Experience
Aug 29th, 2008 at 10:20 pm by Chris
Obviously, with the selection of Governor Palin, John McCain chucked most of the “Barack Obama is too inexperienced to be President” line of attack into the chemical toilet. Despite some of the conventional wisdom, that probably makes quite a lot of sense. When attacking Obama, the “he’s inexperienced” line of attack works on paper, but it dies a quiet death the second you hear him open up his mouth and start talking.
I’m not talking about the grand oratory, but rather that he comes off as conversant with, and well informed on, a wide swath of public policy. He seems perfectly comfortable speaking extemporaneously on matters both domestic and foreign. He doesn’t come off as a naif. Attacking him as such asks people not to believe their lying eyes. Not that it hasn’t been done before, but it’s a hard sell.
In Palin, McCain got himself a real deal wingnut. He lost a shitty line of attack and he made a lot of Fundamentalist Christians very happy.
…I have a few more thoughts on this, but I need to go make dinner.
I wonder if McCain had a hard time choosing between Palin and Gretchen Wilson ^_^. Just a good ol’ godfearing “redneck woman”, right?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L30V5vnYHzk
I do think this pick potentially helps McCain more than Romney would have. Mitt-ens would’ve just reinforced the rich white guy vibe (hmm, how many houses does Mitt own, and does he know the number?). Whereas Palin allows guys like David Brooks to wax rhapsodic about the boldness of the move, signalling that McCain is ready to “take on Washington”. Which is of course utter and complete horseshit, when talking about a guy who’s been a Washington power player for decades. But I know people who buy this kind of shit.
Palin does also shore up the wingnut evangelical side of the candidacy, certainly, so there are ways that this pick helps the old duffer (plus she’s relatively young, herself).
On the downside, she seems to have this “troopergate” scandal hanging over her head, one which may have some teeth to it - at least one of her staff is heard on phone recordings making veiled threats of reprisals if Palin’s former brother in law is not fired from the force (without actual job related grounds. Could prove very damaging indeed, though I can’t believe McCain’s people won’t have vetted this.
So the pick is at least interesting, and steals some of the focus from Obama. But it sounds like Palin’s political positions are shit, and she’s basically a wingnut lightweight, so the hell with her, and the moose she rode in on!
The problem for Obama is that the inexperienced half of the Democratic ticket is in the #1 slot.
Vice Presidential nominees are often less experienced than the Presidential nominee. They are supposed to gain experience on the job.
Not to mention all the rhetoric during the primaries from the Obama campaign that experience didn’t matter.
myiq2xu, I disagree. It’s not a problem. The McCain campaign has decided the same thing. That’s why they bailed on that line of attack and chose a wingnut with a thin resume.
Obama’s policy positions may be for shit, but you’re going to have a hard time convincing anybody that he doesn’t know his shit up, down and sideways. The dude is a wonk and he has a gift for gab. That’s a potent combination. Spend all your ammo trying to nail him on his bio and you’re fucked. Bill Clinton could tell you a little bit about that.
I’ll tell you where Obama is vulnerable: When he has to talk without a script, he’s pretty bad. And he didn’t do so well in the debates, either. Now, of course he’s been honing his skills since then but he only talks in tightly controlled environments. That’s typical of a first-time national candidate - that’s why his handlers probably have him on a tight lease.
Having worked communications on a campaign, I can tell you the worst nightmare for staffers is the possibility of the candidate talking off-script. Sooner or later, it happens. Let’s hope it’s nothing too bad.
going off-script?? you mean like reminding voters that Bobby Kenedy got murdered in the month of June and using that as a reason to keep campaigning?
If Pallin says something comparable will she just be off-script or off-meds??
Can we stop resurrecting old talking points from a campaign that is already over? Especially those that were weak tea to begin with? I’m talking to Joe.
As for Susie’s comment (repeated from an earlier post), Obama already got burned on this point by bitter Pennsylvanians. I’d be surprised to see him repeat that sort of mistake–and I expect him to do much better in the debates against McCain, where he will have lots of opportunities to draw distinctions between his platform and four more years of the Bush Administration.
McCain, on the other hand, will continue committing gaffes–it’s in his nature–while taking the low road and crying POW! I think Obama will handle that sort of histrionics on McCain’s part just fine.
this is joe…
weak tea? don’t think so…
essays and comments trying to exalt her highness need counter-weights. Especially a comment talking about the dangers of going on-script and saying something incredibly stupid.
I don’t hold Obama as the new crown prince and if I did I would expect to see a beat-down or two…
Gaffes grow legs based on traditional media pearl-clutching. When/If the bobble-heads starting paying attention to McGrunt’s insane mouth the game is quickly over (see: no ratings).