TNR BLOGS

July 03, 2009 | 7:55 PM
July 03, 2009 | 7:37 PM
July 03, 2009 | 7:12 PM

March 09, 2009 | 5:19 PM
March 09, 2009 | 5:16 PM
January 07, 2009 | 12:20 PM

July 01, 2009 | 10:33 PM
June 30, 2009 | 8:42 AM
June 29, 2009 | 9:09 AM

July 26, 2008 | 2:24 PM
July 23, 2008 | 1:55 PM
July 17, 2008 | 3:56 PM
COLUMNISTS
TODAY'S STORIES
29.08.2008
An Astonishingly Arrogant V.P. Selection

It may be John McCain's birthday, but it seems like he's the one giving out gifts today. The selection of Palin doesn't simply, as others have pointed out, undermine the notion that Obama is too inexperienced to be president; it gives Obama the chance to actually take the edge on national security while making John McCain's age a central issue of the campaign.

Whatever the political calculations involved in picking a veep, the most important qualification for the vice presidency is the ability to assume the presidency in a crisis. Given that of the last 12 presidents, three have either died or resigned, this is hardly a hypothetical consideration--in fact, given that McCain is 72, it is a very real consideration. Harry Truman, Lyndon Johnson, and Gerald Ford all faced multiple foreign policy crises immediately upon assuming office, whether it was the onset of the Cold War, the North's invasion of South Korea, the Vietnam War, or the withering of détente and the resulting increase in nuclear tension with the Soviet Union. The next president will have to finish the denuclearization of North Korea; prevent the nuclearization of Iran; organize a departure from Iraq that maintains some level of stability; defeat a resurgent Taliban in Afghanistan; establish, nurture, and make the most of a relationship with Pakistan's new leaders; and confront a revanchist Russia while preserving and enhancing its cooperation on nonproliferation and climate change--to say nothing of working with India, China, or our allies.

Could Sarah Palin conceivably manage this task? Her tenure as a small-town mayor and Alaska governor has given her no foreign policy experience whatsoever. True, Obama has little foreign policy experience either, as McCain and others have pointed out again and again. But during his time in national office he has demonstrated a clear commitment to the most pressing issues in American foreign policy. Take nuclear proliferation. Early in his tenure on the Foreign Relations Committee, Obama joined Richard Lugar's efforts to secure weapons of mass destruction in the former Soviet Union. Obama's first trip abroad as senator was to Russia and Ukraine to learn more about those efforts firsthand. In 2007, he cosponsored legislation with Senator Chuck Hagel calling for ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and negotiation of a fissile material cut-off treaty. And he was the first major presidential candidate to embrace the steps laid out in 2007 by Sam Nunn, Bill Perry, George Shultz, and Henry Kissinger through which the United States would fight nuclear terrorism, reinvigorate the nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, and ultimately eliminate nuclear weapons.

Perhaps more important than the experience they embodied, these efforts demonstrate that Obama has a worldview. Obama recognizes the greatness and uniqueness of the United States, but he does not translate that exceptionalism into dominance or isolationism as conservatives often have. Instead, he sees it as the basis for U.S. leadership. He has laid out that worldview in myriad speeches and articles, and he has surrounded himself with pragmatists who have a record of translating that understanding of America's role into concrete gains for our national security. By contrast, there is no indication that Palin has even shades of a foreign policy worldview; a Nexis search doesn't turn up a single article that she has written on international affairs.

McCain undoubtedly thinks he has his national security bases covered; picking Palin shows that, unlike Obama, he doesn't need an eminence grise like Biden to add heft to his ticket. But surely McCain recognizes that Palin may have to fill his shoes someday. By choosing her anyway, he has demonstrated hubris well beyond anything Obama has displayed on his most arrogant day: a belief that he can master unforeseen circumstances, physical and otherwise, that are well beyond his control. This is insulting and dangerous and suggests that McCain may want to think twice before accusing Obama of putting his personal ambition ahead of the national interest.

No doubt Michelle is right that the Obama-Biden team will have to be careful attacking Palin's frighteningly thin resume and tenuous grasp of foreign policy. But surely a campaign that has been charged with being too naïve to manage rogue state dictators can have a bit of fun with the idea that a one-time Miss Congeniality could effectively face down Vladimir Putin, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, or Kim Jong Il. Surely, Obama's "eight is enough" quip ought to apply not only to President Bush's economic and foreign policy travesties, but to the elevation of mediocrity that has characterized his appointment of Michael Brown to FEMA and his nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court. And surely we can agree that if the McCain campaign was desperate to transparently court voters put off by Hillary Clinton's loss, there is no dearth of women with far greater intellectual, executive, and political abilities--abilities that would allow them to assume the presidency in a heartbeat.

--Peter Scoblic

Related: More on Sarah Palin from TNR

Posted: Friday, August 29, 2008 4:35 PM with 124 comment(s)

Comments

You must be logged-in to comment.

Not a subscriber? Click here to get a digital or print and digital subscription to The New Republic!

psantillana said:

thank you!

perfection! the gold medal!

August 29, 2008 4:46 PM

jacksondyer said:

"An Astonishingly Arrogant V.P. Selection"

Yea, and so was selecting  Danforth Quayle  (however you spell that potato head’s name) yet Bush Sr. won anyway.

No one votes for VP.

Still, some women will vote for her because it will advance their cause. Her person is more important to them than her views.

August 29, 2008 4:48 PM

drdannyu said:

Well, as a Mainer, I expect to run into a sauced, embittered Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins at a local watering hole any day now.  I may send over a couple of highballs.

August 29, 2008 4:52 PM

wgcreeley said:

Yes.

I consider this the definitive response to today's shocking news. Thank you, Mr. Scoblic.

August 29, 2008 4:57 PM

dsmth said:

It's as though McCain has conceded the race and is just making a maverick gesture to the fundamentalist base.  Don't know whether this qualifies as going out with a bang or going out with a whimper.

August 29, 2008 4:58 PM

mcgumbleton said:

This is an excellent post which in fact is a perfect frame for pointing out John McCain's recklessness. In his first executive decision John McCain made a reckless choice.

August 29, 2008 5:04 PM

brownjr_97 said:

"By contrast, there is no indication that Palin has even shades of a foreign policy worldview; a Nexis search doesn't turn up a single article that she has written on international affairs."

And of course one can only demonstrate a worldview by being published on international affairs?  This demonstrates the sort of intellectual elitism that has downed Democrats in presidential elections.  Kerry and Gore didn't get anywhere by being the smartest guy in the room and Clinton won with a downhome-folksy-ism not by touting his Rhodes Scholar credentials.

Palin may or may not have the qualifications to be president in the case of the demise of John McCain, but the electorate will NOT hold it against her that she's not published.  They will vote for or against her based on her ability to connect with them and convince them that she will manage crisis in a manner with which they can understand and respect.

August 29, 2008 5:04 PM

AlanSP said:

Unfortunately, jackson is probably right.  Very few people votes against a ticket because the VP is unqualified (among people who would have voted for it otherwise).

The way that it could hurt is  that it seriously undermines the McCain camp's constant refrain that Obama "isn't ready" to be President.  Conservatives have been touting the fact that, well, she's got *executive* experience.  But this rings hollow given that McCain has no executive experience either.  It's pretty hard to come up with a metric whereby Palin and McCain are qualified but Obama is not.

August 29, 2008 5:04 PM

Crock1701 said:

And Jackson, we can thank god that George HW Bush survived four years.  Beyond being an arrogant political choice, it actually threatens the country.  If someone were to assassinate the next President, I would feel much safer with Biden stepping in than a governor who wasn't even governor when this Presidential campaign began.

August 29, 2008 5:05 PM

aeromonas said:

Yes.  This is the central consideration, isn't it?  Everyone should--that's not to say that they will--as themselves, 'If President John McCain falls off the podium on inauguration day, is Sarah Palin ready to assume the presidency?"  

The answer for me would have to be, "I don't know."  But the fact that there is no more evidence as to her readiness for the CiC role than there is for thousands of other public officials and business executives is certainly of concern.

And it is blindingly obvious that McCain himself gave ZERO consideration to his own mortality in making this pick.  Has there ever been a more blatantly instrumental choice of running mate?  Okay, there have been others where the record was as thin--does two years as governor trump ten years in the House of Reps?--but I can't think of another where the grinding gears of political calculation were so plainly visible.

August 29, 2008 5:08 PM

lonestarpedro said:

Quayle had way more foreign policy experience than Palin does. He was in Congress and the Senate for 12 years before he became VP. She's so much less qualified, in the context of 2008, for the White House.

Doesn't the lack of some - any - a little bit at least - foreign policy experience for the VP candidate during a time like this essentially DISQUALIFY the ticket from consideration by serious and responsible voters?

August 29, 2008 5:10 PM

seanwright said:

I was reading about her in National Journal.  Education: B.S. Poli-Sci, University of Idaho.  Give me a break.  I don't think you have to go to elite schools and have advanced degrees to excell in political life, but you damn well have to prove yourself if your resume's that thin.  No way over the course of 2 months can she prove she's ready to be VP.  It's logistically impossible.

August 29, 2008 5:11 PM

aeromonas said:

Tep's been pushing the line that Palin's govenorship of AK somehow strengthens McCain's position on energy security.  Hehe.

I think it was much simpler than that.

John McCain's veep checklist:

Female, check.

