I won't go on about Sarah Palin's being unqualified. If McCain can hold on for 12-18 months, I suspect she will be perfectly suitable as President -- she won't be going in without any support and will have Condi and other GOP foreign policy figures to advise her. The 'realists' have defeated the 'neocons' and 'paleocons' in America's internal foreign policy battle. Of course, if McCain doesn't last that long, we could be in for a rough learning curve.

But I do think Palin's selection neutralizes any Republican arguments about Obama's 'lack of experience.' The job, of course, is about judgment, and what sort of experience could possibly prepare someone for

With that said, she does have some baggage, and I'm not kooky enough to go on about how Trig is really Bristol's (first) baby.

The first potential problem is Troopergate. My understanding is that the report on Troopergate is due sometime in October, just when a mistimed sneeze can hit the front pages. So McCain is counting on Troopergate to reveal nothing embarrassing that hasn't already been revealed. A report slamming Palin's actions, but not revealing anything, will help the Democrats some, but nothing like a bombshell could help.

The second potential problem is Dairygate. McCain is assuming that (1) Dairygate won't have some sub-scandal float to the surface or that (2) some new scandal, either political or personal, will not float to the surface.

The biggest problem, however, is not Sarah Palin. It is, rather, her erstwhile Senatorial ally, Ted Stevens.

He seems to want a speedy trial, knowing full well that if his trial is not completed, his Senate career is probably over. On the other hand, anything with an (R) after their name will want this trial completed sometime in November or December.

The Democrats' case to 'let us have the reins' will be made all the stronger with a Stevens conviction as opposed to merely an ongoing trial. I honestly think a timely Stevens conviction will be akin to the Mark Foley case from October 2006. Whether Foleygate's convenient timing was due to a brilliant Democratic strategist who can never be named or due to an angry page/staffer vowing timely revenge on Foley and/or all things Republican will never be known.

Should Stevens be convicted, the news will be amplified as the media and the Democrats unearth every single link between Palin and Stevens. We already know Palin headed a Stevens 529 committee, and the media will surely do a better job vetting Palin than McCain would.

A Stevens conviction at this point will mean President Obama winning with 350+ electoral votes, a 58-59 seat Democrat majority in the Senate, and perhaps 255 seats in the House.


If Foleygate was the work of a shadowy Democratic operative who can never be known, I am nearly certain a salacious scandal is in the wings for October. The Democrats marginally succeeded in 2000 with the Bush DUI, failed miserably in 2004 with the Rather memo, and then hit it out of the park with Foleygate in 2006. Given that most voters have political news as background noise until August/September of an election year, embarrassing items about one party or the other have a magnified impact in swing voters' minds.

Foleygate was brilliant because it hit at one of the core 'Value Voters' issues and came entirely out of the blue. It was also too late to remove Foley from the ballot, so the Dems got a free seat from the deal. The 2000 and 2004 pre-election scandals were really no surprise, as everyone knew Bush was an alcoholic and that his devotion to National Guard service was questionable. No one anticipated Foley. The spin machine had to start from scratch. George Allen's 'macaca' comment was just the icing on the cake, as it enabled the Democrats to get seat #51.

So, let's start wondering what the pre-election scandal will be. Will it be something re-inforcing what we already know, or will it be a bolt from the blue?