6
   

Palin vs Hillary

 
 
cicerone imposter
 
  2  
Reply Sat 27 Sep, 2008 04:44 pm
@A Lone Voice,
YOu need medical help, quickly. That echo in your brain should be treated.
djjd62
 
  1  
Reply Sat 27 Sep, 2008 04:44 pm
@A Lone Voice,
A Lone Voice wrote:

But, come 2012, what with an anticipated Palin/Hillary slamdown...


i'm not even an american and i know that you guys have elections every four years

if mc cain wins i can't see him going more than four, bush has aged about 5o years in his time in office, goddamn mc cain's gonna look like the crypt keeper after four
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  2  
Reply Sat 27 Sep, 2008 04:46 pm
@A Lone Voice,
This is from the National Review (or do you think they have a lib/progressive slant).

Kathleen Parker wrote:

Palin’s recent interviews with Charles Gibson, Sean Hannity, and now Katie Couric have all revealed an attractive, earnest, confident candidate. Who Is Clearly Out Of Her League.

No one hates saying that more than I do. Like so many women, I’ve been pulling for Palin, wishing her the best, hoping she will perform brilliantly. I’ve also noticed that I watch her interviews with the held breath of an anxious parent, my finger poised over the mute button in case it gets too painful. Unfortunately, it often does. My cringe reflex is exhausted.

...


Only Palin can save McCain, her party, and the country she loves. She can bow out for personal reasons, perhaps because she wants to spend more time with her newborn. No one would criticize a mother who puts her family first.


As I said... even Conservatives are getting it now.
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Sat 27 Sep, 2008 04:48 pm
@cicerone imposter,
I think it was Matt Damon who compared Palin's quick rise to "a really bad Disney movie".
0 Replies
 
A Lone Voice
 
  2  
Reply Sat 27 Sep, 2008 04:56 pm
@ebrown p,
And I could post 25 articles from NRO stating Palin is the second coming of Ronald Reagan.

Or I could post an article from Salon by Carmen Paglia (I think libs/progressives claim her, right?) saying Palin has not been given a fair shake. (I'll post it if you haven't read it, but it bores me to post the work of others).

You found an anti-Palin article from a conservative. Big whoop. So now that means "everybody"?

No, that's the way libs/progressives think... One (popular) person tells everyone what they think, and everybody falls in line, even if this means giving up their intellectual honesty.

Avoiding and deflecting the hard questions, if they must...
cicerone imposter
 
  2  
Reply Sat 27 Sep, 2008 05:01 pm
@A Lone Voice,
Can't help it when the obvious is not seen or acknowledged by most conservative s that Palin belongs in a straight jacket; not in the white house. You all think she's capable; that's the rub.
engineer
 
  3  
Reply Sat 27 Sep, 2008 05:04 pm
@A Lone Voice,
Gov. Palin is to be commended for her rise from small town politician to governor of Alaska. I think what sets her apart from Senator Clinton is Clinton's burning thirst for knowledge in the political area. Palin has done very well mastering issues pertinent to Alaska's citizens, but Alaska isn't very representative of the rest of the country. In two interviews so far, she has been woefully ignorant of issues affecting the wider population. Eight years as VP, and she might be awesome, but honestly I doubt it. Not that she's not smart or hard working, just that she doesn't seem to have a passion for it. Ask her about issues impacting Alaska and I'll bet she'd be into it.

Senator Clinton has the passion. She knows about this stuff because she seeks out information, forms opinions, tests those opinions against others, revises the opinions as she gets more information, etc. No one has to teach it to her, she goes out and gets it. This is what makes Clinton a better politician on the national stage and more qualified to be President. If Gov. Palin felt the same way towards national politics, we'd have seen it in her interviews. Certainly when Sen. Clinton goes into an interview, you see a person who has knowledge across a broad spectrum of issues and has made an informed opinion.

