Among the flood of Stacey-Abrams-Veepstakes articles, two this week caught my attention.
First was Marc Thiessen’s column in The Washington Post comparing Abrams to Sarah Palin. No one doubts that Georgia House Minority Leader to VP is a big jump. But it’s hard to compare a ticketmate who’s greatest was the sheerest of veneers hiding her sexuality and someone who actually could deliver sorely-needed votes and political adversaries complement her acumen and intellect.
Most damningly for Thiessen, questions of qualification were thrown out the window when a failed reality-television host became President (and still has no articulated philosophy).
A front-page-below-the-fold article (does that still mean anything?) in last Sunday’s New York Times raised even more questions.
Rep. Jim Clyburn clarified what he thinks about an Abrams Veep selection:
“Qualifications are not the problem…It’s the chemistry that’s got to be there…The South has given too much not to get the respect in return.”
Abrams offered, to me, the best-yet articulated reason she should be on the ticket:
“The focus on persuasion has often been trying to persuade someone to shift from their conservative ideology to a more moderate or liberal ideology. But for voters of color, it isn’t about shifting ideology — it’s persuading them that voting actually will have an effect.”
I’m not entirely convinced the Democrats key to 270 rests as firmly with Abrams as she wants us to believe, but when compared to some of the other contenders, she likely has the most compelling case.