Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama's campaign on Friday blasted his Republican rival's choice of Alaska Governor Sarah Palin as a running-mate, highlighting her "zero" foreign policy experience.
"Today, John McCain put the former mayor of a town of 9,000 with zero foreign policy experience a heartbeat away from the presidency," Obama spokesman Bill Burton said in a statement."
- AP wires
Someone should put out a memo that Obama, not Biden, is the Presidential Candidate before they go hog-wild talking about FP experience.
(edited by RYDER FAKIN on 29.8.08 1500) Demonstrations are a drag. Besides, we're much too high
Originally posted by The GoonAt a first, quick glance, Palin seems to be a laughable pick, chosen only for her gender than anything she would bring to the role.
However, I have yet to hear her speak, so I'm curious what her vision is. I'm hoping I'll be pleasantly surprised.
She seems like a very intelligent woman from the clips I've heard of her. I don't think experience necessarily translates into success. One poster said that Palin would be going from governor of a state with 700,000 people to 300 million plus. Well, she's only the VP candidate and I would wager to say it can't be that much more of a difference than going from a first-term senator of a state with 13,000,000 to 300 million plus as a presidential candidate.
However, I think McCain is making a mistake if he's picking Palin solely as a attempt to take female voters away from Obama. The abortion issue is a hot button topic with many women and I surmise that they wouldn't trade their stance on that with a candidate that simply shares the same gender.
The other thing about the 'Palin will attract Hillary voters' argument is that picking a female VP for this reason is just the kind of thing that Hillary will take as a personal affront. I expect Clinton to go out of her way over the next few months to clearly distinguish herself from Palin and to inform her supporters that Palin shares little to none of her views. Hell hath no fury like a Clinton scorned, and now McCain has picked a VP who will likely erase any lingering bad feelings between the Clinton and Obama camps.
“How is it that I am a good actor? What I do is I... pretend to be the person I’m portraying. You’re confused. Case in point: in Lord of the Rings, Peter Jackson comes to me and says ‘I would like you to be Gandalf the Wizard,’ and I said ‘You are aware that I am not really a wizard?’ and Peter Jackson said ‘I would like you to use your acting skills to portray a wizard for the duration of the show.’ So I said ‘Okay’ and then I said to myself ‘Mmm.. How do I do that?’ And this is what I did: I imagined that I was a wizard, and then I pretended, and acted, in that way on the stage. How did I know what to say? The words were written down for me in a script. How did I know where to stand? People told me where to stand." -- Sir Ian McKellen, Extras
Ladies and gentlemen, the following public service message is brought to you by your friends from D-Generation X, who would like to remind each and every one of you that if you're not down with that, we've got two words for you... Laughing hysterically right now at the Goon's posting. That's priceless.
Anyways, Palin was the choice McCain had to make if there was going to be any hope for him in November. As it is, Palin will energize the base, hopefully (for McCain) and get a decent number of the illogically pissed-off Hillary PUMA voters to jump ship. She was the only one of McCain's available options that would have done both, and the other options would have brought negatives so disastrous that it would have amounted to tantamount concession of the race right now.
Romney: Would have made it easy for Obama to paint the Republican Party as the party of elitists and plutocrats, with the $300 million and 10+ houses between the two of them
Pawlenty: Basically the Republican equivalent of Evan Bayh on the Democratic side - no scandals, but no wow factor, no ability to energize the base or cross partisan lines
Portman: Too closely associated with Bush to have worked, considering that Portman basically wrote the Bush playbook on economic policy (IIRC)
Ridge & Lieberman: Would have completely alienated the base and turned the neo-cons against him, thus destroying his chances (Lieberman especially would have been disastrous)
Hutchinson: Probably would have been a better choice than Palin, but she and McCain allegedly hate each other's guts, thus creating a self-destructive campaign dynamic
Palin, of course, has her own drawbacks: She's under investigation for her own patronage scandal, and if she's indicted will single-handedly bring the ticket down. She's also even less experienced on the state & national level than Barack Obama is, which completely neuters the "experience" argument McCain has been making for weeks now. (I've had arguments with a number of hardcore Republicans today, who have the gumption to insist that somehow, running the nation's least populous state by land area for barely two years somehow makes you more qualified than a U.S. Senator with six times the service time at the state & national level and has knowledge on foreign policy that you've never even come near. Foolish morons.) Still, she brings positives to the table that no one else does, so it's a risk McCain had to take. Whether or not the risk will pay off is yet to be seen.
