SNIPPETS, our daily collection of short items and comments, is here.

--------------------------------------------- 

Our next subscription drive will be in October.  However, readers are invited to subscribe at any time.  Subscriptions are voluntary, but are critical to keeping us going.  Subscribe in the right-hand column.

--------------------------------------------

For those of you who might be interested, I did a podcast for the excellent Skewz website.  You can listen here.

--------------------------------------------

Again, we are being delightfully inundated with e-mails.  As you know, I try to answer personally, but I'm behind and trying to catch up.  Please bear with me.  Every e-mail is read as soon as it comes in.   Answers, when called for, often take longer.   

FRIDAY,  SEPTEMBER 5,  2008

EXPERIENCE,  ETC.

Posted at 10:47 p.m. ET

It was disappointing.  Geraldine Ferraro, the Democratic candidate for vice president in 1984, has been gutsy through this election season in refusing to throw her support to Barack Obama because 1) she'd supported Hillary Clinton for the nomination and 2) she had doubts about his readiness to lead.

Now, as I saw on Hannity & Colmes tonight, Ferraro has caved.  She announced she's supporting Obama.  Her reason?  Joe Biden and his "experience."

Have you noticed that Biden is given an automatic pass by the media and the political class because of his "experience"?  Sarah Palin, a governor, is constantly questioned about her "experience," but Biden is considered automatically qualified to be vice president or even president because he's served six terms in the Senate.  Have you also noticed that no one asks what Biden has done with that experience?  What judgments has he made?  How have they turned out?  What has he actually done in the Senate, and what impact has he had?

"Experience" can't simply be a matter of putting in time.  In fact, Biden's judgments have often been horribly flawed.  He opposed virtually the entire Reagan foreign policy, a policy that resulted in the successful conclusion to the Cold War.  He opposed the first Gulf War.  He opposed the surge in Iraq.  He has consistently appeased the Iranian regime.  Yet, no questions are asked.  He has "experience."

Experience can be important, but the nature and quality of that experience must be examined.  Years in grade is not experience.  It is time.

Another concept that requires a closer look is "temperament."  You've read all sorts of stories questioning whether Senator McCain has the "temperament" to be president.  He has, we're told, a sizable temper.  (So did Eisenhower.)  We're told he can be confrontational.  (So was Lyndon Johnson.)  But have you heard any questions about Barack Obama's "temperament?"  In fact, there are serious worries.  If there's one thing that defines the presidency it's pressure.  Yet, Obama seems incapable of standing up to any pressure at all.  He gets testy if someone asks him a rare challenging question.  He seems to come apart unless there's a script in front of him.  Politically, he's never shown strength of character or backbone.  But only McCain's "temperament" is examined.  Apparently, temper or lack thereof, is the only issue of temperament worthy of study.

So, two concepts - experience, temperament - have been misused during this campaign, and the misuse has benefited - shock - the Democratic side.  Write letters to your local newspapers.  Ask for some journalistic change - change you can believe in.

September 5, 2008.      Permalink          

UPDATE AT 7:14 P.M. ET:  From ABC News:  ABC News has exclusively learned that Alaska Senator Hollis French will announce today that he is moving up the release date of his investigation into whether Gov. Sarah Palin abused her office to get the Alaska public safety commissioner, Walt Monegan, fired. The results of the investigation were originally scheduled for release Oct. 31 but will now come almost three weeks earlier, according to sources.

Comment:  This could be trouble for Sarah, but could also work to her advantage.  This Hollis French chap is a Democrat, and most voters will probably discount anything he says.  Also, the timing - coming out with a report within a month of the election - will probably turn people off.  The McCain campaign, though, must prepare the electorate for the report in advance, ridiculing it and framing it as a political event. 

NOW THAT THEY NEED HER...

Posted at 5:46 p.m. ET

Hillary Clinton that is.  Suddenly, the defeated challenger is a hot property to the Obama camp because of the belief that she can counter Sarah Palin.

But the Hillary response will apparently be, "Not so fast."  She's willing to help, but on her terms, as The Politico reports:

Hillary Rodham Clinton has no intention of becoming a Sarah Palin attack dog — but has no qualms going after John McCain, people close to the former first lady say.

