Fun with Governor Palin

I like anticipation.  If someone gives me a present early and tells me not to open it until my birthday, I have no trouble complying.  I'll put the wrapped present on display and look at it every day, savoring the feeling.

Maybe that's why I haven't blogged about the Governor of Alaska until now.  I've been savoring the anticipation.

Here we go.

First off, Trig is not her son.  I know she's announced that her daughter is 5 months pregnant, and since Trig is only 4 months old, he couldn't possibly be her grandson, right?  Yeah, except Bristol "Yes that's really my first name stop making fun of me" Palin won't give birth until after the election, at which point it won't matter any more.  It's the perfect lie.  So why am I so convinced?  Here's the evidence: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/8/30/121350/137 and http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/8/31/145838/319/386/581332

"Oh, let's stay out of her personal life."  OK fine.  How about a professional scandal?  Troopergate "reads like a trashy novel:" http://mudflats.wordpress.com/2008/08/29/what-is-mccain-thinking-one-alaskans-perspective/

For a while the Republicans tried the line "she has more executive experience than Obama."  That's an asinine argument, but for the moment let's pretend it carries water (kind of like Bristol Palin).  Alaska has a population of 683,478.  San Francisco has a population of 764,976.  If you really want to follow this logic, Gavin Newsome is more qualified to be president than Sarah Palin.

(Just to humor people who can make that argument with a straight face, let's see why it's asinine.  The question, of course, isn't who has more executive experience.  The real question is who would make a better president.  Obama has more experience in Washington, more experience with federal governance, more experience in government, and more foreign experience.  We also know next to nothing about Palin's policies; how can we vote for someone if we don't even know?  Palin also has bigger boobs than Obama, but that doesn't make her more qualified either.)

Looks like all this criticism is starting to get to the Governor of Alaska.  She's hiding from reporters until further notice: http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/09/palin-media-a-2.html At least one reporter already feels guilty: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0908/13143.html

If McCain was looking for someone to mirror Obama (a young, good-looking minority), he did better than he thought; Palin even has her own crazy preacher: http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/09/anti-jewish-ter.html

And it looks like his craziness has rubbed off on Palin as well.  Here's a speech she gave at a church three months ago.  The best part is at the end, where she uses the phrase "red-headed sasquatch for Jesus."  I might have t-shirts made.  http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/09/02/1327574.aspx

All this looks like a disaster.  So how did John McCain pick someone like this in the first place?  And what was his motivation?  Don't national campaigns have vetting teams to make sure this kind of thing doesn't happen?

The answer is that the Republicans did have a vetting team, but McCain didn't use them.  He only used a small legal team to do preliminary research.  He spoke with Palin on the phone once and met her once.  The extended vetting team had just flown to Alaska when McCain made the announcement--they didn't have any time to do research.

Why did McCain rush the decision?  Because he wanted to quash any boost Obama got from the Democratic convention.  But still, why Palin?

Turns out Palin was, at least initially, a smart choice for several reasons.  First, McCain has been working for the past six years to shake his "maverick" status.  It's mostly worked, but the religious right is still mad at him.  When it was first revealed that McCain had enough delegates to win the nomination, people like Pat Buchanan said that they couldn't support McCain, but they'd still attack Obama.  Putting Palin on the ticket changed all that; she's a good old fashioned ultra-religious, anti-abortion, anti-environment, "family values" diva from Alaska's own version of the bible belt.  All of a sudden, the Republican base was "energized" and "electrified" by McCain's "bold choice."  Just like Biden compensates for Obama's lack of experience, Palin compensates for McCain's lack of crazy religiousness.

But shouldn't McCain be looking for more cross-party appeal?  Not according to the Karl Rove strategy, the strategy that's worked for the past eight years.  The truth is there's always been more registered Democrats than Republicans.  The only way the Republicans ever win is by getting more of their people to vote.  A lot of Republicans were dispirited by their choices this time around--and especially the "maverick" nominee who barely even represented their ideals--and as recently as a year ago more than half of all Republicans believed they'd lose the 2008 election.  Palin has given them something to vote for.  Also she's young and pretty.  She's the new Dan Quayle (remember it worked for Bush Sr.).  She's also started a new sentiment among voters from both parties, which is embodied in the website VPILF.com.  (If you have to ask, you don't want to know.  If you still want to know, go watch American Pie.)

Apparently, Sarah Palin is also good at raising money, but not quite in the way McCain hoped.  After 35 million people saw her speak at the Republican convention, they turned around and donated $10 million to Obama: http://news.yahoo.com/s/bloomberg/afxhgfvhhbtc

Some people are still worried because the latest nationwide polls show that McCain is just as popular as Obama.  But that doesn't matter, because that's not how we pick presidents.  We've got the electoral college, and if you break it down that way, turns out Obama is 75 electoral votes ahead of McCain.  Even better, it looks like the popularity bump after the Republican convention has gone to Obama as well: http://electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Pres/ec_graph-2008.html

Just in case you're not convinced yet, let's consider one final factor: money.  When was the last time the candidate with less money won the election?  I'm honestly asking, because it hasn't happened in my lifetime (since 1980).  When it comes to fundraising, Obama is creaming McCain.  Overall he's raised two and a half times as much as McCain.  Part of it is Obama's stellar success with small donations and the internet, a trend started by Howard Dean.  Obama has raised more in small donations (under $200) than McCain has raised from all sources put together.  http://elections.nytimes.com/2008/president/campaign-finance/map.html

So what's my conclusion?  I'm not worried about Obama winning the election, and neither should you.  If you're a Democrat, then you already want Obama to win.  If you're a Republican, you might already feel the same way.  And if you don't, go back and read this article again and ask yourself, seriously, if you want Sarah Palin to be one heartbeat away from the presidency.  Consider the fact that if McCain wins, he'd be the oldest president in the history of the United States.  He had a stroke ten years ago, and he's had skin cancer four times.  Now ask yourself, again, whether you want Sarah Palin to be one incredibly frail heartbeat away from the presidency.

This is why I sleep well at night.  (That, and the fact that my fever from having mono has gone down.  That helped too.)

J<