# McCain and... Palin?



## Drew (Aug 29, 2008)

McCain said to choose Alaska gov as running mate. - Yahoo! News

Hmm. If he's trying to exploit the feeling of disenfranchisement amongst hardcore Clinton feminist supporters, it's an interesting move, but at the end of the day will they really vote for a pro-abortion candidate who's ok with women making 70 cents on the dollar? 

Interesting move. It may even work for him.


----------



## Chris (Aug 29, 2008)

No shock there. His campaign manager no doubt said "We HAVE to pick a woman now, so find the most qualified one that you can". I just can't wait to hear all the staunch Republicans try to deny it.


----------



## jim777 (Aug 29, 2008)

I was hoping it was Michael Palin when I saw the thread title, only to be disappointed by the Republicans again!


----------



## Drew (Aug 29, 2008)

The more I think about it, the more I'm wondering if it'll backfire.

I mean, McCain just ensured Clinton will become one of Obama's staunchest supporters. She worked her ass off to be the first female president of the United States of America, and suddenly McCain nominates a woman who no one's ever heard of and who didn't even try. That's GOT to chafe, for Clinton, and realistically she could still win in 2016, as a 68-year-old elder states(wo)man of the Margaret Thatcher mold.


----------



## Drew (Aug 29, 2008)

You know, I really think McCain fucked up here. This woman is a total unknown - Clinton's not going to sit back and take this.


----------



## Chris (Aug 29, 2008)

This actually isn't photoshop.


----------



## ohio_eric (Aug 29, 2008)

An Alaskan is really going to help with the Midwest and Rust Belt where McCain has got to win at least a few states. 

Republicans want to rip Obama for a lack of expereince do they?

Project Vote Smart - Governor Sarah Heath Palin - Biography


> Governor, Alaska, 2006-present
> Former President, Alaska Conference of Mayors
> Former Mayor/Manager, Wasilla City
> Former Council Member, Wasilla City Council.



There's Palin's political career. McCain may have just handed Obama the election.


----------



## xXxPriestessxXx (Aug 29, 2008)

I am loving the fact that he made this move. It seems a desperate attempt to draw away the vote from the Democrats but I don't think Johnny boy realizes how he is going to fracture his own party support in the process. Anything that decreases his chances of winning makes me exponentially happier.


----------



## YYZ2112 (Aug 29, 2008)

ohio_eric said:


> An Alaskan is really going to help with the Midwest and Rust Belt where McCain has got to win at least a few states.
> 
> Republicans want to rip Obama for a lack of expereince do they?
> 
> ...



 

With McCain being 71 and having some known health issues this makes this choice even more bizarre. His entire platform is that Obama is not ready to lead but what the hell can you expect from Palin when and if McCain were to become ill or die in office. I don't get it and I don't see this working.


----------



## jaxadam (Aug 29, 2008)

Wow... I'm kind of at a loss for words here... This seems like a very strange move on McCain's part.


----------



## Papa Shank (Aug 29, 2008)

I'm not going to pretend that I know anything of how significant or what this move by McCain might mean but damn...Palin would get it


----------



## atimoc (Aug 29, 2008)

Pardon my ignorance, but there is always a TV debate also between the vice presidential candidates in the U.S. system, right?  Because if so, that could get really interesting between her and Biden.


----------



## ohio_eric (Aug 29, 2008)

Yes there will be vice-presidential debate. It will be interesting as long as Biden allows her to stay alive. Biden is a damn shark. Palin is totally out of her league.


----------



## darren (Aug 29, 2008)

This looks like a desperate, token appointment. I think the Republicans are done this time around.


----------



## Elysian (Aug 29, 2008)

god i hope this sinks him in the polls. i think a lot of people were waiting for what his VP pick was, because of the importance the VP pick would most certainly have if he dies in office, and i think he got it all wrong. Obama picked the right VP, someone ready to be president, and McCain picked someone who hasn't even been in office but 2 years, good job mccain


----------



## Drew (Aug 29, 2008)

ohio_eric said:


> Yes there will be vice-presidential debate. It will be interesting as long as Biden allows her to stay alive. Biden is a damn shark. Palin is totally out of her league.



Heh. This should be the most interesting VP debate in years.  

I really think this is going to make Hillary flip, to the extreme detriment of McCain.


----------



## WarriorOfMetal (Aug 29, 2008)

i showed my roommate the headline on cnn.com...her immediate response? "dude, mccain's gonna win....he's totally got a trick up his sleeve" 

(my roommate is against mccain, btw...) 

things are certainly gonna get interesting


----------



## JJ Rodriguez (Aug 29, 2008)

Chris said:


> This actually isn't photoshop.



She's a total butter face.


----------



## jaxadam (Aug 29, 2008)

JJ Rodriguez said:


> She's a total butter face.



In that picture, but I've seen some other pictures of her, and she's looking pretty hot.


----------



## Elysian (Aug 29, 2008)

Chris said:


> This actually isn't photoshop.



it should've been!


----------



## The Trooper (Aug 29, 2008)

Hmm...interesting move, though probably the right one for him...as much as I hate to say it. Palin is a unique mix of qualities he needed on his side, and the fact that she's lesser known is only going to draw more attention to his campaign as people dig up info and learn what they can about her, a day right after everyone couldn't stop talking about the Dem's. Should be interesting to see how this plays out. 

VP debate will be interesting too, and as much as Biden seems like he'd eat her up, he'd better watch out and watch his words. He doesn't want to come off as the "I've been in Washington too long" attack dog jumping all over the young woman who has spent time defying Washington and her own party when necessary. He could isolate some voting blocks quick like that.


----------



## darren (Aug 29, 2008)

WarriorOfMetal said:


> i showed my roommate the headline on cnn.com...her immediate response? "dude, mccain's gonna win....he's totally got a trick up his sleeve"



You've gotta wonder, though... WTF is he (and his advisors) thinking?

_"Hmm... the Democrats are running a duo of a political veteran with a relatively inexperienced person who represents disenfranchised voters... who should we pair up with our political veteran?"

"A soccer mom?"

