"it's that they are straddling between who they really are or want to be - people who deeply believe in the idea of stripping away the weeds that are growing up around American political power - and the basic block-and-tackle traditional marketing process which is a modern campaign."

I'll go you one better- I don't think McCain can mentally truly make the break with the Washington Way that would be necessary. He's like the black sheep of the family that everybody knows is a rebel, but at the end of the day still shows up from Thanksgiving dinner. He just isnt going to turn that flamethrower of a wit we know he has on Washington the way so many of us need to see it done.

And Palin just isn't up to taking that step against the campaigns orders. Maybe she will never be, but certainly not now. She's a double A pitcher brought in to close game 7, she's not going to shake off pitches.

I call it a lack of imagination by this campaign. They are so close and grasping so desperately for that defining message they know they can win with. But thats not the same thing as the genuine article. They (or McCain certainly) just isnt feeling it. He's just not going to drop a kettle of acid on Barney Frank or Chris Dodd... certainly not Bonior or Bush.

I'm sure in his mind he's just being 'bipartisan' and seeking to change the tone, but in reality he just doesnt have it in him to burn down the place he's spent so long in. Its one thing to oppose earmarks, another to try to get your life long friends run out of town on a rail. He doesnt have the stones, and even more sadly, he doesnt know he doesnt have them. He doesnt see it.

I'd say Andrew Jackson is a better antecedent for Sarah Palin than WJ Bryan. He, like Palin, was an example of the Authenticity of Ignorance. I've read he thought the Earth was flat. His populist economic policy resulted in a terrible mess in 1837. His views with respect to Indians were unenlightened even by the standards of his time. But he represented what was then the West.

Second time around we did better, with Lincoln. Lincoln had political skills, but, at least by 1860, he was also deeply involved and had mature, although evolving, views on the main question of the day. Palin? Crammed hard for the test, but was left with little but her script. She couldn't defend her opinions on any number of issues; she doesn't even realize places her opinions (which may day from day-before-yersterday) conflict with McCain's.

Palin probably did manage to stop the bleeding; maybe she saved Missouri, North Carolina, and Indiana. But McCain hasn't made any appreciable inroads in the scenario of Kerry+IA+NM+CO, and that's not even counting VA and FL. I doubt if Palin's debate changes that.

Yes, but she speaks to us bitter middle Americans who are clinging to,our families, guns and religion. You know the ones you elitists think need ruling, by you. FOAD

Uh, Robo??

A.L.

>The successful consultants, who have won dozens of races, or they wouldn't be advising at that level...

You mean like Bob Shrum?

As a conservative I do find it troubling that both Palin and McCain seem to think they need to out-populist the D's to win. Not that there isanything wrong with doing the "Common Man" stuff.

I like Palin and I think she is pretty good. I just hope she doesn't turn out to be Jesse Ventura. The sister told me last night about an interview she heard with the First Dude - he apparently commented that they had a real life to go back to if she didn't win; they haven't spent the last 30 years trying to position themselves to be President. I don't know what McCain, Obama or Biden will do if they don't win - success outside of public life doesn't seem to be what they want.

A.L.,

I certainly wouldn't defend robo's choice of terms, but I do understand getting a bit provoked by AJL's ongoing condescenscion.

Democrats will vote for the Democrat. Republicans will vote for the Republican. That’s how it has always been.
John McCain and Joe Biden are politicians. They know their numbers, and they know Washington.
What is different about this election is culture. Where is America going, culturally?
This is where Barack Obama and Sarah Palin come in.
Some say race is a factor against Obama, but I say it is the opposite: Obama has been propelled upwards by his skin color. The positive ‘racism’ (Black-Americans supporting him, White-Americans feeling guilty about the legacy of slavery) far outweighs the few remaining pockets of negative racism (traditional bigotry) that still exist in our country.
Whereas Black-Americans account for 12 percent of America, women number about 51 percent.
This is where America’s reaction to Sarah Palin gets interesting. It is not only sexism at play, but regionalism too. Keep in mind that America’s reaction could be vastly different from the media’s reaction, which tries to intervene in how America thinks and observes for itself.
For the last decade, American women have been trying to become either the fifth ‘Manhattanite’ cast member of ‘Sex and the City’ or a ‘Desperate Housewife’ on Wisteria Lane. The White male executives who created, packaged and marketed these female stereotypes have made plenty of money as women across America spent time and money trying to become ‘Carrie Bradshaw’. But somehow, these wanna-be’s never lived it up as glamorously.
Sarah Palin is all about God, Family, Country and Shot-Guns. She is a completely New American Woman. She was not constructed by a Public Relations agency in either New York City or Los Angeles. She is not a Hollywood creation. Sarah Palin is simply a product of American small-town wholesomeness: happy childhood, hard work, self-discipline and a bright, and almost chirpy, outlook on life.
Sarah is not the high-maintenance, drama-seeking, bulimia-suffering fragile caricature of a working woman as peddled by TV.
Her husband, Todd Palin, is not a neurotic metro-sexual obsessing over the price of organic arugula, or whining about his commitment phobias to his shrink. He is a man’s man, and frankly, a woman’s man: just your regular American guy—wholesome and uncomplicated.
Sarah and Todd are American ‘retro’, but it is retro made cool all over again. They are a brand of Americana that has been tested and true—genuine, confident and mature.
Something happened to the Obama brand on the way to the election. It is as if the fashion gods decided that “Didn’t you know? No one wears Obama after Labour Day.”
Once exotic and different, the Obama brand has been turned into something weird and creepy. “Obama’s Witnesses,” “Obama’s Blue-Shirts,” “The Obama Youth Fraternity League”…Plus, after the initial swooning over him, most people still think that there’s something “off” about Obama; as if he’s hollow, or hiding something.
Today, the Obama brand has become decidedly “uncool”. That’s why people tuned out from watching him debate McCain.
On the other hand, Americans are discovering that they are intrigued by Sarah Palin. The TV pundits may want to spin things their way, but the surest measure of who won the Vice-Presidential Debate is that, at the end, the vast majority of viewers walked away from their TV sets and said to themselves, “I’d like to see more of Sarah Palin—unfiltered and uncut.”
The Obama camp may be celebrating too early. There are still plenty of people out there that haven’t made up their mind, and Obama’s triumphalism may begin to sound like arrogance, and he’s already been accused of that.
This is indeed a culturally interesting time to be an American.

"Biden was smoothly spinning - and even his most outrageously stupid statements - like putting NATO troops into Lebanon (how'd that work out last time, Joe?) - were delivered with assurance and forceful confidence."

So is being able to stand before the American People and spiel off idiotic and clueless statement a plus or a minus?

Sounds like you are giving him points for being a consumate snakeoil salesman

I understand you can now get arugula at McDonalds, which sounds pretty mainstream to me, in the salad. Can someone explain the faux populist obsession over the stuff? (The odds are literally 4:1 in my favor that mike is posting from an urban or suburban area.)

The small-town wholesomeness shtick is a fantasy. Checked out where the meth labs are?

"The small-town wholesomeness shtick is a fantasy. Checked out where the meth labs are?"

Of course it is. Mostly in the eyes of the aforementioned elitists.

That's the reason the sleaze that keeps getting slung at Palin seems to bounce. (And if people had been paying attention, off of Clinton too, though with him there was a tad more justification, I think....) There's wheat, and there's chaff.

And then there's fertilizer, and that's where Obama/Biden comes in....

"The small-town wholesomeness shtick is a fantasy. Checked out where the meth labs are?"

And then check out where the market is.

Of course it makes sense for the labs to be out in the sticks. easier to do in isolated areas and much easier to tap off liquid ammonia. Not many tanks of that stuff sitting around in the center of big cities.

"Democrats will vote for the Democrat. Republicans will vote for the Republican. That’s how it has always been"

Not true I am the Grandson of a man named Stonewall Jackson Puckett, want to guess how many generations of Democrats in that side of the family?

When I moved to Iowa I and had to register to vote, I decided to register with the Party I had been voting for in the National Elections, back home being registered Democrat. meant you could vote in the local elections, there not being any Republican Primaries. ;-)

I consider myself a Conservative Libertarian I have brother who I consider a Bleeding Hear Liberal for years we have argued over politics.

This year? We are both NOT voting for Obama. At the first we agreed that Obama was IOO wrong for the Country but we thought he did have character and integrity, but research since of his escapades in Cook County Chicago Politics have convinced me my first impression was mistaken.

