The buzz today has been all Palin, all the time as columnists try to sort out what it all means: How does her candidacy affect the race? What do the poll numbers mean? Does moose taste like chicken? Here's the latest:
- Karl Rove writes in the WSJ that Obama can't beat Palin and likens him to Michael Dukakis and Adlai Stevenson - -presidential candidates who went to war with veeps and famously lost. Take-away: "In Mrs. Palin, Mr. Obama faces a political phenomenon who has altered the election's dynamics."
- Democrats worried that Obama is in an irreversible tailspin need to get a grip, writes Gail Collins in the NYT. McCain's boost in national polls matters little since electoral votes ultimately decide the election and this whole Palin-media blitz will blow over. Take-away: "Cheer up, Obama-ites. You're overreacting."
- The Dems aren't the only ones acting as if the election is already over, writes David Broder in the WaPo, and Republicans are even worse. No one has the election in the bag -- it's only September, after all. Take-away: "We may go well into October and not know who will be succeeding George W. Bush."
- Palin can be defeated because she's inexperienced, hard-headed and sub-par, writes Dan Payne of the Boston Globe. On the 9/11 anniversary, Payne recalls how unprepared Bush was for the attacks and writes that Palin is equally unqualified for her gig. Take-away: "She's gotta Taliban-like tolerance for beliefs unlike her own."
- Damned with faint praise. All Republicans are not gaga over Palin and, according to a piece in Politico, GOP foreign policy experts have been deafeningly silent or offered lackluster support for her candidacy. Take-away: "Among that mandarin class, the response to Palin's nomination has been underwhelming."