"YES!"_​


----------



## JJ Rodriguez (Aug 29, 2008)

I guess it's not that bad, that was just a really bad photo


----------



## D-EJ915 (Aug 29, 2008)

JJ Rodriguez said:


> I guess it's not that bad, that was just a really bad photo


the thread on the gentoo forums is "mccain picks a milf"


----------



## jaxadam (Aug 29, 2008)

Man, I bet Hilary is just fuming right now. Her life's ambition is to be president, and now Palin has a chance if McCain has a ticker kicker while in office.


----------



## ohio_eric (Aug 29, 2008)

Superficial Reason 1A to dislike this woman. 

This is what she named her kids: Track, Bristol, Willow, Piper, Trig.

Wow


----------



## Codyyy (Aug 29, 2008)

Hmm, yes. I like this idea. Thanks for making this victory easier, McCain. 



ohio_eric said:


> Superficial Reason 1A to dislike this woman.
> 
> This is what she named her kids: Track, Bristol, Willow, Piper, Trig.
> 
> Wow



Trig?

As in trigonometry?


----------



## Elysian (Aug 29, 2008)

she kind of looks like a librarian


----------



## JJ Rodriguez (Aug 29, 2008)

I know


----------



## TemjinStrife (Aug 29, 2008)

She's not bad looking overall... certainly no Margaret Thatcher. But that's unimportant in this context.

Honestly, Obama speaks to people of my generation and mindset because of his call for change... and this "rebellious young woman" appeals to some on several levels. She comes across as a real maverick.

It's almost like both parties are running a mirror campaign... one has the younger and more charismatic person as the presidential candidate and the insider as the VP... and now, with the McCain/Palin ticket, it almost seems like they've got a vice versa.

Regardless of what comes of it, this is going to be an interesting election year.


----------



## darren (Aug 29, 2008)

Wikipedia said:


> Palin was born in Idaho and raised in Alaska. In 1984, she was the runner-up in the Miss Alaska pageant, receiving a scholarship that allowed her to attend the University of Idaho, where she received a degree in journalism. After working as a sports reporter at an Anchorage television station, Palin served two terms on the Wasilla, Alaska, City Council from 1992 to 1996, was elected mayor of Wasilla (population 5,470 in 2000) in 1996, and ran unsuccessfully for Lieutenant Governor in 2002.
> 
> Palin was elected Governor of Alaska in 2006 on the theme of governmental reform, defeating incumbent governor Frank Murkowski in the Republican primary and former Democratic Alaskan governor Tony Knowles in the general election. She gained attention for publicizing ethical violations by state Republican Party leaders.



Good lord, she wasn't even a real journalist... she was a _sports reporter_... in _Alaska._

She is cute, in a MILFy sort of way, but is she Vice President of the United States of America material? I think not.


----------



## noodles (Aug 29, 2008)

Worst pick since Dan Quayle, although at least Dab Quayle had experience in the Senate. What is the runner up to Miss Alaska going to do for McCain? Way to piss off all feminists.


----------



## msherman (Aug 29, 2008)

More proof that the republicans have lost their minds, and don`t know how to run this country.


----------



## ohio_eric (Aug 29, 2008)

Is this the face of a runner up?


----------



## noodles (Aug 29, 2008)

darren said:


> Good lord, she wasn't even a real journalist... she was a _sports reporter_... in _Alaska._



Maybe McCain thinks he can win by getting her to critique Obama's jump shot.


----------



## darren (Aug 29, 2008)

I saw it as a way to try and get support for drilling for oil in ANWR.


----------



## jim777 (Aug 29, 2008)

Romney has a net worth of 250 million plus; Governor Palin's hubby is a union man, a commercial fisherman. Hardly an elist, 'richer than thou and out of touch' family pick. She knows how much groceries cost, even if McCain doesn't. That likely helped her nomination.

At any rate, it looks like the days of white men only are gone from both parties, and any other way you want to look at this pick THAT is a good thing.


----------



## noodles (Aug 29, 2008)

Honestly, I always thought the role of the running mate was to solidify support from your own party. Obama is not going to woo away conservatives with Joe Biden, but he is going to reinforce the support of the traditional Democrats who want to see someone with the experience and traditional party values that Obama is weak on. He is a choice that will pull the moderate Democrats back from the edge.

Meanwhile, McCain picks someone young, with next to zero experience, who is against drilling in the AWR, signed into law benefits for same sex couples, and her husband is a union man. This is going to scare Republicans the same way that Dan Quayle did, and Biden is going to quietly tear her apart in the debates in much the same way that Bentsen did.

When your candidate is young and inexperienced, someone with respect and experienced is a logical choice. When you are the oldest man to ever run for election, then you should NOT pick someone with even less experience than your candidate. When people pull the lever in November, they are going to think about her leading the country if McCain dies in office.


----------



## The Trooper (Aug 29, 2008)

Honestly, this woman wasn't even on my radar...but she makes perfect sense, and might be exactly what McCain needed. 

I think she's the perfect middle ground to solidify his base and tap into some of the independent voters who may have ben on the fence. Republicans have been so worried over McCain taking some pro-abortion, anti-traditional value running mate that she'll probably come as a relief. She's a firm anti-abortion candidate which is immediate brownie points for him with his base. 

Sshe's about as anti-Washington as you can get. Obama cites his lack of time and ties in Washington to his credit on "change," and here's a woman who spent less time there than him. As far as breaking away and not being an insider, she actually led an ethics investigation against members of her own party on corruption, an ordeal that was over conflicts of interests with oil companies no less. She threatened to give the boot to Exxon, Chevron, etc...from a state controlled gas field unless they bumped up natural gas production...and won. She perfectly fits McCain's "maverick" image he portrays, maybe even better than he does these days. 

She'd married, has children including a son serving in the war. Repub's will eat that up. On the other side of the fence, she's a woman, and she's young. She has a blue collar workin', union lovin' husband and will probably be preaching she understands what it's like. 

And most of all, it'll be hard for Dem's to really attack her. What will they say bad about her without pissing someone off? She's married, has kids...no affairs. Do they really want to preach "she's not experienced enough!" They can't touch that since they've been preaching a "judgment over experience" platform for a long time now. Change in Washington and judgment? Well, she's less of an insider than everyone else on the board, and she has more of a record of opposing Washington and even her own party when necessary to do the "ethical" thing than Obama himself does...all while being a few years younger...less time dealing with Washington...and she's a woman. I'm not really sure what an angle of attack will be?

