• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Comparing Obama to Sarah Palin

Panther said:
There's no question that Palin is more qualified. Not only is Obama's experience limited to legislative activities, but even his tenure as a state legislator was simply window dressing grooming him for national office. He's a professional politician that recorded over a 100 "present" votes to avoid taking a side on any potentially controversial issues in the Illinois legislature. That's the opposite of "The buck stops here", and precisely why executive experience is important. It shows whether or not you have the ability to make tough decisions (or any decisions at all), and shows us the quality of the candidate's decision making.

I was shocked that the top two candidates the DEMs offered us, in an election year that should have easily shifted to the DEMs, were candidates with little real experience or accomplishments who have spent their entire political careers simply building a resume that would justify a run for the Presidency.

Two months is more than enough time for McCain/Palin to hijack the mantle of "Change" that Obama/Biden have drilled into the heads of the electorate. All the equity that "change" has earned thanks to Obama will be reaped by the Republicans in November. It's just a word to Obama, but it's been a real priority for both McCain and Palin for their political careers. Obama doesn't want to really change Washington - he just wants to keep the same divisive, inefficient bureaucracy that's been around for over 20 years and steer it to the left. That's "change" that is designed to benefit his party, not us. The key isn't McCain's 90% of votes that alligned with the GOP - it's the 10% that didn't. What percentage of Obama's votes alligned with the DEM party line? America's real desire for change isn't driven by the desire to change from GOP to DEM policies - it's to change the way Washington operates. When the hypnotic fairy dust settles from the Obamamania, people will see that McCain/Palin represent the real potential for "changing" what's really wrong with our government.

For an independent that's been disgusted with the red vs. blue and "party first" actions of both sides of the aisle - I'm thrilled to see Palin added to the ticket. The most appealing thing about her is the fact that she took down fellow republicans that weren't serving the public at all. I wasn't sure that McCain would be able to maintain his independent actions as President because he may be beholden to the GOP. The Palin nomination gives me hope that his administration will put country over party. She moved me from a solid "no vote" to a Republican vote in November (for President anyway - certainly not in the Senate).
Click to expand...

How will we change having Republicans in control of the administration if McCain is elected?
 
What I want is for no party to be in control of an administration and it's actions. I want individuals that will do the right thing and call "BS" (publically) when either political machine or some lobbyist tries to strong arm its own agenda.

At this point, I see that more likely with the McCain/Palin ticket than the Obama/Biden ticket.

Of course, I also saw Bush that way when compared to both Gore and Kerry - but in hindsight, there probably would have been very little difference in the Administrations of those 3.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
Since I enjoy and know a bit about Presidential history, I decided to look further into this. In actuality, the majority of Presidents have had some "executive" experience, either as a governor, or as an army commander. It could be argued that Hoover, too, could be included for his command work managing all of the relief work during and after WWI. Of all of the Presidents with "executive" experience, based on historical analysis and from the opinions of scholars quoted in bhkad's survey (which I have posted before) and others, the only two Presidents who could be considered dismal failures who had executive experience would be Grant and Coolidge. Perhaps Hoover, too, though, to some extent he was a victim of circumstance, mostly created by Coolidge.

Now, on the other side of the coin, the number of Presidents with no executive experience who would be considered failures is much larger, and remember, the total size of this population is smaller. Pierce, Buchanan, Harding, Nixon, and perhaps Taft, all would qualify as failures in one way or another. The only non-executive Presidents that would bee seen as very successful would be Lincoln and Truman. Kennedy, Arthur, GHW Bush, and LBJ get mixed reviews.

Our current President cannot be rated as not enough time has passed for the rating to be meaningful.

So what does this prove? Executive experience, historically has shown to be a relatively decent predictor of Presidential success.

How does this apply to Sarah Palin? It doesn't, at all. She isn't running for President.
Click to expand...

While there hasn't been enough time to judge Bush, I think it's pretty safe to say how he will be judged.

What about Carter? He was a governor.
 
Panther said:
One more thing:

Let's not forget that Palin was the Chief Executive of the largest state in the country. ;)
Click to expand...

The 46th state in population.

Although, the Moose vote may be the overlooked demographic this year. :lol:
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
Sorry, Obama is king and messiah, and I shall worship him and his sooper impoverished begginnings. Why wait for nov 2. let's annoint him now for life.


