Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: carranza2 who wrote (270946)	9/28/2008 12:06:27 PM
From: alanrs	Respond to of 793727

It depends on how she does in the debates. I think your earlier observation about her confidence having been shaken was insightful. I hope you're wrong and that a lot of it is media editing and whatnot. I'm not convinced one way or the other. I think the election will be a sideshow relative to economics, at least for a while. Neither party looks responsible. ARS

To: carranza2 who wrote (270946)	9/28/2008 12:15:34 PM
From: Brumar89	9 Recommendations Respond to of 793727

Palin was clearly a fairly cynical political move designed to fire up the base and attract women voters who don't care for Obama because he ousted Hillary I wouldn't use the cynical word there. EVERY VP has always been picked for political reasons. Palin's pick accomplished more than most VP picks. , qualifications, experience, etc., be damned. No need to damn them. Her qualifications and experience compare well to Biden (would you want him in the WH where he can really send Iran $200M after a future 911 type attack?), Uhbama (what are his qualifications and experience), Edwards (what was his foreign policy or executive experience?), ....

To: carranza2 who wrote (270946)	9/28/2008 2:25:44 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	20 Recommendations Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793727

Palin was clearly a fairly cynical political move designed to fire up the base and attract women voters who don't care for Obama because he ousted Hillary, qualifications, experience, etc., be damned. Political yes, cynical no. McCain's preference was to shake things up with a non-conventional pick. There were three non-conventional candidates open to him: Jindal, Palin and Lieberman. Jindal said no. And trust me, had he said yes, he would be getting equally bad treatment from the likes of Gibson and Couric. Conservative minority candidates must be destroyed. Bright as he is, he too might have had a bad day. Lieberman was vetoed by the party. So McCain picked Palin, to the party's delight and relief. She is attracting huge crowd and huge dollars and that is likely to make a big difference on election day. Ground game matters. And she's attractive to disgruntled PUMA voters. I don't buy the idea that McCain is going to croak soon - he looks plenty vigorous to me - or that Palin is unqualified. She is the vastly popular governor of a state, who pushed through the reform package she ran on to the delight of the citizens. She has more executive experience than anyone else on the ticket. She's as qualified as Jindal and more so than Biden, imo. Much more so than Obama, who has never run anything but his mouth.

To: carranza2 who wrote (270946)	9/28/2008 2:59:46 PM
From: LindyBill	17 Recommendations Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793727

Palin was clearly a fairly cynical political move designed to fire up the base and attract women voters who don't care for Obama because he ousted Hillary, qualifications, experience, etc., be damned. Let's assume you are right. McCain's job is to get himself elected. Where do you think he would be in the polls, and more important, in the enthusiasm of the base, if he had gone with a conventional pick? You are faced, as always, with "false alternatives." That's what Democracy is all about. Compromise. Do you want McCain to go down with a "I'd rather be right" campaign like Goldwater? And allow Obama and his flying monkeys to get in and establish the most Fascist Government since Wilson? Hold your nose and vote for McCain.

To: carranza2 who wrote (270946)	9/28/2008 4:08:24 PM
From: mph	9 Recommendations Respond to of 793727

When the choice offered by the Democrats is an Obama, I tend to be in the win at all costs camp. BO is utterly lacking in most areas required for a strong President. He's also likely owned by people that shouldn't be a heartbeat away from presidential power. There are many women in politics who, sad to say, only have their jobs because they married or were daughters to powerful politicos. Pelosi is a great example. So is Hillary for that matter. Palin did it on her own, which I find refreshing. While she may have needed more seasoning, so did Obama. Time to stop wringing your hands.

To: carranza2 who wrote (270946)	9/28/2008 8:48:03 PM
From: Hoa Hao	2 Recommendations Respond to of 793727

Well, the NYT doesn't think it's cynical... Hold it!! Time warp here!! NEW YORK TIMES Editorial on the pick of an inexperienced woman to be Vice-President. Where is it written that only senators are qualified to become President? Surely Ronald Reagan does not subscribe to that maxim. Or where is it written that mere representatives aren't qualified, like Geraldine Ferraro of Queens? Representative Morris Udall, who lost New Hampshire to Jimmy Carter by a hair in 1976, must surely disagree. So must a longtime Michigan Congressman named Gerald Ford. Where is it written that governors and mayors, like Dianne Feinstein of San Francisco, are too local, too provincial? That didn't stop Richard Nixon from picking Spiro Agnew, a suburban politician who became Governor of Maryland. Remember the main foreign affairs credential of Georgia's Governor Carter: He was a member of the Trilateral Commission. Presidential candidates have always chosen their running mates for reasons of practical demography, not idealized democracy. One might even say demography is destiny: this candidate was chosen because he could deliver Texas, that one because he personified rectitude, that one because he appealed to the other wing of the party. On occasion, Americans find it necessary to rationalize this rough-and-ready process. What a splendid system, we say to ourselves, that takes little-known men, tests them in high office and permits them to grow into statesmen. This rationale may even be right, but then let it also be fair. Why shouldn't a little-known woman have the same opportunity to grow? We may even be gradually elevating our standards for choosing Vice Presidential candidates. But that should be done fairly, also. Meanwhile, the indispensable credential for a Woman Who is the same as for a Man Who - one who helps the ticket. select.nytimes.com...95D0C708CDDAE0894DC484D81 Not talking about Sarah Palin, this was 1984, on the picking of Geraldine Ferraro