Welcome to the Palin-drome
Wow! I step away from the computer for Labor Day weekend and when I come back the fans are choked with fur. I’m pretty sure nothing on this site has generated the level of interest that the Palin nomination has – not even links to Steve Sailer. So thank-you, John McCain! She may not be the best for the ticket, or the best for America, but she’s been great for traffic!
And now, upon reflection, three serious points.
First, I think Ross’s correspondent has a point. To the extent those of us who are excited about the Palin pick are excited about Palin, there’s a real risk that by bringing her national in this way McCain ruins her. If all one wanted was national exposure for Palin, the keynote spot would have made more sense than VP. If she performs well, and the ticket loses (as I still expect it to), she’s got a future. But if she performs poorly, because she was shoved onstage too soon, she probably doesn’t, and that’ll be a shame.
Second, it is really striking how angry the anti-Palin voices are. I’m not going to link to Andrew Sullivan) because you know where to find him, but if you’re so inclined, check him out. It’s tempting to say the Obama partisans are angry because the pick is politically brilliant, and they are scared. I don’t think that’s most of it, though. I think most of it is refracted Bush hatred. Palin isn’t much like Bush, as far as I can see. (She’s more like Huckabee, another candidate who is manifestly not yet ready to be President but who I thought would make a great VP pick – and if Palin crashes and burns because she’s not ready for prime time, we’ll all have reason to regret McCain not picking Huckabee instead.) But I still think that’s the basis of the fury – she reminds too many people of how (they think) Bush was able to hoodwink a majority into voting against its own interests, and how they (the Democrats) were unable to counter that appeal.
If that’s the case, and if the Democrats want to win, they really, really need to get control of their anger. The strategy of the anti-Palin forces is incredibly and obviously self-destructive, and the Obama campaign, at least, seems to have figured this out within a day of the announcement. I eagerly await the day his fans come to the same conclusion.
Finally, there are other detractors (e.g., Charles Krauthammer) who are strong supporters of McCain who are aghast that McCain is throwing away the experience argument. As all these folks voted for Bush in 2000 (who was somewhat more qualified to be President than Obama is, but not enormously so), they can’t believe that the more experienced candidate always ought to win. Nor can they believe he inevitably does win (1960, 1976, 1980, 1992, 2000). Rather, the argument is that, in these perilous times specifically, we cannot afford a chance that a political novice like Palin ascends to the Presidency. With Palin on the ticket, it’s harder for McCain to say: you can’t risk a neophyte like Obama given the existential threat from Islamofascism.
To my mind, this is a feature of the pick, not a bug. And I don’t mean because the experience argument is overrated (and it is: Roosevelt replaced the much-more-qualified Henry Wallace with the unknown and totally unready Harry Truman in the middle of World War II, and thank God he did). Rather, I don’t want McCain to be able to run an “indispensable man” campaign because I reject both premises: not only are the cemeteries full of indispensable men, but the kinds of threats we face are basically normal, and not some kind of national emergency through which only a certified American hero can lead us.
I said before that I’m still undecided in this election. Foreign policy looms exceptionally large for me this time, and so far while I find Obama disappointing I find McCain genuinely alarming. Whether deep inside him he still harbors the “old McCain” who opposed the Lebanon intervention, supported the Powell Doctrine, and led the way on normalization with Vietnam, as a candidate McCain clearly wants to run on the permanent emergency, with a subtext that only a real American can be trusted to defend America, and real Americans can be identified by their reflex hawkishness in all circumstances. A campaign of that character would have to be defeated, for the good of the country. And, as noted, Palin makes it somewhat harder to run such a campaign. He can still say that you can only trust 100% real American Americans in a time of peril, a pitch aimed right at the gut that I expect him to keep making, and Obama just has to deal with it ‘cause politics ain’t beanbag. But he would have done that no matter who he picked. If the plausibility of the “existential peril” pitch is lower with Palin at his side than with any other choice, that’s a good thing in my book.
Especially given that, as I understand it, McCain really wanted to pick Joe Lieberman as his running mate, and began looking at second choices only when he was persuaded that he’d have a revolt on his hands if he did so. A Lieberman pick would have been politically disastrous for the GOP because it would signal that there are no Republicans running in this election, and a lot of the base would have revolted over the fact that Lieberman is pro-choice. That wouldn’t have been a deal-breaker for me, as I’m in the mushy middle on abortion, and don’t vote on it one way or the other. But I would have revolted because Independent Democrat Joe Lieberman as the GOP’s #2 could only be comprehensible at all in a national emergency context. And we just are not in a national emergency. So if the choice was Palin or Lieberman, my preference is clear.
