Regarding Palin's speech: i thought it was great for her future, but bad for McCain. I saw a lot of Macchevelian streaks in her. The best thing for Sarah Palin is for McCain to lose and then she will come back in 4 or/and 8 years. I admire the ruthlessneess that she showed in that speech, and how cold she was when McCain try to kiss/hug her. She saw the effect she had on the conservative base, and she wants more!
Here's my prediction: The McCain-Palin ticket loses. Most observers give Palin a good share of the responsibility for this, but the social conservative base still loves her. She goes back to Alaska and governs for a few more years. Eventually scandals get her, not because scandals tend to get Alaska politicians quickly -- far from it, it seems -- but because she's sloppy, vindictive, and has a talent for angering people in her own party. The last part is what I think will get her.
I'm guessing that she then moves into a national media career -- though that would mean leaving Alaska long-term, and it strikes me that she and her family may just not want to do that.
Fallow's analysis was pretty spot on. This was a "for the base, by the base" kind of speech. I do think that Palin's superficial appeal is being rightly touted, but I wouldn't prescribe any kind of legs to that appeal after six days given how stridently partisan her platform is on the narrow range of issues she has gone on record about. She is to the far right on the abortion issue. She is on the far right of the guns issue. She is on the right of the energy issue (again, "drill baby drill" is not "taking on big oil"). And it's clear that her first big foray into the public forum was a canon shot against the bow, in an attempt to escalate the culture war, doubling down on Rove's Bush/Cheney 2002/2004 election strategies. We'll see how long it takes people to catch on to "new boss, same as the old boss".
Part of Obama's appeal, which partisans misunderstand, is that he is temperamentally conservative, despite his supposed liberal record. Matthew Scully's "belligerence and belittling" tact was a rejection of the notion of post-partisanship.
Fallows is my favorite journalist, hands down. When he blogs, he sounds like the wise elder statesmen. Even when he takes somebody down, he does it with class.
I'll admit it: I've got a non-sexual man-crush on him!
"She had a number of strong, biting lines -- including the one about John McCain being the only person on the ticket who had literally fought for the country"
Yeah, but:
1. He wasn't actually fighting to protect the US, he was fighting to protect American corporate interests, sort of like in the current war, so big deal; and
2. He LOST. Only a Republican could be considered a "hero" under these circumstances.
Fallow's states it about as good as it can be done. His observations are in a class by themselves, have thought and read a lot about this stuff. Disagreeing with Fallows is the challenge.....
Let's also not forget that he called - with eerie foresight - the events which unfolded in Iraq - back in October 2002! He also called - again with eerie foresight - the mortgage/economic meltdown - back in 2005! The man has skills...
Before Gov. Palin's speech last night, I heard some left pundits bring up the Eagleton selection/resignation as a point of reference.
After watching her speech, maybe what we should be thinking about/asking when we see Gov. Palin is:
"Are you Spiro Agnew in disguise?"
She really seemed to be channeling his message for so much of that speech.
Antoine in the first comment in this thread senses that she could be after more power in the newly minted team. It seems to me that Palin is more in sync with more parts of the GOP than McCain is now or ever has been.
If for some reason McCain is unable to continue the campaign prior to the election, would the GOP automatically lift Palin to the top of the ticket, or would they be compelled to make another presidential selection? We've never had that event in recent times so I'm not certain of the procedure at the top of the ticket.
In a way, I think many GOP folks would be more happy with a Palin v Obama election, getting behind a true believer as she appears to be.
Here's a piece no one cared about. Meh, whatever, probably the most enjoyable article I did during my stint at TIME. Premiered a month before I got laid-off. The nail in the coffin? Ya think?
Here's me going after Al. I didn't so much have a problem with him, as I had a problem with media acting like this dude was the go-to guy for everything black.
This was my first real story at time. I was writing for the Business section, a real change of direction for me. At any rate, it's about Wal-Mart's attempts to colonize the inner-city. As much as I enjoyed this piece, I mostly enjoyed going out to Chicago, which is a beautiful, beautiful city.
This a piece I did about the cops just outside our nation capitol, in Prince George's County, a few years back. I wanted to offer a counter to the dumb, conventional wisdom that if you paint your police force black, you could eradicate police brutality. In fact, Prince George's--one of the richest, blackest counties in the country--also had one of the most brutal police force's in the country.
