Mountainphan wrote:And your proof that she is lacking in "mental horsepower"? How about some substance to back up your vapid posts for once. Or am I getting too serious?

You haven't begun to be serious. Take a very basic marker - educational attainment. Palin: U Idaho journalism degree. Obama: Harvard Law, president of the Law Review.

You're seriously prepared to put her on Obama's level? No, you're not; you're just trolling.

I'm not sure if you're some amalgam of lax, tpie, cshort, and mpmcgraw, or not, but I have to hand it to you - you're more tiresome, faster, than any of them

drsmooth wrote:

Mountainphan wrote:And your proof that she is lacking in "mental horsepower"? How about some substance to back up your vapid posts for once. Or am I getting too serious?

You haven't begun to be serious. Take a very basic marker - educational attainment. Palin: U Idaho journalism degree. Obama: Harvard Law, president of the Law Review.

You're seriously prepared to put her on Obama's level? No, you're not; you're just trolling.

I'm not sure if you're some amalgam of lax, tpie, cshort, and mpmcgraw, or not, but I have to hand it to you - you're more tiresome, faster, than any of them

Bush went to Yale and Harvard Business. Guess he's a super genius in your book then, doc?

I don't think Obama supporters are necessarily contending that he has all this amazing experience. But he has a perspective, a world-view, and he's had about 6-8 years in the public eye to show the world what he wants to do. He's taken a stance on just about every notable issue and people know what he's about.

Perhaps Palin has those same things, and perhaps she's the Republican Obama...but 60 days is a very, very short time for her to convince people that her inexperience doesn't matter. Because obviously, most of Obama's supporters (myself included), are willing to overlook his relative inexperience because of his inspirational leadership abilities and his goals (whether or not he has the prior experience to necessarily make all of those goals a reality).

jerseyhoya wrote:

drsmooth wrote:

Mountainphan wrote:And your proof that she is lacking in "mental horsepower"? How about some substance to back up your vapid posts for once. Or am I getting too serious?

You haven't begun to be serious. Take a very basic marker - educational attainment. Palin: U Idaho journalism degree. Obama: Harvard Law, president of the Law Review.

You're seriously prepared to put her on Obama's level? No, you're not; you're just trolling.

I'm not sure if you're some amalgam of lax, tpie, cshort, and mpmcgraw, or not, but I have to hand it to you - you're more tiresome, faster, than any of them

Bush went to Yale and Harvard Business. Guess he's a super genius in your book then, doc?

Bush didn't distinguish himself at Harvard Business like Obama distinguished himself at Harvard Law by being the Editor in Chief of the Law Review (Law Review, generally, is a very prestigious group composed generally of the highest achieving students and the EIC is generally one of the highest, most driven achievers (I don't say the highest because it is, in some respects, a political position)).

I'm sure Palin is quite bright, but I don't think she has the academic credentials to compare to Obama on paper. I don't think you'd disagree.

Mountainphan wrote:

steagles wrote:

VoxOrion wrote:

steagles wrote:

VoxOrion wrote:I like the Palin pick, I've been hoping he'd select her for a while now. I think I can vote for McCain with some enthusiasm now. Romney would have been *yawn* and we'd have to endure two months of commercials showing Romney criticize McCain. Pawlenty is just an awful name, sorry.

Yeah, she's a pandering pick, but so is Biden - hell, so are McCain, Obama, or Hillary.

I like that no matter who wins, we'll have a non white guy in one of the two major seats.

i like palin, and i could vote for her in a year that's not this one, but you'd have to be an idiot to think that she'll have any input on any major policy. considering mccain's level of disinterest in domestic affairs, it's pretty clear that his advisers will be running that. and it's pretty clear what their opinions are, and it's also clear what their impact will be on america.

You answered your own rhetorical question, which is why conservatives seem so happy with her. McCain doesn't care about social stuff (his biggest drawback after being an overall malcontent), he needs people around him who will bother, and presumably she's been selected to be one of those advisors, if not the advisor.

again, i like her, and i could vote for her, but she's not nearly proven enough to be relied upon in that role, in that administration.

she might have a $#@! ton of upside, and i think i see it, but i cannot imagine that they chose her for any reason other than she's a republican and a woman.

Steagles, in that case, how do you square Obama's lack of experience in being qualified for the Presidency (not Vice Presidency as in Palin's case). I'm truly interested in hearing your rationale.

obama's a known unknown. i think there's a reasonable chance that he becomes an overmatched partisan hack that raises taxes, blows up the deficit, causes the price of oil to go up to $250 a barrel by the end of his first term, but i also know that if mccain appoints two more judges to the supreme court, there is no going back, and that is a far more scary proposition to me than anything the united democratic executive and legislative branches could do.

the supreme court has the power to fundamentally change the country in ways no congress can. i fear roe v. wade being overturned. i fear the return of seperate but equal designations.


i can accept the risk that electing obama poses, but i cannot accept the kind of fundamental changes to the constitution that mccain would bring.

drsmooth wrote:

Mountainphan wrote:And your proof that she is lacking in "mental horsepower"? How about some substance to back up your vapid posts for once. Or am I getting too serious?

