home

What the Palin Pick Says About John McCain

Andrew Sullivan gets it mostly right today. John McCain is not fit to be President.

And then, because he could see he was going to lose, ten days ago, he threw caution to the wind and with no vetting whatsoever, picked a woman who....was going to reignite the culture war as a last stand against Obama. That's all that is happening right now: a massive bump in the enthusiasm of the Christianist base. This is pure Rove.

Yes, McCain made a decision that revealed many appalling things about him. In the end, his final concern is not national security. No one who cares about national security would pick as vice-president someone who knows nothing about it as his replacement. No one who cares about this country's safety would gamble the security of the world on a total unknown because she polled well with the Christianist base. ....

More...

McCain has demonstrated in the last two months that he does not have the character to be president of the United States. And that is why it is more important than ever to ensure that Barack Obama is the next president. The alternative is now unthinkable. And McCain - no one else - has proved it.

Thanks, Andrew, for stating it so succinctly and putting it in proper context. The parts I didn't agree with I didn't quote. I don't think her family situation has any bearing on the real issues, which are her lack of experience and preparedness to be Vice President.

For me, it's about her record, her lack of record, her lack of national experience and her position on issues as well as the danger of granting the radical right an opportunity to demand a quid pro quo from McCain in exchange for his picking one of their own. If he wins, it will be because the radical right enthusiastically got on board once Palin was chosen.

< Arguments Heard in Appeal of Larry Craig Bathroom Sting Conviction | Gallup Tracker: McCain By 5 >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Hmm... (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by nulee on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 12:13:44 PM EST
    Andrew definitely can slide into sexism a lot of times - I mean it is really fair to says she knows less that Obama (who polls well with the far left of our party for some reason) on national security?

    Yes (5.00 / 5) (#14)
    by Dadler on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 12:27:33 PM EST
    You want to put her intellectual and academic chops against his, go ahead.  You want to put your money on a person who believes an obvious religous metaphor literally, then go ahead.    You want to count on a person who has, already, spread wretched distortions and lies about the Iraq war and Obama's position on it, go ahead.  Yes, he OBVIOUSLY knows more about A LOT of things than she does -- hunting and fishing I would give her, aside from that, I'll take your money every time.

    She is a pandering religious fundamentalist who has more, intellectually, in common, with our fundamentalist enemies abroad than she does with you or I.  That is an ugly truth.  That is what literal belief in obvious metaphors is about.  It is about having the mind, ultimately, of a child.

    Parent

    Dadler (5.00 / 2) (#60)
    by glanton on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 01:34:43 PM EST
    Great to see you still swinging away on here, my man.

    And you are dead on.  Of course, experience has been overrated this entire cycle.  Bill Clinton says it best when he says the biggest requirement of the job is intellectual curiosity.   And Obama is right: Judgement and Vision trump experience every time.

    An intelligent person can get up to speed on Presidential Matters regardless of previous experience, but only an intellectually curious person can engage those matters in a responsible way.  Both McCain and Palin make George W. Bush look intellectually curious.

    Parent

    Yes, it's fair (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by litigatormom on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 12:39:15 PM EST
    Obama has been thinking about and debating these issues on a presidential level for nearly two years, and has been a Senator for four.  Palin, by her own words, hadn't "thought very much" about the Iraq war until her son was about to be sent there.

    Of course, if you're counting the proximity of Alaska to Siberia....

    Parent

    I have heard and (none / 0) (#107)
    by 0 politico on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 07:47:44 PM EST
    read that argument in other places.  Debating (not really well) on security issues in a presidential campaign is not the same as deliberating and executing on security issues as President.

    Sorry, but there is a vast difference between "campaigning" and "governing".  Whether you agree on policies or not, the Dem presidential candidate has not "governed" while the Repub VP candidate has "governed".  And, Alaska's position on the national defense structure is more important than BO's debate postures.


    Parent

    There Is A Difference (none / 0) (#109)
    by daring grace on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 08:17:20 PM EST
    between campaigning and governing.

    And Senator Obama's experience of both has greater depth and breadth and relevance to the job he's campaigning for than Governor Palin.

    Parent

    Regrading: (none / 0) (#115)
    by 0 politico on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 06:21:22 PM EST
    "And Senator Obama's experience of both has greater depth and breadth and relevance to the job he's campaigning for than Governor Palin."

    As someone with my experience (military veteran, studies in national security policy, and over 2 decades working within the Beltway), I have to respectfully disagree with your conclusion.

    Parent

    Her great comment on having (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by jpete on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 12:49:12 PM EST
    "under God" in the pledge:  If it was good enough for the founding fathers, it is good enough for  me.

    Parent
    Or her admission... (5.00 / 3) (#30)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 12:50:41 PM EST
    ...that she needed someone to explain to her what exactly the day-to-day duties of the VP are.  

    Parent
    Actually, when I heard about her (5.00 / 2) (#34)
    by oculus on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 12:56:09 PM EST
    comment, I thought, well, what are the day-to-day duties of the VP?  (1) tie-breaking vote in the Senate, (2) ???  Depends on the President.

    Parent
    her duties include (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 12:58:52 PM EST
    acting as president and commander in chief if the PResident is even temporarily unable to serve.

    If you think the VP has no control or power, then you didn't follow Cheney's VP career very closely.

    Parent

    Cheney has enormous power (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by oculus on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 01:07:25 PM EST
    as VP because Bush cedes it to him.