I don't know of ANY off my relatives back home who are going to vote for the Party they are registered in

Either for Presideent or Senator, they have always been crazy about Mitch McConnel

Nope Democrats don't ALWAYS vote for Democrats, sometimes they look at the Big City Democrats and think

Those folks don't even care what people like me think and they probably don't even think I CAN think, but that fella in the Other Party? He sounds like I thnk.

"#9 from Andrew J. Lazarus at 6:43 am on Oct 04, 2008
I understand you can now get arugula at McDonalds, which sounds pretty mainstream to me, in the salad. Can someone explain the faux populist obsession over the stuff? "

Well let us look at the quote shall we?
“Anybody gone into Whole Foods lately and see what they charge for arugula?” the senator said. “I mean, they’re charging a lot of money for this stuff.”

The state of Iowa, for all of its vast food production, does not have a Whole Foods, a leading natural and organic foods market. The closest? Omaha, Minneapolis or Kansas City.

Now this was in Adel, Iowa population 3435 at the 2000 census.

They probably eat leaf lettuce, from the garden most likely blackseeded simpson, but arugula? Never heard of it. Whole foods? Never heard of it.

If anyone DID have arugula in their backyard garden, they might not even know it, they would probably call it Rocket.

At least that was what the seed packs in my Dad's Farm Store were marked by BS Simpson was almost all of the sales.

The guy was clueless about who he was talking to.

I have brother who I consider a Bleeding Hear Liberal

Meaning, what? He is opposed to torturing women who have an abortion? He's to the Right of Genghis Khan?

Nice little story but utterly meaningless in the grand scheme.

After re-watching many parts of the debate I am now convinced Palin was sent up there to seduce American male voters over the TV. She sure worked it with her hair flips and "shout-outs" and folksy little winks. It was more "Starsearch" than Starsearch itself. And guess what? Most people ain't buyin' this year, thankfully (although it's a catch-22 because the reason people won't stand for this fluff and flirtation anymore is that things look so grim for most Mainstreeters....and regardless of her behavior and affectations, McCain and Palin and Republicans care not one single whit about them, in fact they have abused their good will, and they know it now that just because you act like they do doesn't mean you think alike and believe in the same things).

In some ways it was a disgraceful performance that demeans the office of VP and insults the electorate.

"And then check out where the market is."

By and large it's in the same sticks.

It's not an issue of a lack of rural dental care.

Checked out where the meth labs are?

Mexico?

#14 vista- " McCain and the Republicans care not one single whit for them" Damn, that would be a relief- I have about had it with Government "caring" about me. Seems like every time I am "cared about", my wallet gets thinner. Last time it was about $200,000 thinner as my "caring" Democratic County Gov. downzoned my property.

Of course this "caring" was just great for the "environment" even though it meant this laborer had to borrow a large sum to build his house instead of funding it from a land sale, very probably eliminating any chance of retirement.

And of course there was the time my State Insurance Commissioner "cared "about me by mandating insurance companies cover all sorts of irrelevant issues and consequently driving almost all of them out of the state, leaving me with a choice of $$$ insurance I could not afford, or no insurance. Think a healthy guy could buy just a simple catastrophic policy? So sorry, I got "cared" about.

The most dangerous politicians of all are the save the world types. I'd rather have a pragmatic bastard any day.

Hey Robo - if you think I'm opposed to a populist remaking of American politics, you're just not f**king paying attention. I don;t mind getting slammed for what I say, but it irritates the hell out of me when people who don't have the attention span to read what I plainly write walk by and toss bricks.

A.L.

Andrew - a few responses - I've been meaning to go unpack the old Yglesias "hey city people are a community too" and eviscerate it, so thanks for reminding me.

No, rural America is not a hotbed of virtue. But it is the repository of the founding myths that define America, and one of the challenges we face today is that a lot of people want to redefine those myths into more urban, European ones - and a lot of people persist in clinging - bitterly - to the old ones.

A.L.

But it is the repository of the founding myths that define America, and one of the challenges we face today is that a lot of people want to redefine those myths into more urban, European ones - and a lot of people persist in clinging - bitterly - to the old ones.

I'm just not sure why these myths are so tenacious. How many people on this thread are posting from a farmhouse? From the porch of the only general store in the county? We enjoy freedom of movement; people who eant to live in small-town America can go there any time. They don't. We've got exurbanites and suburbanites trying to tap into some sort of prelapsarian America. I might be so crass as to point out that their picture is invariably all-white and all-Christian. (I don't see the urban outlook as European, except in the exaggerated view of its enemies who need to place it in opposition to American. Multi-ethnic immigration is not a European concept and came to New York City generations before it came to London.)

Palin, of course, ties into this. She and her running mate, the son and grandson of admirals married into a fortune, are out there trying to paint their opponent, whose family was once on food stamps, as "elitist". When it's time to pick a president, there's all the contempt for "book l’arnin’" in favor of truthiness. No one would pick an oncologist that way. The generally perceived need for someone who understands what a credit default swap is, or the history of Sunni vs. Shia, at this moment is a misfortune for the Republican ticket. Cry me an urban river.

Yes, Andrew - but here's the issue. As I hassled Trent Telenko for a long time ago, our politics is fundamentally (and thankfully) un-European. European politics is rigidly hierarchical, a combination of administrative/ educational meritocracy and nepotism.

I worry a lot about American politics going that way; you may suggest that you want a highly-trained oncologist but there is no similar linkage between training and good outcomes in politics.

That's part of the struggle we're going through right now; people who see themselves as having won the educational/achievement tournament expect that they will control things; others disagree.

A.L.

I'm just not sure why these myths are so tenacious.

First of all, you should ask yourself how they became myths at all. Myths don't come out of nowhere: they have roots. In fact, every myth has two sets of roots: one in the human mind, and the other in a given culture.

The cowboy myth is the American version of the older myths built around knights errant: the mounted warrior going into the wilderness to encounter danger and adventure. He fights with prowess and honor against those who are either savage or evil -- that is, either of an alien civilization, or those who have betrayed the ideals of his own.

If you look at those myths, in turn, you will find that the writers who composed the legends and books of ethics were looking back at early Germanic warrior kings, but also at Roman sources (where the equites were also a heroic class). And if you follow that back, you'll find the German side traces to the very earliest material we have on them; and the Roman side through the Greeks, where the Homeric heroes often enjoyed the formulaic praise: "Breaker of Horses."

Why are they tenacious? Because for untold thousands of years, these qualities have been the qualities that allowed warriors to forge a space in the world for themselves, so they might have civilization and peace for their families; and defend that space, that civilization, those families, against all comers.

These myths are at once The West, in its living incarnation; and yet the vision of what it means to be a part of the West in a particularly American way.

I pray they never weaken. You ought to pray so too: you may yet need these things.

Whether you do or not, though, it should not surprise you. It should be no surprise to find a myth surviving in the suburbs, when it has already survived the transition from Greece to Rome, from warrior bands to medieval poets, when it was split into English and French and Spanish and Portugese and German and still retained its essential quality. The chiefly-English, Scot, Irish and Welsh settlers moving west with their copies of Ivanhoe encountered a culture moving north from Spain whose myths were almost the same: and the ease with which they united across the Southwest is testiment to that fact. For example: almost all the "Western" horse furniture, the classic cowboy stuff, is of Spanish descent. If you look at the roots of the names of those things you will find the knights of the reconquista behind them.

This is also why generations of immigrants came to America and found that this myth was a way they could readily fit into the culture. Take a look at the filming crew behind High Noon, and you'll see how instantly Europeans could grasp what was at work here, and braid themselves into it if they chose.

Frankly, I think the Europeans will eventually come back to us -- not that we shall follow them. I think I understand why they are where they are, but I believe that they too will yet find that they need these things. America preserves them.

Ok, time for an actual small-town gal to weigh in here.
I'm not writing this from a farmhouse; just an 1178 square foot 1935 bungalow in a medium-sized town. (Under 150,000). I was born and raised in a much smaller place. (Under 20,000 at that time, I'm guessing- and it was the county seat!)
I don't normally like to wade into things like this, but what I've been reading on this thread is pure, 100% all-american bigotry. This presidential race has created an all-new get-out-of-jail-free, hate'em-and-look-cool ethnicity: the small town dweller.
Ah, yes: since some small towns have meth labs, that of course means we're mostly stoned and tootheless in our backwater cesspools.
(Didn't some people used to say that certain groups "had rhythm" and "liked watermellon"?)
And of course, we're all "white and christian."
(Guess I'll have to go tell that to the members of the two synagogues in my home town- and the Hari Krishna temple just up the road. Ooh, and my parent's Pakistani and Indian doctors will want to know. And when I'm finished there, I'll run back here and tell all the members of our local synagogues, mosques and Mormon temples that it's time to pack up and go.)
As for that "all white, all Christian" meme, consider this: Asra Q Nomani wrote her groundbreaking muslim/feminist work "Standing Alone In Mecca" while living in Morgantown, Wv- another small town. She moved back there to do it- after having been raised there.
Guess she just likes living in fear among toothless meth addicts.
Geez, people. I started reading Winds of Change because it was better than this. What has happened?

