Either McCain's choice of Sarah Palin for veep is absolutely brilliant or it will sound the death knell (I think I mean knell, not knoll).
I agree with many Obama supporters that McCain should not have talked about Obama's lack of experience and then turn around and pick a candidate with little experience herself; that could really hurt him. But I am not the only one who is not voting for Obama for a reason other than his inexperience. His views are just fundamentally different from mine (In fact, I took yet another quiz. Ron Paul got me 15 points, McCain and Bob Barr got me 8 and 7. And Obama, 0). Really, what makes a person qualified to be president? I would never vote for someone who had not held any office, but I am more turned off by someone who has a ton of experience, particularly someone who has been in Congress for decades. Of the two (Obama and Palin), neither is particularly qualified (though you could argue being a mayor and then governor is a more experience than being one of 100 in the congress).
I read up on Sarah Palin today, and for the mot part, I liked what I read. She seems to be anti-pork barrel and against raising taxes and was a whistle-blower over some legal violations. She reduced her own salary while in office. She is pro-life, but that has never affected my vote. Apparently there is some firing scandal going on, which is a bit sketchy. The guy in question (the one who did not get fired but Palin wanted him to be) seems like a real low-life. Strangely enough some of the details that I read on wikipedia early this afternoon are no longer there, things which paint a more favorable picture of Palin, but that does not surprise me. I look at her as breath of fresh air.
Do I believe that John McCain picked her because she was truly the best candidate? No, I am sure he knew what he was doing. I would have to think this would sway some Hillary supporters, the ones who refuse to vote for Obama (even though the two of them are pretty closely aligned in their views). Those women seem to just want a woman in the office, so how can that not resonate with them.
Fortunately, I still have two months to decide. Ron Paul is not off the table (and I guess neither is Bob Barr, who is actually still in the running, as the Libertarian candidate). I will watch as many debates as I can and make my decision from there. Which is way more than some voters are doing. If nothing else, I think it is great that come January, we will have either a woman as second in command or a black man as commander in chief. But I guess this could also tell us if the country is more racist than sexist.
I agree with many Obama supporters that McCain should not have talked about Obama's lack of experience and then turn around and pick a candidate with little experience herself; that could really hurt him. But I am not the only one who is not voting for Obama for a reason other than his inexperience. His views are just fundamentally different from mine (In fact, I took yet another quiz. Ron Paul got me 15 points, McCain and Bob Barr got me 8 and 7. And Obama, 0). Really, what makes a person qualified to be president? I would never vote for someone who had not held any office, but I am more turned off by someone who has a ton of experience, particularly someone who has been in Congress for decades. Of the two (Obama and Palin), neither is particularly qualified (though you could argue being a mayor and then governor is a more experience than being one of 100 in the congress).
I read up on Sarah Palin today, and for the mot part, I liked what I read. She seems to be anti-pork barrel and against raising taxes and was a whistle-blower over some legal violations. She reduced her own salary while in office. She is pro-life, but that has never affected my vote. Apparently there is some firing scandal going on, which is a bit sketchy. The guy in question (the one who did not get fired but Palin wanted him to be) seems like a real low-life. Strangely enough some of the details that I read on wikipedia early this afternoon are no longer there, things which paint a more favorable picture of Palin, but that does not surprise me. I look at her as breath of fresh air.
Do I believe that John McCain picked her because she was truly the best candidate? No, I am sure he knew what he was doing. I would have to think this would sway some Hillary supporters, the ones who refuse to vote for Obama (even though the two of them are pretty closely aligned in their views). Those women seem to just want a woman in the office, so how can that not resonate with them.
Fortunately, I still have two months to decide. Ron Paul is not off the table (and I guess neither is Bob Barr, who is actually still in the running, as the Libertarian candidate). I will watch as many debates as I can and make my decision from there. Which is way more than some voters are doing. If nothing else, I think it is great that come January, we will have either a woman as second in command or a black man as commander in chief. But I guess this could also tell us if the country is more racist than sexist.
Comments
I respect Palin's accomplishments and sincerely hope that McCain selected her for reasons that ranked higher than her gender. And I think it is complete and total b.s. that her Miss Alaska photo or whatever the hell picture it was hit the Internet faster than you can say boo. What does that have to do with anything? Palin, like Hillary, will be under a lot of scrutiny, a great deal of it unfair, but I gather that, like Hillary, she's tough enough to hold her own.
That said, I care more about preserving my reproductive rights, restoring a more balanced Supreme Court, and earning equal pay for equal work than wondering if my taxes will be raised.