I've always admired John McCain (though I have to say, in the interests of full disclosure, that I'm not voting for him this Fall); he was, by far, my favorite among the Republicans seeking the nomination, and I was delighted that he prevailed. I have to say, though, that his choice of Sarah Palin as his running mate is appalling and insulting to the American people. Perhaps it will turn out to be a political masterstroke, "energizing the base" and garnering lots of disaffected Clinton supporters; perhaps not. But to my mind, as a voter, the sole criterion for evaluating a candidate's VP choice is whether or not the candidate has picked someone who can plausibly be viewed as presidential timber and, no disrespect intended to Ms. Palin, who was apparently a decent mayor of Wasilla AK (pop. 9,000) and who has been serving as governor of Alaska for all of two years, McCain has failed miserably on that score. His recent complaints that Obama is too inexperienced to be President are not only fatally undercut by this choice, they look downright idiotic now -- coming from someone who would put Gov. Palin a heartbeat away from the presidency. It is the grossest form of pandering -- what happened to "putting your country first"? This choice puts McCain's candidacy first and the fate of the country a very distant second, and he should be, and Ihope he is, punished by the electorate for having made it.
Related Posts (on one page):
- Sarah Who?
- It's Sarah Palin.--
You have got to be kidding me.
Palin was an outstanding choice. In fact, she has more executive experience than "the one" and Crazy Joe Biden COMBINED.
i agree that Palin wasn't the best choice. but the harsh tone you take against the pick juxtaposed against Obama and his 2 years of senate experience before he started running for president, seems "downright idiotic"
also, you don't think picking Biden undercuts Obama's claim that his inexperience is overplayed?
someone commented that the comments looked like free republic in the other thread...i guess welcome to the daily kos post.
And I am a "independant" (defined as registered as neither Republican nor Democrate) female.
Aside from the female angle I think the pick is intended to get some traction on energy issues. According to polls support for drilling has increased significantly this summer. As governor of Alaska she's been very involved in the oil exploration issue and is well positioned )from the pro perspective) to argue the issue. And you'd be comfortable if, on January 22, 2009, President McCain has a heart attack and she becomes president? I must say, nothing that anyone has posted has reassured me on that score. DavidP
Would McCain/Palin have been my choice if I could have just picked from any of the original candidates? Hell No! But that's not the choice I'm faced with. The choice I'm faced with is McCain/Palin vs. Obama/Biden. That's not even a choice. That's like asking if you want to be punched in the groin by a 5-year-old or be crushed by Mt. Rushmore falling on you.
And neither Obama, Biden or McCain has ever been an executive of anything; not a town, not even a state.
She's at least as experienced as Obama, at least, but she's going to be VP, not P. That's a huge difference.
Obamam ran his campaign and vanquished the Clintons, winning more votes than any primary candidate in history. Palin was just picked. Totally different. Um, Obama won on merit. Palin is an affirmative-action pick.
I agree that she has little experience. But she is comparable in that regard to Obama. Why is the selection of Palin as number 2 inexcusable?
And for those who are saying Palin has more relevant experience than Obama (and Biden) -- are you kidding?
Methinks Mr. Post is not qualified to speak for Republicans.
And winning a campaign makes him the "best qualified" candidate for the presidency?
Come on. You need to do better than that.
Unlike Barack Obama, Jindal isn't even half white and Republicans will vote for him in droves.
Three weeks ago I'd never heard of her, but the more I hear of her background, the more I like her. That in itself is a refreshing change.
The bad is that Sarah is somewhat of a populist. Also, she does not have a great deal of experience. However, while she may have been governor of this state for two years, the majority of those two years have been spent negotiating complex oil contracts for building a natural gas pipeline.
I tend to think of her lack of political experience, though, as also a positive. Far too often we are offered political choices of people who have surrounded themselves with lackeys and brown-nosers. This is a woman who drives herself to work every day in her own car. She also has stood up for ethical government, getting a former attorney general fired for shady business dealings on the state dime.
One thing I like about the choice is that Sarah is a real person, not an image polished by handlers to be put out for public approval. I think that the McCain camp is specifically reaching for disaffected Hillary votes. That is particularly clear by the reference to the union membership in both McCain's intro and her speech.
Biden--no way.
Obama--No. But it is a wash.
He had ONE year expereince as an active federal legislator. (2005) After that, he campaigned furiously for Democrats (2006), and for Obama (Nov. 2006-now).
This is just empirically verifiable data. Again, Palin and Obama--No significant difference in level of experience.
Besides, isn't she being investigated? That can't be a good thing.
Then Palin/Steele?
Wouldn't that be crazy?
I think this is what the post is getting at:
Many commenters here, including you, have criticized what you characterize as Obama's lack of qualifications to be President. The selection of Palin undercuts those arguments because she's no more "qualified" than Obama (or if you want to argue there's "more" there, I'd argue the distinction is trivial). Yet McCain obviously thinks she IS qualified because (a) he chose her to fill a position in which her most important Constitutional role is to be ready to take over the office of President; and (b) McCain is older and has serious health issues, such that she might very well have to.
How many years of "executive experience" does McCain have?
How do you know people weren't "voting" for affirmative action reasons. Lots of people were excited about Obama because he was black. The Democratic party let him speak at their convention four years ago because he was young and black and spoke well. He admits he probably got to go to Harvard Law because of affirmative action (turned out to be a good decision as he graduated with high grades and Harvard Law Review). I know lots of white liberals voting for him because he's black and it would be good for the country. So what? People used to pick VP's based on what part of the country they'll bring on board. Is that affirmative action? How is the Palin any choice any different? Please.
And I'm not even sure yet if I like the choice of Palin.
Particularly given that she has executive experience, which all three others lack (unless you count McCain's experience as an officer, but he was a pilot, not a unit leader), and given that she would have the opportunity to learn on the job, I think this is a very amusing line of attack, and one that gives lie to how much this pick will hurt Obama.
But if McCain would have pick Jindal, would there be the same level of "disgust"? You may think Jindal lacks a ton of experience but would these same people be treating him like a total lightweight? Would it have been "insulting" for McCain to have selected Jindal?
Just curious.
I know our posts have crossed chronologically. And I appreciate your serious response. But above I made it clear that I DON'T think she is MORE experienced than Obama. That issue is a wash.
As to "undercutting" McCain's position: If you mean Obama backers will use it to try to undercut McCain's criticisms of Obama's inexperience, then you may be right. That's an empirical question. We'll have to wait and see if it works.
If you mean ON SUBSTANCE it undercuts McCain, I have to disagree: We really only have two choices of tickets. One has the inexperienced member "one heartbeat away." The other's IS the "heartbeat." If the Bull Moose Party were fielding a third ticket, with two expereinced candidates, then this would hurt McCain's case.
But again, since there are not other electable candidates, the GOP ticket can still use Obama's lack of experience without a bad conscience.
I'm awfully confused right now. If McCain had picked my former governor, Romney, I'd have been inclined to hold my nose and vote Republican. (For now, I plan to close my eyes to this year's yellow dog and vote Libertarian.)
I'd rather look at Palin than Cheney, and I'd rather have her (not) running a shadow government.
The heartbeat-away things is troublesome, but I'm thinking about Reagan (who certainly had the experience, but not necessarily the abilty to execute, but who had his own charisma, and knew how to pick a cabinet.)
Palin leading, sharing decision-making with the late McCain's cabinet? I think I'd rather see that than Obama, and it's only a contingency anyway. (My biggest nightmare out of that is if she skirts the Constitution [no differently than how we got Ford] to hand over the reins to somebody more suited to the office.)
IMHO, from the acceptable list, a good presidential candidate should pick someone most likely to govern the same in the case the president falls. Continuity in policy serves the electorate the best, since they get to vote once per 4 years, and the elevation of the VP should not signal an unelected sea-change in policy.
Are there others that have more experience? Yup. Are they likely to significantly change the direction of the bus if elevated to president in mid-term? Yup. In the event of the loss of a sitting president, I'd rather have less experience (within reason) and more continuity than the reverse.
