Palin's is the Pick

Amen

her judgment is suspect though, she already had four kids and she decides to have number five when it had a 1 in 30 chance of having downs......seems selfish and foolish to me.

obama has proven his leadership ability by winning the democratic nomination to be the next president of the United States. He has ideas, he can articulate those ideas, and he has worked in major city and state levels as well as DC. What else do you want, the world leaders telling you that they believe he can do the job?..wait, they did that already....

I'm surprised that nobody has as yet commented on the one obvious fact as to why McCain would pick a woman -- this woman or any other -- for a running mate. He is obviously trying to corral all the disappointed previous Hillary backers. Many of them were feminists of no particular political affiliation. They would have backed Hillary if she were running on the Prohibition Party ticket as long as it looked like she might actually win. And even among the Democratic Hillary supporters there are quite a number of people who have said they'll never vote for Obama because of the primary battles just fought.

Coosing a woman for a v.p. running mate is obviously McCain's strategy for roping in all those 'undecideds' who are feminists first and Democrats second or third. Of course, it could backfire, as it did for Mondale when he chose a female running mate.

didn't Ferraro recently say that she felt at the time like and was "window dressing"??? I suspect that Palin will feel like that eventually.

How will women take the GOP assumption that humans with a vagina will elect this ticket because the VP canidate has one too? Don't you figure that they will be insulted? I was always told that it was men who think with their genitalia, that women don't.

That your recent political analysis has been vapid, obviously.

A few people made this observation. I, on the other hand, think he was trying to firm up his base---with her more solidly conservative credentials.

To each his own - but try and maintain some semblance of objectivity won't you?

(BTW - You've now achieved A2K powerpoints by challenging Big Boss Finn. Good for you!"

Hillary site commentary, interesting to say the least:

http://www.hillaryclintonforum.net/discussion/showthread.php?t=26156

Do you subscribe to the notion that an objective person wouldn't have found your giddy blogging vapid ? Your political analysis is typically much more substantial than the partisan microblogging kick you were on and don't think that is an opinion brought about by any deficiency in objectivity.

As to your fixation on "powerpoints" I could not care less about the voting if that's what you are on about.

So his experience consists of

1) Winning the democratic primaries --- although he backed into the win. Sure seems like qualifications for being president! Of course it helps when there is a "proportional" distribution. (If Obama and Clinton were Republicans running in Republican primaries, Clinto would have kicked his ass. But then these were the screwy Dem primaries which strove to show fairness while preserving back room decisions in the person of "super-delegates."

2) He has ideas and can articulate those ideas. Therefore Shirley McClain, Alec Baldwin, Clint Eastwood, Regis Philbin, Lou Holtz, Brit Humes, Tommy Lee Jones, Jon Voight, Gary Oldman, Gary Sinese, Derek Jeter and Rober Duvall are all qualified to be president.

3) he has worked in major city and state levels as well as DC.

Perhaps, if you are an Illinois booster.

So if you get a job as a receptionist at a Nuclear Energy Think Tank, you become an expert on Nuclear Energy?

If his experience in "major city and state levels as well as DC." represents qualifications for the presidency then just about everyone working in DC is qualified to be president of the US.

What else do I want?

A candidate with true experience.

What "world leaders" told us they believe he can do the job?

Ask yourself why you felt compelled to introduce my "giddy blogging" into a thread where I obviously took a tract of more substantial analysis?

Who is the jerk?

The answer should be obvious, when you decided to mock the lacking substance in the posts of others there was a beam in your eye given that you'd spent days offering similarly substanceless analysis.



Dunno, Michael Phelps? I didn't call you a jerk. In any case, I do agree that your analysis has been much more substantial tonight, and while you may not care I appreciate that.

By gaming the system... Oinkbama won the demmy primary in caucuses, which are meaningless, and in states which the dems cannot win in a general election. All o fthe big states which dems would count on to win went to Hillary.

What work has he done in DC?
He has been a Senator for 3 years, and has spent 2 of them running for President.

If all things were even--they absolutely are not even in this election, but if they were--the way I see it is that I would much prefer to have an experienced President training a 'green' Vice-president rather than have an experienced Vice-President trying to train a 'green' President.

And that is sort of our choices in that regard isn't it?

Perhaps, he was halfway sober.

Barack Obama organized a campaign that beat the (previously) most powerful Democratic Party machine in modern political history. That alone qualifies him to be the president.

Palin has six years "experience" as a mayor of a hamlet (pop 9000) and a state whose population is smaller than major American cities.

The site is populated by ersatz Hillary supporters like our own "Miller."

So that makes a difference.
Alaska has the same problems that every other state has, and it has some problems that are unique.
Are you now suggesting that only governors from states with a certain population threshhold are allowed to run for president?
What is that magical number?

Hope you know this quote better than me

"The cocks may crow, but it's the hen that lays the egg." - Margaret Thatche