quote:Government experience isn't all the same thing. Obama has zero executive branch experience, while Palin's government experience is 100% executive. Being mayor and governor is a lot more applicable than being a senator.
Somehow I think that argument will fall silent when that experience is 18 months long and from ALASKA. [/QB]
Totally. We haven't had a vice-president from a state that small since... Dick Cheney. Posts: 2804 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by DarkKnight: So Biden is the best choice? Really? He has an awful problem with telling his own history and for making racist jokes so I might think twice about him
I think you lost touch with your own point. No, he may not be the best choice, but he is not the political choice. If Obama had made a political choice whose only purpose was to win no matter what, like McCain did, he would have chosen Hillary.
Posts: 340 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lyrhawn, Biden also voted for the war and kept wanting more troops...up until Bush sent more troops in which case Biden changed his mind and was against sending more troops. He also thought splitting Iraq into 3 countries was a good idea.
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think you lost touch with your own point. No, he may not be the best choice, but he is not the political choice. If Obama had made a political choice whose only purpose was to win no matter what, like McCain did, he would have chosen Hillary.
Obama could never choose Hillary because he would not win the Presidency. He and Hillary and Bill would all be co-Presidents together and Obama knew that. Politically for Obama picking Hillary would have been suicide.
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I doubt it. The republicans main strategy now is using jaded Hilary voters to push McCain over the top. Choosing Hillary is the anti-venom to that. If McCain had to choose his VP first, I doubt it would have been Palin, not with the possibility that Obama may choose Hillary was still in the air
Posts: 340 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
quote:Originally posted by Gecko: Splitting Iraq into three countries is a good idea, but that's besides the point.
Do the Iraqi's whose country you ruined have a say?
IP: Logged |
Okay, forgive me for being sexist or insensitive or whatever, but I'm concerned about her new Downs baby. I mean, taking care of a new baby is a big job. Taking care of a Downs baby is a huge job. Being VP is a huge job too. Does she have time to do both? I suppose her husband could do a lot of the caring for him, but she should be somewhat involved too. Am I way out in left field here?
Irami: Brinestone, I like you, but that's just the worst class of sexism. It wouldn't an issue if she were a man, it may even garner more sympathy. I'm willing to give the Paulin family the benefit of the doubt, that they would have a plan.
Brinestone: It absolutely would be an issue for me if it were a man. I consider parenting to be the most important job for both me and my husband. Taking a job that does not allow you to be a good parent, especially to a child who has more needs than a normal child, seems irresponsible to me. Having a "plan" to hire childcare workers to take care of a special-needs baby so you can take a prestigious job does not seem like a worthwhile plan to me. It seems like putting yourself above your child. I wouldn't vote for someone who was willing to do that, male or female.
Brinestone, you are on the wrong side of this. What you are saying is that anyone with a special needs child shouldn't be President. It's not too far to say that anyone with many children or any child shouldn't be President, because the job takes time away. Do you really not think that it is impossible for someone with the material and political resources of the VP to make sure her baby received the exemplary care.
Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
By the by, here's a fun one: If Obama loses this time around, I think it's a safe bet that Hillary will run again in four years. I'd also say there's a good chance that McCain will not run again in four years, due to age. Is it possible we've just set ourselves up for a Palin vs. Clinton race in four years? I know that's speculative and depends on Obama losing and on McCain not running again, but it's not all that unlikely.
quote:Originally posted by Humean316:
quote:You're arguing about two different things. You're talking about what makes it politically hard for him to win the presidency on his own, not whether or not he's actually qualified to do the job.
Actually, no those are the same things.
Wow do I ever disagree with that. I know this is subjective but, Bush got himself elected, twice, but has proven himself totally inept at actually doing the job. We've had presidents in our history who have gotten themselves elected and proven totally unable to do the job. Just because you got elected doesn't mean you are qualified, and just because you didn't make it doesn't mean you weren't qualified. We've had plenty of politicians that were perfectly qualified that would never get elected because they just weren't palatable candidates.
