5 Reasons to hate on Mccain's VP choice

[jjmc]

Go Marley and Spensed. Y'all are fierce!!!

 

[robertstar]

They're not going to be transplanted, but I'm sure his input will be taken into consideration.

But you have absolutely no way of knowing they will or whether it will make a difference to Obama's final decision or not.

What stance on Iraq? He's had so many that it's hard to tell which one is really "his". And Russia? Yeah, Mccain jumping up when oil is in the mix, there's a surprise.

This is a contradiction right out of the Obama playbook. Congratulations.

You should also read up on McCain and his stance on Russia before trying to imply its about oil.

The same could be said of you ignoring Mccain's really weak points on foreign policy. A 100 year war?

I'm not ignoring them, I happen to agree with the point he was making.

I dislike the ‘until the jobs done’ line but I agree with the basic point that we shouldn’t be pulling out of Iraq simply to get out of there. As I’ve said before pulling out of Iraq and leaving it to self-destruct will damage America’s reputation more than going there in the first place. A troop withdrawal has to be handled correctly and I have zero confidence in Obama to do that.

You weren't over there speaking to leaders were you? And in your down time were you studying their politics and assessing their government? Comparing your trips over there to Obama's simply undermines the purpose of his trip, and the fact that he's probably not playing golf while he's over here, he's probably digging for an understanding of the situation.

My point was that going to Iraq doesn't give him any understanding of the area or situation nor has it helped make his position clearer. He didn't spend anywhere near enough time in Iraq (or the Middle East as a whole) to even come close to scratching the surface of the problems in the region. The argument that he's been there, he knows is beyond flawed.

It may pain simple-minded people to hear that such a balance is a fallacy. Again, a 3rd grade answer to a post-grad exam. It only balances them in a fantasy, simplistic, idealogical way. In reality, there is no balance. Why not try comparing their voting records instead of age and experience?

Because the whole point of the statement wasn’t to compare their voting records or the candidates but the tickets themselves, which is why the statement was ‘the tickets are balanced’ not that the candidates are the same. The tickets are balanced and that’s why, in part, Palin was a wise choice by McCain. The ideology of the two tickets is the same so a vote for Obama/Biden is no longer the exclusive vote for ‘change’, the choice of Palin has hit Obama’s message of change and a new way because he can no longer corner that market.

 

[Txgoodoldboy]

Re the Palin troopergate "scandal", yeah she's probably lying about trying to get the scumbag fired - is this really the fight we want to pick? The guy is a drunk cop who tasers his kid, and we are outraged that she tried to get him fired? Yeah yeah yeah, I get it - abuse of power blah blah blah. No matter how much you claim that all abuses are the same, no one will see this like lying about WMD or Watergate. Most people will say good for her, and why are the Democrats once again protecting dirtbags (the trooper)? Aren't there plenty of good reasons to attack the McCain-Palin ticket without this?

Does anyone know the truth, yet? This is why there is an investigation. How does anybody know the description, highlighted above, is accurate? Isn't this the spin that the Republicans are putting out?

Just the truth. Or can they handle the truth?
</IMG>

 

[robertstar]

Obviously, it's a Republican talking point that Obama has no experience. But, after seven years as an Illinois Senator and three plus years in the Senate, Obama has a good legislative pedigree that Palin simply doesn't

You’re making a completely invalid comparison

Sarah Palin isn’t the Republican nominee for President, she is their Vice-Presidential nominee. She isn’t going to be running the country, her voting record and experience is nowhere near as important as Obama’s.

You're trying to make this Obama vs. Palin when the race is Obama vs. McCain

My previous comment applies here as well. Lack of experience was a phony Republican war cry, which somehow I don't see them using successfully after Palin's nomination.

I'm going to quote you here

Is she really the best qualified candidate for VP in the whole country? How sad is that.

You can't have this both ways, you can't argue that experience is a phony argument and then complain Palin is a bad choice because isn't experienced enough. You can't argue that Palin isn't 'ready' to be VP but that Obama is ready to be President.

That's exactly why you need someone with intelligence and good judgment like Obama. He got it right on the Iraq war, while near-bottom-of-his-class-angry-man McCain would be far more likely to get us into yet another war.

Startling lack of knowledge about Obama's (reworked) stance on Iran.

