In my opinion, she was a purely political pick by the McCain camp to attract a bulk of the extremely fanatical Hillary supporters who would vote for a woman just because she is a woman (please keep in mind that there ARE people like this out there and it is not something I personally relish bringing up, but it is the truth). I fully support a woman to be president if she wishes.
I think this is kind of a knee jerk reaction and not at all likely to sway a significant voters. And I'm dead certain the the high muckety mucks in the GOP know that. Thus I can't believe this is the case.
The die-hard Hillary voters were primarily feminist. And no feminist is going to vote for a pro-lifer, be it a woman or not. So no, I think this is not the case at all
My biggest problems with Pallin are this:
1) hypocrisy. Republicans have been making a *huge* deal about experience with Obama, yet they choose a newcomer for VP. Makes me ill. Makes me angry. Makes me stabbity.
Note this is not a problem with PALLIN being a hypocrite, just every Republican (most of them) who made a big deal about Obama's lack of experience and is now suddenly excited about the McCain ticket. Shows they were grasping at straws. Sticks in my craw a bit, y'know?
2) Her daughter. Look, I'm not pure. I've got nothing against Pallin because she had a daughter who had sex, or even got pregnant. I applaud her that she and her daughter decided to carry the baby to term. It's what I think should be done. However. The girl is 17. She's *marrying* the father?! doubleyoo tee eff. Really. Toooooo young. The baby should be given for adoption, not forced into a family with underage parents that will probably only last a couple years (statistically).
And yes, I admit the following is speculation: I really wonder how much of this the girl is doing by choice. Would she have made the choice for an abortion? Would she have never married the guy? would she prefer to give the child up for adoption? Or is all this happening because her mom was being vetted for VP? I try to think that people are trying to do the right thing, but I can't help but think that "the right thing" got confused here with "what will improve my chances for being selected and then elected?" Like I said, this paragraph is pure speculation, but I can't get myself past it.
I don't know that either of those issues would prevent me from voting for her, but there' still there and pretty big. Hard to get around.
Oh, and experience?
Abraham Lincoln, arguably the greatest president this nation has had (he always makes the top 5 list when a historian makes one), had only 8 years of experience, AS A
STATE SENATOR, and only TWO as a U.S. Senator before he led this nation through the biggest crisis it ever had (yes, bigger than September 11, bigger than Katrina, bigger than everything in the last 8 years COMBINED). Let's listen to what the candidates will DO rather than worry about what their experience is. People who say things about "experience" are, imo, simply trying to find something to be wrong with candidates. I dismiss these criticisms as invalid and, at best, fuzzy muddying of the actual issues.