>> As for Palin, I found her to be a lightweight. She came across as a country bumpkin who was ill-informed and prone to holier-than-thou bouts. She was easy to stump by reporters who used gotcha tactics.
There is so much wrong with this statement that one doesn't know where to start.
First, it is/was a false dichotomy. Palin wasn't running for the presidency; barring extremely unlikely circumstances, she was going to be VP, not president. Yes, there was a possibility, but it was remote, that she would become president.
Second, while the breadth of her formal education was clearly less, she had shown accomplishment that Obama hadn't and still hasn't -- that is, the ability to run a government effectively. So, assuming she became president on January 22, 2009, she would still have been a better president than Obama. You can hire intellectual talent but you can't hire administrative skills.
Third, and similarly, and most importantly, she is not corrupt and Obama is. She's not a liar. He is. Obama installed a plethora of corrupt politicians who are now running the country. There no chance Palin would have done the same.
I just don't care about the fact that her education was less well-rounded than Obama's. It isn't important. What's important are judgment, administrative skills, and a less extreme, more moderate view of the country -- all of which Palin and McCain have, none of which Obama has.
I understand why McCain/Palin lost. But there can be no doubt as of right now that the country would have been far better off had it made the other decision. I think anyone who doubts this today simply isn't paying attention to what is going on.
You would not have seen this kind of move toward fascism and anti-Americanism under McCain or Palin. |
