There are two reasons. First. the praise she lavishes on John McCain comes perilously close to going over the top – thus damaging both her credibility and his.

The second reason is more general: the recitation of his war record is superflous with respect to those who know, and a campaign negative with respect to those who don’t.

The problem is that the ability to understand what his self discovery in North Vietnam means to him comes only with experience – experience we should be glad most of the audience does not have.

Unfortunately people who don’t understand what fires mold the souls of warriors make up their own explanations for what they hear – and so what the average younger Joe perceives when the campaign hammers on this is an old guy living in the past.

That’s wrong, of course: McCain is trying to tell us who he is, but those who already know, know; and those who don’t, won’t – no matter how many times anyone tells them.

My feeling, therefore, is that the campaign would do better to summarize the early experience in a few sentences and leave it at that – moving on quickly from how his character was formed to how his recent actions with respect to issues average Joe lives with every day show it.

Obama has a glass jaw. He’s not used to people not fawning all over him

This is more true than people think. I have not read either of Obamas 2 autobiographies (at age 47, think about the massive ego required to do that!), but it is pretty clear that his rise to fame has always been on the shoulders of others, and not some David-Goliath “…black man fighting the system tooth and nail”

He is as much a manufactured politician as the boy-band industry in the 90s.

I wonder if Michelle Obama will still be proud of her country on November 5?

The confession: clearly, this is the same sort of reaction that Obambi’s teary, stupid fans get from him. I’m not stupid, and I’m not crying, but otherwise … I’m just as pathetic as them.

There it is.

I’d recommend the Wall Street Journal editorial staff and perhaps another media outlet for an interview, to be videotaped and put on YouTube and available in high definition from the McCain campaign. The WSJ seemed to accurately report on the substance of Sarah Palin’s experience as governor of Alaska in “How Palin Beat Alaska’s Establishment”, to understand the folly of media sterotypes about evangelicals in “Sarah Palin Feminism”, and to understand the media’s credibility problem in “What Sarah Knows”.

A key question to answer, whether WSJ asks them or not, would include why they were chosen for this interview. The rest of the media will carp about being left out, and a reporting performance-based answer would be appropriate. Dissing some media outlets that were not invited as “making in-kind contributions to the Obama campaign” or acting like tabloids would be delicious.

I’m sure the WSJ staff would ask tough questions that debunk charges they were selected for being too easy on Palin (even if the WSJ is generally clueless about immigration as a homeland security issue).

One thing I can say is that after watching her laud McCain a few times, I’m actually starting to like the guy a bit.

isnt it a minimal requirement to be a lawyer to be a VP or Prez?

Truman never even graduated from college.

Barack Obama announces that he “won’t be bullied.” Poor widdle Barack! “Bullied,” I guess, means “criticized” or “disagreed with.” Tom Maguire (via InstaPundit) reacts:

Whether Obama is revealing personal weakness or simply highlighting the historic weakness of his party, this is not talk that projects strength, especially in the current context – what is Obama saying, he won’t be bullied by a 44 year old hockey mom? Stand Tall, Barack – you won’t be bullied by Sarah Palin! OMG, is this a secret plan to assassinate Putin by making him laugh so hard he gets an aneurysm? Or is this Laugh Attack launched at the Right Blogosphere (It’s working! I can barely type through the tears).

Our next President – ready to take on hockey moms, PTA heads and small town mayors. Even former ones.

Obama seems to think it’s dirty pool for the Republicans to try to win the election. Maybe that’s because he thinks he’s already President:

Right, which means the teleprompter is useless to her at the time. That is called broken. Her poise under the circumsatnce was remarkable for her first speech to the nation to not only hold up but to shine. My God as if that wouldn’t have derailed 90% of first timers. It’s naive to minimize that incredible accomplishment.

Awesome…but I wish she wouldnt repeat the same cliches..theres so much material out there to use. I was wondering, isnt it a minimal requirement to be a lawyer to be a VP or Prez? Im sure either Im wrong or she is a lawyer.

malkinmania on September 7, 2008 at 7:02 AM

Since the inception of our country, there’s been only these requirements…and they’re in the Constitution:

[5] No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

You’re obviously new to the site, based on your next post. Just because someone accuses you of being a troll, doesn’t mean you should consider registration a mistake. We all get grumpy.

isnt it a minimal requirement to be a lawyer to be a VP or Prez?

Good lord no, the last thing we need in the White House are more lawyers.

The “law” profession is a guild centered on confusing citizens and promoting conflict, all for the purpose of enriching lawyers.

Lawyers produce nothing but conflict. We need doers in the White House, not talkers.