#23:

You do have a friend on the masthead.

I write from a log cabin on the Etowah river. I ride horses, sometimes train horses, when I'm not working for the military. I am glad that there's internet access, even way out here; but the rest of what the cities have to offer, the cities can keep.

It's good to meet you, though. I'm always glad to learn that there's another of my sentiment out there. :)

Lynne -

I wouldn't take it personally.

If Sarah Palin were, say, a diabetic, then of course the left would pronounce diabetics unfit for public office. In fact, they would declare that diabetics are awful, horrible people, and a colossal drain on public health resources. Their use of insulin would be compared to heroin addiction, and we would be told that it causes violence and dementia.

It would be considered an insult to the entire country (especially to women and minorities!) that a diabetic would even be called a human being.

A writer observed: "We grow good people in our small towns, with honesty, sincerity, and dignity." I know just the kind of people that writer had in mind when he praised Harry Truman.

I grew up with those people.

They are the ones who do some of the hardest work in America ... who grow our food, run our factories, and fight our wars.

They love their country, in good times and bad, and they're always proud of America. I had the privilege of living most of my life in a small town.

Our factories aren't in small towns. People are leaving our rural areas to find work. Have been for generations.

I'm not aware of anyone data that small towns are over-represented in our armed forces, although it's possible.

The less populated parts of Idaho have become associated with our homegrown white supremacist movement. The Aryan Nations say they love our country, too. They just hate maybe a quarter of the people in it.

Incidentally, I don't think that Morgantown, West Virginia is what Palin had in mind when she talked about small towns. As I'm sure you know, it's home to WVU and Kerry ran much better there than WV-wide (although he still lost).

Outside some long-lost mythology of the knight-errant, I'm not sure what these special "small town" values are. I know everyone on my block. We have neighborhood parties. Of course, I happen to live in a 1900-square-foot 1916 house in a city of 150,000 myself. It just happens to be part of the SF Bay Area.

Our factories aren't in small towns.

A nontrivial number of them are. The textile industry in America is chiefly a small-town concern. So is the poultry industry -- I am told that Gainesville, GA, is the leading exporter of chicken to the world. Cumming, GA, also has a large Tyson plant. It's grown somewhat in recent years, but was a very small town in my youth (when the Tyson plant was still active, and a major employer).

People are leaving our rural areas to find work.

The advent of the internet means that more people can remain in rural regions and work than have been able to do heretofore. I expect this trend to continue as telecommuting becomes more accepted, and as gas prices continue to rise. Being able to grow your own food is a real virtue in the modern environment, as is being able to supplement your family's meat with game.

I'm not aware of anyone data that small towns are over-represented in our armed forces, although it's possible.

I'm not aware of data that breaks it down that finely either. However, there is data that suggests that the northeast and California are vastly underrepresented in military recruiting. The South and the mountain West are the main regions for our military, with the midwest coming close to (a bit below) parity.

Outside some long-lost mythology of the knight-errant, I'm not sure what these special "small town" values are.

My point is that it isn't long lost, but a living tradition. Still, if you don't understand it, may I suggest a few books by Louis L'amour? Consider it oppo research. You might even enjoy them. :)

Andrew, the elevator pitch version of those myths is simple - in a stable, closed, hierarchical society, people a) know their place and stick to it - what else is all that 19th century English literature about? - and b) they have no choice but accept the lot they are given.

America allows individuals to reinvent themselves - originally by moving out - by coming here and staking out a place in one of the small communities or literally, by moving out to the boondocks and scratching out a living.

The social order in America is supposed to be more fragile than the economic and political orders.

That's less true than it was, and the social 'winners' are advocating - strongly - that is be even less true tomorrow than it is today, and that's a big part of the social/political tension we're seeing right now.

How's that?

A.L.

The less populated parts of Idaho have become associated with our homegrown white supremacist movement. The Aryan Nations say they love our country, too. They just hate maybe a quarter of the people in it.

um, for every Militia Group and Neo Nazi party there is a Symbionese Liberation Army, a MOVE, or a group of Weathermen. All of which grew in highly populated urban areas.
My point being that extremism is not confined to only outlying territories.

Our factories aren't in small towns.

You might want to take a look at industrial production in the Mid Ohio Valley before you make a blanket statement.
And, btw, if factory production is not in small towns, I don't recall it being centered in urban areas, either.

I should point out that "factory" work helped put me through college. The place where I worked is still in operation, as well.

As I'm sure you know, it's home to WVU and Kerry ran much better there than WV-wide (although he still lost).

So the redeeming feature of Morgantown is that it voted for Kerry?

Case closed, sir. You have proven my point.

A.J.Lazaraus is this website's resident Twain, Sinclair Lewis and Edgar Lee Masters rolled into one. Shame for the hypocrisy!

The context here is that a Presidential candidate disrepespected working class (lunch pail) voters in small towns that have lost their job base. He wasn't talking about rural voters, but "small" cities like Scranton, Erie, Flint, Youngstown, Decatur, and Duluth.

No, Lynne, the redeeming, or shall I say distinguishing, feature of Morgantown is that it's a local intellectual center. It's not surprising that it's more ethnically diverse than most of the rest of West Virginia, and it's not surprising that it's more liberal politically.

America's commitment to public education during the nineteenth century—the land grant colleges, the allocation of lands for public secondary schools in towns—was another way that we provided for social advancement, by providing for educational advancement.

Sarah Palin doesn't score that high in taking advantage of this opportunity. She seems to come, instead, from the substratum that scorns and resents educational achievement. Obama is far more educated than his parents. Palin has no more formal education than her father, and likely less. I would think that it's Obama who better fits the American Dream story, and that this would be obvious if he weren't (half) black and raised partially outside the United States.

I certainly wouldn't hold out America's cities as more moral than the countryside, but as a city kid I'm resentful of the suggestion that it's the other way around. Sarah Palin doesn't believe human beings coexisted with dinosaurs because she lacked the opportunity to learn otherwise, but because she prefers and adopts a world view that's wrapped up in its own self-righteousness, oversimplification, and, yes, authentic ignorance.

On another aspect of the same topic: Palin's heartwarming story in the debate of Alaskan divestment from the Sudan was a fabrication. The bill didn't pass and as governor, she opposed it. The mirror image of Leninists, and completely dishonorable.

She seems to come, instead, from the substratum that scorns and resents educational achievement ... Sarah Palin doesn't believe human beings coexisted with dinosaurs because she lacked the opportunity to learn otherwise, but because she prefers and adopts a world view that's wrapped up in its own self-righteousness, oversimplification, and, yes, authentic ignorance.

I don't know how you convict her of all this witchcraft, but I probably don't have enough education to understand your spectral evidence.

Do you want to compare urban and rural drop-out rates, or would that be too much like dealing with facts?

All of the dinosaur quotes I can find go back to one source, the liberal Wasilla teacher Philip Munger. There's no sign of any denials, though.

The rural dropout rate is halfway in between urban (higher) and suburban (lower). Is there a reason you didn't supply the statistics (and/or a link) yourself? College enrollment is lowest in rural areas, as far as I could tell.

Andrew J. Lazarus doesn't believe that Sarah Palin believes human beings coexisted with dinosaurs because he lacked the opportunity to learn otherwise, but because he prefers and adopts a world view that's wrapped up in its own self-righteousness, oversimplification, and, yes, authentic ignorance.

Hey, Shad, so far on Palin as a Young Earth Creationist, we have one witness who says yes, and zero evidence against. What's your problem?

She seems to come, instead, from the substratum that scorns and resents educational achievement.

Not to mention being bitter and clinging to their guns and religion.

My, the liberal tolerance is out in full force tonight. No prejudice, no bigotry, no dog whistles round here, no sir!

At least this election season should put paid to the notion that the left cares about anything but their own sanctimony.

Andrew, is your contention that the acceptable standard of evidence to treat a claim against a candidate as serious, credible, and worthy of propagation is that
1. someone politically opposed to said candidate made a wholly unsubstantiated post on a blog about an incident that supposedly happened a decade or so ago, and
2. that the candidate has failed to explicitly deny it?

If not, I would ask why you to explain why you took such a claim seriously, treated it as credible, and propagated it in this thread.

