A governor of Alaska is entitled to the provincal lack of opinion on the issue of Iraq, as expressed with  “I’ve been so focused on state government, I haven’t really focused much on the war in Iraq. I heard on the news about the new deployments, and while I support our president, Condoleezza Rice and the administration, I want to know that we have an exit plan in place; I want assurances that we are doing all we can to keep our troops safe. Every life lost is such a tragedy. I am very, very proud of the troops we have in Alaska, those fighting overseas for our freedoms, and the families here who are making so many sacrifices.”  I post the entire quote from The Alaska Business Monthly because it does suggest less of a cluelessness than the clipped quotation I see and hear running around.  But provincally what I can suggest is that your Barack Obama has been “focused on Iraq” from the get-go, indeed going back to 2003 when he made the politically necessary and expedient opinion for an Illinois State Senator in a liberal enclave at a time the rest of the nation was fully supportive of the war.  But the double-backing has to continue here, and I turn also to these blogger types I saw a few weeks’ ago shouting down “What did Obama have to say about Georgia before the invasion?  Huh?  Huh?”  I venture to say more than Palin.  This double-edged swords is sharper at the McCain end than the Obama end.

So, with this provincalism established, it seems appropriate that things are burrowing deeper and deeper into the very most definition of “Domestic Politics”.  Leave aside the rumours, and the odd circumstances of The Flight which have helped lead some circumstantial credence to the rumour, and just note that the Religious Right have seemed to take an attitude toward a variation of the old Grover Cleveland retort with the Pregnancy (Yep!  Don’t believe in contraceptions!):  “Hooray for the Kid!  Hooray for the Kid’s Kid!  I voted for Palin, and I’m glad that I did!”

Picking up a rock and seeing a bunch of crawly little things.  One shot comes with some positive words regarding Ron Paul, in and of itself not worth much mention — I could probably say the same sentiment — though, I have to suggest a hearty “Welcome to the Machine” at this juncture.  But I’ve come to be wary of these matters — it comes from seeing things with “ronpaulfanatic” stuck next to a “blogspot.com” address and scrolling down the sidebar banners to see that behind the “Ron Paul rEVOLution” bumper is the “9/11 Truth” sticker, and a plug for — say — Webster Tarpley’s new book.  It is after seeing and noting the smidgeon of Paulism that her association with the Alaska Independence Party.  Well, I’ve often thought that the United States should get rid of Alaska too.  But today this probably just serves as a two percent votinig bloc for Palin’s statewide election efforts.

It is appropriate that Hurricane Gustav blew away the Bush and Cheney speeches at the Republican Convention, seeing as Hurricane Katrina blew away much of their presidential standing three years ago.  Understand, though, the shin-dig parties by corporate and Interest lobbies were still going on — the NRA had quite a concert, for instance.  But it is also worth noting that John McCain will be giving his acceptance speech on at the same time the National Football League Season starts.  While the New York Giants are being hailed as the “Worst Superbowl Champion in history” — small comfort to the New England Patriots who were chomping at the bit to trademark “19-0” (they, um, were 18-0 and then they were, um, 18-1) — I gather it will still cut into viewership, such to compare Barack Obama’s ratings shattering speech.  (He is a celebrity, you understand.  Just like Schwarzenager — who was scheduled to speak at the RNC Convention, and may be bailing due to state budgetary issues.)  I guess this almost means that Sarah Palin becomes the big draw.  I tend to hope we can get her nominated in a hurry so that this choice can be bolted down and there can be no turning back.  McCain / Palin.  Then we brace ourselves for a McCain speech nobody will be watching.

In 1984 when Mondale selected Ferraro the internal Reagan memo shouted out, “Any slim chance Mondale might have had to beat us is now gone.”  I have to wonder what the Obama Campaign memos flying about right now are showing.  Probably the first memo upon the announcement expresses the same, “Huh?  What?” as the rest of the public.

So I took a spain through the way-back machine to take a view on how the choices of Geraldine Ferraro and Dan Quayle reverberated through into the media, and what political calculations and pressures were believed to be at play.  I cannot say I have a huge amount of new insight, as just for the heck of it I also flushed through some pre-selection Sarah Palin items — which suggested very little to me as well.

