Are McCain and Palin Playing with a Bad Deck?

Sarah Palin is fulfilling her role of a VP candidate attack dog as she steps up her attacks on Barack Obama. However, the question is, "Is Palin playing with a deck of race / fear cards in a covert suggestive manner?"

Associated Press (AP) writer, Douglas K. Daniel, in an article released today, "Analysis: Palin's words may backfire on McCain," alludes to the possibility. He reports Palin, in a speech aimed at Republican donors in Englewood, Colorado, yesterday (Saturday), proclaimed, "Our opponent . . . is someone who sees America, it seems, as being so imperfect, imperfect enough, that he's palling around with terrorists who would target their own country." The terrorist to whom she was referring is Professor William Ayers and his association with the 1960's - 70's Weather Underground.

Daniel writes that Palin's speech is, "A deliberate attempt to smear Obama. . . . McCain's ticket-mate echoed the line at three separate events Saturday."

This morning, on the talking-heads television political shows, there was a hord of Republican "spokespersons," some of whom I never heard of and the majority being white, dutifully mouthing the same talking point. Is this the October surprise McCain has referenced since the Republican National Convention? Is this all he has?

Has McCain and Palin's handlers nothing constructive to put forth that addresses the problems every American is facing, or will face, due to the financial mess our entire country, most of Europe, the far East, and South America are facing, or beginning to face. Even the Middle Eastern Arab countries, the UAE, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt, etc., are "whoaing-up," ** by tightening their cash out-flow.

** Sorry, I'm trying to get "folksy" like Palin. "Whoa!" is the command a farmer would give to the mules, when farmers used mules, as he pulled the reigns hard for them to stop. "Whoa-up," is the command he gave to indicate to the mules to prepare to stop, as he gently pulled the reigns back. So, he would first command, "Who-o-o-a up" then, "Whoa!" Will the Middle Eastern countries ultimately cry, "Whoa!" and stop investing in American enterprises? How about China? Either possibility is a far more fearful prospect than anyone with whom Obama has, or may have, associated.

Palin also has changed her primary tune. Now, her mantra is, "This is not a man who sees America like you and I see America. We see America as a force of good in this world. We see an America of exceptionalism." Hey! What happened to the corrupt, broken Government / Washington / America - we are going to fix - crusade? Note that she never says, Washington, D.C.

I object to her use of the collective pronoun here since WE own the Government buildings in Washington, D.C., and WE are the Government. Has she never read the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution? She and McCain, alone, can't fix anything relating to America. The American collective WE must join together to do that.

As to William "Bill" Ayers. He is a white man, once a member of the Vietnam-era Weather Underground, an organization which claimed responsibility for a dozen bombings between 1970 and 1974. It was, indeed, a terrorist organization acting against the American Government. However, the former Weatherman, himself, was never convicted of any crime, and now holds the position of distinguished professor of education at the University of Illinois, Chicago.

He and Obama are not, and never have been, "pals." Obama was all of eight years old during the time of the Weather Underground. The two met years later when they both worked in some organizations in Chicago to help the poor, while Obama was a Community Organizer there. When Obama first entered local politics, Ayers hosted a fundraiser for him.

Later, when Republicans associated Obama with Ayers and Ayers' history in the Weather Underground, Obama denounced Ayers' behavior, as he has done with the radical Christian Evangelical minister, Jeremiah Wright. Obama has made it crystal clear to any intelligent individual that he does not condone any of Ayers and Wright's present, or past, radical beliefs or actions. For more, see Article.

So, is there a fear-of-black-men card in Palin's false associations? Obliquely, there could be. Palin seems to be trying to pull old fears about black males, and prejudices again black males, into the forefront for her listeners, who might subsequently associate any such fears they might have with Obama. If a black man, or any other individual, can be connected with a primal fear, the connector has a potent weapon.

Think about the movie, TO KILL A MOCKINGBIRD. There was "black male phobia" when the movie was made and there are still pockets of such ignorant behavior in America, especially in the South.

Therefore, Palin's reasoning could be: Obama is a black male (hold on, I'll get to the white part), so she mistakenly accuses him of being a man who is different from Americans (not white), and a man to fear (he's black). The misleading notion here is that Obama is a black male.

He is 1/2 black (father) and 1/2 white (mother). Thus, his official racial classification is by-racial, or Mulatto. But, Palin isn't educated enough to understand cloaked nuances. She says whatever her former G.W. Bush speechwriter writes for her, understand or not.

She is too undereducated and downright stupid to do otherwise, and she is moving McCain and the Republican anti-Obama "talking heads" into the same "stupid" column with her. She is doing so with the vitality and excitement McCain falsely sees as a counter balance to his declining mental and physical faculties. In reality, she is a reminder of them to many Americans.

