The Moderate Voice - Latest Comments in Obama Campaign Spokesperson: Palin Inexperienced…Huh?

Re: Obama Campaign Spokesperson: Palin Inexperienced…Huh?

GeorgeSorwell — Sat, 30 Aug 2008 23:00:45 -0000

Kathryn--

I'm totally in favor of "Dumped First Wives for Obama"!!!

Re: Obama Campaign Spokesperson: Palin Inexperienced…Huh?

Kathryn — Sat, 30 Aug 2008 17:34:32 -0000

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?

Re: Obama Campaign Spokesperson: Palin Inexperienced…Huh?

Kathryn — Sat, 30 Aug 2008 17:26:45 -0000

"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.

Re: Obama Campaign Spokesperson: Palin Inexperienced…Huh?

Silhouette — Sat, 30 Aug 2008 16:50:17 -0000

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".

Re: Obama Campaign Spokesperson: Palin Inexperienced…Huh?

JSpencer — Sat, 30 Aug 2008 15:28:55 -0000

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.

Re: Obama Campaign Spokesperson: Palin Inexperienced…Huh?

Guest — Sat, 30 Aug 2008 15:20:49 -0000

Falling poll status, Silhouette? Where are you seeing this?

Re: Obama Campaign Spokesperson: Palin Inexperienced…Huh?

Silhouette — Sat, 30 Aug 2008 14:25:15 -0000

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..

Re: Obama Campaign Spokesperson: Palin Inexperienced…Huh?

ChrisWWW — Sat, 30 Aug 2008 14:22:08 -0000

The actual polling showed that Clinton would have won Florida and that she would have tied Obama in Michigan.
http://www.politicalbase.co...

She would not have won the delegate race either way.

================
Sil,
And in 2007 when she said they shouldn't count, was she lying or joking?

Re: Obama Campaign Spokesperson: Palin Inexperienced…Huh?

Silhouette — Sat, 30 Aug 2008 14:17:27 -0000

Here's the NPR interview with Clinton about the matter dated March 13, 2008:

*******
· Hillary Clinton says the results of Michigan's Democratic presidential primary should count, even if Barack Obama's name did not appear on the ballot.

"That was his choice," she says in an interview with Steve Inskeep. "There was no rule or requirement that he take his name off the ballot. His supporters ran a very aggressive campaign to try to get people to vote uncommitted."

The states of Florida and Michigan were stripped of their delegates when they defied the rules of the national Democratic Party and moved up the date of their primaries. Clinton remained on the ballot in both states, while Obama stayed on only the Florida ballot.

Neither candidate was supposed to campaign, in accordance with the Democratic National Party's wishes.

Clinton tells Inskeep that the Michigan and Florida pledged delegates should count because both are seen as key battleground states in the general election.

But if the national party does not agree, she says, the states should re-do the primaries.

"If there is to be any difference between my proposal that we count these votes and any other course of action, it should be a complete re-do of the primary and nothing else is fair," she says.
********

http://www.npr.org/template...

So words were twisted...Clinton wanted a re-do of FLA and Michigan. Not to throw them out...

Some really hard-core conspiracy theorists believe that FLA and MIch officials may have even been coerced to start their campaigns too-early...thus ultimately giving the advantage to Obama...which was a known equation before the primaries, like I assert staunchly.

Nah, stuff like that never happens in politics....right?

Re: Obama Campaign Spokesperson: Palin Inexperienced…Huh?

Ricorun — Sat, 30 Aug 2008 14:14:37 -0000

People knew....they'd done polling....

And before the polling the rules were established. People knew about them, too. And all the candidates accepted them. Had the rules been different the strategies of the campaigns would have been different -- and they would have affected the polling. You need to start the argument at the beginning, Sil, not in the middle -- or the end.

Re: Obama Campaign Spokesperson: Palin Inexperienced…Huh?

Silhouette — Sat, 30 Aug 2008 14:05:47 -0000

People knew....they'd done polling....the DNC knew it would be Clinton in Michigan..and Florida...

Don't kid yourself. And no, we shouldn't move on just yet. And no, getting to the truth cannot be denigrated by labelling the quest for it "obsessive". Nice try though ; )

Re: Obama Campaign Spokesperson: Palin Inexperienced…Huh?

JSpencer — Sat, 30 Aug 2008 13:55:58 -0000

I'm a lifelong Michigan resident, and as much as anyone I feel cheated by not getting to take part in a legitimate primary. The one we had was completely, utterly, unequivically BOGUS. That said, there is no reliable way of predicting who would have won if BOTH major candidates had been on the ballot, which is to say there is no (zero) FAIR way that "primary" could ever be counted. In any case, I don't think it's inappropriate to suggest it may be high time to move beyond the obsession.

Re: Obama Campaign Spokesperson: Palin Inexperienced…Huh?

ChrisWWW — Sat, 30 Aug 2008 13:52:32 -0000

No, they knew what they were doing.

And so did Clinton when she agreed they wouldn't count. You always seem to conveniently ignore that. You're very hard to take seriously.

Re: Obama Campaign Spokesperson: Palin Inexperienced…Huh?

Silhouette — Sat, 30 Aug 2008 13:48:06 -0000

********

This is what they call in the "business" "cutting off one's nose to spite one's face".

The DNC knew full-well what the consequences of denying those votes from those two states meant...and they knew of other avenues to sanction them besides handing the advantage to Obama. They could've, for instance, sanctioned FLA and Mich in the next presidential campaign to have their primaries dead last.

No, they knew what they were doing.

And now it's plain for all to see.

The DNC passed over Hillary specifically, deliberatly and with cause. Though what the cause exactly is remains open to some speculation.

Re: Obama Campaign Spokesperson: Palin Inexperienced…Huh?

JSpencer — Sat, 30 Aug 2008 13:16:51 -0000

1.) Palin was picked as a reaction, as a strategy, she was not chosen for her own merits and abilities, but for her sex and ideology.

2.) Mayor of a town of 9000? 9000?? Hello!!! Wake up and smell the reality folks! That's a TINY town!!! Hello??? Is anyone listening?

3.) I agree with those who see the Palin pick as condescending toward women. Perhaps the word "insulting" is more accurate.

Re: Obama Campaign Spokesperson: Palin Inexperienced…Huh?

Kathryn — Sat, 30 Aug 2008 13:08:17 -0000

"The DNC passed over Clinton"
This is wrong on majy levels: Yes, I know all about the "travesty" of Michigan and Florida. However, no one forced them to break the rules and they knew what the consequences would be when they broke them. Also,
1) It assumes no one in Michigan would have voted for Obama had his name been on the ticket. I would really like to see the polling information that would indicate the race still would have been as lop - sided with everyone on the ballot.
2) Hillary initially agreed with the punishment of Michigan and Florida because thought they wouldn't matter. She could have spoken up about the rules when the decision to punish was being made, it might have made a difference then but it was her choice not to.
3) Hillary was too indecisive about Iowa, first she wasn't going to campaign there but then she panicked and changed her mind after both Edwards and Obama had set up impressive machines. She should have either stayed out like McCain who wasn't too hurt by his finish or gone in early so she wouldn't be at such a disadvantage. Had she done so, either Obama's win wouldn't have counted for as much or she would have had unstoppable momentum and Michigan and Florida wouldn't have mattered.
4)She allocated her resources poorly. She gambled everything on Super Tuesday. Again, had she had something left over afterward, Michigan and Florida wouldn't have mattered.

In sum, yes we can argue over Michigan and Florida forever and I really hate having to bring them up again, but they were in play because of Hillary's miscalculations, not because the DNC hates women.

Yes, Obama passed over Hillary for VP, but I think the Bill factor was far more important. Sillhoutte admits the Clinton presidency was a co-Presidency. I think Obama was rightly concerned about dealing with co-VP's who thought they should be President and would spend more time trying to undermine him than anything else. You can agree or disagree on whether that was the wrong decision but to scream sexism at people who are uncomfortable with the idea of a co-Presidency or Vice Presidency is offensive.

Re: Obama Campaign Spokesperson: Palin Inexperienced…Huh?

ChrisWWW — Sat, 30 Aug 2008 13:02:44 -0000

Palin has no foreign policy experience, but neither does Obama

This is serious 2+2=5 stuff right here.

Re: Obama Campaign Spokesperson: Palin Inexperienced…Huh?

DLS — Sat, 30 Aug 2008 12:58:20 -0000

Some of us already have Been There, Dispensed With That piece of garbage from the Obama campaign already. Palin, the #2 GOP candidate (not to mention the obvious case with the #1 GOP candidate), has more executive experience, that which most counts, than Obama, the Dem #1 (presidential) candidate, who has _zero_ such experience and has claimed (previously, at least) this to be an asset rather than a liability. Palin has no foreign policy experience, but neither does Obama, who chose Biden in large part to correct for this lack of such experience (which McCain has already and which isn't an issue at all with the GOP, which has plenty of the right kind of experience as well as the right foreign policy strategy).

