Ignore her. She will self destruct.

As a corollary, if you absolutely want to go after her use 527s. Don’t take the bait directly.

I think we all need to be careful in overemphasizing her inexperience.  In doing so, we may inadvertantly set her up for an advantageous position.  When she shows up for a debate and can actually locate Iraq on a map, everyone will be impressed that she’s not the clueless idiot we said she was.

I think for now we need a twofold approach:

(1) Publicly, Obama and Biden should ignore her entirely and blaze away at McCain. Palin’s clearly intended as a distraction from the fact that McCain was getting the tar beaten out of him before and during the convention.

(2) Through surrogates, keep bringing up the sports complex in Wasilla, her on-again, off-again support fro the “bridge to nowhere,” and so on. The key point isn’t that she’s moved from a town of 6,000 to a Vice-Presidential nomination in two years. The key point is that she couldn’t manage to run a town of 6,000 successfully. Ideally, we can tie her into the recent Republican pattern of “failing upwards.”

Ignore her.  She’s a nobody, and a deeply unserious pick for vice president.  She wouldn’t dare attack Obama and Biden on any issue, and all she’s been doing so far is talking about how much she idolizes McCain and Clinton (and the Clinton praise already got booed today).  Attacking her is useless, and lets the GOP call Obama or Biden mean to women. 

Then, wait for her to say something stupendously stupid (and she will), and then do everything possible to tie her comments to McCain.  We can probably start now with her creationism and rabid anti-abortion stances.  Don’t try to discredit Palin, though; she has no credibility to begin with.

I’ve gotten in a few tussles in the last day with the reichtwing over the experience issue. They always throw out the “She’s got more executive experience than Obama…blah blah blah.” I guess I’d stay away from that. Someone, somewhere, made a comment (Huffington) that the Dems need to stay razor-focused on McCain. I’d have to agree. The wing is pretty good at distraction…

First, there probably is not a whole lot of video footage to use of Sarah Palin.
Second, better fire a sure shot later than a random one now. Give Obama’s campaign staff a weekend to look into things a lot.
Third, get a surrogate (ideally Hillary Clinton) to pick Palin apart.

What this selection does for McCain is energize the fundamentalist base of the Republican Party and gets them into giving him a ground game.  It may return the the votes siphoned off to the libertarian Bob Barr. It increases the probability of a Biden gaffe over Palin that universally offends women.

Tread warily!

What I really hope is by the VP debate, Obama/Biden is up +15 or so in the polls and Biden figures, what the hell. He then proceeds to decimate her.

Hey, I can dream.

In general, she should never be referred to without using the phrase “hard-right extremist”. I would also go after her support of Buchanan in 2000. The talking points write themselves: “Hard Right Extremist Sarah Palin didn’t support Bush because he wasn’t conservative enough” Find some of the crazier things he’s said and ask her to repudiate them. Then there’s the hard core abortion thing: “Hard Right Extremist Sarah Palin wants to force women to carry their rapists’ babies.”

I’d stay away from the qualifications thing. She’s not that much less experienced than Obama, at least not in a way that’s easy to explain and it lets her off the hook for her extreme views. At the end of the day, we don’t want to discredit Sarah Palin or John McCain. We want to discredit conservatism itself.

That said, someone needs to print up some McBush/Quaylin bumper stickers.

She was a Buchananite? Srssly?

Wow, there goes the Jewish voters in Florida.

I’m in the “ignore her” camp. She came with a ton of baggage - some of it questionable, to be sure - she has a pronounced lack of experience and was an obviously careless choice. I think the Dems ought to stand back, focus on McCain and wait for this mess to sort itself out. I don’t think it will take long.

I agree with Arun, that Hillary Clinton or someone like her should be drafted, effectively, to destroy her.  Second, when they talk about her, they have to compare her to Clinton and other successful, influential women.  It’s the only way to keep “anti-woman” from being a legitimate criticism.  In fact, since this choice was clearly made to put them at risk of saying something that can be turned into a damning soundbite, they need to craft their words carefully; no “Palin did this, while Clinton did this” statements.  Praise of other woman and criticism of Palin have to be so seamlessly intertwined that it’ll be impossible to pull an “I killed Earl Milford.”

Of course, that may be a little bit too cynical.  Fortunately, that last part was more an excuse to make an Arrested Development reference than actual political advice.

I am already so very, very tired of this new “executive experience” talking point.  It’s _designed_ to waste our time responding to it.

Nancy Pelosi could easily take out the beauty queen.

I agree with Arun, that Hillary Clinton or someone like her should be drafted, effectively, to destroy her.

And it can’t be anyone too high-fallutin’ sounding to fence-sitters.

Seriously, tho, I’ve seen this woman speak on a couple of interviews, and she doesn’t come off as one of the great minds of the Western World. I think it makes sense to tread lightly to give her enough rope.

Well, for a start, it would be nice if those of you who spent the last 36 hours unwittingly pushing all the standard Nixonland buttons by laughing about her small town background and moose eating would stop doing that, before you hand her boss the election on a silver plate.

I think “executive experience” is a valid talking point for anyone who has it. But, there’s a difference between running a lemonade stand and a 5-shift McDonald’s in Times Square.

Here’s what Biden does: he talks about the VP’s constitutional duties, almost in passing—to keep breathing, to break ties—then says that the rest of the office depends upon the powers delegated by the president. Then he says ‘What John McCain intends, I don’t know. Here’s what Barack Obama will do, and here’s where I think I can help him.’

That way you talk around Palin. You talk about McCain. And you especially talk about Cheney, because wingnuts love Cheney and most Americans hate the fucker. Biden can say ‘Cheney did X, Y and Z, and I’m not doing any of that.’ Get Palin into positions where she either has to endorse Cheney or repudiate him.

It’s a completely honest answer: being Veep is what you make it. When presidential candidates debate, they’re talking about a job that has its duties pretty well set out. When Veep candidates debate, there’s the succession question and then it opens out.

You also have to prepare for the contrived wingnut wailing chorus that is being coached as we speak. (See: Kerry/Mary Cheney; Clark/McCain; Kerry/troops.)

