Now that I’ve had most of the day to sort this through, I think I’ve actually formed an opinion on Obama’s VP pick. Not that I really care who Obama picks, because nothing short of aliens taking over my brain would make me vote for him, but it’s politically interesting.

Obama has highlighted his weaknesses, but succeeded in “balancing the ticket.” We all know that Obama is young, inexperienced, weak on foreign policy and defense, and black (although being black is only a “weakness” for some; for many this is a HUGE asset – like all those folks who are going to vote for Obama because “he look like me”).

Now, Obama has admitted that he’s young, inexperienced, and weak on foreign policy and defense by picking a guy whose only strong suits are that he’s old, “experienced” (at least as far as years in the Senate are concerned), and at least marginally strong in the areas of foreign policy and defense.

We all knew Obama is black – has the media ever let us forget it? – and really, even though he picked an old white guy, this part of Biden’s resume isn’t going to carry the folks to whom skin color really matters. Bringing in the “anti-black” vote would have required a Southerner (such as Tim Kaine, who by the way, my husband thinks looks like a child molester).

Summary: Obama has covered the “I’m young, inexperienced, and don’t have a clue about defense or foreign policy” parts of his candidacy. He forgot about the fact that he’s an African American from the North.

A smart move might have been to pick someone who could actually carry a state that Obama may have trouble with, such as Virginia (ahem, Tim Kaine), Tennessee, or, oh heck – anything in the South where the majority of voters are white evangelicals. Or Ohio. Or Florida. Or half of the Midwest.

Instead, Obama picked another Yankee who just so happens to also be Catholic. As a guy who’s already having some trouble ironing out his reputation with Christians (is he a Muslim or a subscriber to Black Liberation Theology?), a better choice might have been a Methodist or something a little more appealing to those who don’t typically vote Democrat but who also don’t want to vote for McCain. Not that I’m complaining. I don’t want Obama to win so I’m a bit gleeful over this choice, but also curious.

Here’s the thing…I understand the concept of “balancing the ticket.” You understand the concept of “balancing the ticket.” But there are scores (I would venture to say a large majority) of Americans who not only have no clue what it means to “balance the ticket,” but who don’t care one iota that Barack Obama is unimaginably inexperienced and clueless in the areas of defense and foreign policy. These are the people who would vote for Obama if he picked a white, Southern, Methodist running mate (all other credentials notwithstanding).

It seems to me that Obama went with the “party choice.” He went with the guy who might carry some of those party-active Hillary supporters who are worried about said Obama weaknesses. These are the people who would have probably voted for Obama in the end any-old-way. So, instead of making a decision based on what would carry the voters who are on the fence, he went with the guy who will carry the voters who are already on his side of the fence, saying that they’re not on his side of the fence. Does this make sense?

An interesting choice, indeed. And one that I hope will be the nail in the coffin of the Obama presidency…

Advertisements