US 08 Presidential Campaign General Discussion Thread #8

[U2democrat]

i fully expect virginia to turn for mccain based on the state's prior voting record.

Virginia has changed a lot over the last 4 years alone, an influx of out of state people moving in for various reasons, businesses, federal govt workers, etc. The electorate of Virginia simply isn't the same that it has/had been over the last, well, 200 years.

 

[deep]

so do i... which again will likely mean that the election comes down to

McCain's chances in Ohio are improving. too.

 

[corianderstem]

So basically, either way it's up to the national committee of the party in question to appoint a replacement. They wouldn't have to 'promote' the VP candidate to Presidential candidate if they didn't want to.

Good to know. Thanks very much, yolland!

 

[Lila64]

Nice post Utoo (too long to quote )

 

[Strongbow]

what you seem to be missing is that Palin never ran for president. she was selected for the VP by McCain. the VP is traditionally a safe, seasoned politician who's #1 qualification must be their ability to take over the presidency. Clinton, Kennedy, Reagan, Obama -- all these were comparatively fresh faces, but voters are often willing to give the benefit of the experience doubt to a presidential candidate in exchange for a "vision" or other extraordinary political skills. the year + of campaigning acts as it's own vetting process.

what you also seem to be missing about the Palin pick is that this isn't really about Palin. she could prove to be totally competent. she could prove to be little more than snark in $380 rimless glasses.

The question was, what clearly demonstrates Bill Clintons interest in Foreign Policy prior to him running for President in 1991? Thats the standard you set for Palin, so whats your answer for Clinton, Kaine?

Try just answering the question this time.

the point is that McCain picked her for no other reason than that her personality and persona would help him with certain parts of the Republican base and that her newness would juice up his ticket.

Oh and that the fact that she is qualified to be President especially based on the standards you have set for the top of your ticket and those you have supported for President in the past.

there is no policy argument to be made for the selection of Palin.

Whats the policy argument for Tim Kaine?

this is why people have such a tough time with you. several people have answered this question, and you continue to ask it again and again.

Sorry, but saying Tim Kaine was not picked is not an answer to the question.

if Tim Kaine feels he's qualified to be president, great. he can run. we can then see if he is or if he isn't.

I asked YOU, if you thought Time Kaine was qualified to be president. What do you think?

Obama clearly thought he wasn't qualified to be his VP, despite various skills and advantages that Kaine would clearly have brought to the ticket.

Did the Obama campaign team state that Tim Kaine was not picked to be VP because they found that he was not qualified? Is that why they didn't pick Senator Evan Bahy of Indiana, because he was not qualified?

now, comparing the decision making of McCain and Obama, just who do you want dealing with Putin or managing the economy?

Well, I certainly don't want someone who believes Kuwait would be safer today with Saddam in power in Iraq. I certainly don't want someone who thinks Georgia is equally responsible as Russia for what happened in Georgia in August 2008 and does not recognize the danger that Russia can still pose to its neighbors and the rest of Europe. I definitely don't want someone who wants to put unwarrented restrictions on Free Trade. I also don't want someone who is going to raid the defense budget and slow down military modernization in order to pay for his pet domestic programs.

 

[Strongbow]

But you don't become chairman of the DLC without having a substantially developed political ideology on both domestic and foreign issues; that's just common sense.

Well, if thats the case you or someone else should be able to name foreign policy issues that he held prior to running for President. Lets hear some of them.

So far as I know, Tim Kaine's participation in national-level politics is limited to serving on the executive committee of the National Governors Association. I assume his relative lack of experience helping shape the Democratic Party's domestic and foreign policy agenda, combined with his short time in the governor's office thus far, were major factors in Obama's decision not to pick him for VP candidate.

Is that also why they did not select Evan Bayh? The logic many here are using is that simply because Obama did not pick Tim Kaine, it means they did not think he was qualified to be President.

would not expect any of this to matter much to registered Republicans who are strong ideological conservatives and consistently vote Republican. Realistically, if you vote primarily on ideology, you're probably going to be OK with almost anyone your party's nominee picks, so long as s/he doesn't seem A) all-around hopelessly incompetent, B) all-around loathesomely corrupt, or C) a slap in the face to the party's ideological base. (I don't consider Palin any of those things.)

Republicans but not Democrats?

 

[U2Fanatic4ever]

well said post Steve!

 

[Strongbow]

I think you're missing the point on multiple fronts. First, with regard to Kaine: It truly doesn't matter whether or not he is prepared to be President. Yes, he was vetted thoroughly and was one of the top picks for a long time because he had many other appealing attributes about him. But the fact of the matter is this: Barack Obama himself decided that he was not prepared to be POTUS. No one here is saying that he was prepared. Obama is not saying Kaine was prepared. Why are you asking us to come up with a reason to say he was? The difference between Kaine and Palin is this: While neither has the full package of preparedness, Obama deemed Kaine inappropriate, while McCain somehow decided Palin was ready. People can sit here and point out why Kaine wasn't ready, but there's no need to argue that he was because he's simply not being put up to the task. Palin, on the other hand, has been thrust into the position. It makes so much sense to ask if she is ready.

Well then based on that logic, I guess we should assume the reason Obama did not pick Evan Bahy was because he was not qualified either, right?

Your only evidence for claiming that Obama did not think Tim Kaine was qualified is the fact that he was not picked. Well, you could use that same evidence to say the same thing about Evan Bahy and the rest of the Democratic party. After all, they were not picked.

Do I think that having had a somewhat rocky tenure as mayor of a town of 5,000 people for a half dozen years makes one ready to be POTUS? No. Do I think that having a 1 1/2 year tenure as governor of one of the country's least populated, most remote states makes one ready? No. Do I think that those two things combined make one ready? Not at all.

Do you think serving as a state representitive from a county with only 3,000 people for half a dozen years makes one ready to be POTUS? Do you think serving one term in the US House of Representitives, representing a district with only 20,000 people makes one ready to be POTUS?

 

[Utoo]

Do you think serving as a state representitive from a county with only 3,000 people for half a dozen years makes one ready to be POTUS? Do you think serving one term in the US House of Representitives, representing a district with only 20,000 people makes one ready to be POTUS?

One requirement for being POTUS is understanding what you read.

I believe the theme of my post was that there is no one, be-all end-all thing that makes a person ready to be POTUS.

 

[Strongbow]

One requirement for being POTUS is understanding what you read.

I believe the theme of my post was that there is no one, be-all end-all thing that makes a person ready to be POTUS.

This is what I was responding to:

Do I think that having had a somewhat rocky tenure as mayor of a town of 5,000 people for a half dozen years makes one ready to be POTUS? No. Do I think that having a 1 1/2 year tenure as governor of one of the country's least populated, most remote states makes one ready? No. Do I think that those two things combined make one ready? Not at all.

Your words not mine.

 

[Irvine511]

One requirement for being POTUS is understanding what you read.

I believe the theme of my post was that there is no one, be-all end-all thing that makes a person ready to be POTUS.

i wish you luck with this. i just don't have the energy.

 

[phillyfan26]

Do you think serving as a state representitive from a county with only 3,000 people for half a dozen years makes one ready to be POTUS? Do you think serving one term in the US House of Representitives, representing a district with only 20,000 people makes one ready to be POTUS?

Who on either ticket has this background?

 

[yolland]

Well, if thats the case you or someone else should be able to name foreign policy issues that he held prior to running for President.

As I said earlier,

While governor of Arkansas, Bill Clinton served as chair of both the National Governors' Association and the Democratic Leadership Council, both national-level organizations; the DLC formulates policy stances on a comprehensive range of US domestic and foreign issues, while the NGA primarily focuses on liaison between the federal and state governments. Jimmy Carter, while governor of Georgia, served as the DNC chair for all congressional and gubernatorial campaigns. Those are the kinds of things state-level executives with aspirations to move onto the national stage do--especially when they're single-termers (or less) from 'unimportant' states and thus lacking in name recognition and connections compared to, say, multi-term governors of CA or TX.

