The Debates for '08

[James]

[quote name='Lunox'][font=trebuchet ms]If there is one thing I like about Palin it's that it got so many people intereted in the presidential race again. [/font][/QUOTE]

[font=franklin gothic medium]Also, regardless of her politics, I think it's notable that a mother with a large family has been able to progress so far in such a linear fashion.

I mean, Mayor...Governor...and then potentially Vice President. For those who are interested in politics as a career, I think that it's sort of relieving to think that you can start as a local Mayor and work your way up.

Politically speaking, one thing that Palin does have in her favour (especially as part of the McCain ticket) is her ability to be utterly impartial with members of her own party. There are several examples of her working in an anti-corruption role within the Republican party - and she seems to have no hesitation to upset party members in doing this.

So this is something that could reassure people who assert that the Bush Administration only looks out for its own members, even if they are under some kind of scandal or question.[/font]

[Morpheus]

[quote name='James'][font=franklin gothic medium]So this is something that could reassure people who assert that the Bush Administration only looks out for its own members, even if they are under some kind of scandal or question.[/font][/QUOTE]

Considering that she seems to think that being corrupt herself is perfectly fine I suspect that she'd be willing to cover herself with pardons if her administration screws up.

[Retribution]

[quote name='James'][font=franklin gothic medium]Politically speaking, one thing that Palin does have in her favour (especially as part of the McCain ticket) is her ability to be utterly impartial with members of her own party. There are several examples of her working in an anti-corruption role within the Republican party - and she seems to have no hesitation to upset party members in doing this.[/font][/QUOTE]
[font=Arial]Perhaps, but her [arbitrary?] [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska_Public_Safety_Commissioner_dismissal][b]dismissal of the Public Safety Commissioner[/b][/url] is disturbing and questionable.

To be frank, I would not trust the woman to fight corruption or stand up to detrimental special interests -- this is the same woman who championed the "Bridge to Nowhere" and later tried to play down her involvement. Let's not make her out to be a bastion of integrity and prudent judgment.[/font]

[Mr. Blonde]

I think all of this Palin nonsense can be sumed up like this: She's a tool, and a gimic for McCain to attract disgruntled Hillary voters; nothing more.


"You betcha'."

[url]http://uglyrepublicans.com/republicans/United-States/Sarah-Palin/[/url]

listen to the phone call, hilarious

[James]

[quote name='Retribution'][font=Arial]Perhaps, but her [arbitrary?] [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska_Public_Safety_Commissioner_dismissal][b]dismissal of the Public Safety Commissioner[/b][/url] is disturbing and questionable.

To be frank, I would not trust the woman to fight corruption or stand up to detrimental special interests -- this is the same woman who championed the "Bridge to Nowhere" and later tried to play down her involvement. Let's not make her out to be a bastion of integrity and prudent judgment.[/font][/QUOTE]

[font=franklin gothic medium]I'm not going to get into a back and forth about this (although I've read into Palin's career prior to your link - and I just read most of your link).

I think there are a few points to make.

First, I understand the polarization going on here. It's evidenced throughout this thread and across the Internet. Those who are pro-Obama are visciously anti-McCain/Palin and those who are pro-McCain are visciously anti-Obama/Biden.

And as a result a lot of mud goes flying through the air, some of it justified and some not.

I do think that each candidate has had issues in their past that could be considered either questionable or, at worst, mistakes. I can point to many of these with the Obama/Biden camp as well.

However, I think that it's important to remain balanced. You pointed to one instance here - and the instance you pointed to certainly doesn't involve Palin being "corrupt" (that's a very serious charge).

Yet you clearly haven't pointed out the instances where Palin has very obviously gone against her party in the interests of fighting said corruption.

Also, just as a matter of principle...it's not really fair to take issues like these and then use that as a blanket judgment of a person's character. I don't really see that as justifiable. I mean, you could look at situations where politicians "flip flop" and then somehow say that defines a core element of them as a person, when that isn't really reasonable (or even pragmatic).

