Demographics & Economics
OMB
Congressional Budget Office
The Federal Budget
U.S. Census Quickfacts
Inflation Calculator
CIA World Factbook
NationMaster
State Healthcare Facts
UN HDR stats
US Bureau of Economic Analysis
US Bureau of Labor Statistics
US CDC health stats
US DOJ Bureau of Justice Statistics
US DOJ crime stats
Constitution
The Constitution
The Founders' Constitution
The Avalon Project
The Federalist Papers
The antifederalist papers
Founding documents
Politics
ADA (liberal) Voting Records
ACU (conservative) Voting Records
Census Voter Turnout
Congressional Research Service
Memeorandum
NOW list of voting scorecards
PolitiFact
PorkBusters
Project VoteSmart list of voting scorecards
RealClearPolitics
Roll call votes--House
Roll call votes--Senate
Survey USA
WaPo Votes Database
Iraq/Terrorism
CentCom
Brookings Institute Iraq Index
Project on Defense Alternatives War Report
Nat'l Defense Univ Iraq
Nat'l Defense Univ Afghanistan
MERLIN, Nat'l Defense Univ Library Network
STRATFOR
Nat'l Memorial Inst for Prevention of Terrorism
West Point's Combating Terrorism Center
Politics blogs
Baldilocks
Blue Mass Group
Cadillac Tight
California Conservative
Jon Chait
Confederate Yankee
Crooked Timber
Democracy Project
Dinocrat
First Read
Gateway Pundit
GenerationPatriot
Horse Race Blog
Just One Minute
Hugh Hewitt
Michelle Malkin
Patterico's Pontifications
Power Line
Red State
RNCC blog
Scrappleface
Talking Points Memo
The Blogometer
The Corner
The Next Right
The Moderate Voice
Think Progress
Wizbang
Moderate / centrist
Ambivablog
Bipartisan Rules
Booker Rising
Centerfield
Charging RINO
Donklephant
Liberal War Journal
Militant Moderates
The Buck Stops Here
The Glittering Eye
The Iconic Midwest
The PoliGazette
The Walrus Said
Legal & blawgs
How Appealing
Becker-Posner
Bench Memos
Concurring Opinions
Law & Letters
Legalities
Prawfsblawg
SCOTUSblog
Sentencing Law & Policy
The Volokh Conspiracy
Christian
ADW blog
Father Z
First Thoughts
Mirror of Justice
Veritas Rex
Middle East & Muslim affairs
Eteraz
Iraq the Model
Lebanese Political Journal
Michael Totten
Michael Yon
General interest
Althouse
Ambiance
Chris Muir's Day by Day
Instapundit
IowaHawk
JAC
Professor Bainbridge
Prettier than Napoleon
Rachel Lucas
The Right Coast
Science Blog
Sippican Cottage
The Anchoress
Whatever
Our RSS feed
I liked the interview but...
when one uses the phrase "Media elite" many minds turn off and communication stops. If we go in assuming that folks "on the other side" don't want to openly discuss (and use words/phrases that shut down dialogue) then we will fulfill our biases and prophesies.
not for mainstream national consumption?
For Palin's sake I hope this sermon is intended for her choir, and not for broader consumption. If and when she decides to speak to a broad national audience, she needs to stop digging. And stop whining. She clearly still lacks the experience to gracefully glide by invitations to engage in small-minded complaining that makes her look bitter and uncognizant of whatever her own role was in her recent failure.
I know opinion varies widely about the extent of what many call liberal media bias., But when push comes to shove in real world politics, its extent doesn't matter. Because even if she is right, complaining about it isn't useful. She MUST avoid getting caught up in this trap. That's how you graduate to the national political stage, by not taking the bait, and focusing on a positive affirmative message that the people like. She's not doing that here.
Palin should probably study how Hillary Clinton evolved to the point where she learned to eschew actions such as what Palin admitted was a flippant answer to a question about what she had been reading. Just like Hillary learned not to make snarky jokes about baking cookies. When Katie Couric asked her about what she was reading, of COURSE Couric was trying to make Palin look like a rube. And when Palin indulged in flippancy, she missed an opportunity to make Couric look bad with a graceful answer that extolled reading and expressed regret that most of her reading had to be confined to keeping up with what was going on in her state.
here's the thing: a good politician recognizes when someone like Couric is baiting them and refuses to drop down to their level. Instead of complaining about gotcha journalism, which liberal bias or no is not even remotely new, Palin needs to learn how to float like a butterfly and sting like a bee.
Um....?
Whining? Complaining? Her role in her recent failure? Not like you're biased or anything....
Let's face it: Palin has been much, much tougher than almost any individual has any ability to be. Her complaints are about the fact that her family was pulled into this and trashed, that she was treated very differently from other candidates, and that there were a barrage of lies and distortions about her.
All of those are valid and true.
You're also forgetting that Sarah Palin has said that she is deeply sorry if she cost John McCain so much as a single vote. But I guess that doesn't fit into certain memes, does it?
I'll also disagree with the idea that "complaining" has no value. When people really began to question the media in the 2008 election, it was for a very good reason: the bias was off the charts. People who had never even thought about media bias were disgusted and repulsed by what happened. Conservatives must use this to their advantage. They need to continue to hammer home the fact that the MSM is lying and biased; otherwise, we're going to have this happen all over again in 2010, 2012, 2014 - ad nauseum - if we think we can "rise above it" or other such nonsense. It ends when normal, average Americans stop believing anything the MSM says about conservatives.
you're over-parsing me
Theo, you're WAY over-parsing me. That she was complaining in this piece is demonstrable, and thus factual, as you actually go on to concede. Maybe whining is subjective, but that's my perception, and I think many objective observers would readily acknowledge that Palin frequently lapses into a whiny pedantic tone. Is it understandable? definitely yes. I say this a someone less sympathetic than you, but not unsympathetic. She was treated harshly. And she wasn't ready for it. So while her responses are in many respects understandable, I continue to maintain that they are not very useful.
Palin's most ardent defenders have a really annoying habit of ignoring both my perspective and the point I keep trying to make. That point being that when it comes to public perception, it's far less important whether Palin is right to to be annoyed, and far more important that she finds a graceful way to rise above and get around these obstacles. She is so far from being the first politician to face such a challenge that I am truly astounded that this point is not simply acknowledged forthrightly.
Her "failure?" I was simply speaking to the simple point that her team lost. Again, this is a demonstrable fact. Saying you are sorry is not the same as showing awareness of your shortcomings so that you can overcome them next time. She comes across to me as looking almost exclusively to the outside to explain her ticket's loss.
I'll go ahead and agree with you that complaining has nonzero value, while still maintaining that it has very little value compared to more important things. I don't think you GET what it means to rise above things like petty media baiting. What it means is to stick to your positive case and your perspective while being graceful. Those of us who haunt blogs enjoy the luxury of thinking that tone doesn't matter much. But if you are running for major office, tone counts.
Anyone from the conservative legion really SHOULD know very well what it means to stick to a positive message and glide gracefully past media baiting. Because that was a primary reason for Ronald Reagan's success. Reagan made himself look big and trustworthy and deserving of being followed to where he was leading.
So far, Palin is far too often lacking in this quality. She comes across as (and go ahead and call this bias if you want, but I think it's there to see) as whiny and shrill, and she has so far not shown much ability to think quickly and speak nimbly when challenged. She has a substantial problem with stammering, and with stringing together clauses and partial thoughts into run-on ramblings that don't make that much sense. She indulges in stream-of-consciousess connection-making, and what results is not always a follow formed =thought or insight.
Palin needs to be a much better and more poised public communicator. Period. And that is crucial to her future prospects regardless of whether you or I are more on the mark about the extent or nature of media bias.
