Lets do one more VP thread. I'm sure some folks will want to chime in over the weekend as the news is still fresh, but after that we should go back to the One and only Presidential thread. This one with bonus poll. :dance:

Previous thread (part II): Here (http://forum.dvdtalk.com/showthread.php?t=538655&page=33)

Originally Posted by eXcentris
It's a relevant question and my guess would be not many. Which is why I have a hard time comprehending arguments that this pick will make the race closer or vice-versa. Or are people just going to go "woooo she's an outdoorsy woman with 5 kids" so I'm voting for that awesome ticket!


It's called "The Obama Effect" even though it doesn't apply to race in this situation. -wink-

It's interesting to note that in under 12 hours <s>this</s> the original "Palin" VP thread is longer than the first "Biden" VP thread, despite the weeks of front page headlines declaring "Obama still thinking about VP selection...." and Obama's twitter ballyhoo.

What percentage of American voters knew who Palin was (and by "knew" I mean more than "I might have heard her name mentionned once or twice") before she was nominated. I'm curious. :)

Going by the MSM's "He's so new/unknown" excuse for excessive Obama coverage I expect to have 24/7 Palin coverage until mid April, more if the GOP actually wins.

What percentage of American voters knew who Palin was (and by "knew" I mean more than "I might have heard her name mentionned once or twice") before she was nominated. I'm curious.
I've heard of her from looking up her pics online. ;)

Just curious, who's considered the #2 guy after the Prime Minister in Canada? I honestly don't know.
Or is the Prime Minister #2 after the Queen. ;)

Eh, I was reading a canadadian thread in another forum, and wanted to use the term Shawinigan Handshake.

Chretien was crazy. Entertaining crazy.

I had heard of her, but only because she's been on the list of potential VP choices from the beginning. On one hand, I think she's sounds great on paper. On the other, I feel like this is more of an "affirmative action" choice, which kind of bugs me. :shrug:

I need to read more about her for sure, but I like what I've read thus far. McCain MAY have swung my vote in his direction with the choice. Not because she's female, but because she really does sound like a conservative I can support (so far). :up:

Also, as for the experience thing, it cracks me up. She's at least been governor, even if only for a short time. None of the other 3 have executive experience so who cares? Senators know how to barter and make deals to get things done. Governors should be used to making decisions, even if they're tough ones to make.

It's interesting to note that in under 12 hours <s>this</s> the original "Palin" VP thread is longer than the first "Biden" VP thread, despite the weeks of front page headlines declaring "Obama still thinking about VP selection...." and Obama's twitter ballyhoo.



Going by the MSM's "He's so new/unknown" excuse for excessive Obama coverage I expect to have 24/7 Palin coverage until mid April, more if the GOP actually wins.
I know I posted more because I had time at work. Last week I was swamped and didn't post much. Still, the McCain pick was more intriguing I'll give you that. How it will play out over the long haul remains to be seen.

How long before the swimsuit (or other revealing skin) pics from the beaty contest days are on Drudge? Bring it on :drool:

Going by the MSM's "He's so new/unknown" excuse for excessive Obama coverage I expect to have 24/7 Palin coverage until mid April, more if the GOP actually wins.

As others have noted, I'd compare her more to Harriet Miers than to Obama.

I really feel that McCain was banking on the stupidity and cow-like swayability of uninformed voters with this pick. So this question really hinges on how stupid we are as a country. I'm choosing Biden as the only choice that makes any kind of sense in a sane world, but I would never over-estimate the American voter.

I really feel that McCain was banking on the stupidity and cow-like swayability of uninformed voters with this pick. So this question really hinges on how stupid we are as a country. I'm choosing Biden as the only choice that makes any kind of sense in a sane world, but I would never over-estimate the American voter.

The Obama circus reminds me of debates between those people who have TV shows where they attempt to convince audience members of their ability to communicate with their dead relatives by making great claims of sincerity and empathy, and frustrated scientists whose reasoned arguments attempting to uncover such charlatanry prove futile against the spiritist's charisma and his hold over ignorant people's dearest hopes.

If Obama were taking an exam at a reputable economics faculty, he'd fail miserably. In these matters, his judgment is as intelligent and wise as an astrologer's or a palm reader's. It really bothers me that he and those behind him have been able to convince so many that he is anything other than a very ordinary person.

blah blah blah.

Conspicuously absent from your economic statement is any support for your candidate, who admits to total ignorance on the subject. Look, I'm not saying Obama is perfectly knowledgeable about everything, but he's consistently shown a searing curiosity to learn from all sides and make sound decisions. His judgment on foreign policy is remarkable. I think many of his positions are that way. And where he needs help, he seeks it out and learns according to many points of view, and quickly.

That's a quality I want in a prez.

Conspicuously absent from your economic statement is any support for your candidate, who admits to total ignorance on the subject. Look, I'm not saying Obama is perfectly knowledgeable about everything, but he's consistently shown a searing curiosity to learn from all sides and make sound decisions. His judgment on foreign policy is remarkable. I think many of his positions are that way. And where he needs help, he seeks it out and learns according to many points of view, and quickly.

That's a quality I want in a prez.

Yeah, his idea to invade Pakistan is simply...remarkable.

Well, it kinda bothers me how some (and others--including my mother) would want another 4 years. To me, that's pretty weird. So, I'm still confused on those who say choosing Obama is akin to Astrology.

Just what exactly is Obama fantasizing about? I thought his speech was rather honest, and indicative of what we've been experiencing the last 8 years. What's so "astrological" about it? I'm a former Republican, btw.

Obama = Hope, Future-looking, positive, team efforts, everyone can make it happen, Iraq is not the only country which needs a majority of our military resources

McCain = Fear, terror, stay the same, I know what's best, Only I know foreign policy, Iraq is the only solutuon to terrorism,

Yeah, his idea to invade Pakistan is simply...remarkable.

You're listening to too much Limbaugh, buddy.

Yeah, his idea to invade Pakistan is simply...remarkable.

Pakistan is where the Taliban retreat to--unlike Iraq. Pakistan is where Al Qaeda has been retreating to ever since 9/11--unlike Iraq.

Whose the idiot regarding foreign policy.

I really feel that McCain was banking on the stupidity and cow-like swayability of uninformed voters with this pick. So this question really hinges on how stupid we are as a country. I'm choosing Biden as the only choice that makes any kind of sense in a sane world, but I would never over-estimate the American voter.
So those who like McCain's ticket are stupid and uninformed cows, and choosing otherwise means you are insane.
You're listening to too much Limbaugh, buddy.
And then when someone challenges, you resort to Limbaugh, O'Reilly, Dobbs, etc.
Seriously, wtf?
blah blah blah
So we can fix posts here now too?

You're listening to too much Limbaugh, buddy.

1. Don't listen to Limbaugh.

2. As you can see by DVDPolizei, he thinks that Obama wants to chase the Talis and AQ into Pakistan.

3. The moment you overtly put boots on the ground in another country, its an invasion. At that point, you better have the balls to carry it all the way through.

4. If you don't think we're putting covert teams in Pakistan, you're dim.

But please, keep up the rah-rah. Its comedy gold.

Pakistan is where the Taliban retreat to--unlike Iraq. Pakistan is where Al Qaeda has been retreating to ever since 9/11--unlike Iraq.

Whose the idiot regarding foreign policy.

The one who doesn't know the proper way to use a contraction? :shrug:

The one who doesn't know the proper way to use a contraction? :shrug:
You listen to too much Chomsky, buddy.

Hillary Clinton on Sarah Palin:

“We should all be proud of Governor Sarah Palin's historic nomination, and I congratulate her and Senator McCain," Clinton, the first woman to win a presidential primary, said in the statement. "While their policies would take America in the wrong direction, Governor Palin will add an important new voice to the debate.”

You listen to too much Chomsky, buddy.

What can I say, I'm a dyed in the wool commie. You've found me out, comrade.

So we can fix posts here now too?


Post fixing is when you modify a word or two to make the original statement read differently (usually done in a manner to make it agree more w/ your POV and typically less w/ the original poster's intentions). IMHO "blah blah blah" was more of a commentary than a "post fix". Not a very constructive one, but one that as of now is still allowed. If this becomes a problem maybe we'll have to rethink that position.

Stop fighting, my sexy Babushkas.

