Sarah Palin Hugs Us All Into Confusion

Sarah Palin is driving liberal bloggers and in-the-tank for Obama mainstream media types crazy as they watch video clips of her debate performances while running for governor of Alaska or scrutinize videos of her recent speeches to analyze every intonation and gesture.

And let’s give credit where it’s due. The Obama machine’s most powerful components, including The Daily Kos and Huffington Post with thousands of Obamaphiles at their beck and call, have gone all out to destroy Sarah Palin, while unashamedly trying to take down every member of her family in the process. Accuse Gov. Palin of lying about giving birth to her son Trig, why not? Heap scorn on the vulnerable teenager, Bristol Palin? Got it. Ridicule and mock Sarah Palin’s mother and father? It’s a done deal.

At least Washington Post staff writer Libby Copeland admits that she, along with the rest of the media, have been caught off guard by Sarah Palin and haven’t quite figured out yet what hit them. Copeland quotes an acting coach in concluding her recent attempt to analyze the Palin style:

‘“You have a very glamorous, pretty woman with, actually, a very girly delivery -- but what comes out of her are the words of a very savvy, very tough politician,’ says Dickerson. ‘It creates a mixed message of allowing her to really say anything that she wants.’

“Then again, who decides what's fair? Sarah Palin is hugging us all into confusion.”

If you want to read Copeland’s article in its entirety, go here. You may be as bemused as I was by the apparent consternation of the media in its clumsy attempts to portray a woman who doesn’t fit neatly into its sexist, misogynous stereotypes.

McCain Complains in the Debate: “I don’t even have a seal yet”

The Politico staff has compiled a list of zingers, stats, and sound bites from last night’s first presidential debate, and it’s worth the read:

‘“Number of times Sen. McCain referred to Sen. Obama as ‘Barack’: zero

‘“Number of times Sen. Obama referred to Sen. McCain as ‘John’: 23

‘“McCain zingers: ‘Sen. Obama has the most liberal voting record in the United States Senate. It's hard to reach across the aisle from that far to the left. … I'm not going to set the White House visitors schedule before I'm president of the United States. I don't even have a seal yet.’

‘“Obama zingers: ‘Coming from you, who, you know, in the past has threatened extinction for North Korea and, you know, sung songs about bombing Iran, I don't know, you know, how credible that is. … I've got a bracelet, too, from Sergeant — from the mother of Sergeant Ryan David Jopek, given to me in Green Bay. … John mentioned me being wildly liberal — mostly that's just me opposing George Bush's policies.’

‘“Best Obama sound bite: ‘You said we knew where the weapons of mass destruction were. You were wrong. You said that we were going to be greeted as liberators. You were wrong. You said that there was no history of violence between Shiite and Sunni. And you were wrong.’

‘“Best McCain sound bite: ‘We've seen this stubbornness before in this administration — [for Obama] to cling to a belief that somehow the surge has not succeeded, and failing to acknowledge that he was wrong about the surge is — shows to me that we … need more flexibility in a president of the United States than that.’

“Declared Obama the winner: ABC’s George Stephanopoulos, pollster Frank Luntz on Fox, Slate’s John Dickerson, Time magazine’s Mark Halperin, CBS News instant poll and CNN post-debate poll.

“Declared McCain the winner: Politico’s Roger Simon (‘The Mac is back’), Fortune magazine’s Nina Easton, The Weekly Standard’s William Kristol and Fred Barnes, Fox News Texting Poll and Drudge online poll.

‘“Tie: Republican strategist Mike Murphy, who said on MSNBC: ‘No game-changer, and we're going to have a rematch.’

‘“McCain’s repeated message: ‘I'm afraid Sen. Obama doesn't understand the difference between a tactic and a strategy ...What he doesn't understand … I don't think that Sen. Obama understands … What Sen. Obama doesn't seem to understand … He doesn't understand … Sen. Obama still doesn't quite understand — or doesn't get it … Sen. Obama's plan is dangerous for America … I mean, it's just dangerous. … Again, a little bit of naiveté there … It isn't just naive; it's dangerous.’

‘“Obama’s repeated message, perhaps aimed at swing voters: ‘I think Sen. McCain's absolutely right … Sen. McCain is absolutely right … He's absolutely right … Sen. McCain is absolutely right … John, I — you're absolutely right … Sen. McCain is absolutely right.”’

