Via the Strib: Most ‘undervotes’ cast in counties won by Obama
An Associated Press analysis of the nearly 25,000-vote difference in Minnesota presidential and U.S. Senate race tallies shows that most ballots lacking a recorded Senate vote were cast in counties won by Democrat Barack Obama.
Ballots that showed a presidential vote but no Senate vote are called the “undervote.” Statewide, more than 18,000 of those ballots came from counties won by Obama with more than half the vote. About 6,100 were in counties won by Republican John McCain with at least 50 percent
Of course, it is not outside the realm of possibility that a lot of voters, especially new ones, decided to just vote for president and quit after that. Regardless, one suspects that uncounted votes will be discovered in these ballots, and the likelihood is that they will favor Franken.
Meanwhile, the fight over what to count has begun, as the Coleman campaign is seeking to stop the counting of 32 absentee ballots: Coleman campaign requests halt of absentee ballot count.
Via the AP: Fears of a Dem crackdown lead to boom in gun sales
“They’re scared to death of losing their rights,” said David Hancock, manager of Bob Moates, where sales have nearly doubled in the past week and are up 15 percent for the year. On Election Day, salespeople were called in on their day off because of the crowd.
[...]
While Wayne LaPierre, executive vice president of the National Rifle Association, attributes some of the sales boom to the tanking economy, he thinks the Democratic sweep is the top reason why guns are suddenly a hot commodity.
“I don’t think he’ll be able to stand up to that anti-Second Amendment wing of the Democratic party that’s just been spoiling for chance to ban America’s guns,” LaPierre said of Obama.
Many people get irrational about their guns, and I am not certain what the origins of the thought processes are. I am unaware of any period in US history wherein the government tried to take guns away from people. Even if I am forgetting some specific incident in the past, there certainly has been no attempt in my lifetime to confiscate firearms. Yes, there have been some restrictions on certain types of guns, and yes there have been some policies put into place to make it a smidge more difficult to acquire a gun. Still, can anyone actually tell me when the right to keep and bear arms has been threatened? Yes, I know that there have been some specific cities with bans (but not confiscations), but the Supreme Court recently overturned those laws. Indeed, based on the ruling in Heller, one could argue that gun ownership rights have never been stronger in the US, as the Court recongized for the first time ever that gun ownership is a constitutionally protected individual right.1
I understand the legitimate desire for someone to wish to have a firearm to protect their home. I understand that many people enjoy hunting and target shooting. What I don’t get are people who think that keeping guns will protect them from the day when the military takes over, since if an M1-Abrams tanks rolls into their driveway because the revolution has finally come, I don’t think that that cache of weapons in the basement will make much difference. Still, people do persist in the fantasy.
Beyond that, I am especially unclear on where the “Obama will take your guns away” meme started. For example, I had a student ask in class if it was true that if Obama was elected that he would take all the guns away. Apparently this had been of some concern in the student’s family and as evidence the student provided two columns from the NRA’s magazine (which, I guess answers my question as to the origins of the meme). Then the other day, after the election, Middle Son asked me the same question, which has apparently been a focus of discussion at the elementary school level around here. And, of course, that’s not the kind of thing that would emerge naturally in such an environment, so clearly their parents had been the concerned parties.
That people have interest in gun policy is fine. However, that they are so confused on the basic functioning of our government is depressing.
Sphere: Related Content
For some background, see Justices Reject D.C. Ban On Handgun Ownership [↩]
Comment by Chris — Saturday, November 8, 2026 @ 3:15 pm
To some extent it makes sense. You can’t tell me that it is not a plank of the democratic platform that gun ownership should be heavily regulated; and you admitted that it is plausible for certain types of weapons to be banned.
If you’re me, and you don’t know what types might be banned or what kind of regulations might be put in place that aren’t there right now, you might think about buying before a change takes place. I agree that it is wholly implausible for an outright ban on gun ownership, as this would indeed require consitutional ammendment; there is no way the supermajority needed for that could be attained.
But, if you’re me, you think about things like all the talk after the Virginia Tech shootings. I remember that the shooter turned out to have mental health problems, and had been off of his medications. There was some fuss at the time about prohibiting sales to people with a history of mental illness.
Also, it is almost certain that the assault rifle ban will come back, possibly without a sunset provision; I took advantage of the opportunity to acquire an AR15 configured like my beloved M4, the weapon I carried for most of my military career. I think it likely that my ability to buy such a weapon will disappear during the next year or two and wanted to be grandfathered.
Some folks might ask why I need such a weapon. The truth is, I don’t; but I enjoy shooting it on the range. It’s something I’m very good at. Enjoying something is enough reason to own it, else nobody would own a motorcycle or a jet ski (both of which can kill you just was easily as a gun). I enjoy my AR, and that’s my reason for owning it.
I likewise think it implausible that we could resist the revolution with an armed citizenry. You’re right; if the M1 rolls down the street, you might as well be using a Pea-shooter. I think the issue is that people want to be able to own guns for other reasons.
You’re also right in that the government has never seized our weapons. But it has, at times, made it harder to acquire them, and it has banned certain types of weapons. Not knowing what Obama will do, if you have in mind to buy a gun, it’s advisable to do it before February because you might not be able to get what you want, and/or it might be a huge hassle.
If some form of the VA Tech proposal is adopted, and there is a medical records check before buying a gun, I’ll probably not have another opportunity to buy; so for folks like me, there is a legitimate concern, I think.
That concern is probably going to be taken to far in some circles - but there is a grain of credibility to it.
Comment by Captain D — Saturday, November 8, 2026 @ 5:43 pm
No gun confiscation in America? Apparently you weren’t paying attention to California, and then New Orleans following Katrina.
“What I don’t get are people who think that keeping guns will protect them from the day when the military takes over, since if an M1-Abrams tanks rolls into their driveway because the revolution has finally come, I don’t think that that cache of weapons in the basement will make much difference. Still, people do persist in the fantasy.”
Tell that to the dead Russians in Afganistan.
“Beyond that, I am especially unclear on where the “Obama will take your guns away” meme started.”
Perhaps they got that idea from his voting record and his website? Straight from the horses mouth: “They also support making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent, as such weapons belong on foreign battlefields and not on our streets. ”
The “assault” weapons ban did nothing to reduce crime. It preys on the publics ignorance of what an assault weapon really is. The assault weapons ban merly bans firearms that look mean and scary. It also bans standard capacity magazines. If I’m justified in using one bullet to defend myself, then why can’t I use as many as it takes to stop a threat?
And somehow, I don’t see Obama taking away his secret service agents and police officers “assault” rifles, despite the fact that he believes they only belong on foreign battlefields.
Comment by Ratoe — Saturday, November 8, 2026 @ 7:22 pm
In addition to what the Captain and MG stated above, back when he was a state senator Obama said he wanted to ban handguns, and wanted to ban gun shops within 5 miles of any school or park (which pretty much eliminates any populated area in the United States).
And just to emphasize and build on what MG said, and at the risk of being a bit rude, if you don’t think guns have been confiscated from law-abiding citizens in the United States, then you don’t know enough about this subject to be discussing it.
You really need to study up more about the history of guns in America, Doc, because what you believe to be true, ain’t.
Comment by Boyd — Saturday, November 8, 2026 @ 7:36 pm
Boyd,
Please, by all means, enlighten me as to the time when there was mass confiscation of firearms. I have no doubt that there have been cases in which individuals have had their guns taken away. I suspect that there have been cases in which that seizure was unjust.
But I will state that you don’t know as much as you think that you do if you think that there is any chance of basic gun right being taken away. There certainly is no magical power by which a man can accomplish that feat by just being elected president. Let’s be honest, shall we?
MG,
You don’t suppose all that clandestine help from the CIA was of aid. And please, are you really going to tell me that if the US military decided to take over that we could defeat them if only we had a few more rifles? I know far better than that.
And did America lose it guns rights during the time the assault rifle ban was in place? No, no they didn’t.
At a minimum, one can debate the assault weapons ban without pretending like it is a mass seizure of guns or the revocation of the Second Amendment. It is ludicrous to treat it as such.
Comment by Dr. Steven Taylor — Saturday, November 8, 2026 @ 8:42 pm
And just for kicks, here’s what the Dem Platform says in guns:
Firearms
We recognize that the right to bear arms is an important part of the American tradition, and we will preserve Americans’ Second Amendment right to own and use firearms. We believe that the right to own firearms is subject to reasonable regulation, but we know that what works in Chicago may not work in Cheyenne. We can work together to enact and enforce common-sense laws and improvements – like closing the gun show loophole, improving our background check system, and reinstating the assault weapons ban, so that guns do not fall into the hands of terrorists or criminals. Acting responsibly and with respect for differing views on this issue, we
can both protect the constitutional right to bear arms and keep our communities and our children
safe.
Yes, quite radical.
Understand: I am not here to defend the Democratic Party on guns. I am just weary of silly overreactions to policy based on fantasies about how the federal government works.
And if we want to play the game about words right out of Obama’s mouth, he said
“I will not take your shotgun away,” he said. “I will not take your rifle away. I won’t take your handgun away.”:
That’s from the linked article.
It is fair, btw, to go out and buy a gun that you think might be banned under a new assualt weapons ban. That makes sense. And if one wants to debate the merits of such a law, fine. But let’s not pretend that an Obama administration is going to be able to confiscate guns or rip the Second Amendment out of the Constitution or overturn Heller by the sheer force of his personality.
Comment by Dr. Steven Taylor — Saturday, November 8, 2026 @ 8:47 pm
The government is not going to make you turn in a weapon you bought when it was legal to do so; that would be enforcement ex post facto, and is unconstitutional under article 1, section 9, ON TOP of being a violation of the 2nd ammendment. What you might want to think about is whether or not a specific type of gun you want to own might become illegal to buy in the future; I bought an assault rifle now because they’ve been banned before and I think it likely they’ll be banned again, and like I said, I like to shoot it. Reminds me of the old days. And should a ban come into effect, I will almost certainly be grandfathered. The big question a lot of gun people are asking (at least the rational ones) is what types of guns will be determined to be “reasonable” for self defense, and what will not pass that test. Do we draw the line at revolvers or semi-autmatic handguns? Automatic rifles? Would a semi-automatic shotgun count as an auto rifle?
I would submit that right now, we can’t know what laws will come up, but it’s been a historical pattern for the democratic party to take issue with assault rifles, high-capacity magazines, and autmoatics. They push for greater scrutiny into personal records on gun sales. Again, the concern here is not an outright ban, but where will the line be drawn? Will they go so far as to check medical records?
Regardless, you’re not going to be forced to turn in a gun that you bought before the law was passed. So if you have any doubt, and you think you might want one, it makes sense to buy now.
MG -
First of all, you need to understand that there are some huge problems comparing some sort of hypothetical military revolution in the united states, wherein the US military was deployed domestically to uproot the Constitution or something, to what happened to Russia in Afghanistan. It is an almost comically absurd position to take that this would be possible (or desirable) for Obama to do in the first place, and even more absurd to think that if he did, it would turn out like Russia and Afghanistan. I don’t know where to start with how weird that comparison is so I’ll start with the obvious:
1) The deployment of the US military to destroy the constitution would fly in the face of what every soldier in our military has sworn an oath to do, which is, and I quote from my commission as an Army Captain, “. . . to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic.” If you think for one minute that the military in this country would obey an order that flew directly in the face of the constitution, you’re not thinking straight. We have an all-volunteer force, including all-volunteer commanders. We have no particular allegiance to this president or that; we serve presidents because they are empowered by the constitution as our commander in chief. But there is a strict disconnect between military commanders and politicians in this country; and if you think that 200+ years of that tradition can be uprooted overnight, you have underestimated greatly the dedication of our military, and the tradition of service to the constitution that they embrace. Obama doesn’t have any of our soldiers families’ at gunpoint, the way some tyrants overseas do. He couldn’t just muscle us around. Our military is deliberately set up that way.
2) If Obama made some kind of unconstitutional demand of the military, the judiciary would probably intervene and check his power anyway.
3) The Afghan fighters used AMERICAN weapons to blow up RUSSIAN tanks. The gulf of technology between American and Russian military hardware is so profound it can’t be put into words. It’s the difference between gunpowder and swords or catapults and cannons; I have faced Russian hardware all over the world and I’m here to tell you, it’s junk; and I’m also here to tell you that American soldiers - people like what I was, once - have access to weaponry that you probably would think to be science fiction, and the best training in the world to go along with it. This is why the Russians had a hard time in Afghanistan, and we ripped through the place like a freight train through tin foil. I know, I was there, and you can’t tell me it happened any differently. If (and it would never ever happen) the military was used against the people of this country, no guerrilla campaign or loose militia would be able to stop it. It would be like trying to stop a hurricane or a tornado by spitting at it.
Let me give you some perspective. During the opening shots of Afghanistan, we were flying B2 stealth bombers out of Kansas, straight to Afghanistan to fly a combat sortie, and back to Kansas, without anyone knowing, either in this country, the countries whose airspace they passed through, or Afghanistan. At times we had B-52 bombers orbiting at 50,000 feet, carrying dozens of 500-pound JDAMS. The bomber just stayed on station and cuircled and waited for me to call the shot. From the ground I had the ability to have that bomber poop out a 500-pound bunker-buster, accurate to within 3 meters, whenever I wanted it, wherever I wanted it. I just called, and the bomb hit its target. The enemy never saw the plane. From their perspective, things were just blowing up spontaneously.
Those bombers routinely take off from bases in the US. They do it all the time, practically round the clock. Have you ever seen one fly overhead? The reason is that they fly so high that you can’t even see them, much less shoot them down.
I’ve seen M1A2 tanks take out as many as three separate moving targets, at different ranges, while the shooting tank itself is moving at 30mph over uneven terrain, in less than 10 seconds.
I’ve seen Tomahawk cruise missiles deliver 1000-pound warheads within a meter of their intended target after flying hundreds of miles.
