Small Town Folks Not Qualified?
The Recess Supervisor weighs in on the Obama camp’s response to Palin.
One wonders if the Obama campaign should really be calling into question the experience of a candidate who, last I checked, has spent more time in public office than their own guy, who has spent all of his time in public office running for another office.
[...]
Apparently Team Obama thinks that people from towns of 9,000 aren’t qualified to do much of anything but sit back and let the city slickers from Chicago run their country. Typical elitism - we want your votes, just not your input.
Indeed.
If Obama keeps up this line of attack, it could really backfire.
I think there is a substantive difference between serving in the United States senate on the foreign relation committee, and being a two year governor of one of the least populated states in the union. I’ll give you this, though: neither of them have loads of experience. Obama admittedly had to take his case to the people: a guy who doesn’t have a career full of experience needs to introduce himself, make some speeches, do some interviews, some debates, etc. She’d better get busy doing this herself, if you ask me.
Anyway, it’s not her inexperience that worries me—its the campaign’s policies and those of its party. They stink. And all the experience on earth isn’t going to make them look better.
Posted by scott on August 29, 2008 at 1441 hrs
The argument is going to be that McCain is disingenous when he says Obama is inexperienced. Spending months pounding on Obama for being inexperienced then puting in a back-up for himself that is equally susceptible to the claim of inexperience is bold and risky. It might pay off, it might be disastrous. If Palin comes off as an air head this election is over, if she comes off as smart and mavricky McCain might have a good chance.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 29, 2008 at 1449 hrs
But Palin is arguably more qualified than Obama. She has executive experience at several layers of government and has actual accomplishments under her belt. Again, bring on the “experience” mantra.
Posted by Owen on August 29, 2008 at 1451 hrs
Furthermore, the voters differentiate between the qualifications needed for VP vs. POTUS. Different job requirements. See: Quayle.
Posted by Owen on August 29, 2008 at 1453 hrs
I am going to agree with Owen here. Executive experience weighs a lot more heavily than being a legislator.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 29, 2008 at 1501 hrs
And Obama is “arguably” more qualified that Palin. I think it depends on which camp of partisans you belong to—for surely no middle-of-the-road swing voters are going to see a difference in their resumes. There’s just not enough difference there.
And Obama has been out there making his case. He’s been putting himself on display to let people decide if he’s president material or not. I think he’s done pretty well. She’s got a short time in which to demonstrate that she’s got the right stuff to be on anyone’s ticket.
And then there is the specter of McCain’s age. He just turned 72. I think it probably matters to some people that his VP has a decent chance of receiving a field promotion, as it were. Does she look ready for that to you? All partisanship and policy differences aside, I’m seriously not sure about it.
Posted by scott on August 29, 2008 at 1508 hrs
Executive experience didn’t save W’s presidency from circling the drain of history.
Posted by scott on August 29, 2008 at 1509 hrs
He just turned 72.
As a side note, I wonder how much this weighs with voters for two reasons.
1) This was a concern with Reagan, but the majority of the country considers the Reagan presidency to be a success. That may have inoculated the age issue a bit.
2) The electorate is getting older. More and more voters - particularly in the age groups that vote in high percentages - look at McCain and think “he’s not that old… only a few years older than me.”
Just a thought. I’m certainly concerned about it, but I’m in my 30s. I wonder how those in their 50s and 60s look at McCain.
Posted by Owen on August 29, 2008 at 1512 hrs
Scott, Bush isn’t on the ticket. And executive experience does matter. It’s a concern of mine about McCain, but it’s not like the other side of the ticket has any either.
Posted by Owen on August 29, 2008 at 1513 hrs
But Palin is arguably more qualified than Obama.
Put Palin up behind the podium at the GOP convention and let her make the case that Obama is inexperienced. That will go over like a lead balloon. Bring on the experience mantra. The DNC is going turn it around and make it about McCain’s disingenuousness. It is going to be a tough sell to convince people that Palin is more qualified than Obama.
voters differentiate between the qualifications needed for VP vs. POTUS
In McCain’s case some are going to want to see the same qualifications for VP as POTUS. He is a 72 yr. old cancer survivor. Odds aren’t on him being around for a second term.
I love the pick of Palin. It just made the race more interesting to watch. From here it looks like it could either make or break his campaign.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 29, 2008 at 1515 hrs
I’ll give you this, though: she wins the hottie award for Election 2008. At least since Mittens dropped out.
