Howard, I'm surprised that you're not more loyal to your former boss. Senator Clinton is on board with the ticket and with Senator Biden's selection.  Instead of ruminating on what might have been, why aren't you discussing how Senator Clinton will hit the campaign trail over the next two months and make a powerful case that Obama-Biden is better for women than McCain-Palin?

Hasn't Howard Wolfson been reading Doonesbury this week? After you've already descended into self-parody, what comes after that?

for a moment, yes. but then those women voters will ask the more important question: why did Senator McCain choose someone who has no colorable claim whatsoever to be "ready on Day One"?

It seems that Republicans think women are the new black -- it used to be that dangling any black Republican made the GOP think that they would win scores of black voters (see Steele, Swann and Blackwell). And now, it's time to dangle any old woman in from of women and assume you'll get their votes.

So Barack could not pick any woman but Hillary (According to the press) and McCain can pick any woman he wants. Congratulations, women, you now can appreciate the level of condescension that only black voters and "working class whites" have received so far in this campaign. Truly an honor to be thought of as a mindless demographic.

And McCain's best attack issue -- experience -- is now done. It's a Hail Mary pass with five minutes to go on second down.

Wolson - Palin might have the same gonads as these women and be an entertaining interview, but if these women did, in fact support Senator Clnton, and oresumably everything she stands for (debatable after the performances of some of her bone stupiest "supporters", lke the McCain ad Moron of the Year) they would never consider voting for that ticket.  

Palin is a right winger ideolouge, a major soldier in the army of of the toxic ideology that just got done ruining this country.

CNN says it's Palin.

Who?

CNN says it's Palin.

Who?

I've been telling y'all for months it would be Palin -- McCain would go with a female veep and Hutchinson was the only alternative, and not an appealing one.  

Palin is not bad folks (don't expect  a GOP Geraldine Ferraro) , but yes, she detracts from the "experience" attack and ultimately I think Biden wins the comparison notwithstanding.

So much for experience being important. She is 3 years younger than Obama and has no foreign policy experience (unless she has negotiations with neighboring Siberia without our knowledge). She hasn't even been governor for 2 years yet.Talk about a gamble pick to win an election. Is this 88 or 08?

VP Debate:

Palin: I am older and more experienced than Dan Quayle was

Biden: Gov Palin, I worked with Dan Quayle, I served with Dan Quayle, despite our differences Dan Quayle was a friend of mine. Gov Palin you are no Dan Quayle

"If the pick is indeed Sarah Palin you are going to have a lot of women voters wondering why Senator Obama didn't tap Senator Clinton as his running mate."

This is a non-sequitor.  Does anybody seriously think that Clinton wasn't picked because she's a woman?

I sort of agree with Barnacle's assessment.  Palin makes it awfully tough to criticize Obama's inexperience.  How can McCain really say that Palin is "ready" to be President but Obama isn't?

Man, I expected more from McCain. His best weapon is to convince people that Obama's too inexperienced to be President, so he chooses a running mate with even less experience?

And since it appears to be taboo for any public figure to say so - let's discuss the matter of McCain's age. He's in good health for 72 (happy birthday, John!), but he may very well die in his sleep in the next four years. And this person would be in charge?

As for Hillary, quit kidding yourself, Howard. She's poison among independents, and would rally the demoralized Republicans like nothing else. No woman who voted for Hillary is going to see her salvation in a right-wing nobody who happens to have the same gender.

Holy shnikeys. I am giddy. And I cannot wait to have Tep weigh in. This choice undermines pretty much every criticism he can levy about Obama. Apparently the GOP/McCain announcement tries to assert that she is prepared to lead because she is the mother of a soldier.

Happy 72nd birthday, Mr. McCain.

dcat

Howard, you condescending jerk.  Palin and Clinton share nothing except reproductive organs.  Can we evaluate people based on something else, please?  Clinton's legislative and executive resume is thinner than Obama's (I don't count first lady as executive experience), and she energizes the right like nobody else.  Biden was a great pick.  Even my mildly racist in-laws are voting for Obama now, because they trust Joe.

But speaking of reproductive organs...I am amazed that Palin is going to hit the campaign trail with a 4 month old baby with Down's syndrome at home.  As a mother myself, I don't think I could begin to contemplate that.  Is husband a SAHD?

mkricaurte: If only ...

Now, I don't like McCain so it is possible that my perception of his choice is tainted or biased.  But, as others have pointed out, if all you're running on is experience, and if your reply to Obama's speech is "lack of readiness", then why would you go with Palin?  And isn't she under investigation for improper infleunce?

OK, now I'm REALLY interesting in hearing what Tep has to say: will it be, "this is a game-changer for Obama; his exoticness will pale in comparison; the choice of Biden will have proven to be ill-advised", or "Palin is an expert in Russia, given that Alaska is only 50 miles away from Siberia; because this is going to be a foreign policy election, there are millions of undecideds that will go with a woman who has lived next to Russia and who evidently understands them, rather than a mere Senator", or "there are millions of undecided pale people will will support McCain now that he has chosen Palin" ...

Any way, if I get this correctly, on all domestic policy matters, Obama wins; on one matter, national security, McCain could claim experience on his part and no experience on the part of Obama; he, at 72, selects a women who has zero experience in Washington and none in foreign policy; and he will claim, with a straight face, that she will be ready on day one.

Am I missing something here?

They need to get Hillary out there right now talking about Palin is wrong on all the issues that are important to women voters. Glad to see MSNBC has Debbie Wasserman Schultz on the phone now with that message.

"VP Debate:

Palin: I am older and more experienced than Dan Quayle was

Biden: Gov Palin, I worked with Dan Quayle, I served with Dan Quayle, despite our differences Dan Quayle was a friend of mine. Gov Palin you are no Dan Quayle"

Palin, I'm much more accomplished than senator Obama ever will be.

And BTW, Quayle was a friend of mine. senator Obama  is not even  Dan Quayle

"If the pick is indeed Sarah Palin you are going to have a lot of women voters wondering why Senator Obama didn't tap Senator Clinton as his running mate."

With asanine "insight" like this, no wonder Clinton's campaign was a mess.

What's nice about Palin, is that Obama cultists  will show their sexism again. They would not be able to hide their hate.  

A comment on one of the right wing blogs:

"Obama is going to be hammered on born alive. Hammered, I say. Palin can have her children on stage and point out that Obama would have had at least one of them destroyed before birth."

We'll see -- I don't think they want to go near abortion (one of Palin's kids has Down's Syndrom -- you gotta admit there's some sympathy there, and with the false attack on Obama's "baby killer vote" this better be on their radar).

Howard Wolfson is an idiot, Barnacle is exactly right, and so is kagoss718. And kagoss: husband is an oil worker. I don't know who is taking care of that infant.

I think Howard's analysis is correct, but at the same time, it seems to assume that McCain's pick was going to be Palin no matter what.  It is true that the Biden pick probably was a bit more salt in the wounds some HRC voters still have (understandably so, if Obama had lost, although I'd be on board, I'd be a bit sore), and McCain's pick is going to add a bit more.  In fact, that's about the only downside to the Biden pick I see.  

What I think Howard's analysis misses is that Biden's pick appears to have scared McCain away from picking some people that could have made more sense from an electoral college perspective and attack dog perspective, namely Romney and Pawlentry (sp).  In the battle of VP choices and being able to make a persuasive case for their guy, I like Biden v. Palin more than I would Clinton v. Romney/Pawlentry.  Mostly because I think Clinton = Biden, or at worse, would have been a tad better, and Romney/Pawlentry >>>>> than Paiin.  

As an aside, I think the Palin choice highlights how bad the GOP's ranks are when it comes to women candidates.  The Democrats have/had a plethora of potential women presidential and VP picks that no one would have knocked for lack of experience (save for perhaps foreign policy experience), but the best woman candidate available to the GOP was a 2-year Governor from the second-least populated state in the country whose claim to fame is that she isn't nearly as corrupt as most other Alaska elected-GOPers.  

How can a middle-aged or older female voter -- who was swayed by Hillary's "35 years of experience" arguments in the primaries -- expect to vote for a ticket because the VP is a 40-year old woman with 2 years experience as a governor of a demographically small state?

Wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!!

A completely inexperienced no-name (who's probably a lovely person, or something) who comes with a scandal already!  An obvious political pander!  What's not to love?

Wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!!!

Wolfson, and presumably McCain, seem to think that women vote with their reproductive organs rather than their heads.  Or that there is some sort of bond of sisterhood that transcends interest and politics.  It did not really work for Mondale in '84, so I am not sure it will work now.  Vice-Presidential candidates don't win elections; they don't even necessarily lose them  - see Dan Quayle.  BUT, they could defang arguments - especially now in respect of foreign policy.  Puzzling.

Oh yeah, a couple of Jacomments - thanks for the copy-paste - as always, amusing to see such massive stupidity parading on stage.

Jacobt --

Yeah, the Republicans are going to win a debate on the pro-feminism side against Obama (and his amazing wife and two daughters). You keep thinking that.

And I love when Repubs pretend that Obama is not an impressive person.

Happy 72nd birthday, John McCain.

I am tumescent over this incredibly arrogant, silly, muddleheaded pick.

dcat

kagoss718 said: "Howard, you condescending jerk.  Palin and Clinton share nothing except reproductive organs.  Can we evaluate people based on something else, please?"

And kagoss gets my vote for COTD!

I am disappointed in McCain; this pick smacks heavily of being a selection based on reproductive organs as opposed to qualifications.

1. Why all the bile against Wolfson whoi simply said what he thought, agree with it or not;

2. The people advising McCain are no less savvy than the people advising Obama. Don't any of you think they thought this through and took into account every body's here sniggering thoughts and doubts, and weighed and considered them, without sniggering, and made their own calculations and concluded the the benefits outweighed the costs;

3. I saw just took few minutes from my office to watch her being introduced with her  husband and 5 children includng her Downs Syndrome baby;

5. I don't agree with her politics on many issues, but what I saw was a big good slice of the American pie. She will play well amongst working class people, whether or not they cling bitterly to anything;

6. She is self confident and is a big breath of fresh air.;

7. I wouldn't vote for McCain because of her. But I would not not be snide or arrogant or dismissive about this pick, I think it's a good one for McCain for part of the reasoning Wolfson relies on.

OK basman, I'll agree with you on this.

I find it to be a very condescending pick as a woman, but Wolfson IS just saying the truth - whether I respect any Democratic woman who would vote for such a ticket is not the point.  Any woman who passionately supported Clinton - especially for feminist reasons -  and then votes for McCain stands for nothing, worse, stands for emotionality and narcissism.

Wolfson IS actually a stand up guy for writing these threads and for just saying what's what as far as he sees it, he's not even really advocating anything here.  I wish he would have been on Obama's team, hes's obviously a real bare-knuckle asset to any campaign.  

The Clintons and Wolfson were about winning, and I appreciate that.  He didn't mention this point to needle, but as an analyst in this business for many years.

...I am tumescent over this incredibly arrogant, silly, muddleheaded pick...

Aroused are we?

Besides, I'm starting to miss Hillary already.

Looking forward to seeing her out there on the trail attacking Palin like no one else can

Much more than her convention speech, we'll see Hillary'shonest  commitment to having a Democrat as President, rather than just biding time for herself (she's perfectly entitled to do both).  

None of this luke warm stuff Senator C - roll out that angry laugh and that laundry list of Republican policies that undermine women especially.  Time to reign in the Hillry crazies for real this time.

We're looking forward to it!

Wandrey:

I have nothing more than a hunch, but I have a hunch that Sarah Palin is not to be misunderestimated.

And it is tactically, and just generally, unwise and unecessary and unbecoming to patronise her.

That said, I have a huge problem with the criterion of " a heart beat away." I want to see the case for that made by McCain. Presumptively, it seems like a huge problem for him.

And I have a hunch that Biden is not going to steamroller over her in their debate, just a hunch miind you.

basman writes:

"The people advising McCain are no less savvy than the people advising Obama. Don't any of you think they thought this through and took into account every body's here sniggering thoughts and doubts, and weighed and considered them, without sniggering, and made their own calculations and concluded the the benefits outweighed the costs"

That McCain had smart people think through it doesn't imply that they reached a smart conclusion.  That's sort of the reverse of an ad hominem fallacy (i.e. where ad hominem says "person is bad, therefore conclusion is wrong," you're sort of saying "person smart, therefore conclusion is right").

