I can feel sympathy for Barack Obama, can believe he's the sort of guy I'd want to have a beer with -- and still find him a detriment to my party's case for the White House. Obama's a better educated version of Palin, and a less educated and less accomplished version of Jindal. His politics are my politics.

But he like the other two isn't ready to be president in 2009. Palin does nothing so much as remind everyone how badly we goofed in nominating a rookie with no leadership cred whatsoever.

"Hockey mom", meet "community organizer." Wasillla, meet Annenberg. Fundie, meet the man who considers as his "spiritual mentor" a man who argues blacks are right-brained, whites left-brained.

You might be right.

But the main problem with Palin, at least in terms of McCain's electoral chances, is that against this background of inexperience and unreadiness, the decision-making process that led to her selection was so  impulsive and haphazard.  I mean, Jesus Christ, it has taken all of four days for the New York Times to lay it completely bare--this in the middle of the RNC.

-> Up until last week McCain wanted Lieberman

-> The evangelical base said "No fucking way!"

-> Pawlenty and Romney seemed too safe; advisors were telling J Mac he was on a losing trajectory and needed to shake things up, and McCain basically had NO BACKUP PLAN

Meanwhile we learn of Palin that

-Her teenage daughter is pregnant

-She has a private lawyer defending her in an ethics investigation

-She belonged to a fringe political party interested in the secession of a US state--our biggest oil producer--from the Union

-She has a DUI on her record

So as I see it the essential problem with Palin is that she highlights a couple of hard truths about Senator McCain:

-In complete bad faith, he represses his more liberal instincts (nomination of Lieberman) in subservience to the right wing of the Republican Party

-He's an impulsive executive over-enamored of his ability to wing it and insufficiently respectful of institutions such as the vice presidency

"Obama's a better educated version of Palin"

Tep, you're on crack.

The experience argument has always been overstated, especially by the likes of you, friend teplukhin.

If Obama's politics are indeed your politics then you'd be well served to shut the fuck up and start working to see that he gets elected.  As someone here said recently--I think it may have been Robert Powell (If I'm wrong, RP, apologies)--the major role of the POTUS is not Commander in Chief, but Politician in Chief.  The President needs to articulate an agenda and advocate for its enactment.  If you can't recognize that Obama has shown himself to be uniquely competent in this regard, then you and I really don't have further grounds for conversion with regards to the presidential race.

More than that, you seem to suffer from a fundamental misunderstanding of the whole purpose of politics.  The election of a president is in no way analogous to the hiring of a professional.  The most important considerations for a voter should be

1) Does the candidate support policy goals with which he, the voter, agrees?

2) Assuming the candidate is in competition with other candidates who share similar policy goals, is the candidate under consideration more or less likely to see those goals through to enactment?

You seem to have forgotten this, tep.  

One would assume that you'd have no concerns about McCain's resume.  He has enough experience in your book, I'm sure.  And yet by your own admission, he's wrong on the issues that count.  So what could is his experience?  The greenhorn is looking increasingly like a statesman with both the will and the ability to lead the nation in a better direction while the gray-hair is looking increasingly like a juvenile buffoon.  

I spit on your experience argument.  

My last word on the subject.

It's funny how Obama's adversaries always like to mock him with the "community organizer" thing. And I just keep laughing. Because they don't get it. How did Barack beat the "inevitable" Hillary. Well certainly the Iraq vote had something to do with it, but the fact is, he organized circles around her campaign. And they still can't figure out how he did it.

I guess people think a community organizer is just like a college kid handing out fliers on a street corner. Well an organizer might do that at some point, but that's beside the point. What effective community organizing is all about is tapping into what people care about, and helping people develop the tools to take effective action to create change.  In other words, precisely what  the Obama campaign has been doing for the last 20 months. It is why they have over 2 million donors (read "people with a tangible investment in the campaign") and an army of volunteers like no campaign has ever seen.

So keep mocking him Tep.  You'l see.

Uggh.  'What GOOD is his experience?'

aero - "statesman", good one. Funny how even as Obama strives harder and harder to undo the ridiculously overblown hype, his fans keep puffing it out further and further.  

The day I work for Obama is the day you stop BS'ing me and repeating spin like the Times-spin about an "impulsive" McC decision. WaPo's account is night and day different, noting that Palin was initially considered as one of 20 picks many months ago, put on the short list several months ago, and vetted just like all four of the other candidates on that short list.

Re policy, I can think of dozens of Democratic pols who agree with my positions on the issues. I would say that 4 out of 5 of them have more executive or other leadership cred than this guy. Including his VP. It's a bad joke that this minor-leaguer has been vaulted above the party's big league leadership bench.

Look, I'm happy that he's at least recognized he has no credibility on foreign policy and is at pains, via the Biden pick, to at least try to import some. I'm also relieved that he's no longer gassing a la "we are the change we have been seeking" and beginning to at least speak intelligently and to the point, as he did in Denver. This is progress.  

But let's be honest, he simply doesn't have the leadership chops that Jindal has, and he has no more leadership credibility than Sarah Palin. If he's elected, I wish him well and hope that he surrounds himself with top-notch people who will make the tough decisions for him. We've no shortage of such people in our party, and he seems to recognize how light he is, so I'm not that worried anymore.

Maybe he can stick to kculturkampf stuff, education, race-related issues, and leave economic policy to Bob Rubin and Goolsbee and f-p to Biden and Holbrooke. That would be fine with me.

But aero, based on your last post I'd say you're letting your great expect[or]ations clog your judgment.

For now, the McCain campaign is clearly taking on water over his recklessness.  This is all about McCain's poor judgment, not so much on Palin.  Hey, they elected her up there, they like her stands on things.  Its a free country.  

But the tidal wave of bizarre views (Buchanan, separatist movements, etc) and corruption that surrounds this candidate - trooperegate II, the supposed cost cutter who took multi-millions in earmarks - McCain's signature issue, lies about her relationship with Stevens, other easily disproved lies about her record, and on and on - is fair game and irresponsible not to look at and allow the public to decide what it thinks of the ticket with her on it.  

Needless to say, this would spell the end immediately if this was a Democrat, especially a black one.

I'm pleased at how much this pick only underscores the maturity, professionalism and leadership ability of my party's ticket.  McCain conveniently self-immoliated on the experience canard for us.

(Anyone know how Palin's long standing Buchanan love with play with the Florida folks?  Yikes).

Although I admit to finding it creepy that she would allow her pregnant 17 year old to become a pinata, I'll admit that mine is a sexist response. McCain picking her in  the first place was sexist, so old Johnnie Mac and I have something in common.  But I do know that it's time to follow Obama's statemanlike, Presidential response and agree that any and all baby issues are not relevant.  So it shall be done.

Palin's views and record (not the hilariously hokey storyline, taking on more holes hourly, I pity McCain's staff)  are bad enough and what is says about McCain is totally fair game.  

But who knows net how it will turn out.  She is charming, no question, and GWB proves that pretty much trumps all.  

Nothing has changed about the stakes of this election and how it will be decided. Has America grown up since picking GWB twice?  Will they be manipulated with tittilating irelevancies and religio-gibberish again?  Do they care more about the real future of this country? Or about being fearful and divisive and backward?

McCain is banking on the worst in us prevailing - what an honorable guy!

PS Visions of Donna Brazile being teargassed in St Paul, armies of riot police and smashed windows - compared to Denver?  Love it.  More please!

