Another Huge Reason John McCain Is Not Qualified to Be President

Joe Klein:

Gunslinger - Swampland - TIME: I woke up this morning and realized that the most significant aspect of the Palin pick is... the process by which she was selected. McCain really doesn't know that much about Palin, either. He met her once in February. He interviewed her as part of the vetting process... and that's it. He never worked with her.... All this raises again--yet again--the question of whether McCain is temperamentally suited for the presidency.... [T]he Palin pick reflects the most dangerous tendencies in McCain's foriegn policy--the tendency to react, to overreact, to crises, without thinking it through. It also reflects a defiant, adolescent "screw you" attitude toward governance....

[T]his is not to disparage Palin. Her views seem very extreme to me.... [But t]he problem is there is absolutely no way on earth that John McCain can know what sort of person she really is, which is why this choice--his first major presidential decision--should be a matter of real concern for all Americans. He has proven himself, yet again, ready on day one--to shoot from the hip.

Comments

[Lee A. Arnold]

Curiously some first responses, from the big national Republican politicians, are claims to know nothing about her.

This, of a Republican who's been sitting in a statehouse for 2 years, and 123 years after the telephone was invented.

Of course, an alternate reading of their comments might be, "oops-a-daisy!"

[anne]

"[T]he Palin pick reflects the most dangerous tendencies in McCain's foriegn policy--the tendency to react, to overreact, to crises, without thinking it through. It also reflects a defiant, adolescent 'screw you' attitude toward governance...."

An astounding comment, that shows me an astounding disdain for women, but that's just me. The disdain for women being shown by the comments on Sarah Palin are beyond all understanding even after Hillary Clinton was so treated. I suppose I am terminally naive, but I will not forget or forgive.

[anne]

A Presidential candidate has continually gone about talking up war in Afghanistan and Pakistan whenever suitable, also the candidate has needlessly but repeatedly condemned Russia as an "aggressor" when Russia only responded to a terrible attack by Georgia on Russian civilians and soldiers in Ossetia along her very border.

Governor Sarah Palin is, however, attacked in the harshest manner on foreign policy grounds for no possible reason merely having been chosen to run for Vice President.

[Andrew]

Jakup, really? Here's a start: How Obama and Biden forged a friendship in the Senate

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-senate27-2008aug27,0,2942256.story

[Delicious Pundit]

I find Anne's comment to be a misreading, or perhaps a misprision as they say in literary theory: I read Joe Klein's attacks as condeming McCain, not Palin.

But, even so, shouldn't Palin be eligible to be attacked in the harshest manner on foreign policy grounds, precisely *because* she has been chosen to be Vice President? Haven't we just tried peopling the executive branch with governors who have no prior interest in foreign policy? That argument's off the table now? I don't get it.

[bigTom]

If I interpreted it properly, the criticism, was not about the sex of the nominee -or even about the choice made, but rather the appearance that the decision was quickly made, without properly vetting the candidate ahead of time. About the VP nominee herself. It seems to me, that she was selected because she has both a pretty face, and a worldview that pleases the religious right. Selection based upon the second characteristic without concern for experience or demonstrated competence has become the pattern of the current administration.

[nick]

anne is a perfectly good reader, folks, and knows these things: she has decided that all criticism of the Palin candidacy is fundamentally misogynist, and has resisted reasonable and unreasonable responses to her position alike....it is as if she thinks even those who go out of their way to criticize McCain's choice, rather than Palin herself, are thereby merely attempting to respectably clothe their misogyny....her position is ultimately psychoanalytic, in a sense: she knows what the critics of McCain's decision "really" feel about women; and any attempts to articulate non-misogynist arguments against McCain's decision (inexperience, etc.) can always be understood as merely cynical efforts to conceal the "true" motivation informing such critics (wait for it): misogyny.

anne: you are anything but naive. you are disingenuous. I don't expect you to answer, but I will ask one more time. can you name a political pick that stinks more of tokenism than this pick? if you refuse to answer, you have my (reluctant) admiration, though I disagree profoundly with your position....

[bks]

I guess *The Global War On Terror* is over. Who won?
I'm thinking Iran and Russia, but I await the decision
of the judges.

--bks

[howard]

i'm sorry to see anne misread (or whatever else) in this way.

it doesn't matter if palin is a man or a woman; she has been plucked up and placed on the national stage before she's ready. she doesn't have the issues background or the staff, and this would be true were she the precise same politician but a male.

i can see why she would have made a potential keynoter or important speaker for the gop, but the two best politicians of the last 40 years - ronald reagan and bill clinton - couldn't possibly be ready for prime time under these circumstances.

the point is, it is the height of irresponsibility for mccain to make a choice so cavalierly; i'm glad that joe klein caught up today with my instant thought yesterday morning. better late....

[dc]

To choose a mother who gave birth 5 months ago to a baby child, has four
other children to care for (considering parenting normally extends through college) and put her in a position she essentially should relinquish parenting to be responsibly up-to-date for such duties is a hypocritical stance from a party of so-called family values...

[Lewis Carroll]

From someone who I'm confident would not attack Palin because she's a woman:

http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2008/08/reckless.html

[john]

OTOH, perhaps Anne believes that any woman who has any middle-level managerial experience, no matter how short, and no matter how little evaluated, is at least reasonably qualified to be President; therefore, any criticism of this particular candidate must be misogynist. Says something about her view of either women or the job of President, I'm not sure which. But still, wouldn't she have preferred someone still more qualified, like Elizabeth Dole, Kay Bailey Hutchinson, Meg Whitman, Carly Fiorina, ...

[RKimble]

if we give McCain/Palin a 45 % chance of winning, and if the probability of McCain dying from natural causes is 9% in his first term (http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr54/nvsr54_14.pdf), then Palin has about a 4% percent chance of becoming President by 1/20/13.

This is what John McCain and Karl Rove are asking us to bet on.

[Al Brown]

This choice shows serious disregard for the responsibilities that could be thrust on this inexperienced person if McCain is unable to serve.

And it ain't a woman thing. Regardless of what you think of Hillary Clinton and politics, I don't think anyone questions her ability to use power to defend this country's interests or to run an organization.

[Barkley Rosser]

anne,

There was certainly some misogynistic criticism of Hillary and remarks made, although few would really say that she was not qualified to be president when pushed on it. Arguably people going on about all the kids that Palin has are being misogynistic, and I would say that matter is irrelevant. But there are plenty of reasons to view Palin as very unqualified. She is not a Hillary, or a Liddy Dole, or a Kay Bailey Hutchinson, etc. Not even close.

[raft]

i'd give McCain a +30% chance of dying within four years. The stresses of the Presidency are enormous and he's not really in good health. Which makes the Palin pick all the more frightening.

[JP]

Haven't many of Bush's biggest failures been related to his tendency to pick people he knows well and has worked closely with?