home

NYT Opinionator on Palin "Blogspat"

Toby Harshaw, co-author of the New York Times Opinionator blog, writes up my post suggesting John McCain's choice of Gov. Sarah Palin as his running mate will turn out to be another George McGovern-Thomas Eagleton scenario. He notes Ann Althouse's disagreement with me, calling it a "blogspat." Toby writes:

The Opinionator is enjoying an enlightening little blogspat between two of his favorites, Jeralyn Merritt of TalkLeft and Ann Althouse.

Merritt is taking bets on when Sarah Palin will drop out, Thomas Eagleton-style, saying of the historical parallel that: “It had nothing to do with Eagleton’s particular problems, but how [George] McGovern came to choose him, failed to adequately vet him, and then waffled when the problems arose, effectively costing him the election.”

“John McCain picked Sarah Palin to get the enthusiastic support of the evangelical, radical right,” she argues. He didn’t think it would matter that she has no national experience because he perceived he could argue Obama didn’t either.”

On Ann, he writes, in part:

Althouse isn’t buying Merritt’s historical claim on Eagleton’s importance — and it’s true, McGovern did get walloped — or her argument that “Obama presented himself for 17 months to the American people, they heard him debate more than a dozen times, they made their own decision that he was ready for the job and the Democrats voted him their nominee.”

“Did they?” she retorts. “I remember early excitement, among Democrats, followed by months of difficulty fighting back Hillary Clinton, who had let the nomination slip away by failing to do the math early on and to take the caucus states seriously enough. The Obama campaign figured out a clever strategy. Was this really the public vetting him? He pulled off a surprise early on, got some people very excited, and ultimately edged out the more qualified contender. How was that a decisive test? When the testing really got serious, Hillary surged. But it was too late.”

Toby concludes, "Well, there’s plenty of time for testing now …"

Since I'm at work today, it will be tonight before I can respond, but here's a place to continue the discussion. As I said in the post, my description of the McGovern-Eagleton fiasco came from watching the new documentary, Gonzo, about Hunter S. Thompson. I have a screening copy and watched it three times so I could get the take correctly -- both George McGovern and Gary Hart were interviewed about it in the film.

My point was:

Voters don't know Palin from Adam. What they do know: She's under investigation in Alaska and she's got no relevant experience. And that only now, after selecting her, is McCain sending his team to Alaska to fully vet her.

Voters are left with only two conclusions: Either McCain didn't vet Palin which is shockingly, near-criminally negligent or he did vet Palin and still picked her, which has got to be the most desperate, jaw-droppingly reckless political move in decades.

Sarah Palin is not ready for prime-time or the Vice-Presidency, let alone to be one heartbeat away from the Oval Office.

And please note, this has not one iota to do with her being a female or her personal life which we do not mention here.

It's the media interest in the story I suspect will doom her. When they latch on, they don't let go and they seem to be latching onto troopergate, her lack of national experience and whether McCain failed to vet her.

I'm speaking as a citizen and a voter and only for myself. I'm not even an activist, let alone a strategist. But I do know a media storm when I see one.

As to why I hope Palin drops out, I think she is energizing the radical right and evangelicals who will pump a ton of money into McCain's campaign. The Republicans were apathetic and resigned to McCain's probable loss, now they are excited.

I don't want the radical right controlling the election. Or the White House. Or the Supreme Court. Or the Justice Department.

For me, the questions are: Is she competent? Is she ethical? Does she exercise sound judgment? Does she know enough about the world to take over the presidency if that becomes necessary during her first months in office? All the people who say "just talk about the issues" are missing the fact that her ability to govern, if necessary, IS an issue.

And, as I wrote here, this is about John McCain's judgment. From his book, as stated in the New York Times:

At the very least, the process reflects Mr. McCain’s history of making fast, instinctive and sometimes risky decisions. “I make them as quickly as I can, quicker than the other fellow, if I can,” Mr. McCain wrote, with his top adviser Mark Salter, in his 2002 book, “Worth the Fighting For.” “Often my haste is a mistake, but I live with the consequences without complaint.”

There is not a single reference on TalkLeft to her personal life or family issues, discussion of which has been prohibited. This is about Palin's record, lack of record, position on issues, official conduct while in government service and preparedness and ability to govern.

< NFL Player Shot | Gallup: Obama Hits 50% For First Time >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    McCain is nothing if not stubborn... (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by Jerrymcl89 on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 02:42:42 PM EST
    ... and I'm sure he knows he will lose the election if he dumps Palin. That, plus the fact that nothing that's come out about her so far is a genuine dealbreaker (and a fair amount of the treatment she's getting tends to make her more sympathetic to at least some voters), means she'll almost certainly stay on the ticket.

    The charge that she's unqualified may stick, as it did to Dan Quayle. But that alone won't push her off the ticket.

    How did it stick with Quayle? (5.00 / 0) (#10)
    by JAB on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 02:47:47 PM EST
    Bush/Quayle was a winning ticket, remember?

