Women As Presidents. Get Used To It

As we're floating names for 2020, I'm hearing huge swaths (of generally white guys) really getting excited about Beto and Biden. Never mind how Beto is an Israeli war crime apologist and can't quite get behind universal healthcare and Biden is so bland and centrist, zero progress would be made – forget reversing the damage of our Nectarine Nightmare wreaked. We have both the inexperienced superstar and the old establishment default choices represented. This is diversity for white people I guess. We can do better. The people elected new representatives this time around that aimed to make Congress look more like the people. For instance, Rashida Tlaib plans to organize a delegation to Palestine, which would serve to make the discourse a bit more equal than the default genocide-as-Israeli-self-defense position.

(And if you want, in the spirit on not excluding men, I'd accept this guy maybe...)

Women are half of the population and SHOULD be half of Congress a the very least. Yet it's harder for women to run for office because of sexism and misogyny - and you can add exponential challenges for minority and queer women. Some think men are the default human and that they are naturally smarter and possess more leadership qualities and this is how they explain the lack of women in top jobs. Those of us who have lived as a woman on Earth, have read a freaking book -- or have looked inward know that there is quite a different explanation for that.

Old prejudices die hard. I remember my own mother saying she was more comfortable with men doctors because she assumed they were more qualified. I never asked her – WHY? 

Two articles and two podcast episodes follow to illustrate:

1.

Will America Ever Have a Woman President?

“History suggests that the biggest obstacle to a woman aspiring to the highest office anywhere is simply that she is not a man. In every era, in every culture, as French philosopher Simone de Beauvoir pointed out, a man is the norm, and women are defined in terms of their difference from that norm. This is particularly true when it comes to our visual images and expectations for the head of state.”

2.

Nearly 60% Of Republicans Don't Want A Woman President In Their Lifetime, Poll Finds

Well, this is disappointing: 

“Asked if they'd see a woman president in their lifetime, 20 percent of respondents said they "definitely will,"...”

Both encouraging and discouraging are these results:

“A comfortable majority of Republicans—59 percent—responded no, they don't hope to see a woman president in their lifetime, according to YouGov. In comparison, 89 percent of Democrats and 63 percent of independents responded that yes, they hoped to see a woman president before they died.”

First podcast: 

Around the 44 minute mark

Ep 32: How To Run For President: https://unladylike.co/episodes/032/women-politics-pipeline

THIS, RIGHT HERE, FOLKS: 

“Men are 60% more likely to say that they are very qualified to run for office, while women are more than twice as likely to say that they are not at all qualified. Men, who are probably less qualified than you, are just jumping in.”

This is my problem and why I believe we need to seek out these women. Follow Barbara Lee and Stacey Abrams. Kamala Harris is being floated despite some misgivings of the prosecutor kind by progressives. Read books by black women. Follow black Twitter. If the default is white male, and it is, you have to do the homework and legwork to avoid being sexist and accepting the same old white guys whose perspective isn't going to be as relevant or accurate due to their lack of experience in certain ways. We need to stop accepting white men as the default in place of women with the same or greater qualifications.

Gillibrand has also been mentioned, but again, as with many white folks, the Israeli war crime issue is a red flag on their inability to take a stand for human rights here and abroad.

Warren seems great, too, sort of. Trump already has her number though with the Pocahantas slur. She does great tax, healthcare and wealth inequality explainers, but her handling of the ancestry issue wasn't handled well enough not to haunt her and cause resentment among Native Americans.

So, basically, there are some strong black women, problematic white women and the same old white guys.

Second podcast:

Scene On Radio: 50. MEN Part 4 Feminism in Black and White 

This is such a great point that I appreciated in Obama, but I didn't have a name for it: standpoint theory.

Around the 38:30 mark:

Biewen: "The big takeaway was something called standpoint theory, coined by the philosopher Sandra Harding. The theory basically says that people on the receiving end of oppressive systems, people at the bottom of social hierarchies, will see things more accurately than the people at the top, the ones benefitting from the system. Black women, for example, will share a general body of knowledge about how society is, about how it works, because of their common experiences. And, according to Sandra Harding, that shared understanding won’t just be distinctive, it’ll actually be better knowledge, more true, than the collective picture of the world that privileged people like me will soak up from our

surroundings. "

**(Also covered are problems with white feminism and how white supremacy sits on a foundation of patriarchy.)

**NC book alert:  Gender and Jim Crow: Women and the Politics of White Supremacy in North Carolina, 1896-1920

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/57459.Gender_and_Jim_Crow

We can only hope so: Why 2020 Will Be The Year Of The Woman

Settlement announcement, Biden embarrassment, Israel apology, and after...

