Good informative post, Joe. Thanks for the link to To the Point News. Cool.

I agree with just about the whole post, particularly the underlying point that critics of either VP pick should bear some burden to defend their own alternatives. The job is a tough fill since it is a secondary role with little duties. What's somewhat conventional is that the two picks reflect where such people are found: the wise elder politician looking for a capstone on their career, like a Biden or a Cheney, or an up-and-comer seeking to find a way onto the national stage like a Palin or an Edwards.

Joe,
Biden?
A guy who has spent 35 years sitting inside the Beltway and accomplished what?
Of course his "leader" is a guy who spent 4 years inside the Beltway and accomplished what?
Like them or not, McCain has accomplished serious legislation!
Sarah has accomplished riding AK of many of her own Party's corrupt politicians and their oil tick supporters.
We're being asked to choose a guy who thinks Ayers past activities are meaningless, who thinks/then doesn't think his Pastor of 20 years is one of the most important persons in his life, who tells us that change and thinking outside the box is the most important attribute a President can have while choosing the consumate Beltway insider as his running mate?
Oh, wait, Biden lived in Scranton, PA until he was ten years old, now there's a hardscrabble youth story.
P.D.,
you usually bring some sense with your comments, this time however, you'rE really non-sensical.
Beltway hack Biden is morphed into "wise elder politician"?
Comparing Governor Palin to Edwards should be grounds for a defamation of character lawsuit.

H/t to Greg Burch's Burchismo blog for pointing me to little known facts about Susan Palin.

Wow. Just... Wow. :)

The more I hear about Palin, the worse it gets. Aren't you guys concerned about the fact that she appears to firmly fixed in the troglodyte wing of the Party.

1. Wants Creationism taught in schools.
2. Does not believe in Global Warming.
3. Diffident on the Environment

As far a Foreign Affairs is concerned, I talked to a very bright Israeli friend today who said when I asked him what he thought Israelis would think of this pick, he replied, "McCain is from Arizona, correct. He has spent too much time in the sun without a hat."

Do you actually believe that she is ready for the job.

For the life of me, I do not understand this pick.

1. Attract Hillary Democrats. If you believe this nonsense you have never met a Hillary Democrat.
2. Tough reformer in Washington. I am sure the Democrats are quaking in their boots at the thought of Sarah coming in and cutting their pork. this woman will be eaten alive.
3. Born again Christain vote - Mcain more or less already had that.
On the other hand it will hurt him with Catholics who will not take kindly to her being a bapized Catholic who renounced the religion. this is not going to be a big plus in the Industrial midwest where McCain has to do well.

Does anyone actually believe this is the best the Party has to offer. This looks like a further dumbing down of the party. It is impossible to believe that the Party can make the Dems look like the smart guys, but the Rovians seem to be pulling it off.

Honestly, ask yourself, if the Democrats nominated this woman, wouldn't we all be rolling on the floor laughing. This pick is unbelieveably dumb, even if McCain wins.

The party has become unrecognizeble over the past 10 years. Not only that, the way people are saying that McCain has somehow pulled a rabbit out of his hat on this one, smacks to me of suicidal self-delusion.

TOC,

1) I don't think she'll get much traction on actually promoting the Creation Science thing.

2) As a skeptic of the "not-proven, let's keep looking" sort re AGW, I think I can tolerate a nonbeliever in the second slot -- if that's what she is.

3) "'Diffident' on the environment"? Where'd you pull that one? She's an ALASKAN: she hunts and fishes, and she doesn't think ANWR is sacrosanct. What makes her "diffident"?

On my good days, I give Americans in general more credit than you seem to. The last few days have been good ones for me, precisely because Palin is an in-your-face pick, not a safe one.

If a semisuccessful haberdasher with nuclear weapons couldn't totally tank the USA, I think Sarah has a shot at growing into the job.

But have fun drowning in bathos, as seems to be your style.

If I did that, I'd spend my time reckoning that no matter which party gets the Presidency, four years later we'll be even closer to fascism than we are today. That's the way to bet.

This weekend, at least, I choose not to. We'll see what happens.

TOC, perhaps you should find out whether the three troglodyte positions you ascribe to Palin are held by a majority of Ohioans.

1. Wants Creationism taught in schools.

Not quite true. Link

Still, 58% of Americans want Creationism taught in school and an additional 17% of Americans want religious explanations to be taught in another class. Link

Wow, I actually agree with most of a post of Joe Katzman. That's unusual.

This is actually a very good POLITICAL analysis. And I would agree, on the "marketing" level, both picks are very good, and act to blunt some rather obvious attacks by the opposition.

(I'll get to the substantive in a minute, but let's stay with the political image/ marketing analysis.)

She should do very well - IF - and we don't know yet - Palin can hold her own in speaking/thinking on her feet. And by all accounts (although I have to admit, I hope I'm wrong) she will be able to.

As Joe says - VP's don't really affect the competition too much - but it's already a successful pick, in that it took away from one of the best performances in the Democratic convention of the top democrats since...I don't know, ever.

From Michelle Obama, to to Hillary Clinton, to Big Bill, to Gore, to Kerry, to Biden, and then finishing of course with Barack Obama - pretty much, from a visual performance perspective, and the (eighth grade level) messages delivered - it was an amazing convention - and all of the top people delivered.

with ONE day - one day - "the narrative" - and the talking heads - shifted to a full 24/7 analysis of the Palin pick.

In terms of the political imagery, the horse race - I have to admit, that's well done.

Now, substantively (and I wish TO GOD there was more attention paid to substance), we of course know that the "drilling issue", in that drilling in Alaska is going to fundamentally change the energy picture of America, is a sick joke. Simply untrue, and unworthy of thought or anyone serious about the nation's energy picture.

The answer is to throw all our resources to end the addition to oil, and begin that process NOW, with huge investment in the elecrical grid (our current grid can't handle the type of throughput necessary, if we quickly brought online massive wind, nuclear, and solar resources.)

And of course, end all the handouts to the oil companies - or spread the handouts equally among all the energy competitors, instead of 95% of the handouts to oil companies.

One good thing - the attack of McCain on "inexperience" will fall short, as McCain picked Palin, based on talent, judgment, irregardless of her experience.

This implicitly accepts Obama's argument that the best JUDGEMENTS and POLICIES matter. Not the false, shallow arguments of "pop star" and "inexperience".

I wonder if the adamant pro-life will sink in, and have a negative effect - or whether this is simply a secondary consideration for most people.

But, as Joe says - people don't really look at the VP EXCEPT as an extension of the candidate - in this sense, what the VP represents in a campaign IS what the VP brings to the horse race/political impressions.

In that sense, it's a win. I would have dearly loved to see Romney, myself. The two out of touch multi-milionaire downsizers would have have been a perfect atack.

OT for the thread:

Hypocrisy, unfortunately any likely "massive" restructuring of the electrical distribution network (which would indeed be needed to, e.g., get use out of all the prairie wind in the Dakotas) is very unlikely to be robust enough to survive either EMP or the right sort of critical-point attack on the ground (dynamite or what-have-you). It's a wicked problem.

Me, if I owned land, in my perfect world I'd try to get one of those zero-maintenance nuke reactors the size of a couple of hot tubs, and sell electricity to my neighborhood. IMBY, please! [Or bring on the Polywell Boron fusor, but that's not real yet, if ever]

But then, I'm sort of a 25th Century troglodyte type. Morlock? Hey, as long as the gears keep turning and the Eloi stay pretty...

[Edited to add link & Polywell reference]

I got that reference, Nort. Sweet.

AJL: My theory has always been that the Morlocks were misunderstood, just because of a little dietary law they had. I figure(d) they're actually selective-relinquishment types, like Amish Plain Folk -- Mennonites or Hutterites (or like Bill Joy) -- but the tech they relinquished was centuries ahead of our own (or H G Wells's), so they were still way advanced.

But unlovely.