    Parent
    I don't think there's much question.... (5.00 / 3) (#13)
    by Jerrymcl89 on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 02:51:20 PM EST
    ... that the perception that Quayle was an unqualified lightweight stuck to him throughout his tenure. But yes, Bush and Quayle did win. Whether McCain, given his age and health history, could win with someone viewed similarly is doubtful, I think. But that's a risk he's chosen to take, and I doubt he'll change his mind.

    Parent
    that perception stuck to Qyayle (5.00 / 2) (#22)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 03:03:13 PM EST
    because everything about him reinforced it.
    with Palin it is exactly the opposite.


    Parent
    Time will tell. (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by Jerrymcl89 on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 03:06:59 PM EST
    There are some issues about which I defintiely disagree with Palin, but I'm not going to decide whether she's up for the job until I get to hear her make her case. She does have some persuading to do, though.

    Parent
    I am not convinced your last statement is (5.00 / 2) (#44)
    by Molly Bloom on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 03:17:26 PM EST
    true. My moderate GOP friends are not enamored of her. They don't think she is particularly qualified and they were dispose to support McCain, before Palin, less so now.

    Time will tell.

    Too many people (not directed at you per se) see this through the prism of Obama. Palin needs to judged on her own merits or demerits.

    To me she is an right wing extremist and her actions belie her persona as a fiscal conservative reformer.

    She left Wasilla with higher taxes for a stadium she pushed. She supported the bridge, before she was against it (and kept the federal tax dollars). She was part of the Stevens 527, and he did endorse her.  So far, on the merits, I am not convinced she is a good  government reformer.

    On the merits, she doesn't get my vote and I question how well she was vetted. That doesn't speak well of McCain and reinforces my view he shouldn't be president. And sending up vetters after the fact is a little late.

    Parent

    all this would explain (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 03:21:40 PM EST
    her 80% approval rating at home I guess.
    I am quite capable of separating her from Obama.

    Parent
    Well you certainly know how to repeat (none / 0) (#65)
    by Molly Bloom on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 03:28:46 PM EST
    Rick Davis talking points. I have read that high approval rating was pre troopergate.

    In any event, that talking point doesn't address my points one iota, does it?

    Parent

    "troopergate" (none / 0) (#99)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 04:05:42 PM EST
    applied to a guy who beat up her sister and threatened her family with death.

    thats classic.


    Parent

    Doesn't address the point (none / 0) (#102)
    by Molly Bloom on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 04:09:08 PM EST
    issue avoidance. Classic.

    Parent
    Maybe to you (none / 0) (#137)
    by Dr Molly on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 06:03:11 PM EST
    What Officer Wooten did or did not do to his ex-wife and family is completely beside the point.

    But not to many many people that have been victims of domestic abuse and then revictimized when the cops protect the abuser. Nor to those who try to help the victims.

    Parent

    except, of course, (none / 0) (#142)
    by cpinva on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 08:59:16 PM EST
    there's apparently no actual substantive evidence that trooper wooten did any of that, other than the tasering of his step-son (his explanation: the boy pestered him to see how it felt, he finally gave in, and shot him, with the taser set to the "test" position), which he admitted was stupid, in retrospect.

    But not to many many people that have been victims of domestic abuse and then revictimized when the cops protect the abuser. Nor to those who try to help the victims.

    since none of the allegations appear, per the investigation, to have been reported in real-time, it became a he said, she said situation, in the midst of a nasty custody dispute.

    the accusations must be seen in light of the situation in which they've been made, and the credibility of the accusors as well.

    i'll wait for the results of the legislature's investigation, before passing judgment on her.

    Parent

    If it is true McCain wanted Lieberman (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by oculus on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 03:21:46 PM EST
    or Ridge as VP but Rove sd. "no," that tells us quite a lot.  

    Parent
    what I have read says Rove (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 03:26:53 PM EST
    had absolutely nothing to do with this pick and was pushing Romney as hard as he could.


    Parent
    Link? (none / 0) (#93)
    by Thanin on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 03:50:15 PM EST
    Palin Was Never Against the Bridge (none / 0) (#111)
    by kaleidescope on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 04:27:14 PM EST
    She was for it until Congress got so embarrassed about it that it cut funds for the project.  That meant Alaska would have to pay a much bigger share.  At that point Palin said, in effect, you can't fire me, I quit."

    Parent
    She wasn't chosen ... (none / 0) (#124)
    by sj on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 04:58:57 PM EST
    ...to appeal to your moderate GOP friends.  She was chosen to appeal to the wingnuts.  

    I'm curious, though.  You say that your friends are not enamored of her.  If they were planning on voting R before the VP choice, will her presence on the ticket keep them from voting that way?

    Parent

    My republican friends LOVE this woman (none / 0) (#128)
    by SueBonnetSue on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 05:34:03 PM EST
    One republican leaner friend wasn't going to do anything to help McCain get elected.  She voted for Kerry and Senator Webb.  Then came Sarah!  She has sent the campaign a check and signed up to volunteer for the campaign!  

    The republicans I know are head over heels for Sarah.  If nothing else, she has energized the base and opened the checkbooks of republicans.  

    Parent

    I have a question (5.00 / 3) (#6)
    by JAB on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 02:43:09 PM EST
    As to why I hope Palin drops out, I think she is energizing the radical right and evangelicals who will pump a ton of money into McCain's campaign. The Republicans were apathetic and resigned to McCain's probable loss, now they are excited.

    While this may be your wish, don't you think this is the exact reason why she won't drop out?

    I think the same could be said about other candidates, no?

    I was going to ask this, too... (5.00 / 2) (#50)
    by Dawn Davenport on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 03:20:02 PM EST
    ...because if Huckabee were McCain's choice, I'm sure Dems would be pointing out his radical religious views and lack of experience in foreign relations. I doubt, however, you'd see critiques about his parenting or making fun of Arkansas (for obvious reasons on the latter, heh) or polls about when he'd drop out from the race.

    I don't think it's because she's a woman that Dems are calling for her removal; I think it's because she presents the greatest threat to the Dem ticket because of her broad-based appeal to both evangelicals and reformist/libertarian-leaning Republicans and independents.

    Stuff like her looks and her parenting are just handy pegs for some Dems to dismiss her and to frame her as a lightweight, because--face it--any Republican ticket presents a radical, extremist agenda that no progressive wants to see extended.  

    Parent

    what you said Dawn (5.00 / 2) (#56)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 03:23:08 PM EST
    "I don't think it's because she's a woman that Dems are calling for her removal; I think it's because she presents the greatest threat to the Dem ticket because of her broad-based appeal to both evangelicals and reformist/libertarian-leaning Republicans and independents."

    true for the smart ones.  possibly not true for some others who are just vile.

    Parent

    calling for her to drop out smacks of (5.00 / 1) (#130)
    by g8grl on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 05:39:25 PM EST
    the same ugliness that calling for Hillary to drop out did.  Please drop out before you beat us.  Does not look good to only call for women to drop out.  Disagree with her on the issues and beat her in November but stop the drop out drum beat since it only seems to apply to women.

    Parent
    I may have been asleep at the keyboard but (none / 0) (#143)
    by Christy1947 on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 09:39:31 PM EST
    I don't think the Huckabee record as governor of Arkansas was anywhere near as full of political potholes  and worse as five days of ditys blogger digging has made Mrs. Palin (just the merit political stuff, not the rest that we aren't discussing here and shouldn't be discussing anywhere). My recall is that his religious views are extreme but as governor he was reasonably competent, not a lot of scandal, and didn't do things to force his religious views on all residents of his state. If you think they're after her because she's a woman, try out the same list of sins with Huckabee's name on them, but minus the charm, and see what happens to your views. I think H would be toast if you did that.

    Parent
    No (none / 0) (#129)
    by SueBonnetSue on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 05:35:57 PM EST
    The other candidates, Pawlenty and Lieberman, did NOT fire up the base like Sarah has.  Her conservative views but libertarian ideas about law making, make her very appealing to many republicans

    Parent
    Still Feel As if I Know Nothing About Palin (5.00 / 4) (#11)
    by daring grace on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 02:47:55 PM EST
    So this is total unversed speculation.

    But I hear she's a dynamic speaker, and a good campaigner.

    If she does well (or, if she's PERCEIVED as doing well) at the convention speech and in the early days on the trail, I suspect the media noise will die down, UNLESS some substantial new scandal or surprise emerges.

    If her performance is seen as mediocre or bad, and/or if she flubs some questions from the press, it will continue to be feeding frenzy time.

    Really? (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by daring grace on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 03:11:42 PM EST
    I have to confess I haven't seen the same kind of 'blood in the water' media frenzy focused on Obama as it seems like we have now around Governor Palin.

    I've always felt, by and large, the MSM was fairly easy on him.

    Parent

    So (none / 0) (#113)
    by kaleidescope on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 04:29:21 PM EST
    When are they going to let the press ask her (or McCain for that matter) questions?  It's easy not to flub questions when nobody gets to ask you any.

    Parent
    I'm Looking Forward To A One on One (none / 0) (#139)
    by daring grace on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 06:20:26 PM EST
    with someone (not Fox, since I don't watch Fox).

    I strongly disagree with her policy positions and dislike some of what I hear of her behavior as governor and mayor.

    But I still haven't really SEEN her, so I hope they release her to the press more soon.

    Parent

    Many feel that way about Obama (none / 0) (#131)
    by SueBonnetSue on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 05:40:03 PM EST
    Total speculation because we know so little about him, but a good speaker and a good campaigner.  If he continues to blub before the press, or messes up the debates with his hemming and hawing, he could be in trouble.

    Parent
    Palin? Obama? (5.00 / 0) (#12)
    by daring grace on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 02:49:44 PM EST
    I thought the writer said it was about McCain's judgment.

    palin is a train wreck... (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by Thanin on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 02:58:34 PM EST
    so I hope they keep the ticket.

