LongTimeOwl33 Wrote:For everyone who is worried about Palin's experience and being only a heart beat away, I am more worried about the experience of the who would be the heartbeat(Obama).

a big difference IMHO is that Obama has been running for President for almost two years now (since his public announcement -- i'm sure he considered in private for even longer), and in that span, he's had time to work on developing policies on national level issues. contrast that with Palin, who is more or less, a surprise sudden VP pick, and probably hasn't seriously formulated policies on foreign affairs, healthcare, the economy, etc.

compare:
http://www.ontheissues.org/Sarah_Palin.htm
http://www.ontheissues.org/Barack_Obama.htm

kingjames23tx Wrote:a big difference IMHO is that Obama has been running for President for almost two years now (since his public announcement -- i'm sure he considered in private for even longer), and in that span, he's had time to work on developing policies on national level issues. contrast that with Palin, who is more or less, a surprise sudden VP pick, and probably hasn't seriously formulated policies on foreign affairs, healthcare, the economy, etc.

Considering that my biggest complaint with Obama is that his policies strike me as pretty much worthless, I wouldn't say all that time has helped him a whole lot.

Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:I think she's an excellent choice.

Her foreign policy credentials are no worse than Obama's. "Serving on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee" is to "conducting foreign policy" as "serving on the Senate Space, Aeronautics, and Related Sciences Subcommittee" is to "walking on the moon." Remember, that's why Obama had to put someone with foreign policy credentials on the ticket to cover his weaknesses.

I agree she's a good choice.

But that is just a phenomenally bizarre statement. Obama's met with a number of key foreign leaders, he's articulated policy on foreign matters for the last 6 years, and he chosen as his righthand man a senator most known for his foreign policy acumen.

On the other hand you have Palin who when asked about her feelings on Iraq last year, told an Alaskan Business mag that she hadn't really thought about it.

I'm not sure how you can possibly find them comparable.

Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:

kingjames23tx Wrote:a big difference IMHO is that Obama has been running for President for almost two years now (since his public announcement -- i'm sure he considered in private for even longer), and in that span, he's had time to work on developing policies on national level issues. contrast that with Palin, who is more or less, a surprise sudden VP pick, and probably hasn't seriously formulated policies on foreign affairs, healthcare, the economy, etc.

Considering that my biggest complaint with Obama is that his policies strike me as pretty much worthless, I wouldn't say all that time has helped him a whole lot.

that's fine. but i'm pointing out that despite (what some might say) similar political resumes, my argument is that in the last two years, Obama has been learning and developing policy, while Palin has been governing Alaska.

In 2007, she said "I've been so focused on state government, I haven't really focused much on the war in Iraq," and ""I'm not going to judge even the surge. I'm here to find out what Alaskans need of me as their governor." (http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2...index.html)

There's really nothing that can prepare you for the White House, but at least Obama's been going thru trying-out-for-the-job training over the last two years.

[/code][code]

At Ease Wrote:I agree she's a good choice.

But that is just a phenomenally bizarre statement. Obama's met with a number of key foreign leaders, he's articulated policy on foreign matters for the last 6 years, and he chosen as his righthand man a senator most known for his foreign policy acumen.

On the other hand you have Palin who when asked about her feelings on Iraq last year, told an Alaskan Business mag that she hadn't really thought about it.

I'm not sure how you can possibly find them comparable.

I guess I'm just so unimpressed with Obama that his "credentials" don't mean much to me. And I find him incredibly underwhelming. I'm simply astonished that so many people have gone ga-ga about him. I just can't fathom it.

And yes, I've read his books and I've heard plenty of his speeches (though to be honest, I haven't heard any of them in their entirety because I simply can't listen to him that long, he bores me to tears).

"Meeting world leaders" in the any context other than official spokesman is not the same as negotiating with world leaders, and I don't believe that even he's been presumptuous enough to do that yet.

I will say this, and I've posted it before. I'm more impressed with his foreign policy than I am with his domestic policy. To my mind the best thing that he has said, by far, is that he would go into Pakistan to get bin Laden. The 1% chance I might vote for him is based almost exclusively on that statement.

Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:I think she's an excellent choice.

Her foreign policy credentials are no worse than Obama's. "Serving on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee" is to "conducting foreign policy" as "serving on the Senate Space, Aeronautics, and Related Sciences Subcommittee" is to "walking on the moon." Remember, that's why Obama had to put someone with foreign policy credentials on the ticket to cover his weaknesses.

I don't think that most Obama supporters are quite saying she's a bad choice because of her lack of experience. The problem this presents for McCain is that he's been saying we shouldn't support Obama because he doesn't have the experience to do the job, then he contradicts himself by picking someone who has laughable experience until 2 years ago to be in a position where she could become president any day.

Depending on who you supported before this choice, you're probably looking at it one of two ways, either of which can be supported by the evidence...

If you're in the camp that's inclined to give McCain the benefit of the doubt you might say he chose a fellow maverick who doesn't stand for pork spending, and will make decisions on principle rather than politics, which is completely consistent with the image McCain is trying to portray for himself.

If you're in the other camp, you might say he chose Palin not because of her qualifications to lead the country but because she was the right political choice to get him the votes he needs to win. Right or wrong, that is exactly the opposite of the image McCan has been trying to portray for himself. And perfectly consistent with the image the Democrats have been trying to pin on him as a former maverick who has abandoned his principles and will now say or do anything to get elected.

At the end of the day, you probably end up in the same camp you were in on Thursday.

(Having said that -- I had a really surprising talk with my Dad this morning. He votes 95% Republican, and he was just furious about the choice of Palin.)

kingjames23tx Wrote:that's fine. but i'm pointing out that despite (what some might say) similar political resumes, my argument is that in the last two years, Obama has been learning and developing policy, while Palin has been governing Alaska.

That's fine. What I'm saying is that, based on the policies he has developed, that was a colossal waste of time.

I LOVE this pick. As every Dem should.

kingjames23tx Wrote:In 2007, she said "I've been so focused on state government, I haven't really focused much on the war in Iraq," and ""I'm not going to judge even the surge. I'm here to find out what Alaskans need of me as their governor."

So what your'e saying is that it's a weakness that Palin focused on the job at hand (governor of Alaska) rather than running for national office, and it's a strength that Obama focused on running for national office instead of focusing on the job at hand (senator from Illinois).

I'm not buying.

Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:

kingjames23tx Wrote:In 2007, she said "I've been so focused on state government, I haven't really focused much on the war in Iraq," and ""I'm not going to judge even the surge. I'm here to find out what Alaskans need of me as their governor."

So what your'e saying is that it's a weakness that Palin focused on the job at hand (governor of Alaska) rather than running for national office, and it's a strength that Obama focused on running for national office instead of focusing on the job at hand (senator from Illinois).

I'm not buying.

i don't think either of us are budging either way on the issue. for the record, i think it's commendable for her to focus on her job and answer the question truthfully.

i'm not judging how either of them are doing at their current positions, but i DO believe Obama's experience in this presidential campaign separates him substantially from Palin, who simply hasn't been on the national stage and who i doubt is ready to deal with national issues.

kingjames23tx Wrote:i don't think either of us are budging either way on the issue.

Probably right on that, although I remain open to Obama if I could just figure out what it is that so many people see in him.

I have tried very hard to find something about him to like. I've come up with his statement that he'd go into Pakistan to get bin Laden, but there's nothing else that does a thing for me. At the same time, I know a lot of intelligent and well-educated people who think he's some wonderful transformative leader. I've asked several of them to explain it to me, and after a while they've all pretty much admitted that they don't really have anything but a "feeling" about him. I just don't get the "feeling."

At this point, I see the inevitable result of implementing his economic policies as being a hyperinflationary recession/depression. Zero to negative growth with the dollar dropping like the Argentine peso. I'm not particularly excited about hanging around to see that.

Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:I attended last night's game with some friends, one of whom is a gay female. She made an interesting comment. "A lot of Hillary's supporters are lesbians, and abortion is not a huge issue with us. We care more about gay rights and seeing a woman in office. As long as she's reasonable dealing with gay issues, a lot of us will probably support her."

Well send your friend to Palin's page on Wikipedia, and then she'll return home to Obama.

Quote:Palin has said she has good friends who are gay, but opposes same-sex marriage. She supported a non-binding referendum for a constitutional amendment to deny benefits to homosexual couples. Palin has stated that she supported the 1998 constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage.

FWIW, as a woman and as a feminist the pick is offensive to me. It's so obviously a token choice, given that there are so many better qualified women (starting with Kay Bailey). Her extreme, paternalistic pro-life stance is particularly offensive, especially given that many (most?) Republican women are pro-choice, at least to some degree (including, again, Hutchison). Am I really to believe that her looks weren't a big part of this decision? I don't, and to me that's a pretty sad statement about what qualities America values in female leaders. Granted, such values aren't McCain's fault, but his cynical exploitation of them doesn't exactly give me warm fuzzies, either.

Now, is any of this more important to me than free trade? No. But that doesn't make me thrilled with the choice.

Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:I attended last night's game with some friends, one of whom is a gay female. She made an interesting comment. "A lot of Hillary's supporters are lesbians, and abortion is not a huge issue with us. We care more about gay rights and seeing a woman in office. As long as she's reasonable dealing with gay issues, a lot of us will probably support her."

Hmm... that hits me kind of strangely. I guess by that logic, as a straight female (who neither has nor wants children), I might be more concerned with reproductive rights than gay rights, but I'm really not.

Of course, being here where I am, it kinda all wraps up in a big enchilada of me, OJ, and a few other people who accept evolution vs everyone else. Wanna see what passes for political campaigning around here? Here you go. This little gem was mailed out by Brent Rinehart, incumbent Oklahoma County Commissioner. OJ and I had much mirth when he lost.

http://downloads.newsok.com/documents/ri...artoon.pdf

[edit: misspelled "Rinehart"]

I'm just going to shut down my comments and watch.
I think it's going to be interesting.
And at the end of the day, my guess is that the Barracuda will turn out to have a lot more going for her than many people realize.

69/70/75 -

That wasn't by any means a knock on you or an insinuation that you should hush up... it was just surprise that lesbians' political thought would crystallize that way, and an attempt to see from my own viewpoint ('cause really, that's all I have) why that would be surprising.

Anyway, like I've said elsewhere -- I'm pretty much gonna watch & see too.

All of you who support McBush's pick of Gov. Palin, ask yourself this ONE question: If she were a he, a governor of a small state mired in scandal and controversy (Stevens, bridge to nowhere, etc.) who had not even completed one term, with only preceeding experience of being a mayor of a town of 8,000, would you not be objecting, claiming that there were sooooo many other superiorly qualified men out there (Dan Quayle, e.g.)? If you answer is YES (being truthful now), then that means you think McBush made a good pick BECAUSE she's a woman. In other words, you're a sexist pig, just one of a different color and with a different intent.

And for those who believe that a large number of disaffected female Hillary supporters are going to vote for McBush-Palin, there are a lot of women (and probably some men, though their motives may not be as "pure") who will be turned off by a career-woman who's abandoning her Downs syndrome child to full time care by a nanny. I'm not saying I agree with that point, just that many many women who've been dealt a similar hand will question Palin for that life choice.

I can't wait for Nov. 4!

Bay Area Owl Wrote:edited to focus on a few topics

--The selection of Palin allows the ticket to pick up many of the disgruntled Hillary supporters

--While Alaska is a small state electorally, winning the Mountain West states is critical in this election, and the governor of Alaska is more helpful in this regard than a senator from Delaware. Palin will have appeal across the West, and the Obama ticket may have just lost Montana and Colorado, two states thought to be in play.

--Biden is going have a whale of a time with Palin in the debates. Biden has a reputation as a long-winded bully, so he would not come off well by badgering the young Palin, aka "Sarah Barracuda".

