comments_imageCOMMENTS: 31

Powerless Palin: Get Ready for One Uncomfortable Debate

Photo-ops with a few nations' leaders does not make up for Palin's ignorance on basic world affairs.
October 1, 2008  |  
 
 
LIKE THIS ARTICLE ?
Join our mailing list:

Sign up to stay up to date on the latest headlines via email.

 
 
Advertisement
 
No one can argue against the need for a strong foreign policy. As a nation, we face challenges ranging from terrorism and climate change to the enduring wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. None of these problems can be solved without building a better relationship with the rest of the world. None can be solved without creative and informed leaders.

Having spent six months of the last year in Afghanistan, I know firsthand that our nation is confronting a stronger Al Qaeda, a resurgent Taliban and a weakening Pakistan armed with nuclear weapons. America's leaders cannot lack international experience, and they certainly cannot lack basic knowledge of world affairs.

This year's presidential election has rightly focused on whether the candidates possess a working knowledge of foreign affairs. During the foreign policy debate between Senators Obama and McCain, the candidates staked out very different positions, but both demonstrated an understanding of the world around them.

On Thursday of this week, their running mates will get the chance to reveal their positions and knowledge.

Most of us in the foreign policy field know Senator Joe Biden well. The ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee has worked on issues such as nuclear non-proliferation, prevention of genocide, combating terrorism and thinking beyond war in Iraq. On these and many other issues, the good Senator could give any expert a run for his money. Governor Sarah Palin, on the other hand, has her work cut out for her.

Palin seems to know very little about politics beyond Alaska's borders. Other than college, she has lived exclusively in that state since 1964. (She obtained a passport just about two years ago.) She has done little if any traveling. As governor she visited Canada, two U.S. Army bases in Kuwait and Germany, went to Mexico for a vacation, and as we know now, set her eyes on the border of Iraq. Not to get picky, but visiting a U.S. Army base is not the same as touring a foreign country: it's pretty much like visiting military bases here at home.

Since her nomination, Palin has been dogged by her lack of foreign policy expertise and experience. Recent interviews with Charlie Gibson and Katie Couric give us reason to worry about her readiness to lead the country, if necessary.

Everyone knows about her "I can see Russia from my State" declaration. Had she spouted some facts on Russian oil production or military might, I might cut her some slack, but "seeing" Russia no more makes her an expert on Russian-American relations than cooking linguine makes chef Mario Batali an expert on U.S.-Italian relations. (At least Mario has spent considerable time in Italy.)

Palin's statement that she is "Commander and Chief" of the Alaska National Guard also falls short. Palin has never exercised an ounce of oversight over the 3,800 troops there. Only in times of emergency does the governor have a say. It is the federal government that's really in charge, particularly if there are deployments to Iraq or Afghanistan, in which case no governor has a say.

Moreover, she has had limited, if any, contact with the U.S. military and its activities in Alaska. In an interview with The Associated Press, Major General Craig E. Campbell, the actual commander of the Alaska Guard, said neither of them plays a role in national defense activities in Alaska, even when those activities include the Alaska National Guard.

Palin's other attempts to display her foreign policy acumen have largely consisted of photo-ops. Sorry, but meeting and greeting a few nations' leaders doesn't convince me of her readiness -- and neither does her "New York minute" with former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger.

Frankly, the whole thing is frightening. If Senator McCain wanted to complement his presidential ticket with a woman, he could have picked one who at least knows her party's international policies. Yes, I am specifically talking about the Bush doctrine. Preemption, after all, led us into the war with Iraq, and in McCain's mind, may lead us from there to Iran.

In an era of terrorism, complex multilateral coalitions, as well as a resurgent Russia and China, foreign policy must transcend party politics. McCain knows this. Unfortunately, he decided to pander to his most conservative constituency by making Sarah Palin his V.P. pick.

If elected, Palin would be one step away from running this country. For McCain to have selected someone with no knowledge of the world is completely irresponsible.

Nonetheless, Governor Palin will be debating Senator Biden on October 2, so she better get busy. The world is much more complex than "good guys and bad guys," as she told Katie Couric. Our nation's security is not some corny "B" movie.

