but she makes Barack Obama look almost over-qualified to be president. City Councilman and mayor of Wasilla, Alaska (pop. 5,000), before serving less than two years as governor of Alaska. You gotta be kidding me!
I've never been a fan of W, but I respected his choice of Cheney for V.P.--Cheney didn't seem to add much of anything politically to the ticket, and his main qualification for the post seemed to be that he would actually be ready to be president if something happened to Bush. My respect for McCain has gone down a few notches.
UPDATE: She has "executive experience," but Obama doesn't? Obama has run one of the most successful presidential campaign upsets in modern history. And less than two years as governor of Alaska (the second-least populous state in the country) when oil prices have been booming is not exactly trial-by-fire.
Obama's also spent the last several years receiving advice on national and international issues from some of the most talented people in the United States.
No one who's not a Republican partisan is going to take the argument that she's more qualified has more relevant background experience than Obama seriously. Fortunately for the Republicans, Obama is not in a position to raise the experience issue--after all, unlike Palin, who will likely spent the next four years learning the ropes, he'll definitely become president immediately if he wins.
FURTHER UPDATE: Obama campaign spokesman Bill Burton for some reason thought it was a good idea to attack Palin for having "zero foreign policy experience." I guess because, you know, during Obama's less-than-one-term in the Senate he's virtually been a shadow Secretary of State.
Personally, I think Palin's a great choice. Everyone I've spoken to so far is very excited about the choice. She adds some youth and vibrancy to McCain's campaign, and she also complements McCain's "maverick" or independent image. (Unlike, say, running on a platform of change and picking a long-time Washington insider as your running mate.) She has strong Republican values, including ones too many high-placed Republicans forget these days like fiscal responsibility and restraining government spending.
And you know, putting politics aside completely for a moment, I think that it really says a lot about how our country has moved forward that no matter which side wins, we're either going to have a black President or a woman vice-president. Who would've predicted that a few decades ago?
I'd much rather see Michael Palin in line for the presidency. It's too bad he's ineligible.
I defended the Harriet Miers nomination at this site against what I thought was reflexive credentialism run amok. I won't be doing that this time around.
Agreed. And McCain obviously think she's well-qualified to be president.
The current speculation seems to be that Palin's light experience is an issue because she would presumably be closer to being President than Biden should their respective top-ticket candidates win. But in a year with the even lighter-weight Obama as a top-ticket candidate, I don't think that argument will fly.
And you know this, how?
"she makes Barack Obama look almost over-qualified to be president."
Palin has more executive political experience than the ENTIRE BLOBAMA / BIDEN TICKET COMBINED !
Blobama has WHAT experience ? About a year in the Senate before he started planing his Presidential run????
"My respect for McCain has gone down a few notches. "
I doubt you ever had any. What's REALLY bothering you is, it's a FANTASTIC choice, that totally NEUTERS at least 50 % of Blobama / Biden's talking points !!!
Methinks very few people support Obama on the basis of his legislative/administrative accomplishments [minimal to non-existent] or his avowed policies [ditto]. He is primarily a revolutionary symbol to his supporters.
Based on what Palin has said, and done to back up her statements, she is far more the kind of symbol I could support.
If Palin can perform even moderately competent, this election is now McCain's to win or lose. Obama can't do anything himself to change the dynamic. As bad as Biden was as a pick, Palin appears to be a home run at this point.
http://www.jlaforums.com/viewtopic.php?t=5055328
Very true. Her speech today and at the convention will be crucial. If she comes off as a lightweight (as Quayle did the day he was announced), the pick will be panned. If she comes off as a rising star, Obama will be scrambling until November.
I believe the key criteria is agreement with whoever is making the judgment.
McCain clearly realizes that he is unlikely to win and decided to throw a hail mary with this pick. He also realizes that by picking Palin, the GOP will not completely implode (as a Lieberman pick would have) or put someone he hates in even stronger position for 2012 (that would be Romney).
