The differences couldn’t be more striking

Officialportrait 20091122013824!Sarah_Palin_official_portrait I'm becoming more convinced with each passing day that Barack Obama will win re-election in 2012.

For one thing, he's finally awakened and is now followed Bill Clinton's proven 'centrist' strategy.  More importantly, though, his statesmanlike words and actions in the aftermath of the Tucson shooting spree stand in stark contrast to those of his number one contender in 2012.

Last night, Obama called for a new era of civility (and, good luck with that, Mr. President.) Meanwhile, the erstwhile Alaskan governor and slayer of moose, elk and god knows what else chose, instead, to stir the hate talk with even more hate talk. Palin accused TV commentators and journalists of “blood libel” in their rush to blame Palin-inspired, Tea Party-generated hate speak for the murders.

In the process, Palin somehow managed to make a bad situation even worse by outraging Democratic lawmakers, fellow Republicans and Jewish groups with her use of the expression “blood libel”. According to a New York Times, the term was originally coined by anti-Semites in the Middle Ages who blamed Jews for killing their Christian children. Palin, who is positively clueless about history, American or otherwise, obviously had no idea of the term's historic and demeaning origins.

The Republican Party needs to start distancing itself from their momma grizzly and find a centrist candidate who has some grip on reality, a sense of history and an ability to project statesmanlike leadership in a time of crisis. What they don't need is someone like Palin, who seems limited to vitriolic, malaprop-laden, mumbo-jumbo.

As someone who studies image and reputation, I think the aftermath of the Tucson shootings reveals the stark differences between the two leaders.

One is calm, measured and able to seize the opportunity to redirect a nation that is slowly splitting apart at the seams. The other reverts to form, hunkers down in her Wasilla bunker and stirs up a new, news cycle with her unfortunate anti-Semitic remarks.

The differences couldn't be more striking.

6 thoughts on “The differences couldn’t be more striking

  1. The other thing is, none of Obama’s would-be competitors could have pulled off that speech under those circumstances. Indeed, as I watched it, I kept trying to visualize W. delivering a similar address: All I could picture in my head were malaprops and that coarse turning of binder pages every three sentences.

  2. I wouldn’t disagree that Obama’s been a major disappointment. But, I do see him changing. As for the macro environment, he inherited a country/economy that was ruined by his predecessor. Sadly, it’s taken him two years to figure out his priorities. All that said, I think he’ll just get stronger as 2012 draws near. As for timing on Tucson trip, I’m sure it was deliberate. To have gone earlier would have opened him up to accusations of capitalizing on the tragedy for some free publicity. I think his timing was perfect.

  3. While I’m not into politics, I’m not so sure of Obama’s re-election. I just
    don’t think the public is happy with him. I don’t think the Republicans
    have a quality candidate, but I don’t think the public is completely behind
    Obama, either.
    Sure, Obama went to Arizona. But how many days did it take him to get there?
    This county is supposed to be the “united” states but there’s so much bitching and moaning that it’s like the campaign leading up to the election hasn’t ceased. When will this country unite together?
    With unemployment rising again, communities are cutting back on services, police departments are being reduced and crime rate is increasing.