#5 TOC:

Re your Point #2, you might check these out -- the first two dating from April and September of 2007, long before her nomination as VP Candidate:
adn.com environment story
climatechange.alaska.gov
newsmax story

From the above, it looks to me as if Palin (like me) isn't sure that GW is anthropogenic, but is sure that if it's real, it will affect Alaska, potentially drastically, and that attention ought to be paid to the possibility of climate change.

But because she does not Beeeeelieeeeeeeve (with a capital b), she's fatally flawed?

Please.

Palin was a brilliant pick. This election will not be decided by the party faithful, it will be decided by the independents and swing voters.

Those bitter guys clinging to guns and religion? Palin.

The conservatives who do not like McCain, and like Obama less, who were gonna sit it out? Palin.

The Middle America working woman who sees a woman running who actually has a life outside of being a professional politician? Palin again.

The southern Democrats, socially conservative who have a hard time with a big city politicians? Guys and Gals who love to hunt? Gonna like Palin.

What McCain did is pull from the opposite side of the Republican party, to find a candidate for VP who may actually spread his appeal.

I was mystified by Obama's choice of Biden, as it seemed like "more of the same",the fervent Democrats loved it, but THEY DON'T COUNT. They are gonna vote for Obama no matter what. So who does Biden pull in who would not vote Democrat anyway? Certainly not anyone in America who is concerned about gun rights and the Constitution. . Certainly no one who is worried about the excesses of the RICO laws and the Constitution.

No question, Palin is a good choice for McCain.

The really funny thing is watching the extreme left trying to cut her up using tactics that they would be screaming about as misogynist if the shoe was on the other foot.

Something else to consider- this is the first presidential campaign in a long time not to feature at least 1 southerner on the ballot.

McCain and Palin are a Western block. This is critically important and may make the difference. 2 states will decide this election, Ohio and Colorado. Ohio is leaning McCain and Colorado is leaning Obama (having the convention in Denver was also wise).

But Palin should play very, very well in Colorado. She's an outdoorsy hockey mom. She's a small stater, outside the beltway.

If Colorado (and Ohio) goes to the Republicans the math is pretty straight forward- Obama would basically have to pick up Virginia to win, if that seems unlikely.

I am thrilled about Palin, and for the first time, think Obama may actually be at risk of losing.

However, just out of curiousity, I think Jodi Rell would have been safer, because :

1) Similarly high approval ratings.
2) More experienced
3) Has run a bigger (and very important) state for a longer time.

So Rell offered all of Palin's positives, with even fewer negatives.

Another important point about 'experience'. Palin's experience deficit is only relevant if McCain dies 2 months after inauguration. If McCain dies, say, 3 years after, Palin has 3 years of VP experience by then.

So the 'inexperience' issue still hurts Obama much more than Palin.

So does it matter that many of Biden's FP views are horribly wrongheaded? Partitioning Iraq for starters, and his opposition to the surge was amazingly ignorant and just parroted the party line. IIRC, I don't think Gen. Patraeus actually was able to respond to any of Bidens questions during the last round of hearings because Biden took up all the time spouting off at the mouth.

Other than listening to himself speak during most hearings, what real experience does he have in the FP arena? Biden only chairs the Foreign Relations Committee because of seniority, not because of his stellar FP insight. It's amazing what passes for "experience" these days. Can anyone point to any meaningful legislation Biden has sponsored that has had any real impact? Other than supporting his strong financial supporters at MNBA, and the RIAA, and the utterly stupid RAVE Act, what has he done other than collect a paycheck, and provide a mouthpiece for the party line on the Sunday talking heads shows?

Jodi Rell would have been a good choice, but this really is an election where charisma counts, and Palin seems loaded with it; Rell, not so much.

BTW, how long before people start comparing Palin to Teddy Roosevelt?

Gabriel, I can recall many Sunday morning talk shows where Biden was supporting the cause of the Iraq war and constructively criticizing the President, particularly on his public relations. Sure the partitioning plan was crazy, but he was engaged. Were there any other Democrats so engaged in the issues of the war? What Democrat, if not Biden?

OBTW: I reckon Sarah (or more likely, the R campaign) is gonna need to assign some staff to manage this puppy from now on. Like, soonest. Toto, I don't think we're in Kansas a relatively polite, backwater government seat any more...

[Edit for the humor-impaired: Yes, I'm dubious that this is really Sarah Palin's blog.]

Mark B: McCain and Palin are a Western block...

I think that analysis might be true, but I think the larger development is what appears to be the end of regional balancing in American politics. The home state polls show a reason:

Arizona

2004: 54.83% Bush
2008 (proj.): 52.8% McCain

Illinois

2004: 54.82% Kerry
2008 (proj.):55.3% Obama

(projections from FiveThirtyEight)

These guys are not moving numbers in their own states, let alone their regions.

It might be because McCain and Obama are uniquely national figures. But I think the handlers have also figured out that Clinton/Gore and Bush/Cheney is working better than the traditional model.

Trivia: America has only had one election in which both parties fielded same-region teams: 1828. This would appear to me to be the second.

Dear Sirs,

I think Mr. Poling comes closest to the truth when he talks about charisma.

All this inside baseball stuff about voting blocs completely misses what is going on. People I know are crying and smiling at the same time. This lady is going to be America's sweetheart - everybody's kid sister - everybody's daughter. Women see Legally Blond on stilts. Hold on to your hats, folks. The ghost of Ronald Reagan has arrived.

Regards,
Roy

Now, substantively (and I wish TO GOD there was more attention paid to substance), we of course know that the "drilling issue", in that drilling in Alaska is going to fundamentally change the energy picture of America, is a sick joke.

Yeah, that's a good one. Have you heard the one about how the US is going to be "energy independent" in 10 years?

Glen, ooh, ooh, I got one!

There is reportedly a zone off the Southern CA coast where natural seeping of oil is washing up on beaches and probably making Cousteau Society style floating tarballs that cross the Pacific, too; if offshore wells were opened (or re-opened, not sure about that detail) in that vicinity -- in the near term seems possible -- to get oil and coincidentally relieve the pressure, it's believe this would abate the seeping and thus help the environment.

Thanks! I'm here all week! You guys are byootiful!

#24: I saw a special on the seepage bit just last week! Also shown/highlighted was a section of the beach/dunes near, as best as I recall, near Santa Barbara where until relatively there was a big commercial operation harking back to the 20's which "mined" the layers of solidified tar sands seepage to be used in various industrial processes
(not suitable to be refined for gas, I seem to remember) and only discontinued when off-shore oil drilling began in 50's made it uncompetitive economically--and then unable to be resumed for same environmental reasons that shut down the offshore rigs. The seepage and tar layers on the bluffs are still there, btw.

I quite agree that the choice of Gov. Palin is something like Legally Blonde 3: VPOTUS. This follows the Bush Administration's dedication to 007 movies and the torture scenes of 24. Is it really so hard to distinguish real from make-believe?

Interesting how all that stuff about equality goes straight out the window the second its politically expediant.

AJL: It's hard for me to take your comment #26 as any less fundamentally unserious than you seem to take the Bush administration to be. Would you care to do better?

Ahh yes, more Biden wisdom:

Security officials expressed concern Monday over statements reportedly made by US Democratic vice presidential candidate Joseph Biden regarding Iran’s nuclear program.

Army Radio reported that the Delaware senator was heard saying in closed conversations with Jerusalem officials three years ago that he was firmly opposed to an attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities.

Biden, the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, reportedly claimed that Israel would likely have to come to terms with a nuclear Iran. He reportedly expressed doubt over the effectiveness of economic sanctions imposed on the Islamic Republic and said he was against the opening of an additional military and diplomatic front, saying that the US had more pressing problems, such as North Korea and Iraq.

I was perfectly serious, except for the formatting mistakes. The McCain campaign is hoping that someone for whom there is no evidence of qualifications (see below) turns out to be well-qualified, at least well enough to look capable on the campaign trail. This maneuver seems to me to be impulsive and risky, both for the campaign, and for the United States should McCain win and become incapacitated in office. If a woman two years removed from being the part-time Mayor of Nowheresville can be a successful President, it's great Hollywood. The hair color is off for Legally Blonde but the plot is right on target.

