She Shoots...She Scores!!

Back during the 2004 convention season I thought Republicans had one huge overlooked advantage over Democrats: celebrities.

No, not Hollywood celebrities. That peculiar crowd will always provide their dubious support for Democrats. I’m talking about political celebrities. And in 2004, the biggest political celebrities in America were Arnold Schwarzenegger and Rudolph Giuliani, both of whom were principal speakers at the GOP convention in New York.

The Democrats didn’t have that kind of star power. There were the Clintons, of course, but they’d been around a while and Democrats were concerned Bill’s rock-star status diminished their candidate. And there was a little-known freshman Senator from Illinois who made a splash with a stirring speech. But they simply couldn’t match the firepower of Rudy, Ah-nuld, and a still-popular President.

The Republicans got a 5% bounce from their convention, the Democrats a “negative bounce” of 2%, and Bush was reelected.

This year has been different. Every ounce of glamour, celebrity power, media fawning, and rock star status has been tied to the candidacy of that little-known Senator, now the world-famous Barack Obama. Until last night. Last night, a star was born.

Sarah Palin gave a speech that rivals some of the great convention speeches of my lifetime, such as Mario Cuomo in 1984 and Barack Obama in 2004.

Rhetorically, it was nothing special. On a printed page, it wouldn’t stand up against the best speeches of Obama, Clinton or even Bush – whose speech of September 20, 2001 earned its place in history.

But in terms of delivery and political effectiveness, she hit it out of the park. Or perhaps it would be more appropriate to say she slapped it into the net.

In her Wall Street Journal column yesterday, former Reagan speechwriter Peggy Noonan gave the following advice to Palin:

A voter laughing is half yours, and just received a line he can repeat next weekend over a beer at the barbecue or online at Starbucks. Here is a fact of American politics: If you make us laugh we spread your line for free.

Two of Palin's lines last night - "Lipstick" and "the difference between a community organizer and a small-town mayor" - are already being spread by voters for free..

Halftime
We shouldn’t get too carried away here. It might feel like we’re at the 2-minute warning of this Presidential election, but I think it’s more accurate to say that it’s halftime (I know, I’m mixing my sports metaphors…). In terms of time, yes, it’s very late in the game. But most voters have just begun to tune in, and the next two months will be a barrage of debates, advertising and news coverage. There’s a long way to go and the score is very close.

And Sarah Palin has not even begun to be tested on the national stage. Remember that Barack Obama had months to refine his message in Iowa and New Hampshire before the nation began to tune in to every syllable he uttered. Palin will have a big spotlight and an even bigger microphone in her face from day one, and it would be shocking if she doesn't blunder at some point.

Finally, it should be noted that the famous convention speeches of Cuomo and Obama were given in losing causes.

But as Brian Williams put it so very aptly moments after Palin’s speech ended last night, “Game on.”

One of Us

In 1824, John Quincy Adams faced Andrew Jackson in the Presidential election. They were nominally of the same party (it was a brief period of single-party dominance) but had little else in common.

Adams was the ultimate American elitist. The son of a President (a Founder, no less), he went to Harvard, spoke many languages, lived and traveled extensively in Europe, and was an accomplished American diplomat. He was classically educated and could quote Ovid as easily as I quote Seinfeld.

Jackson was anything but the American elitist. Born poor, orphaned by age 14, and sporadically educated, he was the true self-made man who made his fame on the field of battle. Thomas Jefferson, speaking of Jackson’s presidential ambitions, declared him to be “one of the most unfit men I know of for the place.”

Daniel Walker Howe, in his excellent history of early 19th century America What Hath God Wrought, writes that “no one liked Jackson for president except the voting public.”

And they liked him a lot – Jackson lost the election in 1824 despite winning the popular and electoral vote, and won decisively in 1828 and 1832. (He is the answer to a good trivia question: who is the only Presidential candidate besides FDR to win the popular vote in 3 elections?)

And they liked him, in part, because he was like them. Okay, he wasn’t really like them; he was a successful general, a born leader, tougher than any man alive, smarter than the intellectual elite realized, and one of the strongest personalities in the history of American politics. But he seemed like one of them. Like most voters, he was born poor, worked hard, endured sorrow, and had no use for proper spelling.

So began one of America’s great political traditions – the attempt by candidates seem like one of us, even when they are not.

One of the Boys
George W. Bush is the son of a President, grandson of a Senator, and attended the finest schools in New England. But he emphasizes his Crawford roots and likes to be photographed eating ribs and cutting brush.

John Kerry was educated in the finest schools in Europe and New England, and spent his childhood summers on a family estate in France. But he sought out photo ops in duck blinds and spoke of no part of his young life but his year in Vietnam.

Bill Clinton had a genuinely humble background that he emphasized in his candidacies, downplaying his spectacular academic career, which included a Rhodes scholarship and, like the other two, a Yale degree.

I could go on and on. Teddy Roosevelt the Rough Rider didn’t speak of Teddy Roosevelt the Park Avenue socialite. Lincoln bragged on his axe-swinging days but downplayed his successful law practice.

The best example may be William Henry Harrison. Tippecanoe* was from a prominent political family whose father was a signer of the Declaration and who had extensive public experience and great wealth. But when his opponents in the election of 1836 claimed he’d rather “sit in his log cabin and drink cider” he adopted the log cabin and cider bottles as his images, and won in a landslide.

* This was a great time for Presidential nicknames. Old Hickory (Jackson) was followed by The Little Magician (Van Buren), Tippecanoe (Harrison), His Accidency (Tyler), Young Hickory (Jackson’s protégé, Polk), and Old Rough and Ready (Zachary Taylor). Our era gives us Dubya, Bubba, and Poppy.

All of these politicians understood that voters don’t want to hear they are smarter and/or wealthier than us. So they pretend to be like us. When we catch them doing otherwise - windsurfing, say, or being confounded by a supermarket scanner, we punish them.

But of course, we know they aren’t really like us. Don't we?

Along Came Sarah
And into our lives strides Sarah Palin. There are no Ivy League or European colleges in her past. She has no illustrious ancestors – senators or admirals or ambassadors. She did not marry the heir to a vast fortune. She does not bring to the Vice Presidency, like Cheney or Biden (both of humble origins) an extensive and impressive career in public service. She has a son in the Army and a pregnant teenage daughter. Her husband’s in a union. Aside from her stunning election as Governor less than two years ago, she has led a life that is not dramatically different from most of the women on my block – except for, you know, the ice fishing and the mooseburgers.

And suddenly American voters are being asked…do we actually want someone that close to the Oval Office who is truly and genuinely just a slob like one of us?

We’ll never know of course. Regardless of who wins, there are too many other factors – particularly the guys at the head of the ticket – that will ultimately decide this election. But we’re all going to be in a lot of Sarah Palin conversations the next few weeks, and it’ll be interesting to see what people think.

Me? I’m just hoping we come up with a really good nickname for her. I’m pushing for the Holy Hand Grenade.

Update: George Will wrote a similarly-themed piece in Newsweek. We approached it differently, but used the same Harrison example. He included this bit, though, which I loved:

" Robert Taft, the son of President William Howard Taft, [spent] 14 years as a U.S. senator from Ohio. He was a conservative representing a state whose electorate included many farmers and blue-collar industrial workers, and opponents charged that he was out of touch with such ordinary people. In 1947 a reporter asked Mrs. Taft, 'Do you think of your husband as a common man?' Aghast, she replied: 'Oh, no, no! The senator is very uncommon. He was first in his class at Yale and first in his class at the Harvard Law School. We wouldn't permit Ohio to be represented in the Senate by just a common man.' In 1950, Taft was re-elected in a landslide."

And Now for Something Completely Different

What to make of Vice-Presidential candidate Sarah Palin?

The Democrats have helpfully given me their opinion. Everyone from Chuck Schumer to Rahm Emanuel to an Obama spokesman have attacked Palin’s lack of experience – a potentially risky strategy for the party whose ticket topper was sworn in as Senator, bought supplies for his Senate office, and on the way back from Staples announced his Presidential candidacy.

And I caught a little bit of conservative talk radio on the way home yesterday and Sean Hannity was talking as if Governor Palin was the reincarnated combination of Ronald Reagan, Annie Oakley, and the Statue of Liberty.

So you need an unbiased, objective opinion, and that’s what I’m here to offer. Well, maybe not objective, and certainly not unbiased – but unlike the folks above, it’s at least honest.*

* I mean, really, doesn’t it get embarrassing being a partisan sometimes? Every Democrat in America has been loudly proclaiming for months that Obama’s lack of experience doesn’t matter, and now they will all take to the airwaves and cocktail parties and blogosphere assailing Palin’s inexperience. And every Republican in America has been loudly proclaiming for months that Obama’s lack of experience is a terrible risk, and now they will all take to the airwaves and cocktail parties and blogosphere proclaiming that the PTA Presidency is excellent experience for the American Presidency. The intellectual dishonesty is staggering.

Anyway, back to my opinion. I’ve given it some thought, and can state with certitude and authority that the selection of Governor Palin as nominee for Vice-President of the United States is the most brilliant stroke of American political genius in the 21st century…or the stupidest freakin’ thing a major political party has ever done. It’s definitely one of those things.

Unlike professional politicians, whose opinions shift hourly depending on circumstances, I have long held that experience in the White House is of dubious value. Some of our greatest Presidents have had scant political experience, and some of our weakest were (to borrow David Brooks’ phrase) Resume Gods. Because of that, predicting a President’s success or failure is fool’s work – so this piece will focus strictly on whether or not it was a smart political move.

The Case Against
I’m not sure if you’ve heard this, but John McCain is old. How old? Lou Gehrig won the MVP the year he was born. Winston Churchill was still four years away from becoming Prime Minister. When a young Brett Favre won his first Super Bowl, McCain already qualified for senior tickets at the movies. If McCain serves two terms, he’ll celebrate his 80th birthday in the White House. These are not Jay Leno jokes – these are actual facts. The dude’s old.

So I always assumed that he absolutely must choose as his running mate a person that Americans believe is White House-ready. And Governor Palin’s resume is not reassuring on that count.

Further, it makes it harder for McCain to hit Obama too hard on the experience front – which is clearly McCain’s biggest strength. It’s as if the Lone Ranger threw away his Silver Bullet.

The Case For
Now it gets interesting.

First of all, her inexperience is mitigated by Obama’s own inexperience. Obama has been in the Senate two years longer than Palin was Governor, but the Governorship is executive experience, and Obama has spent nearly his entire Senate "career" running for President. Only one of them has ever run anything of any size, and it’s Palin.

Second, her biography is compelling. A son going to Iraq on September 11? Another with Down’s Syndrome? A husband who is a champion snow machine racer? (I don’t know what that is exactly, but I’m almost certain it’s more manly than spin class). Her own skyrocketing rise from City Council to the Governorship to the Vice-Presidency? It’s exciting stuff, and will engage a voting public who may have Obama/McCain fatigue and is already bored by Joe Biden.

Third, she’s a woman. It’s a bold play for the millions of Hillary voters who haven’t warmed to Obama and guarantees that the Republican ticket, if victorious, will be nearly as historic as the Democratic ticket.

Fourth, her socially conservative views, to judge from early accounts, will help McCain with the conservative wing of his party, where he is weakest.

Fifth, she’ll be hard to attack. Let’s face it – you go after the mother of five whose son is in Iraq the way you might go after a Dick Cheney, and the voters will not approve. The Democrats need to be as careful with Palin as Republicans have been with Obama.

And sixth, it reminds everyone that John McCain is a maverick. Much of the Obama strategy depends on linking McCain with Bush, which always struck me as a stretch. McCain’s personal biography, his long-documented history of working with Democrats, his party’s own ambivalence towards him, and his bitter Bush battles in 2000, all argue against a McCain Administration being the second coming of Dubya. An unconventional pick like Sarah Palin reminds everyone that McCain is not the product of focus groups or Rove-like puppeteers.

Presence & Gaffes
Voters and pundits often underestimate how important physical presence is in national candidates. Most are tall, reasonably attractive, have good voices. Unlike our Senators and Governors, we have to actually live with these people for years. I have long felt that Hillary Clinton’s national ambitions were doomed in part because of a grating public speaking voice.

Palin looks like Tina Fey with good posture (that’s a compliment). And she impressed me in her appearance with McCain yesterday – she delivered her speech with a pleasant and natural speaking voice. This can go a long way.

So, in conclusion, she can be an impressive wild card that tips a close election, especially if she can draw in only a fraction of the Hillary votes.

But if she has a terrible gaffe – says the Iranians are Sunni, for example, or confuses the Federal Reserve with the Treasury Department – or if McCain has a health scare – this will be an election-losing choice.

This election keeps getting better, don't it?