Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

I just see this as a bald-faced ploy by the GOP, banking on the idea that women vote gender over interests.

I just hope Obama & Biden, with Clinton's help, can expose her for what she is, before too many fellow "hockey moms" in swing states are wooed.

Also, I think the experience argument goes out the window here. The VP needs to be ready to take over the country, and McCain is saying someone with two terms as mayor of a small town and two years as governor of a sparsely populated state is ready for that.

At 8/29/08 03:23 PM, Memorize wrote: Even still, she does have executive experience for actually being a major and governor.

Even if you did argue that being a governor gives you more experience than being a senator, you can't argue that Palin has by (McCain's/Republican Party's) definition, a lot of experience. So even if you did argue she has more experience than Obama, you can't argue that her inexperience is moot because of this.

And she's actually done something fairly big as well, taking on big oil Republicans in corruption cases (her being the whistle blower).

Obama was one of the main sponsors of the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act. Which created the government hosted website http://www.usaspending.gov/ , which allows citizens to see where every dime of their tax money goes to. I would consider that "fairly big"

And then there's the fact that she's not the Presidential Nominee, but the VICE-Presidential nominee.

You don't find it strange that McCain will now be attacking Obama for flaws that are present in his own running mate?

At 8/29/08 11:52 AM, MrHero17 wrote: ... but she's really inexperienced. I mean as an actual VP WTF dose she bring to the table?

This is a double-edged sword that will cut Obama more than it will McCain. She is governor of an oil rich state so she has three years managing one of our most economically vital resources. Secondly she has more foreign policy experience than Obama.

I can hear the jaws dropping and the Obama supporters yelling WTF!

She is a governor in a time of war. What this means is that as an elected executive official she has been responsible for the training, equipping and deploying of Army and AIr National Guardsmen. Sarah Palin has three years experience as Commander-in-Chief whereas Obama, McCain or Biden has NONE.

I can hear the Obama supporters wondering aloud what the hell I'm smoking...and where they can get some.

Look I've been in the USAF for six years active duty and spent the last two years in the Air National Guard. From my experience, a governor deals with military issues just as much as the president. Furthermore, as our Northern most state...and basically bordering Russia...she is probably a helluva lot more mindful of geopolitical tensions than Obama.

So...in conclusion if Obama wants to talk about her inexperience the Republicans are just going to make him (at the top of his party's ticket) look like the most inexperienced person running. Including the VPs.

At 8/29/08 12:39 PM, Elfer wrote: Wheeeeeee.

Anyone else notice that this woman looks kind of like Tina Fey?

Oh yes...and I so did women who can pull of the "geek chic" look. Finally a serious female contender who is actually hot!

At 8/29/08 02:45 PM, Achilles2 wrote: That's definitely a biased view on things. Obama is a Senator, which is more experience than a governor when it comes to the federal government. Biden has been a member of the senate for longer than McCain, and Biden has the experience. Obama and Biden will, as part of their job, regularly have conversations with each other over what to do. Should Obama die, Biden will ascend, and we can be 100% confident in Biden.

While Biden may have more legislative experience than McCain (10 years)...you have to keep in mind that he had a 20+ career as a Naval officer. During this time (beyond being a POW) he was a commanding officer and Senate liason. What this means is he has more of the experience you are attributing to Biden...than Biden.

And see my previous post. Palin has more command or commander-in-chief experience than Obama (or Biden). While Alaska is densely populated it is just as economically and strategically vital of a state as Illinois.

But should McCain die, Palin has no experience nor would she have a VP to look forward to. On top of that, she's only a governor, and has no experience in federal government. McCain will be alone in making important decisions for the USA and it's foreign policies because he doesn't have experience to turn to. Obama, on the other hand, can always turn towards Biden.

I think we've shown that Palin is more qualified in terms of foreign policy to be president than Obama.

