Stories are like diamond cutting. The interesting ones are those that break into many facets each with its own distinctive view of the story. The Georgia war was interesting less for what happened to the poor people in the way than for how much tired cold war ideology it revealed. The Joe Biden nomination wasn't interesting at all: it was the ultimate safe choice, proven by the fact that nobody (aside from Counterpunch) had anything to say about it. In retrospect, it shows how cautious and methodical Obama is, but only compared to McCain-Palin will anyone notice. Anyone McCain could have picked would have reflected on McCain. Lieberman would have been good for publicity, but he's been pretty well aired out by now. I was hoping for Phil Gramm, but he's pure coal compared to Palin: nothing but a source of heat and pollution, sure to cover McCain in soot. Palin's much more than that.

Brent D Wistrom: Brownback pulled as one to nominate Palin. One of the most perverse things about the anti-abortion crowd is how much they adore teenage pregnancies. For these people, the news that Sarah Palin's 17-year-old unwed daughter is pregnant is a sign from God. KS Sen. Sam Brownback is one of them. He was originally asked to give Palin's nomination speech, but evidently McCain's handlers started having second thoughts, as if they recognize that most Americans might not be so joyful over the Palin family's blessings.

Brownback said recent disclosures about Palin will only make her stronger.

He said he thinks conservative Kansans will be supportive of Palin, whose 17-year-old daughter is pregnant and not married.

"Here's a situation you don't like, you wish didn't happen, but you don't kill the child as a response," he said. "You say 'OK, we'll have the child, we're going to surround the child with love, they're going to try to make it go as a family.' And that's what we do."

Brownback said, in fact, that Palin's social conservatism has excited the base of the party for the first time in years. "After her announcement, I talked to people who were giddy about her," he said. "Because there's always been some distance between McCain and the conservative base of the party."

Speaking of giddy, on the opinion page Cal Thomas has a love letter to Palin, annointing her as a "Steel Magnolia." This is actually a far cry from the usual run of Republican pundits, who lined up dutifully behind Palin because those were the marching orders.

So at least one part of the Palin pick is working beautifully, perhaps too much so. The fundamentalist base is rallying behind her, which is a double-sided sword. They got their candidate, and -- unlike the Fred Barneses of the world -- they're going to be hurt if McCain drops her. On the other hand, their fanatic support only adds to McCain's already substantial nutjob factor. When this finally sinks in, a lot of centrist voters are going to be very nervous.

Alex Koppelman: Quote of the day. Actually, the quote, which pertains to the point above, is from Byron York over at National Review:

Perhaps I'm focusing on an irrelevant issue, but the presence, or non-presence, of [Levi Johnston, the father of Bristol Palin's unborn child] on the stage tonight strikes me as important. It's one thing for delegates to be understanding and compassionate about the fix these two teenagers have gotten themselves into. It's another to actually celebrate it. And, given what we've learned in the last few days, if Johnston is up on stage with his girlfriend and the Palin family, and Republicans are wildly cheering, it will certainly look like they are celebrating this situation.

I don't usually engage in these scenarios, but I'll do it here. If the Obamas had a 17 year-old daughter who was unmarried and pregnant by a tough-talking black kid, my guess is if that they all appeared onstage at a Democratic convention and the delegates were cheering wildly, a number of conservatives might be discussing the issue of dysfunctional black families.

Actually, if Palin was a Democrat and got nominated, virtually everything in her story would spin around 180 degrees.

Marc Ambinder: What McCain Didn't Know About Sarah Palin. Subtitle: "And why he probably would have picked her anyway." Goes through in pretty substantial detail what McCain's people actually did find out about Palin, and how they planned to use that -- e.g., to turn the "lack of experience" issue around to emphasize her executive experience as mayor and governor, something Obama and Biden (and McCain) lack. The argument that McCain would have picked Palin anyway depends more on the mostly imaginary outisder-reformist narrative. That strikes me as the weakest and most phony of her assets. She offers a sense of human (as in fallible) commonness that McCain sorely lacks (and that he sure wouldn't have picked up with Romney). On the other hand, I'm not sure if that's what America wants in a [vice] president.

Patrick J Buchanan: Johnny's got a new girl. One thing we differ on here at home is Buchanan: whether he's an incisive critic at least on a few points, or whether he's inevitably just a partisan hack. Here's his take on Palin:

The Palin nomination could backfire, but it is hard to see how. She has passed her first test, her introduction to the nation, with wit and grace. And the Obama-Biden ticket, having already alienated millions of women with the disrespecting of Hillary, is unlikely to start attacking another woman whose sole offense is that she had just been given the chance to break the glass ceiling at the national level.

Her nomination, which will bring the Republican right home, also frees up McCain to appeal to moderates and liberals, which has long been his stock in trade.

With his selection of Sarah Palin, John McCain has not only shaken up this election, he may have helped shape the future of the United States -- and much for the better.

I'd say this lines him up pretty securely with the partisan hacks.

Josh Marshall: Risk of Stating the Obvious. Lists two "key facts" in the presidential race:

First, the Democratic base is bigger than the Republican base. The number of self-identifying Democrats is substantially larger that the number of Republican-identifiers.

Second, contrary to what we might have imagined earlier in the year, Republicans have already been substantially more united behind McCain than Democrats have been behind Obama. I would not have predicted that. But the polls have been extremely consistent on this point.

In other words, the GOP 'base' was already substantially united behind McCain, subjective measures of intensity notwithstanding. The people who will win the election for McCain are disaffected Democrats and independents. In the context of 2008, a juicing-the-base strategy is a recipe for a respectable defeat, not victory.

I imagine there was a point where McCain fantasized that picking Palin would have extended his reach: that he might have picked up a big chunk of those Clinton PUMAs. In any case, he did succeed in stealing the news cycle back from the Democrats. But the way Palin is playing out may have just the opposite effect: rallying the born-againers is more likely to unite the Democrats than to split them. McCain may have figured he needed to gamble to win, or he may just like gambling. Lots of Americans like gambling. They think it's about winning, but mostly they just lose.

The question all this raises is whether they like leaders who gamble. After two terms of George Bush doubling and redoubling his failed, hedged bets, I hope not.