Hard News: Weekend Warriors
311 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 5 6 7 8 9 … 13 Newer→ Last
-
And would it be out of line that the Demoness Hillary Clinton's womb was working well enough to have one child. Palin is hitting the campaign trail with five, including an infant with DS. Chancellor Angela Merkel is a divorcee, with two adult step-sons from her second marriage. Secretary Rice - single, childless and middle-aged.
Hum... I know how I'd ranks that list, and I'm affraid the pitbull with lippie comes bottom in every catergory. Not even Miss Congeniality for Governor Palin.
-
The only element of her candidacy that suits your thesis is that...
...her nomination was the highlight of a convention that ABC News has credited with a 20% shift from Obama to McCain amoung white woman voters.
-
Let's not beat around the Bush. Americans are rallying to Palin because it suits them. It's better than admitting they won't vote for a Black candidate.
-
Anyone want to point out to Angus how he's done a Coulter on his own source.
-
...her nomination was the highlight of a convention that ABC News has credited with a 20% shift from Obama to McCain amoung white woman voters.
And far be it for me to query the judgment of the sisterhood but as VP, she's still less experienced than Kerry Prendergast and I'd not vote for her either.
Angus, if your argument is that Palin's popular, I'll not disagree. If you however, argue that her candidacy represents a high point for feminism then I do. She's not a credible candidate, and her gender doesn't change that.
-
Anyone want to point out to Angus how he's done a Coulter on his own source.
It'll sound better coming from you, much less ambiguity.
-
Angus, if your argument is that Palin's popular, I'll not disagree. If you however, argue that her candidacy represents a high point for feminism then I do. She's not a credible candidate, and her gender doesn't change that.
Actually Paul I think you'll find that popularity is the defining characteristic of a candidate's credibility.
-
Angus:
You might want to be clear about the difference between an approval rating and a voting intention.
-
Actually Paul I think you'll find that popularity is the defining characteristic of a candidate's credibility.
I've lived in Australia for six years, five of which were under a Howard government; I hardly ever met anyone who said they voted for Howard 'cause they liked him. And, despite my affection for Helen, I suspect she won the last election not solely because of her popularity.
I'd not conflate your views with those of the electorate (and if you're going for glib, you're really going to have to do better than this.)
-
Craig,
Pretty sure voter preference and voting intention mean the same thing. Approval ratings are listed under positive image ratings later in the article and all candidates poll favourably.
-
Paul,
Excuse me, I conflated my view that Palin asks uncomfortable questions for feminists by using a nationwide survey that shows Palin (who has non-progressive views on a wide range of subjects) polls well amoung a group that the feminist movement claims to be supporting. I do apologise that might be incorrect. It could well be that it is the other viiews that Palin holds that attract these women voters and any feminist movement ideals are irrelevent to the decision making. Feminist ideals might not be under question, they might be irrelevent or perhaps these so-called feminists might not be feminists at all but merely political hack Democrats. Possibilities abound.
Besides which, Palin's complete and utter lack of experience negates your argument. If she had half the experience of any of the other candidates, you might have had a point, but she doesn't - she was selected last minute, is grossly under-qualified and appears to be entirely unsuited to a job that requires judgment and discretion.
Well apart from having experience similar to Obama, she was vetted back in May, has governed a state with 15,000 employees and has shown judgement enough to run a victorious election campaign against the wishes of the old guard Alaskan GOP.
I'd not conflate your ideas with the electorate - polling indicates variance.
-
these so-called feminists might not be feminists at all
Sigh. Y'know... oh, never mind.
-
Well apart from having experience similar to Obama, she was vetted back in May, has governed a state with 15,000 employees and has shown judgement enough to run a victorious election campaign against the wishes of the old guard Alaskan GOP.
Haven't we been over this time and time again..even the guy who vetted her admitted (to CBS I think) that he'd not done the job fully.
And really the left is saying inexperience but so many of the right are also apalled, once you get beyond the rah-rah ewessay ewessay ewessay front:
David Frum (as linked here before):
Ms. Palin's experience in government makes Barack Obama look like George C. Marshall. She served two terms on the city council of Wasilla, Alaska, population 9,000. She served two terms as mayor. In November, 2006, she was elected governor of the state, a job she has held for a little more than 18 months. She has zero foreign policy experience, and no record on national security issues.
The NYPD has 40,000 employees and I'm doubting that the Chief of Police reasonably sees himself as VP material.
