Bay Area Owl Wrote:As an independent, I was hoping that McCain would select a woman as VP. It is a strategic master stroke, and I am surprised the media was so wrong-footed and surprised by the decision. It makes so much sense.

--The selection of Palin allows the ticket to pick up many of the disgruntled Hillary supporters (not all of them, of course, but enough to be significant in the election). It also make the ticket "fresh" and representative of social progress.

--While Alaska is a small state electorally, winning the Mountain West states is critical in this election, and the governor of Alaska is more helpful in this regard than a senator from Delaware. Palin will have appeal across the West, and the Obama ticket may have just lost Montana and Colorado, two states thought to be in play.

--As someone who has actually been a mayor of a small town, Palin should also appeal to the crucial blue-collar workers, a group Obama struggles with. She seems to have a common touch, and that's important.

--Biden is going have a whale of a time with Palin in the debates. Biden has a reputation as a long-winded bully, so he would not come off well by badgering the young Palin, aka "Sarah Barracuda". Palin is also "new", while Biden is about as "inside Washington" as you can get.

--Some critics say that this selection undermines the ability of the McCain camp to attack Obama on his inexperience (actually Obama can be attacked on his lack of accomplishments while in office), but the inverse is also true. Palin can't be attacked for her lack of experience without exposing the irony of Obama's record.

--McCain-Palin becomes a real reform ticket, which is a great antidote to the corrupt stench of the Bush-Cheney years. The Democrats will obviously try to portray McCain-Palin as a Bush third term, but I don't think it will hold. These two are genuine political mavericks. I can see the foundation of a Reformed Republican party in this ticket.

One of the things that annoys me about Obama is that his actual record on reform is very poor. He's a classic party-line politician who relies on his symbolism and "change" rhetoric. I just couldn't see Obama ever turning down a wasteful pork-barrel project for Illinois, while both McCain and Palin are proven pork-fighters. McCain stood up to the powerful Corn Lobby (which has Obama in its pocket), and Palin turned down federal funds for the "Bridge to Nowhere" in Alaska, which took serious political guts.

It's going to be a helluva race, but this could be the masterstroke that wins it for McCain. The timing of the announcement also diminished the newsworthiness of Obama's DNC speech. If you look at this as political skill, it sure beats the "rookie" 3am Biden announcement.

Let me just take a wild guess that you're a die-hard Republican, despite living out in the Bay Area? McCain - Palin becomes a reform ticket? Surely you jest. Possibly, if Palin was heading up the ticket or if it were the pre-2000 McCain, but not now. No way. No how. McCain hasn't done a single thing "maverick" this decade. Heck, he even cowered in to the Bush administration on his signature torcher bill. Yes, Palin can be attacked on her lack of experience, as next to Obama she has zilch (and that's saying something). At least Obama countered that perceived weakness with the selection of Biden, who has more experience-- both domestically and in foreign affairs-- than McCain, and is more qualified than McCain to be President. Biden may be a bit windy as a speaker at time, and has in the past been at risk in occassionally putting his foot in his mouth (but no moreso than McCain, who cannot even read a teleprompter), but he is an excellent public speaker who very clearly articulates in broad-based knowledge on a number of fronts. If you honestly believe Biden is going to lose to Phalin in a debate, I suggest you brace yourself...and, besides, as others have pointed out, it's the head of the ticket who people vote for (or against); not the VP. At least Obama selected as a VP someone who balances and strengths the overall ticket, and helps to counter his major perceived weakness (and his opponents primarily perceived strength).

waltgreenberg Wrote:

Bay Area Owl Wrote:As an independent, I was hoping that McCain would select a woman as VP. It is a strategic master stroke, and I am surprised the media was so wrong-footed and surprised by the decision. It makes so much sense.

--The selection of Palin allows the ticket to pick up many of the disgruntled Hillary supporters (not all of them, of course, but enough to be significant in the election). It also make the ticket "fresh" and representative of social progress.

--While Alaska is a small state electorally, winning the Mountain West states is critical in this election, and the governor of Alaska is more helpful in this regard than a senator from Delaware. Palin will have appeal across the West, and the Obama ticket may have just lost Montana and Colorado, two states thought to be in play.

--As someone who has actually been a mayor of a small town, Palin should also appeal to the crucial blue-collar workers, a group Obama struggles with. She seems to have a common touch, and that's important.

--Biden is going have a whale of a time with Palin in the debates. Biden has a reputation as a long-winded bully, so he would not come off well by badgering the young Palin, aka "Sarah Barracuda". Palin is also "new", while Biden is about as "inside Washington" as you can get.

--Some critics say that this selection undermines the ability of the McCain camp to attack Obama on his inexperience (actually Obama can be attacked on his lack of accomplishments while in office), but the inverse is also true. Palin can't be attacked for her lack of experience without exposing the irony of Obama's record.

--McCain-Palin becomes a real reform ticket, which is a great antidote to the corrupt stench of the Bush-Cheney years. The Democrats will obviously try to portray McCain-Palin as a Bush third term, but I don't think it will hold. These two are genuine political mavericks. I can see the foundation of a Reformed Republican party in this ticket.

One of the things that annoys me about Obama is that his actual record on reform is very poor. He's a classic party-line politician who relies on his symbolism and "change" rhetoric. I just couldn't see Obama ever turning down a wasteful pork-barrel project for Illinois, while both McCain and Palin are proven pork-fighters. McCain stood up to the powerful Corn Lobby (which has Obama in its pocket), and Palin turned down federal funds for the "Bridge to Nowhere" in Alaska, which took serious political guts.