When this story broke, we saw these sorts of headlines:

As Biden Visits, Israel Unveils Plan for New Settlements- March 10, 2010

Israel Apologizes To Biden Over Settlement Announcement: We Didn't Mean To 'Taunt An Important Man' – March 10, 2010

Several headlines since have read ‘Clinton: Settlements Undermine Peace’ or ‘Settlement Announcement Insulting’.

And?? When are we going to do something about it?? Isn’t this same old, same old with this “special” relationship with Israel? When are we going to realize that this is a trend or indication of Israel’s motivation (or lack thereof) to be a part of the solution rather than an isolated, rare event that we (or more importantly, Palestinians) can afford to overlook?

And what of the insult? This is a continued, serious and blatant trashing of the Geneva Convention. Is this not a cause for concern on that front??

Israel announces new settlement construction just in time for one of Israel’s biggest fans, Vice President Joe Biden, to visit.

I remember writing him when he was head of the Senate Foreign Relations committee. He had a statement on his website mourning the “massacre” by Palestinian extremists of 10 Israelis on a bus. It is sad, for sure, but why no mention (not to mention mourning)- ever- of the scores and at times hundreds of Palestinian civilians that die in “unfortunate accidents” involving the Israeli military???

In return for this snub, he apparently arrives to dinner with Netanyahu 90 minutes late. Ooooh. That’ll teach ‘em. Is this how they hope to get Iran to slow or regulate its nuclear ambitions?? Yikes! Probably not. We don’t tend to cut Muslim countries any slack. Israel, on the other hand, would have to invade our country, take over Washington and begin Occupation and “Judaification” there, too, before we’d wake up and see there might be a problem and we just might have to do more than slap Israel on the wrist. I still think we might defer to them in this case. They are a tiny country under such an immediate existential threat, after all! (--I say sarcastically.)


And after the crisis, Israel is more defiant than before it:

Netanyahu says 'no concession' on Jewish settlements – March 21, 2010

"As far as we are concerned, building in Jerusalem is like building in Tel Aviv," Mr Netanyahu told his cabinet.

His position on the UN and international law is clear. Ignore it. It doesn’t exist- or at least it doesn't apply to Israel. It does exist, when it tells Palestinians to do something. The US allows them to indulge in this fantasy world.


Netanyahu reaffirms 'right to build' in Jerusalem- March 23, 2010

Settlements in occupied East Jerusalem were an "inextricable" part of the city, he said, and would remain part of Israel under any peace agreement.

"Therefore, building in them in no way precludes the possibility of a two-state solution."

If you are a magician, maybe…

He said Israel wanted Palestinians to be "our neighbours, living freely" and called on Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas to "come and negotiate peace".

The existence of settlements, their barricades, walls, towers, armed guards, Jewish only roads kind of precludes the whole “living freely”… not to mention that stuff takes up more stolen land and Palestinians are expected to be happy Israel is “ready” (in words) to give them a sliver of desert it can't for the life of them make bloom plus some towns isolated by massive Jewish-only fortresses??

“Come and negotiate peace” sounds like more of a dare than an actual extending of a hand in peace. Come and negotiate peace, I dare you. See how much more of this land we can take right out in the open under your nose with US approval while spitting in their face! Or maybe it’s an invitation to be a part of this spectacle.

Biden predicts the future

Ok, I have to say that this actually was pretty stupid for Biden to say, but it wasn't my first thought.

"Mark my words. It will not be six months before the world tests Barack
Obama like they did John Kennedy. The world is looking," Biden said.

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/10/20/biden-obama-tested-world-months-administration/

My first thought about what Biden meant was that Bush has been in office awhile and pretty well ruined or damaged our relations with many countries, and any new president is going to be tested to see how far other countries can go, what they can gain, if they want to or are able to work with us, etc. Plus, with the Iran concerns recently, he could be thinking along those lines as well. Since he's running with Obama, he speaks as candidates do, about their administration specifically. He probably should have spoken in general terms because that just didn't sound right. It definitely gave the right more to talk about with the alleged inexperience angle (even though it's about judgment, not experience, right?).

Are we remembering why we didn't pick Biden in the primaries?? Hmmm. No. I'd still rate him higher than McCain or Palin, but he's not my favorite. I'd still have liked to see an independent or something as VP. We think it's cool to have a woman or biracial man on the ticket, but I'd be more impressed by a Republican/Democrat ticket. The system might implode or send us into an alternate universe, so maybe that's a bad idea.

I've really got to go to sleep because I don't know what I'm saying here.

I imagine Rush Limbaugh's having a blast with this one. I did read a bit of his show for some unknown reason. I wonder what he had to say when Bush, speaking of terrorists, said bring 'em on. It'd be interesting to see the positive spin on that one.

VP debate

First, a few notes:
1. Go to http://www.opendebates.org/theissue/
I have often wondered about third parties and why a society that prides itself on extensive freedoms would limit itself to two parties. Also, look at the role of corporate America. Interesting stuff. Call me a conspiracy theorist, but I found this enlightening.

2. The bailout bill. This has been touted as democracy at work and working together and I’d add business as usual. This thing is massively expensive and provides no real plan for resolving anything or how to use the money and is loaded with earmarks engineered to bribe certain Congress people to vote yes. McCain had a chance to take a different stand and act on his anti-earmark rhetoric, but I guess his campaign couldn’t risk a possible hit he may have taken for opposing it at all for any reason. So much for standing up when it’s not popular and putting country first. Or is voting yes to the imperfect bill putting country first? I love how this is such an emergency that Congress can’t be bothered with things like addressing the cause of the problem and putting some reigns and instruction on how the money is used, but it’s obviously not so serious that they didn’t have time to put in some nice fat earmarks.

***
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/factchecking_biden-palin_debate.html
http://www.debates.org/pages/trans2008b_p.html

I made some notes during the VP debate, but didn't have time to put them here til now. Here's a few of them. I hope to finish it up before the next Presidential debate- which doesn't give me much time! And again, I'm posting old news!

SNL said it best- “…and the winner is- whoever you already liked!”

Seems like Palin exceeded many people’s expectations. I think she may have pumped the right back up because they were looking for something to be pumped about. There were no awkward silences or glaringly obvious gaffes, as in the interviews, but I didn’t see much to get all excited about. Most of the time when I listened to her answers, I couldn’t remember what the question was because she wasn’t on topic. Sometimes it seemed like she was giving a speech and running down the talking points, instead of responding to questions. Palin went back to tax cuts once and energy several times instead of answering the questions. And then, after going back to energy several times, the next question was about… energy! Unbelievable. And when she said the piece about the fact that she may not answer the question the way you like (trying to give the impression that she‘s taking a stand and doing what‘s right in the face of opposition), etc- wow- I was thinking it would be nice if you’d just answer the question at hand! She probably did better in this format because there really wasn’t time or opportunity for anyone to call her out on not answering questions in most cases, unlike when talking to a pesky gotcha journalist.

Palin managed to fit in every nickname and slogan of the entire campaign into that 90 mintues. Joe six pack, hockey mom, maverick, country first, change is coming, drill baby drill. Convenient and folksy, maybe, but answers they are not. Didn’t hear anything about lipstick… ☺

What was up with the winking? People didn’t like Gore’s sighs in that debate, but the winking was almost as bad. And kissing at the audience—maybe she thought she was at a campaign stop talking to supporters. The shout out to the third grade class was nice, but I thought it was more of a stall tactic or a subtle effort to prove her link to the general public rather than Washington.

Biden reigned himself in pretty well. I don’t think he came off as sexist or too harsh. Was he perceived as connected or passionate enough? I don’t know. Did anyone else giggle when he kept saying “…George Bush’s” a dozen time sin a row? Maybe it’s sleep deprivation or maybe it’s a word sounding funny if you say it enough times…

Palin in her first response referred to the fact that McCain put politics aside and suspended the campaign (can you really say that, even still??) and put country first. I’d downplay that since it seemed kind of overdramatic, not necessary and perhaps the wrong thing to do (why suspend the campaign in a televised statement no less, unless to make it political, rather than just go up to Washington and do your business, if that’s your real intent?). That, among other things, makes him seem a bit erratic and calls into question his judgment.

Biden mentioned McCain and deregulation of health care, then on Wall Street and in both instances Ifill asked Palin if she’d like to respond to the “charges” against McCain and both times Palin said she wanted to talk about taxes. She did add a sentence about McCain pushing for regulations, but that hardly refuted the charges or squared the deregulation champ with his alleged push for regulation.

There was a question about bankruptcy and Palin was asked if she’d support McCain’s position. She said simply “yes, I’d support it”. That’s it. Then, she goes on talking about McCain’s bipartisan cooperation, how he put politics aside and the campaign aside to deal with the mortgage crisis. I’m sorry, but the way he handled the crisis was far from apolitical. I’d like to think he was well-intentioned, but it smacks of politics and Bush’s melodrama.

Biden did answer the debt strapped homeowner question and had a several point plan to discuss. Ifill followed up with Palin by saying John McCain doesn’t support that and asked if that was true. Plain simply answers “that’s not so.” That’s it. Then, she goes on to talk about energy with zero transition from the topic at hand. The bothersome questions were clearly getting in the way of her speech at that point.

There was a question about what is true and false about climate change. Palin dismissed the causes and focused on cleaning up the planet. Biden said what I was thinking when I heard Palin say that. You need to know the causes to think about a relevant solution.

I can’t believe she still defended McCain’s statement about the “fundamentals of the economy are strong” as referring to the workers. Unless you’re communist, you probably aren’t thinking on those terms. I think he simply slipped up. They should just stop talking about it so that it goes away. He’s said so many things like that about not knowing anything about the economy, thinking it was strong when it wasn’t (repeating Bush’s comments that made my jaw drop-see jan 28, 2008 post), choosing very questionable advisers to help him form policy on this subject he doesn’t know much about that I just don’t trust his judgment on this issue. They’ve finally let go of the Bridge to Nowhere. Maybe it’ll take time to let go of this one, too. It seems like they keep repeating some of the same gaffes (misleading accusations or embellished accomplishments), or defenses of them long after the public knows that they aren’t giving it to us straight. I don’t know what would account for the gap. Maybe they only communicate via USPS?

There was a question about the VP role that got some interesting answers. Palin said a VP presides over the Senate and that she’s glad the Constitution allows more authority given the VP if the VP so chooses to use it?? Huh? They vote when there’s a tie. Not exactly what I’d call authority or choosing to use authority. I guess they only half prepped her on that one since she last answered that question.

Let’s talk about the Israel love fest. “No one’s a better friend to Israel than Joe Biden.” That may be true, but take your head out of the sand for a minute. You’re not speaking in front of the AIPAC. You’re running for VP. You need to have a reasonable outlook (not that many Presidents and VPs have in a long time) on this. But if I don’t like the Democrats’ position on this, I’m going to hate the Republican position which can be blended with religious themes that are equally as crazy (not to mention unbiblical) as unconditional support for Israel and its state sponsored terrorism. The two state solution is falling out of favor with the people involved (or half of the people) and the situation on the ground (support for Israeli land grabs past and present, walls being built) is making a two state solution obsolete.

Palin brought up putting the embassy in Jerusalem, Israel as a peace seeking nation, its track record of peace seeking (yeah, and Ariel Sharon was a man of peace and pigs can fly), second holocaust. Insisting on the embassy in Jerusalem immediately sends the message you support Israel despite their contribution to the bloodshed and will only hamper the process, so you might as well stay out of it altogether if you take that position. About Israel and peace-seeking- they have a way of doing this on the surface, but with the motive of delaying final status issues so that they can grab more land with the goal of taking it all (google “political formaldehyde” for Weisglass’ quote on that). Enough with the second holocaust scare tactics already! Israel’s got one of the world’s strongest militaries and a history of ruthless leaders. You can’t convince me of their vulnerability, existential threat or their need for our continued assistance, free from any conditions to respect our laws and human rights by invoking old images of gas chambers.

Biden said he didn’t support the Palestinian elections because he knew Hamas would take over. Had all of the elections been allowed to be conducted around the same time, Hamas probably wouldn’t have won in the second batch. The US position of only supporting democratic elections when the outcome is favorable to us also contributed to the Gaza mess. We should either support democracy (like we claim to) or stay out of all of it.

Biden didn’t inspire confidence when he didn’t talk about Jerusalem. Obama had taken the Bush position of essentially giving it to Israel, no questions asked.

