The ABCs of Sarah Palin

"But if the campaign allows this stuff to hit the wall -- and maybe stick -- the McCain mob wins. Should it sling crap back at them? Perhaps Team Obama ought to stick to the ground game campaign manager David Plouffe has designed and not be distracted by the cable news noise. But at some point does that noise affect the ground reality? I suppose the only answer is, the Obama camp has to do it all: swat the flies, make its own case (for Obama and against McCain), and keep moving ahead.

"But so much for an honorable campaign from an honorable man."

Not to worry. American Prospect asks that "Everybody Calm Down!":

"Quit the hand-wringing, Democrats, and don't believe the hype. Barack Obama is a lot of things, but he isn't John Kerry and he's not Al Gore. Obama's campaign has been the most disciplined and aggressive Democratic effort of the last eight years. If he loses, it won't be because he didn't hit back . . .

"Obama is making a simple case, one that he has been making for a while now: John McCain is George W. Bush. Each of his recent ads reflects this message. And look at his stump speeches and the remarks of his running mate, Joe Biden. Obama has carefully cultivated his campaign themes of change and reform since 2007, with specific examples of what that change would be, while forcefully demonstrating that John McCain represents more of the same. If Obama switched tactics now, no doubt the same folks criticizing him for his lack of reaction would criticize him for his lack of message discipline."

Who says we have to be consistent?

Obama might not be venting publicly, but this WSJ piece suggests he's aware of the problem:

" 'We're simply not going to let this happen anymore,' Sen. Obama told his close friend and adviser Valerie Jarrett during a phone call Wednesday, Ms. Jarrett said in an interview. Sen. Obama 'used as firm and commanding voice as I've ever heard him use' in expressing a plan to 'stay focused on John McCain rather than be distracted' by the Palin phenomenon, she said."

But you can't score points if you're not on offense. Former GOP operative Patrick Ruffini warns Obama that "to control the agenda, you have to unleash new, original, unprovoked attacks.

"The media favors new narratives. If your whole frame is simply responding to the other guy's narratives, he controls the agenda, not you.

"The meta-narrative behind every Democratic campaign is 'No more swiftboats.' Obama seems obsessed with this. His acceptance speech was a paranoid rebuttal of McCain's attacks and a even a few non-attacks -- from Celeb to 'Country First' (the subtext of which -- honestly, guys -- is more about McCain putting 'party second' than about Obama) . . .

"Obama seems to be falling into the trap of response-centrism. If only they could respond the right way, they figure, all will be well. But it won't be. Because the game they are playing is reactive. Instead of changing the subject off Palin by launching some explosive new attack on McCain, all they do is respond, respond, respond. And the story, day after day, is Democratic Presidential nominee responds to Republican Vice Presidential nominee. The optics of that stink for them."

I was surprised that I was among the first to mention Hillary, but lots of people are running with that ball, including Fred Barnes:

"Obama sacrificed a stronger ticket by rejecting Clinton. Absent Hillary, the contest between Obama-Biden and the Republican ticket of John McCain and Sarah Palin is throwing the Democrats into disarray. The consequences of Obama's veep decision appear mostly to favor McCain. And if Obama had picked Hillary? Here are a few of the differences.

"No Palin. Okay, McCain might have picked her anyway. He was looking for a running mate who would help him shake up the campaign. And Palin has delivered spectacularly on that. But choosing her would have seemed far less of a game-changer had Obama picked Clinton. Palin would have been merely the second female running mate in 2008. And her appeal to those who had voted for Clinton in the primaries would have been reduced if not nullified altogether . . .

" Ohio and Pennsylvania. Republicans figured these states, notably Pennsylvania, were all but goners if Clinton won the Democratic nomination. Even as veep, she'd have had a favorable impact. When she was passed over by Obama, Republicans jumped for joy. Ohio, which a Republican presidential candidate has to win, now leans McCain. Pennsylvania, which is crucial to a Democratic candidate's chances, has become a ripe target of opportunity for McCain.

" Arkansas. As a Southern state, Arkansas is inclined to vote Republican in presidential races unless there's a compelling reason not to. One of those reasons: a Clinton on the Democratic ticket. Without Clinton, Arkansas moves into the leaning (strongly) McCain camp.

" Vice presidential debate. This is a no-brainer. Who would be the easier opponent for Palin to face in the nationally televised debate on October 2? Clinton or Biden? The tough woman or Senator Windbag? Biden will have to be on his best behavior and treat Palin gingerly. Clinton wouldn't have had to."

Lots of conservative ridicule for this sentence in a Wendy Doniger piece on Palin for WP/Newsweek's On Faith blog:

"Her greatest hypocrisy is in her pretense that she is a woman."

Does Doniger know something I don't?