Posted by scott on August 29, 2008 at 1528 hrs
I wonder how those in their 50s and 60s look at McCain.
Since you asked, Owen:
I’m in my mid 50’s and can say that McCain’s age doesn’t concern me - there is no way of knowing how long anyone will live. In the past two weeks, two of my high school classmates died (and they both grew up in West Bend). In between my 30th & 35th class reunions, 10 classmates died. I have known several people who lived to be at least 100. One thing I have observed is the longer someone is healthy as they age, that increases the probability of living longer.
Alan Greenspan retired at the age of 80 from the Federal Reserve.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 29, 2008 at 1534 hrs
Obama is inexperienced. Palin has at least run a town and a state, however small. Obama has never run anything.
Plus, Palin likes to shoot her own food!!
Note to Scott: Bush isn’t running. When are you going to figure that out?
Posted by The Asian Badger on August 29, 2008 at 1537 hrs
I think there is a substantive difference between serving in the United States senate on the foreign relation committee, and being a two year governor of one of the least populated states in the union.
You mean the United States senate that has one of the lowest approval ratings in the history of approval ratings? yeah, I agree with you Scott. There IS a substantive difference between serving in that senate with a what… 9% or something approval rating and a governor withi 84% approval rating.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 29, 2008 at 1539 hrs
I’ll give you this, though: she wins the hottie award
She was also a high school B-Ball stand out like Obama. I would love to see Obama/Biden take on McCain/Palin in 2 on 2 hoops. THAT would be must see television.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 29, 2008 at 1541 hrs
I still stand by my prediction: Obama will win the election and the popular vote by at least 5 percentage points. Palin will may be easier on my eyes than McCain over the next few weeks, but she won’t change the outcome of the race.
Posted by scott on August 29, 2008 at 1603 hrs
You are forgetting that the person who is the PRESIDENTAL candidate on the dem ticket has the same experience as the VICE-P on the republican ticket.
Frankly if you are going to talk experience - isn’t it more important to have it on the top of the ticket rather than on the bottom??
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 29, 2008 at 1614 hrs
Obama doesn’t even have enough experience to run a 5,000 person town.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 29, 2008 at 1616 hrs
Yes. And that is precisely why Obama has been out there presenting himself, making his case, letting people get a good look, ask their questions and kick the tires. She’s got to do the same thing. She’s got to do it well, as he has done. it’s not an irrelevant thing, either, due to McCain’s age. That’s all I’m saying.
Well, that and the fact that experience isn’t everything. Lots of experienced men have screwed up the job pretty badly. And some relatively inexperienced ones are the most beloved.
Posted by scott on August 29, 2008 at 1617 hrs
From another mid-50’s “geezer”: I’m not all that concerned about his age, but only up to a point. Since these things tend to be somewhat hereditary, I’d like to know how long his parents, grandparents, aunts, and uncles, etc., lived; that would go a long way toward easing any concerns I might have about his age.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 29, 2008 at 1622 hrs
Uh, Obama has 8 years of government experience as a state senator before he became a US Senator. Palin has only been a governor for a year and a half of a state that has close to the population of Obama’s state senate district. Before that she served on a state regulatory board, and before that she was a mayor of a small town.
McCain just demolished his chief argument against Obama. End of story.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 29, 2008 at 1627 hrs
As I’ve said elsewhere, I think the pick is about two things.
First, Palin is a woman, and polls show that Obama’s got major problems sealing the deal with female voters. A Democratic candidate should be polling better than a low single-digit lead with the ladies.
Secondly, I understand what some have said about the choice of Palin undercutting McCain’s “experience” mantra. I don’t disagree, to an extent. But certainly it’s no more damaging than Obama totally chop-blocking his “change” mantra by bringing in a tired, old, Washington lifer like Biden to be his VP choice. How does Joe Biden represent “change?” How does giving the convention mike to washed-up relics like Ted Kennedy and John Kerry and Al Gore represent “change?” Fact is, it doesn’t. Barack Obama is old wine in a new bottle.
The reality is that both candidates went in a direction opposite that which many of us would’ve suspected. Obama’s trying to look more and more like a regular politician (albeit one who gives a good speech), and McCain is looking to shake things up by nominating the younger voice that Obama was arguably afraid to choose for fear of accentuating his own relative lack of experience.
