Why bash Palin when we should be bashing Obama! O Glenn! It ain't November 5th yet...

Great job by Glenn. We need to see more of him. As for Palin, Obama and McCain. Obama will get elected because people are sick of DC, Bush and the Republicans. They want to throw the bums out - and that was true even before the financial collapse. Nominating McCain was the worst move the Republicans could make. McCain's a 72 year old politician who went to DC in 1976 and agrees with the elites on almost every key issue. His "Maverickness" isn't populist but merely consisted of occasionally siding with liberals & Democrats on key issues. Once Obama showed he was a credible alternative - he had the election won. As for Palin, all the hoopla simply shows what a weak, boring candidate McCain is. Everyone knows VP's don't win or lose elections and have no power when elected. You'll now see McCain's campaign and all the moderates and RINO's blaming her for the defeat. Thats BS, but they can't admit the truth.

McCain felt (rightly, I think), that to win he needed his VP pick to be (1) a woman and (2) a conservative. A woman would help him grab some moderate female voters (and dampen the historic quality of an Obama victory). A conservative would excite a base that was pretty down. Here's the problem: Palin doesn't seem to know anything. Put a speech someone else wrote in front of her and she can deliver it quite well. Put her in an interview that isn't a puff piece and she struggles MIGHTILY. If intelligence is the process of turning the raw material of knowledge into the finished product of wisdom, then she may have a great process (intelligence), but she has shoddy raw materials (basic knowledge). That is REALLY frightening. There's been some BS in the election. The clothing thing is a silly aside (though it is a meaningful gaffe). But it isn't sexist to say that Palin has utterly failed to establish herself as an intellectual competent candidate. What I have come to wonder is: Was it simply a matter of (1) conservative (2) woman (3) with a brain doomed to be a 2 out of 3 thing? Palin is 1 and 2. Hillary

Glenn feels Sarah's pain. Hitch piles on. Sorry Glenn, your hypothetical fails to engage the real substance behind the attacks on Palin. You were right in your earlier assessment of the importance of choosing for or against Palin as a cultural signifier. But while you maybe pushing back against the knee-jerk pointy heads at Brown - There is a wellspring of rejection beyond the "coastal elites."
I am not unaware or afraid of the strength of the forces of ignorance that she is a surrogate for. It isn't as petty or condescending as mocking her accent or lifestyle.
Are you not a black man in America? Am I not a believer in science?
How can we sit idly by?
Well, Josh provided the answer: McCain was dealt a bad hand. If his cards had been better, consider the question you posed. What might she become?
How about President? Fine 'n dandy by you?

I, too, don't think the evangelicals are not going away. Where I live on the West Coast they are huge. Orange County was ground zero for the Jesus movement in the 70's. In South Los Angeles there are some large African American non denominational churches and tons of smaller Hispanic fundamentalist storefront and larger operations dotting the landscape. Now, many of the congregants may punch their cards for Democrats but there outlooks are conservative. Recently, the only street demonstrations I have seen are people supportng prop. 8 which would make homosexual marriages null and void. John

Glenn sees the light. After all, it is about hope.

Flip-flopping isn't just for losers.

Joshua Cohen should realize that unregulated free-market capitalism did not cause the financial crisis. The crisis emerged within a system of ~extensive~ government controls that has had ~enormously~ distorting effects on economic activity. It's just factually untrue to say deregulation has been repudiated by recent events. True deregulation has never been ~tried~.

Quoting graz: Glenn sees the light.

After all, it is about hope.

That was a good segment. This was the first Glenn episode I've enjoyed in a while.

Glenn feels Sarah's pain.....Hitch piles on.
Sorry Glenn, your hypothetical fails to engage the real substance behind the attacks on Palin.

I totally agree with Glenn (and Josh) on the Palin issue. She is smart, has many admirable qualties, and has been consistently attacked with a barrage of sexist and classist cheap shots. The argument that she is inexperienced and lacking in sufficient foreign policy knowledge is a legitimate one. It's also legitimate to criticize her for her extreme right-wing views. She also contemptibly stooped to the gutter to attack Obama. But she was held to a double standard throughout the campaign (not by Obama and Biden, to their great credit). A male or a female with a "better" sociolect or a higher pedigree college degree would never have been subjected to anything remotely resembling the criticism she got. The Hitchens rant is a perfect example of intellectual snobbery, stereotyping, and hypocritically playing the whacko religion card again Palin while defending a ticket with a presidential candidate who talks daily to Jesus and a vp candidate who is a devout Roman Catholic. Hitchens is a man who supported (and continues

Quoting graz:
Sorry Glenn, your hypothetical fails to engage the real substance behind the attacks on Palin.

Yeah, I lost interest halfway through because the guys were getting into the "I'm a liberal, but I'm not a dirty f###ing hippie who is mean to poor ickle Sarah" routine. Yeah, well, neither am I, nor most folks, except that fellow over there who suspiciously resembles straw.

Concern trolling! That's the term I was looking for.

I have to disagree wholeheartedly with Glenn's hypothetical scenario. If the democratic Party nominated this imaginary woman and she immediately came out with the kind of vicious (and substance-less) attacks as Palin has and charged that the Republican nominee of not being qualified, and then in a series of interviews, showed that she didn't understand several of the most basic issues of the political landscape, you better belive the Right wing would jump on it in a heartbeat. Before the end of her acceptance speech there would be discussions on FoxNews about how this is a prime example of the dangers of affirmative action (promoting unqualified candidates) and preferential treatment based on race/gender etc. The idea that this sort of attack is unacceptable, therefore the GOP wouldn't make it, seems tragically out of touch with the way the real world and the GOP operate. And what if this fictional woman attended a church that had strange customs or provocative thinkers? Do you think nothing would be made of something like that? If so, go google the words "reverend Wright." Truth is, Sarah palin is getting the idiot rap, because every

Quoting Wonderment:
But she was held to a double standard throughout the campaign (not by Obama and Biden, to their great credit). A male or a female with a "better" sociolect or a higher pedigree college degree would never have been subjected to anything remotely resembling the criticism she got.

It seems irrelevant for my intellectual purposes to indict the press or politicos, in their sexism toward Palin. The bottom line is key in such an important matter. Hillary received equally sexist attacks as a highly pedigreed candidate. I can bemoan the way the world works, but I have to choose my battles.
I listened carefully to Josh's special pleading for religion at the diavlog's end.
While I might not be a rabid atheist (Hitchens, et al), I feel no need to give an inch to any politico that would (think Bush) cross the church/state divide.

Hillary received equally sexist attacks as a highly pedigreed candidate.

Exactly. It was bad then, and now -- with the classism added to the sexism -- it's worse.

I can bemoan the way the world works, but I have to choose my battles.

Absolutely. But I think it's also important to not play dirty just because the other side does it, or because our goals are "loftier." I didn't like the Democrats when they defended Bill Clinton's perjury and pardon binge, and I don't like those who now go after H. Clinton and Palin in ways they would not do if she were a guy. It also bothers me a lot when warmongering pundits like Frum, Hitchens and Colin Powell all lament the possibility that someone like Palin might replace the esteemed torturer, liar and killer, Dick Cheney.

I listened carefully to Josh's special pleading for religion at the diavlog's end.
While I might not be a rabid atheist (Hitchens, et al), I feel no need to give an inch to any politico that would (think Bush) cross the church/state divide.

He didn't persuade me either. There are some (few) accommodations that can be made for individual religious preferences, but I would always err on

Give us more pairings like this! The extended format of bloggingheads tv enables it to resist being just an online version of the evening cable "debates." Take the advantage by
giving us more of people like Glenn and Josh, who have a genuine curiosity in the nuance of human categories--and can actually use the hour to give themselves and the audience something to grapple with. Skip the movement talkingheads. It's not like we can't get the same old-same old reflexive diatribes/party infomercials on all the townhalls and koses.

Quoting Wonderment: But she was held to a double standard throughout the campaign (not by bama and Biden, to their great credit). A male or a female with a "better" sociolect or a higher pedigree college degree would never have been subjected to anything remotely resembling the criticism she got.

I don't know. I tend to doubt this. You might be right; ultimately I think it's impossible to know; we can't exactly run a controlled experiment with an Ivy League version of Palin. But if what you are suggesting is true, then wouldn't everyone who didn't come from the Ivy League be abused like Palin has been? I think Palin was abused because, first of all, she used her time in the spotlight to ignite the culture war, dividing the country into good and bad people, patriots and traitors. I don't know about you, but that makes a lot of us angry. I don't have a whole lot of goodwill towards a woman who is constantly insulting me and my family, strutting around talking about how much better she is than all of us. She made it very clear she is our enemy, that my family is what's wrong with

my favorite new word: preposture

I think the "classism" factor is an interesting one. The GOP loves to point to this element, but it (the GOP) uses it endlessly. I think this may have been what Josh was getting at in regards to Palin's "contempt." The Right has no issue with demonizing elites, or anyone who thinks that education or rationalism or science are good things. But then they love to turn around and cry that the Left disses the working man. Sorry, i'm getting a bit off topic, but the word "classism" just struck a chord as this is one of the things that so annoys me from the GOP and people like Palin. They confuse attacks on her merits as attacks on her class or gender. It was nice to have Josh and Glenn together again. As much as I love John McWhorter, I think Josh gives a much tougher push-back at times, especially from a liberal standpoint. Great diavlog as always.

