The issue to me isn't whether Palin is "qualified" which by any normally accepted criteria, she's not, not for president. But I'm not narrow-minded enough to think that just because someone ahsn't spent years in the system -- (Many could argue that's a good thing in fact) that that precludes being able to learn on the job or simply have the temperament, management skills, intelligence and any range of characteristics and talents to end up doing the job. And govt is a system, people play roles and even Presidents are limited to an extent. MCcain alone will not sit there and make policy, nor would Palin if McCain died in office.

To me, it was a strategic move. It may work, but not for the reasons, 'reasoned' by the decision-makers. People in this country vote on perception more than reality and impression and feeling often more than substance, merit and the like. If the Dems are perceived as mean, rude and bullies... it will backfire on them badly.

I can't tell whether a shorter RNC is a help or hindrance. Lax, in my opinion naively, believes the Reps have a message of substance that will motivate many in the voter bases of unsure Reps and Indepens ... I don't know. I thought the Dems set the bar high for once and grabbed some of the slickness the Reps usually pull off. And its hard to defend much of hte last 8 years no matter what side of the political line you stand on.

I think it will be a close race. Media will continue to influence perception as they always do and make big deals out of whatever they choose. Obama needs to focus on differentiating himself meaningfully and where people care, the gas pump, job security, college costs, food costs -- etc...

Biden better show himself as a seasoned master of complex world issues, not some patronizing long time insider because Palin' couldn't hold his jock on a national stage, but if he is perceived as demeaning, insulting, ptraonizing -- it won't portend well...

She has such a small record there isn't much to say about it. more distrubing to me than the non-issue of experience is her stands on social issues and environment, etc... she's a full on bibile-thumping ex-pageant queen turned radical conservative, and that's what she should be hit on. Because while she reflects some peoples' views in this country, its by FAR a minority position.

http://www.democracynow.org/

A lot of info about the crackdowns in Minneapolis on Dem Now this morning. Also a nice short piece about Palin.

yo ptk fly out her efor 9/6 just do it

Thought Obama handled the question well:

At a press availability in Monroe, Mich., Barack Obama said: "Back off these kinds of stories."

"I have said before, and I will repeat again: People's families are off-limits," Obama said. "And people's children are especially off-limits. This shouldn't be part of our politics. It has no relevance to Gov. Palin's performance as a governor or her potential performance as a vice president. So I would strongly urge people to back off these kinds of stories. You know my mother had me when she was 18, and how a family deals with issues and teenage children, that shouldn’t be a topic of our politics."

Not only back off, but back off because it means nothing, AND related it to his own story. So any "negative" implications get him and his family, as well.

Somebody get Biden a tele-prompter...

"First time voters in '08 have never dialed rotary phones or seen a change & white TV. This year they'lll be voting for black."

Philly the Kid wrote:I can't tell whether a shorter RNC is a help or hindrance. Lax, in my opinion naively, believes the Reps have a message of substance that will motivate many in the voter bases of unsure Reps and Indepens ... I don't know. I thought the Dems set the bar high for once and grabbed some of the slickness the Reps usually pull off. And its hard to defend much of hte last 8 years no matter what side of the political line you stand on.

What were the Dems selling besides being different than Bush? The Republicans came out with their platform today. It includes:

"accelerated exploration, drilling, and development in America" through an all-of-the above energy plan, including more renewable energy like wind, solar, and geothermal and oil and natural gas.

The Republicans say they want to try everything to solve America's energy plans, while the Dems dismiss drilling and nuclear.

lower taxes, reasonable regulation, and smaller, smarter government

A moratorium on the earmarking system.

government transparency and ending wasteful Washington spending.

Whether they want to buy it or not, that is a message and a different one than the Dems have. The GOP continually fails to communicate its message. If they are able to communicate this, they are offering something.

dajafi wrote:The crackdown on protesters in the Twin Cities that doc mentioned sounds pretty horrific:

I'm a big fan of the 'banality of evil' touches, like the "information officer" leading off the 'raid' clip, who was - surprise ! - utterly berift of information, and really through no evident fault of his own.

I'm sure he never really reflects on the role he's playing in such shenanigans, so long as his paycheck clears.

More info about the Palin selection:

Up until midweek last week, some 48 to 72 hours before Mr. McCain introduced Ms. Palin at a Friday rally in Dayton, Ohio, Mr. McCain was still holding out the hope that he could choose a good friend, Senator Joseph I. Lieberman, independent of Connecticut, a Republican close to the campaign said. Mr. McCain had also been interested in another favorite, former Gov. Tom Ridge of Pennsylvania.