And - I’ve seen supersonic F-16’s drop self-guided bombs (JDAMS), and hit their targets, without ever dropping below the speed of sound or below 30,000 feet. You never see them. You never hear them. From the ground, it appears that your fortress just spontaneously explodes.
And don’t even get me going on our special forces soldiers. Suffice it to say, take your worst nightmare, and you can neatly package it in the form of a Delta Operator, Navy Seal, or Army SF.
You mean to seriously tell me that you think a loose band of militia with a bunch of pea shooters could contend with a military that can pull off feats like this?
Comment by Captain D — Saturday, November 8, 2026 @ 11:54 pm
“It is an almost comically absurd position to take that this would be possible (or desirable) for Obama to do in the first place, and even more absurd to think that if he did, it would turn out like Russia and Afghanistan.”
It would be, thats why I did not make that assertion.
I am well aware of the oath every member of the military takes. Are you not aware of what happened in New Orleans? Was the National Guard not involved? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-taU9d26wT4
Via the Omaha World-Herald: Obama wins electoral vote in Nebraska kolikkopeli
Democrat Barack Obama won the Omaha-based 2nd Congressional District on Friday, scooping up one of the state’s five electoral votes.
In the process, he made history and shone the spotlight on Nebraska’s unusual electoral college system.
[...]
Obama’s win will assuredly spark interest in the split electoral system, which only Nebraska and Maine use. All other states are winner-take-all on electoral votes.
[...]
Nebraska is the first state in the modern era to have a split electoral decision.
At the end of the day, of course, the one additional electoral vote is inconsequential to the outcome. However, it is cool just to see a little something different occur and it give us professorial types a little trivia to toss into future lectures. It also underscores that there is more than one way for the electoral process to work, which is always good, even if it is only a very small example.
This race did factor heavily into the congressional seat held there as a friend’s husband was running it/ Although the GOP incumbent won, that little electoral vote almost helped dethrone another Republican.
Via the AP: Palin denounces her critics as cowardly
“I consider it cowardly” that they did not allow their names to be used, she said.
Palin said those allegations aren’t true. She recalled discussing Africa and NAFTA with aides who prepared her for the vice presidential debate with Democrat Joe Biden.
“If there are allegations based on questions or comments that I made in debate prep about NAFTA, and about the continent vs. the country when we talk about Africa there, then those were taken out of context,” she said. “That’s cruel, It’s mean-spirited. It’s immature. It’s unprofessional and those guys are jerks if they came away with it, taking things out of context and then tried to spread something on national news. It’s not fair, and it’s not right.”
I think that’s fair-and indeed, they are hiding beyond a cloak of anonymity, so she has every right to call them out.
Although, so much for taking on the fat cats and the Alaska GOP:
Palin also said she would not call on Sen. Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, to resign, although last month, before his re-election bid, she said he should “step aside” and “play a very statesmanlike role in this now.”
[...]
Said Palin on Friday: “The Alaska voters have spoken and me not be a dictator, won’t be telling anyone what to do.”
When asked if she would call on him to resign, Palin said: “Not after the will of the people has been made manifest via that vote.”
Well, she can’t actually fire him, so I am not sure how calling on him to resign would be dictatorial. Indeed, I can see no good reason not to call on a convicted felon to resign from the Senate, election victory or no.
I don’t really see it as a gubernatorial duty to either call on the guy to resign or not, since, as you put it, she doesn’t have the power to fire him anyway. It seems like the senate itself should do that; and if he refuses, should vote to expel him.
Even though I like Palin, I don’t really care what she thinks about Stevens. It’s a federal matter and the federal government should handle it.
It becomes Palin’s business, of course, if he is expelled, because she then appoints a successor. But before then? I’m not sure why she matters.
Comment by Captain D — Friday, November 7, 2026 @ 10:33 pm
You quote her to the effect that: “if there are allegations based on questions or comments that I made in debate prep about Nafta, and about the continent versus the country when we talk about Africa there, then those were taken out of context…” and yet I think you miss the significant point in this sentence, which is that she still does not understand that Africa is a continent, and not a country at all. Quite remarkably geographically challenged even for a provincial politician.
Comment by Jack Brown — Saturday, November 8, 2026 @ 2:37 am
“Indeed, I can see no good reason not to call on a convicted felon to resign from the Senate, election victory or no.”
I’m completely out of context on this subject, but I didn’t understand this comment. Do you mean that if you’ve been convicted in the past you shouldn’t ever run for office? Seems a bit harsh on people if it is what you mean, not to say a trifle undemocratic…
Comment by Joe Mucia — Saturday, November 8, 2026 @ 10:07 am
I see no reason for Stevens to step down, Bush, Chenney, Rove, Gonzales, Wolfawitzs, Crumysfeld and countless others
like Limbaug, Savich, Hanity and Bilbo Oreily still have jobs and look what they have done to our country.
Comment by Theresa Cole — Saturday, November 8, 2026 @ 11:59 am
Do you mean that if you’ve been convicted in the past you shouldn’t ever run for office?
No-what I am saying is that there is no reason for a member of the legislature convicted while in office not to be expected to resign.
I am stunned, btw, that it appears that he will be re-elected. Regardless of that, he was convicted of corruption charges while in the Senate and he will be kicked out of the Senate in any event.
Comment by Dr. Steven Taylor — Saturday, November 8, 2026 @ 1:53 pm
Well -
If he was a Georgia senator and I had the chance, I would have voted for him, knowing that when he gets kicked out, he will be replaced by a rupublican appointed by my republican governor; and I’d rather take a sightunseen republican than cast a vote for a democrat that I know I loathe.
I’m guessing a lot of Alaskans probably felt the same way.
Comment by Captain D — Saturday, November 8, 2026 @ 5:26 pm
I think that’s fair–and indeed, they are hiding beyond a cloak of anonymity, so she has every right to call them out.
I concur with Jack Brown-sure the cloak of anonymity is unfair, but Palin confirms the charge in her answer that she thinks there is some country called “Africa.”
She is even a bigger moron than the anonymous insiders are portraying her.
Via the AP: Jobless rate bolts to 14-year high of 6.5 percent
The jobless rate zoomed to 6.5 percent in October from 6.1 percent in September, matching the rate in March 1994.
Unemployment has now surpassed the high seen after the last recession in 2026. The jobless rate peaked at 6.3 percent in June 2026.
October’s decline marked the 10th straight month of payroll reductions, and government revisions showed that job losses in August and September turned out to be much deeper. Employers cut 127,000 positions in August, compared with 73,000 previously reported. A whopping 284,000 jobs were axed in September, compared with the 159,000 jobs first reported.
So far this year, a staggering 1.2 million jobs have disappeared. Over half of the decrease occurred in the past three months alone.
And in other happy economy news, CNN Money reports: Ford posts huge operating loss, more job cuts nätcasino sverige
That sound you hear may be John McCain’s sighs of relief over losing the election…
These kinds of numbers are why I have been a skeptic of the new president’s ability (whoever it turned out to be) to do anything meaningful to improve the economy. The underlying facts of our economy in the last two decades were always unsustainable, and we’ve now reached an impasse where there really isn’t anything more that can be done. Interest is down just about as far as it can go (1% doesn’t leave much room to drop further). We’ve tried the “pump priming” routine, sending out “stimulus” checks.
