Let’s take the McCain campaign at their word that they carefully vetted Palin and chose deliberately to reveal the news about her daughter’s pregnancy exactly when (and as) they did.
Is this the way a competent executive puts this story out there? Letting innuendo build up, and then amid cries of “privacy” and “tabloid smears” and “Obama’s behind it,” put a 17-year-old in the spotlight? Don’t you think that if McCain knew all about it, as he claims, he could have managed this news better, set up one-time only interviews with the principals, or at the very least been the authoritative source of the proud announcement of Bristol’s impending motherhood?
Let’s leave aside the issue of “Was McCain clueless, toothless, and helpless?” for a while, and take him at his word that he knew the whole story before making the announcement of Palin as his VP choice. Let’s simply consider that he did know the whole story. Is McCain’s management of the news story–how he chose to get the story out–a sign of competence or incompetence to you?
Hmmm…I’ll be the first to bite. (Be nice to me, I’m a new kid on the block here). I think the Palin choice is one of the few good ones McCain could have made. He has three things that he had to do with his nomination, in order to improve his presidential bid.
Compensate for the charisma vacuum. Though McCain has an extensive fan club amongst independents and moderates, he has a few things that are working against him. His age, his injuries, and his health all make his screen presence less than electrifying. Now, I don’t believe in basing one’s voting on physical appearance or screen presence, but it is an important factor in forming the subconscious opinions of the public. By choosing a physically attractive running mate, he is doing his best to mitigate this issue.
Avoid internal conflict. McCain is a maverick. That’s a great part of his image. However, it makes him a lightening rod for controversy in his own party, which has a strong emphasis on party platform orthodoxy. This is how Bush beat him in the primaries in '00. The more conventional picks, such as a Romney, would fight him tooth and nail on a lot of issues and undermine a great deal of his campaign. He has picked someone who is young enough and new enough to be honored by the nomination, who is a bit of a rule breaker herself, and therefore is not likely to fight him too hard on issues such as the platform.
Energize his base. Because of his mixed record on abortion, his neutrality on a number of conservative issues, and his willingness to cross the aisle (all of which are reasons for why he is my pick in this election), he needs someone who will reconcile him to the rest of his party. With her guns, born-again Christian conversion, and her heavy pro-life credentials, she can bring in the “family values voters” in a way that other picks can’t. In some ways, the pregnant teenager is a boon. She makes her appear more human, and even more pro-life (because Bristol is keeping the baby, marrying the dad, and is going to have the help of family). These are all important things for McCain.
In short, while the choice seems less than inspired, she’s an effective choice for the position. Now, here’s keeping my fingers crossed that she nails tonight’s speech.
The question wasn’t about the choice, but about the incompetent way issues with Palin have been leaking out at a time when there should have been a universally positive news message from the convention. Surely there are female social conservatives in the Republican party without so many negatives.
Contrast this to the Democratic Convention. Before there were lots of concerns about the Clintons, but they both hit it out of the park. There was an article in the Times today about how Obama has been campaigning in swing states at relatively small venues and being relatively quiet, since it doesn’t make sense to interfere when your opponents are self-destructing.
If we’re talking about management, who has the better managed convention? Especially given that the Pubbies had not visible internal splits and the Dems did.
I think that after broadcasts, the professional, non-ideological, reporters are saying to each other that they can’t believe that McCain picked such a nobody. It will come out next year, now they have to pretend it wasn’t a totally stupid move.
If the red flags keep going up for the remainder of the US voters who are not immediately impressed with her, McCain’s first major decision will be a huge blunder. Obama has been talking about judgment vs. experience and McCain may have dropped the election in Obama’s lap by making his point for him. It looks to me like a desperate Hail Mary pass to keep Republican voters from dropping off the face of the earth this November. Which does seem to have provided some short term gains.
But from the liberal side, it’s pretty amazing that in less than a week, depending on a persons point of view, upwards of half a dozen issues have risen. These include:
McCain’s judgment
Her lack of federal experience (perhaps the least experienced VP choice in modern times)
Possible corruption or overstepping the bounds of her office including a recall attempt that fell only 40 signatures short of being enacted
Her association with secessionists
Lies and flip flops such as her ‘not supporting a bridge to nowhere’ when it is shown she very much supported it
Trying to fire people who did not agree or support her agenda for which she is currently under investigation
Leaving her city 20 million dollars in debt once she left (which does seem to qualify one as a fiscal hawk these days)
Her far right political stances which are in lockstep with the Bush administration in an age where people want change
Another big oil person trying to get into the White House
And we’ve yet to see where she might fit into the Stevens corruption investigation beyond her ties with a 527 associated with it
In addition the Obama campaign wants her family life off limits, but still people are going to talk about issues there and how that reflects unfavorably on her among half the households in America.
