Obama versus McCain (versus the rest)

[molson]

Originally Posted by stevew

Anyways, yeah, if McCain wins it'll be hilarious.

Yes...Where would the Democratic Party go from there? What's the next level after desperation?

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by stevew

Anyways, yeah, if McCain wins it'll be hilarious.

Hillary would have a field day too.

[sabotai]

If McCain wins, what are the odds of a Sarah Palin vs. Hilary Clinton election in 2012? McCain is 72, he'll turn 76 during the 2012 campaign, and 4 years as President is a long time. I'm wondering if he wins, what are the chances he chooses to serve for just 1 term? A bit unheard of these days, but so is having an 70+ year old President.

And if McCain wins, there's a really good chance Clinton is the nominee in 2012. The only reason she wouldn't would be if McCain/Pelin have a really good approval rating and McCain runs for a 2nd term (she wouldn't run if she knows she'll lose to a popular President).

[molson]

Originally Posted by sabotai

If McCain wins, what are the odds of a Sarah Palin vs. Hilary Clinton election in 2012? McCain is 72, he'll turn 76 during the 2012 campaign, and 4 years as President is a long time. I'm wondering if he wins, what are the chances he chooses to serve for just 1 term? A bit unheard of these days, but so is having an 70+ year old President.

And if McCain wins, there's a really good chance Clinton is the nominee in 2012. The only reason she wouldn't would be if McCain/Pelin have a really good approval rating and McCain runs for a 2nd term (she wouldn't run if she knows she'll lose to a popular President).

I think it would be tough for Palin to win the Republican nomination. Though I could see whoever was nominated to use her as running mate.

[Big Fo]

Pretty funny stuff, Karl Rove speculating on who Obama might choose as a VP a few weeks ago.

"I think he's going to make an intensely political choice, not a governing choice," Rove said. "He's going to view this through the prism of a candidate, not through the prism of president; that is to say, he's going to pick somebody that he thinks will on the margin help him in a state like Indiana or Missouri or Virginia. He's not going to be thinking big and broad about the responsibilities of president."

Rove singled out Virginia governor Tim Kaine, also a Face The Nation guest, as an example of such a pick.

"With all due respect again to Governor Kaine, he's been a governor for three years, he's been able but undistinguished," Rove said. "I don't think people could really name a big, important thing that he's done. He was mayor of the 105th largest city in America."

Rove continued: "So if he were to pick Governor Kaine, it would be an intensely political choice where he said, `You know what? I'm really not, first and foremost, concerned with, is this person capable of being president of the United States? What I'm concerned about is, can he bring me the electoral votes of the state of Virginia, the 13 electoral votes in Virginia?'"

Replace VA's electoral votes with moderate women and there you go. cbsnews.com link

Also, Republicans have been grossly exaggerating Palin's resistance to the Bridge to Nowhere.

Did Palin Really Fight The “Bridge To Nowhere”?

Republicans have been heavily touting Sarah Palin's reformist credentials, with her supposed opposition to Alaska's "Bridge to Nowhere" as Exhibit A. But how hard did she really fight the project? Not very, it seems. Here's what she told the Anchorage Daily News on October 22, 2006, during the race for the governor's seat (via Nexis):

5. Would you continue state funding for the proposed Knik Arm and Gravina Island bridges?

Yes. I would like to see Alaska's infrastructure projects built sooner rather than later. The window is now--while our congressional delegation is in a strong position to assist.