Anyone can point to negatives with each candidate, or choices they disagree with. But that is hardly the point here. The point I was making earlier still stands - especially as far as expressing [i]why[/i] Palin may be valuable to Republicans. A lot of it is about perception; it's worth remembering that.[/font]

[quote]I think all of this Palin nonsense can be sumed up like this: She's a tool, and a gimic for McCain to attract disgruntled Hillary voters; nothing more. [/quote]

[font=franklin gothic medium]That doesn't even make sense. And it insults women.

People who assume that disgruntled Hillary voters will automatically turn to Palin just because she's a woman are suggesting that female voters don't have any intelligence or strongly held views on issues.

Palin and Hillary are ideologically opposed in most areas. I doubt any informed woman would vote for Palin just because of her gender.

Also as a general note (not to you, but just overall), I may not necessarily want to vote for Palin...but I see no need to insult her character. The amount of personal attacks I've seen in the media especially are kind of surprising - and it mostly seems okay "because she's a woman". The same was true about Hillary.

There seems to be little real policy discussion and a lot of discussion about how people talk or whatever. Makes no sense to me. [/font]

[Retribution]

[quote name='James'][font=franklin gothic medium]First, I understand the polarization going on here. It's evidenced throughout this thread and across the Internet. Those who are pro-Obama are visciously anti-McCain/Palin and those who are pro-McCain are visciously anti-Obama/Biden.

[...]

Yet you clearly haven't pointed out the instances where Palin has very obviously gone against her party in the interests of fighting said corruption.

Anyone can point to negatives with each candidate, or choices they disagree with. But that is hardly the point here. The point I was making earlier still stands - especially as far as expressing [i]why[/i] Palin may be valuable to Republicans. A lot of it is about perception; it's worth remembering that.[/font][/QUOTE]
[font=Arial]Palin is valuable to Republicans, and you're right, much of that is due to perception. Indeed, there is little [i]actual[/i] value to be found in Palin aside from her being a woman, and her being a political newcomer in this election cycle.

Of course there's polarization, but most of it is due to diametric opposition to Republican initiatives/philosophy. But at the same time I think you should reconsider your belief that Palin is some political "maverick" willing to fundamentally shake up the Washington scene. I doubt she would have the competence to navigate the ins-and-outs of Washington, let alone alter the partisan bedrock that is there. She's a talking point machine, a puppet engineered for the sole purpose of image. She adds no appreciable [i]content[/i] to the national dialogue of this election.

[QUOTE][font=franklin gothic medium]That doesn't even make sense. And it insults women.

People who assume that disgruntled Hillary voters will automatically turn to Palin just because she's a woman are suggesting that female voters don't have any intelligence or strongly held views on issues.

Palin and Hillary are ideologically opposed in most areas. I doubt any informed woman would vote for Palin just because of her gender.[/font][/QUOTE]
Actually this point was perhaps one of the most valid all thread. The very decision to pick Palin after a couple phone calls and no substantial research shows how ridiculous their internal processes were.

McCain wanted to pick a woman with [i]even less experience than Obama[/i] to mop up the female vote in the wake of Democratic division. He was banking on the hope that women would not think rationally on election day and vote for another woman. As I said before, she added nothing appreciable to the ticket aside from her gender.

So you're right: woman [i]should[/i] be offended with the McCain campaign -- because they did assume women would be irrational and foolish. I also doubt any informed woman would vote for McCain-Palin, but the GOP thought otherwise.

Edit: I did not call Palin "corrupt," nor did I insinuate that she was. Rather, I doubt her ability to fight corruption. I thought this was more or less explicit in my previous post, but perhaps not.[/font]

[James]

[quote]Indeed, there is little actual value to be found in Palin aside from her being a woman, and her being a political newcomer in this election cycle.[/quote]

[font=franklin gothic medium]Well that's also a matter of perception.

Objectively, Palin has several points of value. One point relates to the fact that she has significant administrative experience in Government (so she would have dealt with the formation and administration of budgets, taxation reform, infrastructure development, etc).