1. Don't listen to Limbaugh.

2. As you can see by DVDPolizei, he thinks that Obama wants to chase the Talis and AQ into Pakistan.

3. The moment you overtly put boots on the ground in another country, its an invasion. At that point, you better have the balls to carry it all the way through.

4. If you don't think we're putting covert teams in Pakistan, you're dim.

But please, keep up the rah-rah. Its comedy gold.

I'm confused. You say #2, then confirm what I said in #4?

Is that you McCain? Speak up, man!

Conspicuously absent from your economic statement is any support for your candidate, who admits to total ignorance on the subject. Look, I'm not saying Obama is perfectly knowledgeable about everything, but he's consistently shown a searing curiosity to learn from all sides and make sound decisions. His judgment on foreign policy is remarkable. I think many of his positions are that way. And where he needs help, he seeks it out and learns according to many points of view, and quickly.

That's a quality I want in a prez.

what exactly is remarkable? he attacked the idea of going to war in iraq when all seemed lost and everyone was trying to spin their vote on the war. everyone knew he was going to pick a white guy with beltway experience and he did. nothing remarkable about obama. not only did he pick a white guy, but this person plagiarized a speech and when you look at his reported net worth, it's a lot less than the total amount of money he made in senate salary. where did it all go?

his qualification is that he has enough management ability to build an amazing campaign from scratch and beat people with more experience than him. of course he had the no experience i'm for change thing going for him in a housing bubble bust year. just like 1990 everyone suddenly wants change when their home value plunges.

he is young and more hip than mccain and it made him a media darling. now mccain did him one better and suddenly the media has a new someone better to cover. if the republicans picked a snobby white guy like they usually do for VP mccain would have been toast. instead not only do they pick a woman, but you can't attack her on the usual democrat things like enviromentalism

i just spent 2 hours watching CNN hoping to catch a few highlights of last night's historic speech and all i see is Palin and James Carville not being able to say anything.

I'm confused. You say #2, then confirm what I said in #4?

Is that you McCain? Speak up, man!

Do you not understand the difference between overt and covert? There's a huge difference between sending a 24 man SEAL team and sending in the 4th I.D.

I am loving seeing the left complain about her lack of experience and how they're "frightened" at her being the GOP's VP pick because of her "lack of experience", and then someone simply saying "well, look at Obama, he's your pick for president", and they get all flustered.

I really feel that McCain was banking on the stupidity and cow-like swayability of uninformed voters with this pick.
I'm pretty sure Obama has that demographic locked up.

Is it just me, or does the Democratic position "It's irresponsible to vote for a woman who was recently a mayor of a small town a heartbeat away from the presidency, so vote for a man who was recently a community organizer as president instead" kind of give off sideshow bob/mayor quimby vibe?

Mayor Quimby supports revolving door prisons. Mayor Quimby even released Sideshow Bob -- a man twice convicted of attempted murder. Can you trust a man like Mayor Quimby? Vote Sideshow Bob for mayor.

So if McCain is the Original Maverick, does that make Palin the Mel Gibson character? Sub question; is the Original Maverick ad campaign effective?

Is it just me, or does the Democratic position "It's irresponsible to vote for a woman who was recently a mayor of a small town a heartbeat away from the presidency, so vote for a man who was recently a community organizer as president instead" kind of give off sideshow bob/mayor quimby vibe?

Mayor Quimby supports revolving door prisons. Mayor Quimby even released Sideshow Bob -- a man twice convicted of attempted murder. Can you trust a man like Mayor Quimby? Vote Sideshow Bob for mayor.

what did you expect the obama campaign to say? we think she'll make a great VP?

I am loving seeing the left complain about her lack of experience and how they're "frightened" at her being the GOP's VP pick because of her "lack of experience", and then someone simply saying "well, look at Obama, he's your pick for president", and they get all flustered.

Can you point me to any stances Palin has taken on any foreign policy matters? She also seems pretty uninterested in national domestic issues.

there was a story on drudge about how russia is saying that the US is increasing tensions for the presidential campaign. wait until the repubs start airing ads linking obama and the crazy anti-american church minister while the newspapers are saying russia wants to nuke someone

What percentage of American voters knew who Palin was (and by "knew" I mean more than "I might have heard her name mentionned once or twice") before she was nominated. I'm curious.
I knew exactly who she was because of her opposition to listing the polar bear as threatened and her support of developing Alaska's energy resources. I like that about her and I've mentioned her a few times in the global warming thread. Since her being named I'm learning a lot of things I don't like about her.

Can you point me to any stances Palin has taken on any foreign policy matters? She also seems pretty uninterested in national domestic issues.

can you point to anything foreign policy related thing clinton did before running for president? what was JFK's foreign policy experience other than commanding a boat and being shot?

what's the worst she can do, bomb other countries' hospitals and embassies?

Andrew Sullivan on Palin:

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/08/three-words.html

Think about what the Palin pick really says about how McCain views this campaign and how he views his potential responsibilities in national security.

Think about what it says about the sincerity of McCain's own central criticism of Obama these past two months in foreign affairs.

Think about how he picked a woman to be a heartbeat away from a war presidency who hadn't even thought much, by her own admission, about the Iraq war as late as 2007.

Think about how he made this decision barely knowing the woman.

Think about the fact that the most McCain could say about his potential war-time vice-president in foreign affairs and national security when selecting her is that she commanded Alaska's National Guard as governor and has a son in the military.

Think about the men and women serving this country who have every right to trust that their potential commander-in-chief, whatever their party, would have some record of even interest in foreign policy before assuming office.

Think about how the key factor in this decision was not who could defend this country were something dreadful happen to McCain in office but how to tread as much on Obama's convention bounce and use women's equality as a wedge issue among Democrats because it might secure a few points here or there. Oh, and everyone would be surprised. And even Rove would be annoyed.

This is his sense of honor and judgment. This is his sense of responsibility and service.

Here's the real slogan the McCain campaign should now adopt:

Putting. Country. Last.

can you point to anything foreign policy related thing clinton did before running for president? what was JFK's foreign policy experience other than commanding a boat and being shot?

what's the worst she can do, bomb other countries' hospitals and embassies?

I'm sorry, you must be mistaking me for someone who is arguing about other elections besides this one.

what's the worst she can do, bomb other countries' hospitals and embassies?
That sounds like a pretty bad foreign policy. I am against that. :down:

Post fixing is when you modify a word or two to make the original statement read differently (usually done in a manner to make it agree more w/ your POV and typically less w/ the original poster's intentions). IMHO "blah blah blah" was more of a commentary than a "post fix". Not a very constructive one, but one that as of now is still allowed. If this becomes a problem maybe we'll have to rethink that position.
It's essentially the same thing, and I've seen mod notes for it before. Was just wondering. :shrug:

I really feel that McCain was banking on the stupidity and cow-like swayability of uninformed voters with this pick. So this question really hinges on how stupid we are as a country. I'm choosing Biden as the only choice that makes any kind of sense in a sane world, but I would never over-estimate the American voter.

:lol: To the liberals, with their vast intelligence, it always comes down to, "If people are smart, the liberal shall win." Then when their guy loses, they can fall back on the superiority of being depressed because of how stupid we are as a nation.

To choose Biden as a Pres. nomination would actually make some sense. To take Hillary as a Pres nomination would make more sense that what the (in your mind) non cow-like, swayable, and uninformed voters went for. A junior Senator who hasn't even served a full term? That's where the smart money was?

Enjoy the ivory tower, but that is so elitist and hypocritical at the same time.

I think it was a ridiculous choice and obviously made to gain female votes. The choice makes the assumption that many Americans are stupid and shallow. Unfortunately, I'm not certain to what degree that assumption is wrong.

Whatever, they made their pick. Let's see how well their dark horse candidate does in the debates. Let's see how much she knows about world affairs and the economy. Quite frankly I think it was a poor choice and a bad calculated risk, but I'm actually kind of celebrating because of that.

So if McCain is the Original Maverick, does that make Palin the Mel Gibson character? Sub question; is the Original Maverick ad campaign effective?

I don't know if it was effective. I think it was to distance himself from Bush, but I think he didn't need much help there. The Palin pick does make him seem more a maverick than any safe pick, though.

