On the positive side, when it's all done in November, America will either have an African-American president, or a female vice-president.  Good for us!!!

How sad is that.  Nice going, dems.

It is a gamble, but when you are going to lose if you do not gamble, you might as well take the shot. I think McCain is taking a clear eyed gamble.

Palin served two terms on the Wasilla City Council from 1992 to 1996. In 1996, she challenged the incumbent mayor, criticizing wasteful spending and high taxes.[3] The ex-mayor and sheriff tried to organize a recall campaign, but failed.[3] Palin kept her campaign promises, reducing her own salary, as well as reducing property taxes 60%.[3] She ran for reelection against the former mayor in 1999, winning by an even larger margin.[3][12] Palin was also elected president of the Alaska Conference of Mayors.[6]

It's a gamble and it could backfire.  But it already achieved the first goal. Knocked Obama off the news.

And, at least over the next few days, the MSM will be playing catch-up to present a cohesive picture of who Palin is.

Are you listening to the spin...the addition of 'diversity' in adding a woman's voice, a 'real' outsider.  This may be very interesting... again, apologies, but the Dems looked pretty bad with the accusations of racism and sexism.

OK, now CNN is the first to attack after her for the state trooper phone call.  They are saying she fired the staffer who made the call.

MSNBC: odd, they are selling this...plus suburban women, secures base, a woman is the holy grail, keeping focus on Clinton and McCain refuses to pass over a qualified woman, conservatives are thrilled, great speaker... blunt, authentic, getting Obama's weak spot 35-50, will increase fundraising and McCain may get some money before nom where he can't get any.  Biden may not be able to be tough on a woman (I thought of this) she'll have a low bar to qualify.

Romney wouldn't have worked because, well, we saw him  in action during the primaries.  Pawlenty's not very popular even in his home state.

1. This is obviously not the choice of a campaign that believes a "safe" pick would be good enough to win, or even a campaign that believes they would be favored if they made a "safe" pick.  So it tells you a lot about where the McCain campaign sees the race right now.

2. This clearly sets up a situation where if Obama loses, the decision not to pick Hillary is framed as the key mistake.  It just does.

3. Although it's obvious that the GOP never would have picked the first-term MALE governor of a tiny red state as the VP, I think the Democrats are pretty clearly foreclosed from making the so-called "affirmative action" argument.  That doesn't mean I believe Obama is an affirmative action candidate, only that I believe making the argument against Palin would open the door to the return argument in a way that would be ugly.  Hopefully the big mouths on the Democratic side will keep themselves reined in so we don't have to go there.

4. For similar reasons, while there is an obvious question whether Palin really has the experience to run the country if something happens to McCain, the Obama campaign has to be very, very careful about how they approach that issue.  They don't want to offend people whose reaction would be "oh, NOW you deem experience to be a relevant criterion?"  The way to handle it is to use a positive rather than a negative frame - emphasize just how ready Joe Biden is to run the country if required, and let the implication about Palin go unsaid.

And that would assume that those disgruntled Hillary supporters would support a woman even more conservative than McCain, one who represents their views and concerns even less.

1) Let's be honest, no longer is the choice of voting for or against the first black candidate, but now its also voting for or against the first female vice president. It offers huge cover for people that don't want the guilt of voting against Obama.

2)It changes the overall perception of McCain from an old white guy to a ticket of an old guy and a young female. She's doing in reverse of what Cheney did for Bush.

3. McCain top struggle is with women. If he can cut into Obama's draw with women, even a little bit, it changes the dynamics of the race.

4. It appeals to undecided moderates, independents, and the wishy-washy 10-20% of voters that decide elections. Yes, the hardcore liberals will view her as conservative, but they aren't voting for McCain anyway, and it will energize the conservative base that will more likely vote for McCain now.  

This is probably a good move for McCain.  

But Palin doesn't suddenly make McCain more coherent.  She doesn't make him less frightening as a Commander in Chief.  

It forces Obama to take on women's issues and prove that he supports them. Again and again.

The decision also is probably weirding out all the Republican neanderthals who are going to have to change or slightly adjust their sexist worldviews.

(the only downside is that it does nothing to accost the idiotic Obama sexist supporters.)

I have been lurking on this site for some time and have really enjoyed the discussions.

I have been a democrat for 34 years and supported Hillary in my state primary.  Since learning about Sarah Palin last May, I have switched my support to the McCain/Palin ticket.  Sarah is the real deal.  She just completed her successful steering of the natural gas pipeline through the Alaska state legislature--something the state has been attempting to do for 30 years.   This will be the largest infrastructure project in US history and will quintuple the amount of natural gas available to Midwest markets.

To those who denigrate her foreign relations experience, you must remember that she governs the only state bordered by two foreign nations:  Canada and Russia.

She has fought corruption in her own party and stood on principle (cancelling the bridge to nowhere, etc.)

She has executive experience at the municipal and state level.

While I am pro-choice myself, I honor her decision to carry her fifth child, a downs syndrome baby, to term.  I hope she will engender a discussion between the pro-choice/pro-life folks on how we can support pregnant women and honor the choices they make regardless of that choice.

I hope all of you will examine her record closely, without prejudice before the November election.

Best to all

1. She at least portrays herself as a more moderate voice on the environment and energy and that's where I think McCain is going to try to polish his maverick creds - he's going to try to portray himself as being to the left of Obama on energy using the Cheney Energy bill vote (which has the added benefit of interrupting the McSame narrative);

2. It remains to be seen whether the Democrats and their fauxgressive supporters can restrain their sexism and misogyny.  For some of them, it's simply who they are.  You can bet the GOP won't sit on its hands like the DNC did during the primary.  Which even if it doesn't drive women to McCain, could suppress the women's vote (racism from the right, sexism from the left - this election sure is fun for us non-white male Americans!).
   

I think she's a great choice -- and a big gamble. How Republican voters will react to her is a big unknown but it certainly wasn't the safe or easy choice for McCain. It fits in the Maverick image (not saying I believe it, just that he's shoring it up), she will appeal to conservatives etc. It doesn't make me want to vote for him, but then again, I am not voting for anyone.

Whether or not this aids McCain in the short term, it benefits his party in the long term (just as Condoleeza Rice's cabinet appointment did).

Bush was greatly aided by the fact that women, who, starting with Reagan, had been favoring Democrats, instead split their vote in 2000 and 2004.

If this step encourages such a split for McCain (who is not popular with women) it will be very helpful for him.

If she is a libertarian, this will appeal to the Ron Paul fans.

And as a (semi-depressing) data point, I just spoke to my girlfriend.  We've been together for 2.5 years now, and I know her politics really well.  She's generally Democratic, but definitely not a partisan or super-informed ideologue the way all of us here are.  She followed the path that a lot of women seem to have: Hillary supporter, enraged at her axe-murdering by the media and Obama, uncomfortable with Barack but likely to end up pulling the lever for him.  

The first ripple for her the other way was when she heard that McCain might pick Lieberman - say what you will about what Lieberman means to the netroots, for the vast majority of non-partisans he has a different image.  She said she was impressed by his "willingness to consider a guy from the other side."  I tried to explain to her why this wasn't really what it seemed to be, but she still insisted that it was a pretty neat moment.  Anyway, she's really excited about this.  Palin's biography really excites her too - the whole "gun-shootin' moose-huntin' hockey mom" thing does it for her.  I told her that Palin was anti-choice, and that gave her pause, but definitely didn't quell her enthusiasm.

Obama with very little experience picks washington insider with 35 years of experience

McCain with 25 years experience picks governor with very little experience

Its all on how she presents herself.

Joe Scarborough

    I can't imagine a woman that's been a governor for a year and a half, but to debate Joe Biden on GEorgia, a remerging Russia, an emerging China and India, on the Middle East, my God, how does she do that?

Pat Buchanan

Biggest political gamble I believe just about in American political history...that is not hyberbole.  I can think of no choice of VP that approaches this.

The talking heads are raising the "ethics" abuse of power issue but I think they'll be able to get past that.  Seems the bad brother-in-law was "beating" her sister.  

The challenge for this life-long Democrat has been that I just haven't warmed to our candidate.  Still voting for the Dems but unlike virtually all prior elections don't have the heart or energy to debate those on the fence, if they want to vote for this ticket part of me understands.  

I've often worried that the Republican party would be the first to get a woman or black in there first, but only because the Democratic party did all the heavy lifting. That would piss me off to no end.

Yes it broadly changes the national game (which affects state trends) in terms of conservatives being excited.

But I think its somewhat of a wash in terms of her impact in the key swing states compared to Mitt Romney.  She's probably not as good a pick as him in Michigan and Colorado while being a better pick for Ohio and Pennsylvania.

I'm happy for her and the country that the Republicans have a woman on the ticket, but how on earth could any one who every identified with the Democratic agenda support her?

As to McCain's for VP. Palin? Weak. Mayor of a tiny town, Gov of Alaska for less than two years? And a fairly serious scandal dogging her to boot (check out TPM for details, it's one that has legs).

This woman doesn't have the chops to be President, but she will look nice next to the aging and increasingly irritable McCain. It's a blatant move to attract angry Hilliary voters, and it's an insult! 'So ya like women do ya? Here ya go, here's a woman, now vote for me!' Anti-Choice, no real experience, hard right wing...she the Dan Quail of 2008. Wait until Joe Biden gets ahold of her. Brrrr.