Obama Campaign Spokesperson: Palin Inexperienced…Huh?
The Columbus Dispatcharticle on John McCain’s announcement yesterday that he had selected Alaska Governor Sarah Palin for his vice presidential running mate contained this about the reaction of a campaign spokesperson for the Democratic presidential nominee, Senator Barack Obama:
The Obama campaign criticized Palin as too conservative on issues such as abortion and argued that she would not be fit to assume the presidency.
Obama spokesman Bill Burton said that McCain was willing to put “the former mayor of a town of 9,000 with zero foreign-policy experience a heartbeat away from the presidency.”
Someone in the Obama campaign had better tell Bill Burton to clam up on “the experience issue.” Palin has served in elective office longer than the Illinois senator and for most of that time, since she was elected mayor in 1992, has been as what the political scientists call an “administrative decision maker.” Obama has no such experience. Nor does his running mate, Senator Joseph Biden.
Palin is lacking in foreign policy experience. So is Obama.
There may be plenty of reasons for the Obama campaign to go after Governor Palin. But it would be best for them not to mention experience, the Illinois senator’s lack of which is a major concern of American voters.
57 Responses to “Obama Campaign Spokesperson: Palin Inexperienced…Huh?”
[...] The Moderate Voice [...]
That's why these campaigns need regular folks like us to run their campaigns. We state the obvious. LOL!
I think that Obama, having run one of the most scrutinized campaign in history with the attack machines of the Clintons and the Roves focused intently on him gives him some props in the experience area. Comparing his acceptance speech with the clip of Palin saying she isn't sure what the VP does is unfair, but illuminating.
That being said, the only thing the Obama camp should be saying is that this means the experience issue is off the table and stay quiet until McCain brings it up. This wasn't a smart move on Burton's part. However, it is funny that Rove was bashing Tim Kaine's lack of experience as mayor of Richmond a few weeks ago.
Agreed. Voters may be willing to give Obama the benefit of the doubt when he implies that time in DC is overrated, but may not if it seems like he's being hypocritical.
Obama quickly walked back Burton's statement, though I'm glad it's out there.
The point is not that Palin is as inexperienced as Obama. It's that McCain cannot use the experience argument against Obama anymore.
And don't insult us by suggesting that the administrative capabilities of running a small town translate to the Presidency of the United States. You do more than manage and delegate when in the White House. You need a grasp of national and international issues. Palin has no such grasp. Why not pick any small-town mayor recently elected President.
Palin is untouchable for the Obama campaign. She's female. This will appeal to a large enough percentage of Clinton supporters to tip the scales.
People say Palin was a panic-pick. No, not so much. Or if so, McCain hit the jackpot with lady luck.
Let me state this slowly and carefully:
..Obama…went…out…of…his…way…to…alienate…Clinton….supporters. ..a…vast…number….of….which…are….women. …and…men…concerned….with…female…issues.
If I hear Obama make one more comment about how Hillary really “made history” or “cracked the glass ceiling”…or one more comment on how “our daughters can look to Hillary's acheivement (of losing to a less-qualified male) as something to look up to”I think I'm going to lose it. That patronizing talk, coming from an inexperienced male who just usurped a vastly more experienced female in such a critical race as this, to the detriment of the entire democratic party no less, is like hearing a slave owner from the 1800s brag about how his “niggers” got it better than most 'cuz he just started giving them an extra helpin' o grits on Sundays.
I swear to God It is maddening, infuriating…
And remember: “Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned”..
If he wants the tiniest bit of a chance with female voters who RIGHTLY (not “whining” ” bitter” or “silly”) feel disenfranchised and now, with new salt in the wounds of THE CLASSIC example of the most stereotypical form of male to female descrimination: a man usurping a more qualified female for a job…..he'd better do triple back-flips to convince Clinton voters that he is anything but the headman for closet-misogyny personified.
He must know that any talk he gives that patronizes Clinton's acheivements with “there, there dear” attitude is going to piss off and drive away pro-women (women and men) voters in THE MILLIONS…
And that, dear friends, is a recipe for a loss this Fall.
And McCain knew it. He's smart enough, or has people who work for him that are smart enough to know how abrasive Obama's closet-treatment of women really is and how deep the wounds have gone of Obama's passive-misogyny, and really, the collective closet-misogyny of the DNC.
