Presidential Roundup: Sarah Palin Edition

Well, it looks like I've got an answer to my question. Who vetted Sarah Palin for VP? Basically ...nobody. The good news for Team McCain is that Dems and media outlets are on the case.

» PoliPunch: Members of 'Fringe' Alaskan Independence Party Say Palin Was a Member in 90s
Alaska First, America First, McCain First ... is there really any difference? Ironically, the selection of Palin as the VP nominee should raise legitimate questions about how McCain plans to select Supreme Court justices. Advantage, Harriet Miers!

» Atlantic: What McCain Didn't Know About Sarah Palin (Marc Ambinder)

This year, the intense secrecy with which McCain advisor A.B. Culvahouse completed his vetting of Sarah Palin preserved the surprise. And ultimately, McCain aides say they're sure that the rewards will be worth the risks. But as the Palin pick turns 72 hours old, McCain's campaign is learning as much about her from the media and from Democrats as they are from what minimal political preparation they had.

Is it too early to expect Obama to borrow the phrase "Ready from Day One!"?

» HuffPo: McCain Camp Didn't Search Palin's Hometown Paper Archives (Sam Stein)

On Saturday, a Democrat tasked with opposition research contacted the Huffington Post with this piece of information: as of this weekend, the McCain campaign had not gone through old newspaper articles from the Valley Frontiersman, Palin's hometown newspaper.

How does he know? The paper's (massive) archives are not online. And when he went to research past content, he was told he was the first to inquire.

To be fair, it's not like my vote is in danger of slipping over to the dark side even if McCain were thorough and intellectually curious about someone he thinks is competent enough to be President. But still, it damages that fleeting sense that even if he were to win, I might be able to feel somewhat comfortable about his own level of competence.

» Swampland: Focused--The Sequel (Joe Klein)
Joe Klein gives a snapshot from one of Frank Luntz's focus groups:

They had a negative impression of Palin by a 2-1 margin...a fact that was reinforced when they were given hand-dials and asked to react to Palin's speech at her first appearance with McCain on Friday---the dials remained totally neutral as Palin went through her heart-warming(?) biography, and only blipped upwards when she said she opposed the Bridge to Nowhere--which wasn't quite the truth, as we now know.

When your only positive is something you had to lie about, you've pretty much morphed into Joe Biden, circa '87.

» WaPo: Palin Was a Director of Embattled Sen. Stevens's 527 Group

Palin's name is listed on 2003 incorporation papers of the "Ted Stevens Excellence in Public Service, Inc.," a 527 group that could raise unlimited funds from corporate donors. The group was designed to serve as a political boot camp for Republican women in the state. She served as one of three directors until June 2005, when her name was replaced on state filings.

Palin's relationship with Alaska's senior senator may be one of the more complicated aspects of her new position as Sen. John McCain's running mate; Stevens was indicted in July 2008 on seven counts of corruption.

Palin, an anti-corruption crusader in Alaska, had called on Stevens to be open about the issues behind the investigation. But she also held a joint news conference with him in July, before he was indicted, to make clear she had not abandoned him politically.

I can't wait to see how those who have 'no disagreement with the general point that we (society) ought to hold "corruption" in contempt' contort themselves around this one.

» Don't LOL. Palin Pick Is About Taking On Washington -- Not About Gender (Joe Trippi)
And the criticism isn't over gender - it's about the incompetence. That said, I do think there's a risk of setting Palin up as "Mrs. Underestimated" ... which she could very well rebut with her usually sharp presence in Q&A settings. But a lot depends on the media's willingness to dig one level deeper than her talking points are prepared to handle. Her record with Ted Stevens & corruption; her record re: earmarks and the "Bridge to Nowhere"; the complete lack of preparation for foreign policy; and so on.

I mean, there's a far cry from criticizing someone based on their record (or lack of it) and revisiting the misogynistic remarks like those aimed at Hillary Clinton (or for local memory, those aimed at Barbara Radnofsky). Then again, hyper-partisans will be hyper-partisans and deliver whatever talking points they think they can get away with.