Sarah Palin: The Woman in the Arena

The Sarah Palin mystique will not cease because the ballots have been counted. She, barring Barack Obama, is the brightest political star in the country. America watched her over three months take an insurmountable amount of abuse, and still stay strong, composed, on message and optimistic.

Here is the best piece I have seen on understanding the Palin phenomena, written in the Wall St. Journal:

"George F. Will, Ken Adelman, Frank Fukuyama, David Brooks--these are just a few names on the list of eminent experts who have declared that Sarah Palin is what's wrong with the Republican Party.

Even if we were to add all their prestigious names to the list, however, it wouldn't be nearly as long as the line of people who stood in the cold wind of Pennsylvania to see Mrs. Palin last week.

The line outside the Heiges Field House at Shippensburg University was already growing long by noon, more than two hours before the doors opened for a Tuesday rally that wasn't scheduled to start until 5 p.m.

…Dressed in parkas or hooded sweatshirts, wearing toboggans or wrapped in blankets, they withstood an 18-mile-an-hour October wind as the late afternoon turned to evening and the temperature dipped toward freezing.

…[Palin] took her place at the lectern and tried to start her speech, but the screaming audience wouldn't let her until they'd screamed for another full minute.

None of her critics in the commentariat could ever draw such a crowd or generate such enthusiasm, and yet they do not hesitate to proclaim that she is "not close to being acceptable in high office" (Mr. Adelman), that her selection as John McCain's running mate is "irresponsible" (Mr. Fukuyama) and even that she "represents a fatal cancer to the Republican Party" (Mr. Brooks).

Popularity as a pathology? What Mr. Brooks and the others are saying is that these people who spend hours in the cold October wind for a chance to see Sarah Palin are too stupid to know what's good for them. "Listen to us," say the political experts.

Yes, the experts always know best. In September 2002, Mr. Will advocated "preemptive" war with Iraq, with a nuclear "mushroom cloud" as the alternative. Now, he denounces as "carelessness" the war he once urged, lumping Mrs. Palin into the same category of Republican error.

Mr. Fukuyama agitated for war with Iraq much earlier, signing onto the Project for the New American Century's 1998 letter to President Clinton calling for "a strategy for removing Saddam's regime from power." In the run-up to the 2003 invasion, Mr. Brooks warned that "the fog of peace" was blinding critics to the "menace" of Saddam. Among the advocates of invasion, Mr. Adelman took the cake, so to speak, by predicting a "cakewalk" in Iraq.

…Experts in Washington think themselves infinitely more important to the Republican Party than mere voters in Pennsylvania who stand in line to see the Alaska hockey mom who sent her oldest son to fight the war the experts once urged.

Our Republican experts don't fight wars or send their sons to fight them. They don't make hand-lettered signs and drive 50 miles to wait in the October wind for the chance to wave their signs inside an arena in Cumberland County, Pa. The experts don't seem to care about facts.

Among the facts the experts ignore is that the Republican Party was in deep political trouble long before John McCain picked Sarah Palin as his running mate. The total popular vote in the Democratic primaries (36 million) was 70% larger than in the GOP primaries (21 million), and McCain's 9.9 million primary votes represented just 47% of the Republican total.

On Aug. 29, when Mrs. Palin was announced in Columbus, Ohio, the Gallup daily tracking poll showed Obama with an eight-point lead. Twelve days later, the GOP ticket had surged ahead by five points."

Palin will remain a force until the 2012 elections, and a threat to the Democratic Party as a whole. She has had a taste of the national scene and she is a driven person. From last Tuesday on, she will no longer be gagged by the McCain camp and will be able to speak directly to the American people without filter. Her power will come from the ground up, which is the hallmark of any great leader.

When seeing Governor Palin take such abuse during the campaign, I thought of a famous quote from another great American maverick:

"It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; because there is not effort without error and shortcomings; but who does actually strive to do the deed; who knows the great enthusiasm, the great devotion, who spends himself in a worthy cause, who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement and who at the worst, if he fails, at least he fails while daring greatly. So that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory nor defeat." - Teddy Roosevelt

A quote was never meant more for Sarah Palin!

Three Campaign Thoughts this Tuesday

Here is something extremely interesting. Investors Business Daily, who had the most accurate Presidential Poll in 2004, gives access to their polling demographic data to their respondents. Let’s look at what happened to the Catholics polled over the past few days as to whom they were voting for:

October 20th:
Obama: 49% of Catholics Polled
McCain: 38% of Catholics Polled

October 21th:
Obama: 46%
McCain: 41%

October 22th:
Obama: 39%
McCain: 48%

October 25th:
Obama: 40%
McCain: 47% (McCain lead held)

So what happened to the Catholics responding to the poll ending October 22nd that caused the huge flip to McCain? Well, since it is a rolling 3-day average poll, this means the poll dated the 22nd, with the flip, would have been started on Monday, October 20th. Here is my guess as to what happened. All those Sunday bulletins with Bishop letters on the 19th.

2) Major Garrett brought up a good point tonight on Fox News. Obama has spent the last 2 days in Pennsylvania. Bill Clinton will fly in tomorrow and bang the drum for Obama, with Joe Biden returning to his hometown PA area to campaign in the next day or two. The in-state polls say Obama is up by 10 points in the Keystone State. The Obama campaign is not acting like these numbers are true. If they were up by 10 points they would not be spending so time in Pennsylvania, they would have a comfortable lead. The Obama campaign is forecasting a much closer race in Pennsylvania than the polls and media would have you believe. Please remember, Obama lost to Hillary Clinton in Pennsylvania when he outspent her in the state.

3) I had a whimsical thought last night. Lorne Michaels, the creator of Saturday Night Live, mentioned Sarah Palin would do well with her own talk show, and there might be opportunities for her in this venue. Wouldn’t it be poetic justice if Palin took 50% of Oprah’s audience away. Oprah would not interview Palin due to her blatant support of Obama. There is a large portion of her audience who is getting tired of her new age sales pitches and her liberal colors. Her audience is core, middle-American, stay-at-home woman, which is more aligned with Palin’s views and personality.

Sarah Palin: A Compliment from an Adversary

Lorne Michaels, creator of Saturday Night Live, on his impression of Sarah Palin after his exposure to her during her cameo last weekend:

"I think Palin will continue to be underestimated for a while. I watched the way she connected with people, and she's powerful. Her politics aren't my politics. But you can see that she's a very powerful, very disciplined, incredibly gracious woman. This was her first time out and she's had a huge impact. People connect to her."

Sounds like Mr. Michaels doesn't think Palin is hurting the ticket. The mainstream media must not have gotten to him.

The Old Guard Dies Hard

Two very similar stories that most people would not piece together.

First, in July of this year, Jesse Jackson blindsided his constituents with off-camera remarks about what he really thought about Barack Obama. For those who remember these comments, Jackson’s words left no room for opinion as how he felt about Obama.

It was a legacy leader of a movement showing hostility at the person who would replace his status as the leader of the African-American community.

In September of this year, Peggy Noonan was similarly caught off-camera telling her true feelings towards Sarah Palin, citing the election is "over" and McCain picked her only as a "narrative."

Make no mistake about it, this as well is a legacy leader of a movement showing hostility towards the person who is replacing her.

Palin is an attractive, articulate, talented woman who stirs Conservative hearts. This once was Peggy Noonan’s mantle.

I could accept and respect Ms. Noonan’s view on Palin if it was sincere by being consistent from the beginning. But it has been anything but consistent. As mentioned above, there was the off-camera "narrative" comment.

Then within the next few days, Noonan wrote a piece trying to water down her comments.

Then she turned and went into a pro-Palin phase of praise:

"That normality in turn highlighted the courage she showed in being there, on that stage for the first time in her life and under trying circumstances. Her averageness accentuated her specialness. Her commonality highlighted her uniqueness.

She seemed wholly different from, and in fact seemed a refutation to, all the men of Washington at their great desks who make rules others have to live by but they don’t have to live by themselves, who mandate work rules from which they exempt Congress, for instance. They don’t live by the rules they espouse. She has lived her expressed values. She said yes to a Down Syndrome child. This too is powerful."

Then followed it up with another Pro-Palin column saying how she is the star saving the McCain campaign:

"Sarah Palin saved John McCain again Thursday night. She is the political equivalent of cardiac paddles: Clear! Zap! We’ve got a beat! She will re-electrify the base. More than that, an hour and a half of talking to America will take her to a new level of stardom. Watch her crowds this weekend. She’s about to get jumpers, the old political name for people who are so excited to see you they start to jump."

Then yesterday she did the dirty. Rage and vanity are so erratic.

"But we have seen Mrs. Palin on the national stage for seven weeks now, and there is little sign that she has the tools, the equipment, the knowledge or the philosophical grounding one hopes for, and expects, in a holder of high office."

There are two types of people who are infuriated by Palin. The first group is liberals; the second group is elitists. Noonan is obviously not a liberal. But she does use terms like "averageness" and "commonality" to describe Palin as seen in the above quote. A normal person would never describe Palin in these terms. She went from PTA president to VP candidate in 17 years. There is nothing average and common about her. It is the difference between looking up at her, and looking down at her. Noonan obviously does the latter, proving she is the latter group.

Noonan runs in elite, literary circles of affluent writers and Washington power-brokers. When she talks, she is intensely listening to every word that comes out of her own mouth and sounds like she could be sipping tea on the Queen Mary.

It is a sad day for me. I used consider Peggy Noonan the female voice in the Conservative movement. Noonan’s actions alone can tell you she has been replaced.

Post Note 10/26: Tony Blankley agrees on Noonan:

"Peggy's unconscious fear may be that it will be precisely Sarah Palin (and others like her) who will be among the leaders of the about-to-be-reborn conservative movement. I suspect that the conservative movement we start rebuilding on the ashes of Nov. 4 (even if McCain wins) will have little use for overwritten, over-delicate commentary. The new movement will be plain-spoken and socially networked up from the Interneted streets, suburbs and small towns of America. It certainly will not listen very attentively to those conservatives who idolatrize Obama and collaborate in heralding his arrival. They may call their commentary "honesty." I would call it -- at the minimum -- blindness."

Sarah Palin: A True Champion of the Middle Class

Governor Palin released her financials today. Last year, her AGI reported as a married couple was $166,000. Included in this was $46,600 that her husband made from working at BP and $15,500 he made from his commercial fishing business. In the prior year they made $128,000 AGI. I know for the many struggling out there this sounds like a lot of money, but she is probably the most impoverished person to be on a presidential ticket since Lincoln. In addition it should be noted that she has 5 children to provide for. This was reported in the Wall St. Journal.

