TNR BLOGS

December 01, 2008 | 1:00 PM
December 01, 2008 | 12:42 PM
December 01, 2008 | 12:30 PM

December 01, 2008 | 11:22 AM
December 01, 2008 | 11:10 AM
December 01, 2008 | 9:57 AM

July 26, 2008 | 2:24 PM
July 23, 2008 | 1:55 PM
July 17, 2008 | 3:56 PM

December 01, 2008 | 1:36 PM
December 01, 2008 | 12:00 PM
November 29, 2008 | 3:23 PM
COLUMNISTS
TODAY'S STORIES
03.09.2008
What Sarah Palin Needs to Accomplish Tonight

Nothing Sarah Palin says tonight ought to have much bearing on the question of whether she's qualified to be vice president. But as a political matter she does have the ability at least change the mocking media dynamic around her selection, which is currently being shaped by bloggers and TV pundits.

Above all, Palin must seem confident. Life is in many ways a confidence game. It's like the old rule of getting past an intimidating doorman--acting like you belong inside is half the battle. One reason Republicans were so impressed with Palin initially is that she gave a feisty, chin-up, and cleanly-executed speech when McCain introduced her last Friday. Tonight's speech will be a test of how the woman handles extreme pressure. If she comes across as nervous or ill-prepared, it's lights out. (How can Republicans expect her to stand up to Joe Biden in a debate if she fumbles her teleprompter lines on the big stage?)

Beyond that, there are three main areas to watch for, and two narrower points:

Experience: Palin needs to tell stories demonstrating that she has done heavy lifting in government, and been tested under fire before. This will require some artful dramatization of her career in Alaska politics. The trick will be making her political fights seem more significant than they were without resorting to ridiculous hyperbole.

Foreign policy: Can a controversial US Weekly cover girl speak credibly about America's role in the world? Again, this is a speechwriting challenge. Palin has to sound fluent and confident in foreign policy issues without the comedic overpreparation of, say, Paris Hilton talking energy policy poolside in a bikini. There may be a temptation to name-check Waziristan and a list of obscure foreign leaders, but for now she's probably best-off sticking to broad conservative themes of American leadership and strength. Wait for the inevitable pop-quizzes that will come when she sits for TV interviews.

Biography + Economy: One good criticism of the GOP convention to date is how little attention its given to kitchen-table issues. Palin's speech is an opportunity to change that in a high-profile way. Look for her to tell a good American story about a woman of humble origins with high aspirations working hard, playing by the rules, and making something of herself. The people with whom this story likely resonates most are also the people feeling the hardest pinch these days. Next Palin can shift to her life today, as the working mother of a big family with (apparently) little room to spare in its budget. If I'm her speechwriter I'm looking for any and every bit of economic sacrifice she's made in the past several years. References to Hamburger Helper strongly encouraged, for instance. (And this of course has the added effect of diminishing the McCain estates storyline.)

Go Easy on Obama: Running mates are typically employed as attack dogs--recall how Joe Biden lit into McCain on the very day he was chosen. But McCain can't afford to seem nasty right now. She needs to clean up her own image first. At most, she's got room for a jab or two--but she should make it humorous.

Girl Power: Work in feminist-y historic-trailblazer language like she did in Dayton last week. It excites conservatives who have felt stuck on the losing side of Obama's historicality, jazzes up the media, and confounds her liberal critics

One speech can't dispel the fundamental doubts about Palin's qualifications. But a command performance may give the media pause in going after her as a lightweight, and will encourage Republican surrogates to climb father out on a limb in their public support of her. At this point, until it finds out whether any more shoes will drop from her quirky past, that's the best the McCain campaign can hope for.

--Michael Crowley

Posted: Wednesday, September 03, 2008 1:11 PM with 44 comment(s)

Comments

You must be logged-in to comment.

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

teplukhin2you said:

In addition to the Ms Smith-goes-to-Washington shtick, she'll probably focus on

Working families

Economic security = national security = energy security

Drill, nukes, conservation, alt energy: all of the above

Help the puppies, not the yuppies

Maybe help the puppies' puppies as well...

September 3, 2008 1:26 PM

mattnewman said:

Why is everyone assuming that she has to meet the press ("sit for TV interviews")? It's only two months, and the McCain campaign have obviously shifted their approach on press availability for McCain himself. Isn't it more likely that the press *never* gets a shot at her?

September 3, 2008 1:33 PM

ratnerstar said:

The puppies?

en.wikipedia.org/.../The_Puppies ?

Or, literally, immature dogs?

What am I missing?

But yeah, she'll be smart to hit the "all of the above" energy stuff pretty hard.  I expect she'll blow the place down; the woman looks like she can work a crowd.

September 3, 2008 1:38 PM

MichLib said:

The "girl-power" line is abysmal. In fact, where many Clinton supporters resented Obama for cutting in line to the presidency, so to speak, the same case may be made for Palin. With quite a few other more qualified, longer-serving and moderate-on-abortion conservative women from which to choose, McCain scooped up a novice.

She'd do well not to steal Hillary's line about the glass ceiling again as well. Hillary made all the cracks and Palin might end up just making it through.

September 3, 2008 1:44 PM

prnoonan said:

The Obama campaign needs to start a clock for her first press conference.  She will get eaten alive.  And for that reason, the Bush (er, McCain) staffers will never allow it.

September 3, 2008 1:52 PM

teplukhin2you said:

"blow the place down"

??

September 3, 2008 2:20 PM

stgla said:

It's "Us Weekly" not "US Weekly", which makes it sound like a news magazine.   We're talking about a knockoff of "People" here, not U.S. & World News Report.

September 3, 2008 2:20 PM

ratnerstar said:

tep- Well, I heard the convention was full of blow ....

I think a lot of people here are underestimating Palin's political skills.  Somehow, I don't think putting her in front of a few media stooges will hurt her standing.  She's not dumb, and she's got political chops.  

I still don't get "puppies" though.  Am I overthinking it?  Do you just mean kids?  

September 3, 2008 2:30 PM

flex001 said:

Oh, I get it.  She's auditioning for the lead,err, understudy, in a Broadway show.  Perhaps a revival of "Annie Get Your Gun"?

September 3, 2008 2:46 PM

ironyroad said:

To become mayor of a town and then head straight for the library with a list of books to ban, to be against abortion without a single exception, to be opposed to sex education in any form -- these are not where mainstream Americans are.

In most respects, if Palin had been a candidate for the Republican primaries she would have been the female Ron Paul, or the GOP version of Kuchinich.  In any case, she wouldn't have lasted.  She's coming late to the convention with the hardline fire-up-the-base rhetoric that normally gets put to bed around now (after all, you need some votes from normal folks too!)

In a way, she has to not be herself tonight.  She's extreme and a bit wacky, and she has to hide that.

September 3, 2008 2:47 PM

aharris61 said:

Agreed, she will probably not do many (or any) sit-down interviews or press conferences before the election.

At this point, expectations are so low that it will be fairly easy for her to exceed them, and her performance tonight will be hailed as a huge success, regardless of whether she substantively answers, or even addresses, ANY of the questions swirling about her.   Instead, I expect she will speak in that defiant, aggressive jokey manner which the MSM laps up as "authentic American straight talk", while tapping into all the usual conservative cultural resentments and victimhood touchstones.  The MSM, which is expecting her to mount a conventional defense of herself, will be so shocked they will fall all over themselves declaring it a "daring speech  thats demonstrates she can play in the big leagues", when all it will actually show is that the GOP fog machines that worked so well putting a mediocrity like Bush in the White House, are still able to cuckold the MSM without breaking a sweat.

All of which is why the Obama campaign is much better off painting her as yet a further extension of Bush (which she is on SO many levels), and McCain's choice of her as yet more proof of his wholesale sell-out to the Bush GOP, rather than challenge her on credentials or any other personal level.  So far the campaign appears to be trying to do so, but the more the MSM harps, the more that conservatives (and some independents) talk themselves into believing the Obama campaign is doing it.

September 3, 2008 2:50 PM

tembrach said:

Sarah Palin is  good. I have no doubt this speech will a grand slam. She is good looking, aggressive, engaged. And she is a born a gain NRA card carrying gun nut. She will turbo charge the right iwng.

She is a better selection than Biden. Biden is as phony as a $3 dollar bill. And I say that as someone voting for Obama Biden

Yeah, her family life is a bit of a mess, but so was Reagan's. That does not resonate with right wing voters. What does resonate are stories about how liberal elites have time & again condescended and belittled her. And after the  firestorm of the past five days, she will have street cred on that score.

I hope Obama knows what he up against. But of course being a Dem, he will be totally blind sided by it.  What we are going to be seeing in the next weeks, which has been absent for a long time is a very energized conservative voter base

I have seen this play before. And I have absolutely no faith that my side knows how do deal with  it effectively

September 3, 2008 2:55 PM

kagoss718 said:

Confidence?  Of course she'll be confident.  She is a hardcore fundamentalist Christian, and so she will speak full of confidence that God wants her to say exactly what she is saying and do exactly what she is doing.  Those people experience very little doubt.

