This pick was impossibly risky. I believe I understand the thought process behind it, but there were so many things that had to break McCain's way for this gambit to be successful that the odds became collectively minuscule.
This trooper gate thing is a problem. If you'd like more background, check out TPM Media, which has been all over this story. It appears certain that her staff pressured this Commissioner to fire her sister's ex-husband, and likely that it was with her knowledge and participation. As this has been news since the moment she was announced, the McCain campaign knew as well. Did they also know she had to be deposed because of a formal legislative investigation sometimes between now and the general election? It's almost inconceivable that they didn't know that as well. So, what made this risk (that the scandal would get some real legs and spiral out of control) acceptable? In other words, what was the best case scenario? The only answer I can think of (and I'm not trying to be unserious) is that 1) she was completely innocent and the investigation amounted to a political witch hunt and that 2) nobody (including the media) would care. Since they presumably had all the information that's out there now (god help them if they didn't) it's not unfair to state that they had absolutely no reason to believe that either of those conditions would be met.
There aren't enough as-yet-undecideds that will vote for a Presidential ticket because one of the VPs is a woman. All of the die-hard Hillary Clinton supporters are already either 1) voting for Obama with varying levels of enthusiasm (which is the vast majority) or 2) so pissed off they're staying home or voting for John McCain.
Palin's addition won't make the stay at home's come out -- they're staying at home because they can't bear to pull the lever for anyone but Hillary, not because they're waiting for McCain to impress them. And, of course, he already had the vindictive, dissatified former Clinton vote.
There was no reason to believe that the addition of Palin would bring additional former Clinton supporters on board.
McCain has now illustrated why judgement and character are more important than experience, which is probably fatal.
Obama has always rejected the experience argument, refusing really to even engage in that debate. I'm sure he avoided this for obvious political purposes, but I think he did it at least in part because he personally believed that he was a more thoughtful and better decision-maker than John McCain and would correspondingly make a better president.
Sarah Palin shows us why experience can't simply be reduced to one variable, time in government. Josh Marshall expressed best the stupidity of comparing Barack Obama's experience to that of Palin's:
When asked about criticisms of Sarah Palin's readiness to serve as president, McCain responded: "If they want to go down that route, in all candor, she has far, far more experience than Senator Obama does."
Set aside the bravado. Can McCain possibly believe that? And if he does, what are we supposed to think of his own fitness to serve? Sen. Obama is certainly new on the national scene. But he's serving his fourth year in the US senate. He's run a successful national primary campaign. He's deeply versed on all the relevant policy issues. Palin has been the governor of one of the smallest states in the country (by pop.) for 18 months. As recently as 2006, she said she hadn't focused enough on Iraq to have an opinion one way or another about the surge. Even now, her off-hand comments about Iraq are completely at odds with Sen. McCain's.
If this argument sticks (and I think there's an excellent chance that it will) it reinforces the argument that McCain has to desperately avoid: that Obama is special. Palin and Obama have been governing for similar amounts of time and just look how much more capable a leader he seems like he'll be. Forgetting ideologues on either side, swing voters will make this connection when they think, "I wasn't sure whether or not Obama was too inexperienced until I compared him to her (a comparison McCain camp is encouraging by the way) and understood what inexperience looks like. Now I'm sold on Obama."
McCain must have thought that either 1) Obama is smoke and mirrors; he has no ownership of change, the youth-vote, liberalism or Progressivism, or that 2) Palin was in the Obama mold; young, dynamic, likable, and politically brilliant.
Neither of these things are impossible, but I personally don't believe either one of them, and think the odds of either one being true are slim.
Given all of this, I'm still baffled by the logic and reasoning behind this pick.
Posts
1 comment:
You pretty much summed up my thinking on Palin. It seems like one of the biggest, most desperate gambles that a major candidate has taken in a long time. Nobody seems to know exactly how to react.
It's incredible to think that McCain didn't anticipate this, hardly did any vetting, didn't tell anyone. It does confirm what we know about McCain's character -- he doesn't consult with outsiders, he makes rash, reckless decisions. Not exactly someone I want in the White House.
I think you're right about Obama ignoring the whole "experince" meme. There's not really any way to effectivly rebut it. I think they've done well with the tack that they've taken. Obama would make McCain look like a fool if they actually got down to it.
Good post.
Post a Comment