That said, I still don't like McCain...and I'm still voting for Obama...


----------



## noodles (Aug 29, 2008)

The fact that she is pro-life will instantly destroy her ability to pull away the disenfranchised Clinton supporter, and I can see no other reason for McCain to pick this woman as his running mate. She's the governor of a state with around 1/12th the population of New York City. It's not like being the governor of Alaska is giving her much in terms of executive experience, like it would as the governor of a Virginia, California, New York, Texas, Washington, or other populous state with large metropolitan areas.

Union credibility and a willingness to fight big oil is not going to change the fact that the VP is powerless to stop the president from pursuing a plan to expand drilling wherever he damn well feels like, and extending tax cuts to the wealthy as long as he wants. That's Congress' job. The Vice President,as John Adams once said, is the most useless office in the country. Biden makes sense, since he can play the role of the wise and experienced adviser. She simply prevents her own party from attacking the Democrats on age and lack of experience.


----------



## Sentient (Aug 29, 2008)

D-EJ915 said:


> the thread on the gentoo forums is "mccain picks a milf"


You beat me to it. I watched him introduce her, and had never heard of her before. But the first thing that popped in my head was, "Wow. McCain chose a milf." 

To me, it just looks like an obvious/desperate attempt to sway the female vote. As bad as it might sound, I don't believe he would have chosen her, if Hillary was standing where Obama is now.


----------



## The Trooper (Aug 29, 2008)

But that's just it, Alaska or Texas...doesn't matter since experience is secondary to judgment according to the Obama camp. If people were that worried about experience, Obama wouldn't be here right now. 

I don't think we can generalize and assume that the majority of Clinton supporters are pro-choice and will immediately be turned off by anyone pro-life. Those folks were attracted to Clinton for a variety of reasons and I think "woman" will trump "pro-life" in many of their eyes. She won't win over the former Clinton supporters that are already in Obama's corner and will "come home" to Dem's regardless. It's the remainder holding out that are undecided and some independants she has a shot with. If being pro-life was the biggest factor for them, they wouldn't be undecided right now...they would have already been in Omaba's camp. 

This pick is going to be looked at in '09 as a brilliant move that gave McCain the edge he needed or the final slip that nailed the coffin shut. Let's hope the hammer is already dropping.


----------



## Jeff (Aug 29, 2008)

Drew said:


> The more I think about it, the more I'm wondering if it'll backfire.
> 
> I mean, McCain just ensured Clinton will become one of Obama's staunchest supporters. She worked her ass off to be the first female president of the United States of America, and suddenly McCain nominates a woman who no one's ever heard of and who didn't even try. That's GOT to chafe, for Clinton, and realistically she could still win in 2016, as a 68-year-old elder states(wo)man of the Margaret Thatcher mold.



I think it will backfire, because she just isn't qualified to be the leader of this country. She has to qualify to be that, in case something happens to McCain (grabber, stroke, etc.). 

She is hot though. 







Laugh all you want, but I truly wonder how many dipshit Americans will vote for her because of that. I bet the number is higher then we'd all like it to be.


----------



## darren (Aug 29, 2008)

Jeff said:


> I think it will backfire, because she just isn't qualified to be the leader of this country. She has to qualify to be that, in case something happens to McCain (grabber, stroke, etc.).





I wonder if McCain is a Battlestar Galactica fan...


----------



## noodles (Aug 29, 2008)

But it's not what the Obama camp says about experience, it is about what the McCain camps says. The McCain campaign has been attacking Obama's lack of experience since day one, and then he picks someone who suffers from the same problem. He has simply denied himself his most credible and effective attack.

The simple fact of the matter is that a larger percentage of women than men are pro-choice, and when selecting a female running mate, it is extremely important to remember that. I have to disagree that woman trumps pro-choice, since abortion is such a polarizing issue, and is joined to the hip of feminism and woman's rights. Any pro-choice moderates, who were conscious of McCain's change in stance on abortion in his move to court the GOP conservative base, have just had all their doubts shattered.


----------



## YYZ2112 (Aug 29, 2008)

Jeff said:


> She is hot though.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



She is quite cute and she looked pretty hot in that younger picture of her, but I would really hope that any dipshit americans willing to vote based on how cute she is would rather just stay home and drink a beer or watch some porn.


----------



## The Trooper (Aug 29, 2008)

McCain taking someone more inexeprienced after preaching Obama's "lack of" is no different than Obama running on a platform of "change" and moving away from the same 'ole government and then selecting a running mate that's been in Washington since before he was even a teenager. Besides, Biden has ran for office twice now and gotten beat down badly both times. People are just scratching the surface of what Palin is all about and the Dem's are going to have a hard time discrediting her on experience without kicking Obama in the sack while they're at it. The last thing they want to do is try to create doubt based on the experience of someone a "heartbeat away" from the presidency when they're trying to put someone "in" the presidency that's in the same boat. 

And again, we can debate all we want over whether a stance on abortion is a primary issue or decider for those undecided folks, but we're all aware of where both candidates stand on abortion, and here we are 60 days from an election and they're still undecided to this day for a reason. Their actions speak louder than our assumptions on how the issue affects their decision making.


----------



## Drew (Aug 29, 2008)

noodles said:


> But it's not what the Obama camp says about experience, it is about what the McCain camps says. The McCain campaign has been attacking Obama's lack of experience since day one, and then he picks someone who suffers from the same problem. He has simply denied himself his most credible and effective attack.



Bingo. McCain effectively just dropped his second strongest line of attack ("Obama doesn't have the experience to be President") to support his strongest attack ("Let's actively court all of the Clinton supporters who still aren't happy with Obama."). 

The thing is, that's an attack that reeks of dirty politics, and at the end of the day probably won't sway many supporters. Hillary supporters may not be happy right now, but they're not going to line up in droves to support a guy who has publically supported unequal pay for equal work, who is the one remaining vocal proponent of endless war in Iraq, who has a questionable-at-best energy policy, and who freely admits he doens't "get" economics, in a recession. He might have gained a fraction of a point or so, but there wasn't much upside potential there. 

Meanwhile, questioning Obama's experience? It's even-handed, it's fair, it could be done in a neutral, non-negative manner, and hell, it's something that it's hard to argue against. 

Even discounting the fact that Clinton isn't going to sit back and idly take this, and the fact that it opens McCain up to feminist critiques that he's objectifying Palin for her sex to split the Democratic party, he was better off playing the experience card. 

I was half expecting him to pick Lieberman, if he wanted to continue to actively court Dems. 

You know, final thought here, that's the most absurd tint of this whole thing - Hillary's supporters are by-the-book Democrats, the sort of core party faithful who have probably never voted for a Republican in a presidential election in their lives. What the hell is the guy _thinking_?


----------



## Drew (Aug 29, 2008)

The Trooper said:


> McCain taking someone more inexeprienced after preaching Obama's "lack of" is no different than Obama running on a platform of "change" and moving away from the same 'ole government and then selecting a running mate that's been in Washington since before he was even a teenager.



Not really. Why? Because the next time McCain plays the experience card, Obama can just start cracking up and say "says the man who picked a running mate who's top three career achievements include being a _runner-up_ in a beauty pagent."

It's a joke that practically writes itself, dude.


----------



## The Trooper (Aug 29, 2008)

Drew said:


> Not really. Why? Because the next time McCain plays the experience card, Obama can just start cracking up and say "says the man who picked a running mate who's top three career achievements include being a _runner-up_ in a beauty pagent."
> 
> It's a joke that practically writes itself, dude.


 
I'm completely missing your point here. You started with "not really" as if you were going to rebut what I was saying...then said exactly what I was saying...there's no difference in the what the two did...now McCain can't argue experience as much and Obama can't argue the "change the same 'ole Washington" routine...


----------



## darren (Aug 29, 2008)

Drew said:


> Bingo. McCain effectively just dropped his second strongest line of attack ("Obama doesn't have the experience to be President") to support his strongest attack ("Let's actively court all of the Clinton supporters who still aren't happy with Obama.").



Yep. He's pretty much taken any kind of "experience" platform off the table, because there's no way he can talk about experience (or lack thereof) without making himself look like a complete hypocrite.

Which makes me wonder what his campaign managers are planning on building their platform around. The economy? Nope. Equal rights? Nope. Pulling out of Iraq? Nope.


----------



## Kryss (Aug 29, 2008)

i have to laugh when you people say you wont vote for her because of experience, obama has less experience than even her. she's not running for the top spot. kind of absurd if you ask me. one thing no one mentioned, she has an 80% approval rating the last 2 years as governer of alaska and a surplus on her budget. how many others are doing that well? if they prep her for the debates and she does well, no doubt in my mind mccain and her win in november. this is what i would classify as a middle class type of woman who has excelled as governor. governor is about as close to the same responsiblities as president as you will find and she's got 80% approval. this appears to be someone not tainted by politics and isn't nearly as shady as obama. say what you will but mccain imo wins the popular independant vote and that usually is about 25% of the vote and who wins the independant voters wins the elections. period. imo this was a brillant move. oh also i'm from illinois, chicago is pretty much a $hithole anymore to live imo and going more and more downhill with each day. i dont see much of this obama change there. you sure as hell won't see that much positive there if you drive through either. chicago is good for one thing anymore going there to drink or see concerts other than that no thanks.

I was gonna vote for ron paul but since he dropped out the lesser of the 2 evils now seems to be mccain.


----------



## darren (Aug 29, 2008)

Kryss said:


> i have to laugh when you people say you wont vote for her because of experience, obama has less experience than even her.


Obama's experience:
_Illinois State legislator, 1997&#8211;2004
U.S. Senator, 2005&#8211;present_​
Palin's experience:
_City Councillor, Wasilla, Alaska, 1992-1996
Mayor, Wasilla, Alaska, 1996-2002
Governor of Alaska, 2006-present_​
Now, you tell me who's more "experienced". Palin may have served as an elected official for longer than Obama, but i wouldn't exactly count being councillor and mayor of some tiny town in Alaska (population: 5,469) as being really hard-core "experience".



> Ithe lesser of the 2 evils now seems to be mccain.


----------



## Papa Shank (Aug 29, 2008)

I was just watching "Newsnight", a BBC politics/news program across here. They were reporting on the two conventions/announcements of Obama and McCain, one of McCains representatives was being interviewed briefly and he basically started saying that Obama can't attack Palin because she's a woman and that McCain isn't being a hypocrite about experience because she's got more experience than Obama and Biden...

Based on what I've seen in the UK I don't see how McCain could have a chance in hell of winning when representatives are talking in such a blatently bs manner.


----------



## Rick (Aug 29, 2008)

JJ Rodriguez said:


> She's a total butter face.



Wow, there's a shock.


----------



## Desecrated (Aug 29, 2008)

darren said:


> Obama's experience:
> _Illinois State legislator, 19972004
> U.S. Senator, 2005present_​
> Palin's experience:
> ...



I don't think size of the town has anything to do with it,almost any form of organization is run the same way. And she might bring some refreshing winds to Washington, but I'm just guessing, I know nothing about the person.


----------



## Xaios (Aug 29, 2008)

THAT's why I'm voting Republican. 


Or... I would...


----------



## Elysian (Aug 29, 2008)

Xaios said:


> THAT's why I'm voting Republican.
> 
> 
> Or... I would...



her nipple is super high on her right boob


----------



## Xaios (Aug 29, 2008)

Nah, look closer you can see it's just the fold on her shirt.


----------



## Trespass (Aug 29, 2008)

Xaios said:


> THAT's why I'm voting Republican.
> 
> 
> Or... I would...



Close enough... your in Yukon, she's in Alaska...


Keep OT though please.


----------



## ohio_eric (Aug 29, 2008)

Upon further reflection and research something strikes me as odd. Palin is hard liner right winger. I mean she is a hard liner. She wants abortion totally outlawed. She doesn't believe the human race has any impact on global warming. She wants the polar bear taken off the endangered species list. She pro-drilling for oil in Alaska. She strongly pro-gun. 