    Parent
    Standard Practice now (2.00 / 0) (#48)
    by MKS on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 01:10:28 PM EST
    McCain will likely give over domestic issues to Palin....That doesn't do much for me....

    Parent
    Who knows how McCain, if elected, (1.00 / 1) (#50)
    by oculus on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 01:11:37 PM EST
    will choose to run his administration?

    Parent
    He already chose Palin (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by MKS on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 01:35:01 PM EST
    That is your first clue....

    And, I do not for the life of me understand anyone who says McCain really isn't pro-life.  He picks a pro-life VP, he votes 100% pro-life, he says he wants a constitutional amendment banning abortion, yet some rationalize all this away because they want Obama defeated...

    Parent

    He showed guts. (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by Jeannie on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 02:14:05 PM EST
    Courage. He showed willingness to take a chance for the 'good' of his party. He showed character to choose someone who is young and vital and more charismatic, that winning is more important than his own ego. He showed that he isn't sexist when he chose a woman.


    Parent
    Nonsense (none / 0) (#78)
    by MKS on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 02:21:49 PM EST
    He showed that experience doesn't matter.  That the right wing controls him and his party.

    He was losing before the Palin pick, and he needed more celebrity oomph than he was getting....

    Parent

    No (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by MichaelGale on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 02:36:36 PM EST
    He chose a woman.

    Parent
    And the Republicans (none / 0) (#91)
    by MKS on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 03:11:02 PM EST
    put Clarence Thomas on the Supreme Court....

    The Republicans laugh at Democrats who think issues matter in elections....

    Parent

    He Chose a Woman (none / 0) (#110)
    by daring grace on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 08:20:54 PM EST
    who is not his peer in any sense professionally.

    That's quite different than had he chose any of a number of qualified Republican women.

    Parent

    Silly. (none / 0) (#111)
    by Jeannie on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 09:04:31 PM EST
    Qualified? Sarah has actually done things! Actually made a difference. Actually helped her state and its people. And her religious and personal beliefs took no place to helping the state. Did she push her religious beliefs? No. Did she push things you might not agree with? No. She did good and she did well. She stopped Republican corruption - but if the corruption had been Democratic, she would have fought that, too.
    So you would much prefer that McCain had chosen some Republican hack. Some Bushie clone. Yes, I can see why.
    What is qualified? Obama isn't, and running for office doesn't qualify him. (And running for office is all he has ever done - and most of that has been less than stellar.)


    Parent
    Well, (none / 0) (#108)
    by 0 politico on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 07:58:12 PM EST
    didn't the Dem Party state that experience did not matter when they selected their candidate.  Picking Joe Biden as the VP candidate does not "fix" that issue with the top of the party ticket.

    On the other side, you have the experience at the top of the ticket - really "Ready to lead on Day One," even if you don't agree with the leadership.

    Get over it.  The claim of Palin's "Lack of Experience" is not going to get much mileage with much of Middle America.

    Folks need to stick to real issues if they are going to be successful.  And, no, I am still not voting for BO - he never resonated with me.  But, I still want to see Dems focus on issues.  Jumping the shark over Pailn is not constructive.

    Parent

    My comment was about how (none / 0) (#103)
    by oculus on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 07:06:57 PM EST
    McCain might organize his administration as to duties he will assign to Palin.  My comment was not about his or her positions on right to life, which are well known to be "for."  

    Parent
    If McCain and Palin are (none / 0) (#105)
    by tootired on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 07:16:11 PM EST
    elected, he has said that she will be his "energy independence chief".

    Parent
    There are plenty of real issues (none / 0) (#92)
    by Alien Abductee on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 03:15:20 PM EST
    to use against her. That one was pretty clearly a rhetorical question on her part, i.e., she was saying she wasn't interested in a job without a defined role or powers. Although what's changed about that for her might be worth a question or two from Charlie Gibson.

    Parent
    Yes, I can see that. (none / 0) (#112)
    by Jeannie on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 09:16:19 PM EST
    She is a woman who wants to actually make a difference and accomplish things. The VP position can be seen as going to funerals and attending meaningless functions and occasionally going to the senate and breaking a tie - doing what the president wants...
    I hope, when she is actually the VP, that she is given powers to actually do good things for the country. And she would.
    And I don't think of her religious and moral beliefs - I think she would do what she feels is right for everyone, regardless of her own beliefs. I think that is what she has done in Alaska, and that is why she has the high approval numbers.

    Parent
    When did (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by WS on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 12:15:38 PM EST
    Andrew Sullivan become a liberal blogger?  Is he just an Obama supporter and still hates Democrats?

    Andrew Sullivan? Really...Andrew Sullivan? (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by christinep on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 04:28:38 PM EST
    C'mon. While we all use whatever is at our disposal to make arguments when the going gets tough.... Sullivan's rantings about Hillary Clinton and other high-powered women (except Margaret Thatcher) have only morphed from CDS to PDS or whatever derangement syndrome comes next. There are many ways to counter Sarah Palin; quoting Sullivan to me seems to have the opposite effect. Seriously, it reeks of the kind of "gimme a response, gimme a rope, gimme anything (pant, pant.) Yes, I'm being derisive--but aren't so many these days. If we, as Democrats, don't get back to the basics of the campaign and stop slinging whatever is at hand Palin's way, we will be spending yet another several days wiping the return flow off our collective face while the real Republican Presidential Candidate is allowed to soar above it all.

