[Peace-discuss] A view from the UK

[C. G. Estabrook]

[Palin has little or nothing to do with isolationism, in any sense.  Would that 
she did: I've thought for a while that McCain could win as an anti-war 
candidate, but that's now looking to be unnecessary, as Obama's pro-war position 
becomes more and more obvious.  Here below is another view from the UK, sounder 
as it seems to me, although the last two paragraphs are blather.  --CGE]

	Democratic activists should stop digging
	By Clive Crook
	Published: September 14 2008 20:00

If Barack Obama loses this election to John McCain – something which, for the 
first time, I regard as a real possibility – history will point to August 29 as 
the pivotal moment. That was when Mr McCain announced that Sarah Palin would be 
his running-mate, and when livid Democrats and their friends in the media voiced 
their feelings about her and much of the electorate, and gravely harmed their 
candidate’s prospects.

For Mr McCain to win the election against the odds that faced him pre-Palin – 
with the economy in the tank and the incumbent Republican president setting 
records for unpopularity – would be sensational enough. For this to happen 
because of his vice-presidential pick, a decision that is usually of next to no 
consequence, beggars belief. The Democrats had to bring all their resources to 
getting themselves into this fix. They proved equal to the task.

As I argued last week, Mr Obama’s own initial reaction to the Palin nomination 
was exactly right. All the party had to do was follow his lead. Mr Obama, in 
effect, would give her enough rope; her inadequacies would reveal themselves in 
due course; it cost nothing, in the meantime, to be courteous, and to keep 
pressing on the issues, where the Democrats still enjoy an advantage with most 
voters. Ms Palin’s first television interview last week, an adequate but far 
from stellar performance, affirmed the wisdom of that course.

But the Democratic talking-heads had to exult in their disdain for Ms Palin and 
all she represents – namely, a good part of the electorate whose support Mr 
Obama needs. In the space of a few days, they irreversibly damaged Mr Obama’s 
candidacy and transformed this election.

Subsequent developments reflect poorly on both parties, in my view. Are the 
Democrats learning, and trying to correct their error? No, for the most part, 
just the opposite. Are the Republicans pressing their advantage with a 
confident, principled campaign focused on the issues that matter? Again, no.

Certainly, the Democrats can see they are in a hole. Somehow, though, the word 
has gone out: “Keep digging.” Mr Obama is also urged to be less cool and lose 
his temper. Voters adore an angry candidate, you see. “Dig faster, and be more 
angry,” is the advice coming down from the political geniuses who decided it was 
a fine idea to laugh at Ms Palin in the first place. A recurring television 
image in the past few days has been the split-screen contrast between a serenely 
smiling Republican operative and a fulminating red-faced Democrat about to have 
a stroke.

Efforts to smear the governor proceed at a frantic pace. My guess would be that 
there are now more journalists on assignment in Alaska than bothered to turn up 
for the Republican convention in St Paul, sifting through dustbins, 
interrogating Palin family acquaintances (extra credit for those with a 
grievance) and subjecting Ms Palin’s expenses claims to a fanatical scrutiny 
which I dare say their own record-keeping, or that of most senators, might not 
withstand.

Of course, they will find things. They may even find something important. But 
the sheer swarming zeal for trivial malfeasance and family embarrassments is 
rapidly raising the bar for impropriety. I think that many voters – and not just 
committed Republicans – find this whole spectacle disgusting, so on top of 
everything else Ms Palin is now getting a sympathy vote.

Among seasoned Democratic politicians, the picture is more mixed. Joe Biden, the 
vice-presidential nominee, appears to get it. His stump speech has started to 
include obliging remarks about Ms Palin, which suggests he is approaching the 
forthcoming television debate in the correct frame of mind. If he can stay 
polite and respectful while laying bare the gaps in Ms Palin’s knowledge and 
experience, and by highlighting her positions on social issues, which are 
unappealing to many centrists, he can undo some of the damage of recent days.

But compare this with the comment of Carol Fowler, chairman of the South 
Carolina Democratic party, who said late last week that Ms Palin’s main 
qualification for office was that she has not had an abortion. Brilliant! Even 
now, with the polls giving their verdict, there is much more like that. And 
Democrats wonder why they cannot get the debate back on to their issues.

Republicans are not going to help them do it while things are going so well for 
them. This may be understandable, but let us be clear – this is not to their 
credit. If Mr McCain were the kind of leader he claims to be, he would want to 
be elected for his platform. His policy proposals, not his vapid commitment to 
“change Washington”, would be to the fore. More than this, he would also want to 
bind the country together, and restore its moral strength and sense of purpose. 
He would strive to be a unifier. Mr Obama makes that claim, with seeming 
sincerity, and it is the best thing about his candidacy.

Democrats will deny it, but they opened this new front in the culture war by 
their response to the Palin nomination. The mess they are in is their own fault. 
They still seem intent on driving significant numbers of women and moderates 
over to the other side and Mr McCain’s political instinct is doubtless to help 
this rift in the electorate widen further. It could be a winning strategy. But 
good politics is not the same thing as responsible leadership. I intend it as a 
compliment to Mr McCain when I say that if his means to victory in this election 
is to divide the country, it is a victory he should not want.

	Send your comments to clive.crook at gmail.com
	Read and post comments at Clive Crook’s Washington Blog
	Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2008

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/0be814b0-828b-11dd-a019-000077b07658.html?nclick_check=1


Brussel Morton K. wrote:
> From http://www.commondreams.org/view/2008/09/14-3
> …
> 
> Ms Palin is a symbol of deep American introversion, of the fact that you have
> ceased to take yourselves seriously and, more important, don't much care who
> knows it. Arguments over the relationship between the wider world and your
> choices have become irrelevant. You have detached yourself, finally, from the
> global community. This is isolationism as never before conceived. "American"
> in my life has been lingua franca, for better or ill. Now you talk to
> yourself.
> 
> And you talk, my friends, in the sort of gibberish that once you spurned.
> It's not about Ms Palin, as such. It is about the process that creates a
> candidate-grin manipulated to serve darkness, ignorance, fear, a war economy,
> and the flaunting of stupidity.
> 
> Nice going.