|
Post by Jon Broxton on Aug 29, 2008 12:51:08 GMT -8
That one came out of left field.
|
|
|
Post by Hook on Aug 29, 2008 13:02:56 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by indy2003 on Aug 29, 2008 13:20:29 GMT -8
This whole thing has suddenly gotten very interesting. The pick seems to deflate topics that I thought some of the debates would center on. The Republicans can no longer say Obama is to inexperienced and young, since he has placed a woman even younger and less experienced than Obama a heartbeat away from the Presidency. On the other hand, the Democrats can't exactly say the Republicans are offering "the same old Washington white guys".
Juicy, juicy. Though I personally prefer Obama to McCain, I must say that I think the guy made a pretty clever decision here. Smooth move, dude.
Back at ya later
|
|
|
Post by Jon Broxton on Aug 29, 2008 13:47:41 GMT -8
The thing about Palin is that it could either be brilliant, or it could backfire spectacularly. It's absolutely clear that McCain chose her to catch the floating female voters who would have voted for Hillary - but it might backfire if they decide that they don't want to be duped into voting for them simply because she's a woman; I've been reading comments about how women vote on policy rather than gender, and that they were pro-Hillary because they were pro-her policies. Some see it as demeaning to women to think that they would vote for a woman irrespective of what she stands for.
What's going to be interesting is when Biden and Palin face-off in a debate. Biden (years of experience) vs Palin (a virtual unknown).
Two funny comments I read today:
- "We would have been better having Michael Palin as a vice president" - "Obama nominates the former Senate Judiciary Leader. McCain nominates the former runner up in the Miss Alaska contest"
|
|
|
Post by indy2003 on Aug 29, 2008 14:14:36 GMT -8
Hear hear! Michael Palin for Vice President! Seriously, you're right, it could backfire. Still, I'll place an early bet and say he made a good move. I think Palin stands a better chance of giving McCain's campaign a real spark than, say, Mitt Romney or Joe Lieberman. And yeah, can't wait for that Biden-Palin debate! For some strange reason, the first thought that came to my mind when I heard that Palin had been picked was that it had something to do with drilling for oil in Alaska. Back at ya later
|
|
|
Post by Brendan Anderson on Aug 29, 2008 15:13:01 GMT -8
Palin is the chief executive of a state - 16 of the United States's presidents were governors before becoming president (including Bush, Clinton, Reagan, Carter, etc.) so saying Palin is too inexperienced to be that close to the presidency because she's a governor is not really a strong argument. In terms of 'relative' experience, one could even venture to say that being a governor is much closer to being president than being a senator...especially a senator who only served one year before starting his running for said presidency.
But I digress. More importantly, is anyone else sad that Tina Fey is no longer on SNL because Palin is looks a lot like her...
-Brendan
|
|
|
Post by indy2003 on Aug 29, 2008 15:18:32 GMT -8
But I digress. More importantly, is anyone else sad that Tina Fey is no longer on SNL because Palin is looks a lot like her... -Brendan Yes, I'm a little sad... but "30 Rock" is so incredibly awesome that I'm actually okay with the fact that Fey isn't with SNL anymore. Back at ya later
|
|
|
Post by Jon Broxton on Aug 29, 2008 15:54:06 GMT -8
Actually, I think she looks more like Daphne from "Frasier".
|
|
|
Post by Carlton the Barbarian on Aug 29, 2008 16:36:33 GMT -8
Yikes. Who the heck is Sarah Palin? Okay, I've gotten the Wikipedia update. She's only been the governor of Alaska for two years (since 2006). Does anyone know if Alaska has a weak governor's office, like Texas? Anyway, it feels like this is a bad pick. It feels like where going back to 1984? I would love to hear Geraldine Feraldo thoughts on Mc Cain's pick. After Mc Cain starting using Hillary Clinton, in his attack ad's against Obama, I though he might pick her. Now, that would be a ticket. Cross-Party tickets, just imagine it! This just feels like, "Hey I need a hip pick, a minority candidate... Palin is the chief executive of a state - 16 of the United States's presidents were governors before becoming president (including Bush, Clinton, Reagan, Carter, etc.) so saying Palin is too inexperienced to be that close to the presidency because she's a governor is not really a strong argument. If elected Mc Cain would be the oldest president, and he has had cancer occurences in the past.... Palin could be the next Harry Truman, and this brings me to my next point. Experience in politics is overrated. How much experience did Truman have? How much experience did Lincoln have? I believe Abe was only a state legislature and a member of the House. Btw, who was the most "experienced" political president? I'm guessing they didn't become one of the greats... -CG
|
|
|
Post by muckle dabuckle on Aug 29, 2008 17:44:16 GMT -8
I agree with Carlton that experience is BS. Who cares? You only have to be an American citizen, have lived in the U.S. for a certain amount of years consecutively, and be 35 or older. That's it! I don't want some busy-body, pushy, ass-kissing, millionaire running for president just because that's what you do to amuse yourself after you make so much money. It just adds to your resume. That seems to be what people mean by "experience."