By way of comparison, the Obamas made over $4 Million dollars of AGI last year. The article also cites that John McCain paid his household help more in total salary than what the Palin's earned last year.

The article lists Palin's largest asset as her home, very aligned with the middle class.

The Palins gave 1.5% of their income to charity last year. This is a truly authentic number because she could not have imagined that she would have to release her income specifics due to the fact that she would be named a vice-president candidate. Obama's charitable contributions went way up this year because he knew he was running for President.

By way of comparison, Dem VP Joe Biden made over $320,000 in AGI and gave less than $1,000 to charity last year. Blue-collar Joe has average $369 a year to charity over the past 10 years.

This VP charitable contribution comparison aligns with major studies than have been done that states Liberal compassion doesn't always make it to their check books.

Arthur C. Brooks, a professor at Syracuse University, published "Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism" saw the following truth when running the data on how the different political ideologies give to charity:

"Although liberal families' incomes average 6 percent higher than those of conservative families, conservative-headed households give, on average, 30 percent more to charity than the average liberal-headed household ($1,600 per year vs. $1,227)."

Back in December of 2006, John Stossel on 20/20 did a test that gauged similar patterns of giving. He put Salvation Army buckets in two different towns. One was very liberal and affluent San Francisco, the other was modest and church going Sioux Falls, SD. His findings:

"Well, even though people in Sioux Falls make, on average, half as much money as people in San Francisco, and even though the San Francisco location was much busier -- three times as many people were within reach of the bucket -- by the end of the second day, the Sioux Falls bucket held twice as much money."

This is why I usually give very little credence to Liberal-activist celebrities whom speak out as to how we should donate to charities.

Sarah Palin: Spotting Dimes and Eating Onions

One of the best lines in the television series “Seinfeld” came when George Costanza went through an episode without his glasses. Midway through a conversation with Jerry, George, without his glasses, breaks away and spots a mercury dime on the floor completely on the other side of the room... being able to see that it is indeed a mercury dime. He follows up this eagle-sighted achievement by then proceeding to the refrigerator, opening it, and taking a chomp out of an onion thinking it was an apple. Jerry in a state of complete confusion and desperation pleads, “I don’t know what to make of you, you’re spotting dimes and eating onions…”

This is what the American public is going through with Sarah Palin right now. How can a person have difficulty with an one-on-one interview with dullard Katie Couric but then also be able to tear down a convention hall with a fiery and self-confident speech? They don’t know what to think of her, and this is making her so much more intriguing than anyone else on either ticket.

Joe Biden didn’t know what to expect or how to handle her. A hockey mom that is nonthreatening enough to deal with phrases like “You bet,” and give shouts out to a 3rd grade class in Alaska during a VP debate - - a time that historically has been serious - - but is also capable of disassembling her opponents with a smile and moving on before they realize what has happened.

Here is an interesting case and point of this in last night's debate. It was very audible when Palin greeted Joe Biden at the beginning of the debate and asked if she can call him, “Joe.” Biden melted to her request and broke a smile, nodding. Here is the insight. Sara Palin was not discretely asking Biden this question for etiquette purposes; she was saying it loud enough so that Alaska could hear it.

With this concession of Biden’s, Palin set him up for the sound byte line “Say it ain’t so, Joe...” close to an hour later. If Biden did not give permission, this would seem like a disrespectful way to address an U.S. Senator, but Biden melted in the moment to Palin’s charm and at the same time was set up like a fool. He was played. Very hard to do with a political master like Biden, but so much easier to do when someone underestimates their opponent.

This is case and point that Palin not a stupid woman as the media hopes you believe. Folksy, which is Palin’s essence, is widely believed to be stupid by elitist, while polished-speaking politicians in thousand dollars suits are taken as smart. My life has showed me the complete opposite is true.

Last night, folksy met a polished-speaking politician on stage. The politician stood there in handcuffs clawing to the podium as folksy repeatedly slapped him senseless. He attacked McCain as Palin attacked Biden. He could do nothing but take it. It was energy, youth and personality verses rigor mortis. She was winking to the audience; he was gritting his teeth privately knowing he was not able to attack her. With everything done, you could not say that the Governor lost the debate. It was a tie at best. And that tie always goes to the challenger, - - a victory for Sarah Palin. She stood toe-to-toe with one of Washington’s most glib, senior Senators and held her own for 90 minutes.

There were quite a few good quotes in the media today about Palin's comeback. Rich Lowry in the NY Post summed it up better than anyone on how the night went:

"One wonders if [Biden] ever realized that, even with 35 years in the Senate and all his expertise and fluidity in policy, he wasn't beating the hockey mom from Wasilla. "

Liberals have underestimated her twice now to their peril. It should not happen again, but it will. She will be dismissed again as just “folksy,” a simpleton, in Obama’s war room and an epicenter of a threat in the liberal media rooms across America. Expect an increase of attacks on her.

On election day we will see by exit polls if America's voting public believes she is spotting "mercury dimes or eating onions".

