McCain-Palin: Eagleton II?

Did John McCain just repeat George McGovern's fatal mistake? How long will she Palin stay on the ticket? Will McCain recover any better than McGovern?

Wouldn't it be great to have McCain do as poorly as McGovern in November.

Update: Commenters here aren't following the news. Palin: A Scandal We Can Believe In. More here.

Palin is under investigation in Alaska for abuse of power in Alaska. (Added: Not a federal investigation.)

< Sarah Palin Announcement | Open Thread forNon-McCain-Palin Topics >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Sorry Jeralyn (5.00 / 5) (#1)
    by cmugirl on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 01:50:09 PM EST
    I know you are supporting the Obama-Biden ticket, but I think you are reading this completely wrong.  McCain hit a home run today and it does not bode well for Obama.  The Obama camp has even fumbled with their initial reaction out of the gate.

    McCain wins the week with this one stroke.

    heh. (5.00 / 4) (#6)
    by Faust on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 01:54:51 PM EST
    Homerun is a bad metaphor for this. I'd say this is more like a very bold and potentially brilliant chess move. There are plenty more moves to be made in the game. Only time will tell whether this was a "stroke of genius" or "a bold but fatal mistake."

    Not chess. Craps. (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by scribe on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 01:58:25 PM EST
    This is the desperaton throw of a craps player who has recognized that the game has gone against him and is now chasing his losses.  He's up against it, and figures "what the hell" and throws one more time.

    I'm setting the over-under on Palin getting off the ticket at September 30, just to get the bidding going.  But, she might not make it to September 4 (the end of the convention).


    A calculated gamble (5.00 / 2) (#30)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 02:00:43 PM EST
    that will likely fail. But what Eagleton has to do with this is not clear.

    I have an understanding of the Quayle references but after seeing her today, I think that comparison inapt.


    Worse than inapt (5.00 / 2) (#112)
    by Steve M on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 02:15:51 PM EST
    Comparing her to Quayle is basically calling her stupid.  I hope Dems stop putting their foot in their mouth on this one, but then again, you know my comment from earlier.

    Perhaps the Eagleton thing is a reference to the rumor that she was barely vetted prior to the pick, in other words, McCain has no idea what will come out.  But it's not clear if that's true.


    The cop tasered his 11 year old stepson (5.00 / 4) (#159)
    by Mr Natural on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 02:27:26 PM EST
    Is this what we've come to?

    Is our position that political correctness demands defending the sensitivities of a cop who tases his own eleven year old stepson?

    Is that how stupid we've become?


    Agree. (none / 0) (#42)
    by Faust on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 02:03:18 PM EST
    Comparison (none / 0) (#171)
    by indiependy on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 02:37:27 PM EST
    I made it, but only in the sense of not ready for prime time and being in way over her head. Not sure how much her speech today shows us. Miscues, as Quayle can attest, often come on the trail. She's someone who's never been through anything close to the scrutiny of a Senate race or Presidential primary.

    However, I think Jeralyn was using Eagleton to point to the fact Palin may not have been fully vetted. She's under an ethics investigation, and there's a report out there that McCain's only prior contact with her has been two 5 minute phone conversations. While it's hard to imagine they'd put someone out of their league or with baggage problems in this post, we are talking about the party that tried to put Bernard Kerik and Harriet Myers into very high-profile positions.


    Oh I'll take that bet (5.00 / 5) (#40)
    by Valhalla on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 02:02:49 PM EST
    Palin's going to win McCain the election.  He can just stop campaigning himself, she can win it for him.

    what you said (5.00 / 2) (#54)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 02:05:27 PM EST
    she is impressive

    And the first thing it did (5.00 / 3) (#110)
    by Jeannie on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 02:15:31 PM EST
    was to take all the glory out of Obama's speech in less than 24 hours. He isn't being mentioned on TV today. Obama's 'bump' has just come to a halt. And now the week belongs to the Republicans with the emphasis off McCain and onto Palin. How very Rovian!
    McCain waited until the Dem VP was chosen, and when it wasn't Hillary, you can bet they cheered and laughed and proceded to outdo the Obama gang. If they were playing poker.......

    again, what you said (5.00 / 2) (#117)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 02:16:43 PM EST
    its like the "speech" never happened

    no Kay Bailey Hutchison is impressive (none / 0) (#146)
    by MrPope on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 02:22:36 PM EST
    and passed over

    It's interesting (5.00 / 2) (#176)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 02:41:01 PM EST
    That you are now so focused on experience and qualifications.  If that were the only thing that mattered, than what's up with the Dem ticket?

    Posting the same thing three times about Kay Bailey is only repetitive.  Not insightful.


    Kay Bailey Hutchison has hubby problems. (none / 0) (#187)
    by Angel on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 02:48:27 PM EST
    Let's just say that some of his business dealings might be a tad "shady."  

    Who looks desperate? (none / 0) (#36)
    by Brookhaven on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 02:01:57 PM EST
    Methinks the scribe should look in the mirror with that comment. If you know something say it.  Put up or shut up.  I mean that in the nicest of ways.  :) But, please stop being coy because you are making yourself just look vindictive and silly.

    I don't like the throw of dice metaphor (none / 0) (#65)
    by Faust on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 02:07:20 PM EST
    because it implies that the response will be purely random. Not at all. Many factors are brought into play:

    How will Obama camp respond?
    How will conservative base respond?
    How will Palin perform?
    How will women swing voters respond to the choice and how will the respond to the responses?
    How will the media frame this? What narrative will they devlop?

    Many moves to be made. It's not just a throw of the dice, as there will be many ways to influence and direct the flow of events to follow.

    A great deal of this depends on Palin herself. How will SHE perform? She seems articulate to me so in that sense at least she is NOT a Quayle.


    It wasn't a metaphor - (none / 0) (#209)
    by scribe on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 03:08:23 PM EST
    McCain is heavily into craps.  Time even wrote it up:

    The casino craps player is a social animal, a thrill seeker who wants not just to win but to win with a crowd. Unlike cards or a roulette wheel, well-thrown dice reward most everyone on the rail, yielding a collective yawp that drowns out the slots. It is a game for showmen, Hollywood stars and basketball legends with girls on their arms. It is also a favorite pastime of the presumptive Republican nominee for President, John McCain.

    Over time he gave up the drinking bouts, but he never quite kicked the periodic yen for dice. In the past decade, he has played on Mississippi riverboats, on Indian land, in Caribbean craps pits and along the length of the Las Vegas Strip. Back in 2005 he joined a group of journalists at a magazine-industry conference in Puerto Rico, offering betting strategy on request. "Enjoying craps opens up a window on a central thread constant in John's life," says John Weaver, McCain's former chief strategist, who followed him to many a casino. "Taking a chance, playing against the odds." Aides say McCain tends to play for a few thousand dollars at a time and avoids taking markers, or loans, from the casinos, which he has helped regulate in Congress. "He never, ever plays on the house," says Mark Salter, a McCain adviser. The goal, say several people familiar with his habit, is never financial. He loves the thrill of winning and the camaraderie at the table.

    Only recently have McCain's aides urged him to pull back from the pastime. In the heat of the G.O.P. primary fight last spring, he announced on a visit to the Vegas Strip that he was going to the casino floor. When his aides stopped him, fearing a public relations disaster, McCain suggested that they ask the casino to take a craps table to a private room, a high-roller privilege McCain had indulged in before. His aides, with alarm bells ringing, refused again, according to two accounts of the discussion.

    "He clearly knows that this is on the borderline of what is acceptable for him to be doing," says a Republican who has watched McCain play. "And he just sort of revels in it."

    Well it's brilliant I guess if (5.00 / 2) (#51)
    by Jjc2008 on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 02:04:55 PM EST
    one believes that the only reason most women were for Hillary was because of gender.  In my circle, the women who supported Hillary were about the issues and thrilled that the one who most supported our issues happened to be a woman.

    This woman Palin is not someone I could ever identify with.  She is not pro choice; her party has never supported the ERA; she is pro  voucher, a darling of the Home Schooling religious right; a creationist.

    I cannot believe women who voted with Hillary because of Hillary's beliefs, Hillary's stand on the issues, Hillary's work for women and the poor would ever look at Palin as a choice.


    Tell that to Gerry Ferraro (5.00 / 2) (#74)
    by lmv on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 02:09:19 PM EST
    She's all but come out and endorsed the Mc-P ticket.

