finknottle

One key difference between the McCain deficit and the Obama deficit: McCain's is largely spending on the war, which ends when the war ends. Obama's assumes a quick ending and earmarks the money to new social programs. Social programs, once started, never go away.

Yeah, but you would have someone more ready to run the government of a nation than you would get with Obama. And he's the headliner! Also, if a tour of Europe solidifies Obama's foreign policy creditionals than I have to believe that campaigning across the US will shore up her experience on the national stage.

I think she headed the PTA, which is pretty much the same thing as being a 'community organizer.'

And yet... here are the presidents who have died since WWII: 93 Reagan 93 Ford 81 Nixon 64 Johnson 46 Kennedy <-- assassinated 78 Eisenhower 88 Truman 63 Roosevelt 90 Hoover Throw out Kennedy and you have an average of 81.25. But medicine and presidential care is far superior today than it was in the 60's. For those who lived merely into the 1990's, the average rises to 89. The four living presidents are 84, 83, 62, and 62, and all seem to be going strong. Now you can argue that this is a small sample size - true. But the uniformity of the results are startling.

Reasonable tack, but I have a different read. OBAMA: Greatest weakness is perceived lack of experience in running organizations and delivering on promises. Choice: Somebody else who has never run anything, but has only crafted legislation. Addresses weakness on National Security. OBAMA: Weaknesses are a perceived notion that he is a same-old same-old of the last 8 years, an inability to restart his reformer image; lacks executive experience; and weakness with his base. Choice: A young, dynamic outsider governor who has some experience running a city and a state; who has a reputation as a crusader with a history of taking on corruption in the party and the old-boy network; and is seen as a social conservative.

Don't they also say Obama has a one in four chance of going to prison in his lifetime?

In another thread I tried to make the point that she will enthuse 'family values' voters in a way that a run-of-the-mill congressman with a conservative legislative record will not.

A month or so ago she fired one of her appointees (Public Safety Commissioner) after 18 months. She's fired a number of people in the past. He went to the press and said it was because he refused to fire a state trooper who is divorcing her sister. She said she fired him because she wanted to go in a new direction with the organization, and offered him another position. After it became public, the State Legislature voted to open a quick investigation. No word yet.

It was more like a month. You are forgetting about his tour of Europe. At least he gets to keep his personalized presidential seal.

Even for highly technical jobs, very rarely does the job require the subject matter expertise of the person hired (ie, the contribution to the subject that earned them a PhD). In fact, close to never. You just want *a* Phd, not a PhD in 'left-handed upside down neutrino's and the quarks who love them.' You hire a PhD because their accomplishment shows that they can handle the life-style of the job: performing cutting-edge research in new areas, thinking through the implications, linking it to other areas, and so on. It's really all about experience - the actual subject matter exertise is that of a masters student. You don't atually need the PhD, it's just a good predictor.

Finally - a legitimate criticism to the housing gaffe! This whole 'so rich he's out of touch' spin is way off the mark. If anything, the Obama fans should have been ridiculing him as an aging Kato Kaelin.

That's because he doesn't own any of them! Cindy owns 7, and one is in a family trust (I assume they both contribute, but I don't know that).

This is why I think it is a great move - the possibility of changing the dynamic has tremoundous upside, and the irrelevance of the VP limits the downside (assuming no gaffes). I didn't see that happening with any of the 'official' candidates.

By your logic, you shouldn't vote for anyone with *more* than three years experiance. It is a predictor of their ability to handle the job, nothing more. But just because there have been great presidents without it doesn't make it meaningless. Many technical jobs require applicant to have a Ph.D. And yet, Albert Einstein only had a bachelors degree! Should our national labs routinely admit well-spoken bachelor candidates who talk loftily of the transcendant research that they will perform? Should we buy into the argument that competing candidates, who bore us wth their detailed research proposals and papers on the work they have done, represent an old way of thinking? After all, we don't want to miss out on the next Einstein! And what about running a company? Sure, Bill Gates was a college dropout, and had no business experience before starting Microsoft. But as a director of a company tasked with picking the CEO, are you going to use his example to discount education and experience as criteria?

He makes a hell of a lot more than McCain does! And before you object, remember that Cindy and John are pre-nuped and have separate finances. Her financing his campaign would not be the same as his spending his own money (or Obama spending Michelle's), it would be like an outside contributor writing a really big check - it would show up as a campaign contribution and subject to those limits. In fact, when he had to borrow 3 million to keep his campaign afloat, rather than get money from Cindy he had to take out a loan on his life insurancewith his donor lists as collateral. So you looking at a guy with an annual income of 4 million dollars the past few years versus a guy with an income of $330k.

They will be as befuddled as all those Democrats that reflexively vote woman/minority regardless of the positions. The question is: which party has more?

No, it was not a carrot-and-stick. That suggests that the timetable of our leaving would be contingent on their actions, which was decidely *not* Obama's position, nor the position of most of the candidates. It was to be unilateral. The only argument during the debates was over how fast you could physically do it - Richardson claimed something absurd like 3 months, all others said a year or 18 months... I don't remember the length Obama pledged. Biden's plan seems more unlikely every day, though it could still happen. In troubled regions, people want autonomy when they don't trust the government to protect their lives - it's not about freedom to have cultural fairs and crap like that. With reduced violence and signs of impartiality by the government, there is much less pressure today (except in the north where Kurdish aspirations run longer and deeper).

And maybe in 2012, he'll actually get more votes (actual votes, not delegates) than his closest competitor!

I have not gotten that same impression. Left posters think she is a terrible choice, but I have not heard much out of the Right. I don't think anybody credible has said she has torpedoed his chances. My own opinion is that she has the potential to completely change the dynamic of the campaign and - critically - the media coverage, and that it was a great move. Her upside is huge in terms of voter positioning, and only if she starts screwing things up in interviews (which is very possible) will she be any worse than a safe pick worth 3 electoral votes.

So are your rebuttals. You would be great in a debate, it seems to come so naturally for you.

Her husband's not an exec, he's a union worker (steel workers, I think) and she was union too. Should I assume from that she is anti-business? Look up her battles with the oil industry and *then* decide who she takes her marching orders from.

I am more comfortable with someone taking over who has been mayor of a tiny 9,000 person city and a governor for a mere two years than with either of the candidates on the Democratic ticket, neither of whom have ever been responsible for supervising more than 10 people outside of their campaign staff, and neither of whom have ever had to balance a budget, meet payroll, or deal with government crises. Anyone can write legislation to give people rebate checks, cut taxes, and start pre-school programs. Being an executive requires a different kind of managerial experience. Frankly, outside of the National Security issue, I think she is the most qualified on *either* ticket despite her limitations.

At the end of the day, she represents the people of Alaska. While I am on the side of the bears on this one, even I could see how Alaskan's might argue that it would harm the state economically. She is not considered a friend of big oil, as a perusal of her history indicates. She increased taxes on oil, and resigned a job to protest ethics poblems in the overseeing of the industry - taken all together, she comes off to me not as a Republican oil-can-do-no-wrong nor as a Democrat oil-is-the-enemy, but as someone simpy trying to find the best solution for her state, and not in ethier sides pocket. Sadly, that *does* make her a maverick these days.

Yeah, there are no women in this country who are against choice. That's why the Democrats are so eager for it to be decided by popular vote instead of in the Supreme Court. They also are against the idea of women with children in politics, for the reasons you cited. It's a Man's job. Good luck with your spin.

I think she does alot more than that. - She invigorates grass-roots 'values voters' in the Republican party and everywhere through the example of her own family life, in a way that a congressional voting rating does not. - She re-ignites the idea of a McCain candidacy being about good government and fighting waste, special interests and corruption. It's always been central to his message, but he's been unable to get any traction this time around (maybe because it's old news to the press).