Perhaps Palin has a strong future, but this pick completely vitiates the GOP's attacks on Obama's experience. The attempts to argue to the contrary are risible. (I think Joe Scarborough made the Harriet Meyers comparison this morning; discuss.)
Jeez what does that have to do with executive experience. Preaching "hope" and "change" to the proletariat with complete backing by the media has nothing to do with executive experience. Was that even a serious comment?
Jeez what does that have to do with executive experience. Preaching "hope" and "change" to the proletariat with complete backing by the media has nothing to do with executive experience. Was that even a serious comment?
See point above. That's campaign aptitude, not executive experience. There is a difference.
So far Prof. Kerr is winning this thread.
On the other hand -
Paul Milligan, take your meds. She neuters about 95 percent of McCain's talking points.
Great Unknown - No Rezko? You obviously haven't even bothered to read her Wikipedia page. She's good, but she's got her own scandals.
Everyone defending her executive experience is just on crack. Her experience isn't her selling point to anyone on Planet Earth. She's a good politician, she's telegenic and she gives McCain a touch of the Obama "change" magic. That's why she's on the ticket.
This pick works if she can get the national press on her side - which shouldn't be hard. Great personal story, friendly, down-to-earth, Matt Lauer will be putty in her hands.
This pick doesn't work if it makes McCain look like an old, old, old man.
I say it's a net positive, but if it makes McCain look desperate, it will turn into a negative so fast your head will spin.
This borders on willful ignorance.
In a way it's much like the way I explain my respect for Karl Rove to my more liberal friends. Yes, he plays dirty hardball politics, but in reshaping the political game and doing what he does he is a true master at the art.
Whether or not you agree with him politically, denying that Obama/Axelrod ran a masterful primary campaign is simply being willfully ignorant. If "preaching hope and change" to the proletariat was all that was necessary I'm sure Clinton's planners would have caught on. Further, not only did he generally outmaneuver Clinton on the media battlefield, the true genius of his campaign was on the electoral one. He and his advisors quite simply outplanned her campaign.
I'd agree that that doesn't necessarily count as a qualification to be president, but it is a certain kind of executive experience.
What do you think an executive does? Is running a presidential campaign identical to the responsibilies at 1600 Pennsylvania? Of course not; but I would say it bears a lot more in common to being president than running the government of the state of Alaska.
Palin: She has been involved in government since 1992. She served on a city council and then as mayor (two terms). She served on the Alaska Oil and Gas Commission. She was elected governor, beating an incumbant in the primaries and a former governor in the general election, and served for two years.
Biden: Served two years on the city council and then was a US Senator forever. No executive experience.
Obama: State Senator for 7 years. US Senator for four years. No executive experience.
McCain: Served in the Navy. Eventually ran an squadron (24 pilots?). Other than that, no executive experience. Was a Congressman for eight years and then a Senator.
Really, would anyone really be commplaining about Palin's experience if she didn't wear a skirt?
From what I've read she picked some pretty tough fights, many against her own Party, and won them while Obama was staking out a bold 'present' stance.
I haven't, but I've run my own business and I know there's a difference between gearing up to buy a business and actually running it.
I agree with you re Cheney, but look how that turned out. Democrats and tin-foil-helmeters accuse him of being all that's wrong with America, etc. And a lot of voters are silly enough to believe them.
To the extent Palin is less-than-qualified, it is not McCain's "fault," it's the fault of an electorate that is largely composed of voters susceptible to identity politics. From the standpoint of pure competence and leadership ability, Romney would probably have been a safer horse to ride, but McCain actually has to get elected. Again, though, it's not John McCain's fault that he has to pick a VP that is most likely to get him elected, not a VP most likely to make a good president if he dies. To the extent the latter criterion is important, it is only important because of its impact on electability.
Some of our unhinged partisans aside, it does blunt the force of McCain's argument against Obama's inexperience - but that argument may already have been less effective since Obama cast the choice as one between experience and judgment over the Iraq war. A majority of Americans now believe the war was a mistake, so that argument has some force.
For the "executive experience is all" crowd who think the skill set to lead a small town is coterminous with presidential leadership and senate experience doesn't count, I'd suggest that is a dangerous partisan argument to make - McCain doesn't have executive experience either. He and Biden are about equal with Senate experience.
The other concern over the Palin choice is the concern over the retaliatory firing of the police officer. I doubt that concern will have legs because McCain's staffers will have thoroughly researched to make sure there is no "there there."
Evidently she used her time with the oil industry to push reforms and eliminate corruption, but I'm not sure how the optics play with average Joe American: Another oil-flunky in the West Wing! Oh no! It wouldn't be fair for the Democrats to make this argument, but I bet they will.
Finally, I wonder if the Palin choice will hold down the racist vote (albeit a small percentage but one that could be key in close states). I would assume that the habits of mind leading to racism are also likely to encourage sexism. I am enjoying some unreconstructed troglodyte saying "Well, I don't want that black guy to be president, but I also don't want the woman to be veep."
Really? He's had to hire a huge staff, manage a 10 figure budget, overcome logistical hurdles, acquire office space, provide health care to his workers, etc. What exactly is different?
And there's never been a succesfull President didn't have Executive Experience!
And Palin was clearly the most experienced pick, since McCain clearly values it so highly!
The candidate does not run the campaign. The campaign manager runs the campaign.
Well, the same way an entrepreneur has to (i) handle his staff, financial backing, attorneys (if necessary) to buy a software company and then (ii) running the software company.
I might be great at organizing an acquisition but once the deal is closed if I'm a lousy executive and don't understand the software business suficiently regardless of my great aptitude in (i) I'm not going to succeed at (ii).
Surely an Obama guy isn't going to go there.
Honestly, I think they would.
I see Obama's and Palin's experience as generally being somewhat in the same league.
1. They're of roughly similar age. Both a generation younger than McCain
2. There are quite a number of politicians who have climbed the ladder from Governor to US senator, and there are quite a few who have done the reverse. Either position is a crowning achievement that requires not only hard work but a significant amount of luck but for a select few.
3. Neither of them have held the positions for terribly long.
I suppose you could get into quibbles about exactly what he did as a Senator and exactly what she did as a governor, but I think those are just that quibbles, which gets into the real way I feel.
I think much of this "experience" debate is rather mindless. In my opinion experience and "good leadership" are far from synonomous, and in fact are hardly even similar.
Today's business schools produce lots of good CEOs. However, some of the greatest businessmen of all time had strikingly little formal higher education.
I think the quality of being a good leader is quite complicated, but in general is far more a matter of personality, approach to problem solving and instincts than it is the particular positions one has held in the past. This is all the more true when we're talking about a position that very few individuals can really be said to be "prepared" for.
If she does, to me she looks like the best of the four.
We can always hope.
That was startling hyperbole. No one who's not a Bernstein partisan is going to take his post seriously.
I suspect Hillary supporters care even more about the abortion issue. On that front Palin will definitely not appeal to them.
Howard Dean wears skirts? If not, then yes. And he had 8 years of experience.
Palin's not quite in that class. She veto'd politically popular but discriminatory laws regarding same-sex civil union benefits for employees. She's also veto'd to try and get rid of construction-related pork. Add in her opposition towards Ted Stevens and similar, and support of global warming analysis, and she's as least made some remotely difficult actions.
She doesn't have a lot of experience, but she does have a pretty good amount more than the number of years alone would suggest.
How does this hurt McCain's argument against Obama?
The only way Obama can logically use it to his advantage is if he wants to say that McCain should value experience in a Vice President as much as he values that in a President, but that's not really a watertight case.
I believe the key criteria is agreement with whoever is making the judgment.
With Palin being pro-life and anti-gay marriage, I don't see the attraction for the Clinton diehards.
I think what this is designed to do is get the evangelical right out to the polls. Forget about the independent vote, McCain has no chance whatsoever unless he gets each and every conservative voter to come out to the polls in November, rather than stay at home. Most of the candidates the evangelicals swoon over have high negatives with independents and conservative Democrats (Santorum, Brownback, Huckabee). Palin might be able to get the evangelicals out to the polls to vote for the crusty, profane McCain, and she doesn't have negatives because hardly anyone's heard of her.
It is also a sign that McCain digs young women.
I also agree that a lot of the comments seem to be cutpasted from Kos or Freeper accounts elsewhere; not much to do about it, but there's more than enough substance of discussion in this interesting race to have to go for the more childish ranting that we've been seeing. Doesn't the "gotcha" mentality take the fun out of discussion?
Well if that is the case then picking Obama was a sign of desperation for the Democrats.
I would say that her qualifications to be president look roughly the same as Obama's at this point.
That is what strikes me about this selection. I would have preferred Marsha Blackburn. But it seems that McCain wanted a governor.
I have no idea what sort of candidate she will make. But interms of experience, there isn't much difference between the GOP running-mate and the Democratic nominee.
You think he was beer-goggling? She looks cute to me . . .
Obama defeated the biggest and most powerful name in democratic politics. He has run a brilliant national, multimillion dollar campaign but is not "qualified" to be president. Well lets scratch off Lincoln, Truman and Kennedy as unqualified too.
Oh and I have been so impressed with the experience of Bush/Cheney.
If McCain win, there's only a small chance that we'll have an inexperienced person ascend to the Presidency, and then is so, likely after Vice-President Palin has been in office for a while.
Looks-as in physical appearance-good to me too.
And Obama digs middle aged men with bad plugs. Which is weirder?
Amen. :-(
I never said Obama isn't qualified. I am merely pointing out that if Palin isn't qualified then by the same argument Obama is not as well.
At any rate, Obama is running against McCain. Palin is the VP pick.
Small chance? see http://www.bitsofnews.com/content/view/7902/
McCain is 72 but has suffered from melanoma and was tortured as a POW. Oh excuse me, he was not tortured as defined by Bush/Cheney.
So glad she's hot and young! Important qualifications for any woman running for high office.
Obama didn't beat Clinton's dark-magic fueled juggernaut be enough. This proves he didn’t organize a large disparate campaign filled with inexperienced newcomers! Whatta loser!
I agree with above poster who said it is either an inspired choice, or will prove a disaster. Remains to be seen. At this point, I rather like Sarah Palin (but remain unsure about McCain).
Amen. :-(
You will want to be carefull: The bathwater goes out the window just fine. But the baby can't fit through the screen.
"She has "executive experience," but Obama doesn't? Obama has run one of the most successful presidential campaign upsets in modern history."
What does that have to do with executive experience?
"Obama's also spent the last several years receiving advice on national and international issues from some of the most talented people in the United States."
What does that have to do with executive experience?
To summarize:
"She has "executive experience," but Obama doesn't?"
No, he doesn't. Your two examples can't be stretched in any way to answer the question in the affirmative. Anyone reading your post knows it. I'm sure you knew it even as you typed the post. Sometimes the emperor has no clothes.
Accept it. He has none. She has virtually none. That is a perfectly reasonable description. 'Campaigning', and 'getting lectures from smart people' don't change it.
Sk
What a simplistic and thoughtless statement. You don't know that and will not until we see her in action. Right now I am watching Palin speak and she looks really good.
I was trying to be funny with the digs younger women. I guess it is not a good joke of I have to explain it but here goes.
McCain left his wife of ?years after she cared for his children? while he was at war. But since she wasn't the same beauty when he returned, he went and got himself a hot young wife.
So much for the sanctity of marriage.
Executive experience is executive experience. Even one year as the governor of ANY State trumps "community organizer", "law review editor", "state senator" and "less than 1 full term U.S. Senator".
I guess worshipers of "lord barry" have resorted to adding "running a presidential campaign" to his resume.
If that's not padding, I don't know what is.
How so? What should she call them?
Uh, No. McCain has more than 22 years of executive experience.
People forget that Military Officer = Executive Experience.
McCain retired as a COMMANDER (O-5) he has PLENTY of executive experience.