But both men favor abortion rights, anathema to the Christian conservatives who make up a crucial base of the Republican Party. As word leaked out that Mr. McCain was seriously considering the men, the campaign was bombarded by outrage from influential conservatives who predicted an explosive floor fight at the convention and vowed rejection of Mr. Ridge or Mr. Lieberman by the delegates.

Perhaps more important, several Republicans said, Mr. McCain was getting advice that if he did not do something to shake up the race, his campaign would be stuck on a potentially losing trajectory.

With time running out — and as Mr. McCain discarded two safer choices, Gov. Tim Pawlenty of Minnesota and former Gov. Mitt Romney of Massachusetts, as too predictable — he turned to Ms. Palin. He had his first face-to-face interview with her on Thursday and offered her the job moments later. Advisers to Mr. Pawlenty and another of the finalists on Mr. McCain’s list described an intensive vetting process for those candidates that lasted one to two months.

“They didn’t seriously consider her until four or five days from the time she was picked, before she was asked, maybe the Thursday or Friday before,” said a Republican close to the campaign. “This was really kind of rushed at the end, because John didn’t get what he wanted. He wanted to do Joe or Ridge.”
...
In Alaska, several state leaders and local officials said they knew of no efforts by the McCain campaign to find out more information about Ms. Palin before the announcement of her selection, Although campaigns are typically discreet when they make inquiries into potential running mates, officials in Alaska said Monday they thought it was peculiar that no one in the state had the slightest hint that Ms. Palin might be under consideration.

No truth to the rumor that the vetters were Alberto Gonzales and Michael "Brownie" Brown.

apparently Nate Fick the marine officer that was a character in generation kill spoke at the DNC. thought it was cool.

Good afternoon. I’m Nathaniel Fick. My Marine platoon landed in Afghanistan on a moonlit night in 2001. A little more than a year later, we rolled into Iraq. I’ll never forget one dawn after a vicious gun battle. We’d just medevaced one of our wounded Marines, and I turned to see a small American flag hanging from a humvee’s antenna. For a second, it reminded me of the line we all know so well: “And our flag was still there.”

I registered as a Republican at 18 and voted for John McCain in 2000. It took seven years of hard experience to get me on this stage. But we cannot afford more of the same. That’s why we need Barack Obama and Joe Biden to lead us beyond the tired divisions of the past. They have the judgment to make the right decisions, leading our military, and uphold our highest ideals.

Everyone who fought in Iraq or Afghanistan has left something: a friend, a limb, a piece of their youth. In those palm groves and on those ridge lines, this is personal for us. I don’t want to retreat; I want to win.

The past seven years have been hard, often heartbreaking. Our flag, however, is still there. Let’s move forward in our quest to live up to the idea of America

It's taken as a truism that Sarah Palin is less qualified than Barack Obama. I disagree. The problem is that people conflate the qualifications to be vice-president with the qualifications to be president. The president doesn't get any on-the-job training. The vice president essentially starts an apprenticeship the day that he/she is sworn in. Unless John McCain drops dead almost immediately after taking office, Palin will have that apprenticeship as part of her qualifications to be president.

If John McCain is healthy during his entire presidency then Palin's experience is irrelevant. If Palin ever has to assume the presidency then her experience will include her time as vice-president. At that point her qualifications to be president will be at least the equal of Obama's on the day that Obama would assume the presidency.

ashton wrote:It's taken as a truism that Sarah Palin is less qualified than Barack Obama. I disagree. The problem is that people conflate the qualifications to be vice-president with the qualifications to be president. The president doesn't get any on-the-job training. The vice president essentially starts an apprenticeship the day that he/she is sworn in. Unless John McCain drops dead almost immediately after taking office, Palin will have that apprenticeship as part of her qualifications to be president.

If John McCain is healthy during his entire presidency then Palin's experience is irrelevant. If Palin ever has to assume the presidency then her experience will include her time as vice-president. At that point her qualifications to be president will be at least the equal of Obama's on the day that Obama would assume the presidency.

I believe you're confusing 'credentials' - outward evidence of performance capacity - with 'qualifications', a term that implies a person is actually qualified to perform, due to their possession of a range of capabililities, some or all of which may go undocumented.

The problem with the latter term of course is that opinions can differ very widely about the underlying facts. With credentials, the range of possible assessments is probably narrower: you either have the degree, or don't; you've held the position, or not; or the degrees/jobs you've held can be ranked vs a competitor's.

Your presentation of the relative 'credentials' of Palin & Obama is probably closer to whatever truth you're trying to reveal, tho even there, as the preceding discussion indicates, opinions can & do vary (Gov of Alaska vs short-tenure US Senator, etc)

drsmooth wrote:

gr wrote:I agree with the political standpoint here. While the blogosphere can pretty much say whatever they want, the Obama campaign can't. I seriously doubt they'll make an issue of this. In 04, both Kerry and Edwards tried to politicize Cheyney's daughter being gay and we saw how well that went over.

Also could re-invigorate - and further confuse - discussion of health care/health insurance issues.

Daughter's certainly within bounds of parents health coverage (Alaskan public employees DO have health benefits don't they?), quite likely up to & including the delivery.

But baby's probably not - so a) pray for the baby's bounteous health b) keep a watchful eye out for proposals for some innovative health benefits modifications across the land.

Assuming that (a) Bristol won't go out and work for health insurance for her child, or (b) that the baby's father doesn't have a job that provides health insurance.

Not to mention that if both b ristol and the baby's father were shiftless bums who didn't go out and work, there is medicaid.

MrsVox wrote:

drsmooth wrote:

gr wrote:I agree with the political standpoint here. While the blogosphere can pretty much say whatever they want, the Obama campaign can't. I seriously doubt they'll make an issue of this. In 04, both Kerry and Edwards tried to politicize Cheyney's daughter being gay and we saw how well that went over.

Also could re-invigorate - and further confuse - discussion of health care/health insurance issues.

Daughter's certainly within bounds of parents health coverage (Alaskan public employees DO have health benefits don't they?), quite likely up to & including the delivery.

But baby's probably not - so a) pray for the baby's bounteous health b) keep a watchful eye out for proposals for some innovative health benefits modifications across the land.

Assuming that (a) Bristol won't go out and work for health insurance for her child, or (b) that the baby's father doesn't have a job that provides health insurance.

Not to mention that if both b ristol and the baby's father were shiftless bums who didn't go out and work, there is medicaid.

what if, like many Americans, they work at jobs that don't provide health insurance?

Weekly World News reporting that Sean Hannity is the father!

Forget Bristol's child or that Palin doesn't have a long resume. By election day she'll convince America she has the stuff. She beat the sitting Republican governor and former Democratic governor in Alaska. No, the big worry is Troopergate

Palin also hired a lawyer three weeks ago to act on her behalf as Alaska legislators investigate whether she abused her power in firing her public safety commissioner for refusing to fire her ex-brother-in-law, a state trooper, CNN confirmed.

A report from the legislative inquiry is expected to be released just days before Election Day.

This "scandal" at best doesn't exist, and at worst isn't any bigger deal than the Biden lawsuits. But "just days before Election Day?" If there's the slightest hint of impropriety it could cost McCain the election. And if there isn't Democrats will yell cover up and come up with someone who'll tell "the truth."

TenuredVulture wrote:

MrsVox wrote:

drsmooth wrote:

gr wrote:I agree with the political standpoint here. While the blogosphere can pretty much say whatever they want, the Obama campaign can't. I seriously doubt they'll make an issue of this. In 04, both Kerry and Edwards tried to politicize Cheyney's daughter being gay and we saw how well that went over.

Also could re-invigorate - and further confuse - discussion of health care/health insurance issues.

Daughter's certainly within bounds of parents health coverage (Alaskan public employees DO have health benefits don't they?), quite likely up to & including the delivery.

But baby's probably not - so a) pray for the baby's bounteous health b) keep a watchful eye out for proposals for some innovative health benefits modifications across the land.

Assuming that (a) Bristol won't go out and work for health insurance for her child, or (b) that the baby's father doesn't have a job that provides health insurance.

Not to mention that if both b ristol and the baby's father were shiftless bums who didn't go out and work, there is medicaid.

what if, like many Americans, they work at jobs that don't provide health insurance?

And this is the root of the health insurance problem -- not to be solved by universal healthcare for all -- but addressing the needs of the working poor who earn too much to qualify for current government programs but can't afford or don't qualify for private healthcare.