And much more to the point--at least, the one I was making--it demonstrates to your party that you have ambitious aspirations to national office, that you're keenly interested in having a voice in shaping your party's agenda at the national level. There are multiple ways to show that of course, but I can't think of any that Gov. Palin has shown.

Which precise stances Clinton articulated on foreign AND national-domestic issues (I never suggested only foreign policy was relevant) while with the DLC don't matter, and I never claimed to know them; it's just the nature of the organization to develop and promote neoliberal, 'New Democrat' agendas through its membership, which consists mostly of current and former elected officials (national and state level). It simply isn't possible to become DLC chair without extensive involvement in that process. It was two decades ago when Bill Clinton did that--I have no idea which of its initiatives might have been 'pet projects' of his, nor do I see any point in taking the time to research them. Which national political organizations has Palin held leadership positions in? What did she do prior to being nominated to demonstrate an ambition to influence Republican domestic and foreign policy at the national level? And in the absence of either of those things, what does her record of public statements on federal matters show about her domestic and foreign policy acumen?

Is that also why they did not select Evan Bayh? The logic many here are using is that simply because Obama did not pick Tim Kaine, it means they did not think he was qualified to be President.

Bayh has several more years in office at both the national and state levels than Kaine does (or Obama, at least at the national level), but not as many as Biden. Again, I'd assume Biden was picked because he had the most experience in national office, an area in which many voters see Obama as lacking. Obama is better prepared for national office than Palin--he's held national office for three-and-a-half years already, for that matter--but he's obviously logged far fewer years in the Senate than McCain.

deep has made the point repeatedly that McCain, because of his many years in the Senate, had less of a strategic need than Obama to pick a VP candidate with many years of experience in public office. I agree with that, but Palin is an extreme--no national-level experience, only a year-and-a-half state-level experience, no prior indication of fast-track ambitions to a national career. Again, I see the Palin pick as indicative of McCain's beholdenness to the right wing of the GOP, not to his 'maverick' tendencies, which would be better suited to the likes of Lieberman or Ridge--candidates who would further alienate his party's right wing.

Republicans but not Democrats?

You mean this part?

Realistically, if you vote primarily on ideology, you're probably going to be OK with almost anyone your party's nominee picks, so long as s/he doesn't seem A) all-around hopelessly incompetent, B) all-around loathesomely corrupt, or C) a slap in the face to the party's ideological base.

No, of course that applies to both parties.

 

[Strongbow]

Who on either ticket has this background?

No one, I was just asking if they thought that level of experience would, or would not qualify the person to be President.

 

[Strongbow]

As I said earlier,


Which precise stances Clinton articulated on foreign AND national-domestic issues (I never suggested only foreign policy was relevant) while with the DLC don't matter, and I never claimed to know them; it's just the nature of the organization to develop and promote neoliberal, 'New Democrat' agendas through its membership, which consists mostly of current and former elected officials (national and state level). It simply isn't possible to become DLC chair without extensive involvement in that process. It was two decades ago when Bill Clinton did that--I have no idea which of its initiatives might have been 'pet projects' of his, nor do I see any point in taking the time to research them.

Even if you could find something, this is a razor thin arguement at best for suggesting that Bill Clinton was prepared to be President, but Sarah Palin is not. I noticed that he was chair for one year from 1990 to 1991, during the large scale military intervention by the United States in the Persian Gulf. But the media had trouble finding what Bill Clinton's views were on the 1991 Gulf War at the time it happened, and doubts that he might of been against it, or on the fence about it, is said to have impacted his decision in picking Al Gore to be his running mate, one of the few Democratic Senators to vote for the 1991 Gulf War. What were his responsibilities as the DLC chair in 1990-1991? Exactly how much time did he spend with it during that year?

I agree with that, but Palin is an extreme--no national-level experience, only a year-and-a-half state-level experience, no prior indication of fast-track ambitions to a national career.

