Their Uncivil Terms of Civil Discourse

[by Mr.Hengist]

On January 8th, 2011 in Tucson, Arizona, nineteen people were shot, six fatally, others grievously, including Rep. Gabrielle Giffords. It was an awful, unprovoked tragedy perpetrated by a lunatic. What happened afterward was an ugly smear campaign perpetrated by the Left against the Right.

It's always wise to be cautious about drawing conclusions in the midst of a national crisis. Facts are few and sketchy, frequently subject to subsequent revision as the fog of uncertainty lifts in the days that follow. Early reports are reliably wrong.

We saw no such caution from the Left. Before anything was known about the shooter we saw the Left shoot from the hip, targeting the Right - the Tea Party, Rush Limbaugh, Sarah Palin, Sharon Angle, etc. In the days that followed, as facts began to emerge, we were told that it was the violent rhetoric and imagery of the Right which was to blame for inciting this act of violence.

Even as exculpatory facts entered the public sphere - friends saying the shooter was left-leaning, classmates and teachers concerned at his odd and disturbing behavior, etc. - the accusers did not recant, nor was the smear campaign tempered. We saw much the same thing play out last year when a guy flew his plane into an IRS building.

It's a deliberate and dishonest ploy by the Left delegitimize and silence the Right, just as when they've accused the Right of being a bunch of Nazis and racists, they've now added the charge of accessory to murder. We exclude violent extremists and haters from the discourse of politics, and the Left has been relentlessly trying to push the Right outside of that sphere.

After Sarah Palin put up a video addressing this on her Facebook page she was criticized for it, naturally. For making herself the center of attention. For using the term "blood libel." Really, for not admitting culpability.

On January 17th, 2011, the WaPo ran Eugene Robinson's column, "Palin's egocentric umbrage", which addresses these criticisms, and it deserves a fisking. I'm happy to do the honors. Let's begin!

"In the spirit of civil discourse, I'd like to humbly suggest that Sarah Palin please consider being quiet for a while. Perhaps a great while."

Just as I said: this is a ploy to silence the political opposition - "in the spirit of civil discourse", of course. Palin's video and statements have been nothing but civil; it's the content with which Robinson has a problem. She simply won't admit her guilt, and anything less is uncivil and warrants her preclusion from the public debate.

"At the risk of being bold, I might observe that her faux-presidential address [...]"

"Faux-presidential address"? Good grief. Sitting in front of a video camera with a neutral background, there she was, speaking quietly and earnestly. OK, you want to see what a "faux-presidential address" looks like? Have a look at then-candidate Barack Obama in his Invesco Field DNC acceptance speech, with the faux-columns and faux-presidential seal. That, Eugene, is faux-presidential, and I was really embarrassed for you guys back then. I suspect this swipe has more to do with Liberals speculating about a Palin presidential run next time around, although it's been hard to tell whether they're gleeful at the prospect the Republicans fielding her or worried about her chances of actually winning.

"[...] about the Tucson massacre seemed to fall somewhat flat, drawing comparisons to the least attractive public moments of such figures as Richard Nixon and Spiro Agnew."

So Liberals didn't like her video, and in other news, the sun rose in the East. Here's another general rule from the Liberal playbook: never praise your opposition. It's different on the Right; Obama's speech at the Tucson memorial received widespread praise, along with some minor criticisms, which surprised me not at all.

"I could go so far as to observe that Palin almost seemed to portray herself as a collateral victim. Surely a former governor of Alaska - who served the better part of an entire term - would never seek to give the impression that she views any conceivable event, no matter how distant or tragic, as being All About Sarah."

This so ludicrous as to be risible, and childish to boot. It was the Left which pounded on the Right for days, and specifically on her. Palin was made a target of insinuation through no action of her own, and now they're turning it around and pretending that she's inserting herself into the story, apropos of nothing? What's more, her speech was about America and our national debate, not herself. I can't help but wonder whether Robinson even watched the video or picked up his talking points from the HuffPo instead.

"Yet this is the unfortunate impression that Palin's videotaped peroration seems to have left. I am at a loss to recommend any course of corrective action other than an extended period of abstinence from Facebook, Twitter and other social networking sites."

In other words: Shut Up, Sarah. Shut up, shut up, shut up!

"Palin doubtless understands by now that characterizing her alleged persecution by journalists and commentators with the term "blood libel" was a semantic faux pas."

This seemed to be the other major criticism of her video from the Left: outraged indignation and/or derision at her use of the term "blood libel" to describe what the Left has been doing. I first became aware of the term during the Second Intifada, around 2000-2001, when it was used to describe a variety of contemporary violent libels against the Jews in present-day Israel. I remember thinking, "That's a marvelously descriptive term!" I've subsequently read it here and there, perhaps a dozen times, to describe violence-related libel of both Jews and others. Jim Geraghty of NRO has put up a brief list of some of these examples.

In the context of the Tucson massacre I first read it on Instapundit from Glen Reynolds. Indeed, Glen: blood libel is the perfect description of what the Left has been doing to the Right.

Of course, I don't know whether Sarah Palin was aware of the ancient historical roots of the term, or of its subsequent usage unrelated to that history, but I wouldn't be surprised if she was. Naturally, the Left would be very surprised if she was. Neither side has any evidence either way, but note how the Left has assumed that she was unaware. Naturally.

"One must question, however, not only the tone of her complaint but the content as well. Did she, indeed, have a legitimate grievance? I must be frank: The evidence suggests not."

Oh, yes, let's have it, Eugene.

"Days earlier, Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, a Democrat, had been shot while meeting with her constituents; six people were killed in the incident, including a federal judge, and more than a dozen others injured. It happens that Giffords' district, in southern Arizona, is passionately divided on just about every hot-button issue."

OK, so here's his first point: political passions run high in Arizona!

"It also turns out that before last November's election, Giffords gave a television interview expressing her concern about the bitterness and rancor of our political debate. In the interview, Giffords cited a graphic that Palin had posted on Facebook - a map identifying congressional districts being targeted for Republican gains. The districts, including that of Giffords, were highlighted with an unfortunate symbol: the cross hairs of a rifle scope."

Well, yes, but Rep. Giffords was hardly the first to voice that complaint. The Left has also been harrasing the Right for years on end about the tone of their political opposition. So here's his next point: Rep. Giffords was dismayed by the political rancor from the Right!

"One of Palin's aides must have been trying to lighten a dreary week with a bit of humor when she claimed that the cross hairs were actually those of a surveyor's scope."

Ah, no. I hotlinked his quote above as it was in his original column. Go ahead and clickthrough that link of his and you'll find that the Palin aide said they were surveyor's marks, as would appear on a map. The piece he links to even has a hotlink to a USGS website which has the very symbol in question.

"Perhaps the ruse would have been more effective if viewers of Palin's "reality" television show hadn't recently watched her use a high-powered rifle, not a theodolite, to fell a caribou."