Better Obama/Biden's diplomatic, working with allies, war as a last resort approach than McCain's impotent or punch first ask question after rhetoric.

Obama's 'diplomatic route' has become completely disjointed and mudled as he desperately tries to prove he isn't 'soft'.

 

[MystikWizard]

I find it so intriguing that Robertstar, a citizen of the United Kingdom, is so passionate about American politics, and feels the need to forcefully interject himself into our discussions and put an immense effort into persuading posters to adopt his point of view. It isn't a casual comment made here or there. They are well-thought out and reasoned responses that a lot of time and effort has been put into.

If you are so passionate about what is going on here in our elections, why don't you consider moving here to the States? And I mean that in all seriousness.

 

[robertstar]

Bullocks, he didn't choose Biden as a centerpiece for the oval office.

I have absolutely no idea what point you’re trying to make here. You’re trying to argue that Biden being on ticket negates Obama’s lack of foreign policy experience but no one has any idea what Biden’s role in an Obama Government would be at this point. Its entirely possible that Obama will completely ignore everything and anything Biden has to say if they tale office. That's the danger with the 'he has Biden on the ticket' argument.

He has yet to cream himself over the situation in Darfur the way he did the bombing of Georgia, there the response was immediate. Read up on his stance? Yeah, I'm sure I'll get an honest representation. I forgot, Obama's the only politician who lies or beats around the bush.

The situations in Darfur and Georgia aren't the same and to argue they require similar responses or action is incorrect. However after a very quick search McCain on Darfur

He reiterated -- as he's done before -- that America must do something: in 2006 he and Bob Dole suggested that U.S. use its intelligence assets to investigate war crimes in the region. He told the crowd that Americans had watched Rwanda, Srebrenica* and the Balkans unfold and, he said, "Americans are tired of hearing, 'never again.'" He knocked China for blocking UN Security Council action, "because they have oil interests in the Sudan." But he stopped short of saying the U.S. should send troops, but he said he'd incentivize African countries to send troops to stabilize the region by offering economic aid, though he admitted that African countries' troops have not done well enough so far.

In Congress, McCain has been a consistent supporter -- if not vocal advocate -- of Darfur legislation. On the bus today, he spoke a little more specifically about what he believes the course of action should be: The U.S. could offer troops for logistical and transport support, as well as pressure China to stop its delay tactics. Surprisingly, this short list actions echoes proposals suggested by Nicholas Kristof and -- now that Sam Brownback is out of the race -- goes beyond what the other GOP candidates have said about America's responsibilities in the region.

Link

The damage to our reputation is done, it's lose-lose for us, there's NO WAY to save face. They want us out of there, we can't afford to be there, so a 16 month withdrawl is less appealing to you than a proposed 100 year inhabitance?

You've only just scratched the surface of the damage that can be done to America's reputation. If the withdrawal is timed or executed badly then America will be in seen in an even worse light.

And in very simple terms a 'stay until the job is done' appeals more then 'get out and get out now'

Why can't he handle it correctly? Because you say he can't? What have you seen that elicits zero confidence?

I've posted it already

Link

t's not "he's been there, he knows", it's "it's his job to know." I don't think the Democratic party is stupid enough to send a dunce in knowing how grave the situation is. Call it a leap of faith, but I believe has more understanding of the situation than the average American, many of whom can't even point Iraq out on a map. You're speaking like he's some uneducated moron who couldn't possibly grasp the severity of the situation.

It has nothing to do with him not grasping the severity of the situation and more with him having no grasp on the politics and issues in the region as a whole or how to solve them. Everyone and anyone should be able to see how serious the issues are Obama just hasn't demonstrated any clear understanding of the problems or their solutions.

What exactly about the tickets is balanced other than the fact that one on either side is a "first"?

Actually there's two potential firsts on the Republican ticket. Anyway I'll just go ahead and repeat myself...

Both tickets have long serving Senators who’s primary expertise is in the field of foreign policy and our both largely respected politicians. Both tickets also have two relative unknowns who have yet to complete a full term in their current jobs and both of whom have stood on the platform of changing the political system they’re entering into and cleaning that system up, both also happen to be very young in terms of politics.

 

[robertstar]

I find it so intriguing that Robertstar, a citizen from the United Kingdom, is so passionate about American politics, and feels the need to forcefully interject himself into our discussions. It isn't a casual comment made here or there. They are well-thought out and reasoned responses.

