My First Anonymous Source, and more on Sarah Palin

My readership has skyrocketed over the past couple of weeks--probably thanks to the election--and I welcome all you new readers. This post promises to be one of the more riveting pieces of political discourse to ever appear on this blog, and here's why:

I'm growing up in the world of fake journalism. I now have anonymous sources! That's right, a source from within the Obama campaign contacted me in response to my posts about Sarah Palin and spoke to me on the record (or as on the record as non-journalists go) and on condition of anonymity. I've always wanted to use that phrase.

My source from within the Obama campaign doesn't think Ms. Palin was as good a pick as I do, and the drama that has unfolded since the announcements and my posts seem to be confirming that. But ignoring her daughter and the Republican Soap Opera currently playing itself out on Prime Time TV, this source's objections were to my analysis.

What follows is my response to the source, in blog form (I got permission to relay his comments and respond this way).

My source from within the Obama campaign, speaking on condition of anonymity, said that my analysis was, "if not wrong, incomplete." Specifically, he alleged that I equivocated levels of experience, and that serving a city of 7,000 isn't the same as all of Illinois. He also mentioned Palin's complete lack of federal-level experience (Governor vs. Senator). He went on to point out that governorships have varying degrees of executive power, none of which come close to the responsibilities of the Oval Office. Lastly, he brought up the difference in their abilities--forget experience. Obama's a very intelligent guy who "has gone to Harvard Law, and U Chicago [where he was] a constitutional scholar." Meanwhile Palin went to, and he quoted Wikipedia so I will as well: "Palin attended Hawaii Pacific College...for a semester...transferred in 1983 to Nroth Idaho Colloege...received a Bachelor of Science degree in communications-journalism from the University of Idaho...briefly worked in broadcasting as a sports reporter for local Anchorage television stations..."
I'd like to say that on these notes, as a voter myself, I mostly agree. But most of the electorate doesn't dig as deep as my well-informed anonymous source (and my argument was rooted in politics, not policy or leadership), so I think my analysis still holds. I will now defend it.

First, I think "state senator" still seems local and minor league in the eyes of many (and Palin was a "mayor" which sounds pretty good--we have seen a mayor go to Super Tuesday in the 2008 primary). And she doesn't have to be an exact match in terms of inexperience to draw a comparison. Biden and McCain are in the same league in terms of experience, and Obama is certainly closer to Palin's than either of the other Senators on the tickets.

Later he brought up that McCain loses the ability to bash Obama for lack of experience, given that he intends to put someone slightly LESS experienced within one heartbeat of the presidency. On this I also agree: he'll need to do some very impressive verbal gymnastics if confronted with such an argument directly. That said, I think his reply would go like this: (1) if McCain dies in office, it probably won't be until Palin has at least a little VP experience, which would put her ahead of Obama, and (2) if you don't think she's experienced enough, why put someone just--or almost--as inexperienced IN the Oval Office when you could choose to put sucha a person in the Vice Presidency with a much more seasoned hand at the helm? Simply put, McCain has already won the experience argument. Palin draws a nice contrast to those thinking about it, but anyone demanding experience in the White House's west wing is already voting for McCain.

Palin also has the up-and-coming Republican maverick/reformer streak that Obama embodies for the Democrats. This is a way for McCain to say "that's a good idea, I'll make my top lieutenant a young idealistic reformer who can't be told no and is not in any way a Washington insider...but why sacrifice experience in the White House situation room at 3AM when you can get both?" Basically, the west wing gets its young shooting star, but the guy with experience is the one responding to an emergency.

This brings us to the Governor vs. Senator argument. My source thinks Obama's federal-level experience gives him an edge, but I still disagree. Historically, Governors beat Senators almost every time in national campaigns. Furthermore, Obama is trying to be anti-Washington and anti-beltway insiders, playing to the theme of change and attracting voters dissatisfied with the way the federal government is currently run...meanwhile, the Republicans have the only person on the ticket who hasn't been working in Washington (and if you'll check her record, she never has). And finally on this point, even though Bush's approval ratings can typically span the high-20s to mid-30s, congressional approval ratings are even more abysmal (16 to 22 percent approval for the last 7 polls I found). And Obama is part of this congress, like it or not. So maybe someone with no federal experience is a good thing in this election.

Finally, the education argument. Obama has a good education, which he got the hard way, and was a respected professor and scholar at one of the top law schools in the country. Meanwhile, Sarah Palin went to schools in Hawaii and Idaho I had never heard of and got silly jobs talking about sports teams no one cares about or doing commercial fishing. As kind of a brainy guy myself, I vastly prefer Obama's resume, and think the president should be a smart guy. It's a really hard job, for crying out loud! The guy should be super smart. That said, look at the last two election. Politically speaking, I'd say Palin's got the advantage. Hawaii? America's heartland? SPORTS? All that compared to being an elitist liberal Ivy League egghead?

I think Obama and Biden are both MUCH more qualified, and have VASTLY greater abilities than their opponents. That said, I still think Sarah Palin was a great pick for McCain from a political perspective.

That mostly wraps up the debate portion of the post, but my anonymous source had more interesting things to say (I just don't happen to disagree with them, so the argument part stops here).

Apparently, and it has been leaked in more ways than one, McCain really wanted Joe Lieberman for his running mate. This would have raised a lot of issues, for example, "You couldn't find a single Republican as qualified to be your VP as a guy who would have been a Democrat right now had it not been for a primary challenge?" and "You have to be a member of the Republican party to be nominated at the RNC." Also, unless Lieberman exercised his amazing powers of flip-flopping (which every electorate, by the way, just adores in a candidate), the two men on the ticket would disagree about virtually everything outside of Iraq. They disagree on the environment, judicial appointments, energy policy, tax policy, almost everything about the entire economy, and even the role of the federal government itself. But still, according to my source who spoke on condition of anonymity, "McCain truly wanted Lieberman as his VP," and balked only because "it would be political suicide." I guess you have to admire a guy who would pick his buddy over someone he thought would do a good job running the country (though if McCain did think Joe would do a good job, then McCain would probably have to think that he himself would do a bad one...since they'd do almost everything exactly the opposite...either way it doesn't speak well for McCain's priorities or what he thinks it takes to run a country).

What's also interesting is that my source, speaking on condition of anonymity, said that Karl Rove and his gang were pushing hard for Mitt Romney, the former governor of that state I don't feel like misspelling right now (just kidding , it's Massachusetts, see why it's important to have Ivy Leaguers around?).

And a final interesting point made anonymously is one regarding former Hillary supporters in PA, on which my anonymous source can speak with some authority. My anonymous source doesn't think they'll be won over very easily (and suspects it's true of all former Hillary supporters, though perhaps not as much, especially with Biden on the ticket). Apparently many Hillary supporters are feeling "disgruntled and not sure if they want to vote at all." This would diminish my point about voters wanting to cast a vote for a woman (since presumably a lot of those were Hillary fans), but I think only slightly, because most of the ones I'd be referring to aren't that hardcore Democratic (if at all), and my anonymous source said the more disgruntled ones tended to be of the hardcore Democrat variety (though we are talking about Pennsylvania districts which elect blue dogs--or conservative Democrats who often vote with Republicans, especially on fiscal issues--to congress).

So, thank you to my anonymous source for providing very interesting food for thought, a good debate, and my very first chance to use the phrase "speaking on condition of anonymity." If anyone else out there is reading and would like to talk to the blogger, even on condition of anonymity, I always welcome intelligent discussion (even if you think I'm wrong, as this pleasant anonymous source did). This blogger's anonymity-preserving e-mail is in his profile.