Well, you ain’t gonna get it. This is an election, in which we compare everybody who’s running against everybody else who’s running, and pick whoever you like the best (or dislike the least). So “who is the best qualified” is a question that can’t be, and shouldn’t be, considered in the abstract.
You don’t have to run faster than the bear. You just have to run faster than Fred.
Regards,
Shodan
Not close to true. The president selects people to run all those aspects. Who he chooses determines how he governs.
Of course she is. What are the qualifications for vice-president? As near as I can tell: 1. someone who will get votes the presidential candiate alone might not have gotten, 2. someone who doesn’t mind not being the presidential candidate.
It looks like Palin was brought on board to fill those two requirements, therefore the answer to your question is yes.
Given that the job of VP isn’t worth a bucket of warm piss, I’d say that Palin is qualified enough to be VP. If she is “most qualified” is obviously subjective depending on how you rank the job’s requirements. Given that the role is largely ceremonial, (present VP excepted) I think she’d do a fine job attending funerals and state dinners. I don’t think that anyone really believes that candidates pick a running mate who will carry on their legacy if something dreadful should happen to the Prez.
Thank you. Sometimes it takes a newcomer to our country to see past the myths we build up for ourselves.
Odd statement, for its sweeping nature if nothing else. Since there are notable examples in recent history (Johnson, Ford) of VPs who have had to assume the mantle of president during their terms, do you really think it’s a complete non-issue in the selection process? Would you vote for someone who selected Dane Cook for VP because the office is so useless?
I’m not a McCain supporter (still waiting to decide). I kinda don’t like Palin. However, she seems to energize the base. As others have stated, to be the most qualified is a lot of luck and timing, and it depends on who you run against. Is she the best in these circumstances? I don’t know, but I’ll still say probably not, though the jury is still out. I would’ve liked Romney, instead.
False. She is NOT the MOST qualified to BE Vice-President.
However, she IS qualified - she has sufficient experience and intelligence to be a very capable Vice President. There might be some with more experience, but she has more than enough to handle the position.
More importantly, she might be the best choice as the Vice Presidential Candidate to support McCain’s Presidential ambitions. That is the critical issue - can she bring in enough net votes to the McCain side? We won’t know the answer to that one until the exit polls are done (“Did McCain’s choice of Sarah Palin sway your vote?”)
Yep, I think she’s qualified. And, no, you’re not going to avoid comparisons to Obama since politics so frequently requires choosing The Lesser Evil.
Not all experience is equal. Someone could be a senator for years and never do anything worthwhile. That doesn’t mean they’re more qualified than someone who has made a splash early on in their term like Palin did.
Her ability to rapidly ascend from her humble beginnings to the position of a governor says something about her intelligence and ability to get things done. Nobody handed her victories to her. Some liberals have sneered at her for having a degree “only” from the University of Idaho (nevermind that a lot of the voters Democrats are trying to woo never went to college at all). I think it says a lot in her favor that she became a political leader in her state without relying on “connections” from an Ivy League school or even just within her party (since she unseated the incumbent Republican).
Personality counts in politics, and her persona is strong yet likeable. It’s refreshingly different from the norm with a dash of sex appeal. That definitely “brings something to the ticket” that picking an older candidate with more time in office probably wouldn’t. A lot of people are predisposed to think Palin’s a lightweight, probably largely because she’s a female and a mother (as a culture, we’re not used to women with kids actually being capable of taking their jobs seriously too), but it seems from the convention that she does a good job of winning people over when they get a chance to actually hear her talk instead of relying on what other people say about her.
Even if you felt her experience wasn’t adequate right now (which I truly don’t feel), unless Mac dies on Inauguration Day, which is unlikely, Palin will pick up more direct expeirence with the Presidency before she has to step in than Obama possibly could before he steps in. That does make an important difference between them in my view. Palin will also have McCain’s team of advisors and such to guide her (if you accept the logic that Obama’s advisors will help him avoid fumbling things too badly during his early days in office).
It wasn’t meant to be a semantic quibble, it was meant to question how big the group of "highly qualified’ people is, and how we determine who is in it.
I wouldn’t go so far as to say that it’s a complete non-issue but I would say that it pales in comparison to helping the presidential candidate get elected. Look at the current crop. Obama’s platform is “change” and he picked someone that has been in the Senate for 35 years. McCain’s platform is “I was a POW so you owe me” and he picks a milfish hockey mom. So yes, I think they’re both equally qualified to be honored guests at the buffet line.
Yes, I am cynical. Why do you ask?
Thanks for your response, lavenderviolet. I don’t mind comparisons to Obama, as long as the person is willing to discuss Palin as well. The problem is that with everyone else, as soon as you bring up Palin’s qualifications, people immediately change the subject to Obama’s qualifications, or Biden’s. That’s a lot different than saying “I think Palin is qualified because X, Y, Z, and now let’s compare that to Biden’s (or anyone else’s) qualifications.” That hasn’t been the response. The response has been an immediate retort about other people with no willingness to discuss Palin. Thank you for breaking this trend.
I disagree. Someone who has been a Senator for years is going to gain lots of experience, even if they don’t do anything spectacular. I’ve never done anything spectacular in my 11 years at my current job, but I sure know the ins and outs of the system a hell of a lot better than someone who’s only been on the job a short while.
If by “get things done” you mean “convince a lot of people to vote for you,” I agree. But the ability to convince a lot of people to vote for you does not necessarily mean much.
I am more concerned that the second most powerful person in the world has a college education than I am about whether or not average joe on the street does. I don’t understand this comparison at all. I think insisting that a VP have a college degree is certainly a fair standard.
I disagree about her being likable. She really really grates on my nerves.
The fact that sex appeal brings something to the ticket says more about the voters than it does about Palin. Unfortunately, I fear you are right, as a coworker of mine readily admits that she voted for Bush twice and will always think he was a great president because he is cute.
Accusations of sexism need to be backed up with some sort of evidence. I can assure you that I do not think her status as a woman has any bearing on her qualifications at all. And the fact that her reading a speech that someone else wrote resulted in her “winning people over when they get a chance to hear her talk” is another sad commentary on today’s electorate, and gives us very little new information about Palin herself, or her qualifications beyond being able to read well.
I think she’s the Republican most qualified to help McCain get elected.
In part because she’s shorter than he is, and there aren’t many Republicans around that fit that bill.
False.
Not sure what inference you’d like to draw from that. I don’t remember any election where I felt that the VP candidate on either side was “the most qualified” member of his or her party.
Perhaps you should be asking: “Of all recent VP picks, Palin is the least qualified. True or False?”
Answer: True.
Dick Cheney came close to being ‘most qualified’. Al Gore? Oh, hell yeah.
Wasn’t he the guy who lost to Bush running for President?? Says something right there if he was most qualified…
(Won’t even comment on Big Dick Chaney being ‘most qualified’…)
-XT
WTF? I answered your question and even offered examples of the most qualified people for the jobs. I don’t recall screaming sexism… Weird.
Let me ask you a question, do you think Biden is the most qualified Democrat for the VP? More qualified than Gore?
Thank you for proving my point yet again Bobotheoptimist. Once again, you refuse to discuss Palin’s qualifications, and try to change the topic to Biden. Why won’t you just discuss Palin’s qualifications? Why the constant attempts to change the subject? What are you afraid of?
BTW, I already called this bluff, and told what I thought of Biden in this post. And, true to form, even after I told what I thought of Biden, you still refuse to talk about Palin.
ETA: Gore isn’t qualified because he doesn’t want the job.
She cowtows to the religious right,(she is one). She is Govener of a Big state. She has the Bush mind on most issues,caters to the Big Oil people, Bush is also from a big oil state. She wants to drill for more oil in Alaska, She is closer to Bush thinking than most Republicans .
Monavis
I should had added she also has that macho image that Bush likes to portray, and what this country does not need right now is another bully or tough guy or gal image. Bush’s I am tougher tha you attitude dosn’t help this country. We need some one with the tact of Obama, the willingness to listen to others with different ways of thinking and consider that others may have a point as well. Not shoot first and ask questions later.
Monavis