So What's the Palin Lesson So Far?

I'd say it's pretty simple. She's almost the worst candidate imaginable.

• Under investigation, and almost-recalled as mayor for the same petty abuses she's under investigation for as mayor;
• barely qualified (at best);
• has a teenage daughter who is either pregnant with her first or second child (depending on whether Sarah Palin ended up covering things up);
• endangered the life of her newborn baby through an idiotic insistence on delivering the child in a hospital ill-equipped for premature babies, assuming that isn't a lie;
• closely affiliated with Alaskan secessionists;
• a creationist who doesn't believe in global warming;
  
• and who knows what will come up tomorrow.

So what's the story here? The response. Look at this clip:


and this one:


Notice? They're spinning HARD. They've never had to spin this hard before. The GOP is in a scramble doing whatever they can, employing every single tactic they have, to try to make this work. This isn't normal GOP spin, this is the platonic form of GOP spin. The ridiculous talking points, the evasion of questions, the employment of near-constant crosstalk at a volume and tone designed to catch the ear over their lower-and-slower-voiced Democratic counterparts (and media hosts), the reinterpretation of questions, all of it. EVERY trick that they pull, EVERY game that they play, all of it is right up there. And they're not being subtle about it at all, because they're simply too overwhelmed.

That's good. That's great. Because it isn't subtle, it's obvious. It's so obvious that you can watch, listen, and learn. I would haul these clips out in front of every Dem anywhere near DC, and tell them "this is what they do. This is how they do it. Learn how its done, how to adopt what's remotely ethical and counter the rest." Sure, it'll be subtler next time, but they'll be innoculated against the subtler variants by the rhetorical cowpox we're seeing right now.

And, honestly, this is it. This is all they've got. If they had anything else, they'd be using it. So once you learn how to counter it? Yeah, they're pretty much powerless. and without the power of these mouthpieces, all the Scaife money in the world won't stop the whole conservative movement from looking and sounding ridiculous.

So Sarah Palin may herald the end of the conservative movement as we know it. At least that's one real accomplishment she can lay claim to.

(Edit: There's an excellent omnibus post on Palin over at New Yorker in DC.)

"You Know in Your Heart When Someone is Supportive"

Yep, she almost got removed from office in Wasilla, too.

Palin, a lifelong member of the National Rifle Assn., started her career as a member of her local city council in Wasilla, Alaska, a town about 45 miles outside of Anchorage, in 1992. She was elected Wasilla’s mayor in 1996, when the city’s population was about 4,600, according to a 1997 press report (via nexis).

In this role, Palin acted in a way that eerily foreshadows her recent actions while governor. Early in her tenure as mayor, the city council threatened to recall her over accusations that she fired the city’s police chief, Irl Stambaugh, and the library director, Mary Ellen Emmons, without warning. She accused them in a letter saying: “I do not feel I have your full support in my efforts to govern the city of Wasilla. Therefore I intend to terminate your employment …” (The Anchorage Daily News, via nexis)

Ultimately, Palin let the library director have her job back; though Stambaugh’s position was not returned. The police chief took the matter to court, where a judge sided with Palin, saying city law allows the mayor to fire the police chief without cause.

When questioned by the Anchorage Daily News at the time, Palin refused to give details on how Stambaugh had not supported her, saying only: ”You know in your heart when someone is supportive of you.”

Just keeps getting better.

(From the comments in this TPM entry)

"I Made Her Governor"- Alaskan Seperatists

I was wondering who made Palin governor. But in that Kos piece we find out who it was:

The AIP’s main aim is to secede from the United States, becoming either a territory or a sovereign nation. They aim to be entirely "self-sufficient" using profits from the oil and gas resources of the state.

On their website, you’ll see this:

The Alaskan Independence Party can be summed up in just two words:
ALASKA FIRST!

And their 2008 platform:

To seek the complete repatriation of the public lands, held by the federal government, to the state and people of Alaska in conformance with Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17, of the federal constitution.

Governor Palin’s connections with the AIP are also furthered by her connection to Wally Hickel, a former Alaskan governor. Hickel was elected on the AIP ticket. He served as the co-chairman of Governor Palin’s campaign in 2006
Here is a quote from an interview Hickel did with the Alaska Dispatch:

When Palin was running for governor in 2006, Hickel appeared in advertisements supporting her and the Alaska pipeline.
"I made her governor," Hickel told me.

