Which has more expirence?

[DanskiWolf]

Drarksupersaiyan

Ahahahaha you think Obama's articulate? He has to read off a teleprompter for cripes sake. Watch this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eDJSVPAx8xc . I did think that retiring from governor was a bad choice but that was her and not me. But I'd rather have her then some idoit who can't even talk with out his teleprompter.

A. As has been mentioned, everyone uses teleprompters nowadays.

B. Obama's oratory is world-renowned. You're only denying this because he's a Democrat.

Pumona

I have to mention two things here. Number 1 Sara is better than Obama

Spell her name right at least and prove why she's better than Obama.

Quote:

and Number 2 Obama's ratings are going down so fast he will not be anywhere near winning in 2012. This maybe hard to comprehend but our leader is going down fast because people are relizing what he is doing.

You wanna compare Obama's approval ratings to Palin's?

Again I say, the GOP can either appeal to bumpkins or it will put out an intelligent, articulate candidate that has more substantive and modern views than simply parroting stuff Reagen said 20 years ago.  

[Pumona]

DanskiWolf

Drarksupersaiyan

Ahahahaha you think Obama's articulate? He has to read off a teleprompter for cripes sake. Watch this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eDJSVPAx8xc . I did think that retiring from governor was a bad choice but that was her and not me. But I'd rather have her then some idoit who can't even talk with out his teleprompter.

A. As has been mentioned, everyone uses teleprompters nowadays.

B. Obama's oratory is world-renowned. You're only denying this because he's a Democrat.

Pumona

I have to mention two things here. Number 1 Sara is better than Obama

Spell her name right at least and prove why she's better than Obama.

Quote:

and Number 2 Obama's ratings are going down so fast he will not be anywhere near winning in 2012. This maybe hard to comprehend but our leader is going down fast because people are relizing what he is doing.

You wanna compare Obama's approval ratings to Palin's?

Again I say, the GOP can either appeal to bumpkins or it will put out an intelligent, articulate candidate that has more substantive and modern views than simply parroting stuff Reagen said 20 years ago.

Nothing wrong with having views like Reagan's, since he is the best president so far (obviously not to you). By the way when you criticize someones spelling error make sure you spell correctly (makes you look like an i***t). Great thing about America we can vote who we feel is the best to lead us.  

[Rainbowfied Mouse]

Pumona

Nothing wrong with having views like Reagan's, since he is the best president so far (obviously not to you).

Reagan was a great president, for his time. Unfortunately we're not fighting the USSR anymore, the cold war has been over for more than a decade, and communism isn't the biggest problem on hand right now.

We live in a different time now, there are different festering issues to deal with, like the lack of a good economy, LGBT equality, etc. Issues of today wasn't even be fathomed by some of our past politicians. Technological advances have drastically increased, the internet (which was strictly for education and military usage) has now made the world connected. We're not the same country we were 20years ago, and the world is not the same world either. Using Reagan as a standpoint for republicans is like using FDR as a standpoint for democrats. The era is over.

Quote:

Great thing about America we can vote who we feel is the best to lead us.

Or who everyone thinks wears the best tie...  

[DanskiWolf]

As Rainbowfied Mouse said, you can't just try to mimic 20 year old policies and rhetoric and expect them to work. People voted for Obama because they wanted fresh ideas and thinking. Spitting out the same thing over and over becomes stale and monotonous.

In any case I think I'm being too harsh on Reagan. He was quite intelligent and had a fairly good grasp on things. Palin is just a ditsy airhead with nothing substantive to offer.  

[Lord Bitememan]

It's interesting, sometimes, to look at who the primary processes chew up and spit out, if for nothing at least for the poor commentary it leaves on US society. The top two front-runners in the Democratic race were a woman who was only in the beginning of her second term in the Senate, and a man who'd yet to finish his first, plus some years in the Illinois state house. To get to that position they passed over the following:

Bill Richardson: A man who had served in the House of Representatives for 14 years, served as Ambassador to the UN for a year, served as Energy Secretary for nearly three years, and was in the midst of his second term as Governor of New Mexico.

Joe Biden: A man with 35 years in the US Senate.

Chris Dodd: A man with 6 years experience in the House and 27 years in the Senate.

Mike Gravel: A man who had at least completed 2 terms in the Senate.

That these two rose up as the cream of the crop is no testament to US mentality.

Of course, we can also point out John McCain's choice for VP with similar disdain. Sarah Palin, who's prominent experience as governor of Alaska was limited to only a couple years, beat out the following to be VP:

Mitt Romney: Founded a spin-off company of Bain & Company called Bain Capital. Chaired Bain & Company, steering it away from near bankruptcy and back to profitability. Served as CEO of the 2002 Salt Lake City Winter Olympics which he took from budgetary shortfall to profitability during his tenure from 1999 to 2002. Served a full term as governor of Massachusetts.

Tim Pawlenty: A two term governor with ten years experience in the Minnesota state house.

Kay Bailey Hutchison: 15 years as Senator from Texas (only briefly mentioned as someone whose name was floated around).

Joe Lieberman: A Democrat turned Independent and long time political ally of John McCain. Served six years as Connecticut attorney general, then 19 in the Senate.

Tom Ridge: A highly decorated Vietnam veteran who served 12 years in the US House and an additional six as the governor of Pennsylvania. Left his role as governor to become the first Secretary of Homeland Security, which he served as for two years. Then went on to found a security consulting firm called Ridge Global, where he makes somewhere on the order of a million or so a year. He served on the investigative panel after the Virginia Tech massacre. He had also, at the time of the VP choice been named an executive or hired as an adviser to three major corporations, and since the election has been named to two more. He was passed over largely for being too moderate, especially on the abortion issue.

So, instead, we got Sarah Palin.

The point is US politics functions on platitudes, superficiality, and moronic litmus tests. Only in such an environment could figures such as Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and Sarah Palin survive. There were far more qualified figures who could have risen to national prominence in this time, we picked people who instead had neat personal stories and we felt we could "relate" to. . . provided they held the right views in the right parties.  

[Rainbowfied Mouse]

DanskiWolf

In any case I think I'm being too harsh on Reagan. He was quite intelligent and had a fairly good grasp on things. Palin is just a ditsy airhead with nothing substantive to offer.

I liked Reagan. His views were new for the time period, and worked fairly well at the time being. But as you said, and I concur, the views are more stale


@LB - Experience is one of my top 10 views while viewing candidates, even our founding fathers had some political divvy. However, some of my views supersede the experience card.

But as for the H.C. having little senate experience, she was the first lady, so I imagine there has got to be some indirect experience from that... then again Clinton was off with other people XD. But I didn't like the lady anyway, she appears all nice and all, but she just seems like she'd be a b***h behind the media's back.  

[Lord Bitememan]

Quote:

But as for the H.C. having little senate experience, she was the first lady, so I imagine there has got to be some indirect experience from that

Only if experience is a sexually transmitted attribute. Her husband was president, not her. Her one foray into the public policy sphere as first lady was Clinton-care. It resulted in 12 years of Republican control of Congress.

Quote:

But I didn't like the lady anyway, she appears all nice and all, but she just seems like she'd be a b***h behind the media's back.

According to the muck-rakers she really is that nice when the cameras are off. Her whole life, of course, was one big script to get her into the presidency, but no, even d**k Morris, who hates her, said she was the more calm and collected of the two. Clinton, according to most sources, was a cantankerous SOB.  

[Rainbowfied Mouse]

Lord Bitememan

Quote:

But as for the H.C. having little senate experience, she was the first lady, so I imagine there has got to be some indirect experience from that

Only if experience is a sexually transmitted attribute. Her husband was president, not her. Her one foray into the public policy sphere as first lady was Clinton-care. It resulted in 12 years of Republican control of Congress.

Quote:

But I didn't like the lady anyway, she appears all nice and all, but she just seems like she'd be a b***h behind the media's back.

According to the muck-rakers she really is that nice when the cameras are off. Her whole life, of course, was one big script to get her into the presidency, but no, even d**k Morris, who hates her, said she was the more calm and collected of the two. Clinton, according to most sources, was a cantankerous SOB.

So if I were married to a teacher I wouldn't know the stresses and work of it, at least partially? It would only make sense she'd have a bit of an inside.

I figured he'd be that way XD I can see his whole face becoming red.  

[Lord Bitememan]

Quote:

So if I were married to a teacher I wouldn't know the stresses and work of it, at least partially?

You'd know what it puts people through. But, just because your spouse knew how to do the job doesn't mean you will. Okay, think of it this way; you have a married couple where the husband works at McDonalds and the wife is a heart surgeon. A job opens up at the hospital for an emergency room nurse. Who is more qualified, the lady who freshly graduated from nursing school, or the dude whose been married for 12 years to a heart surgeon?  

[Rainbowfied Mouse]

I'm not saying she'd know (or do better at) the job, but she'd do better at holding the stress of it. Obama being inexperienced as a politician... we can already tell the stress it taking on him.  

[Lord Bitememan]

Quote:

I'm not saying she'd know (or do better at) the job, but she'd do better at holding the stress of it. Obama being inexperienced as a politician... we can already tell the stress it taking on him.

Again, we're back at my ER nurse analogy. Hubby knows all about the stress of the medical profession, but he's a burger-flipper. The nursing grad knows the instruments to grab, knows how to fix the various monitoring devices to the patient quickly. The burger flipper doesn't know the names of the equipment, he doesn't know how the monitors work, or how to read them. He knows when your fries are done. So, the result may be this: the nursing grad has to learn on the job how to deal with the stress, and it takes a personal toll, but he does the job as he has been trained, the burger-flipper deals with the stress well, he's been prepared for it, but he's useless as a nurse because he doesn't know what he's doing and that puts people's lives at risk.

In short, I return to my point, executive experience isn't sexually transmitted. The case for Hillary, when you amputate Bill, is that of a woman who served a little more than 7 years in the Senate. The case with Bill is a woman who served 7 years in the Senate and maybe brings an ex-president into the White House as a tag-along. In short, even with Bill, her case is simply her 7 years in the Senate.  

[Pumona]

DanskiWolf

As Rainbowfied Mouse said, you can't just try to mimic 20 year old policies and rhetoric and expect them to work. People voted for Obama because they wanted fresh ideas and thinking. Spitting out the same thing over and over becomes stale and monotonous.

In any case I think I'm being too harsh on Reagan. He was quite intelligent and had a fairly good grasp on things. Palin is just a ditsy airhead with nothing substantive to offer.

And why would you say Palin is ditsy? And try to explain to me why Democrates are scared of her? She is a very strong Conservative that is right on what's going on.  

[Lord Bitememan]

Quote:

And why would you say Palin is ditsy?

I wouldn't say Sarah Palin was ditsy so much as she was woefully inexperienced. A lot of the perception of her was framed by media outlets and satirists. That wasn't exactly a fair environment, and it certainly undermined legitimate criticisms of her dearth of experience. When the announcement was first made, before the media onslaught, I remember a number of bloggers were wary of the pick, pointing out that she was very untested. In the end that undercut a lot of the thunder of the McCain candidacy, since his experience compared to Obama's was now shifted to Palin's experience vs. Obama's.

Quote:

And try to explain to me why Democrates are scared of her?

I would describe their reaction more as hate than fear. Feminists view her as an apostate for being a Republican. Pro-choice groups feel annoyed that Republicans use her as a pro-life poster child. Partisan hardliners just hate her and every other Republican. Minority groups dislike that she comes from a largely white state. Anti-war groups feel that her having a son in the military undermines their "chickenhawk" argument (while, conveniently, forgetting that Clinton was a draft dodger). In short, she's everything the left hates, and so they hate her. If she'd had a much more impressive list of accomplishments to compliment her conservative bona fides (and a bit better ability to give a speech), then there would be legitimate fear from Democrats over her.  

[DanskiWolf]

Pumona

DanskiWolf

As Rainbowfied Mouse said, you can't just try to mimic 20 year old policies and rhetoric and expect them to work. People voted for Obama because they wanted fresh ideas and thinking. Spitting out the same thing over and over becomes stale and monotonous.

In any case I think I'm being too harsh on Reagan. He was quite intelligent and had a fairly good grasp on things. Palin is just a ditsy airhead with nothing substantive to offer.

And why would you say Palin is ditsy? And try to explain to me why Democrates are scared of her? She is a very strong Conservative that is right on what's going on.

Democrats aren't scared of her as a political threat. If anything they're probably praying she wins the Republican nomination in 2012. What many people (Democrats and non-Democrats) are scared of is that someone with as little experience, substance, and intelligence as Palin is considered by the Republican "base" to be worthy of managing the most powerful nation on earth.  

[Lord Beckon]

I'm going to say HAAAM SAAAANDWICH.

Sadly, that wasn't an option...

I think that at this point Obama should have more executive experience (used wisely or not) considering that he does, now, in theory, have to make more executive decisions.