What do y’all think?
I guess my overall take is that it reflects very poorly on McCain. McCain made a horrible pick, and made it without thinking about it or caring about the consequences. This is not a good sign for someone who’s campaign is based on judgment.
Another blogger used this analogy. Both Obama and McCain gambled. Obama played poker. He figured out his odds, weighed the circumstances, and made a move. It might not work, but it’s the best play he can make. McCain played craps, he just rolled the dice and hoped things would work out. Which seems like a better character trait?
I agree with both Art’s and Biff’s last posts. Although Obama has been in the spotlight for a few years now and is somewhat vetted, his inexperience still scares me. Biden’s experience, although contradictory to Obama’s original anti-Washington position, helps the ticket (for me at least). And McCain’s selection of Palin turned out to be an absolute (strategically) brilliant choice; but her inexperience and the public’s lack of information on her does scare me too especially with McCain’s age. That’s why I am not that excited about either ticket, and am still undecided unlike Muttroxia’s readership constituent.
With that being said, no matter who gets elected, I love the US govt. checks and balance system so that gives me some comfort.
Palin might not be a dumb country hick, but does she have what it takes to be an effective president? We don’t know, because a) up until two weeks ago, most of us had never heard of her, and b) she’s never said an unscripted word to majority of the country. Hell, all she’s really said is “thanks but no thanks to the bridge to nowhere” in speeches about 50 times. The point is, McCain didn’t know either when he picked her as VP. By all accounts, he had met her one time at a meeting of governors, and then met her a second time to offer her the VP slot. I read a blog in which someone said it very well — “I wouldn’t even let a person I met only once babysit my grandchildren, let alone be a heartbeat away from being in charge of the military and the most powerful person in the world.”
typo alert – I meant POUS
I agree VP is a very important role, but OPUS is an even more important role. We can easily turn around the ‘inexpereinced’ arguement at Obama, who I believe is also ill-experienced to be president (and he’s the #1 pick !!!). Remember that Palin IS a current governor. I know Alaska is not like NY or IL, but that’s OK in my book. All the members of the DC intelligencia who mock her because of where she’s from should just shut up. Biden is from Delaware and do you hear any mocking of Delaware? That sort of thing is turning off Rural America and helping McCain big time. I admit there is a certain celebrity-worshiping going on among the right wing nuts out there, but is it any different than Obamamania among the left-wing? Unfortunately style and personality matters on both tickets. It helped Obama big time vs Hillary. Maybe I’m way off my rocker but I personally don’t believe that Palin has no substance. I don’t think she is a dumb country hick that so many are trying to portray her to be.
Interesting commentary
Art,
Two responses.
1) I don’t think energizing the base is a good strategy. This election cycle your base is a lot smaller than ours. It’s the “AND” you point out that’s interesting. If she can expand the base, then you might have something.
2) Once again, she might be a good pick politically, but it’s still fundamentally an insulting choice. Is there anyone who can defend her abilities or knowledge or anything that’s relevant to being a good president? The Vice President is not just some kind of campaign bonus card that gets played, it’s an enormously important role. Does she add anything that isn’t empty politics?
I have to admit that if I was Liberal I would be arguing the same Palin talking points. There’s lots of ammunition there. There’s an article you guys will love by Joe Klein in Time this week. He paints Obama as the conservative and McCain as the radical, because of their VP picks. BUT, in my opinion, she was a good pick, because she energized the base in no way MCain could have done with Romney, Ridge or Lieberman. AND she will get some of the blue-collar undecided voters in PA and OH (check out this morning’s USA Today poll). Roll of the dice? Absolutely! But one that I think will pay off for McCain.
Muttrox is right — I was not being sarcastic, and he explained the point very well. Of course it does not automatically qualify him to be pres, but it’s an argument against the “he’s spent his entire Senate career running for president”, which we hear over and over again. Barack largely won the primary over Hillary because of the effectiveness of his organization, particularly in caucus states where organization was critical to getting out the vote. Funny, because he got a lot of criticism from Rudy during the convention, who almost certainly ran the worst campaign of any candidate (tens of millions of dollars of investment for one delegate).
My other point is, how can you possibly think that Palin is qualified for the job when she has not yet said one unscripted word to America? When we’re talking about VP, you just can’t give someone the total benefit of the doubt.
I don’t think he is. I’ve seen that comparison written up a lot also. It’s easy to forget that the race started off with a massive advantage to Hilary. He took her on and won. All indications are that he ran his campaign in an extremely cohesive disciplined way, vastly superior to the other operations. There were essentially no screwups and a much better strategy (the focus on caucus states and “swing” states). It’s a huge organization he’s at the head of, and he’s been running it for a couple years. Does that automatically qualify him for the presidency? Not at all. But it probably involved more people than there are in Alaska, and he was the one in charge of it.