--Some critics say that this selection undermines the ability of the McCain camp to attack Obama on his inexperience (actually Obama can be attacked on his lack of accomplishments while in office), but the inverse is also true. Palin can't be attacked for her lack of experience without exposing the irony of Obama's record.

I think the pick has many advantages for McCain, some of which Bay Area Owl mentioned.

The McCain campaign will almost certainly drop the inexperience criticism now, but I think this works even better for them. The idea is already established in people's minds and the mere existence of Palin is a continual reminder of the inexperience issue. Since this is McCain vs. Obama, not Palin vs. Biden, that will hurt Obama.

It will be off-putting to many folks to see an old man attacking a young female, which will take away much of Biden's punch. Biden's tendency to ramble could lead to a "pretty young thing"-type comment which would be quite unseemly.

Palin's social conservatism will likely help McCain with voters who think he is soft in this area.

I'm not sure how the Palin choice will play with women voters. I suppose there may be some Clinton supporters who will now vote for McCain who wouldn't have otherwise. I suspect it will be more significant that some uncommitted voters, both male and female, will be excited by the opportunity to put a female in the White House. There will also be some, like Amber, who will feel insulted by what they see as the blatant pandering of the pick.

Bay Area Owl points out the advantage this could bring in western swing states, which I hadn't considered.

Many people I talk with are uncomfortable with Obama for reasons they have difficulty expressing. They seem to be uncomfortable with his perceived foreignness, his otherness. For some this is at root because he's, well, black. This pick gives these folks permission to act on these feelings with a reason that is much more palatable. They're not afraid he might be a closet Muslim, they're not unsettled with all this single mom, Hawaii, living-in-Indonesia, father-from-Africa-stuff, they're not racists voting against the black guy, they're making the historic decision to put a woman in the White House. I think this could be the most significant factor of Palin's presence on the ticket.

There are also potential benefits for Obama. A couple could be running over and over the clip of him stating his first priority in picking a VP was the ability to be President. That might make Obama seem more responsible than McCain. And will voters feel a young woman who's accent sounds right out of the movie Fargo seems presidential enough?

My guess: This is a net gain for McCain, all of it contingent on Palin's performance the next two months.

If my political affiliation matters in interpreting these thoughts, I am mildly involved in the Democratic Party because I think that, all things considered, we are generally better off with Democrats in office than Republicans.

Almost 40 million people saw Obama's speech Thursday night. I'd be surprised if McCain's speech is much more than half that. People can talk all they want about polls and this and that but the bottom line to me thus far is the Democrats had well more than twice as many voters in most of the primaries and they'll probably trounce the Republicans in ratings for the two primaries.

That's a big indication to me the Democrats are ahead in November.

ColOwl Wrote:All of you who support McBush's pick of Gov. Palin, ask yourself this ONE question: If she were a he, a governor of a small state mired in scandal and controversy (Stevens, bridge to nowhere, etc.) who had not even complete one term, with only preceeding experience of being a mayor of a town of 8,000, would you blah blah blah,,

I stopped reading and went to look at the pics of her,,damn shes cute

what was your question?



I look at this thru the eyes of someone (1)that makes a living in politics, and (2) a Conservative Republican as a matter or voting habits.

I like the choice for two reason,, (1) it makes for some interesting "strategery" for many of the reasons mentioned above swing state,, her appeal to swing voters and (2) Looking forward to 4 years from now ,Win or Lose Palin in now in the lead for the next GOP nominee for President becuase most do assume McCains age will be a factor in 2012.


and her inexpirience does NOT bother me,, cause she wont be President . Obamas inexpirience does concern me(but its not THE reson I wouldnt vote for him) Because who ever is in power will have advisors and its not the expirience with a paticular issue that matters most but the exprience in being able to make executive decisons that matters. There are plenty of experts that will understand the issues. The President has to know how to listen to all,, then trust themself.

A Gov. even a mayor has done that. with real issues that effect real people.

And Ill try to be done with it ,cause I know no one is going to change anyone elses mind.