Back to Clive Crook's blog homepage
The Palin nomination
September 2, 2008
I was unsure how the pregnancy of Sarah Palin’s daughter would affect social conservatives’ view of the governor’s nomination for VP, but they seem to be taking it in their stride. If anything they are seeing it as a positive—more proof that Mrs Palin is a good and supportive mother. At any rate, they say, it is nobody’s business but the family’s.
The other good news for the McCain campaign is that many Democrats are mishandling the issue as badly as they mishandled the nomination in the first place. There is a tone of exultation over the Palin family’s difficulties that will strike many centrists, and decent people regardless of ideology, as repellent. Again, to his enormous credit, Obama himself was the exception. What a class act he is. He reminded reporters that he is the son of an unmarried mother, said the families of candidates and especially their children should be off-limits, and told the press to drop the story. It won’t of course: it will mine it for all it is worth. But Obama said the right thing and gave every sign of meaning it.
While I am complaining about the odious instincts of my profession, let me mention in passing the bid that Campbell Brown is making to supplant Lou Dobbs as the most objectionable broadcast bloviator, thereby securing the top two slots for CNN’s “best political team on television”. On Sunday I watched amazed as her supposed interview of a McCain spokesman on the Palin pick degenerated into a laughing, contemptuous harangue. Her evident disgust at the choice was not to be appeased. Then on Monday she demanded of another McCain surrogate to know whether Palin could be a good mother since she had knowingly thrust her daughter into the spotlight. But who, for heaven’s sake, is directing that spotlight? This is like the mugger who tells his victim he regrets what’s happening, “but why were you so stupid as to walk up this dark alley?” Others might be entitled to make that point, but it is nauseating to hear it from the regretful self-righteous mugger herself.
I think part of the outrage one sees in much of the press and TV coverage of the Palin nomination is disappointed amour propre. We had not been talking about Palin; Palin had not occurred to us; therefore, by definition, Palin was not a worthy contender. Of course, it may turn out that she is not: knowing so little about her, we are not yet in a position to say. But it would do the press a world of good if she proves us wrong.
At the very least, despite the Republican instinct to rally round, and the Democratic instinct to pile on, the news takes the shine off the Palin nomination. And there are dangers ahead as the digging proceeds. My first thought was to wonder if McCain had known about the pregnancy when he announced his choice. He says yes—as he had to. If it should somehow turn out that he didn’t know, then he would be guilty both of lying about that and of the too-hasty judgment in nominating Palin he is accused of. If on the other hand he did know, his choice was surely all the more risky and all the more remarkable.
Barring more surprises, it still comes down to how Palin fares in speeches and interviews from now on—and above all in the debate with Biden on October 2nd. If Biden makes her look a fool, McCain’s gamble will have failed, and I don’t see how he can recover. If she impresses, McCain will likely be in a much stronger position than if he had chosen a safer VP. Whether he knows it or not, McCain has staked everything on this choice. Meanwhile, if the Democrats had any sense, they would follow their leader’s dignified and expedient example, shut up, and wait and see. Luckily for the Republicans, they apparently don’t.
Out of all the recent coverage, I liked this piece (on the political calculation of the Palin pick) by Jay Cost for Real Clear Politics, and this one (a report from the Palins’ home town) by Nathan Thornburgh for Time. I was also struck by this email from a reader, representative of many others I have received:
My wife was on the fence in this election, and is pro-choice. She does not like McCain, and is lukewarm about Obama and Biden.
The Palin pick energized her to call me from work, email me, and–are you ready?–send in $$ to the McCain camp. I was floored (she voted Kerry last election.) She says the story of Palin (which she spent two hours on line researching) has touched her heart, inspired her, and that is enough. She and her friends are meeting Wednesday for dinner (six to nine women) “to talk about Sarah . . . and Hillary.”
Not Governor Palin. “Sarah.”
My college daughter is reacting the same way and sent McCain $15.00.
I think there is something happening that I don’t fully understand, but there it is.Time will tell.
I still cannot understand why there is almost no discussion in the media of Palin’s narrow, Christian fundamentalist, far right wing views (except for an excellent article by Susan Jacoby in today’s Washington Post), and the serious questions about her views on race presented by her support for Buchanan in 2000.
Instead, we are presented with two red herrings in the coverage of this campaign: one is about Obama’s alleged “inexperience”, even though his knowledge of foreign affairs is light years ahead of George Bush’s at the time that the Supreme Court made him president in 2000. Doesn’t anyone remember that Bush used to refer to Greeks as “Grecians”, for example?
(By the way , I can guess where Bush must have learned that expression, since, like the two presidents Bush, I also went to Phillips Andover, which was heavy on the classics at the time.)
Concerning the other crucial issue in the election, Obama’s knowledge of economics may fall short of Martin Wolf’s (or Clive Crooks’), but it is also clearly far ahead of McCain’s (or Sarah Palin’s), because something is always more than nothing.
The other red herring is the one about Palin’s daughter’s unmarried pregnancy. Whether this fits in with fundamentalist Christian values or not should be left up to the fundamentalists themselves to sort out; what possible concern should it be for the rest of us?
What is far more important is that Palin would clearly continue the movement to turn this country into a theocracy and to smash down the wall of separation between church and state that is one of the bedrocks of American freedom.
She does not have to accede to the presidency to do this. Look at the enormous power that Cheney now has as Vice President.
McCain has already pledged to appoint the most reactionary Supreme Court Justices he can find, so Palin could hardly be worse in this regard, unless she became president and appointed Patrick Buchanan (as, if I am not mistaken, the Constitution does not require that one has to be a lawyer to sit on the high court).
Where someone of Palin’s narrow views would fit in on crucial, but ignored, issues such as enforcing the civil rights laws and protecting our civil liberties from the terrible assault they have endured under Bush/Cheney can only be imagined.
Then there is immigration, which is America’s foremost racial issue today. Where would Palin stand on this? Would she, like Buchanan, seek to end legal immigration entirely, the most extreme and racially divisive approach imaginable, one that would put her in a class, not only with Buchanan, but with European bigots such as Pym Fortune, Jean Marie Le Pen, Georg Haider and Vladimir Zhirinovski (with advance apologies for any algasemas that may crop up in the spelling of these names - J.J. will no doubt provide any required corrections)?
Perhaps we will learn more about this once Palin finds out where the Mexican border is located. But the point I am trying to make in this post, is that, with all due respect, Clive Crook, who started off his discussion of this campaign with a number of carefully considered, in depth discussions of the issues, seems to have become so mesmerized by his brief stay in Denver that he has evidently decided that the only interest Americans have in this election is from the standpoint of the National Enquirer.
In this he is undoubtedly correct. But there are still a few of us pointy headed intellectual “elitists” around in places like San Francisco and Manhattan who read the Financial Times because we expect something better.
Indeed, the Obama-Palin contest (which is what this election has become) is between two visions of America that are as profoundly different as one can imagine. One is the thoughtful, (if sometimes too laid back) approach of Obama, based on toleration, inclusiveness and a belief that it is important to understand the issues. The other is the narrow, intolerant, anti-intellectual approach of Palin and her admirers.
How long America can survive as democracy if we continue to nominate and elect narrow, intolerant, anti-science, anti-intellectual, far right religious, if not also racial, extremists to high office remains to be seen.
Posted by: algasema | September 2nd, 2008 at 11:00 am | Report this commentalgasema,
Should we not first wait to listen to what Palin says?
Posted by: RCS | September 2nd, 2008 at 11:11 am | Report this commentRoger,
Intolerant? The Obama campaign tried to shut down a Chicago radio station last week for interviewing a guest who noticed that Sen. Obama and Bill Ayers managed a flop project together.
I am not convinced that shouting down your opponent, and unplugging the opposition press is “thoughtful” shows “inclusiveness”, and a “belief that it is important to understand the issues”.
JBP
Posted by: John Powers | September 2nd, 2008 at 1:20 pm | Report this commentOf course we should find out what Palin has to say, RCS, but she has in fact already spoken out on an number of important issues, especially those that deal with imposing the values of the Christian fundamentalist far right on the rest of the country. Read Susan Jacoby’s Washington Post article.
On the other hand, Palin has also taken on the big oil companies by imposing a windfall profits tax and rebating some of the money to Alaska’s citizens, and she has taken steps to clean up the sewer that Republican politics had become in Alaska. One has to give her credit for that.
If Palin, for example, took on the bloated defense budget and the military industrial complex in the same way that she has done with the oil companies (even though she is now all “drill, drill, drill”, just as McCain is “bomb, “bomb”, “bomb”), then she would deserve the support of all of us.
However, if she ever did that, either McCain would send her back to Alaska in a hurry, or she would have to change her party registration to Democratic. As I recall, whenever Obama speaks out against big oil, he is denounced as a far left, unpatriotic, socialist radical.
My point is not that it is bad to hear Palin out on the issues, but that the media are avoiding all mention of the views that she has already expressed, even though some of them are shocking to those of us who do not happen to belong to far right, Christian fundamentalist churches. There also seems to be an absolute news blackout on the fact that she supported one of America’s most notorious extremists on race.
Again with all due respect to Clive Crook, how can anyone who ignores these issues, and who instead just goes along with the media circus over what should be Palin’s private family matter call himself or herself a serious US election commentator?
Another example of the atrocious media coverage of this election is in yesterday’s news circus over Hurricane Gustav, which could have been a terrible storm, but, fortunately, wasn’t. But even after that became clear, the TV “news” channels spent the whole day featuring their top anchors from New Orleans explaining the profound truth that when it rains, people get wet.
In the meantime, anyone watching C-span would have seen that there was a massive anti-war protest taking place outside of the Republican convention in St.Paul. I did not see a single mention of this on any of the regular news channels. Nor did I read anything about it in today’s FT. Maybe it was there somewhere but I might have missed it.
Is this less important than a pregnancy in Sarah Palin’s family? What kind of a country has America become?
Posted by: algasema | September 2nd, 2008 at 1:49 pm | Report this comment“a number of”, not “an number of”. Gustav is almost finished, but the storm of algasemas continues. Apologies.
Posted by: algasema | September 2nd, 2008 at 1:52 pm | Report this commentThe Democrats, and I was one until recently, should follow the lead of Senator Obama who handled this personal story in a personal way by saying it is off-limits for his campaign. I applaud him for taking such a high stance, especially since his wife has been the subject of low-class remarks from some McCain supporters.
I think women wanting to critique Governor Palin’s parenting skills based on a teen-aged daughter’s choices should look around their own communities and maybe their own families. It is enough of a reality now that many high schools accommodate teen mothers, unlike the time when the girl was sent away in shame.
I also think we are asking questions of her that we would not be asking of a man running for office. How many times are mothers criticized for not being home when children get into trouble even though there is a father in the family too? The Palin family has been a political family for some time and it appears that both parents are involved in raising the children. Shouldn’t that be seen as a plus?
This is a real family with many more complexities than we typically see in a political family. I think some of the media types who are in a lather to point out just how unsuitable she is are really annoyed that they were not consulted about her, they didn’t vet her, they don’t have personal connections with her. Instead of behaving badly they could do their work and comment on real issues that are pertinent to the election rather than trying to make themselves a part of the story.
Posted by: annetta | September 2nd, 2008 at 2:19 pm | Report this commentJBP, if Ayers had run for president and Obama had worn his button, gone to his rallies, or voted for him, as Palin did for Buchanan, or if Obama had ever spoken out in favor of the Weathermen, I would agree with you. Otherwise, can we please send the Ayres comments back to the sewer where they came from?
Posted by: algasema | September 2nd, 2008 at 2:24 pm | Report this commentRoger,
If Palin was an executive of a board that blew $100 Million with a unrepenatant terrorist as a member, rather than someone who vaguely supported a fireball journalist like Buchanan, then Buchanan would be an issue, not Ayers.
Any mention of Ayers exposes out the authoritarian Left in the Obama campaign. If for that reason alone, every media outlet in the country should at least attempt to examine the record (after they are unlocked of course).
JBP
Posted by: John Powers | September 2nd, 2008 at 3:14 pm | Report this commentIf you want a sense of the effect of the pregnancy, just look at major U.S. newspapers.
It’s a story that does not play well with social conservatives who are her constituency. And they are the same people who already dislike McCain.
This story also serves to remind everyone of the other pregnancy story that has been all over the Internet, and that is that Ms Palin’s youngest child is actually her daughter’s. I couldn’t care less whether this story is true or false, but it undoubtedly just adds to a messy pile.
This woman is a serious mistake for McCain, full stop. It confirms his reputation as shooting from the hip.
It is now revealed that Palin was previously an enthusiastic member of the Alaska separtist party.
Also she is on record as laughing hard during an interview when a political opponent, who actually has cancer, was referred to as a cancer.
She sounds rather like one of guys who hang out in the woods of Idaho (her native state) in camouflage pants with M-16 rifles reading pamphlets about the Aryan Nation.
I am sure there is more coming, because Ms Palin has been a nasty number to past opponents. It’s time for time to wound all heels.
She may well prove another Senator Eagleton.
Posted by: JOHN CHUCKMAN, TORONTO | September 2nd, 2008 at 3:26 pm | Report this commentJohn Powers, So far as anyone is aware, Ayers is now a respected college professor whose underground past is decades behind him, having taken place when Obama was around six years old, a little too young to be a member of the “authoritarian left”.
On the other hand, Buchanan’s inflammatory and bigoted racial views, and his Hitler apologies, go back almost as far, but are also as recent as his latest books.
If Ayres were to write a book now supporting the Weathermen, then you might have something to talk about.
Posted by: algasema | September 2nd, 2008 at 3:35 pm | Report this commentJC,
And how do you gain such insight into the minds of the Social Conservatives? I just got off the phone with a major Social Conservative from the Archdiocese of Chicago who was overjoyed that a baby will not be sacrificed to partisan politics.
Roger,
But Bill Ayers never denies nor regrets his participation in terrorism, and may sue your socks off if you link him and his wife to continuing a life of crime after they retired.
Buchanan is a journalist, not an active participant in bigotry etc.
JBP
Posted by: John Powers | September 2nd, 2008 at 4:15 pm | Report this commentThe choice of Palin may be shrewd from a crass political calculation pov, but it is certainly not in the interest of the nation. Let’s look at her specifics–a rabid pro-life, a lifetime member of the NRA, rabidly anti-environment, and to top it all, a creationist. Do we really want her to be the Veep, and potentially the president in the next 12 years?
As for her family problems, they are news, and they are important, as they expose the inherent hypocrisy of the Christian Right. Seeing the usual standard bearers of the Christian right rise to her defense on the basis of family values is risible. Isn’t Palin a big proponent of abstinence. Her personal story is less than compelling, and reflects a truly mediocre persona, and should not be the basis of electing an inexperienced and extreme right-wing politician to the most important job in the world.
The Democrats should stay away from her personal story and just concentrate on her extremism and experience. I found it hilarious when McCain defended her readiness to be president by invoking her presidency of the local PTA.
Posted by: Karim Pakravan | September 2nd, 2008 at 4:31 pm | Report this commentJohn Powers,
I didn’t talk to one on the phone - a pretty silly point, don’t you think, since an anecdote proves nothing - I was raised in the faith in a large and active church.
As to Buchanan, your statements are frivilous. When he was accused of flirting with fascism, it was a true statement.
The man is a right-wing idiot-savant, the savant part only reflecting his apparently endless ability to talk.
Posted by: JOHN CHUCKMAN, TORONTO | September 2nd, 2008 at 4:48 pm | Report this commentJBP: “Buchanan is a journalist, not an active participant in bigotry”. Except when he is running for president, that is.
Posted by: algasema | September 2nd, 2008 at 4:50 pm | Report this commentMore on the Palin Disaster:
“Palin has also railed against earmarks, touting her opposition to a $223 million bridge in the state as a prime credential for the vice presidential nomination. “As governor, I’ve stood up to the old politics-as-usual, to the special interests, to the lobbyists, the big oil companies, and the good-ol’-boy network,” she said Friday.
“As mayor of Wasilla, however, Palin oversaw the hiring of Robertson, Monagle & Eastaugh, an Anchorage-based law firm with close ties to Alaska’s most senior Republicans: Rep. Don Young and Sen. Ted Stevens, who was indicted in July on charges of accepting illegal gifts. The Wasilla account was handled by the former chief of staff to Stevens, Steven W. Silver, who is a partner in the firm.”
And look at the picture near the bottom of this page:
http://whatreallyhappened.com/
Posted by: JOHN CHUCKMAN, TORONTO | September 2nd, 2008 at 4:55 pm | Report this commentSo JC,
Again how do you gain such insight into the minds of the Social Conservatives, or are you just spouting partisan nonsense to demonize the Religious Right? Have you ever met a member of the Religious Right and asked them their opinion of children?
Buchanan never has been a serious contender for Political Office. His journalism infuriates me more than he does you, but I don’t take journalists very seriously. You guys are grasping at straws.
Biden and Obama voted for the Bridge to Nowhere btw.
JBP
Posted by: John Powers | September 2nd, 2008 at 5:14 pm | Report this commentWith regard to Campbell Brown’s first interview, she asked a specific, relevant question regarding Palin’s supposed foreign policy experience, got two evasive comments instead about McCain and Obama, and then pointed out that she hadn’t gotten an answer to her question. How is this haranguing? If television journalists aren’t challenging spokespeople that come on their programs then what are they for?
Posted by: Todd | September 2nd, 2008 at 10:08 pm | Report this comment“I am sure there is more coming, because Ms Palin has been a nasty number to past opponents. It’s time for time to wound all heels.
She may well prove another Senator Eagleton.”
That Governor Palin was unvetted is to say the least. Senator McCain rolled the dice, as he is wont to do with money and everything else. On that topic, can you imagine him having authority to launch missiles tipped with nuclear weapons? That is Senator McCain.
There is no question that there are many other shoes to drop regarding Governor Palin both from political and personal perspectives. She will not be dropped from the ticket for many reasons, but Senator McCain and she herself will be exposed to the onslaught of information on her past and on her thinking. They will deny reality, as all good extreme right-wingers are wont to do, but enough of the electorate will turn against the duo to provide some electoral college pad for Senator Obama.
Posted by: Wendell Murray | September 2nd, 2008 at 10:10 pm | Report this commentalgasema: Let the facts speak for themselves. I have no doubt that all details on everything regarding Governor Palin, including those concerning her family, will disgust most normal voters, once revealed.
I would strongly prefer to leave candidates’ families out of any discussion on the merits of the candidates themselves, but keep in mind it is the “Christian” right-wing exemplified by Governor Palin that seeks to dictate to the rest of the world about “family values”, something that includes demanding abstinence from sexual activity by youth, among many other topics.
Posted by: Wendell Murray | September 2nd, 2008 at 10:16 pm | Report this commentWendell Murray, family problems or no family problems, I predict that Governor Palin will be leaving the Republican ticket very soon, perhaps even sooner than it takes to say “unqualified”. Of course, no one is going to say that McCain changed his mind, because that would guarantee an Obama victory in 49 of the fifty states. (Probably, even the 50th would be at risk, because of a perceived raw deal for its governor.)
What will undoubtedly happen, of course, is that physical and/or psychological problems will suddenly develop with Bristol’s pregnancy, if not impending marriage, that will require tender loving care from her mother that would be impossible to provide on the campaign trail.
Therefore, Palin will reluctantly beg McCain to let her off the ticket, and McCain will reluctantly agree, perhaps with tears in his eyes for her noble sacrifice of ambition in favor of family (as well as for his lost presidency).
Posted by: algasema | September 2nd, 2008 at 11:09 pm | Report this commentI agree with Todd regarding the “harangue”. I heard it, then saw a transcript of it. Tucker Bounds ducked the questions. I thought Tucker simply looked ill-prepared for the interview. He should have been expecting those questions, and should have been ready with responses (not evasions)
Questions about her experience are hardly off limits (remember the “ready to lead” McCain add ?) but experience is not an election-winning argument, so Obama is wise to stay on message and not get distracted.
On the other hand, I agree with algasema and CC that the media circus over “baby gate” is a distraction that we could do without.
Posted by: Elflord | September 3rd, 2008 at 12:29 am | Report this commentMr Crook, you wrote in the FT today that Obama reminded reporters his mother was unmarried. He did not - he said she was eighteen. I think a correction should be published.
Posted by: Duncan | September 3rd, 2008 at 10:22 am | Report this comment“that the media circus over “baby gate” is a distraction that we could do without.”
Senator McCain seems to be delighting in the happiness he has elicited among the “Christian” right-wing due to his choice of Governor Palin. The gambit was purely to curry favor with that group. It seems to be working.
The issue is important. That a 16-year-old daughter of “Christian values” Vice-Presidential nominee is pregnant while one of the key Christian right-wing precepts for birth control is abstinence from sexual intercourse and while the Christian right-wing actively seeks to impose its frightening moral view on the much large majority of USA citizens makes it relevant and important.
Not that the Senator Obama or Senator Biden or any member of their campaign should or need to comment - they shouldn’t and won’t, but Senator McCain and Governor Palin should be questioned by the mainstream media closely and directly about the fact and its implication.
Posted by: Wendell Murray | September 3rd, 2008 at 8:56 pm | Report this commentBite Me! - mixed media on canvas (24"x36")
What’s the difference between a soccer mom and a pitbull? LipsticK! Good one Sarah. So what’s next, Yo Mamma Jokes? It seems to play with the ‘good ole boys, you have to be willing to jump in the ring and wrestle in the mud. And since the Republican candidate for Vice-President, Sarah Palin, "is a girl" she’ll have to show she’s one tough bitch, capable of ripping the media and political foes a new one, and getting down and dirty with the "boys."
So, please be careful, and stay a safe distance from your high definition TV. These political dog fights are known to particularly bloody and vicious. Rumour has it that Michael Vick has been secretly giving McCain and Palin campaign advice. American politics, you might say it’s a dog-eat-dog world. "Yo! Obama, Biden….Bite Me!"
Bite Me!
Posted by: TMNK aka NOBODY | September 15th, 2008 at 1:40 pm | Report this commentGreetings:
It is indeed frightening that should the McCain-Palin ticket be victorious and President McCain die or become incapacitated, that someone whose (almost non-existent) record is inconsistent with the truth, intolerant and unqualified might become president of the U.S.
As a Democrat who sent Senator McCain’s campaign money in 2000 in the hope that the country might have a contest between two individuals with a commitment to national service, I find it disappointing that Senator McCain’s ambition has clouded his judgment.
The Republicans had two very well qualified VP candidates who would have been acceptable to its “base” — Kay Hutchinson of Texas — a woman of substance, even if I don’t share her opinions on 95% of the major issues and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina — a very conservative Senator, but a lawyer with a great respect for the rule of law — so much so that he (i) supports a federal shield law to protect journalists from having to reveal their confidential sources (except in rare cases) since he recognizes that one cannot have a free press if the government can simply subpoena the records of reporters rather than perform professional investigations of crimes) and (ii) was an outspoken critic of what he perceived as torture of some being held at Guantanamo.
Both are would be ready from “Day One” — Governor Palin has demonstrated that she will never be ready. We should all pray for the future of the U.S. since the late French President Charles DeGaulle was absolutely correct when he remarked that the cemeteries are full of irreplaceable men.
Posted by: Ethan S. Burger | September 15th, 2008 at 5:46 pm | Report this comment