Is Biff being sarcastic with the “running for pres” statement? Wow.
“Where’s Tim Russert when you need him?” Hell, I’d pay money to see Sarah Palin on either The Daily Show or The Colbert Report — those guys know how to grill a politician! The MSM should be taking notes…
Another Republican talking point that falls flat — Palin has as much experience (or more) as Obama, and besides, Obama’s been out running a presidential campaign instead of being a Senator anyway. I’d argue that running for president gives Obama many times more pertinent experience to be president than being any old Senator. For about two years, the man has been running a major organization in his presidential campaign (and running it pretty damn well, by the way), he’s had a couple dozen debates, he’s been pretty much everywhere in the country to meet with voters and learn about issues, he’s traveled abroad to meet with world leaders, he has daily media appearances answering questions about the issues of the day, etc. What is better prep to being president — all of this, or running the state of Alaska, which (although not to the fault of Palin) is in the middle of nowhere and is focused on many issues that are likely not a factor nationally or internationally.
The main issues with Palin are twofold — her lack of experience, but also just how little we know about her. And I’m not talking about all of the skeletons that the media is trying to dig up. I have a basic question — is she intelligent or just charismatic? Is she informed or ignorant? All we know of her so far is a couple of well scripted speeches. Where’s Tim Russert when you need him? Let’s see her do an hour with Tom Brokaw, of Stephanopoulos, or anyone besides Fox News, for that matter. All of the other major Pres & VP candidates are doing major TV appearances this weekend on the talk show circuit — except one. Guess which one.
Much less important, but a few more smaller rebuttals.
“She said no to wasteful projects.” Bull. She went for pork just like everyone else. I hope you’re not referring to the Bridge to Nowhere, which she supported, then said she didn’t, but took the money anyhow.
She does know something about energy, I give her that. Unfortunately, her viewpoint is the opposite of the rest of the country. I pretty much agree with this, read it. Alaska is subsidized and runs an enormous surplus via drilling. All Alaskan politicians know about energy, meaning they know how to drill. Does she know anything about solar? Does she know anything about the politics of OPEC? Does she know anything about our relationship with Saudi Arabia?
I don’t much care about the pregnant daughter. I think she’s not corrupt enough to bother me (Troopergate or whatever they’re calling it is no big deal.) I don’t care much about the Downs Syndrome kid or her gender or any of that crap. She seems like a nice person. Big deal. She shouldn’t be president.
Wow Woodson, good recitation of the talking points. Too bad so many of them are irrelevant or wrong. Executive experience is a stupid measure. I was the head of my condo board for two years. That technically means I have more executive experience than Palin. You can’t even argue with a straight face that Palin’s experience is remotely in the same ballpark as any of the other three. Vernon Jones would be a wise old man compared to her. She doesn’t know the first thing about any issue with national importance. I can’t believe I even have to argue this point.
To use another analogy – who would hire to run GM or Hewlett-Packard? My wife, who has successfully run her one man operation for three years, or Bill Clinton, who has never been a CEO. By your logic, my wife is more qualified. Whatever your feelings about Bill Clinton, his experience and skill set are lightyears beyond my wife. (And that’s no disrespect to my wife. Let’s plug in someone else with a one-man operation.) The fact that he’s never been a CEO is insignificant compared to the resume he has at running large organizations and projects and people.
That’s why I say if McCain wins, the country loses. He chose someone who is manifestly unprepared for the job. Not only that, McCain didn’t take the time to find that out. He didn’t vet her, he didn’t examine her policies. What does that say about his judgment and decision-making? Everything else in your post is besides the point (even though I’ll argue it in just a sec).
“Unfortunately that is a good stance for her party.” Yeah, it’s mostly the GOP that I have a problem with — Palin is merely the latest embodiment of a set of beliefs that I find repugnant. Therefore I find it infuriating and frightening to see some otherwise rational people responding to her superficial characteristics and ignoring what the woman actually believes.
But hey, this too shall pass, and I’ll just move to Canada if necessary to maintain my sanity. (Might move there anyway — just got back from Vancouver, and it’s gorgeous!)