It's going to be a helluva race, but this could be the masterstroke that wins it for McCain. The timing of the announcement also diminished the newsworthiness of Obama's DNC speech. If you look at this as political skill, it sure beats the "rookie" 3am Biden announcement.

Let me just take a wild guess that you're a die-hard Republican, despite living out in the Bay Area? McCain - Palin becomes a reform ticket? Surely you jest. Possibly, if Palin was heading up the ticket or if it were the pre-2000 McCain, but not now. No way. No how. McCain hasn't done a single thing "maverick" this decade.

Oh yeah McCain is an extreme maverick. Border line liberal republican who selected a young ulta conservative up incoming superstar in Palin. Senator McCain has always been considered different from a republican stand point. Heck, everyone thought his "surge" idea was crazy. Now everyone is impressed with how it worked. Yeah, I would definitely consider him and Obama mavericks.

Sure hope our Owls generate this much interest in the game thread tonight!!!!!!!!

As I said, I am an independent. I actually tend to vote for Democrats, but I am no party hack. I vote the way you are supposed to vote: on the issues and with your conscience.

Take a good look at the records of McCain and Palin. McCain has been a leader in the Senate on many controversial issues. I actually strongly disagreed with him on his immigration "reform" (aka amnesty) bill, but I respect his attempts to reform campaign finance laws and cut wasteful spending (ie, pork). He recognized corn-based ethanol as a stupid energy idea, in defiance of the Corn Lobby. McCain has had to tack to the right to secure the conservative base during this campaign, but his record as a reformer is strong. Palin is very much in the reform mode, challenging the old corrupt Republican regime in Alaska. This charge about her firing the public safety commissioner (her perogative anyway) because of his supposed refusal to discipline her sister's ex-husband appears to be without merit and more likely due to sour grapes.

What has Obama done? Taken a position against the Iraq war while he was in the Illinois state senate and thus politically easy??? After Obama won his very easy US Senate race (against the crazy Alan Keyes!), he has mostly campaigned for the presidency. McCain and Palin both have records of actually implementing reforms and getting things done.

Obama is better at public speeches than McCain, but I'll wager that McCain is the better debater. NPR once compared Barack's speeches with MLK's, and when you listened to them both, the comparison was stark. MLK's speeches were far more eloquent and actually had substance. Obama's speeches are just warmed-over rhetorical rubbish. Without the teleprompter, Obama's polished rhetoric falls apart. I think the glitter will come off Obama in the debates. McCain is a feisty politician who goes all out on the campaign trail (no holidays in the Bahamas or Hawaii ala Obama), and he is very comfortable speaking ad lib. Obama hasn't ever been tested in a tough political race, unless you count the time he was schooled by Bobby Rush by a 2-to-1 margin.

I'll also wager that Palin comes off better than Biden in the debates. These debates are highly structured, so the chances for open debate are limited. The "dark horse" Palin can only look better with a decent performance, while the august Delaware senator has everything to lose with a weak performance.

jh Wrote:I thought the main differences between the Republicans & libertarians were on the social issues.

Yeah, me too (which is why I identify as Libertarian -- do whatever you want, just don't mess with other people and don't stick me with the check). Unfortunately, "Libertarian-leaning" has become shorthand like THRILL said.

Unfortunately, Oklahoma only has the 2 major parties on the ballot (it sucks... we don't get big-boy beer OR big-boy ballots). But hey, I don't trust Bob Barr as a Libertarian anyway, so I'll probably be writing in Sammy T. Owl for Prez and Shasta for Veep (lookie, she's female too).

Even if I have to bring in a Sharpie.

Even if we have computerized voting.

erice Wrote:I can't believe on a Rice board that this post has been active for 3 hours and Michael Palin hasn't been mentioned yet.

Hear, hear! I only just got on the board -- but when I first saw "Palin" in the headlines on my RSS feeds this morning, I *did* think Monty Python.

I took an Alaskan cruise a few months ago. I remember hearing and seeing Palin's name a lot. The papers and the radio are full of headlines. I remember she was very popular. But also she makes a great subject for yellow journalism. The down's syndrome child can underscore he pro-life stance.

Alaska has got their senator and rep. under a lot of pressure. If McCain lives they may loss all their state wide Republican incumbents.

THRILL Wrote:Meh,, thats only THE issue to 11% of voters,,those were gonna vote for the Dem regardless. IT will be brought up,, I agree. I just think those werent the votes up for grabs.

Since its my business i knew a little something about Palin,,I like her policially shes a new Republican, libertarianish I think it moves the party in the right direction , at the very least.


I know its gameday, and thats the greater concern today. But Im not kidding my neighbor asked me who I thought the niminee would be, I told him I thought it would be Pawlenty but I wanted Palin.

just an interesting choice,, Im sure itll be talked to death this weekend along with the Hurricane and Caylee

The headline I came up with on my own (and I'm sure it's been used by now) is "And Now For Something Completely Different".

To this Democrat, I'm impressed with how McCain is fighting Obama's populist movement. The Republican ticket is different - I still don't think it will win because the key this year like the last few elections is how will Ohio, PA, Mich. vote. I think they'll ultimately go blue and Obama will win.

To me, Obama is a black Bill Clinton. Both are good speakers, obviously intelligent and come from poor backgrounds (with some shady moments in it as well).