Sarah Palin Debate Thoughts

Two female perspectives on last night's debate:

First, from Peggy Noonan, trying to make amends for her off camera remarks:

"Sarah Palin saved John McCain again Thursday night. She is the political equivalent of cardiac paddles: Clear! Zap! We've got a beat! She will re-electrify the base. More than that, an hour and a half of talking to America will take her to a new level of stardom. Watch her crowds this weekend."

From Michelle Makin:

"Pause to reflect on this: She matched — and trumped several times — a man who has spent his entire adult life on the political stage, run for president twice, and as he mentioned several times, chairs the Senate Judiciary Committee. Sarah Palin looked presidential. Joe Biden looked tired. Sarah made history. Biden is history."

Unlocking the Codes of the 2008 Elections

Clotaire Rapaille, a French psychologist turn corporate marketer, deeply believes there is an underlying, subconscious “code” on everything we come into contact with. Based on this, he comes up with marketing strategies for blue-chip companies that unlock these codes with consumers and increase their probability to purchase the company's products thus increasing their sales.

For instance, he delineates the different, subconscious codes that Americans and the French have in regard to cheese. For Americans, cheese is dead; put it in the refrigerator – don’t let it spoil! For the French the cheese is alive. Buy it as needed, purchasing it according to the cheese's life-expectency clock in their heads. He states:

"The French like the taste before safety. Americans want safety before the taste."

It is an interesting concept. His PBS interview is definitely worth a read for anyone ever wanting to market a product.

Now, I am not sure I agree with everything Rapaille says, and I think he has created for himself a pretty good shtick, the “French psychologists; super, premier code unlocker,” through which he charges a hefty premium. Being a marketing person myself, I tend to go for a more tangible reality when positioning and marketing a product. From my perspective, it is, "What is true the essence of the product?" So with this background piece, here is what I believe as the true essence, or subconscious codes, of the national candidates for the 2008 election. I believe if you get to their true essences, you will be able to get to a better view of who is going to win the election.

John McCain: His subconscious code is “Prison-of-War”. Everyone knows his story. People have this dark curiosity about this chapter of his life and don't know what the specific details are. When people call him "a patriot" or "honorable", they are not refering to McCain the Senator, they are really referring to his POW story.

Sara Palin: Her subconscious code, I believe, is “Mother” There are many politicians in the media today, very few that can tear down a convention with a speech and then moments later hug her 4-month-old on national television. She is so much a "Mother" that she started her activist career in the PTA, again underscoring her as a mother. The intense hatred towards her is probably based on this underlying code. Stay at home mom’s aren’t knowledgeable, bringing a Down Syndrome baby to term is not practical, a mother who is sending her son off to Iraq to a wrong war, etc... “Mother” is definitely the code.

Barack Obama: His subconscious code is “Dynamic”. He represents change, which is the definition of dynamic. He represents the Democrats wanting to change the control of Bush government, as he personally represents a change to the genetic make up of the Presidency. "I don't look like the guys on the currency." The code, “Dynamic” also subconsciously underscores his personality and oratory skills. I believe this is his term.

Joe Biden: He was the most difficult for me to define. I finally settled with the code: “Scrapper.” It speaks to his style of enjoying a fight. It speaks to the challenges in his life that he had to overcome, including the death of family members. It speaks of his Scranton upbringing. It speaks of his appearance; rolled up sleeves, displaced hair, sloping eyes. When people mention blue-collar with Biden, they are really speaking to his roots not his present day tendencies, and how he climbed his way to success.

So there are my codes. The 2008 Presidential Election will feature Prisoner-of-War/Mother verses Dynamic/Scrapper. I believe the Republicans have the better subconscious code ticket. Time will tell.

The Part of the Gibson/Palin Interview ABC Edited Out

Mark Levine has on his site a portion of the Gibson/Palin interview in its entirety, specifically highlighting as what parts ABC News edited out. It is an interesting read that raises some questions about fairness.

First, Palin mentions she has met with heads of countries, but none with complete negotiating abilities. Note that the President of the U.S.A. does not have complete negotiating abilities. ABC edited this clarification out and presented it as Palin having never met with any heads of any countries.

Second, Palin mentions how important it is that we keep good relations with Russia. "We can not repeat a Cold War." The Gibson interview made it sound like Palin was moving towards a complete, head-on for a war with Russia over the Georgia conflict.

Palin also stated in regard to Israel defending themselves against Iran: "... I agree with John McCain that nuclear weapons in the hands of those who would seek to destroy our allies, in this case, we’re talking about Israel, we’re talking about Ahmadinejad’s comment about Israel being the “stinking corpse, should be wiped off the face of the earth,” that’s atrocious. That’s unacceptable." ABC news parlayed this more articulate answer into Palin repeatedly saying just "You can't second guess Israel..." making her look like a prepared parrot.

Mark Levine did all a favor by posting this.

Why is Sarah Palin Hated So Much?

Over the past few days I have been thinking about what is at the heart of this extreme hostility, by the Democrats and the liberal-leaning media, towards Sarah Palin, but political strategist Dick Morris in his column for Townhall.com got exactly to the absolute truth before me:

"Basically, it's this: John McCain only endangers Democratic chances of victory this November, but Sarah Palin is an existential threat to the [existence of the] Democratic Party.

...Democrats can't stomach seeing the feminist movement's impetus for greater female political participation and empowerment "hijacked" by a pro-life woman who espouses traditional values. They must obliterate her, lest her popularity eat away at their party's core.