    I'm sorry but the feminist threats aren't working on lots of women voters - because the party of feminism let them down.



    Hate to admit it but you're right (5.00 / 1) (#162)
    by ChuckieTomato on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 02:29:25 PM EST
    I don't think dems expected McCain to nominate a woman.

    Hillary's voters will have to be earned because they now have another option.


    Clyburn (5.00 / 1) (#183)
    by daria g on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 02:46:22 PM EST
    Just insulted Ferraro today as well, when attacking Palin.  He's all class all the time.

    GOP supported the ERA before Dems did. (5.00 / 4) (#113)
    by Cream City on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 02:16:29 PM EST
    Research, then write.

    The distinction must be made between the Old GOP and the Neocon GOP.  Just like the distinction now between the old Dems and the New Dems.

    The New Dems opened their convention this week with an invocation by a minister who denounced another Dem platform plank for women.  See if the GOP opens its convention with an attack on its own platform.

    I can't vote for Palin, either.  But I also can't figure out what the Dems think they're doing.


    I'm going to keep posting this (3.50 / 2) (#69)
    by elonepb on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 02:08:24 PM EST
    Because I think it is crucial and deserves it's OWN thread.

    Palin was asked about Clinton and said she was a whiner. How can any Hillary supporter vote for her?



    Please stop (5.00 / 3) (#136)
    by americanincanada on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 02:20:48 PM EST
    that is not exactly what she said. Go beyond what the biased reported wrote and watch the video. She was talking about 'perceived whining'.

    Now I may disagree with what Sarah said here but I do not like people taking anything out of context.


    Far as I can recall (none / 0) (#100)
    by elonepb on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 02:13:03 PM EST
    Obama has always said positive things about Hillary, at least just as many positive things as Hillary said about him.

    If Obama called her a whiner, it would be an absolute uproar.

    But ok for the pro-life, gun toting Republican?

    I don't see it. McCain does not have MY vote.


    I'm sorry (none / 0) (#160)
    by Jjc2008 on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 02:29:06 PM EST
    I never saw Obama disrespect Hillary. I saw him play hard ball with her.
    My disrespect for Axlerod and his campaign for Obama had more to do with their blatant use of race to trash the Clintons.
    Most of my anger is with Howard Dean, Brazille and their unfair silence when our candidate was being trashed because of gender; and their own version of CDS.

    But in the end I want things to be better for ALL women.  I believe that is what Hillary wants too.  And in my heart I know the McCain/Palin choice would not benefit women.


    Not sure about the creationist (none / 0) (#92)
    by BernieO on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 02:11:56 PM EST
    thing. I read that she was open to having it discussed in school, which I have heard from some scientists. The question is does she want it taught as part of the science curriculum or just in a class covering social issues or comparative religions, which is perfectly legal.

    Waht scientists? (none / 0) (#145)
    by TomStewart on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 02:22:09 PM EST
    Creationism, Intelligent Design is nothing but religion and belongs in church, not in the classroom. Anyone advocating it is trying to foist their religious views into the secular schools.

    What scientists? (none / 0) (#151)
    by TomStewart on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 02:23:17 PM EST
    Creationism, Intelligent Design is nothing but religion and belongs in church, not in the classroom. Anyone advocating it is trying to foist their religious views into the secular schools.

    Actually (none / 0) (#208)
    by Faust on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 03:05:05 PM EST
    it can be (and is) taught in philosophy class. It's considered a (bad) proof of the existence of God.

    Hillary supporters (none / 0) (#132)
    by MrPope on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 02:20:40 PM EST
    Hillary supporters here at work are p'd off....  and people wanna know was  Kay Bailey Hutchison, the most qualified woman in the repub party  was even Vetted?

    She didn't want it... (5.00 / 1) (#166)
    by kredwyn on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 02:35:25 PM EST
    The timing of this announcments (none / 0) (#202)
    by Faust on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 03:00:51 PM EST
    coupled with the SUPRISE! factor is very good. And look at the responses to your comment. No, this could go well for McCain. We'll know in a couple weeks what the likely verdict on this will be.

    Wins the week??? (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by NWC80 on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 02:01:45 PM EST
    McCain looks like he might be coming slightly unglued.

    His first big moment in the campaign and he rolls the dice and undercuts all his arguments at the same time?

    Just after Obama does his best to put to rest the notion that he is the risky candidate and questions McCain's judgment?

    Hail Mary, indeed. Were they really that concerned with the possibility of losing Alaska ;oP


    Excuse me? That's just insulting. (5.00 / 3) (#3)
    by masslib on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 01:51:54 PM EST
    I would like just one of you to tell me in detail how Romney, Pawlenty or Lieberman would have been a better pick.  The sexism this morning reeks.

    they would be a crappy pick too. (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by coigue on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 01:55:07 PM EST
    As in, also.

    He's running as you know, a Republican. (5.00 / 3) (#22)
    by masslib on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 01:59:08 PM EST
    I think Palin is an excellent pick for a Republican ticket.  

    Not for Hillary Voters (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by elonepb on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 02:05:16 PM EST
    She called Hillary a WHINER.

    Not sure McCain had her fully vetted... I'm sure there are plenty more issues to come.

    You can read it here: http://www.newsweek.com/id/156190


    newsweek, great (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 02:06:54 PM EST
    the publication that said if Obama loses we are a racist country.
    try harder.

    The publisher is irrelevant if (none / 0) (#97)
    by Faust on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 02:12:34 PM EST
    the statement was actually made. If the Devil tells you 2+2=4 it doesn't make it false.

    I don't know this is the kind of thing that will have any effect on anything but saying that all things published by Newseek are irrelevant because they say idiot things a good percentage of the time is an absurd statement.


    newsweek, like its partner (none / 0) (#111)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 02:15:34 PM EST
    MSNBC is so deeply in the tank for Obama nothing they say can about politics be taken seriously.

    It's a quote (none / 0) (#126)
    by Faust on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 02:19:15 PM EST
    IF the quote is true AND there is video of the quote THEN it could be used against Palin.

    Newsweek is just a source of a possible fact. I guess when Newsweek publishes a story about how a square has four sides you will protest and suggest that it in fact has 5.


    I hate to rain on your parade, (none / 0) (#153)
    by independent voter on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 02:24:01 PM EST
    but there is VIDEO of her saying this at a Newsweek forum

    A possible concern here has been mentioned (none / 0) (#206)
    by Christy1947 on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 03:01:42 PM EST
    in that apparently Gov. Palin's personality is very aggressive and she was called "Sarah Barracuda" for it in her earlier years. A lot of how this plays out may be determined by that, for if she is as forceful as the nickname suggests, the 'courteous to the female candidate' meme which we have just watched danced and danced in public because the female candidate so far was usually fairly subtle in how she did what she did, may not play so well as to Gov. Palin by reason of her own style and conduct. Or lower 48 women may view it less favorably than the relatively suave and diplomatic HrC. Certainly the two have to be treated as distinct individuals and judged independently of one another. It remains to be seen.

    depends on which Hillary voters (5.00 / 2) (#120)
    by TimNCGuy on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 02:17:59 PM EST
    you are talking about.  Many of the dems who voted for Hillary in places like PA and Ohio are CONSERVATIVE dems.  And by that I mean socially conservative.  They are the old Reagan dems.  Palin's stance on abortion will not bother them one bit.

    McCain is going after conservative dems, indies and any female republicans who may have been suppoting Obama.

    McCain isn't going after liberal females who supported Hillary.  The best he is hoping for with them is that they stay home or don't vote top of the ballot.


    I think this is accurate. (5.00 / 2) (#150)
    by chel2551 on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 02:23:07 PM EST
    McCain is going after conservative dems, indies and any female republicans who may have been suppoting Obama.

    McCain isn't going after liberal females who supported Hillary.  The best he is hoping for with them is that they stay home or don't vote top of the ballot.

    I have to say that some Obama supporters around here are definitely opening old wounds.  Absolutely clueless.


    Hubris. (none / 0) (#181)
    by Mr Natural on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 02:43:48 PM EST
    It's not too hard to see why

    that simple word,


    has endured for thousands of years.