    Parent
    Are we (5.00 / 4) (#4)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 12:17:05 PM EST
    in bad enough shape now that we are quoting Sullivan?

    Since he agrees with what I've stated (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 12:19:47 PM EST
    here many times, I'm quoting him.

    Parent
    With all due respect, I think the (4.00 / 4) (#24)
    by Anne on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 12:42:52 PM EST
    strength of your arguments is diminishing in proportion to the credibility and history of those you have chosen to cite in support of your views, and that is clear from the reaction you are getting in the comments here.

    Parent
    please discuss the substance (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 12:46:42 PM EST
    Andrew Sullivan is not the topic.

    Parent
    Did you complain when 'we' (none / 0) (#96)
    by Alien Abductee on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 03:26:56 PM EST
    were quoting Instapundit, American Spectator, Protein Wisdom, Joe Scarborough, Scaife, etc. etc. during the primaries...?

    Parent
    Bush 2004 Campaign Quote Nails Palin Pick (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by daring grace on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 12:31:31 PM EST
    From Michael Crowley, at the New Republic web site, The Stump

    "Quote of the Day

    Baltimore Sun , July 9, 2004 (no link):

    "The American public is going to take into consideration the fact that John Kerry made his decision [to choose John Edwards as VP] in terms of political expediency rather than expertise and experience," said Kevin Madden, a spokesman for Bush's re-election campaign. "He made it to close the charisma gap."

    "Because Republicans would never do a thing like that!"

    This is Obama's moment (5.00 / 3) (#21)
    by obiden08 on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 12:38:43 PM EST
    McCain has played into this hands.  Now is the time for Obama to swing hard. It has to begin with a campaign wide decision to STOP prefacing every negative statement about McCain with how he's such a great man and patriot.  Huh?

    Now's the time to do some truth-telling--

    They have to distinguish between the McCain today and the McCain POW.  These are not the same men.  Heck, McCain now is not even McCain 2000.

    If the Obama camp keeps talking about how honorable McCain is, then why shouldn't voters believe McCain's ads?  Obama has vouched for him.

    This needs to stop.  NOW.

    Obama needs to "call a spade a spade" without using that phrase, of course.  If he used the phrase, he'd no doubt be accused of playing the race card.  Against himself.

    This is where we are in the campaign.  God help us all.

    You're 100% Right (none / 0) (#58)
    by glanton on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 01:30:58 PM EST
    On the website my colleagues maintain, there is an excellent writeup of the new Ad McCain is running, in which the POW shamelessly and dishonorably associates Obama with terrorism.  Both the Ads and the writeup will raise the hairs on the back of any right-thinking person's neck.

    But more to your point.  I wonder. The thing to do would be during the first debate, for Obama to refuse to shake his hand.  To say you have taken this campaign to such lows, and smeared me to such an extent, it would be lying to shake your hand.  But then that would doom him with White Independents.  He has to walk a fine line.  

    Parent

    Further comments (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 12:49:44 PM EST
    about Andrew Sullivan will be deleted. There are several already and the subject is what he wrote, not him.

    Please limit your comments to a discussion of what he wrote.

    As for whether we should write about Palin, please take that discussion to posts about that or an open thread.

    This thread is about what it says about John McCain that he picked Sarah Palin. If you have nothing to say about that, please don't comment in this thread.

    author credibility (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by kredwyn on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 01:04:44 PM EST
    is relevant with regards to what Sully has written.

    Or at least that's in my lecture notes for tonight's class on ethos, pathos, and logos.

    Parent

    Not really (none / 0) (#49)
    by Steve M on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 01:10:51 PM EST
    It's an unvarnished opinion.  Take it or leave it.  Credibility is only relevant when assessing facts, otherwise it's an ad hominem.

    Sullivan is all over the map with his opinions.  You can find posts that say Bush is great, you can find posts that say Bush is horrible.  Was he really wrong both times?

    Jeralyn is not citing Andrew Sullivan, one assumes, because she sees him as a Great Moral Authority, but because she agrees with him on this particular issue.  Disagreeing with Sullivan's opinion is fine, but disagreeing just because he's Sullivan is kinda uninteresting.

    Parent

    No... (5.00 / 0) (#55)
    by kredwyn on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 01:21:48 PM EST
    credibility comes into play also when you're looking at how he comes to his argument and how he expresses that "unvarnished opinion" in addition to assessing the facts that he chooses to use or not use when setting up his argument.

    Parent
    What does the selection tell us... (5.00 / 2) (#99)
    by christinep on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 04:40:53 PM EST
    The selection of Sarah Palin POTENTIALLY tells us many things about John McCain. The point of my caps is to suggest that we don't really know the answer yet.  Palin will give interviews; she will ultimately answer press questions; she will be in a debate; and, she will continue to be on the stump. A lot of the evidence is out...for me. It ranges anywhere from reckless to brilliant. That depends upon how it all plays out. The selection of Biden also tells us a lot about motivations as well. What has become increasingly more intriguing to me is the cleavage among Democrats (especially, the reprise of the Appalachian & related blue-collar aspects popping up)that McCain's selection may have revealed. It is not for me to judge any politician's intrinsic moral qualities; but, I do know a strong tactical move when it is played and I know enough to respect my opponent for the strategy that produced that choice.