Now, that's not to say that the McCain camp isn't anti-women. But picking Palin sure puts the money where the mouth is when it comes to actually making an effort to reach out. And that's in the end what all voters will see, feminists or not, that McCain puts his money where his mouth is and Obama is a big windbag of empty lofty promises and in reality, factual delivery on “the same old thing”.
Obama's very campaign is the epitome of “the same old thing” with regards to thousands of years old “accepted misogyny”.
Women make up over half the world population. It's about time someone did the math. Here's to McCain's pick: Sarah Palin, as at least a tiny effort in the right direction.
Effort, not words…
People say Palin was a panic-pick. No, not so much. Or if so, McCain hit the jackpot with lady luck.
I'm not inclined to vote for a person who relies on luck first and foremost. I want to see considered planning, not pot shots — even if the pot shots turn out to be lucky once in a while.
Actually Sarah Palin does have some foreign policy experience, remember she is chief executive of the only state with 2 foreign borders and has been involed in some foreign policy issues.
Ricorun,
I accept that that's how you feel. Now it's your turn to accept that millions disagree with you for all the forgoing reasons I just posted.
It's about doing the math. Do the math. McCain just won the election by picking Palin.
The truth is sometimes very painful to accept.
So does that mean that anyone on the border of New Mexico, Arizona, California, Washington, Texas, Montana, Idaho, Minnesota, Michigan, New York, Vermont, Maine have foreign policy experience? I'm not sure where you're coming from on this one.
As for 'experience', someone who is elected to a town of less than 7,000 people vs. someone who has served in a state legislature in a state where people still outnumber moose, come on. I agree that Obama should be treading carefully on 'experience' here, but you're stretching with this comparison.
I don't think this is in any way a guarantee win for McCain unless Obama or Biden somehow make this person out to be a victim, or if she is way above expectations and can answer foreign policy questions accurately and face the scrutiny of the national press (McCain meeting her once certainly isn't vetting).
My biggest fear (and those of many GOP insiders) is that this woman is one pulse away from the Oval Office. Is she ready to command 300 million people? It might be 'elected office' as well, guys, but it's not Wasilla or the Alaska National Guard.
That's truth that's indeed painful to accept.
I think it's fair to question Obama for this.
But McCain has spent the summer bashing away at Obama for lack of experience.
Then he selected someone who was mayor of a town of 9,000 residents less than two years ago.
The real story is McCain's desperate hypocrisy about the value of experience.
Silhouette, as one of the comment moderators on this site, I appreciate your passion. You have made discussion in the comments very lively. But did you have to GO THERE with this:
“….is like hearing a slave owner from the 1800s brag about how his “niggers” got it better than most 'cuz he just started giving them an extra helpin' o grits on Sundays.”
Comparing what Obama says in a positive way about Clinton to the “plantation politics” of destruction that destroyed many black families is just over the damn line.
It just sounds and reads bad Sil. Could you please refrain from those type of comparisons? We'll all adults so I'm not telling you anything. Just asking.
Perhaps McCain was reading the wilfull carefree attitude about lack of experience of Obama supporters in judging how the election will go? Maybe, from seeing the vast support behind Obama, McCain said, “hey, looks like experience doesn't matter to voters”.
In any event, the only thing that matters with the Oval Office isn't just experience, it's the raw material. We on the one had have Sarah Palin who lacks experience (but has more than Obama) but inside has a core that is made of granite and potential galore. On the other hand we have Obama, with less experience even than Palin at running governement, whose core is nothing but a vacuum to be filled with whatever the wind blows there each day..
I stand by what I said: The pick of Palin has just won the election for McCain. Obama cannot touch her.
Yes T-Steel. I did have to “go there' to illustrate to many black viewers here particularly the angst that women feel when descriminated against. The word “niggers” is an ugly word that instantly conjures up bile in those who have been descriminated against. I'm using journalistic license to express how deeply women are offended by the closet-misogyny of the Obama campaign.
Sil, you have your math, but I have THE MATH. Lol!!
Seriously though, I realize there are voters like you that key on body parts and are swayed by conspiracy theories and the like. But I do hope there are not enough of them to make a difference. Not only does this pick of McCain's essentially remove the “qualified” argument from the table, but it also erodes his claim to good judgment. I think you said it best — on the first big test of a prospective president, McCain relied on lady luck.
