×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

McCain Picks Gov. Palin As Running Mate

ScuttleMonkey posted more than 5 years ago | from the the-one-upping-continues dept.

United States 1813

Many readers have written to tell us about McCain's choice of Alaskan Governor Sarah Palin as his VP choice. "Palin, 44, a self-described 'hockey mom,' is a conservative first-term governor of Alaska with strong anti-abortion views, a record of reform and fiscal conservatism and an outsider's perspective on Washington. [...] If elected, Palin would be the first woman US vice president, adding another historic element to a presidential race that has been filled with firsts. Obama, 47, is the first black nominee of a major US political party. The choice of a vice president rarely has a major impact on the presidential race. Palin will meet Biden, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, in a debate in October."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

1813 comments

Quote from the Future (5, Funny)

Bryan_Casto (68979) | more than 5 years ago | (#24799655)

Joe Biden: "Governor Palin, I served with Dan Quayle; Dan Quayle was a friend of mine. Governor, you're no Dan Quayle."

Re:Quote from the Future (5, Funny)

megamerican (1073936) | more than 5 years ago | (#24799893)

Joe Biden: "Governor Palin, I served with Dan Quayle; Dan Quayle was a friend of mine. Governor, you're no Dan Quayle."

In this case, that quote would be a great compliment.

nice pick (3, Interesting)

larry bagina (561269) | more than 5 years ago | (#24799677)

I worked with her last year, doing some linux consulting work for the State of Alaska. I'd definitely tap her :)

Hahahah (1, Interesting)

Captain Splendid (673276) | more than 5 years ago | (#24799683)

Great choice. Already getting the "maverick" tag as well. Obama's fate is sealed.

For a guy who was only doing better than Paul at the beginning of the primaries, McCain's doing well these days. 4 more years!

Re:Hahahah (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24799887)

Well, given the title, I am tempted to assume you're joking. But the capacity of Republicans and their supporters for self parody can't be down played. Perhaps you're actually serious. Next you're going to be going on about Palin's experience and readiness to be president in a job that is, as they say, a heart beat away.

I think that the opposite of your claim is true: McCain is doomed. He just destroyed the "Obama doesn't have the experience to lead" meme. Sure Palin is a hard right social conservative. But she also happens to be an ex-beauty queen with an ethical scandal in Alaska. The social conservatives claim that women should be at home, not running for the Vice Presidency. Of course they're a bit inconsistent on this. I think that you'll find that Palin and her big breasts are a huge liability for McCain. If nothing else, she'll emphasize that he's very old.

Re:Hahahah (-1, Flamebait)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 5 years ago | (#24800343)

McCain seems to be going after the "Obama's black, but his VeePee don't have my VeePee's tits!"

It's strategy that might just work. Perhaps Biden should look at implants.

How is this news for nerds? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24799689)

Aside from the fact that she vaguely looks like the hot for teacher star, what is the relevance to us nerds again?

Sure shes pretty and all but.... (4, Interesting)

Gat0r30y (957941) | more than 5 years ago | (#24799709)

The Republican ticket is now complete, with John McCain picking Sarah Palin, the Republican Governor of Alaska as his running mate. And sure, she is hot [vpilf.com] (safe for work) but it would appear she is also a proponent of teaching creationism alongside Evolution in public schools [wired.com]. I don't mean to start a flame war here (ok maybe just a little) but seriously, how can anyone take a candidate seriously when they shamelessly pander to the stupid lobby?

Re:Sure shes pretty and all but.... (5, Funny)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 5 years ago | (#24799817)

C'mon, don't be such a downer. We need faith based science to advance our faith based economy!

Re:Sure shes pretty and all but.... (-1, Redundant)

Gat0r30y (957941) | more than 5 years ago | (#24799985)

Thanks a lot jerk, now who is gonna clean up the mess i just made spraying chocolate milk out my nose when reading your post?

Re:Sure shes pretty and all but.... (2, Insightful)

Jason Levine (196982) | more than 5 years ago | (#24800081)

Jebus the Psgetti Monster and God of Nasal Messes. Just have faith and pray to him. If the mess isn't cleaned up, it just means you're not praying hard enough.

