View Story | 164 comments
Comments: Expand Shrink Hide (Always) | Indented Flat (Always)
You want a VP who you know will back you up, not someone who would benefit from a major scandal (whether real or manufactured).
Plus, is she really that talented of a campaigner? Her come-from-ahead loss; her inability to keep up with fundraising despite her major advantages; and her recent pandering on the gas tax make me question that. Plus, her negatives are just so high!
Finally, we can't reward blatant race baiting. We just can't.
"What a waste it is to lose one's mind. Or not to have a mind is being very wasteful. How true that is." --Dan Quayle
by jakester on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:36:12 AM PDT
[ Parent ]
It's rookie mistake after rookie mistake. Any experienced politician would be extremely careful not to make comments that could be misconstrued as racist, and would have learned especially not to after the fallout from the very first such comment.
We can't afford a perpetual rookie for a VP.
Got a problem with my posts? Quit reading them. They're usually opinions, and I don't come here to get in arguments.
by drbloodaxe on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:08:55 PM PDT
It's a dog whistle.
If Obama wants me to believe that he wants to do away with the way old politics, he'd better pick a running mate that's in line with that position as well. Hillary Clinton - fan of Mark Penn, channeler of Jesse Helms, ardent campaigner for McCain - is not that running mate.
"...at this moment, in this election, we can come together and say, 'Not this time'" - Barack Obama, 3/18/08
by brightstar on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:54:19 PM PDT
Either way, she's a bad choice. Whether she's racist or not, her choice of words and those of her surrogates makes her a lousy choice for vp.
by drbloodaxe on Sat May 10, 2008 at 02:58:16 PM PDT
wide narrow
View Story | 164 comments