Worst-case scenarios

Conor Friedersdorf:

I ask the following of everyone who watched tonight’s debate — were John McCain assassinated at his inauguration by terrorists, even as two American cities saw buildings partially blown up by truck bombs, and Vladimir Putin used the opportunity to move troops into a former Soviet Repulic, would you trust that Governor Palin would have the knowledge, credibility, bearing and calming influence on the country to handle the situation? Or would having her in the Oval Office freak you out in a deep way? I’d be frightened, and I expect a lot of people now supporting Governor Palin would think, "Oh God, what have I done." I was hoping I’d change my mind about that tonight, for I really am all about not wanting worse case scenarios to happen, but alas I still worry about it.

He later clarifies:

Let me state for the record that I would worry were Barack Obama, Joe Biden or John McCain put in the same situation. What I should have made clearer, however, is that among all these folks I’d be more worried about Governor Palin by a wide margin, partly because each of the other people I mention have spent more time thinking about the right thing to do in scenarios like this one, partly because Barack Obama is tempermentally cool and analytical, which is what I’d want in that situation, and partly because I imagine Governor Palin would be the least self-assured.

Daniel Larison chimes in:

Of course, the honest answer that I think most people would have to give [to Friedersdorf's initial qusetion] is clearly no. In other words, if you try to imagine how she would handle such a scenario, you would have to acknowledge that she is not ready to be President. Being unprepared and overwhelmed, she would probably overreact and make such a situation far worse than it had to be. As it is, I don’t trust McCain’s “knowledge, credibility, bearing and calming influence” were the Russians to send forces into a neighboring state, because I already know that McCain responds very poorly when the Russians do this. A President Palin would be even more pliable and susceptible to the worst impulses of her anti-Russian advisors. It also seems obvious to me that Obama, who isn’t really fit to be President (but then neither is McCain), is certainly on balance more competent than McCain and the prospect of him responding to these events is slightly less horrifying. It is a measure of how profoundly unsuited he is to the office McCain is seeking that even Obama inspires more confidence in most people in this country.

Fundamentally, this is why I'll be voting for Obama and Biden: because, for all their faults and flaws, I trust them more -- both of them, both of the potential presidents I'll be trying to help elect -- than either of the potential presidents on the other ticket. Of the four major-party candidates running to become, potentially, President of the United States, McCain is the third-best-suited for the job; he has the experience, but not the judgment or the temperament, at least not reliably or consistently. Biden is the best-suited, having all three (though he's hardly a perfect choice either, obviously). Obama is second-best, having the judgment and the temperament, though not the experience. Palin has none of the above; she is, and remains, a total joke of a candidate in this regard. She has, at this particular moment, not a shred of qualification for the Oval Office, beyond "folksiness" and "relatability," neither of which are actually qualifications at all, so I don't know why I just bothered to add them.

Could that change by, say, 2012? Maybe, but what she has now isn't nearly good enough. The debate certainly did not change that. As I wrote in comments yesterday, even if Obama and Biden were completely unacceptable to me on whatever grounds, I would literally cast a protest vote for a third party, or even abstain altogether, before I would vote for the McCain-Palin ticket. The same wouldn't be true of, say, a McCain-Romney ticket, much as I dislike Romney, and much as I don't trust McCain's judgment. (Of course, if McCain had picked Romney instead of Palin, I would trust his judgment a bit more, as that would have been a serious choice -- a defensible judgment, if you will.) But the Palin choice is completely disqualifying. Indeed, if this were an election between McCain-Palin and Hillary Clinton & Whomever -- Hillary, who, you might recall, I swore never to support for president, for decidedly different reasons (not her fundamental lack of qualifications, but her fundamental lack of honesty, integrity or a moral center) -- I would most likely be voting for Bob Barr. (Not that Barr is qualified to be president, mind you, but while I normally advocate voting for the best candidate for president regardless of party label, under certain circumstances -- namely where both major-party tickets are just totally unacceptable -- I think it is permissible to lower one's standards to cast a protest vote for a third-party candidate with effectively zero chance of winning, as an alternative to not voting at all. Though I would wrestle with that issue.)