OptimisticOwl Wrote:

JOwl Wrote:

OptimisticOwl Wrote:It is his campaign and supporters that put this forward as relevant experience, apparently equal or greater than that of being a mayor or Governor, and i am just trying to see what it really is.

Really? Where has his campaign said that?

Do you remember the initial response the Obama campaign put out when Palin was introduced? It completely denigrated her mayoral experience and ignored her gubernatorial experience. When asked about his lack of experience, the Obama campaign replies with community organizer, State Senator, US Senator, and when asked about Sarah Palin's experience as a Mayor and/or Governor, they continually downplay the experience as irrelevant and inadequate. It definitely is not irrelevant, and if Obama's is adequate, hers is more than adequate. I think executive experience is important, and since other than CO, Obama's executive experience is nil, I wanted to see what he did and how well he did it.

I know what Executive abilities are needed to be a Mayor and a Governor, and I remind everybody that this race is for Chief Executive (in her case, more of Chief Executive in waiting). I wanted to know what his experience as a community organizer had to do with preparing him to make executive decisions. As for it shaping his world view, all our lives do that. My personal experience in international trade has shaped my world view, as did my experience in helping to start up a youth soccer league, but the former has done much more to develop my executive abilities.

So in other words, Obama and his campaign have never said that his experience as a community organizer was greater than the experience of being governor. I appreciate that you're concerned about his qualifications, but your initial question was really putting words in people's mouths.

Experience certainly counts for something. Gubernatorial experience seems relevant. Mayoral experience seems much less so. Personally, I just don't see executive experience as that important. Every new role requires a candidate/employee/executive to stretch well beyond his/her past experiences.

To draw a comparison, what are McCain's qualifications as far as executive experience is concerned?
On this score, would you say that Carter was significantly better-qualified than McCain is? [Sounds like a sweet new Republican slogan:
"McCain -- Much less qualified than Jimmy Carter, but he's our guy!!!!"]
As far as reasons I'm not voting for McCain go, the fact that he has no relevant executive experience is at the bottom of the list.

OptimisticOwl Wrote:Ok, I started this, and I am satified that i have the answers to my question. "Community organizer' is a giant, amorphous term that encompasses a lot of very different people. I was surprised to see, in the wikipedia article, Pat Robertson's name next to BO's in a list of prominent CO's. Just goes to show the breadth of inclusion. My own defintion now of CO is "Someone who works for the benefit of his community, which may be the entire community or a subset of same".

I would only add to that "in a capacity other than as a government official."

OptimisticOwl Wrote:It is his campaign and supporters that put this forward as relevant experience, apparently equal or greater than that of being a mayor or Governor, and i am just trying to see what it really is.

McCain cited Palin's leadership of her PTA (among other things) as a qualification. Honest, he did. Your question is much like an Obama supporter asking how leading the Wasilla PTA is equivalent to being a US Senator.

[Apologies for being late to this party.]

If someone was gullible enough to believe the voodoo powers are for real, they might not want to bounce a check to her. The problem will not be the criminal prosecution for the bad check but the fear that she might turn the gullible one into a zombie. I would not want to be ruled by a government official who is stupid enough to believe in voodoo.

WMD Owl Wrote:Here is how they sometimes handle political opponets here in Georgia, including perhaps "community organizers"..

Voodoo priestess says Cobb official bounced checks

Death rituals. A voodoo priestess. A cancer-causing curse. A Cobb County Police report details the lengths Cobb Commissioner Annette Kesting allegedly was willing to go to get even with her political rival.

Kesting wrote $3,000 in bad checks, allegedly for the services of a “high priestess of voodoo” to prepare an untimely demise for commissioner-elect Woody Thompson. Kesting wanted the priestess, identified by authorities as George Ann Mills of Blythewood, S.C., to cause Thompson to “catch cancer” or “have a car accident” according to a police report obtained by WSB-TV.

“It is very bizarre,” said Thompson, who soundly defeated Kesting in a runoff earlier this year. “I find it almost hard to believe.”

