Comments (9) Jump to Comments Form

1. 

   ConservativeBob said, about 1 year ago

   So I suppose that picking an “inexperienced” woman (with more executive experience than Obama by the way) to run as VP is worse than picking an inexperienced man as POTUS?

   Give me a break.

2. 

   Corosive Frog said, about 1 year ago

   Give ME a break.
   She was the governor of a few thousand people and half of those are polar bears and moose.
   Obama was the senator of a state that includes the nation’s third largest city.

3. 

   momsaid said, about 1 year ago

   Notice that Oblama neither managed to confront nor rid his city of corrupt leaders, for all his flowery language about ‘change’. Palin has a backbone, a head on her shoulders, and she uses the two senses that most people don’t…Horse and Common!

4. 

   motivemagus said, about 1 year ago

   The Republicans are trying desperately to translate her gubernatorial experience (which is only a year and a half, folks – cmon!) of a low-population state into “executive” experience. I think there is something to be said for that, but I would have accepted it more if McCain hadn’t been hammering “experience” all the livelong day. As was pointed out on the Colbert Report, the only one of the four candidates for VP/POTUS with any executive experience is therefore Palin. And she should run with Romney as her VP.
   
   Saying her experience is “superior” to Obama’s is simply nonsense – it is different. She ran a state briefly (and ran a town with less influence than some school boards), and he worked at the national level as a Senator.
   
   One analysis I read a while ago said one of the main reasons governors often do well aiming at the White House is because they don’t have to compromise to get the job done, which is exactly the job of a Senator - to get laws passed, you have to work with your colleagues, e.g., Kennedy and Hatch, and McCain and Feingold. The analysis suggested that if you are a Senator who wants to be President, run your first term, or they’ll hammer you on your “flip-flops” the way they did Kerry and will probably do McCain as well (though McCain’s are getting REALLY blatant lately!).

5. 

   Herbabee said, about 1 year ago

   Well, come to think of it - beauty contests can be purty political…

   (smirk)

6. 

   ConservativeBob said, about 1 year ago

   “Give ME a break.
   She was the governor of a few thousand people and half of those are polar bears and moose.”

   670,000 plus people is not “a few” and the fact that you are discounting an entire state shows how much the liberals really care about the common people.

   “Obama was the senator of a state that includes the nation’s third largest city.”

   Let’s just ignore that Obama became a senator of Illinois by default and that being a senator has absolutely nothing to do with running a city (like you are trying to paint him with Chicago) and you could possibly have a point.

7. 

   Alexus_The_Great said, about 1 year ago

   She is governor of a state with less population than a mid size city… no experience whatsoever to make international decisions and solve the american disaster.

8. 

   ConservativeBob said, about 1 year ago

   “She is governor of a state with less population than a mid size city… no experience whatsoever to make international decisions and solve the american disaster.”

   Obama has not been in charge of anything so how does he have the experience to make international decisions? Your arguements against Palin are the same that could be made for Obama yet Palin is only running for VP not POTUS.

   I utterly refuse to call our situation the “American disaster” by the way.

9. 

   Kevin Parker said, about 1 year ago

   Karl Rove is on video ridiculing the idea of Tim Kaine becoming the Dem VP because Kaine had been Gov of Virginia only 3 years and had been mayor of Richmond, a city with about 12 times the population of Wasilla AK– Kaine, he said, was “obviously unqualified to be president.” So they nominate someone with much LESS experience, and she is qualified how?