John McCain's central and best argument in this campaign is that Barack Obama simply lacks the experience to be President of the United States. And now John McCain, who is a cancer survivor who turns 72 years old today, is picking a vice presidential nominee who has been governor of a small state for less than two years and prior to that was mayor of a town with roughly one-twenty-seventh of the citizens that Barack Obama represented when he was a state senator in Illinois.Also, if you're making a play for Hillary voters---older, middle-aged white women in rust-belt states--is the way to get it done by bypassing, say, Carly Fiorina and Kay Bailey Hutchison, to pick a former Ms. Alaska who's only been governor for two years? There's a meme about Barack Obama reminding older women of the slick, handsome guy who beat them out for a big promotion, even though they were more qualified. But here's another very likely meme--Sarah Palin as the inexperienced, younger, attractive woman who beats them out for a promotion, even though they were more qualified.
UPDATE: Just want to bang on that last point a little more, as I just got off the phone with Kenyatta. I think there are some weakness to being a party associated with identity politics, and hopefully, the Dems are moving past that. But if you think about it, this is the sort of mistake you make when you have only a vague understanding of sexism and women's issues. I may be very, very, very wrong about this, but let me go out on a limb. I think "Hillary voters" can only resent Barack Obama but so much because he actually won an election. He wasn't appointed--he actually won, and that's a crucial difference.
Palin was appointed by a 72-year old man who passed over many more qualified, older women for a much younger,
The Beautiful Struggle: A Father, Two Sons, and an Unlikely Road to Manhood 
If you need to pick someone to speak for "older, middle-aged white women in rust-belt states," please don't include Rosanne Bar on the list.
I must admit to be shocked. I do think the experience argument is over. And I don't know what he has left.
I'm curious to know if anybody else thinks that simply selecting a woman as a candidate also reeks of a one-dimensional view on women: They'll vote simply on the basis of gender!
As an ex-Contractor for HP/Agilent, let me just say that we should all be thrilled that it was not Carly.
Out of curiosity, do you really think that the people who see the "experience" argument as persuasive are the type to be on the fence? Quite honestly, the whole "experience" argument struck me as a convenient club with which to beat Obama.
Did the counter-arguments that applied to Obama with regards to the experience thing apply to Sarah?
I mean, yeah, this is an obvious pander to disguntled "but we wanted a woman" voters... do you really think that the disgruntled "but we wanted a woman" voters will be particularly moved by the "but she's younger and better looking and less experienced than Carly" argument?
I don't know. I think they might swallow their pride because it is a woman. I don't know that it gets you all of the Hillary white women, but I think it definitely gives you enough to keep this race interesting, to keep you alive in the game man. We should just not underestimate these women's desire to see their own in power. History tells us...
I will say that the "experience!" argument does sort of swing both ways... The Obama folks need to be very careful about how they argue that Palin is not experienced enough to be VP.
Maybe it's me but the "ha, you said Obama wasn't experienced but you have a one-term governor as your VP!" argument doesn't strike me as particularly moving... but I say that as a Barr voter so perhaps I'm biased.
History has shown that picking a woman as a running mate is guaranteed to win you the election.
I'm not sure TNC. It's a double edged sword, it seems to me.
"Palin is inexperienced"! goes the cry. Answer -
"but Palin is the VP on the ticket - McCain is the experience on the ticket, but also will have the benefit of Palin bringing fresh eyes and change.
And, if Palin is inexperienced - then so is Obama. Would you rather have the inexperience part of the ticket be the Vice President, or the President?"
I'm just not getting this Josh Marshall argument how the Palin pick negates the experience issue.
Forget the experience argument, um, there is the whole under-two-investigations thing. Trying to get people fired isn't a plus
I vaguely remember that some guy won a presidential election with DAN QUAYLE in the VP slot.
I saw her picture and thought: "attractive younger woman". And then: "will this remind some folks of the first Mrs. McCain, and what a jerk he was there?" That certainly wouldn't help with those Hillary supporters...
"And, if Palin is inexperienced - then so is Obama. Would you rather have the inexperience part of the ticket be the Vice President, or the President?"
