-
Website
http://www.scripting.com/ -
Original page
http://www.scripting.com/stories/2008/08/29/initialThoughtsOnThePalinN.html -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
All Comments
Given, that, however, he nonetheless went ahead and picked Palin. So why did he do this? I can only conclude that this is McCain's "hail Mary." He realizes (contrary to his polling numbers) that he's hopelessly behind. If he picked a safe candidate -- Romney, even Lieberman -- he was going to lose gallantly. Rather therefore lose gruesomely or take a chance at winning. I'll give him credit for that. He rolled the dice. If as I outlined above it ends up being net negative for him, at least he gambled. There's no shame in trying to win as compared to safely losing. So from that perspective, he gave it his all. He picked a woman, a rabble-rouser, a youngster, a soccer mom (or is it hockey), an "energy" person.... He gave himself a chance which I don't think he had before. On a day that should have been Obama's, we're talking about him. On the third anniversary of Katrina, we're talking about him (and don't think that didn't factor into the timing). On the day leading into a three day weekend, we're talking about him. Without this move, we're debating the merits of Obama's speech. Instead we're talking about McCain. This isn't Frank's Sausage Shack.
McCain seized the spotlight. Of course, be careful what you ask for... As I indicated above, I don't think that spotlight will serve him well but without it, he was dead anyhow. At least now, for him, he has a puncher's chance. And every once in a while, puncher's land punches.
With regards to Biden, I'm torn between disappointed and actually delighted. In my lifetime, we've really had two previous aspirational Presidential candidates, Kennedy and Carter (the anti-Watergate candidate). One (Kennedy) partnered with the ultimate insider (LBJ) and thus was able to effect real change. The other (Carter) had no Beltway capital and thus was massively ineffective. Thus, I don't view Obama's choice of Biden as "no guts." Those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it. If you can work change from both without and within, we've learned that's much more effective than purely from without. The outsider approach may work for Alaska, not for DC. Thus, I want to applaud the choice of Biden. While the reformer and romantic in me would like to believe it doesn't have to be this way, the pragmatist realizes it does. Thus, good choice, Barack, in spite of disappointment at acknowledging the cynicism inherent in this view. No, not cynicism...reality.
i'm going republican now.
It's kind of relaxing to be called an idiot (even though I'm not a Democrat, I'm sure you meant to include me) esp in a blanket statement.
Think it through: he isn't gambling only with his personal political fate, which is his perfect right: he's gambling with our country's future. What kind of egomaniac does that?
McCain picked, and he picked poorly.
I'm hearing 3 people talking bad of it to one person talking good. The bad so far have been mostly females and the good are mostly male If the pick was to try and pick up Hillary voters, I've already heard one woman, a local politician say "She's no Hillary Clinton!".
I'm also afraid that a lot of voters who refused to vote Democrat because Ferraro was on the ticket aren't going to vote for McCain for the same reason. Granted, a lot of those folks are dead, like my father. But I'm sure if he were alive today, McCain would not be who he would vote for.
But seriously, this has so many opportunities, especially given her ex-beauty queen cred, just re-cut the Brittney/Paris commercial, for starts. People could have oodles of fun with that, just for starts.
I can't wait for veep debates.
Annointing Palin as the VP candidate of a 72-year-old presidential candidate with a history of carcinoma is dangerous pandering.
--rj
Only narrowly, and only by a plurality.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/27628/Public-Divided... shows the stats as 49% ProChoice, 45% ProLife, 7% No Opinion.
"They say she's as qualified as Obama, but that's wrong." In your opinion. You may be right but maybe not.
"Republican women are pro-choice. Americans are pro-choice. A woman candidate who is pro-life, no matter how attractive, doesn't have much appeal in this country," Again this is not fact this is simply your opinion.
You are entitled to your opinion as each citizen. What is it they say about opinions?
We all have them and they stink. Sorry but this is drivel and in my opinion this stinks.
"I'm sorry running a successful campaign for the Democratic nomination for President is much more experience than being the governor of a very small state..."
I enjoy your blog and thoughtful posts but this needs some further thought...
More people than 2x Alaska's population has donated money to his campaign . More than 3x as many people are working for free to elect him than are entitled to receive ~$1,500 Alaskan oil royalty dividend (welfare?) checks.
He's been a US Senator longer than she's been Governor, he was a state legislator in a populous state for 7 years before that.
You can certainly disagree with with the specifics of Dave's statement, but I don't think you have to look very far to see a wide gulf between their respective levels of experience.
pretty much every puma i kmow - and i know quite a few - is now off the fence and will be voting mccain/palin.
i think this move electrified a constituency that felt dissed as recently as two days at the dnc. you are right, time will tell, but i know where i am betting after today.
i am in this to watch obama and the rest of his gang - brazile, dean and the other morons who've give us so many losers over the years -- go down in flames in november for having betrayed all democratic principles in the primaries and at the convention.
the fact that it will come about through mccain's superior political skills by choosing palin while obama dissed hilary onl;y two days ago just makes it that much better. :-)
obots who said they can win without us have now got their wish. we're turning our backs on the wreckage of the democratic party.
and come november, expect to hear us say: "get over it, your candidate lost."
You obviously have no clue about the differences between Dean, Brazile, etc. and their roles in elections of the past.
I don't get your anger, but whatever. Just try to stop being such a troll on blogs and pretending to report about the Pumas and blogs out there in an uproar. Just speak your mind.
you dear leader had his chance to unify the party - that is the "winner's" job after all - but his ego was to bid to share a ticket with the candidate who got the most votes during the primaries, so he chose joe "slow" biden (d-mbna). the drug warrior, the re-warmed cold war liberal and one of the most corrupt and useless corporate losers in washington.
your team set yourselves up for losing after waging war on half the democratic party. you're just starting to reap what you've sown.
and we are laughing at you.
Because he has very bad judgement and shoots from the hip.
so glad you don't need our votes - because you haven't got a chance of getting them.
right now i'm enjoying the panicked reactions to palin. your fear stinks to high heaven.
who'd have thought all the "progressive he-men women haters' club" members would be such wusses?
Obama, however, has always treated Clinton with respect and honored her place within the party.
What's there to be angry at Obama about? He beat Clinton. That's not disrespectful, that's life. He didn't pick her for veep. That's good politics, because she brings with her large liabilities, especially her husband. And she knows that.
Hillary Clinton needs to be Senate Majority Leader and help Obama get his legislation passed. She can be the best Majority Leader since LBJ, and that's saying something. That position has far more power and influence than the VP slot.
So my guess is that most angry PUMA's were never really trueblood Democrats, no matter what they say. Certainly, anyone whose allegiance to one person takes precedence over allegiance to a party merits that description.
your candidate never once called for an end to the ugly slanders and race-baiting.
now, after systematically pushing people out of the party (the "rednecks," gays, women, asians, working class and every other demographic that didn't fit dean and brazile's shiny new upper-mid-income "creative class"/african american coalition) you find that half the party has abandoned you.
enjoy the wreckage.
Obviously, you aren't a Democrat. Either a rightie plant or someone with an unhealthy fetish,
Get a grip. And try telling the truth.
so far, you're repeating the same obot tactics that were so disastrous to the party throughout the spring and summer. keep it up! as far as i'm concerned, when it comes to people like you the worse the better.
Actually, it's been a great year for Dems. Record turnouts in primaries, record new voter registrations, poor GOP turnout and poor GOP registrations. People loathe Bush, McCain is 72 and just picked a neophyte as a running mate. What's bad about any of that?
americans don't vote on issues. if they did, they wouldn't be supporting obama or mccain. americans vote on image. this is the television era. rock star candidates like obama sell. a chick like palin will sell as well. qualified? lol, absolutely not. but neither is obama. both the rethuglicans and the dumbocrats are big government criminals that love war. that's why congress has a 9% approval rating. 9%. that's pretty f'ing low.
real change is needed. it begins with 9/11 truth.
as for corsi, his book "the late great USA" is a great book on the north american union.
most importantly, what they say in those books can be confirmed by a wide number of sources.
