I just want someone to address this issue without using Obama's own lack of experience as an answer, cause that's not an answer. It's sidestepping the question. Since I know you're a McCain supporter, I figured I'd address it to you.
I'm not necessarily a McCain supporter...I caucased for Obama in Iowa during the primaries...I'm undecided.
I'm not the one to aswer you question though as I never bought in to that message.
I will try to answer your question a way that may make some sense...
The Dem presidential ticket is Obama #1....Biden #2.
The Repub. presidential ticket is McCain #1....Palin #2.
So, it's not terrible judgment necessarily to attack your opponent for his lack of experience and then select a running mate with little experience. Big difference between Pres. & VP. I do understand people questioning this though.
Obama's #2 pick can certainly be questioned. #1, I'm not sure everyone agrees Biden could be president, that is certainly debatable. #2, it certainly goes at fixing some of Obama's perceived weaknesses...that the Rep party call out, but it I think it undermines his strenght of "Change" since Biden's been in Washington since 1972. What does it say about Obama, that when push came to shove he caved to Rep. concerns and potential poll concerns to select a Washington Insider instead of a change agent?
Personally, I am very disappointed in Obama's choice and excited abotu McCain's choice. I was very close to voting for Obama simply because I wanted a new face that might actually change washington, despite the fact that I disagree with him on MANY issues...now I'm taking a very hard look at the McCain/Palin ticket to see what they have to offer.
Neither is perfect for sure, just like when you're apply for a job...you look to be able to meet 75% of the requirements they mention in the add...same thing here for me.
The Dem presidential ticket is Obama #1....Biden #2.
The Repub. presidential ticket is McCain #1....Palin #2.
So, it's not terrible judgment necessarily to attack your opponent for his lack of experience and then select a running mate with little experience. Big difference between Pres. & VP. I do understand people questioning this though.
Obama's #2 pick can certainly be questioned. #1, I'm not sure everyone agrees Biden could be president, that is certainly debatable. #2, it certainly goes at fixing some of Obama's perceived weaknesses...that the Rep party call out, but it I think it undermines his strenght of "Change" since Biden's been in Washington since 1972. What does it say about Obama, that when push came to shove he caved to Rep. concerns and potential poll concerns to select a Washington Insider instead of a change agent?
Personally, I am very disappointed in Obama's choice and excited abotu McCain's choice. I was very close to voting for Obama simply because I wanted a new face that might actually change washington, despite the fact that I disagree with him on MANY issues...now I'm taking a very hard look at the McCain/Palin ticket to see what they have to offer.
Neither is perfect for sure, just like when you're apply for a job...you look to be able to meet 75% of the requirements they mention in the add...same thing here for me.
I understand the number one and number two argument, but isn't the one qualification that is absolutely necessary to a VP candidate that he or she be ready to assume the presidency at a moment's notice? Does this mean that I say Palin has to be ready on day one because McCain will drop dead at inauguration? No, of course not, but remember William Henry Harrison; he was president for only thirty days before his death. Reagan was nearly assassinated two months after taking office. Shit happens in this job. It's a fair criticism for McCain, just as it's a fair criticism to be lobbied at Obama.
Also, another fact to point out is that Obama was voted the Democratic nominee by the voters. Whether conservatives and moderates agree with them or not, the Democratic Party endorsed Obama as being ready to assume the role of the Presidency. No one voted for Palin; this was McCain's choice and judgment and his alone. That's another reason that the "Palin is only number 2 argument" is flawed. I'm not talking about Palin, I'm talking about McCain. What does it say about his judgment and how seriously he takes these decisions when his VP choice (i.e. an endorsement of this person to be President) violates his own stated qualifications for the Presidency? Complete contradiction.
I moreover don't understand your argument about Biden. #1 He has as much Washington experience as McCain, and I don't see anyone saying McCain is unfit to be President. Hell, I'm not voting for McCain and I don't think he is not capable, I think he's just wrong on most of the issues. I don't see how anyone could say McCain is prepared and not Biden. #2 It addresses Obama's weaknesses with moderates who like Obama's message, but are still wary of promoting him to the top office because of a perceived lack of experience. The parties are pretty polarized, and I don't believe Obama is expecting to get many far right votes. Moreover, I can understand the feeling that Biden undermines Obama's message. I don't think it does so drastically, but I can understand that argument. Why I cannot understand is someone who says that Obama's campaign is weakened but that McCain's campaign is strengthened, when each candidate chose someone who conflicted with their central message. And what does it say to you then, that McCain saw that the experience charge against Obama was not going to win him the election and sold out to the social conservative wing of his party (to which McCain has always been estranged), even though it's become pretty clear that Lieberman was his number one choice? That would have been a maverick move; Palin is just playing to the base. And the base, strong as it may have been in 2004, is not going to win McCain this election.
