justnzane Posted August 30, 2008 Posted August 30, 2008 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. elaborate. As I see it, he has been preparing himself for the past 2 years, where she just got onto the national stage two years ago. The best Democratic President of the last century - Harry Truman took over under similar circumstances. Sarah's a lot hotter than Harry too. Obama gives a great speech, but he's never been an executive of any type - she has. You've got to admit that she's going to get on the job training. That fine - for a VP. Obama is the affirmative action candidate. He's been given the position by guilty white men in smoke-filled back rooms. That's part of what doesn't sit well with the upwardly mobile women of America. He's not only unqualified to be President, he's unworthy of the office. I'd put FDR ahead of Truman, but anyway. I do not see Obama as a token candidate this time around. He had to hold his own against Hildog, and they pulled out a lot of skeletons out of his closet just to keep it close with him. If you asked anyone a year ago, they would have thought that he may gotten some votes, but Hildog would be the presidential candidate this around. With him defeating her, I think he proves his worth.
VABills Posted August 30, 2008 Posted August 30, 2008 I am new here. Hello everyone. Here is my thought... Pandering and desperation. Mc Cain picks a woman with less than 24 months experience, who just gave birth. This is a wise decision and good judgement? Can you imagine her as the leader of the free world? I question her judgment as well. She has a 4 month old baby with serious disability and she has no problem abandoning it to go campaign around the country? wow. Summary - poor judgment on both parts and pandering to woman who will ultimately be insulted by it. This will be the start of Mc Cain downfall and the Right will need to spread more fear and false ads to compete. Why can't dad stay home and take care of the children? What about a nanny (legal of course) to help. Should women stay at home making coffee, cooking and being pregnant the only thing they are good for?
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted August 30, 2008 Posted August 30, 2008 The State of Alaska will sue to challenge the recent listing of polar bears as a threatened species, Gov. Sarah Palin said Wednesday. She and other Alaska elected officials fear a listing will cripple oil and gas development in prime polar bear habitat off the state's northern and northwestern coasts. Yeah, she's a real "maverick" On your other point: You mean that state that the Pataki drove into the toilet? My wife worked for Senator Bruno. Perhaps you've heard of him? I could stories about your revered GOP that would make you puke in revulsion. Dem's are no better or worse than Reps. It's a fact! Pataki's a Republican as much as I'm Chinese. That is to say: NOT REALLY.
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted August 30, 2008 Posted August 30, 2008 Don't you know I'm gay? Haven't you seen the stuff about the health club I belong to?
justnzane Posted August 30, 2008 Posted August 30, 2008 Pataki's a Republican as much as I'm Chinese. That is to say: NOT REALLY. sorry, I couldn't understand your Engrish. Now, please stop cheating in the Olympics, you little Chinaman
/dev/null Posted August 30, 2008 Posted August 30, 2008 sorry, I couldn't understand your Engrish. Now, please stop cheating in the Olympics, you little Chinaman He's not a chinaman. He's a 12 year old chinese gymnast
A WORK OF ART Posted August 30, 2008 Posted August 30, 2008 Would you say the same thing if she was a man? No. I would eliminate the pandering part.
A WORK OF ART Posted August 30, 2008 Posted August 30, 2008 The manure is very strong with him, Obi Wan. Again, on this thread, insulting me because I have a different opinion. My first post and I get insulted, called names. Wow, is this just the GOP way or are you guys just a few bad apples?
SDS Posted August 30, 2008 Posted August 30, 2008 I'd put FDR ahead of Truman, but anyway. I do not see Obama as a token candidate this time around. He had to hold his own against Hildog, and they pulled out a lot of skeletons out of his closet just to keep it close with him. If you asked anyone a year ago, they would have thought that he may gotten some votes, but Hildog would be the presidential candidate this around. With him defeating her, I think he proves his worth. The skeletons in his closet should have drove people away en masse. The fact that it hasn't is frightening. He is a product of the most historically corrupt city in the nation. He did every Mayor Daley wanted him to. The people he chose to associate himself should speak more about his character than any glib speech. The fact that people just put a blind eye to who this guy really is because he can a teleprompter is amazing. Ross Perot gave good speeches too. Thankfully, we found out and accepted he was nuts before he got into office.
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted August 30, 2008 Posted August 30, 2008 /buzzer Oh, I'm sorry. Thanks for playing the game By using the H word you have disqualified yourself from any further intelligent competition LMAO This !@#$ing thread rocks!
Taro T Posted August 30, 2008 Posted August 30, 2008 More like Harriet Meiers. If she was pro-choice or the cons were unsure, they would be blocking her nomination in the name of being unqualified. Since she fits their agenda, she's a "great choice". Meiers had worked for W for years, and Conservatives hated the nomination and eventually got W to back down. Yes, Dems hated the choice as well, but that wasn't why her name was withdrawn. There is little, if any, history between McCain and Palin. Which is similar to Bush 41 and Souter. Palin is "unknown" to most, as was Souter. The Dems, especially the more liberal ones, were opposed to the nomination initially, and the Republicans went along with it even though there was not much of a record to indicate whether he'd be conservative or liberal. Bush nominated Souter because there wasn't much of a history and he thought it would be a relatively smooth confirmation in that the Dems didn't have much ammunition to use against Souter. Turns out the Dems were unable to "Bork" Souter, but it looks like that has worked out to their advantage in the long run. The short term politics of getting the nominee through to office appears to have been more of a concern than how the nominee would perform in office. Obama's campaign will more than likely have to revise their strategy on how to "attack" McCain/Milf vs how they were going to go after McCain/Romney or McCain/more traditional VP. So, this choice, assuming there is no monster skeleton in her closet and assuming that she doesn't do something mindnumbingly stupid on the campaign trail will increase McCain's odds of getting elected. (Whether it gets him elected remains to be seen, but it does increase his chances.) Much as Souter was confirmed with less of a fight (only 9 Senators said "no") than a more widely known conservative jurist would have had. (Thomas anyone?) Bush thought Souter would be conservative on the bench, but he was mistaken. It looks like McCain's choice is more solidly traditionally conservative, but it isn't a slam dunk that she'd be of more help to him after the election than other "more conventional" choices would be. I'm not trying to say that this is a repeat of Souter, just that there are several superficial similarities. IMHO, far more than the Meiers' nomination.
