Fat, drunk, and Republican is no way to go through life, son.

Fat and drunk without the Republican is still okay, right?

I'm not fat.

Do people actually pay attention to the vice-presidential debates? And do they really matter? My understanding was that they were basically viewed as an amusing sideshow, and the rare few who watched them did so for the sole purpose of ensuring that, in the event that the President was assassinated, the country wouldn't be run by someone who had to take the short bus to work.

I think people pay attention (I remember the Edwards-Cheney debates well); how much they matter I guess is another question. This time around people will likely pay attention even more, though.

By the way, FWIW, one of my sisters was undecided before today and was planning on abstaining -- she didn't like either candidate, and is kind of in the middle politically -- and now is voting for McCain purely because he picked a woman.

I don't see scorned Hillary women on the left suddenly breaking for McCain, but I don't think it's unreasonable that women who don't pay much attention to politics might.

He's a genuine moderate

And Bush was a uniter, not a divider.

"A significant part of Palin's base of support lies among social and Christian conservatives. Her positions on social issues emerged slowly during the campaign: on abortion (should be banned for anything other than saving the life of the mother), stem cell research (opposed), physician-assisted suicide (opposed), creationism (should be discussed in schools), state health benefits for same-sex partners (opposed, and supports a constitutional amendment to bar them)."

I disagree with every one of those positions. (Lucky I'm not planning to vote for McCain.) Though I'm not sure what it means to say that creationism "should be discussed" in schools. Discussed, how, I guess is the question. It shouldn't be taught as The Truth, but it should be discussed and acknowledged that people believe it.

Just to stay in practice, I'll try to be quasi-objective:

Sarah Palin is the governor of a very small state. This can't be something significantly in her favor, though it beats having "city councilman" as the only bold-faced line on your resume. There's nothing of being governor of Alaska for eighteen months, really, that prepares one to lead the US military. I'm also less than sanguine about the idea that there are structures in place that will help her through a foreign policy crisis, since she'll have to choose the particular structures she wants to employ, as well as the people to whom she'll turn for advice. Balancing that, somewhat, she does seem intelligent, certainly far more intelligent than Dan Quayle. Were I an undecided, her nonexistent foreign policy experience would trouble me a great deal, whereas I would be reassured by Obama's selection of Biden. Too, as an undecided, and given all the fuss he's made over foreign policy experience, I would have to consider McCain's selection of her and his willingness to leave the nation in her inexperienced hands an extraordinarily cynical and desperate act, up there with Mondale's disgraceful selection of Geraldine Ferraro.

I'm trying, but I'm just not seeing much good in it.

Fat, drunk, and Republican is no way to go through life, son.

Fat and drunk without the Republican is still okay, right?

I'm not fat.

I know when I'm in the presence of my betters. I bow to your comic genius.

Though I'm not sure what it means to say that creationism "should be discussed" in schools. Discussed, how, I guess is the question. It shouldn't be taught as The Truth, but it should be discussed and acknowledged that people believe it.

I'd eat my hat if this kind of openness to dispute is how she means it.

If it's discussed alongside of Norse and Greek mythology, I'm all for it.

Do people actually pay attention to the vice-presidential debates?

I don't care about VP candidates at all (in fact, I have a hard time believing that there are people for who Biden or Palin is the tipping point), but the VP debates have usually been my favorite. That's where you get your Admiral Stockdales and your "You're no Jack Kennedy"s.

I'd eat my hat if this kind of openness to dispute is how she means it.

I'm sure this will eventually be researched but the only quote that I've stumbled across is fairly noncommittal:

In an interview Thursday, Palin said she meant only to say that discussion of alternative views should be allowed to arise in Alaska classrooms:

“I don’t think there should be a prohibition against debate if it comes up in class. It doesn’t have to be part of the curriculum.”

She added that, if elected, she would not push the state Board of Education to add such creation-based alternatives to the state’s required curriculum.

...the VP debates... That's where you get your Admiral Stockdales and your "You're no Jack Kennedy"s.

"Want some wood?" - Bush v Kerry II

I encourage everyone here to read Andrew Sullivan on the Palin selection. He's a conservative who has endorsed Obama, but who clearly likes her personally (she's smoked pot! She claims to like the gays!). But as a conservative he's absolutely appalled by the recklessness of McCain's decision, and he's doing a good job of collecting lots of conservative voices reacting negatively on the choice of Palin for the vice-presidential slot. Like David Frum on National Review Online, who writes:

It's a wild gamble, undertaken by our oldest ever first-time candidate for president in hopes of changing the board of this election campaign. Maybe it will work. But maybe (and at least as likely) it will reinforce a theme that I'd be pounding home if I were the Obama campaign: that it's John McCain for all his white hair who represents the risky choice, while it is Barack Obama who offers cautious, steady, predictable governance

“I don’t think there should be a prohibition against debate if it comes up in class. It doesn’t have to be part of the curriculum.”

I hope this means that someone will ask her is she accepts the theory of evolution.

I think it would be great if she said no. That's just what we need a heartbeat away from the Presidency.

David Frum on National Review Online

You missed the real money quote:

Here's I fear the worst harm that may be done by this selection. The McCain campaign's slogan is "country first." It's a good slogan, and it aptly describes John McCain, one of the most self-sacrificing, gallant, and honorable men ever to seek the presidency.

But question: If it were your decision, and you were putting your country first, would you put an untested small-town mayor a heartbeat away from the presidency?

I expect JC to immediately track Frum down and teach him a lesson about denigrating people.

she has a son in Iraq. (Or, as she says, "eye-rack.")

That's much like the "pronunciation of nuclear" discussion (ala Carter and Bush) we've had before on this site. Due to regional differences, I think you'd be quite surprised on how many people pronounce the words like Palin did.

Actually, in the case of Iran's neighbor, it wouldn't surprise me at all if Palin's pronunciation was the more common in the United States.

But the biggest asset she has is perception. Your arrogant replies show exactly what she has in her favor: low expectations, which as we all know, are very easy to exceed. I suspect she'll do quite well. And remember, if Biden presses too hard a point about her FP inexperience she could say something like, "Well, you've got me there, Joe, I haven't met with ..., but neither has the Democratic PRESIDENTIAL nominee, so stick that in your Delaware and smoke it."