I think it was a ridiculous choice and obviously made to gain female votes. The choice makes the assumption that many Americans are stupid and shallow. Unfortunately, I'm not certain to what degree that assumption is wrong.

Whatever, they made their pick. Let's see how well their dark horse candidate does in the debates. Let's see how much she knows about world affairs and the economy. Quite frankly I think it was a poor choice and a bad calculated risk, but I'm actually kind of celebrating because of that.

And at least that is the right attitude for the opposition to have. But Bush was elected twice with the most evil person on the planet as his VP choice, so I don't know that I would bet against those "stupid, shallow, Americans." :lol:

Obama should have had it all wrapped up long ago. McCain should have had no chance from the begining. I gave him no chance. The fact that the polls are where they are suggests that the Dems have a weak candidate, imo.

Obama should have had it all wrapped up long ago. McCain should have had no chance from the begining. I gave him no chance. The fact that the polls are where they are suggests that the Dems have a weak candidate, imo.

I don't know, I picked McCain to win it back when it looked like it should be easy for the Dems. I personally just think that estimates of undecideds/independents are overblown and for some reason the country has broken down to right around a 50-50 split of who they will chose no matter who the choice is.

Obama should have had it all wrapped up long ago. McCain should have had no chance from the begining. I gave him no chance. The fact that the polls are where they are suggests that the Dems have a weak candidate, imo.

http://www.rollcall.com/issues/ornstein/

:shrug:

So those who like McCain's ticket are stupid and uninformed cows, and choosing otherwise means you are insane. And then when someone challenges, you resort to Limbaugh, O'Reilly, Dobbs, etc.
Seriously, wtf?

No, you're reading into this what you want to hear. I said, I believe McCain cynically thinks that. And when someone blatantly brings up a distortion from the right, those are the usual suspects, that's all. Obama never said he would "invade Pakistan," and he's made that clear. Both sides do their fair share of taking things out of context for their purposes (like many here), but this one's a doozy. Come on.

No, you're reading into this what you want to hear. I said, I believe McCain cynically thinks that. And when someone blatantly brings up a distortion from the right, those are the usual suspects, that's all. Obama never said he would "invade Pakistan," and he's made that clear. Both sides do their fair share of taking things out of context for their purposes (like many here), but this one's a doozy. Come on.

Since I don't follow these things could you please inform me what he did say?

And is what he said feasible?

Can you point me to any stances Palin has taken on any foreign policy matters? She also seems pretty uninterested in national domestic issues.How about the recognition of the need for domestic self-sufficiency in oil so we don't have to deploy people like her son to Iraq? She's quite cognizant that's the reason he's going to be deployed over there.

That's probably the single most important foreign policy issue we have right now.

Since I don't follow these things could you please inform me what he did say? And is what he said feasible?

Obama: "I never called for an invasion of Pakistan." And if there were "actionable intelligence reports" showing Al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden in Pakistan, U.S. troops as a last resort should enter and try to capture terrorists. That would happen, he added, only if "the Pakistani government was unable or unwilling" to go after the terrorists."

http://www.rollcall.com/issues/ornstein/

:shrug:

I, quite obviously, appreciate Mr. Ornstein's thoughts on most matters. However, most of his reasons can apply to both candidates.

The larger point is, this, like all elections, is a brand new never before seen event. There really aren't parallels.

No, you're reading into this what you want to hear.It's definitely not what I wanted to hear, but that's how I read it. :shrug:

I really hope the liberals keep making the mistake of underestimating Palin.

Out of the four people running for one of the top offices she's the ONLY one with executive experience.

She has been a huge maverick, taking on REPUBLICAN corruption in Alaska - and winning! She has gotten several reforms passed in Alaska, and has an 80% approval rating in the state.

As Governor she has had trade meetings with delegations from both Canada AND Russia (so much for being completly inexperienced with foreign policy).

She is bright, articulate, driven, good looking - she's got it all.

And now Joe Biden's put in a really bad position. If he starts talking down to her in their debate it will look like he looks down on women in general. His natual tendencies to be arrogant and condescending will hurt him more than ever, and if he holds back she'll clean his clock!

I heard a local radio host in L.A. talk about her on the way home tonight - he went to college with her, and said that while the other kids were out partying she was studying. When the other kids wanted to leave class she'd raise her hand to ask questions. She has always been driven and hard working, and, as mentioned before, very intelligent.

This may end up being the best possible selection McCain could have made. It certainly took Obama out of the news on a day when he was expected to dominte it.

Keep on underestimating Palin. She's gonna show you up.

Obama: "I never called for an invasion of Pakistan." And if there were "actionable intelligence reports" showing Al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden in Pakistan, U.S. troops as a last resort should enter and try to capture terrorists. That would happen, he added, only if "the Pakistani government was unable or unwilling" to go after the terrorists."

Actually what he said originally was:

I understand that President Musharraf has his own challenges. But let me make this clear. There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again. It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an al Qaeda leadership meeting in 2005. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won’t act, we will.



So no, he did not call for an 'invasion'. Instead he called for an impossible action that most certainly would upset the fragile balance of Pakistan. Which would be fine, as long as he would have the courage to see such action through to its logical end. (An invasion).

Is B5Erik the first worshiper at the church of Palin on this board (or is it only OK to use like terms for Obama supporters?)

She is bright, articulate, driven, good looking - she's got it all.
Joe Biden: "You forgot clean."

How about the recognition of the need for domestic self-sufficiency in oil so we don't have to deploy people like her son to Iraq? She's quite cognizant that's the reason he's going to be deployed over there.

The Iraq war is about oil? Is that the new talking point?

Is it just me, or does the Democratic position "It's irresponsible to vote for a woman who was recently a mayor of a small town a heartbeat away from the presidency, so vote for a man who was recently a community organizer as president instead" kind of give off sideshow bob/mayor quimby vibe?

Mayor Quimby supports revolving door prisons. Mayor Quimby even released Sideshow Bob -- a man twice convicted of attempted murder. Can you trust a man like Mayor Quimby? Vote Sideshow Bob for mayor.

The Obama campaign was caught flat-footed -- it's obvious that they weren't expecting Palin to get the nod and had to scramble to find talking-points against her. Compare to McCain, who had his Biden ads playing within hours of the announcement -- and he probably had an arsenal of ads for every conceivable VP pick Obama could've made.

I think the story that's being overlooked here is how this undermines the conventional wisdom that the McCain campaign is organized chaos, while Obama has a powerful, well-oiled machine. Not only was McCain better prepared for his opponent's choice, but he did a better job of keeping a lid on his own -- an hour before the announcement, people were still saying Palin was in Alaska -- and managed to generate more buzz out of it than Obama did with Biden -- in less than 12 hours, Palin's on her second thread here, while the Biden discussion barely merited a second page. The disparity in how well the veep announcements were handled is amazing.


----------------
Now playing: CNET.com - Buzz Out Loud 799: Pop a cap in your usage (http://www.foxytunes.com/artist/cnet.com/track/buzz+out+loud+799%3a+pop+a+cap+in+your+usage)
via FoxyTunes (http://www.foxytunes.com/signatunes/)

The Iraq war is about oil? Is that the new talking point?Oh, sorry. I forgot we care so much about the Middle East because of its culture and positive contributions to world stability and productivity.

Do you have any idea why Russia is able to do what it just did in Georgia?

Oh, sorry. I forgot we care so much about the Middle East because of its culture and contributions to world stability and productivity.

You laugh.

What about ushering in a new era of democracy in the Middle East, like we were promised? Whatever happened to that one?

You laugh.

What about ushering in a new era of democracy in the Middle East, like we were promised? Whatever happened to that one?That's the only way to handle our dependence on oil if we're unwilling to use our own resources. Dealing with moderate democracies wouldn't take much of the money we send over there and turn it into something that's used against us.

Ultimately the Middle East will have to become democratic. If we don't need them for oil we can wait longer for it to occur.

I think it was a ridiculous choice and obviously made to gain female votes.

If it was just that, he could've gone with Kay Baily Hutchinson. Instead he went with an almost complete unknown. Why? Because in addition to appealing to women and PUMAs, she's going to be attractive to Reagan Democrats and union workers -- running mates might not make a lot of difference, but if she can tip the balance by 1-2% in a few key states, it might be enough for McCain to win.