“She’s not the answer when it comes to winning conservative women — she never was — and we’re not going to be anybody’s attack dog against Sarah Palin,” said a Clinton insider. “To be fair to Obama’s people, they haven’t asked us to do that.”

No, I'll bet they never even thought of it. 

Clinton will continue to yoke McCain and Palin to President Bush on pocketbook issues. But sources say that Clinton, who supports abortion rights, isn’t likely to criticize the Alaska governor for her anti-abortion stance. She may, however, question Palin’s record on equal-pay issues.

Translated into English, Clinton is smart enough not to alienate pro-life women, a group she'd want in 2012.  Attacking on equal-pay issues is routine, and no one remembers.

The Obama campaign, alarmed by Palin’s instant popularity, has given Clinton’s staff a proposed fall campaign schedule in economically distressed battleground states — including Ohio and Pennsylvania — where she did well during the primaries, according to people familiar with the situation.

The former first lady, who is due to appear at an Obama event in Florida on Monday, hasn’t gotten back to them yet. When she does, she’s likely to add a few stops of her own — fundraisers, including at least one in Texas to help her repay more than $20 million in debt incurred during the primary.

She might even recall that Obama hasn't lifted a finger to help her pay that debt.  What does she owe him, except some go-through-the-motions speeches as a party loyalist? 

It will be a weird sight to behold - Clinton campaigning for a man she almost surely wants to lose, so she can have a clear shot at 2012.  And on the other ticket is the woman she might well face in that year. 

2012:  Clinton vs. Palin for the American presidency.  Now, the Mayan calendar says the world will end on December 21, 2012.  But we'll know the result by then, and maybe we won't care.

September 5, 2008.      Permalink          

UPDATE AT 1:40 P.M. ET:  From TV Week:  Presidential candidate John McCain's acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention drew more television viewers than his rival Barack Obama attracted at the Democratic party's event last week, according to preliminary ratings from Nielsen Media Research.

TRACKERS

Posted at 1:23 p.m. ET

Both trackers for the day are now out, and both show a drop for Obama.

As reported earlier, Rasmussen has Obama up two, a drop from five yesterday.

Gallup has Obama up four, a drop from seven yesterday.

Ras measures likely voters, Gallup registered voters. 

Two thirds of the polling for both Ras and Gallup was conducted before Sarah Palin's acceptance speech.  None of the polling yet reflects Senator McCain's speech.

By Sunday we should have the full impact of the Palin speech, and by Monday the full impact of Senator McCain's.

Things are moving in the right direction.

September 5, 2008.      Permalink          

UPDATE AT 11:05 A.M. ET:   More from Rasmussen.  A Rasmussen survey shows Sarah Palin more popular than either John McCain or Barack Obama.  And here's something else:

The Palin pick has also improved perceptions of John McCain. A week ago, just before he introduced his running mate, just 42% of Republicans had a Very Favorable opinion of their party’s nominee. That figure jumped to 54% by this Friday morning. Among unaffiliated voters, favorable opinions of McCain have increased by eleven percentage points in a week—from 54% before the Palin announcement to 65% today.

Go to the link for details.

UPDATE AT 10:30 A.M. ET:  The internals are now available for this morning's Rasumussen tracker.  Rasmussen says:

Virtually all of the interviews for today’s update were completed before McCain’s speech last night. Roughly two-thirds of the interviews were completed before Palin’s speech on Wednesday night.

And still, Obama dropped three points in the tracker.  Not good news for Obama.  Rasmussen also reports:

Fifty-one percent (51%) of voters now believe that McCain made the right choice when he picked Palin to be his running mate while 32% disagree. By way of comparison, 47% said that Obama made the right choice by picking Delaware Senator Joe Biden as his running mate. Voters are evenly divided as to whether Palin or Obama has the better experience to be President.

We'll await Gallup this afternoon.  So far, very good.

BULLETIN AT 10:05 A.M. ET:  Real Clear Politics reports that this morning's Rasmussen tracker shows Obama with a two-point lead, down from five yesterday.  Please note that this survey was taken Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday, so only reflects part of the impact of Sarah Palin's speech and probably none of the impact of last night's speech by John McCain.

