What Sarah Palin's selection says about McCain...

He knows a MILF when he sees one....

keithcandyl wrote:

Exactly. Last week I think Bill Clinton was the one who said that if McCain is elected we're only one heartbeat away from having someone in office who has no foriegn policy experience at all. He was making this point as a negative for the republicans. But he didn't contrast that with the positive for the other party. If Obama is elected then WE'RE ONLY ONE HEARTBEAT AWAY FROM HAVING SOMEONE IN OFFICE WHO HAS FORIEGN POLICY EXPERIENCE! WOOWHOOO!!! Let's get behind that ticket!

I'm not saying that I'm voting for McCain, I have lots of problems with him. But Obama doesn't have one second more quality executive experience than Palin so he needs to get everyone in his party to shutup about it.

Obama hasn't framed himself as this bastion of experience for one moment during his entire campaign. Obama's experience does not consist of multiple decades of experience in Washington, and Obama has not tried to fudge this. Vote for him or not, Obama's personal experience, and what he believes would make him a good president is clear.

McCain however, has told us a very different story. His main line of attack is that Obama is not ready to lead. OBAMA'S NOT READY TO LEAD. It's not just that Obama's policy positions are bad, it's that due to his lack of traditional Washington experience, he is incapable of leading. This has been McCain's main successful argument against Obama thus far, and for McCain's second in command he chooses someone with less government experience than Obama, and absolutely zero foreign policy experience compared to Obama's admittedly limited U.S. Senate foreign policy experience.

I asked this in another thread, so maybe you can tell me what the answer to this is, because I haven't heard one McCain supporter answer it well thus far:

-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?

cincybearcat wrote:

I don't think either Obama's nor Palin's lack of Washington experience is a bad thing...I think it's a great thing.

Agreed...as I said in my earlier post, my criticisms of Palin's lack of experience don't mean I think she is unable to be president. I support a candidate with a much different (and in my opinion) more powerful resume than most Washington politicans. The criticism of the decision about Palin is less about her than it is about McCain and his message.

digster wrote:

Agreed...as I said in my earlier post, my criticisms of Palin's lack of experience don't mean I think she is unable to be president. I support a candidate with a much different (and in my opinion) more powerful resume than most Washington politicans. The criticism of the decision about Palin is less about her than it is about McCain and his message.

Well, I can understand that...but I think the majority here are harping on her experience...maybe I'm wrong.

cincybearcat wrote:

Well, I can understand that...but I think the majority here are harping on her experience...maybe I'm wrong.

I don't really see that; I think people are wondering what makes her fit to lead as opposed to Obama?

digster wrote:

I asked this in another thread, so maybe you can tell me what the answer to this is, because I haven't heard one McCain supporter answer it well thus far:

-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).

I'm not a McCain supporter but since you asked me I will try to answer your comments. My answer is that politicians are hypocrites. Obama supporters say Palin doesn't have foreign policy experience but that's the pot calling the kettle black (please don't take that as a racist comment, black is beautiful, I only use the quote so you understand the point I'm trying to make). And McCain critisizes Obama for lack of experience and then proceeds to pick a running mate with little or less experience than his challenger, albeit his ticket's lack of experience is in the number 2 spot and not the number 1 spot so she should be able to pick up some critical experience before he keels over one day when that intern under his desk is just too much for him to handle.

Other problems I have with the tickets. How does a man who looks at best like death warmed over get a wife as hot as Cindy McCain?

Why is everyone so excited about Obama being the first black president? He's a white man, too. McCain is 100% old and Palin is 100% female, but Obama is just as much white as black. Yes he looks black, but if he were fair skinned would we ignore the that he's a black man? Definately not. So why ignore that he's also white?

I say all this in jest - funny observations that I make here and there that I know are not central to core issues so please don't blast me. I don't want trouble from Jesse Jackson or the AARP. But if you can't laugh at the politians you'd have to cry.

cincybearcat wrote:

Well, it's a non-issue for me, but a good answer is...

Only 1 is running for the top spot.

Why it comes up is to:

1. Point out the hypocrisy of McCain bashing Obama for lack of experience then choosing someone with less experience than him for his VP. He's 72. He said himself a while back that his VP would have to be someone ready to step in and take over.

2. To stop McCain from being able to use the inexperience attack on Obama. It was the one attack that was working somewhat. Now if he uses it the Obama camp can just call him on the hypocrisy and say "he can't think it matters that much or he wouldn't put someone with even less experience one heartbeat away from the oval office."

Personally, it doesn't bother me that she's inexperienced and Obama's lack of experience/brainwashing into old Washington politics is part of the draw. But I can't ignore the hypocrisy in McCain choosing her after railing against Obama's lack of experience repeatedly.

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

He's trying to scoop up votes from the jilted hillary fans.

If that was his goal, this wasn't a good method. Palin is further right than him and staunchly pro life. That's not going to get many jilted Hillary fans--just the few dumb enough to vote for gender alone and ignore that her beliefs are polar opposite of Hillary's whose they professed to share.

Additionally, as Mayor and Governor, she has been an executive in government. Not just a junior legislator who can come and go without anyone noticing or missing him.

As an executive, the buck stops with you. As a junior legislator you can miss votes when you feel like it, propose legislation when the rare mood hits, join others on their bills when you feel like, abstain from voting if you can't decide or don't want something on your record, etc...