The Great Mystery: Which candidate does Palin most resemble? Obama 08? No. McCain 08? No. Clinton 08? Definitely not. Kerry 04? No. Bush 04? No. Gore 00? Forget it. Bush 00? Yes, yes, there you go. That's it. Bush 04. But with the whole mommy thing on top of the Western maverick thing. Oil state. Christian conservative. The pretenses of reform. If she proves to be as popular as the McCain campaign thinks she will be then it might well be time to move to a different country before the end times begin.

There's eight weeks to go, and the media love fest over Palin will pale.  Trooper-gate still looms over her, as does her pastor and his remarks (Rev. Wright's were tame in comparison) and her real beliefs that are just surfacing (akin to our being on another Crusade in the Middle-East).  If the neither of the two largest papers in Alaska aren't behind her, why?

The main difference Nippers is the wingers are fantastic at whipping up a frenzy of how Palin is being attacked and the morons in this country will believe it.  The "blame the liberal press" crowd always wins the argument in the end.  Somehow the right can lie through their teeth but enough idiots in this country will believe them with no questioning.  The failures of the public education system are really being brought into sharp focus now and it started in the 50s.

And Walt, the MSM Village won't pursue the sleazy things about Palin, just you watch.  That's only reserved for Democrats.  Only Dems do sleazy things and they're brought to light, pubes are part of the GOP, "God's Own Party" and never do wrong.  Didn't you get the memo?

Fool me once, shame on you.  Fool me twice, shame on me.  When you're fooled three times, what comes next?  Do those of us not fooled just move elsewhere?

Nippers:  I think the closer comparison may be to Carter in '76.  One term reform governor of whom nobody outside Georgia had ever heard, just plain folks, devout Christian (OK, moderate, not conservative).  If Ford hadn't pardoned Nixon he would have won.  If Clinton hadn't been a cad, Gore would have won.  Bush positioned himself as personally disciplined (after his earlier indiscretions) and  "compassionate".  Sober Al was busy experimenting with 'earth toned" suits and running to the left of the successful administration in which he had been a leading figure.

But lsernoff, what made Carter possible also was Nixon.  The sleaze factor feeling was a lot higher in 1976 than 2000, and Carter seemed the "cleanest" of the bunch.  Don't forget that economically things weren't going too well in '76; things in 2000 were still pretty good economically and no major wars were being fought.

After seeing how the right, like robots, became wildly enthusiastic about a nobody so fast is just downright scary.  I think Bush 2000 is a good analogy.

Actually if the voters in Florida had made their ballots count for who they wanted to vote for - Buchanan? on the flip book voting mechanism, Gore would have won.  

Not saying anything illegal happened, but it did change the result.

So there you go.

How do we know the evangelicals are really so excited about Palin?  What defines excitement?  Statements of excitement from a bunch of GOP delegates desperate for a reason, ANY reason to be "excited" about their ticket?  

If/when somebody demonstrates that the Palin nod has triggered some serious upswing in grassroots organization among evangelicals, more than what you'd expect from convention excitement and the campaign's entry into the home stretch, that's when I'll buy into the hype.

My bet is that Palin, like most every running mate, has a net neutral effect on the race.  Like a lot of people, I was surprised by the pick and guessed that her inexperience would work against McCain.  I still think this could be a factor, but now that Palin has shown that she can hold up at least in scripted appearances, maybe less so.  Still, I can't be persuaded that she'll help at all with independents and centrist, secular Republicans.

In grade 9, one of my classmates complained to the vice-principal that I always made fun of him in class; the vice-principle said, "Yeah, well, you kick him in the nuts instead of complaining to me."

Republicans lie? Ho hum.  MSM listens?  Ho Hum.  Instead of complaining, participate, engage; get committed.  Obama raised 8 million in one night in response to Palin.  Those who complain: have you helped register a friend to vote? Donated money to the Democratic Party? Knocked on doors? Distributed pamphlets?  Got friends to participate?  Don't blame the "morons" who buy the stories and the lies; get out there and make sure Palin's beliefs are made known as widely as possible.  Blog.  Write letters to the editor.  Act.

I'm certain Obama is ready to kick the McCain campaign in the nuts - and he's already started.  He can't win without your help.

And if, at the end of the day, the Repugs win, apply for immigration to Canada.  We have always been a safe refuge from the US :-).

aeromonas,

You are evaluating Palin from an objective standpoint (e.g., on her experience) but this is not how most of the country reasons.  The culture wars are an extremely powerful gambit--in the end, the small towns that most of the people who read TNR have never seen decide most presidential elections and the people making up those towns want someone they can "relate" to.  So inexperience and lack of intelligence ("elitism" or "airs") can and does win elections; Rove realize this and was successful with Bush twice by relying on it.  