Well, how would you describe Tim Kaine? Its simply to far of a stretch to suggest that Kaine is qualified and Palin is not.

But hey, if the Democrats think thats their best shot of winning now, to go after Palin and her qualifications to be on the ticket, I say go for it. I'm sure independent women everywhere will love to hear such razor thin arguements that Governors Kaine and Clinton were qualified to be President, but Palin is not.

No, of course that applies to both parties.

I just noticed you mentioned Republicans and not Republicans AND Democrats.

 

[Diemen]

Well, how would you describe Tim Kaine? Its simply to far of a stretch to suggest that Kaine is qualified and Palin is not.

You continue to bring up Kaine to the detriment of your argument. Obama did not pick Kaine. I take that to mean that Obama did not consider Kaine to be the right person for the job. And besides, no one in here is claiming that Kaine is qualified and Palin isn't (constructing your own opposition argument once again...). So go ahead and harp away at Kaine, but the fact of the matter is he's not in the picture. Sarah Palin is.

 

[Diemen]

Which national political organizations has Palin held leadership positions in? What did she do prior to being nominated to demonstrate an ambition to influence Republican domestic and foreign policy at the national level? And in the absence of either of those things, what does her record of public statements on federal matters show about her domestic and foreign policy acumen?

I noticed you skipped over this part, Sting. Perhaps because the answers are: none, nothing and very little?

 

[yolland]

Even if you could find something, this is a razor thin arguement at best for suggesting that Bill Clinton was prepared to be President, but Sarah Palin is not.

Surprise surprise, you're twisting my argument. I did not say that serving as chair of the DLC and the NGA shows preparedness for being President; I said it demonstrates ambition on the part of a state-level executive to move onto the national stage and develop connections and name recognition within their party nationally. Clinton was a governor for 10 years as opposed to Palin's year-and-a-half, and he spent 10 months on the presidential campaign trail laying out his domestic and foreign policy stances as opposed to being plucked from national obscurity 2 months before the general election. As of September 1992, he didn't have anywhere near as much to prove in terms of either experience in office or knowledgeability on domestic and foreign policy issues as Gov. Palin does in September 2008. But IF Palin had made a point of seeking leadership positions with comparable national-level organizations, it would at least be something to point to as evidence that she's not a blank slate on national issues; that OK, so she may have only a year-and-a-half as governor under her belt, but she obviously has big ambitions for and "expressed interest" (as you put it) in national-level politics, as evinced by having taken on leadership positions in ________ while serving as governor.

Again--which national political organizations has Palin held leadership positions in? What did she do prior to being nominated to demonstrate an ambition to influence Republican domestic and foreign policy at the national level? And in the absence of either of those things, what does her record of public statements on federal matters show about her domestic and foreign policy acumen? Obama, McCain and Biden have all proven their knowledgeability of and involvement with shaping domestic and foreign policy--what are her credentials there?

But hey, if the Democrats think thats their best shot of winning now, to go after Palin and her qualifications to be on the ticket, I say go for it.

It's not about her, it's about the man who just selected her as his nominee for the second-highest political office in the country; without him she wouldn't be there. What does that say about who he's beholden to and what he's willing to sacrifice to please them? Do you really think John McCain considers her the best-prepared, or even the second or third or fourth best-prepared, person for that office from his original list of potential picks?


Anyway, no one here has any influence over how the Democratic Party 'goes after' Palin (I presume they'll continue to focus on McCain), nor how she's ultimately perceived by independents. I'm not in charge of Obama's campaign strategy and make no pretense at offering any other perceptions than my own.

I just noticed you mentioned Republicans and not Republicans AND Democrats.

Because it's the Republican VP candidate we're discussing.

Not sure what function these are supposed to serve; the sentences they're bookending were obviously not intended either affectionately nor humorously.

