Judging Palin’s qualifications, supporters

Well, this is a doozy.

South Carolina Democratic chairwoman Carol Fowler, perhaps no surprise, isn’t a huge fan of Republican vice presidential candidate Gov. Sarah Palin. What surprised me were some of the words chosen to express that lack of fanaticism.

Fowler kicks things off with a solid pot-shot. She said it seems as though Sen. McCain has chosen a running mate “whose primary qualification seems to be that she hasn’t had an abortion.”

“Only”? Really? I’m sure the hyperbole works in front of a friendly audience, but it’s not much good for making a persuasive argument, at least not in this case. This, however, was told to a reporter in an interview setting. Couple that with the inclusion of a widely recognized hot-button issue and you have yourself one hell of a lightning-rod comment.

The subsequent apology gets even better. Her apology statement said:

I personally admire and respect the difficult choices that women make everyday, and I apologize to anyone who finds my comment offensive. I clumsily was making a point about people in South Carolina who may vote based on a single issue. Whether it’s the environment, the economy, the war or a woman’s right to choose, there are people who will cast their vote based on a single issue. That was the only point I was attempting to make.

In a way, there’s some logic to this apology as an explanation for why she said what she said. McCain is notoriously less-than-perfect in his positions over the years on certain issues of great importance to voters referred to as “social conservatives,” abortion certainly being one of them. By choosing the firmly anti-abortion Palin, according to Fowler’s thinking, McCain is shoring up those voters to whom abortion is an important issue.

But with this apology, Fowler seems to step in another cowpie by implying people who vote primarily based on a single issue — or who can at least be perceived as doing so — are of lesser intelligence or of diminished rational capacity. One-track minds. Stupid. Sheep-like.

Again, a statement that might work well in front of a friendly crowd, but one that’s not smart to make when your primary focus should be singing the praises of your preferred candidate — not putting yourself in a position to apologize and clarify and backpedal.

Photo courtesy of kromatic on Flickr

Americans aren’t stupid — except sometimes

On MSNBC’s new “Rachel Maddow Show” last night, a pundit type named Steve Benen, who writes for the Washington Monthly, chatted about John McCain and his campaign’s new emphasis on bringing change to Washington. (See the segment here.)

At one point, Maddow, an established presence on the network who just last night hosted the first installment of her own show, compared McCain’s talk of a new brand of maverick-y, change-oriented Republicanism to the earlier calls for “compassionate conservatism” we heard fromm the current president during his initial presidential campaign. (The merits of that comparison can be discussed later.)

Maddow and Benen then call George W. Bush being branded as “a different kind of Republican” and his father before him who ran under the auspices of being a leader of a kinder, gentler nation. They make no mention, however, that both of those men won in the elections being recalled here. They do, however, mention that, in this current case of McCain representing change, “it’s a tough sell, especially if you look for the substance.”

Maddow later transitions from how the campaign seeks to represent itself to how those messages will be received. We’ve seen this type of rebranding before, she says. Do you think Americans will be too smart for this type of politics this time around. Benen recalls a campaign stop at which Barack Obama said, “Americans aren’t stupid,” and Benen goes on to explain that he believes that’s Obama’s not so subtle way of suggesting the McCain campaign is simply trying to fool voters. To pull the wool over their collective eyes. In effect, he’s saying:

So Americans aren’t stupid. They won’t fall for this merely superficial rebranding. I mean, you know, they did, I guess, because how else do you explain George H.W. Bush winning in 1988 and his son winning in 2000? I mean, that was just good branding and vicious Karl Rove attacks. So maybe American’s were stupid — but no more! This time, when my party really needs them — again — voters will be too smart to fall for this.

Yes, and perhaps they’re also smart enough to notice that you’re quite literally calling them stupid for having “fallen for it” before.