If so, I stand by my assessment that you're a much better example of someone who prefers and adopts a world view that's wrapped up in its own self-righteousness, oversimplification, and, yes, authentic ignorance than Governor Palin is.

Asked by the Anchorage Daily News whether she believed in evolution, Palin declined to answer[.]

I haven't seen any direct responses by O's team regarding the claim that traveling on an Indonesian passport meant he abrogated his US citizenship, if Indonesia did in fact disallow multiple citizenship at the time.

Not sure it'd be allowed to matter even if true; not sure what that would have to do with this thread, either.

Look, AJL, once you grant the possibility of God-performed miracles you implicitly grant the possibility of God creating the whole universe three milliseconds ago, etc., etc. Ergo, everyone who believes in a God that performs miracles is riding the short bus as far as you are concerned.

This we more or less already knew.

As a devout agnostic, all I can say is: Meh. Any chance we can get back on topic? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?

Andrew, the elevator pitch version of those myths is simple - in a stable, closed, hierarchical society, people a) know their place and stick to it - what else is all that 19th century English literature about? - and b) they have no choice but accept the lot they are given.

AL, this is a bait and switch compared with what you were talking about earlier. As AJL pointed out himself, multi-ethnic immigration is a New York thing - a quintessential American thing - and not a European thing. As I read it, AJL - and many on the left - are refusing to buy into the "rural America is the BEST America" narrative, but that's not the same thing as wanting 19th century European stratification.

America allows individuals to reinvent themselves - originally by moving out - by coming here and staking out a place in one of the small communities or literally, by moving out to the boondocks and scratching out a living.

Or by moving to New York or LA to "make" it as a writer or an actor or a singer? Or moving to SF to embrace a sexual identity that they couldn't back home? Or by heading to college to start a career they couldn't back in a small town?

What on earth makes you think rural America has any kind of monopoly on people being able to reinvent themselves?

The social order in America is supposed to be more fragile than the economic and political orders. That's less true than it was, and the social 'winners' are advocating - strongly - that is be even less true tomorrow than it is today, and that's a big part of the social/political tension we're seeing right now.

Really? Who, exactly, is advocating this among the social "winners", AL? Can we have some links or quotes here?

Chris backs me up better than I do myself. As far as social "winners", I think that Armed Liberal's argument is better explained in his #21. The coastal highly-educated elites have (as I understand him) decided that they should also control political power.

I think this is an oversimplification. One of America's strengths is that, in theory, you can come out of any part of the country with education and prospects. Look at Montana Democratic Senator Jon Tester: he's an organic farmer. The governor, Brian Schweitzer, (also a Dem) was a rancher. Unlike Sarah Palin, he's lived overseas, even speaks Arabic.

What distinguishes Palin is what I called the Authenticity of Ignorance. She taps into a view that a little small-town common sense (whatever the hell that is) substitutes for reading a newspaper, much less all of them. I can't speak for the entire coastal elite, but I'd prefer that the conservatives and pro-life people who are elected know something about the world outside their town and their state (especially one whose economy bears no relation to anywhere else in the country). Moreover, that world view tends to be unsympathetic to concerns of non-whites, non-Christians, non-straights, and (lately) non-saber-rattlers.

Somehow this thread reminds me of Winston Churchill's frank remark on the traditions of the Royal Navy: "Rum, buggery, and the lash." Morgantown notwithstanding, the tradition Palin is standing up for is, like the delegates of the Republican National Convention, overwhelmingly white and evangelical—nothing like the Lower East Side of Manhattan. But you know, Manhattan is America, too.

"The writer Palin (rather, her speechwriter) didn't name was Westbrook Pegler, a notorious anti-Semite. Can you imagine if Joe Biden quoted Earl Browder?"

Please. What if Biden quoted

H. L. Mencken, George Bernard Shaw, Henry Adams, H.G. Wells, Edgar Degas, Denis Diderot, Theodore Dreiser, T. S. Eliot, Immanuel Kant, Aleksander Pushkin, Pierre Renoir, Thomas Edison, Henry Ford, Richard Wagner, Bobby Fischer...

The list could go on and on- anti-semites all, to some degree or another. In fact, I'd bet you've quoted or admired the work of a few of these people, does that make you a closet Klansman?

"As I read it, AJL - and many on the left - are refusing to buy into the "rural America is the BEST America" narrative, but that's not the same thing as wanting 19th century European stratification."

Problem is, you're tilting at windmills. I don't think anyone here is saying that Rural is best, only that the opposite is also not true, despite the disdain of many urbanites for rural folk.

Your last comment, AJL, really cracks me up. You make it clear that what matters to you is if you can check off that-
a) You're college educated
b) You've traveled abroad
c) You read lots and lots of newspapers
d) You think that opportunity only comes from advanced education

Well, I thought America was about opportunity for hard work, persistence, and yes, common sense. I've known too many people with advanced degrees, and in some cases Mensa membership, to think that being college educated or "smart" means much by itself. Those two items tell you near zero about someone's wisdom or values. Trust me, I know- as a major city born and bred, college educated, well traveled, well read person, it's not enough. I've seen both sides- and I'm not sure I wouldn't say the Rural folks aren't more moral, either.

"She taps into a view that a little small-town common sense (whatever the hell that is) substitutes for reading a newspaper, much less all of them."

Talk about authenticity of ignorance. She majored in journalism (I know, it wasn't Columbia, so maybe in your book, it doesn't count), I think she reads papers. In fact, her appetite for reading is well documented in a biography of her, well prior to this being a campaign issue.

Oh, and I did want to comment on the original post- I think people ended up seeing what they wanted to see. Notice how pro-Obama/Biden people aren't talking about the ridiculous thinks Biden says (Lebanon, Article 1), or are minimizing them, even though had Palin said something similar, she'd have been mercilessly mocked. I didn't think Palin did all that well, either, but the treatment of her makes it hard to judge apples to apples, as Biden is let have a pass repeatedly for similar (or in some eyes worse) things.

Also, your argument about the populist narrative is interesting, but off base here. She isn't Dave, or anything like it, at least not now. She's got a career in politics, has gained experience far superior (objectively) to the front man of the opposing ticket, yet she's still considered a populist without any credentials in your book. Being Governor of even a small state means she's dealt with the mechanisms of government, and worked within them. She's not fomenting a revolution here, it's that she has a virtually incomparable record as a reformer in modern politics, yet she gets no credit for that. Point out to me anyone in American politics who's gone after corruption in their own party and been as successful as she's been in Alaska.

Oh, and there's no way that either Biden or Palin could "win the election" in that debate. They could lose it, or help it, but "win" it? Nah.

I'm also not sure you're using the phrase "l'esprit d'escalier" properly. I'm not seeing the revelation that hit you later. You had some further thoughts about it, but that's not really the same thing.

AJL: Your assumption that Palin is hiding evidence of creationism shows how completely and utterly out of touch you are on this issue. Most Americans believe in some form of creationism, including Democrats. A vast majority believe it should be taught in schools. Link

Real interesting OT conversation on Real America.

One obvious question arises, though. Some on this thread have sought to publish their bona fides by making note of their place of residence or upbringing.

So, where does the Armed Liberal live? Where did he grow up? Are his insights into this topic largely based on a movie or other indirect (and even fictionalized) ideals of True America? Is this just another example of "David Brooks" syndrome, a coastal elitist aggrandizing a fictional America for political purposes, and in the process demeaning it?

Douglas-

Problem is, you're tilting at windmills. I don't think anyone here is saying that Rural is best, only that the opposite is also not true, despite the disdain of many urbanites for rural folk.

But that's exactly what Palin, and many of her supporters, are saying - that she's better qualified to win the election than Biden because she's representative of "real" small town America. That's what you yourself are saying when you say

I've seen both sides- and I'm not sure I wouldn't say the Rural folks aren't more moral, either.

I think it's worth putting all this in the context of the last 8 years, because I've been told, point-blank, by Republican voters, that they felt more comfortable with GWB, and that they might feel more comfortable with Sarah Palin, because he/she understands their values, and understands "Main Street". I think the evidence is pretty clear that such an approach has been a disaster for the country, and while we can argue AL's earlier assertion that "there is no similar linkage between training and good outcomes in politics," I think it's definitely been proven false that insight into the American heartland (if strip-mall suburbia can be called such) is definitely not a guarantee of good outcome, either.

I think this is a really interesting thread, and really appreciate everyone's participation...it's got me thinking kind of seriously about some things, and I hope others as well.

Let me try and do a new post that captures my sense of the discussion and let's see if we can take this and play it out some more.

A.L.

Your last comment, AJL, really cracks me up. You make it clear that what matters to you is if you can check off that- a) You're college educated
b) You've traveled abroad
c) You read lots and lots of newspapers
d) You think that opportunity only comes from advanced education

I don't believe I have ever claimed (d), because it is not true. In rare cases, opportunity comes from winning the lottery or being able to dunk a basketball. What I do believe is that advanced education is the most consistent and generally available way for Americans to better their economic and social prospects.

Andrew, is your contention that the acceptable standard of evidence to treat a claim against a candidate as serious, credible, and worthy of propagation is that
1. someone politically opposed to said candidate made a wholly unsubstantiated post on a blog about an incident that supposedly happened a decade or so ago, and
2. that the candidate has failed to explicitly deny it?

In comment #38, you seemed to implicitly affirm that this is, in fact, your contention. Could you please explicitly do so, to make sure I did not misinterpret your comment?

Thanks.

No, Shad. The incident in question has now been written up in the LA Times (and elsewhere). It's not confined to a couple hostile bloggers. There's somewhat corroboratory undisputed evidence from her 2006 campaign (see #38) where she refused point-blank to deny being a Creationist. I'd say this creates a presumption in the absence of any denial.

she refused point-blank to deny being a Creationist.

Unlike Barack Obama, right? Christopher Hitchens would ask that question, given Obama's long membership in a creationist church.

I can imagine your outrage if someone were to demand that Obama deny that he is a Creationist. Or an Afrocentrist.

Yes, unlike Obama. At least according to Nature. From the magazine's website, featuring a written Q&A between itself & Obama:

Do you believe that evolution by means of natural selection is a sufficient explanation for the variety and complexity of life on Earth? Should intelligent design, or some derivative thereof, be taught in science class in public schools?

Obama: I believe in evolution, and I support the strong consensus of the scientific community that evolution is scientifically validated. I do not believe it is helpful to our students to cloud discussions of science with non-scientific theories like intelligent design that are not subject to experimental scrutiny.

Well, Andrew, it sure looks like your criteria for spreading rumors is:
1. Someone starts the rumor (the liberal blogger)
2. Someone repeats the rumor (the liberal newspaper reporting what the liberal blogger said)
3. The target does not explicitily deny the rumor

As I said earlier, that you so readily buy into these sorts of things makes you a much better example of someone who prefers and adopts a world view that's wrapped up in its own self-righteousness, oversimplification, and, yes, authentic ignorance than Governor Palin is. You've willingly entered a bubble where rumors become fact not because they're substantiated, but simply because they're repeated.

You display the very Authenticity of Ignorance you claim to decry in comment #41.

Dont talk about Obama's church. Its racist.

Chris:
"Douglas-

Problem is, you're tilting at windmills. I don't think anyone here is saying that Rural is best, only that the opposite is also not true, despite the disdain of many urbanites for rural folk.

I've seen both sides- and I'm not sure I wouldn't say the Rural folks aren't more moral, either."

Well, first, there's a reason why I presented that sentiment as a conditionally modified opinion, and not as a fact. I'll even go so far as to back it up to some extent by noting that people in rural areas and small towns are consistently more polite than people in and around big cities. That's not insignificant.

That said, I didn't declare that just being from a rural location gave someone moral absolute superiority over someone from an urban area, not at all. I don't think you can give me a quote from anyone of significance that is saying that either. I do not accept your statement as fact, so I'd be appreciative if you could back it up in some way.

AJL:
"In this day and age, I'd say the first three are prerequisites (not the only ones) for [Vice] President."

Only in #2 do you talk specifically about the Vice Presidency in any detail, and not in the same way, so I'm not sure how you expect me to buy into the idea that's what you were getting at, because you're previous comments do seem aimed at the general population of the flyover states.

"No one would think twice about making a similar list for a neurosurgeon, or even a family doctor. Only in politics do we go through the motions of believing that bouncing around college, never traveling, and knowing nothing about foreign policy is not disqualifying, as long as you have those vague Main Street Values (which, as I said above, is probably mere code for White Christian Evangelical)."

Well, leaving out the issue of anti-religious bigotry in the last sentence, and your dramatically hyperbolic (at best) description of Palin, I think your comparison to Neurosurgeon is a poor choice. The Vice Presidency isn't about knowing about foreign cultures, per se (even if travel was any assurance that you gained that understanding -I think not), nor is it about highly specialized details of a particular field, excepting perhaps law, but we've seen what a Government full of lawyers can do for us (ugh). It's an office demanding of a good understanding of general concepts and strategies, not one that requires tremendous specialization of skill set and knowledge base, as a neurosurgeon. I suspect one could be a world class neurosurgeon, and be lousy at just about everything else in life. An executive leader (President, VP) can't be like that. I'd liken it more to Architect. Architects have to have a good knowledge of specifics (details, particular systems), but not at the level of the specialists who engineer, and build these things. He also needs to have the ability to work in the larger, strategic sense of design, constantly checking between the macro and micro to ensure compatibility and continuity with his original design intent. You might be surprised to learn that some of the greatest architects never went to architecture school. Tadao Ando never went to architecture school, spent some time as a boxer and truck driver before going into architecture, but has become one of the great living architects, a Pritzker Prize winner, no less. I will grant you that he did travel some a little later in the process (to look at more buildings), but there are plenty of other examples of people who wouldn't fit your formula for success, and in fact, plenty of people who never should have bothered to go to college, even though they passed and got degreed.

As for the idea that reading newspapers is a pre-requisite, I'd disagree. I hardly pick up a paper any more, and when I do, I'm more likely to read the sports page than anything else. The internet has given me a much better interface to the news, and the underlying facts than any paper could, and most of that isn't from News sites. If you asked me which paper I read, I'd answer "none". That doesn't mean I'm ill informed, it means the question was the wrong question, and speaks to the interviewers lack of understanding the current world we live in, and their inability to look forward, or even at the world around them and understand it. It's called the dinosaur media for a reason.

So, after all that, I think it's important to note, as you seem reticent to do, that Palin did hold several offices of varying types, over the course of a 16 year period, and seems to have performed to a very high level in each of those positions. Add to that the incredible fact that she unseated incumbents in the Mayoral and Gubernatorial races, and it's a pretty impressive record, politically. Objectively, it's a better record than Barack Obama's, but to you, he's eminently qualified, and she's not. Where's the sense in that position?

You really should go back through your own comments and try to see them as another might understand them, instead of rolling confidently along in the fervent belief that you're correct. It could be enlightening.

Douglas, if Palin is reading news sources on the Internet instead of a newspaper, that's a fine substitute. But somehow beneath it all, I suspect we both know, she didn't do that either. If she had, they'd let her show off her knowledge in a press conference. So far, she's worked from a script.

[emphasis added] From ages 10 to 17, he also spent time making wood models of ships, airplanes, and moulds, learning the craft from a carpenter whose shop was across the street from his home. After a brief stint at being a boxer, Ando began his self-education by apprenticing to several relevant persons such as designers and city planners for short periods. "I was never a good student. I always preferred learning things on my own outside of class. When I was about 18, I started to visit temples, shrines, and tea houses in Kyoto and Nara, there's a lot of great traditional architecture in the area. I was studying architecture by going to see actual buildings, and reading books about them." He made study trips to Europe and the United States in the sixties to view and analyze great buildings of western civilization, keeping a detailed sketch book which he does even to this day when he travels. About that same time, Ando relates that he discovered a book about Le Corbusier in a secondhand bookstore in Osaka. It took several weeks to save enough money to buy it. Once in his possession, Ando says, "I traced the drawings of his early period so many times that all the pages turned black. In my mind, I quite often wonder how Le Corbusier would have thought about this project or that."

If you don't like my belief that Main Street Values is a code word for something else, perhaps you would like to elaborate yourself. Today, McCain's brother called Northern Virginia, where McCain is trailing badly, a "communist country". I guess it lacks those Main Street Values. Meanwhile elsewhere in Virginia the leader of a country Republican Party said Obama joked that Obama would re-paint the White House black and put up a star-and-crescent flag. That, my friends, is some Main Street Values we can believe in!

#48:

Just remember Mark Twain: "If you don't read the newspapers, you are uninformed. If you do read the newspapers, you are misinformed."

#56:

"If you don't like my belief that Main Street Values is a code word for something else, perhaps you would like to elaborate yourself."

Perhaps he would; but I pointed you in the direction of the myth, its foundations, and why it was important at some length. You dismissed it in a phrase as "some long-lost mythology," which misses the point that it is a living mythology that happens to have ancient roots.

When Gov. Palin says that Sen. Obama "is not a man who sees America as you see America and I see America," she's speaking to that very issue. The difference is what I meant when I said that "for untold thousands of years, these qualities have been the qualities that allowed warriors to forge a space in the world for themselves, so they might have civilization and peace for their families; and defend that space, that civilization, those families, against all comers. These myths are at once The West, in its living incarnation; and yet the vision of what it means to be a part of the West in a particularly American way."

That view of America is to a place, a space in the world, with a unique take on an ancient set of values. These values are heroic when they are martial -- to carve a space in the world for a civilization and its families, and defend it. The values are also heroic when they are pacific -- to take responsibility for you own part of that space in the world, and your particular family, to feed them and clothe them with your own efforts, and leave both your part of the space and your family better off when you die than when you were born.

The values are heroic, but the American expression makes them available to everyone -- not, as in Europe, to an upper class alone; not, as most places (and as you have mistakenly asserted) to a single ethnic group; but to anyone who will join the effort. This is why I pointed out that first-generation Eastern Europeans could come to Hollywood and film High Noon, and in so doing be as American as anyone living.

Now, you may not like the claim that Sen. Obama will put up a crescent-and-star flag at the White House, but there's no dodging the fact that his self-described mentor in Hawaii, "Frank," was a member of the Communist Party. There's no getting past the fact that Saul Alinsky, who set up the 'community organizing' framework that Sen. Obama chose for his career, was a Marxist who dedicated his book on the subject to Lucifer. There's no getting around the fact that Bill Ayers, who picked then-community-organizer Obama to chair the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, was a terrorist who advocated the violent overthrow of the United States government in order to effect a Marxist revolution -- indeed, they split with a Maoist organization because they felt that the war should begin immediately, whereas the more moderate Marxists wanted to wait until they had something to replace the USA with before they started killing people. Sen. Obama has chosen to associate with these people all along. Marxists have furnished his basic philosophical furniture, and his chief support.

He's also chosen to associate with the Rev. Mr. Wright, who is an entirely different sort of person. This is a man who -- in my opinion, at least -- shows how an American can criticize the nation in the harshest terms without breaking that basic, supernatural sense of loyalty to 'defend the space in which the civilization exists' that is required by the ancient heroic ethic.

There's no doubt that the Rev. Mr. Wright has some serious complaints with America, its history and traditions, and basic social systems. But it's also true that he's fought for us: as a Marine, as a Navy Corpsman. He's proven his faith to the system, and any man who has done as much can say whatever he wants and deserve a respectful hearing. The military is certainly not the only way to do this, and military service won't answer for outright disloyalty or treason; but those who have shown their faith through personal hardship and sacrifice are well-positioned to criticize.

Even the best nation needs a certain amount of faithful criticism. Unlike the other connections, the Rev. Mr. Wright is a man I can respect whether or not we agree. I think his theology is suspect, and I don't buy his criticisms, but I kind of like the guy -- listening to his extended remarks shows not just passion but humor, and it is clear that he is 'one of us.' An angry one of us, but one of us all the same.

Sen. Obama shows no such signs. I wouldn't trust him to be alone with my child, and that's the main thing I want to know a President will do. I want to know he'll faithfully keep the watch.

In any event, that's what the values are: a heroic ethic based on ancient traditions, but melded with uniquely American aspects, available to anyone willing to join it and take it up. This is why some first-generation immigrants are more American than anyone; and some people, though born and raised here, never really get it.

Grim.

Yawn. Compared to McCain, Obama's "associations" over the years look more like the 7 dwarfs than anything else. This boogeyman just ain't rearing it's head this halloween.

I wouldn't trust him to be alone with my child, and that's the main thing I want to know a President will do.

If this doesn't say it all, I don't know what else does.

I recently realized that you're commentary here against Obama is so visceral, personal and in many ways irrational that there's simply no reason to take it seriously. Look at all the space you've taken just to put lipstick and makeup on the pig that is your prejudice against him. Believe me, it is not working, unless you're the type to think Palin was great in the debate.

mark - Touche!

It's not that surprising that [Obama] wouldn't find Ayers and Wright objectionable company--in the very liberal, Hyde Park/Ivy League circles that he's traveled in since attending Columbia, people with such views are more mainstream than, say, the average conservative evangelical Christian.

Exactly - the familiar is unthreatening, and for some people, vice versa. It is possible to be wealthy, well-traveled, well-educated - and yet be a perfect provincial bigot.

And, perhaps most tellingly, how else do you explain that when Obama was asked in a debate with Clinton about his ties to Ayers, he analogized his friendship with Ayers to his friendship with Senator Tom Coburn, as if being friends with a very conservative senatorial colleague is somehow analogous with being friends with an unrepentant extreme leftist domestic terrorist?

Of course, because to the progressive elite a conservative is not only comparable to a terrorist, but worse. Terrorists are imagined as having all sorts of understandable and even laudable goals, whereas conservatives are just brutish and bigoted, with no redeeming value whatsoever.

The more I think about it, Grim, the more I am at a loss to understand your comment about Obama and your children.

I can think of a couple of reasons why someone might not want to allow their children to be exposed to a person. The most obvious is that they're a dangerous criminal. Obama is obviously not that. The next is that they might somehow influence your child's thinking in a way that you find disagreeable or in conflict with the things you are trying to teach them. Absent a more specific explanation for this comment, I will assume this for the moment.

Aside from the fact that this second concern reeks of a deep distrust in your children's ability to reason or think on their own in the absence of your influence (which is something I would classify as failed parenting), it also suggests that you are under the delusion that you can shield them from the "bad things" in the world.

Vista: remember when I said "Act well, be welcome"?

Verb. sap.

OK, Glen, doing your duty to the cause I see by attempting to resurrect the Specter of Ayers.

Let's take a closer look at Sarah Palins much more recent associates, the Alaska Independence Party.

Her husband Todd was a member, with a brief exception, from 1995 until 2002, according to the Division of Elections in Alaska.

Here are a few more salient points:

In 1994, Palin attended the group's annual convention, according to witnesses who spoke to ABC News' Jake Tapper. The McCain campaign has confirmed she visited the group's 2000 convention, and she addressed its convention this year, as an incumbent governor whose oath of office includes upholding the Constitution of the United States.

The founder of the AIP was a man named Joe Vogler. Here's what he had to say in a 1991 interview, only a few years before Palin attended its convention: "The fires of hell are frozen glaciers compared to my hatred for the American government."

He also said this: "And I won't be buried under their damn flag. I'll be buried in Dawson. And when Alaska is an independent nation they can bring my bones home."

Vogler has also said: "I'm an Alaskan, not an American. I've got no use for America or her damned institutions."

Vista:

I am not, here, trying to convince AJL (and certainly not you) to vote against Sen. Obama. I'm trying to explain to him, since he asked, just what this ethic is that he finds so mysterious. Whether that alters your behavior or not is beside the point, so long as we understand each other.

You're looking for reasons to 'explain' my 'comment,' but you ignore the actual one laid out. I don't think he can be trusted with the duty. I don't think that it's important to him to defend this particular space, this particular civilization, these particular children.

I do believe that Sen. McCain, Sen. Biden, Gov. Palin, or even the Rev. Mr. Wright would take it seriously. I don't think that Sen. Obama, William Ayers, Bernadine Dohrn, Saul Alinsky, or "Frank" have it as a high priority. What matters to them is that America should "Change." Well, change takes lots of forms; and as they say, you have to break a few eggs along the way.

That's not what I want in a President.

As for my being irrational, nothing since Aristotle first laid out his philosophy has contradicted his claim that a man's soul has both rational and irrational parts. I have mine, the same as any healthy man. What I think is important is to be clear about what they are, and what they demand. I have tried to be.

You might want to try as well. It's not so bad, to admit that you're no better than other men: just as irrational, just as rational. Indeed, in a sense, it's quite liberating to admit that you're no better than your father or your grandfather. Of course, once you admit that you can be no better, you are left with the duty to try and be as good.

"In 1994, Palin attended the group's annual convention,"

Obama has been connected with Ayers much more recently than that.

Also- we havent stooped to attacking spousal associations, have we? Do you really want people to start tracking down Michelle Obama's friends and neighbors? Im sure its fascinating reading, just not particularly relevant.

Mark, you obviously missed the part about Sarah Palin speaking at the AIP conventions.

Still don't get it, Grim, sorry. You still brought your children and their range of experiences into this discussion and your follow-up does nothing to clarify my suspicions or questions about what this suggests about your views.

Except for the fact, that in 1994; Wally Hickel, the AIP's candidate was the mayor. Do you really
think she want to secede from the country, no of course not. Do you think Obama, agrees with Ayers
on what he considers is the total illegitimacy of this country. Far more evidence of that, with the further contacts with Wright, Phleger, Farrakhan, et al. This explains the sympathy with Hamas, the more academic aspects of Palestinian politics, the wider community supporting the FARC,The whole matter of the witch doctor is even easier to explain; coming from a Latin culture. it's an injunction against ill will, what is known as a 'despojo' heck she needs a booster shot just now from Sullivan's bad juju; does the doc do house calls?

And Obama is a member of a political party founded by a racist, Andrew Jackson.

Vogler was dead by 1994. The AIP also held the governorship without firing a shot at Fort Wainright during this period.

(And I believe Gov. Palin's attendance in '94 remains disputed. She did appear before the party in '06 when she campaigned for Governor. Link )

I'm not really interested in your suspicions, son. I don't recall mentioning anything about 'range of experiences,' but I have taught my son to paddle a raft, ride a horse, read books, shoot a rifle, study hard, hike trails, play tackle football, practice jujitsu and swordsmanship, recognize poision ivy, start a fire, swim, track animals, build a camp, kill and clean small game, sharpen a knife, and show respect to his elders.

I haven't been very good about getting him to church, I'll be the first to admit -- neither he nor I have ever been much for sermons. But I think he's had a fair range of experiences. Indeed, I wouldn't be shocked if at his tender age he could do a thing or two you've never tried.

And yet you wouldn't trust him with Obama?

I think your posts in aggregate only serve to prove my point about the nature of your feelings about Obama, Grim.

I'm not sure what your point is, exactly, except that you think I don't like him. I've said that myself, more than once. I have a reason: I don't think he has any loyalty to the project, to America as I understand it. Now, that may be "rational" or "irrational," depending on your point of view. I don't care enough about the distinction to argue it; the irrational part of the soul has a lot to contribute, as I see it.

So you're basically admitting that your dislike for Obama is irrational and you're comfortable with that.

The very fact that his life is in many ways the very essence of a core American ideal, yet you complain about his "loyalty" to a "Project America", is the clearest example yet of that very fact.

Douglas-

But that's exactly what Palin, and many of her supporters, are saying - that she's better qualified to win the election than Biden because she's representative of "real" small town America. That's what you yourself are saying when you say

"I've seen both sides- and I'm not sure I wouldn't say the Rural folks aren't more moral, either."

Well, first, there's a reason why I presented that sentiment as a conditionally modified opinion, and not as a fact. I'll even go so far as to back it up to some extent by noting that people in rural areas and small towns are consistently more polite than people in and around big cities. That's not insignificant.

That said, I didn't declare that just being from a rural location gave someone moral absolute superiority over someone from an urban area, not at all. I don't think you can give me a quote from anyone of significance that is saying that either. I do not accept your statement as fact, so I'd be appreciative if you could back it up in some way.

No, you didn't declare that rural people are better than urban people - you're just broadly hinting at it, both with your suggestion that rural folks are more moral, and more recently with your observation that rural and small town people are more polite. (Not in my experience, but what the heck.)

Likewise, Palin herself mostly just hints at it, both in her convention speech, with the Harry Truman reference, and in the recent debate, with her insistence that Wasilla "reality" was what was needed to fix Wall Street and Washington.

In fact, to get the really sneering and obvious dismissals of urban people, you've got to go to Gulianni's convention speech... or Glen's endorsement of David Bernstein's quote above:

It's not that surprising that [Obama] wouldn't find Ayers and Wright objectionable company--in the very liberal, Hyde Park/Ivy League circles that he's traveled in since attending Columbia, people with such views are more mainstream than, say, the average conservative evangelical Christian.

Exactly - the familiar is unthreatening, and for some people, vice versa. It is possible to be wealthy, well-traveled, well-educated - and yet be a perfect provincial bigot.

Figuring out who's being bigoted towards whom in this scenario - urban folks towards rural folks or vice versa - is left as an exercise to the reader.

What I'm saying is that I don't care whether you think I'm rational or not. A man ought to be both, so I'm fine with being both.

As for Obama's life being 'the essence of a core American ideal,' I'm glad you broght that up. It's a subject we were talking about just above.

This is also why generations of immigrants came to America and found that this myth was a way they could readily fit into the culture. Take a look at the filming crew behind High Noon, and you'll see how instantly Europeans could grasp what was at work here, and braid themselves into it if they chose.

This is the "melting pot" ideal, which has a proud history here. Anyone -- absolutely anyone -- can come and be as American as anyone else. All that is asked is that they bind themselves to the ethic. And those that do, we take them as brothers.

Now, Senator Obama, he seems to have tried to "melt" into the pot in an unusual way. As someone who grew up in Indonesia, with a non-American father, he chose to melt into America as a member of those constitutionally opposed to America as it has always existed. He sought out a Communist mentor in Hawaii, sought career advice from Saul Alinsky's movement, and then moved toward national politics through Bill Ayers.

So: he made his choice. He can own it. He had his choice as to how to join the American community, and he chose to join those opposed to it. Let him be honest about that.

Oh, by the way, since ya'll didn't like the suggestion that you read Louis L'amour? Try listening to Merle Haggard.

You know he endorsed Sen. Clinton this last time around. I might have voted for her myself.

Well, maybe you never heard of him. Maybe you should have.

Oh, and click on that link at the top of the recommended bar. It's another version of the song from 1968.

That's forty years, children.

You can hear the song today on your country music radio. Most likely you will hear it if you set your dial the right way this next month.

You might want to think about that.

Hmmm... when you've run out of arguments and ideas, pitch symbols, Grim? That's precisely what Palin and team are up to, and I calls 'em when I sees 'em.

I believe I previously made a comment about Grim's confusion of political branding with political ideas.

I was around, and listening to the radio, when "Okie From Muskogee" hit, which was 1969, (_before_ "Fightin' Side"), so you may want to reel in that "children" and "son" business, and the condescension. (Notwithstanding the mis-labeling on the You-Tube clip, "Fightin'" was released in 1970. Check Billboard's charts) I know what Haggard has said since about what he did and didn't intend, (and have some pretty clear idea as to what he may have been smoking at the time, notwithstanding the line in "Okie".) I've also heard what sounds like suspiciously anti-war stuff from his last couple of albums. Those didn't get a hell of a lot of airplay...

Your taste for country music doesn't make you more patriotic, Grim; that you think that it makes you look more patriotic just means you've bought the brand. If you were as familiar with the Armstrong Hot Fives and Hot Sevens, (or the early catalog of Atlantic Records) you might make a better pitch that you really loved this country's culture.

and ol' Saul Alinsky? Not a Marxist, by his own description: (from a 1972 interview)

bq I was also sympathetic to Russia in those days, not because I admired Stalin or the Soviet system but because it seemed to be the only country willing to stand up to Hitler. . . . . . . .
When the Nazi-Soviet Pact came, though, and I refused to toe the party line and urged support for England and for American intervention in the war, the party turned on me tooth and nail. Chicago Reds plastered the Back of the Yards with big posters featuring a caricature of me with a snarling, slavering fanged mouth and wild eyes, labeled, "This is the face of a warmonger."

bq I've never joined any organization -- not even the ones I've organized myself. I prize my own independence too much. And philosophically, I could never accept any rigid dogma or ideology, whether it's Christianity or Marxism. One of the most important things in life is what judge Learned Hand described as "that ever-gnawing inner doubt as to whether you're right." If you don't have that, if you think you've got an inside track to absolute truth, you become doctrinaire, humorless and intellectually constipated. The greatest crimes in history have been perpetrated by such religious and political and racial fanatics, from the persecutions of the Inquisition on down to Communist purges and Nazi genocide.

...and Dan Kaufmann at #13: Park and Burpee Seed both have had arugula in their catalogs for twenty or so years now, along with fancy raddiccio; Harris and Gurnsey have more than one kind. I saw 'em there before I saw 'em in a grocery strore, and I've lived in Los Angeles since 1975.

"He sought out a Communist mentor in Hawaii"

As I recall this person was a friend of Obama's American grandfather, who was himself on the far left.

The terms to which you object, Mr. Gould-Saltman, were not directed to readers in general. Rather, they were part of a discussion with one particular person, who is being received in the same spirit he offered.

...when you've run out of arguments and ideas, pitch symbols, Grim?

That said, I'll repeat to you what I said to Vista in one respect: I am not here making political arguments. I'm not trying to convince you to vote one way or another. This isn't being said to try and change their minds, or yours. I'm trying to help AJL (in particular) and others understand an ethic that he (in particular) says he can't view as anything other than code.