So she was very much for the bridge and insisted that Alaska had to act quickly—the party of Ted Stevens and Don Young might soon lose its majority, after all. By that point, the project was endangered for reasons that had nothing to do with Palin—the bridge had become a national laughingstock, Congress had stripped away the offending earmark, shifting the money back to the state's general fund, and future federal support seemed unlikely. True, after Palin was sworn into office that fall, her first budget didn't allocate any money for the bridge. But when the Daily News asked on December 16, 2006, if she now opposed the project, Palin demurred and said she was just trying to figure out where the bridge fit on the state's list of transportation priorities, given the lack of support from Congress. Finally, on September 19, 2007, she decided to redirect funds away from the project altogether with this sorry-sounding statement:

"Ketchikan desires a better way to reach the airport, but the $398 million bridge is not the answer," said Governor Palin. "Despite the work of our congressional delegation, we are about $329 million short of full funding for the bridge project, and it's clear that Congress has little interest in spending any more money on a bridge between Ketchikan and Gravina Island," Governor Palin added. "Much of the public's attitude toward Alaska bridges is based on inaccurate portrayals of the projects here. But we need to focus on what we can do, rather than fight over what has happened."

Maybe I've missed something, but it sure looks like she was fine with the bridge in principle, never had a problem with the earmarks, bristled at all the mockery, and only gave up on the project when it was clear that federal support wasn't forthcoming. Now, Charles Homans, who knows Alaska well, says Palin's anti-corruption instincts are fairly solid (she sold off the gubenatorial jet upon taking office, for one), and a casual Nexis search suggests that she's fiscally conservative (insofar as that term makes sense in a quasi-socialist state like Alaska), but this hardly looks like the "Mr. Smith Goes To Washington" moment everyone's making it out to be.

TNR link

[Arles]

In response to Rove's comments, I think you have to take into account the top of the ticket as well. If Obama would have chosen a "democratic Palin" type, you would have both members of the ticket with little experience. Just like if McCain would have taken Biden, you'd have 2 old rich white guys who've been in the senate since Andrew Jackson was president (OK, maybe not that long ).

To me, Biden is a solid choice for Obama, but would have been a terrible choice for McCain. In the same light, Palin is a nice choice for McCain, but would have been an awful choice for Obama.

Finally, citing her opinions on a major political project before she took office (your quotes were from 10/06, she wasn't sworn in until December) isn't all that surprising. It would be prudent to get all the information on the project once you are governor before trashing it in public. I'm sure, in theory, the project had some merit. But, there's something to be said for pulling the plug once you take office (6-7 months in) and see the money pit it was becoming.

[Flasch186]

it totally boils down to pandering to the religious contingent of the Republican party, which sickens me. Of course, I believe that religion and politics shouldnt mix but Im one person. If the Republican party would excise the religious distinction from their party Im sure many people, including myself would be more open to other aspects that they could bring to the table. IMO though they continue to view this "base" as critical to winning.

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by molson

Yes...Where would the Democratic Party go from there? What's the next level after desperation?

Well, they will have 55 seats in the Senate, and a 40-50 seat majority in the house. I think they'll survive.

I do agree that only the Dems could blow an election like this one.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

f the Republican party would excise the religious distinction from their party Im sure many people, including myself would be more open to other aspects that they could bring to the table. IMO though they continue to view this "base" as critical to winning.

As much as I sometimes wish it weren't the case, this seems to be the reality of winning presidential elections for the republicans. If you look at the last 30 years, the social conservative tickets (Reagan/Bush, Bush/Quayle, W/Cheney) have won while the more moderate social tickets (Ford/Dole, Dole/Kemp) have lost. It's opposite for the democrats where the "southern centrist" candidates (Carter, Clinton) have won while the liberal ones (Kerry, Gore, Mondale, Dukakis) have lost.

That's what makes this election so interesting. Both parties have nominated candidates in the "loser" categories from above. It will be interesting to see who wins. But, if McCain wins, the social conservatives will say it was because of the inclusion of Palin and Obama being too liberal. If McCain loses, they will say that nominating a moderate is no way to win a presidential election for the republicans. So, in the end, I doubt this strategy of pandering to the social right will change any time soon.

From my perspective, I think the democrats could make some headway if they went for a fiscal centrist who is socially moderate (or even tilts a bit to the left on abortion/gay rights). That's what won them many of their congress seats in the midterms (going with people like Heath Shuler, Brad Ellsworth and others). History has shown that's a winning equation for the presidency as well.

[larrymcg421]

I think the "executive experience" spin is pretty cute. I mean, we've been hearing all along that McCain's got more experience on Obama, based on his many more years of Senate service. Now we're hearing that it's executive experience that matters, which would make all the attacks of the last few months meaningless.

[Toddzilla]

Originally Posted by Big Fo

Pretty funny stuff, Karl Rove speculating on who Obama might choose as a VP a few weeks ago.

Good stuff - which is why I posted it 2 pages ago

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

honestly -- my last big fear about this election is exemplified by SFL Cat. We like to claim we're a progressive society, that we don't see race anymore, but to what extent are we kidding ourselves? What % of the electorate simply won't vote for Obama because of the color of his skin, or his name? I think that's got to be a real concern actually, because I think that there is a vocal minority who we can be sure won't (exemplified by SFL Cat), but that's just the "tip of the iceberg" and like a real iceberg, the vast majority of it is underwater.

Nah, good ol' boys like SFL will always be around, but they are for the most a dying breed (Jesse Helms, Storm Thurmond, and the rest of the Dixiecrats), or at least have advanced to using code words these days instead of outright racial language. I think the vast vast majority of Republican voters who vote against Obama will be doing so on policy, which is a good thing.

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

it totally boils down to pandering to the religious contingent of the Republican party, which sickens me. Of course, I believe that religion and politics shouldnt mix but Im one person. If the Republican party would excise the religious distinction from their party Im sure many people, including myself would be more open to other aspects that they could bring to the table. IMO though they continue to view this "base" as critical to winning.

There are faith-based voters of all political stripes, even among those running for office. That shouldn't sicken anyone unless you have hatred. That was what I was alluding to a while back when hatred for a certain party/individual is simply a mask for anti-faith hatred.

Be clear, I do not like the so-called "religious right" either but they are far from monolithic or to be lumped into one category, if you would really want to look at those groups objectively. There are many faith-based voters on the "left" as well, except there are not many that are prominent in the public eye.

No, it is easy to attack certain evangelicals (as I do) and easy to lump them all together because typically other "conservative" values go along with it. To want to "excise religion", you would make the values of 60-70% of the people irrelevant, not to mention invalidating some of our country's history.

[yes, I have violated my statement in not responding to blatant partisan attacks/posts but the tone of your post offended me when you are taking a small yet vocal segment and painting a broad brush. You want others to do the same in saying certain far-left segments peak for all Democrats?]

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by Honolulu_Blue

I love this notion that ex-Hillary supporters or women in general who were on the fence will (or may) now shift their support/vote to McCain because he picked a woman as his running mate.

I mean, seriously, people are acting as if women could care less about the issues or a politician's views on any number of subjects and will just vote: VAGINA!!!!

Yeah, we've come a long way, baby...

That is all. See you in November!

If you don't think there are a number of people who vote for the person most like them or against the one most not like them, then I don't know know what to tell you.

Or do you think Obama being black will not have an impact?

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

honestly -- my last big fear about this election is exemplified by SFL Cat. We like to claim we're a progressive society, that we don't see race anymore, but to what extent are we kidding ourselves? What % of the electorate simply won't vote for Obama because of the color of his skin, or his name? I think that's got to be a real concern actually, because I think that there is a vocal minority who we can be sure won't (exemplified by SFL Cat), but that's just the "tip of the iceberg" and like a real iceberg, the vast majority of it is underwater.

I don't fear how many people will not vote for Obama because he's black as much as the people who will vote for Obama because he's black.

Racism cuts both ways.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

[yes, I have violated my statement in not responding to blatant partisan attacks/posts but the tone of your post offended me when you are taking a small yet vocal segment and painting a broad brush. You want others to do the same in saying certain far-left segments peak for all Democrats?]

no, but the difference is how much power they wield in their respective party. Didnt mean to offend by opinion remains that starting with Reagan, the Religious Right clung onto the Republican party and was pervasive in their invasion of many if not most facets of the platform. In some respects the party has abandoned some of the non-religious focal points like fiscal responsibility and instead clung on the more poignant keywords, like "gay" and "abortion" since they play to a base that is easier to get to understand in lieu of trying to explain the intricacies of Free Markets and Trickle Down economics.

