First of all, it's pretty amusing watching the right backtrack and redefine what "experience" means in context of a presidential election. Palin's half-term of governorship of a state with 600,000 people and mayoral term over a city of some 8,000 is suddenly being touted as legitimate experience, and any contest of those claims is hating on small states and towns.
As good Republicans have repeatedly warned me, these are serious times, the front lines of an international struggle against Islamofascism, a time when sober reflection and serious military, foreign policy and diplomatic experience were vitally needed. Obama didn't stack up, no matter how pretty his words.
Friday morning, all of that changed. It wasn't experience we needed, I learned, it was an authentic American biography, a feisty political history, a deep pro-life commitment. Foreign policy experience? Hey, she lives just across the Bering Strait from Siberia. Legislative experience? Hey, she was ordering potholes fixed in Alaska before Obama ever ran for office. Washington experience? Hey, haven't you heard that politics is the only profession in which experience counts against you?
The thing here is, that given McCain's age and health, his selection of his vice-presidential candidate is crucial. So this question isn't just about horse-race talk, it's serious and pertinent and could possibly haunt us if it's the wrong choice. And choosing someone like Palin seems to be a reckless move from McCain. Hilzoy:
was also struck by McCain's willingness to gamble not just with our country, but with his own campaign. He has chosen as his running mate someone he has barely met; who has no experience dealing with the kind of scrutiny she is about to face; who has, by all accounts, not been fully vetted; and who is in the midst of a scandal. That is a shockingly reckless thing to do.
And experience isn't the issue here, it's ability. As Crisp wisely wrote in that post linked above, "if you had known in 1860 what would happen to the country, would you have voted for Abe Lincoln...?" Lincoln, obviously had less legislative experience than Obama, and no executive experience when he won the nation's highest office. But he had the ability.
I'd argue that Obama clearly has demonstrated the ability to lead. His campaign is the size of a Fortune 500 company: his organization has a budget of over a half-billion dollars, he has thousands of staff spread out in offices in all 50 states. He has a marketing department, and a sales department. His campaign sets up huge events on short notice. And by all accounts, it's the best run campaign -- and the most innovative campaign -- in presidential history.
Palin? Well, we don't know. Running for mayor is different than being on the national ticket. Those in Alaska that know her apparently don't think much of her ability at this time to perform on the national leve, and that's far from reassuring.
Frankly, the worst part about Palin is her stance on the issues. She's against abortion, even in cases of rape or incest; opposes the use of contraceptives, even for married couples; favors teaching creationism in school; and opposes extending civil rights to gays. In short, she's a clear extremist on social issues, and far out of step from most Americans.
The odd part about this is that the pick seems to be an attempt at energizing the GOP's social conservative base (mission accomplished) while simultaneously wooing disgruntled Clinton backers. But the only thing Palin offers are her two X chromosones -- otherwise, her stance on issues that matter to most Clinton backers is abysmal. No wonder then support for McCain's ticket actually declined among Democratic women:
Here's a finding from Gallup: Among Democratic women -- including those who may be disappointed that Hillary Clinton did not win the Democratic nomination -- 9% say Palin makes them more likely to support McCain, 15% less likely.
Palin's selection is actually a slap in the face of Clintonites, and McCain's VP choice -- along with the reconciliation and unity message from the Convention -- might actually solidify the Democratic base and backfire on the McCain campaign.
And she does remind you of Judy Martz, doesn't she? That worked out well in Montana, eh?
