Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I think a more appropriate phrase would be that she doesn't have the intestinal (or intellectual?) fortitude to run America if need be.
I mean, she can't even handle TV interviews and the McCain camp now wants her to not participate in a VP debate.
it's bad when you pick a VP to run with you and you are too ashamed to have her debate for fear her ignorance will show..then you yourself run too... mccain and palin fear obama and with good reason..
Close your eyes for a moment and imagine what the Republican nominee for VP would mean to you if he was a male with the same record as Mrs. Palin. It paints a very different picture doesn’t it? Suddenly it doesn’t feel like change at all but just more of the same. Suddenly you’re forced to think about what the Governor’s positions on topics really mean- important topics like the soaring costs of; health care, gas, and college tuition. Does this guy even believe in a woman’s right to choose?! The national debt, you remember, still seems outrageous and you wonder what this upstart could or would do about it if the office of President befell him. Then you might wonder, is this guy really qualified, why’d McCain pick him anyway? The issues that face Alaska aren’t anything like the issues that face me or my family!
I’ve heard a lot about discrimination with regards to the Governor of Alaska lately but if you can’t visualize a man garnering even half as much of your attention then who’s the one discriminating?
If Obama was white he would still be the best choice available for people who want to move beyond the Bush and Clinton years - moving forward rather than backward.
If Obama was white he would still be the best choice available for people who want to move beyond the Bush and Clinton years - moving forward rather than backward.
Empty boilerplate.
He wouldn't even have been nominated. And you know it.
He wouldn't even have been nominated. And you know it.
You're probably right, but so am I.
Obama is black (or half-black, whatever) and likely still wouldn't have won the nomination if - oh, I don't know - Hillary hadn't been arrogant and acted like she had the nomination in the bag before it was, only to cower in a corner and cry sexism when she didn't get what she thought she was entitled to. Bottom line - nobody is to blame for Hillary losing the nomination but Hillary.
The Republicans are still pining for the Reagan years (of which many see Bush as an extension of, which is an insult to Reagan) and the Democrats are still trying to relive the Clinton years.
Your right. No one would care nearly as much. We have a wierd society like that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grizzmeister
Close your eyes for a moment and imagine what the Republican nominee for VP would mean to you if he was a male with the same record as Mrs. Palin. It paints a very different picture doesn’t it? Suddenly it doesn’t feel like change at all but just more of the same. Suddenly you’re forced to think about what the Governor’s positions on topics really mean- important topics like the soaring costs of; health care, gas, and college tuition. Does this guy even believe in a woman’s right to choose?! The national debt, you remember, still seems outrageous and you wonder what this upstart could or would do about it if the office of President befell him. Then you might wonder, is this guy really qualified, why’d McCain pick him anyway? The issues that face Alaska aren’t anything like the issues that face me or my family!
I’ve heard a lot about discrimination with regards to the Governor of Alaska lately but if you can’t visualize a man garnering even half as much of your attention then who’s the one discriminating?
Obama is black (or half-black, whatever) and likely still wouldn't have won the nomination if - oh, I don't know - Hillary hadn't been arrogant and acted like she had the nomination in the bag before it was, only to cower in a corner and cry sexism when she didn't get what she thought she was entitled to. Bottom line - nobody is to blame for Hillary losing the nomination but Hillary.
The Republicans are still pining for the Reagan years (of which many see Bush as an extension of, which is an insult to Reagan) and the Democrats are still trying to relive the Clinton years.
It's time to leave the past in the past.
Soon Obama will be in the past, as well. The real question is how he will be remembered: as a qualified candidate ready to lead, or as an affirmative action POTUS.
We all hope for the former, of course. But denying the latter possibility is as indicative of naivete as the unquestioning support of Palin which the OP identified.
Soon Obama will be in the past, as well. The real question is how he will be remembered: as a qualified candidate ready to lead, or as an affirmative action POTUS.
The question is whether "soon" will be in two months or 4-8 years from now.
Hillary seemed to think she was owed the nomination because A) she had been First Lady and B) she was, well, a lady. And when the going got tough, she played the gender card, saying she wasn't allowed in the "boys' club."
She bounced a slam dunk of a primary off the rim. And the best the Dems had other than Hillary was Barack Obama.
Conversely, the best thing the Republicans have is basically four more years of Bush policies. We know how that's worked out.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.