Yeah, you got it.

Evidently McCain wanted Lieberman, that got the kibosh from the Rove folks & handlers (some “maverick”!) and Palin was a last ditch choice.

His folks didn’t even bother to check the hometown papers:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/08/31/mccain-camp-didnt-search_n_122823.html

In 2002, my state elected someone who was inexperienced, went to Harvard Law, and was articulate. Her name was Jennifer Granholm. Granholm has been a total disaster for my state.

In 2000, this country elected another inexperienced ivy leaguer……Mr. Bush, who ran on “change.”

Palin took on the Ted Stevens wing of the GOP and is cleaning up the mess that embarassment to my party has inflicted on us with bridges to nowhere. It’s a repudiation of Mr. Bush’s big government conservatism.

I was going to hold my nose and vote against Obama, but now I’m no longer holding my nose and voting for Palin. I think it is a great pick, and the only better pick would have been Mark Sanford.

I don’t know about “corrupt” – probably not especially by Chicago standards, at any rate – but I agree with all that.”

“McCain has been around forever, isn’t especially bright, and has some serious personal demons. His picking a PTA president to join his ticket, apparently on a whim, says all I need to know about his judgment.”

“PTA president.” Isn’t this just a little bit sexist?

Was she chosen in part for her gender? Of course. But I warn against the dangers of dismissing her lightly. She clawed her way out of nowhere to take on nearly all of her own state party establishment – and won. She owns an 80% plus approval rating.

I’d like to see her with a little more experience. But it’s evident she’s more than just a pretty face. I’m willing to wait and see how she runs the national media gauntlet over the next few weeks before dismissing her as backwoods-pistol-packin-PTA President-not ready for prime-time.