Hillary Clinton (and Others) on Sarah Palin:
Senator Hillary Clinton made the following statement about John McCain's selection of Sarah Palin as his running mate:
“We should all be proud of Governor Sarah Palin's historic nomination, and I congratulate her and Senator McCain. While their policies would take America in the wrong direction, Governor Palin will add an important new voice to the debate.
The Washington Post also has a roundup of comments on the pick from Newt Gingrich, Grover Norquist, John Podesta, and others. And Fred Barnes has a good profile in today's WSJ here.
UPDATE: Ed Morrissey responds to criticisms of the Palin pick here.
Here, on the other hand, is a quote from Karl Rove. Granted, he's talking about Obama's options before Obama picked his VP, but it makes me wonder how this logic would apply to Palin:
"I think [Obama's] going to make an intensely political choice, not a governing choice," Rove said. "He's going to view this through the prism of a candidate, not through the prism of president; that is to say, he's going to pick somebody that he thinks will on the margin help him in a state like Indiana or Missouri or Virginia. He's not going to be thinking big and broad about the responsibilities of president."
Rove singled out Virginia governor Tim Kaine, also a Face The Nation guest, as an example of such a pick.
"With all due respect again to Governor Kaine, he's been a governor for three years, he's been able but undistinguished," Rove said. "I don't think people could really name a big, important thing that he's done. He was mayor of the 105th largest city in America."
Courtesy Talking Points Memo.
My wife said: "Yeah RIGHT! She's just gonna say....good luck with all that! Later."
Maggie Thatcher and Hillary were past that stage when they ran, but what would happen if Russia invaded Georgia while a president was on PMS?
I'm for McCain so maybe shouldn't even bring this up, but I've had some experiences with PMS women and it wasn't pretty.
She would make the same rational decision as any other time of the month. Or are you also concerned about the president menstruating on important legislation?
Also, assuming EPluribusMoney is being even semi-serious, it raises the question of how many votes McCain will lose from conservative Republicans because of pure sexism.
More interestingly, the more some posters learn about Palin, the more convinced they are she is a perfect pick. The more others learn about her, the more convinced they are she is an airheaded albatross.
I think the final analysis i what most high-level Republicans believe- huh? She is a huge gamble. The next week will be great. If she can survive the national media onslaught for the next two months, McCain's gamble will have paid off. If not, it will come off as a tactical victory, and a strategic blunder of epic proportions, especially considering how well he had been doing.
IOW, considering he had made the race into a near dead-heat (nationally, if not in the elcetoral college yet), why did he feel the need to throw a hail mary? IMHO, it this pick says more about McCain's gambling spirit (either great, if you're a Republican, or horrible recklessness, if you're a Democrat) than it reflects on Palin.
As the people of Alaska are saying- great for us. Awesome for Alaska! But WTF are the mainlanders thinking?
To add something new-
Dave N- does this mean that conservatives have forgiven HRC for killing Vince Foster? :)
Not just classy, but politically brilliant. Makes me happy that she is not the Democrat nominee.
I never bought into that. I think Bill Clinton is a corrupt bastard but did he (or Hillary) kill Vince Foster (or even drive him to suicide)? No.
Yes.
What matters is not how Palin is perceived now, but how she is perceived two months from now. Will she shore up the conservative base? Attract blue collar men and independent women? Make horrible mistakes that cause people to question McCain's judgment? Have a skeleton is the closet that the national media will pounce on (as she was less than fully vetted, and Alask is different than the national stage)?
As VP choices go, she is somewhat high risk, high reward.
Everyone calling her the 'best' VP choice is wrong. Everyone calling her 'awful' and 'inexperienced' is wrong too (voters won't care, unless there's a skeleton or major gaffe that forms that narrative).
I don't have a crystal ball. Do you?
My curiousity is why McCain made this pick, given that he has been doing so well.
First, everyone's focused on Hillary's primary VOTERS (the 18 million), but the battle is for the apx. 70 million+ non-primary voters the democrats will likely need to win. incl what, 40 million women? If McCain happens to get ANY Hillary primary voters, that's just gravy.
Second, whatever questions it raises about her inexperience and leaving aside whether she'll hold up, it's at least not subject to the two big problems that haunt the Bush presidency: (1) rewarding and lauding incompetence (Ridge, Brownie, etc.); or (2) rewarding cronies (Gonzales, Miers), with no concern for policy implications. She's there for domestic purposes where she can be pretty formidable if history is any indication. Instead, it bolsters his reform credentials and gives hope that he might be assembling a group (Pawlenty, Romney?, Jindal, Palin) that might recapture what is good about the GOP and translate it beyond its stereotypes.
2. Thus, there is no way that one can leave aside any questions about Palin's inexperience. So, as an Obama supporter, I am thrilled that the "ready to lead" argument has been removed. Thank you, John McCain.
Obama Campaign calling the kettle Black,,,
Sarah Palin has Has Just as much experiance as Barack Obama if not more so,, Obama has NO Experiance and riding on the Coat tiles of the black Nomination,, There is no way Thay can put her down,, Say she Not experiance because,,Then Barack Obama will have to say since he have 0 experiance what make him so special,
Attacking Her going to be like attacking him self,,
This is going to be good, We finally have a woman to vote for,, I voted for Hillary and like I said I voting for McCain, now that he picked a woman,, more woman voter are voting for her,,,
Sarah Palin will be a great VP,, anyone who says other wise, will have a lot of explaining to do,, Because,, Barack Has NO experiance and he thinks he could be President!!!!!
