Palin’s working-mom street cred is going to appeal to some (certainly not all) women who would not be expected to share Palin’s political views — such as, a national correspondent for NBC’s Today show:
Politics aside and as a journalist, it’s intriguing to see the so-called mommy wars resurrected and reignited once again. As a working mom, it’s disheartening to see another — whomever she is — attacked for her choices.
TNR offers an Alaskan perspective (hat tip: Neo-Neocon):
What the Republicans missed about Sarah Palin then [just before she ousted a sitting Alaska governor in a primary]–and what the Democrats seem poised to miss now–is that she is a true political savant; a candidate with a knack for identifying the key gripes of the populace and packaging herself as the solution. That keen political nose has enabled her to routinely outperform her resume. Nearly two years into her administration, she still racks up approval ratings of 80 per cent or better….
Sarah Palin is a living reminder that the ultimate source of political power in this country is not the Kennedy School or the Davos Summit or an Ariana Huffington salon; even now, power emanates from the electorate itself. More precisely, power in 2008 emanates from the working class electorates of Pennsylvania and Ohio.
Sooner or later, the Obama camp will realize that the beauty pageant queen is an enormously talented populist in a year that is ripe for populism. For their own sake, it had better be sooner.
I’m skeptical of the partisan contention that McCain did little or no vetting of Palin in advance of the announcement. Here’s an extended response from the McCain camp — according to an unidentified senior McCain strategist, the vetting
“included her filling out a 70-question questionnaire that was highly intrusive and personal. She was then interviewed for more than three hours by A.B. Culvahouse [head of the VP selection team]. There were multiple follow-up interviews. … There was a public records search and political vet. There was a private life and financial vet. Everything that has come out was known by the campaign through the vetting process.â€
Because of America’s bizarre process for vice presidential selection, the safest pick for a running mate seems to be someone who has recently run for president (Obama-Biden, Kerry-Edwards, Clinton-Gore, Reagan-GWBush, etc.) If the prospective VP has not already been through the campaign crucible, the vetting has to be accomplished in strict secrecy, and the secrecy inherently limits how thorough the vetting can be.
The second half of this 1988 NYT article explains how George H.W. Bush waited until the convention was already under way to announce Dan Quayle as his running mate. Consequently, the first part of the convention was overshadowed by speculation about who would be the VP candidate, and the second part was overshadowed by a media feeding frenzy over Quayle, aggravated by Quayle’s fumbling responses in his initial interviews about “his military service, a golf trip to Florida with a female lobbyist and whether he had enough experience to be President.” (Hat tip: Slate.)
Palin acquitted herself reasonably well in her first public remarks, when she was introduced on the morning of the announcement. She’ll be under the microscope tonight when she speaks at the convention.
Hard to see how the Palin candidacy can survive the continuing drip-drip-drip of new revelations — and the press is only getting warmed up. The Alaska Independence Party is not exactly a “fringe” group — its standard-bearer was elected governor in 1990. But the party’s motto of “Alaska First — Alaska Always” stands in stark opposition to McCain’s “Country First.” This affiliation alone would be no big deal to spin away — she left the party years ago, had common ground on other issues but never supported secession, etc. But there is undoubtedly more to come.
I’ve tried all weekend to compartmentalize my feeling about the Palin selection: It was a bad choice, but maybe it will actually help the ticket, or at least not hurt it. But both compartments are flooding, and I’m worried that the ship is going down.
If she withdraws from the ticket promptly, maybe McCain can survive this by pointing out that Obama also has made bad choices in his associates, in relationships that have lasted for years (Jeremiah Wright, Bill Ayers). But this whole episode reflects badly on McCain’s judgment.
We need a new way of selecting a Vice President.
From The Corner:
Governor Palin is, based on her resume and achievement, better qualified than Obama to be president. … Obama has no important legislation to his name and no achievements that commend him to be President.
Based on what I know about Governor Palin so far, I think this is correct. Whether the sentiment will gain any traction is another matter.
I continue to think that McCain probably made a mistake in selecting Palin. But I’m less convinced it’s going to hurt him with moderates more than it helps him with conservatives.
The people making the most noise about Sarah Palin are already confirmed Obama supporters. But if people who are NOT already committed to Obama spend the next two months comparing the experience of Palin and Obama… I don’t think that helps Obama, especially given that he is running for President and she is not.