Ross Perot once said (unfairly) that Bill Clinton saying he was Governor of Arkansas and therefore could be President was akin to saying that “Hey, I ran a Wal-Mart, now I can be CEO!”

In the case of Palin, it is entirely fair.

Adding to those who think that if Hillary Clinton isn’t already volunteering to respond to Palin’s taking her name in vain—which I very much suspect is the case—the Obama campaign ought to have a quiet word.

Pseudonymous in nc, that’s brilliant. Given that McCain’s on record as favoring the “bucket of warm spit” version of the veep role, it puts Palin in the impossible position of having to defend the fact that McCain doesn’t actually want her to do anything except be a political distraction. Give that Palin is by all accounts a smart, ambitious person, that’ll be tough for her to swallow.

Adding one more thing ...O/B has probably been on the phone with Oprah for the last 24 hours. Because that’s the demo we’re talking about.

What would you suggest the Obama campaign do to stay out of this trap and hold McCain responsible for this incredibly reckless selection of veep?

The campaign has already started on the right track:  “No Change”.

McCain doesn’t take the election seriously, the exact same way Obama said in his acceptance speech that the Republicans would try to make a big election about small things.

Obama’s new ad. The opening plays nicely off the “Sarah Palin? Who? Seriously?” vibe, and then switches over to “And?”

It seems like a pretty nice tack for the moment. At the moment, there isn’t that much to attack her on, and attacking the VP isn’t really worth much anyway. The Obama campaign doesn’t need to overtly push the “McCain is really old and going to die soon. Is this really the best person to pick to be our next president?” line, as there seem to be plenty of people happy to hit that line for them (including plenty of conservatives). McCain just pushed both his age and his judgment to the center of the media discussion.

Also, the opening shot includes McCain staring slantwise and down at Palin (well below her head), while fiddling with his wedding ring, which is creepy and priceless.

I don’t think it is necessary to actually even talk up Palin’s inexperience, I think that simply talking up McCain’s unseriousness is sufficient. On the Obama vs. Palin experience issue, if Palin had hit the presidential campaign trail when she first became governor, boning up on national issues, and bringing her message of reform before the people, and won the Republican nomination, I’d have no problem with her inexperience. Giuliani was treated as a serious candidate, even though he was merely a mayor (of more than 10 times as many people as Palin is governor of, but still). But as a vice-presidential pick, and one who had made clear that she wasn’t really interested in being picked, she is a completely unserious candidate. Maybe she will prove herself, but McCain has no way of knowing that. McCain is a reckless sloppy gambler who loves to put thousands on the roll of the dice, and his VP pick shows he plans to govern in exactly the same manner.

Attack her on the fact that she has never been a “community organizer!”

Yes, since Palin has wrapped herself in Clinton’s mantle, it’s up to Clinton to strip it off her.  Also Michelle Obama, Oprah, other prominent women.  But Clinton first of all.

Obama & Biden should leave her alone as much as they can.  They don’t want to look like they’re picking on a girl.

Here’s who we let handle this lightweight: Hillary, Nancy Pelosi, Tammy Duckworth, Debbie Stabenow, Maria Cantwell, Claire McCaskill, et al. They shouldn’t be mean to her either—just treat her like adult women might treat a cute little girl.

“Isn’t she adorable? And she doesn’t think grown-up ladies should be allowed to decide whether they want babies or not? Honey, you know, grown-up ladies have to decide these things for themselves but it’s sweet that you like babies so much. And the energy crisis can be fixed if we just drill more? Gosh, where did you hear that? The RNC? Well, if the RNC told you to jump off the Brooklyn Bridge . . . you would? Really? Where’s your handler, dear?”

Add Debbie Wasserman-Schultz to the list. She really ripped Palin a new one on MSNBC the other day.

“hell, she’s not qualified to do Hillary’s laundry”

I respectfully disagree with this statement. Regardless of ideology, I believe that 2 years as Governor of any state is worth more than 8 years as a Senator from any state. Legislative experience means squat in an Executive position.

Hillary’s primary campaign > Alaska Governor in terms of “executive experience”.

I say ignore her as much as possible.  Pretend she doesn’t exist.  She’ll fade from view as most Veep candidates do until the debate.  Then, ignore her again and focus on McCain.  Be respectful, not dismissive, and be very clear when she screws up that she has screwed up.  I imagine she (or her husband) is going to step in some pretty deep shit at some point.  They aren’t ready for prime time.  Give them enough rope to hang themselves.

There’s never any reason to waste a lot of breath attacking a running mate, even a more “normal” one. You (including the running mates themselves, and including the vice-presidential debate) run against the top of the ticket. And in this particular case you just let her self-destruct on her own, which is highly likely.

So the new Obama ad gets it exactly right IMHO.

I respectfully disagree with this statement. Regardless of ideology, I believe that 2 years as Governor of any state is worth more than 8 years as a Senator from any state. Legislative experience means squat in an Executive position.

So you’re asking McCain to step down and let Palin take over the top of the ticket, right?  After all, he has nothing but legislative experience either, so she’s more qualified to be president than he is.

No, I don’t want Palin to take over. I want all 4 of the current clowns to go away. Two years as Governor is better than 8 years as Senator, BUT STILL INSUFFICIENT. I don’t have any choice this election.

Regardless of ideology, I believe that 2 years as Governor of any state is worth more than 8 years as a Senator from any state. Legislative experience means squat in an Executive position.

That’s just silly. Is two years as mayor of Memphis worth more per se than 8 years as a United States Senator? There are state governors and state governors. If you’re governor of California, you have a relatively decent range of powers; if you’re governor of Texas, executive power is mostly in the hands of the Lt. Gov. Most of all, state governors generally have no exposure to foreign affairs, and their state affairs are largely off the national radar: they generally don’t have to cast the kind of votes that will be used against them.

Now, if you’re an advocate for the kind of 19th century presidency in which Congress has a far more prominent role, you might have a point. Frankly, though, I wouldn’t trust most state governors to run a roadside peach stand.

