McCain cites need for experience, picks first-term governor as veep

[topaz]

Egad!  It's all over my friends page already.  Sarah Palin!  McCain picks Alaska governor to be his running mate!

Opinions are all over the map.  Myself, I think it was a very clever choice from a demographic point of view, and frankly a lot bolder than I would have expected from his campaign.  Apart from the simple fact that she's a woman, she's pro-life and has one child with Down syndrome; she's an evangelical, but not a Southern evangelical; she has Alaska credibility and supports drilling in ANWR.  She's almost tailor-made to draw back the moderate conservatives who have become disillusioned with the Republican Party in the last eight years.  Very shrewd indeed.

But my gut reaction says that it's a fatal mistake for McCain, who has been running almost exclusively on an "experience" platform for the last several months.  Choosing Palin pretty much annihilates that argument.  It seems to say that McCain no longer believes he can win experience, and is looking for a reverse wedge that he thinks will give him an advantage.

If that's the case, I think Obama and Biden have a clear path to victory.  They need to focus diligently but relentlessly on policy issues.  McCain and Palin are going to have an uphill battle persuading the public that they are a team prepared to lead the country, and that Palin will be ready to take over the top job if McCain keels over.  Unless Palin turns out to be a ringer on the debate box, I expect Biden to be able to eat her for dinner.

The game isn't over, not by a long shot --- but the McCain campaign just took a big fumble.

Comments

[lhn.livejournal.com]

I still think the election is Obama's to lose, and I still don't think VP choices matter very much. But I think it's a solid choice. If McCain had picked another old white guy, the experience issue would be offset by the ticket looking like yesterday's news. He can legitimately claim enough experience for both of them, and offer an all-maverick ticket for voters tired of the Bush administration but not up for Carter redux. ( :-) What can I say: a Democratic newcomer on the liberal side of the party, with strong religious convictions, on the heels of a deeply unpopular Republican presidency in a time of rising inflation and an oil shock?) He can shore up his bona fides with religious conservatives and poach a few disgruntled Clinton supporters on the margin. And she's demonstrated an ability to take on older, more established political figures and win.

Is she enough to win the turnout battle with an Obama-energized Democratic Party for a Bush-weary electorate? Probably not. But I don't think there's a vice presidential candidate in the country who could do that. (Certainly not Romney. Huckabee would bring out the base at the expense of swing voters.) Ultimately, I think this is a good choice, whether or not it's good enough.

[qwrrty.livejournal.com]

It's definitely a spunky choice, and I think that alone gives it some merit. McCain's campaign has been sort of ambling to find direction, and this could give it a shot in the arm. And for all we know she may have campaigning skills that no one yet is aware of. We could be in for some surprises.

I almost agree that it's Obama's to lose. Almost. But the Democratic party bows to none in its ability to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, so I'm trying not to count on anything until at least Wednesday, Nov 5. I do think Obama still has the advantage; he just has to play it carefully. To date he has shown he knows how to do that, so I think he's in good shape.

[innerdoggie.livejournal.com]

I think McCain can win and has been running a smart campaign. (You know, we're always disagreeing this way! You think your side will lose and I think mine will.) :-)

[lhn.livejournal.com]

Which at least means that (barring the meteors qwrrty mentioned in another post) one of us will be pleasantly surprised in November. :-)