My earlier posting on Sarah Palin generated some interesting (and pointed) comments, some of which I tried to respond to directly, but I thought that perhaps it called for a more thoughtful response. I think the choice was both bad and (probably) stupid.
Why It's (probably) Stupid. It's probably stupid because it will gain McCain little and may lose him a great deal. Nobody can possibly know, at this point, how she will perform on the stage she is about to enter onto -- debates with 100 million viewers, a daily crush of reporters, speech after speech after speech, where one bad gaffe puts you in the dustbin of history forever. It's unspeakable pressure, she's never faced anything like it, and I'd happily put money on the following: she will make at least one serious gaffe over the next two months. Plus, I don't care how carefully vetted she's been by the McCain campaign -- I think it's close to even money that 10,000 reporters and bloggers who will now descend upon Alaska (at least virtually) will find something less than savory.
Why It's Bad. It's a bad choice because John McCain is 71 years old, and his vice president will have a non-trivial chance of becoming president, and absolutely nothing suggests that Sarah Palin would be credible as President of the United States. I do NOT think this is just a matter of adding up the number of years spent doing this or doing that. Sarah Palin has been in public life, basically, for two years. to my knowledge, she has never articulated (because she was never called upon to articulate) any views whatsoever on:
military strategy in the Persian Gulf
the proper response to Iranian nuclear weapons
the Russian invasion of Georgia
the United Nations
US immigration policy
the Federal Reserve Bank
the effectiveness of international aid programs
Israeli-Palestinian relations
AIDS policy
federal support for basic research
European Union integration
the US Constitution
the optimal means of protecting US borders from terrorists
Guantanamo, and the proper scope of interrogation techniques
Deficit financing and Keynesian economics
the Supreme Court
Should I go on? I could, of course. But hopefully you get the idea. How anyone could say that knowing what they know now they'd be comfortable with her as President is entirely beyond me.
A small nit. Today was McCain's birthday. He's now 72, not 71.
As I posed below: as someone who doesn't want to see Obama in the White House, I hope everyone keeps the focus on everyone's relative experience for as long as possible.
All great points, but she's not being judged in the abstract, she's being judged against Obama. (I guess you could say she's being judged against Biden, but since we're talking about if she's actually President-ready Obama is the comparison).
And she's being judged by voters who are not as smart as you and resent people who think they're so smart. Neither Kennedy, Reagan, Truman or W. were that bright. Nixon and Clinton are very smart. Obama, McCain, Gore, Kerry and H.W. Bush are all smart enough but not as smart as Nixon and Clinton.
And as far as the categories of issues you listed, people far smarter than Nixon and Clinton disagree and continue to disagree on each of those issues.
Again, W. was elected POTUS twice. Do you think, even after the last 8 years, he could articulate a thoughtful response to more than 3 of those issues?
David: Palin is the choice because the Republicans want to drown gov't in the bathtub, and having an incompetent v.p. who lives in Alaska is one more step in that direction. You know she will continue to live with her family in Alaska, right?
Um, because it's going to be wildly different than what he says it will be?
And she's being judged by voters who are not as smart as you
Well, that's exactly it. Shocker tho it be to we blog-commenting types, millions of people will vote this November 4 who don't actually know or care anything about politics.
Some of those people will probably vote McCain b/c Palin's on the ticket. In a close election, hey, that could be enough. Look for Palin to pretty much *live* in Ohio for the next two months.
As I posed below: as someone who doesn't want to see Obama in the White House, I hope everyone keeps the focus on everyone's relative experience for as long as possible.
How exactly do you plan to square the reality of your inevitable Obama administration with an imaginary set of criteria based on "what could have been?" I mean, if the above is to somehow reserve a right to complain in the future, my only response is "Welcome to the Internet!"
As a gesture of good will, maybe at this late date we can endeavor to arrive at some fixed definition of "experience," since the definition seems to shift on a weekly or daily basis. How are you defining it in the snippet excerpted above? Do either of us even have a role in defining "experience" for ourselves in this context?
People in Ohio are probably conditioned by now, they won't vote for any candidate who didn't personally give them a cookie.
C'mon man, have the audacity to hope for changiness! Or are you one of those hopeless clinging white males who are stuck in the past?
It doesn't take that many data points to determine whether you are generally of the same mind with someone. Most people will quickly make up their minds about Palin based upon a brief review of her disposition. To expect more is not rational.
Gee, I can express thoughtful responses to all but two of those items listed and I'm not even a lawyer! Of course if I were a lawyer I'd be able to express responses on all of them and even more. I'd have definitive responses on everything!
I shall rise to the challenge:
EXPERIENCE (n.) -- Practical contact with facts and events that leads a candidate to agree with my ideology.