----------------
Now playing: CNET.com - Buzz Out Loud 799: Pop a cap in your usage (http://www.foxytunes.com/artist/cnet.com/track/buzz+out+loud+799%3a+pop+a+cap+in+your+usage)
via FoxyTunes (http://www.foxytunes.com/signatunes/)

Is B5Erik the first worshiper at the church of Palin on this board (or is it only OK to use like terms for Obama supporters?)
I'm just saying that what I'm hearing from people who have actually known her is very positive. The people on the left are already bashing her, but they haven't paid attention to what she's actually accomplished (newsflash - she's already accomplished more as Governor in a year and a half than Obama has accomplished in 4 years in the Senate).

Underestimating her at this point is a big mistake. One I'd just love for the Obama campaign people to make. :D

Can you point me to any stances Palin has taken on any foreign policy matters? She also seems pretty uninterested in national domestic issues.

I've been so focused on state government, I haven't really focused much on the war in Iraq.

If it was just that, he could've gone with Kay Baily Hutchinson. Instead he went with an almost complete unknown. Why? Because in addition to appealing to women and PUMAs, she's going to be attractive to Reagan Democrats and union workers -- running mates might not make a lot of difference, but if she can tip the balance by 1-2% in a few key states, it might be enough for McCain to win.

She and her husband are both union members. She signed domestic partner benefits into law for the first time in Alaska. She's a conservative, but has some liberal streaks that will appeal to some Democrat voters (including Pennsylvania & Ohio blue collar union workers).

"domestic self-sufficiency"

Is this possible? I'm assuming he's talking about oil.

The Obama circus reminds me of debates between those people who have TV shows where they attempt to convince audience members of their ability to communicate with their dead relatives by making great claims of sincerity and empathy, and frustrated scientists whose reasoned arguments attempting to uncover such charlatanry prove futile against the spiritist's charisma and his hold over ignorant people's dearest hopes.

If Obama were taking an exam at a reputable economics faculty, he'd fail miserably. In these matters, his judgment is as intelligent and wise as an astrologer's or a palm reader's. It really bothers me that he and those behind him have been able to convince so many that he is anything other than a very ordinary person.

Come on that is silly willy talk, ordinary people don't become presidential nominees. Your logic is lame. Obama would do what all good people do when they don't know something. They get people that know how to do it to do it for them. Bush got rid of everyone that disagreed with his point of view and surrounded himself with yes men. They probably had the best interests of country but without all points of view they were bound to fail. Obama might do the same thing but so far it doesn't look like it.

Great men like Hitler, Martin Luther King, JFK etc etc didn't know how to do a lot of things. They moved mountains by using their words to energize the people. The inspire people to sacrifice themselves for the greater good. And they take into account all points of view.

A good scientist or a good economist probably could never be a good leader because they wouldn't have the skills needed to move people to do anything.

If something were to happen to McCain, how do you think she would perform as President?

In a 2006 gubernatorial debate, the soon-to-be governor of Alaska said of evolution and creation education, "Teach both. You know, don't be afraid of education. Healthy debate is so important, and it's so valuable in our schools. I am a proponent of teaching both."

Asked by the Anchorage Daily News whether she believed in evolution, Palin declined to answer, but said that "I don't think there should be a prohibition against debate if it comes up in class."

http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/08/mccains-vp-want.html

Great men like Hitler
In before people ignore the rest of your well-reasoned and well-stated post in order to pounce on these 4 words.

If something were to happen to McCain, how do you think she would perform as President?
Well, when was the last time a VP had to take over for the President? It's been a while.

But I think she'd do just as well as Obama, maybe better. She has executive experience (which he doesn't), she knows how to get things done from the top (as a leader, rather than just a member of a large group), and she'd have at least a year or three experience as VP under her belt by the time she took over (McCain's not dropping dead any time soon, and I seriously doubt that he'll have any trouble finishing out his term in office).

And, again, she's already negotiated with representatives of both Canada and Russia (which border her state), so she has SOME experience in foreign relations/diplomacy.

If something were to happen to McCain, how do you think she would perform as President?
:shrug:

And at least that is the right attitude for the opposition to have. But Bush was elected twice with the most evil person on the planet as his VP choice, so I don't know that I would bet against those "stupid, shallow, Americans." :lol:

Obama should have had it all wrapped up long ago. McCain should have had no chance from the begining. I gave him no chance. The fact that the polls are where they are suggests that the Dems have a weak candidate, imo."...deep down inside you long for a cold-hearted Republican to lower taxes, brutalize criminals and rule you like a King!"

Well, when was the last time a VP had to take over for the President?
During the 10:35 showing of Disaster Movie. :sad:

Well, when was the last time a VP had to take over for the President? It's been a while.

But I think she'd do just as well as Obama, maybe better. She has executive experience (which he doesn't), she knows how to get things done from the top (as a leader, rather than just a member of a large group), and she'd have at least a year or three experience as VP under her belt by the time she took over (McCain's not dropping dead any time soon, and I seriously doubt that he'll have any trouble finishing out his term in office).

And, again, she's already negotiated with representatives of both Canada and Russia (which border her state), so she has SOME experience in foreign relations/diplomacy.

But guess what? 18 million people voted for Barack Obama. 18 million people said he was ready. No one voted for Governor Palin to be a heartbeat away.

If it was just that, he could've gone with Kay Baily Hutchinson. Instead he went with an almost complete unknown. Why? Because in addition to appealing to women and PUMAs, she's going to be attractive to Reagan Democrats and union workers -- running mates might not make a lot of difference, but if she can tip the balance by 1-2% in a few key states, it might be enough for McCain to win.

----------------
Now playing: CNET.com - Buzz Out Loud 799: Pop a cap in your usage (http://www.foxytunes.com/artist/cnet.com/track/buzz+out+loud+799%3a+pop+a+cap+in+your+usage)
via FoxyTunes (http://www.foxytunes.com/signatunes/)I'm not saying that it was just that. But if it were the exact same person, but Palin was a man, would he have been picked for his qualifications? I can't even believe anyone here would deny that the single biggest reason she was picked was for her gender. Her appeal to Reagan democrats and union workers is merely a thin layer of icing on top of the cake that is her sex. You know what I'm saying.

Well, when was the last time a VP had to take over for the President? It's been a while.

But I think she'd do just as well as Obama, maybe better. She has executive experience (which he doesn't), she knows how to get things done from the top (as a leader, rather than just a member of a large group), and she'd have at least a year or three experience as VP under her belt by the time she took over (McCain's not dropping dead any time soon, and I seriously doubt that he'll have any trouble finishing out his term in office).

And, again, she's already negotiated with representatives of both Canada and Russia (which border her state), so she has SOME experience in foreign relations/diplomacy.
That spin is twirling faster than a dime store top....

Republicans are now on the offensive claiming that not only is Palin a great choice for VP but that she is more qualified than Biden. Primarily because of her "executive" experience. Dumb just dumb. So that means that she is even more qualified than John McCain too.

Suddenly she is better than Romney, Pawlenty, and the other Republican names that had been floating around for the last 8 months. If she is such an obviously great choice, why was she ignored by everyone except the occasional reference by Bill Krystol?

Do you not understand the difference between overt and covert? There's a huge difference between sending a 24 man SEAL team and sending in the 4th I.D.

It's actually a mix of both. Normally you'd give public warning (overt), and then if nothing happens, you send a team in where Wolf and Ollie North can't pitch their tents a few feet away from (covert).

I can't imagine Obama being completely silent on the issue, or any President for that matter, and then intruding un-announced within a country's borders. You use both covert and overt actions. Overt permits the countries to know your intentions, and if justified, you go covert--a lot of times at the wishes of the country your target is located.

So, I don't have a problem with Obama talking about his plans. I seriously doubt he will have the same tunnel-vision as Bush did.

Bottom line, Obama seems more open minded. I'm sure we'll hear a lot of open-mindedness next week from McCain.

Gotta say, I'm impressed. There's no way she gets chosen if Obama wasn't the Democratic candidate.

There's some real competition this election, it seems.

But if this was such a great decision, why wasn't it eluded to a while back. McCain's campaign never hinted at a female VP. They would have if they thought it would benefit them. Obviously after Obama's speech last night, a female running mate was the only option. A desperate option. It might work out. We don't know. But we have to wonder just how many votes this will sway from Democrats, and will it sway votes away from Republicans.

Republicans are now on the offensive claiming that not only is Palin a great choice for VP but that she is more qualified than Biden. Primarily because of her "executive" experience. Dumb just dumb. So that means that she is even more qualified than John McCain too.
That wasn't what was said. What was said is she is more qualified than Obama. Nothing was said about Biden or anyone else.

The Obama campaign was caught flat-footed -- it's obvious that they weren't expecting Palin to get the nod and had to scramble to find talking-points against her. Compare to McCain, who had his Biden ads playing within hours of the announcement -- and he probably had an arsenal of ads for every conceivable VP pick Obama could've made.

I think the story that's being overlooked here is how this undermines the conventional wisdom that the McCain campaign is organized chaos, while Obama has a powerful, well-oiled machine. Not only was McCain better prepared for his opponent's choice, but he did a better job of keeping a lid on his own -- an hour before the announcement, people were still saying Palin was in Alaska -- and managed to generate more buzz out of it than Obama did with Biden -- in less than 12 hours, Palin's on her second thread here, while the Biden discussion barely merited a second page. The disparity in how well the veep announcements were handled is amazing.


It looks pretty clear that Obama made a choice not to run a attack ad. He already proven he can get a ad out within a day and he has the cash to do so. McCain on the other hand probably made an attack ad for everybody. So I would called that flat footed though probably didn't expect for the reasons already stated. This was just a different style of running for president.

I don't think McCain did a better job of keeping a lid on his pick. Obama pick was leaked the same day obama was going to release the info. McCain pick was leaked a day before he officially announced it. hmmm What the hell are you talking about. Now that I think about it this is kind of stupid argument. It could just mean more people were interested in Obama pick than McCain if what you said were true.

Palin thread got more hits because it was more interesting which could be good or it could be bad. Put it this way if McCain had picked say Flavor Flav to be his running mate that would have gotten a even bigger response. But if he picked one the obvious choices no one would have cared much talk about it.

But if this was such a great decision, why wasn't it eluded to a while back. McCain's campaign never hinted at a female VP. They would have if they thought it would benefit them. Obviously after Obama's speech last night, a female running mate was the only option. A desperate option. It might work out. We don't know. But we have to wonder just how many votes this will sway from Democrats, and will it sway votes away from Republicans.
If the vigorous spin is any indication, it won't sway many votes away from the Republicans. But it won't sway any Democrats to vote for McCain. For all of the whining, huffing, and puffing by PUMA and other Clinton supporters, they are not going to vote for McCain.

Are Republicans really willing to say that Palin is the most qualified woman in their party for VP? There really is no other Republican woman more qualified? There are that few that she is the best?

That wasn't what was said. What was said is she is more qualified than Obama. Nothing was said about Biden or anyone else.

Not true. Jack Kemp just appeared on Hannity and Colmes and was making the case that Palin is more qualified than Biden. This is just the first time this will be said.

Anyone else other than me think that either VP would be a better president than our current choices?

But if this was such a great decision, why wasn't it eluded to a while back. McCain's campaign never hinted at a female VP. They would have if they thought it would benefit them.

This is only a guess, but I would say that by not eluding to it and letting it come out like it did, they took the DNC off the front page the day after, which is pretty impressive.

Obamatrons and Palin-drones. This is going to be a fun election!

But guess what? 18 million people voted for Barack Obama. 18 million people said he was ready. No one voted for Governor Palin to be a heartbeat away.

Amazing. I just heard a pundit make that same exact point on CNN.

----------------
Now playing: Humphrey/Camardella - X Minus One "Death Wish" (10-10-57) (http://www.foxytunes.com/artist/humphrey+camardella/track/x+minus+one++%22death+wish%22+(10-10-57))
via FoxyTunes (http://www.foxytunes.com/signatunes/)

But guess what? 18 million people voted for Barack Obama. 18 million people said he was ready. No one voted for Governor Palin to be a heartbeat away.
Not yet. There will be many in November.

But you go ahead and continue to underestimate her. That's not just fine, that's perfect.

I underestimated Obama four years ago. I was wrong then, and all those on the left who are underestimating Palin are wrong now.

Obamatrons and Palin-drones. This is going to be a fun election!

Do these guy fight the autobots?

Not yet. There will be many in November.

But you go ahead and continue to underestimate her. That's not just fine, that's perfect.

I underestimated Obama four years ago. I was wrong then, and all those on the left who are underestimating Palin are wrong now.

I dunno man...but from the way you defended her with those facts, you got a crush on her or something?? :D

Suddenly she is better than Romney, Pawlenty, and the other Republican names that had been floating around for the last 8 months. If she is such an obviously great choice, why was she ignored by everyone except the occasional reference by Bill Krystol?
Because most people get stuck on the conventional wisdom and the more obvious choices.

Who was Barack Obama before the 2004 Democratic National Convention? Only a few insiders knew anything about the guy but he was elevated to national prominence (and the Presidential Candidate of the Future) by the party leaders. Just like Palin's been elevated now.

I dunno man...but from the way you defended her with those facts, you got a crush on her or something?? :D
Have you SEEN her? ;)

It looks pretty clear that Obama made a choice not to run a attack ad.

Horsehockey. His surrogates have been all over cable today, and their talking points have been pathetic to the point that I wonder if they had anyone in PR examine them first -- "How dare she run for VP when she has a disabled child," and "She has no experience for the job." The first isn't going to endear them to female voters, and the second risks an argument over who's the pot, who's the kettle, and which called the other black first.

The Obama response to Palin is pure amateur hour.

----------------
Now playing: Humphrey/Camardella - X Minus One "Death Wish" (10-10-57) (http://www.foxytunes.com/artist/humphrey+camardella/track/x+minus+one++%22death+wish%22+(10-10-57))
via FoxyTunes (http://www.foxytunes.com/signatunes/)

If she is such an obviously great choice, why was she ignored by everyone except the occasional reference by Bill Krystol?
But if this was such a great decision, why wasn't it eluded to a while back. McCain's campaign never hinted at a female VP. They would have if they thought it would benefit them.
She didn't just drop out of the sky. She's mentioned as a possible choice here on Jul 17, 2008 (http://www.nationaljournal.com/njonline/no_20080717_9820.php), here on July 18, 2008 (http://blog.washingtonpost.com/thefix/2008/07/friday_veepstakes_line_stark_c.html?hpid=topnews), and here on July 28, 2008 (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/huckabee_lieberman_have_highest_favorables_among_possible_mccain_veep_choices). I'm sure if you were really interested you could Google up some more yourself.

B5Erik is totally Palinized. :D

If something were to happen to McCain, how do you think she would perform as President?

Well, the inexperienced Truman kicked ass, while the Master of the Senate, LBJ, sucked ass.

----------------
Now playing: Humphrey/Camardella - X Minus One "Death Wish" (10-10-57) (http://www.foxytunes.com/artist/humphrey+camardella/track/x+minus+one++%22death+wish%22+(10-10-57))
via FoxyTunes (http://www.foxytunes.com/signatunes/)

Suddenly she is better than Romney, Pawlenty, and the other Republican names that had been floating around for the last 8 months. If she is such an obviously great choice, why was she ignored by everyone except the occasional reference by Bill Krystol?

A bunch of folks at the National Review have been drooling over the possibility of her as veep for months, but in a, "That would only happen in a Frank Capra movie" sorta way. They figured that even McCain isn't enough of a maverick to defy conventional wisdom that much.

----------------
Now playing: Humphrey/Camardella - X Minus One "Death Wish" (10-10-57) (http://www.foxytunes.com/artist/humphrey+camardella/track/x+minus+one++%22death+wish%22+(10-10-57))
via FoxyTunes (http://www.foxytunes.com/signatunes/)

Have you SEEN her? ;)

Hahhahahah.........so you supporting her based on looks or credentials??

Hahhahahah.........so you supporting her based on looks or credentials??
Actually, it's the credentials on which I'm supporting her (as well as charisma).

But it was suggested that I had a crush on her and, if I did, her looks certainly wouldn't hurt in that regard. :D

The unanimous support of Republicans of Palin simply prove that they felt left out of being totally mesmerized like the Obamatons. They can now proudly be Palin-drones.

Who's the last person on a major ticket to wear glasses all the time?

Actually, it's the credentials on which I'm supporting her (as well as charisma).