Anyway. This was the best pick for McCain. He now has a real conservative on his ticket so conservatives will probably vote for him now instead of a third party (like tons of them were threatening). He now has a minority on his ticket taking away all of the Lord Messiah Obama's vacant "change" talk. And I agree with Indy that McCain may have picked her to talk about oil drilling in her state.
|
|
|
Post by TJ on Aug 29, 2008 18:38:04 GMT -8
a "real conservative" ?
|
|
|
Post by muckle dabuckle on Aug 29, 2008 19:01:46 GMT -8
Fiscally and socially conservative instead of one or the other. What little I know about Palin she seems to be both.
|
|
|
Post by Jockolantern on Aug 30, 2008 11:33:12 GMT -8
Terrific choice by McCain and one that's sure to shore up much of the conservative base who have been lacking in enthusiasm for John up until now. Many of them still do, however... like me. I don't really know whether or not the choice of Palin can get me to ultimately pull the lever for McCain or not. Sarah is a terrific choice but it seems silly to vote for the bottom half of the ticket. Although with the amount of clout and influence Palin could have on McCain's choices as president, it leaves me at least a little more confident and assured about McCain.
Gotta' love how the arbiter for change with a typical, Washington beltway thoroughbred (considering he could have chosen somene like Richardson, Clinton or Sibelius) and McCain decides to shatter the glass ceiling in the wake of Hillary putting millions of cracks in it yet ultimately getting the shaft. A fabulous political move if ever I've seen one. The buzz and hype leading up to McCain's pick was also incredibly well-executed (unlike Obama, whose 3 AM announcement barely made a whimper in the news); I never even saw Obama's speeched referenced on Friday. McCain managed to completely overhaul any and all mainstream media coverage of the DNCC's big night.
In the past couple weeks either McCain's campaign has really started to get their act together or Obama's staff is just grasping at straws since they can tell the general public's emotional reservoires for "hope" and "change" are just about dried up; Barack and his campaign have had a real problem with detail and substance. And where McCain's campaign has really failed to get anyone emotionally excited or jazzed, at least people always know where he stands and can comprehend the substance of McCain's agenda.
Again, way to go, Sarah Palin!
-Jockolantern
|
|
|
Post by Hook on Aug 30, 2008 12:32:41 GMT -8
So that's what this is about. I thought Broxton had the hots for someone named "Sarah Palin" and that this thread came out of left field.
Oh, ok, I get it: The guy who is accused of having no experience and yet managing to hype himself up to the presidential candidacy with "change" and "hope" is picking a guy with 30 years of experience who doesn't upset the order of things any more than they are now (imagine an Asian-American VP) and the guy who is accused of being too old, too out of touch, and too Washington (not too mention a tad too liberal with his, uh, marriage "choices") picks a younger, inexperienced politician to woo the young, the conservatives who don't like him, and the "Clinton supporters for McCain" who are so looney they just might as well.
Politics are so silly.
Reminds me of a Futurama (everything reminds me of a Futurama quote) episode. They're about to go to war and a private asks who the enemy is. Zap Brannigan's answer:
A valid question. We know nothing about their language, their history or what they look like. But we can assume this: They stand for everything we don't stand for. Also, they told me you guys look like dorks.
|
|
|
Post by Jockolantern on Aug 30, 2008 14:21:11 GMT -8
That sentence is redundant.
|
|