I moreover don't understand your argument about Biden. #1 He has as much Washington experience as McCain, and I don't see anyone saying McCain is unfit to be President. Hell, I'm not voting for McCain and I don't think he is not capable, I think he's just wrong on most of the issues. I don't see how anyone could say McCain is prepared and not Biden. #2 It addresses Obama's weaknesses with moderates who like Obama's message, but are still wary of promoting him to the top office because of a perceived lack of experience. The parties are pretty polarized, and I don't believe Obama is expecting to get many far right votes. Moreover, I can understand the feeling that Biden undermines Obama's message. I don't think it does so drastically, but I can understand that argument. Why I cannot understand is someone who says that Obama's campaign is weakened but that McCain's campaign is strengthened, when each candidate chose someone who conflicted with their central message. And what does it say to you then, that McCain saw that the experience charge against Obama was not going to win him the election and sold out to the social conservative wing of his party (to which McCain has always been estranged), even though it's become pretty clear that Lieberman was his number one choice? That would have been a maverick move; Palin is just playing to the base. And the base, strong as it may have been in 2004, is not going to win McCain this election.
I just said that Biden being president is debatable.
Obama's campaign was weakened WITH ME...McCain's campaign was strenghtened with ME...why?
1) I tend to agree with Republicans on more issues then Democrats...deciding on each issues weight will ultimately decide who I vote for.
2) I was intrigued by Obama's lack of experience to some degree...I'm sick of the same people...now he made that argument a little weaker with Biden, while McCain helped his case with Palin.
I've heard it said many times by the same talking heads on TV, but never from McCain, etc...where are they getting that Lieberman was his 1st choice? I'm not saying it's not true, just wondering....and doubting a little.
So, I'm not sure the implications on the national level, but the VP choices have certainly moved me from close to voting for Obama to a statistical deadheat.
I just said that Biden being president is debatable.
Obama's campaign was weakened WITH ME...McCain's campaign was strenghtened with ME...why?
1) I tend to agree with Republicans on more issues then Democrats...deciding on each issues weight will ultimately decide who I vote for.
2) I was intrigued by Obama's lack of experience to some degree...I'm sick of the same people...now he made that argument a little weaker with Biden, while McCain helped his case with Palin.
I've heard it said many times by the same talking heads on TV, but never from McCain, etc...where are they getting that Lieberman was his 1st choice? I'm not saying it's not true, just wondering....and doubting a little.
So, I'm not sure the implications on the national level, but the VP choices have certainly moved me from close to voting for Obama to a statistical deadheat.
Well, I can't say anything about personal politics. Everyone's own judgment is their own. But I think I have a pretty fair argument that I haven't really heard answered by someone who does think that Palin was a good choice and that Obama is unfit to lead. I'm looking to find a McCain supporter who can address that issue; haven't seen one yet.
Shouldn't speeches with actually content be better than fluff pieces?
I agree. And when Obama, Bush, Thompson or anyone has some actual content; please do let me know.
That speech was nothing more than some asshole playing a role and delivering a well-rehearsed speech with the exact inflection and drama that the script called for. He should have been wearing a cheerleaders outfit and waving pom-poms.
What a crock of shit coming out of his mouth.
After the last eight years of Bush/Cheney and their Right Wing corporate interests; that speech was about as offensive as it gets.
I'm looking to find a McCain supporter who can address that issue; haven't seen one yet.
I've answered this question for you before, just not to your satisfaction, I guess.
You seem to want to draw no distinction between the No. 1 and No. 2 on the ticket, but there is one. If we're going to have someone "inexperienced," I'd much rather it be the No. 2 on the ticket than the guy, you know, I'm actually voting for.
Also, who says Palin is unqualified? She has actual, tangible accomplishments she can point to in her time as governor of our largest state. There is actual, tangible evidence of her ability to lead. This is the part where I would say, "as opposed to the guy on the top of the Democratic ticket," but I don't have to.
When Obama cites "running my campaign" as the best example of his ability to lead ... it scares the shit out of me that he might actually become president.
everybody wants the most they can possibly get
for the least they could possibly do
I agree. And when Obama, Bush, Thompson or anyone has some actual content; please do let me know.
That speech was nothing more than some asshole playing a role and delivering a well-rehearsed speech with the exact inflection and drama that the script called for. He should have been wearing a cheerleaders outfit and waving pom-poms.
What a crock of shit coming out of his mouth.
After the last eight years of Bush/Cheney and their Right Wing corporate interests; that speech was about as offensive as it gets.
Why was it offensive?
His best line was about taxes ... and he's absolutely right. Obama doesn't want to tax you ... just your employer and everything you buy.
everybody wants the most they can possibly get
for the least they could possibly do
His best line was about taxes ... and he's absolutely right. Obama doesn't want to tax you ... just your employer and everything you buy.
that may be true but did he mention that McCain doesn't want to tax you either. He just wants to spend more and cause that money you get to keep depreciate in value.
"When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
that may be true but did he mention that McCain doesn't want to tax you either. He just wants to spend more and cause that money you get to keep depreciate in value.
Um, have you checked out Obama's "universal everything" policy? I swear to God, we're one step away from Obama offering all of us free cable, or a free Subway sandwich every other Tuesday.
If I had to pick the candidate I think "wants to spend more," McCain would come in second.
everybody wants the most they can possibly get
for the least they could possibly do
I've answered this question for you before, just not to your satisfaction, I guess.
You seem to want to draw no distinction between the No. 1 and No. 2 on the ticket, but there is one. If we're going to have someone "inexperienced," I'd much rather it be the No. 2 on the ticket than the guy, you know, I'm actually voting for.
You're the kind of guy I was looking for, thank you.
But once again you do what I'm asking you not to. Don't address Obama's lack of experience. Address Palin's. Trying to spin the argument back to the opposing side makes it sound like you don't have an argument of your own.
Obama's
Eight years in State Senate
Four years in U.S. Senate
vs. Palin's
Four years on City Council
Four years as Mayor
Twenty months as Governor
I'll even give you that they are comparable resumes in terms of experience (even though it's about twelve years to six, but I digress). Let's say Palin's as experienced as Obama.
McCain said, and I quote, that his VP selection would have "extensive credentials" to be vice president, and could step into the role of Presidency at a moment's notice. And before you come back at me with Obama, remember that he was voted as the Democratic nominee. The voters used their judgment, but McCain used his to choose Palin. Are we expected to believe that Palin meets his own version of "extensive credentials?" With NO foreign policy experience?
What does it say about McCain that he says Obama is unfit to lead then endorses someone as a person capable of being President with equal or less experience than Obama? How seriously must McCain take his message of the necessity of experience when he violates his own standards when making his VP choice? Don't come back at me with Obama! Obama's lack of experience is well-documented. Defend your own candidate; what, in McCain's mind, makes Palin fit to be president when she violates the standards that he set for picking a VP choice early in this campaign?
I'll say it one more time, don't come back at me with Obama. This is McCain's judgment we're talking about here, not the judgment of the voters in Democratic primaries.
(P.S. Largest state? In size, sure, but is that how you want to judge experience? Sounds like a talking point to me).
You're the kind of guy I was looking for, thank you.
But once again you do what I'm asking you not to. Don't address Obama's lack of experience. Address Palin's. Trying to spin the argument back to the opposing side makes it sound like you don't have an argument of your own.
Obama's
Eight years in State Senate
Four years in U.S. Senate
vs. Palin's
Twenty months on City Council
Four years as Mayor
Twenty months as Governor
Just to be fair, it's 4 years in the city council 92-96.
Um, have you checked out Obama's "universal everything" policy? I swear to God, we're one step away from Obama offering all of us free cable, or a free Subway sandwich every other Tuesday.
If I had to pick the candidate I think "wants to spend more," McCain would come in second.
Yes I have checked out Obama's policy and that is why I'm not voting for him, well one of the reasons. I'm also not voting for McCain because unlike Obama he wants to spend more but collect less, which in my opinion is even worse than collect more spend more.
"When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
You're the kind of guy I was looking for, thank you.
But once again you do what I'm asking you not to. Don't address Obama's lack of experience. Address Palin's. Trying to spin the argument back to the opposing side makes it sound like you don't have an argument of your own.
I'd be disingenuous if I tried to paint Palin as the most experienced vice presidential candidate in all history.
I guess part of my point is that, to me and most people, "experience" is not as important in the No. 2 on the ticket than the No. 1.
The other part of my argument might be this: When it comes to Palin, it's not the breadth of experience that makes her attractive, but the specific KIND of experience.
One example: As governor of Alaska, perhaps our nation's most important oil state, she's well versed in energy issues. That's probably the No. 1 issue of our time, to be honest.
And she's proven the ability to lead ... even if it meant taking on Big Oil ... even if it meant taking on her own party. One of her first orders of business upon taking office was -- against the wishes of the oil companies and the Republican leadership -- to renegotiate a more favorable oil deal with the state. With the resulting proceeds, she sent every Alaskan citizen a check for $200.
To me, that's pretty inventive. And that's a good example of leadership.
Now, the reason people keep wanting to compare her experience to Obama's is because Obama (foolishly) keeps bringing it up.
everybody wants the most they can possibly get
for the least they could possibly do
Just to be fair, it's 4 years in the city council 92-96.
I checked, and you're right. 92-96. Thanks for the tip.
I'm not saying she has no experience, but you could say she has AS much experience as Obama and my central argument still stands. My argument isn't meant to be about Obama or Palin; it's about McCain.
The whole thing about this Republican Conventions and all this talk about straightening out the government...
...
Do any of them realize that it is a Republican that is currently sitting in the White House?
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
I'd be disingenuous if I tried to paint Palin as the most experienced vice presidential candidate in all history.
I guess part of my point is that, to me and most people, "experience" is not as important in the No. 2 on the ticket than the No. 1.
The other part of my argument might be this: When it comes to Palin, it's not the breadth of experience that makes her attractive, but the specific KIND of experience.
One example: As governor of Alaska, perhaps our nation's most important oil state, she's well versed in energy issues. That's probably the No. 1 issue of our time, to be honest.
And she's proven the ability to lead ... even if it meant taking on Big Oil ... even if it meant taking on her own party. One of her first orders of business upon taking office was -- against the wishes of the oil companies and the Republican leadership -- to renegotiate a more favorable oil deal with the state. With the resulting proceeds, she sent every Alaskan citizen a check for $200.
To me, that's pretty inventive. And that's a good example of leadership.
Now, the reason people keep wanting to compare her experience to Obama's is because Obama (foolishly) keeps bringing it up.
Yes and in order to do these things she sucks big oils cock. She pushes in every way possible to push for drilling in any place possible, no matter the consequences!
These talking points that she's talking on big oil are complete bullshit..........The only place she's taking them on is her face.
The whole thing about this Republican Conventions and all this talk about straightening out the government...
...
Do any of them realize that it is a Republican that is currently sitting in the White House?
you're messing up the spin with actual facts ... the straight talk express will not be happy with you.
"You're one of the few Red Sox fans I don't mind." - Newch91
"I don't believe in damn curses. Wake up the damn Bambino and have me face him. Maybe I'll drill him in the ass." --- Pedro Martinez
I think a lot of people are missing a very important fact here. Most presidents surround themselves with advisors with years of experience in every facet of government. So Obama's experience or Palin's experience doesn't mean shit. For example Obama has surrounded himself with some of the leading minds in economics from the Chicago School. So while Obama, himself, may have very little economics expertise. He surrounds himself with people who have vast amounts of knowledge and insight into the matter. I'm sure the same applies for McCain. So all this back and forth bullshit about experience is fucking non-sense. It's a distraction. We the people should send a message to these two that we are going to fucking boycott the elections unless they start addressing the issues.
"When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
I think a lot of people are missing a very important fact here. Most presidents surround themselves with advisors with years of experience in every facet of government. So Obama's experience or Palin's experience doesn't mean shit. For example Obama has surrounded himself with some of the leading minds in economics from the Chicago School. So while Obama, himself, may have very little economics expertise. He surrounds himself with people who have vast amounts of knowledge and insight into the matter. I'm sure the same applies for McCain. So all this back and forth bullshit about experience is fucking non-sense. It's a distraction. We the people should send a message to these two that we are going to fucking boycott the elections unless they start addressing the issues.
I agree with that to a certain extent.
No one needs to have EVERY detail of EVERY facet of our govenment, the world, the economy, etc comepltely embedded in their brain and at their fingertips immediately at all times ... this isn't a Final Exam.
But, you DO have to have a solid understanding of what those advisors are saying to you and the impact of your decisions.
"You're one of the few Red Sox fans I don't mind." - Newch91
"I don't believe in damn curses. Wake up the damn Bambino and have me face him. Maybe I'll drill him in the ass." --- Pedro Martinez
I'd like for you to explain how Big Oil wanted to renegotiate a contract with the state of Alaska that was less favorable to them.
Reverse psychology maybe?
Seriously, please explain ...
Slightly less favorable, bur when she promises to them that she will push for as much drilling as possible, their eyes light up.
This whole election campaign from the republicans has been pushed by big oil. Every second word out of McSame's mouth is offshore drilling. Sarah Palin is just another pawn in big oils's republican party. And you are blind if you don't see this.
No one needs to have EVERY detail of EVERY facet of our govenment, the world, the economy, etc comepltely embedded in their brain and at their fingertips immediately at all times ... this isn't a Final Exam.
But, you DO have to have a solid understanding of what those advisors are saying to you and the impact of your decisions.
Which I'm sure both Presidential candidates and the VP's have. These are fairly educated people.
Also I would like to pose a question to those who have an issue with Obama's experience. Did you vote for Bush and why was it not an issue 8 years ago?
I ask because I hear a lot of Republicans bringing up the experience card but that was not an issue back in 2000.
"When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
Which I'm sure both Presidential candidates and the VP's have. These are fairly educated people.
Also I would like to pose a question to those who have an issue with Obama's experience. Did you vote for Bush and why was it not an issue 8 years ago?
I ask because I hear a lot of Republicans bringing up the experience card but that was not an issue back in 2000.
Actually, I've heard a litany of folks that have been elected presidents have less political experience than any of these 4 ... I don't think Eisenhower had ANY politcal experience when he was elected.
"You're one of the few Red Sox fans I don't mind." - Newch91
"I don't believe in damn curses. Wake up the damn Bambino and have me face him. Maybe I'll drill him in the ass." --- Pedro Martinez
I'd be disingenuous if I tried to paint Palin as the most experienced vice presidential candidate in all history.
I guess part of my point is that, to me and most people, "experience" is not as important in the No. 2 on the ticket than the No. 1.
The other part of my argument might be this: When it comes to Palin, it's not the breadth of experience that makes her attractive, but the specific KIND of experience.
One example: As governor of Alaska, perhaps our nation's most important oil state, she's well versed in energy issues. That's probably the No. 1 issue of our time, to be honest.
And she's proven the ability to lead ... even if it meant taking on Big Oil ... even if it meant taking on her own party. One of her first orders of business upon taking office was -- against the wishes of the oil companies and the Republican leadership -- to renegotiate a more favorable oil deal with the state. With the resulting proceeds, she sent every Alaskan citizen a check for $200.
To me, that's pretty inventive. And that's a good example of leadership.
Now, the reason people keep wanting to compare her experience to Obama's is because Obama (foolishly) keeps bringing it up.
First of all, Obama is right to bring it up. He should keep bringing it up. It shoots a hole into McCain's best argument against him.
