In a surprise move, John McCain has tapped Sarah Palin as his running mate.
Selecting an individual to be your running mate is an implicit acknowledgment of that person’s Presidential qualifications. Especially because the gloomy but real prospects stemming from McCain’s age mean that his running mate may, realistically, have to step into the Oval Office, McCain’s selection of Sarah Palin raises one question -
Why is Palin ready to be President, but Obama is not?
Sarah Palin is two years into her first term as Alaska’s governor. Before that, she was the mayor of Anchorage. In short, she has little on Obama’s decades of public service as a state representative and years in the Senate, a point even McCain advisers expressed concerns about:
One adviser said that while Mr. McCain thinks highly of Ms. Palin, who is opposed to abortion rights and would be welcomed by Christian conservatives, her less than two years in office would undercut one of the McCain campaign’s central criticisms of Senator Barack Obama — that he is too inexperienced to be commander-in-chief.
Especially because the post-convention spin on Obama, along with recent ads, have continued to stress the theme of Obama’s alleged “inexperience,” picking such a fresh-faced but inexperienced running mate seems a tacit nod to Obama’s qualifications, and an abandonment of the campaign’s most effective best talking point. Latent scandals surrounding the new governor don’t bode well either.
Plain and simple, this is a gamble. McCain has tied himself to a Republican rising star, before she’s fairly ready for the spotlight. If he wins, by catapulting her to fame, he secures the Republican’s future beyond his own term. If he loses, though… he’s prematurely shown the Republicans’ hand, and tarnished the party’s hope for a bright new future with failure. With the polls as they are, Palin would not have been my choice.
Democrats, moving forward, here is your talking point: by implicitly acknowledging that a two-year governor is experienced enough to be President, McCain concedes Obama’s own qualifications.
Palin has been the choice of many for a long time and most of us never thought he would actually do it. This is a REALLY good day for us.
I think it’s easy enough to transition the meaning of ‘inexperince’ to mean ‘holds bad ideas’. Palin is very new to politics and has already formed a fantastic conservative ideology. Smart gal.
Posted by Progressive Conservative | August 29, 2008, 11:06 amI don’t think it’ll actually be that easy. I forsee Biden challenging McCain – “why is our guy inexperienced again?” – and remember, most Americans side with Obama’s ideas this time around. They’re just waiting for Obama to prove he’s ready. McCain’s indirect endorsement may send that message.
Posted by Ames | August 29, 2008, 11:13 amThis does mean, though, that Obama should’ve picked Hill. No shock there.
Posted by Ames | August 29, 2008, 11:19 amI disagree that they are siding with Obama’s ideas. Most people haven’t taken the time to actually digest his policies (or McCain’s). I think I am correct when i say that you haven’t read all of their respective positions and you are a pundit. Think about the average American. I work in an office full of relatively bright people and I bet most of them don’t even know who Obama’s running mate is. They just aren’t engaged at this stage in the game.
Last night Obama hit the same liberal talking points we’ve heard for 20 years (tax the rich, better schools, help families, pro-choice). Nothing really new there.
Let’s be honest Ames. MOST Americans have a decent job, haven’t had their home foreclosed on and haven’t gotten a leg blown off in Iraq. The Democrat’s strategy is the same as 2004 which is that they can only win if they convince Americans the glass is half empty. Americans will cling to a more positive message if delivered properly.
Posted by Progressive Conservative | August 29, 2008, 11:22 amLaw school friend: “Palin = Harriet Meiers?”
Posted by Ames | August 29, 2008, 11:22 amIf people don’t know McCain’s policies, it’s because he hasn’t spoken, once, about them. However, the closest he comes to an economic argument – “Obama will tax those who make below $42k” – concedes that Americans want lower taxes for those below $42k, making the question turn only on credibility. If Obama’s speech was liberal, it was delivered conservatively – common ground on divisive issues, etc. – and screams “middle,” not “liberal.”
Posted by Ames | August 29, 2008, 11:25 amIn one move McCain took experience off the table, fired a shoot at his racist/misogynist supporters, doubled down on Big Oil, and made corruption an even bigger issue.
Posted by Matt Silb | August 29, 2008, 11:26 amPalin doesn’t even think she’s ready -
http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/politics/2008/06/26/palin.on.vp.cnn?iref=videosearch
Posted by Ames | August 29, 2008, 11:27 amPalin on an experience ticket / Biden on a no-more-Washington-politics ticket. Push.
Obama’s pick of Biden conceded that he needed, as one pundit put it, “adult supervision.” And McCain’s pick concedes that he needs somebody young, different, and not-boring.
What I want to talk about is the women. I think McCain has finally done something right with this pick. This’ll be news to Matt Silb, but conservatives will like Palin. I don’t know how you “fire a shoot” and I don’t know what racism has to do with Palin either. Palin appeals to conservatives AND gives McCain a great foot in the door to approach jaded Hillary women.
Posted by Collin | August 29, 2008, 11:52 amJust listening to Palin’s speech I am even more convinced that this is a homerun.
Palin pointed out that those ’18 million cracks’ can continue now. She is going to pull a significant portion of the women’s vote without a doubt. Her story is fantastic and even as the mother of a soldier, she just gives more and more points for women to identify with.
Plus, for the guys, lifelong NRA member and a hunter.
She’s also ‘agressively pro-life’ which is going to make many conservatives happy.
Posted by Progressive Conservative | August 29, 2008, 12:51 pmDoes her ‘aggressive’ pro-life position present an obstacle to pulling a ‘significant portion’ or the women’s vote? Or do we get to live happily in the gray area of ‘significant’?
I agree she’s an interesting choice; I think her being the ‘right’ choice isn’t a binary state. She’ll help with some things, she’ll hurt with some things, and in the end I’m betting the veeps won’t push either candidate more than 1% or so of the vote in either direction.
fwiw, I think PC’s wrong about the mistake of tying McCain to Bush. Again, it’s not a binary thing where the election is won or lost on it, but I’m confident that it will earn Obama significantly more votes than it will cost him.
~ John
Posted by John | August 29, 2008, 1:49 pm(I think I got the last two threads confused, that last line was a response to a different conversation. Sowwies.)
Posted by John | August 29, 2008, 1:50 pmMinor correction, she was mayor of Wasilla, a town of about 7000 people, not Anchorage, a city of 300,000.
Posted by Narc | August 29, 2008, 2:03 pmFRAKK. Yeah. Mayor of suburb < mayor of major city. And she’s a creationist.
PC, how do you explain away her inexperience?
Posted by Ames | August 29, 2008, 2:07 pmPC, how do you explain away her inexperience?
I think she has more executive experience than any of the 3 men in this race. I also was convinced by the persuasive speech of Biden (?) last night which reminded us that Lincoln had about as much experience as Obama. And Palin has about as much experience as both.
Obama’s experience has never concerned me as much as his policy proposals.
Posted by Progressive Conservative | August 29, 2008, 2:21 pmI do think he’ll need to say how, especially with what he’s said before, Palin would be ready to be president if needed. And list out how she will enhance his presidency outside of image.
And maybe be held accountable for what he’s said before if he starts backtracking.
Posted by Oneiroi | August 29, 2008, 2:41 pmIf the Obama camp really pushes her inexperience, it will be a big problem for them. By implying she isn’t ready to be the future commander in chief should something happen to McCain, they will be saying that Obama is not ready to be the commander in chief in 2 months.
By attacking her ‘small town’ mayorship and roots, or her normal life compared to most politicians, all they will do is promote the stereotype of elitist liberal out of touch with the mainstream of society.
By attacking her as a woman, they risk a serious backlash from across the parties.
And, with Obama choosing Biden, and McCain choosing Palin, they have also taken away the ability for Obama to frame himself as the Washington outsider.
This is totally shocking to me, a year ago, I foresaw a Democratic blitz all the way to the presidency in one of the most lopsided wins ever; with Mrs. Clinton representing an amazing candidacy where every attack against her was seen as an attack against women’s rights. This would have made the republicans look completely out of touch with modernity.
Now, I see a serious risk that the Obama campaign will instead be seen as the one that is sexist, first by their actions against Hillary, and then by their actions against Palin.
All I can say, is they better be damn careful how this is handled. I have always felt Obama was a terrible choice, and couldn’t understand why he was selected. I think he better rise to the occasion quickly, or the Democratic party could be in big trouble for a long time.
Posted by FCD | August 29, 2008, 3:47 pm“I think she has more executive experience than any of the 3 men in this race. I also was convinced by the persuasive speech of Biden (?) last night which reminded us that Lincoln had about as much experience as Obama. And Palin has about as much experience as both.”
Alaska is a state of just over 600,000 people, with a legislature that meets 90 days a year, so I’m not impressed by her “executive experience”.
But the larger point is that this totally undercuts McCain’s argument of the importance of experience.
Posted by Peter H | August 29, 2008, 3:52 pmSo now we’re going to belittle her experience because of the size of her state? If that’s the best the Left has….this is a slam dunk.
Posted by Progressive Conservative | August 29, 2008, 4:12 pmI think Peter’s larger point is, well, the larger point. And I think most people who are attacking Palin’s experience aren’t waiting for all their synapses to fire before speaking.
The big story, imo, is not that she does or doesn’t have enough experience – I don’t actually believe that experience is any higher than #5 on a list of important Presidential attributes. The big story is that her experience is no better than Obama’s, she would be a sick- wizened-old-man-heartbeat away from the Presidency, and therefore McCain cannot make the “experience” argument as strongly as he has been and (it was thought) he planned to.
If he planned all along to drop the experience argument, well then he’s crazy like a fox. If not, he seems just to be crazy.
~ John
Posted by John | August 29, 2008, 4:24 pmI think John, you’re making different points than the one I was trying to make.
I’m not saying, X experienced is needed. I’m saying, if John McCain says Obama is not experiened enough to be president, what makes him think Palin is?
That’s a question he needs to answer.
Posted by Oneiroi | August 29, 2008, 5:28 pmGrover Cleveland went from mayor of Buffalo to President-elect in less than three years.
Posted by Collin | August 30, 2008, 2:47 pmHere Palin is at less than two. And, Cleveland’s America, and Cleveland’s world, were arguably significantly less complicated than today’s.
Posted by Ames | August 30, 2008, 4:08 pm