Well said TS. Aside from the culture war patriotism bullshit which really pisses me off, she also came out and tried to say that Obama's unqualified, and well, if you say something like that, you can be sure that people are going to ridicule you when you don't know what the bush doctrine is, can't name a SC case, a newspaper, etc. etc. IMO all the criticism of Palin has been justified, She claimed to be a maverick reformer...so let's look into her history in Alaska (bridge-to-nowhere, troopergate etc.) She claims to be more experienced and qualified than Obama...so let's look at her answers to relatively easy questions. She takes the self-righteous attitude about family values etc...so let's look at her daughter's pregnancy and their family choices. She blasts the elitists...so well maybe spending $150K on clothes is relevant. She blasts Obama's church and his Patriotism...so we look into her church and her husbands seperatist connections. In each case, the criticisms are directly relevant to issues she wants to point out in her opponent but god forbid we aim the same microscopic attention at her, or we are somehow being sexist. I'm sorry, but

Can we all acknowledge that any and all diavlogs are conversations and not debates? No one wins and no one loses, its two people having a healthy intelligent conversation about what they think is pertinent.

Quoting uncle ebeneezer: [...]

And well said by you, uncle eb. Great specifics.

Quoting claymisher: Yeah, I lost interest halfway through ...

Agree that part was exceedingly tedious. Nothing worse than a scold, except maybe two scolds. But some of the second half is better.

Quoting uncle ebeneezer: I have to disagree wholeheartedly with Glenn's hypothetical scenario.

Indeed. In fact, we don't need the hypothetical. We have Obama, who didn't have half the shortcomings of the hypothetical candidate, and still has been subjected to every possible kind of attack for every last aspect of his different-ness, including not a few completely made-up ones. I'm tired of listening to Glenn talk about Obama. When he comes back, I'd really like the discussions to be about something else.

Just curious:

Quoting Wonderment: She is smart, has many admirable qualties ...

What can you point to that makes you think she's smart? What are these many admirable qualities?

Quoting Wonderment: It also bothers me a lot when warmongering pundits like Frum, Hitchens and Colin Powell all lament the possibility that someone like Palin might replace the esteemed torturer, liar and killer, Dick Cheney.

Yes, it is bittersweet at best. And all a part of the hypocritical process that included the low-down and dirty shredding of Palin. But, since I play so small a part in changing the status quo, I still cheer when the results are in my perceived favor. Also, many of the strikes were reactive and not preemptive.

At the risk of flogging a dead horse (well, let's hope it will soon be dead), I find it odd that both Loury and Cohen feel compelled to defend Sarah Palin against the contempt and snobbery of American elites, as if such social attitudes had nothing to do with the assessment of character and merit. It is true that in no other civilized country could a numbskull like Sarah Palin rise so far: does that prove VOX POPULI VOX DEI? To think that her background and education have nothing to do with the (very mediocre) quality of her mind would never occur to any European. The problem is that American egalitarianism (in reality populism) refuses to admit that education and background DO matter when it comes to choosing leaders. And this "know-nothing" populism is directly related to the quality of education in the United States. As George Monbiot of The Guardian writes: "Ignorant politicians are elected by ignorant people. US education, like the US health system, is notorious for its failures. In the most powerful nation on earth, one adult in five believes the sun revolves round the earth; only 26% accept that evolution takes place by

Wait, wait, waitwaitwaitwaitwait. WAIT! Who made fun of her going to a church where they dance with their hands over their heads??? WHO? WHO? Why did I never hear this once! Stop GENERATING controversy!

OMG, upper west side snideness? Are you serious? Do you know why people are jumping ship en masse now? Do you? Do you really think it is only or all the upperwest side snideness? No! It is plain ole American people with some sense of the dignity of the Office of President who do not want to put someone in there who is so flippant about the power she would represent and hold! People - NOT JUST NY'ers! - are not taking her seriously because SHE is not being serious! Please! There is not the sexism you are portraying. Get real guys. Get effin real. Ohhh! I get it, there is sexism now that people are dropping off of McCain/Palin. Finally, I understand. (Bitterness)

Quoting bjkeefe: Indeed. In fact, we don't need the hypothetical. We have Obama, who didn't have half the shortcomings of the hypothetical candidate, and still has been subjected to every possible kind of attack for every last aspect of his different-ness, including not a few completely made-up ones.

Exactly! Glenn has been oddly blind to those attacks on Obama.

Quoting willmybasilgrow: Ohhh! I get it, there is sexism now that people are dropping off of McCain/Palin. Finally, I understand. (Bitterness)

No, no; famous New York liberal elitist Larry Flynt is sexist--that's the point!

Quoting kidneystones: Governor Palin has considerably more executive experience than the Dem candidate.

"Governor Palin" also has considerably more executive experience than her running mate, Senator McCain, as well as Senator Biden. Guess what? Executive experience is not somehow magically worth more than any other kind of experience, nore does it trump all other considerations.

Quoting kidneystones: His lack of experience, if it's discussed, when it's discussed, is never mentioned as a serious impediment to governing.

Why don't you hold your judgement on this question until you get back to planet earth. Once you have a chance to review what people on this planet have actually been saying for the last 12 months, I think you'll see how laughably wrong you are.

Quoting Wonderment: But she was held to a double standard throughout the campaign (not by Obama and Biden, to their great credit). A male or a female with a "better" sociolect or a higher pedigree college degree would never have been subjected to anything remotely resembling the criticism she got.

Male: Barack Obama
Female: Hillary Clinton Be serious.

Quoting Wonderment: The Hitchens rant is a perfect example of intellectual snobbery, stereotyping, and hypocritically playing the whacko religion card again Palin while defending a ticket with a presidential candidate who talks daily to Jesus and a vp candidate who is a devout Roman Catholic.

You're way off. First, it doesn't matter who Hitchens is or what he supports, except insofar as it makes it distasteful for me to say this: he is 100% right about Palin in that article. Palin made this argument: we're studyin' fruit flies! That's dumb!
Yes; that actually is her argument. And, yes again, this is just like saying, "Medical researchers spend their budgets on white mice! Goofballs!"

Quoting Wonderment: Palin's kid is risking his life in Iraq because of the bad faith, paranoia and ideology of the neo-cons and their intellectual apologists, like Christopher Hitchens.

And because he got busted stealing to support his Oxycontin

Quoting willmybasilgrow: OMG, upper west side snideness? Are you serious? Do you know why people are jumping ship en masse now? Do you?

Do you really think it is only or all the upperwest side snideness?

No! It is plain ole American people with some sense of the dignity of the Office of President who do not want to put someone in there who is so flippant about the power she would represent and hold!

People - NOT JUST NY'ers! - are not taking her seriously because SHE is not being serious!

Please! There is not the sexism you are portraying. Get real guys. Get effin real.

Ohhh! I get it, there is sexism now that people are dropping off of McCain/Palin. Finally, I understand. (Bitterness)

Thank you!

Quoting Ray: Palin made this argument: we're studyin' fruit flies! That's dumb!
Yes; that actually is her argument. And, yes again, this is just like saying, "Medical researchers spend their budgets on white mice! Goofballs!"

And to think, these enemies of human cognition are within an inch of being elected next week. In case people don't know what you're referring to: — Sarah Palin: Ignorant and anti-science

Quoting Francoamerican: Susan Jacoby's book The Age of American Unreason

Hey, I just got that book a couple of weeks ago! Haven't started reading it yet. Was highly recommended by one of my friends who teaches it to his students. Amazon: The Age of American Unreason

he does a mean george w. bush as well: http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/154...3:02&out=73:12

Oh, look, it's Sarah Palin palling around with convicted felons. Palin: I have great respect for the senator…. His voice, his experience, his passion needs to be heard across America...There’s a big difference between reality and perception regarding our relationship.

I feel compelled to add that this was a truly superb diavlog; Josh and Glenn are a great pairing. And I'm glad Josh pushed back on the issue of the alleged "contempt" directed at Palin. Indeed, as Josh put it, Palin has a contempt problem of her own: she is the one who has consistently peddled divisive rhetoric, speaking (inartfully) of the "pro-America parts of America."

I always get the feeling that Mr. Loury reads all the commentary about Governor Palin but doesn't actually watch her for himself. Admittedly, she doesn't do many interviews but simply wtch her stump speech and judge whether she is getting more abuse than she herslf is dishing out.

I'm not sure what she's done to get the label of smart. She has certain political skills (a genuine folksiness, good at rallying a crowd). A lot of people consider her attractive (she does nothing for me, but I'll defer to the wisdom of the crowd). She honestly believes what she says. All that I will concede. But to hear her speak when she doesn't have a script... intelligent is the last word I would use to describe her. Appallingly ignorant would be MUCH closer to the top of the list. Now, it may be that it isn't intelligence per se. You can build a bookcase without wood, not matter how good a carpenter you are. WShe may not be dumb, but she (1) doesn't seem to know anything and (2) she doesn't seem to care. Savvy? I'll give you that. Smart? I'm going to take some convincing.

Now that I've thought about it, I would also like to take issue with the idea that pragmatism can't be a governing philosophy. From what I have read about FDR I don't believe he came into office as a socialist. He simply tried some programs to improve the economy. Many of them didn't work and were abandoned. Others worked and were expanded. He served for 14 years and had plenty of time for tinkering. At this point I think a little pragmatism sounds much more appealing than some doctrine that blinds our leadership to the possible negative repercussions of either action or inaction. (see Greenspan)

Quoting TwinSwords: Exactly!

Glenn has been oddly blind to those attacks on Obama.

Part of this is just the liberal fascination with self-flagellation as opposed to conservatives who prefer an outside authority ( a god, anybody of high status ) to flagellate them. Another part is that he isn't a big fan of the man ( at least not yet ) In a previous interview Glenn spoke of his "conversion" from "conservative black guy" to his recent thinking. It was, I believe, a conversation with some irascible uncle who complained about ( I paraphrase here ) blacks who do well but forget about where they come from. This ode to a more collective ideal struck Glenn a bit hard and in response he made is usual thorough step by step path back to a more liberal mindset. I think he thinks Obama is a bit of a poser of sorts ( to harsh a phrase for Glenn to wield I would think ) and as part of that beating his candidate for the nomination might have dug that thinking in deep. I could be wrong of course since I have to say he is a very fair-minded guy

Quoting kidneystones: Utterly Immature is how French President Sarkozy characterized the much maligned savior of the world. Clearly, Sarkozy was motivated by his 'hatred' of Obama and his own 'insane' desire to bomb the children of Iran.

According to Ha'aretz, Sarkozy fears the US will 'go it alone' on the diplomatic front and open discussions with Iran rather than work in concert with other countries trying to convince Iran to end its nuclear program.

Obama fans in Europe will be working the phone lines on behalf of Change or Else International PLC. French Obama patriots are filing a complaint with the EU Human Rights Commission over Sarkozy's racist outburst. The Obama campaign remarked: 'immature' and 'community organizer' are code-words for 'uppity n*gger'.

Sarkozy isn't drinking the Kool-aid. Off with his head.

What Haaretz in fact says is that Sarkozy thought that Obama's STANCE on Iran was immature. French politicians, unlike rightwing hacks, do not usually engage in blatant character assassination. They are a lot more suave. And I don't believe a word of your accusation about Obama supporters' filing a complaint with the EU Human Rights Commission. The "code words" you mention would mean nothing in Europe. Could you provide a reference?

Quoting Foobs: I'm not sure what she's done to get the label of smart. She has certain political skills (a genuine folksiness, good at rallying a crowd). A lot of people consider her attractive (she does nothing for me, but I'll defer to the wisdom of the crowd). She honestly believes what she says. All that I will concede.

But to hear her speak when she doesn't have a script... intelligent is the last word I would use to describe her. Appallingly ignorant would be MUCH closer to the top of the list. Now, it may be that it isn't intelligence per se. You can build a bookcase without wood, not matter how good a carpenter you are. WShe may not be dumb, but she (1) doesn't seem to know anything and (2) she doesn't seem to care.

Savvy? I'll give you that. Smart? I'm going to take some convincing.

When it comes to "the Base", ignorance is a feature not a bug. There was an interview that Terry Gross did with a columnist for Anchorage Daily News that spoke to how Palin does what she does: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...oryId=95725546 A point made by the columnist is that she is great at identifying herself with

At this point, all I want to say is that this was a magnificent exchange between, for my money, the best duo on this site. They bring out the best in each other, as each other's best, to paraphrase Shakespeare, is like the deep blue sea, the more each gives, the more he has to give. Itzik Basman

Quoting Twinisles: Can we all acknowledge that any and all diavlogs are conversations and not debates? No one wins and no one loses, its two people having a healthy intelligent conversation about what they think is pertinent.

I myself have argued this point, and agree. I like to think of it as being privy to "watering hole" type discussions amongst high caliber people in their fields. And the comments section, among other things, provides an opportunity for the listeners to not only critique, but join in on, and perhaps further the conversation. The commenters who think this is cable TV punditry and see an opening for talking-point, talking-head spew, often find themselves subject to more reality than they bargained for, with only the thickest (skinned?) among them lasting very long.

Sorry guys - I'm a sober person and calling Sarah Palin a twit is overly generous. She's arrogantly, poisonously stupid and bigoted in all of the worst and most unforgivable ways - an absolute monster, a theocrat, a book-burner, and a terrifying threat to everything I hold dear about America. The derisive humor she's being subjected to is a direct consequence of her own vicious rhetoric. If she can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. Playing the "sexism" card is well beneath you. Sarah Palin's policies would set the battle against sexism back 100 years. And to criticize those who make fun of her church is grossly unfair. This woman is trying to jam her religious superstitions down the throats of people who have every right to their own freedom of religion. Her religious authoritarianism destroys your new argument in exactly the same way that her gross incompetence, as you now admit, invalidates the use of that argument against Obama. And that was always a ludicrous argument, I might add, as Obama's prosecution of this campaign has literally redefined the notion of executive competence.

What can you point to that makes you think she's smart?

1. She assimilates, retains, processes and synthesizes large amounts of information under extreme psychological pressure. (You can't have it both ways: a) she is incurious and clueless about political matters, but b) can debate Joe Biden for 90 minutes without making a complete fool of herself. PERSONAL HUMILITY NOTE: If I had to be interviewed by Katie Couric for an audience of several million on Palin's extremely grueling schedule, juggling the issues of Palin's complex personal life and ordered by handlers to be charming, stay on message, appeal to the base and attract moderate Democrats, I'd be reduced to incoherent babble a lot sooner than she was. 2. She is smart in a way similar to W (except he, of course, had the advantage of two Ivy League diplomas). She has good administrative skills, which explains her success in Alaska as governor and mayor, and she is curious about finding solutions to difficult social and political problems. She works long hours on subjects requiring high brain output. 3. I am not claiming she is likely to win the Nobel Prize for medicine, that she could get tenure at a major university, or

No Democrat politicians are convicted felons as well?

Foobs, I too don't get the 'smart' appellation that Wonderment and others have applied to Palin. It's entirely possible that underneath all her apparent defects -- incuriosity, indifference to science, an aversion to reading, an inability to forge a sentence unaided -- she's a flaming Einstein, but how are we to detect this? Rather than assuming that her political success so far amounts to intelligence, it's probably safer to bet, as Todd Gitlin has in TPM Comments, that she's a model of the kind of mediocre schooling that substitutes the inculcation of a fanatical belief in one's self for an actual education. You can just see Coach slapping the young Sarah upside the head and demanding to know if she wants to be a brainiac or a barracuda. What Glenn and Josh mainly showed us in their discussion of Palin is that they, too, are quite capable of mistaking vanity for intelligence. This is curious because the record of Palin's vanity is almost as available now as Bush's was eight long years ago. If someone out-thinks Palin on the Wasilla City Council, then, rather than learning the facts, she packs the council with her

Wonderment: Thanks. I don't agree with most of your examples, obviously. In particular, I reject out of hand that her debate performance or interviews showed any evidence that she "assimilates, retains, processes and synthesizes large amounts of information." To me, she sounded like a computer with a limited set of sound clips. I thought the only reason she didn't make "a complete fool of herself" in the debate is that she went in with the lowest possible expectations. I agree with your impression that she has good interpersonal skills, a la George Bush. This doesn't say anything about intelligence to me, though, except, again, when using a low bar. I think you punted on the "admirable qualities" question, but whatever. For the record, using her children as campaign props is something that I find the opposite of admirable. Ditto using them to pad her reimbursement filings. I reject the idea that she's much of a role model. Everything I've read in the Anchorage Daily News and from Alaska bloggers like Mudflats and the natives on LG&M, combined with the pose she adopts on the campaign trail, makes me think she's power-hungry, vindictive, devoid of intellectual curiosity, and intolerant of anyone who doesn't share her views or her socioeconomic

Character assasination must be an American thing, because the Democrats do it just as much as the Republicans. Attacks on Sarah Palin for instance... like the immature and ignorant claims made by Monbiot about Sarah Palin in his recent Guardian article (even though he's neither American or a Democrat).

Quoting Lyle: Character assasination must be an American thing, because the Democrats do it just as much as the Republicans.

Attacks on Sarah Palin for instance...

It's easy to toss out the term "character assassination" in an attempt to assert an equivalence, but it's lazy and unconvincing to do so. To point out Sarah Palin's lack of intellect and lack of intellectual curiosity, her vindictiveness, and her intolerance of anyone not agreeing with her worldview is to make valid observations based on plenty of evidence. This is not the same thing as, say, calling Obama a terrorist, a secret Muslim, a radical socialist, an America-hater, etc. Or, to take another example, to Swiftboat John Kerry. Or a third: to accuse the Clintons of assassinating their political enemies. Or a fourth: to portray Al Gore as a serial liar. I am not going to say that the Dems never stretch the truth in trying to build a negative image of their opponents, but real character assassination is, and has been for decades, the first page in the GOP playbook.

Franco, Lets not call Sarah Palin a 'numbskull' shall we. Cause if we all can, Barack Obama can be called a 'nigger lover', 'communist apologist', or horror of horrors a 'socialist'. Have some class and integrity, like Barack Obama does, and don't stoop to the Monbiot level of journalistic integrity. The deseg schools Monbiot talks about have actually progressed a lot since 1969. My father was actually a principal of one in Mississippi and got educators at LSU to overhaul the school's curriculum. They even teach evolution at the school. Yes, in rural Mississippi they learn about evolution. Mobiot isn't entirely wrong, but he exaggerates a lot and he's a bit stuck on what happened in the late 60's and early 70's. The South today is nothing like Monbiot describes though, and much more like how Glenn Loury describes it, or how he thinks of agrarian America.

Franco, on the contrary. Thanks for the long quote. Sounds like a great book. This would make a great topic for a diavlog. In Southern Baptism's defense, it did give us Bob Wright and indirectly...Bloggingheads!! ;-)

Sarah Palin isn't actually wrong to point this out though. There are many Americans who would like to see the United States have an economy more like Sweden's or more like France's. That's all she's saying; and it's entirely true. There are also Americans who would love to see America be defeated or beaten in both Iraq and Afghanistan. What's wrong in pointing out that the anti-War/defeatist crowd support Barack Obama?

A 'book-burner'? Utter nonsense. Sara Palin is a 'book-burner' as much as Barack Obama is a 'Muslim'.

