US 08 Presidential Campaign General Discussion Thread #8

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
A Timely Poll on Media Bias:

Political Diary
By BRIAN M. CARNEY
September 7, 2008

What Sarah Knows
Sarah Palin has gotten some rough treatment from the media since John McCain announced his vice presidential pick. In her speech last week, she gave a little jab back at "all those reporters and commentators." That won't likely win her many new admirers in the Washington press corps. But Rasmussen has a new poll out that suggests that piling on Mrs. Palin may do more to harm the media's own image than hers.


According to Rasmussen, fully 68% of voters believe that "most reporters try to help the candidate they want to win." And -- no surprise -- 49% of those surveyed believe reporters are backing Barack Obama, while just 14% think the media is in the tank for Sen. McCain.

Meanwhile, 51% of those surveyed thought the press was "trying to hurt" Mrs. Palin with its coverage.

Perhaps most troubling for the press corps, though, was this finding: "55% said media bias is a bigger problem for the electoral process than large campaign donations."
Wow. Politicians like to rail about the nefarious influence of money on politics (and John McCain is a champion in this regard), a stance that always elicits applause from reporters. Ask the public, though, and a bigger problem is the media's own influence. Mrs. Palin, it seems, was on firm political footing when she thumbed her nose at "all those
 
the action that pro-choice people take is to fight for abortion to remain legal while supporting comprehensive sex education, fully funded birth control, and the overall advancement and education of women because the more educated women are the more in control of when and how they get pregnant they tend to be. action is also taken by parents who tell their daughters that they are worth more than the status of their virginity, that sex isn't shameful but entirely natural and something that must be approached with caution, knowledge and protection.

You forgot about the right.

They have promise rings, virginity pledges (anal is OK?), the Church says condoms are the devil, and all life is sacred until it's born to a mother in Harlem, then it becomes a welfare problem.

I really wish I were kidding, but I'm not. The reality of the matter is that if you look at the actions of the left and the right in this matter, the right has been almost completely negligent and has stifled any sort of educational progress in the name of religion. It isn't secularists who oppose the birth control pill, the morning after pill, condoms and other forms of contraception. It isn't secularists who have a problem with providing free condoms to teenagers. It isn't secularists who think that abstinence only works or who pushed Bush into funding only abstinence-only programs abroad, hey that's sure going to work wonders in those high HIV infection areas. There may be a lot of issues where both sides are equally responsible for the current state of affairs. But when it comes to contraception and comprehensive sex ed, it's all on the right. They are responsible for the failure we find ourselves in.

(Now that is to say nothing of certain men and women out there who are inherently irresponsible and don't give a shit. They most certainly exist and their actions are theirs alone.)

I worked with a girl who got married at 20 because "you know how it is" - and I had to say that no, I really didn't.
 
Well there are many education bills that come to the desk of the president, but I'm sure you are aware of that...

Also, if we have a VP potential President that holds these beliefs it brings a certain legitimacy to this type of backwards thinking...

And would that bill get through congress?

I dont think saying backwards thinking is fair. She has an opinion and there are many Americans, like it or not, that have the same beliefs. You many not agree but by saying that it is backwards thinking, you are saying your position is absolutely right. I'm not say that is it or is is not. It is just an opinion. Others may argue that that YOUR position is backwards thinking. They are not more correct than you.

I think this is part of the problem. A lack of respect on both sides. There can never be compromise if you cannot acknowledge and respect the other side.

Where is the give and take? Would the left be willing to give up late term abortions? Partial Birth abortions? Would they compromise for the right supporting education programs and birth control. Not that it would happen but just asking....what is the Pro-choice willing to give to try to meet somewhere in the middle?
 
And would that bill get through congress?

I dont think saying backwards thinking is fair. She has an opinion and there are many Americans, like it or not, that have the same beliefs. You many not agree but by saying that it is backwards thinking, you are saying your position is absolutely right. I'm not say that is it or is is not. It is just an opinion. Others may argue that that YOUR position is backwards thinking. They are not more correct than you.

I think this is part of the problem. A lack of respect on both sides. There can never be compromise if you cannot acknowledge and respect the other side.

Would it pass? If we keep electing politicians like Palin, then yes...

It is backwards, I stand by that. There are a lot of opinions in life that I may not agree with but I respect and am willing to compromise, but this is not one. It's been proven wrong time and time again and not only that, it's a belief that purposely bans certain thought, there's nothing American about banning...
 
