In the aftermath of Carly Fiorina's good performance in this week's debate (and her great pushback of Chris "Thrill up my leg" Matthews after the debate), some Republicans are saying she would be a good vice president choice. Are Perpetually Offended Americans really wondering if that is sexist? Why not consider her for president?
One, she was in the debate for contenders for the presidency. So right off the bat you have a clue about what she is seeking.
Two, she is little known. I'm well disposed toward her from what little I've seen, but I wasn't thinking of her as potential president based on that.
So yeah, this first good glimpse of her elevates her in my mind (and others) to "potential VP"--which as a spare president position has a lower bar for passing than the presidency.
So far, since he has experience as a governor, I put Jindal in between VP- and POTUS-worthy. But he's way higher on my VP list than POTUS list.
Heck, a number of the males in the groups don't pass the lower bar, as far as I'm concerned.
This is early in the process, if Fiorina continues to do well, she could well surpass the bar we set for being considered for the presidency. I'm prepared to think of her as a top tier candidate for that job if she builds on this early good showing.
As an aside, I'm generally biased against senators and biased toward governors, all things being equal.
If I had to choose now, I'd choose Walker as presidential candidate with Rubio, Perry, Jindal, and Fiorina (not necessarily in that order) as good choices for VP.
This will no doubt change as candidates shine or stumble, causing me to drop, add, demote, or promote candidates.
While I'm at it, I have one rebuttal for whether it is sexist to call Ms. Fiorina "Carly." Hillary!
For what it's worth.