OK, so it was nuts

On 29 August, I wrote, in re McCain's choice of Sarah Palin for VP:

...this move is either going to look nuts or brilliant in under a month.

It started looking dodgy pretty quickly: the Palin pick had successfully energized a chunk of the base, but moderates and independents who might lean Republican (people you have to win over, if you're John McCain) were not reacting well.

Not quite two months in, the verdict is clear: it was nuts.

Sarah Palin is and remains the single best reason not to vote for John McCain.

If McCain wins in November

...Tina Fey has a regular gig for at least the next four years, if she wants it.

It's Palin for VP

I think McCain made a canny choice. It was a bold one, anyway: this move is either going to look nuts or brilliant in under a month.

Depending on the polls you believe, between 20% and 30% of Hillary Clinton voters were self-reporting as "likely to vote for McCain," and that's *before* JMC picked a woman as running mate. So there's the obvious, transparent and cynical appeal to disgruntled Clintonistas. But the thing is, this might work!

Independents are still very much in play. McCain himself, though pro-life (as is Palin) can best be described as a moderate social conservative with occasional tendencies towards actual tolerance, and Palin has been described as "as libertarian as you can get and still be on a major ticket" by no less than the editor of Reason magazine.

Plenty of people have modestly libertarian views (including many independent voters!) - economically conservative but socially tolerant.

Best punditry I've seen so far:

Michael Barone

Marc Armbinder