... and your columns, Eugene, would greatly benefit if you actually read the things to which you link, assuming that your misrepresentation was due to sloppiness and not malice. Now, personally, when I first saw the those marks I thought they were target symbols. I still do, as the crosshairs of a scope are a more familiar symbol than the marks of a surveyor. Nevertheless, it's a far stretch that this is an incitement to murder, which is the implicit accusation that Robinson and the Left are making.

"Or, indeed, if Palin hadn't famously counseled fellow Republicans not to retreat but instead to "reload."

Well, let's take a look at that. The Republicans were not literally retreating. In order to reload, one has to have already discharged the loaded ammunition in a gun. Since neither applies in a literal sense, it is nonsensical to use this as an incitement to murder. The audience understood it as metaphor even as the Left pretended otherwise. Indeed, all of these military terms are understood as such in American politics, as evidence by the electorate. Right-wingers are neither taking up arms against the Left nor taking pot-shots at them, insofar as we can tell. There are the occasional gun-related incidents on the Left and the Right, but the assertion by the Left that this will incite the Right is provably wrong. What's more, military lingo and imagery have been used in conjunction with political campaigns since, well, forever. Further, one might reasonably expect the side which favors gun ownership to use gun-related imagery and words, which Republicans do; one would expect the opposite of the anti-gun Democrats, but their avoidance of these terms has been less than studious.

Of course, as the Left has long characterized the Right as a bunch of rootin' tootin' gun-totin' redneck yahoos, and have long since come to believe these catcalls and insults they've hurled, the incitement charge perhaps seems somewhat plausible to them. Well, no, not really. They know who to be genuinely afraid of: militant Islamic jihadists. If you piss off those guys they'll cut your head off, so Liberals don't dare provoke 'em. The Rightwing? Nah, not scary at all, which is why Liberals feel free to insult them.

"In her statement, Palin gave the impression of being appalled that journalists mentioned the cross-hairs graphic in the hours after the rampage in Tucson. She singled out reporters and pundits, not political activists who might bear partisan animus. Surely she must have anticipated that viewers who recall her course of collegiate study - journalism - would be baffled at this reaction."

Because reporters, as we all know, are strictly non-partisan and never, ever let their biases affect their reporting! Well, so they tell us. Reporters and editors of the dinosaur media by and large heavily lean Liberal/Left and often report in a dishonest, slanted way to either hurt their political opposition or help their side. Case in point: the Tucson shootings. Our national media, print and (so I'm told) video, have by-and-large jumped on the insinuation bandwagon, but only because that insinuation is directed at the Right. If they were unbiased then we should see them increasingly insinuate the culpability of the Left, as more evidence and indicators show that the Tucson shooter was left-leaning. Not happening, is it?

"In the days since, we have learned that the alleged gunman, Jared Lee Loughner, appears to be an unbalanced young man whose political views are confused and perhaps irrelevant. But at the time, nothing was known about the assailant or his motives."

Not so. MSNBC wasted no time in liking the shooting to the Tea Party and Sarah Palin on January 8th, the day of the shooting, even before we knew much of anything about the shooter (and, thus, before anyone could know anything about his politics or state of mind). The earliest reports on the shooter were that his political views were "confused."

Indeed, the state of mind of the shooter is of utmost importance. At the risk of committing libel myself, I think we can all agree that it appears the Loughner is certifiably crazy. Much like Sirhan Sirhan, who heard voices telling him to kill RFK, or Lee Harvey Oswald, who was a communist so bonkers that even the Soviet Union couldn't use him or keep him for propaganda when he defected to the USSR. To try to discern the politics of a lunatic is to try to superimpose a template of rational order on what is, by definition, disordered and irrational. We do not take seriously the political views of someone who believed that the government is using mind control on us through the use of grammar.

"I am confident that at least one of Palin's professors must have taught her that in reporting about a shooting, the fact that the principal target felt threatened is highly relevant information, as is the specific nature of that threat."

Actually, Eugene, you fool, it's completely irrelevant. Logic and law tell us that if the murderer is rational we need to establish a causal relationship between the alleged incitement and the act of murder, and if the perpetrator is irrational then it has little, if any, bearing. At this point the linkage appears nothing more than coincidental, at best, assuming that the alleged incitements could be interpreted as having an inciting effect, an assumption I have already challenged.

"It is also relevant that most of the violent political rhetoric that blights the public discourse is emanating from the far right - a constituency for which Palin speaks, often so colorfully."

Leaving aside the characterization of Sarah Palin as "far right" - objectively, like it or not, she is definitionally mainstream - this assertion is hogwashian balderdash. During the Bush years the worst sort of imagery and rhetoric came from the far Left, and was tolerated or applauded by Liberals. OK, one quick example: remember "Death of a President"? That British wish-fulfillment film about the assassination of then-sitting POTUS George W. Bush? How did the Liberal/Left react to that being shown nationwide in American movie theaters? With open arms. Such a thing was not, shall we say, out of bounds. Now, imagine the reaction if a similar film were to be released now about sitting POTUS Obama...

"In the 1960s and '70s, this was not the case; anti-government invective and unsettling talk of "revolution" came primarily from the far left."

In addition to openly advocating revolution and opposing the government in every form and in every way, they also carried out actual murders and bombings, but Robinson has whitewashed this from his accounting of Leftist sins past. Down the memory hole they go!

"Palin is perhaps too young to remember that era, but as a student of history she must have read about it - and must recognize the contrast between then and now."

I'm also too young to remember that, but even a cursory comparison between then and now shows the Leftists of that era to be utterly and completely beyond the bounds of civil discourse in ways which were unequivocally violent and treasonous. Nowadays the best the Left can muster is, "Hey, that map `targeting' Democrats has crosshairs on in - that means they want to kill Democrats!" and the like. By contrast, Leftists of the 60's and 70's openly advocated the violent overthrow of the United States, and occasionally acted on that threat in violent ways. They blew things up. They killed people.

"For her to take such umbrage, then, at the reporting of evident, pertinent and factual information deepened the impression that she is - and I must be frank - astoundingly thin-skinned and egocentric."

How dare the narcissistic bitch defend herself!

"[...] Palin portrayed herself as not only a popular champion but also a martyr [...]"

Oh, that's rich: she's made herself out to be a martyr. Get it? Those other people got shot, killed, and here Palin is making herself a martyr. Thing is, if you were to actually watch the video, she never speaks directly of the allegations made against her. Instead, she speaks in vague, third-person terms of a general nature, only alluding to the "target" map, for example.

"Or perhaps - solely in the interest of civil discourse - that there be no next address."

... because, in Liberal-land, the terms of "civil discourse" are that YOU WINGNUTS SHUT UP, got it?

Sauce: Goose, Gander

Just sat through 11 minutes of video (posted and duly re-posted on the Facebook walls of some friends) in which an Obama-supporting chap interviewed a succession of Tea Partiers, highlighting a certain lack of resolution in their data. Pause for popcorn:



Sorta like if Jay Leno's "Jaywalking" segments were produced at MSNBC, right? Not the most stellar performances of wonkery from the lumpen non-wonkers.