...She may become the first woman in national office - yet the Democrats, feminists and liberals can't control her, and that burns them up.

Elections come and go, but Palin is a far more fundamental threat to the Democratic Party."

You nailed the truth, Mr. Morris.

Sarah Palin: The Charlie Gibson Interview

Yesterday, Governor Sarah Palin sat down with Charlie Gibson. Here are some of my thoughts:

First, overall I do not think Gibson was a bad overall choice as an initial interview. Charlie Gibson is one of the very few news personalities that can host a wake up show in the morning and a nightly news program in the evening. He freely changes, literally, from “Charlie” in the A.M, and “Charles” in the evening on a dime depending on his hosting responsibilities.With this, Gibson has a homespun audience and a world-view audience. He would not alienate his home-spun viewers by completely destroying Palin, such as other news personalities would gleefully do. Also, the McCain campaign can play that she had been interviewed by a major news agency and network upon completion of the interview.

That being said, I think Gibson purposely made some of the questions quiet difficult. He had to prove himself as a tough interviewer and redeem himself for past political moderating blunders.

For instance, if Palin answered “no” about admitting Georgia into NATO, Gibson would respond, “So you would not protect an established democracy against an invading Communist country?” When she answered “yes”, Gibson pulled a, “So you think it is worth full-scale war with Russia?” There was no way out for her, and this is why career politicians always carry dodge answers like “The members of NATO decide who can have admittance, and this would be better addressed to all of them...” in their deck of cards. The problem is that Palin is not a professional politician. That is her appeal and her struggle. If she had to give a direct answer, she gave the right one on this issue.

Secondly, Palin was frozen by the question of the Bush Doctrine, and that was a noticeable misstep making her look inexperienced. I, sometimes, feel that I am the last George W. Bush supporter in America. Acknowledging that I am a huge supporter, if someone asked me to define the Bush Doctrine; I would not know detailed specifics and only probably be able to give the general flavor. As a note, the coiner of the phrase "Bush Doctrine" believes Charlie Gibson got his interpretation wrong as well.

I would also say that if she was going to completely blow a question in this interview, this was the one. The Obama camp tries day and night to tie her and Senator McCain to the the Bush administration's ankle. Here, she is so far away from GW, she does not even know his policies specifically. It could be spun in a good way if handled properly.

Her answer in regard to God having a master plan for the world endeared her to all of her base supporters, as she did not waiver on her faith. Also, the “war as a last result” also must have strengthened her independent support. These answers were very compelling and seemed very authentic.

And finally, oh yes, the “hubris” line. This shows you how difficult an interview she is and how she is not the only one with skin in the game when she is being interviewed. The definition of hubris is ”an exaggerated self-pride or confidence”. Gibson asked Obama a similar question last year, asking the Senator whether he asks himself, "I must have hubris to run for this office". This comment was mentioning when Gibson wasn't giving Obama a gushing genealogy review. The problem was Gibson made it a commentary to Palin, and not hypothetical as he did to Obama, saying "You must have some hubris..." A nuance that created bias. Palin should have called him on it that precise moment. It would have set the tone of the interview and put Gibson on the defensive.

Overall, if her convention speech was a perfect 10.0, I give her a 6.5 on the interview. No death blows or insurmountable mistakes. She didn’t exactly ask a man in a wheelchair to stand up.

I found it interesting that CBS news said she didn't look confident, and The New York Times said she was too confident because she had all the answers rehearsed. The liberals should really get together on their propaganda.

Finally, please understand that she kissed her son goodbye that morning and sent him off to war so it probably was not an easy day for her to sit down and do her first interview. I took my child to her first day of pre-K last week and my knees were buckling. I would not be my best in a situation where I would have to be very sharp right after that.

I expect Palin to be much better in the balance of the interview when domestic issues and energy are discussed.

Post Note 9/13: Mark Levine posted a full segment of the Gibson/Palin interview on his site, and there is some question as to whether the interview was edited in an unfavorable way to Gov. Palin.

The Palin Bounce

The two most recent polls have confirmed that Senator John McCain is now ahead of Barack Obama, from anywhere from 3 to 10 points. Please remember most of these polls had Obama ahead seven points two weeks ago before the Palin announcement.

Somewhere, deep in the bowls of the Obama camp, a strategist has his forehead in his palms saying, "What are we going to do about this Palin problem?"

Sarah Palin: "The New Camelot!"

In late November 1963, Jacqueline Kennedy gave an interview to Life Magazine where she quoted her deceased husband’s favorite show tune, "Don't let it be forgot, that once there was a spot, for one brief shining moment that was known as Camelot." It summarized and underscored President Kennedy’s life how everything seemed perfect for a moment, then was taken away by an assassin’s bullet. The Kennedy years were from then on known as "Camelot".

Although Democrats would be absolutely outraged with a Republican associated with this sacred term, I am coming to realize over the past few days than the term can be used for Sarah Palin, describing her as the "New Camelot."

John F. Kennedy was 43 years when elected President. He was a dynamic personality, and could move millions with his oratory skills. He released youthful energy and excitement wherever he went that ignited his supporters. He was more than a politician, he was a celebrity personality with a vision that people bought into.

In the 1960’s, Americans were totally obsessed with first lady Jacqueline Kennedy. She embodied the perfect upbringing, class and style. Every woman in America wanted to know what she was wearing, what she was thinking and how she was renovating the White House. America could not have enough of her. She had beautiful children who played in the Oval Office. Her style affected a generation.

My observation, whether some will agree with it or not, is that Sarah Palin is the "New Camelot". But... she is JFK and Jacqueline Kennedy all rolled up in one.

She is a 44 year-old, dynamic personality that can move millions with her oratory skills. She releases youthful excitement anywhere she goes. McCain’s rallies, pre-Palin, involved modest crowds. Now the lines to get into the McCain/Palin rallies are non-ending. When McCain and Palin are on stage, whom do you find yourself looking at? She ignited the Social-Conservative base of the Republican Party and her supporters are completely energized. She transcended her politician status and has become a celebrity personality.

In addition, American’s are totally obsessed with her. There was a report two days after her convention speech that eye glass stores ran out of female, frame-less glasses. There are reports that women are copying her hairstyle and clothes. I went to the supermarket today. Her picture was on three women magazines. America can’t get enough of her or her family and beautiful small children.

Democrats should not be outraged at this comparison. This should be seen as a natural progression. With women rising to more roles of authority in our society, and in the world, a "New Camelot" was bound to come along. I am glad her name is Sarah Palin.

Sarah Palin: What the Mainstream Media Doesn't Get - Part II

The screams and jabs from the liberal news media were bountiful last weekend as Sarah Palin was named to fill the vice-president slot on the ballot.

A mainstream media platitude that was stated over, and over, again almost seemed as if it was taken straight from the Obama talking points play book. It framed Governor Palin as nothing more than a "Mayberry" mayor without any experience, who is one, 72-year-old* heartbeat away from a position she would not be able to handle - she was "fragile". (*By the way, did we all see John McCain’s 94-year-old mother and her spunk last night? After seeing this I thought to myself jokingly maybe McCain might be "two-termer".)

I think that there is an unquestionable truth that Sarah Palin has more pertinent experience to the Presidency than Barack Obama does. Two years of executive experience as governor trumps four years of voting on legislation with 99 other Senators. People who do not admit this are not being intellectually honest. This fact is so true and worrisome, that the Obama camp has ceased referring to Palin in relation to her governor status, and talks about her solely as a mayor of a small Northern Exposure town.

Now that I stated the reality, let me say that experience means nothing before the election and everything after the election. Voters will use this argument to support their candidate who they are all ready voting for in their minds. When they have the experience on there side it is important, when they don’t then it is a campaign of change and an outsider coming in. To their credit, the McCain campaign has covered both of these bases by positioning John McCain as being both strong on experience and an outside of change.

Experience means nothing. If experience was important, George H. W. Bush - who it was believed had the best resume in Washington - would have never lost to Ronald Reagan in the primaries. If experience was important, an incumbent president would never lose to any challenger. Go ask Hillary Clinton who is eating her breakfast in Chappaqua these days how important experience is to the voters.

It is not about experience, voters vote for whom they like, period. And they like candidates based on how they feel the candidate relates to them.

This is the second thing the MSM does not get about Sarah Palin. How likable she is and how many millions of people she is forming an intimate bond with quickly. 40 years after the assassination of John F. Kennedy, people still have affection for his daughter and son, until his untimely passing, because they remember them under the desk in the oval office peaking out. That is the family voters wanted to support.

Sarah Palin embraced her Down Syndrome baby on stage Wednesday after her blazing speech. Viewers saw her youngest daughter drenching the baby’s hair down with an excessive amount of her saliva during the same speech, and that is the family that voters are going to want to support.

Rassmussen reports today that Sarah Palin now has a higher approval rating (58%) nationally than both John McCain and Barack Obama. She has been in the national spotlight for just over a week. Please understand that this approval rating is after the liberals threw every possible scandal and the kitchen sink at her. She has an even higher approval rating with voters who are not affiliated with a major party. The Obama camp, again, must be panicking. These are the votes they need.

So the mainstream media will keep harping on Governor Palin’s experience hoping that somewhere with someone it will matter. That wish and a token will get the mainstream media on the subway. If I could tell the MSM one thing, it would be, "It’s the likability factor, stupid!"

Sarah Palin: The Backlash Against the Bias!

Rasmussen Reports:

"Eighty percent (80%) of Republicans say reporters are trying to hurt the GOP vice presidential nominee, and 28% of Democrats agree. Only six percent (6%) of Republicans – and even fewer Democrats (4%)– think the reporting is intended to help her."

So what those who have an opinion on media bias are telling to Rasmussen, is that Republicans believe 13 to 1, and Democrats 7 to 1, that the news media is trying to hurt Sarah Palin rather than help her.

MSNBC reports on the backlash from the Sarah Palin US Weekly Cover with the politically-motivated title, "Babies, Lies and Scandal." There are reports that anywhere from 5,000-10,000 subscribers canceled their subscription based on this bias.

Sarah Palin: Lions, and Turtles, and Hornet's Nest... Oh My!

Although still having a little bias sprinkled in, here is a good story from... surprisingly... the New York Times dealing with the women voters who are drawn to Sarah Palin:

"...Although some liberal Democrats dismiss them as “Palinbots” for their reflexive devotion, these women are as dedicated to Ms. Palin as the women Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, Democrat of New York, called her sisterhood of the traveling pantsuits were to their very different version of the modern female politician.

These are women who dip in and out of the work force, believe in prayer and spend their days trying to keep the crayon off the walls. They feel they have been looked down on by Clinton feminists and ignored by the power structure in the Republican Party. The fact that Ms. Palin has five children, including Trig, a newborn with Down syndrome, only makes her that much more part of the sisterhood.

“I’m not that into politics,” said Delores Field, an Alaska Inupiat from Eagle River, near Anchorage, who does not consider herself a Democrat or a Republican. “I’m just going to vote for Trig Van Palin’s mom.”

...Like many women in the valley where Ms. Palin comes from, her appeal here, and in recent days across the country, is more about who she is — that is, a devout Christian with a husband who supports her career, but a person who is not afraid to show up in public with a baby on her hip."

Governor Palin is going to be a hornet's nest to handle for Camp Obama. They can't hit her hard hard and they can't ignore her. They are frozen in the middle. Republican strategist Kevin Madden states, [Obama's campaign is] like a lion tiptoeing around a turtle — they don't know what to do with [her]."

Sarah Palin: An Alaskan Sunrise!

Last night was without a doubt a defining moment in the history of the Republican Party. Governor Sarah Palin came out of a frozen obscurity being bunkered in the non-contiguous, 50th state, and claimed the heritage of Ronald Reagan and captured the dreams of her generation.

There are too many points to make about her speech of perfection, but here are a few points that I would like to make:

First, last night was very successful at throwing the experience debate back at the Obama camp, as now the argument has become who is more qualified, Barack Obama or Gov. Sarah Palin. It does not matter how you answer this question. The fact that we are comparing the top of one ticket, to the bottom of the other ticket has the argument being won by the Republicans, regardless. The dynamic power of Barack Obama was neutralized by the dynamic power of Sarah Palin, and the comparisons then ensued as if they were running for an equal office. In addition, I am in no way a supporter of Rudy Giuliani, but he served his party well last night.

Secondly, Palin very skillfully framed Obama as an elitist. Something that is difficult to do when dealing with a candidate who did not come from wealth. She defended small-town-American life versus a Harvard-educated, condescending candidate that ridiculed a nation's lifestyle in private.

Thirdly, she harpooned a "fake label" into the side of the Democratic Presidential candidate where it will be stuck for a while. The line about the Styrofoam Greek columns going back to the studio lot had nothing to do with convention props being returned and everything to do with Barack Obama. It was a truly brilliant line - I wish I wrote it. Styrofoam was a perfect, subconscious adjective making you think of deception, lightweight and not sturdy. Barack Obama.

Finally, the most earth-crushing line from the speech was Gov. Palin offering her services to be an advocate in "the White House" for parents of challenged kids. Speaking from experience, and having had a handicap sibling, parents of mentally- or physically-challenged kids don’t know where they are going to get the energy to meet the next day’s challenge with their children. This physical worry is met equally by an emotional worry as they ponder about their child’s future and who will take care of them if something happens to them because they are so run-down. I think her vow released an epicenter of emotional support for these parents that instantaneously created a strong bond between the Governor and these fatigued parents. A friend at worked called me first thing this morning who has a slightly, autistic son. He immediately told me that it was a great speech solely mentioning that line. That line was the whole speech for him.

I would have like to have been a fly on the wall when Obama heard this advocacy line. It must have been an epicenter for him as well, shaking him to the bone as he realized this is not an unqualified woman standing at the podium with 36 million people listening, it is a mother who can form emotional bonds wth the masses. This could strike at the heart of the Democrat illusion that they take care of the most downtrodden in our society and Republican’s don’t care. It’s "Morning in America" again, with a very compassionate, Alaskan sunrise.

Here is Gov. Palin's Speech.

The Sarah Palin Problem

"Twenty years after Ronald Reagan left office, Republicans who have long missed him may have found a future Margaret Thatcher. If John McCain wins, conservatives may find one of the most enduring accomplishments of his term will have been what he did before it started: helping to fill the Republican Party's future talent bench with such a fresh and compelling figure.

Sarah Palin is a conviction politician, a naturally compelling speaker and someone who can relate to her audience on very human terms. America has just learned why Mrs. Palin enjoys the highest approval ratings of any governor in America." - The Wall St. Journal

With all the problems that the mudslinging and lies brought to Sarah Palin this week, no one has more problems this morning than Barack Obama and the Democratic Party after Gov. Palin's speech.

Sarah Palin: What the Mainstream Media Doesn't Get - Part I

Well, the elite, mainstream media is misdirected again. They keep focusing on the affect Vice-Presidential-candidate Sarah Palin will have on the women's vote; peeling off the disgruntle Hillary supporters. This is not the demographic they, in their liberal agenda, should be the most fearful of with Palin on the ticket.

Many years back, I read an incredible article that stated every U.S. President, with the exception of two, could be definitively traced back to a common ancestor. Here is a site that goes through some of these blood relations. The two that the article claimed were not related to this "Presidential royal blood-line" were John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan.

It is easy to understand how Kennedy was not related being Irish Catholic, and not Protestant as all the other presidents. What was the reason for Reagan not being related to other Presidents? He came from the "annals of the poor." He born into extreme poverty and achieved the highest level of a self-made men, the presidency.

I bring this background up for a reason. It is a prime basis in understanding the Reagan Democrats, the demographic that the Obama campaign should be the most concerned about losing with the name of Sarah Palin to the ticket. This will determine the election.