The thing I find most attractive about Obama is that he understands collective psychology. The thing I like least about Obama is that he understands collective psychology. One gets the sense, or at least can be forgiven for having suspicions, that being too enamored of such a capacity can easily lead to an overconfident and unwarranted faith in the ability to resolve disputes with guile. Perhaps to the detriment of inviting avoidable confrontation but for lack of clarity.

McCain's appeal comes from simplicity. Don't confuse simplicity with being simple. It's not. One gets the impression that he accepts certain realities about the capacities of people and is therefore uncluttered about how to face come what may. There is a comfort in uncluttered allegiance.

While I would never presume to speak for Tep, I get the impression that this might be part of his ( as many others, too)  concern.

I'm not repeating anyone's hype.  I'm calling it like I see it.  To me, Obama walks, talks, and thinks like a stateman.

"I would say that 4 out of 5 of them have more executive or other leadership cred than this guy. "

What IS "leadership cred?"  I don't know what you're even talking about.

You were a big Biden fan.  I can guaran-effing-tee you that Barack Obama has a greater chance of enacting his agenda than Biden would were he to get elected President.  Why?  Because he can get the population behind his agenda.  Evidence?  HE WON THE PRIMARY.

"But let's be honest, he simply doesn't have the leadership chops that Jindal has."

You are INSANE.  Take your corporatized, IB-analyst, international relations ass back to school.  You might know something about international finance, but you don't know jack shit about politics.  You don't know what it takes to win or what it takes to lead.  You don't even know what it IS to lead.

boxofrox, teplukhin isn't trying to make any kind of case for McCain.  By his silence on the subject he's as much as conceded that McCain is a disaster waiting to happen.  

boxofrox - ncie catch, I think you nail it. Put another way: on the Georgia/Russia mess, there have been two approaches here in TNR, one of which is the International RelationsTheorists' Institution-building approach, the other a more Niebuhrian, pessimistic/realistic assessment of Russia's policy and what it means for the West.

In the former camp are the fierce partisans of Obama (and John Kerry) such as Peter Scoblic and Anne-Marie Slaughter. In the latter are Bernard Henri-Levy and Leon Wieseltier. Obama, lacking any real interest in or close experience of international conflict, appears to be swayed by these IR theory abstractions about how stronger institutions and nuclear nonproliferation treaties will halt aggression by the likes of Putin.

This is silly on its face. Russia was party to many such institutions, including collective security / confidence building ones (OSCE) and a nuclear non-proliferation treaty, and it not only raped a neighboring state, not only immediately violated most of the terms of its signed ceasefire agreement, but has now enunciated "five principles" of its foreign policy including the contradictory commitments of "respect for international law" and insistence on jealously guarding its "spheres of interest."

Me, I'm with BHL and LW.  Expecting such a nation's leaders to adhere to principles enunciated by western IR theorists is foolish. I've no idea why such notions continue to be propounded, even as realpolitiker nations like Putin's Russia continue to, as aeromonas would say, spit on them, but I'll stick with the wiser ones on this issue which, for me, is foundational.

And back to your original post, tep:

"Palin does nothing so much as remind everyone how badly we goofed in nominating a rookie with no leadership cred whatsoever."

In what universe?  Is anyone pushing this line other than you?  Of course not.  Palin does nothing so much as remind everyone how badly McCain goofed in impulsively choosing for his running matea political neophyte with a closet full of taxidermied skeletons  just so he could "shake up" his losing trajectory and simultaneously placate the Bible thumpers.  

aero -"you don't know jack shit about politics"

Not to get personal or anything but maybe you should cease with the spitting and frothing and just stick to making logical, good faith arguments?

"Maybe he can stick to kculturkampf stuff, education, race-related issues, and leave economic policy to Bob Rubin and Goolsbee and f-p to Biden and Holbrooke. That would be fine with me."

Uggh.  You're getting 'patronizing jackass' down to an art, aren't you tep?

What all this brouhaha demonstrates is that

a) Biden will be a net plus to the Obama campaign, but probably not a significant one (VPs rarely are)

b) Palin will be a net minus to the McCain campaign, but probably not a significant one--*unless* something huge turns up and she becomes this year's Tom Eagleton.  Not likely, but a distant possibility.

McCain chose to gamble.  I can understand why.  But he let the immediate thrill of raining on Obama's parade cloud his long-term judgement, and that does not speak well of him.

boxofrox and tep: All of which is to say that you are attracted to McCain because he seems to be a smarter version of Bush, while you worry about Obama because you think he is a smarter version of Jimmy Carter.

I disagree.  But I have to go to work, so further elaboration will have to wait.

Boxofox:

I think that was really well perceived and well said--I think you touched on one of the reasons for my inability to get on the Obama parade route--his tendency to "resolve disputes with guile."

In terms of political policy, Obama is closer to my preferences, although he is too left for me, especially in combination with Pelosi.

In terms of character and personal qualities, I much prefer McCain, who seems much more authentic and unselfish than Obama.

My solution may be to become a ticket-splitter. I don't want Pelosi and Obama both controlling the two active brances of government. I think we would lurch leftward if that happened.

Tep, you don't make good faith arguments yourself.  You make knowing pronouncements.  I chose today to counter your hauteur with redneck obscenity, as is my wont.  

And though you know a lot, you really don't know jack shit about politics.

I like it Boxo, in a retro kinda way - the only time I ever hear that word collectivism is from Republicans and back in my undergrad days.  I'm OK with it.  Its got deservedly bad connotations, but I'll cop to it.  In my experience,  the meaning is morphing into something that fits (or at least reflets) these times.  This is ongoing.

I do think Obama is trying - to modernize the concept, yes.  He already has.  I'm Ok with that.  The worship of the self had its place and time, and I'm glad for the positive things it has done.  But that swung too far, and now its just decadent, destructive selfishness.  I'd like that to be coLECtively swung back this way for awhile.  Until it swings again...

I get it on the McCain simplisity thing too.  The problem is when it turns in to clod headed transparency, with nothing wise attached.  I'd like wise and careful as a baseline - subject to removal when necessary - for quite awhile thanks.

Tep, I've defended you here a few times for sharing many of my doubts and concerns over Obama and being willing to articulate them. However, I think your approach to this, particularly on this page, actually proves aeromonas' point.

Fundamentally, that point is that presidents do not enact legislation, they support it. They have a soapbox from which to influence the public debate and congressional action. It's obviously important what policies they WISH to cheer for, but whether or not they can do so matters as well.

For example, Republicans are not hoping to elect McCain in order to magically pass conservative legislation, they hope to block and argue against liberal legislation. They want to have a national platform from which to counteract a strongly Democratic Congress. McCain's primary role for the next few years will be as a public speaker for rational conservatism.

On the other hand, Obama's role will be to actively push and convince the public to support the ambitious liberal agenda he and others have laid out. He'll have almost no hand in the actual legislation (other than suggesting and providing draft bills), but he'll have a huge hand in selling those bills to a skeptical public.

The Democratic agenda as laid out pushes the limits of what America is ready to do right now. It needs a salesman to convince the public of its worth. Something tells me Nixon wouldn't have inspired Apollo the same way. As I noted elsewhere, the convention finally convinced me that Obama had the right combination of effective sales and actual understanding of what he was selling to play that role effectively. That's what we're electing him for, and I'm convinced.

So my point regarding you is that you're almost always arguing against Obama on the salesman factor, not the policy factor. You've stated that you agree with his policies, so the only other question is whether he can help deliver. As aeromonas asks, who else could possibly be as effective a salesman? Look at your own line of argument, and reconsider.

"more authentic and unselfish than Obama"

Otherwise known as COUNTRY FIRSTt, Eos?

Wow, I feel my subconscious melting towards a Republican viewpoint already.  Take me to your leader.

You HAVE to get some nuance in your shtick dude, you're like a robot - are you really a computer program Eos live from RNC HQ?  It's a living I guess.  

All indications suggest that McCain wanted Lieberman as his pick and was still pitching it to his staff at the 11th hour. The Pallin pick was a poor one. A gimmick. She will not bring Clinton voters and her lack of experience undercuts McCain's only effective attack on Obama.

And Eos, nobody is buying this concern troll bit for a minute. It might be easier if you just cut-and-pasted todays RNC talking points and spared yourself the effort of pretending to be a "centrist" democrat.

Brooklyn has four times the population of Alaska.

Wasilla is the size of a large McCain rally, about 8,500. But a disappointing turnout for Obama.

John McCain: "She's exactly who I need, she's exactly who this country needs."

Not exactly.

She's a maverick, a rebel? Well, not exactly. She was endorsed in '06 in a TV spot by Ted Stevens, the recently indicted senator from Alaska.  

Time to focus on McCain's judgment: On Iraq, on the economy, on how he voted with Bush (when he did find time to vote) over 90% of the time, on the environment, on taxes, and now on his choice for VP.

Literate: it's funny but throughout the final stages of the Primaries, the "salesmanship" question - known in politics as "leadership" - was a point that I raised repeatedly with Tep, to no effect evidently.  My own support for him gelled because of Mrs. Clinton's campaign, but my respect for him arose in the course of the caucuses, seeing his organizational ability, and of course his ability to articulate a vision, and now policies, that are as ambitious as they are doable.

Your post, especially given your vantage point, is the more articulate version of what I have been trying to convey to Tep.

I've never liked McCain and have always thought him a self-important creep; but then on national security issues, I am probably far to the right of most Democrats - and, living outside the US, this is a more important issue for me than internal US politics.  While there is no way I would consider extending the Bush administration for four more years, I might at least have grudgingly accepted one, until this latest stunt by McCain.  This is a stunt; she is a gimmick; and this follows a long line of frat-boy antics that started in 2000.  Enough.

What do you need to have on your resume to be deemed "credible" on foreign relations? Doesn't flying around with Dick Lugar count? How 'bout being on the Foreign Relations Committee? In any case, he'll have as much or more foreign policy experience as George W. and Bill Clinton and countless other Presidents when they began.

Tep: you're the one spouting talking points. Unfortunately, it's the GOPs talking points that you're spreading. But maybe you're just a contrarian.

The American presidency has never been about experience. Had that job required extensive foreign policy experience for success, we'd have crashed and burned a long time ago.

The bottom line is that McCain, like Bush, would be nowhere on his own merit and brain power. Were it not for his father's influence, he wouldn't have gotten into the Academy, he certainly wouldn't have gotten that billet (he shouldn't have been flying planes anywhere, let alone in a war zone -- he was a terrible pilot), and he wouldn't have gotten into politics of this level.

The dirty little secret is that John McCain is not a bright man. Sure he has a high pain tolerance and he isn't such an idiot that he couldn't understand what leaving that prison camp on his father's coattails would mean for the rest of his life.

But he isn't impressive otherwise and a lot of people know it but won't say it. (Sounds like Bush, right?)

Obama is clearly as talented and smart as many of our successful presidents and while this doesn't mean he'll have a successful presidency, it does mean that he has a pretty good shot.

I'm to the right of the Democratic base on foreign affairs too Icarus, not too too much, but definately more right.  

I'd like someone who can literally reconceptualize our entire framework for international relations, with a team of like minded, visonary brilliant types - NOT a hockey Mom, call me a snob, I am sorry.

Intelligent theoriests on the right, welcome too, Max Boot, for example and the brilliant, visionary General Patreus.  I'd then like this person to put in to to a palatable, understandable, workable theory and the sell it.  To as many people on the planet as possible.

Um, it'll take some serious biz brain and advocacy power and it should.  McCain - a charming guy when he wants - is not that smart, the simplicity thing is a crutch to hide it.  No wonder McCain longs for the certainties of the Cold War.  His dismissial of the pregnant 17 year old (well, marry the kid and get her off the front pages Goddamnit) is kind of sweet, it makes me think of the John Wayne era he clearly still thinks he's living in.  I liked those guys too.

But Reagan and John Wayne are long dead and a new international framework is needed - as logical, objective as possible, as well as someone who understands modern culture.  Not just gender relations, but technology and the rest of the things he just does not get.  

Eos:

Splitting the ticket, power-sharing, moderation--it all sounds noble and mature and clear-eyed, free of any taint of enthusiasm or partisanship. But I can't help wondering: would a McCain administration let a Democratic senate enact universal health care? Any version of universal health care? (For me, a self-employed breadwinner with insurance bills rivalling my rent, the issue is personal and "collective" both.) If not, then we'll either need Obama in the White House or a two-thirds majority in the Senate. Which is more likely?

A McCain administration promises gridlock. Contrary to the GOP's attempt to tar him as a lefty, Obama--if David Leonhardt's good, complicated analysis in the NYT Magazine is to be believed ("Obanomics," 8/24/08)--would moderate many of the traditional impulses of the left.

I would contend that someone who has been actively running for President for almost 10 years, who has flip flopped on at least 3 of his core beliefs to suit the extreme wing of his party (immigration, taxes, evangelical GOP hegemony), and has in his first executive decision, picked the most unqualified vice presidential nominee since William Miller...

to be someone who puts his own ambitions over all else.

And tep, you cannot compare Paulin's educational and career achievements to Obama. Paulin's rise to prominence in the politically insignificant state of Alaska is admirable but relatively speaking, very few people live there and it is hardly the training ground for the second most powerful person in the world.

I predicted this earlier and I say it again: In another week, The GOP and McCain will rue the day that they ever heard of Paulin.

Teppy, you are being willfully blind to Obama's strong qualities while stuck on his deficiencies. He does have deficiencies and those should be discussed but you simply are not allowing yourself to move off your cartoonish opposition to his candidacy. Let me put it this way: He beat the Clintons, both of them. This alone puts him in select political company. I can think of only one person who can claim that and it was that long forgotten governor who beat Bill in 82.

In football, when you're on a losing trajectory, which polls to the contrary notwithstanding, McCain certainly was, a "hail Mary pass" is an appropriate, rational response.  Even with all Palin's complications, I believe that among the other veep possibles, Palin helps most and hurts least in enhancing McCain's chances of getting himself elected.  For those who think otherwise, whom do you think McCain should have picked?  The slick Mittster? The dull Pawlenty? The oleaginous pro-choice Lieberman?  The maybe gay Charlie Crist?  Kay Bailey Hutchison, whom McCain allegedly can't stand? Any of the other pro-choice possibles, Tom Ridge, Meg Whitman, or Olympia Snowe?  Any of the foregoing would IMHO have sunk the already listing ship. A lot of voters are going to be able to identify with Palin, relate to her family melodramas, and cut her more slack on a learning curve than they might for a Presidential candidate. So McCain may take some hits on his judgement, but I think his political judgement cannot be faulted. I also predict she will emerge as an effective campaigner.  Choosing her may have been a "hail Mary pass", but they sometimes result in touchdowns.  

Tep,

Please take literatehobo's post to heart.  It is the most articulate rendition of what I've been telling people about Obama.  

Initially in the primaries I was leaning toward Hillary, but Obama's political skills made her look like and amateur.  You may laugh and joke that Obama's campaign running for President does not qualify him for the Presidency in any way, but that's only because you fail to understand just how brilliant his campaign was run and how he is solely responsible for this, and because you apparently don't understand, as has been pointed out by others, how the office of President fits into our political system.  This is kinda shocking given your obvious intelligence.  I can only assume that your antipathy against Obama is clouding your reasoning to a very large extent.  

I agree with you JackR somewhat about McCain's "political" judgment.  The main problem as I see it is the fact that McCain chose to follow his "political" judgment over his "what is best for my country" judgment by selecting Palin.  

I can't agree with you fully about the correctness of his political judgment because there must be better candidates than Paliin who would have satisfied the right wing nuts.  What about Jindal?  He's a minority and has more experience than Palin, right?  And his handling of Gustav seems very masterful.  Are there really no anti-abortion viable woman candidates besides Palin?   McCain ultimately made the wrong political judgment IMHO as well.  

I sympathize with teplukhin, I really do. I mean, I understand that my aversion to Hillary is kind of irrational too, just as tep's aversion to Obama is largely personal and doesn't even stand up to the rational justifications tep pretends to have. But really, when someone writes this statement:

"But let's be honest, he simply doesn't have the leadership chops that Jindal has, and he has no more leadership credibility than Sarah Palin."

It's time to stop cutting him slack. The "leadership chops" of Bobby Jindal? The man is a midlevel bureaucrat turned rookie congressman turned rookie governor. The man was sworn in to his first elected office three years ago.

What tep needs to ask himself is what he means by "leadership," because he uses the word in a way that is completely divorced from the concept of actually leading people. For all her faults, Sarah Palin has actually demonstrated real leadership ability -- she has persuaded Alaska voters to act against their inclinations in electing her and supporting her agenda of reforming the corrupt government that they had previously preferred. That's not Lincoln leading Americans to war to defend the Constitution, but it's nothing to sneeze at. In terms of actual people persuaded to act in a new way, that's more leadership than John McCain has ever demonstrated. (You can be a maverick, or you can be a leader, but by definition you cannot be both.)

Barack Obama has also demonstrated his ability to lead people to new positions. Bobby Jindal has not. There may be rational, logically defensible reasons to like Jindal, but "leadership" is not one of them.

woland:

It takes a willing suspension of disbelief to support Obama, which is why he tends to have supporters who act like fans. This is a man who has zero public record other than of running for president--no record of decisions or actions other than in the context of a campaign. It is quite a leap of faith to want to make him president.

If McCain wanted to take a gamble, he should tried to pull in Powell or General Patreus. It would have driven home the point of experience and security to the same women that opted for Bush last time. Instead, he did what he's often done - gone with his gut. Bad choice. She's a liability and undercuts his main advantage. Just another reason to question McCain's judgement when the chips are down.

McCain, Obama and Biden have all provided a comprehensive written source which allows voters to examine their personal and processional views. All three participated in the party primaries and though not perfect the process exposes flaws as well as strengths. Voters and the candidate benefited and we and the respective party's can claim Hillary (not a winner) or Thompson (not a winner) are viewed differently because of that competition. It is more than a horse race and we should not accept a candidate for the top of the ticket who did not participate.

Since the VP is not subject to that more rigorous trail, any choice of a nominee that avoided the scrutiny of the campaign has a greater burden. Unless they occupy a prominent position in the national debate we can't examine their views the same way we judged answers to hundreds of questions all candidates faced.

I did not vote for Rudy. I'm not a fan of Mitt. I will not vote for McCain. However, McCain could win and I'd at least be able to say I have good reason to cite why and where he's provided confidence and where he offered views contrary to what I prefer. How can anyone argue that we know less about Mitt, Rudy or Joe than Pawenty, Kaine or Palin? A voter can't be expected to accept the #2 person on the ticket when that person provides little or no empirical evidence compared to the other choices available to the person choosing them.

Like or not like Rudy or Mitt? Any anxieties I might have about them assuming office are known and McCain could have chosen from a list of dozens of other candidates for his potential successor that would present me with a record. I'd know where they stand on on most of the issues they'd be deciding upon if they became POTUS.

Even when a presidential candidate requires a VP to fill a narrow electoral need, we've been fortunate for the past fifty years that they sensed the gravity of the position after they're elected.

It isn't that one is being unfair to Palin when they have doubts, we diminish the and trivialize the choices of other presidential candidates who don't ignore the value of a VP during the campaign but can justify beyond a reasonable doubt that their choice is ready to serve.

No one should be grasping for ways to contrast or compare the strengths of Palin. Voters of both party's did or didn't like Obama's choice but they were able approve or not based on evidence that related to his potential role as successor to Obama.

In no way can McCain claim his choice was made with an over riding consciousness to meet the standard he wished for himself or Obama. McCain may not approve of Obama or Biden but he can't compare those choices with the gamble of choosing Palin. If he did not see that as an unnecessary risk I hope the voters grasp it before November 4th.

JackR: You're right of course, and from the outside, especially coming from Canada where we have elected, for the past four decades, one Prime Minister after another that no one in his or her right mind invite to dinner or have a beer with (a fop, a braggart, a thug, a boring millionair and now a rightwinger who can put Aetna to sleep), this whole "relating to" business is incomprehensible.  But then Bush got elected and re-elected over far more qualified candidates, so I guess there is something to what you say.

Still.  I don't think that Obama can be discounted quite yet, nor do I think that the political effects of a frat-boy stunt - and this was nothing but that - will be long-lasting.  You are right in that she might well grow on the campaign trail.  At the same time, let us not forget the distractions, and the revelations, that we see almost daily.  How will she answer to the question, "In 1994 you belonged to and attended the convention of a party that advocates a secession vote for Alaska.  Can you explain?"  Or, "you have said that creationism should be taught in school and that Climate Change is not man-made - could you explain?"  And so on.  Effective public speaking may come naturally to a former Anchorwoman, but would beauty queen answers to VP questions cut it?  Not sure, but I guess we will see.

Nippers:

I think that in concert with Pelosi an Obama presidency would accelerate the impulses of the left to a very destructive degree. Just look at the behavior of the left in supporting Obama yesterday? While Obama issued a very nice statement about Palin's daughter--and Andrew Sullivan, DailyKos, HuffingtonPost and others around here should be mortified--the overall trend would be to accelerate the left.

I am very troubled by the issue of health care. While I am fortunate in having good health care, it disturbs me that so many people do not. I was hoping for a Romney VP selection because of what he did with health care in Massachusetss. This is an issue I will continue to watch, and it is really is my most important conflict with McCain.

In fairness, rereading my post, my argument really applies only to domestic policy. Tep's arguments against Obama are a bit more realistic when you consider foreign policy, in which the president's personality and decision-making skills are more directly relevant than legislation.

Just for the record the "losing trajectory" argument offerred here by a few is simply a direct lift from flack Bumiller's piece about the Palin pick in the NYT this morning. Nothing in any polling I've seen suggests any such thing, and Bumiller of course offers no support for any such assertion, par for the course from the publication that gives you "All The Aluminum Tubes Fit To Print".

Having said that, I'll add I am and will remain an Obama supporter, nee Clinton, nee Biden, all my reservations about his readiness aside. I do believe he's a superior pick to John McCain on a number of issues and am ok with him in the presidency. And I take great comfort with Joe around to help him sort through the landslide of nonsense he'll receive from his 300 or so informal advisors that I've read about, and the need for which, for some reason, he's proud of.

As to Sarah Palin, the next two or three weeks will tell us if she was a pick of pure inspiration or a catastrophe of Eagletonian proportions. But I caution my friends to neither dismiss nor denigrate her. She's immensely appealing and all the blather about "changing the map" aside, this election may well turn into the classic rust belt/upper Mississippi battle where Sarah and Todd Palin can and likely will resonate as "people like us and understand our problems" among those who demand "change" in Washington, but not necessarily in America, the country they think is just fine.

Finally, as a New Republic reader but one with a nephew who recklessly became a father as a high school senior, I'm here to tell you there are a hell of a lot more us than parents of double-Ivies who graduated Harvard Law and own a mansion in a swanky Chicago neighborhood.  

Ask John Kerry how well seemingly dismissive arrogance turned out. Let's be careful out there.

Literate: Here are Frum and Krauthammer on the Foreign Policy issue and on "game changer" generally.  Your specific observation might not hold, but certainly, on the FP side, the judgement issue in the choice of Palin is glaring:

Frum first:

"Mr. McCain's supporters argue that he is more serious about national security than Barack Obama. But the selection of Sarah Palin invites the question: How serious can he be if he would place such a neophyte second in line to the presidency? Barack Obama at least balanced his inexperience with Mr. Biden's experience. What is Mr. McCain doing?"

Krauthammer:

"The Palin selection completely undercuts the argument about Obama's inexperience and readiness to lead -- on the theory that because Palin is a maverick and a corruption fighter, she bolsters McCain's claim to be the reformer in this campaign ... At the same time, he's weakening his strong suit -- readiness vs. unreadiness. The McCain campaign is reveling in the fact that Palin is a game changer. But why a game changer when you've been gaining? To gratuitously undercut the remarkably successful "Is he ready to lead" line of attack seems near suicidal."

Eos: First it was Obama and Pelosi dragging the country down.  When it was pointed out that there is nothing in Obama's record or suggested policies that would suggest a radical left-wing approach - whatever that is - to policy, now you change your tune to "the left" more generally, referring to the reaction to Palin's daughter.  Just like Tep, you keep changing the terms of debate when the facts on the ground don't fit your narrative.  

You do know, don't know, that in the US there is a second house of Congress, called the Senate - which tends to moderate populist impulses; that the Speaker of the House of Representatives does not have legislative power on her own, but rather, has to actually get a majority of liberal, moderate and conservative Democrats to support whatever initiative she might have; you do understand that if Obama has any hope of winning reelection, a radical left wing set of policies is out of the question?  I mean, "Pelosi-Obama" might work to scare children in Kansas, but could you please have more respect for yourself, if not for us, to stop being so glib?

Obama has set out am ambitious domestic agenda that would, if implemented, basically bring the US around to where the rest of the West is.  This is hardly dangerously "left wing".  To implement this, he will have to put together a coalition of Congressmen - and, remember, the Democrats voted for Steny Hoyer who is not a Pelosi pet - and Senators (from all walks of political life), and then sell it to the American people.  There is no danger whatever of a radical left-wing policy coming out of this.

With McCain, there is the threat of veto, the absence of initiative and, far more dangerously, the Supreme Court.  You want Roe overturned, vote for McCain; you don't, you shouldn't.  It really is that simple.

"Think of an American president being inaugurated. What image comes to mind?"

Nate, should this be "Think of an American VICE president being inaugurated..."?

One thing to understand about Russia: they are playing defense with their foreign policy, not offense (even taking the Georgian crisis into account). And so while I'm concerned about their actions I think there's a significant chance that Putin's government, as awful as it is, will respond to respectful US overtures. And so I think that Obama would be the better President for managing that relationship in the long term, not McCain.

The kid getting knocked up isn't really a story. But I find Republicans, the same group that laughed when Rush Limbaugh called Chelsea Clinton the family dog, are not the people to be giving lectures on civility. McCain in particular should step lightly. He once joked that Chelsea Clinton was so ugly because her father was Janet Reno. It doesn't get much nastier than that.

Shrek: This isn't about Palin, it's about McCain.  Rick Davis has claimed, for example, that the vetting process included an "FBI background check".  Meanwhile, the FBI has denied being involved in the vetting process.

marcambinder.theatlantic.com/.../palin_and_the_fbi_background_c.php

This is not about double Ivies or sons of Admirals; this is about the essential integrity of a man's decision-making process, the reasoning that goes into it, and the justifications provided afterwards.  This is not how one expects the US Government to be run.

This may be a tedious note to introduce, but ultimately Palin may be neither a plus or a minus.  If the question on Nov 4 in voters' minds is "new direction" or "four more of the same," then it'll be trending Obamawards and Palin is just a footnote.  If the question on Nov 4 is an amalgam of experience/leadership/familiarity and similar notions, then it will be trending McCain and what Palin can bring out electorally will be important.

Btw schreck -- the key word in your last para was "seemingly."  Kerry's "dissmissive arrogance" was a GOP creation.  His record shows a lifetime of service.

OT, but isn't it time for a snarky Jamie Kirchuk article about Palin's support for Buchanan and the Alaska Independence Party?  

At least, unlike Obama, Palin actually has executive experience.  Granted governing Alaska is a far cry from governing the nation, but Obama has goverened nothing.  

"Are there really no anti-abortion viable woman candidates besides Palin? "

No- that's why this was a formulaic decision. There are no more prominent GOP women who are as stridently anti-choice as this. Even *Republican* women are not as hateful and controlling, for the most part.

Hence my deliberate use of the word "seemingly", Irony. I was a huge Kerry/Edwards supporter in both money and time, have utmost respect for this wonderful man and his history of service and was devastated by his loss.

But in my view that loss was in no small measure due to his inability to connect with people much like Sarah and Todd Palin; I believe that's simply the way he came across though ruthlessly exaggerated by the Bush campaign. But he was vulnerable to that strategy and I think we can agree didn't respond effectively and quickly enough. It was, what, 40,000 votes in Ohio that gave us four more years? It sure as hell wasn't the faculty of the Oberlin Conservatory that gave Bush that State, it was folks very much more like Todd and Sarah.

I merely seek to strike a cautionary note, before we all chuckle a little too hard about daffy old McC's desperate "Hail Mary". They can sometimes win the game, you know.  Any Boston College fans out there?

"At least, unlike Obama, Palin actually has executive experience.  Granted governing Alaska is a far cry from governing the nation, but Obama has goverened [sic] nothing."

Take this statement, substitute Gore or Kerry for Obama, Bush for Palin and Texas for Alaska.

Trust me, you don't want to go there.

You have proven once again that arrogance will carry you a long way in this area. There is nothing quite like strong opinions along with a spitting contest to win the hearts and minds of the opposition. Go try and sell this way of thinking to those that you NEED to win this election. Oh, I forgot the Obama crowd doesn't need anyone they have it covered with youthful enthusiasm and new registrations. It would be nice if you weren't living in fantasy land. This election is going to be a nail bitter based primarily based upon Obama's lack of political experience. Rhetoric, intelligence, and the change mantra will only carry the game so far.

Go Obammania!

In any case, in the immediate short term, it's not working. Rasmussen tracking has Obama at his highest ever and the rest of the national polls out today also have him up more than was recently the case. Whether it's a delayed convention bump or a deflation in McCain in response to the Palin announcement, it appears that at best, Palin failed to step on Obama's bounce and failed to generate one of her own.

Eos, lacking faith:

"woland:

It takes a willing suspension of disbelief to support Obama, which is why he tends to have supporters who act like fans. This is a man who has zero public record other than of running for president--no record of decisions or actions other than in the context of a campaign. It is quite a leap of faith to want to make him president."

Hmmmm, and McCain doesn't have fans? Haven't the Republicans, suddenly energized by raving evangelicals, turned themselves into one holy undivided fan club. Hasn't McCain emerged from being widely disliked to deliriously championed in one stroke, all due to one decision? Disbelieve that.

And, your assertion that Obama has "zero public record...other than in the context of a campaign" is so zero accurate, as any novice internet researcher could tell you in ten seconds. Try again. Better, peruse John McCain's extensive record of (pace Chan) Far Right legislative activity. It doesn't take a leap of faith to want him to return to the Senate, where it's safer (for us).

I agree with schrek2000: leave Mary out of it.

Bursack said:

" Granted governing Alaska is a far cry from governing the nation, but Obama has goverened nothing."

Neither had Harry Truman, nor Dwight Eisenhower, nor John Kennedy, nor Lyndon Johnson, nor Richard Nixon, nor George H. W. Bush; finally, neither has John McCain. I believe we have had four former governors in the White House since Franklin D. Roosevelt: Carter, Reagan, Clinton, and currently, George W. Bush. Take your pick.

"Palin does nothing so much as remind everyone how badly we goofed in nominating a rookie with no leadership cred whatsoever."

This is wrong for two reasons.

First, Palin undercuts McCain's inexperience argument, his strongest card in this debate. It's like throwing away pocket aces in the middle of Texas Holdem. On this score alone her selection = losing the election. Second, her statements on Iraq ("I heard about the surge on televion") and her understanding of the office she's running for ("I don't know what the VP does each day") make Obama seem seasoned and experienced by comparison.

Tep and other right wing pundits might disagree and try to muddle things by focusing on the paper resume, but any person of average intelligence can detect a significant difference between Palin, who appears to know nothing about foreign policy, and Obama, who has studied, stumped, and debated all of this stuff for the last 5 years straight.

r-brown207 wrote:

"This election is going to be a nail bitter based primarily based upon Obama's lack of political experience."

No, it is going to be a nail-biter primarily based on the Left/Right ideological divide that has governed Presidential elections for decades. Consider how many past Prez elections have turned on a few hundred thousand votes in a handful of battleground states and you'll get the picture. What has been fantastical this year are the inflated expectations of support for the left wing Democrat over the right wing Republican. The more McCain successfully has differentiated himself from W. - not that hard a thing to do for him - the more his support has firmed up. Remember, this campaign,  unlike even recent past ones, has been running more or less full steam since at least February of last year (when Obama announced), and there have been countless debates broadcast on all cable networks, which have been viewed by millions and millions of potential voters.

People's minds are already made up except for the relatively small number of independent and swing voters, and the so-called undecided. There is no mystery that poll results have reflected the fact.

Sarah Palin seems like a nice enough woman, and her family problems only tend to humanize her more.  Hell, I'm even willing to overlook her youthful indiscretions like membership in the Alaska Secessionist Party, or whatever they call themselves.

But given the revelations of the last few days, I'd say that the issue here is less what her selection says about her fitness or unfitness to serve than it is about McCain's impulsiveness and recklessness in selecting her.  This is not a guy I want to imagine with his finger on the nuclear trigger.

Palin is the Republicans' Thomas Eagleton.

Experience generally matters far less in voter's minds than allegiances, issues, and "intangibles." November's results will bear that out, if I'm right.

Nonsense on Obama having never "governed": He has eleven years as an elected official under his belt, nearly four as a United States Senator, and he has been running a campaign that has required far more executive leadership than being Governor of Alaska. This may not be a vast leadership record, but very often we elect presidents without twenty years of governing experience. The question should not be how much experience, but the quality of experience and the quality of leadership. I'll place Obama in any comparison with McCain on that front given some of McCain's dramatic reversals in the last eight years and the utter lack of judgment the Palin pick reveals.

dcat

"Experience generally matters far less in voter's minds than allegiances, issues, and "intangibles." November's results will bear that out, if I'm right."

Yes, tomeg, in my view you're right. And by the way, if energy independence really does emerge even more as the surprise mystery guest of this year's election, watch out for Sarah Palin. You may very well disagree with some of her views (as do I), but this is an issue she has in fact thought about and dealt with. I think she is especially dangerous here---like when she asks Joe at the debate "so why did you vote against the original Alaska Pipeline, anyway, old-timer?"

And come to think of it, have either Joe or Barack ever been to the North Slope? I know all about their trips to the adoring foreign capitals where they've been lauded, but how about the last great frontier of this wonderful nation of ours? The  possible true source of our energy independence? You get the idea.  

tomeg:

I agree that it may be slightly overstating the case to say that Obama has zero public record.

But he has almost none. His activities in the Senate have been virtually non-existent where he lists co-sponsorship of a non-controversial bill on arms control that was passed by voice vote and reported on nowhere as one of his major legislative accomplishments (similar to Palin's handlers claims about he and the national guard). And all the records of Obama's office during his time in the Illinois legislature have somehow been lost and misplaced (how do you lost boxes from 8 years in the state legislature--he's obviously hiding stuff).

So Obama's public record is virtually non-existent and he wants to be president. His ticket would be much better balanded if Obama were the VP candidate and Biden or Hillary were the top of the ticket.

Yes, schrek, I get it, thanks, I hadn't thought of that. Energy policy could well get up close and personal soon.

I'll give you credit, Nate, for one of the few cogent points made on this subject by either side.  As a McCain supporter, I have to agree that Palin has a wall to climb in the next two months - but I am optimistic that she can do so.

I'll give you credit, Nate, for one of the few cogent points made on this subject by either side.  As a McCain supporter, I have to agree that Palin has a wall to climb in the next two months - but I am optimistic that she can do so.

There's not a lot of Obama's life and career that hasn't been dug up, turned over and examined with a microscope over the last year or so.

They have found 1 inadvisable business/financial relationship and 1 friendship/professional connection with a former Weather Underground member -- but that was 35 years ago when Obama was a small kid.

They thought they found a raving Black Power "Kill Whitey!"-type minister but discovered instead Obama's ability to say something intelligent about race.

Eos,

I too found unseemly the speed--or even the joy--with which certain bloggers presumed guilt in their avid speculating about Palin's baby. But I disagree that those presumptions somehow indict the political left, let alone Obama. I'd also object to the notion that Andrew Sullivan, Obama supporter though he may be, even belongs to the political left.

The gossip provoked by the Palin pick seems to me tantamount to our surprise. Few of us in the lower 48 knew anything about her, and there's nothing the Obama campaign could possibly have done to prevent numberless bloggers and reporters and curious citizens from googling away, and in their furious googling they were quick to discover the rumors that had been circulating in Alaska for months. Speculation filled a vacuum of information--a vacuum that the McCain campaign helped create and sustain. Now that the charges have been convincingly denied, those who were quick to presume guilt have been shamed--by Obama but also by their comrades in the lefty blogosphere. Even before the rumors were laid to rest, the most egregiously offending blog on the Daily Kos met with criticism from Obama supporters, and within 24 hours, it had been shunned.

Compare that with the way hateful speculation and rumor persist on the right, amplified by talk radio as well as the right-wing blogosphere. Compared to the left, the right has no shame.

I can sympathize with reservations about Obama, but I certainly wouldn't want to punish both party and country for the premature, unprotected ejaculations of misguided bloggers whose ranks are no doubt smaller than those of the 616 voters who elected Palin mayor of Wasilla. Because some nitwit spreads rumors on Daily Kos we don't get health insurance? Or a responsible environmental policy? Or a more progressive tax structure? Really?

literatehobo - thanks for your temperate and as usual, wise comments. To your point:

"The Democratic agenda as laid out pushes the limits of what America is ready to do right now. It needs a salesman to convince the public of its worth."