UPDATE: You know, I wrote this post, and made my little points, and then I started working back through some of the comments (not on my posts, actually – I haven’t gotten back that far, and I’m not sure I will). People are seriously losing their minds here, in a way that I’ve never seen before on this site. And not just people who have obviously wandered over here for the first time: regular readers are going off their rockers. I’m really not sure what we all ought to do about this. I wrote a little sermonette but I just deleted it because I can’t imagine anyone who’s gone off their rocker reading it and doing anything but getting angrier. I’m open to suggestions on what to do. Myself, I swear my next post will about Canadian theater.
Noah,
I think you should separate the online rancor from the netroots and folks like Sullivan (say what you will about his Obama support, but I seriously doubt Andrew Sullivan considers himself a Dem) from your generic Democrat as I don’t think the later have had time to process the pick yet (which is also why I think it’s also premature to call the pick a home run or a hail mary, depending on your point of view). Sure there are some making heated arguments that the pick was strictly a political ploy, a form of tokenism (which it could be) but, then again, maybe McCain truly believes that Sarah Palin is the best choice to he his #2. Whether you think McCain is a “maverick” or not (I don’t) the pick definitely was not what most expected. It does, however, give us another instance in which we can examine McCain’s judgment. Frankly, I don’t know how I feel about the “roll the dice” impulsiveness of McCain, especially in light of your concerns about foreign policy. McCain’s tendency to overstate threats and bluster when reason should reign should give anyone pause.
— Mike P · Sep 2, 03:43 AM · #
Um, I think you might be misreading the leftwing crazies like myself. I haven’t seen any anger about this pick, simply astonishment. I’m sort of reveling in the fun of it really. I’m about 100% confident that she’ll say many stupid things before the election and I look forward to that. She’ll easily outdo Biden. And of course there’s troopergate, the fact that she used to be a member of a political party that wants to secede from the U.S. (Can you imagine if this were in Obama’s past! OMG!), and now her daughter is pregnant. She’s a walking scandal machine. No anger here, just pure fascination.
I’m sort of giggling in anticipation and just hope McCain doesn’t replace her.
Of course, if McCain somehow wins, then this will all change.
— KJ · Sep 2, 03:59 AM · #
Am I among the people who got off their rocker? I ask because I don’t think so but then again I am very excited by the Palin pick and have been somewhat vociferous about the Palin attackers, who are frankly disingenuous.
— PEG · Sep 2, 05:13 AM · #
I think Andrew Sullivan covers most of the anger. I think it’s completely hilarious, and helps demonstrate how, realistically speaking, you can nominate absolutely anybody to be veep and get away with it. people were in danger of talking about Obama so McCain made a ‘Look at me; I’m an attention whore’ pick to nip that. It’s not like he’s even only cynically thinking about the election, like his supporters seem to hope; he’s cynically thinking about trying to ‘win’ just a single news cycle. Which, unlike the former, doesn’t actually help you become president; it’s more like cynicism’s retarded cousin, too-clever-by-halfness.
As for your comments about McCain’s campaign, I think you’re the one losing your mind there. The reason that the type of campaign McCain is running needs to be defeated is because it’s so incredibly dumb; because his Palin pick is dumb by that dumb standard, that paradoxically makes you more likely to vote for it? Just trying to untangle that logic pretzel is threatening a headache. Obviously, McCain’s going to act as president the way he has for the last 8 years; they’re not 2 separate people. If you’ve got to reach back to the early 80s to find something non-warmongering he did, you already know what that means, don’t you? I mean, the fact that McCain had to be talked out of picking Lieberman should tell you who is the real McCain here. And equally obviously, Palin, a young VP with no foreign policy experience, won’t be able to do a thing to stop him even if she wanted to. As I told a Romney-supporting friend last year, “McCain’s the only candidate the Dems can lose to, and Romney’s the only candidate the Dems would have to worry about being a good president. They might as well break out the champagne now.”
I kinda feel sorry for the conservatives. There’s a certain cynicism that’s infecting them where they’re concentrating entirely on trying their best to win even at the expense of the governance they’ll provide should they win. But beneath that is a real hope for redemption, that if they can just hold on to power a little longer, they can fix up the messes they’ve created, set things back in order, and get the US back towards a conservative success story. But unfortunately, it’s leading conservatives to see things backward, to grab at thin justifications for why McCain is not the candidate that he’s going around loudly claiming to be, and that’s going to make the next 4 years pretty excruciating for them if McCain wins.
— Bo · Sep 2, 05:21 AM · #
Well, hey, you can blame Reihan Salam to leading me to “wander over here for the first time.” I’ve seen him on Race/Road/(whatever) to the White House and enjoyed his comments. And after reading the other posters on this blog for a few days, I’m hooked. I like the civil, sometimes tongue-in-cheek dialogue. So, keep it up. I’m enjoying it thoroughly.
Re: the Palin-drome… Sad to say, I’m mesmerized. I feel like I’m watching a soap opera, which is a much nicer description than train wreck. Sorry.
— CHART · Sep 2, 05:41 AM · #
Agree that overall there isn’t nearly as much anger as you think. Certainly ridicule – which is IMO justified on the facts, though unwise politically (but then I don’t see any evidence that swing voters are influenced at all by the excesses of the blogosphere).
It seems to me that a lot of people who like Palin have let that liking blind themselves to just how … bad a pick she is in terms of governance, and just how cynical the pick is. I suppose that there is a tinge of anger at just that level of cynicism, but that is being replaced pretty quickly by glee as it becomes …. I was going to say obvious, but let’s just say highly likely … that the pick was also a political mistake.
Finally, don’t underestimate the extent to which hard core social conservatives push buttons on the left, to an even greater extent than other perceived outraged of the right. Personally, I am far more concerned about foriegn policy issues, so I don’t share that particular reaction, but I think that it explains what (relatively little) anger in fact exists. See Sullivan, Andrew.
— LarryM · Sep 2, 06:20 AM · #
Clearly the worst part of her selection is not the lack of experience, but the onslaught bloggers wielding bad puns of her last name in a desperate attempt to be clever.
— Russ · Sep 2, 08:15 AM · #
Noah observes: “People are seriously losing their minds here”
Right. And here’s the deeply fundamental reason underlying all the rage on one side and joyous amusement on the other over Sarah Palin: it’s all about … fertility.
Human beings have extremely strong emotions on the topic of fertility. It’s an obsession — look at the celebrity gossip columns these days. The who is sleeping with whom stuff bores people now compared to the pregnancy news. Thus, celebrities auction off rights to pictures of their new babies for millions, even though all newborns look alike. The top breeding stock parents — Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt — were looking to snag something like $6 million.
Now, the Breeding Wars have moved into the political arena. Barack Obama launched his Presidential run at the 2004 Democratic convention by devoting the first 380 words of his speech to describing in great detail the breeding stock from which he was born. His message is that by uniting in his DNA the two races, he will end civil strife. (Noah, take a look at Henry VII’s speech ending “Richard III” for the classic expression of the dynastic merger, in this case between the Lancasters and the Yorks.)
Palin has horned in on that. She’s had five kids and now has a 17-year-old daughter who is pregnant and will marry a handsome hockey player.
The Stuff White People Like set are outraged and alarmed to be reminded that the Rednecks are outbreeding them.
— Steve Sailer · Sep 2, 08:38 AM · #
“The Stuff White People Like set are outraged and alarmed to be reminded that the Rednecks are outbreeding them.”
Actaully, no. Those people (as are many other Americans) are proabbly wondering about the various levels of hypocrisy soon to be on display in regards to explaining the situation regarding Bristol Palin’s pregnancy (whether one thinks it shouldn’t be talked about is kind of moot at this point). It sounds like she decided to keep her baby, but her mother’s stance on abortion would prevent others from having that choice (if that’s indeed what happened). Sarah Palin looks like she abused her office for political purposes in firing a state employeee who, in turn, would not fire another state employee at her request. She was for the Bridge from Nowhere before she was against it…face it, the rollout of Palin could have gone much, much better. Again, while some might be “angry” about the pick, I think most are simply confused or bemused by it all.
— Mike P · Sep 2, 11:38 AM · #
This pick has brought out so much craziness from all sides that I don’t know where to begin. I think you’re right that some of the anger (and some people seem to be really outraged by this pick) comes from the feeling that her selection is part of a con game to “trick” people in to voting for McCain. But, this doesn’t excuse the way some people are digging into her family life in ways that they’d be outraged about if it were done to a Democratic candidate.
But, many of the defenders of Palin deserve some of the blame as well, because some of the things being said in her defense are so silly that it makes one wonder if they think this is a con game, too. For example: That she has foreign policy experience because Alaska is next to Russia. That, if something happened to McCain, she could just resign the vice-presidency to ensure that someone else became President. That Harry Truman, when he was chosen for Vice President, was also an unknown (Truman was a two-term US Senator who had appeared on the cover of Time Magazine in 1943, which is much more national exposure than Palin had before this).
— Ratufa · Sep 2, 01:04 PM · #
I think it would be awesome if you would stick to writing about Canadian theatre. Your insights into that area would be far more interesting and salient than those on presidential politics.
— Jeff Pollner · Sep 2, 01:58 PM · #
Steve Sailer weighs in … I’m almost alone among people of my political persuasion in saying this, but Mr. Sailer is a smart guy capable of insight. However, his many prejudices (racial and otherwise) often produces comments like this, not just wrong but hilariously wrong.
Set aside the question of just how much anger there is (and Andrew Sullivan, whatever damage he has done to his conservative bona fides, is still hardly a man of the left). Virtually the only people concerned with differential fertility rates are Mr. Sailer’s ideological fellow travelers. The left believes (to the extent they consider the question at all, which isn’t much) – rightly or wrongly (rightly in my view, but that is irrelevant to the current conversation) – that many of those “redneck” (Sailer’s word) children are going to move to the cities and become liberals, or the suburbs and become moderates. There will be less migration in the other direction. Demography is not destiny.
Which isn’t to deny that there is a cultural dimension to this, but it’s not about family size – as I said above, it’s about an extreme visceral distaste for extreme social conservatives. And whatever else you can say about Ms. Palin, she is that.
— LarryM · Sep 2, 02:22 PM · #
I only found out about the whole AKIP thing today, from KJ’s comment, so it is worth pointing out here that ABC updated their original post on the subject. You have to scroll a bit, but the key section:
— Blar · Sep 2, 04:13 PM · #
Here’s why everyone’s crazy one way or another:
1) The pick by McCain was completely reckless and a total curveball (actually, more like a knuckleball)
2) It undermines his entire campaign message up to this point
3) It is classic identity politics, electioneering, an cycinism – something Republicans always complain about
4) He didn’t vet her much at all, and has only met her once (again, reckless)
5) She’s a first-term Gov from one of the smallest states in the country with seemingly no interest in major national issues outside of energy,
6) Her personal story, family and otherwise, is flat-out ridiculous (in a good way)
7) McCain completely co-opted Obama’s convetion momentum, which is amazing
8) It is the most base form of politics imaginable
9) It just might work
— mattc · Sep 2, 04:41 PM · #
I don’t think the inexperience thing true. Governor, like President is “buck stops here” job, to quote Truman. As such it provides more experience than the equivalent amount of time in the Senate. I would argue quite a lot more. Heinlein said in Man Who Sold the Moon being the top boss is like sex, until you’ve done it you don’t know it. Nobody is really equipped to be President but she is better than most.
— neil craig · Sep 2, 05:03 PM · #
Neil, she’s been governor for less than two years! Of one of the least populated states in the U.S.!
As a liberal, I agree with the commenters above that the typical liberal response to this is amused amazement, not anger. In one stroke, McCain throws away all the advantages his experience gives him over Obama, and reveals himself as the impulsive loose cannon his opponents claim he is. Plus, guarantees us all political junkies lots of Northern Exposure-style entertainment over the next two months. Thanks, dude!
I actually also agree with Noah’s original post that I’d much rather see Palin as VP than Lieberman. In one stroke, this campaign has been converted from a grim showdown over militarism to a cheery domestic farce, with our guy winning at the end. Thanks again!
— MQ · Sep 2, 05:27 PM · #
Steve Sailer is much closer culturally to the “Stuff White People Like” set than to the rednecks. But he’s too blinded by ideology to see that.
— Freddie · Sep 2, 07:55 PM · #
I’m with most of your commenters here that anger really has nothing to do with the Palin-drome. At least not now. I admit to being pretty surprised up front, then pissed, but now it’s not so much anger as it is the smell of blood in the water. Democrats were afraid of McCain to be sure, but not anymore. When the TV ratings come in after his Thursday speech, when they show that the national audience for him was far eclipsed by Obama (and most likely Palin, for that matter), the sheen will be forever off this campaign. In fact, Obama’s lying low right now and even came out with a statement to lay off Palin’s family, showing he’s on the high road throughout.
My greatest worry, which to some degree is fueling some game-face, warrior chest-thumping from me, is how easy McCain was able to tap into the evangelical base. What fucking morons they are to throw their considerable weight behind McCain just because he picked this mommy-with-a-heart-of-gold running mate. Such unhinged devotion can be politically devastating to the Democrats if they manage to coalesce and organize and get out the vote. The main tactic the Democrats have now is to keep pounding the drums of her past associations, her fringe positions on book banning and oil/God’s will, her well-documented contradictions on earmarks, and troopergate, as testament to the seriously impaired judgment of the McCain campaign. His first presidential decision and he makes one this off the cuff. Lunacy.
— ep-yeah, right · Sep 2, 08:29 PM · #
The merciless media reaction to Palin has taken my focus off the merits of McCain’s choice.
— Julana · Sep 2, 08:41 PM · #
I think in a week Bristol’s pregnancy will be off the radar, and the fact that the women is a evolution-denying arch-conservative secessionist with an extremely limited resume will be front and center.
— Freddie · Sep 2, 09:02 PM · #
Steve Sailer, Steve Sailer WHooooooooo!!!!!!!!.
Duuuude. Fertility envy. YAH!
You should be the republican VP pick. Shine on you crazy diamond!
Breeding stock! Barack Obamas!
You are a legend my friend.
Breeding stock! WHite people! _____ people!
DUDE!
You know what I’m thinking right now? Uterus. I wish I had one. So that I carry your stock to fruition. AND RULE THE WORLD! HAHA HAHA HA HHAHA HAH AHAHHA HAHAHHAHAHH!!!!
— cw · Sep 2, 11:16 PM · #
Freddie, see my post above. Palin was not ever in the AKIP. She’s never denied evolution either. She said she sees no reason to shut down a discussion of creationism vs. evolution if it comes up in a science class, which I guess is sort of pro-creationist. But:
I don’t know what you mean by “arch-conservative,” unless you mean “conservative in the bad sense,” which is admittedly difficult for me to disqualify.
— Blar · Sep 3, 03:53 AM · #
i think the underlying point has been made: obama talking up how his experience “running a campaign” trumps the mayor of whatever that town sarah was mayor of before she was elected gov…(why do the dems refuse to acknowledge that the voters elected her to that office i wonder?)
response team obama thus far:
1.) she’s good looking (biden)
2.) she was a mayor of a 8,000 pop. town
3.) her daughter actually was the mom of the baby, not her
4.) oh wait, her daughter is pregnant now and 17
meanwhile the real world gets it— she’s done stuff, we like her and it is a game changer to folks like me who would pull the lever (like all trad. repubs) reluctantly for mccain but enthusiastically for sarah
so keep being “bemused” keep watching your “soap opera” keep comparing resumes (please!!!)… we are back in this game. second half— suit up— game on!
— bud · Sep 3, 03:59 AM · #
Uh, bud, the Obama campaign has said none of those things.
— Freddie · Sep 3, 04:29 AM · #
I would actually say this “bud” is 3/8ths right.
1.) Biden says Palin is ‘Good Looking,’ though it’s obvious from the article that it was an inoffensive, good-natured joke.
2.) Obama says running a campaign gives him more executive experience than running Wasilla does for Palin. Which might be a fair argument, except that it becomes more difficult to make without minimizing her governorship, which is what Obama does here.
You are right about 3.) and 4.), which have been the domains of the Kos kids and the MSM respectively. The Obama camp has prudently avoided these, even denouncing their legitimacy as issues in public.
— Blar · Sep 3, 02:18 PM · #
Is the “Studd White People Like set” the people described on the website, or is it those who find the website funny because it mocks junior BoBos, or is it people who simultaneously like some of the stuff that white people like (who doesn’t think Arrested Development was awesome?) but who also dislike the overall outlook of urban hipsters?
— Zak · Sep 3, 04:08 PM · #
Zak,
Yes. You nailed it. Best definition I’ve seen.
BTW, I do think a lot of the anger of The Stuff White People Like crowd is reflected anger/disgust with George W. Bush. The pick and the positive Republican reaction (even showing up here at TAC which, I suspect, is what has gotten your usual suspect commentors all worked up) makes it seem, more than ever, that it’s going to be 4 more years of the same. In those minds:
Sarah Palin = Monica Goodling
I’m not sure that’s fair, but I think you are seeing genuine outrage about the degree to which qualifications and competency don’t seem to matter to Republicans. Being a strong member of their tribe seems to be the main qualification which is why they’ve had a bizarrely positive reaction and have resorted to Alaska is near Russia arguments. The gushingly positive response and often aggressively anti-intellectual tone of that response from certain quarters highlights the “W-ism” of the pick. I don’t think that’s fair to Palin, but I think it gets at the heart of what getting those folks so riled up.
— keatssycamore · Sep 3, 05:24 PM · #
“People are losing their minds.” Yes. And they are losing their minds over the way the Republicans — and you, Millman, who claim not to have made up their minds about who to vote for, who claim to be “genuinely alarmed” by McCain’s take on foreign policy — have defended this VP nominee.
Why has there been such a shitstorm over admittedly, perhaps inconsequential tidbits about Palin’s resume? Because the Republicans and the McCain camp have offered NOTHING IN RETURN. Can we have a debate about policy, foreign or domestic, or about how best to lead this country for the next four years? No, because the McCain/Palin camp have offered none of her views about that. And one can only assume it’s because she doesn’t yet have any. She and they are completely unprepared for this campaign. If that isn’t worthy of discussion, I don’t know what is.
She MUST have foreign policy experience, because Alaska neighbors Russia. OK, so what are her views about Russis? Crickets from the McCain camp.
These are not allegations and rumors and petty squabbles unearthed after exhaustive research on anyone’s part into Sarah Palin’s history. It’s not even the Obama camp. It was research done by anyone with access to Google and YouTube. But such news has completely caught the McCain camp unprepared — thanks to McCain’s desire to make a “maverick” choice that would win a news cycle and stomp on Obama’s campaign bounce. And now his entire party has to deal with his…innovation, or reckleness, either way.
The Republicans are not prepared to debate about serious issues vis-a-vis Palin. That’s why we have all this crap about her pregnant, unmarried teenage daughter. But it’s their fault, for not having done the work to address all this beforehand. It’s preparedness and readiness to lead that are leading to all this “anger,” which are you are completely disingenuous in characterizing.
— saxon conrad · Sep 3, 05:32 PM · #
“I’m not sure that’s fair, but I think you are seeing genuine outrage about the degree to which qualifications and competency don’t seem to matter to Republicans. Being a strong member of their tribe seems to be the main qualification which is why they’ve had a bizarrely positive reaction and have resorted to Alaska is near Russia arguments. The gushingly positive response and often aggressively anti-intellectual tone of that response from certain quarters highlights the “W-ism” of the pick. I don’t think that’s fair to Palin, but I think it gets at the heart of what getting those folks so riled up.”
“The Republicans are not prepared to debate about serious issues vis-a-vis Palin. “
I will offer a suggestion that you critique Governor Palin after having contrived a set of impartial principles about what would constitute acceptible preparation for the Presidential or Vice Presidential office. It is difficult to discern from this standpoint what those criteria would be if they disallow Gov. Palin but give a pass to the Democratic Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates, neither of whom has ANY experience as a line administrator. Most of Sen. Obama’s career has been as a state legislator, a position he acquired at the same time Gov. Palin was elected Mayor of Wasilla, Alaska. State legislatures are usually only in session part of the year.
— Art Deco · Sep 3, 09:58 PM · #
My set of impartial principals? Having developed a policy or a vision or even a set of criteria with which they will govern. My point is that, at least maybe until we hear her acceptance speech tonight, we will have heard NONE of that from Gov. Palin. A quick search (again, via Google or YouTube) will give you the impression that A) she hasn’t given much though to foreign policy issues like the war in Iraq, and B) she wonders (last month) what it is that the VP does all day. Yes, these are shallow critiques based on not much information. But “not much information” is what we’ve been given about her…and I and many others lay the blame for that squarely on McCain’s shoulders, for his desire to surprise everyone with his pick which left his campaign staffers hanging out to dry when they had to answer questions about her.
Please, tell us something that she believes in. Tell us what her vision of government is. Tell us what she thinks her working relationship with McCain will be like. I’m tired of this other nonsense too. But shifting the blame and saying that we’re not focusing on the Democratic tickets’ experience or lack thereof is totally dodging the question. The Republicans have offered no policy to debate. Only biography.
— saxon conrad · Sep 3, 11:00 PM · #
Her speech did seem a little thin on whole “vision” thing.
— keatssycamore · Sep 4, 08:20 PM · #