There's an old adage that "There's No Such Thing As Bad Publicity."
Sarah Palin is a case in point - so it would certainly seem. According to poles, it's almost a dead heat between the democratic & republican tickets - this DESPITE all of the not-so-favorable buzz around Palin. Now - to be honest - I consider much of the buzz around Palin to be "not good" because I view her through very liberal, feminist eyes. In others words - I recognize that a vote for Palin is pretty much a vote against women. But even more moderate eyes must surely view her at least somewhat sceptically. Or - maybe not - because the poles are NOT changing.
So . . . it would seem that the content of the incessant news stories about Palin does NOT matter - all of it good publicity in the end. What seems to matter is the fact that whenever most of the voting public logs onto their computers & are greeted by google or aol, or whatever headlines, they inevitably see Palin's name, if not also her face. Brand recognition - the American way to SELL - is majorly in her favor, courtesy of the media. Personally, I'm sick of looking at her "brand." Her "brand" is a thorn in my side. A reminder of the very real possibility that Barack's NOT picking of Clinton may very well cost him this election. But, I digress.
Joe Biden's face, now, is becoming a dim memory at best. Even McCain & Obama's faces are struggling to gain the spotlight these days. These three are withering in the "branding" department. Biden especially needs to DO something. Anything, it would seem, to grab a headline & brand himself as an exiting brand that easily-led-by-the-nose American consumers will buy. Poor man. He's the best candidate for president of the four of them but, alas, he is just not electable, "brandable" material on the national stage. Never has been. He's a smart, experienced man who is suffering the Al Gore curse. He's too smart & NOT charming, charismatic, or dynamic enough to swing voters away from his scary smartness, i.e. he's NOT the Bill Clinton brand. Biden is not marketable, packagable, brandable material. He's just a smart, unassuming hard working guy. In other words, dangerously unelectable.
So it would seem that unless Biden can get the news media to pay attention to him & to designate him, "brand" him as electable - his goose it cooked - OUR! goose it cooked.
And - a final note to the liberal blogosphere - let's help Joe by ceasing from incessant analysis about the dangers of Palin. We all know this. So let's stop helping to "brand" Palin. Besides, we are largely just fueling our own anger & preaching to the choir. Let's turn the tables on the media & start talking a lot MORE about JOE.
Sarah Palin is a case in point - so it would certainly seem. According to poles, it's almost a dead heat between the democratic & republican tickets - this DESPITE all of the not-so-favorable buzz around Palin. Now - to be honest - I consider much of the buzz around Palin to be "not good" because I view her through very liberal, feminist eyes. In others words - I recognize that a vote for Palin is pretty much a vote against women. But even more moderate eyes must surely view her at least somewhat sceptically. Or - maybe not - because the poles are NOT changing.
So . . . it would seem that the content of the incessant news stories about Palin does NOT matter - all of it good publicity in the end. What seems to matter is the fact that whenever most of the voting public logs onto their computers & are greeted by google or aol, or whatever headlines, they inevitably see Palin's name, if not also her face. Brand recognition - the American way to SELL - is majorly in her favor, courtesy of the media. Personally, I'm sick of looking at her "brand." Her "brand" is a thorn in my side. A reminder of the very real possibility that Barack's NOT picking of Clinton may very well cost him this election. But, I digress.
Joe Biden's face, now, is becoming a dim memory at best. Even McCain & Obama's faces are struggling to gain the spotlight these days. These three are withering in the "branding" department. Biden especially needs to DO something. Anything, it would seem, to grab a headline & brand himself as an exiting brand that easily-led-by-the-nose American consumers will buy. Poor man. He's the best candidate for president of the four of them but, alas, he is just not electable, "brandable" material on the national stage. Never has been. He's a smart, experienced man who is suffering the Al Gore curse. He's too smart & NOT charming, charismatic, or dynamic enough to swing voters away from his scary smartness, i.e. he's NOT the Bill Clinton brand. Biden is not marketable, packagable, brandable material. He's just a smart, unassuming hard working guy. In other words, dangerously unelectable.
So it would seem that unless Biden can get the news media to pay attention to him & to designate him, "brand" him as electable - his goose it cooked - OUR! goose it cooked.
And - a final note to the liberal blogosphere - let's help Joe by ceasing from incessant analysis about the dangers of Palin. We all know this. So let's stop helping to "brand" Palin. Besides, we are largely just fueling our own anger & preaching to the choir. Let's turn the tables on the media & start talking a lot MORE about JOE.
The evidence is that nothing about Palin would turn Republicans away from her. She believes in Witches. She believes America should be destroyed: she lies, cheats and perhaps steals and gets caught. She has no idea what is going on. She's still talking about deregulation - it doesn't matter.
