The Candidates
That was the rallying cry from Hillary supporters yesterday when the Democratic Party basically ended the fight for the nomination by seating the Florida and Michigan delegations in a way that makes Barack Obama the all but certain nominee. Because the delegates have been seated, the Clintons can no longer argue that Hillary has a viable path to the nod by expanding the universe of delegates. We now have a concrete number of delegates to work with, of which 2,118 constitutes a majority.
According to RCP, Obama is now less than 70 delegates away from clinching the nomination. The remaining primaries in Puerto Rico, South Dakota, and Montana will award 86 delegates, and if Obama wins the latter two states by about 10 points each while losing Puerto Rico by the same amount, he’ll only need about 30 additional superdelegates to end the race. That’s only about one out of every six supers who have yet to decide. This race is over.
In case you’re one of these idealistic folks who think that Clinton supporters, particularly older ones and female ones, are going to rally around Nominee Obama, I’ve got a hearty heaping of the real world to give you. Thankfully, the wonderful world of YouTube allows us to take a glimpse into the uninhibited id of the Hillary voter.
Race42008 does not necessarily endorse any of the views expressed in the following video.
It seems that one of the smartest moves McCain could make at this point is to select a female running mate. Again, here are my top 5, in no particular order:
1) Sarah Palin, because she would articulate conservatism in a fresh new manner, rallying the base and attracting moderates to the cause and the ticket.
2) Jodi Rell, one of the most popular governors in America, and one who would bring pro-choice Hillary voters and Northern voters to the ticket, but who wouldn’t have the power to actually sign or veto legislation or to appoint judges as vice president.
3) Linda Lingle, for reasons similar to Rell, and with the added benefit of being able to attract fellow Jewish voters to the ticket.
4) Condi Rice, because she’s managed to maintain her popularity in spite of her tenure at the Bush White House, and because she’d both bring women to the ticket and make Obama’s candidacy far less novel.
5) Meg Whitman, because she’s an economic powerhouse who could identify with middle-aged women.
Feel free to include your own suggestions in the comments section.
June 1st, 2008 at 1:56 am
McCain would be crazy not to pick Palin from an electoral standpoint. She has the potential to take a huge chunk of Obama’s support, women voters.
Palin will go on Oprah and The View and Rachel Ray and the women will love her, she is folksy and has a hunky fisherman for a husband and a beautiful family and communicates ideas very well.
When she talks about raising a child with Down Syndrome, women will eat that up, and rightfully so, that is an amazing thing she chose to do when she didn’t have to.
Plus she’s conservative and can run rings around anyone when it comes to energy policy, a huge issue in this campaign.
Palin is the perfect pick to capitalize on the anger women like Ferraro are feeling.
June 1st, 2008 at 1:57 am
This woman is not terribly representative and is probably just someone who had a little too much alcohol. Liberal women are just throwing their temper tantrum, just as some conservatives (but not me) did when McCain became the nominee. They will come home to Obama in the end. The Hillary group that may not come home to Obama is the working class white males. The best candidate to attract them would be Huckabee. As to Jodi Rell, she would be able to sign or veto legislation or appoint judges if McCain dies. Therefore, we should not take any chances and McCain must pick a conservative running mate. Huckabee is not ideal, but if your sole criteria were to get disaffected Hillary voters, he would be the best choice.
June 1st, 2008 at 1:57 am
yea, it seems like there is a real opening here, and it will be compounded because he wont pick hillary as vp, and she wont campaign hard for him. she will do what she did for kerry, make a speech or a statement and then go home. mccain really needs to think about this. romney might be able to get michigan, but a woman in this atmosphere can turn this whole thing upside down.
June 1st, 2008 at 2:03 am
I hate to think that many women vote on the basis of identity, but maybe you guys are right. I remember Bob Dole had all these female speakers at his convention in 1996 and still lost women big.
June 1st, 2008 at 2:20 am
I’d like to see this woman’s reaction to the rumored Michelle Obama Whitey video, when it surfaces, if it really exists.
June 1st, 2008 at 2:21 am
Oh, and I’ve been saying for weeks that McCain could almost guarantee himself the Presidency by selecting a female running mate if Hillary is squeezed out.
June 1st, 2008 at 2:30 am
i think mccain needs to nominate a woman or a minority. the “old white guys” tag could doom the ticket if he picks a more conventional running mate. not that i approve of picking people for those reasons, but if he wants to win, i think i would help.