Read more.

Debate Payback: McCain Says Obama Doesn’t Get It

Roger Simon at Politico agreed with my conclusion posted here after the debate last night that John McCain was the winner. However, Simon apparently did not find the first presidential debate between Obama and McCain as boring as I did. (Keep in mind that I was mentally comparing the mediocre performances of Obama and McCain to previous outstanding performances by Hillary Clinton, and I’m still not convinced that either of the two men is qualified to be president.)

Simon writes:

“John McCain was very lucky that he decided to show up for the first presidential debate in Oxford, Miss., Friday night. Because he gave one of his strongest debate performances ever.

“While Barack Obama repeatedly tried to link McCain to the very unpopular George W. Bush, Bush’s name will not be on the ballot in November and McCain’s will.

“And McCain not only found a central theme but hit on it repeatedly. Obama is inexperienced, naive, and just doesn’t understand things, McCain said.

“Sure, McCain is a pretty old guy for a presidential candidate, but he showed the old guy did not mind mixing it up. He stood behind a lectern for 90 minutes without a break — you try that when you are 72 — and he not only gave as good as he got, he seemed to relish it more.

‘“At least twice after sharp attacks by McCain, Obama seemed to look to moderator Jim Lehrer for help, saying to Lehrer, ‘Let’s move on.’

“True, the majority of the debate was fought on McCain’s strongest ground: foreign affairs. And true, McCain’s feet were not held to the fire as to why he urged the postponement of the debate in order to secure a financial bailout package in Washington, but then decided to show up without any such agreement in hand.

‘“But it didn’t seem to matter much. McCain just pounded away on his central argument: Obama just didn’t ‘understan’ how to deal with Pakistan; how dangerous it is to meet with foreign leaders without preconditions; how serious the Russian invasion of Georgia was; the price of failure in Iraq.

‘“He doesn’t understand, he doesn’t get it,’ McCain said of Obama, also saying, ‘There is a little bit of naiveté here.’

‘“It was as if McCain was paying Obama back for that moment in Obama’s acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention when Obama said McCain would not serve America well, ‘not because John McCain doesn’t care; it’s because John McCain doesn’t get it.’

“But McCain seemed to get it Friday night. He certainly knew enough to try to turn his age into a plus and not a minus. ‘There are some advantages to experience, knowledge and judgment,’ McCain said.

Read more.

“Could Obama Have Misspoken About His Lack of Ties to Lobbyists?”

Photo credits: Aftermath News

In the Caucus this morning (NY Times) Ariel Alexovich suggests that in tonight’s debate in Philadelphia between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, questions might surface regarding the recent firestorm over Obama’s “bitter” words and indeed, Obama is still struggling to come up with a satisfactory rationale for his San Francisco gaffe.

But Alexovich also mentions another possible challenge Obama might be forced to address this evening. Obama has consistently presented himself as the harbinger of the “new politics” while attempting to smear Hillary Clinton for her supposed ties to lobbyists.

Alexovich asks: “Could Senator Obama have misspoken about his lack of ties to lobbyists? A USA Today investigation claims that ‘his fund-raising team includes 38 members of law firms that were paid $138 million last year to lobby the federal government, records show.’ Those lawyers, including 10 former federal lobbyists, have pledged to raise at least $3.5 million for the Illinois senator’s presidential race. Employees of their firms have given Obama’s campaign $2.26 million, a USA TODAY analysis of campaign finance data shows.”

I’ll be watching the debate this evening, sponsored by ABC at 8 p.m. ET and 7 p.m. CST, to see whether or not the moderators raise these relevant questions with Obama or give him his usual free pass as we’ve seen in previous debates, while doing their best to trip up Hillary Clinton.

Clinton’s Substance Trumps Obama’s Style in Austin Debate

In his CapitolAnnex post, Vince Leibowitz agrees with the conclusion I reached last night in my Katalusis post that Hillary Clinton won the debate in Austin hands down.

Arguing that Clinton had more substance than Obama, Leibowitz provides an excellent, in-depth analysis of the policy differences between the two candidates, beginning with a question about the economy (Text from Leibotwitz's post at CapitolAnnex is shown below in blue):

Check Obama’s answer:

OBAMA: Well, first of all, let me emphasize the point that you just made, which is: You don’t need an economist or the Federal Reserve to tell the American people that the economy’s in trouble, because they’ve been experiencing it for years now. Everywhere you go, you meet people who are working harder for less, wages and incomes have flatlined, people are seeing escalating costs of everything from health care to gas at the pump. And so people have been struggling for a long time. In some communities, they have been struggling for decades now. So this has to be a priority of the next president.