Quoting Lyle: ...

Bzzzzzt! Lyle, I think the use of some well placed asterisks would be a minimal precaution. Attempted irony doesn't mask the offensiveness of posts like this. Better, yet some terms probably ought to be avoided completely.

Quoting Lyle: There are also Americans who would love to see America be defeated or beaten in both Iraq and Afghanistan. What's wrong in pointing out that the anti-War/defeatist crowd support Barack Obama?

What's wrong with this is that it's like your bandying about of the term "character assassination." In your reaching for flamethrower language to demonize those who don't share your views, you're misrepresenting reality. There are almost no sane Americans "who would love to see America be defeated or beaten in both Iraq and Afghanistan." This is an completely inaccurate and unfair characterization of people who think, for example, that the US should stop being such an imperialist bully. Or who believe that the US should not first try to solve all problems by sending in the Marines. Or who believe that the US would do more to enhance its national security by choosing its battles better, or by allocating its resources differently. Or who believe that being bogged down in military actions with no exit strategy harms our domestic agenda. There is a broad spectrum of reasons why people dislike what's going on in Iraq

Quoting Lyle: A 'book-burner'? Utter nonsense. Sara Palin is a 'book-burner' as much as Barack Obama is a 'Muslim'.

Ah. Simplistic caricaturing doesn't feel too good when it comes back in your direction, does it? (cf., cf.)

I reject the idea that she's much of a role model.

My two daughters, who are not white, not Christian and are both voting in their first presidential election, wouldn't vote for McCain in a million years, but they respect Palin. Go figure. They reject Palin's views on abortion, global warming, gay rights, war and so on, and they love Obama down to their t-shirts, yard signs and bumper stickers. But they see Palin as someone markedly more modern (i.e, cool) than Hillary Clinton or Condi Rice, and as someone whose personal struggles they empathize with. They like Palin because she played high school basketball and because she's comfortable in a male world of politics without always looking robotic, hyper-sexualized or defensive. I would prefer that my kids admired Ruth Bader Ginsburg or Aung San Suu Kyi, but I'm living in a world where Ruth and Aung San don't get a lot of media coverage and Paris and Britney do.

Quoting Wonderment: My two daughters, who are not white, not Christian and are both voting in their first presidential election, wouldn't vote for McCain in a million years, but they respect Palin. Go figure.

Interesting. I hope you're punishing them. ;^) But seriously, you do a good job of explaining why, and I accept the reasons you offer as valid, or in some cases, at least understandable, from the perspective of teenagers. There are aspects of Palin that are more admirable than those on display among the tabloid set, to be sure.

That's some transition, Glenn, from wanting to know on Oct. 8 to hoping we don't have a clue on Oct. 22. Who needs to know anything when there's so much hope? The Obama magic has worked! Given that you "know a good deal" about what Obama's views were on the Middle East before he started his campaign and put on his "AIPAC show", etc., it's a shame (from my point of view) that you've decided to keep what you know to yourself. Of course, given that you're supporting Obama, I suppose it's understandable that you have: discussing such things publicly might significantly harm his chances for success, and I imagine also cause you a fair bit of grief to boot. It's just that there seems to me to be some tension here with Josh's statement -- which you insisted we not forget -- that "the responsibility of intellectuals is not to suck up to power but to speak truth to it."

Quoting mvantony: That's some transition, Glenn, from wanting to know on Oct. 8 to hoping we don't have a clue on Oct. 22. Who needs to know anything when there's so much hope? The Obama magic has worked!

This week's award for Not Getting The Context. By a landslide.

Quoting bjkeefe: This week's award for Not Getting The Context. By a landslide.

Please explain.

Quoting mvantony: Please explain.

I took Glenn's more recent statement to be ... call it ironic for lack of a better term. I understood him to be saying that he's not thrilled at the status quo, nor at some of Obama's statements (that may have had to be made to keep him a viable candidate), and expressing a possibly forlorn and likely unrealistic hope that Obama will do things drastically differently once he's in office. I'm not trying to say anything about Obama here. Just objecting to your misunderstanding of Glenn.

Sarah Palin is likeable to many due to the fact she comes across as an everyday woman. She definitely does not fit the image of someone on public television talking about some arcane philosophical/political concept. Her personality appears to be bubbly and being attractive doesn't hurt either. I didn't quite understand the drift on identity politics that Glenn spoke about. Of course life is an inside job and just because you are this ethnic group or that, religious or not, male or female and so on, is not going to put food on the table and pay the rent. I am surprised he would even have to write such a piece. I remember back in high school with the very nice looking people. Well, they found out very quickly that looks alone would not get them too far or anywhere for that matter. The same with identity politics. Sure, there are a few who make a living from it by writing books or are professors in the field but that is a small amount less than .001%. John

Glenn seems consistent in the two clips. In the first, he wonders about Obama's foreign policy positions (beyond campaign bullshit), and in the second he wonders about the overall Obama philosophy of government (beyond ever more campaign bullshit). I think most Obama supporters are also very concerned about his foreign policy views. We are persuaded that he'll generally be less hawkish than McCain and less of a liar, ideologue and blunderer than Bush. He'll be a Democrat, but does that mean Roosevelt, Kennedy, Carter, Clinton, -- or God forbid -- LBJ? Obama's book "Dreams from my Father" ignores foreign policy, which makes sense since Obama came of age post-Vietnam and pre-9/11. But it makes you wonder. Previous presidents all came from a deep experience of WWII, the Cold War or Vietnam. Where is Barack coming from? Obama is from the 9/11 generation. He says he admires G.H.W. Bush on foreign policy, but he often leads his base to believe he's Dennis Kucinich with a little Martin Luther King thrown in. His advisors are hard-core Clintonistas. We'll see.

... but Sarah Palin doesn't lack intellect or tolerance. That's the myth liberals, Democrats, and Obama peons are preaching ... it just isn't true. She's not any of things you just listed.

Your prolem Jeff; not mine. Any and all words can be spoken. It's your problem if you're sensitive about certain words, terms, or phrases. ... and obviously I don't condone calling Barack Obama a 'nigger' or a 'nigger lover'.

Quoting bjkeefe: I took Glenn's more recent statement to be ... call it ironic for lack of a better term. I understood him to be saying that he's not thrilled at the status quo, nor at some of Obama's statements (that may have had to be made to keep him a viable candidate), and expressing a possibly forlorn and likely unrealistic hope that Obama will do things drastically differently once he's in office.

That's not my sense. Aside from Glenn's hopes for Obama vis-a-vis Pakistan and Afganistan, with respect to which I agree he does seems a bit doubtful, overall Glenn strikes me as excited, optimistic, and hopeful. Extending the clip out from where I ended it, Josh says it sounds to him like Glenn's recommending flip-flopping (and Glenn agrees) -- that Obama should say "I said all that stuff to win the election, but now I'm going to bring people together and do all those good things you really elected me for," etc. By the end of the segment Glenn's excitedly imagining Obama as a Mandela-like figure, a great leader for the first half of the 21st century. (Here's the extended segment.) I don't sense any irony

Quoting Lyle: ...

Lyle, it's a problem for everybody that reads it. And that is a problem for you.

All true. ... and a Barack Obama administratrion is guaranteed to be at War every single day of his administration because the United States won't be leaving Afghanistan anytime soon. ... and who knows what other countries Barack Obama will invade or bomb.

"A 'book-burner'? Utter nonsense. Sara Palin is a 'book-burner' as much as Barack Obama is a 'Muslim'." Here's a link: http://sfist.com/2008/09/03/sarah_pa...ook_burner.php Lyle - If you honestly think President Palin wouldn't take unconstitutional measures to force her twisted morality on us, I've got some 4,000 year old dinosaur bones to sell you.

She's not demonizing though. She hasn't actually used inflammatory language at all, she's just pointed out truths. ... and if anyone is demonzing it is liberals, progressives, Democrats, and Obama supporters who can't stand Sarah Palin. she's the one who's been demonized, and not the other way around. i'm with Glenn Loury and Ann Althouse on this.

Quoting Lyle: ... and a Barack Obama administratrion is guaranteed to be at War every single day of his administration because the United States won't be leaving Afghanistan anytime soon.

... and who knows what other countries Barack Obama will invade or bomb.

Sounds like you've found your reason to vote for Obama!

Wrong... because I've never called Barack Obama any names, and I certainly haven't ever called him a 'Muslim'. So you're the demonizing name caller; not I.

How's it a problem for me if nothing offensive has been written? Are you one of those people who thinks writing 'nigger' is ipso facto offensive? I hope not, cause it isn't.

Why hasn't she already done it in Alaska then? Where in Alaksa do state-run schools not teach about evolution? Where does the state of Alaska sanction book-burning?

Haha... you're right, I might have. I'm voting for him for the same reasons James McWhorter is voting for him though despite my fears of anykind of socialist, do-goodery him and the Democrats might try. Like Glenn Loury though, I'm going to continue to be impressed with Obama, but skeptical of him.

Quoting Lyle: Wrong... because I've never called Barack Obama any names, and I certainly haven't ever called him a 'Muslim'.

So you're the demonizing name caller; not I.

I was talking about the entire rightwing noise machine, not just you.

Not everyone on the right calls Barack Obama names though. Bringing up William Ayers or Rev. Wright isn't name calling; it's legitimate and fair criticism. That's all McCain and Palin have done. Far right yahoos are doing it, but lets not paint the whole right with the bigotry brush when it isn't justified.

Quoting Lyle: She's not demonizing though. She hasn't actually used inflammatory language at all, she's just pointed out truths.

