Palin - tough target for Obama? Biden?

John McCain’s selection of Sarah Palin as his running mate presents the Obama-Biden campaign with an unwelcome and unexpected challenge: How do you go after a 44-year-old mother of five without once alienating the female voters you’ve just spent the last week trying to win back?

The answer so far: Not very well.

Minutes after the McCain campaign confirmed that Palin would be the Republican’s VP pick, Obama spokesman Bill Burton dismissed the Alaska governor as a lightweight.

McCain, he said, had put "the former mayor of a town of 9,000, with zero foreign policy experience, a heartbeat away from the presidency."

Almost immediately, the campaign seemed to reconsider its tough-guy approach.

In a statement distributed by the campaign, Barack Obama and Joe Biden said Palin’s selection was “yet another encouraging sign that old barriers are falling in our politics. While we obviously have differences over how best to lead this country forward, Gov. Palin is an admirable person and will add a compelling new voice to this campaign.”

www.politico.com...

Visit link for full article

I think it was a mixture of fear and being caught off guard that led to the Obama camp immediatly throwing out insults about Palin being a 'lightweight'. It made the Obama camp look bad that they weren't even able to point out the historic event of a woman being on the Republican ticket before bashing her.

Yesterday, McCain took the high road and did a very classy thing by running an ad congratulating Obama on making history and taking the day off from the fight so that Obama could have a day to relish in. Obama didn't thank McCain or even acknowledge McCain's 'job well done' ad, and instead, just hours later, when Palin is chosen, immediatly starts the fight with her.

Do you think that Obama can really criticize Palin for her lack of experience when his resume is quite thin?

And what about Biden? He's a known attack dog and I'm sure he was looking forward to the debates ... but Biden is now going to be debating a woman and he may have to alter his style quite a bit. Can he handle that? Will he be effective during the debates?

I'm curious to know how fellow ATS'ers feel Obama and Biden will be able to target Palin without shooting themselves in the foot or coming across as being hateful.

Jemison

It has put them in quite a predicament.

They're quite correct in pointing out Palin's lack of experience, but every time they do it, it reflects right back on their own presidential candidate who has scant more political experience than she does.

And yes, I think we've seen a very stark contrast the last two days between the McCain campaign and Obama's. Granted, it was politically motivated, but McCain took the high road and congratulated Obama on his nomination. The first thing to come out of the Dem ticket? An attack on Palin, basically giving her no credit whatsoever; they even found a way to insult small-town voters in the process. Of course, then they tried to smooth it over later. I think they've completely botched it so far, to the point that it may infuriate more than a few women who, while not all necessarily agreeing with Palin on the issues, aren't exactly going to be happy to see a strong, successful woman belittled as in the way the Dems are doing to Palin, either.

Certainly, with the bad blood between the Hillary and Obama camps still potentially lingering, plus the prospect of 5-10% of the undecided vote being female moderates, they have to be careful just how aggressively they attack her, especially considering that she comes across as very sincere and likeable, and her story will have a very strong appeal to the average blue collar voter in America's heartland. In a week or two, once the public starts getting to know Sarah Palin, I think they're going to like her an awful lot, even if they don't necessarily agree with her on everything. They can't appear to be using her as a political punching bag or there will be a backlash.

Myself, I think that the Dems best line of attack will be on the foreign policy front. Domestically, I think she's quite a bit more astute than they're giving her credit for, particularly on energy issues. But I'm sure that the McCain campaign is going to bring her up to speed on the former very quickly, so they're going to have to strike while the iron is hot, so to speak. She's a quick study and a good public speaker. Once she gets up to speed in a few weeks, I think she will be a formidable candidate.

Originally posted by Jemison

I think it was a mixture of fear and being caught off guard that led to the Obama camp immediatly throwing out insults about Palin being a 'lightweight'. It made the Obama camp look bad that they weren't even able to point out the historic event of a woman being on the Republican ticket before bashing her.

Yesterday, McCain took the high road and did a very classy thing by running an ad congratulating Obama on making history and taking the day off from the fight so that Obama could have a day to relish in. Obama didn't thank McCain or even acknowledge McCain's 'job well done' ad, and instead, just hours later, when Palin is chosen, immediatly starts the fight with her.

What are you talking about, the Obama campaign thanked McCain's camp and said they'd run a similar ad congratulating him during the Republican Convention that is coming up in September. Link and Link

[edit on 29-8-2008 by davion]

[edit on 29-8-2008 by davion]

I regard Palin largely as a gimmick candidate, not only because she is a woman but because she is so carefully chosen to match up against Obama's ticket.