When she can win a brutal campaign lasting eighteen months against the toughest political machine in the world to get the nomination, then she has experience. Until then, she's a woman who won an internal fracas in a staunchly, but very very small GOP state.
What does interest me is the polling coming through right now. If you exclude that USA Today poll, which looks like a huge aberration, then the GOP didn't get the convention bounce that the Dems got, or anything close. McCain is statisically even with Obama and expected to fall as the bounce he did get wears off. I expected the GOP to be around the +4 average.
Happily, I'm feeling a tad more positive than I was last night.
-
Excuse me, I conflated my view that Palin asks uncomfortable questions for feminists by using a nationwide survey that shows Palin (who has non-progressive views on a wide range of subjects) polls well amoung a group that the feminist movement claims to be supporting. I do apologise that might be incorrect.
How do you figure this? She's popular amongst a group of women, I get that from the story, but how do you manage the next bit of logic? Who claims? I guess if you assume all feminists have essentially the same, presumably narrow, set of views you can make that pretty crude syllogism but it's very shaky. Perhaps you could test it by checking any of the many feminist groups and commentator that don't agree. Perhaps start with this piece by Dahlia Lithwick.
Well apart from having experience similar to Obama,
Look Angus, this has been thoroughly canvassed by others. I understand that there's questions about Obama's experience, he's not as experienced as recent Presidential candidates... accept more so that George W and has experience comparable with Clinton (according to Clinton but what he'd know hey). Is he more experienced that Palin? In my opinion, yes. And there's lots and lots of reasons for this which I think are fair and reasonable and you don't... but this;
has governed a state with 15,000 employees and has shown judgement enough to run a victorious election campaign against the wishes of the old guard Alaskan GOP
is just ridiculous... you must have thought Cheney grossly over-qualified then? Christ Quayle too.
Angus, I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you believe what you're saying, but even so, I don't see the point in continuing this discussion.
-
Sigh. Y'know... oh, never mind.
I feel your pain.
-
Pretty sure voter preference and voting intention mean the same thing.
No, Angus, they're not - something you might have picked up if you'd bother reading the whole story you linked to. To clear up a little ambiguity, "to Coulter" is to link to (or footnote in that old media know as a book) to a source you proceed to thoroughly distort, misrepresent or downright bullshit about in your primary argument.
Still, don't despair. Your statistical illiteracy suggests you have a bright future ahead of you in the media, politics or public relations.
-
...her nomination was the highlight of a convention that ABC News has credited with a 20% shift from Obama to McCain amoung white woman voters.
It doesn't look to be quite that simple:
The ABC News finding that Sarah Palin dramatically upped John McCain's support among white women is one I'm not entirely convinced by, mostly because other polling by the same agency shows Sarah Palin performing worse among women than she does among men. One needs to remember that the margins of error are much higher for subsamples of the data than for the poll as a whole. That's why I generally don't spend a lot of time focusing on the demographics in individual polls. If a poll is breaking out six or eight different demographic groups, and the margins of error on these subsamples are 6 or 8 or 10 or 12 points, then odds are that something is going to be out of alignment merely due to chance alone.
-
Craig,
Page 8 of the pdf file of the survey, under the title Groups/Vote the authors directly equates voter preference to support for a candidate. The 538 site Simon links to also interprets voter preference listed in the survey as support.
-
Simon,
Good point, statistical sample looks too low.
-
Danielle,
Sigh. Y'know... oh, never mind.
Y'know I don't know, right.
Shutting up about feminists now - probably a good thing. Spent a few hours googling the subject last night and the debate as to what is feminism is wide. Much wider than represented by talking heads in politics.
-
Spent a few hours googling the subject last night and the debate as to what is feminism is wide.
It's a very, very broad church.
-
The credibility of Palin is a very partisan issue. This makes her credible enough for the purposes of an election. I'd suggest it wiser to concede the question of credibility.
1. People who identify with her will feel an implication they themselves lack credibility in your eyes.
2. The credibilty of her experience is a dangerous issue as she is not the one running for president. Raise enough awareness of experience issues and you are effectively campaigning for McCain.
3. Focus on a highly partisan issue like this will be detrimental to any campaign running on a meme of hope and change for a better more united future. Partisan politics is politics as usual.
Anything that deflects attention away from the economy, health care and society assists the Republicans. Unless you are absolutely positive that Barack Obama will win a contest with John McCain on the basis of credibity and experience STFU about Palin's lack of experience.
-
Paul,
Is he more experienced that Palin? In my opinion, yes. And there's lots and lots of reasons for this which I think are fair and reasonable and you don't...
That debate comes down to deciding between community organiser or small town mayor; leading a nomination campaign or governing a state with 15,000 employees; membership of a Senate committee or proximity to Siberia.
Just be alert to the fact that raising public awareness of experience will raise public awareness of experience, leading to the same comparison Obama to McCain. I never thought that was a comparison even the most true believing Obama supporter really wants to be made. But apparently I was wrong because every part of the left-o-sphere is raising questions about the credibility of Palin.
-
To the extent that your points relate to anything I've said, consider the following:
The credibility of Palin is a very partisan issue.
It might have partisan protagonists but I don't see how, by any measure, she's anything close to being credible - particularly if those measures include qualifications or experience.
Accept insofar as she's reflective of a significant group within the electorate, she's patently not credible. But if you think popularity is sufficient, just say so plainly rather than claiming popularity denotes capability.
1. People who identify with her will feel an implication they themselves lack credibility in your eyes.
Well, perhaps you're right but let me be clear about which "group" that is. It's not the life members of the NRA, or the people who're pro-choice or even those who're evangelical Christians; I'd probably not vote for people who fit this description, but I'd not argue they're necessarily inexperienced.
It's none of these matters that render her unsuitable in my mind. It's the fact that she's got no foreign policy experience, minimal experience governing a tiny town/state and that she appears to have misused her powers to settle personal scores.
2. The credibilty of her experience is a dangerous issue as she is not the one running for president. Raise enough awareness of experience issues and you are effectively campaigning for McCain.
This may also be true. But to date, McCain's experience suggests he'd make most of the same errors Bush did whereas Obama appears to be approaching matters in a more realistic and less confrontational way. If only in foreign policy, McCain's approach seems certain to extend current hostilities into Iran whereas Obama's is much less likely too. Of course this is crystal ball gazing but I was impressed by this analysis of Obama's comment that he'd meet Ahmadinejad by Fred Kaplan and particularly by this passage:
The remark did violate an article in the playbook of Cold War diplomacy: that a presidential visit is special, something that the recipient of the visit values above all else and therefore needs to earn; that success must be virtually guaranteed before such a high-stakes trip is taken; and that, therefore, before such a hallowed event can be scheduled, the grunts need to complete all the "spade work," leaving little for the presidents to do beyond signing on the dotted line.
But here's a fact of our times (and Obama seems to have a grip on this, perhaps because he's not so immersed in the diplomatic subculture): A presidential visit is not the cherished commodity that it once was, because the United States is no longer the superpower that it used to be.
(emphasis added). Yes, I do realise that Kaplan's analysis talks-up the advantages of not being an establishment candidate, but again there's a difference between being outside the orthodoxy and being stupid and ignorant.
Finally you say that:
Anything that deflects attention away from the economy, health care and society assists the Republicans. Unless you are absolutely positive that Barack Obama will win a contest with John McCain on the basis of credibity and experience STFU about Palin's lack of experience.
Again, I don't disagree and this appears to be what the Obama/Biden camp are now doing but do you really think that the US electorate wonder about McCain's longevity and therefore pay close attention to the VP?
-
I never thought that was a comparison even the most true believing Obama supporter really wants to be made. But apparently I was wrong because every part of the left-o-sphere is raising questions about the credibility of Palin.
Yes you are wrong.
I don't think it's a matter of great import to most Obama voters. Its more about vision forward versus grasping at the past.
McCain offers a kind of nostalgia which he hopes that Americans, scared by 9/11, oil rises and an economic uncertainty will buy. Hence the slogans, the war hero stuff and the drill drill drill themes. It's as much fear based as anything. He's an aging cold war warrior for a time passed which many Americans want to hang on to. This is a frightened and divided country.
The word experience is better replaced by something else. By your definition, she'd make good White House Chief of Staff..not president. Does Palin have a grasp on the world beyond Alaska..she herself has said she's not paid much attention to it. Obama quite clearly does and has vastly more credibility there.
And I'd argue has more credibility than McCain. On Georgia it was McCain who blustered hot without consideration. Obama was more measured. Americans lapped up the warrior talk but on reflection it was exactly the wrong way for a president to respond. McCain is the one on film, incredibly, singing Bomb Bomb Bomb Iran. Obama's more credible on Iraq, from 2001 onwards, with even Bush now buying into the 2010 schedule vis-a-vis McCain's war without end.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.