Let me suggest a fourth dimension of “experience” that ought also be weighed: sheer exposure and vetting at a national and international level. By this I mean experience over time in answering hard questions about a wide range of issues, meeting with other national and international leaders, and responding on the record to crises and other developments as they arise. This kind of experience gives the country a chance to see how you think, to see how you handle high-octane pressure on the relevant national and international stages, to observe how you adapt when things don’t go as you thought they would, and so on. It also forces you to learn about, and to develop views about, important and complex national and international questions. Voters deserve to know these things about you. On this fourth dimension of experience, I’d rank McCain and Biden about even. I’d put Obama distinctly third. Palin doesn’t even register.

Maj. Gen. Craig Campbell, adjutant general of the Alaska National Guard, considers Palin "extremely responsive and smart" and says she is in charge when it comes to in-state services, such as emergencies and natural disasters where the National Guard is the first responder. But, in an interview with The Associated Press on Sunday, he said he and Palin play no role in national defense activities, even when they involve the Alaska National Guard. The entire operation is under federal control, and the governor is not briefed on situations.

Sarah Palin might, with more experience and heretofore undisclosed interest, have been able to move onto the national stage and become one of the country's prominent Creationist Religious Right politicians. She's charismatic and intelligent and doesn't have the vicious streak of many other extreme conservatives. But qualified today? Joke.

AJL: I didn't mean you were unserious; I meant the quickie comment was hard to take as anything but a drive-by. Thanks very much for buttressing it. :)

People are gonna talk a lot of hooey all over; it's the natural fertilizer of politics. Let the fray continue, sez I.

"I was perfectly serious, except for the formatting mistakes."

We know. Thats whats sad.

There's simply no way to intellectually justify the idea that Obama is ready to be president but Palin is unready to be Vice President. Palin is the only one of the 4 with any executive experience.

I like Palin, she has more executive experience than Abraham Lincoln when he was elected President.

Palin is the only one of the 4 with any executive experience.

So was George W. Bush.

And now the party is too embarrassed to allow him to speak at their convention.

Good luck with that one.

I mean seriously, think about it. The head of the Republican party banished from his own parties convention. That's gotta be a first.

Barack Obama, with more experience and heretofore undemonstrated accomplishments, might have been justified in moving onto the national stage and becoming the country's most promising infanticide-supporting socialist politicians. He's charismatic and intelligent and doesn't have the vicious streak of many other extreme progressives. But qualified today? Joke.

Hey, it works just as well the other way...

Now, I'll agree that Sarah Palin ideally would be more experienced, but she's running VP not POTUS and in any case she's actually accomplished more than the top of the other ticket. Any Obama supporter complaining about Sarah Palin's inexperience is irredeemably sexist, a dishonest hack, or both.

But qualified today? Joke.

What are Obama's executive and national security credentials?

I have no problem with anything we know about Sarah Palin so far. She looks good as gold.

I also think the comparisons with Dan Quayle are silly and strange. Sarah Palin has done more for John McCain already than Dan Quayle did for George H.W. Bush in his whole career. She gave a good first speech, brought in millions of desperately needed dollars just in time, and so raised the spirits of the party that whereas before McCain didn't have an army of volunteers to do the necessary ground work at voting booths and bring voters to the polls, now he does, though since they are joining late in the day they need to get organized fast.

That means, before picking Palin, McCain was doomed, since even if he drew even or a bit ahead in the polls, on election day he didn't have the machinery to translate that into enough votes; whereas now he's in the race. Even though the odds are bad for John McCain, there's an outside chance he might win. I think that's the most a pick for vice-president has ever done for the presidential candidate. Even Al Gore, who I think was an outstanding pick for vice-president, didn't do better than that. Whereas Dan Quayle was just lead in George W. Bush's saddlebags from day one.

Before, I thought Barack Obama was doing fine, regardless of polls or "closing the sale" talk, because only he could really win the election. Now I think he's also doing fine, he's got to be a huge favorite to win.

There's only so much a great pick for vice president can do for you in a year as bad for your party as this one is for the Republicans.

As for Joe Biden, I think he was a good, safe pick. Barack Obama didn't need to bring down the house with his choice for vice president. Obama's position is so good he just needs to not blow an almost sure thing. Joe Biden is a known and adequate quantity.

Kerry had 50% in the polls immediately after his convention. Obama is around 48, 49. I don't see how it can be said Obama has any kind of clear advantage. This election would appear to be a dead heat.

I also think the comparisons with Dan Quayle are silly and strange. Sarah Palin has done more for John McCain already than Dan Quayle did for George H.W. Bush in his whole career. She gave a good first speech

I really don't think getting busted in a bald faced lie is a good first speech.

But the whole pregnant daughter line may well smother that fact. The whole thing seems crazy to me.

I really don't think getting busted in a bald faced lie is a good first speech.

Humor / enlighten the less knowledgeable, won't you?

No, there was one better vice-presidential pick: Lyndon Baines Johnson for John Fitgerald Kennedy.

Still, Sarah Palin has already proved one of the wisest picks ever, since by choosing her over a normal political time-server John McCain traded a clear path to a respectable second place finish for an unlikely shot at victory. There was nothing better he could have done.

I also think, apart from the horse race considerations, Sarah Palin is adequately qualified to be vice president.

First, executive experience does count, and Republicans were highly receptive to that idea, because a lot of the primary debate had been about candidates with executive experience - Rudi Giuliani and Mitt Romney - making that claim. Even though John McCain is outstandingly qualified in other ways, his candidacy needed that (E/E) stamp. Now he has it.

Second, Sarah Palin is running for vice-president, not president, and her weak point, foreign policy, is win-win for John McCain. She'll have to defer totally to his judgment till he trains her. Figure about two years for that, one if she proves an outstandingly quick study. That's OK: John McCain had absolutely no use for a highly qualified back seat driver or a Dick Cheney type anyway.

There's a risk if John McCain has a fatal heart attack on hearing that he has won the election, and Sarah Palin needs to be ready to run American foreign policy on day one. But John McCain doesn't think that's likely, and neither do I, if only because he's so unlikely to win the election in the first place.

Also, the risk is only so bad. Bill Clinton was a complete nullity as a foreign policy president when he was elected. There was a price for that, in how the nation drifted toward trouble with no strategic direction from the top. But this is a known kind of risk. And risk is normal in politics.

John McCain might think that the nation badly needs political reform, and that the greatest risk associated with his early death would be if he was replaced by someone who didn't have what it takes to pursue needed reforms. That would be a reasonable judgment. And if what you think America needs most, politically, is people willing to take on corruption and the pork machine, then Sarah Palin's credentials are as good as possible.

Palin simply doesn't fit the usual categories and is driving the left and the Beltway denizens mad.

I'm grinning from ear to ear and donating for the first time this year. And that was not done lightly.

I left the party I grew up in when it became clear that social safety nets had hardened into giveaway programs that locked many into generations of poverty and hopelessness, that a deep felt commitment to justice and equality was hijacked into gimmes and when the politics of resentment replaced the hope of a better day for all. The final straw was Gore's deeply destructive and ego-centric tantrums after 2000.

But that doesn't mean I'm all that happy about much that I've seen from the right in the last decade. Nearly the ONLY thing that really had me vote for Bush in 2004 was Iraq and Afghanistan.

I could take or leave John McCain by himself. But his choice of Palin for VP solidifies a long-overdue focus on reform of entrenched structures, renewal of individual responsibility married to community outreach and accountability. Moreover I am thoroughly sick to death of the shortsightedness of the left in picking at the motes in the US eye while ignoring the beams in other places. Far too much is at stake to allow either the adolescent petulance of the nihilistic left or the crowds of youth longing for a vaguely messianic figure to determine the next 4 years of this country's actions.

So excuse me, but I'm off to donate one more time before McCain is formally nominated and keeps his promise re: public funding -- a promise Obama cast aside as soon as the Soros money and the middle eastern telephone banks kicked in on his behalf.