She decided to keep a child, knowing that child would be born with Downs Syndrome- that gives her a huge sympathy card to play that will make a Washington insider like Biden seem like a mean old man if he tries to hammer her on her abortion views- so she's the Republican Veep who "can't be politely challenged" on a hotbutton issue that will charge the Republican base. During the VP debate, don't be surprised when she accuses Biden of suggesting that she should have murdered her son if he comes anywhere near her on abortion.

What's more her son is not only in the military, but enlisted on Sept 11 of last year and deploys to Iraq on Sept 11 of this year (talk about timing, eh?). To be honest, some strategists have got to be praying to god that her son gets killed in his first month over there. That's what you call an October Surprise. I won't go so far as to suggest that Dick Cheney and co would orchestrate such a thing, but admit it, most of you readers thought about that possibility the minute I said he was deploying on 9/11, didn't you?

She's even got a spring-loaded pseudoscandal poised to bite the Dems bad if they go after it. My initial look into it says that she almost certainly did fire her Public Safety Commissioner for refusing to help her retaliate against her ex brother in law. But it also looks like her ex brother in law was a rogue cop well on his way to killing somebody, under the full protection of the Alaska State Troopers and the troopers' union. Imagine that- the biggest chink in her armor coming in turns out to be an opportunity for the Republicans to talk about how much they hate unions and at the same time accuse the democrats of being soft on domestic violence.

This woman is some kind of a riddle to attack, even for a hard hitting veteran like Biden. The initial impulse is to say they have to be very nice to her and just say she's not experienced enough- but they can't do that without validating attacks on Obama's experience in the minds of independents. Not only that, but it wouldn't be a good enough argument. Lack of experience seems to be what people throw at you when they can't figure out what's wrong with your ideas (or in this case, don't dare speak it out loud).

But make no mistake, she's not ENTIRELY window dressing. She is willing to fire people wholesale to get her way. In that sense she would be able the keep the cabinet functioning under the unitary executive theory, through fear, without coming off as a grumpy old man like Cheney and drawing a lot of heat for it, and without taxing the reserves of an aging president with any infighting that may arise in his administration.

That may be the key. It falls on Biden, as Palin's opposite number and as the older statesman in Obama's camp, to push Palin in a diplomatic but unrelenting fashion until she becomes flustered and gets aggressive. This country does still tollerate certain levels of sexism, and the news media will characterize such an event as "the claws coming out", at which point Palin will at least for a moment cease to be a mother and become a woman in the stereotyping vision of sometimes sexist culture.

That change in perception, from mother to woman, which will come the moment she is anything but gentle, nurturing and ever-so-subtly submissive, will make sexual inuendo and stereotypes about emotionalism, etc all fair game. That's a unique problem for Palin over Hillary Clinton, because her base is less politically correct, and she doesn't have a tough career woman image. Hillary Clinton never was really percieved as a mom (biolgical facts aside). Hillary Clinton came across as a bit of a battle axe, (for lack of other appropriate terms beginning with the letter "B") and it was like, 'well, what are you gonna do, she's one of those educated liberal feminists'. Clintons problems can be percieved by some as having as much to do with being a liberal as they have to do with being a woman, which naturally reduced the turnoff effect it had on Democrats. Palin has no such luck. No forgiving base, and no other traits to blame it on if she goes aggressive, because she's not really a politician or a liberal femenist, or even a big city girl.

I'm not saying Biden has to lower himself to marshalling sexism against her. But I am saying that if he does the only thing that you can do with a political opponent who can't be safely attacked (regardless of gender), which is question her without sharp criticism until she paints herself into a corner, the favorable result will be even stronger than it would be if she was a man.

That's the fatal flaw to Palin as I see it.

Palin will be a tough target, because the Media will spin any criticism of her in a negative light because it'll make for a good story and ratings

just like they did some criticisms of obama

and guess what?


The conservatives will run with it and be glad that they are the ones with the MSM at their backs this time


Hypocrisy is a nasty stench.

We're weeks away from these events, and i can smell it already

Originally posted by The Vagabond
To be honest, some strategists have got to be praying to god that her son gets killed in his first month over there. That's what you call an October Surprise. I won't go so far as to suggest that Dick Cheney and co would orchestrate such a thing

Those are some twisted thoughts. I don't think anyone is "praying to god" that Palin's son dies.