Anti-abortion, check.

August 29, 2008 5:12 PM

sdemuth said:

The only sense in which Palin should be a part of the way the Democrats run against McCain, is as a window on his judgment.  The choice of presidential candidates, and eventually president elect, reflect voters judgment, and if Obama, thin though some think his resume is, has the support of the people in this process, that in itself is no small qualification in a Democracy.

But the VP choice reflects only the judgement of the head of the ticket as to what matters in a president in waiting.  McCain has sent a clear and unambiguous signal as to what he thinks the person most likely to be president in the next 4 years, after the actual president requires in the way of experience and knowledge.

The choice of Palin says McCain doesn't think enough of the presidency to reach into the Republican party for a person of substance and experience to take up this post.  That's the message the Democratic ticket needs to make out  of McCain's choice.

August 29, 2008 5:12 PM

psantillana said:

dsmith, I think it's going out with a bang, like Thelma and Louise, plus on meth. I hope the country doesn't climb in the car is all.

August 29, 2008 5:15 PM

ironyroad said:

There are a lot of unquantifiables here, and it's very much the case that Palin could fire up the evangelical base while pissing off a lot of other people.  Indepdendents who have been on the fence, drawn to McCain because of "experience" and "judgment" factos, might well start trending toward Obama now.

The biggest shell in Obama's arsenal is the public's grasp that eight years of Bush-Cheney haven't brought us to a good place, and that McCain offers four more of the same.  After the initial excitement dies down, Palin isn't going to change that basic understanding.

August 29, 2008 5:19 PM

jacobt1 said:

Please shut up.

There are new matching orders from the dear leader:

On the trail Friday in Pennsylvania, the Democrat distances himself from his campaign’s first reaction to McCain’s veep choice.

“I think that, uh, you know campaigns start getting these uh, hair triggers and, uh, the statement that Joe and I put out reflects our sentiments.”

“I haven’t met her before. She seems like a compelling person … with a terrific personal story.”

Biden chimes in: “I’m looking forward to meeting her.”

August 29, 2008 5:19 PM

lonestarpedro said:

I heard a Republican consultant on Fox say that it's not true Palin has zero foreign policy experience - she has worked with Canada on fishing issues. Not exactly securing loose nukes in Ukraine, but I guess it will have to do.

Time Magazine's article today put it best:

"On the face of it, McCain has failed the ultimate test that any presidential candidate must face in picking a running mate: selecting someone who is unambiguously qualified to be president."

August 29, 2008 5:20 PM

leertracy said:

Ok, the Quayle knocks are getting stupid. Do you even KNOW what Quayle's history was? He had served two terms as a congressman, he served a whole senate term and was two years into his next term when tapped. And this was Indiana, a pretty populous state.

Palin won the governorship of Alaska with a total vote of 114697. Folks, there are more moose in Alaska than people who voted for her. The state population total is less than 700000. Quayle won two terms as congressman and two elections as senator with MANY times that many votes...

at this point, we know that Quayle said a lot of astonishingly stupid things, And that he was apparently stupid. But at the time, he was an immensely more qualified candidate than Palin. Or even Obama, if you just look at national-level service. I mean sheesh, he was in the senate for 8 years!

August 29, 2008 5:21 PM

teplukhin2you said:

"But during his time in national office he has demonstrated a clear commitment to the most pressing issues in American foreign policy. Take nuclear proliferation."

Leave aside this odd dangling example list, in which one and only one example is offered; the example isn't even close  to being "the most pressing issue in US foreign policy." I'm all for  good-guy nuclear anti-proliferation bills, just like I'm for motherhood, but it's a covenant that would have zero impact on Putin's drive to intimidate and turn his European neighbors into energy vassals. Putin has shown that he doesn't give a flying f*** about signed covenants, including those his own puppet Medvedev just signed. I doubt Ajad does either.

The most pressing issues in the f-p realm right now have nothing to do with tortoise-like steps toward global institution-building. They have to do with chess moves vs Putin, Ajad, Pakistan/Taliban. What will we do when Putin cuts off the oil and gas supply to Germany and Poland? THAT's a pressing issue. In the most important speech of his career, Obama didn't even address this. He mentioned Russia once, CHina once, in passing each time, and hurried back to the domestic issues that took up nearly 90% of the speech.

As to facing down Putin, of course Palin doesn't impress anyone at this point, but neither does the man whose first instinct re Putin was to call for restraint from both Putin and his prey. Given his refusal to even take up the issue in Denver and his obvious distaste for any kind of tactical realpolitik, it's pretty hard to envisage Obama facing down Putin. More likely that Obama would fumble his way along as JFK did in 1961-62, and encourage rather than deter more power grabs by Putin.

We've seen Putin going out of his way to attack McCain recently, even to the point of parroting the idiotic conspiracy theories of the Kos/MoveOn/GuardianTalk crowd. Pretty obvious which candidate Volodya fears more.

August 29, 2008 5:23 PM

psantillana said:

ok now brownjr has driven me nuts: "They will vote for or against her based on her ability to connect with them and convince them that she will manage crisis in a manner with which they can understand and respect."

Her ability to convince them? Is that all she needs? To convince people that she can manage a crisis, not the actual ability to manage a crisis? What is our topic here? Whether this is a sh!tty selection for the country or for the campaign? Does it just go without saying that the only thing we ever talk about is the latter? Are we all on "Race to the White House"?

This is why I hate America.

August 29, 2008 5:24 PM

AlanSP said:

Re the Dan Quayle comparisons, Quaylee was in the Senate for 8 years and the House for 4 years before that.  As he so famously pointed out, that's more experience than JFK (it's also more Carter, Reagan, W, and both Obama and Hillary).  Quayle's problem was not inexperience; his problem was that he was an imbecile.

August 29, 2008 5:27 PM

teplukhin2you said:

"Early in his tenure on the Foreign Relations Committee, Obama joined Richard Lugar's efforts to secure weapons of mass destruction in the former Soviet Union. Obama's first trip abroad as senator was to Russia and Ukraine to learn more about those efforts firsthand"

So why was he so clueless on Putin's aggression and its implications? Why has he been playing catch-up ever since? Could it be that such limited experience with low-level bureaucrats doesn't yield any insight into the realities of power politics as practiced by the Kremlin or Beijing?

"Obama has a worldview. Obama recognizes the greatness and uniqueness of the United States, but he does not translate that exceptionalism into dominance or isolationism as conservatives often have."

Good lord. This is beyond parody. Obama has not shown that he even grasps the basics of Putin's "worldview", or the threat that that worldview--- which in E. and E Cent. Europe amounts to nothing more than a power grab using pipelines instead of tanks and missiles-- poses to the West.  

Is he running for president, or auditioning for a junior professor post at the Wilson School?

August 29, 2008 5:33 PM

teplukhin2you said:

"Quayle's problem was not inexperience; his problem was that he was an imbecile."

Obama's problem is not inexperience; it's an extreme infatuation with "worldview"-style abstractions and what Brzezinski politely, but pointedly, criticized as his "inability to crystallize the issue" in foreign policy matters.

Case in point: he goes to Berlin, ground zero for the could war and also on the front lines of the struggle between Europe and Russia over the legacy of 1989, and blithers about how "a united world defeated communism."

Never mind the idiocy of that remark; what's astonishing is how he couldn't crystallize, as it were, the issue of Putin's drive to reestablish vassal states on Russia's borders and what that means for the Alliance. "Worldview" your way out of that one.

August 29, 2008 5:40 PM

raylward said:

These comments miss Scobic's point.  For those unfamiliar with International relations, it isn't all about state dinners, establishing personal relations with foreign leaders, and ad hoc approaches to crises.  No, its actually about specific theories regarding states and their roles in a structured international system.  Whatever their experience or lack of experience, Obama and Biden definitely have views about the international system and the US place in it, as expressed in their many writings and speeches.  What are Palin's views, and to what theory of international relations does she subscribe?  Whatever the political implications of her selection are beside the point.  Her selection shows that McCain does not take the issue of international relations seriously.  

August 29, 2008 5:43 PM

brownjr_97 said:

psantillana,

Yes, we will talk about this in terms of the campaign.  We won't know whether or not it's a good selection for the country for far to long to make any current conversation relevant.  Take two examples in the last century of the vice president assuming the presidency.  Would you have assumed that the 40-something Theodore Roosevelt or the late-50ish Lyndon Johnson would have become better presidents if given the change?  Roosevelt had a shorter resume but is generally regarded as one of the better presidents, while Johnson is generally regarded as being a largely unsuccessful president.

There's nothing in Palin's resume to lead us to assume she would be the modern day Roosevelt, but there was little in his at the time to suggest that he would be able to accomplish what he did.  She's been the Oil and Gas Commission and a 2-year sitting governor elected on a reform platform.  He was the Asst Secretary of the Navy and a 2-year sitting governor elected on a reform platform.

She may or may not be able to convince the public of her ability to handle a crisis, and she may or may not be able to actually handle a crisis, but deciding on either now is premature.

August 29, 2008 5:44 PM

brownjr_97 said:

correction...

"...if given the chance?"

August 29, 2008 5:49 PM

kevincollins said:

From CNN.com:

"According to the Anchorage Daily News, Palin proposed giving Alaskans $100-a-month debit cards to account for rising energy costs in May."

Heh! Those welfare-loving Alaskans just can't get enough! They make such a stink about Big Bad Government except when it lines their pockets.

