Sarah Palin’s Memoir

-

palin kuwait.jpg
Whether or not she makes it to the White House and Old Executive Office Building on the McCain ticket, Sarah Palin is going to make a ton of $$ on a memoir — particularly with stories like this continuing to bubble to the surface.
Most of the sharp-shooter investigative journalists I know are in Alaska, turning over every rock and piece of tundra.
One of the best, balanced Alaska-based political observers I know is University of Alaska at Fairbanks professor Gerald “Jerry McBeath.” McBeath is a Democrat who worked years ago as an intern in Senator Frank Murkowski’s office and helped Lisa Murkowski in her own race for the Senate. He helped organize the unionization of University of Alaska employees and is also a China hand who studied years ago under the guidance of Chalmers Johnson.
McBeath is also the leading authority on Alaska’s state constitution and knows everyone political in Alaska — and their hidden lives. He hasn’t asked me to post this for him — but I do recommend that serious researchers and writers touch base with McBeath to get a truer feel of the good and not so good on Sarah Palin.
— Steve Clemons

Comments

82 comments on “Sarah Palin’s Memoir

  1. Tahoe Editor says:

    apples & oranges. I’m willing to take ANY bet that there will never be another President Bush.

    Reply

  2. WigWag says:

    “Never again will there be another President Bush.”
    Tahoe, the accepted wisdom just a few short months ago was that no way would McCain ever be elected President.
    How did that one work out?

    Reply

  3. Tahoe Editor says:

    1. Never again will there be another President Bush.
    2. You underestimate Palin by calling her another Quayle.
    3. Michelle told us Obama won’t run again because his backbone has a short shelf life.
    4. Hillary ’12.

    Reply

  4. WigWag says:

    “Move on. Hillary has already had plenty of electoral success and will undoubtedly be senator for life if she so chooses. Who knows, she might even get a second bite at the presidential
    apple. If she does, please no whining and whinging about all the Obamatons who sit out the election or otherwise won’t vote for her.”
    So there you have it. My theory exactly. Many Clinton supporters won’t vote for Obama. Many Obama supporters won’t vote for Clinton. If McCain is elected, it is highly unlikely that a strong enough Democrat will emerge to challenge either of these two forceful candidates.
    Four years from now McCain will be to old or sick to run again. Palin will be exposed as the fraud she is (she will resemble a female Dan Quayle). The next Republican nominee will be Jeb Bush running against a Clinton or Obama who has been weakened again by a Democratic civil war.
    If McCain wins, take it to the bank. The next President will be Jeb Bush.

    Reply

  5. Sweetness says:

    Mother-in-law, Bigus. Try reading. If you think I’m lying, say
    so. Obviously, you don’t know and I do, so it’s not an argument
    you can win with me.
    As to this, you’re leaving out his time in the state house.
    “Clinton ran because she was the most qualified. I would take
    her eight years as First Lady of the US and 8 years as First Lady
    of Arkansas over Obama’s 180 days in the Senate any day.”
    Should we also count all the days she wasn’t talking to the
    President, too? Yes, she had a lot of experience being shamed
    in public by her man.
    You may be right that she was the only one who could have won
    against Giuliani–purely on the basis of her husband’s name
    and her star power.
    But then, please don’t tell me about how EXPERIENCED SHE WAS.
    She had NO EXPERIENCE as a legislator. NONE. So if you’re
    going to wield the “experience argument,” beware of the blade’s
    other edge.
    I have to say, I’m REALLY tiring of this incessant Hillary Chant. It
    is no longer possible for her to be the candidate. It is no longer
    possible for her to be the VP candidate (baring something extra-
    ordinary happening).
    Move on. Hillary has already had plenty of electoral success and
    will undoubtedly be senator for life if she so chooses. Who
    knows, she might even get a second bite at the presidential
    apple. If she does, please no whining and whinging about all
    the Obamatons who sit out the election or otherwise won’t vote
    for her.

    Reply

  6. Tahoe Editor says:

    If Obama loses, he won’t run again (if his wife is to be believed), because he’s too susceptible to being Changedâ„¢ by Washington. (Which leads me to ask, why vote for him at all?)

    Reply

  7. Paul Norheim says:

    “Voting for Obama will be like getting a tooth pulled. But some
    times you have to do what you have to do.”
    Well said, WigWag. (Sorry, just had to say it)

    Reply

  8. WigWag says:

    Bigus, Hillary Clinton was elected to the United States Senate as the junior Senator from New York in November, 2000. This was 10 months before the attacks of September 11, 2001.
    Thank you for your nice compliment though. I am glad you liked my comment and I am glad you are going to vote for Obama.
    I don’t want to vote for him either. But it’s not about you or me or even Obama or Clinton. It’s about the tens of millions of people who will be better off if McCain (and espcially Palin) isn’t elected.
    Voting for Obama will be like getting a tooth pulled. But some times you have to do what you have to do.
    If Obama loses (which is looking increasingly likely)Obama and Clinton supporters will not only be at war again in four years; there will be a continuous war between them for the next four years. It’s not something that’s very happy to contemplate. But it could easily be what the future holds.

    Reply

  9. Bigus says:

    Sweetness your mom may be a great lady but she doesn’t know anything about New York politics. You say she was a NYC Councilwoman. I find that hard to believe.
    I worked in Hillary Clinton’s senate campaign. She ran to replace a legend, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, who endorsed her with great enthusiasm even though Moynihan wasn’t a big Bill Clinton fan.
    The only other viable female candidate who could have run instead of Clinton was Nita Lowey. She is a great and liberal congresswoman from Westchester County, New York and a great friend of Hillary’s. If Hillary decided not to run, it is doubtful that Lowey would have been nominated. There sure would have been great competetion for the chance to run in the Democratic Primary.
    At the time, the Republicans were planning to run Guiliani. It was still right after September 11th and Guiliani was still very popular. The only Democrat who was given a chance to beat Guiliani was Hillary Clinton. That’s why she ran.
    Late in the game, Guiliani developed prostate cancer and decided not to run. The Republicans ran a liberal republican congressman from Long Island named Rick Lazio. He ran a very strong campaign until Hillary Clinton trounced him in the debates. Still, she didn’t win by that much. No other candidate, male or female except Clinton could have beaten Guiliani. At a time when New Yorkers were so focused on national security I doubt that any other candidate other than Hillary Clinton could have beaten Rick Lazio.
    Clinton ran because she was the most qualified. I would take her eight years as First Lady of the US and 8 years as First Lady of Arkansas over Obama’s 180 days in the Senate any day.
    She was also the most likely woman to win and the most likely person to win. She won.
    Call your mother and she will tell you that this version of the story is the right one. Not the one you gave.

    Reply

  10. Kathleen says:

    Sweetness…same deal with Bobby Kennedy and NY Senator…relationship to a President…I think both candidates improved as the race continued…Hillary’s staff shakeup seemed to help her become more natural…I think the race energized both of them…and both sides showed up with clay feet here and there…

    Reply

  11. Sweetness says:

    Here are my thoughts, Wig:
    “Anyway, that’s the story on bitter. And frankly, I am. Hillary was
    going NOWHERE with her campaign until she became a
    demagogue and whipped up racism.”
    Actually that’s factually inaccurate. Clinton was considered the
    front runner for much of the Campaign.
    S: She entered the race as the frontrunner, the assumed
    frontrunner. But on what basis? What had she done to deserve
    it? What had she done to be ushered in as the junior Senator of
    New York? Nothing. She didn’t work her way up. She started at
    the top (almost) and decided to go higher.
    Obama never took the lead until his friends in the media played
    the sexism card, a strategy that Senator Obama was more than
    happy to acquiesce to.
    S: MSNBC WAS sexist, no question. But this is not why MILLIONS
    of folks flocked to Obama. Chris Matthews and Keith Olbermann
    didn’t direct thousands upon thousands of folks to attend
    Obama rallies. They didn’t write his speeches that inspired
    millions. So the notion that the media “created” Obama–as
    POA often asserts–is silly. He’s a very talented man. Naturally,
    the media always amplify what’s there by focusing on it. They
    amplified Hillary’s front runner status when, in fact, there were
    two candidates (at least) who were FAR more ready to step in on
    day one than she was. Biden and Dodd.
    Every time Clinton won a caucus or primary the media
    disparaged her victory and her. After she won New Hampshire
    the media decided it was because she cried.
    S: The crying thing got a lot of attention. Was it real or was it
    Memorex? But the media also gave her lots of credit for working
    her ass off. I listen to MSNBC all the time, and they said it plenty
    of times. I’m not going to find you the quotes, but I’ve listened
    every day for 19 months. Personally, I was VERY happy she won
    NH.
    After she won Florida (without campaigning) the media decided
    it was because Obama was an unknown.
    S: Yes; because RESULTS, meaning polls, showed that the
    longer he had to campaign, the better he did. Would he have
    won FL? No one knows. But this sort of assertion wasn’t simply
    a matter of the media pulling for Obama. That’s silly.
    Obama is the nominee today in large part because of the
    media’s sexism and his sexism. Calling the Clintons racist is a
    canard.
    S: I don’t call Clinton a racist. But she was willing to use the
    racism of her audience for her own benefit. Why else talk about
    “hard working white people”? Why else not stand firm that
    Obama is NOT a Muslim? Why else disparage his NC as
    something Jesse Jackson (read: real Negro candidate) could have
    done and therefore didn’t mean much? And as for disparaging
    wins, why say that “Everyone knows that Iowa and the other
    caucus states don’t count,” as she clearly did when she was
    stunned by Iowa?
    “And it’s also true that the Clintons demagogue this comment
    because they saw it as an opening for their failing and flailing
    campaign. After all, if ever there was a person who saw herself
    as ENTITLED to various offices, it is Hillary. Hillary who waltzed
    into New York and brushed aside more worthy Democratic
    women contenders, though she had never served a DAY in
    elective office. (What qualified her for the Senate, pray tell?)
    Hillary who saw the presidency as her right. Hillary who was so
    caught up in her entitlement that she never bothered to work
    out a real message or a real strategy until…”
    So sweetness, while you were writing this comment, were you
    channeling Father Pfleger or Chris Matthews?
    S: No, I was channeling my mother in law–a New York City
    politician for about 30 years–and a city council woman for
    many of those years–who couldn’t stand the way the waters
    parted for Hillary to become US Senator when many other
    women in the Democratic party had actually paid their dues and
    DONE something. Hillary hadn’t served a DAY in office. Why
    was she given pride of place? Hillary wasn’t even from NY.
    Just curious.
    S: Now you know.
    ps: I plan to continue to refer to you as Sweetness. That’s the
    name you have selected for yourself and calling you by that
    name is the right and respectful thing to do. Of course, it’s not
    what Senator Obama would call you. Undoubtedly he would
    shorten your name to one of his favorite phrases. Like the
    woman reporter in Michigan, he would probably call you
    sweetie. Somehow I have a feeling you wouldn’t like it.
    S: Just don’t call me late for dinner.