Many people are counting on the United States to exercise enlightened leadership in the world, so if Palin is serious about staying on this ticket, she needs to "hit the books." McCain put Palin, women and our country in an awkward, not to mention dangerous, position. His reckless actions have not only contributed to making this a more divided nation, but have put Palin in an embarrassing situation.

Today, there's little she can do but move forward with the debates. Unless, of course, she would rather put the country first, ditch McCain, and step down.
Patricia DeGennaro is a professor, writer, analyst and consultant. Currently, DeGennaro serves as a senior research fellow for the Center for the Study of Democracy at Queens University and an adjunct assistant professor at New York University’s Center for Global Affairs. She holds an MPA in International Security and Conflict Resolution from Harvard University and an MBA from George Washington University.
Email
Print
Share
Post on reddit
Post on stumbleupon
Post on facebook
Post on digg
Post on twitter
Post on delicious
LIKED THIS ARTICLE? JOIN OUR EMAIL LIST
Stay up to date with the latest AlterNet headlines via email


Comments are closed-

Experience vs. Insight
Posted by: Fetchcat on Oct 1, 2008 10:58 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Republican bloggers keep saying that Palin has more experience than Obama, has more responsibilities than Obama . . . but even if that were true, Obama possesses something our next president(or president-in-waiting in Palin's case) will need much more than experience. That is a broad-based comprehension of the issues, both domestic and foreign. Palin's scope is narrow, her world view constricted. She perceives things as black or white; Obama is capable (perhaps a result of his own mixed "pedigree") of seeing many shades of gray in a given situation. This is the type of statesman we need in an increasingly polarized and polarizing world -- someone who can find commonalities with an opponent ("You're right, John,") rather than dogmatically widening the gulf to score empty points. Obama might not have experience running a state, but he has the temperament, intelligence, level of understanding, depth of thought, and high degree of compassion to be a strong leader. Like other young "inexperienced" politicians who aspired to the presidency -- Abraham Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, and John Kennedy -- Obama will inspire Americans with his vision and impress the world with his statecraft.

Nancy Hajeski
Author of the Hammond Book of Presidents

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Yeah but it's still a lie Posted by: EinMD

Comments are closed-

Michael Kelly in Cincinnati, Ohio
Posted by: manassah on Oct 1, 2008 12:54 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Governor Palin, insufficiently experienced and completely unqualified in foreign relations, just a 'heartbeat' away from the presidency? Why is no one asking the harder questions about Senator Obama who WOULD BE THE 'HEARTBEAT' IN THE OVAL OFFICE, if elected president? I could try to argue that this is a FAR MORE IMPORTANT matter facing the United States in these perilous times, but why 'reinvent the wheel'? So I will simply use the synopsis of a book that every fearful, tearful and concerned voter should read before punching the wrong 'chad' on November 4. The book, available from almost all booksellers, is "The Case Against Barack Obama - The Unlikely Rise and Unexamined Agenda of the Media's Favorite Candidate" by David Freddoso, previously a political reporter for the Evans-Novak Political Report and Human Events. A graduate of Notre Dame and the Columbia School of Journalism, he lives in Washington, D.C.

[quote] "Make no doubt about it, Barack Obama is the media's darling, the fresh face of the Democratic ticket. But what does Barack Obama really stand for — and will his extreme liberal agenda and complete inexperience in global affairs endanger the country?

Has any major candidate for president of the United States ever received less critical examination than Barack Obama? Who is this man, who was only elected to the U.S. Senate in 2004?

How did someone with his meager record of accomplishment become the Democratic nominee for president? How did someone with the most liberal voting record in the U.S. Senate and long-standing relationships with a former terrorist, a racist minister, and the corrupt operators of Chicago Machine politics end up as a supposed beacon of a newer, cleaner, bipartisan politics?

In "The Case Against Barack Obama", you’ll learn:

*How Obama’s friendship with the Reverend Jeremiah Wright was no accident, but a carefully thought-out personal and political decision,

*The inside story of Obama's association with terrorist Bill Ayers wouldn’t matter — an exposé of the insular radical chic of Chicago's Hyde Park politics,

*The real story of Obama as a puppet of Mayor Daley's corrupt Chicago political machine
What Obama really did for convicted developer Tony Rezko,

*Debunking the myth of Obama’s "new" politics: how Obama won his first election by throwing all of his competitors off the ballot,

*The new 'Dirty Politics': how underhanded politics sabotaged Obama's opponents in his 2004 Senate race,

*A story Obama would like to stay buried in Chicago: how he used his clout as a U.S. senator to save the corrupt Cook County Political Machine when reformers of both parties tried to challenge the entrenched political bosses,

*How Barack Obama opposed a bill banning infanticide-by-neglect — a stance too extreme even for Nancy Pelosi. (Freddoso has an exclusive interview with the nurse central to the case.),

*How Obama has repeatedly steered taxpayer money to campaign donors,...and much, much more.

Sober, fair, and thoroughly researched — and all the more powerful and provocative because of it — "The Case Against Barack Obama" removes the halo from a man less qualified, and more radical, than the mainstream media has let you know.

Find out why electing this man as our Commander-in-Chief could be the most dangerous decision in American history." [endquote]

And if this book is NOT ENOUGH I recommend, for those whose heads are not in the sand, free daily enewsletter subscriptions from Hyscience and Wake Up America, which can be easily found in any web search engine.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Liteweight VP
Posted by: beingajoe on Oct 1, 2008 12:59 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Sarah Palin is not qualified to be VP and by unexpected circumstances, President of the United States. Her nomination is alarming!

www.palinspin.com the scandals, incompetence, lies and deceptions of Sarah Palin!
www.obamamate.com social news for the Barack Obama nation

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Level the playing field
Posted by: Fetchcat on Oct 1, 2008 1:34 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I defy anyone to cite a highly placed politician who has not had unsavory dealings or made questionable contacts. I've accepted that this is the nature of the beast. For one thing, our campaign system forces candidates into the pockets of moneyed contributors, and then we squawk at their allegiances to big corporations. Both parties, both candidates are reduced to this. So level the playing field, concede that one's bad behavior in this respect cancels out the other's to some extent, and begin to look at their actual potential as candidates. McCain has years of experience, a sometime history of crossing the aisle, and a notable determination. Obama has keen intelligence, good intuition, and a cool head (some of which could explain that meteoric rise you spoke of). To paraphrase Kipling, when those around you are losing their heads and you can keep yours, you'll be a man, my son. In this current frenzy caused by the Wall Street meltdown, Obama remains objective without being detached. He is weighing options and making informed decisions, not running around promising to be all things to all people. This is the type of leadership we need. Not a hired gun, but a peacekeeper. Not a maverick roaming wildly in search of a cause, but a guardian at the gates. Sure, it's a matter of political style, but if you can get substance AND style in one candidate, I say bravo!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Funny Palin Vid
Posted by: Raymuz on Oct 2, 2008 11:55 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Hey gang! Funny Palin videos!
http://palinsfiresideblog.blogspot.com/

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Pompous author
Posted by: 876 on Oct 2, 2008 12:57 PM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You would promote Biden, a moron who in his speech at the Democratic National Convention, stated that the US was attacked by the Taliban? So much for the expertise you gleaned living in Afghanistan.

I don’t support McCain or his hockey mom sidekick but that doesn’t I will accept lies and undue praise for the likes of a genocidal newbie and his bumbling lackey. Barrack Obama is a fool. He is a man who on his trip to Afghanistan requested an Arab translator. He is a man who promotes genocide of Afghans for the sake of his political career. What makes this fool who doesn’t even understand the basics of Afghanistan’s demographics think he knows how to solve the political problems that have existed there for over thirty years?

As for this author living in a sheltered US base in a country doesn’t make you an expert on anything at all expect for maybe living on a sheltered US base.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

