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 | 12:00 PM
November 29, 2008 | 3:23 PM
November 29, 2008 | 2:18 PM
COLUMNISTS
TODAY'S STORIES
04.09.2008
How Palin Put the McCain Camp in a Bind

The McCain campaign faced an interesting choice last night: They could go for gravitas, weaving in wonky specifics to offset Palin's resume, or double-down on her small-town charm. They went with the latter, which played well on television, but I'm not sure it ultimately advanced Palin's cause. I could see people thinking this was a person they liked but wouldn't want anywhere near the White House. For that matter, I'm not sure the letters "PTA" should ever appear in a vice-presidential speech--at least not the biographical portion. Certainly the independents in that focus group Mike cited seemed to feel that way. (As did Eve.)

This basically brings us back to the Jamie Lynn debate Mike and I were having earlier this week: Palin may be on her way to pop culture icon-dom. But people have vastly different standards for cultural icons and presidents. You'd think the McCain campaign would know that better than anyone.

On the other hand, I'm not sure the alternative was really available to them. At least judging from the brief foriegn policy section of the speech--the one section where Palin actually used proper nouns (that weren't family members' names). I thought it was far and away her least fluent of the night. If I were a McCain operative, I would have felt like time was standing still.

--Noam Scheiber

Posted: Thursday, September 04, 2008 1:56 PM with 5 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:

"wonky specifics" = gravitas? come again?

September 4, 2008 2:16 PM

bigm said:

"But people have vastly different standards for cultural icons and presidents."

I wish that were true, but electoral experience over the past 30 years suggests otherwise.

September 4, 2008 2:25 PM

cnyexpat said:

"I could see people thinking this was a person they liked"  Really?  I saw very little likeable in the snide, condescending attitude she took.  

September 4, 2008 2:44 PM

michael said:

Till proved wrong I believe their primary choice was, "Someone who was known versus an unknown.". She can appear as more or less wonky but their need was to create a sensation which they could maintain without scrutiny.

They needed new and hoped shiny would suffice while McCain held down the legend. It's easier to minimize the utility of #2 so they didn't need suprgrll. John and the campaign suffered with a weak base and dullness, she doesn't have to do much to prove herself on those as values issues are slogans are catnip. She can appear far from dull and not answer a question. The base was changing their underwear last night and the press could only watch. So much for the mean media.

Reading between the lines of those from the GOP on the record plus the leaks, and minimal griping I've seen one fear: CATASTROPHIC FAILURE  The only worry is she'll crack, be exposed or flame out? I've contended any lemon can be on the market for sixty days without fear of failure so we'll see whether she prevails as untouchable but even the Shuttle did OK for a long time. Well, Nixon too.

Nate could explain why the unexciting but valued stat in baseball is on base %. It can be downright numbing to a fan depending how a guy gets to there. But it's someone in scoring position and when they end up at home it's as good as a grand slam: 1 point.

My concern is she can hurt by appearing to be doing little to nothing. Yes, the GOP gripers insist the necessary aid was in the center but the retort is "Couldn't be done as Barack staked it out, that may not have been sufficient with a weak base and Rove can always persuade how he can find a majority on his side of the line."

Sorry for the sport comparisons, but how many Super Bowls have been won with a field goal? A kicker!? Three points, the last play and most of the time if the guy is hit it's a penalty...In football?

I do not underestimate her because depending on how they hide-un-hide her she could be harmful and be unavailable to snuff.

We can discuss McCain or Bush-Cheney but she's there, we're discussing her so they'll get a big return on their investment even when she doesn't bark. I say she will matter and it's worth a risk to take her out. There must be some adage that she can appear to be of little utility to them but hurt us if ignored. She may be tricky to defuse but I prefer to assume she wasn't a blunder and the sooner we get the UXB team in, the better.

September 4, 2008 3:38 PM

icarusr said:

cnyexpat: totally.  She reminds me of every Ex I never want to see again and every fecund harridan I have avoided all my life.  These were not her words, but there is nothing whatever likeable about her.

September 4, 2008 3:55 PM