Originally posted by The Vagabond
Hillary Clinton came across as a bit of a battle axe, (for lack of other appropriate terms beginning with the letter "B")

It's "appropriate" to consider Hillary Clinton a bitch? Do you really think she comes across that way in her speeches?

Originally posted by The Vagabond

I'm not saying Biden has to lower himself to marshalling sexism against her. But I am saying that if he does the only thing that you can do with a political opponent who can't be safely attacked (regardless of gender), which is question her without sharp criticism until she paints herself into a corner, the favorable result will be even stronger than it would be if she was a man.

That's the fatal flaw to Palin as I see it.

Or maybe Biden could simply debate the issues with Palin.

I think Obama and Biden's biggest fear is that Palin is at least as intelligent and well-spoken as they are. Palin faced the same "problems" in Alaska and came out the winner against her own party and against the Dems. Why? Because she is genuine, likable, intelligent, and states her case clearly.

I.e., Palin represents almost the exact change from politics as usual that Obama is always talking about. What will sink Obama and Biden is if they resort to the old "politics as usual" attacks on Palin. They will expose themselves as being totally incongruent with Obama's fundamental message -that he represents change.

You are wonderful people and I salute your integrity, but neither of you will ever be president.

I'm telling you, Karl Rove and his ilk all know damn well that they are more likely to get what they want (a win) if that young soldier never comes home. And recent news about potential SEAL operations discussed in Dick Cheney's office show us where these people have their heads on those sort of matters.

As for the issues, as I said, there is great danger inherent in having a vigorous debate with Palin on certain issues, because she has personal connection to those issues (abortion and Iraq) and there is a danger of a backwards chivalrous impulse within voters creating the impression that it is mean to be resolute on those issues in the face of Palin's objection.

I DO advocate debating her on the issues, however a certain approach to doing that is required to avoid the above described danger. That is the Socratic approach. Not to contradict her, but to encourage and provoke her until she contradicts herself.

Whether her response in that situation is hard or soft, either one can be construed as weakness from a sexist perspective, which effectively reverses the manuever that McCain is attempting against him.

I do not consider it wrong to think this way. John McCain's rationale in his choice is condescending and intellectually insulting towards women and cannot be responded to without addressing that fact.

If the Obama campaign refuses to counter this misdeed simply because they dare not even look upon it, then the Obama campaign lacks the courage to assume office.

If the issue were race and the pertaining rights rather than gender and the pertaining rights the answer would be quite clear. Obama would never hesitate to acknowledge and address a negative campaign tactic predecated on racist calculations, for instance if McCain had selected a black veep who stood against important civil rights positions, and Obama would not hesitate to make an "uncle tom" out of that hypothetical candidate.

Why should anything be different just because its gone from black people to women and from public rights to privacy rights (vis aboriton)?

What are you talking about, the Obama campaign thanked McCain's camp and said they'd run a similar ad congratulating him during the Republican Convention that is coming up in September

Thanks for the info and sorry for my misstatement.

I DO advocate debating her on the issues, however a certain approach to doing that is required to avoid the above described danger. That is the Socratic approach. Not to contradict her, but to encourage and provoke her until she contradicts herself.

I think that would be Biden's wisest approach but honestly, I'm not sure that a) he can pull it off and b) she would end up contradicting herself.

Palin is going to be an opponant like no other that Biden has seen in his career. Historically the Veep debates haven't been widely watched, but we can all be certain that this year, the VP debates will be the hottest ticket around!

Jemison

I don't imagine it would be any real problem... other than her personal plumbing, she's no different than anybody else... her policies and interests are more of the same stuff of BushCo, and should be easily attacked and demolished on that basis.

So she's a mother of five... so what? She could be a mother of none or a mother of 50... doesn't change her positions and policies, and those are what should be attacked.

I am confident that Obama and Biden both are more than up to the task.

And Vagabond, I think you are right on... I have no doubt that Cheney/Bush/Rove and Co would not hesitate at all to have her son tragically and heroically killed very soon after arriving on station in Iraq, if they think it will give them political advantage.

And Vagabond, I think you are right on... I have no doubt that Cheney/Bush/Rove and Co would not hesitate at all to have her son tragically and heroically killed very soon after arriving on station in Iraq, if they think it will give them political advantage.

That is just downright sick, and so far off-base it's disgusting!!!