In that first part of the answer, Obama pulled a classic move that high school debaters are taught: when you are unsure how to respond to the question or are trying to formulate your response, restate the question and expound on the question and offer some generalities, i.e., “this has to be a priority of the next president.”

Read, now, the remainder of Obama’s answer, followed by intermittent commentary from CapitolAnnex:

Now, what I’ve said is that we have to restore a sense of fairness and balance to our economy, and that means a couple of things. Number one, with our tax code: We’ve got to stop giving tax breaks to companies that are shipping jobs overseas and invest those tax breaks in companies that are investing here in the United States of America.

Standard, boilerplate stuff–what you’d expect. Then, more of what you’d expect:

We have to end the Bush tax cuts to the wealthy…and to provide tax breaks to middle-class Americans and working Americans who need them. So I’ve said that if you are making $75,000 a year or less, I want to give an offset to your payroll tax that will mean $1,000 extra in the pockets of ordinary Americans. Senior citizens making less than $50,000, you shouldn’t have to pay income tax on your Social Security. We pay for these by closing tax loopholes and tax havens that are being manipulated.

There is some substance there, but it isn’t all that substantial: end the Bush tax cuts to the wealthy, give middle class tax breaks.

More:

On our trade deals, I think it is absolutely critical that we engaged in trade, but it has to be viewed not just through the lens of Wall Street, but also Main Street, which means we’ve got strong labor standards and strong environmental standards and safety standards, so we don’t have toys being shipped in the United States with lead paint on them.

Again, generalities and visuals, i.e., “Wall Street, but also Main Street.” Notes bringing in strong labor standards, etc., but doesn’t give much detail and then mentions a hot-button issue like lead-tainted toys. Lots of style, little substance.

Then, check this out, later in the response that rambled on a good bit:

The question people are going to have to ask is: How do we get it done? And it is my strong belief that the changes are only going to come about if we’re able to form a working coalition for change. Because people who were benefiting from the current tax code are going to resist. The special interests and lobbyists are going to resist. And I think it has to be a priority for whoever the next president is to be able to overcome the dominance of the special interests in Washington, to bring about the kinds of economic changes that I’m talking about.

“Coalition for change,” “special interests,” “lobbyists,” all buzzwords. But no specifics on the “kinds of economic changes [Obama is] talking about.”

Then check out Clinton’s response:

CLINTON: Well, I would agree with a lot that Senator Obama just said, because it is the Democratic agenda.

All Obama did was essentially recite party-line-platform points, and Clinton summed that up in one sentence.

Then, more:

CLINTON: We are going to rid the tax code of these loopholes and giveaways. We’re going to stop giving a penny of your money to anybody who ships a job out of Texas, Ohio or anywhere else to another country. We’re certainly going to begin to get the tax code to reflect what the needs of middle class families are so we can rebuild a strong and prosperous middle class.

You know, the wealthy and the well-connected have had a president the last seven years, and I think it’s time that the rest of America had a president to work for you every single day.
Clinton offers more specifics earlier in her response: (1)close the tax loopholes, end corporate giveaways; (2) end incentives and tax credits for outsourcing jobs to foreign countries; (3) reform the tax code to reflect the needs of middle class families. Yes, Obama said “tax breaks,” but that is different from a reform of the tax code. A tax-break implies a one-time deal or provision that must be renewed. Clinton implies actual reform.

More differences:

We will also have a different approach toward trade. We’re going to start having trade agreements that not only have strong environmental and labor standards, but I want to have a trade time-out. We’re going to look and see what’s working and what’s not working, and I’d like to have a trade prosecutor to actually enforce the trade agreements that we have before we enter into any others.

We’re also going to put much tougher standards in place so that people cannot import toys with lead paint, contaminated pet food, contaminated drugs into our market. We’re going to have much more vigorous enforcement of safety standards.

Specifics galore: (1) strong environmental and labor standards (yes, Obama mentioned that, too); (2) a trade “time-out;” (3) re-examination and evaluation of existing trade agreements; (4) trade prosecutor to enforce existing trade agreements; (5) no more trade agreements until we enforce what we have.

