Wow. Palin rates as more popular and drawing a larger TV audience than Obama, and TNR's resident Pythonesque Pollster puts up _this_?

Silver's outdone himself here. Surely the most imaginative spin I've seen yet in this campaign-- bravo.

Palin helps Obama in several ways. One of the more obvious - She's one more unorthodox entry in the race for the presidency. All of the experienced white guys from both parties are out.

McCain was considered a long shot, Obama knocked off Clinton, and now Palin, from out of nowhere. Palin is one more signal that America is ripe for real change.

Now that the McCain camp is on the change bandwagon, the talk about experience is muted.

The public is now hearing from both parties that no one, not even the GOP, wants more of the same.

But who will they believe can deliver the real thing?

Palin is a complicated and risky choice. She does appeal to the worst tendencies of the GOP, but she's also talking reform. Net/net, I think all of this helps more than hurts the Democrats.

When brands compete, the one that loses often copies the competitor's strategy, and fails. The Republicans have blinked.

Encouraging.

What a disastrous pick. What were they thinking? And she won't talk to the press! Thank god McCain's going to save democracy.  

Caught the Republican convention on CNN, on leave. The partisan patrioit pimping and rank nationalism turned my stomach.

Get stuck in there Unity of Hope!

Palin merely reminds everyone why Obama was such a bad pick. Lightweight, meet lightweight. TO the extent the Dems even mention her name, they put their own lightweight newbie candidate on the same plane as the GOP's.

"a complication of polls..."  What an interesting concept.

tep, c'mon.  These abstract favorability ratings don't really allow comparisons across categories.  Of course Obama--and McCain, as Silver states--are going to have lower favorability ratings than Palin.  They've been in our faces for the past 18 months +.   People tend to think more favorably of others on first meeting.  Also any negative impression one has of Palin are given less weight since she's only up for VP.  Silver's comparisons, between Palin's favorability rating and those of other VP candidates at similar stage of the election is the right one, and he showed that hers is on par.

As for his concluding two paragraphs of punditry, sure it's speculative but it's also completely consistent with the numbers presented.  Palin probably will motivate some evangelicals who were unenthused by McCain to get off their asses and vote.  But she also probably will turn off some independents and even secular, centrist Republicans.

The following thoughts are entirely consistent:

'I have a favorable impression of Sarah Palin.  I think she seems smart and genuine.  I think she's probably an effective governor and may someday play a role in national politics.'

'I think John McCain's choice of Sarah Palin reflects poorly on his judgement and his respect for the institutions of the US govt.  Palin is too inexperienced--not just professionally, but personally--to be so close to the presidency.  McCain's decision was so obviously impulsive and so obviously founded upon crass political considerations rather than any considered vision for the kind of administration he wants to have, that it causes me to reconsider my vote for him.'

Tep--

The degree of spin on the posts here is one of the distinctive characteristics of TNR, and it contributes to the echo chamber effect in most of the "discussions.". The tortured reasoning of the staff reminds me of discussions with my teenage sons. I admire your ability to stay cool and reasonable. Have you ever looked at the "contentions" blogs over at Commentary? dkreig pointed them out to me.

Yes, Tep, have you considered relocating to Commentary? It's quite excellent.

Actually, I don't want you to. I come to this site precisely because, contrary to your and Eos's tired exercises in self-congratulations, there is plenty of contention to be found on these boards, including that you provide, for which I am grateful. Though truth be told, the TNR writers on average provide far more  variety of opinion than you two do.

The title of Silver's post is easy to explain: after today's polling the instant common wisdom is that Palin is an unusually popular VP. Silver's point is that no, in fact, considered historically, she isn't. A simple point, but a welcome and neglected one.

And I would add this: surely Biden's numbers reflect the disappointment of Hillary's supporters that their candidate was passed over. In a more typical election his numbers would certainly have been higher. Call that my pro-Obama bias if you like, but it also is almost certainly true.

Cheers.

"But, Palin will also lose votes for McCain -- and it's not clear that the losses won't outweigh the gains."

Except to normal people.

The problem is the McCain campaign (or, the people who call the shots in the GOP) wants to heave someone into the VP slto while keeping them from answering questions in the normal course of events in a campaign.  What they are afraid of is that "normal people" will realize that Palin is a tad too wacky to be allowed anywhere near the White House in the current situation.