The Beautiful Struggle: A Father, Two Sons, and an Unlikely Road to Manhood 
Regarding Palin's speech: i thought it was great for her future, but bad for McCain. I saw a lot of Macchevelian streaks in her. The best thing for Sarah Palin is for McCain to lose and then she will come back in 4 or/and 8 years. I admire the ruthlessneess that she showed in that speech, and how cold she was when McCain try to kiss/hug her. She saw the effect she had on the conservative base, and she wants more!
We all want to be Fallows.
Here's my prediction: The McCain-Palin ticket loses. Most observers give Palin a good share of the responsibility for this, but the social conservative base still loves her. She goes back to Alaska and governs for a few more years. Eventually scandals get her, not because scandals tend to get Alaska politicians quickly -- far from it, it seems -- but because she's sloppy, vindictive, and has a talent for angering people in her own party. The last part is what I think will get her.
I'm guessing that she then moves into a national media career -- though that would mean leaving Alaska long-term, and it strikes me that she and her family may just not want to do that.
Fallow's analysis was pretty spot on. This was a "for the base, by the base" kind of speech. I do think that Palin's superficial appeal is being rightly touted, but I wouldn't prescribe any kind of legs to that appeal after six days given how stridently partisan her platform is on the narrow range of issues she has gone on record about. She is to the far right on the abortion issue. She is on the far right of the guns issue. She is on the right of the energy issue (again, "drill baby drill" is not "taking on big oil"). And it's clear that her first big foray into the public forum was a canon shot against the bow, in an attempt to escalate the culture war, doubling down on Rove's Bush/Cheney 2002/2004 election strategies. We'll see how long it takes people to catch on to "new boss, same as the old boss".
Part of Obama's appeal, which partisans misunderstand, is that he is temperamentally conservative, despite his supposed liberal record. Matthew Scully's "belligerence and belittling" tact was a rejection of the notion of post-partisanship.
Fallows is my favorite journalist, hands down. When he blogs, he sounds like the wise elder statesmen. Even when he takes somebody down, he does it with class.
I'll admit it: I've got a non-sexual man-crush on him!
Here's a thought: Suppose McCain wins, can he control her?
"She had a number of strong, biting lines -- including the one about John McCain being the only person on the ticket who had literally fought for the country"
Yeah, but:
1. He wasn't actually fighting to protect the US, he was fighting to protect American corporate interests, sort of like in the current war, so big deal; and
2. He LOST. Only a Republican could be considered a "hero" under these circumstances.
Fallow's states it about as good as it can be done. His observations are in a class by themselves, have thought and read a lot about this stuff. Disagreeing with Fallows is the challenge.....
Let's also not forget that he called - with eerie foresight - the events which unfolded in Iraq - back in October 2002! He also called - again with eerie foresight - the mortgage/economic meltdown - back in 2005! The man has skills...
Here's a question...where's Colin Powell? I think this convention scared off the adults.
also, if McCain is so good, how come we're not at the tail end of a McCain presidency?
from fallows the elder [again] the core of the mccain/palin bond:
"Wise guys, male or female, do better on talk shows or as satirists than as candidates."
i would add "assholes," but that's why i'm not fallows.
ah, i always wanted to be a palindrome...[i did, did i?]
adin
Fallows is the f**kin man. always reasonable.
Chris wonders: "Here's a question...where's Colin Powell? I think this convention scared off the adults."
Powell is living in disgrace after having been used as the bag man for war criminals.
Before Gov. Palin's speech last night, I heard some left pundits bring up the Eagleton selection/resignation as a point of reference.
After watching her speech, maybe what we should be thinking about/asking when we see Gov. Palin is:
"Are you Spiro Agnew in disguise?"
She really seemed to be channeling his message for so much of that speech.
Antoine in the first comment in this thread senses that she could be after more power in the newly minted team. It seems to me that Palin is more in sync with more parts of the GOP than McCain is now or ever has been.
If for some reason McCain is unable to continue the campaign prior to the election, would the GOP automatically lift Palin to the top of the ticket, or would they be compelled to make another presidential selection? We've never had that event in recent times so I'm not certain of the procedure at the top of the ticket.
In a way, I think many GOP folks would be more happy with a Palin v Obama election, getting behind a true believer as she appears to be.
"Are you Spiro Agnew in disguise?"
Maybe she could become a nattering nabob of nepotism?
Interesting question: where is Ahnold?