I don't see how this follows - Obama's elected experience is both quantitatively greater and qualitatively more relevant to the Presidency than Palin's. Plus the last two years of campaigning have presumably taught him something about Washington - and the rest of the country, too. Palin's presence on the national stage essentially begins today, 2 months before the election.
JC, I think the worry is that McCain is statistically closer to death than anyone who is, say, younger than 72. For her to actually have a good shot at being the president, when she seems really unqualified is what is scary.
Obama inexperienced, yes, but Biden is there & he's only 65--so joint leadership, etc.
JC, I think that with a 72-year-old cancer survivor at the top of the ticket, the VP experience question carries more weight than it might otherwise. It certainly weakens the value of attacking Obama as inexperienced, because there were more people in his congressional district that in the whole state of Alaska. If Obama lacks the foreign policy bona fides to be president, then how can the GOP possible argue that a first-term Alaska governor has the qualifications to be thisclose to the Oval Office?
Here's the thing--it was McCain making the experience argument. It's not that Palin's nomination gives a weapon to Barack Obama, it's that it takes one from McCain. It makes the experience debate, effectively, a wash.
There's a meme about Barack Obama reminding older women of the slick, handsome guy who beat them out for a big promotion, even though they were more qualified. But here's another very likely meme--Sarah Palin as the inexperienced, younger, attactive woman who beats them out for a promotion, even though they were more qualified.
Bingo!!
All of this is classic Rove. Issues associated with women, energy, experience, and standards of McCain are meaningless. Appealing to the base is equally meaningless as these folks never had more than 30%, and the remainder of voters are sick of this crap. It is like claiming an even keel on either surface of an ocean; remember, the Titanic is on an even keel.
Shocked? No! What were McCain's choices?
What about the judgment question?
You write:
"But here's another very likely meme--Sarah Palin as the inexperienced, younger, attactive woman who beats them out for a promotion, even though they were more qualified."
Astute, very astute.
I'm too lazy to look it up, but I'm pretty sure it's the number one negative that keeps getting brought up by independents in polling. I don't know how much this will swing them to Obama, but it doesn't help swing them McCain's way.
I'll be really surprised if every female Dem with a camera nearby isn't mocking Palin as a lightweight for the next two months. What's the over/under how long it takes before someone like Susan Estrich is on the news making fun of McCain's apparent love of former beauty pageant contestants?
From the front: Hillary supporter at my workplace:
"Outrageous!" -- feels the Palin pick is a cynical underestimation of Hillary supporters.
"Young" "beauty queen"..
So on.. This pick isn't going to endear to Hillary supporters. I can't imagine the McCain campaign thought that it would. Said Hillary supporter is still going on, FWIW.
I don't this nominee or anything either McCain or Palin said is going to draw new disaffected Hillary supporters. Those have already jumped to McCain whether they said so or not.
Here's my take on the "Experience" argument:
http://nycweboy.typepad.com/my_weblog/2008/08/experience.html
Excerpt:
"From my perspective, the angriest Clinton supporters frame Clinton’s loss as a) a more experienced woman being by-passed for a less experienced man and b) this choice to eliminate Clinton from the running as made by a Party that insulted and derogated her and her supporters by association, incl. by silently witnessing sexism and misogyny as well as participating in it.
McCain’s choice of Palin suggests that the GOP PARTY is a) more committed to investing in woman’s leadership and development and b) is willing to more broadly interpret the “experience” required to lead by giving Palin - a relative unknown - a chance on a national ticket, but has done so in an intelligent way.
Palin has been in elected office for presumably about as long as Obama, plus is (or is assumed to be) the primary caregiver of a large family, and people will have to be careful not to criticize this experience in sexist, demeaning terms. What’s ok for our POTUS nominee should be ok for the GOP VP nominee. Furthermore, the GOP lined it up McCain-Palin, indicating that the less experienced but promising candidate can learn from the more experienced one. This fits nicely for those Dems who thought we should have run Clinton-Obama so that he could assume the mantle in 2016."
I think the reason not to go with Fiorina or Whitman (besides the, um, bad management of Fiorina) is the impossibility of properly vetting them. There is a good chance that there are some corporate scandals hiding at HP and E-Bay that haven't (and might never) hit the press. The companies won't open the books enough to the campaign to make sure there aren't, but if the CEO was on the presidential ticket, someone in the organization would almost surely leak it.
