<p>pugfug90, congrats on being right. I know why McCain picked her. The reason was three-fold.</p>
<p>A) He was losing and hard. If you looked at the state-by-state breakdown, McCain had a very small chance of winning.
B) Attract Hillary supporters.
C) Inject life into his campaign and make it more favorable to the media. To be honest, the media loves Obama-now that McCain picked a woman the media will be giving McCain a whole lot of coverage which is part of the reason McCain was losing.</p>
<p>Analysis: Palin is unexperienced to the extreme. McCain can not actively go after Obama's lack of experience when you have a Fmr. mayor of a town of less than 9000 and a governor for less than 2 years of a small (population wise) state. That being said, I think for reasons 2 and 3 McCain made a great choice. If McCain had picked a boring Tim Pawlenty or a (enemy) Mitt Romney he likely would have lost barring some huge Obama gaffe or controversy. Women who were supporting Hillary because she was poised to be the next female President will flock to McCain, and women are very important in the Democratic base. This however can backfire for the reasons NewJack stated. And to be honest, McCain had to pick a VP who was ready on Day 1 to be President considering McCain's age and previous health history. That is a fair requirement! I had the same for Obama considering even though he's healthy, he's a frickin target I'm sure. Obama fit the requirement (playing it safe with Biden who is very ready to be President if nothing else) while McCain didn't in my opinion (but played a potential high risk, high reward card). This will be interesting...but I must say McCain was if nothing else, courageous in making this pick. This can backfire, and big time.</p>
<p>"McCain cannot actively go after Obama's lack of experience when..."</p>
<p>Of course he can; he's a Republican. The Republicans very successfully smeared John Kerry by accusing him of exaggerating his service in Vietnam and making his service a negative - WHILE his opponent was George W. Bush of the notorious "My daddy's famous and powerful" draft deferral, who failed even to carry out some of his duties to the (not anywhere near anywhere dangerous) National Guard. Rationality and common sense have no influence whatsoever on political campaigns, particularly on Republican ones.</p>
<p>I get what McCain was going for with his choice (youth, stepping away from the "corrupt" political insider population, a return to the maverick "I am not Bush the Third" appeal that got him the nomination in the first place, and of course, the disgruntled female vote), but his timing was off. If he really wanted to take some of the shine off Obama's speech (not that that was really possible, since the media has appointed itself Obama's universal missionary. It's only after he becomes President that it'll turn on him like a rabid weasel.), he should have released the information about 12 -16 hours sooner. By the time the news broke, the DNC has already crescendoed and Obama retained total domination of the headlines.</p>
<p>I don't understand this "experience" thing. Why weren't you clamoring for it when Obama got the nomination?</p>
<p>I've tried, but there is absolutely nothing about Obama's resume that impresses me. He sued Alice Palmer out of the election, he was involved with that slumlord Rezko??? How has he helped Illinois?</p>
<p>As ethics commisioner of some Alaska gas thing, she exposed the corrupt within her own party</p>
<p>Enabled a !!$26 billion 1700 natural gas pipeline to further ensure our energy security. I think they've been trying for decades and she made it work within her 1st term</p>
<p>She's gotten things done with executive experience. Barack Obama likes to make big speeches to big crowds about hope and change or George Bush and "more of the same". It's clearly not more of the same when Barack has used thuggish tactics to get into the Senate and when Palin and McCain has bucked their party to serve the people.</p>
<p>
[Quote]
I don't understand this "experience" thing. Why weren't you clamoring for it when Obama got the nomination?
[/Quote]
</p>
<p>There is a difference between moderate experience and very little experience. And also, this door swings both ways. Why were you clamoring for it when Obama got the nomination?</p>
<p>
[Quote]
I've tried, but there is absolutely nothing about Obama's resume that impresses me. He sued Alice Palmer out of the election, he was involved with that slumlord Rezko??? How has he helped Illinois?