She can also say, "True, Joe: unlike you I haven't spent my entire adult life in Washington. (McCain has been in D.C. a long time, but at least he did something before that. In contrast, Biden is such a career politician that he ran for the Senate before he was even old enough, just because he was so desperate to get to Washington.)

OK, JC--let's see the list of male candidates with this thin a resume who made McCain's veep shortlist. I'm gonna leave the thread now to go re-string a couple guitars, so you'll have some time to ponder.

Well, I'd say Jindal, but I don't think that would sway you. So let me mention that both Eric Cantor and Tim Pawlenty were rumored to be on McCain's shortlist. Both are about Palin's age. Pawlenty had a couple more years of experience as governor than Palin, but nobody would confuse him with Biden. Cantor has less experience than she does.

There's already an interview with PEOPLE?!?!? Talk about wasting no time...
PEOPLE: John McCain & Sarah Palin on Shattering the Glass Ceiling

I suppose one for PARADE (or whatever that thing in the Sunday paper is called) is already in the works...

I encourage everyone here to read Andrew Sullivan on the Palin selection. He's a conservative who has endorsed Obama, but who clearly likes her personally (she's smoked pot! She claims to like the gays!). But as a conservative he's absolutely appalled by the recklessness of McCain's decision, and he's doing a good job of collecting lots of conservative voices reacting negatively on the choice of Palin for the vice-presidential slot. Like David Frum on National Review Online, who writes:

I'm not sure that calling Sullivan a "conservative" isn't more misleading than revealing. Sullivan is sui generis. But regardless of his personal philosophy and what it should be labeled, one thing that can't be disputed is that he doesn't represent American conservatism today, and hasn't for quite a while. He turned against the GOP years ago. Not only does he support Obama, but he does so enthusiastically. And he supported Kerry.

As for Frum, he's about the only guy over at National Review who isn't excited by this pick. I've also checked many other conservative blogs, and most seem enthusiastic.

I'm not sure that calling Sullivan a "conservative" isn't more misleading than revealing. Sullivan is sui generis. But regardless of his personal philosophy and what it should be labeled, one thing that can't be disputed is that he doesn't represent American conservatism today, and hasn't for quite a while. He turned against the GOP years ago. Not only does he support Obama, but he does so enthusiastically. And he supported Kerry.

You're being charitble to Sullivan, David. He's more like Christopher Hitchens' sister, a couple of Brits who've carefully combined professional contrarianism and insult as a way of staying in the public eye. They're both very fond of celebrity packed parties.

As for Frum, he's about the only guy over at National Review who isn't excited by this pick. I've also checked many other conservative blogs, and most seem enthusiastic.

If I were a movement conservative, I'd be happy about Palin, too. First, because she's in lockstep on all the hot button social issues. But more importantly, she's not one of those slugs who the polls were showing only hurt McCain.

And if she proves over the following months by her temperament that she's actually got the intellectual and emotional capabilities to succeed McCain*, then I'd take my hat off to her, if I had a hat. But assuming at this point that this is going to be the case requires more than a little faith, and unlike Obama, she's had absolutely no experience in running a national campaign.

* Her experience to date proves nothing one way or the other about this. Right now she's a hot young pitcher in the low minors who's being brought up by the White Sox to see if she can get them into the playoffs. Stranger things have happened, but it's hardly a slam dunk given that she'll be able to make it past the second time through the Red Sox lineup.

And since I'm making baseball analogies, I'll add these: Obama is the 2008 Devil Rays---obvious talent, great regular season record, but no postseason experience to date; and McCain is either the 2006 Cardinals or the 2007 Phillies at the end of the regular season---in the postseason due to the collapse of a feeble opposition, but still with a fighting chance to keep the streak going.

There's nothing of being governor of Alaska for eighteen months, really, that prepares one to lead the US military.

What jobs do prepare someone to be commander and chief? Or to be president in general? Is experience really a predictor of success as a president? Really inexperienced presidents have been perceived to do poorly (Bush II and Carter) but also to do well (Lincoln, perhaps our least experienced president ever).

I think that perhaps being a high ranking military leader (like Colin Powell or Wes Clark) is probably really the only good training to be commander and chief. I think that both of these guys might have made outstanding presidents.

To me, I suspect that to be successful as commander and chief, a president needs to get good advice, ask good questions and demand answers, have the right amount of intellectual curiosity/rigor, accept empirical evidence, and follow through. I am sure there are other important characteristics as well. I support Obama because I believe that he has these characteristics. But I also believe McCain has them as well, so style and ideology break this tie for me.

Experience to be president is nonsense. No one really has the experience to be president.

You're being charitble to Sullivan, David. He's more like Christopher Hitchens' sister, a couple of Brits who've carefully combined professional contrarianism and insult as a way of staying in the public eye. They're both very fond of celebrity packed parties.

I'm not sure it's fair to Sullivan to throw around the term "contrarian." In person -- er, that is, on tv -- he does seem to enjoy surprising people who have made assumptions about his views, but I see nothing in his writing to suggest he doesn't believe passionately in everything he writes, even if it's the exact opposite of what he was writing a few months earlier. Hitchens, on the other hand, definitely likes attention.

If I were a movement conservative, I'd be happy about Palin, too. First, because she's in lockstep on all the hot button social issues. But more importantly, she's not one of those slugs who the polls were showing only hurt McCain.

No; I think more importantly is the first one (or, rather, an expanded version of the first one -- it's not just social issues): they like what she apparently stands for. (Given that she's one of the two people in the U.S. who have a realistic chance of being vice president, I hope I do, too.) I don't think if polls showed that Lieberman helped McCain's chances, they'd have been any happier with his selection.

(Jan Crawford Greenburg, whose reporting I think is generally good, reports that Lieberman was McCain's choice up until this week.)

Sarah Palin is the governor of a very small state. This can't be something significantly in her favor, though it beats having "city councilman" as the only bold-faced line on your resume. There's nothing of being governor of Alaska for eighteen months, really, that prepares one to lead the US military. I'm also less than sanguine about the idea that there are structures in place that will help her through a foreign policy crisis, since she'll have to choose the particular structures she wants to employ, as well as the people to whom she'll turn for advice. Balancing that, somewhat, she does seem intelligent, certainly far more intelligent than Dan Quayle. Were I an undecided, her nonexistent foreign policy experience would trouble me a great deal, whereas I would be reassured by Obama's selection of Biden. Too, as an undecided, and given all the fuss he's made over foreign policy experience, I would have to consider McCain's selection of her and his willingness to leave the nation in her inexperienced hands an extraordinarily cynical and desperate act, up there with Mondale's disgraceful selection of Geraldine Ferraro.

What, in Obama's experience, distinguishes him from this kind of analysis? I take your point: nothing she's done, besides being head of Alaska Nat'l Guard, prepares her to lead the US military (though I'm not sure what prepared Bush II, or Clinton). But what has prepared Obama for this, and he's not running for VP?

DrI: It's "commander-in-chief," not "commander and chief." Obviously being a wartime general would be helpful job experience for being president. Other than that, state governor is the closest thing we have. Being a senator and governor (not at the same time) would be even better. Vice president and governor would also be a good combination.

In the early days of the republic, Secretary of State was the main training slot, but the job has changed a lot.

What, in Obama's experience, distinguishes him from this kind of analysis? I take your point: nothing she's done, besides being head of Alaska Nat'l Guard, prepares her to lead the US military (though I'm not sure what prepared Bush II, or Clinton). But what has prepared Obama for this, and he's not running for VP?

Besides, isn't this criticism a little too cute, coming from a poster who hasn't ever met a use of the military he approved of?


EDIT: By the way, JC, if you were annoyed at the spin in describing her as a "novice governor," you're going to be really annoyed based on the commentary I've begun seeing from liberals. They've decided to ignore the inconvenient facts entirely and describe her as a "former small-town mayor" without even mentioning that she's a governor at all.

Besides, isn't this criticism a little too cute, coming from a poster who hasn't ever met a use of the military he approved of?

Cut him some slack, DMN. It's hard being fat, conservative, and fat.

I like how DiPerna and Nieporent hit all the Republican talking points--but aren't Republicans.

Since everybody on the board is paying attention and is reasonably intelligent (except for me) we can all see what those talking points will be. I saw Gingrich for about 4 min on NBC this morning, and he said about the same thing Nieporent said today and what Ray said yesterday. He also sold sex a little--talking about how he watched Biden and Palin with a "split screen with the sound off." He talked about Biden's life in Washington, and encouraged women to take a look at Palin, since "Obama passed over the woman who got 18M votes for the guy who got 9k". Gingrich, amazingly, did not mention any of Palin's actual positions in trying to appeal to these women. He also got the Joey B line about firing a gun in there, and the female newsie talking to him responded with a Cheney joke.

Then they showed Tim Kaine on Maher, and the Demo strategy is equally obvious: you can't attack a mom of 5 with a Down's syndrome baby, as snapper said yesterday, but this does fit nicely into the Demo "judgment" narrative: Kaine got on McCain about picking Palin, smirking all the while, suggesting how he was, basically, an impulsive old man with a screw loose, in the neutral language of pols. Joe Biden, of course, will get no one excited, but can be used as another example of Obama's solid common-sense judgment and humility: he wants Biden's exp at his right hand to help him guide America through these troubled times.

So we know all that.

I do agree that Biden will have to watch his tone and off-the-cuff remarks. My dad took several business trips to DC late in his career and met and worked with Biden, Simpson, Gore, Gingrich and others a few times. This was in the early-mid 1990s. He told me some anecdotes, and a lot of those old Senate lions (yes, I know Gingrich was in the House, but same kind of guy) operated with a high level of entitlement, and if Biden comes off as smirky and sexist, he will look awful--and many of those guys, on both sides of the aisle, are prone to that. The way to go after Palin is on her positions, not on personal stuff, which fits in well with the Obama unity/civility sub-narrative.

As to JC's constant references to "excitement", that goes right along with the Newtster narrative, too. Supposedly, according to the kickoff of the short interview, Gingrich said a few weeks ago that McCain "could not pick a boring white guy" so after all the crap Obama and his supporters have taken for the rock star/cult stuff--and that has come up here several times--the Repubs apparently decided they needed a little pulse-jumping going on as well.

As to whether she (and Biden) will help, I thought it over and in talking about it with friends I think the answer is "a little." I still do not think that many left/center Hillaristas will bail on Obama on Nov 4 if the Demos can get Palin's actual positions out there. However, Palin may help with some Pro-Lifers who are on the fence, if there are many such people.

As far as getting the social conservtive vote out, I have never believed it wouldn't come out anyway.

Experience to be president is nonsense. No one really has the experience to be president.

Yep. And it's also weird that people are focusing on suitability to be C-in-C. I'd much rather focus on their suitability to run the economy, suitability to negotiate with foreign powers, suitability to manage the budget, suitability to negotiate with the other side to get legislation through Congress, etc etc. Except in very major conflicts, and President is C-in-C in name only, and they listen to their generals.

As for Palin - I'm enthusiastic but as I don't have a vote I don't suppose that matters. I think it's an important choice not because it will sway many votes, but for future of the party. Whoever is chosen as VP gets a huge amount of publicity and scrutiny (I suspect most Americans had never heard of Sarah Palin before this) and their policy positions and record will be more associated with the party, and they will have a good chance to be the nominee in the future. The very poor Vice-Presidential choices the Republicans have made in the past 20 years are a good part of why the field of nominees was so weak this year. Palin is an ideal choice for this reason - she's young, she is popular, she has a good record in office, she's small-government, and she's solid on the social issues to placate the Christian right. And she also softens the image of the party - it's very dangerous to be painted as the angry, male, pro-gun, pro-war party.

I don't think the Democrats see Biden as ever being their nominee for President - he's purely a tactical choice. Palin could be a Republican nominee. If McCain goes down to honourable defeat, as I think he will, at least something will have been accomplished.

For months most of the conservative blogs I frequent have been talking up Palin and Jindal. I think Palin needs the pub more than Jindal does, and does more for the brand of the party. I think this is the perfect choice.

Well, IMO, McCain hasn't done anything to merit being commander in chief either. Flying a plane is no preparation for directing the entire military and having to construct a broad strategy in case of war.

And lest we forget, Jefferson Davis had much broader military experience than Abraham Lincoln did, yet Lincoln crushed him as a commander in chief.

