Jay Cost has an interesting take on McCain's choice of Sarah Palin for VP. I mostly agree with him (except that I think he is wrong to say, in passing, that Obama should have chosen Clinton over Biden).
I think many people are surprised to discover that McCain intends to carry a positive message into the fall. Many of us had assumed that this election would be a referendum on Barack Obama, with McCain serving as an inoffensive backup for those too unsure of the junior senator from Illinois. Just a few weeks ago, I used this logic to argue that McCain should select Mitt Romney, as he was the best among the viable picks to go after Obama.In my Monday column for the FT, I argue that the Palin pick, though an enormous risk, may well have been a risk worth taking. I'll post the column after the jump.
John McCain clearly does not share this view of the race. By picking Palin, he is signaling that he intends to win this election not just by attacking Obama, but by offering an affirmative message of his own.
What is that message? It is that he represents change, too. It's not the "drastic" change that Obama represents, but rather "common sense reform" (scare quotes reflect what we will hear from McCain-Palin, not non-partisan reality). McCain is indicating that he, too, is a candidate whose election would alter the status quo - not as much as Obama's election would, but alter it nonetheless.
Indeed, it is interesting to consider the two tickets. The fresh but inexperienced candidate is at the top of the Democratic ticket; the experienced pol who, even after all these years, "calls it like he sees it" is at the bottom. With the GOP, it's reversed. These tickets are mirror images of one another. The message to voters from McCain? If you're unhappy with the status quo in Washington, but are worried that Obama-Biden would be too drastic a change, vote McCain-Palin.
So, the public gets a pretty sophisticated choice this year. It's not a choice between change versus more of the same. It's a choice between degrees of change. I like this. And while I have no idea how Palin will play, I like that McCain believes he has to offer something positive and new to win.
So John McCain is no longer a maverick. Here is one Democratic talking point that will need some work, and it is by no means the only one. In naming Sarah Palin - the young and only recently elected governor of Alaska, a small-town mayor before that - as his Republican running mate in the US presidential race, Mr McCain has taken an extraordinary risk. It was certainly the act of an unorthodox politician. Was it, though, the act of a reckless and stupid one? I think not.
The instant reaction among Democrats was astonishment. Quickly that gave way to outrage. James Carville, a former adviser to Bill Clinton, said he was "vexed, completely vexed" by the choice. Paul Begala, another friend of the Clintons, in almost his first sentence on the matter, sneeringly attributed Mrs Palin's poise to her time as a beauty queen. Rahm Emanuel, chairman of the House of Representatives' Democratic caucus, said: "On his 72nd birthday, this is the guy's judgment of who he wants one heartbeat from the presidency? Please." The prevailing attitude was a hair's breadth from laughter at the bimbo from a state that does not count.
Will these people never learn? Let me try to walk the experts, with their many years of experience, through this thing.
The McCain campaign staff could not have scripted a more helpful response. They are anything but embarrassed by a focus on Mrs Palin's inexperience, and the more spluttering, condescending and incredulous it is, the better. The reason is obvious: Democrats' amazement at the suggestion that Mrs Palin is fit to be vice-president has disturbing implications for Barack Obama's own fitness to be president. She, after all, has had two years running a state. He has had no years running anything. Also, if experience matters as much as the Democrats now say, you want it at the top of the ticket, do you not?
Yes, Mr Obama has some limited experience of Washington. But that in fact is an electoral liability. Congress is much less popular even than George W. Bush. You cannot believe that Mr Obama is a strong and worthy candidate, as I do, and regard lack of Washington experience as a disqualifying factor for the presidency, let alone for the vice-presidency. Ronald Reagan had none. Mr Clinton had none. It did not hold them back in electoral terms and it did not stop them being a great president and a good, if flawed, president respectively.
The point is simple: for this job, character trumps experience, especially Washington experience, every time. Voters know this even if the experts do not. The public will want to get a sense of whether they like and trust Mrs Palin, and at first blush there is a lot to like. A much higher bar is believing she could cope with the pressure and responsibility that could come her way. If they are satisfied, her being an outsider from an ordinary background, untainted by Washington, will be an advantage, not a drawback. Voters are right to take this view. No training or experience can prepare you for the presidency. On any given issue, the president is surrounded by specialists who know infinitely more about the subject than he does. The ability to weigh the quality of that advice, and then act on it, is what matters.
