What Palin Offers -- and What It Would Cost
She has a son going to Iraq; Joe Biden has a son going to Iraq. She has a baby with Down's Syndrome and is raising it with love; Biden lost a wife and daughter and raised his sons as only a truly loving father could have done.
She drives herself to work; he takes Amtrak home at night, not a chauffeured car. Her state is small; his is just as small -- even smaller. She is a staunch supporter of the war; Biden was the only Democratic presidential candidate to reject rapid withdrawal and to insist the situation is more complicated.
Yet if you didn't sense last night how deeply Sarah Palin channeled some of the country's deepest, most powerful currents of pent-up indignation and yearning, you don't sense the trouble we Democrats are in.
Rhetorically, she was the anti-Obama,. She was stirring precisely because she was so artless, matter-of fact, and "American" -- with no cadences or grand, historic resonances, but with plenty of mother wit and shrewdness. Credit her as much as the speechwriters..
The two currents she tapped -- the ones that roared up from so deep in the crowd that you could feel them riding on love more than hate -- weren't the ones unleashed by her or Rudy Giuliani's disparagements of Obama.
They were riptides of deeply wounded pride and groping loyalty, a yearning for vindication of something that is not to be disparaged at all.
The first such riptide was unleashed by Palin's and Giuliani's accounts of John McCain's career-threatening commitment, a year ago, when his campaign was hopeless, to an American military victory in Iraq, Right or wrong -- and i think it was wrong -- it was a commitment grounded in an uncommon courage that will be dismissed as stupidity only by smart-asses who really want to lose this election.
The second current was tapped by Palin's own grounded, calm confidence that "ordinary people's" common sense - her kind, and a lot of other people's - is what it takes to pull this country through its converging crises.
But if McCain and Palin bring character and faith of a kind which many Americans identify with instantly, they're also a lot more confused than even Ronald Reagan and the two George Bushes were about how to lead a government, and toward what.
For some reason, courage and generosity never showed McCain what they showed Dwight Eisenhower in the 1950s -- the true dangers of our military-industrial juggernaut in a world where corporations are more powerful and corrupting than states and where the biggest threats to liberty are no longer taxes-taxes-taxes, and the strongest defense of liberty is no longer what now passes for "national security."
Trapped into making war for laissez faire, conservatives such as McCain and Palin can't reconcile their yearning for a sacred, ordered liberty with their obeisance to every whim of global capital, which is abandoning Palin's small-town America and Obama's urban America, a capital whose injustices and consumer palliatives are subverting our republican institutions and character.
About all this, they haven't a clue. To find one, their folksy common-sense, defiant courage, and religious faith are more necessary than some of us acknowledge or even understand, and therefore we may lose the election.
But common sense, defiant courage, and faith, while necessary, are not sufficient, and that is why, if McCain and Palin win, they will lose the America they mean to defend, as surely as America lost the pointless, vicious war that killed 58,000 Americans and countless others and made McCain a hero.


Don't be so scared. She really wasn't all that good. Americans are looking for new ideas and real leadership. She offered none. Her personal story will only carry her so far. Obama and Biden are serious leaders. McCain and Palin look like lightweights, mostly about insulting their opponents and reciting platitudes. Palin's mocking tone was just a tad low class, I thought. It's better to show a bit more respect.
September 4, 2008 1:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree that Jim Sleeper needs to shed the Democratic Party's traditional Stockholm Syndrome and suit up for some smash-mouth politics. I mean, for crying out loud: some cynical nobody Republican woman from north of nowhere waves a baby blanket at him and his knees start to buckle? Whatever happened to laughing off the ludicrous? The repugnant troglodytes face the real problems this election cycle, not us Democrats.
It only took this Vietnam Veteran about twenty-five minutes after hearing some of this typical republican trash-talking to conceive and compose a little campaign ballad in dishonor of the disreputable diva Sarah Palin. I call it:
It takes a hell of a lot more than a baby blanket and another snarling, ghost-written republican speech to scare this Democrat. If Mrs. Palin wants to climb into the ring and throw some low-blow punches at better, more qualified Democratic Party candidates for high office, then I intend to see that she gets both her political eyes dotted and a few of her own political teeth knocked out. She asked for it, and she has no complaint coming when she gets it. She has apparently never been to a fight on the ice where occasionally a hockey game breaks out.