So how in the Hell does someone who is so clearly to the right move anyone in the center toward John McCain? Your base only gets you so far. You need to gather supprt from the independents and those party members who will vote for either party. I have a hard time seeing someone who is so hard line swaying anyone who is to the left of the far right politically.

Of course they will play her as the mother of five, one of whom has Down's Syndrome and another who is off to Iraq, and worked her way to the top and so on and so forth. The American people were dumb enough to buy that George W Bush was this renegade Texan outsider when if fact he was the Ivy League educated son of a former President born in New Engalnd. But I digress.


----------



## JBroll (Aug 29, 2008)

noodles said:


> Worst pick since Dan Quayle, although at least Dab Quayle had experience in the Senate. What is the runner up to Miss Alaska going to do for McCain? Way to piss off all feminists.



Even then, we knew that Quayle had no ability to think clearly, memorize speeches, or read off a teleprompter, much less do a whole lot of real damage, whereas now he's just pulling out Vaguely Sort-Of Qualified MILF #438 - he might as well pick me to head up a division of the military because I beat Quake II again last night.

Jeff


----------



## ohio_eric (Aug 29, 2008)

God damn it Jeff!! I hate it when you make sense.


----------



## Jongpil Yun (Aug 30, 2008)

If McCain/Palin get elected, we'll have a duo in office who literally do not know the meaning of "empirical evidence".

Anthropogenic global warming? Liberal conspiracy. Stem cells? Frist says adult-derived ones are just as powerful, and besides, the whole thing hasn't got any proven health benefits. Keynesianism? Look at history. A Republican in office has meant better economic growth... uh... maybe Reagan vs Carter? Maybe?


----------



## Drew (Aug 30, 2008)

The Trooper said:


> I'm completely missing your point here. You started with "not really" as if you were going to rebut what I was saying...then said exactly what I was saying...there's no difference in the what the two did...now McCain can't argue experience as much and Obama can't argue the "change the same 'ole Washington" routine...



Maybe I'm not making my point clearly enough, then. 

The McCain camp has been from day one saying Obama isn't fit to be elected because he's too inexperienced. Yet, McCain just picked a running mate that makes Barack Obama look like Ted Kennedy. Because of this, he cannot continue to attack Obama about his lack of experience without setting himself up for ridicule, because if McCain wants to argue that you need a lengthy track record of experience in Washington to be president, then wht the hell didhe choose a running mate with virtually NONE??

If experience IS required, then McCain is running with a shitty running mate, which is a huge risk at 72. If experience is NOT required, then his running mate is just fine, but he can't accuse Obama of being too inexperienced to be president. 

What's going to happen of course is he's going to try to have it both ways, keep Palin as a running mate and accuse Obama of being too inexperienced, and get laughed off the political stage.


----------



## E Lucevan Le Stelle (Aug 30, 2008)

On the "milf!" front, she doesn't appear attractive to me... at all.

And before you start with the gay jokes, I say that in strictly an aesthetic way.


----------



## kristallin (Aug 30, 2008)

E Lucevan Le Stelle said:


> On the "milf!" front, she doesn't appear attractive to me... at all.
> 
> And before you start with the gay jokes, I say that in strictly an aesthetic way.



 If a gay man thinks a woman is unattractive, she's unattractive, period. 

Anyway, as an Obama supporter I would like to thank John McCain for handing the Democrats the election. Good one, John!


----------



## Metal Ken (Aug 30, 2008)

She may be milfy, but check it. 
According to wiki (With cited sources):

-Vehemently pro-life
-Opposes same sex marriages (Vies for the "Separate but equal" stance)
-NRA Memeber
-supports "Intelligent" design. 
-Husband works for BP.

I'm gonna vote against McCain extra hard now.


----------



## xXxPriestessxXx (Aug 30, 2008)

The more I look at this pick the more it scares me. She is a STRICT conservative which has people here in the south going nuts. They know nothing about her except that she follows their strict relgious views on things and now they are planning on voting for McCain solely on his choice to maker her his veep. He is old and if he were to kill over in office this crazy hard-nose conservative could be the president?! Yikes.


----------



## Jeff (Aug 30, 2008)

She's definitely going to kick Biden's ass in the debates though. 











































Well in the swimsuit segment, anyway.


----------



## The Dark Wolf (Aug 30, 2008)

Wow.


----------



## atimoc (Aug 30, 2008)

I hope for McCain's sake she'd never show up to the office looking like this (fake or not), it would probably cause a heart attack.


----------



## Jeff (Aug 30, 2008)

atimoc said:


> I hope for McCain's sake she'd never show up to the office looking like this (fake or not), it would probably cause a heart attack.



If elected McCain will one-up Bill Clinton; instead of boning just an intern, he'll bone the VP.


----------



## Rick (Aug 30, 2008)

^Nice.


----------



## Elysian (Aug 30, 2008)

Jeff said:


> If elected McCain will one-up Bill Clinton; instead of boning just an intern, he'll bone the VP.



i was thinking he picked her to be his next extramarital fling


----------



## Christopher (Aug 30, 2008)

I just hope the repub's didn't think they'd get the female vote because they have a female on the ticket. My wife and I were discussing this and she was quite insulted that McCain would pick a woman with no serious political experience just so women would vote for him. It might not have been the intent but my wife is not the first woman who has expressed the same opinion.


----------



## Holy Katana (Aug 30, 2008)

noodles said:


> Honestly, I always thought the role of the running mate was to solidify support from your own party. Obama is not going to woo away conservatives with Joe Biden, but he is going to reinforce the support of the traditional Democrats who want to see someone with the experience and traditional party values that Obama is weak on. He is a choice that will pull the moderate Democrats back from the edge.
> 
> Meanwhile, McCain picks someone young, with next to zero experience, who is against drilling in the AWR, signed into law benefits for same sex couples, and her husband is a union man. This is going to scare Republicans the same way that Dan Quayle did, and Biden is going to quietly tear her apart in the debates in much the same way that Bentsen did.
> 
> When your candidate is young and inexperienced, someone with respect and experienced is a logical choice. When you are the oldest man to ever run for election, then you should NOT pick someone with even less experience than your candidate. When people pull the lever in November, they are going to think about her leading the country if McCain dies in office.



