Secondly, and while this is a shame, Joe Biden is a white male. And old (though not too old) white male. And that’s a factor, since a lot of people who vote are white males. And even more people than that who vote seem to trust white males. Why? I have no idea. But baby steps here. I don’t think this country was really ready for a black man with a Muslim name to partner up with the most polarizing female candidate ever (who also is married to a powerful former president). That’s just not a “safe” ticket. Let’s go with safe. John Edwards, who couldn’t carry his home state last time around? Let’s not see that again. I trust that tiny Delaware will be safely locked up, which is less comforting than if, say, Biden were from Florida, Ohio, New Mexico, Arkansas or any other swing state, but whatever. But again, it’s not just about the guaranteed electoral college votes of a home-stater (though I suppose an argument could be made if you had a candidate you KNEW would guarantee you a swing state, which is why I thought perhaps Wes Clark might have a shot).
This brings me back to the whole Palin vs. Biden as individuals debate. I don’t get it, on either side. Who cares which of them would win the presidency. What matters is how each veep affects the overall ticket. If I wasn’t really so tired of the Republican machine such that I just want a change largely for change’s sake (though I do like Obama, despite feeling that just like everyone else in politics he really is still a politician, which I think is a bad thing), I might actually give more than a passing care to Palin’s contributions to McCain’s campaign. But as far as I’m concerned, McCain’s era of being electable has passed because 1) he is too old, 2) he has partnered with the religious right (wrong) since losing out to Bushie last time around because of not having their support, and 3) he is a Republican. FYI, I am a registered Republican, but the party has taken us down the wrong road. We need some house cleaning. Bush isn’t a real Republican, so I’m sorry that he’s sullied my party.
The election is shaping up to be a good one, as Palin’s status (if that is really the word to use here) as a female seems to more of an issue than really anything else. I find that a bit dissappointing, honestly. I think one of the neat things about Obama is that (fingers crossed), people *seem* to be looking at him as a “man,” as opposed to as a “black man.” [Note: if I’ve offended anyone by saying Obama is black instead of “African-American,” I apologize. I just find the whole “political correctness” thing to generally be more insulting than polite. If Cornell West, who is pretty awesome, talks about race using the words “black” and “white,” then that’s what I’m gonna do.] However, crazy Hillary seems to have made the gender “issue” an issue. I don’t get it. Anyway, people of the world, please don’t vote for Palin just because she’s a woman. Let’s be reasonable, her nickname was “The Barracuda.” She probably is about as feminine as that female terminator from the terrible Terminator 3 or one of the fembots from Austin Powers. ALL politicians are politicians. I convinced that they really are gender, race, and otherwise neutral. Given the state of national politics, you really need to be, uhm, unique to make it. So I consider all politicians to be different from all normal human beings. So let’s look at the merit of the two candidate pairings based on their political attributes, since none of that other stuff really matters. Look at Bush (if you must). How else could a Connecticut-raised-and-schooled silver-spoon-child of a major political family reinvent himself as an aw-shucks cowboy? Only in politics. If it had been critical to become a Latino woman, I’m sure he could have done so just as effectively.