August 29, 2008 5:50 PM

waynejm said:

McCain's selection of Palin legitimately invokes George H. W. Bush's stinging indictment of Michael Dukakis' foreign policy bona fides as consisting of a visit to the International House of Pancakes.

Great.  A hothead with his finger on the nuclear trigger and Miss Congeniality as his understudy.  

August 29, 2008 5:51 PM

jacobt1 said:

It's obvious  that Obama and Palin are not ready to be President on the day one.

It's obvious that Obama cultists will never concede this obvious observation.

August 29, 2008 5:53 PM

teplukhin2you said:

rylward - "Obama and Biden definitely have views about the international system and the US place in it, as expressed in their many writings and speeches"

I'm sorry, but what does this mean for handling Putin? Where is the policy? I'm not asking for a doctrine, just s basic framing of the issues and the stakes and an outline of what we and our European allies should do.

Biden has done this but not Obama. Biden authored an oped in the FT within a few days of the invasion that frame the issues clearly, assessed the stakes, and described near- medium- and longer-term policy responses. As to Obama, I've yet to see anything coherent on this, and he dodged the issue entirely in Denver.

That to me is very troubling, regardless of -- or more likely, in conjunction with-- any gasbaggery about "the international system and the US place in it,"

August 29, 2008 6:00 PM

nturner said:

I love it!  This is a woman who commands her state's National Guard, negotiates with Russia and Canada on a frequent basis, has been to Iraq as many times as has Obambi... yet you guys question HER ability to be Commander in Chief?  Leaving aside the fact that Obama is at the TOP of his ticket whereas McCain is at the top of theirs, I simply find this talk hilarious.  Obama is the one whose unequivocally inexperienced with zero executive experience.  Attacking Palin isn't going to change that.

August 29, 2008 6:06 PM

johnchch said:

This was an excellent choice on McCain's part.  I'm so tired of hearing the " lack of experience" whine.  This is a Republican who really is fiscally responsible.  Cutting spending, balancing budgets, genuine reformer.  Great governor of Alaska.  When Margaret Thatcher became leader of the Tories in 1975, she hadn't had much experience, and incidentally, NO foreign policy experience, but Thatcher was a great minister.  Palin is attractive to conservatives, but independents should like her, too.  

August 29, 2008 6:07 PM

Eos said:

C'mon. Obama's "big initiative" on non-proliferation was really all Lugar and was so minor that it passed on voice vote and wan't even reported ANYWHERE in the media. Now, maybe if had shown up for some meetings of his sub-committees...

August 29, 2008 6:11 PM

AlanSP said:

"As to facing down Putin, of course Palin doesn't impress anyone at this point, but neither does the man whose first instinct re Putin was to call for restraint from both Putin and his prey."

That's what a ceasefire is tep.  *Both* sides stop.  It has nothing to do with morality or who's at fault, and it doesn't matter than one side's actions were grossly disproportionate to the others.  Moral condemnations are of secondary importance to stopping active fighting (and he made those condemnations at any rate).  McCain's rhetoric did squat, as did Obama's.

You need a bit more than that to back up the claim that Obama is so lost on this or that McCain gets it so well.  I will grant McCain that he had a later statement recognizing that it's really about energy, but so far I still don't see any substantive differences on their proposed foreign policy regarding Russia.  Please point them out.

August 29, 2008 6:18 PM

patrickbassett said:

VPs really just go to funerals of head of states and cast the vote that  breaks a tie in the Senate. They are not the Secretary of State, Ambassador to the UN, National Security Advisor, Secretary of Treasury, or Secretary of Homeland Security.  If Obama wants to make Biden his VP and Secretary of State good for him. Otherwise he or Palin is serving the role that John Adams so aptly described  "My country has contrived for me the most insignificant office that ever

the invention of man contrived or his imagination conceived". Truman had Marshall as his Secretary of State and Ford had Kissinger. If McCain puts a good team together, I'm not worried. I feel the same way with regards to Obama's inexperience if he has good team of advisors.

August 29, 2008 6:22 PM

teplukhin2you said:

Putin's major weapon isn't nukes, it's pipelines. There's no evidence that Obama has even bothered to consider this, let alone craft any strategy for dealing with it.

August 29, 2008 6:26 PM

thetraytiger said:

Tep,

"We've seen Putin going out of his way to attack McCain recently, even to the point of parroting the idiotic conspiracy theories of the Kos/MoveOn/GuardianTalk crowd. Pretty obvious which candidate Volodya fears more."

Obviously, he fears Obama's cold calculation more than McCain's blustering overreach.

Let's think this through. Criticism from anti-American strongmen is a political validator. That is, Putin criticizes McCain, McCain brags about his toughness, McCain's chances go up slightly, Obama's chances go down.

If Putin, deep down, fears McCain and would rather face down Obama, he would be attacking Obama, not McCain.

August 29, 2008 6:27 PM

AlanSP said:

"I love it!  This is a woman who commands her state's National Guard, negotiates with Russia and Canada on a frequent basis, has been to Iraq as many times as has Obambi... yet you guys question HER ability to be Commander in Chief?  Leaving aside the fact that Obama is at the TOP of his ticket whereas McCain is at the top of theirs, I simply find this talk hilarious.  Obama is the one whose unequivocally inexperienced with zero executive experience.  Attacking Palin isn't going to change that."

Leaving aside the relative sillines of this argument ("Commands her states National Guard" is just another way of saying "is a governor,"  and McCain also has zero executive experience), you're missing the point.  The problem for McCain isn't her lack of experience per se.  It's that she undercuts his argument that Obama isn't ready because he lacks experience.  It amounts to the McCain camp saying, "well, substantial experience isn't *really* a requirement"  I basically agree.  Experience is only part of the equation.  But then, I haven't been pounding the importance of experience for the past several months.

August 29, 2008 6:29 PM

jack12k6 said:

Someone here posted that the National Journal indicated Palin obtained a Pol. Sci. degree from Idaho....incorrect, she got a minor in that degree and majored in journalism. As far as for. policy experience, that often comes up when any governer runs for P or VP. I think B. Clinton may have made a trip or two oversees as governor but that is about it.

August 29, 2008 6:30 PM

ironyroad said:

"So why was he so clueless on Putin's aggression and its implications? Why has he been playing catch-up ever since? Could it be that such limited experience with low-level bureaucrats doesn't yield any insight into the realities of power politics as practiced by the Kremlin or Beijing?"

There's no evidence of cluelessness, unless an ability not to say the first dumb blustery thing that comes into your head counts as clueless.  The fact that Obama didn't try to ride the events on a surfboard of hollow saber-rattling populism is quite impressive, in fact.

Also, as we're on the topic of rattling, the question of the Bush administration's cluelessness seems to be rather more important here, as they are, you know, in charge.  The inability to work out a rational policy vis-a-vis Georgia, and in particular the half-encouragement, half-warning diplomacy and the expression of implied promises that we weren't going to back up if a crisis ensued, are quite disturbing.  It seems to me that McCain has aligned himself with that diplomatic and strategic failure (one incidentally that the Georgians will end up paying for, not us).

August 29, 2008 6:31 PM

dcwood10 said:

This article and discussion are hillarious.  

Really touched a nerve didn't it?  The lady doth keep protesting.

Palin's resume lines up EASILY with Obama's.  Oh and please don't go comparing alma maters - find me one Fortune 500 company that would pick a Harvard grad over a state governor, any state governor, for an executive position.

No - the more you protest Palin on the point of experience, the more you belie the central, fundamental problem with Obama.  8 years, 1997-2004 - state legislator.  4 years, counting the current, not-quite-finished-being-junior-US-senator.  Oh yeah oh yeah oh yeah, he was a "community organizer" and graduated Harvard.  OBVIOUSLY this man is more qualified to be President than Palin is qualified to be VP.

Keep it up, protest, voters and the GOP will eat you alive.

August 29, 2008 6:31 PM

ndmackenzie said:

johnchch writes:

-- Margaret Thatcher became leader of the Tories in 1975, she hadn't had much experience, and incidentally, NO foreign policy experience, but Thatcher was a great minister.

And thereby demonstrates a complete lack of knowledge and understanding of the British parliamentary system. By the time she became leader of the Conservative Party in 1975 Margaret Thatcher had been a member of Parliament for 18 years. She had also been in the British Cabinet for four years as Education Secretary and shadowed cabinet level and other senior positions in several departments. She was appropriately qualified to lead the Conservative party. The nomination of Sarah Palin as VP candidate is equivalent to the Conservative Party choosing Margaret Thatcher as its leader in 1963 - a full twelve years before she was elected leader.

johnchch is welcome to his opionion that Margaret Thatcher was a "great minister."

August 29, 2008 6:32 PM

AlanSP said:

"VPs really just go to funerals of head of states and cast the vote that  breaks a tie in the Senate."

...or they become President.  Truman and LBJ, were they alive, would probably beg to differ about the importance of having a VP capable of stepping in.

August 29, 2008 6:33 PM

ndmackenzie said:

patrickbassett writes:

-- VPs really just go to funerals of head of states and cast the vote that  breaks a tie in the Senate.

This is fine and dandy as far as it goes but ignores the reality that 1/4 of the last twelve vice-Presidents have become President through death or resignation. McCain will be the oldest person ever elected to the Presidency and, with the best will in the world, serious concern needs to be paid to his potential longevity in office. Sarah Palin will not be ready on day 1 for a 3PM call let alone a 3AM call. With McCain at the top of the ticket, America needs someone who could be ready on day 1.

The Republian Party has put short-term partisan politics ahead of the interest of the nation. This is precisely how it has behaved over the last eight years so Obama is right to say we don't need four more years.

August 29, 2008 6:39 PM

aeromonas said:

tep, you're obsessed.  Putin, Putin, PUTIN!!!!!

Putin = serious problem for next pres and the world

Putin = secondary factor in US presidential election

Nov 4 will not turn on either candidate's response to the Russian situation.  And Sarah Palin has f--k all to do with Russia or energy security.

Vote for McCain if you think Russia is of paramount importance AND if you think McCain will handle Russia better than Obama.  Please, though, tell us SPECIFICALLY how/why McCain will do a better job on this count and stop with all the hypothetical nonsense about how this or that voting bloc will reject Obama on the basis of their gut-level fears of a resurgent Russia.

And why not speak to the question at hand?  According to the evidence available to you, do you believe that Sarah Palin is prepared to be Commander in Chief?  Do you believe that she is more or less prepared to be Commander in Chief than Barack Obama?

August 29, 2008 6:42 PM

aeromonas said:

"Putin's major weapon isn't nukes, it's pipelines. There's no evidence that Obama has even bothered to consider this, let alone craft any strategy for dealing with it."

Is there evidence that McCain has crafted any strategy for dealing with it?

August 29, 2008 6:44 PM

ghellman said:

A truly breathtaking choice.  

It reflects a complete lack of consideration for the future good of America, as well as a laser-like focus on McCain's perception of his own political best interests.

If he was looking to make Bush look like a neophyte on the hubris parameter, then I say, bravo, Senator McCain--mission accomplished.

August 29, 2008 6:48 PM

johnchch said:

Well, the highest position she had held in the cabinet was Education Secretary which is a fairly low cabinet position.  She did not shadow any of the major ministries such as Foreign Affairs, Chancellor of the Exchequer or Home Secretary.  She was made  Parliamentary Secretary at the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance after two years in office, but that supports rather than refutes my point.  What I was saying was that in the British political system, it was unusual for someone of only 16 (not 18, check your facts!)  years in parliament at that time to assume the leadership position and unusual for someone with no experience in any of the major portfolios.  Ted Heath broke that mold to an extent, but he had been shadow chancellor before becoming leader of Tories.  The natural leader of the Tories after Heath would have been one of his senior cabinet ministers.  Thatcher was an excellent PRIME Minister.  In any case, it was unusual choice.  I, for one, am not worried about Palin's "lack of experience."  Cheney had plenty of experience and he has been a terrible vice president.

August 29, 2008 6:50 PM

ironyroad said:

Comparisons with British politics are pointless.

August 29, 2008 7:03 PM

ndmackenzie said:

johnchch -

David Cameron had been in Parliament for only four years when he was appointed leader of the Conservative Party - but by then he had gained far more experience than Sarah Palin has to date. You ought to be troubled that you are not worried by "Palin's lack of experience."

August 29, 2008 7:09 PM

drdannyu said:

"Palin's resume lines up EASILY with Obama's.  Oh and please don't go comparing alma maters - find me one Fortune 500 company that would pick a Harvard grad over a state governor, any state governor, for an executive position."

Sadly, no.

1)  Obama had more people in his congressional district than Palin has in her whole state.

2)  You can't compare a Harvard grad to a governor.  You can compare a Harvard grad with a U. of Idaho grad (law degree vs. undergrad degree, by the way), OR you can compare a governor with a senator.  (As a state school grad, I'm not big on alma maters as big qualifications.  Look where our current prez went.)

3)  Obama has served on the Senate Foreign Relations committee.  Palin has...what, pray?  And spare me any talk about Canada.  Call me when the Mounties storm Anchorage.

August 29, 2008 7:10 PM

teplukhin2you said:

traytiger - a review of Putin's career suggests that three things trigger his John Gotti-like rabid pit bull tendencies:

-- attacks on his honesty or virtue (cf Kasparov, bullying of: the journalist Politkovskaya and the dissident Litvinenko, murder of; journalists who've questioned his theft of scores of billions of $$$ from the Russian state, hectoring of and various adolescent outbursts against);

-- support for independence for the states on Russia's border (cf Yushchenko, poisoning of);

-- and  separatist movemenechts inside of Russia (cf Chechnya-- odd, isn't it, that Ossetia deserves "independence" while Chechnya is bulldozed in an orgy of slaughter, rape, torture and looting that would make an SS officer blush).

Obama doesn't even register on Volodya's radar because he has never attacked Putin's honesty or virtue, has not expressed strong support for Ukraine or Poland, and wasn't even on the national scene yet when Putin's ordered his rampage though Chechnya eight years ago. To Putin, Obama doesn't even rate notice.

August 29, 2008 7:14 PM

lesserliz said:

When McCain announced  Palin as his VP choice he even had to look down at his notes several times just for the sentence naming her. She may have to be ready to be Prez on innauguration day-she should attend with electric paddles and a vial of adrenalin.

August 29, 2008 7:15 PM

icarusr said:

dcwood: I'm not American; no nerve is touched.  But I do find the issue amusing.

McCain made a point that experience matters.  Then he chooses "the commander of the Alaska state militia" for the past two years.  Thus, experience does not matter.

Now, I don't know what that indicates to you about McCain's character, but one might say that, at a minimum, it is aflip-flop as to the most critical question facing this election: qualification for office.

August 29, 2008 7:17 PM

aeromonas said:

tep, once again you show us how well versed you are in Vladimir Putin's evil ways, but as for Putin's relevance to the election or to the relative capacity of either major party candidate to deal with Putin, you offer nothing but empty assertions.

August 29, 2008 7:26 PM

icarusr said:

"Cheney had plenty of experience and he has been a terrible vice president."

Yup.  Which is why you want to entrust the office to someone with even less of a resume.  On the basis that she is ... what exactly?  

Let's turn the tables for just a second.  Let's assume that Obama had made the exact same choice.  We would not be talking about Thatcher's 16 (NOT 18) years, now, would we?  Assuming this is at all relevant ...

This is frat-boy gimmick parading as Grand Strategy.  

August 29, 2008 7:34 PM

johnchch said:

"David Cameron had been in Parliament for only four years when he was appointed leader of the Conservative Party - but by then he had gained far more experience than Sarah Palin has to date. You ought to be troubled that you are not worried by 'Palin's lack of experience.'"

--ndmackenzie

In recent times, it's not unusual for a someone relatively new in parliament to assume the leadership.  Look at William Hague.  The conservatives were so decimated after the 1997 elections, they had few good options.  But at the time, which I keep saying, Thatcher was an unusual choice.  I am not troubled by Palin's lack of experience because intelligence, good judgment, and a healthy personality are of paramount importance.   That is why I also like Obama.  He was (and is) criticized for his "lack of experience."  So was Tim Kaine, when he was considered for vice-president.  You want someone with outstanding personal qualities who has vision and character.  

August 29, 2008 7:43 PM

teplukhin2you said:

aero - maybe you haven't been paying attention but McCain years ago pegged Putin as a once and always KGB thug, and presciently called for kicking out Putin's criminalized regime from the G-8. As Brzezinski noted, McCain was dead on the money, and quick, in his assessment of the situation, the stakes and the proper posture toward Putin's invasion of Georgia.

Now, it's not impossible that Putin will climb down, not make any noise between now and November. The EU may do the same. But the likelihood is that Putin will try to take Crimea by force-- again, for him politics is personal, and Yushchenko in demanding that Ukraine be treated as a sovereign state has likely triggered Don Putin's "disrespect" tripwire. The timing of this is not up to Putin. I'd guess it will happen sooner rather than later. Within the next 70 days? DOn't know, but if he does, it helps the man whose instincts on Putin have been dead on, not the guy whose experience and instincts don't rate any higher than Sarah Palin's.

August 29, 2008 7:51 PM

jacobt1 said:

"Cheney had plenty of experience and he has been a terrible vice president."

Yup.  Which is why you want to entrust the office to someone with even less of a resume.  On the basis that she is ... what exactly?"

  On the basis that he  is ... what exactly?

August 29, 2008 7:52 PM

jacobt1 said:

"3)  Obama has served on the Senate Foreign Relations committee. "

For a few days before starting running full time.

August 29, 2008 7:53 PM

icarusr said:

"Cheney had plenty of experience and he has been a terrible vice president."

Yup.  Which is why you want to entrust the office to someone with even less of a resume.  On the basis that she is ... what exactly?"

 On the basis that he  is ... what exactly?"

On the basis that she is ... what exactly?

Over to you Jake.  As for the rest, beware - this could take a LOOOONNNGGGG time to resolve.

August 29, 2008 7:55 PM

AlanSP said:

tep,

So what you admire about McCain on Russia is his ability to trigger Putin's "John Gotti-like rabid pit bull tendencies"?  That's your idea of realpolitik?

Still not a peep from you about McCan's actual plan for dealing with Russia.  So far the only policy proposals you've mentioned were from the guy running on Obama's ticket.

August 29, 2008 7:56 PM

teplukhin2you said:

AlanSP - "That's what a ceasefire is tep.  *Both* sides stop."