Unfortunately, this post is typical of david's unthought-out posting style where he presents some illogical argument to support his pre-existing opinions and serves as further proof that he is the most underperforming member of the Conspiracy..
Explain to me how this is not like bringing a gun to a knifefight? Or using the Army to build dams?
She's a Republican?
And a creationist to boot?
As you say, we'll see how this plays out. I suspect those attacks won't resonate very well from now on.
Dan Quayle was chosen to appeal to a younger generation of Americans and his good looks were praised by Senator John McCain, who said "I can't believe a guy that handsome wouldn't have some impact."
Same dynamic at work here?
... but it will for a week or so, because everytime the media highlights Palin's experience they're highlighting Obama's inexperience as well.
David Gergen just said on CNN how inexperienced both Barack Obama and Sarah Palin are, both nationally and internationally.
Haha.
You're gonna vote for Obama, despite his inexperience, lack of qualifications and accomplishments. Palin has actually accomplished more in her career than Obama, so you might want to rethink that stance. She fought corrupt politics in Alaska. Obama joined the corrupt Chicago political machine.
As David Brooks wrote this morning,
Amen to that.
i don't think mccain could hammer at obama's inexperience the entire campaign without boring voters and causing a bit of a backlash. (there are only so many times you can put obama in an ad with britney spears). maybe mccain's camp feels the inexperience attack has done its job and they can begin to hammer at something else now...given the appeal this pick might have with disillusioned hillary supporters.
C O M M A N D E R in the UNITED STATES NAVY.
Seeing as that did not happen, what's your point?
Moreover, in fairness, it's not legitimate to make the argument when Obama for President. Her experience outweighs his. If you don't like, or McCain, that's fine - neither do I. So let's stick to legitimate arguments against him.
She decides to have her fifth child at age 44 and despite knowing from the amnio that he was carrying an extra chromosome, she went ahead with the pregnancy.
Palin is just perfect, perfect, perfect.
Oh, and pretty, too.
While the VP is a "heartbeat away" from being the President, he or she is not the President. McCain could die in the next four years, but that is not likely - <a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/STATS/table4c6.html">about a 90% chance that he'll make it</a>, in fact.
This will give Palin a few years to learn the ropes. Barack Obama has had a grand 130 days in national office; Palin has two years running a state. Granted, it's a small state, but she's actually run something (governor -> Pres/VP is a promotion, rather than the career change of Senator -> Pres/VP), and, as second in command, she'll have a lot of time to learn.
No one with the nickname of "Sarah Barracuda" is an affirmative action pick. She's a tough lady, known for blowing the whistle on her own party, and will compliment McCain's maverick style. With a lot of conservatives and libertarians who are dissatisfied with the Bush administration and may stay home, it's important to have a candidate who is not more of the same.
I'm happy to see this method of developing young conservatives. It's neat that McCain also considered Bobby Jindal. If the Republican party is to last, it has to move over to a younger generation; young people, however, tend to be liberal.
I'm thrilled. Maybe it's because she's not just pro-life, but kept her fifth baby, who had Down's, when she was the governor of Alaska. That puts to rest the notion that we "need" abortion because a) horribly deformed babies shouldn't be born; and b) without abortion, women can't succeed in their careers.
Who cares what David Gergen thinks?
Everyone in washington whowears a blue suit and red tie to work. Don't git me wrong: That don't make it right.
Palin, even before governor, had a long history of fighting corruption in the cesspool that is Alaska politics, including putting the kibosh on Ted Stevens' Bridge To Nowhere.
You might want to consider asking for a refund on that. Palin's statement is not exactly consistent withher record. Brad DeLong's cites a news story from the time:
Anchorage Daily News, 10/5/06: Palin Said She Supported The So-Called "Bridge To Nowhere," But Was Concerned Money "Flow" Was "Going to Slow":
As for the infamous 'bridges to nowhere,' MacDonald asked if the candidates would forge ahead with the proposed Knik Arm crossing between Anchorage and Point MacKenzie and Ketchikan's Gravina Island bridge. Each has received more than $90 million in federal funding and drew nationwide attacks as being unnecessary and expensive. He also asked if they support building an access road from Juneau toward -- but not completely connecting to -- Skagway and Haines. 'I do support the infrastructure projects that are on tap here in the state of Alaska that our congressional delegations worked hard for,' Palin said. She said the projects link communities and create jobs.