Mr McCain's gamble could fail, no question, and if it fails it wrecks his candidacy beyond repair. If Mrs Palin turns out to be anything less than excellent - let alone Dan Quayle in drag, as somebody put it - Mr McCain stands condemned for poor judgment. Hurricane Gustav permitting, Mrs Palin will need to impress at the Republicans' convention this week. A heck of a challenge looms beyond that: the television debate between Mrs Palin and Joe Biden, Mr Obama's running mate, on October 2 will be the most riveting such event in living memory, more compelling even than the planned presidential debates - and Mr Biden may make mincemeat of her.
How can it be, then, that the risk was worth taking? I think the McCain campaign had calculated - rightly, in my view - that it was on course to lose the election. National poll numbers that showed the race tightening flattered the Republican's prospects; the state-by-state picture was less encouraging. The electoral fundamentals that have predicted 14 out of 15 postwar presidential elections (the state of the economy and the popularity of the incumbent) are hugely in Mr Obama's favour. Mr Obama is also likely to excel at getting out his vote, whereas Mr McCain is not much loved by the Republican base.
What does that Republican base think of Mrs Palin - a Christian, a social conservative, an opponent of abortion? "They are beyond ecstatic," said Ralph Reed, former head of the Christian Coalition.
If the Clintons had wrecked last week's Denver convention and split the Democratic party, things would have looked different and Mr McCain might have made a safer choice. They chose, however belatedly, to unite the party and then at the end of the week Mr Obama shone. All this harmed Mr McCain's prospects. If you think you are on track to lose, it is not crazy to gamble on redemption, so long as you think the bet has a big enough upside. This one does.
Like Monty Python's Knights Who Say Ni, it will take the Democrats a little while to stop complaining that Mr McCain stands for four more years of Mr Bush. McCain-Palin is about as far from Bush-Cheney as you could imagine. I look to Mr Obama for a more intelligent response before long. In this, as in many other ways, he seems wiser than the experts around him. He congratulated Mrs Palin on her nomination without condescension or so much as a trace of a moose joke. Once again, inexperience and good character pay.
Clive,
Is it true you have three testicles?
You know I would agree with this analysis more if two things were true about this pick that aren't:
1) There was more evidence in her resume to suggest she has been thinking seriously about issues that will be relevant to a Vice President. Surely nothing she did before being governor counts. As governor, it has been more true, but Alaska is such a lightly populated state with a dynamics so unique to Alaska, and she has only been at that job such a painfully short amount of time.
2) If McCain knew Palin better than it appears than he does. The primary substance of your argument is that Palin is a younger version of McCain. This only appears to be true on the surface. How does anyone know enough of her to even know this is true? How does McCain know enough?
There's a reason Obama has been so comfortable and skillful on the national stage. He's been thinking, living, and breathing national politics his entire adult life. He was a professor for 8 years at the University of Chicago rubbing shoulders with some of the prominent economic thinkers in the world.
He worked with inner city black neighborhoods and black churches as a community organizer, neighborhoods directly affected by state and federal policies. He is a graduate of Columbia and Harvard Law. He worked in both the Illinois state senate and in the US Senate.
He's earned his substance. People don't seem to want to give him credit for his experience, but he has substantive experience. You are not just born with his composure, his nuance, his understanding of the issues.
All of Palin's upside seems so shallow to me. I hope you're right, that she is what people want her to be. But if you're wrong it will become self-evident and fast.
Its up to McCain to show us this was not a gimmick pick, that there was something substantive behind it.
How will he use Palin, for example, as a Vice President? Will he listen to her counsel? Will she help define how he will govern?
And Palin has to show she's more than a pro-life, lifetime NRA member, token pick for the conservative right of the party.
Seems like a long shot to me.
If you think you compare Executive Experience of being governor of AK. A state with a population of less than Columbus, OH. A state with a population less that IL State Senate district Senator Obama represented for more than 10 years than you have know understanding of American politics.
We have been watching Obama build an 100 million + dollar political organization over the last 18 months. He employs more people than live in the town where Palin was mayor. Americans have seen Obama's vision and leadership skills on the national stage for 18 months. What have Americans seen Palin do.
Great column! Sarah Palin is a refreshing outsider who in fact has governed, something the three other candidates have not done. Regardless of the stage, big or small, as Governor she was required to make decisions, not 1 of 100 votes. And on that note, please see Obama's voting record, more than 100 votes of present during his short tour in the Senate! Can't he decide, is he not sure which side of the issue to get on, or was this all for political expediency as he knew he was running for President? All I know, we don't need an indecisive person at the helm with all the world issues going on! Obama wants to talk, Russia, China and India are all about action!
"If Mrs Palin turns out to be anything less than excellent - let alone Dan Quayle in drag, as somebody put it - Mr McCain stands condemned for poor judgment."
Um, have you seen the headlines today? What kind of "character" can this state-trooper firing, Alaska-secession supporting, Ted Stevens 527-running, absentee parent really have?
Pedro, you don't know what you're talking about. Obama's "present" votes were in the Illinois legislture; there is no such vote in the Senate. If you're going to spout talking points, please make sure they are correct.
i think you are massively confused, astonishingly so: indeed, i'm very sad to read this take, because i said to myself "let's see how crook responds to palin: that will tell me whether to read him any more."
and the answer is, no, i'm not going to read you any more.
the issue is not length of resume: the issue is grounding in the issues. obama has been running for president for at least 4 years: his grounding in the issues is solid, his staff superb. he knows what he wants to do.
palin's grounding in the issues is non-existent; she has no staff. she can't possibly know the full range of nuances on national issues; she can't possibly even know where john mccain stands on all the issues. there will be constant coordination snafus.
what this pick demonstrates, in spades, is that john mccain is an immature hothead who, denied the choice he wanted, went with his "gut." it's a spectacular demonstration as to why john mccain is not suited for the presidency. (as a side note, he's destroying palin's future as a face of the gop: if he'd only given her the keynote this go-round and she could have started to prep, her upsides might have been quite high in 2012 or 2016.)
good luck: there's a phrase in your native country, "too clever by half." it speaks to your column today: it speaks to why i'm not going to bother with you any further. too bad: like sarah palin, you coulda been a contender....
One thing Biden needs to remember is that he MUST do his homework. Palin is the GWB of this debate. The bar is set so low - thanks Dems - that she only has to hold her ground. Biden, on the other hand, has to have a clear victory. Sarah has shown she can win debates mostly by allowing her competitors to break each other down. She will not have this luxury in the VP debate. But she should not be underestimated nonetheless.
Thanks for being one of the first to state what to me seemed obvious from the beginning re: Palin's appeal to the base. My anecdotale evidence (with all its limitations) indicates that at least that part of your analysis is correct. My parents are both Midwestern, middle-class, and solidly social-conservative (they once ran a politician off their property when he said that he was pro-choice), and they absolutely did not care for McCain in the least. When my mother talks about Palin, she starts to get fluttery, and my father likes the gun-rights and pro-life stuff as well - I think it is definitely the first time they haven't had any qualms whatsoever about where a politician stood on the issues they care about. And the Democratic response just confirms that not only do Democrats not share their values, they actively mock and condescend to them. Whether Palin holds up in other respects, as you said, remains to be seen.
Oh, and it's nice that you keep your comments open.
Sarah Palin has absolutely no awareness of a few important things - like the separation of powers called for in our Constitution.
Apparently, she thought that becoming mayor of a town entitled her to unilaterally censor the materials contained in its public library, and to fire its librarian. I would not trust someone with beliefs like that with even more power as the VP.
Apparently, she thinks it's appropriate to use her power as governor to fire people she doesn't like. Haven't we had enough of that with Bush & Gonzales?
Some high schools have more students than her little town has residents. So what's next, president of the local PTA at one of those big schools for VP? Hey, that's "experience"!
What I see is an unintelligent, power-hungry thug in a skirt. Just perfect for John McCain.