McCain’s surprise choice of Governor Palin as his VP has dominated the post-DNC news cycle. Does the pick represent McCain trying his hand at identity politics; little more than a shameless attempt to attract disaffected Hillary supporters by simply picking a woman? Has McCain found a political soul-mate in Palin as David Brooks suggested in the editorial page of the New York Times? Or is the McCain campaign simply desperate to capture the headlines and distract attention from a very well executed democratic convention?
At first I thought the pick was too clever by half. As far as I could tell it was meant to raise the prospect of the absurd: That a one-term governor with no foreign policy experience to speak of might be placed one heart-beat away from the presidency in a time of war. Raising such a specter would then lead people to reflect that the only thing more ridiculous than electing a VP with such a scant resume would be to elect a candidate with no foreign policy or executive experience to the actual office of President. By refocusing the election on the experience question the McCain camp would concede the experience deficit at VP just to reintroduce the discussion with regards to their advantage at the top of the ticket. This struck me as a desperate move, undertaken by a campaign quickly running out of negative ads to drive news cycles that saw the election slipping out of reach.
After last night I am not feeling so negative. It was Chris Mathews who pointed out, after Palin’s speech, that she was not pitching to Hillary voters nor was she there to emphasize any one issue. What she brings to the ticket is a cultural challenge to Obama. The McCain camp recalled Obama’s biggest gaffe of the campaign, his “bitter” speech in San Fran about how small towns in PA cling to guns and religion, so they went out and found a gun owning, religious woman from a small town to really stick it to him. I’m not sure it will work, and the whole thing may yet go down in flames, but I think it gives McCain a chance to win, rather than just make it close.
5 responses so far ↓
1 Aaron Nathan (anathan10) // Sep 4, 2008 at 2:19 pm
Sam– I’ve been waiting to hear what you had to think about this. And I think you’re exactly right, that McCain realized at some point exactly what he needed people to think about Obama in order to win–and inexperience wasn’t quite it. What terrified me and my latte-sipping friends last night (actually it was IPA, which is probably just as bad) was the seeming return to the anti-elitism derision by which we were handily slaughtered in 2004. Palin’s speech was enormously successful in recalling those themes. I hope I am not speaking for too many when I say, Ouch.
But–I think the jury is out on whether she did much more than preach to the converted. Will moderate voters, women especially, respond to that sort of thing? At this point we’re looking at one big elipsis.
But! Sam! I have one overriding question for you! Knowing your politics and your deep respect for John McCain as I do–how did you feel (sorry for the tongue in cheek garbage I’m about to throw at you, but the question is serious) when a man who puts country first and would rather lose an election than a war nominated…Sarah Palin to take his place if something should happen? I think maybe we both know why he did it, and I know how you feel about that faction of your party…
2 Sam Rudman (srudman09) // Sep 5, 2008 at 1:02 pm
I agree that she has nearly as little relevant experience as Obama and undermines the main theme of the campaign in that respect. I had actually convinced myself that McCain would talk Petraeus into retiring from the military to seek the office of VP. So in that respect the pick is a little disappointing. I don’t think it was a pitch to the nativist, anti-immigrant, anti-trade wing of my party that I despise though. I think it was John McCain’s apology to us social cons for being unable to make the case for conservative principles on any issue. Apology accepted John.
3 Elspeth Hansen (evhansen10) // Sep 8, 2008 at 12:17 am
Actually Sam, I agree with you about the experience issue, but only in part. It was an interesting tactic to put out a candidate who could start an argument about who had less experience, McCain’s VP or the top of the Democratic ticket. Forget the answer, the existence of the question is a problem. Furthermore, I would point out that McCain didn’t have to start that conversation, Democrats did. I will be the first to admit that sometimes, Democrats are stupid. In this case, a huge blunder was made by immediately responding to Palin with… the inexperience argument? Didn’t they just finish trying to make it about judgement? Sigh. If it was a McCain tactic, it was based on the Democrat’s ability to shoot themselves in the foot. Luckily, they seem to have realized the problem and are trying to change the subject.
4 Sam Rudman (srudman09) // Sep 8, 2008 at 8:23 am
I was sighing at the McCain campaign just a month ago and had nearly given up hope. Here’s my question for you Elspeth: Would Hillary be running better or worse against McCain than Obama? I imagine the answer is probably better but as a former supporter do you have strong feelings either way?
5 Elspeth Hansen (evhansen10) // Sep 14, 2008 at 10:05 pm
I think that she would be. I think that her strengths in the swing states would have come in handy right now. One always imagines wins in unusual states, but it seems to be boiling down to some familiar territory right now. Also, please note that for all the comments made about her style of politics, everyone is calling for red meat now. Plus, the Republicans probably would have had a much less interesting VP. That said, I’m very hopeful for Obama, and have reached a point where I can comfortably support him. I will say this. It could get ugly if things don’t turn out well for the Dems in November, because the old primary divides will re-emerge in all the finger-pointing.
You must log in to post a comment.