The woman from nowhere


See article

Readers' comments


rossi replica

Instead of blaming The Economist or the media in general for pointing the obvious, take it from an independent - the one's that supposedly hold the keys to the White House... to choose Sarah Palin based on a 15-minute meeting once recently is the most absurd thing that Maverick John could have done, which by the way, speaks volumes about the President he will be. Decider 2.0 (so much better than Decider 1.0 - NOT!)


Karl Rove said it best when he harpooned the potential VP Tom Kaine for his identical resume.

They certainly know how to get elected. Pity that ideological petigree is more important that competence.

Prince Mishkin

to Wilfred Knight:

She cut taxes? There are no income and sales taxes in Alaska. All their money comes from the pork barrel projects. She said no to the bridge to nowhere (only after it became unpopular) but she kept the money. Wake up.


I am used to this publication's generally high quality, thoughtful analysis, whether or not I agree with it. However, I am genuinely surprised not to find any discussion in this article of the impact the bruising Obama/Hillary primary had on McCain's VP pick. While the democrats (read: Clintons) have made a commendable effort to close party ranks, Obama has had trouble appealing to women. Does it not then stand out that one of the major benefits of selecting a woman for VP is that she may siphon off some of these votes? Perhaps, perhaps not, but it seems like a major point to gloss over.Additionally, the democrats beat the republicans by 24 years to nominating a woman for VP (Mondale/Ferraro '84) and who knows how long on an African American. In the long view, it helps to offset the "old-white-guys" stigma the GOP has particularly among young people that Obama polls so well with.Leaving these points aside I find it fantastic that we will have either our first female VP or our first African American president this year. Go America.


The Lexington article reads like an uncritical composition of extracts from standard mainstream articles. The right question to ask is "how will Sarah Palin perform in this campaign?" The answer so far is "no-one, including Lexington, knows; but she's made one heck of a start". Lexington, and perhaps the Economist itself, seems to have no connection with the N. America that is outside the large cities - the place sometimes called the "great country" - in Canada and the USA. Sarah Palin won't find all her views and beliefs duplicated in all the inhabitants of "the great country", but she is one of them and they recognise her. She is as known to them as there own family because she radiates the life experience of all the people in places like Watson Lake, Fort Nelson, Sioux Lookout, Hay River, Grand Prairie, Prince George, and Brooks, in Canada or Wenatchee, Pendleton, Billings and hundreds of thousands of other towns in the USA.Life in these places is a mystery to Lexington, and the Economist. Pundits can engage in orgies of imagination, but they have been undressed in this election. Their opinions and predictions are guesses - just like the rest of us.Will Sarah Palin succeed? I haven't a clue, but it sure is fun to see her try.


Ms.Palin is irrelevant. Anyone pinning their hopes on an obvious attempt at political arm candy might as well be consulting tea leaves. Ms.Palin brings nothing to the campaign that will help Mr.McCain both fronts, increasing his draw with independent voters and solidifying his support in the base. She is a nobody with little experience and comes off as cross between an annoying soccer-mom and a right-wing wing nut from Alaska (which is what she is). I really doubt anyone but a rabid ultra-right Republican supporter would be in anyway inclined to consider her an informed choice as the next in charge to a not so healthy 70 year old candidate in a high pressure job. Just an odd choice by the McCain camp that makes little sense given his situation. While Mr.McCain is known for flying off the handle and political gambling - this choice just has the stink of desperation and a "Hail Mary" strategy. He could have just as easily played it safe with a more logical and conservative choice with Mr.Romney - a choice that would appeal to the party base, provides a better track record and potentially may draw undecided more right-leaning independents with a potential for a reformer (McCain) and also a reliable conservative choice (Mr.Romney) with a well known track record.


Grace2007 writes; I was breathless to see if The Economist would be blindingly wrong again, and I wasn't disappointed. Dear Grace, The Economists latest incomplete and bland write-up of the RN Convention and Lexingtons article merely prove that The Economist, in the end will back M/P. Sorry to let the cat out of the bag TE. You read it here first.

Richard Hayes

Your article about Gov. Palin is objective and unbiased, in my opinion. Last week's cover story about McCain certainly gave himn credit where it was due. The comments that give the impression that "The Economist" is pro Obama are exagerated.

One thing that bothers me about the Alaskan is that she fired the small town librarian for not buckling into censorship of titles for the library. Mc Cain may live to rue the day he made this hasty decision.

I will be glad when all this is over and the new administration can face up to reality rather than hockey moms & the like. But we can not under estimate the lack of sophisticaion of the American voters. Electing George W. Bush twice is not a good omen.