<p>
[Quote]
As mayor, she reduced property taxes 60%
[/Quote]
</p>
<p>Oh lol. Of a town of less than 9000 people? I could even do that. A lot of people are qualified to be President then...</p>
<p>
[Quote]
As ethics commisioner of some Alaska gas thing, she exposed the corrupt within her own party
[/Quote]
</p>
<p>Cool. Obama helped pass the most sweeping ethics reform in years. Furthermore, most Alaskan politicians are highly corrupt. For her to have not done something about it would be a huge negative. Also, she tried to get her ex-brother in law fired because he divorced her sister...very ethical...oh yes, you know that there's a federal investigation about it...right?</p>
<p>
[Quote]
She's gotten things done with executive experience. Barack Obama likes to make big speeches to big crowds about hope and change or George Bush and "more of the same". It's clearly not more of the same when Barack has used thuggish tactics to get into the Senate and when Palin and McCain has bucked their party to serve the people.
[/Quote]
</p>
<p>Yes she has less than 2 years of executive experience. Of one of the most remote states in the nation. Please someone who votes with Bush 95% of the time is not bucking their party and is not going to bring change that our country sorely needs.</p>
<p>He traveled the world as a kid, went to college, taught, and got caught up in politics. And he was there to help pass liberal stuff I guess, like pre-k, and appeasement of veterans. I'm not impressed. </p>
<p>There's pretty much her life story there and if you're more impressed with Obama "not sure what Iraq vote would've been" "voted present", I don't know what to tell you.</p>
<p>As far as experience is concerned, really I don't think the Obama campaign can really argue it. I mean if they attack her about lack of experience, then what does Obama have? The difference is that she is not running for PRESIDENT the president on the Republican side has ALOT of experience.
The only cogent arguement that Obama could make would be that McCain might die, which would not fit well with the whole "change" image. Politcally this was a VERY smart choice for McCain. Reading her profile, she seems like the women who are the average in America. She went to college, supported her family, AND engaged in politics, all while still looking youthful. Now that is something.</p>
<p>I can't see many Hillary die-hards crossing over for someone who is against abortion even in the cases of rape and incest. Her views are diametrically opposed to those of Hillary.</p>
<p>pugfug90, I don't know what to tell you except that your bias is getting to you if you can't be proud of what Obama has achieved-even McCain recognized this lol. Dbate, don't be naive. Palin is running for President. Any VP is. Especially given McCain's age and battle with cancer? Please. The door swings both ways on the experience issue.</p>
<p>Mike, I think it's interesting that you bring up abortion as the difference between Clinton and Palin. Abortion</a> Issue Laying Low in 2008 Campaign I don't care at all and I'm guessing that Palin and McCain's history of serving the people will resonate more than the fact that Obama is more of an abortion supporter.</p>
<p>It's interesting that you don't mention deformity as a reason to abort but you mention rape and incest. So a Downs syndrome baby deserves more of a chance at life than a rape baby? (Holla chick from Law/Order SVU)</p>
<p>I am proud that a Black man has gotten the nomination of the Democartic party. That does not make him accomplished the way that Sarah is.</p>
<p>While abortion is not a huge issue for most people, it is a big deal for Hillary die-hards. It still isn't the most important issue, but it is still more important for Hillary die-hards than for the general population obviously.</p>
<p>I said nothing of my own views on abortion, as they aren't relevant to this thread. That doesn't change the fact that many women consider it a very important issue. I was merely observing that I find it unlikely that many of Hillary's avid female supporters are unlikely to support a VP and possible Potus who is so strongly pro-life. Go back and re-read my post, you'll find I take no personal stance on the issue.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Of course he can; he's a Republican. The Republicans very successfully smeared John Kerry by accusing him of exaggerating his service in Vietnam and making his service a negative - WHILE his opponent was George W. Bush of the notorious "My daddy's famous and powerful" draft deferral, who failed even to carry out some of his duties to the (not anywhere near anywhere dangerous) National Guard. Rationality and common sense have no influence whatsoever on political campaigns, particularly on Republican ones.</p>
<p>I get what McCain was going for with his choice (youth, stepping away from the "corrupt" political insider population, a return to the maverick "I am not Bush the Third" appeal that got him the nomination in the first place, and of course, the disgruntled female vote), but his timing was off. If he really wanted to take some of the shine off Obama's speech (not that that was really possible, since the media has appointed itself Obama's universal missionary. It's only after he becomes President that it'll turn on him like a rabid weasel.), he should have released the information about 12 -16 hours sooner. By the time the news broke, the DNC has already crescendoed and Obama retained total domination of the headlines.
[/quote]
Very good post.</p>
<p>Republican attack tactics are unrivaled. I'm just waiting to see how Obama is gonna attempt to attack the milf.</p>
<p>Cervantes, please do not call me naive. The door does swing both ways, which means that every time Obama would attack her on not being experienced, then it would be obvious that he lacks experience. If we say a person with two years excutive experience is not qualified to be a vice-president (which is just casting a vote when the Senate is gridlocked), then obviously eight years of no executive experience is not qualified to be President, which entails actually leading, balancing a budget, managing ppl and foreign affairs.
But then you must measure experience not only in number of years but also in what that experience entails. Barack Obama has never managed a government of any size, has never balanced a budget or lead a crusade against the biggest industry in his state (For those who don't know she actually pressed taxes on oil companies and caused the treasury of Alaska to grow. Another thing to note is that the oil industry, basically IS the industry of Alaska, so what she did was big.). She has done all those things. So in terms of experience that relates to the job, she actually has more than Obama does.
Obama has experience casting votes, which is what a legistalator does.
This gets back to the key of the issue. If her experience does not qualify her for the number 2 spot, then how can his qualify him for the number 1 spot?</p>
But then you must measure experience not only in number of years but also in what that experience entails. Barack Obama has never managed a government of any size, has never balanced a budget or lead a crusade against the biggest industry in his state (For those who don't know she actually pressed taxes on oil companies and caused the treasury of Alaska to grow. Another thing to note is that the oil industry, basically IS the industry of Alaska, so what she did was big.). She has done all those things. So in terms of experience that relates to the job, she actually has more than Obama does.
Obama has experience casting votes, which is what a legistalator does.
This gets back to the key of the issue. If her experience does not qualify her for the number 2 spot, then how can his qualify him for the number 1 spot?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>that's not the point. the point is, Sarah Palin's selection takes the whole experience thing out of the campaign because now neither camp can call the other camp inexperienced. That takes away Obama's main weakness but does nothing much for McCain except a temporary bounce from a political stunt.</p>
<p>Screwitlah, I don't know how you could possibly know that it's a temporary bounce. I don't know how you know that it's a bounce at all. We haven't seen the post-selection polls of Obama v. McCain.</p>
<p>For everyone arguing that Palin will stop the inexperienced attacks, so what? McCain realized that the inexperienced argument would fail and from what I heard by some of the correspondants on the News Hour he wanted to stop that anyway. I think the Palin pick was at the moment a good one becasue it sures up the base a little bit more becasue of her conservative backround and it may get some of the Hillary supporters, giving him at least a chnace in the elections. Something he would not have if he went with any of the other VP prospects</p>
<p>
[quote]
Screwitlah, I don't know how you could possibly know that it's a temporary bounce. I don't know how you know that it's a bounce at all. We haven't seen the post-selection polls of Obama v. McCain.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>yep, I don't know that, but I'm just predicting it. :)</p>
<p>
[quote]
McCain realized that the inexperienced argument would fail and from what I heard by some of the correspondants on the News Hour he wanted to stop that anyway.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>How do you know that? Up till now the McCain campaign hasn't stopped using that attack line.</p>
<p>Honestly, Palin is no substitute for Hillary - they're worlds apart on so many different issues, and they're so DIFFERENT. Palin's not gonna work as a bait for most Hillary supporters except the diehard feminists who'd vote about just any woman to the White House. Palin is pro-life, pro-guns, pro-teaching of Creationism... they're at the opposite ends of the spectrum.</p>
<p>What Palin CAN do for McCain is to shore up the dissatisfied conservative base as a strong evangelical, anti-abortion, anti-gay marriage presence on the ticket, offer a history-making spin for McCain to meet Obama's own, as well as underline McCain's maverick reputation with her own.</p>
