I have read many a reaction to Gov. Palin's nomination in the past 24 hours from my friends on the left. The common feature among them has been a virtual stampede to write-off Sen. McCain's selection. Naturally, our post-partisan friends have been quick to call Sen. McCain's pick desperate, and Gov. Palin the next Geraldine Quayle. The characterizations are cute in a neo-liberal kind of way. Nothing says we have moved beyond politics as usual as, well, engaging in politics as usual.
But for all of the liberal double-talk, Slate Magazine has once again surprised me with a fairly sensible reaction to Gov. Palin's selection:
Obama's resume is thin. Naturally, he selected someone to buttress his weaknesses. Sen. McCain wanted to appeal to women voters (a demographic in which Sen. Obama should be running 10-15% points better), naturally, he selected a women with the same maverick tendencies he champions.
That said, I think Slate's reaction is the more informed response for Democrats, as opposed to the broad characterizations I mentioned earlier.
Coming down too hard against Gov. Palin's nomination invites a bevy of gender-rooted responses, and risks drawing the ire of disaffected, suburban women voters. This would make Sen. McCain's response in defending Gov. Palin the veritable defense of working mother's across the land.
Slate also makes the point that minimizing the responsibilities of family, and state government do no service to the Dems' cause either. What better way to shatter in-roads in some smaller, red-leaning states than to minimize their contribution to the National, political process? Is it really smart to write-off the small state Governor of Alaska when you have fought so hard to win over voters in rural, MT, ND and NC? Most reasonable people would say no.
Here's hoping the Democrat base says, 'yes.'
But for all of the liberal double-talk, Slate Magazine has once again surprised me with a fairly sensible reaction to Gov. Palin's selection:
Why hold back? First, as Obama himself demonstrated in winning the Democratic nomination, 2008 is a tough year to handicap the relative virtues of being a fresh face and having experience. The natural reflex is to brand Palin as too great a risk. But McCain is practically begging our side to throw him into that briar patch. Convinced he can't win as a candidate of the status quo, he wants everyone to know he's willing to take a risk.I would hasten to agree with anyone making the claim that Sen. McCain's selection was tactical. But at this point in the election cycle such remarks amount to little more than stating the obvious. Sen. Obama's selection of Sen. Biden was also tactical.
Second, anyone going after Palin for the important experience she lacks had better be careful not to dismiss the value of the experiences she does have. Raising a large family and running a small state may not be sufficient qualifications to assume the Presidency. But we're not going to get far by minimizing those jobs, either. Here again, the McCain campaign may be hoping that Democrats – or the press – will come down too hard on Palin, and spark a backlash that turns her into a working mom's hero.
[Link]
Obama's resume is thin. Naturally, he selected someone to buttress his weaknesses. Sen. McCain wanted to appeal to women voters (a demographic in which Sen. Obama should be running 10-15% points better), naturally, he selected a women with the same maverick tendencies he champions.
That said, I think Slate's reaction is the more informed response for Democrats, as opposed to the broad characterizations I mentioned earlier.
Coming down too hard against Gov. Palin's nomination invites a bevy of gender-rooted responses, and risks drawing the ire of disaffected, suburban women voters. This would make Sen. McCain's response in defending Gov. Palin the veritable defense of working mother's across the land.
Slate also makes the point that minimizing the responsibilities of family, and state government do no service to the Dems' cause either. What better way to shatter in-roads in some smaller, red-leaning states than to minimize their contribution to the National, political process? Is it really smart to write-off the small state Governor of Alaska when you have fought so hard to win over voters in rural, MT, ND and NC? Most reasonable people would say no.
Here's hoping the Democrat base says, 'yes.'
The Conservative Blog Network