Just because 70% of American's have faith doesnt mean that our public policy should be beholden to it. For example there shouldnt be 10 commandments on Courthouse steps like there shouldnt be a Koran at city hall, etc.

[ace1914]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

I don't fear how many people will not vote for Obama because he's black as much as the people who will vote for Obama because he's black.

Racism cuts both ways.

Hmm. Maybe he's just the better candidate in some people's eyes. I promise, people don't vote as blindly as you might think.

Estimates
204 million Whites
45 million Hispanics
40 million Blacks
13 million Asians

I'd guess 10% of every race is racist as hell.


20 mil Whites will not vote for Obama.
4 mil Blacks will not vote for McCain
4 mil Hispanics will not vote for McCain/Obama.
1 mil of Asians will not vote Obama/McCain.

I'd guess Obama would still be handicapped just based on shear % of hardcore racists.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by ace1914

Hmm. Maybe he's just the better candidate in some people's eyes. I promise, people don't vote as blindly as you might think.

Actually, the issue is your definition of how I am thinking here. Most people will vote with their heads. You and I are on the same page there.

But if you think there isn't a significant number of people who are either voting for him because of his ethnicity or counting it hugely in his favor, then I don't know what to say about that. It's simply a huge factor for many people.

There are a lot of people who are at least partially inclined to vote for Obama because the media has made race such an overwhelming issue in our social consciousness that there is a public need to absolve. There are some people who view Obama as a racist-history cure all. These are mostly white people, because we are the race to which the racist stigma is mostly attached.

And that's on top of those members of the African-American race who will refuse to vote for a white man or would never vote for any white man over a black man, which is just as racist as the KKK fuckers doing the same on their end. In the end, I believe both of these groups have fallen off, that largely racism on either side has fallen off a lot. While race is certainly still an issue, it is clearly improved over how things were.

But all that means is that the "white guilt" vote becomes easily the largest race-based voting group (and the most critical to this election).

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by ace1914

Hmm. Maybe he's just the better candidate in some people's eyes. I promise, people don't vote as blindly as you might think.

Estimates
204 million Whites
45 million Hispanics
40 million Blacks
13 million Asians

I'd guess 10% of every race is racist as hell.


20 mil Whites will not vote for Obama.
4 mil Blacks will not vote for McCain
4 mil Hispanics will not vote for McCain/Obama.
1 mil of Asians will not vote Obama/McCain.

I'd guess Obama would still be handicapped just based on shear % of hardcore racists.

I think your percentage is way too high. Racist as hell is a pretty strong statement. And we're also talking about how many people would actually have this as the end-all, be-all, no other issue matters issue.

I think the number is far closer to 1% for KKK-level racism in voting. That makes your numbers far less significant.

The "white guilt" vote will be much higher than that, IMO.

[Young Drachma]

I read somewhere else that it was clear by picking Palin, that Rove and Co. had nothing to do with this picking process.

[Young Drachma]

McCain is on CNN now with Palin in Pennsylvania. He's taking the change message head on now. Man, shapeshifting ftl.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

McCain is on CNN now with Palin in Pennsylvania. He's taking the change message head on now. Man, shapeshifting ftl.

it's kinda insulting that they think people have memories that short. Then again it's even more depressing that a significant % of people actually do.

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

it's kinda insulting that they think people have memories that short. Then again it's even more depressing that a significant % of people actually do.

Well she'll do fine on the stump. It's when they get her in front of hostile crowds or make her have to speak without prepared remarks that we'll see how they've coached her.