Now that, my friends, is rightwing reality-denial we can believe in!

Quoting Lyle: Not everyone on the right calls Barack Obama names though. Bringing up William Ayers or Rev. Wright isn't name calling; it's legitimate and fair criticism. That's all McCain and Palin have done.

Sorry, Lyle. This is just too orthogonal to reality for me to take seriously.

How has Palin demonized Obama or the political Left? Disagreeing with someone or a group of people isn't actually bigotry or demonization; it's just disagreement.

Yeah, I'm not sure your reality is my reality... or a lot of other peoples' reality.

How has Palin demonized Obama or the political Left?

Socialism, Bill Ayers, Jeremiah Wright, pals around with terrorist, real America, white flag of surrender, ad naseam.

What? Larry Flynt?! Larry FLYNT? That is your upper westside New York liberal elitist snob?
Puhlease. Yall can do better than that.

Josh says it sounds to him like Glenn's recommending flip-flopping (and Glenn agrees) -- that Obama should say "I said all that stuff to win the election, but now I'm going to bring people together and do all those good things you really elected me for," etc.

There is no doubt that Obama has -- shall we say, fibbed? -- during the campaign. Here's an easy example (of many): I would bet my house against 1 dollar (yes, I have equity) that Obama is in favor of same-sex marriage, although he says he isn't. The problem is that once you publicly commit to something you don't believe in, it's very hard to flip and keep your credibility across the board. While Obama will deliver a lot to gays and lesbians (abolishing "don't ask, don't tell", extending federal benefits to gay couples, etc.), I can't see him coming out (pun intended) in January of 09 with a complete switcheroo: "Just kidding. I really do believe in same sex marriage." He is pretty much cemented to the lie. The only real question is how much wiggle room he has short of flip-flopping. The higher stakes the issue (Afghanistan, Iraq, Israel, free trade), the less room for wiggling.

All fair political criticism. None of that could be seriously described as 'demonizing' Obama or the Left... the words coming from McCain and Palin I mean. Of course on the far Right worse stuff is being said. Lets not mix McCain/Palin in with the worst of the right though. Obama has hungout with Ayers and Wright... nothing untruthful or wrong in pointing that out. Obama has talked about 'spreading the wealth', which sounds like 'socialism'. Nothing wrong in pointing that out. More or less Democrats and Obama fans need to toughen up and get some thicker skin. All forms of criticism you get or your candidate gets, isn't ipso facto hate or demonization.

The Palin part of this conversation was really weird. I’ve heard Glenn’s anti-snobbery shtick before, but why is Josh chiming in here? In today’s “Washington Post,” Richard Cohen refers us to a Jane Mayer article in “The New Yorker” about the wooing of the conservative Washington pundit elite by Palin. But Glenn and Josh are under the serious misapprehension that Palin “was plucked from obscurity” without her own connivance. Elsewhere on bloggingheads, Noam Scheiber points out something I learned on the Internet in a few days of research after Palin’s nomination, namely that Palin is a very vindictive and somewhat petty person. In Scheiber’s account, she is often motivated by insecurity and resentment vis-a-vis more thoughtful and better educated people. So I’m proud to be a major anti-Palin snob. Here is another point. There is a major difference between “elitism” as regards someone who would be POTUS and social elitism. As I have said in another context, I don't mind if Sarah Palin is my real estate broker, but I would judge her as a real estate broker. And Josh and Glenn do not consider the very particular political and economic circumstances that made Palin’s

I agree.

Quoting ledocs: So I’m proud to be a major anti-Palin snob.

The funny thing about this "snob" trope is that more than half the country now qualifies for the label. Even the good people of Alaska appear to be finding noses down from which to look. Maybe Garrison Keillor was on to something: we're all above average now.

Now Obama has taken 2 sides of the gun issue, recently said NASA woud be a high priority (give me a break), seems to have distanced himself from a set pull out date from Iraq, ambiguous on the death penality, probably supports gay marriage and so on. In other words, I am not putting a lot of stock in his hawkish Afganistan and Pakistan pronouncements. I put little credence in what he has said so far on the Middle East with the exception of Israel. I am taking a wait and see on his foreign policy postions after his taking the presidency. John

I think that both George W. Bush and Sarah Palin are stupid, too stupid to have risen to the high offices to which they have risen.

One problem with dismissing Bush and Palin as "stupid" is that when someone attains that level of power they are surrounded by very smart people, who may still do very outrageous things. It doesn't matter how many times GWB says "misunderestimate," uses his "gut" to assess Putin, or relies on conversations with Jesus to explain his views on Palestine, if he ends up consulting with the best and the brightest in the State Dept., CIA and National Security Council. David Frum is not stupid. John Yoo is not stupid. Colin Powell is not stupid. John Bolton is not stupid. Condeleeza Rice is not stupid. Paul Wolfowitz is not stupid. But they were all on board for torture, Guantánamo, the Patriot Act, domestic surveillance and the crazy Iraq holocaust.

Quoting bkjazfan: I am taking a wait and see on his foreign policy postions after his taking the presidency.

That sounds prudent. That's what I'm doing, too.

I agree with the point you're making, but.... Iraq is free of Saddam Hussein and that is something wonderful.

Does it matter how smart politicians are? Dick Cheney is quite smart for instance. Keep in mind also the bundling effect. A politician might be smart on some issues, but they're always going to be bundled in with many other areas of total ineptitude. This is the problem I had with this discussion. Most of what Cohen said was folklore. Loury on the other hand is insightful and his analysis have much more substance.

These two gentlemen have a very interesting discussion. However, it continues to amaze me how obviously very smart people can say the damnest things. Examples: 1. Obama has campaigned for two years claiming the real war on terror is in Afghanistan and we need to concentrate on that. These two gentlemen say that they hope/expect Obama will totally reverse himself and get out of Afghanistan because Obama is so smart and able to bring people together. I suppose it may happen, but why do these smart guys think that Obama does not mean what he says on this vitally important issue and, if they believe that, why don't they hold Obama's disingenuousness against him. 2. Glenn somewhat blithely declares that the war on terror and implicitly Bush's policies will produce a 100 year war on Islam. Of course, there is no objective basis for that premise. But more important to me, how does Glenn not recognize that for the past five years we have fought shoulder to shoulder with two countries of Muslims to achieve some measure of freedom for them and, presumably, some measure of appreciation from them.

Quoting Unit: Does it matter how smart politicians are? Dick Cheney is quite smart for instance. Keep in mind also the bundling effect. A politician might be smart on some issues, but they're always going to be bundled in with many other areas of total ineptitude.

This is the problem I had with this discussion. Most of what Cohen said was folklore. Loury on the other hand is insightful and his analysis have much more substance.

To be sure, it's a fallacy to assume that if being smart matters, it's the only thing that matters. We should probably view intelligence as a necessary, but not sufficient trait in politicians, among others. I doubt, by the way, that Palin is, in fact, not bright. The impression I get is that despite her innate smarts, she's accustomed to getting by on a fair measure of bullshit. It's harder to pull that off in completely unfamiliar territory, and she was pretty suddenly thrust onto the national stage. What puts me off particularly about her is the feeling that anybody who believed that nobody would notice how how little she really had going for her in those initial interviews has a pretty low

Jeff: I think you and many others are too harsh on Palin. She is plenty smart for a politician and a natural communicator. Like it or not, at this point in time, she is the woman most likely to become the first female president of the United States, either after VP service (yes, that is still possible) or in a later election when she runs for president. [By the way, I'm not sure Obama is that smart. I think he is "smarter" than McCain, but not much above average. There has been no disclosure of his scholastic test scores or grades.] You said of Palin: "The impression I get is that despite her innate smarts, she's accustomed to getting by on a fair measure of bullshit." I don't know what you base your assessment of her past, but your words are spot on with respect to Joe Biden.

Look, they're all demagogues. These fine discussions about who and what Palin really is leave me completely unmoved: she's another busy-body vying for high-office, period. Same with the other three guys. Their main concern in life is to be successful, and that means staying in power. They'll do and say whatever it takes. So some are more successful than others right now. But why should we care? Why is it that so many bright minds waste hours and hours of intellectual brain-power analyzing the delivery, the look, the past, the leadership qualities, etc...when in fact we all know that the world we live in is vastly too complex for any single politician to stir it in any meaningful direction, without tons of unintended consequences. This leader-worship in our commenting class is downright scary. Let's treat them for what these four candidates really are: glorified "student-body president" hopefuls.

Quoting Kansas City: Jeff:

I think you and many others are too harsh on Palin. She is plenty smart for a politician and a natural communicator. Like it or not, at this point in time, she is the woman most likely to become the first female president of the United States, either after VP service (yes, that is still possible) or in a later election when she runs for president. [By the way, I'm not sure Obama is that smart. I think he is "smarter" than McCain, but not much above average. There has been no disclosure of his scholastic test scores or grades.]

You said of Palin: "The impression I get is that despite her innate smarts, she's accustomed to getting by on a fair measure of bullshit." I don't know what you base your assessment of her past, but your words are spot on with respect to Joe Biden.

I pretty explicitly said I thought she was smart. The idea that the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee is just a guy getting by on bullshit is an interesting attack, but well... good luck with that!. Palin's public record as an interviewee speaks for itself. It's not that she doesn't know anything. It's her transparency when she tries to cover her gaps, and the frequency with which that occurs.