Just another thing she has in common with GWB.

September 3, 2008 2:59 PM

The Plank said:

Now that Mike's examined the trivial matter of what Sarah Palin should say tonight, I thought I'd

September 3, 2008 2:59 PM

teplukhin2you said:

rat - yes.

Socialism for kids, capitalism for adults, targeted state intervention for families, little to no helpf for young singles and upper-income professionals.

Re. Palin, yet again, Peggy Noonan delivers the sharpest must-read commentary of the campaign.

online.wsj.com/.../declarations.html

"...the media's going to wait for the Christian right to rise up and condemn Mrs. Palin, and they're not going to do it because it's not their way, and in any case her problems are their problems. Christians lived through the second half of the 20th century, and the first years of the 21st. They weren't immune from the culture, they just eventually broke from it, or came to hold themselves in some ways apart from it. I think the media will explain the lack of condemnation as "Republican loyalty" and "talking points." But that's not what it will be...."

This especially is prescient:

"The mainstream media, which has been holding endless symposia here on the future of media in the 21st century, is in danger of missing a central fact of that future: If they appear, once again, as they have in the past, to be people not reporting the battle but engaged in the battle, if they allow themselves to be tagged by that old tag, which so tarnished them in the past, they will do more to imperil their own future than the Internet has.

"This is true: fact is king. Information is king. Great reporting is what every honest person wants now, it's the one ironic thing we have less of in journalism than we need. But reporting that carries an agenda, that carries Bubblehead assumptions and puts them forth as obvious truths? Well, some people want that. But if I were doing a business model for broadsheets and broadcast networks I'd say: Fact and data are our product, we're putting everything into reporting, that's what we're selling, interpretation is the reader's job, and think pieces are for the edit page where we put the hardy, blabby hacks.

"That was a long way of saying: Dig deep into Sarah Palin, get all you can, talk to everybody, get every vote, every quote, tell us of her career and life, she may be the next vice president. But don't play games. And leave her kid alone, bitch...."

September 3, 2008 3:10 PM

tomeg said:

Peggy Noonan is a smart woman, very articulate and savvy, but she hasn't got around the bigger story here. MSM isn't doing anything to Sarah Palin or nothing much. Yes, MSNBC, has become a byword, can yuk it up and carry on. But they aren't the big dogs in this fight. This election isn't being fought over young vs. old, conservative vs. liberal, kulturkampf vs. kulturkampf. This time, as Obama has correctly seen and spoken to, the issue is judgment. No matter how well or poorly Sarah Palin performs, or her story holds up, she is not the one running for Prez. The best kept secret this year is that McCain is a man of poor judgment, impulsive moves, poorly considered words, and his legendary thin skin comes from a basic lack of confidence in himself, a sense of inferiority. He is exceedingly vain, among the most vain of polticians, and for that reason can be foolish and childish and ill-tempered. I don't think he yet understands how badly his campaign has let him down with the rollout of Palin, and he doesn't get that it's nobody but his fault. He is a powder keg waiting to go off, and I think he will go off before the election, and that will be the end of it.

Obama may not be your cup of kvas, but he does have the judgment as well as the smarts, to get elected, and elected is what he will be.

September 3, 2008 3:44 PM

butchie b said:

In all honesty, I wish McCain had picked Pawlenty (or another guv), but....  She may be just fine.  Having worked in TV, she can probably speak to a prompter.  She's attractive, and has more executive experience than the Chosen One.  Whose smarts, tomeg, are undeniable, but his judgment has yet to be tested in any meaningful way.

Saw this bit in the WSJ - under 45, lots of kids, outdoors person, governor for less than 2 years.  Palin in '08?  Nope, TR in 1900.  Interesting.

September 3, 2008 4:02 PM

adaglas said:

Of course, TR also had several years in the New York state legislature, served as police commissioner for New York City, and was both an officer and acting Secretary of the Navy during wartime.

September 3, 2008 4:29 PM

tembrach said:

i Saw this bit in the WSJ - under 45, lots of kids, outdoors person, governor for less than 2 years.  Palin in '08?  Nope, TR in 1900.  Interesting.

Butch, interesting, but I doubt that Palin will make a lasting mark on the envirionment the way that TR did.