Except that in reality-- as opposed to the world of f-p journal articles and "worldview"-mongering-- only one side stopped. The other side has violated this seven ways from Sunday. Guess which side?

Try to worldview your way out of this one. Better yet, scrap your worldview altogether and go to school on realpolitik.

August 29, 2008 7:56 PM

jacobt1 said:

"Let's turn the tables for just a second.  Let's assume that Obama had made the exact same choice.  We would not be talking about Thatcher's 16 (NOT 18) years, now, would we?  Assuming this is at all relevant "

Let's turn the tables for just a second.  Let's assume that Republicans  had made the exact same choice as Democrats did. .  For example If they chose a Harvard graduate and a governor  of second largest state against a vice president. ...

August 29, 2008 7:57 PM

The Plank said:

Since John McCain announced Sarah Palin as his VP pick, we've had quite a bit to say here at TNR

August 29, 2008 7:59 PM

ironyroad said:

Whichever way you cut it, McCain has made it very difficult for his campaign to really push the "experience vs. inexperience" button and, simultaneously, chosen a running mate who involuntarily draws attention to his own age whenever they are standing side-by-side.

This may work for him, you never know, but I think that he may have made a very serious miscalculation.

August 29, 2008 8:00 PM

ndmackenzie said:

johnchch writes:

--  I am not troubled by Palin's lack of experience because intelligence, good judgment, and a healthy personality are of paramount importance.

And given the almost universal lack of knowledge about Palin's "intelligence, judgment, and personality" what makes you so sure she possesses "intelligence, good judgment, and a healthy personality."

The very fact Sarah Palin accepted McCain's offer indicates she is not intelligent enough to understand how poor her judgment is. Furthermore, her selection - as essentially the first significant decision of the (potential) McCain Presidency - clearly indicates he too does not possess good judgment. The United States has suffered eight years of incompetently poor judgment. As Barack Obama keeps reminding us, we do not need another four years.

August 29, 2008 8:01 PM

aeromonas said:

I think I've had it with debating election-related matters on this site.  Since Obama wrapped up the nomination, tep has been the only member of the opposition who made any sense and now even he seems to have lost the plot.  He casts Obama's choice of Joe Biden--tep's own heartthrob--as a mistake, and then tries to paint McCain's choice of Palin as an inspired choice advancing his program for energy security and Putin pushback.  As icarus said in another thread, "Whatever."

August 29, 2008 8:05 PM

check said:

he did it again. he picked a woman twenty years younger to work with.  didnt he do this with his second wife as well. isnt that why mrs reagan is so upset with him, as are the older republican women right now.   the man is so irresponsible i am afraid for this country.  it isnt just a bad choice it is a dangerous choice.  he is reckless.  as a hero from the past, i remember some of his war buddies saying it was his recklessness that got them shot down in vietnam.  this is a sad day for women in general when we can be so blatantly used to make the man feel powerful.  this is a trophy choice of some kind.  and i blame mrs clinton as well for setting up this little scenario, for pushing for her consistuency of lunatics.  now, i hope we all are not made to drink from the same well for four years.  ugn, ugh...  

August 29, 2008 8:08 PM

check said:

he did it again. he picked a woman twenty years younger to work with.  didnt he do this with his second wife as well. isnt that why mrs reagan is so upset with him, as are the older republican women right now.   the man is so irresponsible i am afraid for this country.  it isnt just a bad choice it is a dangerous choice.  he is reckless.  as a hero from the past, i remember some of his war buddies saying it was his recklessness that got them shot down in vietnam.  this is a sad day for women in general when we can be so blatantly used to make the man feel powerful.  this is a trophy choice of some kind.  and i blame mrs clinton as well for setting up this little scenario, for pushing for her consistuency of lunatics.  now, i hope we all are not made to drink from the same well for four years.  ugn, ugh...  

August 29, 2008 8:08 PM

icarusr said:

Aero: there is no point in "debating' with Tep.  His "metrics" (I hate that word) keep changing; he thinks that the rest of the US is about as obsessed - and, admittedly, knowledgeable - about Russia and Putin as he is; he has long ago decided, for reasons he knows best, that Obama is too young or green or whatever for the job, and each argument from him is now post hoc justification.  To defend Palin's selection on the basis that she is from an oil state after ragging on Obama's lack of experience for months ... now, that takes chutzpah, but it also shows lack of intellectual honesty.  Whatever is about right.

Jacob:

"Let's turn the tables for just a second.  Let's assume that Obama had made the exact same choice.  We would not be talking about Thatcher's 16 (NOT 18) years, now, would we?  Assuming this is at all relevant "

Let's turn the tables for just a second.  Let's assume that Republicans  had made the exact same choice as Democrats did. .  For example If they chose a Harvard graduate and a governor  of second largest state against a vice president. ..."

Let's turn the tables for just a second.  Let's assume that Democrats had made the exact same choice as Republicans did. .  For example If they chose a doddering old fool with the temperament of Aetna in full action and a governor  of one of the least populated and most corrupt states - a state known only for its graft of Federal entitlements - against a vice president. ..."  (I didn't understand this last one, but whatever.)

Over to you mate.

August 29, 2008 8:17 PM

jacobt1 said:

icarusr said,

"On the basis that she is ... what exactly?

Over to you Jake."

Nothing. She and Obama have no bussiness being the President or VP.

It's a bad joke. I'm disappointed in McCain. I'm disappointed in Democratic super delegates who selected Obama.

We have two terrible teams,

Obama has no experience and no judgment, Biden has experience but no judgment.

McCain is gambling that he will be in good health for another 4 years.

August 29, 2008 8:21 PM

teplukhin2you said:

aero - "He casts Obama's choice of Joe Biden--tep's own heartthrob--as a mistake, and then tries to paint McCain's choice of Palin as an inspired choice"

I didn't say choosing Biden was a mistake; I said it was necessary and proper, the right choice for Obama. I don't think it will really help him, though. Again, Obama's problem is Obama's problem, and only he can knock it off the table.

Likewise, I think McCain did what he had to do, which was shake things up and throw Obama off stride. (Apparently he was determined to go with Lieberman until a few days ago and only relented when one of his senior advisers presented overwhelming evidence that the GOP base would go ballistic  if he did. McCain then settled on the next best maverick / outsider choice available.)

As with Biden, I doubt McCain's choice here will make much difference to the outcome. This is a race between Obama and McCain. If it turns on economics, the Democrat wins. If it turns on anything else-- f-p or Obama, for ex-- then I think McCain has a good shot at winning.

August 29, 2008 8:22 PM

hemlock41 said:

aeromonas @ 1:05:  Sad but true.

August 29, 2008 8:26 PM

hemlock41 said:

Tep writes: "As with Biden, I doubt McCain's choice here will make much difference to the outcome."

That may be true as a political matter. But as a matter of judgment, don't you admit, tep, that on the first big 'presidential' decision that each of them has made, Obama has dramatically outperformed McCain? (Especially if foreign policy is one's primary concern.)

August 29, 2008 8:33 PM

rozenson said:

Maybe I will buy that book of yours, Mr. Scoblic. Why don't you contribute more often?

August 29, 2008 8:35 PM

jacobt1 said:

teplukhin2you  said

"Likewise, I think McCain did what he had to do, which was shake things up and throw Obama off stride."

Please , no need for spin. What's the point? Let's be honest. We are not cultists.

August 29, 2008 8:39 PM

teplukhin2you said:

True, Putin's a big deal for me and mine, and maybe you guys are right that he won't have any impact on the election. I would submit that Obama's choosing Biden has already demonstrated Putin's impact, but hey, maybe you're right. Maybe Putin will just... I don't know, go off on a long tiger-hunting expedition near the Lena River for 2 months? hang out in Dubai with his little lithe writher, the gymnast-squeeze? Let's hope.

August 29, 2008 8:46 PM

rozenson said:

Tepulkhin2you said:

"McCain then settled on the next best maverick / outsider choice available."

You think Palin was better than Charlie Crist, Butch Otter, or any other Republican governor? She was really the BEST outsider choice available? Someone with a little over one and a half years of experience managing a state with 600,000 people, and no real relevant job experience before that? How is Barack Obama, who's served more than twice as long on the Foreign Relations Committee than she's even held a statewide office, not many times more qualified to serve as commander-in-chief than she is? This is a joke, an utter joke. Even you can recognize the absurdity of the situtation here, can't you?

August 29, 2008 8:47 PM

rozenson said:

Jacobt1 said: "We are not cultists."

Jacob, you seem to have formed a cult around the terminology "cultist" in reference to politics. Loosen up a bit, won't you? Don't be such a cultist.

August 29, 2008 8:48 PM

teplukhin2you said:

hemlock - of course I'd take Biden over any of them, and Palin's obviously the last choice. But the matchup is Obama vs McCain. Obama really needs to up his game here, or else Russia as an issue needs to fade from view. I don't see that happening, but who knows?

August 29, 2008 8:48 PM

jacobt1 said:

rozenson  said

"How is Barack Obama, who's served more than twice as long on the Foreign Relations Committee than she's even held a statewide office, not many times more qualified to serve as commander-in-chief than she is?"

0 * N = 0

He served on the Foreign Relations Committee for a  few days before starting running.

BTW, How is McCain or Clinton  not many times more qualified to serve as commander-in-chief than Obama  is?

August 29, 2008 9:05 PM

rozenson said:

"He served on the Foreign Relations Committee for a  few days before starting running."