ADVISORY AT 9:48 A.M. ET:   We are trying to get the results of the first tracker of the day, from Rasmussen.  At first their site was inaccessible, probably due to heavy traffic.  Now it's only showing yesterday's result.  We're monitoring.  We'll get this to you as soon as we have it. 

WE WAIT

Posted at 6:58 a.m. ET

Or, as they say in my former industry, the envelope please...

We wait for the results of the Republican convention.  Senator McCain's speech got decidedly mixed reviews.  I felt it was quite good - the kind of speech that appeals to the gut, to Americans who want to have pride in their leaders.  The people shall judge.

The McCain-Palin ticket is in Wisconsin today.  First indicator to look for - the size and enthusiasm of their crowds.  We'll especially be watching for the response to Sarah.  If she ignites, she may do more for McCain than any vice-presidential candidate has done for the top of the ticket since Lyndon Johnson delivered Texas to Jack Kennedy in 1960.  If she doesn't ignite...well, let's not think about that.

One institution that came out of the GOP convention in ragged shape is the media.  In a way, this may help the McCain ticket.  The Republican base is energized, and one of the things that provided the octane was the mass assault on Sarah Palin.  That assault also gives the McCain forces the maneuvering room, the rationale, to move around the press and speak directly to the American people, which was one of the tactics used by Ronald Reagan.  It added immensely to his succeess.

Conventions create, not memories, but images.  Few remember the words.  They do recall how they reacted to the words, to the person on the screen.  That's what will be measured by the pollsters in the next few days.

May the best man/woman ticket win.  I'm not giving you much choice.

September 5, 2008.      Permalink           

FROM THE U.K.

Posted at 6:54 a.m.

Why is it that some of the best commentary on our campaign is coming from the mother country?  We've quoted Gerard Baker of The Times of London many times before.  Now he writes another perceptive piece on what's just happened:

The best line I heard about Sarah Palin during the frenzied orgy of chauvinist condescension and gutter-crawling journalistic intrusion that greeted her nomination for vice-president a week ago came from a correspondent who knows a thing or two about Alaska.

“What's the difference between Sarah Palin and Barack Obama?”

“One is a well turned-out, good-looking, and let's be honest, pretty sexy piece of eye-candy.

“The other kills her own food.”

Perfect.

Now we know, thanks to her triumphant debut at the Republican convention on Wednesday, that Mrs Palin not only slaughters her prey. She impales its head on a stick and parades it around for her followers to jeer at. For half an hour she eviscerated Mr Obama in that hall and did it all without dropping her sweet schoolmarm smile, as if she were handing out chocolates at the end of a history lesson.

Also perfect.

Not since Paris handed that apple to Aphrodite has a man's selection of a woman had such implications for the future of our civilisation.

And he's just warming up.  Baker points out that vice-presidential choices rarely make that much of a difference.  This time, though, may be different:

But let me try to explain why Mrs Palin, whatever impact she might have in November, may be a figure of real consequence in our lives...

...It never ceases to amaze me how the Left falls again and again into the old trap of underestimating politicians whom they don't understand. From Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher to George Bush and Mrs Palin, they do it every time. Because these characters talk a bit funny and have ridiculously antiquated views about faith, family and nation, because they haven't spent time bending the knee to the intellectual metropolitan elites, they can't be taken seriously.

Well said.  May the left continue to blunder.  On Sarah Palin:

No one paid much attention to the fact that she had been elected governor of a state. Or that she got to that office not because, unlike some politicians I could mention, her husband had been there before her, or because she bleated continuously about glass ceilings, but by challenging the entrenched interests in her own party and beating them. In almost two years as Governor she has cleaned out the Augean stables of Alaskan Government. You don't win a statewide election and enjoy approval ratings of more than 80 per cent without real political talent.

Correct. But the Washington media isn't interested in talent.  It's interested in being courted.

So here's why she matters.

First of all she offers an opportunity for an ailing Republican party to reconnect with ordinary Americans. She's conservative, but her conservatism is not that of the intolerant, uncomprehending white male sort that has so hurt the party in recent years. She is much closer to a model of the lives of ordinary Americans - working mother, plainspoken everywoman juggling home and office - than any Republican leader in memory.

And...

The Republicans have decided that they are not going to make the mistake Hillary Clinton made and run against the effervescent Mr Obama on the premise of experience.

Experience hasn't got Americans into a very comfortable place. They want change. Before he signed up to some of the less attractive Republican attitudes this year, Mr McCain's career had embodied that change - the anti-establishment candidate running against his own party. Now he is joined by a woman who, in her short career, has done the same thing.

She could be the change they've been waiting for.

The opportunity for McCain-Palin is not reaction, but reform - a reform rooted in a distant conservatism that could be due for a comeback

Hailing from Arizona and Alaska, the Republican ticket has a chance to rekindle a western conservatism different from the old Yankee paternalist sort or the Bible Belt version. They like their guns out there (some still kill their own food) and they are pro-life and deeply pro-America, of course. But at a time of grave challenges, the themes of economic freedom and opportunity, the resistance to the idea that government holds all the answers, could resonate with voters.

Finally...

This is an election, as the Democrats have realised all along, about an America on the cusp of change. With the moose-hunting, establishment-taunting Mrs Palin at his side, Mr McCain might represent a bigger change than the one that his opponents are offering.

You don't have to agree with all that Baker says, but I think he's on to something.  I only wish that more American journalists were as incisive as he is.

September 5, 2008.      Permalink          

THURSDAY,  SEPTEMBER 4,  2008

11:59 P.M. ET:  We now await the polls.  The trackers tomorrow will be the first to reflect Sarah Palin's speech last night.  Not until Monday will the tracking polls - taken over three days - fully reflect the GOP convention.  Generally, according to Karl Rove, the party holding the second convention gets the smaller bounce.  But, of course, that doesn't take into account the effect of an unusual, dramatic event - like the emergence of Sarah Palin.  First tracker will be out at 9:30 a.m. tomorrow. 

11:39 P.M. ET:  Just switched to CNN, but one can only take so much of the snideness and contempt.  The incoherent Carl Bernstein, once a journalist, attacked McCain, and a fellow named Toobin called the speech one of the worst he'd ever heard.  Brilliant, penetrating analysis.  You learn so much.

11:26 P.M. ET:  I see that some of the TV pundits didn't have as high a regard for the speech as I did.  But I'll hold firm.  I think the speech, and the man making it, had a gut appeal to the citizen watching at home.  You had the impression of a man who's lived a full life. 

11:04 P.M. ET:  McCain has finished.  His ending reminded us of a coach inspiring his team.  Well done.  Well delivered.  For a man not known as an orator, he outdid himself.  He passed the test.

11:01 P.M. ET:  McCain is now telling the story of his prisoner years.  There is risk here, but he's handling his story well, with humility, not bravado.  Again, there's some fine writing at work, and a decent delivery.

10:45 P.M. ET:   McCain is going through the usual laundry list for Republican candidates.  But he is giving some details, lacking in Obama's campaign, on how he would get things done, especially in job retraining and education.  Effective, I think.  The speech is well-written.  It has a strong narrative drive.

10:27 P.M. ET:   McCain has never been a great orator, but he's good tonight.  He sounds sincere and fluent.  He's not Obama, but he's holding his own.  There were some demonstrators in the hall - how they got in is an interesting question - but they seem to have been cleared out.  McCain clearly has practiced his style.  He is connecting with the audience.

10:14 P.M. ET:   McCain is now onstage.  The camera just switched to Sarah Palin, who's in the hall.  Let's see how McCain does.

10:04 P.M. ET:  An introductory film on McCain is on.  Of course, it stresses his military service.  Well done, with style.  Now it goes on to his political service.  This is one of the best of this kind of film that I've seen. 

10:02 P.M. ET:  Waiting now for John McCain to speak.  His wife, Cindy, spoke.  She performed with dignity and class, but no one remembers the spousal speeches.

9:02 P.M. ET:  Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina is speaking.  He's talking about the success of the surge in Iraq.  It's fine, but I'm concerned that there's been too much military talk at the convention, as much as I agree with it.  You have to have a broad appeal, and I hope McCain reflects that need in his acceptance speech. 