A news station I was watching (I think it's CNN) was interviewing a Republican from New York. She said that Palin has more experience than Obama and Biden combined because "they have no experience in running anything". This just shows how much the Republicans lack any coherent argument against the Democratic ticket. Either that, or it just shows how ignorant and stupid that lady is when it comes to anything more complex than eating.

This is the problem with being bombastic. You call this woman ignorant (and she may very well be), and yet you show that you lack a degree of knowledge of what you speak of as well.

At 8/29/08 02:21 PM, Xcyper33 wrote: Comparing Obama's experience with hers is just down right STUPID. Obama was a SENATOR this woman was a GOVERNOR. Republicans say they know nothing about Obama but this takes it into a whole different level. AND YES Obama has Foreign Policy experience did you even look at the democratic conventions? DID YOU NOT SEE Bush's administration AGREEING with Obama on the withdrawal of our troops in Iraq? Did you not SEE his voting record regarding foreign policy?? The point of a VP is to compliment the President. Obama's weaknesses makes up for it with Biden. McCain is OLD and has cancer it is a possibility sadly that he can passaway during his term. WILL YOU TRULY tell me that this woman is more qualified to become president then Obama?

DID you not take THE time to research YOUR arguments about foreign POLICY and BUSH because you WERE TOO busy thinking OF which words to caps AND which not to?

What world are you living in? To be so vehemently convinced that because Bush and Obama both think US troops should leave Iraq eventually that Bush is somehow following Obama's lead, or that simply voting on matters for a year gives you foreign policy experience... What about the fact that Obama was completely, absolutely, 100% against the surge and for immediate withdrawal a year ago only to say he always supported both it and a condition-based withdrawal now? If anything, he's following McCain and Bush.

At 8/29/08 03:40 PM, Musician wrote:

Even if you did argue that being a governor gives you more experience than being a senator, you can't argue that Palin has by (McCain's/Republican Party's) definition, a lot of experience. So even if you did argue she has more experience than Obama, you can't argue that her inexperience is moot because of this.

Hence: "Even still"

Now he's able to indirectly attack Obama on experience just by picking her. His VP is more experienced than their Presidential Nominee.

Now maybe if Biden was on the top of the ticket...

Obama was one of the main sponsors of the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act. Which created the government hosted website http://www.usaspending.gov/ , which allows citizens to see where every dime of their tax money goes to. I would consider that "fairly big"

Obama banks on judgment, transparency, transcendancy, and reaching across party lines and/or going so far as to cross their own party. So far, the only 3 people even capable of doing that in this presidential race are John McCain, Palin, and Ron Paul.

And then there's the fact that she's not the Presidential Nominee, but the VICE-Presidential nominee.

You don't find it strange that McCain will now be attacking Obama for flaws that are present in his own running mate?

Sort of.

But not as much, if only because of several differences:

-She's the Vice Presidential pick, not THE Presidential pick.
-She's actually a governor, which comes WITH executive experience (unlike McCain, Obama, or Biden)
-She's also actually been mayor (though with a small town).

That's why it's a smart pick. People can look at the tickets and say to themselves that the Republican VP is more experienced and actually has management/executive experience than the Democrats Presidential Nominee.

Even worse still when there's an ad running around featuring Obama's own VP calling Obama "unfit", "inexperienced", and "not ready" to be President (from the primaries).

At 8/29/08 03:36 PM, Zeug wrote: Also, I think the experience argument goes out the window here. The VP needs to be ready to take over the country, and McCain is saying someone with two terms as mayor of a small town and two years as governor of a sparsely populated state is ready for that.

Despite its low population and population density Alaska is a hard state to govern. mainly due to the size of the state itself and the fact that outside Anchorage, Fairbaks, and Juneau theres only about 150,000 spread across the entire state, those poeple are not easy to get to. plus alaska has its own share of corruption problems, mainly due to its about as a big oil state as texas.