Here's my advice to the Democrats - get rid of the Change mantra and just concentrate on the economy and likening McCain to Bush. And then push those swing states hard. They'll win the Northeast and the young and highly educated vote. And most of the minority vote (blacks and possibly latino). The women vote is a little up in the air but Michelle Obama and Jill Biden can help (as could Hillary if she chooses to help them).

And for the Republicans, I think they need to change their attack on the experience front but just revert back to their tried and true pattern of attacking the Democratic ticket as being too liberal and scare people about their taxes being raised. The Republicans will win most of the west (at least the smaller states) and south (but not by as big margins in 2000 and 2004). And they'll win Florida. The key for them is can they win Nevada, Colorado, Missouri, Minnesota, Iowa, Indiana, Ohio, Michigan and PA. They'll probably need to win more than half those states to win. I'm not sure McCain-Palin can do that but we'll see in two months.

And one last thing, Romney has to be PISSED!!

For everyone who is worried about Palin's experience and being only a heart beat away, I am more worried about the experience of the who would be the heartbeat(Obama).

I was there in May and noticed the same thing. I might e-mail the DA in Nome to find out what he thinks since I know him.

bbaker Wrote:I took an Alaskan cruise a few months ago. I remember hearing and seeing Palin's name a lot. The papers and the radio are full of headlines. I remember she was very popular. But also she makes a great subject for yellow journalism. The down's syndrome child can underscore he pro-life stance.

Alaska has got their senator and rep. under a lot of pressure. If McCain lives they may loss all their state wide Republican incumbents.

THRILL Wrote:Meh,, thats only THE issue to 11% of voters,,those were gonna vote for the Dem regardless. IT will be brought up,, I agree. I just think those werent the votes up for grabs.

Since its my business i knew a little something about Palin,,I like her policially shes a new Republican, libertarianish I think it moves the party in the right direction , at the very least.


I know its gameday, and thats the greater concern today. But Im not kidding my neighbor asked me who I thought the niminee would be, I told him I thought it would be Pawlenty but I wanted Palin.

just an interesting choice,, Im sure itll be talked to death this weekend along with the Hurricane and Caylee

I think she's an excellent choice.

Her foreign policy credentials are no worse than Obama's. "Serving on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee" is to "conducting foreign policy" as "serving on the Senate Space, Aeronautics, and Related Sciences Subcommittee" is to "walking on the moon." Remember, that's why Obama had to put someone with foreign policy credentials on the ticket to cover his weaknesses.

A week ago, we were being told that energy was the number one issue, and her energy credentials are better than anybody else on either ticket.

She's got experience as a housewife, mother, and particularly as a working mother that none of the others have (the closest would depend on how much Biden can stretch his single parent experience). If she connects with that group, that's ballgame.

Having someone with her experience a heartbeat away from the presidency is not worse than having someone with Obama's experience be the heartbeat.

I'm still leaning libertarian, but I'm a lot more likely to vote for McCain with this choice than I was before. I was probably leaning 87% Barr, 12% McCain, 1% Obama before. Now it's more like 66% Barr, 33% McCain, 1% Obama.

I attended last night's game with some friends, one of whom is a gay female. She made an interesting comment. "A lot of Hillary's supporters are lesbians, and abortion is not a huge issue with us. We care more about gay rights and seeing a woman in office. As long as she's reasonable dealing with gay issues, a lot of us will probably support her."

LongTimeOwl33 Wrote:For everyone who is worried about Palin's experience and being only a heart beat away, I am more worried about the experience of the who would be the heartbeat(Obama).

a big difference IMHO is that Obama has been running for President for almost two years now (since his public announcement -- i'm sure he considered in private for even longer), and in that span, he's had time to work on developing policies on national level issues. contrast that with Palin, who is more or less, a surprise sudden VP pick, and probably hasn't seriously formulated policies on foreign affairs, healthcare, the economy, etc.

compare:
http://www.ontheissues.org/Sarah_Palin.htm
http://www.ontheissues.org/Barack_Obama.htm

kingjames23tx Wrote:a big difference IMHO is that Obama has been running for President for almost two years now (since his public announcement -- i'm sure he considered in private for even longer), and in that span, he's had time to work on developing policies on national level issues. contrast that with Palin, who is more or less, a surprise sudden VP pick, and probably hasn't seriously formulated policies on foreign affairs, healthcare, the economy, etc.

Considering that my biggest complaint with Obama is that his policies strike me as pretty much worthless, I wouldn't say all that time has helped him a whole lot.

Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:I think she's an excellent choice.

Her foreign policy credentials are no worse than Obama's. "Serving on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee" is to "conducting foreign policy" as "serving on the Senate Space, Aeronautics, and Related Sciences Subcommittee" is to "walking on the moon." Remember, that's why Obama had to put someone with foreign policy credentials on the ticket to cover his weaknesses.

I agree she's a good choice.

But that is just a phenomenally bizarre statement. Obama's met with a number of key foreign leaders, he's articulated policy on foreign matters for the last 6 years, and he chosen as his righthand man a senator most known for his foreign policy acumen.

On the other hand you have Palin who when asked about her feelings on Iraq last year, told an Alaskan Business mag that she hadn't really thought about it.

I'm not sure how you can possibly find them comparable.

Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:

kingjames23tx Wrote:a big difference IMHO is that Obama has been running for President for almost two years now (since his public announcement -- i'm sure he considered in private for even longer), and in that span, he's had time to work on developing policies on national level issues. contrast that with Palin, who is more or less, a surprise sudden VP pick, and probably hasn't seriously formulated policies on foreign affairs, healthcare, the economy, etc.

