<p>I agree Dbate. But I just don’t feel comfortable that, either way, our country’s next four years will be so swayed by novelty factor or backlash of such.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>We use their records, achievements, positions, and character. Governors aren’t always the ones who have become Presidents, Senators have too. And GWB was a “good Governor” look how much good that did him… The point is, she is not experienced and I stand by it. She has very little executive experience of a desolate state and nothing else. Nothing else. That’s why she’s more unexperienced than Obama.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Obama has the plans to put his motions through. You and I both don’t know how government works (at that complex a level) so we probably don’t know if he can put it through. Indeed, there are probably only a handful of people if any who know if he can put it through. You’re just listening to conservative media that tells you he can’t do it, because if people believed Obama would deliver, both of us know there’s absolutely no way he wouldn’t be elected.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Really? You say in one hand that McCain is a flip-flopper then you say you know what he actually supports? He’s moved from maverick to Bush crony in the past eight years. You can’t be really sure what he supports. And again, you don’t know if Obama can put through his plans. All I know is that Bush’s plans were very expensive, increased the federal debt, and weren’t even good. If McCain is voting with Bush 95% of the time…well you know what you’re going to get. You know what Obama supports, he’s clearly stated them. The only thing you don’t know is if he has the power to put it through. I will say this, I challenge you to name four things McCain has done in his 26 years that caused a real impact on ppl’s lives. If you can’t do that, don’t vote for McCain.</p>
<p>The reason that Palin is good is because:</p>
<ol>
<li><p>America does not care about experience. Barack Obama is proof, McCain knows this, so he gave up that line of attack. It did not work for Clinton and it was not going to work for him</p></li>
<li><p>Energy. Picking her allows McCain to get up there and say that she has lived in one of the most energy important states of America. In fact she was on the board refulating oil and gas companies in Alaska.</p></li>
<li><p>She can change the perception that republicans are for the oil companies. She taxed oil company profits, in a state that is basically supported by oil companies. </p></li>
<li><p>She brings change to the Republican party. Let’s face it, that speech Obama gave was convincing that McCain was just the same of Bush, by picking her it adds a dynamic of change, that says the Republican party is not the party of yesterday.</p></li>
<li><p>She has a story. I was watching the story they unvieled during the Democratic convention and they were good. Especially Michele Obama ( i actually cried during her sppech [Even conservative blacks are very happy to see a black candidate, we are just mad he had to be a liberal :)]). She brings intrigue to cause ppl to actually watch the Republican convention where they can present the biograhpy of her that they want.</p></li>
<li><p>She is not rich. The whole McCain does not get it thing would stick if he picked somebody like Mitt romney another rich white guy. This woman’s parents where a teacher and a secretary. She went to the university of Idaho, then went back to Alsaka, is blue collar and middle class, these are the ppl McCain needed to win over, and with his seven houses and 5 million thing, those ppl might have left.</p></li>
<li><p>She brings reform. Obama talks about reforming washington and chagning the status quo, she already has in her own state. This takes the appeal away from Obama, bc he promising change, she already has done it. bucking her own party.</p></li>
<li><p>She energizes the base, with strong pro-life, that means she can reach out to religious ppl like me. In fact if I am not mistaken McCain has not tapped many of the fundraisers that Bush had used, by energizing the base it means more ppl are likely to donate.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>Finally, the whole she will take Hillary supporters thing is stupid, especially when ppl focus in on women. Hillary had the support of millions and not just women. I would have voted for Hillary over McCain in an instant, bc well she seemed more conservative. I watched all the primary things. The breakdown that Hillary won were: women, older democrats, and ppl without college degrees aka middle class ppl. Women are not dumb enough to just vote for any woman, older voters will probably go for McCain, so that represents a portion of her votes. But if you look at the swing states: Ohio, Pennsylvania. Hillary won those handily on the backs of middle class ppl not on the backs of women. McCain can appeal to those ppl with her.</p>
<p>Watch the Republican convention, I beat my silver dollar that they do not talk about experience but about energy. Choosing her signals they are trying to change the dyanmic of the campaign from experience to energy, bc it allows them to attack Obama and also establish that McCain cares and gets it. By supporting off shore drilling and bringing a person who bucked oil companies, they want ppl to interpet the Republican party as doing something for them now, as opposed to using rhetoric on being free of foreign oil in ten years.</p>
<p>In that light she was a great pick.</p>
<p>Okay. I said I know what McCain supports becuase I can look at what he voted for before he tried to become president. I know that he actually wants to reform washington (he iniated the changes in what lobbyist can do to sway politicians) and I know he supports immigration (which I am against), and I know that he is not fully pro-life (He resisted George Bush changing the the rhetoric of the platform to be full pro-life, because he wanted abortion in the instance or rape or medical condition of the mother.).</p>
<p>I don’t have to meet your challenge until you meet mine first. Name four executive actions Obama has done that had a real impact on ppl’s lives. After you do that then I will show McCain’s.</p>
<p>Hm, interesting take on this. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Fully agree. I hope Dems don’t take the bait and diss Palin. Let the media do it, but if the Dems do it it will hurt them.</p>
<p>
</li>
</ol>