What I'd like to convey is that -- far from code, which is superficial by nature -- it is indeed a deeply held sense of things. I quote Merle Haggard not to advocate a political position but to make clear that the ethic is one with lasting roots. It's the same reason I've cited Louis L'amour: not for the man himself, but for those who have kept his books in print decade after decade. I'm not talking about what the man himself thinks, but about what the millions who have listened to that song over and over for decades think. That song has remained popular for so long because it resonates, and you'll hear it today if you listen.

Of course, so has John Lennon's "Imagine," which advocates an entirely different perspective. Still, in a sense that puts the song in the right company: it is a piece that people still today put forward as something that speaks for how they feel. So is "Fighting Side." It's something that conveys a basic feeling common to a lot of people in America -- 'I don't mind them switching sides and standing up for things they believe in; but when they're running down our country, man...'

That's the point here. If you want to hear it from an Obama supporter instead of from me, talk to Sen. Jim Webb. He and I see eye to eye on a lot of things, even if we break this year on which Presidential candidate is the right one.

As for 'branding,' I know a lot of patriots who like other kinds of music. Country music isn't offered here as proof of anyone's patriotism, but as a sense of what matters to people who like it. I'll remind you of the brand Sen. Obama bought. "And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion..."

That's another view. I guess it's better than viewing our feelings as 'code,' since it at least assumes they are sincere feelings. Mistakes, but sincere mistakes. Still, it's a view that looks at these people as aliens.

That gives rise to problems with those voters that you wouldn't have with Sen. Clinton as the candidate: to say nothing of Jim Webb, who'd probably be leading 75-25 at this point. Certainly I'd be behind him.

Now, Senator Obama, he seems to have tried to "melt" into the pot in an unusual way. As someone who grew up in Indonesia, with a non-American father,

There's nothing here that is unusual at all. His father left his family when he was 2, as you may or may not know, and he was raised then by his white mother and grandmother, first in Indonesia and then in Hawaii (one of the 50 states).

he chose to melt into America as a member of those constitutionally opposed to America as it has always existed. He sought out a Communist mentor in Hawaii, sought career advice from Saul Alinsky's movement, and then moved toward national politics through Bill Ayers.

Nice little fantasy you've constructed here, full of distortions, which does nothing more than continue to illustrate your irrational bias and dislike of the man. And in truth I don't care about whether you do or not, nor feel it is worth anyones while to continue to be treated to further written incarnations of this.

We got your point about this a long time ago, Grim, so I'm not sure why you continue to make it. Especially since it does not bear on the point you raised that I called you on.

The issue again is why you won't allow your children to be "alone" with him.

Now if this was simply just another "creative" way of expressing your dislike, then it should be regarded as the worthless comment it is and ignore it.

But your continual effort to debate this point using oblique arguments suggests that there's more to it than that.

I'm not sure what part of that 'fantasy' you think is distorted, since you don't say. The first claim is from Sen. Obama's autobiography, where he refers to Frank Marshall Davis on several occasions. The second is referenced by the Chicago Sun-Times and the third is a matter of public record. Obama put himself forward for national office based on the chairmanship of the Annenberg Challenge Ayers got him, and kicked off his campaign at the guy's house.

You and I are here for different reasons, and it may simply be best to accept that. You're here to push the pro-Obama perspective. As I said in the post above, my point of view is not wholly incompatible with the pro-Obama perspective: Sen. Webb is pro-Obama, and he and I are much alike.

What I would like you to do is try to understand the point of view he and I share. I don't care where it leads you politically: I've been transparent about both my own sense and the fact that people I respect may feel otherwise. What I'd like to direct the reader's eye toward is the underlying ethic, which Sen. Webb wrote about in Born Fighting and I've written about here and elsewhere.

'm not sure what part of that 'fantasy' you think is distorted, since you don't say. The first claim is from Sen. Obama's autobiography, where he refers to Frank Marshall Davis on several occasions. The second is referenced by the Chicago Sun-Times and the third is a matter of public record. Obama put himself forward for national office based on the chairmanship of the Annenberg Challenge Ayers got him, and kicked off his campaign at the guy's house.

It's interesting that Grim's hitting on this stuff right as the McCain campaign announces guilt-by-association will be a cornerstone of the last month of campaigning. But rather than directly rebut the scare tactic YouTube video Grim links to, I think it's best just to point out that two can play the association game, and that it's best to judge political actors based on their actions, more than anything else.

You and I are here for different reasons, and it may simply be best to accept that. You're here to push the pro-Obama perspective.

I don't think Vista's countering of anti-Obama smears really counts as "pushing the pro-Obama perspective". But anyone who'd say:

Now, Senator Obama, he seems to have tried to "melt" into the pot in an unusual way. As someone who grew up in Indonesia, with a non-American father, he chose to melt into America as a member of those constitutionally opposed to America as it has always existed.

...clearly is coming to the party with a pretty slanted perspective of their own. Obama "grew up" in the US - he's a native born citizen who was raised for the solid majority of his childhood in Hawaii. Trying to claim that living abroad for four years - from 6 to 10, hardly the time most people latch on to political ideology - and having a non-American father somehow makes you an outsider who has to "melt" into the US in the first place is complete BS, and it should only take a small amount of reflection to see who's really pushing perspectives here.

I'll chime in to note that it is a "fantasy" to think that the fleeting associations that Obama has had with Ayers, no different than many that both McCain or Palin or any public person has had over the years, is some kind of indication of his support for domestic terrorism....

...when McCain has gone on record, in the Senate, of doing so.

Link.

Senate Passes Abortion-Clinic Crime Bill

By ADAM CLYMER,
Published: November 17, 1993
The Senate voted overwhelmingly today for a Federal law to prohibit bombings, arson and blockades at abortion clinics, and shootings and threats of violence against doctors and nurses who perform abortions..

The vote was 69 to 30. Twenty-eight senators who voted against Federal financing of abortions six weeks ago supported the measure, seeing it as a law-and-order matter rather than as an abortion issue. Senator David Durenberger, Republican of Minnesota, called the bill an effort to restore "civility in our national debates."

More:

McCain was one of a distinct minority of radical "pro-life" senators. A number of senators who opposed abortion nonetheless voted for the legislation because they thought it would protect women and their doctors. It was only the extremists who opposed the bill -- and McCain was one of them.

One important detail about this legislation is that it was a standalone bill. In other words, McCain was opposed to this particular policy; he can't say that he opposed the bill for some unrelated reason.

If anything, Obama's associations with Ayers has been long, sustained, if not constant. The more information that comes out the more times Obama is proven to have spent time with the man, in direct contradiction to everything Obama has claimed about their relationship. And its not a proximity argument, these men worked together, extensively. How much ideology do they share? That is the relevant question.

#82:

...somehow makes you an outsider who has to "melt" into the US...

The central text for this claim is the Senator's own autobiography. Sen. Obama has been fairly clear that he came to the United States as an outsider, who was looking for how he might fit in. This is his claim, and indeed the central claim of his book.

When someone describes their whole life in these terms, we might reasonably say that he was an outsider who was trying to figure out how he fit -- that is, how to 'melt.'

It's interesting that Grim's hitting on this stuff right as the McCain campaign...

For better or worse, I've been hitting this stuff since well before the McCain campaign got to it. I turned against Sen. Obama when he turned on his preacher, once it became clear he'd violate a trust and friendship as profound as they shared. I've expressed my respect for the Rev. Wright several times in this thread alone, and elsewhere as well. Whether you agree with him or not, you know where he stands, and you can expect him to defend that place.

I think it's best just to point out that two can play the association game...

OK, well, I followed that link, and it seems to suggest that G. Gordon Liddy is the equivalent of Ayers. I thought Liddy was infamous for Watergate, but this claim is based on a remark he made on his radio show during the Clinton administration: to whit, that if the ATF should kick in your door at night, you should shoot them in the head because they'd be wearing body armor.

Now, I wouldn't defend the remark. I realize incitement is taken seriously by the law. Nevertheless, it isn't the same as actually setting bombs.

Furthermore, I don't see how suggesting that someone should fire on someone inside their own home (in order to discourage the ATF from doing their job via SWAT style raids) is quite the same as saying that we should set bombs in public places (in order to overthrow the government of the United States).

That seems like a difference even if you were just saying that people should set bombs. Ayers and his folk used actual bombs.

#83:

Mr. Tarhune:

This wasn't exactly a vote to legalize bombing clinics. One might oppose making a Federal crime out of something that is already a state crime for reasons unrelated to supporting murder. Some people do have Federalist principles, and believe that the states and the Federal government are meant to serve two separate purposes. Murder is normally a state-level offense, illegal in every one of the fifty states, and one punishable by death i