Good point (and a good use of Hillary) -- but will Hillary have the right position to attack Palin? can Biden really give up that job to Hillary? If he does, it looks strange, but if it doesn't, he may well come off looking like a bully.
But yeah, clearly this should prompt Obama to get his Queen out against McCain's Queen (chess wise, that is.)
Hillary supporter here. No, not dead in the water. But I hope we can all figure out ways to fight McCain/Palin without focusing on her being a woman (for example, one poster called her "Dan Quayle with breasts" -- she's clearly a lot smarter than Dan Quayle, and focusing on her breasts doesn't sit well with me.)
The only danger here is that attacks on Palin may further alienate women who saw the attacks on Hillary as sexism in action. If we can refrain from that, we won't have a problem.
Big "If", I know, but let's try, okay? Focus on her policies and positions, not her gender.
As I understand it, she's actually a whistle blower against her fellow Rethugs. The "Scandal" is that she tried (succeeded?) to get a former brother-in-law fired from his government position because he refused to fire a State Trooper guilty of gross misconduct. If that's the "scandal" it will be a plus for her, not a minus....
I need to do a lot more research on this woman. I never figured her for a serious pick so I don't know much at all about her.
In other words, no one actually knows which way the wind will blow in November and they're getting ready to fight like rabid dogs. Which will be interesting, so I'm all for it.
The one good thing I can think of about a Palin pick is that, on top of Hillary's performance, it will definitely bring women's issues to the forefront. It would be nice to see sexism regarded as an issue to equal racism for once. I hope the media treats her the way they treated Hillary -- it might get some of the worst of them fired.
(I'm not saying Palin will help McCain win -- I doubt she will and I certainly don't want her to. But I'd be glad to see women's issues stay in the spotlight.)
The only thing that worries me about Romney (other than the fact that I really dislike the guy, having lived under his rule in Massachusetts) is that my Mom in Michigan says putting him on the ticket might give Michigan to McCain, since Mitt's Dad George Romney was governor there and is still highly regarded.
So at this point I hope it's Lieberman or Pawlenty. Obama's ahead in MI and I'd like it to stay that way.
According to the NBC/WSJ poll, 21% of Clinton supporters are voting McCain.
That's just under 4 million votes.
It will take around 7-8 million votes to make up for their loss.
Remember, every time a Clinton supporter gets pissed off and decides to vote for McCain, Obama loses TWO votes. If you can't stop antagonizing upset Clinton supporters, please try to remember that even if we can't convince them to vote Obama, we'd rather they stay home or vote 3rd party (lost of one vote) than switch to McCain out of anger (loss of two votes.)
It's not what random people on the Internet say. It's what a lot of Obama supporters say in person -- and yeah, people have a tendency to go "If this is what his supporters are like, he must be even worse", unfair as that might be.
I suspect CG meant the "Go vote for wicked mature McCain then" comment BN tossed out. (If I'm wrong, CG should chew me out, and I apologize in advance.)
It's exactly that sort of response that has 21% of Hillary supporters saying they WILL, in fact, go vote for McCain. Assume that group sticks to its guns, we're talking nearly 4,000,000 votes here. That's not trivial. That's 4,000,000 taken away from Obama and handed to McCain. It'll take 8,000,000 voters for Obama to make up that difference.
I think the phrase "so go vote for McCain then" or anything similar ought to be declared verboten on this site because 1 in 5 Hillary voters are actually doing exactly that, if you believe this poll.
That might be true if our national elections were held in true democratic fashion, but they aren't, sadly. I think the field should be open to anyone to run for President, but our laws make it almost impossible for third parties to get a foothold in the US.
Basically, that means that the only real "choice" I get to make is between the two people the parties choose. If they produce two candidates I'm lukewarm about, then what becomes of my freedom to truly choose a candidate who reflects my views?
Yes, I supported Hillary, and I'm very disappointed (though not surprised) that Obama didn't bring her on board. That doesn't mean I won't vote for him, but I'm unlikely to donate or volunteer. I tend to feel that the behavior of the higher-ups in the Democratic Party has robbed me of the chance to vote for the candidate I truly wanted (and robbed Dodd and Kucinich voters as well. I would say "Biden" supporters, except they've got a glass-half-full situation going on, and I would have said "Edwards" supporters except most of his supporters are actually relieved he didn't get a fair chance at this point...)
Don't get me wrong here -- I'm bitter about the treatment Hillary got, but not bitter enough to hand McCain the White House over it. (And I live in a swing state, too.) I just think that when you're presented, say, with the choice of getting stung by a scorpion or bitten by a rattlesnake, what you really want to do is opt for neither; how "responsible" are you for making a choice of poisons if someone forces you? If you are a voter who truly sees Obama and McCain as having equal good and bad points, it must be like the scorpion/rattlesnake choice. Sure, you can say a person is "responsible", but how much is that true when a choice isn't truly a choice?
I'm a Democrat and I know what I'm going to do in the voting booth, but I have a friend who's a Libertarian who's voting for Bob Barr, not because she likes him but because she considers both Obama and McCain to have irredeemable faults. I have another friend who is Independent and has no idea how she's going to vote. She usually goes Democrat, but she really wanted to vote for Hillary and is talking about doing a write-in vote for her.
Maybe we'd be better with an Australian type of ballot. Then people could feel better about voting for their real choice (Clinton, McKinney, Barr, Dodd, Kucinich, Romney, or even Nader) without worrying about handing the election to their least favorite choice.
Anyway, this has gotten off the subject of the original post, which was that our two-party political system always seems to doom a large segment of the voting population to a choice of lesser-of-two-evils, which is probably why so much of our electorate just stays home on Election Day. I think if the DNC had handled the primary better, the rift in the Democratic party would have healed by now instead of lingering on like an infected wound, and a fair portion of the Democratic voting pool wouldn't be contemplating breaking from party lines.
Since the two parties have complete control over who our "serious" choices are for President, I feel they have a responsibility to make a solid case to the voters that their guy is not just preferable to the other party's guy, but that their guy is actually a good choice on his own, not the lesser of two evils. If they don't make that case, I don't blame conflicted voters for staying home. If you really don't know who's the best choice, isn't it more responsible to stay at home rather than vote?