I think that if Joe Biden is a loose cannon flyhandle or whatever, but...she's just as prone to say something off the cuff and inappropriate. More so, since she's got less experience.

[molson]

Originally Posted by ace1914

Hmm. Maybe he's just the better candidate in some people's eyes. I promise, people don't vote as blindly as you might think.

Estimates
204 million Whites
45 million Hispanics
40 million Blacks
13 million Asians

I'd guess 10% of every race is racist as hell.


20 mil Whites will not vote for Obama.
4 mil Blacks will not vote for McCain
4 mil Hispanics will not vote for McCain/Obama.
1 mil of Asians will not vote Obama/McCain.

I'd guess Obama would still be handicapped just based on shear % of hardcore racists.

I would also say the 10% number is way high and more than that, not really relevant here.

The real question is, which is number is higher:

1A: The number of people would normally have voted Democrat, but because its a black guy, they go with McCain
+
1B: The number of people who normally wouldn't vote at all, but go vote McCain because Obama's a black guy

OR

2A: The number of people who would normally have voted Republican, but will vote for Obama just because he's black
+
2B: The number of people who would normally not vote, but go vote Obama just because he's black.

I think 2A is higher than 1A, and 2B is higher than 2A (though I'd love to hear a Democrat argue that there are that many racist Democrats to make 1A a significant number).

[DaddyTorgo]

I know at least one 1B, although they've lately started to change their tune to "it's not b/c he's black...i just don't trust him though" from their earlier "won't vote for a black guy to be president"

[Flasch186]

FWIW Palin is repeating her speech in Washington, Pa and her line about thanking Hillary Clinton for putting 18 million cracks in the ceiling was met with resounding boos so Im not sure that the tactic is going as planned on day 2.

[Young Drachma]

She's got a big ass family to be globetrotting them around the country like this on the stump. I mean, i'm sure it's fine and all..but...that's got to be annoying. I didn't see the baby this time, at least. But ugh.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

I read somewhere else that it was clear by picking Palin, that Rove and Co. had nothing to do with this picking process.

I've read that too, but it seems to me that this pick is more about Schmidt and Rove than McCain. Look at what's been reported:

For a couple of weeks it's been rumored that McCain is looking at a pro-choice VP

Last Saturday McCain was supposedly set on Lieberman

Sometime late last weekend or early in the week Rove called Lieberman asking him to withdraw his name

McCain is famous for surrounding himself with close confidants, but before selecting Palin he'd only met her in person once and had a total of less than an hour talking to her.

McCain has been more controlled by his advisors since switching his staff. He's said he isn't allowed to use his cellphone much and his famous contacts with the press have all but disappeared.

I honestly believe that McCain wanted Lieberman, but his advisors convinced him that the effects of that choice would severely strain the GOP. At that point he did what's he's done dozens of times over the past couple of years and accepted what his advisors told him he had to do if he wanted to be the President.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

Didnt mean to offend by opinion remains that starting with Reagan, the Religious Right clung onto the Republican party and was pervasive in their invasion of many if not most facets of the platform. In some respects the party has abandoned some of the non-religious focal points like fiscal responsibility and instead clung on the more poignant keywords, like "gay" and "abortion" since they play to a base that is easier to get to understand in lieu of trying to explain the intricacies of Free Markets and Trickle Down economics.

Flasch, I know good & darned well you're smart enough to understand how/why it works that way.

Without the religious right today, the GOP can't win a national election. Period. They lose the South without 'em, and they don't have enough strength elsewhere to make up the electoral votes nor do I see any way they could gain the same back elsewhere by shifting.

The reality is that's there simply more people in states that can won by the GOP who actually legitimately care about those buzzwords than about any of the fiscal issues. Right, wrong, indifferent, doesn't matter -- some of those issues are the ones they care most about.

While I share many of their concerns, I part company fully with them on at least one of their key issues so I have to say "they" instead of "we" (nor would they count me as one of them for that matter) but I'm also realistic enough to know that the only way to have a chance at making progress in the directions I want is to give up a bit that they want. And that's what the GOP knows too.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by molson

I would also say the 10% number is way high and more than that, not really relevant here.