Obama started serving on the Committee when he first entered office in January 2005. He declared his nomination for the presidency more than two years later. So, no.

"BTW, How is McCain or Clinton  not many times more qualified to serve as commander-in-chief than Obama  is?"

I think there should be a bare minimum of foreign policy know-how before you become commander-in-chief. Once you've reached that minimum, you're fit to serve, as I believe Obama is. Clinton and McCain certainly have more experience in national security, but I don't think JUST years of experience is enough. There's a whole new language that comes with foreign affairs that Obama speaks and Biden speaks and McCain speaks and Palin does not.

August 29, 2008 9:16 PM

AlanSP said:

tep, somewhat confusingly responds to my comment:

"Except that in reality-- as opposed to the world of f-p journal articles and "worldview"-mongering-- only one side stopped. The other side has violated this seven ways from Sunday. Guess which side?

Try to worldview your way out of this one. Better yet, scrap your worldview altogether and go to school on realpolitik."

Where is all this "worldview" stuff is coming from?  Honestly, I don't know what you're referring to.

You just point out that there wasn't a real cease-fire.  Does that make it wrong to call for one?  Russia hasn't done any of the things that U.S. Presidential candidates or the U.S, President called for.  Shows just how meaningful all of these statements are.

Still waiting on those McCain/Obama differences on what our policy toward Russia should be.  Not "crystallizations," but what they'd actually *do* differently.

August 29, 2008 9:24 PM

teplukhin2you said:

rozenson - "Butch Otter"? Is there really a GOP guv called "Butch Otter"? Big tent, fer shur.

I'm still struggling with how to pronounce Charlie H. Crist.

Seriously, as I said, I don't find Palin impressive and of course I'd vote for Obama over Palin and Biden over either. But the choice is Obama vs McCain.  

I would very much like to know whom Wieseltier is voting for. My guess is that he and I will vote the same way.

August 29, 2008 9:25 PM

teplukhin2you said:

"worldview" is at the core of Scoblic's case for BHO

August 29, 2008 9:40 PM

Lyn39 said:

Jackson:  No one votes for VP.  

True perhaps.  But McCain's pick of Palin reveals something about his judgment, does it not?  So even if I disregard Ms. Palin's judgment or ability to serve as VP, McCain just added one more check mark to his "laughable" column.  Truly.  Laughable.  Obama was criticized for beefing up the ticket with Biden's foreign policy experience.  After announcing his pick last week, all we heard from the right wing analysts was:  "By picking Biden, Obama is conceding that he's got a deficit in this area!"  By this measure, perhaps McCain is compensating for a likeability deficit.  Which is understandable in light of just how low the bar the right has set their own bar.  Likeability is good enough.  Ms. Palin is sure to be a big hit on "The View."

And this:

Still, some women will vote for her because it will advance their cause. Her person is more important to them than her views.

Well, that's just kind of silly, unless you're arguing that their are no rational women in this country?  Not every female Independent or Democrat voted for Hillary.  I can vouch for that.  And I can't think of one woman I know, myself included, who would support any candidate - man or woman - who supports teaching creationsim in public schools.  Because that's laughable, too.  And after 8 years of a Republican administration, my sense of humor is dissipating.

This is McCain's Harriet Miers, plain and simple.  And simple minded.

August 29, 2008 9:49 PM

rozenson said:

Tep, I'm almost certain Wieseltier will vote for McCain, or at least I was until today. In May, I saw him at Kesher Israel synagogue in DC, and I overheard him telling someone that he thought Obama was unqualified to be president, and he even invoked Jimmy Carter -- which, for Leon, I'm guessing, is an automatic "no."

August 29, 2008 9:56 PM

ChanRobt said:

Well, she gives a much better speech than Geraldine Ferraro ever did.

And, potentially, she'll be the first babe in the Oval Office.

Maybe that'll be her title:  First Babe.

August 29, 2008 10:02 PM

hemlock41 said:

"of course I'd take Biden over any of them, and Palin's obviously the last choice. But the matchup is Obama vs McCain. Obama really needs to up his game here..."

Tep: I agree that the match-up is Obama v. McCain  (and I respect that you will probably vote McCain based on his longer experience and his f.p. stance -- really, I do!) But I posed the question in light of exactly this fact (that the match-up is Obama v. McCain .) Would you concede that at least on this specific decision -- a pretty significant one -- Obama demonstrated better judgment with respect to governing the country (vs. winning the campaign) than McCain did? And if so, doesn't this indicate that he has *some* merit as a candidate for president? (Okay, maybe hoping for an affirmative answer from you to the second question is pushing my luck. But what about the first...)

August 29, 2008 10:11 PM

ChanRobt said:

McCain is following the first law of politics:  get elected.

If Obama had followed that rule, he would have picked Hillary and been unbeatable.  I can understand why he didn't.  But he made his run a bet rather than a near guaranteed victory.

FDR had John Nance Garner and Henry Wallace as his VPs.  One was picked during the very dangerous days of the Depression.  The other during the very dangerous days of WW2.  And, for that matter, Harry Truman, though an experienced senator, was considered a hack from the corrupt KC machine by many.

Richard Nixon was a pretty young, new senator when he was picked in the teeth of the Cold War by 62 year old Ike.  And who the hell was Spiro Agnew?

We have a long history of VPs who seem pretty inadequate when picked.   I believe that of those who have inherited the presidency, more have risen to the job than have failed.  

Andrew Johnson was a conspicuous failure.  Lyndon Johnson an immense success (Civil Rights) and an immense failure (Vietnam).

August 29, 2008 10:16 PM

dah_mdb said:

To whichever brainiac comparied Palin to Thatcher -- no, Thatcer didn't have any foreign policy experience at the time of her election. Which is why she was dumb enough to run after the red flag of the Falklands Island and cynical enough to use the lives of British solderies & sailors in an attempt to make up for this deficit. If that's the example we want to measure Palin by then Palin fails. We don't want or need a newbie in office proving her FP bona fides by starting a war with Haiti or some banana republic, thereby costing yet more American soldier's lives. Thatcher was only a success if you think turning the UK into a miserable and poor quality copy of the United States counts as success.

August 29, 2008 10:19 PM

AlanSP said:

"FDR had John Nance Garner and Henry Wallace as his VPs.  One was picked during the very dangerous days of the Depression.  The other during the very dangerous days of WW2.  And, for that matter, Harry Truman, though an experienced senator, was considered a hack from the corrupt KC machine by many.

Richard Nixon was a pretty young, new senator when he was picked in the teeth of the Cold War by 62 year old Ike.  And who the hell was Spiro Agnew?

We have a long history of VPs who seem pretty inadequate when picked.   I believe that of those who have inherited the presidency, more have risen to the job than have failed.  

Andrew Johnson was a conspicuous failure.  Lyndon Johnson an immense success (Civil Rights) and an immense failure (Vietnam)."

Teddy Roosevelt also probably belongs on the "success" list.

One could argue that we've simply been pretty lucky in that most of those truly awful VPs never had to step in.  Agnew's corruption got him forced from office before Nixon was.  Quayle fortunately served out his term as a national embarrassment and quietly went off into the sunset.  

There's a good chance that a President McCain would serve out his term in good health.  But there is a higher than usual chance that he won't.  Let's say that Palin's not a "reassuring pick," at least not on the surface.  We'll see what she's got to offer over the coming months.

August 29, 2008 10:48 PM

teplukhin2you said:

AlanSP - "Still waiting on those McCain/Obama differences on what our policy toward Russia should be.  Not "crystallizations," but what they'd actually *do* differently."

Speaking  only for myself, it really comes down to

1) the priority that each assigns to the E European region-- for BHO, there's no evidence it's a priority-- nothing in his career, nothing in his Denver speech, nothing even in his speech in the heart of the region, in Berlin.

2) related to #1, a clear understanding of the stakes. If we don't resist Putin, then 1989 will have been for naught, Russia will revert to its historic role in which as my adviser put it way back when, "Russia's security system is its neighbors insecurity system"

3) related to #3, a willingness to move the fence-sitters in Europe-- Germany, really, they matter more than everyone else now-- in a direction they're loath to go now, toward real confrontation and longer term, away from abject dependence on Russia.

You could argue that Obama's rhetorical skills and the goodwill assigned him by the Germans would make him more effective at # 3, but this is the rub: if he lacks # 1 and # 2, he won't be inclined to spend the political capital-- esp the bandwidth-- needed to achieve # 3.

His Denver speech showed me that this region isn't even on his list of priorities, let alone near the top. Obama would likely allow this crisis to fester as Clinton let Kosovo fester for years.

August 29, 2008 11:05 PM

ironyroad said:

Given that VPs often (but not always) rise to the job that some of them inherit unexpectedly, I think it's reasonable to say that individuals elected to the presidency itself often rise equally.

For that reason, Obama's supposed "inexperience" is not a guide to how he'll perform.  In fact, a lot about Obama -- the reserve, the cool judgment -- suggests to me he'll perform well under pressure.

I'm surprised at the curious way in which many people seem to be blind to that.  It's as if we don't value real personality anymore but only bonhomie.

August 29, 2008 11:09 PM

marcschulma said:

And to think that, only a few days ago, McCain claimed that Obama put political ambition ahead of the national interest.  Only political ambition can explain McCain's selection of an individual with no foreign policy credentials or experience as his running mate.  If McCain were even ten years younger, I might overlook his decision.  But any responsible person who is 72 years of age running for the presidency must recognize that he might not live out his term of office.  Choosing Palin was an irresponsible act that reflects poorly on his judgment, which is supposed to be his strong suit vis-a-vis Obama.  He has lost my vote.