And again, keep in mind that the Democratic primary voters' judgment is not on trial here. Once again, you fail to talk about McCain's judgment here. You can keep going on about how experience in the No. 1 choice is more important than the No. 2 choice, but it doesn't answer my question. It sidesteps the question. Do you think people will be voting for Obama for his extensive Washington experience? Not a chance, but people would be inclined to vote for McCain based on his experience, and his VP choice hurts that. But my main question hasn't been answered.
As dumb as it sounds, I'm going to make a math equation. It's not because I think anyone else is stupid, it's just cause I think I'm losing my own point in garbled language, so I want to be clear in the language I'm using.
Obama has experience in foreign relations, since he has traveled to other countries and acted as an emissary of the U.S., negotiated and dealt with foreign heads of state, been briefed by Army command in Iraq and Afghanistan, and has an exposure to politics on a national level. OK, let's call this experience level A. Now, Palin has none of that, but she does have experience running a state government, using the veto power, and basically doing executive stuff with no foreign policy experience whatsoever. She also has skills that Obama has not ascertained, but Obama has skills and experience that she has not ascertained. Obviously, unless you're reading from a Republican talking point memo these levels of experience are at the very least comparable. So let's also say Palin has experience level A.
McCain has said that Obama is not fit to lead; he has said that experience level A is quite simply not enough. His VP choice would have experience level B: extensive credentials and significant foreign policy experience, someone who would be ready to be president. Now,
A does not equal ready to be president, according to McCain.
However, A does equal A. (Obama vs. Palin)
McCain pledges to choose someone with experience level B.
McCain picks someone with experience level A.
A does not equal ready to be president, according to McCain.
What does McCain's choice say about his judgment? Obviously, he can't follow his own standards. Don't give No. 1 and No. 2; once again, I'm asking about McCain. Don't give me talking points about Alaska being the biggest state, the National Guard, or the fight against big oil. I could throw at you a talking about about Obama battling unethical practices in Washington with his legislation. Answer my question about McCain, because it's five days after he picked her, and I'm beginning to feel like there's no answer. Which makes his main case against Obama inadequate.
EDIT: And keep in mind, this VP choice is one of the best and most public displays of judgment a presidential candidate can make before an election. It shows the kind of person you think would be able to stand in your place should something terrible happen, someone who could keep the country in order during a trial. You think McCain did that by choosing Palin?
"I had the privilege of living most of my life in a small town. I was just your average hockey mom, and signed up for the PTA because I wanted to make my kids’ public education better. When I ran for city council, I didn’t need focus groups and voter profiles because I knew those voters, and knew their families, too. Before I became governor of the great state of Alaska, I was mayor of my hometown. And since our opponents in this presidential election seem to look down on that experience, let me explain to them what the job involves. I guess a small-town mayor is sort of like a ‘community organizer,’ except that you have actual responsibilities."
Can't wait to see how that lines goes over tonight by Palin.
"I had the privilege of living most of my life in a small town. I was just your average hockey mom, and signed up for the PTA because I wanted to make my kids’ public education better. When I ran for city council, I didn’t need focus groups and voter profiles because I knew those voters, and knew their families, too. Before I became governor of the great state of Alaska, I was mayor of my hometown. And since our opponents in this presidential election seem to look down on that experience, let me explain to them what the job involves. I guess a small-town mayor is sort of like a ‘community organizer,’ except that you have actual responsibilities."
Can't wait to see how that lines goes over tonight by Palin.
I love the people who are stupid enough to think that calling someone a community organizer is an insult.
could he have possible mentioned the military or warfare any more than he did... you're democratically electing a president.. not voting for Attila the Hun to enter the World Hall of Military Fame.
is this what americans want to hear? is this what they vote for.... guys who did well in questionable wars?
far out.
If Attila the Hun was still alive and running he would win the republican nominee hands down.
Gotta fight the ever changing and omnipresent boogeyman...this requires unprecedented warfare and carnage...and of course.....patriotism.
Little pink houses for you and me....
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
Comments
wish they gave a shot of Cindy McCain after THAT comment.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0sYZZYw7-U
"I don't believe in damn curses. Wake up the damn Bambino and have me face him. Maybe I'll drill him in the ass." --- Pedro Martinez
I'm not necessarily a McCain supporter...I caucased for Obama in Iowa during the primaries...I'm undecided.
I'm not the one to aswer you question though as I never bought in to that message.
I will try to answer your question a way that may make some sense...
The Dem presidential ticket is Obama #1....Biden #2.
The Repub. presidential ticket is McCain #1....Palin #2.
So, it's not terrible judgment necessarily to attack your opponent for his lack of experience and then select a running mate with little experience. Big difference between Pres. & VP. I do understand people questioning this though.
Obama's #2 pick can certainly be questioned. #1, I'm not sure everyone agrees Biden could be president, that is certainly debatable. #2, it certainly goes at fixing some of Obama's perceived weaknesses...that the Rep party call out, but it I think it undermines his strenght of "Change" since Biden's been in Washington since 1972. What does it say about Obama, that when push came to shove he caved to Rep. concerns and potential poll concerns to select a Washington Insider instead of a change agent?
Personally, I am very disappointed in Obama's choice and excited abotu McCain's choice. I was very close to voting for Obama simply because I wanted a new face that might actually change washington, despite the fact that I disagree with him on MANY issues...now I'm taking a very hard look at the McCain/Palin ticket to see what they have to offer.
