I don't understand why this is a benefit. Politics aside, I don't understand the tactic.
It's not that Obama supporters argue that he is qualified; it's not a Demoratic talking point. "Not qualified" is a Republican talking point; they're the ones pushing argument. And it was a promising argument. But Palin is even less experienced than Obama. And McCain chose her. It's a contradiction in the Republican message, not in the Democrats'.
Well, with all due respect again to Gov. Kaine, he's been a governor for three years. He's been able but undistinguished; I don't think people could really name a big, important thing that he's done. He was mayor of the 105th largest city in America. Again, with all due respect to Richmond, Virginia, it's smaller than Chula Vista, California, Aurora, Colorado, Mesa or Gilbert, Arizona, North Las Vegas or Henderson, Nevada. It's not a big town. So if you were going to pick Governor Kaine, it would be an intensely political choice where he said, you know what, I'm really not first and foremost concerned with is this person capable of being President of the United States, what I'm concerned about is can he bring me the electoral votes of the state of Virginia, the thirteen electoral votes of Virginia.
Ouch. McCain's lucky that the he/she difference makes that quote unusable without a overabundance of backstory.
If McCain wanted to ensure that anyone accusing the vice presidential pick of not having enough experience, it would have been smarter to choose someone with experience. That would leave the inexperience argument around for McCain to use for another couple of months.
Again, politics aside, this seems like a needless jettosning of a good attack on Obama. And it also brings up the age issue -- as any inexperienced VP pick would -- which seems like a mistake as well. And the news gets to run the clip of McCain saying that his most important criteria is that the person is ready to assume the role of the presidency (sorry, I couldn't find the clip quickly, and didn't have time to search), which plays into the Democratic "reckless" frame. I get the political positives of her pick, but wasn't there someone with the same politics and more garvitas?
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Palin, Obama, and Inexperience
It's not that Obama supporters argue that he is qualified; it's not a Demoratic talking point. "Not qualified" is a Republican talking point; they're the ones pushing argument. And it was a promising argument. But Palin is even less experienced than Obama. And McCain chose her. It's a contradiction in the Republican message, not in the Democrats'.
"'I think we're going to have to examine our tag line, "dangerously inexperienced,"' a top McCain official said wryly.".
Or Rove on "Face the Nation" (video at the link):
Ouch. McCain's lucky that the he/she difference makes that quote unusable without a overabundance of backstory.
If McCain wanted to ensure that anyone accusing the vice presidential pick of not having enough experience, it would have been smarter to choose someone with experience. That would leave the inexperience argument around for McCain to use for another couple of months.
Again, politics aside, this seems like a needless jettosning of a good attack on Obama. And it also brings up the age issue -- as any inexperienced VP pick would -- which seems like a mistake as well. And the news gets to run the clip of McCain saying that his most important criteria is that the person is ready to assume the role of the presidency (sorry, I couldn't find the clip quickly, and didn't have time to search), which plays into the Democratic "reckless" frame. I get the political positives of her pick, but wasn't there someone with the same politics and more garvitas?
B