But it reminded me of something. Let's see....



Oh yeah! That was it.

So, what's the take-away from this little exercise in compare-and-contrast? Well, that would kinda depend on  your chosen set of goggles, now wouldn't it? Is it an indication of how much more [insidiously] effective Right-Wing media outlets are in promoting a set of talking points? Is it a sign of the Left-Wing Media's emphasis on emotionally salient but factually-unfurnished memes? Is it a simple matter of (Camera One) Tea partiers' brainwashed vacuity? (Camera Two) Obama supporters' blinkered adherence to the cult of their Dear Leader's personality?

Is it an indication of how the granularity of much-needed data gets sand-blasted in an environment of entrenched partisanship, such that individuals on  both sides (not to mention all the other possible "sides") are deprived of the means (or even the vague sense that there is a need) to flesh out their wafer-thin comprehension of Very Important Stuff?

And where in this process might we situate the act of promulgating one of these clips in the absence of the other?

Steep In This

Last Tuesday, it was with no small amount of dismay that I read this editorial by the New York Times' David Brooks, on the subject of the Tea Party movement.  Here's a sample of the tone of the thing:

The public is not only shifting from left to right. Every single idea associated with the educated class has grown more unpopular over the past year.

The educated class believes in global warming, so public skepticism about global warming is on the rise. The educated class supports abortion rights, so public opinion is shifting against them. The educated class supports gun control, so opposition to gun control is mounting.

The story is the same in foreign affairs. The educated class is internationalist, so isolationist sentiment is now at an all-time high, according to a Pew Research Center survey. The educated class believes in multilateral action, so the number of Americans who believe we should “go our own way” has risen sharply.

And here:

The tea party movement is a large, fractious confederation of Americans who are defined by what they are against. They are against the concentrated power of the educated class. They believe big government, big business, big media and the affluent professionals are merging to form self-serving oligarchy — with bloated government, unsustainable deficits, high taxes and intrusive regulation.

 Get the picture? One the one hand, you have the "Educated Classes," on the other, a "fractious" rowdy rabble of reactionary nay-sayers. Brooks' position is characteristic of the near-monotonic position of the mainstream media with respect (or rather, its lack) to the Tea Party movement, and of the supposed lack of credibility which any "reasonable" person should ascribe to it. Depending on who you ask, the fiscal conservative, small-government message of the Tea Parties is either a thinly-veiled front for a theocratic SoCon agenda, or else it is a feeble-minded rejection of all that highfalutin'  college-boy/girl doubletalk...or, still more objectionable, it is a fetid fog rising from the dingiest backwaters of the Confederacy to block the uppity aspirations of the Nation's first Black POTUS.

And, of course, if the evocation of these memes should fail to dissuade the rare fence-sitter from putting forth a good-faith effort to understand what these people are on about, there is always the tried-and-true technique of middle-school locker room mockery. After all, who would want to speak up at any of the best parties in defense of "Teabaggers?" (huh-huh. huh-huh)

All this talk of "educated classes" makes me very uncomfortable. The clear implication is that one needs to be in possession of academic accolades, a member of the most rarefied reaches of the upper stratosphere of the intelligentsia in order to be entrusted with the business of governing a Republic of the people. I strongly suspect that the response of many of my hypothetical readers to the previous sentence would be a hearty "Yeah? And?"

I have a BA from NYU, and a PsyD (Doctor of Psychology) from a well-known institute in Pennsylvania. Big Deal. These help me to ply my trade and realize my dreams, in much the same way that a certificate in HVAC enables one to realize his or hers. I’m plenty educated, thankyouverymuch. And I am very favorably disposed toward the Tea Party movement.

This insistence that our Leaders possess august academic credentials is predicated on the idea that those leaders are expected to Do Things, to manage and craft society like a massive intellectual exercise, and that this is the proper role of government. I used to believe this myself. I subscribed to the Philosopher King model of leadership, and so believed that power should not be entrusted to anyone of lesser intellectual/academic heft. As little as five years ago, the very notion that someone like Sarah Palin should be greeted with anything but a snort of derision would have been anathema to me, as it currently is to those who --consciously or no-- still feel our Nation would be best served by a Philosopher King.

But I’ve evolved to a very different place since then. I have come to believe that the proper role of government, as willed into being by the Founders of this Nation, is not to Do Something, but to stand aside, doing as little as possible, while the mass of free individuals pursue their ends and deploy their hard-earned capital as they see fit. We do not need a Philosopher King…or any other kind of king (or queen) for that matter. We need competent administrators with the humility and common sense to remove unjust obstacles to the people's pursuit of liberty’s fruits, protect their rights to liberty and property…and then to stay the frack out of the way. This is what the Tea Partiers advocate, and they have made it abundantly clear that they are not beholden to any given political party in their campaign for these goals.

A useful dialogue may be had on the question of whether a society is best-served by a member of the anointed academic elite, or by a savvy pragmatist of a more 'populist' stripe. The answers to such questions will tend to hinge on the whether one espouses a Conservative or a Liberal view of how resources and power should be distributed for the optimal functioning of this society (I keep coming back to this post on the day after Election Day 2008. I beg the reader's indulgence; I think it's about as clearly as I've ever articulated the difference between these viewpoints). Unfortunately, that is just the sort of conversation which is drowned out in what has become a clash of dueling caricatures. Liberals default to a largely unquestioned stance of haughty, elitist derision, and Conservatives to one of clamorous anti-intellectualism with more-or-less equal (and equally maddening) frequency, and we all lose.

For those who might still be reading, I refer you to this spirited and unusually even-tempered defense of the Tea Parties over at The Daily Beast. Key grafs:

It is hardly surprising that in times like these there should be a large, angry, populist movement. But populism does not conform to the standard left/right divide, and in different circumstances it can go either way. (A rather good Greenwald column makes this point, too.) The populist’s personality is driven as much by wounded pride as by economic concerns, and so he resents the cultural elitism of the liberal elites, including their patronizing desire to help him, as much as the economic elitism of the wealthy.

Yes, the populists fear and hate the big businesses and Wall Street; but—and this is the heartening thing—they have not let this turn them against capitalism and the free market. They seem truly to have taken in the point, long emphasized by libertarians and others, that big business is not the same thing as capitalism or the free market, that it is in fact often their enemy. Perhaps the Obama administration has finally driven this point home, as it has been an object lesson in how the party of big government is really in bed with big business, giving it all the bailouts and favors. So by this reckoning, the Tea Parties would be a very serious development in which anti-big business forces would finally join with anti-big government forces to create a genuine free-market party that would maximize the opportunities of the little guy—like this small-business owner from California. (Note, this YouTube clip has nearly 250,000 hits and 6,000 comments.)

This video makes me emotional, because this woman represents an America that Tocqueville would have lauded. I will take her any day over the “educated class,” the bureaucratic mollusks and the defeatist sad sacks in Washington. I do think the Tea Partiers are political amateurs, but the content of their politics is deadly serious. The professional politicians will dismiss them at their peril.

