bobbymcgill
Member
- Aug 23, 2008
- 92
- 11
- 6
Presidential candidates select their running mates for various reasons, usually hoping they will bring depth to the ticket, win electoral votes in the VP's home state or address voter perception of a candidate's shortcomings. In this race it has been for the latter.
Obama chose Joseph Biden to make him appear more worldly and McCain chose Sarah Palin to make him look more Heavenly. And at first both enjoyed a bump in the polls at what seemed good choices.
Yet, now that we've had a few weeks to get to know the VP pair, conventional wisdom has been turned on its head. Both Biden and Palin have fumbled and bumbled (and several ethical questions mumbled), that it now makes the two guys at the top of the ticket look stellar in comparison.
So much so that I am starting to wonder if that was the candidate's original intention.
Just as George the 1st chose Dan Quayle so he wouldn't be upstaged, it is entirely possible that our two current presidential aspirants might have done the same. If not, at least it is fun to consider.
McCain/Palin
McCain has hammered the experience issue to such nauseating extremes that I am waiting for a TV ad with him sitting cross-legged guru style on the mountain-top as god almighty himself comes groveling for the Senator's wisdom.
But voter perception is that Obama is far more intellectual.
So, McCain picks Palin --an ANWR-deer in the headlights, who dispenses a brand of folksy wisdom and "hockey mom" tough talk that plays well in speeches when no one is responding, but comes off as (and is) aloof when in the spotlight of a nationally televised interview.
It was painful to watch her get skewered by Charles Gibson. She emboldened "dumb" chick stereotypes to the point that I think some of those cracks Hillary put in the glass ceiling may have been resealed. Even top McCain adviser and former HP CEO Carla Fiorina told reporters that Palin wasn't competent enough to run a company. She later retracted, but the damage was done. Palin was being painted as a simpleton.
I wanted to give her the benefit of the doubt, so quickly thrust on the national stage, perhaps she simply had the jitters. But when Palin equated the war in the Middle East with god, I had to ask myself: Is god that feckless or is Sarah Palin? Take your pick.
Since she bombed with Charlie Gibson, McCain has put her under wraps. Public appearances are now few, interviews with the news media even fewer, and unscripted moments nonexistent.
When asked about her refusal to turn over e-mails to an Alaskan state investigator concerning the fired trooper scandal, she simply smiled and got into her limo. To her credit, that was quite presidential.
Yet, get her in front of crowd of supporters and she is all sound bite and hyperbole --going so far as to call the Obama team, "far-East Coast politicians." While I get the anti-Semitic gist of her statement, (though I doubt she her self realized it) the last time I looked at a map, Chicago was in the Mid-West and Obama was of African descent.
I was surprised she could mix-up the geography aspect , after she was so kind to remind us in her interview with Gibson that Russia is next to Alaska.
But, in my mythical-maybe world of political machinations, this works to McCain's advantage. Now he looks like a Rhodes Scholar in comparison. This tact could possibly backfire, since high academic achievement is generally a disadvantage for Republican candidates.
Obama/Biden
The Democrats --Obama included-- love to tell us how they are the "party for the people," that they care about the little guy and that the loving warmth that flows from their infinitely charitable hearts stands in stark contrast to those greedy Republicans and their hard-handed policies.
Well, have you seen Joe Biden's tax returns?
Despite an income ranging from $210,432 - $321,379 over a ten-year period, the Bidens have given between --wait for it-- 0.06% - 0.31% of their income to charity. Yes, the decimals and the zeros are correctly placed.
How does this make Obama look more upstanding? Look at his tax returns. He and Michelle have ponied up a mere 6% of their elevated income to charity. (McCain gives around 28% per year). While Obama might do a photo-op at a soup kitchen, he doesn't seem willing to actually pay for the soup.
Yet, as McCain can now point to Palin and say "I am not that naive," Obama can likewise point to Biden and say, "I am not that greedy."
Another advantage in picking Biden is his past ethical digressions. Biden became a household name back in 1988 when he plagiarized a speech from a British politician while on the campaign trail --forcing him to ignominiously drop out of the presidential race.
Obama, being from the historically corrupt Chicago political machine, looks saintly in comparison --should ethical questions start to hinder his run to the White House.
And while no connection has been made directly to Biden, both his son and his brother have been accused in two lawsuits for defrauding a former business partner and an investor out of millions of dollars in a hedge fund deal.
When standing next to Biden the Republicans "messianic" line about Obama makes a lot more sense.
Ok, so maybe I am exaggerating all of this, but a larger question now lingers: No matter who wins, if they should meet an untimely fate, are either Sarah Palin or Joe Biden the people we want to run the country?
Idle Wordship
Obama chose Joseph Biden to make him appear more worldly and McCain chose Sarah Palin to make him look more Heavenly. And at first both enjoyed a bump in the polls at what seemed good choices.
Yet, now that we've had a few weeks to get to know the VP pair, conventional wisdom has been turned on its head. Both Biden and Palin have fumbled and bumbled (and several ethical questions mumbled), that it now makes the two guys at the top of the ticket look stellar in comparison.
So much so that I am starting to wonder if that was the candidate's original intention.
Just as George the 1st chose Dan Quayle so he wouldn't be upstaged, it is entirely possible that our two current presidential aspirants might have done the same. If not, at least it is fun to consider.
McCain/Palin
McCain has hammered the experience issue to such nauseating extremes that I am waiting for a TV ad with him sitting cross-legged guru style on the mountain-top as god almighty himself comes groveling for the Senator's wisdom.
But voter perception is that Obama is far more intellectual.
So, McCain picks Palin --an ANWR-deer in the headlights, who dispenses a brand of folksy wisdom and "hockey mom" tough talk that plays well in speeches when no one is responding, but comes off as (and is) aloof when in the spotlight of a nationally televised interview.
It was painful to watch her get skewered by Charles Gibson. She emboldened "dumb" chick stereotypes to the point that I think some of those cracks Hillary put in the glass ceiling may have been resealed. Even top McCain adviser and former HP CEO Carla Fiorina told reporters that Palin wasn't competent enough to run a company. She later retracted, but the damage was done. Palin was being painted as a simpleton.
I wanted to give her the benefit of the doubt, so quickly thrust on the national stage, perhaps she simply had the jitters. But when Palin equated the war in the Middle East with god, I had to ask myself: Is god that feckless or is Sarah Palin? Take your pick.
Since she bombed with Charlie Gibson, McCain has put her under wraps. Public appearances are now few, interviews with the news media even fewer, and unscripted moments nonexistent.
When asked about her refusal to turn over e-mails to an Alaskan state investigator concerning the fired trooper scandal, she simply smiled and got into her limo. To her credit, that was quite presidential.
Yet, get her in front of crowd of supporters and she is all sound bite and hyperbole --going so far as to call the Obama team, "far-East Coast politicians." While I get the anti-Semitic gist of her statement, (though I doubt she her self realized it) the last time I looked at a map, Chicago was in the Mid-West and Obama was of African descent.
I was surprised she could mix-up the geography aspect , after she was so kind to remind us in her interview with Gibson that Russia is next to Alaska.
But, in my mythical-maybe world of political machinations, this works to McCain's advantage. Now he looks like a Rhodes Scholar in comparison. This tact could possibly backfire, since high academic achievement is generally a disadvantage for Republican candidates.
Obama/Biden
The Democrats --Obama included-- love to tell us how they are the "party for the people," that they care about the little guy and that the loving warmth that flows from their infinitely charitable hearts stands in stark contrast to those greedy Republicans and their hard-handed policies.
Well, have you seen Joe Biden's tax returns?
Despite an income ranging from $210,432 - $321,379 over a ten-year period, the Bidens have given between --wait for it-- 0.06% - 0.31% of their income to charity. Yes, the decimals and the zeros are correctly placed.
How does this make Obama look more upstanding? Look at his tax returns. He and Michelle have ponied up a mere 6% of their elevated income to charity. (McCain gives around 28% per year). While Obama might do a photo-op at a soup kitchen, he doesn't seem willing to actually pay for the soup.
Yet, as McCain can now point to Palin and say "I am not that naive," Obama can likewise point to Biden and say, "I am not that greedy."
Another advantage in picking Biden is his past ethical digressions. Biden became a household name back in 1988 when he plagiarized a speech from a British politician while on the campaign trail --forcing him to ignominiously drop out of the presidential race.
Obama, being from the historically corrupt Chicago political machine, looks saintly in comparison --should ethical questions start to hinder his run to the White House.
And while no connection has been made directly to Biden, both his son and his brother have been accused in two lawsuits for defrauding a former business partner and an investor out of millions of dollars in a hedge fund deal.
When standing next to Biden the Republicans "messianic" line about Obama makes a lot more sense.
Ok, so maybe I am exaggerating all of this, but a larger question now lingers: No matter who wins, if they should meet an untimely fate, are either Sarah Palin or Joe Biden the people we want to run the country?
Idle Wordship
