I agree with Desi that Palin seems like a decent type personally.

I agree with roo that she's a horrible governing choice.

I agree with Desi (and roo) that a lot of our talk about Palin here has been paleolithic. "Heh heh. She pretty. She not be good hunter."

I agree with roo that there's pretty strong evidence that McCain himself was barely involved in this pick. He seems to have largely outsourced it to Rick Davis. I do think it's more evidence that he takes a Bush approach to governance -- which is to say, political calculations wag the rest of the dog.

I agree with roo that veep picks should not make us deeply anxious. It's still about Obama vs. McCain-Bush. After Thursday's speech, I don't have a lot of doubt about that matchup.

To the extent that we attack Palin, I would do it by painting her as an extremist. She apparently supported Buchanan in the 2000 general election. In other words, Bush was too moderate for her. I think that's a decent talking point right there. If I were on camera and someone asked me to speculate about the rationale for this pick, I would say "McCain is obviously trying to pander to the extreme right of his own party."

Then just wait for the veep debate. Biden is not a dumb man, and he knows how to be gracious while cutting you off at the knees.

The press will do the rest of the job. They're good at speculating about McCain's political motives.

By choosing Palin, McCain greatly reinforces the flip-flop charge against him. First, experience is all important, now, it doesn't matter at all - talk about being for it before you were against it - to paraphrase John Kerry's great convention joke.

As ChronoSpark observed in another post, it looks like McCain is consciously giving up the more-experienced-than-thou strategy, and replacing it with a more-change-agent-than-thou strategy.

Ridicule. Question McCain's sanity.

Come on people, even the GOP is acknowledging she's a ridiculous pick:

I realize, of course, that she’s totally unqualified to be President at this point in time. If McCain were to die in February 2009, I hope Palin would have the good sense to appoint someone who is more ready to be President to be her Vice President, on the understanding that she would then resign and be appointed Vice President by her successor.

http://theamericanscene.com/2008/08/29/ru-experienced

Desidero, do you really think women are pleased to have Sarah Palin as the GOP candidate for VP? Let's make all kind of allowances for Sarah, because she's a woman. Great? I don't think so.

There are plenty of qualified women out there, Palin just isn't one of them.

Seriously, BOTH parties have now agreed it's an election about CHANGE. The GOP tried to run Experience against Change, hoping Obama would break, and he didn't. They believe now that they can't win with it, so they've gone all in on change - Twin Mavericks, male & female. Fine. Game on.

I think Palin's inexperience is counter-productive to raise directly, as they just re-raise the inexperience of Obama... and suggest she'll get on-the-job-training. The "scandal" angle also strikes me as weak as hell. Maybe something pans out, but - compared to longer-serving politicians - if this is all we have, it's weak.

So 1st, We need to emphasize that this choice shows their FEAR. They - MCain, Rove - knew they would LOSE this election. That line should be beat like a drum. Because people - including OURS - need to have the GOP aura of invincibility, broken. McCain & the GOP reacted in panic.

2nd, We want this argument to revert to a Top-Of-Ticket battle. So no fuss, no muss, no ranting or reinforcing debate about Palin. The easy hook back to Obama-McCain is that the VP pick showed McCain's judgment. We only need ask - While Palin may be a nice person, can you honestly say that she was the BEST person in the United States to take over the Presidency? Better than Rudy Giuliani, a "reform Mayor" of a fairly substantial city, with some experience around 9/11? etc. There are many other Senators, Governors, businesspeople, men & women, black & white... fill in blanks here as comparators.... and does McCain seriously expect us to think she was chosen because she was the BEST?

3rd, McCain has opened the health door. Obama couldn't raise this issue directly, but everyone now can. Because the VP pick is about the person to step in IF MCCAIN DIES OR COLLAPSES. While officially you're asking a question about if Palin's the BEST person available to step in, you're actually emphasizing McCain's physical, and - seemingly- increasingly weak mental fitness.

Finally, As for Palin, let a dozen issue groups tear her apart on the issues. She's crap for women, the environment, the war, you name it. But DON'T underestimate her because she's new. Hockey ain't soccer & Barracuda ain't a nickname you give to Miss Congeniality. Rove would LOVE to portray her as the innocent, hard-working, REAL WOMAN America, beset by elitists, out-of-touch liberals and.... wait for it... feminists. If this becomes a feeding frenzy, they'll have a martyr, and blame it on us being BOTH sexist AND feminist. It's Rove-world.

There is one particular difference between the Democrats in power and the Repubs in power. Obama and his cabinet will be leading an accountable, grass-roots driven political agenda, with everyone having the invitation to be as involved and active as they can in open, evolving government.

Under McCain, it's going to be politics as usual. Two front people, and an unaccountable administration in the background making all the decisions and taking the country further down the disastrous path it's been on for the last eight years.

That's why it seems to me that selecting Palin isn't about having someone who is ready to hit the ground running, but about trying to inject some interest into a flagging campaign to put the Repubs back in power. Nothing to do with involving the American people in their own government. Although, I still can't see the sense of picking someone who isn't going to have the political and diplomatic skills necessary in today's global village, particularly given the very real issues with China, Russia, and the Middle East.

