Vice-President Picks

Remove all ads!

I'd love to see some new polling data. I'm expecting McCain to be in the lead now, and depending on what we find out about Palin, and how she handles the next few weeks, that lead may increase (she could also bring the whole thing down if she does really badly of course, but it seems unlikely).

I think that comment from the Dem party guy was pretty silly, and I think Obama's was much better. Something like 'I disagree with her policies, but she will bring interest to the campaign', which has the right tone - respectful but not overly interested.

By the way, the overall feel from the Republicans is one of slight surprise. They're not quite sure about this either. The statement that "She has more executive experience than McCain, Obama and Biden put together" that is popping up on forums might be technically true, but come on. She was a mayor of what in any other country would be called a village, not a city! How the hell does that count as "executive experience"? Clint Eastwood, Jerry Springer and Sonny Bono were all mayors - anyone want to comment on how they have more executive experience than Obama, McCain and Biden? As I said, tecnically true, but come on!

Having said all that, she seems to be doing really well as governer of Alaska, and is not entirely in the claws of the GOP either...

 

I think you are getting carried away. Obama may not have as much experience as McCain does, but he has a fair bit more than Palin. Whether they are lionized by the media is a different story (I think McCain has benefited from the media's good graces a few times himself). Ronald Reagan was, from what I know, a "media star" but many people swear by him. In general, I would not be surprised if the comments from the Obama campaign were either personal opinions or attempts to discredit the "Obama lacks experience" attack line.

Besides, wasn't being "fresh" and not a "Washington insider" a plus at some point? I'd say a lot of people chose Obama because he was new. That certainly means that Palin, if she and her campaign play her cards right, can get McCain a few votes. I'm thinking it won't be so easy, though.

 

Polls at this point are completey meaningless; in October they will mean almost everything. The "liberal" media just adores Palin to no end and they have been falling all over themselves with their silliness: "Oh, she's just so warm and engaging; she's so energetic and fun. And she's a mother of 5 children." Obviously we have some new "qualifications" for running the country.

Or, we could be seeing something else, something that I've been ranting about since the demise of Hillary as a presidential candidate: Women are not expected to be judged by the same standard as men candidates. We did not hear the same things about Biden. In fact, we heard about what a great pick he was for VP because of his experience, and his knowledge and his ability in congress and in foreign affairs. Could you imagine: "Oh, Biden. He's so warm and engaging, and he's so energetic and he's a great golfer and all-around nice guy - a true family guy. If everyone was ranting about Hillary as being so warm and engaging and "what-a-mom," she would probably be the presidential candidate instead of Obama. In other words, Hill is everything that Sara is not. When are people going to get serious?

And there you have it:

http://www.cagle.com/news/McCainPalin/main.asp

 

She only had one child? I am more surprised that no one drew the family parallel with Pelosi, who iirc also has a large family.

Polls and jokes aside, I think Obama's pick for a VP is better than McCain's. Obama was attacked on the basis of not having that much experience, and he picked a guy who has more than enough - as well as afaik skill in debating and thick enough hide to take some of the fire. Unless people consider it a sort of a loss of his "change" slogan, I don't think Biden's candidacy presents any risks in itself.

We have yet to see how Pelin does - she seems to have made a few misstatements so far (the "what does a VP do" was a bit weird, it depends to be seen if her position change on the "bridge to nowhere" earmark issue is pursued hard enough), but she might be cut some slack in the first few days. It remains to be seen whether her choice as a VP will impact the effectiveness of McCain's attacks on Obama as being "celebrity" and inexperienced. Yes, she is only the VP and not the presidential nominee, but she is McCain's own pick for his most important aide/deputy.

 

We still don't know a lot about Gov. Palin, but she was asked how she felt about the words "under God" in the Pledge Of Allegiance. She replied--I paraphrase--"If it was good enough for the Founding Fathers, it's good enough for me." The Pledge was, of course, composed in the 1890's (by a Socialist); the phrase "under God" was added in the 1950's. So she does seem to be a fit representative for the general ignorance of her party.

 

From the polling taken this weekend, Obama is up 49%-43%. If it were November 2nd instead of September 2nd, I'd find that data meaningful.

When I first heard Sarah Palin had been picked, my first reaction was "Who the heck is Sarah Palin?" I honestly had never heard of her before Friday. I find the pick strange for many of the reasons DR stated. How can a candidate who has based his entire candidacy on being the more experienced leader, pick a VP that has so little experience? I got a kick out of a FOX news analyst who actually said Palin has TONS of foreign policy experience. Just look at a map! See how close Alaska is to Russia! (I'm serious here - this was an actual comment, and the guy wasn't kidding.)