(H/t to Oxford American Dictionary.)
We'll see how the VP candidate performs as a speaker and debater, but initial indications are not bad at all. (Who do you think is more concerned about the VP debate, Palin or Biden?)
Constantin 5:54--the only ones who don't know Obama's tax policy by now are the ones who are willfully ignorant.
I guess that includes the Associated Press, as of this morning:
"He said he would 'cut taxes for 95 percent of all working families,' but did not say how."
Link
That'll be a safe bet for any VP nominee. It goes with the job.
Your arguments would be more convincing if your characterization of Palin's career was more accurate and complete. She's expressed opinions on a handful of the issues you mention, but few governors talk about such things before they run for national office, and she's been involved in serious hardball politics for more than two years. Before she was governor, and after she served on city council and as mayor of an admittedly small town, she was chair of the Alaska Conservation Commission and President of the Alaska Conference of Mayors. I also think taking out the corrupt Alaska GOP political machine is not the sort of accomplishment to be taken lightly. She might not have as much experience as you would like, but she has far more than you're giving her credit for.
JHA
Why would we think that reporters will want to go to Alaska to find something? Reporters haven't been interested in Obama's Chicago political career. What's different about this person?
Knowing jackshit about European integration is the least any President of United States needs to know about.
Being from Alaska, I bet she knows a a thing or two about Russia. I mean, if Putin were to ever make a judo move on her, I'm sure she'll just shoot him dead.
Considering he back tracked on it, why yes it certainly could be.
True, in the immediate aftermath of the announcement, Obama can say “gotcha” to McCain for campaigning so far on experience and then picking Palin just as McCain said “gotcha” for campaigning so far on change and then picking Biden.
But this is just inside baseball. Obama cannot focus on Palin’s inexperience without highlighting that on the other ticket, it is him -- the top guy -- with no experience. Who would you rather vote for, a president with little experience or a VP with little experience? If experience is what you care about the choice is still clear.
Beyond that:
It highlights the maverick angle by highlighting that McCain is not a predictable Republican, but will buck conventional wisdom. That matters to people looking for change.
It highlights that McCain is a reformer, not another Bush partisan, by picking someone who doubles down on the reform angle and who has made a career out of fighting partisanship and her own party’s corruption. Palin is effectively the (younger female) McCain of Alaska. This will energize moderates and independents as well as conservatives tired of Tom Delay-style politics.
It energizes conservatives because Palin is living the right-to-life mantra, not just preaching it.
It takes away the history angle of Obama by ensuring that whomever is elected, history is made.
It takes away the focus on Obama’s speech of last night, which will suppress his convention bounce.
It takes away Biden’s ability to beat up on the VP pick in the VP debate because Biden will look like an a-hole to many people if he does that to a woman. And Biden now has to watch himself on the patronizing claim. So it may turn out to neutralize one of the main advantages of Biden by neutering Biden in the debate. Time will tell.
This is the best Democratic year since 1976. Any “safe” pick would have ceded the election to Obama. It is Obama’s election to lose. Probably no other pick would have generated this much excitement from both moderates and conservatives.
McCain needed a game-changer, and he just got one. She may or may not provide enough lift for him in November, but she is the best he could do under the circumstances.
What probably made her McCain's choice is that her sunny temperment will complement McCain's crankiness.
Think of it this way: the top nominees are Young &Optimistic versus Old &Cranky, so McCain desperately needs a running mate who is Young &Sunny.
I personally would much, much rather have Palin as President than Joe Biden. Steady Biden ain't - he makes McCain seem calm, sweet, reason. Palin showed she is tough enough by taking on and beating a corrupt machine when she was elected Governor of Alaska. That's how Fred Thompson made his chops in Tennessee.
Hilarious.
We know you could not.
Never mind.
W did better, both academically and on standardized intelligence tests, than either Gore or Kerry. Other than that, you're basically correct.
He could at least phase them out, starting with the charitable deduction itemization (he could also disallow this as a deduction for corporations as well). Why should rich people get to deduct donations to their alma maters, churches, pet charities, etc. The working man doesn't get to do this and still gives to his church and to other good causes.
This is hysterical to watch.
(1) Her newsworthiness takes the spotlight from the Dems just when they thought they had a lock on it. It also probably gives McCain a lot of the "bounce" that Obama thought he'd automatically get.
(2) It solidifies McCains religious/social conservative base. This woman doesn't just talk the talk, she walkjs the walk: She and her husband plan to raise their new infant son, who has Down's Syndrome, just like their other four children. No convenient abortions for this lady.
