I was setting up camp in Theodore Roosevelt National Park, North Unit, when Obama gave his acceptance speech. I only found out about McCain's VP choice on Friday because the temperature in the Little Missouri River valley broke the triple digit mark. My intrepid band of explores left the trail and broke for Watford City and ice cream.
I just got back in town, and "Palin isn't yet in my spell check dictionary, but here is my take on the action. I agree with Professor Schaff that this choice has one great weakness, and I would add another. The most obvious is that it partially neutralizes the "inexperience" argument that the Republicans have been using against Obama. Cory Heidelberger points out that the VP needs to have all the qualifications for President that the Presidential candidate has. That is sound constitutional doctrine. But voters don't weigh the running mate with nearly as much attention as they weigh the candidate himself. On paper, McCain still looks a lot more experienced in all sorts of ways than Obama, and that will in the end sway some voters. So I say the experience thing is only partially neutralized. However, this makes it very hard for the Republicans to continue to make the experience argument, and that is a significant weakness.
The other weakness is that the choice looks to be all strategy and no statesmanship. Does anyone think that McCain chose Palin because he really thought that she was most fit to be President out of all his choices? It would have been nice to find someone whom the American people fully trust to take over if McCain vapor-locks sometime after his inauguration. Maybe Palin can build that trust, but I wouldn't bet on it.
That said, it isn't easy to think of persons with the right experience to be president. There are really only two jobs that provide that kind of experience: Vice President, and Supreme Allied Commander. Both parties have shallow benches.
So what does Palin bring to the ticket? I am still shaking sand and bison fur out of my hiking boots, but I can see three strategic dimensions to this choice. First, Palin is a woman and there is some chance that some independent minded voters, miffed at the collapse of the Clinton campaign, might care enough about the gender thing to vote for Palin. She surely does stand a chance of becoming the first Vice President with two X chromosomes, and thus gets in the express lane toward being the first Madam President. Wouldn't it be delicious if the Republicans put the first woman in the White House?
Second, Palin is going to energize the Republican base. If your average social conservative were consulting a dating service, he (or she!) would be looking for someone just like Sarah Palin.
Finally, the announcement took almost all the wind (and I do mean wind) out of the Democratic convention. McCain is playing political chess, and just right now he looks to be playing pretty well. It looks like Obama got no bounce out of his convention.
Of course, the first is speculative and weak, and the second will largely neutralize it. Certainly very few Clinton voters will cross party lines for a woman who is strongly pro-life. And if McCain has killed Obama's convention bounce (no small matter, that), he still has to get a bounce of his own.
I agree with my SDP colleague Mr. Heppler that one can make a case for Palin over Obama. She has more executive experience than the rest of the field put together, and I think, at first glance, that she is a more substantial person than Obama. She won't have to explain why she spent decades listening to sermons that she didn't believe in. But she hasn't shown any ability to fill stadiums with admirers yet, either. A lot will depend on how well she does in front of the national camera. If she is good, then this may be the move that decided the match in his favor. If she isn't, then Professor Schaff will turn out to be right: this is the moment that McCain lost the election.
Recent Comments