I don't imagine it would be any real problem... other than her personal plumbing, she's no different than anybody else... her policies and interests are more of the same stuff of BushCo, and should be easily attacked and demolished on that basis.

No, like McCain, she has stood up against her party on issues that she doesn't agree with. That's what I like about her. She isn't afraid of standing up and fighting for what she believes in. She fought AGAINST big oil and she actually eliminated the state gas tax for one year to help counterbalance the rising cost of gas.

She's against needless spending, just like John McCain, and to say that she is just 'more of the same' is flat out wrong.

Jemison

Originally posted by Jemison
That is just downright sick, and so far off-base it's disgusting!!!

I agree that it is sick. I don't find it at all outside the bounds of possible or even likely, given the past behavior of the people involved.

No, like McCain, she has stood up against her party on issues that she doesn't agree with. That's what I like about her. She isn't afraid of standing up and fighting for what she believes in. She fought AGAINST big oil and she actually eliminated the state gas tax for one year to help counterbalance the rising cost of gas.

Well, it remains to be seen what she will actually bring to the team and what she will stand for. McCain himself used to stand up for what he believes in... and maybe still does. His recent activity as a Senator does not really support the 'maverick' label, however. He is more of a Bush syncophant lately.

She's against needless spending, just like John McCain, and to say that she is just 'more of the same' is flat out wrong.

I guess it comes down to what is considered 'needless' spending. Everybody is against that, as far as I can see.

I think spending money on wars of aggression that are counter to the best interests of the US to be 'needless'.

Bush and McCain, based on results, think spending money on good schools and roads and jobs here is 'needless'.

Whether she is 'more of the same' or not depends on what she considers needless, I guess.

She has already come down solidly as anti-freedom on several issues, including:

Equal protection under secular law for secular marriage, without regard to the relative plumbing of the participants

Freedom of women to decide whether or not to procreate at any given time.



I am glad to see she opposes privatized social security.

Originally posted by Open_Minded Skeptic
Equal protection under secular law for secular marriage, without regard to the relative plumbing of the participants

I'm pretty sure she vetoed a bill that would have outlawed benefits to same sex state employees in Alaska. Alaska already had some sort of a ban on same-sex marriages before she became governor. So Palin has shown by her veto that she places following the law above any personal moral beliefs on the issue.

Isn't that what a candidate is supposed to do?

Originally posted by Jemison
Do you think that Obama can really criticize Palin for her lack of experience when his resume is quite thin?

Absolutely. McCain has been on Obama's back about his experience all this time. Why shouldn't Obama be allowed to "return the favor" so to speak? Pointing out McCain's hypocrisy is all kinds of fair.

And what about Biden? He's a known attack dog and I'm sure he was looking forward to the debates ... but Biden is now going to be debating a woman and he may have to alter his style quite a bit. Can he handle that? Will he be effective during the debates?

Like The Vagabond said, all he has to do is to take the Socratic method. She will show what she's about herself. If he attacks her on the issues, there's no reason he should have to be concerned. She's tough. That's part of her stand. And I fully trust Obama and Biden to be quite effective without getting personal during debates. That's not what they're about.

Biden has been in politics for over 30 years. He's been in many debates and he's VERY well-respected and liked by both parties. Sarah Palin is nothing new to him. He's dealt with plenty of strong women in his political career. She's nothing new and scary. I don't know why people think this.

I'm curious to know how fellow ATS'ers feel Obama and Biden will be able to target Palin without shooting themselves in the foot or coming across as being hateful.

Clearly, the Republican party is hoping that because she's a girl, everyone will be flustered and not know how to handle her. Remember, Obama just won a very tough and very tight campaign... with a woman. He can do it again. And Biden is brilliant. And he's got an entire campaign of professionals to guide him. He's going to do great.

As I see it, the Republicans have chosen her for several reasons (in order of importance):

The location of her reproductive organs
Her beauty
Her sympathy factor (Mother, 5 kids, one disabled, son in Iraq)
Her conservative politics (in line with McCain's)

And yes, Rove will do ANYTHING for the win. He would sacrifice his own mother if it would get Republicans in te White House again.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
As I see it, the Republicans have chosen her for several reasons (in order of importance):

The location of her reproductive organs
Her beauty
Her sympathy factor (Mother, 5 kids, one disabled, son in Iraq)
Her conservative politics (in line with McCain's)

Let's continue your line of reasoning. Assume for a second your reasons are correct. The next logical conclusion would be why are these reasons important?