Nortius Maximus

It involved a certain bridge from Ketchikan to the airport.

And I must say the entire issue was poorly framed by the press. IE, not just an island of 50 inhabitants, but also the airport, which I've flown into.

But Palin claiming she opposed the bridge was just too easily refuted and yet another sign that the Maverick really doesn't think things through.

On polling... First, I trust Gallup polls. They say McCain is the underdog. Zogby polls don't count. There is too much "mystery meat" in them. I don't care if Zogby thinks John McCain is doing all right. I don't care what Zogby thinks in general.

Second, I think John McCain's poll numbers, dubious as they were, flattered his chances. They were an illusion that could be taken away by any random event compounded with a hyper-artisan mainstream media spinning it against him. He needed to stamp his own direction so strongly on the election that it would be hard to change the topic from what favored him most. Now he's done that. Barack Obama has to run on hope and change. John McCain and Sarah Palin can offer change we can believe in more plausibly than Barack Obama and Joe Biden can, if you think the needed change is the sort of brave reform Sarah Palin pursued with success in Alaska and that Barack Obama never pursued in Chicago or anywhere else.

Third, regardless of polls (as long as they are within reasonable margins), you have got to have some kind of a ground game. Bush / Cheney '04 had a great ground game. John McCain didn't have one. Now he has a chance to turn polling numbers into adequate numbers of votes.

John McCain's wise and bold selection of Sarah Palin was a game-changer. He needed a "Hail Mary" play. Wisely he went for it - and he made it.

So excuse me, but I'm off to donate one more time before McCain is formally nominated and keeps his promise re: public funding -- a promise Obama cast aside as soon as the Soros money and the middle eastern telephone banks kicked in on his behalf.

Joe, this guy insults an otherwise very good post.

Translation- dont bother me with the facts.

For the record i generally go off RealClearPolitics compilation of polls. If i had to pick one i've found most accurate it is Rasmussen.

I'm not entirely sure what you mean about Obama having a beter ground game, unless you mean conspiring to keep polls open longer in democratic districts etc which does seem to be the gameplan the last couple cycles. I havent seen any evidence that Obama is running some brilliant campaign. If anything he's wasting a great deal of resouces in states he isnt going to win.

#42 from molon labe:

I could take or leave John McCain by himself. But his choice of Palin for VP solidifies a long-overdue focus on reform of entrenched structures...

John McCain is running as a reformer. That's as it should be.

But his main qualification for being president is his career as a senator. The Federal Senate like the Congress, is not known as a well-loved, great reforming institution.

Does anyone have current poll numbers on how much Americans currently love and trust the federal legislature and their federal legislators?

John McCain needed some strong reinforcement for his claim that he is not like those other guys getting the seats of their pants shiny with long Senate careers and doing not enough that's noticeable for the public. Sarah Palin seems to provide a critical mass of reinforcement for John McCain's key message.

I also think the "inside baseball" pundits are weighing Senate experience and having been on national talk shows for years too heavily. The Senate may fascinate them, but the public does not agree. National political talk shows may fascinate them, but a lot of the public doesn't care much and is just now starting to pay attention to this election.

AJL:

I dont think anyone has said she was an "expert" on any of the things you listed, but if putting words into peoples mouths helps you "win" your argument, by all means go for it.

One could argue (quite effectively) that there is no evidence of qualification in Obama's background as well.

I think its important to note that Obama's past "achievements" are as lackluster as his experience.

Harvard Law Review: what does he have to show for it? Not a single article published, and vol. 104 is the least-cited volume of the Harvard Law Review in the last 20 years

Taught Con Law for "twelve years": yet went unpublished during this time.

Associate at "civil rights" lawfirm for 3 years: no notable clients produced, nor casework cited. In fact zero paper trail at all.

Work as a community organizer (whatever that is): the one project he works on is an uninhabitable slum but his buddy Rezko got paid $$$$ (the intended recipient of public aid),

State Senator: nothing of great importance accomplished (at least nothing his campaign points to), zero paper trail due to him "throwing away" his working papers. (I fully expect if elected, those papers will turn up in the White House sitting on a shelf like Hill's billing records)

Jr. Senator for Illinois: nothing to show except 2 out of 3 years being wasted on his run for President, and a bunch of pork for his wifes employer.

So with this admittedly biased review of his record, what in it actually shows a level of experience that even remotely qualifies him for the Presidency? I have been looking for any information in any of Barack Obama's endeavors that indicates he had a passion of anything he did (other than running for office.) or that he had significant impact anywhere, and yet I’ve found nothing.

Now it would be interesting if the media would actually attempt to vet Obama, but we all know that the “shiver running up” their legs won’t allow that. You know full well, that no media type will be clapping and cheering at the end of McCain’s speech on Thursday.

1. Palin is McCain's Eagleton.
2. She is a manipulative liar.
3. McCain is a manipulated fool.
4. So much for vetting. Meet her once or twice and then offer her the Vice-Presidential nomination.
5. I doubt that she will be on the ticket for more than another week. The press is going to have a field day with this. She has to spend time with the family, will be the excuse.
6. McCain will have to take all the heat which will be brutal.
7. None of the sane wing of the party wants anything to do with this wingnut.
8. I would bet dollars to donuts that when the flashlights are shone around Alaska, tons of stuff, false and true will turn up and provide a major distraction throughout the campaign, which, of course, she won't be around for.
9. McCain will not be able to answer when did you know question, which he will be incessantly grilled on,because he is damned if he did and damned if he didn't.
10. Trying to spin this as something positive for the country by saying that this woman is fit to be vice-President, makes me wonder not so much about McCain's judgement but his grasp on reality.
11. Congratualtions, Sarah for doing what you thought was the right thing for yourself. Now do the right thing for your party and go home.

About 6 weeks ago, I said that McCain should withdraw. If he had he would have saved us all a lot of trouble.

#46 from Mark Buehner:

Translation- dont bother me with the facts.

Your snarky "transation" is bootless. I'm not demanding to not be bothered with facts. I'm discriminating between good data - Gallup polls - and bad data - Zogby.

#46 from Mark Buehner:

For the record i generally go off RealClearPolitics compilation of polls. If i had to pick one i've found most accurate it is Rasmussen.

Fair enough. Wouldn't it have been better just to say that without the "translation" nonsense?

#46 from Mark Buehner:

I'm not entirely sure what you mean about Obama having a beter ground game, unless you mean conspiring to keep polls open longer in democratic districts etc which does seem to be the gameplan the last couple cycles. I havent seen any evidence that Obama is running some brilliant campaign. If anything he's wasting a great deal of resouces in states he isnt going to win.

There's the time that polls are open, and the caucuses, and getting an early opponent thrown off the ballot so he could run unchallenged. Barack Obama is a Democrat; he's a Black with a huge, iron-hard base of racial support with little incentive to care about fair play to political enemies that he's prone to imply are racist and conspiring against him and his supporters; he's a leftie media darling who knows he won't get called much on cheating; and he's a Chicago machine politician who plays by Chicago rules. Consistently, throughout his career, he's improved on his default democratic final results. It's reasonable to expect that his legal challenges to votes he doesn't like and his protection of votes he does like will be from Hell. He's an organizer, in that sense, whether he can run America's foreign policy or not. Al Gore could not quite lawyer his way to the White House, but in a similar situation I think Barack Obama probably would.

Much more importantly, he has a hugely enthused base to go out and work for him, which John McCain has not had, and that counts.

Or, it counted. Now John McCain will also have tolerable numbers of volunteers.

TOC, interesting list. Here's another.

TOC initial reports that McCain chose Palin at the last minute after little vetting proved to be false. According to the Washington Post she was in the running since he seriously began the decision process.

Care to provide any links whatsoever for the rest of your claims?

For my part, I will withdraw for now my comment about Soros funding for Obama. There are suggestive conections but nothing proven. The Gaza phone banks on his behalf are, however, well documented.

TOC says:

She is a manipulative liar.

