The Palin Trap

Unlike Jeralyn, I do not see an Eagelton (Palin is being investigated for the firing of her ex brother in law, who Palin claims was physically abusing her sister) or Quayle angle to Palin. Indeed, because Obama's achilles heel has been the experience issue, it seems impossible for me to imagine the experience issue will hurt Palin. It DOES hurt McCain's ability to wield it against Obama. But clearly, McCain understood that and made the choice in order to remake his message. Ed Kilgore has a terrific post on the subject:

I have to admit some significant disagreement with how most Democrats (including the Obama campaign) are reacting to the choice of Sarah Palin as John McCain's running-mate. Many are simply deriding Palin as a lightweight or someone obviously unqualifed to be commander-in-chief--another Dan Quayle. Others watched the event in Dayton and found the whole thing laughable.

. . . [W]hat I saw in Dayton was (1) the "maverick" GOP presidential candidate introducing his "maverick" running mate, even though Palin, even more than McCain, is actually a conservative ideologue whose selection thrilled both cultural and economic factions of the Right; (2) a direct appeal by Palin to HRC supporters to consummate Hillary's campaign by shattering the splintered "glass ceiling;" (3) a compelling personal story of a woman who (a) has one son with Down's Syndrome, (b) another who is being deployed to Iraq on September 11; (c) is married to a Native American (at least technically) union worker and athlete; and (d) has bravely defied her party and oil companies in Alaska.

As Ed notes, much of this image is patently false. But the risks are these:

[F]ocusing criticism of the choice of Palin on her qualifications could be a very large mistake, particularly in terms of women who might otherwise have little reason to support her, but who are sensitive to gender-based double standards. Credentials aside, Palin is very vulnerable because, like McCain, he's mainly "above party" because she dissents from Republican orthodoxy in Alaska from the Right. Both cultural and economic wingnuts love her passionately. And as I said in my last post, she crucially reinforces McCain's phony "maverick" image with her own phony maverick image.

Ignoring all that in favor of mocking her for what many Democrats are privately calling her "obvious" lack of credentials for the White House is a big and unnecessary gamble, and quite possibly a trap. We should all take pains to avoid it.

I am with Ed.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

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

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Please re-read my post (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 02:29:23 PM EST
    My Eagleton reference has to do with her being under investigation in Alaska for ethics violations related to abuse of power. It has nothing to do with her experience or lack thereof.

    I understood your original point immediately. (5.00 / 0) (#8)
    by Molly Bloom on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 02:44:05 PM EST
    I was pretty young, and not very interested (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by JavaCityPal on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 02:44:47 PM EST
    at the time, but my recollection on Eagleton was that he had not mentioned his time in a hospital for a mental/emotional/nervous breakdown. I don't see a comparison to Palin. This investigation has been in the news since it started.

    And Eagleton was under investigation (5.00 / 3) (#12)
    by Ed on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 02:45:00 PM EST
    for what exactly?  The only major "scandal" in Eagleton's career that I'm aware of is that he'd had psychiatric counseling and electroshock therapy.

    I urge you to change the (5.00 / 2) (#31)
    by oculus on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 02:48:55 PM EST
    title.  Disrespectful to a person who sought treatment for mental illness.  

    You were incorrect... (5.00 / 2) (#52)
    by kredwyn on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 02:51:38 PM EST
    it's not a federal investigation. And as a story...it's at least a month old he said/she said with her responding to it along the lines of "Good. Investigate me."

    It about abuse of power. (5.00 / 0) (#106)
    by TomStewart on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 02:59:31 PM EST
    Gov Palin is under investigation for abuse of power, that, if substantiated, could cause her removal from office. And teh republican ticket, thus the Eagleton reference.

    Really, I think this could be bad for the Gov.


    I understood that (5.00 / 4) (#130)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 03:03:51 PM EST
    I still do not see your angle.

    First, it is no surprise. We all know about it.

    Second, Palin is arguing that her ex-brother in law was physically abusive to her sister and her sister's children. I do not want to be the political operation arguing on behalf of a wife beater.


    He also made death threats to her father and (5.00 / 3) (#212)
    by allimom99 on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 03:33:06 PM EST
    tasered his 11-year-old son (by the kid's request, but REALLY). He was suspended, his union complained, the suspension was reduced.

    By all accounts, she is cooperating with the investigation. She has ruffled a lot of powerful feathers in Alaska, including our friend Ted Stevens. As governor she is CIC of the National Guard in her state, has worked within a budget, and said NO to some very big boys indeed in AK. I would never vote for McCain regardless of who we picked, but Ed's right - the Dems demean her at their peril.

    I frankly didn't think McCain didn't have it in him, but this is a gamble that will at least give him a news cycle or 3 when the Ds thought this weekend would be all about THE SPEECH. Good strategy.


    2 years as full-time Governor (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by ruffian on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 02:32:07 PM EST
    stacks up well enough against 3 years as part-time Senator.  I would not play that card if I were Bill Burton.  Ooops, too late.

    I think the more relevant and useful point (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by andgarden on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 02:42:04 PM EST
    is that McCain now looks ridiculous for his "not ready to lead" ads.

    Why is Sarah Palin "ready to lead" but not Barack Obama?


    Okay, let's look straight at it. (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by Cream City on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 02:44:48 PM EST
    This is the ageism argument against McCain.  Let's not wuss around it.  Okay, say he has two years.  Then we have a president who is the same age as Obama is now -- and with two years as vice president in addition to her years of executive experience as governor.

    I hope you see now why this is not a good argument.


    Nonsense (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by andgarden on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 02:47:56 PM EST
    When you choose a VP, you are saying that the person you chose is qualified to be President, no matter how old you are.

    Please, (5.00 / 2) (#41)
    by frankly0 on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 02:50:11 PM EST
    what you are arguing is that the very unlikely case that Palin would have to take over immediately as President is every bit as important to consider as the 100% certain case that a Presidential candidate will be in power.

    Most people can do these calculations. It really isn't hard.


    Plus you talking about Obama's ... (5.00 / 5) (#89)
    by Robot Porter on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 02:57:03 PM EST
    thin resume in this discussion which is what McCain wants.

    thank you (5.00 / 2) (#102)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 02:59:11 PM EST
    thank you thank you

    Capt, I think you're one of the few people ... (5.00 / 1) (#141)
    by Robot Porter on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 03:07:08 PM EST
    who's getting this today.

    and you (none / 0) (#172)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 03:19:37 PM EST
    Me, too, capt. me too. Do I get (5.00 / 2) (#220)
    by zfran on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 03:36:19 PM EST
    it, too?

    Nonsense. Biden (5.00 / 3) (#71)
    by Cream City on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 02:54:45 PM EST
    has not been a governor and comes from one of the smallest states in the country.  See how easy it is to say "nonsense"?  At the Dems' peril, as BTD says.

    Are you going to argue that Biden (5.00 / 0) (#86)
    by andgarden on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 02:56:36 PM EST
    isn't sufficiently experienced to be President? Puhleeez.

    Biden may be but Obama isn't (5.00 / 4) (#126)
    by echinopsia on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 03:03:07 PM EST
    Your argument is the issue (5.00 / 1) (#170)
    by Cream City on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 03:18:36 PM EST
    and it sounds like it's really another issue.

    Well, you can mindread all you want (none / 0) (#198)
    by andgarden on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 03:28:22 PM EST
    but the issue is the new bankruptcy of John McCain's "not ready to lead" argument.

    Doesn't really matter (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by Steve M on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 02:50:03 PM EST
    In 2004, the Bush campaign attacked the choice of Edwards as VP, saying that unlike Cheney, he didn't have the experience to serve as President if necessary.  It wasn't that John Kerry was particularly old or feeble or at risk of not serving out his term; it's just that everyone knows the #1 job of the VP is to be able to step in if necessary.

    Obviously having an incompetent VP, like Quayle, is not a complete disqualifier.  But I'm sure there were a non-trivial number of people who voted against Bush I simply because they figured if something happens to him, we just couldn't afford to have Quayle taking over.  It's a legitimate issue.

    Some people may find it persuasive, some may not, but it's not ageist.


    You're forgetting that (none / 0) (#62)
    by frankly0 on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 02:53:37 PM EST
    it was Edwards who was the only one in 2004 of the four Presidential and VP candidates who had an experience problem.

    This was likewise true when Bush/Quayle ran against Dukakis/Bentsen.

    The problem is that Obama has, I believe, only less experience than Quayle at the time.


    Okay (none / 0) (#166)
    by Steve M on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 03:17:16 PM EST
    But that has nothing to do with whether it is ageist to question the experience of McCain's VP.  I can only have so many arguments at once.

    2 names that blow you ouf othe water (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by MrPope on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 02:58:33 PM EST
    Senator  Olympia Snowe

    Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison

    both women are light years more qualified to be picked as VP


    Kay Bay said she didn't want it... (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by kredwyn on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 03:01:35 PM EST
    back in Feb. As reported in The Hill. She was pretty serious.

    The argument, that I think is a good one (5.00 / 3) (#20)
    by bjorn on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 02:46:42 PM EST
    is that she went up against her own party to fight corruption.  That is a good quality for a president.  Again, she is WRONG on the issues, but I think based on what we know now that this was a good pick for McCain.  

    She also has executive experience, even if AK is a small state.  She has successfully run it thus far!  


    Palin (5.00 / 6) (#22)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 02:47:05 PM EST
    is VP, Obama is President.

    If it was Biden/Obama08 different story.

    You're comparing their VP pick with the Dem's P pick.


    McCain turned 72 today (5.00 / 0) (#122)
    by MKS on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 03:02:11 PM EST
    It does matter if Palin is not qualified to be CINC....

    With Dan Quayle, Bush I was not that old, and Quayle had been in the U.S. Senate for a few years...  


    Sure (5.00 / 4) (#143)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 03:07:49 PM EST
    But then we've already conceded Obama is not ready.  At least no moreso than, ... yep... Quayle.

    The crux of the matter is we're trying to figure out who has more experience, Obama or Palin.

    If I was the republicans, I would call that, in and of itself, a win.


    Republicans will need to (none / 0) (#185)
    by MKS on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 03:25:50 PM EST
    answer the question of whether Palin is qualified to be CINC.  If they say yes, then they cannot criticize Obama....This is a significant problem for them....Power Line says they are disappointed because she is so inexperienced given that she would be a heartbeat away from the Presidency....

    All Obama needs to do is say that he is proud of his first major Presidential decision of picking Biden because he is qualified to be CINC....And then he probably should ignore her.....


    If Palin (5.00 / 6) (#227)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 03:41:32 PM EST
    isn't qualified then you have to concede that Obama isn't qualified either. This is are a real loser argument. And continuously talking about McCain's age is a loser too. It's not like he's doing well with older voters. This just turns them off more.

    In a presonalities/qualifications discussion Obama will lose. Talk about issues.


    Other than his (none / 0) (#150)
    by jondee on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 03:09:06 PM EST
    age and the fact that his trail of eff ups stretches farther back down the trail than Obama's, Im still waiting for a detailed explication with specifics showing how and in what possible way McCain and his team are (as the soundbite goes). "ready to lead".

    Um, (5.00 / 5) (#26)
    by frankly0 on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 02:48:17 PM EST
    Palin is VP. Most likely, she will never have to be in office as President, and if she is, she will have accumulated further quite relevant experience.

    Obama is going to be President from Day One, and the US will be depending on his thin resume from that very day.


    The VP is supposed to be ready from day 1 too (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by andgarden on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 02:49:50 PM EST
    I think it's ridiculous to say otherwise.

    As I argued elsewhere, (5.00 / 4) (#107)
    by frankly0 on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 02:59:43 PM EST
    it's just absurd to say that the experience issue is as important in a VP as in the Presidential candidate.

    No one rationally expects that the VP will have to take over on "Day One". Everybody realizes that that is an exceedingly unlikely occurrence.

    During the course of the term of the elected President, the VP picks up highly relevant experience -- and can usually be treated as an understudy.

    This is the calculation most voters perform in their minds, if you don't.

    Of course it is better to have a VP who's fully experienced on Day One, all things considered.

    But isn't it vastly more important to have a President who's qualified on Day One, since it's a certainty that he will be running things at that time?

    And the lack of Obama's experience is therefore quite a bit more germane in most people's minds.


    if you can convince voters of that (5.00 / 3) (#205)
    by RedSox04 on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 03:31:41 PM EST
    then you're right.  

    but voters hated Cheney in 2004 and they still voted for GWB.  they thought Quayle was a lightweight, and they voted for GHWB.  and most folks weren't considering Gore as a potential President when he was on Clinton's ticket (despite the fact that he would have made a superb President).

    yes, i know that in theory, we should be considering a VP as a potential stand-in for the President, rather than just in terms of what they add to the ticket, i just don't think that's how people vote any more.

    but even if you're right, i'm sure the Republicans would love to make this race about Palin's experience vs. Obama's experience.  if you're shifting this campaign to those terms (the terms that Karl Rove probably would love), then we're already well on our way to losing.


    Did you watch her speech from Dayton? (none / 0) (#60)
    by oculus on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 02:52:56 PM EST
    william henry harrison (none / 0) (#194)
    by cpinva on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 03:27:26 PM EST
    died a month after his inauguration. to say a veep doesn't need to be able to assume the presidency, from day one, is to display an appalling lack of basic knowledge of US history.

    I think that if even the Democrats (5.00 / 4) (#50)
    by Valhalla on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 02:51:27 PM EST
    are making the matchup between the Presidential nominee and the VP pick for the other side, they've already put themselves behind the 8-ball.

    If they were smart, they'd be ramming home the comparison btw Biden's experience compared to Palin's.  To make it Palin vs Obama just lowers the arguments on his side, which are at best pretty close to a draw.


    This (5.00 / 1) (#139)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 03:06:07 PM EST
    won't work when you are talking about a VP pick. It's the same argument that Dukakis made against Bush I with Quayle.

    Sure, he probably won't run those ads anymore (none / 0) (#189)
    by ruffian on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 03:26:20 PM EST
    Is Obama going to bring them up to embarrass McCain?  Probably not.

    Especially one (4.60 / 5) (#9)
    by janarchy on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 02:44:22 PM EST
    who has apparently had to deal with both Canadian and Russian interests in terms of Alaskan issues.

    The Republicans already had the counterpunch to that one. Not to mention a laundry list of things she's done.

    Not to mention, no one ever is that concerned about Experienced President/Inexperienced Vice President tickets. Did anyone worry about John Edwards as VP?

    There are probably plenty of reasons to argue against the McCain/Palin ticket. But the experience thing is really something they need to steer clear of.

    There seems to be a lot of 'oops' happening already. And the Obama campaign seems to be stepping into every trap.


    And Palin has been to Iraq (4.33 / 6) (#17)
    by Cream City on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 02:46:36 PM EST
    as many times as Obama has, said a Republican just now.

    Yes, add that to having to deal daily with Canadian pipeliners and Russian fishers, and the Obama camp has to come up with something better than hitting the GOP ticket as problematic on foreign relations.


    But Alaska is as "exotic" as Hawaii (5.00 / 2) (#84)
    by Cream City on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 02:56:21 PM EST
    For that matter, so is Idaho, where Palin was born.

    I know.  My mom was born in Idaho, too.:-)


    Which is further from D.C.? Alaska (5.00 / 0) (#156)
    by oculus on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 03:12:45 PM EST
    or Hawaii?

    Chicago is closer than both, of course. (none / 0) (#177)
    by Cream City on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 03:21:03 PM EST
    And Delaware looks like it's in D.C.'s backyard by comparison.

    Most important, both on the Dem ticket are Senators aka D.C. insiders.  That's how this will play now.


    Less that 2 years... (5.00 / 0) (#3)
    by TomStewart on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 02:41:36 PM EST
    in a state of 670,000 people, run by the oil industry and one the biggest receivers of government money. Yep, that sure beats a US Senator and state legislator.

    Really, President Palin.

    About the same size as (5.00 / 4) (#33)
    by oldpro on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 02:49:07 PM EST
    Vermont when Dr. Dean was governor?

    Palin vs Dean? C'mon. (5.00 / 0) (#127)
    by mattt on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 03:03:08 PM EST
    when Dr. Dean was governor?
    For twelve years, almost as many years as the number of months Palin has been governor, and before that Dean was Lt. Gov for five years, and before that a legislator for 4 years....

    Really, Palin seems like a sharp person, and she's popular in Alaska so she must be doing something right.  Obviously an up-and-comer and in 5-10 years might be a serious national candidate.  But right now, her nomination does strike me as deeply unserious, and it has nothing to do with her gender.


    Uh huh, (none / 0) (#69)
    by TomStewart on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 02:54:19 PM EST
    And how much experience did Dean have?

    About as much as Ron Sims (5.00 / 3) (#131)
    by oldpro on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 03:04:14 PM EST
    as King County Exec., Vermont's population being about the same size as one big county in Washington State.

    The point is that the Deaniacs explained it all away as 'plenty of experience' to run the country and the free world and be commander in chief.  If they are consistent, and particularly if they support Obama as 'experienced,' then Palin has to be fine on that score.



    You bet it beats state legislator. (5.00 / 3) (#57)
    by tigercourse on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 02:52:33 PM EST
    Part time state legislator. (5.00 / 4) (#68)
    by oculus on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 02:54:16 PM EST
    Not when added up[ (5.00 / 0) (#78)
    by TomStewart on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 02:55:27 PM EST
    Which was the point. But you knew that.

    Not sure you realize this, but she's running (5.00 / 4) (#99)
    by tigercourse on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 02:58:43 PM EST
    for Vice President, not President. Also, she was first elected to office 4  years before Obama.

    Its not the fact she lacks the statuture (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by Molly Bloom on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 02:43:18 PM EST
    of Hutchinson or Clinton, its the total cynicism of McCain, at 72, choosing a probable successor whose qualifications are not even as good as Obama's whose qualifications McCain derides.

    How is it comparable? A couple (5.00 / 2) (#64)
    by rooge04 on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 02:53:47 PM EST
    of years of community organizing and 3 years as a Senator as opposed to a governor?

    Lets compare (5.00 / 4) (#113)
    by Wile ECoyote on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 03:01:33 PM EST
    Obama Vs. Palin:  143 days working as a Senator, vs someone who was in charge of the National Guard soldiers in her state.  
    Someone who had to work within a balanced budget vs someone who has no idea about a balance budget.  
    Someone who came up through the tutelage of the Chicago Machine vs. someone who did it on their own.  

    You mean was a protege of Stevens (5.00 / 0) (#142)
    by Molly Bloom on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 03:07:43 PM EST
    and the Stevens machine.

    And what did she do with the National Guard in her state that was so special?

    Republicans really have used all their capital up on the subject of balanced budgets. The last party to leave office with a surplus? The Democratic party. Which party squandered that surplus? Sarah Palin's.

    Geez think before you speak.


    LOL (5.00 / 1) (#193)
    by Wile ECoyote on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 03:27:09 PM EST
    you need to read about her and the Stevens machine.  States are required to have balanced budgets.  Read about that.  I am waiting to hear what Obama accomplished in his 143 days working as a Senator.  

    Please explain the Stevens commercials on (none / 0) (#203)
    by Molly Bloom on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 03:30:27 PM EST
    behalf of Palin.

    Palin not of the Stevens machine (5.00 / 3) (#200)
    by RalphB on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 03:28:48 PM EST
    Ran against it for lt governor and lost, then beat it for governor.  In fact helped to take down the Stevens/Young/Murkowski machine.

    Like McCain... (5.00 / 1) (#218)
    by Jerrymcl89 on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 03:34:37 PM EST
    ... Palin is a political enemy of the Stevens organization. I'm sure that's one of the primary reasons McCain took her - she reinforces his effort to distance himself from GOP pork, and position himself as a spending hawk. She has shortcomings, but that isn't one of them.

    I'll say this: (5.00 / 3) (#6)
    by Faust on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 02:43:39 PM EST
    The intensity and variety of responses I've seen to this pick only confirm that this is a bold but risky choice. This could go any direction.

    And I agree with your thinking on this so far BTD.

    Yup (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by andgarden on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 02:46:38 PM EST
    Honestly, I think the way she was presented initially is the impression that's going to stick. She's a nice, competent, western family woman.

    I do not have high hopes that Biden can successfully debate her, and I suggest that the person he preps with be Amy Klobuchar, who seems to fit the part well.


    I agree. (5.00 / 2) (#47)
    by Faust on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 02:51:04 PM EST
    The risks for Biden are huge. One "Al Gore Sighing" moment and he will be screwed.

    THANK YOU BTD. (5.00 / 8) (#7)
    by bjorn on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 02:43:44 PM EST
    When Obama jumped into this everyone was "Oh he is so smart!"  I don't think we should assume Palin is a lightweight, everything I hear is that she is very sharp, very good politician, and every bit as smart as Biden and Obama.  Stick to the issues.  She is WRONG on the issues.  I am very happy to see a smart, successful woman on the Repub ticket..it is a good thing.  As far as Jeralyn pointing to the whole "trooper-gate" thing.  I seriously doubt that it will amount to anything.  Everything I have read about it suggests there is not much there.  She denies a role in the firing, but personally, I would not care if she did have a role if the guy was beating up her sister and the kids.

    Exactly (5.00 / 2) (#24)
    by hlr on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 02:48:06 PM EST
    I would not care if she did have a role if the guy was beating up her sister and the kids.

    Who is going to take up for this guy? Biden, while puffing his VAWA credentials? I don't think so.


    She is a creationist (3.00 / 2) (#21)
    by Molly Bloom on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 02:47:01 PM EST
    That disqualifies her from the adjective smart.

    She doesn't have the stature of KBH or HRC. I would think the object is to choose the best qualified candidate. Particularly if you have made that a point of attack as McCain has.

    Kay Hutchinson little finger is more qualified than Sarah Palin.


    Ah, there's the rub (5.00 / 8) (#72)
    by Brookhaven on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 02:54:49 PM EST
    I would think the object is to choose the best qualified candidate.

    Oh, for the love of irony!  I think I may have found the best (in the comedy world terms) straight man/woman with this comment.

    My response to your comment in bold is:

    "I would think the DNC and the superdelegates would have chosen the best qualified candidate as well".  

    But, they didn't.  Did they?  


    Please stop with this line of attack or you will make it even worst than it is now or could be for the Dem ticket.  


    Not really - McCain's cynicism comes through (5.00 / 0) (#111)
    by Molly Bloom on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 03:00:58 PM EST
     It was his (and apparently your) line that Obama wasn't qualified. KBH is a Republican who is more qualified than Palin. IF, as MCCAIN (and you argue) Obama isn't qualified, how do you justify Palin over KBH (among others)? You can't (unless you have ODS).

    Well, next time you argue (5.00 / 2) (#163)
    by Brookhaven on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 03:16:45 PM EST
    You need to use the words you used which I picked up on.

    You used the phrase "the best qualified" to which I responded that Obama wasn't the best qualified.  HRC was and is.

    I never said he wasn't qualified.  That's your wrong interpretation of what I said.  

    I don't have a case of ODS btw.  

    McCain's choice may be cynical but it was damned brilliant and will resonate with many women and men, some disaffected Clinton Dems and Independents and Republicans on the fence with McCain.  If the Republican base wasn't on board with him before today, they are certainly on board now.  And, this can only bode well for him with the base because the last time I checked, more than 80% of the Republican base supported McCain and after today I am sure that increased quite a bit.  

    Conversely, last time I checked, a little over 70% of the Dem base supported Obama/Biden.  

    My point is and I do have one :) you need to stop with the inexperience meme because it's going to blow up on you and the Dem ticket if it's not reeled in right quick.


    I disagree that Palin (none / 0) (#187)
    by Molly Bloom on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 03:25:58 PM EST
    will attract many disaffected Democratic voters.

    If they supported Hillary, they supported her because they supported her positions and they believed her to be the most qualified. Palin falls the first test. So she is going to attract disaffected Democratic voters even though her positions are diametrically opposed to HRC's and ...

    I don't see it. At worst they will stay home.


    Right (5.00 / 1) (#217)
    by TomStewart on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 03:34:08 PM EST
    I think it's insulting to Hillary supporters to think that they will suddenly go the McCain because of Palin.



    What you fail to recognize (5.00 / 3) (#224)
    by Brookhaven on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 03:40:15 PM EST
    is that emotions play a large part in voting.  And, that goes for men and women.  

    And, I won't repeat all of the crap HRC had to endure during this campaign and from whom or the more than one whoms.  It happened. It stuck in many people's throats and is still there.  And, emotions are still raw and the convention didn't help that much.  

    Now, before I am misinterpreted, I never said that the head/intellect won't play a part in pulling that lever in Nov but you (the generic you) make a huge mistake if you think the emotions play no part because they do.

    And, both women and men are effected.

    You don't see it because you don't get it it seems.  But, it will happen for some disaffected HRC supporters.

    And, the big mistake some also make is thinking that all HRC supporters think alike or believe everything HRC believes.  For example, Catholics supported HRC in overwhelming numbers in PA and Ohio.  And, some of those Catholics are against abortion and they well know HRC is for choice but she connects with them on bread and butter issues and those have trumped others like abortion.  Besides HRC has made speeches saying that we should do all we can do to make sure abortions are available to women but that she wants to see abortions decrease.  She's shouted out to pro-life women.   All I'm saying is that supporting a candidate doesn't mean the thinking and beliefs of all of that candidate's supporters is monolithic.  I can easily see some moving over to the McCain ticket now because of Palin and because of the still bittersweet taste left over given that HRC is not the Dem nominee.

    And, that's all I have to say about this because I will only start to repeat myself and I hate when that happens. :)


    You assume (5.00 / 4) (#229)
    by nell on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 03:42:32 PM EST
    that all Hillary voters were voting based purely on policy. That is what brought me to Hillary, but that is not what kept me there. I also believe that she had the character and resolve to be President. And I do think that is important. What does it matter if you have a president who agrees with you on the issues in theory, but who doesn't know how to get anything done? But not all voters have such cut and dry positions. There are many voters who agree with Repubs. on some issues and Dems on other issues, and that is why their choice ends up being motivated more by character and by who you identify with - and that isn't totally irrational, that has to do with who you think could hold up to the job. Many of the woman, particularly the single moms who kept showing up in the exit polls for Hillary, identified with a toughness and a resolve in Hillary that I think they will also see in Sarah Palin.

    Correction: not worst *rolls eyes at self* (none / 0) (#92)
    by Brookhaven on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 02:57:49 PM EST
    but "worse".  Pardon the error.

    To whom are you posting? (none / 0) (#182)
    by Brookhaven on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 03:22:36 PM EST

    Several? (5.00 / 1) (#121)
    by Molly Bloom on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 03:02:10 PM EST
    She was mayor of a small town and governor (for 2 years). Hardly several. I gather she was a Stevens protege.

    Youthful (5.00 / 1) (#149)
    by mmc9431 on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 03:08:37 PM EST
    Standing next to Obama at the debate is going to make McCain look 100. I remember how old Nixon looked next to Kennedy. I think they were concerned that KBH wouldn't enhance the picture. Palin will add a more youthful look to the ticket.

    Most qualified doesn't always mean a lot in politics! (snark)


    Thank you (3.00 / 2) (#83)
    by Jjc2008 on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 02:56:14 PM EST
    Anyone who is a creationist, imo, is then also a paternalistic believer that men are superior to women; that the male god made men in his image and women to support men....
    She is anti choice; anti ERA; anti universal health care; anti public education.

    All of her beliefs go against the issues that have been traditionally the most important issues for women.


    do you have a link for this (none / 0) (#44)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 02:50:53 PM EST
    I am not challenging you I would really like to read it somewhere besides here.

    Google it. (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by Faust on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 02:55:26 PM EST
    I haven't found anything that says she's a creationist per se, rather that she supports teaching creationism in school.

    e.g. link


    I don't mind being challenged (1.00 / 1) (#79)
    by Molly Bloom on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 02:55:42 PM EST
    Here is a link

    Arguably she can claim to be on the fence, but I think that is weak on her part.


    I read it (5.00 / 2) (#135)
    by kredwyn on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 03:05:44 PM EST
    She isn't a creationist. She's the daughter of a science teacher (I'm one of those too) who learned about Evolution from looking at fossils (very familiar with that).

    She did say that she had no problem with the debate. My father didn't either...as he worked to help students hone their critical thinking skills and learn the differences between scientific and pseudo scientific theories.


    If as you postulate that she is NOT a (5.00 / 1) (#158)
    by Molly Bloom on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 03:13:56 PM EST
    creationist, she doesn't have much power in her convictions

    She would not say whether her belief also allowed her to accept the theory of evolution as fact.

    You may be comforted in her "noncommittal" I am not.


    Belief has nothing to do with... (5.00 / 2) (#162)
    by kredwyn on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 03:16:31 PM EST
    accepting Evolution as fact.

    My dad believes that God exists. And he accepts that Evolution is a Scientific Theory.

    But one does not inform the other.


    Your Dad has faith and accepts evolution (1.00 / 1) (#171)
    by Molly Bloom on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 03:19:23 PM EST
    and has the power of his convictions.

    She does not or will not commit. Thank you for the stark comparison with your Dad. It made my point. Your Dad has it right and the power of his convictions.  


    My point was... (5.00 / 2) (#181)
    by kredwyn on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 03:21:52 PM EST
    that the question was inane...and the answer (or the reported answer) reflects that inanity.

    Please note that the part you quoted... (5.00 / 1) (#184)
    by kredwyn on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 03:25:25 PM EST
    wasn't her answer. It was a paraphrase from the reporter.

    At least she didn't say (5.00 / 5) (#225)
    by echinopsia on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 03:40:51 PM EST
    it was above her pay grade.

    here in comments I mean of course (none / 0) (#56)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 02:52:15 PM EST

    Experience or Judgment (5.00 / 0) (#13)
    by DCDemocrat on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 02:45:08 PM EST
    Maybe the experience comparison doesn't really work in Obama's favor, but I sure as heck the judgment one does.  When Obama makes a choice of someone with the characteristics of Joe Biden, what are we to make of a candidate whose first presidential decision is Sarah whatever-her-name-is.  

    Moreover, Barack Obama has been rolling himself out for almost two years, but McCain has to introduce this new face in a very limited amount of time.  There's a lot more reason to trust what we know about Obama than there is to trust anything about Sarah whatever-her-name-is.

    AP has been reporting on her (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by Cream City on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 02:48:38 PM EST
    for several months now.  So I knew something was up.  And I knew all about her bio when I still was finding out more about Obama's.

    It's still worthwhile to read newspapers, not just blogs.


    Palin! (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by bjorn on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 02:49:47 PM EST
    Sheesh, are you really so scared of her that you can't mention her name.  I think Obama is safe, I think he will win.  So why do we need to disrespect McCain's choice.  If she falls on her face let it be because she takes a mis-step, not because you decided she is no name.

    I genuinely (1.00 / 2) (#63)
    by DCDemocrat on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 02:53:47 PM EST
    forgot her name while I was writing the comment.  Boy, this is really a Republican blog now.  I am not sure Democrats are welcome here anymore.

    we are just looking (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 02:57:43 PM EST
    for the place the "real" democrats go.



    Now respect is only a Republican (5.00 / 2) (#95)
    by Cream City on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 02:58:16 PM EST
    characteristic to you?  If so, the Dems really are in trouble.

    And no, andgarden, some of us here are doing what you claim to do -- approaching this all analytically, not anatomically.


    LOL. That is a ridiculous statement. (5.00 / 1) (#117)
    by rooge04 on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 03:01:57 PM EST
    Pointing out that it's stupid to fight her on the experience angle, being that our current Presidential candidate has about the same amount, is not being a Republican. It's pointing out what the Republicans will do.  Again, criticizing Dems is not a matter of being a Republican. It's a matter of being an informed voter.

    LOL. That is a ridiculous statement. (5.00 / 1) (#125)
    by rooge04 on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 03:02:38 PM EST
    Pointing out that it's stupid to fight her on the experience angle, being that our current Presidential candidate has about the same amount, is not being a Republican. It's pointing out what the Republicans will do.  Again, criticizing Dems is not a matter of being a Republican. It's a matter of being an informed voter.

    There are lots of people hanging around (none / 0) (#74)
    by andgarden on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 02:54:57 PM EST
    who are objectively Republicans.

    It's a subtle difference.


    No offense but (none / 0) (#242)
    by Marvin42 on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 04:21:31 PM EST
    was that snark or were you just carelessly insulting a whole bunch of people who may have a different view right now than a "proper democrat?" I didn't realize I needed an approval form before I was accepted into any club.

    Accomplishment (5.00 / 2) (#58)
    by Pianobuff on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 02:52:49 PM EST
    Expect the theme of results and accomplishments to be where McCain draws contrasts.  The question they will forward vis a vis Palin vs. Obama "who has accomplished more"?

    I bank on it.


    Her name is Sarah Palin, Gov. Palin, (5.00 / 8) (#80)
    by zfran on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 02:55:47 PM EST
    please be respectful and give her her due. She is a Governor of our 49th State and deserves respect. Criticize her record or lack there of if you so think, but she has by the power of being a human being, earned to be called by her name, especially when it's written everywhere today. P.S. I question Obama's judgement in his vp pick, and just because you didn't doesn't make me right and you wrong or vise-versa. Judgment is subjective to the person making it, or observing it.

    don't forget moose huntin' (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by kredwyn on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 02:58:57 PM EST
    thereby erasing everything else she's done.

    whatever-her-name is (none / 0) (#45)
    by hlr on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 02:50:55 PM EST
    has a new STORY for the media, while BO's is getting dated. Two years, as you point out.

    As I searched for the video of (none / 0) (#94)
    by oculus on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 02:57:56 PM EST
    McCain and Palin in Dayton, C-Span was replaying the video of Obama's speech last night.  Passe.

    I had the same feeling when C-Span started ... (none / 0) (#120)
    by Robot Porter on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 03:02:06 PM EST
    running Obama's speech after the Palin announcement.  It seemed like such old news.

    And I thought it was quite a good speech.

    As they say, one day is an eternity in politics.


    it detroys (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by Turkana on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 02:46:15 PM EST
    mccain's ability to use the experience angle. it insults hillary supporters by assuming that gender was their main reason for supporting her. and while biden needs to be mellow, having her debate him on foreign policy will be laughable- unless the media use the same sliding scale they used for bush against gore.

    Biden has the potential to look REALLY BAD (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by andgarden on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 02:49:00 PM EST
    in debates.

    he needs to be the mellow, thoughtful biden (none / 0) (#134)
    by Turkana on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 03:05:25 PM EST
    rather than the ranting biden. but he can think circles around her, on foreign policy.

    I don't think it insults Hillary Clinton's (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by oculus on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 03:01:15 PM EST
    supporters.  Obviously Gov. Palin is an astute politician, an out-there public speaker, and a rising star of the Republican Party.  Sen. McCain is the man with extensive experience in the Senate and the gravitas of age.  It makes a lot of sense that he picked such an energetic up-and-comer.  Now, on the issues, no; any thinking Clinton supporter should take a second look and hopefully will.  

    gender (none / 0) (#154)
    by Turkana on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 03:12:35 PM EST
    was clearly a factor in the selection, and huckabee apparently has already brought up the angle that palin should appeal to hillary voters. because, clearly, issues weren't the basis of their votes...

    we all know Huckelberry is an idiot (none / 0) (#168)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 03:17:35 PM EST
    but what some people are missing is that this is not just about issues.  for many women it is about the WAY Hillary was treated.  not just by the Obama campaign but by the media and the DNC.
    at least that is my impression from reading comments this morning.

    Hillary supporters (5.00 / 10) (#160)
    by echinopsia on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 03:15:27 PM EST
    have been insulted and disrespected by their own party for months.

    I don't feel insulted by this.

    Please speak for yourself.


    Same here (5.00 / 4) (#180)
    by janarchy on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 03:21:45 PM EST
    And can we respectfully throw back the argument that people need to 'get over it'. Hillary's not on the ticket. She's not running. The DNC and Obama saw to that. Thus what they and his supporters think of me and/or my reasons for voting for anyone are none of their concern.

    Remember, I'm a bitter knitter who needs to stay home with my cats. I'm not wanted.


    After (5.00 / 6) (#214)
    by chrisvee on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 03:33:46 PM EST
    what I've been through with my own party, a little pandering feels good right about now. :-)

    they haved used the experience angle (none / 0) (#76)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 02:55:18 PM EST
    that was last week.  before the campaign began.  by next week experience will be forgotten and they will be on to new and better things.
    they have plenty to go after Obama on other than that.
    also, what it really does is this:

    "he dared the Democrats to make the case, as they have, that she's not qualified"


    It's not even about experience. (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by steviez314 on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 02:46:28 PM EST
    Does anyone even have a clue about her opinions on: Iraq, Iran, Russia, Israel, China, etc. so we can make any kind of valid judgment on if she's qualified?

    That would be helpful, wouldn't it? (5.00 / 0) (#28)
    by Maria Garcia on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 02:48:34 PM EST
    No Clue (5.00 / 0) (#46)
    by jgteck on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 02:50:59 PM EST
    I think it will be very interesting to see how she fairs in the debates.  It is more than obvious she will not be able to keep up with Biden, but what interests me the most is how the GOP can even qualify her to be commander in chief if McCain should fall.

    Not just the debates (none / 0) (#136)
    by Todd on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 03:05:51 PM EST
    She's going to be in front of a wall of reporters who are going to be looking for her to stumble. It's a quite daunting task. How many reporters follow her around in Alaska? Experience in this day and age isn't just the 18 months being governor of Alaska with a legislature that in session only 90 days a year. Every step and breath is now going to be documented. We'll see if she's up to that.

    She was a debate champ (5.00 / 2) (#195)
    by Cream City on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 03:27:37 PM EST
    so we'll have to see if she remembers what she learned long ago.

    Of course, to read some commenters here, she was in college yesterday and has done nothing since.


    Transparent (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by jgteck on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 02:46:32 PM EST
    Nothing in this world would make me happier to see a qualified woman in the oval office, but this pick is just plain transparent.  Give me a break GOP and please stop with the insults.

    McCain can bring up the experience issue ... (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by Robot Porter on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 02:46:36 PM EST
    as much as he wants.  And probably welcomes people bringing it up about Palin.

    Any discussion of the experience issue hurts Obama.  

    The Obama campaign doesn't want to talk about experience at all.

    Really? (5.00 / 3) (#216)
    by nemo52 on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 03:33:56 PM EST
    The first comment to come from the Obama campaign was a slam on Palin's inexperience.  A bad move.

    I'm not sure what the exact qualifications for (none / 0) (#82)
    by Angel on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 02:56:12 PM EST
    being "ready to be president" are.  Dubya was qualified if you look at the paper: graduate of an Ivy League school; two-term governor of one of the largest states in the nation (size and population); business owner (yes, they were failures).  And he has been the absolute worst president in history.  Just because a person has the  "experience" on paper doesn't mean they're truly qualified to make the decisions and have the judgment necessary to be president.  We need to start looking at the decisions the person has made, the judgment they have used in their life experiences, and how they have performed in whatever their job has been.  

    Which is what Bill Clinton got so much (5.00 / 3) (#129)
    by oculus on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 03:03:13 PM EST
    flack for saying recently.  Is anyone qualified to be President until they are President?

    Ack the sexism all over again (5.00 / 9) (#25)
    by catfish on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 02:48:10 PM EST
    I thought I could relax for a while. While she may have a thin record and be a creationists anti-choicer, all I'm hearing today is "she's a former beauty contestant" "total lightweight" and "she should be at home with that baby."

    Oy vey.

    Yeh. Did Pawlenty and Kaine (5.00 / 4) (#40)
    by Cream City on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 02:50:11 PM EST
    have these questions raised about them here?  It was all about how they could help the GOP ticket. . . .

    Yes. If being shot down in a (5.00 / 1) (#138)
    by oculus on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 03:06:06 PM EST
    fighter jet is not a qualification for President, is being a runner up in the Miss Alaska contest relevant to one's qualifications as VP?  

    The problem for the Democrats is, (5.00 / 13) (#27)
    by Lena on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 02:48:24 PM EST
    having pissed off a segment of HRC voters by downplaying Obama's relative lack of experience and nominating him, now these same Democrats find Palin's lack of experience a deal-breaker for public office. Indeed, they use it as an excuse to laugh at her. The obvious difference between Obama and Palin is that.... yes, she is a woman, and thus inherently ridiculous as a figure of power, and he is a Man.

    It sounds hypocritical and it's the equivalent of sticking a knife in an open wound.

    This was masterful by the McCain campaign.

    Yup, that is the trap ... (5.00 / 8) (#59)
    by Robot Porter on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 02:52:51 PM EST
    that McCain has laid.

    And proggy blogs are already falling for it.

    One of them had a diary referring to Palin as "Punky Brewster."

    Progressives have become so tone deaf on sexism.


    I agree. It's political Jujitsu - (5.00 / 2) (#207)
    by Mshepnj on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 03:31:43 PM EST
    using an opponent's energy against him, rather than directly opposing it.

    In this case, they let the Obama campaign and supporters attack Palin for lack of experience, leaving Obama, who some view as inexperienced, open to blow-back  for repeating the double-standard that infuriated so many Clinton voters or sympathizers and makes him look hypocritical.

    The other piece is what it does to "attack dog" Joe Biden,  champion of the anti-domestic violence legislation, who will not be able to appear to bully her in debates, not because she can't handle it but because some folks will disapprove of a man who seems to be trying to browbeat a woman - especially after his interrogation of Anita Hill.

    It's masterfully cunning, maybe even Machiavellian.

    Of course, nobody who supported Hillary and cares about the progressive policies that Hillary cares about will be fooled into voting for McCain/Palin, but it doesn't matter.  I think this choice neutralizes some of the weapons the Democrats had.

    Now, the Democratic strategy is "McCain - more of the same" and I think that's a good message.

    I think Palin's not enough different than McCain/Bush that she will make that much difference in the end and she is vulnerable because of her positions on the issues. That's where they need to keep it.


    I agree with BTD on this (5.00 / 0) (#34)
    by fuzzyone on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 02:49:13 PM EST
    The fact that she is absurdly unqualified, and saying she is more qualified or as qualified as Obama is just silly, is helpful to Obama because it does make experience attacks by McCain harder.  But Obama should not make that point.  Its out there.  There are plenty of other ways to attack her, on the issues, on her continued support of Ted Stevens after he was indicted, on her own scandal.  She si far, far right on most issues, as is McSame.  That is the point Obama nees to keep making.

    Palin is to Stevens as (5.00 / 1) (#186)
    by oculus on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 03:25:51 PM EST
    Obama is to Rezko.  Best not to bring that up, I think.  

    "agent Floobee" (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 02:49:31 PM EST
    makes a pretty good point about the qualifications thing too:

    I never realized how shrewd and smart John McCain could be. (Check Memeorandum.com to see all the stories that now dominate the news coverage.) In selecting Sarah Palin, Governor of Alaska, as his running mate he dared the Democrats to make the case, as they have, that she's not qualified because she "lacks foreign policy experience." He understands that when the media decides to investigate Governor Palin they will be forced to conclude that she actually has more foreign policy experience than Obama. As Susan pointed out below, she was in Germany visiting wounded troops long before Barack sought to speak at the Brandenburg Gate. She is a Commander-in-Chief of the Alaska National Guard and those troops have been in combat.

    Commander in Chief of the National Guard? (none / 0) (#88)
    by MKS on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 02:56:55 PM EST
    for a few months....?  Did she ever call them out once....Aside from natural disasters, National Guards once activated are under the command of the U.S. Army, not the Governor.....She visited troops in Germany?  

    These are talking points from a cite that shall remain nameless.  "Susan" left rationality months ago.


    Every gov has had to send their Guard (5.00 / 4) (#128)
    by Cream City on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 03:03:11 PM EST
    to war.  Obama and Biden and even McCain have not had to do so.  Senators are more distanced from their decisions than governors on this, actually, when we are fighting a foreign war with our state Guards.

    Many, many from my state have died.  And it is my gov who orders the lowering of the flags and goes to the funerals, where I never have seen my Senators -- not even for the funeral of the first woman ever to die in combat in the history of the Guard nationwide, after more than 400 years.  

    That was a student of mine.  My gov was there.  My Senators were not.  I remember that.


    cream, gov's (5.00 / 0) (#176)
    by cpinva on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 03:20:30 PM EST
    don't have the legal authority to send anyone, including their state's national guard, to war. that is a power specifically reserved to the president and congress.

    congress, per the president's request, puts a state's national guard under federal control. it is then that any orders are cut, dispatching them to wherever.

    so, no gov., in the modern era, has ever had to send their national guard off to war.


    Add to this.... (5.00 / 9) (#39)
    by Oje on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 02:50:09 PM EST
    The fact that the faux progressives seem not to understand that women's political identities are as complex as men's. You can see in the responses of young men (CNN) and online (dkos, etc.), the presumption that "real women" stick to "the issues" (as these men define them). If a Democratic woman even gives consideration to Palin's nomination, in these men's minds, it can only be due to the most base gender identity politics.

    It is really a more pernicious double standard then the one that the Republican party sets for its members. To be a Republican, the Republican's say, you only need to hold these ideas (gender  neutrality). To be a woman, these Democrats say, you have to be a Democrat. The gender ignorance of the Left has truly become the Achilles heel of the primary and the general election.

    Fabulously well-said. (5.00 / 5) (#219)
    by Valhalla on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 03:35:34 PM EST
    The same stupid objection being thrown at the Palin pick was thrown at Clinton, and is just as insulting.

    Women vote for a variety of reasons, and each one has a different mix of issues and identity factors that are important to them.

    Is gender a factor?  For some and even maybe many.  But it is only one factor.  Just as Obama's race is only one factor, one that both helps (assuage liberal guilt) or hurts.

    But let's pretend, for a moment, that there are some huge number of women who would vote based on gender alone -- women who would vote for, say, Britney Spears against Obama just because she's a woman -- will accusing them of voting just because she's a woman sway them?

    I imagine not.  The delusions of political sophistication among the faction of the creative class and the DNC making that argument are astounding, both in their belief that insulting people is the best way to win them to your side, and in the persistence in believing that reinforcing sexism will win over women who have already been disgusted by that very thing for the past months.


    Palin Said Hillary Is A Whiner (5.00 / 0) (#42)
    by HatchInBrooklyn on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 02:50:15 PM EST
    Over at MyDD and Kos people are talking about this Newsweek clip of Palin from back in March. She acknowledges that Hillary is being held to an unfair standard, but then says that Hillary is actually hurting the feminist cause and is in danger of being perceived as a whiner. She suggests that women should just shut up and accept unfair treatment.

    "I think she does herself a disservice to even mention it, really. I mean, you gotta plow through that...when I hear a statement like that coming from a woman candidate, with any kind of perceived whine about that excess criticism or you know, maybe a sharper microscope put on her, I think that doesn't do us any good, women in politics, women in general wanting to progress this country....I think people can just accept that she is going to be under that sharper microscope. So be it...And so it bothers me a little bit hearing her bring that attention to herself on that level."

    Considering that most posters at...... (5.00 / 8) (#103)
    by Maria Garcia on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 02:59:12 PM EST
    ...MyDD and Kos called Hillary much worse than a whiner....that particular line of attack is a non-starter for me.

    I watched the video (4.33 / 6) (#55)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 02:51:59 PM EST
    and the charge is a bad distortion.

    Plus it's mild compared to many of the (5.00 / 7) (#85)
    by Valhalla on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 02:56:26 PM EST
    comments leveled at Hillary by Democrats.

    Even if this characterization was correct, how does it stack up against Jesse Jackson Jr's she-didn't-cry-over-Katrina comment?

    Many, many statements by Democrats will come back to haunt them in the next two months.


    I Disagree (none / 0) (#75)
    by HatchInBrooklyn on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 02:55:10 PM EST
    She says that women shouldn't cause a fuss when they're treated to a higher standard than men. She says women should just suck it up when they're treated unfairly. That is different from directly calling Hillary a whiner, sure, but it is still offensive.

    Try the truth on for size (5.00 / 7) (#90)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 02:57:06 PM EST
    and see how it plays.

    Lying is wrong no matter who does it.


    Ouch (1.00 / 1) (#119)
    by HatchInBrooklyn on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 03:02:05 PM EST
    I forgot, some Democrats don't seem to care too much about actually winning this election.

    Gotcha (5.00 / 8) (#152)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 03:09:40 PM EST
    Lying is the way to go.

    To coin a phrase, "say or do anything to win."

    Here's the strange thing, I doubt it helps even a smidgen.

    Compare what Palin said to what Pelosi said on the same subject. I am positive will catch you in your hypocrisy.



    Huh? (none / 0) (#204)
    by Todd on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 03:30:53 PM EST
    I don't know what Pelosi said. That's your axe to grind. I did just watch that response from Palin and it was basically "Hillary should shut up, suck it up and work harder. Stop whining." I'll be very interested to watch how she handles all the media attention that is going to come her way. She certainly seemed to set up how she thinks women candidates should comport themselves.

    What a trap indeed (5.00 / 4) (#49)
    by aquarian on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 02:51:12 PM EST
    Palin has a personal backstory that will be very appealing to many voters -- men and women.

    She is, however, hard-core republican on the issues.  Obama's campaign should attack her on those.  Voters know she is young and relatively inexperienced but Obama is not the appropriate archer to sling that arrow.

    I am also disheartened to hear people already marginalizing Palin as just another pretty vacuous bimbo.  Inexperienced, yes.  I will wait to hear her during debates to weigh her intelligence.  Because if she is even half-way credible on issues, calling her a token female will backfire on Dems yet again.

    Issues based criticism (5.00 / 0) (#53)
    by MKS on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 02:51:38 PM EST
    Palin is very anti-choice and in favor teaching Creationism or Intelligent Design in public schools....She probably has many other conservative view points...Health care?

    I think the Media will focus enough on her less than two years ago being the Mayor of a town of 9,000 people....

    She will need to be interviewed, and will have to answer a lot of questions about a number of issues that she doesn't now deal with on a daily basis.....Let the dust settle on this one and McCain looks a little desperate, and Obama less subject to attack for being inexperienced....

    She was Mayor 6 years ago. 2 Years ago (5.00 / 2) (#81)
    by tigercourse on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 02:56:02 PM EST
    she was fighting corruption in the Republican party.

    Yes, mocking small-town America will (5.00 / 6) (#93)
    by Valhalla on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 02:57:50 PM EST
    be a big winner for the Democrats.  Because they already have so many of the just plain folks on their side.  Rock solid, that demographic.

    Being Mayor of a town of 9000 (none / 0) (#211)
    by MKS on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 03:32:56 PM EST
    qualifies someone to be CINC?   I'm sure she was a good Mayor....but that plus a little more than a year as Governor?....

    I do think the Obama campaign should focus what little time they should spend on this pointing out she is anti-choice, etc.


    Teaching along side evolution (5.00 / 1) (#192)
    by nycstray on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 03:27:02 PM EST
    FOX has her listed as Pro-Choice/Anti-Waste, so she may be a pro-lifer "personally", but for others?

    She's more of the same (5.00 / 2) (#54)
    by mmc9431 on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 02:51:53 PM EST
    Her story will play well in suburbia and rural America. The fact that she's really a hard line Republican will only help McCain with his base. Rather than attack her experience, Obama is going to have to make the case that her ideology is no different than what we've had for 8 yrs.

    She is from Idaho, part of the (5.00 / 1) (#178)
    by zfran on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 03:21:07 PM EST
    Heartland? She has a personal story to tell and she seems like a pistol. Someone mentioned that Romney/Pawlenty were mad (couldn't get into the link provided). What's the diff between those two being mad and Hillary voters being mad she wasn't picked. As we were told then, it's the candidates choice to give him the best leverage, among other reasons.

    It also puts McCain in front a big cheering (5.00 / 3) (#65)
    by Valhalla on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 02:53:50 PM EST
    crowd, which has been lacking.

    Nothing to match Obama's of course, and highly stage-managed, but all the rallies have been highly stage managed.  The crowd this morning was going crazy.

    I love how many instant experts on Palin (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by Jim J on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 02:54:52 PM EST
    we suddenly have.

    Look, folks: No one outside Alaska has heard of this woman. You didn't, I didn't, no one else did either.

    The election will NOT turn on this pick, whether or not it was "masterful" in dominating one of literally hundreds of news cycles that will occur before the election.

    The election is still Obama vs. McCain, and the dynamics are set on that one. Change vs. More of the Same. I know which side I am on. Hillary Clinton will get by just fine, I'm sure.

    I think a lot of people who can't afford to take a vacation this weekend just have a lot of time on their hands today, is what I think.

    Thank you! (5.00 / 0) (#108)
    by Maria Garcia on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 03:00:06 PM EST
    Not true (5.00 / 2) (#155)
    by Valhalla on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 03:12:44 PM EST
    I'm hardly an expert, but I started reading up on Palin over a month ago, when her name was circulated for short-list.

    Just because she comes as a huge surprise to some, doesn't mean she comes as a surprise to all of us.

    In fact, I think I have some comments here that I thought she'd be big trouble for the Democrats.  I just never imagined McCain would pick her.


    A lot of us have been ... (5.00 / 1) (#169)
    by Robot Porter on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 03:17:42 PM EST
    discussing her for months.  Today demonstrates why many of us thought she'd be the smartest choice for McCain.

    Jim, all your posts seem so (none / 0) (#140)
    by zfran on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 03:06:58 PM EST
    hostile. Why? If you're so sure of Obama/Biden, your posts should sound positive and they don't. This sort of dismissive rhetoric is one of the objections I have about Obama.  

    What we've learned (5.00 / 2) (#87)
    by magster on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 02:56:41 PM EST
    She's campaigned as recently as last month with and for Sen. Stevens, whose trial is next month.

    She's called Hillary "a whiner"

    The pick has pissed off Romney and Pawlenty.

    She advocates teaching creationism in public schools.

    Her lack of experience extends to important domestic issues like urban problems and agriculture.

    And, has been sited numerous times elsewhere, has an ethics scandal and 180 degree opposite positions from Hillary.

    And it's only three hours since she was announced to be his pick.

    Ticking off the good old boys (5.00 / 2) (#123)
    by Fabian on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 03:02:23 PM EST
    is bad how exactly?

    Palin is a blatant appeal to women.  Finding out some good old boys are unhappy about it isn't going to change her appeal to women.  They might actually like it.

    Now if it causes a stampede of good old white men to Obama, then it might be a cause for concern.


    Because it implies (5.00 / 2) (#96)
    by Jjc2008 on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 02:58:25 PM EST
    women who supported Hillary will support any woman...regardless of issues.  It is pandering in the same way it would have been if Sebelius had been chosen.

    Hillary was a woman who gave us four decades of working for women's issues.
    You are the one with the double standard...you are implying women only look at gender.

    Nah, the experience argument is DOA too (5.00 / 2) (#97)
    by goldberry on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 02:58:31 PM EST
    McCain is running for President.  Palin is in the "on-the-job" training spot.  AND, she's got executive experience he doesn't have.  
    on the D side, Obama has virtually no experience.  he's been running for president as long as Palin has been doing her job as governor.  Biden is in the clean-up position and he's never done a lick of excutivin'.  There's no one to one comparison.  The Republicans have not inverted the natural order this time.  It is experience at the top, quick study at the bottom.  
    And I have inside info as to what McCain's maverick creds are all about.  Let's just say, it is not an exaggeration that he will not act as a typical Republcan in every way.  He's going to start cracking down.  Palin is a partner in this, not a conservative throw back.  
    Oh, well, we tried to warn the DNC, not that they wanted to listen to old, stupid working class women and gays.  

    And, again, as I will bring up endlessly ... (none / 0) (#228)
    by Robot Porter on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 03:42:15 PM EST
    if you bring up the experience issue, you bring up the experience issue which hurts Obama.

    Even if you win the point, you spend however long discussing Obama's thin resume, and that hurts Obama.


    McCain's courting conservatives as much as women (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by lewis on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 02:59:15 PM EST
    Cultural and economic conservatives are leery of McCain, and many pundits of this stripe adore Palin.  This pick shores up his conservative base with most Democrats not even noticing that this has happened.

    The experience argument is a very bad one to make, even if Democrats win it.  Remember Dukakis/Bentsen vs Bush/Quayle?  The joke was that Republican bumper stickers said BUSH/quayle while Democratic ones said dukakis/BENTSEN.  This was when Bentsen had a MUCH higher favorable rating than Biden, Dukakis was MUCH more experienced than Obama, and even Quayle had more experience then than Obama has now.

    It's hard to even make the argument without the misogynists in the Obama camp rushing forward.  Some of Obama's supporters are his worst enemies.  They make the Republicans feel justified, the Independents start leaning Republican, and many Democrats feel dirty to be in the same camp with them.

    It's not about Hillary or Hillary voters (5.00 / 5) (#109)
    by hlr on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 03:00:42 PM EST
    Good grief -- the smattering of HRC voters that may cross over are icing to the GOP, not the main course.

    1. Palin secures the conservative base
    2. Palin appeals to small-town rural voters
    3. NRA-approved
    4. reformist cred
    5. appeals to moderate suburban women

     and a whole lot more reasons I could list, but won't, since this is a progressive blog.

     If 'progressives' use McCain's pick to start yet another diatribe against HRC Dems, esp women, plan on driving more HRC voters to the GOP.

    Wrong on 5 (5.00 / 1) (#161)
    by Todd on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 03:15:42 PM EST
    I don't think she'll be a big draw for moderate woman. She believes in teaching creationism in school. Show me where that's worked in the country. It even lost on the ballot in Utah of all places, Moderate suburban woman will not go for that.

    I believe creationism should be (5.00 / 1) (#196)
    by zfran on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 03:27:56 PM EST
    left to be taught in your place of worship and at home. That is just my opinion, however, she has also said about teaching both creationism and evolution is that why not have as much information as we can get. Sounds okay to me. I still don't want it taught in public schools, but hey, that's just one woman's opinion.

    Obama (5.00 / 1) (#206)
    by janarchy on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 03:31:42 PM EST
    said he was okay with teaching creationism in schools too. Apparently you dont get that a lot of the moderate Independent voters out there are perfectly fine with teaching Creationism along with Evolution in schools. Whether or not they SHOULD be is another argument entirely. But. They.Do.

    Once again progressive are looking down their noses and underestimating the appeal of a candidate because they don't fit their perception of what s/he should be.


    It the issues (5.00 / 0) (#132)
    by TomStewart on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 03:05:22 PM EST
    Once people get a good look at her stands on social issues, I don't think people will be as interested, except for those against a woman's right to choose, for drilling in ANWAR, and likes her cosiness with the oil industry.

    That's where the education needs to begin.

