I applaud John McCain's choice of Sarah Palin as his vice president nominee. In many ways this choice was far more impressive than Barack Obama's selection of Joe Biden. Better yet, the McCain selection will make the general election campaign far more interesting and competitive.
I say this on the basis of looking at contradictions that the choices raised. Here we have Obama proclaiming endlessly that he was running against the politics of the past, but then he picks an extremely long term senator that is clearly a member of the status quo establishment. Moreover, Obama has kept boasting that he does not take money from lobbyists, but Biden has taken plenty. And then there is the claim of great judgment by Obama for his opposition to the Iraq war, but Biden played an important role as a Democrat in supporting the Bush war.
Palin is a much, much better match with McCain. One relatively small contradiction is that she favors more drilling for oil in Alaska's pristine areas, while McCain has opposed that. But beyond that Palin brings something to the game that none of the other three principals does: She is the only one with real executive experience. And in comparison to the other three she has far more solid accomplishments fighting political corruption. Indeed, while Obama talks a good game, Palin is the only one that showed the courage to personally go after high level corrupt politicians – even better, she did this against office holders in her own party. I am impressed. Finally, the whole narrative about the Obamas pulling themselves up from nothing to achieve great things is matched by the Palin story.
During the Democratic convention there was endless talk by the bloviating pundits about their sadness that women have not made it to the top of the political pyramid, even as they kept blabbering about how terrific Hillary Clinton performed. Now McCain puts a woman in exactly the position that so many Democrats wanted Hillary to be in, with a chance to make it to the White House – a very good chance if all the talk about McCain serving just one term (or dying in office) has any chance of happening.
In sum, the selection of Biden was a betrayal to some very important positions and claims of Obama. In contrast, except for one relatively minor position, the selection of Palin was in sync with McCain's political philosophy and positions. The more leftist, progressive side of the Democratic Party has no reason to be thrilled with Biden (who voted for a bankruptcy law that screwed middle class people). But the most conservative wing of the Republican Party has plenty of reason to be thrilled with the Palin selection.
Though Palin may not be sufficient to draw very many women Democrats to vote for the McCain ticket, it may be just as important because it cause many women Democrats to not vote for the Obama ticket. But like most conventional thinkers you are waiting for me to rebut the criticism that Palin has no foreign policy experience. Excuse me, but we have had a few presidents that were governors – think Carter and Clinton – who also had no particular foreign policy experience. So Democrats ought to be cautious in making this criticism of Palin. If McCain wins, she would have ample time and opportunity to become smart about foreign policy. And, oh yes, also remember a former governor Reagan that did pretty well when it came to foreign policy. Enough said.
©2008 Joel S. Hirschhorn, all rights reserved. You must have written permission from the author in order to republish this work.
Published: Friday, August 29, 2008
Last modified: Friday, August 29, 2008
The views expressed in this article are those of Joel S. Hirschhorn only and do not represent the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. Joel S. Hirschhorn is solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
Report violation by Joel S. Hirschhorn of Nolan Chart LLC's terms of use policy.
| More Articles By Joel S. Hirschhorn |
Reader Comments:
Posted By: Joseph
Date: 2008-08-31 16:57:49
Palin has more experience fighting political corruption than McCain, Obama and Biden??? While in the U.S. Senate, Obama pushed through sweeping ethics reform, and John McCain deserves credit, obviously, for the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform bill. McCain might not have pursued bin Laden to the gates of Hell, but he almost pursued Jack Abramoff there. Cancelling one or two of the former governor's pork projects really doesn't make Palin a champion of ethics in government - especially as she's under investigation right now for lying and abuse of power.
Democrats didn't want to see _a_ woman in office - they wanted to see _Hillary Clinton_ in office. They're not going to jump on board a pro-life, pro-war, anti-universal healthcare ticket just because of the gender of the vice president.
The line about Palin having executive experience is almost as laughable as the talking point that she has foreign policy experience "because Alaska borders two foreign countries". Most of her "executive experience" involves deciding which pot holes to fix in a town of <10,000. By that reasoning, she's more qualified than John McCain. I assure you, the campaigns of both McCain and Obama involved much more management than Palin has ever performed. Heck, Obama defeated the slickest, most experienced and connected political machine in recent history, that of the Clintons. When an early potential donor (one of the Google guys) asked him how he could know he would do well as president as he'd never run anything large, Obama told him "watch how I run my campaign". John McCain's campaign was almost out of the picture, yet he managed to turn it around and achieve victory. Both of them impressed me more than anything Palin's ever done, especially as Alaskan reporters and politicians both say that one of her weaknesses is to try to simplify complex issues; she's not a details person.
