Palin, Crist , Jindal And Kaine

A thought experiment.

Among the people whose names were bandied about as potential VP picks included Charlie Crist, elected the Governor of Florida in 2006, after 4 years as Florida's Attorney General, Tim Kaine, elected the Governor of Virginia in 2006, after 4 years as Lieutenant Governor, and Bobby Jindal, elected Governor of Louisiana after serving 3 years in Congress.

More . . .

You can argue that that these three men have somewhat more experience than Sarah Palin, but not much more and in the case of Crist and Kaine, none at the national level. But nothing that say 'well, that proves they have the experience necessary.' So here's the question, if McCain had picked Crist or Jindal, or if Obama had picked Kaine, would we be hearing as much about their lack of experience as we are hearing about Sarah Palin? I think the honest answer is no, though with Kaine you may have. Why? Because the VP slot is not viewed with needing experience when the top of the ticket is perceived as having the necessary experience. John McCain is viewed as having the necessary experience.

So why so much scrutiny of Palin's experience? Not that there would be some scrutiny, but the level of scrutiny we have seen. Why?

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

< Fired Police Commissioner Speaks About Gov. Palin | Rep. Diana DeGette: Palin Choice an "Insult to Women" >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Pretty sure (5.00 / 14) (#4)
    by Faust on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 08:43:21 PM EST
    it has to do with anatomy.

    McCain tweaked (5.00 / 14) (#5)
    by Stellaaa on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 08:45:36 PM EST
    all the given arguments:  experience being the top one.  Now the Dems are arguing against inexperience for the second spot.  Not to mention all the gender issues.  

    Some people are blowing gaskets.  


    Stellaa....it is called PDS (Palin (5.00 / 8) (#50)
    by PssttCmere08 on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 09:49:27 PM EST
    Derangement Syndrome...:)

    Oh, SNAP! (5.00 / 4) (#67)
    by ruffian on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 10:01:03 PM EST
    Perfect description of this day.  

    I've just been reading all the arguments and chuckling. I have no emotional attachment - I really didn't care who McCain picked, except out of strategical interest, and this has certainly been interesting.

    Next week will be great - watching them attempt to make Sarah Palin a legend in her own time in the course of 4 days. Hey, she seems up for it! I'll watch the show.


    The best thing is that the campaign is (5.00 / 2) (#129)
    by PssttCmere08 on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 10:47:59 PM EST
    seeming a tad more interesting....been boring since Hillary left the scene.

    I agree (none / 0) (#120)
    by TomStewart on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 10:40:59 PM EST
    I just might tune into a bit more of the convention now.

    Since Mac has only met her once, (1.00 / 4) (#29)
    by magisterludi on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 09:21:09 PM EST
    reportedly, I think she's a trophy veep to HIM and she has enough drive to overlook it. I always thought he would pick Palin if O passed on HRC, for purely cynical reasons, like a back-handed compliment. Has little to do with Palin, but all about Mac's motivation.

    I wonder if she expects equal pay?


    that line of attack has been debunked (5.00 / 0) (#70)
    by TimNCGuy on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 10:02:41 PM EST
    already. They have only met twice in PERSON. But have talked many times about actual issues like energy etc.

    Motivations for selection (5.00 / 1) (#127)
    by christinep on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 10:45:43 PM EST
    So far as I recall, VP candidates are usually selected because the individual(s) fulfill some need for the Presidential candidate--geographical, background, expertese, age, etc. Of course, Palin and Biden were picked for two different supplemental needs of the top of the respective ticket. Actually, it would be more interesting to speculate on whether a VP candidate was ever selected purely on the singular merits of the individual.

    Al Gore. (5.00 / 1) (#171)
    by Teresa on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 11:52:22 PM EST
    Crist was merely a filler -- (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by Josey on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 08:45:47 PM EST
    too many gay rumors.

    Crist had been involved state government (none / 0) (#42)
    by Molly Bloom on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 09:35:59 PM EST
     since 1992. Chain gang Charlie served in the legislature and in Jeb's cabinet as well as being AG and Governor BTD's description isn't quiet accurate).

    His resume is actually a little better than PTA, Mayor and Governor.


    yes, the gay rumors have followed him - (none / 0) (#90)
    by Josey on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 10:19:51 PM EST
    all during his political career. But in 2006, a staunch Southern Baptist and former employee of Katherine Harris began filling in the Palm Beach Post with details of Crist's affair with him and other men since the early 90s.
    Crist won handily primarily due to an ad that bashed his opponent for missing so many votes in the House/Congress.

    I actually am well aware (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by Molly Bloom on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 10:23:04 PM EST
    of all of these details. But others may not be.

    Is the marriage off now?


    You think he'll call off his wedding now? (none / 0) (#83)
    by JavaCityPal on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 10:16:56 PM EST
    It's (5.00 / 18) (#7)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 08:45:56 PM EST
    fear BTD. McCain has just struck fear into the heart of the democratic party who thought this election was "in the bag".

    I don't get the experience argument with Palin. Is she qualified to be President imo? No, she isn't but she isn't running for President. Frankly, most people don't care how much experience the VP has and the thought of a President dying in office so rarely happens that people really don't put too much thought into it.

    The problem with Kaine I think is that the Obama team decided that it was too risky to put 2 inexperienced candidates on a ticket.

    Anyway, is this a hail mary pass? I think it could be. I thought Biden was one too.

    This is one freaky election. And the person who everyone wants to kiss the ring of? Hillary. She's more powerful than I ever could have imagined. After all this, it's still about Hillary. Amazing.

    Yeah (5.00 / 11) (#8)
    by Emma on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 08:51:58 PM EST
    And the person who everyone wants to kiss the ring of? Hillary. She's more powerful than I ever could have imagined. After all this, it's still about Hillary. Amazing.

    Yeah, who'da thunk?  I thought she was dead in the water after losing the nomination.  Forget the Presidential election.  I want to see what Hillary does next.  [/tongue in cheek, sorta]


    19% (none / 0) (#186)
    by cal1942 on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 12:52:15 AM EST
    Nearly one in five of all Presidents have died in office.

    We've had 42 Presidents (makes no sense to count Cleveland twice) and 8 have died in office; four in the 19th century, four in the 20th century, four by assassination and four by natural causes.

    Subtract the five Presidents who were never elected President but only filled out the term of an elected President because of death or resignation leaves 37 elected Presidents. Of elected Presidents, 21.6% have died in office.


    It is BS. Pure and simple. (5.00 / 14) (#9)
    by Matt in Chicago on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 08:53:36 PM EST
    She is getting insulted for something that would have been overlooked if Obama had picked Kaine.  That choice would have been seen as "fresh" and savvy because he could have helped deliver Virginia.  Instead, Biden was chosen to deliver gravitas.

    Palin is getting insulted because she has more executive experience than Obama.  His vast legislative experience was working for people like Palin!  Any one willing to take a guess how long it will take him to realize that if her inexperience matters for being the VP, HIS inexperience is going to matter MORE because he wants to be the President.

    The fact that women are "insulted", i.e., read faux outrage, because he chose a woman in an attempt to get more women to vote for him is disingenious as h*ll!  Obama chose Biden to get people to trust him and overlook the inexperience issue, he was looking at Byah, in part, for Ohio... etc.  This is what a running mate is for... to help you win.  

    I disagree with Palin's stance on abortion, but she lives by her principles, and that doesn't mean we need to insult her.  And by insulting her, we are going to turn voters off.

    This, is of course, all my opinion... and I could be wrong.  But my gut says that the frivolous attacks on her experience to be the VP (the VP?!) is going to hurt us WAY more than it hurts McCain (no one is questioning his experience... yeah, go on and insult older people... good plan.)

    I agree (5.00 / 9) (#53)
    by chrisvee on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 09:51:52 PM EST
    Should white men be insulted that Obama picked Biden to appeal to them after all of his talk about wanting change? I don't think so. The VP pick is about helping the ticket.

    The intense reaction to Palin shows that the Obama campaign knows this pick is trouble for them.


    The faux-outrage: Women "insulted" (5.00 / 8) (#123)
    by Grace on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 10:42:54 PM EST
    argument is already wearing thin on me.  

    Have we no pride as women?  It's great any time a woman gets chosen for an important position.  

    Palin isn't Hillary.  She'll never be.  She doesn't have the same beliefs as Hillary and she's a Republican to boot -- but for gosh sakes!  Why feel insulted when she's been offered a chance to help move women through that glass ceiling?  Obama didn't pick her -- McCain picked her and she strengthens McCain's ticket because she's a conservative!  

    It is sexism and it's the same thing that turned me off during the primary.      


    I said this earlier (5.00 / 4) (#128)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 10:47:27 PM EST
    But it is a little weird to hear over and over that it WASN'T sexist to call Hillary horrible names like "b*tch" or "monster" or "shrill" but it most definitely IS sexist to pick a woman to be vice president.

    At a certain point it's like, so I'm supposed to applaud being slapped in the face but hate being courted?  I wanna be pandered to too!  Maybe this will wake up the Democratic party.


    You know NOTHING of her principles (1.50 / 2) (#12)
    by Dadler on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 08:55:26 PM EST
    Sorry, nothing.  We only know her record, which is thin and makes either Obama's or Kaine's look rich and deep.

    One can rip Obama, rip sexism, and STILL have the eyes to see a pick made ONLY because of gender.


    I know she is very pro-life and (5.00 / 5) (#16)
    by Matt in Chicago on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 09:03:07 PM EST
    chose to keep her baby when they knew it would have Down's Syndrome.  I may be pro-choice, but I am not sure what I would do/advice/feel in that situation.  She, apparently, stuck to her beliefs.  Does that mean it is not reasonable to infer that she really believes in her pro-life stance?

    So is that NOTHING about her principles?


    Her accomplishments show her (4.69 / 13) (#22)
    by nycstray on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 09:09:06 PM EST
    principles also. She has fought corruption and won. In all the offices she has held. And she can stand up there and speak to them (she's already started). Obama, not so much.

    Basically, she has 13yrs in public office. Maybe not the biggest jobs in the world, but she seems to have done them well to earn a good reputation and beat out a sitting Gov. Methinks she might have a bit of moxy!


    what accomplishments opposing corruption? (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by Molly Bloom on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 09:32:14 PM EST
    All she did as far as I know is defeat Murkowski running on a clean campaign platform. She ran with the support of the very corrupt Stevens, so this seems to me pure nonsense.

    As mayor she fired the police chief for supporting her opponent. Hardly an earmark of good government.

    Troopergate has already been discussed.

    Speaking of earmarks she was for the bridge to nowhere before she was against it. Tell me again this opposition to corruption?


    She did not have Stevens support (none / 0) (#199)
    by evidencebasedliberal on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 06:39:05 AM EST
    Stevens supported Murkowski, his colleague in the Senate for decades. Palin and Stevens actually have a very bad relationship.

    And the commercials Stevens ran on her behalf? (none / 0) (#200)
    by Molly Bloom on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 08:00:40 AM EST
    What do you know of her record? (5.00 / 6) (#44)
    by Iphie on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 09:37:37 PM EST
    We only know her record, which is thin and makes either Obama's or Kaine's look rich and deep.

    Please provide a match-up of their respective resumes and accomplishments in order to back up your claim that Obama is considerably superior in this area.

    like O didn't pick Biden because (5.00 / 7) (#47)
    by jes on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 09:45:28 PM EST
    if gender and the white male working class vote?



    What more experience does Kaine have? (5.00 / 4) (#95)
    by SueBonnetSue on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 10:24:13 PM EST
    Two years as a Governor?  Prior to that he was a state delegate.  What's the difference?  

    Oh wait, I know the difference!  Tim Kaine has a 42% approval rating and Sarah Palin has a 65% approval rating.  Plus, she's a MUCH better speaker and campaigner.  

    At first I thought McCain had made a terrible choice until I read what she had done in Alaska, taking on big oil, exposing corrupt republicans, refusing the bridge to nowhere, and running against another republican Governor and beating the pants off of him.  Then I listened to her speech.  Wow.  She's VERY good.  

    McCain made a great choice, a strong woman, with a great record, who isn't afraid to upset anyone and everyone.  Very much like McCain.  Except younger and prettier.  

    Our party is in trouble.  No one is talking about Obama's very traditional speech last night.  Or the rock star spectacle of it all.  They've already moved on to the Palin story.   That news will be HUGE for the next week.  I hate to say it, but McCain made a great choice.  


    This only goes to prove the left wing hypocricy (5.00 / 16) (#23)
    by Serene1 on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 09:10:15 PM EST
    With Hillary it was that she was an old hand and too much of an experienced washington insider to be qualified for the job (though for Biden that worked as a positive) and now for palin it is that she is too inexperienced (though Bill C, Obama and Kennedy didn't exactly have more experience).

    The thing that is also unsettling about Palin to most men I guess is that she is also quite good looking.

    One important revelation I had in this campaign was that most liberals are as bad as most conservatives when it comes to sexisim.

    liberals and sexism (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by christinep on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 09:29:18 PM EST
    While I know that it is inaccurate to extrapolate from some examples to the greater universe, I tend to agree that the liberal or conservative appellation does not tell us whether the individual holds sexist attitudes. From a personal standpoint, I remembered a practical learning in that regard during the upheaval of 1968. Perhaps, because of the generational issues that present themselves in these recurring situations, that is to be expected. I'm a Democrat; but, I find that aging has led me to be more aware of the "women held to a different standard" reality. I'll be curious to see how she stands up to the Washington news crowd in the next two weeks...because something tells me that she is now Dan Quayle.

    why are you conflating age with experience? (5.00 / 0) (#108)
    by ghost2 on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 10:32:45 PM EST
    Both Bill C and Kennedy had loads of experience.  Kennedy was a war hero and had (IIRC) 12 years legislative experience.  Bill Clinton had at least 8 years as governor, and I think 2 years as AG of Arkansas.

    OTOH, Obama is inexperienced.


    Your point on double standard, OTOH, (5.00 / 6) (#112)
    by ghost2 on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 10:35:21 PM EST
    is spot on.  It takes chutzpa to call Palin inexpeirenced, given what scant experience Obama doesn't have.  Yes, women are either too old, too status quo, or too young. A guy is either seasoned, or a bold and fresh choice.  

    Democratic party constantly makes me barf.  Maybe I should send them my cleaning bills.


    Secret? (5.00 / 5) (#25)
    by Stellaaa on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 09:11:33 PM EST
    I am curious, how did the McCain campaign manage to keep the secret better?  All I hear from pundits is about the discipline of the Obama campaign.  Hmmmm?

    Apparently, (5.00 / 0) (#45)
    by Iphie on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 09:41:09 PM EST
    Palin kept her pregnancy a secret for 7 months. How's that for being able to keep a secret?

    Clearly BTD You Didn't Get The Memo (5.00 / 25) (#27)
    by BDB on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 09:12:20 PM EST
    A woman with a thin resume and little national experience = unqualified

    A man with a thin resume and little national experience = change agent

    Perfect! (5.00 / 0) (#102)
    by SueBonnetSue on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 10:29:12 PM EST
    You have nailed it.  

    Oh sad.  


    I don't think it's gender (5.00 / 5) (#31)
    by Redshoes on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 09:21:37 PM EST
    it's the Dems were caught unaware and didn't have anything to go against that good 1st impression Palin made.    They've been scrambling all day to get on message.

    Oh and she energizes the radical right base (5.00 / 6) (#34)
    by Redshoes on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 09:26:13 PM EST
    so no I don't think she was just chosen because of her gender.

    Exactly (5.00 / 2) (#58)
    by chrisvee on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 09:54:18 PM EST
    They got a twofer. :-)

    Because McCain chose someone (5.00 / 13) (#33)
    by Joan in VA on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 09:24:50 PM EST
     who has a commonality with half the voting population(though actually that half votes more reliably) and Obama didn't make that choice. So McCain's looking a little more mavericky today and that pisses some people off. So they take it out on her even though she didn't select herself. They have to find something wrong with her to blunt her "historic" role since her selection has drawn the attention away from Obama's "historic" role. Basically, sour grapes.

    It seems to me (5.00 / 3) (#38)
    by lilburro on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 09:31:28 PM EST
    that had Jindal been picked, or Kaine on Obama's part, there would have been a lot of media speculation on what made them so worthy - and an attempt to link accomplishment to worthiness.  They would've looked through Jindal's record for the good things he has done.  

    Kaine obviously would've been seen as a complement to Obama.  What bothers me is that there are some people on blogs who now say, who cares about Kaine's qualifications, he wasn't selected anyway.  Well, if you thought it was okay that he might've been selected, then why do you care that McCain actually did select someone with similar qualifications?  Would you have hated Obama if he chose Kaine?

    Lord knows Bush considered ready to be C-in-C.  

    Anderson Cooper just said, "Can Republicans really argue this is a choice about governance, or was this purely a choice about politics and getting elected?"  

    Would that have been asked of Kaine?  No.  

    Kaine seen as a complement? (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by TomStewart on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 10:05:05 PM EST

    The choice of Kaine would have been seen as a big mistake by the media, and a lot of Democrats (yes, I'd be one). Obama/Kaine would have caused the repubs to chafe their little hands with glee, the 'Obama's not ready for primetime' meme would have worked even better than before, now they would have TWO dems for one attack. If Obama wasn't going to chose Hillary, than Biden was the next best pick, at lest politically). He helps allay the experience attack, much the same way Cheney did with Bush (yes, it pains me to make the comparison, but it's apt.

    Kaine wouldn't have gotten a pass from the repubs, he'd have gotten a funeral.


    all three of the governors you listed (5.00 / 2) (#41)
    by Turkana on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 09:35:38 PM EST
    had more statewide experience, and all come from more populous and diversely populated states. palin has a year and a half of statewide experience, and comes from a state less populous than portland, oregon. sexism may be a factor, but it's far from the leading one.

    A year and a half (5.00 / 9) (#52)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 09:51:02 PM EST
    is more than Jindal, the same as Kaine and Crist.

    So drop the BS, you want to argue BIG STATES, well then Bill Clinton was not qualified.


    But... (5.00 / 3) (#86)
    by Siguy on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 10:17:33 PM EST
    Besides the fact that those gentlemen weren't chosen, they all have more prior experience. This isn't a situation where only your last job counts.

    Before being governor, she was mayor of a very very tiny conservative town and served as one of several members of a fairly important Alaska commission but only for one year.

    Before Crist was governor he was Attorney General for four years and before that he was education commissioner and before that he ran for Senate and before that he was in the state senate for six years.

    Before Kaine was governor he was Lieutenant Governor and before that he was mayor of Richmond (I'm not interested in deriding Alaska, but this is a city with a larger population than the state of Alaska). Frankly, I think Kaine would've drowned Obama in inexperience criticisms and that's why I was glad he wasn't chosen.

    Before Jindal was governor he was a congressman and before that he was the state's Secretary of Health (a position covering 40% of the state's budget). He was also the lead of a national committee for medicare reform.

    Frankly, I think these people generally weren't very qualified, but it's not in anyway a stretch to say that of all of them, Palin is noticeably and almost ridiculously the least qualified of all. Her national stature, her positions, her previous experience, by almost every measure, she is the least experienced.


    Big States (5.00 / 8) (#98)
    by JavaCityPal on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 10:25:43 PM EST
    like Delaware?

    We're comparing VP to VP, right?


    Well, (none / 0) (#62)
    by TomStewart on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 09:56:00 PM EST
    Arkansas has 2,000,000 more people than Alaska, and doesn't have the oil industry to prop it up.

    "BS"? (none / 0) (#79)
    by rilkefan on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 10:11:00 PM EST
    You need to work on being civil.

    Plus your counterargument is risible.


    I think Kaine has actually been Governor (none / 0) (#82)
    by tigercourse on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 10:14:46 PM EST
    for 2.5 years. Doesn't Virginia have odd numbered year elections?

    bill clinton (none / 0) (#185)
    by Turkana on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 12:50:48 AM EST
    had been governor forever, and has been head of the national governors' conference. jindal served in congress, so he had fed experience. kaine and crist had held other high offices.

    Oh, right (5.00 / 5) (#59)
    by Dr Molly on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 09:54:30 PM EST
    Now it is the size of the state population that makes the distinction. Good lord.

    Remember when the big states didn't count (5.00 / 3) (#64)
    by Marvin42 on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 09:58:06 PM EST
    During the primaries? I wonder when they became important again.

    Alaska is the only state not in Appalachia (5.00 / 3) (#81)
    by ruffian on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 10:13:04 PM EST
    That's what I learned in the primaries.

    What Experience? (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by koshembos on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 09:49:23 PM EST
    Experience is highly overrated in this campaign. I don't support Obama not because he lacks experience, but because he is a hate monger, a liar and his intelligence is mediocre.