All hail the obama.
Click to expand...

There you go again.....
 
Panther said:
That's the trap that the DEMs are falling into. It bolsters his argument every time her experience is questioned. McCain gets an outsider that represents real change who is immune from questions about her level of experience. Just the fact that many people are debating whether she is even qualified to be President, then debating who is more qualified between Palin and Obama will have devastating results come November.

The Obama surrogates are hammering home the message that:

"heaven forbid, if something should happen to McCain"........

what they don't get is that as long as this debate continues and the more they get people to ask that question - it is inevitable that those same people will be forced to ask another question when they're in the polling booth:

"heaven forbid, if something doesn't happen to Obama......"
Click to expand...

That's why I don't think it would be smart for Obama's team to take that mode of attack.

But again...I have to question what McCain was thinking because he really lost what was his best argument here.
I'm not sure it was worth whatever he might gain in terms of female voters.
 
disneydude said:
But again...I have to question what McCain was thinking because he really lost what was his best argument here.
I'm not sure it was worth whatever he might gain in terms of female voters.
Click to expand...

I don't see it that way at all. At least half of the electorate has pretty much said that Obama's lack of experience will not keep them from voting for him. That half of the electorate won't be turned off by an equally inexperienced nominee for VP on the GOP ticket.

His "lack of experience" argument has resonated with as many voters as it's going to. Those that consider that a critical issue will still be forced to default to McCain/Palin by virtue of the inexperience being at the #2 slot instead of the #1 slot. If the DEMs are more successful at making experience a critical issue than the GOP was, it will only serve to erode their own support.
 
bhkad said:
Comparing Obama to Sarah Palin

If she is a heartbeat away from the Presidency then why don't we compare her qualifications to Obama's?

First off, let's ask ourselves the very first question related to the above: Would she have been able to compete and beat all of the other Republican nominees for President, including McCain? Obama beat everyone in his party.
1 point for Obama.

Palin represents CHANGE in ways which are exactly comparable to the way Obama represents change.

I strongly disagree unless you mean change in that he's black and she's a woman which is a change historically. We'll assume you mean the latter.
1 point Obama
1 point Palin

First term Governor vs first term Senator.

Correction: Obama has been an IL. State Senator for 8 years before being elected to Congress.
IL. is significantly more populated than Wisilla, Alaska.
Palin has been Gov. for approx 20 months and has no real accomplishments of her on in the position so far and has no significant accomplishments as Mayor of Wisilla, Alaska - pop.9000.

1 point Obama

Pretty package vs handsome package.

1 point Palin
1 point Obama

Neither have provided full details of their proposed policies.

Wrong. Obama has a VERY detailed platform at Barack Obama | Change We Can Believe In | Home

1 point Obama

Both are largely unvetted.

Wrong. Barack Obama | Change We Can Believe In | Home and Obama has run for the Democratic Party's Presidential nomination and beat all of his opponents.

1 point Obama

Both are untested nationally.

Obama has run for the Democratic Party's Presidential nomination and beat all of his opponents.

1 point Obama

She has executive experience which trumps his limited votes on Senate bills.

Wrong. Obama has 8 years of legislation in the IL. State Senate and 3.8 years in Congress which trumps 20 months as Gov. of Alaska.

1 point Obama

She was a tough negotiator in a multi-billion dollar oil pipeline deal.
Other than buying his house, what large decisions has Obama dealt with?

That's a misrepresentation of her involvement but she did work hard to get the stalled pipeline agenda moving.

Obama has an 8 year history of tenacity in very tough IL. politics and of course there is his community service in the south side of Chicago before the State Senate.

1 point Palin
1 point Obama

Senators vote as 1 of 100 members of the Senate. But a Governor makes decisions as the final decider. Like a President must do.
The buck stops at her desk.

Unfortunately her record (as well as her tenure) so far is thin on major decisions. But I'll give you that one out of pity.

1 point Palin

And the tally is: 9 Obama and 3 Palin. :2wave:

I think that Sarah Palin has more experience than Obama.
I think I've shown you're wrong.
I think she has more job specific experience than Obama.
I think I've shown you're wrong.

Her job performance has been under greater scrutiny than Obama's job performance and her approval ratings are better than Obama's.

That is factually incorrect.

If she is a heartbeat away from the Presidency then why not compare her qualifications to Obama's?
I just did and Palin fell way short.

This comparison is just off the top of my head and I invite you to do your own in greater detail. But I can't see Obama claiming any advantage over Sarah Palin other than because of his gender and/or race.

That's because you're on the losing side of this race and too partisan to admit the truth.
In the final analysis my first point answers completely your last statement; she wasn't even considered as a Presidential nominee and would have been sent back to Alaska with a new, wide hole where her ass was in that race.:rofl
Click to expand...
 
State House or State Senate experience is absolutely worthless when evaluating qualifications for President.

It is only of value to being a politician - and Obama is one hell of a politician - so it served him well.
 
Panther said:
I don't see it that way at all. At least half of the electorate has pretty much said that Obama's lack of experience will not keep them from voting for him. That half of the electorate won't be turned off by an equally inexperienced nominee for VP on the GOP ticket.

His "lack of experience" argument has resonated with as many voters as it's going to. Those that consider that a critical issue will still be forced to default to McCain/Palin by virtue of the inexperience being at the #2 slot instead of the #1 slot. If the DEMs are more successful at making experience a critical issue than the GOP was, it will only serve to erode their own support.
Click to expand...

But it really shows that the whole "lack of experience" line was just a talking point...not really something that McCain really believed it. His mouth says one thing...his pick says yet another.
It just makes McCain look kinda stupid after he's been running around the Country arguing this for the last 3 months.
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
Sorry, Obama is king and messiah, and I shall worship him and his sooper impoverished begginnings. Why wait for nov 2. let's annoint him now for life.


All hail the obama.
Click to expand...

This is what happens to neocons when they've been outdone in a discussion or debate. When they can no longer factually defend their position they turn to childish and acrimonious ad hominems.
 
Panther said:
State House or State Senate experience is absolutely worthless when evaluating qualifications for President.

It is only of value to being a politician - and Obama is one hell of a politician - so it served him well.
Click to expand...
:spin:

Unless of course the shoe were on the other foot, right? It would amount to tremendous experience in that case, right?

Would that only apply to State Senate positions? You know, where Obama passed laws for the 5th largest populated state in the Union?
 
disneydude said:
But it really shows that the whole "lack of experience" line was just a talking point...not really something that McCain really believed it. His mouth says one thing...his pick says yet another.
It just makes McCain look kinda stupid after he's been running around the Country arguing this for the last 3 months.
Click to expand...

Then what does it say about Obama that his camp is now trying to make it an issue? McCain could simply say that Obama's popularity makes it clear that the electorate doesn't consider experience a priority for public office. OTOH, Obama can't make the case (without killing his chances of election) of suddenly considering experience a vital issue.

Realistically though, McCain has the advantage of the lesser experience being at the #2 slot. That gives 4 years of on the job training to his VP. Then the only critical thing is does Palin have the background and qualifications to prepare her for the VP slot. Obama needs to step in on Day one - something many of the leaders of his own party felt he is not ready for.
 
Slippery Slope said:
Unless of course the shoe were on the other foot, right? It would amount to tremendous experience in that case, right?
Click to expand...

Not at all. Legislating is worthless experience if you just go along with the pack. That consists of making speeches and being able to vote yea or nay - and someone is telling you which to pick. In fact, even McCain's Senate experience isn't that impressive (as qualifying experience) except when he broke away from the pack. Things like going up against the Cable/telecom/religious broadcasters lobbies to push for a la carte cable services with a DEM senator and maybe 1 or 2 others. It got squashed fast because of the power of those lobbies.

What makes Obama's legislative experience even more worthless is the inordinate amount of "Present" votes he cast.


Slippery Slope said:
Would that only apply to State Senate positions? You know, where Obama passed laws for the 5th largest populated state in the Union?
Click to expand...

Size has nothing to do with the difficulty of voting "Yea" or "Nay". Even then he often had difficulty deciding between two options. What's he going to do with complicated issues where he has to make a decision himself and it is between dozens of options?
 
Slippery Slope said:
This is what happens to neocons when they've been outdone in a discussion or debate. When they can no longer factually defend their position they turn to childish and acrimonious ad hominems.
Click to expand...



uhm, how am I a neocon.

please provide evidence and links.



or stop telling lies. :2wave:
 
Slippery Slope said:
bhkad said:
Comparing Obama to Sarah Palin

If she is a heartbeat away from the Presidency then why don't we compare her qualifications to Obama's?

First off, let's ask ourselves the very first question related to the above: Would she have been able to compete and beat all of the other Republican nominees for President, including McCain? Obama beat everyone in his party.
1 point for Obama.

Palin represents CHANGE in ways which are exactly comparable to the way Obama represents change.

I strongly disagree unless you mean change in that he's black and she's a woman which is a change historically. We'll assume you mean the latter.
1 point Obama
1 point Palin

First term Governor vs first term Senator.

Correction: Obama has been an IL. State Senator for 8 years before being elected to Congress.
IL. is significantly more populated than Wisilla, Alaska.
Palin has been Gov. for approx 20 months and has no real accomplishments of her on in the position so far and has no significant accomplishments as Mayor of Wisilla, Alaska - pop.9000.

1 point Obama

Pretty package vs handsome package.

1 point Palin
1 point Obama

Neither have provided full details of their proposed policies.

Wrong. Obama has a VERY detailed platform at Barack Obama | Change We Can Believe In | Home

1 point Obama

Both are largely unvetted.

Wrong. Barack Obama | Change We Can Believe In | Home and Obama has run for the Democratic Party's Presidential nomination and beat all of his opponents.

1 point Obama

Both are untested nationally.

Obama has run for the Democratic Party's Presidential nomination and beat all of his opponents.

1 point Obama

She has executive experience which trumps his limited votes on Senate bills.

Wrong. Obama has 8 years of legislation in the IL. State Senate and 3.8 years in Congress which trumps 20 months as Gov. of Alaska.

1 point Obama

She was a tough negotiator in a multi-billion dollar oil pipeline deal.
Other than buying his house, what large decisions has Obama dealt with?

That's a misrepresentation of her involvement but she did work hard to get the stalled pipeline agenda moving.

Obama has an 8 year history of tenacity in very tough IL. politics and of course there is his community service in the south side of Chicago before the State Senate.

1 point Palin
1 point Obama

Senators vote as 1 of 100 members of the Senate. But a Governor makes decisions as the final decider. Like a President must do.
The buck stops at her desk.

Unfortunately her record (as well as her tenure) so far is thin on major decisions. But I'll give you that one out of pity.

1 point Palin

And the tally is: 9 Obama and 3 Palin. :2wave:

I think that Sarah Palin has more experience than Obama.
I think I've shown you're wrong.
I think she has more job specific experience than Obama.
I think I've shown you're wrong.

Her job performance has been under greater scrutiny than Obama's job performance and her approval ratings are better than Obama's.

That is factually incorrect.

If she is a heartbeat away from the Presidency then why not compare her qualifications to Obama's?
I just did and Palin fell way short.

This comparison is just off the top of my head and I invite you to do your own in greater detail. But I can't see Obama claiming any advantage over Sarah Palin other than because of his gender and/or race.

That's because you're on the losing side of this race and too partisan to admit the truth.
In the final analysis my first point answers completely your last statement; she wasn't even considered as a Presidential nominee and would have been sent back to Alaska with a new, wide hole where her ass was in that race.:rofl
Click to expand...

Well wasn't that just a big steaming pile of horse****. :roll:
Click to expand...
 
jallman said:
Slippery Slope said:
Well wasn't that just a big steaming pile of horse****. :roll:
Click to expand...

Excellent retorte! Boy you sure showed me how wrong I am. :lol:

Panther, I guess you can say that Obama has more experience than McCain since you find legislative experience useless. Tell us what other experience McCain has outside of being in the Senate.

MOh right, he was in the military... me too, so I guess I have as much experience to be President as McCain. Got anything else?
Click to expand...
 
Slippery Slope said:
Excellent retorte! Boy you sure showed me how wrong I am. :lol:
Click to expand...

What more was I supposed to say? It was dishonest from the beginning to the end and showed nothing more than an ability to spin information into horse****.

Is there something you want to defend in the post? Because I'd down to go tit for tat with you if you want. I don't think you want to though because I am sure you are aware of just how much of a lie your entire editorial was.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom