IT'S WIDELY ACCEPTED now that Barack Obama would be better off if he'd picked Hillary Clinton as his vice presidential running mate instead of Joe Biden. Obama had his reasons, particularly his discomfort with her as his actual vice president if he's elected. Still, Obama sacrificed a stronger ticket by rejecting Clinton.It's "widely accepted" now that he should have picked Hillary? By whom exactly? GOP concern trolls? FOX News polls? You asked Bill Kristol at lunch?
Let's be intellectually honest here, if you're capable of it, Fred.
No Palin. Okay, McCain might have picked her anyway. He was looking for a running mate who would help him shake up the campaign.1) McSame would have picked Palin anyway.
No Biden. He's not an albatross, but he certainly hasn't given Obama a boost. He has brought no balance to the ticket, not in regard to2) McSame still would have gotten a post-convention bounce and we'd be hearing how "Clinton fatigue" was sapping the Democratic base.class, gender, ideology, or anything except longevity in Washington. Worse, unlike Palin, he's generated no enthusiasm or excitement. Biden has little appeal to the working class voters, especially women, who swarmed to Clinton in the primaries. He lacks the populist streak that Clinton had fashioned for herself. Biden is simply a weaker running mate.
Party unity. Democrats have come together fairly well behind the Obama-Biden ticket--but not as well as they would have if Obama had chosen Clinton.3) Hey Freddie? Get your head out of your ass. Sarah Palin has united the Dems' base better than Obama could have done alone. Party unity's not the problem.
Ohio and Pennsylvania. Republicans figured these states, notably Pennsylvania, were all but goners if Clinton won the Democratic nomination.4) Obama's still ahead in PA and in a dead heat or AHEAD this week in Ohio. Latest Q-poll shows him up by 6.
Arkansas. As a Southern state, Arkansas is inclined to vote Republican in presidential races unless there's a compelling reason not to.5) I'll take Colorado and Virgina, thanks.
Vice presidential debate. This is a no-brainer. Who would be the easier opponent for Palin to face in the nationally televised debate on October 2? Clinton or Biden? The tough woman or Senator Windbag? Biden will have to be on his best behavior and treat Palin gingerly. Clinton wouldn't have had to.6) Bullshit. Hillary would have been painted as a bitch for attacking a woman, if not being outright sexist and setting women back for going after Palin in any way, shape, or form. If anything Hillary would be expected to "rise above it" even more than Obama or Biden and "set a shining new example for women in politics".
Republican women. Mark Penn, chief strategist in the Clinton campaign, once insisted that 25 percent of Republican women were ready to vote for her for president. Many crossed party lines and voted for her in the primaries. Many of those women might have voted for an Obama-Clinton ticket. But how many Republican women are going to reject Palin and vote for an Obama-Biden ticket? Mighty few.7) Also bullshit. Hillary's presence in the race would have galvanized Republican women to vote AGAINST her, and the media would have seen to that. Palin would have been offered up as a "real woman" while Hillary was nothing more than a "corrupt Washington insider" and you'd better believe we'd be hearing how Sarah's five kids makes her a better mom than Hillary's one child, plus we'd have the inevitable "Who's hotter?" questions from the idiotic Village.
Doesn't work Fred. A concern troll is still a concern troll.
No comments:
Post a Comment