She didn't outline a Unified Field Theory either, but you expect an awful lot from one debut speech. She's supplying a great deal already, in competent enough fashion.

Face it; the secular libertarians and the pre-McGovern liberals don't have a political party. You disdain the Republican Party, and the Democratic Party disdains you.

S'OK, Glen - I'm patient!!

A.L.

Armed Liberal:

She's obviously smart, funny, and a damn good speaker (admit it - you all had glimpses of 'Fargo' there for a minute or two, didn't you?).

Yah.

You could be right. But your own party's convention isn't the place for that, no matter which party you're from. At best, you lay the foundations for that sort of thing, and build it up later during the campaign.

Besides which, AL, 2 immediate priorites overshadowed your proposed approach at this convention, and made it unwise.

One is the need to unify a GOP that has lost faith in its own leaders, and also doesn't like them very much. Since you can't get elected without your own party members working on your behalf, that's a "must fix" even if other things have to be sacrificed - because none of those other things will matter if it isn't fixed.

As former Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney always says, "Ya dance with those that brung ya." Or at the very least, you dance with them first.

Palin has done a decent job of fixing that first problem, judging by the party reactions. Or at least putting a band-aid on it that will hold during the election. The party will have to reform itself to really fix this problem, and Obama's use of the electronic medium as a way of surfacing, vetting, and generating momentum for policy ideas actually offers a ton of good tips if the GOP is smart enough to take notes.

Palin's necessary second priority was her main assignment, as discussed in my other post today - "Puncture the Obama myth." Which she also did a pretty good job with, and will continue to focus on. Just as Biden will focus on McCain, albeit in a different way.

Once Obama is clearly set as a phony in enough people's minds, a conversation has room to begin re the "fixing Washington" stuff. Only then will Obama's empty rhetoric about this topic, coupled with seeing no evil in the Democratic Party as they've done corrupt things, be absent as complicating noise.

Recall the seminal marketing book "Positioning." When it comes to occupying a given position in the consumer's mind, There Can Be Only One.

And Obama stepped into it first, in terms of this campaign. Yes, I know McCain has been doing this a long time, but in terms of this campaign, Obama is first. Which means the only way for her to really distinguish her ticket with it, is if Obama falls out. Otherwise, it's a wash and there's no major effect, just 2 sides both claiming the same mantle.

Fortunately, Obama's actions, and inactions, have handed the GOP a bunch of opportunities to break his positioning.

At which point, Palin can begin to define "Sarah's tribe". If she wants to. And if she can pull it off. It's a tricky thing, and actually very hard to do without long term grassroots investment to back the public campaign. Or a very compliant media. She hasn't done the grassroots stuff, as Reagan had. And she's a Republican - so unlike Obama, she'll never have the lapdog media.

I personally do not expect the kind of realignment you describe, despite the consistent upward trend of independents disgusted by both major parties. A much more realistic and likely outcome, even if she goes for realignment, is a conditional victory.

That kind of victory can later be solidifed. Up in Canada, Prime Minister Stephen Harper provides an excellent example with his solid and respect-winning approach after a minority government victory.

I do note that McCain tonight talked quite a bit about changing the culture of Washington. (As my wife said, good luck with that.) I think McCain's points about the aristocratic nature of politicians in both parties was right on, and his call for the GOP to reform itself was also spot on. (The speech generally was fairly lackluster.) Whether he can do it is another thing, but I think the Palin pick gave him the credibility within his party to have the conversation without being ignored.

To Jeff's point... there is a party insurgency of GOP reformers in several states. Some are succeeding (Gov. Jindal in Louisiana, for instance). Many others are being fought tooth and nail by GOP party establishments.

Given that these establishments have delivered failure where it counts, however, they will not survive forever. Indeed, I suspect that many of their days are numbered.

I mentioned the need to knock Obama off his fake positioning in the short term. But there's a second imperative required for longer-term success of the kind AL describes, and it's within Palin's own party.

Joe Biden:

"I heard a very -- by the way, and I mean that sincerely -- very strong and a very good political speech from a lieutenant governor of Alaska, who I think will be very formidable -- and very formidable not only in the campaign," Biden said. "But I was equally impressed by what I didn't hear."

link

Why do the Dems insist on belittling Palin? I mean, what kind of slip-up is this? If it was on purpose, well thats just despicable. If its an accident (which I assume), it certainly betrays what Biden really thinks. A fairly straightforward Freudian slip, no?

I know one thing, if the shoe was on the other foot there would be a crap storm from the feminists over this. The NOWs refusal to defend Palin fits nicely next to the nail Bill Clinton helped them put in their credibility coffin.

AL, as I posted before with Ezra Klein's reaction to the speech. Basically saying that while attack dog is certainly a needed position. A greater speech would demonstrate Palin as an attack dog AND a great leader (yes, that's pretty much the same thing you said AL)

Another blog I was reading (can't seeem to find it now...) noted that Palin's lack of renown may hurt her message. Someone who already has established a position of cultural authority can get away with it (Thompson, Guilliani, Clintons etc), but with Palin, some less-informed public might say "Who is this unknown person, who gets on my tv hurling insults?". Don't know if it's an accurate idea or not, but it's a theory.

Again, mostly read the feedback but I haven't gotten all the way through the speech yet. Trying to finish my work early, and then go home and clean up the backyard before I get hit by Hanna.

Mark: I agree, the dems should not belittle Palin. They should let her get on the stage, and then continually hurl her own record back at her. She has enough flip-flops and dusty closets to puncture her myth as well.

Treat her like a big dog, bash her like a big dog.

I think McCain makes the same mistake with Obama. Just because you have a better record, doesn't mean you'll win. Demonstrate your successes, demonstrate your presidential plan, demonstrate that you are hands down the better candidate. Drilling oil and POW stories isn't enough.

I agree with that sentiment. Obama and Biden are making a huge mistake, and it is ironic, because if they lived by what they preach they would simply ignore her gender and she wouldnt have half the attention she now has.

As far as content, energy policy (oil, nuke plants, infrastructure) and national defense are two huge issues, and they certainly can be a centerpiece for a republican ticket.

And i keep hearing people projecting their expectations on what they expect to hear from McCain and Palin. McCain can't give you his national healthcare plan, because he doesn't want one. Etc. Its been driving me nuts hearing the media anchors demand goodies from conservatives, obviously without a hint of an indication that they understand that is precisely what a conservative is trying to thwart.

IE- 'He keeps talking about shrinking the government, but when's he gonna stop with the rhetoric and propose some new programs?'

AL: as already noted, it was McCain himself who took up the populist message Thursday night. I don't think he did so very effectively (I'd rate the speech overall as average), but I do think he's probably the only long-time GOP Washington insider who can credibly pitch it. Palin's speech laid the groundwork for the idea and was tailored to transfer the enthusiasm for her into enthusiasm for McCain's populist reform schtick.

I watched both speeches in the company of a bunch of die-hard liberal friends. During Palin's speech, they were grudgingly impressed and started worrying about Obama's chances. McCain's speech got the usual derision, but someone noted it was strange to see both parties pitching the same kind of message. I replied that 2008 seems to be a year where populism is in fashion; give us a decade or so, and elitism will be back in vogue.

McCain can't give you his national healthcare plan, because he doesn't want one. Etc.

That's fine, give me a plan for something else (Foreign policy, recovering the economy, rebuilding the military etc). Outline for me what your presidency will look like.

Or better yet come up with a different solution. Whether or not you agree with a national healthcare plan, you should agree with your constituents that there IS a crisis. Saying that, as president, you're not interested in the problem is not going to win votes. McCain, tell me how you believe we can solve this crisis?

I still would consider voting for McCain. But he's got to give me a reason WHY. (excluding anti-obama or pro-veteran sentiments).

I still would consider voting for McCain. But he's got to give me a reason WHY. (excluding anti-obama or pro-veteran sentiments).

I saw McCain's speech (and VP choice) as saying his basic goal is to try and crack down on crony capitalism and self-dealing in the federal government - irrespective of party.

I don't know that he can do it (George Bush ran as a uniter), but it's not a bad message. He (and she) have done it in the past. Whether or not it appeals to you? Only you can decide that.

Yes, SG it definately appeals to me, but it's not an easy (or easy to define) goal. The first question is how? It's great to say that you're going to crack down on cronyism, but I find it impossible to merit that idea without at least some formulation where to start. (I'm going to watch the speech now, but I assume he was vague on how he plans to accomplish this).

I assume he was vague on how he plans to accomplish this

Absolutely. His speech was much more of biography, and implying that his history and character was such that you could trust him to do what he says, that it was an actual plan on how to accomplish it. The closest I heard him give to a plan was his promise to veto earmark spending bills.

Promised to drill offshore and build nuke plants. Promised clean coal. Promised to expand renewables and electrics.

Promised to promote school choice, specifically charter schools.

Promised to fund community colleges.

Promised to fund job retraining and interim stipends.

Promised to double the child tax credit.

He's got specific healthcare and tax plans for anybody that wants details. An acceptance speech just isnt the place for wonky specifics. I'm sure the debates will delve into more details.

Biden's response was smart - back to issues. Those issues won't always be his friend - but the more he attacks Palin directly, the worse it is for him. He'll always lose less with the issues.

Besides, as I've pointed out before, his job is McCain, NOT Palin.

As for Obama... really, there's very little Biden can do to defend him from Palin. So he won't address that. That's mostly going to be Obama's own cross to bear.

I think one of the distinctions between a liberal and conservative is on the issue of campaigning on a plan. Conservatives campaign on principles and values. Liberals propose plans to give them bona fides on their principles and values. Since the President is not a legislator, these plans are not worth much of anything.

Take health care. All the Democratic candidates put together their detailed plans and argued which was better. The lesson of the Clinton health care debacle is that there are at least 50 Senators who are going to want their say on the specifics. What the real question always should have been is which candidate can best sell federalized healthcare to the country. The answer would probably have been found by going on Fox and advocating a plan and answering tough criticisms.

[Rebecca: It has come to my attention that what you posted here was substantially a carbon copy of stuff you've posted elsewhere, even down to the trailing slogan all in caps with three exclamation points. You have made zero prior contributions to this blog.

This will be your only warning. Contribute substance, great. Deliver another drive-by and you will be banned. --NM]

[Edited for the sake of fairness]

A.L. et. al.,

Forgive me if this has been discussed but it is a Ticket. McCain finished the other half of the sentence you were looking for.

I have heard that M&P are actually working together. i.e. she is not a token woman.

BTW A.L. did you miss the part about "a servant's heart"?

Palin has a traditional role in the campaign. Attack dog. I recently read that Biden will not be assuming that role in the debates because he is afraid of being gutted. As they say in some quarters - Heh.

How is McCain planning to deal with crony capitalism? I will veto the Bill and you will know their names. Sounds like a good start to me. And it is something he can actually do.

BTW McCain's plan for health care was right out in the open. Make health insurance an Interstate Market.

What is interesting to me is that because it was not a traditional PLAN no one here heard it. What does the McCain plan mean? State legislatures will no longer be able to lard up insurance regulations with various mandates. If you don't want "every last dime" coverage you will be able to buy real insurance - i.e. coverage for unacceptable risks.

Let's not critique her speech, let's critique the liberal illuminati and what they're trying to do with this country. We can not afford to become a socialist country. That has nothing to do with her speech!