United States Presidential Election 2008 - Official Discussion Thread

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
It was a poor governance decision, as I doubt America's first VPILF will provide that much assistance should they actually manage to win.

That doesn't make it a poor electioneering decision; the jury's still out on that.

The way in which she was rolled-out was a smart political move though as it shoved Obama's speech from the top of the news; and apparently since her selection has helped McCain in the fundraising stakes to the tune of between $5-7 million. (Although I'm not sure if that's a typical situation following a VP selection)

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
But, she is a radical and a bit of a maverick who can always say she put the interests of her state before those of the Republican Party...

Also, how can the Dems attack her on the experience charge?

They can point out that her lack of experience is at odds with McCain's entire campaign, which has been based on the experience and the idea that he puts country before politics or himself.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
So you're a time traveler from a retarded version of our future?

Originally posted by BackFire
They can point out that her lack of experience is at odds with McCain's entire campaign, which has been based on the experience and the idea that he puts country before politics or himself.

To which the retort is Biden blunts Obama's message of Change.

Originally posted by BackFire
They can point out that her lack of experience is at odds with McCain's entire campaign, which has been based on the experience and the idea that he puts country before politics or himself.

The Dems will have a hard time raising the "inexperience" issue, when their presidential pick has very little himself. Another reason why the GOP picked her I think.

This is basically the GOP's stance on Palin, from Hotair.com, by Ed Morrissey:

"Why would he put a small-town mayor a heartbeat away from the presidency?

This is a real laugher. By the same logic, why would the Democrats make a state legislator the actual president? The answer is that Obama is a US Senator of three years experience, and Palin is a governor of 20 months’ experience. Only Barack Obama has spent two of those three years not in the Senate doing his job but running for President. Before starting his bid, he had a grand total of less than 150 days in session in the Senate. Palin, on the other hand, has run her state for more than triple that time.
And let’s remember that Obama is running for the top job, while Palin’s running for VP.

McCain can’t talk about experience any more — he’s shot himself in the foot!

Unfortunately for the critics, this argument doesn’t hold water, either. All four principals are running for the highest executive position in the federal government — indeed, the position in charge of the entire executive branch. How much executive experience does Obama have? None; he’s worked in corporate law, community organizing, and has eleven years as a legislator at various levels. Biden? He’s been a lawyer for three years and a Senator for 35 years, and has no executive experience at any level of government.

McCain at least has executive experience as a squadron commander in the US Navy, but Palin has the actual executive track record that the others lack. She has governed Alaska for 20 months, negotiated a pipeline deal with Canada (which gives her more formal diplomatic experience than either Obama or Biden), was commander-in-chief of Alaska’s National Guard, and so on. Even her more local-level experience is more applicable than Obama’s: she served two terms as mayor, an executive position, cutting taxes and running a small city. Obama served in the state legislature, with no executive responsibilities at all."

They're going to milk the "she has executive experience" teat til it's dry.

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
To which the retort is Biden blunts Obama's message of Change.

A relatively weak argument these days.

Obama's message of change was made more specific during his recent acceptance speech. It seems change simply means change from Bush and change from how things currently are. Biden blunts that in no way. If anything it helps since Biden can actually help in getting that change done by using his vast knowledge and credibility to move the idea further than it otherwise would have gone.

Originally posted by Robtard
The Dems will have a hard time raising the "inexperience" issue, when their presidential pick has very little himself. Another reason why the GOP picked her I think.

I agree, dems shouldn't raise the issue initially. However, it does give them a very very strong retort against McCain now if he or other reps try and use it. It is no longer a valid argument for McCain to use.

I do think it would backfire for dems to go out saying 'she has no experience blah blah' because that argument inherently works against Obama as well. However, they can make the argument that this shows McCain to be a hypocrite since his entire campaign was based on his experience AND (this is the most important and powerful part of the argument) that all of his attacks against Obama have been because of his lack of experience, and this move to put Palin on the ticket more or less states that McCain has submitted to the idea that you don't need experience in order to be a good president.

As far as her executive experience, few will buy that. If they were going for executive experience they would have chosen Romney. Her executive experience is still very lacking and not quite relevant considering the small population that her decisions have affected and the length of her term as governor. It's a pretty weak argument to make.

Originally posted by BackFire

I agree, dems shouldn't raise the issue initially. However, it does give them a very very strong retort against McCain now if he or other reps try and use it. It is no longer a valid argument for McCain to use.

