The Anger Factor

Kevin Drum, now blogging at Mother Jones, looks ahead to a McCain administration:

"John McCain has obviously decided that he can't win a straight-up fight, so he's decided instead to wage a battle of character assassination, relentless lies, and culture war armageddon. So what happens on November 5th?

"If McCain wins, he'll face a Democratic Congress that's beyond furious. Losing is one thing, but after eight years of George Bush and Karl Rove, losing a vicious campaign like this one will cause Dems to go berserk. They won't even return McCain's phone calls, let alone work with him on legislation. It'll be four years of all-out war.

"And what if Obama wins? The last time a Democrat won after a resurgence of the culture war right, we got eight years of madness, climaxing in an impeachment spectacle unlike anything we'd seen in a century. If it happens again, with the lunatic brigade newly empowered and shrieking for blood, Obama will be another Clinton and we'll be in for another eight years of near psychotic dementia."

At Huffington Post, John Neffinger sees a turning point for Obama:

"This 'sex ed' ad the McCain campaign just launched is waaaay over the line. After a parade of out-of-context quotes, it shows Obama smirking naughtily as the voiceover talks about him wanting to provide 'comprehensive' sex education to kindergarteners. The voiceover by itself is hard-hitting, but together with the visuals, the ad basically paints Obama as a pedophile. (In reality, the legislation provides for educating younger children about the difference between good touches and bad touches to help protect them against pedophiles.)

"So this is it. This is Obama's Dukakis-and-the-death-penalty moment.

"Everyone who sees this ad can see how dirty it is. And if Obama wants Americans to respect him, they must be allowed to see him react with the kind of anger -- controlled, but still palpable -- that they would feel if somebody did that to them.

"That means Obama must address the issue, personally and promptly, and do it just right. He must talk about honor and shame, how he has young daughters, and how just like any parent, he wants to do everything he can to protect them from pedophiles."

In a more temperate post at the New Republic, Michael Crowley faults Obama:

"Here's the case for longer-term concern. It feels a bit as though Obama is out of steam, something that's happened before. The man needs big moments to rekindle his fire. Throughout the campaign, he's found those moments. His knockout Jefferson-Jackson performance in Iowa last December. That dazzling Kennedy family endorsement. Claiming the nomination on June 3. The unity event with Hillary. Invescopalooza. But what's left now? A killer debate performance, perhaps -- but anyone who remembers last fall wouldn't bank on that (even if he did improve with time)."

I hate to waste any bandwidth on this trumped-up lipstick thing, but it's interesting that some conservatives, such as Laura Ingraham, don't think that's the right road for the GOP. National Review's Kathryn Jean Lopez detects a whiff of identity politics:

"Talking about Hillary Clinton and sexism at a women-and-leadership Newsweek forum earlier this year, Sarah Palin said it 'bothers me a little' to see Clinton running as a victim. 'She does herself a disservice to even mention it.' Palin added that any 'perceived whine . . . doesn't do us any good . . . women in politics, or women in general.'

"You go, girl. Who needs to play victim? Life's unfair. Politics gets ugly. So what? Fight on! To Palin's credit, she hasn't whined about sexism since becoming the Republican vice-presidential nominee. But her campaign has. . . . I know it resonates, but it honestly doesn't do anyone any good unless the purpose of this teaching moment is to mirror the Left's usual whining and hypersensitivity in order to demonstrate how silly the whole thing looks when you're on the other side. To have a GOP campaign actually whining about sexism . . . well . . . bothers me a little."

At Pajamas Media, Roger Kimball dismisses the episode:

"I really wish that former Gov. Jane Swift hadn't called on Obama to 'apologize' for the be-lipsticked pig is still a pig line . . . Was this a 'mega gaffe'? Maybe it will turn out to be, but I for one hope that the McCain camp gives it a rest. Of course it was a reference to Sarah Palin's line about the difference between a hockey mom and a pit bull was that the hockey mom wore lipstick; and of course Obama intended some of that porcine unpleasantness to rub off on S. Palin, Governor of Alaska. He was doubtless also, I am reliably informed, alluding to the colloquial phrase about putting lipstick on a pig, i.e., 'slang for when someone tries to dress something up, but is still that something.' . . .

"I think it is bad form for Republicans to play this silly game. I do not know Sarah Palin. But from what I know of her, I would guess that if she even noticed Obama's desperate little performance her first, and probably her last, reaction was to laugh."

But Power Line's John Hinderaker views the flap as a metaphor:

"I have mixed feelings about it. Watching the video, I think it's plausible for Obama to say that he wasn't talking about Governor Palin. On the other hand -- come on. Does he seriously believe, given all the water under the bridge, that he can use the words 'lipstick' and 'pig' in the same sentence without people thinking he's taking a shot at Palin? His audience certainly took it that way. Maybe it's just another example of Obama's lack of skill on his feet, when he doesn't have a teleprompter to tell him what to say.

"The more interesting question is whether Obama is starting to come apart at the seams. As his party's presidential nominee, he should be doing battle with John McCain, not Sarah Palin. But he seemingly can't help himself. Over the last couple of days, several generally apolitical people have told me that they think Obama has been melting down ever since Palin's nomination was announced. Hysteria does appear to be sweeping the Obama camp, with over the top attacks on both Palin and McCain. One wonders whether their internal polling numbers are really, really bad."

I raised the what-if question on Hillary yesterday, and now Politico examines what might have been:

"Republican Rep. Candice S. Miller says Barack Obama had only one shot at Palin-proofing the Democratic ticket -- and he missed it when he passed over Hillary Rodham Clinton as his running mate. 'Every woman in America knows what Barack Obama did to Hillary Clinton: He looked at her and thought, 'There's no way I'm doing that,'' said Miller. 'If Hillary was on the ticket, he'd be in a much better position to win women voters.' Sarah Palin's presence -- coupled with Clinton's absence -- may be altering one of the great verities of American politics: that women voters overwhelmingly favor Democrats."

A former Hillary adviser is quoted as saying that the "Obama people have got to be kicking themselves' for not putting choosing Clinton as his No. 2."