I INTRODUCTION

John McCain took a gamble in choosing Governor Sarah Palin as his vice-presidential running mate, a candidate whose insulated political career indicates no familiarity with foreign policy issues. Chosen for her aesthetic appeal and to evoke an immediate reaction from conservative Republicans, McCain erred in failing to recognise her insubstantiality. Unable to answer questions with poise, knowledge, clarity, or cohesion, Palin’s inexperience is topped by blatant ignorance of the primary issues. As such, the campaign trail has amounted to The Re-education of Sarah Palin.

Palin is a politician that is unmistakably unprepared: unprepared to aid the president, unprepared to provide a sound and knowledgeable opinion, unprepared to lead the nation, and unprepared to take the reigns of domestic and foreign policy in a global milieu of economic and moral crisis. A love of the word ‘Maverick’, and phrases like ‘Hockey mom’ and ‘Joe six-pack’ should not, and do not constitute the credentials necessary to lead the United States of America.

II CHOICE & IMPACT

Throughout his campaign, McCain’s has leveled much criticism at Barack Obama for his lack of experience, age, and subsequent inability to be commander in chief. Yet, McCain chose a presidential partner who was younger and more inexperienced (Palin is in her first term as Governor of Alaska). The ramifications of this choice are perhaps tempered by the fact that Palin will only be second in command. However, if McCain is to win, he will be the oldest person inaugurated into his first term in office at 72 years of age. He also has a history of illness and thus places Palin, and America, at a significant risk of having her assume the role of president.

As Roger Cohen of the New York Times said, “I’m grateful to Bob Rice of Tangent Capital for pointing out that the actuarial risk, based on mortality tables, of Palin becoming president if the Republican ticket wins the election is about 1 in 6 or 7. That’s the same odds as your birthday falling on a Wednesday, or being delayed on two consecutive flights into Newark airport. Is America ready for that?"

It seems McCain's choice was hasty. Desperate after the success of the Democratic National Convention, he was running out of options. McCain had only met Palin once prior to her appointment, and, had only one phone conversation with her before offering her the job.

Ultimately, the Arizonian Senator chose his Alaskan counterpart for short term political benefits: to woo women voters and so-called ‘disaffected Hillary supporters’. Her youth complimented his age, her looks and gender gave his campaign the façade of change and progression. A necessary facade considering that The Democrats have successfully made this the ‘Change’ election.

However, the duo offer no real change. They have recycled campaign slogan drivel in an increasingly negative campaign that attests to their old style Washington politics.

III SEXISM

It is not sexist to question Palin’s capabilities. It is not sexist to question her media responses. Nor is it sexist to question Palin’s qualifications. If she is to be the next vice president of America, she should be subject to the same level of expectations of competence that Senators Joe Biden, Obama, or McCain must meet. If she falls below the threshold, she must be deemed incompetent to be vice president.

Yet, the McCain camp has been looking for ways to accuse Obama's team of sexism.

The farcical ‘lipstick on a pig’ situation highlighted this. Palin’s well worn line: “You know the difference between a hockey mom and a pit bull? Lipstick,” was the focus behind a comment made by Obama on September 9:

“That’s not change. That’s just calling something the same thing something different. You know you can put lipstick on a pig, but it’s still a pig. You know you can wrap an old fish in a piece of paper called change, it’s still going to stink after eight years. We’ve had enough of the same old thing.”

Criticism of Obama that arose after this comment may have been plausible had McCain not used the line himself.

In Iowa in October 2007, McCain said of Hillary Clinton’s health care plan: “I think they put some lipstick on the pig, but it’s still a pig.” While campaigning in Denver in May this year, he again utilised the phrase to dismiss her policy: “I don’t like to use this term, but the latest proposal I see is putting lipstick on a pig.”

Moreover, a variety of other figures have used the phrase including Vice President Dick Cheney, House Minority Leader John Boehner, John Edwards, Elizabeth Edwards, and Torie Clarke. Clarke, a former McCain adviser, actually published a book titled Lipstick on a Pig: Winning In the No-Spin Era by Someone Who Knows the Game.

Despite this, McCain camp used the 'gender-card' to attack Obama.

That said, the double standards that unfairly plague Palin should be abolished. Questioning her ability to simultanously raise her family and extend her political career is unfair and gender biased.

A 21st Century election requires a 21st Century mindset. Both men and women are capable of child rearing and housekeeping duties. She is not subjecting her children to sub-par conditions. She has a husband and older children capable of helping her juggle family and work.


IV FOREIGN POLICY

Prominent pro-Republican columnist Kathleen Parker observed in the National Review that Palin’s recent interviews “have all revealed an attractive, earnest, confident candidate. Who is clearly out of her league.”

No where is this more evident than in her foreign policy perspectives. When asked, “What insight into Russian actions, particularly in the last couple of weeks, does the proximity of the state give you?”, she responded, “They’re our next door neighbours and you can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska, from an island in Alaska.”

She may have been forgiven for this slip had she not repeated it in absent minded confidence that this assertion gave her foreign policy credentials.

Journalists gave her an opportunity to justify her remarks, by asking why Alaska’s geographical proximity to Russia proved her experience and view. Palin responded, “Alaska has a very narrow maritime border between a foreign country, Russia, and on our other side, the land — boundary that we have with — Canada.”

Looking uncomfortable, she added: “It’s funny that a comment like that was, kind of made to – cari – I don’t know, you know? Reporters…”

A journalist answered for her: “Mocked?” Palin replied, “Yeah, mocked. I guess that’s the word, yeah.”

When given another chance to explain why proximity matters, Palin says, “Well, it certainly does, because our, our next-door neighbours are foreign countries, they’re in the state that I am the executive of.”

She added that when Russian Prime Minister Putin “rears his head and comes into the airspace of the United States of America, where do they go? It’s Alaska. It’s just right over the border. It is from Alaska that we send those out to make sure that an eye is being kept on this very powerful nation, Russia, because they are right next to, they are right next to our state.”

As Bob Herbert of the New York Times notes, “the infantile repetition of this bit of trivia as some kind of foreign policy bona fide for a vice presidential candidate should give us pause.”

The governor had not travelled outside of the US until late last year. She had never met a foreign leader until a trip to New York after joining the ticket. An insulated political term does not lend itself to the vice presidency in a globally volatile period, where diplomacy and understanding is essential.

To compare her to the likes of vice presidential candidates who have had to assume role of president, such as Harry Truman, Lyndon Johnson, and Gerald Ford is a untenable.


V ALASKAN POLITICS

Palin has used her experience within Alaskan politics to bolster her vice-presidential credientials. She boasts for example about her opposition to the infamous “bridge to nowhere”, constantly incorporating the issue as part of her stump speech.

Her claims however, are questionable. As governor, she supported construction of the $223 million Gravina Island Bridge in 2007 before opposing it when the price nearly doubled and the plan was increasingly ridiculed.

When pressed by ABC’s Gibson, she said “Charlie, we killed the bridge to nowhere, and that’s the bottom line.”

Other actions in Alaska are questionable. McCain for example opposes congressional spending 'earmarks', and this opposition has become focal point of his campaign policy. Yet, as CNN’s Jack Cafferty has noted, “Although Palin is now railing against earmarks, she got hundreds of millions of dollars in federal funding for local projects as both governor and as mayor of Wasilla.”

Speaking at the RNC, Palin bent the facts in stating she “championed reform to end the abuses of earmark spending by Congress.” While mayor of Wasilla, the town received around $27 million in federal money; similar to the amount received by Boise, Idaho. Boise’s population stands at 200,000, as opposed to Wasilla’s 10,000.

The earmarked funds aided in projects such as improving roads connecting the town to a local ski resort. Overall, as Alaska’s governor, Palin has requested nearly $450 million in earmarks.

Gibson reminded Palin in an interview that in the state of Alaska, she requested $3.2 million this year to research the genetics of harbour seals and to study the mating habits of crabs.

Because it was sought “in the light of day, not behind closed doors, with lobbyists making deals with Congress to stick things in there under the public radar,” Palin suggests her earmark abuse is justified.

This, and more, from a candidate that vows her ticket will rid America of abuses of power.

Long awaited findings of the Troopergate investigation found Palin abused her power as Alaskan governor to pressure officials to fire her former brother-in-law, as a state trooper. Investigator Steve Branchflower found that Palin had violated state ethics laws that prohibit public officials from using their office for personal gain.


VI VICE PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE

In the lead up to the vice presidential debate, many believed that the debate would ‘make or break’ Palin. Gwen Ifill’s first question as moderator was regarding the bailout bill.

Biden spoke about excessive deregulation, and laid out Obama’s four step rescue plan. In contrast, Palin’s first response of the night was that the best ‘barometer’ for establishing whether American is expereincing a good or bad period economically, is to go to a “kid’s soccer game on Saturday and turn to any parent there on the sideline and ask them, ‘How are you feeling about the economy?’”

Other responses about the financial crisis involved placing blame on the “corruption and greed on Wall street”, repetitively.

Her rhetoric was peppered with the phrases, “we’re going to fight for America” and “we’re going to fight for the middle class” with no specifics as to how.

It is clear that Palin’s only job (and perhaps her only skill) is to recite campaign slogans and kitchy 'relatable' ancedotes. On occasions she may be a strong willed, charismatic communicator, but she is clearly one who is out of her league when it comes to the key issues surrounding the election.

VII CONCLUSION

Palin's ‘inexperience’ may be excusable, but her ignorance is not. McCain made a risky and ultimately irresponsible decision in choosing her as his running mate and as potential vice president of the United States of America.

With the ongoing military operation in Iraq, dealings with Afghanistan and Pakistan, as well as the domestic concerns of an increasingly haywire financial sector, the need for health-care and education reform, America requires a steady hand.

Moreover, it should be compulsory that America's vice president is able to pronounce the word ‘nuclear’ should the need arise.

Surely the American people deserve that much.

Image courtesy of NewsHour. Licensed under Creative Commons.