    Reply

  12. questions says:

    “Severe pain, grief, regret” is pejorative? Uh uh. It’s descriptive of a life in which you tell your children NO more often than YES. It’s descriptive of a life in which you switch the Visa and Mastercard checks in the envelopes hoping to buy an extra week and a half. (Did you know that if you accidentally “forget” to sign the check to the credit card company, they stamp it “signature approved” and cash it anyway? That technique no longer works for delaying payment.) It’s descriptive of cancelling the piano lessons because even that 15 or 25 or 30 dollars a week for a talented kid is too much.
    When politicians promise you things will get better and instead things get worse, you need a coping strategy. My honest guess is that some people cope by intensifying some emotions and ignoring others. So, do people feel intensified religiousity during crisis? Do people suddenly start praying when they are near death? I think so. So people try to hold on to traditions when the world is threatening? I think so.
    Is it really offensive to say that many of us intensify certain connections in the face of trauma, tragedy, and low level misery? After a parent dies, do the adult children often draw together, fight about knick knacks, have another baby, go to church, think more about life and death issues? Do people get angry at life? Do they then answer that anger with some kind of intensity?
    The answer is of course. These are common responses to loss. There’s a lot of loss and a lot of compensatory response. It’s not an insult. It’s actually a sign of psychic health that you can sublimate grief and channel it to something else.
    So then, Obama’s real point is that it would be a better world in which this sublimation didn’t need to happen over economic loss. It would be nice for us all to figure out the Repub game and not buy into it again. We would be better off as a nation if we got over the notion that economic loss is what there is.
    So still, I don’t see the pejorative. I don’t see the insult. People subject to significant loss are promised a fix. The fix doesn’t work. Wouldn’t you be pissed/bitter/irritated. Wouldn’t you then sublimate that set of feelings into religion/activism/tradition/family….. WigWag, it’s what we do.
    And if you want to say that my involvement in politics comes because I’m bitter about what Republican rule has done to people I know, people I see every day, if you want to say my granola-ness is a response to what I see as world cruelty, it’s fine. I’m not insulted. I’m sublimating! In a different world, I might well have different beliefs.

    Reply

  13. Bigus says:

    Wigwam, your comment on why Clinton supporters have to vote for Obama on Steve’s “Obama/Biden Get Back in the Ring” thread is the best post or comment I have ever read at the Washington Note. I was planning to vote for McCain or stay home. I think you might have convinced me to vote for Obama.
    I’m not sure whether to thank you or curse you.

    Reply

  14. WigWag says:

    “Anyway, that’s the story on bitter. And frankly, I am. Hillary was going NOWHERE with her campaign until she became a demagogue and whipped up racism.”
    Actually that’s factually inaccurate. Clinton was considered the front runner for much of the Campaign. Obama never took the lead until his friends in the media played the sexism card, a strategy that Senator Obama was more than happy to acquiesce to. Every time Clinton won a caucus or primary the media disparaged her victory and her. After she won New Hampshire the media decided it was because she cried. After she won Florida (without campaigning) the media decided it was because Obama was an unknown. Obama is the nominee today in large part because of the media’s sexism and his sexism. Calling the Clintons racist is a canard.
    “And it’s also true that the Clintons demagogue this comment because they saw it as an opening for their failing and flailing campaign. After all, if ever there was a person who saw herself
    as ENTITLED to various offices, it is Hillary. Hillary who waltzed into New York and brushed aside more worthy Democratic women contenders, though she had never served a DAY in elective office. (What qualified her for the Senate, pray tell?) Hillary who saw the presidency as her right. Hillary who was so caught up in her entitlement that she never bothered to work
    out a real message or a real strategy until…”
    So sweetness, while you were writing this comment, were you channeling Father Pfleger or Chris Matthews?
    Just curious.
    ps: I plan to continue to refer to you as Sweetness. That’s the name you have selected for yourself and calling you by that name is the right and respectful thing to do. Of course, it’s not what Senator Obama would call you. Undoubtedly he would shorten your name to one of his favorite phrases. Like the woman reporter in Michigan, he would probably call you sweetie. Somehow I have a feeling you wouldn’t like it.

    Reply

  15. Sweetness says:

    Here’s the deal with “bitter.” Yes, it does sort of hail from the
    Franks book. But here’s the crux of the matter as far as I can
    see. Obama seemed to suggest that the country’s leaders and
    economy had failed the working class (he should have stopped
    there) THEREFORE they cling to their religion and guns as a
    consolation.
    So the operative thought here is condescension and
    reductionism. Their religion is NOTHING MORE than a self-
    admission that they are life’s losers. Their guns, badges of
    failure. Obama is saying that two key aspects of their lives are
    not things to value, but things to be ashamed of, in part because
    of what these values say about them.
    Now, OF COURSE, Obama did not MEAN this, but it is entirely
    possible that he doesn’t “get” this aspect of American culture.
    It’s also possible that he is subconsciously hostile to it because,
    of course, many of these people are hostile to him and other
    black people, especially those who’ve gotten ahead.
    And it’s also true that the Clintons demagogued this comment
    because they saw it as an opening for their failing and flailing
    campaign. After all, if ever there were a person who saw herself
    as ENTITLED to various offices, it is Hillary. Hillary who waltzed
    into New York and brushed aside more worthy Democratic
    women contenders, though she had never served a DAY in
    elective office. (What qualified her for the Senate, pray tell?)
    Hillary who saw the presidency as her right. Hillary who was so
    caught up in her entitlement that she never bothered to work
    out a real message or a real strategy until…
    …she blundered onto “Let’s exploit this bitter remark and whip
    up working class resentment against this Negro who’s just too
    good for his own britches. Who’s ruined all my plans. Who
    thinks he’s just as good as me. Gee, come to think of it, a shot
    and a beer do taste good. Makes me want to go out and shoot a
    deer.” Good grief! With all due respect, if you look at their
    backgrounds, Barack and Michelle are far more “working class”
    than Hillary EVER was.
    Anyway, that’s the story on bitter. And frankly, I am. Hillary was
    going NOWHERE with her campaign until she became a
    demagogue and whipped up racism. I agree, she did have a
    slight edge on experience, but it was only slight. But with
    Republicans gunning for “the bitch,” it’s hard to see why or how
    she’d be having a much better time than Barack (especially if
    blacks felt that THEIR candidate had been wronged).
    And now, with McCain and the Mooseburger abandoning
    experience in favor of “change,” isn’t it finally clear that
    “experience” is NOT–I repeat, NOT–a winning message this
    year, no matter who you are?

    Reply

  16. WigWag says:

    Questions, the definition of bitter from the Oxford English Dictionary:
    “Main Entry: 1bit·ter
    Pronunciation: \ˈbi-tər\
    Function: adjective
    Etymology: Middle English, from Old English biter; akin to Old High German bittar bitter, Old English bītan to bite — more at bite
    Date: before 12th century
    1 a: being or inducing the one of the four basic taste sensations that is peculiarly acrid, astringent, or disagreeable and suggestive of an infusion of hops — compare salt, sour, sweet b: distasteful or distressing to the mind : galling
    2: marked by intensity or severity: a: accompanied by severe pain or suffering b: being relentlessly determined : vehement c: exhibiting intense animosity d (1): harshly reproachful (2): marked by cynicism and rancor e: intensely unpleasant especially in coldness or rawness
    3: expressive of severe pain, grief, or regret ”
    Regardless of which definition you think is most pertinent to this discussion, they all sound rather pejorative to me.

    Reply

  17. questions says:

    Not insult and not compliment. I think he meant it as shorthand for Franks’s book, and as an observation, and as a way of trying to get at why so many people seemingly vote against their interests. What is it they experience such that they think that their lives will be better with the Repubs’ economics when it’s clear that Repubinomics is not good for working class and low income people. Repubs deny education and health and safety benefits….. Not exactly the stuff of family values. But they do champion the personal freedom to have as many guns as you want (really a gun dealer sop), as many prayers in school as you want (but not much of a prayer of succeeding) and an ever-unfulfilled promise of ending abortion in America (just wait til you need to end a crisis pregnancy, not that you’d call it an abortion….)
    And you still haven’t answered my question — what is the connotation of “bitter” such that the Repub and HRC machines could whip this one up? Am I bitter about certain experiences in my life? Yeah, why not. Not everything is peaches and cream. Have I just dealt myself a horrible blow? I don’t think so.
    So please, honestly, explain the bitter thing. I really don’t get it and I’m not being facetious.

