Freddie, on this I am on your side. All I keep hearing from the Obama camp is how he, a Presidential candidate, is sooo experienced as compared to Sarah palin, a VICE Presidential candidate.

All I keep hearing is how Senator Obama chose to "serve the public" instead of taking a good job somewhere in the private sector.

Well if we are going to compare apples with apples, then let's compare Presidential candidate experience with Presidential candidate experience.

Obama doesn't even come within a 1000 miles of Senator John McCain in not only his Public Service experiences, but his LIFE experiences in general!

I've basically sat back and listened, watched and read for most of this campaign and I've come to the conclusion that the Obama people know damn well that they cannot put his record or experiences, speaking Presidential candidate against Presidential candidate, up against John McCain's!

This is why they keep trying to compare Obama the Presidential candidate to Palin, the VICE presidential candidate.

McCain DESTROYS Obama in every aspect of political, personal and public service experience!

I don't disagree.

Just tell me why, on God's green earth, wasn't Palin more closely vetted?

If Obama wins and it's even close, there will be a backlash from Republicans who would have preferred Romney in the VP spot. Even with all the Republican/Bush baggage, he could have won with a stronger VP candidate.

That's what they'll say.

The fact is he quit to pursue politics. Gee, what a mistake that was. 21 years later he only made it as high as President of the United States.

And you may be right. But that's not my point here. My point is that I am simply amazed at how the Obama people refuse to compare his record to his opponent's record and instead keep on comparing him to Sarah Palin. Obama is NOT running against Sarah Palin for the Presidency. Last time I looked Obama was running against McCain for that position.

So being that the Obama supporters keep talking about how he has served the public and chose to do so instead of going into the private sector, why don't we put Obama's record up against McCain's?

But Palin is only a heartbeat away!!!

DC, Obviously I completely disagree with McCain as a candidate. I disagree with his stance on too many issues, and I truly believe that he would perpetuate the failed policies of the past administration. To me, that would be a disaster. That doesn't mean I think he's a bad man. If anything, I think he's a decent man. However, his campaign has been sloppy. His choice of running partner, the way he has gone so negative, to his use of "Joe the Plumber" (who turned out to be a tax-evading liar), just shows sloppiness and no true loyalty to his ideals.

As for WHY the comparison gets made is what I stated earlier, it's because the Democrats were criticized for having an inexperienced candidate and then the Republicans chose a woman who is a complete incompetent. Also, because, as I said earlier, John McCain is elderly and has had health issues, his choice of VP is up for closer scrutiny.

Secondly, as for Senator Obama, he is an intelligent and charismatic man who is well-educated and has dedicated over 20 years to public service. Is that such a bad thing.

McCain's record is the reason I'll be voting for Obama. To quote John McCain himself before he was forced to get desperate and attack Bush: "I voted with President Bush over 90% of the time, even higher than most of my Republican colleagues". That's his words, a fact, and not something the Obama campaign made up. If he gets in, nothing will change from the last 8 miserable years. Obama offers 2 things: "hope and change". Maybe it will be bad change. That's a possibility. But at least there's a possibility the next 4 years will be better than the last 8. With McCain, it's guaranteed things will be no different at best. I'm willing to take the chance things will be better, than guaranteeing things will stay the same as they were.

The "experience" thing is going to be read through everyone's biases.

If you are an Obama supporter you are probably going to spend more time talking about his values, his judgment, and what his future plans entail.

If you are a McCain supporter you are probably going to be talking about Obama's lack of time on the national stage, McCain's long experience in the Senate, his foreign policy expertise, etc.

Of course Obama graduated Magna Cum Laude from Harvard Law School while McCain graduated 5th from the bottom of his class.

By all accounts Obama doesn't have an anger management problem while McCain does.

People may place different values on those facts as is their right but Obama has just as much relevant "experience" to be President as McCain does. Neither has been president before.