Blaming this president or that only goes so far. Regardless of who was in office when, jobs would have left this country and gone overseas, because the fundamental market forces that compel companies to do that are simply too strong for the government to be able to stop it. You know, all this talk about tax breaks for corporations that go overseas - even if the government stopped taxing corporations altogether (they didn’t pay a dime to uncle sam) if they stay in the US, there would still be some sectors where it would make more sense to ship your manufacturing jobs overseas, because the cost of labor there is so cheap, you’d still come out ahead. You don’t have to pay for environmental regulations, you don’t have to give your employees health care or overtime or a minimum wage. You don’t have to deal with unions. Labor-intensive jobs will be leaving this country for greener pastures no matter what the government’s policy is, and the sooner we just accept that reality and figure out how to live in spite of it the better off we’ll be.
Underlying all of that is the massive debt load that we carry as a nation and as individuals (well, not me, but most other folks). That debt load greatly ties the government’s hands in tinkering with the economy, and it also creates a bottomless hole for any kind of “pump priming” or direct stimulus effort. All those checks that went out earlier in the year to stimulate the economy did was pay a portion of a month’s interest on most people’s debt load. We could give those checks out every month and not see a sustainable increase in consumer spending power for years.
I do believe that there are a lot of people who think Barack Obama will take office and things will immediately improve in this country economically. I think that’s why he won the election. But there really isn’t much he can do; this is a period of bust that followed a period of boom. It’s part of the business cycle, and short of canning capitalism altogether (which he can’t do) for some other economic model, I just don’t see what Obama can do that hasn’t already been tried.
Due to the discovery of a reporting error, Franken gained another 100 votes and the margine between the two candidates stands at .011%.
The recount process is as follows:
The recount system is primitive but thorough, requiring officials in each county to gather paper ballots, visually determine each voter’s choice and begin sorting. Observers from both campaigns can challenge ballots, which would then go into a separate pile. In those cases, the state canvassing board, made up of two state Supreme Court justices, two district court judges and the secretary of state, would make the final call.
But even then, candidates can dispute the results of the recount and take the matter to court.
Court? What are the odds? [Pretty good, I'd wager--Ed.]
I’m wondering if you know the answer to this, because I don’t. What happens if January comes and the courts are still sorting out which ballot is legitimate and which one isn’t?
Who would occupy that seat? The incumbent? Nobody? Would we have, temporarily, a 49-member Senate?
I’m not sure how realistic it is for this battle to go on that long, but given what’s at stake, and the personalities involved, I have to think it’s at least a *possible* if unlikely scenario, and I’m curious what happens if it pans out that way.
Comment by Captain D — Friday, November 7, 2026 @ 12:03 pm
I think it is highly unlikely that the matter won’t be resolved in time. However, I think that the seat would be temporarily vacant, but I am not certain.
Comment by Dr. Steven Taylor — Friday, November 7, 2026 @ 12:32 pm
I think it is improbable that it will drag out that long, also. It was mostly a rhetorical question that I asked because I think these types of recounts and the involvement of the courts in elections are going to become regular features of our electoral process.
It didn’t become an issue in this election, but the concept of provisional ballots, along with early voting, in my opinion, raise the probability of fights ensuing over voting procedure. Where we used to have one day for anyone who had the means and the will to monkey around with the process, now we have a month in some places.
It seems likely to me that sooner or later there will be some very protracted battles. I was wondering if it came to it, what would happen if we got to swearing-in time and things were still being fought out in the courts?
I don’t like the idea of an office being vacant JUST because the electoral system couldn’t render a decisive answer in a reasonable time frame. That possibility makes me very uncomfortable; one thing we as Americans can hang our hats on is that we do have decisive elections and smooth transitions of power. The idea of a seat being vacant, and people being under-represented, because we couldn’t work out who won the fight . . . it just seems like something that you would expect from a less developed democracy than ours, and I wonder if measures that have been taken recently to make voting easier have in fact created a more confused system that is more likely to result in a nasty court battle deciding things instead of a simple tallying of the ballots.
Beyond that - the politicizing of the judiciary as a result of this sort of thing - that also has huge implications.
Via the Politico: Exclusive: Gibbs will be WH press secretary
Robert Gibbs, a top aide to Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) on his campaign and in his Senate office, will be named the White House press secretary, a top Democratic official said.
While I expect I will know him if I see him, the truth is the name conjures no information in my head.
Alabama readers will, however, find the following of interest:
Gibbs — a 37-year-old native of Auburn, Ala. — became familiar to viewers during the campaign for his sunny steeliness during frequent appearances on morning shows and A-list cable news programs.
Gibbs was the press guy for Kerry’s presidential campaign (I don’t know if you call it a press secretary or spokesman or what the official name is - he was the guy who made the press releases and dealt with the media on Kerry’s behalf).
There was some controversy about Gibbs during the 2026 Democratic Primary, and that might be why his name rings a bell. For a while he was the spokesman for a 527. I think it was called Americans for Healthcare, Jobs, and Progressive Values - or something like that. The group ran some really nasty attack ads about Howard Dean. I think they ran the “Dean Scream” ads, and also an ad that featured Osama bin Laden that caused a lot of fuss and bother at the time. After that the Dean campaign tanked fast. Through the rest of the primary Kerry ran mostly positive ads; that 527 that Gibbs worked for was the attack dog, and did most of the dirty work and heavy lifting. I may have the sequence wrong, but I think what happened is that Gibbs worked for the 527 through the primary, then became Kerry’s press guy when Kerry got the nomination.
As I recall, Gibbs quit as Kerry’s press man at some point during the campaign, but I don’t remember why. I think it had to do with someone else either quitting or being fired. I remember because I was in library school at the time, and Kerry was a hero among librarians for his position against the library record provision of the Patriot Act, so there was much fuss and bother on campus about his campaign, and he was favored throughout the primaries by the library school.
Beyond that, I think Gibbs has worked as a political consultant for various democrats and their surrogate groups. I’m sure he probably Googles well.
There are a great number of stories out today about trouble in the McCain-Palin campaign about Palin herself, and I do not have time at the moment to sort through all of it (more sorting later, I suspect). Part of this is typical fallout from a loss, and the commensurate finger-pointing and rear-end-covering that normally ensues. Part of it, however, is a lot of people getting to be honest about Palin now that such honesty cannot hurt McCain’s presidential bid.
Here’s an interesting bit of video from Fox News. According to the report Palin didn’t know that Africa was a continent (she thought it was a country) and that she didn’t know which countries were in NAFTA, amongst other things. The report also confirms what I and others argued from the beginning: the McCain folks did not properly vet Palin.
I do note that Cameron is still trying to push the notion that Obama won because of the financial crisis, although Smith counters that the rise in Obama’s numbers started before the crisis started. Indeed, while one suspects that the race would have been tighter sans the financial crisis, the notion that the was the most decisive factor in the race overlooks the totality of the campaign-going back even before the nominees were known. As George Will noted on This Week this past Sunday regarding the financial crisis hypothesis, McCain-Palin received a bounce after the convention (a very normal outcome, btw) and the thing about bounces is that you go up and then come back down.