    Reply

  18. WigWag says:

    “Also, please explain to me what no one has been able to so far — what’s the matter with “bitter”? I don’t seem to get the negative connotations of this term.”
    Now I get it, Questions, when Obama called working people bitter, he didn’t mean it as an insult, he meant it as a compliment.
    Now everything is clear to me.

    Reply

  19. questions says:

    WigWag,
    On the “bitter” comment — read Thomas Franks’s What’s the Matter With Kansas and take on the thesis from the original. This book was Obama’s referent, and so if you want to say there’s a problem with suggesting that people have made some kind of sublimation/substitution then explain it. I read the book a while ago and as far as I remember, the basic iea is that people in Kansas SHOULD be voting their economic interests which are clearly dem, but instead, since they don’t think they’ll ever get satisfaction, they end up voting Repub on social issues. Sadly for them, they never get the social issues either. The Repubs do a bait and switch on them and they get Repub economics which has been devastating for Kansans. So they continue believing the Repubs every 2-4 years and vote as if gods/guns/gays will save them. Meanwhile, they lose their homes, their farms, their businesses to Repub. financial interests. And they get more religious, and more socially conservative in the process.
    Are there naive points in the discussion? Could be that lots of people vote against economic interests, but that’s hard to tell. Could be that gods trump all things, but immiserating your children seems to be a pretty bad trade off for never stopping abortions anyway….
    Obama shortened Franks’s thesis, but basically this is what he was pointing to. If you think it’s prejudiced, start with Franks, move to sociological studies that disprove Franks (there’s one author out there somewhere who’s taken Franks on), and then show how Obama is so awful in this remark. Also, please explain to me what no one has been able to so far — what’s the matter with “bitter”? I don’t seem to get the negative connotations of this term. It suggests angered disappointment — not a bad way to characterize what happens when promises are broken and life treats you in grossly unfair ways.

    Reply

  20. WigWag says:

    Paul, not as far as I know.

    Reply

  21. Paul Norheim says:

    I, as well as countless of others, did not interpret Obamas
    actual words as bigoted. But you did.
    And now you say: “Obama is certainly not a racist or an anti-
    Semite. I don’t even think he is a bigot.”
    So, explain to me, why did you then unambiguously allude to
    bigotry, and then to racism and anti-semitism?
    I`ll quote you again:
    “You know, like the bigotry of a candidate who is willing
    to tag millions of people that he doesn’t know as bitter. Calling
    working people bitter is just like calling black people lazy or
    Jewish people greedy.”
    Words do matter, WigWag. And you know a couple of tricks
    about how to arrange words in a sequence, how to say
    something directly, and how to allude to something sinister.
    But then again, this blog has no influence, thus you are not
    responsible for how you select and arrange your words, is that
    so? Not one iota.
    Sexist + bigot, + something equal to racist and anti-semite.
    So, WigWag – any allusions to pedophilia as well, regarding
    Obama? I think that`s the one lacking right now.

    Reply

  22. WigWag says:

    To Paul Norheim
    You say
    “Obama is not only guilty of “sexism”; he is also guilty of something equivalent of racism and anti-Semitism? Have you gone completely nuts, or is this some kind of calculated tactic?”
    Racism (like calling black people lazy) and anti-Semitism (like calling Jewish people greedy)are particularly vile forms of bigotry. But bigotry is bigotry. In part, at least, it consists of attributing negative attributes based on nothing more than traits that are more or less immutable.
    In English sometimes we call it prejudice. The word comes from the Latin praejudicium. It refers to making a judgment about something pertinent to an individual or group without knowing any particular facts about that individual or group which would justify that judgment.
    Obama is certainly not a racist or an anti-Semite. I don’t even think he is a bigot. But his comment was bigoted and should be condemned. Obama and his supporters attempted to justify the comment rather than condemn it. This is indefensible.
    At the very least, you should understand why people who were slandered in this way might be a little reluctant to embrace the candidate who slandered them.

    Reply

  23. Paul Norheim says:

    Ethically it doesn`t matter one iota whether you`re influencing
    two voters as a blogger or millions as a pundit on TV: I`m
    addressing you as a responsible citizen who also happen to write
    frequently on a political blog.

    Reply

  24. Paul Norheim says:

    Correction:
    “Not only “wrong”, is it, WigWag? Isn`t it racism to call black
    people lazy, and isn`t it anti-semitism to call Jewish people
    greedy?”

    Reply

  25. WigWag says:

    “Act like as grown-up, WigWag! I`m sure people will tolerate your post-election bitterness for
    a couple of weeks, regardless of the outcome. But your PRE-ELECTION BITTERNESS is irresponsible.”
    In my comments, Paul, I just say what I think. I never claimed to have any special knowledge; I’m just sharing my opinion like everyone else.
    And as for timing, I like to comment on the election because that is the interesting topic of the moment. Once the election is over, I am sure that there will be other interesting things to talk about.
    Rest assured that nothing I have said at the Washington Note in the past and nothing that I say at the Washington Note in the future will have any effect on the election at all. Obama might win; McCain might win. Whatever happens, my comments, like the other comments posted here, matter not one iota to the outcome.
    You don’t actually think I’m convincing anyone of anything here, do you? I hope you don’t. And how many readers of the Washington Note can there be? A few hundred? A few thousand? Regardless of how many there are, you can be certain that none of them are relying on anything I have to say for anything.
    And frankly, Paul, on this thread I haven’t been bashing Obama. In fact, all I have really done is share my opinion of what he needs to do to win. That would be by entreating the active help of the Clintons.

    Reply

  26. Paul Norheim says:

    Appendix:
    “Calling working people bitter is just like calling black people
    lazy or Jewish people greedy. It’s wrong.”
    Not only “wrong”, is it, WigWag? Isn`t it racism to call black
    people greedy, and isn`t it anti-semitism to call Jewish people
    greedy?
    And “calling working people bitter” is just like…etc.
    Obama is not only guilty of “sexism”, he is also guilty of
    something equivalent of racism and anti-semitism?
    Have you gone completely nuts, or is this some kind of
    calculated tactics?

    Reply

  27. Paul Norheim says:

    WigWag,
    you were bashing Obama beyond proportions for half a year, at
    least.
    And if you now, after the dem. convention – where Obama was
    declared their candidate – intend to extend that practice until
    November, blaming the candidate for “what went wrong” (even
    before anyone know the outcome of the election) then you have
    done your part in electing McCain/Palin, and also participating
    actively in continuing the “self-destruction” of the Democratic
    Party that you mentioned above.
    You are no fool, WigWag. You know that in politics, it`s about
    TIMING. You know that there is a time for asking what went
    wrong, and why – if things go wrong. And there is a time for
    fighting, being constructive.
    While there is still a chance to avoid McCain/Palin as president
    and VP of your country, I would say that it`s rather pathetic and
    irresponsible to continue to blame Obama, anticipating his
    failure. For heavens sake, get real!
    Sarah Palin? McCain?
    Do you want Obama/Biden to lose?
    “No”, you say. But still, you return to your old habit. You can`t
    stop, can you?
    A good old WigWag claim, said a dozen times during the last
    months, and said again a couple of hours ago – fresh from
    above (about “working folks”): “Some of them may actually hate
    bigotry. You know, like the bigotry of a candidate who is willing
    to tag millions of people that he doesn’t know as bitter. Calling
    working people bitter is just like calling black people lazy or
    Jewish people greedy. It’s wrong.”
    You claim that McCain/Palin is a horrible ticket, and that you
    prefer Obama/Biden. Your actions and the tone of your
    comments continue to undermine your claim.
    Sorry for saying this, as a non-American. Perhaps none of my
    business? But actually, this US election, like the one in 2000,
    may be fatal far beyond the borders of your country.
    Act like as grown-up, WigWag!
    I`m sure people will tolerate your post-election bitterness for
    a couple of weeks, regardless of the outcome. But your PRE-
    ELECTION BITTERNESS is irresponsible.

    Reply

  28. Kathleen says:

    POA…the newly adopted Military Commissions Act called for the building of such relocation centers and appropirated $385 million to Halliburton for a no bid contract to build them…..one in Alaska…why do that if not to use them….besides, don’t underestimate the value of “unpaid” labor….on the surface these centers were for “illegal aliens”(oooooh) but in the fine print was the bit about “enemy combatants” people who fit Dopey and Darth’s definition of enemy combatant….then we had that executive order saying Dopey could seize assets…etc.
    I think the closeness of the primary between BO and Hillary proves one thing….neither the grass roots or the machine can do it alone…they need each other…I think Hillary’s proximity to James Carville/Mary Maitlin, less than 6 degrees of seperation from Dopey and Darth, would have dampened turnout of the left and BO by himself is running into a similar realization that Ned Lamont did…you need the whole hearted support of the machine…the reason there were so many new voters is not just BO…. young women are the most inactive and a race involving a first woman and first black motivated lots of people…it was the race between them, not either alone….this is the pity of BO’s choice not to offer the Veep spot to Hillary…she frequently said during the primary that she would choose BO if she won..partly to be magnanimous and partly because it was the best way to win….but smarty pants was too smart for his britches, IMO. he prefers to do complicated electoral calculus instead of doing simple arithmatic….had he chosen Hillary, McCain would not have been able to scoop him on choosing a woman…it would have been seen as a copy-cat move…instead McPain stole the show…..and you know how Americans like a show…American Idol to be precise….I’m bummed….

    Reply

  29. Mr.Murder says:

    CNN poll took in the opinion of the same sample of persons, thus no movement.
    Look at polls that target undecideds. Much movement away from OhBiden.

    Reply

  30. WigWag says:

    “And who took so eagerly part in that self-destruction this time?”
    That would be Senator Obama and his supporters. Sorry, Paul, just had to say it!

    Reply

  31. WigWag says:

    “Your strategy of courting the Reagan dems is actually a strategy of becoming Republican, which Clinton did by many accounts. That’s what triangulation is all about. It may get a dem in the White House, but it won’t lead to progressive politics by any stretch of the imagination.”
    That’s a strange comment coming from you. You are one of several people at the Washington Note who have correctly pointed out that Obama’s policies and Hillary Clinton’s policies are, by in large, the same. You have even made the point that the similarity in policies should motivate Hillary Clinton supporters to vote for Obama now that she has been defeated. In light of this, it’s hard to see how Senator Clinton’s policies are any more “republican” than Senator Obama’s policies. In fact, the opposite is probably true. Look at how Hillary voted on FISA. Look at the health plan she advocated versus Obama’s plan. Look at his position on choice versus hers. Compare what he has said about the Bush faith based initiative with what Clinton has said. Then tell me which of the two is more progressive.
    And if it’s Bill Clinton you are talking about, he was as progressive as the times would allow and then some.
    The difference between Bill Clinton and Senator Obama is that he used his rhetoric to convince working people that their difficulties mattered to him. When he said “it’s the economy stupid” that resonated with working people. What did Obama say about these folks when talking to wealthy liberals in San Francisco? He called them bitter and criticized the way they cling to their guns and religion.
    Obama can still win this election. Working people are hurting. They’re losing their jobs. they’re losing their health insurance and they’re losing their homes. Barack Obama doesn’t seem to know how to talk with them. Biden, unfortunately has been ineffective. My point is that Obama needs both Clintons and he needs them badly. They know how to do what he doesn’t. Obama should be taking them with him wherever he goes. Can he convince them to do it? I don’t have a clue. Is he too egotistical to even ask? Who knows?
    But it has become very clear, and the recent polling demonstrates, that Barack Obama knows how to speak to African Americans and Washington Note Readers. Hillary and Bill Clinton know how to talk to working class Americans in places like Ohio and West Virginia, Jewish voters in Florida and Latino voters in the desert southwest.
    Washington Note readers won’t win the election for Senator Obama. They already support him. You may not like Reagan Democrats, but it’s the Reagan Democrats who can deliver the election to Senator Obama, if he can convince them to vote for him. Nancy Pelosi can’t reach this audience, Howard Dean can’t reach this audience. Jesse Jackson Jr. can’t reach this audience. Bill and Hillary Clinton can and have.
    It’s looking more and more like Hillary and Bill Clinton are Obama’s last chance to win.
    Now you have to admit; that’s ironic.
    By the way, I’m wondering; is there still anyone who thinks picking Biden instead of Hillary was a smart choice?

    Reply

  32. Paul Norheim says:

    “The Campaign could easily be more bitter than this one was. It is
    highly foreseeable that the Democrats could self-destruct all over
    again.”
    And who took so eagerly part in that self-destruction this time,
    WigWag. Sorry, just had to say it.

    Reply

  33. questions says:

    • Today’s Gallup poll has McCain again 49%-45%, outside the ±2% margin of error. McCain was down seven points in Gallup before his convention began — but going back a bit further, he’d inched into a two-point lead just before the Democratic convention gave Barack Obama his own artificial bounce. In this sense, McCain’s bounce has put him just ahead of where he started before the conventions.
    • Today’s Rasmussen poll has McCain ahead 48%-47%, with a ±2% margin of error. McCain trailed by around five points before the Republican Convention, and the two candidates were about even right before the Democratic Convention.
    • The new CNN poll, on the other hand, presents a different story. They have the race tied at 48%-48% each. Right before the Dem Convention, they put the race at a 47%-47% tie, and after the Dem gathering it was only an insignificant 49%-48% lead for Obama. So CNN never really had much of an Obama bounce, and they don’t have a McCain bounce, either.
    From TPM.

    Reply

  34. Paul Norheim says:

    “It’s really too bad. Hillary gets to shout at the top of her lungs
    about the 18 million cracks in the ceiling…a line that Palin gets
    to mimic…and yet the REAL groundbreaking story…the first
    African American to get this far has to be downplayed by the
    candidate himself. If he says anything…like he don’t look like
    the man on the five dollar bill…he’s accused of playing the race
    card! Have you heard ANYTHING EVER FROM HIM about how
    great it is that an African American has gotten this far? Can he
    be publicly proud of hmself and his country for the momentous
    ness of his own candidacy. No way.”
    Amen, Sweetness.

    Reply

  35. Paul Norheim says:

    Sorry,
    didn`t see Steve`s comment above re. Dan Kervick`s and
    others`comments.
    Glad to see that it was all saved.

    Reply

  36. Paul Norheim says:

    Dan Kervick,
    I read your comments, and especially the last of the two longer
    ones (if I remember correctly – it was the one about the new
    global power struggle, the 21. century perhaps as terrible as the
    20.th, etc..) was good, and it`s a pity if it`s lost. Perhaps Steve
    saved them on his machine or somewhere, and can mail them
    back to you?
    It`s admittedly a depressing theme, but still something that
    should be further developed – hopefully also beyond the
    misanthropic aspects.
    It`s likely that the decline of US power – and the rise of China,
    Russia, and others during the last decade – accelerated thanks
    to the Bush administration. Their imperial hubris, their cruel
    investigation methods, their politics of fear, their fatal mistakes
    through preemptive actions was combined with a strong
    contempt for transnational and global institutions. This may set
    a precedence for the rising powers.
    I remember that Kissinger actually wrote interestingly about
    the same subject in an essay tree or four years ago (of course
    with a different approach and different words than mine here).
    As always, he used the old European power struggle, balance
    and lack of balance, as a metaphor for what is currently
    developing on a global scale.
    If Sarah Palin is a sign of things to come, this power struggle
    may slowly be re-defined in religious terms, even beyond the
    Middle East and Central Asia.
    The GOP has been flirting irresponsibly and cynically with the
    apocalyptical movements among Evangelical Christians for
    decades. This have complicated the US approach to the Middle
    East.
    With Sarah Palin as a potential President of America, they`ve
    suddenly got someone belonging to a church that even the
    Evangelical Christians have been warning against for a long
    time. She wants to drill in Alaska, but also to activate a weird
    kind of spiritual “energy policy” that seems alien and highly
    suspect even to the usual Born Again zealots.
    In my view, the pit bull with lipstick makes George W. Bush
    look like a moderate and reasonable diplomat, almost like his
    father.

    Reply

  37. questions says:

    AND ONE MORE THING — could someone please verify for me the seeming fact that the WSJ is working gently but assiduously to undermine Mc/P and support Obama while the NYTimes is working for MC/P and against Obama??? I’m not sure I’m reading things properly, but today’s dead tree editions seem to have this pattern. Love notes to Palin from NYT and love notes to Obama from WSJ. What ever is Murdoch doing? And meanwhile his NYPost endorses McC/P. Is it a class thing?
    Thanks to the poster from the other day who prompted this line of thinking.

    Reply

  38. questions says:

    WigWag,
    “Support” means a lot of different things to a lot of different people. The HRC supporters you mentioned above may well have supported her out of a sense of debt. And if they were certain she could win, well, they blew the primaries, and they EASILY could have been wrong about the general election.
    Your strategy of courting the Reagan dems is actually a strategy of becoming Republican, which Clinton did by many accounts. That’s what triangulation is all about. It may get a dem in the White House, but it won’t lead to progressive politics by any stretch of the imagination.
    The claim that blacks and white libs are not working class is foolish. A lot of both groups are working class. Lots of white union members are libs too. There’s a whole lot less “elitism” in the world than you think, but you really are stuck on the issue. Methinks you’ve bought into a Repub talking point.
    Where’s the real elitism? Why, in the Repub party where the real, old wealth resides. These are the few, the proud, the inheritors who need to get rid of the “death tax”. These are the ACTUAL owners of the means of production. These are the true capitalists. They don’t generally vote for the dems, and they probably don’t give a damn about Starbucks either. Starbucks is a middle class/working class cheap treat. (Cheap compared to private jet travel, that is. And cheap compared to Cindy McCain’s jewelry.)
    Elitism passes laws that allow the real money funnel upward. See how mortgage money floats up. See how productivity rises but wages stagnate or drop. See how jobs fly to cheap labor sources. THAT’S elitism. Starbucks and Harvard on scholarship and loans and work study don’t cut it.
    So why do the Reagan dems get some of this wrong? There’s the Thomas Frank/bitterness/guns/gods/gays argument. There’s Marx’s false consciousness notion. There’s media distortion. There’s a bizarre fear of taxes and government services. I’m guessing bits of each of these and then some. And I’d add a generous dollop of Southern Strategy racism that probably plays well in Appalachia.
    I suppose some qualitative polling of the region will answer some of these questions more definitively.