I'm unfortunately slightly color blind in that region of the spectrum where politicians are concerned. Politics is manipulation, arguably; and we all know the joke about how you can tell a politician is lying: their lips are moving.

So... at the moment, what, specifically, marks her out as that in your eyes? Apologies if you think it's all so obvious. Hit just the high points, if you would.

#49:

I vote that response as best comedic post of the year. If there was a Darwin Award for lack of political insight, you sir would win it.

Oh, I forgot: "We just want it to stop. It's not fair, it's blatant attacks against Barak Obama" - the attempt to have Stanley Kurtz silenced on WGN radio. This belongs on the list of items showing that Barack Obama has a steady drive to improve on the default democratic result, and a propensity to organize enthusiastic supporters to make that happen; and he also assembles people around him to think that way.

I think TOC should support his claims in #5 first, particularly that she is "in the troglodyte wing of the Party" because (in part) she is "diffident on the environment." How is she diffident?

And as to Eagleton: Here she is in a debate:

Decision 2006 - Republican Candidate Round Table

Molon Labe's link is unintentionally funny: the WaPo repeats the McCain campaign's (anonymously sourced) claims that they vetted Palin carefully. Let's just say the sources were not exactly under oath.

Whatever you think of Palin, indeed, however capable she might be if elected, there's all sorts of unbiased evidence [1, 2, 3, 4] that the Palin choice was made in haste and not vetted. (In the anonymous source department, she's supposed to have been chosen after McCain couldn't get his friend Joe Lieberman past the GOP officials.)

Can we conservatives please stop kidding ourselves about Barack Obama's "qualifications"? Yes, if I had been a Democratic donor back in 2006, I'd sure worry about whether Barack Obama had what it took to be president. That was before he took on the toughest political operation in America, before he beat Bill and Hillary Clinton, before he won 18 million primary votes. Obama's nomination was not handed to him. He fought hard for it and won against the odds. "Qualifications" predict achievement. Once you have achieved, it doesn't matter what your qualifications are. Who cares whether the guy who built a big company from nothing didn't have much of a resume when he started? But if you are applying to run a big company built by somebody else, the resume matters ...

[H]ad Sarah Palin decided in 2005 to run for president in 2008 - had she spent 3 years mastering the issues and explaining her views in public statements - had she one by one recruited leading experts on economic and defense issues to her cause and privately explored the issues of the day with them - then her current background would not be disqualifying. Indeed it would resemble that of many successful presidents. None of those things happened. She was plucked by John McCain because of an electoral calculus. She could be vice president of the United States in January 2009 - and president at any moment thereafter, abruptly thrust in supreme command of two wars in two different countries. And who knows how she'll do? She does not know what she would do. Yes she might turn out to be a Harry Truman. Or she might be an Andrew Johnson. Wouldn't you wish for some hint in advance of which it might be?

Quibble: Andrew Johnson was perhaps not so bad as he's been painted.

The Frum logic really does seem to work on Obama for Prez just as well. Even down to the vetting. Except in O's case that's more about just how much of a social agenda he's stealthing: he might have shown he's competent, but is he sound?

Pass the popcorn, the second reel is gonna be a corker.

[Edited]

#58 from Nortius Maximus:

Pass the popcorn, the second reel is gonna be a corker.

I hope so.

-

As usual, Jay Cost is talking sense, on how both tickets are now well balanced and oriented to offer the voters a positive alternative and credible change. (link)

Looking back at his recent entries, Jay Cost also thinks that before the Palin pick Barack Obama was a heavy favorite, and that he still is a favorite. (link) He doesn't say why though.

First, she's a risk. I think she's a calculated risk, but she's still a risk. I like that because I think those polls showing an even-steven race a week ago were a mirage. This race is not a flip of the coin. Obama is the favorite. McCain has to be bold and daring and take the election away from the Democrats. Picking Pawlenty would not have done that. Pawlenty is safe in a year when McCain needs to be bold.

That's it. There is no "why".

I've provided my explanations on why I think the same thing. A massive enthusiasm gap, an extremely supportive media environment, a monolithic racial support base, an effective political machine and play-book, and a consistent career record of using organization to improve on the default democratic result say that Barack Obama has the resources, the skills on tap and the willingness to blow away a Republican opponent who was merely close in the polls on the big day.

If McCain / Palin win, it'll be against huge odds. It'd have to be an amazing election.

Congratualtions, Sarah for doing what you thought was the right thing for yourself.

What was that, exactly?

Andrew Johnson was perhaps not so bad as he's been painted.

Or as drunk. Johnson was a man of huge mistakes, but he was the only southern Democrat in the pre-war Senate that didn't desert his country.

Oops:

And as to Eagleton: Here she is in a debate:

I thought TOC was making a comprison to Stockdale. In case others find the remark confusing.

Nortius, I quite agree that the Frum/Carpenter argument about how the primary process vetted Obama says nothing about the soundness of his opinions, especially to persons who aren't liberal Democrats.

Gabriel, Just for a start, in Obama's term in the State Senate he overcame significant early opposition to get a law requiring the videotaping of police confessions. By the end he had the GOP and even the police on board. It's also rather curious to describe the author of two books as "unpublished"—perhaps academic review article writing was less to his taste?

I simply have no idea why Obamas tour of the Chicago liberal cocktail circuit ('community activism') equals a national political machine powerful enough to make the likely voter polls pale in comparison.

I simply have no idea why Obamas tour of the Chicago liberal cocktail circuit ('community activism') equals a national political machine powerful enough to make the likely voter polls pale in comparison.

"The junior Senator from New York can explain it to you."

The one that won more votes? Unfortunately for Obama two big states are being thrown out this time, nor do the states vote in weird sequences. I have seen precious little brilliance in Obama's general campaign to date, and the lead he's given away in the polls seems to reflect that.

aren't being thrown out actually.

The videotaping of confessions was the result of Illinois Republican Governor Ryan's Commission on Capitol Punishment. In 2000, he issued a moratorium on the death penalty and selected 14 prominent lawyers and judges from both parties to review the problems with the Illinois criminal system and propose solutions. In 2002 the report is issued, reccomending among many things, videotaping of confessions. The legislature refuses to pass a single one of the reforms. The governor begins making threats to the legislature and commuting sentences.
Finally, the governor issues a blanket clemency to the entire death row to much public outrage. Reforms trickle in. Ryan goes to jail, a movie is made about him and he gets nominated for the Noble Peace Prize.

Here is a timeline from the movie from an anti-death penalty site, that I used to refresh my recollection.

"Reforms trickle in."

The confession tapping reform trickled in because Barack Obama made it happen.

Others disagree:

Some African-American colleagues who served with Obama during his seven-year tenure in the state legislature are now also grudgingly supporting him after they endorsed other candidates or remained neutral in the primary.

"Anybody but Obama," chimed one prominent black legislator, who asked not to be named, a week before the election.

Surprisingly, one such reluctant Obama supporter is state Rep. Monique Davis, D-Chicago. A 17-year veteran legislator, Davis sponsored a pair of significant bills -- one designed to track incidents of racial profiling, and another that mandates the taping of police interrogations in murder cases -- that were central to Obama's campaign platform.

Though she worked closely with Obama to pass the bills into law, and says she toiled to keep the bills alive before he became their Senate sponsor, Davis claims her efforts were largely ignored.

"I was snubbed," says Davis, who endorsed Hynes in the primary though she belongs to the same church as Obama on Chicago's South Side. "I felt he was shutting me out of history."

State Sen. Rickey Hendon, D-Chicago, the original Senate sponsor of both the racial profiling and videotaped confession bills, likewise felt overshadowed by Obama.

"I took all the beatings and insults and endured all the racist comments over the years from nasty Republican committee chairmen," says Hendon. "Barack didn't have to endure any of it, yet, (in the end, he got all the credit.

"I don't consider it bill jacking," Hendon clarifies. "But no one wants to carry the ball 99 yards all the way to the one-yard line, and then give it to the half-back who gets all the credit and the stats in the record book."

Senate President Emil Jones, who endorsed Obama from the start of his campaign, aided the candidate by yanking Hendon off the high-profile bills and appointing Obama their new sponsor.

Why did Hendon release the bills after years of carrying them? "Mama didn't raise no fool," he answers. "President Jones has considerable influence and a lot of power. I knew the President would like me a whole lot more if I went along with his wishes."

Still smarting from the slight, Hendon refused to back Obama until just weeks before the election. Hendon admits he buckled to pressure from Jones, whom he considers Obama's ultimate kingmaker.

Link

"I mean seriously, think about it. The head of the Republican party banished from his own parties convention. "

He still will go down as someone who won every major election he stood in, first as Governor, then as President. A heap of vanquished Democrats lie in his wake......

#51 from Mark Poling at 2:52 am on Sep 02, 2008

Nice try, Mark. It probably puts you in line to be McCain's Secretaty of State.

He still will go down as someone who won every major election he stood in, first as Governor, then as President. A heap of vanquished Democrats lie in his wake......

Folks, come on. Just for grins, how about spending a day actually addressing the premise of the post, which is that both Obama and McCain made the best choices available to them in some kind of rational way, rather than in predictable partisan tropes we can read anywhere.

I know I'm back from an island vacation (camping on Catalina) and thus amazingly tan and hopeful, but that ought to be something we can do together.

A.L.

Damn you and your Vulcan logic, Spock!

"Odd but telling criterion of greatness."

Precisely the same criterion you just profferred as Obama's qualification.

Obama: no decision-maker; no courage; less experience:

Sarah Palin has government executive experience. She has lots of experience actually making decisions - as Mayor, Commissioner, and then Governor. She's been in elective office since 1992.

Barack Obama has been in elective office just since 1997 - and always as a legislator. he's never had to make executive decisions in a government administration like Gov. Palin.

So Sarah Palin has five (5) more years of experience in elective office than Barack Obama.

And Obama often could not muster the courage to make even a legislative decision - he frequently voted "present."

See here

[Bare link removed. Correctly formatted link to same place retained. --NM]

Folks, come on. Just for grins, how about spending a day actually addressing the premise of the post, which is that both Obama and McCain made the best choices available to them in some kind of rational way, rather than in predictable partisan tropes we can read anywhere.

Actually, my first reaction when I heard it was Palin was: "That is a terrific pick, the best candidate for the veep slot to be had this year. It shows great shrewdness and judgement... so there's no way McCain himself was involved in the choice."

That may have been a little extreme, so I'll modify my analysis to "...there's no way McCain himself independantly thought this up and pushed hard for her nomination, though realistically he had to sign off on the idea."

As for Joe "Blowhard" Biden... given Obama's obvious shortcomings, he may have been the right pick to satisfy an unsure portion of the electorate. But it strikes me as ludicrous that the party now has two people on their ticket who are woefully unqualified for any job other than running for a seat in the Senate. How did the "Change" ticket turn into a platform for a guy who spent most of his adult life in the Senate, and a guy who can best be described as a trainee in the same career path?

So, metro, you're going to pollute another site with copy/paste talking points.

Palin was a part-time mayor of a small town with about 4 percent the number of employees as the Obama campaign and 3 percent of the budget. Her executive responsibilities appear to have been less than the average school superintendent. And, incidentally, her term does not seem to have been an unalloyed success, e.g., new sales taxes.

I drove through Wasilla on vacation during Palin's mayoral term, and it has the ugly, strip-malled feel of too much of America. I believe we had lunch in a chain restaurant there. Now, if she had been mayor of Homer, Alaska, that would be more to my liking.

I think we can conclude from the Palin nomination that McCain felt he needed a Hail Mary pass just to stay competitive through the general election. News reports say he started vetting Palin the day before he offered her the nomination. He gambled, and maybe that's better than losing quietly with Pawlenty, but it looks like he rolled snake eyes.

Palin is a win/win.

She provides McCain with a better chance (yet longshot) to win in 2008 than he ever had before.

If McCain/Palin lose in 2008, no matter. Palin has been fast-tracked to 2012, by which time, she will have 4 more years of Governor experience (hence putting that issue to rest), 3 of her kids will be adults, and the mood will again be pro-GOP, after Obama disappoints America (to which I assign a 90% probability).

If people like Palin now, imagine how much better she will be in 2012, aged 48, a grandmother, and 6 cumulative years as Governor of AK along with previous experience running as VP?

"Palin was a part-time mayor of a small town with about 4 percent the number of employees as the Obama campaign and 3 percent of the budget."

Yes, and Obama was just a State Senator in IL then. If you ignore Palin's subsequent Governor position, ignore Obama's Senate position too (where he clearly did much less than Palin did as Governor).

"I drove through Wasilla on vacation during Palin's mayoral term, and it has the ugly, strip-malled feel of too much of America. "

Sure... Wasilia is a much worse place than the South Side of Chicago...

"He gambled, and maybe that's better than losing quietly with Pawlenty"

True, but admit it - McCain now has a real chance, which even I say he didn't before.

Obama gets credit now for being the executive in charge of his campaign? Is that seriously the new talking point?

Palin was a part-time mayor of a small town with about 4 percent the number of employees as the Obama campaign and 3 percent of the budget. Her executive responsibilities appear to have been less than the average school superintendent.

You can't possibly be this dishonest, can you?

During the comparable time period that Obama was running his campaign, Palin was governor of a state, overseeing 25,000 employees and a $12 billion budget. She oversaw an order of magnitude more employees and 2 orders of magnitude more dollars.

During the time that she was mayor of a small town, Obama was a community organizer. Staff of 0, budget of $0.

At any particular time period you care to mention, she had more responsibility at that time than Obama did. Dislike her and her policies all you want, but at least be honest about it. If her inexperience as the #2 bothers you, than Obama is clearly a flat unacceptable candidate. Alas, that's not the case.

Dislike her all you want, but don't be a lying hack about it.

On second thought maybe that makes sense considering he has undeniably spent more time running for president than tending his senate seat...

Also, since the incorporation of Alaska into the USA was contrary to international law (so says the AIP), Sarah Palin is by rights the head of a sovereign state! Take that, Obamaniacs!

Palin as governor for all of 20 months has some executive experience. Palin as mayor of Wasilla, not really. It would be easier to take your other arguments seriously if you didn't try to make this absurd claim.

Where do you get the idea that community organizations have no employees and no budget?

I spend time in Hyde Park and it's a hell of a lot more interesting than Wasilla.

And, finally, McCain's chances do not seem greatly improved, nor do I remember GK admitting at any time in the past that Obama was far ahead.

From David Frum: So this is the future of the Republican party you are looking at: a future in which national security has bumped down the list of priorities behind abortion politics, gender politics, and energy politics. Ms. Palin is a bold pick, and probably a shrewd one. It's not nearly so clear that she is a responsible pick, or a wise one.

I used to concur whole heartedly on the shrewd part because it caused alot of match up issues. The problem is much of that is down the drain because her personal social issues are negating her social talking points. You can't run around talking about the poor being irresponsible baby making machines if your daughter is 17, hasn't finished high school and pregant. You can go down the list yourself.

The economy may pose different issues. It will not be easy to turn energy(the cost of gas) into an economic talking point because of the complexity(see suspend fed gas tax for summer). It also pits the cowboys(oil interests) vs the yankees(solar, wind, et al). The first candidate to a commitment to 50% green energy in ten years may be the big winner if they can convince people there are good jobs in it.

On a personal note I like Pickens plan.

" nor do I remember GK admitting at any time in the past that Obama was far ahead."

Selective memory, I see.

I never said Obama was 'far ahead'. I did say that I think he will win the election. Not by a large margin, mind you, but by about the same margin that Bush won the 2004 election by. I base this on the belief that Ohio is not going to go to the GOP this year, and the Colorado, once a GOP lock, will consume a lot of GOP resources.

Now, with Palin, there is more than a little risk to Obama. He has gone from a highly probable victory to merely having a slight advantage. Obama will now probably win with less than 50% of the popular vote, continuing the Democratic habit of being unable to crack 50% since 1976.

Furthermore, while Bush took 5 years for his approval rating to fall below 50% (in late 2005), Obama will manage this in 90 days...

Welcome back A.L. You might not have had an opportunity to notice, but this comment thread might be one of the few that's without noticeable reference to any-body's vagina. It gets an "A" graded on a curve.

On Biden, I don't get a sense that any of the critics would have been happy with any pick that wasn't somewhere between Lieberman and Cheney. I think politically Richardson made more sense, but philosophically Biden is more appealing to me on foreign policy.

On Palin, I'll have to confess that I like her a lot, even though I am fairly ambivalent about McCain's campaign. She's the one of the four I would most want to drink a beer with. And I say that as someone who is pro-choice and would pull my kids out of a school that taught creationism as a scientific theory.

But ultimately I agree with hypo:

But, as Joe says - people don't really look at the VP EXCEPT as an extension of the candidate - in this sense, what the VP represents in a campaign IS what the VP brings to the horse race/political impressions.

I haven't watched a VP debate or convention speech since Stockdale in '92 -- I'm still not over that. I will watch Palin.

By picking Biden, Obama communicated to me large continuity with established foreign policy expectations, with no radical, dangerous departures.

By picking Palin, McCain communicated to me that he is not a one-note candidate (war), but wants to pursue a reform agenda as well.

Maybe we need to find out more about Obama's day to day work as a community organizer... oh, thats right. We're not allowed to look at that.

"I spend time in Hyde Park and it's a hell of a lot more interesting than Wasilla"

That could be taken a number of ways. And note the absolute dripping disdain for small towns.

No, Mark, I really liked Homer, Alaska (pop. 5364), spent a few extra days there. I make no apologies for disdain of cookie-cutter strip malls, though.

Obama on Anderson Cooper (last question)

AC: Some Republican critics say, you don’t have the experience to handle a situation like this [Hurricane Gustav]. They’ve in fact said that Governor Palin has more executive experience as mayor of a small town and as governor of a big state like Alaska. What’s your response? BO: Well, you know, my understanding is that, uh, Governor Palin’s town of Wasilly [sic] has, uh, 50 employees, uh, uh, we’ve got 2500, uh, in this campaign. I think their budget is maybe $12 million a year. Uh, uh, we have a budget of about three times that just for the month. Uh, so I think that, uh, our ability to manage large systems, uh, and to, uh, execute, uh, I think has been made clear over the last couple of years. Uh, and certainly, in terms of, uh, the legislation that I’ve passed just dealing with this issue post-Katrina, uh, of how we handle emergency management. The fact that, uh, many of my recommendations were adopted and are being put in place, uh, as we speak indicates to extent to which we can provide the kinds of support and good service that the American people expect.

I love these off script moments for Obama because they are so revealing.

I was kidding- but Obama really is trying to claim his campaign experience as preparing him for the presidency? Isn't that kinda lunatic?

So you could pick a guy off the street that never worked a day in his life, put him on a ballot, and by nature of having to campaign he's de facto qualified to hold the position he's aspiring to? Isnt that rather circular in logic?

Palin should BURY Obama with that soundbyte. Aside from being circular it also degrades small town America pretty blatantly. Tack on the guns and bibles quote... I mean this stuff plays right into Obama's worst instincts and his rising to the bait. If McCains campaign doesnt immediately turn this into an attack on all of rural and smalltown America they are fools.

I mean, do you really want to tell everybody in New Mexico and Colorado their mayors and governors arent good enough to be president? Even vice-president?

You know, Mark, I do think that most residents of very small towns doubt if their local part-time mayor is equipped to be in the White House. You don't live in a small rural town (either), do you?

Re #84: I was mistaken. It appears that Gov. Palin was never a member of the Alaskan Independence Party.

Her husband was, but it’s not at all relevant whether a candidate’s spouse is a nutcase. That has always been the rule, and Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia.

"You know, Mark, I do think that most residents of very small towns doubt if their local part-time mayor is equipped to be in the White House. "

Keep digging Andrew, keep diggin. Im also not entirely sure how you seperate that part time mayor from the person who became governor, although that is part of the talking point. Please- continue to make that argument.

" also not entirely sure how you seperate that part time mayor from the person who became governor, "

There was a stupid left-wing woman where I work (I have never met a smart left-wing, though), who was bashing Bush at a dinner, by saying that he was just 'the owner of a baseball team' before being 'placed in the WH by his father'.

Of course, she could not admit that Bush was also Governor of the second biggest state before going to the WH. This type of thinking is common on that side - facts are inconvenient to leftism, as normal people know, so the solution is merely to exclude facts.

This is similar to the 'no WMDs/Bush Lied/Saddam was not a threat/the US invasion of Iraq is the worst atrocity in human history' thought process on Iraq. One truly has to believe that World History began in March of 2003 to believe the standard leftist lines about Iraq. The facts before March of 2003 simply make their Iraq positions impossible for the logical mind.

#94: Me, I'm clingin' bitterly to my books, my competencies, and my Shao-Lin honed sense of irony. Which is tingling like a Spidey-sense lately, in all directions.

"Im also not entirely sure how you seperate that part time mayor from the person who became governor, "

If we make the rules such that only life before 2006 counts, Palin still trounces Obama.

Palin loses her Governor experience, but still lives a wholesome, pro-US life.

Obama loses his Senate experience, and his 20 years of listening in agreement to Wright, years of close ties to Bill Ayers, etc. becomes more prominent.

Really, defocussing the events of 2006 onwards to bring pre-2006 events to the front hurts Obama more than Palin. If this is what Obama supports want to do, bring it on.

GK: It's a human tendency, not just leftist. Humans aren't really very good at thinking, remembering, or observing. Just good enough to muddle through, mostly.

Regarding whether running a campaign counts as executive experience: the claim that Obama is resorting to "laughable" circular logic has been published by the McCain camp in the hope that the fans will use it. I expect they will.

It should be noted however that a philosophy professor has been pressing the same argument on Obama's behalf. She even responded to a commenter who made precisely the same mistake as the McCain camp did.

Is Hilzoy wrong? I don't see it. If the argument is supposed to be circular, can we see a demonstration of why this is so?

"I don't see it. If the argument is supposed to be circular, can we see a demonstration of why this is so?"

I stated it earlier but here it is:

Thought experiment- Political Party X pulls a guy off his couch. This guy has no political experience, no leadership experience, no experience running a company, much less any government entity. He hasn't worked a hard day in his life. His hands are soft. And he likes to drink. Lets call him Mark. Buehner.

Anyway Mark is mysteriously nominated Presidential candidate for Party X, which is good because Party X throws better parties.

Now many people feel that some sort of experience, in goverment perferably, are prerequisites for becoming President of the United States.

"Good point", note the powers that be behind the nomination. No-one should be elected president without any experience, however running for president is quite an experience in itself. Aha! There we have it. No-one without experience can become president, however running for president is experience.

Ipso Facto, anyone capable of becoming president must be, by definition, experienced. Mark is happy, and on inaguration day proceeds to make a fool of himself frolicking naked in the reflecting pool, giving shoutouts to his homies at WindsofChange.

All characters in the above are fictitious, and resembelence to real commentators is strictly coincidental. All rights reserved.

PS: i believe this is a collarary to the Douglas Adams admonition that anyone capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to have the job.

Actually, since Gov. Palin is running for VP, doesn't that mean she has (or will have by election time) the experience needed for the job?

Or is 2 months too short? 2 years is apparently more than enough since Sen. Obama has apparently been fully qualified for quite some time. So I'm curious, what's the magic number? 3 months? 6 months? A year?

Mark,

The idea of providing links is so that people can click on them. From Hilzoy’s post:

Obama has spent the past year and a half running a large organization -- as of last December, it had "about 500 employees and a budget of $100 million" -- and running it very well. It's not just that he and his team beat the Clinton campaign, which started out with enormous advantages. It's not even that he often did so by building effective political machines from scratch in states in which Clinton had locked down the political establishment. It's that every account of the Obama campaign that I've read makes it clear that he has done an outstanding job of constructing and running a political organization. For instance, this account of Obama's campaign is very much worth reading, if you want to get a sense of how he runs things....