She's actually for drilling in the ANWR.


----------



## Xaios (Aug 30, 2008)

Holy Katana said:


> She's actually for drilling in the ANWR.



Aye, as I recall, it's actually McCain who's against drilling in ANWR from what I've read.

One thing McCain has definitely succeeded in was pulling all the attention away from Obama and Biden. For better or for worse, the whole freaking world is talking about Palin now. And you know that old saying, "Any press is good press." EVERYONE wants to know who she is, and what she's about. Doesn't matter of Obama and Biden have played all their cards right, losing all that media attention less than a day after a critical speech has GOT to hurt.


----------



## Elysian (Aug 30, 2008)




----------



## ohio_eric (Aug 30, 2008)




----------



## atimoc (Aug 30, 2008)

darren said:


> I wonder if McCain is a Battlestar Galactica fan...


----------



## Desecrated (Aug 30, 2008)

atimoc said:


>



holy shit


----------



## st2012 (Aug 30, 2008)

Jesus Christ thats uncanny...


----------



## Naren (Aug 31, 2008)

It's a conspiracy run by Battlestar Galactica!


----------



## Randy (Aug 31, 2008)

ohio_eric said:


>



Pure, unadulterated win.


----------



## Chris (Aug 31, 2008)

darren said:


> Obama's experience:
> _Illinois State legislator, 19972004
> U.S. Senator, 2005present_​
> Palin's experience:
> ...



Hey, when you look at it that way, I have almost twice as many members on this site as she had in her town.


----------



## Xaios (Aug 31, 2008)

Oh great, now Chris is gonna run for President. Good job, guys.


----------



## Chris (Aug 31, 2008)




----------



## S-O (Aug 31, 2008)

I was at the rally  I was in one of the Marching Bands that performed. The entire thing after it was pretty crappy. It was like a poorly run and poorly budgeted concert.

Highlight of the rally was a guy shouting "Mcain was apart of the 9/11 coverup!" and the crowd shouting shut up all at once. He repeated it a couple more times, then about 10 secret service guys surrounded him and when the walked away 30 seconds later than man was gone.


----------



## kristallin (Aug 31, 2008)

Christopher said:


> I just hope the repub's didn't think they'd get the female vote because they have a female on the ticket. My wife and I were discussing this and she was quite insulted that McCain would pick a woman with no serious political experience just so women would vote for him. It might not have been the intent but my wife is not the first woman who has expressed the same opinion.



That's precisely why Palin was chosen, there's no other explanation for why McCain would chose someone he didn't know (other than political suicide of course).


----------



## Josh Lawson (Aug 31, 2008)

He'll probably still get elected thanks to those Liebold Liar voting machines, and a crooked Electoral College.


----------



## Desecrated (Aug 31, 2008)




----------



## 7 Dying Trees (Sep 1, 2008)

atimoc said:


>






atimoc said:


> I hope for McCain's sake she'd never show up to the office looking like this (fake or not), it would probably cause a heart attack.


She's had 5 kids. Must be like a cave by now...


----------



## D-EJ915 (Sep 1, 2008)

atimoc said:


>



 awesome

we need picard and janeway, ftw


----------



## Benzesp (Sep 1, 2008)

McCain....... The man's hipocrisy knows no bounds..

It's going to be a long election with a lot of bloodshed...


----------



## Cancer (Sep 1, 2008)

> She is hot though.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




You took the words right out of my mouth. I will never forget my reaction when I found out McCain picked her for a running mate, I immediately looked her up on the Wiki, simply to overcome the reaction that I wanted to either fuck her, give her an an apple, or borrow a book from her. This is an emotional move, meant to get an emotional response. In the long run it will fail, and the Reps will lose, but not before swaying masses of the uneducated who vote with their gut, and not with their mind.


Thing is, to read her her record, she seems like a damn good politician, and really a pretty decent person, which American politics needs right now, even if its just a "sense of", y'know what I mean. I find it interesting that even Palin has gone one record to say that she "doesn't really know what the VP does".

Here's a theory, maybe McCain has, at this point, acknowledged that the Reps cannot win in 2008, perhaps this is more of long term ploy, to set up the resurgence of the Rep party, and thusly the first woman president, for 2016?


I have to tell ya, if that's the case, I'd pick her over Hillary in a heartbeat, especially at that point when she WILL have more political experience.


----------



## Elysian (Sep 1, 2008)

Cancer said:


> You took the words right out of my mouth. I will never forget my reaction when I found out McCain picked her for a running mate, I immediately looked her up on the Wiki, simply to overcome the reaction that I wanted to either fuck her, give her an an apple, or borrow a book from her. This is an emotional move, meant to get an emotional response. In the long run it will fail, and the Reps will lose, but not before swaying masses of the uneducated who vote with their gut, and not with their mind.
> 
> 
> Thing is, to read her her record, she seems like a damn good politician, and really a pretty decent person, which American politics needs right now, even if its just a "sense of", y'know what I mean. I find it interesting that even Palin has gone one record to say that she "doesn't really know what the VP does".
> ...



i'd vote for kay bailey hutchison before i ever voted for this clown.


----------



## Drew (Sep 2, 2008)

Cancer said:


> I have to tell ya, if that's the case, I'd pick her over Hillary in a heartbeat, especially at that point when she WILL have more political experience.



Why? I'm no Clinton fan, but the fact remains I'll take anyone in favor of a woman's right to choose, a fiscally responsible tax plan, universal health care coverage, and liberal Supreme Court justices over someone who's anti-abortion, in favor of furthering our record deficit with additional tax cuts for the wealthy, so called "market-driven" health care initiatives that protect the status quo, and a president who would further push one of the three principle checks and balances of the American government towards extreme conservativism. 

It's not about how hot someone is, or even about whether or not they seem "decent." It's about what they will do when they come to office, and I like what Clinton would do a HELL of a lot more than Palin.


----------



## Vince (Sep 2, 2008)

McCain + Palin = McPain!! 

We're all fucked!