Considering that my biggest complaint with Obama is that his policies strike me as pretty much worthless, I wouldn't say all that time has helped him a whole lot.

that's fine. but i'm pointing out that despite (what some might say) similar political resumes, my argument is that in the last two years, Obama has been learning and developing policy, while Palin has been governing Alaska.

In 2007, she said "I've been so focused on state government, I haven't really focused much on the war in Iraq," and ""I'm not going to judge even the surge. I'm here to find out what Alaskans need of me as their governor." (http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2...ndex.html)

There's really nothing that can prepare you for the White House, but at least Obama's been going thru trying-out-for-the-job training over the last two years.

[/code][code]

At Ease Wrote:I agree she's a good choice.

But that is just a phenomenally bizarre statement. Obama's met with a number of key foreign leaders, he's articulated policy on foreign matters for the last 6 years, and he chosen as his righthand man a senator most known for his foreign policy acumen.

On the other hand you have Palin who when asked about her feelings on Iraq last year, told an Alaskan Business mag that she hadn't really thought about it.

I'm not sure how you can possibly find them comparable.

I guess I'm just so unimpressed with Obama that his "credentials" don't mean much to me. And I find him incredibly underwhelming. I'm simply astonished that so many people have gone ga-ga about him. I just can't fathom it.

And yes, I've read his books and I've heard plenty of his speeches (though to be honest, I haven't heard any of them in their entirety because I simply can't listen to him that long, he bores me to tears).

"Meeting world leaders" in the any context other than official spokesman is not the same as negotiating with world leaders, and I don't believe that even he's been presumptuous enough to do that yet.

I will say this, and I've posted it before. I'm more impressed with his foreign policy than I am with his domestic policy. To my mind the best thing that he has said, by far, is that he would go into Pakistan to get bin Laden. The 1% chance I might vote for him is based almost exclusively on that statement.

Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:I think she's an excellent choice.

Her foreign policy credentials are no worse than Obama's. "Serving on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee" is to "conducting foreign policy" as "serving on the Senate Space, Aeronautics, and Related Sciences Subcommittee" is to "walking on the moon." Remember, that's why Obama had to put someone with foreign policy credentials on the ticket to cover his weaknesses.

I don't think that most Obama supporters are quite saying she's a bad choice because of her lack of experience. The problem this presents for McCain is that he's been saying we shouldn't support Obama because he doesn't have the experience to do the job, then he contradicts himself by picking someone who has laughable experience until 2 years ago to be in a position where she could become president any day.

Depending on who you supported before this choice, you're probably looking at it one of two ways, either of which can be supported by the evidence...

If you're in the camp that's inclined to give McCain the benefit of the doubt you might say he chose a fellow maverick who doesn't stand for pork spending, and will make decisions on principle rather than politics, which is completely consistent with the image McCain is trying to portray for himself.

If you're in the other camp, you might say he chose Palin not because of her qualifications to lead the country but because she was the right political choice to get him the votes he needs to win. Right or wrong, that is exactly the opposite of the image McCan has been trying to portray for himself. And perfectly consistent with the image the Democrats have been trying to pin on him as a former maverick who has abandoned his principles and will now say or do anything to get elected.

At the end of the day, you probably end up in the same camp you were in on Thursday.

(Having said that -- I had a really surprising talk with my Dad this morning. He votes 95% Republican, and he was just furious about the choice of Palin.)

kingjames23tx Wrote:that's fine. but i'm pointing out that despite (what some might say) similar political resumes, my argument is that in the last two years, Obama has been learning and developing policy, while Palin has been governing Alaska.

That's fine. What I'm saying is that, based on the policies he has developed, that was a colossal waste of time.

I LOVE this pick. As every Dem should.

kingjames23tx Wrote:In 2007, she said "I've been so focused on state government, I haven't really focused much on the war in Iraq," and ""I'm not going to judge even the surge. I'm here to find out what Alaskans need of me as their governor."

So what your'e saying is that it's a weakness that Palin focused on the job at hand (governor of Alaska) rather than running for national office, and it's a strength that Obama focused on running for national office instead of focusing on the job at hand (senator from Illinois).

I'm not buying.

Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:

kingjames23tx Wrote:In 2007, she said "I've been so focused on state government, I haven't really focused much on the war in Iraq," and ""I'm not going to judge even the surge. I'm here to find out what Alaskans need of me as their governor."

So what your'e saying is that it's a weakness that Palin focused on the job at hand (governor of Alaska) rather than running for national office, and it's a strength that Obama focused on running for national office instead of focusing on the job at hand (senator from Illinois).

I'm not buying.

i don't think either of us are budging either way on the issue. for the record, i think it's commendable for her to focus on her job and answer the question truthfully.

i'm not judging how either of them are doing at their current positions, but i DO believe Obama's experience in this presidential campaign separates him substantially from Palin, who simply hasn't been on the national stage and who i doubt is ready to deal with national issues.

kingjames23tx Wrote:i don't think either of us are budging either way on the issue.

Probably right on that, although I remain open to Obama if I could just figure out what it is that so many people see in him.

I have tried very hard to find something about him to like. I've come up with his statement that he'd go into Pakistan to get bin Laden, but there's nothing else that does a thing for me. At the same time, I know a lot of intelligent and well-educated people who think he's some wonderful transformative leader. I've asked several of them to explain it to me, and after a while they've all pretty much admitted that they don't really have anything but a "feeling" about him. I just don't get the "feeling."

