All the Wrong Reasons

Here is a phrase I don't ever want to hear again, especially not after November 4th. I'm not really quoting from anywhere in particular, just in general.

I was going to vote for Hillary Clinton if she had been the nominee, but when McCain picked Palin, I decided to vote for her instead."

Okay then. Where to start? For one, you have my permission to regard anyone who says this seriously as an utter moron. Why? Let's examine.

1. Sarah Palin is not running for President. I don't know how many people think they're voting for her in the election, but they aren't. They're voting for McCain. An old, white man. Not a woman. Sorry idiots. McCain could pick another Vice President if he wanted. Think it won't happen? Talk to Spiro Agnew. So unlike the President, the Veep is just an unelected position, much like the cabinet. How many people, during the election of 2004, thought they were voting for Norman Minetta? Is he still Secretary of Transportation? Do you want a re-vote? That's a minor, a gimme, but people do seem to believe this.
2. You are a moron. You're voting for a woman (or for a man who picked a woman) because she's a woman. How can I tell? Let's examine. Either you supported Hillary Clinton because she was a woman, or you're supporting Sarah Palin because she's a woman. Either you thought Hillary Clinton would be good for the country, or you think Sarah Palin would be. The two women are so far apart politically that it's not hard to see that you're a moron. If you come right out and say, "Well, I'm voting for McCain because I want a woman Veep," then you're an honest moron. But still, voting for someone solely based on their gender (or race, or religion, or other intrinsic value they happen to possess rather than their stance on the issues) makes you a moron. I've said it.

You think I'm being harsh. I would be just as harsh to someone who said they were voting for Barrack Obama solely based on his blackness. That's a dumb reason.

Now what I mean by "voting for... solely based on..." is that, all things being completely unequal, you make your decision based only on that quality. If the two candidates are polar oposites, you would support a candidate with whom you had no points of agreement based solely on that quality. Obviously, that's an ideal case. The differences between Barrack Obama and John McCain are not so cut and dried that I can say that they are diametrically opposite points. But frankly, Sarah Palin and Hillary Clinton are pretty far from each other, polarity-wise.

So you're caught in a trap. If you agreed with one of the women enough to vote for them based on policy, then why have you endorsed the other, whose policies would be opposed to your views? Or maybe you only support either of them because of their gender, in which case, you're a huge moron. Or maybe you agree with some of one and some of the other, in which case... I don't know how you live in today's political climate. You shouldn't be endorsing a candidate based on your tepid approval of some of his or her policies.

So people, you're not voting for the Vice President. You're voting for the President. And if you're so gung-ho to get a woman into the highest office in the land, remember: Veep is basically a glorified First Lady. How sexist is it that John McCain needs a pretty woman on his arm to win your vote?