If Joe Biden were McCain's VP choice, the election would be over

In favor of Obama.

That's the (I think correct) summation of Victor Davis Hanson regarding gaffe-a-minute Joe Biden, whose ridiculous comments receive a yawn and a pass from the media:

I think in the space of about the last 24 hours, Joe Biden claimed that the AIG bailout was bad, but then said it wasn't bad;

that we did not need to burn coal;

that his apology about the dirty McCain ad was, as they say, inoperative;

that FDR once went on television to address the nation after the stock market crash of '29 (that's a twofer that trumps Obama's Americans liberating Auschwitz);

and all but said that McCain took a $50,000 bribe.

Not a bad day's work — encompassing terrible energy policy, flip-flopping, historical ignorance, and slander. And this comes on top of Palin the "good looking" "Lt. Governor" of Alaska, Hillary as the better VP pick than himself, the patriotism of paying higher taxes, and so on.

And those in turn come on top of the primary remarks about Indians in donut shops, and "bright and clean" blacks. And those in turn come on top of . . . (Well, go back to the pilfered speeches and made-up bios.)

Something is very wrong here. While most forgive the silly slip like "Barack America" or asking the wheel-chair bound to stand up, I think the Obama staff must have gone from amusement to embarrassment and now to serious concern whether Biden is up to the job.

Had this been Palin, the election would now be over.

Or, as Jonah Goldberg said a couple of weeks ago:

Biden could shout on Meet the Press, “Get these squirrels off of me!” and the collective response would be, “There goes Joe again.” But if Palin flubs the name of the deputy agriculture minister of Kyrgyzstan, the media will blow their whistles saying she’s unprepared for the job.

In other words: if Joe Biden were a conservative Republican and McCain's No. 2 pick and he made these same gaffes, the press would be trumpeting them from the rooftops.

The media said it, so it must be true

From a story on the ABC News website today, entitled First Palin Interviews Get Mixed Reaction:

So, how did she do?

Appearing extremely rehearsed and slightly nervous, Gov. Sarah Palin sat down with ABC's Charles Gibson for interviews that aired Thursday on "World News" and "Nightline."

Just what does "extremely rehearsed" look like? And how does such an interpretation by the reporter belong in the lede of a news story? (Hint: it doesn't, unless you have an agenda.)

Immediate takes on the Palin-Gibson interview

Charlie Gibson seemed annoyed to have to participate, like it was below his pay grade. He kept plowing through his questions, not interested in much follow-up and not interested in having a conversation. It seemed apparent to me that his questions -- while mostly fair -- were designed to elicit gotcha moments.

Sarah Palin seemed nervous and a little defensive, as if she was expecting more of the same treatment from the press that she's already received. I don't think she hurt herself terribly, nor did she help herself much.

The interview was so tightly (and badly) edited that I think we missed a lot of context. I hope ABC will make the entire interview available.

Palin's worst answer was in the context of national security experience: to paraphrase, I have experience with Russia because on a clear day we can see Russia from Alaska.

Her best answer was about her son's departure for Iraq. That's when she could shine as a human being and a mom, not just a vice president.

Palin handled his questions about her religious statements, but I think Gibson's decision to ask them will backfire on the left, as they discover that those statements resonate with the heartland of America.

She seemed knowledgeable about the Russia-Georgia conflict. I agreed with her take on a potential Israel-Iran showdown, though I wished she would have indicated that our relationship with Israel is such that we would be talking about potential military options before they were implemented.

There seems to be some concern about her answer about the "Bush Doctrine," but I had the same reaction she did: which part, Charlie? If you ask a hundred people (normal people, not hyperactive partisans) about the definition of the "Bush Doctrine," I'll bet you get a hundred different answers.

Balancing demands

The McCain campaign faces a difficult choice.

Do they continue to keep Sarah Palin in a cocoon, refusing to allow reporters to ask any questions of her and, in the process, feeding the perception that she's not ready for prime time?

Or do they allow her to take press questions with the knowledge that the press will treat her at least as contemptibly (if not more so) as they have for the first week of her national political career?

If she's as sharp as I think she is, I vote for No. 2. The first option will be fine for the "base," but will do nothing for the rest of undecided America. The second option will continue to expose the press for the left-wing hacks they are, while revealing more about the character and skills of the vice presidential nominee.

And if those skills are not as high as I think? Well, then bad on John McCain.

Thoughts from the Palin speech

Sarah Palin made effective use of her small-town roots to make a direct appeal to small-town people across the United States. She has to know that the big-town liberals were never going to vote for her ticket to begin with, but there are plenty of small-town folks (and big-town folks with small-town values) who liked what they heard.

She has a mischievous smirk that crosses her face when she's getting ready to deliver a zinger, which made it all that much more fun to watch the speech, rather than just reading it or even hearing it.

Unlike the folks at Blue Oregon, I didn't think it was too sarcastic -- I loved the lines. But then, that's my type of humor, so I'm probably not the right person to ask. I do think the question of whether she connected with independents is a legitimate and important one, but I'm more inclined to think she did because of my first point above.

Years from now, we're still going to be seeing video of little Piper Palin grooming her little brother while sitting in the stands.

Lots of people are praising Rudy Guiliani, but I'm not one of them. He had some good lines, but he went too long and seemed to be making up lines as he went along.

Michael Steele was very good. Mitt Romney made me glad he's not the VP candidate.