At 8/29/08 04:29 PM, Memorize wrote: Hence: "Even still"

Now he's able to indirectly attack Obama on experience just by picking her. His VP is more experienced than their Presidential Nominee.

How would that work? "Hey guys, Obama is so inexperienced, he's more inexperienced than my running mate! And that's saying something since she's pretty gosh diddly darned inexperienced!"

That only draws attention to the fact that he's picked an inexperienced running mate.

Obama banks on judgment, transparency, transcendancy, and reaching across party lines and/or going so far as to cross their own party. So far, the only 3 people even capable of doing that in this presidential race are John McCain, Palin, and Ron Paul.

Obama banks on transcendency? Care to explain what you mean by that? And how is John McCain crossing his own party? Ever since he's recieved the nomination he's basically started agreeing with everything the current administration has done or is doing. Furthermore, Obama banks on a transition from a government owned by personal interests, to one owned by people.

You don't find it strange that McCain will now be attacking Obama for flaws that are present in his own running mate?

Sort of.

But not as much, if only because of several differences:

-She's the Vice Presidential pick, not THE Presidential pick.

Which shows that McCain really doesn't have a problem with inexperience. I mean honestly, if you're picking a candidate you should feel confident that he/she will be able to run the country if you die in office.

-She's actually a governor, which comes WITH executive experience (unlike McCain, Obama, or Biden)

But you still can't argue that she's more experienced in politics in general then McCain is. Executive experience is one thing, but the fact of the matter is that McCain/Biden have been working in Washington for far longer than she has been. By the definition McCain's been throwing around she should be considered inexperienced and unfit for office.

-She's also actually been mayor (though with a small town).

So? It's my understanding that Obama was a part of the Illinois State Senate for around 8 years. He also had a career as a civil rights attorney. Why don't we chalk those down under Barack Obama's experience?

That's why it's a smart pick. People can look at the tickets and say to themselves that the Republican VP is more experienced and actually has management/executive experience than the Democrats Presidential Nominee.

What is it with the word "more"? If Barack Obama is inexperienced, how is saying that Sarah Palin is "more" experienced say anything at all? The fact of the matter is that, Sarah Palin is an "inexperienced" VP. That's where the logical argument ends. Sarah, even is she is allegedly more experienced than Obama, is still, herself, inexperienced and thus according to McCain unfit to run the country.

Let's just drop the whole who is the the lesser of the least experienced for a moment and look at this from a political point of view. Let's be honest for a moment. Staunch Democrats are going to support Obama and staunch Republicans are going to support McCain. The real issue here is how this is going to affect the swing voters, many of whom are looking not just at the candidates but as the ticket as a whole. From this perspective, it currently appears that McCain has screwed up royally.

Let's look at the candidates and their potential weaknesses from this point of view of swing voters for a moment:
Obama: Inexperienced
McCain: Stale ideas, and possibility that he could die in office or become incapable of performing his duties.

In these cases, the VP can be used to cover for weaknesses in the presidential candidate. Some were worried about Bush in 2000 because of his inexperience. His whole political career had been six years as governor. He was able to alleviate some of these concerns with the fact that he Cheney as VP,

Now, let's look at the tickets as a whole. Obama has Biden, who does have a good deal of experience. Biden therefore helps moderate Obama's lack of experience. McCain's VP, on the other hand, only deepens concerns among those who are worried about his age. If he dies in office, she becomes the next president.

Let's just stipulate for the moment that she does have more experience than Obama. I'm not going to debate the actual merits of that here, but I'll stipulate it for the sake of argument because in reality its a moot point. Even if Palin is more experienced than Obama, the difference isn't enough to be truly significant. The are both inexperienced. Now, while it is true that Palin could use a VP as an advisor just like Obama, that isn't going to be as significant an offset for her inexperience for swing voters as Obama having Biden. The fact is that we won't know who Palin's VP would be in the event of McCain's death until after the election is said and done.

