Thanks for the AK perspective. I, too, think that the smug kneejerk reactions should be reconsidered.

I posted some comments here:

http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/08/palin-some-thoughtful-analysis.php

before they fell of the "recent reader posts" list in under an hour due to multiple postings.

Watch out? Absolutely Cuttysnark. Rec'd. Already we're being inundated with why she's gonna be easy pickings. While she MAY screw up completely, I think she poses a huge risk -She started by saying they're union members - Steelworkers. She KNOWS energy & will confirm that Energy Independence The Easy Way (by drilling) line. Sports? Wiki says she played basketball, on a fractured ankle, in the Championship game. Hockey Mom? Laugh, unless you've lived in chunks of Minnesota, the Dakotas and other parts of the country that're in play. And hunting, fishing, snowmobiling. A mother who, in her 40's, carried through a Down's Syndrome child? She looks & acts like a small-town Mayor, but a lot of people LIKE their mayor, and understand that - at that level - individuals CAN clean up messes. Which it sounds like she did. She's got an (albeit brief) track record of going after bureaucrats, cancelling pork barrel crap, and firing people. And obviously, she's gonna go after disaffected HRC women & Reagan Dems.

This WAS the "card left on the table" after Obama passed over Hillary, and the Republicans WILL do anything to win. Rove and co. looked at it & said, "This year, can experience beat change?" Answer? NO. Not unless Obama really screws up. So they went for change themselves - "WE'LL fight for you and clean up Washington and let you all lead rootin' tootin' All-American lives." It's not that it - and she - can't be defeated - but it's one hell of an interesting move. That said, she DOESN'T know about this level of campaigning, and could screw up badly on her own. But a lot of Americans aren't thrown off when people make mistakes or are new. It's Rove Rules - anything goes. Now Obama rethinks, reloads, and it's game on. Bloody hell.

I agree, and having the son in Iraq negates that advantage for Biden. Although with her conservative values she might not automatically appeal to Hillary's base of feminists, she will appeal to men AND women in states like Pennsylvania with the union ties, the Catholic background, and the big hair.

For the people who know her, it sounds like she is capable, smart, and potentially a ruthless politician. So definitely there should be some caution in approaching the strategy. That is just prudent.

HOWEVER, the fact is most people DON'T KNOW her (I didn't and I'm a junkie). So all of the sudden, the "new face" of Obama and the questions about who he is and what he stands for and whether or not he could be trusted will be superseded by those same questions about Palin.

Obama has proved himself, at least politically. He has faced INTENSE scrutiny and skepticism and he overcame it. It was a feat that few, if any, modern politicians could have accomplished. Palin won a governorship, no doubt, but nobody knows or cares a thing about Alaskan politics and now this thoroughly unknown and unproven person could be the President of the United States.

In other words, the combination of Obama's speech last night (and the rest of the convention) and the Palin pick today suddenly makes Obama/Biden look like the safer, less risky choice in this election.

Could be wrong, but that's how it strikes me. My wife, who is a great sounding board because she doesn't pay close attention to politics, simply couldn't believe McCain picked Palin. She just thinks it's crazy and makes no sense at all.

It is definitely a curveball. The problem for McCain might be that it is a handing curveball out over the middle of the plate.

I disagree with those who say Palin's not a game-changing pick, though we may mean different things by that definition.

It is, however, precisely the game-changing nature of this pick that may backfire on McCain. This choice means that he's going to try to beat Obama on the change theme, which is analogous to trying to beat the 1980s Lakers by outrunning them. I don't see it working.

Still, I think the poster is correct in cautioning against not taking Palin's place on the ticket seriously.

McCain has totally undermined the central message of his campaign, while also taking identity politics and cynical pandering to a whole new low. While Obama picked a VP that would make his ticket and the country stronger, and provide for an able president if something were to happen to him, John McCain chose winning a political campaign above what is best for this country. It is reckless, and putting a true amateur a heartbeat (or stroke) away from controlling the country puts the country in danger. His campaign is over:

http://www.thepersonalispolitical.com/2008/08/mccains-shocking-choice-for-vp-sarah.html

Not to mention it is incredibly offensive to women, and to Sarah Palin herself, for McCain to have picked his VP solely on gender, and fully expecting women all over the country to support him because of her gender. Its shameless. Politics at its worst.

Obama ain't no dumb eskimo and Biden will chew this poor woman to pieces. She doesn't have a chance.

A POW and a Vagina. What a great campaign slogan, huh? What else do can they run on?

Those that know Palin do not underestimate her capabilities - she is very good, which is one of my primary points here. Woman or man, she has accomplished some real things she will get credit for.

I also don't think McCain has undermined his campaign. She highlights a number of his perceived "maverick" strengths including her time on the ethics commission, gave back a tax rebate to Alaskans, and passed the natural gas pipeline bill. She's fired enemies and has a spine.

As for abortion, misterEd correctly points out that not all women are pro-choice, so this isn't a deal killer, especially with McCain already going pro life. Recently, Palin gave birth to a child with Down's syndrome - they knew it before he was born. This is action, folks, not words or speeches. I'll remind you all again that though she may prove to be a lightweight, she has integrity.

I think choosing her makes it trickier in a number of ways. But I've been constantly impressed, no, amazed at how well the Obama machine continues to focus on the prize, those 18 states and the "undecided".

Palin is a threat to a woman's right to choose. She was able to choose, but would deny others the same right. She also is a threat to caribou and polar bears, but that won't get many votes. This is a cynical calculating pick from the man who makes sexist jokes in general, and in specific about his own wife. Who believes that he really cares about women's issues? Raise your hands. She's a pawn and I feel bad for her. But not that bad.

She was chosen to energize their base.

gop made history too plus it will give you "progressives" another woman to hate.

HusseinTenaX -
"Well by god, I've been fly fishing since I was just a little kid - why didn't I get picked?"

I should have been more clear - my reference to fishing was a veiled reference to Mitt Romney's hunter comments earlier this year. Don't think Romney has fired a gun more than twice. Palin, however, is another story. Like I said, she's not a shell.

She may not be a threat on the national stage. But two prominent Alaska politicians - one a nationally known US republican senator and the other a fairly successful former governor and mayor of Anchorage, didn't take her seriously. They both lost, and looked bad on the way down. She may look and sound like a pawn. But!

We'll see what happens with statetroopergate - that is her immediate problem.

Cuttysark is right, as that time worn bromide from Menchen goes:

"No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public."

The problem with Democrats is that we give far too much credit to the intelligence of the average American.

I lived in Alaska for a decade and am still licensed to practice there. I am actually friends with one of Palin's associates.

The state and its people are truly weird. They are physically separated from the rest of the United States. People who have lived there most of their lives (and Palin has been there since she was an infant) see the rest of the world through a very different lense.

I mean, one of her associates, Wally Hickle, wanted to run a water pipeline down to the lower 48. One of Hickle's associates (Joe Vogler) wanted to use nuclear weapons to blast a road from Juneau to the rest of the state. As I said, strange people.

Wasilla itself is a rather strange little town, filled with strange people. Not as strange as the people in Talkeetna, but definitely more strange than those in Anchorage.

This is not to say that Alaskans are bad. They will usually help someone out and are sort of reliable.

I just wonder how much of this rather strange behavior will surface during the campaign.

I agree that she must be assessed seriously and not necessarily written off. But last night's speech, combined with the news today of Palin has got me feeling so very good about our prospects. I don't think McCain is wise. I also think he is reckless.

Wow, I'm watching MSNBC. Walter Monegan, the guy she fired in Wooten-gate was contacted 24 times. Once by Palin, once by her husband, at least once by the AK attorney general and the rest by various staff to discuss firing the ex Brother-in-law. That's a lot of pressure. He didn't fire Wooten, so he got fired.

People are really overlooking this, so I figured I should go ahead and say it. The old party loyalist Republican's don't want a woman any more than they want a black guy. This is not going to drive them to the voting booths. The southern strategy relies on old white men running your party, racists generally don't think women can do a better job than minorities. I come from a deep red state, this is my opinion, nothing more, but I'm not sure who this is going to get to vote they didn't already have locked up, and there are gonna be people staying home over the canidate and his pick of VP on the Republican side. The sweeter and funnier she tries to come across, the more of them they are going to lose. It's really a self-defeating pick for that type of republican voter, not that it will drive them to vote Democrat, but it will get them to not vote at all, which is just as good in my eyes.

She opposes all abortion, even in the case of rape or incest. I understand those who worry about her strengths but I think she obliterates the Republican = foreign policy brand. This was a petulant choice, a thoughtless choice-- a grenade toss in a crowded market type of choice and I think it will backfire brutally. It won't backfire because she doesn't have appeal to some voters. It backfires because it makes Republican heavyweights look naked, pointless and unfocused. What are their priorities? Social security? Healthcare? National Defense?

I know that many of you are uncomfortable with playing the family values card, but I think that it is something that hits a lot of mothers immediately, and I think that there's a lot of "readiness to serve" issues involved.

I found the following comment on the Washington Post website that I think puts it perfectly, it goes like this:

ggwalt123 wrote:
Desperation? Ya think??
A 44 year old first term governor of a very sparsely populated state with five kids, including one newborn and one with downs, coupled with a guy with multiple medical problems and literally old enough to be her great grandfather. I'm not even sure where to begin tackling this there are so many problems with it. Maybe that's his strategy, to confuse people. Or maybe the Republicans have indeed figured out that Americans are really that stupid.

I'm a working mother, and have been fortunate to find a job where I'm allowed to work 30 hours per week and have flexibility when I need it. I only have two children, and granted can't afford a nanny or housekeeper, but I really have to question a woman's maternal instincts that takes on that kind of high power demanding job choosing to abandon five young children that really need her. I'm sorry, but unless she's a superwoman who requires no sleep, there's just no way she can adequately address the needs of that many kids. She's either outsourcing or not giving the governor job full attention. Something is clearly not getting her full attention. You'd think all those conservative family values folks would be all over this. Maybe McCain thinks he'll attract the redneck bubba vote, you know, the truly moronic voter who doesn't have a clue what the issues are, but think she's hot mamma. Who the heck knows? I'm lost on this one.

The idea that Biden taking her on strongly would make him look mean completely undercuts Palin's credibility. The first time anyone raises this objection, it will be proof positive that she is unfit to be next in line to the most powerful position in the world.

Also, this choice solidifies the conservative women vote - those women who do not believe in abortion for themselves or others. Let's not be so out of touch with other segments of the population to forget that the Catholic church still preaches that abortion is wrong and there are organizations and agencies FULL of women who are not pro-choice.

Selecting her also kills the argument that McCain is not appealing to women. Here's a woman who agrees with him. It bolsters his credibility for certain people. And she is more credible because she is gorgeous and confident and a woman who has a home life that many women can relate to.

She is as normal as any VP candidate I have ever seen. Normal to the ponit where she doesn't really strike me as "presidential". I don't know if that is a plus or a minus, however, considering how hard politicians try to act like "one of you" you would think this was an ENORMOUS plus. She will pose a great threat that could pay dividends two fold for McCain. Beware dems, the first mistake in combat is underestimating your opponent.

Most women are a helluva lot smarter and can see thru this b.s. Men to.

Thinking about Quayle, whatever happened to him? No guarantee Palin is the "female conservative" savior.

What makes everyone so sure that female conservatives would actully VOTE for her? IIRC, that is still a pretty male-dominated demographic. Are we witnessing a "feminist movement" within the far right-wing of the GOP?

Ike must be turning in his grave to see this lightweight a heartbeat away...

shes gonna get eaten alive by the media

Choosing a trophy armpiece worked well for McCain personally -- so why not double down in the political arena? "Double your pleasure, double your fun" with twin Barbies sporting 80's big hair and plastic whatever. Time warp beauty pageant queens who, more importantly, also happen to provide other resources valuable to John McCain, whether money, or appeal to the NRA and the religious right.

Never mind. Those demographics weren't going to vote for Obama/Biden anyway. But, imo, McCain miscalculated if he thinks Palin will cause the PUMAS and the soccer moms to swing his way. These respective blocks of women, despite the MSM hype, are not fundamentally feminists; rather, they are women who feel, for one reason or another, economically dependent and/or vulnerable. They may hate themselves for it, but they are well aware that they need to be taken care of, either by a strong man, or by a woman like Hillary they consider to be as powerful as any man.

PUMAS tend to take things personally. Therefore, PUMAS who might have moved towards McCain as a peer substitute for Hillary in the provider/protector role will feel that their wish list line item of VP competence was at least partially answered by Obama in selecting Biden, but ignored completely by McCain. Worse, the older ones among them will see Palin in the context of salt in an old wound -- one more inexperienced woman in their lives unjustly rewarded with promotion for her looks.

Soccer moms, who tend to be distrustful or resentful of working women in general, will hate Palin -- in particular -- because she will remind them of the two kinds of ruthless women they despise because they want it all: 1) the "men's women" in their husbands' offices who can pose a personal threat; and 2) the opportunistic career women who put their own priorities ahead of the well-being of the multiple children they spawned; women who have not only chosen to escape the endless childcare/carpooling Sisyphean cycle, but who also continue, nonetheless, to turn out children someone else has to take care of -- even an infant with special needs.

So, all things considered, bring on Barbie Two, John. Maybe you'll pick up a few votes from the older Viagra crowd. Or maybe not. Because even they care about their children, global warming and polar bears. And a middle-aged woman with a gun may not be first on their list of fantasies.