I do think it would backfire for dems to go out saying 'she has no experience blah blah' because that argument inherently works against Obama as well. However, they can make the argument that this shows McCain to be a hypocrite since his entire campaign was based on his experience AND (this is the most important and powerful part of the argument) that all of his attacks against Obama have been because of his lack of experience, and this move to put Palin on the ticket more or less states that McCain has submitted to the idea that you don't need experience in order to be a good president.

Will it backfire on them? I hope so. It's not guaranteed though.

They're also going to strongly push that Palin has experience, more so than any of the other three in the areas of "executive experience." Just watch, those two words will be thrown about within the Rep/Con circles at every opportunity, Limbaugh (the hypocritical druggie) is already raving about Palin.

She's only running for Vice President though. The Democrats would be dumb to pounce on that. The Republicans could easily argue and I think they will that their candidates are in the right order: They've got the long term washington guy at the top of the ticket, and the newcomer as the Vice President. The Democrats have it backwards they'll prolly say. And that could totally work.

I also think, the Republicans being the master politicians they are measured twice with this decision. It could actually be their intention to kind of back off the experience attacks on Obama and just spin their ticket as the REAL reform ticket with two people with actual reform credentials on it and Obama's as actually "more of the same" since Palin has such a fresh record of going against her party and cleaning up corruption etc and John McCain has gone against his party as well

It doesn't matter that she's 'only' VP, though. The fact that McCain had said that his VP pick was first and foremost going to be someone that could take his place to be president should something happen to him makes the decision matter. The fact that he chose someone with similar/less experience than Obama to take his place as president is more or less an admittance that experience doesn't matter very much. And so it becomes an invalid argument for them to make against Obama.

And that "it's in the wrong order" would be an absolutely horrific argument, it would get squashed by anyone with any semblance of common sense. It would reak of political talking points and all would see through it, I don't expect them to try and make that argument, I expect them to simply lie and say that she has the experience necessary to be president, which is obviously at odds with his attacks on Obama's experience. It no longer is a valid criticism of Obama from the McCain camp, period.

And considering McCain's voting record of the past couple of years, it will be very difficult for them to spin their ticket as the real reform ticket, since he actually has voted with Bush over 90% of the time. The only reform I'd expect from them is outlawing abortion.

Indeed, the best way the Democrats can attack Palin is to not attack her or her limited experience; but instead to attack McCain's choosing her despite her limited experience. I.e. If McCain thinks Palin is experienced enough to be President (which by choosing her indicates he does, or at least is willing to pretend he does) then by the same criteria Obama is experienced enough to be President.

It's also silly to bring up Dan Quayle as some have considering that while by years he did have more experience than Palin; he also had more experience than Obama - which may only serve to highlight Obama's short tenure in Washington. Dan Quayle's problem wasn't a lack of experience it was that he was rather an imbecile; or at least perceived to be one.

How Palin will be perceived depends on how disciplined she can be over the next 60 days and how she performs against Joe Biden. If she ends up being the Quayle to his Bentsen then that will seriously hurt McCain, far more than Quayle may have hurt Bush Sr. However Biden should tread carefully in the debate too as he should avoid coming across as "a bully." Alternatively a stray comment about her appearance is unlikely to go over well.

Also, on whether it has been a smart political move; well it apparently has nullified the post convention bounce in polls apparently.

Kinda hard to tell with the polls, really depends which one you look at.

According to the Gallup Daily Tracking poll he got a 10 point boost from the convention.

The CNN one shows a smaller gain, but still a gain.

Originally posted by BackFire
The fact that he chose someone with similar/less experience than Obama to take his place as president is more or less an admittance that experience doesn't matter very much. And so it becomes an invalid argument for them to make against Obama.

And I'm saying this as a Democrat. That's the spin they're gonna try to put on it but just being real Palin has more experience than he does and has accomplished a lot for the state of Alaska in the short time that she has been Governor. I think her resume while limited is still more impressive than Barack Obama's.

Originally posted by BackFire

And considering McCain's voting record of the past couple of years, it will be very difficult for them to spin their ticket as the real reform ticket, since he actually has voted with Bush over 90% of the time. The only reform I'd expect from them is outlawing abortion.

Bringing up McCain's voting record isn't about partisanship, it's about the fact that Bush is wrong.

Apparently McCain voting "with Bush" or with his party ranges from mid 60s to 90% depending upon the year taken. Obama is pretty consistently with his party; and ranges 40-50% "with Bush." I'm not entirely sure what "with Bush" means considering Bush isn't a Senator.

Not to rain on her accomplishments, but being Mayor of Wasilla is hardly the same as Mayor of NYC or Austin or Los Angeles; and being Governor of Alaska is hardly the same as being Governor of New York, Texas or California.

Someone on 538 suggested if he wanted a woman he should have asked Olympia Snowe - which would have been interesting; and probably would have been a more useful VP in the event that he did win. But it seems he thought he needed a 3G's running mate.

Originally posted by Robtard
The Dems will have a hard time raising the "inexperience" issue, when their presidential pick has very little himself. Another reason why the GOP picked her I think.

This is basically the GOP's stance on Palin, from Hotair.com, by Ed Morrissey:

"[b]Why would he put a small-town mayor a heartbeat away from the presidency?

This is a real laugher. By the same logic, why would the Democrats make a state legislator the actual president? The answer is that Obama is a US Senator of three years experience, and Palin is a governor of 20 months’ experience. Only Barack Obama has spent two of those three years not in the Senate doing his job but running for President. Before starting his bid, he had a grand total of less than 150 days in session in the Senate. Palin, on the other hand, has run her state for more than triple that time.
And let’s remember that Obama is running for the top job, while Palin’s running for VP.

McCain can’t talk about experience any more — he’s shot himself in the foot!

Unfortunately for the critics, this argument doesn’t hold water, either. All four principals are running for the highest executive position in the federal government — indeed, the position in charge of the entire executive branch. How much executive experience does Obama have? None; he’s worked in corporate law, community organizing, and has eleven years as a legislator at various levels. Biden? He’s been a lawyer for three years and a Senator for 35 years, and has no executive experience at any level of government.

McCain at least has executive experience as a squadron commander in the US Navy, but Palin has the actual executive track record that the others lack. She has governed Alaska for 20 months, negotiated a pipeline deal with Canada (which gives her more formal diplomatic experience than either Obama or Biden), was commander-in-chief of Alaska’s National Guard, and so on. Even her more local-level experience is more applicable than Obama’s: she served two terms as mayor, an executive position, cutting taxes and running a small city. Obama served in the state legislature, with no executive responsibilities at all."

They're going to milk the "she has executive experience" teat til it's dry. [/B]

Good points. She actually does have more experience on the executve level than Biden, Obama, or even McCain if you get technical about it.

Makes the whole "McCain changed his tune!" argument null and void, doesn't it?

He picked her because she's a woman. That should be the dems argument, only they have to be careful how they make it.

Ignoring Palin for a moment, who thinks we'll hear the names Ayers or Rev. Wright again in the next 2 months?

Will the republicans bring it up? Or will it remain part of the early smear campaigns that Obama is friends with a domestic terrorist and was a member of a racist radical church where the racist pastor baptized his wonderful daughters and married him and his beautiful wife that we saw on tv at the DNC?

Originally posted by SelinaAndBruce
Palin doesn't have similar experience than Obama. She's been the governor of a state and a mayor. Has Obama even sponsored a bill in the Senate yet? Is he even on one of the top comittees? Has he done anything of note in the Senate period?

And I'm saying this as a Democrat. That's the spin they're gonna try to put on it but just being real Palin has more experience than he does and has accomplished a lot for the state of Alaska in the short time that she has been Governor. I think her resume while limited is still more impressive than Barack Obama's.

Similar time. Obama's been a senator for 3 years, she's been governor for less than 2. Obama was in state legislature since 96, she was mayor for about 10 years.

And you're argument falls flat because McCain hasn't argued against Obama based on the quality of his work, but on the quantity. Also, it would be quite silly for them to make the argument that Obama isn't ready to lead but Palin is. So being a governor for a year and a half of a state with a population smaller than most large cities and a mayor of a town the size of some large high schools means your ready to be president? Is that the benchmark for McCain? No, they won't make that argument, they'd get laughed at, and rightfully so.

Obama has done some good work for his state. He helped reform the death penalty in Illinois, and he altered a hospital to treat veterans with better care. If you want to know more specifics about him that's your responsibility to learn that yourself. He's done plenty in the short time he's been in the senate, the idea that he hasn't done much is more baseless spin from his opposition.

While in the Illinois state senate he also voted against the "born alive" bill, so that babies surviving an abortion could be left to die in a soiled boiler room.

An outstanding accomplishment for his state senate record!

Especially when you consider that both Biden AND Clinton supported the "born alive" bill on the national level.

And Obama supports federal funding of abortion and partial birth abortions. Conservatives will eat him alive on this issue.

Combine it with Ayers and Rev. Wright, and Barrack "The One" Obama starts to look pretty sleazy.

Originally posted by sithsaber408
While in the Illinois state senate he also voted against the "born alive" bill, so that babies surviving an abortion could be left to die in a soiled boiler room.

I would have been totally in support of that, just like . . . wahhh?