September 4, 2008 4:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
For the "smashmouth," knock-em-upside-the-head crowd on our side, I see a couple of encouraging signs:
1) Palin's attack on Obama, which shoved aside any phony deference to his race, frees Democrats to slam her without fear of being called sexist-- as long as they do it as well as she did.
2) Michael Murry's comment should remind all of us -- and we should not hesitate to remind the American people -- that the war in which McCain showed so much courage killed 58,000 Americans and countless others for nothing: Vietnam won but wound up in the capitalist world orbit, anyway, as it would have done had we not fired a shot. And it was liberal Democrats, running scared of the right, who started that war.
You see, my post isn't a caution against fighting. It's a caution against dismissing with a sneer what we're up against. A lot depends on Joe Biden, to show, as I said at the end of my post, that Palin and McCain can't lead us anywhere because they haven't a clue.
September 4, 2008 10:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
Jim:
What states is she going to bring that McCain didn't already have? We already know the first tier states: MI, FL, OH, PA. We know that Obama is likely to win MI and PA, is leading in FL and tied in OH. Does she change that equation in your mind? Is she the reason Ohio is tied?
What second tier states, if any, does she secure? Is she going to secure VA and CO for McCain? I haven't seen any polls out of there since her nomination. What about NV and MN? Has her inclusion on the ticket brought them?
Kerry states plus one, folks, Kerry states plus one. We already have Iowa, evidently (a Bush state), with a recent poll showing Obama up by a mind blowing 15 points. If Obama loses Ohio, he makes up for it by taking NV and NM, right?
I am just trying to understand your hand-wringing. This election is about swing voters, not the base. The base, despite ludicrous conventional wisdom, had no intention of staying home on election day and no intention of voting for Obama. The only thing she potentially brings is better fundraising, because she doesn't bring any "base" votes he didn't already have. So what does she bring to swing voters?
Just curious, would love to hear what others think.
September 4, 2008 3:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think one real threat posed by Palin [and she's got a basketful] is that state that were poised to at last elect a Democratic Senator [MN, AK & NC, to name three] will now be out of reach because of all the nutjobs who flock to the polls.
September 4, 2008 10:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you for the reply, Mr. Sleeper. I appreciate your taking the time to compose it. In lieu of a point-by-point reposte, I will simply post links to Glenn Greenwald of Salon.com and John Stewart of The Daily Show for the necessary and proper skewering of a vicious republican-party hypocrisy that not even a sneer could dignify:
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/09/04/gop/
http://www.truthdig.com/avbooth/item/20080904_busted_rove_morris_and_oreilly_flip_flop_on_gender_bias/
Personally, I find myself waiting with un-baited breath for the usual-suspect Democratic Party "heavyweights" -- Senator Clinton, former President Clinton, former Vice President Al Gore, Barack Obama, Joe Biden, et al -- to publicly rip President Deputy Dubya Bush a new asshole for scurrilously equating us anti-war Vietnam Veterans (the "angry Left," Dubya labeled us) with the North Vietnamese whom "the heroic" John McBush claims tortured him for bombing and killing so many of them for not attacking America.
Yet somehow I suspect that any defense of us "liberal" Vietnam Veterans will not materialize in my lifetime; certainly not during the present duck-and-run-for-cover Obama/Biden campaign. I can still only-too-vividly remember Senator You-Know-Her disdainfully recommending that if we "in the anti-war crowd" didn't like her vote to authorize Dubya's stupid vendetta in Iraq, then we could "vote for someone else." So I did as she suggested. Barack Obama benefitted.