MrsVox wrote:

TenuredVulture wrote:

MrsVox wrote:

drsmooth wrote:

gr wrote:I agree with the political standpoint here. While the blogosphere can pretty much say whatever they want, the Obama campaign can't. I seriously doubt they'll make an issue of this. In 04, both Kerry and Edwards tried to politicize Cheyney's daughter being gay and we saw how well that went over.

Also could re-invigorate - and further confuse - discussion of health care/health insurance issues.

Daughter's certainly within bounds of parents health coverage (Alaskan public employees DO have health benefits don't they?), quite likely up to & including the delivery.

But baby's probably not - so a) pray for the baby's bounteous health b) keep a watchful eye out for proposals for some innovative health benefits modifications across the land.

Assuming that (a) Bristol won't go out and work for health insurance for her child, or (b) that the baby's father doesn't have a job that provides health insurance.

Not to mention that if both b ristol and the baby's father were shiftless bums who didn't go out and work, there is medicaid.

what if, like many Americans, they work at jobs that don't provide health insurance?

And this is the root of the health insurance problem -- not to be solved by universal healthcare for all -- but addressing the needs of the working poor who earn too much to qualify for current government programs but can't afford or don't qualify for private healthcare.

How is that not universal health care? Anyway, one thing I think Republicans are correct that we need a health care system that breaks the link between your job and your health insurance.

MrsVox wrote:And this is the root of the health insurance problem -- not to be solved by universal healthcare for all -- but addressing the needs of the working poor who earn too much to qualify for current government programs but can't afford or don't qualify for private healthcare.

So let me see if I have this straight:

1) You're fine with continuing to pay for the (far more expensive) emergency care of those who keep slipping through the cracks.

2) There's some way to "address the needs of the working poor who earn too much to qualify for current government programs" without a big new government program, or at least government oversight of something mandated upon the private sector?

I know conservatives hate universal anything. But I've never seen one grapple with the argument that universality is simply more efficient and cost-effective. Yeah, it treats the "deserving" and "undeserving" equally, but that all gets squared away later on anyway, or so I'm told.

On another subject... if it were the 17 year-old daughter of a Democratic candidate who'd gotten pregnant out of wedlock, I have this odd feeling that Fox News, Radical Cleric Dobson and the rest of the usual suspects would be making certain moral judgments. I'd glad that they seem to be sparing Bristol Palin that condemnation, I just wish the reason for this had to do more with real compassion and less with "Don't screw this up for The Team!"

drsmooth wrote:

TomatoPie wrote:Who thinks she is less qualified than Dan Quayle or Barack Obama?

well, she's over 35 & a citizen. So she's Obama's equal on the basics.
But no serious person, male or female, would contend she has his mental horsepower.

Jimmy Carter reference.

More banter back and forth for another 3 pages...

drsmooth wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:Anyway, don't see what's wrong with what I said. I don't think any of us here really knows how smart Palin is. She does have a lot to prove over the next couple of months, but for you to state flatly that she doesn't have Obama's mental horsepower and quickly reach for the degree comparison is weak. Period.

Then maybe you need a pop, because this is apparently too simple for you to grasp. She may be smart; based on their scholastic accomplishments, odds are that he's the smarter of the two. It's a probability function. I'm sorry you don't have any better comeback than "so you say".

You understand baseball metrics - why should this analogy elude you?

Because that's not what you said. You contended (in the first quote above, in case you misremember) that Palis was less qualified than Obama because he was smarter, and that "no serious person" would disagree.

No mention of probabilities. No mention of why one's credentials for President entail an intelligence test. The Carter reference pointed out this logical jump that you made.


To make this post more interesting, read up on the smartestman in the world.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ak5Lr3qkW0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6mfbUhs2PVY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QA0gjyXG5O0

He supports some limited Eugenics, believes "in the allegorical truth of creation theory. In other words, [he] believe[s] that evolution, including the principle of natural selection, is one of the tools used by God to create mankind." So the smartest man on the world supports some policies that many would consider "crazy" in this day and age.

TenuredVulture wrote:Palin believes in teaching creation science. Automatic disqualification for intelligent in my mind.

:-D

It's interesting that people tend to point out X political candidate is smarter than Y, so X is a better candidate with better policies. This may be a logical argument on some issues (for example, on some economic issues. X can cause Y, a tax lowers consumption, instead of raises it.), but not so on normative issues (eg. This is the best and fairest tax policy, or, we should not be doing X activity). Many of the smartest people I know/read about tend to have a paternalistic view of government. "We are very smart," and thus can make decisions about policy, freedoms and what's best for you.