Nippers:

TNR had a tradition and histry of sharp and deep writing that often included perspectives that strayed far outside the Democratic Party's official line. Now it seems to be confined to voices that are snarky, way-left Democratic. Charles Krauthammer and Fred Barnes once wrote for this magazine, as did many other cranky and independent voices. I think Crowley has maintained an unspun stance, though he is obviously will vote for Obama. But he is still able to say something critical or uncomplimentary from time to time. And Nate actually has some balance in his interpretations and adds depth. And Cohn has his policy wonkiness to contribute. But so much else here seems like shallow advocacy and cheerleading.

For example, the last paragraphs of McCain's sppech on Friday have a depth that is worthy of literature, if you read them without immediately trying to make fun of him or rebut them. A party line perspective impoverishes political writing and encourages an echo chamber.  It makes me irritable.

I think it is time for Franklin Foer to go and for there to be a restoration of more diversity and depth in the writing to be found here. Otherwise, TNR becomes harder and harder to distinguish from The Nation, or The American Prospect, or DailyKos. And why have all three?

people have known about Palin for ONE WEEK! And she's more popular than Obama or McCain? C'mon, doesn't this compare to that wildly intense crush you have on some gorgeous, charismatic stranger you just met?

All this hoopla surrounding Palin is pathetic: it's pathetic that the GOP are swooning all over her after knowing her for a week, it's pathetic that the Democrats are so scared of her after only knowing her for a week. The love affair with Obam evolved over four years.

To compare Palin to Obama as everybody has been doing makes no sense to me: it's like comparing apples and oranges. The only commonality is that the GOP WANTS to have their own Obama so they were more ready to fall in love with her than they would have been had the Obama phenonmenon not existed, or had they been more enthusiastic about McCain.

It's all gonna come crashing down around their ears. And as I've said elsewhere, McCain should really be worried that his candicacy is now no longer about him, even within his own party.

I think we should all start ignoring her, not just the Obama campaign.

Eos, I know about The New Republic's history. I've been reading it for years, too, and have in fact worked with one or two of its pre-Foer contributors, truth be told. But thanks for the refresher. In the spirit of your call for intellectual rigor, let's test your own example. You call the end of McCain's speech "worthy of literature." Well, no, I doubt even Salter would go that far. But was it good? I think so, though I was beginning to nod off by that point, so let's ask the TNR writers who have posted in the last 24 hours. And since you single out Foer, let's begin with him:

Foer: "When McCain turned to autobiography, the speech was extremely powerful. It wasn’t just his gripping tale. There were hints of the McCain of 2000 and national greatness conservatism: 'If you’re disappointed with the mistakes of government, join its ranks and work to correct them.'"

Fairbanks: "[A]t the end, he didn't merely retell his POW story like every other convention speaker has -- as if its sheer awesomeness was itself reason enough to award him the White House -- but, instead, explained what changes the experience had wrought in him. It still didn't do it for me, but he made the best case yet for what all that POW stuff might tell us about how he would govern. He sounded, basically, like somebody you might like to help shepherd you through an uncertain time."

Scheiber: "McCain did finally find his voice toward the end of the speech, with a stirring reflection on his Vietnam captivity (probably the lone Salter composition to see the light of day). As he has many times before, McCain recalled how the experience taught him to surrender his personal pride to something greater. But there was a spareness that made it more affecting than usual: “I was never the same again. I wasn't my own man anymore. I was my country's.” Unfortunately for McCain, the passage came far too late in the night to be useful. McCain’s Vietnam testimonial should have framed the entire speech—motivating his interest in leadership and undergirding his policy vision. Instead it felt tacked on, little more than a nod to the speech-writing convention of ending on an eloquent note. Even on its own terms the text was shockingly ineffective. . . ."

If that, Eos, is not enough affirmation of your own opinion (perhaps you prefer simplistic blandishments like "worthy of literature"?), there are always the talkbackers, many of whom commended the same portion of the speech that you did though in less hyperbolic terms. A typical example:

cal80: "A slow start, but a strong finish."

(Note that Crowley is not among the concurring opinions, in this instance.) If the TNR writers and the talkbackers together still do not adequately affirm your own opinions, then yes, Commentary might be the right place for you.