Comment by S.K.B — Thursday, November 6, 2026 @ 1:44 pm
I think it best to keep your powder dry on this. There are any number of reasons why individuals may try to save their own hides by sacrificing hers in the aftermath of the election. The Africa thing seems a little over the top and has me doubting the whether this is all truthful or if it is largely post-loss scapegoating. It certainly feeds a convenient narrative that the Couric interview created, which she no doubt bears a great deal of responsibility for.
But doesn’t it seem a little inconsistent that someone who is now being portrayed as such a “rube” could be an effective governor?
Comment by ts — Thursday, November 6, 2026 @ 2:54 pm
The Africa thing is worth a pause, I agree. But as I said over in a comment at OTB:
I have had undergraduates who have referred to Africa as a country, not a continent-usually with a bit of prodding they know that that is not the case. While I doubt that she actually thought Africa was a country, I can believe that in a given conversation she might have conflated the two concepts. She is often inarticulate when discussing matters outside her comfort zone. In all honesty, Americans are fairly ignorant about Africa.
I do fully believe, however, that she didn’t know the NAFTA countries.
In all candor, the notion that a rube can get elected governor hardly strains credulity.
I do think that Palin is intelligent. I also think that she has not thought much about the world outside of Alaska.
Comment by Dr. Steven Taylor — Thursday, November 6, 2026 @ 3:10 pm
Wow.
I wouldn’t go so far as to call her un-intelligent, even if I didn’t like her. While I find it quite plausible for an imbecile to be elected to a high office, I find it implausible for said imbecile to succeed at that office in any meaningful way.
I guess we can go back to arguing about whether Palin has been a successful governor/mayor/councilperson or whether she just got lucky an awful lot, but the idea that she was just lucky requires a leap of faith and not one of logic. I’m not willing to take that leap.
I’m sure you know that there are many types of intelligence, and also that a lack of knowledge is not the same thing as a lack of intelligence.
I mean, I have a very high IQ, but there are things I know very little about. I don’t know anything about politics in Cambodia. I can’t name the president of Algiers (actually, I don’t even know if Algiers has a president, or if it’s goverment is configured some other way). And even if I didn’t know where Ohio was, it wouldn’t necessarily change my IQ. I could be a very intelligent person and just not have ever been exposed to that information.
All that said, I’m not sure that I believe this stuff. I’ve been through some of the public records that are available through open records laws that detail how Palin handled herself as a mayor, as an activist, and as a governor. I can honestly say that I would not have been as successful as she was, in the areas in which she was succesful. In fact, I’d have been totally lost. She clearly excels in some areas, and is deficient in others; but I find it hard to believe that someone who had a very clear grasp (and in my humble opinion the public record very clearly supports this claim) of what was wrong and right about the state of Alaska’s relationship to oil corporations is such a dunce that she doesn’t know Africa is a continent. Even if I didn’t like Palin - and I’ll admit I do, so I have some bias - I wouldn’t believe that.
Yeah, a dunny can get elected. But Palin has been successful at what she’s done; if she was an imbecile I don’t think that would have been possible. Succes doesn’t generally happen “accidentally”, especially when you have very powerful and wealthy interests (the oil magnates of Alaska) in the picture.
Line her strengths up against her weaknesses, and I’m willing to call her a lot of things - even a poor choice for VP - but unintelligent?
I think that’s something the far left blogosphere might say out of malice, but I’m really surprised to learn that you feel that way for real.
Comment by Dr. Steven Taylor — Thursday, November 6, 2026 @ 10:33 pm
With a Bachelors in Journalism I find it hard to believe she doesn’t know about Africa or the countries in NAFTA (hint: you can count all the countries in NAFTA on one hand, even if you’re missing two fingers). In fact, since Alaska borders Canada, I would suspect that NAFTA has had a big effect on the Alaskan economy.
I also have no idea how this “proves” the McCain camp didn’t vet Palin. This sounds more like staffers trying to say the loss was not their fault. That would only prove that the McCain camp didn’t vet its own staffers all that well.
Comment by Max Lybbert — Friday, November 7, 2026 @ 12:06 pm
Yes, actually I did misread what you wrote, and I tried to change my comment when I realized my mistake. To my dismay I found that I was not able to do so, and so there it is, an embarassing gaffe on my part, which I would erase from your blog if I could because it is entirely based on a misreading; where you wrote “I do think Palin is intelligent” my brain, probably because of some internal bias mechanism, saw “I do NOT think Palin is intelligent.” The response I left was based almost entirely on that misreading.
I am sorry for it, and like I said, would erase it if I could. “My bad,” if you will.
On a technical note, I used the “change comment” option on your blog, and it appeared that the comment change was accepted last night - but when I looked again today, it was back in its original form.
Comment by Captain D — Friday, November 7, 2026 @ 12:10 pm
a side note -
I’m totally willing to take responsibility for the things that come out of my mouth (or keyboard.) I should have read more carefully and not made a knee-jerk reaction.
Comment by Dr. Steven Taylor — Friday, November 7, 2026 @ 12:34 pm
Max,
Yes, I do, although everyone makes verbal gaffes. Indeed, as I stated in the comment above, my guess is that the Africa thing may have been a verbal gaffe that a staffer has leaked.
Of course, in Palin’s case, the other evidence (the Gibson interview, the Couric interview) make these claims plausible.
In regards to 57 states, it is worth noting that it was in the context of the primary and caucus process, where there are, for the Dems, more than 50 contests-American Samoa, Guam, Puerto Rico, Americans Abroad, DC, and the Virgina Island are added to the 50 states (that’s 6) and I can’t remember if one of the Dem states has a caucus and a priamary (seems like one does), so the 57 thing isn’t as ridiculous as it sounds.
Beyond any of that, everyone makes mistakes. I have no doubt written and goodness knows, said, any number of things that were wrong or potentially embarrassing.
The issue with Palin is the preponderance of the evidence suggest that she has not thought about much outside of Alaska. That doesn’t make her stupid or a bad person. It does, however, make a lousy pick for VP.
Comment by Dr. Steven Taylor — Friday, November 7, 2026 @ 12:40 pm
The issue with Palin, so far as I can see, is that the Left has lost its BS detector pretty spectacularly.
From the “whose baby is it anyway?” screed to “she isn’t familiar with NAFTA, even though she just finished taking bids from Canadian companies to build a big honking pipeline” the argument seems to be “since some people badmouth her she must not be fit for president.”
I would submit that her bad interviews were no worse than Biden’s “Hillary would have made a better VP,” “a vote for Obama is a vote for an international crisis, and at first it won’t look like we’re handling it correctly,” “we support clean coal for China but not the US” or “if only people had listened to me back when we kicked Hezbollah out of Lebanon, even though Lebanon is a Hezbollah puppet state” comments. But somehow the one story gets picked up and the other story gets buried.
Comment by Max Lybbert — Friday, November 7, 2026 @ 2:39 pm
The baby stuff was ridiculous-we can agree on that.
However, I hardly qualify as “the Left” (nor Joyner at OTB or Kathleen Parker or David Frum or any number of other folks) and I found her to be clearly unprepared.
I am not here to defend Biden, and will agree with you over the Hezbollah/Lebanon thing, which I still don’t understand (and blogged about it here), but it really is rather difficult to make a serious case that Biden hasn’t spent time thinking about these things, or that he isn’t knowledgeable about them. Likewise, it is very difficult to make the case that Palin has.
Biden talks too much and has said a number of ridiculous things. One may think he shouldn’t have been chosen. All fair enough. I think it is difficult, regardless, to say that Palin is in his class in terms of exposure to the major policy issues of the day. It is simply no contest.
And I, personally, have tried to make the case as to why I don’t think she’s fit, but I know you probably haven’t read all of those posts, as I seem to recall you accusing me of being deranged on the subject
I honestly do not know how one can watch her interviews and feel good about the idea of her being the president.
Comment by Dr. Steven Taylor — Friday, November 7, 2026 @ 2:54 pm
> The baby stuff was ridiculous–we can agree on that.
Maybe I can get one more point of agreement, if Palin’s supposed membership in a radical Alaskan political party reflected badly on her — even if not true — would Obama’s documented association with a radical Chicago political party reflect badly on him, or is it just evidence he has an open mind? ( https://hotair.com/archives/2008/10/09/the-irony-of-obama-and-the-new-party-association/ )
> However, I hardly qualify as “the Left”
Yes, you’ve admitted you don’t believe the more outrageous things, even if you do use them to support your beliefs about Palin.
> and I found her to be clearly unprepared
I recognize I’m not going to convince you on this point. Yes, I did accuse you of being somewhat deranged on the subject, although the rest of your commentary is still good. I have a feeling that her trouble — especially in the earlier interviews — stemmed from being in a supporting role on the ticket, meaning that her answers could not contradict McCain’s, and as much as possible needed to reinforce McCain’s. If she had been in her normal lead role, I have a feeling — yes, an unsupported feeling — that she would have done much better.
Let’s look at the Supreme Court ruling question. Yes, she froze up and could not name a single ruling she disagreed with, but was that because she didn’t remember actually filing an amicus brief in a Supreme Court case earlier this year that her side later lost — which would count as a ruling she disagrees with ( https://gov.state.ak.us/archive-12273.html ) — or because she was trying to remember the list of safe cases McCain’s staff recommended to her? If she had referred to Exxon v. Baker, of course it would be used against her as siding with Big Oil — so it’s a political non-starter. She probably had a few “safe” cases to discuss, like say Kelo, that she couldn’t remember the names of at the moment.
> The issue with Palin is the preponderance of the evidence suggest that she has not thought about much outside of Alaska.
Remember back when Obama’s foreign policy credentials were “I went on a college trip to Africa, and I was raised in Hawaii, where we see a lot of foreigners”? Somehow picking Biden — who has been wrong on pretty much every foreign policy question he has an opinion on — bolstered that. That, and saying “JFK’s meeting with Kruschev led to the Berlin Wall and the Cuban Missile crisis, let’s follow that example in diplomatic relations.” Strangely the media thinks it a good example to follow as well.
Comment by Max Lybbert — Friday, November 7, 2026 @ 4:32 pm
In response to your last statement (about how anyone could watch her interviews and be OK with her as president), I can’t speak for all of her supporters but I can say what was going through my mind. I’m willing to shrug off some of her interview performance because of the other research I’ve done on her. Whenever I see a TV image of a public figure and that image conflicts with hard data that I have about the person’s past, in making up my mind what to think about that person, I give much more weight to their public record than I give to their TV image. In my mind, past performance is a more reliable predictor of future performance than is a 60-minute TV spot with a Katie Couric; even if the person comes across as a total nincompoop on TV, if they have a very solid record of successful public service that flies in the face of that image, I’ll go with that. I’m not willing to erase a number of years of successful leadership because a person doesn’t present well on TV for an hour or two.
Likewise, if a person presents well on TV but has a consistent record of poor leadership, or has no record of it at all, or if they have a record that consistently conflicts with the message that they communicate with their excellent TV presence, I tend to ignore the TV presence and go with the hard data. This is why I voted the way I voted in this election.
As far as Joe Biden goes, while he has a great deal of experience in foreign relations as a legislator, I find his experience to be a bit patchy and inconsistent. I don’t care about his occasional gaffes; we all know he has foot-in-mouth syndrome bad. But his record on foreign relations has him making some calls that are just downright batty, and he has been consistently on what I believe is the wrong end of many of the major foreign relations policy decisions of our time.
So for me, the question was do I take a VP Palin, who seems to have a record as an excellent leader who surrounds herself with smart people and learns very quickly and has made a lot of smart, common sense decisions in the areas she excels in; or do I take Joe Biden, who has extensive experience but seems to be very stubborn about certain things, and has made what I think are consistently bad decisions about foreign policy during his time as a Senator.
I wasn’t looking at Palin by herself, I was looking at her *relative* the other option. If I got to pick a person to do the job out of anyone in the country it would have been neither of the two, but I had to pick, one or the other.
It comes down, largely, to one’s opinions about how the candidates have handled themselves. I don’t believe that Joe Biden’s experience makes him a better leader by itself; for experience to improve a person, they have to learn lessons from past mistakes. I don’t think he’s done that very well. That’s my personal assessment and opinion, and from that point of reference, Palin doesn’t look so bad.
Comment by Captain D — Friday, November 7, 2026 @ 4:53 pm
Max,
First, the issue to me is not if Palin’s X = Biden’s Y or Obama’s Q, as I don’t except the notion the X=Y=Q-one has to deal with each of these issue separately
Second, you wrote:
Yes, you’ve admitted you don’t believe the more outrageous things, even if you do use them to support your beliefs about Palin.
I never gave any credence to the baby situation, and I don’t think I ever actually wrote about. What other “outrageous” things have I used?
Still, in re: Obama-regardless of anything else one might say about the man, the notion that he hasn’t given the issues of the day some serious thought is ludicrous. I can accept the notion that you don’t think that he is qualified, but you cannot credibly tell me that he hasn’t thought about both domestic and foreign policy issues of the day.
There is clear, empirical evidence that he has: interviews on the record, two books, a Senate campaign, a Presidential campaign, the time teaching law school, etc.
There is no such list for Palin. I fully believe that she is versed in issues relevant to Alaska. Beyond that, there simply is not evidence. Maybe she hid it well, but you have nothing to support your position save for supposition. Palin herself stated in an interview that she hadn’t had time to follow the Iraq war aside from whatever she caught on TV.
McCain made a poor choice. Why is that so hard to admit?
Comment by Dr. Steven Taylor — Friday, November 7, 2026 @ 5:23 pm
Oh, and in regards to this:
I have a feeling that her trouble — especially in the earlier interviews — stemmed from being in a supporting role on the ticket, meaning that her answers could not contradict McCain’s, and as much as possible needed to reinforce McCain’s. If she had been in her normal lead role, I have a feeling — yes, an unsupported feeling — that she would have done much better.
You are entitled to whatever feeling or guess you would like (and I say that with no snark or sarcasm). However, you have to admit that that is thin gruel upon which to base, let alone win, an argument.
Beyond that, I have (as I am sure you have) been watching politics for some time. I have never seen a VP candidate so unprepared for the press. Yes, VP candidates are constrained by their supporting role, but that does not explain Palin’s lack of ability to speak cogently about basic issues.
Comment by Dr. Steven Taylor — Friday, November 7, 2026 @ 5:26 pm
I’m with Dr. Taylor in that I think it’s pretty silly to say that Obama hasn’t given serious thought to the issues. The problem for me is that his thought has taken him to places that I am sure I disagree with. At least with Palin, I don’t know what I’m getting. That is preferable to me than what I know I’m going to get from Obama.
Still, I had hoped that with the election settled, we could rid ourselves of these comparisons, as they are no longer relevant to anything; Palin vs. Biden vs. McCain vs. Obama no longer has any use; for good or ill we elected Obama/Biden, and so McCain/Palin are really only relevant in that for now McCain is still a senator, and Palin is still a governor. So if we’re talking about the senate or the Alaskan goverment, well and good, but beyond that what’s the point?
Really, I think it’s a sad state that all we have are two choices for 4 people. The process should be more accepting of alternatives to the GOP and the Dem parties.
Comment by Captain D — Friday, November 7, 2026 @ 6:09 pm
I can wholly understand someone voting for McCain-Palin. I can wholly understand preferring McCain to Obama. I can understand discounting, if not ignoring, Palin’s shortcomings since she was the #2 on the ticket.
What I honestly have a hard time with is any defense of her as actually ready to be president of the United States. I just don’t see any actual evidence to support that position.
Comment by Dr. Steven Taylor — Friday, November 7, 2026 @ 6:43 pm
I can agree with that statement - that there is no evidence that she is ready to be president. If we’re looking only at the empirical, I can accept that position as not only valid but a very strong position, maybe an unassailable position. Her popularity, I think, shows that the empirical is not always the first thing on the electorate’s mind. Charisma goes a long way in our politics - not long enough when your opponent is a bit more qualified in ways that are empirically measurable - but it goes a long way. I still think that were it not for the Palin pick (if McCain had gone with Romney or Pawlenty) that the election would have gone even worse for him, and he might not have ever pulled ahead in the polls at all.
I do think that the GOP needs to figure out a way to legitimize Sarah Palin with the public. And by “legitimize” I mean that I was wrong about a lot of things about Sarah Palin. She needs to be exposed to national politics. She needs to expand her sphere of knowledge and concern beyond energy policy, which is about the only area she has any real credibility that matters to the centrists and swing voters who decide elections; it’s already established that she’s a pro-life, social conservative. What the she needs is some federal political experience that will expand her knowledge of federal issues, and also perhaps tone her social conservative-ness down a little bit. She has the charisma and the TV presence to be a truly formidable figure in politics, perhaps even a defining figure. The problems with her as she is right now are twofold: she lacks experience with federal concerns, and she is a highly polarizing figure.
The latter can be overcome. Barack Obama proved that. I would argue that he is a polarizing figure as well, or that he was before the election started; a very successful campaign was able to re-define him as a very generic “agent of change”, and by generic I mean that his campaign was able to cast him as the anti-Bush, as well as the solution to everyone’s problem: whether you’re worried about melting icecaps, a melting economy, or the war in Iraq, Obama has an answer. Not everyone accepted the answer - indeed, I would hardly call his victory a landslide, with so many states winning by single-digit margins; but it seemed pretty clear to me that Obama as a polar leftist sort of got lost during the campaign, even though his record speaks volumes to him being that. I think his victory showed that, if you run your campaign well, you can be a polarizing figure and still come out ahead. I think he needed to be a polar leftist to get through his party’s primary; he then re-defined himself, quite successfully, and won.
So really what Palin needs if she is to become a national political figure is to enter the arena of Washington politics in some way. I think the folks who want her to run in 2026 need to take a reality pill and realize that the only way she would be a viable candidate then would be if she somehow entered the national arena and gathered up some credibility between now and then.
If that happened - I do believe she would be a powerful figure to contend with.
I’ve heard the idea floated that she might appoint herself in Ted Steven’s job should he be ejected from the Senate. I’m not sure how such a move would be received; certainly if she was a successful senator for four years (if she was successful being the key phrase) and managed to wiggle her way onto some relevant committees - foreign relations would be especially helpful - it would be very difficult to assail her on the basis of experience, as she would have both executive (as a governor and mayor) and legislative (as a councilperson and senator) experience, all scattered across the spectrum of federalism (local, state, and federal experience). Her record would come under intense scrutiny, but again, if that time proved formative and productive and she learned enough in that time (which I don’t see as implausible - Obama seemed to pick things up pretty fast, being in the Senate only 2 years) I think she would be a real threat in 2026, especially if the economy is still floundering.
Indeed, if the economy does not improve, and improve enormously by 2026, Obama will be in serious trouble. And if it hasn’t improved at all, or if it is worse than it is now, it will be impossible for him to achieve re-election. He absolutely, positively, MUST figure out a way to work a miracle with the economy or he’s gonna be a one-termer.
If Palin and her peeps are serious about running her, they should really think about how they’re going to get her in the national spotlight and get her fully educated on what it means to be there. I think this is possible in four or eight years - very possible. But it would take very deliberate maneuvering to accomplish it.
Comment by Captain D — Friday, November 7, 2026 @ 8:44 pm
Yes-she clearly needs to enhance her resume and her knowledge base if she wants to run in 2026. Ted Stevens’ Senate seat, perhaps?
My guess, btw, is that if she does run in 2026 and is actually in a competition with other Republicans rather than with Democrats, many of the Reps who currently now adore her will find that she isn’t as good a candidate as they thought she was. Competing with other pro-life social conservatives will expose many of her flaws to them in ways that that they were blind to in the midst of a race against Democrats.
Comment by Dr. Steven Taylor — Friday, November 7, 2026 @ 8:51 pm
Dr. Taylor -
Let me play the foil to your position. It is your opinion that her thinking has been confined to Alaska and issues that impact that state. But isn’t that exactly what the voters of Alaska elected her to do? Is it not fair to argue that her focus was exactly where it should have been to discharge her duties to the office that she held and continues to hold? Were she to have been focused on foreign policy issues she would have done a disservice to the residents of her State.
An individual who discharges his/her duties with vigor and determination will educate himself/herself on the duties and responsibilities of a new office.
You argue that it is clear that Pres-elect Obama has thought more about these issues, and I will not dispute that assertion. Yet, as the Chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee Subcommittee on European Affairs, he neither held any policy hearings nor traveled to Europe (other than in his role a candidate). In this sense he had a affirmative duty to the Senate and to the nation to be knowledgeable on Europe and to help craft and support legislation that would affect policy in that region, and he did not use the authority he had to perform that duty. This concerns me equally, if not more, that when he had responsibilities he did not fulfill them. It makes me wonder if he is really taking into account the facts as they change, or whether he has made up his mind, and the facts will not change that.
