Lol

 

Why, because they picked a woman as VP?

:lol:

 

Wow, let me welcome the Republican party to the year 2008.

Funny I guess, but the lack of genuine understanding exhibited by your comments and shared by Dems everywhere is precisely the reason Dems have been scrambling since the end of their convention.

 

I didn't like McCain much before, and I didn't like his choice of Palin at first, but I have grown to see it as a brilliant political maneuver.

 

This woman will dramatically tilt the table in favor of the republicans.

Here's my assessment.

 

Obama didn't have the screws to pick Hillary as his #2. From a popular vote standard, Hill would have brought the other half of the Dems to the clambake. The two of them would have been the most formidable front the Dems could have fielded. Obama, aware of his own inexperience didn't need a political tiger like Mr. Bill lurking in the wings. Maybe he was worried that Hillary would have become president before his calendar term expired. Whatever the reason, he figured there was no way McCain would deviate from the Republican stereotype of powerful white males in choosing his #2. So, Obama picks a minor Dem white dude to help him get the votes of more white dudes. Problem is, he picked a bloviating windbag with a 35 year record of poor judgment and reckless comments. Up steps McCain who picks a female go-getter more concerned with results than in forging friendly political alliances... a maverick. Basically, a feminine version of himself. If Palin were a pro-abortion liberal, the Dems wouldn't be able to sing her praises loudly enough as an example of what a woman can achieve. The fact she's a pro-life conservative violates everything the feminist movement is all about. The fact that she has more executive experience than the other three candidates combined is cause for fear for the two guys with whom she's not sharing the ticket.

 

Palin is a game changer. Roles have been reversed. Republicans are more progressive, more open-minded than anyone believed. If Palin is able to articulate herself clearly tonight and over the next few weeks this race is over right here and now.

 

I said it.

 

Take it to the bank.

 

If I'm wrong, I'll eat crow in November.

 

I'm buying turkey in anticipation of a victory Thanksgiving. :thumb:

FB,

 

I've been gone from BGP for a long time and the P & R forum even longer. But in my last week or so back I realized I had forgotten how much we agree on things. Another post that is right on. Especially the bolded part.

 

I don't know if it was on here or to some friends on BB Messenger but just the other day I was talking about how this was a John McCain pick from circa pre-2000 and it gave me hope he would go back to those maverick roots which I feel he has strayed from. :thumb::thumb:

Lol

 

Why, because they picked a woman as VP?

:lol:

 

Wow, let me welcome the Republican party to the year 2008.

In further defense of what FB was saying in regards to the Republican parties progressive attitude, have you checked out Bush's cabinet??? A democrat hasn't approached the number of minorities that Bush has appointed. :sssh:

Funny I guess, but the lack of genuine understanding exhibited by your comments and shared by Dems everywhere is precisely the reason Dems have been scrambling since the end of their convention.

 

I didn't like McCain much before, and I didn't like his choice of Palin at first, but I have grown to see it as a brilliant political maneuver.

 

This woman will dramatically tilt the table in favor of the republicans.

 

A brilliant maneuver if he wins....but will be seen as the reason McCain lost if that so happens. It will at least be one of the fingers pointed.

 

I didn't know I was scrambling anywhere, but thank you for the suggestion, I will have breakfast for dinner now, scrambled eggs I believe....now that's progressive and open-minded.

A brilliant maneuver if he wins....but will be seen as the reason McCain lost if that so happens. It will at least be one of the fingers pointed.

 

I didn't know I was scrambling anywhere, but thank you for the suggestion, I will have breakfast for dinner now, scrambled eggs I believe....now that's progressive and open-minded.

For the record, I did not articulate my thoughts clearly enough in my previous post. I did not intend to dog you personally, but the Dem party as a whole. If I stepped on your toes, I sincerely apologize. :thumb:

In further defense of what FB was saying in regards to the Republican parties progressive attitude, have you checked out Bush's cabinet??? A democrat hasn't approached the number of minorities that Bush has appointed. :sssh:

If Condoleeza was a Dem, she'd be queen right now, with Hilary as her veep. :lol:

Here's my assessment.

 

Obama didn't have the screws to pick Hillary as his #2. From a popular vote standard, Hill would have brought the other half of the Dems to the clambake. The two of them would have been the most formidable front the Dems could have fielded. Obama, aware of his own inexperience didn't need a political tiger like Mr. Bill lurking in the wings. Maybe he was worried that Hillary would have become president before his calendar term expired. Whatever the reason, he figured there was no way McCain would deviate from the Republican stereotype of powerful white males in choosing his #2. So, Obama picks a minor Dem white dude to help him get the votes of more white dudes. Problem is, he picked a bloviating windbag with a 35 year record of poor judgment and reckless comments. Up steps McCain who picks a female go-getter more concerned with results than in forging friendly political alliances... a maverick. Basically, a feminine version of himself. If Palin were a pro-abortion liberal, the Dems wouldn't be able to sing her praises loudly enough as an example of what a woman can achieve. The fact she's a pro-life conservative violates everything the feminist movement is all about. The fact that she has more executive experience than the other three candidates combined is cause for fear for the two guys with whom she's not sharing the ticket.

 

Palin is a game changer. Roles have been reversed. Republicans are more progressive, more open-minded than anyone believed. If Palin is able to articulate herself clearly tonight and over the next few weeks this race is over right here and now.

 

I said it.

 

Take it to the bank.

 

If I'm wrong, I'll eat crow in November.

 

I'm buying turkey in anticipation of a victory Thanksgiving. :thumb:

 

And I'll cook it for you if you're right.

And I'll cook it for you if you're right.

I will welcome you into my home to use my stove... I would prefer that it be plucked first however. :lol:

I will welcome you into my home to use my stove... I would prefer that it be plucked first however. :lol:

 

You would probably rather have the crow.

You would probably rather have the crow.

You sell yourself short my friend. I would enjoy your company.

Nope, as TB&G has stated, I am pointing out the hypocrisy that comes along with the Republican party.

 

Obama is near crucified for his "inexperience" but with Palin, we throw a nice word in front of it, "executive" and it's suddenly more meaningful than anyone else's experience.

 

I was simply pointing out, again, as has already been discussed, that a President does not need executive experience to be President. (though you wouldn't be able to tell with all the junk the conservatives are spouting)

 

It's getting ridiculous that every time I hear a conservative talk about Palin, they say "well she's got more executive experience than Obama and Biden combined."

 

Well hey, she's got more than McCain too. That was the point I was making. I'm not saying Obama is the next JFK, and I'm not comparing him to Lincoln or Adams or anyone of the like. I am pointing out how ridiculous it is that the Republicans spin her "experience" by calling it "executive experience" and then fail to mention that she also has more of this experience than McCain.

 

Nice post. :thumb:

I never said it couldn't be done. Interesting choices, though, for backing up how well people do when they don't have experience. Should've read a little more in the ol' Wikipedia as you picked them::

 

Who (other than you) said I was trying to backp how well people do when then don't have experience? If I wanted to do that I would have mentioned Lincoln. I was just trying to list some of the least experienced VP's.

 

Also, if those on my list were not particularly distinguished or memorable, the same could be said about most VP's, not just the least experienced ones.

It was just weird that the names that you picked had so much baggage to use as examples. I didn't say you were "backing them up". I was showing how they did when they were in office. You gave me the names, I showed you what they did in office.

They were memorable from that list, most for very bad performances.

 

 

She says so herself.

:lol:

 

Big Deal....Obama doesn't know what a president does.:lol:

Big Deal....Obama doesn't know what a president does.:lol:

 

Exactly, oldrambler!:thumb: