Palin and the Campaign

If you're a Democrat, especially one who believes that salvation is riding on the back of Barack Obama, then you might have felt a little shiver after Sarah Palin delivered her biting acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention. The days following the RNC have been filled with McCain campaign attacks, culminating in the recent, completely misleading brouhaha over Obama's "lipstick" comment. (Look it up, I refuse to discuss it.) In situations like this, with their presidential candidate constantly on the defensive and suffering beneath a barrage of Republican talking points, Democrats inevitably do what they do best: Freak out and self-flagellate.

But, from what I see, the Obama campaign is actually in a good position. And Obama's counselors, known among journalists for their cool professionalism and self-discipline, don't seem to be freaking out. Here's why: After Republicans put on their biggest event of the election cycle, the RNC, and introduced a vice presidential candidate who can best be described as the juiciest of juicy steaks for right-wing conservatives, the McCain bounce in national polls drew him into a dead heat with Obama. That bears repeating: Barring some dramatic, unpredictable turn of events in the next one-and-a-half months, the McCain campaign has enjoyed their biggest bump in the polls, and all they've done is pulled even with Obama nationally.

It's important to note the word "nationally." Included in such a poll, obviously, are voters in the South, as well as the Mountain West, two regions that I think most people would say are locks for any Republican presidential campaign these days. Yet McCain is only even with Barack Obama. Obama's operatives, because they're smart, can only be encouraged by this. As David Broder noted - coming via the Wonkette post I linked to above - the Obama campaign is playing the electoral college. They don't need to win the South and Mountain West. They need to win Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Iowa and perhaps Florida and Colorado. I'd be interested to look at the polls coming from those states.

Meanwhile, Palin's honeymoon has begun to come to an end. Realizing that they couldn't sequester their VP pick in an undisclosed location until Nov. 4, as they might prefer, the McCain campaign let Charlie Gibson go at Palin in her first big, unscripted TV interview since being nominated. Things didn't go super well. Liberal blogs are playing up the fact, perhaps rightly so, that Palin stumbled and evaded Gibson's questions, often repeating certain phrases, mantra-like, over and over. This is in spite of the fact that she was coached by some of the biggest Republican political operatives for weeks. I expect that her failure to address several questions head on - including her childlike attempt to escape a discussion of the "Bush Doctrine" - will get play in the mainstream media. The Washington Post already has a front-page story for Friday about Palin linking Iraq to Al-Qaeda at a speech she gave recently at her son's military base.

So now the tide begins to turn. Right wing stalwarts such as William Kristol and the National Review have turned defensive. Just as Democrats tend to form circular firing squads when things don't go their way, Republicans resort to their own time-tested strategy: blaming the media. Even for a nonpartisan such as myself, there's a delicious irony in reading Kristol whine about the Washington Post "distorting" Palin's Iraq comments, considering how easily he and his cohorts resort to distortions when criticizing Democratic candidates. Turnabout is fair play, and Kristol should know.

It will be interesting to see if the McCain campaign releases Palin from her media exile, or if they interpret the ABC Gibson interview as a failure and squirrel her away for more briefings. I'm sure they'd like to do the latter, but I think the consequences are probably too great. It looks like a lose-lose scenario for the campaign, because it's now clear that Palin is going to get criticized by the press, yet has to go before the press, and at the same time apparently can't handle the questions put by the press, even with weeks of intensive political education.

All Hail the Fake Olympics

For those of us who never believed that China could pull off the Olympics without doing something that made everyone go, "Ohhhh, right, you're still kind of scary Communists," some validating press reports have been popping up recently.

Here's the LA Times blogging a round-up of the most obvious chicanery:

-Fake fireworks in the opening ceremony
-Fake voice for the little singing girl
-Fake wind for the flags (I noticed that one but wasn't really that upset. Flags need to wave, you know?)

And the New York Times with a longer look.

America: Prudency Isn't Our Middle Name

Tax Checks Yield Surprising Growth in Retail Sales - NY Times

Or, roughly translated: Even Wall Street didn't think Americans would spend their money that quickly.

New Ratatat Album - "LP3"

Here's a few tracks from Ratatat's new album. Definitely one to listen to on headphones, or at least in a place where you can enjoy the sweet production. Probably good even if you're just blasting it, too.

Gay Marriage in California?

The California Supreme Court has announced it will issue its ruling about the legality of gay marriage this morning at 10:00 a.m. PST.

The opinion can be found here, when it's published:

http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/

Expect reporting on the ruling at these sites:

http://www.law.com/jsp/ca/index.jsp
(CalLaw - free subscription required)

http://legalpad.typepad.com/
(The CalLaw blog, totally free)

http://ebar.com/
(The Bay Area Reporter)

http://www.sfgate.com/
(The San Francisco Chronicle)

And maybe here:

http://blogs.wsj.com/law/
(The Wall Street Journal Law Blog)

http://www.nytimes.com/
(uhhh... the new york times.)

Why I Love Radiohead Fans

Someone has made a site to document the current Radiohead tour (I'm seeing them August 22 here in S.F.!). It's pretty extensive.. gets me excited for the show.

A Primary Thought

The New York Daily News is not, as far as I know, a bastion of journalistic integrity. But a recent article on the post-Indiana, post-North Carolina primary world got me thinking.

The article quoted two men who I'm assuming, based on the article's theme of race relations, are both white.

"I'm kind of still up in the air between McCain and Hillary," said Jason Jenkins, 32, who cited information from a hoax e-mail as a reason to spurn Obama.

"I'll be honest with you. Barack scares the hell out of me," he said. "He swore on the Koran."

...

Obama did manage to pull in many white voters, but still encountered similar sentiments from a man who refused to shake his hand at a diner in Greenwood, Ind.

"I can't stand him," the man said. "He's a Muslim. He's not even pro-American as far as I'm concerned."

...

In recent weeks, pundits have cited repeatedly the fact that Clinton outdoes Obama among working-class white voters. These days, everyone wants to know if Obama can win a general election campaign against John McCain. Besides the ever-present Democratic fear that Republicans will outwit their candidate, I think the subtext here is clear: Can a black presidential candidate win in a white nation?

Hell it's not even a subtext:

"He has to convince people that he can win over working-class whites in places like Florida, Ohio and Michigan," [former Bill Clinton pollster Doug] Schoen said.

So, here's the question, Democratic voter: Do you not vote for the historic, game-changing black candidate because America might still have a lot of racists who won't elect him come November? Would we be so cowardly as to reserve our vote for a reason like that?

I can understand voting for Clinton if you truly believe that she's the better candidate or that we need a woman in the White House now more than a black or white man. But more people have voted for Obama, and he's won more delegates. The Clinton argument that Obama can't win a general election campaign is cynical, defeatist and basically racist. She argues that you shouldn't vote for the black man, however astounding his potential is, because working-class whites won't vote for him in the end. She argues that voters should fear the racism of their countrymen instead of supporting the candidate who, so far, they believe in. I find that pretty depressing.