[AKcrab]

Originally Posted by TheWOAT 

Edit2: Her kids have the dumbest names I ever heard. I guess 'Banjo' and 'Wingspan' were taken. I know some of you will say its a low blow and low class to make fun of kids' names, but they really are some stupid names...
Edit3: Unless those names are of some cultural significance since the husband is part Inuit.

Track: Palin's husband is a four time winner of a 2000 mile snow machine race; the longest in the world. (The track propels the machine.)
Bristol: The Palins used to fish in Bristol Bay commercially.
Willow: It's a tree common to Alaska.
Piper: Type of bush plane common in Alaska.

btw: Hubby is part Yup'ik

[AKcrab]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

She's been said to have left a litter of bodies of political opponents in her wake and defeated a very popular governor in her bid. She's known as Sarah barracuda.

Frank Murkowski had some of the lowest ratings EVER for an Alaskan governor.

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Actually, she does have baggage. She's being investigated as she's accused of firing a guy because one of his employees was in a messy divorce with her sister and the guy refused to fire the employee. That's a pretty big accusation for somebody so rabidly anti-corruption. (For the record, I actually think she's probably innocent there. But she has managed to rack up a scandal in her short political career.)

They've picked a scapegoat. The guy who made the actual phone calls that ended up recorded and released has stated that even though he talked about "she" and "her"; there was absolutely no request from Sarah to make the call. I don't believe him for a minute, but as long as he sticks to that story it's case closed.

[hyteckit]

How much does it cost Alaska to put polar bears on the endanger species list?

How many Alaskans are killed by polar beers each year?

[vmarks]

It's amazing how fast the principles of fauxgressives disappear when they have someone to smear. Misogyny is bad... unless directed at a republican. Gay-bashing is bad... unless directed against a republican.

It's no wonder some republicans doubt the sincerity of progressives when we have examples of progressives hurling this hate after calling out republicans on it.

[zerostar]

I didn't see any hate or bashing? just scrutiny any candidate would face. Equal opportunity.... I will re-read the thread tho if I missed it.

"They made a good choice cause Sarah is pro-life and McCain is clinging to life" -Leno\

Sorry is that offensive and demeaning while not being progressive? oh snap not my party I don't need to be P.C.

hehehe

[vmarks]

Originally Posted by zerostar 

I didn't see any hate or bashing? just scrutiny any candidate would face. Equal opportunity.... I will re-read the thread tho if I missed it.

"They made a good choice cause Sarah is pro-life and McCain is clinging to life" -Leno\

Sorry is that offensive and demeaning while not being progressive? oh snap not my party I don't need to be P.C.

hehehe

VPILF is pretty damned misogynistic. Let's not pretend otherwise.

[AKcrab]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

How much does it cost Alaska to put polar bears on the endanger species list?

$0.00?

How many Alaskans are killed by polar beers each year?

The best info I could find showed 5 deaths since 1930...

Unless you actually meant polar beers which indeed kill more Alaskans every year than polar bears.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by AKcrab 

$0.00?

The best info I could find showed 5 deaths since 1930...

Unless you actually meant polar beers which indeed kill more Alaskans every year than polar bears.

Haha... I meant polar bears. But a nice ice cold polar beer would do.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

VPILF is pretty damned misogynistic. Let's not pretend otherwise.

Agreed, but, so is concluding that the Republican party is superior by claiming that it has more attractive women, which I have seen on these boards (by Mojo, no less http://forums.macnn.com/95/political...te-republican/).

Conclusion: there are men on both sides of the fence are misogynistic.

[vmarks]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Aside from the whole United States, sure. The Senate is part of this country's government, you'll recall. It's actually a bigger part than the President in many ways, though sadly few people bother to treat it accordingly. He's also led several non-government organizations.

So I guess you could say he's run "nothing at all" if your definition of "something" is "Alaska."

Had Mr. Obama actually passed any legislation, led a committee, or done anything other than campaign for President during his tenure in a Congress bearing one of the lowest approval ratings ever, you might be able to support the claim that Mr. Obama had some experience at running something - but he hasn't.