Furthermore, we can't count on Palin being able to rely on the VP in same way we could have Obama rely on Biden. Biden and Obama may differ on the issues, but those differences aren't that great. Palin on the other hand would run the risk of having a VP who is diametrically opposed to her and he policies. If McCain dies in office, the speaker of the houser becomes VP, meaning Palin gets whoever was chosen for that position. From the little I've heard about her thus far, she appears to moderate to far right. Now, imagine if you will Nancy Pelosi becoming her VP. Not only would Palin not likely rely on Pelosi as a guide, but there differences could actually make the situation worse than if Palin had no VP to back her up.

Let's also look at the other ways in which this has damaged McCain's campaign. His biggest argument against Obama was that he has little experience. In picking he Palin, he's nullified this argument. It may be a valid argument to make, but in picking Palin, McCain now looks like a giant hypocrite. It's true that Obama can't argue about Palin's experience, but he doesn't have to because he can now argue that even McCain doesn't believe that experience is that important.

So far, it looks like McCain has made a huge mistake politically in picking Palin. He's made himself look like a hypocrite, disarmed his best weapon against Obama, and has done nothing to alleviate the concerns of those worried about his age. The only way Palin will be able to help politically is if she can prove to be charismatic like Obama, and tbus counter Obama's charisma and help repair the image of McCain as behind the times and out of touch.

At 8/29/08 05:22 PM, VigilanteNighthawk wrote: Let's also look at the other ways in which this has damaged McCain's campaign. His biggest argument against Obama was that he has little experience. In picking he Palin, he's nullified this argument. It may be a valid argument to make, but in picking Palin, McCain now looks like a giant hypocrite. It's true that Obama can't argue about Palin's experience, but he doesn't have to because he can now argue that even McCain doesn't believe that experience is that important.

This is basically what I've been saying in my argument with Memorize. How can McCain make attacks on Obama's inexperience, when he chose a running mate that has that exact flaw. What was he thinking?

At 8/29/08 05:11 PM, Musician wrote:

At 8/29/08 04:29 PM, Memorize wrote: Hence: "Even still"

Now he's able to indirectly attack Obama on experience just by picking her. His VP is more experienced than their Presidential Nominee.

How would that work? "Hey guys, Obama is so inexperienced, he's more inexperienced than my running mate! And that's saying something since she's pretty gosh diddly darned inexperienced!"

Note the word: "indirectly". Meaning: Without having to say it.

Obama banks on judgment, transparency, transcendancy, and reaching across party lines and/or going so far as to cross their own party. So far, the only 3 people even capable of doing that in this presidential race are John McCain, Palin, and Ron Paul.

Obama banks on transcendency? Care to explain what you mean by that?

When I see Obama talking about people having an epiphany to vote for him while talking about the clouds opening and the waters lowering, and Nanci Pelosi talking about how "God has graced us with Obama", I tend to get just a little creep'd.

And how is John McCain crossing his own party? Ever since he's recieved the nomination he's basically started agreeing with everything the current administration has done or is doing.

Record.

As much as even that word has become a cliche.

McCain has been known to do it. He has a resume. Obama does not. McCain has gone low in voting with his Republican counter parts and Bush, whereas Obama has a 97% average in voting along with his democratic colleagues.

He talks about "reaching across the aisle", yet he has almost nothing to prove it with. He's already puff'd up his own resume by talking about welfare reform which he conveniantly left out the part where he actually opposed it at first, and that it was a combined effort by Bill Clinton and the Republican Congress.

Furthermore, Obama banks on a transition from a government owned by personal interests, to one owned by people.

Raising taxes to take care of social security.
Letting the upper tax cuts expire to fund his Universal Healthcare system.

Ringing any bells?

How about allowing a vote to get rid of the secret ballot, which Unions all of a sudden now want even though they fought for it in the past?

How about his Healthcare system covering illegal immigrants?

Not exactly what I would call "by the people".

Which shows that McCain really doesn't have a problem with inexperience. I mean honestly, if you're picking a candidate you should feel confident that he/she will be able to run the country if you die in office.

1) She's a governor
2) She's the governor... of Alaska
3) She's been a mayor
4) She's VP

Look, I know she's inexperienced. Yup. But at least she actually has executive and management experience (unlike everyone else: McCain, Biden, and Obama).

But you still can't argue that she's more experienced in politics in general then McCain is.

Yeah, but she's VP. So her being less experienced is sort of... expected.

Executive experience is one thing, but the fact of the matter is that McCain/Biden have been working in Washington for far longer than she has been. By the definition McCain's been throwing around she should be considered inexperienced and unfit for office.

Perhaps, but as it's been said: There's a big difference from a senator and a Governor.

And even before being in the Senate, Obama still didn't do anything worth executive or leadership experience whatsoever, unlike Palin, who was at least a mayor.

So? It's my understanding that Obama was a part of the Illinois State Senate for around 8 years. He also had a career as a civil rights attorney. Why don't we chalk those down under Barack Obama's experience?

Executive?

What is it with the word "more"? If Barack Obama is inexperienced, how is saying that Sarah Palin is "more" experienced say anything at all? The fact of the matter is that, Sarah Palin is an "inexperienced" VP. That's where the logical argument ends.

Sure. Why? Because you know when people go into specifics about that issue, you'll lose.

Big difference from a President and Vice President.

Sarah, even is she is allegedly more experienced than Obama, is still, herself, inexperienced and thus according to McCain unfit to run the country.

Do you know McCain's standards for inexperience?

At 8/29/08 11:28 AM, Elfer wrote: She's also even younger than Obama. I don't know if this will actually help to win any votes for McCain, aside from rabid Clinton supporters who thought that there was extreme sexist bias in the primaries.

Didn't they talk crap about Obama for being to young?

At 8/29/08 05:49 PM, sonikuu1 wrote:

At 8/29/08 11:28 AM, Elfer wrote: She's also even younger than Obama. I don't know if this will actually help to win any votes for McCain, aside from rabid Clinton supporters who thought that there was extreme sexist bias in the primaries.

Didn't they talk crap about Obama for being to young?

I hear'd a little, but it was very minor.

How can one call Obama "too young" when the age is "35" and our youngest president is TR?

Yes she's been a governor for longer than Obama and yes she has executive experience, but as I've said before and other have said before, this is a moot point because either way, the fact of the matter is that they are both inexperienced. By picking Palin as his VP, McCain has basically said he doesn't care about experience. That's where the logical cycle ends because you can't follow it any further than that.

You can try to argue that she's more experienced than Obama, but that's just spin since the argument is that Obama is inexperienced anyways, so it doesn't say much, and doesn't detract from the fact that Palin is still Inexperienced. In equal measure you can argue that Palin has more executive experience, but you're still playing off of the word "more", because in the end, she still doesn't have very much executive experience.

Even the the most talented of spin artists can't argue that Sarah Palin is "experienced". McCain has shot himself in the foot.

VigilanteNighthawk wins this topic hands down. If Republicans get back in office i'm packing my bags and moving to Canada. Its a depressing thought knowing they would get back in and fuck up America's economy and status with the world even more.

Forum Topic: McCain selects female woman as VP

As opposed to, you know, a male woman?

At 8/29/08 06:33 PM, dySWN wrote: Forum Topic: McCain selects female woman as VP

As opposed to, you know, a male woman?

I think you're the FIRST PERSON in the WHOLE thread to notice that.
oh wait, never mind.

At 8/29/08 03:29 PM, Elfer wrote: Have you ever seen an "on-the-street" interview of a person of any political opinion whatsoever where their position was even coherent, let alone compelling? News stations don't show insightful citizens, because otherwise people would have no reason to tune in to watch their personality commentators.