There is a certain amount of irony in the fact that just before Obama announced his pick, Rove (the guy who claimed to have THE math) derided Tim Kaine as a potential pick for reasons that could easily be applied to Palin.
McCain picked Palin
Explain to me how Palin has more experience than Obama? I see a Communications major, a city council person and then mayor of a town less than 7,000, a Governor of a state with a population 1/4 the size of Chicago. Obama, lawyer, constitutional law teacher, spent 7 years in the legislature of the State of Illinois, US Senate for 2 years.
I'm just asking for a plain, non talking-points comparison
I understand Sil. It's the whole “plantation politics” thing that ruffled me. But believe me, I do understand your passion. My family is still split among Obama and Clinton supporters. And it is along gender lines (with the exception of my wife). So I've heard it all and have been in numerous heated conversations about actual and perceived misogyny.
I'm in no position to “examine” journalistic license. So I'll just say this:
I appreciate your reasoned response to my concern.
(No problemo. I hate the N-word as much as anyone. I wish we had a female equivalent so handy to fall back on to instantly portray to society how wholly unfair our lot is. Maybe I'll coin one before this election is over.)
*****
“Seriously though, I realize there are voters like you that key on body parts”~ Ricorun
******
You mean body parts like skin?
Yeah….it works both ways. Sucks huh? ; )
Silhouette–
Some women think the selection of Palin is kind of condescending.
Or so I'm hearing, at least.
No, Sil is so horribly wrong on this issue it isn't even funny. I would never insult the overwhelming majority of Senator Clinton's supporters by saying it's all about the gender. Sil is. It makes them look like just what she has been claiming they are not all this time, people who had no other reasons for supporting their candidate other than her gender. Palin is even further away from their beliefs than McCain. Just as there is a small minority of former Clinton supporters who already plan on voting for McCain out of spite there are some among them who will use the Palin selection as a way to justify that move, something that Senator Clinton and her supporters who are truly thoughtful will reject utterly.
George Orwell,
“Some women think the selection of Palin is kind of condescending.
Or so I'm hearing, at least.”
****
Of course it is. But it also has appeal. Nothing is black or white in the real world. Everything is a range of brown. (on the skin theme..) On the one hand you have millions of Cinton voters who will reject Palin. On the other hand you have millions who will run to her in the end.
The key thing to remember is how many millions each way and will this tip the scales for McSame? My prediction is: yes. For all the reasons described.
I keep reminding people who post at sites like this that we are in a vast minority of the voting populace. We are in a protected bubble here. Mainstream voters really have petty agendas in the front of their minds for which way they vote. How else could you explain Obama's success?
So you see…there is a real problem. Body parts are dictating this election…not here…in the real world where it really counts..
Again, the Palin pick was pure genius..
McCain is 72 years old., if something happened to him woulkd his new playmate be able to run the country/ I THINK NOT…….
I am just trying to understand how McCain passing over some very experienced women in his party (Christine Todd Whitman, Elizabeth Dole, even Meg Whitman to some extent) for a younger more attractive “trophy” pick is going to appeal to older women who feel Obama passed over Hillary, who it must be said, ran a very unprofessional campaign and can't manage her husband. I guess their might be a woman or two might bite on this, but they were never going to vote for Obama anyway. BTW check out Mike Murphy's column at Swampland regarding how this is going to play in Michigan. Yes, Palin's going to be popular among the “Macomb county Democrats, but they already liked McCain. The more populated and educated Oakland County isn't going to be impressed. If McCain thinks he can win back or retain Oakland County Republicans (yes a group I am part of even if I don't currently live there) he is very wrong. Murphy concludes that Oakland might be the county that swings the state. It is also a county filled with women who were dumped for trophy wives.
At least Sil isn't talking about Larry Sinclair anymore.
Actually, she served as mayor of Wasilla from 1996 to 2002.
Then she was appointed Ethics Commissioner of the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission in 2003 and resigned in 2004 due to the lack of ethics of fellow Alaska Republican leaders.
After her resignation, she filed formal complaints against the state Republican Party chairman and the Alaska Attorney General who both resigned.
“I am just trying to understand how McCain passing over some very experienced women in his party (Christine Todd Whitman, Elizabeth Dole, even Meg Whitman to some extent) for a younger more attractive “trophy” pick is going to appeal to older women who feel Obama passed over Hillary”~ Kathyrn
******
First of all, the DNC were the ones who “passed over Hillary”. Obama not picking her was predictable.
McSame likely chose Palin, younger, beautiful and electric because he needed that counterbalance to Obama's youth and electric-appeal. If Obama had another type of appeal, McSame would've chosen that profile instead. I think the GOP was trying to cover as many voter-types they could rope in as possible..
The GOP are consummate strategists. Democrats better get that through their heads, and fast..
I'm pissing my pants right now. Remember how well they did in 2006?
_____________
Here is your hero strategist Karl Rove right here on picking Kaine as Veep:
Richmond's metropolitan area has more people than ALL OF ALASKA.
Silhouette–
That's a mighty bold prediction. Identity politics being what they are, you may be right. I'm sure a lot of women will give McCain more considertion. Though I personally doubt there is going to be a mass leap for the McCain bandwagon by woman. That didn't happen with Ferraro. In a close election, though, a small shift may matter.
Kathryn–
McCain could not pick anybody in favor of abortion. I believe all those more experienced women you named were excluded from consideration for that reason. Though I'm looking forward to the creation of a group called “Dumped First Wives for Obama”!!
The Oval Office is their concern. They know Congress is a lost cause. They're unpopular, trying to seal just one election is way easier than affecting dozens.
Good strategists know their own weak spots as well as their strengths and know when to write off dead-end endeavors.
Sil, here's the way I see it: most people make decisions on many levels. Indeed, some people do make decisions on very superficial things first and foremost. Others consider some combination of stated policy first and foremost. Others consider some combination of deeper qualities like judgement, character, and experience first and foremost.
And yes, I do certainly know some people that will vote for a woman simply because she's a woman, or a black person simply because they're black. Likewise, I know people that will vote for someone because they're NRA, or pro/anti choice.
For some it's as simple as that. I would assume that most others consider more things more substantively, and only when two candidates come up close to even on the traits and/or issues do they fall back on superficial qualities. In that respect it didn't surprise me that Obama appealed to an inordinate number of black folks, or that Clinton appealed to an inordinate number of women, because other than that they were very close on the issues.
But the choice between Obama and McCain is different. There are large differences between them on both policy and fundamental traits. So to think large numbers of people will ignore all those things and vote according to things like body parts (and yes, I include skin) is sad — even if it turns out to be true.
Silhouette pretends to support Hillary's positions. And yet I'll bet she doesn't lift a finger to ensure that the next President of the United States shares her values and political ideology.
Instead, for the next few months we'll hear endlessly about how bad Obama and Biden are and what an experiences genius McCain is. And how feisty Palin is.
ChrisWWW–
OMG!!!
Of course Silhouette is right about the political skills of Republicans. You would, in fact, be wise to get that through your head on an expeditious basis.
Love ya, but stop jerking your knee already!
George,
By all accounts McCain made this decision precipitously to help prove his “maverick” (aka gambler, reckless) credentials.
That doesn't sound like well thought out strategy.
“Silhouette pretends to support Hillary's positions. And yet I'll bet she doesn't lift a finger to ensure that the next President of the United States shares her values and political ideology.”
***
ricorun…lol..
How do you know my values and political ideology don't include knowledge of Obama as unfit for office, and promotion of a woman over a less qualified man as important to me?
The abortion issue isnt' as big as people are trying to make it out to be. We will have a Congress which will be in a position to veto or suppress Supreme Court candidates. And even in the worst case scenario if BigOil allowed (which is highly unlikely folks) their mouthpieces (the GOP) to alienate potential millions of voters in four years when Hillary threatens them again , Hillary and a democratic Congress would right that ship in a jiffy. 9 Supreme Court justices are no match for that dream team..
Ahhhh, that dream team…
If only…
Silhouette,
What's becoming more and more clear Silhouette, is that you don't have a political ideology. You make decisions based on logic or a specific world view. You just don't like Barack Obama.
Everything you've said for the last few months makes perfect sense when seen through that lens.
