Maggie's Farm

 
12 Hours In The Muck & Drool

I spent from 9:00 am Friday morning to 9 pm that night doing a number of things I'd never done before:

• I spent it almost entirely on the blogs.  The only time I read an official news article was when a blog pointed to it.
   
• I traveled from blog to blog in a linear fashion.  Usually, I might go in a link or two off some article, but I always have the feeling of 'getting back' to where I started from.  This time I just kept going forward.
   
• I spent two hours on PUMA sites.
   
• I spent an hour on MyDD.
   
• I read a bazillion comments.

I admit, the PUMA sites were something of an eye-opener... in regards to landslide.

 
To briefly review, the last time we thought of the word 'landslide' was back when Hillary was a sure thing.  We figured it would be bad enough that she won — but what would really be galling would be hearing the word 'landslide' over and over again for the next two hundred years.

 
"Well, Tom, we all remember Hillary's landslide victory back in '08 when she ran against ... what was his name again?"

"John McCain."

"Oh, right.  Well, after her landslide victory over Ron McCain, she was at the forefront of women's-"
 

It didn't look to be pretty.

Then Obama did his thing and it got even worse.  The political teeter-totter tilted even further down as Obamania swept the nation and landslide started looking pretty good.  That is, if it could just be kept to 'landslide', that would be a victory in itself.  Instead, we figured we'd get...

 
"...or back in '08, Tom, when President Obama crushed the Republican candidate... what was his name again?"

"I forget."
 

The teeter-totter had tilted pretty far down.

 
But then it achingly, creakingly, started to slowly tilt back up.  The initial fervor subsided as a few in the MSM realized that, gosh, although Obama had spoken a lot — he hadn't actually said anything yet.

The polls slowly drew closer but, in all honesty, it still looked like he was going to be a shoe-in.  Between a glib tongue, a rather dense American public and 200 years of repressed white guilt to atone for, I don't think there was any doubt he was going to saunter right into the place.
 

Until last Friday, when the teeter-totter did something no one expected.

I am tempted to change that to few expected, but I think the haste in which so many of the PUMAs abandoned ideology in favor of feminism caught everybody by surprise.

But it shouldn't have.

 
You can view it one of two ways, or a mixture of both:

• The human mind works off priorities.  #1 is staying alive at the moment, #2 is maintaining food, shelter and clothing, and then it dribbles off from there.  Somewhere on the list is 'political ideology', but except for the extremists (which is why they're called "extremists"), it's somewhat down the list.  To the average American woman, feminism is — it should be obvious — far more integral and intrinsic to the individual person than the braying of politicians in Washington, DC.  From the initial "right to vote" all the way to "equal pay", a vote for women as a group supersedes almost everything else — there in the privacy of the voting booth.
   
• 40 years vs. 4.  For 40 years, since 'Women's Lib' emerged during the late 60's and the very concept of a woman in the White House sprang into being, American women have been waiting for this moment.  Having to put up with a Republican for the next 4 years will seem like a very small price to pay to finally shatter the glass ceiling.

Is it really any stretch of the imagination to think that feminism will override ideology this November?  The average American woman is going to step into that booth, see Sarah's name on the list and think,

It's now or never.

Wouldn't you?

  
And the average American guy?  C'mon, be serious.  This is the first time — and probably the last in our lifetimes — that we'll be able to vote for an actual babe.  No, that won't be reasons #1, 2 or 3 why we'll vote the Republican ticket, but it adds an indescribable element of deliciousness to the election that we've never experienced before, and this is backed up by the innumerable pics of a younger, hotter Sarah Palin floating all around the predominantly male-dominated right-wing political blogosphere.

My own site and Maggie's have certainly been no exception.

When it comes to the average politically-dumb American male, here's what I see taking place over and over again this November:

 
[husband inside voting booth]

Kee-rist, whutta load of bullshitters.  Goddam politicians are all the same.  Well, if I gotta look at pictures of these jackasses in the news for the next four years, it might as well be the hot babe.

[selects McCain/Palin ticket, exits booth]

"Did you vote for Obama, honey?"

"Of course, dear!"
 

And let's not forget the black community:

 
[black wife in voting booth]

Oh, no.  I've been dreading this moment.  I'm so sorry, Barack, but I've just got to do this.  I'd just never forgive myself if I didn't.  It feels like it's... like it's now or never for us women.  You'll have another chance in a few years, honey, I promise.

[selects McCain/Palin ticket, exits booth]

"So, I presume you voted for our man?"

"Of course, dear!"
 

If this thing turns out to be a landslide in our favor, it'll have nothing to do with political ideology and everything to do with human nature.

 
Adventures In The Land Of PUMA

PUMA = Party Unity My Ass, an affiliation of pro-Hillary sites that are idealistically opposed to the Democratic reform that Obama represents.

They are, it need be said, pissed.

While a number of right-wing sites linked to some of the PUMA sites glowing about Sarah, I didn't see anyone comment on the ease in which the Hillaryites started glomming onto her.  That was the real story of the day.

40 years vs. 4.

What I didn't know until my venture was the hatred with which the PUMAs regard Obama.  There's almost as much bitterness and rancor between the Obama and Clinton camps as there is between Left and Right.  It's all about ideology and who represents the 'true' American Democrat.  Reading through their older posts, the PUMA bloggers have been ragging on Obama for most of the same things the Right has been.

And, may I point out, some of these PUMA bloggers are just as sharp and aware of how easily-led the American public is as the right-wing bloggers — and probably more so.  To pick a word, they are absolutely incensed that the MSM went gaga over Obama and dragged the American public along with it.  When they use the word 'betrayal', they do not mean it lightly.

It might even be enough to make one want to cross party lines.

  
A Pleasant Surprise At MyDD

For those not in the know, MyDD.com (decorum prohibits me from actually linking to the site) is one of the main Angry Left sites, along with DailyKos (ditto).

And angry, they are.

While I won't falsely embellish the story by claiming I suffered permanent brain damage after my hour on the site, I will admit that I found myself using the F word in every other sentence for the next few hours.  My, those Angry Lefties do cuss up a storm.  My best guess is that the authors, themselves, are of the mental caliber that is swayed by a passionate — as referred to rational — argument, and they assume everyone else thinks that way.

Well, the big surprise was how few comments there were.  Sure, some of the posts had 60 or 70 comments, but half of them had less than 10.  Compare that to:

• Ace of Spades writes a biting, insightful missive probing the very bowels of the stinking morass we call Washington, DC:
   
  183 comments
   
• Michelle Malkin writes a deep, probing analysis exposing the sordid underbelly of the Democratic Hate Machine:
   
  239 comments
   
• Charles Johnson from Little Green Footballs posts a picture of a fence by the oceanside:
   
  867 comments

So, seeing a paltry 60 or 70 comments attached to some fervent anti-Palin posts on a "main" Angry Left site was both laughable, and encouraging.

It's not that the Angry Lefters aren't angry.

They're just not sure at this point who to be angry with.

 
The 'Pandering' Issue

As expected, the political writers have viewed Palin from a political perspective in both their praises and condemnations.  What made my trek through the blogosphere last Friday so interesting was reading so many comments from regular ol' folk, and noting how few of them attacked Palin the same way.  The commenters were, for the most part, either outright for her (40 years vs. 4) or "willing to give her a chance, see what she has to say," which comes across as a reputation-saving way of saying the same thing.

But there was certainly a handful who thought the whole thing was disgraceful pandering on the Republicans' part.  I've also seen this same 'pandering' meme in the MSM (one of CNN's "iReporters" was railing about it the other day), but they obviously haven't thought it through and seen the inherent flaw in their logic:

By this reasoning, a woman would never be vice-president of the United States.

It would either be go for the presidency, or forget it.  Unless the main nominee was female and selected a female as her VP (which would never happen), a male selecting a female for VP would always be viewed as "pandering to women" in this regard.  So, to please these people and avoid the 'pandering' label, a woman would simply never be selected as VP.

But obviously these women don't mean that they never want to see a female VP, so we have to look elsewhere for the root of their anger.  My feeling is that they generally break down into one of two camps:

• The closet man-haters just looking for a reason to lash out ("Typical men, always pandering to us women!!!")
   
• Embittered die-hard Hillaryites resenting another woman on the stage

In this latter regard, perhaps they intuitively know, even without thinking it through, that Palin might be among the opposition in 2012, and — as women — they recognize that Hillary is far more unlikeable with both men and women and probably wouldn't stand a chance against a Palin with four years of on-the-job training — as referred to being the mere wife of a former president.

 
The Bio

One excellent post I read made a very good point and I'll elaborate on it here with a few specific examples.

The point the above article makes is that certain attacks on Palin, such as on her character, will refer one to her bio, and this is something the Obama camp really doesn't want to do.  Like McCain, her bio is authentic.  Unlike the usual nominee, whose war record (if any) is endlessly debated, no one's debating McCain's war record.

Likewise, it isn't just that Sarah Palin is a lifetime member of the NRA — maybe her dad gave her the membership for her 13th birthday and she's never opened a single one of their letters...

No, it turns out that not only is she a lifetime member, but she's also a crack shot!

Authentic.

And not only does she talk a good line about true conservation as initiated by John Muir and Teddy Roosevelt, she then has the audacity to prove it by hunting her own big game!

Worse, she actually doesn't abort her baby with Down's Syndrome — and then has the temerity to stay married to the same man!

This bio is a disaster!

What's that?  Attack her husband?  Hey, great idea!  Now you're attacking someone who's part Eskimo!  Yeah, that ought to go over real well with the multi-culti crowd in Manhattan and Hollywood — source of so many campaign dollars.

What's that?  He's part of Evil Big Oil?  Great!  Now you can — oh no!  He works for British Petroleum, the self-proclaimed greenest of the oil companies, and not even a dirty, evil American oil company at that!

Curse your rotten luck!

 
Future Musings

Want to know who the VP picks are going to be in 2012 before everybody else?

Side thought: Do they have betting on who will be the VP in Las Vegas, Atlantic City, etc?  If so, when does the 'window' close? How long before the official announcement can you still place a bet?

Anyway, two or three days before the announcement, make screen-grabs of the Wikipedia entry for the various prospects.

On the night before the announcement, start monitoring the sites, looking for small updates of a positive nature.  This can easily be done with a text comparison program.  If you don't see any differences, continue again early the next morning.

According to sources, apparently one of Sarah's kids added a few superlatives to her Wikipedia page the morning of the announcement, knowing it was about to be flooded and wanting to make Mom look good.

Chances are someone in future nominees' families will be computer-savvy and will be doing the same thing in 2012, ad infinitum.

 
And speaking of pandering, there's an interesting 'race' that might take place in 2012 if Hillary doesn't run.  Both sides might want to put a woman in the VP slot, but the honor will belong to the first candidate who announces it.  If the second party then offers up a woman, it'll definitely look like pandering of the worst sort and will certainly turn off the public.  So we might see a (female) VP picked long before the usual time frame.

Another question is, what if Palin performs superbly as VP, even helping John in the Oval Office as she's groomed to be the presidential candidate in 2012?  Would they dare run her at the top of the ticket?

How about if McCain's health fails and she actually takes over the reins?  Are they actually going to take a sitting president and run her as VP?

What if McCain claims failing health six months before the end of his term and purposefully turns over the office to her so she can run as the incumbent?

What if the day after they win the election this November the RNC starts talking about a Sarah Palin/Michael Steele ticket in 2012 to beat the Dems to the punch on both counts?

 
The Tilt

The word the novelists use is palpable.

The moment Palin's name was officially announced, the big teeter-totter actually pushed itself up to level for the very first time since the whole thing began.  There was a rush of jubilation throughout the right-wing blogosphere.  It was fun watching people discover her good points one by one and watch them put the puzzle together.  Ex-Hillaryites?  Check.  Soccer moms?  Check.  Businesswomen?  Check.  Horny, flag-wavin', gun-totin' all-American guys?

Check!

It was in the middle of the afternoon that I heard a noise that I honestly, truthfully, never thought I'd hear.  It was a low, rumbling noise, almost inaudible, that creaked and groaned in the awfulest of ways, like the irresistible force had finally met the immovable object.  Like ancient, rusty iron hinges on a fortress gate being opened for the first time in a thousand years.

Practically ripping itself from the ground, the teeter-totter slowly...

achingly...

begrudgingly...

inexorably...

tilted again.

In our direction.

 
It was reading through the PUMA comments that put it on display.  You have to understand that many of these aren't "political sites" as we know them; they're just I-Heart-Hillary sites and it's obvious reading through the comments that, for the most part, the readers aren't politically-savvy, they're just ordinary gals (and a few guys) who are ardently pulling for Hillary.  With Hill out and Sarah suddenly in the picture, well, as I said, you've got 40 years stacked against 4.

Remember the mantra:

It's now or never.

Again, there in the private confines of the voting booth, with 40 years of destiny pushing your hand, what would you do?  There's no question what those PUMA commenters will do.
 

What an amazing day Friday was.  To almost feel this rumble that coursed through the blogosphere as everyone and their cousin issued forth an opinion, and to literally watch in real-time as a huge slice of mainstream America went through a virtual transmogrification as political ideology flew out the window and a 40-year-old spark leapt into flame.