So before the Democratic convention and during there was lots of talk about the great pains Barack Obama and Joe Biden would need to take in order to woo former supporters of Hillary Clinton. Polls taken around the start of convention showed only 70% or so supporting the Democratic ticket and the pundits were all a buzz. Now, however, it seems that a new poll shows a statistically significant bump in that number, with around 81% of former Hillary supporters planning to vote Obama/Biden. That's a nice jump... and hopefully the start of more good things to come. No word on whether this poll was taken pre or post-Palin.
Does anybody think that will matter? I, for one, honestly don't think the Palin pick is a serious play for Hillary voters. Perhaps for far right voters yes, but the values are just two different, and honestly the two women themselves couldn't really be much more different than they are. Anyway, please feel free to weigh in!
Wednesday, September 03, 2008
That Stuff Will Kill Ya
Via Andrew Sullivan, here's an interesting tidbit from Reason, which I tend to like a lot. They show stuff that is likely to kill ya represented in a cool and easy to interpret graphical thing-a-ma-bobber. Check it, yo!
Are women harder on women?
I saw Christine Todd Whitman on the TeeVee last night and she was talking about John McCain, Sarah Palin and the whole question everybody's been chewing over this week around qualifications, vetting processes, etc.
Ms. Whitman said, among other things, that those who think the women who supported Hillary will suddenly turn around and run after Sarah Palin just cuz she's a lady are basically nutjobs. Whitman suggested that, if anything, women tend to be harder on other women than men are, and if you wanted evidence to back up the idea, check out this editorial in the Baltimore Sun! I think scathing is the proper adjective to describe the article.
Interesting notion here, I think... wondering what folks might think of the idea.
Ms. Whitman said, among other things, that those who think the women who supported Hillary will suddenly turn around and run after Sarah Palin just cuz she's a lady are basically nutjobs. Whitman suggested that, if anything, women tend to be harder on other women than men are, and if you wanted evidence to back up the idea, check out this editorial in the Baltimore Sun! I think scathing is the proper adjective to describe the article.
Interesting notion here, I think... wondering what folks might think of the idea.
Tuesday, September 02, 2008
"I want you to find more of those delegates with those unusual hats..."
Just a little quote from Wolfie the Blitzer, one of my most/least favorite characters in the world of Cable News. I have been sitting here doing a little evening time work and watching some ridiculous coverage of the Republican convention and I couldn't help tossing up a post with the amazing quote above. Wolf Blitzer was congratulating Dana Bash on finding a crazy lady delegate on the floor who had created lots of crazy crazy buttons out of cards in her hotel room and afixed them to her cow spotted cowgirl hat... I really can't do all the crazy justice, but now there's some sort of patriotic photo montage going on... god, this is all so distracting. I think I'll need to put it on mute.
Washington Is Starving the World's Poor…
…says a new article by Russell Redenbaugh & James Juliano. It doesn't cover much new ground, but it's worth thinking about. The key idea:
"Ethanol policy mandating that corn and oil become substitutes has forced these two very different supply curves to become one. The much larger global oil market expropriated the supply curve of the U.S. corn market. In short, oil markets now set food prices. This unintended consequence can be seen in global commodity markets."
No doubt Congressional supporters of our ethanol policy would tell us that it "helps American farmers and working families." More evidence, if we needed it, of the wide gulf between political rhetoric and economic reality.
"Ethanol policy mandating that corn and oil become substitutes has forced these two very different supply curves to become one. The much larger global oil market expropriated the supply curve of the U.S. corn market. In short, oil markets now set food prices. This unintended consequence can be seen in global commodity markets."
No doubt Congressional supporters of our ethanol policy would tell us that it "helps American farmers and working families." More evidence, if we needed it, of the wide gulf between political rhetoric and economic reality.
What's in a Name?
I've perhaps dropped a post or two so far about how interesting I find the names Sarah and Todd Palin chose for their children to be. Today, I was pleased to learn more via People Magazine via Andrew Sullivan about the backstory on Track, Bristol, Willow, Piper and Trig:
"Sarah’s parents were coaches and the whole family was involved in track and I was an athlete in high school, so with our first-born, I was, like, ‘Track!’ Bristol is named after Bristol Bay. That’s where I grew up, that’s where we commercial fish. Willow is a community there in Alaska. And then Piper, you know, there’s just not too many Pipers out there and it’s a cool name. And Trig is a Norse name for “strength.”