You haven't begun to be serious. Take a very basic marker - educational attainment. Palin: U Idaho journalism degree. Obama: Harvard Law, president of the Law Review.

You're seriously prepared to put her on Obama's level? No, you're not; you're just trolling.

I'm not sure if you're some amalgam of lax, tpie, cshort, and mpmcgraw, or not, but I have to hand it to you - you're more tiresome, faster, than any of them

Again, you fail to provide a substantive response, instead throwing out an accusation of trolling. I guess I didn't fully realize the impact the Palin choice has had on you until now.

lethal wrote:Bush didn't distinguish himself at Harvard Business like Obama distinguished himself at Harvard Law by being the Editor in Chief of the Law Review (Law Review, generally, is a very prestigious group composed generally of the highest achieving students and the EIC is generally one of the highest, most driven achievers (I don't say the highest because it is, in some respects, a political position)).

I'm sure Palin is quite bright, but I don't think she has the academic credentials to compare to Obama on paper. I don't think you'd disagree.

No, but Palin could be damn smart, and for doc to say that Obama's clearly smarter because Palin doesn't have the same degrees as he does is weak sauce.

this thread is 16 pages of weak sauce. it should be renamed "partisan discussion leading us down the road to nowhere"

seke2 wrote:I don't think Obama supporters are necessarily contending that he has all this amazing experience. But he has a perspective, a world-view, and he's had about 6-8 years in the public eye to show the world what he wants to do. He's taken a stance on just about every notable issue and people know what he's about.

What I'm not understanding is what kind of perspective or world-view does Obama have that makes him so exceptional or so worth the risk?

Beyond the fact that he went to Harvard Law, I'm sincerely curious what else there is that sets him apart. It's perfectly fair to raise questions about Palin's qualifications, even though she's running for VP. But in fairness, Obama has the same issue that needs to be more adequately addressed.

FTN wrote:this thread is 16 pages of weak sauce. it should be renamed "partisan discussion leading us down the road to nowhere"

Works for me.

Monkeyboy wrote:

Woody wrote:No you're just like LAExile's leftist foil

Except I don't ignore facts, which is a pretty significant difference. If I've ignored facts like LaExile has, please point me in the right direction because I don't want to do that.

You only pay attention to your opinions. Facts that contradict those are irrelevant. I present ten instances where McCain opposes torture, you present something confirming that and say it shows he supports it.

I'm sure there are people here who disagree with my opinions and my conclusions. You're the only one who thinks I don't support them with fact after fact after fact so that my posts are so long only ptk can beat them in length.

Mountainphan - I'm not sure why you want me to defend Obama. I just said that McCain could have made a better choice, and offered one up. That makes me pro-Obama?

Obama is relatively inexperienced. But for that matter, so is Senator McCain. Sitting in a prison camp really isn't "foreign policy" experience. I don't mean to criticize McCain's service. Far from it. But McCain hasn't been a leader on foreign policy in the Senate. And on the various non-foreign issues we face, McCain has pretty much agreed that he's not real strong. McCain's claim to fame is campaign reform, and being a pain in the ass to the Republican leadership.

I don't see this election as a choice between experience and inexperience. Dig down and see what both candidates are saying about issues, not about each other. Iraq. Afghanistan. Russia. Pakistan. Housing. Jobs. Health care. Taxes.

This is a real one. A choice, not an echo. But neither of these guys is a sleazeball like GWB, although the hacks in both parties will tell you different. But hey, that's why they're hacks; they get paid to lie. So figure out which of the two candidates is more likely to lead the country where you want us to be going, and vote for him. But let's do that without trying to tear down the other guy because he's from the "wrong party." That's just stupid.

I'm bothered by Palin. I understand the pick, politically, but I don't see what she's going to bring to the table in the second week of November and after that. She's pro-life. That's all well and good, but it's not going to help with any of the big problems. Also, her husband is going to be really miserable in Washington!

logos wrote:We have much bigger problems than "cleaning up" Washington. We're involved in two wars, Russia's acting up, Pakistan is a nuclear-armed mess, the financial system is flirting with collapse, gas prices are too high (and just wait for heating oil prices this winter), too many people have lost their jobs or their benefits or both, etc. McCain's foreign policy is pretty clear, but his ability to deal with the domestic stuff is a cipher. Palin's ridiculously inexperienced at addressing any of the major issues that are going to hit the next administration in the face.

She's Vice President, not his economic advisor. McCain agrees that the VP only has two responsibilities, break a tie in the senate and check on the health of the President. She's there because he sees her as someone who reflects his maverick spirit, but she's not there to make policy.