I'm also concerned about the overall appearance of the convention.  I don't care for identity politics or the idiotic quota system of the Democratic Party, but there has to be some recognition of different groups.  Elections are about winning, and winning is about numbers.  One analyst said, correctly, that McCain must make an appeal to Hispanic-Americans.  It's a natural for him, and yet the convention hasn't done a thing to help.  I hope his speech eliminates the deficiency.

8:51 P.M. ET:  Just watched O'Reilly's interview, on national security, with Barack Obama.  As usual, Obama was engaging and articulate.  The problem is that he used a familiar rhetorical technique.  He gave a brief answer to each question, often a vague answer, then went into a set piece filled with talking points.  There wasn't enough time to deal with the details of security policy, like Obama's "promise" to eliminate missile defense, but the candidate didn't destroy himself.

8:37 P.M. ET:  Bill O'Reilly is about to air Part 1 of his interview with Barack Obama.  Now, apparently, this was set up to run the same night that McCain accepts his nomination.  Frankly, I think it's a little tacky of Obama.  But under the polished surface of the Obama campaign there is the tackiness of Chicago street politics.  So don't be surprised.

8:28 P.M. ET:  We'll now start our regular blogging for tonight's GOP convention.  Senator McCain will accept the party's nomination in about an hour and a half.  He has a heavy burden - not only to convince Americans that he is young enough, dynamic enough, and forward-looking enough to be president, but to try to equal the performance of his vice-presidential nominee last night.

Karl Rove made the point at Fox that McCain must show that he understands "kitchen table" issues.  Rove is right.   

BULLETIN AT 7:36 P.M. ET:  From the AP, Earth-shaking news:   SPOKANE, Wash. (AP) -- Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin attended five colleges in six years before graduating from the University of Idaho in 1987.

I had to rush this to you, as I knew you could not go on without information like that.  Your world has been changed, hasn't it?

Readers, that's the kind of thing the mainstream press is digging for.  Really relates to the future of the country, doesn't it?

NOTE AT 6:20 P.M. ET:  I just checked in at CNN, and guess what they were talking about.  Troopergate - the so-called "scandal" involving Sarah Palin and her alleged attempt to get her former brother-in-law fired by the state police.  Now, there are plenty of strange things about Barack Obama's activities in Chicago, but, for some reason, the news organizations can't seem to find Chicago on a map, and thus can't send reporters there.  We understand, we really do.  Alaska is so much more accessible.

Yuch. 

BULLETIN AT 5:30 P.M. ET:  A new CBS poll just released shows a dead heat, with Obama and McCain getting 42 percent each.  The poll was completed before Sarah Palin's speech.  It closes the eight-point Obama advantage that CBS reported in a poll taken last weekend.  This survey was conducted Monday through Wednesday.

We must stress that this poll is at variance with our daily trackers, which show Obama either seven or five points ahead.  We'll watch the trends.

ROVE

Posted at 2:36 p.m. ET

Karl Rove, based on his own excellent instincts, and after speaking with scholars on the subject, has this take on the impact of Sarah Palin over the next two months:

Taking on Alaska's good-old-boy politics and beating the incumbent Republican governor might be seen as evidence of the political courage and independence voters are looking for this year. And with women more undecided than men, Mrs. Palin could add more than a point to Mr. McCain's total -- maybe two or three -- which could make the difference in a close contest.

Note the numbers.  Historically, even outstanding vice-presidential choices have had only limited impact.  Could this year, though, be different?

The threat Mrs. Palin poses is why Mr. Obama's campaign has moved rapidly to disparage her record, and why left-wing bloggers have engaged in nonstop character smears against her and her family. Some in the press have aided and abetted this because they feel left out of the preannouncement vetting process. The danger for Democrats is twofold: in highlighting Mrs. Palin's inexperience, they may focus attention on Mr. Obama's; and the harsh attacks levied against Mrs. Palin could completely undermine the Obama promise of a "new politics." In the vice-presidential debate, Democrats must be concerned about Mr. Biden appearing bombastic and condescending -- which is almost a permanent state of mind for the Delaware senator -- while Mrs. Palin comes across as fresh, straight talking, nonpolitical and therefore appealing.

