McCain undoubtedly thinks he has his national security bases covered; picking Palin shows that, unlike Obama, he doesn't need an eminence grise like Biden to add heft to his ticket. But surely McCain recognizes that Palin may have to fill his shoes someday. By choosing her anyway, he has demonstrated hubris well beyond anything Obama has displayed on his most arrogant day: a belief that he can master unforeseen circumstances, physical and otherwise, that are well beyond his control. This is insulting and dangerous and suggests that McCain may want to think twice before accusing Obama of putting his personal ambition ahead of the national interest.I heard Paul Begala make this point earlier. Dems should be leery of directly attacking Palin, if only because they don't have to. All they have to do is ask what this choice says about McCain. What does it mean that a dude puts someone a heartbeat away from the nuke button who he's only met once? Especially claiming Barack Obama wasn't ready. That is the real question.
« Worlds collide | Main | Because it's Friday » Basically29 Aug 2008 09:12 pm
You guys are gonna O.D. on Sarah Palin today. Oh well. I'm in hotel room outside Denver holding until it's time for my Red Eye back to New York. I need the company. Anyway here Peter Scolbic sonning John McCain. (I'm going to run that word into a hole, if only because the response to it was so hilarious):
Comments (28)Comments on this entry have been closed. |
Today's Headlines From The Atlantic |
The Beautiful Struggle: A Father, Two Sons, and an Unlikely Road to Manhood 
Copyright © 2009 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
To go a step further than don't attack Palin -- Put to her the questions required of anyone seeking the position and see if she knows what she's talking about or is there for her her-ness alone. Does she have a sophisticated grasp of foreign policy? How is the McCain/Palin ticket's position on health care better than Obama/Biden. Why does privatization of social security work better for the average American? The dreaded "compare and contrast" questions on all issues facing candidates in this election.
I know sadly it's not about what a candidate knows but what their image is, but I'm ever hopeful. I think the O/B ticket can think rings around M/P, if that matters.
"She's not from these parts and she's not from Washington, but when you get to know her, you're going to be as impressed as I am." John McCain, after meeting Sarah Palin *once* and talking to her on the phone. Point, set, match.
Sarah Palin was a Buchanan supporter in 2000? Wasn't Buchanan excommunicated from the GOP for his views on Jewish folks, immigration, etc. (aka Farrakhan with a TV gig)? Has Palin renounced and rejected Buchanan's views? Has anyone asked her position on Isreal/Palestine? I mean, I'm not sure Romney or Huckabee are great shakes, but at least they have thought about Iraq, Iran, etc. Kay Bailey Hutchinson has voted on foreign policy issues-- if you're trying to bag Hillary supporters, isn't Hutchinson your choice?
I think this is like the NBA/NFL draft when someone makes a pick from left field, and the experts look at each other and think, WTF?
Hicks is right about the questions, but it needs to be the media and pundits asking them; Obama and Biden and major surrogates should focus on McCain. A little surprise that he would pick someone he didn't know well, rather than a full bore assault on her. (The assault is coming off too much as "it's just that she's a girl" and "moose hunting ha ha." At least go after her actual policy stances--a few have come to light--rather than mocking her biography.)
As Lemar notes, Kay Bailey Hutchinson, Olympia Snowe--there were Republican women with substantive records, serious picks. The genuflections toward Hillary seem odd if this pick follows on the Clintons rave-reviewed speeches of Tues and Wed.
Of course, we're all in agreement that he had no good pick, so I can see where a novel pick has something to recommend it. And there's still a chance she'll come across as a sensible hockey mom who can get everyone to practice on time and still run the government.
I should have waited for this topic to go off on McCain. The thing to know is that McCain is far more dangerous than Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld. He's completely beyond the pale of rationality as Peter Scolbic seems to be hinting.
Will someone, anyone, tell me where the notion of Obama being "arrogant" is demonstrated? [Obama's "most arrogant day"?] I don't see it at all. Confidence and self-awareness are not arrogance. Arrogance is a loaded word that people so facilely lay around Obama's neck. I've seen it used by people across the political spectrum. I know being intelligent doesn't mean a person is smart, anymore than being a ethical person means a person is moral. But the continued use of the word "arrogance" to describe Obama is getting very stupid, and overtly racist.
Adin
As a woman, I'm offended. Offended that someone so obviously unqualified got the job. This reminds me of Clarence Thomas. There were a number of HIGHLY QUALIFIED, INTELLECTUAL BLACK REPUBICAN JUDGES that Bush 41 could have chosen. He chose that clown Thomas.
Same here.
I've been having debates around the blogosphere. The names brought up?
Kay Bailey Hutchinson,Fiorina, The Whitmans (Meg and Christine Todd), even Olympia Snowe.
I agree with some of these women, disagree on a lot, but they were all qualified - you could make the case they were.
All I've heard is that she has ' executive experience'. She's been running Alaska for one month longer than Obama's been running for President. And she already has two investigations going on her?
Puleeze.
Country First?
GMAFB.
McCain's had cancer FOUR TIMES.