“up and coming” is a phrase that implies youth and inexperience. It is a very subtle underscore of how big a gap there is between being mayor of a podunk town and the governor of an underpopulated state to VP nominee. And “a good mother”, kind of like “McCain is a patriot”, shows Obama as a benevolent man, more than willing to talk about the good points of people who oppose them. At the same time, neither being a good mother nor a patriot is rare. It isn’t a special qualification for the post. She’s a good mother and Obama’s a good father, just as Obama said that we are all patriots, not just McCain.

Dems don’t need to attack Palin - the press will do it for them. Don’t forget how profoundly misogynist the talking heads are.

In the debate, Biden needs to focus on McCain. Make her defend his positions, demanding as much detail as possible.

In general, I agree with the sentiment that she should be given enough room to hang herself. Best case scenario: she screws up in a big and public way, and becomes a joke. Worst case: she turns out to be a gifted (and I mean savant-like) politician who can pull her own weight in a policy discussion; as long as the Democrats maintain a tight focus on McCain, nobody will notice. Most likely outcome: she slips through the cracks and becomes largely irrelevant.

Heres what the Republicans did:

They thought they needed someone who is an evangelical (Huckabee), a Governor (Romney), young (Jindal), and a woman (Hutchinson).

They chose the only person who had all four, and in the processes ended up with a childish and preposterous choice.

Executive experience isn’t all it’s cracked up to be. Just look at George W. Bush. I mean, he had executive experience. And look at what it got us.

In the debate, Biden needs to focus on McCain. Make her defend his positions, demanding as much detail as possible.

But—I’m repeating myself here—he also has to talk about 18% approval Cheney. For ill, Cheney has redefined the OVP, and whoever becomes Veep gets to deal with that.

How does Palin cope with having to deal with Cheney’s legacy as Veep? Would she take advice from his staff? Does she believe that the VP is a fourth branch of government? And so on. Between McCain and Cheney, there lies Palin, and that’s a pretty uncomfortable place to be sitting in the public spotlight.

Clinton, Clinton, Clinton. As a bonus, it reminds people that the Democratic party isn’t the two guys running for the big office, it’s a large number of talented people; the Republican party has scraped up two marginally mavericky politicians, while the democrats have a huge pool of members committed to Change. It also emphasizes the Palin is, at this point in her career, a joke for this position.

They can just stick with the “four more years of bush” mantra.  Tee hee hee.

There’s experience and there’s potential. Neither presidential candidate has experience running more than his legislative office. Neither was long-standing governor of a large state or mayor of a large city or CEO of a large company. So the experience thing isn’t one either man can run on. But I’ll take a man smarter than I am (believe me, it’s not an easy hurdle) with a proven interest in learning from history and the mistakes of others, a history of valuing women, and a vision for the future over a man of lifelong frustrated ambition and a history of deeply mysogynistic behavior.

As for Palin. I agree with many here who suggest the strong, influential women of the Democratic party make very clear with focus on the reality of women’s lives and issues that there is a lot more to a woman candidate than her vajayjay. Limit Palin’s attractiveness to the far right, which is a much smaller and less-important bunch than they like to think they are. There is no reason for Palin to bolster the center at all. And McCain’s choice of her should allow the Democrats to erode his so-called moderacy. Leave them with the far right. And take the center and the left into a future that is not at all certain. Which is better than the certain future McCain Palin offers.

What strategy? Well for starters, they can avoid phrases like “failed beauty queen.”

The woman is as wrong headed as all get out, her policies are abysmal, her experience on foreign policy nonextent, and her “executive experience” is thin as hell. Attack her on those issues. Don’t allow misogyny to creep into the criticism, because that gives McCain and the GOP an opportunity
to climb all over the Democrats, and use that to claim that the Republicans are the “true” feminists.

Since I’m a hard core conservative, I’ll share my initial thoughts on Sara Bara-cuda to give an “other side” opinion.

When I first heard McCain had picked a woman for the VP spot, I figured his fetish for being a Maverick was just too strong and beat out his common sense. And personally, I’m leery of trusting a woman to go toe to toe with Putin and come out the victor. We all know the time will come soon when we as a nation and people will have to decide to put our lives on the line as we did in ’63 or back down, never to be a super power again.

After 5 minutes of watching her give her speech in Dayton, I was mesmerized. I have never seen anyone with more raw talent to lead and motivate than I saw Palin display. She is simply a natural, a Maverette for a Maverick.

She will take the country by storm. Don’t underestimate her charisma and charm on the women and men of this country. It was obvious she can be as tough as nails if she has to. Obama is yesterday’s news.

And when the phone rings at 3AM, Palin won’t need an entourage of back biting, sycophantic consultants advising her on what decision to make while allowing many more mornings of 3AM to lapse before making a decision.

“hell, she’s not qualified to do Hillary’s laundry” You can bet Hillary is not qualified to do Hillary’s laundry or anyone else’s. She’d have to be given lessons on how to first. With five kids, you can bet Palin has done laundry.

See? Only fringe idiots like JimB think this is a good idea.

So, to recap, a self-professed hard-core conservative likes Sarah Palin, to the point of extravagant praise, because he watched her for 5 minutes.  JimB, admit it, your list of favorite movies is really a list of favorite movie _trailers_.

“Hillary’s primary campaign…”

Uhhh, that might not be the BEST counter-example you could bring up.

Eric-

It was a massive organization that she had to run, and she came close to winning. I think running against Barack Obama in the Democratic Primary is probably tougher than being Governor of Alaska. I’m not endorsing her tactics, mind you, just saying that it could be counted as “executive experience” since people are being so generous with the term.

re JimB: It seems a bit ungracious to attack a “self-professed hard-core conservative” when he’s willing to come in here and give you guys a 1)look at how <u>they</u> think of Palin, and 2) a break from your own echo-chamber, glad-handing, and self-congratulation.

I note that Air America commentator Jim (?) Schultz lets conservatives onto his show and is unfailingly polite.  <u>Know your enemy</u> and all that.

Ben, it certainly was huge experience, but in a binary sense, it was a loser.  That is, Hillary certainly learned a lot of things in that squeeker, and one thing is that the Obama campaign is one really tough nut.  IMO they were simply a little slow to actually perceive HOW tough, disciplined, and ruthless Obama’s organization is (and one thing that convinces me that Obama IS the right choice—his organization didn’t get away from him like Hillary’s did, IMO).