You are right about what is
You are right about what is important now. How much did Bush's communication skills sink the GOP? Who can forget the attacks on Hillary's shrill voice? People don't want to hear anyone in stilted, drawled and broken sentences. They expect our politicians to be good actors. Sloppy does not instill confidence. GOP would be wise to take a lesson from Obama. Palin did not put much time into preparing for center stage and what she might have thought was cute, does not cut it nationally. Polished energy and environmental ads from the State of Alaska? She has poor media savvy. I would recommend a cameo on 30 Rock.
On the other hand, Palin's treatment is representative of the new media filtering. Caroline Kennedy made Palin look sharp yet no skit on SNL. I think in Palin's case Brian, she is targeted. Not understanding this and responding with appropriate makeovers and venue is either arrogant or stupid. Right now perhaps Joe the Plumber ought to interview her. Gee, that would look swell.
On a related matter
My son after watching a brief news piece with President Elect Obama addressing the matter (I've already forgotten the subject):
"Is he saying anything?"
Now granted he's a conservative sort (more so than I am) but he's of the demographic that Obama's campaign coveted greatly (under 30). Its the flip side of "Palin-speak"(and he was VERY critical of her speaking)
circumspection
I agree with that perception. If there is one obvious characteristic of Obama's communication style when answering questions and speaking to hot-button issues, it's that he's carefully circumspect. He speaks in a slow rhythm with weighty pauses that lead to accurate but nor very revealing statements. He speaks in broad general strokes that are usually hard to disagree with. He identifies positive-sounding goals but doesn't explain how we'll get there. And he uses the modern long-winded style: You make a stab at an objective summary as you understand it, you acknowledge the perspectives of critics from both sides, and then you say something that sounds intelligent and sober but boils down to little more than "let's wait and see what the facts are and then we'll get together and figure out what to do."
This can of course be very frustrating. Personally, I tend to like it because it feels to me like he is willing to wait and see where the balance lies. The press always pushes politicians to get out ahead of things. They love the ones who do. That's what controversy relies upon. It's a great spot to be when you are critic without much power to set policy.
But if you're President, you can't make decisions or statements based on the media's need to have a new data point every day to add to the ongoing narrative around a given issue. Statements and decisions have to flow from an ongoing and developing understanding of the facts and the positions of the various players.
Maybe the President, due to his bully pulpit and role as bill-signer, has the equivalent of the seat in the big blind (a la texas hold 'em), politically speaking. Not always, but often enough. In any given political hand being played, the press rushes to the President to ask him what kind of hand he has. But the power of the big blind is to act last.
Carefully circumspect?
Carefully circumspect?
As the hot button issues grow to quite a set and Obama finally has the obligation of clarification as President, how circumspect can he continue to be? The Middle East has finally broken into a new trichotomy (Israel, Shia and Sunnis) with Iran openly siding with AQ against Israel, the US and Western-friendly Muslim states. The Mullahs are turning the Muslim Brotherhood (see middle of article) to a darker side. The Grand Mufti, Arafat and Saddam, all part of the modern fascist thread beginning in the 1920’s must be spinning in the ground. Turkey, Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Half of Lebanon, Jordan, the present governments of Pakistan and Afghanistan, Iraq, the governments of Algerian, Tunisia and other Sunni States have never been more united against Iran and her proxies to the point of wishing to see Hamas bloodied. That’s the story the media is filtering out along with Hamas’ war crimes. Those daily briefings Obama studies should include evidence of Syria, Iran with help from others of pushing Hizb’Allah and Hamas and continuing a new military projection including the suspected covert activities. Let’s see if Obama moves towards the Grand Bargain or makes good on his more centrist stance of late. You made one prediction and I warned of a possible consequence. Hillary as SECSTATE changes that a bit, but such a nomination might have been a purely tactical move on Obama’s part. He knows the storm a comin…….
