I'll say it: I think it's insulting that McCain chose

vduboise

lowbudgetlush wrote:

But you didnt find it "transparent & shallow" when Obama preaching "change" picked a senator that is "old & white" to target the older white population?

I think that both candidates are listening to the news reports and are picking people that they think will get them elected. That's playing politics!

Palin fits the mold of what McCain needs to help him along. A young woman to get the Hillary votes away from Obama. Biden, for the experience factor.

Will it work? Election day will tell.

I would like to see several debates between the VP-hopefuls.

cincybearcat

justam wrote:

this woman to try to attract the women that voted for Hillary.

It's as if he thinks "One woman is as good as the next." As if he doesn't realize that people voted for Hillary because they also thought she was a good candidate!

It's maddening!!!

I'll say it...I think you are too sensative and nothing he did would have pleased you anyhow. People just look for ways to be offended.

cincybearcat

chiefojibwa wrote:

puh-lease!! this was a last ditch hail mary from mcsame. he only met her ONCE before selecting her for the second highest position in the gov't. i think the old man is losing his marbles (and the election!)

and just a month ago she said she doesn't even know what the veep does! and she doesn't even own a passport!! hahahahahahhaha!!!!! there goes the "experience" argument against obama.

Nice to see those with an "open mind" simply end up spouting dem. talking points..."McSame"??? It's just stupid.

88keys

I would first like to say that I am an undecided voter and a registered independant, so I am not catering to either side with my comments. With that being said, I just wanted to point out a few things:

1. In 1968 Richard Nixon chose Spiro Agnew as running mate, and in 1988 George Bush Sr. chose Dan Quayle. Both Agnew and Quayle were criticized as being too young, unknown, and inexperienced for the position as compared to their Democratic counterparts. Both Nixon and Bush won their elections.

2. McCain choosing Palin will gain him more female votes including Hillary supporters. There are still plenty of "pissed-off at Barack" Hillary supporters who didn't like him during the democratic primary wars and now probably don't like him even more because he had the opportunity to pick Hillary as a running mate and he instead chose Joe Biden.

3. McCain still has the high ground on the experience argument. This is a PRESIDENTIAL election, not a Vice-Presidential election. Camparing Palin's inexperience to Obama's is moot. Obama is running aginst McCain, not Palin.

4. The McCain is "too old" and Palin is now "one heartbeat away from the presidency" concern is far-fetched. Ronald Reagan was 70 was he was elected president, he was shot in a failed assassination attempt, and most-likey started to develop Alzheimers disease while in office, and he lived through 2 terms.

With that being said, I don't think Palin was the best choice for McCain. I think he would've been better off with Mitt Romney or Tom Ridge, just as Obama would've been better off with Hillary or Tim Kaine. Overall, I think McCain's choice was more advantageous than Obama's. Gender aside, Palin brings a freshness with a non-washington bullshit feel. Plus he appeased to the evangelical, conservative, 2nd Amendment republican crowd that were reluctant to support him. Aside from foreign policy experience, I don't see how Joe Biden will help Obama. He's notortiously liberal, has no military experience, was busted in a plagerism scandal when he ran for president in 1988, and he's not going to bring in any voters that Obama didn't already have. Obama needs to court the fiscally conservative democrats (Reagan Democrats) and the undecided and independant voters. Joe Biden won't do that for him.

CorporateWhore

chiefojibwa wrote:

puh-lease!! this was a last ditch hail mary from mcsame. he only met her ONCE before selecting her for the second highest position in the gov't. i think the old man is losing his marbles (and the election!)

and just a month ago she said she doesn't even know what the veep does! and she doesn't even own a passport!! hahahahahahhaha!!!!! there goes the "experience" argument against obama.

Right, owning a passport is the open door to experience...:rolleyes:

And presumably, you own a passport so you have experience.

cincybearcat

chiefojibwa wrote:

for your information, i was the first person EVER to use that phrase. all others are just aping me.

next!

and, uh, besides the name calling, all the points in my post are facts, jack.