    I have to agree (none / 0) (#44)
    by BernieO on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 02:03:36 PM EST
    She has a strong record standing up to the old boys network in the Alaskan Repubublican Party and is wildly popular with Democrats and Republicans at a time when the Republican party there is very unpopular.
    As for experience, she has more experience dealing with corruption than Obama does and her executive experience as a governor will outweigh Obama's total lack of it coupled with a very thin resume in foreign affairs.
    I think by this pick McCain is putting the corrupt cronyism of today's party on notice.

    Which Democrats (none / 0) (#55)
    by TomStewart on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 02:05:35 PM EST
    is she popular with? Blue dogs?

    No. She is not. (none / 0) (#91)
    by coigue on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 02:11:47 PM EST
    Actually there are many more qualified women in the GOP.

    She is a "Clarence Thomas" pick.


    this is a rather clueless comment (3.66 / 3) (#104)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 02:14:07 PM EST
    it manages to be both sexist and racist in one fell swoop.

    That statment is in no way racist. (5.00 / 1) (#161)
    by jtaylorr on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 02:29:14 PM EST
    Thomas is the only current Justice to have received "Not Qualified" votes from the ABA.

    so you think Thomas was well-qualified? (none / 0) (#129)
    by coigue on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 02:19:36 PM EST
    Even in retrospect?

    ....and you think Palin is as qualified as they get in the GOP?

    That's rather sexist and racist, IMO.

    But I would not really expect anything else from you.


    The sexism this morning reeks. (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by TomStewart on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 01:59:01 PM EST
    How so?

    Because there seems to be this mantra that Palin (5.00 / 2) (#39)
    by masslib on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 02:02:21 PM EST
    is somehow this incredibly bad pick...as bad as a guy who underwent shock therapy.  That's seems absurd to me.  She has the highest approval rating of any sitting Governor in the country right now.  She's been in elective office four years longer than Obama.  How on earth is she some horrible pick?

    Uh (none / 0) (#83)
    by TomStewart on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 02:10:18 PM EST
    How is that sexism? You mean democrats are saying bad things about a republican because she's a woman?

    Come on.

    And comparing Obama's experience to Palin's being on the PTA, and a mayor of town of 8,000, and Gov on one of our least populated states is silly.

    She represents 670,000 people, Obama represents 12,000,00. No contest.


    I am upset about the comparison to (none / 0) (#87)
    by oculus on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 02:10:58 PM EST
    Eagleton, whose acknowledgement he had treatment for depression is to be commended.  Also, this comparison quickly leads me to the subject of Gov. Palin and her husband choosing to go ahead with her last pregancy with the knowedge they would be raising a child with Down syndrome.  

    And she got that approval rating (none / 0) (#133)
    by nycstray on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 02:20:44 PM EST
    while pregnant with her 5th child, lol!~

    The worst thing the Obama campaign (5.00 / 5) (#43)
    by Cards In 4 on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 02:03:18 PM EST
    can do is to demean or trivialize Palin.  It would make the 1972 election look close.

    The Obama campaign has already (5.00 / 2) (#96)
    by oculus on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 02:12:20 PM EST
    done so, but now the man at the top congratulates McCain on his VP choice.  Sound familiar?

    Yes, it does reek (5.00 / 3) (#71)
    by Upstart Crow on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 02:08:58 PM EST
    but we got rather used to it during this election cycle, didn't we?

    I think everyone is underestimating how much the invidious sexism running through the Democratic Party and the media this year REALLY IS a political issue.

    Looks like the Dems are going to respond with ... surprise! ... more sexism.


    Umm.... (none / 0) (#32)
    by Jim J on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 02:01:16 PM EST
    because they have some experience?

    Sexism again, I guess....


    Experience (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 02:04:00 PM EST
    is not an argument that Dems can make since we don't have any on the top of the ticket. Perhaps we should switch Biden and Obama and then we can start making those kinds of statements.

    I was responding to masslib's inane (none / 0) (#73)
    by Jim J on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 02:09:16 PM EST
    complaint about sexism.

    Romney was Governor for four years, and (none / 0) (#41)
    by masslib on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 02:03:14 PM EST
    he wasn't popular.  He has less public service experience than Palin.

    You cannot be serious (none / 0) (#80)
    by Jim J on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 02:10:04 PM EST
    Romney's resume is a mile longer than hers. Not a fan of Mitt's, but at some point you gotta put down this Hillary cross and move on.

    I am not supporting the ticket but I think (none / 0) (#137)
    by masslib on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 02:20:54 PM EST
    Palin is an excellent choice for the Repubs.  Romney was my Governor and he was a fricken nightmere.  His resume as a public servant is poor.

    Um, Eagelton? (5.00 / 5) (#4)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 01:53:12 PM EST
    I am not following you at all on this one Jeralyn. What does Eagleton have to do with Palin?

    You lost me. Is there some news  that broke that I am unaware of?

    I totally agree (5.00 / 4) (#14)
    by dissenter on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 01:58:09 PM EST
    I don't agree with a single position of Sarah Palin but listening to the Obama Campaign's response this morning made me sick. They are going to piss off women again all over the country....Obama in fact, doesn't get it!

    Their response will hurt them specifically in Colorado, NM, NV (who like Annie Oakley types), Ohio and PA.

    I swear these people just don't learn.


    You disagree with her anti-corruption (5.00 / 2) (#64)
    by BernieO on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 02:07:09 PM EST
    position? Or her refusing the money for the bridge to nowhere?
    I certainly disagree with some of her positions but not all. I really admire the fact that this young woman stood up to the party of Ted Stevens and successfully took them on. That takes guts.

    Nobody gives you power... (5.00 / 1) (#188)
    by Mr Natural on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 02:50:31 PM EST
    You have to seize it.

    Sarah Palin seized it and so far hasn't abused it.

    That's real change.


    I am not referencing Obama camp's response (none / 0) (#23)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 01:59:18 PM EST
    Which I think was prblematic for a different reason.

    I am trying to figure out what Eagelton has to do with Palin.


    you think she has mental problems? (5.00 / 3) (#5)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 01:53:33 PM EST
    and will cry in public?

    Romney cried in public (none / 0) (#15)
    by coigue on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 01:58:13 PM EST
    maybe thst's why he was passed over for VP

    do you even know who Eagleton is? (1.00 / 1) (#38)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 02:02:12 PM EST
    Yes. (none / 0) (#72)
    by coigue on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 02:09:11 PM EST
    Waiting... (5.00 / 3) (#8)
    by DET103 on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 01:55:39 PM EST
    ..for elaboration on this I guess, currently lost.

    I don't understand (5.00 / 3) (#9)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 01:55:43 PM EST
    The analogy at all.

    Tried to.  I didn't get it.

    My answer, at this point, would be "no."

    O-B'08 needs a better response (3.00 / 1) (#57)
    by lmv on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 02:05:39 PM EST
    I don't care if Palin cried.  I almost did.  And, I still might when I tell my daughters.  

    I think this could be a knockout for Mc-P.  


    Perhaps... (none / 0) (#19)
    by DET103 on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 01:58:28 PM EST
    ...Jeralyn will follow up with the scoop she has gotten on Palin being institutionalized? Didn't Eagleton accept when everyone else said no? Perhaps she means Romney, et all said no?

    et (none / 0) (#25)
    by DET103 on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 01:59:41 PM EST
    al, sorry

    No (none / 0) (#37)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 02:02:04 PM EST
    Eagelton was McGovern's choice. It was after Eagleton stepped down that McGovern could not find anyone to run with him.

    ah (none / 0) (#101)
    by Salo on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 02:13:18 PM EST
    That's a reasonable scenario.

    McGovern was the disaster though. Eagleton was just syptomatic of the wider pathological dysfunction of the party in the 70s.


    Is that snark?? (none / 0) (#141)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 02:21:20 PM EST
    Has Palin been institutionalized?

    Hmmm. That is all. (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by Maria Garcia on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 01:57:02 PM EST

    Jeralyn (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by facta non verba on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 01:57:24 PM EST
    I think the world of you but I respectfully disagree. This woman cleaned up Alaska politics. She took on the Stevens-Young-Murkowski machine and won. She took on the monied oil interests and won.

    This post is an embarrassment for you and for Talk Left.

    Hm (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by Steve M on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 02:00:42 PM EST
    If Palin is such a determined enemy of the Stevens machine, why am I seeing all these videos of Stevens campaigning for her?  Why do you suppose Palin just scrubbed one of those videos from her website, if she's so proud of taking on the corrupt Stevens machine?  Maybe you could clear these things up for me.

    I should add (5.00 / 0) (#31)
    by facta non verba on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 02:01:07 PM EST
    Jeralyn you have always taken the highroad and this post is the lowroad and you are better than this. I am truly sadden that you would compare her to Thomas Eagleton. You are alledging mental illness.

    Wasn't Stevens one of her backers (none / 0) (#26)
    by Molly Bloom on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 01:59:47 PM EST
    making commercials for her?

    What? (none / 0) (#164)
    by flyerhawk on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 02:31:59 PM EST
    Stevens was one of her primary supporters.  

    She supported the Bridge to Nowhere until it became a political land mine and then dropped it.  Of course she kept the money.  She simply directed to something else.

    Here is corruption fighter's comments on the Bridge to Nowhere in 2006...

       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.

    Let the myth building begin!


    I'm not following ... (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by Robot Porter on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 01:58:13 PM EST
    Eagleton was dropped from the McGovern ticket because of a history of mental illness, and the fact that he'd undergone shock treatments.

    What does this have to do with Palin?

    She's got that scandal brewing over (5.00 / 2) (#56)
    by scribe on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 02:05:36 PM EST
    trying to get her ex-brother-in-law fired from his job as a state trooper, apparently as retribution for a difficult divorce from her sister and a custody fight.  It blew up when a senior official would not go along and she had him sacked.  At first, she said she had nothing to do with that and then (about August 13) she doubled-back and said she had.

    Worse, there are tapes.

    How bad?  Prior to today's announcement the "TIPS" line (where you call in anonymous tips) had been open since about August 13 for people to call in with tips about this firing scandal.

    And, last I checked, the extent of her cleaning up was, well, pretty insignificant - Stevens, Young and most of the rest of the "Corrupt Bast*rds Club" have yet to go to trial.  It takes a good year or more to make a corruption case and, well, she's only been on the job a little over a year.  IIRC, all the investigations and charges in these corruption scandals in Alaska were brought by the feds, not the State.  

    As for Stevens, he is getting an accelerated trial date (at his request), for before the election.  And his case was run out of D.C., not Juneau.  


    If the trooper chap was beating his kids... (5.00 / 2) (#122)
    by Salo on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 02:18:46 PM EST
    ...and punching his wife, that will have no impact.

    It'll have the same impact as the travel offcie "scandal" methinks.  


    That's it? (5.00 / 1) (#156)
    by lmv on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 02:24:55 PM EST
    You think this about a VP pick will derail her?

    But it's OK for Biden's son to be paid $100k a year to lobby for MBNA.

    This is not a fight you want to have, in my opinion.  

    It's not McCain's fault he may pick up the third of Hillary voters who won't back Obama.  


    Lobbying is a business. (none / 0) (#189)
    by scribe on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 02:51:26 PM EST
    Not always a nice one, but a legal one - when done properly.  And, to all lights, Biden's son's work has been all above-board.

    And, FWIW, we can bring him back from Iraq to testify.  Army greens look good on TV - they're made to be that way.

    Maybe playing up the 750k pages of documentation on Abramoff and the Indian tribes, which McCain has been sitting on to keep from coming out, would be just the tonic to keep the Convention (Jack's sentencing is Tuesday, I think) lively.

    And we can talk about McCain and his indian casino visits, too.

    Should get tasty.


    Three points (none / 0) (#99)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 02:12:58 PM EST
    1. I understand Palin claims her ex-brother-in-law was physically abusive. A double edged sword at best there for Dems.

    2. Her image at the least has been on of fighting corruption by Republicans in Alaska. How much time will be spent tearing that down by Dems? I expect not that much. Better to ignore her imo.

    3. On Stevens, see 2.

    And I still do not see what (5.00 / 2) (#103)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 02:14:04 PM EST
    Eagelton has to do with it.

    I think she thinks that Palin will have to quit (none / 0) (#124)
    by BarnBabe on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 02:19:00 PM EST
    Because he had to get off the ticket for depression treatments, she thinks Palin will have to get off the ticket for the B-I-Law thing. Although, that has been mentioned a lot before so they must think they can skate around it. Maybe because she has a 80% approval rate there. Should be interesting.

    As to your 3 points (none / 0) (#179)
    by scribe on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 02:42:10 PM EST
    1.  Whether or not the B-i-L was physically abusive or not is not the issue.  The issue is that she apparently caused (or tried to cause) to have him fired from his job as a state trooper, using the power of her office to do so.  When the official she leaned on to get this done balked, she had that official fired.  And, then, from the reports thus far, she was less-than-honest about the whole episode.
    So, we have:
        (a) abuse of office to effect either
          (i) personal gain (i.e., a more favorable litigational posture between her sister and b-i-l) or
          (ii) retribution for private conduct, followed by
        (b) firing a government employee who balked at participating in (a), followed by
        (c) dishonesty about it, all compounded by
        (d)(i) there are tapes and
           (ii) very inept handling of the whole episode.

    Properly done, B-i-L would have been on the street with no one ever noticing.  

    She ought to be a darling of Rove and Cheney, since (a)(ii) is congruent with the handling of Siegelman, Plame, and many more, (b) is congruent with Plame, among others, (c) dishonesty is a Republican art form.

    And, in the retribution category, there are the recent allegations by fmr. Congressman Ney, that his prosecution (for which he's just completed his sentence) came about in part because he had provided information to the Admin that the Iranians wanted to talk and disarm (and Deadeye & Co. wanted another war), and the Nacchio prosecution - which I've long thought a payback for not going along with warrantless wiretapping.

    As to the corruption - maybe she tried.  But - big but - no one we've seen or heard of has gone to prison or lost their jobs as a result of her efforts.  It's been the feds doing the Alaska cases.

    And she did not call on Stevens to resign when he was indicted.

    So, we can disagree on the strength or lack thereof of her position, but I don't think much of her chances.


    The trooper has not been fired (5.00 / 1) (#192)
    by americanincanada on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 02:54:04 PM EST
    Once again research is your friend. It is the trooper's boss, who served in Sarah's cabinet, who was fired. the issue is whether she let him go for NOT firing the trooper.

    She is fully cooprative with the investigation and so far nothing has come up to indicate she did anything wrong.


    Among other things (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by Molly Bloom on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 01:58:40 PM EST
    Newsweek reports that she called Hillary a whiner

    Once onstage, together with Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano, Palin talked about what women expect from women leaders; how she took charge in Alaska during a political scandal that threatened to unseat the state's entire Republican power structure, and her feelings about Sen. Hillary Clinton. (She said she felt kind of bad she couldn't support a woman, but she didn't like Clinton's "whining.")

    There now seem to be two ethic issues involving Palin and off the top of my, Kay Bailey Hutchinson would be more qualified.

    I don't see this a home run and I think this one might just back fire.

    However, tt will not result in an Eagleton (asked to leave the ticket) unless she is indicted.

    Yep, I was posting the same thing down below. (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by IndiDemGirl on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 02:01:57 PM EST
    She is also on record as being against abortion even in the case of rape or incest.

    She's anti-stem cell research, pro creationism... (none / 0) (#193)
    by Berkshireblue on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 02:54:31 PM EST
    a true right wing nut case who dissed HRC and today had the nerve to praise her as though HRC supporters, like me, would somehow flock to McInsane because of HER! Give me a break!

    I expected KBH (none / 0) (#33)
    by andgarden on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 02:01:31 PM EST
    Saw KBH (none / 0) (#61)
    by IndiDemGirl on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 02:06:39 PM EST
    earlier talking about the pick.  She seemed a bit miffed.  

    Or Christie Todd Whitman (none / 0) (#82)
    by indy in sc on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 02:10:15 PM EST
    who has the added bonus of a public falling out with Bush and being more moderate and therefore more palatable to undecided HRC supporters (if the Palin pick is meant to help push the "fence-sitters" over the line for McCain).

    CTW was never a choice (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by andgarden on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 02:11:57 PM EST
    there was no way McCain was going to pick a pro choice running mate. Full stop.

    there are other talking point sites (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by AlSmith on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 01:59:38 PM EST

    the the Democrats just repeat their mistake and nominate McGovern?

    I mean as long as I am believing in change anyway why cant I believe in a small town hockey mom?

    Because Small Town Mayor (none / 0) (#201)
    by Mr Natural on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 02:59:07 PM EST
    I mean as long as I am believing in change anyway why cant I believe in a small town hockey mom?

    Because small town mayor Harry S. Truman was such a colossal failure as a Democratic President.



    Yes, it would be great. (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by IndiDemGirl on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 02:00:05 PM EST
    and it doesn't help that Palin accused Hillary Clinton of "whining."

    Palin just paid tribute in her speech to (5.00 / 4) (#60)
    by Valhalla on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 02:06:18 PM EST
    both Clinton and Ferraro, and the anniversary of women's suffrage.  Things Obama couldn't bring himself to do.

    Insults from the other side do not mean nearly as much as vitriolic misogyny from your own side.

    On topic:  Yeah, I'm totally lost on the Eagleton reference.  Is that the DNC tpm?  Trying to connect to their own party's abysmal failure 35 years ago?  Really?


    Give 'em credit... (none / 0) (#194)
    by Mr Natural on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 02:54:38 PM EST
    Is that the DNC tpm?  Trying to connect to their own party's abysmal failure 35 years ago?

    They're actually doing a pretty good job connecting to our abysmal failure of 35 years ago.

    What a waste of a perfectly dreadful republican presidency...


    So did (none / 0) (#63)
    by janarchy on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 02:06:55 PM EST
    all the fauxgressives and Left wing blogs and Obama supporters. Big deal.

    Are you OK? (5.00 / 2) (#45)
    by theybannedmeinboston on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 02:03:43 PM EST
    I know that some Democrats have been caught off guard by this choice, but some of your commenters have been predicting this choice for weeks. She has been on McCain's shortlist all summer, has submitted multitudes of paper for his vetting committee, and has been visited by his team multiple times. There has been a right wing blog site called, "Draft Sarah Palin for VP" online for weeks. Why would you think she is Eagleton re-visited? Or is it wishful?

    The way the scandel looks (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by TomStewart on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 02:04:19 PM EST
    is, well, she looks guilty as hell. She's had to 'backtrack' a few statements already, and the Alaskan media is all over it, but with all the crud that going on in Alaska these days, they must be getting stretched thin.

    TPM is coving it.

    wha .. wha ... what? (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by ccpup on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 02:05:49 PM EST
    As much as I respect what you do here on TL, Jeralyn, I'm beginning to seriously doubt your political acumen.  

    Do you know anything about Sarah Palin's history in Alaskan politics?  Fighting against her own Party when it came to corruption?  I thought you, of all people, would be able to even quietly support THAT even if you won't by any stretch of the imagination support that ticket.  This Post just seems shockingly petty of you.

    But your response seems to be so indicative of what we're hearing from Obama Supporters (well, some, anyway) in response to McCain's pick.

    It's obviously caught them flat-footed and they're lashing out with a minimum of fact and a whole lot of assumption.

    This was a good day for McCain when it should have been a fantastic day for Obama.  And Palin on the campaign trail shaking hands and selling the McCain-Palin ticket is a very powerful weapon indeed.

    The Obama Camp needs to get on top of their message and on top of how they're running things.  Where's the Palin ad which would have echoed the Biden ad?  McCain had something out the DAY of announcing Biden!  

    Where's Obama on this?

    Making fun of small town America, that's where he is.

    McGovern was the fatal mistake (5.00 / 0) (#77)
    by Salo on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 02:09:38 PM EST
    he designed the crackpot selection system too. Eagleton was the symptom.

    Please don't dishonor Sen. McGovern. (none / 0) (#154)
    by oculus on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 02:24:01 PM EST
    Don't forget the slurs against Gerry (none / 0) (#84)
    by Valhalla on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 02:10:19 PM EST
    Ferraro as an example of a desperation pick.

    Yeah, bc condescending to the first woman VP candidate, chosen by your own party, is gonna be such a super-winning strategy to get those Clinton supporters, Republican crossover women, and Independents on your side.  


    Fighting against corruption? (none / 0) (#89)
    by magster on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 02:11:27 PM EST
    Read MyDD lately?

    Sarah Palin (none / 0) (#106)
    by flyerhawk on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 02:14:27 PM EST
    Is George W Bush in drag.  

    I am quite happy that McCain picked Palin.  I think she is in way over her head and will be expected to hit the ground running.  She has no national exposure and she is going to face an onslaught of media scrutiny.


    "In drag"? (5.00 / 1) (#118)
    by andgarden on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 02:17:06 PM EST
    Probably not a wise turn of phrase in this context.

    How so? (none / 0) (#200)
    by flyerhawk on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 02:58:59 PM EST
    Honest question. I don't see why that phrase is bad. She is a hard core conservative that is going to try to win voters by appealing to her soccer/hockey mom image. How isn't that George Bush redux except it is more authentic?

    W in drag (none / 0) (#138)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 02:21:01 PM EST
    he does up well.  who knew?

    This is such (5.00 / 2) (#59)
    by SarahSoda on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 02:06:05 PM EST
    a cynical choice.  The democrats don't choose a qualified candidate for either the #1 slot or the #2 slot...lots of women crushed. (like me) BTW, Obama won we over last night, tepidly.

    But Sarah Palin? C'mon... Do I want to see more women in high office? Sure I do, but not JUST because they are women.  I want qualified people whether they are male, female, black, white or purple.  The only reason for this choice seems to be that she is of the female persuasion... "neener, neener, neener".  Sick.

    And what does Sarah have to do with Thomas Eagleton?

    She ain't no Hillary.

    She ain't no Hillary... (5.00 / 4) (#107)
    by Upstart Crow on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 02:14:39 PM EST
    but why do you assume she was chosen JUST because she was a woman, that she doesn't bring skills, talents, and charisma to the ticket? I was aware of her name in the buzz months ago, but didn't think he'd have the balls do do it.

    McCain saw a gap, and he filled it.  That's what VP choices usually are. Obama needed experience; McCain needed sizzle. He got it.


    sizzle for sure (5.00 / 1) (#143)
    by TimNCGuy on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 02:21:37 PM EST
    this site has been crashing ever since the announcement.

    seems to have generated a little more buzz than a 3am text message.


    Palin jointly campaigning with and for Stevens (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by magster on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 02:10:02 PM EST
    last month--well after he was targeted for corruption.  Stevens trial is next month. AK corruption is on the ticket now.

    Dumb pick by McCain.

    There's no way I'm voting for McCain (5.00 / 4) (#90)
    by Maria Garcia on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 02:11:31 PM EST
    ...but if Democrats start to smear people based on mental health issues that should be private then I might just vote straight Green Party. I thought Eagleton got a bum steer and what happened to him was disgraceful.

    didn't dems just spent wednesday (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by TimNCGuy on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 02:12:00 PM EST
    evening applauding Bill Clinton when he said something along the lines of

    they said a young Governor of a small state with no foreign policy credentials lacked the experience to be president.... and they were WRONG.

    So now, the same group is claiming that Palin is a bad choice for VP because she has the same kind of experience that Bill Clinton had, and she is only asking to be VICE president.

    Certainly if Obama is qualified to be president, the Palin is qualified to be VP.  If McCain dies in ofiice, you realize she gets to select a VP and can select someone like a Biden at that point if she felt the need to do what Obama needed to do to shore up her credentials.

    I think the choice was fine (5.00 / 3) (#95)
    by mmc9431 on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 02:12:12 PM EST
    Palin represents the Republican Party. She is sound on all their platform positions as you would expect her to be. She also brings a youthful vitality to the ticket, that McCain sorely needed. I think she'll play very well in suburbia as well as rural America. Her negative is experience, which the Democrat's will have a hard time exploiting anyway.

    Palin fine as a REpublican choice (none / 0) (#180)
    by Lowtideppm on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 02:42:21 PM EST
     The Obama Democrats can't really accuse McCain of cynicism after their "Vote for Obama the principled anti-war, anti-insider, anti-corporate favoritism candidate and his pro-war, Washington insider, MBNA suck up VP Joe Biden" campaign.
      HIs sudden display of Solid Democratic Rhetoric? Why should I believe it's anything other than "just words."
      The media (both right and left) have been so wrong about any story which even tangentially includes the Clintons.  I think that reflects even on this story.
      The American people have their own minds, actually.  No saying how this will play out, but it could be pretty interesting.
      I really don't like hearing all the pro-women rhetoric from the party which so blithely ignored (and even participated) in sexism in the primary campaign.
      I could be so very wrong, but I wonder if a male Democratic governor wouldn't get some understanding (from Democrats )for trying to get justice in a domestic abuse situation - up against a system notoriously ineffective in these matters.
      This candidacy may collapse by the end of next week for all I know. I just wouldn't jump to that conclusion quite yet.

    Question(s) (5.00 / 1) (#121)
    by cmugirl on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 02:18:11 PM EST
    Update: Commenters here aren't following the news. Palin: A Scandal We Can Believe In. More here.

    Palin is under federal investigation for abuse of power in Alaska.

    Please warn us before you send us over to TPM - has Josh Marshall been returned from being kidnapped?

    Also, I think you are trying to make the point that she is under federal investigation for abuse of power, so she must be guilty - did I understand that?  I thought this was a pro-defendant site?  Innocent until proven guilty?

    Please tell me if I am reading this incorrectly.

    you forgot that (5.00 / 3) (#178)
    by TimNCGuy on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 02:42:02 PM EST
    in this election cycle, dems have decided that the ends justify the means

    This is politics (none / 0) (#134)
    by Salo on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 02:20:44 PM EST
    If she's beatable all the better for Dems.

    I suspect the voters may however react to the firing story as they did to Travelgate....yaaaawwwnnnn.


    There's no federal involvement in that link (5.00 / 1) (#127)
    by Valhalla on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 02:19:23 PM EST
    you gave.  And the link within the link about the trooper story goes to a story that talks about an 'accusation' made by her political opponent.

    I read about the trooper story over a month ago.  I doubt it's going to get a lot of traction, except on  the CC blogs.  It will be endlessly discussed there, I'm sure.

    I'm off to find out if there's an indictment against her by any federal or state authority.

    Oh brother, check yourselves people..... (5.00 / 2) (#130)
    by Maria Garcia on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 02:20:05 PM EST
    ...this overreaction is playing right into McCain's hands. It is necessary to swoop down and destroy Sarah Palin before the sun sets on even one day of her candidacy? McCain is still the same bad candidate he was yesterday. No need to make a$$es out of ourselves.

    It's a non-starter (5.00 / 1) (#131)
    by goldberry on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 02:20:15 PM EST
    No big deal

    McCain is going to run (5.00 / 1) (#140)
    by jb64 on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 02:21:09 PM EST
    as a reformer (don't laugh) he's going to give some tough love to his party next week. Had he not picked Palin, who has a proven track record of going after corruption, even if it means exposing leaders in her own party, this line would not have credibility. The fact that she's anti-abortion (I refuse to refer to any of these people as "pro life") but signed a bill giving gay couples some benefits suggests that she has a maverick streak of her own. And the Re-thugs love her.

    The Eagleton reference deals with the investigation into whether she improperly fired a state employee, and possible legal ramifications that might force her to step down. I'm pretty sure the extensive vetting she went through assures the McCain campaign that there really isn't much there. Hell, there was no such thing as "vetting" in '72. Eagleton conveniently failed to tell McGovern about his shock treatment.  

    The thin resume is a bonus.... (5.00 / 1) (#165)
    by Oje on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 02:34:23 PM EST
    Palin's nomination will set a bar for determining what makes a woman qualified for the highest office. Constitutionally, of course, the bar is the same as a man. But, as we learned during the primary, the cultural barriers to a woman in one of the two highest offices knows no political party.

    If the Obama campaign goes after Palin's inexperience or readiness in way that is reminiscent of Clinton's critique of Obama, the McCain campaign will be able to sift through the record of Obama's reactions to the Clintons (and his campaign's effort to paint a former Democratic President as a racist). Soon, the parallel charge of sexism or a double standard will become evident, whether the McCain campaign explicitly makes the assertion or not (I presume not, the Republicans know when to let the media do its dirty work in a way that the Obama campaign and surrogates do not).

    Heh (5.00 / 1) (#199)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 02:58:20 PM EST
    Or as Eugene Robinson might say, "does this mean the democrats are accusing Palin of being 'uppity'?"  

    I agree - going after her lack of experience is not going to work with this particular democratic nominee.


    Puuhleeeease... (none / 0) (#210)
    by Mr Natural on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 03:08:35 PM EST
    the Republicans know when to let the media do its dirty work in a way that the Obama campaign and surrogates do not).

    Get real.  Axelrod is a master of perception management.

    Sob... If only I could believe...


    Palin is NOT under indictment from (5.00 / 2) (#169)
    by Valhalla on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 02:36:17 PM EST
    either federal or state authorities.

    None of the links you posted say that.

    She is under investigation by the Democratic legislature of Alaska because of allegations that she had her brother-in-law removed from his job as a trooper.  The investigator has said that Palin and her staff have cooperated with the investigation so no subpoenas have been necessary.

    After this 'scandal' broke, her popularity ratings in Alaska plummeted to a dismal...80%.

    I find it troubling that this mistake was made about legal definitions on this blog in particular.  I don't know the true facts of the case (no one at TL does either), but being under investigation is far different from an indictment, and far, far different from a conviction.  The Clintons were investigated by Ken Starr for how many months?  And at what final cost to the taxpayers?  

    I think there's some wishful thinking going on here.

    Went over to that Orangey place ... (5.00 / 1) (#177)
    by Robot Porter on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 02:42:02 PM EST
    they seem to be missing it.

    They're actually arguing that there are more experienced women than Palin, and they're doing it without a hint of irony.

    well (5.00 / 1) (#184)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 02:46:31 PM EST
    it certainly seems that McCain has succeeded in gettting the die hards panties in a wad.
    if nothing else.
    personally, if that scandal is the best they have against the lady I think she will be fine.
    it seems pretty thin to me.
    but we will see.

    Annie Oakley (5.00 / 1) (#205)
    by BPeters on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 03:01:33 PM EST
    That's how I prefer to look at it.  McCain has nominated Annie Oakley.  

    furthermore, (5.00 / 3) (#207)
    by ccpup on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 03:02:52 PM EST
    -- and this seems like a small thing, but may be impressive with some people --, she sold the Governor's Jet and flies commercial when doing business or drives her Suburban around the State.

    She felt the private plane was a waste of taxpayer money.

    Good political instincts on that one, and it may help her connect with those voters who yearn for something approaching fiscal sanity from their Government.

    home run today (5.00 / 1) (#213)
    by DandyTIger on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 07:08:31 PM EST
    for McCain-Palin. I mean, wow. And it's actually easy to tell that it's a home run. Watch the the usual slimy pundits on cable news, they're shaking with anger and they look stunned. Cafferty was actually foaming. Maddow was red in the face with brows tight as possible while was faking a smile and shaking her head. It was amazing. Just from that you can tell this was a home run.

    I think it stops the momentum from the convention. I think it hits hard at the change message. And, the interesting part, if the dems go at her for experience, it's quite a brilliant trap. If they're not smart, they'll do that and make this election about experience.

    You think she's that bad? (none / 0) (#2)
    by Faust on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 01:50:32 PM EST
    Skeletons in the closet? I'm not sure what your angle is here. You see the ticket collapsing?

    I do wonder whether and how well (none / 0) (#12)
    by andgarden on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 01:57:08 PM EST
    Palin was vetted.

    Time will tell.

    Did some news break? (none / 0) (#17)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 01:58:18 PM EST
    I think we'll be hearing (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by andgarden on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 01:59:49 PM EST
    about this.

    Who knows what else there is.


    Did I miss something in that link? (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by Maria Garcia on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 02:04:00 PM EST
    I know I have reading comprehension problems but it just talked about her pregnancy.

    Yawn (5.00 / 0) (#66)
    by cmugirl on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 02:07:32 PM EST
    This is nothing compared to what we've been hearing about all these months.

    As much as the Obama supporters would love for this to be the smoking gun, it's not gonna happen.

    And the screeching already being thrown up by commenters on this and other blogs and especially from the Obama camp itself tells me this pick worries them.


    As a Democrat (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by Molly Bloom on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 02:09:36 PM EST
    I would be more worried had McCain picked Hutchinson. Palin is not even close in statute to either KBH or Hillary.

    exactly (none / 0) (#105)
    by coigue on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 02:14:15 PM EST
    I assume you are referring to this (none / 0) (#46)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 02:03:46 PM EST
    " her feelings about Sen. Hillary Clinton. (She said she felt kind of bad she couldn't support a woman, but she didn't like Clinton's "whining.")"