I don't think people vote for President based on resumes. If that were the case we wouldn't have the current one. I think people vote on their pocketbook, if they think they can trust the candidate and what the candidate's future plans are.

IMO, McCain has spent too much time pandering to the angry Republican base and not enough time reaching out to the center. He needs to talk more about how he plans to move the country forward.

Talk all you want about experience and or lack of, the fact remains that this nation is ready for and NEEDS change. I'm wondering if some here simply can't stand the thought that McCain could lose. Excuse me all to hell if I'm sick and fuckin' tired of a war mongering President who totally ruined our country.....and the guy running who I see as bringing more of the same.

Four years ago you all were having lovefests threads here for your boy W. There was no understanding or consideration of anyone else's viewpoint (for the most part)by many here. Well four years, two wars and a demolished economy later, by God, hell yea, I WANT change and I know I'm not alone. Obviously, if polls are to be believed, the majority of America feels that way as well. Just as Cardi is so shocked that people compare experience of a VP candidate to a Presidential candidate, I'm shocked that some people can't comprehend th change some of us want after a hellish 8 years.



BTW,

If this is the same Kellman that gave this speech at the 04 convention, it sounds as though he is describing a caring, helpful man that can reach across and bring people together, which is what our country needs right now.

TIS


http://www.docstoc.com/docs/1080482/Jerry-Kellman-Democratic-National-Convention-SpeechI

I love it when TIS gets fired up.

How about blue drinks on November 5th, TIS. Since I don't want to jinx anything, I will just say that we will either be celebrating or drowning our sorrows together!

SB,

You're on!! I'm buying. I actually took Nov. 5th off for that purpose...either a celebration or a drown my sorrows day. ha ha ha


TIS

Done. We'll meet halfway. Would that be Nebraska???

Oh no not Nebraska!! What the hell is there to do in Nebraska? (no offense to any Nebrskans) I'll meet ya in the chatroom and we can have an after election day party. Anyplace but Nebraska!!!


TIS

Sounds perfect, TIS.

OK come to Ohio then.

I thought you said that Obama doesn't have a record.

No, she's a heartbreaker! *cue guitar riff*

Former GOP senator, vet backs Obama

Former Sen. Larry Pressler (R-S.D.), who was the first Vietnam veteran to serve in the United States Senate, is the latest Republican to back Sen. Barack Obama's presidential campaign, Politico learned Sunday.

Pressler, who said that in addition to casting an absentee ballot for Obama he'd donated $500 to the Illinois senator's campaign, cited the Democrat's response to the financial crisis as the primary reason for his decision.

"I just got the feeling that Obama will be able to handle this financial crisis better, and I like his financial team of [former Treasury Secretary Robert] Rubin and [former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul] Volcker better," he said. By contrast, John McCain's "handling of the financial crisis made me feel nervous."

The former senator added that he hoped the next president would help place restraints on executive pay, and said: "I don't think [McCain] will take action in that area, or he's as likely to."

Pressler, who said that he had never voted for a Democrat for president before, added, "I feel really badly. I just hate to go against someone I served with in the Senate. I voted and I got it mailed and I dropped it in the mailbox, and it tore at me to do that."

Currently an adjunct professor at Baruch College in New York, Pressler served in the Senate from 1979 through 1997, and prior to that spent two terms in the House of Representatives.

During the 104th Congress, from 1995 to 1997, Pressler chaired the Senate Commerce Committee. When Pressler was defeated for reelection in 1996, McCain took over his chairmanship.

After leaving office, Pressler formed a legal and lobbying firm, The Pressler Group, and in 2002 unsuccessfully sought election to South Dakota's sole seat in the House of Representatives.

He joins a growing list of Republicans who have thrown their support to Obama in recent days. Last Sunday former Secretary of State Colin Powell endorsed Obama on NBC's "Meet the Press." On Thursday Obama picked up the support of former Minnesota Gov. Arne Carlson, who was joined on Friday by former Massachusetts Gov. William Weld.