Luke,
I really hope that you don't actually believe that is the reason McCain's 1st marriage did not work out.
Unfortunately, BO's water carriers in the media will mention this "scandal" in the first paragraph of every article about Palin from now until the election. The media will sure make it look like there's a "there there," even if there isn't.
Sarah "No issue stance yet recorded" Palin.
Sorry, I call them as I see him. It's hard to think of someone who was less of a national figure, and less ready to be president, on a major party ticket, since at least Geraldine Ferraro.
I don't see my job as providing propaganda for the McCain campaign.
I think the experience issue is overplayed, even on foreign policy. George H.W. Bush is the only president from the past 20 years who had any meaningful foreign policy experience. So there's clearly a limit to how much voters care about that.
It's also interesting to note that Margaret Thatcher had basically no foreign policy experience when she became prime minister.
JHA
Yep, but in the classic "pot calling kettle black" the Obama folks are attacking Palin for having no foreign policy experience.
If she does, that would *almost* be enough to persuade me to hold my nose and vote Republican, even though I think that McCain himself is just as bad as Obama.
Is anybody selling "Palin for President in 2012" bumper stickers yet? If so, I'll buy a few and slap them on top of my Bob Barr stickers.
That's not fair.
Reagan was much better looking than Hillary.
To review:
Military Officer = Executive Experience.
Running national campaign != executive experience.
Mayor of small town = Executive Experience.
Setting up nonprofits to serve the community != executive experience.
Governor of a state = Executive Experience.
Running Harvard Law Review != executive experience.
And let us not forget those losers Lincoln and Kennedy, who were seriously missing their "vitamin E"
And "lord barry" is awesome. Because everyone who agrees with Obama are like cult members. That's why I reflexively disbelieve everything they say!
I'm not saying Obama is Lincoln. How could anyone compare any candidate to any past president.
Lincoln became "Lincoln" only after he had to begin dealing with the collapse of the Union and a civil war -- not because of the "experience" he brought to the office.
By the way, G.W. Bush was a governor. That's turned out well.
Same with James Buchanon. Lots of exec experience. President of Franklin &Marshall University. Former Secretary of State. Minister to the Court of St. James.
What a line of crap this whole "exec experience" meme is.
Experience is no substitute for judgment. On that point, Jack Kennedy captained a PT boat . . . then FUBAR'd the Bay-of-Pigs invasion. But he had the capacity to learn.
Who between McCain and Obama has the capacity to learn?
Ha. Her "inexperience" invites a contrast with Obama. I'm sure the McCain campaign welcomes this. Roughly two years as Governor beats a few years as an absent Senator.
But when it comes to getting the job, I am afraid Biden and Obama are at an advantage. Palin seems like a nice and competent person who would be ready to lead the country after learning from McCain for a few years, but is she ready now to deal with the dirty politics, the lies that Biden will throw at her and the constant media attacks?
I actually do, but I admit that there are often private matters in a marriage that could also offer explanations.
I made the comment to highlight the seeming hypocrisy of advocating against gay marriage in order to protect the sanctity of marriage by someone many who do not appear to hold marriage to such a high ideal in their own lives.
Now that Ms. Palin is on the ticket, I cautiously predict that the Republican Presidential ticket will win the popular vote by a quite narrow margin (say two percentage points) and the Electoral College by twenty or more points. This prediction, naturally, depends on neither Mr. McCain or Ms. Palin having a meltdown between now and the general election. I don't think it even matters much anymore what happens in the Obama camp, aside from a major meltdown. Voters have generally made up their minds about electing a Marxist and race-baiter to the White House. They like it or not.
You bet your bippy the McCain insider crowd knows this very well.
BTW, I've set up a nice little poll for those in favor of an alternative to the dismal current selection.
<a href = "http://poll.pollcode.com/IiF">Is Bugs Bunny a better Presidential pick than either McCain or Obama?</a>
Is Bugs Bunny a better Presidential pick than either McCain or Obama?
Can we start talking about her positions?
In Palin's America, there's no abortion, polar bears, untapped wildlife refuges, people without guns or due process for wife-beating bastards!]
On foreign policy experience, what Presidents have had any when they entered office? Bush1, Nixon, Eisenhower, Hoover, Adams. The President finds someone else with that talent and experience to do that job. Which is what good executives do. Which is why executive experience is what's important.
Considering what he's come up with for policy suggestions, given that advice, shouldn't we hold it against him? Or at very least, not count it as somehow being in his favour?
If he can turn allegedly top-grade advice into the steaming piles I've seen come out (e.g. on foreign policy), that's not an endorsement.
(While there are probably "dozens" of people who'd make a better President than Palin, there are also dozens who'd be better than Joe Biden, so that's also a wash, comparing the tickets.
The question actual ticket-formers have to ask is not "who'd be the best VP in terms of being a replacement president and nothing else" but "who'd be the best VP in that regard that will result in the combination being elected in the first place".
I'm not sure a "national profile" is important, either.)
But that's one of three.
"taney71: "John" and "Cindy" would have been better because it would make them seem like equals. "
I don't know about that. Gore always said "Bill Clinton," not "Bill" as I remember. And I don't recall what he said early on in the campaign. Quayle said "Vice President Bush." Cheney: "Gov. Bush."
I think it's just typical.
Don't forget Taft. (He's hard to overlook.) And I'd add Grant, at least if invading another country counts.
Who stated or remotely suggested that you do or should?
According to most idiots here, a two-year county executive is more qualified to be president than Bob Dole was?
Cheney and Gore did not have the same age/experience differential that McCain/Palin are dealing with, and I would argue that Palin should not take her cues from what Quayle did. In any case, I think my reaction was more to her referring to Mrs. McCain. That just skewed young to me. I'll drop it now.
Well said.
And Obama thinks 33-year-Senator Biden is best capable of carrying on his legacy of Hopiness and Changery?
This was what Obama identified as his most important criterion before he picked Biden.
"I think the most important thing, from my perspective, is somebody who can help me govern," Obama said. "I want somebody who I'm compatible with, who I can work with, who has a shared vision, who certainly complements me, in the sense that they provide a knowledge base or an area of expertise that can be useful. Because we're going to have a lot of problems and a lot of work to do."
I think Biden measures up to that criterion pretty well. Besides, are you suggesting Obama should have picked up another newcomer like himself? That wouldn't have gone over very well.
Luke,
I really hope that you don't actually believe that is the reason McCain's 1st marriage did not work out.
This was addressed in a Seinfeld episode entitled "The Abstinence" (substitute "POW" for "doctor"):
Now that I've said that, I'm not sure I know which candidate would be a better manager. McCain ran a very tepid campaign to begin with, and managed to moderate himself back to victory. Obama did a very skillful job sailing past Clinton (remember her, the shoe-in just a year ago?), playing the delegate game, and not alienating everyone in the process. (your opinion on that last one will wait until the Final Countdown in November).
And for those who keep saying that running the campaign does not make you a campaign manager or equate any sort of executive experience, Clinton's inability to control her team is what lost her the primary dance, and is what led McCain to dump his bad team members...
Palin>>Dole>>Obama might sound silly to you, but it makes more sense than the idea that half a term as Senator + running a campaign in the primary is a stronger resume for head of the Executive branch.
As a Republican, this seems like a bad, bad joke.
Come on you intellectuals... know your history.
I'm willing to believe they both buy into the same tired old set of leftist/liberal policies, and in that sense Biden's as capable of carrying on after Obama as any other random Democratic party leader. But Obama's unique legacy was supposed to be transformational, and you just don't get that from a guy who spent 30+ years in the Senate.
McCain apparently retired as a Captain (O-6), and not Commander (O-5). This is equivalent to a Colonel in the Army, Air Force, and Marines. Not clear exactly why he left, but it seems like he knew he wouldn't make Admiral, and even Rear Admiral was real iffy. One theory is his physical situation. Another one though is that he was just too much the maverick. He also didn't have any experience as a ship driver, and very little at sea (after all, it is the Navy).
On the other hand, a NYT article: Taste of Senate Set Capt. McCain on a New Path, "At a meeting in his Pentagon office in early 1981, Secretary of the Navy John F. Lehman told Capt. John S. McCain III that he was about to attain his life ambition: becoming an admiral." The suggestion there was that the allure of politics, as seen by him as Naval liaison to Congress caused him to switch careers.
Both Adams's, of course. Jefferson, Madison, and Monroe had all served as Sec'y of State. Taylor also invaded a foreign country (to follow up on Hoosier). Buchanan had extensive ambassadorial experience and (going off memory) also served as Sec'y of State.
ROFLAMO! This is why we should vote for the lightweight - he's got a bigger rolodex?
Based on the idiocy of his views, Obambi can't have been listening very hard when he heard that "talented advice".
What's wrong with this? Sounds like a real answer. You should know what a job entails before jumping in.
Well, Obama is a left/liberal. He wants to raise taxes on high earners, and spend more federal dollars on cities, education, health insurance, and other things that liberals like to spend money on. If you don't like those things, you're probably not going to like Obama. As for the vacuousness of the "change" slogan, Richard Nixon once told Theodore White that his best line during the 1960 campaign (or maybe it was the 1956 campaign) was "we're going up and they're going down!" I never thought "Morning in America" was particularly profound either. Substance-free campaign themes did not originate with Obama.
As a relative neophyte and non-Washingtonian, Obama had to deal with the Jimmy Carter issue — is Washington going to eat this guy alive? Picking Biden was a reasonably good way to deal with that.
What's wrong with this? Sounds like a real answer. You should know what a job entails before jumping in."
Since you asked, to me, it sounds like she is clueless, and has no business being touted as someone who is ready to be President. That's, after all, the Job of the Vice President.
CORRECTION: she makes Obama look over-qualified to be VICE PRESIDENT.
Attributing Obama's campaign successes -- from an administrative standpoint -- appears breathtakingly naive. Aside from his personal charisma and speaking abilities, the current success of Senator Obama's campaign has little to do with the man himself, but should rather be attributed to campaign managers, staff, strategy and, to a certain extent fortuity.
This whole string is just such garbage. It's like reading the transcript of a round-table on a cable news show or one of those Sunday Morning jokes.
Speaking of which, can't wait to hear Cokie Roberts . . . on everthing. She's always a hoot because of how vapid her remarks are.
BEST POST OF THE DAY (and I may be paraphrasing): "Has George Will's head exploded yet?"
I think Obama lack of relevant experience is troublesome. But the reason I won't vote for him is almost entirely due to his politics.
As more a sideline reader of this site, as I hate coming to a battle half armed, as I feel a little out classed here, I could not let this BS post by Sarcastro go unchallenged and feel I must jump in.
Abortion should be rare and a last resort. Parents should expect every right to know when their daughters are about to have one.
When Churchill Canada is ass deep in Polar Bears and where Canadians are on the menu more than bear steak the argument about the polar bears demise is harder to swallow than seal blubber.
The dimwitted belief that the closing off of public lands is somehow more noble than maintaining the American standard of living is a lousy argument to we who live in the rural west and are trying to put food on the table and gas in the tank.
Sarcastro, Just as you have the right of free speech, the wonderful thing about America is you have the choice of owning a firearm or not. But then I'll bet you've heard all the arguments.
But then what do I know... I'm just a country bumpkin that is clinging to his guns and praying to Jesus that T Boone Picket isn't about to eminent domain my desert home for a Wind farm.
Do a little research and you'll find that the "wife beater" Got more due process than he deserved.
Shertaugh wins this thread!
Although I might reconsider my vote if somebody would only have the nerve to write "Sarcastro, you ignorant slut..."
Its like reading a tautology. Obama is qualified to be President because he succeeded in being nominated to be President. Ergo all nominees to be President are always qualified to be President. This hardly passes for sound logic.
BHO's resume could be written on the back of a business card.
Palin has a very thin resume. That's not disqualifying. But she hasn't sought national office. She hasn't prepared for it. She hasn't built up a national campaign to seek it. She hasn't amassed teams of advisors to get her ready for it. She's got a shot at being president because ONE person has made the judgment that she's ready (based on meeting her no more than a few times). She has no other personal endorsements (unless you want to count Ted Stevens). There is NOTHING here to give us the impression she's ready for office.
John McCain has made his first presidential choice and he has shown himself to be deeply un-serious about governing. In my mind this choice argues strongly that McCain has very questionable judgment. He has obviously put politics ahead of country.
I thought we had learned that un-serious candidates really are risky presidents. In fact, I'll go out on a limb and say we HAVE learned that lesson and that McCain has just signed himself up for a crushing defeat in November.
And yet it was LBJ who opined that the vice presidency was not worth a warm bucket of spit....
Since the original quote from Palin is easily findable, in context, on youtube, I can only assume this is one of many willfully ignorant or troll comments on this thread. Each time I see one, it reduces my respect for the author.
Coming soon, fart jokes and heavy breathing "she said..." from the Beavis *&B crowd....
It was John Nance Garner.
Team Obama just can't keep up with McCain's audacious moves. Maverick is inside his OODA loop.
I'm giddy the McCain campaign has turned into this media maestro every time I turn around he's got a killer ad.
He who can modify his tactics in relation to his opponent and thereby succeed in winning, may be called a heaven-born captain.
What a great deal. If you have no experience, just run a campaign saying you do, then get people to say your campaign counts as the experience.
Actually, I think this is a case where the blogosphere may have had some influence. Depending on one's perspective, this could be more bug than feature. Nonetheless, she's generated the most buzz among the more forward-thinking of those who would consider voting R in November, and McCain (or someone in his campaign) seems to be enthusiastically targeting that demographic.
The Army of Davids is more than one person.
Convincing people to vote for you is executive experience? If so, I see your Obama campaign and raise Palin's campaign for governor &decisive victories against an incumbent republican governor and a former Democrat governor.
Is Buchanan a heartbeat away from a cabinet position?
This is going to be fun. History will be made, one way or another, and it looks more likely now that it will be the right history.
Even more Hillary supporters will go for McCain now. Obama is no longer a near certainty. Heaven forbid something happens to McCain, but I believe Palin would rise to the occasion. She has the right attitude. Everyone knows Obama is NOT ready for POTUS, Palin is only for the VP. Look at Dan Quayle.
YEY SARAH PALIN! YEY John McCain! Great pick! The 1st woman for the GOP VP? SCORE!
She's conservative! SCORE! She's a Governor! SCORE! She's pro-drilling! She's a hunter! SCORE! She's a hockey Mom and played basketball in school! SCORE! She's pro-life! And she respects women! SCORE! She fights corruption! SCORE! She's high-energy! SCORE! She's tough! SCORE! She's got 5 kids! SCORE! Her son is going to Iraq in the Armed Forces! SCORE! She's married to a Blue-collar professional! SCORE! She's smart! SCORE! She's young! SCORE!
And she's a Hotty to boot! SCORE! The Left is going to go nuts! SCORE!
.
absurd thought -
God of the Universe says
never elect a woman
who's a conservative
she's just a gender traitor
.
absurd thought -
God of the Universe says
just HOPE to pay more taxes
DREAM about high fuel prices
CHANGE PROGRESS to move backwards
.
All real freedom starts with freedom of speech. Without freedom of speech, there can be no real freedom.
.
http://www.libertarian.to/ Philosophy of Liberty Cartoon
.
http://haltterrorism.com
.
http://www.lulu.com/USpace
:)
.
Because Linda Dog was too mean."
Mocking elected officials' kids is old news.
My favorite troubled White House Kid is Alice Roosevelt.
T.R., incensed that his daughter had been photographed smoking like a suffragette, forbade her to smoke while she was under his roof. When told by the staff that she was waving to the press with a cigarette from the top of the White House, he stormed up the stairs to confront her.
"But Daddy, I'm ON the roof."