Law enforcement authorities in Georgia and South Carolina are investigating the allegations. Mills did not return a call late Monday seeking her comment.

The Georgia Bureau of Investigation is looking into the incident. GBI spokesman John Bankhead said “we haven’t had a chance to verify if the allegations are true, or whether a crime has been committed yet.”

Reached Monday night, Kesting declined comment and referred questions to her attorney. Her attorney could not be reached.

According to the police report, the priestess told police that Kesting paid her with a $2,000 check for the ritual on Aug. 27, and post-dated another $1,000 check for Sept. 11. Both checks bounced, the woman told police, although she said Kesting paid cash to make up for the first bounced check.

Kesting defeated Thompson, a two-term Republican incumbent in the 2004 general election to become Cobb County’s first African-American commissioner. Thompson said he learned of the voodoo incident from a Cobb County official.

Kesting’s term as commissioner — which ends in December — has been marked by unflattering financial disclosures and personal blunders. She was delinquent in paying taxes to the county in 2007 for properties she owned in Powder Springs, and was also written up for code violations on several of her properties.

http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/metro/c...hecks.html

Old Sammy Wrote:

OptimisticOwl Wrote:It is his campaign and supporters that put this forward as relevant experience, apparently equal or greater than that of being a mayor or Governor, and i am just trying to see what it really is.

McCain cited Palin's leadership of her PTA (among other things) as a qualification. Honest, he did. Your question is much like an Obama supporter asking how leading the Wasilla PTA is equivalent to being a US Senator.

[Apologies for being late to this party.]

Obama's camp keeps saying that McCain's selection of someone as a VP candidate who, according to them, is not qualified to be a heartbeat from the presidency casts doubt on his judgement.

If Palin is unqualified, then what qualifies Obama? He has been a US Senator for less than 4 years, a former state senator, and a former community organizer. Period. No other qualifications are advanced. If the qualifications were reversed, which would you think then was the better qualified? I doubt that your choice would change, just the reasons given for making that choice.

I don't think leading the Wasilla PTA is equivalent to being a US Senator. I do think it is very close to the equivalent of being a community organizer. So call that a wash. So what's left is Mayor/Governor vs. State senator/US senator. I think that they are equally qualified.

As for the Carter thing that someone else brought up, I must admit, Carter had me fooled. But why go back all that way - the dems have nominated a small-state Governor since then, a guy named Clinton.

It is a truism that the only true experiential qualification for being president is to have been President - but if we had an office called Chief Legislator, i think legislative experience would be salient. So why isn't executive experience salient to the office of Chief Executive? I think it is this: if your candidate has it, it is important, if he doesn't, it is not. So if the roles were reversed, the Dems would touting Governorship experience, mayorship experience, and yes, PTA experience, while the Republicans would be citing sitting on committees and community organizing as the proper preparation for the job. It's a process of my guy, I'll figure out why later.

Damn, just when i thought i had gotten out, they drag me back in. well, off for a root canal, which i expect will be the most pleasant experience of the next four years.

OptimisticOwl Wrote:It is a truism that the only true experiential qualification for being president is to have been President - but if we had an office called Chief Legislator, i think legislative experience would be salient. So why isn't executive experience salient to the office of Chief Executive? I think it is this: if your candidate has it, it is important, if he doesn't, it is not. So if the roles were reversed, the Dems would touting Governorship experience, mayorship experience, and yes, PTA experience, while the Republicans would be citing sitting on committees and community organizing as the proper preparation for the job. It's a process of my guy, I'll figure out why later.

You are absolutely spot on with this.

The ideal candidate would have some sort of executive experience and some sort of national experience. I voted for Richardson in the primary even though he had already ended his campaign. Apparently most Democrats prefer "captures my imagination" to "is most qualified." Needless to say I also think he should've been the VP choice (although Biden is better than the Ds have done previously).