Many Democrats like Joe Biden, and his bankrupcy bill vote was really a necessity given that many of the credit card companies, and all the jobs they provide, are based in Delaware. It's no different than the southern pols who voted with big tobacco. Hillary supported one of the versions of the bancrupcy bill and wasn't present for the other, and Edwards supported one or both of them as well.
Biden also did not play an important role in supporting Bush's war, as you claim. During the debate over the authorization, Biden, along with Hagel and others, attempted to get an alternate version passed that required Bush to negotiate and set conditions under which forced could be used, making it a last resort. Biden went to Bush and Bush assured him he wasn't going to war. Biden's biggest mistake was in believing Bush. Biden became one of the early critics of the war. Clinton (who seemed to support torure for a time and refused to call her vote a mistake) and Edwards (who co-sponsored the AUMF) were far more supportive than Biden was.
Personally, I see little comparison between the stories of the Obamas (or Joe Biden) and Sarah Palin. Both Obamas came from humble beginnings and achieved very important things. Michelle went from humble beginnings to Princeton, graduating cum laude, and Harvard. She would eventually leave a good law job to help organize people. Obama, raised for a time by a single mother, became head of the Harvard law review, and while he could have written a ticket to anywhere, he chose to work for minimum wage for three years helping the poor in Chicago. Palin got into college on a beauty pageant scholarship, not academics, and became mayor of a tiny town. While she was there she was accused of firing the police chief because he supported her opponent, and citizens contemplated a recall because of it. She'd continue this streak of not separating personal feelings and public duty as governor of the least populated state, as she's accused of firing her sister's ex-husband for personal reasons as well. There's another individual who alleges he lost his job for dating her husband's friend's ex-wife. She opposed shutting down the state-owned dairy that was losing money despite advice to do so. She removed all the board members of the dairy and replaced them with her own, who kept it open. The dairy was then authorized to charge more for milk, despite Washington milk already being cheaper. The dairy went belly-up and when the state finally tried to sell it, there were no bids. Heck, when mayor, she racked up 20 million dollars in long-term debt, which she defends was needed for "improvements". Unlike Michelle and Barack, who have a long string of competence and success, Palin appears to be leaving a trail of fiscal irresponsibility and refusal to take advice in her wake, as well as using her office to settle personal scores.
No, Palin will do nothing to help John McCain gain the White House. When asked her opinion on the occupation of Iraq, she stated that all she knew was that the U.S. hadn't been attacked since Bush "took the fight to Iraq". With that bold revelation of her ignorance and unsophistication regarding world affairs, which McCain is making the centerpiece of his campaign, she's going to sink McCain. This was exactly what it looks like: a very poor decision by a McCain who is feeling desparate and made a ploy to attract woman voters. Any of those McCain competed against, with the exception of Ron Paul (whose revelations of racism would make him a non-starter, especially against Obama), would have been a better choice for McCain as a running mate. He panicked and chose poorly, and I'm glad that trait was made known before the election.
Posted By: Tully
Date: 2008-08-31 17:20:12
Great article, well-reasoned analysis. I think you're right on all counts, and I'll leave it at that.
Posted By: jamamamonkey
Date: 2008-08-31 18:57:44
I am in total agreeance with Joseph. Palin brings nothing to the table.
She has no foreign policy experience. And its laughable to hammer that Biden is against Obama's "change" policy. Well how about Palin being the poster child for inexperience that McCain claims Obama is full of?
Posted By: a knight
Date: 2008-09-01 10:48:13
Palin is dishonest anbout her "Bridge To Nowhere" and earmarks opposition.
- Tom Kizzia, "Palin touts stance on 'Bridge to Nowhere,' doesn't note flip-flop", Anchorage Daily News, August 31st, 2008
- John Katz, "My Turn: Palin not abandoning earmarks altogether", Juneau Empire, March 18, 2008
Flip...
...Flop
Posted By: Dave
Date: 2008-09-01 20:33:59
Sorry, Joseph - disagree with you and agree with Hirschhorn.
I have a number of friends who are anti-establishment conservatives; most of whom are in their mid-40s; and came of age when the ineffective Jimmy Carter was in office. They were Reagan supporters as a clear alternative to Carter.
The initial thought amongst these people was to vote for Barr - because McCain is big government like Obama - but... with the selection of Palin - they are switching back to McCain. Obama is just so, so, so, hated by people who believe that government should have a smaller role - that the Palin pick is enough to say "hey, let's make sure this believer of government as the solution to all ills doesn't get in".
I don't think you get it, Joseph. Your analysis is too deep for many of the general public. Palin is perceived as fresh, anti-establishment, and far less "government will rule your life" than Obama. Whether that perception is true or not, doesn't matter, its how people perceive it and how they vote.