I think she's a pretty solid choice, albeit one that would never have occurred to me. She's known as a reformer, and for rooting out governmental corruption. I don't especially like her (I'd much rather have Giuliani, Lieberman or Cheney), but neither do I especially dislike her. She'll be adequate for a VP.
I do expect McCain to pull away a lot of Hillary's voters, not because he nominated a woman, but because of general dissatisfaction with the way the Democrats ran their primary process. They spent so much time and energy over the last eight years trying to keep their voters angry about W winning the 2000 election while losing the popular vote, then they did the exact same thing to Clinton in the primary.
I voted for Hillary myself, BTW, because I think she'd make an excellent President. If the election were Clinton/McCain, I'd have a hard choice to make. Obama/McCain doesn't even require thought.
I can't comprehend selecting an unknown with limited experience as a VP Yet on the other hoof, the Democrats nominated an unknown with limited experience for President...
just as Quayle being a-heartbeat-away probably contributed to Bush Sr.'s lost bid for reelection The chance of Bush dying and leaving the office to that halfwit Quayle cost him my vote in '92, yes. Clinton was at least a plausible alternative, though.
Obama's credentials are excellent for a lawyer, not so much for a leader. Ultimately I can't see much wisdom in directly electing an inexperienced President to stave off the possibility of one inheriting the office.
Far be it from you to try to sew doubts about the Republican candidate!
She still seems a pretty good choice to me. The people who support McCain (such as myself) are okay with her. The evangelicals seem willing to settle for a token again, as they always have - they're happy so long as they think someone takes them seriously. Her inexperience is a weakness, but it's writ much larger in Obama, so that part's okay.
The only really negative reaction I've seen to her is coming from Obama supporters, which seems a good sign.
Obama has had only three years experience as a Senator, two of which were spent running for President. His national experience as an actual national legislator doing his job is a truly paltry one year.
Prior to that he wasn't a Congressman at the national level, just in the Illinois state legislature.
I'm not sure she was my first choice (though I'm not sure she wasn't, at least among plausibles) I had a feeling it was going to go that way after it became clear Jindal wasn't really interested in the job at this point in his career. I think if he completes a full term or two as Governor, his prospects of taking the top slot rather than #2 increase considerably. We've had female Governors before so Palin's position differs considerably despite her overall similarity to Jindal. She has a lot less clout on her own, so less to lose.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2008-08-29 04:34 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-08-29 05:46 pm (UTC)Re: Hmm
Date: 2008-08-29 08:10 pm (UTC)I do expect McCain to pull away a lot of Hillary's voters, not because he nominated a woman, but because of general dissatisfaction with the way the Democrats ran their primary process. They spent so much time and energy over the last eight years trying to keep their voters angry about W winning the 2000 election while losing the popular vote, then they did the exact same thing to Clinton in the primary.
I voted for Hillary myself, BTW, because I think she'd make an excellent President. If the election were Clinton/McCain, I'd have a hard choice to make. Obama/McCain doesn't even require thought.
Re: Hmm
Date: 2008-08-29 09:15 pm (UTC)Yet on the other hoof, the Democrats nominated an unknown with limited experience for President...
just as Quayle being a-heartbeat-away probably contributed to Bush Sr.'s lost bid for reelection
The chance of Bush dying and leaving the office to that halfwit Quayle cost him my vote in '92, yes. Clinton was at least a plausible alternative, though.
Re: Hmm
Date: 2008-08-29 10:40 pm (UTC)Re: Hmm
Date: 2008-08-30 04:27 pm (UTC)She still seems a pretty good choice to me. The people who support McCain (such as myself) are okay with her. The evangelicals seem willing to settle for a token again, as they always have - they're happy so long as they think someone takes them seriously. Her inexperience is a weakness, but it's writ much larger in Obama, so that part's okay.
The only really negative reaction I've seen to her is coming from Obama supporters, which seems a good sign.
Re: Hmm
Date: 2008-08-30 03:33 am (UTC)Prior to that he wasn't a Congressman at the national level, just in the Illinois state legislature.
no subject
Date: 2008-08-30 03:24 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-08-30 04:14 am (UTC)