For McCain’s opponents, Sarah Palin is the gift that keeps on giving. It’s hard to keep up with the slew of possible difficulties she might bring without a score card. There were so many choices McCain could have picked that might have won over people to the left of him. None would have brought but a fraction of the number of questionable issues raised in only 5 days. But instead he’s circled the wagons and fired up the Democrats and liberals to fight even harder against his winning the presidency than he might have.
I don’t know if McCain is truly a religious man, but I’d think he should get down on his knees often and pray that one of these things doesn’t turn into an Eagleton moment for him. Who knows what else might be uncovered just by the end of the week, much less by the end of October?
Talk radio is already accusing McCain of politicial suicide. To me, it clearly appears that McCain picked a running mate not on the merits, but strictly because she’s a woman…and a governor. The former is to split the woman’s vote just enough to tip the scale in his favor. The latter because some seem to believe a governor has more experience than a US Senator. (Whether this feeling is justified would be another thread unto itself.)
If McCain is such a maverick (as we continually heard during the primaries) how ever did he win his party’s nomination??? I cannot believe it is now those same conservative, stuffed-shirt Republicans who stand on the brink of (virtually) putting the first woman in the White House. Should the Republicans win, I hope they like a taste of their own medicine! Talk about your just desserts! For me, I view it as the most ironic twist of events in history! (A Republican VP with a prego, single daughter no less! :eek: Hmm, it’s King Bush I vs. Murphy Brown all over again…but in reverse!)
McCain should have picked Condalisa Rice. Now, wouldn’t that have been interesting?
Before the Palin pick I would have given McCain better than 50:50 to win the election. I expected the undecided voters to break 2:1 for McCain come election day. If you’re not decided by that point, you’ll pick the safe candidate. Palin is such an unknown quantity that she may tilt the balance back over to Obama/Biden, who have certainly been exhaustively scrutinized.
On the other hand, she is the darling of the religious right, and, while they were always going to vote for McCain, may not have donated or volunteered or supported him in ways other than by just voting for him.
Even if it is a “Hail Mary” pass, it may work out, and if it does, you look like a genius. I don’t think it’s an incompetent pick, but it is risky. Like any pick, it’s going to have advantages and disadvantages. If you’re partisan you focus on one or the other and it looks like either lunacy or brilliance.
Let’s try to keep on focus, folks, and not turn this into another Palin-bash, please. I’m wondering, if Palin was as vetted as McCain claims, why there is not more pro-active damage control by the Republicans? It makes no sense to vet someone, see the obvious issues that will pop up in the media, based on your careful vetting process, and then NOT to get out in front of each story. “Folks, I’d like to tell you how proud I am that Governor Palin is about to become a proud grandmother…” [gasp from media and audience alike] “and by the way, I’d like to distribute these medical reports on her unusual and courageous manner of giving birth to her fifth child this past April, which we’re certainly proud to share with you…” etc. THAT’s how you field a media firestorm, not by denying, obfuscating, admitting in bits and pieces, and generally going off-message for a week or more.
Well, Republicans have not exactly been great on spin control… from Mission Accomplished to “You’re doing a heck of a job, Brownie”, they have consistently failed to manage their image well. And, when you think about it, across the last eight years that hasn’t hurt them much. When Kerry and Edwards ran in 2004, I thought they were shoe ins, because the electorate was the angriest I had ever seen it. Then, they squeaked in. None of the Palin stuff has drawn as much fire in the media as either of those two publicity stunts.
The New York Times this morning had an interesting article on the governorship in Alaska, and what Palin had to deal with to succeed there. It was enlightening reading, and it emphasized the fact that she has decent executive experience. The major issue in her recall, it seems, is that she was not part of the establishment, so any slight wobble that she made was closely watched and hotly criticized. Now, I’m not saying she’s perfect, I’m a bit nervous about her attempts to ban books, but think about it. As important as the presidency is (and by extension the vp), things still have to get past congress, and the supreme court.
Now, Bush has been able to manipulate congress through his war on terror, but, the banning of library books still is so unpopular it would never fly.
Now Buchanan was saying that in praise of McCain. Me I see it as an indictment of his judgment since the bridge he is flying under is the future well being of our country. I see it as similar to the choice made by a different cocky pilot in 1945 (just substitute our country for the Empire State Building.)
So yes, Buchanan nails it in one. The issue: is this the sort of decision maker we want piloting our country?