Your point about "if your candidate has it" goes way beyond experience. Like we talked about in another thread, all of the candidates have made misstatements. Most McCain supporters downplay his Afghanistan-Iraq border comment while ridiculing Obama's 57 states, and vice-versa.

OptimisticOwl Wrote:So why isn't executive experience salient to the office of Chief Executive? I think it is this: if your candidate has it, it is important, if he doesn't, it is not.

I'm confused -- do you not have a horse in this race? Neither candidate has executive experience, but executive experience seems important to you. That doesn't really jibe with your above statement.

And someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't remember executive experience being made an issue in '96, even though Clinton had it in spades over Dole.

OptimisticOwl Wrote:As for the Carter thing that someone else brought up, I must admit, Carter had me fooled. But why go back all that way - the dems have nominated a small-state Governor since then, a guy named Clinton.

Because Carter managed to lose an election despite having four years of presidential executive experience on top of his gubernatorial experience.
Plus, I just find Jimmy Carter somehow inherently amusing in a way I don't with Clinton, so I like to bring him up.

Old Sammy Wrote:McCain cited Palin's leadership of her PTA (among other things) as a qualification. Honest, he did. Your question is much like an Obama supporter asking how leading the Wasilla PTA is equivalent to being a US Senator.

He did so because as OO said, Community Organizer was advanced as part of Obama's qualifications. It is the least of their respective qualifications.

Having served on a PTA board, I'd say that they have a better understanding of what beauracratic mess teachers and students have to deal with than the people who write the legislation... and I think that was the point they were making.

Legislators vote on legislation... they trade votes for amendments, and don't have to deal with the way those amendments change even good legislation. PTA members, Mayors and Governors do.

Palin wouldn't have been the selection if Obama's relative inexperience hadn't opened the door for her...

It comes down to this: Experience, numbers, and titles don't equal qualification. What matters is intelligence (both intellectual and emotional), wisdom and leadership, and a campaign is arguably not the best way to find that. (Sadly the best way to judge it is in hindsight.)

GWB was Governor of the third largest state (became second-largest while he was governor) in the union for 6 years. Before that he was an entrepreneurial oilman for 10-12 years, a presidential campaign and administration advisor, and managing partner of a MLB team. Oh, and our first MBA president. Now we can each judge in hindsight whether we thought he was up to the job.

I think one of the disconnects on this thread is what we mean by "qualifications." If you're talking about a list of positions with boxes to check off, then, of course, governor trumps community organizer. Give Palin a check mark there. I wouldn't say she is unqualified because she has "only" been a small-town mayor and governor of a sparsely populated state; those are pluses. But I look at her qualities beyond those particular check boxes.

As has been said here (more or less): the Obama campaign pushes the community organizer angle as an experience in selflessly working for people, understanding their problems, blah blah. No one is saying it provided executive experience. But it's an experience that may - and I'll emphasize "may" for the sake of his opponents - contribute to his presidential toolkit, along with characteristics such as intelligence, knowledge, and temperament that can be considered good qualities in a president. Here's where I believe he might stand up well against Alaska's chief executive. If you don't think those are "qualifications," then I'll save my breath from here on out. (And I'm leaving aside whether you actually agree that he has those qualities.)

And this: Why would someone think McCain is "qualified" to be president? Some answers: His suffering made him better appreciate his country. He understands the military. His years in the Senate give him vast knowledge of the issues. He's smart. Et cetera. Do we pull out the red pencil and knock him a notch below Palin because he hasn't been a governor? Of course not - we look beyond the check boxes.

And texd's first paragraph says it much more succinctly than I do in three long paragraphs. I really need to get my posts up faster....

texd Wrote:It comes down to this: Experience, numbers, and titles don't equal qualification. What matters is intelligence (both intellectual and emotional), wisdom and leadership, and a campaign is arguably not the best way to find that. (Sadly the best way to judge it is in hindsight.)

