Yeah, it’s easy to draw a line in the sand. I prefer Obama’s version above all others’ I’ve seen. It rankles when John McCain, teller of the infamous Chelsea Clinton joke, tries to claim the moral high ground on talking about people’s children (and not actively mocking them). But that’s to be expected: it’s a business that breeds hypocrisy.

There are three things that seem like legitimate topics related to Familygate.

1. The McCain campaign didn’t learn about this until the day before they announced her selection. That reflects badly on them and on Governor Palin. If they didn’t take the VP selection process seriously enough to do actual vetting, what will they take seriously? It reinforces my fear—well-founded in McCain’s own statements—that he too will be a leader who doesn’t bother to look at the practical reality, but will instead make gut-based decisions and just “live with the consequences.” I’m more convinced than ever these days that judgment, like justice, must be based on the particular facts of a situation, not principles or ideology.

2. Governor Palin accepted the nomination, knowing this would come out. That she didn’t do a better job preparing for this certainty by, say, getting the news out there earlier and on her own terms, is also troubling. It’s a situation that would have given me pause in accepting the nomination, were I and a daughter of mine in that situation: is being the VP really worth that? I guess it was probably just a miscalculation of the speed with which the rumors would come out (the campaign meant the Monday release to be a trash dump), but still, not well done.

3. The timeline of when she gave birth to Trig is also pretty troubling on a personal level to me, and of course it was already news in Alaska before this week. I’m not completely sure about this argument, but I can see some merit to saying, “if you’re going to tout your keeping a baby with Down Syndrome and raising five kids as proof of your being a good mother (a phrase that’s at least been used a lot about her recently), you do have to answer for why you endangered your child’s and your life by waiting 36 hours after your water broke to go to the hospital, with a couple flights and long car rides in there.” The argument’s persuasiveness to me comes from that first condition: it seems pretty undignified to even mention the private in public, let alone for political gain. If you’re going to cross that threshold of dignity, well, you’ve invited what you have coming to you (although the hillzoys are welcome to recuse themselves from giving it to you). For the record, I think the Obamas haven’t been as vigilant as I would want to be about keeping the private life of one’s household private. They have fewer challenges than the Palins or the Clintons on this score, but they have had the temptation to use their children to sate that demotic desire to have our political candidates look like advertisements, replete with two kids and a dog.

And of course Palin’s health is now of even greater importance: does that render her personal health decisions public property? We want to know about our President’s history of cancer, don’t we? I’m not comfortable drawing a clear line on this question, although I think the mean lies a lot closer to the FDR side of things. But then, FDR was sensible enough not to use his excellent judgment on walking as a campaign slogan.

Tonight confirmed it: Trig is a prop to his mother and her party. I won’t forget how shameful that looks.

I agree that Obama has used his family as advertising more than I would like; I’m more critical, though, of the many people I know who are unembarrassed and unapologetic about their preoccupation with such advertising-level aspects of the campaign. My experience shows me that advertising is necessary. No: my experience shows me that tasteless advertising is necessary. Points need to be bludgeoned to death or most of the buzz will be about whether a candidate’s inability to press a certain point indicates too much timidity to be commander-in-chief.

Your first point about Palin’s relevance to McCain seems fair: Palin’s vetting process seems to indicate a devil-may-care approach to governing style that, I agree, is dangerous. That said, it’s not at all clear to me that the choice of Palin was in any way unwise, from the standpoint merely of public opinion. I’m not sure why someone—even someone that disagrees radically with McCain/Palin politics—might not see this as an example of McCain’s ability to make an unobvious and controversial choice with the confidence and speed necessary for real leadership.

Tasteless advertising often is necessary, yes; in order to win, the Obamas needed to “humanize” themselves, and little else does that as well as children. Yet another reason not to be a public man.

As for those unembarrassed with discussing that level of tactics almost exclusively: it’s still an open question to me, but things like narratives and advertising may be the most important tools for winning elections. “Restoring honor and dignity to the White House,” was a slogan, not an issue or governing promise. Did it work? Did people vote against Kerry based on issues? Or because he was an inept campaigner? Or because his organization was bad?

She may turn out to be an asset, sure, and perhaps redeem his knack for decisions. She certainly gives a good speech. It was funny to watch her engage in a little class warfare last night, getting Obama on being a guy who says stuff like clinging to guns. I could be wrong, but I don’t think that Roveian strategy will work again. In any case, John McCain may have just lost his ability to govern in order to win an election. Her selection may be the final step in his descent into evangelical pandering.

“I don’t think that Roveian strategy will work again”.

I hope this is true. I don’t mean that in a cynical way: I find, as I write it, that it reminds me of some of the content in Obama’s “hope” motif. It reminds me, too, of an analysis of Senator Clinton’s failure that Sullivan linked to during the primary: Clinton’s playbook was based on Penn’s obsession with microtrends. What defeated them was the emergence of a somewhat uncomplicated macrotrend in Senator Obama. My hope is that there is a similar macrotrend available in this election: that there is a meaningful commonality still present in a plurality of Americans, and that it’s not best represented by cowboy hats.

Meanwhile: I find that Sarah Palin’s vlog is the most fascinating and funny thing on the election I’ve encountered in months.

Well: I’m finally starting to react to the Palin thing. And I think I’m beginning to share Sullivan’s panic.

That clip, unrebutted, is the death of the American free press. In it, Nicole Wallace says, in response to a very well-phrased challenge, “who needs an intermediary between rhetorician and audience?” It’s a good question, but one we soundly answered a long time ago in Western history: it’s generally been thought that an intermediary prism, to distort and particularize (read: fact check) the words of those who would govern, is a good and necessary thing in our Republic. Wallace doesn’t think so. She thinks a candidate can speak “to the American people,” a line of such staggering inaccuracy that one must call it casuistry. How does one speak to 300 million? Or 40 million?

The media are cowed if they think that a candidate can speak to 40 million without them. Their reaction should be simple: tough it out. That’s what your forebears did to get their papers and careers started. If they won’t answer, put the question to them again. If they won’t come on your show, talk about why they won’t and be ruthless with what you’re doing. It can’t possibly do any worse than MSNBC has done in the ratings on a different system.

Anyway, Frum’s article isn’t one that inspires panic in me. He’s pointing out how the Wallace (she got married on a Greek isle during Hurricane Katrina, remember? a bunch of the White House staffers were out there with her because it was a destination wedding) strategy didn’t work and doomed the conservative movement, at least thus far. It’s despicable, sure, but I’m not convinced it will win again. Gotta get out there and volunteer in Virginia! Even if you hate Obama, you have to hate Wallace and her friends more.