And speaking of which, I have a totally random question. What happens if one of the candidates drops dead before the election?
I was thinking about that as well yesterday. Anyone have an answer? Would the VP pick become the nominee? Would the election be postponed? Would there be another set of primaries to choose a nominee?
GOP Rules
Rule 9: Filling Vacancies in Nominations

(a) The Republican National Committee is hereby authorized and empowered to fill any and all vacancies which may occur by reason of death, declination, or otherwise of the Republican candidate for President of the United States or the Republican candidate for Vice President of the United States, as nominated by the national convention, or the Republican National Committee may reconvene the national convention for the purpose of filling any such vacancies.

(b) In voting under this rule, the Republican National Committee members representing any state shall be entitled to cast the same number of votes as said state was entitled to cast at the national convention.
DNC charter
Article 3, Section 1

The Democratic National Committee shall have general responsibility for the affairs of the Democratic Party between National Conventions, subject to the provisions of this Charter and to the resolutions or other actions of the National Convention. This responsibility shall include:

...(c) filling vacancies in the nominations for the office of President and Vice President;

Bylaws, Article 2, Section 7

...(c) Special meetings of the National Committee may be held upon the call of the Chairperson with the approval of the Executive Committee with reasonable notice to the members, and no action may be taken at such a special meeting unless such proposed action was included in the notice of the special meeting. The foregoing notwithstanding, a special meeting to fill a vacancy on the National ticket shall be held on the call of the Chairperson, who shall set the date for such meeting in accordance with the procedural rules provided for in Article Two, Section 8(d) of these Bylaws.
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.

As for postponing elections, the constitutional authority to do that rests with Congress, so that'd be up to them to decide.
 
Last edited:
Would it pass? If we keep electing politicians like Palin, then yes...

It is backwards, I stand by that. There are a lot of opinions in life that I may not agree with but I respect and am willing to compromise, but this is not one. It's been proven wrong time and time again and not only that, it's a belief that purposely bans certain thought, there's nothing American about banning...

I respectfully disagree. I may not agree with it but I still respect the people who hold to that belief. My opinion is the absolute right for only one person in America..me. I cannot discredit anyone else just because I dont agree.

Also, she was not just about teaching abstinence. It is another of the things about Palin that has been misrepresented. She was for teaching both sides. Her daughter received both too.

Nothing American about banning.? What about banning DDT? Banning Child Porn? Asbestoses?
 
so, at the very least, you are admitting to the fact that she is a purely political pick and her pick had absolutely nothing to do with her ability to run the country in the event McCain becomes incapable of performing his duties?

in essence, she is a gimmick.


Saying that one is the best candidate for VP to help the ticket win in November in no way implies that its a "gimmick". This form of criticism is funny considering who is at the TOP of the Democratic ticket.
 
I am glad I'm not him because I think all of his choices were terrible.

And I don't think that Palin is a magic bullet among women that they are hoping she is. Will she pick up some women? Sure. Enough women to make a tangible difference given how far behind he is with that voting bloc? No.

If Palin didn't have extreme views on birth control, abortion (even in cases of rape & incest) and creationism, she'd pick up way more women because she is not inherently unlikeable. But these are really really bad positions to have when you are seeking MODERATES. How many moderates do you know who believe we shouldn't have the birth control pill available and that their daughters should give birth to rapists' babies? Palin is way right on these issues.

Well, Ronald Reagan got 56% of the female vote despite having many of the same positions that Sarah Palin has on those issues.

It remains to be seen how much pull Sarah Palin will have, but already things are looking good for McCain. A new USA TODAY/GALLUP poll of "likely Voters" has McCain 10 points ahead of Obama. You have to admit, this has been a very good week for John McCain.
 
Also, she was not just about teaching abstinence. It is another of the things about Palin that has been misrepresented. She was for teaching both sides. Her daughter received both too.

Do you happen to have a source?


Nothing American about banning.? What about banning DDT? Banning Child Porn? Asbestoses?

Well I actually meant banning information.

But your example of child porn doesn't work here. Child porn is illegal and criminal, that's like saying we ban abuse or murder...:huh:
 
the action that pro-choice people take is to fight for abortion to remain legal while supporting comprehensive sex education, fully funded birth control, and the overall advancement and education of women because the more educated women are the more in control of when and how they get pregnant they tend to be. action is also taken by parents who tell their daughters that they are worth more than the status of their virginity, that sex isn't shameful but entirely natural and something that must be approached with caution, knowledge and protection.

so it's a multi-pronged thing.

at the bottom line, every pro-choice person wants each pregnancy to be a wanted pregnancy. many pro-choice people view each and every abortion as a failure, or even a tragedy. but they believe that a woman must be able to control when she does and does not get pregnant.