We’re not talking about Zaphod Beeblebrox here.

I agree with this Mark guy; maybe I'll vote for him.

However, I do think winning a major national campaign counts for something. There is a recent Atlantic article that argues Hillary Clinton's indecisive and poorly run campaign suggests that she was not ready to be commander-in-chief. The opposite could be true, but might be difficult to prove. (Obama's talent may have been to pick Axelrod, like Bush's talent was to pick Rove)

Similarly, I think Palin's been involved in strategic planning with the National Guard that counts for something. Not as much as being the head of the Foreign Relations Committee.

Too much of an on/off switch on talking about experience.

But I also disagree with hilzoy's premise: sometimes people can luck into a position and that shouldn't count. Let's get real. I see a lot of luck in Obama and McCain being where they are today.

PD Shaw: But I also disagree with hilzoy's premise: sometimes people can luck into a position and that shouldn't count.

You are mistaken as to Hilzoy's premise. As she says in response to a comment:

"I didn't just say: see, he won! I posted a series of links describing Obama's campaign and management style. Did you find them at all informative?"

If Obama's campaign is valid experience for POTUS, then by the same token we can judge his qualifications for POTUS by his campaign's performance.

I know some of you give the Obama campaign high marks for competence. (You probably thought The Da Vinci Code was an exciting book.)

But I see a campaign that utterly botched the Florida-Michigan fiasco, and whose attempts to negotiate with Hillary Clinton would have ended the human race if Hillary were armed with nuclear weapons. Also, the sort of people who think the Berlin adventure was a good idea are highly likely to get involved in a land war in Asia. See how much help your Germans are then.

Would you rather have a Governor with just 2 years of experience but an 80% approval rating, or a Governor with 8 years of experience but a 45% approval rating?

Think hard now...

It is laughable that the party that elevated John Edwards and Barack Obama so high, based only on television charisma and despite very questionable backgrounds in each case, should diss Palin. The most qualified Democrat of all, Bill Richardson, never got far, simply due to a lack of charisma.

Come to think of it, why didn't Obama choose Richardson ahead of Biden? Richardson has a better resume, and can help capture the Hispanic vote, while still being a 'white male' effectively.

"We’re not talking about Zaphod Beeblebrox here."

Ok, but how do you quantify something like this? Going back to the example- how do you differentiant the candidate from the campaign? I think Democrats may be especially sensitive to this question- if Mark had Karl Rove masterminding his campaign, how much does that say about the candidate himself? What if no-one knew Rove's name?

Who is Obama's Tenzing Norgay, by the way? How do we go about determining just what Obama himself is actually orchestrating when running a national campaign rife with big money professional vetters, speachwriters, money people, and campaign managers?

Like i said, Dems should be very suspicious of this. The next Bush scion that runs for office is sure to run a great campaign. By why even bother becoming governor any more? I mean if Jenna Bush gets Karl Rove to run her a jaw dropping campaign, that qualifies her to be president? I'd be real careful with this line of though. At least with an elected office there is ultimate accountability and responsibility. I dont know how much credit you should get for running an organization solely designed to exault yourself. A lot of people who would be very at that would probably be very bad presidents.

So does Obama's campaign running experience remove experience as a Senator? Really the guy's spent the last 2 years running for President, so doesn't his Senatorial experience really only count for 1 year?

"Really the guy's spent the last 2 years running for President, so doesn't his Senatorial experience really only count for 1 year?"

How dare you try to hold Obama to the same standards that leftists hold Palin to.

You are a racist. I am not a sexist. Now shut up and accept these truths.

Who is Obama's Tenzing Norgay, by the way?

You look for the guy with the funny name, so it appears that Obama is his own Tenzing Norgay.

You are a racist. I am not a sexist.

There is a catchy song somewhere in here. Sing it to the tune of: You say TOW-MA-TO, I say TOW-mah-ta. "You are a racist, at least I'm not a bigamist. You are a sexist, at least I'm not fascist. Let's call the whole thing off." Somewhere in the last week or so, I think the lines have been drawn a lot tighter between the two camps.

Unlike Obama, Tenzing Norgay was actually from an ethnic group (Tibetan) that was being oppressed and even exterminated, during Tenzing's lifetime.

Obama belongs to no such nationality/group.

#114: He is the Norgay he'd been waiting for.

We are all Tenzing Norgay.

Amen.

We are all Zaphod Beeblebrox.

And he unto us; forever.

Norgay was Sherpa. Not Tibetan, though they are related to the Tibetans, as are the Mongolians.

And the Sherpa have not been oppressed by the rest of the Nepalese, happily.

I'm gonna be honest, this thread got a little weird. And i kinda like it.

I agree with Armed Liberal that both Barack Obama and John Mccain picked as well as they could have for their vice-presidential candidates, but I think that John McCain did a lot better by making a Hail Mary play that's coming off, which as a likely loser is what he had to hope for, than Barack Obama did by making the appropriately safe, lead-protecting choice.

I also think it was high time for both leaders to show what the "change" they were offering looks like. They both did that.

Particularly for pro-lifers and pro-choicers, both sides have now made themselves tolerably plain, and with the Supreme Court balanced 5-4 and many old Supreme Court Justices who held on through the Bush years, win all or lose all seems to be the stakes.

That would not have been the case had John picked a pro-choicer, as then the only options for pro-lifers would have been either lose all, or work and pay for a break-even option at best, and likely lose all anyway. That would not have been enough to motivate many people to volunteer, or give, or likely even show up on election day. On the other hand, pro-choicers would have stood to gain everything, and would have every reason to expect to get it. "YES WE CAN!"

Ok, but how do you quantify something like this? Going back to the example- how do you differentiant the candidate from the campaign?

That's a big problem with using executive experience as a criterion. In business, how do you differentiate the CEO from the company? As Warren Buffett says, when a first-class CEO takes charge of a third-class company, it's usually the CEO's reputation that gets revised. Similarly, the fact that some things still work in America is hardly evidence that Bush has great leadership skills. But the Democrats didn't propose that criterion, the Republicans did; so take it up with them.

When we learn more about Palin's management style maybe we will discover that she really does have something special. I think Hilzoy made a pretty good case for Obama's ability to build and motivate a highly effective team. It's not as if he inherited it.

Who is Obama's Tenzing Norgay, by the way?

Judge the climber by the climb. Among the people who have taken part in this contest, who looks most comfortable at high altitude? Who looks tired? Who looks like he doesn't know the best route to take?

It seems to me that Obama knows this mountain pretty well.

As David Blue points out, it seems that abortion is going to be a major issue. The Obama campaign is churning out radio adverts attacking McCain-Palin on that front. That will make for a bad-tempered campaign but there you go.

In business, how do you differentiate the CEO from the company?

I don't buy the analogy. A company is in the business of making a product, usually selling something. A company is not in the business of selling its CEO. But if Ford was in the business of making its CEO look good, how would you trust anything Ford had to say about the CEO? We only have good information about how Hillary Clinton's campaign was actually run because the campaign ended and the staff began spilling the beans.

Like I said earlier, I think Obama gets some credit for his campaign, but hilzoy appears to take it too far.

But the Democrats didn't propose that criterion, the Republicans did;

No, the argument about what qualifications are needed for the office is a perennial argument. The notion that executive experience matters is brought up by Democrats when their candidate has executive experience (Clinton, Carter etc.)

Exactly, that's the point. Its a dangerous (if novel) idea that the ability to head an organization wholly tasked with exalting oneself is a major qualification for holding the highest office in the world. The truly talented executives in the world dont seem to spend most of their time promoting themselves as a product.

But the simpler argument is the one that will resonate: if I was in a job interview and claimed my best qualification was the fact that i applied and managed to show up, i probably wouldnt get the gig.<