Neither is perfect for sure, just like when you're apply for a job...you look to be able to meet 75% of the requirements they mention in the add...same thing here for me.
I understand the number one and number two argument, but isn't the one qualification that is absolutely necessary to a VP candidate that he or she be ready to assume the presidency at a moment's notice? Does this mean that I say Palin has to be ready on day one because McCain will drop dead at inauguration? No, of course not, but remember William Henry Harrison; he was president for only thirty days before his death. Reagan was nearly assassinated two months after taking office. Shit happens in this job. It's a fair criticism for McCain, just as it's a fair criticism to be lobbied at Obama.
Also, another fact to point out is that Obama was voted the Democratic nominee by the voters. Whether conservatives and moderates agree with them or not, the Democratic Party endorsed Obama as being ready to assume the role of the Presidency. No one voted for Palin; this was McCain's choice and judgment and his alone. That's another reason that the "Palin is only number 2 argument" is flawed. I'm not talking about Palin, I'm talking about McCain. What does it say about his judgment and how seriously he takes these decisions when his VP choice (i.e. an endorsement of this person to be President) violates his own stated qualifications for the Presidency? Complete contradiction.
I moreover don't understand your argument about Biden. #1 He has as much Washington experience as McCain, and I don't see anyone saying McCain is unfit to be President. Hell, I'm not voting for McCain and I don't think he is not capable, I think he's just wrong on most of the issues. I don't see how anyone could say McCain is prepared and not Biden. #2 It addresses Obama's weaknesses with moderates who like Obama's message, but are still wary of promoting him to the top office because of a perceived lack of experience. The parties are pretty polarized, and I don't believe Obama is expecting to get many far right votes. Moreover, I can understand the feeling that Biden undermines Obama's message. I don't think it does so drastically, but I can understand that argument. Why I cannot understand is someone who says that Obama's campaign is weakened but that McCain's campaign is strengthened, when each candidate chose someone who conflicted with their central message. And what does it say to you then, that McCain saw that the experience charge against Obama was not going to win him the election and sold out to the social conservative wing of his party (to which McCain has always been estranged), even though it's become pretty clear that Lieberman was his number one choice? That would have been a maverick move; Palin is just playing to the base. And the base, strong as it may have been in 2004, is not going to win McCain this election.
I just said that Biden being president is debatable.
Obama's campaign was weakened WITH ME...McCain's campaign was strenghtened with ME...why?
1) I tend to agree with Republicans on more issues then Democrats...deciding on each issues weight will ultimately decide who I vote for.
2) I was intrigued by Obama's lack of experience to some degree...I'm sick of the same people...now he made that argument a little weaker with Biden, while McCain helped his case with Palin.
I've heard it said many times by the same talking heads on TV, but never from McCain, etc...where are they getting that Lieberman was his 1st choice? I'm not saying it's not true, just wondering....and doubting a little.
So, I'm not sure the implications on the national level, but the VP choices have certainly moved me from close to voting for Obama to a statistical deadheat.
Well, I can't say anything about personal politics. Everyone's own judgment is their own. But I think I have a pretty fair argument that I haven't really heard answered by someone who does think that Palin was a good choice and that Obama is unfit to lead. I'm looking to find a McCain supporter who can address that issue; haven't seen one yet.
I agree. And when Obama, Bush, Thompson or anyone has some actual content; please do let me know.
That speech was nothing more than some asshole playing a role and delivering a well-rehearsed speech with the exact inflection and drama that the script called for. He should have been wearing a cheerleaders outfit and waving pom-poms.
What a crock of shit coming out of his mouth.
After the last eight years of Bush/Cheney and their Right Wing corporate interests; that speech was about as offensive as it gets.
I've answered this question for you before, just not to your satisfaction, I guess.
You seem to want to draw no distinction between the No. 1 and No. 2 on the ticket, but there is one. If we're going to have someone "inexperienced," I'd much rather it be the No. 2 on the ticket than the guy, you know, I'm actually voting for.
Also, who says Palin is unqualified? She has actual, tangible accomplishments she can point to in her time as governor of our largest state. There is actual, tangible evidence of her ability to lead. This is the part where I would say, "as opposed to the guy on the top of the Democratic ticket," but I don't have to.
When Obama cites "running my campaign" as the best example of his ability to lead ... it scares the shit out of me that he might actually become president.
for the least they could possibly do
Why was it offensive?
His best line was about taxes ... and he's absolutely right. Obama doesn't want to tax you ... just your employer and everything you buy.
for the least they could possibly do
that may be true but did he mention that McCain doesn't want to tax you either. He just wants to spend more and cause that money you get to keep depreciate in value.
Um, have you checked out Obama's "universal everything" policy? I swear to God, we're one step away from Obama offering all of us free cable, or a free Subway sandwich every other Tuesday.
If I had to pick the candidate I think "wants to spend more," McCain would come in second.
for the least they could possibly do
You're the kind of guy I was looking for, thank you.
But once again you do what I'm asking you not to. Don't address Obama's lack of experience. Address Palin's. Trying to spin the argument back to the opposing side makes it sound like you don't have an argument of your own.
