Lieberman Misleads on Obama's Record

Obama voted "to cut off funding for our American troops on the battlefield."
--Joe Lieberman on Tuesday, September 2nd, 2008 in St. Paul, Minn.
If Obama voted against funding the troops, so did Lieberman

Joe Lieberman, the independent senator from Connecticut, alleged in his speech at the Republican National Convention that Sen. Barack Obama had voted to cut off funding for men and women in uniform. Lieberman issued the attack almost as an aside as he praised Sen. John McCain's approach to the war in Iraq.
"When others were silent about the war in Iraq, John McCain had the guts and the judgment to sound the alarm about the mistakes we were making in Iraq," Lieberman said. "When others wanted to retreat in defeat from the field of battle, which would've been a disaster for the U.S.A. - when colleagues like Barack Obama were voting to cut off funding for our American troops on the battlefield - John McCain had the courage to stand against the tide of public opinion, advocate the surge, support the surge and because of that, today, America's troops are coming home - thousands of them - and they're coming home in honor!"
Republicans have made similar charges in the past, such as when McCain himself said on Aug. 11, 2008, that Obama "tried to prevent funding for the troops who carried out the surge."

We evaluated that claim here.
To support the charge, the McCain campaign has cited Obama's vote of May 24, 2007, against an appropriations bill that included funding for the military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan (and passed, 80-14).
So was that a vote "to cut off funding for our American troops on the battlefield"?
Not primarily.

Obama was fighting at the time for a requirement that President Bush begin to bring the troops home from Iraq. The bill in question did not include such a requirement, and that is why Obama voted against it. Obama said at the time that he wanted to fund the troops, he just didn't want to fund the particular military strategy that the bill would enable. "We must fund our troops," Obama said at the time. "But we owe them something more. We owe them a clear, prudent plan to relieve them of the burden of policing someone else's civil war."
Clearly Obama wanted to provide funding for the troops -- just not the president's military strategy.

If, by voting against funding for a strategy he opposed, Obama voted to "cut off funding for the troops," then so did almost every Republican in the Senate -- and Lieberman himself -- when they voted against a $124-billion appropriations bill on April 26, 2007, that would have funded operations in Iraq and Afghanistan but also required Bush to begin withdrawing troops from Iraq. (McCain missed the vote on that bill, which passed 51-46 and was subsequently vetoed by Bush.) In a very narrow sense, yes, those votes were against military funding -- a portion of which goes to equip and pay the troops. So there is a grain of truth to Lieberman's attack. But because it is so misleading -- treating a strategic disagreement as a stand against men and women in uniform -- we find it Barely True.

McCain’s September surprise?

It was “something close to magnificent.”
It was the “best speech by far of the convention,” one that built to a “throat-catching climax.”
It “brought the convention crowd to its feet.”