----------



## Christopher (Sep 2, 2008)

I will say this, as disgusting as the fact may be, both parties have made the race confusing for the bigoted, sexist rednecks in my neck of the woods. The either have to vote for a "colored" (not my words) or woman.


----------



## auxioluck (Sep 2, 2008)

McCain's a genius. This will tweak the noggins of the undecided democratic women. I will give Palin this, though: She is just as good of a speaker as Obama. And to be fair, a lot of stuff Obama is saying he's GOING to do, she has already started DOING in Alaska. 

And you know how I feel? Either way, this election is going to make history, and either candidate will be better than Bush. I'm actually kind of happier now.


----------



## noodles (Sep 2, 2008)

auxioluck said:


> And to be fair, a lot of stuff Obama is saying he's GOING to do, she has already started DOING in Alaska.



It is a lot easier to get stuff by a few podunk state delegates than the United States Congress.


----------



## Elysian (Sep 2, 2008)

auxioluck said:


> McCain's a genius. This will tweak the noggins of the undecided democratic women. I will give Palin this, though: She is just as good of a speaker as Obama. And to be fair, a lot of stuff Obama is saying he's GOING to do, she has already started DOING in Alaska.
> 
> And you know how I feel? Either way, this election is going to make history, and either candidate will be better than Bush. I'm actually kind of happier now.



considering McCain has pledged to continue virtually all of Bush policy, and has a VP further right than Bush or Cheney, i really don't see how McCain would be better than bush.


----------



## Christopher (Sep 2, 2008)

Elysian said:


> considering McCain has pledged to continue virtually all of Bush policy, and has a VP further right than Bush or Cheney, i really don't see how McCain would be better than bush.



I was just thinking the same thing!


----------



## The Trooper (Sep 9, 2008)

The Trooper said:


> I don't think we can generalize and assume that the majority of Clinton supporters are pro-choice and will immediately be turned off by anyone pro-life. Those folks were attracted to Clinton for a variety of reasons and I think "woman" will trump "pro-life" in many of their eyes. She won't win over the former Clinton supporters that are already in Obama's corner and will "come home" to Dem's regardless. It's the remainder holding out that are undecided and some independants she has a shot with. If being pro-life was the biggest factor for them, they wouldn't be undecided right now...they would have already been in Omaba's camp...
> 
> This pick is going to be looked at in '09 as a brilliant move that gave McCain the edge he needed or the final slip that nailed the coffin shut. Let's hope the hammer is already dropping.


 
To follow up on my past comments:

*"Poll Shows Big Shift to McCain Among White Women"*

Poll shows big shift to McCain among white women | Reuters

_*"WASHINGTON (Reuters)* - Republican presidential candidate __John McCain__ has gained huge support among white women since naming __Sarah Palin__ as his running mate and now leads Democrat __Barack Obama__ among those voters, according to a survey published on Tuesday._

_The Washington Post/ABC News poll found that much of McCain's surge in the polls since the Republican National Convention is attributable to the shift in support among white women."_


And it probably doesn't help matters when you have this:


*"Hillary Backers Come to Defense of Palin"*

_Hillary backers come to defense of Palin - Yahoo! News_

_"The leaders of a women's political organization that launched earlier this year to support Hillary Clinton are speaking out against what they say are examples of media sexism toward Sarah Palin and urging members to tell the press corps "to back off." _


Like I mentioned, here's a group of women who don't even agree with her stance on issues, but they're taking shots at the media on her behalf siomply because of her gender.


----------



## noodles (Sep 9, 2008)

I've also noticed that while she has given a boost to McCain in the polls, she has done absolutely nothing to erode his electoral vote lead. This simply means she is mobilizing the evangelical vote, who were sitting idle because they didn't like McCain. McCain's numbers are simply going up in the states that he already has. "Fifty-year old white women in the bible belt" still count as white women.

If you really want to see how the polls differ, then call back the same white women that you polled the first time around to see if they changed. Also, as Elysian has mentioned many times before, more and more people have cell phones and no home phones, and these people tend to be young and Democratic. So they reached five hundred old ladies at home on their rotary phone? I'll be concerned when a blue state goes red.


----------



## The Trooper (Sep 9, 2008)

Well, I think he was going to get a boost regardless from the RNC, whether it was Palin or Joe Blow picked as a running mate. It's the later effects of the woman vote that have me scratching my head. I just don't want it to have any lasting effect in states like OH, PA, WV, etc. 

As far as polls, they are what they are. It's stated up front they have + or - X% margin of error, and all through the primaries they've been pretty accurate thus far, minus a flub or two. Maybe not so much as nailing down specific numbers, but at assessing trends. The polls are all over the place...some use cell phone data, some use a system that compensates, etc. It's not an exact science, hence the margin of error. Besides, they predicted the young, Democratic cell phone only users were going to give Kerry a bounce in 2004 not accounted for in polls too and we see how well that worked out. 

Right now I'm comfortable with Obama where he stands. I just hope we don't see too much shift in the next 50-60 days.


----------



## Elysian (Sep 9, 2008)

noodles said:


> I've also noticed that while she has given a boost to McCain in the polls, she has done absolutely nothing to erode his electoral vote lead. This simply means she is mobilizing the evangelical vote, who were sitting idle because they didn't like McCain. McCain's numbers are simply going up in the states that he already has. "Fifty-year old white women in the bible belt" still count as white women.
> 
> If you really want to see how the polls differ, then call back the same white women that you polled the first time around to see if they changed. Also, as Elysian has mentioned many times before, more and more people have cell phones and no home phones, and these people tend to be young and Democratic. So they reached five hundred old ladies at home on their rotary phone? I'll be concerned when a blue state goes red.



actually, i've been looking at gallup a lot more lately, and they poll people who only own cell phones, so you get a better representation.


----------



## Drew (Sep 10, 2008)

Elysian said:


> actually, i've been looking at gallup a lot more lately, and they poll people who only own cell phones, so you get a better representation.



ONLY own cell phones? That wouldn't seem much fairer, actually, in that a lot of elderly voters couldn't use a cell phone if their life depended on it, but firmly intend to vote. 