The only way today's Republicans resemble  TR is in his love of imperial adventure and embrace of unnecessary wars

September 3, 2008 4:38 PM

butchie b said:

And was a Roughrider. Yes, I know.  But she's simply not as far-fetched as many are making her out to be.

September 3, 2008 4:39 PM

ratnerstar said:

September 3, 2008 4:40 PM

Crock1701 said:

Also, NY at the time the largest state by population, with the biggest city in the country, is a might different than the vast nothingness of Alaska.

September 3, 2008 4:47 PM

teplukhin2you said:

tomeg - I hear you, and sure, I see some of that, but McCain also _gets stuff DONE_. He's worked with Teddy K and with Russ Feingold to actually pass major legislation on huge, difficult issues. That legislation may or may not be  your or my cup of tea, but it represents real _achievement_. Which is why Feingold went out of his way on CNN to dismiss the "temperamental" rap as BS.

There's plenty that's appealing about Obama, but I still have a real problem with the huge gap between his purported ability and his lack of professional achievement. In his brief time in the Senate, he's been a nobody. In Chicago, he was a nobody. He did some minor stuff on the most minor of stages, in Springfield, but that's about it. The rest is pure potential, unrealized.

In a man of his age, given his ambitions, this gap is very odd. Perhaps I shouldn't, but I find it troubling.  

Maybe I'll end up voting for him, who knows, but he's a complete crapshoot, and given the sh*t we're facing now, I'm not convinced at this point that such a crapshoot is a good or necessary risk for the nation to take.

September 3, 2008 5:06 PM

teplukhin2you said:

rat - Peggy tells it like it is. Each of her columns is worth a thousand blog entries by Sullivan et al.

September 3, 2008 5:08 PM

ironyroad said:

I think there is the real chance that this move was a miscalculation -- or a non-calculation -- on McCain's part.  Bush won in 2004 essentially because of the terrorism threat and because Kerry dropped the ball on a couple of key issues, most of all responding to the Swiftboaties.  Those same conditions do not obtain today, and we have a candidate who is smart and capable where Kerry was smart and inept.

But nothing is guaranteed.  Two points are worth making, though:

1.  Palin may fire up the base, but if the American people get the idea that she is a loose cannon and ideologically outside the frame in which Americans like their presidents to move around in, then the McCain campaign may find its an uphill battle to justify the selection.  The GOP has made that mistake before, thinking that "the American people" and "Republican voters" are the same thing.

2.  If the main argument in voters heads on Nov 4 is "new direction" or "four more of the same," then it's probably trending toward Obama and Sarah Palin or Hank Hill on the ticket isn't going to make much difference.

September 3, 2008 5:14 PM

K.Crake said:

tomeg hit the nail on the head.  The greatest secret of the campaign is that John McCain's "maverick" image is a media myth.  Watching John McCain on MTP or any other interview is like watching a volcano one the edge of eruption.  From his forced smile to his speaking through clenched teeth, McCain is a man on edge and ready to blow; all it will take is someone to light the fuse and I'm guessing that someone will be Barack during one of the debates.  The media love him because he's some kind of prototypical "alpha-male" and media pundits think being impulsive and crazy is some kind of virtue, hence the sobriquet "Maverick McCain."  The Palin pick and the complete and utter failure to vet her before nominating her is outrageous.  McCain admits that he only spoke to her (once? twice?) before nominating her.  The argument goes that McCain thought she would motivate social conservatives that make up the base while peeling away some angry Hillary supporters (if they actually still exist).  How cynical is that?  So he's willing to risk the country on a woman he doesn't even know, one with virtually no track record in office to turn to, virtually no credentials outside of an undergraduate degree in communications. . . why?  Because it may help his fund-raising and peel off a few angry voters from the opposition?  Country first?  More like "John McCain first."  Doesn't anyone see how transparent that slogan actually is?

As for Palin's speech tonight, the idea that she is the TR of this race is ludicrous; the fact that the RNC is trying to spread that kind of blatant bs is pretty insulting (see posts above).  Palin is going to get up there tonight, spew a bunch of platitudinous garbage about moose burgers and how she's an expert on energy because her husband works for the oil company and she's from an oil state (gee, George W. Bush and Dick Cheney were experts by that standard too).  

The Palin pick alone shows that John McCain is absolutely unqualified for the office.