(3) At the same time it grabs a big chunk of women voters who wanted Hillary and will be happy with this woman. Unlike Hillary McCain's VP is the real thing. She's raised a family, has a husband who works on the North Slope, and went into politics to clean up the corruption in Alaska.
(4) She may appeal to young voters: She's younger than McCain and Biden. She can't be much older than Obama. Unlike Obama she's a real reformer who fought the political machine in her state insterad of becoming part of it.
(5) She's photogenic and articulate. Check her out on You Tube. Did I mention she was an ex beauty queen?
(6) She's got enough experience to take on the Republican machine in Alaska and win three times, clean up an important but corrupt state agency, and beat an incumbent governor. In my book, that puts her way ahead of Obama, who basically got where he is the same way the "Master of the Queen's Navy" did in HMS Pinafore, i.e., by toeing the party line and never thinking for himself at all.
And did I mention that she's a real conservative.
Someone who is pro-life, pro-2A, pro drilling in ANWR, prefers hockey over soccer, hunts moose, was a commercial fisherman, and ran the "bridge to nowhere" crowd out of town is in all probability going to have foreign policy views that jibe with mainstream conservatives. Its possible I'm wrong, but one would think McCain talked about this when he interviewed/vetted her. And I don't think there's any doubt that she thinks Scalia is better judge than Ginsburg.
Immigration, however, is an area where conservatives might have some cause to worry given McCain's shakiness on this. My guess is we'll get the usual pablum about being for legal immigration and against illegal immigration.
Will all due respect, some of these items border on the trivial. The average American probably cares more about what the candidates think about Brett Favre trade than his or her stance on AIDS policy.
If anything, Obama has less experience. I'd like to say that the aikido blowback effect of democrats raising this was half the rationale of picking Palin, but that's giving McCain too much credit.
Laugh out loud funny.
Thank you for such rank and idiotic hypocrisy.
By the way, I'd love for you or any other Obama voter to explain his actual position on the 2nd Amendment.
Funny nobody can say given he is a "constitutional law" lecturer and all.
Finally, remember that meme on the part of the left about Bush enlisting his kids in the military?
Where did that go again?
McCain's son is in Iraq and his youngest is at West Point.
Palin's son enlisted and is going.
Obama, who has never served, wants to invade Pakistan.
She's a couple years younger than Obama.
Gee, that's real complicated and all.
This has it backwards. Obama doesn't have to focus on Palin's anything. People vote for presidential candidates, not Vice Presidential candidates, and Obama doesn't need to go out of his way to attack Palin.
On the other hand, the choice of Palin now prevents McCain and the Republicans from pressing their strongest argument--Obama's supposed inexperience and lack of readiness to be President. McCain is not going to win on the issues, and raising uncertainty about Obama's ability to be Commander in Chief has always been his best shot.
This choice was a terrible stragegic blunder.
Keep dreaming.
McCain is not going to win on the issues,
Obama is not going to win on the issues.
Isn't this fun?
Joe Biden has zero executive experience.
John McCain has military command experience.
Sarah Palin has executive experience as Governor of the largest state in the Union - and as Mayor of the fastest-growing town in Alaska. (Personally, I like small-town America).
On the experience issue, McCain and Palin win.
Besides, the "foreign policy experience" argument is non-serious. What was the "foreign policy experience" of Ronald Reagan, Franklin Roosevelt or Margaret Thatcher?
A great President is a great leader. Leadership skills are most clearly seen in people who have actually led: like McCain and Palin.
The "foreign policy experience" argument is actually a negative to me. I'd rather have someone with clear leadership skills as an American chief executive (like Governor Palin) - or military command experience (like McCain) - not someone who sat on some foreign affairs committee in Congress (like Biden).
Also - Palin's approval ratings in Alaska have consistently been over 80%! She's a leader. So is McCain. Obama and Biden are legislators - they've never held an executive or command position in their lives.
On experience McCain and Palin win.
You guys believe anything the RNC says.
5. Would you continue state funding for the proposed Knik Arm and Gravina Island bridges?
Yes. I would like to see Alaska's infrastructure projects built sooner rather than later. The window is now--while our congressional delegation is in a strong position to assist.
If she isn't ready to be president, none of them are. Especially not Obama.
And I don't see how lack of experience is fatal to her, when she only might be president if you pull the Republican lever, but Obama's lack of experience is no big deal, even though he will definitely be president if you pull the Dem lever.
As for all those issues, do we know where obama stands on any of those?
Governor counts for something, but I would point out that Alaska has a small population and its economy, based on resource extraction, does not extrapolate to the USA as a whole. For the tasks Palin would face if she became President, she is completely untested. Whether that makes her unqualified is a judgment we all have to make separately.