Well then, YOUR phrase is annoying.
And no they aren't check your facts...he met her 2 times...you listen to too much Carville.

cincybearcat

chiefojibwa wrote:

no, it's the open door to the world outside of the united states. hell, she can't even go to canada!

and i don't have a passport. but i need to get one so i can go up to 'couver.

but here's the thing...i'm not running for vice president of the fucking country. see the difference, tough guy?

Once again, more wrong facts...she couls most certainly have gone to Canada without a passport.

Now you need one for flying in...I don't think you need one for driving in yet.

cincybearcat

chiefojibwa wrote:

it's a fallacy to say that hillary voters will be moved to vote for mcsame/panderin. anyone who votes for that ticket is no democrat, and never was, so i say good riddance.

The dems sure are all saying this...wonder if they're scared or really believe it?

cincybearcat

chiefojibwa wrote:

carville? that's the best you can do?? fuck that alien moron...anyone who sticks his dick into mary matalin is no friend of mine!

and, ooh, it's 2 times? wow, that seals the deal...they're old buddies!

mcsame/panderin '08!!!

That was actually a joke...Carville said your same line yesterday and the other guy...(the guy that was the host for The Mole...can't remember his name) corrected him.

Yep, it's a whopping 2 times...I agree it's nto much difference..I was joking.

88keys

chiefojibwa wrote:

it's a fallacy to say that hillary voters will be moved to vote for mcsame/panderin. anyone who votes for that ticket is no democrat, and never was, so i say good riddance.

Do you think that only dems supported Hillary? There are plenty of independants that supported Hillary and they will be more likely to vote for McCain if the gender issue is importnant to them.

cincybearcat

chiefojibwa wrote:

mcsame/panderin '08!!!

vs. WhatChange/OldWashingtonWhiteGuy '08!!!! Man this is stupid.

cincybearcat

chiefojibwa wrote:

well, technically you were supposed to have one by now to drive in but the requirements keep getting pushed back. however, dhs has been hassling people on the FERRIES up here which are still in us waters, just because they are close to the vancouver isles. and they will hassle you at the border for not having a passport.

Yeah, i thought it was pushed back to 2009...thanks for the update. Though I have a passport so it doesn't matter...I must have experience!!!

cincybearcat

chiefojibwa wrote:

i'm sure you'd make a heckuva veep!

So, am I on your ticket? We've never met, but we have talked via this board?

digster

88keys wrote:

I would first like to say that I am an undecided voter and a registered independant, so I am not catering to either side with my comments. With that being said, I just wanted to point out a few things:

1. In 1968 Richard Nixon chose Spiro Agnew as running mate, and in 1988 George Bush Sr. chose Dan Quayle. Both Agnew and Quayle were criticized as being too young, unknown, and inexperienced for the position as compared to their Democratic counterparts. Both Nixon and Bush won their elections.

2. McCain choosing Palin will gain him more female votes including Hillary supporters. There are still plenty of "pissed-off at Barack" Hillary supporters who didn't like him during the democratic primary wars and now probably don't like him even more because he had the opportunity to pick Hillary as a running mate and he instead chose Joe Biden.

3. McCain still has the high ground on the experience argument. This is a PRESIDENTIAL election, not a Vice-Presidential election. Camparing Palin's inexperience to Obama's is moot. Obama is running aginst McCain, not Palin.

4. The McCain is "too old" and Palin is now "one heartbeat away from the presidency" concern is far-fetched. Ronald Reagan was 70 was he was elected president, he was shot in a failed assassination attempt, and most-likey started to develop Alzheimers disease while in office, and he lived through 2 terms.

