I think the best choice would be Fareed Zakaria, because he has one of the clearest visions on the world and the US. He also seems to be able to interact well with foreign leaders. It would send a clear message to the world similar to what was shown by Obama's election. And with all the "Islamofacist" and Muslim slander it would be nice to show that we are not at war with Islam.
Aside from all that, is it really change if we are only considering all the old names?
It should be noted that women arn't equally represented in the workforce anyway. And while the percentage of men in the workforce has been decreasing as the percentage of women increased it will take another 10 years or so before as high a percentage of women work as men.
Also given some of the "experience" arguments used on behalf of Clinton, and the implication that only certain jobs are given weight, the very arguments used to support Clinton would undermine the number of available women for Cabinet Positions since women are vastly underrepresented in jobs that would qualify as experience for a Cabinet position.
Just putting my preferences into Cabinet positions I would end up with around 50% Women, however I am not sure if my choices would accept the positions or it would be a demotion for them in a way.
From what I have been hearing, Tammy Duckworth(she might be appointed to his Senate Position instead), Janet Napolitano, Kathleen Sebelius, there was another woman I heard who either might be on the list for his Senate position or mentioned for HUD Sec but it wasnt a name I remember, and Caroline Kennedy.
I would love to see Edwards get Health and Human Services, but why would she want it?
Suburbs north of Columbus seem strong McCain, Cincinnati has an older than average population for a city, and rural Demographics don't favor us, we can't rely on Cleveland and the Colleges to pull us out.
And experiences in Florida have shown me that the government there (at the local level) is shady and corrupt.
So I am not feeling good if we lose Pennsylvania, can't rely on the red states to go blue. I am hoping the unfavorable demographics suprise me.
You understand that payroll is a tax deduction? So corporate taxes arn't related to job growth, in some ways a lower profit margin encourages more volume which encourages more labor.
And there is far more negative information about McCain floating around than Obama, it just isn't in Democrats interest to be negative because it depresses voter turnout which favors Republicans.
ACORN-John McCain has ties to just like Obama, not that it matters because the ACORN sensationalism is alot of selling fear and very little truth.
Ayers-Even the McCain campaign only is claiming they had 7 meeting over more than 7 years.
Wright-Do you really want to go there with preachers? The guy was a Marine, and Naval Corpsman. This is a play on racism not on reality.
Khaldi-McCain has stronger ties to him than Obama.
Sorry if you can't generate some honesty on behalf of your candidate then your just admitting how pathetic he is. John McCain can't promote himself so he is attacking Obama, if his military history showed he had any honor his campaign would have trashed it, but his history shows he has never had honor, so no suprise here.
is we finally have a Democrat that has people believing "He can handle it", something the party has lacked since FDR, I think. Which probably contributed to the erratic messaging of the Clinton and McCain campaigns.
From incompetence, to recklessness to cowardice, a large portion of the credit McCain is being given is because of his military service. But it is the tale of someone who is completely unfit to be in uniform, succeeding only because of family connections. The people in our military today know they wouldn't have been able to get away with even one of the around 8 major incidents McCain was given a pass on, or with his overall disagreeable behavior. If this was a Democrat we would be hammered with Reckless, Nepotism, broke the Military Code of Conduct and Gave Information to the Enemy. Followed by some soldier saying they know you have to rely on the people you serve with, and McCain in the military put American lives at risk, we don't need it on a national scale with him as Commander and Chief. Cut to Petraeus saying there will never be a situation he will call victory in Iraq, and then a clip of McCain saying we cannot leave Iraq until we achieve victory. Bad Soldier, Endless War over a clip of McCain saying we could be in Iraq for 100 years.
Kerry was subject to the same kind of absurd attacks. And alot of the Republican attack lines against Obama are just following trends established in the primary by Clinton, and I would attribute those to gender and name recognition more than race.
But Republicans can get away with these kind of attacks because they don't have any demographics that get repulsed by them. If a Democrat tried to employ them as many if not more voters would be lost as would be gained. Clinton by the time she employed these tactics had already lost everyone that would object to them.
I think Vicotry, Surge, and Preconditions are all things Obama could destroy McCain on with the average American, but Obama plays prevent defense on them rather then trying to score. And any tax discussion is a loss for us, unless Obama makes the point that the middle class has more money in its pocket with his tax plan and they will be spending it in America driving our economy, while McCains plan puts more money in the pockets of the rich who can spend it anywhere in the world they feel like. Turkish Shipyards for Yachts ect.
CG, I don't think you are looking at this very clearly.
Hope cannot be seen as anything but a positive, and was one of the main foundations of the Obama campaign. Hillary tried to argue that Hope wasn't anything to put your faith in which is negative. Did you forget her mocking "The sky will open up..."
Now change could be perceived as an implied negative because in this case it implies moving towards something that is more positive. But Hillary's main argument against this was to say that change cannot be trusted, which was a more overtly negative message.
Hillary was asking people to fear Obama's lack of experience, 3 a.m. ad ect, which was a negative message.
I wasn't saying the primaries were a black and white situation, but shades of grey. But Obama's messaging appeal was based on a more positive message than what Hillary used. I was trying to establish the understanding of a more positive message the more liberal the candidate, since I thought it was accepted that between Hillary and Obama, that Obama was the more liberal, and that the guy pushing "Hope" was also the more positive.
That said do you really think I am the one being myopic here? Or are you just offended that I included an example you didn't like seeing?
But what you wrote doesn't contradict what I said.
Your seeing it as positive that conservatives believe that everyone can and should succeed. But what that amounts to is a belief that a failure to succeed is an individuals fault. The liberal belief is that people will succeed but they at times need some help, that an individuals problems arn't always because of a personal failure. It still comes down to a conservative view of people as negative and seeing the worst in people, and a liberals view of people as postive and seeing the best in people.
It must be fustrating for you that the Bush White House and Karl Rove were mentioned more in the Rezko trial than a certain Illinois Senator. Or that no wrong doing was found on the part of that Illinois Senator.
If you want to list the "dirty" associations of Palin, McCain, Obama, and Clinton, I assure you, Obama would have the fewest.
Republicans overall need an external imposition of order because they have a negative view of humanity including themselves. They consider a persons who is struggling to be personally at fault. This causes them to respond better to negative narratives and attacks. Democrats are the opposite, with a basically positive view of humanity. This causes them to make appeals that are based in the positive, something Republican voters are less able to connect with.
This is oversimplified black and white ignoring the shades of grey inbetween. Democrats can also be motivated by negative messaging, but I would say the more effected people are by negative messaging the less liberal they really are. The Democratic Primary divided between shades of positive and negative messaging. One candidate pushed a message of change and hope, while the other convinced people that those things couldn't be trusted. And I think that this shows in the more blatant and loud demands for negative messaging from people that were supporters of Hillary Clinton.