Assigned Reading

Here is a very thoughtful analysis of the Palin candidacy, what it meant politically, the reality vs. the perception, and how it went down like it did. It gives a very thorough trashing of all the assumptions made on both sides. Very, very highly recommended. (Hat tip: Conservative Wahoo)

One thing I really liked about the theory behind the article is that it offers a sensible explanation for why Palin was mocked for inexperience but Obama got a free pass, in a way that goes beyond the O'Reilly "in the tank" line.

I'm still trying to figure out the "worldview" part. True, McCain did fail to be more than an "attitude poltician with an appealing biography," and would have benefited from articulating a vision of what "his" America would look like. But if McCain was an "attitude" candidate, Obama was an "emotion" candidate, also without a clear vision articulated. All people really knew about Obama's future America was that it would have Hope and would not have Bush. Well, maybe that's just it, when you're able to run against an unpopular administration, maybe emotion is enough, and the substance of the outgoing Pres is all the substance you need.

But, I think he's absolutely right about the need to tie substance with cultural populism. Cultural populsim was demonstrated to be stronger than people have given it credit for, and it's something that would do us some good if it found a voice in power. Maybe that detached-ness, the senselessness that DC has become could be corrected with a dose of some good old common sense and the wisdom the comes from life experience. So maybe the next candidate needs to be able to tap into that, like Palin did. But, whoever that is also needs to have some intellectual depth to his/her candidacy, if for no other reason than to prevent the "blank slate" effect where everyone just throws their own projections at the candidate.