Let’s be honest, Obama’s basically accomplished nothing in public office because he’s always been busy plotting his run for the next job. Since being elected to the Illinois Senate in 1996, he has used every off-year election as an excuse to run for higher office. He’s like the black Scott Walker, just biding his time and constantly looking for a better gig. Nobody who does that can honestly tell me their interest in holding office is public service. I don’t buy it when Walker spouts it; I’m not going to buy it when Obama spouts it either.
Clearly, both Obama and McCain think they are well-served by pursuing their respective directions, picking VP candidates who contrast their own skills. And I’m not dumb enough to try and predict this race. I think Obama’s got a huge tailwind, but I can realistically see either candidate winning this race.
Posted by Recess Supervisor on August 29, 2008 at 1631 hrs
All this talk about experience. Sure it’s nice, but like Scott said in #19, it’s not the be-all and end-all. Give me judgment any day.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 29, 2008 at 1635 hrs
Uh, Obama has ZERO years experience as the executive of anything. Besides, when did this turn into Obama v. Palin??
I think the liberals doth protest too much, which means the GOP have clearly hit a nerve.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 29, 2008 at 1635 hrs
I’d like to know how long his parents, grandparents, aunts, and uncles, etc., lived
His dad died at 70, his mother is 96 and has been on the campaign trail. If you average those ages, you come up with at least 85 - my guess is she will easily make it to 100. Her father Archibald Wright died at 95 (in 1971) & her mother died at age 87 (in 1972).
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 29, 2008 at 1643 hrs
Good to see Doyle got the re-written release not in time before this came out.
“It’s clear that after watching Senator Obama lay out very clearly the choice in this election, Senator McCain felt he needed a game-changer. Unfortunately, his panic pick of Governor Palin neither changes the game, nor represents the change America needs. Sarah Palin is perfectly in step with John McCain on pushing Big Oil’s agenda and continuing George Bush’s failed economic policies. More disturbingly, his political Hail Mary threatens to put a first term governor, who just two years ago was mayor of a town of 8,000, a heartbeat away from being Commander in Chief. This decision clearly had nothing to do with being prepared to govern and everything to do with the McCain campaign’s dim political outlook,” said Wisconsin Governor Jim Doyle.
And Jessica Doyle is ‘just an ex-school teacher’ right Jimmy?
Posted by Kevin Binversie on August 29, 2008 at 1648 hrs
John McCain’s grandfather died at 61, John McCain’s dad died at 70. Both of heart attack. If you average the age of his direct male descendents Grampy McSame is living on borrowed time.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 29, 2008 at 1658 hrs
So, now the talk among liberals is “when will John McCain die”? Gee, what a lovely thought.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 29, 2008 at 1700 hrs
The fact is, McCain’s judgement is clearly lacking. The person he thinks is the second-best fit to be president in the entire country is Palin, who’s utterly incoherent on the subject of Iraq in an interview only two weeks ago.
The alternative is that he actually wanted someone like Ridge or Lieberman, but he was too weak to stand up to the Rove wing of the party.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 29, 2008 at 1704 hrs
I am certainly not a conservative. I think everyone here can attest to that, and those who can’t can read my blog for proof. But I love how there’s always this impression among liberals that if a Republican doesn’t pick a moderate/liberal to the liking of the Democrats, they’re somehow caving to the base.
Barack Obama is the most liberal senator in the body, and that same ranking lists Joe Biden as third. Yet I’m not going to sit here and publicly prove my cluelessness by suggesting that Obama somehow capitulated to the left-wing of the party by picking Biden instead of some pro-life southern Democrat like Heath Shuler who has virtually nothing in common with the Democratic base other than the capital letter behind his name (which is something Lieberman doesn’t even have).
Oh woe is John McCain, the Republican nominee for President, for he did not pick a pro-choice ex-governor or a lifelong Democrat as his VP. Spare us, Steve. By your logic, you should be equally upset that Obama isn’t strong enough to stand up to the drunken Kennedy or effete, brie-eating Kerry wings of your party by bravely choosing Bob Casey.
Posted by Recess Supervisor on August 29, 2008 at 1748 hrs
Scott said,
“I think it depends on which camp of partisans you belong to—for surely no middle-of-the-road swing voters are going to see a difference in their resumes. “
As a middle-of-the-road swing voter I feel compelled to weigh in.
First you are correct that “it depends on which camp of partisans you belong to.” Partisan blogs like this and others are evidence enough of that: that which is not acceptable or a problem if someone has the wrong letter after their name is no big deal or even a good thing if they have the right letter.