That last bit of bolding was mine. Could it be that Palin was, and maybe is, the willing tool of Alaskan secessionists? Isn't that, aha, slightly treasonous?

Just gets better and better.

Palin for President.... of ALASKA

Daily Kos found out that Sarah Palin was a member of the Alaska Independence Party.

She was an official member prior to her mayoralty, and has been connected to them ever since.

(And DK raises the $64,000 question: what was she doing between 2004-2006?)

Unsympathetic

Just to make a point: I know a lot of the right-wing bloggers are losing their minds because liberals are daring to point out liberals supposedly "assailing" a "16-year-old girl".

But, uh, I don't remember one of these guys every saying one damned word of criticism when Rush was taking shots at Chelsea, and I imagine a quick search (for those with the stomach) would quickly turn up lots and lots of objectionable material.

No, this isn't about protecting a girl. Palin's policies would force teen victims to bear the children of their rapists, they don't give a damn about protecting the futures of vulnerable teens. This is about their creeping realization that their candidate is poorly vetted, and that the games the right has been playing with Obama's parentage and patriotism can and will be visited upon their own candidates tenfold.

Bad Spin Doctors! Bad!

This is not the way to deal with the "Trig is Palin's granddaughter" rumors!

The 17-year-old daughter of Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin is pregnant, Palin said on Monday in an announcement intended to knock down rumors by liberal bloggers that Palin faked her own pregnancy to cover up for her child.

Bristol Palin, one of Alaska Gov. Palin's five children with her husband, Todd, is about five months pregnant and is going to keep the child and marry the father, the Palins said in a statement released by the campaign of Republican presidential candidate John McCain.

Bristol Palin made the decision on her own to keep the baby, McCain aides said.

"We have been blessed with five wonderful children who we love with all our heart and mean everything to us," the Palins' statement said.

"Our beautiful daughter Bristol came to us with news that as parents we knew would make her grow up faster than we had ever planned. As Bristol faces the responsibilities of adulthood, she knows she has our unconditional love and support," the Palins said.

The Palins asked the news media to respect the young couple's privacy.

"Bristol and the young man she will marry are going to realize very quickly the difficulties of raising a child, which is why they will have the love and support of our entire family. We ask the media, respect our daughter and Levi's privacy as has always been the tradition of children of candidates," the statement concluded.

This is, aha, not going to help things. At all.

People will still believe the rumors even more than they did. Palin is highlighting them through the response, and this is exactly what the rumormongers need; the credibility of a response. I had thought they were going with "we're not going to dignify that with a response", which would be the logical approach. Instead, it's now a talking point.

It still won't pass the public's smell test, either. The problem is that this sort of thing is exactly what someone trying to salvage the situation would do, and the public knows it. Every analyst and blogger worth her salt will be saying "er, wouldn't this be what she'd do if she were lying?" The answer is "yes." Someone who wasn't lying probably wouldn't go to this extent. They'd just deny it, and proffer proof.

(Plus, if the daughter is five months pregnant, it still doesn't explain how Sarah looked so svelte as a 7-months-pregnant woman, or why she'd endanger the life of herself and the baby by taking that long flight back to Alaska when Sarah was practically already delivering.)

But let's say people do think she's telling the truth. People will think that Palin is pushing her daughter into marriage in order to save her campaign! I doubt a 17-year-old having her "first" child really wants to get married, and certainly wouldn't want to have it be her mother's political defense. She's dooming her daughter to a marriage she may not even want because it's politically inconvenient if she doesn't. Never mind the poor bastard that she's had the kid with.

A shotgun marriage at 17? Really? She thinks this will appeal to women?)

Honestly, the Kerry campaign could give lessons to these idiots.

Edit: So, this "five months" thing is supposed to get rid of the Trig rumors, right? Can't be doublepregnant, right?

Sure, except that anybody who thinks that Palin would lie about the pregnancy will believe that she'd lie about how far along Bristol is. If, er, Bristol is even pregnant in the first place.