If you are so passionate about what is going on here in our elections, why don't you consider moving here to the States? And I mean that in all seriousness.

This has been discussed already.

The US Elections are of global importance and the result will have a global impact, especially here in the UK.

 

[MystikWizard]

This has been discussed already.

The US Elections are of global importance and the result will have a global impact, especially here in the UK.

Do you see Americans infringing on your elections to the degree you are doing so with ours?

In your view, are you noticing any real degree of success on here, on changing anyone's minds, with your perspective?

And again, answer the question. Why don't you move here, then?

 

[Lostlover]

Politico's six reasons to hate on McCain's choice:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0808/12997.html

 

[Shafted]

If you thought that was funny, how about this ...

Is he looking at her low-hangin' tits or reading her notes?

 

[MystikWizard]

Politico's six reasons to hate on McCain's choice:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0808/12997.html

Thank you, Lost. And if you don't mind, I am going to post the reasons here, and if anyone else wants more detailed explanations, they can click the link.

1. He’s desperate.

2. He’s willing to gamble — bigtime.

3. He’s worried about the political implications of his age.

4. He’s not worried about the actuarial implications of his age.

5. He’s worried about his conservative base.

6. At the end of the day, McCain is still McCain.

I would have added though, that it is also a tell-tale sign that the man is willing to pander to win.

For the Clinton supporters who were upset that Obama didn't pick Clinton, at least give the man credit for not pandering, but rather picking someone he felt he could have a much better working relationship with and who, in his mind, feels would make an excellent Commander-In-Chief if he would not be able to serve.

McCain, as demonstrated by this choice, just showed that the man is willing to pander, no matter how uncomfortable he is with his own pick (which was very evident by his facial reactions and body language during her speech), in order to win elections.

Is he looking at her low-hangin' tits or reading her notes?

As FOX News says, YOU DECIDE.

I thought it was comical, regardless, so simply posted it for laughs.

Well thought?

You're right, I think Obama gave Biden VP so he could NOT listen to Biden on an area that's considered his weakest. You're making about as much sense as....well....nothing.

If you think America has had it's hands as heavy in Sudan and Chad as they have been in Iraq, you're sadly mistaken. I'd cry if I found the actual numbers to how much is being spent over there vs. how much is being spent in Iraq. I doubt it's 10billion a month.

Key word here, "vocal." I could talk about Darfur all day but it wouldn't bring about any change.

You're not taking into account our recent history of sticking our nose where it doesn't belong. It's a reputation decades in the making, and it won't be solved by putting bandaids on the situation. There is no worse light than people thinking you're pushy, greedy, and self-serving in situations where others are suffering.

What job? What job do you think they're trying to accomplish? Get out is what people are saying on BOTH sides, the US citizens and those of the middle east. I'd LOVE to hear about this ghost "job" that needs to be completed first, the JOB was to make Bush rich, and it was completed quite awhile ago.

He seems to understand that they want us gone, that we shouldn't have been there in the first place, and that we can't afford to continue this war.

Okay, I get it, it's balanced in a Sesame Street kinda way, but if you look at their views, who they support, and how they vote, it's a far cry from balanced. Balanced is a fluff word used to give a complex situation a 3rd grade assessment. It's like explaining a car's mobility as "the wheels go round" instead of explaining the system that causes the wheels to go around.

Marley, it is clear that Robertstar advocates illegal invasions of other countries that did not attack or provoke us, and further advocates occupying their land, regardless of their wishes. All in the sake of "winning" and showing your Example by Use of Force, as Bill Clinton made reference to the other night. If he was so adamant about this occupation, I really am not sure why at 22 years of age, he is not serving in Iraq, since this is such an important, vital cause that he staunchly believes him. As is the case of the chickenhawks in the States.

At the end of the day, have the satisfaction of knowing that he isn't swaying anyone's opinion on here, and would have better luck persuading the Wall how to vote.

 

[Shafted]

This has been discussed already.

The US Elections are of global importance and the result will have a global impact, especially here in the UK.

Which is why Obama is needed in the White House, not McCain.
The UK and the US got hoodwinked by Bush, and you're pushing for his manufactured double.

 

[Supernature]

If you thought that was funny, how about this ...

Hilarious! Thanks for this, Midnight. Hearing her praise Hillary rich after Palin has already gone on record saying she couldn't bring herself to vote for Clinton because she was put off by Hillz "whining".

I really think McCain has lost the election with this choice.

 

[Spensed]

You’re making a completely invalid comparison

Sarah Palin isn’t the Republican nominee for President, she is their Vice-Presidential nominee. She isn’t going to be running the country, her voting record and experience is nowhere near as important as Obama’s.

You're trying to make this Obama vs. Palin when the race is Obama vs. McCain

I kinda got that far. You raised the experience issue as between Obama and Palin and my comments were a response to what you had said. So naturally they were about Obama and Palin.

'm going to quote you here

Is she really the best qualified candidate for VP in the whole country? How sad is that.

You can't have this both ways, you can't argue that experience is a phony argument and then complain Palin is a bad choice because isn't experienced enough. You can't argue that Palin isn't 'ready' to be VP but that Obama is ready to be President.

I didn't say that "experience is a phony argument". I said that claiming that Obama had no experience is a phony argument. As I indicated, he has a laudable legislative record.

Whereas Palin, well:

And the Anchorage Daily News has already dug out a less than flattering remark from Palin's fellow Alaska Republican senate president Lyda Green: "She's not prepared to be governor. How can she be prepared to be vice president or president? Look at what she's done to this state. What would she do to the nation?"

http://www.channel4.com/news/articl...us+presidential+candidate+john+mccain/2438472

Startling lack of knowledge about Obama's (reworked) stance on Iran....

Obama's 'diplomatic route' has become completely disjointed and mudled as he desperately tries to prove he isn't 'soft'.

Obama has been over defensive in his responses to his critics. But everything he said originally and is saying now makes sense. Even that great man Ronald Reagan used carrot and stick and wasn't above negotiating with the enemy.

And, at least, Obama knows that Shiite Iran isn't going to be training Sunni Al Qaeda operatives to infiltrate Iraq, a mistake that McCain repeated not only on camera but also in a radio interview.

http://thinkprogress.org/2008/03/18/mccain-iran-al-qaeda/

As I say, Palin would never have been selected if she had been a man.

Like Palin, both McCain's wives were also former beauty queen contestants. Is that just a coincidence or just creepy? LOL.

 

[MystikWizard]

Hilarious! Thanks for this, Midnight. Hearing her praise Hillary rich after Palin has already gone on record saying she couldn't bring herself to vote for Clinton because she was put off by Hillz "whining".

I really think McCain has lost the election with this choice.

Yeah, Supernature, aside from McCain's humorous glances, Palin pretty much declared to all the Women, "Don't worry. I'll take over where Hillary left off and break that glass ceiling for her."

She'll bring over some votes from Democratic women who are only concerned about having a Woman in office, and nothing else as it pertains to the country. But I think the vast amount of Hillary supporters are going to turn on her, and see this attempt from the GOP at what it really is.

 

[robertstar]

Do you see Americans infringing on your elections to the degree you are doing so with ours?

In your view, are you noticing any real degree of success on here, on changing anyone's minds, with your perspective?

And again, answer the question. Why don't you move here, then?

1 - The UK elections have no real bearing on the rest of the world or America, we simply don’t have the economic or military power for that to be the case. The decisions the next Presidents makes on the economy or foreign policy will directly effect the UK and the rest of the world, the reverse isn’t true. The next PM’s decisions on the economy and foreign policy won’t really effect America or the rest of the world, unless we elect a complete nut job.

2 - I’m not attempting to change anyone’s mind and I don’t believe anyone is trying to change mine.

3 - Because I don’t want to nor is there any reason to. I’m not attempting to shape the US election, simply presenting my view on it.

You're right, I think Obama gave Biden VP so he could NOT listen to Biden on an area that's considered his weakest. You're making about as much sense as....well....nothing.

Yes that's what I said.

Oh wait, what I actually said was that you have no idea what roll Biden will have or how impactful he will be on policy decisions. The argument that he has Biden on the ticket so everything's fine is a dangerous one to make.

If you think America has had it's hands as heavy in Sudan and Chad as they have been in Iraq, you're sadly mistaken. I'd cry if I found the actual numbers to how much is being spent over there vs. how much is being spent in Iraq. I doubt it's 10billion a month.

