A clarification on my posts about Palin
Friday, September 5, 2008 at 6:51AM I do think she was a bold, politically-astute choice, meaning I think she can help John McCain win the presidency.
I do not see how she can be justified as the best the GOP could come up with--not by any partisan stretch of the imagination.
My point: McCain says he's different and will put country ahead of himself and his political goals. I think his choice of Palin, the most important and revealing choice any candidate for president makes, says otherwise. Choosing her says he wants to win the election more than do what's right by the office, and that diminishes a powerful aspect of his appeal, in my mind.
As for Obama's experience: in our political system, if you can pull off what he's pulled off over the past year and a half in building and leading a political machine, that's all the qualification you need to be president. That is a huge CEO/leadership operation and that's just how our system was built to operate.
Reader Comments (44)
Was she the best coice for the office? Well, if you dont win the election, you dont get a say in the condition of the office. The Dems let Evan Bayh slip into obsecurity, for me personally, he was the best choice by temperment and experience.
In the end, its all six a half a dozen, but it might be a interesting campaign for once. I think the right will actually accept a left leaning president and that might be ok in the longer run. I also think McCain/Palin may be more felexible in terms of expanding globalization than people think. Strong attitudes and opinions for sure, but the envelope does not seem to have an edge to it. They might surprise.
There are two that get my attention. America's role in the world which Tom is something of a prophet and expert with the most insightful understandings of this new age of globalization.
The other is the 'out of control' pork barrel, self serving interest groups that expand government with programs that outlast any use and are close to impossible to 'ax'. I get concerned about a increasingly bloated government that can't seem to use common sense to self regulate it. McCain brought this up with example of a $3M study of the friggin mating habits of bears of tigers or some such.Obama mentioned it ever so slightly as well with little further mention of it.
$3M could fund a pre-school or after school program for a lot of kids and keep them out of trouble and ultimately prison which is far more costly in human capital and actual $$.
Palin and JMAC are much more vocal on this and proven.
To me these two issues are what can bring America down in my opinion.
Remember JMAC, even with his age imprinting much of his view of the world is the one who fought for normalization of relations with Vietnam... not pushing democracy but normalization.
I admit to initially not being a McCain supporter.
If elected, I sincerely hope he decides to keep Gates. If so, it will send all the right messages.
As for Sec State - Evan Bayh would really dial things in. Why do I feel this way? I admit to being overly influenced by watching the HBO series John Adams and yearn for the "pure" public servant in the Fess Parker - Daniel Boon, Davy Crockit mold, but thats just my age kickin in...
Somehow, Rep or Dem it will all work out. I believe globalization is not stopable, maybe slowed down once in a while but not stopable.
Yet Palin's 2 years as Governor of Alaska with a GDP of $US40bn, which in all likelihood has an annual state budget magnitudes greater than Obama's campaign fund, is somehow not "huge CEO/leadership experience". And that's before we even talk about the differences in objectives of running a campaign and running the sixth wealthiest U.S. state.
I'll put that down to partisanship. And that's OK. It's the season to be partisan. Provided it's acknowledged.
Like Obama, given Palin's blank slate on foreign policy (and going to Kuwait doesn't give her qualifications), I would have though that it would have been somewhat more amenable to your dislike to next-big-war politicians.
And note we are comparing the Democratic nominee for POTUS and the Republic nominee for VPOTUS.
Did Reagan, Carter, Clinton, Bush 43 have fp experience? It is the executive experience that counts.
He's not the CEO, he's the spokesman. The campaign manager is responsible for managing the campaign organization.
Dan: is this really true? all i see right now is partisan politics almost everywhere i read about the election, but maybe it's only the partisans who are discussing it now.
i wonder how many people really are truly independent or true issue voters. and how many partisans on each side?
But can Obama be justified as the best the Dems could come up with? Hardly. Oh yes he probably gives the Dems the best chance to win the White House, but his resume is extremely paltry. Probably the most inexperienced major party candidate since Chester Arthur,
Bottom line- If you want 4 more of Bush vote McCain given Palin is easier on the eyes than Cheney.If you think we need a new direction then Obama is your man!
He was smart enough to get a good campaign manager and a good enough spokesman to get convince lots of people to donate to and work for the campaign.
"Yet Palin's 2 years as Governor of Alaska with a GDP of $US40bn . ."
A valid point, except that logic would suggest that Bush Jr was even better qualified still. You've established Palin's experience, now you need to compare what she did with that $40bn GDP to what Obama did with his campaign budget.
Sean,
The center with or without you.
Sean,
When will be an opportune time for the responsible "non-partisans" to discuss issues? Three weeks out? Stand up and be counted.
I apologize for the lack of cordiality and civility but strongly desire your input.
McCain strikes me as the guy who's fond of big bold (symbolic) moves and doesn't like the day-to-day nitty-gritty -- e.g. loves the invasion, not too fond of the cleanup. Good way to rebel, not a good way to govern.
You can argue that McCain can appoint some competent manager to implement his big bold vision (and I'm not saying there is a coherent vision, it might just be isolated bursts of "maverickness"), but if he can't pick a campaign manager that can properly vet his VP pick, that's not a good sign.
I'm blind.
I can't see why anyone likes him, or why the things he says have any appeal to anybody. I DO see, and must accept as true, that lots of people are moved and inspired by Sen. Obama. I am puzzled by it, but it is manifestly true. So, there is some kind of talent going on there, even though I don't "get it". There are lots of things in contemporary American culture that make no sense to me. I live with that.
As to who has more relevant experience, Sen. Obama or Gov. Palin, people can look at the same facts, obviously, and reach different conclusions. I don't think running a campaign is really a terribly strong resume item, particularly not if it is the main one, compared to Palin's performance as governor of Alaska, which has several noteworthy successes. But, even if we were to agree on the facts, we can all still say, "no, my person's resume is better", which is pretty useless.
Perhaps more interesting is the question of what the potential swing voters in the relevant states will think, and how the two campaigns will spin the "experience" issue. I think it is a weak point for Obama, and he should push his novelty and youth and not worry too much about whether he has executive experience. Most people won't think he does, campaign or not. He got where he is without focusing on it. It is a loser for him, probably, particularly, if he looks like he is running against the GOP's veep, which is a mistake he is unlikely to make. He will most likely have his surrogates keep up a constant drumbeat of attacks on Palin's character, family, religious beliefs, etc., which the media will repeat. The goal would be to degrade and destroy the positive image of Gov. Palin which the public currently has. Obama himself would be smart to speak of her only rarely and in dismissive tones as basically a gimmick and a lightweight and irrelevant, while taking the high road himself, and focusing on McCain.
VPs rarely have much ultimate impact. Palin is a phenomenon at the moment. And Palin may or may not be important to the future of the GOP. But she is probably not enough to make McCain truly viable against Obama in this election.
The devastation of the GOP brand by Pres. Bush's administartion will take a long time to recover from. 2008 is probably too soon for the GOP to be credible to a majority of Americans.
I don't deny Obama's run a very successful campaign (despite commentary above on whether he is the campaign's CEO or not). What Obama has done though is run a campaign that is by definition self-interested (almost entirely) in objective: he wants to get elected. The decisions he makes have a bearing for him and him alone (aside from a total train wreck).
Palin has run a state budget/government which has consequences not only for her political standing but for hundreds of thousands of people. And the people of Alaska, after an admittedly brief two years, continue to give her extremely high approval ratings.
Seen this argument in other places. I've been thinking about this, and the circular logic of the argument gets me. In other words, running for president has given him the qualification of being president.
The two younger people, Palin and Obama, are dynamic and interesting, but are we collectively being delusional that either of these people have the life and work experience that prepares them to be leader of the free world?
1st: my read of your comments is that your not in the center by a longshot. Obama's extraordinary and no one in the GOP can compare? Lex's comments make more sense here and i say that as someone who will almost certainly vote for Obama. i really like him, but i don't regard it as Objective Truth, self-evident to all.
follow-up question: what's your voting record? do you sometimes vote Repub?
2nd: my point was not that Centrists shouldn't discuss the election but that i don't see them discussing it. maybe i run in the wrong circles, but almost everything i read right now is partisan, evidenced by flimsy logic and cheap attempts to score points.
1st, there are many other qualifications for President, so executive experience is one among many.
2nd, running is a process that Tom is saying can prove executive competence by November. it's not circular because that's the proving date. the people can decide then, based on the evidence.
whether or not running a campaign qualifies as sufficient executive experience is another question, discussed above.
great question. i don't know. i'd put them in the same camp with other comparatively inexperienced presidents like Kennedy, Clinton, and GW Bush. depends on your standards. for my part, i'm more inclined these days to vote for someone for President who hasn't spent a career in Washington.
Palin's experience running the great state of Alaska and retaining an approval rating in the mid 80 percentile range speaks for itself. The Reid-Pelosi lead congress has a 9 percent approval rating. GW Bush's approval rating is in the mid 20 percentile range.
From the comments in the previous post on Palin, Justin's may have been the most poignant - he is 25, has traveled abroad for the past four years, attended soccer games and got hammered in bars hitting on girls. Yet, he does not believe his four-year-passport-holding record qualifies him in foreign policy expertice. Touche' Justin :-)
It is amazing to watch the Left in this country dismantle themselves emotionally and logically over McCain's awesome, maverick-driven, maverick-squared VP choice.
Obama will be lucky to win a dozen states on November 4th. This seems only to be common sense, in fly over country.
Thanks Lexington Green, outback71, manny, Justin and others (you know who you are :-)
Then there's how Palin will be perceived abroad. Unless you got your passport for the first time last year, you'll likely be aware of how little popular trust the US has overseas these days. With Obama it's crystal clear that he will do a good job healing the badly damaged image of the US. Bush has made the notion of "leader of the free world" a complete joke; as the ever interesting Yi-Fu Tuan puts it, "George W's outstanding achievement is to restore, almost single-handedly, the idea of "The ugly American." Ah, so true! Promisingly, McCain on his own looked like a centrist, a man who would be genuinely interested in building consensus. But then McCain went and chose a far-right oil-driven running mate, completely botching the image he's projected for the last 8 long years. He appeared to be his own man, now he looks like he's run by Karl Rove after all. Maverick to apparatchik in 3 days.
Obama, by contrast, appears to be both intelligent and a listener. Unlike the clearly right-wing McCain-Palin, Obama-Biden is a pure American centrist play. Obama would reinvent the American brand overseas. And even if it turns out to be another unpleasantly harsh and warlike period, it seems like it would be in America's interest to take advantage of the shift in personality that Obama represents, rather than trotting out the same old maverick cowboy routine.
unfortunately, very few Americans care what anyone else thinks. this is decidedly part of the problem.
in short, i think Obama would be best for America's international 'brand'. it's one reason i support him. but i don't think that will weigh heavily in many Americans' estimation.
(disclaimer: i don't pretend to be objective about the election, so don't try to call me on that ;-)
UKBen is wrong on this important detail. Palin fought AGAINST the oil companies. That is an unusual, and populist, position for a GOP executive.
Whether that message will get through the media protective screen to the voting public is another question.
Sean: I do try to be objective about the election. I want the GOP to win, but I don't think they will. Still, I find that if you follow politics closely and read a lot about it, you can develop a pretty good "gut" without regard to what you hope or wish for. It is almost like I am using two different parts of my brain, an analytic part and an emotive part.
And, that it would become a monumental mistake to do so. Musashi, Tao Mo, et al. all taught that your opponant is easier to defeat if you let them do it to themselves.
Simply, invite the most powerful blow, step aside, deflect and watch him fall on his face. This works in business and in politics too. The fool is the one who allows their emotions to take control and forget the prize at the end.
I'm sorry i don't have any polls, or studies on it. Just my sense of it all.
You've already made it quite clear that you think McCain's vision of what would be good for the country is very different from yours, and thereby is defective. Given that, is it fair to judge his choice, as an indicator of his inclination to choose politics over the good of the country, in *your* policy frame of reference? Would it not be more fair to judge his choice in *his* policy frame of reference?
"We need to shut up about Palin. Ignore her and pretend she doesn't exist. Every time we bring up her name, the discussion turns on her experience which then inevitably leads to a comparison with Obama's experience. That weakens Obama considerably.
The other problem is that Palin has small 'l' libertarian credentials. We've never effectively run nationwide against that type of philosophy. People on both sides of the aisle are suspicious of the growing power of Washington and in the White House. If Palin becomes the fresh face delivering McCain's message then it may be the change people come to believe in.
He tempered his message by reminding me:
But what do I know. In '92 I though Clinton a flash in the pan, and in 2000 Gore was a lead pipe lock.
It may be that I simply haven't been paying close enough attention, but what evidence is there that Senator McCain didn't sufficiently vet Governor Palin? I point this out because Dr. Barnett said something similar in his previous reaction post to the VP selection. Surprise on Governor Palin's part (aside: aren't beauty queens trained to express overly dramatic surprise upon victory?) doesn't mean Senator McCain didn't weigh his decision carefully, even if his 'gut' was part of that decision. So far, at least, and admittedly it's still early, Governor Palin seems to be a very good choice by McCain. Given that Governor Palin was a relative unknown, it can imply that McCain did *more* homework in order to decide on her. After all, Palin isn't the only woman GOP governor. (Hawaii Governor Linda Lingle at the GOP convention appealed more to me than Palin.) If it's true that McCain didn't do his due diligence, which doesn't ring true to me, than he's either very lucky or he has exceptional intuition working in his favor, not a bad trait in a dynamically changing world where we can't always rely on doing now as we've done before.
* Andrew Fong said: "McCain strikes me as the guy who's fond of big bold (symbolic) moves and doesn't like the day-to-day nitty-gritty -- e.g. loves the invasion, not too fond of the cleanup."
Wait a tic, Andrew . . . one of Senator McCain's strongest selling points is his advocacy of the 'Surge' and counterinsurgency strategy during a time when many pols, media, Bush admin, and military officials were advocating for an ASAP pull-out from Iraq. (See Michael Gordon's recent NY Times article about Bush's choice of the Petraeus-led 'doubling down' strategy change over many of his top officials' advice.) Andrew, 'Surge' and COIN = (belated) clean-up after the invasion. In contrast, many of the Dems and GOPers who voted for and supported the 2003 invasion - less based on Bush's case for war than our 12 year history with Iraq which had caused President Clinton to make regime change in Iraq our official policy by 1998 - subsequently turned against the post-war in Iraq. They - not Senator McCain - can fairly be accused of, as you describe it, loving the invasion but not being fond of the clean-up.
* UKBen said: "With Obama it's crystal clear that he will do a good job healing the badly damaged image of the US."
I'll buy that, but I'd like to draw upon Dr. Barnett's construction to ask a question regarding the perception of the candidates abroad. How do the Dems and GOP tickets play in the 'New Core' in contrast to how they play in the 'Old Core'? In large part due to my disappointment of NATO contribution in Afghanistan, building upon my disappointment in NATO during the 1990s, I wonder, which audience is it more constructive for us to please? Or asked in another way, does the prospect of Obama's "good job healing" include actual increased contributions by these nations or are we only talking about improved popular opinion polls? Which isn't to say I believe Senator McCain can draw more blood from a stone in terms of our 'Old Core' allies, but as a fan of Dr. Barnett, I am wondering in moving forward, who benefits our bottom-line more and how.
My short reaction to Palin is that I don't know her and am intrigued to find out why McCain picked her. So far, so good. I do find it curious that McCain is overtly positioning himself as a virtual Independent who's critical of the GOP, yet at the same time choosing a VP who energizes the GOP base. Although, Palin is known for taking on the Alaska GOP as an upstart, so perhaps Palin is energizing the GOP base as a reformer of the GOP, not as a GOP insider. I also believe McCain is choosing his VP according to a different POTUS-VPOTUS formula than the Dems. Obama's choice of Biden draws upon the Bush-Cheney POTUS-VPOTUS formula, where Obama's lack of confidence in his own foreign policy judgement demands redundancy in the foreign policy area. Whereas, McCain's choice of Palin reflects a division of labor formula. McCain trusts his foreign policy judgement as much as President Bush Sr trusted his foreign policy judgement during the closing of the Cold War, when Bush picked Dan Quayle as VP. Palin, a governor with grassroots, seems better suited to handle domestic and GOP base issues that probably don't interest McCain as much.
Furthermore, the McCain campaign made a smart move by choosing a governor, any governor. In my lifetime as an American, we've preferred to choose a governor for President, or at least a candidate with high-level executive experience, with good reason. We want a national leader who understands the bottom-line of CEO actions that effect all of us. As a New Yorker and (GOP-maligned) fellow-Obama Columbia alumnus, I know very little about Alaskan politics or Alaska in general, but from what I've heard, Palin has been an effective and popular governor in Alaska . . . even accounting for that huge oil-funded budget and low population she has had to work with. Carter, Reagan, Clinton and Bush Jr were all governors, while Bush Sr was an 8-year VP. Because Obama, McCain and Biden are all senators, McCain's choice of Palin becomes an effective GOP monopoly of executive experience during this election. Clever. Again, if Palin was an impulsive choice by McCain, he's got some impressive intuition.
Not necessarily. If you think of the elections not just as elections but as auditions, then the statement makes perfect sense. The skills (or lack thereof) used in the campaign are also going to be present in an administration. The personality traits, quirks and flaws exhibited in the campaign are still going to be there in the Oval Office.
Is not Palin's experience equally impressive? Running a gubernatorial campaign is no small feat no matter which state it is. More impressive is that she managed an insurgent primary campaign against a sitting governor, then in the general defeated a former governor.
How many public figures can you name who built an operation that could do that?
"in short, i think Obama would be best for America's international 'brand'. it's one reason i support him. but i don't think that will weigh heavily in many Americans' estimation"
What I find exciting this election is the convergence between how Americans think of their own government and how the rest of the world thinks of the American government. There are common resentments about secrecy and unilateralism and (sorry, but it's got to be said) lies; there are common hopes (note, not the trademarked kind, just genuine hopes) about America resuming a strong, moral, leadership role. There also seems to be a growing majority in the States whos primary goal is to reform rather than just downsize the government.
Depends who you ask.
Let's be blunt. Most of us have political leanings of one sort or another. And so I shouldn't really be surprised to read this part of UKBen's post. But let's unpack it.
"Clearly right-wing McCain-Palin?" McCain is Mr. Gang of Fourteen, Mr. Amnesty, Mr. I-Don't-Like-the-First-Amendment. The "right wing" of the GOP hate him for these betrayal of conservative principles. Yet he still won the primary: that could be a reflection of the low regard the GOP body politic held for the other nominees, or it could be a reflection of the average GOP voter. If anything, Palin's addition to the ticket moves McCain slightly to the right, but less strength given Palin is VP pick.
On the other hand, we have Obama-Biden. Obama took the most left wing position on the War in Iraq of almost all other Democratic POTUS candidates, has little respect for the second amendment, describes self confessed domestic terrorist and unapologetic Marxist revolutionary like Bill Ayers as just a quiet English Professor and is probably the most protectionist major league Democrat. Biden is a little less left wing, perhaps even centrist.
So with McCain/Palin, you start with a squishy, centrist GOP, add a dollop of right-wingery and you get "clearly right wing". On the other hand, you start with a solidly left wing Democrat, add a dollop of centrism and you get pure American centrist.
I'll leave it to the other readers to discern unacknowledged biases clouding UKBen's conclusions. No it doesn't appear like that to all Brits. Perhaps to many. But not all. Obama's certainly attractive to those living outside the U.S. (I live in Australia). That's not a qualification that will make him a good candidate for POTUS.
(Hopefully not too long Sean).
As a latecomer to the thread, my comment contained 2 replies and 1 independent comment, which really made it 3 postings rolled into one. Thanks for your discretion, Sean - I'll pay closer attention to comment length in the future.
Doesn't this argument cancel out for both sides, though? Senator Obama didn't begin as a favorite on the Dems side, so it's to his credit he beat Clinton, but I don't recall that Senator McCain began as a favorite on the GOP side, either.
In any case, at the moment, it appears that Senator McCain is running his campaign very adeptly by making some unexpected choices.
Clearly you do have a problem with my support for Obama, and that's fine. If the only way my strategic logic holds up for you is if I'm a Republican at heart, then I never really connected with you in the first place.
And that's also okay.
Frankly, I've never found my being a Democrat has cost me any access or acceptance by Republicans in the Bush administration. Despite all the stories of their hyper-partisanship, I have personally never been subjected to any. In fact, I find that everyone I've ever worked with in the administration knows I'm a Democrat and couldn't care less regarding the validity of my ideas.
Then again, during the Clinton years, I never found that being a Democrat ever got me any more acceptance than not being one.In general, I find that it's easier to be an outsider pushing this stuff with the GOP than a perceived "part of the team" trying the same with the Dems, meaning I'd expect to have less influence in an Obama administration.
I still, however, believe he'll be more conservative in his foreign policy and that America needs that now. I also believe America is desperate to move beyond the Boomers' politics, and that Obama does that better.
Perhaps his deserves its own post. I've notice you've used it a few times in various places, but not sure what you base this on. Would be very interested to read you unpack it.
Understand this a bit more than the previous assertion and I think in another post you've argued strongly for it. Again a little tenuous in my opinion. But this is your blog! :)
Aren't we digging ourselves out of countless messes created these last eight years, both foreign and domestic, from exactly this same type of ineptitude? Can we survive four more of the same?
In 1995 a family member had a Melanoma. It was removed. However, I was told it can re-occur up to 15 years later. This fact elicited other stories in discussions with friends, of melanomas in non-visible places which metastasized and killed. John McCain has had several melanomas removed. When undiscovered it can go fast – 4 months. So we have a candidate who is in denial about a deadly reoccurring condition he has who has provided us a person as VP who is unqualified to lead the country. Putting Palin in a position to become President is like put a 3rd grade math teacher into the Manhattan project as a backup to Albert Einstein. It doesn’t compute.