A WORK OF ART Posted August 30, 2008 Posted August 30, 2008 The skeletons in his closet should have drove people away en masse. The fact that it hasn't is frightening. He is a product of the most historically corrupt city in the nation. He did every Mayor Daley wanted him to. The people he chose to associate himself should speak more about his character than any glib speech. The fact that people just put a blind eye to who this guy really is because he can a teleprompter is amazing. Ross Perot gave good speeches too. Thankfully, we found out and accepted he was nuts before he got into office. You say a lot but nothing to back it up. Why don't you provide specific examples to support your statements. A Product of the most corrupt city? So ANYONE from Chicago is corrupt? Guilty by association? Is that your argument? His speeches are "Glib"? I disagree. I think they are inspiring and uplifting. He has more substance in what he will do than McCain has in his speeches. What skeletons are you referring to? How about Mc Cain? An adulterer.
Nanker Posted August 30, 2008 Posted August 30, 2008 Again, on this thread, insulting me because I have a different opinion. My first post and I get insulted, called names. Wow, is this just the GOP way or are you guys just a few bad apples? Sorry to hurt your weedle feewings there BO. Also - read the TOS if you're thinking of carrying on a crusade.
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted August 30, 2008 Posted August 30, 2008 Palin on Craig Ferguson Wow, she really *IS* hot!
A WORK OF ART Posted August 30, 2008 Posted August 30, 2008 Sorry to hurt your weedle feewings there BO. Also - read the TOS if you're thinking of carrying on a crusade. Crusade? What crusade? My feelings hurt? Who said that?
BillsNYC Posted August 30, 2008 Author Posted August 30, 2008 Watching all these interviews, Dems keep accusing Palin of not having enough experience, and Republicans are firing back that she has more executive experience and it ends in a stalemate. I think when all is said and done, it hurts Obama more as they keep the experience topic in the news, as it highlights his inexperience and people historically vote for the top of the ticket, not the bottom. I know Obama supporters want revenge for all the "Is he ready" ads, but keeping the experience topic in the news can't be helping. I also think McCain camp is going to retire the "Is he ready" campaign as they got a good run out of it, and change tactics...I guess we'll see.
JK2000 Posted August 30, 2008 Posted August 30, 2008 Obama's campaign will more than likely have to revise their strategy on how to "attack" McCain/Milf vs how they were going to go after McCain/Romney or McCain/more traditional VP. So, this choice, assuming there is no monster skeleton in her closet and assuming that she doesn't do something mindnumbingly stupid on the campaign trail will increase McCain's odds of getting elected. You got to wonder how thoroughly the McCain camp was able to vet her considering that McCain only met in person once before the selection. At least with Romney, Lieberman, and Pawlenty McCain knew what he was getting.
Chilly Posted August 30, 2008 Posted August 30, 2008 It is usually. But there is no question in my mind there will be an enormous black turnout. And IMO the reason the youth vote didn't come out for them in the last two elections was because they didnt get their guy. Gore and Kerry were TERRIBLE candidates and personalities. Obama, even if it he ultimately an empty suit, or the same ol' same ol' politician is a great candidate and personality. Fooled and kool-aid drinking voters are still voters. People are also severely under-estimating the organization and movement elements that the Obama team has put together in the last two years. I have heard many a Republican talk about what is going on in their state, worried that they are getting smothered by these offices sprouting up all over. None of this has been proven yet, of course, but you asked my opinion and I am giving it. History shows that an extremely energized youth vote in the primaries actually leads to a depressed vote during the general election. Not to say that it can't change, but the possibility of it is small. As an anecdote, many of the young people I know that were fired up for Obama at UT during the primaries are losing interest for a number of reasons.
Kelly the Dog Posted August 30, 2008 Posted August 30, 2008 History shows that an extremely energized youth vote in the primaries actually leads to a depressed vote during the general election. Not to say that it can't change, but the possibility of it is small. And it's often distorted because, like in 2004, the youth vote and energy was for Howard Dean. But he didn't turn out to be the candidate. Then they tried to transfer the excitement to the ticket, and to Kerry, who was the antithesis, and it not so surprisingly failed. The same thing with Gore. As the campaigning actually started, and people say that he was Al Bore, he lost all the enthusiasm. History also shows black guys can't win elections. It also shows candidates raising literally half the money Obama has. It also shows candidates drawing nowhere near the crowds and enthusiasm he has. It also shows no one can put up offices in 50 states. It also never had this kind of technology to organize and energize. Sure it's good to look at historical trends. I am not just trashing it. And yes, there is a concern that in previous elections, what Democrats hoped for or even predicted in the youth vote didn't materialize. But surely one can see that this year is a unique year, and what is happening is a groundswell (again, regardless of whether one believes he would make a good Prez or not). You obviously think differently, and that's cool. I think the possibility of it is rather large.
Recommended Posts