Well, Romney was an executive at Bain, and that didn't stop anyone.
Fiorina and Whitman would get hammered for their executive mistakes, particularly Fiorina's alienation of the HP-board and eventual ouster and Whitman's ill-advised Skype acquisition. Ebay shareholders are still peeved about that one (think Daimler-Benz acquiring Chrysler).
here's an SAT vocabulary version of what I think of the experience issue in this election:
McCain:Obama is like Obama:Palin.
They just succeeded in making McCain look like the riskier ticket. They also succeeded in making Obama-Biden look like the more experienced ticket. I didn't think that was possible.
I get what you guys are saying - just make sure that the Obama campaign never makes the experience argument. As this article from Andrew S. says - http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/08/cutting-both-wa.html -
"The McCain campaign is hoping and praying that someone will say that Palin is unready for the job. “Please,” John McCain is praying right now AS I TYPE, “Let a Democrat say that an executive with 2 years of experience and no foreign policy expertise isn’t ready for the presidency. Oh pretty please. Because you know what I’m going to do? I’m going to take that soundbite, put it in an ad, slap Obama’s mug up there, and run it over and over and over again.”
But again, the point is that MCCAIN can't use the "inexperienced" argument.
I still think this is a pretty good pick, on the surface levels, as marketing.
Outside the Beltway (you can't get much more outside).
Hugely popular in her home state.
A woman.
It could signal - hey, as the old guy, I'm still open to new ideas.
I think the corruption angle - if it's there - should be followed up. All of Alaska Repubs seem corrupt.
of course, the experience issue is dead.
but the medis focuses almost entirely on style and in that sense she helps a lot.
amazingly, after watching tv this morning and having people discuss the pick, there has been almost NO discussion of her actual views on policy.
the discussion has focused strictly on her gender and her looks.
the fact that she is a WOMAN, and not a person with certain political views will be most important, in this climate.
All this Lady Baiting by McCain is making me sick to my stomach.
Perhaps Tina Fey as Sarah Palin can help?
JC - Obama and Palin's level of (in-)experience really aren't comparable, not in the way you're correlating them.
I'll just copy from DailyKos (http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/8/29/104611/395/220/578471), as it's pointless for me to retype it. "It's going to be laughable to hear McCain assail Obama's supposed lack of experience after naming the first-term governor -- only one-and-a-half years into her term -- of the 47th largest state to be his running mate. Palin lacks any foreign policy experience, and is bereft of even the two core areas of policy expertise that governors are supposed to bring to a ticket -- ag policy (Alaska doesn't have much in the way of traditional agriculture) and urban affairs (Anchorage is the 65th largest city in the US, behind giants such as Corpus Christi). She's easily the least experienced running mate in recent memory."
Note: I'm not sure why it says "47th largest" when according to wikipedia, Alaska is the 47th least populous state. Mistake in the original, as we all know that Alaska is #1 in size in the US.
Comparing her actual policy record and number of people represented/governed to Obama's experiences in IL State Senate, and the US Senate is very instructive.
Redstar - What does her being "(is assumed to be) the primary caregiver of a large family" have to do with anything?
Also, when you look at Palin & Obama's records (as above), it shows that their experience level isn't comparative. Being in elected office for (I'll take your word for it) a similar amount of time does not mean they have comparable experience.
As I look around the blogs, I see a lot of unfortunate comments - both from Obama supporters who don't understand when stuff comes across as sexist, and Clinton supporters who failed to understand why certain experience-related attacks were offensive to African-Americans during the primary. No one says Palin's experience is off limits, for God's sake, but that doesn't mean you need to be dismissive and make beauty queen remarks. Bring it up respectfully.
My wife, who is a somewhat disgruntled Hillary supporter, reacted by saying, "But why would I ever support someone who believes the opposite of Hillary on every issue?" Well, that's a good question.