And to our South? Mexico
Chavez is set to try another time to become dictator with FARC now striking Columbia again. It has been years now since Quds entered South America and the Russians started a flow of materials. Open things up with Cuba and hackers can hang out in Havana…LOL Yep, Mexico is problematic and you do know what Obama was suggesting about military and police assistance to our southern neighbors.. Free Trade rewrites and snubbing Columbia? Circumspect won’t cut it as the witching hour begins after the 20th of January.
The Bailout, Gitmo detainees, secrecy and the Patriot Act, DoD budgets and missile defense, out sourcing, healthcare, deficits….quite a list.
So far your prediction seems to be holding. Kudos, but then crunch time hasn’t come. I do hope that Obama can keep throwing whoever he must under the bus. Since he speaks of Reagan, he must recognize the serious element of Patriotism associated with Reagan’s message. While I do not see Obama acting on his own inclinations to project force in light of eroding positions not likely bettered through “talking”, he may very well be forced into action. With his rhetorical skill and the immediacy of war, he could be a very powerful wartime figure. I am of course, rooting for the possible scenario that Obama takes a clear non circumspect line, a powerful signal. Stimulus plans and foreign policy are the first two foundations he must set. Let’s see how it plays out.
Carefully circumspect however, will go only so far.
what did I predict?
What did I predict, that he would take a more centrist tack than the left led themselves to believe? Or something else? The former was an easy call. It's IMO an important political skill to say little while allowing various audiences to think you're saying much.
Circumspection (or whatever you want to call what I'm trying to describe) is a core diplomatic skill and the various hot issues you describe are likely to require it. But as you suggest, it's only one tool. Do you have to take stands in some cases. Sure. Risky ones. Guesses. Hopes. I wonder how far YOU want Obama to go. I'm happy to acknowledge that all the issues you describe are worthy of serious concern. However, my sense is that many of them are intractable enough that I hope Obama is extremely reticent to place the United States squarely in the middle of most of them. Concern and attention are one thing. Direct tangible involvement is another.
For example, Obama tried to talk a tough game on Afghanistan in debate with McCain. I personally am not eager to see us get more involved there as we (presumedly) reduce the scope of our involvement in Iraq. Not because I think Afghanistan unworthy of our concern. But because it makes Iraq look prosperous and unified by comparison. I've often said that the US can't want a stable democracy for Iraq more than Iraqis want it. That goes for Afghanistan times 10. There are so many players in Afghanistan that those who seek to describe it are stuck tossing many disparate groups under the "anti-coalition forces" umbrella. Not my idea of a good time.
You predicted that the public
You predicted that the public would buy the media treatment of candidates and not bother to explore vexing questions of record and flip flopping. Once elected, you predicted Obama would steer center. I can't say you have been in err so far.
Obama sure talks tough about Iran, but I still think he will look for a way to retreat. Does anyone think he would hit Iran after they had nukes? Sure, it is smart to dance while sizing up the options and evidence, but the time is running out.
Good example with Afganistan. Not only did Obama wax hawk, but he clearly said NO LESSONS learned from Iraq would fit Afganistan. And while Gaza goes on, Sudan bombs rebels, people are stoned in Iran, Taliban murders female dancers in Pakistan and closes girl schools in Afganistan. Where is the moral compass? What President would ask Israel to retreat and sit while Hamas reloads with bigger weapons? Just yesterday Iran said that Israel has no right to exist. Soon Kenya will face terror and Somalia will continue to shuffle weapons through Yemen so they can cross the Sinai to Hamas.
I meant simply that soon, Obama can't just be vague. Many of the world's situations need clear principles. The best way Obama can show he is not an empty suit is to show principle. If he is circumspect about that, America will not regain international leadership. I will watch with an open mind, but the clock is ticking and I concurr with the Brits who said today that the EU is irresponsible in not living up to promises in Afghanistan.
So what else is new?
Has anyone else noticed Obama's IQ has dropped four points in the last week? Just look at the ad...LOL