Adjunct Law Prof Blog

Editor: Mitchell H. Rubinstein
New York Law School

Saturday, August 30, 2008

Why Senator McCain Picked Governor Palin

McainpalinI usually do not comment on politics, but have commented on Obama and Biden. Therefore, it is now time to comment about McCain and Palin. One of the boldest moves in American political history was Senator McCain's choice of Governor Sarah Palin as his running mate. But why did he do it? Most of the so called "experts" theorize it was in order to satisfy the Republican base and in an attempt to get some Hillary voters. While satisfying the Republican base may have been a factor, I believe that the real reason Governor Palin was selected was because of her SEX APPEAL. Lets face it, she is a young and attractive woman.  She was selected to appeal to the MEN voters, particularly the young men voters that Obama is doing so well with.

To that extent, I believe the choice was brilliant. There is only one problem. She really is not qualified to be Commander-In-Chief. But, either is Obama. She has at least as much experience as Obama.

Mitchell H. Rubinstein

Politics | Permalink

TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Why Senator McCain Picked Governor Palin:


I totally agree on the sex-appeal part, which, of course is highly disappointing. It may be a brilliant political move, but as a statement on our democracy, it is not good.

The "not qualified to be Commander-in-chief" couldn't be more accurate. I would of course disagree on Obama's readiness and comparing Palin to Obama. First, Alaska is not Illinois. Hell, Alaska is not even Chicago. There is nothing about being mayor of a small town in Alaska that prepares anybody for anything, so basically she has a year and a half as governor and that's it. Obama came up through the ranks of one of our largest states, has nearly a decade of real political experience, has a graduate degree in Law from America's best college, has worked on Wall Street and Main street, served on the foreign relations committee among other things and finally, he obtained the nomination on his own merit, which in and of itself is a superior qualification to be president. Managing a large, nimble, national organization and consistently putting the right people in the right places that kept their eye on the ball says something about his ability to be president.

I don't care how people vote, but I don't think the comparison of Palin and Obama is accurate at all. A real qualification I heard people mention the first day she was nominated was that she was president of the PTA. Her experience as Alaska's governor counts ... but that's it. The fact that more qualified Republicans and even more qualified Republican women were passed over solely because of their looks has got to be a slap in the face to all of them and it is certainly a slap in the face to our democracy.
I guess we know who your voting for. Thank you for commenting.

Posted by: Justin B. | Sep 1, 2008 7:06:05 AM

Yeah, sorry Mitchell. I have just been totally frustrated by this pick and I guess it sort of came out in my comment. It is just irresponsible for a 72 year old man with multiple bouts with cancer to pick someone like this. But, more than that, I am just offended at the sole qualification for being McCain's VP was "youngish, good looking woman." That is exactly the opposite of what Clinton and Obama were trying to overcome in the Democratic primary, where they encouraged people to judge on merit, not on identity ... and then McCain goes and picks someone totally on identity with very little consideration, if any at all, on merit.

What McCain did was as bad of a statement about American politics as Clinton's and Obama's statements were good. As an independent who really wants to believe in America again, I just found it to be totally appalling.

Posted by: Justin B. | Sep 1, 2008 10:34:56 AM

Fairly bold comment...figured you will generate a lot of controversy with that one.

BTW any idea what is her track record with regard to education and employment issues? if at all?

Posted by: Bryan G. | Sep 1, 2008 10:10:35 PM

Hands down the most irresponsible and ridiculous decision he could have made. I disagree that the decision was based on her looks. This is conservative pandering at its best (or worst). She has all the qualifications for the base they need; sub-par education, pro-choice and fanatically religious. McCain, and his VP choice, could not stray any further from true Republican values.

I always vote the way of responsible economics and try to stay clear of campaign rhetoric and ridiculous promises of social change. This time however, I find the values of the Republican ticket so frightening, so repulsive, that even if they had a decent fiscal plan (which they don't) I would be compelled to cast my vote for Obama. To think that McCain and Palin will likely be picking multiple Supreme Court Justices during their tenure is terrifying to me.

Palin was the worst possible choice, period.

I am a frequent reader, but a first time poster. Check out the link below from an interview last night between a CNN reporter and McCain spokesman Tucker Bounds- it inspired me to comment on this post. Its a shocking look at how baseless this VP choice was, and how irresponsible the McCain campaign is in general.

I am fiercely non-partisan, but this race is making me want to tattoo a donkey on my forehead. See the link below.

Posted by: Rob M. | Sep 2, 2008 9:44:15 AM

I was so heated by the topic that I failed to mention the most relevant issue - Palin and Union/Employment rights. Another obvious reason for picking Palin was to make McCain somewhat more palatable to labor unions.

The campaign holds her out as a former union member and the wife of a current union member. How any pro-union person could possibly join a ticket that is openly anti-union is beyond me. McCain has one of the most impressive anti-union, anti-worker, records in Senate history. He openly opposes a workers right to bargain collectively, he has blocked bills that protected overtime rights, supports the privatization of social security/retirement, and has voted in the negative on multiple acts to fight employment discrimination.

Its going to take a lot more than Palin to get labor unions or their members to vote for this ticket. They can start with a time machine.

Posted by: Rob M. | Sep 2, 2008 10:16:18 AM

Post a comment