The gushing reviews could easily have been bestowed upon silver-tongued orators such as Ronald Reagan in 1976, Edward M. Kennedy in ’80, Mario Cuomo in ’84 or Barack Obama in ’04. But these are actually accounts of past convention speeches by a speaker more plodding than gifted: John McCain. When he takes the stage again Thursday to accept the Republican nomination, McCain will be resigned to a potentially unflattering contrast with his rival’s electric performance last week in Denver before 80,000 people. But the Arizona senator’s own track record of delivering boffo convention speeches suggests that nervous Republicans with painful memories of droning deliveries, squinty-eyed glances at teleprompters and hideous green backdrops may not need to be quite so jittery. For weeks, McCain aides have been furiously lowering expectations for his convention speech, painting a portrait of a charisma-averse candidate with all the sizzle of a small-town Rotarian. “McCain is not best on the physicality of speech-giving,” said longtime aide and principal wordsmith Mark Salter. “I’ve got a guy with, for better or for worse, two broken shoulders and a broken leg — he’s a little stiff, ya know,” he said of McCain’s Vietnam War injuries, punctuating his reminder with a wry chuckle.
A look at McCain’s convention history, however, suggests that such doleful expectation setting may be just that — and that his campaign isn’t quite as upset about being compared to Obama’s Invesco Field spectacular as you might think.
McCain’s unexpected choice of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin as his running mate has also brought a new energy to delegates gathered here, giving McCain a real opportunity to connect with the emotion and passion of the GOP base.
Through the years, McCain has embraced the varied styles of convention oratory, turning in performances that ranged in tone from attack dog to inspirational warrior-poet to defiant leader. In 1988, he gleefully joined the GOP chorus that was savaging Democratic nominee Michael Dukakis for being clueless when it came to national defense. Dukakis, McCain thundered, “seems to believe that the Trident is a chewing gum, that the B-1 is a vitamin pill and the Midgetman is anyone shorter than he is.”
The then-Massachusetts governor’s veto of a pledge of allegiance law was “outrageous,” McCain declared. But, in a speech that led him to be deemed one of the convention’s “winners” by the Associated Press, McCain also won a standing ovation in New Orleans by recounting his 5½ years as a prisoner of war in Vietnam.
Similarly, McCain’s 1996 convention speech nominating Bob Dole ultimately did more to boost McCain than to boost Dole. A moving tribute to the World War II veteran’s era of sacrifice delivered with only a few days’ notice, the speech connected the Vietnam generation to that of Dole’s generation with the symbolic reminder that the Kansas senator had worn McCain’s name on a POW bracelet while McCain was imprisoned in Hanoi.
And in 2004, McCain electrified the audience at New York’s Madison Square Garden by denouncing “disingenuous filmmaker” Michael Moore while the creator of “Fahrenheit 9/11” was, unbeknownst to McCain, sitting in the gallery in his role as a guest columnist for USA Today.
McCain’s rising crescendo of a close — “We’re Americans. We’ll never surrender. They will” — was so powerful that his campaign has made it a staple of its videos and ads this year.
This time, though, McCain’s speech must cross a much higher threshold. It’s his convention this time, so he’ll have to incorporate the best elements of his past performances, balancing inspiration, attacks and statesmanship. And his speech will also be judged against the dazzling star turn that Obama took in Denver last week. The Illinois senator self-consciously downplayed his usual rhetorical flourishes in a speech that was closer to a State of the Union address than a barnburner. McCain aides want to avoid the comparison in terms of style and pizazz. But they recognize that the two speeches will inevitably be matched against one another and are eager for the guts of McCain’s message — and his vision for governing — to be contrasted with Obama’s.
Both candidates, said Salter, who is tasked with crafting McCain’s speech, are making “the same central claim: We’re going to change Washington, do things differently and get to work on our country’s problems for a change.” “Whoever wins that argument ultimately probably wins this thing,” Salter contended in a recent interview in his tiny, no-frills office at the campaign’s Arlington, Va., headquarters.
Where the difference comes in — and what McCain is likely to at least hint at in his speech — is in the experience of saying vs. doing. “McCain has had a voluminous record of not just crossing the aisle … but [doing so] on big issues where your party leadership did not want you to or was not happy with your effort to do it,” Salter noted. “McCain has a very long record and the scars to prove it. Obama has nothing.” But what Obama does have are the sort of oratorical chops that could make even McCain’s best performance pale in comparison.
Asked how to compete with Obama on that score, Salter, happy to drop the bar, said with a sigh: “We don’t try.” “They’re two different guys,” he continued, mixing lowered expectations with a weary recognition of the Democrat’s skills. “Obama’s a studied and extremely talented orator. Everybody’s aware of that. … He’s blessed with a near-baritone voice, but his physicality, his movements — it’s very fluid.” But, he added with another laugh, “you might have noticed in our campaign, we are making the argument that that doesn’t qualify you for the presidency.” The goal, therefore, is to not overreach and wind up even more diminished. “I want McCain to be who McCain is.”
If it were the candidate’s choice, that may mean turning the moment into a New Hampshire town hall meeting on steroids, with McCain striding around the Xcel Energy Center stage with a wireless mic in his hand and nary a teleprompter in sight.
But Salter assured that McCain will read from a teleprompter. First, though, “he’ll practice dozens and dozens of times,” Salter said, recalling that before McCain gave his speech to the 2004 convention he practiced with the prompter 15 to 20 times. He likely won’t memorize the speech, but he will have it down to the point where the cadences come naturally. And his language will be plain, even spare, said Salter, who offered a few clues about the rhythm.
Reminded that McCain used a series of two- or three-word commands — “Stay strong. Do not yield. Do not flinch” — to deliver a powerful finish in his 2004 convention speech, Salter suggests such a refrain may be used again. “It’s not his style to do the couplets followed by applause,” he said. “The peroration has to be very simple and direct.”
Without prompting, Salter recalled another such punchy exhortation. In 1993, well before he entered the national spotlight, McCain was asked to give the commencement address at the Naval Academy. “It was a big honor for him,” Salter recalled. “His father had done it, and he really wanted it to be good.” At the end were the same short sentences — “I know you will” — designed to motivate the newly commissioned officers in the Navy and the Marines. “It was very effective for him,” Salter said.
As for the actual content, Salter would not reveal any details but hinted McCain could lay out his vision for how he could fix the broken political process. “You keep it simple: ‘This is what I want to do; this is what I think we need to do,’” he said. “Then you talk and get passionate about a lack of willingness in this town to take these things seriously. ‘Election after election, political class after political class, they all go to Washington, and the place never changes.’ It’s all about being reelected, or becoming a committee chairman, or whatever — and none of this [stuff] gets done.” Important issues aren’t being addressed by a rickety, Cold War-era government because of politically driven inertia, Salter said. “‘Here’s what I’m for; here’s why I’m for it; here’s what I think it will do,’” Salter suggested as a potential theme. “Now why can’t we do it? Because there is no commitment on either side to getting anything done except beating each other in the next election.”
While acknowledging that McCain must “convey statesmanship,” Salter made clear there will be room for highlighting differences. “You also want to convey and we always want to convey that [McCain’s] got life experiences, military experiences, political experiences that are vastly greater than Barack Obama’s and have prepared him to be president in challenging times.”
And, ultimately, the final pitch is not unlike the one Hillary Rodham Clinton offered during the Democratic primary: With McCain, you can have the appealing elements of Obama (change agent) but skip the more worrisome parts (inexperience). It’s the best of both worlds.
Or, as Salter put it: “If you’re a little concerned about the experience factor, here’s your guy — he’s been a changer all his time here.”