    So, Palin experience doesn't matter. She is a conservative and I totally disagree with her.

    The Democrats jump on her selection is an error in judgment. She already buried the Democratic convention and showed again that Obama's selection of Biden was cowardly. She may also appeal to centrist women that would have voted for Hillary but now may gravitate towards McCain. We know little about Palin, but if she turns out to be dynamic and smart, it spells more trouble for Obama.

    Let's face it. We have a bad candidate who gave a mediocre nomination speech. Clinton and JFK he is not. We may have another Carter which will usher in another 20 years of Republican rule. We may all what to illegals in Mexico.

    Bandying names about for misdirection (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by Alien Abductee on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 09:50:52 PM EST
    is one thing. Did Obama actually pick Kaine? No.

    The point is not some hypothetical that should be taken as equivalent between the two candidates. The fact is that McCain DID pick an unqualified person while Obama didn't. Instead he picked one of the most qualified people possible.

    That said, I think it's quite obvious a male candidate would be given more of a pass than Palin is getting, without most people even realizing that that's what they were doing.

    Come on. (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by TomStewart on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 09:52:17 PM EST
    Kaine would have gotten a lot of experience questions, especially since that is the attack McCain has been pushing, don't kid yourself. Whitman would not have been getting the experience questions, but would have been seen as a try at the Hillary voters.

    Why the experience questions for Palin? Are you kidding? It's not because she's a woman (some maybe pushing it for this reason and they should be called on it), but her very national obscurity brings up the question, (who is this person and what have they done) and McCain's reasons (?) and even her own resume pushing just point out the skimpiness of it. Again, McCain has been pushing experience, and his choice was bound to get examined by that measure.

    Sorry, her experience is being questioned not because she's a woman, but because her lack of it is so obvious.

    It's the ferocity (5.00 / 14) (#68)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 10:01:06 PM EST
    Yes, picking Palin can certainly be fairly criticized, at least to some degree, on the experience question.

    But the teeth-bared ferocity and the ridicule would not under any circumstances have been applied to a Kaine, a Jindal, a Pawlenty or indeed, I'm now convinced, any other man who wasn't an out-and-out goofball like a Quayle.

    This, I must say, has been a fascinating 12 hours here in the "progressive" blogosphere, and I include TalkLeft.

    Whether McCain-Palin (5.00 / 2) (#72)
    by Alien Abductee on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 10:05:30 PM EST
    wins or not, I think the significance of this pick is that it's taken the opportunity to open a new aggressive front in the culture wars - to take on feminism and try to remake it in a new culturally conservative way. They think long-term, which is why they've been winning. At the very least this pick raises the profile of anti-choice feminists, which one might have thought were rare as yetis.

    That's an interesting point. And Democrats (5.00 / 8) (#85)
    by tigercourse on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 10:17:16 PM EST
    running around yelling "Putting a woman on the ticket is an insult to women!" isn't helping win any feminist arguments.

    Which is why they shouldn't (none / 0) (#97)
    by Alien Abductee on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 10:25:37 PM EST
    argue that. But he shouldn't be putting an unqualified woman on the ticket as a token in a cynical ploy to split the opposition - that's an argument that as a feminist I would agree with. But it's too nuanced to make to the broad electorate. I agree with BTD that she should just be ignored as a factor and let McCain lose his experience argument, which after all was his main argument anyway.

    I mostly disagree BTD (5.00 / 2) (#75)
    by Siguy on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 10:06:39 PM EST
    I think you're wrong on this, but I do think you have a point. Yes, the experience angle is being hit extra hard because she is a woman and because she doesn't look like a normal politician. It's unfair.

    But I think on the whole you're wrong about this.
    One, you're comparing her to people who weren't picked. Yes, I know, you're saying, "those people were considered," but so was Chet Edwards and so were a bunch of other people who no one has ever heard of or who made no sense. So were Meg Whitman and Carly Fiorina. These people weren't scrutinized as much because they weren't picked. If they had been, it absolutely would've been an issue.

    All we can judge is who was actually chosen. And what we see is a campaign that spent a solid month and a half using the phrase "dangerously unready to be President" and then selected arguably the least experienced VP in modern history to understudy to the oldest presidential candidate ever.

    Two, she really really really has amazingly little experience. Yes, this is Obama's problem too, and I frankly don't expect (or think he should) attack her on it much because it's better to just let McCain's hypocrisy eat him up than go on offense over it. But Obama, let's be clear, will reach the Presidency with 4 years of Senate experience and 8 years in the state legislature. That's pretty damn weak, I'll agree, but to say it's comparable to 20 months as governor after being mayor of a preposterously small town ... No, Obama is not a paragon of experience, but Palin makes him look like Henry Freaking Kissinger. Obama has had a national position on every major foreign policy and national issue, Palin has said almost nothing about every major issue in this race, and when she has said something, it's been light and contradictory to John McCain.

    What's more, she already lied about opposing the bridge to nowhere in her opening speech.

    I'm rambling now and I'm sorry for that. I think you do really have a point and she is being hit extra hard because of the surprise nature of the pick and her gender, but if she were a man, everyone would still be making Dan Quayle jokes, and rightly so.

    Of Faux Progressive Twerps... (5.00 / 6) (#87)
    by Oje on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 10:17:35 PM EST
    At FDL:

    (I guess he [McCain] assumes that women will just blindly vote for anyone with a vagina)

    The reduction of "women" as "anyone with a vagina" is entirely the construct of the new left authoritarian writer quoted here. There are social, cultural, political, psychological, and many other kinds of identity structures that play a role in determining how each woman determines the meaning of womanhood in her own life. This total erasure of gendered identity with a reference to biological genitalia exists in the mind of this writer alone (well, and his formerly A-list blogger com-[p]Atriots).

    The faux progressives do not seem to grasp that women have vastly complex political identities - just as men do! To be a woman, one does not have to tow the Democratic party line.

    (I suppose, all progressive men just might be dupes of Democratic women as well, but does the vanguard of the party - its "creative class" -  really want to go there with this line of argument? Increasingly, it seems to me, the genius of Republican strategists in the past 20 years has not lied in the exploitation of conservatives' prejudices, the whole dog whistle theory.

    In fact, their genius lies in the exploitation of liberals' prejudices, which since at least the Clinton's 1992 presidency, has been the question of masculinity and feminism. The whole primary exposed to me how deeply antifeminist Clinton Derangement Syndrome is - it is the very pith of its affliction. The McCain campaign obviously studied the actions of the Obama campaign during the primary. The Obamabots [the media, blog, and party insiders] are wielding the instrucment of their self-destruction. But, of course, Bob Somerby figured this whole thing out long ago.)

    A very surreal moment (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by janarchy on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 10:25:24 PM EST
    Bill Maher has Tim Kaine on his show right now talking about VP picks and the pair of them are trashing Sarah Palin like nobody's business. Kaine was nattering on about Obama's amazing experiences and Maher was har har har-ing and throwing in sexist asides.

    No mention was made of Kaine being a potential VP pick or how little experience he had at all.

    (I then switched to the Daily Show only to shut it off since Jon Stewart is now flogging the stupid Barbie Doll Beauty Queen With No Experience meme at all...)

    Maher is a sexist (5.00 / 1) (#159)
    by TomStewart on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 11:34:35 PM EST
    and it's part of his act, a not very funny part of   his act. Kaine should know better, esp if he has his eye on his future.

    Yep (5.00 / 1) (#188)
    by janarchy on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 01:29:21 AM EST
    I know Maher's a sexist. I used to like his panels at least. These days, not so much. I figured I'd try and see if things had calmed down just a little after his last hiatus, but no.

    And seriously, Kaine sitting there chortling about how lame a candidate Palin was did not endear him to me at all.

    Jon Stewart's MILF jokes weren't a big hit either, lemme tell ya. Would he have made 7-11 jokes about Bobby Jindal? Gay jokes about Charlie Crist? Can you imagine the outcry if someone had made jokes about Obama being well-endowed because he's a black man?

    Yeah. Laff riots.


    I felt I was clear... (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by Siguy on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 10:26:23 PM EST
    I do think Obama's experience is very light, but he didn't run a campaign on experience, John McCain did.

    I think Obama's experience should be an issue in the election, it's one of the only fair criticisms McCain has in my opinion. But McCain just picked someone preposterous.

    Obama's record is weak, but let's look at it: 3 years as a senator, 8 years as a state legislator.

    Here's Palins' record: 20 months as a governor, 4 years city council experience and 6 years mayoral experience in a town of 8000.

    Now I suppose if you squint real hard you can pretend this is equivalent, but it's simply not. Her experience has almost no relation to national politics and up to this month she has had no position on the Iraq war and a host of other national issues defining this race. Obama may have just exploded onto this scene ten minutes ago, but he at least did it by talking about and addressing national issues.

    I don't think this campaign should be about her lack of experience, but she is absolutely less experienced than Obama and I agree with everyone who thinks he's one of the least experienced candidates for President ever.

    I'm good at squinting (5.00 / 2) (#115)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 10:35:44 PM EST
    And I seem to recall many Obama supporters (including John Kerry!) trying to claim that 3 years in the senate and 8 years (part-time) in the state legislature were the same as 8 years in the senate and 8 years as one of the most influential presidential advisors in history (ie first lady to B. Clinton.)

    Besides - I thought experience didn't matter.  Only judgment did.


    Uh, no it isn't... (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by TomStewart on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 10:30:01 PM EST
    Obama got the nomination from the voters who didn't seem to have that much of a problem with his experience. Palin got her nomination from McCain, for his own reasons.

    Obama will have to be elected, Palin is on the bottom of the ticket, where she'll support McCain, but she can become president without a vote. Obama will have to earn it.

    Umm in case you forgot (5.00 / 2) (#113)
    by RedSox04 on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 10:35:32 PM EST
    Obama got his nomination from approximately half of the voters of 1 party representing a little over half the electorate.  And not to rehash old spats, but he won most of his "votes" early on in the process and in caucuses.  

    So if you want to argue that Obama, based on a highly contested primary which many folks still haven't gotten over, was somehow "vetted" on his experience, whereas Palin wasn't, and that this means that we should keep bringing up Palin's inexperience, I would ask you to reconsider.

    This is a boomerang, folks.  Every time we try to hit Palin on inexperience, it's going to come back and hit Obama with the only folks that matter right now: the undecided (or not firmly decided) voters.


    That's not what I'm saying at all (none / 0) (#157)
    by TomStewart on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 11:31:48 PM EST
    Personally, I think Hillary got a raw deal, yes, but to a certain extent she was outsmarted by a better ground game, and by concentrating on the traditiona big states while Obama played to his organizing skills and went after the caucuses.