And to the extent that Democratic partisans go too far and attack Palin with Martian love child allegations, there will be a backlash among people who are not confirmed Obama supporters. Her record, credentials and campaigning skills are going to get a thorough airing. A lot will depend on how well she performs under pressure.
Update 2:20 p.m.: Turns out the Governor’s daughter is pregnant. This is, or should be, a non-event. It won’t even hurt her with the most socially conservative voters, especially since the daughter plans to carry the pregnancy to term and marry the baby’s father.
In choosing a President, standard-bearers for each of the major parties bubble up to the top through an extended process of caucuses and primaries over a period of months. The contenders then essentially campaign in 50 separate state elections, vying for a majority of Electoral College votes that are apportioned according to state population. Checks and balances everywhere you look.
What about choosing the Vice President? You know, the person who’s a heartbeat away from the most powerful office on earth? Oh, one person makes that decision unilaterally.
The VP is not elected or confirmed in any meaningful way — theoretically the party convention could reject a VP candidate, but it won’t happen, and even if it did, that’s not a choice, that’s a veto. The VP nominally is elected along with the President — but it’s a package deal, the votes really are being cast for the top of the ticket.
One person’s unilateral decision. Even an Assistant Secretary of the Interior has a more rigorous vetting process — the Senate has to confirm the choice.
Originally, whoever came in second was named the Vice President. So when John Adams defeated Thomas Jefferson, Jefferson became VP. Then Jefferson ran against his boss four years later and ousted him. Bizarre as it sounds, I almost think that’s a better system than what we have now. The Secret Service might have to protect the President FROM the Vice President… but if the VP moves up, at least the incoming President would have been a strong vote-getter in a national election.
As a socially liberal McCain supporter living in one of the bluest towns in a blue state, I’ve learned how to reconcile myself to various aspects of his candidacy. The most glaring example is abortion rights, where I think McCain is on the wrong side of the issue. But for me the issues that trump all others are the Iraq war and the war against Islamic extremism. Obama has many appealing qualities, but of the two, McCain is the candidate I want as Commander-in-Chief, and everything else is secondary for me.
I paid very little attention to the pre-announcement VP discussions in either party. When Biden was named, I thought it undercut Obama’s change message, but that he’s a safe choice and I could imagine him as President. Then came the Palin announcement.
Stage 1: Confusion
Hm… First-term governor of a sparsely populated state — doesn’t that undercut the most potent argument against Obama? I saw the first Palin headlines just before I got on the treadmill, and this stage lasted throughout my half-hour workout.
Stage 2: Rationalization
OK, so it’s not a great pick, but maybe it will help McCain get elected by shoring up his relationship with social conservatives, and attracting disaffected Hillary voters who already are considering McCain.
This stage lasted the rest of the day Friday, while I hunted for reasons to reassure myself that she’s not a terrible choice.
Stage 3: Annoyance
I woke up in this stage this morning. Why couldn’t he just have picked Romney? I don’t particularly like Romney, but the guy came in second — the positives and negatives about him are already well known. It would have been a safe choice, certainly by comparison, and the VP contest would have become irrelevant, as it normally is.
Stage 4: Gloom
I slipped into this stage later in the morning while talking with my Obama-supporting wife. Nina and I share common values and we would never mock each other, even by proxy. She respects my reasons for supporting McCain, but she’s going to pull the other lever in November. She was very gentle when she said, after I watched video of Palin’s remarks, “I’m sorry, honey, but it doesn’t look good for your team.”
I agree, it doesn’t. Maybe things will look brighter after the convention, where we’ll get to know Palin better and hear more about why McCain picked her. But right now I see her as a net drag on the ticket. She’ll gain votes among social convervatives and maybe among some Hillary fans, but she saps the life out of the experience issue. Even some social conservatives have qualms about tokenism — Ramesh Ponnuru said “Can anyone say with a straight face that Palin would have gotten picked if she were a man?”
Stage 5: Reconsidering My Vote
I haven’t quite reached this stage yet. Maybe I won’t. I think McCain made a bad choice, but anybody can make a bad choice. Obama has made bad choices. The top of the ticket still matters most, and I still prefer McCain over Obama. But I’ve never been an Obama hater, and I don’t subscribe to the idea that he would be a disastrous president. Issues aside, I would be proud to have a black president, as long as it’s Obama and not Jesse Jackson.