Obama spokesman Bill Burton:

“Today, John McCain put the former mayor of a town of 9,000 with zero foreign policy experience a heartbeat away from the presidency.”

As opposed to Barack Obama, a community organizer with less than two years in the Senate who wants to be not one heartbeat away from the presidency but the President himself?

[vmarks]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

I've been reading up on this chick, and I'm convinced that she is worse than useless. People are saying she mirrors Obama, but I guess she seems like Obama if he got whacked in the head several times, developed an ill temperament and started hating gays. It's a brilliant political choice, and I have no doubt that it will help McCain, but picking someone just to win points is pretty bad, especially considering that McCain's VP has a decent chance of becoming president. (I could also go into the fact that picking an unqualified but attractive young woman is completely sexist, but I'll leave the feminist ire to the feminists.)

So yeah, I was on the fence before and now I'm not.

Sarah Palin isn't really someone you can honestly characterize as "hating gays" -- her first act as Governor was to veto a bill which would prohibit employee benefits for same sex couples. I'm not sure of her position on civil unions, but I don’t think it’s accurate to characterize her record as against gay rights.

[AKcrab]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

Sarah Palin isn't really someone you can honestly characterize as "hating gays" -- her first act as Governor was to veto a bill which would prohibit employee benefits for same sex couples. I'm not sure of her position on civil unions, but I don’t think it’s accurate to characterize her record as against gay rights.

You were a bit selective here.. From the link provided earlier:

Palin told the Anchorage Daily News that she supported the 1998 constitutional amendment on marriage.In addition, she told the Daily News that she would support a ballot question that would deny benefits to the domestic partners of public employees, which were ordered by an October 2005 decision of the Alaska Supreme Court, because, she said “honoring the family structure is that important." While she followed the Court’s decision and she also signed legislation –her first legislative act as Governor of Alaska—to put the issue on the April 2007 ballot for a nonbinding advisory vote. This was the only issue on the ballot and that election cost the state taxpayers $1.2 million. This measure passed, but the legislature did not follow the public’s advice and it chose not to take any further action to overturn the court’s decision. · She did, however, veto legislation passed by the state legislature in 2006 that would have prohibited providing DP benefits to state workers, in defiance of the Alaska Supreme Court’s ruling. She did this after the Supreme Court had already ruled and the Attorney General (Republican) advised her that the legislation was unconstitutional. Palin went on to state that, as a matter of policy, she was in favor of the bill.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Well, since both Palin and Obama are comparatively light on experience, one would hope that the Democracks don't go down the road of playing the gender card when talking about Palin.

It would immediately raise the question what's so special about Obama that he would be a fit president with his limited experience...

-t

This hasn't addressed my question. Define experience that you think is useful/applicable, please.

[Helmling]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

I'm 100 miles from Mexico. That gives me international experience as well. Although I'm not sure if some of the ladies are really ladies.

I got loads more experience. I've been to Mexico LOTS!

So if I move to Alaska, get on some po-dunk city council, then I could be VP! Awesome.

Seriously, I think to compare political experience, you look at what they've done. She was on a city council and then snatched the governorship of a small state (population-wise, obviously) from an unpopular governor. That really isn't that much political experience.

Obama was in the state legislature of a large state and then stached a Senate seat from that state. That clearly speaks to greater political experience.

Now, how much does that matter: NOT ONE LITTLE BIT.

I seem to remember a certain other Illinois one-term state legislator who went on to be the most consequential president in U.S. history. So can we please dispel the fallacious notion that political "experience" somehow makes for good leaders.

Doesn't anyone else want to talk about the fact that she is anti-science? For me, that's the deal breaker.

[goMac]

"I've been so focused on state government, I haven't really focused much on the war in Iraq." - Sarah Palin

She also added that she hadn't been thinking about Iraq at all. How quant.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Helmling 

I got loads more experience. I've been to Mexico LOTS!

So if I move to Alaska, get on some po-dunk city council, then I could be VP! Awesome.

Seriously, I think to compare political experience, you look at what they've done. She was on a city council and then snatched the governorship of a small state (population-wise, obviously) from an unpopular governor. That really isn't that much political experience.