Another fact that seems to be lost on anyone, VPs who are elevated to the office of president are not expected to create their own policies and programs. The general view is VPs inherit the presidents foreign and domestic policies and continue them until the next election cycle. Thus, if Sarah Palin does have to take the reins after say three years she will do little to change the cabinet, secretaries or other Presidential appointees, and probably couldn't get a Supreme Court justice appointed.
But the flip side is Obama on January 1st 2009 will begin making his political appointments, setting the foreign and domestic policy for the next four years and everything else a full president is authorised to do by the Constitution. And even if something was to happen to him would Biden change these policies on Elevation to VP or continue the policies as previous VPs have (Teddy Roosevelt being the obvious exception).
Given this, I'll take the risk of Palin over four assured years of Obama. Besides, if McCain makes it through four years but becomes too old to run for a second term the Party will then designate the candidate for 2012. The sitting VP doesn't always get the nod.
But also a great choice strategically (and I give mccain no credit here)--he has put palin into the front runner position in 2012 and its a great new republican face--how about a Palin Jindal ticket in 2012? The democrats talk the diversity crap; this moves the republicans into a major advantage in 2012
You must have missed this:
the choice of Palin now prevents McCain and the Republicans from pressing their strongest argument--Obama's supposed inexperience and lack of readiness to be President.
Er, good luck with that.
By the way, I guess this is the change we can believe in!
What I find most funny is that Obama completely undercut the "change" meme by picking Senator Amtrak and you people said nary a peep.
So, how did Biden get to be where he is?
Palin has been both a mayor and a governor. She is more quailfied for leadership as POTUS, even as a VP, then Obamanation.
I can already see Palin vs Hillary in 2012.
Sorry.
Obama is still a chickenhawk.
My statement was based on polling that consistently shows that this year the electorate is more aligned with Democratic issue positions, has more faith in the Democrats to deal with most problems and is trending heavily Democratic. And yours is based on what, exactly?
But David Post sounds like a refugee from the DailyKos or the DU. Unlike the other bloggers, Post is a blatant Obama propagandist, pure and simple. His partisanship is so thick you could cut it with a knife. it takes a real nitwit to begin hating Sarah Palin, starting only on the day she's named as a running mate.
so, if she spent a year articulating her views she would be ok in your view? thats the only thing that separates Obama at the start of this campaign from your critique quoted.
you are a professor of law and clerked?
This is wrong. W's SAT scores (1206) were lower than Gore's (1355).
All that matters in a candidate, then, is their good judgment and strength of character, the qualities they'll need to rely on when decisions need to be made.
That's why McCain's POW stint and Palin's disabled child mean more in this election than Obama's health care plan or Biden's foreign policy know-how. You can hire the latter, but not the former. Palin's a good addition to the ticket.
Although I wish about everyone on both tickets were a different age-I'd like to see the McCain of 2000 and Obama and Palin with some terms under their belt.
How does having a six month disabled child show character? I've met people who have disabled children who are horrible people.
From the Saddleback Forum:
Note that Obama's "decision to oppose the war" was irrelevant; he wasn't even a federal senator at the time, but a state senator with no responsibility for foreign policy whatsoever.
From a Newsweek interview with Palin back in May:
And Obama's more qualified? Obama's had tougher decisions to make?
Laugh out loud funny.
And again,
Uh, the change meme is change from Republican rule to something other than Republican rule.
Running a Presidential campaign with hundreds of staff and thousands of volunteers that defeated the Clinton machine in a 50 State contest, raising several hundred million dollars in the process while building a grassroots political network is far more relevant executive experience than being mayor of a small town.
Please, stop it. You keep putting links up that either don't support what you say or, as in this instance, you give a wildly misleading take on what the link says. I am getting real tired of calling you on this.
The article was dated Aug. 20th, from data before that date. That poll also gave McCain a significant (beyong MoE) lead in the overall race. To show you how that has changed, (and to give you a perspective, see this.
As of Aug. 26th, voters trusted Obama more than McCain (by only a slight amount) on the economy and energy. See this.
Not that facts have ever seemed to stop many people here.
What makes you think that Palin hasn't considered any of these? I'll bet she has expressed positions on several. I searched for immigration and Palin and came up with several stories, including this one, which actually covered another topic: protecting borders from terrorists.
Western governors gather to talk agriculture, global energy
CHET BROKAW
Associated Press Writer
PIERRE, S.D._Governors from 10 western states and premiers from two Canadian provinces plan to gather in the historic northern Black Hills gambling town of Deadwood to talk about agricultural policy, global warming and border security.