I am not a fan of the anti-choice position either. Unfortunately that is a good stance for her party. Fortunately, as VP I don’t see her having any role in changing that (unless McCain dies and she is somehow able to get a supreme court justice or 3 added)
WHOA. Just…whoa. “What is the big deal?” I’ll tell you the big deal. Sarah Palin is rabidly anti-abortion rights. (She probably wants to redefine the word abortion, too, which could impact my ability to obtain hormonal contraceptives — and that’s already in the works.) And she “chose to keep a child knowing how difficult it would be”? Excuse me, but according to her, neither she, her 17 year-old daughter, nor any other woman in this country should even HAVE a choice. So people applauding her for “choosing” to keep her Down syndrome baby are essentially applauding her hypocrisy, because according to Sarah, she HAD no choice — abortion is NEVER the answer.
GAH. Sorry. I could say more, but I’ll get too worked up. I’m apoplectic about Palin and about the overall possibility of a McCain presidency. If they win, I’m moving to Vancouver.
“If McCain wins, the country loses.” Dramatic much?
I don’t get the Palin hate. Take a look at Digg, and the majority of stories are anti-Palin. What is the big deal? Let’s be honest, the thing that the left hates about Palin is that she is the conservative version of Obama.
You need to remember that McCain isn’t the favorite of most GOP supporters. The man is clearly the preferred candidate of the two, but his views don’t necessarily line up with hardcore conservatives. I think Palin is a far better match. In fact, after the announcement, a few people said they thought she made a better presidential candidate than McCain.
If you want to talk about a politics pick (which, to be fair, all of the picks and positions are politics and not policy), take a look at the Obama camp. There was no other choice available to lead the charge on Change than an old, white, Washington insider? Really? I am supposed to be reassured that while Obama personally lacks experience, his backup is qualified? Gee, thanks.
Meanwhile, the Republicans are running a ballot with a very experienced presidential candidate and a VP with more executive branch experience than all of the other 3 combined. In my mind, running Alaska counts (I’m not trying to imply being Mayor counts). In fact, her state-level experience is as long as Obama was in Washington (except with less time away campaigning). And of course while running the state, she said no to wasteful projects and worked closely with important energy concerns (both kind of important in this election year).
The pregnant daughter is clearly a major blackeye for a party so impacted by the Religious Right, but I think the rest of her positions balance. The former PTA mom who has a son fighting overseas and chose to keep a child knowing how difficult it would be? Scoff if you want, but that’s the type of female candidate that gets people excited and is someone middle American can relate to. Not Hillary.
To summarize: the party of Change chose inexperience and the insider and the party that screwed up the country picked a candidate with very different ideals from the current president and a total outsider. Wait, which one was Change again?
I’m still not sure McCain can win this one. I do think no matter who is elected, they will only be there for 4 years. With the economy in the tanks, an unpopular war that you can’t leave, the loss of the world listening to the US (see Russia), and a Democratic controlled congress that hasn’t made any serious changes as promised, either candidate will look bad four years from now.
Biff – I agree with your gambling analysis/strategy. (What a surprise, huh?) If I was in a contest with Obama to get the most money, and there were no other considerations, that might be the best strategy.
But.
In a contest, you don’t bear any price for losing. In a casino, you lose money but no one else is affected. In this presidential game though, the stakes are different. If McCain wins, the country loses.
Here’s where I make the distinction between politics and policy. Let’s assume for the moment that Palin turns out to be a great campaigner, her convention speech is just getting her started, conservatives turn out in droves, all the Hilary voters follow her into the voting booth etc., and in fact she wins the election for McCain. That would be fantastic politics on McCain’s part.
But it would be terrible policy. She is self-evidently a horrible pick for VP. It’s a pick that elevates politics over policy. It’s a pick that says, I am going to throw the dice and hope to win, I don’t really care about the consequences to the country. It is the exact opposite of putting country first.
BTW, nothing like a good Muttroxia political discussion to get those comments a-flowing!
Once again I agree with Muttrox. I think it is a very irresponsible selection, and if McCain wins we’d better get him his own medical staff to travel along with him wherever he goes, as we don’t want Palin in the White House, that’s for damn sure.
However, I don’t necessarily think it was a bad move for him. He was in a losing position in this campaign, and needed a big move. I’ll use a slightly different gambling analogy. McCain could have just kept pushing out minimum bets, winning on some points and issues here and there, but gradually having his money bleed away, as the house will inevitably win in the long run. i.e. he could have played it safe and lost respectably, by low single digit points. But instead he put all of his money on a number on the roulette wheel. He still might lose, and he might crash-and-burn. But he could walk away with the big prize if the ball bounces just right (i.e. backlash against media, Palin exceeds low expectations in debate and doesn’t screw up on campaign trail, etc.).