You guys are taking your eyes off the ball. Single women are already in the bag for the Dems, and married women are already in the bag for Republicans. What demographic do the Dems need to capture to win? Remember what we kept hearing during the primary? Working class whites. Palin and her husband are working class whites. Remember the folks that Obama mocked as losers for "clinging to" their faith and their guns? Palin grew up hunting moose with her dad, and she led her basketball team in prayer before games. Working class whites in PA, OH, and elsewhere will see her and her husband Todd and see themselves.
good analysis. need this idea to spread. and yeah, mccain's fixation on beauty queens is sick.
Steve --
"No one says Palin's experience is off limits, for God's sake, but that doesn't mean you need to be dismissive and make beauty queen remarks. Bring it up respectfully."
-- I agree, but the reality is that a lot of HRC's supporters (whom pundits are assuming are being aimed at) are responding with exactly those sentiments. I think the Palin pick has less to do with the disgruntled HRC supporters and a whole lot more to do with restoring McCain's independent image.
Just speculation here, but if Hilary supporters supported Hilary because she was a woman AND because they favor Democratic policies more than Republican ones, Palin is problematic. Yes, Palin's a woman: but she also opposes keeping abortion legal and favors drilling in ANWR.
Wow! I just watched the rally. Here are my impressions:
-She still makes John McCain look old. It is his birthday today. This overshadows that at least.
-Yes she is a governor, BUT of a state whose population is smaller than most large cities. She really feels like a mayor. As in, she is truly out of her league.
-We have Joe Biden to stop Obama from doing anything really stupid. If McCain dies, whose gonna stop Sarah from making mistakes. Its really scary if you think about it. I think those older white men who Obama was having problems with just may not show up at the polls.
-I think this is a big mistake for McCain. It shows how cynical he is. The funny thing is he is believing the hype. I don't think that there are that many angry Hillary supporters that were actually going to vote for him. These PUMA rallies always looked to me to have more bark than bite.
Before you guys get all excited about how few people live in Alaska, remember: Biden comes from a small state too.
And if you want to judge McCain's family history, don't get offended when the spotlight falls on Obama's bizarre family. Does he even know how many half-brothers his polygamous father gave him? They just found another one living in a hut in Kenya last week.
"I know Hillary Clinton. Hillary Clinton is a friend of mine. You ma'am are no Hillary Clinton."
Just got off with the Mrs. who is, along with the ladies at the office, beside herself insulted by this pick. She equated the stepping over of at least a dozen much more qualified but older republican women to McCain throwing his first wife overboard after the accident for a younger, hotter, richer Cindy.
Well, I do think the VP pick is a secondary consideration to most people. We DID have a Quayle in office, after all. As was pointed out above, even after getting ROASTED by Bentsen, people still pulled the level for Bush 1.
It takes too long to explain why Obama has more experience than Palin. Both have 2 years. Of course, I agree with you - Obama has much more relevant experience. But again, the number is what will matter (as much as this matters at all, of course)
At this point - also seeing how it's getting covered now - this is a good pick, unless Palin is absolutely atrocious on the stump, speaking, and in debates.
John McCain is a desperate man who made a desperate decision by picking Palin. Hopefully, this decision will blow up in his face and Obama becomes the next president
T-NC,
i think your update is exactly right.
the only problem is this: obama has to make that argument.
it won't resonate if bloggers post on it and let their readers knock the idea back and forth.
it only becomes part of the narrative if obama and his surrogates actually get out on the talk shows and radio shows and forcefully make that point.
unfortunately, i see no indication that they will be willing to do so.
and mccain knows that they will not make that argument, which is why he felt comfortable going in this direction.
now, if i am wrong, and dems start to forcefully talk about exactly what you noted, it will be devastating.
my guess is that they will treat her with kid gloves.
republicans are genius about putting women in positions as spokespeople and using them as attack dogs because they know that dems tend to be very shy about forcefully arguing against women. without doubt, that understanding and their willingness to exploit that reality was part of their calculation. i fully expect that biden will treat palin in much the same gentle, deferential way that leiberman and edwards treated cheney in their debates.
KT - it matters if you think the disproportionate burden women shoulder in un-paid domestic work is important in evaluating women's ability to lead, govern, manage, multi-task, etc. It matters if you think about it from the perspective of a working woman who juggles work and family with likely lack of full support from her partner and certainly a lack of family friendly and gender equitable policies in the U.S.
