Sarah Palin VP nominee
Compared to Biden, this was a move of complete genius. Getting the Hillary swing voters and getting somebody with clearly a reputation for not putting up with garbage (e.g. ethics, corruption in government, etc.) is going to be a major vote-getter, especially if the Democrats can’t smear her.
It’s very rare that a VP selection will actually gain you a material amount of votes, but this is certainly an exception.
Although on paper, the Democrats have a huge advantage, McCain and his crew done an excellent job in the past month in this campaign, and if they can keep it up until November, they’ll win the election.
I’ve read this elsewhere, but it is worth repeating here. You are supposing that Hillary supporters will vote for an anti-choice, anti-gay rights, pro-gun, anti-universal health care, evangelical Christian, only because she has ovaries? What planet are you on?
Oh, right, you are a believer in the predictive power of the free market:
http://www.thetalentshow.org/2008/08/29/but-is-she-ready-to-lead/
Obviously the Cindy Sheehan-San Francisco types won’t care at all, but how about the women in Colorado, Ohio and Virginia?
McCain’s campaign right now couldn’t care less how the people in California and New York react.
It has nothing to do with the presence of a vagina.
You think that Colorado, Ohio and Virginia are full of people who were going to support a pro-gay-rights, pro-women’s choice, universal health care, pro-environment candidate named Clinton, just becasue she is female, but will now vote against all of those ideas because McCain has a chick running with him?
I think we’ve both made our points, and we’ll see who’s right on November 4th.
I’m curious that Anti WC tacked on “Christian” at the end of it. Hillary is a Christian. Is the distinction supposed to be between “evangelical” Christian and “non-evangelical” Christian (as in, Catholic voters might be turned off by an evangelical Protestant?)?
Forgetting female voters for a second, I wonder how many *male* voters will be nudged into the McCain-Palin column because Palin is an attractive female …
Fair question, Tony. Hillary may profess a certain level of Southern Baptism, but she hardly appeals to the Evangelical Christian Right, who are a significant political force in the United States. Christianity is not part of her platform; it is a checkmark on her list of qualifications. Palin, in contrast, is on YouTube asking her church congregation to pray for a Natural Gas Pipeline, referring to the war in Iraq as a mission from God, and saying that policy doesn’t mean anything unless Alaskans are “right with God”. That sells well to the Focus on the Family types. It sells very poorly to most centrist Americans. My point is that I think it will sell poorly to any female voter whose support for Hillary was based on the progress represented by having a woman in the White House.
“My point is that I think it will sell poorly to any female voter whose support for Hillary was based on the progress represented by having a woman in the White House.”
I’m trying to parse this, and don’t understand it. Could you rephrase this? Sorry if I’m being obtuse.
Tony, Some people (including Sacha) suggest that “disenfranchised Hillary voters” will vote for McCain/Palin instead of Obama/Biden because Palin has a vagina. I suggest that is ridiculous; the politics of Palin are the polar opposite of everything Hillary has been saying and working towards for 25 years.
Allow me to re-phrase the sentence that causes you trouble. Assume there is a portion of the US electorate who were planning to vote for Hillary because the election of a person with mammary glands to the presidency represents some sort of “progress” for womankind in general. I do not think a significant portion of these people (who think the advancement of women is the most important thing in politics) will then turn around and vote for a person who’s platform is old-world conservatism with a Jesus cherry on top.
I am sure that some Hillary supporters will support McCain because of the Palin pick (these are ones who supported Hillary in part for her populism, are possibly working class, and more of social conservatives) – but that isn’t the only question. The other question is – how many Hillary supporters will now sit out the election because Obama picked a man while McCain picked a woman.
p.s. Being a woman does not mean simply having a pair of “ovaries”, a “vagina”, or “mammary glands.” The way you characterize Palin as a woman and a candidate is crude and demeaning. I understand why Republicans are starting to charge sexism. If Sacha’s from another planet, what century are you from?
Please, tell me what it means to be a woman, as I’m not sure what I have been doing wrong. I use those phrases not out of misogyny (self-misogyny?), but to show how ridiculous the argument is. If we were saying “republican men are going to vote for Obama now, because they won’t vote for a woman”, then I would likely say it is silly to think that anyone would vote for Obama because strictly because he has a prostate gland. That said, I contend you are wrong. “Being a woman” is defined by two things: being post-pubescent (therefore an adult female, not a child), and sexual dimorphism (having female chromosomes, and the female reproductive organs that result). Consult a high school biology textbook. How else would you define it?
I prefer your theory that some disenfranchised Hillary voters may sit out instead of voting for Obama, as that seems more likely to me than them doing a 180 degree turn in their politics because she lost the primaries. I’m not sure if you have been following the news down south over the last 10 years, but social conservatives HATE Hillary Clinton more than they hate her husband
“but to show how ridiculous the argument is”
If all having a woman in the office of Vice-President of President meant was a “vagina” would be on the body of that person, then of course it would be silly. Are you really trying to argue that identity politics doesn’t matter when it comes to gender?
Having said that, of course you’re right that many women who find her positions disagreeable will still vote for the man-man ticket (or will even *switch* to the man-man ticket). That isn’t what Sacha was saying (he clearly was referring to certain segments of the Hillary voting bloc with the epigram “the women in Colorado, Ohio and Virginia”). Nor is a result of taking most of the women who supported Hillary in the cards at all for virtually any possible McCain Veep candidate. If, say, 2-3% more of women who supported Hillary but were going to sit out now vote for McCain, that’s a big success – because the candidates are now fighting for the relatively small pool of voters in the middle who are “undecided.”
Actually, after the drawn out primaries, there is now almost a kind of begrudging respect bestowed upon H.R. Clinton by many on the right. I’m sure that will change after the election, and she becomes part of the “enemy” again.
Finally, yes, I’m familiar with U.S. politics. :)
And what does your handle refer to?