Yes, Palin's personal life is best ignored (and really, who cares) and her inexperience should be addressed only passively/defensively.

This is fine, since that was never Obama's argument (his were judgment, change and the economy). But it neutralizes McCain's ONLY argument.

Most of all, this opens up a great argument that it is McCain who is the unsteady, risky gambler. He's impulsive, reckless and unpredictable.

Frankly, McCain's pick of his VP scares the hell out of me. This guy is a loose cannon.

How can you prove McCain's poor judgement (B) without bringing up that he didn't think enough about (C), (D), and (E)?
Did he know that she thinks abortion should be a felony in any situation?
Did he know that she supports teaching creationism in the classroom and 80% of Americans disagree?
Did he know that she is not qualified, by any means, to take his place?
Did he know that Obama has more experience managing his campaign than Palin does managing Alaska?

Excellent post.

As you stated, we need to keep the focus on Obama and McCain. Enough material will surface on how Palin uses her political muscle to settle her personal scores like in this example.

Good post and I bet the Obama campaign, based on their past experience, is thinking exactly the same way you are, roo.

The important thing is Obama's pick of Joe Biden was a net positive and McCains pick of Palin is at best a net zero, but most likely a large net negative for his campaign.

This is definitely an improvement over the inane (over)reactions so far.

The focus has to be kept on McCain and his lack of judgment in chosing someone as unprepared to replace him, regardless of her experience.

To undermine Mrs Palin, the best approach is to simply ask her serious questions and let the cameras roll.

The whole experience debate is a distraction from that of preparedness. Regardless of what can be said of Obama's experience, he has convinced a huge swath of the nation, including the most educated and knowledgeable segments, that he has judgment, has studied and analyzed the issues and is prepared to be CIC, whereas Mrs Palin could not even convince herself of her own preparedness if she tried.

Agreed and recommended. This isn't about Palin's opinions on the issues. It's about John McCain's terrible judgment in choosing a running mate he barely knows. It's not about Palin's inexperience. It's about John McCain's terrible judgment in choosing a running mate he barely knows. It's not about Palin's gender. It's about John McCain's terrible judgment in choosing a running mate he barely knows.

John McCain just demonstrated miserable judgment in picking Palin. Not because there's anything wrong with her, but because there's something horribly wrong with John McCain.

As for topic B, you'll be happy to know I was one of the first to address it. =)

http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/08/was-palin-properly-vetted-by-m.php

I totally agree with you, by the way. Highly rec'd.

I agree. Here's a great photo of Sarah Palin to help you further this high-minded discussion:

http://thebruceblog.wordpress.com/2008/08/30/sarah-palin-sisterhood-of-the-traveling-catsuit/

I have seen your posts since she was picked and I have to say I totally agree with you. We can get at Palin but there is a RIGHT and a WRONG way to doing it and alot of the dems having been going at it the WRONG WAY. She can be the bridge to hammering McCains lack of judgement, no need to mention her experience, only when need be.

She is NOT McFrankenstein's choice. She the bride of Dr. Rovenstein.

I call it: Absurdipity. It is the confluence of the righteously absurd with the blissfully serendipitous.

Although both Hockey Mom and Dubya share the blank slate quality that Rove looks for in the perfect candidate, Hockey Mom doesn't have Dubya's charming arrogance, but instead charming ignorance.

Perhaps that's just so for a VP anyway.

I agree that the natural tendency to "pounce" should be suppressed. She is a decoy of sorts. A trojan horse. I think of her this way: she is a secret Rovian device that spins all attacks into righteous indignation, something the right does so well and something that the left cowers from like the bane of its existence.

To attack her is to attack America.

So the best offense is to deprive it of its sustenance. Starve it to death.

Ideally, as of Monday, I would like to only see posts dealing with topic B.

Well, if we are talking personal preference, ideally, by Monday (I'll wait longer, though.)

I would like to see TPM Reader blogs go back to being a space where people wrote on stuff they wanted to discuss with others,

and didn't instead get into the mindset where they got deluded into thinking that they were actually affecting the election by what got posted on, and thought that highly important political propaganda work was going on here, and that a blog post getting recommended was winning something important.

But that's just me, and I'm pretty sure only a minority agrees.

In the attempts to understand her and her likely mode of governance were she to become, heaven forbid, President:

http://gov.state.ak.us/archive-34155.html

Here can be found scores of her proclamations (Red Kettle Day, Magic Week, etc..) but also responses to various issues-of-the-day. and so forth.

I think as far as global warming goes, she would be a Bush III, ignore your own scientists' reports by calling into question their science (check the October 2007 files and her Response to Climate Study)

As far as religion in the public square, again she would be probably be another Bush III (check the Christian Heritage proclamation etc.)

In term of obstruction of justice and government/corporate entanglement, again a Bush III.

There's a lot to go through in the archives, so have fun.

So no matter who gets the Presidency in this team of "Mavericks", it is window dressing: they are both Bush IIIs in form and substance.

But she is not just a cookie cutter conservative. or more accurately, a CCC is a more complex being then we commonly give credit to. Their sole purpose in life isn't to install tyranny, just part of their purpose! There is a lot of interesting stuff in the archives.

Thai Chi and Qigong Day for example.

in addition to the usual Bible Week and Ronald Reagan days we expect and that are there also.

Sorry about the double post, I ignored my own warnings on a redisplay!

Governor Palin strikes me politically as a female George Bush, without the Texas drawl.

Her decision to carry her Downs' Syndrome child to term is actually the exercise of a woman's right to choose. But if she had her way, to have chosen otherwise otherwise would subject her to criminal prosecution.

tks rich

Very clear thinking... the Palin movement can implode through much of its own internal contradictions, but the Democratic message needs to be restrained, judicious and multifaceted. I agree with what another poster said elsewhere, that HRC and other female Dems can knock Palin more effectively than Biden & co can.

Here's the teaser clip from tomorrow's 60-Minutes interview with Obama and Biden:

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=4400962n

The campaign has obviously decided to tread lightly and trust the political press and blogosphere to carry the ball on this one.

Hut one! Hut two! Hut! Hut!

from bdh, above

Ironically, the McCain campaign wants Palin to become a celebrity. That's one of the things they're counting on.

BINGO!!!

The best thing that both Obama and Biden could do is completely ignore her unless asked a direct question. And make sure the answer to that question refers to McCain's judgment(The one hour conversation story) and preferably something along the lines of "In America, everybody is presumed innocent until proven guilty so until the results of the investigation into Gov. Palin's alleged abuse of power are in, I think I'll withhold comment"

I think AdAbsurdum pointed it out earlier, but do not go for her "inexperience." Go for her unpreparedness (if needed after assailing McCain's horrible judgment in picking someone he knew nothing about, and who he had only spoken to twice ever. Seriously? Who can make such a grave decision having spoken to the person for an hour at most? This is McCain's, not McDonald's.)

She has done nothing to prepare for being a president; in fact, she has done nothing to prepare for having any role in foreign policy at all. And that is fine for a governor, (although there are other governors who have chosen differently.) But it is not OK for someone who is certain to become president if McCain is elected.

She does not know what it is that a VP does.

She has "no opinion" on Iraq.

She has "no recorded position" on foreign policy.

It looked to me like we were going to let the Palin pick distract us from the more important and "better" issues that will work for us. And I think that may have been at least part of the thinking that went into choosing Palin.

I hope the Obama campaign and everyone --from Dem leadership down to "anonymous bloggers-- who speaks with even an iota of influence about the campaign will read roo's post and his last comment, if not the entire thread.

Now, now, OldSarg, read the post before throwing stones.

Wimomma said that Alaska has no state taxes. Do you know something to the contrary about property taxes in Alaska? Most everywhere in the United States, property taxes are local goverment taxes, and governors and legislatures have only limited and indirect control over their rates.

However, Wimomma is actually not quite right: Alaska does have state taxes on oil extraction, which fund the state government and provide the foundation for the annual state welfare check that residents receive. And Governor Palin's record of 'fighting the oil companies' involved trying to raise taxes on the oil companies, as well as favoring one pipeline plan over another.

Here's Kevin Drum's summary of Palin's oil company tax plan:

• An increase in the basic tax rate on oil company profits from 22.5% to 25%.
• A windfall profits provision. When oil prices went over $50/barrel or so, the tax rate would rise 0.2% for each dollar.
• A tax floor. If oil prices fell below about $40/barrel, oil companies would still have to pay 10% of the gross price of the crude they produce.

Now, which other major national candidate has suggested a 'windfall tax provision'? Hint: it's not John McCain! But now that Palin is his candidate, maybe he'll change his mind on this issue, too.