Mountainphan wrote:

seke2 wrote:I don't think Obama supporters are necessarily contending that he has all this amazing experience. But he has a perspective, a world-view, and he's had about 6-8 years in the public eye to show the world what he wants to do. He's taken a stance on just about every notable issue and people know what he's about.

What I'm not understanding is what kind of perspective or world-view does Obama have that makes him so exceptional or so worth the risk?

Beyond the fact that he went to Harvard Law, I'm sincerely curious what else there is that sets him apart. It's perfectly fair to raise questions about Palin's qualifications, even though she's running for VP. But in fairness, Obama has the same issue that needs to be more adequately addressed.

Frankly, for me, it's his leadership style, his ability to inspire, and his ability to draw people into the political process that otherwise were generally disinterested. I believe that is genuinely good for the country, and exactly what we need right now. I don't think any one person can fix the sort of issues we're up again--I do believe that the sort of movement that Obama has inspired could fix those issues. Hey, everyone has their own perspective, that's just mine.

That's what sets him apart in my perspective. Perhaps Palin could be that same inspirational leader, but she doesn't have time to prove it before the election. It's a very, very perplexing choice that I think does very little to help the Republicans and undermines some of the best arguments they've had against Obama.

Laexile wrote:

logos wrote:We have much bigger problems than "cleaning up" Washington. We're involved in two wars, Russia's acting up, Pakistan is a nuclear-armed mess, the financial system is flirting with collapse, gas prices are too high (and just wait for heating oil prices this winter), too many people have lost their jobs or their benefits or both, etc. McCain's foreign policy is pretty clear, but his ability to deal with the domestic stuff is a cipher. Palin's ridiculously inexperienced at addressing any of the major issues that are going to hit the next administration in the face.

She's Vice President, not his economic advisor. McCain agrees that the VP only has two responsibilities, break a tie in the senate and check on the health of the President. She's there because he sees her as someone who reflects his maverick spirit, but she's not there to make policy.

Plus I hear she makes a tasty meatloaf.

im curious what Mountainphan's last login here was

jerseyhoya wrote:

drsmooth wrote:

Mountainphan wrote:And your proof that she is lacking in "mental horsepower"? How about some substance to back up your vapid posts for once. Or am I getting too serious?

You haven't begun to be serious. Take a very basic marker - educational attainment. Palin: U Idaho journalism degree. Obama: Harvard Law, president of the Law Review.

You're seriously prepared to put her on Obama's level? No, you're not; you're just trolling.

I'm not sure if you're some amalgam of lax, tpie, cshort, and mpmcgraw, or not, but I have to hand it to you - you're more tiresome, faster, than any of them

Bush went to Yale and Harvard Business. Guess he's a super genius in your book then, doc?

Godfrey Daniel.

If you're going to bother chiming in, at least try to make some sort of case that Palin has the intellectual credentials that Obama has - which is the narrow point on which this little pathetic little tussle balances.

Of course it's not possible to make a credible case for that point, so you ape your confreres, and don't even bother trying.

Man, this thread has deteriorated (except for seke), which I guess makes it safe for me to wade in again. I hate it when jersey and dajafi are in analytical mode and I end up sounding like Miss South Carolina on a bad day.

I think the Palin pick is a good one for McCain and even though times have changed should provide him with a similar boost to that of the selection of Ferraro back in 1984, which, although it seems hard to believe was quite substantial at the start. Much of this effect though is because I think people like to "vote" at polls for what they want rather than what's asked, and I think people will want to vote in favor of a woman holding high office, knowing full well they can make their actual presidential pick later on.

Palin certainly has more heft and , one thinks, less baggage than Ferraro, so the boost could also be more substantial and longer lasting. She'll definitely help with social conservatives. In some ways it's a similar pick to Obama's in terms of balance, with it's risks and rewards, Obama tempering his message of change with an experienced candidate while MCain, whose greatest selling point is really his experience, I think, is teaming with a relative neophyte whose greatest asset at least initially will be the"newness' of the idea of a female in national office.

Personally, it makes the choice of Obama much easier for me, since Palin's record of opposition to reproductive rights, protection of weaponry rights and tepid environmental record make it easy for me to find things to disagree with, while her lack of an economic or foreign policy history don't really give me anything to to counteract that-nor can we expect to hear anything regarding those aspects in the coming months that are truly hers, rather than McCain's. But I was about 80% pro-Obama heading in, so I don't think my experience is representative of her actually potential voters away from McCain.

The one other big boost I can see coming McCain's way is that I think Biden is a genuine misogynist asshat, and I could quite easily see him saying something in the debates or elsewhere while thinking he is being witty that will cause a big negative for Obama.

So Palin would be Madame Vice President and her husband would be the Second Gentleman?

So, this will probably get lost in the banter over Palin's shaggability

bullseye