    Reply

  39. WigWag says:

    Sweetness, much of what you say may be true. In part that’s why smart African American politicians who think that the person that actually wins really matters, like Charlie Rangel, John Lewis, Stephanie Tubbs Jones and Sheila Jackson Lee supported Hillary originally. And it’s too bad that Obama and his supporter are trying to purge smart, capable, African American politicians like this from the Democratic Party. They participated in the civil right movement first hand. That seems to be of no consequence to Obama. After all he’s recruited or threatened to recruit primary opponents for all of them.
    You may be tired of hearing about the wisdom or goodness of “working folks” but that’s why the presidential candidates that you support rarely win. You see, most of these folks don’t care what you think or I think. They vote the way they want to. Some of them may be racists. Some of them may actually hate bigotry. You know, like the bigotry of a candidate who is willing to tag millions of people that he doesn’t know as bitter. Calling working people bitter is just like calling black people lazy or Jewish people greedy. It’s wrong.
    Maybe Democrats should bone up on the New Testament. I suggest they start with the part where Jesus says to the angry mob, “let he who is without sin, cast the first stone.”

    Reply

  40. Steve Clemons says:

    Dan and others — Dan is right in part that my post, which my colleague Jeffrey Lewis, knew was coming appeared too specific and may harm a good source….so out of deference to Jeff, I have “unpublished” the item temporarily.
    I will republish it exactly as it was before long — as I’ve had separate conversations about this subject with people unconnected from the sources that were part of my first report.
    Your good comments will not go up in smoke and will all be republished.
    This is awkward as I don’t like unpublishing anything and was clear I would write something — but it apparently cut very close to the bone….which is OK if it’s my bone, but not the bones of other good people.
    So, hang in with me as I engage in a bit of diplomatic dancing, but I need to do it in this case.
    best, steve

    Reply

  41. Spunkmeyer says:

    “Four years from now the Democratic Party will still be controlled
    by cultural elitists like Nancy Pelosi, Howard Dean and Barack
    Obama.”
    Hilarious. You still don’t get why Hillary lost. It’s called a 50-
    state strategy. Compete in all 50 states? How elitist!
    And, the Democratic Party will not exist as we know it in 4 years.
    The DLC/DFA rift will split it in two if the Dems lose in November.

    Reply

  42. WigWag says:

    temoc94, you say “The Clintons need to do just enough to help the ticket so that they’re not blamed for the loss. Then Hillary will have her comeback in 2012.”
    As a Hillary supporter I wish it was that simple, but it’s not. First of all, McCain (or Palin if McCain dies or becomes disabled) can do tremendous damage in the next four years.
    My guess is that if McCain wins, four years from now we will be in the same conundrum that we are now. It will be Hillary versus Barack, round two. Only this time, Obama will have the experience needed to be president. He’s smart and capable, if he loses he will serve four distinguished years in the Senate and he and his supporters will be even more convinced that he should be president. Hillary, who because of her age will have one last chance for the Presidency, will run a harder, smarter campaign. She will learn from her mistakes. The Campaign could easily be more bitter than this one was. It is highly foreseeable that the Democrats could self-destruct all over again.
    Four years from now the Democratic Party will still be controlled by cultural elitists like Nancy Pelosi, Howard Dean and Barack Obama. And there will still be an electorate willing to vote for a candidate like Clinton but unwilling to vote for a candidate like Obama in the general election. In light of the narcissism of democratic elites (that won’t change either), we could easily see a replay of what happened this year.
    And if McCain decides to serve only one term or dies or becomes disabled in office, I would bet the house that the Republican candidate four years from now (barring health problems) will be Jeb Bush.

    Reply

  43. Dan Kervick says:

    POA,
    I’m not concerned for Steve’s welfare. I don’t remember all the wording in Steve’s post, but my guess is that he was asked to take it down because he stepped on some friend’s reportorial scoop, or embarrassed a source’s loose lips, not because he had divulged the machinations of the power elite.
    Somebody said, “Hey I’ve got a big scoop. I’ll tell you, but don’t tell anyone else.” But then he told us, since his coy allusion to the satellite shoot-down was completely transparent.

    Reply

  44. Sweetness says:

    Wig says, “It’s true that Obama is the first African American
    candidate, but unfortunately I doubt that many people outside
    the African American community and social liberals are all that
    excited by this. A female candidate would have had a huge
    impact on an electorate that is more than 50 percent female.”
    It really shows how fundamentally racist Americans are. And the
    lower down the economic scale, the more racist they are. After
    all that was largely Hillary’s appeal later in the primary: Hard
    working white follk. They were willing to support a woman–
    even the bitch they had Hillaried all those years ago–if it meant
    keeping the uppity Negro out.
    It’s really too bad. Hillary gets to shout at the top of her lungs
    about the 18 million cracks in the ceiling…a line that Palin gets
    to mimic…and yet the REAL groundbreaking story…the first
    African American to get this far has to be downplayed by the
    candidate himself. If he says anything…like he don’t look like
    the man on the five dollar bill…he’s accused of playing the race
    card! Have you heard ANYTHING EVER FROM HIM about how
    great it is that an African American has gotten this far? Can he
    be publicly proud of hmself and his country for the momentous
    ness of his own candidacy. No way. No how. Not ever. It would
    be the kiss of death. The most he can say is how improbable his
    candidacy is.
    Just imagine this: One of his daughters shows up on stage
    pregnant out of wedlock at 17 with her rapper boyfriend
    chewing gum? How fast does his candidacy sink like a fucking
    stone?! He’s GONE the NEXT DAY. No; Barack and Michelle have
    to Ozzie Fucking Harriet with dark skin and still folks are looking
    at them slantwise wondering how these uppity Negroes got into
    Princeton and Harvard and their sons and daughters flunked out
    of community college.
    So once again we learn that racism is alive and well in the USA.
    Frankly, the momentousness of a woman becoming VP or even P
    is NOTHING compared the historic nature of Obama’s ascent
    and, I hope, victory. Women suffered NOTHING compared to
    what blacks went through in this country and the “after shocks”
    they continue to experience. Nothing. Black women got it
    coming and going.
    Let me say this: If this senile warmonger and his deranged Bible
    thumping consort grub and slime their way into office over the
    candidate who is far more intelligent, far more thoughtful, and
    far better qualified on every scale of wisdom one might
    reasonable choose, then the ONLY explanation–and the only
    explanation Obama WON’T avail himself of–is the bone-deep
    racism that pervades this country.
    I’m tired of hearing about the wisdom and goodness of our
    “heartlanders” our “working folks,” or the so-called “real
    Americans.” They’ve proven over and over again–really since
    Reagan–to be the most easily manipulated, the most gullible,
    the least intelligent and aware of all the voters. Proof? Time
    and time again–with Clinton being the only exception–they
    go for the craftiest and most cynical of choices. And then
    wonder why they’re getting fucked every which way imaginable.
    My only thought for you Wig is this: Education and intelligence
    USED to be things Jews valued. My brother drives an 18 wheeler
    cross country and listens to Fox. He’s not voting for McCain or
    McCain-Palin. Why? Just because he hoists himself into the cab
    every morning doesn’t mean he leaves his BRAIN in his locker.

    Reply

  45. temoc94 says:

    Obama should be tying himself to the Clinton economic record and he should be begging Bill Clinton to appear every where with him.
    …which would indeed be poetic justice; but what incentive would Clinton have to comply? The Clintons need to do just enough to help the ticket so that they’re not blamed for the loss. Then Hillary will have her comeback in 2012.

    Reply

  46. WigWag says:

    The idea that younger folks will decide this election is a myth. Younger college educated folks and African Americans will go for Obama. Other younger folks, especially younger men, won’t. Obama is working hard and successfully to register voters but there is little evidence that this will put him over the top in the general election. Younger voters are notoriously unreliable when it comes to showing up to vote and the excitement about Obama has diminished significantly since the Spring.
    It’s not the people with cell phones but no landlines that will decide the election. It is much more likely to be old people in Florida with landlines but no cell phones who decide the election.

    Reply

  47. Mr.Murder says:

    Actually, pollsters are calling cell phones. The attempt to channel an excuse from ‘Kerry/Edwards campaign 101’ class isn’t going to work.

    Reply

  48. Bartolo says:

    Calm down, boys and girls. As far as we know, the pollsters aren’t calling cell phones, and there is a big push by team Obama to register younger folks.

    Reply

  49. PissedOffAmerican says:

    “I really hate that. When I spend a good deal of time on a comment, I don’t appreciate seeing it go up in smoke”
    Well, consider the time and effort Steve put into it, Dan.
    I have often felt that Steve is treading a fine line, and that the tittilation he gets from his proximity to power blinds him to what these people are capable of. They’ll squash him like a bug if his disclosures threaten their aims. When Steve is prompted to remove a post, I would imagine that he has stepped dangerously close to a line he dare not cross. Rather than lamenting the loss of your commentary, I would think concern for Steve’s welfare would be a bit more apropos.

    Reply

  50. curler12 says:

    That’s right POA. The Right Wing ain’t armed to the teeth for nothing. The fifth columnists are going to be first made to dig a hole and then to kneel before it. BANG !!

    Reply

  51. Dan Kervick says:

    Off topic, but I guess Steve must have gotten into some trouble with his source about jumping the gun and spilling the beans on the China story. That post has disappeared.
    I really hate that. When I spend a good deal of time on a comment, I don’t appreciate seeing it go up in smoke.

    Reply

  52. PissedOffAmerican says:

    “Spunkmeyer, I disagree. While it is true that Obama has done a great job registering new voters, Clinton could have won without them”
    What the fuck difference does that make now?
    Should our president die in the next term, who do you want to have their finger on the nuclear trigger, Palin, or Biden?
    Its really that simple WigWag.
    If your answer is Palin, then keep it up. If not, then I suggest you get your head out of your ass, and stop your useless pining over what might have been.