September 3, 2008 5:30 PM

asnevitt said:

a couple of thoughts:

1) she's been holed up in a hotel room being prepped with a speech that the McCain staff wrote before they even knew who the candidate was. They made changes for a female voice and they're running her show. Put me in a room for three days of coaching and I could give a great speec, too. Its' called being a trained seal. So, how does this speech have any relevance to anything? A great speech reflects a person, it shouldn't be that the person is to become a reflection of the speech.

2) Palin has so many credibility issues - did she fight BIg Oil or just fight some companies to benefit her ore favored one?; did she support that bridge and then back down? And did she keep that money? Did she mean it when she said that Iraq and her natural gas pipeline were the will of God? Has she ever really had to make an emergency executive decision that impacted people's lives? Is 20  months as a governor of a state with less population than most cities and so remote that she probably isn't in touch with what the rest of America is like really more relevant to the job than someone who has been legislating on important issues for 11 years, has traveled the globe and met many world leaders (who apparently are looking forward to working with him)?  - that she can say whatever she likes tonight.  That investigation and the example of a failed abstinence policy that her daughter represents are too iconic to overcome. Besides she didn't know what the VP job was about a month ago. Yes, she can be given the job description, but it betrays a serious lack of curiosity about the systems that govern our country outside of her own, very unusual state.

3) All of this, regardless of how well she can recite her assignment, is a reflection on McCain and if he was hoping she would put a veil on the mirror, it didn't turn out to be one that makes him look prettier.

telupkin: Obama has not been a nobody in his US Senate tenure. He has risen like he has because he walked into the first session, went to the whip and said, "give me something difficult to work on." that turned out to be the ethics legislation that nobody thought would go anywhere. it was supposed to keep this junior senator in obscurity. Instead he got bi-partisan supported for the most sweeping ethics overall in the history of the nation. All of his work has been like that. His ability to connect to people of all stripes and to articulate the core needs in a way that feels universal is a gift. Once he demonstrated that, he got the support of a lot of senior senators and that is why his campaign was able to get off the ground. Then his organizing and management skill has led to the most successfully run campaign anyone can think of. Successful of many levels.

And, as to the question of him being dubbed "The Chosen One", well, he's been chosen by over 18 million people to run for office. How many chose McCain? Palin? And, isn't that you want your candidate to be: chosen. Isn't that what we call the poplular vote? Isn't being popular rather key to winning? I simply don't understand these jibes. So, the "unpopular" candidate, who isn't garnering the support and votes of the most citizens should be the winner? That's different.

September 3, 2008 5:38 PM

K.Crake said:

teplukin,

I think you're way too harsh on Obama.  He graduated from Columbia and then from Harvard Law.  Not only that, but he was a trailblazer there, becoming the first African-American president of the Harvard Law Review.  First, being on the HLR is pretty much the most prestigious academic achievement possible; in law it is equivalent to the Nobel Prize.  That's a huge accomplishment in and of itself.  Then, rather than take a clerkship on the Supreme Court and a 6 or 7-figure job in a top law firm, Obama went to Chicago and worked as a community organizer.  Did George W. Bush do any non-court-imposed community service ever in his life?  I don't think so.  After that, Obama went on to the Illinois legislature, and then the US Senate.  

Resume isn't everything; potential is a hell of a lot more important than past performance when evaluating a candidate.  Abraham Lincoln had served only a single term in the House before becoming president; he was successful because he had a ton of smarts, vision, and potential.  Obama has a record of success--everything he's ever done he has excelled at--and I'd much rather take a chance on him than gamble on a 72-year old with one foot in the grave and a rightwing nut just behind him.  Say what you will about Palin being "average" (as if that were some kind of prize) but she wasn't president of the Harvard Law Review.  Until a few months ago, she didn't even know what the VP does--do you think Obama would fumble that question?  The problems facing the country are extraordinary and Mr. Seventy-Two and Mrs. Ordinary just are not going to cut it.    

September 3, 2008 5:43 PM

cal80 said:

I am finally getting caught up on everything I have missed over the last four days, and had just read Noonan and think she really summarized the situation well.  I think it is going to be hard to criticize Palin because she is a conservative and a feminist--the media just doesn't know how to work outside the traditional constructs of left-wing feminism.  

