Obama versus McCain (versus the rest)

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

well clearly you should just leave this thread if you have little to no respect for others, than. The crazy thing is I dont feel like Im asking much:

Allow the troopergate thing to be resolved before assuming she did right or wrong.

Allow the Biden's son thing the same.

Look at polling data for what it is.

Understand that Palin is for abstinence only education in schools to help prevent teenage pregnancy.

Dont tell lies, either side.

Now you tell me, what of the above is partisan?

If this is all you're asking, you're the most non-partisan poster in this thread.

[Flasch186]

im glad you said it.

More things I want:

Keep the pregnant daughter out of the spotlight if they want it to be a private thing (bringing Levi to the stage doesnt help keep this private or a family affair but what do I know). If they want it to be a public thing than so be it, but I just disagree that that's the way to treat something as Private if that's what youve stated you want.

Forgive people for their past affiliations if they left that affiliation and the affiliation wasn't something awful like the Nazi party or KKK.

Keep 527's off the air.

Dont lie (a lot of statements from both sides can get hammered here and this is generally what gets me the most riled up even in this thread)

understand that Palin is not pro-choice in cases of rape and incest while Obama is Pro-choice.

If Palin went to Iraq and met with soldiers, thats a good thing. Its a good thing for anyone to go try to lift up the spirit of our soldiers.

Neither side is more patriotic than the other and neither side wants Al Qaeda to win.



Beyond that when we analyze the race and reactions of events I dont think that that's the place to be partisan....if someone gets a pop, like McCain did from the religious right when picking Palin than that's that and both sides should be able to admit that. If a skeleton comes out of a closet than so be it and we can talk about it and debate it but how that shit ends up being partisan Ill never know. If Palin was commander in chief of the Alaskan National Guard and was responsible for their strategic planning and deployment than great...it should be talked about. If she wasn't than great, that should be talked about. Sometimes I think some people are too busy spinning to be able to just handle an issue for what it is and somehow want to guide the sailboat with their hands.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by ace1914

Right. I haven't seen that much from him.

I've been spot-on in my prediction one month ago that the trends in this election would mirror the 2004 election. Obama had a major fall in the polls leading up to the convention followed by a boost after the convention. That's about as correct as it gets.

I think the addition of a far right VP increases the odds even further that a 2004 repeat could be in the cards.

[Kodos]

The PS3 has just endorsed McCain. MBBF must be ecstatic. I hope Obama doesn't get RROD issues from his 360 alignment.

[JPhillips]

I don't think anyone's arguing that Palin won't energize the religious right. The problem is that's not enough. McCain has to appeal to independents and Democrats if he's going to win and, at least initially, the polling numbers suggest that Palin isn't helping with those groups and may be a drag on McCain.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I don't think anyone's arguing that Palin won't energize the religious right. The problem is that's not enough. McCain has to appeal to independents and Democrats if he's going to win and, at least initially, the polling numbers suggest that Palin isn't helping with those groups and may be a drag on McCain.

We haven't had the Republican convention. She'll get her chance tonight along with McCain tomorrow.

In addition, I really don't see any chance of Obama outdueling McCain in the debates. If he does, it will be awfully impressive.

[JPhillips]

She'll give a good speech tonight. McCain will probably be decent, but the teleprompter has never been his strength.

As I said initially Palin is high risk/high reward. If she's a fast learner and somehow lucky enough to get through this first week without more revelations she'll help McCain. If, however, she makes a couple of gaffes the impression that she's not ready will be overwhelming and we'll look back and say Palin killed McCain's shot at the White House.

[ace1914]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

I've been spot-on in my prediction one month ago that the trends in this election would mirror the 2004 election. Obama had a major fall in the polls leading up to the convention followed by a boost after the convention. That's about as correct as it gets.

I think the addition of a far right VP increases the odds even further that a 2004 repeat could be in the cards.

1. Kerry is caring, pretty cool guy but very uncharismatic and dry dude.
2. Bush's scare tactic that every American's neighbor might be a terrorist, is wearing off a bit. Although it has been tried against Obama.
3. The political climate of 2004 and 2008 are totally different.