Palin is more of a Quayle than a Ferraro.  The elder Bush’s pick of Dan Quayle was meant as a salve to the Conservative Christian base, who distrusted Bush’s basic “moderation”, better thought of as Toryism, and yes indeed, Quayle was going to solve the Gender Gap of support amongst women… because… Quayle was cute?  I don’t believe that the Conservative Christian base was quite as distrustful of Bush as they are of McCain, but then again I don’t believe they were quite as enthralled of Quayle (acceptable, in the lenses of 1988 – slashes the right ‘t’s and dots the right ‘lower case j’s) as they are of Palin, but then again Sarah Palin through sheer Identity Politics has a somewhat more understandable clutch for women votes than Quayle who was… huggable — is that it?

The only thing I can say about Geraldine Ferraro was that from the vantage point of 1984, it was probably the case that she was — from the perspective of traditional presidential political criteria — about the best pick in terms of female Democratic candidates, three terms in Congress be damned.  Such was the situation that Mondale interviewed a crew of black and female mayors, and Lloyd Bentsen, and the public largely groaned at the process.  And probably not coincidentally Dukakis selected Bentsen in 1988.

Neither pick mattered one iota.  What can be said about Betsen is that he almost assuredly would have defeated Quayle in a presidential contest, and may just have defeated Bush I.  But Dukakis dragged that ticket down moreso than Quayle dragged down the Bush ticket, and what we were left with was Bush/Quayle.

The problem of Obama is in the area of gender is a suggestion that a woman probably would not be able or allowed to “jump out the gate” as he did.  Although maybe she might be plucked out and prenaturally groomed for the Big Stage, as was the case of Bush II, and now seems to be the case with Sarah Palin.  I get the feeling that the Conservative Christian base is chopping at the bit with her, not much caring what happens to McCain but hoping to push Palin’s profile to greater and greater heights — at the end of the election, even if McCain is crushed, they can start booking Sarah Palin to any and every media event they can find or influence. 

I am a little nauseated by the slimness of the resume of George W Bush in offering himself up for the presidency in 2000, Obama in 2008, and now Sarah Palin — though, circular logic that it may seem to be, there is credence in the “running a presidential campaign” argument (a larger operation than running the state of Alaska), and there is a bit of clenched teeth I have in seeing the hackneyed double-backs taking place on the grand issue of “Experience” with, for example, Newt Gingrich.

It could be worse, and at least it is not a total after-thought.  Henry Davis was the vice presidential selection for the Democrats in 1904, for Alton Parker.  Parker was a Clevelandite who William Jennings Bryan, the candidate in 1896 (when he actively displaced Clevelandism) and 1900 and again in 1908, sat aside and didn’t bother much with, viewing the Democratic nomination as useless that year.  Parker is probably the most forgettable presidential nominee in our history — and it was noted in the 1940s that he is the only major party nominee not to have had a biography written about him.  Davis was an 80 year old rich millionaire.  He was selected because the party was broke — Bryan’s anti-business populism had slowed the flow of money into the party — and it was hoped that he would fill the party’s coffers.

You know… it’s hard not to like Ray Nagan right about now.  He comes up to the microphone, and — compensating for Hurricane Katrina and making sure to underline the point, making sure he can not be called out for lack of warning – tells everybody, essentially,  “YOU.  ARE.  Royally.  F###ed.”

I’m fishing around, looking up “Sarah Palin” on google images.  The first thing that pops up is a cover for Vogue, which is one clue of what I’m pondering.  After that there are a mass of understandable photographs of campaign related and even related occurences, a photograph of Bush, a “Beauty Contest” photograph pops up a few times.  Get a few more pages in and you will see a couple old newspaper photographs from her high school basketball days.  (And a few more pages in and you learn that during her tenure as mayor of that four-digit population town, her municipality was named one of those “Tree City USA”s.  No kidding.  The town I grew up in was a Tree City a few times too… I sort of think it is something you sign on the dotted line for.)