The real question is, which is number is higher:

1A: The number of people would normally have voted Democrat, but because its a black guy, they go with McCain
+
1B: The number of people who normally wouldn't vote at all, but go vote McCain because Obama's a black guy

OR

2A: The number of people who would normally have voted Republican, but will vote for Obama just because he's black
+
2B: The number of people who would normally not vote, but go vote Obama just because he's black.

I think 2A is higher than 1A, and 1B is higher than 2B (though I'd love to hear a Democrat argue that there are that many racist Democrats to make 1A a significant number).

It's much more complicated than what you guys are arguing. There is, of course, a block of people that are openly and knowingly racists. If we had a mass truth serum, we could measure that.

Studies have shown, though, that people are can exhibit racial biases in an almost subconscious way. Many people, while not openly racist, hold people of a different race to higher standards than they do people of their own race. For example, a person is more likely to forgive a lie from someone of their own race than someone of a different race.

Race will be a factor in this election as it's the first time the country has had a choice, but trying to measure the open racists doesn't really get at the core issue.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by molson

I think 2A is higher than 1A, and 1B is higher than 2B (though I'd love to hear a Democrat argue that there are that many racist Democrats to make 1A a significant number).

Huh?

2B is almost certainly the largest segment, 2A is almost certainly the smallest, with 1A & 1B somewhere in the middle.

Surely you had a typo there somewhere. You don't really mean to that you believe there's a sizable contingent of Republican voters who've been longing for a chance to vote for a black candidate.

[molson]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Huh?

2B is almost certainly the largest segment, 2A is almost certainly the smallest, with 1A & 1B somewhere in the middle.

Surely you had a typo there somewhere. You don't really mean to that you believe there's a sizable contingent of Republican voters who've been longing for a chance to vote for a black candidate.

The second half of that is a typo, and edited. Yes, I agree that 2B is the largest segment, and the one most likely to create an impact in this selection.

2A is very, very small, but I think 1A is even smaller. (For 2A, I imagine moderate suburban republican types, and of course black republicans). Or maybe I just wanted to hear a Democrat argue that there's a significant number of racist Democrats.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by molson

The second half of that is a typo, and edited.

Whew.

[Flasch186]

Looks like Gustav may effect the Pres. schedule around the GOP convention....At least Katrina taught him a lesson in regards to schedule if nothing else.

[Radii]

Originally Posted by molson

The real question is, which is number is higher:

1A: The number of people would normally have voted Democrat, but because its a black guy, they go with McCain
+
1B: The number of people who normally wouldn't vote at all, but go vote McCain because Obama's a black guy

OR

2A: The number of people who would normally have voted Republican, but will vote for Obama just because he's black
+
2B: The number of people who would normally not vote, but go vote Obama just because he's black.

I think 2A is higher than 1A, and 2B is higher than 2A (though I'd love to hear a Democrat argue that there are that many racist Democrats to make 1A a significant number).

I'd agree with this, and also add:

What percentage of people in these groups are in states where it matters in the first place. Someone in Mississippi voting McCain because Obama is black who would otherwise not vote really doesn't impact anything. the same goes for someone in California who would otherwise not vote going to vote for Obama so they can vote for the first black president.

[Flasch186]

Obama and Biden are speaking in Dublin, OH and theyre going for a more relaxed look and feel and Im not sure it's working for me at first blush.

[Flasch186]

eh, doesnt mean anything since we know any critique of credentials must be biased:


Scholars question Palin credentials - Yahoo! News

[SFL Cat]

Ah...thanks for the racists kudos guys...guess I'm in good company, though.

Bill Clinton got the same treatment during the primaries and he was the FIRST black president.

Aways a pleasure to get bashed by the local liberal goon squad.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

FWIW Palin is repeating her speech in Washington, Pa and her line about thanking Hillary Clinton for putting 18 million cracks in the ceiling was met with resounding boos so Im not sure that the tactic is going as planned on day 2.

You understand that this pro-republican crowd was boing the mention of Clinton, not Palin, correct? Please tell me you got that.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

eh, doesnt mean anything since we know any critique of credentials must be biased:


Scholars question Palin credentials - Yahoo! News

I think it's fair to question her experience. But, again, I don't see a major difference between 8 years as mayor + commitee chair and 2 years as governor and 8 years as a state senator + 4 years as a senator. Both seem fairly inexperienced, with one being the top of the ticket.

And since you brought it up, it's important to mention who is doing the criticizing:

The authors quote four scholars attacking Gov. Palin's fitness for the office of Vice President. Among them, David Kennedy is a maxed out Obama donor, Joel Goldstein is also an Obama donor, and Doris Kearns Goodwin has donated exclusively to Democrats this cycle. Finally, Matthew Dallek is a former speech writer for Dick Gephardt. This is not a story about scholars questioning Governor Palin's credentials so much as partisan Democrats who would find a reason to disqualify or discount any nominee put forward by Senator McCain.

Again, much like with all the alaskan people criticizing Palin, it's not surprising that many might not be very supportive of her or republicans (shocking, I know).

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Arles

I think it's fair to question her experience. But, again, I don't see a major difference between 8 years as mayor + commitee chair and 2 years as governor and 8 years as a state senator + 4 years as a senator. Both seem fairly inexperienced, with one being the top of the ticket.

And since you brought it up, it's important to mention who is doing the criticizing:


Again, much like with all the alaskan people criticizing Palin, it's not surprising that many might not be very supportive of her or republicans (shocking, I know).

lol - my dad went to HS in Alaska - he's been through Wisalia and says (and numerous other people have shown and shown pictures) that it's literally less than a one stoplight town. There's like 5500-6500 people in that "town" (which consists of a bar and a single shopping center). Being mayor of that town means jack-shit as far as any type of experience. It's a joke.

[Big Fo]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

lol - my dad went to HS in Alaska - he's been through Wisalia and says (and numerous other people have shown and shown pictures) that it's literally less than a one stoplight town. There's like 5500-6500 people in that "town" (which consists of a bar and a single shopping center). Being mayor of that town means jack-shit as far as any type of experience. It's a joke.

but but but she has crucial executive experience!

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

Being mayor of that town means jack-shit as far as any type of experience.

{scratches head}

Just wondering if you actually think people are putting significant weight on her time as mayor vs her time as governor.

[Vegas Vic]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

Being mayor of that town means jack-shit as far as any type of experience. It's a joke.

And being on the top of your party's ticket as a U.S. Senator with 140 working days of experience (most of which has been spent campaigning for president) isn't a joke?

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

{scratches head}

Just wondering if you actually think people are putting significant weight on her time as mayor vs her time as governor.

I dunno - just saying is all.

[DanGarion]

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by SFL Cat

Ah...thanks for the racists kudos guys...guess I'm in good company, though.

Bill Clinton got the same treatment during the primaries and he was the FIRST black president.

Aways a pleasure to get bashed by the local liberal goon squad.

Yes, your Osama / Obama lines, the ones that McCain's campaign and the likes of NR/RedState (you know, those known liberals) called off-limits are clearly just you having fun. You throw out racial bullshit, you will get called on it. And if the shoe fits...

[DaddyTorgo]

dan - where'd the chart come from? I have someone I want to show it to

[JPhillips]

Woohoo! My taxes will be lower under Obama.

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

{scratches head}

Just wondering if you actually think people are putting significant weight on her time as mayor vs her time as governor.

Yeah, that doesn't make much sense. She has been Governor for what, 18 months now? I don't think the experience argument is big either way, but that is exec experience. Now, Alaska is smaller than many cities in the US (ie, Guliani's experience in my mind far trumps hers), but that's another vein.