Quoting Unit: Look, they're all demagogues. These fine discussions about who and what Palin really is leave me completely unmoved: she's another busy-body vying for high-office, period. Same with the other three guys. Their main concern in life is to be successful, and that means staying in power. They'll do and say whatever it takes. So some are more successful than others right now. But why should we care? Why is it that so many bright minds waste hours and hours of intellectual brain-power analyzing the delivery, the look, the past, the leadership qualities, etc...when in fact we all know that the world we live in is vastly too complex for any single politician to stir it in any meaningful direction, without tons of unintended consequences. This leader-worship in our commenting class is downright scary. Let's treat them for what these four candidates really are: glorified "student-body president" hopefuls.

Why should we care? Supreme Court. Federal Judiciary. Commander in Chief. Federal security apparatus. Bully pulpit. etc...

Quoting AemJeff: Why should we care? Supreme Court. Federal Judiciary. Commander in Chief. Federal security apparatus. Bully pulpit. etc...

Yes, especially to that last one. Like it or not, Unit, it's not just "our commenting class" who pay attention to leaders, it's most people. It's squishy and it's hard to measure satisfactorily, but the ability to unite and inspire a populace is important. It contributes to the winning of wars, the solving of problems, the resuscitating of the economy, the pursuit and attainment of long-term goals, how people view each other, and on and on. And, it is our country's face for the rest of the world.

Why should we care? Supreme Court. Federal Judiciary. Commander in Chief. Federal security apparatus. Bully pulpit. etc...

Supreme court: the president is not that influential. Partisan judges don't get voted in that easily. Also, the Supreme court doesn't really do its job: when is the last time they shot down a law as unconstitutional? There's no chance the Paulson bailout will ever be reviewed by them, so to me they're quite inconsequential. Federal security apparatus: I'm not sure how much of a handle politicians have on this entity, besides I don't hear anyone wanting to reign it in. Bully pulpit: sorry but I don't think politicians can educate anybody about anything.

I haven't lumped anyone together. I haven't said all liberals or all Democrats; I said those in the anti-war/defeatist crowd, i.e., the exact people who think America should be defeated by third-world peoples so that America will be more 'humble' or less 'imperialitst', etc... You know who I'm talking about. You're not stupid.

Quoting Unit: Supreme court: the president is not that influential. Partisan judges don't get voted in that easily.

You think a Democratic president would have put Scalia, Roberts, Thomas, and Alito on the bench? And what about the rest of the federal judiciary?

Also, the Supreme court doesn't really do its job: when is the last time they shot down a law as unconstitutional?

Earlier this month, I believe.

There's no chance the Paulson bailout will ever be reviewed by them, so to me they're quite inconsequential.

Ah. You're a single-issue voter. Okay. ;^)

Federal security apparatus: I'm not sure how much of a handle politicians have on this entity, besides I don't hear anyone wanting to reign it in.

Fair enough, although I have more hope with Obama than I do with Bush. I mean, McCain. Also important to consider the rest of the federal bureaucracy. EPA and FEMA are two good examples from the past eight years showing how much a president's ideology ripples outward.

Bully pulpit: sorry but I don't think politicians can educate anybody about anything.

As I said earlier, this is squishy and hard to measure. But would you acknowledge inspire, if not educate?

Jeff: You don't see a fair measure of bs in Joe Biden? You got to be kidding? That he is a politician who through seniority has advanced to chairperson of the senate foreign relations committe is hardly inconsistent with getting by with bs. Listen to him sometime. He lives on bs.

Yes, especially to that last one. Like it or not, Unit, it's not just "our commenting class" who pay attention to leaders, it's most people. It's squishy and it's hard to measure satisfactorily, but the ability to unite and inspire a populace is important. It contributes to the winning of wars, the solving of problems, the resuscitating of the economy, the pursuit and attainment of long-term goals, how people view each other, and on and on.

And, it is our country's face for the rest of the world.

Wow. Winning wars? Like the way Bush has spurred us on? Solving problems? Like the White House telling banks "you need to start lending now!"? Resuscitating the economy? Do you really believe that a complex phenomena like the economy can be resuscitated by the "words" of a politician? My god, this is what I'm talking about. These people are not semi-gods. The president can do diddly-squat with regards to most problems. This is the fundamental lesson that should be drawn from yet another failed presidency. Now, I'll give you that "it's our country's face". That's true.

Quoting Kansas City: By the way, I'm not sure Obama is that smart. I think he is "smarter" than McCain, but not much above average. There has been no disclosure of his scholastic test scores or grades.

Barack Obama graduated magna cum laude from Harvard University Law School.

Joe Biden is one of the best bullshitters in Congress... soon to be a bullshitting V.P. I've never seen a better ass kisser when abroad and talking about U.S. foreign policy. At least he's smart enough to argue out both sides of his mouth.

Quoting bjkeefe: You think a Democratic president would have put Scalia, Roberts, Thomas, and Alito on the bench? And what about the rest of the federal judiciary?

Earlier this month, I believe.

Ah. You're a single-issue voter. Okay. ;^)

Fair enough, although I have more hope with Obama than I do with Bush. I mean, McCain.

Also important to consider the rest of the federal bureaucracy. EPA and FEMA are two good examples from the past eight years showing how much a president's ideology ripples outward.

As I said earlier, this is squishy and hard to measure. But would you acknowledge inspire, if not educate?

Look Democrats have voted for the war in Iraq, have they not? Dems have voted for the pornographic bailout, have they not? FEMA is institutionally degenerate, no amount of "good governance" can make it work. It's a knowledge problem. When you centralize power you loose most of the knowledge necessary to move in the right direction. The local coast guard and private volunteering were the heroes of the Katrina not FEMA.
Again, about the Supreme Court, they don't seem to be that independent to me. Where are the checks-and-balances? you tell me. I mean, if you are like me, and look with suspicion at everything politicians do, how can you be confident that they'll pick

Quoting Wonderment: Obama . . . says he admires G.H.W. Bush on foreign policy,

yikes, did he really say that? if so: disturbing. a return to amoral realpolitik?

yikes, did he really say that? if so: disturbing. a return to amoral realpolitik?

Yes, he did.

"This is not an argument between Democrats and Republicans," Mr Obama told David Brooks, a moderate conservative New York Times' columnist. "It's an argument between ideology and foreign policy realism.

"I have enormous sympathy for the foreign policy of George H.W. Bush. I don't have a lot of complaints about their handling of Desert Storm [the 1991 Iraq war]. I don't have a lot of complaints with their handling of the fall of the Berlin Wall."

Quoting Unit: Wow. Winning wars? Like the way Bush has spurred us on?

No. Like the way FDR and Lincoln and Washington did.

Solving problems? Like the White House telling banks "you need to start lending now!"?

Did you just arrive on this planet eight years ago? Read some history.

Resuscitating the economy? Do you really believe that a complex phenomena like the economy can be resuscitated by the "words" of a politician?

Re-read my earlier post. I said presidential leadership "contributes to." I didn't say it a leader could fire a magic bullet. But his or her presence can do a lot to push things in one direction or another. Part of what drives the economy is confidence. A president can inspire that or detract from it.

My god, this is what I'm talking about. These people are not semi-gods. The president can do diddly-squat with regards to most problems. This is the fundamental lesson that should be drawn from yet another failed presidency.

Again, I think you're being myopic to judge to potential of good leadership from the disaster we just lived through. Also, you ought to be able to infer from how bad the leadership has been the possibility of

Quoting Unit: Look Democrats have voted for the war in Iraq, have they not? Dems have voted for the pornographic bailout, have they not?

Granted. I have never said the Dems were without flaw, or cursed with an excess of spine.

FEMA is institutionally degenerate, no amount of "good governance" can make it work.

Seemed to work pretty well under Clinton. It was only when Bush came in that it became a parking place for unqualified cronies.

Again, about the Supreme Court, they don't seem to be that independent to me.

A post or two ago, you were telling me that judges aren't partisan. Make up your mind.

Where are the checks-and-balances? you tell me. I mean, if you are like me, and look with suspicion at everything politicians do, how can you be confident that they'll pick the appropriate judges? I have no idea.

I can, at minimum, be confident that Obama will pick better judges than McCain, from my own ideological perspective. I am also confident that the process -- ABA and other outside groups vetting, the Senate having to approve, at least keeps incompetents out, regardless of political orientation (cf. Harriet Miers). I look at history for plenty of examples of good checks and balances. Just to take one example: Look at getting Nixon out

Quoting bjkeefe: I am not going to say that the Dems never stretch the truth in trying to build a negative image of their opponents, but real character assassination is, and has been for decades, the first page in the GOP playbook.

Exactly. And the name of the game, as I have repeatedly said, is rightwing populism: the attempt to discredit an opponent by suggesting that he or she is "unamerican." In Republican demonology this means: better educated, knowledgeable about the rest of the world, residing on the East or West Coast, "sophisticated" tastes etc.. Indeed any kind of refinement that distinguishes one from "hoi polloi" is seen as a deviation from the "authentic" values of Joe six-pack, the embodiment of the American folk (or should I say VOLK?) There is, to be sure, also a leftwing populism, which is well illustrated by the conversation between Loury and Cohen. Snobbery and contempt for stupidity cannot be expressed because they might reveal a fissure in the complacent assumption that EQUALITY is the only important value.

Quoting Kansas City: You said of Palin: "The impression I get is that despite her innate smarts, she's accustomed to getting by on a fair measure of bullshit." I don't know what you base your assessment of her past ...

Hint, hint. Hint, hint. Want more?

Interesting - Glenn asks Josh why he needs to rehearse the 3 points about Palin. But Josh talks over that question. Conclusion - Glenn understands where he is in this dual nature format of these blogs...that is, chats at a high-level...while Josh is talking down to the unseen participants, blog viewers - basically telling us what we already know.

Quoting ledocs: .....So I’m proud to be a major anti-Palin snob. Here is another point. There is a major difference between “elitism” as regards someone who would be POTUS and social elitism. As I have said in another context, I don't mind if Sarah Palin is my real estate broker, but I would judge her as a real estate broker. And Josh and Glenn do not consider the very particular political and economic circumstances that made Palin’s rise in Alaska possible.

I think that both George W. Bush and Sarah Palin are stupid, too stupid to have risen to the high offices to which they have risen. I’m not convinced by all the Harry Truman talk, and maybe stupidity is not the best way to talk about the current president’s severe mental limitations, because I’m not saying that he is not a canny politician who has carefully cultivated a successful “aw-shucks” persona. And another thing. When Palin chimed in with Giuliani’s sneering at community organizers at the Republican Convention, it was all over for me. That was a declaration of war. As far as I am concerned, no amount of contempt directed at Palin is too much contempt, and, as

I think that the most interesting part of this diavlog has not been attracting much attention: the interaction between religion, ethnicity and free will. I want to question the description of the Amish. They recognize these problems and allow for all young adult Amish to leave the community for a year, explore the outside world and decide for themselves if they want to come back. The only downside is that once they leave, they can't come back.

Quoting bjkeefe: No. Like the way FDR and Lincoln and Washington did.

Did you just arrive on this planet eight years ago? Read some history.

What makes you think I haven't read any history?

Re-read my earlier post. I said presidential leadership "contributes to." I didn't say it a leader could fire a magic bullet. But his or her presence can do a lot to push things in one direction or another. Part of what drives the economy is confidence. A president can inspire that or detract from it.

I don't believe it for a moment. Yes maybe a president could avoid making things worse, that would be helpful. But that's not the power of the "bully pulpit".

Again, I think you're being myopic to judge to potential of good leadership from the disaster we just lived through. Also, you ought to be able to infer from how bad the leadership has been the possibility of the opposite.

Why would I want to hope in good leadership when my point is that we need to beware of leaders? That they are far more limited then we are generally led to believe? That most of what they do makes things worse? I could retort

Quoting bjkeefe: Granted. I have never said the Dems were without flaw, or cursed with an excess of spine.

Seemed to work pretty well under Clinton. It was only when Bush came in that it became a parking place for unqualified cronies.

Are you sure about this or it's just an impression you have?

A post or two ago, you were telling me that judges aren't partisan. Make up your mind.

I don't see a contradiction. My impression is that Congress picks some middle of the road judges that in exchange don't create too many troubles. Am I wrong?

I look at history for plenty of examples of good checks and balances. Just to take one example: Look at getting Nixon out of office -- my father and others of his generation still talk with amazement that the whole process went off without anyone firing a shot.

Sure, but don't you worry that you remove a bad apple just to replace it with another bad apple?

Once again, I think you're evaluating everything in terms of life under the Worst President Ever, and you're either unfamiliar with the longer scope of history or indulging in easy cynicism. Our system

Quoting Kansas City: Jeff:

You don't see a fair measure of bs in Joe Biden? You got to be kidding? That he is a politician who through seniority has advanced to chairperson of the senate foreign relations committe is hardly inconsistent with getting by with bs. Listen to him sometime. He lives on bs.

What distinguishes Palin from other pols on the national stage is how much bullshit, how transparent it is, and the surprisingly low grade she started out peddling. I do hope she can still see Russia while she's in charge of the Senate.

Thanks for the quote wonderment; troubling as it is. (I think I'll be a little less excited dropping off my ballot on Saturday.) Seriously: Obama has few complaints about George Bush 41's handling of Desert Storm? What about the two horrific atrocities committed at the end of the war: the "turkey shoot" in which thousands of fleeing Iraqi troops were mercilessly slaughtered, and the great betrayal when Bush promised support for Iraqi resisters, and then stood idly by while they were slaughtered by Saddam's helicopters? It's a sordid story; and I'm disturbed that Obama doesn't seem to realize this. Also: David Brooks is now a "moderate" conservative? I guess being an "intellectual" automatically makes one a "moderate" in today's GOP . . .

Franco, Where does this theory go when the Republicans trot out Piyush "Bobby" Jindal? Brown skin, Brown educated... yet loved by rednecks who believe in Jesus. You're being a bit over the top in your 'America's anti-intellectual and that's scary' argument. Most of the Republicans in Congress have fancy, shamncy degrees from fine schools... a few are even Rhodes scholars just like that hick from Hope.

I'm pretty sure Loury speaks his mind. If anyone is 'namby-pamby' it's Cohen. He's got a lot of white man's guilt in him.

Quoting Lyle: Joe Biden is one of the best bullshitters in Congress... soon to be a bullshitting V.P. I've never seen a better ass kisser when abroad and talking about U.S. foreign policy. At least he's smart enough to argue out both sides of his mouth.

Here is where one of the lefties is supposed to call Mccain a geezer or say Palin is the most intellectually lazy candidate since GWB, then Lyle can drop the N bomb in reference to Obama, then claim it's not offensive, fulfilling his whole "bait the stupid yankees" agenda. Why anybody gives this dipshit the time of day is beyond me... wait... I just did! Ya got me again, Lyle! Shame on... can't get fooled again...

Guys, he's got an election to win (or better put...to not lose.) As much as i agree with your views, Obama getting into detail about the less-admirable aspects of Desert Storm would only be a tremendous risk at this point. You know the GOP would frame it as an attack on the troops, or siding with the enemy, or lack of his understanding of millitary etc. Obama has gotten to where he is right now (to use a baseball metaphor), by knowing how to avoid throwing anything over the fat part of the plate in what is essentially a "save situation". I wouldn't be surprised at all if his views on the way that the Gulf War ended are more nuanced than what he has said publicly, but he would be foolish to take that chance at this point when he just needs to run out the clock (to use a basketball/football metaphor...sorry for mixing) and avoid stepping on his d**k, to be sucessful in the general election. I don't agree with everything he has said as part of courting votes, but I'm glad that he seems

Quoting Lyle: I'm pretty Loury speaks his mind. If anyone is 'namby-pamby' it's Cohen. He's got a lot of white man's guilt in him.

errrrr . . . what?

Loury shines in every dialog. Also glad to see some of the Plain hate being called out. i don't like the woman, but this idea that she is some sociopath reincarnation of Hitler is getting annoying. You can dislike a person and still respect them, but sadly it seems like only B.O. is going to bother at least trying to do that.

Quoting Unit: What makes you think I haven't read any history?

Because all of your examples have to do with GWB.

I don't believe it for a moment. Yes maybe a president could avoid making things worse, that would be helpful. But that's not the power of the "bully pulpit".

Why would I want to hope in good leadership when my point is that we need to beware of leaders? That they are far more limited then we are generally led to believe? That most of what they do makes things worse? I could retort that people who worship leadership are being myopic to how the world really works: that it's a complex evolving system with nobody in charge.

I'll accept that you insist on seeing things that a leader can do only in a negative light. However, I still think you're mistaken to ignore that many people do not behave this way.

Quoting Unit: [...]

Noted. I'm tired of debating this topic, since neither of us can offer very many specifics. Thanks for engaging, though. I look forward to the next one.

Agree with uncle eb. I'd also add that I suspect that Obama had in mind the bigger picture of GWHB's handling of the first Gulf War; e.g., built a real international coalition, built up overwhelming force, had a limited and well-defined objective, and didn't put the whole thing on our children's credit cards. You can argue about the correctness of the war itself, especially in light of what the US did to lead up to it in the previous decade or two, but if you stipulate that the war was inevitable, GHWB did a decent job as C-in-C. [Added] Should have been GHWB. Padron ym dylsexic tpying.

Quoting kidneystones: Of course, in a democracy people would just be trusted to watch the tape and make up their own minds.

Release the tape? Nahhh.

Thanks to the efforts of kidneystones and other brave truth-tellers, the Obama-Khalidi videotape has been released. Watch here.

Quoting bjkeefe: Agree with uncle eb. I'd also add that I suspect that Obama had in mind the bigger picture of GWHB's handling of the first Gulf War; e.g., built a real international coalition, built up overwhelming force, had a limited and well-defined objective, and didn't put the whole thing on our children's credit cards.

That's how I understood it as well. Even after the war was over and won, The senior President Bush built a coalition of various to publicly acknowledge the righteousness of the American effort in liberating Kuwait. The United States at least then was remember as a canny superpower.
I remember at the time, Chandrashekhar the famous socialist was prime minister of India. And he was cajoled into saying that Saddam is an idiot who could not win under any circumstances. Therefore, the invasion was unnecessary and wrong. I am paraphrasing here, I do not have the exact quote.

Quoting bjkeefe: Because all of your examples have to do with GWB.

I'll accept that you insist on seeing things that a leader can do only in a negative light. However, I still think you're mistaken to ignore that many people do not behave this way.

GWB is pretty blatant, his ratings are extremely low, but so are the ratings of Congress for that matter. What do you mean by "people" not behaving this way, regular people? I know it's not cool to be all-out negative on politics. We somehow have to feel inspired and excited by the democratic process and all that. But here I am: extremely worried about the size of our govt spending, risk insulation, debt etc...and the democratic process gives us endless debates about who Palin really is, and who Obama hangs out with, and is McCain really a maverick, etc...Don't get me wrong. I'm not all doom and gloom. In fact I tend to think that our civil society is extremely resilient and dynamic, but it would be nice to reduce the collateral damage that our leaders are creating and will continue to create. Don't you think? So maybe the solution is not to simply

Quoting bjkeefe: Thanks to the efforts of kidneystones and other brave truth-tellers, the Obama-Khalidi videotape has been released.

Watch here.

Barackrolled!

Quoting kidneystones: -given right to occupy Palestinian lands.

Of course, in a democracy people would just be trusted to watch the tape and make up their own minds.

Release the tape? Nahhh.

Thanks for that excellent link kidneystones. There's an interesting link in an update at the bottom to a post of Debbie Schlussel's (who claims to have started the story about the tape -- by leading an LA Times reporter Peter Wallsten to the Arab American Action Network -- and to have been plagiarized by the LA Times). Among other interesting items, Schlussel's post has an updated link about a $200,000 reward being offered to anyone who can provide the tape.

Regarding some Democrat's reaction to the media's impaling of Palin: LOS ANGELES (Hollywood Reporter) - In a room full of television industry executives, no one seemed inclined to defend MSNBC on Monday for what some were calling its lopsidedly liberal coverage of the presidential election. The cable news channel is "completely out of control," said writer-producer Linda Bloodworth-Thomason, a self-proclaimed liberal Democrat. She added that she would prefer a lunch date with right-leaning Fox News star Sean Hannity over left-leaning MSNBC star Keith Olbermann. Olbermann was criticized by many who attended Monday's luncheon sponsored by the Caucus for Producers, Writers & Directors at the Beverly Hills Hotel. The event was dubbed "Hollywood, America and Election '08." Bloodworth-Thomason and others seemed especially critical of the way MSNBC -- and other media -- has attacked Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin while demeaning her supporters. "We should stop the demonizing," she said, adding that Democrats have been worse than Republicans as far as personal attacks on candidates are concerned. "It diminishes us," she said of her fellow Democrats. Bloodworth-Thomason even suggested a defense of Palin and her supporters should be written into TV programing, just as she went out of her

Former speechwriter for Obama, Edwards and Clinton, Wendy Button, on why she's voting for McCain: "Not only has this party belittled working people in this campaign, it has also been part of tearing down two female candidates." Full article at: http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-a...so-long-obama/

Here's the last of my Trilogy: Obama blows it with a sexist ad with Sarah winking. Shelly Mandell, president of Los Angeles chapter of the National Organization for Women: “I am outraged by the new ad put out by Barack Obama. It is sexist and demeaning to women. These tactics started with Hillary Clinton and continue, growing even more disgusting with Gov. Palin. I was a Hillstar for Hillary and an avid supporter. Trashing two women clearly in a sexist manner in one election is an outrage and must be identified and stopped. There must be consequences. Let female Obama supporters take a good look at this and still believe their candidate supports women’s rights and women’s dignity.”

Quoting kidneystones: Watching the predominantly white, wealthy media suck up to a bi-racial chap from the wrong side of the cultural tracks must give Michelle and Barack quite a thrill.

You do have a vivid imagination Kidneystones! You seem to know everything that goes on in Obama's mind. What a marvelous skill. I wish I had it. But then we all know how paranoid fantasies work....well, some of us do at any rate. We know, for example, that racists are especially keen to identify traitors to their own race. It must really gull you that "wealthy" media types (a ludicrous claim by the way) are turncoats to the white race. And for a "bi-racial chap" at that! Has it ever occurred to you that many Americans, admittedly not very numerous in Republican circles, are beyond the category of race? Bi-racial indeed! Why don't you just spit out the word miscegenation? Wrong side of the cultural tracks? There too your small-town mind is rearing its ugly head. But Harvard Law School hardly fits the description of a cultural backwater, unless of course you happen to be from a cultural backwater.

Holy straw man, bat man!!!! it's really really crazy how deeply offended he is by Obama as a candidate. There are plenty of substantive arguments people make about Palin and her extreme views. No one is criticising her because people in her church raise their hands. The criticisms about her church are that it engages in anti-semitic and homophobic theology. And, boo hoo, God forbid Josh talk about the real flaws with Palin.

Quoting rgajria: That's how I understood it as well. Even after the war was over and won, The senior President Bush built a coalition of various to publicly acknowledge the righteousness of the American effort in liberating Kuwait. The United States at least then was remember as a canny superpower.
I remember at the time, Chandrashekhar the famous socialist was prime minister of India. And he was cajoled into saying that Saddam is an idiot who could not win under any circumstances. Therefore, the invasion was unnecessary and wrong. I am paraphrasing here, I do not have the exact quote.

er, excuse me, but what was "righteous" in the turkey shoot and betrayal of iraqi resisters? i understand obama is in the midst of a campaign, but is it really that damaging to, oh, i don't know, condemn wanton slaughter and betrayal of our allies? are things really that bad?

Haha.

Quoting nikkibong: er, excuse me, but what was "righteous" in the turkey shoot and betrayal of iraqi resisters?

i understand obama is in the midst of a campaign, but is it really that damaging to, oh, i don't know, condemn wanton slaughter and betrayal of our allies? are things really that bad?

when did I say anything about righteousness? I was simply trying to explain how the senior president Bush persuaded various foreign countries to back the liberation of Kuwait by Iraq. Well after the war was done. I am not condoning shooting at retreating Iraqi soldiers or betraying Iraqi resisters. I was merely trying to highlight the difference in approach to foreign policy. Bi-lateral vs Unilateral.

Here's what I wrote - publicly acknowledge the righteousness of the American effort in liberating Kuwait I was speaking about the entire war not a part of it.

Clingon, get back on your spaceship. This complaint about a political ad featuring the Palin wink is completely absurd and beneath contempt. It was Palin's considered decision to use that demeaning marketing ploy -- nothing to do with the Democrats or the Obama campaign. It made me feel like I was watching an advertisement for toilet bowl cleaner. If the wink doesn't play well now, tough. And if it does, too bad for the Obama campaign. I thought that wink was one of the most reprehensible and vulgar things I could imagine. If the Obama campaign can use it successfully against hockey mom, great. She is a detestable creature, which is why so many prominent Republicans have turned against her. She makes me puke. All this crap about how admirable she is, how much pluck she has, and so on, it just makes me puke more. The reason I demonize her is that she is demonic. She's revolting. But, as I have said previously, she is revolting qua politician. I'm not judging her as a human being in some other role. As someone who presumes to speak for me and for the USA, she is revolting.

Quoting ledocs: Clingon, get back on your spaceship. This complaint about a political ad featuring the Palin wink is completely absurd and beneath contempt.

Indeed. I don't know how any sane person could say using a video clip of someone doing something of her own volition is "sexist." Palin's whole shtick in that debate was selling her her "just folks" image, and the repeated winks were part of it.

Must credit bjkeefe! The following is a screen shot of part of the home page for The Drudge Report, taken just moments ago (still there, as of the time of this posting). Shelly Mandell, president of Los Angeles chapter of the National Organization for Women, did not say: “I am outraged by the new web page put up by Matthew Drudge. It is sexist and demeaning to men. These tactics started with some guy who got dust in his eye and continue, growing even more disgusting with John McCain. I was a Hillstar for Hillary and an avid supporter. Trashing this man clearly in a sexist manner in an election which is all over despite what Drudge would have you believe is an outrage and must be identified and stopped. There must be consequences. Let male Drudge readers take a good look at this and still believe their tabloid reporter and Republican tool supports men’s rights and men’s dignity.” Developing ...
_______________________ As for the meaningless numbers below the sexist picture, see here.

I want to thank Cohen & Gloury for defending Palin against many of the sexist attacks. As a Hillary Clinton supporter, I was disturbed but not surprised at the many anti-Palin sexist attacks. I may not agree with Palin on many things, but I do respect her regardless and I wish Obama supporters would follow their own advice when they lecture others on how the American people don't want to hear personal attacks but want to hear solutions. Unfortunately, when it comes to Palin, many O supporters can't refrain from hurling personal and often times sexist remarks at Palin (and previously at Clinton). Unfortunately I hear stuff like this in Manhattan on a daily basis. And btw, the attacks on Clinton were similar except Hillary was the cold frigid bitch whereas Sarah is the hot bimbo airhead. This is one major reason why I still have not hopped onto the O train.

Quoting laurelnyc: I want to thank Cohen & Gloury for defending Palin against many of the sexist attacks. As a Hillary Clinton supporter, I was disturbed but not surprised at the many anti-Palin sexist attacks. I may not agree with Palin on many things, but I do respect her regardless and I wish Obama supporters would follow their own advice when they lecture others on how the American people don't want to hear personal attacks but want to hear solutions.

Unfortunately, when it comes to Palin, many O supporters can't refrain from hurling personal and often times sexist remarks at Palin (and previously at Clinton). Unfortunately I hear stuff like this in Manhattan on a daily basis. And btw, the attacks on Clinton were similar except Hillary was the cold frigid bitch whereas Sarah is the hot bimbo airhead. This is one major reason why I still have not hopped onto the O train.

I don't get it. Stipulating that there's always some degree of sexism or racism in political attacks on women or minorities, I don't see a great deal of sexism in most of the attacks on Palin, even those that acknowledge her gender. And, to be sure, her gender

Quoting Unit: Look, they're all demagogues. These fine discussions about who and what Palin really is leave me completely unmoved: she's another busy-body vying for high-office, period. Same with the other three guys. Their main concern in life is to be successful, and that means staying in power. They'll do and say whatever it takes. So some are more successful than others right now. But why should we care? Why is it that so many bright minds waste hours and hours of intellectual brain-power analyzing the delivery, the look, the past, the leadership qualities, etc...when in fact we all know that the world we live in is vastly too complex for any single politician to stir it in any meaningful direction, without tons of unintended consequences. This leader-worship in our commenting class is downright scary. Let's treat them for what these four candidates really are: glorified "student-body president" hopefuls.

This has been the best comment so far!