The Fishing Foul-up That Was No Felony

Besieged with questions about Sarah Palin's background, John McCain's campaign wants to make one thing emphatically clear: She's not a felon.

In 1993, Palin pleaded no contest to a charge of failing to register as a set gilnet permit holder. Such a license must be obtained in Alaska for commercial fishermen to use the underwater netting frequently designed to catch salmon.
At the time, Palin said she simply forgot to change the nature of her registration from a member of a fishing crew to an actual permit holder.
But the offense was inadvertently entered into an Alaskan district court as a felony.
The issue first arose in 2002 during Palin's gubernatorial race when some opponents seized on the charge. That year, Palin obtained an official letter from the Clerk of the court in Alaska's Third Judicial District.
"I am writing to advise you the data has been corrected in court records and on the state of Alaska's website to reflect your conviction as a violation," Cindy Roque wrote in a letter McCain's campaign shared with Politico.
According to court documents also shared, Palin, whose husband works seasonally as a commercial fisherman, was fined $1,000 and placed on probation for a year pending no further violations of fishing regulations.

The Palin Count Down

To show what a Republican is worth in current politics, it is a pleasure to take the measures of Sarah Palin, who is, according to Republican standards, the most qualified after McCain to be President of the United States of America.
Pointer presents a series of aspects, selected from the media, to see what and how long this image can endure, a count down. This dossier of articles is labeled The Palin COUNT DOWN and you can select the articles apart from the others by selecting that label.