Over the past years, we have heard the notion of Red and Blue States, ad nauseam. To understand the Reagan Democrats were must consider the separation of different colors, white and blue-collars. The Reagan Democrats are blue-collar workers who work extremely hard and just get by meeting all their bills and all their responsibilities weekly. They view white collar workers as making too much money for never getting their hands dirty and view Republicans as rich guys who do not care about them or society, only caring about the money they make.

These RD's have been handed down their Democrat Party heritage from their fathers and their grandfathers, the same way a family would hand down the love of the Boston Red Sox by taking their 5 year-old son/grandson to his first game at Fenway. The Democratic Party is a cultural definition for them. It is who they are.

They are for the most part Catholic, but are not in love with the extreme position that the Democratic Party has adapted on abortion. It pings their conscience, but they offset this with the incorrect justification that their party is the one that feeds and takes care of the poor, in line with Church doctrine so the two issues cancel each other out.

Ronald Reagan broke through to these Democrats partly because of his Irish heritage. But mostly, they view Reagan as one of their own that they could trust because he came from their ranks, poverty. He was not a banker trying to exploit them. He was not a lawyer, with a manicure and charging them $200 an hour for the necessity of writing a will for them. He was from their social lot and with this acceptance they believed he shared their values.

Governor Sarah Palin has the strong possibility of hi-jacking these Reagan Democrats. She is from a modest background like them. Her father, a teacher; her mother, a secretary. She was a hockey mom loading her kids into the car and chauffeuring them to their games on the weekends just a few years ago. She and her husband both carried union cards. She speaks plainly with phrases like, "Thanks, but no thanks…" She is from their social lot and with this acceptance they could believe she shares their values.

As of yesterday, there are other similarities.

Reagan had family problems. His father was an abusive alcoholic. Some of Reagan's kids were problems in their own right. The working class related to these family stresses.

Palin's daughter is now pregnant, and per her press release she is handling it head on, as best she can. Hopefully these working class people will approve.

This is the greatest danger for Obama as his campaign keeps worrying about keeping the women's vote with her and not the Reagan Democrats.

Barack Obama had better hope that the electorate of Reagan Democrats in the next sixty days or so doesn’t realize that Sarah Palin is truly one of their own.

Sarah Palin: The Mudslinging Begins!

Well the expected onslaught on Sara Palin has begun. It’s the "Usual Suspects"; the New York Times, the Washington Post, other liberal assassin rags, etc...

In just a few hours after the Sarah Palin announcement, the hostile liberal media advanced their agenda by a litany of mud throwing against her:

1) On Friday night, mere hours after the VP announcement, the Washington Post found and interviewed the State Commissioner who Palin "fired". The article had a title mentioning the term "arm’s length," a term that suggests impropriety, guilty before proven innocent. Interesting to note, it is never mentioned that this employee was offered another job in Palin’s administration, but turned it down, so now he was "fired." It also should be noted that I don’t think Obama’s terrorist friend, William Ayers, has been interviewed yet to date. It is very hard for the liberal media to find him, he teaches at the University of Illinois. For three years it has been known that Obama was running for President. They get to the Palin interview in a few hours, the Obama interview never.

2) The media uncovered a story and blamed her for the hiring and firing of the State Commissioner's replacement when a previous sexual harassment claim was determined unresolved. (The replacement admits he concealed this fact on the interview being on record as saying no one "asked me about the letter on the interview…so I didn’t mention it"). There was bi-partisan support for his removal.

3) They uncovered she is nothing more than a Pat Buchanan extremist by supporting him in his Presidential run many years back. (Note: She wasn’t alone, Buchanan won the Alaskan Republican Primary against Bush Sr. when he ran for President. All the other Alaskans must be extremists as well.)

4) They, the liberal press, found out her mother-in-law is a Democrat and may vote along party lines. (How many families have members that vote different party lines?) In addition, they put a picture of Palin as a twenty year-old college student, taken a quarter of a century ago, wearing a joke T-shirt trying to discredit her.

5) This morning, the New York Times says she was originally in favor of the "Bridge to No Where" by her making a pro-infrastructure statement when she was campaigning, before she killed the project. The statement itself, uses the term "projects"; plural, which makes me think she was talking in generalities. Reuters interviewed politicians from the bridge’s district who lost all that earmark money for the bridge, with obviously no vendetta, saying she misrepresented herself to them. And even if it is true, that she supported the project while running for office, things do change. You have more access to records and budget numbers after you take office. I would ask all the media outlets issuing this story whose signature killed the bridge project? Give her some credit.

Now I do not have a problem with freedom of the press and them finding everything than can on Palin.

What I do have a problem with is their hypocrisy and how they don’t treat liberal candidates that they support the same way. If Obama picked a women as his VP, is there any doubt that she would not be treated this way?

Obama sat in a church with a racist pastor for twenty years. The liberal press never revealed this until after the Iowa Caucus. But they can find all this on Palin within hours of her appointment.

How long did it take to bring to the forefront, and we still have not gotten to the bottom of, Obama’s shady house deal where he saved $300K? (Note: I had to search hard on Google News to find the details of this.)

By the time the press is done with their agenda targeting her, it will make Clarence Thomas’ experience like a cakewalk. We should all realize what is going on here.