|
Summary
Comments (22)
Sep 30, 2008
@sggottlieb -- wow, i was seriously thinking the same thing the other day. Poor Dan Quayle. BTW. I always wondered why Bush sr. didn't dump Quayle before his re-election campaign.
Sep 30, 2008
@jasongoldberg Bush Sr. didn't drop Quayle because he didn't want someone to steal his spotlight. Same reason that Obama chose Biden (in add. to the Foreign Policy Experience).
Sep 30, 2008
@1918 which may be the biggest part of the problem. Like her or not, Palin is not qualified to lead this country.
1918,
Sep 30, 2008
@greghollingsworth - if Palin isn't, then you would have to also agree neither is Obama. Both Palin and Obama are rookies when it comes to all of this stuff. But in my opinion, nobody is really ready to be president, it's a job there is truly no training for. So every four years we take a chance and hope the person we choose will be a quick study. Sometimes we get it right, others we don't.
Sep 30, 2008
@1918 There is a fundamental difference between Palin and Obama, and it's not just their genders. Obama has thought about this stuff and he's incredibly smart. Palin may be sharp, but she's no Einstein. Economics and foreign policy really isn't that hard to talk about but she seemingly never has talked about this before because, otherwise very well-spoken, she comes across as really unprepared.
C'mon. If you can't "get up" for a national interview, can you really be expected to be prepared to lead the US for 4 years? She clearly doesn't take this seriously. And for that, I cannot take her seriously.
Sep 30, 2008
@1918 While I would also agree that Obama's experience isn't necessarily up to par, I would argue that 8 years as a State Senator coupled with 3+ years in the US Senate are better qualifications than 6 years as a small town mayor and less than 2 years as a small state Governor.
@billspaced I think Palin takes it seriously, however, I think the McCain people have done a very poor job of preparing her to deal with the issues that we are facing. All in all, I think we have two very weak tickets to choose from and as usually the case for the independent voters in this country, we are left to choose between what we individually see as the lesser of two evils.
1918,
Sep 30, 2008
@billspaced are you saying that simply "thinking about" this stuff makes you qualified? Then I would say McCain has to be your choice, he's been thinking about it much longer.
My follow up is why you would classify Obama as "incredibly smart". He hasn't proposed any idea that is in any way new or revolutionary, much of it is standard boiler-plate democratic mantra.
Sep 30, 2008
@Greghollingsworth I mostly agree. Though I cannot say that Palin takes this seriously. Otherwise, her unscripted answers wouldn't be so horrible. It is my belief that she's never done much thinking about world affairs or the economy; else, she'd be able to hold a focused conversation about the issues.
"Experience" is a misnomer anyway. Our current president had no experience being president, nor did any of the other guys :)
Sep 30, 2008
@billspaced unfortunately no one ever has experience being the president, and the best we can hope for is state executive experience. However, even that experience can't prepare most people to deal with the foreign policy issues that any country will face. I think Palin's inability to hold a focused discussion is due to her inexperience with the topics being discussed as well as with her handler's seeming inability to educate her on the issues and on the positions of her running mate. I certainly agree that she is underqualified, but I don't think that it's because she thinks it's a joke, I think she's in way over her head and no one seems to want to help her find the shallow end of the pool.
Sep 30, 2008
@billspaced @1918 all that being said, I do not feel that either campaign has the right answers all the time, and very rarely do I feel that either party truly represents my political beliefs.
Sep 30, 2008
@1918 No, what I am saying is that Palin hasn't else she'd have coherent responses to reporters' questions. But I would disagree with you on McCain -- does he really think about anything? "I don't know much about the economy." He doesn't know much about who inhabits Iran and Iraq. But it's all moot anyway. Most people have made up their minds based on irrelevant stuff.
As for "incredibly smart" -- yes, I would stand behind that statement. Editor, Harvard Law Review. University of Chicago Law School. Taught constitutional law there. I've seen and heard him speak. It's crystal clear that he's incredibly smart. I cannot say the same for either McCain or Palin. They come across as unprepared and in some cases ignorant. If your standard for intelligence is "new or revolutionary" then I'd say we're all not very intelligent because there really isn't much of that going on nowadays. As for the "standard boiler-plate (insert party name here) mantra" you could say the same about McCain-Palin, except "more so." They know how to stick to the talking points.
1918,
Sep 30, 2008
@billspaced keep in mind that the Harvard Law Review chooses dozens of editors every year, and does that mean all of them are brilliant? Antonin Scalia was also an editor, do you consider him to be incredibly smart as well? He taught at the U of Chicago, Georgetown and Stanford. So you'll join me in the Scalia for President campaign?
Sep 30, 2008
@1918 I think Scalia is smart. I just disagree with him on some things. I think one of the necessary qualifications to be president is intelligence: It's necessary but not sufficient. Einstein probably would not have been a great president. But he had one of the critical components.
Do you disagree that our president should be intelligent? In other words, is it acceptable for our president to be stupid (I know, it's an extreme. Our president could have an IQ of 100 and muddle through)? I, for one, want somebody leading my country who is smart, among many other things. Perhaps smarter than our competitors and certainly smarter than our enemies.
1918,
Sep 30, 2008
I think that the person who gets elected is simply a professional office seeker. The true test is if they surround themselves with smart people, which they almost always do, with a couple of their cronies thrown in to payback old debts. That's just the was our system functions 98% of the time. If Obama wins, his cabinet will look just like Clinton's, with a bit of new blood, but McCain can't just use W's retreads, he will have to actually pick better people, which shouldn't be all that difficult.
Oct 07, 2008
Oct 07, 2008
@jasongoldberg Yeah, it was good, and it didn't devolve (I think!) into name calling or idealism...nice group of people here!
Oct 07, 2008
@jasongoldberg @billspaced @1918 I concur with Jason on this one, it's refreshing to be in a space where true debate can occur without devolving into rhetoric (or name calling).
Add something
Stats
Share this story
Belongs to News Networks
Stories in 24 hours: 33
Stories in 24 hours: 52
Stories in 24 hours: 4
Stories in 24 hours: 460
Stories in 24 hours: 678
|
|
|
|
|