I think they miscalculated on this one, but maybe I'm giving the public too much credit.  Objectively, the readiness to serve as President should be of particular importance for McCain's VP, since there is a statistically greater chance that she'd actually have to.  Sure, it's stupid to argue that Palin is ready to be President and Obama isn't, but the first half of that argument is implicit, so maybe voters won't notice it.  We'll see.

Honestly, it looks Ferraro-esque in terms of blatant pandering, but politically, you can't just come out and say that (actually, for possibly the first time in my life, I'm curious as to what Ferraro has to say about it).  I'm not old enough to remember the 1984 election.  How did the Reagan campaign deal with Ferraro?  Attack her? Ignore her? Go with the McCain-style historic-but-still-unqualified line?

allansp: oy vey.

You have gotten to lighten up some, particularly when you're wrong.

I never argued that because McCain's advisors are smart that it *necessarily follows* they made a smart pick. I said rather that that people on this thread shouldn't be so dismissive and condescending about the choice McCain made, as though his advisors had not taken into account the criticisms that come instantly tripping to the mind as to its fragilities. The choice was a judgment call, the wisdom or unwisdom of which will only be known by what happens.

It right now can be argued for and against, just like the debate that presumably went on in Team McCain.

So don't worry so much about the reverse ad hominems and what not; and try to read more perceptively what gets written,  (even if you did get a comment of the day :-))

Didn't you just write an article titled, "Unity: Accomplished". Why are you trying to disprove your own thesis?

I think Wolfson is warped, that he sees everything through the prism of Hillary. Way more than even she does. I don't see how "a lot of women" - from the group who weren't already wondering why Obama didn't pick Hillary - would NOW be wondering that in light of this boneheaded pick. If anything, it's screamingly obvious that had Obama picked Hillary, then Palin's gender wouldn't have helped at all, because the alienated dem women are going to go for H over P. So now that O has Biden, this [perfectly nice] creationist with ten seconds of job experience in effing Alaska is the pick, instead of boring normal Pawlenty, or likeable and experienced Huckabee. Both of which would be rational choices.

And another thing:

I thought that TNR would be a safe haven from this annoying fad of hiring ex campaign shills as "analysts". It's one thing if a pundit has a kind of obvious but sincere bias, but just ridiculous to hire someone who was flat out paid to spin things a certain way five minutes ago, and is obviously going to keep doing so once that contract is ended. You think these people are going to go, "well thank goodness I'm no longer burdened with the pretense of believing xyz! Here, watch me flip like a dirty mattress-" ?? Well, no, they don't do that.

Are some people so daft here that they can't see that the inexperience argument is still on the table for McCain?  To be sure, it may blunt McCain's point about Obama's experience, but he's still got plenty left in the tank on that front.  That's because whatever fire that Obama and his campaign train on Palin will be boomeranged right back to him.  It's almost like McCain inviting that argument:  sure, go ahead and claim my Veep is lacking credentials, because, if that's true, your Standard Bearer has got the same issues.  

The difference?  Palin is second fiddle on the GOP ticket, and MAY pose problems if something happens to McCain.  The flip side, of course, is that if Obama gets the nod in November, he's just the African American male version of Palin and WILL bring that issue up and front on Day One of his presidency.  No MAY there, folks.  You get a sure greenie facing up to Putin and Kim with Obama in the West Wing.

The bottom line is that people vote for the top of the ticket,  and that's  Obama or McCain, not Palin or Biden.  The closest historical analogue I can recall right off the top of my head is the joke of a running mate that George the Elder picked in Dan Quayle in '88.  Setting aside the fact that he was comically unqualified, he was that much more so compared to Lloyd Bentsen, the Dems' pick that year.  Unfortunately, as it all turned out, Elder won.  Why?  Because it came down not to Quayle or Quayle vs. anyone else, but Bush vs. Dukakis.  And, on that count, it was disastrous.

Let's get real here folks.  The experience thing will always haunt Obama, though Palin's selection makes it a bit more easy for him to handle.  But if this election comes down to experience, we're going to be seeing the first female Veep in history.  

I hope everyone knows that Wolfson and Company are pulling for a McCain win here so that he can get the band back together again in '12.  

Just saying.