Members of the Western Governors' Association are particularly eager to discuss the 2007 Farm Bill with U.S. Agriculture Secretary Mike Johanns, who was a member of the group when he was governor of Nebraska, said the association's chairman, Gov. Mike Rounds of South Dakota.
"Most of us know Mike personally," Rounds said. "We're just very fortunate he can come on out and give us some insight on what he sees going on with the 2007 Farm Bill and some of the other issues the western governors will express to him."
The Western Governors' Association annual meeting begins Sunday with a discussion of renewable energy projects and efforts to reduce carbon emissions into the atmosphere. Johanns talks about agriculture issues on Monday, and the meeting ends Tuesday with a discussion on how to cope with climate change.
The annual meeting gives governors from the 19-state region a chance to develop positions aimed at influencing national policies on important issues, Rounds said.
Congress seems to be accepting much of what Johanns proposed in the Farm Bill, Rounds said. That measure deals not only with production of food and fiber, but also with the growth of corn and other crops for ethanol and other renewable energy, he said.
The South Dakota governor said he is interested in programs that promote conservation. Those programs are important for providing wildlife habitat in states where hunting is a big part of the economy, and grasses could eventually be used in ethanol production, he said.
"We also want to talk about things such as drought and flood and how much of the Farm Bill should be used to respond to emergency needs and how much of should be related to energy policy," Rounds said.
Discussions will include new technology for producing energy and reducing pollution, he said.
"Most of us would agree that the climate is changing. Now the question is what do we do to slow down these changes, and second of all, how do we transition our economies to be able to respond to the climate changes that are occurring," the South Dakota governor said. "How does government respond with its programs to the possibilities of significant and more drastic drought conditions and significant weather patterns that might be changing?"
One topic will be carbon sequestration, which includes removing more carbon dioxide from power plant emissions and using plants to remove more carbon dioxide from the air.
Manitoba Premier Gary Doer and Saskatchewan Premier Lorne Calvert will talk with the governors and Stewart A. Baker, assistant secretary of the U.S. Homeland Security Department, about immigration and international travel.
The Canadian premiers would like to establish secure North American borders that prevent terrorists from entering the continent without imposing big barriers to travel between the United States and Canada, Rounds said.
"They don't want to see significant restrictions that could harm our economies here for tourism and so forth," Rounds said.
Expected to attend are Rounds, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano, Colorado Gov. Bill Ritter, Montana Gov. Brian Schweitzer, Nebraska Gov. Dave Heineman, Nevada Gov. Jim Gibbons, North Dakota Gov. John Hoeven, Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman and Wyoming Gov. Dave Freudenthal.
Hilarious!
You go on to say:
As of Aug. 26th, voters trusted Obama more than McCain (by only a slight amount) on the economy
Um, from your link
Parody much?
If they were honest with themselves, they'd admit that Palin is not ready to become President if she had to. I'm confident that McCain doesn't think she's ready. This decision was purely about Nov. 4, not Nov. 5 and beyond.
And from what I can tell, almost all of the enthusiasm for Palin on conservative sites is over her looks, not her competence or experience. Internet nerd crushes do not good Presidents make.
Except you can't demonstrate this.
Further, I put up a link to a focus group of independent voters saying their top issue was in line with McCain's.
Now go ahead and dispute that by posting another link to a poll supporting what I said, clown.
Laugh out loud funny.
How then, do you explain this?
Don't worry, you don't have an answer. You're too busy deluding yourself.
I did enjoy this, however:
Go ahead and return to your delusions now.
Laugh out loud funny.
Gee, I wonder why you didn't say Governor?
Thank you for demonstrating how good this selection was.
----------------
almost all of the enthusiasm for Palin on conservative sites is over her looks, not her competence or experience
Seriously, from an Obama voter!
Again, you can't parody you people any longer.
Don't worry, wave your arms and shout "Palin"! I'm sure that will work.
I do think the "executive experience" argument is a joke.
I live in a town of 30,000, which is about 4 times larger than the town of which Ms. Palin was mayor. I live near a city that has more people than Alaska. I would not pick the mayor of either town to be VP because of their executive experience.
Why do you think you're typing such silly things?
Want to take a guess?
Is that why there are positions such as "campaign director" and "campaign manager" and "director of outreach" and such?
You are so deluded it is pathetic.
Despite David's complete shift in his objection to Palin, I think his objection has some worth. If it turns out that Palin has completely nutty views on a number of these issues, it will be a mistake to have chosen her. I doubt she does, but who knows. She has perfectly reasonable views on the subject that I do know she's commented about: energy, the environment, gay rights, Second Amendment, pork, governmental reform, etc. Moreover, I am curious whether David would ever support a Governor for President or VP. Most governors are not regularly asked their views on European Union integration or the effectiveness of international aid programs. So perhaps it is simply the case that David would just never support a Governor, and will only support Senators and Congressmen who have expressed views on these federal or international concerns. (Heck, I'd like to know how many of these subjects Obama had expressed a view on prior to his running for President.)