<p>You fail to forget though that she won’t recognize Global warming as a phenomenon. While her oil achievements bring gravitas towards the Republican campaign, most Americans know human caused Global warming is real and a threat.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No duhy.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I agree picking Romney on that front would be a disaster, but basically Obama and Biden are as middle class as high-profile politicians get so I don’t think it would help much.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>She already has a pending investigation about her firing a police commissioner for unfair reasons. Bad news travels twice as fast as bad. Americans won’t try to understand the complex reform she brought in Alaska but everyone can understand a controversy. Furthermore, as Palin has reached national spotlight be ready for more revealing dark secrets about her ethics in that case. I’ll be chomping at the bits for this!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Definitely.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>We’ll wait and see what type of person she is. She may end up being a Dan Quayle which I predict. She’ll become a mockery of how stupid the middle class is and Americans won’t like that.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Republicans will no doubt tone down the rhetoric on experience, but eliminate it? Nah. Republicans know how to battle it both ways.</p>
<p>
for John McCain but not America. She is totally unqualified to be President in the extreme. In 20 months from mayor of a small town to VP and then if McCain dies (I can only pray can’t I?) to be President? Uh-oh!!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The man has no principle then. Once a maverick always a maverick right? At least when Obama picks a side, he stays with it even if it becomes unpopular.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I already named the committees he was chair of and the bills he sponsored or co-sponsored. Those bills had a real effect on peoples’ lives. I consider that executive because he oversaw the operation of getting them passed, you don’t. He also oversaw community organizations on the Southside of Chicago primarily by himself. I consider that executive enough, you don’t. Whatever.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It won’t matter bc the environment is not the most important thing. Also there is not a 100% consensus that humans are the sole cause of global warming, but are merely contributors. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Even if she did fire her brother-in-law Obama can not go after this. Remember ppl complaining about Clinton not being treated fairly bc she was a woman? If he attacked her it would be like saying she was just an over-emotional woman who could not seperate politics from personal life. But also it would damage the brand of change and new politics by attacking the woman like that.</p>
<p>
[quote]
“We’ll wait and see what type of person she is. She may end up being a Dan Quayle which I predict. She’ll become a mockery of how stupid the middle class is and Americans won’t like that.”[/qoute]</p>
<p>Even if she does become a mockery, the immediate benefit she offered was enough. Obama speech would have been talked about for weeks. But announcing her silence the speech as media started talking about her, and the Republicans are betting that she will cause more ppl to tune into the Rep. convention, it is about detracting spotlight from Obama and gaining spotlight for McCain.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t know republicans are better than democrats on attacking. I mean throughout the convention they were running attack ads, and even had prominent republicans in the city. I do not see the Dems doing that so the week will be focused on Republicans.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I really do not think McCain will die. He will serve his four years then Hillary will run and win and be where she should be now.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That is not McCain that is Steve Schmidt, McCain is the same the difference is that Schmidt knows how to win. And McCain wants to win. Look at Hillary, she was concocted in a public research survey. She said she what was needed to win, and i was okay with that. Sincerity during elections do not matter a whole lot to me. Because what they say during an election year means nothing, what they vote on and due doing their tenure does, and I decide on that not on what they say.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The problem with that is that if we use sponsorship as a measure for experience then that means McCain is more experienced. But none of that matters, because the president does not pass laws, he executes them. Sure Obama may have come up with great ideas and got them voted in, but he did not oversee their execution and implementation, that is what executive experience is, because that is what the executive branch is about.</p>
<p>
Tell that to your AP environmental science teacher or a Professor of environmental science in fact. Point is, her view is wrong. Sure the environment is not the most important issue but it is still important.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So because she’s a woman she can’t be attacked of being unethical-which is apropos to the campaign? Please. Obviously he must do it in a respectful manner, but being a woman will only give her so much shield.</p>
<p>
I agree with the second part, but I’m telling you-beauty pageant winner + gaffe=disaster. Furthermore, since she’s been virtually unknown until yesterday unlike everyone else, first impressions will last.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>There was a great post about this somewhere else on this thread. Republicans are better at elections than Democrats. Even Democrats heartily admit it.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t know if he’ll die and nor do you. He has had cancer several times and if elected he will be the oldest person to be elected President. Furthermore 9 Presidents have died in office (5 due to sickness). There’s a sizable chance that McCain will die. Even McCain recognized that his VP pick is of extra importance considering this. That being said if Obama loses Clinton can’t run because Obama supporters will blame Clinton for Obama’s loss and won’t support Clinton. Also, how arrogant to suggest Clinton should be here now? The American people have spoken and they want Obama, not Clinton to be the Democratic nominee. Lastly, the polls are 49-41 Obama, it’s still unlikely McCain will win.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well you’re extremely trusting. I’m not. Most Americans aren’t-or at least we’ll find out how many are on November 4th. Just so you know, if McCain plans to run for a second term then his “first term” is still in essence campaign years. You’ll have to wait another 4 years for the “real McCain”.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Someone doesn’t need to be in the executive branch to have executive experience. Indeed a CEO of a major company probably has more executive experience than Princess Beauty Pageant Palin. If you consider running major operations and implementing plans executive experience I would say Obama has plenty by running his campaign skillfully enough to win the nomination from Hillary. Notice I said “win from” because Hillary was for all intents and purposes thought to be the presumptive nominee until Iowa not because she deserved it.</p>
<p>Edit: Also, Hillary didn’t have executive experience. In fact none of the front runners did. Point stands-Palin’s experience is way too meager.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t take environmental science, the only science AP at my school I didn’t take, I took statistics instead. I don’t think this issue is going to be brough up at all.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No women can be attacked, look at Hillary, it just needs to be done in a tactful way. If Obama hit her hard it could definitely back fire and hurt his brand image.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I very much agree, if she stumbles then that is it. But given the scripted nature of conventions, which is really when ppl will meet her. She won’t say the wrong thing, but will probably show that she is knowledgable, probably in terms of energy. If they pull that off then that first impression is solid. Also I saw a clip of her before all this a while ago, and she can definitely row with the punches. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It is not arrogant it is opinion. I turn 18 in Sept. so I did not get to vote in the primary, but I think she would have done a really good job. So I say she should have been here now. Also that is one of the polls the other gives Obama a boost of 4 points. So the average is a 6 point boost, right after that impressive speech, means that McCain can still win. What will be good to note is to compare McCain’s bump to Obama’s and that will probably show who will win. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, CEO is executive experience. I said the executive branch because they were running for the Presidency and also because they were in the legislative branch, it shows the dichotomy in the roles they have played and will play. Obama does not have CEO experience if he did then it would make him more qualified. But I have doubts on private leadership shifting to public leadership, bc the goals are different, money making versus public good. I did not think that business acumen was a legit reason to vote for Romney. </p>
<p>Obama does not run his campaign David Axelrod does.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No it is not opinion. Who should be here now is Obama and McCain. They won their respective primaries thus they deserve to be each other’s nominees. I would have preferred Romney much much more (not to Obama but definitely to the stupid McCain) as the Republican nominee but that doesn’t mean Romney should be there. He lost fair and square and I don’t b1tch about it. That being said, you talked as if McCain was going to win, when we both know that neither of us know if he’ll win.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>What? You can’t begrudge that Obama has ran one of the best campaigns in the history of campaigns. He moved from being a virtual non-entity to being the Presidential nominee through his ideas, charisma, but also control of his campaign. The odds were stacked against him as everyone would recognize. If he had not ran a superior campaign to Clinton he would have been destroyed. I understand that private leadership is different from public leadership but some of the skills and talents are integral in both types of leadership. While I detest all Republicans and Conservatives, I still think Romney would have far and away been the superior nominee for the Republican party. That being said, he wasn’t electable because he was a Mormon. What a shame, the best Republican can’t even get the nomination…but he lost it fair and square…he didn’t deserve it nor should he be here now.</p>
<p>Lmao, a cruise to victory is some wishful thinking.</p>
<p>Whether you like Obama or not (I’m not even sure about him), he has this election on lock without a doubt.</p>
<p>^Agreed. Choosing Palin is another nail in the coffin for McCain. This is Obama’s election to lose. Biden was a very shrewd choice for VP. Palin isn’t.</p>
<p>while it may seem that way. There are a lot more red neck racists in this country, especially in the south, that still hate blacks. Its not a lock, and current polls, show that. But most polls aren’t asking the racist rednecks.
just a thought,.</p>
<p>[Art</a> Levine: Sarah Palin: The New Harriet Miers – or Dan Quayle in Drag?](<a href=“HuffPost - Breaking News, U.S. and World News | HuffPost”>Sarah Palin: The New Harriet Miers -- or Dan Quayle in Drag? | HuffPost Latest News)</p>
<p>Yes, but those states in the South always go Republican. So while he may get destroyed in the South, that doesn’t really matter if he wins the battleground states which don’t have enough racist rednecks to make a sizable difference. That is what is so great about it! If he were a Black Republican he’d have to be scared, but no he’s a Black Democrat…and he’s not losing the blue states any time soon. That being said, he has to be very afraid of an assassination attempt-a news broadcaster said something along the lines of “some Americans hate people who bring hope and change so the Secret Service needs to protect them”!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Racist rednecks aren’t exactly voters. They’re rednecks!</p>
<p>And by that I mean I don’t have confidence that most racist rednecks are voters. I live in the south and it’s not uncommon to find a redneck that can’t name the candidates.</p>
<p>Also, I wonder if there’s an issue with hardcore conservatives voting for a woman as VP. I think there’s a possibility that he’ll lose some of his conservative base.</p>
<p>^Absolutely. And most won’t, regardless of qualifications.</p>
<p>^No dirt on her record? For heaven’s sake, she’s about to be DEPOSED about her role in the “troopergate” scandal. And unlike Biden, her political credentials as well as her list of accomplishments would make for a very short list.</p>