Here is the analysis that I would, in the main, agree with - http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/08/who_is_sarah_palin.php
You seem to be missing the fact that Obama passed over not one, but two women for the vice-presidency - one ostensibly on the grounds that they couldn't work together, the other because she was underqualified, and here McCain comes along tabbing a woman who's less qualified than either. You have to think that a significant number of women voters - and all it has to be is 1% of the electorate - will think to themselves, "gee, maybe the reason Obama passed up on all these women was that he thought a black/female ticket would be too much change, whereas McCain had the balls to pick a woman - ergo, I like McCain." Besides, Palin's a way better pick than Fiorina or Hutchinson. The one's never had a public sector job and got sacked in her last big private sector gig, the other's stupid. So no, I don't think anyone's going to be like, "damn, why'd he pass over all those more qualified, older women for her?"
Palin, was runner-up, not pageant winner. And it's still Miss Alaska, not Ms. Alaska!
Am still digesting this announcement, but what strikes me as amazing is the way the Right Wing is embracing a working mother of a FOUR MONTH OLD DISABLED INFANT. Maybe this is progress, that conservative women can be in the workforce now? Where are the comments that she should be home breastfeeding? I am the mom of two young kids and I have to say that when my kids were four months old I was back at work at a demanding job but I was in no way ready for a national campaign or, god forbid, to assume the presidency of the United States. Maybe this makes Michelle Obama look less radical?
by the way, i have not heard one tv talking head talk about the fact that she is under investigation.
chuck todd just talked about the fact that she came into office and started to root out corruption but conveniently forgot to mention that she is currently under investigation.
how do you think the media would have played this if she had been a dem who was under investigation?
The question is not whether Palin is qualified, but what she's qualified to do. Is she qualified to make an informed decision about nuclear weapons, or agriculture policy, or mass transit issues? Who knows? I guess we could let her take the reigns of power and find out.
But she is qualified to lead a cynical attempt by McCain to run from his real record. She is qualified to try to get the media's attention for the next few days. She's qualified to keep the extremist, ideological interest groups that run the Republican Party in line because of her extreme, out-of-the-mainstream views on a woman's right to choose and on teaching religion in public school science classes.
Palin is qualified to play a cynical role in candidate McCain's election campaign. Joe Biden is qualified to play a productive role in President Obama's administration.
"You have to think that a significant number of women voters - and all it has to be is 1% of the electorate - will think to themselves, "gee, maybe the reason Obama passed up on all these women was that he thought a black/female ticket would be too much change, whereas McCain had the balls to pick a woman - ergo, I like McCain.""
I honestly don't think so. That just sounds like a conservative justifying the pick on mythical grounds. That doesn't mean the pick wasn't a good one. It was, but for different reasons:
1) Press/buzz
2) A friendly face to take the light of McCain's grumpier side
but most importantly..
3) A signal to independents that McCain is willing to part with the Bush/Cheney "McSame" label.
I expect the McCain campaign to push button number 3 hard and often. Will it work? I have no idea.
Good luck with that argument. Prior to taking office as governor in December of 2006, Palin had never represented as many as 6,000 constituents. She has never represented as many constituents as Obama did as a state senator. Obama currently represents nearly 19 times as many constituents and has been a US senator for more than twice as long as Palin's been a governor. So on the one hand Obama's represented nearly a million or millions of people for over a decade. On the other hand, Palin's represented fewer people than the mayor of Indianapolis for less than two years.
Trying to pretend their records are at all comparable is laughable. She's held a political office of note for less time than it takes a full-time student to get an associate's degree. When I took out my car loan a few years ago Palin still had more than a year to go as mayor of a town about as populous as the largest US high schools. Aside from getting elected, the woman has exactly the same number of notable political achievements as my cats.
And we have SeanH's dismissive interpretation. I happen to agree that Mayor of a tiny city does not equal being a state Rep in Chicago, but being a State Rep does not exactly qualify one for the Presidency either, in my book.
This is about perception, and it reinjects the issue of experience (or lack thereof) back into the debate in a very curious and risky way.