1. Obama came off as very sexist and degrading towards women, and offended a large number of them. There is an underlying resentment among women towards Obama. Think Geraldine Ferraro.

2. Her beauty? Being attractive is always a plus no matter who the candidate.

3. Sympathy? I think it's more about congruency. It's about picking somebody who walks their talk. It's a nice contrast to Obama saying he wouldn't want his daughters "punished" by having a baby.

4. Conservative politics. No, it's not about her being in line with McCain. It's about her being in line with the millions of white middle-class voters in Pennsylvania and Ohio that Obama dissed with his "bitter" and "clinging" comments, with his "they don't like people who look like them" comments.

Trust me, their is an underlying wave of resentment for Obama simmering in PA just waiting to be unleashed.

Originally posted by jamie83
I'm pretty sure she vetoed a bill that would have outlawed benefits to same sex state employees in Alaska.

Yeah, I think you are right regarding her veto, and for that I say to her. That was a commendable action on her part.

I believe she is, however, solidly opposed to equal protection under law regarding secular marriage.

Originally posted by jamie83
1. Obama came off as very sexist and degrading towards women, and offended a large number of them.

If women see Obama as sexist (which the polls don't support) what in the world do they think of McCain, who is against women making the choice for their own bodies and left his disfigured wife to marry a much younger beauty pageant contestant and then chose another one for his VP???

If Obama, who has worked for years to get equal pay for women, supports women's choices, and has a strong, professional wife he adores, is sexist, then McCain is the leader among chauvinistic men!

"The race for women is not decided yet, although women voters are giving Obama a solid lead, but neither candidate has over 50 percent of the women yet," Lake said. "Forty-nine percent of the women polled said they support Obama, 38 percent are supporting McCain and 10 percent of women are undecided."

Obama Gains Among Women After Clinton Exit

According to the Gallup Poll by Gender, Obama has had a steady lead among women.

I can't imagine why you say that Obama is thought of as "sexist" by women. He's clearly a feminist. Where do you get your information?

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

I can't imagine why you say that Obama is thought of as "sexist" by women. He's clearly a feminist.

its the same reasons that threads are created asking the question "who is more experienced, palin or obama"

when the thread is answered and proven to be obama - they say "So what, experience doesnt matter"

Its the same reason they ask "what color is the sky?" and when you answer blue - they say - HAHAHAHAHAH THE GRASS IS GREEN IDIOT


Its the same reason they have to create threads that first say obama ISNT a citizen because techguy says so with a piece of paper

and then turn around, completely ignoring their argument from yesterday, and say that he IS a citizen of the US - but now he's a dual citizen because another piece of paper says so





its all for the same reason


they know they're losing, they know they have nothing

so they have to invent lies and go with them in order to sleep well at night

the sad part is - there are actually some members of ATS, and of this country, that believe it

But i wont give up just yet

66 more days until the election

and we can finally say goodbye to the harbingers of the moronic masses

Where do (they) get (their) information?

Where else?

[edit on 8/30/2008 by Andrew E. Wiggin]

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I can't imagine why you say that Obama is thought of as "sexist" by women. He's clearly a feminist. Where do you get your information?

There's a gap between Barry O.s' official positions and how he acts. I get my information from a group of feminists Hillary friends who thought he was outright misogynistic in his treatment of Hillary during his campaign.

And he didn't help by dismissing the reporter he called "sweetie." And maybe the fact that he picked Biden instead of Hillary is in and of itself sexist. Maybe not.

Originally posted by Andrew E. Wiggin
its the same reasons that threads are created asking the question "who is more experienced, palin or obama"

when the thread is answered and proven to be obama - they say "So what, experience doesnt matter"

Wiggin, I think you are losing it. YOU are the one who pointed out that Palin has 12 years of experience in the government and Barry O. only 11.

How does that qualify as proving Barry O. has more experience than Gov. Palin?

and we can finally say goodbye to the harbingers of the moronic masses

I refuse to get my hopes up again, Wiggin. You promised to leave the other thread and you kept coming back and back blathering on about how you proved Gov. Palin with her 12 years experienced had less experience than Barry O. with his 11 years.

An as an aside, I was taught a long time ago by a wise old debate teacher that you know you're winning when the other side resorts to calling you names. For some reason you seem to be throwing out insults in every thread since Gov. Palin was named McCain's VP. Why?