Sarah Palin was named John McCain's vice presidential nominee just three days ago, yet it seems that weeks have passed in terms of the mountains of controversy it has stirred up. An overwhelming amount of negative publicity and sometimes shocking information has come out about her and her relatively short political career.
Choosing Palin has been called alternately a brilliant stroke that reinforces McCain's maverick image and a desperate, irresponsible "Hail Mary" pass in the face of an almost sure defeat in November. The fundamental question being raised: Why Palin? True, her personal narrative has lots of color: former fisherman, NRA hunter, mother of five, small-town mayor, short-term governor of a state with a small population, etc. But that does not qualify her to be a heartbeat away from the presidency.
Anathema to Moderates, Liberals and Progressives
George Lakoff, in an accompanying article, lists some of the issues swirling around Palin:
She is inexperienced, knowing little or nothing about foreign policy or national issues; she is really an anti-feminist, wanting the government to enter women's lives to block abortion, but not wanting the government to guarantee equal pay for equal work, or provide adequate child health coverage, or child care, or early childhood education; she shills for the oil and gas industry on drilling; she denies the scientific truths of global warming and evolution; she misuses her political authority; she opposes sex education and her daughter is pregnant; and, rather than being a maverick, she is on the whole a radical right-wing ideologue.
Part of the shock that many are grappling with: How could a 72-year-old man with bouts of cancer choose someone who appears to be completely unqualified to become president? Thus, McCain's age and health become central issues in the campaign, as does his judgment, although it may be tricky for Democrats to raise these issues without creating some backlash.
As Democratic strategist Paul Begala notes: "It is interesting that McCain passed over Tom Ridge, a decorated combat hero, a Cabinet secretary and the former two-term governor of the large, complex state of Pennsylvania; Mitt Romney, who ran a big state, Massachusetts, a big company, Bain Capital, and a big event, the Olympics; and Kay Bailey Hutchison, the Texas senator who is knowledgeable about the military, good on television and -- obviously -- a woman."
Not Good in the Polls
Republican pollster Frank Luntz, working with the AARP, did some focus groups of "undecided" voters and found some bad news for John McCain:
They don't like his choice of Sarah Palin for vice president. Only one person said Palin made him more likely to vote for McCain; about half the 25-member group raised their hands when asked if Palin made them less likely to vote for McCain. They had a negative impression of Palin by a 2-1 margin ... a fact that was reinforced when they were given hand-dials and asked to react to Palin's speech at her first appearance with McCain on Friday -- the dials remained totally neutral as Palin went through her heart-warming(?) biography, and only blipped upward when she said she opposed the Bridge to Nowhere -- which wasn't quite the truth, as we now know.
Then there was this, from a woman named Teresa, who went to the Democratic convention as a Hillary delegate and is leaning toward voting for McCain -- obviously the target audience for the Palin pick: "His age didn't really bother me until he picked Palin. What if he dies in office and leaves us with her as president? Also she leans toward the rigid right, and I always thought he was a moderate. ... You know, I change my mind almost every day, but right now I'm wondering where the John McCain I really liked in 2000 went. What happened to the moderate? This John McCain has the look of someone who is being manipulated -- probably by Karl Rove."
A commentator to the article appearing on the Time Magazine blog BlankSlate wrote:
Only someone in the throes of a serious mental condition could have make a pick this astonishing. This focus group confirms the Rasmussen Reports polling that, among undecided voters, the Palin pick makes 6 percent more likely to vote for McCain and 31 percent less likely to vote for McCain. About 59 percent of these undecided voters do not think Palin is qualified to be president. It is a stunt gone terribly amiss. And the hilarious thing is that the right wing really believes that this is going to turn everything around. Amazing, amazing, amazing.
Local Media Unhappy with Palin
Greg Mitchell, the editor of Editor & Publisher, checked out the Alaska newspapers to see how they felt about their governor. He found that they were nervous to say the least:
The pages and Web sites of the two leading papers up there have raised all sorts of issues surrounding Palin, from her ethics problems to general lack of readiness for this big step up. Right now the top story on the Anchorage Daily News Web site looks at new info in what it calls "troopergate" and opens: "Alaska's former commissioner of public safety says Gov. Sarah Palin, John McCain's pick to be vice president, personally talked to him on two occasions about a state trooper who was locked in a bitter custody battle with the governor's sister."
A reporter for the Anchorage Daily News, Gregg Erickson, even did an online chat with the Washington Post in which he revealed that Palin's approval rating in the state was not the much-touted 80 percent, but rather 65 percent and sinking -- and that among journalists who followed her, it might be in the "teens." He added: "I have a hard time seeing how her qualifications stack up against the duties and responsibilities of being president."
His paper found a number of leading Republican officeholders in the state who mocked Palin's qualifications. "She's not prepared to be governor. How can she be prepared to be vice president or president?" said Lyda Green, the president of the state senate, a Republican from Palin's hometown of Wasilla. "Look at what she's done to this state. What would she do to the nation?"
And from the editorial in the Anchorage Daily News: "It's stunning that someone with so little national and international experience might be heartbeat away from the presidency."
What's Next?
With the Republican National Convention delayed by Hurricane Gustav's arrival on U.S. shores, there must be lots of discussion and soul-searching going on in Republican circles as to how the Palin candidacy will hold up over the next two months. The biggest question perhaps is whether the McCain inner circle, perhaps in a major concession to the extreme right wing, which hasn't been friendly to McCain, has made a drastic error to woo its support. Or in fact, as some would suggest, McCain is crazy like a fox. Under that scenario, Palin will weather the initial avalanche of negative publicity that paints her far outside of the political mainstream, and she undermines many of McCain's efforts to appear to be the maverick moderate. Palin becomes a strong campaigner, and her extreme positions get lost in her efforts to support McCain.

