So, which female veep possibility SHOULD McCain have picked?
--I agree with you about the cost votes argument. McCain is campaigning hard right which makes sense as far as people who will turn out if motivated. Does not make sense as far as playing to the center, but...
--Costs votes in the center: The thought of Sarah Palin being in a position to pick judicial nominees certainly makes me hold my nose, drink Hillary's koolaid about the whole country needing us, and summon another increment of down but now out zeal: I WILL find some way to help defeat McCain-Palin. That unquestionably will also wind up broadening the discourse for O-B, but that is always how I wind up dealing with Presidential races, so in a way it's a relief not to have to reinvent the wheel.
--Alaska, unlike Delaware borders one foreign country and has another just one short sunken land bridge over the horizon. So it's ridiculous to say Palin has no foreign policy experience. What she does NOT have is domestic policy experience. A state with 600,000 people, all of whom get a grand a year in oil royalties, a bunch of caribou and a lot of pine trees is just a whole different set of issues than most of those swing states McCain is hoping to clean up in. Should be really fun taking both McCain and Palin apart on the economic lightweight front.
But enough for now.
DoreneC On Fri, Aug 29, 2008 at 2:56 PM, <123hop at comcast.net> wrote:
> Although selecting a female vp was obviously the right thing to do, he
> didn't pick the right one.
>
> As an anti-obortion candidate, she will not get most of the Hillary vote.
> Moreover, McCain is old and might die which would put a forty-something
> female nonentity in the presidential seat.
>
> In other words, picking her for vp is more likely to lose than gain votes.
>
> Joanna
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>