It’s been my experience that when somebody asserts something and then says something like “it’s not truly debatable,” or “it’s impossible to disagree with me,” it’s a sure sign that you should not trust the assertion.
Seeing as the lady was able to come out of nowhere to become the governor of Alaska, and the the VP candidate and now appears to be in aposition to become Presidential candidate, I would argue that that is compelling evidence that her acumen and demeanor might be just a tad greater than your average truck stop waitress.
So not only do I think it’s truly debatable, I think you ridiculous assertion is blatantly false upon even the most cursory examination.
Or else, you eat at a much better class of truckstops than I.
Obama is her superior by any metric you want to use. No need for rhetoric. She’s just flat out-matched on sheer intellect (not to mention on the issues themselevs).
If you think that Palin even has any business being on the stage in a Presidential debate, then I have to question either your own intellect or your own honesty.
It’s true she’s managed to promote herself very well or she wouldn’t be where she is. She’s able to market herself regardless of what she is saying or even how well she is saying it, because she’s not a good speaker by any measure.
She can keep her talking points to a few notes on her hand versus Obama who does his best work with a teleprompter. It’s a cheer leader half-term Governor verses a preacher half-term Senator.
She didn’t “come out of nowhere.” She didn’t do anything at all. She was plucked from obscurity by John McCain who was trying to save his campaign by putting a vagina on the ticket. Her trivial prior “accomplishments” aside (being a part time, figurehead mayor of a remote, Alaskan meth lab community, then opportunistically taking advantage of an an ethics scandal to sleaze her way into the governorship of a small state, where she had no accomplishments and a questionable ethics record of her own). She is demonstrably an idiot, and not in a GWB or Dan Quayle way either, where they were merely on the low end of the curve for national politicians, but a bona fide rube. An uneducated, incurious dumbass without even a basic understanding of the issues at hand. This is a woman who during her debate prep had to be told repeatedly (and without success) that Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11. She thinks that Africa is a country. She thinks that humans and dinosaurs lived together. She thinks that we should have tirned to the Netherlands for help with the oil leak because she heard that story about the kid and the dike. That’s only a smattering. Is that not convincing for you? How about this: “Death Panels.” Remember that?
Can you identify one authentically intelligent or insightful thing she’s ever said about any kind of relevant national policy issue at all? Can you cite anything she’s ever said which even shows basic comprehension?
Your angle in this thread is silly. It’s like protesting that we can’t assume Mike Tyson would be Michael Jackson in a fist fight. Yes we can. Obama vs. Palin in a debate is a mismatch. Obama’s only concern would be about whther he might humiliate her enough to cause a sympathetc backlash, especially since she’s such an expert at playing the victim.
Her blank-slateness is her greatest asset. Who can point to one failed policy she has ever implemented; one vote for which the outcome was anything less than rosy? What detailed policy has she ever even proposed?
I don’t know what she would have done had she continued as governor of Alaska, but by quitting, she has done nothing wrong.
I never said Obama is a genius. It’s not like he has to be a genius to be smarter than Palin, who is, in fact, wholly and indeed determinedly mediocre.
There is nothing Obama could do in a debate that would do more to expose Palin’s lack of intelligence, depth, and engagement than she has already done herself.
All he would have to do is answer every question clearly, directly and to the best of his ability. Palin would do the rest herself. He would barely have to ackowledge her existence.
This thread is about debate tactics, and takes as a premise that Obama could objectively beat Palin if he so chose. Most people here are already having that discussion.
If you wish to factually debate that premise, I suppose that’s not too far out of bounds. (I don’t speak for the OP, of course.) If you wish to go after the OP for bias, and to question whether the very certainty undermines the premise, that seems to be just muddying the waters.
Yes but so far the resume doesn’t read well. Palin on the the other hand, is getting paid to rally crowds and has a better track record getting people elected. She’s sharpening her speaking skills while he continues to use teleprompters. She is literally paid to practice.
I’d be surprised if she got the Republican nomination but not if she became the head of the RNC.
This presumes that Palin can survive the primaries and become the nominee. The other candidates will be all over her for quitting the governorship and for her lack of experience. Perhaps the initial question should be whether or not Newt Gingrich should pull his punches or clean her clock.
On-line betting/prediction markets like this one (operating on a “put your money where your mouth is” idea) are known to be the most reliable predictors. This one shows
Palin is 70.0% to formally announce a run for President in 2010 or 2011.
Palin is 18.9% to be the 2012 Republican nominee
Republican candidate is 41.6% to win the 2012 Presidential election.
(AFAIK, one can’t bet the parley Palin to be nominated and win, which I’d suppose to be much less than 18.9% x 41.6%.)
[Moderating]Some Dopers may be truck stop waitresses, so please go to BBQ Pit to insult them. No warning issued.[/Moderating]