For instance on experience, Palin isn’t even the funniest example of Republican hack hypocrisy. Give me George W. Bush any day of the week. His only success in the private sector was getting Dallas-area citizens to vote on higher taxes (how ironic). He was a ceremonial head of Texas for a few years. And he’s been essentially a disaster.
Someone convince me the letter after the name isn’t about the only thing that matters. Good luck.
Anyway this experience argument is way, way overrated. There are plenty of elected officials who have a lot of experience who shouldn’t be allowed near the Oval without a leash; there are some state and local elected officials out there who have not been around a while who would make excellent Presidents, in my opinion.Watching Palin’s speech today, she is likable but it’s fairly obvious this choice was made last minute. There just didn’t seem to be the kind of coordinated message that Biden had in his. But that’s a first impression - I also hear she helped kill the bridge to nowhere for which Owen’s party tried to borrow money to pay for. Things like that are very impressive.
She’s also hot and apparently she drives like a maniac.
Bottom line, this is a good choice and it’s going to be a fun 2 months.
However as the father of a 2-month old, I have to question how a mother of a 5-month old can campaign for 2 months.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 29, 2008 at 1750 hrs
ATV I agree with you about the dumbness of political experience. To me, politics is like radiation—the longer exposure time you see, the more fatal it becomes. Experience in something is important, but experience in politics is in many ways a negative, especially for a member of the executive branch.
A president needs nothing but judgment, wisdom, and vision to be an effective executive —and the ability to communicate to be an effective leader. The idea that a person can’t possess these traits without some sort of mile-long political resume is foolishness.
I do have to disagree with you about George W Bush. This is another case where common knowledge is flat out wrong. Bush was a very popular governor in Texas and was actually quite bipartisan in his leadership. Whatever the left may think about him now, he is not a traditional conservative. He is a moderate social conservative with a soft spot for immigration and spending who likewise believes in tax cuts, tough crime measures and that welfare is largely ineffective. These types of stances are nothing new for him—he displayed them while he was here in Texas and these characteristics are why he was reelected by a landslide for his second term.
The governor of a state is not akin to the monarchy of England.
Posted by k2aggie07 on August 29, 2008 at 1806 hrs
“To me, politics is like radiation”
LOL.
You may know more about Bush’s time as governor than I do, so I think you may make a good point.Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 29, 2008 at 2025 hrs
Apparently small town folk are qualified to raise taxes on oil companies:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601109&sid;=a13e84JyS2B8&refer;=home
“She raised taxes on oil profits by $1.5 billion a year and rejected industry ownership of a $25 billion pipeline. “
I see there is already a dem talking point that she apparently flip-flopped on the Bridge to Nowhere, and this leads me to doubt her credentials:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2008/08/29/DI2008082902052.html?hpid=topnews
Gregg Erickson: One example: The Republican chair of the Alaska State House Finance budget subcommittee on Heath and Medicaid says he can’t find anyone in Palin’s executive office who cares about helping bring that budget under control. He is furious with her about that.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 29, 2008 at 2042 hrs
Who the hell names her kid Track.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 29, 2008 at 2112 hrs
Is that your argument, Keith? Really?
Straws… Straws…
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 29, 2008 at 2252 hrs
Who the fuck names their kid Obama?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 29, 2008 at 2358 hrs
Although I don’t care for the expletive, I think Jason has won the internet with his response to the troll (I know Keith is a long-time commentor, i just have never seen him post anything but trollish invective).
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 30, 2008 at 0821 hrs
Of course, it would have been better if I had asked who names their kid Barak…
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 30, 2008 at 1619 hrs
I suppose, Keith, that you are well-versed in Inuit names and language, that you’re able to conclude that “Trig” is NOT part of that cultural heritage.
Because, if it is, Keith, you’ll forever be remembered as a racist slug.
Posted by dad29 on August 30, 2008 at 1930 hrs
Total Entries: 20001
Total Comments: 134057
Most Recent Entry: 05/25/2012 03:10 pm
Most Recent Comment on: 05/25/2012 02:38 pm
Total Members: 9751
Total Logged in members: 0
Total guests: 108
Total anonymous users: 1
Most Recent Visitor on: 05/25/2012 03:31 pm
The most visitors ever was 538 on 12/01/2007 02:11 pm
Protected and licensed under a Creative Commons License (some rights reserved).