If a Republican questioned whether Hilary Clinton could be the president and still be a successful mother and wife, that Republican would be fired, dropped from the ticket, or would announce that he was stepping away to "spend more time with my family" in a heartbeat. And the press would still continue to trumpet that comment weeks or even months after the fact, as some supposed evidence of GOP bias against women. But somehow, the Democrats can make this suggestion about Palin and no one in the media even raises an eyebrow.

Cindy McCain is a stunning 54-year-old woman. There's a reason that one of the more popular Google searches has been "How old is Cindy McCain?"

I'm amazed at the number of times I see people change the subject rather than deal with the question at hand. Example: Bringing the Palin family on the stage is interpreted (by a bojack.org commenter) as "Teenage parents as American heroes. How cute." Even though anyone with half a brain knows there's never been a suggestion that this is intended to glamorize teen pregnancy, and that it's simply a family moment. Simple. Uncomplicated. Not sinister. Not hypocritical. But let's slam the 17-year-old kid who's been dragged through the mud for the last week, instead of dealing with a genuine issue.

And that doesn't even touch the issue that they're comparing Sarah Palin's experience -- which, like it or not, does have several categories that are foreign to Barack Obama -- with that of Mr. Obama, even though Obama is running for president against John McCain, not against Sarah Palin. Is it fair game to examine Palin's resume? Unquestionably. But let's remember who is running against whom, and compare oranges to oranges.

Overall, a very good night.

Breaking news from the O

McCain hugs Palin upon his arrival in Twin Cities

With the way the media has covered Sarah Palin, I half-expected that headline to be followed by some sexual harassment allegation.

How will the media portray Sarah Palin?

For the answer, just take a look at the front page of today's Oregonian (at left) -- specifically, the caption under her photo. Not corruption reformer Sarah Palin. Not mother of five Sarah Palin. Not former small-city politician Sarah Palin. Not even one-term Alaska governor Sarah Palin. But socially conservative Alaska governor Sarah Palin.

Because, you know, it's all about abortion.

Didja hear she not only wants to force rape victims to carry their babies to term, but she also thinks the women deserved to be raped and shouldn't have dressed so provocatively? (Disclaimer: No, she never said anything of the kind, but I'm certain that someone in the left-wing fever swamp has already leveled this charge at her.)

And, by the looks of things in the online world, they plan to make issue of her experience. While her experience is a bit thin, I think it's too early to make the call on that (not that the Obama campaign will wait for more clarification), and that Jonah Goldberg hit it on the head:

If she does a good job at the convention and survives about three weeks of serious media scrutiny — no horrible gaffes, no unforgivable I-don't-knows to gotchya questions (fair and unfair), no botched hostile interviews — she will emerge as the single most inspired VP pick in modern memory and she will give the Democrats migraines for a long time to come, assuming there are no terrible skeletons we don't know about. But, if she screws up in the next three weeks, gives the press and the late night comedians sufficient fodder to Quayelize her, she'll be seen as anything from a liability to an outright horrible pick. That's it.

And along those lines, they're constantly harping on the "no foreign policy experience" theme. I think (or at least, I hope) that over the next few weeks, we'll learn that this woman has given foreign policy a fair amount of thoughtful examination. And that should put her in the same league with Barack Obama's foreign policy experience.

One final thought: the venom coming from liberals over this pick tells me they're scared. In Sarah Palin, they see a strong woman who is likeable and comes across as appealing to voters. This combines one of the best qualities of Hilary Clinton (strength) with one of the best qualities of Barack Obama (likability). They're praying that Palin has some serious skeleton in her closet or that she makes some horrible gaffe, because otherwise their messiah may be un-deified.

It's Palin

Here's the official McCain press release.

Palin or Pawlenty

I agree with this reasoning from Lisa Schiffren on National Review today, particularly her thoughts on Mitt Romney:

Pundits are making the wrong call when they look for the GOP vice-presidential candidate who will be best in policy in debates with Biden, or who will be a more useful attack dog. To be sure, those are important tasks. And it is true that Mitt Romney could do them very well — and that he spots Biden a bunch of I.Q. points, an education and a record of accomplishment. But can Mitt successfully empathize with the middle class for the duration of this campaign and after? He couldn't do it in the primaries. It isn't who he is.

Because Biden is essentially a mediocrity, McCain has more leeway than expected to choose someone who is not entirely prime-time ready. We are back to the two governors who are young, totally real, quintessentially middle class family guys, and, like Joe Biden, up from working class backgrounds: Sarah Palin of Alaska and Tim Pawlenty of Minnesota. She is less sophisticated, but is a walking testament to American middle class pluck and achievement. And she will pull some female Democrat voters in. He is smart, good on policy, and has an excellent, first-generation-to-college, up by the bootstraps story. Because they really are middle-class Americans, middle-class American voters are far more likely to believe it when either of them express empathy and a desire to tackle the nation's economic anxieties. That will be the campaign's central issue, and there is no faking it.

Romney's money and his sometimes-robotic persona are likely to be a stumbling block in this regard and, in my opinion, his economic credentials are not sufficient to overcome those issues.

The only hesitation I would have in Schiffren's opinion about potential VP selections is regarding Pawlenty. The times I have heard him speak, my thoughts have been: solid on policy, and a great antidote to insomnia. The man is a bore, and like it or not, John McCain has to think about personality as much as he does about policy.

Why? Because Lisa Schiffren is right: one (perhaps the) central issue of the campaign will be the economy. McCain has already demonstrated with his how-many-houses-do-I-have gaffe that he's vulnerable, and he needs a likable and genuine person in the No. 2 slot to help him reach the middle class that the Democrats so want to persuade.