Obama has the biggest lead ever in the national tracking polls. He’s at 50% in three out of four. There are three obvious reasons for this. The economic meltdown helps because people trust Obama more on the economy. Secondly, Obama won the first debate. But the number one reason that Obama is moving ahead is that Sarah Palin is a numbskull.
About The Author
BooMan
Martin Longman a contributing editor at the Washington Monthly. He is also the founder of Booman Tribune and Progress Pond. He has a degree in philosophy from Western Michigan University.
62 Comments
Recent Posts
- Day 14: Louisiana Senator Approvingly Compares Trump to Stalin
- Day 13: Elon Musk Flexes His Muscles
- Day 12: While Elon Musk Takes Over, We Podcast With Driftglass and Blue Gal
- Day 11: Harm of Fascist Regime’s Foreign Aid Freeze Comes Into View
- Day 10: The Fascist Regime Blames a Plane Crash on Nonwhite People
Is it even possible that she can be replaced on the ticket and McCain doesn’t suffer more?
It would be unprecedented and you’d have to be an idiot of unknown magnitude to believe any bs story of her exit. They obviously can’t say the obvious – McCain would look like the buffoon he is. So what next?
They have to slog through, especially after the debate. They must be working OT to get her ready for Thursday – it really is his last chance.
I think McCain is damned if he does and damned if he doesn’t. There is no question Palin is hurting him and will continue to do so, unless they can do a brain transplant between now and the debate. However, if he dumped Palin that is likely to piss off another set of people. Hopefully McCain is screwed no matter what he does.
I just don’t see how Palin makes it through the week.
Obama is at the tipping point right now. He has a clear lead. A disastrous Palin debate…and at this juncture we must assume that it will be nothing short of a disaster…will break him over the 55%+ mark and a landslide electoral win.
I do not see how McSame can recover with 5 weeks left and Obama’s strongest debates coming.
This election could be over by this time next week.
Either it’s the end of Palin, or the end of McSame in a few days.
every time a vp candidate has been replaced, it’s been during a convention, and it usually results in defeat at the polls.
via npr archives:
mcstain is certainly not lincoln, ergo, she’s an dead albatross…or moose if you prefer…around his neck.
barring any significant upheavals, this election could very well be approaching the point of no return for the flyboy.
they’ve blown it. good riddance.
I am not ready to exhale yet, dada, and I recommend that we should not get over confident, though I admit that I am feeling much less tense now than I was a week or two ago.
Friday one of my colleagues that I work very closely with reminded me of how completely freaked out I was in the week before and after the RNC. Don’t know how much longer I could have sustained that without needing to be locked away, and hope I never have to go THERE again!
I am not ready to exhale yet…
l hope you look good in blue.
all joking aside, it’s not over until nov 4.
l spent the afternoon canvassing, and it was very positive. met virtually no hard line RATpubs, those who self identified as RATs were, almost exclusively, disgusted w/ macstain over the palin debacle.
signed up some new voters who are definitely obama leaning, but it’s a college town.
“l hope you look good in blue.“
Depends on the shade.
dead moose is heavier Dada. At least 1,000 – 1500 lbs.
Thomas Eagleton made it out of the convention as McGovern’s running mate in ’72, but he didn’t last amid reports that he was being treated for severe depression. He was replaced by Sargent Shriver.
I don’t really remember how much damage this did to the McGovern campaign, but it certainly didn’t do them any good.
I noticed that too. He’s always the first example that comes to my mind. I loved that BooMan called the recent Palin dumpwatch threads the “Eagleton Watch.”
One thing we are overlooking is the bailout package. Look for McCain to come out hard against it late tomorrow or Tuesday.
He has nothing left for issues and this could prove beneficial for him. This is an incredibly unpopular initiative – and not just among the infants on the intertubes. McCain could leverage this bill into a “taxpayer’s revolt.” It may be too late, but what else is there?
I watched Paulson on 60 mins and he was pathetic. These guys must know something we don’t know, but they’re doing a terrible job of selling it. That, combined with some fairly reasonable economists calling BS, and it doesn’t take a vivid imagination to see some voter anger across the country.
Watch to see if McCain hitches his horse to this wagon for the last month. It scares me.
Yeah, not a maverick as much as an opportunist.
I agree that McCain is likely to come out against the bail-out, and if he can keep his brain un-addled long enough to keep his story straight, he can make a good case for himself. I read to day in the NYT that Kenneth Rogoff is one of his economist advisors. Rogoff understands the bail-out issues as well as anyone on earth: he’s an ex-grandmaster in chess,and you almost have to be to think your way through this stuff. So I wouldn’t count McCain out yet, though the odds of his understanding anything Rogoff might tell him that makes sense are pretty close to zilch.
I also expect that Obama’s people have gamed this move out, and are ready for it.
I already saw a GOP.com commercial for McCain tonight, in NC, blaming Obama for the bail-out and describing how he would raises taxes on everyone — that’s you tv viewer, YOU — to pay for it. So I’d say it’s a done-deal that he’s going to vote against it and claim to be supporting the best interests of the people. Why does his campaign always jump the gun? McCain hasn’t even voted yet!
New stories:
Now, I will tell you that people might feel one way or another about shooting wolves from planes, or about using the state police to get revenge on a scumbag.
But when you fiddle with the zoning code using your influence as mayor, that is gonna get to people where they really live – she got an unfair advantage in selling her house. THAT SERIOUSLY PISSES ME OFF.
I still say the wolf thing is overall the most effective. That ad from Defenders of Wildlife is really gut wrenching to anyone with any degree of empathy, and for animal lovers it is horrific. And the focus groups they have done have shown it to be THE most effective ad of the campaign, period. It pisses people off big time that she not only enjoys, but promotes that kind of brutal, sadistic activity.
Not to say that the house thing is not very serious. In fact, isn’t that – like – illegal or something?
EVERY action that toxic asshole Palin does is illegal. What has she done that is LEGAL?
Come on! This is no time to get so carried away we talk nonsense. Of course every action she takes is not illegal. In fact, I suggest that most actions she takes are entirely legal.
Let’s try to maintain our equilibrium here.
They can’t get rid of Sarah now. McCain is ill…
Nothing solid yet – except his appearance today which has led to some speculation. Its too late to change the ticket anyway – nominations have to be in 60 days in advance of election ….
“nominations have to be in 60 days in advance of election“
Hopefully they won’t be able to find any loophole in that rule!
Do you have a reference for that rule? I’d like to see it, if only to mute the “they can replace Palin” talk elsewhere on the web.
I think GOP electors in the electoral college would vote for a different candidate if McCain became incapacitated
http://www.gop.com//images/legal/2008_RULES_Adopted.pdf
… “we had to get rid of Palin, since John’s illness means that we need a VP candidate who can go out and campaign.”
No? Not convincing enough?
what happens if he’s too ill before Nov 4?
What would happen if, God forbid, McCain were to take a dirt nap on the campaign trail? Other than throwing the GOP into total disarray, of course.
I believe that Palin would become the Presidential candidate, but I do not know that for certain. Surely there are plenty of people here who know the process better than I can confirm or correct that.
Had her earlier statements been acknowledged as mistakes in her responses to Katie Couric’s questions, it is likely that she would be in far better position now. But such an admission is apparently impossible for Republicans.
Her responses to Katy Couric’s questions were not “mistakes”, they were too incoherent to be called mistakes.
You know, an old friend of mine from Rawanduz who fluently speaks, reads and writes five languages (that I can think of right now) listened over and over and over again to one of her responses in that interview, finally trying to analyze it phrase by phrase, word by word (I can’t say sentence by sentence since there were few if any actual sentences in it), and finally turned to me and said “Can you tell me what she said? I must confess that no matter how I try I cannot construct any meaning from what I am hearing”. How can you call it a mistake when it is just an incoherent word salad with no actual discernable meaning?
No, I meant that she should have indicated her Russia/Alaska proximity statements to have been mistakes of some kind, phrasing or otherwise. Had she embraced those earlier statements as mistakes she would not likely be suffering as she is now. But Repugs never look back reflectively. It’s always about forging/blundering ahead, the past be damned.