Richard Hayes
Sousas, SP


The last paragraph was essentially right but could have gone further. The real point is that in a lot of ways conservative views of religion have distorted American politics. The fact that this country even has debates about teaching something as patently ridiculous as creationism in schools is prime evidence that religion and politics have gotten much too mixed up. If someone wants to support the religious right's agenda (anti-abortion, anti-gay marriage etc.) they should back it up with facts and not simply point to arbitrary Bible verses. Add that to the fact that Sarah Palin doesn't seem to have opinions on foreign policy and I can't think of any reason to vote this neophyte zealot into an office a heartbeat away from being the leader of the free world.

Irreverent Comment

For everybody talking about media bias (the "left-wing" bias, naturally)... McCain has been a darling of main-stream and left media for over 8 years. Only now, when he suddenly decided to out-Bush Bush himself, the media became more inquisitive about his train of thought. So, any complaints about media trying to misrepresent him are quite duplicitous. As to Palin, she only popped up on a national stage a week ago, and she already has plenty of skeletons falling out of her closet. Don't blame the media, if your trump card was experience and you bring the least experienced candidate on the ticket, all the while painting your ticket in a very bright shade of radical.

Michael Katcher

I love how people contrast "inexperienced" Palin with "experienced" Biden. I'd rather have an experienced President and an inexperienced vice president than the other way around.


To suggest that being governer of alaska has any bearing on serving the highest office in the country is absurd. I live in a city with a larger population than Alaska. She is a chumpion for pet projects and netted 4,000/per citizen in the ways of special funding. A net negative tax in addition to the special tax treatment alaskans already enjoy! Fiscally conservative my ass.

Brandon T

Contrary to my earlier post, let the "The Economist is drinking the Obama cool aid" coments begin.

See the following balanced articles on McCain and Biden:



The fact that a bad decision (or, in any case, one that reasonable people - or people who like to think of themselves as reasonable, such as myself - can perceive as bad) is labelled as such doesn't make the publication broadly biased, it makes it opinionated. When you buy the newspaper for its editorial content, as is the case for most Economist readers, this isn't a problem, it is a necessitity.


McCain's choice is certainly a gamble, but hardly a reckless one. Sarah Palin is young, charming, lively, earnest and straightforward. She's a veep candidate of the old sort, a good campaigner that will go back to being an hockey mom for the next four years (more if they lose), unless of course... (this remains her biggest flaw by far). She's also what the GOP needs to bring out the evangelical right vote, a constituency that's usually perfectly content to walk away with nothing once they feel they've succeeded in electing one of their own into office.Of course her campaing staff will need to watch her closely for the next two months, but that's what they are paid to do. As there's really nothing she can say that can seriously damage the Democratic candidates, what they need to do is trying to move the press' attention away from her and focus it on their message, trying to point out the inconsistencies in her rhetoric, as they've already started to do with her first speech. She didn't mention health care, the economy, education or the middle class and, of course, there's nothing elitist about Community organizing.

Gentilly Guy

Ummmm...Grace2007, Obama's been a U.S. Senator for four years, and was an Illinois state senator for many years before. Illinois is far more populous than welfare-state Alaska, where everybody gets a check from the state every year (must be nice!). Also, both Palin and Obama got their political start in community organizing; in Palin's case, it was called the PTA.


Surely, if your experience amounts to plagiarising one of Neil Kinnock's speeches and life history (NEIL KINNOCK, for God's sake - what a role model!!!! I am a Brit, and from this side of the pond that is SO-O-O-O funny!), then you are better off without experience? I have always thought (and still think) that Biden should be laughed out of polite society for the rest of his life for what he did, and that it is absolutely outrageous that he is being considered as a credible candidate for the vice presidency even 20 years later. Then again, I think that a guy who has oral sex while supposedly working in the oval office, and then tries to deny that he did, should also lose all credibilty and be drummed out of office instantly. But that didn't happen either. At least Sarah Palin has about 1,000,000 times more about her than those two goons...


I was breathless to see if The Economist would be blindingly wrong again, and I wasn't disappointed. So your arguments are that McCain didn't let the wildly biased American media trash the woman *before* he announced her nomination? (Not to worry. It only took them one day to excoriate her family and dig back over 20 years to find her husband's DUI.) That he picked a neophyte and an outsider when only Obama was supposed to claim those as virtues? That she only knows enough to run a family, a city and a state, when the TOP of the Democratic ticket has been a "community organizer" (whatever that may be)?Good grief, do you people ever listen to yourselves? Don't you notice what an outrageous double-standard is in play here?Europeans have had a love-fest with the idea of Obama as president. Well, we're very, VERY sorry to disappoint you, but the last time I checked, it was still the duty of the citizens to elect their leaders, not pundits an ocean away.Get over it. It's going to be McCain/Palin for sure.

Hannibal MO

I'd rather have the real Sarah Palin a heartbeat away than the plagiarizing, hatchet man Joe Biden. And can you imagine the fun we would have if Peggy Noonan would start writing Sarah's speeches?



Products and events


Take our weekly news quiz to stay on top of the headlines