Fortunately for Obama and his campaign, Obama himself followed the idiocy by his PR guy by saying the right things, first that Palin is a good choice (hopefully not "too" good, he added, laughing; Obama still wants to win, after all) and second and even better, that sometimes his campaign (idiot-child staff) is "on a hair trigger," even when "it shouldn't be." The Obama campaign was stupid, but thankfully its boss is smart.

Re: Obama Campaign Spokesperson: Palin Inexperienced…Huh?

Ricorun — Sat, 30 Aug 2008 12:50:47 -0000

Jillmz mentioned on the thread of her recent topic that she just read that McCain's campaign is headed to AK to investigate the "troopergate" investigation. If that's true, that's pathetic. You would think they at least had that base covered. My goodness.

Re: Obama Campaign Spokesperson: Palin Inexperienced…Huh?

mikkel — Sat, 30 Aug 2008 12:50:21 -0000

Palin said that she heard about the surge "on the news."

Obama developed a comprehensive withdrawal plan that was adopted nearly completely by the Iraqi government and that the Bush administration eventually accepted.

There is no way that would have happened if Obama hadn't repeatedly brought it up (and it looked like he was probably going to win). So yes, he has a lack of "foreign policy experience" ...except you know, developing the actual strategy that has been accepted by the major players.

Re: Obama Campaign Spokesperson: Palin Inexperienced…Huh?

Ricorun — Sat, 30 Aug 2008 12:48:10 -0000

How do you know my values and political ideology don't include knowledge of Obama as unfit for office, and promotion of a woman over a less qualified man as important to me?

You'd have a tad more credibility if you had phrased your intent thusly: "promotion of a more qualified person over a less qualified one." Also, who are you comparing? Is it Obama and Clinton or Obama/Biden and McCain/Palin?

Re: Obama Campaign Spokesperson: Palin Inexperienced…Huh?

ChrisWWW — Sat, 30 Aug 2008 12:47:20 -0000

George,
I'm calm.

I just don't know how you can take the McCain campaign seriously when you think logically about this pick. McCain can't possibly think that Palin is qualified to be president at a moment's notice. Hell, he's only met the woman three times, and the first couple of times he talked with her, it was for less than 15 minutes each time. He doesn't even know her, and yet he expects the rest of us to trust her with the keys to the family car.

Her pick is nothing but a political calculation or gamble. That alone should disqualify him from being president in the eyes of most of the country. It's depressing to even fathom that McCain's reckless decision making could help him win the election.

Re: Obama Campaign Spokesperson: Palin Inexperienced…Huh?

GeorgeSorwell — Sat, 30 Aug 2008 12:34:11 -0000

Chris--
James Fallows thinks that Palin, as a matter of strategy, is more like Clarence Thomas than Dan Quayle.

Maybe so, maybe not. But if so, she would neutralize some portion of the ability to complain about her.

Time alone will tell. Ferraro turned out to be a poor choice, because she was poorly vetted. Palin may be the same. But she may also be different.

She's not a slam-dunk through Obama's hoop. At least not 24 hours out.

So, seriously--calm down a little.

Silhouette--

OMG!!

The idea that Congress will save us from poor Supreme Court nominees?

You could stand to think things through a little more!!!

Re: Obama Campaign Spokesperson: Palin Inexperienced…Huh?

ChrisWWW — Sat, 30 Aug 2008 12:32:55 -0000

Silhouette,
What's becoming more and more clear Silhouette, is that you don't have a political ideology. You make decisions based on logic or a specific world view. You just don't like Barack Obama.

Everything you've said for the last few months makes perfect sense when seen through that lens.

Re: Obama Campaign Spokesperson: Palin Inexperienced…Huh?

Silhouette — Sat, 30 Aug 2008 12:29:35 -0000

"Silhouette pretends to support Hillary's positions. And yet I'll bet she doesn't lift a finger to ensure that the next President of the United States shares her values and political ideology."

***
ricorun...lol..

How do you know my values and political ideology don't include knowledge of Obama as unfit for office, and promotion of a woman over a less qualified man as important to me?

The abortion issue isnt' as big as people are trying to make it out to be. We will have a Congress which will be in a position to veto or suppress Supreme Court candidates. And even in the worst case scenario if BigOil allowed (which is highly unlikely folks) their mouthpieces (the GOP) to alienate potential millions of voters in four years when Hillary threatens them again , Hillary and a democratic Congress would right that ship in a jiffy. 9 Supreme Court justices are no match for that dream team..

Ahhhh, that dream team...

If only...