The only reason i pick on her experience is because the Mccain camp has been successfully jabbing Obama as not ready. I believe the saying is, "those in glass houses should not throw stones?" I can say the same thing and note the community work that Obama has done before he was a senator. Personally, i think the one with a good vision and good advisors should be the one to lead the country regardless of experience, and right now i see that as Obama.

I bet the GOP speech writers collectively gave McCain the finger after being forced to eliminate "experience" from every speech.

Well, we've probably all thought more about the VP's then we should now, but this story is really a fascinating one:

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/20...137/486/580223

It's really out there, but the evidence and research is just so compelling. I wonder if the mainstream news outlets will pick it up (they should love stories like this), and what sort of effect it could have on the election.

I'm not really offended, though I'm curious as to why you think Alaska's the least internationally visited states... :twitch: Russians, Canadians, Japanese and other Asians are pretty common visitors to say the least, especially in the summer.

Anyways, like I said, I'm not really offended. It's a good and valid question.

It's true that Alaska ranked third from the bottom in terms of population ranking in 2000. (Hence not being the least populated states, though I like how you added "in the union", heh.) Though, honestly, I'm not 100% sure why the population of a state she governs is such a concerning factor when it comes to Presidents and Vice Presidents, "management" is trickled down like a pyramid, leaving the Presidents and Vice Presidents with dealing with decisions of high importance such as the war on Iraq, health care, USA's current "depression", etc. Yes, it affects everyone one way or another, but it does not mean that they would have to address the situation per individual. If they did that, Democrat or Republican President/Vice President, it would be an impossible task. They would have to address the issue to everyone as a whole, which is what Palin has done many times as Governor of Alaska. At that point, it's really matter of whether we like where she stands in those issues.

So, as to why I believe she's qualified, I've stated in earlier posts regarding her being known as a "maverick." Amazingly, Wikipedia is pretty accurate regarding her feats with dates that I actually can't confirm since I didn't pay attention to her THAT much. Just what she's done. Starting out her political career in 1992 as a city council member of Wasilla, Alaska for four years. Mayor for six hears, in which she was elected president of the Alaska Conference of Mayors, then commissioner for one year only because of her fellow Republicans' unethical activities. Then she became Governor for two years to this date in which McCain obviously called her up and chose her as his Vice President. In all the while, she has fullfilled her campaign promises (or was in the midst of doing so).

So, the reason I believe in her is because she's shown that she "walks the walk and talks the talk" as well as she's not afraid to go against her own political party members to remove those who are corrupt which, in my opnion, helps the people out those members would have been serving. Her actions have always denoted that she's "for the people." As I think about it, if McCain didn't choose her to be his Vice President, she may have been well on her way slowly making towards campaigning to become President in the future with her track record.

In addition to why she leaves a positive note with me is because she's a little more down to earth with the people she serves. She flies coach and drives her own car to work, as well as lives in a fairly average home unlike others in office. Another thing I've heard about her is that she actually sold the Governor use jet that the previous Governor before her had purchased.

Now, to everyon reading this, this was to answer as to why I believe Palin has the qualifications to be Vice President. I'm not trying to endorse her because she can do that herself. That and we're only three days into knowing the fact that McCain chose her as Vice President. There will be more information about her as weeks pass by. We haven't even heard from her on her stances, so I implore everyone to wait and watch before heavily judging her in particular.

Strangely, this race for Presidency seems to have become Obama vs Palin. I can understand the reasoning in terms of McCain's age and health history. I just find it amusing.


And this makes it right...? Both sides attack each other, which is why I find both men running for President to be a little childish and attempted to stay away from the elections until my own Governor, whom I obviously have respect for, was chosen to be Vice President.


From what I know, she's been to Kuwait, visiting the Alaskan Army National Guard. She may have been to other places as well, but it's possibly for private reasons in which I wouldn't try to dig into.


I also actually hope people are not that stupid. I figured women would be smarter about things, so I have confidence in them that they'll do their research just like I believe everyone else should before juding and making choices.


Well, as stated by the media, it looks like McCain's campaign will have to be redone to omit the experience jabbing. As for her lack of experience, 13 years of political experience that the media is recently unearthing about her isn't something I wouldn't call "lacking."


I... actually don't know what to say about this one other than after further research into that site, the impression I get from that blogger is that he'll take cheap shots at anything and isn't really neutral to the situation. So, in short, the guy's a blogger, and although he may be onto something about the pregnancy thing, I'm not sure how that's meant to hurt her when if in fact it's her daughter's child, she's sticking to her pro-life stance by taking care of the child instead of having the child aborted.