A vice president only really matters if the president dies. I hope McCain lives another thirty years or more, but he turned 72 yesterday. Sarah Palin seems like a decent and courageous woman, and she might do a great job as president. But the heartbeat-away factor — the most relevant question for a vice president — clearly favors Biden. I’m talking here not about issues, just about readiness to step in and do the job.
The fact that I’m even thinking along these lines doesn’t bode well for McCain’s ability to pick up voters like me, who if not for the war would be inclined to vote for Democrats.
Joe Biden’s acceptance speech last night was well-delivered and powerful. The only part that raised my hackles was the Iraq section, with the thrice repeated “John McCain was wrong. Barack Obama was right.” At the time I thought it bothered me simply because I continue to support the decision to overthrow Saddam. But on inspecting the transcript today, I believe Biden’s argument also was intellectually dishonest.
The obvious problem with arguing that Obama’s judgment is better than McCain’s is the “surge.” McCain was a champion of the concept of a surge, long before the Bush Administration put it into action. MoveOn.org even described the surge as “McCain’s idea” — that’s a bit hyperbolic, but a nice compliment nonetheless. Obama consistently opposed the surge, and as recently as a month ago he was still trying to explain away the apparent success (thus far) of the change in tactics. Last night Biden took his party’s best remaining option with regard to the surge, which was to ignore it.
But that’s not even what I mean by intellectually dishonest. Here’s the dishonesty:
Now, let me ask you: Whose judgment should we trust? Should we trust John McCain’s judgment when he said only three years ago, “Afghanistan — we don’t read about it anymore because it’s succeeded? Or should we trust Barack Obama, who more than a year ago called for sending two additional combat brigades to Afghanistan?
It’s hard to catch when listening to him say it, but I’ve added emphasis to the switcheroo that he hoped we all would miss. Three years ago there was, in fact, very little in the news about Afghanistan, because the Taliban was quiet. Two years later, under very different circumstances, Obama seized on a resurgence of violence in Afghanistan as protective cover to avoid being seen as a doctrinaire pacifist, while continuing to argue that America should promptly surrender in Iraq. (P.S.: McCain also favors sending additional troops to Afghanistan.)
The other sleight-of-hand in Biden’s speech was his statement that “Now, after six long years, the Bush administration and the Iraqi government are on the verge of setting a date to bring our troops home.” This is offered as evidence that Obama was right in supporting a timeline for withdrawal and McCain was wrong in opposing it.
“On the verge” may be an overstatement, but more to the point, the timeline being discussed is the end of 2011. The argument over a “timeline” began back when we were arguably losing the war, and Obama and others talked about a timeline of months, not years, regardless of the situation on the ground. On principle I think a timeline is still a bad idea, but if the current leaders of Iraq and the U.S. want to set a timeline for three-plus years down the road, so be it. There will be plenty of time to reconsider if necessary before any significant troop draw-down begins.
Biden also didn’t mention the original decision to authorize war in Iraq, which he… um… supported. Obama opposed the authorization, from his seat in the Illinois state senate, not quite six years ago.
Kevin Drum of Mother Jones (see, I read lefties, too) describes NRO’s The Corner as “a peek into the conservative id,” which is a great description. I don’t agree with everything I read in The Corner, but it’s the first place I turn for a (usually) thoughtful conservative perspective on breaking news.
Despite a few sniping comments here and there, the consensus in The Corner is that Michelle Obama gave a great speech last night — and in this case I do agree. She’s become somewhat controversial because of her angry class-struggle partisanship on the stump, and for a tone-deaf comment that “for the first time in my adult lifetime, I am really proud of my country.” (Note to self: don’t go into national politics unless you want to be remembered for the handful of stupidest things you’ve ever said.)
THAT Michelle Obama is not the one who appeared on stage last night. Last night’s model gave an unabashed paean to the American Dream. “Michelle and the girls were a homerun for Dems tonight. It’s no small thing when both sides can talk American exceptionalism. It’s a start,” said Kathryn Jean Lopez.
To her credit, Michelle Obama did exactly what needed to be done tonight. … Whatever cynics like me might think, there were many wet eyes in that room. And there were more African American faces looking with deep pride at this impressive woman, giving a wonderful speech, looking like [a] very serious political player herself, and a world class political wife. Does she really love her country? Standing at that podium, with the nation’s eyes upon her, how could it be otherwise. Brava!