And then, there on page 2, there’s a faux-photograph of someone who looks kind of like her, and enough like her to do a spit-take as you pass over the images – but which cannot possibly be her, but can be used as much by someone piggish enough to pretend it is the case, which I suppose has to be why it is imaged so high.  A self-described “sophomoric sports’ radio show”, from out of Seattle, and in a list of “past guests” is the Governor Sarah Palin — politicos regularly surface on sports’ radio programs for the same reason more national politicos surface on late night talk shows.  The faux-photo shows a saucy looking red head in a cut off Seahawks shirt and no pants bending over — leaning against a Seahawks helmet.

Proceeding apace, the photograph that was used on the front page of today’s Oregonian is placed, shirt skirt at her office or home next to a stuffed bear — with the caption “Nice Gams”.

And you can buy this.  And why is it that when I watch the video on youtube, it looks as if John McCain’s attention keeps gravitating toward her butt?  Skip to 2:53, 4:04, 5:19, 5:44, 6:30 and at around 6:53 it looks as if he is completely unaware that Palin is even talking… but maybe if I looked for that, the same seeming effect would turn up with the Obama / Biden introduction as well?

There may be method to this madness – and let’s just leave aside that sneaking suspicion that McCain just wants to get into Palin’s pants.  By picking Sarah Palin (as opposed to, say, Kay Baily Hutchinson), McCain has ensured two popular culture memes — Palin is a (look her name up on youtube and this video will show up)  “VPILF” and the other one  that Palin is a light-weight (replete with possible hits at the task of raising multiple children and going about her career), both of which are insulting to those unreconciled Hillary Clinton supporters (and perhaps a few seemingly fully reconciled Hillary Clinton supporters) upset about media and cultural and campaign sexism through the Obama versus Clinton campaign.

Overheard conversation blip yesterday, from a couple.  The woman said the phrase, “Yes, but not in such a tokenistic way.”  And I knew exactly what topic they were discussing.

The bottom line seems to be that John McCain bought the media narrative, backed up by some polling somewhere over-studied to an nth degree, that a significant number of disaffected Hillary Clinton supporters ready to be picked up with pure simple Identity Politics.  Such was the situation with the advertisement endorsement from a former Clinton delegate, and such was the floating of a “pro-choice” candidate — generally accepted as softening up a possible Joseph Lieberman (reportedly who he wanted to pick, reportedly nixed by Rove) or Tom Ridge pick.

But McCain had to pick someone “pro-life”, “solidly” so mind you.  So, Woman.  “Pro-life”.  Sarah Palin.  It seems to be as simple as that.  This is supposed to excite the base and skim off the margins of not totally reconciled Hillary Clinton supporters.  Sarah Palin was not a total surprise, and yes a total surprise.  Which is to say she was at the end of all those “wild card” picks in candidate listings, but at the end for a reason.  And, more importantly, she was featured in the recent “jib jab” animated web-video, which was a semi-prominent news-story in the generally parochial Alaska media.

In a past life, I heard the argument from Clinton supporters, at the end of the nomination, rumored to be a demand from Clinton herself to Obama but such was one of those rumors that looks easily transferred from one’s butt, that Obama could not pick a different woman because the message would be something to the effect of: America is ready for a female president, just not that one.  This struck me a pity, probably electorally a sort of strait-jacket for Obama — as such some fairly substantial qualified Democratic women were never really seriously considered.  But if this logic is at work, what am I supposed to make of Sarah Palin?

The comparison is being made to Geraldine Ferraro — indeed, by Sarah Palin herself within her praise for Hillary Clinton and evocation of the “18 million dents in the ceiling” line.  This item of pandering strikes me as a misfire, not least of which nobody cares about Ferraro, but also historically even by the logic of Mondale’s selection — partially hope to rejumble the hopeless political picture but also a case of “If I’m not going to win I’ll at least make some history here”– Ferraro did not make any sense — a parody of affirmative action, and I don’t know what Democratic women there were at the time, but I do believe there were a few more substantial than her.

At the end of the day I see a lot of simply paternalistic attitude in the coming election cycle — if she were a man she would be treated like Dan Quayle, but now we’re just sort of going to be dismissing her, with a floating parade of jabs (not from the campaign, mind you) harking back to her beauty queen days and her status as “America’s Hottest Governor”.  Did McCain select her because she wants to get in her pants?  This cannot be good for the cause of women’s rights, as it leaves me wondering — When is the first seriously considered woman going to nominated to a presidential ticket?

