Replace Biden With Hillary

7 Responses to “Replace Biden With Hillary”

1. Sean Braisted writes
   September 18th, 2008 1:38 pm

   This whole panic thing is so 96 hours ago.

   Seriously, what reason is there to believe that Sarah Palin is any longer a threat to Obama? Her favorability numbers in nearly all tracking polls have gone down, now leaving her with the lowest net positive rating of all the candidates.

   Her star shined bright for a few days, but because of the media insulation, many people tired of hearing the same played out lines from her acceptance speech, and wanted more substance; which she doesn’t have to deliver.

   Unless you happen to follow news really closely, and new when she’d be on ABC, chances are you have yet to see her give an interview, and so the jokes and imitations of a woman who doesn’t know anything are starting to take root, and Tina Fey’s interpretation are getting more play than the real thing.

   This was a novelty, and the novelty is wearing off. Joe Biden, despite his flaws, is still a great governing choice by Obama, and in the long run, will be respected by voters as a smarter decision that Mayor Mooseport for McCain.

2. Regis writes
   September 18th, 2008 2:27 pm

   The Hillary for Biden swap is one of the worst ideas to be brought up. The Obama-Clinton drama (both Clintons) would consume the campaign and any message they would hope to get out. Sean Braisted says it better than I, but I think it is striking how many politically savy people think this is even a decent idea.

3. Kleinheider writes
   September 18th, 2008 2:35 pm

   It is indeed a horrible idea on many levels but I just look at how media attention and favorable poll ratings seem to follow the vapid celebrity of Obama and Palin and I just wonder if our politics haven’t become vulnerable to this kind of stunt.

4. Sean Braisted writes
   September 18th, 2008 2:41 pm

   The difference is that Obama has been able to maintain his appeal as a (as you call him) “vapid celebrity” over the course of an intense and scrutinized two year campaign because he has the knowledge of issues and policies to back up his popularity; Sarah Palin does not, and as a result, her popularity has begun to slide.

5. Albert writes
   September 18th, 2008 2:47 pm

   You crossed a pretty obvious line calling Obama a “vapid celebrity.” You have fine credibility as a journalist, ACK, despite the fact we all know your politics. This one knocked you down a notch.

   It isn’t “fair” or “balanced” to call them both the same thing. You can say what you want about the importance or value of anyone’s time in elected office. But there’s no calling the president of the Harvard Law Review “vapid.”

   I believe you just fell for the talking points.

6. Chris Sanders writes
   September 18th, 2008 3:22 pm

   That’s not the way I read it. What I thought he said was that people follow the vapid celebrity of both candidates. He didn’t reduce them to being vapid celebrities. Celebrity as a quality, not celebrity as an appositive or something like that, is what I thought was going on in the post. And that would be a distinction with a difference.

7. Will writes
   September 18th, 2008 3:37 pm

   ACK, pray tell what do you mean by “I just look at how media attention and favorable poll ratings seem to follow the vapid celebrity of . . . Palin.” I would almost agree with you except her star is fading fast and her favorability rating has tanking going from +17 to -3. Her number drop is larger than any politician in recent history who has not just doubled taxes or been convicted of pedophilia. She got some GOPers worked into a lather when she came out of nowhere and seemed like a dreamgirl, but reality and celebrity are two different animals.