Obama's
Eight years in State Senate
Four years in U.S. Senate
vs. Palin's
Four years on City Council
Four years as Mayor
Twenty months as Governor
I'll even give you that they are comparable resumes in terms of experience (even though it's about twelve years to six, but I digress). Let's say Palin's as experienced as Obama.
McCain said, and I quote, that his VP selection would have "extensive credentials" to be vice president, and could step into the role of Presidency at a moment's notice. And before you come back at me with Obama, remember that he was voted as the Democratic nominee. The voters used their judgment, but McCain used his to choose Palin. Are we expected to believe that Palin meets his own version of "extensive credentials?" With NO foreign policy experience?
What does it say about McCain that he says Obama is unfit to lead then endorses someone as a person capable of being President with equal or less experience than Obama? How seriously must McCain take his message of the necessity of experience when he violates his own standards when making his VP choice? Don't come back at me with Obama! Obama's lack of experience is well-documented. Defend your own candidate; what, in McCain's mind, makes Palin fit to be president when she violates the standards that he set for picking a VP choice early in this campaign?
I'll say it one more time, don't come back at me with Obama. This is McCain's judgment we're talking about here, not the judgment of the voters in Democratic primaries.
(P.S. Largest state? In size, sure, but is that how you want to judge experience? Sounds like a talking point to me).
Just to be fair, it's 4 years in the city council 92-96.
- 8/28/98
- 9/2/00
- 4/28/03, 5/3/03, 7/3/03, 7/5/03, 7/6/03, 7/9/03, 7/11/03, 7/12/03, 7/14/03
- 9/28/04, 9/29/04, 10/1/04, 10/2/04
- 9/11/05, 9/12/05, 9/13/05, 9/30/05, 10/1/05, 10/3/05
- 5/12/06, 5/13/06, 5/27/06, 5/28/06, 5/30/06, 6/1/06, 6/3/06, 6/23/06, 7/22/06, 7/23/06, 12/2/06, 12/9/06
- 8/2/07, 8/5/07
- 6/19/08, 6/20/08, 6/22/08, 6/24/08, 6/25/08, 6/27/08, 6/28/08, 6/30/08, 7/1/08
- 8/23/09, 8/24/09, 9/21/09, 9/22/09, 10/27/09, 10/28/09, 10/30/09, 10/31/09
- 5/15/10, 5/17/10, 5/18/10, 5/20/10, 5/21/10, 10/23/10, 10/24/10
- 9/11/11, 9/12/11
- 10/18/13, 10/21/13, 10/22/13, 11/30/13, 12/4/13
Yes I have checked out Obama's policy and that is why I'm not voting for him, well one of the reasons. I'm also not voting for McCain because unlike Obama he wants to spend more but collect less, which in my opinion is even worse than collect more spend more.
I'd be disingenuous if I tried to paint Palin as the most experienced vice presidential candidate in all history.
I guess part of my point is that, to me and most people, "experience" is not as important in the No. 2 on the ticket than the No. 1.
The other part of my argument might be this: When it comes to Palin, it's not the breadth of experience that makes her attractive, but the specific KIND of experience.
One example: As governor of Alaska, perhaps our nation's most important oil state, she's well versed in energy issues. That's probably the No. 1 issue of our time, to be honest.
And she's proven the ability to lead ... even if it meant taking on Big Oil ... even if it meant taking on her own party. One of her first orders of business upon taking office was -- against the wishes of the oil companies and the Republican leadership -- to renegotiate a more favorable oil deal with the state. With the resulting proceeds, she sent every Alaskan citizen a check for $200.
To me, that's pretty inventive. And that's a good example of leadership.
Now, the reason people keep wanting to compare her experience to Obama's is because Obama (foolishly) keeps bringing it up.
for the least they could possibly do
I checked, and you're right. 92-96. Thanks for the tip.
I'm not saying she has no experience, but you could say she has AS much experience as Obama and my central argument still stands. My argument isn't meant to be about Obama or Palin; it's about McCain.
...
Do any of them realize that it is a Republican that is currently sitting in the White House?
Hail, Hail!!!
Yes and in order to do these things she sucks big oils cock. She pushes in every way possible to push for drilling in any place possible, no matter the consequences!
These talking points that she's talking on big oil are complete bullshit..........The only place she's taking them on is her face.
you're messing up the spin with actual facts ... the straight talk express will not be happy with you.
"I don't believe in damn curses. Wake up the damn Bambino and have me face him. Maybe I'll drill him in the ass." --- Pedro Martinez
I'd like for you to explain how Big Oil wanted to renegotiate a contract with the state of Alaska that was less favorable to them.
Reverse psychology maybe?
Seriously, please explain ...
for the least they could possibly do
I agree with that to a certain extent.
No one needs to have EVERY detail of EVERY facet of our govenment, the world, the economy, etc comepltely embedded in their brain and at their fingertips immediately at all times ... this isn't a Final Exam.
But, you DO have to have a solid understanding of what those advisors are saying to you and the impact of your decisions.
"I don't believe in damn curses. Wake up the damn Bambino and have me face him. Maybe I'll drill him in the ass." --- Pedro Martinez
Slightly less favorable, bur when she promises to them that she will push for as much drilling as possible, their eyes light up.
