Why Ayers matters

The New Neo Posted on by

It is troubling that the MSM has abdicated its investigatory task by being surprisingly uninterested in shining light into some of the more suspicious regions of Barack Obama’s past. And of all those dark corners, the very darkest may be the Obama-Ayers connection.

Why does it matter? Isn’t this just a meaningless game of “gotcha” guilt by association, and a rather tenuous association at that? Can Obama really be blamed for the doings of everyone who’s ever crossed his path?

The official Obama campaign statement about Ayers and the candidate focuses on the charges about Ayers’ terrorist background, the Woods hole connection, and the fact that Ayers is considered a respected scholar on education. It is entirely mum—as Obama has mostly been so far—about their work together on the Annenberg Challenge.

Several people have pointed out that Obama’s 1995-1999 tenure as chair of the Annenberg Challenge has been his most important executive position to date, President of the Harvard Law Review being the other. As for the management of his campaign—the example of executive experience Obama cited the other day—when last I checked, Axelrod held that august and lofty position.

So, why would Obama fail to offer his Annenberg background as an example of his executive chops? Continue reading →

Thursday night thoughts

The New Neo Posted on by

Lindsay Graham did well to remind us of how wrong Obama was on the surge, how close some of the Congressional votes were, and how right John McCain was. But Graham is incorrect when he says that Obama has never acknowledged that the surge was a success. He did, but far too late to have done any good, after he fought against it and then denied it for so long.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: Palin’s husband is very hunky. And Alaska is even more photogenic than the Palin family, which is saying a lot. Continue reading →

And about those coming debates…

The New Neo Posted on by

Implicit in the repetitive and inane “but someone else wrote her speech for her!” observations about Palin’s performance last night is the idea that once she departs from a prepared text she’ll be a bumbler. After all, we’ve got the example of that great orator Barack Obama himself, hemming and hawing and making myriad errors when he has to think on his feet.

What’s more, Palin will be facing that silver-haired and supposedly silver-tongued debater Joseph Biden.

But so far, underestimating Palin hasn’t seemed to help the Democrats much. Continue reading →

Obama and Palin: Astaire and Rogers, after the divorce?

The New Neo Posted on by

Last Sunday I called Palin an “Obama for the Right.” At the time, I was referring to her similar lack of national-level political experience, as well as the accusations that she’d been nominated for her femaleness and he for his blackness.

But now that I’ve heard her address the crowd at the convention, I see that, like Obama, she has a tremendous gift for delivering a speech. As I’ve written here, I’m not one for admiring political oratory. Except for Churchill, it pretty much leaves me cold. But I can recognize a good (no, not Churchillian) speaker when I see one. Both Obama and Palin fit that bill.

Their styles, however, are diametrically opposed. Continue reading →

More Palin, more of the time

The New Neo Posted on by

I’ve noticed that Sarah Palin brings out certain words and phrases in people reacting to her.

Within a few days of her nomination, the word electrifying” kept appearing in articles about her effect on the Republican Party.

After her speech last night, I kept hearing she was “a natural.” And this not just from commentators on the Right, but even those on the liberal side.

One of the favorite memes of detractors last night—or subtle, would-be detractors—was that “someone wrote her speech for her.” Continue reading →

And as for what they’re saying on the Left…

The New Neo Posted on by

I spent some time last night on certain blogs of the Left such as Firedoglake and TalkLeft, reading reactions to the Palin speech in the comments sections—much of it seemingly from women. The gist of it was:

(1) Sarah’s mean, just like some girls they knew in high school.

(2) Sarah’s a hick.

(3) Sarah made an error when she dissed the MSM, because the press is now going to respond by being mean right back to her.

(4) Sarah’s to be feared.

Reaction number four shows a certain amount of smarts, I think.

Reaction number one shows a remarkable ability to tune out how much of the Democratic National Convention featured “meanness”—towards Republicans, that is. Guess that doesn’t count (or maybe “mean” isn’t “mean” unless it’s delivered by a beautiful woman on the other side—read “bitch.”)

But reaction number three is simply bizarre—had they not noticed before that the press hasn’t exactly been kind to Sarah up till now?

First impressions of Palin’s speech

The New Neo Posted on by

Delivering her address with poise, flair, intelligence, wit, and charm, Palin showed herself to be a formidable presence and a gritty fighter—with a radiant smile. Most amazing of all, she seemed to be enjoying herself hugely.

I imagine Obama and Biden aren’t feeling quite as condescendingly confident tonight as they were this afternoon. It’s never a good idea to underestimate the strength of a pit bull in lipstick.

Rules for the female campaign road: let’s hear it for the Vestal Virgin

The New Neo Posted on by

Watching the Palin feeding frenzy, it occurs to me that we now have new rules for female candidates.

These rules apply almost exclusively to candidates on the Right, of course; those on the Left (unless their name happens to be Hillary Clinton) are given the usual press pass (a phrase I tried to popularize back when I was first blogging, but which unfortunately went nowhere).

Since we all know that a female candidate’s gravitas is highly suspect, and that she is solely responsible for everything about her family, from now on female candidates will not be allowed to have a frivolous past (such as some girly-girl stuff back in high school). Nor can they have families that can be found to have any flaws.

But since those things are not possible for the vast majority of the human race, this calls for drastic measures. So I hereby propose that future female candidates for high office on the Right must be pre-selected early in life and required to take a vow of celibacy, forsaking family and other obligations and entering into a special society somewhat akin to that of the Vestal Virgins of Rome (the thirty-year period could, of course, be easily extended): Continue reading →