My memory fails right now, but I remember that she was a politician. She was also from New Mexico, not New York (my mistake there). I think that she served in the state senate, as they referred to her as "Senator".

The move could go either way for the GOP. McCain will parade her around for as many votes as he can get from a bunch of demographics and he very well might get those votes if Obama and Biden don't start pointing out her weaknesses soon. Then again, this corruption scandal could pose a problem for her too in terms of being a moral upstanding servant of the country, and I believe I'm familiar with the GOP's stance on that issue. It's an interesting choice, but if I was in McCains shoes, I would have chosen somebody else.

At 8/29/08 05:22 PM, VigilanteNighthawk wrote: ...Palin on the other hand would run the risk of having a VP who is diametrically opposed to her and he policies. If McCain dies in office, the speaker of the houser becomes VP, meaning Palin gets whoever was chosen for that position. From the little I've heard about her thus far, she appears to moderate to far right. Now, imagine if you will Nancy Pelosi becoming her VP. Not only would Palin not likely rely on Pelosi as a guide, but there differences could actually make the situation worse than if Palin had no VP to back her up.

Respectfully, you are wrong here. The 25th Amendment, section 2 stipulates:

Whenever there is a vacancy in the office of the Vice President, the President shall nominate a Vice President who shall take office upon confirmation by a majority vote of both Houses of Congress.

What this means is in the hypothetical you pose President Palin will nominate someone who will then be confirmed by congress. Now I know you're thinking: "the Democrats will block her nominees". In a time when the president is dead, there will be a period of bi-partisanship in the congress...so unless she picks Zombie-Hitler she's getting her pick for VP.

Nancy Pelosi only becomes president IF the president or VP dies at the same time...or if the president dies with a vacancy in the VP position for whatever reason.

Let's also look at the other ways in which this has damaged McCain's campaign. His biggest argument against Obama was that he has little experience. In picking he Palin, he's nullified this argument. It may be a valid argument to make, but in picking Palin, McCain now looks like a giant hypocrite. It's true that Obama can't argue about Palin's experience, but he doesn't have to because he can now argue that even McCain doesn't believe that experience is that important.

You've got a business woman with commander-in-chief experience. So no he does not necessarily come off as a hypocrite.

So far, it looks like McCain has made a huge mistake politically in picking Palin. He's made himself look like a hypocrite, disarmed his best weapon against Obama, and has done nothing to alleviate the concerns of those worried about his age. The only way Palin will be able to help politically is if she can prove to be charismatic like Obama, and tbus counter Obama's charisma and help repair the image of McCain as behind the times and out of touch.

Honestly...it is way too early to tell if he has hurt his campaign or made an inspired choice.

Either way, we're going to have either our first African-American or Woman elected to the executive branch of the federal government.

History will be made for whoever wins. But I think McCain did this to get more people to vote for him. It it will either make him or break him. But it will all come down to it in November.

Palin is also very pretty.

At 8/29/08 05:33 PM, Musician wrote:

At 8/29/08 05:22 PM, VigilanteNighthawk wrote: Let's also look at the other ways in which this has damaged McCain's campaign. His biggest argument against Obama was that he has little experience. In picking he Palin, he's nullified this argument. It may be a valid argument to make, but in picking Palin, McCain now looks like a giant hypocrite. It's true that Obama can't argue about Palin's experience, but he doesn't have to because he can now argue that even McCain doesn't believe that experience is that important.

This is basically what I've been saying in my argument with Memorize. How can McCain make attacks on Obama's inexperience, when he chose a running mate that has that exact flaw. What was he thinking?

The reality is Obama cannot really make that claim that McCain is a hypocrite since such a claim opens the door for the Republicans to further attack him:

She has executive experience (Carter, Clinton and Bush were governors before being president) which means she has been commander-in-chief (governors are responsible for training, equiping and deploying the Army & Air National Guard). Neither Obama nor Biden have this or related experience (while McCain has command experience). Finally Alaska's oil and proximity to Russia gives her a certain insight that both Obama and Biden lacks.