  4. And the right says…by Dr. Krauthammer
    The charge: The Tucson massacre is a consequence of the “climate of hate” created by Sarah Palin, the Tea Party, Glenn Beck, ObamaCare opponents and sundry other liberal betes noires.
    The verdict: Rarely in American political discourse has there been a charge so reckless, so scurrilous and so unsupported by evidence.
    As killers go, Jared Loughner is not reticent. Yet among all his writings, postings, videos and other ravings — and in all the testimony from all the people who knew him — there is not a single reference to any of these supposed accessories to murder.
    Not only is there no evidence that Loughner was impelled to violence by any of those upon whom Paul Krugman, Keith Olbermann, the New York Times, the Tucson sheriff and other rabid partisans are fixated. There is no evidence that he was responding to anything, political or otherwise, outside of his own head.
    A climate of hate? This man lived within his very own private climate. “His thoughts were unrelated to anything in our world,” said the teacher of Loughner’s philosophy class at Pima Community College. “He was very disconnected from reality,” said classmate Lydian Ali. “You know how it is when you talk to someone who’s mentally ill and they’re just not there?” said neighbor Jason Johnson. “It was like he was in his own world.”
    His ravings, said one high school classmate, were interspersed with “unnerving, long stupors of silence” during which he would “stare fixedly at his buddies,” reported the Wall Street Journal.
    His own writings are confused, incoherent, punctuated with private numerology and inscrutable taxonomy. He warns of government brainwashing and thought-control through “grammar.” He was obsessed with “conscious dreaming,” a fairly good synonym for hallucinations.
    This is not political behavior. These are the signs of a clinical thought disorder — ideas disconnected from each other, incoherent, delusional, detached from reality.
    These are all the hallmarks of a paranoid schizophrenic. And a dangerous one. A classmate found him so terrifyingly mentally disturbed that, she e-mailed friends and family, she expected to find his picture on TV after perpetrating a mass murder. This was no idle speculation: In class “I sit by the door with my purse handy” so that she could get out fast when the shooting began.
    Furthermore, the available evidence dates Loughner’s fixation on Rep. Gabrielle Giffords back to at least 2007, when he attended a town hall of hers and felt slighted by her response. In 2007, no one had heard of Sarah Palin. Glenn Beck was still toiling on Headline News. There was no Tea Party or health care reform.
    The only climate of hate was the pervasive post-Iraq campaign of vilification of George W. Bush, nicely captured by a New Republic editor who had begun an article thus: “I hate President George W. Bush. There, I said it.”
    Finally, the charge that the metaphors used by Palin and others were inciting violence is ridiculous. Everyone uses warlike metaphors in describing politics. When Barack Obama said at a 2008 fundraiser in Philadelphia, “If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun,” he was hardly inciting violence.
    Why? Because fighting and warfare are the most routine of political metaphors. And for obvious reasons. Historically speaking, all democratic politics is a sublimation of the ancient route to power — military conquest. That’s why the language persists.
    That’s why we say without any self-consciousness such things as “battleground states” or “targeting” opponents. Indeed, the very word for an electoral contest — “campaign” — is an appropriation from warfare.
    When profiles of Obama’s first chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, noted that he once sent a dead fish to a pollster who displeased him, a characteristically subtle statement carrying more than a whiff of malice and murder, it was considered a charming example of excessive — and creative — political enthusiasm.
    When Senate candidate Joe Manchin dispensed with metaphor and simply fired a bullet through the cap-and-trade bill — while intoning, “I’ll take dead aim at (it)” — he was hardly assailed with complaints about violations of civil discourse or invitations to murder.
    Did Manchin push Loughner over the top? Did Emanuel’s little Mafia imitation create a climate for political violence? The very questions are absurd — unless you’re the New York Times and you substitute the name Sarah Palin.
    The origins of Loughner’s delusions are clear: mental illness. What are the origins of Krugman’s?
    Before becoming a political commentator and syndicated columnist, Dr. Krauthammer was chief resident in psychiatry at Massachusetts General Hospital.

  5. By opening her mouth about the Tucson tragedy, Palin only proved that she’s a garden-variety bigot, this time complete with coded hate words. She squandered an opportunity to bring people together and instead made it all about her own victimization.
    There’s no longer a reason to be fearful about her “growing influence.” Before yesterday, Palin had something like a 23% positive approval rating. That’s enough fans to make a great living, which is what she’s been doing since quitting the governor job. It’s not enough to even win a primary.
    Let’s just call the Palin family what it is – a circus freak show. Hot Sarah is the chief attraction, a young Elvis, while the the First Dude plays Colonel Parker behind the scenes. Only this time, they probably went too far.
    While I expect the 24/7 media shit-stirrers will continue to prop Palin up because she’s provocative and good-looking, the bloom is off the rose and now it’s beginning to stink. Still, I predict that within months, Palin will be reduced to raving manufactured outrage like Ann Coulter or Michele Malkin. Perhaps the thing to do is ignore the Palins and let them flail about in their own irrelevance. It’s not like we haven’t done this before. Father Coughlin was popular once too until he pushed his limits: