The creation of a media narrative to explain the theft of the Presidential election of 2008, or:

[Leftist Agitator]

The curious selection of Sarah Palin.

Why would John McCain select a complete unknown, a political neophyte, as his running mate, especially when his line of attack since early summer has continually reinforced his theme of "experience", and the relative dearth thereof of his opponent, Barack Obama?

There are numerous superficial reasons as to why McCain would make such a dangerous, perfunctory choice. Namely, these include "Changing the narrative" (whatever that is supposed to mean), "Injecting a semblence of youth" into his decrepit campaign and its popular image, "Energizing the Base" which ostensibly consists of religious fundamentalists and other dangerous, overzealous extremists much like Palin herself, and "Choosing a Maverick like himself" though in deed and word, Sarah Palin represents the direct antithesis of what is connoted by the term "maverick".

None of these trivialities underlie the real reason why McCain and his handlers elevated Sarah Palin to a position far beyond that of which she is conceivably deserving, rather, there is a simple, thoroughly nefarious purpose behind their rationale:

The Republican Party means to steal the election (again), and the selection of Palin was designed to provide the corporate media with a plausible rationale with which to explain away the highly improbable situation that would arise were McCain to seemingly "win" the election.

In 2004, it was "God, Guns, and Gays". This time around, the narrative will vary, but the ultimate end will not.

It is common knowledge that the Democratic Party has made immense gains in registering new voters, gaining the support of the millions of duped and disillusioned 2004 Republican voters, and in generating enthusiasm felt by both Democrats and independents for a once-in-a-generation candidate, indeed, a political juggeraut as embodied by Barack Obama.

With that in mind, what possible narrative could the Republican Party hope to construct to conceal the all-too-obvious theft of yet another election? With what seemingly-plausible scenario could they obfuscate and confound the American people, with the enormous assistance of the ever-compliant media, into believing that they won the election legitimately?

Therein is where Sarah Palin's selection comes into play.

The Republican Party knows that in a fair election, they have absolutely no hope of retaining power. Thus, they plan to utilize all manner of chicanery in order to retain their positions of influence. And in order to explain away the highly improbable outcome of a legitimate McCain victory, they plan on instructing their media acolytes to posit the following:

Disaffected Hillary Clinton supporters, who existed in far greater numbers than we ever thought, tilted the balance toward John McCain, thus handing him the election.

Women LOVE Palin, especially mothers! They see something of themselves in her, and thus broke heavily for McCain!

The evangelicals came out in force for one of their own, giving McCain the edge he needed!

Independent Male voters were just enchanted by her! They love having a hottie as VP!

And so forth, ad nauseum.

THIS is the real reason why Palin was selected: So that in the wake of another stolen election, the Republican Party could have their media lapdogs offer seemingly plausible explanations as to why the utterly impossible, the completely unthinkable happened yet again.

I welcome thoughts and criticism. Please tell me how and why I have erred, in your opionion.

[bluestateguy]

1. A "narrative" is a book

I'm getting really tired of hearing that irritating word in this campaign.

[Leftist Agitator]

3. No, a "narrative" is a story.

And McCain and company are constructing one hell of a story as to why they "won" depite all odds to the contrary.

"I'm getting really tired of hearing that irritating word in this campaign."

Get used to it. I hate the word "paradigm" because people have no fucking clue as to what it originally meant. But that doesn't stop idiots everywhere from using it and being completely convinced that they know its definition.

[ClarkBayh 2008]

2. No argument...

but remember, as I wrote before... no one cares about how you won, only that you DID win.

McCain is allowed to pick whomever he wants, but attacking Palin right now during the media honeymoon is misguided.

The Dems could learn a thing or two from Rove who knows how to win.

If the election comes down to one red state, does Joe Biden really help the Dems win?

[Leftist Agitator]

5. I agree in principle...

But this isn't about winning or losing. It's about explaining how they "won", "legitimately", as opposed to stealing yet another election.

That is why Palin was chosen: So that the Republican Party and their compliant media figures could construct a plausible story as to how they "won" without resorting to outright electoral theft.

[Emit]

4. Gawd I hope you're wrong, skypuddle

I have to chew on this a bit to give any opinion on the matter. The thought has crossed my mind on more than one occasion.

My hope is that Obama has enough mojo with newly registered voters and whatnot to counter any attempt to steal this election.

On that note, while contemplating the worst, I'm heading over to the Dem Party/Obama Headquarters this evening to see what phone calls I can do and if I can get enough volunteers for this weekend's canvass.

[Leftist Agitator]

6. Diligent and dedicated effort is the only effective tactic in our arsenal.

Were I not getting ready to defend a Doctoral dissertation, I would be right there with you, my friend.

As it stands, I feel that it is of the utmost importance to make it possible for me to leave the U.S. and have a comfortable life should that bcome a necessity.

And I'll tell you, if McCain steals this one, I will be on the vanguard of the Brain Drain, as in, I'm the fuck out of this fascist popsicle stand.

[zbdent]

7. McCain's already stolen all Obama's stuff that George W. Bush hasn't

(Change - McCain stole; getting troops out of Iraq, Bush stole, to name two ...)

what's a little thing like an election? ...

[Leftist Agitator]

8. Oh, how I wish that stealing an election (again) was out of the realm of possibilty...

But unfortunately, history repeats itself.

Palin was selected to provide cover for a stolen election. QED.

[gumby]

9. I concur.

The "media" is already dazzled by Palin's immediate celebrtiy...dimwits that they are!

However, the "media" is also exposing Palin's lies on which her image is constructed. We will see, won't we?

[Leftist Agitator]

10. "We will see, won't we?"

That we will. But by then, it may well be too late.

[AlinPA]

13. Don't look for the media to expose her on anything. The broadcast media is bought into

McCain-Palin totally now.

[zbdent]

15. "also exposing Palin's lies" -

and getting smacked down for doing so ... plus, McCain's campaign says that Obama used a nasty slur on Palin (what, did he call her a c*nt? Oh, wait, that's John McCain talking about his wife ...), and the media says "How high?"

[Leftist Agitator]

11. kick

[Leftist Agitator]

12. Never again will I bother.

Have fun with your tabloidism, DU.

:eyes:

[AlinPA]

14. Very accurate. Americans also like the soap opera aspect of Palin.

[TexasObserver]

16. I fear you may be right.

The GOP's primary method of winning is by cheating in the casting and counting of votes. They will steal votes and suppress votes anywhere they can do so. They do need a narrative to explain how such could be accomplished, and they are plying that now. These conveniently supportive polls, some of which are simply unbelievable, are part of the plying of that narrative.

It doesn't look good for our side.