    What I saying has nothing to do with anyones experience. I was pointing out that Palin didn't earn her nomination (I think Obama put in a heck of a lot of work into it) and if she does become president through fatal injury to McCain (no, I'm not advocating it, DHS readers), she will have not. Nothing to do with experience, and I think a scary scenerio for the country.


    Well... (5.00 / 7) (#109)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 10:32:54 PM EST
    I'm going to get in trouble for this, but you know who she has more experience than?  Abe Lincoln.

    You know how I know this?  Because Obama supporters mentioned his lack of experience a million times during the primary to make the case for O.  And Al Gore talked about it last night.

    I don't like anything about Palin's positions (except when she kicks around Republicans), but this whole day is making me very sympathetic towards her.  That annoys me.

    The double standard is ridiculous.  (and I pretty much guarantee that she has had more accomplishments in office than Obama has in the Senate - what time he's been there that is.)

    The problem with your hypothetical (5.00 / 2) (#117)
    by Maggie on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 10:39:31 PM EST
    Is that none of them were picked.  And in the case of Jindal and Kaine it's almost certainly because their experience was limited.  AND they all had more substantial experience than Palin. Jindal, especially, was an otherwise attractive candidate.  He's gotten positive buzz over the last few years as an up-and-comer to watch.  McCain made a big show of putting him through the vetting process early on (he was an early pick to go out to AZ for a weekend).  But at the time,the buzz I heard was that there was no way McCain could go there because it would kill his argument that Obama was too inexperienced.

    So now McCain has chosen an even less experienced governor, one who doesn't have anything like the buzz Jindal had.  Of course the question comes up.  And let's make no mistake here: if 'she' were a 'he', Palin wouldn't be the nominee.  Does anyone seriously think that's not the case?

    That's what's so AWFUL about McCain's choice.  He IS doing affirmative action/token sort of hiring in order to appeal to Hillary voters.  How does that not imply that Hillary herself was chiefly attractive because of gender.  Ugh, ugh, ugh.  

    How can you say that (5.00 / 6) (#130)
    by SueBonnetSue on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 10:48:32 PM EST
    When Palin has the same views as McCain?!  She's JUST like him, although more to  the right on some issues.   Conservatives are THRILLED  with her.  They like her tons better than Jindal or Kaine.   Even Dobson likes her!   She was Newt Gingrich's number ONE choice.  

    If McCain is pandering to anyone, it's to the right of his party.  

    Once again, our democratic party shows how little regard for they have for women.  Women are attacked for their gender,  regardless of their party, and regardless of their views.   Every. Single. Time.  

    This time, IT WILL NOT WORK.  Period.  The more democrats do it, the more votes we will lose.  And we deserve to lose every single one of them.  


    Well, she's the one who brought up Hillary (none / 0) (#149)
    by Maggie on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 11:17:54 PM EST
    and Geraldine in her speech.  McCain happily nodding along.   She's the one who says she's going to break through that glass ceiling after all.   And the ads McCain put out last week set up this choice to be seen as all about her gender.  So I take them at their word that we are meant to see HER as a HER.

    The only ones (5.00 / 4) (#158)
    by eleanora on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 11:32:14 PM EST
    that I see saying that Governor Palin was picked to woo Hillary voters [implied: who obviously only vote with their vaginas] are Democrats. Is that really the impression we want to give?

    The Repubs are saying McCain picked her to:

  • shore up his crazy fundie and NRA loving base,

  • add a working class, union-friendly aura to defuse the seven houses, Repubs=wealthy & selfish thing,

  • de-toxify the Keating 5 and change arguments with Palin's dubious ethical and "maverick outsider" cred,

  • improve his chances of winning Alaska, where Obama was running close,

  • have a youthful running mate with a great personal story to give some zip to his boring campaign,

  • fake the Dems into attacking her on experience, which just makes his case against Obama more noticeable,
  • and make his ticket just as historic as the Dem one to lure back straying Republicans.

    As a side benefit, he also stepped on Obama/Biden's big day and has driven the blogosphere insane. As a Clinton primary supporter who's tepidly behind the D ticket, those seem like pretty good reasons to me. I wouldn't ever vote for them because McCain/Palin is wrong wrong wrong on the issues, but I just don't get the insult.

    He didn't pick her just because she's a woman; he picked her because he wants to win. Palin being a woman is like Edwards being a southerner in 04--a useful attribute that might win some votes, not something to freak out over. I wish we would chill out and start attacking on the issues, which is where Democrats win. I remember winning, it was awesome.


  • I can't believe how much some Democrats (5.00 / 10) (#119)
    by tigercourse on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 10:40:37 PM EST
    have made me want to defend Palin. When you have a fairly liberal Democrat running around screaming "Leave Sarah alone!" you should know you're working the wrong strategy.

    yeah, seriously (5.00 / 10) (#125)
    by NJDem on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 10:44:05 PM EST
    and I don't think these low expectations help their cause--she's pretty impressive, likeable, articulate, and definitely a strong woman.  

    McCain's Age (5.00 / 1) (#124)
    by bluegal on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 10:42:59 PM EST
    That is the prime reason why her experience is an issue. I just heard Paul Begala say on CNN that Bill Clinton wanted Al Gore because "what if I die?"

    It may be morbid but especially with John McCain being 72, his VP pick is very important.

    What is Afoot (5.00 / 4) (#131)
    by Pianobuff on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 10:48:40 PM EST
    Consider this: McCain has an ego of course.  The idea that Obama is the change candidate has been gnawing at McCain for both political as well as personal reasons.  McCain feels that's the ground he has established over the years...he wants to be the reformer, the maverick.  It annoys the bejeezuz out of McCain to hear the 3rd Bush term stuff, less for political reasons and more for personal reasons.

    The Palin pick is ALL about that and I wonder how long it is going take for the Obama campaign to realize this.  The fact that she happens to be a female is an incidental plus, but not central to his choice.

    McCain has seen an opening in part allowed by the Biden pick, among other things that you can probably figure out.

    The argument about experience from the point of view of the McCain campaign is no longer that important to them, although  They will be happy to let the discussion continue to be about that for the next few days.  Every day it happens only re-affirms that Palin is an outsider and so is McCain for making the pick.

    The play at the convention I believe McCain will be making is to chastise his party in some fashion and cast himself and Palin as reformers. ("We've lost our way and I will lead you back.").  The game to them is grab the change mantle from Obama before Obama realizes it is happening.  Every discussion about Palin's experience will offer continued chances to highlight her mavericky-ness, which is the more important case.  This is all about turning the tables and making Obama/Biden look like the Washington insiders playing the same old politics.  It's an attack to the strength... sound familiar?

    Don't get me wrong, I'm sure McCain is happy that Palin is female and he possibly gets to participate in some history, but that was not the qualifier.  It's her story as an outsider, as a reformer of her own party and outside of her party.  This is the ground he is after.  Every day the Obama campaign and the media discuss her experience allows for talking points about how the nature of her experience is so much different.

    I really think McCain is willing to abandon the experience argument if it allows him to turn the chess board over and battle for the change mantle.

    For this Palin is the perfect pick, gender notwithstanding.

    This is a personal thing for McCain, and he's willing to gamble for this. (in my opinion)

    Good point (5.00 / 3) (#156)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 11:31:40 PM EST
    I think the other part of this argument is that both he and Palin can and will say, "I even took on members of my own party - that's how much of a maverick I am."  Neither Obama or Biden can make the same case with any power.  Now I would argue that since Republicans suck a lot and Democrats suck much less, the former NEEDS to be taken on much more, but ....

    McCain sure does love his maverick image - this fires that up again.


    Nice post! (5.00 / 3) (#162)
    by Oje on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 11:39:25 PM EST
    McCain has spent 35 years in Washington judging politicians and lobbyists he meets every day. It is evident that McCain saw something in Palin that affirmed something about himself. Her biography is not as weak as the agitprop would have us believe. We need a more sophisticated understanding of McCain's actions, besides "cynicism" and "gifts to Obama."

    It could prove to be a monumentally stupid decision if Palin does not live up to McCain's self-image. But, my guess is that she won the nomination on her merits and political skills (despite the bleating and braying of the faux progressive blogosphere).


    What to look for (none / 0) (#176)
    by Pianobuff on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 11:59:51 PM EST
    At the very least, if McCain addresses his party with a "coming to Jesus" speech, you can be sure at that point that the pick of Palin was not a gender pander, but based on other attributes and qualifications she brings to the table.  I would hope some of the attacks on the pick would stop at that time, but if they don't you can be certain they will do more harm than good for Obama.  Either way, some level of damage control for what is going on right now would be needed.  

    If I'm right about McCain's strategy, he has got to be sitting back and loving the incoming attacks right now - it plays right into his next move - know what I mean?

    This would be the ultimate gamble of his political career.  If it works, it will go down as one of the most brilliant campaign maneuvers we've seen.  If not... well maybe he can do the speech circuit with Rudy.


    I think this is just about right (none / 0) (#141)
    by TomStewart on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 10:57:35 PM EST
    McCain needs a new tact, but one's he's familiar with. He loves being the 'maverick' (not the good James Garner kind), and picking Palin with play to that. He'll chastise the party a little on tv to show how he's a 'maverick' then run on the change theme himself.

    Of course, like Biden. he's the very model of a modern major insider, but he's a 'maverick'!

    And the media is just waiting to say 'see! the 'maverick' is back, told ya so!".


    Yup (5.00 / 1) (#144)
    by Pianobuff on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 11:01:27 PM EST
    That's my feeling anyway.  It's an all-or-nothing gamble to do a complete role reversal.  I have no doubt it's been thought through.  His team has been doing increasingly better.

    The gender and experience discussion is desired white noise to cover the transition and generate soundbites that will make Obama look very much like a Washington insider/same old politics.  I think it will all come together when McCain gives his acceptance speech.

    Quite risky, but not unlike McCain to think he can pull off.  We'll see.


    Interesting but I don't think it is that (none / 0) (#181)
    by Grace on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 12:40:12 AM EST
    much of a gamble.  I think they've stacked the deck to make it work.  

    If this works out the way you think, I've got to give props to the McCain campaign on strategy.  All the Dems in the primary kind of got blindsided by the "Hope & Change" message and struggled to find a way to get around it.  

    I would have liked to have seen Hillary vs. McCain personally.  I'll bet the strategy would have been totally different.  


