As anyone who has slavishly been following the Republican running-mate roil for the last month knew, McCain was destined to pick one of these three men: Governor Tim Pawlenty of Minnesota, former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, and former Democrat Joe Lieberman.
Right?
Well, no. In Dayton, Ohio, just hours ago, John McCain named the little-known Governor of Alaska, Sarah Palin, as his vice presidential selection.
That whirling sound is the political press doing its best to sleep off its DNC hangover while working the BlackBerries and phones to produce profiles of the person who, save Hillary Clinton, is now the world’s most famous female politician. (Sorry, Nancy.)
It’s a turn on the dime for the great mentioner. This morning, I did a quick LexisNexis search tallying the number of times that some potential picks were mentioned from June 1 through this Wednesday in newspaper and wire service articles, along with the words “vice” and “McCain.”
706 Mitt Romney519 Tim Pawlenty
486 Joe Lieberman
342 former Pennsylvania Governor Tom Ridge
325 Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal
153 former Hewlett Packard CEO Carly Fiorina
105 Alaska Governor Sarah Palin
86 former E-Bay CEO Meg Whitman
As you can see, Palin is way at the bottom. The pick, wrote Jonathan Martin of The Politico, is “perhaps the most shocking in recent political history.” So how did the political press get this one so wrong?
Reporters writing about the Obama and McCain vice presidential nominations repeatedly mentioned that both camps’ processes were the most opaque ever conducted. That lack of information didn’t stop pundits from offering lists pulled from a combination of reporting, and informed speculation.
Of course things do get out—any time a politician’s staff is needed to pull together vetting documents, there’s an expanding circle where leaks can and do originate.
And those leaks get ink. And Palin didn’t get much. And she’ll be the nominee.
Whoops. And so, today, how many journalists and readers are regretting the time they spent writing and reading about, well, nothing?
Ummm...no one picked this because...Gov. Palin is a no-one selection. Two years as a Gov., and a stint as a mayor of a small town? WTF?!? McCain has underperformed in a most spectacular manner. As Democrat, I salute his inanity.
Posted by grlnextdoor on Fri 29 Aug 2008 at 06:56 PM
Ummm...no one picked this because...Gov. Palin is a no-one selection. Two years as a Gov., and a stint as a mayor of a small town? WTF?!? McCain has underperformed in a most spectacular manner. As Democrat, I salute his inanity.
Sounds almost as unqualified as Barack Hussein Obama. I wonder how many terrorists she hangs out with?
Posted by TDC on Fri 29 Aug 2008 at 09:08 PM
I suppose we'll be seeing a lot of rubrics comparing the relative "inexperiences" of Obama and Palin. I don't think I've ever seen such a willful obfuscation of facts as the one required to paint Obama as inexperienced in leadership. Inside of two decades, the man has directed a Chicago community organization, run the Harvard Law Review, orchestrated a statewide voting drive, and served two terms as a state senator and one term in the Senate. In no way do mean to impugn the experience of Palin, who seems to have lived a full life as a councilwoman, small-town mayor, governor and outdoor sporting enthusiast; but to compare the two does a disservice to the very idea of motivated public citizenry.
Posted by Evan Woodward on Sat 30 Aug 2008 at 01:58 AM
I don't think I've ever seen such a willful obfuscation of facts
I was just thinking the same thing.
Inside of two decades, the man has directed a Chicago community organization
With his little terrorist friend Bill Ayers doling out money to people like Mike Klonsky. I wouldn’t put that on my resume if I were him.
run the Harvard Law Review
Under his tenure, vol. 104 is the least-cited volume of the Harvard Law Review in the last 20 years .. he done run it real good.
served two terms as a state senator
Where her won his seat by having all other challengers disqualified under technicalities, and was responsible for ZERO legislation until he befriended Emil Jones who decided to make him a US senator.
and one term in the Senate.
Not one term, 2/3rds and he has done what exactly in the Senate, besides run for POTUS for half of it? That and have his two challenger’s, Blair Hull and Jack Ryan, divorce records unsealed. Truly a new kind of politics.
to compare the two does a disservice to the very idea of motivated public citizenry.
I wholly agree! To compare a machine raised politician who always turned his head when knee deep in corruption to a politician, mother of five (one of whom is soon to be deployed in Iraq) who actively engaged corruption (not just pay it lip service) is a disservice indeed!
Posted by TDC on Sat 30 Aug 2008 at 01:45 PM
You prove my point perfectly. I refer to his years of community activism working on tenant's rights and job training programs, and you bring up his entirely irrelevant association with Bill Ayers over a decade later. If thats not willful obfuscation, I dont know what is.
Posted by Evan Woodward on Sat 30 Aug 2008 at 10:59 PM
years of community activism working on tenant's rights and job training programs
Wow! What qualifications! Thats almost enough to put him in the running for emperor of the world!
his entirely irrelevant association with Bill Ayers
I wonder if the voters will find it irrelevant?
Posted by TDC on Sun 31 Aug 2008 at 09:54 AM
Since Sean Hannity and others have been flogging this Ayers association for over a year now and it has gained no traction within respectable media, the burden seems to be upon you to explain why voters should care. Can you do so, without resorting to absurd caricature? A little challenge for TDC. What evidence is there that Ayers had any ideological influence on Obama?
And it's not surprising that you scoff at Obama's community organizing credentials. It's this type of unglamorous, minorly rewarding gruntwork that is always given short-shrift in favor of the glory of higher office. I'm sure the working poor Obama helped out, however briefly, are more indebted to his and others' efforts, than whatever votes Palin sat in for as a city councilwoman in an Alaskan frontier town.
Posted by Evan Woodward on Sun 31 Aug 2008 at 11:52 AM
TDC, your comment about Palin as a fighter of corruption might prove to be regrettable, or even Orwellian.
She's been caught lying on tape about her own "troopergate" scandal in which she and her husband used the power of her office to force a former in-law from office.
Despite the fairly miniscule size of her staff, and the deeply personal nature of the relationship between the trooper and Ms. Palin's family -- he had a stormy marriage with her sister -- the entire story of Palin's alleged innocence in the matter hinges on everyone of us having to believe that dozens of calls made by Palin's staff -- and her own husband -- to various state personnel to pressure the state to fire this trooper, who'd already been cleared by the Alaskan state government of wrongdoing due process, were all made with no knowledge whatsoever by Ms. Palin.
This is highly suspect, and though the wingnuts are out in force to minimize the damage, Palin is most likely in some trouble on this one.
From an Alaskan familiar with the case, on the most read post defending Palin:
I am a longtime Alaska conservative Republican who voted for Sarah Palin in the general election but have not counted myself as a Palin-bot. I will state candidly that Gov. Palin’s role in ‘Troopergate’ stinks. Here are a few questions that remain unanswered and I am hopeful that the Branchflower investigation will have the answers.
I find it impossible to believe that Gov. Palin did not know that 2 dozen calls from her staff and her husband were made to DPS regarding Trooper Wooten. What about staff that viewed his personnel and workers comp files and leaked their contents in direct violation of Federal and State employment laws? This leaves the state wide open to a very profitable lawsuit by Trooper Wooten. Trooper Wooten is, clearly, not a model trooper but the charges against him were addressed through due process and the ‘case closed.’ For a governor to continue to ‘prosecute’ these charges is in violation of state personnel laws.
Why has the Governor refused to release emails stating executive privilege even though Todd Palin was a recipient as well as staff? I could go on and on with questions raised by the dissembling of our Governor on this issue.
She has demonized Commissioner Monegan, who has had a long and honorable career in law enforcement and is highly respected in our state. Rather than answer Andrew Halcro’s accusations directly she has attacked him personally; he’s also a well-respected businessman and legislator who has been doing the hard work reporters should be doing. I really wish Gov. Palin would just be up front and honest. The evidence points to an abuse of power. Admit to the poor judgment and move on. The cover-up is becoming worse than the offense.
Posted by TalkeetnaCorporal on Sun 31 Aug 2008 at 11:59 AM
Since Sean Hannity and others have been flogging this Ayers association for over a year now and it has gained no traction within respectable media, the burden seems to be upon you to explain why voters should care.
Interesting that you should bring that up. I realize that you might still labor under the delusion that mainstream “journalism” still has the gate keeping power it once had but talk radio and the internet have certainly eaten into that and opened the door to people bypassing the establishment media. To that I offer an anecdote. I was recently on a project and went out with the tradesmen, primarily union welders, pipefitters and electricians, for a few beers after work. We were sitting around, and they asked me what I though about Obama, knowing I was in mixed company I just shrugged and said I wouldn’t voting for him. After all, these guys still had Kerry/Edwards bumper stickers on and didn’t want to start a huge political fight. To my surprise, nearly all of these guys started tearing into Obama, and several of them brought up his friendship and working relationship with Bill Ayers. Now before you write this incident off as typical low brow white working class racism, half of these guys were Hispanic and all of them are from Chicago and while none of them would ever state that they would vote for McCain in the presence of their union leadership, there is no way they will pull the lever for Obama when its just them in the booth. If Obama cant win over these guys, there is no reason to believe that he will win the general.
Can you do so, without resorting to absurd caricature? A little challenge for TDC. What evidence is there that Ayers had any ideological influence on Obama?
You are judged by the friends you keep, and for Obama to even compare his friendship with Obama to his relationship with Tom Coburn displays a disgusting level of amorality. Is a guy who opposes abortion and a guy who tries to kill US Army officers really on the same level …. wait, please don’t answer that, although I don’t think that I could lose more respect for you anything could be possible.
But as long as we are speaking about ideological influences on Obama, there’s always Frank Davis.
And it's not surprising that you scoff at Obama's community organizing credentials. It's this type of unglamorous, minorly rewarding gruntwork that is always given short-shrift in favor of the glory of higher office.
Seriously, what does this have to do with anything. Its not a qualification to be president, so just drop it.
I'm sure the working poor Obama helped out, however briefly, are more indebted to his and others' efforts, than whatever votes Palin sat in for as a city councilwoman in an Alaskan frontier town.
I don’t know how much you know about the Gardens, but while there may be many poor people there, none of them work.
Posted by TDC on Sun 31 Aug 2008 at 03:28 PM
I'll ask again, TDC, any comment on your paragon of virtue, Ms. Palin? If you are going to go on about how merely associating with another person, and accepting a $200 campaign donation from him, smears a candidate's reputation, what do you say about the actual candidate herself and her husband using their perch of power as a means of vigilante vengeance in defense of a wronged relative?
On July 28, 2008, a bipartisan committee of the Alaska Legislature voted 12-0 to hire an independent investigator to investigate Palin and her staff for possible abuse of power surrounding the dismissal.[1] A retired state prosecutor, Steve Branchflower, was named on August 1 as the investigator.[21] On August 16, Democratic State Senator Hollis French, who is overseeing the investigation, said that the Palin administration has been cooperating and that subpoenas had not been necessary.[22] Branchflower has a three-month contract for his work, which started August 1, and will end October 31. French said in late August that he expected Branchflower would release his report before the November 4th presidential election.[23]
Posted by TalkeetnaCorporal on Sun 31 Aug 2008 at 03:53 PM
TalkeetnaCorporal, I try not to respond to morons ... it might make you miss your bus, but there are several other reasons, not cribbed from Wikipedia naturally, that would have led Palin’s aides, as no one is accusing Palin of direct involvement, to fire the trooper.
And perhaps part of the reason the governor's aides wanted this trooper fired wasn't because he was part of a divorce, but because he shot a cow moose... out of season. It could also have been because he was caught driving drunk... in a patrol car. Or it might have had something to do with the fact he tasered his 11-year-old-son.
Posted by TDC on Sun 31 Aug 2008 at 07:27 PM
Credit to http://confederateyankee.mu.nu/archives/271870.php.
Posted by TDC on Sun 31 Aug 2008 at 07:31 PM
I merely cited his community organizing as one of a long list of leadership positions he's led at many levels of public service. Surely it alone doesnt qualify him, and I never claimed that. The fact is that in 20 years, he has accumulated an impressive amount of leadership experience and education, a fact that you simply cannot make about Palin.
I'll certainly take your anecdote at your word, and sure, those people are entitled to those anxieties. I'm tempted, still, to chalk them up in or near the category of voters whose suspicions of Obama have to do with his possibly being a Muslim. I have a set of suspicions regarding McCain and his close associates, namely those that provoked the deeply amoral war in Iraq that has left tens of thousands dead. To me, this seems far more egregious than a tendentious relationship to a reformed terrorist.
Posted by Evan Woodward on Sun 31 Aug 2008 at 08:31 PM
Palin is not running for president, and as I demonstrated above, much of Obama’s experience is relatively worthless. Like being in charge of the least-cited volume of the Harvard Law Review in the last 20 years.
I have a set of suspicions regarding McCain and his close associates, namely those that provoked the deeply amoral war in Iraq that has left tens of thousands dead.
Good for you and the rest of the anti war community … but that means what on election day? Are trying to make some parallel between one of the most reliable demographics of the democratic party, the blue collar union man, jumping ship? Palin, Like McCain both have children in the war, so they have a much more personal connection to what’s going then most.
To me, this seems far more egregious than a tendentious relationship to a reformed terrorist.
And where did you get the idea that Ayers is reformed? His daddy using his millions to get him a good lawyer and land him a job in academia makes him “reformed”. And if you are using this as some kind of tit for tat.
Posted by TDC on Mon 1 Sep 2008 at 11:45 AM
No mas. We've reached yet another ideological morass. You're quick to cite Obama's "disgusting amorality" in relating Ayers and Coburn rhetorically, but wave away the profound, quite figurative tragedy of the Iraq war as if it was nothing, and not one of America's greatest, most preventable and bloodiest failures. That McCain and Palin have their own children serving as cannon fodder only makes it more tragic.
Youre correct to point out that perception trumps fact when it comes to how a public figure is defined. It's a shame that you only apply your zeal for cherry-picked scrutiny to one side in this campaign.
Posted by Evan Woodward on Mon 1 Sep 2008 at 02:19 PM
No mas. We've reached yet another ideological morass. You're quick to cite Obama's "disgusting amorality" in relating Ayers and Coburn rhetorically, but wave away the profound, quite figurative tragedy of the Iraq war as if it was nothing, and not one of America's greatest, most preventable and bloodiest failures.
The history of the war in Iraq is not yet over. Your statement would have been more accurate had you said in a few years back. I don’t know if you have noticed, but thanks in part to some stubbornness, progressive thinking (the real kind of progressiveness not just repackaged Bolshevism), and a lot of hard work (I spent 17 months deployed with the National Guard) from lots of people.
Its pretty sad that people like you revel in seeing the US lose this war to prove your poin, how it must piss you off to see our fortunes, and those of the Iraqis, turning a defeat into a victory.
That McCain and Palin have their own children serving as cannon fodder only makes it more tragic./i>
Cannon fodder … now the true colors are starting to come out. GOD DAMN AMERICA
It's a shame that you only apply your zeal for cherry-picked scrutiny to one side in this campaign.
You should try that line in a mirror, see if you can look yourself in the eye when you say it.
Posted by TDC on Mon 1 Sep 2008 at 03:31 PM
I agree that the history of the war is not yet over, and if Maliki's crackdown on the Sunni Awakening continues, it might have yet another brutal chapter. But the fact remains that, even if the entire conflict was solved peacefully tomorrow, thousands are lying dead and millions more refugees displaced thanks to a war prosecuted by an unelected cabal (the signatories of the PNAC) to shift power relations in the Middle East.
Posted by Evan Woodward on Mon 1 Sep 2008 at 05:36 PM
I agree that the history of the war is not yet over, and if Maliki's crackdown on the Sunni Awakening continues, it might have yet another brutal chapter.
That’s it Evan, try as best as you can to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
But the fact remains that, even if the entire conflict was solved peacefully tomorrow, thousands are lying dead and millions more refugees displaced thanks to a war prosecuted by an unelected cabal (the signatories of the PNAC) to shift power relations in the Middle East
And the alternative was … starve Iraq with sanctions for another 10-15 years? Bombing sorties every couple of months? Walk away and let the UN, which was corrupted to the core by Hussein (not Barack) with oil contractions, police the situation? The invasion was the least of all the options.
But I love your use of “cabal”, tell me, been reading a lot of Adbusters lately?
Posted by TDC on Mon 1 Sep 2008 at 07:05 PM
It is too, too funny to see a self-proclaimed "professional journalist" stumping for Obama in plain sight on a "watchdog" forum.
Anybody who argues that Obama is qualified to be President of the United States by editing the Harvard Law Review or by dealing with landlord-tenant issues is neck-deep in the communal Kool-Aid fountain.
But hey, at least this guy's honest about his bias.
Posted by padikiller on Mon 1 Sep 2008 at 10:01 PM
Christ, what a monstrous notion. I can't believe I am being called a "bolshevik" by someone who believes the Iraq War was the "least of our options". That is a claim so insane, I can't come up with the words to refute it.
And as for the term cabal, I'm unsure what you mean with your link to Adbusters. It's not exactly a conspiracy theory to read from the PNAC charter, or to read the influential papers and op-eds by Wolfowitz, Feith, Perle, Kagan, et al, throughout the 90s agitating for regime change and arguing that the importing of democracy in Iraq would lead to a destabilized Saudi Arabia, a strengthened Israel, and wider access to oil. These were their stated goals, and they became the goals of the presidency after 9/11. They were not elected, nor were their policies mandated by the American people. I call that a cabal.
Posted by Evan Woodward on Mon 1 Sep 2008 at 10:14 PM