February 2025

S M T W T F S
      1
23456 78
9101112131415
16171819202122
232425262728 

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags

September 2nd, 2008

packbat: A bat wearing a big asexual-flag (black-gray-white-purple) backpack. (Default)
Tuesday, September 2nd, 2008 09:40 am

Is Sarah Palin a shrewd choice for the Republican Party, or is she a liability?

View other answers



It is too early to say definitively, but I am inclined to say she's a liability. Certainly, she will be absolutely a liability if McCain drops her from the ticket (cf. Thomas Eagleton), but even if he holds on to her, I think it will cost him.

Granted, she has some advantages. First, she completely killed the "Obama's acceptance speech" news cycle (which even intelligent commentators did not expect) - everyone is looking at the McCain campaign now. Second, putting a woman on a ticket gives the McCain campaign a chance to smear Obama for the misogyny of his followers. Third, the small fraction of Clinton supporters whose one issue was getting a woman in the White House (admittedly, they have a point - we're way behind the curve on this one) would be likely switch tickets to vote for her. Fourth, her 'anti-corruption' stance goes with McCain's.

Also, she's attractive to the social conservatives. Energizing that base is a good thing for McCain.

However, from what I can see, these advantages are well outweighed by the problems.

First, Palin's resume is so short that being president of the PTA makes the cut. This kills McCain's "experience" attack - and worse, makes it look like nothing but an attack, since McCain apparently doesn't care about it himself (cf. this CNN interview with a staffer). Further, given her lack of experience, Palin doesn't look qualified to be President (and quotes like this don't help) - given McCain's age, that's very, very bad.

Second, McCain clearly chose Palin in a rush at the last minute (and we have verification of this) and chose her without anything like sufficient vetting. She was a big gamble for his campaign, and anything negative that can be pinned to Palin is a negative that can be pinned to McCain's judgement - one of the key things he's running on.

Third, Palin has multiple negatives that can be pinned on her - from lies (distorting scientific reports) to corruption (it seems increasingly likely that she had Alaska Public Safety Commissioner Walter Monegan removed because he didn't fire her sister's ex-husband) to, possibly, disastrously unfavorable political associations (Alaskan Independence Party correction - only her husband was a registered member of the AIP). If any of the important accusations pan out, picking Palin won't merely seem hasty, it'll seem downright insane.

Oh, and if my own flist is any indication, the people who liked Clinton for substantive reasons are ticked off.

Now, I said it's too early to say definitively, but...