Today in the New York Times, political reporter Adam Nagourney has an article called "Second-Guessing the Vice Presidential Pick," which you can read here.  Obviously, right now things are not going well for the McCain campaign, and there's a lot of second-guessing going on, much of it centered on the choice of Sarah Palin, who was chosen, according to the Nagourney article, for several reasons including this one: "...she would give Mr. McCain a chance to compete for women voters who had supported Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton and were upset at how she was treated by Senator Barack Obama and the Democratic Party."

That struck me as a weird turn of phrase.  Was Hillary Clinton treated badly by Barack Obama and the Democratic Party?  I watched the Democratic primaries very closely, and early on, I was leaning towards Obama, but had not yet decided.  By the time of the Georgia primary, I had made up my mind and chosen Obama, and I have not regretted that choice in any way.  But in my decision-making process, how Senator Clinton was treated by Senator Obama and the Democratic Party never entered my mind, because I didn't see her being treated badly.  I saw that her campaign was unable to shake off Obama, and I saw her reinventing herself a few times in an effort to overtake him as the primaries went on.  I know Senator Clinton had a beef with the news media for what she perceived as a free ride for Senator Obama, but I really cannot remember a time where Senator Clinton was treated poorly by Barack Obama.

Am I missing something?  Have I put on the rose-colored glasses of selective recollection? 

One thing, though, is certain - if we're second guessing better choices for the v.p. slot on McCain's ticket, he'd probably be in a lot better shape right now if, instead of picking a woman to try and woo Hillary supporters, he had just picked Hillary.

-EB
http://elliotblake.blogspot.com/