Uh, yeah, not so much:
In fact, Obama has been running as a "post partisan" candidate.
Sarah Palin was Mayor of the fastest growing town in Alaska.
Barack Obama has never held a single full-time job for more than three years.
Bill Clinton was the Governor of a state with approximately 2,000,000 when he ran for President (which I acknowledge is more than Alaska's 640,000). Did you, by any chance not support him because there are many American cities with a larger population than Arkansas?
One thing that concerns me about her initial introduction and some of the videos of her on YouTube is her "aww shucks" persona. We have some serious foreign policy issues to face, and while the hockey mom schtick plays well in Peoria, it's less useful on the international stage.
It's kind of a bizarre pick. I would have rather seen Kay Baily Hutchinson or Christie Todd Whitman as a VP pick for McCain. Both are much more qualified.
For the hyper-partisans on the right: Obama has been articulating his policy positions for over a year. You can go to his website and find a policy on just about anything you want. Hell, the other day I found a widget that would allow you to calculate how your taxes would change under McCain's vs. Obama's tax plan.
Saying you don't know what Obama believes after a year of 24/7 campaigning means you either don't care or you are just repeating talking points.
Noted. The next time I judge the ability of corporate president I'll make sure he doesn't have a "VP of Finance," "VP of Marketing," or anyone else that he hires to help run the business.
Have you actually ever worked in a place where there is a hierarchical structure and the guy at the top delegates authority to others? But go ahead and pretend that Obama isn't managing an organization that has done something Republicans were never able to: defeat the Clinton political machine.
That will be happening soon, right?
Right?
What I find comical is you actually believe this means something.
And again, Obama voters are talking about experience. You people can no longer be parodied.
Please then explain why Obama said the DC handgun ban (and Chicago's) was constitutional, then post Heller said the Supreme Court endorsed his view.
After you're done not doing then, tell us exactly how Obama feels about the 2nd Amendment.
Thanks.
Frankly, I think you are pissed off because she isn't a Yalie like you and isn't a lawyer. Get over yourself. She's done something you've never done - she has gotten elected to a statewide office. And she did it while raising a family and supporting her husband's fishing business. She lives in the real world and not the world of ethereal discussions of Internet law or Antonio Gramsci's theories on EuroCommunism.
Moreover, if I were in a gunfight, I'd rather have her defending my back than you. At least I know she is a straight shooter both figuratively and literally.
Two years ago she faced a primary election against the sitting governor, Frank Murkowski, who had been elected to the US Senate four times before he was elected to the governorship, and who was supported by the state Republican Party - as well as another candidate who had strong support in the Interior of the state and with the business community. She creamed them both.
In the general election, she faced Tony Knowles, who is as good looking as her (although older), had been the very popular two-term mayor of Anchorage, and then had been a two-term governor. She creamed him.
Biden will be surprised
It's funny, to the leftists posting here, this doesn't count.
Just that Obama "defeated the Clintons" and such.
Obama has never defeated an incumbent. Why?
He's never run against one.
McCain realizes that Rule No. 2 applies.
It's true that Palin doesn't have any experience to speak of in foreign policy or national issues. But while Obama has more, it's not by much. What may be more important, though, is Palin's experience in politics. Palin managed to defeat a sitting governor in a primary (a rare event, though McCaskill also pulled it off in MO) and then defeated a popular former governor in the general. If that doesn't give the Obama campaign pause, they're the ones who are out of touch.
Whether Palin turns out to be a smart pick for McCain will in the end depend on Palin. If she campaigns effectively and doesn't make any serious gaffes, McCain can win and his choice will be inspired. If she steps on it, McCain's pick will be remembered as desperate and stupid. It all depends on Palin. But, then again, that's what risk is all about.
No yardstick you can use for Palin is one in which Obama beats her alone, except measures against which McCain beats Obama.
And all that before you consider Obama's downsides.
Has executive experience:
Palin > Obama
Has senatorial experience:
McCain > Obama:
Not as far left:
McCain > Obama
Doesn't have an unrepentent terrorist for bestest friend EVUH!
McCain > Obama
Cluebat 2008 for Obama, "Ur doin' it wrong!"
Yours, TDP, ml, msl, &pfpp
tell me something david--if you're worried about a Palin gaffe in the next two months are you equally as worried about Biden's 4 or 5 gaffes?
will you be on Biden's MBNA slush fund while Palin pretty much outed all of the corrupt legislators in alaska..even of her own party?
how do you reconcile Obama's lack of experience, the fact that he hasn't articulated clear opinions on many of your issues (the gulf war? the fed reserve bank? hahahaha) or the fact that he hasn't had as much executive experience as Palin.
Also, Palin has actually had some foreign policy experience...she part of the northern forum and has worked with numerous leaders http://www.northernforum.org/servlet/content/mission.html
Facts have a liberal bias.
It means that we won't be seeing Bush/Clinton/Bush/Clinton in the White House. The thing is, it doesn't matter if Obama has executive experience. If he did, then he would be a commie. Or a stealth Muslim. Or something else that would make him utterly unacceptable to you. There is no line Obama could cross that would mean he was fit to be president for you.
That's fine. You don't like his policies. But stop pretending it's about anything other than that. It's like concern trolling on meth.
My guess is Obama is a gun grabbing Democrat (Biden certainly is), but he's smart enough to know that the Dems have lost that issue. There is no way the Democrats can compete in western states if they run on gun bans. Would Obama like to reenact the idiotic "Assualt Weapons Ban?" Probably. But even with Democratic control of Congress I doubt a President Obama would try it. The blowback in places like New Mexico, Colorado, Montana and Virginia would be huge on the state and national level.
Um, when did Michael Moore ask him about it?
When is the other son going again?
Both of McCain's are in the military.
That's fine. You don't like his policies. But stop pretending it's about anything other than that
Except I never said otherwise.
Nor did I imply it.
I love the fact you see fit to post a talking point.
Facts actually don't have a liberal, or any, bias at all.
Or, in the case of "facts" did you mean this?
Which is an out &out lie.
No they don't.
But I find it hysterical leftists, the same people mocking Bush's TANG service, are puffing their chest's out about a JAG going to Iraq.
Too rich.
Why is there guessing involved?!
Obama has posted his potions and been running for a year 24/7, dammit!
Fair enough. Now, if you can contain yourself, do you think Gov. Palin is qualified to be the Vice President? If the unthinkable were to happen and President McCain were to pass, do you think Gov. Palin would be up for the job given the issues this nation faces (two wars, a bellicose Russia and Iran)?
I haven't looked at his policy positions on gun, but it's easy to assume that any Democrat from a major city is anti-gun. Gun control isn't a big issue at the moment because, luckily, the Republicans have won for now. The emergence and importance of western Democrats should temper the gun grabbing for a while.
Joe Biden has zero executive experience.
John McCain has military command experience.
Sarah Palin has executive experience as Governor of the largest state in the Union - and as Mayor of the fastest-growing town in Alaska. (Personally, I like small-town America).
On the experience issue, McCain and Palin win.
Besides, the "foreign policy experience" argument is non-serious. What was the "foreign policy experience" of Ronald Reagan, Franklin Roosevelt or Margaret Thatcher?
A great President is a great leader. Leadership skills are most clearly seen in people who have actually led: like McCain and Palin.
The "foreign policy experience" argument is actually a negative to me. I'd rather have someone with clear leadership skills as an American chief executive (like Governor Palin) - or military command experience (like McCain) - not someone who sat on some foreign affairs committee in Congress (like Biden).
Also - Palin's approval ratings in Alaska have consistently been over 80%! She's a leader. So is McCain. Obama and Biden are legislators - they've never held an executive or command position in their lives.
On experience McCain and Palin win.
Sarah Palin runs a State. Barack Obama runs his mouth. (And Obama's on the TOP of the ticket - sheez).
AIDS policy
Gee, that's real complicated and all."
Yeah. I suspect she's against AIDS.
Next question.
I don't see why not?
Nothing about her record indicates she has poor judgment and she is running a state bordering 2 countries.
"Qualified" is in the eye of the beholder I suppose.
I would argue all night that Biden is not qualified to president.
Obama has no experience running anything other than a political campaign. Palin has just successfully completed a campaign of bringing in her gas pipeline proposal against the opposition of some of the largest oil companies in the world. (The proposed gas pipeline may be the largest civil construction project in history).
The "foreign policy experience" argument is actually a negative to me
I agree. The idea that Biden has some significant insights on foreign policy because he is on that committee is laughable.
Frum, noting that McCain’s campaign slogan is “country first”, gets it right: “But question: If it were your decision, and you were putting your country first, would you put an untested small-town mayor a heartbeat away from the presidency?”
Palin is another Harriet Myers, except that, unlike Myers, Palin won’t withdraw and won’t be replaced.
The GOP is the part of principle. Palin was not a principled pick (Romney, e.g., would have been).
She does have about two years as governor of one of the least populous states, one whose economy based on resource extraction doesn't extrapolate to the rest of the country. That's not nothing, but there is no evidence so far that she knows anything about national or international issues.
It's somewhat tedious to read the "Ace" robopost little snippets of approved talking point snark. Can anyone doubt that if McCain had nominated Charles Manson, the Ace would be talking it up as a stroke of genius?
Yes. *I* doubt it. Manson was a *murderer.* That is very bad, you know.
they should be a harvard or yale educated lawyer or a millionare in order to know what this country is actually about
Someone gets it.
If she was a liberal Dem, rather than a conservative GOP, who went to Brown or Dartmouth, rather than the University of Idaho, who was the governor of Vermont or NH, rather than Alaska, how much of this conversation would we be currently having?
I think it may be too early to say that. Miers had a long resume showing her experience and it was not SCOTUS worthy. On the upside, the nomination made picking out the blind partisans easy.
Gov. Palin is an unknown quantity at this point. We know about some of her conservative credentials, and she has apparently done some good things by cleaning up Alaskan corruption, but Prof. Post asks a valid question about her other views.
I'm sure the word count would be similar, but the topic would be how the liberal Dem was really a commieislamofascist that hated the United States and wanted everyone to get gay married and have forced abortions right after Sharia law was enacted.
"I guess only Ivy Leaguers can ever be in the White House. "
Someone gets it.
If she was a liberal Dem, rather than a conservative GOP, who went to Brown or Dartmouth . . . "
OK. But *not* Cornell or Penn. I mean, we really *can* do better than that.
Hope he's getting paid for his efforts.
OK. But *not* Cornell or Penn. I mean, we really *can* do better than that.
*gasp* how dare you!
Obama on his subordinate's comments on Palin: "I think that, uh, you know campaigns start getting these uh, hair triggers and, uh, the statement that Joe and I put out reflects our sentiments," he said, according to the pool report, apparently criticizing his staff for going overboard, as he did occasionally in the primary."
Palin, meanwhile, had to actually take responsibility for her actions as governor, and when others pushed an investigation into that trooper non-scandal, she welcomed the investigation.
If Obama has "executive experience", it seems to be mostly directed at passing the buck and blaming subordinates.
Is the GOP the party of principle?
Was Palin a principled choice, by your lights?
Could McCain have made a more principled choice (e.g., Romney) and still have been competitive in the election?
PC says, "I think it may be too early to say that." and "Gov. Palin is an unknown quantity at this point."
I agree, on both counts. But, it's generally not advisable to select "unknown quantities" when competitive known quantities are available. And, unknown quantities have not always worked out for the GOP. Palin could be another Souter (who is probably a better comparison than Myers); who knows?
There were plenty of known quantities in the GOP who would have been competitive.
Funny, Obama's gaffes did not seem to disturb his supporters or the media.
I think Palin is a better pick than Romney.
I really like the fact that she took on republican incumbents and beat them. Lots of old boy rot in the republican party and it is good to promote those who run the old boys out of office.
Furthermore, Palin was not picked in a vacuum. The other potential picks Romney, Huckabee, Lieberman, Giuliani all had substantial downsides.
I think we need to disentangle qualification for the office from qualification for campaigning. I'll admit we don't know for sure how Palin will stand up on the national stage, but given your opinion of her, what's the problem with that? Its a self-correcting problem.
On qualification for the office: she has executive experience, she's taken on political corruption and pork-barrel earmarks, she's advanced natural gas pipelines and oil drilling.
What angers me are the implications of taking you seriously on being qualified for office. Apparently a candidate needs to play the DC-New York-Los Angeles media and social circuits. She needs to see and be seen. Executive experience in a western state, with half its land owned by the federal government, that has to maintain a healthy economy and tax base in the face of east coast dominated federal influence on land use and regulations doesn't qualify a person for high office. For that they need to play the DC game. Well, screw that.
Funny, Obama's gaffes did not seem to disturb his supporters or the media."
Bzzzing, there are some much better jabs on this thread. I think Obama is smart, but the guy has made more gaffes than most politicians would have survived had not they not been the chosen one by the media/political elite/intelligentsia.
I think that was true about Truman also, and now he's everyone's favorite president. (He had horrible approval ratings at the time, though.)
Is that really the best you can do? Look at the video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EpGH02DtIws). It's clear he slipped and said "57" when he meant "47." Compare that to a few of McCain's:
Iran is training Al-Qaeda
Surge allowed the Anbar Awakening to begin
Czechoslovakia
See, that's the difference between character and expediency. Too bad you don't understand. But American voters might be a little more perceptive.