Obama was in the state legislature of a large state and then stached a Senate seat from that state. That clearly speaks to greater political experience.

Now, how much does that matter: NOT ONE LITTLE BIT.

I seem to remember a certain other Illinois one-term state legislator who went on to be the most consequential president in U.S. history. So can we please dispel the fallacious notion that political "experience" somehow makes for good leaders.

Doesn't anyone else want to talk about the fact that she is anti-science? For me, that's the deal breaker.

Agreed 100%

Palin seems to be a wingnut - creationist, doesn't believe in global warming. Here are some possible attacks against her that might gain some traction if used, aside from the experience thing:

1) Under investigation for ethics violations

2) Called Clinton a whiner a few months ago, and is now trying to court Clinton voters and is speaking of her in glowing terms

3) Favored the bridge to nowhere but now says she opposes it

4) "Palin herself told Roll Call earlier this week, 'When I look every day, the big oil company's building is right out there next to me, and it's quite a reminder that we should have mutually beneficial relationships with the oil industry.'" (Roll Call, 8/25/08)

5) Voted against funding special education even though her own child is a special needs child

6) Doesn't know what a VP does (this has been widely reported already)

I'm not looking forward to any of these attacks being made, believe me, but it looks like this is some of the more apparent dirt that the Democrats might dig up on her.

[Mithras]

Oh, wow, AKCrab is back! How're the doggies?
I didn't remember you were from Wasilla, though. Give us the inside dope!

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

VPILF is pretty damned misogynistic. Let's not pretend otherwise.

VPILF was my comment, but I added the "?". I'd heard one of the local radio jocks using the term earlier in the day.

Besides, I'm not a misogynist, I love women. In fact, I love them so much I bought two.

[Shaddim]

Hey crab, she's your governor, what do you think of her?

[Captain Obvious]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Hey crab, she's your governor, what do you think of her?

How is that relevant?
Obama is my senator and I can tell you he hasn't accomplished much for the interests of the state he represents. My opinion of him was poor even when he was a state senator and was lowered even further when he made a run for the House and lost.

[Randman]

Originally Posted by Captain Obvious 

How is that relevant?
Obama is my senator and I can tell you he hasn't accomplished much for the interests of the state he represents. My opinion of him was poor even when he was a state senator and was lowered even further when he made a run for the House and lost.

You just answered it.

[Captain Obvious]

Originally Posted by Helmling 

Seriously, I think to compare political experience, you look at what they've done. She was on a city council and then snatched the governorship of a small state (population-wise, obviously) from an unpopular governor. That really isn't that much political experience.

Obama was in the state legislature of a large state and then stached a Senate seat from that state. That clearly speaks to greater political experience.

And represented a 95% black district as a state senator. Only managed to win his first seat in government by a procedural technicality that kept the returning incumbent off the ballot. Lost his one and only competitive open race to Bobby Rush. Managed to get to the US Senate after his rivals in both parties were done in by spousal scandals and then ran against a carpetbagger with no support named Alan Keyes. He was only then thrust on o the national stage at the mercy of a faction of the DNC leadership who allowed him to give a keynote at the 04 convention. And if you really want to find the point where he beat Clinton in the primary, it was when his camp started calling the Clintons racists.

Gerater political experience? lol
Obama's career on paper is the epitome of mediocre

Despite McCain's age and Obama's likelihood of being an assassination target the name at the top of the ticket and their inherent liabilities still override questions of their vice presidential choices.
What may be a valid criticism of the presidential candidates does not translate equally for their vice presidential picks. Look at the lack of criticism of Biden as a Washington insider. There really isn't much discussion over that despite the fact its one of Obama's lead attacks of McCain.

The electorate never concerns itself with VP choices to the depth they do with the top of the ticket. It may not seem logical but its how the world is.

[Captain Obvious]

McCain's choice was certainly interesting. It managed to destroy all the momentum from Obama's speech the previous night. All the news sources seemed to lead and give far more coverage to the GOP vice presidential pick than to analysis of the last night of the DNC convention. Even in here discussion of the convention was mundane and didn't engage anyone for very long. The BIden pick barely managed to extend to two pages it was so dull and uninteresting.

