At any rate, expect the Clintons to campaign vigorously for Obama now. No way are they going to let some no name woman get into the White House before Hillary.
I find it hilarious how the criticise Obama's "lack of experience," yet they picked Palin as VP. I agree that she may be a good option in several years, but at the moment this is nothing but a blatantly desperate move from McCain.
Actually, I for one am not surprised. It has become more and more clear that McCain has very little of substance going for him. Because the fact of the matter is that Obama is winning and winning big right now, despite the oft-repeated media myth that the race somehow is tight? Why then should an obvious grasping for any straw he can find be surprising? He has to try something radical after all.
As for Palin herself, I really can't see what she brings to McCain's campaign other than a pair of ovaries. As Dante observed, how can the republicans honestly go after Obama's lack of experience when they pick a total nobody for the VP spot?
And more to the point, will anybody actually believe that the GOP suddenly is the party for women's rights now? I don't really think that it will work like that.
I still don't understand why they didn't go for Condolizza. Or didn't put heavy public pressure on her to make her say no on national television.
She was the obvious counter-balance against Obama. Well, in the same way a blacksmith's anvil balances against a Dotson.
I know right? name me one republican woman in the senate who has a high standard and that's not a first lady or an ex first lady? I find it hard to believe that Conservatives Republican would be for Women's rights all of a sudden when their idea of jobs for women is in the "kitchen".
Originally Posted by Saizou
Dunno how this will playout, although i do think that it has taken the legs of Obama's campaign out . They didnt see this coming.
@Saizou: Yeah but from the beginning McCain's aim wasn't for experience.
Both McCain and Obama tried to get what they were missing in their campaign. Obama founf someone to settle the "lack of experience" problem and McCain just wanted the vote of the women minorities.
The only difference between them would be that Obama actually did a good job. On the other hand McCain's choice might prove to be the edge of a cliff for him as it is purely offensive. He's pratically relying on the stupidity of the American people to win the election.
Actually, choosing the governor of alaska was a very smart choice on McCain's behalf.
1. Obviously she's female. That will sway the Hillary voters who are still wishing for a female person.
2. She shares similar conservative beliefs like McCain.
3. She has a son going to Iraq.
4. She is pro life, even though she has a son with Down-syndrome.
5. She was Miss Alaska... aka, appealing to the voters who are just voting based on looks. (just like how Obama has many supporters purely cause he's good looking.)
6. She is a governor. Governors are way different from senators. Governors have executive experiences. Senators have legislative experiences. The Republicans now have both while the Democrats only have legislative.
(By the way, I was researching, and it's quite unusual to see Senator vs. Senator for this election considering the experience of a Senator isn't what's "presidential" material in general)
Interesting choice but Mccain will have to lay off on the "no exp card".