GatewayRedbirds.com

indyredbird wrote:I would agree that Palin should have more experience. But I don't understand on how those people ripping on her could be so comfortable with Obama's experience. Actually, Palin has more executive experience than all the other three combined.

It seems that Obama has been running for president most of his time in the Senate.

I'm comfortable with inexperience, if it looks like you can handle the job if given the reigns. After all, McCain doesn't really have any real foreign policy experience either as a senator. He hasn't been overseas negotiating anything with foreign leaders either.

When Obama is asked foreign policy questions, he delivers very well thought out responses. When Palin answers them, it sounds like she hasn't even thought about the topic. It's like calling up a minor leaguer to start in a MLB game. I'm going to feel more comfortable with a guy who's not standing on the mound like he's a deer caught in the headlights.

indyredbird wrote:I would agree that Palin should have more experience. But I don't understand on how those people ripping on her could be so comfortable with Obama's experience. Actually, Palin has more executive experience than all the other three combined.

It seems that Obama has been running for president most of his time in the Senate.

At this point I don't think anyone is ripping on her for her inexperience. Now they are ripping on her because she's Sarah Palin and has shown absolutely nothing to indicate she is capable of leading even a small banana republic much less the US.

When you say "banana republic" do you mean an actual country or the retail store? Because I'll go ahead and say it: I wouldn't be comfortable selling clothes with Sarah Palin.

Popeye_Card wrote:

indyredbird wrote:I would agree that Palin should have more experience. But I don't understand on how those people ripping on her could be so comfortable with Obama's experience. Actually, Palin has more executive experience than all the other three combined.

It seems that Obama has been running for president most of his time in the Senate.

I'm comfortable with inexperience, if it looks like you can handle the job if given the reigns. After all, McCain doesn't really have any real foreign policy experience either as a senator. He hasn't been overseas negotiating anything with foreign leaders either.

When Obama is asked foreign policy questions, he delivers very well thought out responses. When Palin answers them, it sounds like she hasn't even thought about the topic. It's like calling up a minor leaguer to start in a MLB game. I'm going to feel more comfortable with a guy who's not standing on the mound like he's a deer caught in the headlights.

++

sad thing in this Roveian era of politics, you're experience works against you more than for you. its no coincidence that Clinton and Bush were both elected with little relevant experience.

if your around awhile your record gets twisted and distorted. when McCain ran against GWB, he was butchered by Rove. And look what they did with all of Kerry's experience - they used it against him. McCain's history as a de-regulator and with the S&Ls will work against him now and rightfully so.

I'm sure Obama saw this, and decided that if he was ever going to run for president, he'd better do it now.

I agree with the Drifter - even without a wealth of hands-on experience, Obama appears to have the tempermant to think things out, work with people, hear opinions, and make good decisions. he's a smart cat. check out the clips where he talks about issues. he's educated and has opinions, and perhaps most importantly doesn't appear confined to following party dogma.

this is the one that gets me:

Couric: You recently said three times that you would never, quote, "second guess" Israel if that country decided to attack Iran. Why not?

Palin: We shouldn't second guess Israel's security efforts because we cannot ever afford to send a message that we would allow a second Holocaust, for one. Israel has got to have the opportunity and the ability to protect itself. They are our closest ally in the Mideast. We need them. They need us. And we shouldn't second guess their efforts.


It doesn't seem to me like she answered the question, rather she just used a taboo word like "holocaust" and said Next!

I'm more creepied out that she doesn't think we should question our allies.

i promised to keep my nose out of this one, but since the subject of israel's come up...

please someone second guess our leadership. the sheep here don't seem to.

arnie.k wrote:i promised to keep my nose out of this one, but since the subject of israel's come up...

please someone second guess our leadership. the sheep here don't seem to.

How so?

arnie.k wrote:i promised to keep my nose out of this one, but since the subject of israel's come up...

please someone second guess our leadership. the sheep here don't seem to.

Likewise, I hope Israeli is forever skeptical of our leadership - Palin politico types may casually mention the solid US alliance with Israel. but IMO its because we have a common enemy, but that is subject to change. remember Saddam's Iraq was our ally once when Iran was US enemy #1. I'm sure you know all this better than I.

Leroy wrote:

arnie.k wrote:i promised to keep my nose out of this one, but since the subject of israel's come up...

please someone second guess our leadership. the sheep here don't seem to.

How so?

are you being serious? the israeli gov't based on biased and very questionable proof has decided iran wants nuclear weapons, and wants to destroy the state of israel with it, and no one in the world questions them. ahmedinijad has a big mouth, but he's mainly replying to israeli leaders who have threatened to turn teheran to a rubble heap numerous times.

when israel threatens like this the threat is coming from the nation with the 5th largest nuclear arsenal in the world (or so the rumor says). when iran threatens with it, it is coming from a poor nation that has to resort to funding terror, because they wouldn't survive a direct confrontation.

and yes. i am totally serious.

we get a lot of bias against us on a lot of issues. it sucks. supposedly we're the bad guys on more than half the issues, even when that's not the case (yes, it is mainly the palestinians' fault we don't have peace and quiet in the territories). but on this one, we're the bad guy.