Because this is what I said? No it isn't.

Key word here, "vocal." I could talk about Darfur all day but it wouldn't bring about any change.

And yet Obama talking about change all day long is enough to get it done?

You're not taking into account our recent history of sticking our nose where it doesn't belong. It's a reputation decades in the making, and it won't be solved by putting bandaids on the situation. There is no worse light than people thinking you're pushy, greedy, and self-serving in situations where others are suffering.

You're wrong.

I'd sugarcoat that but there's really no point because you're wrong.

If you pull out of Iraq at the wrong time or do it badly then America's international reputation will be in a worse state than it is now. The full extent of potential damage has not been done yet. Not even close.

What job? What job do you think they're trying to accomplish? Get out is what people are saying on BOTH sides, the US citizens and those of the middle east. I'd LOVE to hear about this ghost "job" that needs to be completed first, the JOB was to make Bush rich, and it was completed quite awhile ago.

As I said previously I dislike the 'get the job done' and that's a very basic way of summing up my thoughts on the subject. I really don't have time/energy to go more in depth on it right now but I will come back to this later and expand.

He seems to understand that they want us gone, that we shouldn't have been there in the first place, and that we can't afford to continue this war.

Doesn't matter.

Anyone can grasp those facts, its not the why that matters its the how and that's where Obama falls down.

Okay, I get it, it's balanced in a Sesame Street kinda way, but if you look at their views, who they support, and how they vote, it's a far cry from balanced. Balanced is a fluff word used to give a complex situation a 3rd grade assessment. It's like explaining a car's mobility as "the wheels go round" instead of explaining the system that causes the wheels to go around.

I'd say you are massively underestimating the balance issue. Again time and energy get the better of me here. I'll come back to this.

 

[Spensed]

If you pull out of Iraq at the wrong time or do it badly then America's international reputation will be in a worse state than it is now. The full extent of potential damage has not been done yet. Not even close.

That was the argument for staying in Vietnam and look where that got us.

Besides, for some reason, you're suggesting that McCain, who had indicated he would stay there forever, has a meaningful pull out plan and Obama doesn't.

In fact, both Bush and McCain have recently been taking their cues on Iraq from Obama. Now the consensus is a short term and military prudent withdrawal and, with all the military advice either of them will have at his disposal, there's no reason to assume that McCain will be any better at implementing that than Obama.

Quite the contrary. Obama's a lot smarter than McCain.

 

[robertstar]

I kinda got that far. You raised the experience issue as between Obama and Palin and my comments were a response to what you had said. So naturally they were about Obama and Palin.

I didn’t raise the issue.

The comparison between the two was on going well before I posted in this thread and I believe the very first thing I said on the subject was that it was an invalid comparison to make because one is a Presidential nominee and the other is a nominee for Vice President. I think I would be correct in saying it was Marley who first made the comparison, in this [STRIKE]threat[/STRIKE] thread at least.

My point also remains that if you're going to argue that a three-year Senator has the experience to be President you can't really make the argument that a two-year Governor doesn't have the experience to be Vice President.

And the Anchorage Daily News has already dug out a less than flattering remark from Palin's fellow Alaska Republican senate president Lyda Green: "She's not prepared to be governor. How can she be prepared to be vice president or president? Look at what she's done to this state. What would she do to the nation?"

Questionable quote to use.

No doubt Democrats will jump on it (and they should) but framed correctly the quote is far from damaging. The majority of long serving Republicans in Alaska dislike Palin, a lot because she took on and brought down the ruling and corrupt Republican party structure that was in place there. It’s like me countering with a report from someone who worships the ground she walks on, the bias makes it a question quote.

With that said having read about what she’s done in Alaska it reads as if she’s done a very good job but, you know, not living in Alaska its hard for me to really make much more of an informed judgment on that.

Obama has been over defensive in his responses to his critics. But everything he said originally and is saying now makes sense. Even that great man Ronald Reagan used carrot and stick and wasn't above negotiating with the enemy.

The problem is that Obama has shown no particular skill for the carrot and the stick philosophy, he just lurches from one extreme to the other and the two extremes don’t sit well together. You can’t for example claim to want talks with Iran without preconditions but then have a list of preconditions that you don’t call preconditions and you can’t talk about wanting to use diplomacy with Iran whilst delivering war mongering speech on Iran.

People may not agree with McCain’s foreign policy stance and I wouldn’t expect everyone to but at least it remains relatively clear what that stance is. As things stand Obama’s message changes so often that whilst he may know exactly what he wants to do nobody else seems to. Not even his supporters seem to be able to deliver a consistent message on his foreign policy and that’s because he won’t stick to his guns (which is an ironic phrase in many ways) - he’s so desperate not be painted as ‘soft on terror’ that he’s constantly trying to toughen up his message and it doesn’t work, it just helps continue the idea that he has no clue what he’s doing.

That was the argument for staying in Vietnam and look where that got us.

I don’t completely agree with the comparison at this point.

Besides, for some reason, you're suggesting that McCain, who had indicated he would stay there forever, has a meaningful pull out plan and Obama doesn't.

I’m suggesting the opposite in fact.

I don’t believe McCain does have a pullout plan meaningful or otherwise right now because he doesn’t want to pullout. I do however believe that if he puts one together it will be more confidence inspiring that Obama’s simply because I’d hope that he’d at least agree to listen to commanders on the ground, which Obama has been completely inconsistent on.

Are you a politician? You have an alarming ability to spin even the most logical notions. I didn't say "everything's fine," I said the pairing does create a relationship that should be acknowledged. Again, you're acting as if Obama's going to cover his ears and go "La La La Laaa" whenever Biden opens his mouth.

Shall we (once again) look at what I actually said on this subject...

Joe Biden won’t be President and any foreign policy decisions made won’t be his, his experience and knowledge aren’t being transplanted into Obama. And all the questions you have about McCain when it comes to foreign policy can be asked just as much of Biden who has made some startlingly crazy statements and decisions over the years.

I’ve said it once already in this post but I’ll repeat it again now Biden's experience and knowledge aren’t being transplanted into Obama, he didn't name Biden his VP nominee and suddenly become an expert on foriegn policy.

But you have absolutely no way of knowing they will or whether it will make a difference to Obama's final decision or not.

I have absolutely no idea what point you’re trying to make here. You’re trying to argue that Biden being on ticket negates Obama’s lack of foreign policy experience but no one has any idea what Biden’s role in an Obama Government would be at this point. Its entirely possible that Obama will completely ignore everything and anything Biden has to say if they tale office. That's the danger with the 'he has Biden on the ticket' argument.

Oh wait, what I actually said was that you have no idea what roll Biden will have or how impactful he will be on policy decisions. The argument that he has Biden on the ticket so everything's fine is a dangerous one to make.

You've done a particularly good job in attempting to spin those statements into something they aren't. My point has been that Biden won't be making the decisions, he can give Obama all the advice in the world but in the end the decisions will be made by Obama and you have no way of knowing if he will or won't listen to anything Biden has to say. I also have no way of knowing that, which is why the 'Biden is on the ticket' argument is so flawed.

Apparently you don't know Biden. He's passionate about foreign affairs and will no doubt be in most if not all the meetings about this situation in Iraq. Even if Obama wanted to ignore Biden on foreign issues (though his intelligence suggest he'd know to listen up), Biden is a big mouth. He would pull Obama's hands from his ears and scream his point into Obama's ears. Joe Biden is not one to go ignored. I'm sure you knew that if you weren't just a casual spectator.

Again my point is this, Biden can be in every meeting and talk at Obama until he is blue in the face but if Obama isn't going to listen to him it makes no difference. None of know how the partnership will work, none of know how much power Biden will have or how much sway he will have over Obama. For all any of us know Biden is a cheap political stunt to add experience to the ticket and get Obama elected and when they take office he'll be hidden in a closet somewhere.

Biden being on the ticket guarantees nothing.

You spoke as if Mccain is flying over Darfur dropping money and food. Economic aid you called it, right? And where are the troops?

What I actually said about Darfur

The situations in Darfur and Georgia aren't the same and to argue they require similar responses or action is incorrect. However after a very quick search McCain on Darfur

The rest was taken from an article (which is why it was in italics and followed by a link) written after a speech/Q&A session McCain gave.

Obama doesn't talk about change all day long. He's certainly had moments where he drew out lines from A to B to C, but I doubt you'll acknowledge them, you're terribly imbalanced and refuse to acknowledge one single good aspect of him. Even Mccain isn't that stubborn.

Has Obama changed anything? Is the political system he entered noticably less corrupt than it was before he entered it? Do the American people have more faith and trust in politicians since Obama entered office? Until Obama actually effects some kind of meaningful and noticable change then yes, all he has done is talk about it.

What proof do you have that I'm wrong? Polls? Interviews? How do you know America's reputation can get any worse, who have you spoken to about this? Your cat doesn't count.

1 - I'm part of the international community that would be judging America

2 - Common sense. If America leaves Iraq and the country implodes (which is a very real possibility) then America will have get torn apart. As much as people think America are wrong to be there, they'll be even harsher if America leaves Iraq to self destruct.

Here's a dynamic I'm just now recognizing, you refer to your opinions as facts.
The humor lies in the fact that there's absolutely no basis for things you continually refer to as facts but okay

Another complete misrepresentation of what I actually said.

The word facts was not used to describe what I was saying but what you’d said and what I'd just quoted, hence the use of the word those.

The "how" doesn't matter if people already think terribly enough of us, but apparently they think we're angels and Obama is gonna screw that up.

One more misrepresentation of what I actually said.

What I actually said was that America hasn’t scratched the surface of the potential damage to their reputation with Iraq and that if the withdrawal of troops is handled poorly then things will only get worse for you.

I wouldn't say it's time and energy, I'd say it's resources. You say a lot, but usually based on some of the most erroneous information I've ever heard since my high-school history class. It's one thing to be cock-sure of yourself, another when you constantly refer to opinions that can easily be disproven as "facts."

I've used the word facts to describe what opinions of mine in this thread? And you've used what information to 'easily' disprove them? Apparently I've missed all this incredible information you're throwing out there.

Bottom line? The Obama-Biden ticket guarantees that the people handling the situation in Iraq will NOT be complete idiots. It'll be a Harvard grad and a man with decades of experience in foreign issues. You're talking like the democrats are sending a monkey and a tambourine into the office instead of intelligent people.

I called Obama and Biden stupid at what point?

Not agreeing with their stance means I think their stupid? Believing that Obama hasn't been able to thread together anything close to a consistent view on foriegn policy means I think he's an idiot? It should however be pointed out that someone getting a law degree from Harvard doesn't give them the knowledge to deal with anything and everything life and the Presidency will bring their way.

I'm sure there are a few million Harvard grads that I (and you) wouldn't want anywhere near the White House let alone in the Oval Office.

Okay, I get it, it's balanced in a Sesame Street kinda way, but if you look at their views, who they support, and how they vote, it's a far cry from balanced. Balanced is a fluff word used to give a complex situation a 3rd grade assessment. It's like explaining a car's mobility as "the wheels go round" instead of explaining the system that causes the wheels to go around.

Firstly at no point did I claim that the balance assessment was a particularly in depth one nor was it designed to be viewed as an in depth analyse, which is why voting records and specific stances for each candidate weren’t discussed. The whole point of balancing the two tickets (and why its important) is because a vote for McCain is no longer exclusively the vote for ‘experience’ and a vote for Obama is no longer exclusively the vote for ‘change’. The additions of Biden and Palin to their respective tickets helps to reshape this election and forces more sustentative look at each ticket.

People who felt that Obama didn’t have the experience to be President have suddenly been given reason to reconsider this stance by the addition of Biden to his ticket and the addition of Palin to the Republican ticket. In contrast to this those who believed Obama would be a vote for a ‘change’ or ‘a new way’ have suddenly been given reason to reconsider that stance because Obama went with Biden as his running mate and McCain went with Palin.

The fact that the tickets are now on the face of it balanced is hugely important and does take this election in a new direction. McCain and the Republicans can no longer exclusively fall back on experience, whilst Obama and his campaign can no longer exclusively fall back on change because both sides will just fire back with the same message.

More on Iraq/'Job done' to come because I'll touch upon it when I write about another issue and I don't really want to repeat myself.

 

[robertstar]

You continue to completely misrepresent what I’m actually saying to fit your own needs.

What I’ve actually said seemingly several hundred times now is that no one knows what role Biden will play in a potential Obama administration or how much sway he will have over Obama, which (again) is why the ‘Biden’s on the ticket’ argument is so flawed.