    The question is is there video. If not, I assume she will deny having said that. And then where are we?


    Oh that..... (none / 0) (#52)
    by Maria Garcia on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 02:05:08 PM EST
    ...she might be a tad bit hypocritical. Who among them isn't?

    Look closer at the link (none / 0) (#67)
    by Molly Bloom on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 02:07:45 PM EST
    There is some video on the post (none / 0) (#68)
    by andgarden on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 02:08:11 PM EST
    but I didn't watch it.

    I'm not sure how damaging the statement would be anyway, as I think the point of Palin is the grab the union men who were supporting Hillary. That's why Palin emphasized that she and her husband were in a union.

    My point is that no one really knows a whole lot about Palin, and bad things might come out at the wrong time for McCain.


    Just watched it (5.00 / 1) (#116)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 02:16:41 PM EST
    The text mischaracterizes it.

    I do not see how Dems, and especially the Left blogs, can possibly use it.


    Have you been reading the Left blogs lately? (5.00 / 3) (#139)
    by Oje on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 02:21:02 PM EST

    Thank you (5.00 / 1) (#163)
    by americanincanada on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 02:29:41 PM EST
    The text does mischaracterize what she said. it will not be anything they can use because voters know how to click on a link and watch video.

    She is superficially very appealing... (none / 0) (#70)
    by Salo on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 02:08:29 PM EST
    ...And that's all McCain needs. It blows awy the McSame narrative now.

    And Biden will look like an arse in a debate with her if he gets aggressive.

    just remember that she's a pro-lifer anti UHC sorta person.

    Good luck Obama you will need it.

    she is not just a pretty face (5.00 / 3) (#88)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 02:11:07 PM EST
    and after watching her acceptance speech I think Joe might be in danger of getting his a$$ handed to him if he tries to rough her up.
    she hunts moose.  she is not afraid of Joe Biden.

    Biden is in serious trouble with this (none / 0) (#115)
    by Salo on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 02:16:37 PM EST
    I can see how he gets the big gaffe.   But that may help Obama in an Ironic way.  It'll make obama look smoother and more composed by comparison.

    Biden in trouble? (none / 0) (#123)
    by TheRealFrank on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 02:18:49 PM EST
    Where on earth does that come from?

    He is way more experienced and knowledgeable, but he's in trouble because he needs to debate a woman?



    no (5.00 / 2) (#155)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 02:24:07 PM EST
    he COULD be in trouble because he can be a arrogant know-it-all and she seems like a pretty smart lady who just might be ready for him.

    he is knowledgeable, very smart (none / 0) (#157)
    by bjorn on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 02:25:56 PM EST
    but he sometimes speaks before he thinks

    That's what makes this site more fun (none / 0) (#75)
    by IndiDemGirl on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 02:09:34 PM EST
    than other, more predictable ones.

    Not to mention (none / 0) (#86)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 02:10:51 PM EST
    What appears to be a principled stand against repetitive personal attacks on politicians, but it doesn't really get applied to other A-list bloggers.

    It is an odd site.

    To clarify (none / 0) (#102)
    by mmc9431 on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 02:13:50 PM EST
    For the sake of the Democrat's I wish he had gone with a looney like Huckabee or Lieberman!

    the crying was Muskie wasn't it? (none / 0) (#108)
    by Salo on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 02:14:45 PM EST
    Same era of events. what about Wilbur Mills though?  heh.

    Eagleton cryed too (none / 0) (#125)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 02:19:13 PM EST
    I believe

    McCain's Sexism (none / 0) (#128)
    by TomStewart on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 02:19:29 PM EST
    Leave it to John McCain. Yes, he picked a woman, but passed over a dozen women who had the experience and heft to be president, and chose a younger, pretty and inexperienced woman to be on the ticket. One that won't overshadow him once on the campaign trail, and one I bet he thinks he can control better because of that inexperience. He thinks Hilliary voters will go for her becuase she's a woman.

    Now that is sexism.

    McCain picked the governor (5.00 / 2) (#211)
    by Inky on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 03:22:58 PM EST
    with the highest approval rating in the entire United States, for god's sake. Palin has spent a short time as Governor, I'll grant you that, but then Obama has spent the equivalent amount of time as US Senator, when you take off the time he has spent running for President. And Palin has been in politics since 1992, longer than Obama, most of that time spent in executive positions. Americans tend to prefer governors to senators, as I'm sure you know. In any case, there's no way that most women are going to view this VP pick as sexist, and I really doubt that the Democrats are going to be able to attack Palin effectively on her lack of experience. Personally, I've been expecting this choice since March because I know it would be a canny move on McCain's part. And as for Palin's "scandal"--that truly is a tempest in a teapot.  

    She's teh oil company pick (none / 0) (#144)
    by Salo on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 02:21:42 PM EST
    so far as I can tell. Alaskans are hip deep in big oil.

    Research is your friend (5.00 / 1) (#185)
    by americanincanada on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 02:48:17 PM EST
    She has actually taken on big oil and raised the taxes on them. Please read before you post. She may be a lot of things but in the pocket of big oil is not one of them.

    list please (none / 0) (#174)
    by TimNCGuy on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 02:40:07 PM EST
    would you like to provide a list of the ones he passed over that were conservative on social issues please?

    Here's a list (none / 0) (#182)
    by TomStewart on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 02:45:59 PM EST
    Posted over (and swiped from) Kevin Drums new digs at Mother Jones:

    Kathryn Ann Bailey Hutchison
    Olympia Snowe
    Christine Todd Whitman
    Susan Molinari
    Deborah Pryce
    Sue Wilkins Myrick
    Jo Ann Emerson
    Kay Granger
    Heather Wilson
    Mary Bono Mack
    Shelley Moore Capito
    Marsha Blackburn
    Ginny Brown-Waite
    Katherine Harris
    Candice Miller
    Thelma Drake
    Virginia Foxx
    Cathy McMorris Rodgers
    Jean Schmidt
    arguably Carly Fiorina

    Some I agree with (CTW) and I'd add Elizabeth Dole. But really, Palin? Hmmmm.


    Just going to say something about a couple of (5.00 / 2) (#203)
    by Angel on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 03:01:11 PM EST
    these people:

    Kay Bailey Hutchison:  has hubby problems
    Christine Todd Whitman:  9/11 air quality issue
    Susan Molinari:  lost an election from what I remember; you're dead in politics if you can't keep your office
    Mary Bono Mack:  married many times; dumb as a hammer
    Katherine Harris:  do I really have to say anything?
    Jean Schmidt:  almost lost her seat; wicked witch of the heartland
    Carly Fiorina:  HP's problems were attributed to her; she got fired and they brought in a successor to clean up her mess

    This stuff is off the top of my head.


    I read about the investigation... (none / 0) (#142)
    by kredwyn on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 02:21:29 PM EST
    Her response was a long the lines of "Good, investigate me."

    According to the reports, it seems that she fired someone and he's come back claiming that she was orchestrating pressure to have him fire her BIL...something about a nasty divorce.

    How can anyone say that she is the best pick (none / 0) (#148)
    by fuzzyone on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 02:22:54 PM EST
    Someone made the Clarence Thomas analogy and that seems apt to me.  There are countless more experienced Repub women.  This seems like such an obvious pander.  

    I really have to wonder how will vetted she is.  Between her campaigning with Stevens, who may well be in jail before November, and her own scandal why would they buy this distraction.  It seems so dumb.

    She's a governor... (none / 0) (#204)
    by Mr Natural on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 03:01:32 PM EST
    There are countless more experienced Repub women.

    Your assertion is ludicrous.


    I find it condescending. (none / 0) (#149)
    by magisterludi on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 02:23:01 PM EST
    As a Hillary supporter, it's a personal affront AFAIC.

    Just because she's a woman, women will flock to her like they did Hillary. How patronizing and cynical and transparent can they be?

    Don't answer that.

    Exactly (none / 0) (#186)
    by TomStewart on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 02:48:20 PM EST
    Hear the mix of boos and mild applause when she mentioned Hillary?

    It's his choice (none / 0) (#152)
    by indiependy on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 02:23:21 PM EST
    McCain had a slew of people to choose from, and he decided on a former small town mayor and brand new Governor as his Vice Presidential nominee. Much like many Republicans she's under an ethics investigation, strongly against choice, a global-warming denier, doesn't believe in modern biology, and in bed with big oil.