Like some of Obama's other Republican supporters, Pressler said he had concerns about his party's fiscal policy, particularly the war in Iraq, that went beyond the presidential campaign.

"We have to be a moderate party. We can't be for all these foreign military adventures. We have to stop spending so much money. My God, the deficit is so high!" he said. "The Republican Party I knew in the 1970s is just all gone."

Despite his support for Obama, however, Pressler emphasized that he intended to stay in the GOP and described himself as a "moderate conservative."

"I'm not leaving the Republican Party. We're going to reform it," he said, but added: "In the general election, if you have disagreements, you should not vote the party line."

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1008/14963.html

Chalk up another one for that list RR!!

Do ya think it's because they really prefer Obama or is it because McCain is just not well liked (Or should I say he has never been the one that the Republican party wanted, nor were they ever real enthused with him). Anyway, it does take a lot of guts for these people to vote against your party, and then to announce it.


TIS

Btw, I hear these Republicans crossing over, and this goes thru my mind "....da da da....another one bites the dust...da da da...and another's one's gone, another one's gone..."

Tensions rise as Palin polarises nation and party

By Andrew Ward in Albuquerque and Daniel Dombey in,Washington

FT.COM

Published: October 27 2008 02:00 | Last updated: October 27 2008 02:00

Whatever the outcome of next week's election, nobody will be able to accuse Sarah Palin of failing to make an impact.

Less than two months after being thrust on to the national stage as John McCain's running mate, the Alaska governor has become arguably the most polarising figure in US politics.

A slew of opinion polls last week showed her approval rating plummeting among Democrats and independents, amid a hardening perception that she is ill-qualified to become commander-in-chief. Yet, on the campaign trail, she is drawing bigger crowds than Mr McCain and has become the main source of enthusiasm among grassroots conservatives.

Not all Republicans, however, are thrilled by Ms Palin. In Washington a fierce debate has erupted within the party elite between those who view her as a potential saviour of the conservative movement and others who blame her for Mr McCain's likely defeat.

The dispute burst into the open over the weekend as several press reports described tensions within the McCain campaign over Ms Palin's role and performance. Unnamed officials accused her of "going rogue" by making headline-grabbing statements that put her at odds with the rest of the campaign, and claimed she was focused on positioning herself for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination. "She is a diva," one adviser reportedly told CNN. "She is playing for her own future and sees herself as the next leader of the party."

Allies of Ms Palin fired back, arguing that she was trying to "bust free" of the campaign's botched handling of her. Ms Palin has become noticeably more open to the press in recent days, in contrast to the tight control that previously surrounded her.

Responding to the reported tensions, Tracey Schmitt, Ms Palin's spokeswoman, told reporters on Saturday that "unnamed sources with their own agenda will say what they want, but from Governor Palin down we have one agenda, and that's to win on election day".

It is not unusual for conflict to flare between a vice-presidential candidate and the rest of the campaign, particularly when they are on the losing side.

In 2004 the alliance between John Kerry and John Edwards was rarely a happy one. But the infighting over Ms Palin appears to be particularly intense because of her unusually prominent role and the high stakes invested in her by Mr McCain.

The choice of the relatively unknown 44-year-old was intended to burnish Mr McCain's maverick reputation and recast the election as a contest between Ms Palin's small town values and Mr Obama's elite liberalism.

The strategy briefly worked as the Republicans surged ahead in the polls after the party conventions. But momentum reversed after the financial crisis refocused attention on the economy while Ms Palin's weak performance in a high-profile television interview increased doubts about her readiness.

Most damagingly for Mr McCain, his risky choice of running mate and uneven response to the financial crisis have raised doubts about his temperament, allowing Mr Obama to steal the mantle of steady leader. Colin Powell, the former secretary of state, last week cited Mr McCain's choice of Ms Palin among his reasons for endorsing Mr Obama.