ReplyDeleteAll I can hope for is that we have an 80% turnout and one way to do that is to pump up the outrage.
yes, but - wouldn't it also be helpful to encourage people to vote FOR the democratic ticket & not just AGAINST the republican ticket? This seems to be the current approach & I am sceptical as to its effectiveness. Outrage is a valuable yet volatile thing to control & can backfire. For example - there are still a shocking number of women voting in outrage against Obama because they are angry over Clinton & they are NOT buying our outrage against Palin as a reason for them to vote for Obama. Outrage simply swirling in upon itself, so to speak.
ReplyDeleteFogg - please understand that I do agree with you in large part. I guess I feel the need to play devil's advocate here - to ask us all to pause & consider whether we are really charting the best or only course.
Squid, I think what the Captain is trying to say is that when one has a boat, one tends to float on the surface above the fray; whereas Octopus and Squid are more uniquely positioned for total immersion. Tentacled as I am, I am better at bottom-feeding.
ReplyDeleteI think our two-party system forces us to think in dialectics. If we had a three or four party system, for instance, perhaps there would be a wider spectrum of choices, more gradation in policy offerings, and a more nuanced debate. Our two-party system forces us into simplistic thinking and polarization of the body politic.
There was an article in The Economist called, “The Big Sort” (June 21, 2008, pp. 41-42) about the Balkinization of America, a socio-political tendency in this country to separate into extremes of Left and Right, not just politically but demographically. Red states are becoming more red, and blue states more blue, through a process known as “clustering.” The article describes, for instance, a tendency among home-buyers to look for neighborhoods more culturally compatible with themselves, i.e., Democrats looking for Kerry signs in the neighborhood and Republicans looking for churches and “W” signs.
One point about the article did shock me: This tendency to separate into neighborhoods of “groupthink” means that Americans are becoming less and less exposed to contrary views. And when opposing sides cease talking to each other, their respective positions harden.
It has been noted that voters in landslide elections tend to elect more extreme candidates with this result: Debates turn into shouting matches, and bitterly partisan lawmakers can no longer reach a consensus. Gridlock. Broken government. Casualties of the two-party dialectic.
Yes, I have to admit to myself, left-tentacled creature that I am, I prefer left-wing blogs, left-wing discussions, and the company of fellow left-wingers. So I am just guilty of clustering as any wight-winger. Right?
Despite everything said here (or in recognition of it), this is an election year so lets give them hell.
Amazon.com keeps careful records and it seems that people who buy Rush's and Ann's books never, never, ever buy books with opposing views. I've heard of research that supposedly shows that emotional centers in the brain light up during PET scans rather than cognitive centers when politics are concerned.
ReplyDeleteAll I'm trying to say is that I don't thing there really are undecided voters. I think people may even be born with a political bias and it may be useless to try to turn them. That's my way of saying you can't fix stupid.
If rage activates a few million more apathetic sports fans to get off the couch and vote, rage is a good thing.
I agree that Obama & company need to be much more assertive about plans to deal with this debacle, but I'm afraid only the converted are listening. I truly hope I'm wrong.
Captain, I tend to agree with you about politics being hardwired into the emotional centers of the brain.
ReplyDeleteAnother interesting source of commentary is John Dean's book, Conservatives Without Conscience, wherein he discusses "autocratic" and "social dominator" personality types as drivers of political affiliation.
I don't read Ann or Rush books either. In fact, when I see them in bookstores, my impulse is to tear or dog-ear the book jackets rendering them un-saleable. In fact, I have moved Corsi's Obama Nation books and buried them behind the comic books section. I have personally witness the exodus of Batman and Spiderman books as they flee in protest.
If we want to convince others, we need to post on their spaces. Sign into the AOL straw polls, and then post a simply stated comment. We need to flood spaces like that.
ReplyDeleteAs distasteful as it may be, I think you're right. I've been getting letters published in local papers as well and it's refreshing to see that the comments are no longer 100% retro-republican.
ReplyDeleteConsider it done, ma1.
ReplyDeleteMy apologies for going off on a tangent ... Squid's point about Palin taking center stage away from Biden. Until the RNC, Obama had been dominating the headlines, and it was clearly the McCain strategy to win back media attention with the Palin nomination. McCain certainly did succeed, and, as a consequence, an issues-oriented debate got sidetracked.
You are right, Squid. Our job is to bring media attention back to the Obama/Biden team, and I think the financial meltdown will certainly help refocus attention to the economic [and moral] bankruptcy of the Republicans (and the Reagan legacy, I might add).
Captain Fogg has one of the most memorable rants on the subject at his own blog. Worth a visit (which is why I am also glad that he has agreed to be a member of this forum).
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the idea that people are wired a certain way. My perspective is a bit different. I work with the younger generation who are very impressionable & preparing to vote for the first time. They are very easily swayed by the media - being of the hyper-image-sensitive generation.
ReplyDelete