    Palin is also pro-union (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by Buckeye on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 03:03:36 PM EST
    So is her husband who is a member of the United Steelworkers.  She also opposes free trade.  Odd for a Republican.  I wonder how that will play in PA, Ohio, and Michigan (since Biden has endorsed free trade agreements his entire career).

    has she ever done anything pro-labor? (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 03:09:48 PM EST
    in her government career? Just because her husband is a union member, doesn't make her pro-labor or pro-union. If she has done anything to support either, let us know.

    Parent
    She does seem to be a study in contradictions (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by Dr Molly on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 03:12:26 PM EST
    on several fronts.

    Parent
    Seems to me that much at least (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 04:13:12 PM EST
    was clear from the get-go, which is why the instant demonizing of her as Phyllis Schlafley redux makes me crazy.  I'm still waiting for any kind of reasonably balanced examination of her career so I can get a better sense of her, but given how broken everything is, that may never happen.

    On balance, from what I do know, I sure wouldn't vote for her for governor of my state, but then my state isn't Alaska and has none of the slippery issues with oil versus environment, indigenous people, etc., that Alaska has.

    Parent

    Just like Obama, and many other pols (5.00 / 1) (#134)
    by SueBonnetSue on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 05:47:10 PM EST
    How bout (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 03:38:00 PM EST
    we see what she is saying when she leaves the RNC indoctrination center at the end of this week?

    You wanna bet she is echoing McCain on labor unions?  You wanna bet she will be saying all sorts of misleading things about the secret ballot measures?

    Parent

    Perhaps you will be right. (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by Buckeye on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 03:44:43 PM EST
    One correction (none / 0) (#32)
    by Buckeye on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 03:10:05 PM EST
    Biden has supported some free trade agreements (like NAFTA) but opposed others.  He gets a 42% rating from the CATO institute on opposition to free trade (meaning he has supported a bit more than he opposed).

    Parent
    Gov. Palin... (none / 0) (#46)
    by Brillo on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 03:18:43 PM EST
    Is pro-union like she is a feminist with Feminists for Life.  Or like she's a big Hillary fan.  Just because she gives em props in some stump speech, doesn't mean she and her politics are helpful or supportive of those things.

    Parent
    Read my follow up above (5.00 / 5) (#52)
    by Buckeye on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 03:21:17 PM EST
    Palin actually put union members to work as a Governor.  Biden put many out of work as a Senator.

    Parent
    LOL (5.00 / 6) (#57)
    by Dr Molly on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 03:24:02 PM EST
    I love you pesky people who insist on facts 'n truth 'n stuff. :)

    So refreshing.

    Parent

    Whoa... (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by Brillo on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 03:35:15 PM EST
    Totally not understanding how Oil and politics mix in Alaska.  This is like saying she's a big proponent of higher taxes because she favors the windfall profits taxes in Alaska.  

    Alaska and it's residents get massive amounts of subsidies and pork, more than any other state in the union.  Her willingness to shove some towards the local union workers will not translate to a national scale.  

    Her policies... scratch that, John McCain's policies are not pro-union.  She cannot do what she did in Alaska for the rest for of the country.  And if the nationwide union response to her claim of union support is any indication, everyone will be well aware of that fact.

    Parent

    buckeye (none / 0) (#117)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 04:35:49 PM EST
    read the comment rules. urls must be in html format as long ones skew the site. use the link button at the top of the comment box or tinyurl.com. Your comments had to be deleted, they skewed the site.

    Parent
    Here is a quote from the above article. (5.00 / 2) (#48)
    by Buckeye on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 03:19:37 PM EST
    Two days before McCain named her as his running make, the Ticket notes, Palin attended an AFL-CIO convention in Alaska and signed legislation putting up $500 million for TransCanada Corp. to research the possibility of a natural gas pipeline from Alaska's North Slope, which could cost $30 billion and run 1,700 miles. The legislation includes guarantees of union jobs.

    "We see eye-to-eye on a lot of stuff," Ron Axtell, vice president of a 1,500-member local of the Laborers Union that has donated to Palin and is in line to receive work on the pipeline, told the L.A. Times. "She is an excellent pick. Most of the people in the state are shocked and pretty jubilant."



    John McCain IS being criticized (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 03:28:07 PM EST
    There is no logical explanation for choosing Sarah Palin.  

    If he is so flippant about selecting his running mate, what is going to be like when he selects his cabinets or Supreme Court justices.

    McCain ignored all other concerns and caved to the hard core right of the Republican party.  Instead of selecting the person he wanted, Lieberman or maybe Ridge, he picked the dream choice of the hard right.

    It might have hacked off Dems (none / 0) (#115)
    by Eleanor A on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 04:34:55 PM EST
    who may be persuaded to vote GOP, for one thing (to clarify:  Lieberman might have hacked them off I mean)

    Parent
    There are (none / 0) (#123)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 04:54:56 PM EST
    plenty of people that would have appealed to his base.

    They apparently made almost no effort at vetting her.  Reports are that up to 48 hours prior to selecting Palin McCain was still pushing for Lieberman.

    She is under investigation for improper behavior as governor and the report is scheduled to be released a few weeks before the election?
    But they wanted to cut the wind from Obama's sails following his speech and they made the decision to go with someone they really didn't know much about.

    Add to that the fact that she is now on a crash course to learn how to deal with the national media.  This is no easy task and had they planned this better they could have prepped her for this.

    They won't be able to lock her up for 3 weeks and keep her from the media.  

    Parent

    She's just like McCain! (none / 0) (#135)
    by SueBonnetSue on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 05:49:25 PM EST
    That's why he chose her!  That, and the fact that it fires up the conservative base and her selection has brought in $12 millon to the McCain campaign and over a million to the RNC.  

    Seem like good reasons to me.  

    Parent

    It refects his decision making process, (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by byteb on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 03:28:41 PM EST
    (which seems 'shoot first, think later'); his over reliance on his advisors who caused him to switch from his first choice of Lieberman and his basic Presidential judgment. This was his first important "Presidential" decision/choice and it seems a messy one.

    well (none / 0) (#69)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 03:31:20 PM EST
    if this is true why are we all so upset.
    if we think this is such a horrible decision and says such awful things about McCains judgment we should just be celebrating.

    personally I will wait until Nov 4th to celebrate.

    Parent

    I thought we were celebrating how badly (none / 0) (#71)
    by Molly Bloom on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 03:32:39 PM EST
    this pick reflects upon McCain...

    Parent
    "We" and Obama's campaign (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by americanincanada on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 04:15:05 PM EST
    have spent far too much time comparing Obama's experience with Palin's rather than with McCain's. Now I understand that Obama caomes out better in that little scenerio but it is not honest.

    I am sure many people would conceed that Obama has enough experience to be VP. But that is not the job he is running to have.

    Parent

    Actually no (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 04:17:31 PM EST
    you and a handful of others are trying to continually compare Palin to Obama.

    Most of us agree that the comparison is not relevant and that we should judge Palin on her own merits.  

    Parent

    Most of us (none / 0) (#109)
    by dws3665 on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 04:24:28 PM EST
    also agree that it is hypocritical of McCain to argue that his big advantage over Obama is his experience (which is not today's post-Palin talking point) and follow that up by placing an arguably less experienced person (and certainly not a more experienced one) "one heartbeat away."

    Now we are seeing the McCain campaign shift away from the "experience" argument and toward "personality." Seems that even they get it.

    Parent

    As I have been saying since Friday (none / 0) (#121)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 04:49:26 PM EST
    Sarah Palin is the best gift the Republicans could have given Obama.

    She invalidates a reasonably effective narrative.  She has a boatload of skeletons and she has no national level experience.  

    If they wanted Palin to be a real player at this level they should have given her the keynote speech at the RNC and let her story build with the American people for 4 years.

    Parent

    to be P. So your last statement makes no sense.

    Some legitimate questions regarding Palin have been raised. Some irrelevant ones have been raised as well. The latter don't invalidate the former.  

    Parent

    not Kansas (5.00 / 0) (#87)
    by dws3665 on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 03:42:50 PM EST
    But Oz. That is one odd interpretation of Jeralyn's remark. I fail to see how that in any way suggests that Obama should not bother to campaign. YMMV, of course.

    Zfran has overused my patience (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 03:54:56 PM EST
    Despite repeated warnings not to twist my words to her own interpretation, she continues. Her comment was deleted and she is banned.

    Parent
    I disagree (5.00 / 2) (#97)
    by Bluesage on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 03:59:08 PM EST
    It is not the people who put Obama where he is.  It was a biased media and a Rules Committee with the urging of our Party "leaders".  I do not believe this was a fair primary season but one orchestrated to get the results wanted by the media and the "New Unimproved Democratic Party".  These questions have never been asked and answered by Obama or the ridiculous media.  

    I'm certainly not saying that Palin shouldn't be asked these questions but don't pretend this is a fair process and "our" guy has been fully vetted.  He's been carried, not vetted.

    Disagree all that you want (none / 0) (#108)
    by Gobbluth on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 04:23:40 PM EST
    The fact is that Obama's life has been put through the microscope.  Millions of words have been written about his life from liberal, conservative and unbiased press at this point.  The Press were actually seated at his church taping sermons for god sake.  You can not like the outcome all you want, but he's the most vetted person in this race.  I could easily go through all of the areas where HIllary wasn't vetted but it will probably just make you angry.  The fact is that Palin has gone through little scrutiny at this point and quite frankly they only have 2 months to do the due diligence that McCain obviously didn't do.

    Parent
    is it useful (none / 0) (#114)
    by dws3665 on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 04:30:18 PM EST
    to continue to fight the primary battle? I do not disagree with you that the end of the campaign clearly involved thumbs on the scale by the DNC. I was and am appalled by it. It was wrong.

    However, your comment makes it sound as though the two candidates didn't get basically the same number of votes, and that Obama didn't actually receive any support outside the DNC. Like it or not, that is blatantly false. Obama appealed to lots and lots of voters and caucusers. They were all judged him according to the questions you pose, and they pulled the lever for him (darn them!). To pretend that these issues haven't been examined is really a distortion.

    We may not like Obama, but lots of people do, warts and all.

    Parent

    I agree with most of your reply (none / 0) (#132)
    by Bluesage on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 05:41:27 PM EST
    But also think you took the wrong message from my post.  Both Obama and Clinton had about the same number of votes but the process getting there was a lot tougher for Clinton because she was fighting a biased press, the Obama camp and his surrogates that were brutal.  I don't want to continue the primary battle but it is very wrong for this party to think it will be forgotten and swept under the rug.  Many Democrats support Obama and many Democrats have a lot of questions about his fitness for the job.  Just like all the questions asked about Palin's fitness for the job.  Many of us want more and better answers than we have gotten.

    Parent
    Regardless of the process the DNC used, (none / 0) (#116)
    by MyLeftMind on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 04:34:56 PM EST
    and it was admittedly far from perfect, the reason the DNC support shifted to Obama in the 50-50 primary was because the electorate behind him are exactly what our party needs:  New young voters hitting the streets this fall, re-engaged older Dems who gave up on the party after the Bill Clinton debacle, and a broad based, "small d" democratic coalition demanding change.

    Parent
    So, you're saying that (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by Dr Molly on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 04:38:43 PM EST
    the DNC decided which voters were relevant and which were not?

    Good talking point.

    But at least it's more honest than most.

    Parent

    In a more perfect world, the Dem party leaders (none / 0) (#122)
    by MyLeftMind on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 04:51:21 PM EST
    could perhaps have forced a unity ticket with Hillary on top.  Except for the Bill factor.  A prominent reason for the resentment toward Hillary was and continues to be the corrosive continuing fear of Bill Clinton hovering at stage left.  Hence, there could be no joint ticket; one of the two had to lose.  Had the party leaders taken the opposite approach, AA's and the new youth vote would have walked, and those older Dems who had been disgusted with politics since the loss of our party's legacy and prestige after Lewinsky, et. al., but who became reengaged this year because of Obama, would have given up again just when our party needs them the most.  

    I think they made the right choice in their selection, and I wish they had found a better way to implement it.  In my opinion, Obama did really win and the RBC was trying to ensure it was a more forceful win.  Not the best idea, given that we believe in "little d" democracy.


    Parent

    So you think she should drop out (3.00 / 2) (#8)
    by zfran on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 02:43:56 PM EST
    so that McCain stops receiving money because of it. Heard he raised $10million just since his pick. Sounds like you're not after democracy, you're concerned the "radical right" may come out in droves in support of McCain/Palin and may boost McCain's chances of winning. Hmmmm. I guess you can call that logic, truth, justice and the american way. Seems to me, it's up to Obama and his minions to win.

    "Not After Democracy"? (5.00 / 0) (#14)
    by Brillo on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 02:51:50 PM EST
    What does that even mean?

    Parent
    Yes, you have a problem with that? (5.00 / 3) (#16)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 02:56:29 PM EST
    I want to diminish McCain's chance of winning. If you have a problem with that, you are not familiar with the goals of this site and the reasons it exists: advocacy. And you don't support the same values I do. So be careful not to become a chatterer here.

    Parent
    So now, it's not that Obama should (5.00 / 2) (#60)
    by zfran on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 03:26:05 PM EST
    do what he needs to do to win, McCain should do what he needs to do to lose, namely tell Sarah to go away so people stop sending him money? What? Jeralyn, you made the comment above, not me. I'm just reacting to what you said. Why not just have dems sit home and wait for McCain to self-destruct. That, to me, sounds like the same thing as you have said in your above post. I always thought a candidate who was running for President went out to gather as many votes as he can and thereby wins an election by campaigning. Now the rules you want is change the way the opposition does their business so they will lose. And this is America?

    Parent
    I predicted she will drop out (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 03:31:28 PM EST
    I never called for her to drop out. I predicted the media storm would implode her campaign and said I hoped it did.

    Parent
    'minions' ? (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by byteb on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 03:32:41 PM EST
    ok (2.00 / 1) (#55)
    by connecticut yankee on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 03:22:46 PM EST
    Well, the news has advanced. Now follow along. The interesting context change is that she herself is now undergoing that kind of scrutiny. See?  Thats the context and point of the comment.  It's called irony. If it was said last week, it wouldnt be as ironic and fun.

    Right? With me? Good.

    Palin was undergoing scrutiny here (none / 0) (#73)
    by Cream City on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 03:33:13 PM EST
    even before she was announced; read back here re the rumors earlier that day.  And all this came out then, if you want to see the discussion on this.

    Parent
    This is about McCain's judgment (none / 0) (#1)
    by bluegal on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 02:35:00 PM EST
    That is what all of this is about.  Especially with his age he had to know that people would be looking very closely at his VP pick.

    I wish the blogs would get away from personal attacks and focus on McCain's lack of judgment.

    I agree it's about both (none / 0) (#84)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 03:39:22 PM EST
    As I wrote above:

    And, as I wrote here, this is about John McCain's judgment. From his book, as stated in the New York Times:

    At the very least, the process reflects Mr. McCain's history of making fast, instinctive and sometimes risky decisions. "I make them as quickly as I can, quicker than the other fellow, if I can," Mr. McCain wrote, with his top adviser Mark Salter, in his 2002 book, "Worth the Fighting For." "Often my haste is a mistake, but I live with the consequences without complaint."


    Parent
    He picked the one that would most help him (none / 0) (#120)
    by ruffian on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 04:45:33 PM EST
    win the election and is at least minimally qualified in the unlikely event that he dies in office (the odds are in favor of him surviving - he is a rich white 72 yr old male.  If Cheney has survived his term in office with his much worse health, McCain probably will.)

    I think McCain's positions on the issues show a lot worse judgement - why can't we stick to that?

    Parent

    Good questions Jeralyn (none / 0) (#5)
    by bjorn on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 02:42:56 PM EST
    I hope some will get answered by her speech this week, and others over the next couple of weeks.  I do like Althouse's take on the primary though.

    comments referencing (none / 0) (#9)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 02:44:42 PM EST
    Palin's personal life and family issues will be deleted. Repeat violators will be banned.

    she'll keep going (none / 0) (#25)
    by indie in CA on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 03:04:45 PM EST
    I'd be very surprised if Palin "dropped out." She is quick becoming a martyr for the right in addition to energizing McCain's campaign.

    McCain didn't have a lot a good VP choices to begin with and starting over would be admitting a mistake.

    I just heard a 9 minute clip of right-wing talk radio -- and the outrage machine over "those hypocritical lefties" is in full force.

    the mainstream media (none / 0) (#30)
    by Lil on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 03:08:18 PM EST
    will tell us who will win this election. Not right wing talk unless the MSM starts echoing those radio talking points. If you hear a lot of that, the Dems are doomed. Next week after the RNC, notice the tenor of CNN et.al. and we'll know where this thing is headed.

    Parent
    I disagree (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 03:13:37 PM EST
    I dont think the media or blogs for that matter have nearly as much influence as they like to think.
    in fact it can have exactly the opposite effect.
    consider that they tried to get us to have Bill Clinton for 8 years 24/7 and his numbers rarely dropped below 60%.
    I think in this case, it will definitely have the opposite effect.


    Parent
    geez (none / 0) (#45)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 03:17:56 PM EST
    that would be HATE Bill Clinton.
    I should just quit and do one thing at a time.

    Parent
    That Was One of My Few Bright Spots (none / 0) (#118)
    by daring grace on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 04:36:10 PM EST
    in that Clinton hounding era:

    The MSM would hammer-hammer-hammer on all the assorted supposed Clinton infamies like they were drilling us (the viewing public) for a test. Then they'd give the test (the poll) and we would all 'fail', apparently, because Clinton's poll numbers kept soaring!

    And you could watch them night after night eating their livers over it. (Cruel glee, I felt.)

    But it might work better with Palin because she is not as proven a quantity yet with the public as WJC was at the time. It depends how well she presents herself this week and next, I think.

    Nobody really KNOWS her yet.

    Parent

    the problem I see (none / 0) (#125)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 05:24:28 PM EST
    is that from what I have seen so far I think most people are going to like her.
    and if the media piling continues double that.

    Parent
    thats what I heard over the weekend (none / 0) (#40)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 03:15:06 PM EST
    it was cable so take it for what its worth.

    I deleted it (none / 0) (#76)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 03:34:32 PM EST
    Don't print rumors here.

    The same questions (none / 0) (#82)
    by Bluesage on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 03:36:31 PM EST
    I would like to have answered by the Obama campaign.

    Is he competent? (Who knows)

    Is he ethical? (Not too many people he's run against for any office would say yes to that one)

    Does he exercise sound judgement? (Wright, Resko, Ayers?).

    Does he know enough about the world to be president? (Again, who knows - Well, there was his "world" tour)

    This could be a very dangerous game for the Democrats.

    Just for the record, I would never vote for McCain/Palin but I probably won't vote for Obama either.  I will vote for all down-ticket Democrats and work hard for big gains in Congress.

    these questions about Obama (none / 0) (#92)
    by dws3665 on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 03:48:49 PM EST
    have been answered by Democratic voters and caucusers. I don't happen to think they arrived at the best answers, as I suspect you don't, but it's obtuse to say that they have not been adjudicated in the court of public opinion.

    Not liking Obama does not make criticism of Palin's qualifications inappropriate or sexist (though there has been an astounding amount of sexism in the coverage thus far).

    Parent

    ;Blue Sage (none / 0) (#145)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 11:43:20 PM EST
    has become a chatterer and is limited to four comments a day.

    Parent
    curious (none / 0) (#85)
    by dws3665 on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 03:41:01 PM EST
    do you find Obama's personal associations with Wright, Ayers, etc., more relevant to your selection of candidates than the policy positions that Palin advocates?

    I don't, but I'm wondering how others do their own personal calculations.

    I don't like Obama very much at all, but he is the better candidate for my views (and yes, I realize that this is more than a two-person race).

    this is off topic (none / 0) (#94)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 03:52:37 PM EST
    the topic is McCain's pick of Palin.

    Parent
    my apologies. (none / 0) (#146)
    by dws3665 on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 11:19:40 PM EST
    Didn't mean to attempt a threadjack.

    Parent
    ok. (none / 0) (#100)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 04:06:45 PM EST
    I don't know how long the poster has been here.  

    Veeps Are Ultimately Irrelevant on NAFTA (none / 0) (#101)
    by daring grace on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 04:08:03 PM EST
    Unless you think Governor Palin is going to change Senator McCain's mind on trade.

    Or maybe unions and workers will peer over Mccain's shoulder and glimpse Palin's record and be impressed. Maybe.

    Here's a youtube video of McCain answering an Iowa newspaper's questions about free trade.

    McCain, the 'free trader'

    McCain just caved in to the conservative wing (none / 0) (#112)
    by MyLeftMind on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 04:29:07 PM EST
    of the party. This is his first major decision, and he could not stand up to the far right. The so called maverick reformer sold his soul to the GOP bosses for some quick fundraising and to energize the base.

    That is not someone who is going to reform Washington, as mainstream Republicans and Indies will soon realize.

    I'm just going to say, trying to be constructive.. (none / 0) (#127)
    by g8grl on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 05:31:54 PM EST
    That it doesn't look good for progressives or lefties for us to be calling for another woman to drop out/quit.  If we start waiting with anticipation for Palin to drop out, that would be 2 for 2.  Doesn't look good even if we weren't the ones calling for Hillary to step out.

    Why Palin won't drop out (none / 0) (#140)
    by mabelle55 on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 06:21:29 PM EST
    Having spent 20-plus years in D.C. (as an "insider"), I have a pretty good understanding of politics -- not perfect, but pretty good.

    Palin won't drop out. Here's why:

    1. She energizes evangelical Christians, rural voters, small-town working class voters;

    2. She amplifies the message of reform;  

    3. She capitalizes on demographic trends (e.g., youth);

    4. She's not the typical Republican woman in very distinct ways: Palin isn't afraid of being more "masculine" (hunting/fishing/snowmobiling; being outspoken/aggressive/assertive.

    Her small-town, outdoorsy, middle-class appeal will also blunt any strength Obama might have among true Independents;

    1. The "scandals" really amount to nothing more than a particular governing style. So far, there is nothing to indicate an ILLEGAL abuse of her power, even if she has used an "iron fist". I don't think we would even be discussing this style if McCain had selected a young man with similar experience or qualifications, or if Obama had selected Tim Kaine as his running mate.

    2. She has already survived the worst of the media scrutiny unless there is some huge dark secret that nobody saw coming.


    The Fact Remains (none / 0) (#141)
    by WakeLtd on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 06:40:07 PM EST
    That while some "moderate" rank-and-file Republicans may not be enamored of Sarah Palin, and certainly some of the professional class of East Coast "neo-conservatives" may find her an exceedingly tacky choice...there is an undeniable explosion  of excitement among the social  conservatives that cannot be denied. This was a bloc of voters with whom John  McCain was almost dead-in-the-water. And this is a significant bloc of voters, especially when they are truly fired up and not just "settling"  for a candidate. To put it demographically...Palin could attract 90% of that vote. Don't take my word on it -  do what I did this past week-end and blog the many "conservative" websites that are not necessarily well-known. They are not just happy about Palin - they are unbelievably fired-up about her. It is as if their faith the Republican Party has been restored. And the events of this past week-end have only made their support for her stronger.

    The irony is that some of the anti-Hillary crowd said that if Hillary was the nominee she would galvanize the Republicans to vote against her in record numbers. It may turn out to be this "other"  women who galvanizes them to vote in record numbers.

    Josh Marshall's Take On Palin (none / 0) (#144)
    by john horse on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 09:45:59 PM EST
    Jeralyn,
    Have you read TPM's Josh Marshall's take on McCain dumping Palin

    Like I said earlier, I think the chances of this happening(McCain dumping Palin) are remote. Because as bad as making a stupid veep pick is, admitting it would be far more damaging. And the evangelicals would probably desert him en masse.

    I think McCain is stuck between a rock and a hard place with Palin.  Keeping her on the ticket is damaging and dumping her off the ticket is also damaging.  For us Democrats its a win/win situation.

    By the way, regarding Ann Althouse's comment that Hillary was the "more qualified contender". Since when did Althouse become a Hillary Clinton supporter?