And on a more personal level, she has qualities that will resonate with a lot of Americans (i.e. her background, family and social positions).

So she certainly has value as a Republican candidate. Sure, I disagree with 90% of her positions, but that's irrelevant to what I'm saying here.

I can disagree with someone (even very passionately) yet still respect them and understand their value as a candidate.[/font]

[quote]But at the same time I think you should reconsider your belief that Palin is some political "maverick" willing to fundamentally shake up the Washington scene. I doubt she would have the competence to navigate the ins-and-outs of Washington, let alone alter the partisan bedrock that is there. She's a talking point machine, a puppet engineered for the sole purpose of image. She adds no appreciable content to the national dialogue of this election.[/quote]

[font=franklin gothic medium]I agree that she's added no appreciable content to the election.

But as I said, I'm not really interested in debating policy with you. What we're talking about is Palin as a candidate, in terms of her validity - as I said earlier, I would easily disagree with a good 90% of her positions.

Also I think you should take a closer look at Palin's career (objectively). I'm not sure if I'd go so far as to say that she's a "maverick" (not my word), but I would say that she's capable of standing up to her own party - and this is rare, yet valuable.

And don't underestimate State politics. Becoming Governor and being able to reform elements of budgetary/development policy is certainly not easy and requires more than idle talk.

I doubt Palin would have much problem navigating Washington. Whether or not she'd be a good Vice President is an entirely different question (and let's not forget that a VP probably has less administrative decisions to deal with than a Governor anyway!)[/font]

[quote]McCain wanted to pick a woman with even less experience than Obama to mop up the female vote in the wake of Democratic division. He was banking on the hope that women would not think rationally on election day and vote for another woman. As I said before, she added nothing appreciable to the ticket aside from her gender.[/quote]

[font=franklin gothic medium]I don't really think that was what he was thinking (although I do think he has tried to counter the "freshness" of the Obama ticket by incorporating a woman).

In terms of experience, as I said, I don't really know why there's much question there. As far as I know, Obama has never administered a Government. That automatically gives Palin significant experience - as I said, do not underestimate the difficulty and challenge involved in that type of work.

The experience debate is kind of comical because surely [i]nobody[/i] really has the requesite experience to become President. There are too few similar jobs out there.

Most good Presidents grow in the role - they are scarcely "Presidential" prior to it.[/font]

[quote]So you're right: woman should be offended with the McCain campaign -- because they did assume women would be irrational and foolish. I also doubt any informed woman would vote for McCain-Palin, but the GOP thought otherwise.[/quote]

[font=franklin gothic medium]Well that's just flatly insulting for a variety of reasons.

One, you're again totally dismissing Palin as a professional (however much you disagree with her).

And two, you're basically saying that only ignorant women would vote for McCain/Palin. I'm sorry, but that's just ridiculous.

I'm sure there are plenty of women who [i]are[/i] informed but who happen to disagree with you on policy matters. You're essentially saying that there is no valid political voice other than that which you agree with.

That's profoundly unfair to McCain/Palin and to anyone who would ever vote for a conservative political party.[/font]

[quote]Edit: I did not call Palin "corrupt," nor did I insinuate that she was. Rather, I doubt her ability to fight corruption. I thought this was more or less explicit in my previous post, but perhaps not.[/quote]

[font=franklin gothic medium]Well you linked to an article where systemic corruption was implied. So, you know, I'm just calling it like I see it.

But in any case, you did say that you would doubt her ability to handle corruption based on your link. I could link you to alternative articles that suggest the opposite.

But in the end I'm not here to convince anyone about political points of view.

I'm just very tired of the same one-sided debates. I may not agree with Palin, but outright dismissing her is a mistake. I really value balance in politics and it's something we don't often see.[/font]

[Retribution]

[quote name='James'][font=franklin gothic medium]I'm just very tired of the same one-sided debates. I may not agree with Palin, but outright dismissing her is a mistake. I really value balance in politics and it's something we don't often see.[/font][/QUOTE]
[font=Arial]I'm glad you want to be balanced and fair, and it is certainly good to at least [i]look[/i] at all candidates objectively before choosing who to support.

