[Lillie_Steins]

Doesn't matter, really. Obama's image is already established. Now McCain has beaten Obama at his own game. If the polls are more or less true, it's really down to who will take Pennsylvania. Now Obama has a 5% lead there, which is not too bad. If McCain manages to swing PA with it's 21 electoral votes, he'll win the election. Michigan and Minnesota are also worth fighting for. So it's really a matter of whether his campaign planners realize that and can focus on the states where Obama has a fairly narrow lead.

[TorryJens]

The thing is if the Obama campaign is smart, they could really demolish McCain with this pick, for the reasons I outlined above. Yes it's true that VP picks don't tend to make a difference, one way or the other, but in this case its about McCain's judgement, not the VP herself, that will be criticized. Pointing out to the whole country that McCain picked a zero-experience politician to be his presidential failsafe, essentially proves how little McCain cares about America and how much he cares about attaining personal power. If that isn't enough, the choice also makes him a giant hypocrite, obviously.

The case against McCain couldn't be more clear, but it all comes down to how well Obama can make this point clear to American voters.

Let them bash an accomplished mother of five. They will bury themselves, she was a good choice and has more experience them Obama.

[MannoFr]

Palin was a major supporter of Pat Buchanan's presidential bids in 1996 and 2000. That odious neo nazi bastard.

From "Harry's Place"

To bring you up-to-date on the Sarah Palin-Pat Buchanan connection, which we posted about below:

It appears that Palin did not officially support Buchanan’s 2000 campaign for president, although as mayor of Wasilla, Alaska, she did wear a Buchanan button when Buchanan visited the town. She wrote in a letter to the editor of an Anchorage newspaper: “As mayor, I will welcome all the candidates in Wasilla.” (I can’t help wondering if this would have applied to David Duke if he had run for president and visited the town. After all Buchanan’s and Duke’s views on a number of issues– immigration, race, “Jewish power” and Israel– are not a million miles apart.)

Pat Buchanan said on MSNBC that Palin and her husband were involved in his 1996 campaign. So far there is no confirmation or denial of this from Palin. I think she owes an explanation of precisely what (if anything) she did for Buchanan’s campaign and how much she knew of his obnoxious positions.

Bloggers and journalists have raised plenty of other doubts and concerns about Palin– some valid, others not– and again, she needs to respond to reasonable questions. I suspect that once the initial excitement over her selection fades away, those questions– which seem to be popping up by the hour– will become much more urgent.

But in this post, my concern is less about Sarah Palin than with what John McCain’s selection of her says about him. I can’t find it on YouTube yet, but according to Ezra Klein, CNN has run a pre-selection clip of McCain proclaiming that his top criteria for a vice president would be “finding the person most qualified to step in and assume the presidency.” Does even the most fervent McCain supporter think Palin meets– or even comes close to meeting– this requirement?

Even McCain’s own people aren’t pretending.“She’s going to learn national security at the foot of the master for the next four years, and most doctors think that he’ll be around at least that long,” said Charlie Black, one of Mr. McCain’s top advisers, making light of concerns about Mr. McCain’s health, which Mr. McCain’s doctors reported as excellent in May.Even assuming that Palin is a fast learner and prepared to sit at McCain’s feet, isn’t that something of a gamble? If elected, he will be the oldest man ever to become president. And remember that Ronald Reagan was shot and nearly killed after only two months in office.

In July I linked to a Time magazine article about the respective gambling habits of Barack Obama (a cautious but winning poker player) and McCain (a risk-taking crap shooter). His selection of Sarah Palin to be a heartbeat away from leading the most powerful country on earth is of a piece with that.

I have posted favorably here about McCain a number of times over the years. Until yesterday, I was not unduly frightened by the possibility of him becoming president. But putting aside every other consideration, isn’t it reasonable to compare Obama’s most important and possibly fateful choice so far– Joe Biden– with McCain’s? And isn’t it reasonable to draw some conclusions from those choices?

Update: Jim Vandehei and John F. Harris at Politico write about some of the things we can learn about McCain from his selection of Palin: most notably, he’s desperate and this is not the choice of a self-confident candidate.

[tgs]

The far left bashes and they will effect the opinion of what people think of democrats.

I will get back on experience data. Obama has been a Senator for not that long and has spent a lot of that time campaigning. She is not running for President, he is. There is big difference.

Well, actually there shouldn't be any difference at all. Remember, the Vice President's only official job according to the constitution, is to serve as a backup president for the regular one. What you have to visualize is that Sarah Palin could actually become the real, acting President the day after McCain's nomination, if something happens to McCain. She has to be 100% ready for that. Therefore it is just as important that the VP be a great president as the presidential nominee.

Now Palin, as I described before, has zero relevant experience for the presidency, which means McCain doesn't actually care about the safety of this country. He proved that with this decision.

And yes, Palin has a lot less experience than Obama. You don't get to include being mayor of a ~6,500 pop. town as presidential experience. Sorry, just not relevant with so few people in the town. Her two years as governor, once again, is not enough for her to learn anything significant or even judge her performance. She's a complete unknown. McCain's OK with that.

Obama has 12 years relevant presidential experience. 12 compared to 0. Plus, Obama is actually smart.

And popping out lots of babies, does NOT make you immune to criticism of your pathetically inhumane political beliefs, and people should know that.

McCain is lame.

[Paul Bunyan]

You know, I cited actual facts supporting Obama's level of experience. Why do you think that a little bit of vacuous sarcasm is sufficient enough to over-rule the reality of facts?

And if you want to make a logically valid claim that Obama is "socialist", you first have to define what socialist means in terms of American politics, and come up with some justification for an arbitrary threshold that considers some people socialist and others not, and then provide the facts that show Barack is above that threshold. Because just throwing around claims like "he's socialist" does not provide the logical support necessary to prove that's the reality, and not just some talking point propaganda which the Republicans are so good at cooking up.

(responsible politics ain't so easy is it?)

Ditto for him not supporting Israel.

Did your liberal professor teach you how to conduct a scientific study?
Look he wants a $600 billion poverty bill and he wants to take from the rich to give to the poor, to try and even it all out. That is socialism, is that to hard for you to figure out? But I know liberals have to live in a world of a million shades of gray.


Do you really think he will actually be able to talk things out with the President of Iran?
Oh I know the meeting he said he will have with Islamic leaders is going to magical transform the Islamic world and agenda.

BTW she is more favorable then Biden.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/publ...bly_than_biden


Why do you think the Palestinians want Obama in? Because they, unlike you know he is weak.

Hamas endorses Obama and so does I am David.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archive.../04/020315.php