    Reply

  53. Clem says:

    Whoa, hold it right thar folks. Yer fergettin’ just one over-archin’ factor in what will be McCain’s steady ascendence to the Oval Office.
    “The American People are a Stupid People.”
    Till ya come ’round to this Truth, ya will continue to befuddle yerselfs mightily.

    Reply

  54. PissedOffAmerican says:

    Kathleen, the handwriting was on the wall for me on 9/11. When they came up with “free speech zones”, I knew my intuition was on the right track. Coupled with the media’s complicity in misrepresenting the events of the last eight years, it doesn’t take a genius to realize something sinister is afoot. But honestly, I doubt they’ll go to the trouble of relocating us. There are far easier ways to quell dissent.

    Reply

  55. WigWag says:

    Spunkmeyer, I disagree. While it is true that Obama has done a great job registering new voters, Clinton could have won without them. Whether those new voters will push Obama over the top in November remains to be seen. In fact, it remains to be seen if they even show up.
    There is a reason why Democrats are never victorious in presidential races. Cycle after cycle they run candidates that Reagan Democrats, who feel comfortable voting for either party, won’t support. Mondale, Dukakis, Kerry. Clinton appealed to them and he won. Gore appealed to them and he would have won if the election hadn’t been stolen.
    The “Clinton, Bush, Clinton, Bush” thing would have easily been swatted away by the mere fact that Hillary Clinton would have been the first female candidate for president. Just look at how much excitement the fact that Palin is a female has brought to the McCain candidacy. It’s true that Obama is the first African American candidate, but unfortunately I doubt that many people outside the African American community and social liberals are all that excited by this. A female candidate would have had a huge impact on an electorate that is more than 50 percent female.
    Obama’s grass roots movement worked great during the primaries and caucuses. It appears to be a non existent factor now.
    Questions, it is about the candidates. Democrats who appeal only to African Americans and the “knowledged” classes only can’t win. Democrats who appeal to working class people can win. The Democrats tried it with Clinton. He created a coalition of African Americans, the “knowledged” classes and just enough Reagan Democrats. That’s why he is the only Democrat to win reelection as president since Roosevelt. The Democrats should try it again sometime.
    You say the sex issues surrounding the Clintons would have been an issue had Hillary been nominated. This seems very doubtful to me. Those issues have been fully vetted and are old news. The voters who you think might care about those issues voted overwhelmingly for Clinton in the primaries, not Obama and not McCain. And it doesn’t seem like those “sex issues” are hurting Palin much.
    You say,
    “The point about the Bradley effect is that whites no longer need to answer pollsters by lying. They can honestly say they are voting for McC because there’s a woman on the ticket, so they don’t look retrograde. I think there is no more Bradley effect beyond what we’re seeing right now.”
    It’s an interesting point. You could be right. I hadn’t thought of that.
    Should Obama lose, my advice four years from now to the “knowledged” class that controls the Democratic Party would be this:
    Examine all the candidates seeking the nomination. Figure out which candidate you personally would like to sit down in Starbucks with to enjoy a latte. Ask yourself, is this the candidate, I think would do the best job? If the answer is yes, vote for someone else.

    Reply

  56. Kathleen says:

    The Legend in Lipstick…maybe?

    Reply

  57. PissedOffAmerican says:

    From what I’ve seen so far, if Palin wants to be anything other than a historical embarrassement to the GOP, her “memoir” will need to be a work of fiction.

    Reply

  58. Kathleen says:

    After 2+ days of the fog horn blaring in my back yard, Hannah finally blew through…not much of s storm..the fog horn was more of a headache….
    On the Dem ticket, you can’t unspill milk..BO’s people were very dismissive to the Clintons and convinced they didn’t need them…couldn’t wait till they went away…welll, good luck with that, boys. Hillary should have been the Veep..we wouldn’t be in this quicksand had she been part of the ticket…the Clintons will dutifully go out there and do what they can, but they aren’t on the ticket and it’s just not going to fly…
    The Biden announcement caused a 2 point dip in the polls…Hillary’s speech a 13 point spike…Clinton/Biden speeches, down to 8,mostly Bill, BO down to 2 and then the Palin announcement wiped him off the front page and the numbers are reversing….how many times have we seen Americans vote against their own best interests just by campaign operatives using the same marketing methods.and appealing to voters’ sense of inadequacies by challenging their partriotism?
    Welcome to the Pavalocracy…as I listened to Repugs chanting Drill, baby, drill, I thought of H.Rap Brown’s book, Die Nigger, Die. in which he said, Burn, baby burn… to which I say, Drool baby, drool….H.Rap Brown wrote about the Internal Emergency Security Act, which kept 6 relocation centers on 24 hour alert… for supposed subversives to be preventively detained for the duration of an “emergency”…now thanks to Halliburton, and congress, we have many more such relocation centers….I’d like to know where exactly that infamous bridge to nowhere was actually going to be in Alaska and how proximate it would be to that newly completed Halliburton built relocation center in Alaska with a capacity for 7 million….H. Rap Brown pointed out that the 6 relocation centers were near highways for easy transport…just asking…..

    Reply

  59. questions says:

    The point about the Bradley effect is that whites no longer need to answer pollsters by lying. They can honestly say they are voting for McC because there’s a woman on the ticket, so they don’t look retrograde. I think there is no more Bradley effect beyond what we’re seeing right now.
    Also, the methodology cautions are real. It might not be this bad. A lot more polling needs to show up later this week.
    And really, every Clinton era scandal would be back out, all the sex all the time. It wouldn’t play well either.
    It’s not the candidates, it’s the structures in this country of media ownership, Repub willingness to lie beyond belief, ignorance about dem positions and economics and world affairs (remember, half the country still has WMD-in-Iraq beliefs). All of this comes together in pres elections.
    But again, methodology issues in the polls need to be attended to.
    And finally, I think the express reason for dumping Olbermann and Matthews is thatthey weren’t “objective” during the Repub convention and, according to something I saw (TPM??), pressure from McC is the real issue here. Not at all the treatment of HRC.

    Reply

  60. Spunkmeyer says:

    WigWag, what you fail to grasp is that if Clinton were the nominee,
    the meme would be “Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton” and a lot of
    newly-registered voters would be sitting out the election. Obama
    beat Clinton in the primaries because he was able to create a
    grassroots movement whereas the Clintons relied on the political
    machine. While it still remains to be seen if the energy Obama
    commanded in the primaries will translate into GOTV in
    November, anyone thinking somehow Clinton would magically be
    riding off into the sunset is fooling themselves.

    Reply

  61. WigWag says:

    Questions, one other thing.
    In your comment you say, my sad guess is that we might well be seeing the “Bradley Effect” a little early.”
    As you know the “Bradley Effect” is a phenomenon in which white voters say they will vote for an African American candidate, but don’t. They tell pollsters they will vote one way and then vote the opposite way in the polling booth.
    If there is a “Bradley Effect” that will operate in this election, it suggests that Obama may actually be more than the ten points behind McCain that the Gallup Poll suggests.

    Reply

  62. WigWag says:

    Questions, it is true that had Hillary been nominated, she would have been subjected to severe attacks, but of a somewhat different nature than the attacks faced by Obama. The difference is that Clintons are tougher than Obama, the attacks have been used before and failed, and Bill Clinton at least, is the only Democrat is a generation to successfully refute those attacks. Remember the man was more popular after he was impeached than before; that’s extraordinary. Some of this would surely have rubbed off on Hillary. But of course, all of this makes little difference now.
    The New York Times has an article about MSNBC dumping Olbermann and Matthews from the debate coverage. It’s not because they are liberal, questions, it is because their coverage has been so vile, so sexist and so distorted that the real reporters at NBC (especially Brokaw and Williams who are not great themselves) were embarrassed.
    As far as Obama, everything you say about what is happening to his campaign is true. Unfortunately, it was all so predictable. It is one of the reasons many people thought he was an incredibly weak candidate. This predicament was avoidable. Had the Democrats selected Clinton, they would be cruising towards an easy victory. But African Americans and upper middle class voters teamed up to give us Obama, so this is what we are stuck with.
    While this election seems to be a rerun of the election that Kerry lost, Obama has one huge advantage that Kerry didn’t have. When Kerry ran the economy was good so the Reagan Democrats could vote for the candidate they were more culturally attuned to (Bush) without voting against their economic self interests. This year the economy is bad and getting worse. So now Reagan Democrats are in a bind. Do they vote for the candidate that they like better (McCain) or the candidate they know will look after their economic self interest (Obama)? That’s why I think Obama can still win.
    Because his financial edge over McCain has largely disappeared, Obama should give up the notion of competing in states like South Carolina or Georgia that he is not going to win. His delusion that he can win in Montana should also corrected. He needs to focus like a laser beam on the industrial heartland. States like West Virginia (where it may already be too late) and Ohio. He needs to somehow win Florida (where he is falling further and further behind). And of course New Mexico, Nevada, Colorado, Minnesota, New Hampshire are all still in play. As for Virginia, personally I’m skeptical, but maybe.
    He also needs to learn how to talk to voters from those states. His rhetoric, that African Americans and cultural elites found so compelling, just doesn’t seem to resonate with folks from these states at all. To African Americans and to the “knowledged” classes, Obama sounds like Martin Luther King or John Kennedy. To Reagan Democrats he sounds like Michael Dukakis or John Kerry. The one Democrat of major standing who knows how to speak in a resonant way to the voters that Obama is tanking with, is Bill Clinton. Obama needs his help desperately. Why Clinton should help Obama after the Obama campaign tried to paint him as a racist is a little unclear, but Obama better find a way to make it right or his campaign may very well be doomed.
    There is one other move that Obama could make but probably doesn’t have the guts to; he could dump Biden. Palin (as repulsive as she is) has energized the McCain ticket. Biden has done nothing for the Democratic ticket. He seems to be as popular a Vice Presidential candidate as he was a Presidential candidate. This is too bad because Biden is a good guy, but it is reality. Of course, Biden’s replacement would have to be the candidate that Obama should have selected all along, Hillary Clinton.
    Had he picked her in the first place, he would be on his way to an easy victory instead of trying to figure out how to avoid snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.
    I just can’t help but wonder how many more years the Democrats will keep repeating the same mistakes before they actually learn something. Actually, it’s rather pathetic and very depressing.

