Sarah Palin: I Love It!!!
Okay, let's be clear, I hate her anti-choice stance. And at first glance, I thought McCain blew it - choosing the least experienced female, when voters know he's possibly just a few ticks from the grave.
But overall it's quite a brave choice (with an important not-brave aspect - catering to the anti-abortion base) that puts it on the line: in the next 2 months Sarah Palin will have to kick ass and show people she can rise to the challenge.
And I'm betting 50-50 she can do it. AlaskaSense gave a good description of where she stands in Alaska. She's a purely American exotic version of Obama - she doesn't have foreign experience, but she's got a unique story, is an odd maverick fighting corruption in oil corrupt Alaska, a career woman raising kids, even a disabled one. Let's revisit that last one.
The digs are already starting - how can she take this job with a child with Down's Syndrome? Fancy that. I'm sure that same question has plagued male candidates - how can Obama work in Washington when his young children are in Chicago? How can John Edwards run for president when his wife might be dying of cancer? The answer is complicated, but imporant - women take on a difficult sacrifice to their personal and professional lives with every family decision, decisions their male companions don't. Decisions about giving up their day jobs, about childcare, about health care, about arranging school, and so on. Cherie Blair caused somewhat of a scandal when she demanded her Prime Minister husband take paternity for the birth of their child. I can see it both ways, but good for her. But let's not kid ourselves. The typical woman with a kid with Down's Syndrome isn't spending all her time with the kid. She's balancing job and other kids and probably dealing with much more HMO hell than Palin will require. So if Palin can't make health care and mothering responsibilities work as VP, then it's not working for anyone and it needs to be fixed.
The "babe" and "Monica Lewinsky" comments are already starting, and it's so disgusting for people who think they're progressives to be engaging in this. Palin's problem is not that she's young and good looking (aren't these attributes that describe Obama as well?). It's that her relevant experience at the federal level is too limited. But if she can make the case that her experience on city council, as mayor, on the oil and gas commission, and 2 years as governor gives her sufficient executive experience, insight into what the average American city faces, and a capable track record as a reformer fighting effectively against corruption, she is going to be one tough competitor.
Really, what everyone is counting on is that people will be sexist enough to dismiss her as a young bimbo, or that she will be a Dan Quayle with a deer-in-the-headlights impression (exacerbated by an overeager press). I haven't heard her speak, but I would guess that with a nickname "Sarah Barracuda" this is not the case. Unlike Quayle, she didn't come from a well-connected family - she had rather humble beginnings and made it on her own (including being passed over by Murkowski to appoint his own daughter).
People have said McCain didn't vet her, but my guess is that Carly Fiorina did. And Palin passed the "can stand up to men in a crowded contentious environment" test. As an executive, not just a legislator.
My biggest though when I ran across Palin's bio a couple of months ago was, "Wow, she's going to be really tough in a few years". Now she has to be tough over the next few months. Be afraid. Biden may be clever, but he's a bit stolid, and even Obama comes across a bit stiff, though seemed more relaxed the last few days. The GOP has been quite committed to putting young contenders into the judiciary without anyone batting an eye, and if people get the idea of the more experienced McCain shepherding fresh blood into the high position, someone who's done quite well with on-the-job training, they could be quite a tough pair to combat. And even though the GOP doesn't have a lot of female politicians, I don't see them tearing down the ones they have. Short of a major screwup, they will be there for her.
How will we respond?
But overall it's quite a brave choice (with an important not-brave aspect - catering to the anti-abortion base) that puts it on the line: in the next 2 months Sarah Palin will have to kick ass and show people she can rise to the challenge.
And I'm betting 50-50 she can do it. AlaskaSense gave a good description of where she stands in Alaska. She's a purely American exotic version of Obama - she doesn't have foreign experience, but she's got a unique story, is an odd maverick fighting corruption in oil corrupt Alaska, a career woman raising kids, even a disabled one. Let's revisit that last one.
The digs are already starting - how can she take this job with a child with Down's Syndrome? Fancy that. I'm sure that same question has plagued male candidates - how can Obama work in Washington when his young children are in Chicago? How can John Edwards run for president when his wife might be dying of cancer? The answer is complicated, but imporant - women take on a difficult sacrifice to their personal and professional lives with every family decision, decisions their male companions don't. Decisions about giving up their day jobs, about childcare, about health care, about arranging school, and so on. Cherie Blair caused somewhat of a scandal when she demanded her Prime Minister husband take paternity for the birth of their child. I can see it both ways, but good for her. But let's not kid ourselves. The typical woman with a kid with Down's Syndrome isn't spending all her time with the kid. She's balancing job and other kids and probably dealing with much more HMO hell than Palin will require. So if Palin can't make health care and mothering responsibilities work as VP, then it's not working for anyone and it needs to be fixed.
The "babe" and "Monica Lewinsky" comments are already starting, and it's so disgusting for people who think they're progressives to be engaging in this. Palin's problem is not that she's young and good looking (aren't these attributes that describe Obama as well?). It's that her relevant experience at the federal level is too limited. But if she can make the case that her experience on city council, as mayor, on the oil and gas commission, and 2 years as governor gives her sufficient executive experience, insight into what the average American city faces, and a capable track record as a reformer fighting effectively against corruption, she is going to be one tough competitor.
Really, what everyone is counting on is that people will be sexist enough to dismiss her as a young bimbo, or that she will be a Dan Quayle with a deer-in-the-headlights impression (exacerbated by an overeager press). I haven't heard her speak, but I would guess that with a nickname "Sarah Barracuda" this is not the case. Unlike Quayle, she didn't come from a well-connected family - she had rather humble beginnings and made it on her own (including being passed over by Murkowski to appoint his own daughter).
People have said McCain didn't vet her, but my guess is that Carly Fiorina did. And Palin passed the "can stand up to men in a crowded contentious environment" test. As an executive, not just a legislator.
My biggest though when I ran across Palin's bio a couple of months ago was, "Wow, she's going to be really tough in a few years". Now she has to be tough over the next few months. Be afraid. Biden may be clever, but he's a bit stolid, and even Obama comes across a bit stiff, though seemed more relaxed the last few days. The GOP has been quite committed to putting young contenders into the judiciary without anyone batting an eye, and if people get the idea of the more experienced McCain shepherding fresh blood into the high position, someone who's done quite well with on-the-job training, they could be quite a tough pair to combat. And even though the GOP doesn't have a lot of female politicians, I don't see them tearing down the ones they have. Short of a major screwup, they will be there for her.
How will we respond?




