Before we make our point, here’s a bit from the New Republic:

At the end of 2005, a close friend called to say that he begun writing speeches and talking points for a certain gubernatorial candidate. “Remind me,” I asked. “Who is Sarah Palin?” I was dismayed at my friend’s choice of political entree. Why was he wasting his time on a relative nobody, trying to beat an incumbent governor (and former three term senator) in the Republican primary? It was utter folly. “Wait until the big money starts coming in for Murkowski,” I said. “Wait until the party machinery goes to work on Palin. They will eat her for lunch.”

Murkowski, for his part, expressed a similar view. “If I decide to,” he said, “I will run and I will win. It’s that simple.” The folly, of course, turned out to be my own (and Murkowski’s), as Palin slaughtered the incumbent in the primary–posting a 30 point margin of victory–and went on to win the general (over a former Democratic governor) without seeming to break a sweat. She then quickly fulfilled an implicit campaign promise by slapping down ExxonMobil, BP, and ConocoPhillips in negotiations over a proposed Alaska natural gas pipeline, even though they, too, by all accounts, were well prepared to dine on her tender little frame. Not bad for a lightweight.

Listening to the Democratic leadership respond to John McCain’s selection of Sarah Palin as his vice presidential running mate, one hears echoes of the Alaska Republican leadership from just a few years ago. Barack Obama’s spokesman, Bill Burton, put it this way: “Today, John McCain put the former mayor of a town of 9,000 with zero foreign policy experience a heartbeat away from the presidency.” Former mayor? If you’re going to skip over her job as governor and, before that, her job heading the commission that oversees production of the largest petroleum reserves in America, why not “former high school student”? Bah, what does it matter: She’s just a small town mayor, just a hockey mom, just a beauty pageant queen. Palin has never shunned these belittling monikers, in part, I imagine, because the camouflage has served her so well.

We don’t know the reality of the Palin situation, whether she will be an effective running mate for Senator McCain come election day. No one does. However, we observe that there are all sorts of intense emotions, pro and con, regarding Palin, from people who know almost nothing about her, and that’s just from the GOP. It is of course entirely legitimate and appropriate for commentators to offer instant analyses of McCain’s choice of Palin, but the passion of these views often seems strange — more like projection than analysis.

Clive Crook makes our point: it “comes down to how Palin fares in speeches and interviews from now on — and above all in the debate with Biden on October 2nd. If Biden makes her look a fool, McCain’s gamble will have failed, and I don’t see how he can recover. If she impresses, McCain will likely be in a much stronger position.” Why do so many commentators (enthusiastically, instantly) jump to a conclusion when there is so much evidence yet to be considered?

This entry was posted on Wednesday, September 3rd, 2008 at 1:13 am and is filed under Democrats, General, Republicans. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.