I see some good positives she can bring to the ticket but her ability to perform on the national campaign trail is an unknown factor while at the same time being the most important one. As much as the democrats pray the minor dirt on her will stick it most likely won't. Not only is she not the lead name on the ballot but the criticisms of her weigh more heavily on the democratic ticket. Her value to the election will come from how well she can communicate and engage the public over the next couple months. Her resume and story play out well enough that people's judgment of her will come from how she presents herself.

As for the VP debate: she can't be destroyed by Biden.
Attacking a woman to her face does not play well with audiences of any kind. It was only possible to be harsh on Clinton because she has had such a long and widespread negative reputation as a person. Any other woman would have garnered empathy from voters if she had been attacked in the same manner. Biden who already struggles to censor himself will be limited to sarcastic quips rather than direct attacks. Should he cross that line it will drive voters away from him.
Secondly, expectations of women are lower. That may be sexist and irrational but that is again how the world is.
She doesn't need to win the debate to come out ahead. She just needs to hold her own and look informed and poised. Palin can lose the debate and still win over the voters by how she comes off as a person just like Kennedy did over Nixon.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

As opposed to Barack Obama, a community organizer with less than two years in the Senate who wants to be not one heartbeat away from the presidency but the President himself?

QFT.

..and I don't think that anyone has said that Obama wouldn't have the experience to be a decent #2 for someone who did have the experience. Attacking the experience of the #2 to blunt the criticisms of the #1 will only serve to point out the inexperience of the #1. Won't work.

[Chongo]

Other than being President of the Senate and casting tie breaking votes, what does the VP do?

[wallinbl]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

As opposed to Barack Obama, a community organizer with less than two years in the Senate who wants to be not one heartbeat away from the presidency but the President himself?

If you're going to sit and complain about your opponents' tactics, at least don't lie about the facts in your own statements. Three years is a small enough number, no need to stretch it to less than two.

[vmarks]

Originally Posted by wallinbl 

If you're going to sit and complain about your opponents' tactics, at least don't lie about the facts in your own statements. Three years is a small enough number, no need to stretch it to less than two.

Time flies so quickly that I sometimes lose track. Forgive the error, don't call it a lie.

[wallinbl]

A question about experience: George W Bush has 8 years of experience as president, do you want him to continue since experience is clearly so important to you? Didn't think so. McCain has more legislative experience, but he still has more bad ideas than Obama does. And let's face it, deciding on who governs is about avoiding whatever problems they're going to cause because not much good comes out of any of them.

[vmarks]

Originally Posted by goMac 

"I've been so focused on state government, I haven't really focused much on the war in Iraq." - Sarah Palin

She also added that she hadn't been thinking about Iraq at all. How quant.

Heaven forfend that someone actually focus on the job they were hired to do, and politely refrain from expressing an opinion on events they have no influence upon. Alaska doesn't pay Palin for her opinions on Iraq, they pay her to run state government.

[vmarks]

Originally Posted by AKcrab 

You were a bit selective here.. From the link provided earlier:

Thank you for providing additional detail that had escaped me before.

[wallinbl]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

Heaven forfend that someone actually focus on the job they were hired to do, and politely refrain from expressing an opinion on events they have no influence upon. Alaska doesn't pay Palin for her opinions on Iraq, they pay her to run state government.

Then you're implying that she has absolutely no knowledge or experience useful to the job of POTUS. Not sure that helps the Republican cause.

[macintologist]

Just going a little off track here, isn't that typically what happens when the incumbent president runs against a governor... they just attack them on the fact that they have zero foreign policy experience? How was Clinton in 92, Carter in 76, Reagan in 1980 able to overcome that attack? Because they were agents of change right?

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by wallinbl 

Then you're implying that she has absolutely no knowledge or experience useful to the job of POTUS. Not sure that helps the Republican cause.

Whuh?

He didn't say that. He mentioned one part of the equation that the woman simply hasn't been briefed on in depth. I'm pretty sure that given that her son is going there shortly, that she has opinions and has paid attention regarding Iraq to have a knowledge of the issues in question. It just hasn't been her job. No more than it was Jimmy Carter's job to know anything about Iran when he was back in plains growing peanuts. By all accounts, the woman is intelligent and capable of understanding complex governmental problems and finding solutions to them. Again...what has Obama accomplished? 3 years of campaigning?

