Is it me, or did John McCain look very hesitant next to her during the announcement? As if he's thinking, "Have these idiots in the right wing of the party not seen the survey results? Bush screwed me in the 2000 South Carolina primary, and his wing of the party has screwed me again in 2008 by handing me its disastrous results, along with forcing this candidate on me. I hope this gamble they're forcing on me pays off, but in my gut I know it won't." If that's what you were thinking John, I think you're right. She won't help you win any swing states; no one will care about the VP's reputationas a reformer; her gender alone won't win over many Hillary Democrats; and she's not known enough even to win evangelical votes. If that's what you wanted, you should've just gone for Jindal. Palin is a bad choice. The only smart part of it is that she's young, and you could've had that with Crist or Pawlenty.
Months ago I made a "good and bad guys" list for VP choices. The bad guys are the ones who don't "get" conservatism - that is, politicians who want to use big government to limit individual freedom and responsibility by forcing their beliefs and values into our lives. A major litmus test here is the candidate's belief on teaching Biblical creation. Any politician that is willing to sacrifice American technical business competitiveness at a critical time by forcing their own bleeding-heart wishy-washy beliefs on kids in science class has a values and priorities problem; whatever they are, they aren't pro-business, and they aren't conservative, in any sense that Ronald Reagan or Theodore Roosevelt would have recognized the term. Sarah Palin has clearly said that her religion should be forced on kids in science class. She also doesn't mind wasting government resources by intruding into social issues like reproductive rights and gay marriage.
I'm good for my word. So it's official - I'm an Obamacon.