Most amusingly, Obama stalwarts think they can simply freeze Palin out by ignoring her and focusing on the issues—the things that (supposedly) really matter to voters.

Arianna Huffington:

As long as voters and the media are caught up in the latest installment of As Sarah Turns or the Alaska version of All My Children, they aren’t paying attention to the lack of solutions McCain is offering to the serious crises that face us. … And it’s why Democrats need to ignore Palin, and keep the focus on reminding voters about the stark contrast between an Obama and a McCain administration. It’s tempting to prime the Palin attack pump. But Obama and the Democrats do so at their own peril. [e.a.]

It’s not bad advice—though of course Dems’ only option is to ignore Palin, because paying attention to her obscures Obama, who today produced a snoozefest of boring policy wonkery and feeble counterattacks in front of a crowd of 800.

Good luck with that strategy, Dems! The people aren’t ignoring Palin. They’re showing up for McCain-Palin in huge numbers:

A midday rally Saturday at an airport hangar here seems to have pulled McCain’s third straight showing of over 10,000 attendees; until recently, it was remarkable for McCain to speak to one-tenth of that. Although they long ago booked such large venues, McCain aides claim that they are surprised by the turnout. Staff had projected only 1,000 to show up yesterday for a morning rally in a Milwaukee suburb, they said, while an estimated 12,000 ended up flooding Cedarbury’s small-town streets.

And the media is certainly not going to ignore her, as well they shouldn’t. Though, of course, not everyone is as self-righteously outraged as Andrew Sullivan:

We have this total unknown who could be president of the United States next January. And she’s in hiding for two weeks. Chris Matthews on this clip says that this is fine. Has he lost his mind? She needs to be in front of the press now. The United States and the world cannot have this total unknown foisted on the presidency without any serious vetting and without any press interaction.

Isn’t it interesting that some people think the governor of Alaska is a “total unknown” [twice one paragraph? we get it!  ---ed.]

How do you praise a video game that teaches evolution and simultaneously frown on the game’s undue emphasis on competition? Let the NYT’s Seth Schiesel show you the way as he describes Spore:

Mr. Wright has spent the last eight years trying to figure out how to convey the vast sweep of evolution from a single cell to the exploration of the galaxy as an interactive entertainment experience. His answer, Spore, is being released in stores and online for PCs and Macs in Europe on Friday and in North America this weekend.

As an intelligent romp through the sometimes contradictory realms of science, mythology, religion and hope about the universe around us, Spore both provokes and amuses. And as an agent of creativity it is a landmark. Never before have everyday people been given such extensive tools to create their digital alter ego. …

Mr. Wright and his publishers at Electronic Arts deserve all the credit they have received from some scientists merely for making a game about evolution (though it will be fascinating to see how the game fares among people who do not believe evolution is real). And yes, millions of people will surely spend countless hours, and dollars, on the fabulous computer toy that is Spore. And they should. [e.a.]

So much for the swooning. Here comes the sniffing [e.a.]:

As perhaps befits its subject matter, Spore is not one game but a collection of five discrete mini-games, each reflecting a different stage of biological and social evolution and a different archetypal game style. … Spore goes a bit off the track as it reaches the tribal phase and beyond. Perhaps the biggest problem is that all that time you spent lovingly fine-tuning your otherworldly avatar in the creature phase basically doesn’t matter anymore. After the creature phase the cosmetic appearance of your species is locked in, but the abilities it developed are largely meaningless. … Progressing out of the tribe and civilization stages requires either conquering or co-opting all the neighboring tribes or cities. …

Spore, like real life, is largely about the survival of the fittest.

Why, I am simply outraged. What gall. Imagine that. They made a game about evolution and they expect your alter ego to compete! And that’s not all!

In each stage your species either becomes dominant and evolves, or it becomes extinct (meaning you try over and over again until you “win”).

It turns out that you’re expected to compete and to “win.” And they’re marketing this to children. Oh. My. God.  Call the Culture Police!

We finally get down to the good stuff.***

Jennifer Rubin sniffed out one of Sarah Palin’s most cutting remarks when she spoke before the RNC:

One of [Rubin's] favorite lines from [Palin's] speech:

My fellow citizens, the American presidency is not supposed to be a journey of “personal discovery.”

Palin seems, upon further reflection, to be rather ill suited to play the role of patient/guest on the Oprah coach. She exudes confidence, refuses to whine, and emphasizes action over good intentions.

All the more reason for Oprah to invite Palin on the show—imagine the tension! the conflict! the ratings!

But that dig about Obama’s “journey of personal discovery” sounds very much like a McCain dig, not a Palin dig. It is very, very personal … and in keeping with the McCain camp’s longtime antipathy to and resentment of the Obama campaign, which I mentioned here.

No candidate has ever acted in this fashion. No one has ever campaigned in front of foreigners. He’s showing hubris and contempt for the rest of us in how he considers America fundamentally broken and he’s the solution. Messianism is usually a quality you don’t want in a president. This was always the soft underbelly of his candidacy. They’ve gotten too caught up in their own story.

Oprah, the Goddess of Infotainment, is the soft underbelly of our culture.
Soon she’s going to find out that she probably should have stayed out of politics. It’s a punishing business, and you can’t always restore your reputation with one smashing performance.

update: Posters to Oprah’s site are not happy. She released this statement:

———–

*** I love Oprah stories! My very first post, in February 2006, was (peripherally) about Oprah. I gave her an Infotainment Blip of the Month Award.

Yesterday, Harris and VandeHei at the Politico wrote about Sarah Palin’s “potential to transform the dynamics of this race“+++ “just as Obama’s 2004 convention speech transformed his career.” And they explained how we in the audience became instantly engaged by her and how we will stay engaged: because Palin led with her story [e.a.]:

[B]y presenting an engaging side of herself and her family, she ensured that [hard-hitting] stories, written mainly by political and investigative reporters, will be countered by other stories written mainly by lifestyle reporters.

People magazine reporters and bookers for “The View” and “Oprah” will be watching Palin with a lot more interest than they will be watching Joe Biden [as I mentioned here*** ---ed.] In Palin’s own way, her story and rapid rise are as arresting to the mass audience as Obama’s. … She is now a curiosity in a good way. [Yes, despite her daughter's pregnancy. Lots of people can relate to that. ---ed.] That means big crowds at events and attention from people who otherwise might have ignored a more traditional ticket of two, old, rich, white Republican men who promise to kill terrorists and cut taxes. [This prediction was borne out almost immediately after the RNC ended; the "enthusiasm gap" between Obama and McCain was promptly closed. ---ed.]
None of this proves she understands the complexities of world threats or can endure the stress of office. But she at least gets more time to make her case. Before Wednesday night, she was only one or two news cycles away from irretrievably losing control of her public image.

The ingeniousness of McCain’s pick, of course, is that he leveled the playing field between himself and Obama. Harris and VandeHei continue:

[Palin] has shown a willingness and talent for tough talk. And it will be harder than usual for Democrats to attack back. Republicans will charge sexism at every turn. They will call women to her side to amplify their case. They will shame the media. Many of these complaints will be unfair — but some of it will probably be effective.
This brand of politics — voters who support a candidate not because of what that person has done in public life but because of the symbolism of the candidate’s personal story — is a big part of why Obama is the Democratic nominee. With Palin, the GOP showed that it, too, can play this game.

Call it identity politics or call it culture war, it’s here to stay. It won’t be pretty, but it’s good for our Republic. There are a lot of cobwebs that need to be cleared out so that we can get on with the business of progress.

———–

+++ I think it has the potential change our culture through our pop culture.

*** I wrote:

That, of course, is the reason for the hysteria from the likes of Andrew Sullivan, who has devoted dozens of posts to Sarah Palin in the last few days. He obviously senses the huge danger for Obama in this sensationally good-looking and impressively assertive woman hogging the spotlight that has been focused on his chosen candidate. Simply put, Palin matches Obama—and may well even trump him—as People bait. Were Oprah not all in for Obama, Palin would be Oprah bait as well.

[e.a.]

Meanwhile, Oprah has declined to interview Palin… until after the election, although, viewers are reportedly dying to see her on TV and mad at Oprah. Some readers are mad at US Weekly, too, for its treatment of Palin and are reportedly pulling their subscriptions.

It’s fun to be a detached observer of the Incredible Campaign of 2008, which has galvanized a nation. Our “mass of niches” culture seems to have coalesced in these past two weeks into a genuine mass audience. It’s probably temporary and of course there’s no guarantee that getting our attention will lead to our doing something (or even voting), but we are riveted to the political soap opera unfolding before our eyes.

The viewership for various segments of the Democratic and Republican National Conventions was huge.

As a television draw, John McCain was every bit the equal of Barack Obama.

The GOP presidential candidate attracted roughly the same number of viewers to his convention acceptance speech Thursday as Obama did before the Democrats last week, according to Nielsen Media Research.

It marked the end of an astonishing run where more than 40 million people watched political speeches on three nights by Obama, McCain and Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin. The Republican convention was the most-watched convention on television ever, beating a standard set by the Democrats a week earlier.

Three times in two weeks, political speeches were watched by more people than the “American Idol” finale, the Academy Awards and the opening ceremony of the Beijing Olympics this year.

“It clearly suggests that a great number of Americans think that who will be the next president is important and worthy of their time,” said Tom Rosenstiel, a former political reporter and director of the Project for Excellence in journalism.

One day, this will be seen as a watershed—the moment that the world of politics, borrowing from the world of showbiz, inspired the Couch Potatoes of Amercia to take a good, hard (though, possibly, brief) look at their country, their neighbors, and, most of all, themselves and to see if maybe we all couldn’t do a little bit more to get along, goddamnit, and while we’re at it, to do more for ourselves—individually and collectively.

But I must be dreaming, because that would be true progress.

However, I do have some hope that something better will result from the election of 2008, regardless of whether the Republicans or the Democrats win the White House this time around, because all of the candidates are dedicated—and inspiring—public servants (even if they are politicians and thus by nature suspect. Every one of the current crop has sacrificed something and done good things for others. Along the way, we unruly American, with our crude democratic system, shoved aside some folks who had already had their turn and we got rid of at least one rotten apple and we rejected alarmism as a way of daily life).

Well, goddamn!

Ain’t that America somethin’ to see, baby!

Love ‘em or hate ‘em, agree with ‘em or disagree with ‘em, we’ve finally got some great role models (new heroes and villains, as JFK memorably referred to them in 1959,***) that people are paying attention to.

And so we sail into uncharted waters.

————–

*** Admirably, JFK warned the people not to believe in the false idols launched by the new TV era. Then he proceeded to become one of them. He succeeded beyond his wildest imagination, because politicians are still emulating his style, and Democratic politicians all covet the imprimatur of the Kennedys and … but that’s a story for another day. Let’s just say for now that the imprimatur will long outlive the Kennedys.

Politicians cannot possibly accomplish everything they promise the people. They are ambitious above all else. John McCain knows this and is torn up about it, as the NYT reported the other day; nevertheless, he’s running for president for a second time. And he is using war strategies (such as surprise) in his political campaign. He means to win—with honor and within the rules of the arena.