I will also never forget Bogus Bill Clinton boasting: "I have always defended President Bush against the Left on Iraq." It seems, you see, that the Clinton Partners in Pathos -- and perhaps Obama and Biden, as well -- have just as jaundiced a view about us "angry liberal" Vietnam Veterans as do the cynical and vicious republicans who mocked John Kerry's service and wounds in Vietnam. The complete absence of a peep of protest from our self-styled "champions" confirms me in my justifiably jaundiced view of the Democratic Party leadership's congenital campaign cowardice.
In short: I'll do my own sneering at (and attacking of) reactionary fascist republicans, if you don't mind. You see, I've learned in my sixty-years of life not to wait around for a play-it-safe Democratic Party to stand up to (and beat down) imperial fascist militarism in browbeaten America. As you correctly point out, a self-styled "liberal hawk" Democrat would rather start (or continue) a war he or she didn't believe in than have the republicans accuse them of not wanting needless war as badly as republicans do. True for JFK in Vietnam and true for Barack Obama in Afghanistan and Georgia. So, since I won't likely live long enough to see the happy day when a Democrat-for-President grows a pair of anti-war testicles (or ovaries -- whatever the relevant gender metaphor), I'll just unapologetically do the needed sneering and jeering at repugnant republicans myself. Baby-blanket-and-breast-pump browbeating doesn't work on me -- especially when a snarky pit-bull nobody republican with lipstic starts shooting off her malignant mouth.
September 4, 2008 7:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
That is truly wonderful, sir. Well done.
September 5, 2008 12:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
"you don't sense the trouble we Democrats are in."
What trouble? Comfortable lead in the polls, a well thought out carefully planned, well funded campaign on the Dems side.
Just the opposite on the Repub side.
That says "trouble????"
September 5, 2008 12:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not so pessimistic. I don't sense trouble. You say it strikes you of the populism Reagan tapped into in the 80's. I don't see it that way. Once the 'what a great speech she delivered' wears off and people really see what she said and stands for I don't think she will be viewed as a champion of the people but as an fringe fanatic. It struck me more as Pat Buchanan culture war speech of 1992.
But who knows maybe Obama/Biden will be too 'gentlemanly' and not go after her and McCain with the ferocity they should. BTW...it is still McCain at the top of the ticket, right? It isn't Obama vs. Palin for the presidency. Attack McCain's record, policies, advisers (Phil 'A country of whiners' Gramm), age, health and temperament...and his VP running mate who has many things she is alleged to have done in Alaska which raise serious questions.
It is very simple McCain/Palin = 4 more years of George Bush. Palin won't/shouldn't be the defining factor in this election by a long shot...unless the D's allow it to happen.
Imo...gloves come off and fire away.
September 4, 2008 1:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Libertine,
this was 'mostly' a typical rah rah Republican speech; punch lines, applauds lines, flags, patriotism, Christ, I almost expected to see George M Cohan come out on stage. What made this speech a tad differenet was the Republican NEED
to make the event a barn burner becasue she's such a lightweight.
By the way, did all the avatars disappear from your connection too?
September 4, 2008 8:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
I completely agree that everyone at the convention was "thrilled, so thrilled" ecstatically and vociferously as a what-are-we-going-to-do-with-this? response. Like McCain on the tarmac embracing the shotgun groom, they just have to be pleased beyond all previous limits, what else could they have possibly wanted than this platter of ____.
September 4, 2008 4:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Both McCain and Palin are bullies. They have survived by taking advantage of others... over on CNN she was being slammed by Roland Martin...
See here...
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/9/4/0829/95775/196/585598
welcome to the big leagues... those comments will definitely come back to haunt them.
September 4, 2008 1:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
What? Palin represents "some of the country's deepest, most powerful currents of pent-up indignation and yearning"?
Are you insane?
All of the pent-up indignation and yearning is about the war we fought for no reason, the money we borrowed to fight that war, the incompetent domestic governance we've had because of the money we diverted to that war and, more than anything, the inflation that's been a result of our devaluing the dollar in order to pay for that war!
How on Earth does a lightweight nitwit like Palin get to win the indignation argument?