I really don't even see how you can seriously make that argument, you'll have to expand on it.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by DarkKnight: Obama could never choose Hillary because he would not win the Presidency. He and Hillary and Bill would all be co-Presidents together and Obama knew that. Politically for Obama picking Hillary would have been suicide.
For once, we agree.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by DarkKnight: Lyrhawn, Biden also voted for the war and kept wanting more troops...up until Bush sent more troops in which case Biden changed his mind and was against sending more troops. He also thought splitting Iraq into 3 countries was a good idea.
If you mean the original vote then technically he didn't vote for the war, he voted to give Bush the authority that ended up leading to the war. It's a tricky bit of semantics there, but I think it's an important division. Had the measure they voted on said "it's war time!" I don't think it would have passed. I think many of them, Biden included, thought that Bush would use that measure to pursue an aggressive diplomacy that never ended up happening.
Once the invasion was underway, Biden knew tha tmore troops would be needed to forestall a massive insurgency and house to house fighting that was to come. He wanted to use the same doctrine that we used to fight the Gulf War, which was overwhelming military power to blanket the country, which was an attempt to stop from happening exactly what happened.
He opposed sending more troops for the surge because he didn't see it solving the overarching governmental problems. Sending more troops has since changed the military situation there, but has failed to achieve the goals set forth by the Bush Administration as far as economic, social and political changes that the surge was mean to lead to. I wouldn't call it a failure, but it's incomplete.
Splitting Iraq into three countries is a good and a bad idea. It remains to be seen if Iraq CAN function as a single state democracy, and that question may not be answered for decades. Splitting it into three countries would have gotten rid of a lot of the problems they have now, but would have created a host of new ones as well. The Kurds would have been elated, but then we would have needed to deal with a pissed off and militarized Turkey ready to invade. The Sunni center would have been almost totally robbed of oil wealth and a Arabian port city, which would have left them economically destitute. The Shi'a south would have had oil wealth, an Arabian port city, and likely, close ties to Iran afterwards, creating a problem for Saudi Arabia. All in all we could have partitioned and left the mess for them to figure out, and it might have made the internal situation a lot better, but it would've spilled into several other nations' borders. I don't necessarily think it's a worse idea than invading in the first place was.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Taking a job that does not allow you to be a good parent, especially to a child who has more needs than a normal child, seems irresponsible to me. Having a "plan" to hire childcare workers to take care of a special-needs baby so you can take a prestigious job does not seem like a worthwhile plan to me. It seems like putting yourself above your child. I wouldn't vote for someone who was willing to do that, male or female.
There's a theory that this is why traditional Mormons tend to do okay (all that emphasis on education), but are generally absent from the top tiers of most fields.
I'm a big fan of families, but I also think that this attitude can lead to insularity in the sense that it leaves public life to Other People. This means only those of whom I disapprove get to be in charge. That is also irresponsible.
*shrug* While I wouldn't tell any individual how to do their job or live their life, I also would never refuse to vote for someone whose views I support because I think their very attempt to be part of the government indicates a character flaw.
This kind of attitude would also mean you can't be a good parent and a soldier, or a good parent with any kind of high-pressure job.
Besides, Palin is married and she has considerable resources. It is possible to provide fulfill family responsibilities without ignoring the rest of the world as well.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: Sending more troops has since changed the military situation there, but has failed to achieve the goals set forth by the Bush Administration as far as economic, social and political changes that the surge was mean to lead to. I wouldn't call it a failure, but it's incomplete.
This does not address Biden's demand for more troops then his reversal for not wanting more troops. I will stop now that I see you changed your post significantly
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sorry, I missed that bit about wanting troops and then not wanting troops so I added a paragraph to address it.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Gecko: Splitting Iraq into three countries is a good idea, but that's besides the point.
Do the Iraqi's whose country you ruined have a say?