You use generalities and then try to use it as a base to prove your point. Most elections follow the same pattern that you used above. Its not an exclusive pattern of the 2004 campaign.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

In addition, I really don't see any chance of Obama outdueling McCain in the debates.

and how do you come to this conclusion? Is it because Of Obama's lack of Oratory skills? Is it because of McCain's ability to reach out to voters? truly, how do you come to the conclusion that most people go into the debates agreeing with you, that McCain is the favorite going into the debates. I mean I want to know how youre going into the debates with your thoughts and having them not be because you support one side or the other....Shoot, lets turn to someone who leans that way. HEY ARLES? Do you think McCain's the favorite going into the debates?

[Young Drachma]

The thing that McCain isn't getting from this is a bump. It's put him completely on the defensive for the first time in this campaign and folks are asking questions. Not about "Johnny Mac, war hero" but about his choice of a running mate. Say what you want about the evangelicals coalescing around her, this is not what they hoped would happen when they picked her. They'd better hope the tide starts to turn soon.

[larrymcg421]

I think some people are confusing some of the commentary going on here.

I don't care about Palin's daughter, her membership in the AIP, or the fact that she's pro-life (I actually agree with that, except in cases of rape), or her experience. I wouldn't have voted for McCain no matter who he picked as VP. I simply think these issues (especially the last two) make her a risky/bad choice as VP.

The pro-life even in cases of rape issue will be played up by the Dems and hurt her very much with the independents, Hilary voters, and maybe even Moderate Republicans.

The experience thing is an issue not because the Dems will attack her for it. I don't expect them to. What it means is it makes it far more difficult for McCain to attack Obama on the issue of experience. He's not going to be able to play that up as much like he could've if he selected someone like Romney (who even has more executive experience than Palin).

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

The majority of people posting in this thread are ridiculously partisan.

Exactly.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

As I said initially Palin is high risk/high reward. If she's a fast learner and somehow lucky enough to get through this first week without more revelations she'll help McCain. If, however, she makes a couple of gaffes the impression that she's not ready will be overwhelming and we'll look back and say Palin killed McCain's shot at the White House.

I disagree with that. If McCain loses, it will likely mean that he blew the debates and lost it all on his own. He's not going to lose because of Palin, but he could win because of the selection.

[JPhillips]

You really think there's only positive in the Palin pick?

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

What it means is it makes it far more difficult for McCain to attack Obama on the issue of experience.

I'm not sure I get this argument. Palin and Obama may have similar levels of (in)experience, but they aren't running for the same position. Is experience as big a deal for a VP as it is for a P? If something happened to elevate Palin to the Presidency, wouldn't it seem likely that she'd have acquired much more experience as VP than Obama would start with?

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

You really think there's only positive in the Palin pick?

No. I just disagree with your point that a McCain loss will be a direct result of the Palin pick. I think it is a risky pick as you mention, but one that had to be made to give McCain the opportunity to win the election. Hence the reason I believe Palin could win the election, but likely won't be the one to blame if the ticket loses. McCain's debate results will be the reason he loses if he loses.

[JPhillips]

Basically true, but you need to go back to Mondale. Since Carter the VP has had varying degrees of responsibility, but has been more than a silent partner.

[ace1914]

Originally Posted by BrianD

I'm not sure I get this argument. Palin and Obama may have similar levels of (in)experience, but they aren't running for the same position. Is experience as big a deal for a VP as it is for a P? If something happened to elevate Palin to the Presidency, wouldn't it seem likely that she'd have acquired much more experience as VP than Obama would start with?

Being a senator=/=president.
Bing a governor=/=president.

Why can't anyone see this.

Bush was a governor for 8 years and was a terrible president.
Reagan was a governor for 8 years and was a great president.

So really what does experience really mean?

By that definition, the only people qualified to be president are vice-presidents i guess.

[lungs]

Here, I'll save some time for folks when it comes to analyzing the Republican speeches in the next few days:

McCain supporters:
"Wow! That was a great speech! Obama is done for!"

Obama supporters:
"Horrible speech! Obama has this thing locked down!"