There's really no job in the world that prepares you to be commander in chief. Not even something like the chairman of the Joint Chiefs, because the political dimension is so important and career military people are not involved in making political decisions and formulating diplomatic alliances and strategies, by and large.

Hey, kevin is back. Where have you been? In NY taunting Yankee fans?

As to whether she (and Biden) will help, I thought it over and in talking about it with friends I think the answer is "a little." I still do not think that many left/center Hillaristas will bail on Obama on Nov 4 if the Demos can get Palin's actual positions out there.

If she's anti-abortion, no effin way. That would be like voting for Phyllis Schlafly just because she's a woman. That just ain't happenin'.

South Africa.

rr:

I'm making these "constant" references to excitement b/c, well, the people I've been reading and talking too [too?] are, well, excited by this pick, would not have been by a Biden choice (indeed, I can nearly guarantee that more than a few of them would've swung over to Obama), and have been unenthused about McCain from the get-go. Just a for instance, the day before the pick I was talking to Brit Hume's daughter, who works for a PAC or whatever it is (some political dealy run by a very prominent Repub). I said I liked McCain. She repeated a line she had used before, about me being one of the few, and how if he chose Lieberman, you'd see people distance themselves from him (pretty clearly Bob Novak would, her dad probably would, the NR people probably would). Another for instance: I was sitting at my office desk when the announcement was made. I was grading a student's comprehensive exam when an email came in from a friend who works w/Feminists for Life. It was downright giddy. And, as it had been sent to about 75 people, in about 15 minutes, I must've had about 25-35 emails gushing about the pick.

This is no trope. It just happens to be the case.

I think it's more like the Republicans are looking for an excuse to get excited, any excuse, even a feeble one like this pick by McCain.

I said I liked McCain. She repeated a line she had used before, about me being one of the few, and how if he chose Lieberman, you'd see people distance themselves from him (pretty clearly Bob Novak would, her dad probably would, the NR people probably would).

JC -- it's hard for me to believe (although I do) that McCain would have picked Lieberman. It would have been political suicide.

I don't know about Republicans - the ones I know aren't that far right or evangelical types and were already excited by McCain - but the women I've talked to, mostly democrats, are excited about Palin. No one has said they WILL vote for McCain/Palin and some have said it won't change their votes away from Obama, but they are excited about her and, from what little they've seen so far, like her. As the Democratic nominee says, it's possible to like and respect someone you disagree with. This need not be a battle to the death. I suspect it will be a small slice of women who change their votes based on this. But it wouldn't surprise me if it is a larger number than usually change their votes based on the VP nominees.

I'm sure it's been said, but just to be obvious: come January, we'll either have a black president or a female vice president. The times, they are a changin'.

EDIT: removed asterisk that led nowhere

JC -- it's hard for me to believe (although I do) that McCain would have picked Lieberman. It would have been political suicide.

I agree. But that doesn't mean Joe wasn't his first choice. I wouldn't be surprised at all to learn that Lieberman is who he really wanted but knew it was a terrible political decision.

This is no trope. It just happens to be the case.

I don't doubt it, in terms of your own life. It is obvious that you are personally excited, and so it makes sense that people around you will be, too. That could also be said of me and Obama and the people around me. And, personally, one plus in my view about Palin is that it gives hard-line right-to-lifers a new voice on the national ticket. I am a conflicted pro-choicer, but I want the other side to have their say in this context.

That said, what I am skeptical about politically is that the "excitement" will translate into "key crossover votes in battleground states." As I noted, millions of Demos have been excited about Obama for over a year--and still are after his speech. But I don't see that as leading to him getting tens of millions more votes than John Kerry did, or necessarily into his winning Ohio, as Kerry was unable to do. Your vote does not count more because you're excited about casting it. What Obama MAY be able to do is get more young people out there, which is not getting talked about much, but could help him on 11.4. But I am skeptical about that, too.

So (unsurprisingly, I suppose) I agree with retro: if McCain was really in that much trouble with the social conservative right, he's got problems. If you think that Palin will get those people to the booth, and that will get McCain the election, so be it. But I also think that if Palin's positions are put out there forcefully and specifically, a lot of people will see Obama and Biden as the safe, "moderate" pick and go that way as well.

You are doing a good job of making Palin's case.

Lieberman is radioactive right now. He's the new Benedict Arnold.

JC -- it's hard for me to believe (although I do) that McCain would have picked Lieberman. It would have been political suicide.

I doubt that was ever seriously on the table, but they had to act like it was, because of the way Lieberman has tried to help McCain.

suitability to manage the budget

I think you expect to much from politicians! Few, if any, give any indication that they are capable of this.

Obviously being a wartime general would be helpful job experience for being president. Other than that, state governor is the closest thing we have.

I understand that it is similar, in that the governor is executive of a government. So it demonstrates either an ability or inability to run a somewhat smaller bureaucracy. But I think that one of the really critical roles of the president is to set and execute the foreign policy agenda. The president can only influence and veto legislation, does not really run the economy or any such thing like that; so foreign policy, the military, and the bureaucracy are some of the few things that the president really "controls."

What about being a governor prepares a person to run foreign policy? One place where a person can (possibly) gain some small amount of foreign policy experience is the Senate, so I agree with DMN's Governor+Senator combination.

DrI: It's "commander-in-chief," not "commander and chief."

Noted. Though it is lucky that I can type at all, as I am trying to fix my wife's computer and preparing the house for a new puppy. Besides, "commander and chief" sounds way cooler. If I were president, that would be the title I would want.

You're being charitble to Sullivan, David. He's more like Christopher Hitchens' sister, a couple of Brits who've carefully combined professional contrarianism and insult as a way of staying in the public eye. They're both very fond of celebrity packed parties.

I'm not sure it's fair to Sullivan to throw around the term "contrarian." In person -- er, that is, on tv -- he does seem to enjoy surprising people who have made assumptions about his views, but I see nothing in his writing to suggest he doesn't believe passionately in everything he writes, even if it's the exact opposite of what he was writing a few months earlier. Hitchens, on the other hand, definitely likes attention.

