
Special Classifieds Feature
Buy Washington Post Inauguration newspapers, books, and more






4:40 p.m. ET: Sarah Palin -- the vice presidential candidate who keeps giving. Specifically, she keeps giving us grubby reporters and bloggers new things to write about in a race whose storylines have otherwise mostly turned stale.
Palin today boldly called for the Senate's newest convict, Ted Stevens, to give up his job. Even if re-elected next Tuesday, she says, he "should step aside to allow a special election to give Alaskans a real choice of who will serve them in Congress." Two things to note here:
1) If Stevens did win and then quit, guess who would appoint his replacement? That would be Gov. Palin (barring a McCain comeback). She could reward a political ally with the job, perhaps Sean Parnell, the Lt, Gov. whom she encouraged into an unsuccessful House primary campaign against Don Young. Or -- and yes, this is far-fetched -- she could even appoint herself to the job. Wondering how she can bolster her resume between now and 2012? How about a few years in the Senate.
2) It's worth noting that for all of Palin's bold challenging of the GOP establishment in Alaska, she mostly walked on eggshells around Stevens until he was convicted. Of course, Stevens was innocent until proven guilty, but Palin was very much willing to criticize and challenge Young, who hasn't actually been charged with any crime. With Stevens, Palin not only avoided criticizing him but even avoided answering whether she would endorse him before yesterday's verdict. Her maverick-ness appears to have some limits.
One last point on Palin and her future: It's interesting to watch how many enemies she's making within the GOP establishment (and yes, that's part of her appeal). Jake Tapper has up a scathing blog post accusing Palin of throwing faithful McCain aide Nicole Wallace under the bus for clothes-gate. He argues that this is merely the latest in a long line of examples of Palin "making friends who can help her and then screwing them over." Agree or disagree with his analysis, it's worth asking: How will Republican insiders remember Palin after this campaign? For all of her outsider appeal, she will need at least a few of those insiders on her side if she wants to run next time around.
11 a.m. ET: Lest there be a surprise in the next week (not like the bizarre suspension of a World Series game and another bungled decision by Bud Selig, but a real surprise), the media now fully expects Barack Obama to win, likely by a wide margin.
So it's perfectly natural for our thoughts to wander hence to 2012, and specifically to whether a certain Alaska governor can and will capture the next Republican nomination. Sarah Palin's behavior in recent days has plenty of commentators suggesting that she is thinking as much or more about her fate four years from now than her fate next Tuesday.
Roger Simon posits that Palin may already be looking forward to not having the "millstone" of John McCain around her neck, and that she is prepared to combat negative stories about her by complaining about a "double standard" for women. Perhaps that's why she keeps talking about the $150K shopping spree when the McCain camp would simply love for the topic to go away.
The problem for Palin is that all those negative stories seem to have done the trick. As her hometown paper noted this morning, Palin "has become a drag on the Republican presidential ticket." Her unfavorable ratings are high, and, fatally, a majority of Americans seem to think she is unqualified to serve as president. How can she get more qualified in the next four years? She'll serve two more years as governor, and perhaps she can go to policy school so she sounds more professorial and less "folksy" when the next round of debates comes. Whatever course she chooses, she'll likely have plenty of time to think about it after next Tuesday.
8 a.m. ET: By this time next week, the only polls that matter will be the kind that you actually visit to cast your ballots. No more daily tracks, no more surveys of 1,000 likely voters conducted over three days, no more squabbling over turnout models, no more debating the "Bradley effect" (unless John McCain wins) and no more Drudge Report links to whatever poll happens to show the closest race that day.
But a week is a long time, so let's survey the landscape of surveys once more. As Drudge continually reminds us, most of the daily tracking polls still do show Barack Obama with only a narrow (though very steady) lead. Five of the surveys have the margin between 3 and 5 points in their latest results. Notably, the "expanded" Gallup track -- which assumes larger turnout by new voters -- gives Obama a 10-point lead, while the Washington Post/ABC News track has the lead at 7 points.
Of course, if our ingenious system did not include an Electoral College, then national polls would matter. But it does, so they don't. And in the states, the situation for McCain looks more precarious.
Fox News and Rasmussen unveiled a batch of polls from key states yesterday, and nearly all of them looked bad for the Republican. Obama had narrow leads in five states President Bush won in 2004 -- Florida, Ohio, Virginia, Colorado and Missouri -- while McCain clung to a one-point edge in North Carolina (though most other surveys have Obama leading there too).
