Decius wrote:
McCain's decision to select a woman for VP is a transparent attempt to court some of Hillary's supporters, many of whom are not liberal, and being sore about their candidate's loss, are attracted to McCain as a perceived moderate. However, the VP may become the President, and Palin, having absolutely no foreign policy experience, is totally unqualified to be the President of the United States. This will be quickly apparent to everybody and it will blow up in McCain's face. It will destroy his candidacy, and unfortunately it will be a serious pock mark on Palin's here-to-fore admirable political career.

Obama and Biden are your new President and VP.

This election is over.

I disagree. You can't dismiss her without dismissing Obama for all the same reasons. Besides, she's exactly what McCain needs: someone young and conservative... and rational. I've been a Palin fan for a while, and I'm glad to see her on the ticket. If anything, this choice gives McCain's campaign new life.

Stefanie wrote:

Decius wrote:

McCain's decision to select a woman for VP is a transparent attempt to court some of Hillary's supporters, many of whom are not liberal, and being sore about their candidate's loss, are attracted to McCain as a perceived moderate. However, the VP may become the President, and Palin, having absolutely no foreign policy experience, is totally unqualified to be the President of the United States. This will be quickly apparent to everybody and it will blow up in McCain's face. It will destroy his candidacy, and unfortunately it will be a serious pock mark on Palin's here-to-fore admirable political career.

Obama and Biden are your new President and VP.

This election is over.

I disagree. You can't dismiss her without dismissing Obama for all the same reasons. Besides, she's exactly what McCain needs: someone young and conservative... and rational. I've been a Palin fan for a while, and I'm glad to see her on the ticket. If anything, this choice gives McCain's campaign new life.

Rational? I am not familiar with her, but if she is an intelligent design supporter, my assumption is 'perceived rational'.

dmv wrote:
Rational? I am not familiar with her, but if she is an intelligent design supporter, my assumption is 'perceived rational'.

That was a swipe at Joe Biden on my part.

I disagree with her on some things (gay marriage, religion), but when I hear the three stooges (McCain, Obama, and Biden) speak, all I hear is the same old political spin and grandstanding... mostly nonsense. If you examine her record and listen to her speeches, Palin comes across as more of a true statesman.

dmv wrote:
Rational? I am not familiar with her, but if she is an intelligent design supporter, my assumption is 'perceived rational'.

What I've been reading today is that she's a "creationism should be taught in Science classes" supporter, which is just jackassery.

When Creationism becomes a scientific endeavor, sure, but until then this is just bullshit.

Stefanie wrote:
I disagree. You can't dismiss her without dismissing Obama for all the same reasons.

Simply put, yes I can. There is now a wide swath of Republicans arguing that her two years as Governor of Alaska is "executive experience" exceeding that of Obama and so there is nothing more to say about her qualifications. This is a silly oversimplification that only a blind partisan would make and I'm sorry but the objective public is simply not going to buy into it.

Furthermore, I like her efforts to reduce taxes and corruption in Alaska, but neither makes her qualified to be President of the United States.

Obama is widely perceived to be an extraordinary statesman and intellectual who has the ability to develop a deep understanding of challenging policy issues, and leverage those understandings to move the country in a new direction on a number of different fronts. I don't mean to disparage Palin but she does not carry that kind of weight.

Decius wrote:

Stefanie wrote:
I disagree. You can't dismiss her without dismissing Obama for all the same reasons.

Simply put, yes I can. There is now a wide swath of Republicans arguing that her two years as Governor of Alaska is "executive experience" exceeding that of Obama and so there is nothing more to say about her qualifications. This is a silly oversimplification that only a blind partisan would make and I'm sorry but the objective public is simply not going to buy into it.

Furthermore, I like her efforts to reduce taxes and corruption in Alaska, but neither makes her qualified to be President of the United States.

Obama is widely perceived to be an extraordinary statesman and intellectual who has the ability to develop a deep understanding of about challenging policy issues, and leverage those understandings to move the country in a new direction on a number of different fronts. I don't mean to disparage Palin but she does not carry that kind of weight.

Nor does Obama carry the kind of weight you describe. When you suggest that Obama "is widely perceived to be an extraordinary statesman and intellectual," I agree that it's all about "perception," but I disagree that said perception is very wide. Among hardcore leftists, he might be thought of that way, but he certainly isn't among the general population.

Obama won't take our country into a new direction. He'll do what he can to plunge us further into socialism and reliance on big, inefficient government, which is where we've been headed for decades.

The "objective public"? Were that the case, we wouldn't be limited to two parties.

Nor does Obama carry the kind of weight you describe. When you suggest that Obama "is widely perceived to be an extraordinary statesman and intellectual," I agree that it's all about "perception," but I disagree that said perception is very wide. Among hardcore leftists, he might be thought of that way, but he certainly isn't among the general population.

Why do you think people support Obama?

Decius wrote:
Why do you think people support Obama?

Which people?

Stefanie wrote:

Decius wrote:
Why do you think people support Obama?

Which people?

You assert that there is essentially no difference in qualification for the presidency between Obama and Palin.

To support this assertion, you further assert that only "hardcore leftists" view Obama as "an extraordinary statesman and intellectual".

Therefore, you must either believe that most Obama supporters are "hardcore leftists," or you must believe that most Obama supporters do not view Obama as "an extraordinary statesman and intellectual."

Furthermore, the former case must not be true, as you draw a distinction between "hardcore leftists" and "the general population," and as Obama is polling over 40% most of this support must be coming from "general population" if there is to be a meaningful distinction between them and "hardcore leftists."

Therefore, you must believe that most Obama supporters do not view Obama as "an extraordinary statesman and intellectual."

So, what I'm asking you, is why do you think they support him? Why did he win the Democratic Party nomination from Hillary Clinton?

This is a rhetorical question of course. I submit that they, and by definition, the general population, do, in fact, think Obama is "an extraordinary statesman and intellectual" and that is precisely why they support him, and I further assert that Palin is not reasonably viewed in the same light, but if you can provide an alternate explanation for why a significant percentage of the general population supports Obama, I'm all ears. Bonus points if you can demonstrate that Palin shares equivalent qualities.

Decius wrote:
You assert that there is essentially no difference in qualification for the presidency between Obama and Palin.

Actually, I think Palin is the more qualified of the two. She's actually held top executive positions in both local and state government. You call that oversimplification, but it's very good experience. If I remember correctly, at some point during this week's convention, Bill Clinton said that the only suitable experience for the job of President is having been President, and he's not the first one to say so. Logically, the closest things would be Vice President and Governor, and both parties have made those arguments over the years.

Decius wrote:
...and I further assert that Palin is not reasonably viewed in the same light,...

Mainly because she hasn't been held in any light, outside of Alaska. That's O.K. though, because change is good, or so I heard many times this past week. ;) Besides, no one had heard of Obama until he ran for Senate, and he hasn't done anything as a Senator but run for another office.

Decius wrote:
...but if you can provide an alternate explanation for why a significant percentage of the general population supports Obama, I'm all ears.

Furthermore, the former case must not be true, as you draw a distinction between "hardcore leftists" and "the general population,"...

So, in lieu of an alternate explanation, the initial assertion automatically stands as being correct?

Those who share a candidate's political views are generally going to vote for that candidate. Those voters might be officially independent where party affiliation is concerned, but they still have ideologies, and they vote accordingly. Also, many of those supporters will say and do anything to positively spin their candidate's image, including the creation of a cult of personality, if the candidate in question is up to it. Obama's personality has been highly marketed... mainly because of the lack of anything else to market. Whether these people actually perceive Obama as something extraordinary or as just another means to an end is difficult to determine.

Then, you always have some who support Obama for the same reason they support any Democrat: he whispers sweet nothings into voters' ears and promises them he'll take care of them, and it makes them feel good; substance be damned. In that regard, he's no different from Clinton, Gore, or Kerry, but he's much better at playing the game of politics than the latter two, and possibly the equal of the former. Those voters don't want to be self-reliant. They see government as their provider, and the only freedom they want is the freedom to act irresponsibly, knowing that there will be a government-provided safety net. They don't care about ideology, they just want to avoid putting any effort into their own lives. For that purpose, any ... [ Read More (0.4k in body) ]

Stefanie wrote:
Actually, I think Palin is the more qualified of the two.

I'll be happy to admit I was wrong if in a month Palin is generally viewed to be qualified for the Vice Presidency but I don't think the general public is going to side with you on that.

I'm not seeing this pro-Obama general consensus to which you refer.

I did not say that there was a pro-Obama general consensus. I said that the general population views him as being a heavy weight intellectual. You can hold this view of him without supporting him. In fact, I hold this view of him and I, frankly, don't know enough about him to support or oppose him. He was the editor of the Harvard Law Review for christ sake. It is, in fact, completely impossible to do that if you aren't a heavy weight intellectual.

This post I think sums up what I'm talking about quite clearly.

Sarah Palin has been in public life, basically, for two years. to my knowledge, she has never articulated (because she was never called upon to articulate) any views whatsoever on:

military strategy in the Persian Gulf
the proper response to Iranian nuclear weapons
the Russian invasion of Georgia
the United Nations
US immigration policy
the Federal Reserve Bank
the effectiveness of international aid programs
Israeli-Palestinian relations
AIDS policy
federal support for basic research
European Union integration
the US Constitution
the optimal means of protecting US borders from terrorists
Guantanamo, and the proper scope of interrogation techniques
Deficit financing and Keynesian economics
the Supreme Court

How anyone could say that knowing what they know now they'd be comfortable with her as President is entirely beyond me.

If Sarah Palin has spent any time in her life thinking about any of these things, there is absolutely no evidence of it anywhere that I am aware of. There is a substantial difference between this person and someone like Obama.

Decius wrote:
I did not say that there was a pro-Obama general consensus. I said that the general population views him as being a heavy weight intellectual. You can hold this view of him without supporting him. In fact, I hold this view of him and I, frankly, don't know enough about him to support or oppose him.

I stand corrected... I think. Maybe I read too much into the "widely perceived" thing.

But, do you really know enough about him to consider him "an extraordinary statesman and intellectual who has the ability to develop a deep understanding of challenging policy issues, and leverage those understandings to move the country in a new direction on a number of different fronts"?

Decius wrote:
He was the editor of the Harvard Law Review for christ sake. It is, in fact, completely impossible to do that if you aren't a heavy weight intellectual.

Hmm... Harvard, Harvard... who else do we know who attended that institution? ;)

Stefanie wrote:
Hmm... Harvard, Harvard... who else do we know who attended that institution? ;)

This went over my head. Who are you taking a crack at?

Decius wrote:

Stefanie wrote:
Hmm... Harvard, Harvard... who else do we know who attended that institution? ;)

This went over my head. Who are you taking a crack at?

He's one of Obama's fellow heavy weight intellectuals - George W. Bush.

Stefanie wrote:

Decius wrote:

Stefanie wrote:
Hmm... Harvard, Harvard... who else do we know who attended that institution? ;)

This went over my head. Who are you taking a crack at?

He's one of Obama's fellow heavy weight intellectuals - George W. Bush.

Bush is a Yale man. He only got his MBA from Harvard after his illustrious stint in the Air National Guard. Despite the fake accent and constant brush clearing in Crawford, he is and always will be, a Noreaster Elitist.

flynn23 wrote:
Bush is a Yale man. He only got his MBA from Harvard after his illustrious stint in the Air National Guard. Despite the fake accent and constant brush clearing in Crawford, he is and always will be, a Noreaster Elitist.

Thank you for confirming that Bush received an MBA from Harvard. :) Likewise, Obama originally graduated from Columbia University, and "only" attended law school at Harvard.

My point is that I don't necessarily consider one's school to be sufficient criteria for being hailed as an intellectual heavyweight. When I hear that term with regard to politics, I think of William F. Buckley Jr. and Cornel West, not Obama and Bush. While I applaud both of them for obtaining degrees from those prestigious institutions, I'm hardly in awe of either's intellectual prowess. They're both sharp politicians in their own ways, but I wouldn't vote for either of them.

But, we're getting a bit off topic.

Stefanie wrote:
My point is that I don't necessarily consider one's school to be sufficient criteria for being hailed as an intellectual heavyweight.

For the record, I didn't merely point out that Obama went to Harvard. He was editor in chief of the law review. Being editor of the law review means you're one of the top law students at the school.

And Obama's experience is?

Barack Obama started his term as a U.S. Senator on Jan 4, 2005, which means he has served a grand total of 2.5 years in the United States Senate and 2 of those he has been campaigning for President.

He has missed 268 of 1240 votes (22%) since Jan 6, 2005. If you were hiring an individual for a critical executive position in your organization would you consider a person with 2 years of experience who missed work 22% of the time?

Tsudohnimh wrote:
And Obama's experience is?

Barack Obama started his term as a U.S. Senator on Jan 4, 2005, which means he has served a grand total of 2.5 years in the United States Senate and 2 of those he has been campaigning for President.

He has missed 268 of 1240 votes (22%) since Jan 6, 2005. If you were hiring an individual for a critical executive position in your organization would you consider a person with 2 years of experience who missed work 22% of the time?

And what did he do before that? Do you even know?

Tsudohnimh wrote:
And Obama's experience is?

The backgrounds of both candidates are documented on Wikipedia.

I realize that "Obama's not experienced enough" is a Republican talking point, and there may even be some validity to that argument. Regardless, it seems the Republican party has drunk too much of their own koolaid. They have turned "Obama's not experienced enough" into "Obama has absolutely no qualifications" into "We should also nominate someone who has absolutely no qualifications, there is no difference, wheeeeeeee..."

Call this getting trapped by your own rhetoric. People who are not Republican koolaid drinkers may be sympathetic to the idea that Obama doesn't have enough experience but they aren't going to make the other two leaps of logic with you. You cannot hold up anybody you please regardless of their qualifications and claim there is no difference between nominating them and nominating Obama. This logic won't fly outside of partisan circles.

Partisan Republicans are going to vote for McCain regardless of what happens. The rest of us have to make a choice. Unfortunately, because Palin is not prepared to be President, McCain is no longer a serious option. That leaves Obama, or a protest vote with Bar.

Decius wrote:
Obama is widely perceived to be an extraordinary statesman and intellectual who has the ability to develop a deep understanding of challenging policy issues, and leverage those understandings to move the country in a new direction on a number of different fronts. I don't mean to disparage Palin but she does not carry that kind of weight.

Being well spoken and intellectual does not a leader of the free world make. Obama is every bit of rhetoric that any other senior politician is, but with more marketing savvy. The ONLY reason why both a black male and a female were in contention for opposing the party of rule for the last 8 years is because things are SO BAD that ANYTHING is better than what we've had. It's the same reason why John Kerry got the nomination for 2004 and almost got 51% of the vote. When you're starving, a shit sandwich sounds awfully tasty.

Everyone at the DNC convinced themselves that "change is in the air" because they kept telling themselves that "change is in the air." It's bullshit. There won't be partisan compromise or joint initiative to getting things done because that doesn't sell news papers, cable news ads, or create the careers of "fighters for the people" in Congress. The system is the way that it is because to be anything else would destroy it. It's dysfunctional because that's self-preserving.

It will take well beyond 4 years of intense diligence to "fix" our problems in the US. Things have been atrophying for so long that even revolutionaries will likely be surprised at the steps necessary to "correct" health care, social security, public education, energy, telecommunications, and basic infrastructure. Much less for the "conservatives" and other people who have their head in the sand. This country looks like the Soviet Union did in 1992. Everything has been looted from the future to line the pockets of people today.

flynn23 wrote:
Being well spoken and intellectual does not a leader of the free world make. Obama is every bit of rhetoric that any other senior politician is, but with more marketing savvy. The ONLY reason why both a black male and a female were in contention for opposing the party of rule for the last 8 years...

I disagree with that part, in that I think Obama and Clinton would've still had a lot of traction within the Democratic Party, even if Bush had been a very effective and popular President. I think we've already reached the point when sex/gender and skin color/ancestry no longer matter, as long as your political views appeal to voters. Am I giving American voters too much credit?

flynn23 wrote:
...is because things are SO BAD that ANYTHING is better than what we've had. It's the same reason why John Kerry got the nomination for 2004 and almost got 51% of the vote. When you're starving, a shit sandwich sounds awfully tasty.

I agree with that part! Both parties have offered us lousy choices, but I'd say things have been bad (in one way or another) for the past twenty years, not just the past eight. As for the past eight, I don't know which amazes me more... the fact that Bush was the best the Republicans could come up with, or that the Democrats failed to find anyone to beat him... twice. Oh well, that's the two-party culture for you.

I agree with that part! Both parties have offered us lousy choices, but I'd say things have been bad (in one way or another) for the past twenty years, not just the past eight. As for the past eight, I don't know which amazes me more... the fact that Bush was the best the Republicans could come up with, or that the Democrats failed to find anyone to beat him... twice. Oh well, that's the two-party culture for you.

Personally I am happy with the candidates we have gotten. I wanted McCain because he is the most decent, honest Republican that was on the ticket. He's old as hell, and he's wrong but he didn't (until more recently) seem like an utterly corrupt douschebag.

And Obama is my guy, and I'm very pleased he is on the ticket.

So I couldn't be happier with the candidates, personally. I don't think they suck, and neither is a shit sandwich.

Decius wrote:

Stefanie wrote:
I disagree. You can't dismiss her without dismissing Obama for all the same reasons.

Simply put, yes I can. There is now a wide swath of Republicans arguing that her two years as Governor of Alaska is "executive experience" exceeding that of Obama and so there is nothing more to say about her qualifications. This is a silly oversimplification that only a blind partisan would make and I'm sorry but the objective public is simply not going to buy into it.

Furthermore, I like her efforts to reduce taxes and corruption in Alaska, but neither makes her qualified to be President of the United States.

Obama is widely perceived to be an extraordinary statesman and intellectual who has the ability to develop a deep understanding of challenging policy issues, and leverage those understandings to move the country in a new direction on a number of different fronts. I don't mean to disparage Palin but she does not carry that kind of weight.

While Palin may not be the most qualified candidate, I think a lot of people could argue that she is more qualified than Obama.

To be clear on that, while she has only been the Governor of Alaska for 2 years - she has accomplished a lot in that short period. Obama hasn't been in the Senate a whole lot longer and he has no real accomplishments to his name for his Senate career. To be honest, he has spent the majority of his time in the Senate running for President.

I can't say either is more qualified than the other as you could argue back and forth between size of constituency, issues, and such... all I know is that neither party has a great choice. Its down to Charisma vs. Crazy with a poor shotgun wedding of social and fiscal policies.

lonew0lf wrote:
While Palin may not be the most qualified candidate, I think a lot of people could argue that she is more qualified than Obama.

No, really you couldn't. Its not even close. But the fact that they can get you to believe that it is... the fact that they can get you to argue that it is... Well, thats just exactly how they control you.

If it was in the political interest of one of the major parties to believe that the sky was bright green you'd have a significant percentage of the blogosphere asking what blue really is, anyway.

Decius wrote:

lonew0lf wrote:
While Palin may not be the most qualified candidate, I think a lot of people could argue that she is more qualified than Obama.

No, really you couldn't. Its not even close. But the fact that they can get you to believe that it is... the fact that they can get you to argue that it is... Well, thats just exactly how they control you.

If it was in the political interest of one of the major parties to believe that the sky was bright green you'd have a significant percentage of the blogosphere asking what blue really is, anyway.

I didn't say I believe it. The argument has been made by a number of the pundants who's opinion, no matter how ridiculous, seems to set the facts and tone of the election more than any truth or merit might...

I haven't seen a single story in weeks that actually went over the actual plans of the candidates. Just more sensationalism with no substance.

Decius wrote:

Stefanie wrote:
I disagree. You can't dismiss her without dismissing Obama for all the same reasons.

Simply put, yes I can. There is now a wide swath of Republicans arguing that her two years as Governor of Alaska is "executive experience" exceeding that of Obama and so there is nothing more to say about her qualifications. This is a silly oversimplification that only a blind partisan would make and I'm sorry but the objective public is simply not going to buy into it.

I can't get there with you. She is governor of a state, arguably the closest thing to being a Chief Executive of a large governmental organization. Previous to that she was a mayor. In both cases, she's had to lead bi-partisan operations over a very large set of govermental services. Compare this to Obama's Senate tenure, of which he's spent most of that time campaigning, and I'd lean way more towards her experience being more relevant and depthful.

I totally GET why she was picked, and that says a lot more about McCain's decision making than anything about her experience for the job, but comparing her to Obama strictly on the level of experience and she wins.

flynn23 wrote:
Comparing her to Obama strictly on the level of experience and she wins.

To be perfectly clear, I am talking about comparisons of their overall qualifications for the Presidency. My point is that focusing on "number of years in an executive role" as you do is an oversimplification. I didn't really want lay out what is clearly documented elsewhere as it provides ample opportunity for partisans to continue to stick their fingers in their ears, but here goes:

Palin's background is:
1987 - BS Journalism - University of Idaho
1988 to 1992 - Television Sports Reporter
1992 to 1996 - City Council, Wasilla, Alaska
1996 - 2002 - Mayor, Wasilla
2003 - 2004 - Appointed to Alaska Oil Ethics Board
2006 - Present Governor of Alaska, the 48th smallest state in terms of population, whose largest metropolitan area is less than a quarter of the population of Nashville, Tennessee.

Obama's background is:
1983 - BA Political Science - Columbia University
1985 - 1988 - Director of a community non-profit
1988 - 1991 - JD Harvard, President of the Harvard Law Review
1992 - 2004 - Part time Professor, Constitutional Law, University of Chicago
1992 - 2002 - Lawyer - Davis, Miner, Barnhill & Galland
1992 - Served on the board of a large number of public interest organizations
1997 - 2004 - State legislature, Illinois (America's 5th most populous state, containing its 3rd most populous city.)
2005 - Present - United States Senator

If you were hiring a business manager, perhaps you might prefer Palin. Obama is a lawyer and like most lawyers has not had large organizations reporting to him. Palin clearly does have more time in an executive role. But thats not what we're doing here. Furthermore, just about any executive at a medium to large sized company anywhere in America would beat out Palin for executive experience. They are not all qualified to be President of the United States. The question is, what qualifies a person to be President.

Chiefly, the President of the United States is responsible for making policy decisions, which is not merely a matter of operational experience in an executive role, but a matter of understanding the long term implications of those decisions and the complicated legal and political context in which they will play out. This requires a deep understanding of our country and of world affairs.

There is absolutely nothing about Palin's background that qualifies her to grapple with the depth of these matters. If she is capable of doing so, nothing about her background indicates it or would prepare her for it. You cannot simply skip from being Mayor of a tiny town in Alaska to being President. The idea that you could hold up this person next to someone who, among other things, has taught constitutional law at one of the top law schools in the country for 12 years, and say their qualification for the Presidency is comparable...

Frankly I can't find words to express this more clearly than to say that I think thats fucking idiotic. In fact its exactly the kind of fucking idiotic thinking that partisans have been foisting on this country repeatedly over the past few years in their cynical power struggles. It is frustrating to me that so many people that I know who are otherwise reasonable and intelligent are willing to buy into something which is so transparently stupid, particularly given the gravity of whats at stake here.

Sure, I'd be more comfortable if Obama had spent time in an executive roll, thats a perfectly valid criticism of his record. But you cannot reasonably hold up Palin and say that her qualifications are comparable to Obama. That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

Decius wrote:

flynn23 wrote:
Comparing her to Obama strictly on the level of experience and she wins.

To be perfectly clear, I am talking about comparisons of their overall qualifications for the Presidency. My point is that focusing on "number of years in an executive role" as you do is an oversimplification. I didn't really want lay out what is clearly documented elsewhere as it provides ample opportunity for partisans to continue to stick their fingers in their ears, but here goes:

Palin's background is:
1987 - BS Journalism - University of Idaho
1988 to 1992 - Television Sports Reporter
1992 to 1996 - City Council, Wasilla, Alaska
1996 - 2002 - Mayor, Wasilla
2003 - 2004 - Appointed to Alaska Oil Ethics Board
2006 - Present Governor of Alaska, the 48th smallest state in terms of population, whose largest metropolitan area is less than a quarter of the population of Nashville, Tennessee.

Obama's background is:
1983 - BA Political Science - Columbia University
1985 - 1988 - Director of a community non-profit
1988 - 1991 - JD Harvard, President of the Harvard Law Review
1992 - 2004 - Part time Professor, Constitutional Law, University of Chicago
1992 - 2002 - Lawyer - Davis, Miner, Barnhill & Galland
1992 - Served on the board of a large number of public interest organizations
1997 - 2004 - State legislature, Illinois (America's 5th most populous state, containing its 3rd most populous city.)
2005 - Present - United States Senator

If you were hiring a business manager, perhaps you might prefer Palin. Obama is a lawyer and like most lawyers has not had large organizations reporting to him. Palin clearly does have more time in an executive role. But thats not what we're doing here. Furthermore, just about any executive at a medium to large sized company anywhere in America would beat out Palin for executive experience. They are not all qualified to be President of the United States. The question is, what qualifies a person to be President.

Chiefly, the President of the United States is responsible for making policy decisions, which is not merely a matter of operational experience in an executive role, but a matter of understanding the long term implications of those decisions and the complicated legal and political context in which they will play out. This requires a deep understanding of our country and of world affairs.

There is absolutely nothing about Palin's background that qualifies her to grapple with the depth of these matters. If she is capable of doing so, nothing about her background indicates it or would prepare her for it. You cannot simply skip from being Mayor of a tiny town in Alaska to being President. The idea that you could hold up this person next to someone who, among other things, has taught constitutional law at one of the top law schools in the country for 12... [ Read More (0.2k in body) ]

It may be idiotic, but the people like and will elect unqualified populist candidates. They dislike 'elitism' and Obama's qualifications also make him seem an 'elitist.' That is why the 'fucking stupid' argument is being touted by so many, who aren't voting on policy or ability but on values.

An extreme (and foreign) example of this is that there are literally illiterate BJP members of Indian Parliament who beat out their better educated and more tolerant opponents because of their populist appeal.

Dude, if they were running her as a populist candidate against "elitist" Obama I wouldn't be nearly as frustrated as I am with this "she is just as qualified as he is" line. You've framed the argument for Palin in a much more honest way that her supports seem to.

Decius wrote:

It may be idiotic, but the people like and will elect unqualified populist candidates. They dislike 'elitism' and Obama's qualifications also make him seem an 'elitist.' That is why the 'fucking stupid' argument is being touted by so many, who aren't voting on policy or ability but on values.

An extreme (and foreign) example of this is that there are literally illiterate BJP members of Indian Parliament who beat out their better educated and more tolerant opponents because of their populist appeal.

Dude, if they were running her as a populist candidate against "elitist" Obama I wouldn't be nearly as frustrated as I am with this "she is just as qualified as he is" line. You've framed the argument for Palin in a much more honest way that her supports seem to.

Well yeah, if they are honest their arguments don't work. Her supporters will continue to play silly fundy mind tricks to make her seem credible, and it will work for a lot of them.

It will come down to her performance in the debates. Will she be able to sound plain-spoken but intelligent and informed, or will she come across as ignorant?

Decius wrote:

flynn23 wrote:
Comparing her to Obama strictly on the level of experience and she wins.

To be perfectly clear, I am talking about comparisons of their overall qualifications for the Presidency...

If you were hiring a business manager, perhaps you might prefer Palin. Obama is a lawyer and like most lawyers has not had large organizations reporting to him. Palin clearly does have more time in an executive role. But thats not what we're doing here. Furthermore, just about any executive at a medium to large sized company anywhere in America would beat out Palin for executive experience. They are not all qualified to be President of the United States. The question is, what qualifies a person to be President.

Chiefly, the President of the United States is responsible for making policy decisions, which is not merely a matter of operational experience in an executive role, but a matter of understanding the long term implications of those decisions and the complicated legal and political context in which they will play out. This requires a deep understanding of our country and of world affairs.

I'll disagree here. Obama's CV looks more expensive but not necessarily more relevant. Yes, being PUSA includes making big sweeping long term policy decisions (ahem... hopefully for the positive benefit of a majority of the populace). But execution is what the President's role in our form of government really is about. That's the reason why it's called the Chief Executive. So yes, there is some strategic leadership needed, but primarily that's the person who is most responsible for building consensus around very specific legislation and getting that converted into law. It's very much like the CEO job of a company. And the closest comparables in public service are governor and mayor. Something Palin has and Obama does not. Besides, you can't have effective understanding of long term implications if you have not actually operated what the hell you are altering.

Those jobs preside over many functions to make a cohesive government work. They work with both elected and appointed officers. They have to cooperate with other sovereign entities, some lower in hierarchy, some greater.

Being a lawyer does not compare. Being a lawyer is all about persuasion. Even as a constitutional prof and editor of a research publication, your job doesn't even come close to what it means to work with those kinds of dynamics. It means you read a lot, think a lot, and have to speak with persuasive authority. It doesn't mean you get shit done.

In fact, I would say that you have less of a chance of seeing what impact your decision making ability has. What's the feedback for being a professor? What's the feedback of being an editor? You might get a failed student or a poor review or some op-ed critique. Fuck up as a governor or mayor and you've got REAL CITIZENS breathing do... [ Read More (0.2k in body) ]

flynn23 wrote:
I'll disagree here. Obama's CV looks more expensive but not necessarily more relevant.

If your position is that a deep understanding of the laws and constitution of our country are not a relevant thing for a President to have, I do think we'll have to disagree.

And the closest comparables in public service are governor and mayor.

I don't disagree in general. I also don't think being mayor of a town of 5,000 people provides anything approximating the experience of being President. Being a Mayor or a Governor can be useful, but they are not themselves sufficient to demonstrate that you're qualified to be President, particularly when the town is so small and you've only been governor for two years. Again, there is nothing to indicate that Palin understands this country's Constitution, its complicated problems, and its foreign relationships. A couple years in a governors office is not a substitute for knowing what you are talking about, and someone who does not know what they are talking about cannot make the right decisions. Hell, a month ago she told Kudlow "As for that VP talk all the time, I'll tell you, I still can't answer that question until somebody answers for me what is it exactly that the VP does every day?"

The internet says that 25 of America's 43 Presidents have been lawyers. 17 were governors and only 3 were mayors.

Being a lawyer does not compare. Being a lawyer is all about persuasion. Even as a constitutional prof and editor of a research publication, your job doesn't even come close to what it means to work with those kinds of dynamics. It means you read a lot, think a lot, and have to speak with persuasive authority. It doesn't mean you get shit done.

I think being a President is all about persuasion. You persuade the country to elect you, you persuade Congress to get behind your policy packages, you persuade other countries to take our interests seriously, and ultimately, you persuade the American people to follow you, whether its to victory in war time or greater aspirations in peace time. There is a reason that charismatic people like Reagan and Clinton have ended up being president and its not strictly a measure of their executive experience.

However, I don't think your skills of persuasion are the most important matter. I think your ability to make the right decisions is the most important matter. That is a factor of your understanding of the problems and your attitudes about addressing them. There simply is nothing about Palin's record that suggests that she has a deep understanding of our problems.

flynn23 wrote:
Comparing her to Obama strictly on the level of experience and she wins.

Decius:

To be perfectly clear, I am talking about comparisons of their overall qualifications for the Presidency. My point is that focusing on "number of years in an executive role" as you do is an oversimplification. I didn't really want lay out what is clearly documented elsewhere as it provides ample opportunity for partisans to continue to stick their fingers in their ears, but here goes:

Palin's background is:
1987 - BS Journalism - University of Idaho
1988 to 1992 - Television Sports Reporter
1992 to 1996 - City Council, Wasilla, Alaska
1996 - 2002 - Mayor, Wasilla
2003 - 2004 - Appointed to Alaska Oil Ethics Board
2006 - Present Governor of Alaska, the 48th smallest state in terms of population, whose largest metropolitan area is less than a quarter of the population of Nashville, Tennessee.

Obama's background is:
1983 - BA Political Science - Columbia University
1985 - 1988 - Director of a community non-profit
1988 - 1991 - JD Harvard, President of the Harvard Law Review
1992 - 2004 - Part time Professor, Constitutional Law, University of Chicago
1992 - 2002 - Lawyer - Davis, Miner, Barnhill & Galland
1992 - Served on the board of a large number of public interest organizations
1997 - 2004 - State legislature, Illinois (America's 5th most populous state, containing its 3rd most populous city.)
2005 - Present - United States Senator

If you were hiring a business manager, perhaps you might prefer Palin. Obama is a lawyer and like most lawyers has not had large organizations reporting to him. Palin clearly does have more time in an executive role. But thats not what we're doing here. Furthermore, just about any executive at a medium to large sized company anywhere in America would beat out Palin for executive experience. They are not all qualified to be President of the United States. The question is, what qualifies a person to be President.

Chiefly, the President of the United States is responsible for making policy decisions, which is not merely a matter of operational experience in an executive role, but a matter of understanding the long term implications of those decisions and the complicated legal and political context in which they will play out. This requires a deep understanding of our country and of world affairs.

There is absolutely nothing about Palin's background that qualifies her to grapple with the depth of these matters. If she is capable of doing so, nothing about her background indicates it or would prepare her for it. You cannot simply skip from being Mayor of a tiny town in Alaska to being President. The idea that you could hold up this person next to someone who, among other things, has taught constitutional law at one of the top law schools in the country for 12 years, and say their qualification for the Presidency is comparable...

Frankly I can't find words to express this more clearly than to say that I think thats fucking idiotic. In fact its exactly the kind of fucking idiotic thinking that partisans have been foisting on this country repeatedly over the past few years in their cynical power struggles. It is frustrating to me that so many people that I know who are otherwise reasonable and intelligent are willing to buy into something which is so transparently stupid, particularly given the gravity of whats at stake here.

Sure, I'd be more comfortable if Obama had spent time in an executive roll, thats a perfectly valid criticism of his record. But you cannot reasonably hold up Palin and say that her qualifications are comparable to Obama. That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

All very articulately laid out.

However.

Palin isn't running for President. Just thought I'd clear that up.

dc0de wrote:
All very articulately laid out.

However.

Palin isn't running for President. Just thought I'd clear that up.

Actually... yes she is. McCain might well die in office. He is at the average male lifespan right now and had like 4 bouts of cancer? Whats more, the comparison is relevant because Republicans are saying that because Obama is qualified, Palin must be. Which is to quote Tom, 'fucking stupid' and without substance.

dc0de wrote:
Palin isn't running for President. Just thought I'd clear that up.

I cannot vote for McCain if his running mate is completely unqualified because there is a chance, however remote, that he'd die. His running mate must be minimally qualified to be president.

Decius wrote:
I cannot vote for McCain if his running mate is completely unqualified because there is a chance, however remote, that he'd die. His running mate must be minimally qualified to be president.

Actually, I like seeing new players on the political scene, and I would argue that the usual list of "qualified" Washington insiders, many of whom have been in one public office or another for decades, collectively are the root causes of most of our problems. While I didn't consider Harry Browne or Michael Badnarik to be as experienced as the Republicans and Democrats against whom they ran, I still voted for them in previous elections because their politics were more closely in line with mine, and because they were outsiders.