9/11 truth is the simplest and most effective route to the truth. obama has hated on 9/11 truth and the truth movement. that's the simplest and most undeniable piece of evidence that obama is not for change and is a puppet of the military industrial complex, like his running mate and CFR member joey b.
www.patriotsquestion911.com
victims family members, governors, state senators, CIA agents, and even members of the 9/11 commission will tell you that there is a coverup going on. and that is putting it politely. any serious investigation and any look at history tells you that it was clearly, without question, an inside job.
please educate yourself. the hour is late. it is the responsibility of american citizens to be informed and to use their first amendment to spread the truth, not sit here and whine about change while being too afraid and too irresponsible to tell the truth about 9/11.
please educate yourself in monetary policy as well. whether obama or mccain gets installed, neither is going to stop inflation and the banking crisis we are in the midst of. 9/11 and the fraudulent wars are the cause of that as well.
be sure to remember that when your dollar is devalued to near nothing and you are not able to afford things for yourself and your family. it is the truth that sets you free, and it is the lie that imprisons you. remember that.
These "truthers" really are insufferable. They want us to believe that hundreds, if not thousands, of people are complicit in a conspiracy which has now gone on for almost 7 years.
(BTW the two most common words on the site kidmercury links to are "retired" and "former" and all of its "news" links are to yet another pro-conspiracy website.)
Sorry, kidmercury, there aren't a thousand people in government who are smart enough to pull off something like that. Puh-leeeze.....
I'd always been told that Alaska is a large state. Larger than any other, they said. Thanks for clearing this up.
Yay for Obama!
And, no, not because she's a woman. I didn't say that and I don't mean that. So please don't tell lies about what I actually said. Palin is a newbie. The same thing happens to any newbie who emerges unexpectedly on the national scene. The same thing happened to Quayle and last I knew he was male.
My heart is breaking. 8 years ago Dubya beat Al Gore. 4 years ago, as a proven moron, Dubya beat Kerry.
I hope Obama can mobilize the people to vote. I am terrified.
"Racist" - I can see where you're coming from there, because, as we all know, anyone who doesn't vote for Obama must be a racist, right? But how do you figure "sexist" into it? That one I don't understand.
Don't these angry Hillary people pay attention to what McCain says? McCain will send their sons and daughers to die in more senseless wars. McCain will take away a woman's right to control her own life and body. McCain will wreck the economy, putting more of them out of work and on the street?
Pay attention: McCain is a Republican.
But just to get us back on topic: here's why the bleeding hearts really hate Palin. It's not her "lack of experience." Its because she is everything they are not: She hunts. She eats what she kills. She's an NRA lifer. She's a baby-making machine. She is a 100% true conservative.
And if that wasn't bad enough, get a load of the dude she's married to: he's a commercial fisherman! Cleaning out those oceans! And in the off-season he's a union-card carrying oil worker!
In short, they, the Palins, are the very type of people from whom the Obama campaign needs votes, but won't get them, because of their snobbish, condescending attitude towards middle America.
The GOP has a number of women with identical policy positions who have years of experience in government. The fact that McCain ignored these women tells me that he is not interested in experience or real qualifications. It tells me that he can't be trusted.
From my middle-class perspective, Palin is just one more doctrinaire right-wing ideologue who wants to make me behave just like she does.
Jeebus, you guys are so paranoid! I'm not telling you, or anyone, who to vote for. I'm just analyzing the situation as it currently stands, as I see it.
I hope the GOP goes down to a distrastrous defeat. It needs to spend time in the wilderness. Even if I was a Republican, I'd say the same thing. Today's GOP is indistinguishable from the evangelical political movement, which really does want to impose their rules on the rest of us. Their interpretation of the Bible tells them to do or not do certain things. Rather than be content with following those rules in their own lives, they want to force the rest of to march in lockstep with them. It's a huge threat to the American way of life and the Constitution.
How fragile, how twisted, is someone's faith if they are compelled to impose their beliefs on others?
Trust me, corbly - - when they come for you, it will be under the banner of the star and crescent, not the cross.
I've lived in the Arab middle east. People I knew were no more likely to support theTaliban than you or I.
Besides, it's the Republicans who are exploiting the threat of terror to restrict our freedoms today.
News flash: the majority rules and makes the rules.
While I agree that she is a strange choice for VP, her lack of experience is downright frightening, and if you are even moderately liberal minded, voting against this ticket is still a no-brainer, it is difficult to tell how it will age. The choice caught the media by surprise and without much to go on they seem to be focusing on the easy story--the human interest stuff like her husband, kids, fishing, hunting, and the PTA. The nature of Alaska politics is that you need to show yourself as a 'true' Alaskan to get anywhere and the kind of image she has presented will translate well to a lot of people with whom Obama had trouble in the primaries. Once the nation gets to know her a little better, those states and towns who liked Hilary's working-class spiel are going to find a lot lot like in Sarah Palin for the same reasons they preferred Clinton over Obama, namely that they are voting on personality rather than issues, and are moved by a strong anti-intellectual sentiment that allowed segments of the media to paint Obama as an elitist. (Why didn't the arugula farmers stand up behind Obama?). Palin hunts and fishes, drives herself to work, has a big family, etc. Hillary could probably still drink her under the table, but I bet people are willing to overlook that in this case.
Once the story ages a little bit, it could go in either direction. I'm sure everyone in both campaigns knows how important this first impression is going to be. A major gaffe will be very damning, but if Palin gets through the first week or two, people will discover that she's tough and smart. Many people in Alaska have been impressed by the way she has dealt with the very powerful oil industry here (I did mention we have industry, right?) and a smart campaign by McCain will focus on personality, spunk, and down-to-earth values to keep anyone from imagining her at a summit with Vladimir Putin or in the situation room with a bunch of military brass.
This was a gratutitous decision -- to women generally by saying they will automatically line up to vote for a woman, to the more obvious choices listed above -- what did McCain find out that was negative about them? -- and to voters generally by the cynical manipulation of rumors over who was being considered, right down to the announcement day stunts.
Pretty desperate.
1. Agreed.
2. I don't think so, my initial thoughts as a European was - "Here's McCain going his own way again" - that will play well with independents. On the surface it looks like an attempted grab for the disaffected HRC voters, however, her conservative credentials also make a sop to the republican base. I think the lack of a clear response from the Obama camp illustrates how this move completely wrong footed them. However, we agree that this move has "stirred things up".
3. You make yourself look a little ignorant here. Alaska is not "another country" so far as the geography books in Europe are concerned. In fact, Obama's unconventional background has opened the door for her in many respects and makes her look more un-exotic. However, you cut it Obama's lack of experience gave McCain a free pass with this VP pick. The more they Obama team wield that sword, the more attention they will draw attention to his own lack of experience. I expect this will inevitably be recast as a commander in chief test - which the Republican will point to her "executive" experience to neutralise it.
4. I'm afraid they are equivalent. Running a successful campaign is impressive but it is about assembling a good team, the bigger the campaign, the bigger the team. Palin has been running a state administration - this is a scalable skill. I am sure the Republicans will be making that point strongly. Also, her anti-corruption background decimates Obama's Change arguments - it was thin with McCain, its dead with Palin.
5. How it ages depends on how she does. If she takes it all in her stride - then she puts the democrats in a very difficult position. The main question being how hard can you attack? Attack to vociferously, women will see the allusion to HRC. Give her a free pass and own attacks may make traction. I see the democrats being off balance with this issue all the way down to the vote.
6. I think the pro-life point is overplayed by "worried" Dems. There is nothing - absolutely nothing - to suggest that she's a pro-life ideologue. I can see in the coming days, much being made by Fox of her decision to keep her downs child (rather than aborting). Equally, in more progressive media I can imagine her saying much about it being a 'Personal' as opposed to 'political' choice. Pro-life/choice is not an election issue unless the Republicans say that they're planning an assault on Wade (which they won't) so I expect this to be a short term issue (to energise the evangelicals) and then an issue that will disappear in the mix.
7. This is the point I disagree with the most. Although VP's rarely decide elections, you need to serve the time if you win. McCain needed to signal to the independents who respected him for all the positive stuff he's done that - the maverick - is still in there. The ironic thing about the choice is by making that signal he was still able to reach for two groups of voter (HRC's women and the Republican Base). I think the risk was controlled and it will make this race a lot tighter than many thought was possible (as long as she doesn't fluff her lines at the convention).
The fact that it is a bold move that gets short-term attention is only secondary. The fact that she is pro-gun, pro-life is secondary.
Dave Winer, May 07, 2008
This is one of the most disrespectful things I've heard you say Dave. There certainly are Americans who are pro-choice and there are Americans who are pro-life. To say with emphasis "*Americans* are pro-choice" - oh and pro-life women don't have much appeal in this country? Just move 150 miles east and you'll find out that's not true.
The first place I looked for data (pro-choice topic page on Wikipedia) says that Americans were evenly split on the issue as of 2007 (a CNN poll and a Gallup poll found 45%/50% and 49%/45% splits). Sounds like Americans disagree about this issue - and even though I'm pro-life I'm not ready to read you out of the country because you disagree...
I have a feeling that within a week, Gov. Palin will withdraw, and McCain will have to choose someone else - just like McGovern and Eagleton in 1972.
Imagine Gov. Palin sitting across a negotiating table from Vladimir Putin, and you will immediately realize that she has no business whatsoever being second in line to the Presidency. I cannot imagine a less appropriate choice - other than Paris Hilton.
Every day this week at the convention, the main news story was Hillary and party unity. What would she say, would Democrats unite? Well she hit it out of the park with her speech, and Bill Clinton did too, and then Biden followed strong and it was easy to be excited about being a Democrat, about the story of Obama and Biden and how hopelessly lost the Republicans were by comparison. Even those Democrats who were frustrated with the party, and disappointed with Obama in general, started to warm up to the ticket.
When McCain picked Palin, it was like none of the week had happened. Everything was reset back to the primaries, in how Hillary had been treated by the press, party, and Obama supporters, and how Obama had passed her over for VP.
On the issues, Palin is no Hillary. But every day for the next 2 months, Palin will be a reminder to disgruntled Democrats that Obama messed up.
#1 - Ditto!
#2 - I would also agree. Just like the Biden pick and the unaudacious stadium speech shows Obama thinks he is the frontrunner and must therefore run a cautious campaign.
#3 - What does she know about economic issues? Unlike Obama, she has actually run an actual business. Yes, she is less experienced than, say, Ted Stevens. Ahem. But the entire Obama campaign has been launched to its great success on the premise that experience counts less than judgement, and I think she has shown a ton of that. Her personal life story certainly shows more "profiles in courage" moments than Obama's. And I think that's a very important part of a VPOTUS or POTUS choice.
#4 - I agree that Obama's exceptionally well-run campaign is proof enough that he is qualified for the presidency. But I disagree that being "thoughtful" and "studious" and "well educated" somehow makes up for his other failings. We're not selecting a grad student here. We're selecting a president. Intelligence matters obviously. But if having read a ton of books about foreign policy makes you as qualified as having had the actual foreign policy experience I'm Henry Kissinger. You're also right that Alaska is a very peculiar state. It is a state with very high welfare spending and entrenched, corrupt machine politics. Kind of like Chicago. When faced with that machine, Sarah Palin confronted it and pretty much tore it to shreds. Barack Obama? Um, um, um, well, you know, um... he kind of just got along to get along, as he always does. Who was it who said judgement matters over experience, again?
#5 - "It's the Republican approach to problems, shoot from the hip without thinking things through." Ahem. What do you say to such a blatant troll?
#6 - First of all, Americans are not pro-choice. They're not pro-life either. If you look at the polls, most Americans are very uncomfortable with the issue, on the fence, and depending on how you *phrase* the question the answers come out very differently. If Americans are so pro-choice, why did they pick a pro-life president for 20 of the past 28 years? As far as getting Hillary voters -- I don't know. I think downscale voters will definitely identify with her awe-inspiring, moose-eating, snowmobile-riding, up-by-your-bootstraps life story. I think pro-choice women, while disagreeing, will nevertheless admire her decision to carry to term a child with Down Syndrome. I certainly don't think Hillary voters, or women in general, would identify with any woman. But I think Sarah Palin is definitely a woman worth identifying with.
#7 - I don't think it's a PR stunt. I honestly don't. Let me say that few things -- even presidential politics -- fascinate me more than the world of the web, entrepreneurship and venture capital. I love this world because it's a world where a young, inexperienced guy to whom a "serious" person would never lend money can still build a business and change the status quo. I like the fact that it's the same way with politics. Let's be serious -- Barack Obama couldn't have run with his amount of experience even four years ago. But that's a good thing! Experience is relevant, but not as relevant as intelligence, judgement and character! And for the first time in a long while, both candidates for the presidency have that by the bucketload! I think both McCain and Obama are thoughtful patriots who want the good of their country. I honestly think McCain saw in Palin the same thing a good VC sees in a young guy with no business and barely a product. I honestly think he thinks she is going to make a terrific VP. Obviously he was aware that picking her was smart politics (and then again maybe not? Thankfully they're going to have to can these "is he ready to lead?" ads.) but labeling the pick a PR stunt is just not right in my view.