OK, I understand what you are saying.
It has been clear for weeks that the ludicrous bit about international expertise based on proximity to Russia was an official campaign talking point (what utter dolt dreamed THAT one up?!). I first heard it from Cindy, after which it was repeated by McCain and Sarah a couple of times. I suppose when Couric asked her to justify it she COULD have said “Aw, gee, Katy, we were just funnin’ ya”, in that cutesy-adorable manner she assumes whenever she has been cornered, and who knows, maybe that would have worked.
I am still not sure this is all not a very weird dream. It is just surreal that American electoral politics has come to this!
No disrespect to you, Hurria, but American electoral politics gave the world Ronnie Ray-gun and George W – both of them twice!
Yes, but a majority of people believed then and believe now that Reagan did a good job. As for George W, that was bad enough, but Palin is beyond bad. She actually makes Bush look intelligent, competent, and articulate at times.
The sheer horror of her keeping her TP notes to use in a time of crisis when McCain is incapacitated and parrot them back to her cabinet and the American people is the first thing I’ve seen in 8 years to make Bush look coherent by comparison.
This upcoming week is going to be…um interesting to say the least. To get to the Thursday night debate, we have to somehow survive the bailout vote on Monday. The potential fallout from that vote is extremely hard to predict at this point. Once we get to the debate, expectations of Palin’s performance are extremely low, so the possibility of her doing better than expected is very real. Throw in one of Joe’s foot in mouth comments and the spin doctors can make a case that she held her own. What that would do to the overall picture, I can’t predict. I’m just wary of calling McCain/ Palin dead yet. The SNL clip was priceless though. 🙂
Well, a lot of pretty sophisticated people, including quite a few on our side called Friday’s debate a draw, but apparently the voters saw it a bit differently, so not sure how much it matters what the spin doctors say.
John McCain may be suffering from acute stress. What with his gambling at Indian casinos with known lobbyists and his apparent rough treatment of Cindy back in the late 1980’s (http://www.counterpunch.org/) to say nothing of his poor polling results along with his performance on the bail out business and his looking like a real jerk on postponing the presidential debate added to the never ending pressure of when Sarah is going to really self destruct, it is a wonder that he hasn’t suffered a complete break down yet. The old maverick may not even make it to the final shoot down in November. Pity, indeed.
I recorded the David Letterman show when Obama was on it a few weeks ago, and finally today had a chance to really sit down and watch it. You know, I have never understood this business of people saying he is too aloof. I have never found him to be particularly aloof. On the contrary, I have perceived him to be quite approachable, open, reachable, and genuine. Bush, on the other hand who is supposed to be so engaging and personable, gives me the sense that his down home, aw shucks, guy-you-would-like-to-drink-abeer-with shtick is pure facade, and that he would just be looking for the next hand to shake. As for McCain, I always felt he would just smile absently and pat me on the head while he looked for someone worth talking to. And Palin is all facade and no building. There is no “there” there.
I always got the sense from Obama that if I were talking to him he would be focused on me and engaged, and genuinely responding. And what I saw on Letterman was an accessible, open, engaging, engaged, responsive, likable person, and one who was capable of laughing at himself. I did not see someone who was distant or aloof at all, nor did I see an arrogant person (unlike what I see with Bush, McCain, or Palin) and I think that is his real personality, not an artificial facade.
So, can someone tell me where this reputation comes from that he is aloof, because I have never seen it myself.
I agree and his ability to laugh when others might take offense. He is a smart and personable man who we can trust to do the right thing. At least I hope so, I’m really looking for a leader I can trust of late. They are hard to find.
“He is a smart and personable man“
I can whole heartedly agree there. He also has dignity and grace, and is extremely well spoken, which are qualities we have not seen in the White House for a very long time.
“who we can trust to do the right thing.“
Now you have gone too far. Don’t forget that he is also a politician.
One area in which I expect him to do absolutely the WRONG thing is in foreign policy, particularly to do with Iraq, Iran, Israel, Afghanistan, and Pakistan – and probably Russia as well. His intentions in that area started out all wrong, and have gotten nothing but worse.
….Palestine and Cuba. The country is so completely paranoid he will have to be God’s gift to humanity to change the way we think about foreign policy. Keep in mind his mind may be free but simple statements such as I’d like to see restraint on both sides are used against him by McCain and the noise machine. I can only hope sanity will creep back into our foreign policy under Obama’s leadership. There is no other real choice.
I don’t think Obama will bring Sanity to this country’s foreign policy except, hopefully, in terms of mending relations with European allies. He does not seem to understand the Middle East, Africa, and the Muslim World at all, and his great “foreign policy expert” Biden is even worse because he thinks he understands and he is considered to be some kind of authority.
The chances of sanity are slim considering the economic crisis. The U.S. is about to slip off the world stage in a big way. Our legacy will be one of preemptive hate and hubris. I (we) can only hope O’bama’s perspective will be more rational. But we are not going to be much of a player. Our government and our economic system are dead broke.
“The U.S. is about to slip off the world stage in a big way…We are not going to be much of a player.“
And that is the upside of this mess. Maybe now the U.S. will be forced to become a normal country, and there will evolve a multipolar world.
For those who do not understand how Barack Obama can turn people off regardless of his openness and affability:
#1-He’s black. America is and has been a racist country. It has come about 15% of the way towards not bering a racist country. If that. An open, affable black person is a confident black person to a white racist. Which Obama certainly is. Confident, that is. And a confident black person is a threat to white racists. Black people should be servile and frightened as far as they are concerned. Anything else is totally unacceptable.
#2-There is substantial overlay between the previous group and the one that follows, but here it is anyway.
There are HUGE numbers of people in this country who are not open and affable, and most of them look upon friendly, relaxed, confident people as the enemy.
Sorry, but there it is.
Bush on the other hand, is just like these people. Closed, defensive, confused and hostile to “the other”.
Yup…
There it is.
See ya somewhere.
Later…
AG
All well and good, but that does not explain how so many people can perceive an open, affable person of any colour or gender as “aloof”, so you really haven’t answered the question.
Been taking lessons from Sarah, have you? ;o}
C’mon, Hurria.
You’re smarter than that.
Aloof means “above”. Higher than. Uppity.
Obama refuses to lower himself to the level of a large part of the electorate. As a result that group of people dislikes him. They shift their envy and fear of him from the real reason to a more “acceptable” one.
.
And…sadly…they are right. He is too good for them. Some 48%+ of the electorate will end up voting for the McCain/Palin ticket. Just as they did for the Bush/Cheney ticket. Twice.
Amerika.
Love it or deal with it.
AG
Arthur Gilroy, you have the unfortunate habit of talking down in the most condescending way to people you have no business talking down or condescending to. It is one of the things that sometimes make your comments unreadable. Kindly reserve that treatment for your inferiors.
And no, that is NOT what aloof means. Aloof means distant, apart, reserved, reticent, unreachable. It has nothing to do with “uppity”, or “higher than” which are completely separate concepts. Furthermore, people who are open and affable are by definition not aloof (or uppity or higher than, for that matter) since affable is the exact antithesis of aloof, or uppity or higher than.
Try again, please, and this time kindly do not address me as if I were a ten year old underachieving student of yours.
But if you are going to use dictionary definitions in an idiomatic discussion then gears must be switched.
Aloof:
Removed and distant. “Higher than” IS distant. Someone who is distant from another in a negative sense…say a slave in comparison to a master or an uneducated person compared to a highly educated one…would hardly be referred to as “aloof”.
They see Obama as somehow above them. Quite accurately. But instead of aspiring to his level, they brand him aloof and dislike him.
Lord!!! Where have you been living?
This is mainstream human behavior.
You are really, really stretching, Arthur.
I am not using any “dictionary definitions”, I am using the meaning and sense of the words as generally understood.
Aloof does not in any way mean above. It conveys a sense of coolness, of distance, and inaccessibility, and being closed off, not relative height. A person who is aloof is not warm, is not open, does not reach out to others, and projects a sense that if one reaches out to him he will not receive the contact. A person who is open and affable is the exact antithesis of a person who is aloof. He is warm, and he is open, he is accessible. He reaches out, and when someone reaches to him, he reaches back. Therefore, Obama cannot be both aloof and and warm and accessible. It is impossible to be both.