OK so she may speak to the ordinary American voter with her PTA and hockey, and she may have administrative experience (albeit governance of a state whose total population comes nowhere near that of a metroplitan city) but her grasp of national and global affairs isn't astounding.

There'll be tears before bedtime in the Repub camp.

I don't believe the republicans are happy with this choice, Desi. Also, she may turn out to be Quayle. The comparison is odd, but interesting. Not accurate, but interesting.

She's quite the street fighter. How her specific brand will translate on to the national campaign and how it will resonate remains to be seen.

I wish he had picked Whitman or one of the sitting senators or another governor. Quinn is right, it reflects fear.

Hey TPM!

Is something wrong with the boards today? I've been kicked off three times already.

I know at least five Republicans who are royally pissed off at this choice.

1. Mitt Romney
2. Tim Pawlenty
3. Mike Huckabee
4. Kay Bailey Hutchison
5. Olympia Snowe

Romney and Huckabee represent precisely that faction of the GOP that McCain is working to bring home. Pawlenty represents a state with more electoral heft - and much more swing status - than Alaska. Hutchison and Snowe are, compared to Palin, overqualified for the Presidency.

Have you noticed that exactly NONE of these five people have issued any sort of statement about Palin's selection?

I think Palin's an unqualified disaster for the Republicans. The question is, how do you attack her? That's what the Obama people are working on right now.

My bet is that they won't go directly after Palin at all - rather, they'll go all out after John McCain's judgment, and tie this pick in with McCain's famous temper, his military truculence, his horrible health and education plans, his "Bushonomics", and so forth.

At day's end, the bottom line is this: a 72-year-old candidate, who has gone through four bouts of cancer, who would be the oldest first-term President in our history, who has already lived two years longer than his father, and whose life expectancy is shortened thanks to his time as a POW, picks as his running mate a governor who was running up a $20 million tab for a town of less than 8,000 people less than two years ago, and is the star of simultaneous ethics investigations n her own state. And can you imagine the demagoguery that awaits Palin when some of her more extreme views become known?

The worst part is that she only has one month to make her crookeds straight, get boned up on the economy, get all the foreign policy talking points down, and then go debate Joe Biden. She can't do all that AND stump for McCain. So, she's going to go up against a six-term Senator...and try to wing it.

The good news for her is that if she leaves the podium without royally screwing up, she'll probably be declared the winner. The bad news is that her POTUS cred is unlikely to leave the podium in anything other than a body bag.

Desidero:

I've wasted time (thankfully, not a lot of time) wondering who the hell you are, whether literally -- as in who are you in your real life -- or figuratively -- in terms of trying to understand what beliefs or standards you might actually have.
No more.
IMO, all people are born with certain gifts. They then choose to use them constructively, or they adopt a neutral ground in which they choose to ignore them without doing harm to anyone but themselves, or they choose to play destructive games with them that play with the sensibilities of others for their own perverse amusement.
On balance, I see you as a man with many gifts, but as one who chooses to use your gifts at best frivolously, and at worst, destructively.
You have it in you to contribute, not only briliantly, but also constructively. Why not make that choice, instead of the neutral to negative choice you so often make?

Billy,
You also irritate me. Obviously you are supersmart. Yet, one day you say something so simple and inarguably insightful that I rebuke myself for any critical thoughts about you I have had in the past; but the next, you regress to a breathtaking cynicism that is beneath you. What is it with you and Desidero? You both have so much to contribute. Why not do that consistently, which you would do so well, instead of self-sabotaging by gameplaying at others' expense?

And to both of you: who voted me critic of the week? No one. But at least I admire you enough to want you to be TPM's senior statemen rather than prodigal sons.

Palin was chosen as an obvious pander to women, but there have been other VP panders for geographic diversity, or for a particular swing state, etc. I was wondering why McCain didn't choose a more qualified, more known female candidate and then it hit me:

A. She's his change on the ticket to distance himself from GWB. Outside Washington with a proven record of reform.

B. They're going after those Reagan Democrat women and men who are socially conservative, perhaps even pro-life but identified with Hillary's populist economic message. McCain is not like them, but Palin is. She'll play very well in places like VA NC, WV, CO, MO.

C. It's a clever ploy to rile up anger of HRC supporters not directed towards Palin, but at the continued role of sexism and misogyny in the political process. When people dismiss her as a Beauty Queen, VPMILF, question her choices about raising her children and having a career, the socially liberal feminists are going to be pissed. Thy would never vote for McCain/Palin because they disagree with pretty much everything they Republicans stand for, but we should be cautious not to get them so angry they withhold their votes altogether. If they stay home, McCain wins.

D. Palin's probably the only VP choice McCain could have made to make the GOP convention the least bit interesting. I can't imagine what the GOP is going to do with her montage video about getting to know Palin video. By all account Sarah Palin is a pretty kickass chick for a conservative. She comes across as very down to earth, hockey mom, hunter, beauty queen, assertive, reformer and woman with convictions. I'd say you pigeonhole her and underestimate her at our own risk. I expect a nice bounce for her favorability ratings and perhaps for McCain as well after the convention - perhaps not nationally but in the key states that matter.