876
Posted by: 876 on Oct 2, 2008 2:27 PM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It’s so predictable that someone would rate a comment with a 1 simply because it is critical of this new hope of American imbeciles, regardless of the valid points and utter lack of a response. You people are so desperate for a savior you cannot hear anything critical of this buffoon you’ve naively placed all your hopes on even when you have no defense for his idiocy.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Will Palin Wear a Wire?
Posted by: Lilly on Oct 2, 2008 5:33 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
George W Bush, debating John Kerry on 8 October 2004, was seen to have an item about 6 inches square under his jacket, on his back. It was widely posited that he was wired to receive electronic crib notes since he knew so little about issues. Since remembering that a week or so ago I have paid close attention to Palin's hair and every time I have looked her ears have been completely exposed whether she wears her hair up or down. Tonight when she and family got off the plane, her hair was covering her ears. No telling how she plans to wear it at the debate, but if she suddenly covers her ears, notice whether she keeps one side away from the camera as Bush did. I do not trust her or her handlers.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» She's got her hair down... Posted by: ~Fiona~
» If she IS wearing a wire, Posted by: hurricane hugo
» Check under the "bandage" Posted by: ~Fiona~

Comments are closed-

Sarah Palin; Formidable Force
Posted by: Betsy L. Angert on Oct 2, 2008 5:48 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Dearest Patricia DeGennaro . . .

While I appreciate your thoughts, I think research provides reason for fear. I trust studies show us Sarah will be formidable. I offer three reports, each of which I believe work in Governor Palin's favor.
The Harris Poll® #52
June 30, 2006

. . . Almost four in 10 U.S. adults (37%) listen to talk shows on the radio at least once a week and about three in 10 (29%) watch political or public affairs TV shows at least once a week.

CNN (20%) and FOX News (18%) are the television channels adults most often turn to when they want news or information related to politics or public affairs. These are followed by the networks, including ABC (9%), NBC (8%) and CBS (7%). Other channels include MSNBC (5%), C-SPAN (3%), PBS (3%) and CNBC (1%).

When comparing those who are "heavy" users of the media (including talk radio and television) to "light" users, a slightly different profile emerges. Among "heavy" media users, FOX News is the leading channel at 39 percent, followed by CNN at 22 percent. Among "light" media users, CNN is at the top (21%) followed by ABC (13%), NBC (11%), CBS (9%) and FOX News (8%).

When looking at the profile of viewers of TV channels that are watched most often for news about politics or public affairs, preferences emerge based on political affiliation and political philosophy. CNN’s viewers are more likely to be Democrats (42%) or Independents (29%) than Republicans (19%), whereas FOX News viewers are more likely to be Republicans (63%) as compared to Democrats (12%) or Independents (20%). Similarly, FOX News viewers are more likely to say they are Conservative (61%) than Moderate (35%) or Liberal (4%). CNN viewers are more likely to say they are Moderate (61%) than Liberal (27%) or Conservative (12%).


You may wish to peruse the article, The Most Biased Name in News, Fox News Channel's extraordinary right-wing tilt. By Seth Ackerman. Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting. August 2001

Another dynamic that perchance, expands my belief.

Does ideology trump facts? Studies say it often does
By Jonathan M. Gitlin
Published: September 24, 2008 - 07:30PM CT

We like to think that people will be well informed before making important decisions, such as who to vote for, but the truth is that's not always the case. Being uninformed is one thing, but having a population that's actively misinformed presents problems when it comes to participating in the national debate, or the democratic process. If the findings of some political scientists are right, attempting to correct misinformation might do nothing more than reinforce the false belief.

. . . Again, the findings suggest that facts that contradicted political ideology were simply not taken in; if anything, challenging misbelief with fact checking has the counterintuitive effect of reinforcing that misbelief.


I invite your review and reflection. Please share your thoughts on . . .
Sarah Palin; Formidable Force

Betsy L. Angert
BeThink.org

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Now a DEREGULATED DEBATE
Posted by: HPipe on Oct 2, 2008 8:52 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Sort of clear where republicans stand on deregulation--a deregulated debate.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Misses the point
Posted by: MartianBachelor on Oct 2, 2008 9:53 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If the Alaskan governor is somehow not qualified to be VP (or Prez), then what is the basis for elections involving a citizenry, which by the exact same standards, is even less qualified to be making decisions of import on such matters?

Perhaps we should just dispense with elections and turn everything over to such self-proclaimed experts and wannabe members of the ruling class as the author. It would certainly do away with all the wasted time, money, and all the other shenanigans.

The fact is all the constitution requires is that someone be over 35, that they be born in the US, and that they have resided here for at least 14 years. Anything else which someone wants to introduce as a necessity for someone to possess in order to qualify as being, well, 'qualified' was left as a political question to be decided by elections, wisely IMO.

I'm sure part of the appeal of Palin to lots of people is to some degree due to the fact that she isn't some wonk, since we've got whole armies of experts in Washington already, and yet things don't seem to be going so well, which doesn't exactly argue strongly for us having even more of `em in positions of influence and power.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Misses the point Posted by: Lilly
» RE: Misses the point Posted by: Fetchcat
Alternet Comments:

Comments are closed-

Experience vs. Insight
Posted by: Fetchcat on Oct 1, 2008 10:58 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Republican bloggers keep saying that Palin has more experience than Obama, has more responsibilities than Obama . . . but even if that were true, Obama possesses something our next president(or president-in-waiting in Palin's case) will need much more than experience. That is a broad-based comprehension of the issues, both domestic and foreign. Palin's scope is narrow, her world view constricted. She perceives things as black or white; Obama is capable (perhaps a result of his own mixed "pedigree") of seeing many shades of gray in a given situation. This is the type of statesman we need in an increasingly polarized and polarizing world -- someone who can find commonalities with an opponent ("You're right, John,") rather than dogmatically widening the gulf to score empty points. Obama might not have experience running a state, but he has the temperament, intelligence, level of understanding, depth of thought, and high degree of compassion to be a strong leader. Like other young "inexperienced" politicians who aspired to the presidency -- Abraham Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, and John Kennedy -- Obama will inspire Americans with his vision and impress the world with his statecraft.

Nancy Hajeski
Author of the Hammond Book of Presidents

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Yeah but it's still a lie Posted by: EinMD

Comments are closed-

Michael Kelly in Cincinnati, Ohio
Posted by: manassah on Oct 1, 2008 12:54 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Governor Palin, insufficiently experienced and completely unqualified in foreign relations, just a 'heartbeat' away from the presidency? Why is no one asking the harder questions about Senator Obama who WOULD BE THE 'HEARTBEAT' IN THE OVAL OFFICE, if elected president? I could try to argue that this is a FAR MORE IMPORTANT matter facing the United States in these perilous times, but why 'reinvent the wheel'? So I will simply use the synopsis of a book that every fearful, tearful and concerned voter should read before punching the wrong 'chad' on November 4. The book, available from almost all booksellers, is "The Case Against Barack Obama - The Unlikely Rise and Unexamined Agenda of the Media's Favorite Candidate" by David Freddoso, previously a political reporter for the Evans-Novak Political Report and Human Events. A graduate of Notre Dame and the Columbia School of Journalism, he lives in Washington, D.C.

[quote] "Make no doubt about it, Barack Obama is the media's darling, the fresh face of the Democratic ticket. But what does Barack Obama really stand for — and will his extreme liberal agenda and complete inexperience in global affairs endanger the country?

Has any major candidate for president of the United States ever received less critical examination than Barack Obama? Who is this man, who was only elected to the U.S. Senate in 2004?

How did someone with his meager record of accomplishment become the Democratic nominee for president? How did someone with the most liberal voting record in the U.S. Senate and long-standing relationships with a former terrorist, a racist minister, and the corrupt operators of Chicago Machine politics end up as a supposed beacon of a newer, cleaner, bipartisan politics?

In "The Case Against Barack Obama", you’ll learn:

*How Obama’s friendship with the Reverend Jeremiah Wright was no accident, but a carefully thought-out personal and political decision,

*The inside story of Obama's association with terrorist Bill Ayers wouldn’t matter — an exposé of the insular radical chic of Chicago's Hyde Park politics,

*The real story of Obama as a puppet of Mayor Daley's corrupt Chicago political machine
What Obama really did for convicted developer Tony Rezko,

*Debunking the myth of Obama’s "new" politics: how Obama won his first election by throwing all of his competitors off the ballot,

*The new 'Dirty Politics': how underhanded politics sabotaged Obama's opponents in his 2004 Senate race,

*A story Obama would like to stay buried in Chicago: how he used his clout as a U.S. senator to save the corrupt Cook County Political Machine when reformers of both parties tried to challenge the entrenched political bosses,

*How Barack Obama opposed a bill banning infanticide-by-neglect — a stance too extreme even for Nancy Pelosi. (Freddoso has an exclusive interview with the nurse central to the case.),

*How Obama has repeatedly steered taxpayer money to campaign donors,...and much, much more.