With that being said, I don't think Palin was the best choice for McCain. I think he would've been better off with Mitt Romney or Tom Ridge, just as Obama would've been better off with Hillary or Tim Kaine. Overall, I think McCain's choice was more advantageous than Obama's. Gender aside, Palin brings a freshness with a non-washington bullshit feel. Plus he appeased to the evangelical, conservative, 2nd Amendment republican crowd that were reluctant to support him. Aside from foreign policy experience, I don't see how Joe Biden will help Obama. He's notortiously liberal, has no military experience, was busted in a plagerism scandal when he ran for president in 1988, and he's not going to bring in any voters that Obama didn't already have. Obama needs to court the fiscally conservative democrats (Reagan Democrats) and the undecided and independant voters. Joe Biden won't do that for him.

Good points, I'll take them one by one. I should say that I myself am also an independent; I'm just leaning heavily Democratic this year because of how destructive I believe the last eight years have been for our nation. But I digress.

1. You're absolutely right. Stupid choices made by presidential candidates don't always cost those candidates the presidency. But often they do.

2. The amount of Hillary supporters who are going to vote for their (and Hillary's) ideological opposite solely on the basis of gender is ridiculously limited. A recent poll of Hillary supporters put the percentage of those who would be supporting Senator McCain at 2 percent; that's all, and as the election gets closer there is no reason to believe that the number won't become lower, as McCain's policy positions (and particulary his stances on issues that are important to Hillary's biggest supporters) become more defined and more well-known. What Obama should do in this situation is ask Hillary to be the primary "attack dog" on McCain's choice of VP; who better to criticize McCain than the candidate who's supporters McCain is shamelessly trying to pick up with his choice? Additionally, go take a look at the PUMA website (Party Unity My Ass), the most vocal critic of Obama's candidacy from Hillary supporters. You go there, and there are more critics of PUMA on the boards than supporters.

3. McCain has lost the high ground for several reasons. The first is the utter importance of the VP choice. Most people going to work and school don't have the time to pour over every nuance of the political presidential race. I'm lucky in that my job involves alot of writing at home, which allows me to keep up to date. But what do people mainly pay attention to? They use the conventions to judge policy positions of candidates, and most importantly, they judge the VP decision. It is by far the most important and most noticeable decision a presidential candidate will make in his or her campaign, and while it doesn't always swing people one way or the other, it is a big factor in the final decision. As usual, the bases are going to be so partisan that it's going to come down to those independents. Since the decision is so important and noticeable, I don't think the "she's only VP" argument will work. McCain has based his entire campaign on Obama's inability to lead due to his experience, and it's his only chance to win this year when the entire country thinks Republican leadership is bad for the country. Instead of making a VP choice that strengthened this central argument, he made a choice that directly undermined it.

The Joe Biden pick was much more advantageous to Obama than Palin was to McCain for several reasons. For one, Obama owns the 'change' mantle this year, and no one is going to be voting him into office on account of his extensive Washington experience. He has managed to successfully base his candidacy on something else. The pick of an experienced Washington insider such as Biden allowed him to allay the worries of independents (and, by extension) moderates who like Obama's message but are concerned about the lack of such experience. It didn't dilute his strength but worked to address his weaknesses. McCain on the other hand has had one message this year; Obama is not ready to lead. Obama is not ready to lead. I have the experience to lead. It would be unsafe for Obama to lead. Now, in his most important decision before the election, he has chosen as the second in command of the country someone with even less government experience than Obama and absolutely zero foreign policy experience. Obama's camp now has a guided missile to blow apart the only argument from McCain's campaign that they have been unable to successfully counter thus far (i.e. Obama's inexperience). How will McCain's camp answer that? I am not dismissing Palin's experience. McCain is. If he says Obama is unfit to lead, than Palin is, and what will people begin to think about his judgment? It will either look overtly political or it will be seen as a sign of bad judgment. Right now, I think it's a good pick because it's surprising and it builds up McCain's 'maverick' credentials, but as the weeks go on people are going to start asking the questions I'm asking more and more, and you don't want people questioning your judgment when making their vote.

