Ex-Alaska Governor Sarah Palin (Official)

[Flocka]

Originally Posted by sepia5

Says the guy who labels Obama "ultra-liberal."

Yeah, that BayBuck is a crazy bastard.
National Journal: Obama Most Liberal Senator In 2007 - Horserace

[BuckeyeMike80]

Originally Posted by sepia5

Says the guy who labels Obama "ultra-liberal" and, unlike almost 80% of America, doesn't think the Bush administration has been that bad.

I'm not a liberal by any means and this administration has disappointed me.

And yes Obama is an ultra-liberal from a state that leans pretty far to the left, especially the region (Chicago) that helped him get elected.

too his credit, he hasn't really run away from the tag (like Kerry did for instance), but it's his supporters who seem to chafe when it's pointed out (and I find that kind of odd).....

[sepia5]

Originally Posted by bigballin2987

Yeah, that BayBuck is a crazy bastard.
National Journal: Obama Most Liberal Senator In 2007 - Horserace

Ahhh, yes. The ridiculous conclusions drawn from the annual National Journal review. From your little link:

The differences between Obama and Clinton might be smaller than the first appear, however: National Journal notes that "Of the 267 measures on which both senators cast votes in 2007, the two differed on only 10."

and

Interestingly, Sen. John McCain "did not vote frequently enough in 2007 to draw a composite score," National Journal writes. "He missed more than half of the votes in both the economic and foreign-policy categories."

If these findings suggest Obama is "ultra-liberal," does that mean John McCain was "ultra-absent?"

[Gatorubet]

Originally Posted by BuckeyeMike80

Yeah and Obama went with the "safe" pick. Put it this way, Biden isn't going to bring anything to Obama's campaign that isn't already there.

Obama has locked Pennsylvania???

I hadn't heard.

[AKAKBUCK]

I see we've even moved past the Geraldine Ferraro marginalization, Sepia.

Originally Posted by sepia5

Doesn't this imply that he seems to think women are pretty dense as a voting block??

Well, it does set up very nicely, if you're wrong to play the "Look at the dumb Kentucky Rednecks not voting for Obama because he's black" excuse that I heard so often while he lost 9 of the last 14 primaries.

Fact is, McCain need not get all the women vote. Just some. Look at the polls. If you think a tough Catholic Mother of 5 "Hockey Mom" isn't gonna play well with suburban white women (Provided she doesn't turn out to be a complete ditz) you need to really get a grip.

Obama should be winning big. He's not. McCain doesn't need all of Hilly's supporters/Fence sitters. Just a few % of them.

Originally Posted by sepia5

By the way, who do you think would play a more active role in actual policy-making if the White House were won: Sarah Palin or Michelle Obama?

Just Curious, where would Bill Clinton fall on this question vs. Joe Biden for example?

[BB73]

Originally Posted by Buckeye86

And on that note, I would like to announce my retirement from the Poli board until at least January.

GO BUCKS!!

Yeah. There's a lot of evidence of (both red and blue) avoiding cognitive dissonance in this thread. Which should come as no surprise.

[muffler dragon]

Originally Posted by sepia5

Says the guy who labels Obama "ultra-liberal" and, unlike almost 80% of America, doesn't think the Bush administration has been that bad.

Sorry for being redundant, but I have to admit that I fail to see the relevance in this statement. The two Senators that are running for President come from a Congress that has just as bad of ratings as the current President. Thus, IMO, all of them aren't worth a damn.

[Muck]

Originally Posted by MuckFich06

Inexperience is different than no experience.

You are absolutely correct.

First term Governor = Executive inexperience

Freshman Senator = No executive experience

Originally Posted by sepia5

The average life expectancy for white males in the United States is 76.[/url] I don't think it takes a doctor to realize that the life expectancy of a 72-year-old white male who has been subjected to an especially physically strained life should be a concern when that man elects to run for the most powerful position in the world.

You don't understand how life expectancy is calculated.

The average life expectancy at birth in the middle ages was 35. Someone who managed to make it to the age of 32 wasn't suddenly more likely to drop dead than someone who was 25.

Luckily Senator McCain isn't a black man in the US or he'd already be dead.

[Gatorubet]

My take is that she is a good gal, good mom and wife, great candidate with an ethics triumph versus the vested interets, and someone that I would love to bone have as a neighbor.

But it is true that she eliminates or at least mitigates the lack of experience claim against Obama. Only a partisan Elephant would say that she is qualified but Obama is not. Yeah, she kills and eats moose. But every baby in Alaska receives a bush pilot's license and rifle with their birth certificate.

It would be nice if she knew anything at all about Washington. She doesn't. It would be nice if she had known what the Veep does during the day before last week. She doesn't. It would be nice if she did not have a special prosecutor being picked to investigate her possible malfeasence in getting her ex brother in law fired. But she is.

What would be shame for her is if they damaged a good person's promising career in politics because they brought her up from single A ball to the Bigs too soon.

Oh. Dems have started calling her "Sarah Quaylin" not fair, but funny

[sepia5]

Originally Posted by AKAKBUCK

Fact is, McCain need not get all the women vote. Just some. Look at the polls. If you think a tough Catholic Mother of 5 "Hockey Mom" isn't gonna play well with suburban white women (Provided she doesn't turn out to be a complete ditz) you need to really get a grip.

Ok, again, I think we're missing the point here. A large chunk of the women you reference as suburban white women were already on board with McCain (or don't play an active roll in the election process). McCain needs to appeal to a chunk of those who would have voted for Hillary Clinton. These women are overwhelmingly swayed by women's issues, particularly abortion. McCain seems to think that merely putting a women on his ticket, regardless of her stances on the issues that matter to Clinton's women supporters, will suffice. I'm sure it will sway some over, but not in meaningful numbers. The broader point is that this tactic seems to suggest McCain believes women will vote for him just b/c he has a VP that is a woman.

Originally Posted by AKAKBUCK

Just Curious, where would Bill Clinton fall on this question vs. Joe Biden for example?

Huh? My point was merely that if a woman in a policy-making position is what women are looking for, Michelle Obama will probably have more influence in a Democratic White House than Sarah Palin in a Republican White House. CNN is reporting right now that it appears McCain and Palin had only met once prior to this decision. Do you really think he's planning to include her in the day-to-day affairs of his administration?

[sepia5]

Originally Posted by muffler dragon

Sorry for being redundant, but I have to admit that I fail to see the relevance in this statement. The two Senators that are running for President come from a Congress that has just as bad of ratings as the current President. Thus, IMO, all of them aren't worth a damn.

Of course, this is always the case (IE, Congress ALWAYS has a low approval rating, regardless of which party is in control). It's equally as true that Congressmen and women generally have exceptionally high approval ratings when their constituency is polled. Polling on the President is an entirely different beast.

[muffler dragon]

Originally Posted by sepia5

Of course, this is always the case (IE, Congress ALWAYS has a low approval rating, regardless of which party is in control). It's equally as true that Congressmen and women generally have exceptionally high approval ratings when their constituency is polled. Polling on the President is an entirely different beast.

Okay.

Are there any figures as to how Obama and McCain were rating prior to running? Let me know if that's a hassle as I imagine it wouldn't be easy to find.

[Muck]

Originally Posted by sepia5

Huh? My point was merely that if a woman in a policy-making position is what women are looking for, Michelle Obama will probably have more influence in a Democratic White House than Sarah Palin in a Republican White House.

Yep, modern women are all about leading from behind their husbands.

Originally Posted by sepia5

Of course, this is always the case (IE, Congress ALWAYS has a low approval rating, regardless of which party is in control).

They had a rating of 84% in early 02. Prior to 9/11 it was in the 50's.

It's currently 9%.

Pretty much always the case I guess.

[Best Buckeye]

I love this choice, no wonder the dems are mad about it. How dare the republicans nominate a woman.

While She does render the experience question somewhat moot one has to remember that she is only the Veep, while Obama would be the Pres.

[BuckeyeMike80]

Originally Posted by Buckeye86

That is so lame.

I'll let you call Bush moderate based on his "liberal" spending policies if I can call Obama moderate because he has a conservative attitude towards the environment.

Except he votes with the hardcore LEFTIST environmentalist movement every time.....

And way to confuse the practice of conservation (which, by the way, the grand poohbah of the environmentalists Gore doesn't partake in), with the theory of Conservatism in politics.....