The Columbus Dispatcharticle on John McCain’s announcement yesterday that he had selected Alaska Governor Sarah Palin for his vice presidential running mate contained this about the reaction of a campaign spokesperson for the Democratic presidential nominee, Senator Barack Obama:
The Obama campaign criticized Palin as too conservative on issues such as abortion and argued that she would not be fit to assume the presidency.
Obama spokesman Bill Burton said that McCain was willing to put “the former mayor of a town of 9,000 with zero foreign-policy experience a heartbeat away from the presidency.”
Someone in the Obama campaign had better tell Bill Burton to clam up on “the experience issue.” Palin has served in elective office longer than the Illinois senator and for most of that time, since she was elected mayor in 1992, has been as what the political scientists call an “administrative decision maker.” Obama has no such experience. Nor does his running mate, Senator Joseph Biden.
Palin is lacking in foreign policy experience. So is Obama.
There may be plenty of reasons for the Obama campaign to go after Governor Palin. But it would be best for them not to mention experience, the Illinois senator’s lack of which is a major concern of American voters.
Now why would anyone in the DNC want to give the advantage to Obama over Clinton?
Oh, I don't know, ask McSame and his buddies…lol..
Or just keep an eye on Obama's falling poll-status between now and November.
The time to vet your candidates is before the General Election starts democrats….not after…
So simple a child could put it together. But sometimes the obvious are the details we are most blind to..
Falling poll status, Silhouette? Where are you seeing this?
Silhouette, I don't claim to be an expert on Florida, but I can assure you, Michigan was not anywhere near being in the bag for either H or O. In fact, I was definitely in favor of redoing the primary, as it would have eliminated any arguments that could have been made about hypothetical results, conspiracies, etc. Regarding my use of the word “obsession”: Apologies if it seemed “denigrating to the truth”, I suppose I get a little tired of the “Hillary was robbed” mantra when I don't see any compelling evidence for it. As I've said before, had she emerged as the D candidate, I would have proudly voted for her.
I know, that's just the thing. With her as a the nominee nearly everyone would've “proudly” voted for her.
Not so much with Obama. Instead the adverb is “reluctantly”.
“I know, that's just the thing. With her as a the nominee nearly everyone would've “proudly” voted for her.”
Who is “nearly everyone?” Clinton's negatives are incredibly high. It also assumes that the RNC was going to continue the “we love Hillary” line if she were the nominee. LOL! Plus this really contradicts your point about the DNC rigging the process against her. You really think the DNC saw some kind of polling data showing Clinton winning in a cakewalk and said OH boy, we can't have that?
BTW: perhaps I might of incredibly reluctantly voted for her, BUT the United States isn't supposed to be a monarchy. People who act like they own the Presidency and rules don't apply to them really make my lilly white skin crawl. My sixteen year old daughter will for the first time in her life actually see an election without a Clinton or a Bush participating. I find that is something to celebrate. Also, my husband who is a life long Republican is going to vote for Obama, he said he wouldn't have been able to do so if Hillary was VP.
George, yeah, I know Whitman's pro-choice stands disqualified her but I would hate to be making the case to Hillary supporters that said “we picked the less experienced woman because she wants to force pregnant rape victims to bear the rapist's child.”
That being said, a “dumped wives for Obama” does have certain je ne sais quos no?
Kathryn–
I'm totally in favor of “Dumped First Wives for Obama”!!!