Echoing Eric, I’m really disturbed by how many people on this side of it seem to think this is a laughable choice that shows how desperate McCain is. I think it was politically very smart, and anyone who wants to see Obama in office would do well to check their contempt. She doesn’t have to come across as a genius. Really personable could well be enough. Let us not forget that Bush drew millions of votes by coming off as the guy you’d prefer to have a beer with.

I think the choice is more about shoring up/enthusing the evangelical vote than drawing Hillary voters, but she will be tremendously appealing to essentially apolitical, middle of the road voters who don’t care much about policy and go on their “gut.” And given that they are the only voters who really are up for grabs, that’s not nothing.

It seems like McCain picked her hoping to shore up the right wing and make a play for the hillary voters at the same time.  The right wing is really causing problems for McCain.  They don’t like him, and they are willing to blow his race.  Unfortunately, their efforts are really undercutting McCain’s bid to take the middle from Obama. 

Obama’s goal is to frame McCain as out-of-touch, old and rich (“he owns seven houses; he just doesn’t get it”) and McCain’s goal is to portray Obama as an out-of-touch, liberal lightweight celebrity (“He thinks the economic downturn is impacting working families’ ability to buy arugula at Whole Foods; he’s pen pals with Scarlet Johannsen, he’s vague”).

Obama can’t go hard on Palin for being inexperienced, because it backfires since he is inexperienced as well.  Honestly, their qualifications for the job are about the same.  And Obama undercut his “Change” rhetoric by picking Biden, who is about the worst of old Washington.

The worst thing about the Palin pick is that she really draws attention to McCain’s age,  by making everyone ask “well, what if he dies?” 

But honestly, you have to ask the same question about Obama.  Let’s be realistic, the Democrats were never going to nominate Joe Biden as a presidential candidate, because Joe Biden is pretty much the worst guy the Democrats have. 

No matter how much experience Joe Biden has, he will never, ever be “3 a.m. ready.” You can look at his inspiring biography or whatever; this is a dumb guy.  Maybe that’s the point; to balance the Dems’ law review editor nominee with bottom-of-the-class “but I bet my IQ is higher than yours” Biden, to try to make the ticket more relatable to all the dumb voters. We’re not talking fumbling-the-script dumb like the gaffe-prone Bush.  When you put Joe Biden in front of a microphone, he will extemporize dumbly and at length.  It’s like he’s a jazz musician and his instrument is stupidity.

Presidential campaigns are, unfortunately, all about pandering to the dumb, and maybe that’s the point of putting the moose-hunting hottie and the dumbass blowhard on the tickets.  Hillary ran dumb with her shot-and-a-beer bullshit and her bogus gas-tax holiday.  McCain is running dumb on “drill here, drill now.”  Obama doesn’t exactly run dumb, to his enduring credit, but he runs on rhetoric and bullshit, and is vague about policy.

I’d vastly prefer President Obama to President Palin, but I’d prefer President Palin to President Biden.

amen MikeEss!  And I use Amen in the most secular way.

What strategy? Well for starters, they can avoid phrases like “failed beauty queen.”

Absolutely.  As I’ve said in other threads, she clearly ran a pretty savvy campaign for governor if she was able to move up from being the mayor of 8,000 people to the governor of 670,000 people.  She’s clearly not dumb, no matter how abhorrent I find her policies.

However, she’s a far-right, hard line extremist who thinks that global warming is a myth and Creationism should be taught as science.  With the challenges this country is facing, do we really want someone this inexperienced to be so close to the presidency?

Hell, at least Obama has almost 2 years of experience in handling a large staff and a budget, and he seems to be doing pretty damn well with it.  Palin had a $5 billion surplus in Alaska because of skyrocketing oil prices—how does that prepare her to fix our $410 billion deficit?

However, she’s a far-right, hard line extremist who thinks that global warming is a myth and Creationism should be taught as science.  With the challenges this country is facing, do we really want someone this inexperienced to be so close to the presidency?

Rather, do you want someone who lets ideology determine their facts get so close to the presidency? The Soviet Communists did that and look what it did for them….

However, she’s a far-right, hard line extremist who thinks that global warming is a myth and Creationism should be taught as science.  With the challenges this country is facing, do we really want someone this inexperienced to be so close to the presidency?

This is a little bit trumped up.  You can’t come out on top of a Republican primary in a conservative state while calling creationism out as the stupid fraud that it is.  It sounds like she paid it lip service during an election and then did absolutely nothing about it.  Her father was actually a high school science teacher. 

I think her nomination served in part to placate the conservatives, and now they’ll permit McCain to run to the middle and try to build a majority.  Right now, all polls to the contrary, he’s losing, but the debates will change things.  Descriptions in mainstream press of Palin as a desperation pick are not good for the Republicans. 

I think the VP debates may turn out really well for her, though.  Biden is an attack dog, with no sense of discretion.  Putting him against her could make him look like a bully and an asshole.

I think it was politically very smart, and anyone who wants to see Obama in office would do well to check their contempt.

My understanding is that the polling doesn’t confirm your view. The undecideds have been very turned off by McCain’s pick. The only people enthusiastic about it are the people who were going to vote for him anyway.

The media’s already having a field day chasing down leads in Troopergate. It’s exactly the kind of story they love to chase - political abuses of power that don’t actually mean anything.

McCain’s pick was penny wise, pound foolish. He’s chosen to win a news cycle at the expense of the election.

This is a little bit trumped up.

Not really.

She also hasn’t gotten around to banning state employees from getting benefits for their same-sex partners, but it doesn’t mean she’s gay-friendly in the least.  You may be forgetting that she’s barely been in office 18 months at this point—she’s not even halfway through her term.

Gail Collins in the New York Times suggests this approach ...

If she’s only on the ticket to try to get disaffected Clinton supporters to cross over, it’s a bad choice. Joe Biden may already be practicing his drop-dead line for the vice-presidential debate: “I know Hillary Clinton. Hillary Clinton is a friend of mine, and governor, you’re no Hillary Clinton.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/30/opinion/30collins-.html?_r=1&em;&oref;=slogin

Which is a great line. Of course, the Dems lost that election.