An ABC/Washington Post survey last week found that 51 per cent of voters have a negative impression of Ms Palin. Only 46 per cent had a favourable view, down from 59 per cent in early September.

Her decline in popularity has been sharpest among two of the groups Mr McCain had hoped she would appeal to: women and independents. Speaking on NBC's Meet the Press yesterday, Mr McCain defended his running mate.

"Do Sarah Palin and I disagree on a specific issue? Yeah, because we are both mavericks but we share the goal of cleaning up Washington," he said.

Referring to the recent controversy over the Republican national committee's expenditure of $150,000 on clothes for Ms Palin, Mr McCain added: "She lives a frugal life. She and her family were thrust into this."

Well there is a trend to many of these endorsements. Notice that of those I've posted, two major reasons keep propping up:

(1) McCain's reactions after the stock market meltdown, including infamous flip-flop "suspension" of his campaign (when he didn't really) and saying that he wouldn't leave D.C. until the bailout was agreed to, including missing the debate if necessary.

Of course Obama didn't take the bait, firmly called McCain's bluff, saying he would be at Oxford, Mississippi that friday night, debate or no debate (including his statement: "A President has gotta do two things at once.") As you remember, the bailout talks blew up (no fault of either McCain/Obama) and McCain then had to tuck his tail between his legs and flew to the debate.

In other words, to some GOPers/conservatives, McCain looked flimsy and weak in response to that crisis, while they thought Obama was firm and didn't act panic-filled.

Plus, McCain voted for the bailout, which sorta pissed off many of the already-disgruntled economical small-government conservatives/libertarians.

(2) Sarah Palin.

Freddie C. and DC have cried about how the left refuse to use the same criticism against their candidate like they have with Palin, and I and some "Obamacons" would disagree.

Agree with him politically or not, Obama in interviews at least presents himself as an intelligent, disciplined candidate.

Palin though....I mean Katie friggin Couric comes off as more intelligent than Palin in that interview.

Then consider alot of Female GOPers that could have gotten the gig, and done a better job (i.e. Kay Hutchinson) and these Obamacons go: WHAT THE FUCK?

Now TIS, notice that some of these Obamacons are from New England, those moderate GOPers who are the remnants of the liberal wing of the old GOP, i.e. Nelson Rockefeller, where they may agree with the party's economics, but are pro-choice or tolerant of gays or whatever.

With the GOP increasingly pulling, to quote William Buckley, "Ideological Suicide", alienating moderates/small-government conservatives/fiscal conservatives/libertarians/etc....alot of those centrists, much like the "Reagan Democrats" in the 1980s, feel left out or that their party on the national level has gone too deep into the fringes, and decide that the candidate of the rival party suites their concerns or causes more.

Redux:

Just what experience is required to be elected as President? Experience with what? What is the threshhold that one must obtain? There is none. There's no experience required or useful for that matter. The Presidency is so unique that nothing prepares one for its slings and arrows. A President is surrounded by a staff of advisors and a Cabinet who provide options for the President's selection. There's no magic in that selection process. Experience doesn't affect the probability of an option's success or failure. To be the Republican or Democratic nominee, one goes through an arduous and onerous primary campaign and election process. If there is experience achieved, that process is it. One offers oneself to Americans and we accept or reject the offer.

There is a series of books entitled the Making of the President by Theodore White that chronicles the road that successful presidential candidates travel on the way to the Presidency. Read them. There are also any number of bboks out there about Presidents. Read some of them also. You won't find in their pages apriori experience that was helpful to our Presidents except among those that had been Vice-Presidents. Even then it was only residual.

RR, all your points are well taken. From all I've been reading, the Republican party is in deep turmoil, as were the Dems four years ago, only this seems worse to me. Time to re-evaluate and make changes. And, change is NOT a bad thing.

We learn in school the 3 qualifications to become President, and that seems to stick with our memory. Yet, I guess when we think in terms of the "President" we tend to think with such a huge job, surely there must be some mandatory experience qualifications.

And Olivant mentions the "process" as experience in itself. I imagine, for the candidates it is quite the learning experience. Seriously, I can see how Obama, being the newcomer, has grown thru the process, can't you? Don't know if it's demeanor or a comfort level or what, but he is looking/seeming very Presidential.


TIS

Al Bundy returns!

That's fantastic, Ronnie!!

But you know if Hillary got the nomination, he's say "No Mam!"

Is that really "the" Al Bundy??? He looks so different.
Great ad though!


TIS

Let me just weigh in on the experience factor. It's undeniable that McCain has much more than Obama. But for the office they are both seeking, neither has the actual experience for the decisions made in the position.

What matters is that the president surround him/herself with the best people to make decisions for our country. This is a judgment issue and this, IMO, is where Obama is abundantly ahead of McCain. Look at the so-called "experience" George Bush and his administration had. Experience did not do us any good with the poor decisions Rumsfeld and Cheney made about the Iraq War. In fact, they repeated past mistakes from when they were both in the Nixon administration and fighting the Vietnam War. I see McCain acting in the same way as Bush, if he were to be elected.

Fundamentally flawed judgment was also used by McCain in selecting Sarah Palin. Throwing her inexperience aside, listen to the majority of her non-rehearsed, unscripted answers. They are a train wreck. She clearly does not know the Constitution, foreign policy, or anything significant about the U.S. Supreme Court.

McCain has demonstrated that he is reactionist, rather than someone who thinks things through. This is where he is frighteningly similar to George Bush. How many poor decisions has Bush made based upon his "gut instinct?" Examples of the McCain reactionary weakness:
1) picking Sarah Palin as a means to rally his base rather than selecting the most qualified candidate for the country (Romney, Ridge, Gingrich). Once the initial Palin hoopla stopped, it was evident to nearly everyone that the figurative emperor had no clothes on.

2) the political stunt of "suspending" his campaign to "handle" the economic crisis. The economy is the #1 issue for the majority of Americans. Only weeks prior to suspending his campaign, McCain himself announced "the fundamentals of the economy were strong." THIS STATEMENT DEMONSTRATED, MORE THAN ANYTHING ELSE, THAT DESPITE McCAIN'S EXPERIENCE, HE HAD LEARNED NEXT TO NOTHING ABOUT THE U.S. ECONOMY IN ALL OF HIS YEARS AS A SENATOR. Furthermore, this complete misanalysis of what was going on in our country, demonstrated how out of touch John McCain is regarding the basic understanding of our economic operations and economics policies.

Exactly Goombah. I think what bothers me most is the fact that McCain is a "reactionary" as you say. :oTemperment IS and should be a factor. While granted, McCain does have military experience, I have never brought or into the spin that being a POW gives you some kind of an edge. As a matter of fact, I worry what kind of emotional/mental damage surely must have been doen with 5 years of captivity. It had to have an affect. Of course we will never see those kinds of records.

TIS

Naturally, I agree.

I think what has turned me off to McCain most of all is how he didn't remain true to himself. He picked Sarah Palin, when I think his preference was one of the names that goombah cited. He went negative after promising he wouldn't. He turned his very pretty running mate into a hate- and fear-mongerer who would do the vast majority of the dirty work for him. His little "stunts" like seizing on Joe the Plumber and suspending his campaign have revealed a very sloppy and reactionist side. And I think that he turned off a lot of people who might have voted for him.

Obama has remained unruffled throughout. He's never lost his temper. He never took the bait. And he hammered his points home, day after day.

MSN is reporting that Colorado and Virginia moved from "toss-up" "lean" Obama. They said IF this is the case, that even if McCain took both Ohio and FLA he still wouldn't win, and that the electoral map will take a historic change. I have a feeling that this election will be historic in several ways, in the end.


TIS