On the experience issue, Obama was selected by we, the people. He then, with his first major decision, chose Biden . . . experienced, tenacity, shrewd. McCain, himself chosen by "them", the people, chooses Palin on his first big call? Hmmmmmm.
Yeah, but Biden's been an influential US senator since I was a toddler. The point on the population of Alaska is that not only does she have little experience, but what experience she has is with a pretty puny government so it's not like the job she's barely had is even a terribly difficult one.
Heck, to top it off her state is heavily subsidized by the rest of us through the federal government because of oil revenues. The job she's barely held is arguably easier than that of any governor or city mayor in the US.
Sorry to any Palin fans if any of this comes off like I'm knocking her. I'm not and other than seeming like a poor choice to me I don't care about her at all one way or the other. Just bored at work and musing out loud at y'all.
Redstar -
Oh, I think all those things matter, and I think about them quite frequently. I just don't see them as reasons someone should qualify to be Vice President of the United States of America. I worry about them on a societal level, and how we can fix those trends.
If you want to make the argument that the extra unpaid work theoretically being done by Gov. Palin qualifies her as a VP choice, I wonder what that says about her choice of people in her life. Presumably she chose her husband and, if they can't work together to find an equitable way to manage family life, it would make me question whether she can do any better in her public life.
Also, is there any evidence that Gov. Palin herself is disproportionately responsible for those aspects of family life? Because if not, it's especially irrelevant. I've known enough couples where both partners have equal stakes in family life to know that it's not inevitable, and I hope that no one is trying to say that men and women must act in these ways based on their sex.
Can't we expect some backlash against the fact that this woman is committing herself to an insane schedule of travel and campaigning when she has a 4-month-old baby with downs syndrome? I'm a proud feminist and a fan of working mothers, but this is kinda strange.
Nice insight, Ta-Nehisi, on the "younger, hotter, less qualified woman getting the token job". You nailed it. My mom - a Hillary fan - just called laughing her head off at this pick. She's all "does he think we're stupid?"
Plus, abortion is certainly a huge issue to anyone who would self-exile themselves from the democrats because of Hillary's loss. Palin is their worst sort of enemy - a traitor.
I'm no expert, but this is a dumb move.
1.
McCain loses the judgement argument. This is the vice presidency we are talking about. Dick Cheney has taught us that the VP is important. He obviuosly did not take filling this slot seriously. One of the huge problems of the last 8 years has been incompetence in governing.
2.
McCain loses the experience argument. If he thinks Palin is ready, he must think that Obama is ready.
3.
McCain loses the empathy argument. We are in economic trouble. We need an executive that has some realistic experience with national issues.
4.
He's made his ticket even riskier than Obama's now.
Wolfson is writing that it will make voters wonder why Obama didn't choose Hillary. Not so sure about that, it will make the National Press wonder will Obama didn't choose Hillary. Ben Smith is on that bandwagon. The PUMA narrative will not die!
I know a rabid Hillary fan (older boomer woman) who was fit to be tied over Obama beating Hillary, but as I probed a bit, I realized that the age issue (a younger hotshot man new to the scene passing over a more experienced woman) was the salient factor in their rage.
I'm not sure that an older man picking a younger, inexperienced beauty queen will go over well with true Democratic women.
Lauren makes an excellent point above.
I would feel the same way about a father, actually, campaigning away with such a child at home in need of his time. It's just seems like strange priorities.
I also think this isn't just going to not pull any Hillary voters in (unless you're named Geraldine Ferraro, in which case you're justcrazy). It's going to have the effect of pissing them off and pushing them more to the Dem ticket.
Forget the experience argument, um, there is the whole under-two-investigations thing. Trying to get people fired isn't a plus
She has 20 months in her statehouse and Obama had 7 years in his statehouse and his senate time. He also taught constitutional law for 12 years which means something to me. He practiced law for 3 years and he has run an excellent campaign for the last 19 months. I dont think there is any comparison in experience factor, but what do I know.
Runnerup to Miss Alaska, a parttime mayor to a small town, a hockey mother of 5, and 20 months as Gov. Rep say she has more experience, really??
Why so quick to dis mayors and governors? They have to make executive decisions, deal with budgets, contracts, bond issues, hire and fire people, and get things done. What does a Senator have to do but talk and vote? Obama hasn't even run a small town before, and that makes him more qualified to run the country? Please.
It is kind of funny to see the people who made stupid arguments in the primary like "Obama has just as many years in elected office as Hillary!" get hoisted on the petard of their own arbitrary metrics. Oh, and Fred will never be anything more than an Al wanna-be.
I just went over the the Corner at NRO to see what the conservative talking points are like so far and they have gone bughouse nuts. This is an actual, serious, not-made-up-at-all post from over there:
Point to Ponder [Kathryn Jean Lopez]
Palin has significantly more executive experience than Joe Biden. To paraphrase Barack from last night, that is a debate we welcome.
Palin wasn't picked to appease y'all, the unappeasable. A more interesting conversation is what she does for undecideds and the big GOP donors.
You guys are hoping no one understands that representing Illinois is not the same as governing. Mr. Obama did nothing in the senate, thought he was on a different committe than he actually was, and didn't actually, you know, generate a bill out of his actual committee, the one he didn't know about. You can't, and Mrs. Palin didn't, hide like that as governor.
As for change, Mr. Obama was a staunch establishment supporter in Chicago, siding with Cook County Board President John Stroger, Mayor Richard Daley & money man Tony Rezko against the reformers in his own party and simply followed the Democrat party line more than any other senator.
Sarah Palin had the audacity of courage to run against the local potentates and thumb her nose at one of the most powerful US senators of her own party by unilaterally nixing that famous bridge to nowhere. Her accomplishments, her examples of actual reform, discipline and courage are superior to Mr. Obama's, even in basketball (state finals on a injured leg).
But you have to leave this echo chamber to actually learn what she's done.
"Oh, and Fred will never be anything more than an Al wanna-be."
Please. I have accomplished more as an anonymous blog commenter than Al ever will. I think my record of comments on The Atlantic blogs speaks for itself.
Now, If I could only accomplish this and be employed at the same time.
Damn black people taking all the employment.
This is a straight-up lie. Palin supported the bridge, never criticized the idea, and only cancelled the bridge after Alaska's senators failed to secure the federal funds required to build it.
That's the thing about mavericks. They walk a fine line between winning big and losing it all. We can't really afford that right now. One wrong move - or right move depending on your perspective - from a McCain-Palin administration and we could become the United States of Exxon with low taxes, high gas prices, and a draft to fight wars sold on principle but really about money.
I think Obama is at least a practical idealist.
He knows how things are but does not accept that that's how it should or has to be. The cynicism has not completely consumed him yet.
To be clear, while Fred will never come close to emulating the legendary Al, fake-Fred is every bit as outstanding as fake-Al ever was.
Sorry to get into semantics, Ta-Nehisi, but I did want to clarify a certain point you made.
A senator represents. A governor governs.
Two very distinct, and differing roles.
Another key difference...what you and your almost colleague Yglasias seem to be glossing over is that Alaska is not a state full of latte sipping dilettantes. Smaller population that Austin Texas, yes, but while your average Beltway insider might debate whether or not to hit up Cakelove or Georgetown Cupcake on the way home, your average Alaskan is thinking about whether they'll need to hack one cord of wood or two when they get home, in order not to freeze overnight.
Harsher environments beget harsher, and more pragmatic people - people who are very much less tolerant of empty platitudes.
I'd love to see Obama stump around Anchorage giving one of his great "We are the dream we've been dreaming of" speeches.
Local Alaskan tv report nails Palin lying about firing scandal. What was McCain thinking?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6UojMnCgqVA
OMG! What is this Hazzard County?!?! What's next Roscoe P. Coltrane for Department of Defense?!?!
It's a cynical move, based on the idea that women vote for women, not for candidates that actually represent their views.
Palin would be terrible for women, but let's face it, the fact that she was a beauty queen, or that she has a young child, have absolutely no bearing on her ability to do the job. Her lack of experience does.
