posted on Sep, 2 2008 @ 03:15 AM
So why not Condi Rice? Well, I think the primary reason is she's too closely associated with the currently-unpopular Bush administration, and McCain
doesn't want to reinforce one of Obama's more powerful weapons, the 'four more years of the same' talking-point.
But I think there's more to it. It may not be a 'safe' topic for this new forum, but I'll give it a go. Let's deny ignorance:
And it would be ignorant to think that a vice-presidential running mate isn't primarily used to 'shore up the brand', in this media-driven
Yes, sure, a VP must have some level of experience and qualification. But the choice of a VP is done to 'widen the tent': to draw more
undecided voters into the party, to complement the candidate's perceived weaknesses, and to bring along such supporters as they may already have.
But it must be done with some level of subtlety. The American public doesn't like having their faces rubbed in it, when their opinions are being
curried. The VP choice should seem a natural choice, who oh by the way just happens to undermine attacks on the candidate, for example, as
elitist (Kerry/Edwards) or as inexperienced (Obama/Biden).
And here, in result, is where America is still racist and sexist. Ms Rice is a black woman.
Both of those attributes would be very significant, were McCain to have chosen her. The perception among many would have been: "he's just doing
that to pander". Indeed, McCain is already getting some flack from his current choice, because she is a women, even though she's a staunch social
conservative who fits with his platform. The perception I've heard from multiple sources is that many people are cynical: they think that he chose
her primarily to try and 'pick up' disaffected Hillary supporters. Choosing Condi could double that effect -- many people would have seen her race
and gender as the primary attributes why he chose her, potentially resulting in a backlash of opinion in otherwise-winnable demographics.
Hmm, I can see this new forum will take some getting used to. It's difficult to talk about the gamemanship of the election process without,
potentially, sounding like I'm 'being divisive'. Actually, it's the process that has become inherently divisive -- as candidates are increasingly
'marketed', wedge-issues of perception used to focus their appeal have become more important, it seems, than actual issues and stances. Sad, that.