oh crap, she says 'Nucular' too!

Define less fortunate first.

However:

1) The rich should be rewarded for what they create. They do a lot more than the government, bloated by waste and bureaucracy could. They provide jobs, tax revenue (the wealthy pay a large % of the US tax revenue), new products and services that benefit society. They also how to create new jobs and such through managing money.

2) The government already has a wealth of social programs. We have Medicaid/Medicare, welfare/disability/Social Security/food stamps, low-income housing and assistance in paying bills (heating/gas, ect.) and homeless shelters. We have educational programs all over.

3) The increase in charity from people (particularly the upper crust of income generators). They are more pro-active and demand results.

I don't think just taking money from a wealthier party, who has worked hard and created something, and giving it to the less fortunate works.

Theyre really going after the Hillary vote.

I kind of wonder how Hillary is feeling right now. I wonder if she is pissed as hell.

Having traveled a bit, our view of poverty in this country is rather jaded.

I thought they were going for the Tina Fey vote when I saw that banner.

I don't know, if done correctly they can corner McCain into a difficult position. If he says that Palin is qualified to be President, then it's going to be awfully hard to criticize Obama's inexperience.

Yeah, that was hilarious.

I'm sure she's at least a tiny bit conflicted.

That can kind of work both ways, ie - How can Obama's campaign criticize her inexperience? However, Obama has been in the public eye for so much longer that I think there is the illusion of much more experience than her. I think it was a mistake to put someone in the race with less experience than Obama. It undoes their strongest Obama attack to some degree.

I think she looks alright. I wonder if she spits or swallows though...

well apparently she's great for the religious right so that's great for the McCain camp.

She's a governor. Bill Clinton used that on his political resume too. Obama has ZERO executive experience, so if his people try to play the inexperience card on her...blammo it comes back to bite them big time.

But do you see the jobs of the Presidency and Vice Presidency different? I guess it depends on how one will see these roles.

I hate that logic.

"There are people who shit stinks worse, so be happy."

None of those people live in America, you can't make that comparison.

Ya, I think Obama ultamitely wins that back and forth because he's more experienced than her.

Still, it's funny to think that just a few pages back, people were arguging over whether experience mattered at all, and now everyone has to backtrack and sort out their opinions on that based on these developments.

They are, but the Obama camp will make much of the fact that she's a "heartbeat away from the presidency".

She has enough experience to be VP

Again, so did Bush. Experience is overrated. Its all about good decision making.

McCain's skin cancer issues certainly make her experience an issue to consider.

the GOP vice-presidential nominee is as experienced as the Democratic presidential nominee but also has executive decision-making that Obama lacks. Her tough stance on reform of long corrupt practices could give her a very clear advantage over practiced cronyists Obama and Biden.

I do think one's evaluation of the roles could be a factor, but I'm talking more about public perception than the practical meaning. I think some people are going to go from "What do we really know about Obama?" who has been nationally known for 4 years to "Who the hell is this woman?" She has no experience and they didn't even know who she was at all. I just think it undermines that doubt they had created about Obama. It shifts the unknown to her, at least to some degree.

I think going with a ticket of total experience would've reinforced McCain's strength. Just my opinion.

That's true, she's actually the only one on either ticket with executive experience.

Not sure whether that matters in a practical sense, or whether people will even pick up on that distinction.

LOL, The Republican talking head said Palin wont be the 'attack dog' because this elections isnt about attacks....um, have you seen the ads thus far, not taking into account who's responsible for the ad? That was as disingenuous a statement as Ive heard all week from either side.

I can when a lot of the people I speak of would absolutely LOVE to trade places with an American "poor" person because, for them, it would be a major step up in their standard of living.

Isn't the point of the VP to pick someone who is qualified to be president in the event that something happens to the president?

Therefore to be qualified to be vice-president, you have be qualified to be president, right?

The point is that the VP choice can potentially take away one of McCain's best attacks. That doesn't mean someone's opinion of whether or not experience matters has changed.

What does domestic economic policy have to do with how people live in 3rd world countries?

Tiny Fey lol.

As I posted a post a page ago, how do you define "poor"?

I guess you could say a lot of people are looking at Obama the same way, yeah the guy makes pretty speeches...but what has he done? If it weren't a major concern, I don't think the race would be as close as it is.

I normally agree with most of your posts...which is why I usually dont feel overly compelled to post the same comment...but I actually disagree with this for the following reasons.

Obama/Biden can try that tact, but in reality, this is a woman with more executive experience than the other 3 candidates combined.

Couple that with (whether valid or otherwise) having less (or nearly zero) baggage issues to defend and I think it's a road that Dems would be better served to stay away from.

But I would agree that Dems would be well served to argue that if Palin is capable of being President, then so is Obama. But really...is that a compelling outcome to even bother broaching the subject over? IMHO, nope.

Why would I use economic conditions outside of the US as a reference point?

Why wouldn't you?

Take it easy, dude. You're not her press secretary.

The point is that either they are both qualified to be president or neither are qualified to be president. If they are both qualified to be president then why vote for McCain or anybody else with "Washington experience?"

I can see that. However, say some president dies two years into a term. With two years of of being the vice president, I think one certainly has enough experience to step into the presidency role.

If you're at the bottom of the barrel in the United States, or if you're facing injustices here, that's where you are, that's what you're fighting against.

A pre-civil rights African American was still better off than a lot of African blacks. So he should just shut up and accept the injustices because there's someone worse off somewhere?

Should we care less about poverty because our poor people are relatively well off?

I'm not the one who did, SFL Cat did. However, that wasn't my question. My question was how do you define poor?

+1

I'd also argue that Palin, in her first & only speech as VP nominee, has already complimented her Presidential nominee in more ways than Biden has all week.

At least if you draw a distinction between saying "Obama is about change and will right that wrong" vs. "McCain has demonstrated his willingness to put his country first".

These are, of course, simplified versions...but it is the ultimate message that I come away with.

In the end, the vice presidential nominees do not have that much impact on the general election.

In 1988, everyone thought that GHWB blew the election when he picked Dan Quayle. Ultimately, the Democratic VP, Lloyd Bentsen, ended up casting a shadow over Michael Dukakis because Bentsen was perceived as being more qualified than Dukakis.

I guess if I had to quantify it would be 2 parent/2 kid household:

700-rent/mortgage
300-food
800-car
200-medical
300-utilities
200 gas
--------------
2500-month
x 12
---------------
30000--aprox.
---------------
anything less than 35,000/yr-40000 would probably be poor.

Go ahead and attack. I know when I'm being set up.

On the job training.

If a person doesn't get the necessities to continue to stay alive, then that person would be my first priority, regardless of nationality.

And, I'll admit I do get a little riled when I go to the Supermarket late at night and the lady in front of me in line is paying for her groceries with food stamps while talking on a cell phone that costs $150 more than the one I use.

Good call. If I remember correctly, Ferraro didn't have a lot of experience, and had policy views that spoke to the Democratic base as Palin's do to the GOP's base.

this doesnt vibe with other facets in your party's platform...

nor your leader's voting records in regards to what I would consider to fall under the umbrella in your quote above.

It's funny that with the Palin pick, the two major avenues the McCain has been attacking Obama on for the past quarter ("experience" and "celebrity") are basically totally neutered right now. I wonder what their major themes will now be during the run-up.

Not sure what part of the country you live in, but the car seems a bit high and rent seems way low. I doubt a poor 2 person family would have 2 car payments, so probably closer to $200-$400 a month. But rent, I haven't seen below $1000 a month for a small apartment since I moved from the South a long time ago. So I guess it all balances out! :)

Even with Palin on the ticket, I wonder how many PUMAs are going to go with McCain, especially with that now established as the anti-Choice ticket very solidly. Are so many Clinton supporters really going to vote against their own issues? I'm trying to remember if that's really happened before. Bucc?

First off smart choise by the Repubs. As for attracting Hilary's voters I say not likely for one big reason. She is a huge antiabortionist so I doubt that will atract them and expect the Dems to remind people of this often. I think Hilary should feel like she has fucked herself by subtley getting her base to turn on Obama before which really is why the Repubs choose a woman IMHO. now if McCain wins in four years you got a guaranteed VP weho will kill Hilary. So she pretty much can kiss her chance asd Pres. 20012 goodbye baby..............Oh, despite the fact the mom is hot the older daughter has some serious guns already but not sure how old she is.

Why have two kids when your making $30,000 in combined salary? What does $800 in car mean? Is that car payments?

Anyways, as I posted in a previous post:

1) The rich should be rewarded for what they create. They do a lot more than the government, bloated by waste and bureaucracy could. They provide jobs, tax revenue (the wealthy pay a large % of the US tax revenue), new products and services that benefit society. They also how to create new jobs and such through managing money.

2) The government already has a wealth of social programs. We have Medicaid/Medicare, welfare/disability/Social Security/food stamps, low-income housing and assistance in paying bills (heating/gas, ect.) and homeless shelters. We have educational programs all over.

3) The increase in charity from people (particularly the upper crust of income generators). They are more pro-active and demand results.

I don't think just taking money from a wealthier party, who has worked hard and created something, and giving it to the less fortunate works.