Both candidates are taking Bush’s position or maybe even a farther right, more hawkish position.


Palin called Obama/Biden “white flag of surrender in Iraq” which I think is not true and could be a misrepresentation or exaggeration.

Biden deserves some credit for overcoming personal tragedy, much like McCain. I really hadn't heard about Biden's as much as McCain's, so that was interesting and adds a new dimension to his character for me.

On the question of what would you change or cut from your plans due to the debt problem posed by the crisis, the VP candidates passed on this as the Presidential candidates did. I just don’t think you can get an answer from a candidate when you ask about cutting the plan or even about their Achilles heel. Those answers were rather comical. Palin responded to the lack of experience as a weakness (or if that’s not it, what is) question by saying she in fact has the executive experience and business experience and mom experience and that with being reform minded is why she’s on a good ticket. The closest she got to answering the question was saying that we as a nation aren’t perfect.

Biden did better in that he admitted to having an Achilles heel – lack of discipline or “excessive passion”, but didn’t really talk about what that means or how to deal with it in terms of being the VP. He used the time really to respond to Palin’s answer which was actually the opposite of the question asked. Biden does deserve some credit for his life experience. That is an unimaginable situation he was in and he got through it. He made a good point and maybe was smart to respond to Palin’s mom experience with his own. It was a bit comical to hear him try and out-mom her, though, with this and the violence against women legislation. I wonder how the public in general took it- did they feel a connection and sympathy or think it political?


Palin did have a little problem when she called McKeirnan McClellan and misquoted him (as did Biden?). She said that he said the surge would work in Afghanistan and I don’t think that’s what he said.

Palin mischaracterized Obama’s plan as government-run, even called it a mandate

Palin’s last remarks took a shot at the media for her shortcomings in the Gibson and Couric interviews. The filter of mainstream media?? Was she not talking to us in the televised interview? I didn’t see anyone telling us what we saw. I saw someone asking her questions she wasn’t prepared to answer- like a kid on a pop quiz who didn’t read the book. Maybe what she means by “talking directly to the people” is that she’d rather give a pre-fab speech rather than answer questions on the spot. I can totally understand that, but it’s not the media’s fault for how she performed in the interviews. They were pretty basic policy questions. The only thing that would have been more softball would be if they asked her how she felt to be running as the woman candidate, how she feels about x, y or z.



Palin’s use of Biden’s past quotes:
I wanted to do some fact checking on these things where she threw Biden’s own words at him, but I may not get to it. I don’t think she has these things exactly right, but I’d have to check. It sounds somewhat factual, but with the effort to mislead and misrepresent.

Now you said recently that higher taxes or asking for higher taxes or paying higher taxes is patriotic.
***
I was surprised to hear you mention that because you had said that there isn't anything -- such a thing as clean coal. And I think you said it in a rope line, too, at one of your rallies.
***
Barack Obama voted against funding troops there after promising that he would not do so.
PALIN: And Senator Biden, I respected you when you called him out on that. You said that his vote was political and you said it would cost lives.
***
We'll know when we're finished in Iraq when the Iraqi government can govern its people and when the Iraqi security forces can secure its people. And our commanders on the ground will tell us when those conditions have been met. And Maliki and Talabani also in working with us are knowing again that we are getting closer and closer to that point, that victory that's within sight.

Now, you said regarding Senator McCain's military policies there, Senator Biden, that you supported a lot of these things. In fact, you said in fact that you wanted to run, you'd be honored to run with him on the ticket, and that's an indication I think of some of the support that you had at least until you became the VP pick here.

You also said that Barack Obama was not ready to be commander in chief. And I know again that you opposed the move that he made to try to cut off funding for the troops and I respect you for that. I don't know how you can defend that position now, but I know that you know especially with your son in the National Guard and I have great respect for your family also and the honor that you show our military. Barack Obama though, another story there. Anyone I think who can cut off funding for the troops after promising not to is another story.
***
Ifill’s question:
…you said in July that someone would have to explain to you exactly what it is the vice president does every day. You, senator, said, you would not be vice president under any circumstances (Palin apparently thought we’d believe she was joking and we have to take him at his word even though when you’re running for President, I don’t guess there’s any room for pondering, “hmm, if I lose, I really, really want to be VP”.)

*** *** ***
On the SNL VP debate…which I watched online since I can’t seem to stay up anymore…

I loved how they zinged Biden on the Scranton thing and Palin on the Couric interviews- It’s good to be here without the filter of the gotcha media with their fact checking, follow up questions, and the need to figure out what your words mean and why you put them in that order.

I really should have seen the last joke coming with the Joe six pack and maverick self labeling abound, but I nearly blew my tea all over the computer. It was the wink, I think.

more campaign comparisons and observations...

Candidate profiles are interesting. You can compare foreign policy experience with 3 of the 4 candidates on the tickets. They are probably about equal in experience, though what makes it up is different for each. McCain and Biden have long careers and resumes. McCain was in the Navy, but Biden has a focus on foreign relations specifically and is chair of that Senate committee. Obama has a shorter career, but with personal overseas experience. His resume is impressive and pretty serious for someone not long in Washington- he’s proven he can reach across the aisle and he’s familiar with a wide array of important issues, and has visited a handful of countries in an official capacity. Palin definitely trails behind these three, though she has a couple of years of executive experience. If she (and Giuliani and other assorted conservatives) laughs/smirks/ at Obama’s community organizing as a resume item, then I definitely don’t think “living next to Russia” (you can see it from an Alaskan island) should count as foreign policy experience!
http://usforeignpolicy.about.com/od/2008presidentialrace/2008_Presidential_Candidates_and_US_Foreign_Policy.htm


In the past, McCain has tended to be more independent (“pro” column) and has said more things that make sense than other Republicans, so I didn’t feel like it was so bad that he was going to win the nomination. BUT he doesn’t always vote the way that makes sense and for several years he’s been getting more conservative, perhaps in preparation for the nomination.
Anyway, here are some McCain foreign policy “cons”:
http://usforeignpolicy.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?zi=1/XJ&sdn=usforeignpolicy&cdn=newsissues&tm=8&f=00&su=p649.3.336.ip_&tt=2&bt=0&bts=0&zu=http%3A//hnn.us/articles/50983.html

When the issue of McCain not being such a maverick or of Palin accepting a boatload of earmarks while claiming to have refused them, their supporters always point out how Obama hasn’t stood up to his party or how he participates in the earmark game as well rather than addressing the fact that McCain’s not a maverick or Palin’s earmark successes. Obama isn’t running on a platform of standing up to his party and trying to win independents and or democrats. He may be guilty on the earmark thing if you look at the whole issue of reform, though.

Another thing that bothers me about McCain are his adviser choices. I don’t think he chooses wisely- he’s picked some infamously controversial ones as well as ones that don’t make sense. Bolton as a foreign policy adviser?? There are few more controversial than that. If Bush chose this person for anything, you don’t want him! That and his record. Some say he spins intelligence, isn’t too diplomatic, hates the UN, and generally isn’t someone you want involved in diplomacy.

McCain himself has said some rather odd things foreign policy wise. Maybe some view it as revolutionary or reform minded, but I’m going to go with crazytalk or schizophrenic. He is very antagonistc toward Russia, which I don’t think will help a anyone or anything. He has said something about leaving them out of the G8 and or creating an alternative to the UN and not allowing Russia to join. And, he wants an arms control treaty with Russia and more transparency. Doubt that’s going to happen if he excludes them from all the clubs.

Phil Gramm was an economic adviser to McCain. He’s the Enron guy who said we should stop whining; the economy’s fine or something like that. I think scandal has caused some distance here, but I doubt McCain’s judgment on many of his choices of advisers. This proved to be an indicator of how the Bush presidency turned out, so we’ve got to look into these things. Bush surrounded himself with neoconservative war hawks who ended up pushing us into a war we had no right to start.

Palin also appeared to be a rather hasty choice. Rove wanted Romney. McCain wanted Lieberman. Palin was chosen. Palin, with no foreign policy experience (except that Russia is next door) and little to no economic experience (we can’t all balance our budget with Big Oil money). Palin, with a rather interesting personal “situation”- a pregnant teen daughter. On the surface, it seems like a reckless choice, though I’d like to think she’s more vetted than it looks. It doesn’t make much sense, unless he was looking to make ultra conservatives happy, which it did. They may have been trying to “steal” some bitter Hillary fans, but that’s probably not going to be very successful, unless those supporters didn’t care about any issue except the gender of the candidate.