But it was suggested that I had a crush on her and, if I did, her looks certainly wouldn't hurt in that regard. :D

Yeah...right!!! :p

Not yet. There will be many in November.

But you go ahead and continue to underestimate her. That's not just fine, that's perfect.

I underestimated Obama four years ago. I was wrong then, and all those on the left who are underestimating Palin are wrong now.And you're basing this on what...her looks? So your point is that anytime, there's a low opinion of someone, they're being underestimated. There's never a low opinion that's perfectly estimated. Like of GWB. I'm not talking about winning elections. I'm talking about him being a total failure as a president.

The unanimous support of Republicans of Palin simply prove that they felt left out of being totally mesmerized like the Obamatons. They can now proudly be Palin-drones.

*ahem*

http://forum.dvdtalk.com/showpost.php?p=8905409&postcount=87

http://www.mindspring.com/~boycekb/images/Smilies/Glare.gif

The unanimous support of Republicans of Palin simply prove that they felt left out of being totally mesmerized like the Obamatons. They can now proudly be Palin-drones.

Probably some truth to that. In terms of personality, the Republicans haven't had much to enjoy with Bush and Cheney. Fortunately, the Democrats trumped them with Kerry and Gore.

Obama is a lot of Charisma, and that helped Clinton become president. McCain certainly has more than Bush, but he isn't amazing. I have yet to even hear Palin speak, so I can't say anything about her Charisma other than what others report. Based on that, she certainly isn't a weak link in that regard.

And you're basing this on what...her looks? So your point is that anytime, there's a low opinion of someone, they're being underestimated. There's never a low opinion that's perfectly estimated. Like of GWB. I'm not talking about winning elections. I'm talking about him being a total failure as a president.
But are the critics of Palin even paying attention to what she's accomplished as a Governor? Or in her other roles in the state?

I don't hear that from the critics, just that she's too young, too inexperienced, and too unknown (or from an irrelevant state, politically).

If you're glossing over the upside and focusing on the downside then you're probably underestimating someone. Especially someone who has actually gotten things done.

She's gotten more done than Obama has over the last 4 years.

Probably some truth to that. In terms of personality, the Republicans haven't had much to enjoy with Bush and Cheney. Fortunately, the Democrats trumped them with Kerry and Gore.

Obama is a lot of Charisma, and that helped Clinton become president. McCain certainly has more than Bush, but he isn't amazing. I have yet to even hear Palin speak, so I can't say anything about her Charisma other than what others report. Based on that, she certainly isn't a weak link in that regard.

You hit it Dave, there's finally some semblance of life on the ticket. Romney (along with the other frontrunners imo) had credentials, but registered a zero on the personality scale... Whether we like it or not, image plays a part in our politics these days. (actually it probably always has)

These choices have been analyzed by probably some of the best minds out there for months now. All the positives and negatives have been thought of and weighed... it really boils down to a mathematical equation... kinda fascinating to think about.

And really, it IS cool and exciting that no matter what happens, history will be made one way or another this Nov. I for one can't wait.

Hillary Clinton on Sarah Palin:
“We should all be proud of Governor Sarah Palin's historic nomination, and I congratulate her and Senator McCain," Clinton, the first woman to win a presidential primary, said in the statement. "While their policies would take America in the wrong direction, Governor Palin will add an important new voice to the debate.”


She did not say that :lol:

Among the themes of next week's Republican National Convention was likely going to be Obama's lack of experience. With the choice of Palin as McCain's running mate, they may not be able to focus much, if any, on that. Bringing attention to experience, and the lack thereof, is going to bring attention to her.

Palin is a curious pick. The choice for VP should hinge on how ready that person is to take over if the president is incapacitated in whatever way. He or she should be a viable candidate for the presidency itself. I have no doubt that Biden is qualified to sit in the big chair.

We will, of course, learn more about Palin in the coming weeks, but right now she seems highly questionable. If McCain wanted a woman on the ticket, I'm sure there were many stronger alternatives that would have strengthened the GOP. But then, for all we know, Palin might do just that. A long shot, perhaps, but we shall see.

--THX

The unanimous support of Republicans of Palin simply prove that they felt left out of being totally mesmerized like the Obamatons. They can now proudly be Palin-drones.

<b>Well don't forget that many Republicans think McCain sucks.</b>

So suddenly they throw Palin out there and the ticket looks brighter. I have a few Republican/Conservative friends who -HATE- McCain and are voting for Obama. Time will tell whether or not Palin will change their minds.

But guess what? 18 million people voted for Barack Obama. 18 million people said he was ready. No one voted for Governor Palin to be a heartbeat away.Isn't there something that occurs in the United States on the Tuesday after the first Monday in November? What could that be?

On election day, if her ticket doesn't have the votes, then she won't be a heartbeat away. If her ticket does have the votes, then over 60 million people will have said she was ready to be a heartbeat away.

But keep parroting the talking head on CNN as if the democratic process has suddenly been thwarted. It's comical.

As I said earlier, I'm skeptical of the choice because to me it comes across as an affirmative action type decision. Seems hypocritical of Republicans to be ok with that, imo. Yes is may win votes. Yes it may bring McCain some life to his ticket. But was the choice really made for her qualifications, or more for her gender? That bugs me.

That said, I haven't read anything about her that I don't like yet. Movielib, you say otherwise and I'd be interested to hear your point of view. I wasn't planning on voting for McCain and really only wanted to see Sanford on the VP slot, but so far I like Palin. Give me a reason not to vote for McCain ;)

And to the Democrats who may try to take up this challenge, you're going to have to bash her "liberal" tendencies. Bashing her conservative ones will just make me like her more ;)

I like that she signed the domestic partner law though, so don't bother with that one :lol:
And I agree with her allowing both creationism and evolution in school. BOTH are theories, neither are proven beyond doubt.

I think it's hilarious how it's OK for Barack Obama to be inexperienced and unqualified as the #1 on the ticket while Palin has more practical leadership experience than he does but it's not OK for her to be, "Inexperienced and unqualified," as the #2 on the ticket.

Barack is there because of charisma, period. If he gave public speeches like the average politician he would not be the nominee.

[QUOTE=CertifiedTHX;8905544]Among the themes of next week's Republican National Convention was likely going to be Obama's lack of experience. With the choice of Palin as McCain's running mate, they may not be able to focus much, if any, on that. Bringing attention to experience, and the lack thereof, is going to bring attention to her.

Palin is a curious pick. The choice for VP should hinge on how ready that person is to take over if the president is incapacitated in whatever way. He or she should be a viable candidate for the presidency itself. I have no doubt that Biden is qualified to sit in the big chair.

We will, of course, learn more about Palin in the coming weeks, but right now she seems highly questionable. If McCain wanted a woman on the ticket, I'm sure there were many stronger alternatives that would have strengthened the GOP. But then, for all we know, Palin might do just that. A long shot, perhaps, but we shall see.

1. Sure they concentrate on Obama's lack of experience. It's about the president's experience - not the VP.

2. Curious pick??? It's a very good pick.

The problem with Biden 'sitting in the big chair' is that he tends to be a loose cannon. A lot of people don't want a loose cannon in the WH.

Name a couple of those women stronger picks he could have named.

Obamatrons and Palin-drones. This is going to be a fun election!

You are why
http://img387.imageshack.us/img387/6348/lovethisthreadgi5.jpg





-popcorn-

You laugh.

What about ushering in a new era of democracy in the Middle East, like we were promised? Whatever happened to that one?

ever see what is happening in the UAE?

As I said earlier, I'm skeptical of the choice because to me it comes across as an affirmative action type decision. Seems hypocritical of Republicans to be ok with that, imo. Yes is may win votes. Yes it may bring McCain some life to his ticket. But was the choice really made for her qualifications, or more for her gender? That bugs me.



Who wouldn't have been the affirmative action pick (that would have wanted the job) that would have had the same appeal to the base?

Yes, I have no doubt her gender was part of the reason for the pick, but there's more to it than that. If she didn't have that appeal to the base, then I would agree that is was simply an affirmative action pick.

And I agree with her allowing both creationism and evolution in school. BOTH are theories, neither are proven beyond doubt.Oh please. One is a religious creation myth and the other is a scientifically supported hypothesis that has undergone decades of rigorous examination.

rigorous examination that has yet to prove the hypothesis. :shrug:
We're debating VP choices though, not the beginning of life. I was merely stating what I believe so that people would know that her position there would not sway me away.

