My Take on Sarah Palin

My take on Sarah Palin? Saw it coming.

It's not often I get specific requests of blog topics, but apparently I'm developing some minuscule trace of political clout and have been asked to blog about John McCain's choice of Alaskan Governor Sarah Palin as a running mate for the 2008 presidential election.

The New York Times referred to Ms. Palin as a "surprise pick." The Washington Post called it a "stunning surprise." The Associated Press dubbed the choice a "stunning selection." Reuters ,"a surprise No. 2." The Wall Street Journal, a "surprise choice." Fox News a "surprise VP pick." One of my readers referred to the choice as "idiocy."

I'm thinking about going into politics, because I thought it was a toss-up between her and Mitt Romney (and once Biden was named, she jumped to my top prediction).

Here's why it wasn't idiocy, and why it wasn't surprising.

She's the only one of the 4 people now running with any executive branch experience (a governor with 3 senators--though granted McCain's other top prospects were also most governors). She brings cute little kids to the race to counter Michelle and her liberal spawn (joking). She's a former beauty queen, better looking and younger than Hillary; she's energetic and charismatic in a way old men (especially McCain) are not; and she's young enough to balance out the fact that when John McCain was a child, World War I was called "The Great War," Israel didn't exist, and scientists still hadn't figured out things like the polio vaccine or, you know, the wheel (also joking, but seriously, he's really old and a LOT more likely to be calling on the services of a VP). She's a rising star. And Sarah Palin is a Christian conservative, appealing to and energizing the base McCain was afraid would stay home on election day.

There are a million women in America, who were ready to vote for a woman this time around, and who will be thrilled that they now can. Some will be turned off by her conservatism (and views on abortion rights, or lack thereof), but she'll appeal widely to moderate women in central Pennsylvania, suburban Ohio, and all over Michigan, three crucial swing states.

Hillary opened the door, and McCain is inviting Sarah to walk through it. With this move, the McCain campaign (that must be fun to say out loud) has now positioned itself as the successor to Hillary Clinton's campaign. They're anti-Obama and they've got a woman. Sure, Hillary's a wannabe policy wonk (and an economic idiot...hey who does that remind you of?), but let's be honest, by the end of the primary she was running on a two-plank platform: (1) I'm not Obama, who's inexperienced and not ready, and (2) I'm a woman. Well, guess what, now the McCain/Palin ticket gets to pick up right where she left off. Conventional wisdom dictates (however wise or unwise) that the VP nominee's job is primarily "attack dog," and Hillary's already laid all the groundwork. Ms. Palin has McCain's experience on her ticket, so all she has to do to continue the game plan is to keep being a capable nice-looking woman who attacks Obama every chance she gets.

That's why I would have done EXACTLY what McCain did in this position, and why I would have easily placed a bet on her this morning, even if there were 2-1 odds against me (come to think of it, I really should have done it--I honestly had no idea that everyone thought she was such a long shot).

"But wait!" some of you may be thinking "that all makes sense, though some of it is a long shot, but what about all the reasons NOT to pick her? Or to pick someone else?" OK, let's examine.

Reason Uno: The Economy. McCain clearly could have picked a better person from an economic management standpoint. That said, McCain himself is still a complete idiot when it comes to the economy. Furthermore, the Republican Party as a whole is seen by the country as being economically incompetent these days. It's not a question he can win. Despite it being the most important issue to the public, he knows a Republican isn't going to win on the economy this time around. As long as his pick is at all competent, he's doing all he can (and she is).

Aaron Sorkin wrote in "The West Wing" that "People think campaigns are about two competing answers to the same question. They're not. They're a fight over the question itself." This is 100% true, and it's McCain's strategy. He can lose the most important issue by a little, but if he wins #2 through #5 he'll still win this election. And he's trying to make it about personalities, comfort in known quantities and strategies, Commander-in-Chiefitude, and experience.

Which bring us to the next fake-strike against Sarah Palin: experience. She hasn't even served a full term yet as Governor! Up until then, she was just in local politics! How can I be so stupid as to ignore that! It's a fair point, and implicit in the argument is the notion of a qualifying office (at least in the minds of the electorate). Senator and Governor are better than Mayor or State Legislator. Granted. But can we think of any other big name politician who has served only a single incomplete term in a qualifying office before trying to get elected to work in the White House? "Oh! Oh! It's Barac...HEY! I see where you're going with this." That's right. If you have a problem with her experience, you have a problem with Obama's. If you say "McCain's old, and she's not ready to be president" you then have to examine if Obama's ready to be president either. And even though McCain's old, wouldn't you say the odds of McCain dying in office are at least lower than the odds of Obama NOT dying in office? Because those are the two scenarios in which you get an "inexperienced" hand at the helm of the nation. And if that isn't a problem, then you've got an attractive young rising star on the other side of the aisle who may garner a bit of her own celebrity status.

McCain's pick, while surprising to many, was not to me. CNN commentator and former Clinton advisor Paul Begala said that the Republicans are running the right guy against the Democrats--that they nominated their strongest candidate for 2008. Well, now--in my opinion--he's running with the best running mate he could have picked. And any analyst, reporter or talking head who says differently is too deep in the weeds of the horse race to see the big picture. She's exactly whom I would have picked, and a VERY smart choice for John McCain.

I'd say "good luck," but this blogger, despite being a Republican, has already endorsed Barack Obama (and all of this said, Palin may have been a smarter choice politically, but Biden's a smarter choice to help run the country, and would be a better Vice President).

[Editor's Addendum: The above mention of a blog reader was in no way meant to smack anyone down or make anyone look silly. I was putting the reader in the same category as the Times, the Post, AP and Reuters, which I consider to be among the best in the business. I also think my blog readers are much smarter than average Americans (with vastly superior reasoning skills), and I mentioned the multiple reactions only to demonstrate that I think smart conventional wisdom got it wrong this time...also I'm sad that I didn't put money on it. This blog apologizes if anyone felt belittled.]

Brilliant.

So I saw an old rerun of Studio 60 (a show recommended to me by First Tiger--not bad, but no West Wing). Anyway, a pregnant character played by Amanda Peet placed a huge breakfast order, and I started developing a little celebrity crush. Then she said "and pancakes," and I swooned. Then her assistant came back ten seconds later with a bowl of some kind of cereal. The person she was eating with said "he got your order wrong" to which she replied "No, this is what I eat while I'm waiting for the food."

At this point I both fell in love and decided I should probably take one of those home pregnancy tests...

I just got back from the Eagles game. Preseason makes me hungry.

Sometimes, I also feel this way. Courtesy of Lilly.

My Perceived Narrative Fallacy

John McCain flew fighter planes, was the son of an Admiral, and stayed tough through five years in a POW camp. Barack Obama never served a day in uniform, sitting in an Ivory Tower and criticizing from afar before only VERY recently becoming involved in foreign policy of any kind. These narratives fit in with the overarching teleology outlined by a mass media driven by simple stories. It's the Democrats' "mommy problem." When you want taking care of in the form of social programs, you get a Democrat, but when security's at stake, you want a Republican. Our current candidates reinforce every engrained subtext of the modern American political soap opera painted so vividly by more or less 5 companies and all the media outlets they own.

But it's wrong. The world is flat, said Thomas Friedman on the cover of his latest book. It's a small world after all, sang some animatronic Disney World characters. Globalization, said every news outlet while it was the economic buzzword of the year. These are catch phrases whose depth of truth we may never know, but in them lies a kernel of wisdom. We live in an increasingly interconnected world, and one in which a simpler, older world view is disastrous.

McCain probably couldn't define "macroeconomic ramifications" even if you let him use the internet (as learning to "do a Google" is still on his to-do list for 2008). He doesn't realize what kinds of consequences policies have, and it is becoming increasingly obvious how little he knows about a global economy that connects everything we do.

John McCain is extaordinarily weak on national security. You can see his weakness in his energy policy: the more we turn to oil, the more we indirectly finance terrorist organizations who seek to undermine us. Dictatorships are emboldened by deep pockets created by high oil prices, and the US loses power (as well as stock market and dollar value) every time the price of a barrel sweet light crude ticks up another notch.

McCain is weak on national security in his healthcare policy, which would create an unraveling effect in the insurance market to the point where Americans would be comparatively disincentivized from taking the kinds of economic risks that lead to innovation. That would threaten our place as a world leader, a position we used to occupy alone but no longer do.

McCain is weak on national security in his technology policy, which is more or less non-existant. While Senator Obama wishes the president to have a technology advisor and to incorporate awareness of always-advancing human capabilities into the decision making process, McCain can't use a computer. How is he expected to make decisions about our economy, about our military, about our future, when he can't understand the electronics on which our whole world now runs? We have robots helping soldiers, computers helping spies, and a presidential candidate who can't "do a Google" or recognize that knowing nothing about economics or technology is something the leader of the most powerful national on Earth should try to rectify.

So the next time you see a narrative drawn depicting Obama as having the edge on domestic policy while McCain is a more trusted, steady and experienced hand who's strong on national security and a war hero, think about how much of that is just a story. Think about what kind of mind you want in the oval office, confronting a complicated world on your behalf. Think past the 10 word answers, the 15 second sound bites and the 30 second TV ads. Or perhaps, just think.

Courtesy of Lord Henry, the best job posting ever. Get your resume updated:

http://www.craigslist.org/about/best/ldn/783766933.html

10 Foods Only America Could Have Invented.

Stay tuned for news regarding Chuck's and my upcoming food blog.

My Path Not Taken

It's amazing how much stuff goes on in the world of which we're completely unaware. Apparently I completely missed Miss Teen USA, several fashion shows, and Hempfest 2008 (all in the past week or so). Don't know how that last one slipped by my radar.

I feel like there's enough stuff out there for several completely separate planets full of people, and if you divided it up just right, not many people would miss any of the stuff on any of the other planets. Globalization may work economically, and I may put Hempfest 2009 on my Google Calendar, but at a certain level we're all very local, self-isolating creatures who can't handle a world that's too big.

This is all my way of wondering how people can live within 5 minutes (walking) from 100 restaurants, only try 25 of them, and then return to the 10 they like. In my mind, if I did that, it means there's 30 more restaurants out there I'd like and I need to go find them. But I realize I have the same human tendency, it just manifests itself in different ways. I think we've all got it somehow.

Some of us do it with academic/intellectual pursuits. Some of us settle in our jobs. Some of us (like me) don't feel the need to live in 10 different cities and countries before they know where they like being. We don't have unlimited resources, so it makes sense we settle on the things that aren't as important (for example, I don't have time to figure out how to optimize a credit card reward system--I know I can do better, but I don't care). But how restrictive is too restrictive? How can we tell when we're making a good choice, so we can focus on important things? How can we tell when we're living life sub-optimally? And is it worth the time it would take to become better at telling the difference?

Some sad commentary on my life (courtesy of Lucy).

Continuing my chain of quasi-humorous links, signs you're getting old! A scary number of these apply to me. I'm especially depressed about the chicken wings one...it hasn't happened yet, but I can tell I'm getting close:

http://www.avolites.org.uk/jokes/grownup.htm

This one goes out especially to Super King and Captain Charisma:

http://www.xkcd.com/462/

Can someone tell me if this is funny or not?

http://www.robandelliot.cycomics.com/archive.php?id=234

I just got an e-mail from the Obama campaign with the subject line "2 million people like you." I realize now that it was referring to a large number of people who share at least one characteristic with me and are similar in some ways to me...but it was a nice ego boost until I figured that out.

My Last 4 States

The following states have not visited my blog according to my records:

Louisiana, Iowa, North Dakota, and Wyoming (though I'm pretty sure I just forgot to write down Louisiana). I'm hoping by mentioning these states, an egomaniac from each one will visit my blog in hopes I'm complimenting their home. That way I can complete my scrapbook. Here goes:

Louisiana has good food I hear.