    Reply

  63. Bill R. says:

    Here is Palin’s political philosophy informed by the teachings of the “Third Wave” Christian cult:
    “The Third Wave is a revival of the theology of the Latter Rain tent revivals of the 1950s and 1960s led by William Branham and others. It is based on the idea that in the end times there will be an outpouring of supernatural powers on a group of Christians that will take authority over the existing church and the world. The believing Christians of the world will be reorganized under the Fivefold Ministry and the church restructured under the authority of Prophets and Apostles and others anointed by God. The young generation will form “Joel’s Army” to rise up and battle evil and retake the earth for God.”
    Brian Wilson has an article up at Huffington Post on the teachings at Palin’s church:
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bruce-wilson/sarah-palins-churches-and_b_124611.html

    Reply

  64. Jennifish says:

    I got an email that I can’t resist passing on to Steve – this was forwarded to a list-serve to which I belong. It’s from a man who is a principal of a school up in Alaska, where he and his wife also teach. They’ve been Alaskan transplants for about 10 years:
    Good evening, lots of friends and relatives have been asking me (as an Alaskan) what I think of Sarah Palin, our Governor, and new choice for McCain as a VP candidate.
    Here it goes:
    This pick floored me. Sarah Palin is a nice person. I’ve met her, I’ve even talked to her for a few minutes at a principal’s conference a couple of years ago. She has lots going for her superficially. She speaks from the heart, like a spitfire mother; she can even be sort of funny sometimes. She is quite beautiful; athletic, and has that radiant glow of someone who actually spends time doing things outside. Unlike many politicians, she has lived a “real life” and done thin gs that few living and working in DC could ever do….like dipnettin’ fish, shootin’ stuff and eating it out on the tundra, and havin’ 5 kids.
    Personally, I’d never vote for her. She has an extremely simple view of the world. I don’t even think she has ever been abroad. As governor she has repeatedly shown us that she is unable to grasp the demands of leadership. She is very prone to cronyism of the worst kind. Every cabinet level political appointment she has made she has over-ridden suggestions of our state advisory boards, and instead promoted those who had granted her direct political favors. Not that other politicians don’t do this, they do, but most of them are able to balance their appointments to ensure that at least a few people with real skill and experience are running big state agencies.
    She also has been unable to pay att ention to her Alaskan constituency. Personally, I’ve written several of our previous gov’s and been asked to comment publicly on education policy. All the previous gov’s have always acknowledged that contribution, criticism or comment; sometimes by direct reply, or at least by that of a staff member. Palin’s office has been a zone of silence. Not I, nor one person I know commenting has ever gotten any sort of reply. Her claim of running an open or transparent government is totally false; the public simply has no role in her administration.
    Her previous claim to fame was being mayor of Wasilla, a growing town about 40 minutes from Anchorage of about 15,000 people. Wasilla is a hellhole, even by Alaskan standards, where there are plenty of hellhole towns and villages. Wasilla is an ugly p lace that shows a complete absence of planning, design, or sense of public vision. Gov’t agencies and services are completely overrun in this town; things are so bad that they can’t even track the ir population or build schools in the right place, because most parts of the town don’t require building permits, so the only clue about where people are settling are utility receipts. Imagine trying to be an emergency responder in this kind of place: Houses don’t just catch on fire in Wasilla, they burn to the ground, because by the time the fire department has figured out which road to take (no signs) or whose house it is (no directory), the place is done for. Palin was mayor this town for at least 2 terms before being elected gov. a year and a half ago.
    Her moral sense is simplistic and not inclusive. She is the sort of person who is used to using their “faith” to divide and isolate minority groups of human beings instead of uniting them. To her credit as Gov. she has kept out of this arena pretty well, but when in comfortable company (i. e the Matanuska Valley Republican Women’s Club), she lets her moral cat out of the bag.
    I will do what I can to ensure her defeat and that of her running mate as well. 🙂 Please share this information with those who can use it well.
    Cheers, Pete Hauschka

    Reply

  65. Bill R. says:

    There is some scrutiny now about about Palin’s bizarre belief system and how they impact her policy positions. Her church is apparently under the sway of a heretical movement in the Pentecostal Church emphasizing spiritual warfare and spiritual powers.
    http://www.alternet.org/rights/97939/

    Reply

  66. bob h says:

    Palin has referred to the Iraq War as a “mission from God”. With hundreds of thousands of innocent victims, what kind of God is she talking about?

    Reply

  67. questions says:

    There’s a Gallup poll out that has McC up 55-45 or so. My sad guess is that we might well be seeing the “Bradley Effect” a little early. Palin makes is safe to vote against the black guy without feeling racist because people are now voting FOR a woman. And because this maverick thing is so totally accepted by so many, a vote for McC/P is a vote against the Repubs. So you can be traditionalist/radical/pro-life/pro-change/pro-woman all at the same time.
    So what Obama has to do is somehow get the media on his side (WigWag, MSNBC just dropped Olbermann and Matthews from NEWS coverage — there are no liberal media), somehow stop being black, somehow convince people that the nationalization of private assets (isn’t that Marxist??) has come on McCain’s watch. But people don’t get the finance stuff, he IS black, and the media are repub….
    On the other hand, the Gallup poll is of likely voters and there are methodology problems with that. But then voter caging may negate the methodology problems.
    Draft as an issue? Perpetual war as an issue? Crazed leaders in a world that needs subtlety? McC. single handedly caused the economic mess? McC IS Washington? Once you hit the racism button, I’m not sure anything works.
    And WigWag, had it been Clinton, the attacks would have been different, but really effective and the VP choice would have been different too. The dems are just in a national pickle. Their policies are largely supported, but somehow they are not.

    Reply

  68. DonsBlog says:

    Obama and team are planners, with a gigantic “on the ground” team. Like the primaries, keep an eye on the electoral college, not polls.
    Obama is big on planning and executing that plan. McCain is mostly shoot from the hip. While McCain will get a bounce on this impulsive move, I still expect to see steady growth in the electoral college votes.
    Sarah Palin has also never been under the scrutiny of the national press and seems to have had a lot of power in the past that probably won’t pass closer scrutiny. The constant drip drip of problems along with her hiding from interviews will eventually wear away at her. As well as the media’s tendency to build people up so they can tear them down.

    Reply

  69. Mr.Murder says:

    Clinton has a way of making people around him feel most comfortable. At times it was his greatest liability(trying to work with the GOP Congress).
    He’ll endeavor to make Barack sense things the same way and learn to cultivate similar empathy from people listening to him.
    It’s a major work, Obama’s own writings indicate he’s not entirely comfortable with himself on background. Bill will find a way for him to better channel such frustrations into positive words. Barack has done this before. The demands of filtering what is felt or said, through the crucible of a campaign lens, changes the ability to do this smoothly at times and he has been at a loss for words some times.
    He simply needs to compare the man’s current position with the country’s current position and try to best make people believe the items mirror one another.
    I’m no fan of the man myself. Obama decided to campaign a certain way and he has limited the options to choose from since.
    That does not limit his current opportunity to embrace success as a way of shielding from attack.
    This can be done internationally, regionally, locally. Use past success as the basis or starting point for policy. Even if some of that success was from the other party.
    Bill can help him retrace some of this. My expectation is for Clinton to share with Obama some of his own experiences in working with Republican President GHWB and how they shared in the outcome of Tsunami relief. This can be a way of disarming skepticism, when applied to Barack’s own experiences, or shared, from that personal or political perspective.
    From there he can help Barack focus upon the way to best compare how his own frustrations in maturing to his political leadership level mirror the ways many people feel about the overall effect of bureaucracy in DC. Who’s speaking for me? Why has nobody said how it will change my life and benefit me?
    There’s essentially parallel items.
    He doesn’t have make the frustration personal, he can simply say “people say to me when I campaign I feel this…” and then relate how he felt the same way. Don’t start with ‘me’ or ‘I’ but with others, connect what they feel to your own life experience, then state with clarity how to address the present moment from those perspectives, unified.
    If someone says you are wrong on that you can simply say that President Bill Clinton shared of experience with you. When they attack that mention it was Clinton’s shared experience with Bush’s father(transitioning between the postwar phase of Desert Storm to the Clinton years of peace, a won war that was paid for, with an exit plan; Tsunami relief to restore our moral partnership in the world community, etc. ).
    Suddenly you sound a lot more experienced.