GWB was Governor of the third largest state (became second-largest while he was governor) in the union for 6 years. Before that he was an entrepreneurial oilman for 10-12 years, a presidential campaign and administration advisor, and managing partner of a MLB team. Oh, and our first MBA president. Now we can each judge in hindsight whether we thought he was up to the job.

Governor of Texas is traditionally a figurehead position. I don't think it has to be that way, but that's how most of them have treated it. Charles Durning was not far from the prototype. I think GWB was one of the better governors we've had, but that is faint praise. His "real world" experience was ridiculous. His primary asset was his last name.

I think the key is not how many years you've done something but what you've learned from it. To try and tie this back to sports, we see this often: a 5th-year senior that's no better than when he was a freshman. Some people improve with experience, some don't.

I agree about intelligence, wisdom, and leadership. Those are always important. In a presidential race I would also prefer somebody that has demonstrated the ability to run a large organization, and somebody with a firm grasp of the issues confronting our nation.

JOwl Wrote:

OptimisticOwl Wrote:So why isn't executive experience salient to the office of Chief Executive? I think it is this: if your candidate has it, it is important, if he doesn't, it is not.

I'm confused -- do you not have a horse in this race? Neither candidate has executive experience, but executive experience seems important to you. That doesn't really jibe with your above statement.

We all have a horse in this race, because after it is over, we will all be sitting under the rear end of one of these two horses, and the amount and qualities of the manure that will be dumped on us will be different for each horse. Do you prefer the crap of the old warhorse or the crap of the spirited little colt that is very nice looking but wants to run very fast in the wrong direction?

My horses were scratched from this race long ago. McCain was my last choice among the Republicans. However, Obama is my last choice among all the candidates.

Executive experience is important, and I wish Obama had some and McCain had more. But this discussion now turns on the insistance of the Obama campaign/Democratic party that Palin's qualifications are inadequate to be a heartbeat from the presidency, while Obama's are more than adequate to be that heartbeat. There is a disconnect there that i pointed out and that a lot of people are busily trying to justify.

OptimisticOwl Wrote:[quote=JOwl]
[quote=OptimisticOwl]
Executive experience is important, and I wish Obama had some and McCain had more. But this discussion now turns on the insistance of the Obama campaign/Democratic party that Palin's qualifications are inadequate to be a heartbeat from the presidency, while Obama's are more than adequate to be that heartbeat. There is a disconnect there that i pointed out and that a lot of people are busily trying to justify.

Most of the Democrats I know aren't saying Palin is unqualified because of her experience. They're pointing to McCain's choice of Palin to be a heartbeat away from the presidency as evidence of one of the following two theories: a) McCain's criticism of Obama's lack of experience in the past wasn't sincere, or b) McCain's criticism of Obama's inexperince in the past was sincere, but McCain was willing to throw principle to the wind and select Palin in spite of his own feelings about experience.

This "qualification" thing is so nebulous it's an impossible debate to score. Everyone's definition is different. For me, McCain scores well on experience and intelligence but low on policy, judgment and inspiration. Obama scores well on policy, judgment, inspiration and intelligence but low on experience. Biden scores well on experience, policy, intelligence and judgment but low on inspiration (Biden was my orginal favorite in the horse race, BTW). And Palin? Honestly, to me she scores low on everything. She's W all over again. If there's one thing that the last 8 years should have taught America, it's that you don't vote for a national leader because they're "like me." I would make a horrible president. Why shouldn't I expect the President of the United States to be an exceptional person?

Both parties have come up with some duds in the past (the Dems had Kerry, who was uniquely qualified to lose to Bush after the first 4 years). McCain's choice of Palin alone proves his judgment is lacking.

OptimisticOwl Wrote:

JOwl Wrote:

OptimisticOwl Wrote:So why isn't executive experience salient to the office of Chief Executive? I think it is this: if your candidate has it, it is important, if he doesn't, it is not.

I'm confused -- do you not have a horse in this race? Neither candidate has executive experience, but executive experience seems important to you. That doesn't really jibe with your above statement.