    Parent
    What the Palin pick says about McCain (5.00 / 2) (#36)
    by Manuel on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 12:59:42 PM EST
    is that he is willing to take a risk in pursuit of victory.  One can't deny that Palin has energized his campign, temporarily one hopes, and increased his chances of winning.  Faced with a similar choice, Obama went for the safe choice and failed to anticipate McCain's move.  Character wise I don't see a significant difference for who should be POTUS.  As President sometimes caution will be required and sometimes bold action (particularly with one's back against the wall) will be required.  The Republicans play politics while Dems play tiddlywinks.

    Did Democratic Primary Voters (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by Richjo on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 01:03:47 PM EST
    selecting Obama over far more qualified Democratic nominees showed that they didn't care about national security?

    Obama did not energize his base on the basis of his distinct stance on the issues or his immense national security qualifications. I don't remember Andrew having anything to say about that. In fact Andrew's primary argument for Obama was based on what he represented culturally -both because of his ethnic background and his membership in a new generation. It is the height of hypocrisy for Sullivan to make this argument, and to use it to impugn McCain's character after Sullivan's history of character assassination against the Clintons is downright despicable.

    Andrew's extreme hypocritical attacks are only going to help McCain in the long run and I wish that people would just ignore them or better yet find someway to get him to simply stop making them. That would be the best thing to help Obama win which ought to be the only thing on everyone's mind.

    Thank you. (none / 0) (#93)
    by blcc on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 03:15:58 PM EST
    Your argument is well-made and sums up EXACTLY why so many people instinctively groan when the pundit-who-shall-not-be-named gets quoted.  

    The hypocrisy negates any possible value which could have been made by the point.

    Parent

    I'm shocked to see politics (5.00 / 6) (#51)
    by kredwyn on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 01:12:44 PM EST
    being used in a political campaign...shocked, I tell yeh.

    First of all, Sullivan does not have entrée (5.00 / 10) (#53)
    by Anne on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 01:16:46 PM EST
    into McCain's thought processes, so he's projecting his own opinions onto McCain and pretending it's fact.  

    Second, the race was dead even 10 days ago, which is hardly a sign that McCain is going to lose in November.  

    Third, he picked a woman against whom Obama has few, if any arguments.  Obama will fail on pastor problems (Rev. Wright), lobbyists (Joe Biden's history), earmarks ($1 billion to Illinois), executive experience (Obama has none), and so on.  He took away the uniqueness of Obama's story, and showed some that he was not afraid to go outside the entrenched Washington interests for a VP.  

    Fourth, injecting enthusiasm into the base is not a bad thing, and the GOP sure needed it.

    Fifth, picking Palin for the number two spot had the perhaps unintended consequence of comparing her not to Biden, where she does come up short on FP experience, but to Obama, who's not exactly a FP/national security heavyweight.  That's something that's easier for people to see, and some of them are more comfortable having a novice in the second spot than in the top one.

    Sixth, Sullivan again comes back to his own theory, which he ascribes to McCain as fact, that he only picked her because she would shore up the Christianist base.  If that's all he wanted to do, he could have picked Mike Huckabee.

    Finally, embedded in the ridiculous statement that no one who cares about the country's safety would gamble on a total unknown is the realization that, but for him being in our faces for the last 19 months, Obama would be that same relative unknown, with little experience in matters of national security.  If 18 million Democrats were willing to take a chance on Obama as the #1 guy, there's no reason millions won't be willing to accept Palin as McCain's #2.

    The entire argument is ridiculous.

    Torture? (none / 0) (#56)
    by MKS on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 01:23:23 PM EST
    What about McCain's support of torture?  That was part of the article linked to.

    Parent
    Anne (none / 0) (#85)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 02:59:14 PM EST
    you've stated the same thing several times. And please do not insult my positions by calling them "ridiculous." Are you at four comments yet today bashing Obama?  It is not Sullivan's theory, it is one expressed since the day of her nomination by several, including me and TChris.

    Parent
    Andrew Sullivan (4.75 / 16) (#5)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 12:19:00 PM EST
    by definition, never gets anything right.

    That he is still hung up on Palin is all the evidence you need that this continued fixation on Palin is disastrously bad politics.

    dems need to stop (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by TimNCGuy on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 12:36:52 PM EST
    talking about Palin just as you say.  I saw a cartoon that pictured a voter looking at a ballot for the general election.  It listed one candidate for the office of president, McCain.  It had three candidates listed for VP, Biden, Obama and Palin.

    Parent
    George W. Bush (2.00 / 0) (#46)
    by glanton on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 01:09:26 PM EST
    once said that baseball was meant to be played outside, in the daytime, and on grass.  That he was George W. Bush did not make the statement any less true.

    Rather than going after the man, tgell us what is untrue about the part Jeralyn quotes.  You honestly don't think McCain made a play to ratchet up the Culture War with that pick?  

    Speaking of Culture Wars.  Actually let's go "to the man," for a moment.  Easy to understand why Sullivan, a gay man, would be "fixayed" on a potential president who belongs to a church that is about "converting" homosexuals to "normalcy."  Hmmmmm.  Actually,  I wonder what Palin's demographic thought about Lawrence v Texas.  MAybe Sullivan as a gay man doesn't want an Administration hijacked by people that want to throw him in jail.

    Humbly I now await from you a snarky, one line, dismissive response.  Or perhaps no response at all.  