Indeed.  History has yet to determine if, despite the considerable centrifugal forces which exist in a loosely-constituted confederation of populists, the Tea Party movement will succeed in focusing the energies of the GOP toward the presentation of a coherent and positive alternative to the centralizing tendencies of the Progressive camp...or whether it will dissolve into warring tribes of variously "Pure" Conservatives who are unable to make a distinctive case to the American people about their vision for our Republic. There is a Rorschachian quality to the Tea Party movement, and much can be gleaned from any given individual's reading of its leaves.

Personally, I find that terribly exciting.

EDIT (1/14/2010) in last paragraph to make it, you know, make sense.

Bizarro Governors

South Carolina's Mark Sanford is like the anti-Palin.

Sarah saw that the ability of her administration to pursue its ends was hamstrung by a constant barrage of expensive nonsense which bore virtually no relationship to her actual conduct as a Governor and a human being. She made the extremely risky and unconventional choice to bow out, so that her loyal Lt. Governor, Sean Parnell could continue the work and go into the next election with the advantage of being an incumbent.

Sanford brought the rightful ire of both parties onto himself (and the Conservative brand) through his personal and (apparently) professional shenanigans. His increasingly beleaguered and impatient Lt. Governor has asked him to do the right thing, and so contain the damage to the SC GOP for the sake of pending business and future elections (not to mention what's left of the office's dignity). Yet Sanford lacks the integrity to swallow his vanity (not to mention a good 85% of his words) and step the frack out of the way.

If these two contrasting characters were presented in a novel, I would call the parallelism hopelessly contrived.

Que Sarah, Sarah...

I'm probably just tilting at eco-friendly, bird-dodging, serenely sustainable wind mills here.

When it comes to Sarah Palin, after all, it seems people's minds are pretty well made up, and no number of pesky facts nor nettlesome contexts will make a whit of difference. She's a theocratic zealot bumpkin wolf-killing book-banner who misuses the privileges of her office and callously neglects her errant and altogether too-numerous children...for Jesus. Right?

Well, maybe not so much. Seems her opponents just can't seem to gin up ethics violations, outright illegalities, and personal peccadilloes as fast as she keeps getting cleared of them (at considerable and still-mounting taxpayer expense).

It's a good thing that a compliantly hostile media machine isn't busy blazing every lurid accusation across the clouds like the Bat-Signal, and allowing every subsequent refutation to sink with nary a bubble, because...oh...wait...

Say, did you hear that Sarah Palin has bed slippers made from Real Puppies?

Palin's Church Torched

Today's Examiner reports that the church attended by Governor Sarah Palin and her family has been badly damaged by a fire which has been determined to have been caused by arson.

The details, perpetrators and motives are still under investigation, and I will, of course, suspend judgment until all the facts are in, but let this stand as a conditional statement: Here is a glaring example of the depths to which the vitriolic atmosphere which grows like a cancer in American politics will ultimately take us. Somehow we have come to a place where policy differences become yoked to a visceral hatred which invites the unhinged to take actions like these.

It is a very ominous trend, one which undermines the very foundations of our democracy, and of our pluralistic society as a whole. If we cannot disagree without demonizing, then we will surely reap the whirlwind.

If this shameful incident turns out to be what it appears, then it is a stain on our Republic, and I hope even the most fervent Palin-haters out there will use it as an occasion to reflect on the pathology which the Governor has awoken in dark hearts of some people. Aside from all the other ways in which an act like this is nauseating, it points to a fundamental breakdown in the faith which some citizens of this great Nation place it its system of laws and in their validity for resolving differences among us. Chaos waits hungrily, just outside the gates of such an outrage.

UPDATE: Link fixed.

UPDATE 2: Just to be perfectly clear, here, I am not equating those who emigrate from the US as a result of their beliefs with those who would torch a church, bomb a government building, etc. The latter are dangerously deranged, and deserving of nothing but scorn and punishment as the criminals that they are, regardless of their views. The former may hold beliefs that I find problematic...but at least they have the courage of their convictions. Further, those who choose to check out of the US are exercising their freedom under its laws (more than a bit ironic, actually), while those of a terroristic bent are implicitly voting "no confidence" in those laws and the freedoms they protect.

It's an important difference, which bore clarifying.

On Smiting Sarah (For The Good Of Womyn Everywhere)

There was a wonderful moment in "Sex And The City" (yes, I watched "Sex and The City." And I loved it. Move on), when the ever-perky and optimistic Charlotte falls in with a group of lesbians, who mistakenly believe that she shares their orientation. She is enthralled by the strength and smarts and self-actualization of these women, and makes no effort to refute their belief about her. When she is finally "outed" as straight, she gives a lovely, touching, frankly stirring oration about how she may not share the sexual orientation of the group, but she does share something far more fundamental: a deep belief in the solidarity and shared strength of women who chart their own courses through life and nourish each others strengths and dreams. She makes an impassioned plea to be accepted into their group on the strength of these bedrock affinities...only to be heart-breakingly (as only Kristin Davis' big doe eyes can communicate) cut down by a hilariously coarse reduction of what it "really" takes to hang with the Sapphic Crowd...

It was this marvelous moment from the series (I still haven't seen the movie) which leapt to my mind when I read this article on Sarah Palin, by the former editor of Ms. Magazine (!). In it (h/t to Hot Air for the link), Elaine Lafferty commits the mortal sin of declaring Sarah Palin "smart."

Now by “smart,” I don't refer to a person who is wily or calculating or nimble in the way of certain talented athletes who we admire but suspect don't really have serious brains in their skulls. I mean, instead, a mind that is thoughtful, curious, with a discernable (sic) pattern of associative thinking and insight. Palin asks questions, and probes linkages and logic that bring to mind a quirky law professor I once had. Palin is more than a “quick study”; I'd heard rumors around the campaign of her photographic memory and, frankly, I watched it in action. She sees. She processes. She questions, and only then, she acts. What is often called her “confidence” is actually a rarity in national politics: I saw a woman who knows exactly who she is.

If you have a strong stomach for blistering vitriol, just have a look at the comments on the article.

Ms. Lafferty is no fan of Palin's stance on abortion, as she makes plain on several occasions in the article. However, she is just as dismayed by the condescending, exclusionary, and remarkably misogynistic criticism leveled at Governor Palin by those who hold themselves up as the defenders of Feminism:

Last month a prominent feminist blogger, echoing that sensibility, declared that the media was wrongly buying into the false idea that Palin was a feminist. Why? Well, just because she said she was a feminist, because she supported women's rights and opportunities, equal pay, Title IV—that was just “empty rhetoric,” they said. At least the blogger didn't go as far as NOW's Kim Gandy and declare that Palin was not a woman. Bottom line: you are not a feminist until we say you are. And there you have the formula for diminishing what was once a great and important mass social change movement to an exclusionary club that rejects women who sincerely want to join and, God forbid, grow to lead.