(There's also right-wing blog chatter about how Sarah was breastfeeding the child. That'd be true, except that she's a governor. I imagine that a governor can probably get the hormones that make you lactate. They aren't exactly rare.)

Fukuda Resigns

What the hell? I'll admit I hadn't been paying too much attention to Japanese politics of late, since the China/Japan tension levelled off some, but I had thought that Fukuda was stable enough. Apparently not. From the Beeb:

Japan's Prime Minister Yasuo Fukuda has announced his resignation during a news conference at his official residence.

The surprise announcement means the 72-year-old is resigning less than a year after he took office.

His government has suffered chronic unpopularity. Lost pension records, a controversial healthcare scheme and a sliding economy have added to his woes.

Mr Fukuda has also been frustrated by the upper house of parliament, which is controlled by the opposition.

"If we are to prioritise the people's livelihoods, there cannot be a political vacuum from political bargaining, or a lapse in policies," said Mr Fukuda.

He told the hastily convened news conference that a new team was needed to implement his party's policies.

Mr Fukuda did not say when his resignation would take effect, adding that the ruling Liberal Democratic Party would hold an internal election to choose his successor.

"I believe there will be an election for the party leader," he said. "The leader will be appointed as the prime minister."

Japan's next general election must be held no later than September 2009.

Last month, Mr Fukuda instigated a major cabinet reshuffle in which one of his main political rivals, Taro Aso, assumed the key role of secretary general.

The move was seen as a last-ditch attempt to shore up Mr Fukuda's government and boost its flagging popularity, but it failed to impact low cabinet approval ratings, which had been below 30% for several months.

Mr Aso, 67, went from being foreign minister to becoming party secretary general under Prime Minister Shinzo Abe in August 2007.

However, following Mr Abe's resignation, he left the post and lost the LDP leadership contest to Mr Fukuda soon afterwards.

Known for his conservative views, he has advocated a tough line towards North Korea and rejects changing the law to allow women to ascend the throne.

He is also seen as a charismatic figure who is known to love Japanese manga cartoons.

This puts the LDP in a tricky position. The Beeb pointed out something important: Aso is now in a powerful position, and may well take the leadership position now that Fukuda and his faction are in decline. But the DPJ is still a problem, and Aso is probably less well-positioned to deal with them than Fukuda was. He's also prone to saying somewhat...unflattering...things about Japan's neighbours, which isn't going to help Japan much now that China is both feeling its muscle and out from under the Olympics scrutiny.

I imagine the Koreans, described by Aso as having been "made literate" by the Japanese, probably won't like an Aso-led Japan much, either.

(On the other hand, he likes manga. So there's that.)

The Best Proof that Republicans are Worthless...

Their trying to spin Palin as "more experienced" because she was a small-town mayor and a governor for all of a year and a half.

Look, I could buy it if you spun that it didn't matter. I could buy it if you spun it that she'll grow into the job. I could buy it if you spun it that raising that question is anti-woman, though that's a bit of a stretch.

But "more experienced"? Really? Sure, it'll sway the True Believers, but the public's gonna think you're full of shit. Republicans need more of that like they need Katrina reminders.

(Whoops.)

So Here's a Question:

Who bankrolled Palin's 2006 campaign?

Here's others. Why did they bankroll her? What faction of Alaskan politics did she embrace when she was attacked by Murkowski's crowd? Why did they embrace her back?

Forget all that bullshit about shooting moose and whatnot. Who is she really?

Obama's a Celeb in One Way:

He commands a HUGE audience. From Sully:

Barack Obama's acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention was seen by more than 38 million people.

Nielsen Media Research said more people watched Obama speak than watched the Olympics opening ceremony in Beijing, the final "American Idol" or the Academy Awards this year. Obama talked before a live audience of 80,000 people in Denver.

His TV audience nearly doubled the amount of people who watched John Kerry accept the Democratic nomination to run against President Bush four years ago. Kerry's speech was seen by just over 20 million people.

Obama's audience might be higher, since Nielsen didn't have an estimate for how many people watched Obama on PBS or C-SPAN Thursday night.

People have to be feeling gobsmacked right now. First the best political speech in a decade, at least, and now the strangest VP pick in what may be American history.