    Parent

    gay rights (3.50 / 2) (#83)
    by 18anapple2 on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 02:45:18 PM EST
    how about the simple fact that far from being a right wingnut as many would like to believe, Sara Palin vetoed legislation that would have denied gay people  state employee benefits because she was advised by her attorney general that it would be unconstitutional. At the time of the veto she said that she had sworn to protect the constitution and could therefore not sign the legislation into law. She has also stated quite clearly that any any legislation about abortion would be put to a referendum as that was the process and that she would not make any unilateral decisions.

    Parent
    I guess (none / 0) (#89)
    by glanton on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 03:05:25 PM EST
    The GOP Social Con Base is getting played like a fiddle, then, if she buckled to an Attorney General's warning that violating the Constitution is dicey.  All she needs to do is get the Presidency, then she can place her own Attorney General, someone like Gonzales, and she'll be all set.  Same old GOP.

    As for Abortion Rights, it's also the same old GOP extremism.  It's about the Courts and you know it.  It's about getting to state legislated criminalization by first going through the Courts.  And you know that too.

    Just amazing to me, how people are trying to represent her as some kind of civil libertarian. It has to be because she is a woman.  We simply would not have seen all these TL commenters bending over backwards to make Rick Santorum look like a social moderate, had McCain picked him.  

    Let me ask you something.  Instead of staying tucked in the "Cone of Silence" and then granting what we know will be a grovelfest to Charlie Gibson.  

    Why not proclaim what she stands for and what the GOP base knows she stand for?

       

    Parent

    Apparently (none / 0) (#20)
    by Faust on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 12:37:04 PM EST
    Somerby has it wrong too. He's been running consecutive Palin stories pretty much since she got picked.

    Parent
    Well (none / 0) (#31)
    by Steve M on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 12:51:26 PM EST
    Somerby talks about the media.  The media has been talking about Palin.  It's not like it would fit the purpose of Somerby's blog for him to suddenly say "hey, let's talk about energy policy instead!"

    Parent
    I write about what's in the media (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 12:54:20 PM EST
    on any particular day as well. That's what makes posts topical.

    Parent
    and this comment illustrates (none / 0) (#57)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 01:28:48 PM EST
    why the media has become the ulitmate Ouroboros

    Parent
    Well he COULD buck the trend. (none / 0) (#65)
    by Faust on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 01:42:09 PM EST
    There are a lot of news stories out there. And it's not as if he's just covering the media. And I quote:

    Yes, Palin's free lunch plan has cost Alaska's tax-payers some dough. But news of her lunch plan struck us differently; it heightened our interest in the tortured character tales she has continued to spout. Has any pol ever arrived on the scene pimping such a trio of groaners?

    Hmmm sounds like he's not just commenting on the media, but also the candidate in question.

    Parent

    But his point is (none / 0) (#66)
    by Steve M on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 01:45:25 PM EST
    that she's telling obvious lies, and yet the media is doing a poor job of exposing them.  I mean, you can't judge the media's treatment of a candidate in a vacuum, without first knowing how the candidate is conducting himself or herself.

    Parent
    I agree. (none / 0) (#77)
    by Faust on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 02:18:19 PM EST
    And he doesn't harp on Palin. He harps on how passive and stupid our media is in repsonding her claims which she makes as an organ of the McCain campaign.

    Even better he contrasts the current situation with the fabrication of the "Gore is a liar" narrative of old.

    Nevertheless he does make some judgements of Palin and then goes on to suggest our Media might like to make similar judgements based on the facts of the case.

    And when the media won't make such reports, then isn't that what blogs can be for?

    Parent

    Somerby isn't a (none / 0) (#39)
    by rooge04 on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 01:04:36 PM EST
    democratic strategist for the campaign. He's a media critic.

    Parent
    And I love him for it. (none / 0) (#63)
    by Faust on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 01:39:15 PM EST
    My point was that there are ways to talk about Palin that are intelligent and useful. Also, that it's hard to get out of bed in the morning without tripping over a Palin story. So hard that ignoring Palin creates problems of it's own.

    I completely agree with the notion that Obama and associates should be very careful about how Palin is approached.

    I'm not as sure that there aren't some helpful ways that bloggers can't be helpful to a proper Palin analysis. Which is not to say that such analysis is always going to be helpful no matter what. Or even most of the time.

    Parent

    What I read in the Sullivan quote (none / 0) (#23)
    by litigatormom on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 12:42:14 PM EST
    was that his pick of Palin demonstrates that McCain the So-Called Maverick has sold himself to the extreme right wing of the GOP, and that part of the sale price was the nomination of a foreign policy novice because the extreme right wing likes her.

    Parent
    you read it correctly (5.00 / 2) (#37)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 01:00:16 PM EST
    and part of the price for the support of the radical right for Palin will be a say in the selection of our next supreme court justices.

    Parent
    McCain will outsource (5.00 / 2) (#44)
    by MKS on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 01:08:21 PM EST
    the judges issues and other culture war (and perhaps environmental) issues to Palin and the social conservatives....

    Parent
    McCain also sold out on torture (5.00 / 3) (#41)
    by MKS on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 01:06:36 PM EST
    McCain says torture is okay if the CIA does it....and has voted that way.

    McCain once admitted he sold out on the Confederate Flag for political gain....McCain is doing it again.

    McCain was jealous of Obama's popularity--that is why we got the celebrity ads in July.  McCain has always been the celebrity--ever since he got back from Vietnam according to his former campaign manager John Weaver.  He picked Palin to get the celebrity mojo back....