Look at this softball snippet from an upcoming 60 Minutes interview with Obama/Biden

Because continuing to link John McCain and Sarah Palin to George W. Bush’s failed policies is a bad thing?  Huh?

There’s no need for Obama and Biden to come out swinging.  None.  Zero.  Only the hard-core fundies are happy about this choice (and Rush Limbaugh, who’s apparently been pushing for Palin for weeks now).

The novelty is wearing off, and now it’s starting to sink in for the media that this is not, in fact, a joke.  McCain chose someone who two years ago was the mayor of a small town in Alaska to be the next Vice President of the United States.  It really happened.

Once the Republicans started the “Palin has more executive experience than Obama and Biden put together!” attack, I knew it was over because anyone who’s not already committed to McCain is going to remember, “Hey, McCain doesn’t have any executive experience, either!”

Watch and wait.  This is a fiasco in the making.

Plus we can probably make hay from Limbaugh’s support:  “John McCain let a radio personality choose his Vice President.  Why didn’t he call Paris Hilton to get her advice, too?”

Of course, the Dems lost that election.

People keep saying this, and obviously it’s true that Bush beat Dukakis.  But that doesn’t mean Quayle was a smart choice.  Quayle materially hurt the Republican ticket.  It’s just that he didn’t hurt it enough to make up for Dukakis’s terrible, terrible, terrible campaign.

Obviously, the example shows that the VP pick doesn’t matter too much.  It certainly doesn’t show that Palin was a smart pick, or that she’ll help McCain win.  Pending some total Eagletonian disaster, Palin hasn’t cost McCain the election.  But I strongly doubt that she’s going to be much help to him in winning it.  People need to chill out and quick panicking.  Palin has virtually no real appeal outside the far right, and this’ll become clear soon enough (polls are already suggesting this).  She’s a nonentity, and she’s already served her purpose for the McCain campaign - winning Friday’s news cycle.  She’s already been pushed out of the top story slot by Gustav, and she probably won’t re-emerge until the VP debate.

At that, even if Biden comes off like a prick, it’s doubtful that’s going to sway very many votes towards McCain - Quayle coming off as a tool didn’t sway many votes to Dukakis, as you note.

The basic fact is, that the best this ends up for McCain is “not having much ultimate effect at all.”  And it could be a disaster.  If it’s going to be a disaster, that’ll happen on its own.  She’s really beneath worrying about.

I’ve heard some Dems on the news speak to her lack of experience, I think I’d leave that one alone considering that Obama has no real experience himself.  As far as foreign affairs go, she has had to deal with the Russians about fishing rights, I personally don’t think that qualifies her as an expert in foreign policy though.  I think she’s a good choice and will make the race interesting.  Both parties are now equally balanced as far as experience and the lack of go, the difference being Obama has none McCain does.  In the end, I think it comes down to McCain v Obama, Palin and Biden won’t really make a difference.  Both parties from now till November will steer clear of anything that sounds racial or gender negative though.

We can be appalled at the sexism and misogyny that focuses on Palin’s good looks and personal story—as if her significant deficits in foreign policy and a host of issues at the national level can be glossed over to appeal to low-information voters

But they *can* be glossed over.  The millions of American idiots who stagger into the “12 items or less” lane with a cart full of soup cans then ask for a discount because they are buying in bulk DO care more about Gov. Palin’s personal story than her policy stands.

Ah. MikeEss. One of the few intelligent posters here. Glad I could make you laugh. Goodmorning.

“I know Hillary Clinton. Hillary Clinton is a friend of mine, and governor, you’re no Hillary Clinton.”

And Palin says “There you go again senator, plagiarizing someone elses material.”

MikeEss,

Just read your last post about BLS numbers.  Actually I agree.  Look.  People on both sides like to play with the numbers, I get it.  The point being is that some people will take numbers like those and only give partial information, say good numbers from a good month or quater and use that as proof that their guy (which ever side of the aisle one sits on) has a better record when it comes to xyz.  I’m not trying to say Bush is a great President or even a good one for that matter.  The truth though is that unemployment rates tend to change only slightly when it comes to Presidents despite party.  If you go to the BLS site and do some research you’ll find there’s a lot more info than just those average numbers; all the info is pretty detailed. 

Last election cycle (Bush v Kerry) some Reps including myself made a point about Kerry not showing up for work and doing what he was elected to do, vote.  I had a few arguments here in Panda land about it, (most all were parrot arguments).  A few days later I posted an apology and corrected myself.  After doing some extremely boring research, I found that Kerry had one of the best attendace records in the senate and was actually doing what he was elected to do, I may not have agreed with him but the record was clear. 

It’s easy to talk and repeat what we hear, it’s a little harder to actually go beyond the surface and look for ourselves.  You have to do more than just scratch away the first layer though.  Most of what I post here is personal opinion, when I do post facts and figures I try to let people know where I got the information so they can look for thenselves, if they choose not to that’s there problem.  They’d rather be a parrot than form their own opinions.

“Jason, imagine if…”-MikeEss

Ok.  I get your point, really.  Admittedly I haven’t looked into Obama and this supposed sweetheart realestate deal that’s why I don’t post about it, I also haven’t looked into his other scandals so I don’t post about those either (other than the Rev).  I heard here in Panda land and some other outlets about McCain and his supposed scandals, once again I haven’t mentioned it because I haven’t looked into that either.  What I do find is that Obama (if you look at his record) isn’t about changing anything, he’s a party line kinda guy I don’t have a problem with that, what I do have a problem with is people actually thinking he is and when I point out he’s no different folks around here tend to get a little angry.  I get that to though, Obama’s their guy.  I in turn don’t think McCain is that much of a Maverick, he tends to be a party knida guy to.

Now, what experience does Obama bring to the table?  The plain hard truth is none.  When it comes right down to it he’s doing exactly what he needs to do in an attempt to win an election, make promises that he realistically can’t keep and knows he can’t keep.  He’s no different than anyone else who’s run for the office of President.  This election cycle is about two things, voting Bush out, and keeping Dems out of the oval office, nothing more nothing less.