I'd think the best way to go, revolutionary as this might seem nuts would be to poll conventional lines and cell phones in such a way as to approximately replicate the percentage of voters who own cell phones and those who do not, to get an accurate dispertion. I.e, take the percentage of Americans who own both a land line and a cell phone vs those who just own a land line (let's say it's 60%, so that there's a 6 in 10 chance that every person you call does not own a cell phone), and then take the national average of registered voters who own one or the other, and start adding cell phone only users to the pool until the ratio of people who most likely do not have a cell phone that you speak to is about the national average for registered voters. 

I.e. - to take that 6 in 10 only own a landline example, if the actual number of land-line-only likely voters was about 3 in 10, and 2 in 10 cell phone owners own land lines as well, then, say, add 30 cell phone users to that 10 land line sample to get the ratio right (6/10)*1 + (2/10)*3 = 12/40 = 3/10. That would ensure your sample dispersion is about right for the voting public...


----------



## The Trooper (Sep 10, 2008)

A few polls use some screwed up systems to try and compensate for cell only users, but I haven't seen one I'd take as accurate yet. Right now, I don't view it as much of an issue. It's estimated that even if the majority of cell only users were to heavily favor one candidate (say 60-40 or so), it would only sway the polls by up to a couple of percent at best. Considering that polls already give up to a 4% and even 5% sometimes margin of error, I think we're seeing very minimal effects from the cell only crowd at the moment, and it seems to hold true in the last election (when Kerry was assumed to get a bump from that crowd that didn't happen) and so far through the voting in the primaries which has been pretty accurate on the whole for '07 and '08. 

Now, give it another election or two when the cell only crowd starts become more and more of the population and I think we'll have a bigger issue. Right now though, I don't think it's statistically significant enough to take too seriously.

As for the Palin and white women bump for the GOP, the bump has been primarily because of shift in white women in the 18-49 year old bracket, not the older crowd. They've always been "home" with McCain. Once could argue that given those numbers, if the cell crowd was included, it would only reinforce the poll that was taken, unless you guys think for some strange reason that only Obama's 18-49 year old voters use cell phones. It reflects a trend as a whole, and it's the same population that was used from the last time as a representative sample, so it's safe to assume the numbers are fairly accurate.


----------



## Drew (Sep 10, 2008)

The Trooper said:


> I think we're seeing very minimal effects from the cell only crowd at the moment, and it seems to hold true in the last election (when Kerry was assumed to get a bump from that crowd that didn't happen) and so far through the voting in the primaries which has been pretty accurate on the whole for '07 and '08.



Yeah, but we're seeing a way more energized younger voter movement this time around than we did then. Dean showed that it was possible to run a young grassroots campaign and come out of nowhere - I mean, check me if I'm wrong, but he shocked a lot of insiders when he jumped to a lead in the primary race in '00 after Iowa, correct? I didn't follow politics nearly as closely back then, but that was my recollection... Obama did sort of the same thing this time around, where the pundits were looking at Iowa as Clinton's coming out party right up until she took 3rd. The difference here, is Obama eventually won, while Dean did not. 

He's been running to the center since then - he has to, really - and I'm sure that will somewhat depress the young idealist vote, but unless he does something that completely turns them off in the next 60 days I'd expect higher voter turnout by a hefty margin than Kerry recieved.


----------



## Elysian (Sep 10, 2008)

Drew said:


> ONLY own cell phones? That wouldn't seem much fairer, actually, in that a lot of elderly voters couldn't use a cell phone if their life depended on it, but firmly intend to vote.
> 
> I'd think the best way to go, revolutionary as this might seem nuts would be to poll conventional lines and cell phones in such a way as to approximately replicate the percentage of voters who own cell phones and those who do not, to get an accurate dispertion. I.e, take the percentage of Americans who own both a land line and a cell phone vs those who just own a land line (let's say it's 60%, so that there's a 6 in 10 chance that every person you call does not own a cell phone), and then take the national average of registered voters who own one or the other, and start adding cell phone only users to the pool until the ratio of people who most likely do not have a cell phone that you speak to is about the national average for registered voters.
> 
> I.e. - to take that 6 in 10 only own a landline example, if the actual number of land-line-only likely voters was about 3 in 10, and 2 in 10 cell phone owners own land lines as well, then, say, add 30 cell phone users to that 10 land line sample to get the ratio right (6/10)*1 + (2/10)*3 = 12/40 = 3/10. That would ensure your sample dispersion is about right for the voting public...


no, i was just saying, they add the cell phone demographic in, they still call landlines too, but the cell phones they call are for people who don't own landlines, hence only own cell phones


----------



## Drew (Sep 10, 2008)

Elysian said:


> no, i was just saying, they add the cell phone demographic in, they still call landlines too, but the cell phones they call are for people who don't own landlines, hence only own cell phones



Yeah, but it's tough to deduce that from a phone number, you know? I'm assuming when people are doing these polls, they don't have access to much more demographic information than that, and what they draw conclusions on is picked up on the call. I mean, I'd be a little uncomfortable if I got a phone call from some stranger who said, "Hi, I'm calling from the Gallup Poll, could you just confirm you're a white college educated male, 20-29, who owns a cell phone but not a land line before we begin?"

I guess I'm saying is that, in a truly blind sample where all you know is that the number you're calling is a cell phone or a land line, then you could probably back into a pretty good random sample that would correspond approximately to the cell phone/land line ownership of America as a whole based on three statistics - the number of Americans who own both a cell phone and a land line, the number of Americans who own a land line and not a cell phone, and the number of Americans who own a cell phone and a land line (or, alternately, a cell phone and no land line). 

the better way to do it, truly random, I guess, would be to create a sample set of 10,000 numbers in this manner, and then draw out the 1,000 or so you'd need for the survey at random, and then not tell the people who are doing the calling what it is they're calling.

EDIT - oh, nevermind, I just realized I misread you. I'll leave this here though as I think the info itself is still worth discussing.


----------



## Chris (Sep 10, 2008)

Elysian said:


> no, i was just saying, they add the cell phone demographic in, they still call landlines too, but the cell phones they call are for people who don't own landlines, hence only own cell phones



[action=Chris]hasn't owned a landline in ~5+ years or so.[/action]


----------