More from Senator Clinton:

CLINTON: Now, in addition, there are steps I would take immediately. One is on this foreclosure crisis. I have been saying for nearly a year we had to crack down on the abusive practices of the lenders. But we also need a moratorium on home foreclosures.

Everywhere I go, I meet people who either have been or about to lose their home. 85,000 homes in foreclosure in Texas; 90,000 in Ohio. I’ve met the families: the hairdresser, the single mom who’s going to lose her home, the postal worker who got really hoodwinked into an agreement that wasn’t fair to him.

So I would put a moratorium for 90 days, to give us time to work out a way for people to stay in their homes, and I would freeze interest rates for five years. Because these adjustable-rate mortgages, if they keep going up, millions of Americans are going to be homeless. And vacant homes will be across the neighborhoods of Texas and America.

Again, Obama has a teaspoon full of actual plans, Clinton has an overflowing bucket: (1) foreclosure moratorium; (2) interest rate freeze on adjustable rate mortgages; (3) crack down on the practices of abusive lenders.

Still, more:

CLINTON: Now, in addition, there are three ways we need to jump start the economy.

Clean green jobs; I’ve been promoting this. I wanted it to be part of the stimulus package. I thought a $5 billion investment in clean green jobs would put hundreds of thousands of Americans to work helping to create our future.

We also need to invest in our infrastructure. We don’t have enough roads to take care of the congestion, we have crumbling bridges and tunnels. We need to rebuild America, and that will also put people to work.

And, finally, we need to end George Bush’s war on science, which has been waged against scientists and researchers…
Again, Clinton offers solutions while Obama offers rhetoric: (1) clean green jobs as part of the stimulus package ($5 billion investment); (2) additional investments in infrastructure; (3) end the GOP war on science.

Too, Clinton touches on specific, progressive issues that Obama never really seems to bother with. For one, infrastructure needs and the correlation that this will also help put Americans to work. And, the “war on science,” which includes not only stem cell research but a variety of other scientific arenas the GOP has screwed–or attempted to screw–with.

Read More

Clinton Wins Austin Debate Hands Down

Tonight in Austin, Hillary Clinton topped Obama in both her opening statement and in her closing words; in between, she managed to get off the best line in the debate.

Obama had earlier won the draw and elected to go second in presenting his opening statement. But Clinton had the advantage as she talked about her first political job of registering voters in south Texas and recalled living for a while in Austin and San Antonio. She mentioned the many friends she’d made during that period, including Barbara Jordan and Ann Richards. And she also managed to interweave several impressive accomplishments, including major successes in health care for two important groups:

“You know, 350,000 children in Texas get health care every month, because I helped to start the Children's Health Insurance Program. (Applause.) And 21,000 National Guard and Reserve members get access to health care, because I went across the party line and joined up with a Republican senator to make that happen.”

What Obama lacked in comparison to Clinton’s personal experiences in Texas, he supplemented with his usual rhetorical flourishes, presenting himself as the heroic challenger of the status quo:

“But understand that what's lacking right now is not good ideas. The problem we have is that Washington has become a place where good ideas go to die. (Applause.) They go to die, because lobbyists and special interests have a stranglehold on the agenda in Washington. They go to die in Washington, because too many politicians are interested in scoring political points rather than bridging differences in order to get things done.”

In the midst of the debate, Obama, reaching for an example of good judgment, for the umpteenth time boasted of opposing the Iraq War from the beginning, while failing to mention he wasn’t a U.S. Senator when the Iraq War Resolution was passed. He also conveniently forgot to mention his later admission that he didn’t know how he would have voted had he been eligible to do so.

When the issue of Obama’s recent plagiarism of Deval Patrick’s speeches was raised, Clinton didn’t let him get away with trivializing the charges as “silly.” That’s when she got off the night’s zinger:

“Well, I think that if your candidacy is going to be about words, then they should be your own words. That's, I think, a very simple proposition. (Applause.) And you know -- you know, lifting whole passages from someone else's speeches is not change you can believe in; it's change you can Xerox.”

The two candidates engaged in reasonably civil discussions for the better part of the debate on substantive issues including economic policies, health care, and bringing the troops home from Iraq.

Noticeably rude, Cameron Brown, one of CNN’s questioners, cut Clinton off several times during the evening before she’d finished speaking. As I recall, Brown allowed Obama to finish what he was saying without once interrupting him.

