Dear John,

What were you thinking?

Do you really think that all women care about is having a woman President or VP? Do you really think that people voted for Hillary because she had two x chromosomes? And on the other side, do you think that conservatives care how pro-life your VP is if she has no foreign policy experience and seems more interested in routing their power structures than in maintaining the status quo?

You're a maverick, all right, and I mean that in the worst possible way. Let's go through the reasons that this choice is crazy and ill-advised.

1. You're old (I'm sorry, but that does matter in a position like the leader of a country) and while you are cancer free now, there is no guarantee that you will stay that way. It's great that you made sure your veep is young enough to be a pretty sure backup, but I question the wisdom of picking someone who is going to have to do so much on the job training.
2. This choice seems to be pandering to a group who only hate one thing more than losing - being patronized. Hillary voters liked her because she is a great woman leader with a vision for the health and security of ALL Americans not just the chosen few. You chose a woman who disagrees with Hillary on every issue, especially when it comes to a woman's control over her body and her future.
3. The power structure that your policies support does not like change or challenge and the American people can now see through your cheap tricks. By this I mean that either you loose the support of lobbyists and power brokers who rely on your policies to strengthen the top 5% of the population or you loose the voters because we see that you won't actually bring change. So, which is it going to be, throw out the old including antiquated ideas of "trickle down economics" which have done nothing but harm the American middle class? Or, renew your commitment to the corrupt power brokers you sold your soul to in order to get the nomination this year? I think we all know the answer to that question.

Ok, so maybe I'm not your ideal constituent, but here's the thing: I WOULD HAVE VOTED FOR YOU IN 2000. Back then you had some amount of integrity, you called the far religious right "agents of intolerance" and you were right. You called for campaign finance reform and partnered with Democrats to do it. You were by far the lesser of all the evils up for office. But you sold out, you lost any support you had from the young generation that is sick of politicians who think that sending our friends, brothers and sisters to war for no good reason is ok. We are sick of policies that leave us (and our children, even though we don't have children yet) in debt and we are sick of being patronized by politicians who think chromosomes are more important than policies.

So, John McCain, if you thought you could win over voters with another cheap trick, be warned we are wise to you and we know that "Maverick" really means unpredictable, unreliable and not able to lead us into a better future.

-- The tiny feminist in my head