Stefanie wrote:

Decius wrote:
I cannot vote for McCain if his running mate is completely unqualified because there is a chance, however remote, that he'd die. His running mate must be minimally qualified to be president.

Actually, I like seeing new players on the political scene, and I would argue that the usual list of "qualified" Washington insiders, many of whom have been in one public office or another for decades, collectively are the root causes of most of our problems. While I didn't consider Harry Browne or Michael Badnarik to be as experienced as the Republicans and Democrats against whom they ran, I still voted for them in previous elections because their politics were more closely in line with mine, and because they were outsiders.

I also voted for Harry Browne, but frankly I did so to communicate a message moreso than because I thought there was a realistic chance that he would end up running the country. Palin is closer to the presidency than Browne ever was.

Decius wrote:
I also voted for Harry Browne, but frankly I did so to communicate a message moreso than because I thought there was a realistic chance that he would end up running the country. Palin is closer to the presidency than Browne ever was.

True, there's no comparison. Most consider their votes for independents and minor party candidates to be nothing more than protest or statement votes, but I really want to see a Libertarian win, someday. Hey, I can dream.

So, you won't consider voting for McCain because his VP is not experienced enough (per your criteria), but you're O.K. with Biden. Are you implying that you would've considered voting for McCain, had you deemed his VP qualified? Among the other VPs running in 2008 (Wayne Root, Rosa Clemente, Matt Gonzalez, Darrell Castle, etc.), do you consider any of them minimally qualified?

Stefanie wrote:
So, you won't consider voting for McCain because his VP is not experienced enough (per your criteria), but you're O.K. with Biden. Are you implying that you would've considered voting for McCain, had you deemed his VP qualified?

Yes. I hadn't made up my mind yet. I hadn't really even done enough research but I don't think either candidate is fundamentally objectionable to me based on what I know. In fact, my biggest present personal political concern is the Bush Administration's disdain for certain fundamental aspects of the Constitutional framework, particularly the Great Writ. Both candidates share my disagreement with the Bush administration's views in that regard, and so in many respects my "side" has already won. I have some political views that would tend me toward Obama but I would have considered the matter carefully before coming to a conclusion about that. Palin sealed the deal rather quickly. Her lack of experience combined with her evangelical views make her not just unqualified but, frankly, dangerous. I'm certainly willing to get out to the polls if it means doing my part to keep her away from nuclear weapons, and in spite of any misgivings I might have about Obama. There is just no comparison, and I don't think I'm alone in that regard.

Among the other VPs running in 2008 (Wayne Root, Rosa Clemente, Matt Gonzalez, Darrell Castle, etc.), do you consider any of them minimally qualified?

I don't know enough about any of them but at first glance none seem terribly qualified, and as I said I don't think its as important when you're talking about a protest vote. Castle has had a long law career but he is not a Constitutional scholar.

flynn23 wrote:
I can't get there with you. She is governor of a state, arguably the closest thing to being a Chief Executive of a large governmental organization. Previous to that she was a mayor. In both cases, she's had to lead bi-partisan operations over a very large set of govermental services. Compare this to Obama's Senate tenure, of which he's spent most of that time campaigning, and I'd lean way more towards her experience being more relevant and depthful.

I totally GET why she was picked, and that says a lot more about McCain's decision making than anything about her experience for the job, but comparing her to Obama strictly on the level of experience and she wins.

Sorry, but none of this is even remotely accurate. First, we're talking about Alaska. We're not talking about the average state which is split 50/50 or 55/45 or whatever, it's ALASKA where if your voter card doesn't say Republican, your driver's license doesn't say Alaska. So put that "bi-partisan song" and dance right next to the bag you carried home after walking the dog.

Comparing the two of them on an experience level is also a joke. Mayor of a town of 7-10,000 versus Illinois State Senate? No, that's a zero. Assistant Professor at U Chicago versus head of the PTA? Forget it. Four years in the US Senate versus 2 years as Alaska Governor? You're starting to get somewhere with that one, but comparing her support of Ted "The Tubes" Stevens to his work on trying to secure loose nuclear material (that one with Sam Brownback, now THAT'S bi-partisan) and I'm still going to say no, but you're getting closer on that one.

Now if you want to talk about the fact that McCain didn't spend as much time picking a running mate as Target spends picking an assistant manager, that might be accurate. But qualified? Forget it.

Decius wrote:

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!

McCain's decision to select a woman for VP is a transparent attempt to court some of Hillary's supporters, many of whom are not liberal, and being sore about their candidate's loss, are attracted to McCain as a perceived moderate. However, the VP may become the President, and Palin, having absolutely no foreign policy experience, is totally unqualified to be the President of the United States. This will be quickly apparent to everybody and it will blow up in McCain's face. It will destroy his candidacy, and unfortunately it will be a serious pock mark on Palin's here-to-fore admirable political career.

Obama and Biden are your new President and VP.

This election is over.

DAMNIT! I wanted to be the first person to shout "GIMMICK VP!"

I agree the election is over but I disagree with your result. I think she is great pick.

I won't rehash any of the experience arguments here but if public consensus says that Obama is qualified then by all rights she is as well.

Tsudohnimh wrote:
I agree the election is over but I disagree with your result. I think she is great pick.

I won't rehash any of the experience arguments here but if public consensus says that Obama is qualified then by all rights she is as well.

Sorry. No. Not even close. Saying Obama was ready 4 years ago would have been wrong, but in his keynote at the '04 convention, he demonstrated he was already thinking at a high level, and his oratory skills on the level of King or Kennedy. Since then, he has made himself versed on topics from working to secure loose nukes in Russia, to dealing with divestiture from Iran, to the current round of campaign finance reform. He also has ab additional 8 years in the Illinois legislature dealing with more personal level issues.

For Governor Palin even the members of her own party are saying she's no where near ready. The state senator from her home district, also a Republican, has said she's not qualified to be Governor, much less Vice President or President.

This move eliminates any possibility of further defection by angry Hillary voters, Palin is literally the anti-Hillary, taking the opposite position on every topic of note. Anyone who was concerned with either McCain's age or health is also now leaving, unless Palin manages to pull a Joan of Arc, she'll be seen as the second coming of Dan Quayle, but worse.

Her positions on things like abortion (no exceptions, not for rape/incest), teaching creationism in schools (thumbs up!), and whether we should do something about our old friend global warming (we didn't do it, so what would we do?) will burn bridges with independents and people with brains. And all of this could be moot with potential fallout from trooper-gate, she could be this years Eagleton.

She does energize "the base," which McCain did not, bt they were going to vote against Obama anyway. She may cause more money to flow in from that side, but the money side of the Republican party is going to look at her and either decide she can be bought, or they're going to decide she's nothing they want to go anywhere near and close their checkbooks.

On top of THAT, the way the McCain campaign handled the announcement, using Romney and Pawlenty as bait, but NOT TELLING THEM it was misdirection has pissed them off. Whoops.

At every level, the choice itself (torpedoing the "not ready" meme), how it was announced (Van Halen telling McCain, don't use our song asshole), the fallout with other members of the party (Romney and Pawlenty), the damage to the campaign memes, this selection is a complete clusterfuck.

I expected when the final tally came down to be an Obama win, but somewhat close. Now I'm thinking Obama gets in the area of 350+ votes in the electoral college.

Decius wrote:

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!

McCain's decision to select a woman for VP is a transparent attempt to court some of Hillary's supporters, many of whom are not liberal, and being sore about their candidate's loss, are attracted to McCain as a perceived moderate. However, the VP may become the President, and Palin, having absolutely no foreign policy experience, is totally unqualified to be the President of the United States. This will be quickly apparent to everybody and it will blow up in McCain's face. It will destroy his candidacy, and unfortunately it will be a serious pock mark on Palin's here-to-fore admirable political career.

Obama and Biden are your new President and VP.

This election is over.

I don't think most people really care about McCain's VP being qualified. McCain has the qualified thing locked down. All that matters is her gender, which makes McCain's campaign appear socially progressive instead of dinosaur reactionary and all it takes is something scary to happen between now and election time and McCain will carry the day. Bush is more than capable of arranging that.

As to McCain dying, I don't think people that support him are very realistic about his mortality.

Jello wrote:
I don't think most people really care about McCain's VP being qualified. McCain has the qualified thing locked down.

As to McCain dying, I don't think people that support him are very realistic about his mortality.

Look, I don't think McCain is going to die. I do think that its possible. Hell, he could be assasinated by Al'Queda or some lunatic who listens to Rush Limbaugh and is pissed off that the Republican party has abandoned the conservative movement. Its a possibility. Therefore, its possible that this VP recommendation will become President. In order to vote for him, you've gotta be OK with that.

I do think that Dan Quale hurt George Bush Sr. and I do think that Stockton hurt Perot. I'll bet dollars for donuts that Palin carries herself better than either of them did, but its not going to matter. They are going to tear her to shreds.

Decius wrote:
They are going to tear her to shreds.

Well, they'll try. With Obama being so weak on experience, it'll be tough for them to successfully attack Palin on that issue. Right now, the Democrats even seem scared of her.

Dick Morris made a good observation the other night: (paraphrasing) "There's a big difference between running for student and running for teacher." If elected, an inexperienced person at the bottom of the ticket can learn from the President while serving as V.P., but having an inexperienced person at the top of the ticket means that the President will have to learn the job on the fly.

Stefanie wrote:

Decius wrote:
They are going to tear her to shreds.

Well, they'll try. With Obama being so weak on experience, it'll be tough for them to successfully attack Palin on that issue. Right now, the Democrats even seem scared of her.

I was actually impressed with her courage at the announcement to talk so candidly about how Hillary had essentially opened the door for her. She knows EXACTLY why she's got the nod and she will astutely use that to the party's advantage.

Dick Morris made a good observation the other night: (paraphrasing) "There's a big difference between running for student and running for teacher." If elected, an inexperienced person at the bottom of the ticket can learn from the President while serving as V.P., but having an inexperienced person at the top of the ticket means that the President will have to learn the job on the fly.

Every President says that there's no qualification to being President other than being President. The job is unique unto itself. In the end, it's all about the team that you assemble around you (just like any leadership position). Like him or hate him, Dubya's "mistake" was surrounding himself with the wrong team (Rove, Cheney, Libby, oh the list goes on and on) and allowing them to run away from shared decision making into petty politics. Look at the Iraq war. It was essentially started because of a rift between the CIA and the Defense Department.

If Obama had experience showing that he can assemble a roster that is both depthful in understanding of the issues and capable of executing on very difficult plans, then I'd be all for it. But he hasn't and my suspicion is that he won't be able to if he's elected. The system doesn't want to be corrected. It's servicing the wealthiest just fine thank you very much.

Stefanie wrote:

Decius wrote:
They are going to tear her to shreds.

Well, they'll try. With Obama being so weak on experience, it'll be tough for them to successfully attack Palin on that issue. Right now, the Democrats even seem scared of her.

Dick Morris made a good observation the other night: (paraphrasing) "There's a big difference between running for student and running for teacher." If elected, an inexperienced person at the bottom of the ticket can learn from the President while serving as V.P., but having an inexperienced person at the top of the ticket means that the President will have to learn the job on the fly.

Obama can speak intelligently on any national topic. Palin has yet to do so whatsoever. If she can talk intelligently, she will be fine. Otherwise she'll be a laughing stock. So far there is no indication she can speak about national issues, because she hasn't yet.

Jello wrote:
Obama can speak intelligently on any national topic. Palin has yet to do so whatsoever. If she can talk intelligently, she will be fine. Otherwise she'll be a laughing stock. So far there is no indication she can speak about national issues, because she hasn't yet.

Fair enough; we'll wait and see. Mayors and Governors typically lack experience in dealing with both national and international affairs, and legislators typically lack experience in general administration and law enforcement. However, if Palin does speak in an intelligent manner on those topics, all that really proves is that she can speak well.

Stefanie wrote:

Jello wrote:
Obama can speak intelligently on any national topic. Palin has yet to do so whatsoever. If she can talk intelligently, she will be fine. Otherwise she'll be a laughing stock. So far there is no indication she can speak about national issues, because she hasn't yet.

Fair enough; we'll wait and see. Mayors and Governors typically lack experience in dealing with both national and international affairs, and legislators typically lack experience in general administration and law enforcement. However, if Palin does speak in an intelligent manner on those topics, all that really proves is that she can speak well.

I think she'll give a great speech tonight. Youtube confirms that she is very articulate and the Republicans cannot afford her to be anything less than stellar. One piece of intel that has floated out is that she's been spending a lot of time talking to AIPAC. An informed comment about Israel would sit in response to those who are concerned about her lack of foreign policy experience and enamor her further to the evangelical right. Of course, any hollywood actor or actress could deliver a stellar performance at a political convention with the right speech writers. Unfortunately, nothing she says from this point on will really be evidence of a capacity for independent thought about political issues, even if she came up with it on her own. You have to go back in time to before a major election was pinned on her success. And there, you find.... well, I haven't found much of anything. Let me know if you find something.

Decius wrote:

Stefanie wrote:

Jello wrote:
Obama can speak intelligently on any national topic. Palin has yet to do so whatsoever. If she can talk intelligently, she will be fine. Otherwise she'll be a laughing stock. So far there is no indication she can speak about national issues, because she hasn't yet.

Fair enough; we'll wait and see. Mayors and Governors typically lack experience in dealing with both national and international affairs, and legislators typically lack experience in general administration and law enforcement. However, if Palin does speak in an intelligent manner on those topics, all that really proves is that she can speak well.

I think she'll give a great speech tonight. Youtube confirms that she is very articulate and the Republicans cannot afford her to be anything less than stellar. One piece of intel that has floated out is that she's been spending a lot of time talking to AIPAC. An informed comment about Israel would sit in response to those who are concerned about her lack of foreign policy experience and enamor her further to the evangelical right. Of course, any hollywood actor or actress could deliver a stellar performance at a political convention with the right speech writers. Unfortunately, nothing she says from this point on will really be evidence of a capacity for independent thought about political issues, even if she came up with it on her own. You have to go back in time to before a major election was pinned on her success. And there, you find.... well, I haven't found much of anything. Let me know if you find something.

http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2008/08/29/palin_iraq/

It's hard to tell what, if anything, Palin thinks or thought about the surge of troops in Iraq, or the decision to invade Iraq in the first place, for that matter. A clip search doesn't show any substantive comments from Palin about Iraq during her short term as governor of Alaska, in 2007 or 2008, or at any point prior to that. That includes instances when she was specifically asked about the war.

In an interview with Alaska Business Monthly shortly after she took office in 2007, Palin was asked about the upcoming surge. She said she hadn't thought about it. "I've been so focused on state government, I haven't really focused much on the war in Iraq," she said. "I heard on the news about the new deployments, and while I support our president, Condoleezza Rice and the administration, I want to know that we have an exit plan in place; I want assurances that we are doing all we can to keep our troops safe."

Seven months into the surge, she still either had not formed any opinion on the surge or the war or just wasn't sharing. "I'm not here to judge the idea of withdrawing, or the timeline," she said in a teleconference interview with reporters during a July 2007 visit with Alaska National Guard troops stationed in Kuwait. "I'm not going to judge even the surge. I'm here to find out what Alaskans need of me as their governor."

She has the capacity of independent non-thought. If you bury your head in the snow, it's not happening, right?

Hijexx wrote:
She has the capacity of independent non-thought. If you bury your head in the snow, it's not happening, right?

If you'd asked me in a professional capacity I'd have said the same thing. I don't know enough to know. Thats the right answer. Now, ask me if I think I'm qualified to be President.

Stefanie wrote:

Jello wrote:
Obama can speak intelligently on any national topic. Palin has yet to do so whatsoever. If she can talk intelligently, she will be fine. Otherwise she'll be a laughing stock. So far there is no indication she can speak about national issues, because she hasn't yet.

Fair enough; we'll wait and see. Mayors and Governors typically lack experience in dealing with both national and international affairs, and legislators typically lack experience in general administration and law enforcement. However, if Palin does speak in an intelligent manner on those topics, all that really proves is that she can speak well.

Incorrect. Speech is how you communicate what you THINK. It shows more than speaking ability.

Jello wrote:
Incorrect. Speech is how you communicate what you THINK. It shows more than speaking ability.

It can, but that's not always the case.

Stefanie wrote:

Jello wrote:
Incorrect. Speech is how you communicate what you THINK. It shows more than speaking ability.

It can, but that's not always the case.

One speech doesn't indicate thinking skeelz. But dynamic interaction will.

Jello wrote:
One speech doesn't indicate thinking skeelz. But dynamic interaction will.

Yep, and we can expect to see plenty of that in the coming weeks.

Stefanie wrote:

Decius wrote:
They are going to tear her to shreds.

Well, they'll try. With Obama being so weak on experience, it'll be tough for them to successfully attack Palin on that issue. Right now, the Democrats even seem scared of her.

Dick Morris made a good observation the other night: (paraphrasing) "There's a big difference between running for student and running for teacher." If elected, an inexperienced person at the bottom of the ticket can learn from the President while serving as V.P., but having an inexperienced person at the top of the ticket means that the President will have to learn the job on the fly.

W had more executive experience than any of these candidates, and that worked out great!

Jello wrote:
W had more executive experience than any of these candidates, and that worked out great!

Very good point.

Decius wrote:

Jello wrote:
I don't think most people really care about McCain's VP being qualified. McCain has the qualified thing locked down.

As to McCain dying, I don't think people that support him are very realistic about his mortality.

Look, I don't think McCain is going to die. I do think that its possible.

I think that the actuarial tables say he's going to be able to cash in his own life insurance policy while he's in office.

Decius wrote:

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!

McCain's decision to select a woman for VP is a transparent attempt to court some of Hillary's supporters, many of whom are not liberal, and being sore about their candidate's loss, are attracted to McCain as a perceived moderate. However, the VP may become the President, and Palin, having absolutely no foreign policy experience, is totally unqualified to be the President of the United States. This will be quickly apparent to everybody and it will blow up in McCain's face. It will destroy his candidacy, and unfortunately it will be a serious pock mark on Palin's here-to-fore admirable political career.

Obama and Biden are your new President and VP.

This election is over.

File me in the "protest vote for Barr" camp, although I do think the LP platform is viable.

I don't see this choice helping McCain at all. I am no fan of "windfall profits" taxes. This was one of my major sticking points with Obama, playing Robin Hood and giving US firms disincentive to invest here with his Emergency Economic Plan. Looks like Palin is doing the same thing already in Alaska:

Borrowing from this article on the LP blog:

In less than two years as governor, she managed a 6 percent increase in part of the state's budget, as well as being responsible for a windfall profit tax on oil companies—much like that proposed by Democrats and opposed by people like John McCain. And, according to CNN, "Alaska now has some of the highest resource taxes in the world."

This, of course, has disastrous consequences to development in the area. "BP Alaska, which runs Prudhoe Bay, said earlier this year that it had delayed the development in the western region of the North Slope as a result of the tax," the Seattle Times reported earlier this month. "ConocoPhillips cited the same reason for scrapping a $300 million refinery project."

Palin also was responsible for using $500 million in taxpayer money to help build a pipeline in Alaska, without the support of Alaskan oil companies. Without their support, CNN says many in the Alaskan government feel the pipeline will never be constructed, though the state will still be on the hook for half-a-billion dollars.

Is this Palin's "Pipeline to Nowhere"?

More detail about her oil tax in her own words:

There is no dissension -- 25 percent is the right number.

THERE WILL BE NO DISSENSION. :)

Progressiveness is the additional share we capture when oil prices and profits are high. I chose to set the progressiveness knob [i.e., the windfall profits tax] at a relatively low level in exchange for more security when prices are low. We accomplished this through a gross tax floor at our legacy fields. If the Legislature chooses to discard that floor, then the knob on progressiveness needs to be set higher — to make sure we capture a more equitable share when prices are high and profits extraordinary.

Here we go with the windfall profit crap again. How exactly does that work when you ENCOURAGE production when prices are low and DISCOURAGE production when prices are high?

McCain/Palin? No thanks.

And for anyone who thinks VP picks don't really matter, there have been 9 VP's that took over the reigns. It's not unreasonable to consider, "Could the VP do the job?" The answer with Palin should be pretty obvious.

Wow, long thread.

All my female friends that were Hillary supporters have been interested in her to the point of trying to find a single picture where she looked pregnant with the last baby. Seems her daughter had mono, and a baby bump at the time she should have been showing, but wasn't.

That's what they've been DOING, all day, in fact. Not a single one of them seriously considered switching to a republican vote because of her.

Decius wrote:

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!

McCain's decision to select a woman for VP is a transparent attempt to court some of Hillary's supporters, many of whom are not liberal, and being sore about their candidate's loss, are attracted to McCain as a perceived moderate. However, the VP may become the President, and Palin, having absolutely no foreign policy experience, is totally unqualified to be the President of the United States. This will be quickly apparent to everybody and it will blow up in McCain's face. It will destroy his candidacy, and unfortunately it will be a serious pock mark on Palin's here-to-fore admirable political career.

Obama and Biden are your new President and VP.

This election is over.