The press will only help that cause and McCain's camp realizes that.  A big newspaper like the NYT cannot go after Palin without appearing "elitist" by doing so--this is precisely why they only do analysis pieces and wait for the National Enquirer to break the story.  Then they go back to analyzing the effect that the story had on the race.  The problem is that the country is in the death-grip of the forces of anti-intellectualism and has been since Nixon on down; that is why both parties shun policy debates and every election devolves into a character contest.  I suspect this year will be no different; a lot of voters will walk into that booth and vote for Palin because they would rather have a beer with her than with the urbane Obama.  The press feeds into the character game because it's much easier to analyze the statements issued by the campaigns about their opponent's character than it is to go out and engage in investigative journalism--a completely moribund art ceded to blogs with low readership and comparatively small impact.  Alas.

tnmats:  No argument re Nixon or his aftermath.  Nor would I want to overdo Ford.  The WIN (whip inflation now) initiative was no more memorable than Carter's subsequent  MEOW (moral equivalent of war) speech.  My point was that Ford pardoned Caligula, declared Commmunist Poland a free country, and still only lost the election to inexperienced Mr. Clean by a thin margin (while being knee-capped by Reagan).  

In all candor, I think memories of the disastrous McGovern candidacy also held down Carter's victory margin.  Between '68 and '76 the memories of FDR, HST and JFK, began to fade and the base for Reagan's later victories was falling into place.

I grew up in a small town full of people who would love Sarah Palin.

I got all my undergraduate and graduate degrees in New York.

I now teach in a small town full of people who would love Sarah Palin.

I live in a small city full of people who would laugh at Sarah Palin.

None of you know what you're talking about.

Choosing Sarah Palin was a desperation move, an effort to find a "game changer."  (Note how many times that phrase was used at the RNC.)  It isn't.  Her overall effect on the race will be negligible.

Just look at an electoral map, available on any number of websites (e.g. pollster.com or Politico).  Obama continues to have a commanding lead.  Palin would have to move a *significant* number of voters in those "key states" to which the Times refers.  She will not--to believe otherwise is to believe the spin to which Mr. Chotiner refers.  She simply makes those voters already inclined to vote for McCain declare themselves earlier.  There isn't a prayer of a chance that she will change the electoral status of either Oregon or Washington, which are safely Democratic.  It is possible that she will shore up support in places like Georgia, but Obama wasn't going to win Georgia anyway.  She may actually be a net negative in places like Florida.

By this time next week, Obama will have a one to three point lead in polling.  It will fluctuate somewhat, of course, but barring a bizarre meltdown in the debates, it will not change significantly for the next sixty days.

I've been enjoying the obsessive coverage as much as anyone, but where has TNR been on the actions of police in arresting reporters and repressing peaceful dissent at the convention?  The presence of violent protesters seems to have completely overshadowed (scared off?) any vigilant coverage of these threats to freedom from our government. Maybe I'm missing something (not a TV person)  but the only place I've seen any detailed coverage of this is from Glenn Greenwald at Salon.  

"vote for Palin because they'd rather have a beer with her than the urbane Obama..."

Understood.  But my point was that nobody's allowed to vote for Palin.  She's the running mate.  Running mates' effect on presidential contests is generally insignificant.  I doubt that this election will be any different.  

aero, that's conventional wisdom, but this is an unconventional pick. If electoral jujitsu is the game, McCain played that well, who cares if this completely unknown, untested woman could be president in 150 days. Someone too afraid to face the press?

The rest of the world is beginning to think we really are crazy.  And they might be right. The last time we had someone like Palin was...oh yeah, 8 years ago.

aeromonas & timteeter:

What I meant was that by choosing Palin, Mccain has successfully ignited the flame of the culture wars.  It is true that Palin herself is meaningless--voters going into the booth won't be pulling the lever for Palin.  However, they will go into the booth and vote against Obama.  That is where the culture wars make a difference; not by building support for a candidate but by building resentment against the opposition. Rove won Ohio in 04 by selectively targeting small towns outside of major industrial centers--just the place where the Limbaugh rants against "pointy-headed intellectuals" plays perfectly.  This is a potent and winning strategy, even if it preys on prejudice.  

As for the "running mates have no effect" argument, you have to consider the sample size, which is negligible (8 elections since Nixon).  A running mate who sets the match to the tinder of the culture wars can be an extremely valuable addition, even if the voters leaving the polls don't identify Palin as their motivation for voting for McCain (how many voters will admit that they voted against Obama because they don't like "elite" intellectuals? Not many.)

Mention of Richard Milhaus Nixon brings to mind recollection that he liked ginning up the small town crowds against the "Eastern establishment," though he was always eager to partake of it.

Can a senator mentored by Barry Goldwater do it, too? Apparently not, except by bringing to his ticket an actual small town person who happens to hold the governor's seat in oil- and natural gas-rich Alaska. But never mind the brazen likelihood that Gov. Palin consorts with the sources of her state's corporate largesse. Let us instead belittle NYT confusion and incessantly debate news media contradictions - at least long enough for her to swear an oath to uphold the Constitution, at which time someone can ask, "Are you retracting your mockery of some rights?"

Which is to say: the lesson of Nixon's original v.p. and his willingness to reach out open-handed to the corporate world that applies in 2008 is the importance of scrutiny before the election - not afterward.

The Anchorage newspaper has already pulled from its Web site the 'troopergate' story. If the search for hard facts - more than snips at hair style and lack of panache - don't start quickly, the hard evidence will slip quietly from sight. Leaving us to merely resume knocking NY Times and the rest about how confused their coverage is.

Aero - I think you're wrong.

The media frenzy from the right wing voices is a sight to behold and hasn't McCain scored some serious Palin inspired cash recently?

Rove's calculating that his evangelical Blackberry will win the ground war, again. Its the same base rousing 50.1% bet that served him so well in the past.

And Palin is no ordinary VP due to McCain's age and health. The social Conservative base see Palin in 4 years, not 8.

McCain's sold his soul to get a few years/months in power.  

Looks like it's down to the debates now. I fancy Obama over McCain in all three of them.

I really, really doubt anyone in the pacific northwest cares about Palin coming from Alaska.  Alaska is a completely different area, with different politics and a very different climate.

Iggy Pop,

You might be right, but ONLY in the sense that Palin can energize the Jesus freaks...er...evangelical Christians.

And two things on that point:

1) If this becomes a battle of ground/game, get-out-the-vote efforts, I think Obama wins.  In the key states he's months ahead with the organization.

2) Black people are fired up.  My mother has been canvassing for Obama in my Virginia hometown whose 150K population is about 45% black.  (Allen Iverson is a native son.)  She's yet to canvas a black household where they aren't saying that this year, often for the first time, they're going to vote.  

Check out this WaPo link for some actual numbers.

voices.washingtonpost.com/.../one_by_one_obama_hopes_to_buil.html

Notice how the Republican operative in NoVa doesn't "think" turnout will make a difference, citing a historical 80% turnout rate for registered voters in the DC burbs in past presidential elections.  Thing is, black turnout in Richmond and Hampton Roads has never been that high.  Couple that with the fact that in the past a smaller proportion of VA blacks were registered in the first place, and that leaves a lot of room for Obama to pull numbers.  And the evidence is, he's doing it.

Also, I wonder how much all these new voters, some of whom aren't even registered yet show up in the polls.  I reckon that at least in Virginia, Obama has a silent 2% cushion.  

P.S. I'm a little frustrated that as a resident of Australia I can't get out and register voters myself.  I think I'll give Barack another $100.

I'm no ad man, but yesterday, after posting the first comment on this thread, it occurred to me that the Obama campaign should cut an ad asking "What's the difference between Sarah Palin and George W. Bush?" Then cut to convention footage of Palin herself saying, "Lipstick." Evidently they were already thinking along those same lines--see "George Bush in Lipstick" over on Huffington Post.

I think it's a promising line of attack because (a) it reinforces the Bush-McCain connection and (b) it's true. Even Frum, Bush's former speechwriter, sees it:

"On Saturday, former Bush speechwriter David Frum wrote on his National Review blog, 'George W. Bush had very slight executive experience before becoming president. His views were not well known. He won the nomination exactly in the same way that Palin has won the hearts of so many conservatives: by sending cultural cues to convince them that he was one of them, understood them, sympathized with them. So that made everything else irrelevant in 2000 - as it seems again to be doing in 2008.' But in the end, Frum wrote, Bush lacked 'important aspects of leadership which is how we got into the mess from which he needed to rescue the country and himself.'"

I believe the ticket with the less educated candidates has won in every election for the last forty years - with Bill Clinton being the exception. (Bill knew how to talk "country".)

David Lebedoff has written a couple of books about the New Elite and why candidates like Gore and Kerry lose. Essentially it's their arrogance, if you place the blame on the candidate, or it's the GOP's pandering to the Left Behinds. No wonder the Republicans keep pounding on elitism.

I blame the voters.