Chris–
James Fallows thinks that Palin, as a matter of strategy, is more like Clarence Thomas than Dan Quayle.
Maybe so, maybe not. But if so, she would neutralize some portion of the ability to complain about her.
Time alone will tell. Ferraro turned out to be a poor choice, because she was poorly vetted. Palin may be the same. But she may also be different.
She's not a slam-dunk through Obama's hoop. At least not 24 hours out.
So, seriously–calm down a little.
Silhouette–
OMG!!
The idea that Congress will save us from poor Supreme Court nominees?
You could stand to think things through a little more!!!
George,
I'm calm.
I just don't know how you can take the McCain campaign seriously when you think logically about this pick. McCain can't possibly think that Palin is qualified to be president at a moment's notice. Hell, he's only met the woman three times, and the first couple of times he talked with her, it was for less than 15 minutes each time. He doesn't even know her, and yet he expects the rest of us to trust her with the keys to the family car.
Her pick is nothing but a political calculation or gamble. That alone should disqualify him from being president in the eyes of most of the country. It's depressing to even fathom that McCain's reckless decision making could help him win the election.
How do you know my values and political ideology don't include knowledge of Obama as unfit for office, and promotion of a woman over a less qualified man as important to me?
You'd have a tad more credibility if you had phrased your intent thusly: “promotion of a more qualified person over a less qualified one.” Also, who are you comparing? Is it Obama and Clinton or Obama/Biden and McCain/Palin?
Palin said that she heard about the surge “on the news.”
Obama developed a comprehensive withdrawal plan that was adopted nearly completely by the Iraqi government and that the Bush administration eventually accepted.
There is no way that would have happened if Obama hadn't repeatedly brought it up (and it looked like he was probably going to win). So yes, he has a lack of “foreign policy experience” …except you know, developing the actual strategy that has been accepted by the major players.
Jillmz mentioned on the thread of her recent topic that she just read that McCain's campaign is headed to AK to investigate the “troopergate” investigation. If that's true, that's pathetic. You would think they at least had that base covered. My goodness.
Some of us already have Been There, Dispensed With That piece of garbage from the Obama campaign already. Palin, the #2 GOP candidate (not to mention the obvious case with the #1 GOP candidate), has more executive experience, that which most counts, than Obama, the Dem #1 (presidential) candidate, who has _zero_ such experience and has claimed (previously, at least) this to be an asset rather than a liability. Palin has no foreign policy experience, but neither does Obama, who chose Biden in large part to correct for this lack of such experience (which McCain has already and which isn't an issue at all with the GOP, which has plenty of the right kind of experience as well as the right foreign policy strategy).
Fortunately for Obama and his campaign, Obama himself followed the idiocy by his PR guy by saying the right things, first that Palin is a good choice (hopefully not “too” good, he added, laughing; Obama still wants to win, after all) and second and even better, that sometimes his campaign (idiot-child staff) is “on a hair trigger,” even when “it shouldn't be.” The Obama campaign was stupid, but thankfully its boss is smart.
This is serious 2+2=5 stuff right here.
“The DNC passed over Clinton”
This is wrong on majy levels: Yes, I know all about the “travesty” of Michigan and Florida. However, no one forced them to break the rules and they knew what the consequences would be when they broke them. Also,
1) It assumes no one in Michigan would have voted for Obama had his name been on the ticket. I would really like to see the polling information that would indicate the race still would have been as lop – sided with everyone on the ballot.
2) Hillary initially agreed with the punishment of Michigan and Florida because thought they wouldn't matter. She could have spoken up about the rules when the decision to punish was being made, it might have made a difference then but it was her choice not to.
3) Hillary was too indecisive about Iowa, first she wasn't going to campaign there but then she panicked and changed her mind after both Edwards and Obama had set up impressive machines. She should have either stayed out like McCain who wasn't too hurt by his finish or gone in early so she wouldn't be at such a disadvantage. Had she done so, either Obama's win wouldn't have counted for as much or she would have had unstoppable momentum and Michigan and Florida wouldn't have mattered.
4)She allocated her resources poorly. She gambled everything on Super Tuesday. Again, had she had something left over afterward, Michigan and Florida wouldn't have mattered.
In sum, yes we can argue over Michigan and Florida forever and I really hate having to bring them up again, but they were in play because of Hillary's miscalculations, not because the DNC hates women.
Yes, Obama passed over Hillary for VP, but I think the Bill factor was far more important. Sillhoutte admits the Clinton presidency was a co-Presidency. I think Obama was rightly concerned about dealing with co-VP's who thought they should be President and would spend more time trying to undermine him than anything else. You can agree or disagree on whether that was the wrong decision but to scream sexism at people who are uncomfortable with the idea of a co-Presidency or Vice Presidency is offensive.
1.) Palin was picked as a reaction, as a strategy, she was not chosen for her own merits and abilities, but for her sex and ideology.
2.) Mayor of a town of 9000? 9000?? Hello!!! Wake up and smell the reality folks! That's a TINY town!!! Hello??? Is anyone listening?
3.) I agree with those who see the Palin pick as condescending toward women. Perhaps the word “insulting” is more accurate.
“The DNC passed over Clinton”
This is wrong on majy levels: Yes, I know all about the “travesty” of Michigan and Florida. However, no one forced them to break the rules and they knew what the consequences would be when they broke them. Also,”~ Kathryn
********
This is what they call in the “business” “cutting off one's nose to spite one's face”.
The DNC knew full-well what the consequences of denying those votes from those two states meant…and they knew of other avenues to sanction them besides handing the advantage to Obama. They could've, for instance, sanctioned FLA and Mich in the next presidential campaign to have their primaries dead last.
No, they knew what they were doing.
And now it's plain for all to see.
The DNC passed over Hillary specifically, deliberatly and with cause. Though what the cause exactly is remains open to some speculation.
And so did Clinton when she agreed they wouldn't count. You always seem to conveniently ignore that. You're very hard to take seriously.
I'm a lifelong Michigan resident, and as much as anyone I feel cheated by not getting to take part in a legitimate primary. The one we had was completely, utterly, unequivically BOGUS. That said, there is no reliable way of predicting who would have won if BOTH major candidates had been on the ballot, which is to say there is no (zero) FAIR way that “primary” could ever be counted. In any case, I don't think it's inappropriate to suggest it may be high time to move beyond the obsession.
People knew….they'd done polling….the DNC knew it would be Clinton in Michigan..and Florida…
Don't kid yourself. And no, we shouldn't move on just yet. And no, getting to the truth cannot be denigrated by labelling the quest for it “obsessive”. Nice try though ; )
People knew….they'd done polling….
And before the polling the rules were established. People knew about them, too. And all the candidates accepted them. Had the rules been different the strategies of the campaigns would have been different — and they would have affected the polling. You need to start the argument at the beginning, Sil, not in the middle — or the end.
Here's the NPR interview with Clinton about the matter dated March 13, 2008:
*******
· Hillary Clinton says the results of Michigan's Democratic presidential primary should count, even if Barack Obama's name did not appear on the ballot.
“That was his choice,” she says in an interview with Steve Inskeep. “There was no rule or requirement that he take his name off the ballot. His supporters ran a very aggressive campaign to try to get people to vote uncommitted.”
The states of Florida and Michigan were stripped of their delegates when they defied the rules of the national Democratic Party and moved up the date of their primaries. Clinton remained on the ballot in both states, while Obama stayed on only the Florida ballot.
Neither candidate was supposed to campaign, in accordance with the Democratic National Party's wishes.
Clinton tells Inskeep that the Michigan and Florida pledged delegates should count because both are seen as key battleground states in the general election.
But if the national party does not agree, she says, the states should re-do the primaries.
“If there is to be any difference between my proposal that we count these votes and any other course of action, it should be a complete re-do of the primary and nothing else is fair,” she says.
********
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?st…
So words were twisted…Clinton wanted a re-do of FLA and Michigan. Not to throw them out…
Some really hard-core conspiracy theorists believe that FLA and MIch officials may have even been coerced to start their campaigns too-early…thus ultimately giving the advantage to Obama…which was a known equation before the primaries, like I assert staunchly.
Nah, stuff like that never happens in politics….right?
The actual polling showed that Clinton would have won Florida and that she would have tied Obama in Michigan.
http://www.politicalbase.com/profile/Mark%20Nic…
She would not have won the delegate race either way.
================
Sil,
And in 2007 when she said they shouldn't count, was she lying or joking?