In the aisle of a grocery store, I spy  shifty looking man with a case of acne which seems to betray drug use of one type or another.  (My caveat being to reference one time where based on sunburned nose up against a pale face someone assumed a similar betrayal — false of course.)  The suspicousness of the man is confirmed when he strides past me, and out from under his coat drops a carton of chocolate milk.  He akwardly creeks and he picks the thing up to shift back under his coat, “Hi… Just… trying to… get some food… to eat.”  Good meal, I suppose, chocolate milk.  I roll my eyes around to see where we are in relation to the camera or security, but otherwise just walk ahead, muttering something either perceptibly or not perceptibly to the shop-lifter.  But I draw no attention to him.

So it is that I am an accomplice to petty theft.  And now so are you.

…………..

I walk up to a cross-walk, at the same time a bicyclist stops.  The streets are clear of traffic, which in the usual course means I will walk on and jay walk — unless there is a mommy/daddy/child unit, in which case I am obliged to be a proper stranger role model to the child to OBEY TRAFFIC RULES.  The fellow next to me stops, obviously waiting to see if I walk on — following my lead.  I have the power of decision in my hand, this bicyclist has opted to leave me with the decision — somewhat analogious to my Child Rule of strictly adhering to cross-walk rules, he encompasses it further to what society around him does.  It is an odd stand-off.  So, after a few seconds, I walk on — and he proceeds to do the same.  We are accomplices to each other’s petty jay-walking.  And now so are you.

There isn’t too much to gripe about television convention coverage which does not come across a cliche, nor is there too much to gripe about the conventions that is not a cliche.  It’s also a cliche to gripe about Fox News.  But Bill O’Reilly festered up a special something, I noted flicking past.  Mr. O’Reilly intros showing a story covered where he… um… has his cameras running up to celebrities at the DNC Convention and… um… he’ll have the list of the good celebrities, who agreed to some time with O’Reilly, and the bad celebrities, who shoved away from these camera-critters.

It is worth pointing out that Bill O’Reilly came out of Inside Edition.  That’s what came to mind watching this game of “Celebrity Hunt”.  That doesn’t quite explain the presumptuousness in thinking they should pay O’Reilly the time of day, and at least the Tabloid newspapers have an understanding they are bumping in and out of the celebrities’ private spaces and aren’t entitled to Cooperation by dent of being … Bill O’Reilly?

“I saw an old episode of Star Trek a few days ago.  It was a little weird.  So, Spock’s brain was taken out,  and so Bones was having to put it back in.”

“Yeah.  That was the third season, and at that point the show became kind of stupid.”  (My brother’s Trekie past put a few useless trivial facts and opinions in my head after all.)

Actually, come to think of it, this would be a “Jump the Shark” Moment.  Spock’s Brain predating Happy Days’s Fonzie Jumping of a Shark, I think the phrase should be replaced to “Removing Spock’s Brain”, but there are probably countless pre-Star Trek examples which would trump that one.

Flip around the am radio dial a bit.  Though, in most of the country, acreage-wise especially, it will be all one splot of Republicans talking, but if there is a “Progressive Talk Radio” station, or if it’s dark out so signals will bounce through from the Big City, the exercise will be possible.  Do the simple contrast of Alternative Existences.

Party Conventions reduce the political opinion-eisters to a concentrated level of partisan hackdom whicch is difficult to define.  If you are a Democrat, everyone is brilliant, the right notes have been struck, Unity is achieved, there’s that cheer-ful Kennedy Tribute which even his political opponents will mist up toward, the most brilliant speech from a political spouse EVER, and there’s a feeling in the air.  If you’re a Republican, the Obama Campaign is in a state of dis-array, and the Biden choice proves this, this convention is incoherent and message-less, under the surface the Clinton detractors are apt to air their discontent any minute now, Jim Leach is boring, and what are these amateurs doing?

I don’t know, and I don’t know what opinion to ascribe to the opinion-less who this is directed toward for viscarel effect.  After a while I don’t know if I should really play the charade at barking about “messaging”.  Speeches range from sing-songy to crisp, the proper babies appear to be in the process of being kissed, and emotional buttons are pushed with no real harm to you or I.

The greatest offender are actually non-attached.  The curmudgeons at Reason appear to believe this convention is a disasterous Hindenburg for the Democrats.  Nothing is going right for these Democrats, and they provide the snickering commentary over at their blog.  If they say so, and they are divested in mocking the media narrative of finding the Clinton-dead-ender drama, even while reporting that it doesn’t really exist, and thus perpetuating it.  But what hit me was their bluster against the Jimmy Carter tribute video, something that somehow shows the Democrats’ cluelessness.  Understand, in 2004 the Republicans had a minimalist tribute to Gerald Ford and another to George H W Bush.  So here it is in 2008… Jimmy Carter, Bitches!  I suppose if the Democrats wanted to be bold they might have portrayed him as a Prophet Without Honor in seeking alternative sources for energy (albeit in the Carter Administration speech of woe it was largely Coal that was referenced), but the safe hole is always the post-presidency Habitat for Humanity.  The bottom line for the quick flashing comment at Reason is a suggestion that the Libertarian Convention can honor all their elected Libertarian presidents in whatever way they choose.

The 1912 Republican Convention, the 1924 Democratic Convention, the 1968 Democratic Convention.  Three conventions which tore a political party apart.  The 1924 convention spurred on the burgeoning medium of radio, and sooner or later I think I’ll post on the history of the intra-mural fighting with the Democratic Party in the 1920s, but tellingly the 1924 convention was considered a disaster as it went on to an absurd number of ballots — interesting because the 1880 Republican Convention went on and on and on, but the Republican won.  And then was James Garfield was shot months later by a man who desperately wanted Chester Arthur to be president.  Times change between 1880 and 1924.

In 1992 Pat Buchanan gave a fire-burner of a speech.  And that marked the last time the script of a major party’s convention would ever not be carefully calibrated.  In 1988 someone remarked to the head of the Democratic Convention that there was no news to report here, and the head man smiled and said, “Good.”  So, dredgling into the theaters, the Republicans whooped the Democrats in 2004 by having Zell Miller shout “Spit-balls!”, and we’re waiting to see if the Democrats in 2008 have learned the art of the body slam.  The Great Muddle through worked well in 1996, but times have changed.

But there does not really seem to be any reason to pay attention to the Grand Infomercial.  I guess you just kind of have to look around and see if there is something elsewhere.  The AT&T goody bag of stuff, including the commemorative Kraft Macaroni and Cheese “Donkey” box — which is in stark contrast to the commemorative Kraft Macaroni and Cheese “Elephant” box given in Minnesota next week.  I think these Cynical Unintentional Metaphors things have been around since 1996, but for all I know they flashed into existence with Stevenson and Eisenhower.  More alarming is the bash AT&T is throwing for the Democrats who voted the right way on the Telecom Immunity deal.  If you are in Denver, I think I would get bored listening to the Oregon State Beavers coach*, scoff at the media narrative of the Hillary Clinton disaffectees, and poke about here and there — to be blunted by security and turned scornfully away– to take note of these behind the scene money-lubrications.

Or, I would take in some fresh air outside, the grand sociological experience of observing the Portesters — sympathetic here, indifferent there.  Hopefully not get trapped in the Protest – Cage, but it is worthwhile to note the ineffectual bunch — and a collection of discordant causes.  The “Re-Create 68″ers — not so much re-creating ’68 as re-creating … well, ’04, which if you don’t remember what happened at those protests, that’s sort of my point.  But there aren’t too many ways of getting past the media.

* Craig Robinson looks to me and all the world what you call a “Stunt Hire”, I gather.  Brother-in-law of Barack Obama, hire him and maybe you have a good hook for recruiting.  The University is allowed such a thing, though, as they just came off a season where they finished, in conference, with a grand total of ZERO wins — a record.  It was debated as to whether this is the worst PAC – Ten College basketball team in history, the consensus answer appears to be “No” — one or two of the teams that managed a victory or two were deemed worse.  So good for Oregon State University for hiring him!