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

No. I just disagree with your point that a McCain loss will be a direct result of the Palin pick. I think it is a risky pick as you mention, but one that had to be made to give McCain the opportunity to win the election. Hence the reason I believe Palin could win the election, but likely won't be the one to blame if the ticket loses. McCain's debate results will be the reason he loses if he loses.

I have to agree with this. Realistically, McCain had little shot of doing anything without getting his base energized and ready & willing to go out to the polls for him. He needed to get them excited if he was even going to be able to step up to the plate.

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by ace1914

Being a senator=/=president.
Bing a governor=/=president.

Why can't anyone see this.

And being a Vice President =/= President. I don't think anyone is missing this point.

Bush was a governor for 8 years and was a terrible president.
Reagan was a governor for 8 years and was a great president.

So really what does experience really mean?

By that definition, the only people qualified to be president are vice-presidents i guess.

You are quoting me but not answering my question. If one is going to make the experience argument, is experience as important for the VP as it is for the P? If one is going to make the experience argument, wouldn't it still be reasonable to attack the experience of a Presidential candidate while having an inexperienced VP on the ticket? If Republicans want to focus on Obama's experience, I don't think the choice of Palin takes away that choice.

I also think that even if the VP is more of a silent partner, being around the President who is doing Presidential things would provide some experience.

I am not making claims on how valuable experience is since a good leader can lead without much experience while a bad leader could struggle even with lots of experience. I just don't see why Republicans can't use the experience angle with the choice of Palin.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by BrianD

I'm not sure I get this argument. Palin and Obama may have similar levels of (in)experience, but they aren't running for the same position. Is experience as big a deal for a VP as it is for a P? If something happened to elevate Palin to the Presidency, wouldn't it seem likely that she'd have acquired much more experience as VP than Obama would start with?

Do you really think voters will buy the On the Job training argument? I don't.

The point is McCain will have to answer a question about her qualifications. It's going to be difficult for him to say she's qualified and then turn around and attack Obama's qualifications. I'm not saying he won't do it, but it's definitely more difficult than if he had someone like Romney.

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by lungs

Here, I'll save some time for folks when it comes to analyzing the Republican speeches in the next few days:

McCain supporters:
"Wow! That was a great speech! Obama is done for!"

Obama supporters:
"Horrible speech! Obama has this thing locked down!"

Nah, the fun will be reading the analysis and then guessing who the author is. I was getting fairly good at it by the end of the DNC.

[chesapeake]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

and how do you come to this conclusion? Is it because Of Obama's lack of Oratory skills? Is it because of McCain's ability to reach out to voters? truly, how do you come to the conclusion that most people go into the debates agreeing with you, that McCain is the favorite going into the debates. I mean I want to know how youre going into the debates with your thoughts and having them not be because you support one side or the other....Shoot, lets turn to someone who leans that way. HEY ARLES? Do you think McCain's the favorite going into the debates?

I tend to agree with MBBF on this one for a couple of reasons.
1) Great oratory /= debate skills, as we saw in many of the Dem debates where Hillary's better grasp of national issues generally gave her the edge. Speaking from a prepared text is a lot different that responding to questions.

2) Expectations will be significantly different for each candidate. Because Obama is such a great speechmaker, the pre-debate talk will raise expectations to the point where, if he doesn't move the entire audience to laugh and cry and feel deeply moved, he will have failed. Since McCain, on the other hand, is known to be a very average speaker, when he shows a good grasp of policy and peppers his replies with official actions he has done that have some relevance to the question, he will probably be generally seen as having succeeded.

The Obama campaign has to do a better job than did the Gore and Kerry campaigns of managing the expectations going into the debates to ensure that the bar that is set by the media is one that their guy can comfortably clear.

Bush's folks were able to get the media to bury the bar 3 feet underground, so as long as their guy didn't stand at the podium and drool, the night was a huge success. Those guys were good.

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

Do you really think voters will buy the On the Job training argument? I don't.

If voters start by buying the experience matters argument, I think the on the job training argument could follow.