Do you think Obama is the most qualified person in the Democratic party to lead the country? In what way would he be more qualified than Hillary Clinton?
It seems to me that you guys forfeited this argument when you tossed aside someone with decades of Washington experience, including 8 years in the White House and two terms as a Senator, for a junior Senator who had a grant total of a year and a half of Washington experience before running for President.
The difference is that Obama, over the period of many months, managed to convince millions of voters that he is qualified. He has gone into detail about his policies, opinions, and experience. You may think he’s un(der)qualified, but clearly many many people would disagree, or think that what he has to over the presidency more than makes up for it.
Palin has not been subjected to that kind of scrutiny. The McCain camp picks her and then says “take our word for it”. Their arguments for her inclusion on the ticket are transparently political and completely contradictory to what they’ve been claiming for months about their opponent. At least Obama has gone through a trial by fire to earn his status. Palin hasn’t, yet we’re expected to see her thin resume, her complete indifference to or unfamiliarity with critical issues of national importance, and credibly believe that she is the “most qualified” person to assume this role.
That the McCain campaign clearly did not know a number of things about her political record (and skeletons) while she was in Alaska makes things even worse, since we’re expected to take their word for something on which they clearly did, at best, only the most rudimentary research themselves. This is supposed to be the first major decision a presidential candidate makes.
Obama clearly made his choice based on who would best help him govern. McCain clearly made his choice based on who would most help him win.
Millions of people are responsible for Obama being the nominee. If you want to criticize those peoples’ judgment, go right ahead.
One person, and one person alone, is responsible for the train wreck that is Sarah Palin, and that same one person is asking me to gamble the future of the country on his judgment.
The distinction, which you’re eliding over, is that the Dems did this over the course of a campaign, months and months of debating, fielding reporters’ questions, putting position papers out to be read and discussed, and 18 million of them reached that Obama, despite his relative lack of experience, was still a better choice than Clinton was.
Palin is clilmbing aboard a national ticket, with nothing, really, but John McCain’s say-so that she’s qualified to serve as VP. The voters have been excluded from the process–she’s been stamped by the man who chose her, and has received the approval of the Republican delegates, but the general public may not give her the same kind of automatic approval, nor should they. If she had run a campaign, as Obama did and Biden did (and McCain did) we might know her positions, her intelligence, her quaifications for the job. We know nothing, other than spin, and that might not hold up. If it doesn’t, you;ve got no one but yourselves to blame, not the voters for deciding not to risk the next four years on a candidate we haven’t gotten to know.
First of all, the experience gap between Obama and Clinton is minimal. Obama points out that experience does not equal good judgment. If experience were everything, the leading candidates for the Democratic presidency would have been Biden, Dodd, and Richardson with Obama, Clinton, and Edwards dangling in single digits during the primaries. Yes, we think he is qualified because he has shown great savvy and judgment in understanding the issues. He’s has run one of the most successful presidential campaigns in history against great odds. He has received much kudos from leaders around the world for his steady hand even before becoming the nominee. He’s made a point that Cheney and Rumsfeld were two of the most experienced people in Washington yet they made one terrible decision after another. The well-seasoned Bush administration (GWB himself excluded) has left 80% of the country wanting change.
Hillary’s experience does not necessarily equal Obama’s. Aside from being older with an earlier start in politics, she had 4 additional years in the senate. Beyond that, while she was first lady, which is not a member appointed or otherwise of the executive branch, Obama was pulling himself up by his bootstraps as you conservatives like to say. His achievements as president of the Harvard Law Review, successful community organizer and civil rights attorney lead to a seat in the Illinois state senate. There he brought about 130 pieces of legislation with a good track record for having a number of them adopted. People were looking at him as Presidential material by the time he was encouraged to run for his US senate seat. This outsider delivered the Democratic Convention’s keynote speech even before being elected to that seat.
Yes, Hillary held significant positions during her career and would have continued to do so. Yet she probably never would have become a US senator had she not had the visibility as first lady. She was successful to some point on her own but what proves she would have achieved even the US Senate had she not married Bill Clinton?
As I mentioned above, the well-experienced McCain might ultimately have made his biggest blunder on judgment with an apparently offhand decision. He decided to even up both sides on the inexperience debate rather than double the experience quota on the GOP side. Was this wise, Sam?
All on his very first decision as nominee. Palin may or may not explode in his face, but she will certainly energize Democrats as much as she will Republicans. In that respect, I think she brings nothing to her party.
I don’t believe McCain made the decision to select Palin as much as it was made for him. In that regard, I’ll accept that he isn’t as incompetent as the decision to choose Palin suggests.