I had to leave to do something so I couldn't respond, but I see Irvine was as insightful and eloquent as ever in my absence.
 
Do you happen to have a source?

Yes. An LA Times article quoting Sarah Palin during a gubernatorial debate.

In a widely quoted 2006 survey she answered during her gubernatorial campaign, Palin said she supported abstinence-until-marriage programs. But weeks later, she proclaimed herself "pro-contraception" and said condoms ought to be discussed in schools alongside abstinence.

"I'm pro-contraception, and I think kids who may not hear about it at home should hear about it in other avenues," she said during a debate in Juneau

also

Palin wrote, "Yes, the explicit sex-ed programs will not find my support."

But in August of that year, Palin was asked during a KTOO radio debate if "explicit" programs include those that discuss condoms. Palin said no and called discussions of condoms "relatively benign."

"Explicit means explicit," she said. "No, I'm pro-contraception, and I think kids who may not hear about it at home should hear about it in other avenues. So I am not anti-contraception. But, yeah, abstinence is another alternative that should be discussed with kids. I don't have a problem with that. That doesn't scare me, so it's something I would support also."



Seems that she is not as backwards as you thought:doh:
 
Palin wrote, "Yes, the explicit sex-ed programs will not find my support."

But in August of that year, Palin was asked during a KTOO radio debate if "explicit" programs include those that discuss condoms. Palin said no and called discussions of condoms "relatively benign."

"Explicit means explicit," she said. "No, I'm pro-contraception, and I think kids who may not hear about it at home should hear about it in other avenues. So I am not anti-contraception. But, yeah, abstinence is another alternative that should be discussed with kids. I don't have a problem with that. That doesn't scare me, so it's something I would support also."



Seems that she is not as backwards as you thought:doh:

How does one effectively teach about condom use without doing it explicitly? Think about it...kids are rank beginners in the having sex department (hopefully they are anyway). Telling them to use condoms without telling them exactly how isn't going to do a hell of a lot of good. Telling them to practice safe sex doesn't do much good if they don't know exactly what that entails. If we don't want kids having babies (or having abortions) or getting STDs we have to get over being squeamish about sex and learn to teach them openly and even bluntly about (pardon the pun) all the ins and outs of sex.
 
How does one effectively teach about condom use without doing it explicitly? Think about it...kids are rank beginners in the having sex department (hopefully they are anyway). Telling them to use condoms without telling them exactly how isn't a hell of a lot of good. Telling them to practice safe sex doesn't do much good if they don't know exactly what that entails. If we don't want kids having babies or getting STDs we have to get over being squeamish about sex and learn to teach them openly and even bluntly about (pardon the pun) all the ins and outs of sex.


You dont even know what she is defining as "explicit" but you seem to be instantly jumping to a negative conclusion? From what I have read on here, it seems everyone believed that she was ONLY in favor of abstinence programs. That was proven wrong. Is everything with her is guilty until proven innocent? It will be interesting to see if the masses of America treat her the same way and jump to negative conclusions or if they have an open mind and seek the truth.

If she really is a bad person, it will show itself. I have seen it before in people. The bad decisions, lies and such cannot be hidden. The truth comes out for those who are willing to seek it and not buy in to excuses.
 
You dont even know what she is defining as "explicit" but you seem to be instantly jumping to a negative conclusion?

I was using the dictionary definition of explicit, which is:

1. fully and clearly expressed or demonstrated; leaving nothing merely implied; unequivocal: explicit instructions; an explicit act of violence; explicit language.
2. clearly developed or formulated: explicit knowledge; explicit belief.
3. definite and unreserved in expression; outspoken: He was quite explicit as to what he expected us to do for him.
4. described or shown in realistic detail: explicit sexual scenes.
5. having sexual acts or nudity clearly depicted: explicit movies; explicit books.

I assumed she was also using that definition.

So I still wonder how sex education that isn't explicit (see definition above) does any good. :shrug:
 
Hey who was it in here that was insisting that the NY Post is a librul paper? Here comes their librul endorsement!!

THE Post today enthusiastically urges the election of Sen. John S. McCain as the 44th president of the United States.

McCain's lifelong record of service to America, his battle-tested courage, unshakeable devotion to principle and clear grasp of the dangers and opportunities now facing the nation stand in dramatic contrast to the tissue-paper-thin résumé of his Democratic opponent, freshman Sen. Barack Obama.
 