 

[Strongbow]

he spent 10 months on the presidential campaign trail laying out his domestic and foreign policy stances as opposed to being plucked from national obscurity 2 months before the general election. As of September 1992, he didn't have anywhere near as much to prove in terms of either experience in office or knowledgeability on domestic and foreign policy issues as Gov. Palin does in September 2008.

I think I have consistently stated I was talking about Governor Clinton prior to him running for the White House.

Again--which national political organizations has Palin held leadership positions in? What did she do prior to being nominated to demonstrate an ambition to influence Republican domestic and foreign policy at the national level? And in the absence of either of those things, what does her record of public statements on federal matters show about her domestic and foreign policy acumen? Obama, McCain and Biden have all proven their knowledgeability of and involvement with shaping domestic and foreign policy--what are her credentials there?

Well, you really can't answer those questions about Clinton aside from listing the fact that he was the Chair of a couple of organizations that really have questionable impact on him being prepared to be President or Vice President. Do you think Clinton was qualified to be VP on the Democratic ticket in 1984? 1988? What about Tim Kaine?

Its just inconsistent to be implying that Tim Kaine and Clinton were ready to be Vice President or President prior to the election campaigns they were involved in or considered for and Palin is not. Sure, you can list a couple of clubs Clinton was briefly in, but to use that as an arguement against Palin is a bit extreme.

It's not about her, it's about the man who just selected her as his nominee for the second-highest political office in the country; without him she wouldn't be there. What does that say about who he's beholden to and what he's willing to sacrifice to please them?

I don't think the fact that he went with Palin rather than Lieberman or Ridge shows that he his beholden to the party base anymore than any prior Republican candidate for President. Its simply not politically possible to put a pro-choice candidate on the ticket and win do to the size of the base that would leave. Would the Democrats ever put a pro-life candidate on the ticket? What does that say about who Democrats are beholden to and what they would be willing to sacrifice to please them?

Do you really think John McCain considers her the best-prepared, or even the second or third or fourth best-prepared, person for that office from his original list of potential picks?

No, but thats not the only factor one considers in choosing among people who are qualified to be Vice President, as the Obama campaigns strong consideration of Tim Kaine shows. Is Tim Kaine really one of the top 3 best prepared people in the Democratic party for the office of Vice President?

 

[Strongbow]

You continue to bring up Kaine to the detriment of your argument. Obama did not pick Kaine. I take that to mean that Obama did not consider Kaine to be the right person for the job. And besides, no one in here is claiming that Kaine is qualified and Palin isn't (constructing your own opposition argument once again...). So go ahead and harp away at Kaine, but the fact of the matter is he's not in the picture. Sarah Palin is.

The fact that Obama did not pick Kaine is irrelevant. We have already had multiple people on here saying that Palin is not qualified. Well, if Palin is not qualified how can one argue that Kaine is qualified, which the Obama compaign seriously believed that he was, which is why he was one of the top 3 VP picks for team Obama.

Just because Kaine was not picked is not arguement for saying that team Obama thought he was unqualified or not the right man for the job. Otherwise you could say that about everyone that Team Obama did not pick, concluding that Biden was the only man for the job.

Team Obama caculated from a political stand point that Biden was the VP candidate among the ones they considered, that would maximize Obama's chances of winning in November.

 

[Strongbow]

I noticed you skipped over this part, Sting. Perhaps because the answers are: none, nothing and very little?

Not really any different for Tim Kaine or Governor Clinton prior to him running for President.

 

[Irvine511]

The fact that Obama did not pick Kaine is irrelevant.

except that it is.

 

[diamond]

Don't look now Boo boo but McCain has opened up a 15 point lead among Independents:

McCain Now Winning Majority of Independents

<>

 

[Irvine511]

Don't look now Boo boo but McCain has opened up a 15 point lead among Independents:

McCain Now Winning Majority of Independents

<>

i still want you.

 

[namkcuR]

How about, given that:

1.Sting feels that the fact that Obama didn't pick Kaine is irrelevant and that just the consideration of Kaine merits discussion.