And yes, a person of lower station can indeed be aloof, and they often are, without in any way appearing to be “above” their superiors. Anyone who has had servants or other types of subordinates has experienced that.
So, you are still not addressing the question of how such a warm, affable man can be seen as aloof by so many people. I can see how racist people might see someone like Obama, as “uppity” or arrogant for rising above what they consider to be his “station”, but those are very different concepts from aloof.
I find Obama to be open, warm, accessible, personable, non-arrogant, and respectful. He seems very likeable and down-to-earth to me. And I say that as someone who is not and never has been a supporter of his.
I mistakenly hit the post button before I was through with the above reply.
To continue:
If you cannot see how some people…MANY people…could consider someone ‘aloof” who uses language as precisely and eloquently as does Senator Obama and pauses (as he parses) his statements with such efficiency and effect, then I fear that you simply do not get out and around very much.
Where do you live? Do you manage to go into working class stores or gatherings much? Try doing an Obama impersonation next time you speak to a WalMart sales clerk, a pick and shovel worker on the street or some tough denizen of say a country music/pool hall kind of bar. Do your best to sound like a VERY highly educated Harvard graduate and see the automatic hostility that is almost guaranteed to glint from the eyes of your conversation mate.
Obama lacks the common touch, Hurria, and that lack alone is liable to lose him this election.
Clinton had it, and so did JFK and RFK.
So it goes.
AG
P.S. I am NOT “talking down” to you. You make the same mistake with me as do the people about whom we are talking with Obama. This is quite understandable to me. I share some of his weaknesses.
Plus…I am not a politician and thus I feel free to be perfectly frank with people.
You don’t like it?
Unlike Barack Obama, I can one way or another say “Tough shit” without fear of losing an election.
And I do.
Regularly.
You don’t like it?
(You know what I’m going to say…)
“Obama lacks the common touch, Hurria…“
I could not disagree more, Arthur.
“I am NOT “talking down” to you.“
Oh, yes, you were. When you say to someone “come on, you are smarter than that”, you are talking down, particularly when you say it to someone who is AT LEAST your equal.
“You make the same mistake with me as do the people about whom we are talking with Obama. This is quite understandable to me. I share some of his weaknesses.“
Don’t flatter yourself.
While referencing some of my weaknesses?
Nice.
Y’know what, Hurria?
You don’t make a whole lot of sense, and I am through wasting time with you.
Sorry…go play in another sandbox.
AG
The fact that you are unable to understand someone does not mean they are not making sense, Arthur.
One “fault” you do not share with Obama is humility.
Aloof and elitist = uppity
Don’t you read code?
One day at a time.
Can we vote tomorrow already?
.
The marriage of the vice-presidential candidate’s pregnant teenage daughter could lift a flagging campaign.
Inside John McCain’s campaign the expectation is growing that there will be a popularity boosting pre-election wedding in Alaska between Bristol Palin, 17, and Levi Johnston, 18, her schoolmate and father of her baby. “It would be fantastic,” said a McCain insider. “You would have every TV camera there. The entire country would be watching. It would shut down the race for a week.”
"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."Oui, I think the Republicans are delusional. Such a wedding will precipitate a national wave of disgust and revulsion at the hypocrisy of the Republican party. It will demolish them for not only this election but for several yet to come.
Viva Obama!
Holy crap! Are the voters of this country really THAT shallow?!
Don’t answer that.
so right you are on all three points boooman.
as far as i’m concerned, it was all over as soon as Virginia went blue a few days ago.
and the final nail in the repukelican coffin was the first debate where obama convinced enough undecideds that he was indeed presidential material. he did good.
i’m now looking forward to there being 58-60 Democratic senators and a gain of 25-30 or more seats in the House.
there’s no time to fix it all up for the republicans, it’s way too far gone.
palin is a triple numbskull and will soon slink away to join the dan quayle hall of fame