Re:Sure shes pretty and all but.... (4, Insightful)

LWATCDR (28044) | more than 5 years ago | (#24799831)

"when they shamelessly pander to the stupid lobby?
--"
You mean like anybody that has pandered to the anti-nuclear lobby?
Guess what they all do.
And I have not problem with creationism being taught as long as it is taught as science. So every bad fact they have can be pointed out.

Re:Sure shes pretty and all but.... (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 5 years ago | (#24800273)

It's not science, it's so bad it's not even wrong.
Use Science to teach science.

Re:Sure shes pretty and all but.... (5, Funny)

HTH NE1 (675604) | more than 5 years ago | (#24799839)

The Republican ticket is now complete

Yeah, I still couldn't get the voice of Darth Vader out of my head for that.

Re:Sure shes pretty and all but.... (0, Troll)

letxa2000 (215841) | more than 5 years ago | (#24799849)

And sure, she is hot [vpilf.com] (safe for work) but it would appear she is also a proponent of teaching creationism alongside Evolution in public schools [wired.com].

What's your problem with students receiving a more well-rounded education on the different views that are out there? The problem is that, like it or not, evolution touches on an area of belief where science and religion do intersect. I don't like the idea of creationism being taught in a science class, but I wouldn't mind them both (and other compelling theories) being presented in an "Origins and Development of Life" class.

Well-rounded? (4, Insightful)

Chmcginn (201645) | more than 5 years ago | (#24799927)

What's your problem with students receiving a more well-rounded education on the different views that are out there?

Just a little something I read about the government not being allowed to outlaw or advance any particular religion. And, yeah, any form of ID? Yup, that's a religious belief, not a scientific one.

The problem is that, like it or not, evolution touches on an area of belief where science and religion do intersect.

And for strict biblical literalists, teaching a heliocentric model of the solar system is going against their religion. Are we supposed to teach geocentrism in public schools, as well?

Re:Well-rounded? (3, Insightful)

letxa2000 (215841) | more than 5 years ago | (#24800107)

Just a little something I read about the government not being allowed to outlaw or advance any particular religion.

That's not what the Constitution says. Besides, I learned about different belief systems back in public high school in my world history class. You can't ignore religion and the Constitution doesn't require that it be ignored.

And for strict biblical literalists, teaching a heliocentric model of the solar system is going against their religion.

What "Biblical literalists" would that be? I don't think that means what you think it means.

Re:Well-rounded? (5, Insightful)

Chris Burke (6130) | more than 5 years ago | (#24800239)

That's not what the Constitution says. Besides, I learned about different belief systems back in public high school in my world history class. You can't ignore religion and the Constitution doesn't require that it be ignored.

Yeah, history class, not science class. You want to teach different theologies in history class? Be my guest. I loved learning about all the Abrahamic religions in my high school world history class.

You want to teach that in science class? Screw you, you're not teaching your religion as though it's science.

Re:Well-rounded? (1)

magus_melchior (262681) | more than 5 years ago | (#24800117)

And for strict biblical literalists, teaching a heliocentric model of the solar system is going against their religion.

Let's be fair: the percentage of the "strict biblical literalists" teaching a geocentric model is really small, but really loud. Equating the geocentrists with the biblical literalists is a classic fallacy of composition.

Re:Well-rounded? (1)

FredFredrickson (1177871) | more than 5 years ago | (#24800283)

For strict biblical literalists, the heliocentric model of the solar system will do just fine. For hardcore catholics from the 1600s, maybe you'll upset a few.

Re:Sure shes pretty and all but.... (1)

Mononoke (88668) | more than 5 years ago | (#24799961)

I don't like the idea of creationism being taught in a science class, but I wouldn't mind them both (and other compelling theories) being presented in an "Origins and Development of Life" class.

Creationism belongs in a Studies in the Techniques of Using Fiction for Coercive Purposes curriculum.

Re:Sure shes pretty and all but.... (2, Insightful)

TheRealMindChild (743925) | more than 5 years ago | (#24799981)

Because evolution teaches what science has concluded with all of the current evidence that they have. Creationism is a one sides, faith based approach to explaining the universes origin. You have to throw logic out the window. You have to believe that there is a God. And not just any god. It has to be an all knowing, all powerful God who looks out for human beings because he is a good god.

So not only is it an attempt at religious brainwashing, they are targeting a very specific religious belief system too.

Re:Sure shes pretty and all but.... (0, Troll)

letxa2000 (215841) | more than 5 years ago | (#24800127)

Because evolution teaches what science has concluded with all of the current evidence that they have.

Actually, no, it isn't.

Re:Sure shes pretty and all but.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24800253)

Apparently all of those carbon dated skulls in the museums (like the Museum of Natural History) showing minor change between skulls connecting the lineage between different animals is all fake. I suppose that the lab research where over generations, bacteria change dramatically in some places enough to thrive in a different environment is all fake. I suppose the connections we can make with genes from remains 100 million years ago is fake. So. Now. Tell me what isn't fake.

Re:Sure shes pretty and all but.... (1)

magus_melchior (262681) | more than 5 years ago | (#24800221)

I think you underestimate the insight and wisdom of many science teachers. A lot of them will most likely risk their careers to resist any attempt at presenting creationism as a viable alternative or complement to the current curriculum. The really good ones will say, "Here's creationism and the evidence for it. Here's Darwin's theory, and current scientific consensus, and all the evidence for that. You decide which side of this debate."

Re:Creationism (5, Insightful)

pluther (647209) | more than 5 years ago | (#24800045)

What's your problem with students receiving a more well-rounded education on the different views that are out there?

Because when people talk about presenting "both" sides of an issue, they usually don't mean the "informed" and "uninformed" sides.

Re:Sure shes pretty and all but.... (2, Interesting)

2nd Post! (213333) | more than 5 years ago | (#24800155)

Except you are wrong. Evolution and Creationism doesn't intersect. Evolution talks about how life changes/adapts to change and Creationism talks about how life began.

The only conflict is that Evolution proclaims that living forms are mutable where Creationism says they are not. There is no "origin of life" aspect in Evolution just as there is no "adaptation to environment" aspect to Creationism.

"Origins and Development of Life"?? (2, Insightful)

Animaether (411575) | more than 5 years ago | (#24800167)

The very title of such a "Origins and Development of Life" class would imply that students would be taught on the origins and development of life - and not "Varying Views on the Origins and Development of Life"; thus creationism would still have no place in such a class.

There are already classes for creationism: theology classes. They may not be required material, but they do exist - and if you want that well-rounded education, you'll take it.

Unfortunately there are various problems with mandatory theology classes as generally proposed - not the least of which is that they mean Christian Theology classes; if other religions are mentioned at all, then they are generally mentioned in the bylines and quickly dismissed in favor of the Christian views. If you think that atheism is covered in such classes at all, you're horribly mistaken (well, other than the whole "non-believers go to hell, THEY GO TO HELL AND THEN THEY BURN AND THEY DIE!!!"-part, though they try to tone that down a little these days.)

Personally I don't think that religion has any place in public schools (what private schools do is entirely up to them), not even as an alternative view on things such as the origin of life, the universe, etc. No more than Time Cube would have a place as an alternative view on physics.

What's so bad about teaching science history? (2, Interesting)

tepples (727027) | more than 5 years ago | (#24799983)

she is also a proponent of teaching creationism alongside Evolution in public schools

I don't see anything wrong with teaching the history of humanity's understanding of the planet's origins. For a long time, consensus was that the planet was 6,000 years old. Without learning about creationism, it is harder for students to grasp the extent of the impact that Darwin's On the Origin of Species had on the development of biology.

Re:What's so bad about teaching science history? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24800301)

It would be fine if it was taught in a historical perspective. The problem is that it does not belong in a science class. We do not teach alchemy except in the historical sense, so why should creationism be any different?

The real problem is that a large part of the population absolutely and unquestioningly believes in the story of creation. Giving it credence in science class would be idiotic.

Re:Sure shes pretty and all but.... (2, Interesting)

ptbarnett (159784) | more than 5 years ago | (#24800031)

I don't mean to start a flame war here (ok maybe just a little) but seriously, how can anyone take a candidate seriously when they shamelessly pander to the stupid lobby?

Before the flamewar starts, maybe someone should read the article that Wired links to. In response to the controversy that followed her comments, she said:

"I don't think there should be a prohibition against debate if it comes up in class. It doesn't have to be part of the curriculum." [adn.com]

I'm no advocate of creationism, either. But, I question people who insist that it is a subject that must not be discussed. Germany bans certain subjects (and to avoid invoking Godwin's law, I'll leave it as an exercise to the reader), but all it seems to do is suppress open debate about it.

Re:Sure shes pretty and all but.... (1)

letxa2000 (215841) | more than 5 years ago | (#24800145)

I'm no advocate of creationism, either. But, I question people who insist that it is a subject that must not be discussed.

EXACTLY! Thank you. Even though I suspect we don't see eye to eye on probably a lot of issues, you're definitely someone I would enjoy the process of disagreeing with!

Re:Sure shes pretty and all but.... (4, Insightful)

hiryuu (125210) | more than 5 years ago | (#24800035)

In addition to that, she's also pretty rabidly pro-life. This is, among other things, a definite carrot toward the more religiously-oriented part of the conservative base - you know, the part that doesn't thing McCain is conservative enough (in the fundamentalist sense) for them...

Re:Sure shes pretty and all but.... (5, Interesting)

SengirV (203400) | more than 5 years ago | (#24800049)

how can anyone take a candidate seriously when they shamelessly pander to the stupid lobby?

I don't know, it doesn't seem to bother the Obama supporters.

Waiting to be modded as a troll while the OP gets modded as informative or interesting. Even though both took shots at the other side.

No bias to see here.

Re:Sure shes pretty and all but.... (3, Insightful)

Gat0r30y (957941) | more than 5 years ago | (#24800121)

Hey, the stupid lobby isn't just giving to one side or the other. I'm just trying to point out that they are garnering more and more political clout every year and I for one am getting tired of it.

Re:Sure shes pretty and all but.... (1)

SengirV (203400) | more than 5 years ago | (#24800333)

It's all about polls anymore. The party will push the candidate they think can win the polls, forget about issues or character.

Re:Sure shes pretty and all but.... (4, Insightful)

Hatta (162192) | more than 5 years ago | (#24800215)

They all pander to the stupid lobby, it's their biggest constituency. So really, you should be asking "How can anyone take any candidate seriously?" The answer is, you can't unless you're stupid.

Look at Obama for instance. He couldn't even wait until he was nominated to betray his stated principles and vote for immunity for telecom's who illegally tapped phones. If you expect him, or any other candidate to remain true to his campaign promises, you're part of that stupid lobby.

Re:Sure shes pretty and all but.... (2, Insightful)

TopSpin (753) | more than 5 years ago | (#24800257)

Your Wired story provides an Anchorage Daily News link [adn.com] with the following:

She added that, if elected, she would not push the state Board of Education to add such creation-based alternatives to the state's required curriculum.

At one time Clinton was "pro-life". He conveniently modified that position for the Federal stage and Palin will do likewise. Hysteria about her creationism will fail.

Re:Sure shes pretty and all but.... (1)

Annymouse Cowherd (1037080) | more than 5 years ago | (#24800271)

But now all the idiots who were going to vote for McCain because Obama is black will now be turned away by the prospect of having a female VP...

I bet the Green Party will suddenly see a vast increase in votes!

Re:Sure shes pretty and all but.... (1)

thedonger (1317951) | more than 5 years ago | (#24800317)

Because the stupid lobby votes.

Whatever the specifics behind this choice (youth, woman, HOT), it clearly isn't meant to entice you to vote for McCain. Just accept that it will/may sway people who are looking for a reason to vote one way or the other, while also encouraging otherwise-would-be-staying-home conservative voters to show up on erection - er, election day.

Good choice (3, Insightful)

letxa2000 (215841) | more than 5 years ago | (#24799729)

I think this is a great pick. The Democrats seem to want to attack Palin on experience but, in the minds of many, every attack/criticism they make against Palin will be silently re-asked by viewers about the Democrats' presidential pick.

Democrats are in a catch-22. Great political move by McCain. And Palin's speech in Dayton was excellent and motivating and inspirational, far more than what I heard from Obama last night at the DNC convention.

Re:Good choice (4, Insightful)

Captain Splendid (673276) | more than 5 years ago | (#24799873)

You've got it the wrong way around. It's McCain's camp (and the Rs in general) that have been attacking Obama's lack of experience. With Palin, they're going to need to tone it down in order avoid pot/kettle issues.

Re:Good choice (3, Insightful)

Ironsides (739422) | more than 5 years ago | (#24799979)

Sorry, I must have missed the memo where Palin was running for President.

Re:Good choice (5, Insightful)

Jaysyn (203771) | more than 5 years ago | (#24800315)

Seeing as if he (McCain) somehow manages to get elected, I give his remaining lifespan a duration somewhere between James Garfield & William Harrison's presidencies. The good news is we'll have our first woman president. The bad news is she has experience leading about 670000 people total (9000 if you just want to go by her mayoral experience), is rabidly pro-life & loves Big Oil. It will be kinda like Bush, but with a vagina.

And don't bother to rail on me either, I'm voting for Barr. I've given up on the Republicrats, the only thing that will make our leaders stand up & take notice is another political party coming to power & taking it away from them.

Re:Good choice (2, Informative)

c_forq (924234) | more than 5 years ago | (#24800027)

Except that Palin isn't on the top of the ticket. Her foreign experience is only an issue if McCain dies. Republicans are currently trying to bait this issue (judging from listening to a couple of their radio mouthpieces this morning) knowing that people care about the top of the ticket, not the VPs.

You do realize he's old as dirt, right? (1)

Chmcginn (201645) | more than 5 years ago | (#24800099)

Except that Palin isn't on the top of the ticket. Her foreign experience is only an issue if McCain dies.

Just look at how much eight years running the country has aged the G.W. Bush. I remember how he looked young in 1999.

Re:Good choice (3, Insightful)

letxa2000 (215841) | more than 5 years ago | (#24800193)

You've got it the wrong way around. It's McCain's camp (and the Rs in general) that have been attacking Obama's lack of experience. With Palin, they're going to need to tone it down in order avoid pot/kettle issues.

Maybe, maybe not. Palin is not running for president. Obama is. It would be a little risky (as is the VP choice itself), but McCain could easily keep attacking Obama on experience and when the Democrats respond, "What about your VP choice?" the response could be, "Yeah, but she's our VP choice. You're running someone with even less experience for president."

Seriously, it seems that the Democrats don't realize it yet. But I think there's a very high probability chance the the Democrats are toast. Even if not a single Hillary supporter defects.

Bad Choice (2, Informative)

spun (1352) | more than 5 years ago | (#24799897)

She tried to get a state trooper fired for divorcing her sister [bloomberg.com] and after that failed, fired his boss for not firing him.

Re:Bad Choice (4, Insightful)

Hatta (162192) | more than 5 years ago | (#24800259)

I think you overestimate how much the people will care.

Re:Bad Choice (1)

spun (1352) | more than 5 years ago | (#24800287)

Either she matters as a VP pick, in which case people will care that she is corrupt, or she doesn't matter, in which case, so what?

I think you are a little early on your verdict. (1)

hasbeard (982620) | more than 5 years ago | (#24800345)

Actually this is still under investigation. Nothing has been proven.

Re:Good choice (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24800037)

The Democrats seem to want to attack Palin on experience but, in the minds of many, every attack/criticism they make against Palin will be silently re-asked by viewers about the Democrats' presidential pick.

Like this question, for example: "Did Palin teach constitutional law?"

Or how about this one: "Has Palin studied with the greatest minds in the country about how our system of government is supposed to work?"

Or how about: "When the US government has to make tough decisions, like declaring war, will Palin have a deep understanding of how our system of government is supposed to make that decision?"

Re:Good choice (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24800087)

It's possible this is also a hail mary by the McCain camp.

- Adding a woman to see if the Republicans can make their race "historical".
- Palin's husband seems to be tied to an oil company. Potentially gaping ANWR wide open.
- Palin's son enlisted on Sept 11 and deploys on Sept 11. Some irony there to create sparks.

Just to name a few.

Re:Good choice (5, Insightful)

bigtoy (170668) | more than 5 years ago | (#24800327)

I am not so sure this is a great political move by McCain.

One of the things the Democrats have been hammering McCain on is his lack of judgment. I can easily see Palin as another example of poor decision making.

While selecting a VP as a strategy to win the election is part of the decision tree (going after the disenfranchised Hillary votes), choosing a VP is also about having someone that can step in and do the presidents job competently.

I have a feeling this is going to backfire.

Makes sense... (-1, Troll)

RyanFenton (230700) | more than 5 years ago | (#24799741)

McCain does have a storied history of using and abandoning powerful, beautiful, but gullible women as stepping stones on his path to power.

Looks like the Maverick scores again.

Some problems though: This "babe" [time.com] (as Rush Limbaugh calls her) wants to teach creationism as science in public schools, has an interesting set of scandals being investigated, and has some even more interesting friendly ties to Ted Stevens - which is rather impressive, given her very limited time frame for building up these problems.

This should be an interesting election season.

Ryan Fenton

finally (-1, Flamebait)

u4ya (1248548) | more than 5 years ago | (#24799743)

now Americans can decide which team of puppets to elect in their sham of a political system they call democracy. Seriously... the 2-party US political system is a joke. If they think that this is democracy, then its no small wonder how they think they can spread democracy via a gun barrel.

The elections are a charade. Elections and politicians are in place in order to give Americans the illusion that they have freedom of choice. - George Carlin

Re:finally (1)

barnyjr (1259608) | more than 5 years ago | (#24799917)

I'm amazed at your ability to so perfectly lump all US citizens into one super-accurate stereotype!! I didn't realize that we all think we can spread democracy via a gun barrel. Thank god that an expert-on-all-things-American such as you told me, so that I know how to think! /sarcasm off

Tell me what country you're from so I can make an ignorant ill-informed statement about how you all feel.

Ah, good ol' Slashkos (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24799745)

So after a huge front-page story that did nothing but announce Obama's running mate, McCain gets hidden away in some hidden corner of Slashdot. Despite the fact that Palin is a much more "nerd-friendly" pick than Biden. She's never tried to outlaw cryptography or make destroying copyright violators computers legal.

But hey, just because she's a better match for the political views of the average Slashdotter doesn't mean that Slashkos has to make this story visible. After all, it might threaten Saint Obama.

So, what are your front page setting again? (5, Interesting)

Chmcginn (201645) | more than 5 years ago | (#24799825)

Because I'm seeing this story at the top of the front page.

Face it, though, neither Palin (a self-admitted creationist) nor Biden (a proponent of stronger police powers) is a 'nerd-friendly' pick.

She believes Creationism should be taught (1)

apparently (756613) | more than 5 years ago | (#24799909)

But hey, just because she's a better match for the political views of the average Slashdotter

Yeah, because /. sure does have a majority on creationists.

Re:She believes Creationism should be taught (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24800069)

No, she doesn't. She believes it should be ALLOWED to be mentioned in class, and that students should be allowed to debate the relative merits of Intelligent Design and evolution.

However, since unlike the Democrats the Republicans do not believe that it is the government's place to dictate people's thoughts, she did nothing to force that through.

Unlike her thought-police opponents, who would have made mentioning Intelligent Design, at all, illegal.

It's kind of hard to disprove Intelligent Design if you're not even allowed to talk about it.

Re:She believes Creationism should be taught (1)

Gat0r30y (957941) | more than 5 years ago | (#24800299)

It's kind of hard to disprove Intelligent Design if you're not even allowed to talk about it.

No. Its hard to disprove Intelligent because it doesn't make any verifiable scientific predictions.

The Vagina option (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24799767)

This is the way to get the dumb Hillary supporters (the ones who wanted her as president simply because she's a "she") to vote for McCain.

Re:The Vagina option (2, Insightful)

letxa2000 (215841) | more than 5 years ago | (#24799933)

Nah, it's a good political move ignoring completely Hillary supporters.

Which do you want? An experienced president who you hope doesn't die and leaves you with a relatively inexperienced vice-president? Or do you want an inexperienced president that you hope dies so you can get some experience in the presidency?

This was a great chess move by the Republicans. Checkmate, Obama is done.

Cool.. (0, Troll)

Orleron (835910) | more than 5 years ago | (#24799771)

... bout time we started practicing some hot chick diplomacy.
Vote McCain-MILF 2008!

Re:Cool.. (3, Funny)

drpimp (900837) | more than 5 years ago | (#24799853)

I myself don't want to see McCain in the White House, but if they (McCain/Palin) actually do get elected, I wouldn't mind becoming an intern to Palin in the White House. You know what I am talking about! Yeah Baby!

Re:Cool.. (1)

Orleron (835910) | more than 5 years ago | (#24800003)

Which one of you would get to be under the desk? Oh behave!

Re:Cool.. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24800319)

Her politics may stink, hopefully that's the only thing!

Obama is not "African American" (3, Interesting)

davidwr (791652) | more than 5 years ago | (#24799781)

Skin color and ethnicity should matter in an election, but Obama is half-"white American" half "Black African." While that technically makes him half African-American, he does not share the full cultural heritage that is commonly understood by the term "African-American."

His dad was from Africa, not the son or grandson of a sharecropper and not the descendant of slaves from pre-Civil-War America.

I will grant you that he grew up in the '60s and '70s in a time where his skin color gave him distinct disadvantages, but that's not the same as having parents and grandparents who faced the same obstacles.

Barak Obama has far more in common with lawyers from Harvard than your average African American.

Thankfully, for today's generation and the ones to follow, the cultural differences are becoming more about economic differences rather than differences in skin tone and whether your ancestors were property.

Re:Obama is not "African American" (1)

DeadManCoding (961283) | more than 5 years ago | (#24800007)

Thankfully, for today's generation and the ones to follow, the cultural differences are becoming more about economic differences rather than differences in skin tone and whether your ancestors were property.

An interesting note for this would then be, "Obama spent part of his childhood in South Chicago while Mom collected food stamps and Dad not around". How's about that for an "economic difference" when contrasted against McCain?

Re:Obama is not "African American" (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24800051)

Skin color and ethnicity should matter in an election

Dr. Freud, I presume.

Re:Obama is not "African American" (1)

WarwickRyan (780794) | more than 5 years ago | (#24800269)

..and George W, son of a president, is an average white man?

Obama and McCain have more in common than anything that skin colour or the actions of the long dead people whom they decended from. They're both politicians, not people.

A clever choice... (2, Insightful)

seizurebattlerobot (265408) | more than 5 years ago | (#24799783)

...but will it actually attract the Hillary supporters that the McCain camp seeks? At least now when confronted with attacks that liken a McCain presidency to a 3rd Bush term, he can point to his female running mate as progress.

She's also quite photogenic and a decent speaker. Who wants to bet that Palin's VP debate performance will outshine McCain's debate performance?

Re:A clever choice... (3, Interesting)

letxa2000 (215841) | more than 5 years ago | (#24799993)

Who wants to bet that Palin's VP debate performance will outshine McCain's debate performance?

I suspect:

  1. Palin would shine against McCain.
  2. McCain will shine against Obama.
  3. Palin would shine again Obama.
  4. ... I don't know how Palin will do against Biden.

Personally, I wouldn't mind the ticket being reversed: Palin/McCain. But given what we've got, Palin's speech this morning was far more inspirational and motivating than Obama's. And she didn't even have a crowd of 80,000 at Invesco field to drum up the energy.

Re:A clever choice... (1)

Arc the Daft (1340487) | more than 5 years ago | (#24800207)

A Palin/McCain ticket would get more votes than the McCain/Palin ticket will from the disenfranchised Hillary democrats.

Anyone focused so much on gender to vote for the 'other' party (assuming dem. Hillary supporters) needs to wake up and look at the issues and voting records...

Re:A clever choice... (3, Insightful)

everphilski (877346) | more than 5 years ago | (#24800235)

I've heard a few people comment that she should hold her own against Biden, who has a tendancy to talk over people. While this may be acceptable against a man, albeit rude, against a woman, all she has to do is start tapping her foot or give some other indication that her speaking time is being infringed and it really makes Biden look bad. "The man" holding her down, etc.

Good contrast in beliefs, senatorial v. executive experience, should be interesting! I really didn't know who I wanted as VP but hearing her speak this morning, I think she can be solid.

Re:A clever choice... (1)

Chmcginn (201645) | more than 5 years ago | (#24800021)

...but will it actually attract the Hillary supporters that the McCain camp seeks?

I would highly doubt it. A vast majority of NOW memebers would rather vote for a pro-choice man over a anti-abortion woman.

Ready to lead ... (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24799799)

with his penis.

Fuck Democracy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24799801)

"Modern Civilization" is destructive and unsustainable. The sad story of recent history proves most people are far too stupid to choose their leaders. Bring back Monarchy!

A female Dan Quayle (4, Funny)

linzeal (197905) | more than 5 years ago | (#24799805)

Well she just asked "What exactly does a vice president do?", on CNBC. Um, ok that is scary. This is just a female Dan Quayle that instead of golfing hunts, fishes and wrestles bears. Unfortunately she does none of these things naked.

First female President? (1)

Facetious (710885) | more than 5 years ago | (#24799807)

Considering McCain is more likely to die in the next four (or eight) years than Obama, the choice of VP for McCain is more likely to determine who becomes the President after next. I know there's some Yoda joke here, but I just can't find it.

Pandering to the Vagina Vote (0, Flamebait)

Mononoke (88668) | more than 5 years ago | (#24799811)

No better way to sway a few Hillary supporters your way, apparently.

It's so sad that so many Americans will fall for this trick.

Re:Pandering to the Vagina Vote (5, Insightful)

letxa2000 (215841) | more than 5 years ago | (#24800041)

It's so sad that so many Americans will fall for this trick.

What's sad is that when Democrats run women, it's looked at as somehow genuine but when Republicans run a woman it's looked at as pandering.

Re:Pandering to the Vagina Vote (2, Insightful)

Chris Burke (6130) | more than 5 years ago | (#24800307)

Uh, I doubt many Hillary supporters are going to vote for someone so strongly pro-life. Just a guess, but I think it's safe. There will be some loss, but not much.

Frankly I don't see this pick as shoring up the McCain ticket much except in terms of solidifying his base.

Is this a sacrificial lamb? (2, Interesting)

damn_registrars (1103043) | more than 5 years ago | (#24799879)

I've heard discussions that Gov. Palin has had some difficulties with mainstream conservatives. Considering that McCain has almost no chance of winning this election, could picking Palin have been more about taking her out of the picture?

After all, how many candidates from losing presidential tickets - presidential or veep - have been endorsed for office by their parties afterwards?

This could be the GOP's way of holding on for Pawlenty and Romney to run at later times when there is a chance of the republicans winning the white house.

Re:Is this a sacrificial lamb? (1)

nelsonal (549144) | more than 5 years ago | (#24800153)

Dole, Nixon and Dewey all lost as a President or Vice-President and then went on to run again in the modern era. I'll grant that Dole was more of an honorarium/need to run someone, but the other two ran competitive races or won in Nixon's case.

Clinching the Hillary voters? (1)

Drakin020 (980931) | more than 5 years ago | (#24800175)

I'm sure many others think this, but I think his strategy is to gather the Hillary voters....It's a bad strategy if you ask me because he simply brought her on just to win the election...which is just stupid.

My only problem with this pick is... (2, Insightful)

WCMI92 (592436) | more than 5 years ago | (#24800241)

That I wish she were the PRESIDENTIAL nominee. Sarah Palin has excellent credentials of taking on corruption (even in her own party). She said no thanks to Sen. Ted "Internet Tubes" Steven's 100 million dollar "bridge to nowhere", and called for his investigation in a corruption scandal. I hear crickets from the Dems with respect to Rep William Jefferson (of New Orleans) and the $100K found in his freezer, etc...

The best thing about this is that it sets her up to be the nominee next time out.

Best of Luck (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24800335)

I wish McCain the best of luck in his presidental campaign.

I don't think he has any hope of winning.

But I wish him luck all the same. Gov Palin too.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...