And the Obama camp is taking the exactly right path - staying off the personal attacks and staying focused on policy differences and the economic populist themes that are going to woo those voters most at risk of jumping ship.

Democrats SHOULD be nervous about Palin. Republicans should be nervous about McCain's choice because it's a risky Hail Mary and she's next in line to the presidency with no foreign policy experience. Basically there's only one person in the world who should be THRILLED about Palin as VP nominee and that's Maureen Dowd - more fodder for her misogynistic columns:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/31/opinion/31dowd.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

It's best to follow Obama campaign lead and simply not mention her. Any critque of her experience or even her policies will be fanned by GOP as sexism to rally female ire. To mention her is to distract from Obama message and give GOP a rallying cry.

She's a hit amongst the conservative base, so for McCain that's a win. I don't think she was brought in for Hillary voters. She's there strictly for the base and to talk about DRILLING, which is growing in popularity. Instead I say focus on the goal Obama set to be energy independent in 10 years and the 5 million new jobs. and the 150mpg plugin hybrid. I like that world view. Let's keep painting that picture b/c drilling can't give us 5 million new jobs and won't get us off foreign oil.

Best to focus on McCain's judgement. The media will focus on his age, the question in everyone's mind. Leave her family choices OUT OF IT.

None of the attacks Barack laid out in his speech have been responded too. I say continue those themes. New Orleans has just stated if you don't evacuate for Gustav "you're on your own". Where've we heard that before? (They claim to have enough transportation for everyone to get out. Maybe they need to talk tough to get through to knuckleheads who think they can beat the storm).

Also I think we focus on how SAFE a choice Obama/Biden are. Frankly, I don't feel safe with a maverick, AKA reckless, commander-in-chief. Just read how Israel is ready for a preemptive strike against Iran. Iran responds by saying any attack will be WWIII. I know they all talk tough, but it just makes me wonder all the more what's up w/ McCain's judgement? (another theme from speech). Terrorism is our single biggest threat, so he says. And he only meets her twice?? ... to govern the united states? Is this indicative of how he'll pick his cabinet? They want to spin this as maverick, but I tell you for me, it was just plain scary.

OK. In case you've just tuned in:

* McCain's been advocating for War in Iraq since just after 9/11/01 (by the way, Al Qaeda, who attacked up on 9/11/01 was based out of Afghanistan/Pakistan and is still based out of Afghanistan/Pakistan)

* McCain's been very adamant about staying in Iraq until my and your grandchildren can be drafted to help out

* That even after Iraq's PM started asking us to tell him when we're leaving and after Bush has even decided to agree to a time to leave

* McCain's foreign policy priority remains Iraq (and the Surge, of course)--to prove, of course, that he cares less about losing an election than losing a war

* And, next, Georgia, a former Soviet republic that just previously hired one of his chief foreign policy advisers for about $800,000 and where he sent his wife to help out for a few days in an area for which he is willing to risk an armed conflict with Russia (with, by the way, much of the entire ready force already bogged down in priority #1--Iraq).

* And, by the way, the cave where Bin Laden's lives is suspected by most to be in Afghanistan/Pakistan yet finding that cave is less important than Iraq and Georgia.

It's not that we don't want Bin Laden hunted down--it's that there are no scopes, and no hunters available according to the policies that McCain advocates.

And by the way, it's clear that you consider it stupid because it is effectively tying McCain to Bush and that goes against your side's interests.

I don't view her as Monica part deux or bimbo-esque...

I think she is the 'Yes Woman' McCain has been looking for.

She doesn't have the political (or intellectual) chops to disagree with him.

Obama cited Biden's willingness to dissent as a reason to have him on the ticket.

McCain just used my Governor as a token to get elected.

Didn't Bush's presidency fail because of his allergy to dissenting opinions?

I have no faith in voters' ability to see through this.

By the way, Alaskan has a reputation for being largely 'male', all the bullshit statistics about men outnumbering women - it's a load of crap.

I was told once that Alaska is THE place for women to make their way in business - that more women hold political office and corporate executive offices here than most any other place in the U.S.. I dunno if that is true (because I've never lived anywhere else) but it's worth examining.

Absolutely!

Obama's statements about wanting a VP who will dissent is a really lame way to address Biden's primary statements. In fact, I'll go even further and posit that the numerous statements by Obama that he wants dissenters on his team were pre-emptive strikes just in case he had to deal with picking a VP who was also running for president. Obviously, Obama had anticipated that possibility and cleverly assembled teams of advisors who were not on the same policy pages in order to "back up" his claims of seeking diverse POVs.

A mom making a day visit to the troops awaiting deployment in Kuwait (right next door to Iraq, too!) is all the experience anyone could ask for when in comes to understanding military thingies about serving in Iraq and overall strategeries in dealing with the logistics of leaving Iraq.

I think the American voter has been conditioned by the American Idol phenomenon long enough for some of them to see a presidential election in a similiar frame of reference.