I also don't see his pick as an attempt to pick up very many HRC supporters. Palin is nearly the polar opposite on the issues as HRC. So the only way Palin will pick up votes for McCain is for people that will vote exclusively on the basis of gender. While I'm sure there are a few of such people out there, I cannot imagine there are many.

I will be very interested to see what new campaign message McCain rolls out this week. Clearly, he cannot continue to beat the inexperienced celebrity drum with his VP pick. Unless McCain's closest advisors were in the dark about the pick, which I find unlikely, there will be a new message coming out this week. Perhaps this pick will make more sense come Thursday...

 

I agree. These revelations don't reflect nearly as poorly on Palin as they do on McCain. This was a phenomenally reckless choice, and really does not bode well for his campaign. The question on everyone's mind today should be "now that the base is fired up, can they beat Obama?" Instead it's "Good god...did the even vett her?" Evidently, McCain's top choices were Tom Ridge and Joe Leiberman, and both were deemed unacceptable because, among other things, they were pro-choice. Palin was red meat to the base, and clearly a hasty, last-minute decision, since McCain's vetting team didn't even arrive in Alaska to vett her until...wait for it...the day before she was chosen. So much for Maverickiness, superior judgement and "putting the country first." This was cynical, sloppy and unserious. It doesn't even matter how bright she is and what good ideas she may have - her lack of experience and the pre-packaged scandals she comes with will overshadow that.

I think it will sink in over the next few weeks, even to the base conservatives who were initially pleased at her appointment due to her conservative bona fides, just what an awful, sloppy mistake this was for McCain. This was a gift to Obama and, IMO, barring any major shenanigans on the part of the Obama campaign, has all but guaranteed a victory for the Democrats. McCain really needed to hit one out of the park with his pick, and I don't think anyone can argue with a straight face that he didn't blow this.

 

DR, I don't agree.

I don't think anyone can determine whether or not Palin is a good choice until we actually hear from her. Granted, the Pledge thing was hilarious (almost worthy of a Quayle or Berra award).

As far as family values is concerned ... just how does having a pregnant daughter minimize the importance of family values? IMO, it actually strengthens the case for family values, depending how you handle it. In the case of Bristol Palin, her parents have supported her decision to have and keep the baby. The Palin's have continued to support their daughter emotionally and financially. They are hopeful the young couple will get married. Two things that would have questioned the family values issue would have been an abortion or if Bristol had been kicked out of the house (I've seen that before).

I actually think the example of how the Palins have responded to Bristol's pregnancy is an excellent example of how families should respond when confronted with unexpected issues -- with love and mutual support. I can't think of a better example of family values in action.

 

The Evangelicals will be delighted because at 17 she decided NOT to get an abortion. If she's already 5 months pregnant, that would mean that she's probably still in high school (I'm guessing), but that would make her the statistical "unwed, pregnant high school teen" that is at the center of the abortion debate. Many teens opt for the trauma of an abortion rather than the trauma and stigma of being a high school mother. The Evangleical talking point will certainly be about abortion. Now if this was the Clinton's daughter the Evangleical debate would be unmericful regarding sexual morals....Ah, T2 just beat me to it.

 

But my point is that what she has to say is going to be overshadowed by her scandals, her minimal experience, she and her husband being former members of the Alaskan Independence Party (which aims to secede from the United States - not what I'd call patriotic), lawyering-up after the VP announcement in the midst of her own "Troopergate" scandal, and now the pregnancy of her teenage daughter which they initially (but understandably) tried to cover up. When you select a running mate, you spend the entire following week guns blazing and tearing into your opponent, getting the most out of the announcement and momentum. The McCain camp will spend this entire week (and probably longer) doing damage control. That Sarah Palin may have incredibly impressive things to say is, at this point, irrelevant in comparison.

And, if the McCain campaign had actually vetted her seriously, they wouldn't be in this situation at all. This is the first major decision McCain has made "as executive." I can't imagine, if you really think it through, that you can honestly consider this an example of McCain's superior judgment. This honestly doesn't strike you as rash and overly-risky, knowing what we know now about her?

When your unwed teenage daughter is pregnant, and you're already a mother of five (one of whom had Downs Syndrome, an immense challenge by itself), and you are asked in the midst of all this to engage in a Presidential campaign and you accept on one day's notice instead of turning it down, all the while considering the intense scrutiny your family - particularly said teenage daughter - will now receive by the world as a result and you still decide to run for Vice President anyway, then you aren't putting your family first. You're putting politics and ambition first.