Nice work, Nippers! Well done. I do actually like the quotes. Fairbanks gets closest to what I thought was powerful about the story--and that approached the depth of literature--which was the tale of personal transformation through an experience of shame, comradeship, and renewal of identity. I think that portion of McCain's speech--the part that begins with his description of himself as a selfish young man--may be quoted years from now, and may be the only speech from this election of which that is true.

But you're right. There were passages in TNR praising McCain's speech. But I think they were all faint praise set in a context of predictable disdain and intractable opposition. I am talking about including some writers who have genuinely different views, who might actually admire McCain or understand Palin as something more than an object to be feared and derided. I don't need to have my opinions constantly affirmed. I enjoy Crowley, though I often disagree with him, as, for example, about the speech. The problem is that TNR as presently constructed seems to only affirm or provide a setting for a narrow slice of opinions. Despite all the cultural talk on the left about the value of diversity, intellectual diversity is rarely valued or even tolerated.

I wish TNR included writers who, in the present election, would write something like the following--from Peter Wehner's blog at commentary-contentions. If it did, then TNR would become a richer journal of ideas and less the simple affirmation of opinions already held that it seems to me to be now. From Wehner::

"The coda of the speech was powerful, moving, and in parts profound; McCain told his POW story in a more effective way than I’ve ever heard him tell it before. And his meditation on love of country was extraordinary. It’s hard to believe that anyone who doesn’t work at MSNBC could hear McCain’s account and not be deeply moved by it, or recognize that McCain is, in many respects, a truly great man.

For those of us who believe character and courage are important things to take into account in selecting a president–both as an example to his countrymen but also as important governing traits–McCain’s biography matters. But it’s also worth bearing in mind that Bob Dole had a compelling personal story, too, and he was soundly defeated by Bill Clinton–a man whose character was, to be charitable, less than admirable."

The hard-core rightwing base is crazed for Palin because they are desperate.  She offers them the hope that someone, somehow, will rescue them from both Obama and McCain.  Isn't going to happen.  If McCian's biggest problem was the need to solidify his base AT THE CONVENTION, he is almost as good as toast.  You don't win elections with your base.  You have to win the unaffiliated in the middle.  Palin will alienate that middle which is precisely the problem you confront when you have to keep palliating the base rather than ignore them which is what you need to do.  McCain hopes that by keeping Plain hidden, he can cover his ass.  He won't.  Biden is going to be hard at work in the key swing states, where he will be heard and respected.  Palin will be in hiding or speaking only in safe venues.

The only hope for McCain is to ramp up his smear campaign -- so much for his "character" eos, just another scummy Republican liar -- which he will do.  Then it is a question of whether Obama and his people finally figure out how to punch back.  If they do, McCain will be crushed.  If they don't, it will be a squeaker.

I find tep's latest comments hugely amusing given his previous enthusiasm for Biden.  Tep is a classic liberal who would rather see the Democrats be right on the issues -- and talk about them incessantly -- than wield actual power.  To win local elections, I had to shut those people up and sit them in the corner while the rest of us did actual political work.  Tep will continue to pine for the wonk, wonk, wonk candidate while Obama takes the oath of office.

Though the number of people who watched Palin's speech was certainly impressive, it wasn't "more than Obama." Comparing two different data measures, the number given for Palin's viewing audience included those watching PBS; Obama's didn't, if it was 42.2 million would be Obama's comparable.

Roi, you are correct, Obama will be treated to any and every subtle slur and slander (and many not so subtle), especially if it appears he may win in the home stretch. Maybe not nationally, but state and local, look out.

OTOH, Palin most likely will also be subject to any and every sexist pitch somewhere up or down the line. *sigh* "What a world, what a..."

Yeah, roid, the other day I got a little hot under the collar and told tep he didn't "know jack shit about politics."  That assessment of mine was unduly vulgar and here you have better expressed what I was trying to get at.  Tep is fairly solid on policy (though less consistent than I think even he himself recognizes), but his are the instincts of a professional, not a pol.  He seems to think that electing a president is analogous to hiring an engineer to manage a big developmental technology project.  Of course it isn't.  Moreover, tep has shown repeatedly that when it comes to understanding what it takes to GET elected, he's completely tone deaf.