However that's as far as the balance should go. That is to say that when the candidates are not balanced, there's no reason to artificially insert balance.

As for my comment on "informed women," I did mean to say something approximating "liberal, informed women" so you're right on that count. Hopefully the comment sounds less ridiculous now.

As for the rest, I do truly believe a McCain-Palin administration would be "incompetent" insofar as they would fail in reaching actual bipartisan solutions with the Congress. Professionally, McCain-Palin would be able to hold the country together. I doubt they'd do considerably worse than Bush. However a lack of failure is not what I want from my presidential administration -- and I'm almost certain their performance would be lackluster. Sorry if that offends you or anyone else, but I'm willing to dismiss the pick of Palin as an insult to American intelligence.[/font]

[James]

[quote]That is to say that when the candidates are not balanced, there's no reason to artificially insert balance.
[/quote]

[font=franklin gothic medium]Well luckily, nobody is doing that. I'm just pointing out that while having a single political viewpoint is totally fine, I don't think that should warrant a total dismissal of the opposing side either.

I mean I have my own serious doubts about Palin as a candidate, but again, I think it's important to objectively recognize her strengths where they exist.

And moreover I see a lot of value judgments about her as a person (similar to Hillary), which don't really add anything constructive to the discussion.[/font]

[quote]As for the rest, I do truly believe a McCain-Palin administration would be "incompetent" insofar as they would fail in reaching actual bipartisan solutions with the Congress. Professionally, McCain-Palin would be able to hold the country together. I doubt they'd do considerably worse than Bush. However a lack of failure is not what I want from my presidential administration -- and I'm almost certain their performance would be lackluster. Sorry if that offends you or anyone else, but I'm willing to dismiss the pick of Palin as an insult to American intelligence.[/quote]

[font=franklin gothic medium]Let's be clear here: I'm not offended by you having a political view. That is not the point.

I'm saying that if you outright dismiss the conservative voice and its validity in society, you only reveal [i]your[/i] ignorance. And you automatically insult half of the population, who may have some conservative values or positions. That takes legitimacy away from your arguments.

I personally disagree with many conservative positions. So there are areas where we are probably more politically aligned than not. But I'm not expressing a political view here, I'm just saying that none of these debates can get anywhere without the abillity to stand back and see things objectively.

In terms of your specific points about a McCain-Palin administration...well, there are a couple of things I disagree with there (for instance, one can't say for certain that they would be unable to be bipartisan, especially when McCain has a particularly strong history of bipartisanship).

However, that's really starting to get into value judgments about which team is better. And I don't really think that's worth debating (for me), because I think most people have already set their views pretty clearly.

Plus, I don't even know which team I'd choose anyway. So I'm not especially partisan on this issue (and therefore, I would be unable to sway debate one way or the other).

All I like to do is add balance where it's due. And in politics it's often due! :catgirl:[/font]

[Esther]

[quote name='Retribution'][font=Arial]
So you're right: woman [i]should[/i] be offended with the McCain campaign -- because they did assume women would be irrational and foolish. I also doubt any informed woman would vote for McCain-Palin, but the GOP thought otherwise.
[/font][/QUOTE]

[SIZE="1"][FONT="Franklin Gothic Medium"]That's a very large conclusion to come to. I don't take the choosing of Sarah Palin as the Republican Vice Presidential nominee offending at all. I actually applaud the McCain campaign for attempting to make a clever political move.

What I do find offensive though is your statement that "informed, liberal" women would never vote for the McCain-Palin ticket; what about informed, conservative women?

Are you saying informed, conservative are women less likely to change their vote than informed, liberal women? I really, really, REALLY beg to differ. The minute Obama stepped onto the scene, the far-left swarmed around him like flies around a light bulb and have been strongly steadfast ever since.

It seemed to me that you were characterizing women such as myself as so stubborn and ignorant in terms of our political beliefs that we wouldn't so dare as to vote for someone who doesn't represent our political stances to the tee -- which is obviously an impossible feat.