I know there is a lot out there about Palin's extreme conservatism, but sometimes when you are on a small stage politicians reflect local conditions.  Obama was very liberal as a representative from Hyde Park, and it looks at though Palin was reflecting local conditions in her community on the city council and as mayor.  As politicians move up the ladder, and have wider constituencies, they often tone down their extreme views, as Obama has in this campaign.  I'm not sure what Palin will do, but I suspect she will moderate some of her views as well.  She should be given the opportunity to represent herself, but instead the media is shoving us full of preconceived assumptions and stereotypes about her conservative views.  This is offensive and could truly backfire.

tep, as usual, you have summarized the problems I face in this campaign.  And I must say, many people I know feel the same.   Obama's resume is so thin--he has tremendous academic accomplishments, but the corresponding achievements (publishing papers, running academic programs, running a company, etc.) just aren't there.  It really strikes me as something out of place.  It seems almost as if he gets bored of things quickly and moves from one thing to the next.  I can't help but ask myself everyday, Why didn't he just spend a couple of election cycles in the Senate?  He would have attained the gravitas and experience he needs to be an outstanding candidate.  Why the rush?  Why the impatience?  That is what always gnaws at me.

September 3, 2008 5:54 PM

asnevitt said:

also, telupkin, if you admire Peggy Noonan's opinions you should hear what she has to say about McCain's VP pick. There is a recording on TPM where she and Mike Murphy refer to the selection as cynical.

September 3, 2008 6:13 PM

teplukhin2you said:

K Crake - "Obama has a record of success--everything he's ever done he has excelled at"

This is a perfect example of why I find the Obama hype so nauseating. It's not that he isn't bright or has academic achievements, it's that even a cursory review of his post-academic professional record shows these claims as ludicrous. He was a "community organizer," and achieved squat beyond getting some asbestos removed from a public housing project. He served on Annenberg, which failed to achieve anything. He was a state legislator and briefly, a senator, and his two hallmark achivements are... videotaped police confessions and an ethics bill?

So in his career since HLS the sum of his achievement is  getting asbestos removed from a housing project, two bills passed on police confessions and congressional ethics, and writing not one but two autobiographies.

Look, I know this has become a partisan site, and we're all supposed to genuflect before Obama, but could we at least be honest here? His record of achievement and leadership is slim. Maybe he'll be the next Lincoln, maybe the next Carter, or maybe another so-so president like Jack Kennedy, but let's spare ourselves the hype and BS.

We have two flawed candidates. Each one carries risks. One is likely running after his time has passed, the other before his time has arrived. Enough with the BS, already.

September 3, 2008 6:30 PM

teplukhin2you said:

Yes, I saw Noonan and Murphy's reaction, which overlaps with my own. McCain's choice would not have been mine. That said, I don't agree with Noonan that "it's over", which contradicts what she wrote in her  column. The column was more sober and more accurate: Palin's a high-beta stock; she'll either fall on her face or succeed brilliantly.

Perhaps this is part of the method behind McCain's madness here, but I find it impossible to consider Pres. Palin without immediately thinking of Pres. Obama. Hockey mom => community organizer. Wasilla, Springfield. Ethics reform, ethics reform. Lifestory / identity politics candidate, lifestory / identity politics candidate.

Sorry but I just don't see Obama as being significantly shrewder, tougher or more formidable vis-a-vis Vladimir Putin. They're both American naifs who'd be winging it, for years were they suddenly plopped into the WH. Obama's smarter, sure, but he also has lots of dumb ideas foisted on him by the institution-building, academic IR Theory crowd, so that nullifies his advantage on the brainpower front.

They said Carter was smart, too. As Carter's mental health advisor, young Dr. Charles Krauthammer, found out, Carter was a babe in the f-p woods who was able to get up to speed on Israel-Egypt but couldn't manage the same feat wrt any other region.

September 3, 2008 6:43 PM

ironyroad said:

"but he also has lots of dumb ideas foisted on him by the institution-building, academic IR Theory crowd"

I consider myself, in my self-regarding way, reasonably smart and informed on politics and current affairs in a general way -- but my brain sort of seized up there, tep.  At a wild guess, is the IR of IR Theory "International Relations"?  And why is institution building a dumb idea?

September 3, 2008 7:10 PM

jemerk said:

If she takes two breaths it will be judged a resounding success.  She cannot miss within the hall, who won Iowa?  and why?  

This is going to be the Christian versus all the heathens election, John will be along for the ride.

September 3, 2008 7:14 PM

teplukhin2you said:

The stakes for this election are huge. Looks like Putin's making his Ukrainian power play even sooner than I thought he would, by recruiting Juliya Tymoshenko, the formerly pro-Western "Orange Revollution" co-leader and oligarch, to work with Moscow's stooge party in Ukraine to stage what Viktor Yuschhenko, the man who was poisoned by goons acting almost certainly on Putin's orders, calls a "coup d'etat" by the Kremlin:

www.timesonline.co.uk/.../article4668626.ece

Ukraine government teeters amid President Yushchenko 'coup' claim

Tony Halpin in Moscow

President Viktor Yushchenko accused his former ally, Prime Minister Yuliya Tymoshenko, of forging a pro-Russian alliance to curtail his powers. He claimed that a "coup" was under way, just a day before Dick Cheney, the US Vice-President, is due to visit the Ukrainian capital Kiev.

The crisis erupted after parliament passed new laws restricting the powers of the President and making it easier to impeach him. The Tymoshenko Bloc voted with the Party of Regions, the pro-Moscow opposition led by the former Prime Minister, Viktor Yanokovych, to pass the legislation.

Members of the President's Our Ukraine party then withdrew from Mrs Tymoshenko's coalition Government, which formed after elections that ended a similar political crisis 12 months ago. In an address on national television, Mr Yushchenko declared: "A political and constitutional coup d'état has started in the parliament."

He appeared to accuse Moscow of interfering in Ukraine's politics, saying: "The Tymoshenko Bloc has accepted union with the Regions Party and the Communists. The basis of this formation is not Ukrainian, I underline not Ukrainian."

The leader of Our Ukraine, Vyacheslav Kirilenko, also described the Party of Regions and the Tymposhenko Bloc as a "pro-Kremlin majority". He said that the laws passed against the presidency were "just what the Kremlin has been asking certain political forces to do".

...The crisis in Georgia has contributed to Ukraine's political turmoil. Mr Yushchenko accused Mrs Tymoshenko of "high treason" in allegedly siding with Russia over the war.

Mrs Tymoshenko has denied the claim, but her party refused to back a parliamentary motion from Our Ukraine that condemned Russia yesterday. She also abstained from a vote in the Ukrainian Security Council on an order by Mr Yushchenko to impose restrictions on the movement of Russia's Black Sea fleet from its base in the Crimean port of Sevastopol during the war.

Mr Yushchenko has openly supported Georgia and told The Times in an exclusive interview last month that Nato membership was "the only way for our country to protect our national security and sovereignty". Ukraine fears a Kremlin campaign to wreck its Nato ambitions by stirring up separatism among Crimea's pro-Russian majority.

Russia bitterly opposes Ukraine joining Nato. Bernard Kouchner, the French Foreign Minister, and the EU's Enlargement Commissioner Olli Rehn have both warned that Ukraine could be the Kremlin's next target in its confrontation with the West.

September 3, 2008 7:21 PM

johnalthousecohen said:

They're going to climb on father? Or father's going to climb out on a limb? Huh???

September 3, 2008 7:28 PM

ndmackenzie said:

The front page link to an MSNBC.com story on Palin's speech tonight reads:

-- Newsweek: Palin's speech a rare unscripted moment

Unscripted!? Who are they kidding?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/

September 3, 2008 7:29 PM

ratnerstar said:

Tep, you're going to seriously have to justify a pronouncement that the institutionalist wing of international relations theory contains more stupid ideas than the, say, neo-con wing, or the paleo-realist wing.  Or whatever wing McCain belongs to, which is far from clear.

September 3, 2008 7:32 PM

teplukhin2you said:

irony - look at the institutions that we invited Putin's gangster regime to participate in: OSCE, the non-proliferation regime, "partner" status with the EU, the G-8. Not to mention the granddaddy of all international security institutions, the UNSC. *None* of these, including or mtaybe I should say _especially_ the nonproliferation regime, has had the slightest influence on Putin's calculations or behavior in Eastern Europe. In fact Putin has gone out of his way to sneer at these institutions, threatening to cut off oil and gas to Germany and Poland (and actually doing so to Czech and Ukraine).

As for respect for treaties and international law, he has only contempt for these. See the treaty he signed in Tbilisi, which he promptly went on to violate seven ways from Sunday.

Finally, for those fools who still believe that institutions will restrain this thug, he's even made his contempt explicit, in an address yesterday by Medvedev that explicitly stated five principles of Russian foreign policy, two of which are the contradictory commitments to "international law" and to jealously guarding Russia's "regional [spheres of] interest."

If and when Obama shows some recognition that Putin is determined to make Ukraine into another corrupt, autocratic Russian satellite-- note that his new stooge, the pseudo-reformer Tymoshenko. is herself an oligarch-bandit who's pocketed close to a billion-- and that Putin knows and respects only the principle of might makes right, then I'll change my view of Obama. Until then, I agree with Brzezinski and Wieseltier: BHO is Carter redux.