Eos,

See I'd argue that Wehner's take on McCain's coda shows less intellectual rigor than that of either Fairbanks or Scheiber. He doesn't merely praise McCain's speech and character; he inflates it into a toy balloon of a generalization, one that serves to flatter his own political preferences at the expense of those with whom he disagrees, as if the only reason Democrats win office is because the American public foolishly ignores biography. If biography matters as much as Wehner contends, then along with Bob Dole he would have done well to mention Al Gore and John Kerry. I'd be curious to learn how much biography mattered to Wehner back in 2000 and 2004--curious, but not curious enough to waste time pawing through the archives of Commentary. If you do so, let me know what you find.

Eos, my understanding of the TNR history is that is has been ideologically very fluid, but generally over time a moderately left of center journal in the sense that -- I emphasize, in the sense that -- it has believe, in its collective editorial psyche, in generating an intelligent and critical perspective on the political events and public affairs of the day.

To that extent, it is very likely that in the current situation many reporters and commentators will bend toward Obama (or at least toward the Democrats) as Obama represents the potential for such an intelligent and critical perspective coming into government and turning its gaze on the major problems facing the nation, now and prospectively over the next decades.

It is certain possible to regard John McCain has having the potential for bringing such a perspective to government, but much less possible than it was a couple of years ago, as McCain has sold much of that perspective down the river to endear himself to the Republican base, who don't have much time for him.  The selection of Palin, however, decreases the potential of a McCain-Palin administration bringing an intelligent and critical perspective to bear on the major issues by a significant if not extreme degree.

To that extent, a large number of both TNR writers and blog posters -- including the likes of us -- are probably biased toward Obama (although not uncritical of him and his campaign).  Nevertheless, as you see, there are also anti-Obama voices regularly on show here too.

ironyroad:

I think the shift has been more extreme than you describe, and that it has rendered TNR as mainly an echo chamber rather than an indoependent and feisy voice. The extent of this shift to a homogenous hard left may be seen in the editorial and blog commentary on Hillary during the primaries. Hillary is certainly at least moderately left of center. But she was excoriated in these pages and was the object of such editorial hubris and contempt that even the liberal Media Matters criticized TNR's stance and Jonathan Chait in particular for their attacks on her. So the ideological tone of TNR can no longer, in my view, be described as independent or moderate left or fluid and complex.

This is a shame, because for my money that is what made reading TNR a kind of adventure in ideas and a challenge. Now, the roar of the echoes is deafening.

nippers:

It is not intellectual rigor per se that I am talking about (though intellellectual rigor is always good, and all of the writers we are discussing are capable of it) but rather intellectual diversity and independence--writers who would represent a sympathetic and open response to other views and sensibilities. That is what my Wehner quote was meant to illustrate.

Eos:  "The extent of this shift to a homogenous hard left may be seen in the editorial and blog commentary on Hillary during the primaries. "

Given that Hillary was arguing an economic populist case somewhat to the left of Barack during the primaries, your comment makes little sense.  If you have a notion of TNR as "left" in any other style than a mild social democracy, then you are, quite simply, living in another reality.  Apart from that, there are a number of discrete reasons why Obama outclassed Cinton, and the presumption of victory on the part of the Clinton camp was one of them.

Eos,

How about intellectual diversity and intellectual rigor both, what say you? I mean, the Internet and Cable TV both offer great diversity of opinion, nearly all of it bilious. I would love to see a compelling, dispassionate defense of the McCain-Palin ticket that encompasses domestic as well as foreign policy and rises to a greater standard of logic and argumentation then exhibited in that brief snippet of Wehner you shared. I'd love to see it precisely because I have a hard time imagining it.

I'd also love to see some similarly rigorous, substantive debate on issues--love to see it and often do in the pages and boards of TNR. This morning, after reading Paul Tough's column in the NYT Magazine, I'd be particularly curious to read the diverse arguments surrounding education reform, which, as Tough notes, has created a surprising degree of contention within the left. I find the teachers unions difficult to defend, especially when it comes to teacher training and merit pay, but I'd love  to hear someone defend them.

I wonder if the change you perceive in TNR is in part a symptom of the election, this particular election, when the choices seem especially stark and the stakes especially high. Perhaps the magazine will be more to your liking next year, when most of the electoral drama is behind us.

"Given that Hillary was arguing an economic populist case somewhat to the left of Barack during the primaries, your comment makes little sense."

Exactly Irony.

You know when someone is just trying to score cheap points and/or is brainwashed, when they call TNR "hard left". I'd barely call this mag Left at all.  