But please, correct me if I mis-understood.[/FONT][/SIZE]

[Retribution]

[quote name='Esther']That's a very large conclusion to come to. I don't take the choosing of Sarah Palin as the Republican Vice Presidential nominee offending at all. I actually applaud the McCain campaign for attempting to make a clever political move.[/QUOTE]
[font=Arial]So you applaud him to pick a "token" candidate, not to actually advance women's rights, but as a puppet candidate? Clinton was well informed on issues, did extremely well in debates, and was definitely a champion of women's rights. I'm not sure I can say the same for Palin.

[QUOTE]What I do find offensive though is your statement that "informed, liberal" women would never vote for the McCain-Palin ticket; what about informed, conservative women?[/QUOTE]
What about them? Informed, [i]liberal[/i] women should not and probably will not vote for Palin simply because her views run counter to [i]liberal[/i] ideology. Conservatives might find her views more uh... satisfying.

[QUOTE]It seemed to me that you were characterizing women such as myself as so stubborn and ignorant in terms of our political beliefs that we wouldn't so dare as to vote for someone who doesn't represent our political stances to the tee -- which is obviously an impossible feat.[/QUOTE]
Let me set the record straight and make my view abundantly clear.

If you are a liberal woman, it would be absolutely ridiculous to vote for the McCain-Palin ticket. It'd be an absolute joke. Don't vote against Obama simply because he beat Clinton. Don't vote for Palin simply because she's a woman. Vote based on which candidate closest resembles your views on all the issues. If you are liberal, that candidate would be Obama. So to vote in spite of all your personal views, based simply on gender, is [i]sexist[/i]. It's the exact same as people voting for a candidate simply based on skin color. That's [i]racist[/i].

So yes, if you are a liberal (and presumably informed) woman, you are a fool to vote for Palin. If you are a conservative (and presumably informed) woman, you would do well to vote for Palin.[/font]

[James]

[FONT="Franklin Gothic Medium"]Ah, Retri, that makes more sense. Your earlier comments suggested that informed women in general could not vote for Palin. This makes more sense.

Anyway, a lot of conservative commentators have suggested that the candidacy of Palin will somehow woo Hillary supporters. I think that this assertion is inherently sexist, because it implies that women do not think critically about political issues.

I am sure there [I]are[/I] people who will vote on the basis if gender or race, but I'd say that the majority if people are interested in actual policies (I'd hope so anyway!)

[/FONT]

[eleanor]

[quote name='James'][FONT="Franklin Gothic Medium"]
Anyway, a lot of conservative commentators have suggested that the candidacy of Palin will somehow woo Hillary supporters. I think that this assertion is inherently sexist, because it implies that women do not think critically about political issues.
[/FONT][/QUOTE]

[font=trebuchet ms] That's what they want to happen. lol

As a female I'm sort of miffed that Palin might be our first vice president. In a sweeping generalizing statement that I expect no one to get angry at, I love how everyone called Clinton a ***** but now are all defensive about Palin and her family values and private issues.

Also I wanted to inject some [url="http://xs432.xs.to/xs432/08400/palindebatechart849.jpg"][u]fun[/u][/url] into this thread.[/font]

[Allamorph]

[quote name='Lunox][font=trebuchet ms]Also I wanted to inject some [url="http://xs432.xs.to/xs432/08400/palindebatechart849.jpg"][u]fun[/u][/url'] into this thread.[/font][/quote]
[CENTER][IMG]http://icanhascheezburger.files.wordpress.com/2008/10/funny-pictures-unpolitical-cat-is-on-a-fence.jpg[/IMG][/CENTER]

[FONT=Arial]That aside, I am continually amused at the high level of hatred each candidate pair seems to inspire in the others followers. Granted, I was still rather young (speaking from how much I observed politically) when Bush Jr. first took office, and the focus for his reelection was largely stolen by the massive Florida recount hilarity, but it still surprises me to see less signs saying "Vote For Obama/McCain" than I do "Stop Obama/Palin", whichever you prefer.

So can I look forward to this behavior in future elections as standard, or does election time tend to me more . . . oh, I dunno, . . . . cool-headed?[/FONT]

[Mr. Blonde]

[QUOTE]That doesn't even make sense. And it insults women.

People who assume that disgruntled Hillary voters will automatically turn to Palin just because she's a woman are suggesting that female voters don't have any intelligence or strongly held views on issues.

Palin and Hillary are ideologically opposed in most areas. I doubt any informed woman would vote for Palin just because of her gender.

Also as a general note (not to you, but just overall), I may not necessarily want to vote for Palin...but I see no need to insult her character. The amount of personal attacks I've seen in the media especially are kind of surprising - and it mostly seems okay "because she's a woman". The same was true about Hillary.

There seems to be little real policy discussion and a lot of discussion about how people talk or whatever. Makes no sense to me.[/QUOTE]

That's exactly what I'm saying, James. It is very insulting to women. I'm not saying she's the devil incarnate, all I'm saying is that she is not qualified to be president or vice president of the United States. She spent 21 months as governor of the 3rd smallest state in the union (population wise), and before that spent two terms as mayor of a town with a population of 9,000. I could ignore all of that if she had new and progressive political views. But she delivers canned answers that she obviously memorized. She was reciting her answers during the debate like she read them out of a text book. She obviously cannot perform under pressure (the Gibson and Couric interviews).

I never insulted her character either. I said she was a tool, and I doubt she even knows it; a tool being used by the McCain campaign in a desperate attempt to "mop up" those Clinton votes. It's wrong and insulting to women, but it doesn't make it not true. She maybe be qualified to be governor of Alaska, but not vice president.

I have no interest in her personal affairs, absolutely none, and that has no bearing on my statement above. The media has been cruel to her, but they're cruel to almost everyone. The conservative media tore Obama apart in the beginning, just like the liberal media is tearing Palin apart right now.

Does she deserve it? Well if you're asking if she deserves her private life being brought into the spotlight: no. If she deserves her political views and qualification being brought into question: yes. Every unknown candidate is going to get put under the looking glass. What Barack Obama lacks in experience he makes up for with his other attributes. But the pick of Sarah Palin as the Repulblican vice presidental nominee is... I'm sorry to say, a joke.

[James]

[quote name='Lunox'][font=trebuchet ms]

As a female I'm sort of miffed that Palin might be our first vice president. In a sweeping generalizing statement that I expect no one to get angry at, I love how everyone called Clinton a ***** but now are all defensive about Palin and her family values and private issues.
[/font][/QUOTE]

[font=franklin gothic medium]Yeah I totally agree with this. I can think of several people who aggressively attacked Clinton's character but who are only ever defensive of Palin. Ugh.

I always tend to jump in and defend the people who I think are being really unfairly attacked (and let's face it, it happens in [i]every[/i] election to one side or the other).

I think there's one way Palin could easily help McCain to win the election anyway.

You know those videos of her shooting at the gun range? I think they should do an ad where she's riding on a camel out in the desert, going after bin Laden. Kind of like Zohan... only with more guns. She could have a catchy slogan and everything. Maybe that'd be a good caption contest...

(In all fairness to Palin, again, a lot of her responses in the debate were clearly off the cuff - I think that's where she fared better. The more she spoke like that the better off she was).

Katakidoushi: I think you're seriously underestimating the challenge and complexity involved in governing a State (no matter how small it is). Saying it's the third smallest State or whatever is largely semantics.

The implication that Palin was "duped" into the candidacy is just ridiculous. And it totally ignores her career history as well. It's almost on the level of a weird conspiracy theory.

Seriously, if you don't like her, that's cool. But it's better to argue with the policy platform than these peripheral issues.

And the experience thing still doesn't make sense. You can say that Obama makes up for lack of executive experience due to "other attributes" (which itself is really such a value judgment, isn't it?) And then someone else can say Palin makes up for "other shortcomings" with her executive experience. It's a merry-go-round.

But yes, I agree that policy and positions should be debated. I just disagree that it's fair to suggest that Palin is a joke or somehow unqualified as compared to everyone else (at least based on experience). Ironically I haven't seen any real policy discussion in this thread (other than some talk about healthcare at the start).[/font]

[Esther]

[quote name='Retribution'][FONT=Arial]So you applaud him to pick a "token" candidate, not to actually advance women's rights, but as a puppet candidate? [/FONT]
[/quote]

[FONT=Franklin Gothic Medium][SIZE=1]I said that I applauded the [I]attempt[/I] to make a big splash on the political scene -- in which they succeeded -- not the actual choice. And thanks for clarifying your statement about the whole informed women thing.[/SIZE][/FONT]

[SIZE=1][FONT=Franklin Gothic Medium][strike]As for me, I really don't know who I'm going to vote for in November anymore.[/strike] I really did have faith in my party to bring forth a candidate whom I'd feel comfortable voting for, and they did so with Senator McCain. Unfortunately though, Sarah Palin sort of soiled the ticket for me this year. After watching some of her interviews, and hearing her convey the idea that we should invade our ally, Pakistan, if it means "keeping the terrorists out", I just don't know that I can bring myself to vote someone like that into the White House, especially one who would be a heartbeat away from being our President.

EDIT: I've come to the verdict that I [I]cannot[/I] vote for Sen. Obama. [/FONT][/SIZE]

[James]

[font=franklin gothic medium]I'm glad I'm not involved in this process, because I'd be in the same boat as you Esther (although if I were American I wouldn't identify myself as a Republican or Democrat).

I actually think, for me personally, this is one of the toughest choices I've seen in years for the Presidential elections. I really see a lot of value in both candidates and there are elements from each campaign that I agree with.

Although Australia had its federal elections last year and admittedly the candidate I voted for did not win...but still, you can't win 'em all. I think that similarly to America, change was very much in the air in Australia.

This also leads me to a question for everyone here: How important are the debates to you?

I imagine that by the time they roll around, most people have already chosen their candidate. Do the debates sway anyone? Or do they just confirm your original choice?[/font]

[eleanor]

[quote name='Esther'][FONT="Franklin Gothic Medium"][SIZE="1"]

As for me, I really don't know who I'm going to vote for in November anymore. I really did have faith in my party to bring forth a candidate whom I'd feel comfortable voting for, and they did so with Senator McCain. Unfortunately though, Sarah Palin sort of soiled the ticket for me this year. After watching some of her interviews, and hearing her convey the idea that we should invade our ally, Pakistan, if it means "keeping the terrorists out", I just don't know that I can bring myself to vote someone like that into the White House, especially one who would be a heartbeat away from being our President. [/SIZE][/FONT][/QUOTE]

[font=trebuchet ms] I don't know if Cheney has changed this or something, but keep in mind that the VP position is usually worthless. Unless you think McCain dying is a huge threat, I don't see McCain giving much power to Palin.[/font]

[Kenso]

[quote name='Lunox'][FONT=trebuchet ms] I don't know if Cheney has changed this or something, but keep in mind that the VP position is usually worthless. Unless you think McCain dying is a huge threat, I don't see McCain giving much power to Palin.[/FONT][/quote]
But that is the exact problem in this election. McCain is 72-years-old. If elected, he will be the oldest man ever elected president. He is at an age where even in perfect health, it would not be a surprise if something popped up that, to put it bluntly, killed him. The Vice Presidents in this election are nearly as important as the Presidents. It's one of the reasons my father won't vote for Obama. He doesn't like Joe Biden, and he's convinced that the one of the fairly large number of racists in this country of ours is going to assassinate him. Technically, it's not that farfetched. So the Vice Presidents matter a lot more than normal this time around.