Don't forget that anti-choice presidents can issue executive orders allowing certain doctors that ability to deny treatment to people that have "moral issues" with, and our present anti-choice president has curtailed access to birth control to the women overseas getting US-funded healthcare and family planning.

And who can ever forget Ronnie calling up the anti-choice protesters who used to assemble in DC every year (on my birthday, no less), giving them encouragement.

So don't discount the influence of an anti-choice administration. They will and do have unnecessary influence over the lives and health of millions of women around the world.
 
Yes. An LA Times article quoting Sarah Palin during a gubernatorial debate.

In a widely quoted 2006 survey she answered during her gubernatorial campaign, Palin said she supported abstinence-until-marriage programs. But weeks later, she proclaimed herself "pro-contraception" and said condoms ought to be discussed in schools alongside abstinence.

"I'm pro-contraception, and I think kids who may not hear about it at home should hear about it in other avenues," she said during a debate in Juneau

also

Palin wrote, "Yes, the explicit sex-ed programs will not find my support."

But in August of that year, Palin was asked during a KTOO radio debate if "explicit" programs include those that discuss condoms. Palin said no and called discussions of condoms "relatively benign."

"Explicit means explicit," she said. "No, I'm pro-contraception, and I think kids who may not hear about it at home should hear about it in other avenues. So I am not anti-contraception. But, yeah, abstinence is another alternative that should be discussed with kids. I don't have a problem with that. That doesn't scare me, so it's something I would support also."



Seems that she is not as backwards as you thought:doh:

Either you don't understand Sarah's stance or she doesn't understand it herself. How do you teach contraception if you don't teach sex? In the education questionaire for her gubernatorial race this is what Palin wrote:

3. Will you support funding for abstinence-until-marriage education instead of for explicit sex-education programs, school-based clinics, and the distribution of contraceptives in schools?

SP: Yes, the explicit sex-ed programs will not find my support.
 
I was using the dictionary definition of explicit, which is:

1. fully and clearly expressed or demonstrated; leaving nothing merely implied; unequivocal: explicit instructions; an explicit act of violence; explicit language.
2. clearly developed or formulated: explicit knowledge; explicit belief.
3. definite and unreserved in expression; outspoken: He was quite explicit as to what he expected us to do for him.
4. described or shown in realistic detail: explicit sexual scenes.
5. having sexual acts or nudity clearly depicted: explicit movies; explicit books.

I assumed she was also using that definition.

So I still wonder how sex education that isn't explicit (see definition above) does any good. :shrug:

Then I agree with her. I don't find it necessary, using points 4 and 5, to be showing porn as part of sex education. I dont see it as a "how to" class. It should be comprehensive education. Discuss STD's and how the rise in Chlamydia has resulted in increased eptopic pregnancies. How HPV give a woman a 70 times greater chance of cervical cancer. Cover birth control. Instill in the boys an understanding that birth control isn't just the girl responsibility.
 
I'm just wondering, does anyone here actually volunteer for either of the campaigns on a consistent basis?


Just curious. I want to know how active FYMers are beyond this message board...which is why I've barely been posting during the election and won't be posting much through Nov. 4 (I'm an intern).


I haven't done anything out in the field, though I'm setting up one of those donation webpages that I can get friends to donate to Obama through my page. Trying to decide if I should set a realistic goal or an ambitious one....:hmm:
 
Then I agree with her. I don't find it necessary, using points 4 and 5, to be showing porn as part of sex education. I dont see it as a "how to" class. It should be comprehensive education. Discuss STD's and how the rise in Chlamydia has resulted in increased eptopic pregnancies. How HPV give a woman a 70 times greater chance of cervical cancer. Cover birth control. Instill in the boys an understanding that birth control isn't just the girl responsibility.

There are no sex ed programs out there that are showing porn. :doh:

No one is asking for a "how to" class in the sense of "well here's this position" or "if you really want her to feel good do this", but you have to teach the basic "how to's". You have to know what sex actually is before you protect yourself, you have to know how to properly use contraception otherwise it may not work. And yes you have to teach the risks but not as a scare tactic.
 
There are no sex ed programs out there that are showing porn. :doh:

No one is asking for a "how to" class in the sense of "well here's this position" or "if you really want her to feel good do this", but you have to teach the basic "how to's". You have to know what sex actually is before you protect yourself, you have to know how to properly use contraception otherwise it may not work. And yes you have to teach the risks but not as a scare tactic.


I agree, I said comprehensive. It can be done in a respectable way as to not offend. I dont think you need to show "movies or depict explicit sexual scenes".....as per the posted definition, to accomplish to goal of teaching.
 
Saying that one is the best candidate for VP to help the ticket win in November in no way implies that its a "gimmick". This form of criticism is funny considering who is at the TOP of the Democratic ticket.



if you're going to criticize who is at the TOP of the Democratic ticket, how can you either defend who is also on the GOP ticket or the reckless, entirely political decision made by the man on the TOP of the Republican ticket?

so if Obama isn't qualified, and doesn't have the experience, then why did McCain choose someone to be next in line who's even less experienced than the person he has been trying to claim, for months, lacks experience?
 
if you're going to criticize who is at the TOP of the Democratic ticket, how can you either defend who is also on the GOP ticket or the reckless, entirely political decision made by the man on the TOP of the Republican ticket?

so if Obama isn't qualified, and doesn't have the experience, then why did McCain choose someone to be next in line who's even less experienced than the person he has been trying to claim, for months, lacks experience?


For the third time now, I have never claimed that Obama was unqualified to be President. I have stated that McCain's experience is a huge asset and that McCain is the best qualified person to be President. I supported George Bush over Al Gore in 2000 despite the fact that Al Gore had more experience than George Bush in government.

McCain chose the qualified candidate who was best positioned to help him win the election. To do otherwise would essentially be voting for Obama.

Ironically, lets take a look at some clips of what Obama's running mate, Joe Biden has said about Obama's qualifications to be President. I don't agree with Biden, but watching this flip-flop is interesting.:wink:

YouTube - Joe Biden swears Obama is not ready to be president

Contrast here what Biden says about Obama and then about John McCain.

YouTube - Even Joe Biden does not believe in Barack Obama!

Joe Biden on why he thinks Obama is now ready:

YouTube - Biden on Obama's Lack of Experience

Barack Obama on why he thinks he is not ready to be President.:wink:

YouTube - Barack Obama Makes Shocking confession!!
 
gosh, STING, that was creative. no one has ever thought of doing this before, and no one has ever slammed their future running mate in the primaries and then made nice before.

it's a penetrating, totally original line of attack you've constructed. well played. you totally avoided the question, and then posted a little youtube sideshow to distract.

let's look at this statement:
McCain chose the qualified candidate who was best positioned to help him win the election. To do otherwise would essentially be voting for Obama.

again, you've agreed with me. McCain made a purely political pick that ignores the fundamental qualification of the VP, that they be able to assume the presidency. McCain has put politics before the country, clearly, in this situation, and he's told you that this argument:

I have stated that McCain's experience is a huge asset

really isn't any reason at all to vote for him. he's told us that, when it comes to assessing potential presidents, and Palin certainly is one, that experience has nothing to do with it at all.
 
gosh, STING, that was creative. no one has ever thought of doing this before, and no one has ever slammed their future running mate in the primaries and then made nice before.

it's a penetrating, totally original line of attack you've constructed. well played. you totally avoided the question, and then posted a little youtube sideshow to distract.

Its just a little post on a U2 fan website, calm down. :wink:


again, you've agreed with me. McCain made a purely political pick that ignores the fundamental qualification of the VP, that they be able to assume the presidency. McCain has put politics before the country, clearly, in this situation, and he's told you that this argument:

I don't think you actually read what I stated. Any VP pick is going to be based on a combination of factors. But to ignore the ability of the ticket to win in November would essentially be voting for Barack Obama and that certainly would not be McCain putting the country first. By picking the qualified candidate for VP that has the best chance at helping McCain win in November, McCain is indeed putting the country first.

NO one has ever stated that Sarah Palin was unqualified to be President prior to McCain picking her. She was actually always in the top 10 of nominees that McCain was considering.

Harry Vest started his thread about Sarah Palin weeks before McCain actually picked her, yet I don't recall you saying that picking her would be a "gimmick" and that she was unqualified to be President.


But hey, if you really think Sarah Palin does not have the qualifications to be President, at what point in time do you think she would become qualified for the office?

When did Barack Obama become qualified to be President? Was it when he announced that he was running in January 2007, when he won his Senate race in November 2004, or earlier?

When did Governor Clinton become qualified to be President? How about Tim Kaine, one of Obama's top 3 picks for the VP slot?
 
Its just a little post on a U2 fan website, calm down. :wink:


it was silly.


I don't think you actually read what I stated. Any VP pick is going to be based on a combination of factors. But to ignore the ability of the ticket to win in November would essentially be voting for Barack Obama and that certainly would not be McCain putting the country first. By picking the qualified candidate for VP that has the best chance at helping McCain win in November, McCain is indeed putting the country first.


everyone knows McCain would not have preferred Lieberman or Ridge. if McCain dies and Ms. Palin become president, do you think McCain would be comfortable with that? can you sit there and tell me with a straight face that putting the country first is really putting your career first and making a decision that totally abdicates the fundamental requirement of the VP in order to score some short term (and i do think that what we are seeing is a short term bounce -- the polls will tighten again and it will, again, come down to a few swing states, as convention bounces are usually wide but not deep) political points and to distract from the fact that most Americans are deeply unhappy with their country due to 8 years of rule by McCain's own party (note that he didn't even mention Bush by name in his acceptance speech) and most Americans are feeling the effects of 6.1% unemployment, inflation, gas prices, etc.

it is a gimmick. and a sideshow. and a way to try to fight a culture war instead of talking about war and economics.


NO one has ever stated that Sarah Palin was unqualified to be President prior to McCain picking her. She was actually always in the top 10 of nominees that McCain was considering.


she never warranted serious enough consideration by any mainstream media outlet. this is obvious by the amount of entirely legitimate coverage that's come forth since then. the only people who whispered about Palin were the fundamentalist base of the Republican Party. not even McCain was seriously considering her. he had met her once before. once. that's wildly irresponsible.

would any corporate chieftain pick a number two on those grounds and not be dismissed by his board for recklessness?

it reminds me of another rash decision made without having properly vetted the situation, and that frightens me.

Harry Vest started his thread about Sarah Palin weeks before McCain actually picked her, yet I don't recall you saying that picking her would be a "gimmick" and that she was unqualified to be President.


you're right -- i didn't post in that thread at all because i didn't take a Palin pick seriously. yes, i think she's a gimmick. and being "qualified" is beside the point -- what i've been stressing, repeatedly, is that i don't think she is *prepared* to be president. she has no record, at all, of any thought or interest given to foreign policy. you've said yourself that this is the most important party of any presidency, why then would you support a VP candidate who has no evidence of giving any serious thought at all to, say, Pakistan especially in light of a new president.


But hey, if you really think Sarah Palin does not have the qualifications to be President, at what point in time do you think she would become qualified for the office?


i would like to see some demonstrated interest and demonstrated mastery of the nuances of foreign policy across a variety of spheres as well as the articulation of a genuine overarching political philosophy. i would like to see an interest in anything beyond highly localized politics -- even at the governor level, Alaska is hardly typical. it is a deeply idiosyncratic state that's more of an oil colony than a state. in fact, would be very hard to find a governor in America who knows less about the mainstream economy. Alaska is much like Russia where oil has made the economy boom, so Ms. Palin can write checks to Alaskans out of an enormous surplus (and then some people marvel at her 80% approval rate). her one key policy issue in Alaska has been drilling for oil in ANWAR -- you know, a policy opposed by McCain.

there's no record of her speaking on foreign policy at all, save for a small interview in 2006 where she talked about hearing of "the surge" on "the news."

i can't believe that you, of all people on this board, would be defending this pick as anything other than a political gimmick.

maybe her interview with Gibson will reveal hitherto unknown depths of understanding and nuance. :shrug:


When did Barack Obama become qualified to be President? Was it when he announced that he was running in January 2007, when he won his Senate race in November 2004, or earlier?

again, this misses the issue. Barack Obama is clearly *prepared* to be president as demonstrated by 18 months of campaigning where we've gotten specific, detailed, nuanced proposals and positions on a wide variety of topics. we have his judgment on various national and international issues, and most critically, he has demonstrated such judgment in the selection of his own VP, which is the biggest decision of any presidential campaign. say what you will about Biden's politics, but the fact remains that Biden is a generally conservative, cautious pick who's deeply versed in foreign policy. it was very professional. you can disagree with the substance, but it's hard to disagree with the thought process that led Obama to this pick.

When did Governor Clinton become qualified to be President? How about Tim Kaine, one of Obama's top 3 picks for the VP slot?



Tim Kain wasn't picked, so i don't know why you'd even bring him up.

as for Gov. Clinton, again, as you noted with the then Gov. Bush, the issue is preparedness, not "qualifications." Palin is a total blank slate when it comes to foreign policy. she has no expressed interest on the topic. she's been governor of a strange state for 18 months, whereas Clinton had several terms.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom