So much for putting the country first

[Guest Guest]

Yes, by light years. Biden is a recognized expert on foreign policy who is ready to be president. Palin is mainly a local politician from a small state who admits that she's not interested in foreign policy. If she was applying for a seat on a federal court with comparable credentials in that field (none), she'd be rejected as unqualified - because in fact, she's not qualified to be a heartbeat away from the presidency, especially when the guy on the top of the ticket is a 72-year-old man who has had two bouts with cancer and is losing his memory.

Biden has no executive experience at all. He has never run anything or been in charge of anything. He is a charter member of the good 'ol boy insider network. Obama spouts a change mantra yet he picks a "same old, same old" puppet. Obama is no better, he's spent a total of 144 days in the Senate. He also has no executive experience, never run anything or been in charge of anything. Hardly the kind of people you want stepping into the White House.

[Guest Guest]

One thing I have never done in any post is said experience matters. Look at Bush jr, with his years of executive experience as Gov of Texas or Lincoln with his lack of executive experience.

Nominating Palin may be irresponsible because of her belief that we should teach creationism in public schools or because she does not believe in man made global warning. But experience should not be used against her.

The value of experience is that it shows you what a candidate can do and has done in the past. There are many ways for a candidate to prove her or his merits. When a candidate has as little relevant experience as Palin has, is as radical as she is, has never addressed national issues and has said she isn't interested in foreign policy, her absence of experience is a gaping hole in her resume that counts very strongly against her. The best argument for her is that she is governor of a state, but it's a tiny state whose economy bears virtually no resemblance to our national economy, and she has less than two years on the job. So that little bit of executive experience doesn't come anywhere close to closing that gaping hole. If you take away the politics and look at this like a corporate executive considering a hire, a wise executive would say she isn't qualified and wouldn't hire her. That's not political spin, its the facts.

[Guest Guest]

Biden has no executive experience at all. He has never run anything or been in charge of anything.

He's the chairman of the U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations. What's Palin's foreign policy experience again?

He is a charter member of the good 'ol boy insider network. Obama spouts a change mantra yet he picks a "same old, same old" puppet. Obama is no better, he's spent a total of 144 days in the Senate. He also has no executive experience, never run anything or been in charge of anything. Hardly the kind of people you want stepping into the White House.

Yet, if he was in charge, we would be over a half trillion dollars richer and have 4,000 more living soldiers because he was right on Iraq from the start, and McCain still refuses to admit it was a mistake.

[Guest Guest]

Lets cut this emotional rhetoric, this Democratic party abortion talking point. A tactic designed to scare the simple minded into voting democratic.

Palin and McCian cannot outlaw abortions. The supreme court may reverse Roe v Wade provided new very strong anti abortion candidates are appointed. If they are, then you can also blame the democratic party which will control the senate and will supply the votes to put these individuals on the court.

Now, if Roe v Wade, does get reversed, abortions will not be automatically made illegal. The decision will then bounce back to the state governments. In NJ and NY you can expect abortions to remain legal.

But in other states, with governors as radical as she is, abortions will be criminalized and women who have them will be sent to prison. You'd like to spin this politically to say Palin's radicalism doesn't matter. But it does matter, and not just on the abortion issue. As with everything you've written about this election, the only thing you're proving is that you'll use any excuse to justify the Republican candidates, no matter who they are or how radical they are or how wrong they are.

[Guest Guest]

First of all im not a right winger, i tend to vote republican , but i believe in a womans right to choose, i think there should be stronger gun control laws, and i dont think the government should decide if gay marriage is right or wrong....I vote on whoever is best for the job at the time, with that being said, i dont think either candidate is going to be good for the country..my point was that everyone was bashing this woman because she hasn't proven herself when hillary clinton never proved herself. you say hillary clinton had a detailed grasp of important national issues?...your kidding right?..everyone knows what the issues are , that doesn't mean they should be president...when did she prove herself on the national stage?...when she flip flopped on the war in iraq?..when she voted on bills that caused many american companies to move over seas?...or what about her failed national health care plan that she was in charge of when her husband was running the country?...oh your not bringing those things up right, fact of the matter is rudi guilianni would have been a better president then both of these candidates,

"hillary clinton never proved herself" or demonstrated her grasp of important national issues. You don't know what you're talking about. Her colleagues on both sides of the aisle acknowledge her grasp of the issues, her competence, her expertise and her fitness to be president. To compare Clinton to Palin just tells me that when you say "i tend to vote republican," you're not telling us the whole story. Obviously you're more deeply invested in the Republican side than that.

Let us know when you learn how to spell and construct a complete sentence. Honestly, why should anyone take you seriously when you make ridiculous remarks and can't even write properly?

[Guest Guest]

Biden has no executive experience at all. He has never run anything or been in charge of anything. He is a charter member of the good 'ol boy insider network. Obama spouts a change mantra yet he picks a "same old, same old" puppet. Obama is no better, he's spent a total of 144 days in the Senate. He also has no executive experience, never run anything or been in charge of anything. Hardly the kind of people you want stepping into the White House.

Obama has run the most successful presidential campaign in memory, and he has done it brilliantly. He has presided over the raising of more than 1/4 of a billion dollars and a national political operation that took down one of the most formidable political machines in our history. That's executive experience.

If you want to look at past presidents, Nixon never had executive experience. Neither did Kennedy or Lyndon Johnson or Gerald Ford or Abraham Lincoln. Yet each of them was at least a competent president, and some of them were great presidents. You right wingers drag this "executive experience" argument out whenever it suits you and put it in the closet when it doesn't. So don't think you're fooling anyone, because you're not.

You could make exactly the same arguments against John McCain, but you don't. Because you're a right winger and you're not interested in the truth. You're only interested in the arguments that you think help your candidate.

[Guest 2smart4u]

Obama has run the most successful presidential campaign in memory, and he has done it brilliantly. He has presided over the raising of more than 1/4 of a billion dollars and a national political operation that took down one of the most formidable political machines in our history. That's executive experience.

If you want to look at past presidents, Nixon never had executive experience. Neither did Kennedy or Lyndon Johnson or Gerald Ford or Abraham Lincoln. Yet each of them was at least a competent president, and some of them were great presidents. You right wingers drag this "executive experience" argument out whenever it suits you and put it in the closet when it doesn't. So don't think you're fooling anyone, because you're not.

You could make exactly the same arguments against John McCain, but you don't. Because you're a right winger and you're not interested in the truth. You're only interested in the arguments that you think help your candidate.

This is one of the dumber posts you'll ever read. Obama's not running his campaign, his organization is, Obama just goes where he's told and reads prepared speeches when he's told. Nor has he raised any money, his fundraisers have. He has no executive experience, he in fact has very little Senatorial experience, having spend all of 144 working days in the Senate. And you can't make the same argument about McCain. John McCain was a Naval Officer who commanded an entire naval air wing. That is the ultimate example of executive experience, lives depended upon his decision making abilities.

[Bern]

But in other states, with governors as radical as she is, abortions will be criminalized and women who have them will be sent to prison. You'd like to spin this politically to say Palin's radicalism doesn't matter. But it does matter, and not just on the abortion issue. As with everything you've written about this election, the only thing you're proving is that you'll use any excuse to justify the Republican candidates, no matter who they are or how radical they are or how wrong they are.

Don't you believe in home rule? The good people of those states voted for their Governors and legislatures. Would you deny them the right of self-determining, deciding what they want? Deny the will of the voters? Do you want a centralized Federal government to override and control all, to meet your beliefs?

To answer your question, yes they will be. But only if Roe V Wade gets overturned with the help of new SC appointments. Appointments which require the approval of democratic party senators.

So lets not spin the calumny that we need to vote for a democratic president to prevent to prevent the republicans from taking over the SC. The Republicans, can not take over the SC without the assent of the senate Democrats.

[Bern]

The value of experience is that it shows you what a candidate can do and has done in the past. There are many ways for a candidate to prove her or his merits. When a candidate has as little relevant experience as Palin has, is as radical as she is, has never addressed national issues and has said she isn't interested in foreign policy, her absence of experience is a gaping hole in her resume that counts very strongly against her. The best argument for her is that she is governor of a state, but it's a tiny state whose economy bears virtually no resemblance to our national economy, and she has less than two years on the job. So that little bit of executive experience doesn't come anywhere close to closing that gaping hole. If you take away the politics and look at this like a corporate executive considering a hire, a wise executive would say she isn't qualified and wouldn't hire her. That's not political spin, its the facts.

I guess then, you would never hire Lincoln.

[Bern]

Let us know when you learn how to spell and construct a complete sentence. Honestly, why should anyone take you seriously when you make ridiculous remarks and can't even write properly?

If you're too lazy or not intellectually to up to critiquing the argument, then attack the grammar.

[Guest 2smart4u]

I've been seeing this "executive experience" trick in right-winger postings in many places over the couple of days since the Palin announcement. The trick is that by putting the word "executive" in front of the word "experience", they can count Palin's experience (well, part of it, anyway) and not Obama's. But this creates a bit of a problem for those using it. If you allow only executive experience, then John McCain doesn't have any either.

There's no question that Obama has much less experience than McCain. But to claim that Obama is less experienced than Palin is ridiculous. Obama is clearly the more experienced of the two, both in quantity and relevance.

McCain was a career naval officer who commanded an entire naval air wing.There were lives depending on his decision making abilities. That's executive experience. Obama's 144 working days in the Senate hardly gives him any credible experience in any area. Obama has the thinest resume of anyone who's ever run for president (but he has a nice smile).

[Guest 2smart4u]

The value of experience is that it shows you what a candidate can do and has done in the past. There are many ways for a candidate to prove her or his merits. When a candidate has as little relevant experience as Palin has, is as radical as she is, has never addressed national issues and has said she isn't interested in foreign policy, her absence of experience is a gaping hole in her resume that counts very strongly against her. The best argument for her is that she is governor of a state, but it's a tiny state whose economy bears virtually no resemblance to our national economy, and she has less than two years on the job. So that little bit of executive experience doesn't come anywhere close to closing that gaping hole. If you take away the politics and look at this like a corporate executive considering a hire, a wise executive would say she isn't qualified and wouldn't hire her. That's not political spin, its the facts.

"she is governor of a state, but it's a tiny state". No one ever said Loonies were bright.

[Guest Guest]

If you're too lazy or not intellectually to up to critiquing the argument, then attack the grammar.

It's a nice change of pace from ASININE Kool-Aid statements

[Guest Guest]

This is one of the dumber posts you'll ever read.

2dim's becoming self-aware, at long last.

[Guest Guest]

This is one of the dumber posts you'll ever read. Obama's not running his campaign, his organization is, Obama just goes where he's told and reads prepared speeches when he's told. Nor has he raised any money, his fundraisers have. He has no executive experience, he in fact has very little Senatorial experience, having spend all of 144 working days in the Senate. And you can't make the same argument about McCain. John McCain was a Naval Officer who commanded an entire naval air wing. That is the ultimate example of executive experience, lives depended upon his decision making abilities.

Yet again, the facts don't matter to 2dim. Obama is definitely running his campaign. Just as one example, his staff put out a negative statement about Palin yesterday and he personally had it pulled back almost immediately.

[Guest Guest]

Don't you believe in home rule? The good people of those states voted for their Governors and legislatures. Would you deny them the right of self-determining, deciding what they want? Deny the will of the voters? Do you want a centralized Federal government to override and control all, to meet your beliefs?

What you're calling home rule used to be called states' rights, and was used to justify segregation and other abuses of non-whites. I believe in equal protection for all American citizens, as per the Fourteenth Amendment.

The Republicans, can not take over the SC without the assent of the senate Democrats.

Right wing presidents appoint right wing judges, not only to the Supreme Court, but throughout the federal judiciary. Before the election, you're telling us it's no big deal; after the election, if McCain would win, you'd be dragging out the time-honored Republican mantra "elections have consequences" to justify McCain's right wing selections to the bench. To suggest that it doesn't matter who is president, when the president does the appointing is disingenuous.

[Guest Guest]

I guess then, you would never hire Lincoln.

You guess wrong. By the time he was elected president, Lincoln had demonstrated a keen interest and an understanding of the issues affecting his country in his time. Palin has already denied having a keen interest in foreign affairs. We'll see whether she can demonstrate an adequate understanding without being fed canned remarks.

[Guest Guest]

If you're too lazy or not intellectually to up to critiquing the argument, then attack the grammar.

If you weren't so blinded by your ideology, you might have noticed that the statement about grammar followed an intelligent and substantive critique of the argument: "'hillary clinton never proved herself'" or demonstrated her grasp of important national issues. You don't know what you're talking about. Her colleagues on both sides of the aisle acknowledge her grasp of the issues, her competence, her expertise and her fitness to be president. To compare Clinton to Palin just tells me that when you say 'i tend to vote republican,' you're not telling us the whole story. Obviously you're more deeply invested in the Republican side than that." See post 30, and try actually reading it this time.

[Guest Guest]

McCain was a career naval officer who commanded an entire naval air wing.There were lives depending on his decision making abilities. That's executive experience. Obama's 144 working days in the Senate hardly gives him any credible experience in any area. Obama has the thinest resume of anyone who's ever run for president (but he has a nice smile).

No, being a naval officer is not executive experience. You can't compare being a naval officer to being president.

A person who came up from nothing to become president of the Harvard Law Review, and then came from nowhere to wrest the Democratic nomination from Hillary Clinton does not have a thin resume. In fact, he has an extraordinary resume just on that basis alone.

[Guest *Autonomous*]

To answer your question, yes they will be. But only if Roe V Wade gets overturned with the help of new SC appointments. Appointments which require the approval of democratic party senators.

So lets not spin the calumny that we need to vote for a democratic president to prevent to prevent the republicans from taking over the SC. The Republicans, can not take over the SC without the assent of the senate Democrats.

That is assuming that not only will the Democrats keep Congress this year (fairly likely) but they'll keep it in 2010-with a hostile president would be unlikely, as much like the current Congress they wouldn't be able to accomplish much. If McCain gets (or even runs for) a second term it is highly unlikely that we would have a Democratic Congress the entire time.

Personally I like McCain-but I liked him a lot more last year and during the Republican debates before he started moving away from stances I liked and becoming more right-wing than centrist. I still think that he would be far better than Bush, and would definitely be good for the Republicans if he could move them a bit closer to the center again.

That being said, I do NOT like Palin. While she does stand against corruption (which is admirable) she is also a member of a Dominionist branch of Christianity, believes in the 'teach the controversy' nonsense, and while I'm pro-life myself I certainly do not want to force a rape victim to try to self-abort. As an atheist her religious views are alarming to me. Obviously I don't mind voting for a Christian (don't have a choice, in fact), but I certainly won't be voting for a Dominionist.

[Guest Guest]

2dim's becoming self-aware, at long last.

Obviously you don't understand that evolution from a lower life form to a species capable of self-awareness takes millions of years.

[Bern]

No, being a naval officer is not executive experience. You can't compare being a naval officer to being president.

A person who came up from nothing to become president of the Harvard Law Review, and then came from nowhere to wrest the Democratic nomination from Hillary Clinton does not have a thin resume. In fact, he has an extraordinary resume just on that basis alone.

He is not a president, yet. You are comparing apples to oranges. It is this type of illogical thinking which has gotten Obama so far.

But why are people still bringing up experience? Lincoln had none and look what we got.

Let me talk about Obama’s resume.

The Harvard Law Review. There have been rumblings, and it seems all is not as you’ve been sold. Obama’s tenure was lackluster, so bat that they couldn’t wait to remove him with someone competent.

The salient points are listed below. If you go to the link, you’ll see the reason.

1. Obama was, objectively speaking, a lousy president of the Harvard Law Review.

2. It's difficult to say how hard Obama tried. He was apparently keeping his grades up (he graduated an impressive magna cum laude), was planning his big book on race and law, advising Blair Underwood of "LA Law," and his heart was in Chicago, where his girlfriend and political future resided. After all, who cares about the Harvard Law Review (other than those clerks of feeble Supreme Court Justices)?

3. This doesn't prove it, but it fits in with the theory that Obama was intentionally avoiding leaving a paper trail "to maintain my political viability" (as Bill Clinton explained his complicated draft-avoidance plan back during Vietnam).

4. Obama got a lot more out of the Harvard Law Review than the Harvard Law Review got out of him.

http://isteve.blogspot.com/2008/02/how-goo...ng-harvard.html

As, for beating Madame Clinton. They were pretty evenly matched, however Obama went over the top because in many states he got 80 to over 90% of the black vote. If it were a more reasonable black vote, such as 60%, for Obama, then Clinton would have won.

Examples are Texas

http://politics.nytimes.com/election-guide...e-polls/TX.html

or North Carolina

http://politics.nytimes.com/election-guide...e-polls/NC.html

Considering, that Hillary Clinton democrats are being told by the Democratic party to vote for Obama, because their positions are very similar, then why did Obama get such a large margin of votes over Clinton. If they had similar positions, wouldn’t Obama’s vote be about 60%? Not 80 to over 90%?

Obama got that percentage of black votes because of racism – black racism. Racism was what determined the Democratic party nominee.

Of course, many of you Obamites will now accuse me of racism for bringing up the truth. However, here is a prominent black legislator admitting it:

The moment, observes Willie Brown, the former San Francisco mayor and longtime speaker of the California assembly, is like nothing that has ever been realized for a black officeholder. "It's like Michael Jordan and Dr. J. wrapped into one, playing basketball by themselves," says Brown, who is neutral in the presidential race.

That black voters have so embraced Obama, even against the legacy of the Clintons, is not surprising to Brown. "I think most white politicians do not understand that the race pride we all have trumps everything else."

[Guest *Autonomous*]

He is not a president, yet. You are comparing apples to oranges. It is this type of illogical thinking which has gotten Obama so far.

But why are people still bringing up experience? Lincoln had none and look what we got.

Let me talk about Obama’s resume.

The Harvard Law Review. There have been rumblings, and it seems all is not as you’ve been sold. Obama’s tenure was lackluster, so bat that they couldn’t wait to remove him with someone competent.

The salient points are listed below. If you go to the link, you’ll see the reason.

As, for beating Madame Clinton. They were pretty evenly matched, however Obama went over the top because in many states he got 80 to over 90% of the black vote. If it were a more reasonable black vote, such as 60%, for Obama, then Clinton would have won.

Examples are Texas

http://politics.nytimes.com/election-guide...e-polls/TX.html

or North Carolina

http://politics.nytimes.com/election-guide...e-polls/NC.html

Considering, that Hillary Clinton democrats are being told by the Democratic party to vote for Obama, because their positions are very similar, then why did Obama get such a large margin of votes over Clinton. If they had similar positions, wouldn’t Obama’s vote be about 60%? Not 80 to over 90%?

Obama got that percentage of black votes because of racism – black racism. Racism was what determined the Democratic party nominee.

Of course, many of you Obamites will now accuse me of racism for bringing up the truth. However, here is a prominent black legislator admitting it:

Not everyone is an 'Obamite' here, first off. Second-Clinton was pulling huge percentages of working-class whites and even larger percentages of Latino voters-who are as big a minority. Racism worked both ways. The fact is, there simply aren't enough black voters to win an election.

Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...8030500015.html

(You can find plenty more if you like)

Once again we've been given a choice between two mediocre candidates. My choice only became certain when McCain chose to pander to the Religious Right with his VP pick.

[Guest Guest]

He is not a president, yet.

"In 1990, Barack Obama was elected Harvard Law Review president over 18 others."

http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/...unifying_voice/

[Guest Guest]

He is not a president, yet. You are comparing apples to oranges. It is this type of illogical thinking which has gotten Obama so far.

But why are people still bringing up experience? Lincoln had none and look what we got.

Let me talk about Obama’s resume.

The Harvard Law Review. There have been rumblings, and it seems all is not as you’ve been sold. Obama’s tenure was lackluster, so bat that they couldn’t wait to remove him with someone competent.

The salient points are listed below. If you go to the link, you’ll see the reason.

As, for beating Madame Clinton. They were pretty evenly matched, however Obama went over the top because in many states he got 80 to over 90% of the black vote. If it were a more reasonable black vote, such as 60%, for Obama, then Clinton would have won.

Examples are Texas

http://politics.nytimes.com/election-guide...e-polls/TX.html

or North Carolina

http://politics.nytimes.com/election-guide...e-polls/NC.html

Considering, that Hillary Clinton democrats are being told by the Democratic party to vote for Obama, because their positions are very similar, then why did Obama get such a large margin of votes over Clinton. If they had similar positions, wouldn’t Obama’s vote be about 60%? Not 80 to over 90%?

Obama got that percentage of black votes because of racism – black racism. Racism was what determined the Democratic party nominee.

Of course, many of you Obamites will now accuse me of racism for bringing up the truth. However, here is a prominent black legislator admitting it:

Anyone could have put up that "information" about Obama and the Harvard Law Review. You don't know that it's factual at all.

Oh, and that being-a-black-guy thing --- yeah, those black guys have had an edge in our politics for years.