So much for a big tent.

Sarah Palin has legitimate policy differences with much of the Feminist establishment, to be sure. She is not a secular, Progressive, Pro-Choice foot-soldier of the Gloria Steinem mold. What she is, is an intelligent, accomplished, by all appearances happy and fulfilled woman who has risen by her merits (and, of course, by serendipitous positioning within electoral calculations...but in that world, who isn't ?!) to the very gate to the path up to the door-step of the highest position in the Land. You'd think that this would earn her at least the grudging respect of women everywhere who seek to expand their horizons of efficacy in the world. You'd think they would find in her a model of how strong, determined women of all ideological persuasions could play in the biggest of the big leagues.

Apparently, you'd be wrong.

Oh, well, I guess if you don't rage against the rapacious, phallocentric Patriarchy and its Gynophobic God, then you can't really be a feminist.

Palin By Comparison

I haven't blogged about Sarah Palin for a little while. Truthfully, I didn't know exactly what to say. After she flat-out wowed me with her acceptance speech at the RNC, I went back and watched some vids of her debates and other appearances back from her Alaska politics days. I was still impressed; she was firm, crisp, knowledgeable, personable, and eminently appealing without leaning too heavily on her charm at the expense of her considerable competence. That impression persisted during the stump speeches I watched in the days following her Big Debut.

I followed the mad scramble across media-land to tar her with an ever-escalating series of smears, the oh-so-sophisticated denigration of her background and intellect by elitists posing as populists, the disgusting dissection of her family life. I tracked the evolution of assorted slanders about how her religious views would dictate her public policies. I watched rumors and innuendos slither into the noosphere and morph into tediously-repeated talking points, then ossify into Well-Known Facts. The smell of desperation was thick in the air; clearly, she was seen as a Big Threat.

Then came Charlie Gibson...and Katie Couric.

Who the blazes was that stammering, syntactically challenged, meandering mess? Clearly, the interviews were hostile, loaded with gotcha questions and a cloying current of condescension. But that was no excuse for what I was seeing; this was someone who was vying for National Office, and the inability to fend off a couple of partisan hack "journalists" boded ill indeed for her preparedness to tackle a far more treacherous and consequential arena. It made me very, very nervous.

After seeing her folksy, well-informed, gracious, assertive and at times even eloquent performance last night, I can only conclude that what we were seeing was a candidate in the awkward process of climbing a very steep learning curve, a transition from the excellent but very locally-focused Alaskan Governor to someone whose purview would extend far beyond the borders of her home state, to encompass this Nation and its affairs in the wider world. Also, frankly, I think she was badly mishandled, as her briefers labored to metamorphose her into some kind of policy wonk by cramming her head full of talking points and memorized details. Perhaps this was necessary; she needed to be able to reply to a wide range of questions, and to think inside of far wider spaces than she was accustomed to traversing, and if she was unable to make that transition, then the campaign was going to have to make a very difficult (and probably election-costing) decision...one which it would be far better to make before she was actually in the position to fail the American people while in office. Probably so. But the process of shifting into National-caliber functioning was an excruciating one to watch, as it drained the refreshing spontaneity of the woman, damaged her self-assurance, and short-circuited that which had been so very appealing about her.

However, what emerged from that process last night was truly a sight to behold. She was every bit of the Sarah Palin who took the stage in St. Paul, five weeks ago. When it came to foreign policy, I was very pleasantly surprised by the breadth of her knowledge and, more importantly, understanding of the relevant issues (when she correctly drew the distinction between the Surge of troops and the counterinsurgency strategy which they were brought in to support, I wanted to reach into the screen and hug her!). Her command of the energy debate was comprehensive and greatly reassuring; if she kept coming back to it, this only means that she was playing to her strengths and representing the arena in which she would be expected to take a leadership role in a McCain-Palin Administration. She clearly showed herself to be up to that job. I think she struck just the right tone of populism, but with a clear respect for the free-market in her discussion of the economic crisis. I'm sure there will be complaints that she did not drill down to specifics enough on the subject, but this was not the forum for the presentation of point-by-point policies (especially as the House had still not voted on the rescue plan). And yet, general as they were, her responses on economics conveyed the distinct sense of untapped depths at the ready for subsequent interviews and discussions.

Biden turned in a competent and authoritative performance (though rife with whoppers, including a Great Big One on the question of Hezbollah in Lebanon, and a stunner on the role of the Vice President within the Executive and Legislative branches), and was characteristically likable and commanding (though some grimacing grins and at least one heavy sigh rather undermined his wise elder statesman routine). But, as Palin rightly and disarmingly pointed out, he was spending inordinate amounts of time running against George Bush, which kind of put the lie to his claims to be oriented toward the future.

I think what is most interesting about this debate, and last Friday's first Presidential go-round was the degree to which they have acted as a kind of Rorschach of partisanship. Devoted followers of each wing confidently declare that their respective candidates produced resounding victories, and that the other side beclowned itself, has no business running for office, would be a disaster of Biblical proportions for the nation, yadda-yadda. For the life of me, I can't seem to see either side to have scored a decisive victory in either of these debates. One may argue nuances of presentation and content, and arrive at conclusions about who won on points, but that's hardly the same thing as the knockout punch which each side claims to have scored on the other. I would even go so far as to say that the extent to which one is convinced that one's candidate pounded his or her opponent can serve as kind of Kool Aid meter

If anything, I think the big winner last night was Sarah Palin...but not over Joe Biden. The Sarah Palin who walked away with the win last night was the one who had pulled the unenviable duty of competing with herself, with the bumbling, incompetent and insecure version of herself who seemed to have abducted and replaced the sharp and energetic woman we met at the RNC, and who Alaskans have known for quite a bit longer. That Bizarro-Palin was a sore drag on the McCain campaign, and I am exceedingly glad to see her go. It remains to be seen if the new/old Sarah will be able to re-ignite the dynamism which she had originally brought to the ticket. I hope so. If today's interview is any indication, the Sarah who took the stage last night is the one to whom we will be treated in the weeks to come, and McCain's campaign will be the richer for her.

This Is The Way We Spread The Smear

Over at Pajamas Media, Charlie Martin performs the service of drilling down into the sordid details of the emergence, spread, and perpetuation of a particular anti-Palin rumor (the one about how she "cut funding for the Special Olympics by half!" Which in reality refers to her having increased the budget...but by less than some desired). It is a worthwhile but sobering read, revealing a coherent --if not necessarily intentional-- mechanism whereby some scurrilous smear goes viral, surviving long after even the original sources have posted (largely-ignored, seldom-linked) corrections and retractions. It brings to mind the infamous "plastic turkey" meme which survives to this day, despite having been decisively roasted, stuffed and served up on steamer trays.

Now, I know enough about self-organizing dynamics of complex systems to grant that this sort of thing might simply emerge from the background noise of an increasingly noisome political ecosystem. I have a visceral revulsion toward undisciplined conspiracy-mongering, with its tedious penchant for raging cases of Occam's Razor-burn. I am perfectly willing to grant as the default position that this sort of national whispers-down-the-lane phenomenon is merely a case of replicative drift, amplified by the internet's lickety-split transmission of every idea, however corrupted.

Still, it bears mentioning that Martin's post links to analysis of the production and promulgation of a "viral" anti-Palin YouTube video (which falsely alleges the Palins belonged to the anti-American Alaskan Independence Party), tracking that video back to a PR firm with extensive links to the Democratic Party in general, and to the Obama campaign in particular. Might this be a case of astroturfing? The answer to that is kind of above my pay grade. Anyway, it's rather beside the point, that point being that it is incumbent on us as consumers of politically-relevant information to carefully and thoroughly vet that information, with full awareness that we are highly unlikely to encounter any such tidbits which originate from sources who do not have a dog in the fight.

In the case of Sarah Palin, the sheer histrionic toxicity of the discourse surrounding her should be prima facie evidence for any observer who even pretends to be interested in doing the work of formulating a rational opinion that they must exercise particular care. Nothing illuminates the GIGO doctrine more than a hotly contested election. Whether it is getting swept up in the blind, inanimate groupthink of a self-organizing rumor, or becoming the unwitting victims of a deviously crafted disinformation campaign, it is beneath the dignity of the participants in this Republic to suspend our critical thinking when making such portentous judgments.

Let us strive to have our vote be seen, and not herd.

ImPalin' the Smears

A bit of time has passed. After a highly compressed period of dutifully parroting and promulgating every scurrilous rumor about Sarah Palin, and pulling a straight-up CSI on the minutiae of her life and family, the MSM --shocked that Governor Palin did not dutifully and promptly prostrate herself before them for their trouble-- has finally scored an interview with the GOP VP pick. I await it with great interest, both for its own sake, and for any sign that sharp but relevant questions and good manners will at last be in evidence. I try to be optimistic about such things.

In the meantime, I have encountered multiple sites and postings and articles which debunk much of the mis-and-dis-information about the Alaskan Governor which persists in floating around the noosphere. Unfortunately, my search for such clarity on sites which do not lean (or topple) unabashedly Rightward yielded sparse results. This list came closest, though single-sourcing a blog is not a way to inspire much confidence in one's premises. So, I waited.

My patience was rewarded by this entry at factcheck.org, a site which I can't imagine anyone accusing of pandering to the Right (indeed, it seems to me that, if anything, they tend to put ever-so-slightly counterclockwise english on their findings). It very persuasively puts to bed many of the most worrisome bits about Sarah Barracuda.

For many, I fear it is too late to revisit their judgment of Gov. Palin. Indeed, as I've said before, I can't honestly fault one for feeling the stakes are too high to risk a false negative on accusations of would-be religious bleed-though into her potential governance. For myself, however, I am greatly heartened by the potential elevation of the discourse from the unsubstantiated and sensationalistic to the substantive and germane. There are weighty issues aplenty on which to assess Palin's readiness to be McCain's XO, without having to waste time filtering out the "ground noise and static."

A lot more responsible journalism and less nakedly partisan character assassination would do much to redeem the energetically self-beclowning media somewhat, and to let us get on with the business of making important political decisions.

Deception, Disinformation, and Obama's "New Politics"

In a blog post at The Atlantic, Marc Ambinder suggests that there were efforts within the Obama campaign to seed the political discourse with tales that GOP strategists were growing nervous about John McCain's pick of Sarah Palin as his VP, and were quietly cooking up ways to drop her from the ticket, rather like George McGovern in 1972 had done with his running mate, Thomas Eagleton.

In memos, e-mails and phone calls this week, Obama campaign officials have urged surrogates and allies to mention Republicans who are "nervous" about the Palin pick and to link those worries to George McGovern's aborted vice presidential pick of Thomas Eagleton in 1972, according to three Democratic surrogates.

That year, McGovern rescinded the pick after learning that Eagleton had been treated for depression. Questions about the thoroughness of the Palin vet have been raised, particularly about how and when Palin disclosed the news that her teenage daughter is pregnant and whether Palin's political resume had been thoroughly scrubbed.

On Wednesday, the campaign's chief surrogate wranglers distributed a three page compilation of quotes from Republicans concerned about the Palin pick. (See the text after the jump.) One surrogate said he had been urged to bring up the example of Eagleton in order to seed the idea that McCain might consider dropping him [sic] from the ticket.

Naturally, elements in the Republican party and commentariat were unnerved by the selection of Palin. It was, if one may say, an audacious move on John McCain's part, which could have gone terribly wrong (and still might). However, this is very different from the idea that anyone was seriously suggesting the calamitous move of dropping her so soon after selection.

The juxtaposition of these very legitimate worries (though you'll note that all of the articles in the Obama campaign's packet were dated before Palin's breakaway speech at the RNC...) with the specter of 1972 was a subtle and eminently deniable bit of innuendo. I had encountered the meme in some unexpected places on several occasions, and had I not been the sort to delve into such things I might very well have been left with the trepidation that the McCain campaign might actually commit such a suicidal move.

Were I an Obama supporter, I would have found such "news" to be quite encouraging. Were I an undecided voter, I might be inclined to shy away from a candidate who would make such a rash and foolish decision. See how it works?

Really a clever bit of politics, that.

But hardly the behavior of a campaign which possesses even a scintilla of the moral rectitude and post-partisan purity which The One so tediously affects.

Pastor Palin? A Brief Conversation (UPDATED)

I know; these pages have morphed into "All Politics, All the Time," while events stubbornly continue to unfold in the world beyond the Campaign trail.

Still, I hope any readers will grant your humble commentator a small indulgence; not being a Sports Guy, I've seldom experienced the rush of vicarious competition and micro-tribal affiliations and rivalries which are so often found in the enjoyment of those primate dominance games. Following this election has had a bit of that flavor for me. It's kinda cool. There's even been 'smack-talk.'

Transcribed (with permission) below is a brief Facebook exchange I had today with a friend who had posted an article on AK Governor/VP Candidate Sarah Palin's purported blurring of religious and civic duties. Pretty serious charge, which can't be ignored. So, I called up the full article, and examined its claims. My friend (who has asked to be called "Mysharonany") responded to even the hint of Church/State blending much as I would have done till rather recently. I share the view that those who mix their religion with their politics are pretty much 'crossing the streams' (in the Ghostbusters sense). I do understand that this is just the sort of thing which becomes a "bright line," Pass/Fail sort of issue. If I thought for a minute that there was any real danger of that line being crossed, I would have some very serious thinking to do. On the other hand, I can scarcely blame anyone else for setting the Acceptable Level of Risk slider at a point which differs from mine.

Anyway, here's the conversation:

MYSHARONANY:

KEEP HER OUT OF THE WHITEHOUSE!!!

Wed 3:11pm

Palin's Start in Alaska - Not Politics as Usual
By WILLIAM YARDLEY
Published: September 2, 2008

SOME OF THE HIGHLIGHTS FROM THIS ARTICLE. . .


Anti-abortion fliers circulated. Ms. Palin played up her church work and her membership in the National Rifle Association. The state Republican Party, never involved before because city elections are nonpartisan, ran advertisements on Ms. Palin’s behalf.

Shortly after becoming mayor, former city officials and Wasilla residents said, Ms. Palin approached the town librarian about the possibility of banning some books, though she never followed through and it was unclear which books or passages were in question.

Ann Kilkenny, a Democrat who said she attended every City Council meeting in Ms. Palin’s first year in office, said Ms. Palin brought up the idea of banning some books at one meeting. “They were somehow morally or socially objectionable to her,” Ms. Kilkenny said.

The librarian, Mary Ellen Emmons, pledged to “resist all efforts at censorship,” Ms. Kilkenny recalled. Ms. Palin fired Ms. Emmons shortly after taking office but changed course after residents made a strong show of support. Ms. Emmons, who left her job and Wasilla a couple of years later, declined to comment for this article.

And for some, Ms. Palin’s first months in office here were so jarring — and so alienating — that an effort was made to force a recall. About 100 people attended a meeting to discuss the effort, which was covered in the local press, but the idea was dropped.

Ms. Palin also upended the town’s traditional ways with a surprise edict: No employee was to talk to the news media without her permission.

WE MUST KEEP THIS WOMAN OUT OF THE WHITE HOUSE!!!

NOOCYTE

Yawn.

Defeated political opponents and disgruntled dismissed employees have issues with her (in many cases refusing to be directly quoted).

She is a Christian (whatever), and acts like one (but never *actually* acts to ban any books, later saying that the very subject was "rhetorical").

She supports gun rights in a state where large predators roam free.

Around 1 in 50 people make a half-hearted (unsuccessful) effort to recall her over her (successful) efforts to bring relatively explosive economic growth to her previously backwater town.

She acts to increase the seriousness of a political system in that town, elevating it above the Mayberry level (including acting to plug gossipy-politicky unauthorized chats by employees of her administration with the local media), meanwhile pushing through significant infrastructure and other public works improvements for the benefit of all.

And for this, she MUST be prevented from becoming vice president, lest she manage to force a theocratic agenda past filibuster-proof Democratic majorities in both houses of Congress.

What else ya got? ;-)

MYSHARONANY

Anyone in public office that even suggests the possibility of banning books. . .should not be in the White House.

What about separation of church and state . . .

Her belief is that the United States sent troops to fight in the Iraq war on a "task that is from God."

She also urged ministry students to pray for a plan to build a $30 billion natural gas pipeline in the state, calling it "God's will."

Sorry. . .not my god . . . and anyone that thinks that way SHOULDN"T be anywhere near the White House.

And she is not PRO CHOICE. . .as far as I am concerned . . .for that reason alone, she should be kept away from the White House.

Pretty straight forward for me!!

NOOCYTE

OK, first off, I do hope you know that there is *no* love lost between myself and evangelical Christians. Hell's bells, I lived inside that head (a scary place) for a couple of years in the early eighties (hey, does that make me a "dead-again Christian?"). Of course you know that; sorry.

Re: books: It's hard to comment on what was in her head, since there is zero context here. For all we know, she may have been relaying a question from a constituent. What we do know is that, when told by the librarian that there was NO legitimate means for barring certain books from the library, she dropped the whole subject. Itchy as the topic makes me, too, this simply doesn't sound like the behavior of a zealot on a mission.

Separation of Church and State does not mean that politicians must not possess any religious beliefs. If a Wiccan politician articulated his environmental policies in terms of harmony with the Goddess, I might chuckle, but as long as he pretty much restricted such talk to Coven meetings, and didn't try and write it into any laws, I'd have no fundamental (har-har) problem with it.

In the article you quote (which is here: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080903/ap_on_el_pr/cvn_palin_iraq_war) Palin was talking to ministry students, not a wider political audience. Do I think it's loopy to say that growing the economy, funding public projects, and advancing national security are somehow "God's Will?" Certainly. Do I think that these things are worth doing in themselves? Yup. Of course your mileage may vary on some specific *policies,* but that's kinda the point: as long as the policy is sound, then I don't really care if someone wraps it in some silly philosophy to find more motivation to git 'er done. If the policy sucks, then I'll give an atheist just as hard a time as I will a Hindu or a Muslim. Or a Christian.

Someone being anti-choice has been and will continue to be a Big Red Flag for me, as horrid as I find abortion to be and as hard I think we should work as a society to make it "safe, legal, and rare." But, as with all things, I try to look at the larger picture; regardless of what goofy views she may have, it is her intention and ability to push such views onto me which I have to look at, as well as the other, less goofy views she may have.

Her intention is suspect (remember, I was a Christian; I understand how they think, and they are CONVINCED that they have a good bead on the Universe, and want to bring everyone else along). No question, this is a legit worry (though there IS variation here: they don't ALL want to blend Jeebus and Jefferson, and some are even smart enough to realize that separating Religion and politix is as much for the protection of religion as it is for that of politix).

However, her ABILITY to do much damage on that front is dependent on what the other branches of government will let her get away with, should she be foolish enough to make a play for pushing any of this shite through. Like I said, the Congress already has a Democratic majority, and is looking to widen that gap in coming years. Even if Mac should shuffle off or resign, and Sarah should drop into the Big Chair, the Congress isn't going to let her get away with extremist Judicial appointments (which is really the ONLY point at which a President's religious views have any bearing on the matter of abortion anyway).

Far as I'm concerned, this frees me up to look at other policies she may have. That's a bigger question than we're gonna tackle here, since I rather suspect we have some contrasting views on those (>;-) ).

END OF TRANSCRIPT

In the end, this is the sort of thing on which it is generally better to A2D, which is where we left it, and rightly so. My benchmark of what constitutes an acceptable risk, as a function of other issues which I judge to take precedence, is not one which I can reasonably expect others who feel strongly about the matter to assume.

Still, it does bear mentioning that the article which started all this appears to have taken some liberties with the content of the quotations on which it made its case. It is one thing to pray that the policies which one is working to advance are in keeping with one's God's will. It is quite another to declare that such policies are God's will. The latter is political malfeasance (not to mention shockingly hubristic theological malpractice). The former is a perfectly legitimate plea for the wisdom to pursue ends which are in line with the Plan of whatever deity one believes to have a dog in the fight. Given the audience (again, a group of ministry students at her church), I just can't seem to get too exercised about this; too much else seems marvelously right (no pun intended) about her compared to the things which worry me.

So, um, "Go Team!"


UPDATE: Found this AP article which speaks to Palin's actual behavior in office, and it is greatly reassuring about the extent (essentially nil) to which she has taken any steps to translate her religious views into policies, when she's had the very real chance to do so:

ANCHORAGE, Alaska (AP) — As a candidate for governor, Sarah Palin called for teaching creationism alongside evolution in public schools. But after Alaska voters elected her, Palin, now Republican John McCain's presidential running mate, kept her campaign pledge to not push the idea in the schools.

[....]

Palin's children attend public schools and Palin has made no push to have creationism taught in them.

Neither have Palin's socially conservative personal views on issues like abortion and gay marriage been translated into policies during her 20 months as Alaska's chief executive. It reflects a hands-off attitude toward mixing government and religion by most Alaskans.

"She has basically ignored social issues, period," said Gregg Erickson, an economist and columnist for the Alaska Budget Report.

Submitted for your consideration.

Sarah Smile

Wow.

I just finished watching the rebroadcast of Sarah Palin's acceptance speech at the RNC.

Palin was able to roll effortlessly from folksy and approachable, to professorial and wonky, with just enough knowing snark to highlight the absurdities of her opponents' arguments, and a dash of steely resolve which never strayed into off-putting brittleness. The ease and poise and effortless cadences of her delivery were spot-on and, frankly, far better than I'd expected. Her brief stumble then graceful recovery from an apparent teleprompter malf when talking about Venezuelan oil ("...oil discoveries...and its deliveries of that source..." around 20:15) hints at her ability to think and speak on her feet. Rather a relief, that, after the multitude of malapropisms which President Bush has so steadily fed to wincing listeners. And she can pronounce "nuclear!"

She owned the energy discussion, mixing in just enough geopolitical breadth to put the lie quite decisively to the "provincial hick" narrative so many have been so studiously trying to affix to her.

The fact that she has a son who will presently deploy to Iraq (and that her running mate already has offspring in-theater) may finally put to bed the pernicious "chickenhawk" meme. Hey, a guy can hope.

So, no tingles running up my leg or anything. I am still uncomfortable with Palin's social conservative stances on several issues (but, again, I judge her ability to do any real damage on that front to be minimal, given the likely composition of the Congress for at least the next four years). I await her performance in less carefully-scripted interview and debate formats, and the fleshing out of her foreign policy chops.

But tonight, the chances of the McCain campaign pulling an Eagleton on Governor Palin just became roughly equivalent to those of the Left embracing her as an exemplar of an empowered and inspiring female role model.

Life just became a whole lot more interesting for Obama and Biden...and for us all.

Northern Exposure?

In selecting Alaska Governor Sarah Palin for VPOTUS, the McCain campaign has made a bold and risky move. Ed Morrissey provides one of the better summaries of the relevant issues that I have found. Some quick thoughts:

For the GOP's socially conservative wing, she's pretty much all up-side. Can't say I'm overjoyed by this aspect of her portfolio, but it does shore up some pretty leaky hull plates on McCain's starboard beam. Still, I remain confident that a McCain/Palin Administration will be no more successful in bringing about the much-touted Theocratic Revolution than 8 years of Bush/Cheney were supposed to have visited upon us (even with long-standing majorities in congress which Mac and Palin are highly unlikely to enjoy). I am anything but a SoCon, yet I still can't bring myself to become terribly exercised about this, even as it leaves a rather acrid taste in my mouth.

I am very pleased indeed at the prospect of a woman rising to such a lofty height in our society, and much credit should go to McCain for so decisively putting to bed the Old White Guy monopoly on the top tier of the Executive Branch. Hillary came tantalizingly close, and while I think that having her as a President would have been a very unfortunate development for this nation, it would nonetheless have served as an inspiration for girls and women everywhere. Imagine the pressure that having a woman in such a high office would place on the retrograde patriarchal societies with which we must deal!

Palin's lack of experience on the National (let alone the International) stage can be seen as a genuine vulnerability. But, as many commentators have pointed out, that criticism cuts both ways; it would be awkward in the extreme for Obama supporters and surrogates to make too much of this matter of experience, given the degree to which they have strained to make this very weakness into a strength for their guy. Palin's resume is quite favorably comparable to that of Obama himself, only she brings to the table a level of executive experience (as mayor, then governor) which exceeds that of anyone else on either ticket (though it is a legitimate question whether McCain's military command experience serves as a suitable stand-in for executive credentials in government). Palin has a proven track record of working successfully for some very risky reforms within her home state, taking on the entrenched and corrupt bigwigs of her own party and scoring approval ratings which would be the envy of any governor in the Union.

Biden's much-vaunted experience, by contrast, inspires anything but confidence. He has been a deeply dug-in Washington Insider for decades, and has accumulated a very substantial body of work for us to examine. Therein lies his putative strength but also his greatest weakness. Imagine what mischief Saddam would have wrought if Biden's vote against Gulf War 1 had carried the day, and Kuwait had gone unliberated. Think also of what would have transpired if, having voted for the authorization for the use of force against a dangerously intransigent Saddam regime, he had then successfully de-funded the war effort. What would Iraq look like today if the US had adopted his breathtakingly ill-considered (and arrogant) scheme to partition that nation into separate sectarian regions, then pull out Coalition troops during the very throes of the AQI-ignited sectarian bloodbath, or if the troop surge in support of the spectacularly successful COIN strategy had been denied, as Biden voted. Biden seems an affable enough bloke, and I strongly suspect that he genuinely means well. But his track record is an albatross onto which Palin need only shine a steady light.

The steadiness of that light, however, is as yet an unknown quantity. While the great hubbub about the "bullying" of Hillary during the primaries will buy Palin a certain amount of slack in her VP debate and in her treatment by the press in general, that slack will be finite and she will be tested...as she should be. How she will hold up under the onslaught of a National campaign has yet to be determined, though timidity and indecisiveness have not been hallmarks of her political comportment thus far!

In any case, McCain's choice for his running mate is a fascinating one, and one which indicates that he is still someone who is willing and able to roll some great big dice and think way outside the box. It was a canny and courageous move which will make for an enormously entertaining race. Whatever the outcome, we will all owe the Big Mac at least that.

EDITED TO ADD: ...How Palin handles herself in matters of foreign policy is going to bear very close watching. Her socially conservative views, again, will have little bearing on the real (as opposed to histrionically predicted) policies enacted in the country, so long as there are veto-resistant Democratic majorities in both houses of congress (which is likely to be the case for a while). How she conceptualizes, articulates, and debates the key issues on the geopolitical front is going to have everything to do with my feelings on her selection. Foreign policy (especially as regards waging the Long War) is the crucial issue for me, since it bears on the fundamental role of the Federal Government: minding the security of the Nation's interests at home and abroad. If she's on-target there, I am wiling to overlook much.

My feeling on this is that she will acquit herself quite well in interviews, pressers, and the one debate (!) she'll have with her counterpart, and will swiftly ramp up to presidential levels of competence on the relevant issues; she strikes me as a quick study. But, as ever, I am prepared to be disappointed.

It will be amusing, though, to watch the MSM hop all over any perceived stumble by Sarah, after having given such a free pass to Obama's very public struggles up the learning curve.