To conclude the debate, the candidates were asked to describe a moment of crisis in their lives that tested them the most. Obama went first this time with a summary of the “trajectory” of his life that culminated in his self-described ability to bring people together.

It was Clinton’s response (transcribed by Federal News Service) that brought the crowd to their feet in a standing ovation:

SEN. CLINTON: Well, I think everybody here knows I have lived through some crises and some challenging -- (laughter) -- moments in my life, and -- (interrupted by cheers, applause).
And I am grateful for the support and the prayers of countless Americans. But people often ask me, how do you do it, you know, how do you keep going, and I just have to shake my head in wonderment because with all of the challenges that I've had, they are nothing compared to what I see happening in the lives of Americans every single day.

You know, a few months ago I was honored to be asked, along with Senator McCain, as the only two elected officials to speak at the opening of the Intrepid Center at Brooke Medical Center in San Antonio, a center designed to take care of and provide rehabilitation for our brave young men and women who have been injured in war. And I remember sitting up there and watching them come in: those who could walk were walking; those who had lost limbs were trying with great courage to get themselves in without the help of others; some were in wheelchairs and some were on gurneys. And the speaker representing these wounded warriors had had most of his face disfigured by the results of fire from a roadside bomb.

You know, the hits I've taken in life are nothing compared to what goes on every single day in the lives of people across our country. And I resolved at a very young age that I'd been blessed, and that I was called by my faith and by my upbringing to do what I could to give others the same opportunities and blessings that I took for granted. That's what gets me up in the morning. That's what motivates me in this campaign. (Cheers, applause.) And -- and you know, no matter what happens in this contest -- and I am honored. I am honored to be here with Barack Obama. I am absolutely honored. (Cheers, applause.)

SEN. OBAMA: (Off mike.)

SEN. CLINTON: And you know, whatever happens, we're going to be fine. You know, we have strong support from our families and our friends. I just hope that we'll be able to say the same thing about the American people, and that's what this election should be about. Thanks. (Cheers, applause)

MS. BROWN: All right. A standing ovation here in Austin, Texas. Our thanks to Senator Barack Obama and Senator Hillary Clinton. Appreciate your time tonight -- (cheers, applause) -- and to John and Jorge as well.

No question about it: Hillary Clinton won this debate hands down.

Clinton Takes the High Road to Win the Los Angeles Debate

Photo credits: Getty

As she promised in the AP interview that I mentioned in an earlier post today, Hillary Clinton demonstrated poise, class, and good humor while taking the high road in tonight’s debate with Barack Obama at the Kodak Theatre in Los Angeles.

It was apparent from his opening statement that Obama had gotten the message that his boorish treatment of Hillary Clinton this week had not helped his cause. He mentioned that he’d been friends with Clinton before the campaign and that he was certain they would be friends after it was over.

But that didn’t stop Obama from getting a few digs in as the debate progressed. He once again brought up his early opposition to the Iraq war resolution without mentioning he was not a member of the senate when it was passed. He later admitted he couldn’t say with certainty how he would have voted had he been in the senate at the time.

Obama also failed to mention that since his election to the U.S. Senate he has regularly voted to fund the war. Apparently, he keeps bringing the matter up because his initial opposition to the war as a part-time Illinois state senator is his only example of good judgment within the scope of his limited experience

Nevertheless, tonight’s debate remained civil and focused mainly on policy differences. A two-term senator, Clinton was obviously the better informed and more knowledgeable candidate. In response to Obama’s chronic boasting of being able to bring people together, Clinton mentioned specific instances of working across the aisle with Republican leaders such as Newt Gingrich and Lindsay Graham on important legislation.

Clinton’s command of the facts easily bested Obama in presenting their health care plans. On the topic of immigration, Obama got in trouble by accusing Clinton of waffling on the issue of driver’s licenses for immigrants in the Philadelphia debate last October. He could only nod his head in agreement when she reminded him of his own muddled response to a similar question in the following debate. Tonight, both Clinton and Obama unequivocally stated their support for a comprehensive immigration bill.

In response to a potentially awkward question regarding Bill Clinton’s participation in her campaign, Clinton very firmly took ownership of her candidacy while gracefully expressing her loyalty to Bill and affirming his support.

Hillary Clinton won tonight's debate, positioning her well for Super Tuesday.