Intelligent discussion of the Palin affair Tom Smith

Here.  The discussion of the effect national politics had on Alaska politics is especially interesting.

Comments

[Jonny Scrum-half]

The article contains a sentence that, I think, reflects all that's wrong with our public debate. It says that Palin's resignation is seen by liberals as "quitting," but by conservatives as "attractive nonconformity." In other words, people tend to support "their team" so long as they can construct a narrative that permits them to do so. Until people begin to consider issues on their merits, rather than on the basis of which "team" they want to win, we're going to have a lot of problems with our democracy.

Also, while I agree that Palin has been subjected to a lot of heat (some deserved, some completely unfair and unhinged, such as that she isn't the mother of her most recent child), I don't know how Palin supporters can persuade themselves that the attacks are any more nasty than what has been said for years about the Clintons. (They murdered a long list of people, and were, like Palin, trailer trash, but Bill also was a serial rapist and Hillary a lesbian.)

[Peter Connolly]

No doubt Sarah Palin has sometimes been unfairly criticized and subjected to various double standards. But is it really unfair to say that the available evidence suggests that she does not know enough and is not smart enough to be president? Palin did read a speech written for her at the GOP convention effectively. Not nothing for a politician I realize. But what else has she ever accomplished that indicates that she is qualified to handle the presidency? Her July 3 statement, for example, was utterly incoherent and somewhat weird. You would think she would have put some care into it,since the timing was totally under her control. But it showed no indication that she had even thought about what she was going to say. What does that say about her?

Also Continetti appears unable to grasp that outside the GOP lodge she is electoral poison. East of the Mississippi, north of the Mason-Dixon line,and west of the Rockies,Palin was a huge drag on the GOP ticket in 2008. The McCain people know it and that is what drives their animus against her. There are many independent voters in places like the Philly suburbs, northern VA and the NC "reseach triangle" who are uneasy about the trendlines now apparent in Obama's domestic policies. The right Republican candidate could make inroads into that vote. However, a Palin nomination would keep them in the Democratic fold. Perhaps such voters place too high a valuation on academic credentials and the ability to speak in complete sentences. Nonetheless, if victory is its goal, the Republican Party would be better off finding a nominee who has the former and can do the latter.

[dearieme]

But in all likelihood Bill Clinton is a serial rapist.

[anon]

Peter: Regarding your comment about Palin's ability in reading a speech and then questioning her experience. She really wasn't running on the top of the GOP ticket; however, I suppose you could pose the same question about the guy the Democrats actually had running for the presidency. Obama is very good at reading from a teleprompter (his non-teleprompter skills are questionable) but other than that, he had a very thin resume. His experience consisted of a couple of years as a US Senator (which doesn't amount to much) and several years as an Illinois legislator. His legal career was pretty spotty and the community organizer stuff was nonsense. At least Palin had a couple of years of executive branch experience.

I think it is better to compare Palin with the Democrat's candidate for the VP, Joe Biden. The man is a joke. He is dishonest (lifting Kinnock's speech and lying about grades), not very intelligent (just watch the Alito confirmation hearings), has an over-inflated ego (there is a delightful video of Biden during the 1988 Presidential election claiming he was really smart), and other than being a US Senator for a million years his real world experience is thin.

[Peter Connolly]

I didn't question Palin's "experience." I questioned her intelligence and knowledge. Obama is a graduate of Columbia and of the Harvard Law School,where he edited the law review. He has written an interesting and reflective book about his life. These are real intellectual accomplishments. Sarah Palin has nothing comparable in her background. Obama, a young black man(by American racial definitions) settled in Illinois without money or political contacts. He managed to get himself elected State Senator, US Senator and President in twelve years, an astonishing rise, giving evidence of great political talent. At every stage of his political career, Obama has demonstrated an impressive grasp of issues and an ability to speak about them. Is Sarah Palin really in the same league? Obama is now facing great odds, having inherited a hollowed out economy. But I wouldn't count him out.

[anon]

Peter: A few things.

1. You wrote, "But what else has she ever accomplished that indicates that she is qualified to handle the presidency?" That sounds like you are questioning her experience.

2. Obama ran an impressive presidential campaign. That is most impressive accomplishment. He fell into the US Senate seat. Remember, his political rise can be attributed to Chicago politics.

The guy has no executive experience and it shows.

[pchuck]

Hey Peter, she wasn't running for President so comparing her to Obama isn't the correct comparison.

[Johnny]

Palin's executive experience doesnt really mean squat. There's barely more than a half million people in all of Alaska.

[pchuck]

Johnny, that is nonsense. I seem to recall that there was an certain candidate for president who claimed that running for president and being a "community organizer" was sufficient executive experience.