 

[Spensed]

My point also remains that if you're going to argue that a three-year Senator has the experience to be President you can't really make the argument that a two-year Governor doesn't have the experience to be Vice President.

Yes you can. I've already replied to this point. Obama has a laudable legislative track record in his seven years in the Illinois Senate and three years plus in the Senate. Palin has no record to speak of other than the spin that she's done great things in one and a half years in Alaska. What great things that are relevant to her being Vice-President? She's on record as saying she doesn't know what the Vice-President even does.

Questionable quote to use.

No doubt Democrats will jump on it (and they should) but framed correctly the quote is far from damaging. The majority of long serving Republicans in Alaska dislike Palin, a lot because she took on and brought down the ruling and corrupt Republican party structure that was in place there. It’s like me countering with a report from someone who worships the ground she walks on, the bias makes it a question quote.

With that said having read about what she’s done in Alaska it reads as if she’s done a very good job but, you know, not living in Alaska its hard for me to really make much more of an informed judgment on that.

As per my previous comment, you're just swallowing the pre-packaged spin. What is the very good job she's done that would have qualified her for this nomination if she were a man?

The problem is that Obama has shown no particular skill for the carrot and the stick philosophy, he just lurches from one extreme to the other and the two extremes don’t sit well together. You can’t for example claim to want talks with Iran without preconditions but then have a list of preconditions that you don’t call preconditions and you can’t talk about wanting to use diplomacy with Iran whilst delivering war mongering speech on Iran.

Of course you can. It's a well known and effective negotiating technique as in, for example, Kennedy and the Cuban missile crisis.

People may not agree with McCain’s foreign policy stance and I wouldn’t expect everyone to but at least it remains relatively clear what that stance is. As things stand Obama’s message changes so often that whilst he may know exactly what he wants to do nobody else seems to. Not even his supporters seem to be able to deliver a consistent message on his foreign policy and that’s because he won’t stick to his guns (which is an ironic phrase in many ways) - he’s so desperate not be painted as ‘soft on terror’ that he’s constantly trying to toughen up his message and it doesn’t work, it just helps continue the idea that he has no clue what he’s doing.

As I said, Obama, as a intellectual, is overly defensive about not being seen as too weak, which is McCain's propaganda. But that doesn't mean Obama's foreign policy proposal aren't intelligent. They seem rather obviously so:

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/foreignpolicy/

I don’t believe McCain does have a pullout plan meaningful or otherwise right now because he doesn’t want to pullout.

That's because you haven't bothered to check your facts before you assert them. In his most recent Iraq positioning, McCain has been aping Obama.

After months of ridiculing opponents who want to set a timetable for withdrawal in Iraq, today John McCain is setting his own timetable.

In remarks prepared for delivery, he says he envisions that “most” of the troops now serving will be home by January 2013, when his first term would end.

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/05/15/mccain-offers-his-iraq-timetable/

I do however believe that if he puts one together it will be more confidence inspiring that Obama’s simply because I’d hope that he’d at least agree to listen to commanders on the ground, which Obama has been completely inconsistent on.

If you take Bush's Iraq strategies and action in relation to the military, which McCain has endorsed, those are false beliefs and hopes about McCain. Bush has used the military as a shill, when it suits his purposes and just replaced people or ignored them, when they don't provide him with cover for what he wants. I'm sure McCain can be relied on to do likewise.

My point has been that Biden won't be making the decisions, he can give Obama all the advice in the world but in the end the decisions will be made by Obama and you have no way of knowing if he will or won't listen to anything Biden has to say. I also have no way of knowing that, which is why the 'Biden is on the ticket' argument is so flawed.

Try using your commonsense. Obama is a very educated and intelligent man. He's picked Biden to help give him foreign expertise credentials and then, once in office, he's going to have a foreign policy that ignores Biden and the many other foreign policy adviser and expects he'll have at this disposal. And Biden's going to go along with this. I don't think so.

On your conclusion, what you're saying about balanced tickets is what McCain now trying to sell by his desperate gamble on a woman he's barely met and doesn't know.

But, because of Palin's thin resume and her own emerging problems, it's clear that she's just a token Clarence Thomas-like choice and, hopefully, the American voters will see through the ploy, even if you don't.