Do the Kurds have a say in whether they need to remain in Iraq and Turkey, rather than have their own independent Kurdistan?
Iraq was created by Europe. I suspect that if you were to ask them, a lot of Iraqis would happily split into separate countries.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: By the by, here's a fun one: If Obama loses this time around, I think it's a safe bet that Hillary will run again in four years. I'd also say there's a good chance that McCain will not run again in four years, due to age. Is it possible we've just set ourselves up for a Palin vs. Clinton race in four years? I know that's speculative and depends on Obama losing and on McCain not running again, but it's not all that unlikely.
Very cool. That would really be something. You've almost convinced me to vote for McCain (although being from Chicago, my vote doesn't count in presidential elections anyway).
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think they may have underestimated Senator Clinton.
She doesn't want to be President. She wants to be the first Woman President.
If McCain gets elected there is a good chance that Governor Palin will succeed him due to his age. That would mean that Senator Clinton, even if she won an election next time, would not be forever remembered as number 1.
She won't stand for that. If there was any doubt that she would full heartedly support Obama in the election cycle, it vanished.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Wow do I ever disagree with that. I know this is subjective but, Bush got himself elected, twice, but has proven himself totally inept at actually doing the job. We've had presidents in our history who have gotten themselves elected and proven totally unable to do the job. Just because you got elected doesn't mean you are qualified, and just because you didn't make it doesn't mean you weren't qualified. We've had plenty of politicians that were perfectly qualified that would never get elected because they just weren't palatable candidates.
The problem with being an idealist (this is Obama's problem too actually) is that some will say you fail to understand reality and that lofty goals are meaningless in the face of real-life problems. So here is a question, do you really think it matters or that many people will make the distinction between qualifications for President and those things that will get elected? See, ideally people will make that distinction or believe that it matters, but in this political atmosphere, it clearly doesn't matter. What gets you elected *is* what makes you qualified in today's American politics, whether that is correct or not.
quote:She won't stand for that. If there was any doubt that she would full heartedly support Obama in the election cycle, it vanished.
Which perfectly embodies the sexism and the difference between Gov. Palin and Sen. Clinton that I argued about.
I think this could be a great experiment with Fox News, will they be as sexist towards Gov. Palin that they were towards Sen. Clinton?
ETA: Let's see if Fox is *really* fair and balanced.
Posts: 457 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: So here is a question, do you really think it matters or that many people will make the distinction between qualifications for President and those things that will get elected? See, ideally people will make that distinction or believe that it matters, but in this political atmosphere, it clearly doesn't matter. What gets you elected *is* what makes you qualified in today's American politics, whether that is correct or not.
Do I really think it matters? Yes. Do I think the majority of the electorate think it matters? Well I guess we'll find out in 60 days or so, but I think it matters to some of them, and not to others. I think that being qualified or not qualified CAN be a political problem or asset in getting elected, but I don't think all political assets or problems make you able or unable to actually do the job. I don't think they are interchangable. I see what you're trying to say, and maybe in the present you have a point, but history doesn't forgive that sort of thing.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Oh, I imagine she'd swallow hard and be willing to be second in order to hold the office.
However, in eight years, she'll be too old.
I don't understand why people keep saying this. McCain is 72 right now, so why would Hillary be too old at 68, especially when women usually live longer than men?
Posts: 2880 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Part of that is probably because a lot of people already think that 72 is too old. And I'd argue that women and men have life expectancy differences because men are stupid and don't seek care where women do, so it's our own fault, but it's not really relevent.
I think that for as many people that are saying that this was her turn that Obama screwed up, there will be just as many saying in four or eight years that she missed her chance and she should let it go. I think she COULD run, and could win the nomination, but there are a lot of rising stars in the party that aren't at all going to feel they owe her anything and won't feel bad about taking her out. I think this election was the passing of the torch in the Democratic party, and she'll be hard pressed to wrench it back from them.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The formatting is a bit screwed up with a copy and paste but ...:
quote: IRAQ POLL 2007 The poll was conducted by D3 Systems for the BBC, ABC News, ARD German TV and USA Today. More than 2,000 people were questioned in more than 450 neighbourhoods and villages across all 18 provinces of Iraq between 25 February and 5 March 2007. The margin of error is + or – 2.5%.
...
Q14 Which of the following structures do you believe Iraq should have in the future? 2007 2005 2004 % % % One unified Iraq with a central government in Baghdad, 58 70 79 A group of regional states with their own regional governments and a federal government in Baghdad 28 18 14 A country divided into separate independent states 14 9 4 Refused/don’t know - 3 3
While support for a unified Iraq may be changing toward a more federal and provincial structure, there is still overwhelming (86%) support against separation into different countries, at least as of 2007.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm sure the 2000 people the reporters questioned are the average Iraqi just trying to go to work and mind his own buisness. Those are in the minority in Iraq.
Plus, who did they ask? Sunni, Shi'a or Kurd? You can't lump all three under the term "Iraqi" and pretend it doesn't matter. Each group has vastly different goals and alligences.
Posts: 340 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Brinestone: President is a time-destroying job. It looks to me that logic would make it so that any parent (of a child under some young age) should never try to be President.
I think you're trying to argue with me, but that is basically what I'm saying. And by "some young age," I mean two years of age or so. It's just two years of your life. Try to become president or VP next term if that's what you want. But babies need lots of face time with their parents in order to develop bonds with them, and, like you said, being president is time-destroying. Campaigning for presidency may be even worse.
quote:Originally posted by DarkKnight: So anyone with a special-needs child cannot have a job or else they are an irresponsible parent? Being able to hire the very best caregivers is a bad plan? Seriously?
Did I say they couldn't have a job? (No, I didn't.) I said I wouldn't vote for someone who took a time-destroying job when their child (especially special-needs) was literally an infant. Hiring great caregivers is wonderful if you can also participate at least minimally with your child. I don't believe someone campaigning for presidency and then serving as vice president can do that.
Posts: 1903 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Senator McCain's choice is also likely to make sure that abortion is front and center in this campaign.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, I'm about the only die hard McCainiac here, so I may be biased, but I think Palin was a very canny choice. Sure she doesn't bring a very electoral-rich state with her, but I think she brings a lot more interest to McCain's campaign that Biden brings to Obama. Biden filled in some of Obama's gaps, where Palin adds to McCain's assets. Also, a huge sigh of relief that McCain dodged the Romney bullet.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
McCain's used his first big decision as President to put the country in danger. Putting someone so unqualified a heartbeat away from Potus is so completely irresponsible that it reeks of Harriet Meyers cronyism and a look at what else is to come in a McCain administration.
Posts: 340 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Gecko: I'm sure the 2000 people the reporters questioned are the average Iraqi just trying to go to work and mind his own buisness. Those are in the minority in Iraq.
The average Iraqi is a minority in Iraq ... you're going to have to show statistics for that.
quote: Plus, who did they ask?
"More than 2,000 people were questioned in more than 450 neighbourhoods and villages across all 18 provinces of Iraq between 25 February and 5 March 2007"
quote:I'm sure running the Eskimo military has given her some serious military and foreign policy cred.
Wow, is that really you, Lyrhawn?
It's worse to put a freshman governor one heartbeat away from the whitehouse than to put a freshman senator in it? If picking Palin endangers the country, then voting for Obama should be deemed treason.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The average Iraqi left the country a long, long time ago. Anyone with over 5000 dollars is either living in Syria or Jordan.
Posts: 340 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by pooka: [ It's worse to put a freshman governor one heartbeat away from the whitehouse than to put a freshman senator in it? If picking Palin endangers the country, then voting for Obama should be deemed treason.