"I visited the Alaska State Capitol in Juneau a month ago and was surprised. In the midst of a slumping economy, the state government took advantage of the record high fuel prices to swell its coffers and built itself a bunch of nice shiny buildings. Much more lavish than the average county courthouse in another state. With all the oil revenue the State of Alsaka is blowing on vanity construction, couldn't they hold a few millions back to improve infrastructure/education/gas prices/etc?"
I know you weren't attacking anyone in particular. But I doubt anyone (AK residents included) would be pleased to see government spending more money on itself right now.
I daresay that a career as a naval "line" officer certainly qualifies as significant executive experience.
Experience means a lot more than government experience -- in fact, I'd argue that government experience is the least important sort. Barack Obama is a bit light on government experience as Presidential candidates go, but what bothers me even more is that he's basically never had a real job. By that I mean a job that requires contact with external physical reality.
And no, being a "community organizer" does not count as a "real job." He "worked" as a socialist agitator for several years -- if anything, this should be a disqualification, given the world view this evinces. Then he was an associate at a leftist civil rights law firm and a part-time legislator and a part-time (kinda sorta) law professor. Then a Senator and Presidential Candidate.
It's true that John McCain's fighter pilot days are long over, and he's been in the reality-insulation field of the United States Senate for an awfully long time, but at least he is familiar with the concept of external reality. Sarah Palin has been involved in politics for a while, but she's also done things like work on her husband's fishing boat, and in small businesses and such. Unlike Obama, she isn't even a former socialist agitator, and she probably has pretty good judgment about people.
Given a choice between a randomly-selected Alaskan and Barack Obama, I'd pick the randomly-selected Alaskan. The fact that Sarah Palin appears to have some political talent and experience is an added plus, but I'd take her over Obama straight off the fishing boat.
Biden's chaired a Senate committee!!
Maybe it's just a woman thing for you?
You really can't blame David for that -- presenting "an illogical argument to support his pre-existing opinions" quite accurately describes the judicial writing style of most of the liberal wing of SCOTUS, including his former boss, Ruth Bader Ginsburg (though I must admit, her illogical reasoning is not nearly as transparent or illogical as either Stevens or Breyer), so it's just something he learned by long association with people for whom logic takes a back seat to rationalization.
That is not cynical; it is just politics in both parties.
As judged by her own constituents, Gov. Palin is the most popular politician in the United States. That's not an accident. It's not because she's just a pretty face.
Her experience is comparable to Obama's own. Her experience and accomplishments substantially exceed Tim Kaine's, to pick (not at random) another young governor whose previous public service was at a local level.
Experience in general, and foreign policy experience in particular, McCain has in spades. Palin has been a remarkably successful reformer as a state politician; she knows, and is an articulate advocate on, energy; she's a consistent conservative.
Take a closer look. Keep an open mind -- which means you're going to have to backtrack from your initial reactions (which indicated a very closed and ill-informed one). Good luck in your journey.
I'm not sure that this ranks very high on the chart of executive experience. Especially since military command is fundamentally different from civilian leadership.
History will judge McCain's decision to select Palin as a running mate -- over one of the many otherwise available, highly-qualified possibilities -- as a self-inflicted, mortal wound.
This presidential race is now officially OVER.
His father John S. "Junior" McCain was commander of U.S. forces in Europe later becoming commander of American forces in Vietnam while McCain III was being held prisoner of war. McCain III's grandfather John S. McCain, Sr. commanded naval aviation at the Battle of Okinawa in 1945.
During his relative short stunt on flight status, McCain III lost five U.S. Navy aircraft, four in accidents and one in combat.
Robert Timberg, author of The Nightingale's Song, a book about Annapolis graduates and their tours in Vietnam, wrote that McCain "learned to fly at Pensacola, though his performance was below par, at best good enough to get by. He liked flying, but didn't love it."
McCain III lost jet number one in 1958 when he plunged into Corpus Christi Bay while practicing landings. He was knocked unconscious by the impact coming to as the plane settled to the bottom.
McCain's second crash occurred while he was deployed in the Mediterranean. "Flying too low over the Iberian Peninsula," Timberg wrote, "he took out some power lines [reminiscent of the 1998 incident in which a Marine Corps jet sliced through the cables of a gondola at an Italian ski resort, killing 20] which led to a spate of newspaper stories in which he was predictably identified as the son of an admiral."
McCain's third crash three occurred when he was returning from flying a Navy trainer solo to Philadelphia for an Army-Navy football game.
Timberg reported that McCain radioed, "I've got a flameout" and went through standard relight procedures three times before ejecting at one thousand feet. McCain landed on a deserted beach moments before the plane slammed into a clump of trees.
McCain's fourth aircraft loss occurred July 29, 1967, soon after he was assigned to the USS Forrestal as an A-4 Skyhawk pilot. While seated in the cockpit of his aircraft waiting his turn for takeoff, an accidently fired rocket slammed into McCain's plane. He escaped from the burning aircraft, but the explosions that followed killed 134 sailors, destroyed at least 20 aircraft, and threatened to sink the ship.
McCain's fifth loss happened during his 23rd mission over North Vietnam on Oct. 26, 1967, when McCain's A-4 Skyhawk was shot down by a surface-to-air missile. McCain ejected from the plane breaking both arms and a leg in the process and subsequently parachuted into Truc Bach Lake near Hanoi.
After being drug from the lake, a mob gathered around McCain, spit on him, kicked him and stripped him of his clothing. He was bayoneted in his left foot and his shoulder crushed by a rifle butt. He was then transported to the Hoa Lo Prison, also known as the Hanoi Hilton.
After being periodically slapped around for "three or four days" by his captors who wanted military information, McCain called for an officer on his fourth day of captivity. He told the officer, "O.K., I'll give you military information if you will take me to the hospital." -U.S. News and World Report, May 14, 1973 article written by former POW John McCain.
"Demands for military information were accompanied by threats to terminate my medical treatment if I [McCain] did not cooperate. Eventually, I gave them my ship's name and squadron number, and confirmed that my target had been the power plant." Page 193-194, Faith of My Fathers by John McCain.
When the communist learned that McCain's father was Admiral John S. McCain, Jr., the soon-to-be commander of all U.S. Forces in the Pacific, he was rushed to Gai Lam military hospital (U.S. government documents), a medical facility normally unavailable for U.S. POWs.
The communist Vietnamese figured, because POW McCain's father was of such high military rank, that he was of royalty or the governing circle. Thereafter the communist bragged that they had captured "the crown prince."
For 23 combat missions (an estimated 20 hours over enemy territory), the U.S. Navy awarded McCain a Silver Star, a Legion of Merit for Valor, a Distinguished Flying Cross, three Bronze Stars, two Commendation medals plus two Purple Hearts and a dozen service medals.
"McCain had roughly 20 hours in combat," explains Bill Bell, a veteran of Vietnam and former chief of the U.S. Office for POW/MIA Affairs -- the first official U.S. representative in Vietnam since the 1973 fall of Saigon. "Since McCain got 28 medals," Bell continues, "that equals out to about a medal-and-a-half for each hour he spent in combat. There were infantry guys -- grunts on the ground -- who had more than 7,000 hours in combat and I can tell you that there were times and situations where I'm sure a prison cell would have looked pretty good to them by comparison. The question really is how many guys got that number of medals for not being shot down."
For years, McCain has been an unchecked master at manipulating an overly friendly and biased news media. The former POW turned Congressman, turned U.S. Senator, has managed to gloss over his failures as a pilot and collaborations with the enemy by exaggerating his military service and lying about his feats of heroism.
McCain has sprouted a halo and wings to become America's POW-hero presidential candidate.
I don't get this at all. Kaine has been governor of a much larger and more complex state, for a longer period of time (I believe 3 years). Before that, he was also a mayor and of a larger city (that's pretty much a gimme). Notwithstanding that, Karl Rove thinks Kaine is unqualified.
And you honestly believe that choosing Senator Obama is not? Senator Clinton, regardless of her politics which I disagree with 95% of the time, should have been the nominee based on the experience she brought and the "bones she made". What do I mean? I mean that she sacrificed a life time of service to be the nominated by her party as a presidential candidate, only to be tossed aside in favor of a candidate whose only quality they have been promoting is the color of skin. That's the change we need?
No Mr. Post, this country will rather punish the Democrats for tossing aside Senator Clinton for Senator Obama because he is black. That is despicable.
I have not read through the comments but the overall thrust is not unlike mine. While i visit this blog several times a week i have only on occasion commented.
I feel compelled to add my voice here. David Post's entry is sheer elitism. His stridency gives him away. Others have of course made the comparison in experience between Obama and the Governor, and yet others to the fact that one quite unknown inexperienced candidate is running for president and one inexperienced yet fairly well known reformer is running in the second spot. This point seems wholly lost on "Professor" Post.
Moreover, what in the world makes Joe Biden fit to be president? He is a known plagiarizer that his own party rejected resoundingly.
And, of course, Post's very post is the essence of the denial of the "science-democracy" reciprocal he is so devoted to. Since science can say absolutely nothing about Palin's relative qualifications, that leaves it up to the democratic process. Now, there is nothing in the "opinion" realm of democracy that suggests absolute or objective "value" in any candidate. The ONLY possible judgment is on the basis of popularity. Historians and of course law professors can opine about relative value, but that matters only to their elitist ilk. Only a law professor or other similarly situated elite could suggest that something might be good for a "candidacy" but not good for the country. Democracy is built, is it not, on the premise that the two are identical? So the only thing of real value from Post's vitriol is his wish that the electorate will "punish" McCain. But, then again, if they punish Obama instead, then we assume Post will utter a meek but audible mea culpa.
The almost-rabid defense of Palin as having 2 whole years of Executive experience rings hollow to me. Obama's <b>political</b> experience, and moreover his political experience on the national stage, far outweighs Palin's. Bobby Jindal would have been just as good a candidate as Palin; the fact that McCain chose a woman suggests he's pandering to disillusioned Hillary devotees, not that he considers Palin to be qualified. Now if McCain had picked Kay Bailey, I doubt her Executive experience or lack of would be an issue, and I also doubt I wouldn't be seeing as many "McCain/Housewife '08!" comments across the Internet.
I think the posts have largely focused on the extremism of his post.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6UojMnCgqVA
I think he had more important important qualities than "experience": integrity, honesty and the willingness to listen to others with experience (and integrity) such as Acheson and Marshall. Need I mention his name?
"For 23 combat missions (an estimated 20 hours over enemy territory), the U.S. Navy awarded McCain a Silver Star, a Legion of Merit for Valor, a Distinguished Flying Cross, three Bronze Stars, two Commendation medals plus two Purple Hearts and a dozen service meda"
A dishonest and factually inaccurate comment. Several of those awards were due to captivity as a POW.
followed by a quote you posted from another source:
"There were infantry guys -- grunts on the ground -- who had more than 7,000 hours in combat and I can tell you that there were times and situations where I'm sure a prison cell would have looked pretty good to them by comparison. The question really is how many guys got that number of medals for not being shot down."
And? The point is? So now it comes down to someone grousing that an infantry solider did not get medals, but a naval aviator did? If that is the crux of your argument, wow, that's just weak...
1. It shows McCain is going after Obama on the Change/Reform issue.
Obama is for CHANGE/REFORM from Washington "outsiders." Palin seems to have it but Obama doesn't. Obama is silent while Mayor Daley's guys are headed off to federal prison for following Daley's orders in government patronage hiring and contracting. The Streets of Chicago are clean, but the City is dirty.