    I don't think the Palin choice (5.00 / 4) (#144)
    by shoephone on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 03:07:51 PM EST
    is a direct appeal to Democratic women voters at all. That seems absurd to me. I see it as a direct appeal to the Republican base in general, and Republican women in particular. McCain has, so far, NOT excited the base. Guess what? She does. She can be as conservative as she wants, a proponent of that wacky Creationism and a tough bird to boot. Say what you will about her lack of experience. She has still been in two executive positions. It will only enhance her chances with her party. And from what I know of Alaskans, they couldn't care less about elitism and insults wafting up from the Lower 48. Add to that the obvious slap in the face to Obama for not having the intelligence (or guts) to choose Hillary and I see nothing dangerous for McCain here. The only drawback for him is that she, by comparison, makes him look very old. Blah blah. We already kow he is old. At worst, they look like they are going to the Daddy-Daughter-Dessert. At best, it is a very, very clever and bold move by McCain.

    Don't misunderstand: I'm not saying Palin necessarily nudges McCain over the finish line, but judging by the response that Palin got from those assembled for her announcement this morning --- Obama is going to have a much harder time putting this election in the basket.

    and nasty. I assume that it's because know one saw this coming. Burton taking swipes at her experience. Clyburn comparing her to Geraldine Ferraro. The blatant swipes at McCain's age. Attributing her pick as being simply because she's a woman. This stuff is going to backfire. The troopergate thing is week. Her ex-brother-in-law was a wife beater. You'd think with all of Obama's money, he would have been better prepared, regardless of whom McCain picks. Palin visited Iraq before Obama btw and she didn't do it after running for President for a year and a half.

    Clyburn had better STFU right away. (5.00 / 3) (#157)
    by shoephone on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 03:13:14 PM EST
    It's creeps like him who are going to lose this election for Obama.

    How many here thought that the major topic of (5.00 / 2) (#148)
    by Angel on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 03:08:34 PM EST
    discussion today would be about Governor Sarah Pallin?  I thought it would be all about Obama's speech last night.  

    Yes, I'm back because it appears that the censorship thing is not being enforced.  I haven't and will not say anything bad about the ticket, but I have seen some comments about Obama and Biden that I thought would be against the rules.  What are the rules now?  I'm confused....

    There is the issue of excitement too (5.00 / 5) (#183)
    by Monda on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 03:24:29 PM EST
    The problem with McCain was that he did not excite his party, at least not even close to what Obama generates for the dems.  But now?  The republicans, and especially republican women, have a cause, rightly or wrongly.  And Obama has a problem with the women voters.  He's only one point ahead from McCain with women.  Very worrisome considering that a dem candidate always wins women by a much larger percentage.  

    The republicans, believe me, have thought this through.  

    The real Palin Trap (5.00 / 3) (#190)
    by mg7505 on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 03:26:39 PM EST
    is that Dems will start thinking this whole election is about Hillary's supporters. Sure, some will flock to McCain, but just as many will sit home or be swayed towards Obama. Honestly this doesn't change much in that regards. But what it DOES do is fire up McCain's base. It's not called the "Grand Old Party" for nothing. They know how to play politics -- stick to your base, but reach out just enough to win.  McCain has ensured his social conservative, rural and suburban base hands down with Palin. But he reaches out just enough women and swing voters to put this thing away.

    So while we're all wringing our hands thinking about Hillary supporters, the Republicans are behind the scenes quietly but forcefully organizing the same legions that propelled them to victory in 2000 and 2004. And just like in 2004, Dems are trying to win the election by bashing George Bush. That strategy didn't work even when we were running against Bush himself -- how is it going to work when running against someone else?

    Brilliant move by McCain. I sincerely hope the Obama camp comes up with a way to win this. So far their responses have been unhelpful.

    Are you serious? (5.00 / 2) (#197)
    by ks on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 03:28:09 PM EST
    "Obama's worst enemies" strike again!  Unbelievable...

    Democrats underesimate (5.00 / 9) (#201)
    by frenly on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 03:29:50 PM EST
    the Republicans at their peril and continually.  Even the comments in this post (and others) often unintentionally play into an elitist perspective, e.g. "she's from a small town, she went to what university?  McCain is old."  National elections are won in the middle with people who come from small towns, and go to no name universities.  And old people are the most reliable voting demographic - not a good idea to play the ageism card, even if you're in that demographic.

    Palin is a surprising pick, but hits Obama where it hurts because for many folks (and not just women) they will take a look at Palin and think, "I can identify with her."  I mean, c'mon, she's a working woman with 5 kids who went to state college and made governor.  What's not to like?  And she's a babe.  Stuff like that matters -- just like it matters that Obama is an attractive guy and fair skinned.

    Palin will fire up the base, which matters a lot, because the Repubs actually have a base; the Democrats have a currently very fractured held together with duct tape and rubber cement coalition.

    Jim Clyburn Steps Into the Trap (5.00 / 9) (#202)
    by BDB on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 03:30:00 PM EST
    big surprise (via Corrente):

    Rep. Jim Clyburn (D-S.C.) compared Palin's choice to George H.W. Bush's choice in 1988 of Dan Quayle, a GOP senator from Indiana, and Walter Mondale's decision in 1984 to pick Geraldine Ferraro, then a Democratic member of Congress from New York.

    "She proved to be a disaster as a running mate and a campaigner. She was just absolutely awful," Clyburn told a radio station in his state. "I think it is very risky for McCain to do this, but it may be all he has left."

    So now Mondale's disaster is Ferraro's fault because it's always the woman's fault AND all women are the same.  Ferraro was a disaster so picking Palin is risky for McCain. Nice.

    As I've said Palin can't make me vote for McCain, nothing can.  The Democrats' reaction, however, can sure make it awfully hard for me to vote for Obama (which was already hard).

    McCain said today in the intro (5.00 / 3) (#215)
    by nycstray on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 03:33:53 PM EST
    she's not the type to just sit down or something to that effect. He was listening and watching what was going on. He heard everyone tell us to sit down, STFU and go along. And he saw the resistance.

    Small town girl makes good! All American story. Not a good thing to criticize, lol!~ I like her background, not necessarily her position on some issues. All in all, I think McCain made a good choice for his ticket.  

    WTF? (5.00 / 1) (#222)
    by oculus on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 03:38:29 PM EST

    Firing a wife-beater. Yeh. (5.00 / 5) (#223)
    by Cream City on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 03:39:00 PM EST
    That's gonna hurt, what, the wife-beater vote bloc?

    Surely, a winning argument! (5.00 / 2) (#226)
    by Dawn Davenport on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 03:41:14 PM EST
    Lordy, it never fails to amuse me how tone-dead "progressives" can be.

    Conservatives (5.00 / 1) (#232)
    by thentro on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 03:52:04 PM EST
    From reading around, I am getting the sense that she was chosen for her red meat conservatism and the Hillary-voter angle is just smoke.

    Here's something you can make fun of her for (5.00 / 0) (#233)
    by cmugirl on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 03:55:32 PM EST
    She pronounces "nuclear" the same way Bush does (noo-kyu-ler).

    Of course, so does Jimmy Carter, who was a nuclear engineer.  So did Eisenhower.

    I see why Democrats lose elections (5.00 / 1) (#234)
    by Prabhata on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 03:57:23 PM EST
    I posted before that if Biden was at the top of the ticket, I'd vote for the ticket.  Obama having no experience is an issue because he would be the president.  With Palin as VP, I know she will not be a Cheney.  I know that the true president will be McCain.  Obama on the other hand will need to be walked like a baby.

    The whole idea that McCain has no credibility because he attacked Obama's inexperience is a losing argument with me and I believe lots of Americans.  The bottom line is, Americans are choosing a president, and the VP is not as important as some think. I would not want another Cheney, but beyond that, an inexperienced VP is alright.  I would have accepted Hillary as the president and Obama as the VP.

    And Rham is as helpful as ever. (5.00 / 4) (#235)
    by fuzzyone on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 04:01:33 PM EST
    After trying to make experience the issue of this campaign, John McCain celebrated his 72nd birthday by appointing a former small town mayor and brand new Governor as his Vice Presidential nominee. Is this really who the Republican Party wants to be one heartbeat away from the Presidency? Given Sarah Palin's lack of experience on every front and on nearly every issue, this Vice Presidential pick doesn't show judgement: it shows political panic.

    via Jane Hamsher at FDL

    This is exactly the wrong way to do this (as she notes BTD has already said).

    It's comments like Rahm's (5.00 / 4) (#237)
    by cmugirl on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 04:05:24 PM EST
    that show political panic

    She's very personable (5.00 / 3) (#239)
    by Redshoes on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 04:05:56 PM EST
    dead wrong on the issues that matter to progressives but it doesn't advance the progressive movement to have such vitrol directed at her.  And here again, the Obama's campaign's initial reaction was very telling -- some who needs to pull them aside and sit them down for a basic lesson in grace.

    I don't think McCain is after Hillary's supporters -- he wants his own base energized and to reach out to independents.  She's very "American" and has an all-American story.

    The panic in the air is palpable.... (5.00 / 1) (#240)
    by ks on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 04:10:56 PM EST
    Whew, The O forces are out in full spin mode throwing whatever they can and hoping it resonates. McCain really threw them for a loop with his choice.

    I think (5.00 / 2) (#245)
    by Bluesage on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 04:43:52 PM EST
    Berating this woman for her lack of experience is pretty stupid considering she has more executive experience than Obama who has none.  And really, are all the Obama supporter Hillary haters going to start in on this woman now?  Are we going to have to listen to this vitriol and the misogyny all over again?  I'm really beginning to despise this "new, unimproved Democratic Party".  Would someone please tell Rahm and Clyburn to STFU?

    I've not been an Obama supporter but I've always been open and I thought he gave a really good speech last night and moved me a little but then today after reading the comments about McCain's pick I am reminded of why I could never really get behind him.  It's his supporters and he won't take control of that situation and ask them to show some grace.  You know, like Bill and Hillary have done.

    Many here are saying that McCain is really taking a gamble here and he may really pay for it.  Aren't the Democrats taking a real gamble with Obama?  This needs to stop being about personalities and start being about issues. I thought Obama made a good move in that direction last night and I hope he will commit to those issues over the next couple of months.  That's what will win for him.  

    How much has she traveled (1.50 / 2) (#48)
    by magisterludi on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 02:51:10 PM EST
    outside the Alaska? How much of the federal pie does Alaska get? Didn't Ted Stevens endorse her? Why did she use the power of her office to punish her ex-brother-in-law and not the courts? Is she ambivalent about the demands of the job and caring for a 5 month old baby with Down's?

    How does she feel being a political stunt?

    "Working Mothers are bad"! Good luck (5.00 / 5) (#67)
    by tigercourse on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 02:54:11 PM EST
    with that.

    Not the point. (none / 0) (#151)
    by magisterludi on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 03:09:34 PM EST
    Dobsonites will ask the question, not the left.

    Whether it's a significant question to THEM remains to be seen.


    Not the point. (none / 0) (#153)
    by magisterludi on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 03:10:32 PM EST
    Dobsonites will ask the question, not the left.

    Whether it's a significant question to THEM remains to be seen.


    Excuse double post, please. (none / 0) (#179)
    by magisterludi on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 03:21:44 PM EST
    I got caught in traffic here.

    I know (5.00 / 5) (#137)
    by cmugirl on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 03:05:56 PM EST
    She visited wounded troops in Landstuhl at least once - saw the picture.  Don't know how many other times she traveled outside the US, but even this little thing is one more thing the R's can pound Obama with - remember on his world tour when he canceled on visiting wounded troops?

    Is she ambivalent about the demands of the job and caring for a 5 month old baby with Down's

    Would you ask this of any male politician with any kids (Down's or not)?


    Maybe that's why McCain made such an issue (none / 0) (#208)
    by ruffian on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 03:32:06 PM EST
    of that to begin with.

    Disengenuousness thy (1.00 / 1) (#230)
    by jondee on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 03:46:39 PM EST
    name is BOB.

    I missed the part where Clyburn said it's always the woman's fault and women are all the same.

    But, I think I get it, the Rightarded meme we're trying to promulgate is: Obama supporter = woman-hater.

    She apparently took on her own party (none / 0) (#30)
    by athyrio on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 02:48:46 PM EST
    and was the whistle blower on several of the republicans that got in big time trouble...She has an approval rating in Alaska of 90% and is very respected by Democrats as well as republicans up there...She took on the powerful machine up there of republicans and won and now that is why they are investigating her (according to my democratic friend up there)...Sounds like a gutsy lady...

    Here's a funny statistic: (none / 0) (#70)
    by steviez314 on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 02:54:25 PM EST
    During the 2008 primary season, Both Obama and Hillary each received more votes in 30 contests than Sarah Palin got running for Governor of Alaska.

    It's totally irrelevant (none / 0) (#165)
    by shoephone on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 03:17:09 PM EST
    You are beating a dead horse.

    How about (none / 0) (#101)
    by jondee on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 02:59:02 PM EST
    the hyper-cynicism factor vis a vis what amounts to another transparently manipulative appeal to symbolism over and against actual substance, which is what this obvious attempt to lure the mythic Puma vote amounts to.

    As in, we'll never offer you anyone who thinks like Hillary, but we can give you someone who at least LOOKS like Hillary.

    One of the things that I like about the Dems is that when they insult our intelligence they're at least fairly subtle about it.

    Link? (none / 0) (#104)
    by MKS on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 02:59:12 PM EST
    I do think she is out there on the issues....

    just after making the above comment (none / 0) (#115)
    by Turkana on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 03:01:39 PM EST
    i did...

    Thanks (5.00 / 1) (#133)
    by MKS on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 03:05:24 PM EST
    Well here's one article re: Israel (none / 0) (#116)
    by zfran on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 03:01:55 PM EST
    Campaign experience (none / 0) (#118)
    by indiependy on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 03:02:02 PM EST
    Palin may be a really talented, fantastic politician. But there's no denying McCain is taking a huge dice roll here, and by most accounts he hardly knows her.

    Putting aside whether or not what Obama's qualifications may or may not be, there's no denying his experience campaigning and being in the spotlight. From the 2004 Convention speech, through the Senate race, the Presidential run, the intense primary, the just finished convention, he's handled it all with very, very few missteps. Biden's had a few gaffes through his career, but he's pretty sturdy along these lines as well.

    How Palin will hold up to this is a total unknown. Sure, she had a decent speech in front of a friendly crowd today. But how is she in answering tough questions from the national media? How does she hold up to the rigors and endless hours of a national campaign trail? How is she in debates? Fact is I'm not sure anyone - including McCain - can honestly say they have any idea.

    Interesting setup (none / 0) (#159)
    by lilburro on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 03:14:16 PM EST
    for their convention.  McCain being seen as a gambler is good for him.  As far as C-in-C goes, I suppose McCain can argue she'll quickly learn from him.  I think that is the idea of putting someone inexperienced in the VP slot.  I expect that is what they will probably say.  

    Of course, the GOP sucks.  I wonder how this choice affects Ohio and Colorado going forward.

    Frankly, I find the argument (none / 0) (#164)
    by BrianJ on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 03:16:57 PM EST
    You make here-  "it seems impossible for me to imagine the experience issue will hurt Palin. It DOES hurt McCain's ability to wield it against Obama"-  far-fetched at best.  Unless you really believe that Obama can no longer use "Change" in his campaign because he appointed a 35-year Senate veteran to his ticket.

    No need to be thrown off balance, (none / 0) (#167)
    by KeysDan on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 03:17:29 PM EST
    McCain was, after all, going to pick someone for a running mate. Any of his choices would bring particular strengths and weaknesses, so, in my view, the Obama/Biden ticket needs to stay on the pathway demonstrated during the convention, comparing and contrasting the Republican and Democratic presidencies and presenting the plans and programs for the future. With respect to past presidencies, the Republicans have offered, in just the recent past, failed and even criminal administrations (e.g. Nixon and Bush). The Republican party should pay a price for putting such candidates before the electorate. As President Clinton said, in 2000, the Republicans, with a president, both houses of congress, and supreme court, have had their unfettered  way with us. The neocon pupils  of Leo Straus and acolytes of Milton Friedman  have had their chance to reverse and thwart progressive policies and legislation, leaving us the war torn and economic mess we are now in. All the worse for the blatant thievery.  Moreover, new abominations such as Creationism(Palin's equates it to evolution in teaching importance) and anti-science, as espoused by Republicans,will polish us off with a McCain/Palin administration.  

    I have never seen so much bloviation (none / 0) (#213)
    by Jim J on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 03:33:21 PM EST
    over a VP pick no one has ever heard of and who will no doubt slink back into relative obscurity after losing this election.

    The dynamics are bigger than a VP pick. Change vs. More of the Same.

    This is really simple. In the final analysis NO ONE is voting on the basis of VP picks.

    Don't overlook her strength on energy. (none / 0) (#231)
    by evidencebasedliberal on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 03:47:22 PM EST
    She has been pushing for natural gas pipelines from Alaska. I have a feeling that was also a consideration in her being chosen.

    total fundie and great distraction (none / 0) (#241)
    by musicsleuth on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 04:13:36 PM EST
    Obama is off the front page. Mission accomplished McCain. As far as experience goes, lets see how she does as a VP candidate.

    I was as skeptical of Obama when he started running for Prez, but he proved himself able to break through the Clinton machine and has been ahead throughout most of the content so far.

    Maybe she'll be McCain's savior, maybe not. The fact that she holds church lady values and will provide the needed distraction for any discussion of McCain's horrible policies will probably enhance the ticket to low-information voters.

    The Palin Trap is... (none / 0) (#243)
    by Dadler on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 04:25:59 PM EST
    ...thinking there is any trap to her at all.

    The entire problem with the Democratic party and the way it runs its candidates is PRECISELY the notion that you can't call the right wing on exactly the cynical ploys it pulls.  That you have to answer them by playing the same game.

    Experience, my ace -- at least Obama has local, state and national political experience representing districts that mirror the diversity of the nation as a whole.  

    If there is any trap it's the ones we set for ourselves.  Play hardball and put this fear of the right b.s. to pasture.

    She is a completely cynical pick, infinitely more cynical than Biden.  Rather than run from that, the Dems should be calling it what it is.

    Link??? (none / 0) (#244)
    by michitucky on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 04:33:14 PM EST
    Do you have a link stating she's four months pregnant???  I haven't seen it anywhere...Thanks.

    Don't Underestimate Her Experience (none / 0) (#246)
    by Cougar for Clinton on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 05:56:18 PM EST
    Alaska is larger than all but 17 cities in the United States with over half a million residents.  In her year as governor she has done an excellent job controlling the reindeer population and I daresay she will bring that experience to the White House.


    As always BTD gets it right (none / 0) (#247)
    by Bornagaindem on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 06:48:04 PM EST
    BTD is exactly right (as is Ed Kilgore) but I would go even further- it was a brilliant move:

    1)sucks all the talk away from Obama's big night and speech

    1. it gives McCain the perfect foil to talk about the experience thing. Who cares if the VP is relatively inexperienced he/she is not the president but what if the president himself is the inexperienced one? Then sir you have a problem. Every attack on her for inexperience just forces the press to compare to Obama's part time job in the Illinois legislature with her executive experience. His senate experience -Obama said it himself "if I were to decide to run for president I would have to start now before I even serve in the Senate". Please McCain is begging -attack her for inexperience.
    2. It will keep at the forefront all those hurt feelings that some women had when Hillary was attacked so viciously even when she had the most experience. especially if pundits fall into the trap of a double standard -inexperienced Obama is ok but inexperienced Palin is not?
    3. it makes McCain/Palin the party of change and gives them real street cred on the idea that this is not just the same old Washington politics.

    My take -this will be a huge bounce for McCain- even more so with all the talk about this is just a ploy to get Hillary's supporters. Speaking as a Hillary supporter -it is working. Obama is in deep trouble.