[Qingu]

Originally Posted by slap_j

Their argument is that McCain's executive experience was when he was commanding officer of a naval squadron based in Florida. And he apparently did a good job of it.

But I think the whole idea that executive experience is key is not necessarily true.

I also think it's incredibly important to actually look at the experience in question.

Saddam Hussein, for example, had decades of executive experience.

[grand_master_d]

Nobody here (or in the general media) has succesfully made one honest point with this argument. Obama is inexperienced... that's bad... until it's good... until Palin is inexperienced too... but her inexperience is still more experience than Obama's experience... but Obama's inexperience is hypocritical when he picks an experienced running mate... and now experience is good... but McCain can't talk about his experience versus Obama's inexperience because Palin is inexperienced... but Biden is experienced too, and that's okay... but it's too much experience for McCain to call Obama inexperienced... especially when Palin is inexperienced... but now inexperienced Obama can't call McCain too experienced because Biden is experienced... but... oh my God are people still believing this stuff?

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by Chrysostom

This is the only one of your criticisms that I'm not particularly on board with, because McCain was using 'celebrity' in a different sense. Obviously he wasn't originally trying to say that he was the Paris Hilton of Washington.

No. He wanted to say he was the good kind like Oprah

Yeah, but he had a Southern accent, and there has never been a Southerner in the White House.

I assume that's sarcasam.

I think it's interesting that your ad campaign has to be that you're either an "outsider" who will change the system, in which case you are said to lack experience, or an "insider" who knows enough to get things done, in which case you're said to be a sell-out.

I guess that's why most of our presidents have been govenors

The liberals seem to blame the conservatives plenty, too, though. For instance, here in Austin there are bumper stickers everywhere blaming all the world's ills on W. (And I'd definitely use Michael Moore as an example.) I'm not sure why liberals have been so unsuccessful in creating a pundit culture, especially considering that they dominate high-culture media.

I agree that this happens, and I agree that there some agregious examples (moore), though I think it's far less common to blame all of conservativism or the "conservative' media"... and I have to say, all I hear on the radio (NPR aside, which I don't agree to all that liberal leaning) is conservative talk-shows.

Interestingly, Bush has been both a great uniter and a great divider. After 9/11 he got just about everybody together, but after the conflict in Iraq started to look like a steep commitment a slide started in exactly the opposite direction.

Did Bush cause the unity, or the attack itself?

Obama and McCain both promise this, but it seems dubious to me. Biden seems like the best possible uniter in the race, but his blunt comments are really divisive once the media sound-bites them.

Biden's job as VP nominee is attack dog (like Paulins is). Obama seems, to me, to be taking the high road and looking for moderation... at least in all his speeches. Personally, Obama seems my best hope of uniting, and Paulin my biggest source of deviciveness. McCain I've heard both on, Biden I have no idea.

[JerryLove]

OMG. I just saw last night's Daily Show (http://www.thedailyshow.com/).

Karl Rove in Paulin: She's a populist. She's an economic and social conservative. She's a former mayor. She's the mayor of, I think, the second largest city in Alaska (pop 8800), before she ran for govoner. (in case it doesn't come across, Karl Rove is supporting that Palin is a good candidate).

Karly Rove last month on Tim Kane, former mayor of Richmond (pop 200,000) turned lt.govoner of VA, now govoner of VA was up as a possible VP for Obama: He's been a govoner for 3 years, he was mayor of the 105th largest city in America [...] so if he were to pick govoner King, it would be an intensely political choice that said "you know what: I'm really not concerned first and foremost with 'is this person capable of being president of the United States'".

Bill O'Rielly (I'll paraphrase for brevity) says of Palin that teen pregnancy is a personal matter that says nothing about the parents. He said of Jamie-Lynn Spears that a teen pregnancy reflected directly on the parents and showed that they were poor.

Palin herself said that if Hillary was going to whine that she was getting hit harder as a woman than she had no business being president. Meanwhile Palin is now arguing that she's getting hit harder as a woman.

Certainly no one would make an issue of a man's daughter... like Cheney's homosexual daughter, or Bush's alchololic daughter, or Bush Sr's alchololic son.

Come to think of it: McCain, Bush Jr., and Reagan were all divorced (McCain married the mistress he was cheating on his wife with). Obama and even Clinton are not: nor do they have pregnant/alchololic children. I wonder who has better family values?

[Qingu]

Originally Posted by grand_master_d

Nobody here (or in the general media) has succesfully made one honest point with this argument. Obama is inexperienced... that's bad... until it's good... until Palin is inexperienced too... but her inexperience is still more experience than Obama's experience... but Obama's inexperience is hypocritical when he picks an experienced running mate... and now experience is good... but McCain can't talk about his experience versus Obama's inexperience because Palin is inexperienced... but Biden is experienced too, and that's okay... but it's too much experience for McCain to call Obama inexperienced... especially when Palin is inexperienced... but now inexperienced Obama can't call McCain too experienced because Biden is experienced... but... oh my God are people still believing this stuff?

Obama is not inexperienced.

He has as much experience as Abraham Lincoln had before he became president.

It was a BS attack when Clinton levied it, and it's a BS attack now.

Palin's experience as governor of Alaska and mayor of a village have not adequately prepared her for national and international politics. She also appears to be corrupt and incompetent.

I don't see what's dishonest about this assessment.

[jthomas1600]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

Come to think of it: McCain, Bush Jr., and Reagan were all divorced (McCain married the mistress he was cheating on his wife with). Obama and even Clinton are not: nor do they have pregnant/alchololic children. I wonder who has better family values?

Are you you saying that McCain or Palin have children that are abusing alcohol? Because if you're not, I'm not sure what the alcoholic reference has to do with the current conversation. Non of the Bush children are any more relevant than Al Gores son who was arrested for drunk driving and possession of drugs last year.

[Chrysostom]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

I assume that's sarcasam.

Maybe a little bit. Probably the South is in the minority, but off the top of my head I can think of Carter, Clinton, and LBJ recently, and most of the early US Presidents were from VA.

Originally Posted by JerryLove

I agree that this happens, and I agree that there some agregious examples (moore), though I think it's far less common to blame all of conservativism or the "conservative' media"... and I have to say, all I hear on the radio (NPR aside, which I don't agree to all that liberal leaning) is conservative talk-shows.

Well, part of that has to do with orientation. Conservatives are wanting to preserve something, liberals are wanting to change something. That means that conservatives get mad that liberals have screwed things up, while liberals don't care. However, liberals do blame conservatives for digging in their heels and stopping progress. And I'd mention that the word 'evangelical' has almost become a curse word in certain political circles.

And, again, I don't quite understand why the liberals haven't been able to get a pundit foothold. If you have any ideas I'd love to hear them?

Originally Posted by JerryLove

Did Bush cause the unity, or the attack itself?

No individual presidential figure can cause unity because he can't control the media, the parties, etc. But he was able to play the hand he was dealt well. Somebody else could have been a polarizing force very quickly -- called indecisive, a wimp, etc. Plus Bush's Compassionate Conservatism had plenty of government programs for social lefties to latch on to.

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by jthomas1600

Are you you saying that McCain or Palin have children that are abusing alcohol? Because if you're not, I'm not sure what the alcoholic reference has to do with the current conversation. Non of the Bush children are any more relevant than Al Gores son who was arrested for drunk driving and possession of drugs last year.

As much as Al Gore... interesting you are willing to bring up what you consider off-topic.

Of course, the Dem's haven't run on the "sanctity of marriage, teaching morality to our children that the other side won't" that the republicans have. The mention back to Bush et.al is a comment that what I'm seeing in McCain-Paulin seems typical.

I'm discovering today that Paulin seems to believe she has the gift of prophecy (related to her Penticostal beliefs). How can someone who believes her positions are ordained by God be considered likely to compromise... to "reach across the isle" as McCain has campaigned on doing.

How is the incredibly devicive RNC a good example of non-partisanism?