I agree with you that they, as a family, are handling the situation the right way and are being very supportive. But again, circumstances have made that kind of irrelevant. I think most mothers in America would agree that Sarah Palin has bigger fish to fry right now than running for Vice President, and I can't imagine Bristol Palin is going to look back fondly in 20 years at her mother's decision to make her teenage, out-of-wedlock pregnancy the event that introduces her to the world, do you? Some would say the most important duty of being a mother is protecting your children. This ain't it.

 

I actually feel sorry for Bristol. While less of a stigma today than it has been in generations past, getting pregnant in high school is still very embarrassing, and much more so for the teenaged mother than the teenaged father. (And yes, I concede that there's a double standard there too.) While it's never an easy situation to deal with, most teenage mothers don't have their story broadcast for the entire country - or actually the world - to see. That has to make what would be a very trying experience (even with the absence of these extenuating circumstances) for this young woman all the more difficult.

Another thing I saw today on FOX also bothered me. The commentator said that Bristol can be held up as a pillar of the pro-life side of the debate. That seems a little dishonest to me. Most people who are pro-choice actually chose to have the baby when they get pregnant - like my wife and I. This commentator seemed to be saying the pro-choice is the same thing as being pro-abortion.

The one point on which I disagree with DR is when he states that McCain likely was not aware that Palin's teenage daughter was pregnant when he announced her as his VP. Even if you're from some podunk town of 7,000 in the backwoods of Alaska, when the governor's teenage daughter gets pregant it is going to become public knowledge eventually. While it may not have been publicly known YET, she is going to have a baby in four months or so, and I cannot help but feel that she would not have mentioned anything about it when asked to become the VP.

Finally, I think DR is complying to the picture that Chandos paints. That as a woman, she is being held to a different political standard than men are. You keep using the word mother - as in "mother of five", "most mothers in America" and "the most important duty of being a mother". It should be pointed out that Sarah Palin's husband is a stay-at-home father. If the roles were reversed, and it was the father who was running for VP while the mother was the one staying home, I don't think anyone would say the father was being overly ambitious, or failing to meet his duties as a father.

I like you and all DR, and we tend to agree on most points, but I'm just sayin...

 

Chandos -- that's because "liberal" is another word for "amoral heathen" in some languages. Bad girls get pregnant because they lack morals. Good girls get pregnant because they made a mistake. I've heard it all before.

DR -- Parenting is a team effort. Does it really matter which member of the team is the breadwinner and which member of the team is home? Or, in the Bruno's case, that both parents are breadwinners? I think the religious right may believe your arguments, but their not going to change sides. (Edit: Aldeth said it better.)

The real question is whether or not the undecided Hilary supporters agree with the arguments you presented -- and I don't think they will. Another group I don't believe will condemn Palin is the independant middle. McCain already has the right-wing support (they'll never vote for Obama) if Palin can bring over some of Hilary's supporters and swing some of the independant vote then it was a good decision. These are the only two groups that really matter to the McCain campaign at this time -- I think those groups will only make up their mind after hearing Palin.

 

I'd think the Hillary supporters would oppose Palin because she's, y'know, pro-life and pro-ID and belongs to this church.

You don't need to hear her speak to understand that she's diametrically opposed to pretty much everything Clinton stands for (er, except maybe ambition and power. I guess they both are on board with those). So unless what the Clinton supporters liked most about her was her plumbing, they shouldn't be willing to back Palin.

Which doesn't mean they won't, of course.

For myself, I'm grateful to the GOP; it was more than a little unlikely I'd vote for McCain. This selection guarantees I won't. Not so much because Palin's a hardcore Christian right type, but because her selection tells me everything I need to know about what the McCain presidency will look like.

Four years of pandering to the religious lunatics? No, thanks anyway.

So I guess I don't need to pay attention to political news for the next few months. Awesome.

 

Hold up, I never said McCain didn't know. I said they didn't mention it. Had they introduced it as part of her "family profile" on the first day, it likely would not have been an issue. It was the whole "let's not say anything and hope no one notices" part that got them in trouble.

First off, I am no sexist. I am not saying she can't or should not be in the campaign based on her family situation. I am not judging her or her abilities, and I agree with both of you that parents share the load. Having said that, Palin is being marketed by the McCain campaign as the bionic "hockey mom," so they are inviting questions about her judgment and parenting priorities. My comments on this front are purely in terms of political strategy.

