Breaking Down Mrs. Palin

One of my favorite past times besides increasing my wealth of medical knowledge and drumming happens to be strategics. It matters not what the subject is about; the range of strategic sessions escalating from making an efficient but good-tasting sandwich to hypothetically robbing a bank and leaving with the bulk of the spoils. So when something does occur, I usually create a set of strategies; a sort of 'what-would-I-do-in-his-shoes' sort of game. If anything, it helps pass the time.

With the Republican Convention taking place tonight, much of the country's attention is going to be placed upon the two contenders: Senator John McCain and Sarah Palin. Which got me thinking...why Sarah Palin? True, I'm voting Obama this coming election, but once again, it helps pass the time.

One benefit I can see of a McCain-Palin ticket, is simply, Palin is a woman. Despite the calls for rallying behind Obama, Hillary's fanbase wasn't simply due to support for Clinton in the White House but for a woman in the House. Polemics are still there, who are hard-pressed to support the democrat nominee. So they'll go for the next best thing- a Republican woman.

The other benefit is the difference in age. Palin is a full generation younger than McCain (she's younger than my mom, which says something...). Besides the youth vote, should McCain's health decline (god forbid) during his presidency, it would surely help to have someone youthful as a clear contrast. Along with the generation gap, comes a new flow of ideas and perspectives, which may be a deciding factor for voters everywhere.

But then comes the 'huh?'. First, she's from Alaska. Alaska has little to no strategic value with respect to votes, being a solely red state. In addition, her governing experience is limited to leading a (recently increased) family of 5 and 2 years as a governor. She was a mayor of Wassila for two terms, but seriously, I went there this summer. And to be honest, you could put a senile wheelchair bound, down syndrome afflicted child there and still get the same numbers and results. Nothing happens there. Secondly, while her conviction for pro-life is admirable, considering her most recent child was genetically screened during the fetal stages and diagnosed with down syndrome, yet she still went through the birth, the issue is, would you really trust the judgment of someone who knowing the full consequences of a person with a genetic disorder which is debilitating, painful and fatal in some cases, abandons all logic and decides to bring this life into the world? From the standpoint of a utilitarian, it would be unfeasible, since it drains the resources of the family, support services as well as being a harsh reality for the child to live through. And of course, this begs the question, why have the child at the AGE OF 44, when recent evidence suggests that the chance of a new born with genetic disorders increase 10-fold when the woman reaches 40. And then let's not get started about her 17-year old daughter being pregnant. It definitely says a lot about the effectiveness of abstinance programs at school.

Personally, my feelings towards this are mixed. While I'm happy that this makes the chance of an Obama-Biden presidency more likely, it always pisses me off when I see stupidity in anything.

Edit: And now she outright lies about her past. It'd be interesting to see what the television news sources do about this (which are normally pretty biased)
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/03/us/politics/03wasilla.html?pagewanted=2&ei=5124&en=e5bdcaf9fedb4cc8&ex=1378180800&partner=facebook&exprod=facebook