Easy to imagine McCain as president
Thursday, September 4, 2008 at 5:49PM And it showed in his speech, which was a good one.
Palin, though, struck me as a political lightweight who delivered a trite speech whose cheesy banter seemed more appropriate for an awards ceremony. I watched her and I simply could not seriously imagine her as president. She looks simply way out of depth.
And I have a real problem with that, when you're talking a 72-year-old man with significant health issues. To me, it was simply a disrespectful choice, hard to square with putting country-before-self thinking. She simply isn't the best the GOP has when it comes to accomplished, experienced, maverick women. Snowe? No discussion. Hutchinson? No discussion. But Palin strikes me as a very partisan, non-mainstream, poorly equipped choice for the most important job in the world. McCain dies his first year in office: does Palin strike you as the best we could do as his replacement? I just can't see doing that to America.
You really want somebody who got their first passport a while ago--not last year.
Reader Comments (25)
For a man who talks about being a bold leader, even at 72, I expected more. It was too much of the gauziness Obama is often faulted for. I've liked McCain, but I was hoping for something more.
Sarah Palin had a right to act a bit irritated since she had been dissed by Obama and the press. She will be tested in the coming weeks when she debates that foreign policy "guru" (I use the term lightly) Joe Biden. Why not give her a chance? Snowe, Hutchinson, Dole, et.al. have problems including age and indictments.
Everyone forgets that Joe Biden is 66 years old (only 6 years younger than McCain) and has had two brain aneurysms. What happens if he drops dead on the job? Do you think that the left-wing community organizer can lead the country?
Either way we will have a problem.
I'll echo another commenter's point that 'small town' is being used as a code word for unsophisticated bumbling hick. I'm sure it was not Tom's intention, but it reinforces the perception that Obama and his ilk have some kind of Divine Right Of Kings. They are a superior class that has a birthright to rule over the masses.
Maybe the Obamaicans are onto something...
Mr O' Connor was not talking about Obama being intentionally divisive, he was talking about McCain being intentionally divisive. I could not agree more with Mr O'Connor.
Palin's selection, and her speech accomplished what they were meant to do. (1) Rally the base, a critical need for McCain's campaign, where the core of the GOP pretty much does not like him. Check that box. (2) Reach out to swing voters in OH, MI, PA, NH, WI, MN, MO, WV, CO. The voters up for grabs are blue collar, rural, small town or suburban, the very people Barack dissed. Palin probably appeals to them. We shall see on election whether that box has been checked or not. We can say that the supposed "safe" VP choices offered nothing new or interesting to these people. (3) Present a counter-narrative of change and reform. Palin is from a place far from Washington. She has a plausible record of taking on her own party and the oil companies. This is consistent with McCain's own main themes and allows him to edge into Barack's "change" theme. This shows that McCain is going to assert his own program rather than just go negative on Obama and make it a referendum on Obama. This is a strategy which I consider a positive, both in its potential to defeat Obama, but also in terms of giving the public a real discussion and some substantive choices to consider.
None of the women Tom mentioned would have accomplished these things.
McCain's pick has so far worked to advance his strategy and made this a much more interesting race.
(I am working very hard here to be objective and suppress my blazing partisanship.)
Pardon me, where is this "small town" bullshit in my post?
Having grown up in a town far smaller that Wassawhatit'sfuck, I'm unlikely to be making that argument.
Please tsk-tsk me for stuff I actually write.
But to compare experience in office alone between Palin and Obama is highly misleading. Obama built and then operated a national campaign that is stunning. That alone, in our system credentializes you to be a president. Discarding that immense CEO-chief executive accomplishment is simply to deny the purpose of our political selection system.
Palin is just a selection. She didn't pull a Hillary on McCain and then get her reward. Her experience vs Obama's actual accomplishments just don't compare.
Now, you can say she's jsut another Truman possibly, and maybe she is. But I think anyone would be hard-pressed to make that judgment with any confidence, and there's where I feel McCain betrays his image. He made a choice to win the election but by doing so he also made a choice to put his election above the national need for a seriously competent person in that job.
Blaze away. I come away better informed when Tom gets involved, point for counterpoint, furthering a thread.
Thanks.
1. does this make me an ageist? just someone who wants change? inclined to vote for those who have spent the least time in Washington? do i just think Palin is cute ;-)
2. i really didn't like her hit job speech. i know it's normal politics but i still hate the attacks and the talking past each other.
Official visits, I imagine, would be what gives you some foreign policy experience. If that's the criticism, than ok, I agree. But this notion that if she had traveled as a tourist would've given her credibility is as nonsensical as Obama having executive experience by way of running for president.
Tom,
I would argue that his campaign's success is due to his oratory skills, and not his skills as a CEO. If he had John McCain's speaking ability, none of us would know who he is. What decisions, solely as the executive of his campaign, has he made that have been particularly impressive to you?
Thoughts occur in words. If you can't speak well, that frequently (though not always) implies you can't think well.
By this argument, one could say Cato, Cicero, Lincoln, Churchill, and Reagan -- conservative icons all -- gained their status through "just their oratory."
For a criticism about the lack of substance, it's remarkably insubstantial.