The three of us are aware that Mr. Palin is a stay-at-home Dad. But the three of us are political junkies, or at the very least do not qualify as average voters, who are very low-information. We are not typical. Do you think "Scott Palin stay-at-home Dad" is going to be a soundbite that will surface through the other noise of the campaign? The three of us are also men, and men often view parenting through very different eyes than women do. While I agree with both of you that parents share the load, most parents will look at this and see Sarah Palin sacrificing her role as a mother to her husband in order to be Vice President. Yes, it is common for one parent to be the homemaker while the other is the breadwinner...when they have to. Few would argue that Sarah Palin needs to be Vice President in order to provide for her family. Many families in this country also sacrifice their highly-demanding personal ambitions to focus on their children - another virtue espoused by the "family values" crowd. Given her situation, "I'm honored, but I must respectfully decline - my family needs me now" would have struck me as the truly "family values first" answer to this question.

I don't see this development playing well with mothers who put mothering first, and few will ever get the message that Mr. Palin is a stay-at-home Dad. Many women will see this as "your daughter and disabled son need you now. What the hell are you doing? How can you take on so much?" I am NOT saying they won't change their vote to McCain. But this couldn't have helped much.

Why would the McCain campaign willingly handicap themselves so much by picking Palin? Why do they seem so unprepared to answer questions regarding her background, and the many issues she comes pre-packaged with? When you choose a vice president, you don't typically Fed-Ex your opponent a big box of ammunition against you, you pick the safest, strongest candidate you can. This says one of two things to me: either McCain really wanted Palin but didn't give much thought to her negatives, or he picked her at the last minute and is now dealing with problems he didn't foresee and obviously didn't prepare for. They invited this distraction.

All the polling I've seen on the subject indicates that Republicans view the Palin pick very positively (she's a believer), Independents view it negatively (she's a gimmick and a gamble), and Democrats are unchanged in their opinion of McCain, with less than 10% of Hillary supporters saying this pick is "more likely" to make them vote McCain. His gamble, so far, seems to have backfired, if the national polls are any indication. Obama is now ahead of McCain by a healthy margin nationally.

Aldeth, you're my friend, I respect you immensely and we're both grown-ups (ditto for T2). You don't have to apologize for disagreeing with me. I can be and am often wrong, and I'm ok with that. I'd rather be honest all the time than right half the time.

 

Hmmm.... That's still no good for the McCain campaign. You're basically saying they may not have been surprised - it is just as plausible that they were simply incompetent.

And I certainly wasn't saying that you were (although I can see where it was implied - I didn't mean to). I'm just saying that earlier in this thread, Chandos postulated that women are held to different political standards than men. If you view of the typical voter is correct, this would support Chandos' point. If the roles were reversed, I feel that the father would be commended for "acting in the best interests of his family" in running as VP, whereas with the mother, it is questioned if she is being derelict in her mothering duties. While many people agree that parents should "share the load", all too often people revert to the stereotypical gender roles - that it's the mom's job to do all the caring and nuturing and the dad's job to provide for the family. And yeah - that's really sexist - but that doesn't mean that's not how a lot of people look at things.

I hope it doesn't come to that. How the heck can you support HRC, and then support a pro-life, drill in ANWR, lifetime member of the NRA, ID/Creationist? As AMaster says, unless you vote purely on the basis of gender such a vote makes no sense. I hope for their votes regardless of how they come to their decision, but I'd hope that they wouldn't need to ask "Is she a good mom?" rather than asking does she actually agree with Hillary on ANY issue?

I'm with you there - I already admitted that I don't completely understand the pick.

 

One little item here: there are a huge number of people who just vote one issue. Be it the environment, abortion, gun control, or appearance. Many historians believe Kennedy won because of the huge number of women voters who "liked the way he looked." Just as Clinton had supporters from both sides of the aisle, Palin will get votes just for being a woman.

I lied, a second item.... I think the key positive Palin brings is her stance against corruption. She's a reformer who has battled corruption in the oil companies and won. She appears willing to go after political corruption at any level -- I think that's a big deal to many voters.

 

I don't think he even knew who she was. The problem for Mac is that he wanted Joe Leiberman (I think), his good friend and Senate pal, but the RNC would not stand for it and threatened a war at the convention if he did. Again, I think she was forced on Mac by the RNC. I heard about Leiberman on MSNBC by the talking heads, but have not been able to find an internet link. I know how "fussy" we all are about such claims....

 

It's not the VP Candidate that's pregnant, but her daughter that's pregnant. I think the real test of Family Values is how they handle it when the ideal is not met and "reality" happens.