Nippers:

You wrote:

"How about intellectual diversity and intellectual rigor both, what say you?"

Yes, I agree. And the history of TNR makes it one of the few places where that could happen, though not in its present configuration.

And education is a good example of an issue where there could be such rigor and diversity. For example, McCain's calling education the civil rights issue of our time, while 10% of the delegates to the Democratic convention are members of teachers unions, would make it an intersting place to start.

irony:

Hillary got plastered here and in the primaries mostly because she was a moderate. Thus, the stance on Clinton and Obama of places like DailyKos, MoveOn, and The Nation. You can't just make claims that you would like to be true because they suit your argument. While Obama pulled Hillary leftward in the primaries, she is mainly a DLC Democrat, and this is what cost her. Of course, in the general election Obama and the Democrats are getting payback as independents now tilt toward McCain-Palin.

Excellent, Eos. Education it is. I agree that the influence of teachers unions is a problem for the dems. But I would argue, too, that McCain's description of education as "the civil rights issue of our time" on the one hand rips off Barack Obama's speech from 2004 and on the other hand is empty rhetoric. If it is indeed the civil rights issue of our time, what, pray tell, does the GOP propose? Vouchers? That's as spurious an answer as those provided by the teachers unions. Paul Tough and Obama are a hell of a lot more substantive, or so it seems to me.

Back to the Silver piece itself; how to explain?  Cheney was seen, at the time, as adding heavyweight EXPERIENCE to the Republican ticket.  He had been WH chief-of-staff under a moderate, honest , dull Republican president whom a lot of voters remembered they threw out in favor or the despised Carter; he had been an influential conservative Republican congressman (without appearing to be a nut case); he had been a rational, prudent Secretary of Defense.  He looked like more of an addition to Bush than Lieberman appeared to be for the Gore ticket (remember when Joe was perceived as sweet, religious and liberal?).  

Nippers:

Paul Tough--to the extent I know his work--and Obama have proposed new programs within the existing structures and paradigms of the educationsal bureaucracies. Their programs are exactly what unions oi the rofession would like because they expand existing patterns of work and remuneration. Head Start, for example, which essentially they propose to expand in various directions, has certainly made important contributions, but it has not fundamentally alterd the widespread failures of the system. Education as presently constructed is one of the most arcanely controlled and sluggishly responsive of major public institutions. What McCain is proposing is changing the paradigm by opening up the system to fairly mild market forces in the form of parental choices. This introduces a new dynamic. It is very much in keeping with the general appeal that McCain makes to bring major "maverick" change to institutions that don't work. What he is supporting are changes in the systems of public education equivalent to Bill Clinton's and the Republicans successful major revision of public welfare. What Obama is prososing are only changes within the existing system. McCain would unleash a new set of factors and influences that would fundametally alter the dynamics of the existing system.

"You can't just make claims that you would like to be true because they suit your argument."

Sorry Eos but that's exactly what you are doing.  You claim that Obama was "left" in some way that Clinton wasn't in the primaries, when -- as I told you above -- her message became a populist one on the economy that was to the left of Obama's.  Go back and read the reports.  Ask any half-way honest commentator around here, TNR or outsider.

If you have a real argument, then let's hear it.  But don't invent stuff.  And how about telling us what your definition of "left" is.  You seem to live in your own reality and get irritated when people don't buy into it.

Eos is a true progressive.   What "liberals" don't understand that the Democratic Party stands for the most retrograde interests in our society.  Racial hustlers who are the number one enemies of the people they claim to defend.  The public employee unions whose main interest is in expanding government so that they can live with little work and high pay at the taxpayers’ expense.  Especially the Neanderthal teachers’ unions and the educational bureaucrats, who privilege incompetence, stupidity and failure and spend all their energy maintaining their wretched monopoly.

The best thing about the Palin choice is that it forces the leftist bourgeoisie to put on loud display its deep contempt for the working class.  It also shows up the feminazis of NOW and NARAL for their hypocrisy.  A woman who should win the feminist gold medal comes along and instead of praising her they unleash their Goebbels style smear machine.

On the other hand, Palin isn't running for president and the preponderance of evidence is that, at the moment, Obama has at least a functional grasp of the major problems that face the country, and McCain hasn't.