The Worst Vice Presidential Nominee in US History

There was a TV ad for deodorant that said, "Never let them see you sweat." The John McCain campaign has just showed the world that it is drenched.
Selecting Sarah Palin as its choice for a vice presidential candidate is perhaps the worst such choice in American History. To be fair, maybe there are worse choices, but I don't know how bad William O. Butler was when he ran with Lewis Cass against Zachary Taylor.
But it's far worse than Dan Quayle, who was a sitting senator. Worse even than Geraldine Ferraro, who at least served in Congress for three-terms. And far worse than William Miller, a choice so obscure when selected by Barry Goldwater that he (honestly) later did an American Express commercial asking, "Do you know me?" And that ad was after the election. But even Miller had been a Congressman for 12 years. And been a prosecutor during the Nuremberg War trials against Nazis. Sarah Palin lists her credits as a hockey mom.
There was a point during the Republican primaries when I was trying to figure out who I hoped got the presidential nomination. Someone so weak he'd be easy for the Democrats to beat, or someone more challenging who at least wouldn't be a disaster for America. I decided on the latter, because America has to resolve its serious problems and can't afford risking some glitch where another George Bush got elected. And so I felt that John McCain, for all his weaknesses, was the lesser of all evils and was glad he got the nomination. Throw that out the window. McCain-Palin is an unthinkable disaster.
I completely understand the reasoning behind the decision for John McCain to select Sarah Palin. Absolutely. It's the thinking that settled on Sarah Palin that's missing.
No doubt John McCain will get some women to vote for him who wouldn't have otherwise, and even some independents. But he will also probably lose as many Republicans uncomfortable with a woman on the ticket - let alone a woman with so little experience as Sarah Palin. Not to mention that the choice will cause many undecided Democratic women to be aghast and push them back to following their Democratic beliefs. And further, it will lose all the independents who look at the GOP ticket and say "This is who I'm supposed to give my vote for the next four years to lead and protect America?" It may even appeal to right-wing evangelicals for her strong pro-life stance and get some to vote - but that position and others related to it are specifically what loses even more women voters. And men. Ultimately, the nomination will lose far, far more votes than it gains.

But this is not the reason the decision is so terrible.

It's always said that the most important decision a presidential candidate makes is their pick for vice president. It shows their thinking and judgment. John McCain, in his first decision, has just told the world that he believes Sarah Palin is the most qualified person to be a heartbeat from the presidency. Forgetting all the available men for a moment, if John McCain felt it critical to select a woman in an effort to somehow grab the Hillary Clinton supporters, look at his choice of women he had available:
• Christine Todd Whitman;
• Kay Bailey Hutchison;
• Elizabeth Dole;
• Susan Collins; even - for goodness sake –
• Condoleezza Rice or
• Carly Fiorina.
Each of these have marks against them, and perhaps some might not have wanted to run, but it's near-impossible to look at the list and suggest to the American public that Sarah Palin is the best choice of Republican women to be vice president. And again, this is ignoring the men he who could have been chosen.
It's not that Sarah Palin is inexperienced. It's that this is gross political misconduct.
Sarah Palin has been governor of Alaska for just a bit over 18 months. Alaska has a population of 683,000. (Though that doesn't include moose.) This would only make it the 17th most populous city in the United States. Just ahead of Fort Worth.
Before that, she was mayor of Wasilla, Alaska. Population 9,000. I know Republicans like to promote "small town values," but this is taking things to ridiculous extremes, don't you think? I'm from Glencoe, Illinois, population 8,762. It's so small it doesn't even have a mayor, it has an appointed village manager. I'm sure that Paul Harlow is doing wonderfully at his job in the village - but I don't expect that he sees himself as even wanting to be a heartbeat from the U.S. President in 18 months. You know what the top news story is on the Glencoe website? "Fire Hydrant Painting Underway." (To be fair, it's the #2 story. The top news is a clarification about displaying political signage.)
Do you know what the first two "powers and duties" are for the mayor of Wasilla, Alaska? Check their municipal code:
1. Preside at council meetings. The mayor may take part in the discussion of matters before the council, but may not vote, except that the mayor may vote in the case of a tie;
2. Act as ceremonial head of the city;
Swell.
If you live in small town America (and I mean really, really small), look around you and be honest - do you see your mayor (or village manager) as a heartbeat from the presidency in 18 months?
But that's not the reason either that the decision to make Sarah Palin the VP nominee is so terrible.
It's one thing to discuss how unqualified Sarah Palin is. That's a national matter and huge. But on a grassroots political level, her nomination takes away the Republicans' ONLY weapon in the campaign - calling Barack Obama inexperienced. They haven't even been trying to run on the issues, or on the eight-year record of George Bush, which John McCain has supported almost 95% of the time. They've only been running on the faux-issue of Barack Obama's experience of 14 years in federal and state government. Yes, Sarah Palin is merely running for VP, not president, but with a 72 year-old candidate with a history of serious medical issues like repeated cancer, this is who they're saying is able to step in as president in a heart-beat. She has so little experience that she makes Sen. Obama look like FDR, Winston Churchill and Julius Caesar combined. So, the Republicans pulled the rug out from under themselves. They have no issues. The economy? Housing? The national debt? Education? The Environment? Iraq? Afghanistan? Nothing. All they have is "Dear Democratic women: please pretend our VP candidate is Hillary Clinton. Just forget that she's pro-life. And against most things Democrats stand for."

But that's not the reason the decision is so terrible.

Because if the hope for John McCain is to get women to vote for him who otherwise supported Hillary Clinton – oh boy! – If anything could get Hillary Clinton campaigning in full force and fury...this is it. She likely would have campaigned hard, but it's in Hillary Clinton's best interest to be the leading voice for women, and the leading woman candidate for president in the future, so having another woman as the potential Vice President (and potential President) is a significant challenge to that. The Republicans just opened Pandora's Box and brought Hillary Clinton roaring to Barack Obama's side on the Democratic train. And Bill Clinton, too. The suggestion that an average nitwit like Sarah Palin could be something as a Republican Hillary Clinton is an insult of eternal proportions.

Yet even that's not the reason the decision is so terrible.

What this does in the most profound and grandiose way possible is give lie to John McCain's pompous posturing that he Always Puts America First. And that undercuts the most prominent campaign issue of his entire career, that everything he does is for reasons of honor. There is nothing honorable about making Sarah Palin your vice presidential nominee. Nothing. Unless you define honor as "blatantly pandering."

But that's not the reason either that this decision is so terrible.

But before we get to that, let's look at the actual announcement to make Gov. Sarah Palin (AK - pop. 683,000) the Republican nominee for president, and put the horrible decision in perspective.
First, John McCain stood at the podium, looking up-and-down reading his speech. It's impossible not to compare that to Barack Obama giving his majestic speech the night before that even conservative analysts were admiring in awe.
Second, the cameras were polite enough to avoid it, but there were empty seats in the gym. It's impossible not to compare that to a stadium of 75,000 people that Barack Obama spoke to the night before.
Third, when people around the nation were waiting to hear about Sarah Palin's qualifications and gravitas to be Vice President of the United States, the first five minutes of her speech were spent talking about her husband being a champion snowmobiler.
Fourth, when she finally got around to her qualifications, pretty much all we discovered was that she fought to cut property taxes. And then, she basically stopped there.
She did, however, mention becoming energy self-sufficient - by talking about how she supported drilling in Alaska!!! Perhaps to Republicans this is being an environmentalist, but to most of America, not so much. Then again, she's also against putting polar bears and white dolphins on the endangered species list (which the government did), so maybe her environmental qualifications are more lax than she thinks.
And then, finally, she spent the rest of her time praising John McCain. Fine, that's very supportive of her...except that the one question on everyone's mind was not -- "can you say John McCain is a swell guy and unveil us the secret that he was a POW", the question on everyone's mind was - "Who in God's name are you, and please tell us why you should be a heart-beat from the presidency?"
In the end, the only case she herself made for being on the ticket was praising Hillary Clinton! That's it, period. Now, it might be enough to attract some women -- but it doesn't make a case for the ticket. Why? Hint: some women did vote for Hillary Clinton solely because she was a woman. But most women voted for Hillary Clinton because she was a Democrat, as well as a woman, who stood for important Democratic values they seriously believed in. If Sarah Palin wants to praise Hillary Clinton, go for it. But at least understand what you're praising. Because it will likely come back and bite you.
It was a thin, nothing, empty speech. It was a speech to be Chair of the Public School’s Parents Committee. Compare that to the speech by Joe Biden when Barack Obama introduced him. Eloquent, soaring and explaining in blunt detail why John McCain should not be president. Joe Biden must have been watching Sarah Palin's speech, in order to take notes in preparation for his debate with her and thought, "This isn't fair."

And all that's not even the reason the decision is so terrible.

The reason is because the election is not about Sarah Palin. Or about Joe Biden. As much as TV analysts want to be excited by the balloons and hoopla, tomorrow the air will be let out, and there are still over two months to go for the campaign.
The campaign is about the direction of the American future and the world as seen by Barack Obama or as seen by John McCain.
Sarah Palin's nomination doesn't change that. In fact, it reinforces it. Nothing about putting Sarah Palin on the GOP ticket changes a word that Barack Obama said in his vibrant acceptance speech - about himself, about his issues, and about John McCain's repeatedly faulty judgment on the critical issues facing America.

What Sarah Palin's nomination does do is focus attention on John McCain's age.
Indeed, the nomination was made on his birthday, when he turned 72, the oldest man ever to run for president. As the crowd sang "Happy Birthday to You," you almost sensed that through John McCain's clenched smile, saying, "Thanks for reminding me," that what he was thinking underneath was "Please, oh, please, don't sing the 'How old are you now?' part."
And how good a message was it that he's saying he supposedly forgot it was his birthday?

Vice presidents are usually selected as people who are adept at blasting the other side's presidential candidate, because it's only the presidential candidate that matters. Joe Biden has already done that - twice - at length, spoken as someone who knows John McCain well and likes him. Sarah Palin had her first chance...and whiffed. Didn't even try. And it's hard to imagine what she has in her arsenal that will remotely allow her to do so in the future.
The election is about the presidential candidates. And the selection of Sarah Palin now allows Barack Obama to campaign untouched by the Republican ticket. John McCain's only other option is for himself to personally become negative for two months - which is disaster in presidential politics.

Now add on all the problems expressed above.
1. Sarah Palin's inexplicably laughable lack of substance, most-especially on the foreign policy stage.
2. Her taking away the one issue, experience, Republicans were even attempting.
3. Her pushing away voters who might otherwise be willing to vote for a senator with 26 years in the Senate.
4. Her bringing Hillary Clinton aggressively back into the campaign.
5. Her inability to offer anything to off-set Joe Biden.
6. Her standing as supposedly the most-qualified Republican woman as John McCain's first decision.
7. And, in the end, it all focuses back on Barack Obama, with his indictment of eight years of the Bush Administration and of John McCain's flawed judgment - and John McCain's defense of all that.
Republicans might be dancing earlier today, because there was a lot of fun music playing. But the music has stopped. The actual campaign has now started. For Republicans, it might have ended.

About Experience?