At this point, I see the inevitable result of implementing his economic policies as being a hyperinflationary recession/depression. Zero to negative growth with the dollar dropping like the Argentine peso. I'm not particularly excited about hanging around to see that.

Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:I attended last night's game with some friends, one of whom is a gay female. She made an interesting comment. "A lot of Hillary's supporters are lesbians, and abortion is not a huge issue with us. We care more about gay rights and seeing a woman in office. As long as she's reasonable dealing with gay issues, a lot of us will probably support her."

Well send your friend to Palin's page on Wikipedia, and then she'll return home to Obama.

Quote:Palin has said she has good friends who are gay, but opposes same-sex marriage. She supported a non-binding referendum for a constitutional amendment to deny benefits to homosexual couples. Palin has stated that she supported the 1998 constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage.

FWIW, as a woman and as a feminist the pick is offensive to me. It's so obviously a token choice, given that there are so many better qualified women (starting with Kay Bailey). Her extreme, paternalistic pro-life stance is particularly offensive, especially given that many (most?) Republican women are pro-choice, at least to some degree (including, again, Hutchison). Am I really to believe that her looks weren't a big part of this decision? I don't, and to me that's a pretty sad statement about what qualities America values in female leaders. Granted, such values aren't McCain's fault, but his cynical exploitation of them doesn't exactly give me warm fuzzies, either.

Now, is any of this more important to me than free trade? No. But that doesn't make me thrilled with the choice.

Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:I attended last night's game with some friends, one of whom is a gay female. She made an interesting comment. "A lot of Hillary's supporters are lesbians, and abortion is not a huge issue with us. We care more about gay rights and seeing a woman in office. As long as she's reasonable dealing with gay issues, a lot of us will probably support her."

Hmm... that hits me kind of strangely. I guess by that logic, as a straight female (who neither has nor wants children), I might be more concerned with reproductive rights than gay rights, but I'm really not.

Of course, being here where I am, it kinda all wraps up in a big enchilada of me, OJ, and a few other people who accept evolution vs everyone else. Wanna see what passes for political campaigning around here? Here you go. This little gem was mailed out by Brent Rinehart, incumbent Oklahoma County Commissioner. OJ and I had much mirth when he lost.

http://downloads.newsok.com/documents/ri...artoon.pdf

[edit: misspelled "Rinehart"]

I'm just going to shut down my comments and watch.
I think it's going to be interesting.
And at the end of the day, my guess is that the Barracuda will turn out to have a lot more going for her than many people realize.

69/70/75 -

That wasn't by any means a knock on you or an insinuation that you should hush up... it was just surprise that lesbians' political thought would crystallize that way, and an attempt to see from my own viewpoint ('cause really, that's all I have) why that would be surprising.

Anyway, like I've said elsewhere -- I'm pretty much gonna watch & see too.

All of you who support McBush's pick of Gov. Palin, ask yourself this ONE question: If she were a he, a governor of a small state mired in scandal and controversy (Stevens, bridge to nowhere, etc.) who had not even completed one term, with only preceeding experience of being a mayor of a town of 8,000, would you not be objecting, claiming that there were sooooo many other superiorly qualified men out there (Dan Quayle, e.g.)? If you answer is YES (being truthful now), then that means you think McBush made a good pick BECAUSE she's a woman. In other words, you're a sexist pig, just one of a different color and with a different intent.

And for those who believe that a large number of disaffected female Hillary supporters are going to vote for McBush-Palin, there are a lot of women (and probably some men, though their motives may not be as "pure") who will be turned off by a career-woman who's abandoning her Downs syndrome child to full time care by a nanny. I'm not saying I agree with that point, just that many many women who've been dealt a similar hand will question Palin for that life choice.

I can't wait for Nov. 4!

Bay Area Owl Wrote:edited to focus on a few topics

--The selection of Palin allows the ticket to pick up many of the disgruntled Hillary supporters

--While Alaska is a small state electorally, winning the Mountain West states is critical in this election, and the governor of Alaska is more helpful in this regard than a senator from Delaware. Palin will have appeal across the West, and the Obama ticket may have just lost Montana and Colorado, two states thought to be in play.

--Biden is going have a whale of a time with Palin in the debates. Biden has a reputation as a long-winded bully, so he would not come off well by badgering the young Palin, aka "Sarah Barracuda".

--Some critics say that this selection undermines the ability of the McCain camp to attack Obama on his inexperience (actually Obama can be attacked on his lack of accomplishments while in office), but the inverse is also true. Palin can't be attacked for her lack of experience without exposing the irony of Obama's record.

I think the pick has many advantages for McCain, some of which Bay Area Owl mentioned.

The McCain campaign will almost certainly drop the inexperience criticism now, but I think this works even better for them. The idea is already established in people's minds and the mere existence of Palin is a continual reminder of the inexperience issue. Since this is McCain vs. Obama, not Palin vs. Biden, that will hurt Obama.

It will be off-putting to many folks to see an old man attacking a young female, which will take away much of Biden's punch. Biden's tendency to ramble could lead to a "pretty young thing"-type comment which would be quite unseemly.

Palin's social conservatism will likely help McCain with voters who think he is soft in this area.

I'm not sure how the Palin choice will play with women voters. I suppose there may be some Clinton supporters who will now vote for McCain who wouldn't have otherwise. I suspect it will be more significant that some uncommitted voters, both male and female, will be excited by the opportunity to put a female in the White House. There will also be some, like Amber, who will feel insulted by what they see as the blatant pandering of the pick.

Bay Area Owl points out the advantage this could bring in western swing states, which I hadn't considered.

Many people I talk with are uncomfortable with Obama for reasons they have difficulty expressing. They seem to be uncomfortable with his perceived foreignness, his otherness. For some this is at root because he's, well, black. This pick gives these folks permission to act on these feelings with a reason that is much more palatable. They're not afraid he might be a closet Muslim, they're not unsettled with all this single mom, Hawaii, living-in-Indonesia, father-from-Africa-stuff, they're not racists voting against the black guy, they're making the historic decision to put a woman in the White House. I think this could be the most significant factor of Palin's presence on the ticket.

There are also potential benefits for Obama. A couple could be running over and over the clip of him stating his first priority in picking a VP was the ability to be President. That might make Obama seem more responsible than McCain. And will voters feel a young woman who's accent sounds right out of the movie Fargo seems presidential enough?

My guess: This is a net gain for McCain, all of it contingent on Palin's performance the next two months.

If my political affiliation matters in interpreting these thoughts, I am mildly involved in the Democratic Party because I think that, all things considered, we are generally better off with Democrats in office than Republicans.

Almost 40 million people saw Obama's speech Thursday night. I'd be surprised if McCain's speech is much more than half that. People can talk all they want about polls and this and that but the bottom line to me thus far is the Democrats had well more than twice as many voters in most of the primaries and they'll probably trounce the Republicans in ratings for the two primaries.

That's a big indication to me the Democrats are ahead in November.

ColOwl Wrote:All of you who support McBush's pick of Gov. Palin, ask yourself this ONE question: If she were a he, a governor of a small state mired in scandal and controversy (Stevens, bridge to nowhere, etc.) who had not even complete one term, with only preceeding experience of being a mayor of a town of 8,000, would you blah blah blah,,

I stopped reading and went to look at the pics of her,,damn shes cute

what was your question?



I look at this thru the eyes of someone (1)that makes a living in politics, and (2) a Conservative Republican as a matter or voting habits.

I like the choice for two reason,, (1) it makes for some interesting "strategery" for many of the reasons mentioned above swing state,, her appeal to swing voters and (2) Looking forward to 4 years from now ,Win or Lose Palin in now in the lead for the next GOP nominee for President becuase most do assume McCains age will be a factor in 2012.


and her inexpirience does NOT bother me,, cause she wont be President . Obamas inexpirience does concern me(but its not THE reson I wouldnt vote for him) Because who ever is in power will have advisors and its not the expirience with a paticular issue that matters most but the exprience in being able to make executive decisons that matters. There are plenty of experts that will understand the issues. The President has to know how to listen to all,, then trust themself.

A Gov. even a mayor has done that. with real issues that effect real people.

And Ill try to be done with it ,cause I know no one is going to change anyone elses mind.

According to Newsweek (I know the liberal-bias media)...

"She is a far-right conservative who supported Pat Buchanan over George W. Bush in 2000. She thinks global warming is a hoax and backs the teaching of creationism in public schools. Women are not likely to be impressed by her opposition to abortion even in the case of rape and incest."

Thrill might be excited to know that she was a sports tv anchorwoman after college for a couple of Alaska stations. Maybe Erin Andrews can run for VP in 2016?

I do think it's exciting to realize that we are assured of history in November. Either we'll have the first African-American in the White House as Prez or VP, or the first woman (unless Barr pulls off the biggest miracle ever).

Fort Bend Owl Wrote:Almost 40 million people saw Obama's speech Thursday night. I'd be surprised if McCain's speech is much more than half that.

I prefer to think of it more in the light that conservatives have better things to do than listen to meaningless speeches.

Regarding your other post, the fact that she "thinks global warming is a hoax" scores huge points with me.

lauramac Wrote:Wanna see what passes for political campaigning around here? Here you go. This little gem was mailed out by Brent Rinehard, incumbent Oklahoma County Commissioner. OJ and I had much mirth when he lost.

http://downloads.newsok.com/documents/ri...artoon.pdf

But did his graphic artist get an "A" in his/her middle school Introductory Art class?

ColOwl Wrote:All of you who support McBush's pick of Gov. Palin, ask yourself this ONE question: If she were a he, a governor of a small state mired in scandal and controversy (Stevens, bridge to nowhere, etc.) who had not even complete one term, with only preceeding experience of being a mayor of a town of 8,000, would you not be objecting, claiming that there were sooooo many other superiorly qualified men out there (Dan Quayle, e.g.)?

Gee, you're right ... she's even less experienced than Bill Miller.

Almadenmike Wrote:

lauramac Wrote:Wanna see what passes for political campaigning around here? Here you go. This little gem was mailed out by Brent Rinehard, incumbent Oklahoma County Commissioner. OJ and I had much mirth when he lost.

http://downloads.newsok.com/documents/ri...artoon.pdf

But did his graphic artist get an "A" in his/her middle school Introductory Art class?

I think he took it P/F. Not sure what the outcome was.

lauramac Wrote:

Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:I attended last night's game with some friends, one of whom is a gay female. She made an interesting comment. "A lot of Hillary's supporters are lesbians, and abortion is not a huge issue with us. We care more about gay rights and seeing a woman in office. As long as she's reasonable dealing with gay issues, a lot of us will probably support her."

Hmm... that hits me kind of strangely. I guess by that logic, as a straight female (who neither has nor wants children), I might be more concerned with reproductive rights than gay rights, but I'm really not.

Of course, being here where I am, it kinda all wraps up in a big enchilada of me, OJ, and a few other people who accept evolution vs everyone else. Wanna see what passes for political campaigning around here? Here you go. This little gem was mailed out by Brent Rinehard, incumbent Oklahoma County Commissioner. OJ and I had much mirth when he lost.

http://downloads.newsok.com/documents/ri...artoon.pdf

THAT IS AWESOME,,, that one pro gay good ol boy has a REALLY big thumb,, I bet hes the most popular with the gays.

what percentage of vote did this yahoo get?

Fort Bend Owl Wrote:Almost 40 million people saw Obama's speech Thursday night. I'd be surprised if McCain's speech is much more than half that. People can talk all they want about polls and this and that but the bottom line to me thus far is the Democrats had well more than twice as many voters in most of the primaries and they'll probably trounce the Republicans in ratings for the two primaries.

That's a big indication to me the Democrats are ahead in November.

scheduling his speech the same night as opening night of the NFL doesn't help

lauramac Wrote:This little gem was mailed out by Brent Rinehard, incumbent Oklahoma County Commissioner.

http://downloads.newsok.com/documents/ri...artoon.pdf

Wow! I didn't realize Oklahoma is being overrun by Liberal good ol' boys. I'm glad we have people like Brent Rinehard to combat those darn Oklahoma values that are making it a San Fransisco on the plains.

ColOwl Wrote:And for those who believe that a large number of disaffected female Hillary supporters are going to vote for McBush-Palin, there are a lot of women (and probably some men, though their motives may not be as "pure") who will be turned off by a career-woman who's abandoning her Downs syndrome child to full time care by a nanny. I'm not saying I agree with that point, just that many many women who've been dealt a similar hand will question Palin for that life choice.

I do think that Palin has made a bad choice as a parent, but for that matter I think Obama has, too. Being president is so all-consuming (much more so than senator or governor, IMO) that it's pretty much impossible to carve out the time necessary to be a good parent to a young child. Not sure how old McCain's youngest is, but if she's under 16, then add him to the list, too.

It takes a special kind of egomania to think that you're so damn good a politician that the country needs you and you alone more than your children do. (I am, in case it matters, married but childless and hope to remain that way for the foreseeable future.) I'm not entirely convinced that it's possible to be even a good spouse while president (I couldn't even be a good partner and a good Thresher editor, which needless to say does not compare), but at least in that case the other party is adult and presumably complicit in your decision to run.

However, I will say that I don't vote based on which candidate is a better parent, or even based on who is the better person.

It amuses me that so many people that I've watched on TV have taken such a staunch stance on a woman that they hardly know. Let's hear what she has to say. From her conservative record, I think she energizes the part of the Republican party that McCain never could have got to. If she draws some women voters, that would be great. IMO, those disenchanted Clinton supporters more than likely won't vote on the 4th if they aren't going to vote for Obama. I have no idea what type of pull Palin will have on women voters. The only way I'll ever know is if we let her speak before the whole country makes their opinion known on her. I think the more important effect of this choice is that the conservative base of the Republican party is energized with this Pro-Life, pro-guns choice.

As a supporter of McCain, I like this pick. I think she is going to surprise some people when she goes up against Biden. Those Alaskans are one tough bunch.

Almadenmike Wrote:

lauramac Wrote:Wanna see what passes for political campaigning around here? Here you go. This little gem was mailed out by Brent Rinehard, incumbent Oklahoma County Commissioner. OJ and I had much mirth when he lost.

http://downloads.newsok.com/documents/ri...artoon.pdf

But did his graphic artist get an "A" in his/her middle school Introductory Art class?

I'm sure you won't be surprised to learn that the illustrator was a friend of Rinehart's whose artistic skills were admired by Rinehart. That Brent has quite the eye for talent.

I think we all need to take a step back, learn a little bit more about her, listen to her speak, and THEN make a judgment.

In the meantime, let's enjoy watching Joe Biden drunk:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NmRXH7RkCZQ

d1owls4life Wrote:It amuses me that so many people that I've watched on TV have taken such a staunch stance on a woman that they hardly know. Let's hear what she has to say. From her conservative record, I think she energizes the part of the Republican party that McCain never could have got to. If she draws some women voters, that would be great. IMO, those disenchanted Clinton supporters more than likely won't vote on the 4th if they aren't going to vote for Obama. I have no idea what type of pull Palin will have on women voters. The only way I'll ever know is if we let her speak before the whole country makes their opinion known on her. I think the more important effect of this choice is that the conservative base of the Republican party is energized with this Pro-Life, pro-guns choice.

As a supporter of McCain, I like this pick. I think she is going to surprise some people when she goes up against Biden. Those Alaskans are one tough bunch.

You do realize there is but one hugely inconsequential VP debate, and that debate has never, ever been a factor in any election-- even when Benson thoroughly trounced the pupil, Quale. Don't kid yourselves-- Biden was selected to attack and counter McCain on foreign affairs, homeland security and the war on terror...and in that regard, Biden is far more qualified than McCain and a far more articulate and empassioned speaker.

THRILL Wrote:and her inexpirience does NOT bother me,, cause she wont be President .