Sunday, August 31, 2008
Signs Signs... I love me some Signs
While we were down in NC I spotted this sign in the town of Chimney Rock (I believe) just adjacent to Chimney Rock park. I love the decayed nature of the sign and the fact that you can still tell it's a Bar-B-Que joint.
Saturday, August 30, 2008
Andrew Sullivan, Obama and Palin
I've long been an admirer of Andrew Sullivan and a reader of his blog. One of the things I admire about Mr. Sullivan is that, in addition to having a formidable intellect, he is generally devoted to what might be called—if faux news hadn't ruined the term—a fair and balanced approach to political reporting. He consciously tries to avoid rank partisanship and dogma. He is a conservative who is appropriately outraged at the nationalistic thugs who call themselves conservatives in this country, who take their orders from Rush Limbaugh and have never heard of Burke. Given Mr. Sullivan's political viewpoints, his support of Barack Obama is a testament to his willingness to look beyond party lines and ideologies.
Over the last year, however, I have watched Mr. Sullivan's support of Obama grow increasingly intense, to the point where I now feel that he has abandoned any pretence of neutrality and has become almost a mouth piece for the Obama's campaign. How else would you explain his take on
McCain's selection of Sarah Palen as a running mate? Says Mr. Sullivan
"The first criterion for a veep - and I'm simply repeating a truism here - is that they are ready to take over at a moment's notice. That's especially true when you have a candidate as old as McCain. That's more than especially true when we are at war, in an era of astonishingly difficult challenges, when the next president could be grappling with war in the Middle East or a catastrophic terror attack at home. Under those circumstances, we could have a former Miss Alaska with two years under her belt as governor. Now compare McCain's pick with Obama's: a man with solid foreign policy experience, six terms in Washington and real relationships with leaders across the globe. One pick is by a man of judgment; the other is by a man of vanity."
Now, there is much I agree with here. McCain's pick could probably be described as "unserious." But this is an awfully strange argument coming from such an ardent Obama supporter. After all, Obama had been in the Senate for less than two years when he announced his candidacy for President. If Palin's thin resume makes her ineligible to lead the country, doesn't Obama's do the same? To Mr. Sullivan's credit, he posts several reader responses that make this point and he responds in an interesting way:
"ask yourself: could Sarah Palin have run a national election campaign against, say, a machine as powerful as the Bush family, and won? Does she have the skill set to construct a campaign that would actually have brought her to the nomination herself?"
It seems that, to Sullivan, Obama's skill as a campaigner qualifies him to be president. Palin, it seems, is unqualified in part because she was chosen and did not run herself. This argument is not entirely ridiculous. The Obama Machine is huge and well-oiled and Barack is at the center of it all. It's evidence of his considerable management skills. But I think that campaigning is very different from governing.
Bush had one of the best run campaigns in history: I think that's all we really need to know about that. Sullivan's argument is particularly puzzling if you consider that his main gripe with Palin seems to be her lack of experience in foreign policy and national security. I'm not sure setting up a brilliant on-line fundraising operation prepares you for dealing with Iran.
I have no doubt that Andrew Sullivan is smarter and better informed than I am. If we were ever to debate about anything he would probably demolish me. However, a strong mind can be used to deceive as well as enlighten and the world is full of people who use their intellect to deceive themselves. I'm not sure that's what Mr. Sullivan is doing now, but he has surely lost his commitment to even handed analysis.
Over the last year, however, I have watched Mr. Sullivan's support of Obama grow increasingly intense, to the point where I now feel that he has abandoned any pretence of neutrality and has become almost a mouth piece for the Obama's campaign. How else would you explain his take on
McCain's selection of Sarah Palen as a running mate? Says Mr. Sullivan
"The first criterion for a veep - and I'm simply repeating a truism here - is that they are ready to take over at a moment's notice. That's especially true when you have a candidate as old as McCain. That's more than especially true when we are at war, in an era of astonishingly difficult challenges, when the next president could be grappling with war in the Middle East or a catastrophic terror attack at home. Under those circumstances, we could have a former Miss Alaska with two years under her belt as governor. Now compare McCain's pick with Obama's: a man with solid foreign policy experience, six terms in Washington and real relationships with leaders across the globe. One pick is by a man of judgment; the other is by a man of vanity."
Now, there is much I agree with here. McCain's pick could probably be described as "unserious." But this is an awfully strange argument coming from such an ardent Obama supporter. After all, Obama had been in the Senate for less than two years when he announced his candidacy for President. If Palin's thin resume makes her ineligible to lead the country, doesn't Obama's do the same? To Mr. Sullivan's credit, he posts several reader responses that make this point and he responds in an interesting way:
"ask yourself: could Sarah Palin have run a national election campaign against, say, a machine as powerful as the Bush family, and won? Does she have the skill set to construct a campaign that would actually have brought her to the nomination herself?"
