Let me explain this slowly:
1. The primary qualification for serving as Vice-President is the ability to serve as President.
2. McCain has pointed to Obama's youth, lack of experience in elected office, and lack of foreign policy experience as reasons Obama is not qualified to be President.
- 2a. Obama is 47.
- 2b. Obama served four 2-year terms in the Illinois State Senate and is in the fourth year of his first term in the U.S. Senate. Total experience in elected office: 11.6 years.
- 2c. Obama lived in Indonesia for four years as a child. In the U.S. Senate, he has served on the Foreign Relations Committee, Homeland Security & Governmental Relations Committee, and the subcommittee on European Affairs.
4. Therefore, McCain must believe Palin is qualified to serve as President.
5. Compared to Obama, Palin is younger, has one more month of experience in elected office, and less foreign policy experience.
- 5a. Palin is 44.
- 5b. Palin served two 2-year terms on the Wasilla (Alaska) City Council, two 3-year terms as mayor of Wasilla, and is in the second year of her first term as Governor of Alaska. Total experience in elected office: 11.7 years.
- 5c. Palin lives near Russia.
- 6a. McCain believes his running mate lacks the age, experience, and foreign policy chops to serve as President
- 6b. McCain just gave up age, experience, and foreign policy chops as arguments against Obama's qualifications for the Presidency.
And I don't think you'll have much more luck comparing Palin to Biden.
Other comparisons are welcome—like, oh, say, actual policies—but McCain just took the age and experience bush-wa off the table. Thanks, John!
---------------
Update 2008.08.30 08:45 CDT: But don't take my word for it; ask the McCain campaign:
The risks of a backlash from choosing someone so unknown and so untested are obvious. In one swift stroke, McCain demolished what had been one of his main arguments against Obama.
“I think we’re going to have to examine our tag line, ‘dangerously inexperienced,’” a top McCain official said wryly [Jim Vandehei & John M. Harris, "6 Things the Palin Pick Says About McCain," Politico.com, 2008.08.30].
Update 08:55 CDT: (Hat tip to Politico.com!) Or ask a Republican from Wasilla:
The reaction wasn't so rosy elsewhere. State Senate President Lyda Green said she thought it was a joke when someone called her at 6 a.m. to give her the news.
"She's not prepared to be governor. How can she be prepared to be vice president or president?" said Green, a Republican from Palin's hometown of Wasilla. "Look at what she's done to this state. What would she do to the nation?"[Sean Cockerham & Wesley Loy, "Choice Stuns State Politicians," Anchorage Daily News, 2008.08.29].
-------------
I know I am opening a can of worms here, but here I go.
ReplyDeleteDoes experience really matter? The country isn't necessarily run by the president, but by other people that MIGHT know a little bit about what's going on. To me, the president is a person that is fed speaches and shakes hands and kisses babys.
Neither presidential candidate is worth voting for. I wish we could go through the process again and find someone that doesn't make my stomach turn every time I think about it.
Hey, here's an idea, instead of each of the parties trying to make each other look bad, why not try and convince the people of the United States why they are the best choice and lay out the plan that they are intending on using. This election is going to get nasty. From what I have seen, minorities are voting for Obama because of the color of his skin, I may just vote for McCain because his running mate is a women. It's not right, but why not?
(No, I am not that shallow, I am just fed up with all of the mudslinging, and it's just going to get worse.)
"Change" is inevitable now. It'll get better and better if McCain wins in November. In that case, we may see two women running for President in '12 or '16.
ReplyDeleteCory;
ReplyDeleteImagine how many voters will now vote for McCain because of his age. Because of McCain's health history and advanced age, it's possible that the US could finally get a woman president.
A woman president would not be ruled by testosterone. She could straighten out some of the mess that men have created of the world.
Men are pigs. The sooner they all realize it, the better off they'll be.
Cory - You're an idiot. Palin has done more in 2 years as governor then Obama has done in his lifetime. BY THE WAY, the main point you're making is comparing Palin to Obama. Guess what, Obama is running for President and she's the VP on McCain's ticket. Nice try. Do some research, if anyone is going to go to D.C. and shake things up, it's going to be Palin, not Obama! Why you may ask?? She has actually done something in her political career besides run for office and talked about it!!
ReplyDeleteHi Cory,
ReplyDeleteI think you're measuring experience wrongly... Rather than counting up years in office, count up the number of accomplishments Palin has compared to Obama. Sarah was canceling pork ($300 million bridge to nowhere), overturning corruption (selling the state jet on eBay), setting up energy policies for our future (oil and green ones, both) and putting frauds (from her own party) in prison while Barack was gazing into his navel and writing highfalutin books.
You've always like transparent pragmatic politicians. Male or female, I can't think of any contemporary politician that has accomplished as many tangible results in as short a time.
Just last week you were bemoaning Biden as "An insider. A pragmatist. Another Senator. An old white guy. A pick that shows a lack of confidence in the message of real change."
Palin is exactly the opposite in all these respects... So what's your beef with Palin?
Kind regards,
David
David, Palin was for the Bridge to Nowhere before she was against it. She wants creationism taught in schools. She has so many family values that she has a four month old and is running for national office. She's under a $100,000 tax payer financed special appropriation special ethics investigation for Wootengate. She impressed the Hillary voters by saying that she couldn't support Hillary because of her whining in the face of critism. Okay, Dave, what was it she "accomplished"?
ReplyDeleteAnon 8:25: "idiot"? "research"? I suppose you'll say the same to reproter Ron Fournier, who offers this analysis:
ReplyDelete"John McCain's risky choice of Gov. Sarah Palin gives him a running mate who doubles down on his maverick image, may appeal to "hockey moms" and other women, and counters Barack Obama's aura of new-generation change. But he may have undercut his best attack on the Democrat.
"If Obama is an empty suit, as McCain has suggested, is Palin suited for the Oval Office herself?
"She is younger and less experienced than the first-term Illinois senator, and brings an ethical shadow to the ticket. A governor for just 20 months, she was two-term mayor of Wasilla, Alaska, a town of 6,500 where the biggest issue is controlling growth and the biggest civic worry is whether there will be enough snow for the Iditarod dog-mushing race."
[Ron Fournier, "Analysis: Palin's Age, Inexperience Rival Obama's," AP via Yahoo News, 2008.08.29.]
PennyP, it sound like you're just fishing for a rationalization for the way you want to vote. By your cynical approach, you could identify at least as many people who will vote for McCain because of the color of his skin.
ReplyDeleteWhy not vote for McCain just because his running mate is a woman? Because McCain won't defend your rights as a woman as strongly as Obama.
Don't get fed up and throw your vote away. There are still serious issues worth considering.
Was it something I said?
ReplyDeleteCensorship from the university guy, what a surprise.
Huh? Steve, I'm honestly not sure what you're talking about. Did you post a comment that didn't show up? Honest, I don't think I've seen any comment from you pop up in my inbox during the past week or so, and I don't think I've hit the Delete button on anything you've written here. Did I forget something? Your clarification is welcome.
ReplyDeleteYep - I posted a three paragraph comment that didn't appear. Disregard, and sorry for the zing since you didn't get it. I saw you cut off the wingnut guy and quickly concluded I fared the same. I may take a moment or so later and resubmit it.
ReplyDeleteDo resubmit, Steve -- nothing by you on Palin has come through my inbox. Strange Blogger glitch! (When that comment comes through, I will delete our conversation here to clean up the discussion.)
ReplyDeleteCorey,
ReplyDeleteI am not trying to rationalize anything. This election is going to be a difficult one. We have so many things going on in this country, and it is very very scary. I am worried for my kids, their kids, and myself. What we do know, will determine what our future holds.
In past experience, if something sounds too good to be true, it probably is. That's what I feel about Barack Obama. He says what people want to hear, but can he really deliver? He runs down Bush about the huge deficit he has run this country into, but yet he wants Bush to sign another multi-billion dollar stimulus package that would push it even further.
As far as the Clinton's throwing their support to Obama, you know and I know it's just a front. They can't stand him. It's all just a front to get a Democrat, any democrat, in office. Shouldn't we be trying to put the best person in office??
Obama is going to have to tread very lightly with McCain's VP pick. If he runs Palin down, he is going to be a monster. McCain picked the person that he did because he knows this and plus, to get all of the Hillary supporters. Sure, Palin has some skeletons in her closet, but so does Biden and Obama. Who doesn't? I am sure corey if you ran for a public office that people would find a few in yours. :-)
Nobody is perfect. Can't we just stick to the issues and try to convince who has the better idea of how to fix this country, rather than mocking people and their choices. Kids get in trouble for making fun of other people, why should it be any different with adults?
What is a good website to see what Obamas plans are? And not just his ideas.... I am a Dem, but not really comfortable with either candidate. My hubby is a McCain supporter so I hear all sorts of stuff from him. I need more info on Barack.
I agree that experience may not be all that necessary. How much did Pres. Clinton have when he took office. He was a Gov. From comments I heard back then, his state was glad to have him leave. You didn't see Hillary going back after they left the White House. I think Palin is a breath of fresh air without all the "good ole boy hang ups" and all the lobbyist backing.
ReplyDeletePennyP -- I'm not even going for the skeletons: Dems can win now purely on experience and record.
ReplyDeleteFolks who backed Hillary Clinton because she was "ready on day one" to be President will never switch to Palin, who said just two months ago, "As for that VP talk all the time, I’ll tell you, I still can’t answer that question until somebody answers for me what is it exactly that the VP does everyday?"
For info on the candidates' positions, I'd recommend going straight to the horses' mouths:
McCain campaign site
Obama campaign site
I also like FactCheck.org and PolitiFact.com, which both offer seemingly fair analyses of claims from both sides.
You need some more kool aid
ReplyDeleteI may just vote for McCain because his running mate is a women. It's not right, but why not?
ReplyDeleteGee, this isn't hard for me. Am I missing something?
If you ignore the candidates, please look behind them.
1. Iraq (more bad Bush policy in the Middle East)
2. Mortgage crisis (Are you ready for Phil Gramm coming on the tube telling you to stop whining.)
3. Supreme Court (maybe THREE vacancies?). There is a majority of extreme conservatives, and only one middle-left woman justice. It's about to fall over: balance is needed.
4. The Justice Department *must* be investigated. It just won't happen if McCain is elected.
5. More Big Oil- driven energy policy? (McCain voted against wind power everytime it came up, now there are turbines in every energy ad, and Big Oil is right behind him.. Hmm did you notice gas prices are slipping again, just like in 2004? Nah, that's too conspiracy theory for me....
6. Do you like our health care system the way it is? There will be no change at all on the Federal level in a McCain Presidency.
7. If McCain is elected, can you imagine the conflict we'll see between the Congress (who is finally getting in tune with the mood of this country) and a anti-choice, pro-oil, pro-pharma, pro-interventionist President? This would be no fun.
If you have any doubt about the individuals, look at the teams around them on their campaigns on the topics you care about. That should be enough to make up your mind as to which way you want the country to go.
(And of course, ignore the ads, except for the entertainment value.)
David -- I want change, but not in the Big-Oil, no-Roe-v-Wade, fundagelical-placating direction McCain-Plain will take us. I may have been mildly disappointed with the lack of surprise and status-quo shaking of the Biden pick, but even I can look beyond the drama I want and focus on the change the country needs.
ReplyDeleteSay, PennyP, reviewing your past comments, I can see you're not tryign to rationalize a preconceived notion. You voted for Hillary, and even said once there's no way you'd vote for McCain. My apologies if I was overly harsh above.
ReplyDeleteI think "cp" above does a good job of reminding us of good policy reasons, independent of any personal attacks, to stick with the Dems.
Eh... I'm sticking with Bob Barr... time to get rid of the dog-and-pony shows that are the Republicans and Democrats
ReplyDelete"but even I can look beyond the drama I want and focus on the change the country needs."
ReplyDeleteAh, the change mantra... have Obama and Biden even proven that they can change a light bulb? It looks to me that Palin has the best change record of all 4. She wasted no time gutting the previous (Republican) administration when she took office. She's probably do the same with all the crap left over from Bush and Cheney...
"Why not vote for McCain just because his running mate is a woman? Because McCain won't defend your rights as a woman as strongly as Obama."
ReplyDeleteWhich "rights as a woman" are we talking about here? I don't think McCain is planning to take away womens' suffrage or their career aspirations. (At least not gubernatorial or vice presidential aspirations.) So what rights of women are in danger?
Well, I've read enough blogs to know that that phrase is code for "abortion". But is it an accurate synonym? Consider, for example, that there are many women like Leslie Unruh, Sarah Palin, my wife, and my mom... all of which who are working hard to make abortion illegal.
If abortion is a right, isn't it interesting that all these women are trying to deny themselves a right? I mean, that's like voluntary slavery... like going up to the plantation owner and asking him to keep you in the field against your will. Obviously they don't see it that way. The aforementioned women are not thinking they are restricting their own legitimate freedom, but rather saving children from their capricious mothers.
My conclusion is that any more the word 'right' is used recklessly. It is supposed to be used for liberties that are unanimously appreciated (ie vote, free speech, freedom of assembly, etc.). But all too often we see the word invoked simply whenever someone wants something... abortion, free health care, a free college education, free HDTV, etc.
'Right' maybe never did have a lot of philosophical substance to it. The 1776 Declarers of Independence might have been using it just like we do today... to tell the king that they wanted something they weren't getting. But at least their appeal to rights included liberties that all citizens recognized as legitimate. With abortion, only 37% of women think that it should be "generally available" (poll cited is from 2003). If this truly is a right, that number should be at least 95% (2 SDs).
So let's can the inaccurate rhetoric.
Kind regards,
David
WHAT A JOKE OF A CHOICE FOR VP. HILLARY'S APPEAL WAS THAT SHE WAS A STRONG VOICE FOR HER STATE, COUNTRY, AND WOMEN IN GENERAL, NOT JUST THAT SHE'S A WOMAN. EXPERIENCE DOESN'T MATTER- BUSH HAD PLENTY AND LOOK AT THE SH*T HE DID TO MY COUNTRY. I'D RATHER HAVE SOUND JUDGEMENT THAN PANDERING TO X-CLINTON VOTERS- WHICH IS WHAT MCSAME JUST DID!- DAMN, WE'LL JUST HAVE TO LOOK FORWARD TO AND END TO WAR AND A BETTER ECONOMY WHEN OBAMA TAKES OVER!
ReplyDelete[transcribing for "squibby", whose CAPS LOCK key is stuck]:
ReplyDelete"What a joke of a choice for VP. Hillary's appeal was that she was a strong voice for her state, country, and women in general, not just that she's a woman. Experience doesn't matter -- Bush had plenty and look at [what -- edited for language, sq.] he did to my country. I'd rather have sound judgment than pandering to x-Clinton voters -- which is whatMcSame just did! -- [...] we'll just have to look forward to [an] end to war and a better economy when Obama takes over!
Corey,
ReplyDeleteYou are correct. I did once say I would never vote for McCain. But what is a person to do when neither option is really the best? Vote Dem because I am a Dem?? That's not right either. Do you think Barack is going to worry about my rights any more than McCain? The only rights they are worried about are their own (both parties). The best thing that Obama could have done was pick Hillary as a running mate. She is a strong individual (I am not saying women), that could have used her experience as a first lady to make a strong presidency. I am sure she had a lot of influence with her husband when he was trying to run the country. He didn't do too bad of a job(which my husband has a different opinion).
The thing is, no one is perfect. It hurts me to see anyone pick on Palin because she is a women with no experience. Every one of these people in the house and senate (who are the ones that are supposed to be doing the work) never had any experience at one point in time. Obama doesn't have that much experience and has plenty of skeletons in his closet. If he is the candidate that wants to win my vote, I hope he plays a clean campaign and focuses on the changes he wants to put in place, and not running the other person down. After all, look at what happened to the election that got Mike Rounds in for his first term. He was the underdog, but because the other two kept fighting at each other, they lost votes and Rounds won.
Trust me, PennyP, I won't pick on Palin because she's an inexperienced woman. My original thesis was simply that McCain's choice of Palin negates any claims her previously made that Obama is too young and inexperienced to be President, since McCain believes Palin is sufficiently experienced to be President.
ReplyDeleteDavid: on women's rights, try this:
ReplyDelete"So. John McCain is so opposed to contraception he voted against requiring insurance plans to cover it like other drugs, and either so indifferent to women's health and rights or just so out of it he doesn't even remember how he voted. That's the way to show American women you really care.
"This is not a trivial issue. There's the basic unfairness of not covering these essential, even life-saving drugs and devices, so fundamental to women's health and well-being, and the added insult of denying coverage while men are lavished with cut-rate erections. And there's the craven submission to religious extremists that moves the politics of that denial. It's a pocket-book issue, too: A year's worth of contraception can cost a woman $600. That's a lot of money. Is it too much to expect the next president of the United States to understand that? Now that every politican in America prides himself on knowing the price of a gallon of milk and talks like he's just finished doing the week's shopping for a family of ten?"
--Katha Pollitt, "McCain Opposes Contraception -- Pass It On," And Another Thing, 2008.07.17.
David: canceling pork? On the Bridge to Nowhere, Palin said oin her 2006 gubernatorial campaign that she was insulted by that very term and supported getting the money from Congress to build the Gravina Island Bridge. Palin also didn't give the federal money back; she kept it and used it to build a road on Gravina Island that would link to the bridge, if it's ever built. And when she canceled work on the bridge in Sep 2007, she didn't exactly condemn the project: "It's clear that Congress has little interest in spending any more money on a bridge between Ketchikan and Gravina Island. Much of the public's attitude toward Alaska bridges is based on inaccurate portrayals of the projects here." [see Yereth Rosen, "Palin 'Bridge to Nowhere' Line Angers Many Alaskans," Reuters via Yahoo, 2008.09.01]
ReplyDeleteKeep me updated on the "greatness of Sarah Palin," David.
Oh...Mr Bergan....I would be worried too if I was born with maybe not quite a silver spoon in my mouth but a pretty nice one nothless....If I were you I would be worried to that you privileged few might actually have to pay some taxes.....I doubt you have ever had to worry about having enough to make a mortgage payment or if my child gets sick can I afford the deductible even with insurance or if my car breaks down how will I get to work......I am glad that the rich like you are starting to get afraid.....
ReplyDelete"So. John McCain is so opposed to contraception he voted against requiring insurance plans to cover it like other drugs, and either so indifferent to women's health and rights or just so out of it he doesn't even remember how he voted."
ReplyDeleteHi Cory,
I guess I don't see how this really applies to my analysis of the term "womens' rights". When dealing with a private insurance company, they are going to cover the items they want to cover... and the free market determines those items. For instance, up until lately many health plans did not cover therapeutic massage therapy. Due to consumer demand, massage is now covered by some, and you can get one of those plans if you are willing to pay the (higher) premium for it.
Orthodontics was the same on dental plans. At first no plans covered braces, but now you can find plans that do have braces for a higher premium.
And here's one that I personally started: vision plans covering no-line bifocals. Up through 2007 no vision plan covered progressive lenses. Last February, little old Dakota Eye Care here in South Dakota became the first vision plan in the nation (world?) to have a progressive lens benefit. And, obviously, we charge more for that coverage.
Going to a local agent here, I see it is the same for contraceptives and Blue Cross/Blue Shield. On page 13 it says "Coverage for oral contraceptives and contraceptive devices that are used for the purpose of preventing conception can be added to your policy for an additional premium."
So the option is there, Cory, and thankfully it is an option (rather than government-mandated) so that people who do not want contraceptives on their health plan don't have to pay extra for coverage they aren't using.
Similarly, young contact-lens-wearers don't have to pay extra for a progressive lens coverage that they wouldn't use through Dakota Eye Care. This has nothing to do with the "rights of the old" or the "rights of the near-blind" or the "rights of the presbyoptic-myoptic". The free market gives them options to help their situation... but it doesn't force that option on all consumers.
So back to the original issue:
What exactly are the womens' rights that McCain-Palin are going to trample? Womens' suffrage, career, and political aspirations all seem to be in tact. And abortion can't be considered a right, since many women themselves don't even consider it a legitimate freedom.
Kind regards,
David
Also, Cory, thanks for the correction on the Gravina Island Bridge project.
ReplyDelete"Economically Clueless": Do you have some personal beef with me or my family? Rich is a matter of perspective, but apparently you have a mortgage... meaning that you own a home (and I merely rent).
And you have a child who might get sick (and I don't think my wife and I can afford one).
And you have health insurance with a high deductible (and I don't have any health insurance because I don't think I can afford the premiums... much less the deductibles).
And you have a car that might break down on your way to work (and I have walked to work for years). *
So which of us is, as you say, "privileged"?
The difference between you and me is that out of envy you seem to want "privileged people" to pay a lot of taxes. I don't want anyone to pay a lot of taxes, even jealous folk like you. I want the government to tax the bare minimum, tax only retail purchases, and tax all purchases equally (with exemptions on necessities).
Kind regards,
David
* I work from home, so this point isn't really fair... but it is mildly humorous. This year I did just sink $1200 into repairing my wife's hunk-a-junk '97 Escort (blue-book value: $855), though... so we at least break even on the car repair issue.
Update on the Bridge to Nowhere:
ReplyDeleteThe Alaska Democrats (read: Palin's opponents) credited Governor Palin with canceling the project.
But...
When their page started to get national attention as journalists investigated the bridge project, they pulled the webpage down.
Also, it comes out on CNN (transcript, video) that while running for governor, Palin was initially in favor of a bridge to Gravina Island. She felt the residents in SE Alaska needed better access to their airport than what the ferry system provides, but at that time the estimates on the project were about half of what the official estimate amounted to later on when she was already elected. Seeing the cost double, she then perceived the project as being wasteful of American tax dollars, and publicly sparred with Ted Stevens (AK Republican Senator) over the issue.
The other quotes of hers that are usually taken out of context on this issue are ones where she was in Ketchikan during her gubernatorial campaign telling the citizens that their city isn't "nowhere"... since the bridge project was already going by its nickname in the national news. She was promising to help the locals, but certainly didn't commit herself to the full cost of the official project that eventually landed on her desk.
So, in essence, she does deserve the credit for canceling the pork here.
And interestingly enough... Senators Biden and Obama voted to protect the Bridge to Nowhere.
Kind regards,
David