From Brad deLong:
'Two things seem salient (i) she fired the state's public safety head for being unwilling to help her in her family's vendetta against her ex-brother-in-law, and (ii) she introduced herself to America by saying that she was against the so-called "Bridge to Nowhere." '
Both these strike me as Eagleton-like: that is, examples of inadequate vetting and impulsive selection that are sufficiently serious as to imperil the viability of the nomination. It is not clear that the Republicans will keep Palin on the ticket; it may be likely but it is not certain.
Moreover, the mainstream media, instead of going grossly gaga over the fact that a former beauty contest winner is on the national ballot, should raise now, and urgently, the question of whether a pending corruption investigation and a blatant, obviously intentional lie in the first press conference are disqualifying. It's pretty clear, isn't it, that if Obama had made this choice he'd be pressured by the cable shows to recant?
Nor should the MSM automatically deem acceptable Palin's views that creationism should be taught in public schools and that global warming is not necessarily a product of human activity. These two views are, respectively, contrary to the Constitution and nuts. How can she be expected to uphold and defend the Constitution or the viability of our culture in the face of climate change? Of course she could recant, scurrying away into ambiguous non-denial denials, but at least she should be interrogated, instead of merely photographed by an admiring media interested not in what she thinks but how she looks.