June 1st, 2008 at 2:35 am
Yeah if the typical Hillary supporter is like the woman above, votes emotionally with the general election tomorrow, sure Obama is toast.
Problem is the election isnt tomorrow, the typical voter isnt like this and most importantly sufficient time will have past for emotions to have cooled. That last point is key. Come november, most women will wind up looking at where the candidates stand on the issues and then look to their leadership potential. That’s not emotional decision making there. Most democratic women supporters of HIllary will wind voting democrat. Of course how Hill handles her defeat will be key. She could still divide the party by fighting on pointlessly. Still, it kind of reminds me of Ann Coulter’s shrill support for Hillary when McCain broke out ahead earlier in the republlican primaries. Come november I think Ms. Coulter will probably be trashing Obama and voting for McCain. Never trust polling or commentary this early.
If I were McCain, I’d wait quite a while before picking a VP candidate. In fact, no non-incumbent has ever picked this early.
June 1st, 2008 at 2:41 am
You people think that these women will come home to Obama?
Better check out HillaryIs44.com, pronto.
These people are mad as hell. This is NOT comparable to the Giuliani/Romney/Huckabee supporters’ tantrum over McCain.
June 1st, 2008 at 2:44 am
#5. I’m doubtful that such video exists. If it did, Hill supporters or Obama opponents would have ensured its release. Plus even if Hillary suspends her campaign and it (or something like that) surfaces before the convention you can guarantee a concerted effort to nominate someone else. Could be hillary, but it could be someone else, though at this stage only Gore could pull it off.
Pure speculation but until “it” happens I’m presuming it wont.
June 1st, 2008 at 2:46 am
10 — Yeah, right. Hillary would totally release that video.
Hers isn’t a kamikaze campaign, okay? She wants 2012. She wants a future in Democratic politics.
June 1st, 2008 at 2:56 am
Alex, the Clintons can coordinate the release of such a video with no proof of being connected to its release.
The latest rumor is that it may surface on Monday.
June 1st, 2008 at 2:57 am
Which would explain why today was the day Obama left his church. Michelle is allegedly at Trinity’s pulpit when she gives her screed against Whitey.
June 1st, 2008 at 2:59 am
In reference to #5 and #10:
Why doesn’t someone ask Michelle Obama if she has ever referred to Caucasians as “whiteys”? If she denies it, that may cause who ever has the video, if it exists, to upload it to YouTube now instead of later.
June 1st, 2008 at 3:22 am
FACT: Sarah Heath Palin is the Dem’s greatest fear.
FACT: McCain absolutely needs to select Palin before Dems make any VP move.
FACT: Waiting on Palin beyond the next news cycle will ONLY weaken the full explosive impact (and make it seem a GOP gimick reaction to the Dems).
CONCLUSION: Senator McCain. Do it NOW!
case closed
June 1st, 2008 at 3:23 am
link to these rumors?
June 1st, 2008 at 4:27 am
Backtracking to the protests for a moment. Insanity aside, Clinton supporters have a right to be steamed. There’s no way to justify handing a candidate who wasn’t even on the ballot 59 delegates.
That said, go ahead and put Gov. Palin on the ticket. It might undermine Sen. McCain’s experience argument a bit, but the positives will greatly outweigh the negatives. Plus, it makes her the heir-apparrent in 2012 in case Sen. McCain loses. A situation that should make all of us smile.
June 1st, 2008 at 6:30 am
I’m coming around on Palin. I really am. I’m probably going to write a post about her tonight. Tim Pawlenty’s still my first choice, but I’m too much pragmatist to miss that Palin might be able to appeal to the disillusioned working class AND the disillusioned women, while Pawlenty will likely only appeal to one of the two. There are still an awful lot of drawbacks, which I’ll write about tonight, but there are perhaps more positives.
June 1st, 2008 at 6:41 am
There is also a rumor that McCain actually landed his plane in Vietnam and surrendered and that he had a young boy care for him who became his lover. Apparently the video confession of the boy is also due out after the conventions. There is actual video of McCain referring to Asians as “gooks.”
Let’s see, what about the rumor of the hotel security camera catching McCain and a lobbyist going into a room and not coming out until early morning.
There are rumors of a Palin lesbian sextape, of Crist in a Ft. Lauderdale bathhouse high on meth, etc.
I think we should perhaps stick to facts.
June 1st, 2008 at 7:21 am
I’m starting to come around on Palin as well… As of right now, I would think the top 3 prospects would be Pawlenty, Sanford, and Palin (in no particular order).
June 1st, 2008 at 7:21 am
Not all of Hillary’s supporters are women. There are a lot of white men that will not vote for BO either. The problem is that they are not all ready to vote for McCain. By November, I think they will realize that if they don’t vote McCain, then BO will win. I just hope the conservatives realize that and hold their noses.
June 1st, 2008 at 7:21 am
I guarantee by Aug 1 there will be no dissent in Democratic ranks and Hill may even by the VP nominee.
Media beat up!
June 1st, 2008 at 7:33 am
It’s so not going to be Palin! Stop and consider how McCain can call Obama not experienced enough when he’s offering her up one heart beat from the Presidency!
And he’ll want his VP to do the dirty work for him in this regard.
Which is why I actually think both Romney & Huckabee would actually do a good job in the campain.
June 1st, 2008 at 7:57 am
Palin is no less experienced than Obama. She’s an executive. Obama is merely 1 out of 100 people in the senate. And anyway we sort of WANT Obama to try to paint her as inexperienced. Won’t that be rich? The media will dutifully follow the Obama storyline and Hillary supporters will be able to point out that none of the media talking heads questioned Obama’s readiness to govern but here they are picking on a woman again.
Not a good way for the Democrats to kiss and make up - it looks to me like Palin would only keep alive the division from the party that Hillary supporters rightly feel.
I’m coming around to Palin too. And for the love of god - anyone but Romney or Huckabee.
June 1st, 2008 at 8:02 am
Adam,
Agreed. That’s a big part of the reason I’ve come around on Palin. I think it’s going to by nigh impossible for the Obama campaign to make an issue of the inexperience of a kindly Librarian-like working mother, without it redounding to our benefit. I think the only thing that can hurt Palin on that front is herself; i.e, she has a Quayle moment or, just generally, seems out of her element on major issues. Those are possibilities, but the McCain camp can bring her up to speed, I’m sure, if they begin now.
June 1st, 2008 at 8:32 am
Obama has been more than classy about this Florida/Michigan situation. The Hillary supporters present at the DNC meeting really didn’t care about letting “every vote count”, they wanted the results to favor Hillary. Let’s just be truthful. This wouldn’t be an issue if Hillary was leading the primary. Hillary and her campaign didn’t care about Florida and Michigan until she was getting whipped state after state after state. This is propaganda at its finest.
June 1st, 2008 at 8:56 am
For the good of the country, its sad to see so many Mitt supporters moving to other candidates. He would still add so much more to the ticket in terms of what can actually be done for the country, for fund raising, and he certainly hasn’t been shown to cost us any states. On the contrary, the polls show he will deliver Michigan, no matter who Obama picks as VP. They will show the same for Nevada, and probably Colorado, if they ever get around to showing states where Mitt can help. It seems to me that Palin is extremely inexperienced at this point, something that we can really go after Obama for if we have an experienced VP candidate.
My main criteria is pro-life and not Huckabee. I really hate it that someone as open in his religious bigotry can continue to be touted on here as a strong ticket addition. Not only his public comments, but more expecially his web sight was full of anti-Mormon links without a shread of truth in them. If he had done that toward the Catholic church, would any of you still be holding him open as a good possibility for VP?
June 1st, 2008 at 9:03 am
the DNC needs to bring in some Male Movie Critics that rip apart the Sex In The City movie to feed to these women.
June 1st, 2008 at 9:42 am
#26 Louis
It’s easy to be classy when you are winning the and MI and FL decision is in your favor.
June 1st, 2008 at 9:43 am
Huckabee does great with women… despite being strongly pro-life.
Why?
Because he has been a good, loyal husband. He stuck with the wife of his youth through the good time and the bad (like cancer, take note several prominent “conservatives”).
And, despite the rhetoric of a small minority of lesbofascist American women who want government funded abortions on demand, up to birth and perhaps after birth… the majority of women want a loyal, loving husband to grow old with, and leaders who reflect that true manliness of a provider and protector.
June 1st, 2008 at 9:45 am
Good VP suggestions, DaveG, except for Condi. I have become convinced that she would come with too much Bush baggage.
June 1st, 2008 at 9:45 am
Bill Clinton had tremendous support among women too. Don’t skew history just to advance your so-con agenda.
June 1st, 2008 at 9:48 am
Huckabee, you got to be kidding!!!
Of all the prospective McCain VEEPs, Huckabee is the LEAST LIKELY to get the disenfranchised female Hillary voter.
Palin is the MOST LIKELY TO GET THOSE VOTES. (Huck the most likely to REPEL those very same voters.)
June 1st, 2008 at 9:51 am
Remember this?
Um. Yeah. That sure sounds to me like the way to nab the Hillary supporters. (eyeroll).
June 1st, 2008 at 9:59 am
identity politics are good for McCain but bad for the party longterm. I hope McCain can see that.
June 1st, 2008 at 10:08 am
I agree Jason. Indeed identity politics is bad for the country. And the real risk is that it won’t be successful. Where is the evidence that selecting a female VP will swing the female vote? Its almost insulting. Women care about issues, probably more than men. I don’t have any poll to cite, but I bet healthcare. for example, is a bigger issue for women than men. The minimum wage is always a bigger deal for women because more women earn it.
So I am going to go out on a limb and suggest that the way to earn female support is to offer solutions to their problems (to the extent possible).
June 1st, 2008 at 10:09 am
I like Palin, but if the summary of her views on abortion as presented on another thread yesterday are correct (that she is opposed under all circumstances, including rape and incest), she is too extreme to be sold to the vast majority of the public — especially Hillary’s supporters.
It’s too bad, since the Pres/VP’s views on abortion are irrelevant to the duties of the office, but she would be electoral poison, unless she could quickly undergo a Romneyish conversion in reverse on the subject.
June 1st, 2008 at 10:14 am
McCain should pick the person best qualified to be President if the unthinkable were to happen. He shouldn’t pander to any particular group when it comes to picking his running mate. That is why I still say it comes down to The 4 Governors
1.) Carcieri
2.) Hunstman
3.) Pawlenty
4.) Sanford
June 1st, 2008 at 10:20 am
The question is, is Sarah palin qualified to be President? When a 72 yo man attacks BHO for his qualifications/experience, he’d better darn well have a VP who can step into the Presidency at a moment’s notice.
June 1st, 2008 at 10:26 am
New Polls from Mass and Lousina from Mass today
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/louisiana/election_2008_louisiana_president
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/massachusetts/election_2008_massachusetts_presidential_election
June 1st, 2008 at 10:28 am
New Rass polls out from Lousina and Mass
June 1st, 2008 at 10:28 am
> “link to these rumors?”
http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/05/31/breaking-news-michelle%e2%80%99s-whitey-problem-thread-2/
I will be interested to see what (if anything) surfaces tomorrow. The site looks pretty far out — when I see comments about how the right wing corporatist press is promoting Obama because they know he’ll lose to McCain, I know I’m not dealing with people who are tightly tethered to reality.
June 1st, 2008 at 10:32 am
If the 5 names on the list were McCain’s final choices, I’d take Meg Whitman.
June 1st, 2008 at 10:59 am
I’m reading that thread and the anger of Hillary Democrats is absolutely STAGGERING. I think they hate Barry more then any Republicans, and my anger at his nomination feels rather pitiful in comparison. This primary season has taught me two unexpected things: 1.) There are fates far worse then Hillary Clinton, 2.) There are whole constiteucnies of the Democratic Party with patriotism every bit as fiery as my own, who are utterly unwilling to hand the country over to an anti-American charlattan, even if he shares their views.
June 1st, 2008 at 11:00 am
Shares their views on most political issues, I should say.
June 1st, 2008 at 11:04 am
I like the idea of a CEO as VP, if not prez, but they carry a lot of baggage (corporate pay and perks, labor issues, SEC filings) and are not usually good politicians (think Perot).
June 1st, 2008 at 11:14 am
I think McCain is likely to pick a woman because he is a liberal RINO. AFFIRMATIVE ACTION! Let’s win in November by acting like a bunch a freaking liberals!!! Somebody needs to lead the party on conservative values.
June 1st, 2008 at 11:25 am
Adam wrote: “Palin is no less experienced than Obama. She’s an executive. Obama is merely 1 out of 100 people in the senate. And anyway we sort of WANT Obama to try to paint her as inexperienced. Won’t that be rich? The media will dutifully follow the Obama storyline and Hillary supporters will be able to point out that none of the media talking heads questioned Obama’s readiness to govern but here they are picking on a woman again.
The problem with Palin on the ticket is that she would prevent McCain from painting Obama as too inexperienced and ill-prepared to become Commander in Chief. Any failure by McCain in driving that point home to the American people will undoubtedly result in President Obama come November.
Furthermore, Palin must modify her extremist position on abortion to ever warrant consideration for higher office. Telling victims of rape and incest that they must carry to term and bring into the world such products of violence and coercion is a political position that is untenable to maintain.
Jonathan,
If Sanford signs into law this bill that passed in South Carolina, allowing the Lord’s Prayer to be displayed in government buildings and in public schools, he can immediately kiss goodbye any chance of securing the Veep slot, and any dreams of pursuing the presidency in 2012 or 2016 would go right down the drain.
June 1st, 2008 at 11:25 am
Memnon — I share your concerns, especially about her ability to campaign. The skills that lead to being a good biz leader do not necessarily translate to politics — Perot is one example, Romney is another.
Nonetheless, of the list presented, I’d take Whitman.
June 1st, 2008 at 11:29 am
Aron,
I’m with you on the abortion thing. I wasn’t aware she was hard right as she is on the subject.
June 1st, 2008 at 11:30 am
Aron,
I don’t consider myself “extremist” but rather logical on abortion. An exception for incest and rape is not “prolife.” You are arguing a liberal position in claiming what the woman may feel by having to carry a baby to term is superior to the claim of the unborn. I would prefer someone simply argue its a woman’s choice rather than split hairs.
June 1st, 2008 at 11:31 am
#48
Business skills sure do not hurt especially when the economy is the number one issue and you have a presidential candidate that admits he knows nothing about the economy. Romney would bring credability on the economy like no other VP would.
June 1st, 2008 at 11:35 am
Micah,
If McCain was really a liberal RINO he would not be our nominee. Even in a divided field a “liberal RINO” should not have gotten high-30’s percentages of the vote in the early states. Do you ever have anything to say other than to bash our nominee and pimp Romney?
June 1st, 2008 at 11:44 am
Aron,
Things happen to us all the time that are out of our control, doesn’t excuse murder.
June 1st, 2008 at 11:45 am
Memnon,
I believe a pregnant woman’s right to her own body is trumped by the rights of the developing fetus inside her at the point of viability.
That said, no woman or child who was a victim of rape or incest should ever be compelled by government to bring a product of violence or coercion into the world; nor should any woman who was impregnated under such heinous circumstances ever be prevented from terminating her pregnancy.
June 1st, 2008 at 11:46 am
Aron’s right. She’s going to have to change her tune on rape or incest or she isn’t going to be considered.
June 1st, 2008 at 11:48 am
Adam,
Why do you get upset when someone points out the obvious- McCain is a RINO? Do you want me to go through his record? The only reason McCain won was because of independents and the LIBERAL media endorsed him. Dont get butt hurt because your guy is a liberal. And by the way I’m not pimping Romney even though he would be a great VP.
June 1st, 2008 at 11:52 am
A person on Andrew Sullivan’s blog made the statement that Hillary is just left with “hicks” and “hacks.” If Snobama’s people keep this up, it’s pure electoral gold.
On another note, welcome aboard Matt!! We need Pawlenty here in MN; the DFL is taking over the state and he’s our last firewall to prevent a socialist transformation.
June 1st, 2008 at 11:52 am
Micah,
Get “butt hurt”? What are you, like fifteen? McCain won because he got more votes than everyone else. It may have been a divided field but if McCain was as liberal in the minds of the total Republican electorate as he is in yours then he wouldn’t have a chance of winning. Think about that the next time you try to dismiss our standard bearer as too liberal.
June 1st, 2008 at 11:56 am
Anyone who considers McCain a liberal is too far off the spectrum to be relevant to a political conversation. It’s equivalent to the Kossacks who consider Hillary a conservative.
June 1st, 2008 at 11:57 am
Aron,
Those two statements are contradictory. Either the unborn have rights or they don’t, regardless of the circumstances that led to the creation of life. To demonstrate just how slippery the slope is, can a husband rape his wife? Legally, the answer is yes.
June 1st, 2008 at 11:58 am
Palin, like Pawlenty, seems to be acceptable to all parts of the GOP. If people like me and Dave G like them, and also IR-MN and econ grad stud, then we know we have another winner.
But I still think abandoning a disabled newborn for the campaign trail is poison for a SoCon. So is an abortion position that extreme, if you have any plans to appeal to women.
As likeable as Palin is, I think Meg Whitman is a better choice for those reasons.
June 1st, 2008 at 12:03 pm
Memnon, I respect your argument. I’m always chastising pro-lifers for making exceptions for rape and incest while calling abortion murder.
At least you have intellectual integrity. And a loony position.
June 1st, 2008 at 12:03 pm
Loony meaning won’t go over with the public, no way, no how.
June 1st, 2008 at 12:26 pm
Memnon,
There’s no contradiction. The rights of the unborn, in my estimation, trump the rights of pregnant women from the point of fetal viability onward. Prior to that point (22-26 weeks gestation), however, the rights of the woman supersede those of the previable fetus inside her.
If a woman or child is impregnated as a result of rape or incest, I do not believe that, even if Roe were to be overturned, that any state should be allowed to prevent such victims from terminating their pregnancies, provided the abortion is to be performed prior to the point of fetal viability.
June 1st, 2008 at 12:29 pm
Metro,
“But I still think abandoning a disabled newborn for the campaign trail is poison for a SoCon. So is an abortion position that extreme, if you have any plans to appeal to women.”
I’ve long thought this myself, but recently something has occurred to me. Giving birth to a downs syndrome baby is very likely enough, all by it’s lonesome, to endear her to millions of so-cons. I visit freerepublic every once in awhile, and right after her pregnancy, there was a thread nearly 400 posts long effusively praising her for sticking up for even “flawed” life. You saw similar praise from lifenews, NRTL, Glenn Beck, etc. She’s a hero to the pro-life movement and it strikes as implausible to suppose that she’s going to harm her standing there, because she’s seeking a job that’s LESS strenuous then her current job, which she’s handling ably, special needs child and all. But, Palin also has a fairly obvious in to the heartstrings of feminists who, while likely to abort down syndrome babies of their own, aren’t especially incensed when someone chooses the other option; she’s a working mother, and one who could isn’t going to let children stop her from achieving. That’s like feminist gold. The pro-lifers will love her, because she gave birth to a downs syndrome baby, and who does that other then those thoroughly to the pro-life cause, and the feminists will like her because she’s not letting a bunch of men tell her she needs to stay home so she can rear her needy children.
June 1st, 2008 at 12:42 pm
Is anyone on this blog actuall ready the campaign transcripts or watching the news???
McCain is not painting Obama as inexperienced. He is painting him as having bad judgement. Clinton inexperience argument did not work, but the “3:00AM Phone call” ad did work. McCain knows that, and he is running with it.
Meg Whitman cannot connect to blue-collar woman. If McCain selects Palin, it will not be because she is a woman (although after watching that video, I am changing my mind). The more powerful argument is based on Palin being a small-town, working class, gun owning, not-bitter American. His San Fran. speech will haunt him.
June 1st, 2008 at 12:42 pm
Will people stop this canard that Bill Clinton was tremendously popular with women. Yes, he did well among women because he got 90%+ of black women and that skewed his #s.
Among white women, he actually did quite worse than Bush, and about the same as Al Gore.
Clinton got 48% of white women in 1996 at the height of his strength. The same 48% that Gore got in 2000. By comparison Bush got 49% in 2000 and 55% in 2004.
That’s right, a pro life candidaite got much higher support among white women than the pro choice candidate, Kerry who only got 44%, and this was also with the Court up for grabs and pro choicers warning that Bush would appoint prolife judges.
Also, the backlash inevitability is the elephant in the room. It will be nigh impossible for the same misogynist, sexist pigs that backed Obama over Hillary to resist attacking Palin, or any woman for that matter.
Chris Matthews, Keith Olbermann, Tim Russert, Newsweek, the NYT, all of Obama’s liberal chorus. They won’t be able to help it. One of them if not more will say something that will only enrage women even more. That will only drive them even more. It’s a good bet Obama or his surrogates such as Dodd, Richardson, Biden, etc… will also say something.
The temptation will be too great and they won’t be able to refrain.
June 1st, 2008 at 12:44 pm
Adam,
McCain is liberal. Dont get mad. It’s ok. I personally like the guy, but hate his positions. BTW most conservative are not thrilled with McCain but concede he will do better job on foreign policy. That doesnt mean he doesn’t have liberal tendencies.
June 1st, 2008 at 12:49 pm
MetroRepublican says: “But I still think abandoning a disabled newborn for the campaign trail is poison for a SoCon.”
Here’s what I posted last night in one of the Poll Alert threads:
To everyone concerned about Sarah’s ability to campaign AND care for their baby, Trig Paxton Van Palin (yep, that’s “Van” as in “Van Halen”), LISTEN UP!
Todd and Sarah Palin are experienced parents. They have plenty of family living in Alaska who support them. Todd Palin has taken a leave of absense from his job on the north slope so he is there to care for Trig as well as Sarah. Does this make Sarah a bad mom if Todd puts in more parenting hours in the day than she does? Of course not. No one is suggesting that fathers can’t take care of babies as good as mothers can, right?
What many of you don’t know is that north slope oil workers in Alaska usually work a two week on/two week off schedule. Todd Palin was gone 50% of the time when Sarah was giving birth to and raising their four other children. So I bet this time around Todd is glad he doesn’t have to pack his bag and leave his family for two weeks at a stretch.
The Palins are good people and good parents. There should be no doubt that Sarah can campaign and still be a good mom.
***
Trig has an extra chromosome. As far as I know, he isn’t hooked up to a ventilator or needs any special care at this point in his life. There is no reason why Trig couldn’t travel with Sarah if that is what Sarah and Todd decide. Other male candidate have to leave their family to campaign and no one gives them flack about it. Why should this be an issue for Sarah Palin?
June 1st, 2008 at 12:52 pm
Also, people say she’s abandoning her family for the campaign trail. It’s not like’d be running for two years like McCain or Obama has benn. It’s 2 months from the convention to the election. 2 months. That’s it. And as people have pointed out, the VP is actually less work than being a governor so if she wins she’d have MORE time to spend with her family, not less.
Also, running against “punished with a baby” Obama. That will be a very powerful contrast.
Besides, Americans tend to like babies and kids. If you go back, the candidate/ticket that has young kids/babies and the bigger family always wins. Look at JFK with John-John and Caroline, Carter with Amy, Bill with Chelsea, W with Jenna and Barbara. Normally this would help Obama, but I thin the race thing mitigates that. More than just having a black president, I think more people are uncomfortable with having a black first lady and a black first family. I base this on anecdotal evidence and people Ive spoken with.
Now, if her down syndrome son was grown and like Corky on Life Goes On things could get a bit awkward and uncomfortable, but now he’s just a cute baby that millions will coo over and fall in love with.
And McCain doesn’t have to paint Obama as inexperienced. Everyone already knows he’s inexperienced. McCain leads him on experience by huge amounts. It goes without saying. But the temptation will be there for Obama to attack her on her inexperience, which will only rebound against him.
June 1st, 2008 at 12:59 pm
Matthew and Gail, good arguments. I’m starting to see a McCain/Palin ticket!
BTW, when I said it was poison for a SoCon with a new baby to hit the national campaign trail, I didn’t mean among SoCons. I meant among swing voters, who would see it as hypocrisy. Jon Stewart would have a field day with it. (And BTW I believe he may be more influential than anybody knows. I think he may be responsible for poisoning the culture with respect to the Iraq War.) But Matthew makes a great point about feminists applauding her situation along with SoCons.
June 1st, 2008 at 1:01 pm
Gail you rock!
“MetroRepublican” does not speak for most gen-x men. My wife has a successful career and she travels a bit as well. Our son is doing just fine, and in fact I think my wife is an excellent role model, in fact, as good as my mother was, who stayed home.
June 1st, 2008 at 1:05 pm
But that’s apples and oranges, Jim. Clinton’s percentages with women would have been higher had Perot not siphoned 9 percent of the vote in the 1996 election. Bill Clinton’s approval among women was consistently higher than 48 percent (and higher than George Bush’s approval among that group) throughout his second term, including at the height of the Lewinsky scandal - which sort of counters the argument that CBL was making.
June 1st, 2008 at 1:11 pm
DaveG
How many times have you announced that the race for the dem nomination is over?
I’m not ribbing you.
I announced the general election over 18 months ago when I predicted that the GOP nominee would defeat the dem nominee because I knew the dem nominee would be too far to the left.
June 1st, 2008 at 1:58 pm
Adam,
Most polls and surveys showed that Perot siphoned off way more from the GOP than from Clinton. Clinton might have been 1-3 pts higher. But he still would have been way short of what Bush got in 2004, let alone what Reagan and Bush got in the 80s. The point is that there is this thing out there that women won’t vote for a pro life candidate and we need a pro choice VP to reassure them.
The facts show otherwise. Since Roe v Wade, the top 5 vote getters among white women have all been pro life candidates.
We don’t need a pro choice VP to win.
June 1st, 2008 at 2:13 pm
> “the top 5 vote getters among white women have all been pro life candidates.”
This is the first time I’ve ever seen this stat, so I have nothing in front of me to confirm or deny it, but it strikes me as unlikely. How are you calculating who the “top 5 vote getters among white women” are?
The #1 for any single election, it would appear to me, would be Geraldine Ferraro. I would guess the rest would be statewide candidates in large states (Feinstein, Boxer, Clinton, and Hutchison come to mind).
I’m not saying you’re wrong, Jim. As I said, I’ve never heard it before, and I’m wondering the basis.
June 1st, 2008 at 2:23 pm
BobH,
He’s probably right - but it’s misleading. Reagan won by huge landslides in 1980 and 1984. Bush 41 won by 7 in 1988. There have been only 8 elections since Roe v. Wade. Since the gender gap isn’t all that lopsided (like say, the racial gap) it stands to reason that white women will support the winning candidate when that candidate wins by huge margins.
The top 5 vote getters among white women may have been pro-life but that doesn’t mean it’s BECASUSE they were pro-life. In a close election there is no proof that being pro-life helps more among women.
June 1st, 2008 at 2:24 pm
er* because.
June 1st, 2008 at 2:34 pm
Adam: Thank you, I understood it to mean top vote-getters among female candidates — which would be Ferraro, Feinstein, etc.
Jim, you’re right of course, but as Adam notes, it’s a pretty meaningless data point.
June 1st, 2008 at 2:37 pm
[...] ALSO: R. Neal rounds up Tennessee reaction “McCain! McCain!” The LA Times 10,000 Monkeys and a Camera The new math ‘The Democratic Party Elite Suck’ [...]
June 1st, 2008 at 2:43 pm
[...] not only Dave’s compelling posts on disaffected Hillary voters (here and here) that changed my mind. This really does seem to be a real phenomenon with staying power that will [...]
June 1st, 2008 at 3:50 pm
I think it will be wrong for McCain to select a woman to appeal/pander to women who may be turned off by Hilary Clinton’s loss. Vast numbers of white women in Pennsylvania/Ohio etc. who voted for Bush and are now supporting Clinton are not doing it because of their genes; I think they genuinely believe she is interested in improving the lot of the middle class, and that she is politically a moderate, and that Obama is a crazy leftist radical. It will be impossible for them to vote for Obama when it is clear he sups with the Wrights and runs with the Ayers. And those who say that these democrats will come back are seriously mistaken; they are also mistaken in their analogy with McCain. McCain’s victory was clear. Obama’s is not. Everyone knows he won because yuppie leftist radicals turned out in force in the western states for the caucuses and most normal people could not. Finally, his nomination in the face of his close advisors hate for whites and his own contempt for the small town whites sends a clear signal to these voters: the superdelegates dont care that they are selecting a racist, leftwing, inexperienced, radical even though voters have, since March 5, clearly rejected him.
June 2nd, 2008 at 11:53 am
Why are a lot of the posts, so obsessed with having a woman in the ticket so the women for
Hillary are ensnared into the Republican fold? as I reiterated before, the US presidency
is such a gargantuan task even for a man, and a woman cannot be trusted when all of a sudden,
she is confronted with a tough decision. Will she be tough enough and equal to the task?
I believe McCain is taking his merry time and select his good friend Rudy, who he trusts,
and has the “same values, philosophy,beliefs and tested enough to assume the Presidency,
if events warrant it.