August 29, 2008 11:28 PM

Crock1701 said:

Ahhh, Spiro.  One of my favorite old political stories from my dad was about him.  Back in the '60s, he was doing some work in West Virginia, and so he got the Maryland TV and Radio.  And all over it were the advertisements for "Ted Agnew, Rotarian, for Governor."  However, as soon as Nixon tapped him he became Spiro, leader of the ethnics.  Too too funny.

August 29, 2008 11:59 PM

psantillana said:

brownjr,

I agree with you in theory as a general proposition - the resume alone doesn't necessarily qualify one or not qualify one. It's a proxy at best, and not always accurate, as history has shown. But: when someone's resume is as thin as hers, I would think that there would be some kind of extra information - everyone's immediately thinking, "well does he know something we don't?" - and all we get is that she's a member of the PTA and hunts moose, blah blah American blah, etc.  Maybe she is a hidden gem, maybe she will shock everyone if McCain croaks and she steps up to the plate and grand slams or whatever sports analogy you like. And I know Obama's resume looks thin too - that's why he's been shoving who he is and everything he's done down our throats for months - because he's got some splainin' to do and he knows it. But he made his sale to millions of people, and she is this rabbit McCain pulled out of his hat two months before election day, sending the political junkies to their googles and lexi nexi. A unilateral decision that looks like not a whole lot of thought went into it. Not cool. So yeah, I feel qualified to judge whether this looks like a good decision for the country, based on the information we have, or don't have.

It's like getting married to someone the Reverend Moon picks for you - yeah it might work out, who knows! But making this decision without any info but Moon's whim, well, it's a bad decision because of the unacceptable level of risk that it won't work out.

And call me an elitist or whatever, but the fact that she's a creationist and doesn't believe global warming is man-made, these things I would call bad indicators. And not even what I believe McCain believes.

August 30, 2008 12:44 AM

johnalthousecohen said:

"Given that of the last 12 presidents, three have either died or resigned..."

Actually, 8 of the last 12 presidents have died.

August 30, 2008 1:09 AM

ndmackenzie said:

John McCain had met Sarah Palin only once and spoken to her on the phone only once before he offered her the opportunity to run as his Vice President. Most companies in America take more care choosing a new administrative assistant than McCain did choosing Sarah Palin. The man is not fit to run a small office let alone the country.

August 30, 2008 1:26 AM

rozenson said:

ndmackenzie, for once I will agree with you.

August 30, 2008 1:41 AM

roidubouloi said:

McCain is a boob and a hothead in the early stages of senile dementia, and this is a pretty good demonstration of his incapacities.  Chauncey Gardner, "In the POW camp .  .  . "

What we also learn from this episode is that JacobT and Tep are definitely members of some weird McCain cult in which his worst gaffes are taken as further evidence of his qualifications to be president.  A stupid choice that will come back to haunt him, and only the first of many gaffes, each worse than the last, that he will make in the next ten weeks.

August 30, 2008 2:09 AM

ChanRobt said:

All, I know is this:  Sarah Palin looks like the scaled up version of Tina Fey.  And Salon says she's been called a GILF, which is like MILF, but for governors.  (A very short list.)

I don't know if she would make a good president should circumstances bring that to pass.  But, this is what Hollywood calls high concept, and I wanta see the movie.

Her first speech was surprisingly effective.  She no be a dummy.

August 30, 2008 2:13 AM

psantillana said:

I saw the part where she talked about the 18 million trite already cracks in the glass ceiling and how she was going to take over from Hillary and smash that "highest" glass ceiling. It seemed tone deaf to me, but I like arugula.

August 30, 2008 3:23 AM

americapolyphony said:

Surprise, audace ou désastre? C'est à chaud ce que pensaient plusieurs médias américains après avoir appris la nouvelle, la grande surprise du jour: le candidat républicain à la présidentielle américaine John McCain s'est choisi une ...

August 30, 2008 3:51 AM

sleepyavl said:

Eh ben, il s'est choisi une quoi, mec? Finis ta petite pensée.

August 30, 2008 4:52 AM

aeromonas said:

Hah!  Chan, you beat me to it.  Yesterday I was going to say that Tina Fey will have to be penciled in right now to play Palin in the tv movie.  Only thing that stopped me is that Palin's actually hotter than Tina Fey.

August 30, 2008 7:08 AM

ChanRobt said:

She's definitely hotter.  But, I love Tina.  She's brilliant.

August 30, 2008 8:13 AM

flewis said:

Sarah Palin is Clarence Thomas in a vice-presidential dress

August 30, 2008 8:38 AM

AlanSP said:

For what it's worth, I think Tina's hotter.

August 30, 2008 9:40 AM

teplukhin2you said:

She's certainly fey.

August 30, 2008 11:31 AM

JosephCuomo said:

Peter Scoblic-

You write: "By [McCain] choosing [Palin]. . .he has demonstrated hubris well beyond anything Obama has displayed on his most arrogant day: a belief that he can master unforeseen circumstances, physical and otherwise, that are well beyond his control. This is insulting and dangerous and suggests that McCain may want to think twice before accusing Obama of putting his personal ambition ahead of the national interest."

I would argue that while, from the outside, McCain's selection of Sarah Palin may indeed appear to smack of hubris or arrogance, from the inside (that is, from the perspective of John McC himself), all of this doesn't apparently matter, as the pick demonstrates a ruthless, canny, cynical, political calculation, in the (unfortunately) successful tradition of Karl Rove.

Aside from the obvious play for female votes, I would argue (as I have on other threads) that McCain's selection of SP is in one very significant way similar to George H.W. Bush's selection of Dan Quayle, and it isn't just that Palin, like Quayle, is an intellectual lightweight with no real experience, it's that Palin is apparently perceived by the GOP base as a true believer.

This is from the NY Times website as of yesterday afternoon: "'They’re [social conservatives are] beyond ecstatic,' said Ralph Reed, the former head of the Christian Coalition. 'This is a home run. She [Palin] is a reformer governor who is solidly pro-life and a person of deep Christian faith.'"

I would argue (as I have for more than a year now on these threads) that Bush senior picked Quayle to solidify his otherwise shaky support from the evangelicals and social conservatives that comprise a major swathe of the GOP base. George H.W. was not seen by these voters as a true believer, as one of their own, and so he had to pick a VP who was widely acceptable to that constituency. Quayle fit the bill (his wife was especially admired in evangelical circles), and now (as then) there is one major concern that McCain had to take into account when selecting his VP: that he doesn't have strong support from the evangelical/social conservative base of his own party. The base doesn't really trust him, doesn't really see him as a true believer, doesn't really see him as one of their own. There's plenty of  evidence for this: for instance, Huckabee's success in the primaries--despite having virtually no campaign budget whatsoever--was largely due to a widely held distrust of the GOP front-runner (ie, McC) by many millions of Christian Right voters. Which is why, one might argue, Huckabee surprised and destroyed McCain in states like West Virginia, Alabama, Arkansas (Huck's home state), Tennessee, and Georgia.

In other words, the GOP base wasn't then, and isn't now, all that happy with their nominee. If McCain was aware of this (and how could he not be?), and if he valued that support, he was going to need to pull the base behind him with a bona fide believer as his VP. Which is very much the position George senior found himself in when he picked Quayle to mollify the religious nutwings in his own party. (Reagan and W didn't face this problem, as both of them were widely perceived as true believers themselves.)

Which is to say, if McC had picked someone like, say, Romney or Lieberman, he might have had much less of a chance of igniting a fire under his own base, might have had much less of a chance of getting those Chistian-right foot soldiers marching on his behalf, volunteering, contributing, getting out the vote, he might have had much less of a chance of getting the vast, evangelical, alternative media beating the drum for him day after day after day.

One more thing: I think it's worth noting that Palin's lack of experience will not matter to evangelical voters as much as her faith (and her position on abortion). So, as far as the base is concerned, the fact that she's apparently a lightweight with no real foreign policy (or domestic policy) street cred isn't going to figure into the equation.

Where this lack may matter, though, is with swing voters and disaffected Clintonistas and PUMAs and those concerned by Obama's comparative lack of experience. But there are, one might argue, a number of said voters who may be won over simply by the fact of Palin's gender.

Which is to say, McCain here is gambling that Palin's appeal as a woman may bring in as many voters as she loses due to her blatant lack of experience. While at the same time, McC must know that picking her will galvanize the GOP base behind him in a way that his own candidacy has not.

One last thing: the (historic) fact that Palin is a woman, as well as the fact that she is largely unknown, mutes or camouflages the fact that McCain is kowtowing to the evangelical/social conservative wing of his own party by selecting her.

In other words, I would bet that little attention in the MSM will be paid to the selection of Palin as a way for McC to knuckle under to the fundamentalist/charismatic crazies in his own camp.

And so McCain gets to have it both ways: he retains his image as a maverick for choosing a woman (and a woman who blew the whistle on fellow Republicans), while at the same time he kisses the collective ass of his own religious nutwing base, without whom he probably could not win this election.

August 30, 2008 11:33 AM

r-brown207 said:

What is being missed in the article and the comments is that Americans apparently choose their candidates and Presdents not based upon demonstratable competenence nor experience but upon personality and charisma. Palin was an excellent choice by McCain to help win an election, notice I didn't say to govern the country which does not seem to matter to Americans in any event. She is going to energize the Republican base with her conservatism, she is attractive, hate and it and think it doesn't matter, get over it this is America the land of the shallow. If Palin can handle herself well in the debates and on the stump she is going to help McCain. If after the Republican convention the polls still show Obama/Biden and McCain/Palin close look out. All that big talk about an Obama blow out may be shown to be the wishful thinking it obviously was from the beginning. Remember those days when the Obama crowd crowed that they didn't need people? You know the old folks and the ignorant blue collar voters that they had it covered with new registrations and college students. Ponder on that one as we move toward November.

August 30, 2008 11:53 AM

dubyadoubte said:

On the positive side - Governor Palin is an accomplished woman on her own right, and she has my respect and admiration for taking on that kleptocracy which is the Alaska GOP establishment. In an age when infrastructure is crumbling in the lower 48 states, she said "no thanks" to Ted Stevens' Bridge to Nowhere.  For a relative novice to take on the crusty Stevens and Don Young is nothing to dismiss.

My problem with Palin's nomination is not so much with her, but with  John McCain.  It is a truism that the veep selection is the first test of a Presidential candidate, and in that John McCain fails miserablly and has been recounted many times above - the arrogance, the transparent calculation and pandering.  And not commented on much, the chaotic, almost ad hoc process.  First the trial balloons of McCain's  first choice - Joe Lieberman .  A trial balloon shot down by that avatar of moraility, of family values, the thrice married, thrice divorced, childless, drug dealing Rush Limbaugh.  Hey Sen McCain, if you can't stand up to Rush Limbaugh, how are you going to stand up to Putin?   The leaking of various names.  The planes flying in an out in the middle of the night , Palwenty in, Pawlenty out, etc.   The fact that McCain had only met Palin once before, and briefly.  

Yesterday's pep rally irked the hell out of me, and now I will unload on Palin - how dare she claim the mantle of Hillary Clinton?  I voted for Hillary.  Though I'm not a woman, I guess I count as of the cracks in the glass celing.  I voted for Hillary not because she's a woman, but I thought she'd make an excellent president.  I'm no PUMA Hillary fought hard, she lost, Obama picked Biden as was his perogative,  and  I'm behind that ticket 100%.  In Hillary, I voted for  a liberal, a proponent of universal health care.  I  didn't vote for a creationist, a denier of science, anti-choice, lifetime NRA member.  And what's with the "history making".  Umm, in case you forget, Geraldine Ferraro was the democratic V.P nominee.  In 1984 .  Hillary went out and fought, and fought hard for those votes.  For you to claim them because John McCain plucked you from obscurity IS arrogant.  

August 30, 2008 12:14 PM

dubyadoubte said:

Ooops - having read the other post about Palin's so-called oppostion to the bridge to nowhere, opposed only because as a national laughingtock, there was no way to fund the completion of the thing, I stand corrected.  Dems do need to hammer over and over that Palin indeed was for it before she was against it

August 30, 2008 12:57 PM

ndmackenzie said:

dubyadoubte writes:

-- On the positive side - Governor Palin is an accomplished woman on her own right, and she has my respect and admiration for taking on that kleptocracy which is the Alaska GOP establishment. In an age when infrastructure is crumbling in the lower 48 states, she said "no thanks" to Ted Stevens' Bridge to Nowhere.  For a relative novice to take on the crusty Stevens and Don Young is nothing to dismiss.

That is so last thursday it is wrong - much as the McCain team might want to tout her anti-pork credentials she was just as keen to get her snout in the trough as the next Alasks politician..

Brad Plumer had a post here yesterday that demoished the idea that Plemer was responsible for the Bridge to Nowhere was not going anywhere. She only abandoned the bproject when it became obvious that the Feds were not going to chip in and the State of Alaska was going to have to pay for it all.

-- "Ketchikan desires a better way to reach the airport, but the $398 million bridge is not the answer," said Governor Palin. "Despite the work of our congressional delegation, we are about $329 million short of full funding for the bridge project, and it's clear that Congress has little interest in spending any more money on a bridge between Ketchikan and Gravina Island," Governor Palin added. "Much of the public's attitude toward Alaska bridges is based on inaccurate portrayals of the projects here. But we need to focus on what we can do, rather than fight over what has happened."

-- Maybe I've missed something, but it sure looks like she was fine with the bridge in principle, never had a problem with the earmarks, bristled at all the mockery, and only gave up on the project when it was clear that federal support wasn't forthcoming. Now, Charles Homans, who knows Alaska well, says Palin's anti-corruption instincts are fairly solid (she sold off the gubenatorial jet upon taking office, for one), and a casual Nexis search suggests that she's fiscally conservative (insofar as that term makes sense in a quasi-socialist state like Alaska), but this hardly looks like the "Mr. Smith Goes To Washington" moment everyone's making it out to be.

-- P.S. Here's a piece that Palin's special counsel, John Katz, wrote in March of this year for the Juneau Empire, assuring the Alaskan public that Palin was still very much in favor of earmarks, but sadly needed to scale back her requests somewhat (to "only" 31 earmarks this year" down from 54 last year) in response to "unwanted attention" from Congress and the press.

blogs.tnr.com/.../did-palin-really-fight-the-bridge-to-nowhere.aspx

August 30, 2008 1:02 PM

dubyadoubte said:

mdmackenzie - dueling threads.  You are right the cl;aim that Palin fought the bridge to nowhere  was "so last Thursday".  I stand corrected - the dems need to hammer that point hard.  

August 30, 2008 1:25 PM

ndmackenzie said:

dubyadoubte -

Blame the TNR posting delay for my post. Although I don't know how or why I typed "Plemer" instead of "Palin."

August 30, 2008 1:54 PM

gary21cp said:

I just received an e-mail message from a conservative friend, and he wrote to someone he knows who lives in Wasilla, Alaska. Her name is Anne Kilkenny. I won't quote the whole message she sent about Sarah Palin, because it's too long, but this is interesting:

"Sarah campaigned in Wasilla as a "fiscal conservative". During her 6 years as Mayor, she increased general government expenditures by over 33%. During those same 6 years the amount of taxes collected by the City increased by 38%. This was during a period of low inflation (1996-2002). She reduced progressive property taxes and increased a regressive sales tax which taxed even food.  The tax cuts that she brags about benefited large corporate property owners way more than they benefited residents.

"The huge increases in tax revenues during her administration weren't enough to fund everything on her wish list though, borrowed money was needed, too. She inherited a city with ZERO debt, but left it with indebtedness of over $22 million. What did Mayor Palin encourage the voters to borrow money for? Was it the infrastructure that she said she supported? No. $1m for a park. $15m-plus for construction of a multi-use sports complex which she rushed through to build on a piece of property that the City didn't even have clear title to, that was still in litigation 7 yrs later--to the delight of the lawyers involved!  The sports complex itself is a nice addition to the community but a huge money pit, not the profit- generator she claimed it would be.  $5.5m for road projects that could have been done in 5-7 yrs without any borrowing.  Meanwhile, the City still lacks a sewage treatment plant and other basic infrastructure.

"While Mayor, City Hall was extensively remodeled and her office re-decorated

more than once.

"These are small numbers, but Wasilla is a small city (population at that time of about 4,500). Public indebtedness under her mayoral administration increased over $4000 per capita."

[Me again]: I can't vouch for the veracity of this information, but my conservative correspondent did include an e-mail address for Anne Kilkenny. Ms. Kilkenny, who says she has known Governor Palin since 1992, and who has a son who is friends with one of Governor Palin's daughters, has many complimentary things to say about Sarah Palin. But she says:

"McCain is the oldest person to ever run for President.  It scares the heck out of me to think that someone as inexperienced as Sarah Palin could become President.  There has to be literally millions of Americans who are more knowledgeable and experienced than she.

"However, there's a lot of people who have under-estimated her and are regretting it."

August 30, 2008 6:22 PM

cspencef said:

It's going to be a rather bizarre general election campaign season, that's for sure.  I look forward to tons of illogic and rabid rationalization in thread after thread.  

I dunno, my first thought was that Palin looked vaguely like Megan Mullaly in Will & Grace.  At any rate, the Miss Congeniality editorial cartoons are already starting to appear.  

And all this rather obscures the fact that come January, the US will either inaugurate a black president or a female vice president; either way, something unprecedented will happen.  As much as I hope, pray, give money and plead for the former and am convinced that the latter would be an indication of the republic's final slide into terminal stupidity (not so much her personally, but her politics? Hell yeah they do), I can't help but be struck that something historic is on the way.

August 30, 2008 10:35 PM

Thoughts from Kansas said:

Or were Law and Order's Mariska Hargitay and Miss Alaska runner-up Sarah Palin separated at birth? I'm not complaining, but being a celebrity look-alike is not exactly a major qualification to be one heartbeat from the Presidency. Especially when the

August 31, 2008 10:32 AM

The Plank said:

Why Sarah Palin Isn't Getting The Harriet Miers Treatment by E.J. Dionne, Jr. 'Reason, If Not

September 1, 2008 11:31 AM

The Plank said:

A very good friend, who is a lifelong Alaskan and one of the smartest people I know, offers this word

September 2, 2008 5:56 PM