Yes, she's an experienced killer of bears to sit at home on the cadavers.
Wait, now, say the Republicans. You think that Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin lacks experience? You think that at 44, with less than two years running the nation's northernmost state, she doesn't have what it takes yet to be a heartbeat away from the presidency?

Pshaw.

What about the fact that she stood up to embattled Alaska Sen. Ted Stevens? What about her oversight of her state's National Guard contingent? Her experience as a mother? And, hey _ what about the fact that she runs a state that happens to be very close to Russia?

Each of these characteristics has been cited by a Republican since Friday as an ingredient in John McCain's conclusion that Palin is qualified to become vice president of the United States.

"She has experience not only in politics but in life," former Republican Sen. Fred Thompson of Tennessee said Sunday on CNN.

None of this suggests that Sarah Palin is not a skilled, competent, multitalented public servant. But it means that, in the face of fierce Democratic assertions that she is too green to be elevated to vice president, the GOP is looking for whatever it can to show that's not the case and to bolster her credentials, particularly in national security.

And in some cases, the responses from Republicans who showed up on the Sunday morning talk-show circuit to promote Palin's qualifications are unexpected, to say the least.
in some cases, the responses from Republicans who showed up on the Sunday morning talk-show circuit to promote Palin's qualifications are unexpected, to say the least.
Thompson: "She's a mother of five children. ... And she has more experience than Barack Obama."
But Alaska National Guard General: Palin Plays No Role In National Defense Activities Even When They Involve The Alaska National Guard
BUT... you bet he will be fired!

McCain Camp Didn't Search Palin's Hometown Paper Archives

Sam Stein, Huffington Post:
The McCain campaign has gone to great lengths to present the selection of Sarah Palin as one made after a careful, meticulous vetting process. But evidence continues to suggest that the Arizona Republican made his VP choice with surprising haste.
On Saturday, a Democrat tasked with opposition research contacted the Huffington Post with this piece of information: as of this weekend, the McCain campaign had not gone through old newspaper articles from the Valley Frontiersman, Palin's hometown newspaper.
How does he know? The paper's (massive) archives are not online. And when he went to research past content, he was told he was the first to inquire.
"No one else had requested access before," said the source. "It's unbelievable. We were the only people to do that, which means the McCain camp didn't."
The Frontiersman did not immediately confirm the revelation. And there is no indication from the Democratic source that anything nefarious or problematic will be found in the archives. But officials with the paper did not recall inquiries by the McCain campaign.
"I cannot confirm that information at this time," said publisher Kari Sleight. "I am not aware of the McCain campaign researching our archives, but archive requests do not usually go through me."

If true, the failure of the Arizona Republican to access the newspaper clippings becomes another in a growing list of revelations that calls into question just how and why he made his decision to choose Palin. A rudimentary clip search, such as this, is presidential politics 101 as campaigns not only look for the majority of background information on any high-level appointee, but also try to prepare themselves from future attacks.
It has been previously reported that the McCain campaign did not contact Public Safety Commissioner Walt Monegan, who Palin pushed to have fired after he refused to remove her sister's former husband from the state's police force. That controversy, an investigation of which will be made public in late October, could cause major headaches for Palin in the days leading up to the election.

In addition, the former Republican House Speaker of Alaska, Gail Phillips, admitted to reporters that she was shocked by McCain's choice of Palin, as "his advance team didn't come to Alaska to check her out."
Even McCain's own aides seemed unprepared by the choice. After Palin's name was announced, spokeswoman Nancy Pfotenhauer was asked about the governor's relationship with the Senator.
"You're running flat into the wall of my ignorance here," she said. "I truly have no indication whatsoever the extent of a relationship that exists with the Governor of Alaska."
In light of these reports, the McCain camp has sought to dispel the notion that Palin was un-vetted or chosen out of purely political motives. Even though the presumptive Republican nominee met his now-running mate only once before choosing her, aides have begun arguing, the two are "kindred spirits" and have shared ideological bearings. In a Washington Post piece Sunday, Rick Davis, McCain's campaign manager, said the Palin chose was not a last minute call. The process, he added, was rigorous and involved sifting through financial and other personal data, as well as an FBI background check.

"Nobody was vetted less or more than anyone in the final stages, and John had access to all that information and made the decision," Davis said. "It's really not much more complicated than that."