I say, let Biden be Biden!  It could help us.

This will be history's shortest general-election campaign. The race is tight, so every new variable carries substantial risk and opportunity. So while the GOP vice-presidential pick is by far the more creative and bold, it is also the more dangerous.

But even if Mrs. Palin does well, as I believe she will, it is still Mr. McCain's performance in the next 61 days that will matter most. Sarah Palin can help advance the McCain reform narrative, but the hard work still rests squarely on the shoulders of John McCain. And that's exactly where the maverick and war hero wants it.

Which is why tonight's speech is so critical.  John McCain doesn't generally do well in set speeches, but his campaign staff knows it.  I have to believe they've prepared him well. 

Look for the following things:  Tracking polls in the next five days, and the size and intensity of crowds as McCain and Palin go out on the campaign trail.  Will Palin now become the phenomenon the GOP hopes, or will her appeal be limited to those already converted?

We're going to get some important answers in the next week.

September 4, 2008.      Permalink          

TRACKERS

Posted at 1:15 p.m. ET

Both trackers for the day are now out.  Rasmussen, as reported below, shows no change.  Obama up five.

Gallup confirms that, in practical terms, nothing has changed.  In fact, Gallup shows a one-point gain for Obama, who's up seven.  May just be statistical noise.

The trackers were done before Sarah Palin's speech last night.  However, in fairness I should point out that both included the speeches by Fred Thompson and Joe Lieberman the night before.   Were they completely ineffective?  Can't tell.  This was also the period of maximum assault against Sarah Palin. 

At this point, we're only speculating.  In looking at these numbers I've become a bit concerned.  I'd hoped that the assault on Palin would produce an immediate backlash in her favor.  That has not happened.  I'd hoped John McCain's compelling life story would draw undecideds to him.  That also has apparently not happened. 

The key will be polling over the next few days, and into the weekend.  If Palin's speech produces no bounce, and if it's ditto for McCain's tonight, then the public is sending a blunt message that it wants a new party in the White House, and that nothing else matters.  But we're not there yet, and I hope we don't get to that point.

One additional comment:  The Republicans have correctly emphasized the national-security theme, and I'm sure McCain will do so again tonight.  But there's a danger of carrying it too far.  To me, national security is the key issue.  But to millions of Americans, especially young Americans, other issues are equally critical.  McCain must address their concerns as well.

The next five days of polling will tell a major story.  Not final, to be sure, but major.

September 4, 2008.       Permalink          

BULLETIN AT 9:31 A.M. ET:  The first tracker of the day is out.  Rasmussen has Obama up five points, the same as yesterday.

Cautionary note:  Trackers are done over a three-day period.  Today's result reflects polling from Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday, when the full brunt of the assault on Sarah Palin was being felt, but before her speech last night.  We won't begin to see the impact of that speech until tomorrow or even the next day.

Rasmussen adds:

Last night’s polling shows that, by a ten-to-one margin, voters believe reporters are trying to hurt Palin’s campaign rather than help. Republicans and unaffiliated voters strongly believe that a double standard is being applied to Palin because she is a woman. Democrats disagree. Perhaps most stunning is that, among unaffiliated voters, just 42% believe Obama has better experience than Palin to be President. Thirty-seven percent (37%) say Palin has the edge on experience. Again, most of the interviews for this survey were completed before Palin’s well-received speech last night.

NOTE AT 8:45 A.M. ET:  Reader Mike Melcher, in response to hairdressers' distress at Sarah's hair, writes the following: 

As you probably know by now, Sister Sarah's hairdo is related to her religious faith. Locally, it is a common "look" among Pentacostal women who believe that their hair is a "crowning glory". In fact, one can distinguish women from the various Assembly of God churches on the street by their hairdos.

Fascinating. 
 

BULLETIN, AT 8:10 A.M. ET:  Hairstylists denounce Sarah's hair!!

Thought you'd like to know.  Obviously, this changes history.

SARAH

Posted at 7:16 a.m. ET

It's all Sarah all the time.  Her speech last night will be the main subject of political talk throughout the day.  The usual suspects will either praise or condemn her.  Most "observers," as usual, will be more concerned about how they sound than about how she sounded. 