Yes. I wrote Palin is downright stupid, but I have not called her Alaskan trailer park trash - - yet.

If McCain's campaign is subtly trying to play the "race / hate card" with this tactic, it will fail. If it does, his handlers will then move on to Obama's former relationship with the Reverend Jeremiah Wright, also of Chicago, and try that one. Trust me, that tactic will fail, too, because I am sure that most voting Americans are way past such asinine associations and racial bigotry.

- - - - - - - - -
The author of this blog holds three academic degrees, including a M.A. in Communication, specializing in behavioral communication.

Palin Polls Fall 12 Points

Tom Toles of The Washington Post.

Sarah Palin's poll numbers have fallen 12 points since the Republican National Convention. One-third of registered voters planning to vote for McCain have switched to Obama because of Palin on the Republican ticket. The issues with voters tend to be her lack of knowledge and qualifications, experience, and an erosion of the trust factor.

At the same time, G.W. Bush's approval rating is now 21%. G.W. and Sarah certainly have one thing in common, the way they pronounce "nuclear". Director Oliver Stone calls G.W., "a most dangerous man," and today McCain pulled out of Michigan.

At a recent American Film Event, actor Jim Carrey said (paraphrased), "I am feeling really good about Sarah Palin because I used to live in Canada, and I could see Alaska from there. So I know everything there is to know about her."

If you don't know anything about Jim Carrey, you might interpret that remark as highly complimentary to Palin. If you have seen a Carrey movie, or watched an interview with him, you can assume Carrey really does know more about Palin than she thinks he does.

She watches simpleton sports movies, and can't remember the title of a single magazine or newspaper she read before John McCain tapped her on the shoulder.

The way Sarah Palin speaks: "Before we make a judgment we have got to see what happens a few days after tonight's debate ya betch'a, and hope eye-ran don't pull a nuke-u-ler attack in the meantime."

Well, that's the way she talks, folks - - few paragraphs, few periods, often improper grammar, and a limited vocabulary. I'll be back on the weekend after I check the political polls and financial currents.

Will Angry Clinton Supporters Accept Divorce?

Hopeful Hillary Clinton

Will American Women Vote Their Own Principles?

The question most often being asked by the hosts of the "talking heads" on the television / radio political shows is, "Will Senator Hillary Clinton's supporters vote for the Obama - Biden Democratic ticket?" The response was basically, "Let's wait to see what Hillary says in her speech at the National Democratic Convention on Tuesday night."

There are many organized groups of women who are damn angry about Senator Clinton's miss, and jump to place blame on anyone or anything they possibly can. You know what all this reminds me of? A group of divorced middle-aged hate-all-men-in-the-universe women screamers. I know the type because I have been there. Thankfully, I have passed that stage in my life. I accepted my divorce and moved on years ago, making my own and my children's future my utmost priority.

Psychologically, I think these women are bashing Obama because they can't accept the fact that he dumped Hillary for Joe, i.e., emotionally "divorced her." Come on, ladies. Get over it.

Also, I am one of those older middle-class women who lives in a rural area. Nationally, three out of five such women say they will move from the Democratic Party and vote for John McCain. I am not among them, even before Hillary speaks. I was born a Democrat and I shall die a Democrat. There. Now, you know from where I come.

One of my earliest dreams was to see a woman elected President of the United States in my lifetime. I hoped the bravery of Senator Clinton might make my dream come true. Unfortunately, that dream has been dashed, but I still have a dream, an immediate dream - - to see any and everyone associated with the Bush Administration out of Washington in January 2009!

I do not want them out simply because they are a Republican administration. It is because of the (insert your own expletive) mess they have gotten our country into. The only way to accomplish that dream is to elect as many Democrats (national, state and local) as possible in November, especially the two at the top of the ticket - - Senators Barack Obama and Joseph Biden. This is no time for sulking women to break ranks.

There are a number of Web sites and blogs where women are doing all they can to undermine the Democratic Party with anti-Obama rhetoric, so much so that many have been accused of Republican sponsorship. I checked one of those this morning, "Just Say No Deal," and the venom is still spewing as their representatives head to Denver. Their invitation to those who view their Web site is "Our readers - simply weave the copy: Just Say No Deal or No Deal into the body of your blogpost [sic] or title and submit to blogs@justsaynodeal.com."

Whoa! They just flunked English 101, and they call themselves capable of making decisions for the women of America? Not! Anyway, I shall send them the link to this post. I doubt they will post it.

I, myself, cannot let any disappointment or anger about the Democratic Primary results dominate my judgment. I have always made my own decisions based upon what I know and not upon what someone tells me.