    McCain wants to be President because he is the original celebrity....and this ghoulish obsession with his treament in captivity is coming close to matching the descriptions of the execution of Jesus....McCain suffered for us all in humility....  

    Parent

    I doubt it. (1.00 / 1) (#67)
    by jccleaver on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 01:46:27 PM EST
    I find it hard to believe anyone who's actually been tortured would actually "sell out on torture".

    Either:

    1. McCain was not actually tortured,
    2. McCain (being someone who's actually been tortured) came to a different conclusion about is being called "torture" than you(all) did, or
    3. McCain is a sadistic, evil, horrible, Hitler-esque man who wants to torture people.

    Faced with that, the left seems happy to pick #3, whereas #2 is far more likely. The more #3 is shouted, the more his polls will rise.

    Parent
    Gosh (5.00 / 2) (#70)
    by Steve M on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 01:53:39 PM EST
    the fact that some people are able to convince themselves that torture isn't really torture, in order to justify using it, isn't really that impressive to me.

    In recent history, we've court-martialed our own soldiers for using waterboarding, and now some folks want to quibble about whether waterboarding is "really" torture.  Whatever.  They can answer to their Maker for that one.

    Parent

    Evil (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by MKS on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 02:08:41 PM EST
    That is the binary way consevartives view almost all issues.

    No, McCain doesn't have to be Hitler or evil, just an unprincipled politician. No, there is a better word.  Dishonorable....McCain has no honor now....  

    Parent

    Also, (none / 0) (#86)
    by blcc on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 03:02:07 PM EST
    he might want to reconsider his frequent use of the pejorative "Christianist" moniker in his commentary.  Unless, of course, offending and alienating over 75% of the electorate is his idea of sound political strategy.

    Frankly, that single oft-repeated and off-putting foot-munching blunder is enough to make him appear so off-base that I can't take him seriously.  

    Parent

    ITA. Andrew Sullivan, your name is (none / 0) (#102)
    by bridget on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 07:01:02 PM EST
    "never gets anything right!"

    NEVER!

    Parent

    "No vetting whatsoever" (4.25 / 4) (#18)
    by tree on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 12:32:52 PM EST
    That alone is a big enough lie to stop reading another word of the article. Palin's been vetted by McCain since February. Sullivan may not approve of the vetting that was done, but he lies when he says there was "no vetting whatsoever."  

      Frankly, as always and forever, Sullivan gets it mostly wrong. And now we've come to this.

    Palin vetting (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by jccleaver on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 01:40:01 PM EST
    She was constantly coming up 2nd or 3rd in online polls (of conservatives) of who they'd like to see as the VP. As the battle between Hill and Obama continued on, her standing seemed to improve.

    She was being vetted (quietly) the whole time -- it's only the media (and the Left, which had other things on their mind) that didn't hear about it.

    And Facebook, strangely enough. It's obviously left-leaning and Obama-heavy (college students, natch) but I found it curious that in their Rep. VP Pick polls, Palin was never an option.

    Parent

    Really good job they did, (3.00 / 2) (#59)
    by scribe on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 01:32:39 PM EST
    when it comes out that Track's name is ironic on so many levels.

    Anyone doing even the most rudimentary vetting of that family would have turned up those issues.

    That McSame went with her after (as you allege) six months' vetting which surely turned that up, speaks more ill of his judgment.


    Parent

    Wonderful. Now we're (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by tree on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 02:12:48 PM EST
    quoting the National Enquirer.

    Parent
    Let (5.00 / 2) (#95)
    by chrisvee on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 03:22:11 PM EST
    me put down my copy of Senator Obama's autobiography while I type my post.  Irony really is dead.  Track Palin's drug use (imagined or real) is entirely irrelevant in this campaign.

    Andrew Sullivan misses. All McCain did was pick the rising star in his party which is pretty much what the Dems did for the top of their ticket. IMHO all Sullivan's talk about endangering national security is akin to fear-mongering. He's actually making an argument against voting for Senator Obama and apparently doesn't even realize it. Feh.

    The only promising part of his argument is the worry about the christianist foothold but that's why we need a strong majority in Congress to protect ourselves.

    Parent

    What does Obama know about National Security? (3.66 / 3) (#47)
    by goldberry on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 01:09:57 PM EST
    There's a fairly obvious double standard here.  If she's not fit to lead after being a governor of Alaska, why is Obama fit to lead after 142 days in the senate before he decided he had to be president?  What did he learn about national security in 142 days on the job?  
    And what about Bill Clinton?  By these standards, he had even less experience in national security affairs that Palin.  Arkansas is a land-locked state while Alaska shares international borders with Canada and Russia.  
    Really, there are a million reasons to oppose McCain/Palin strictly on their worldview of the role of government.  But even that is a lame comparison since Obama seems willing to compromise any principle in a "post-partisan" era.  
    The national security argument is ludicrous.  Obama's camp is still falling into the trap that this is a contest between Obama and Palin.  It's not.  It's between McCain and Obama.
    Can we please get some better reasons to reject them over Obama/Biden?  I haven't heard one truly convincing argument yet.  Looks like I'll be voting topless this year.  

    Palin has zero experience (5.00 / 2) (#54)
    by MKS on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 01:21:25 PM EST
    with foreign affairs as has been noted repeatedly....

    Obama will have had four years on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee....More than Carter, Reagan, Bill or Bush II.

    Palin has made one overseas trip in her life--in 2007 to visit troops in Iraq.  She counted the layover in Germany and Ireland as trips to foreign countries...

    But if you think her brand of firebrand social conservatism is just fine, and it is no big deal if she and McCain are elected.....

    If you think she had more foreign policy chops than Bill, you really are forgetting some things....Bill was a Rhodes Scholar and had traveled and studied a lot.  Palin does not even have an academic background in foreign affairs.

    Her state borders Russia?  Good grief....

    The issue is McCain is a hothead gambler who makes snap decisions....That is how we got into Iraq.  He now wants a new cold war with Russia.

    Parent

    While (none / 0) (#79)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 02:35:57 PM EST
    Palin may have all the things you are arguing you are in essence making a point as to why people should vote for McCain. McCain has far more foreign policy experience than Obama. Obama went overseas and made speeches that didn't really sell with people here at home. McCain served in the military while Obama did not.

    Making the argument Obama vs. Palin is a sure way to lose an election because after all Obama is at the top of the ticket and Palin is not.

    Parent

    Yes... (none / 0) (#52)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 01:15:33 PM EST
    ...it is commom knowledge that landlocked states do not have trade relations with other countries.  That's why all that corn from Iowa never, ever makes it overseas.  

    Parent
    trade is not the same as your next door neighbor (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by goldberry on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 02:55:19 PM EST
    She negotiated a $40 billion gas pipeline with Canada.  You either come into the job knowing this stuff or you learn a hell of a lot while the negotiations are in progress.  She probably knows more about the nitty-gritty of international borders and security than any of the other 3.  She's dealt with pipelines and commercial fishery.  
    Go ahead and underplay her experience on either of these things and her ability to extrapolate to other parts of the world, like the caucuses.  It will be at your peril.  
    It's also fairly typical to discount a woman's experience as trivial while giving a man's experience too much credit.  
    When was the last time Barack negotiated anything except how long Hillary was going to speak and how many delegates she would get?  
     

    Parent
    So, you like her (none / 0) (#94)
    by MKS on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 03:21:58 PM EST
    Does that include all her James Dobson positions?....

    McCain used to look like a Maverick (while still having a very conservative voting record.)  Now, he just looks like a conservative genuflecting to the social conservatives.  He is a standard issue Repbulican and would implement those same policies that Bush has.  If you are a Republican, that would have to be pleasing....

    Parent

    that's been answered many times (none / 0) (#87)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 03:02:12 PM EST
    in other threads, please do a search.

    Parent
    The fact that it is Andrew Sullivan saying this (3.00 / 0) (#12)
    by befuddledvoter on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 12:24:03 PM EST
    is relevant and makes his commentary more potent.  

    How so? (5.00 / 3) (#13)
    by rooge04 on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 12:27:22 PM EST
    The fact that we are using a man that has never been right and is wrong even with this commentary (the election should not be about Palin but about how McCain/Palin are Bush redux). Sad that we are now quoting him to back up what we want to hear.

    Parent
    The dishonorable McCain has always been there (none / 0) (#82)
    by UncleDavid on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 02:44:35 PM EST
    Sullivan himself says:
    On core moral issues, where this man knew what the right thing was, and had to pick between good and evil, he chose evil...By [the decision to support Bush], McCain lost any credibility that he can ever put country first. He put party first and his own career first ahead of what he knew was best for the country.

    And when the Senate and House voted overwhelmingly to condemn and end the torture regime of Bush and Cheney in 2006, McCain again had a clear choice between good and evil, and chose evil.

    He capitulated and enshrined torture as the policy of the United States... He gave the war criminals in the White House retroactive immunity against the prosecution they so richly deserve.


    And yet, despite having known all that for some years, you are only now saying he does not have the character to be President? Sully, and everyone like you - we'll take your vote, but where have you been?

    Parent
    Apparently, one of the most appalling things (3.00 / 2) (#69)
    by Roz on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 01:52:25 PM EST
    McCain's decision revealed about him - he's not Obama.

    Even more appalling (3.00 / 2) (#71)
    by Roz on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 01:54:14 PM EST
    is that his VP decision could actually deliver him a win on election day. Bad, bad McCain. Just appalling for him to go making strategic decisions like that.

    Parent
    I've asked you before to (none / 0) (#88)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 03:03:17 PM EST
    stop with the one line sarcastic snipes.

    You are at four a day but I predict will be banned soon.

    Parent

    Sorry, (none / 0) (#104)
    by Roz on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 07:10:08 PM EST
    I haven't seen your request to stop using sarcasm. I'll look for it and take it from there.

    As for the 4 comment rule, my sarcasm isn't directed at Obama, it is directed at pundits and media commentators. I will check the 4 comment rule while I am at it to make sure I understand the restrictions.

    Parent

    but who is fixated on Palin.... (none / 0) (#10)
    by georgeg1011 on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 12:22:22 PM EST
    Is it the mainstream media that is kinda halfheartedly calling BS on her LIES and McCains disgusting abandonment of honor.  Or are they just along for the ride to see how they can increase their ratings...

    The Emperor has no clothes
    If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...

    I will omit the Pig and the lipstick quote for fear of being called sexist in this current media environment.

    I don't think the Palin.... (none / 0) (#16)
    by Kefa on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 12:32:10 PM EST
    fight helps our cause any. I think it is a losing fight. It will hurt more then help. We as a party need to move on from this. Go after Bush.

    McCain was not gaining anything during the month (none / 0) (#33)
    by BronxFem on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 12:54:32 PM EST
    of August.  His VP has been a shot in the arm for the Republican party in general and for McCain in particular.  In other words no Pa(l)in....no gain.

    Senator McCain's Veep (none / 0) (#76)
    by eleanora on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 02:15:14 PM EST
    pick says to me that he's no maverick rebel, just a typical Republican willing to do whatever he has to to shore up his fundie/NRA base. But the ancillary benefits from how he's using the Palin pick also proves he's a really canny pol. He's got more chops than I ever anticipated, and WJC was right to try to kneecap him before the Florida primary.

    Another angle... (none / 0) (#80)
    by Oje on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 02:36:29 PM EST
    After reading Somerby today, maybe there is a better opening to take down Republicans a notch (I am not into the vacuous personality politics that both campaigns are and have used since 2007).

    All of these stories about Sarah Palin, Governor Reformer, do not add up in a way that reflects on Republican political ideology. For Republicans, her story has too fit into tidy lines of executive / anti-Washington command (the decider), fiscal responsibility, family values (Somerby's "three pleasing tales").

    But, Palin's governing and her life just cannot be contained by the caricature that both the right AND the left have made for her. What we really witness in the absurdity of Sarah Palin's political narrative is the inability - once again! - of the Republican philosophy of government and conservative political ideology to even remotely characterize or describe a functioning political state and civil society. Palin ran a state government for the past 2 years, not a failed political movement.

    The theme of "lying" implies that McCain knows right or truth, that Republicans know the difference between what works and what does not. Democrats could have made that argument, but only if they used their convention to impugn McCain's character as the Republicans impugned Obama's character.  The "Palin tales" are not lies, they are blinders - blinders at the very core of the failure of conservatism. Blindness is an entirely different beast. Blinders imply not only a failure to do what is right or reform what is broken, it signifies an inability to grasp the conditions on the ground.

    If Obama wants to play with a colloquialism or a turn of phrase, the moral in this story comes from the "three blind mice": Reagan, Bush, McCain.

    Andrew Sullivan's opinion is relevant here (none / 0) (#98)
    by s5 on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 04:39:46 PM EST
    Sullivan has always approved of McCain, and after Obama's nomination, he felt that McCain and Obama represented the best of their two parties. Even though he supports Obama, he had always made it clear that he believed McCain is an honorable politician who would be fine as president. So he was looking at the election as a decision between two excellent choices.

    But since Palin was nominated, his opinion of McCain has gone into the toilet. What is relevant to him is what the choice of Palin says about McCain, and how McCain is using that choice to embrace gutter politics.

    Sullivan is wrong on many things, but he has been consistently right in despising Karl Rove style politics as being fundamentally toxic to the country. Now that McCain is embracing the gutter, Sullivan is disappointed that we can't have a reasonable debate about ideas anymore. I think that's a fair point, and hearing it from a self-identified conservative is important.

    Is focusing on Palin a winning or losing strategy? Who can know for certain. But it's besides the point. We should be focusing on debating how to dig ourselves out of this mess, but since McCain can't win that argument, he's trying to win the election by dragging us all into the gutter. And that's what Sullivan is outraged over.

    A recommended reading (none / 0) (#100)
    by Kevin Hayden on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 05:38:13 PM EST
    I agree with the pertinence and succinctness of what Andrew and Jeralyn had to say. Whatever credibility he lacks, Jeralyn's concurrence makes up for. (And I do agree that Andrew's credibility isn't so hot about women leaders nor on the Iraq War (though he's at least admitted his error on the latter).

    McCain could have chosen several Republican women. Olympia Snowe, for example, has an independent streak that could have matched up well - though she differs from McCain on women's choices. Snowe would have had an easier time attracting women voters, but  not the fundamentalists. Selecting Palin was more about the latter, and winning at any cost than it was about women voters or national security.

    For some similarities, I recommend Googling '1988 election', then going to Wikipedia, to see the strategies employed by Bush Sr and Quayle. I expect to see the same from Palin in debate.

    And the one thing that deserves more mention is that McCain's constant effort to claim everything is an attack on Sarah is a clever way to sidestep issues, and to gain free publicity, sparing him expensive ad buys.

    He is playing the media and voters for fools.

    Spare me! (none / 0) (#101)
    by bridget on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 06:51:15 PM EST
    You couldn't pay me enough to read Sullivan's typing  or listen to his dishing. Why Dems even care is beyond me ....

    Trig Trutherism & Perils of Palin (none / 0) (#106)
    by WakeLtd on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 07:25:00 PM EST
    After Andrew Sullivan's largely underappreciated efforts to highlight the hidden agenda of "America's Favorite Infant" - and a well-deserved time-out for his protean performance to equate pregnancy with the dangers posed by the female reproductive capabilities - so "time-honored" by retrograde Republicans: we get to the nub of the matter. The dame is a darn Christian!

    What would Hillary say? (none / 0) (#114)
    by diogenes on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 10:19:11 PM EST
    Many people can sincerely believe that four years of John McCain as commander in chief, albeit with a low risk of death and the inexperienced Palin in charge, would be safer than four years of the inexperienced Obama in charge.  Isn't this really what Hillary said a few months ago when she said that she AND McCain were both ready to be commander in chief?