The problem is assuming that one guy will have all the answers for everything. When Presidents try to do that, they usually fail. Carter was a guy who thought he had to have a hand and direct say in everything. He failed miserably. Reagan had core values and knew how to delegate authority to people he knew had the expertise to do things right based on shared beliefs. Most people, even those who disagreed with his views and actions, agree that he was a skilled President.

..and again, we are talking about the tie breaker for the Senate. I don't think that anyone hopes that either Biden or Palin ever actually has to take over, and chances are they won't.

[vmarks]

Originally Posted by wallinbl 

Then you're implying that she has absolutely no knowledge or experience useful to the job of POTUS. Not sure that helps the Republican cause.

Not at all. I didn't say she had no knowledge - I said she politely refrained from expressing the opinion, as any true professional would.

The voters hired her to run the state, not talk about Iraq.

[smacintush]

I haven't had a chance to learn as much about her as I'd like yet but I do have a few things to add.

I think that the notion that Obama's 140-some-odd actual days working in the senate somehow trumps her 8 years of admittedly small potatoes executive experience.

Which one is running for President again?

I also think that the reason this is a good choice has been lost on most of you. It's not only, or mainly her gender. It's not how attractive she is…though that helps. (sorry if that bothers you, it's the truth) It's not her experience. It's that she is a "real" conservative. She brings all of the things that people see missing in McCain to the table.

I know that some of you don't like to admit it but if McCain can solidify the conservative base Obama is in trouble. He needs those anti-Bush republicans more than you may want to admit. The Democrat votes won't be enough by themselves and the independent vote is still tight and as the election gets closer I think we will see more of those go to McCain. In the end I think most can envision McCain standing up to his party…'cuz he's done it. Can you really see that in Obama? For all his blather about "post-partisan" bla bla bla, he sure toes the line.

Palin can hand him the conservatives on a sliver platter. If you think that most conservatives are really misogynists then you are in for a surprise. A staunchly conservative woman who hunts and fishes is a huge deal. She will attract conservatives on an ideological and a personal level. And yes, her looks will help, and that ok by me. I didn't whine when these so-called liberal women were drooling over that man from Arkansas with a penis for a nose and the skin tone of an uncooked wiener. I likewise haven't whined about the talk about how handsome the candidate who looks like a beige Alfred E. Newman either. Looks have been a part of politics since then invention of the television. So suck it up.

Oh and BTW, those of you who think the remarks about her hotness are misogynistic…go buy a f*cking dictionary.

[Mithras]

Perhaps by now you all have seen this juicy bit of analysis from Karl Rove, talking about who Obama might pick for VP:

"I think he's going to make an intensely political choice, not a governing choice," Rove said. "He's going to view this through the prism of a candidate, not through the prism of president; that is to say, he's going to pick somebody that he thinks will on the margin help him in a state like Indiana or Missouri or Virginia. He's not going to be thinking big and broad about the responsibilities of president."

Rove singled out Virginia governor Tim Kaine, also a Face The Nation guest, as an example of such a pick.

"With all due respect again to Governor Kaine, he's been a governor for three years, he's been able but undistinguished," Rove said. "I don't think people could really name a big, important thing that he's done. He was mayor of the 105th largest city in America."

Rove continued: "So if he were to pick Governor Kaine, it would be an intensely political choice where he said, `You know what? I'm really not, first and foremost, concerned with, is this person capable of being president of the United States? What I'm concerned about is, can he bring me the electoral votes of the state of Virginia, the 13 electoral votes in Virginia?'"

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Mithras 

Perhaps by now you all have seen this juicy bit of analysis from Karl Rove, talking about who Obama might pick for VP:

I'd say they both made intensely political choices.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

I'd say they both made intensely political choices.

Obama's choice of Biden was intensely political? That's the first I've heard anyone try to suggest that. Please explain how he was more political than the other possibilities.

[Mithras]

Not to mention, how is Palin not an "intensely political choice", one where "he said, `You know what? I'm really not, first and foremost, concerned with, is this person capable of being president of the United States?"