Looking at the poll averages -- and, as always, do so with a grain of salt -- Obama now leads in 10 states Bush won in 2004, while McCain doesn't lead in a single John Kerry state. Adding potential insult to injury, even Arizona doesn't look totally safe for the native nominee. The Republican National Committee even felt the need to go up with ads in Montana -- as The Fix writes, "(!)" -- which Bush won by 21 points in 2004 and 25 in 2000. Is this a wise use of the GOP's cash? If McCain really is going to lose in Montana, isn't it likely he's going to lose so many other states it won't matter? Might that money be better used in a tight Senate race?
By
Ben Pershing
|
October 28, 2008; 8:00 AM ET
Go to full archive for The Rundown »
Posted by: Prozrenie | October 28, 2008 9:50 AM
I'm not so sure Governor Palin will be in the same position in 2012 to make the run that you suggest. Here's a piece from Writing Frontier that hits that theme on the head. See "Let the bombing begin" at
http://writingfrontier.com/2008/10/27/let-the-bombing-begin/
Posted by: jheubusch | October 28, 2008 12:07 PM
If Sarah Palin is indeed planning her presidential bid in 2012 already, then it's a good idea to find out what she stands for. That is, what is Palin's political platform? What's her stance on issues like energy, spending, etc?
To get some answers to these questions, you can visit The Daily Source. We have compiled a large section of videos on Palin, from her acceptance speech at the RNC to various interviews she's done since her nomination. Just go to www.dailysource.org/palinvideos.
Posted by: ds2oo81 | October 28, 2008 12:25 PM
Palin 2012?
That's a joke right? With any luck, her political career will be over after she is branded with a giant "L" for loser after directly contributing to one of the biggest political butt whoopins in recent memory.
Posted by: JoeBewildered | October 28, 2008 12:32 PM
Caribou Barbie will return to Alaska and continue abusing governmental power until she gets bounced out of public office....never to seen or heard from again. She has shown herself to be one of the "Not Ready for Prime-Time" (or ANY time for that matter)Players" in the political area.
Posted by: Bushwhacked1 | October 28, 2008 12:41 PM
If McCain loses the election, she will be toast in Alaska. With falling oil prices, Alaskan state will be under heavy deficits which means heavy cost cutting and no more $1000 checks. Her 80% approval rating will soon be 20%.
Posted by: formula1champ | October 28, 2008 1:14 PM
She'll be back in 2012 alright. The base (they are base, are they not?) love her to pieces. And never neglect the uterus factor. She's John McCain's little gift that will keep on giving. She's the Republican version of the Curse of Hillary. She's the party's very own, one and only wilderness girl, and the wilderness is right where they're all headed. Soon she won't be Caribou Barbie anymore. She'll be Albatross Barbie.
Posted by: fzdybel | October 28, 2008 1:28 PM
Palin in 2012. As a Democrat, I should only hope so. It would be a gift to us. If she makes it to a debate with other GOP hopefuls, she can count on NOT being able to pull the same schtick she pulled on Gwne Ifill ("I'm not gonna answer your questions. I'll speak directly to the American people.") That worked once for her because the Dems were afraid to take her to task for it. She can't do it again. After next week, she will fade into the background faster that yo can say "You betcha!"
Posted by: topperale | October 28, 2008 1:44 PM
I have a terrible track record for predicting the future; my football picks never pan out. But, based on my observations of American pop-culture, Palin is this year's flavor; she'll be a D-list celebrity by 2012.
Posted by: nonsensical2001 | October 28, 2008 1:45 PM
Palin for 20212???? After all the elections hoopla is over, and all her "dirty laundry" out of Alaska keeps resurfacing ( I am sure some are digging- favors from contractors who build her Wasilla home, any dubious relationships with Stevens, etc)... will see if the GOP wants deal with Caribou Barbie...
Posted by: LMM48 | October 28, 2008 2:09 PM
Sarah Palin as President? Look to Argentina, and ask those folks how they feel about their 'sexy' leader, President Cristina Kirchner. And before her, Eva Peron... Where are all the tough old ladies like Madeline Albright, Golda Meir, and Margaret Thatcher? It ain't all about 'cute' folks! Give me an old battleaxe lady with guts, not a right wing stand in for Paris Hilton....
Posted by: tbrucia | October 28, 2008 2:14 PM
I vote for whoever is running against her.
Posted by: j_zarek | October 28, 2008 2:28 PM
Palin does not stand a chance in 2012.
Now she has some support within the GOP basis, but she has to overcome with 3 hurdles by 2012:
- the ongoing ethics violation investigation;
- the lack of novelty in 2012 (now she is popular because she a fresh face);
- her fading beauty (now she runs on image and looks. By 2012 she will be a MILFFM (mother I'd like far from me)
Posted by: migx | October 28, 2008 2:28 PM
Palin in 2012? Not a chance. She's an amateur in a professional game. She can take her hockey (lip)stick and go home next Wednesday. She'll be lucky if the folks of Alaska grant her the two years left in her governorship.
As for McCain, I'm envisioning him relaxing in his 'maverick' hammock in one of his homes in Arizona. As well as resigning his Senate seat. He's nuts, and everyone knows it.
I'm predicting a Democratic landslide come November 4th, superstitions be cast aside. It's inconceivable that the American public would want McCain and Palin in the driver's seat - heck, 'you betcha,' they can't even see straight.
Posted by: CaptainJohn2525 | October 28, 2008 2:45 PM
The $150,000 shopping spree is the least of Palin's problems, and besides Mrs. McCain wore $328,000 on herself at the convention. How many mortgagee Mrs. McCain could have helped with that kind of money. She asked them to dress Palin and Palin went crazy with that money. However in order for Palin to run in 2012, she has to learn about the Economy, world affair, domestic affair, and everything else. She can fool some of the people in Alaska, but she could not answer a simple question in the big league. It's not enough to run around with a yellow pad in your hand getting dictation, let Todd Palin run your government, call yourself a hockey mom, be a lousy example to your 17 year old daughter, and claim that you are against abortion, and cater to the religious right. She needs knowledge. All countries look for smart people to lead them, but we, seem to feel comfortable with Joe Six-Pack and Joe The Plumber as our leaders. See what happened in the last eight years by letting incompetence take over.
Posted by: chdemornay | October 28, 2008 3:09 PM
It is apparent that the RNC is preparing for 2012, what other choice do they have. It seems obvious right now that Palin will be the nominee in 2012, while the republican core hopes that Obama will screw up the first term, and won't be re-elected. However, my own take, being a republican conservative with open eyes and a general distrust of the direction of the republican party, Obama will win re-election and has my vote, and Biden will win after that, unless the democratic party wants to shoot themselves in the foot and really try to get Hillary nominated again. Palin will be well into menopause by then, and may not even be in any political office. The republican party needs to start repairing itself from the ground up, first at the Congressional level, then at the Senate level and not even worry about the Presidency. There are too many republicans, like myself that are ready for a third party and if it comes about, the Republican Party will eventually be phased out.
Posted by: Xcalibar | October 28, 2008 3:26 PM
So you think Huckabee is planning to roll over and just concede the 2012 nomination to Palin.
Palin will have to actually do the work and go through the nomination process to run in 2012. It is a different story when competing with other Republicans. I doubt those singing praises now will be so flattering when they want the nomination themselves.
Posted by: del3 | October 28, 2008 3:47 PM
In the post-War era, only two failed Vice Presidential candidates have ever subsequently obtained their party's nomination (Mondale, who'd already served a term as VP, and Dole), and neither of these won the Presidency. If precedent holds, it seems more likely that Palin will be abandoned by her party if she and McCain lose next Tuesday.
Posted by: Nosy_Parker | October 28, 2008 4:17 PM
I can not understand why the conservative movement is determined to return America to the indentured servitude of its roots. They continue using fear and hate as their primary tools as spread by Limbaugh, Coulter, Hanity and their fellow travelers. And the American people are so frightened that they elect tools like G.W. Bush and probably Palin. The Conservative movement is destroying our contry in the name of what God? The God of lies aand hate which will lead to the destruction of America's middle class.
Posted by: Freethotlib | October 28, 2008 4:50 PM
Huckabee & Palin could split & form the Jesus Party. Then they could run for Emperors of Idaho, Utah and Oklahoma. Their national sport would be Witch Hunting-- from helicopters!
Posted by: alarico | October 28, 2008 4:53 PM
Um, Palin will not appoint his successor if Stevens resigns or is expelled from the Senate. Although that would be a juicy story-line, Alaska changed the process so that all replacement Senators will be by special election (as Palin is quoted as saying).
Posted by: TomSeattle | October 28, 2008 5:23 PM
Maybe she will be going home to be indicted? Is that possible? You betcha!
Posted by: jrubin1 | October 28, 2008 5:24 PM
Of course she is planning for 2012. On the Republican side, this whole campaign has come to be about Sarah Palin. She has become the whole dog and pony show, and I can't decide whether McCain has become the dog or the pony.
Posted by: tinyjab40 | October 28, 2008 5:33 PM
Mike Huckabee is more attractive to the same base that supposedly will boost Sarah Palin into competitiveness in 4 years. Considering how well he did as a contender this time around, if he chooses to run again in 2012, Palin will be lucky to even get the title of "also ran."
Posted by: clearbeard | October 28, 2008 5:53 PM
Palin in 2012 would be fantastic -- for Democrats. She would finish the job of sinking the GOP ship to the point where it could take decades to recover. It's not like she is likely to get smart or experienced in the next four years. Her political positions, while too far right to win a national election, are just right to win a GOP primary.
The GOP's problem is that it has no up and coming stars -- all its 2008 candidates were re-treads. The Dems were there in 2000 and 2004; now it's the GOP's turn.
Wonder if HRC will challenge Obama again in 2012? Just asking! ;-)
Posted by: dolph924 | October 28, 2008 6:22 PM
No. The Governor of Alaska is no longer allowed to appoint a replacement for the U.S. Senate or U.S. House seats. If Ted Stevens wins, and then is impeached or resigned, Alaska must hold an election for his replacement. Almost certainly, Sarah Palin would run for that U.S. Senate seat against a Democratic opponent in a special election.
Posted by: AKwatchman | October 28, 2008 6:52 PM
Some people are already hinting at a Palin run for the presidency in 2012 (and thereby effectively conceding defeat for McCain).
Palin may very well return to a much more hostile Alaska. She was riding on the coattails of an over-inflated price for a barrel of oil that delivered huge profits to her state. People were willing to give her a pass with respect to her management style so long as they shared a piece of the profit pie.
Well, the price of oil has plummeted and as a result, the Alaskan economy will suffer. Her statewide ratings have already dropped 20 points, and the increased scrutiny of her conduct while governor has given many Alaskans another perspective of her leadership. I suspect we have only seen the tip of her "mismanagement" and "abuse of power" iceberg.
By the next election cycle, Sarah Palin will very likely no longer have the positive image or clout to contend for the presidency. In fact, she may be lucky to get re-elected as governor.
Posted by: labman57 | October 28, 2008 6:58 PM
SHUT UUUUPPPP!!!! Shut up, shut up shut up shut up shutup shutup shutup shutupshutupshutupshutupshutupshutupshutupshutup upupupupupupupupupupupupupupup eNOUGH already!!!!!
Have you forgotten how to go out and report NEWS??? I.e., something going on outside your fevered, speculative, yet lazy brain? DO SOME ACTUAL REPORTING!!!!!!
I swear, if the MSM doesn't get back to reporting some actual news after this election's OVER!! OVER! OVEROVEROVEROVEROVER!!!! I'm going on a strict diet of NPR and BBC for the next four years. They actually tell me what's happening now, not try to predict the future.
Posted by: treetopflyer | October 28, 2008 7:12 PM
RUN SARAH RUN!
...That way her idiotic, guaranteed failure candidacy will keep the criminal and corrupt NEO-CON theocracy, racists, - and their easily brainwashed minions - out of office until 2016 at the earliest!
Youuuuu Betcha!
OBAMA/BIDEN 08!
Posted by: onestring | October 28, 2008 7:15 PM
I WAS READING ABOUT MCCAIN , AND PALIN TELLING STEVENS HE SHOULD RESIGN , THEN ABOUT THE CHARGE THAT THE SAME COMPANY THAT BUILT THE HOCKEY / ICE CENTER IN PALINS HOME TOWN . BUILT THE PALINS A NEW HOUSE FREE. WHAT IS UP WITH THIS?
SOUNDS LIKE THE SAME THING .TO ME MORE PALIN SCANDAL. EVEN IF YOU LIKE MCCAIN, YOU CAN'T TRUST PALIN SHE IS A LOOSE SCREW.
Posted by: jawillis01aolcom | October 29, 2008 9:20 AM
The comments to this entry are closed.


As you snarkily aver, Drudge is particularly ridiculous. Yesterday an embazoned headline screamed that Obama said it was tragic that Supreme Court had not ordered redistribution of wealth. But if you look at the quote, he clearly said people seeking to "get theirs" should pursue activisim, since the courts don't work that way. Direct opposite of Drudge's intentional and mendacious "misinterpretation." This remained on Drudge today. I wonder how this works under libel laws?