Personally, I don't think it will. Can't wait to see that VP debate, for one - Biden's going to rip her to pieces and gnaw her bones clean. :-)
smark/net attack Advisory System Status is: Elevated (Holds; June 18, 2006) While the switch from Cena to RVD should alleviate some complaints, the inevitability of the belt's return to Cena (note where Summerslam is this year) and the poor initial showing by the new ECW are enough to keep the indicator where it is for now. The pieces are in place, though, especially on RAW, for improvements to be made to the IWC's psyche in the near future.
I don't think Palin was a great choice, but she was probably one of McCain's better options given who else was out there. Of course, that's a really sad commentary on the state of the GOP at the national level, but that's for a different time.
What I find interesting is the notion that Biden's going to "slice and dice her" or "rip her to pieces and gnaw her bones clean." I've heard or seen that argument a number of times today and I don't understand it. Biden's a mediocre speaker with a temper and a whole lot of history for a prepared opponent to bring up. Palin's a better speaker than Biden and has less of a temper and less of a history. Biden may win a debate, but I can just as easily see him losing his temper, as he's wont to do, and saying something profoundly stupid or untrue, as he's also wont to do. In that case, Palin will hand him his head.
Vocatus atque non vocatus, Deus aderit. -- Erasmus
All others things being equal, the simplest solution is usually stupidity. -- Darwin Minor
Originally posted by LexusSure, the candidates write their own speeches and never rehearse potential debate questions. You still sit on Santa's lap before Christmas or something?
So, we can put any actor or actress worth a grain of salt, have them rehearse their lines and send them out there against a fairly well spoken political veteran who with *experience*? I don't care what side of the political spectrum you are on this is a big over simplification. I'll leave out the cute Easter Bunny and Lepercauhn jab though. Knowing your lines and cues are one thing, but come on.
The problem Biden will face is trying not to look like a bully to the 'pretty naive girl from the country'. I think if she can get Biden to bully her and not look like a deer in the headlights she could pull off an upset. I just expect more out of Joe Biden is all.
It does seem like an exciting pick, but I really think this is a gimmicky choice that could wear itself thin by election time.
Also I don't know how common this is, but the fact McCain only met her twice seems interesting to say the least.
Palin is a pretty decent choice for McCain. She's a NRA-lifer and totally pro-life, which will really help McCain with those conservatives who think he's too liberal. She'll appeal to middle-class America as a working woman (she was a fisherman with her husband) who still has time to care for her large family. At the very least, she doesn't has that elitist arrogance that Romney has. As a woman, she will add some 'softness' (I don't believe in it, but people do automaticlly think having a woman on a ticket makes the party more 'human') that may get some female or dem votes to the other side. And for those who point out that Alaska is a irrelevant state or that she wouldn't do too great in the debates, just remember that Cheney comes from Wyoming (an even smaller state population-wise than Alaska and far more irrelevant), stunk it up debate-wise, look far worse than both of his VP oppoents- and it didn't matter one damn bit.
That said, I have to quote Brian Griffith when Lois got elected mayor:
"Man, all that power and she still got a hot body."
The issues brought up with Palin are kind of weird. DE and AK have the same amount of electoral college votes. Just because AK is big and empty and DE is small and crowded shouldn't make any difference. Also what does McCain have to lose? Obama has to screw up to lose so the GOP should try to do as little damage as possible. Making the DNC spend more time and money might help out some GOP Congressional candidates (Gordon Smith comes to mind). In 2012 the appearance of the GOP as a rich white guy party will be weakened (of course both parties are old white guy parties). I guess I feel that while the candidate herself might be weak the idea is good politics. Take a gamble because to be honest the GOP won't be much worse off if it doesn't pay and who knows it might even work.
Marge I am just trying to get into heaven not run for Jesus.
If we can get one of them commit to moving all current Alaskans to the real America, and then get to work on digging up that sweet sweet oil to pay back China and leave Iraq, I'll get 100 dead people to register and vote for McCain!
Originally posted by BigDaddyLocoI would think Biden will slice and dice her at the VP debate.
McCain is old. There is a lot on America's table right now. I don't know how a lot of people are going to feel about her being a heartbeat away from running the show.
Benson sliced and diced Quayle in '88, yet his presidential candidate lost. Quayle won the debate over Gore and Admiral Stockdale in '92, yet lost. The only election I can think of where VP might have swayed the election was 1960. That is pretty much it since 1804 when they shifted the manner of voting for President and Vice President after the fiascos of 1796 and 1800. As for McCain taking lessons from the 1992 campaign of Bush, here is the most important lesson of all: Don't have a special prosecutor hand out subpoenas on the Friday before the election when you have all the momentum going in your favor. On the VP pick: At least it's not Mitt, and thank god it isn't Rudy. Problem for Obama if the race is close after the conventions: The Republicans generally have a better "kick" at the end than Democrats in Presidential races, even in races where the Democratic candidate wins. If you couple that with "The Bradley Effect" Obama will probably need a 6 point plus lead in polls in swing states going into the last week or 2 prior to the election to win.
There's no reason for Biden to even engage Palin, his job should be to 'stay on target' and go after McCain, even in the VP debate to the degree possible. There's no upside to attacking her, and if you do, the Republicans will use the "sexism card" with as much zeal as McCain is using his "POW card". Party boosters and friendly pundits aside, that Palin is not ready to be CiC on day one is self-evident. Obama has to close the sale on his own behalf, but the resumes are not close.
For a candidate who acknowledged that his veep choice would get extra scrutiny due to his age and health issues, the pick comes off as a pander to the Hillary-loving PUMAs. That they've met in person once or twice before today only adds weight to the idea that Palin was chosen for the resume. What does she bring to the Republican ticket in terms of appeal to the conservative base that Mike Huckabee doesn't - she locks down Alaska and its 3 EVs? (Huck is a very likable guy and good campaigner, too)
So she does her 'job' today by drawing media attention, and she will have no expectations in the debate. But in the end, McCain's campaign has to sell the specter of "President Sarah Palin" to some degree. So far, I hear that she's "worked with Canada", and that Alaska borders Russia, so there's that.. She hasn't paid so much attention to the Middle East, at least as of becoming governor 20 months ago. Unless this is Risk, and Putin has been massing troops in Kamchatka without us knowing, I think it's a tall order.
Still, veeps are generally not decisive. It was a "hail mary" play that McCain likely needed to make to have a chance. But you can't seriously tell me that this is the most qualified Republican woman candidate out there - again, her and McCain have barely *met.
I get the politics of picking a woman, but I really find it hard to believe that a whole lot of disenfranchised Hillary voters are going for this ticket. Certainly not ten percent of them. I mean, really, when the "spite vote" is gonna swing to the tide, it's time for some good ol' fashioned mass suicide. In the end, I would imagine exactly 0.2 percent of the eighteen million who were going for Hillary are going for a pro-life pro-gun person.
It may, however, excite some female conservatives who would not have otherwise been motivated to get out and vote. But how many of those are there?
And maybe you Illinois natives should hope Obama loses...then he would be freed up to run for governor in 2010.
(edited by Big Bad on 31.8.08 1817) “How is it that I am a good actor? What I do is I... pretend to be the person I’m portraying. You’re confused. Case in point: in Lord of the Rings, Peter Jackson comes to me and says ‘I would like you to be Gandalf the Wizard,’ and I said ‘You are aware that I am not really a wizard?’ and Peter Jackson said ‘I would like you to use your acting skills to portray a wizard for the duration of the show.’ So I said ‘Okay’ and then I said to myself ‘Mmm.. How do I do that?’ And this is what I did: I imagined that I was a wizard, and then I pretended, and acted, in that way on the stage. How did I know what to say? The words were written down for me in a script. How did I know where to stand? People told me where to stand." -- Sir Ian McKellen, Extras
This is not tax evasion, it's tax avoidance. All companies attempt to avoid taxes (as well as individuals), it's only common sense. Tax evasion, however, is illegal. I still don't see paying taxes as patriotic, just as something we all have to do.