We all have a horse in this race, because after it is over, we will all be sitting under the rear end of one of these two horses, and the amount and qualities of the manure that will be dumped on us will be different for each horse. Do you prefer the crap of the old warhorse or the crap of the spirited little colt that is very nice looking but wants to run very fast in the wrong direction?

My horses were scratched from this race long ago. McCain was my last choice among the Republicans. However, Obama is my last choice among all the candidates.

Executive experience is important, and I wish Obama had some and McCain had more. But this discussion now turns on the insistance of the Obama campaign/Democratic party that Palin's qualifications are inadequate to be a heartbeat from the presidency, while Obama's are more than adequate to be that heartbeat. There is a disconnect there that i pointed out and that a lot of people are busily trying to justify.

So just to be clear, you personally are a counter-example to your belief that "if your candidate has it, it is important, if he doesn't, it is not".
Right?

Gravy Owl Wrote:

texd Wrote:It comes down to this: Experience, numbers, and titles don't equal qualification. What matters is intelligence (both intellectual and emotional), wisdom and leadership, and a campaign is arguably not the best way to find that. (Sadly the best way to judge it is in hindsight.)

GWB was Governor of the third largest state (became second-largest while he was governor) in the union for 6 years. Before that he was an entrepreneurial oilman for 10-12 years, a presidential campaign and administration advisor, and managing partner of a MLB team. Oh, and our first MBA president. Now we can each judge in hindsight whether we thought he was up to the job.

Governor of Texas is traditionally a figurehead position. I don't think it has to be that way, but that's how most of them have treated it. Charles Durning was not far from the prototype. I think GWB was one of the better governors we've had, but that is faint praise. His "real world" experience was ridiculous. His primary asset was his last name.

I think the key is not how many years you've done something but what you've learned from it. To try and tie this back to sports, we see this often: a 5th-year senior that's no better than when he was a freshman. Some people improve with experience, some don't.

I agree about intelligence, wisdom, and leadership. Those are always important. In a presidential race I would also prefer somebody that has demonstrated the ability to run a large organization, and somebody with a firm grasp of the issues confronting our nation.

Which is part of the problem.... Someone experienced at running a large corporation (think a CEO) is probably pretty unaware of the problems that face average Americans. IMO, that is why the tickets look as they do... Obama and Palin are the "common man", while Biden and McCain are the CEOs....

not saying I personally see things that way... but that is the make-up.

erice Wrote:

OptimisticOwl Wrote:[quote=JOwl]
[quote=OptimisticOwl]
Executive experience is important, and I wish Obama had some and McCain had more. But this discussion now turns on the insistance of the Obama campaign/Democratic party that Palin's qualifications are inadequate to be a heartbeat from the presidency, while Obama's are more than adequate to be that heartbeat. There is a disconnect there that i pointed out and that a lot of people are busily trying to justify.

Most of the Democrats I know aren't saying Palin is unqualified because of her experience. They're pointing to McCain's choice of Palin to be a heartbeat away from the presidency as evidence of one of the following two theories: a) McCain's criticism of Obama's lack of experience in the past wasn't sincere, or b) McCain's criticism of Obama's inexperince in the past was sincere, but McCain was willing to throw principle to the wind and select Palin in spite of his own feelings about experience.

This "qualification" thing is so nebulous it's an impossible debate to score. Everyone's definition is different. For me, McCain scores well on experience and intelligence but low on policy, judgment and inspiration. Obama scores well on policy, judgment, inspiration and intelligence but low on experience. Biden scores well on experience, policy, intelligence and judgment but low on inspiration (Biden was my orginal favorite in the horse race, BTW). And Palin? Honestly, to me she scores low on everything. She's W all over again. If there's one thing that the last 8 years should have taught America, it's that you don't vote for a national leader because they're "like me." I would make a horrible president. Why shouldn't I expect the President of the United States to be an exceptional person?

Both parties have come up with some duds in the past (the Dems had Kerry, who was uniquely qualified to lose to Bush after the first 4 years). McCain's choice of Palin alone proves his judgment is lacking.

Perhaps if you'd actually been to Wasilla and/or Anchorage, you'd think better of her... but that isn't your fault... or America's fault... and not really even McCain's. You simply can't describe what makes a "good" politician to someone who isn't in a similar situation. I have to ask.. while Bush certainly APPEARED to be "like us"... was he really??

As far as the democrats comments about Palin...

McCain only recently questioned Obama's experience... and generally only in Foriegn policy... maybe energy. It was Biden and the other Democrats who questioned his general qualifications... and some Republican groups kept it up after he won... but not McCain... so the "throwing principle to the wind" comment is political drivel. I suspect that just about everyone would agree that Obama has plenty of experience to be VP... but that's not what he's running for.

More importantly... Obama is running against McCain... not Palin. This "heartbeat" junk is just that... junk. Should McCain win and something happen, Palin would not suddenly be carrying the mantle of the Republican party. She would be Gerald Ford. If she had good and popular ideas, then Congress would run with them... if she did not... then they would ignore her. McCain's appointments would remain in office, and to be honest, it would look pretty bad if she replaced a bunch of them. When the 2012 election came around, Republicans would be coming out of the woodwork to challenge her, despite the fact that she had been a "sitting" President... thus, as some argue... the ONLY qualified and eligible person in the world.

I have been to Juneau and they think well of Palin.

McCann failed to make one point he could have made.
Both agreeed that we should use force to prevent genocide.
Obama keeps saying that we should not have gone to Iraq.
However, Saddam did engage in genocide. He drained the marshes
to get rid of the Marsh Arabs who opposed him. Whole villages of Kurds and Shittes were subject to poison gas.

Hambone10 Wrote:

erice Wrote:

OptimisticOwl Wrote:[quote=JOwl]
[quote=OptimisticOwl]
Executive experience is important, and I wish Obama had some and McCain had more. But this discussion now turns on the insistance of the Obama campaign/Democratic party that Palin's qualifications are inadequate to be a heartbeat from the presidency, while Obama's are more than adequate to be that heartbeat. There is a disconnect there that i pointed out and that a lot of people are busily trying to justify.

Most of the Democrats I know aren't saying Palin is unqualified because of her experience. They're pointing to McCain's choice of Palin to be a heartbeat away from the presidency as evidence of one of the following two theories: a) McCain's criticism of Obama's lack of experience in the past wasn't sincere, or b) McCain's criticism of Obama's inexperince in the past was sincere, but McCain was willing to throw principle to the wind and select Palin in spite of his own feelings about experience.

This "qualification" thing is so nebulous it's an impossible debate to score. Everyone's definition is different. For me, McCain scores well on experience and intelligence but low on policy, judgment and inspiration. Obama scores well on policy, judgment, inspiration and intelligence but low on experience. Biden scores well on experience, policy, intelligence and judgment but low on inspiration (Biden was my orginal favorite in the horse race, BTW). And Palin? Honestly, to me she scores low on everything. She's W all over again. If there's one thing that the last 8 years should have taught America, it's that you don't vote for a national leader because they're "like me." I would make a horrible president. Why shouldn't I expect the President of the United States to be an exceptional person?

Both parties have come up with some duds in the past (the Dems had Kerry, who was uniquely qualified to lose to Bush after the first 4 years). McCain's choice of Palin alone proves his judgment is lacking.

Perhaps if you'd actually been to Wasilla and/or Anchorage, you'd think better of her... but that isn't your fault... or America's fault... and not really even McCain's. You simply can't describe what makes a "good" politician to someone who isn't in a similar situation. I have to ask.. while Bush certainly APPEARED to be "like us"... was he really??

As far as the democrats comments about Palin...

McCain only recently questioned Obama's experience... and generally only in Foriegn policy... maybe energy. It was Biden and the other Democrats who questioned his general qualifications... and some Republican groups kept it up after he won... but not McCain... so the "throwing principle to the wind" comment is political drivel. I suspect that just about everyone would agree that Obama has plenty of experience to be VP... but that's not what he's running for.

More importantly... Obama is running against McCain... not Palin. This "heartbeat" junk is just that... junk. Should McCain win and something happen, Palin would not suddenly be carrying the mantle of the Republican party. She would be Gerald Ford. If she had good and popular ideas, then Congress would run with them... if she did not... then they would ignore her. McCain's appointments would remain in office, and to be honest, it would look pretty bad if she replaced a bunch of them. When the 2012 election came around, Republicans would be coming out of the woodwork to challenge her, despite the fact that she had been a "sitting" President... thus, as some argue... the ONLY qualified and eligible person in the world.

Hambone10 Wrote:Perhaps if you'd actually been to Wasilla and/or Anchorage, you'd think better of her...

No, I'd think better of her if she she wasn't clueless about the single most important foreign policy change made in the last 8 years (among other shortcomings revealed when she's unscripted). Wasilla is neither here nor there. Anyone who wants to be in the White House ought to have at least a passing interest in U.S. foreign affairs. And that's all it takes to know what the Bush Doctrine is.

Hambone10 Wrote:McCain only recently questioned Obama's experience... and generally only in Foriegn policy... maybe energy. It was Biden and the other Democrats who questioned his general qualifications... and some Republican groups kept it up after he won... but not McCain... so the "throwing principle to the wind" comment is political drivel.

Now that's just silly. The experience question was the single most important reason McCain was closing the gap on Obama prior to the conventions. Quotes of McCain questioning Obama's experience are easy to find, including the following (from April):

“It displays a fundamental misunderstanding of history and how we’ve maintained national security, and what we need to do in the future to maintain our security in the face of the transcendent challenge of radical Islamic extremism. And I understand that because he has no experience or background in any of it,” McCain said.
(Full article here)

Hambone10 Wrote:More importantly... Obama is running against McCain... not Palin. This "heartbeat" junk is just that... junk. Should McCain win and something happen, Palin would not suddenly be carrying the mantle of the Republican party. She would be Gerald Ford. If she had good and popular ideas, then Congress would run with them... if she did not... then they would ignore her. McCain's appointments would remain in office, and to be honest, it would look pretty bad if she replaced a bunch of them. When the 2012 election came around, Republicans would be coming out of the woodwork to challenge her, despite the fact that she had been a "sitting" President... thus, as some argue... the ONLY qualified and eligible person in the world.

So are you saying it's not important for the VP to be ready to be President? If that's your position, then I can understand why you'd be ok with the Palin choice. I don't think most Americans share that opinion though.

75Owl Wrote:McCann failed to make one point he could have made.
Both agreeed that we should use force to prevent genocide.
Obama keeps saying that we should not have gone to Iraq.
However, Saddam did engage in genocide. He drained the marshes
to get rid of the Marsh Arabs who opposed him. Whole villages of Kurds and Shittes were subject to poison gas.

If that were really the reason McCain and Bush wanted to go to war with Iraq, you'd have a strong point. But it wasn't.

texd Wrote:It comes down to this: Experience, numbers, and titles don't equal qualification. What matters is intelligence (both intellectual and emotional), wisdom and leadership...

GWB was Governor of the third largest state (became second-largest while he was governor) in the union for 6 years. Before that he was an entrepreneurial oilman for 10-12 years, a presidential campaign and administration advisor, and managing partner of a MLB team. Oh, and our first MBA president. Now we can each judge in hindsight whether we thought he was up to the job.

...and Reagan was an actor...

I'm not looking for "executive experience" in a candidate for the U.S. presidency. I'm looking for someone who understands the issues, inspires others as a leader, makes decisions based on sound reasoning, genuinely cares about various demographic groups, and is humble enough to look to others for help. I think Obama and Palin have some of those characteristics; Obama is superior to Palin regarding the first characteristic. McCain doesn't have enough of them. I'm not sure about Biden yet.