September 3, 2008 7:33 PM

ndmackenzie said:

teplukhin2you writes:

-- If and when Obama shows some recognition that Putin is determined to make Ukraine into another corrupt, autocratic Russian satellite-- note that his new stooge, the pseudo-reformer Tymoshenko. is herself an oligarch-bandit who's pocketed close to a billion-- and that Putin knows and respects only the principle of might makes right, then I'll change my view of Obama. Until then, I agree with Brzezinski and Wieseltier: BHO is Carter redux.

McCain, of course, went to the mat with Putin and selected as his running mate (perhaps mate is not quite the right term) someone who every day goes toe-to-toe, eye-to-eye and nose-to-nose with Putin across the Bering Strait. teplukhin2you clearly prefers a President who would continue the failed traditions of the last eight years to one who has better judgment.

September 3, 2008 7:48 PM

teplukhin2you said:

THe flash point is the Russian fleet and the base at Sebastopol, wrt which Yushchenko asserts his nation's sovereignty. In contrast the Ukrainian bandit parties and now the bandit Tymoshenko are willing to make Ukraine into a Kremlin puppet and forswear any independence at all in Ukraine's foreign policy. Either there will be war or, much more likely, Putin will have engineered a coup d'etat, as Stalin did in Czechoslovakia in IIRC 1947, to transform a free nation into a satellite.

Looks like it's going to be a foreign policy election after all. A pity we nominated another Jimmy Carter.

September 3, 2008 8:03 PM

ironyroad said:

tep, I understand the argument that using the menu of institutions that were available to open up a new path for Russia to take turned out to be an expensive failure.  That is undeniable, as we know now.  But your comment implied that institution building per se was "dumb" in some way obvious to you but not to me.  It doesn't seem so much the failure of institutions as the failure of U.S. strategic policy and diplomatic smarts that helped Putin.  I mean, if the president of the United States thinks he's checked out your soul and found it to his liking . . . I believe that neither McCain or Obama will be that shockingly stupid.

NATO, the EU, the UN and subordinate UN agencies have proven to be institutions with different kinds of purpose and style, and different successes and failures, but I think it would be a breathtaking assertion to claim that, since 1945, the global institutions haven't done reasonable job and, in fact, largely benefitting American interests in the process, as we created those institutions.

Even during the Cold War -- a kind of institution itself -- global organizations were able to draw off some of the tensions of the superpower standoff, and even provide a site for negotiation and practical give-and-take for the sake of humanity in general.  There are many things such as air transport regulations that required multinational agreement.

May I remind you also that we didn't go to war over the communist coup in Czechoslovakia in 1948, and indeed prime minister Masaryk was, to make it worse, treated shabbily in Washington in the run-up to that event, no doubt to rub it in that we weren't going to do anything substantial.

September 3, 2008 8:41 PM

K.Crake said:

This backlash in favor of "experience" is a response to the foreign policy failures of George W. Bush, who had no foreign policy experience before becoming president.   At the time, Bush's supporters argued that "it doesn't matter, he'll surround himself with good advisors."  Now, those same people who defended Bush's experience are arguing in favor of experience.  That is the great irony in all of this; essentially the Republican party changes every 4 years to adapt to what their candidate possesses and that becomes the paradigm of virtue.  There is one problem though:  Bush didn't fail because he was inexperienced; he failed because his world-view is fundamentally flawed and he lacked the intellect and foresight to correct course when the hurricane appeared on the horizon.  Now, Bush's former supporters want to elect a guy who lacks intellect and foresight (McCain's poor academic performance and hasty decision-making style are made into virtues by his supporters) and rely on his many years of experience in the Senate as a legislator to make up for the deficit.  Well folks, it's not character that decides the fate of nations; in the end, intelligent leaders make good decisions and hasty, stubborn and stupid leaders make poor decisions.  That is the lesson of the past 8 years.

September 3, 2008 9:31 PM

thomasa said:

Stage 1. Member of media:: "We members of the media may start saying good things about X if X gives a speech that persuades morons, without giving actual reasons for believing that X would be any good at the job X is running for, that X is a good politician."

Stage 2: X actually does give a speech that persuades morons (and members of the media), without giving actual reasons for believing that X would be any good at the job X is running for, that X is a good politician.

Stage 3: Member of media M:  "Hey, that X is doin' great!"

Less horserace, please, please, please, please..........

September 3, 2008 9:50 PM