A Case of Buyer's Remorse?

It's been about two weeks since Sen. Joe Biden of Delaware officially became the Democratic nominee for vice president.

But already, with just under eight weeks left in the presidential campaign and about three weeks to go before Biden's debate with his Republican counterpart, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, there are signs of buyer's remorse in the Democratic Party.

Should Barack Obama have put Hillary Clinton on the ticket?

Based on his own words this week in Nashua, N.H., even Biden thinks he should have.

But, then, I contend, Obama would have found himself facing the same problem of persuading a skeptical electorate. Only, in that instance, the nature of the objection would be different. More on that later.

Marianne Means writes, in the Houston Chronicle, that, while, in hindsight, Clinton looks like she might have been a better choice, it may never have risen above the status of "political stunt."

In fact, it may ultimately have damaged the Democrats' chances of winning.

Palin's candidacy, Means says, "is still a political stunt, but a successful one."

My belief was that such a "stunt" would not work for Obama. As the nominee for president, Obama is asking the American voters to elect the first black president. He needed a white male running mate to reassure the more traditionally minded voters (and there are many more of them than you might like to believe) — to act as an acceptable counterweight.

(And, with the recent conflict between Russia and Georgia, Obama apparently felt the need to have a running mate with foreign policy credentials.)

Obama has campaigned on a theme of change in his bid for the presidency, and that's a noble concept. In light of the public's response to Palin, should he have made a purely political decision and pre-empted the Republicans by putting Clinton on his ticket?

I don't believe so. In our society, change comes gradually. It would be asking voters to accept too much change at once to ask them to elect a black man president and a woman vice president. I believed that before Obama picked Biden, and I still believe that.

John McCain's choice of Palin as his running mate redefined the dynamics of the campaign. Whoever wins, a barrier will be broken.

And, in an ironic twist, what happens may depend upon what Clinton's 18 million primary supporters decide to do in November.

Two weeks ago, when Palin was introduced as McCain's presumptive running mate, I wrote about many aspects of her candidacy, including her ideological differences with Hillary Clinton.

When the debates are over and the people go to the polls, Clinton's voters will have a big decision to make. Is it more important to them to break the "glass ceiling" than it is to elect people whose beliefs have more in common with their own?

Palin, Means writes, "is the anti-Clinton, opposed to every domestic and social policy for which Clinton has worked for decades, yet she is pulling away hordes of white female voters who refused to settle for Obama after he dumped Hillary."

I guess it depends on the individual. I've speculated that most of Clinton's supporters share her pro-choice, pro-gay rights, pro-feminist views. And, based on that speculation, I have further speculated that Clinton's supporters would be more inclined to support Obama than McCain.

But for some of Clinton's supporters, gender advancement was and still is the motivating issue.

I know some female Clinton supporters who insist that they will support the McCain-Palin ticket — even though they agree with Palin on very few issues.

It's a decision that 18 million individuals will be making.

As far as I'm concerned, the gender discussion is a distraction.

Politically, is it even relevant? I mean, in 2004, Democrats won the overall women's vote, as they usually do, but by a relatively narrow 51% to 48% margin.

Although they represented approximately 46% of the vote in 2004, men voted heavily for the Republican ticket, 55% to 44%.

So, based on the numbers from the last presidential election, the goals were clear for both sides. Obama's party needs to win over male voters. McCain's party needs to win over female voters.

On the surface, at least, both needs were addressed by the selections of the running mates — both of whom also happen to be effective advocates for their parties' agendas. We'll have to wait until November to find out how much the running mates have helped — or hurt.

Thankfully, this discussion distracts attention from race, at least temporarily. And it can serve a long-term purpose by forcing the public to finally confront the uncomfortable issue of misogyny.

David Harsanyi writes, in the Denver Post, that "'[e]xoticism' in the political realm is no longer an impediment, it's a significant asset. And Republicans, whether they admit it or not, were yearning for the excitement Barack Obama generated — that is, before Sarah Palin came along.

"Palin's frontier mystique has captivated conservatives. Both the lipstick and the pit bull. It's also discombobulated many Democrats, now fumbling to find a strategy to deal with a conservative woman."

But the gender discussion also distracts attention from issues we need to be talking about — like the economy, health care, unemployment, energy, Iraq.

Many of Clinton's supporters empathize with Palin on several levels, but how many of them share her views? My guess would be, not many.

And how many of Clinton's supporters who don't share Palin's views will vote for her anyway — even after they learn more about her ideology?

Harsanyi concedes that the campaign is about policy matters. But it's about more than that.

It's tempting, given the kind of news coverage we've seen lately, to believe that the campaign is about tokenism. But it's not. Look beneath the surface. Obama's current problems are not simply the result of Clinton supporters throwing a tantrum.

"Voters may struggle with their mortgage and curse those high gas prices, yet most of them won't surrender core values and policy beliefs due to the vagaries of the economy," he writes. "If roughly half of the nation's voters reject the serious, but collectivist, solutions Obama offers them, it doesn't mean they're racists, it means they're Republicans.

"Now, should Obama lose in November, it will be partly of his own doing and partly because the majority of voters are permanent members of their respective parties."

On a personal note, I do have to wonder why Palin will be here in the Dallas area the day after her debate with Biden.

Texas hasn't voted for a Democrat since supporting Jimmy Carter in 1976. And Dallas has a long history of supporting Republicans — even though there was something of a reversal in Dallas in 2006, when many local elections in Dallas County swung to the Democrats.

So what do Republicans think they can accomplish by sending Palin to Dallas the day after her nationally televised debate? Are they concerned about whether Palin can stand up to Biden?

If they are, does the fact that Palin will be visiting Texas the day after the debate mean the Republicans want to be ready to engage in some damage control on friendly turf?

They don't seem to be anticipating a victory — or even a draw — that they can capitalize on in a swing state. If they were, Palin's October 3 itinerary would be taking her to some place like Ohio or Michigan or Pennsylvania — or perhaps a smaller "swing" state, like Colorado, Nevada or New Hampshire.

I've seen nothing that suggests Texas will be in play in November. So why is Palin coming to Texas? What is there to be gained?

If there's nothing to be gained, isn't it an unconscionable waste of campaign funds to send the running mate to a state that's in the bag?

"Gender may have an initial appeal only," Means writes, "but it could last if Palin proves to be clever and softens her hard-line anti-abortion, anti-stem cell research, anti-gay rights, anti-everything modern positions of the past. She's running for the second spot, not the top one. We'll see."

Indeed we shall.