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.
|