You're right that McCain is definitely as old-school DC as Biden, so it would make sense to pick someone to round him out and possibly also have a leaning for reform, maybe someone younger with some go-to, and all the more strength if it'd been someone with strong economic skills. To be frank, that's pretty much what I'd been expecting as a pick -- it'd make so much sense. It's a reverse of Obama-Biden, but it's still as intelligent a sharing o' the skillz.
What gets me, I suppose, is that it's not like Palin's the only duck in the pond. I mean, if the requirement was a woman on the ticket to swing women voters, okay, I can understand that motivation... but then why insult those women voters by picking someone so unqualified, especially in light of the other incredibly qualified women in the party? Do McCain's handlers figure that hey, one woman, any woman, they're all interchangable, y'know. That's beyond insulting.
And like Tharain mentions above, there are also folks like Whitman (former gov of NJ) who may not currently hold office but have in the past and did a fine job of it, as well. Given the alternatives, in the shoes of any McCain-leaning voter, I'd much rather have a VP pick who is qualified and a contributing balancing round-out factor. Settling for less, expecting me to settle for less, just insults my intelligence as a voter.
(I should note that part of my reaction is also the discomfort I'd feel if I were to be someone defending the choice as a pro-nominee voter... while knowing the VP-pick is currently under investigation. I mean, hello!? Could we not, please? Because if I were to spend time defending the pick, feeling good about it, and then the VP-pick were found, bloody hell, guilty of ethics violations, I would be furious. I'd feel used. I'd feel like I'd done my best to be supportive of my preferred nominee and then got stomped on, and it was a preventable stomp-on, y'know? Pick someone not being investigated, please, fer crying out loud. Don't set up your constituency to look like morons if things go south! Cripes.)
no subject
Date: 2 Sep 2008 04:51 am (UTC)What gets me, I suppose, is that it's not like Palin's the only duck in the pond. I mean, if the requirement was a woman on the ticket to swing women voters, okay, I can understand that motivation... but then why insult those women voters by picking someone so unqualified, especially in light of the other incredibly qualified women in the party? Do McCain's handlers figure that hey, one woman, any woman, they're all interchangable, y'know. That's beyond insulting.
And like Tharain mentions above, there are also folks like Whitman (former gov of NJ) who may not currently hold office but have in the past and did a fine job of it, as well. Given the alternatives, in the shoes of any McCain-leaning voter, I'd much rather have a VP pick who is qualified and a contributing balancing round-out factor. Settling for less, expecting me to settle for less, just insults my intelligence as a voter.
(I should note that part of my reaction is also the discomfort I'd feel if I were to be someone defending the choice as a pro-nominee voter... while knowing the VP-pick is currently under investigation. I mean, hello!? Could we not, please? Because if I were to spend time defending the pick, feeling good about it, and then the VP-pick were found, bloody hell, guilty of ethics violations, I would be furious. I'd feel used. I'd feel like I'd done my best to be supportive of my preferred nominee and then got stomped on, and it was a preventable stomp-on, y'know? Pick someone not being investigated, please, fer crying out loud. Don't set up your constituency to look like morons if things go south! Cripes.)