While the Obama campaign doubtless still harbors dreams of a Montana upset, the selection of Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska should shatter them and cause them to move on to truly battleground states. We now better understand why the McCain campaign, in spite of the polls, has elected not to spend precious resources in Montana -- they have known for some time (unless Obama had surprised the world by choosing Sen. Clinton for his Veep) that the presence of Gov. Sarah Palin on the ticket would seal the deal in Montana.
Gov. Palin is from the northwest, hunts moose, yet probably knows better than to carry live ammunition around in her pocket as an attention-getting prop, has a husband who is a member of a steelworkers' union, hates pork-barrel spending, loves developing natural energy resources (i.e. oil) in an environmentally-sensitive way (and unlike our own governor, actually got infinitely more done in less than half the time,) and is in general a libertarian-minded conservative with a soft touch.
All we have to do is get Palin to Montana a time or two, and this state will be out-of-reach for Obama. She probably doesn't even need to show up. Although we want her to!
Yes, we realize that there are those who are concerned about putting a first-term governor "a heartbeat away from the Oval Office." And yet Dems. had serious talk about Gov. Kaine of Virginia, and even the Montana governor (first-termers, both) as legitimate VP contenders. Is the problem that Palin is a woman, while they are men? (We saw that ugly sexism rearing its head in the Obama campaign against Hillary, and it came pretty naturally to them, much to the dismay of many women.)
But more to the point, if one wants to fault McCain for choosing to put a first-term governor in the backup slot, then what on earth are we to think about the Dems putting someone of Obama's paper-thin qualifications in their first position? The election of McCain-Palin would indeed raise the theoretical possibility of McCain dying shortly after arriving in office, and having a relatively inexperienced person rise to the Presidency.
The election of Obama-Biden would bring the certainty of an immediate elevation to the Presidency of a man with neither the executive experience that Gov. Palin has nor the real Senate experience that McCain has (and, to be fair, that Joe Biden and Chris Dodd and even Mike Gravel had.) It will make certain putting a man into the Oval Office who won an essentially uncontested U.S. Senate election in an overwhelmingly blue state less than 4 years ago -- and who has spent all of those last 4 years running for President rather than tending to the business of learning how to be a good Senator.
As Kirsten Powers notes regarding those who are shrieking about McCain choosing a running mate who has been governor for two years:
Where were they when Obama, two years into the Senate, announced his candidacy for president?
Indeed. If we are to fear inexperience, then we should run, screaming in terror, from the thought of an Obama presidency. Obama's election would mean the election of a man who has neither extensive Washington experience as a Senator (such as McCain has) has nor executive experience at the state level (such as Palin has.)
This whole "experience" thing that Democrats are desperately trying to make stick will only backfire, since ultimately, people vote for the top of the ticket -- the more the Obama team highlights the issue of experience, the worse it is for them.
We believe that Montanans will take to heart the words of Sen. Hillary Clinton herself, waxing eloquent, " I know Senator McCain has a lifetime of experience that he will bring to the White House. And Senator Obama has a speech he gave in 2002."
_____________
Addendum: For those who haven't gotten enough of photos of Gov. Palin and her beautiful family, click through the Post's photo gallery.
5 comments:
Well said MH. You forgot to mention though that Mr. Palin is a successful snowmobile racer …
“A father of five, he's also a four-time winner of the world's longest snowmobile race, billed as the most grueling.”…
My opinion… in Montana, this kind of stuff matters.
Well said. Great post.
Palin probably will play well in Montana.
I have to admit that her thin resume gives me some pause, as I think of what would happen if -- God forbid -- she had to step into the presidency unexpectedly.
On the other hand, I'm comforted by her feistiness and the fact that she's got a strong streak of independence. She's regularly taken on the powers that be in Alaska. Compare that to Obama, who is highly partisan--despite his claims to the contrary--and has no record of bipartisan cooperation.
Those folks who put a premium on bipartisanship ought to be happy with Palin, and moving in her direction and away from Obama's. And I suppose that's the hope of the McCain campaign as the voters become better informed.
As I said, I have some misgivings about Palin, but at least she's in 2nd place on the ticket. Obama is at the top of the Democratic ticket, and he can't claim to have much more foreign policy experience than she does. He's only been a senator about 3 years, and he's spent most of that time campaigning. Who are Democrats trying to kid on the experience issue?
Of course many in the press are trying to do the sell job for them, but I think many Americans are starting to catch on to that game. I see that even the liberal "comedian" Bill Maher joked the other day that it seemed like a lot of journalists, particularly those at MSNBC were so in the tank for Obama that it seemed like they wanted to have sex with the guy.
When you have a liberal saying something like that, it tells you things have gotten pretty bad.
I made a comment critical of the fawning press coverage of Obama, but could I also pass on a compliment to Ed Kemmick, as I know he sometimes reads your blog. This might be a little off topic, but I'm not sure how else to do it.
Last weekend he wrote a column that "imagined" some of the governor's upcoming TV ads. Not only was it funny, but it did something I had not seen before. It poked fun at the governor. For whatever reason, the Montana press has been very leery of writing anything critical of this governor.....and I dont remember anyone anyone ever writing any kind of satire about him either.
Ed K does deserve credit for going where other journalists have feared to tread..... it shouldnt be any kind of big deal, but it is.
James, it is indeed important not to underestimate the "First Dude" (as he is known in Alaska) factor.
Goof -- thanks much.
And regarding Ed Kemmick's article, it was indeed a classic, and will probably get a post of its own here on Montana Headlines as time allows.
There is so much to poke fun at in the governor and his affected manners -- it is indeed surprising that the press doesn't swing at those slow softballs being lobbed across the middle of the plate.
Post a Comment