    They're running a novice (5.00 / 2) (#136)
    by makana44 on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 10:51:52 PM EST
    minority with no foregin policy experience as VP. The Dems are running one as President. I didn't see you getting your panties in an uproar about a state Senator who began running for President after one ineffectual year as a US Senator. A sitting Governor with two years executive experience and a heckuva lot accomplished in that short time is no worse than that. Ideology is something else, but she seems a straight shooter and a person of her word who fights for what she believes is right. Compare that to the milquetoast FISA-waffler from Illinois, and I don't think he measures up that well at all. At least the Republican ticket has the in-experienced one in the right slot. And honestly, call him experienced if you will, but the image of Biden as President makes me feel ill. I think McCain create optics that over time will pan out well. If she can stand up to Biden in their debate all hell will break loose.

    minority? (none / 0) (#194)
    by DandyTIger on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 02:23:31 AM EST
    last time I checked, women were in the majority.

    Yes, it's just you (5.00 / 5) (#137)
    by SueBonnetSue on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 10:53:10 PM EST
    I would have to say that McCain is running a much better campaign than Obama.  They've done one silly thing after another.  

    Today, McCain assured that his base would come home.  

    Let us know when we can say the same about Obama.  

    Well, they've done things I don't agrree with (none / 0) (#148)
    by TomStewart on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 11:12:35 PM EST
    but me not agreeing with them doesn't make it silly.

    I think Obama has much more of the base than the blogs and a few Hillary supporters give him credit for. I think he's got most of them back,a nd if not yet, he will have before the election.

    Really, I was a Hillary supporter, and I think the worst treatment of her wasn't from Obama, but from the Obama obsessed media. Hillary made some real dumb moves all on her own that didn't really help, and was out-politiced by the Obama campaign.

    McCain's campaign has been a mile wide and an inch deep, playing off the fumes and tactics of previous repub campaigns. McCain will now have to make a run for the middle, to show America that he can save the democracy, and that might be a problem with Palin, esp if the dems are smart enough not to push the 'experience' angle and go after the both of them not as 'more of the same' but as WORSE than Bush.


    She's absurd (5.00 / 1) (#139)
    by Siguy on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 10:56:19 PM EST
    You yourself said he accomplished several things in the state senate, you just dismissed them as "handed to him." You similarly are dismissing all his time in the US Senate as if his votes and bills were meaningless because he ran for President. But again...

    I feel like I'm being pretty fair here. I'm not claiming Obama is experienced and I'm not claiming the campaign should be about experience. I wish he'd waited before running for President. I'm simply stating that Governor Palin has less experience than Barack Obama, and John McCain just spent two months telling us that was unacceptable.

    Before this selection, Barack Obama was probably the least experienced person to run for modern office since Jimmy Carter. Now, after this selection, Palin sets a new low on almost every level.

    Even by the measure of "judgment" we can't judge this VP choice because she hasn't had a position on any of the national issues that have faced this country over the last twenty years except abortion and oil drilling. Her experience isn't just limited, it's almost all entirely unrelated to every national concern. Strictly parochial. She's beyond lightweight, she's ethereal. I don't think I can put it any clearer than that.

    How about this? (5.00 / 2) (#145)
    by Steve M on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 11:04:25 PM EST
    Here's a response from Dems.

    The refrain in many of the Democratic leaders' responses to Sen. John McCain's choice of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin as his running mate: Roe v. Wade, Roe v. Wade.

    The 1973 Supreme Court decision nationalizing a woman's right to get an abortion was a top-of-mind issue for top Democrats.

    Voters, beware, the Democrats' message seemed to be: Palin is not in favor of abortion rights.

    The Democrats seemed to be concerned that some voters might be under the misapprehension that Palin was a pro-choice woman -- or that because she is a woman, it might help McCain get the votes of pro-choice women.

    Now, doesn't it make a lot more sense to talk about something like this, rather than the stupid "experience" debate?  The GOP is loving every minute of the experience argument.  They are using it to talk about all of Palin's accomplishments in office and to continue calling Obama's experience into question.  God, talk about something real for once.

    Now, special TL request: Please, no one respond by saying that Obama might be just as bad as McCain or Palin on choice.  Please, I'm begging you.

    Good start. (5.00 / 2) (#150)
    by eleanora on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 11:18:31 PM EST
    Still assumes that women voters are kinda stupid and can't investigate a candidate on their own, though. Most of us can read.

    I'd like to see Obama/Biden and the Dem leadership ask Senator Clinton and Murray to organize some sort of PR event about HHS's upcoming policy that will equate birth control to abortion. Senator Obama signed their letter, but Clinton and Murray have been fighting on this pretty much alone. Maybe they could lead the entire Democratic delegation over for a little chat with Secretary Leavitt? Complete with cameras and speeches?

    Why not show Democratic women that they're supporting the right party on choice? That Dems will take a stand on this insane policy? Less talk, more action would be good. We have less than 30 days.


    Well (none / 0) (#155)
    by Steve M on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 11:31:19 PM EST
    in all fairness, every political message sorta assumes voters are stupid, hehe.  I mean, if I mention that McCain voted against the MLK holiday, am I assuming black voters are stupid and can't find it out on their own?  I understand why you feel that way, though.

    I also would love to see Obama use the bully pulpit to organize on the issue you mention.  Clinton and Murray have been heroes.  I'm pleased to see the Dems making such a big deal about equal pay all of a sudden, but this HHS policy is happening right here, right now.


    Lol, you're right. (none / 0) (#161)
    by eleanora on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 11:37:53 PM EST
    I'm getting a bit overreact-y to the massive overreaction to this pick. The press release is a great start at attacking on issues, glad to see the Dems are recovering their balance a little bit :)

    Not stupid (none / 0) (#178)
    by TomStewart on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 12:16:34 AM EST
    but they need to be reminded of things. I mean really, how many times do you have to tell people who think McCain is a 'maverick' about all the flipping he's done on every issue? He's walked more issues back than an overstocked paperboy.

    It's better than the experience argument (5.00 / 2) (#195)
    by Valhalla on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 02:27:37 AM EST
    But it's still reducing women to a single issue interest group, and while not as condescending or threatening as the explicit coathanger arguments, it has those echoes.  It's like it's 'ghettoizing' women into this very narrow issue space.

    I think the Democrats would do really well to run some internal polling on the abortion issue.

    Most people for whom it is a litmus test issue are not going to vote for McCain already.  Anyone for whom it is important knows what McCain's views are.  Other than that, repeated polling (and elections) have shown that while many people, over a majority in some polls, refer to themselves as pro-choice, they do not vote on that issue above other issues.  It's actually pretty far down the list.

    I think they are shouting this at the wrong audience, honestly.

    Talk about the economy.  Talk about the withdrawal from Iraq plans.  Social Security -- now there's a big issue to people, either because they (esp. women) in the bulk of the population that's getting to the Soc Sec threshold themselves, or they are caring for elderly parents.  Talk about the issues, plural, not just the one issue they mistakenly think will be scary.


    Better response (none / 0) (#151)
    by TomStewart on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 11:19:54 PM EST
    Now if only Hillary...

    Really, this kind of response from someone as central as Hillary (rather than the dry press release), would mean more, but I expect we'll see it when they all hit the campaign trail again. She's needed now more than ever, and I bet she (and the Big Dog) know it.


    Disagree. (5.00 / 1) (#153)
    by eleanora on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 11:26:46 PM EST
    Senators Obama and Biden are the ones who want women to trust them with protecting our bodily autonomy. Senator Clinton won't have anything to say about their choices and decisions in office, since she's not on the ticket.

    No she's not (none / 0) (#173)
    by TomStewart on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 11:55:29 PM EST
    but I think more women will trust her. I know my wife does. Probably trusts Hillary more than me...

    Problem is, as much as Hillary Clinton (5.00 / 1) (#196)
    by oculus on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 02:28:03 AM EST
    is "trustable" on a woman's right to choose, the fellow who, if elected, who will have the discretion to nominate SCOTUS justices will be Obama, not Hillary Clinton.  He is the one who must engender trust.  

    But voters (5.00 / 1) (#152)
    by Maggie on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 11:22:23 PM EST
    Have had two years to make up their minds about whether he's qualified.  Obviously many of us have decided that he is.

    Palin and McCain have 60 days to convince us that a woman who recently said she's given no thought at all about Iraq is ready to go.  We'll see how it goes, but somehow I don't think it's suddenly going to come out that she has thought long and hard about all the major problems of the day and has things to say about them that make voters like me think she's up to the job.

    I have thought that John McCain was a risky choice for president.  Now I KNOW that he is.  He's got no judgment.  And he sure as heck isn't putting country first.

    Bedtime (5.00 / 1) (#180)
    by TomStewart on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 12:38:34 AM EST
    As midnight approaches, it's time to put to rest the bickering over Palin (much of which is less about McCain/Palin and more about Obama-Clinton), greet my wife as she closes the restaurant, and drift off to sleep watching Mr. Lucky (the TV series, not the Cary Grant movie).

    Tomorrow is another day to argue and second guess politicians and fellow posters.


    You miss my point (5.00 / 1) (#191)
    by Maggie on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 01:53:09 AM EST
    Voters have had a long time and a lot of things to look at in making up their minds about Obama.  As of now, enough of them have decided he's sufficiently ready for them to vote for him.  Even with the tighter polling he was still more likely to win than not.

    The new thing that has happened is that while Obama picked a VP who everyone sees as ready to be president if necessary, McCain has chosen someone nobody has heard of, and who has nothing obvious to recommend her.  Now, it could well be the case that over the next 60 days we will learn that Palin has been this hidden gem of amazing leadership and wisdom hiding away in Alaska.  If so, McCain's judgment is confirmed and that'll probably move voters to him.  But as of tonight that's not hardly an obvious outcome.  She looks like someone who has just stepped into statewide office, who (by her own admission) hasn't given much thought to Iraq, and who otherwise looks unprepared to take office.

    McCain's judgment isn't looking so good.  How many voters are going to feel comfortable with the idea that if McCain has a heart attack on February 1st, 2009, Sarah Palin is going to be the one who has to play hardball with Putin and decide how to handle Teheran?  It's a hard sell.  McCain's judgment on all of this looks bad.  And I fearlessly forecast that as this sinks in, McCain's numbers are going to drop like a rock.

    That doesn't even get to the effect of what will happen when it comes out that McCain made this choice on the basis of meeting her once and that she only came up for serious consideration in the last few days and was not vetted by the full team.  McCain's a gambler who made this decision on an impulse.  I'm guessing that won't play so well either.

