In researching her rise to governor, it seems that Murkowski was wildly unpopular, and that Ms. Palin won on the premise of "hope and change". Hmmm....where have I heard that before?

She did more than talk about change - she brought change to every public job that she held. Sarah Palin's record is one of confronting and defeating corrupt politicians who had much more apparent political power than herself. I am really surprised at how so many women are attacking her without knowing anything about her.

 

Originally, I thought Palin would make a good running mate mostly because of her knowledge and support of drilling in ANWR. However, the more I have researched her record, I have become convinced that her background as a crusading reformer will be even more of an asset to McCain. A 76 oercent job approval rate after 20 months in office is pretty impressive.

 

I believe that Palin's life story will attract far more supporters than detractors.

He was the Republican congressman she beat in the primary right?

What about the two-term incumbant Democrat she beat in the general election?

Murkowski was the incumbent Republican governor. Murkowski did not back her up when she went public with corruption charges against other high ranking Republicans, so she ran against him in the primary. After she beat him, she then defeated a Democrat in the general election. Palin had previously run unsuccessfully for Lt. Governor, finishing second in the primary.

I like this choice a lot, there are however, some things that don't settle in too well, all environmental issues such as drilling in Anwar and not listing the polar bears on the endangered list. I was shocked to hear her stances on some of the issues, yet she was elected in Alaska, who speaks out about these things. I think though that she will help and encourage real change in D.C.

AK is a large state in land mass alone. The population of AK is ~670K. Heck, Chicago has almost 3M. Louisville has almost the same population as the entire state of Alaska! I think that equating being the governor of Alaska to the Vice-Presidency of the US is stretching it.

She's still more qualified to lead than Obama. And if my ticket is going to have some inexperience, I'd DANG sure rather have it at the bottom of the ticket, than at the top! :eek:

She's still more qualified to lead than Obama. And if my ticket is going to have some inexperience, I'd DANG sure rather have it at the bottom of the ticket, than at the top! :eek:

 

I'm not so sure about that; to an old liberal like me, JFK/LBJ was about as good as it got. I'm not at all against having the young, vibrant half of the ticket at the top.

Palin won't bring the Clinton supporters like many people think. Not that it's a majority, or anything of the like, but most female Clinton supporters I know don't follow her sentiments.

 

Most female Clinton supporters didn't just support her because she was a woman, but because of her experience, knowledge, and views - which are all totally different from Palin.

 

Palin has been a governor for 18 months, has differing opinions on nearly every aspect, and isn't known outside of Republican Politics.

 

And besides, she's not even half the speaker that Clinton is, and not even in the same hemisphere as Obama. Palin doesn't excite me at all.

 

But many Clinton supporters feel that she got a bum job because she was a woman and if they have a woman to support, that gender discrimination that they think was demonstrated by Obama, his African American supporters and the DNC just may prompt them to vote for McCain/Palin even in spite of philosophical differences. Her ardent supporters didn't support her just because of her policy stances as her's were no different than Obama's. They supported her because she was a woman. I don't think that all of them or even a majority of her supporters will now vote for McCain. But if he can get even 5% of them to do so in a race that is looking very tight, it could make a difference. I've said it before and I'll say it again: Palin was a great choice. She appeals to the strong conservatives, she appeals to the women and her choice reconfirms McCain's image of being a maverick and not going along with the party traditionalists. Her only down side is lack of foreign policy experience (although her lack of Washington experience is actually a positive to some). While some say her lack of foreign policy experience hurts McCain's ability to attack Obama's similar problem, I think it really hurts Obama's ability to attack Palin even more. Just how can a man running for Pres. attack a woman running for VP on a lack of experience argument, when the man has little more experience than the woman? Plus if he does attack her too viciously, it just may drive more undecided women into her camp. Last thing a man wants to do is criticize a woman while in a group of other women. It turns them into a pack of wolves ( I know; I've experienced it:D). Obama and Biden will have to handle this issue with kid gloves.

 

And to make her even stronger in the eyes of many, her son is in the military getting ready to deploy to Iraq. That makes both members of the R ticket with children in the military and I don't think any member of the D ticket has a child in the military. Insignificant, some say. I don't think so. I think it creates the perception that if elected, the R's won't use the military willy nilly because they have some real skin in the game. It also ties in nicely to the patriotism feelings that many Americans have.

AK is a large state in land mass alone. The population of AK is ~670K. Heck, Chicago has almost 3M. Louisville has almost the same population as the entire state of Alaska! I think that equating being the governor of Alaska to the Vice-Presidency of the US is stretching it.

 

Let's look at this for a 2nd.

 

If she does not have the experience, what could she do to offset that.

 

Well, I guess she could look for a senator with around 38 years of experience and name him as Vice President to offset her lack of experience.

 

 

Hmmm....that sounds familiar.

Let's look at this for a 2nd.

 

If she does not have the experience, what could she do to offset that.

 

Well, I guess she could look for a senator with around 38 years of experience and name him as Vice President to offset her lack of experience.

 

 

Hmmm....that sounds familiar.

 

Well said!

In researching her rise to governor, it seems that Murkowski was wildly unpopular, and that Ms. Palin won on the premise of "hope and change". Hmmm....where have I heard that before?

 

Obama has used the word "change" during his campaign. But it is just a word, his campaign has been business as usual. Picking a 35 year congressmen as a running mate doesn't do much for change.

McCain on the other hand has brought a new face with a new perspective.

I got to say, I was torn before. I was never going to vote for Obama, but I am not a total McCain supporter. I was leaning 3rd party. This selection has put my support behind McCain.

I'm not so sure about that; to an old liberal like me, JFK/LBJ was about as good as it got. I'm not at all against having the young, vibrant half of the ticket at the top.

JFK was in the U.S. House of Representatives from 1947 to 1953 as a Democrat, and in the U.S. Senate from 1953 until 1961. That's a whole lot more experience at the federal level than Obama. JKF said "ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country", Obama wants to be your socialist daddy and ask what your country can do for you. JFK wasn't afraid to use military force, Obama....

I'm not at all against having the young, vibrant half of the ticket at the top.

 

Are you saying that Biden is YOUNG & VIBRANT???!! :eek:

Are you saying that Biden is YOUNG & VIBRANT???!! :eek:

 

 

No, he's saying Obama is. Obama is at the top of the ticket.

But many Clinton supporters feel that she got a bum job because she was a woman and if they have a woman to support, that gender discrimination that they think was demonstrated by Obama, his African American supporters and the DNC just may prompt them to vote for McCain/Palin even in spite of philosophical differences. Her ardent supporters didn't support her just because of her policy stances as her's were no different than Obama's. They supported her because she was a woman. I don't think that all of them or even a majority of her supporters will now vote for McCain. But if he can get even 5% of them to do so in a race that is looking very tight, it could make a difference. I've said it before and I'll say it again: Palin was a great choice. She appeals to the strong conservatives, she appeals to the women and her choice reconfirms McCain's image of being a maverick and not going along with the party traditionalists. Her only down side is lack of foreign policy experience (although her lack of Washington experience is actually a positive to some). While some say her lack of foreign policy experience hurts McCain's ability to attack Obama's similar problem, I think it really hurts Obama's ability to attack Palin even more. Just how can a man running for Pres. attack a woman running for VP on a lack of experience argument, when the man has little more experience than the woman? Plus if he does attack her too viciously, it just may drive more undecided women into her camp. Last thing a man wants to do is criticize a woman while in a group of other women. It turns them into a pack of wolves ( I know; I've experienced it:D). Obama and Biden will have to handle this issue with kid gloves.

 

And to make her even stronger in the eyes of many, her son is in the military getting ready to deploy to Iraq. That makes both members of the R ticket with children in the military and I don't think any member of the D ticket has a child in the military. Insignificant, some say. I don't think so. I think it creates the perception that if elected, the R's won't use the military willy nilly because they have some real skin in the game. It also ties in nicely to the patriotism feelings that many Americans have.

 

You're right. It is a brilliant political move.

No, he's saying Obama is. Obama is at the top of the ticket.

 

Oops.

 

I skipped the grades where they taught reading....

I'm not so sure about that; to an old liberal like me, JFK/LBJ was about as good as it got. I'm not at all against having the young, vibrant half of the ticket at the top.

 

There was only 8+ year's difference in their ages:

 

JFK- born 5-29-1917

LBJ- born 8-27-1908

 

When they took office on January 20, 1961, the age of each was:

 

JKF- 43 years, 7 months, 22 days

LBJ- 52 years, 4 months, 24 days

 

Agewise, they were much more contemporaries than either of the two current tickets.