The Flip Side

I detailed the tactical notion behind the choice; but I don't think it's necessarily going to work. Why? Because I suspect that many women will, well, find her off-putting and insulting.

They'll think "why is this [insert epithet about unintelligent, attractive women here] supposed to represent me? Is this what I'm supposed to care about? Is this the person I'm supposed to identify with? HER?"

In this way, I think her beauty—and yes, she is that—might actually work against her. Any woman who has seen another woman gain power through exploiting her attractiveness, despite a lack of intelligence, is going to have a real problem with McCain's VP choice. Would she have become governor if she weren't a former beauty pageant winner? Not a chance. That's what seperates her from Hillary: Hillary worked for it, and has been working for it for a long time, and even if she screwed up her campaign this year, nobody can say that she was handed the position.

Palin? I suspect people may not be so sure.

Fair? maybe. Maybe not. It doesn't matter. This is perception, not reality. No Republican has ever given a rat's ass about "fair", as Obama so eloquently reminded us last night. They made this choice, and now they have to deal with it.

Waiiit a Second

I just took off my analyst hat and reread what I wrote in that last post. Now I'm really kind of concerned.

A completely unqualified creationist who has only served as Governor of a poorly-populated state for one and a half years could become the President of the United States.

I still get a little "weirded out" by Obama's success; he's risen so far, so fast, that it's dizzying sometimes. But he's fought for it every step of the way, and has the kind of story that makes it possible. He may be young, comparatively speaking, but he's earned it.

Palin is nobody. She's a small-town mayor who managed to get into the Alaskan Governor's Mansion in 2006 for being less somewhat less corrupt than Alaskan Republicans. That's it. People were ticked off at Republican corruption, she positioned herself as a non-corrupt Republican, and got voted in in a traditionally Republican state. I could see her becoming a good Governor in time, better than most Republicans at any rate, but this is not that time.

And she could have her finger on the button if anything happens to McCain. It would be like that one Heinlein story in Expanded Universe, except somehow LESS plausible.

This election just became immeasurably weirder.

Edit: A social conservative neophyte. A social conservative neophyte who thinks that creationism should be taught in schools as science.

As president of the United States.

Cripes.

Trojan Horse Play for the PUMAs

That's what it would be if Palin were indeed nominated.

First: McCain is making a play for Hillary supporters. He's putting a woman on the ticket because Obama didn't; he's hoping that these women's loyalty to their gender is greater than to Hillary herself. Considering the politics of the run, that's not a bad assumption.

But there's another aspect. Everybody's been concerned with his age, right? The logical implication of that is that his VP might end up president if something happens to him. At the very least, it's very possible he'd only run for one term. Then you have a woman VP ready to run for the nomination of the Republican party; and she'd likely win that nomination, thus neatly cutting off Hillary's main case for support in 2012. I doubt Clinton would even get nominated.

And since everybody knows all this, what McCain's really doing is saying "vote for me, women and you have a pretty good shot at a woman president within the next five years." It's not even that objectionable a tactic; the Dems can't easily rip him up for it, or face blistering questions about why setting things up for a woman's presidency is a bad thing, exactly.

She's a dark horse, and I doubt she's been as vetted as thoroughly as she could. She may have skeletons, and it's even possible she's tied to Ted's shenanegans. And there are going to be men in the Republican party who are not happy voting for a woman. But I think this "vote for McCain, possibly get a woman in the Oval Office" trick is what he'd be going for.

Edit: Her big problem with women is going to be her anti-abortion stance. It will limit her appeal to feminists, I'm sure, but disconnected independent women who don't care about anything but a woman in the White House might well overlook it. Her environmentalism might also alienate the economic conservatives a bit, but if she really is anti-abortion, that'll probably make up for it.

Edit 2: Ok, according to Kos, she's also a big creationist. And she's only been in office since 2006? I really do wonder what's in her past.

You Must Be Joking, Chuck

No, seriously, you can't be seriously writing this twaddle, it's going to ruin what shreds are left of your reputation.

Even aside from the bullshit hack mind-reading, or namedropping Ayers and Wright, trying to describe Obama as a "stranger" when his life story has become one of the most familiar in American politics is just...ludicrous.

Not even "partisan" ludicrous. More like "off my meds" ludicrous. "Lemme just get my tinfoil hat" ludicrous. "Space Commies built the pyramids" ludicrous.

Sure, Krauthammer is a hack. We all know this. But you'd think he was a better hack. Apparently not.

Well, Megan received her talking points

She's never been that inspiring a writer, so it's no surprise that her response isn't terribly inspiring either. Just the same old boilerplate Republican whining about Dems: about how they dare to care about those icky people that can't donate thousands of dollars to the institutions that pay people like Megan their salaries.

I mean, yeah, anybody who named themselves after a Ayn Rand character is going to react poorly when somebody says that "fuck you, Jack, I've got mine" isn't the way to run a country. It's not like her response wasn't predictable. It was just, well, uninteresting. "Jane Galt" remains a third-rate mind at best.

Then again, considering Douthat's equally sad reaction, perhaps I should just chalk it up to "the Atlantic Monthly, it doth sucketh" and give my thanks that Matt got the hell out of there.

(At least Matt, unlike Ross, knows what a paragraph is.)

The Speech

More later, perhaps, but right now all I can say is that he knocked it out of the park. Not only was it vintage Obama speechmaking, but he seems to have made his peace with being, well, a Democrat. Not a Republican, not a "post-partisan", but a Democrat, with all that that entails. He levelled Democratic criticisms and proposed Democratic solutions. And that's good. That's what Americans need.

Oh, and he said the one damned thing that I've been waiting for for ages: that Democrats fight wars, and win wars, and Republican claims to the contrary are lies. Dems run away from foreign policy, and security policy. But they're the party that won both world wars and face down the Russians over Cuba. They shouldn't forget that.

Hillary and the Crying Supporter (Now with Ezredit)

It was a good speech, all in all. I still don't think she's the most dynamic speaker in the world, and I wish she had spent more time talking about what she likes about Obama instead of "he's a Democrat like me!"

But it was still a good speech, aimed directly at the PUMAs and resentful women, and that's what the party needs right now.

And then all it took was one woman on CNN to drag it down. Hoo-ee, there's a producer at CNN who's absolutely ecstatic over that find. Singlehandedly managed to bring down a whole stage-managed production with one interview with one Dem who, honestly, probably shouldn't have been there if she couldn't toe the line. Almost every Dem in that room waving "unity" banners and they find one who wasn't. Typical.

But effective, I'll give it that, and it keeps their treasured Hillary narrative alive.

Edit: Ok, Ezra Klein makes a good point:

The criticism of Clinton's speech largely argues that she should have spoken more about Barack Obama. His talents, experience, vision, and leadership. I disagree. Clinton didn't want Barack Obama to win the Democratic primary. She is on record making this point. A fulsome speech praising her opponent would have come off as insincere, forced, the convention equivalent of a taped confession. And it wouldn't have converted the constituency she was speaking to that night: Her supporters. In order for her speech to be effective, it had to read as authentic. And that meant a tincture of sadness, and a focus on the parts of Hillary Clinton's campaign that were not specific to her person but reside in her party. Even the best speech last night wouldn't convert her diehard supporters over to wholehearted support of Barack Obama. But then, she didn't need to. All she needed to do was remind them of their place in the Democratic Party.

Considering how many Republicans are already saying "bah, she didn't mean a word of it", I think Ezra probably has it right here. And let's be honest, the Republicans were going to pounce on ANYTHING that happened here. They probably had the talking points all laid out:

If Hillary praises Obama to the hills: "insincere. She didn't really believe it, and that's why she was contradicting herself."

If Hillary didn't really praise Obama at all: "See? The Dems are divided. C'mere Hillary supporters, she doesn't like him either."

If Obama had picked Hillary as VP: "Hey Republicans! Do you hate the Clintons? Oh yes, yes you do. And now they're coming BACK, because Obama's too weak to lead without them!"

Hell, they probably already had ads cut for all of these. The only wildcard was that crying anti-unity Hillary delegate, and that's why she's so notable.

Turnabout

I gotta say, it's been insanely entertaining watching Canadian conservatives (a particularly vile and pestilent breed) turn on Warren for saying mean things about them.

I mean, I can understand that they'd be shocked and surprised, considering his past history of puffing up their Dark Lord. But for whatever reason (shurely not his parting with the Posties!) he's been letting Harper have it with both barrels. And MAN are they ticked. Probably a little afeared, too: they were probably counting on his crypto-support for that election Canada might have coming, but as it is...

(As for America, well... All I'll say is that CNN might have managed to cut the Republicans' next commercial when they hauled that one Clinton supporter in front of the camera, to tearfully say that she's "not sure if she's going to vote". A whole night's worth of careful stagecraft, quite possibly ruined by one distraught woman. Impressive.)

An Insight That Should be Obvious:

Giving control over the evolution of the Internet to the Republicans would be way, way worse than anything Biden could do.

Biden needs to be held to account, and Obama needs to address these issues. But come on. McCain knows nothing about the Internet that telecom lobbyists haven't told him. He'd be disastrous.

Remember This in the Coming Weeks

Biden's nomination is going to bring tech issues to the forefront, at least online. You're going to hear apologists (of whatever party) argue that net neutrality and other user-friendly measures are unrealistic because of the monstrous amount of P2P going on.

If you hear that, quote this bit from DSL Reports:

Industry analyst Dave Burstein has an interesting (but margin blown) post over at the interesting people listserv discussing the reality of congestion (or lack thereof) on AT&T's network. While industry lobbyists use P2P congestion as a bogeyman to justify all manner of policy, AT&T data suggests P2P is actually declining on AT&T's network. Upstream P2P on cable networks remains a capacity problem, but it's one that may be resolved by a migration to DOCSIS 3.0. Burstein suggests the debate over throttling is all but dead:

Easily a third of AT&T's downstream traffic is now "web audio-video," far more than p2p and the gap is widening rapidly. Hulu and YouTube are taking over, while p2p is fading away on DSL networks. One likely result is that managing traffic by shaping p2p is of limited and declining use, perhaps buying a network 6 months or a year before needing an upgrade. The p2p traffic shaping debate should be almost over, because it simply won't work very much longer.

AT&T writes off that decline in P2P use as a statistical anomaly created by a heavy mix of new customers who don't use P2P. Still, it suggests that P2P isn't quite the network demon it's often painted as. AT&T says that as of June, AT&T traffic was about 1/3 Web (non video/audio streams), 1/3 Web video/audio streams, and 1/5 P2P. Most interestingly, Burstein suggests that capacity upgrades should more than handle growth, without throttling or raising capex, while actually lowering AT&T's per bit cost per user. On upgrades:

AT&T has sensible plans to handle the load without disruption. They are already moving from 10 gig to 40 gig in the core, and planning a transition to 100 gig in a few years. The current projections are they can do these upgrades without raising capex, bringing per bit costs down along a Moore's Law curve and keeping bandwidth costs per user essentially unchanged.

So if the capacity costs of keeping pace with demand are nominal, does that still make AT&T's push into metered billing "inevitable?" One gets the feeling that there's no greater chasm than the one between a lobbyist and network engineer describing the same network.

This makes perfect sense. YouTube-style user generated video is phenomenally popular, and it looks like network-hosted broadband video sites are a hit as well. Anybody who was trolling the P2P sites for this content has a compelling reason to just hit the websites and watch it there, where there's far less of a hassle involved.

This isn't about usage, P2P or otherwise. Broadband metering is about setting a precedent on metered Internet, and (this is the important part) creating a big incentive for non-neutral Internet provision. All they have to do is say "content from these sites won't count towards your cap", and quicker than you can say "Microsoft partnership" you've got the content bias that all the net neutrality people have been complaining about. All they have to do is ratchet down the "free" bandwidth, raise the price on the "overage" bandwidth, and users are stuck.

Don't be fooled. This will happen. It's simply too lucrative not to, and they'll count on a public backlash against politicians "not letting us get our deals on free websites" to do their work for them. Advocates of "net neutrality" will be forced to apologize for a metering system they didn't want and know isn't necessary, all the while getting tagged with the "pirate" label.

And, naturally, while Asia leaps ahead, with Internet too cheap and fast to meter.