Governor Rod Blago, a good friend of Obama's friend Tony Rezko and a former good friend of Obama, is about to be indicted. Again, Obama has said nothing. Cook COunty Board Pres. John Stroger won a primary a few years ago and then installed his son on the ticket. Obama's good friend and Ill. Senate mentor, State Senator Emil Jones is about to do the same. Again, Obama says nothing. He may want to change Washington but he doesn't want to change Chicago.
2. McCain has decided to drop the inexperience theme in favor of the elitism theme. Palin doesn't have much experience, but it's as much as Obama has. Let's remember that Obama didn't vote against the Iraq war because the Illinois State Senate, where Obama was a nobody representing a constituency who preferred former black panther Bobby Rush as its Congressman to Obama, doesn't get to vote on foreign affairs.
The only thing different Dems can say is something along the lines that Obama went to Harvard Law School and Palin didn't, so this makes him more qualified and smarter. This would be suicide for them to say this. W. ran as far away from Yale as Yale ran from him, while Al Gore and John Kerry highlighted their Ivy League credentials.
3. McCain is going after the white women vote, especially the disaffected white women.
4. McCain wants blue collars. Palin is way more blue collar than Joe Biden or Obama.
That's actually sick.
So it is safe to assume that means you will not be voting for Senator Obama.
If you want to be a politician, better to go someplace that doesn't cause people to lump your in the "snob" category.
And I STILL think that Bayh my be veep someday.
Granting your point for argument, I suggest that an experienced President can school a rooky Veep as well or better as an experienced Veep can school a rooky President. So your concern is most valid if McCain keels over very early, but fades with time.
Anyway, this begs the very large question of whether the top of the Democrat ticket can be viewed as presidential timber. Town council, mayor, ethics board and freshman governor is at least as impressive a resume as community organizer, state legislator voting "present" and freshman US Senator. Palin at least has accomplished some of her stated goals in taking on political corruption, lowering taxes and advancing a natural gas pipeline. Not earth-shaking I admit, until you compare it to Obama accomplishing... what? He gave a well-received speech, then he gave some more, but what legislation is he responsible for?
Biden has the non-snobby academic credentials. He would have been a better presidential nominee than Obama in some ways but the primary faithful tend not to vote for guys like Biden.
Really though, let’s face it, no one is prepared to be president except the guy that is currently president. No other experience is similar enough. No other high level position has the necessary mix of foreign and domestic responsibilities. She’ll be a heart-beat a way, for sure, but VP is really just a training and seasoning ground. 2 years as VP and she’ll be 1000% more qualified than any other person in the country to take over for McCain should something happen to him (2months at VP and she’d probably still be the most qualified person to take over).
I grew up next to a town not much smaller than Wasilla. They had a dog for a mayor for over 12 years.
Alaska became a state in 1959. Its economy has not been slumping for all of those 49 years. During that time, how much has the state distributed in oil revenues? The dispute because those who want to move the capital closer to Anchorage seems to me a much better explanation for the perpetuation of the existing dump than a desire to build a "lavish. . . . bunch of nice shiny buildings." BTW, the governor's mansion in Juneau is not a dump--real nice place, also built by the feds. I wonder why Alaskans are unable to decide where their capital should be. BTW, I think Alaska is a great state, and I have an open mind on Palin, about whom I now know almost zilch. I just heard that McCain has met her only twice, so I assume he knows only a little more than zilch.
Truman was also an army captain (I hear they're calling that executive experience these days) and also served 10 years as a county commissioner (they called the position "judge" but it was an administrative position).
Coolidge held a number of municipal offices, including Mayor, was in the state legislature for 4 years, lieutenant governor for three terms, and then governor for 2 terms.
Cheerful Iconoclast,
Same here! That's a great observation.
If you consider accomplishment, then experience takes on a new and more valid meaning. By this measure, Palin is extraordinary. In less than 2 years, she revolutionized government in AK. She eliminated corruption, instituted comprehensive energy and conservation policies, negotiated a new oil pipeline with Canada, fostered extensive business development. No one on the Republican short list, or in government, can claim to have accomplished so much, so quickly, against such great odds.
So yes, by measure of time, Palin is on par with Obama and far below anyone else. By measure of accomplishment, I cannot think of anyone better.