If he's elected, McBush will be the OLDEST person ever elected to that office. He's got a number of health problems which are treated wtih medications, including high blood pressure and high cholesterol. He's had at least 4 malignant melanoma lesions removed in the past few years. And while his health at this time appears to be "excellent" according to his doctors (other medical experts might have a slightly different opinion), I would not be so sure he's an absolute lock to serve either a full 4 or 8 years as president. And of our 43 presidents, remember that 8 have died while in office and 1 resigned, and the shot that hit Reagan was about 1/4" away from being fatal.

So vote for McBush because you believe he can make a "strategerically" opportune decision to have a political "image" as his VP if you wish (since it's all apparently just political gamesmanship to you anyway) and I'll make my choices in other ways and for other reasons, including the possibility that the elected president will not serve out the term(s) of his office.

I, personally, applaud McBush's choice as well, but for completely different reasons. In my opinion, Palin adds ABSOLUTELY NOTHING SUBSTANTIVE to the ticket and will do absolutely nothing to improve McBush's chances of winning. She doesn't have Romney's $$$$ or Michigan's electoral votes; she doesn't have Guliani's noun, verb and 911; she doesn't have Huckabee's gee-shucks-a-bee; she doesn't have Pawlenty's pa-len-ty of polenta; and she doesn't have Lieberman's uuhhhh....uuhhhh...., well forget that one. But she does have beauty queen looks.

ColOwl Wrote:

THRILL Wrote:and her inexpirience does NOT bother me,, cause she wont be President .

If he's elected, McBush will be the OLDEST person ever elected to that office. He's got a number of health problems which are treated wtih medications, including high blood pressure and high cholesterol. He's had at least 4 malignant melanoma lesions removed in the past few years. And while his health at this time appears to be "excellent" according to his doctors (other medical experts might have a slightly different opinion), I would not be so sure he's an absolute lock to serve either a full 4 or 8 years as president. And of our 43 presidents, remember that 8 have died while in office and 1 resigned, and the shot that hit Reagan was about 1/4" away from being fatal.

So vote for McBush because you believe he can make a "strategerically" opportune decision to have a political "image" as his VP if you wish (since it's all apparently just political gamesmanship to you anyway) and I'll make my choices in other ways and for other reasons, including the possibility that the elected president will not serve out the term(s) of his office.

I, personally, applaud McBush's choice as well, but for completely different reasons. In my opinion, Palin adds ABSOLUTELY NOTHING SUBSTANTIVE to the ticket and will do absolutely nothing to improve McBush's chances of winning. She doesn't have Romney's $$$$ or Michigan's electoral votes; she doesn't have Guliani's noun, verb and 911; she doesn't have Huckabee's gee-shucks-a-bee; she doesn't have Pawlenty's pa-len-ty of polenta; and she doesn't have Lieberman's uuhhhh....uuhhhh...., well forget that one. But she does have beauty queen looks.

I take my vote and my job seriously,, message board banter,,, not so much

You think there is any chance Biden says to Miss Palin in the debate,

"I know Hillary Clinton. Hillary Clinton is a friend of mine, and governor, you’re no Hillary Clinton."

waltgreenberg Wrote:

d1owls4life Wrote:It amuses me that so many people that I've watched on TV have taken such a staunch stance on a woman that they hardly know. Let's hear what she has to say. From her conservative record, I think she energizes the part of the Republican party that McCain never could have got to. If she draws some women voters, that would be great. IMO, those disenchanted Clinton supporters more than likely won't vote on the 4th if they aren't going to vote for Obama. I have no idea what type of pull Palin will have on women voters. The only way I'll ever know is if we let her speak before the whole country makes their opinion known on her. I think the more important effect of this choice is that the conservative base of the Republican party is energized with this Pro-Life, pro-guns choice.

As a supporter of McCain, I like this pick. I think she is going to surprise some people when she goes up against Biden. Those Alaskans are one tough bunch.

You do realize there is but one hugely inconsequential VP debate, and that debate has never, ever been a factor in any election-- even when Benson thoroughly trounced the pupil, Quale. Don't kid yourselves-- Biden was selected to attack and counter McCain on foreign affairs, homeland security and the war on terror...and in that regard, Biden is far more qualified than McCain and a far more articulate and empassioned speaker.

My brother just sent me this. On the internet, any wild theory can quickly grow roots. According to this detailed link, a blogger is claiming that Palin's 5th child (the one with Down's Syndrome) isn't hers but her 16 year old daughter's baby.

Look, it doesn't affect my thinking. I'm voting for Obama. And I like McCain's choice of Palin, probably even more so than Obama's choice of Biden. Ultrasounds these days can tell you with some clarity if you are carrying a child with Down's (plus there are blood tests you can take to find this out as well as most parents probably are aware). I know a Rice grad who has twins - one with Down's and one without and she was aware of the Down's baby well before she gave birth. If Palin knew she was pregnant with a child who had Down's, some of the alleged facts in this blog seem very odd.

http://openthread.dailykos.com/storyonly...486/580223

Mark, it's the Daily Kos. Come on. That ranks right up there with the "Obama is a Muslim" and "Obama isn't a citizen" stuff.

Seriously, the fake child conspiracy theory is right up there with the Obama/Larry Sinclair back-of-the-limo crack snorting and homostyling.

Typical viral smearing effort...

I am still undecided, but I like our choices. The situation is very complicated - x-dimensional - where x > 3. Domestic, Economic, Diplomatic, Infrastructure, Military, Social, etc. all figure into the problem set. No one person can answer the problem. It will take a leader who can pull this all together... I am waiting.