And, THIS is who he believes can answer the 3 a.m. call?
Deborah and rikyrah:
I guess pro-choice women were forbidden (Snowe is pro choice, I don't know if Hutchinson is pro-choice or not pro-life enough?). I think that's why Jody (sp?) Rell was a non starter.
So are there any pro-life women out there who would have appealed to the PUMAs?
If there aren't many-- it is sort of the republican tactic-- nominate a woman (even one who is more conservative than Pat Buchanan) to look moderate to suburbanites (see also, candidate GW Bush going to speak to the NAACP or the flip side, Obama going to saddleback)
In all honesty, Gov Palin seems intelligent enough to be able to answer the most profound questions in foreign policy by the time of the debates.
And this is because the nation that yields the greatest power in the world is impervious to the inherent complexities of diplomacy as exemplified by say Eurocrats and the guys who walk the corridors of the UN.
Yours truly could become a deeper foreign policy wonk than Reagan, Dan Quayle, Kemp, and GWB, combined, within a couple weeks.
Biden will come out as more experienced etc., but winning a debate a la Bentsen v Quayle requires that the other guy be a moron. And Gov Palin, as much as I'd like to keep her away from higher office because of her views, is anything but.
Ok this is going to sound all weird and conspiracy theory but....
Does anyone else think Palin might be a shadow candidate? That they want someone without solid Washington relationships, who a month ago didn't really have enough information on what the Vice President actually did to talk about what she thought of the office, so that should McCain win, she can easily be marginalized by other powers within the party?
It's just that this pick is so weird. It's really like picking someone for surface and not function.
All I've heard is that she has ' executive experience'. She's been running Alaska for one month longer than Obama's been running for President. And she already has two investigations going on her?
If running for President qualifies for executive experience, we would have had President Lyndon Larouche or President Pat Paulson by now. I think Palin is a weak pick, but she has been Gov. for as long as Tim Kaine, and he was considered by Obama.
Doug
Kaine has been governor for a year longer-- and noted super genius Karl Rove supposedly stated that Kaine was too inexperienced to be VP and he was just a political pick (sorry, I'm too lazy to put up a link, but the link was on dailykos)
Doug,
This equation with Tim Kaine is a strawman argument.
(1) Obama didn't pick Tim Kaine.
(2) Virginia has 8M people. Alaska has less than 7K.
(3) Before Kaine was Governor, he was Lt. Governor for 6 years, and before that was Mayor of Richmond, VA (pop 200K, and the metro area has a population of over 1M). Before Palin was Governor, she was a mayor of a town of 6500.
To go with the sports draft analogy: this is like the Padres drafting Matt Bush first overall.
The US city nearest in population to Alaska: Fort Worth, Texas. Would you want the mayor of Fort Worth to have his/her finger on the button?
The network spin on this is fucking hilarious. Made even funnier by how much they're pushing gender politics, seemingly having enlisted every female conservative mouthpiece they could find.
I'd be very leery of going after Palin hard and think the Obama camp's first statement was stupid politics. The media and surragates will tear her up. Obama needs to keep his hands clean and not seem to be piling on.
I have seen some people on the nets criticize her for having a baby and being Governor. This is another no go area. If the positions were reversed and the Obamas had a new baby, no one would blame Barak for running. This is an unfair attack on women in politics in general.
So when do you all think the buzz will wear off in the McCain campaign and they will wake up and go "oh shit...what have we done?"
"I have seen some people on the nets criticize her for having a baby and being Governor. This is another no go area. If the positions were reversed and the Obamas had a new baby, no one would blame Barak for running. This is an unfair attack on women in politics in general."
Really? I'm kind of surprised at that criticism. That said, call me sexist, but I would hope she'd refrain from having more children while being VP (or, god forbid, President). I want a president who will be able to put in all the necessary work for the office; taking a couple months off due to the stress of having a child doesn't allow for that. Being a governor, this isn't so much of an issue, as it's perfectly acceptable to spend a fair amount of time at home, not traveling. For a veep, however, a big part of the job is to conduct diplomacy abroad. Moreover, if she were to have a child and go straight back into the work force, it would quickly serve as a Republican talking point against expanding maternity leave, thus potentially taking us in the opposite direction of where we need to go. I hope that makes sense and isn't particularly offensive.
Experience attacks are lose lose for Obama on this one.
Experience attacks will not work. They will immediately bounce off Palin and stick to Obama (on the top of the Dem ticket).
Harping on it will eventually look sexist too.
The story is too feel good for the media to jump all the way over to "crazy coot McCain" lost his bearings and made in irresponsible pick.
I assume she will have to address the Buchanan questions, however.
although, past associations aren't exactly the Dem ticket strong suit, and again it is the top of the ticket with the problems there.
McCain has improved his odds considerably.