    But unlike many prominent Republicans, much less Biden, she's never dealt with national domestic issues, has a thin resume in higher office (Governor of Alaska exactly half the time Obama's been a Senator, served only two full terms in the City Council, and mayor of a town of 7,738), is Governor of the state that receives more earmarks than any other state,

    She also never been tested in the grueling arena of national politics. Consider recent statements:

    • Last month on Kudlow asked "what is it exactly that the Vice President does every day?"

    • Said she didn't like Clinton's "whining" about how she was treated, "She does herself a disservice to even mention it really. You've got to plow through that. You've got to know what you're getting into...Any kind of perceived whine about that excess criticism...I think, man, that doesn't do us any good, women in politics, women in general, wanting to progress this country."

    • Today was very vocal in saying she opposed the "bridge to nowhere", only problem being that she's on the record as being very much for it when she ran for Governor.

    Maybe Eagleton was the wrong example, looks like McCain picked Dan Quayle.

    And we have (none / 0) (#170)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 02:37:04 PM EST
    what? Dukakis/Bentsen again?

    Everybody is wrong (none / 0) (#158)
    by TheRealFrank on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 02:27:12 PM EST
    And I'm right of course :)

    Seriously, there's a lot of silly things being said.

    Comparisons to Eagleton or Quayle are dumb. These are hardly arguments that will sway any voter. You can't deny that a conservative, younger, good-looking woman is a good pick for an old guy who is not liked by the conservative base.

    On the other side: if the gender of the Republican VP will make you vote for the Republican ticket, then you are shooting yourself in the foot with a cannon. It's also reverse sexism. Someone's gender or race does not make them worse, but it also does not make them better.

    BTD and Steve M's advice earlier is right: ignore the VP pick, and stick to the issues. If they try to make a big deal about her gender, let Hillary deal with it (and I know she will).

    I still don't get the Eagleton connection. (none / 0) (#168)
    by coigue on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 02:35:30 PM EST
    so the Eagleton scenario is that McCain finds out too late about the skeleton in her closet (in this case, abuse of power) and decides to fire her, then loses horribly?

    quick research. sinking gut feeling. (none / 0) (#190)
    by Christy1947 on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 02:51:29 PM EST
    As to Palin's experience and positions, what I found is:
    1. She has terms as mayor of Wasilla, Alaska, pop between 5,000 and 8,000, which is a subdivision of a borough there, sort of like a small village  inside a county,  and a term on the Ethics Panel of one of the oil commissions and eighteen months as Governor of Alaska, one budget worth. Sixty seven percent of the  Wasilla families are below the poverty line, but it should be noted that many Alaskans are subsistence in many things that do not translate to income for statistical purposes, such as that moose which undoubtedly became supper all winter for the Palin family, given the size of  a moose (tasty, my father  also did that for us, but there's a lot of scrap mooseburger in a moose and it doesn't get milder with aging). Thirty five percent commute to jobs in Anchorage.  I personally don't treat administrative experience as the mayor of Wasilla as transferrable to the national setting. I've had family reunions bigger than the population of Wasilla (I kid you not). I will look but so far I don't see reporting telling us whether there is a serious body of evidence on how well she works collegially in government with others over time, on highly disputed issues. It seems unlikely that her ethics urge would be encouraged by a McCain administration, in terms of investigating wrongdoing by Republicans. Rated as nontransferrble.

    2. She is an opponent of Roe v. Wade and anti-choice, and in her inaugural speech supported the teaching of creationism in the public schools.

    3. Her claim to fame is ethics investigations, principally against members of her own party, although Ted Stevens appears in many of her campaign photos. She was recently involved in a dispute with the Interior Department arguing about the absence of necessary science in the designation of the polar bear as an endangered species, apparently similar to other Republican arguments that there is insufficient science available to support global warming adjustments. She is reported to support drilling in ANWR. She participating in the  controversial granting of a contract to a Canadian company for a national gas pipeline to the lower 48 which has drawn controversy. As to oil, she has worked to get a larger share of AK revenues for Ak residents and has given a grant to residents to alleviate higher energy costs, and cancelled the (automobile?) gas tax. When the federal money for the bridge to nowhere collapsed, she declined to replace it with state money, and is said to be an opponent of pork barrel, evidenced by pruning the construction contract segment of her state budget.

    4. One of her sons is about to be sent to Iraq, and she made a fact finding trip there last year which resulted in photos on the tv. No other international experience to date discovered. The day is young on discovering things about her.

    5. Reporting says she is herself being investigated by the legislature for firing the local equivalent of the State Police Commissioner for not in turn firing a state patrolman who is her former brother in law.  Reporting indicates there may have been domestic violence involved there, and the question turns on whether she used her Gubernatorial position to force the BIL's boss to fire him  because of the domestic situation and canned the boss when he didn't. this investigation is reportedly ongoing as I type. Reporting says there are two ethics issues, but this is the only one I found.

    6. Her most recently born son is challenged, what is reported as Downs Syndrome. I do hope this is not drawn into the race, but I have already seen one idiot claiming that she bravely chose to bear her child rather than abort him, which made the Right to Life folk proud of her. Editorially, the story made me want to vomit and I hope we note this one and find something else to talk about if that is all there is. I have known many families with Downs children, and grown Downs individuals, and all bringing it into the race will do is make for lots of stupid talk unrelated to the reality that most people are not Einstein either and there are good if difficult lives available for  Downs children and Grown Downs individuals and there is great variation in the severity of the condition from individual to individual, although the aggregate life span is shorter in some individuals owing to certain additional medical problems not uncommon  but not uniform in the Downs population,  as long as you didn't have your heart set on Einstein or nothing. I come from the Northwest, and there is no great lust there outside Microsoft to be Einstein. Please leave the child out of these discussions.

    7. Her state is overwhelmingly white, with the only significant non white population group the 15% who are Inuit and other Native Americans. I have not seen any dustups in the AK press so far relating to intercommunal anything. Rated not a bad thing, the want of reported dustups, but not probably transferrable to the national scene either.

    8. At one point there was a state milk company, which was owned and run by the state, which she tried to keep open when it fell on financial hard times, althought its milk was more expensive than milk shipped in from relatively nearby Washington State in the lower 48. It failed anyway and was closed, with no bidders for the assets. Rated probably a local issue which may not affect the love of other Republicans for private enterprise over all.

    Pro ANWR
    Pro Right to life - level unknown but said to be  fervent. Seeks overturn of Roe v. Wade.
    Pro Creationism in the public schools.
    As to oil, willing to drill but wanting a fairer and larger share for Alaska residents
    Anti pork barrel but a short resume.

    A place to start for the inquiring minds of those contemplating whether she brings substantial to the McCain ticket which is desirable, in addition to the obvious.

    No. Palin is not Eagleton (none / 0) (#191)
    by Prabhata on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 02:51:54 PM EST
    Paling brings the "Mr. Smith goes to Washington" aura. I loved her address.  I think she connected with rural Americans in ways that Obama does not.  I think it was a bold move by McCain.  Bravo!

    TL - you wrote: (none / 0) (#198)
    by scribe on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 02:56:38 PM EST
    "Wouldn't it be great to have McCain do as poorly as McGovern in November."

    Yes, it would.  But it would take him crashing and burning in epic proportions to do so.

    Publicity stunt (none / 0) (#212)
    by Rashomon66 on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 04:18:34 PM EST
    I've read a lot of people say this is a good move by McCain. But really it is playing out just like a publicity stunt. Yeah, he turned some heads - so do fireworks. But that alone will not do it. McCain would have to hope that Palin gives him the Hillary supporters. But for that to happen you would have to conclude that the reason voters chose Hillary was for gender alone. Palin is no Hillary. She is a Conservative who will in no way break the glass ceiling that Hillary wanted to break. Personally, I think it's at best a risky political move and possibly a bad one.

    Shame on you Jeralyn (none / 0) (#214)
    by Jon on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 12:05:21 AM EST
    You should be ashamed of yourself for posting such a ridiculous smear on Governor Palin.  Comparing her to Thomas Eagleton's mental illness is beneath the lowest thing I've ever seen in politics on the left.

    And that abuse of power thing is such a joke. And you know it. Shame on you.