Posted by
Mark McConnell on Thursday, September 04, 2008 3:21:38 PM
The leftist blogs are assuming that the choice of Palin was made carelessly, without a sufficient vetting process,
made in a desperate attempt to
grab headlines from a triumphant Democratic Party Convention. I suppose that by eagerly seizing on every rumor that comes along, they have a method for thoroughly testing their theory.
Palin is the sort of Republican that they'll have difficulty beating in the usual way (she isn't an old, establishment male), so that it won't work as easily in this case to say that she is on the wrong side of things simply because of who she is. She needs to somehow appear to her own side as someone that her own base cannot support. Rather than beating her, it appears they've decided that they'll need to try to destroy her. So, they're digging up stories, one of which eventually might turn out to be true, that they hope will successfully stick to her and ruin her in the eyes of those who would have otherwise voted for McCain.
But that is a problem in itself. It forces the Obama campaign to constantly scramble to recover the credibility that is lost by all this muckraking. Getting past this kind of thing, treating one another with respect, patience and even admiration, was the clearest and strongest part of Obama's Convention speech, where he tried to answer the nagging question of what "we" mean by "change". The campaign itself is working hard to stand above the supporters.
Will Obama be able to get past arguing with his base about the most fundamental principles of the campaign? Obama seemed willing to admit that, the only thing that can be
realistically expected from talking about change, while yet unwilling
to to be changed ourselves, is not a new world but just more socialism as a cheap substitute for virtue, which ultimately breeds profound cynicism about government and the promises
politicians make.
What if he can't persuade the people who support him, that the only real engine of change is a changed people, not a change of the guard in Washington? What if he doesn't really, after all, believe that? Then, between now and November might be enough time for it to be made clear that, by "change" is only meant, "things 'we' expect the rich to pay for, so that 'we' don't need to change ourselves".
Can 'we' put all the blame on someone else, even after "we've" admitted that real change begins with ourselves and not with government? If in the end, what 'we' mean by change is just, more of 'your' money, then, Yes 'we' can.