September 4, 2008 1:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
destor23 says:
Destor, perhaps he's referring to the right wing christians, the racists, and the homophobes.
They're forever upset.
September 4, 2008 9:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, their appetite for victimhood will never be fulfilled by any amount of power. So let's give them none. Think of it as a away of doing born losers a favor.
September 4, 2008 11:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is a very fine, incisive and thought-provoking piece of writing. Just wanted to say that because I have supported criticism of some of your work in the past.
I'm not interested in adding any two cents on Palin's speech at this point. Would just add that I hope, like I suspect you are hoping, that Obama can rise to execute yet another change in his finely self-crafted image, one that is about relating to people out there in a way he hasn't shown much of as yet. (Anyone who takes offense at what I said in that last pharse, let me give this pre-emptive: the man has published two books and both were very largely about defining and refining his image/persona/beliefs.)
September 4, 2008 1:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
I do not know what everyone else saw ... but I saw a viciousness in Palin. (Her lies, exaggerations and spin turned my stomach.) In giving the media a finger, she may have made a mistake. In response, the media may be no where near done vetting her.
September 4, 2008 2:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
A female friend stated and expressed how Indignation is exactly how she felt after Palin's comment "How dare you" when questions are raised by sincere people inquiring to know, how she can raise so many kids and still perform her duties.
What responsibility to her family, does she kick to the curb, in her quest for fame and glory.
My friend told me that older women who choose to have children, in advanced years, run the risk of abnormal births. Does anyone know what causes Down Syndrome? What RISK CAN OCCUR.
Is it RISKY BEHAVIOR?
How dare she question my friends motives as an insincere question.
It's an example of her SELF Rightous attitude, attributing bad motives for a ligitimate question.
That's all we need, another 4 years of haughtiness. How dare WE THE PEOPLE question the VP or Republicans.
September 4, 2008 2:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
Generally, the risks of a chromosonal abnormality goes up as a potential mother ages, so much, so that the testing is routinely done on every pregnant woman above the age of 35.
PS) I'd advise anyone to tread lightly on this subject because one, it could happen to anybody and as George Stephanopolis said last week; There's something like five million folks in that same boat.
September 4, 2008 2:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
Odds are about 1 in 2000 for a teenager, about 1 in 40 for a 45 year old. But the vast majority of babies with Downs are born to younger mothers, because, hey, the vast majority of all babies are born to younger mothers.
Every woman who gets pregnant is taking a risk. Living in a tight-knit community close to extended family as Gov. Palin has all her life, the prospect of raising a special needs child while continuing her career might not have been quite so intimidating as it would to someone with less of a support system. In any case, I think it is stupid to try to paint her as reckless on this count.
September 4, 2008 9:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
The comments below are not necessarily my own, and are issues raised by female friends.
I agree with you about treading lightly.
She stated that she would be an advocate, for people who have children with special needs. Sounds great
I could back a cause like that.
How do we now advocate and yet don’t discuss it?
Was it for the sympathy vote? Using her child for political gain is crass.
HOW DARE YOU
As a woman did she have a choice? Do other woman have a choice?
When she say’s she’ll advocate, advocate for what? Health care?
Advocate more government jobs, with benefits, paid by taxpayers, to alleviate financial pressures, created by caring for family members with special needs.
Then decide she can take a job, with so much demand, shirking her responsibilities to give 100% family first.
Many women leave the work force for a time, or change jobs, understanding, you can’t serve two Masters, either you give full devotion to one or the other. Whatever her excuses, she’ll not convince me that she’s Superwoman.
It’s one thing to have a working mom doing all she can to provide for her family. It’s another to have the ability to stay home, raising our progeny.
Instead like some crackhead queen, go for the high.
Leaving the kids to fend for themselves, letting the daughters play Cinderella, until someone rescues them.
How dare I could believe this could happen in America
September 4, 2008 10:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
Putin won't play softball.....
September 4, 2008 2:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
... or hockey. But he WILL spot gross ignorance in foreign affairs immediately! Yup. Yup.
September 4, 2008 2:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
JFK at Vienna in 1961?
September 4, 2008 4:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
All heat and no light.
September 4, 2008 2:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
If she and McPOW try the attitude they have about liberals on Putin, it would backfire badly. What McPOW did in Georgia will have lasting consequences. Bush thought he could threaten WW3 get away with it. You notice they have retreated somewhat from they idea that they can do anything. They had to back down because they couldn't back it up with real action. Do you really think americans want to fight WW3? I seriously doubt it. Most people want peace for a good reason.
September 4, 2008 2:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
Zeno,
excluding the military industrial complex, most people don't want to start a new Cold War.
September 4, 2008 8:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
You know you have to wonder with the rising inequality in America. Aren't fewer and fewer Americans benefiting from the Corporate Military Complex. Who will fight these wars? What are they going to round up all the unemployed and send them to war? I know it work for Germany for a little while but at what cost. The promise that fascism offers is temporary at best. The world would be left in ruin in the long run and the future of the civilized world in question.
September 4, 2008 2:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think Palin has talent. She can deliver a speach well and has an ability to connect with an audience. But she was connecting in a sort of mean spirited way, connecting to the lesser common denominator. She definitely can do attack dog, but doesn't understand nuance. Overall the tone of the evening was very negative and insular. Palin's speech was no exception. I was very put off by her sarcasm. But I do recognize her potential to appeal. I looked at the discussion thread on cnn.com talking about her speech and the impressions were overwhelmingly negative. Pitbull with lipstick? I guess that was apt.
September 4, 2008 3:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
Bademus,
the Dems need to sic someone like Hillary on her, maybe Barbara Boxer. Just a few words now and then from any of those two would take Palin down a few pegs and not risk a male going after her.
They should check into her 'book burning' thing at the local library when she was Mayor.
September 4, 2008 8:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
JohnW,
Spot on. Hillary would have her guts for garters. Boxer is more of stiletto artist. I like Donna Brazile, who has such a beautiful laugh as she pounds the crap of a lightweight. Pelosi would do well if she can just stay off desert isles. No lack of ladies I wouldn't want to cross in the Dem ranks.
z2v
September 4, 2008 6:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think any of the Democratic ladies that you named need to "take her on." Not one thing that Palin said could be considered "wise" or "thoughtful." I think we need to fight both of them on issues, temperament, and diplomatic assets.
No one with more than two brain cells can say in honesty that McCain OR Palin have wisdom, a steady temperament, or even a desire to have diplomatic assets.
They are both nasty, vindictive, and would carry that in to our national and international relations. Do we need more of that? NO!
September 4, 2008 8:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Cville,
The Republic Party is going to run the same kind of campaign that they did in 2000 and 2004. In 2000, the Republics manufactured silly little fibs about Internet invention, Love Canal, Love Story, etc inn order to portray a Gore as a silly fibber. While W was lying about his DUI, his budget, his "humble" foreign policy, etc. In 2004, Kerry, who volunteered for the only duty where someone on a boat could be killed, was Swift-boated while the deserter and the draft dodger were portrayed as tough on national security. And then there was the silly little flip-flop, against it before he was for it, smear. And the rich, elitist tag -- coming from a Bush!! And the windsurfer ad -- coming from a "rancher" who's afraid to sit a horse, but wears spandex shorts to bicycle around his horse and cattle free ranch.
Nastiness, dishonest nastiness, unopposed nastiness, has played a large role in winning the last 2 election. Was it the attack bitch or the moralistic prig divorcee who trotted out the "against it before he was for it" line on Wednesday? Or was it both? Is Schmidt leading this campaign for the Republics?
September 5, 2008 10:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
Zeno, poor people have no power. Hungry people will do anything for food - even go to war. Make the country poor and the Prez will command legions ... which fits well should he have an imperialistic view.
September 4, 2008 3:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe, but i can go another way just as easily.
September 4, 2008 3:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
I meant it can go another way easily....
September 4, 2008 3:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
Also, if the poor come together, the do have power, the power of the majority.
September 4, 2008 3:17 AM