There will, of course, be the contingent from Snideville, that little suburb of Washington, who'll whisper that the speech was written for her.  I'd be careful about that one.  Knowing just how much a candidate contributes to a speech is virtually impossible before the histories are written.  The Georgetown party crowd thought Ronald Reagan had everything written, and thought out, for him.  We later learned that he was probably the most effective script editor in presidential history.

I have no problem with reasonable criticism of Sarah Palin.  As the Washington Post points out this morning, her speech - and it was good - does not erase legitimate concerns about her readiness.  I do, though, have a big problem with a few practices, however:  First, I wish the same standard for "readiness" was applied to Barack Obama, who proves, in his contradictions, in his secretiveness, in his strange past, that he is woefully underequipped for the presidency.  Second, I wish reporters would stop asking the trick question, "Was she the best-qualified person to step into the presidency?"  Those same reporters might ask, and they haven't, whether Barack Obama is the best person for the presidency on the Democratic side.

There is no one "best" person.  And no presidential candidate in history has ever chosen, or even sought, that mysterious individual.  A vice-presidential candidate is usually a mixture of qualifications and political usefulness.  John Edwards, best qualified in 2004?  Al Gore in 1992?  Geraldine Ferraro in 1984?  How about Spiro Agnew in 1968?  Ironically, the best-qualified candidate was probably Dick Cheney in 2000, and he's become the most controversial vice president in history.

So spare us the "most qualified" question.  It's a gimmick.  "Sufficiently qualified" is fine.  If "most qualified" continues to surface, then the Republicans must tear into Joe Biden, asking whether he is the most qualified, pointing out his breathtakingly bad foreign-policy judgments over the years, and wondering whether putting in time is a qualification for anything.  Mr. Biden has no executive experience whatever. 

Sarah Palin did well last night.  She certainly impressed us as a serious and engaging leader.  But I've always believed that the impact of conventions is overrated.  Does anyone remember anything that was said at last week's Democratic conclave?  The full measure of Governor Palin will be determined by her performance over the next two months.  So will the full measure of all the candidates.  And that judgment will be filtered through a disgracefully biased press.

I'm hesitant about predictions.  However, I wouldn't be surprised if Governor Palin does better on the campaign trail than does Senator Biden, who is prone to gaffes and outbursts.  The question is, will we know about those gaffes and outbursts?  Or will we only know about Sarah Palin spelling some leader's name wrong?

Once again, the media will be the fifth candidate.  And we've seen this week how much damage that candidate can inflict. 

But I have a kind of faith in Sarah.  Don't sell her short.

September 4, 2008.      Permalink          

SARAH FROM THE U.K.

Posted at 7:14 a.m. ET

Of the pieces I've read on Sarah Palin, one of the most incisive comes, as usual, from a British writer.  Jane Daley has always been one of my favorites, and has a particularly good eye when it comes to the United States:

There are few sights more bloodcurdling than the liberal pack in full cry. The viciousness of the attacks on Sarah Palin is a testimony to the degree of panic her appointment has generated in Leftist circles.

It would seem that it is only sexist to trash a woman candidate if she is a Woman Candidate, which is to say a liberal.

Like Margaret Thatcher before her, Sarah Palin terrifies those on the political left
It took about 20 minutes after John McCain announced her as his running mate for the attack machine to mobilise: woman candidate (bleep, bleep), no previous warning (nee-naw, nee-naw), exterminate, exterminate.

At first, it was pretty tenuous stuff: her husband had once been caught on a drink-drive charge - when he was 22 years old. You don't say. In blue-collar America, having only one drink-drive offence pretty much qualifies you as a Grade A wimp.

Then the piranhas got hold of a real prize (or so they thought): the 17-year-old daughter of this Christian Evangelical family was pregnant.

Wonderful.  And...

I personally am, and always have been, fervently pro-choice on abortion. I do not consider this to be the only sanctified Woman's point of view because I am aware that huge numbers of women disagree with me.

Whenever I touch on the subject, they write in and tell me so, often in eloquent and passionate terms. But according to the official feminist sisterhood (which was taken over by the totalitarian Marxist tendency long ago) you can represent the views of Women only if you accept the tenets of their ideology. Ergo, Mrs Palin is not a Woman Candidate.

She is a renegade, the gender equivalent of an Uncle Tom. In the US, her position is particularly incendiary because it is part of the culture war between metropolitan liberals and provincial America: that vast fly-over country where people (or "folks", as they call themselves) still live by the standards the Palin family embodies. Life is about hard work and hard play.

Hot dogs versus tofu.  Construction versus anthropology.

Like Margaret Thatcher before her, Mrs Palin is coming in for both barrels of Left-wing contempt: misogyny and snobbery. Where Lady Thatcher was dismissed as a "grocer's daughter" by people who called themselves egalitarian, Mrs Palin is regarded as a small-town nobody by those who claim to represent "ordinary people".

What the metropolitan sophisticates failed to understand in the 1980s when Thatcher won election after election is even more the case in the US: most (and I do mean most) ordinary people actually believe in the basic decencies, the "small-town values", of family, marital fidelity, and personal responsibility. They believe in and honour them - even if they do not manage to uphold them.

She understands this country.

The life of small-town USA is based on the principles of those Protestant colonial settlers who founded the nation: hard work, self-improvement, personal faith and family devotion. Mrs Palin speaks to and for them in a way that patronising "liberal" elitists find infuriating.

A very great senator, and a man whose resumé read "elite," once advised me, "Never underestimate the values of a small town."  Although Paul Douglas was a senator, a war hero, and a distinguished college professor, he never forgot those values.  His descendants in the Democratic Party have, to their eternal discredit.

September 4, 2008.      Permalink          

"What you see is news.  What you know is background.  What you feel is opinion."
    - Lester Markel, late Sunday editor
      of The New York Times.

SUBSCRIPTIONS:

Subscriptions to URGENT AGENDA are voluntary.  Why subscribe to something you're getting free?  To help guarantee that you'll continue to get it at all.  Subscriptions sustain us.  Payments are through PayPal and are secure, but you do not have to sign up for a PayPal account.  Credit cards are fine.

FOR A ONE-YEAR ($48) SUBSCRIPTION, CLICK:

FOR A SIX-MONTH ($26) SUBSCRIPTION, CLICK:

IF YOU DON'T WISH A SET SUBSCRIPTION, BUT PREFER TO DONATE ANY OTHER AMOUNT TO SUSTAIN URGENT AGENDA, CLICK:

SEARCH URGENT AGENDA:

POWER LINE:

It's a privilege for me to post periodic pieces at Power Line. To go to Power Line, click here.

To link to my Power Line pieces, go here.

THE CURRENT QUESTION

This space will regularly raise questions that relate to the news, but transcend daily headlines.  The idea is to stimulate talk about basic issues. Our last question asked: 

Last week we asked,

What would you like to see President Bush accomplish in his last five months in office?

You can view the answers here.

NEW CURRENT QUESTION

This question was drawn from an idea by reader Bill Palmer:

What are the three most absurd positions put forward by Barack Obama?

If you'd like to send us your thoughts, click:
response@urgentagenda.com
(Please stay within two or three paragraphs.  We try to print every reply, if space allows.  Place your name at the end of the message if you wish your name published.  This question will stay up through Sunday.)

CONTACT:

YOU CAN E-MAIL US, AS FOLLOWS:

If you have wonderful things to say about this site, if it makes you a better person, please click:
applause@urgentagenda.com

If you have a general comment on anything you see here, or on anything else that's topical, please click:
comments@urgentagenda.com

If you must say something obnoxious, something that will embarrass you and disgrace your loving family, click:
despicable@urgentagenda.com

If you required subscription service, please click:
service@urgentagenda.com

FAVORITE SITES (List will grow)

Power Line
Faster Please (Michael Ledeen)
OpinionJournal.com
Hudson Institute
Bookworm Room
Bill Bennett
Red State
Pajamas Media
Michelle Malkin
Diana West
The Weekly Standard
The New York Sun
Real Clear Politics
The Corner
City Journal
Gateway Pundit
American Thinker