Yes, he's good with the chat, and likable, two very important qualities in a salesman, and of course I prefer the domestic agenda of my party. My problem is that we/he are not likely to have the luxury of focusing, as Obama has done throughout his career, on domestic issues. Foreign policy issues will dominate.

Were we merely trying to wind down Iraq and win in Afghanistan, I'd say it was possible that our agenda could take center stage at some point before the 2010 midterms. Were we only fighting these two wars and trying to avoid a conflict with Iran, I'd say it was possible that this agenda could take center stage before 2012. But two wars, Iran AND a series of confrontations with an unmistakably fascist-tending Russia mean that the next admin's bandwidth will inevitably be consumed by foreign policy.

For me, the most worrisome challenge is Russian fascism. In contrast to the IR theory monks, I don't see any chance that institution-building will dissuade Putin from attacking Ukraine if the latter persists in trying to be part of the civilized community of European independent democracies. Which means that, unthinkable to me when I married my wife, my country will have a choice: either to support a significant, large democracy in its conflict with Russia, or let the vision of 1989 die.

I have plenty of problems with McCain, but I'm sorry, everything I know about Russia and about Putin suggests to me that Obama in following the woolly theorizing of the IR naifs is only making another Russian invasion more, not less, likely. And that issue, for me, is even more important than universal health care.

t

MBHolman - "Sure he has a high pain tolerance and he isn't such an idiot that he couldn't understand what leaving that prison camp on his father's coattails would mean for the rest of his life."

Ooh, don't go there.  The nature of torture is such that rather than calculating his career prospects while his arm's getting broken, McCain would tempted to ride his father coattails to stop the pain.  This is a guy who had 30 operations post Vietnam.  It must have been even worse than the "torture lite" and "harsh interrogation techniques" that we use at Gitmo and the secret prisons.

literatehobo - sorry, didn't see your followup post, but yeah, we agree on domestic policy. I respect your logic. This November I'll end up choosing the lesser of two evils, as I did prior to the Clinton-Gore era.

Russia's gone fascist and the Europeans, realists all of them, have no illusions about this, and yet they're paralyzed. The result of this emergency EU meeting-- btw the only other one to occur took place after 9/11-- is that Putin's threat to cut off Germany and Poland's fuel supply worked as planned.

Putin has gone off tiger-shooting in SIberia, his puppet issued a pronunciation that Russia will do whatever the f*** it please in its sphere of interest, and everyone recognizes that there will be no deterrent if / no punishment after Russia decides to invade another neighbor. Heaven help us all.

Eos:  Obama has a public record.  You can go ahead and keep repeating yourself that it isn't there but it is.  He is on record for bucking the teacher's union and supporting merit pay, he has authored a bill that NO ONE thought could get passed (videotaping of police interrogations; highly objected too by police)--just 2 examples that demonstrate independent thinking and ability to obtain consensus to arrive at a workable solution respectively.  So stop it.

both the author of this piece and aeromonas at the top have spelled out the issues regarding "qualifications" and "role" of president as laying out the vision of/for the country. It is then up to the legislators to do the work to make it so.

tep,

I would argue, from my limited knowledge and experience, that the "Al Gore plan" endorsed by Obama of embarking on a serious reconstruction of the American economy to ensure energy independance and a productive (rather than consumptive) domestic economy is the single best FP move we could make. A strong argument can be made that FP is really the control of resources.  Russia is powerful because of its oil & gas. It feels comfortable projecting its power because it feels Europe (and thus America) needs it, just as the Middle East knows perfectly well that we need them. These players know that our weakness is not just an overstretched military, it's an overstretched economy. If we have to, we can still mobilize a massive military effort and project power like no one else, ala WWII. But we can't do that if we literally don't have the fuel or money to fund that move, and in today's world the fuel and money are increasingly available from the very places we can't or shouldn't get it from. In WWII we had those resources in our own sphere of influence, which allowed us the freedom to act. We don't have that freedom any longer, and the Iraq war is making that plain.

For the sake of argument, I will grant that perhaps Obama is not as well prepared to face sudden international crises as he might be. But I take the long view. Five, ten years from now, the domestic policies embraced by Obama will put us on a much more stable and independant footing to deal with the dynamics just now unfolding. While you're focusing on the next few years and a threat to Ukraine (and fairly so), I would like to think that Obama and the "Gore plan" are thinking ahead decades to placing us (and our allies) in a position to look Russia, Iran, etc. in the eye and say "we don't need you anymore."

My hope is that Obama surrounds himself with enough good, solid people that any lack of experience or judgement is mitigated. This is, in fact, one of the best benefits of his academic background; this is someone who will ALWAYS consult with his advisors before taking action. This is why the Biden pick heartened me so much; it shows that he is willing to assemble a team in ways that Bush and McCain really aren't. Frankly, talking to your opponents while working to pull the rug out from under their feet seems a far more preferable approach than shaking your fist while holding out your wallet.

That a good part of these posts dredge up the same low-brow primary arguments about Obama, his experience, and Obama's supporters (aka cult fans) is rich considering that far more of the GOPers march in lockstep to the kampfkultur of the hard pro-life, pro-business, evangelical, anti-populist, creationism, science denial folks of the GOP. The GOP is not a big tent party and doesn't pretend to be either.

Anyone who makes the claim that the GOP and McCain's VP Palin are more able to tap into the bitter feelings of the working class are either selling snake oil or swallowed some that's been spoon fed by the GOP to Americans for the last 40 years. The idea that Palin is more "working" family than anyone is laughable as well.  Why? Because her husband owns a commercial fishing business? Because she's got 5 kids? Because John McCain was a POW? None of those things make her any more or less working class. It doesn't improve the chances of her being a person I want to have a beer with.

I'd be hard pressed to think of a Republican candidate since I've been alive that comes close to my political values both domestically (which tend left of center) and internationally (centrist realist). In fact none have existed. Obama may be "light" in executive experience for some but that doesn't preclude Obama from stepping into the job and doing it well because he has both the personal acumen to do it, the drive to do the job well and America's long term interests at heart. Bush was groomed for POTUS with his fake MBA, fake Governorship, fake Texas ranch to make him more "working" class, etc. and it was all bullshit then and it's all GOP bullshit now.

I think the average American has wised up to the GOP slight-of-hand crap and see McCain's run for POTUS and his VP pick as last gasp grabs to maintain and extend the horrible conservative agenda that has fucked this country and the average American for too long. And they don't even have the courtesy to give a reach around. The only hold outs are those single-issue voters that will never see world as a complex place requiring real thinking and the GOP is welcome to them.

Tep,

Another way to look at it that came to me as I worked on a new hay rack for our goats:

McCain's domestic policies will undercut his FP far more than Obama's domestic policies will undercut his FP. If you prefer McCain's FP, you're still better off supporting Obama and hoping that some of McCain rubs off on him and his advisors than supporting McCain and hoping that some of Obama rubs off on him. The former is far more likely than the latter.

Singlespeed,

"because he has both the personal acumen to do it, the drive to do the job well and America's long term interests at heart."

The other aspect to Obama that I'm coming to appreciate is the academic background that makes him a listener and a mental modeller. He strikes me now as someone who runs models through his head asking "what if?". I do this a lot; I'm the sort of person that drives down the road thinking "what if my wife gets in an accident tomorrow?". It's not a good way to be a relaxed person, but it does prepare you for many eventualities and it's served me well. I don't see that in Bush or McCain, both of whom work primarily with certainties. I'm biased now, but I find it far easier to imagine McCain being surprised by some world event than I do Obama.

Tep...

The foreign policy issues facing the next president seem on the surface insurmountable and that is because by in large for the last 8 years we've been "going it alone" with cowboy George and his posse of foreign policy heavyweights - Cheney, Rice, Rumsfield, Baker, etc. and what it's led to is a complete failure of American foreign policy on so many fronts. We've burned more bridges along the path to Iraq that it doesn't surprise me that Russia smells a chance to flex its resource muscles and re-expand it's sphere of influence. That it's been building the last 8 years without so much as a cocky snicker from Bush says much about the damage these FP hawks wrought.

Here's where I stand regarding Obama as it relates to FP. I think he'll actually be better able to get the EU to get off their asses and be more engaged in dealing with Russia more forthright and at the same time triangulating the competing FP views floating around DC these days into something far more along the lines of a Realist frame of mind. He has to. There's no other way to do it. It's going to take several months and perhaps more of chess playing, statesmanship and repairing of foreign relations with our like-minded allies to be able to unify a front that can withstand Russian's fascistic tendencies.

If we can move troops from Iraq to Afghanistan, put the onus on Iraq to do what it has to do instead of the mealy-mouth "we'll stand down when they stand up" crap which results in Iraqi security complacency. Then resources can be freed to address Afghanistan and reinforce our stance regarding Iran.

We can't, I don't think, afford a blustering, single-minded, hot head like McCain making "from the gut" decisions regarding these FP issues. We've had 8 years of that already. McCain is not a FP realist. He's a cold war fatalist with an open ear to Bush's advisers.  Obama, OTH, I think will come out as a realist who will use diplomacy and a big stick are more effectively because he'll think through what is, what will and what needs to happen.

Literate...

I completely agree with you regarding the difference between Obama and McCain regarding the FP and world issues that either would have to face as POTUS. I think Obama will bring a stronger hand to the table of poker than McCain. We need someone who can THINK through the issues, 'what ifs' and worse case scenarios while pushing a progressive domestic agenda that puts America on a solid foundation again.

Liz Benjamin is reporting that Rudy Giuliani, who was supposed to speak today, may introduce John McCain

literatehobo: thanks for your thoughtful posts; they are great contributions to this thread.

hemlock,

Summer is not a time when I can be online much, especially many times a day to keep a blog conversation going, but I couldn't stay away from this one. I'm all over the place today prepping for the remnants of Gustav, which makes it pretty easy to pop open the laptop every few hours to check responses while getting a drink (it's damned muggy out). At this point I've pretty well destroyed my long-running personal pledge to stay the hell out of any thread involving personal politics and Obama (or Hillary), so I might as well stick around.

singlespeed,

Agreed.

Literate: thanks for your careful posts - appreciated even more because of the constraints of your work. (I'm a multitasker and have three screens open at a time on my desktop - I can see it would be significantly more difficult if I were working on a haystack.)

Tep: "his puppet issued a pronunciation that Russia will do whatever the f*** it please in its sphere of interest, and everyone recognizes that there will be no deterrent if / no punishment after Russia decides to invade another neighbor. Heaven help us all."

Now I'm confused again: did Russia miscalculate or did it not.  I distinctly remember all the talk about bishops and queens and kings and whatever - and how this was a colossal mistake - and now, "Heaven help us all"?  Literate and Single have set out the reasons why a robust domestic policy is the best guarantor of the US's foreign policy interests, and I agree entirely.  Literate stresses Obama's academic credentials and mental processes - and here too, I have to agree.  I think, frankly, you are overlooking McCain's negatives.  Impulsiveness may be interesting in a campaign, but as a rule of government, it is disastrous.  

Look, even Rove is saying that the selection of Palin was a campaign and not a governing decision.  This is his potential successor we are talking about.  There is always a political element involved in any VP selection, but surely, when it is so brazen, what does that tell you about the judgement of the candidate?

icarusr,

So far I have yet to blog from atop a haystack, though we do have wireless so it's a theoretical possibility. Mostly I'm sitting at my desk in the basement while breathing hard, guzzling water, and trying to cool down before going outside again. The longer I take to think & craft a post, the cooler I get, but the less I get done on my real job, making my wife suspicious that I've been blogging again.

Otherwise I have nothing to say until Tep responds.

I'd like to agree with singlespeed's and literatehobo's setting out of the options and projections for an Obama foreign policy, and I just want to add for tep's benefit that I think that one of the reasons for the resurgence in Russian (I almost wrote Soviet!) assertiveness and bully tactics toward neighbors is that Russia is quite aware of the decline in influence and respect that the U.S. has suffered globabally over the last eight years.

Putin knows -- as indeed Stalin, Kruschev, and Brezhnev knew in their day -- that there is not going to be a military confrontation with Russia over Georgia, no matter what the Georgians have been told.  We avoided direct combat in the Cold War, and we will continue to do so.  In the Cold War, however, we had a lot of other weaponry, including the strategic deployment of economic and cultural assets.  This is not the way it is today.  The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the simmering confrontation with Iran, and a kind of cultural paranoia that sees enemies where they aren't and doesn't see them where they are, have all together done a great job of making our f-p look like a plate of chopped liver.

Regarding McCain, military experience is not always a good guide to presidential talent -- Ulysses S. Grant fumbled the job all the time -- and while I believe the he would be a much more moderate president than the image he presents to the Republican faithful, I don't see his grasping the modern world in the way I think Obama does.  Obama has, I believe, at least potentiallly a much sharper conception of how to combine and deploy the various components that go to make up a foreign and strategic policy in new ways.

Finally, Obama represents something that shouldn't be underestimated.  He is so much better at understanding the real diversity of the American people at the moment -- which is one of our great strengths.  Despite the belief in some parts that the U.S. is basically an all-white suburb in which regular folks go about their business and check each other for lapel pins, the nation is in fact becoming more like a comfortable but changing neighborhood in a college town, with people of different ages, races, cultures, skill sets, and interests living next to each other and pursuing their lives and careers.

That's the kind of milieu that generates ideas -- which are part of patriotic effort too.

Republicans are still making the argument that Sarah Palin has the necessary experience to serve as vice

singlespeed, literatehobo, icarusr--teplukhin2you cannot be reached.  My profane outbursts of a day ago were triggered by my frustration that this person who for the three years or so that I've been posting here has been such an enlightening presence could be so pigheaded and willfully blind.

I don't know why tep don't like Obama, but he REALLY don't like 'im.  

My hunch is it has to do with tep's own age and experience relative to the candidate's.  He looks at how old he is himself and all that he's done and on the face of it, it doesn't look all that different from Obama's CV.  If you take the position that only a greybeard can be POTUS, it makes it easier to rationalize why you yourself aren't POTUS.

Where I diverge from tep is in my believe that electing the president is NOT the same as a job interview nor is it the same as the SAT.  It's more like climbing Mount Everest--if you can make it to the top, you deserve to be there.

Aeromonas,

I disagree. The meaning of "Making it to the top" depends heavily on who got you there. As I understand, there are now organizations that will shepherd you to the top of Everest hand-in-hand, more like a tour than a climb. Yes, it's still difficult and dangerous, but it's hardly comparable to the actual climbers.

George W Bush was a tour climber. Sure, he survived the process and made it to the top, but only with a significant amount of help, guidance, and hand-holding. He did not deserve to be there. He's more like a rich trophy hunter who can point to the elephant head on the wall and say "that's MY bullet hole", conveniently leaving out the other 4 left by the guide.