kickycan
 
  5  
Reply Mon 1 Sep, 2008 09:06 am
@Phoenix32890,
Quote:
I think that both candidates picked their running mates as a political move.


Yes, but they also MUST take into consideration what's best for the country. It is obvious who took that into consideration, and who didn't. There was obviously some political motivation for Obama's pick, but McCain's was nothing but.
cicerone imposter
 
  2  
Reply Mon 1 Sep, 2008 09:41 am
@kickycan,
It's so obvious that McCain the maverick has no idea what is most important for this country. Out of all the choices he had for his VP, he picks a woman with no experience in national politics, but a state with one of the smallest populations, and those with the least educated.

Since when did a Journalism major become a prerequisite for VP for our country?
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  4  
Reply Mon 1 Sep, 2008 10:56 am
Certainly political expediency was the largest motive in the choice of both candidates. Biden provides the experience and foreign policy exposure that Obama lacks. Palin provides a youthful image and solid conservative credentials that McCain lacks, plus she is a woman which is a definite plus in this 'dare to be different' climate. Palin, however, is the ONLY candidate up there who is truly NOT a Washington insider, the only one with ANY executive experience, and she does bring reformer credentials to the mix. Any other choice that McCain could have made would have triggered just as much, if different, criticism.

And while John McCain was certainly not my first choice to be the GOP candidate, he is the candidate we have and, on the issues, in my opinion is the better choice of the two viable candidates. Since he has received a clean bill of health from his doctor, it is highly unprobable that he is going to croak in office before he has made necessary appointments and surrounded the Veep with competent people.

Any way, the Obama camp has been trying to make the case that fresh ideas and good judgment are enough to be President.

It finally comes down to whether it is better for an experienced Vice President to try to make a President out of an inexperienced young guy or whether it is better for an experience President to train an inexperienced Veep in the job.
kickycan
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Sep, 2008 10:59 am
@Foxfyre,
Quote:
Certainly political expediency was the largest motive in the choice of both candidates.


It isn't at all certain for both candidates. It is certain in John McCain's case, I'll give you that much.
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  3  
Reply Mon 1 Sep, 2008 11:01 am
@Foxfyre,
Foxfyre wrote:
Certainly political expediency was the largest motive in the choice of both candidates.


"Certainly"? "Largest"? No, not certainly.

Obama's pick was a balance of what would be the best choice politically and in terms of governing. Biden has many qualities that would make him a good vice president -- chief among them his readiness to assume the presidency if need be.

McCain's choice isn't about governing, it's just about winning elections.

One can say that he can't govern until he wins the election -- but Palin is still an afterthought there. He's basically saying a) he doesn't need a VP, b) he guarantees that he won't die (or be otherwise incapacitated). Those are both problematic assertions IMO.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Sep, 2008 11:39 am
@sozobe,
To piggy-back o sozobe's post, McCain's choice is cynical at its worst. He chose his VP based not based on national and/or international issues and interests, but because he thought it would attract women voters.

There's so much in being a "maverick," but this isn't one of them. Why people even bother using that label on McCain is a mystery; he's voted 90 percent of the time with Bush, and will carry on his policies if he becomes the president.

McCain is far from being a trailblazer where it counts; he's a follower. 90% says so.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  3  
Reply Mon 1 Sep, 2008 03:30 pm
@sozobe,
sozobe wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
Certainly political expediency was the largest motive in the choice of both candidates.


"Certainly"? "Largest"? No, not certainly.

Obama's pick was a balance of what would be the best choice politically and in terms of governing. Biden has many qualities that would make him a good vice president -- chief among them his readiness to assume the presidency if need be.

McCain's choice isn't about governing, it's just about winning elections.

One can say that he can't govern until he wins the election -- but Palin is still an afterthought there. He's basically saying a) he doesn't need a VP, b) he guarantees that he won't die (or be otherwise incapacitated). Those are both problematic assertions IMO.


Oh come on. Biden has not been able to generate more than 1% of the popular vote outisde of his own state in anything. Nobody apparently though he was imminently qualified before.

Do you think if Biden was not a long termer or lacked foreign policy experience or if he couldn't provide working class roots plus the Catholic connection, all of which are giving Obama some problems, he would have bene selected? He was selected because it was hoped he could counter Obama's deficiencies, just as Palin was selected because it was hoped she could counter McCains. To think otherwise, I think is based on nothing more than blind hope.

sozobe
 
  2  
Reply Mon 1 Sep, 2008 03:33 pm
@Foxfyre,
Foxfyre wrote:
Nobody apparently though he was imminently qualified before.


You're calling Biden unqualified now?
Foxfyre
 
  2  
Reply Mon 1 Sep, 2008 03:53 pm
@sozobe,
sozobe wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
Nobody apparently though he was imminently qualified before.


You're calling Biden unqualified now?


I did not and have not said that. All I am saying, the Democrats didn't think he was more qualified than anybody else before as they didn't want him as their Presidential candidate before --he has never won any election ANYWHERE running as President. He hasn't even been close. I'm not real sure he has even gotten more votes than anybody else running. So how could he been seen as the greatest thing since sliced bread now any more than several others who have gotten a lot more votes than Biden?

I think pure and simple, he was picked because he supplied some credentials in areas that Obama can't.
sozobe
 
  2  
Reply Mon 1 Sep, 2008 03:57 pm
@Foxfyre,
Foxfyre wrote:

sozobe wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
Nobody apparently though he was imminently qualified before.


You're calling Biden unqualified now?


I did not and have not said that. All I am saying, the Democrats didn't think he was more qualified than anybody else


This is different from what you said first.

Lots of people thought Biden was eminently qualified. As you've noted, becoming president is a combination of qualifications and charisma, knowledge and politicking. Where he has been lacking is the charisma/ politicking part of the equation -- NOT the qualification part of it.

Dude's qualified.
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Sep, 2008 04:55 pm
@sozobe,
It's what I meant before though which, in context, was obvious to me. But apparently not to everybody.

I agree that Biden is as qualified as most Presidential candidates these days, and he is infinitely more qualified than Obama. But I am not buying for a minute that he was selected as Veep for that reason. If they were looking for the most logical choice based on pure qualifications, they would have picked Bill Richardson over Biden. But in shoring up Obama's resume, Biden was the better choice.
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Sep, 2008 08:40 pm
@maporsche,
It definitely isn't better to have an idiot, a liar, a pandering fool, a bush2 at the top of the ticket.
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  4  
Reply Mon 1 Sep, 2008 10:02 pm
@Foxfyre,
Foxfyre wrote:
Oh come on. Biden has not been able to generate more than 1% of the popular vote outisde of his own state in anything.


Exactly. So how can choosing him have been expected to get him any more votes.
Cycloptichorn
 
  3  
Reply Mon 1 Sep, 2008 11:17 pm
@Foxfyre,
Quote:

Any way, the Obama camp has been trying to make the case that fresh ideas and good judgment are enough to be President.


I agree; Palin has neither fresh ideas or good judgment. And neither does McCain.

Cycloptichorn
Woiyo9
 
  2  
Reply Tue 2 Sep, 2008 05:59 am
@Cycloptichorn,
How can you say Palin does not have good judgement? Based upon what?
Ramafuchs
 
  0  
Reply Mon 15 Sep, 2008 10:13 pm
@mysteryman,
IMO, it is better to have the mor experienced person at the top of the ticket, not in the VP slot.
But for the above insinuating insulting sentense your response if fine to my taste.
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  2  
Reply Tue 16 Sep, 2008 06:11 am
@FreeDuck,
In my opinion Biden was picked to shore up the experience factor and Palin was picked to shore up the excitement factor perceived lacking in both candidates.
revel
 
  1  
Reply Tue 16 Sep, 2008 06:15 am
@Woiyo9,
Quote:
How can you say Palin does not have good judgement? Based upon what?


Based on everything that we have learning of record and past statements as Mayor and Governor. Just read any number of Palin threads to get an idea.
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Tue 16 Sep, 2008 10:28 am
@revel,
That is probably true.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/09/2021 at 01:43:50