RE: Bart
The Obama campaign doesn't need to hit her inexperience, that's not the point. What it does is neutralize the argument for Obama's inexperience, as she's been in charge of a state with the population of Fort Worth and is a self-professed foreign policy neophyte, a realm that is supposed to be McCain's forte. John's an old man, and it's fucking terrifying that this woman who didn't care about foreign policy until very, very recently might end up as commander in chief. Obama has a much longer and stronger record on foreign policy, and it seems a bit foolish for McCain to make this choice considering that he isn't particularly good at arguing foreign policy and the Dems made it pretty clear that they're going to engage the Republicans on foreign policy this year.
Obviously, John McCain felt the need to add veteran Alaskan politician Sarah Palin to his ticket in order to shore up his total lack of executive experience.
Palin was chosen to energize the Republican base.
Given her Buchanan background, this may ensure that Florida goes Democrat.
Which would be strangely fitting.
The reason I think the Kaine arguement isn't a complete strawman is because Kaine was one of the finalists. If that kind of inexperience was disqualifying, he wouldn't have been vetted. And his tenure as Mayor was more a glorified City Council president job.
Of course Rove brought up the inexperience angle when it favored him. Dems brought up the carpetbagger issue with Alan Keyes in Ill., while Reps brought it up against Clinton in NY. It is simple political hackery, a bi-partisan sin.
That said, I think she has glaring weaknesses, which the press will probably start to constantly bring up as the election day gets closer.
Whitey mentioned Dems engaging McCain on foreign policy. I think this would be a huge mistake for two reasons. First, McCain got a decent bump and good press during the Georgian conflict when the focus was on foreign policy. Secondly, it goes away from Obama's obvious strength; that the economy is very bumpy and the election is more a referendum on that. Why wasted time talking about what John McCain wants to talk about?
I would feel better if a few months ago she was at least interested enough to know what the Vice President does. "Someone needs to answer for me what is it exactly what a VP does everyday." (See below 2 minutes in...)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pak-rH0dCeA
So when do you all think the buzz will wear off in the McCain campaign and they will wake up and go "oh shit...what have we done?"
It's already in the news that the McCain campaign is sending people to Alaska to investigate Palin's problem with trying to get her former brother-in-law fired. The Public Safety Commissioner she fired is already speaking out about harrassing phone calls from Palin.
The "oh, shit" moment may have come just moments after the announcement. It may be just a mole hill, but it is from mole hills that mountains are built under the intense scrutiny of a campaign for President of the United States.
Someone does need to find the Karl Rove interview (in which he scoffs at Kaine as veep because a "mere" 3 years as governor of the "small" state of Virginia, and earlier mayor of the "tiny" city of Richmond, are obviously inadequate preparation for veephood) and get him on the record about why those arguments do or don't apply to Palin. But the point there is twisting Karl Rove, and by extension his critiques of readiness.
I'm coming to the message discipline view--a lot of the dismissive attacks on Palin come across as the worst sort of Dem elitism, snotting at her beauty pageants and salmon fishing and little moose-infested state. That doesn't play in the Mountain West segment of the country that Dems were hoping to flip from purple to blue this year--she might help there on her own, but with a full-bore sneer coming from blue states it could really do damage.
Obama and Biden seem to be on-message and getting the campaign roped in--let the press and pundits do this. There are real problems with her record that should come to light, but she is over 35, a US-born citizen, and she has experience at the state executive level. (The last is my own criterion--must have been a governor or in Congress; see Perot's implied threat to fire Congress if they didn't do as he said.) She passes the minimum qualifications to be president. After that the focus should be on the weaknesses at the top of the ticket, with occasional passes at "it's surprising McCain would pick someone he had met once, briefly, and someone who abused her power by firing the public safety commisioner after he failed to fire her ex-brother-in-law."
A black person who is unqualified is different than a white person who is unqualified...in the eyes of lots of white folks (you know, what King would call the "unconscious racists") I don't know the degree to which this will play, but let's just stop pretending that people are looking at the candidates equally. That when they talk about experience of McCain and experience of Obama and whoever, that those things mean something different in their head. Even if they don't.
I think we also underestimate the degree to which White women may want to see one of their own. I do think they want some one "qualified" (in the best sense of that term). But have they been displaying a lot rational thinking over the past 4 months?
I'd like this to be about the issues, and experience, and whatnot? But McCain just made this about identity politics again. It would be foolish to ignore it. Because its there.
I could be wrong. Maybe the right will eat their own like they did with poor Harriet Miers. But the stakes are higher now, right?
Are we really surprised such a cynical choice was made?
Obama shouldn't attack Palin for being experienced. He should thank McCain for demonstrating with this pick that McCain thinks Obama is qualified and experienced enough to be president.
Whitey: re: Matt Bush
I like it. I give you a proposed trade (summer 2007) You are GM of the Baltimore Ravens, and need a QB. I, as GM of the Atlanta Falcons, offer you Mike Vick for a first round pick (and btw, there is an investigation underway for some dog stuff.
Do you make the trade? How is this different than the Palin pick (she could be innocent, but hey, would you sign R. Kelly to a 10 record deal a year ago knowing he was facing a trial)?
If you make the trade (without the benefit of hindsight), would you be fired as GM?