That said, I haven't read anything about her that I don't like yet. Movielib, you say otherwise and I'd be interested to hear your point of view. I wasn't planning on voting for McCain and really only wanted to see Sanford on the VP slot, but so far I like Palin. Give me a reason not to vote for McCain ;)
I don't like her antiabortion position (but then, I disagree even with Ron Paul on that) and I don't like it that she thinks "intelligent design" is rather on a level playing field with evolution. I'm not trying to sway you away and I know these things won't. It's my personal opinion.

On the other hand, I love her opposition to CAGW and she is the only one of the four on either ticket. She could exert a good influence on McCain since he is already moving in a good direction on energy development and could help head off the crazy bills pending like the Lieberman-Warner bill (virtually the same as a predecessor Lieberman-McCain bill) that was held off this year. The enviros are just salivating at the thought of a pro-CAGW president and they are assured of getting it. Palin could be the monkey wrench in their optimism. I think it's also vital to re-elect James Inhofe although I don't agree with him on much other than CAGW.

The only thing I know for sure?

Right now, there are dozens of featured speakers set to take the stage in Minneapolis... who are busy doing a search-and-replace of the word "inexperienced" in their prepared speeches.

The only thing I know for sure?

Right now, there are dozens of featured speakers set to take the stage in Minneapolis... who are busy doing a search-and-replace of the word "inexperienced" in their prepared speeches.

yep. rotfl

If McCain wanted a woman on the ticket, I'm sure there were many stronger alternatives that would have strengthened the GOP. But then, for all we know, Palin might do just that. A long shot, perhaps, but we shall see.
Name a couple of those women stronger picks he could have named.

I'd like to hear a few of those names as well.
Who wouldn't have been the affirmative action pick (that would have wanted the job) that would have had the same appeal to the base?

Yes, I have no doubt her gender was part of the reason for the pick, but there's more to it than that. If she didn't have that appeal to the base, then I would agree that is was simply an affirmative action pick.
:up: Well said.

<b>Well don't forget that many Republicans think McCain sucks.</b>

So suddenly they through Palin out there and the ticket looks brighter. I have a few Republican/Conservative friends who -HATE- McCain and are voting for Obama. Time will tell whether or not Palin will change their minds.
Yep. This pick was more about winning over conservatives and giving them a reason to vote for McCain (instead of just voting against Obama, or worse, staying home) than anything else. But there's also the added bonus of appealing to soccer moms, younger people, and people who want to "be a part of history."

Yep. This pick was more about winning over conservatives

Really? Seriously?

I would think a pick of someone like a Dick Cheney type would win over die-hard conservatives, not a self-described "hockey mom" from Alaska, her life-long NRA membership not withstanding. Maybe it's just me.

Really? Seriously?

I would think a pick of someone like a Dick Cheney type would win over die-hard conservatives, not a self-described "hockey mom" from Alaska, her life-long NRA membership not withstanding. Maybe it's just me.
It's just you. People don't want to see two old white guys on the ticket. One's enough.

Had McCain picked Palin first, would Obama still have picked Biden?

Really? Seriously?

I would think a pick of someone like a Dick Cheney type would win over die-hard conservatives, not a self-described "hockey mom" from Alaska, her life-long NRA membership not withstanding. Maybe it's just me.


What Dick Cheney-type did you have in mind? Keep in mind that conservatives want to win, and probably feel like someone within the current administration wouldn't be able to help in that regard.

I think it's funny that the Dems are all shouting that she's too young, too inexperienced, and only picked because she was a woman. That's a definite case of the pot calling the kettle... female.

Unlike many people on both sides I've heard of, followed, and like most of what Palin has done (but then, I tend to pay attention to my native state).
I've heard some of her opinions on Global Warming, but would like to learn more. If what Movielib says is true then I am an unabashed Palin-stani (let's see if that one sticks). CAGW is (IMO) the most important domestic issue on the table today, and I hope she exerts some influence on McCain (i.e. the lesser of two presidential evils).

For the first time in a few months I am proud to be a Republican.

I think it's funny that the Dems are all shouting that she's too young, too inexperienced, and only picked because she was a woman. That's a definite case of the pot calling the kettle... female.



It's just like Obama's comments on the nomination of Clarence Thomas. An affirmative action pick too inexperienced for the job of SCt Justice. Hmmm. ;)

Oh please. One is a religious creation myth and the other is a scientifically supported hypothesis that has undergone decades of rigorous examination.


I don't have a problem if they're debated, but IMO it shouldn't be done in science class. And I would even project it out to becoming an economic and national security threat if we start substituting religious INTERPRETATION for scientific inquiry. The Chinese, and other rivals of ours, aren't going to be doing that. The Bible, IMO, was written as a source of spiritual insight, with the express purpose of showing mankind how to live in way that is pleasing to God, and which will result in salvation. It was never intended as a scientific treatise. It doesn't tell people how to grow crops, or make tools, or cook, or build houses, or weave cloth, or treat sicknesses, or organize a specific form of government, or any of that stuff that people have ALWAYS had to get from other sources.

Regarding Palin, I like her personally---small-town, low-maintenance, outdoorsy, conservative traditional morality---salt of the earth American traits, IMO :) . But, I do think it's rather hypocritical of McCain to say "I'd rather lose an election and win a war" and then pick her as the VP. In a time when our country is at war, does McCain REALLY believe that she is the most qualified #2 to the commander in chief? I like her a lot as a candidate, but as a serving VP....not so much.

But man, the voting public and both parties are so schizophrenic: "We need change--throw out the bums who've been there too long!" and "That candidate has so little experience, they can't POSSIBLY be qualified for the post!" So the net result is that each party has on their ticket both a long-in-the-tooth Washington insider, and a wet-behind-the-ears neophyte.

It's just like Obama's comments on the nomination of Clarence Thomas. An affirmative action pick too inexperienced for the job of SCt Justice. Hmmm. ;)


There's no reason to hoist someone by their own petard.


:lol: OK I can't say that with a straight face.

Seems like someone's chickens are coming home...to roost.

And you're basing this on what...her looks? So your point is that anytime, there's a low opinion of someone, they're being underestimated.

She does have a record in Alaska that boasts more concrete accomplishments than Obama's.

There's never a low opinion that's perfectly estimated. Like of GWB. I'm not talking about winning elections. I'm talking about him being a total failure as a president.

Yes, Democrats have consistently misunderestimated GWB. That's been the problem with the last 8 years -- if they hadn't assumed that he was a drooling retard, maybe they could've mounted an effective opposition, but instead they let him walk all over them because they figured he was too stupid to accomplish anything. You'd think the Dems would've learned by now, but apparently not.

I find it amusing that for years, and especially in this very election, one of the main talking points is that it's time for an outsider, someone who isn't a lifelong politician. Someone who is close to the people, someone who can better understand just what exactly the average American is feeling. Then, when that very person comes along, it's attack after attack. It isn't like she doesn't have any experience at all, she's been in some sort of public office for around 15 years, two of which are as Governor of the largest US state in terms of area, not to mention that the state is home to several of the important issues of this election.

I know she isn't the most experienced politician in the game today, but that isn't a negative in my book. To me, it's all about what you've done in your time in public office, and from what I've read and have seen, she's done quite a bit in her short time, if not more than the democratic nominee. Heck, in my opinion there really isn't a question if she's accomplished more than Obama, because it's clear to me that she has.

Almost everyone has a positive view of her, and the 20% or so who aren't in favor of her are likely the people who are already predisposed to be negative towards her simply because she is a republican.

And many question if she will be able to appeal to the Hillary voters since she is pro-life and so on, but I think she still will be able to bring in quite a few of those voters. She has a record of going against party lines, standing up against corruption within her own party, and not being afraid to go against the grain.

I'm far more excited over this pick than I would have been over Romney and the like, and it's obvious that this is far more newsworthy. By the end of next week, all of America will have a better understand of just who Sarah Palin is, and I have a feeling that many will come out of it with a high opinion of her.

We'll just have to wait and see.

There's no reason to hoist someone by their own petard.


:lol: OK I can't say that with a straight face.

I can see why. It's almost physically impossible to hoist someone by a petard.