    Reply

  70. WigWag says:

    varanassi, you could be right, but lunch with Bill Clinton won’t get the job done. Obama needs Clinton to make scores of campaign stops and joint appearences with him. It’s his only chance to influence voters who don’t seem to like him. And those voters, the Reagan Democrats, will decide this election.
    I wouldn’t dismiss the tracking polls so cavalierly. Given the state of the American economy, Obama should be way ahead, but he’s not. This demonstrates his fundamental weakness as a candidate. More disturbing is the fact that the tracking polls seem to be doing precisely what they did four years ago. Kerry was ahead in those polls right through the Republican convention. After the Republican convention, Bush took a small but steady lead that he almost never relinquished. The same pattern may be emerging now.
    As far as the elctoral vote, Obama may still be in the lead, but that lead is evaporating. He is falling further behind in Florida. He is slightly behind in Ohio and Virginia. He is now behind in Minnesota and New Hampshire. These are not good signs for a candidate who should be cruising to a victory.
    It is extraordinarily ironic and preplexing that McCain/Palin seems to be connecting with working people more than Obama/Biden. As much as Washington Note readers may dislike her, Palin seems to be connecting particularly well with white, working class men. McCain’s lead seems to be built on the support of this group.
    As far as I can tell, the Obama Campaign doesn’t seem to know how to fix this. No politician in American is better at connecting with these folks that Bill Clinton.
    I hope that when they have lunch next week, Obama picks up the check and does a little groveling. If he doesn’t, he could well lose.

    Reply

  71. varanassi says:

    relax, wigwag. i just read that the Big Dog and BO are having lunch this week in nyc.
    i agree that BO should coax the clinton’s out on the stump as much as possible.
    …and don’t worry about the vagaries of the daily gallup tracking poll. it’s a (nearly) useless barometer of what’s going on within the electoral college system.
    but, regardless, mccain’s daily gallup swing is most likely temporary.

    Reply

  72. WigWag says:

    McCain is now winning.
    According to the latest Gallup Poll, McCain has pulled ahead and McCain’s lead is outside of the margin of error. Gallup’s findings confirm the findings of Zogby which also show McCain surging. Like Zogby, the Gallup poll shows McCain pulling ahead by double digits with self identified Roman Catholics, a demographic group that Obama must win to be elected. Ironically, the choice of Sarah Palin seems to be particularly popular with Catholics. She seems to be helping McCain with this group more than Biden is helping Obama, despite the fact that Biden is catholic himself.
    There is so much wrong with Sarah Palin that it’s hard to enumerate all of her problems. It’s the experience thing; it’s the policy thing; it’s the ethics thing’ it’s the honesty thing.
    But Senator Obama and his supporters would be wise to realize that the public doesn’t seem to care. This might be because the media refuses to scrutinize Palin adequately, it may be because the public is more focused on her personal story, or it may be both. Complaining about it won’t help.
    Senator Obama needs to take a page out of the play book of Bill Clinton. Clinton won with a single minded focus on his mantra, “it’s the economy stupid” (and with alot of help from Ross Perot.) Obama should be tying himself to the Clinton economic record and he should be begging Bill Clinton to appear every where with him.
    Obama treated both Clinton’s disrespectfully. If he wants to win, he needs to make it right with them and start campaigning in person with them. Hillary Clinton has been making many campaign stops for Obama but has not campaigned msuch with him personally. Bill Clinton has been absent from the campaign trail. This needs to change. My guess is that the Clintons are the only people who can save Obama’s bacon.
    Working people just don’t seem to like Obama. There are many reasons for this, some legitimate, some may be terrible. But now is not the time to complain about it, now is the time to fix it. Working people love Bill Clinton. He is in a better position to help Obama than anyone in America.
    If Obama wants to win, he needs to refocus his campaign and bring Bill Clinton on board in a big way; fast. If he doesn’t he will lose in the biggest political upset in 60 years.
    For those who are interested, here is the most recent data from Gallup:
    “September 7, 2008
    Gallup Daily: McCain Moves Ahead, 48% to 45%McCain enjoying increase in support following convention
    PRINCETON, NJ — The latest Gallup Poll Daily tracking update shows John McCain moving ahead of Barack Obama, 48% to 45%, when registered voters are asked for whom they would vote if the presidential election were held today.
    McCain’s 48% share of the vote ties for his largest since Gallup tracking began in early March. He registered the same level of support in early May. This is also McCain’s largest advantage over Obama since early May, when he led by as much as six percentage points. Obama has led McCain for most of the campaign, and for nearly all of the time since clinching the Democratic nomination in early June.”
    By the way, Rasmussen shows the race tied with both candidates at 46 percent. Also troubling are polls in Ohio and Virginia which now show McCain with a small lead and a post convention poll from Florida which shows McCain expanding his lead.
    Now that Labor Day and the conventions are over, these polls become increasingly predictive. McCain is still enjoying his convention bounce which seems to be about as big or slightly larger than Obama’s so next weeks polls may be more reliable.
    But if Obama doesn’t have a 5%-7% lead by the middle of September, he is in serious trouble. We can anticipate that he will best McCain in the debates, but if the public doesn’t like him, it won’t help. Both Gore and Kerry defeated Bush in the debates, but by the time they took place, the public was so turned off by those candidates that their debate victories didn’t matter.
    Obama needs to get on the phone with Bill Clinton and beg him to start making joint campaign appearances.
    His campaign is floundering. He needs to fix it now!

    Reply

  73. Mr.Murder says:

    Steve,
    There was a very good item on CSpan 2 After Words. Jane Meyer and Dana Priest at a DC bookstore. If you were to review your discussions with Meyer and cross link a section of CSpan programming I think it would be a great service to interested readers of both TWN, the New America Foundation, and CSpan. A new chat with her detailing both topics would also deepen the message.
    This would help reinforce the discussion, and do it interactively, across some of the web’s best sources for hard news and insight/opinion.
    Of particular interest were her references to a source and whistle blower with Cuban American heritage, a man who served as counsel within the DoD/Pentagon, or detailing items shared with that institution, relating torture and detainee rights. That could be a major way of making the conversation relevant to Florida’s swing state vote as well.
    He was entirely dismayed at this country’s use of torture as a policy, and its comparison to oppressive regimes that rival us.

    Reply

  74. TonyForesta says:

    Could you ask your investigative reporter friends to raise the HAARP issue with Palin, and question what, she knows, and what is really going on up there in Gakona Alaska. The government offers one rosy story, but many other raise very serious, if not horrifying questions relating the DoD messing with the ionosphere. For example on the official government website it states that there that “HAARP is not designed to be an operational system for military purposes.” If so then why is the project managed by the Air Force Research Laboratory, the Office of Naval Research and DARPA? Patents involving HAARP research also raise serious questions about the militaries goals and plans with regard to EMP, ELF, and VLF technologies and all the potentially dastardly offensive uses therein first decribed in the 1900’s by Nicola Tesla.
    What does Palin know, and what is her position on HAARP?

    Reply

  75. ryan9466@comcast.net says:

    Steve,
    Have some of your investigative journalists look at how Sarah Palin is able to use state money to install her own private tanning parlor in the governor’s mansion. Not so much a reformer working for the citizen’s money I think.
    If this were Obama, he would be toast.

    Reply

  76. Mr.Murder says:

    “Her” being Palin….

    Reply

  77. Mr.Murder says:

    Nobody here has the nerve a left handed McCain would have caused his current wife’s right handed defense wounds for her recently injured arm.
    The chatter I’m hearing has to do with her channeling Ashcroft in order to go after librarians.

    Reply

  78. What Grief Is Good? says:

    Hurrah! The mainstream media is finally reporting about McCain’s
    physical assault on the family members of a Vietnam-era MIA
    outside of McCain’s Senate office. Links here:
    Report: McCain Pushed Woman In A Wheelchair
    http://tinyurl.com/5kb68f
    Here’s another article
    McCain’s history of hot temper raises concerns
    http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/51660.html

    Reply

  79. JohnH says:

    There are some creepy similarities with the case against the mayor of Detroit. He fired two police officers without cause (they were investigating him). Then he lied about a bunch of stuff under oath.
    Too bad nobody got Palin under oath…

    Reply

  80. DonS says:

    I have been to Alaska one time. A short visit, but eye opening. Great physical beauty, pretty much unencumbered by civilization. It is different. Definitely the frontier still; not exactly the wild west, but pretty wide open. And, yes, Alaskans revel in their “maverickness”, and have a wide open attitude, perhaps by necessity.
    There is very little about what it takes to “make it” in Alaska that translates to the lower 48. Somebody needs to start bringing some reality to the picture perfect Ms Palin. Alaska is picture perfect, but only because their population density allows wide margins for error.
    http://tiny.cc/qjUoT

    Reply

  81. PissedOffAmerican says:

    “McBeath is also the leading authority on Alaska’s state constitution and knows everyone political in Alaska — and their hidden lives. He hasn’t asked me to post this for him — but I do recommend that serious researchers and writers touch base with McBeath to get a truer feel of the good and not so good on Sarah Palin”
    How about a guest post from him, Steve? Is he willing to talk about Sarah Pablum on the record??

    Reply

  82. PissedOffAmerican says:

    And, in turn, McCain has a team of lawyers there trying to glue all those rocks down.
    I had a post at another blog answered in a curious way today. I posted on the 22 million dollar deficit that Palin is alleged to have left Wasilla saddled with, and someone countered by posting a short one line “letter” that was supposedly penned by Dianne Keller, who succeeded Palin as mayor of Wasilla, denying that Palin left Wasilla with a deficit. Doing a bit of digging, I discovered that this Keller is in fact Palin’s cousin, and is also embroiled in investigations into ethics breaches she may have engaged in as mayor. She was the target of a recall effort as well. Palin supported Keller for mayor, over Palin’s own mother in law.

    Reply

Add your comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *