Palin: Good or Bad Choice

[Verily]

She makes things different. The experience argument is dead, the military argument is dead, the celebrity argument is dead. The feminism debate is alive. And that's pretty much it. I would have been happier with McCain choosing Pawlenty simply because it would mean a continuation of the same campaign (on both sides), which I think Obama would have won now that the DNC has happened. (Other choices such as Romney would have just made things worse for McCain.) On the other hand, I don't think Palin makes it more likely that McCain wins; what she does do is make the election harder to figure out, at least in the short term. We may know the paradigm a week from now.

[Verily]

She makes things different. The experience argument is dead, the military argument is dead, the celebrity argument is dead. The feminism debate is alive. And that's pretty much it. I would have been happier with McCain choosing Pawlenty simply because it would mean a continuation of the same campaign (on both sides), which I think Obama would have won now that the DNC has happened. (Other choices such as Romney would have just made things worse for McCain.) On the other hand, I don't think Palin makes it more likely that McCain wins; what she does do is make the election harder to figure out, at least in the short term. We may know the paradigm a week from now.

I'm not sure the experience argument is dead.  The Rove playbook is not big on addressing cognitive dissidence.

McCain can still use it, but Obama now has the easiest ammunition of all to rebut it: Palin is an enormous lightweight (lol, oxymoronic metaphor). I don't think we'll see much of it.

To be sure, the Palin pick would probably have drawn me to McCain against Clinton (depending somewhat on her VP, too, and I doubt McCain would have chosen Palin against Clinton). But Palin is probably the most inexperienced person ever considered for high office; I don't vote on experience, but a lot of people do.

[Verily]

She makes things different. The experience argument is dead, the military argument is dead, the celebrity argument is dead. The feminism debate is alive. And that's pretty much it. I would have been happier with McCain choosing Pawlenty simply because it would mean a continuation of the same campaign (on both sides), which I think Obama would have won now that the DNC has happened. (Other choices such as Romney would have just made things worse for McCain.) On the other hand, I don't think Palin makes it more likely that McCain wins; what she does do is make the election harder to figure out, at least in the short term. We may know the paradigm a week from now.

I'm not sure the experience argument is dead.  The Rove playbook is not big on addressing cognitive dissidence.

McCain can still use it, but Obama now has the easiest ammunition of all to rebut it: Palin is an enormous lightweight (lol, oxymoronic metaphor). I don't think we'll see much of it.

This may explain the tone transition from "inexperienced" to "not ready to lead," though -- which I think is clever.  This might explain why McCain's campaign has almost seemed to stop using references to experience recently.  Maybe I'm reading too much into that.

Maybe, but that shift happened well before the Biden pick. McCain couldn't have settled on Palin back he was floating pro-choice VP possibilities and Obama still could have gone with Sebelius or Clinton herself.

"Not ready to lead" doesn't help, either. Palin is ready to lead because... ? (At least insofar as Obama is not ready to lead. If he is, then I can agree that Palin is, too. All these theoretical positions spin my head.)

[Verily]

Question is though... if Palin is the nominee, will Parnell just drop his chances for Congress?

She'll still be governor until January even if McCain wins.