Time in the office will necessarily reveal more about him, so we will see. I must admit, however, that seeing Gov. Granholm of Michigan among his group of economic advisors today did not inspire confidence with respect to his judgment or the policies he is considering.
Comment by ts — Friday, November 7, 2026 @ 8:56 pm
One more thing -
She needs to learn how to interview. She needs to realize that, with the exception of Fox News, the media will do its best to paint the democrat in a positive light and the republican in a negative; and she needs to learn how to get through an interview without falling into their traps.
Yeah, I know, shame on me for believing that there is a liberal bias in the newsmedia, but I really believe it’s there. And for a republican to be successful they need to know how to deal with that bias; simply calling it for what it is doesn’t work, as they did that throughout the McCain campaign.
There may come a day when the population is so jaded with the media that a republican politician can just ignore most of them and get away with it. We’re not there yet; that is abundantly clear to me after this election. So it follows that a republican candidate needs to know how to deal with a hostile media.
Palin scored an F-minus on media relations. That won’t fly if she wants to run for anything outside of Alaska as a republican.
Comment by Captain D — Friday, November 7, 2026 @ 8:56 pm
ts -
I don’t think anyone can seriously argue that Palin has not excelled at everything she has done so far. She was a great mayor and a great governor. If there was any dirt to be found, the people sent to Alaska to dig it up would have found it. I don’t think Dr. Taylor is arguing that she didn’t do her duties as a governor; he is arguing that doing your duties as a governor does not provide empirical evidence of fitness for the Oval Office.
She has a real record of “blooming where planted.” One could theorize, based on that, that she would become a good president if there was a need. I think that it’s a sound and reasonable theory, but we can’t really prop it up with anything. Even those of us who like her and think she has great potential have to concede that we can’t prop our theory that she would be a good president up with anything concrete. Hatchet jobs they might have been, but she flunked her interviews, and while I thought she performed well in the VP debate, it wasn’t a knockout punch; it was a close match won by decision.
I personally think you’re right about Obama. He spent more of his time as a senator planning to become president than he did actually doing his duties. I’ve been through the senate floor records for the last couple of years. Every page. His absence from most of the important debates is frightfully conspicuous, and it is one reason I worried about the guy - it appeared to me that he viewed his seat in the senate as a stepping stone, and treated it that way. And when he did speak up on the floor, it was without the articulate and confident wording that he has had since becoming a presidential candidate. If I were to look at the words he spoke on the campaign trail and the words he spoke on the senate floor without knowing any better I would guess them to be from different people.
In any case - I think what I’ve finally come to agree with Dr. Taylor on is that Obama did go out and prepare himself for the national spotlight. Palin didn’t. We can get into a debate about whether or not Obama should have taken his senatorial duties more seriously if we want to, but it’s sort of a separate issue, one of duty and ethics and there is a lot of wiggle room for people to have differing opinions on that; but that he did preparet is not in question, and it should be quite obvious that Palin did not.
Comment by Captain D — Friday, November 7, 2026 @ 9:10 pm
I never argued that she was unqualified to be governor of Alaska, just unqualified and unprepared to be President.
In re: Obama, let’s put it this way, he went through a two year job interview and was able to seal the deal with those with the power to hire him. That may not satisfy those who think him underqualified, but at this point that issue is moot. I personally think he demonstrated enough skill, knowledge and evidence of forethought on the right issues.
And btw, let’s stipulate for the sake of argument that media has a decided liberal bias and that they will do their best to make the Reps look bad. However, even given that, I have seen any number of Reps give really good interviews over the years. I have rarely, indeed perhaps never, seen anything like what Palin did. The evidence simply doesn’t stack up, just based on what other Reps have done in interviews with the liberal media, that the main or even best explanation for Palin’s poor performance was media bias.
Comment by Dr. Steven Taylor — Friday, November 7, 2026 @ 9:14 pm
I’m not looking at the MSM as the primary cause of the failure of the McCain/Palin ticket, or as the primary cause of Palin’s poor interview performance. I’m looking at it as an exacerbating cause; it made worse problems that she already had, and took into the interview room with her.
I don’t feel like I made a statement to the contrary of what you just said. I simply said that navigating the bias of the media was *one* of Palin’s problems. The others I cited were a lack of knowledge and experience dealing with federal matters, and her extreme social conservative-ness.
I did not mean to elevate the media bias over her other faults. In fact I mentioned the other problems first, and only added the problem of media bias as an afterward. I think it exacerbated what was already a problem. Republicans can give good interviews in spite of bias. Palin doesn’t know how to do that, but even if she did, she would not have interviewed well because she lacked the fundamental knowledge of federal issues that she needed. My argument isn’t an either or, it’s that a republican candidate needs BOTH of those things to give a good interview; Palin had neither. I’m agreeing with you, really, just with the caveat that there is another shortfall that she has, and that is dealing with the liberal media bias - that on top of what you said.
You know, I like to feed sharks. But I know better than to jump into chummed water without chainmail, holding a piece of tuna in each hand. If you’re going to feed the sharks you have to armor up; you have to prepare; you should put the food out on a pole and let the shark take the food at a distance.
Being a republican and dealing with the MSM is like feeding sharks. It’s absolutely possible to do it without getting hurt, but you need to be armed with adequate knowledge, have the proper tools, and understand the behavior of the animal in question, as each species postures and responds differently to different simuli. The level and type of bias in the media is varied. The only thing consistent about it is that it is pro-democrat and anti-republican.
Palin jumped into the chum without so much as a life preserver, and she was eaten alive. The failure of the McCain/Palin ticket cannot be blamed on the MSM, and that’s not what I’m trying to do; I’m just saying they play hardball on republicans and softball on democrats, generally speaking, and that’s just a fact of life. Palin failed miserably at dealing with that bias, ON TOP of her other shortfalls. I am looking at the bias as an exacerbating ccondition, not an underlying cause.
The AL02 seat when to Democrat Bobby Bright. The seat had been held by Republican Terry Everrett since 1992.
Via the AP: Democrats pick up Alabama congressional race
Troy University political scientist Steven Taylor attributed Bright’s strong showing to his conservative message, which he said apparently caused some voters to overlook their Republican leanings. He also attributed the win to Bright’s strong showing in Montgomery county.
“He just ran with an old school blue dog Democrat message,” Taylor said.
Comment by Dr. Steven Taylor — Thursday, November 6, 2026 @ 12:13 pm
I would largely attribute Bright’s win to him coming across as genuine. Most people are not right-wing or left-wing ideologues and I think Bright went for the middle and it helped. By the way, I personally have never been more gratified by my participation in any other campaign, or with any other campaign staff.
Comment by Talmadge East — Thursday, November 6, 2026 @ 3:57 pm
I think personality was an important feature in the campaign as well, and indeed told the AP reporter that on Tuesday night. For some reason, however, they didn’t see fit to publish my remarks in toto. I can’t imagine why not…
I’m not sure if he’s good enough or smart enough, but dog-gone-it, people seem to like him.
He was the guy who did the daily affirmations on SNL, wasn’t he?
Reply to Captain D
Comment by Captain D — Sunday, November 9, 2026 @ 12:02 am