I know you’ve been around politics long enough to know that.  You and I have had conversations last go around, some very good ones I might add, that’s how I know you’re smarter to do more than parrot ideas just to placate Pandagonians.

Now, what experience does Obama bring to the table?

More than a decade in elected office. That’s more than Hillary Clinton and George W (when he entered office.) In fact that’s more than Abraham Lincoln.

Plus, he’s been running a national campaign for the past year, and won the nomination against incredible odds. Not only does that represent executive experience as well, but it means voters have had a chance to assess the “experience” claim, and it’s obvious that they disagree with you.

On the other hand, Palin’s on the ticket not by her own merits, but because John McCain picked her to be there. She didn’t earn the spot, as Obama had to. It was simply given to her two months before the election.

This idea that Obama’s decade of experience somehow doesn’t count is ludicrous, not to mention racist.

What I do find is that Obama (if you look at his record) isn’t about changing anything

Is that statement supposed to mean something? Is it possible that you don’t understand what “change” is supposed to mean?

Here’s my rule of thumb about scandals: If you can point to a non-partisan investigation, it’s probably there and probably big. If you can point only to a partisan investigation, it’s probably there and probably tiny. If you can’t point to any investigation, it’s probably not there.

The Keating Five scandal was investigated by the Senate Ethics Committee, so there was definitely something there. However, we do need to then consider the question of exoneration: otherwise accusation + investigation = proof, which obviously it doesn’t. McCain was cleared of having acted improperly but cited for “poor judgement.”  So, uh, that’s my wrap up. Obviously anyone can make mistakes and still become an excellent president. But claiming McCain is scandal-free is silly.

As for the “Rezko” to-do, nobody’s ever been able to name an investigation into the Obama-Rezko connection. Even in the partisan and nasty (at least as other Republicans keep mentioning) environment of Chicago.  So there’s probably nothing there.

As for Obama representing “Change,” he does. It’s not change from the Democratic party platform. It’s change TO the Democratic party platform. Practically none of it has been represented for the past 30 years. Furthermore, he does represent change in his attitudes and persona, in that he advocates the Democratic platform from the perspective of a youthful venture capitalist,  rather than an older Southern or Rust-Belt populist. That’s why I like him, anyway. Because he brings new arguments and new focus to goals I’ve always believed in, and that have been largely ignored for quite some time.

As for Obama representing “Change,” he does. It’s not change from the Democratic party platform. It’s change TO the Democratic party platform. Practically none of it has been represented for the past 30 years.

That’s a good point.  Jason, the “change” that Obama is promising is not a restructuring of the entire government.  It’s bringing balance back so that all lawmaking is not dominated by Republican issues and Democratic issues get some time, too.  It’s dragging the country from extreme right-wing back to center.

Right now, we’re so skewed to the right that the Democrats who are nominally in charge of the Senate can’t get any bills passed unless they have 60 votes, because the Republicans are throwing their weight around and filibustering everything that comes up.  The voters gave control of the Senate to the Democrats but the Republicans refuse to give up their grip and insist that the Democrats give in to what THEY want to get anything passed.

Personally, I’m tired of the Republicans acting like a five-year-old who’s been denied a cookie when even the smallest part of their agenda is challenged, and I’m tired of Democrats handing them cookie after cookie in the hope that they’ll finally be satisfied.  What we need is for Democrats to stand up and say, “No, you can’t have everything you want just because you scream the loudest.”

That’s the change Obama is promising, and many of us think it’s LONG overdue.

Watching right wingers trying to figure out what sexism is is almost cute. Kind of like watching a chimp try to play the piano.

Y’all are trying to make it sound like she’s just a nobody.  Well, “nobody” doesn’t get elected governor of a state, especially by unseating the incumbent governor in the primary and then defeating a former governor in the general election.

There are a couple points of yours with which I would differ.

#1. Hillary Clinton has been a major player in American politics since 1992. Her experience and competence was one of the selling points of the very first Clinton presidential campaign.

#2. Nobody’s heard of Palin. She’s not a nobody, but she’s not a somebody either. Her lack of interest in the primaries etc. indicate that SHE, at least, was more interested in local politics until her nomination. So no, she doesn’t have national power or influence yet. At all.

#3. She doesn’t represent the interests of women. She doesn’t represent their interest in reproductive and sexual freedom, equal pay for equal work, the social safety net, or, ultimately, even in rebuilding the economy to the degree that it can sustain the restrictive gender roles she DOES support. However, because of MSM and low-info misunderstandings, she creates the impression of concern with female issues. That’s why I agree with Nikouken. Nothing will be more devastating to her potential draw on the middle than a series of Clinton ads saying “She doesn’t believe what I believe. She doesn’t support women like me, like you, or like the women in your life.”

#4. If you consider her solely as an sop to Evangelicals, honestly she’s part of the old guard of them, despite her youth. She doesn’t care about social justice or environmental justice or economic justice. She’s only in-line with GLBT rights and abortion, and that’s going to cut it less and less.

Sarah Palin has spent four years on a city council, six years as a mayor,

“City” council is a bit of a stretch, don’t you think, in a village of 6000 people? I mean you’ve just listed ten years of bush-league politics that can’t possibly have prepared her for national office.

1½ years as governor

So, 1.5 years of experience, total.

Y’all are trying to make it sound like she’s just a nobody.

Because in terms of national politics, and national issues, that’s precisely what she is. She only got her passport last year. Has she ever in her life been to Washington DC? She’s met John McCain all of once. She has absolutely zero opinions on record on any foreign policy issue. A month ago she didn’t know what John McCain’s plain for Iraq was.

She wants someone to tell her what the vice-president does. Well, one thing the VP does is act as president pro temp of the Senate, and guess what? She has zero experience as a lawmaker or legislator. None whatsoever.

Yeah, we want to go there with the experience argument. Obama has a decade of experience in elected office. As a State Senator he represented a larger population than the entire state of Alaska. Palin has absolutely no relevant experience. She is a nobody. Her ten minutes as governor have been so abysmal that even the Republican president of the State Senate thinks she’s a crappy pick for VP. She was the target of an aborted recall attempt as mayor, too.

BTW, the “Mayor” of Wasilia is a figurehead who smiles, cuts ribbons, casts tie breaking votes and presides over the village council.

That is “executive experience”? Please. Anyone could do that.

Dana, would the County Executive of Cook County, Illinois be prepared to be Vice President?

She also left her home town $20 million in debt.

As a city council member, she does have legislative experience.

Oh, for god’s sake you’re an idiot. What are you going to trump next? Her experience on the PTA?

The only thing the mayor does in a town that small is cut ribbons. The council does even less. They probably didn’t even follow parliamentary procedure. Only a great Kool-aid drinker, after flogging the lies about Obama’s “lack of experience” for months, would turn around and embrace Palin’s bush-league political history as “ready for the Presidency.” Ludicrous. By any objective measure Obama’s light-years more qualified for office than Palin is, not the least of which because he was selected by voters to do just that, while Palin had to have her shot handed to her by a man.

Have Barack Obama of Joe Biden ever had to prepare a government (local, state or federal) budget?

Budgets are kind of what Congress does, actually. Power of the purse, and all.

Have Barack Obama or Joe Biden ever had to manage anything bigger than their personal staffs?

Sure. National campaigns for President of the United States, for one thing. Obama chairs several Senate committees, as well.

Has Sarah Palin ever had to act on behalf of the interests of as many as a million people? Nope. But Obama and Biden both have.

Y’all are trying to present her as a nobody because she disagrees with you on some major issues.

She’s a nobody because nobody had even heard of her before last week. She’s a nobody because she knows nothing about national issues. She’s a nobody because she’s only even had a passport for two years. She’s a nobody because, as far as anybody has been able to tell, she’s never even been to Washington DC.

She’s “Mr Smith Goes to Washington”, except without all the experience. We’re going to have a field day with just the GOP objections to her selection as recent as a month ago, alone.

Look, if he had picked Mike Huckabee I sure as hell disagree with him on a lot of issues but being Governor for 11 of Arkansas probably qualifies him for President, since that worked fined for Bill Clinton.

er , “worked fine”.

Not if he’s coached—and Obama ain’t gonna send him out uncoached—to have the scent of Cheney in his nostrils. That’s his target. If Palin is forced to defend Cheney, she looks like she’s not fit to tie his extra-wide-fitting shoes. If she doesn’t, then she betrays the conservative orthodoxy she was meant to be endorsing.

That’s the other good thing about Palin; that she is immediately, visibly not Dick Cheney.  As for Biden, he’s been in the Senate for a long time, and he’s still shooting his mouth off.  Maybe he can discipline himself for a campaign. Maybe not.

Palin’s experience is kind of a joke.  I’ve seen city council meetings in small towns and it’s preposterous to argue that being on one of those is an experience that qualifies on for the presidency.

That said, experience as a state legislator is not really in the same ballpark either.  Being a governor of a state is probably the closest applicable experience, but Palin’s state is has fewer people in it than many American cities, and she has only been governor for a little over a year. 

I am perfectly comfortable saying I am uncomfortable with President Palin.  But I don’t think John McCain is about to die, and I would be much more uncomfortable with a President Biden.

My condo is bigger than Wasilla City Hall. Wow.

She’s not a nobody. She ran a savvy campaign and won a seriously contested election.  The first time Obama did that was in the presidential primary. 

Obama doesn’t have a lot of experience either. Jimmy Carter had served one term as governor.  Bush’s Texas governorship was pretty insubstantial; it’s not a powerful executive office. Gerald Ford was, you know, Gerald Ford.

Quayle was also insubstantial.  So was Mondale. Dick Cheney emerged out of the shadows like some kind of vampire. 

And let’s face it.  Joe Biden is powerful only because of the Washington habit of deferring to seniority. Nobody really wants him to be president.

Honestly, whichever of these two presidential candidates wins, I hope he has a long and healthy life.  Because the bottom half of both tickets is weak.

All I can say is that like it or not….Palin changes the game BIG TIME. I do have my issues with her and so do a lot of people. IF she comes off really well in the debate then I give McCain a much beter than 50/50 chance of winning. By her initial stage appearance, she made a very good impression…and seemed very relaxed. If she stands up to biden (and I think she will) the ObamaNAtion should be scared. The thing that amazes me is that in a year that a dem should be up like 20 points in a election…for it to be a dead heat says a lot about the forces for “change”. This country sees itself as mostly conservative to very conservative by about 60% I believe according to a new poll.

This is getting good, people might actually WATCH the VP debate!

Oh, Casp, Casp, Casp.

The country might SEE itself as conservative by 60%, according to whatever poll. But it supports liberal policies by about the same margin. You’ve branded “liberalism” as evil, which shifts elections. But it doesn’t shift views.

More importantly, the reason McCain won the Republican primary was because he was the single candidate LEAST associated with the failed Republican government of Bush et. al. And finally, when Obama’s been consistently winning the popular vote (with the largest margin in a decade) and the electoral vote (with a far larger margin) for months, in just about every poll; when McCain’s negative ads and positive ads and spin and flip flops and surprise VP picks haven’t been able to shake that lead; when the Democratic party nominated a speaker even Buchanan was forced to applaud; when the financial gap between the candidates is as big as the gap between who benefits under their respective tax plans; when the Democratic party is willing to hold its principles but criticize freely; when McCain nominates someone he DOESN’T KNOW as a VP to win a newscycle—

In what sense does the “Why can’t Obama win?” concerntrollism hold?

I think the new Obama ad was spot on, politically speaking.  The sad thing is, they probably had this ready to go long before the announcement - imagine Romney in the clip and the ad works just as well, because, well, it’s true.  It didn’t matter who McCain picked; all the choices had to be vetted members of the same tired political system that Bush oversaw.  Palin is just more insignificant than expected.

After tooling around different sites, I’ve seen two allegations that could be used to knock Palin should the abortion issue come up in the debates: she vetoed additional funding for Special Ed and thinks that we should get rid of tax breaks for corporations that provide health insurance to their employees and their families.

The first time Obama did that was in the presidential primary.

Not true, actually. His senate race against Jack Ryan was pretty hotly contested, and had been a GOP stronghold, but he was winning when Ryan dropped out. Not only that but Obama had to work against about a dozen other Dem contenders in the race’s primary, he was hardly the shoe-in candidate.

Obama doesn’t have a lot of experience either.

Aside from a decade of service in elected office, representing millions of people. The idea that Obama is “inexperienced” is a right-wing delusion based on devaluing whatever experience the black candidate has, and it’s beginning to seem pretty racist. If you think Obama lacks experience one of two things is true - you don’t know the first thing about his background, or there’s no way a black candidate could ever be “experienced” enough for you.

The thing that amazes me is that in a year that a dem should be up like 20 points in a election…for it to be a dead heat says a lot about the forces for “change”.

“Dead heat” is a bit of a stretch. Myy understanding is that there has yet to be a poll showing a McCain electoral college victory; even if you give him the swing states Obama wins by about 20 votes. Obama’s still ahead by a greater margin than decided any of the last 3 presidental elections.

If everyone is so sure this Election is over then why not just sit back with the popcorn. Kerry had a 10 point lead, I believe, coming out of the Convention in 04. The fact is that the election is very close. But for a group that is so so sure of the Obama sweep, you sure are doing everything possible to smear Palin. If she is as big of a joke as you say,dont bother. It is undeniable that the election is certainly winnable either way. the only thing that appears to be happening is that Obama’s momentum has stopped and McCain is closing. If Obama loses this Im sure he will regret putting Hillary on the ticket. I knew in my heart that if he picked her as VP. it was over. I think he gambled wrong.

I can still never understand why people speak of the ineptness of Government then demand MORE of it. (which Obama would surely bring..and to a pretty large degree…mCCain too)I would trust people to do whats best for them. Give them back their money!

Aside from a decade of service in elected office, representing millions of people. The idea that Obama is “inexperienced” is a right-wing delusion based on devaluing whatever experience the black candidate has, and it’s beginning to seem pretty racist. If you think Obama lacks experience one of two things is true - you don’t know the first thing about his background, or there’s no way a black candidate could ever be “experienced” enough for you.

That’s insane.  He was a state legislator for eight years, and he has served four years of a Senate term, and spent half of it running for president. 

Personally, I think his record in public office is similar to Palin’s on the experience point.

Obama’s edge in qualifications is that he has a more prestigious education and he wrote a couple of books.

I would trust people to do whats best for them. Give them back their money!

I trust people to do what’s best for them (that is, best for their nearsightedly short-term interests, to the best of their exceedingly limited ability to calculate “what’s best,”) too. What I don’t trust them to do is what’s best for others. To oversimplify grossly: if we give the rich back all their money, they will just use it to buy a gold-plated poor-poking stick.

I can still never understand why people speak of the ineptness of Government then demand MORE of it.

Did I ever say “Government” is inept? This government is, due in large part to the deliberate privatization it has undergone under Bush. Other governments aren’t. I want Obama cause he’ll run a non-inept, non-crippled, reasonably-sized one. That’s good news for everyone except, like, the top 1% of the economic ladder, and bad news for them only in a very trivial, selfish sense.

He was a state legislator for eight years

As a state legislator he represented more people than the entire population of Alaska.

I’m sorry, but if you think that’s insignificant, you’re a flat-out racist. Or an idiot.

Personally, I think his record in public office is similar to Palin’s on the experience point.

Only because you’re either an idiot or a racist. There’s absolutely no way that the experience point is comparable, here.

Obama’s edge in qualifications is that he has a more prestigious education and he wrote a couple of books.

President of the Harvard Law Review, served on the Boards of Directors of three different organizations for years.

Again, you either don’t know about these things because you’re too dumb to look it up, or you’re discounting these accomplishments because they don’t count when black people do them.

After reading the Alaska Constitution and the City Charter of Wasilla, I’m pretty confident even I could do both (the oil revenue helps make it pretty easy).

Er, run both.

I have to say, I’m really starting to enjoy the whole “But Palin was the mayor of a town of 6,000 people, which makes her just as qualified as Obama!” thing.  Sure, it sounds great on paper that she was a mayor and then a governor, but when you actually look at the size of the population she was administering, it’s clear why presenting her as being ready to help run a country of 300 million is laughable.  Delaware is the second-smallest state in the Union, and yet they still have 200,000 more people than Alaska does.

Palin doesn’t get extra points because her state has more square acreage.  The fact remains that her highest level of experience was working with a homogeneous population of 670,000 people.  As others have mentioned, Obama represented more people than that as a state legislature—as a US Senator, he co-represents 12 million people.

You can sit and pretend that representing 670,000 people and representing 12,000,000 people is exactly the same, but you’re going to look quite the idiot for doing so.

Legislator.  Not legislature.  Geez, I type poorly today.

Hell, I was a manager in a company that had more employees in one god-damn building than the population of Wasilla.

Maybe I should be VP!

It may be true that Senator Obama co-represents 12,000,000 people, but he is actually responsible for nothing

That’s absurd, Dana. Surely you realize that. “Responsible for nothing”?

Their entire function is one of building consensus or compromise.

Not like that’s important to the Presidency.

One of the chief criticisms against Palin is troopergate. Now, the key isn’t “she fired Monegan not firing her ex-brother-in-law.” The key is, she’s shown an temperament that demonstrates she doesn’t understand executive duty.

When the bureaucracy is doing stuff about internal affairs, you *leave it alone*. You let it do its job.The most that’s appropriate in these circumstances is a note to say “If you don’t fire this guy, you’d better come to my office and show me that no one gets fired over these issues”. (And even that’s stepping over the line, but you can play games with that kind of thing. “I happen to know trooper Wooten, and if Monegan goes easy on people like Wooten, then Monegan isn’t the right person for the job…”)

You don’t even create an appearance that you’ll use the government to carry out your vengeance. That’s the kind of thing we saw under Nixon, and are almost certainly seeing under Bush. This, more than anything is, is what’s frightening about a third Bush term… that the government will continue to be used as a weapon to batter those who disagree.

Now, it’s not proven that she explicitly fired Monegan. But it’s proven that she got far too personally involved in the decision-making process. You can’t trust a person like that with the power of the Justice Department.