[Captain Obvious]

God you people are stupid

Biden is an attempt to deliver Pennsylvania.
He is meant to target Catholics, blue collar voters, and is a more traditional candidate giving Barry's ticket a more normalized appearance middle America is comfortable with.
He has the foreign policy experience Obama doesn't and makes up for Obama's lack of a spine.
And let's not forget there's the added benefit of the Biden family having a relative in the active military. Something that all the other players in this race except Obama (well, in the U.S. military) have to showcase when the discussion turns to Iraq.

Of course its intensely political. What the **** else would it be.
The man was a critic of Obama and is the exact opposite of change in Washington.
He wasn't picked because they were such good trusted life long buddies. If that was the criteria Wright would have been selected.

[TheMosco]

Originally Posted by Captain Obvious 

God you people are stupid

Biden is an attempt to deliver Pennsylvania.
He is meant to target Catholics, blue collar voters, and is a more traditional candidate giving Barry's ticket a more normalized appearance middle America is comfortable with.
He has the foreign policy experience Obama doesn't and makes up for Obama's lack of a spine.

Of course its intensely political. What the **** else would it be.
The man was a critic of Obama and is the exact opposite of change in Washington.
He wasn't picked because they were such good trusted life long buddies. If that was the criteria Wright would have been selected.

Obama and Biden aside, cause this thread isn't about them.

Its about McCain's VP choice. And here you have one of the most influential people in republican politics, openly bashing the same move that McCain just made. And everyone is perfectly happy about it.

The more and more I read stuff from Alaska, local political stories from local news articles, its becoming more and more clear that she isn't qualified to be vice president, let alone president if something happens to McCain. It says something when people from her own state don't think she is ready to be VP.

Bash Obama/Biden all you want, but this pick wasn't based on her being the best person to be VP. And if you think she was the best candidate to be VP and next in line for president, you are blind.

[Paco500]

Originally Posted by Captain Obvious 

God you people are stupid

Biden is an attempt to deliver Pennsylvania.

It's a bit tricky, and a lot of people don't know this, but Delaware is actually a different state than Pennsylvania. Now, I know you don't think highly of Obama, but I bet he knows this. And were he going for a pick to "deliver Pennsylvania," he might have picked someone from (can you guess where this is headed?) Pennsylvania. Now Biden may help him there, Delaware is right next door, but by that same logic, he could have picked someone from NY, Maryland, Ohio, NJ or West VA.

Of course his pick was political, as has been said, this is politics. But the Palin pick mirrors the quote from Rove a hell of a lot closer than the Biden pick and to deny that is just silly.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by TheMosco 

Obama and Biden aside, cause this thread isn't about them.

Its about McCain's VP choice. And here you have one of the most influential people in republican politics, openly bashing the same move that McCain just made. And everyone is perfectly happy about it.

The more and more I read stuff from Alaska, local political stories from local news articles, its becoming more and more clear that she isn't qualified to be vice president, let alone president if something happens to McCain. It says something when people from her own state don't think she is ready to be VP.

Bash Obama/Biden all you want, but this pick wasn't based on her being the best person to be VP. And if you think she was the best candidate to be VP and next in line for president, you are blind.

The same can be said for Biden. The same can actually be said for Obama and McCain. Please, stop being naive.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by goMac 

There's one country... Any middle east or Asian countries?

Don't be shy now. I'm sure she's a well traveled foreign affairs guru.

Kuwait, 07/07

[Captain Obvious]

Originally Posted by Paco500 

It's a bit tricky, and a lot of people don't know this, but Delaware is actually a different state than Pennsylvania. Now, I know you don't think highly of Obama, but I bet he knows this. And were he going for a pick to "deliver Pennsylvania," he might have picked someone from (can you guess where this is headed?) Pennsylvania. Now Biden may help him there, Delaware is right next door, but by that same logic, he could have picked someone from NY, Maryland, Ohio, NJ or West VA.

I see you are one of those informed voters who knows a lot about the candidates and their bios.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by Captain Obvious 

God you people are stupid

Biden is an attempt to deliver Pennsylvania.
He is meant to target Catholics, blue collar voters, and is a more traditional candidate giving Barry's ticket a more normalized appearance middle America is comfortable with.
He has the foreign policy experience Obama doesn't and makes up for Obama's lack of a spine.
And let's not forget there's the added benefit of the Biden family having a relative in the active military. Something that all the other players in this race except Obama (well, in the U.S. military) have to showcase when the discussion turns to Iraq.

Of course its intensely political. What the **** else would it be.
The man was a critic of Obama and is the exact opposite of change in Washington.
He wasn't picked because they were such good trusted life long buddies. If that was the criteria Wright would have been selected.

Let's look at the criteria for a political veep choice, set out by the top Republican political strategist before any of the announcements were made. (There's also a video, because I know it's hard for you to follow the written word.)

"I think he's going to make an intensely political choice, not a governing choice," Rove said. "He's going to view this through the prism of a candidate, not through the prism of president; that is to say, he's going to pick somebody that he thinks will on the margin help him in a state like Indiana or Missouri or Virginia. He's not going to be thinking big and broad about the responsibilities of president."

Rove singled out Virginia governor Tim Kaine, also a Face The Nation guest, as an example of such a pick.

"With all due respect again to Governor Kaine, he's been a governor for three years, he's been able but undistinguished," Rove said. "I don't think people could really name a big, important thing that he's done. He was mayor of the 105th largest city in America."

Rove continued: "So if he were to pick Governor Kaine, it would be an intensely political choice where he said, `You know what? I'm really not, first and foremost, concerned with, is this person capable of being president of the United States?

So Obama picks an old fart like Biden who excites no one, comes from a non-swing state with barely more than 0 electoral votes, but has more experience than almost anyone else in politics and government.

And McCain picks someone whom he had met for 15 minutes once before, has been a mayor of an even smaller city, and governor for even less than three years.

So who was concerned with cheap politics and who was concerned with being president?

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

Sarah Palin isn't really someone you can honestly characterize as "hating gays" -- her first act as Governor was to veto a bill which would prohibit employee benefits for same sex couples. I'm not sure of her position on civil unions, but I don’t think it’s accurate to characterize her record as against gay rights.

Read any of the stories from when she vetoed the bill — heck, read the article I linked when ebuddy asked about her gay rights record. She vetoed the bill under protest, only because it would violate an order by the Supreme Court if she signed it.

"We believe we have no more judicial options to pursue. So we may disagree with the foundation there, the rationale behind the ruling, but our responsibility is to proceed forward with the law and abide by the constitution," Palin said.

I don't think you win any points for being legally forced to treat gays fairly.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Kuwait, 07/07

She went and met some soldiers from Alaska. That's not diplomacy, it's hanging out with boys from your hometown. I've shaken hands with soldiers who went overseas. Does that make me a foreign policy ace too?

[Paco500]

Originally Posted by Captain Obvious 

I see you are one of those informed voters who knows a lot about the candidates and their bios.

And I see you are an arrogant asshat incapable of discussion that does not fit your dogma.

Yes, Biden is from Pennsylvania. His entire political career has been spent in Delaware. There are many more obvious choices to sew up that Pennsylvania vote than Biden and that is reality.

As for locking in the Catholic vote? The catholic establishment has admonished him for his pro-choice stance. He's religion is not going to help him any more than it did Kerry. And that is reality as well.

Biden was likely picked primarily for his foreign policy and judicial credentials. Perhaps you don't know enough about his bio to realize that he is far more than a catholic that was born in PA?

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Read any of the stories from when she vetoed the bill — heck, read the article I linked when ebuddy asked about her gay rights record. She vetoed the bill under protest, only because it would violate an order by the Supreme Court if she signed it.

"We believe we have no more judicial options to pursue. So we may disagree with the foundation there, the rationale behind the ruling, but our responsibility is to proceed forward with the law and abide by the constitution," Palin said.

I don't think you win any points for being legally forced to treat gays fairly.

That wins some points from me, even though it shouldn't. But unfortunately there are plenty of politicians who would have no problem violating the constitution and the law if it fit their ideology to do so.