LikeAnOpeningBandForTheSun

I'll say it: I think it's insulting that McCain chose an alaskan. they only know polar bears and baby seals. they're practically Canadian!

yeah i'm pretty bored.

cincybearcat

chiefojibwa wrote:

sure, why not!

and for all my repub bashing here, i really am fed up with politics in general from both sides. but, shit, ya gotta choose a side to go with.

And I've left my side recently, looking for a place to land.

decides2dream

Solat13 wrote:

I'm a registered independent and voted Libertarian the last two elections and probably will again, but Palin does intrigue me.

The thing is I know she stands for very different issues than Hillary, but there will be a segment of Hillary voters that will align with Palin. Here's why:

Unlike Hillary who rode Bill's coattails and her time as first lady to become a Senator. I know people don't want to admit this, but if Bill never was president would Hillary be a Senator right now or been a viable candidate for president?

Palin went from being working mom PTA member that was part of a union, to running and winning an office in city council for four years, to being a mayor for 6 years, to ultimately be a governor. Now if that is not the American dream for a lot of working moms I don't know what is.

Her story is going to appeal to a lot of working moms especially when the Republicans tell it at the RNC next week.

io can admire her accomplishements and still NEVER vote for her due to our diametrically opposing views. so i say again, any 'hillary supporter' who turns towards mccain, was never truly a hillary supporter to begin with. the beliefs on THE ISSUES are far too different. the ONLY thing in common is gender.



as to hillary making her way to where she is sans bill...maybe, maybe not. kinda a guessing game there. the woman was/is an extremely intelligent/accomplished woman all on her own...even if she never ran for ANY political office.


and i realize i come across as gung-ho hillary supporter...and i was NOT for her presidential campaign, but i did support her, carpet baggwer or not ...for senator in my state.

88keys

digster wrote:

Good points, I'll take them one by one. I should say that I myself am also an independent; I'm just leaning heavily Democratic this year because of how destructive I believe the last eight years have been for our nation. But I digress.

1. You're absolutely right. Stupid choices made by presidential candidates don't always cost those candidates the presidency. But often they do.

2. The amount of Hillary supporters who are going to vote for their (and Hillary's) ideological opposite solely on the basis of gender is ridiculously limited. A recent poll of Hillary supporters put the percentage of those who would be supporting Senator McCain at 2 percent; that's all, and as the election gets closer there is no reason to believe that the number won't become lower, as McCain's policy positions (and particulary his stances on issues that are important to Hillary's biggest supporters) become more defined and more well-known. What Obama should do in this situation is ask Hillary to be the primary "attack dog" on McCain's choice of VP; who better to criticize McCain than the candidate who's supporters McCain is shamelessly trying to pick up with his choice? Additionally, go take a look at the PUMA website (Party Unity My Ass), the most vocal critic of Obama's candidacy from Hillary supporters. You go there, and there are more critics of PUMA on the boards than supporters.

3. McCain has lost the high ground for several reasons. The first is the utter importance of the VP choice. Most people going to work and school don't have the time to pour over every nuance of the political presidential race. I'm lucky in that my job involves alot of writing at home, which allows me to keep up to date. But what do people mainly pay attention to? They use the conventions to judge policy positions of candidates, and most importantly, they judge the VP decision. It is by far the most important and most noticeable decision a presidential candidate will make in his or her campaign, and while it doesn't always swing people one way or the other, it is a big factor in the final decision. As usual, the bases are going to be so partisan that it's going to come down to those independents. Since the decision is so important and noticeable, I don't think the "she's only VP" argument will work. McCain has based his entire campaign on Obama's inability to lead due to his experience, and it's his only chance to win this year when the entire country thinks Republican leadership is bad for the country. Instead of making a VP choice that strengthened this central argument, he made a choice that directly undermined it.

