Congratulations, GOP. You've finally decided a woman can hold high constitutional office, and nominated a female VP candiate. Too bad that the Democrats beat you to it by a small matter of 24 years. Or to put it another way, nearly a quarter of a century.
And no, "better late than never" isn't a valid argument for them here, for reasons I will explain below.
My views on McCain's choice here are mixed. In terms of identity and ideology, Palin has some upsides that could have made this a smart, while risky, move on McCain's part. But I also strongly agree about the points on her severe lack of experience and on Alaska GOP corruption, both of which could easily and effectively be played to Obama's advantage. And I'm critical of the cynical attempt at identity politics by McCain here.
In the announcement speech, Palin said this:
I think -- I think as well today of two other women who came before me in national elections.
I can't begin this great effort without honoring the achievements of Geraldine Ferraro in 1984...
(APPLAUSE)
... and of course Senator Hillary Clinton, who showed such determination and grace in her presidential campaign.
(APPLAUSE)
It was rightly noted in Denver this week that Hillary left 18 million cracks in the highest, hardest glass ceiling in America...
(APPLAUSE)
... but it turns out the women of America aren't finished yet and we can shatter that glass ceiling once and for all.
That part of the speech was just mind-boggling for me, for several reasons. First of all, it's an obvious pander to the PUMA crowd, hoping to paint Palin as the "natural successor" to Geraldine Ferraro and Hillary Clinton and rally women behind McCain/Palin. Some pundits and many outraged diarists on here have already highlighted the glaring flaw there; Palin's stances on women's issues, and on everthing else, are basically the diametric opposite of Hillary's. Even more importantly, so are John McCain's.
Republicans also yet again showed a willingness to let rhetoric and political point-scoring get in the way of actual logic and facts, because there's a huge and laughable incongruity in Palin's point. "Hillary put 18 million cracks in the ceiling, I'm going to break it for her." Now I'm a guy, so I suppose it's remotely possible that I missed a covert female-only dog whistle somewhere in her words that said "don't worry girls, right after inauguration I'm gonna kill John and take the oath myself". But if not, her point simply makes no sense. Hillary ran for President, Palin's running for Vice President. Different office, different ceiling, different cracks; Palin's picking up where Ferraro and her 37,577,352 voters left off in 1984. And if Palin is elected, how powerful she is a VP is entirely contingent on how McCain sees her role. She might not be as weak as John Nance Garner, and there's the heightened possibility of succession with President McCain, but she's still not gonna be a second Dick Cheney. But admitting those distinctions wouldn't fire up the Clinton PUMAs in the same way, would it?
On to my third, and most important, point here. Mondale/Ferraro were beaten, nay, decimated by Reagan/Bush. They were decimated so badly that Ferraro wasn't even considered as a potential Dem nominee in 1988. Granted, Ferraro has become a racist and a pure evil PUMA this year, a transformation once again demonstrated by her response to Palin's selection today, but back in 1984 I probably would have admired her. She was a strong progressive and a trailblazer. She was the first national female candidate to have to stand up to the "you can't be a pro-choice Catholic" attacks, along with attacks over her tax returns and other private matters. It was the Republicans who defeated her and therefore blocked the first attempt to get a woman elected to the Vice Presidency. Yes, it's not reasonable in a democracic society to expect them not to fight the candidacy of their opponents, but that defeat still set back the cause and they didn't do anything to rectify that until now. Similarly, if Hillary had been the 2008 nominee or Obama's running-mate, they would have fought like hell to defeat her using every weapon in their arsenal. And both Obama and Biden owe their respective nominations in part to Democratic fears about the "divisive" Hillary driving away independents and uniting GOP base, a perception of her entirely created by the Republicans in the 1990s.
So my point is this; the selection of Palin is not only a slap in the face to Clinton supporters and women in general because of it's blatant pandering. It's also insulting because it's the Republicans themselves who shot down the two women that Palin supposedly honoured in that speech, so the GOP have effectively delayed their support for the idea of a female Veep until now, the time that seems convenient to them. And that, in turn, makes the oppurtunism and tokenism of the choice even. They've only decided to give a woman a shot this time because they feel it's their only shot to cling on to the White House in 2008.
EDIT: I changed the title. Thanks for the comments.