Now, since my posts are getting bigger and bigger by the moment, please excuse me while I take a breather from the thread and allow others to respond in my place. I'm not a big fan of typing up big posts. The whole "tl;dr" thing comes to mind.

They're considering toning down or canceling the RNC because of Hurricane Gustav's impending assault on the Gulf Coast (category 5).

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7590332.stm

Good luck to any AS member in the area and hope ya'll find safe ground.

It doesn't make the attacks right but this is what politics has come down to. As shown in the previous 2 elections, the GOP will use any and all attacks and the ignorant public will just eat it all up without doing research or thinking about the facts.

Oh, I know this is what this election between the two presidential candidates have come down to. Both sides taking jabs at their character and at some points, going as far as twisting the other side's words. But it doesn't make it right for us to jump on the bandwagon to attack one of the candidates. Hence why I simply state that I am displeased with one or both of the candidates with what they've said about the other candidates.

You're a lot more optimistic about "people" than I am. Having watched voting trends and listening to what passes for political thoughts of far too many "Joe and Jane Americans" over the decades .... I'm not at all confident of their voting capacity in general (no matter what side they vote on).

I tend to blame the poor state of education in history and civics over the last couple of decades. Keep in mind many of the posters here are quite the exception.

Heh. That's because I came to the US at age six from a country with people constantly voting for movie stars for President without really looking into their qualification and stances, then turn around and wonder why their country is being corrupted and that they're having to oust their President fairly often before their term is done.

Sometimes, I wish we had a parliamentary/multi-party system. Impeachment requirements are pretty high, unless you're Bill Clinton.

Just for some political humor, though it's a bit old now:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/0..._n_118512.html

Guess God got the timing wrong!

Sadly, Gustav is now threatening the Gulf Coast and I hope people remain safe.

Luckily, (now that I've been a US citizen for several years, I can say this...) most of our Presidents haven't been so bad in comparison to the country I came from. Imagine the President spending millions of dollars of the tax money on designer shoes for his wife's collection, as well as other things. That's what it was like for the country I came from.

The NYtimes has a long look into the thought process the McCain campaign went through in selecting a VP. Of note:

• Wanted to continue his "maverick" style... and at the same time refused to pick Liberman because of the backlash
• Decision was made at last minute
• Realized the experience argument had run its course
• Though he could pick up some Clinton supporters who wanted a woman and couldn't care where she stood. (aka PUMAs aka Fake democrats)

I share Vexx's pessimism concerning the "average voter", but I understand your positivity since you have experience being where the situation is even worse. (I also feel the same way you do about the "bandwagon critique".)

Still... Regarding voting for movie stars for President... :D

What are you talking about? That's no movie star. That's a god among presidents.

I didn't like some of his policies but at least he had some pragmatic advisers.

Well, he was a movie star. :) In fact, his "political experience" before running for governor of California was pretty much being president of the Screen Actor's Guild. Of course, I'm not one to say that political experience is a prerequisite for holding an elected office. Heck, sometimes I think it's a bonus.

Reagan made some huge blunders as governor and as president. Nonetheless, I've always been fond of the man, and there's good reason he's celebrated as a great president (not that the bar is set very high for the office these days).

I know. Was a joke with the way the GOP candidates were all trying to kiss his ass during the primaries.

In other news, it seems the the first day of the GOP convention may be canceled because of Gustav.

Meh, maybe it's cause my family trends slightly Democratic. But they have always been ambivelant about Reagan, at least in terms of domestic policy.

Either way, even though the president's descicions make reverberations across the globe, people are looking too much at the president as an idol IMHO.

Just to be short since people were asking - Kyuusai's post comes close to kind of my feeling towards Reagan. The alternatives seemed to be the poor choices at the time (i.e. Cold War).
Made some blunders, very good communicator - absolutely brilliant in his role as Prez.

However, some of the people around him were the precursors of today's neocon twits that took the party off to lalaland.

People really don't vote for their qualification when looking at president most of the time, as long as the candidate appeals to the common men they will most likely vote for them. Or they vote for candidate who yell change when the majority of the people are unhappy :heh:.
The alternatives as in Carter or the person running in 1984? I would understand if people voted for Reagan in first term but I think he was a mediocre president and really can't see why people voted for him for his second term. From what I studied his domestic policies were pretty much failure and even success of his foreign policy is debatable.