The point is McCain will have to answer a question about her qualifications. It's going to be difficult for him to say she's qualified and then turn around and attack Obama's qualifications. I'm not saying he won't do it, but it's definitely more difficult than if he had someone like Romney.

If McCain is smart, he'll answer the question by saying that she isn't qualified to be President and that is why she isn't running for President. He could also follow that up by saying by the time she does run for President, she'll be qualified.

[Alan T]

Originally Posted by BrianD

Nah, the fun will be reading the analysis and then guessing who the author is. I was getting fairly good at it by the end of the DNC.

That would actually make a fun puzzle game.

Call it the FOFC Political quote game.

Have say 12 quotes from 6 different posters, and you have to match up the quote with the poster.

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by Alan T

That would actually make a fun puzzle game.

Call it the FOFC Political quote game.

Have say 12 quotes from 6 different posters, and you have to match up the quote with the poster.

That could be a tough game. Being able to use surrounding context and tone makes it easier...though maybe too easy.

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

Wouldn't the oldest man in history to run for president saying that his VP is not qualified to be President be problematic?

Possibly. Although again, if you are equating "qualified" with "sufficiently experienced", you still have the choice of two people who are starting on a similar footing, and one who will get some amount of VP time.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by chesapeake

I tend to agree with MBBF on this one for a couple of reasons.
1) Great oratory /= debate skills, as we saw in many of the Dem debates where Hillary's better grasp of national issues generally gave her the edge. Speaking from a prepared text is a lot different that responding to questions.

2) Expectations will be significantly different for each candidate. Because Obama is such a great speechmaker, the pre-debate talk will raise expectations to the point where, if he doesn't move the entire audience to laugh and cry and feel deeply moved, he will have failed. Since McCain, on the other hand, is known to be a very average speaker, when he shows a good grasp of policy and peppers his replies with official actions he has done that have some relevance to the question, he will probably be generally seen as having succeeded.

The Obama campaign has to do a better job than did the Gore and Kerry campaigns of managing the expectations going into the debates to ensure that the bar that is set by the media is one that their guy can comfortably clear.

Bush's folks were able to get the media to bury the bar 3 feet underground, so as long as their guy didn't stand at the podium and drool, the night was a huge success. Those guys were good.

I can see your point here.

[Galaril]

I think one thing that has and will (apparently) continue to negatively affect the RNC is the weather. First they lose a day due to Hurricane Gustav taking the focus and day 1 of the convention away. Now it looks like Hurricane Hanna will be coming onland Friday morning thus taking all the media attention away from McCain's speech the night before. This is similar to the Palin anouncement taking most of the attention away from Obama's speech the day afterso maybe not to detrimental.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by BrianD

If McCain is smart, he'll answer the question by saying that she isn't qualified to be President and that is why she isn't running for President. He could also follow that up by saying by the time she does run for President, she'll be qualified.

That's possibly the dumbest thing he could do. A basic rule in politics is not to give your opponents soundbites. The only thing people will remember is the bolded part. News headlines will say, "McCain: Palin Not Qualified"

Besides, I think most people feel that the VP should be qualified to be President.

[chesapeake]

Originally Posted by BrianD

I'm not sure I get this argument. Palin and Obama may have similar levels of (in)experience, but they aren't running for the same position. Is experience as big a deal for a VP as it is for a P? If something happened to elevate Palin to the Presidency, wouldn't it seem likely that she'd have acquired much more experience as VP than Obama would start with?

Most voters tend to evaluate the VP choice based on one criterion -- is the pick capable of stepping into the job of President if necessary. Because of McCain's age and health issues, more weight is probably given to Palin's qualifications for the job of President than it was for Bush, Sr., for example.

You make a fair point, in that Obama's experience is ultimately a more important issue in the campaign than is Palin's. I'd agree with that. But I would also say that Palin's selection mitigates that vulnerability somewhat.

"Senator McCain, you say that experience is critically important for a President. Yet, your hand-picked successor as President, should anything happen to you, has political experience comparable to your opponent. Why is she experienced enough for the job but not Senator Obama?"

[ace1914]

Originally Posted by BrianD

Is experience as big a deal for a VP as it is for a P? If something happened to elevate Palin to the Presidency, wouldn't it seem likely that she'd have acquired much more experience as VP than Obama would start with?

The point is that "experience" in government is irrelevant for either position. Nobody has been president before so unless you've been VP(and even then you aren't making decisions, at best you are an adviser) the idea that experience in government is some marker for future performance is stupid.

You are comparing two different time lines. You can't compare Palin's future experience to Obama's current experience.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by BrianD

Possibly. Although again, if you are equating "qualified" with "sufficiently experienced", you still have the choice of two people who are starting on a similar footing, and one who will get some amount of VP time.

Yeah, but I don't think they are starting on similar footing. Obama has been making his case for a while now and most people know him. Lack of experience is a bigger problem for someone who is unknown than someone who is known.

[ace1914]

I asked a question a while back, Does anyone know how to get tickets(if its even possible) to the presidential debate?

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

That's possibly the dumbest thing he could do. A basic rule in politics is not to give your opponents soundbites. The only thing people will remember is the bolded part. News headlines will say, "McCain: Palin Not Qualified"

It would be dumb if he said it the way I did. If he answered it by comparing her experience to Obama's, he could eliminate a useful sound byte for the other side.

Besides, I think most people feel that the VP should be qualified to be President.

Before we go too far down this road, understand that I am only talking about the experience aspect and the arguments about experience. I haven't mentioned any qualifications other than experience. From that standpoint, there isn't much difference between Palin and Obama...except that one could get VP experience before becoming President.

Also understand that I'm not putting any particular value on the experience argument. I just don't see the Palin choice taking away the experience argument if the Rep's want to make the argument.

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by ace1914

The point is that "experience" in government is irrelevant for either position. Nobody has been president before so unless you've been VP(and even then you aren't making decisions, at best you are an adviser) the idea that experience in government is some marker for future performance is stupid.

I'm not saying experience is relevant, I'm saying that claiming the Republican's can't use the experience argument because of Palin is wrong. If they want to make the claim that experience matters, I wouldn't see it as hypocritical.

You are comparing two different time lines. You can't compare Palin's future experience to Obama's current experience.

Why not? I'd be comparing levels of experience at the time they step into the role of President.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by BrianD

Also understand that I'm not putting any particular value on the experience argument. I just don't see the Palin choice taking away the experience argument if the Rep's want to make the argument.

Do you really not think that the Reps could have made a bigger play on the experience issue if they had selected Romney.

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by ace1914

I asked a question a while back, Does anyone know how to get tickets(if its even possible) to the presidential debate?

IIRC, most of the tickets are allocated to the media and insiders. I think that each campaign has some tickets to give away (and the venue has some tickets to give away) which they do through a lottery.

Your best bet may be to wait until the venues are announced and then go to each candidate website and see what they say about getting tickets.

I know when there was a debate scheduled in Raleigh for the Democratic primary, very few tickets were available to the general public through lottery.

I can only imagine that the Presidental debates are even more restricted.

[ace1914]

Originally Posted by BrianD

Why not? I'd be comparing levels of experience at the time they step into the role of President.

Hmm. Didn't see it like that. Agreed.

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

Yeah, but I don't think they are starting on similar footing. Obama has been making his case for a while now and most people know him. Lack of experience is a bigger problem for someone who is unknown than someone who is known.

They may not be on similar footing, but that would be a tricky argument to make. If the Republicans make a point out of Obama's inexperience, how do the Democrats respond? Palin is inexperienced too? She isn't running for President. Palin is more inexperienced than Obama? That admits experience is an issue. Experience doesn't matter? That would be a reasonable argument, but they are back where they were before the Palin pick. This is why I don't think the Palin pick changes the experience argument...whether or not that particular argument is valid.

[ace1914]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

IIRC, most of the tickets are allocated to the media and insiders. I think that each campaign has some tickets to give away (and the venue has some tickets to give away) which they do through a lottery.

Your best bet may be to wait until the venues are announced and then go to each candidate website and see what they say about getting tickets.

I know when there was a debate scheduled in Raleigh for the Democratic primary, very few tickets were available to the general public through lottery.

I can only imagine that the Presidental debates are even more restricted.

Dammit. There's one here in Mississippi and I was hoping to check it out live.

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

Do you really not think that the Reps could have made a bigger play on the experience issue if they had selected Romney.

I guess I can see both sides. With someone like Romney, they could have really pushed the experience issue since they would have a very experienced ticket. With Palin, they can paint the Democratic candidate as someone who is qualified to be VP but not P. It is a more subtle argument (maybe too subtle), but one that they could use.

[chesapeake]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

IIRC, most of the tickets are allocated to the media and insiders. I think that each campaign has some tickets to give away (and the venue has some tickets to give away) which they do through a lottery.

Your best bet may be to wait until the venues are announced and then go to each candidate website and see what they say about getting tickets.

I know when there was a debate scheduled in Raleigh for the Democratic primary, very few tickets were available to the general public through lottery.

I can only imagine that the Presidental debates are even more restricted.

The debates are managed by the non-profit Commission on Presidential Debates: hxxp://www.debates.org/. They control the tickets, provided the campaigns agree to play it that way, with the intent of not allowing either side to plant the audiences.

[ace1914]

Originally Posted by BrianD

They may not be on similar footing, but that would be a tricky argument to make. If the Republicans make a point out of Obama's inexperience, how do the Democrats respond? Palin is inexperienced too? She isn't running for President. Palin is more inexperienced than Obama? That admits experience is an issue. Experience doesn't matter? That would be a reasonable argument, but they are back where they were before the Palin pick. This is why I don't think the Palin pick changes the experience argument...whether or not that particular argument is valid.

I doubt that. I think Democrats will push the matra that experience= more of the same.

If you want change pick Obama(new/change making decisions)/Biden(experience adviser) as opposed to the opposite for the republican ticket.

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

Brian I see your point and it's a fair one, but I think that it might be a little nuanced for the McCain camp to effectively make. We live in a soundbite world.

No arguments here. My defense of the experience argument might play well in the debates (if done effectively), but it doesn't play well in sound bytes.

[Alan T]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

Do you really not think that the Reps could have made a bigger play on the experience issue if they had selected Romney.

Romney is actually an interesting comparison. If Romney was Mccain's running mate I would have been just as unlikely to vote for Mccain as with Palin, but not really because of experience issues but more because of their political stance.

I'm wondering what people would have said about Romney's political experience though, considering he doesn't have much either with only 1 term of governor of Massachusetts (where he spent half the time who knows where anyways), and 1 failed senate campaign in the past. His political experience isn't much more than Palin's or Obama's even though he has more experience in the private sector (ie: a Ross Perot type).

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

I hate to bring this up, but I find the notion that McCain's pick is more important due to his age to be a bit off. There are enough nut jobs in the U.S. to make me just as concerned that Obama could fall to an assassin's bullet due to his race, leaving Biden as our president. The thought of Biden in charge is just as alarming to some people given his lack of verbal control at times.

I think it goes without saying that I'd never wish that kind of a tragedy on Obama or the country, but we all know that one of the main reasons Colin Powell is not running for president is his family's concerns that fate may befall him if he were to take office. It's definitely a consideration.

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by ace1914

I doubt that. I think Democrats will push the matra that experience= more of the same.

If you want change pick Obama(new/change making decisions)/Biden(experience adviser) as opposed to the opposite for the republican ticket.

Yes, this is the same argument they were using before the Palin pick, and I think it is a fine position to take. My whole point - again - is not that experience matters, or that experience is good, or that experience is bad. My point is that I don't think the Republican position on attacking Obama on experience necessarily has to change because of the Palin pick. They can remain intellectually consistent with that argument. I'll leave it to the individual voters to decide if the argument is valid.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

Do you really not think that the Reps could have made a bigger play on the experience issue if they had selected Romney.

If the Republicans would have selected Romney, I would likely have not voted for McCain. That ticket could put me to sleep. At least with Biden and Palin, we're guaranteed a couple of straight shooters who speak their mind more often than they give PR speak.