    Obama forces are mad ... (5.00 / 2) (#192)
    by Robot Porter on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 02:10:10 AM EST
    because they've lost some of their novelty, and change agent appeal.  Now they have to run and win on issues.

    I say, good, that's the only way they were going to win anyway.

    But running on the issues means that Obama will lose some of his media darling status.  We already saw that in some pundit class's reactions to his speech on Thursday.

    Again, I say, good, Obama needs to see that ultimately Democrats don't win general elections based on nice smiles and clever slogans.  They win when they can effectively argue for the superiority of their policies.

    the hate and venom from Obama camp (5.00 / 2) (#197)
    by DandyTIger on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 02:37:58 AM EST
    has been really intense today. I think they're spewing more than they did with Hillary even. Bagala has turned into some monster. I have to say, I've been stunned by it all. From what I can see, this is pure sexism plain and simple. I don't think you'd hear 1/100 of this cr*p if we were talking about Kaine.

    One thing it's shown us all as we heard many people say, it's not that I'm against a woman, it's that I don't like that woman. Well now we know it's really pretty much any woman.

    And, politically, it's really stupid imo. It will cause many people to want do defined Palin. It will wake some people up to the sexism that's been coming out of the Democratic party. It's really sad that given the anti-woman (imo) platform that the republicans have (pro-life), democrates are actually worse towards women.

    Oh, and politically talking about Palin's experience is, imo, really stupid too. Because I think the republicans would really love this election to be about experience. After all you can easily argue that Palin has more experience than Obama but that she's the VP pick not the P pick. Dumb way to go imo.

    I'd say we'd be hearing about inexperience (4.83 / 6) (#13)
    by Valhalla on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 09:00:29 PM EST
    somewhat with Jindal -- isn't he 35 or something?  Some people conflate age with inexperience (or maybe view life experience as part of experience).  Plus he's pretty young looking.

    I don't think they'd be ramming on it like they are now, though.

    As others have said, the only way the Democrats can win is if they stick to the issues.  And not the truthy cr*p I've seen spun about today -- the Republicans are not Clinton and they will hit back hard, in a way Clinton was constrained from doing.  But the actual issues with evidence to back it up, and just those issues where they have the advantage in both actuality and perception.

    My gawd, I still can't believe they dissed small town America in their first response to this pick.

    Here here! (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by Matt in Chicago on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 09:05:47 PM EST
    Stick to the issues, because the other arguments might not be perceived the way the DNC thinks.  And yes, the shot at small town American was downright ignorant... especially in light of the bitter remarks.

    Jindal is thirty-seven (5.00 / 12) (#19)
    by BrianJ on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 09:06:40 PM EST
    And has slightly more important matters to deal with at the moment (Hurricane Gustav).  And Jindal spent three years in the House before his three years so far as governor of Louisiana.

    Honestly, after last night's speech I was actually thinking that Obama had turned it around.  But having his surrogates insult small town, working mothers, and women of all description instead of opposing Palin for her extermist political beliefs-  it's obvious that they've learned nothing and will learn nothing.


    Oops (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by BrianJ on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 09:07:29 PM EST
    Only one year as governor.  It just feels longer.

    Obama's (5.00 / 11) (#21)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 09:08:16 PM EST
    campaign is so tone deaf it's not even funny.

    Is it really such an insult? (none / 0) (#30)
    by Steve M on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 09:21:20 PM EST
    I don't know how many of us can speak for small-town America.  I sure can't, but my wife is from a town the same size as Wasilla, and she thought it was particularly nuts to imagine that the mayor of her town could jump to VP of the US in just a couple years.

    I question how many residents of similar towns reacted by saying, "How dare you suggest that my mayor isn't ready to be Vice-President?"  But I could be wrong.


    I wouldn't want (5.00 / 3) (#57)
    by chrisvee on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 09:53:11 PM EST
    most of my state legislators to be POTUS either.

    That's how I felt about my Governor, Kaine. (5.00 / 0) (#101)
    by SueBonnetSue on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 10:26:29 PM EST
    How much experience did the Governor of Arkansas have when he was elected in 1992?  How different is Arkansas from Alaska?  

    BC's early experience (none / 0) (#135)
    by christinep on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 10:51:51 PM EST
    I believe that Bill Clinton had five previous 2 yr gubernatorial terms, plus other national assignments.

    Um, except that she's also been governor (5.00 / 2) (#63)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 09:56:05 PM EST
    And that means (none / 0) (#78)
    by Steve M on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 10:07:43 PM EST
    that the Obama campaign's response was an insult to small-town America?  I'm not following you.

    Nope, just that (none / 0) (#166)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 11:43:13 PM EST
    she's not a small-town mayor who immediately jumped to vice presidential candidate, which is what your hypotheticals were.

    Well (none / 0) (#174)
    by Steve M on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 11:57:14 PM EST
    Setting aside that you replaced the words "in a couple years" with "immediately" in my comment, I really don't see how you're addressing the point of my comment at all.

    I was questioning whether the Obama campaign's response was truly insulting to people in small towns, offering my wife's perspective as evidence.  I'm interested in anyone who has something to contribute to that particular issue.


    Fair enough-- sort of (5.00 / 2) (#190)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 01:49:25 AM EST
    but you still left out the governorship in between the local mayor and the VP, which is what I was objecting to.  That's a pretty big deal to airily dismiss as "a couple of years," don't you think?

    As for insulting-- I'm SICK to death of people deciding what's insulting for other people in this campaign.  I'm in a very small town, much smaller than Palin's, and we have no mayor, just a volunteer "selectboard."

    But sniffing at the experience, whether of politicians or voters, who don't happen to live in major population centers does strike me as not only stupid politically, but betraying of a general attitude I really don't like at all.

    More than that, I really object strongly to dismissive minimization of women candidates by applying standards that didn't exist last week when we were talking about male politicians.


    Well, (none / 0) (#177)
    by TomStewart on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 12:10:45 AM EST
    I lived in a couple small towns, Haines Oregon (pop less that 1,000 when I lived there) and Pasco Wa ( a bit bigger, about 25,000 when I was there) and I can't imagine the mayor suddenly going to VP within two years. In Haines, the Mayor ran the local general store, he's the one who'd run me off when I was reading the comics. In Pasco, the mayor had race relations to deal with (an large migrant Latino population), and a spread out city limits with business men, farmers, a busy port (on the Columbia River) and the occasional Hanford issue to deal with, but VP? Now that's a rocket rise!

    Obama's statement on Palin: It made me CRINGE... (5.00 / 2) (#184)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 12:47:18 AM EST
    not only because I was born and raised in the proverbial small town, but more because the Obama statement referred to her only as a "former mayor", and completely OMITTED her 20 months as Governor of Alaska.

    "Today, John McCain put the former mayor of a town of 9,000 with zero foreign policy experience a heartbeat away from the presidency."

    That was TACKY, RUDE, DISINGENUOUS and potentially offensive to fair-minded people, irrespective of origin.

    As to whether rural people will be particularly bothered by the evident slight to small towns, I'd expect so.

    Obviously, it certainly doesn't convey sensitivity toward rural dwellers and it doesn't help Obama overcome his perceived elitism. In that respect the statement was another masterful stroke of SELF-DEFEATING TONE DEAFNESS.

    It surprises me, because I expected Obama and Axelrod learned a lesson after the flak they took for the prior remarks about this kind of demographic being "bitter and clinging to guns and religion".

    Good thing Obama wants to "fix and fully fund" No Child Left Behind, because GW Bush would look at this and say "our children isn't learning".


    She's a woman BTD. Period. (4.63 / 11) (#1)
    by Teresa on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 08:39:24 PM EST
    I wouldn't vote for her ever, but this is a double standard.

    As a die hard Hillary supporter, it makes me sick to see them think they can buy my vote this way but I don't have to approve of this double standard. To me, none of those you listed are ready on day one.

    Would another woman have been ok? (5.00 / 7) (#11)
    by nycstray on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 08:54:35 PM EST
    Or would every woman be an insult? I don't see it as an insult. She has some values regarding ethics and reform and has successfully acted on them. Same ones McCain's been harping about forever. She's a bright up and coming Republican. Die-hard Pro-choicers would NOT be voting for McCain no matter what. So the only pander to women it's directed at would be those that went to Hillary from the center or right. Might help with the Catholic vote (and counters Biden), she has the middle/working class chops going for her (counters Biden), she may get some of the single working mother voters, appeals to the hunters/sportsmen, etc. She's going to shore up more moderates and Republicans and help in the undecided area. Why do you think Biden was put on the ticket? And the Dems picked and underqualified rising star for the top of the ticket, so the Repubs should be able to do it without it being a total insult to women. She actually brings something to the table along with being attractive to (some) women voters. And she brings life to the Republicans which they desperately need. Lordy, look at the other choices! She is one heck of a breath of fresh air. She also has a lot of positive qualities as a role model for young women and girls.

    Well, you sure got me thinking. I guess I'm (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by Teresa on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 09:21:37 PM EST
    insulted that they might believe that I, a liberal Democrat, could be pandered to by using my anger from the primary to get me to vote for McCain.

    I guess it's just not what I expected and then the shout out to Hillary from a room full of people who believe nothing that she believes.

    Maybe I would have been insulted by any woman not Hillary this year. I would have been with Sebelius and she and I agree on most issues. I just feel like it was a political choice that has nothing to do with real issues to women (I guess Republican women feel differently). You are right about Biden. I know Obama wanted Kaine. I'd bet anything on it.

    I just don't think he would have picked her if it hadn't have been for Hillary. I wonder what the Big Dawg thinks? I'll bet he's biting his lip to keep from laughing.


    Nah, Big Dawg is laughing out loud (5.00 / 6) (#66)
    by nycstray on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 09:59:26 PM EST
    although not publicly.

    I didn't mind the shout-outs to Hil and Gerry because they are women. We need to recognize accomplishments that make progress possible. Colin and Condi also opened doors. We don't have to like what they stand for, but as long as they don't close doors we should look at the progress factor.  Some women may vote the ticket because they find her appealing. Other women may be offended because she's a strong woman and all that crap. Pro-choicers weren't voting McCain anyway, but should be able to appreciate who she is and what she's accomplished. If you break this choice out in bullet points, McCain Camp was really paying attention. I think people that are bashing this pick now may adjust a bit when they see more of her if my gut is right about her. Doesn't mean they'll vote for her, but maybe they can see her clearer.