Incidentally, Bulbman, it seems fairly obvious that Obama has left the "racial hustlers" in the dust behind him (e.g. Jesse Jackson).  If you are so against them, why aren't you for him?

Ironyroad,

Obama has offended Jesse Jackson by suggesting that it just might be a good idea for black men to take care of their children.   Big deal.  Obama is no fool, so that he understands that when he’s running for national office he needs to offer verbal homage to common sense and common decency.  But what is there in any of his proposals to suggest that he is prepared to do anything serious to change the culture of government dependency that has wreaked so much harm on the black community?  Why should he?  Without a dependent welfare population he and his ilk would be unemployed.

As for Obama’s positions on economic issues they are evidence that he flunked economics 101-102.  Raise taxes on capital and thereby discourage investment and encourage capital flight.  Raise taxes when the economy is weak and turn a recession into a depression.   Let government bureaucrats rather than the market allocate capital.  Obama’s economic ideas are a compendium of stupid and failed policies.

Worst of all are the protectionist tendencies of Obama and the Democrats.  Protectionism is to economics as astrology is to astronomy, or as creationism is to biology.  Ask any professional economist, Democratic or Republican.

Bulbman

You couldn't even register for economics 101-102.  Seldom have I read anyone as ignorant as you are profess to so much knowledge.  Cutting taxes on those who earn their income on investment has a great deal to do with the investment bubbles that are now hanging over our economy.  Here's a little economics for you:  when there is too much money chasing too few goods, you get inflation; when there is too much investment capital chasing too few investment opportunities, you get speculative bubbles. Here's another little thing that any serious student of economics knows -- supply-side economics is a fraud.  Any economy is driven by demand.  Hence, if you soak demand to prefer investment, you dry up the very thing that makes investment profitable -- or generate capital flight as the excess capital seeks other opportunities abroad.  As for you wisdom about protectionism, you obviously don't know the difference between protecting an industry and protecting an economy.  Ask the Chinese how they are doing these days keeping their currency low against the dollar.  Does it look like this modern, sophisticated form of protectionism is hurting them?

You are but one giant bulb of ignorant and noxious gas

Roi, Irony, Icarus and Aero give me hope and articulate my own low information, vague, gut instincts.

Keep up the good work lads.

bulbman

:

"The best thing about the Palin choice is that it forces the leftist bourgeoisie to put on loud display its deep contempt for the working class. "

I think you are exactly right about this, which is why the Democrats are running around hysterically and in confusion trying to figure out how to handle Palin. She is a perfect wedge candidate that uses the Democrats' hypocrisy to split them in half.

Ignorat Populist:

Ah, the echo chamber strilkes again. Reminds me of social life in high school.

Echo chamber Eos?

Have you been reading the boards long?

If you have, you will understand how absurd that accusation is. We have Robert Powell, Butchie, Chan, Rozenson,  and other well informed, passionate Conservative posters who cover all three branches of Conservative thought (supply siders, Nat Sec and Social) and they drive me up the f*cking wall most of the time.

We also have the mighty, if slightly deranged Teplukhin. (I'm watching the greatest hurling team of all time collect a third All-Ireland in a row by humiliating poor Waterford by 23 points. Teplukhin is the Kilkenny of Talkback when he's not foaming at the mouth about Russian gangsters or Obama.)

And that's just the "Right" of Talkback. For humour and ME knowledge we have Bone and I doubt that any othersite could claim a Williamyard amongst their ranks. If you're in a risky mood, you can even stick your head into The Spine, a great way to sober up. Mix in the "hard Left" of Talkback (the above mentioned, and others) and some good souls like Dan, Adglas, Wandery and you have the complete opposite of group think.

This site drives me to drink sometimes and it's far from perfect, but caling it an echo chamber just makes you look foo...a bit thick to be honest.

Which reminds me, Iggy, has there been anything in the Irish media about Palin's purported trip there?  It's supposed to be the only time she's ever been outside the U.S. (apart from flying over Canadian airspace, I guess).

First I heard of it Irony. I haven't seen any Irish TV in over a week, so can't really comment. I'll keep an eye out for it. Maybe that makes her an international expert on the price of cabbage?

Hah!  I googled it and it came up.  She was on a plane that made a Shannon stopover and the McCain campaign trumpeted that as "a family visit to Ireland."

Wonder if she shopped in the duty-free?