Sarah Palin or Connie Rice

[stuart.uk]

This is just an observation from a British citizen looking in on the Presidential Elections. I just hope nobody minds my comments.

From where we sit it seems almost a formality that Obama is going to win, probably by a landslide, which is fine by me, because he's closer to my political views that John Mcain.

However, from reports we receive, it suggests that Sarah Palin is a major weak link in The Republican ticket. One of the concerns over here is her lack of experience, particulary with foreign affairs.

If that's the case, if Mcain wanted a woman as a running mate, would Connie Rice have been a better alternative. It could be said the Rice is to close to Bush, but I always felt she was more of a centre right wing polititian than the President, but I could be wrong. She certainly has bags of experience and could probably handle the top job in an emergency.

[ChiO]

Assuming that: (a) McCain felt the need to energize his base with a candidate generally considered to the right of him on social issues, and (b) McCain wanted to create the perception of some distance between himself and Bush, (Note: both of those assumptions are widely reported and appear to be accurate given how things have played out), then choosing Rice as his running mate would have failed on both counts.

Now, one can question whether those assumptions are accurate and, if so, whether they were the appropriate assumptions for his campaign to make, but it is likely that Rice would not have brought the social conservatives into the fold that Palin has and would have turned off most of the same voters that Palin has.

He was unquestionably in a difficult position regardless of one's attitude toward him and his positions -- a very unpopular President in the same party, an energizing opponent (even when it wasn't known whether it would be Clinton or Obama), and an economy that tanks at the worst possible moment for the party of a sitting President...three events that he had no control over.

But if it's a landslide, I'll be stunned (pleased, but stunned).

[movieman1957]

Rice never would have taken it if offered. Her plan, as far as I know, was to go back to being a college professor. I guess she would like a less stressful life and who wouldn't want that.

Other than that ChiO is right. Her ties with Bush, if nothing else, would have made the connection even stronger than they already are for McCain.

Also, I just don't see her as the campaigning type.

[Synnove]

Thank you for the insights, ChiO and Movieman!

A landslide... According to the polls, Obama is leading, but it's not by that much, is it? Besides, there is a margin of error in the polls. Judging from what I've read, McCain still has a chance. The media in Britain, Sweden and probably a lot of other European countries is extremely slanted in Obama's favour, for good and for bad.

I think that shows what a catastrophe it will be for the US's credibility in Europe if McCain does win. Most of us just won't be able to understand it, since Obama has been presented to us as the obvious winner. It will be a great shock, whereas on the other hand, victory for Obama might do a great deal to restore the US's credibility in the world, since he is so popular, and represents a change from the earlier regime. That's one of the main reasons why I want him to win. I want him to, but I'm not going to get my hopes up too high.

(My pessimism generally always fails, because I look forward to being happily surprised...)

[movieman1957]

It depends on what poll you read. It can be as little as 3 points or as much as 11-15 points. They speak of a landslide in terms of how many electoral votes Obama may get. Whoever wins a particular state gets that state's electoral votes. The winner needs 270 electoral votes. You will see two different tallies. One for the electoral votes and one for the popular vote.

I would hate to think our credibility has been damaged because some pollsters (or the press) were wrong. What may more damaging is how the country might react if McCain were to win. There are people who are saying it could get ugly here. I don't know and I don't have a sense if that is right or wrong. It's just some have put that possibility out there.

[Synnove]

I would hate to think our credibility has been damaged because some pollsters (or the press) were wrong.

It wouldn't just be that the polls were wrong. I think people here are so confident that Obama will win because they can't imagine that a Republican president would get elected again, after what happened in the last eight years. I didn't mean that the damaged credibility in recent years had anything to do with the polls: only that George Bush's regime has damaged America's reputation a great deal internationally already, and while I know McCain isn't like him I don't think the fact that he is a Republican will help. It might sound like simplistic reasoning, but I don't think it's wrong. America's international reputation is important to the strength of the dollar, and America's status as a superpower, which I think we might want to uphold.

[charliechaplinfan]

Synnove, your right, our press are calling it in Obama's favour but it wouldn't be the first time they've called an election wrong. In fact from the way it's being called in this country I think everyone would be completely shocked if McCain was elected, completely and utterly. I imagine waking up in the morning and hearing on the radio that McCain has won and thn thinking, 'nah, I must still be asleep.'

Eight years ago when nobody was certain who had won, I was working in a very male dominated team and all they talked about was football (groan) and we were a corporate banking team, nobody but me thought it was important news. It just didn't figure, I was really disappointed with them all, I'd wanted to talk about it but the just wanted to talk about football.