The Democrats need to be careful about the intensity of their criticism of Sarah Palin.

She may look like an easy target, an appalling lightweight who will send serious voters scurrying to the more substantive Obama-Biden ticket.

[. . .]

But the Democrats should not push this stuff too far. Ms. Palin is a lot more appealing personally than the often testy guy at the top of her ticket. And the inescapable reality is that there are millions of voters who identify with her, and may be quick to resent attacks that they perceive as bullying or overkill.

To their credit, Senators Obama and Biden seem unwilling to jump aboard the bash-Ms.-Palin bandwagon. Both have been exceedingly mild in their comments about the Alaska governor.

Last week's Democratic convention dramatically illustrated the most effective approach available to the party. The convention built in intensity night by night with featured speakers who focused powerfully on substantive matters.

Bill Clinton may be wildly unpredictable, but last Wednesday he was magnificent, laying out the challenges that will face the next administration.

The "Checker's Speech" (a reaction to a "scandal") foisted Nixon onto the national scene for more than two decades.

The series of "scandals" Bill Clinton faced in the 1992 primaries showed him facing adversity and coming out the other end.  I'm not sure he would have gotten the nomination without them.

Rather than delete this entire post, please edit any content you find violates your rules.  I don't think anything does, but just in case, could you please try to be a little less harsh and authoritarian? Okay, here goes:

You know, I am tired of Dems being weak in the knees on just about EVERYTHING.

Let's face it, there are a number of big issues surrounding Palin now.  And because one issue happens to touch on personal matters (not mentioning specifics), all of a sudden Dems need to treat her with kid gloves.  And it's not just kid gloves on that one issue - believe me.

If we criticize her on the Troopergate issue - whoops.  That has a personal tie to it, so it's off limits (or soon will be).

If we criticize her on the bridge to nowhere - believe me - the right (and the media) will play the "personal attack" card and distort it to make it look like it is a personal attack.

Her support of the AIP?  Darn.  That's what she did years ago, before she was governor.  Must be personal.  Off limits.

Let's face reality folks - John McCain's excuse for everything is POW, POW, POW.

And Palin's excuse will be - that's a personal attack, personal attack, personal attack....

But all politics is personal ultimately, isn't it?

I mean - how Palin lives her life, the things she believes and stands for - the things she wants taught to all of our children in public schools, like creationism and abstinence only education (Jeralyn, this IS her position as a public official, can I at least mention it in this context?)... these are all aspects of this public person running for a very public office.

They must be scrutinized.  Palin made the decision to pursue a life that, by it's very nature, is very very public.

YES - PALIN'S FAMILY DESERVES PRIVACY.

But as a person running for V.P. there are valid questions which must be asked.  At times they will touch upon personal matters.

Should the death of Biden's wife and daughter not be discussed?  Should Palin's son who is headed to Iraq not be discussed?  These are personal matters which the candidates themselves have brought forward to the public's attention.

At what point should the line be drawn?  Are we to allow candidates to bring in aspects of their personal life which make them look good, but at the same time allow them to cover up or hide issues which may make them look bad?

On another note, a standard question asked of candidates during debates has to do with what they would do in the case of rape or incest regarding abortions.

Is this topic now verboten?  I can hear the cry from the right...  Personal attack, personal attack, personal attack....

Well, take a look on the NYTimes' "Campaign Stops" blog.  The piece is mixed in tone, but firm on message.  Here's the finale:

"And so the buses have left Denver with Mr. Obama and the Clintons on the same page, with the party enthusiastically supporting its nominees, and all united behind a largely centrist agenda that goes to the everyday concerns of most Americans angry with the Bush administration. For McCain, this was one tough convention to follow."

Upstar Crow had said:

"Rev. Wright, Rezko, Ayers, Odinga, voting 'present ... we gave Obama a free pass on all of these.

The stuff on Palin -- again, a VP candidate -- is not nearly as damaging as Obama's stuff.

Don't you think the right is going to give SP a free pass -- just like we gave Obama a free pass?

Jeralyn replied:

18 million voters considered that info and selected him anyway.

Actually, that problem with past associations became known to voters only after the long string of caucus win, and the effects from Wright, Rezko, etc actually seemed to have caused him to lose the last 9 of 15 contests by 600,000 votes (since March anyway).  He lost the last 4 of 6 contests, by 400,000 votes - and that included some extraordinarilyy huge margins after he'd been dubbed the nominee by TIME and by Russert.  

  His campaign was outspending Clinton by 3-1 after March 1 and he was losing in most of those places, and people in the earlier states were saying they'd not have voted that way now.

  So, no, in the first half of the campaign they didn't get to consider that info before voting.

  It's a reason he still doesn't get over 50%, and the Ayers thing has become a problem with stern ObamaTeam notes to FoxNews to not air the Ayers ad and with the University of Illinois, Chicago first agreeing to release Annenberg Challenge papers for browsing and then suddenly deciding to close access to them before a hue and cry.  UIC later relented, so a group of reporters have been browsing the papers.  

  They're of interest because Ayers was supposedly only 'a guy who lived in the same neighborhood' and served on a board with him, in a remote kind of way, but the Ayers family ran the $50M Annenberg Challenge fund that Obama became the Chairman of the Board for, so there is interest in those papers and it's become a subject of press write-ups as in Wall Street Journal this week.  We'll see more of this in the GE of course.  There is nothing remotely illegal in any of it but it's Obama's denials in the ABC debate about knowing Ayers to the point of conversations  that drew interest to these.  

  For the mainstream crowd, what won't go over well is a Yr2001 picture of Ayers stomping on the flag.  Our elections have (and this isn't new) become more focused on symbols than actual issues, and this won't be different.  We had been talking about vetting in another thread.

  As for Obama's debates indicating whatever that might, he refused to do any more debates after the ABC one, which had some silly questions but also the question about Ayers, who did hold his very first fundraiser at his home.  He also said re Town Hall debates with McCain, "Anytime anywhere!" and then refused any before the convention.  Since McCain is such a weak talker, this was strange and didn't inspire confidence.  But we'll have some townhall mtgs to look forward to now, though they seem to be set up more as a question one/question another format rather than a discussion.  The interest in Biden/Palin (if she's still running by then) will be the one of most interest though, likely.

Troopergate does not violate today's conservatives' ideas about "good" government.... [unmentionables].... our kids rarely reflect the values we have until after they make mistakes, then they seem to start to hear what we were saying all along... media == motivation of conservative base... the Palins seems to think and act as if private and public life are two completely separate forms of existence that do not have any impact on each other, 5 children and a governorship does not create any kind of feedback interference, so it is hard to see a sudden "need to spend more time with my family" creeping into their world (it is an interesting solution to the post-1970s feminist critique of conservative family patriarchy, which is to say, do not underestimate the modernism of this Alaskan outback family)...

I think back to the good digby (pre-February), when she noted that the Republicans might just nominate McCain in order to rebuke the moderates in their party after a failed election (utterly stacked against them until the Democrats nominated Obama). If Palin steps aside, the intolerance of the left and the media will remain a casus belli for the conservatives regardless of who the replacement is. Win-win for McCain, and Palin is just a second black eye to the face of female politicians in the 2008 election (thinking of that disturbing image of Hillary Clinton on a recent magazine cover).

http://www.time-blog.com/swampland/2008/09/obama_on_gustav.html

McCain seems to be proving that if we give him enough space, he'll trip himself.  That seems like a good strategy (and the one Obama is taking).  

Have people forgotten who, according to many, "won" the 2000 Presidential debates, and the debates during the primaries?

Why, none other than George W Bush.