Sober, fair, and thoroughly researched — and all the more powerful and provocative because of it — "The Case Against Barack Obama" removes the halo from a man less qualified, and more radical, than the mainstream media has let you know.

Find out why electing this man as our Commander-in-Chief could be the most dangerous decision in American history." [endquote]

And if this book is NOT ENOUGH I recommend, for those whose heads are not in the sand, free daily enewsletter subscriptions from Hyscience and Wake Up America, which can be easily found in any web search engine.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Liteweight VP
Posted by: beingajoe on Oct 1, 2008 12:59 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Sarah Palin is not qualified to be VP and by unexpected circumstances, President of the United States. Her nomination is alarming!

www.palinspin.com the scandals, incompetence, lies and deceptions of Sarah Palin!
www.obamamate.com social news for the Barack Obama nation

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Level the playing field
Posted by: Fetchcat on Oct 1, 2008 1:34 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I defy anyone to cite a highly placed politician who has not had unsavory dealings or made questionable contacts. I've accepted that this is the nature of the beast. For one thing, our campaign system forces candidates into the pockets of moneyed contributors, and then we squawk at their allegiances to big corporations. Both parties, both candidates are reduced to this. So level the playing field, concede that one's bad behavior in this respect cancels out the other's to some extent, and begin to look at their actual potential as candidates. McCain has years of experience, a sometime history of crossing the aisle, and a notable determination. Obama has keen intelligence, good intuition, and a cool head (some of which could explain that meteoric rise you spoke of). To paraphrase Kipling, when those around you are losing their heads and you can keep yours, you'll be a man, my son. In this current frenzy caused by the Wall Street meltdown, Obama remains objective without being detached. He is weighing options and making informed decisions, not running around promising to be all things to all people. This is the type of leadership we need. Not a hired gun, but a peacekeeper. Not a maverick roaming wildly in search of a cause, but a guardian at the gates. Sure, it's a matter of political style, but if you can get substance AND style in one candidate, I say bravo!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Funny Palin Vid
Posted by: Raymuz on Oct 2, 2008 11:55 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Hey gang! Funny Palin videos!
http://palinsfiresideblog.blogspot.com/

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Pompous author
Posted by: 876 on Oct 2, 2008 12:57 PM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You would promote Biden, a moron who in his speech at the Democratic National Convention, stated that the US was attacked by the Taliban? So much for the expertise you gleaned living in Afghanistan.

I don’t support McCain or his hockey mom sidekick but that doesn’t I will accept lies and undue praise for the likes of a genocidal newbie and his bumbling lackey. Barrack Obama is a fool. He is a man who on his trip to Afghanistan requested an Arab translator. He is a man who promotes genocide of Afghans for the sake of his political career. What makes this fool who doesn’t even understand the basics of Afghanistan’s demographics think he knows how to solve the political problems that have existed there for over thirty years?

As for this author living in a sheltered US base in a country doesn’t make you an expert on anything at all expect for maybe living on a sheltered US base.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

876
Posted by: 876 on Oct 2, 2008 2:27 PM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It’s so predictable that someone would rate a comment with a 1 simply because it is critical of this new hope of American imbeciles, regardless of the valid points and utter lack of a response. You people are so desperate for a savior you cannot hear anything critical of this buffoon you’ve naively placed all your hopes on even when you have no defense for his idiocy.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Will Palin Wear a Wire?
Posted by: Lilly on Oct 2, 2008 5:33 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
George W Bush, debating John Kerry on 8 October 2004, was seen to have an item about 6 inches square under his jacket, on his back. It was widely posited that he was wired to receive electronic crib notes since he knew so little about issues. Since remembering that a week or so ago I have paid close attention to Palin's hair and every time I have looked her ears have been completely exposed whether she wears her hair up or down. Tonight when she and family got off the plane, her hair was covering her ears. No telling how she plans to wear it at the debate, but if she suddenly covers her ears, notice whether she keeps one side away from the camera as Bush did. I do not trust her or her handlers.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» She's got her hair down... Posted by: ~Fiona~
» If she IS wearing a wire, Posted by: hurricane hugo
» Check under the "bandage" Posted by: ~Fiona~

Comments are closed-

Sarah Palin; Formidable Force
Posted by: Betsy L. Angert on Oct 2, 2008 5:48 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Dearest Patricia DeGennaro . . .

