Could be a good move on McCain's part
 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26453942/

Pure speculation, but, what the heck, who knows?

He needs to pick Hutchinson from TX. She has a solid record and she would probably sway the undecided Hillary supporters.

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2...ice-president/

Guess he went with the unknown. Time to start researching her record so when the media spins everything out of proportion..........

It's Palin, from Alaska. the woman that came in from the cold.

Don't know anything about her. "Looks and gender" was the first thought when I saw the news and a picture. In other words: exactly the opposite of McCain! :lol: Call it a compensation move... :D

Damn you beat me to it by a few minutes. I was thinking the same thing.

I wonder if what her position is on drilling/mining in Alaska and if it will affect GOP initiatives should she be opposed to them.

She's in favor of it, she's a memeber of the NRA and she's a "pro life feminist". What else could he ask for (other than a few more years experience).

A date?:D

:o:rotfl:Good one:up:

Good one is right! Nice looking women. I would have to say McCain made a very good choice. Reading up on her record, she stands behind her guns and does not let down. So, Biden, the Obama attack dog will have his hands full. She is very much a unknown and new to the scene. Funny how Obama talks of change then taps an old schooler yet McCain taps someone really new to the Washington way. I foresee the Hillary swing vote going McCains way.

Sarah Palin? Never heard of her, but she seems to be fairly conservative.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...5px-Palin1.JPG

We as americans need to look closely at who will be V.P.


In an instant THEY could be President.

Very true. And if they become as powerful as Cheney, they can act as President when the real President isn't around. So even though she may not be President, she will be making some of the calls.

-S

Unlike anyone else (Obama, Biden, McCain) she actually has executive experience.

It's important to remember the way congress critters work. They have a staff, and the staff looks at polls, and who is supporting them ($$$) and helps the Senator decide what to do. There is a long period of debate and back and forth, likely, and the bill then gets out of committee, then more time and a real vote, then it might or might not pass, might or might not get vetoed, etc. Time scale? Months.

Executives don;t have that privilege. Sometimes they do, but often they have to look at the data given them, and pick a path, NOW.

2 years experience like that certainly trumps Obama's meager experience in the Senate (he's missed more votes than he's voted on, I imagine (certainly a lot lately)).

Biden and McCain both have long-term Washington insider experience, which is useful for getting legislation through. Both have the domestic and foreign policy experience you might get in the Senate.

Bill Clinton himself said the other night in Denver that as governor, he had no foreign policy experience (and didn't suggest that was a bad thing).

She's an interesting, and a good choice, IMO.

When Obama, or Bill Clinton, back in the day, do something overtly political—and this choice is just that—they are praised for being consummate politicians. I think this is a cagey political choice. A little risky, but well-played.

Whats the phrase; 'a heart beat away from the presidency'? :hmm:

Sarah who? :o

Stinks of desperation to me. Looking for the moronic "I'm upset it wasn't Hilary" voters...

Actually, it's a very astute move.

First, it will grab away some of those voters who were going to vote for Hilary just because she was a woman. My wife was one, a middle of the road but leans to the conservative independent voter. She was excited about Clinton, and I honestly believe she would have voted for her. She doesn't care for Obama.

Second, it will help to grab in some of the base that has been lukewarm about McCain. Her being an NRA lifer and a hunter helps big time among the gun rights people and the regular sportsmen and women, and her stance on abortion helps with the social conservatives that didn't agree with McCain.

Then, you have the fact that she's held elected office for about the same time as Obama, so she's inoculated from the "not enough experience" attacks, and in fact she has executive experience, something Obama is lacking.

Also, she has actual experience with "change", being instrumental in getting rid of a corrupt republican governor.

Finally, she's pretty easy on the eyes, which is a pretty stupid reason to vote for one candidate or another, but humans being human we know that image counts (Nixon Kennedy debate, anyone?).

All in all, probably the best pick he could have made, and it certainly helps more than hurts his chances in November.

I don't know how popular she will be with other Republican politicians.

She rose to power by turning in corrupt Republicans.

But I say give her a chance. The debates are coming, lets see how she does.

Social conservatives? Oh I see, religious people outside USA are fanatics/fundamentalists but in USA they are "social conservatives". I get it now.

Whatever floats your boat.

I know plenty of people who aren't religious, nor are they fanatical, but still don't think abortion should be as freely available as it is today.

Do not make the mistake of equating "social conservative" with "religious fanatic". To be sure, there is a considerable overlap, but at best the "religious fanatic" is a subset of the "socially conservative".

Or, more properly, there is an intersection of the two, because there are religious fanatics/fundamentalists who believe in things like liberation theology, etc.

That might not help her with politicians, but it is almost certain to help her with voters, especially ones that want "change".