people who are really in charge don't hate black people or poor people or whatever - they just exploit and repress them as a matter of practical self-interest. So what do they fear? The active, mass antipathy of the people they exploit - because the exploited almost always outnumber the exploiters.
Slaveowners have ALWAYS feared a slave rebellion above all else.
Hey yeah the Roman Senate once proposed making slaves wear distinctive clothing so that they could be easily distinguished in the crowds.
This was rejected as the Senators did not want the slaves to become aware of their own numbers relative to the Free Romans.
Your rulers do not want you to know how very many people are just like you.
That's why they hated and hate the Woodstock Music festival, amongst other things.
If as #70 buddy66 said, Obama loses by the racists' votes or as #85 Rindan said, Obama loses because he is perceived as a racist, I will forever be disappointed by the eligible voting public, politics and the entire electoral system.
Shouldn't the eligibility to vote be reformed? I'm not saying we should re-institute unfair testing, I'm suggesting an "informed citizen" qualification to keep the candidates focused on the issues, and deciding the leaders by their platforms and not irrational means.
But it is all kept secret from the public. Everyone still gets to vote after they register, only they would take a small test presented merely as a census survey.
Those who get red-flagged by the survey lose their vote, only they are not informed about it. They continue to believe their irrational, unqualified opinion made a difference.
Let's cut out all the pandering by getting rid of the voters swayed by pandering.
Like if you believe mysticism is an alternative to science, you vote, but it doesn't count.
If you did not graduate high school, you still cast your vote, but it doesn't count.
I'm not sure how one could screen out racists though... maybe bring up their library records or which websites they frequent (yeah, I know, illegal right?)
The "informed citizen" screening would be just one extra for the concept of electoral college— so that only the dedicated would be responsible for choosing a leader.
Wasn't that the intention of the framers of the Constitution, that rational and educated would be the voting demographic.
... I know, I know... I disagree some of the views listed above— such a system would be rife with corruption, perhaps more than our current one. The system needs to be fixed somehow though.
Versh , contrary to your post, I would broaden the franchise to include 14 year olds. I think that in light of the choices made by the Electorate in the past, this step would be unlikely to make things worse, and hopefully would serve to bring in some youthful idealism into the process.
Here's a football-centric look at Palin's readiness:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CH1T4aboxvE
RINDAN@85:
There is an interesting thing down here in the South, or at least there was when I was growing up - I think a lot of these people are dying off.
There was a whole generation of white southerners (and yes, a significant percentage, but not a majority, were racist to one degree or another), who were brought up to believe that the Democratic Party was still the party of the Dixiecrats - subsidies, welfare, and good ol' Southern values, while the Republicans were all Yankee bankers and robber-barons. Heck, some of them still blamed the Republicans for Lincoln and the South losing the Civil War, I'm sure. So this generation of folks would go to the polls, year-after-year, and vote a straight Democratic ticket without paying the least bit of attention to the issues or the candidates.
I know at least a few very elderly folks who still do this and, for some of them, I'm sure a black man at the top of the ticket is a major moral dilemma. Now there are a lot of people (mostly on the far religious right) who do the same thing for the Republican ticket.
Personally, I consider anyone who would vote a straight party ticket without examining the issues and knowing something about the candidates to be mentally deficient.
CPPALMER,
It's not often the candidate transcends his party, but it does happen. The late great Senator Wayne Morse of Oregon won his seat, variously, as a Republican, Independent, and Democrat. Nobody else ever did that.
The "real" battle has everything to do with white people hating to be hated by black people.
RINDAN,
I think you are mostly right. My experience with racism was/is at a less subtle level. I should have included the "fear" factor, another expression of the underlying cowardice of racism; perhaps it is greater than we can realize. Imagine a person voting against Obama because he or she fears he is going to get even for their racist attitudes (which they of course deny)! Combine the two: hatred and fear of African-Americans with fear of avenging African-Americans. It spells disaster for the Democrats.
I don't believe Obama can overcome this, and I still believe his nomination for the top spot was a tragic mistake.
Again, if I were a prayerful man I would pray to be wrong.