WOMEN: PUTTING THE "WILD" IN WILD CARD?

Palin's got the Viking demo sewn
It's 1:30am and something is nagging at me enough that I can't sleep.

There's been a lot said about identity politics with the election, specifically around the mentality of voters eager to see either 1) a Black person in the White House or 2) a woman. And we've all seen how analysts and pundits have tried to break down voting trends and polling data by looking at how identity politics may be showing its hand here.

Now...with the Palin nom, I think we can all agree: this is a gamble by McCain to try to grab at disaffected women voters (as well as shore up his standing amongst conservatives). Leaving the latter behind (i.e. conservatives who like Palin's voting record on key social issues) and just focusing on the former...whether you want to call them Pumas or not, there's no shortage of media hype about their wild-card factor.

And so what's keeping me up is this...

Symbolically, I can understand the appeal of wanting a Black person - male or female - in the White House. But assuming Hillary (who I didn't back) had won the nom and McCain, instead of choosing Palin, had gone with Colin or Condi, I wouldn't have had an inkling to want to reconsider voting for someone besides Hillary (even if, again, I didn't back her in the primaries). The reason is simple, and to quote the great Chuck D: every brother (or sister) ain't a brother (or sister). In other words, while a charismatic candidate like Obama gains identity politics enhancement points for being Black, his Blackness is not the overriding reason I'd back him. I'd actually have to, well, like him as a candidate. Hence, I'm not about to back a GOP ticket just because they're promising to integrate the Oval Office.

So goes it with Palin, shouldn't it? Right now, the punditry seems to think that McCain's choice is savvy because enough Democratic women will flock to the McCain/Palin ticket simply because she's a woman and there's something kind of, well, patronizing in that assumption...and as this astute Slate piece points out, it certainly plays on stereotypes people have about hysterical, irrational women.

How can we suss this out? Is there an actual demographic of Democratic female voters who'd vote for Palin simply out of misguided identity politics? Or is this the pundit class displaying a dismissive attitude towards the rationality of female voters?

And actually, what I really, really want to know, are PUMAs like these 1) real vs. some Rove-esque creation, 2) an actual voting bloc vs. media-hyped fringe?

--O.W.