Palin's Moment

[vraiblonde]

Originally Posted by Pete

I think you have been seeing a different Palin than me. I think she is up for the job but after the luster has worn off she doesn't exude confidence to me. I hope she does well.

She gave a speech yesterday and sounded terrific.

[The Oyster Guy]

Originally Posted by SamSpade

I disagree, and if you check my posts, I've been talking about her as a possibility since early March - which is why I'm amazed there are journalists about who feign ignorance on the matter, because I'm hardly more in the know than they are.

I'm mystified why a VP pick so bothers so many people. Usually, a VP pick contributes absolutely zero to a ticket. If I mentioned the VP losing ticket, how far back would you have to go before you'd have to pause and think who it was? Humphrey? Goldwater? Wallace? McGovern? Heck, I had to think for a second who Dukakis had, and who Dole had - and I cannot remember for the life of me who Perot's second running mate was. Who the hell cares?

The VP pick is important mostly because it's an indication of the judgment of the presidential candidate. IMO, McCain's selection of Palin was a high stakes gamble - which isn't a behavior I favor in a President.

[This_person]

Originally Posted by The Oyster Guy

Naw. The piece makes Palin out to be a victim, which is not the image one should be promoting if you're seeking national office.

Interesting perspective. I didn't see that in the piece at all. I saw her being made out to be above the media bias, and interested in moving away from all of that crap.

It had the same flavor of Obama saying something like, "Well, no, I'm not a Muslim, though I was raised with Muslim family members and in part in a school that was primarily attended by Muslims. You all in the VRWC want to paint me as a scary Muslim, but I'm also criticized for my Christian pastor, so which is it, Rush? You can keep hyping what isn't true, or we can talk about ______(insert one of his socialist philosophies here)". Would that make him a victim of the crap against him, or someone who was tired of defending baseless charges?

[This_person]

Originally Posted by The Oyster Guy

The VP pick is important mostly because it's an indication of the judgment of the presidential candidate. IMO, McCain's selection of Palin was a high stakes gamble - which isn't a behavior I favor in a President.

What about that pick (a reformer governor with established fiscal conservative practices) is a "high stakes gamble"?

[Pete (Premo)]

Originally Posted by SamSpade

I disagree, and if you check my posts, I've been talking about her as a possibility since early March - which is why I'm amazed there are journalists about who feign ignorance on the matter, because I'm hardly more in the know than they are.

I'm mystified why a VP pick so bothers so many people. Usually, a VP pick contributes absolutely zero to a ticket. If I mentioned the VP losing ticket, how far back would you have to go before you'd have to pause and think who it was? Humphrey? Goldwater? Wallace? McGovern? Heck, I had to think for a second who Dukakis had, and who Dole had - and I cannot remember for the life of me who Perot's second running mate was. Who the hell cares?

I don't think they "help" that much but I believe they can "hurt" a tickets chances.

[Pete (Premo)]

Originally Posted by vraiblonde

She gave a speech yesterday and sounded terrific.

I didn't see it. Granted about all I have seen is the snippets the MSM cherry picks showing her not confident and stammering.

[The Oyster Guy]

Originally Posted by This_person

What about that pick (a reformer governor with established fiscal conservative practices) is a "high stakes gamble"?

Nobody had ever heard of her.

Imagine if Romney were the VP pick: he'd be out in front of the cameras every single day right now, expounding about how he and McCain have the political courage as well as the business acumen to fix Wall Street. And he be more than a match for Biden in the debate. By comparison, the selection of Palin over proven performers was/is proving to be a big gamble.

[This_person]

Originally Posted by The Oyster Guy

Nobody had ever heard of her.

Imagine if Romney were the VP pick: he'd be out in front of the cameras every single day right now, expounding about how he and McCain have the political courage as well as the business acumen to fix Wall Street. And he be more than a match for Biden in the debate. By comparison, the selection of Palin over proven performers was/is proving to be a big gamble.

Actually, a lot of people had heard of her. People have been talking on these forums about her since January, from my recollection. I remember her being discussed in GOP circles since she dissed by Murkowski in 2006.

Not being informed is not the same as her not being out there.

Romney was another presidential candidate. He had baggage, and was undesirable from that point of view. Besides, when was the last time a Republican picked a fellow primary candidate as a running mate? Dems do it a lot, but not Republicans.

[Kerad]

Palin may actually benefit from the low expectations of her performance in this upcoming debate.

At this point, it seems most think Palin might totally bomb on Thursday night. If this is true, all she needs to do is keep from being that dreadful.

If she delivers merely a sub-par performance, everyone will be so impressed they'll count it as a victory. If she actually does well (), the world will sing her praises and the ensuing Palinmania II will knock the Earth of it's axis.


The only way she "loses" is if she really is as horrendous as everyone fears she could be.

[vraiblonde]

Originally Posted by The Oyster Guy

Nobody had ever heard of her.

Maybe you just need to get out more. We've been talking about her on here for quite some time. So just because *you* had never heard of her doesn't mean nobody has.