Iowa helps decide the next president, so good for you I suppose. (Though jebus, ethanol? Come on, give it up, you guys ensure that we're always going to get presidents who lie to us if you'll never vote for someone who doesn't propose huge subsidies for biofuels that take over 80% of a gallon of oil to make a gallon of new-fuel.)

An individual vote in Wyoming counts for more than anywhere else (in terms of number of votes cast per electoral vote granted).

North Dakota...I'm sorry, I can't do it. North Dakota is boring. There's an international peace garden that crosses the Canadian border; Lewis and Clark met Sacajawea there; fewer Dilbert books are sold there than in any other state, and Fargo was an interesting movie. But it's boring. One of the three LEAST interesting states in the union (up there with Oklahoma and West Virginia). North Dakota is North Dakota, and I'm sorry you guys don't have Mount Rushmore, but the sooner you get used to it, the sooner you can do something actually interesting.

I'm back from Rochester, and I've got some stories to tell. I won't do it now, but in a later post I'll flag for having content that young children and anyone with sanity will want to skip. The story basically comes out of a threat to DeluxX in the vein of "If you don't stop, I'm blogging this." And, to keep my credibility, I'm going to have a disturbingly true story about sharing a hotel room with one's brothers (specifically, mine).

As an aside, I really miss you-know-who. I have a really funny idea that either (a) I should be talked out of or (b) would be fun to dive into for a little while. Either way, she'd be the one to do it. And that's how it hit me. As Hank Scorpio said, "You can't argue with the little things; it's the little things that make up life." In retrospect, that would have been a great short joke, but it's not what I mean. All right, this is turning into the blogging equivalent of a drunk-dial.

My Visit to Rochester

So I'm in Rochester, NY for my grandmother's 80th birthday. I've got a few minutes, so I figured I'd blog some observations.

The weather here is much nicer in the summer. Right now it's 75 degrees and not very humid at all. It's been bouncing between the high 60s and low 80s. Fantastic. Of course, there's 9 months of winter when it's not summer, but I could see following in the footsteps of the Canadian Goose and spending summers in a more user-friendly climate such as this.

Also, I saw a Quizno's today in its own building. I'd never seen a stand-alone Quizno's before. This may sound weird, but it's true. They've always been attached to something, in a strip mall or shopping center, or at the base of a large building in Philadelphia. And while I'll admit I'm unobservant, I'm usually VERY aware of the Quizno's locations in my immediate vicinity (and if I'm passing one, it usually merits at least a wistful glance and acknowledgment of its presence).

Fine dining is hard to find in Rochester, NY. Though there's one of every chain restaurant ever (slight exaggeration, but not by too much given the Rochester's demographics nearly perfectly represent America's, making it a major test market), the only thing worth writing home about when it comes to fine dining is the complete absence of restaurants worth writing home about. I may include more details in the new blog Chuck and I are starting, which will be specifically about food.

The people here are nice. I always feel like I should be mildly embarrassed while around Rochesterians, who have managed to construct a working city without acting like, well, like people who live in cities. That said, it is a fairly small city with no subway system, but still. I wonder: why are some areas nicer than others? What makes a city populace nicer than another city's populace? It can't be random chance, otherwise most cities would be very close to an average (maybe they are and some people are just good at detecting differences?). I know what can make a place mean, but what can make a place extra nice?

Meanwhile, back on the political front, recent statements from Mr. McCain lead me to ask my readers this: do any of you think he'd be remotely good at handling anything even tangentially related to economics or the American economy? If so, let me know; I've got some posting to do.

This shocking list of facts about how our votes are counted should be enough to make any real American of any party pause for at least a moment. Any idea how true it is? Any idea how much this is affecting election outcomes? And idea how much this CAN effect election outcomes? I'm very inexpert when it comes to this sort of thing; reader comments and discussion would be appreciated.