[Raiha]

[quote name='Kenso']But that is the exact problem in this election. McCain is 72-years-old. If elected, he will be the oldest man ever elected president. He is at an age where even in perfect health, it would not be a surprise if something popped up that, to put it bluntly, killed him. The Vice Presidents in this election are nearly as important as the Presidents. It's one of the reasons my father won't vote for Obama. He doesn't like Joe Biden, and he's convinced that the one of the fairly large number of racists in this country of ours is going to assassinate him. Technically, it's not that farfetched. So the Vice Presidents matter a lot more than normal this time around.[/QUOTE]

[COLOR="DarkOrchid"]For the record Joe Biden is 66 and has his own health problems, so he could also at any time drop dead from an aneurysm or an attack of the myocardial sort. You never know. After all, if you don't have your health... [/COLOR]

[ChibiHorsewoman]

[quote name='James'][FONT="Franklin Gothic Medium"]Ah, Retri, that makes more sense. Your earlier comments suggested that informed women in general could not vote for Palin. This makes more sense.

Anyway, a lot of conservative commentators have suggested that the candidacy of Palin will somehow woo Hillary supporters. I think that this assertion is inherently sexist, because it implies that women do not think critically about political issues.

I am sure there [I]are[/I] people who will vote on the basis if gender or race, but I'd say that the majority if people are interested in actual policies (I'd hope so anyway!)

[/FONT][/QUOTE]

[color=#9933ff]I would hope that no informed woman would vote for Palin, but alas not everyone is me.

Moving on- I've never cared much for the GOP or for conservatives. Especially since now they seem to think that throwing a candidate with two 'X' chromosomes and an eye twitch will win over women voters who are unhappy with Clinton's loss despite the fact that Palin is a complete 180 turn from Clinton and not even a quarter of a debator that Clinton is.

To me who I'll vote for in November has nothing to do with race or gender. I'm upset that Hilary didn't win but I wouldn't have voted for her because she's a woman I would have voted for her because she's the better candidate in my opinion. I'm insulted by the Republican party's assumption that women would rather vote for a woman than a man.

As someone else said in this election the vice president is more important this time around given McCain's age. So if he were elected and God Forbid he died in office- Palin would be our president... and we'd be screwed royally[/color]

[James]

[font=franklin gothic medium]Our former PM left office in his early 70's and was still going strong healthwise. Although admittedly he was very healthy and walked every day (although he did have a hearing problem, which he'd had for years).

The VP role is essentially powerless, other than as part of its responsibility in the Senate (where really it only becomes active when there is a need to cast a deciding vote - which is very rare).

I'd say the VP role is more about canvassing support for the President's agenda as well as ceremonial duties.

Also no President is an island - they are an executive. So they make decisions based on the advice of their departments and department heads (moreso than from the VP I'd say).

In any case, only one person has really answered my question. lol[/font]

[Rachmaninoff]

[quote name='James'][font=franklin gothic medium]This also leads me to a question for everyone here: How important are the debates to you?

I imagine that by the time they roll around, most people have already chosen their candidate. Do the debates sway anyone? Or do they just confirm your original choice?[/font][/QUOTE]Not very. By this time I've already made up my mind on who I will vote for. Sometimes I'll pay more attention if I'm not clearly decided on one candidate or if I have serious doubts about the vp candidate. That is not the case this time around. To be honest I didn't even bother to watch them. One because time wise they didn't work out, and two, I'm already fine with my decision on who to vote for.

[Esther]

[quote name='Lunox'][font=trebuchet ms] I don't know if Cheney has changed this or something, but keep in mind that the VP position is usually worthless. Unless you think McCain dying is a huge threat, I don't see McCain giving much power to Palin.[/font][/QUOTE]

[SIZE="1"][FONT="Franklin Gothic Medium"]You can deem the position "worthless" but, like people have already said, God forbid something happen to John McCain Palin would be in charge. We have to go over these scenarios before running off to the voting booths and casting our ballot for the Presidential candidate alone.

I'll answer your question, James!

The debates usually don't change my mind all that much; if anything they just remind me why I'm for/against the particular person. Like you said James, the debates are held considerably late in the campaign and I think only a small percentage of people are swayed by them.[/FONT][/SIZE]