2.Everyone else feels that the fact that Obama DID NOT pick Kaine illustrates that Obama judged Kaine to not be the best pick for VP and therefore any other discussion of Kaine's qualifications or preparedness to be VP are irrelevant.

we all just agree that no common ground is going to be found on this topic.

Because we're just going in circles right now.

"Obama didn't pick Kaine, so it doesn't matter!"

"But Kaine was a finalist, so it does matter!"

"But Obama didn't pick Kaine, so it doesn't matter!"

"But Kaine was a finalist, so it does matter!"

That's basically what's being said here.

 

[Irvine511]

How about, given that:

1.Sting feels that the fact that Obama didn't pick Kaine is irrelevant and that just the consideration of Kaine merits discussion.

2.Everyone else feels that the fact that Obama DID NOT pick Kaine illustrates that Obama judged Kaine to not be the best pick for VP and therefore any other discussion of Kaine's qualifications or preparedness to be VP are irrelevant.

we all just agree that no common ground is going to be found on this topic.

Because we're just going in circles right now.

"Obama didn't pick Kaine, so it doesn't matter!"

"But Kaine was a finalist, so it does matter!"

"But Obama didn't pick Kaine, so it doesn't matter!"

"But Kaine was a finalist, so it does matter!"

That's basically what's being said here.

what's interesting is that the structure of this "discussion" as you've outlined above continues to repeat itself on other topics.

 

[TheEdge U2JT]

It's all irrelevant. The VP picks are Palin and Biden. Any discussion of anyone other than these 2 is a waste of time. Any speculation about the ones who were not chose is just that...speculation. That type of analysis can be saved for after the election when we are discussing why Obama lost by not picking Clinton...

just kidding. I could resist.

Kaine is not the choice so any discussion about him and his experience does not matter. Its Biden's strengths and weaknesses that are effecting the Obama ticket.

 

[namkcuR]

It's all irrelevant. The VP picks are Palin and Biden. Any discussion of anyone other than these 2 is a waste of time. Any speculation about the ones who were not chose is just that...speculation. That type of analysis can be saved for after the election when we are discussing why Obama lost by not picking Clinton...

just kidding. I could resist.

Kaine is not the choice so any discussion about him and his experience does not matter. Its Biden's strengths and weaknesses that are effecting the Obama ticket.

Glad you see it that way.

And Biden's strengths are effecting the Obama ticket in a very positive way.

Understand this: The ONLY thing that might stop Biden from absolutely eviscerating Palin in the VP debate is the fear of right-wing media saying that Biden was too rough with her, bullied her, whatever. He won't bully her at all, he's much to classy a man for that - but the media will report it that way anyway if he so much as raises his voice to make a point.

Imo, the Democratic ticket has two people with whom I would feel 100% comfortable being president, while the Republican ticket is struggling to have one.

I realize your opinion is and will be 100% the opposite.

 

[TheEdge U2JT]

Glad you see it that way.

And Biden's strengths are effecting the Obama ticket in a very positive way.

Understand this: The ONLY thing that might stop Biden from absolutely eviscerating Palin in the VP debate is the fear of right-wing media saying that Biden was too rough with her, bullied her, whatever. He won't bully her at all, he's much to classy a man for that - but the media will report it that way anyway if he so much as raises his voice to make a point.

Imo, the Democratic ticket has two people with whom I would feel 100% comfortable being president, while the Republican ticket is struggling to have one.

I realize your opinion is and will be 100% the opposite.

Not 100% opposite, but maybe a bit more open minded


I think you are giving a lot of credit to Biden who was not very strong in the debates for the Democratic nomination. To say "ONLY thing" is having a pretty narrow view. She many not have a background in the Washington political machine but she's not a complete idiot. They both have challenges in how they will come across to Americans regardless of WHAT they say. What they say is most important but if either comes across as an a-hole or mean or ???, what they say might not get heard.

It will be a fun debate to watch.

 

[Irvine511]

It will be a fun debate to watch.

my guess is that it's going to be really, really painful. he'll come off stilted and awkward, and she'll just repeat her lines.