In general, I think "experience" is overblown as a predictor of Presidential performance. I won't go over all the posts about how some "experienced" Presidents were awful and how some "inexperienced" ones did great. What I do think is important is what I call "Presidential temperament." To me that means equal parts having an intense, burning curiosity to understand the world, having a fully formed vision for this country and having the ability to stay calm and make the tough decisions when under fire. All the advisers in the world can't make up for those traits if you don't have them. I don't think Gov. Palin has the first two. I think Senators Clinton, Obama, Biden and McCain do. Can Palin get there in eight years? Maybe, but there's a double digit chance that she won't have that long and that's not a risk we can take.
A Lone Voice
 
  2  
Reply Sat 27 Sep, 2008 05:11 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Quote:

YOu need medical help, quickly. That echo in your brain should be treated.


Heavy sigh...

You really need to be led by the hand and have things explained to you, don't you?

OK, CI, but last time. I'm a busy dude..

ebrown said:

Quote:

Re: A Lone Voice(Post 3417042)
You obviously haven't heard. It is very clear that Sarah Palin is in way over her head. She is not any more qualified to be vice president than I am to be Quarterback of the New England Patriots.

I understood this at the convention. The press figured it out last week.

Now even Conservatives are getting the picture.

Palin will probably not quit the ticket (although some conservative pundits are now suggesting she develop "family issues"). But after Obama wins... you will never hear from Sarah Palin again, except for the made for cable movie.


And then I replied:

Quote:

Re: ebrown p(Post 3417058)
Great lib/progressive slanted reply that echos just about every other lib/progressive here.

Now, want to take an actual shot at answering the question?


And then you said:

Quote:

Re: ebrown p(Post 3417058)
I disagree; the story is good enough for a movie.


And then I said:

Quote:

Re: cicerone imposter(Post 3417064)
movie, movie, movie..

There goes that echo again.


Did I make the correct words bold for you? Did you understand what some of us call "a play on words"?

I know sometimes that humor is tough for those with vast amounts of lib/progressive fevor, but hey, lighten up, Francis...
cicerone imposter
 
  2  
Reply Sat 27 Sep, 2008 05:18 pm
@A Lone Voice,
Here's the problem:
http://vodpod.com/watch/1033259-palins-lies-gaffes

This is about "Palin," not what others say about her.

You wrote in 042:

Quote:
I've noticed so many libs/progressives here just don't seem able to answer the tough questions, my post about opinion polls notwithstanding.

But sticking to this topic, can I get someone to come out and play?

I'll ask again:

Palin has earned the governorship in Alaska on her own. If McCain is elected, will her four years as VP be any less important than Hillary's years as a senator?

Right now, Palin is being slammed for her lack of foreign policy experience (although these same lib/progressive critics didn't seem to mind the lack of foreign policy experience of two governors of a couple of small, poo-butt states like Arkansas and Georgia who were running for president - sorry, my CA bias is showing - as is lib/progressive intellectual dishonesty).

-BTW, I believe all three lack(ed) foreign policy expertise, but good leaders surround themselves with great advisors and adapt to the learning curve(although this wasn’t the case with Carter, failure that he was). And Palin, as VP, will (hopefully) have time to grow in office. Although that doesn’t always work out, as we found when FDR died and Truman assumed office-

But, come 2012, what with an anticipated Palin/Hillary slamdown...

What about the experience factor? I'm interested in the lib/progressive spin here...


To some of us simpletons, lies matter coming from a veep candidate. I can't trust anybody who outright continues to lie about her own past decisions.
A Lone Voice
 
  2  
Reply Sat 27 Sep, 2008 05:19 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Quote:

Can't help it when the obvious is not seen or acknowledged by most conservative s that Palin belongs in a straight jacket; not in the white house.


OK, I think it's time for serious people to start treating you like an ignorant, petulant child, and hit the ignore button.

Hyperbole, I hope?

Or, more likely, typical lib/progressive hysteria…
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 27 Sep, 2008 05:21 pm
@A Lone Voice,
Please ignore my posts; that's a personal request.
0 Replies
 
A Lone Voice
 
  2  
Reply Sat 27 Sep, 2008 05:28 pm
@cicerone imposter,
keith olbermann !!! Laughing

You are kidding, right?

See my above post, you child...

Jeez, why don't you just post something by kos or the Democratic Underground...

Or do you want me to post a pro Palin piece by Rush Limbaugh?

Think for yourselves, you people!!!
firefly
 
  2  
Reply Sat 27 Sep, 2008 05:31 pm
@A Lone Voice,
It's not just the experience factor.

Palin has no intellectual depth. Her thinking is shallow, muddled, confused, and overly concrete. This is not something that can be necessarily overcome with more experience or "growing in office". She seems to be lacking in basic intellectual ability. I think I can understand why she had to bounce through 5 different colleges in order to obtain her degree.

If anything, Palin proves the point that very high office is not the place for intellectually mediocre people. Her personality is engaging, and she is an attractive woman, and that may help her likeablity quotient, at least at first glance. She's not threatening to the average person, they can see themselves in her. But average people can not do jobs that really require above average abilities. I do not denigrate the office of VP or president, by believing that anyone can function well in those jobs--they require an above average degree of intelligence and ability to conceptualize and think abstractly.

Carter may not have been a particularly effective president, but he is an extremely intelligent man. So was Truman. Even Bush is not quite the idiot that people make him out to be, and a lot of his folksy manner is really an act. Bill Clinton was a Rhodes Scholar--he is a very bright man. Even Dan Quayle, certainly the butt of many jokes, is a well educated, intelligent man.

Offhand, I can't think of anyone as ill prepared as Palin, in terms of mental ability, who has run for such high office in my lifetime. I can see why the Republicans have tried to keep her from opening her mouth in any situation that is not scripted for her.

Being governor of Alaska does not appear to be an intellectually demanding or challenging job. She can understand the rather limited range of issues she deals with, although how well she understands them may be open to question. And, in Alaska, she seems to have tried dodging situations where she would have to have any indepth interactions with people where she would have to display her reasoning skills. Just because she is a governor, does not mean she is even on a par with other governors, because Alaska is a rather unique state in many respects. She got into office as a "reformer" and her reforming seems to have been little more than firing the old guys and replacing them with her friends. As mayor of tiny Wasilla, she had to hire a city administrator to help her do her job.

Again, it is not just the experience factor. The more Palin opens her mouth and comments on issues or policies, the more people cringe. It is not that she lacks experience, it is that she lacks reasoning ability and intellectual depth. Her thinking is fuzzy, shallow, confused, and at times incoherent. This is not just due to her lack of specific acquired knowledge, it reflects something about her basic mental abilities.

I don't even want to think about the possibility that she might be elected VP. I care too much about my country to even want to entertain that possibility.



cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 27 Sep, 2008 05:38 pm
@A Lone Voice,
You do understand what a ad homonym is don't you? Attack the content of the clip rather than the host. We can then discuss the real topic of why Pain is not prepared to be veep; she lies.

Show us where in each instant when Playing made the statements in the clip that she told the truth?

You'll definitely change my mind about Pain if you can do this.

The balls now in your court.
0 Replies
 
A Lone Voice
 
  2  
Reply Sat 27 Sep, 2008 05:38 pm
@engineer,
You bring up excellent issues, engineer, and in some aspects, I agree with you.

I think you have a great point about about "Presidential temperament." And I would agree Senators Clinton, Obama, and McCain have it now. Biden, I'm not so sure.

I also agree McCain, if elected, won't make it two terms. That's why I believe a 2012 Palin/Hillary matchup would be likely at that point. I'm very disapointed the McCain camp has kept her under wraps, but with the way the media has played out their "vetting" of Palin, I can't say I blame them at this point.

I think the debates next week will answer a lot of questions about Palin I have. I just wish she had a tougher opponent than Biden...
cicerone imposter
 
  2  
Reply Sat 27 Sep, 2008 05:41 pm
@A Lone Voice,
ALV wrote:
Quote:
That's why I believe a 2012 Palin/Hillary matchup would be likely at that point.


ROFLMAO
A Lone Voice
 
  1  
Reply Sun 28 Sep, 2008 10:01 pm
@firefly,
One issue I have with your response, firefly, is much you are depending on the media portrayal of Palin.

..."intellectually mediocre, average, she lacks reasoning ability and intellectual depth.."

All comments that have been repeated everywhere from the New York Times to SNL to Letterman to The Daily Show.

While I didn't cringe as much as you did during her interviews with Charlie and Katie, I'll admit she isn't anywhere as polished as Obama. Many commentators believe she was too concerned with making a Joe Biden-like foot in mouth mistake that the press would pounce on her for, and played it too conservatively in her responses.

But you didn't read that anywhere you shop, did you?

What bugs me about how you and others are evaluating her at this point is how the left did the exact same thing with Reagan. They made him out as a simpleton who didn't have the horsepower to be president.

Amazing, years later, once they discovered many of his writings, how they changed their opinion (except for the most loony of the left, of course, who still view him as public enemy #1).

Anyway, I think I'll wait until after her debate with 'Wrong side of history on every foreign policy decision he's ever made' Joe Biden to make up my mind.

You might be right; she very well could be a lightweight. But maybe not.
0 Replies
 
A Lone Voice
 
  1  
Reply Sun 28 Sep, 2008 10:03 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Speaking of intellectual lightweights, you're still around? I thought you wanted me to ignore you, straightjacket man?
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  3  
Reply Sun 28 Sep, 2008 10:34 pm
@engineer,
I have said and I am 100% convinced that Hillary Clinton was a better choice than Barack Obama and more qualified to be POTUS, and, if we are to have a Democrat at the helm come January, I would be much reassured if that Democrat was her rather than him. But Hillary Clinton has a burning passion for knowledge? More than Sarah Palin? Given Clinton's track record, I don't know how anybody could possibly discern that.

Clinton is a politician through and through given to few, if any, passionately held convictions and taking whatever position she thinks will make her look best in the polls:

Quote:
On October 10, 2002, Clinton spoke to the Senate in favor of a use-of-force resolution authorizing the invasion of Iraq, saying: "The facts that have brought us to this fateful vote are not in doubt.”

On December 15, 2003, when it was clear there were no large stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, Clinton’s support was unwavering. "I was one who supported giving President Bush the authority, if necessary, to use force,” she told the Council on Foreign Relations. "We have no option but to stay involved and committed.”

On April 20, 2004, Clinton told CNN’s Larry King that she did not "regret giving the president the authority,” noting that Saddam Hussein "had been a real problem for the international community for more than a decade.”

In October 2005, amid growing anti-war sentiment, Clinton still told the Village Voice: "I don’t believe it’s smart to set a date for withdrawal . . . I don’t think it’s the right time to withdraw.”

By November 2005, Hillary was softening her stance, saying in a letter to constituents: "If Congress had been asked [to authorize the war], based on what we know now, we never would have agreed.”

On December 18, 2006, Clinton went even further, saying on the "Today” show: "I certainly wouldn’t have voted that way.”

On January 13 of this year, Clinton spoke from Baghdad about President Bush’s call for a troop surge: "I don’t know that the American people or the Congress at this point believe this mission can work.”

On January 17, Clinton called for a cap on the number of U.S. troops in Iraq, and suggested withholding funds for the Iraqi government.

Finally, on January 27, Clinton hit the campaign trail in Iowa and demanded that the president "extricate our country from this before he leaves office.”

Summary taken from here: http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2007/2/8/130258.shtml but verifiable from numerous other sources.


IMO, to assume that Sarah Palin is this kind of politician, and/or incapable of demonstrating interest and/or ability to acquire expertise more than Hillary Clinton (or anybody else for that matter) comes from partisan bias, and not from any demonstrable criteria.

Compare this address to Code Pink in 2007 with Hillary's campaign rhetoric re the Iraq War in 2008. (Hillary starts speaking a few minutes into the program after a rather lengthy opening statement by the Code Pink leader.) And Hillary has not been anywhere near a slippery as Obama on parsing her positions on this and that.

ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Sep, 2008 04:12 am
@Foxfyre,
Very funny Foxfyre.

A Thread named Palin vs. Hillary turns into a discussion about Obama vs. Hillary.

Palin is still uniquely unqualified.

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
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Palin vs Hillary
  3. » Page 5
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.2 seconds on 12/22/2024 at 10:13:43