Obama never made the experience agrument. He was the first to quantify it as being patent fear-mongering. It was McCain who showed his hypocrasy by choosing someone with even less exerience than his opponent. McCain labeled Palin "ready to be President." So what does that mean, she's ready but Obama, who has more experience, isn't?
Is he an idiot or a liar?
Posts: 340 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Brinestone, I honestly don't see where serving as vice president is going to take more time that being governor of a state, which though small in population, has a huge amount of resources to be managed and borders on a foreign country. Sure the campaigning is going to be intensive, but it will also only last two months.
I also don't think McCain imagines to woo many Hillary voters.
All Palin has to say to any of Biden's ideas is to refer to his many years in Washington.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Also there is no way you can compare Palin's executive experience with Obama's legislative experience. Obama represets a state with more people than raindeer.
In 2005, Barack Obama was working with Richard Lugar on legislation targeting stockpiles of nuclear weapons to secure our country.
In 2005, Sarah Palin was mayor of Wasilla, Alaska, (population 5,470 in 2000).
Posts: 340 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Regarding the special needs child- I am more then willing to assume that an adult woman is capable of determining what is best for her family and her life. Voting against her because of the special needs child seems extremely paternalistic.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Gecko: The average Iraqi left the country a long, long time ago. Anyone with over 5000 dollars is either living in Syria or Jordan.
Show us the numbers.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
You know? Pickig Palin was like getting it by a softball from 3 miles away, I didn't see it coming but I'm happy, it means if McCain dies in office (if he wins) we'll have a decent President.
IP: Logged |
posted
It only just occurred to me what you are trying to say, Blayne. I suppose I'm being a bit prim, but I don't think citing a South Park misspelling excuses the n-word.
I couldn't figure out what would be funny about people nagging snow. Oh well. I'll let you all spin your stories about how hopeless the Republican's chances are in November.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
That doesn't give supporting numbers for either of your two claims. There are still roughly 28 million Iraqis in Iraq compared to the 2 million at most that could be in Syria or Jordan, hardly making them representative of "the average Iraqi." Second, no proof is given that everyone with more than $5000 is part of that group.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:So what does that mean, she's ready but Obama, who has more experience, isn't?
This is the part I find the best about what McCain did today. Now, he doesn't have to make the experience argument anymore because anytime someone argues that Gov. Palin is inexperienced, people are reminded that Obama is pretty much the same. I bet anything that McCain is hoping beyond anything that the Democrats attack Gov. Palin's lack of experience, and knowing the democrats and their own inadequacy, they will fall right into the trap.
Posts: 457 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Part of that is probably because a lot of people already think that 72 is too old. And I'd argue that women and men have life expectancy differences because men are stupid and don't seek care where women do, so it's our own fault, but it's not really relevent.
I think that for as many people that are saying that this was her turn that Obama screwed up, there will be just as many saying in four or eight years that she missed her chance and she should let it go. I think she COULD run, and could win the nomination, but there are a lot of rising stars in the party that aren't at all going to feel they owe her anything and won't feel bad about taking her out. I think this election was the passing of the torch in the Democratic party, and she'll be hard pressed to wrench it back from them.
That's fine by me. I don't want her in the presidency. But her age isn't the reason.
Posts: 2880 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Democrats don't need to make the experience argument. They can run on the economy, foreign policy, national security, the environment, civil rights, health care, energy policy...
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The democrates never made the experience/more years in washington = better argument. They will not mention it, but they will bloody McCain for his hypocrisy.
Posts: 340 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I found this to be an interesting article last night.
quote:It is unclear if John McCain has notified his running mate yet, but planned Denver media appearances by Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty, thought to be a top contender, were abruptly canceled Thursday so he could back to head back to Minnesota, an aide said.
It makes we wonder how last minute of a pick Palin was, and whether Pawlenty was being led to believe he was going to be the pick.
It almost makes sense...after Hillary and especially Bill's great speeches did the McCain camp make a last minute change for fear of losing the disgruntled Hillary supporters?
Posts: 8741 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
