PUMAs praise Palin pick
I'm sure McCain had a variety of reasons for his VP choice, as Presidential candidates usually do. But there's no doubt that he recognized the golden opportunity which had been created for him by the relentless scorn and insults heaped upon Clinton's fervent supporters (now the PUMAs) by Obama's followers, and their consequent alienation from the Democratic party under its current leadership. The message to us has been "shut up and do as you're told or get out -- we don't need you." McCain would have been a fool not to try to exploit this -- and he is no fool.
His strategy seems to be bearing fruit; the Palin choice is going down well on PUMA sites I frequent, such as Hillary1000, Texas Hill Country, The Confluence, and TGW. Cannonfire, as usual, has the best commentary, pointing out that a female Republican creates an opportunity for the more unhinged Obama fanatics to display their trademark misogyny and thus alienate still more centrist female voters -- and they are already proceeding to do just that. (I briefly assessed the implications here.)
The pro-Obama commentaries I've seen seem to be taking the predictable line that McCain's choice is a pathetic and obvious pander -- see for example here. They sound a tad rattled to me.
His strategy seems to be bearing fruit; the Palin choice is going down well on PUMA sites I frequent, such as Hillary1000, Texas Hill Country, The Confluence, and TGW. Cannonfire, as usual, has the best commentary, pointing out that a female Republican creates an opportunity for the more unhinged Obama fanatics to display their trademark misogyny and thus alienate still more centrist female voters -- and they are already proceeding to do just that. (I briefly assessed the implications here.)
The pro-Obama commentaries I've seen seem to be taking the predictable line that McCain's choice is a pathetic and obvious pander -- see for example here. They sound a tad rattled to me.
posted by Infidel753 at 11:24 AM
10 Comments:
If the PUMAs feel good about supporting someone who is anti-choice, anti LGBT and a creationist too boot, just because she is a woman and because of Hillary... Well, then we do get what we deserve.
Count me among the rattled, I think it is a bizarre choice for him.
But then again, you and I don't always see eye to eye on all matters!
Hi.
I'm really, genuinely shocked by Palin as McCain's pick. It does seem like a really shocking choice, and is clearly designed to pander to women upset that Hillary didn't win.
But it seems like a major weakness to me too.
1) McCain's major issue against Obama has been inexperience - Palin is even LESS experienced. Now any time Republicans say Obama lacks experience, Democrats can say Palin is even worse.
2) Palin's lack of experience brings up questions of what if she become President. I don't think most people are going to be comfortable with that thought. That also brings up the issue of John McCain's age, which has been entirely untouchable thus far - it's been the Republican counterpart to Barack's race, which no one has wanted to touch. But now, his age HAS to be considered when picking such an inexperienced VP. So not only can Democrats retort with "Palin has even less experience", but they can add "And John McCain is REALLY old."
4) Hillary supporters should be fairly insulted by what is obviously a pick just to try to manipulate their vote. There is no similarity between Hillary and Palin, and frankly anyone that would be pulled to Palin just because of gender was never going to vote for Obama anyway.
5) Moreover, if there was any hesitancy by Hillary to fight the good fight to get Obama in the White House, that's going to be gone. Not winning the nomination is bad enough, but not winning then having some other inexperienced woman, without half the credentials, be the one to become the first woman in the White House? Hillary Clinton would become a footnote on the story of Sarah Palin. That should seem really unfair even to the most anti-Clinton population.
All in all, no matter which side you're on, this seems like a really strategically bad pick.
FranThouArt -- Most PUMAs regard Obama as untrustworthy on abortion and homosexuals, given his flip-flops -- and that's of greater concern given that he's at the top of the ticket.
As for women inclining towards Palin "just" because she's a woman, don't forget that in most of the primaries about 90% of black voters favored Obama. You can't tell me that the fact that he's black had nothing to do with it. If it's OK for black voters to favor a candidate because he's one of them, why is it not-OK for women voters to do the same?
(It makes little difference to me personally. My mind's already pretty much made up to vote for McCain, for reasons which aren't affected by the choice of Palin.)
Johnny G -- I don't see why Palin is less experienced than Obama. They're both relative newcomers to high-level office, but Palin at least has held an executive position, which Obama never has.
Unlike some, I think Hillary has been sincere about supporting Obama since he won the nomination. I don't see why the Palin pick would change that one way or the other. If McCain wins, Hillary runs against either him or his VP in 2012. If he loses, Obama will be President and a sure Democratic nominee in 2012. Either way it doesn't seem to make much difference who McCain's running mate is.
Thanks for reading, both.
I agree about voting for someone just because they are a woman/black/etc is wrong.
I have been lukewarm on almost all of the candidates from day one. If I feel hopeful now... well it doesn't matter, I do, but I am not swept up by just Obama. He may indeed have the least to do with it.
Never say never but I am unlikely to ever vote for McCain.
Just another difference for us to weather my friend and indeed we shall.
Shan't we???
Shan't we???
As I commented on your own blog a while back, I think it's silly to let political differences sour personal relationships.
I agree about voting for someone just because they are a woman/black/etc is wrong.
I'm not sure I entirely agree with this. People often vote for a politician they feel has something in common with them and will probably understand their problems. It's why politicians strive to come across as regular guys, people the voters can identify with.
If a black voter prefers to vote for a politician who is also black and therefore presumably has the kind of experience and understanding of racism and black people's problems that most white politicians don't, I don't think there's necessarily anything wrong with that.
The same applies, of course, to women or atheists or any other distinct group.
It's why politicians strive to come across as regular guys, people the voters can identify with.
For the most part, I believe this is sincere on the politicians part. Like everyone else, most politicians IMO, feel they do represent the regular guy.
It's all about that pesky y chromosome, huh Infidel? Forget the issues, it's all identity politics with you? then why don't you support the Green party with two women heading the ticket?
Oh, that's right. Women of color.
Regards,
Tengrain
Handmaiden -- Yes, it may well be sincere with many politicians; voters, I think, aren't so easily fooled as many believe. There's no doubt that voters are more likely to vote for leaders whom they perceive as sharing important traits with themselves. And why not? It's part of how representative government is supposed to work.
Thanks for reading.
Tengrain -- Ah, how predictable. More insults, including a slimy insinuation of racism. I really think this is the only way most of you Obama zombies know how to talk to us, which is part of how you're helping to lose your man the election -- see link to Cannofire posting above.
(I sometimes make exceptions to my "no insults" comments policy when the insults are so stupid and blatant that they obviously discredit their source, as here.)
I've been talking here for months about how it's "the issues", including national security and the hijacking of the Democratic party by Obama's toxic, classist "new politics", that make it impossible for me to support him. Since I'm a man, I have no "identity politics" reason to favor women for political office. But it's understandable that a lot of women do.
Keep on posting stuff like this (you will anyway -- you can't help yourself). Don't worry, I'll make sure people see it.
Maybe I should confine my regular guy politician theory to the local level? I mean the higher up the ladder, the less room for a regular guy.
I love humor & hope to keep my sense of it as I do my own campaigning. But, some of the disgusting stuff that passes for humor thrown out there at other peoples expense just makes me sick.
I see a tough race ! I agree when you say he is no fool
Post a Comment
<< Home