That underlined part is exactly what I was talking about, and it's why I have a hard time taking Sullivan too seriously. He can be almost Leninist in his rhetoric one minute, and then as soon as he changes his mind he'll be just as unforgiving towards those he was agreeeing with five minutes earlier. He has absolutely no sense of humility whatever---the only possible "correct" position is whatever Andrew Sullivan proclaims it to be at any given moment.

Hitchens isn't so much a flip-flopper, as much as he's a strange mix of neocon views on Iraq and in-your-face cultural leftism---until Saddam Hussein came along, his # 1 villain on Earth seemed to be Mother Teresa. But as with Sullivan, if you disagree with Hitchens you'd better have cannister of Mace handy to protect yourself.

If I were a movement conservative, I'd be happy about Palin, too. First, because she's in lockstep on all the hot button social issues. But more importantly, she's not one of those slugs who the polls were showing only hurt McCain.

No; I think more importantly is the first one (or, rather, an expanded version of the first one -- it's not just social issues): they like what she apparently stands for. (Given that she's one of the two people in the U.S. who have a realistic chance of being vice president, I hope I do, too.) I don't think if polls showed that Lieberman helped McCain's chances, they'd have been any happier with his selection.

My first point had to do with cultural identification, but my second point had to do with electibility. I should have made that a bit clearer.

-----------

[Gingrich] talked about Biden's life in Washington, and encouraged women to take a look at Palin, since "Obama passed over the woman who got 18M votes for the guy who got 9k". Gingrich, amazingly, did not mention any of Palin's actual positions in trying to appeal to these women.

I was beyond amazed myself. I was positively shocked.

That said, what I am skeptical about politically is that the "excitement" will translate into "key crossover votes in battleground states."

I don't think any VP candidate can accomplish that. Frankly it's hard enough for a Presidential candidate to accomplish that in this day and age. You are setting the bar much too high.

rr:

One point I keep trying to make is that I don't think choosing Palin was about getting crossover votes or HRCs millions. I think it was about galvanizing and energizing the base. The Republicans can win w/o HRC's women. They can't win w/o evangelical men and women.

What Alou said; and also, what DMN said before: she's also legit small gov't. She's attractive to the libertarian types, though I doubt attractive enough to get DMN or Ray not to vote for Bob Barrf.

for Bob Barrf

.

Typo? ;-

I don't think any VP candidate can accomplish that. Frankly it's hard enough for a Presidential candidate to accomplish that in this day and age. You are setting the bar much too high.

I agree. As noted, I do not think either Biden or Palin will make much of a difference.

Link to WP selection of reactions to Palin.

The analyses are rather clearly partisan, but some are still kinda interesting, I think. One uses the word "giddy."

One point I keep trying to make is that I don't think choosing Palin was about getting crossover votes or HRCs millions. I think it was about galvanizing and energizing the base. The Republicans can win w/o HRC's women. They can't win w/o evangelical men and women.

JC, given the huge Democratic advantage in registration, how on Earth will McCain get elected without crossover votes, including a sizeable number of disgruntled pro-choice feminists? The Obama coalition base right now is a lot bigger than the base controlled by the religious right.

This isn't to argue with your point about exciting the evangelicals. That seems beyond question. But evangelicals, Iraq war supporters and hardcore freemarketers alone don't add up to a majority of voters, especially since those are often overlapping categories.

I'm nominally a lib type and I'd rather see Barr drawn and quartered than elected president. He's not a libertarian. He's an odious big government social conservative desperate enough to stay in the public spotlight that he's willing to lie to a minor party to win their nomination. I'm fine with the libertarian party being a principled small party that gives voice to (mostly) my point of view. But if they're going to go after a "name" to try to gain votes, they need to play the whole game.

They've seen the last money from me for a long time.

Not sure if anyone has mentioned it yet, but Sarah Palin hates polar bears

I doubt that was ever seriously on the table, but they had to act like it was, because of the way Lieberman has tried to help McCain.

Was there anyone on the planet who actually thought that Lieberman as VP would be a good idea? From the various polls, even Jewish voters were less likely to vote for McCain if Lieberman was on the ticket. At this point, I think it's safe to say that no one likes that guy - Democrats know that they shouldn't trust him, and Republicans wisely suspect that they shouldn't trust him.

More than any other politician I've ever seen (and this includes Hillary), Lieberman is only interested in whatever benefits him most.

JC, given the huge Democratic advantage in registration, how on Earth will McCain get elected without crossover votes, including a sizeable number of disgruntled pro-choice feminists?

Registered Democrats tend to turn out to vote at a lower percentage than Republicans. I'm guessing it has something to do with Democrats skewing younger than Republicans - not that young people are necessarily more irresponsible, but that they're more likely to be working at places in which they have less control over their schedules, more trouble getting to the voting stations, or additional family responsibilities that interfere with their free time.

For the purposes of this argument, I'm using "Young" to mean "Less than 40".

More than any other politician I've ever seen (and this includes Hillary), Lieberman is only interested in whatever benefits him most.

My favorite Lieberman moment came way back in 1998, when he was moralizing up the wazoo about Monicagate---on the Imus show. I was seriously crushed when McCain didn't choose him.

Not sure if anyone has mentioned it yet, but Sarah Palin hates polar bears

Yes, environmental issues are what worry me about her. Her stance on global warming is neolithic. But hopefully this is simply tactical as she was governor of Alaska which has a unique environmental situation - I very much doubt you can get elected there with any kind of green platform.

In national politics though I think it's a tactically poor decision. The Republicans should reverse course and become a "green" party. It will cost them nothing, it is a way of reaching out to new voters, particularly the young, and it softens the image. And after all, what could be more conservative than conservation? This tactic has worked wonders for David Cameron in Britain.

I was seriously crushed when McCain didn't choose him.

So was I. I suspect, however, that the registered Republicans were extremely relieved. It's a bad sign when your own party isn't pleased with your selection. It's even worse when the other party is celebrating it. If McCain had picked Lieberman, the Democrats would have extended the DNC for another three days for a massive drunken blowout of celebration. Obama could have gone on TV and claimed to not only be a secret Muslim, but also the actual leader of Al Qaeda, and people would have responded with "Yeah, that's not good, but at least he's not Lieberman".

I'm obviously being a bit over the top here, but people really seem to hate Lieberman in a way I haven't really seen before. The closest equivalent I can think of would probably be something like Nixon in 1973 or, for the Canadians out there, Kim Campbell the day after her campaign released a campaign ad making fun of Jean Cretien's Bell's Palsy and resulting facial paralysis.

The Republicans should reverse course and become a "green" party. It will cost them nothing

It would cost them my vote. Though I doubt that concerns them, as they probably won't get my vote this November anyway.

But hopefully this is simply tactical as she was governor of Alaska which has a unique environmental situation - I very much doubt you can get elected there with any kind of green platform.

Are you sure about that? Alaska has several towns which are actually sinking due to the melting of the permafrost. People tend to get pissed off when their house suddenly drops below ground level. You'd have to call it something other than "Green", but you could run on it.

EDIT: Also, there are a lot of hunters up there, who would be really upset if a lot of the large game starts disappearing.

It would cost them my vote. Though I doubt that concerns them, as they probably won't get my vote this November anyway.

So it would cost them nothing.

"Obama passed over the woman who got 18M votes for the guy who got 9k"

Wow, I would have thought that argument would have lost a lot of traction with McCain's choice of Palin. It's hard to point at Obama and say that he's morally obliged to select the person who got the second-most votes and then turn around and pick someone who wasn't even running.

Sarah Palin hates polar bears

This guarantees that she'll be on the Colbert Report, right?

I'm obviously being a bit over the top here, but people really seem to hate Lieberman in a way I haven't really seen before. The closest equivalent I can think of would probably be something like Nixon in 1973

I don't think you have to go back that far. Just remember what the Republicans were saying when Jim Jeffords switched parties in 2001 and thereby gave the Democrats control of the Senate.

And in both cases, it was pretty much the party that they left that really hated them. I don't think that the Republicans "hate" Lieberman at all; if they did, he wouldn't have been invited to speak at their convention. I think that the neocons love him and most of the rest of them (outside the evangelicals) think of him as a sort of useful idiot. But nobody outside the neocons (and of course the Democrats) would ever have wanted him on the McCain ticket.

Lieberman is radioactive right now. He's the new Benedict Arnold.

But he does have a very important role in this eleection.

He's going to visit every group of old Jews he can find to tell them how dangerous Obama is for Israel.

I think one of the interesting things in this election is how the Jewish vote breaks. Instead of the usual 75:25 for the Democrats, it will be much nearer 50:50. I think that's why the Dems have basically written off Florida.

In general, I think a lot of suburban types are all pro-Obama with their liberal friends and to pollsters, and when they get in the voting booth will decide they don't want the tax hikes, etc.

One point I keep trying to make is that I don't think choosing Palin was about getting crossover votes or HRCs millions. I think it was about galvanizing and energizing the base. The Republicans can win w/o HRC's women. They can't win w/o evangelical men and women.

If that was the main calculus, then Mike Huckabee would be the VP choice. I don't think there's any question that Palin's gender played a large part in the decision-making. Palin herself drove this point home yesterday morning with her comments about HRC and how the "women of America are not done yet."

I think that's why the Dems have basically written off Florida.

Yeah, right.

I think one of the interesting things in this election is how the Jewish vote breaks. Instead of the usual 75:25 for the Democrats, it will be much nearer 50:50. I think that's why the Dems have basically written off Florida.

To quote from an August 28th poll:

Twenty-seven percent of voters in Florida, where there's a large concentration of Jewish voters, say they're less likely to back McCain with Lieberman on the ticket. Half that -- 14% -- say they're more likely. Fifty-six percent say Lieberman's presence would make no difference.

Poll

Let him campaign in Florida. It'll increase the odds that people will vote for Obama.

Also, from 538 in early July:

Perhaps the more important news out of the state, however, is that Joe Liberman's approval ratings have fallen to 45 percent. A rating that low is relatively unprecedented for a Senator who was just re-elected 20 months ago and has not had a major scandal befall him.

People just don't like, or trust, Lieberman.

In national politics though I think it's a tactically poor decision. The Republicans should reverse course and become a "green" party. It will cost them nothing,

It will cost them all the big business dollar donations that they get to suppress or unenforce needed regulation.

If Dems are smart they'll ignore Palin and go after McCain, even Biden in the VP debate. Nobody is going to vote for VP in November.

The thing about by bewildered reaction to this choice wasn't to Palin herself, of whom I knew nothing and is obviously no Dan Quayle, but to McCain. There was something about the expression on his face, and the pick itself, that caused me to think grandpa is exhibiting first-stage dementia. This pick reflects poorly upon McCain, as does the fact that he supports Bush policies wholeheartedly, as does much of his personal background, history and behavior. The only real good thing he's got going for him is getting shot down and captured in Vietnam and surviving that ordeal. The rest of his biography, as Ark pointed out, is questionable.

It's not that Palin is unsuitable to be President, but that McCain is. The Dems need to pound the crap out of him and make sure the focus stays on McCain's shortcomings. This is what the Republicans are so adept at doing. Bush I in '88 ran one of the emptiest campaigns of all time, focusing on Willie Horton, ACLU, and Dukakis riding in a tank -- Bush was irrelevant, people voted against Dukakis. 2004, pretty much the same thing. People hated Bush even then, his approval ratings were in the 30's, but the election became more about Kerry's shortcomings than Bush's.

Obama better be up by a sizable margin on election day, 'cause a few percentage points Dem lead tends to disappear in the counting of the ballots.

Going green won't cost them anything -- they talk green, make cosmetic changes that are good pr, and keep on with business as usual.

That's how big polluting and environment-wrecking corporations do it.

If that was the main calculus, then Mike Huckabee would be the VP choice. I don't think there's any question that Palin's gender played a large part in the decision-making. Palin herself drove this point home yesterday morning with her comments about HRC and how the "women of America are not done yet."

Agreed.

There was something about the expression on his face, and the pick itself, that caused me to think grandpa is exhibiting first-stage dementia.

Um, that expression was the result of him checking out her ass, not dementia. Seriously, he spends half of her speech looking down.

The thing about by bewildered reaction to this choice wasn't to Palin herself, of whom I knew nothing and is obviously no Dan Quayle, but to McCain. There was something about the expression on his face, and the pick itself, that caused me to think grandpa is exhibiting first-stage dementia. This pick reflects poorly upon McCain, as does the fact that he supports Bush policies wholeheartedly, as does much of his personal background, history and behavior. The only real good thing he's got going for him is getting shot down and captured in Vietnam and surviving that ordeal. The rest of his biography, as Ark pointed out, is questionable.

This is an incredibly measured, astute analysis.

If that was the main calculus, then Mike Huckabee would be the VP choice. I don't think there's any question that Palin's gender played a large part in the decision-making. Palin herself drove this point home yesterday morning with her comments about HRC and how the "women of America are not done yet."

Didn't Huckabee flop as a candidate? I don't think he made sense.

What, in Obama's experience, distinguishes him from this kind of analysis? I take your point: nothing she's done, besides being head of Alaska Nat'l Guard, prepares her to lead the US military (though I'm not sure what prepared Bush II, or Clinton). But what has prepared Obama for this, and he's not running for VP?

JC, I don't know why, but I like you, so I'll write slowly here. I've... never... said... Obama... was... particularly... qualified... to... be... Commander...-in...-Chief..., indeed, his lack of experience in that regard concerns me, as is his willingness to spout off aggressively from time to time with regard to the use of force, particularly when it's clearly a campaign stunt. I have to believe that being in the Senate for three and a half years is, in general, better training for the Presidency than one and a half years as the governor of Alaska, but it's not a huge difference. And I agree that the issue is different in that Obama is running for the presidency, and Palin is running for the vice-presidency. The comparison has to be that Obama will have Biden around in times of crisis (assuming you think that's at least somewhat of a good thing), but that Palin won't have McCain around (assuming you think that's a bad thing) should she have to take over as president. If you want to assert Obama is insufficiently experienced, by all means make the case. As long as we're not pushing campaign strategies, Obama is indeed something of a roll of the dice, though I am somewhat heartened by his far more often than not measured statements about intervention and the use of force

And, hey, I'm not fat nor fat.

Ignoring for the moment the train-tunnel-sized rectum of David's personal strawman, I fully support the use of the military to arrest David and detain him indefinitely as the sole prisoner at Guantanamo. What sweet justice that his favorite team has been destroyed by the avarice of... wait for it... a fellow lawyer!

Ah, bliss.

I doubt that was ever seriously on the table, but they had to act like it was, because of the way Lieberman has tried to help McCain.

Jan Crawford Greenburg says it was, and as I said, in my experience she's a reliable reporter. As she tells it, McCain wanted him -- not anybody else, but McCain. But they had to twist his arm to get him to admit how bad an idea it would be, and he wouldn't relent until the last minute.

Going green won't cost them anything -- they talk green, make cosmetic changes that are good pr, and keep on with business as usual.

It's not enough for the donors just to expect their hired electors drag their feet, Alex. The Republicans are determined to unravel 30 years of environmental progress. That requires acts of commission, not just omission.

JC, I don't know why, but I like you,

My wife's initial reply when I proposed.

he comparison has to be that Obama will have Biden around in times of crisis (assuming you think that's at least somewhat of a good thing), but that Palin won't have McCain around (assuming you think that's a bad thing) should she have to take over as president.

I don't get this argument. If McCain dies and Palin takes over the presidency, she's not forced to govern for the rest of the term without a vice-president. President Palin is allowed to pick a vice-president that's more experienced in foreign policy to be around in times of crisis, like Dick Lugar.

Didn't Huckabee flop as a candidate? I don't think he made sense.

Well, he didn't win the nomination (obviously), but he won the Iowa Caucus and seven other states during the primary run, and outlasted Romney with a fraction of the resources of either McCain or Romney. The "flop" label ought to be reserved for someone like Giuliani.

I've also checked many other conservative blogs, and most seem enthusiastic.

When life hands you a lemon . . .

Plus, you could argue Biden flopped too and I'm not hearing an uproar of disapproval over him.

When life hands you a lemon . . .


I heard some Democratic commentator (I forget where and not necessarily a representative of the party) say that this pick reminds him of Harriet Miers, but that case showed that conservatives will not sit on their tongues if their party does something they really don't like. I think the enthusiasm for Palin is genuine (even if she may not be each individual or blog's number one candidate) and this is reflective of the Republican movement as a whole. The points about Lieberman are likely true; I don't think you'd have seen a similar reaction if Lieberman was the nominee.

I think the Palin pick also allows the Republicans to highlight the issue of (perceived) corruption. Palin has a strong ethical record (I think the criticisms about her conduct with the brother-in-law will be outweighed by her time of the Ethics Commission, her resignation and other similar actions) and this will allow the Republicans to portray her as a Washington outsider and also repeat their criticisms of Obama (Reszko, etc...). Whether the criticisms are valid or not, she's a strong pick in that sense and gives them something that some of the other nominees didn't.

I'm nominally a lib type and I'd rather see Barr drawn and quartered than elected president. He's not a libertarian. He's an odious big government social conservative desperate enough to stay in the public spotlight that he's willing to lie to a minor party to win their nomination. I'm fine with the libertarian party being a principled small party that gives voice to (mostly) my point of view. But if they're going to go after a "name" to try to gain votes, they need to play the whole game.

1. I see no evidence that Barr did this because he was "desperate enough to stay in the spotlight that he was willing to lie..." For one thing, he's not in the spotlight; he's the Libertarian nominee. Any resemblance between that and a spotlight is purely coincidental. For another, he didn't suddenly adopt these positions in 2008; he's been sounding more and more libertarian since 2004. There are a lot easier ways for a politician to stay in the spotlight than to descend into near obscurity for years and adopt entirely new positions just for the tiny chance that a third party will choose him as their nominee.

2. He's running on the Libertarian ticket. He's not getting elected president. So what possible difference does it make whether he's sincere or not? We care whether a Demopublican is sincere because after he gets elected, he has to govern, and we want to know if he's going to do what he says he's going to do. But if we're voting Libertarian (and we're sane), we're doing it to try to get (a) ballot access for the Libertarian Party, (b) media attention for the Libertarian Party in the hopes that this will get media attention for the libertarian agenda, and (c) mainstream politicians' attention so that they'll realize we're an interest group they need to appeal to if they want to pick up a bloc of votes. A high vote total for Barr accomplishes exactly the same things whether he's sincere or not.

Going green won't cost them anything -- they talk green, make cosmetic changes that are good pr, and keep on with business as usual.

That's how big polluting and environment-wrecking corporations do it.

Well honestly this is what I meant, yes. Talk green and don't do anything about it beyond having your candidate make a big show of cycling to work or something. Put forward legislation that looks well-meaning but allow it to die in committee, then blame the Democrats for obstructionism. I'm talking about positioning not policy.

I think the Palin pick also allows the Republicans to highlight the issue of (perceived) corruption. Palin has a strong ethical record (I think the criticisms about her conduct with the brother-in-law will be outweighed by her time of the Ethics Commission, her resignation and other similar actions) and this will allow the Republicans to portray her as a Washington outsider and also repeat their criticisms of Obama (Reszko, etc...). Whether the criticisms are valid or not, she's a strong pick in that sense and gives them something that some of the other nominees didn't.

I don't know. Picking a candidate for her "ethics" while she's currently under an ethical investigation seems like an awfully big risk. What she's alleged to have done sounds unethical. Most people aren't going to dig into the details to decide whether that's fair or not, especially if "ethics" are a centerpiece of what she's running on. If you want to be the "ethical" candidate, I would think you'd need to be more pure than Caesar's wife.

I think the enthusiasm for Palin is genuine (even if she may not be each individual or blog's number one candidate) and this is reflective of the Republican movement as a whole.

I think the enthusiasm for Palin is genuine as well, and I believe it comes from the same place that the Democrats' enthusiasm for Obama comes from. She's part of the GOP's future, and there's real excitement that a future that includes people like Palin and Jindal will look more like America and less like the clones the GOP trotted out for the 2008 primaries.

When life hands you a lemon . . .

What do you do when life hands you ####?

I've also checked many other conservative blogs, and most seem enthusiastic.

When life hands you a lemon . . .

I disagree; these are not active Republican politicians, who would have to feign enthusiasm even if they hated the pick. These are people who are happy to criticize Republicans when they're upset over stupid moves.

EDIT: As Eskimo writes in 1381 regarding Harriet Miers. (And even in that case, Republican politicians were willing to snipe at her anonymously. I haven't seen any such sniping about Palin.)

I agree. As noted, I do not think either Biden or Palin will make much of a difference.

No argument with the conclusion, rr, but they really don't have to. Given how close the polls have this race, a small difference in the voting is likely to make a huge difference in the outcome.

I don't get this argument. If McCain dies and Palin takes over the presidency, she's not forced to govern for the rest of the term without a vice-president. President Palin is allowed to pick a vice-president that's more experienced in foreign policy to be around in times of crisis, like Dick Lugar.

Leaving aside the merits of Dick Lugar, the difference is not insignificant. Even by January 21, 2009, Obama and Biden will have spent a lot of time together. Palin and Lugar, if McCain has, say, a stroke, nowhere near as much time. I hope that if McCain wins Palin will continue to study foreign policy to the exclusion of much else, in the same way I hope Obama spends a lot of his time with Biden talking foreign policy.

As to JC's constant references to "excitement", that goes right along with the Newtster narrative, too. Supposedly, according to the kickoff of the short interview, Gingrich said a few weeks ago that McCain "could not pick a boring white guy" so after all the crap Obama and his supporters have taken for the rock star/cult stuff--and that has come up here several times--the Repubs apparently decided they needed a little pulse-jumping going on as well.

Yes, but the difference is that the Republicans created a rock star out of someone who has actually been in a band.

No argument with the conclusion, rr, but they really don't have to. Given how close the polls have this race, a small difference in the voting is likely to make a huge difference in the outcome

.

Fair point. The keys are the Rust Belt and a couple of states in the Southwest/Rockies. But I am not at all sure either Biden or Palin can turn any of those states.

Yes, but the difference is that the Republicans created a rock star out of someone who has actually been in a band.

You should just quit your job and go to work for McCain or Limbaugh. You are #2 only to Joey in the right-wing one-liners category here.

But hey, you don't dislike Obama. You'd go to dinner with him and the Mrs.

Hitchens isn't so much a flip-flopper, as much as he's a strange mix of neocon views on Iraq and in-your-face cultural leftism---until Saddam Hussein came along, his # 1 villain on Earth seemed to be Mother Teresa. But as with Sullivan, if you disagree with Hitchens you'd better have cannister of Mace handy to protect yourself.

Andy, I just got invited, and will be in attendance, at a lunchtime Hitchens debate in the city on September 22nd. Entitled "Does science make belief in God obsolete?" If you would like me to deliver a message to Hitch for you, let me know.

Dinner with the Obamas and lunch with Hitchens.
Ray hits the big-time.

But hey, you don't dislike Obama. You'd go to dinner with him and the Mrs.

As long as they served from the right!

[rimshot]

If you watch or read a transcript of Palin's speech yesterday, she didn't talk about how government is there to Save People. Not one word about how people are entitled to quality of life (health insurance, etc.) from the government. She just spoke about accomplishments -- hers, her husband's, her son's, and McCain's. She spoke about helping people -- by giving them their own money back.

Did you get a tingle? Like Chris Matthews? (one of your earlier targets)

Not really. I do think Palin will bring the house down this week. As was discussed above, Republicans and conservatives (and a lot of women) are genuinely excited about her.

The contrast between the Change Candidate picking Biden and George Bush III picking Palin is striking.

What Alou said; and also, what DMN said before: she's also legit small gov't. She's attractive to the libertarian types, though I doubt attractive enough to get DMN or Ray not to vote for Bob Barrf.

JC: If McCain picked me, it wouldn't get me not to vote for Barr. (Then again, I -- like Ray -- live in a very very very blue state; who we vote for doesn't matter.)

I think the Biden pick is good. Obama's the change guy. Biden's the gravitas guy. It's a good ticket.

JC: If McCain picked me, it wouldn't get me not to vote for Barr. (Then again, I -- like Ray -- live in a very very very blue state; who we vote for doesn't matter.)

Well, I respect your decision, but I think it's unfortunate. McCain/Palin might just slow down gov't growth. And, re "the vote doesn't count": I get that, but isn't there something to being counted nonetheless, as having thrown yourself in w/someone? I mean, I'll vote McCain in MD, fully expecting the state to go blue, in part b/c I want my vote to count towards the final total, in part to bring the state vote closer.