Palin

I really need to be better at responding to your comments, because I truly enjoy reading them and finding out what you think. So thank you for commenting, and I'm just going to respond in this new post in case some of you don't go back and check old posts for responses.

I too feel warmer toward Palin after having a teeny bit of exposure to her. I loved her convention speech. I walked away from that really liking her (emotionally) a lot. Sure she has a great speechwriter, but so do all the rest of them. And even with a great script, you need some skill for delivery. For example, her comedic timing for the "lipstick" joke was perfect. The way she paused for a second, pointed to her lips, and said the word quickly and with hard emphasis on the "K," all done with a serious expression on her face. That takes talent, and that's just one trivial example.

That said, here are my concerns:

I don't want to prematurely throw my full support behind a person because they give a good speech. Every politician at that level gives a good speech. Guiliani gave one of funniest, most forceful political speeches I've heard, but that doesn't necessarily make him the best presidential candidate. Don't forget, all you Obama haters, the primary thing that people love about Obama.

Also, I am a big fan of her ideology. But she has very minimal big-league experience (isn't that our problem with Obama?) and could very easily end up in the big chair before the next 4 years are over. And I think a bit too much is made of her record by conservative spinners. She's done a few cool things (taking on same party corruption, rejecting certain earmarks, selling the governor's jet, etc.) and while those things are important and necessary to good conservative leadership, they are largely symbolic, rather than methodically reformative. I want someone who has tackled and solved major problems. Like, say, oh, I don't know, maybe the Olympics or a Fortune company, or healthcare or just something like that. Jk, just about the last sentence, but not the preceding one. Don't get me wrong, I think symbolic actions are very important because they let you know where a person stands. They give you a glimpse into their character, courage, and worldview. But they are only the first level of leadership. The second, and exponentially more difficult, level is deep, thorough, large-scale action. Does the person have the intelligence, judgment, steel, objectivity, awareness, managerial talent, experience, and vision to turn crisis into opportunity and create positive, lasting change. Obama and Palin are full of the first, but neither have shown the second yet. It's not their fault, as they haven't really had the time or opportunity to do so. But that's the point. It's a huge gamble to put them in a position that requires what they haven't yet had the opportunity to produce, and simply hope they have what it takes.
Also, while it's easy to be excited about the entire ticket because we like Palin, but not McCain, I just don't think she'll have much say. VPs rarely do. The last two have had more than any others in history, but that is, by definition, rare, and no one's going to pull any strings on Ol' McCain (especially someone whose political ideology is 20 clicks to the right of the guy who has built his entire brand around being an independent, moderate "maverick"), like Cheney did with Bush. But I guess one can still be excited to have her set up for a presidential run in a term or two, even if she isn't effecting much as VP in the meantime.

I'm not trying to be a hater. I just see a lot of people getting caught up in this Palin fever (She kills moose! She has 5 kids! She's hot and sassy!), after a week of exposure, the same way people quickly became infected with the Obama bug (He's so articulate! He REALLY wants change! He's black!), through a lot of goose-pimpling hype but little substance. But I really do like her so far and hope she turns out to be all she's cracked up to be.

Tell me where you disagree.