The Joe Biden pick was much more advantageous to Obama than Palin was to McCain for several reasons. For one, Obama owns the 'change' mantle this year, and no one is going to be voting him into office on account of his extensive Washington experience. He has managed to successfully base his candidacy on something else. The pick of an experienced Washington insider such as Biden allowed him to allay the worries of independents (and, by extension) moderates who like Obama's message but are concerned about the lack of such experience. It didn't dilute his strength but worked to address his weaknesses. McCain on the other hand has had one message this year; Obama is not ready to lead. Obama is not ready to lead. I have the experience to lead. It would be unsafe for Obama to lead. Now, in his most important decision before the election, he has chosen as the second in command of the country someone with even less government experience than Obama and absolutely zero foreign policy experience. Obama's camp now has a guided missile to blow apart the only argument from McCain's campaign that they have been unable to successfully counter thus far (i.e. Obama's inexperience). How will McCain's camp answer that? I am not dismissing Palin's experience. McCain is. If he says Obama is unfit to lead, than Palin is, and what will people begin to think about his judgment? It will either look overtly political or it will be seen as a sign of bad judgment. Right now, I think it's a good pick because it's surprising and it builds up McCain's 'maverick' credentials, but as the weeks go on people are going to start asking the questions I'm asking more and more, and you don't want people questioning your judgment when making their vote.

I agree that McCain's experience argument was definitely weakened, but I don't think it has been turned against him. If Obama's and Palin's experience are comparable and one wants to considerer their vote on experience alone, then which would make the more reasonable vote: A V.P. who can learn from the president, or a president who has to learn from their V.P.

digster

88keys wrote:

I agree that McCain's experience argument was definitely weakened, but I don't think it has been turned against him. If Obama's and Palin's experience are comparable and one wants to considerer their vote on experience alone, then which would make the more reasonable vote: A V.P. who can learn from the president, or a president who has to learn from their V.P.

Quite simply; Obama's presidency has not been predicated on the fact that his experience in the U.S. Senate has made him fit to lead the nation. Obama has grounded his campaign on the conviction that his lack of Washington experience will enable him to bring a fresh approach to the White House. Obviously, due to his support, a lot of people agreed with him.

McCain, on the other hand, has based his entire campaign on the fact that Obama is unfit to lead because he has not had experience. John McCain has, i.e. he has experience in Washington. That's all fine and good; I don't agree that Washington experience necessarily makes you the best candidate, but McCain does. McCain himself said in the race for the Republican nomination that his veep candidate would have the necessary qualifications to be veep. Again, I stress, he is not saying Obama would be a bad president. HE IS SAYING OBAMA IS NOT QUALIFIED TO BE PRESIDENT.

So what does he do? When picking a VP, whose primary job is to be able to assume the role of the Presidency at a moment's notice, he picks someone with less government experience than Obama and absolutely no foreign policy experience. Absolutely none. This is not about Palin, this is about McCain's choice, and how he has punctured a hole in the central argument of his candidacy, and thus far, the only one that works.

To the McCain/Palin supporters, I ask you this one question. Don't come back at me with talk about Obama's experience. Stay with this question. I haven't heard anyone answer it yet:

-McCain has said Obama is not fit to lead the country due to his lack of experience in Washington. This is his central attack theme.
-McCain has chosen a vice president, whose job it is to take the job of Presidency and be qualified to keep the stability of the country intact, with less government experience than Obama, and absolutely no foreign policy credentials. Let me say that again; absolutely NO foreign policy credentials.
-What, then, makes Palin more qualified than Barack Obama to possibly be President of the United States? And if there is nothing that makes her more qualified than Obama, then doesn't that make McCain's central argument that Obama is not fit to lead completely invalid? (remember, naming someone as a VP nominee means you are endorsing them to be capable of taking on the presidency in a moment's notice).

And for those who would claim that she has 'executive experience', I should remind you that Senator McCain has NO executive experience, and that her six years of experience in government, including her time on the City Council and Mayor of Wasilla, Alaska, is still half of what Barack Obama has served in the Illinois State Senate and the U.S. Senate?

Please, I'm really trying to find anyone who could justify this pick.

Strangest Tribe

I think McCain just is trying to score with another woman ...that's all.

Honestly, the man can't keep his peepee in his pants!!!!