Quote:
Originally Posted by KaniNaruto
An inexperienced VP, nonetheless is less severe than an inexperienced president like Obama would be.
|
To repeat the dems talking point: She is one heartbeat away from president. Therefore, this argument is pretty much just washing words. Of course everybody assumes nothing will go wrong with a president and the position is there so a chain of command is established should something happen.
That said, judging people for president based on "experience" has been proven to be flawed. Some of the worst presidents in our history have been true established statesmen such as Nixon and Ford. (See
here for more on experience vs presidential quality.)
Quote:
|
She would have time to get the hang of the job before the unlikely event of her stepping in for the president.
|
Same error as above. You assume everything will go right. If say, it snows, he catches pneumonia, and dies 30 days later, now what? (President Harrison, 1841)
Quote:
|
It seems like I'm not the only one to think that Sarah Palin is a major breakthrough for women's rights. On a different forum, CleverTalkers.com, it seems like all the women are saying that Palin is a big step forward for feminism and women's equality. More equality than Obama.
|
...and there is absolutely no logical grounding to their arguments. As mentioned in the article in my previous post, she was picked to try and pick off Clinton supporters who will vote just because there is a woman on a ticket. If they really wanted to make a huge step forward for equality, there were far more qualified female candidates for VP out there. (And no, Clinton is not one of them. She would have been Cheney v2.)