This whole election campaign from the republicans has been pushed by big oil. Every second word out of McSame's mouth is offshore drilling. Sarah Palin is just another pawn in big oils's republican party. And you are blind if you don't see this.
Which I'm sure both Presidential candidates and the VP's have. These are fairly educated people.
Also I would like to pose a question to those who have an issue with Obama's experience. Did you vote for Bush and why was it not an issue 8 years ago?
I ask because I hear a lot of Republicans bringing up the experience card but that was not an issue back in 2000.
Yep, that was the best line...it might be the best line of both conventions when all is said and done...
Though Hillary's comment about the twin cities (Bush/McCain) was a classic as well, no matter how true you think it to be.
here we go again..."I'm offended"..."thats' offensive"...
People getting "offended" right and left (no pun intended) at everything...
How do you go about living everyday? You must be offended every 2-3 minutes.
Actually, I've heard a litany of folks that have been elected presidents have less political experience than any of these 4 ... I don't think Eisenhower had ANY politcal experience when he was elected.
"I don't believe in damn curses. Wake up the damn Bambino and have me face him. Maybe I'll drill him in the ass." --- Pedro Martinez
First of all, Obama is right to bring it up. He should keep bringing it up. It shoots a hole into McCain's best argument against him.
And again, keep in mind that the Democratic primary voters' judgment is not on trial here. Once again, you fail to talk about McCain's judgment here. You can keep going on about how experience in the No. 1 choice is more important than the No. 2 choice, but it doesn't answer my question. It sidesteps the question. Do you think people will be voting for Obama for his extensive Washington experience? Not a chance, but people would be inclined to vote for McCain based on his experience, and his VP choice hurts that. But my main question hasn't been answered.
As dumb as it sounds, I'm going to make a math equation. It's not because I think anyone else is stupid, it's just cause I think I'm losing my own point in garbled language, so I want to be clear in the language I'm using.
Obama has experience in foreign relations, since he has traveled to other countries and acted as an emissary of the U.S., negotiated and dealt with foreign heads of state, been briefed by Army command in Iraq and Afghanistan, and has an exposure to politics on a national level. OK, let's call this experience level A. Now, Palin has none of that, but she does have experience running a state government, using the veto power, and basically doing executive stuff with no foreign policy experience whatsoever. She also has skills that Obama has not ascertained, but Obama has skills and experience that she has not ascertained. Obviously, unless you're reading from a Republican talking point memo these levels of experience are at the very least comparable. So let's also say Palin has experience level A.
McCain has said that Obama is not fit to lead; he has said that experience level A is quite simply not enough. His VP choice would have experience level B: extensive credentials and significant foreign policy experience, someone who would be ready to be president. Now,
A does not equal ready to be president, according to McCain.
However, A does equal A. (Obama vs. Palin)
McCain pledges to choose someone with experience level B.
McCain picks someone with experience level A.
A does not equal ready to be president, according to McCain.
What does McCain's choice say about his judgment? Obviously, he can't follow his own standards. Don't give No. 1 and No. 2; once again, I'm asking about McCain. Don't give me talking points about Alaska being the biggest state, the National Guard, or the fight against big oil. I could throw at you a talking about about Obama battling unethical practices in Washington with his legislation. Answer my question about McCain, because it's five days after he picked her, and I'm beginning to feel like there's no answer. Which makes his main case against Obama inadequate.
EDIT: And keep in mind, this VP choice is one of the best and most public displays of judgment a presidential candidate can make before an election. It shows the kind of person you think would be able to stand in your place should something terrible happen, someone who could keep the country in order during a trial. You think McCain did that by choosing Palin?
Can't wait to see how that lines goes over tonight by Palin.
- 8/28/98
- 9/2/00
- 4/28/03, 5/3/03, 7/3/03, 7/5/03, 7/6/03, 7/9/03, 7/11/03, 7/12/03, 7/14/03
- 9/28/04, 9/29/04, 10/1/04, 10/2/04
- 9/11/05, 9/12/05, 9/13/05, 9/30/05, 10/1/05, 10/3/05
- 5/12/06, 5/13/06, 5/27/06, 5/28/06, 5/30/06, 6/1/06, 6/3/06, 6/23/06, 7/22/06, 7/23/06, 12/2/06, 12/9/06
- 8/2/07, 8/5/07
- 6/19/08, 6/20/08, 6/22/08, 6/24/08, 6/25/08, 6/27/08, 6/28/08, 6/30/08, 7/1/08
- 8/23/09, 8/24/09, 9/21/09, 9/22/09, 10/27/09, 10/28/09, 10/30/09, 10/31/09
- 5/15/10, 5/17/10, 5/18/10, 5/20/10, 5/21/10, 10/23/10, 10/24/10
- 9/11/11, 9/12/11
- 10/18/13, 10/21/13, 10/22/13, 11/30/13, 12/4/13
I love the people who are stupid enough to think that calling someone a community organizer is an insult.
If Attila the Hun was still alive and running he would win the republican nominee hands down.
Gotta fight the ever changing and omnipresent boogeyman...this requires unprecedented warfare and carnage...and of course.....patriotism.
Little pink houses for you and me....
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")