We're writing about this over at the CA NOW blog too: http://www.canow.org/canoworg/2008/08/mccains-vp-choi.html
I just got home from work and finally saw the video of the announcement. One thing struck me. Can you image the outcry from Limbaugh and all the nasties to a democratic woman with an infant with special needs running for high office? I can only image the meme about pursuit of power at the expense of her children. Maybe I've just become so cynical, but I'd expect to hear sarcastic comments about being a mother who would not be raising her children.
Oh, how did I miss Lauren's comments. Sorry, I didn't mean to double-down...
They have to make executive decisions, deal with budgets, contracts, bond issues, hire and fire people, and get things done. What does a Senator have to do but talk and vote?
Make executive decisions, deal with budgets, contracts, bond issues, hire and fire people, and get things done. That kind of thing.
The hardest thing Palin's ever done is cut the ribbon at a county fair.
"Make executive decisions"
Apparently, Chet doesn't know what Senators do.
"It's a cynical move, based on the idea that women vote for women, not for candidates that actually represent their views."
Almost as cynical as when the Illinois Republicans brought in African American ultra-conservative Alan Keyes from Maryland to challenge Obama in the Senate race. They just don't get it, it seems.
"Harsher environments beget harsher, and more pragmatic people - people who are very much less tolerant of empty platitudes."
Considering how this is also a platitude almost straight out of "30 Days of Night" (think the scene in the attic), doesn't this statement eat itself?
Overall, Palin is probably the second-smartest choice McCain could have made (Pawlenty probably being the first), but that's like being the thinnest kid at fat camp. The pick gives PUMAs already voting for McCain greater emotional comfort with voting for a Republican, but overall, it probably sends a signal he thinks woman are stupid lemmings.
Only pundits care about senators vs. governors. The reason senators tend not to win is because 1) the Senate warps people over time (leading people to speak in Senatese while feeding their egos as well) and 2) being a Senator leads to amassing a nuanced vote record. A decent portion of the population doesn't understand the differences between the executive and legislative branches.
Apparently, Chet doesn't know what Senators do.
I'm very much aware of exactly what senators do. Don't get hung up on the word "executive". You can make executive decisions without being, literally, a member of the Executive Branch of the government.
Senators, for instance, are very much the executives of their own campaigns. (Unless they're Hillary Clinton or John McCain, apparently.)
And, you know, it's Congress that sets the budget. But, hey, Senators don't have anything to do with that, right? Not like they're members of Congress or anything.
Sorry to get into semantics, Ta-Nehisi, but I did want to clarify a certain point you made.
A senator represents. A governor governs.
Two very distinct, and differing roles.
Another key difference...what you and your almost colleague Yglasias seem to be glossing over is that Alaska is not a state full of latte sipping dilettantes. Smaller population that Austin Texas, yes, but while your average Beltway insider might debate whether or not to hit up Cakelove or Georgetown Cupcake on the way home, your average Alaskan is thinking about whether they'll need to hack one cord of wood or two when they get home, in order not to freeze overnight.
Harsher environments beget harsher, and more pragmatic people - people who are very much less tolerant of empty platitudes.
I'd love to see Obama stump around Anchorage giving one of his great "We are the dream we've been dreaming of" speeches.
I doubt someone who names their kid "Track" because they were conceived on a track isn't going to appeal to middle class whites in the Midwest, West and South. That's like Bryce Dallas Howard or whatever her name is getting the middle name "Dallas" for being conceived there. Ron Howard isn't exactly known as a champion of the white working class in Appalachia.
Ironically, Slate had Obama narrowly winning Alaska before the pick.
Also, Alaska's economy if heavily subsidized by the rest of the US and is probably the most socialist in the US. It has no real agricultural policy. At least Hawaii actually has a rural economy, so governing it can teach you things about governing the rest of the US in that regard. Governing Alaska teaches you skills that aren't that relevant to governing the rest of the US.
Also, Obama got the nomination based on his judgment, especially on foreign policy. Palin didn't even know what McCain's Iraq policy was two weeks ago.
"I'm very much aware of exactly what senators do."
In the previous thread you demonstrated how ignorant you are talking about the "Chairman Pro Temp".
As for Senators being the "chief executives" of their campaigns, Obama is running his campaign to the same extent that Bush ran his. David Axelrod is running Obama's campaign.