I know you want to just ignore me and put my argument in a box of me being a "spin doctor"...but when an Obama supporter ignores these realities it only helps the Republicans.

At 8/29/08 07:47 PM, 36Holla wrote: ... Then again, this corruption scandal could pose a problem for her too in terms of being a moral upstanding servant of the country, and I believe I'm familiar with the GOP's stance on that issue. ...

Have you (or anyone else talking about this) entertained the possibility that this "scandal" is essentially a non-issue? Every potential VP nominee undergoes at thourough vetting process...so the McCain campaign knew about these charges and they were investigated. In fact the Democrat responsible for running the investigation has commented on her administration's cooperation on the issue and has said that subpeonas are not necessary. This usually means that there is nothing to the charges.

Afterall, this was a surprise pick (much better than the Obama camp's ability to keep a secret) with little pre-announcement fanfare. And yet this scandal was making headlines? The McCain campaign was probably responsible for the this being in the news...because she is either innocent or the issue is "managable".

At 8/29/08 08:22 PM, TheMason wrote: The reality is Obama cannot really make that claim that McCain is a hypocrite since such a claim opens the door for the Republicans to further attack him:

She has NO federal experience. Furthermore, even if you allow some leeway given the fact that she has executive experience, you can't ignore the fact that she's only been in such a position for 2 years. So she has very little executive experience.

I could argue that Obama is more experienced than her if I wanted to too, but I wont because it doesn't matter. It's a moot point. The fact is she's inexperienced, and if she is more experienced than Obama then it's not by any significant amount.

And yes Mason, McCain looks like a hypocrite. Know why? because he is one.

At 8/29/08 08:41 PM, Musician wrote: And yes Mason, McCain looks like a hypocrite. Know why? because he is one.

Obama looks like a hypocrite. Know why? because he is one.

Whoa, busting balls around every corner.

At 8/29/08 08:44 PM, SuperDeagle wrote: Obama looks like a hypocrite. Know why? because he is one.

Whoa, busting balls around every corner.

It doesn't work because you don't have the same buildup I do (read: reasons).

At 8/29/08 11:28 AM, Elfer wrote: She's also even younger than Obama. I don't know if this will actually help to win any votes for McCain, aside from rabid Clinton supporters who thought that there was extreme sexist bias in the primaries.

Not to mention I know there were people out there (I won't mention names) who were basing their vote for Hillary solely on the fact that they wanted to see a woman be president. So Mccain may be able to grab those votes.

However, it's still pretty funny. There was so much kerfuffle over who Obama was going to choose as a running mate, and he totally gets sandbagged by McCain.

Yep, but eventually the kerfufflle here fades, and it's back to the fact that if the Democrats can show a willingness to fight fire with fire, they could probably pretty easily tear McCain up.

At 8/29/08 08:47 PM, Musician wrote:

At 8/29/08 08:44 PM, SuperDeagle wrote: Obama looks like a hypocrite. Know why? because he is one.

Whoa, busting balls around every corner.

It doesn't work because you don't have the same buildup I do (read: reasons).

Actually it works pretty well because it doesn't need any buildup.

Shes pretty cute for a 44 yr old woman ;)... she got my vote, i got a boner

At 8/29/08 08:49 PM, SuperDeagle wrote: Actually it works pretty well because it doesn't need any buildup.

Usually you need to give reasons before calling someone a hypocrite. For example, McCain is a hypocrite because he hired an inexperienced VP candidate, while attacking his opponent for his alleged lack of experience. That makes McCain a hypocrit, that's a reason. You have no reason.

On another note, I don't think in all my time on these boards I've ever seen you engage in an actual debate with someone over something to do with politics. I've only seen you take little ad hominem jabs from time to time. So if you have an actual opinion on McCains VP, then I encourage you to speak up, otherwise your little remarks are off topic and better suited for the general board.