The only point that I have ever agree with Obama on entirely is that Washington needs Change. He, however, has done nothing in his lifetime to change anything. By all accounts he is one of the most corrupt, old school, dirty politician around. He has zero significant legislative accomplishments, zero executive experience and zero foreign policy experience. His only claim to the office is that he's called lack of accomplishment 'change'. Biden is no better than Ted Kennedy.
By virtue of accomplishment and potential for change, I think Palin is unassailable. Sure, she has thing to learn too. But she's a proven commodity and will have one of the most distinguished politicians in the US only a few steps away in the Oval Office for that.
She has my 100% support, but if I had doubts, I would find comfort in a VP needing training wheels instead of a President.
As someone upthread said, I'd rather have Palin "one heartbeat away" from the presidency than Barak Obama actually *being* that heartbeat.
My mind is open on Palin. I'm moderately amused by all those who, one day after she first ascended the national stage, are euphoric about her. No pretense about waiting for the facts, Jump on the bandwagon right now. Pardon me if I take these encomiums with a grain of Alaskan sea salt.
Many of those euphoric today are those who've been working hard for six months to convince the McCain campaign to nominate her and never imagined they actually would.
Biden voted with the Senate, 98-0, against Kyoto, but blames Bush for removing the Presidential signature. He is so deep in lobbyist money that he makes Obama's change message a clear lie.
Our best Presidents have been state governors and military commanders. Palin has governed Alaska longer than SnObama was an acting US Senator (150 days). She faced down her own party to become Mayor and Governor. Sn Postpartisan hasn't squeaked about Chicago's corrupt politics and is hand-in-glove with ACORN.
McCain hired an apprentice. Snobama hired a nanny.
[Important Note to Helpful Readers: If we have confusing typos and especially ugly formatting errors, such as an unclosed underline or bold tag, we'd love to hear from you about them -- but please e-mail the author about this, rather than leaving a comment. We often won't read the comments for a while after the post, and if there's a glaring formatting error, we'd see it quickly when we revisit the post, even without the comment; and in any event the comment likely isn't going to be that helpful to your fellow comment readers. So please e-mail us directly about glitches like this. Thanks!]
Comment Policy: We'd like the posts to be civil, of course (no profanity, personal insults, and the like), but we're also hoping that people try to be as calm, reasoned, and substantive as possible. So please, also avoid rants, invective, substantial and repeated exaggeration, and radical departures from the topic of the thread. Sticking with substance -- and staying on-topic -- will make the comments more helpful to other readers, and more pleasant.
As editors, we reserve the right to delete posts, and even to kick out posters, though we hope that both of these will be exceptional events. (We also reserve the right to be busy with other things, and therefore (1) not remove all the posts that might merit removal, and (2) ignore demands such as "You should remove A's posts, because they're just as bad as B's!")
Here's a tip: Reread your post, and think of what people would think if you said this over dinner. If you think people would view you as a crank, a blowhard, or as someone who vastly overdoes it on the hyperbole, rewrite your post before hitting enter.
And if you think this is the other people's fault -- you're one of the few who sees the world clearly, but fools wrongly view you as a crank, a blowhard, or as someone who overdoes it on the hyperbole -- then you should still rewrite your post before hitting enter. After all, if you're one of the few who sees the world clearly, then surely it's especially important that you frame your arguments in a way that is persuasive and as unalienating as possible, even to fools.
Our goal is to provide an interesting and pleasant environment that can help inform readers. To do that, we'll occasionally have to exercise our editorial discretion. Think of this as an in-person discussion group, where having different voices is critical to a great conversation -- but where sometimes the leader has to deal with cranks who sour the conversation more than they enliven it.
Naturally, there's always a risk that this discretion will be used erroneously, no matter how well-intentioned the editor. But discussion groups (especially on the Internet, but also off it) generally need an editor who'll occasionally make such judgments.
And, remember, it's a big Internet. If you think we were mistaken in removing your post (or, in extreme cases, in removing you) -- or if you prefer a more free-for-all approach -- there are surely plenty of ways you can still get your views out.