Commentary from Ed Rollins on Palin as VP...

[Ma'ake]

Originally Posted by Tex

The question you're putting to McCain could be put to the entire Democrat party. ("Experience must not matter much to ya, eh?")

LOL - this is like saying immigration isn't important to Republicans, nor is conservatism (since McCain is viewed warily by cons).

Except that, as I said, Palin is not running for Pres.

In your world does the VP selection only matter for trying to get votes in key areas? Or are there any kind of contingency considerations involved? If that's the case, why wouldn't McCain select Jessica Simpson? Or Robin Williams?

Ah... it turns out people *do* care about the fitness of the VP to serve, if needed.

Personally I think McCain is a hot-headed jerk, but there are very few in the Senate who aren't, Joe Biden included. Making his temper an electoral issue will buy Obama very little.

Obama doesn't need to make it an issue, it will probably come out. Maybe McCain will blow his stack in a debate. Who knows?

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Ma'ake

In your world does the VP selection only matter for trying to get votes in key areas? Or are there any kind of contingency considerations involved? If that's the case, why wouldn't McCain select Jessica Simpson? Or Robin Williams?

Ah... it turns out people *do* care about the fitness of the VP to serve, if needed.

No, it does matter, which is why even some conservatives are concerned with this weakness. I simply don't think it takes the argument "off the table." Palin notwithstanding, Obama is STILL woefully inexperienced for the office. I also think people are underselling Palin's executive experience, but that is a different discussion.

Bottom line: on January 20, 2009, Palin will not be President, if elected. Obama will.

Originally Posted by Ma'ake

Obama doesn't need to make it an issue, it will probably come out. Maybe McCain will blow his stack in a debate. Who knows?

Who knows, indeed. Go lay odds on Intrade.

[Clark Addison]

Originally Posted by Tex

Disagree, for two reasons:

1. Obama is running for Pres. Palin is running for VP.
2. Obama was selected by the entire Democrat party. Palin was selected by one man and his advisors.

For these reasons, I think discussions about her readiness for the presidency will quickly become important or irrelevant based on how she performs. If she handles the press and the stump (and the debate) well, it will be forgotten. If she falters, it will be augmented.

Obama does not get that luxury because he seeks the top office.

On number 1, while the duties of Pres vs. VP are obviously far different, I don't think that the requirements should be, especially when the President in question is a 70+ year old. I'm really not sure whether my viewpoint here is shared by most people, so I'm not certain how this will play.

On number 2, I really think that this is a fine distinction that will not mean much to the average person.

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Obama has served in state or national politics for 10 years, 5 times as long as Palin. You want their experience to be equal, but it just isn't, particularly when she is governor of the 4 smallest state (population wise) to begin with. McCain lost the experience battle today.

Since when has legislative experience been the coin of the realm? She has two years of executive experience which is two more than Obama (or McCain for that matter).

Obama has marginally more experience though I don't rank Senator over Governor nor state legislator over mayor. Go ahead and give Obama the edge on this, but the point that I don't think you addressed is that it is foolish for Dems to be talking experience not because Obama doesn't have the edge over her but because this is not the subject Dems want anyone focused on. It legitimizes the idea that lots of experience is important.

If Obama wins it will be his ideas (or at least the nebulous notion of change) that carry the day, not his experience.

Its lose lose for Dems on this issue. If they didn't say anything, the McCain surrogates would be pointing out that there was silence on the issue because Dems know they are weak on it. Still, if I am the Dems I am saying it is an election of ideas and that while she is an interesting candidate her ideas are wrong for America. Take on her hard line pro-life credentials, for example.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

You guys get so caught up on "executive experience." Since when did "executive experience" become the coin of the realm?

Here's an interesting analysis of this idea. Click on the link to read how he arrived at his conclusions, which are:

It’s kind of striking that 4 of the top 5 [Presidents] had Executive experience (with the obvious, and towering, exception of Abraham Lincoln), while 4 of the bottom 5 did not. In fact, the best presidents have tended to have predominantly Executive experience, and the worst presidents predominantly Legislative experience.

In order to extend this comparison beyond just the top and bottom, I divided all of the ranked presidents into two roughly equally-sized buckets: (1) Have Executive experience (n = 19), and (2) Do not have Executive experience (n = 21). The average ranking for those with Executive experience is 16, and for those without it is 25.

He acknowledges flaws:

Now, there are many obvious problems with concluding form this that we should only choose presidents with Executive experience. Correlation is not causality. The qualifications for president in 1808 were probably different than they are in 2008. This is a ridiculously simplistic definition of experience. And so on. But it sure is suggestive that demonstrated success as the leader (in a “buck stops here” sense) of a large government enterprise tends to be a characteristic of successful presidents. Focusing your career on debating and voting on laws, not so much.

Also, he used a much more neutral standard of what constitutes a good and bad president. Yours seem arbitrary.

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Obama has plenty of experience we can review as a predictive factor.

Don't make me laugh.

[Venkman]

Originally Posted by UtahDan

Since when has legislative experience been the coin of the realm? She has two years of executive experience which is two more than Obama (or McCain for that matter).

Obama has marginally more experience though I don't rank Senator over Governor nor state legislator over mayor. Go ahead and give Obama the edge on this, but the point that I don't think you addressed is that it is foolish for Dems to be talking experience not because Obama doesn't have the edge over her but because this is not the subject Dems want anyone focused on. It legitimizes the idea that lots of experience is important.

If Obama wins it will be his ideas (or at least the nebulous notion of change) that carry the day, not his experience.

Its lose lose for Dems on this issue. If they didn't say anything, the McCain surrogates would be pointing out that there was silence on the issue because Dems know they are weak on it. Still, if I am the Dems I am saying it is an election of ideas and that while she is an interesting candidate her ideas are wrong for America. Take on her hard line pro-life credentials, for example.

Good post

On the experience question: I bet Palin did more in her first month as governor than Obama has done in four years as a senator. Basically, he's done nothing but campaign for president. She, on the other hand has been busy taking on the corrupt good ole boy GOP network of Alaska.

[MikeWaters]

I'll be happy if Palin's nomination as VP causes there to be an abortion debate in this country.

Abortion is the issue no one wants to talk about, so this would be good.

[BarbaraGordon]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

I'll be happy if Palin's nomination as VP causes there to be an abortion debate in this country.

Abortion is the issue no one wants to talk about, so this would be good.

How would it be good? Nothing will come of it.

And Abortion was going to come up anyway, because of Barack's history on the matter. I imagine it's going to get real ugly in about a month.

What we have now is the two farthest opposite ends of the spectrum represented:
Barack, who defended the right to terminate life post-delivery, and Sarah, who is against abortion even in cases of rape and such.

[MikeWaters]

because I think of the moral health of the country, not the political dimension.

let barrack explain himself, let Palin explain herself.

[BarbaraGordon]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

because I think of the moral health of the country, not the political dimension.

let barrack explain himself, let Palin explain herself.

So you're speaking in terms of personal dialogue? That you want individuals to be forced to wrestle with these issues?

Barack doesn't do a stellar job defending his position, perhaps because it's indefensible.