While I appreciate your thoughts, I think research provides reason for fear. I trust studies show us Sarah will be formidable. I offer three reports, each of which I believe work in Governor Palin's favor.
The Harris Poll® #52
June 30, 2006

. . . Almost four in 10 U.S. adults (37%) listen to talk shows on the radio at least once a week and about three in 10 (29%) watch political or public affairs TV shows at least once a week.

CNN (20%) and FOX News (18%) are the television channels adults most often turn to when they want news or information related to politics or public affairs. These are followed by the networks, including ABC (9%), NBC (8%) and CBS (7%). Other channels include MSNBC (5%), C-SPAN (3%), PBS (3%) and CNBC (1%).

When comparing those who are "heavy" users of the media (including talk radio and television) to "light" users, a slightly different profile emerges. Among "heavy" media users, FOX News is the leading channel at 39 percent, followed by CNN at 22 percent. Among "light" media users, CNN is at the top (21%) followed by ABC (13%), NBC (11%), CBS (9%) and FOX News (8%).

When looking at the profile of viewers of TV channels that are watched most often for news about politics or public affairs, preferences emerge based on political affiliation and political philosophy. CNN’s viewers are more likely to be Democrats (42%) or Independents (29%) than Republicans (19%), whereas FOX News viewers are more likely to be Republicans (63%) as compared to Democrats (12%) or Independents (20%). Similarly, FOX News viewers are more likely to say they are Conservative (61%) than Moderate (35%) or Liberal (4%). CNN viewers are more likely to say they are Moderate (61%) than Liberal (27%) or Conservative (12%).


You may wish to peruse the article, The Most Biased Name in News, Fox News Channel's extraordinary right-wing tilt. By Seth Ackerman. Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting. August 2001

Another dynamic that perchance, expands my belief.

Does ideology trump facts? Studies say it often does
By Jonathan M. Gitlin
Published: September 24, 2008 - 07:30PM CT

We like to think that people will be well informed before making important decisions, such as who to vote for, but the truth is that's not always the case. Being uninformed is one thing, but having a population that's actively misinformed presents problems when it comes to participating in the national debate, or the democratic process. If the findings of some political scientists are right, attempting to correct misinformation might do nothing more than reinforce the false belief.

. . . Again, the findings suggest that facts that contradicted political ideology were simply not taken in; if anything, challenging misbelief with fact checking has the counterintuitive effect of reinforcing that misbelief.


I invite your review and reflection. Please share your thoughts on . . .
Sarah Palin; Formidable Force

Betsy L. Angert
BeThink.org

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Now a DEREGULATED DEBATE
Posted by: HPipe on Oct 2, 2008 8:52 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Sort of clear where republicans stand on deregulation--a deregulated debate.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Misses the point
Posted by: MartianBachelor on Oct 2, 2008 9:53 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If the Alaskan governor is somehow not qualified to be VP (or Prez), then what is the basis for elections involving a citizenry, which by the exact same standards, is even less qualified to be making decisions of import on such matters?

Perhaps we should just dispense with elections and turn everything over to such self-proclaimed experts and wannabe members of the ruling class as the author. It would certainly do away with all the wasted time, money, and all the other shenanigans.

The fact is all the constitution requires is that someone be over 35, that they be born in the US, and that they have resided here for at least 14 years. Anything else which someone wants to introduce as a necessity for someone to possess in order to qualify as being, well, 'qualified' was left as a political question to be decided by elections, wisely IMO.

I'm sure part of the appeal of Palin to lots of people is to some degree due to the fact that she isn't some wonk, since we've got whole armies of experts in Washington already, and yet things don't seem to be going so well, which doesn't exactly argue strongly for us having even more of `em in positions of influence and power.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Misses the point Posted by: Lilly
» RE: Misses the point Posted by: Fetchcat
 
Advertisement
From The Blog
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Most Read
Most Emailed
Most Discussed
On REDDIT
On DIGG
 
loading ...
POWERED BY DIGG'S USERS