    Honestly, I laughed out loud several times during their speeches. They hit so many points the ODNC seem to just be deaf on it was nuts. She even mentioned "and those of you who don't have a party", lol!~ cheeky. If I have to deal with a Republican woman, at least this one has moxy (from what I can see). And she won't be telling me to take off my shoes, start cooking and STFU like the men do!


    And husband is a "proud union member." (5.00 / 11) (#37)
    by Iphie on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 09:30:57 PM EST
    When was the last time you heard a Republican bragging about any association with the United Steelworkers? Obama's support among union members is not even as strong as Kerry's was -- it is one of those areas where he knows he needs work. That line in her speech today about pride in union membership had to be more than a little worrisome to the Obama campaign.  

    Palin's strengths are Obama's weaknesses, she will appeal to all of those bitter clingers that Obama has offended. I know Biden was supposed to shore up Obama's blue collar support and help to draw distinctions with the out-of-touch-owner-of-7-houses -- Palin just helped McCain to even the score on that one.

    She took on the party establishment(s) in her state and she won -- and she didn't need to knock anyone off of the ballot to do so. She faced a former Republican governor in the primary fight and then went on to face a former Democratic governor in the general election. Both men with considerably more experience than she -- and she mopped the floor with both of them.

    Her politics are not my politics, but I don't know how anyone can claim that her story or her experience is any less impressive than Obama's. Oh, and her cosy relationship with the oil companies? She increased the taxes on the oil companies -- something that was opposed by most politicians in her state. Can we name one issue, any issue where Obama has demonstrated clear leadership and actual results like she has? I find most of the criticism of her incredibly sexist and incredibly insulting.

    But, wait -- why are we talking about experience anyway? I thought it wasn't the experience that mattered but the judgment.


    Thank you (5.00 / 15) (#24)
    by nell on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 09:10:52 PM EST
    I have been thinking this all day watching the coverage unfold. It makes me ill, the sexism is starting all over again. CNN and MSNBC in particular. CNN actually had an anchor who suggested that Palin was going to be a bad mother because by campaigning she would be ignoring her youngest baby. Excuse me? Obama's children are in elementary schools and have been cared for by Michelle's mom, a perfectly reasonable arrangement given the circumstances. Has anyone accused him of being a dad? They would NEVER have unleashed that line of attack.

    But you what? She can take it. In a people magazine interview she said that she just juggles it all by putting down the black berry and picking up the breast pump. She also said that people who suggest you can't have a kid and use your brain are neanderthals who should go back to their cave or something to that effect. More power to her. She's got some fight in her....and if the men continue to throw this obviously sexist double standard at her, after seeing what Hillary went through, I think a lot of women will rally to her.


    The quote is here :) (5.00 / 2) (#69)
    by nycstray on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 10:01:23 PM EST
    Mark Halperin writes on The Page:
    -She is very adept at juggling work and family. When daughter Piper was born during her Wasilla mayoralty, she returned to the office the following day. A trim runner, she did not announce news of her most recent pregnancy (with Trig, born April 18) until her seventh month. According to Palin, "To any critics who say a woman can't think and work and carry a baby at the same time, I'd just like to escort that Neanderthal back to the cave." Her older children are Track, Bristol, and Willow.

    What critics are saying (none / 0) (#165)
    by TomStewart on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 11:42:50 PM EST
    nonsense like that?

    I'm curious about how she responded before that she was too busy in Alaska with the Governorship and her family right now to be vice president. Guess that's all changed.



    People Magazine (5.00 / 3) (#73)
    by JimWash08 on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 10:05:46 PM EST
    I never buy these supermarket magazines, but earlier on Larry King, they showed the cover of the new issue with the Palin and McCain families together.

    It was taken right after the rally this morning; they are all wearing the same clothes, and even Baby Palin is in the pic.

    This will be the first issue I will be buying. And no, I'm not voting for that ticket. But as a responsible American voter, I feel it important to learn everything about the candidates, even if I don't support them.

    Larry King interviewed the reporter who interviewed the families (this morning, after the rally in Ohio) and she said she Palin, McCain and Cindy were all very down-to-earth.

    Sarah Palin even changed the diaper of her baby before she sat down for the interview, and talked about juggling her Blackberry and the breast pump. I think that will resonate with a lot of working mothers, social conservatives and Reagan Dems.


    here's the link (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by NJDem on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 10:30:15 PM EST
    with pics

    She also mentions using a breast pump.  This is definitely interesting...


    This is what has Dems (5.00 / 1) (#132)
    by Redshoes on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 10:49:09 PM EST
    losing it on the cables.  NYT talks of her charm.

    "She wouldn't have articulated one coherent policy and people would just be fawning all over her," said Andrew Halcro, a Republican turned independent, who along with Tony Knowles, a Democrat, ran against Ms. Palin for governor in 2006. "Tony and I looked at each other and it was, like, this isn't about policy or Alaska issues, this is about people's most basic instincts: `I like you, and you make me feel good.' "

    "You know," said Mr. Halcro, invoking the Democratic presidential nominee, "that's kind of like Obama."

    Of course now that the People article has educated me about her footwear I may convert.


    Thank You (5.00 / 0) (#142)
    by JimWash08 on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 10:59:13 PM EST
    for sharing the link.

    I'm really impressed by this reply from McCain.
    Makes him really human and accessible. 7 homes? Who cares!

    Mrs. McCain, do you even remember the last time he changed a diaper?
    CINDY: No. And I'm not sure he does.
    JOHN: Heh-heh. I remember. There's some experiences you never forget.

    People (none / 0) (#154)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 11:26:48 PM EST
    This article is TROUBLE.  It makes McCain seem likable, human and relateable.  And I can't help it, but I love the picture with the kids - the women are totally front and center and the men are sort of overwhelmed.  heh heh.

    And democratic strategists or reporters who go after her for having kids and working are just going to rally working moms to her side.  Not that that will stop those idiots, but there's always hope they will see the light.


    Trust me on this (none / 0) (#163)
    by Steve M on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 11:39:55 PM EST
    If all it takes to sway voters to your side is a humanizing profile in People Magazine, Obama has that aspect of campaigning locked down cold.

    No, trust me on this (5.00 / 0) (#187)
    by JavaCityPal on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 01:08:24 AM EST
    Obama's human interest story is so full of holes and inaccuracies that it doesn't endear everyone to him.

    That's the problem (none / 0) (#167)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 11:44:46 PM EST
    If people aren't sold on Obama by now but think of McCain as a cold, old fish, something like this can have some sway.

    It certainly jazzes up the image of the GOP.  (and I know that image shouldn't matter that much, but I also live in this political world.)


    I don't see Palin appealing to Liberals (5.00 / 2) (#92)
    by Grace on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 10:21:18 PM EST
    She's a conservative pick for the conservative ticket.  She'll appeal to Hillary's more conservative voters and possibly some moderates and independents -- but there is no reason to think she'd appeal to liberals.  

    Still, this isn't an insult to women!  It's flattering that the Republicans would put a woman on their ticket.  


    I recall a comment made on MTP by (5.00 / 0) (#104)
    by JavaCityPal on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 10:30:14 PM EST
    Mary Matlin back during the early primaries. She thought Hillary still had a decent shot at winning, and she said her disappointment in that would be she had always believed the first woman president would be a Republican.

    Palin is NOT there to attract HRC supporters... (5.00 / 6) (#100)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 10:26:27 PM EST
    The GOP made a highly calculated decision to choose Palin in order to: diversify and energize the ballot; to shore up the GOP social conservative base (family values/pro-life/NRA); to peel off the votes of Independents; AND most assuredly, to lock down the votes of Republican women.

    Whether it's a cynical strategy is a moot point.

    Here's the gravy for the McCain campaign: the choice of Palin shines a bright light on the Dems own rampant misogyny and their rank hypocrisy in giving Hillary lip service out of one side of their mouths while thoroughly slagging her out of the other.

    It's foreseeable that Hillary and her supporters may somehow be blamed for this ironic turn of events. Which is why it bothers me to hear people asking what Hillary supporters will make of this in the GE.

    The fact of the matter is that McCain doesn't NEED Hillary supporters because: the McCain/Palin ticket could still win, hands-down, with a huge turn out from GOP women, Independents and the die-hard GOP base.


    Yep. All that pandering Obama did (5.00 / 2) (#111)
    by Grace on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 10:34:13 PM EST
    to the evangelicals and the gun owners, pfffftt!  He won't get their votes now.  McCain/Palin looks nothing like Bush/Cheney.  

    All McCain had to do really, is get his own base back and I think picking Palin will do it.  

    The Dems would have had a fighting chance with a Clinton/Obama ticket.  Obama needs to show more differentiation from the Republican party.  He can't run as "Republican-lite" because it won't work this time.  


    Well, (none / 0) (#118)
    by TomStewart on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 10:39:37 PM EST
    the speech he gave last night wasn't repub lite, it was populist (not full populist, but there ya go), and if we hold him to it, I think we'll be ok.

    With McCain...


    McCain has been saying Obama is not ready (2.00 / 1) (#28)
    by AF on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 09:17:57 PM EST
    And now he nominates someone who is manifestly less ready than Obama.  That's the issue here.  It would have been similar if he had nominated Jindal.

    She isn't running for President. Obama is. (5.00 / 6) (#35)
    by Matt in Chicago on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 09:26:21 PM EST
    Good luck with that line of reasoning.

    Yeah, putting it simply... (5.00 / 8) (#40)
    by Jerrymcl89 on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 09:33:48 PM EST
    ... the argument for Obama is that experience is overrated. To claim that it isn't in Palin's case inherently undermines his candidacy.

    Granted, running for President is in and of itself good experience - by this point, it's by far Obama's best experience. But other than that, he does not really have a better resume than Palin has.


    Bad issue (5.00 / 10) (#55)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 09:52:17 PM EST
    to argue about.

    I have said this takes experience off the table but Dems apparently want it back on the table.



    Well really BTD (none / 0) (#110)
    by TomStewart on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 10:34:02 PM EST
    didn't you rent the hall the argument is happening in?

    I think we should ignore McCain's VP and focus on the man himself. Palin isn't going to win or lose the election, McCain is where we should be looking.


    Are McCain's people smart enough to see that (5.00 / 3) (#114)
    by magnetics on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 10:35:39 PM EST
    the experience issue is probably more harmful to Dems than to Rethugs?

    Having Palin on the ticket puts the experience question front and center; and anytime it comes up, people's thoughts will bounce for a minute or two between the two parties, and will then settle into the groove that says, "Well, forget about VP; look at whom the Democrats have nominated for President."  

    This is therefore conceivably a smart pick.  Check back in mid-November.


    Alaska (2.00 / 0) (#46)
    by thentro on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 09:42:23 PM EST
    Alaska is a very unique, small state that has a very small government whose main purpose is to deal out oil checks and build roads. Being Gov of FL, VA, and LA are different ball games entirely.

    Remember when Obama Supporters Kept On Saying (5.00 / 3) (#76)
    by Dan the Man on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 10:07:35 PM EST
    how he was going to make Alaska competitive with his 50 state strategy?  Now for the last 24 hours, they've done nothing but insult Alaska over and over again by saying how unimportant it is.  My my how things change.

    The hypocrisy is awe-inspring!! (5.00 / 2) (#126)
    by ghost2 on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 10:44:23 PM EST
    Remember how important Alaska was (with all its 4000 votes!), and O'bots counted the number of states (ie pretended that Alaska cancels out California)!  You couldn't insult small states.

    But, that was then.

    Thanks BTD, for not being a hypocrite.


    Because of the CYNICISM of the pick (1.00 / 0) (#10)
    by Dadler on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 08:53:37 PM EST
    And with all due respect, Alaska is a state that is so small in population as to almost be laughable when used as experience for governing the nation as a whole.  At least those other dudes come from places with CITIES that have populations bigger than the entire STATE of Alaska.

    Perhaps the reason she's getting ripeed is because is the the LEAST qualified of all you mention, and was ONLY picked because of her gender.

    She would not have been picked (5.00 / 6) (#15)
    by nycstray on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 09:02:24 PM EST
    if she was pro choice or perhaps some other reasons. She was also picked because she counters Obama beautifully as a Washington outsider, bright and up coming in her party, has enough accomplishments but not too much to bring a set of luggage, and she's historic. Oh yeah and then there's the ethics and reform/change Washinton talking point and she's pretty good with the budget I believe.

    yes (5.00 / 4) (#26)
    by pukemoana on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 09:11:42 PM EST
    plus today in her speech she presented herself as not just talking about energy independence but taking action on it--the oil pipeline from Alaska down to the 48 states below.  Seems to me Palin's way more than a symbolic woman for the bitter knitters.

    I'm not advocating the pipeline (5.00 / 0) (#88)
    by pukemoana on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 10:17:47 PM EST
    I'm saying she positioned herself as taking action on the issue, not just talking.  We've seen with offshore drilling that the general public seems to welcome the appearance of immediate action even when it's not a longterm solution

    On a more superficial tangent (5.00 / 4) (#48)
    by Iphie on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 09:47:12 PM EST
    she provides a young, attractive, telegenic family to counter Obama's young, attractive, telegenic family. So now each ticket is balanced with one cranky old man whose mouth gets him in trouble and one good-looking, youthful family.

    She also provides (none / 0) (#61)
    by Alien Abductee on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 09:55:27 PM EST
    an extreme position on choice. As a member of Feminists for Life, she favors outlawing abortion not just in situations of rape and/or incest but even when it's a matter of preserving the mother's health or life. Feminists for Life is:

    opposed to all forms of abortion, including cases of rape, incest, birth defects, or to preserve the mother's health or life as broadly defined in the Supreme Court's Doe v. Bolton decision.[5] FFL believes that basic human rights, including the right to life, start at conception (FFL defined as the first formation of a human zygote).[6]

    sure, Alaska is small in population (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by pukemoana on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 09:05:34 PM EST
    but with Canada and Russia jockeying alongside USA/Alaska for control over the Arctic (water, shipping, oil, minerals), I don't think we should be positioning Alaska as some sleepy nondescript backwater

    People might say the same about Arkansas (5.00 / 0) (#116)
    by SueBonnetSue on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 10:38:16 PM EST
    Many people thought that being Governor of a small, hick, state like Arkansas, did not qualify anyone to be President.  But it didn't hold Bill back.  

    Then the beef should be with McCain (5.00 / 4) (#43)
    by Joan in VA on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 09:36:04 PM EST
    and not with her. She is the one being criticized for being a woman though "experience" is used as a cover. If it's a cynical pick, it's his cynicism.

    And she should be applauded (5.00 / 3) (#56)
    by Redshoes on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 09:52:21 PM EST
    for seizing the opportunity.  Whatever else you can say about the pick it shows young women and girls that they or someone who looks like them (or some of them) can serve in one of the highest elected offices in the the world.

    They can (2.00 / 0) (#106)
    by TomStewart on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 10:31:37 PM EST
    if they know John McCain.

    It seems logical (none / 0) (#2)
    by theprosecutrix on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 08:39:47 PM EST
    that McCain's age and Palin's gender are responsible for brining about the increased scrutiny.  

    Just the gender. He would be just as old with (5.00 / 7) (#3)
    by Teresa on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 08:41:14 PM EST
    Crist as with Palin.

    Just wouldn't look as old (5.00 / 2) (#74)
    by ruffian on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 10:06:28 PM EST
    standing next to him ;-)

    The logic is (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by TomStewart on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 10:11:21 PM EST
    McCain is an old man, who has had serious health problems in the past, so his number two could very well be president. Who is his number two? Someone one ready to take over in case of his incapacitation of his death?

    I don't remember Dan Quail having to wear a skirt to get called out over his qualifications.


    She's a popular governor since 2006 (5.00 / 5) (#107)
    by RedSox04 on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 10:31:52 PM EST
    Obama was in the Senate for a year when he decided to run for President.  Kaine, Jindal, and Crist have all been in office only since 2006.

    Why exactly do you think she's so "inexperienced" when, by all accounts, she's done a decent amount as Governor so far?

    This is a total loser of an argument, and is only going to further propagate the (imo false, although my opinion is changing daily) charge that the media, the Obama campaign, and the inside-the-Beltway types are just out of touch with America.  You cannot criticize Palin for her "inexperience" without bringing up the specter of Obama's "inexperience".  You cannot criticize Palin for her "inexperience" withou raising the specter of a sexist double standard.  

    As BTD keeps pointing out, this argument will not help the Dems.  Let's attack her on her extremist positions.  Better yet, let's continue attacking McCain and let's ignore Palin.  She's only the VP candidate, and McCain makes much better fodder.


    How about this from Karl Rove (none / 0) (#89)
    by DemForever on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 10:17:47 PM EST
    a little while ago (sorry that I posted it under another subject before seeing this thread).  Seem like Karl was ready to make a big deal about it if Obama had picked Kaine, which he had the good sense not to do:

    "With all due respect again to Governor Kaine, he's been a governor for three years, he's been able but undistinguished. I don't think people could really name a big, important thing that he's done. He was mayor of the 105th largest city in America. And again, with all due respect to Richmond, Virginia, it's smaller than Chula Vista, California; Aurora, Colorado; Mesa or Gilbert, Arizona; north Las Vegas or Henderson, Nevada. It's not a big town. So if he were to pick Governor Kaine, it would be an intensely political choice where he said, `You know what? I'm really not, first and foremost, concerned with, is this person capable of being president of the United States?"

    I'm sure (none / 0) (#160)
    by TomStewart on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 11:36:39 PM EST
    that they had a lot of this stuff ready, finger poised over the send button as soon as the announcement was made.

    Is it just me (none / 0) (#133)
    by TomStewart on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 10:49:29 PM EST
    or is McCain running the most short-sighted campaign in history? The whole thing seems designed to win the next news cycle, rather than looking down the road to November. Stupid, sophomoric ads, lame statements (that one about Obama's sppeech was embarrassing) questionable picks, there doesn't seem to be much shape to it, other making sure, like the bored kid, someone pays attention to them.

    Any attention.

    It's you (5.00 / 1) (#189)
    by janarchy on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 01:32:06 AM EST
    Like it or not, it's working for him. Other than a small convention-related bounce, he and Obama have been running pretty much neck and neck. If it was such a lame strategy, he'd be much lower in the polls everywhere and Obama much higher.

    People are underestimating him big time and I don't think they should. Dems really need to stop being so cocksure and cocky about how they have this in the bag considering how close the race is with only 2 months to go.


    So, her paget experience (none / 0) (#143)
    by TomStewart on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 11:00:45 PM EST
    doesn't help her in front of large crowds? Of course it does, just like my experience as an actor helps me give the speeches I have to give from time to time. I don't really see a problem with it, maybe it depends on the context...

    I think there is an Answer (none / 0) (#168)
    by Belswyn on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 11:46:51 PM EST
    I think it has nothing to do with sexism.

    Alaska is a small state. Population-wise, it is equivalent to Memphis, TN (wikipedia). Budget-wise, it is equivalent to San Francisco (wikipedia). Virginia and Florida are 12th and 4th biggest states , population-wise.

    If McCain had picked the mayor of San Francisco or mayor of Memphis, the experience argument would be a lot more relevant. Why, then, does the simple title "Governor" change anything?

    Jindal is more comparable but there was considerable discussion of his inexperience in the media before his selection and Louisiana is still considerably bigger than Alaska.

    I don't think (none / 0) (#170)
    by TomStewart on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 11:49:45 PM EST
    anyone smart is underestimating John McCain.

    This is a man whose presidential hopes were considered dead, and was being laughed at in his own party. He won the nomination (true, against a fairly weak field) and made his party shut up and like it. Anyone who takes him for granted does so at great peril.

    And I agreed with Obama (none / 0) (#175)
    by TomStewart on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 11:59:03 PM EST
    and frankly was surprised to see him run this year. But he's the guy, and the rest of the dems are falling in line because the alternative is worse. Yes, I think Hillary would have been the better choice, but I'll go with Obama over McCain any day.

    I just read, McCain raised $3 million today (none / 0) (#182)
    by SueBonnetSue on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 12:43:12 AM EST
    After the announcement.  Looks like it worked for him.  

    Their convention should be interesting................

    Watching Republican operatives (none / 0) (#198)
    by lilburro on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 03:20:19 AM EST
    defend the GOP pick has made me wonder if they have simply gone crazy.  Crazy policies, crazy tactics.  I say this because all the defenses of this VP choice have been grounded solely in "gotcha" politics.  I don't see that they have moved beyond that level with their choice at all.  What are they going to do?  

    Bottomline (none / 0) (#203)
    by pluege on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 08:35:26 AM EST
    once again the Obama wing of the democratic party doesn't get it/is tone deaf when it comes to attitudes about women. Everyone other than them sees it and the mccain campaign thought it significant enough to exploit it.