Is Sarah Palin qualified to be President of the United States?

[TheWildCard]

Okay let's break this down.

DEMS: LOLOLs @ MCL4ME He picked someone as inexperienced as Obama (who is running for President) to be his VP (to be President-in-training aka that person that doesn't do much unless something happens to the President, and if something did they'd already have a lot more experience just by being VP for a while... Are ya'll betting that something is gonna happen to McCain? Who is playing the "politics of fear" card now?).

I like to look at it this way. Lets say we have two football teams. Team #1 has a very experienced and seasoned QB who has played in the pros for 15 years and is an all pro as their starter and a backup who is a rookie.

Team #2 has a QB with one year of experience and a backup with 16 years of playing experience.

So if I'm the defensive coordinator for team #2 I can't go after the QBs of team #1 with a strategy to take advantage of inexperience when  their starter has so much experience.

If I'm the defensive coordinator for team #1 you bet I can take advantage of a guy who has only played for one year.

These two are similar in that the VP or backup does not even do anything much unless something happens to the starter. So in conclusion, McCain can still attack Obama campaign with inexperience.

Maybe I'm just deluded but I can't see how you can call running for the Presidency with little experience and running for the VP with little experience as the same or even remotely similar things.

[TheWildCard]

Governor of one of the least populated states there are..... this thought makes me wonder.

President Bush was Governor of the second most populated state. Would everyone agree that he's been a good President?

True, but a way out of that argument is that the Governor of Texas doesn't really do anything and Bush has always had handlers and mentors to take care of business. The Governor of Alaska does seem to do executive things, it's just on a very small scale.

And for a very brief time. Less than 2 years ago Palin was the mayor of a small town. If McCain wins and (god forbid) must hand the Presidency over to Palin, she may be the new commander in chief next year. Clearly, McCain is not serious when he says Obama doesn't have the necessary experience.

So... Bill Clinton, Ted Kennedy, and Joe Biden all think Obama has enough experience... and John McCain admitted as much as well with this Palin pick.

I'm too lazy to type something new up so here is a quote for you...

Okay let's break this down.

DEMS: McCain picked someone as inexperienced as Obama (who is running for President) to be his VP (to be President-in-training aka that person that doesn't do much unless something happens to the President, and if something did they'd already have a lot more knowledge and experience just by being VP for a while... Are ya'll betting that something is gonna happen to McCain? Who is playing the "politics of fear" card now?).

I like to look at it this way. Lets say we have two football teams. Team #1 has a very experienced and seasoned QB who has played in the pros for 15 years and is an all pro as their starter and a backup who is a rookie.

Team #2 has a QB with one year of experience and a backup with 16 years of playing experience.

So if I'm the defensive coordinator for team #2 I can't go after the QBs of team #1 with a strategy to take advantage of inexperience when  their starter has so much experience.

If I'm the defensive coordinator for team #1 you bet I can take advantage of a guy who has only played for one year.

These two are similar in that the VP or backup does not even do anything much unless something happens to the starter. So in conclusion, McCain can still attack Obama campaign with inexperience.

Maybe I'm just deluded but I can't see how you can call running for the Presidency with little experience and running for the VP with little experience as the same or even remotely similar things.

[TheWildCard]

Governor of one of the least populated states there are..... this thought makes me wonder.

President Bush was Governor of the second most populated state. Would everyone agree that he's been a good President?

True, but a way out of that argument is that the Governor of Texas doesn't really do anything and Bush has always had handlers and mentors to take care of business. The Governor of Alaska does seem to do executive things, it's just on a very small scale.

And for a very brief time. Less than 2 years ago Palin was the mayor of a small town. If McCain wins and (god forbid) must hand the Presidency over to Palin, she may be the new commander in chief next year. Clearly, McCain is not serious when he says Obama doesn't have the necessary experience.

So... Bill Clinton, Ted Kennedy, and Joe Biden all think Obama has enough experience... and John McCain admitted as much as well with this Palin pick.

I'm too lazy to type something new up so here is a quote for you...

Okay let's break this down.

DEMS: McCain picked someone as inexperienced as Obama (who is running for President) to be his VP (to be President-in-training aka that person that doesn't do much unless something happens to the President, and if something did they'd already have a lot more knowledge and experience just by being VP for a while... Are ya'll betting that something is gonna happen to McCain? Who is playing the "politics of fear" card now?).

I like to look at it this way. Lets say we have two football teams. Team #1 has a very experienced and seasoned QB who has played in the pros for 15 years and is an all pro as their starter and a backup who is a rookie.

Team #2 has a QB with one year of experience and a backup with 16 years of playing experience.

So if I'm the defensive coordinator for team #2 I can't go after the QBs of team #1 with a strategy to take advantage of inexperience when  their starter has so much experience.

If I'm the defensive coordinator for team #1 you bet I can take advantage of a guy who has only played for one year.

These two are similar in that the VP or backup does not even do anything much unless something happens to the starter. So in conclusion, McCain can still attack Obama campaign with inexperience.

Maybe I'm just deluded but I can't see how you can call running for the Presidency with little experience and running for the VP with little experience as the same or even remotely similar things.

Sorry wildcard, I didn't see your post before. It's true that running a less experienced candidate at the top of the ticket and as VP are different things.

But it's not as simple as a starting QB and a backup QB. In football, when the starting QB goes up, he is up there doing 100% of the QB work. The backup QB can't help him at all.

But as President, Obama would be able to rely on Biden for advice in making his decisions. He would ultimately use his own judgment and follow his own principles, but when encountering a situation he is unfamiliar with or thinks that Biden's greater experience could help, Biden would be able to assist.

How would Palin be able to assist McCain? This is less clear. She could be a voice of social conservatism within the administration, and a linkage to other outside groups, play political roles. But she's less valuable as VP.

A better (but still imperfect) analogy is that the VP is not the backup QB but rather the offensive coordinator. With Obama-Biden, team #1 has a talented rookie QB with an experienced offensive coordinator with 16 years behind him telling him his plays. Team #2 has a highly experienced QB, but his plays are dictated by a rookie offensive coordinator. The only difference here is that, the QB would ultimately be able to overrule the offensive coordinator and call his own plays when he sees them.

Of course, you probably realize that what you're saying there infers that the VP is more of the brains of the operation and the President is just the muscle. I get what you're saying though.

Still, the VP is far from the President's only adviser and not all administrations function how we like to think the Bush-Cheney admin. functions. We also all probably know McCain and at the end of the day McCain is going to do what McCain is going to do, regardless of what anyone thinks that is why so many Democrats have liked him in the past. Also, I tend to believe that when you have an inexperienced candidate running for President it is almost necessary that someone with experience is chosen. When the person on the top of the ticket has lots of experience in office he can pick someone with experience or without experience, it isn't a necessity.

Anyway getting back to what I was responding to in your original post I don't see how McCain picking Palin let's Obama off the hook for not having experience. It's comparing an Apple to an Orange, as we have both seemingly agreed upon Palin's inexperience and Obama's inexperience are two different things considering what they are running for.

And in team #2 if the QB gets hurt we are all screwed.

Politics of fear card eh?

[TheWildCard]

You are right it doesn't let him off the hook, but only if he decides to attack on this subject, which politically speaking, I don't think he will.

Well I'm glad we agree.

There is a difference considering that Obama committed himself to running for this office and was elected by defeating Hillary Rodham Clinton.  Palin recently commented on what exactly the VP does and at a separate point dissing the VP job.  It seems to me that this pick is a result of republican strategy whereas Obama was a product of America's hunger for change.

Simply running a campaign that beats a prominent figure doesn't mean the person will be a good President (i.e. W. and Carter). I haven't read the context of the Palin remark yet so I'll refrain from commenting for now.

[TheWildCard]

Still, the VP is far from the President's only adviser and not all administrations function how we like to think the Bush-Cheney admin. functions. We also all probably know McCain and at the end of the day McCain is going to do what McCain is going to do, regardless of what anyone thinks that is why so many Democrats have liked him in the past. Also, I tend to believe that when you have an inexperienced candidate running for President it is almost necessary that someone with experience is chosen. When the person on the top of the ticket has lots of experience in office he can pick someone with experience or without experience, it isn't a necessity.

Agreed. Which is a large part of why I think that Biden and Palin were ultimately picked. Each one helps shore up that candidate's weakness.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It doesn't completely let him off the hook, but are you really saying that there is no presumption that the VP is supposed to be someone who is ready to step into the numero uno slot if necessary? In making this pick, McCain is, at least to some extent, denigrating the value of experience within his own judgment. He must feel that, while experience may be a plus, it is not absolutely necessary to have more experience than Palin does.

I will agree. To some, very minor, extent he is lessening the value of experience. But it is far from placing less or equal value on experience than the Obama/Biden ticket does.

Although it is funny that 99% of the time we all agree that the VP means nothing and here we are today having 20+ page conversations about them. Quite amusing.

[TheWildCard]

Still, the VP is far from the President's only adviser and not all administrations function how we like to think the Bush-Cheney admin. functions. We also all probably know McCain and at the end of the day McCain is going to do what McCain is going to do, regardless of what anyone thinks that is why so many Democrats have liked him in the past. Also, I tend to believe that when you have an inexperienced candidate running for President it is almost necessary that someone with experience is chosen. When the person on the top of the ticket has lots of experience in office he can pick someone with experience or without experience, it isn't a necessity.

Agreed. Which is a large part of why I think that Biden and Palin were ultimately picked. Each one helps shore up that candidate's weakness.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It doesn't completely let him off the hook, but are you really saying that there is no presumption that the VP is supposed to be someone who is ready to step into the numero uno slot if necessary? In making this pick, McCain is, at least to some extent, denigrating the value of experience within his own judgment. He must feel that, while experience may be a plus, it is not absolutely necessary to have more experience than Palin does.

I will agree. To some, very minor, extent he is lessening the value of experience. But it is far from placing less or equal value on experience than the Obama/Biden ticket does.

Although it is funny that 99% of the time we all agree that the VP means nothing and here we are today having 20+ page conversations about them. Quite amusing.

We are converging toward agreement. The Obama/Biden ticket clearly places relatively more value on change.

Yes, I agree. Though, Biden isn't necessarily the type who screams change due to his vast experience in congress. My biggest issue with Obama is that he always mentions change but I do not see it on his track record. Yes you can point to his work in Chicago. I can point to McCain leading the gang of 14 and his all around Maverick status. Yes, you can point out the success of Obama's campaign and I again can point to the fact that winning elections is no more a good indicator of who will be a good President than flipping a coin as we've seen in previous elections (Carter from my party's perspective and W. the your's).

But all of that is neither here nor there in this thread and I'm getting off topic.

Anyway, glad to see that we pretty much agree or disagree only slightly as the case might be.

[TheWildCard]

Still, the VP is far from the President's only adviser and not all administrations function how we like to think the Bush-Cheney admin. functions. We also all probably know McCain and at the end of the day McCain is going to do what McCain is going to do, regardless of what anyone thinks that is why so many Democrats have liked him in the past. Also, I tend to believe that when you have an inexperienced candidate running for President it is almost necessary that someone with experience is chosen. When the person on the top of the ticket has lots of experience in office he can pick someone with experience or without experience, it isn't a necessity.

Agreed. Which is a large part of why I think that Biden and Palin were ultimately picked. Each one helps shore up that candidate's weakness.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It doesn't completely let him off the hook, but are you really saying that there is no presumption that the VP is supposed to be someone who is ready to step into the numero uno slot if necessary? In making this pick, McCain is, at least to some extent, denigrating the value of experience within his own judgment. He must feel that, while experience may be a plus, it is not absolutely necessary to have more experience than Palin does.

I will agree. To some, very minor, extent he is lessening the value of experience. But it is far from placing less or equal value on experience than the Obama/Biden ticket does.

Although it is funny that 99% of the time we all agree that the VP means nothing and here we are today having 20+ page conversations about them. Quite amusing.

We are converging toward agreement. The Obama/Biden ticket clearly places relatively more value on change.

Yes, I agree. Though, Biden isn't necessarily the type who screams change due to his vast experience in congress. My biggest issue with Obama is that he always mentions change but I do not see it on his track record. Yes you can point to his work in Chicago. I can point to McCain leading the gang of 7 and his all around Maverick status. Yes, you can point out the success of Obama's campaign and I again can point to the fact that winning elections is no more a good indicator of who will be a good President than flipping a coin as we've seen in previous elections (Carter from my party's perspective and W. the your's).

But all of that is neither here nor there in this thread and I'm getting off topic.

Anyway, glad to see that we pretty much agree or disagree only slightly as the case might be.

The gang of 14 doesn't mean much to me when McCain has said that he would kick off half the current Supreme Court for not being sufficiently conservative, and his models are conservative activists like Roberts and Alito.

As for his all around maverick status, he disagrees with his party on a few significant issues. But he agrees with them 80-90% of the time (and he's had a lot longer to find points of disagreement).

And Obama also disagrees with his party's two other nominees on some important issues, such as faith based initiatives, taxes and health care mandates. To me Obama's change represents a few things (1) change within the Democrats- away from the old interest group politics and the battles of the 60s (2) change within the country- electing a guy who has only been in Washington for 4 years and is still basically an outsider and running on very different policies.

In the end I guess its whose policies you agree with more. You basically have a conservative Republican vs a liberal Democrat. The differences are huge, but I think most Americans are looking for a new direction.

I could write a long response but I don't want to hijack the thread. I will agree with you that it depends on what kind of change America wants.