For the future of all Americans, I must trust America's women, especially mothers, to make their own decisions without succumbing to brainwashing by any group. For instance, I think Senator Obama's choice of Senator Joseph Biden (Delaware) for his V.P. could not have been surpassed by choosing Senator Clinton. I have watched, paid attention to, admired, and agreed with most of Senator Biden's policy decisions. I think that team in the White House is best for America.

Senator Clinton and her husband bring too much baggage to the race. In other words, too much negative ammunition for the Republican smear machine. It is a safe bet that Karl Rove is again involved in some way, and he is the propaganda Master of Mean.

Therefore, my decision is to MAKE THE DEAL. At every national election, I always think what President John F. Kennedy said at his inauguration, "Ask not what your Country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your Country."

This November 4th, our Country needs each of us more than ever. That's the AMERICAN way.

All Hail FOX, ABC and Walt Disney!

The Iowa caucuses are over. Obama and Huckabee are the clear winners in Iowa, but to start yelping that everyone else might as well quit now, as some media commentators are doing, is ridiculous.

What a circus of media hype. Where I live, we haven't gotten any political ads on television yet. So, counting only national news and commentary, only six candidates seemed to receive any substantial "face time" on television, receiving less on radio.

About the only ones we saw or heard about were Obama, Clinton, and Edwards on the Democrat's side and Huckabee, Romney, McCain and Thompson on the Republican's. I listed them in order as I perceived it.

Surprise. Surprise. The candidates seemed to have faired better in direct relation to the amount of exposure they received from the national broadcast media, not counting ads. Of course, I'm not in Iowa, but in the middle of the country in an adjoining state, and I'm only guessing.

However, I do hold an M.A. in Communication, and I know that big media in the U.S. can influence outcomes though purposely selecting images and words, and allocating time amount and slot to favor one candidate over another. I hope the researchers at the Annenberg Center for the Study of Journalism & Democracy are studying this, and will publish some statistics about the correlation of the amount of broadcast time, not counting ads, to winning candidates.

Fox News (owned by Rupert Murdock) prevented Dennis Kucinich, from participating in the political debate in Des Moines, Iowa, before the caucuses. Yesterday, ABC (owned by Walt Disney) announced that Democratic presidential candidates Kucinich and Mike Gravel, and Republican Duncan Hunter would not be allowed to participate on its prime-time debates tonight in New Hampshire.

The network purposely set benchmarks to narrow the participants in the debates, so much so that Senators Joe Biden and Chris Dodd immediately bowed out of the race after the Iowa results were announced. Are they gentlemen or quitters?

According to the AP, "Candidates had to meet at least one of three criteria: place first through fourth in Iowa, poll 5 percent or higher in one of the last four major New Hampshire surveys, or poll 5 percent or higher in one of the last four major national surveys."

Tonight, Republicans Mike Huckabee, John McCain, Rudy Giuliani, Fred Thompson, Mitt Romney and Ron Paul will be allowed by ABC to debate. They start at 7 p.m. EST.

Shortly after their debate, which is scheduled to last 90 minutes, the ABC chosen Democrats Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, John Edwards and Bill Richardson will take the stage for 90 minutes. ABC has chosen.

All hail FOX, ABC, and Walt Disney!

The airwaves belong to the American people. Yet, Americans must now pay a "provider" in order to obtain the programming from those airwaves, and a year from now they must have new, expensive digital receivers or they will be deprived of receiving anything. This is crazy stuff.

Even more important, never before has a network arbitrarily set rules to block Americans from making their views known in a national election. That was something unimaginable when I received a Masters in Communication, exactly 200 years after the establishment of the United States of America.

Kucinich has filed a complaint with the FCC. That won't do any good. The FCC is totally in the pockets of the huge media complex, the growth, or power grabs, of which the FCC is facilitating.

Americans want change. Well, Americans will get change, but it may turn out to be the worst kind of change.

Let's face it Americans, we are already you-know-what. This isn't an election, it's a media-driven circus.

NOW Addresses Negative Obama E-mail

The PBS television show NOW, hosted by David Branccachio, addresses the issue of my last post tonight (Friday, 4 January) in "Dirty Politics 2008," political mudslinging and using the Internet in a malicious way with an intentional attempt to harm the reputation of a political candidate by spreading an untrue rumor. Such rumor-mongering tactics will only increase.

On NOW's Web site they have an entire page devoted to the "Anatomy of a Smear." The very smears against Senator Obama that I address in the previous post are addressed. Listed on the page are Web sites where one may go to check whether a statement made in any medium is "true" or "false." In a box, called "Debunking Resources," seven sites are listed with links. I urge you to visit that page and explore the links.