Sarah Palin NYT op-ed from January (before the polar bear was listed as "threatened"):

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/05/opinion/05palin.html?_r=2&scp=1&sq=%22sarah+palin%22&st=nyt&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

Op-Ed Contributor
Bearing Up
By SARAH PALIN
Published: January 5, 2008

ABOUT the closest most Americans will ever get to a polar bear are those cute, cuddly animated images that smiled at us while dancing around, pitching soft drinks on TV and movie screens this holiday season.

This is unfortunate, because polar bears are magnificent animals, not cartoon characters. They are worthy of our utmost efforts to protect them and their Arctic habitat. But adding polar bears to the nation’s list of endangered species, as some are now proposing, should not be part of those efforts.

To help ensure that polar bears are around for centuries to come, Alaska (about a fifth of the world’s 25,000 polar bears roam in and around the state) has conducted research and worked closely with the federal government to protect them. We have a ban on most hunting — only Alaska Native subsistence families can hunt polar bears — and measures to protect denning areas and prevent harassment of the bears. We are also participating in international efforts aimed at preserving polar bear populations worldwide.

This month, the secretary of the interior is expected to rule on whether polar bears should be listed under the Endangered Species Act. I strongly believe that adding them to the list is the wrong move at this time. My decision is based on a comprehensive review by state wildlife officials of scientific information from a broad range of climate, ice and polar bear experts.

The Center for Biological Diversity, an environmental group, has argued that global warming and the reduction of polar ice severely threatens the bears’ habitat and their existence. In fact, there is insufficient evidence that polar bears are in danger of becoming extinct within the foreseeable future — the trigger for protection under the Endangered Species Act. And there is no evidence that polar bears are being mismanaged through existing international agreements and the federal Marine Mammal Protection Act.

The state takes very seriously its job of protecting polar bears and their habitat and is well aware of the problems caused by climate change. But we know our efforts will take more than protecting what we have — we must also learn what we don’t know. That’s why state biologists are studying the health of polar bear populations and their habitat.

As a result of these efforts, polar bears are more numerous now than they were 40 years ago. The polar bear population in the southern Beaufort Sea off Alaska’s North Slope has been relatively stable for 20 years, according to a federal analysis.

We’re not against protecting plants and animals under the Endangered Species Act. Alaska has supported listings of other species, like the Aleutian Canada goose. The law worked as it should — under its protection the population of the geese rebounded so much that they were taken off the list of endangered and threatened species in 2001.

Listing the goose — then taking it off — was based on science. The possible listing of a healthy species like the polar bear would be based on uncertain modeling of possible effects. This is simply not justified.

What is justified is worldwide concern over the proven effects of climate change.

The Center for Biological Diversity, which petitioned for the polar bear to be protected, wants the listing to force the government to either stop or severely limit any public or private action that produces, or even allows, the production of greenhouse gases. But the Endangered Species Act is not the correct tool to address climate change — the act itself actually prohibits any consideration of broader issues.

Such limits should be adopted through an open process in which environmental issues are weighed against economic and social needs, and where scientists debate and present information that policy makers need to make the best decisions.

Americans should become involved in the issue of climate change by offering suggestions for constructive action to their state governments. But listing the polar bear as threatened is the wrong way to get to the right answer.

Sarah Palin, a Republican, is the governor of Alaska.

Probably some truth to that. In terms of personality, the Republicans haven't had much to enjoy with Bush and Cheney. Fortunately, the Democrats trumped them with Kerry and Gore.

Obama is a lot of Charisma, and that helped Clinton become president. McCain certainly has more than Bush, but he isn't amazing. I have yet to even hear Palin speak, so I can't say anything about her Charisma other than what others report. Based on that, she certainly isn't a weak link in that regard.

McCain has more charisma than Bush? That's a bit of a stretch.

Isn't there something that occurs in the United States on the Tuesday after the first Monday in November? What could that be?

On election day, if her ticket doesn't have the votes, then she won't be a heartbeat away. If her ticket does have the votes, then over 60 million people will have said she was ready to be a heartbeat away.

But keep parroting the talking head on CNN as if the democratic process has suddenly been thwarted. It's comical.

What's comical is you missing the point.

I can see why. It's almost physically impossible to hoist someone by a petard.

Talk to the Shakespeare...

For tis the sport to have the enginer Hoist with his owne petar.

You're hoisted with not hoisted by. My mistake.

What's comical is you missing the point.that's because there was no point.

you heard something you thought was clever on CNN and decided to post it here, even if it makes no sense.

Sarah Palin NYT op-ed from January (before the polar bear was listed as "threatened"):

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/05/opinion/05palin.html?_r=2&scp=1&sq=%22sarah+palin%22&st=nyt&oref=slogin&oref=slogin
I'm looking for a picture of Palin sporting a wet "It's the SUN, stupid!" tee-shirt. I know it's online somewhere.

Sarah Palin NYT op-ed from January (before the polar bear was listed as "threatened"):

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/05/opinion/05palin.html?_r=2&scp=1&sq=%22sarah+palin%22&st=nyt&oref=slogin&oref=slogin


This is a pretty damn excellent op-ed. :thumbsup:

I just heard on the local liberal radio show that Palin committed an environmental crime by having five kids. They considered more than one irresponsible.

Anyone agree?

Really? Seriously?

I would think a pick of someone like a Dick Cheney type would win over die-hard conservatives, not a self-described "hockey mom" from Alaska, her life-long NRA membership not withstanding. Maybe it's just me.

lifetime NRA member, check
hunter, check
pro-life, check
pro-creationism, check
Evangelical, check
pro-oil, check

and to win over the moderates and the Joe Biden joe sixpack crowd that voted for Hillary because Obama is black, she looks a lot better than Biden or Hillary
Biden is from Scranton and she's from Idaho, can't get anymore small town America than that
she's a jock and a beauty queen
her husband competes in a gruelling sport
she's a real enviromentalist along with her husband
unlike Biden's/Obama's home states or the Federal Government's finances, Alaska's finances aren't a total mess
she will appeal to most of the women who aren't die hard feminists and who have families and with whom abortion isn't a big issue

McCain likes her because she's anti-cronyism like he has been for many years

Sarah Palin interview (actually from before she was picked):

http://www.newsmax.com/headlines/sarah_palin_vp/2008/08/29/126139.html

Palin Speaks to Newsmax About McCain, Abortion
Friday, August 29, 2008 10:40 AM
By: Mike Coppock


(Sarah Palin has emerged as John McCain's vice-presidential running mate. Palin talked to Newsmax magazine for its upcoming September 2008 issue about Alaskan oil, global warming, and John McCain.)

Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin is a God-fearing, gun-toting former beauty queen who could just become America’s next vice president.

In Alaska, the right to bear arms means staying on top of the food chain. Palin, a lifelong member of the National Rifle Association, hunts, shoots, and fishes.

Husband Todd holds a commercial fishing license for salmon. In the mid-1990s, when Todd got a job working on Alaska’s North Slope, Palin decided to occupy herself by becoming mayor of Wasilla, the state's fastest-growing community.

As mayor, she gradually grew frustrated with Alaska’s “good ol’ boy” style of governance -- so she decided to do something about it. She ran for governor in 2006 and won, defeating popular former Democratic Gov. Tony Knowles.

Palin’s victory made her Alaska's first female chief executive, and its youngest.

Now, many insiders believe this 44-year-old mother of five would add a strong conservative presence to the GOP ticket.

Palin tells Newsmax that it’s high time Congress allows the development of Alaska’s wealth of oil and gas. She doubts global warming stems from human activity, and she considers herself both a fiscal and social conservative.

Q What do you think of McCain’s chances, and what should he and the GOP do to win in November?

A I believe John McCain will be our next president. To win, he needs to continue his message that America needs leadership devoted to the public interest — not the special interest. The GOP needs to live the planks of its platform, not just offer lip service.

Q How did you pull off your election victory as governor?

A Alaska was ready for a positive change and tired of the good ol’ boy network. It caused many Alaskans to lose faith in their government. People want faith in their government. I have been able to pass a comprehensive reform law and place the state's checkbook online. You can be a reformer and also be a conservative.

Q And your stand on abortion?

A I'm pro-life. I'll do all I can to see every baby is created with a future and potential. The legislature should do all i