It seems that, to Sullivan, Obama's skill as a campaigner qualifies him to be president. Palin, it seems, is unqualified in part because she was chosen and did not run herself. This argument is not entirely ridiculous. The Obama Machine is huge and well-oiled and Barack is at the center of it all. It's evidence of his considerable management skills. But I think that campaigning is very different from governing.
Bush had one of the best run campaigns in history: I think that's all we really need to know about that. Sullivan's argument is particularly puzzling if you consider that his main gripe with Palin seems to be her lack of experience in foreign policy and national security. I'm not sure setting up a brilliant on-line fundraising operation prepares you for dealing with Iran.
I have no doubt that Andrew Sullivan is smarter and better informed than I am. If we were ever to debate about anything he would probably demolish me. However, a strong mind can be used to deceive as well as enlighten and the world is full of people who use their intellect to deceive themselves. I'm not sure that's what Mr. Sullivan is doing now, but he has surely lost his commitment to even handed analysis.
Friday, August 29, 2008
Hitting The Road!
I'm off to Philly to celebrate labor... and days... and having a long weekend, with the fam. It should be good, and who knows... maybe before I leave tomorrow morning I'll even upload some more Southern pictures tonight as I've been planning to basically every day since returning from North Carolina and Alabama last week! Ayee!
In the meantime, checkout this funny little bear, think funny thoughts about Van Halen and Sarah Palin... and somehow I have a feeling I'll toss up some more posts this weekend.
If, somehow, I don't... let me just say this: August has been a remarkable month here at The Best Way. With all that has happened in politics, a bunch of fun and interesting posts about music, the return of some photography and the usual dash of random goofy junk we've shot past 40 posts for a month (our previous max was in the 30s) and hit our second highest readership ever overall.
Thanks to those who stop in regularly and especially those who drop a comment here or there. Many thanks to those who link to us here and there and bring some traffic our way. Finally all my gratitude to my friends who post.
From Venice's interesting thoughts about ObamaMcCainPalinBidenHillaryPoliticalWhatnow to JR's input on plastic and Face-off it's tons of fun keeping this little train a choo choo chooing along. I hope you all continue to enjoy it as much as we do, and that everyone has a wonderful Labor Day weekend!!!!
Right Now! We didn't give you permission!
That's the chorus for the tune Van Halen is singing to John McCain, apparently they're none to pleased with him rallying this morning's Sarah Palin announcement using their tune, "Right Now." I watched video of Palin's speech earlier today and noted the tune, as I've always liked the song (and I remember it being the theme music for Crystal Pepsi commercials back in the 90s). But apparently Crystal Pepsi, John McCain is not to the fine gentlemen who make up the band, hence they are supposedly pissed that their little ditty has been apropriated by his campaign. Read more here on HuffPo.
Ever wish you could take back something you said on cable news?
Um... schwoops!
Hopefully somebody answered this question for Sarah before today. I imagine this little clip is going to make the rounds quite a bit in the next little while.
Further goofing on Sarah:
Hopefully somebody answered this question for Sarah before today. I imagine this little clip is going to make the rounds quite a bit in the next little while.
Further goofing on Sarah:
- 23/6 takes issue with name choices, "Track" and Palin's newest child, "Trig." Thank you, 23/6, not sure how I missed commenting on that earlier. Trig? Say whaaaaa?!?!!?!?
- While 23/6 calls her McCain's Quayle, Andrew Sullivan at the Atlantic has a post referencing the video above and naming her, "Harriet Quayle," a hybrid of the potato-loving former VP and the almost-Supreme White House lawyer.
- Finally... wow, Wonkette does it again! I told you Sarah was their girl. Check out their lovely photoshop of "Your First Look at McCain-Palin's America," a look not to be missed.... wow wow wow.
Now that you're all paying attention...
Caught this on Americablog just now, Obama's acceptance speech last night was ranked as having remarkably high viewership by Nielsen Media Research, which rated viewership as 38 million making this speech more watched than the Olympics opening ceremony in Beijing, the final "American Idol" or the 2008 Academy Awards.
Given that most felt the speech itself was quite strong, this would seem to bode well for Mr. Obama and his good friend Mr. Biden.
Given that most felt the speech itself was quite strong, this would seem to bode well for Mr. Obama and his good friend Mr. Biden.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)