Can Dems Deal with the 'Republican Obama'?

ST. PAUL, Minn.--One of the most entertaining aspects of "Palinsanity"--the Republican Party's long-awaited response to Obamania--is how it's forcing both conservatives and liberals to contort themselves into pretzels of irrationality to justify their feelings about the newly-minted Republican vice presidential nominee. As someone who falls somewhere in the middle of the spectrum, I have to say: I'm enjoying all the hypocrisy.

Let's start with the right. Last night, Sarah Palin gave a speech. It consisted of words. It was short on specifics. And it got a lot of Republicans really, really excited. "She's our Obama," a delegate from Alaska told me a few hours after Palin left the stage. The problem is that the GOP has spent many months cautioning the country against talented, fresh-faced candidates unleashing lofty but less-than-substantive language to woo worshipful crowds. Just words, they've quipped. A vapid celebrity, they've added. Never mind! As Slate's John Dickerson puts it, "catapult[ing] Sarah Palin past her rocky rollout and into legitimacy in a single speech wrapped in thunderous applause" was precisely the point of Wednesday's festivities. And while Republicans used to claim that a relatively brief, relatively unconventional resume--like, say, one that includes stints as a community organizer, a law professor, a state senator and a U.S. senator--couldn't possibly prepare someone for the presidency, now they're not so sure. Community organizer? Pshaw. Get a load of our town councilwoman.

As for liberals, they're not faring much better. After 18 months of saying that words can move the masses, they're suddenly reacting to Palin's big speech as if they were--gasp!--Republicans ripping into Obama. "Turn off the teleprompter and she'll be back to her Wasilla self," wrote commenter Jim over at the Politico, echoing the GOP's relentless "empty suit" line of attack. "With lipstick of course." And when it comes to experience--once dismissed as a narrow-minded Beltway concern; less important than intellect, biography and judgment--they're starting to sound suspiciously Republican as well. "Can you imagine this self-described hockey mom negotiating with Putin or Maliki?" wrote Stumper reader K.S. last week. "How does being a mayor of a town of 8,000 or so and then serving a two-year-stint as head of the country's smallest-populated state qualify her for these tasks?" Once upon a time, the Democrats were right about words (they matter) and experience (it isn't everything)--but now they seem to have ceded that ground to the GOP in a fit of post-Palin pique.

The problem is that both sides are viewing McCain's new running mate through the prism of their own cultural and political biases. Take the "words" argument. The reason Republicans say that Obama is "just words" is that they disagree with the words he's using. Because his positions and philosophy don't appeal to them personally, they uncharitably assume that his appeal is all about the pleasant way he's phrasing things and that his fans are being fooled. Same goes for Palin. Democrats disagree with her on tax cuts, drilling, abortion and abstinence education--so obviously she's some sort of brainless stooge who slides by on story and style and can't function without a teleprompter.

The experience debate, meanwhile, is no different. When it comes to the length and atypicality of their resumes, Palin and Obama are pretty similar: she served on the city council for four years, in the mayor's office for six and in the governor's mansion for two; he served as a community organizer for three, in the state senate for seven and in the U.S. Senate for two (before launching his full-time presidential bid). Where they differ is in what kind of experience they have--and how that experience resonates with the people already inclined to support them. Obama's resume--his years abroad, his Harvard Law Review presidency, his fluent memoirs, his Illinois legislative record--conforms to a liberal ideal of leadership: worldly, brainy, well-spoken, cooperative. Palin's resume, meanwhile--her working motherhood, her family foibles, her against-the-odds mayoralty and reform-minded governorship--conforms to a more conservative ideal: gritty, down-home, self-sufficient, executive. Obama deserves to lead because he's better than we could ever be, Democrats declaim. Palin deserves to lead because she's one of us, Republicans respond.

Each side dismisses the other's argument because it doesn't resonate with them--to Republicans, Obama is un-American, elitist, self-obsessed and politically spineless; to Democrats, Palin is undertraveled, undereducated and embarrassingly tabloid. But for either camp to claim that its candidate is the only one qualified for the White House--when neither of them crosses the traditional threshold of pre-presidential experience--is somewhat disingenuous. If an objective observer can quantify exactly why Palin's crusade against corruption in Alaska has done more or less than the sum total of Obama's legislative achievements to prepare her for the presidency, be my guest. But at the end of the day, I still suspect that experience is in the eye of the beholder.

Most Dems will undoubtedly disagree with me. For one thing, they'll say, Obama's 18 months of campaigning have proven that he's more qualified for the presidency than Palin--whatever one thinks of his C.V. "Obama won 18 million votes, faced countless tough interviews and emerged with a reputation for fluency in discussing affairs of state, whatever one thinks of his politics," writes Jonathan Alter, my colleague at NEWSWEEK. "Palin's vote totals for mayor were measured in the hundreds; she has served only 20 months as governor of a state half the size of Brooklyn, and knows nothing of national or international issues beyond energy." I completely concur. But while it's true that Obama has proven his managerial mettle in part by helming an incredibly successful campaign, Alter's analysis ignores one simple fact: Palin hasn't had the opportunity to campaign yet. Obama and Palin are running for two different offices. In a race for the presidency, you have to spend 16 months wooing voters and handling harsh questions from the press; in a race for the vice-presidency, you're plucked from relative obscurity 60 days before the election and plopped down in the middle of Ohio. When he launched his bid in January 2007, Obama was no more seasoned than Palin is now--so if his on-the-trail experience is allowed to count as a credential, Palin should at least be afforded the opportunity prove herself as well.

Sixty days, of course, isn't nearly enough time for Palin to catch up to Obama--but then again, she's not seeking the highest office in the land. So 60 days will have to suffice. Here's hoping that over the next two months America (and the media) can ditch the double standards about "words" and "experience" and start asking Palin tough questions about where she wants to take the nation. Question whether her reform resume is really what she says it is. Question her stance on abstinence education. Even question what Troopergate says about her character. In the end, Palin may sink. She may swim. But the important thing is making sure that on Nov. 4 we all have enough information to say for ourselves whether she's ready to roll.

It should be a wild ride.