And Barack Speech was the same old speech he gives Everyone wants change Why don't someone tell Barack Time to get an Agenda, Time to change his speech's he been singing,, getting old,
But then again Only Barack thinks everyone should vote for him
No matter what criminals he had with him,, Ryzko , Who got barack his House,, and Like always,, barack bringing up McCain Houses, how dumb again, calling the kettle black again,, 2 people Rich People,,,1 worth 4 million and the other worth 400 million,, Gee to me and every other middle class in america Rich is rich,, so barack want to get into a pissing match over Houses,, instead of telling the people what he going to do,, He done Nothing every news Media knows he adopted Hillary campaign, Pelosi and Dean And Barack Obama are making Hillary Unite this party ,, Barack Obama won the Primary so why is it up to Hillary to unite this party,, Why are they asking Her,is this all she can do,, it not up to her,, Its up to Barack Obama,, What we have Here is Bush Tactics, they are going to do all they can to fraud and Hi-Jack this Campaign, and rig the election, like they did with Hillary,, they way they gave Obama florida and Michigan even tho Hillary won those fair and Square ,,no Barack wants half after the fact,,,
Well I am glad Hillary is not the vp for barack now she can run in 2012, against McCain ,,,and she can be the first Woman President, But right Now Sarah Palin going to be the First Woman Vice President, who has Just as much experiance as Barack Obama,, McCain Made a great choice,
I guess That greek temple of a joke stage barack made for his speech is the closest he going to get to the white house,,
He Really thinks He is already President, Well at least I did go out and started using barack obama energy Plan I bought a TiRE GUAGE, ,, wow we are saving money Now,
Don't FOR Get BarackObama Seal,, He Stole from commander &Chief Seal, The Man is an EGO Maniacs,,, I am a Proud Democrat, I will not blindly vote for a Man who will Hurt this Country, I will not do it, If Hitler was a democrat , I have to vote for him,, ,NO way No How NO OBAMA
This is so Typical of Obamanation Voters,
Obama Campaign calling the kettle Black,,,
Sarah Palin has Has Just as much experiance as Barack Obama if not more so,, Obama has NO Experiance and riding on the Coat tiles of the black Nomination,, There is no way Thay can put her down,, Say she Not experiance because,,Then Barack Obama will have to say since he have 0 experiance what make him so special,
Attacking Her going to be like attacking him self,,
This is going to be good, We finally have a woman to vote for,, I voted for Hillary and like I said I voting for McCain, now that he picked a woman,, more woman voter are voting for her,,,
Sarah Palin will be a great VP,, anyone who says other wise, will have a lot of explaining to do,, Because,, Barack Has NO experiance and he thinks he could be President!!!!!
And Barack Speech was the same old speech he gives Everyone wants change Why don't someone tell Barack Time to get an Agenda, Time to change his speech's he been singing,, getting old,
But then again Only Barack thinks everyone should vote for him
No matter what criminals he had with him,, Ryzko , Who got barack his House,, and Like always,, barack bringing up McCain Houses, how dumb again, calling the kettle black again,, 2 people Rich People,,,1 worth 4 million and the other worth 400 million,, Gee to me and every other middle class in america Rich is rich,, so barack want to get into a pissing match over Houses,, instead of telling the people what he going to do,, He done Nothing every news Media knows he adopted Hillary campaign, Pelosi and Dean And Barack Obama are making Hillary Unite this party ,, Barack Obama won the Primary so why is it up to Hillary to unite this party,, Why are they asking Her,is this all she can do,, it not up to her,, Its up to Barack Obama,, What we have Here is Bush Tactics, they are going to do all they can to fraud and Hi-Jack this Campaign, and rig the election, like they did with Hillary,, they way they gave Obama florida and Michigan even tho Hillary won those fair and Square ,,no Barack wants half after the fact,,,
Well I am glad Hillary is not the vp for barack now she can run in 2012, against McCain ,,,and she can be the first Woman President, But right Now Sarah Palin going to be the First Woman Vice President, who has Just as much experiance as Barack Obama,, McCain Made a great choice,
I guess That greek temple of a joke stage barack made for his speech is the closest he going to get to the white house,,
He Really thinks He is already President, Well at least I did go out and started using barack obama energy Plan I bought a TiRE GUAGE, ,, wow we are saving money Now,
Don't FOR Get BarackObama Seal,, He Stole from commander &Chief Seal, The Man is an EGO Maniacs,,, I am a Proud Democrat, I will not blindly vote for a Man who will Hurt this Country, I will not do it, If Hitler was a democrat , I have to vote for him,, ,NO way No How NO OBAMA
This choice is insane. It's pretty clear that Romney was the front runner until the house gaff, and that team McCain had to start from scratch a couple of weeks ago.
A 72 yo president needs a VP who passes the basic CinC laugh test. McCain's only effective line of attack has been trying to push Obama below that line to make him unacceptable to voters. Palin starts *way below* that line and they don't have a lot of time to get her above it.
Dealing with a "15 house ticket" with Romney would have been easier than having a VP that nobody trusts with her finger on the button.
Jeebus, my County(!!) is more populous and has greater GDP output than Alaska. I'm not pushing our County Executive for leader of the free world.
The question of whether Palin is qualified to be Vice President has been pretty well settled by Democrat primary voters. She is at least marginally more qualified to be at the top of the ticket than is Obama. Two years of small-state executive experience beats none--every time.
For the record, I don't believe a couple of decades in the US Senate is a particularly sterling qualification for a POTUS. The most objectively qualified candidates were Giuliani, Romney, and Richardson (not necessarily in that order) but the voters did not warm to them sufficiently.
As he does every day, according to Dante.
With the caveat that anecdotes aren't data, my wife has always been a strong Hilary supporter. She was insulted by the Palin choice. Her reasoning is that McCain seems to have picked a woman just to pick a woman, without regard for her actual qualifications (there being, obviously, a great many more qualified women in the Republican party). She saw it as pandering.
I'm not sure I agree with this. I do think McCain is pandering, but I'm not sure it's to women (notwithstanding the many comments to that effect). I think he's pandering to the hard right, and I'd offer the comment threads here as evidence -- just look at the most enthusiastic supporters of the choice.
(Expanded version:
Obama was an active participant in Daly's corrupt Chicago machine. The machine rewarded his loyalty by colluding with him to ensure that he ran unopposed in his first campaign. Obama chose to start his career in Chicago precisely because machine politics gave him an edge.
Palin got into politics the way most middle-class and working-class moms do--to improve the community she and her family lived in. She was willing to put her political future on the line to fight for her community and against the corruption within her own party.
I know who I'm voting for.
The flaw in this argument is that it's directly contrary to what McCain has been saying for months now. He has harped on Obama's supposed lack of experience, only to choose someone equally shy of the usual resume lines.* This reinforces the image of McCain as lacking the temperment and judgment necessary to be President which Obama emphasized.
*For the record, I think the experience argument is silly on both sides. The two most experienced people in the country today are Bill Clinton and George W. Bush. I think we know how the latter would fare this fall, and I can guess how the commenters here would treat the experience argument if Bill were running.
Sure, but you knew that before the selection of Palin. As did the rest of us.
From what it appears, it was much faster than that according to various reports. It seems that a few days ago McCain had decided, and it was definitely Pawlenty. Then McCain got concerned over how well the DNC was going, so he decided to fly in Palin and give her an interview while his staff tried to vet her in a couple of days.
"Thus, there is no way that one can leave aside any questions about Palin's inexperience. So, as an Obama supporter, I am thrilled that the "ready to lead" argument has been removed. Thank you, John McCain." Proud to be a Lib
You must be positively frightened about Obama's inexperience. Unless, that is, you're considering his executive experience as it relates to the Ayers-Annenberg Files, concerning which, multiplied numbers of MSM types and others are demonstrating a studious incuriosity. Excerpt:
"In 2004 they tried to peddle a man who made claims about his military career that were easily proven to be lies (Christmas in Cambodia, outrageous charges about war crimes by his fellow soldiers) as a war hero “reporting for duty.”
"This time around they are trying to take a man whose entire career has linked him with far-left anti-American characters, political agendas focused on redistribution of wealth, and racial spoils and pawn him off on us as a man who transcends race and partisanship.
"As the façade’s cracks begin to show through — largely outside the focus of the major media — the Obama camp is behaving badly and thereby telegraphing that the charges involving Obama’s role in the Chicago Annenberg Challenge (CAC) are not only true, but both unanswerable and exceedingly damaging to the campaign’s make-believe narrative about their candidate.
"First, someone — still unknown but undoubtedly linked to the Chicago Annenberg Challenge as an executive or board member during the time Obama was its chairman — tried to prevent the University of Illinois’ Richard J. Daley library from making available to writer Stanley Kurtz the organization’s records.
"Then the campaign falsely asserted that ads respecting the CAC and Obama’s links to Ayers through it had been made by McCain, sent threatening letters to stations brave enough to carry the ad, and topped it off with two letters to the Department of Justice laughably demanding a full investigation into the organization which sponsored the ads, a 501(c)(4) organization legally permitted to engage in such activities."
Additionally, from John Fund and touching on Obama's inexperience from another angle:
"Joe Biden wasn’t even on Barack Obama’s short list until August 7, when Russia suddenly invaded the neighboring country of Georgia. That’s the word from key Democrats meeting here in Denver who say the Obama campaign’s need to shore up its foreign policy bona fides helped push the Delaware senator to the top of the pack. ‘We didn’t pick our nominee. Vladimir Putin did,’ is how one Democrat, who professes to be pleased with the Biden choice, put it." John Fund
As to Sarah Palin's experience, the following perhaps first and foremost:
In addition to being the first woman governor of her state along with her other bona fides of note, she is a responsible mother of five children. If you don't believe that alone requires executive know-how at a truly grass-roots and rubber-meets-the-road level, you truly do not appreciate the multiplied difficulties and issues that inhere to motherhood.
Take a look at Harry Truman's quals when he finally got to sit in the big chair. Less than two unexceptional terms in the Senate and a stint as a completely out-of-the-loop Veep. He did pretty well for greenhorn. Eisenhower was probably one of the most qualified man to ever win election to the office, but plenty of men with decently impressive resumes have been pretty poor performers, once in office.
IMO, neither Clinton nor Bush have earned a third term, based on performance in office--even if it were legal.
I also agree with Angus that this pick seems to indicate McCain looked at the DNC and decided he was losing and needed a game changer. It would be interesting to see what his internal poll numbers said.
Honestly, though, I think Palin and Biden are being over-analyzed. I don't think these picks are really going to move that many people. If you really thought Obama didn't have foreign policy chops, are you really going to vote for him because he picked Biden? If you liked Hillary and thought she got a raw deal in the Dem primaries, are you really going to vote for McCain and an anti-choice-even-in-cases-of-rape-or-abortion veep just because the veep is female?
Ask yourself this. In the last election, did you really vote based on Cheney or Edwards -- in the sense that some other plausible candidate for either VP spot would have changed your vote?
People vote for the top of the ticket. Maybe they should think more about veeps -- and McCain's age should be respectfully considered here. But I'm not sure they do.
I get the impression that she hasn't thought deeply about the issues facing America. Look at this quote from 06
"I've been so focused on state government, I haven't really focused much on the war in Iraq. I heard on the news about the new deployments, and while I support our president, Condoleezza Rice and the administration, I want to know that we have an exit plan in place; I want assurances that we are doing all we can to keep our troops safe,"
I mean there is decent chance McCain could die in office and I don't think she is ready to step up if called on. It isn't experience it is having thought about the issues and knowing where you stand and what needs to be done. Which BTW is why I am fine with Obama having little experience, because it seems like he has spent alot of thought on the issues and made the right choices (Pre-Iraq War he nailed in his assessment)
I'm agreeing with both MarkField and Loki13 on this thread. Palin's a uniter, not a divider!
And neither Cheney nor Edwards reflected any particularly new or newly emphasized aspects of the respective nominee. That's decidedly not true of Sarah Palin, who is not even remotely close to being a Geraldine Ferraro-styled gamble - to the contrary, she possesses substance and gravitas on any number of levels.
The inevitable nasty personal attacks will reflect badly on the Obama camp, sort of a Princess Di phenomenon.
To those who do not understand the female body: some of us do not get PMS (we're bitches 24/7). If Palin did get horrendous PMS, we could presume that Alaska would be in trouble once a month. Maybe we shouldn't let women in the military (at all), handle guns, or run anything more important than the PTO until they hit menopause. SUCH CRAP.
That's damning with faint praise. As for her substance and gravitas, I guess we'll see. She'll have to overcome that her likable, folksy style undermines a perception of gravitas.
That said, I also agree with David, Mark and Loki13.
For the short term, it blunted the convention bounce and made the GOP convention more interesting. Who would have watched a convention with McCain and Tim Pawlenty?
I agree with those that suggest that the VP pick really does not matter too much in the end. Most vote for the top, not the bottom of the ticket.
I disagree with Mark Field that there were many more qualified GOP women if you factor in that were also acceptable to the party.
Are there any other GOP women governors? I don't think so. As for Senators, the Maine Twins are considered RINOs, pro-choice and too liberal. Libby Dole is in a tough reelection campaign and is a Dole. Hutchison is more experienced but is not in any way considered a star, rather boring and a Beltway hack. Any others?
The two ex-ceos (Whitman and the one from HP/Compaq)are true rookies. Never ran for any office ever.
Condi Rice is too Bush connected.
So, who were the other choices? Palin is the most logical woman.
Why a woman? He could have went with Pawlenty, of course, but, again, who would care? And bluntly, he needed someone exotic. If you think the GOP woman bench is weak, try GOP blacks. Eric Cantor as Jewish was the only other choice for exotic.
Well,my two cents.
Wow. I'm so hoping this is sarcastic, but I sort of sense that it's not. So I have to say, with an attitude like that I'm not surprised you've had some bad experiences with women. Maybe they weren't PMS-ing, maybe you're just an asshole.
Believe it or not, each and every day women of child-bearing age perform surgery, negotiate high-profile business deals, serve their nation in uniform, prosecute and defend murderers, and yes, make high-profile political decisions. If PMS were a debilitating condition then I guess Bush could blame the Iraq debacle on Condi Rice's time of the month, but even he has more class than you do.
For the record it's not my time of the month right now. I'm like this every day.
For example - Joe Biden has lots of experience plagiarizing others - he did it in law school and in 1987 during his Presidential campaign.
Obama has lots of experiences hob-nobbing in Chicago high society with admitted domestic terrorist Bill Ayers.
"Experience" is an argument where the Dems have nothing but bad news: a partial-term Senator from Illinois and a serial plagiarist. Great experience.
As usual, Mark Steyn has it right:
Mark Steyn's take on Governor Sarah Palin:
* * *
What other country in the developed world produces beauty queens who hunt caribou and serve up a terrific moose stew? As an immigrant, I'm not saying I came to the United States purely to meet chicks like that, but it was certainly high on my list of priorities. And for the gun-totin' Miss Wasilla then to go on to become Governor while having five kids makes it an even more uniquely American story. Next to her resume, a guy who's done nothing but serve in the phony-baloney job of "community organizer" and write multiple autobiographies looks like just another creepily self-absorbed lifelong member of the full-time political class that infests every advanced democracy.
* * *
Sarah Palin and Barack Obama are more or less the same age, but Governor Palin has run a state and a town and a commercial fishing operation, whereas (to reprise a famous line on the Rev Jackson) Senator Obama ain't run nothin' but his mouth. She's done the stuff he's merely a poseur about. Post-partisan? She took on her own party's corrupt political culture directly while Obama was sucking up to Wright and Ayers and being just another get-along Chicago machine pol (see his campaign's thuggish attempt to throttle Stanley Kurtz and Milt Rosenberg on WGN the other night).
* * *
Exactly right.
See, also, Rachel Lucas' take on Governor Sarah Palin
She's not ready. At any level.
An accurate description of Obama.
You did not mention Bobby Jindal. He would have been "excotic" (and was, IMHO, McCain's best possible choice).
How people can express strong pro and con opinions about her based upon flimsy information escapes me entirely.
Do you seriously believe that? You can argue about his lack of experience, but he at least makes sense (Columbia, Harvard Law, state experience, Senator). I think his lack of experience is a winning argument for republicans, but to argue that Palin is somehow more experienced is simply laughable.
What has Palin possibly done to make you think she has any business running the greatest country in the history of the world? She's qualified to be president of the PTA. I would feel insulted if I were a republican. I just hope McCain doesn't pull a Harriet Miers with this---hopefully Palin can hang on long enough that a switch won't be an option.
That this is racist is not the point. It is. That it also continues the 8 years of denigrating serious education is more to the point.
1. To compare an undergraduate degree in journalism from the University of Idaho to a Law Degree from Harvard is to denigrate a standard of education.
2. To compare an undergraduate degree in journalism from the University of Idaho to a summa cum laude Doctorate of Law from Harvard and the Editor of the most prestigeous Law Review in America is insane. Would you take an undergraduate degree as adequate for medicine or law or engineering? This is beyond idiocy and shows the disdain for education that a President who could not speak the English language showed by not learning.
3. Experience. Eight years representing a District of Chicago that is larger than Juneau the Capital of Alaska. Juneau a place with no transportation in but air and sea. No infrastructure to compare in any way with the third largest urban area in America. Experience with Moose and Beyline but what does that have to do with the Presidency?
4. Obama has worked on all of the levels of American Society and excelled. He received 70% of all of the votes in his election to the Senate. Was that made on a lack of experience, a pretty face and a nice speech? Sounds like Palin but in no way indicates a Constitutional Professor from the University of Chicago, a legislator and a person who put his hands into the gutter of America and brought people out on his back. He also married well.
But you folks can go to race because you are still grounded in 19th century science. Will you be looking for bumps on the head next?
Is there any record of how many times they have been in the same room together? Actually conversed? When and where? More or less than GWB and Jack Abramoff, or GWB and Duke Cunningham? Or McCain and Charles Keating? Can we actually deal in evidence here, rather than just guilt-by-association commentary? Argument is not evidence. Is that too much to ask from lawyers?
Isn't it funny how not nearly as much attention was paid to Obama's experience by that same media?
But the PMS issue was raised by the feminist writer Jane Smiley on the Huffington Post when she compared it not to PMS but breast feeding. She wanted to know what the lady would do at 3 AM when the red phone rang and she was breast feeding.
The parody on both sides enters the area of the ridiculous. Palin is in training in a huge backwater state with the same population as North Dakota and Wyoming but far fewer services or public issues to deal with. If she were applying to head the Interior Department I might disagree with her policies but not her qualifications.
It is indicative of how far Republicans are from the Working person that they think her husband's union membership will sway union members who depend upon Democrats to protect their rights and salaries.
This woman you don't think is qualified to be PTA president is the most popular governor in the United States. She runs a state. What has Obama run?
He has no experience.
He has no credibility.
He is supremely self-absorbed and incapable of admitting even his most painful, public, obvious mistakes: In short, he has no character.
You actually propose to make him president, and whine about Palin being named a vice-presidential candidate?
Quite true.
See this from the Chicago Sun-Times:
* * *
Ayers, 63, spent 10 years as a fugitive in the 1970s when he was part of the "Weather Underground," an anti-Vietnam War group that protested U.S. policies by bombing the Pentagon, U.S. Capitol and a string of other government buildings. Nobody was hurt in the attacks by the defunct organization, which the FBI labeled a "domestic terrorist group."
Today, Ayers and his wife — fellow former Weather Underground fugitive Bernardine Dohrn — live in Hyde Park, where they moved after surrendering in 1980. Federal charges against the two were dropped because of improper surveillance, so they avoided prison.
* * *
Along the way, they [Ayers and Dohrn] met a rising political star named Barack Obama, who lived in their neighborhood.
* * *
In the mid-1990s, Ayers and Dohrn hosted a meet-and-greet at their house to introduce Obama to their neighbors during his first run for the Illinois Senate. In 2001, Ayers contributed $200 to Obama's campaign. Ayers also served alongside Obama between December 1999 and December 2002 on the board of the not-for-profit Woods Fund of Chicago. That board met four times a year, and members would see each other at occasional dinners the group hosted.
* * *
More here:
* * *
Barack also was essentially an employee of Bill Ayers for eight years.
In 1995, the Chicago Annenberg Challenge was created to raise funds to help reform the Chicago public schools. One of the architects of the Challenge was none other than Professor Bill Ayers. Ayers co-wrote the initial grant proposal and proudly lists himself on his own website as the co-founder of the Challenge.
And who did William Ayers, co-creator of the Challenge, help select as the new director of the board for this program? Barack Obama. Barack Obama was the first Chairman of the Board of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge. This appointment came at a crucial time in Barack’s life. He was on the verge of challenging longtime state Senator Alice Palmer for her job. When Barack decided to run, it is no surprise that he turned to William Ayers and his wife, Bernardine Dohrn for help in organizing the campaign and in hosting his first fundraiser in the district.
Obama served on the board for eight years until the Challenge ended in 2003. Bill Ayers was intimately involved in the Challenge over this same time period.
* * *
Magna, not summa.
Can anyone imagine that effete arragula eating latte sipping Marxist as capable of being commander of our armed forces? He probably doesn't know a battalion from a division or a corporal from a lieutenant.
Sweet!
Liberals generally do unless you are George W. Bush and then you are an idiot no matter what.
Not to mention the risk that she might menstruate all over some important documents. How irresponsible of McCain!
No. Just a glass eye.
But Hillary did the classy thing. I am going to vote McCain, but I'm not one of those visceral Hillary-haters. So when she does something that a classy person would do, I'd just as soon assume it's because she has some class. If it was politically shrewed, fine. So was Palin's mention of Hillary at her first national appearance.
Both are smart women.
If the position in question were an academic position at an Ivy League Law school, that would perhaps be true, though "insane" is a silly exaggeration. However, that's not the case.
The position in question is the presidency and vice presidency of the U.S., hence academic qualifications per se are secondary or even tertiary interests. Further, another lawyer in and from the U.S. Senate is about as refreshing an indicator of "change" as last month's milk left in the refrigerator far too long. Beltway Biden, likewise.
Thanks Markfield, I stand corrected.
When the faculties of the "Great Universities" decided that despising the US, and West in general, was a good career move.
Metro1 said: In 1995, the Chicago Annenberg Challenge was created to raise funds to help reform the Chicago public schools. One of the architects of the Challenge was none other than Professor Bill Ayers. Ayers co-wrote the initial grant proposal and proudly lists himself on his own website as the co-founder of the Challenge.
Palin runs as Wildlife preserve with an oil field within it. Should we compare the population ratio to the Adirondacks in upstate New York? But without the New York State roads? Bush pilots and an area that more resembles upstate New York in the 1830s than a 21st century world. Would even the best of the 18th century Presidents plopped down in 21st century America be capable of the learning curve? How about a country doctor going to Beth Israel in New York or Mount Sinai Hospital? The logic on the right is totally self-serving and illogical.
As for Metro1: Years ago I coached musical literature with the Neo-con founding father Samuel Lipman. I worked with him, partied and discussed. But his path was not my path and his excellent musical judgment did nothing, IMHO for his political judgment. You have no idea what Bill Ayers meant to Obama and besides that, Stanley Fish at the NYTimes put that all to rest with more than a little scholarly thunder and disdain. As a musician the Republican party seems to have rewritten Annie Get your Gun:
"Any mistake I thought you made, I can make bigger,
I can make any mistake I thought you made bigger than you!"
That is only true on one level. To look deeper is to deal with the real history of the U.S. with the same maturity as Europeans now exhibit when they don't get politically attached to one hero or another. When America can admit it's past, accept it and make reparations for inequities that still carry down to the present then we will be less likely to have to approach the world from the position of a used car salesman trying to convince the rest of the world this is and has always been the best bargain on the block. The rest of world saw the Reagan administrations deconstruct the NEA and the Minimalist Art movement in the U.S. Indeed they benefited from the diaspora of American Artists. Today we play more Chinese and European serious new Art in America than we do our own. We are poor at knowing and accepting our own national identity. In fact we don't even really know where it came from. We can't teach science objectively and we are cutting our businesses off from the professional immigrants that they have built their expertise upon. As a result we confront our inadequately trained students using them as fodder for provencial political purposes. They aren't up to the job. So there are many layers to your comments. Meanwhile in the midst of all of this chaos the right wing continues to preach old out of date educational procedures as conservative and embarrasses us in the eyes of the world that owns our debts and plots the rape and pillage of our communities.
If what you're saying is that formal qualifications aren't the best or only way to choose a candidate, I absolutely agree. Much of the debate has focused on the kinds of things people put on resumes: where they went to college; the jobs they held; etc. But those aren't, and shouldn't be, the extent of consideration when we elect someone. It goes far beyond that, and includes such things as political philosophy, temperment, character (fill in the blanks which aspects are important), etc.
By formal qualification, Palin pales (pun intended) in comparison to a number of female Republicans. That doesn't mean McCain was wrong to take her over the others (or over the equally or more qualified men available); it just means that other factors are important too.
Oh, and just in case the point isn't clear: this holds true for Obama as well.
"To look deeper is to deal with the real history of the U.S. with the same maturity as Europeans now exhibit when they don't get politically attached to one hero or another."
Is this the same Europe that routinely elects followers of Jean-Marie Le Pen? Jörg Haider? Adriano Tilgher?
I mean, I'm happy to respond to your post. But I just want to make sure we're talking about the same "Europe." Because the one you're describing doesn't seem to be the one I research.
Hard to answer your question. "Reagan," "minimalist," "art," and "movement" are all social constructs, lacking any essential connection between signifier and signified. But that's OK, because Europeans are smarter than we are (except for the whole toilet-paper thing.) But that's OK too, since love conquers all.
If educational achievement were the sole qualification, I'd vote for the man who was last in his class at Anapolis over the HLS valedictorian.
McCain's executive experience is limited to his military command, and Palin's is admittedly pretty thin. Still, Palin has more executive experience than Obama and Biden combined.
I guess we could count Obama's experience with the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, but he doesn't seem to want that discussed. He was there so he could easily fill in the historical blanks...if he wanted to do so. If it were something he was proud of, I'd imagine we'd have heard a lot more about it by now. I can't imagine why he isn't touting that resume bullet point.
McCain's executive experience is limited to his military command, and Palin's is admittedly pretty thin. Still, Palin has more executive experience than Obama and Biden combined.
Aw, c'mon guys! Is there a real Republican that would've bought this argument when Dole was running against Clinton? If McCain had picked someone with no executive experience, would this have even mattered? We pick people based on a) our overall policy preferences and b) our general impressions of them. 99% of the people who have made up their minds at this point fall into category a, and I cannot imagine there is a single American (okay, maybe one, and the pollsters are looking for them right now) who is thinking, "Wow, Obama and McCain are just so balanced. But, uh that Palin has almost served a full term as Governor of Alaska. She has *executive experience* so I'll vote McCain!"
Can we puh-leeze stop projecting?
Dole had executive experience.
Mark Field, what particular GOP women do you have in mind?
I do agree that the election process is far more complicated than who is "qualified" on paper. I don't think Obama is not qualified or experienced enough. He just is not as compared to McCain, in my view. Others may differ, we don't elect presidents based on a math formula.
"when did this country become so anti-intellectual to think that being governed by average, common people was a good idea"
I would say about 1828 when Jackson beat JQ Adams.
Though I guess maybe 1776 is a better date. It is the founding principal.
You mentioned most of them above: Hutchinson, Snowe, Rice, Whitman, a couple of others. As I say, these have better formal qualifications; doesn't mean they'd be better candidates.
Agreed.
Huh? Is all 'serving in the military' now executive experience? I am really confused here . . . when did Dole have his executive experience, in your opinion? Was it the same as Kerry's? How about Gore's? Who doesn't have it, then?
(None of this is a slam on Dole. But if any of you don't get it yet . . . it doesn't matter, not in the post, not to the voters. This is a silly, newly manufactured issue. Now, we all agree that 'Governor' is an executive position, and everything else either is or isn't depending on your party affiliation.
Bob Dole was Russell County Attorney from 1952 to 1960 (when he was elected to Congress). Perhaps that is the executive experience to which Hoosier is referring.
" I am really confused here . "
Yes.
Yes.
As for Reagan deconstructing minimalist art in America (!?!?), Steve Reich, Philip Glass and John Adams seemed to do okay during the Reagan years . . .
Here, Here.
Power to the people, comrade!
No one commands the corn, loki.
NO ONE!
As to county attornies: The bio I read about Dole back in '96 went into this. The position involved the work of what we in this state might call county board president. It was an admistrative position. He was the guy who signed, and whose office distributed the welfare checks. Including those to his own family.
I'm not saying it was equivalent to the secretaryship of the Treasury. But you strongly implied that he had no exectuive experience. He in fact had eight years of it.
Whether it was "meaningful" experience is for others to judge. But others can only make that judgment if *someone* gives them the facts.
Palin seems remarkably effective at that. A pipeline deal. Took a budget from deficit to surplus and pushed Exxon to whether drill or get off the leases. She also decided that the taxes paid by oil companies needed to be adjusted and that the prior officials had been bribed to keep taxes low. She quit that position in protest yet managed to amass sufficient evidence to get those people arrested and convicted. One of those people was the Republican state chair.
Based on the added revenue her state was able to give a rebate to her residents.
As a mayor she also dropped property taxes. Palin is a fiscal conservative in that she reduces waste and makes government more efficient.
In order to be elected governor she had to beat the old boy network, without any family money or connections. She beat an incumbent Governor of her own party against the GOP party. Then she won against a popular former Governor in the general. She did that without help from the GOP or connections in business. Her popularity is based on her crusading actions.
Palin is a throwback to politicians of our founders. A talented politician that can change and lead even if young. Her executive ability had to be good to effect changes so fast in the legislature in less than two years.
So she managed to get more done in 18 months and nine months of that she was pregnant, than many Governors do in 8 years. That is true leadership.
The problem seems to be is that what happens in Alaska seems to be non important to east or west coast people. I have heard condescending remarks because she went to a State school. Many people learn more from life’s experiences than school can teach.
Many academics seem to be book smart but street stupid. No common sense or real practical knowledge of what works and what does not.
In order to become such an accomplished Governor in such a short time she must be able to learn fast or pick good staff. Both of those qualities are important in a President.
Palin is a woman in the classical Heinlein mold. Bold, beautiful, sexy, smart, and capable and can run a state and be a great wife and mother. This woman is full of energy, she likes to run marathons. All those qualities are important for President, except being beautiful and sexy, those are just bonuses.
She is a fantastic role model for girls and women everywhere. She could be a young Ronald Reagan and reinvigorate the Republic Party as a reformer, for small government, low taxes and eliminate corruption and cronyism.
The only question is how she will handle the Washington media and the vitriol from Democrats. I really do not know but I think about the bodies of fallen politicians that she left beyond in Alaska and I think she can handle herself.
She is extremely charismatic. She appeared to win over McCain in one day. Think what she will do to the American electorate.
Are there any other GOP women governors? I don't think so. As for Senators, the Maine Twins are considered RINOs, pro-choice and too liberal. Libby Dole is in a tough reelection campaign and is a Dole. Hutchison is more experienced but is not in any way considered a star, rather boring and a Beltway hack. Any others?
Remember, for the Corn, it is not the Harvest, it is GENOCIDE!
Anyway. I tried googling this earlier (sometime between watching S2 of Dexter and watching the Tide roll over Clemson) and couldn't divine anything meaningful, but from that definition, isn't any Congressional position an executive position? They run a staff, they administer things etc. Anyway, the point being is that this whole thing has become absurd. It's like the peope pointing to running the State National Guard as being equivalent to running the military. It's all bs, because there are few good practice jobs for President (governors tends to be parochial, Congressman tend to lack 'executive experience' etc.). So whatever a person has done, the opposition can say that they are somehow lacking the magic 'it' to be President. But for the voters, it's amazingly simple:
a) Do I agree with their policies?
b) Do I think they'd be a decent President (leader) (This is the anti-Phil Gramm factor)?
That's it. Easy heuristic.
There are two other sitting Republican women governors, M. Jodi Rell (R-CT) from 2004 to present, and Linda Lingle (R-HI) from 2002 to present.
Jodi Rell was the more likely alternative, since her popularity ratings with her voters have been as high as 80%, only slightly lower than Sarah Palin's numbers. She is 62, with a longer political history, but no college degree. Gov. Rell was rumored to have been on preliminary lists of potential running mates, and would have been an interesting nominee.
Don't know Dexter. But it was a boring day for football.
Go Gators.
But I do want to say this to Loki13:
You and I often disagree on policy issues. We are both regulars here. Today I have largely agreed with you (as I said on another thread, the Devil must be ice skating today), but even when I haven't, your posts have been gracious, witty, and thought out.
I said at the top of the thread that my estimation of HRC had gone up a notch given her response to the Palin pick. My estimation of you went up as well. Well played, sir.
We will battle in the future, perhaps trading cross words and an occassion barb, but we will always have September 30. 2008 binding us together.
And I will be first, I promise, to write a mea culpa after the election if McCain loses and also try to avoid gloating if McCain wins.
I am checking out as well. Thank you for the kind words, and I will, um, ditto them (is that what the phrase is?). Anyway, should Obama lose, I promise to mea culpa. Should Obama win, I will, well, uh, darn. Yeah, I'll gloat for one post only.
Night.
Necessarily? No. But if by "intellectually superior" you mean more intelligent, then as a general rule, yes, that's a very safe assumption.
My understanding is that the two lawyers elected to the presidency over the last half a century both lost their law licenses, at least temporarily, as a result of their illgal actions in that office. Is it a coincidence that the only two lawyers elected during that time were also the two either impeached or almost impeached?
So, tell me again why a law degree is such a great qualification for the presidency?
(In order to make this point, I ignored President Ford, who while a Yale law grad, was never elected to the Presidency).
Who's being the lawyer now?
Is anyone really attempting to argue that people who have doctorates from Harvard are necessarily intellectually superior to those who don't?
Necessarily? No. But if by "intellectually superior" you mean more intelligent, then as a general rule, yes, that's a very safe assumption."
Even if this were ture, why should we consider an LLB to be the equivalent of a doctorate?
Who said we should? And what do you mean by "Even if this were ture (sic)?" Do you really dispute that as a group, those with an advanced degree from Harvard (any degree - take your pick) are more intelligent on average than the rest of the human race?
Even if this were ture, why should we consider an LLB to be the equivalent of a doctorate?
Who said we should?"
Someone above did.
Oh, wait! Right. My bad. I forgot that fiat that made undergrad law degrees doctorates.
Look, I'm not saying recipients of law degrees shouldn't get to wear the robes with the striped sleeves at commencement. But saying that Obama has a "doctorate from Harvard" is correct only in the most (if I may) legalistic sense of the term. This isn't a point about Obama, so much as about people who make claims about credentials that come across as silly. Doctorate? What was the title of his dissertation? If he'd gone on for a graduate degree in law, what degree would have come next?
"Do you really dispute that as a group, those with an advanced degree from Harvard (any degree - take your pick) are more intelligent on average than the rest of the human race?"
Harvard grads *on average*? Than the average of the *"rest of the human race"*?
No, I don't dispute that. Probably better than 50-50 chance of being true.
I was only responding in Federal Dog's exact language, and as far as I can tell you're the one brought up "LLB." You seem to be confused, but I'll stand corrected if you can point out otherwise.
Don't go too far out on that limb. You might find yourself admitting there's a correlation between intelligence and admission to the most academically competitive degree programs.
I don't get it. Isn't that the conservative argument?
I will concede better educated, but I would need evidence for more intelligent.
Would I be correct to assume you won't be voting for Barack Obama?
I don't know. In the five presidential elections I have been able to vote in, my record is 3 Rep and 2 Demo. If I absolutely had to choose today, right now, I would vote for the Rep ticket.
I keep hoping Obama will win me over. I really don't like McCain very much, but I do like the Palin pick. Right now, she's the difference for me.
Her lack of experience to me means it might not be business as usual if she ever makes it to the presidency.
Also, I was not referring to Obama's intellignce. I have no doubts about that. I just don't think intelligence requires attendance at a top tier school.
If I implied you were, I apologize. That wasn't my intention.
No, of course not. The question is whether people with advanced degrees from Harvard are on average more intelligent than the rest of the population on average; not more so than every single person. That they are, and by a wide margin, is so far beyond dispute it's too bad an intelligent, usually reasonable person like Hoosier seems resistant to it (not that he denies it outright -- he just acknowledges it grudgingly).
I suspect the explanation, and this is why I guessed you weren't a Democrat, is ideological, not rational. Conservatives have become so hostile to the academe, some of them have lost the ability to discriminate between opinion and certain indisputable facts, e.g., that people with advanced degrees are typically more intelligent than those without.
It should concern thinking people that Republicans, once the party of high standards, have adopted the populist meme that "chardonnay-sipping Ivy elites" are no smarter than the average hard-working American. Because while that may be true in some colloquial (non-intellectual) sense, implying with broad strokes that it's true generally just insults everyone's intelligence.
As cynically stupid memes go, this one is textbook. After all, how many of its disseminators would tolerate a medical school deciding admissions by random lottery, no MCATs required? Please. These are the same people who deny there's such a thing as "otherwise qualified" if a single applicant is rejected with higher standardized test scores. At those moments they remember that words like "intelligence" and "elite" have meanings. But when it comes to actually attending an "elite" school, intelligence is shown by making the right noises about how little respect one has for it.
I'm sorry. I just noticed the "advanced degree" part. I will concede that those with an advanced degree are probably more intelligent, on average, than the rest of the population.
However, I don't concede the same for those with an undergraduate degree. There are many reasons why someone with less intelligence may get into a top tier school, while someone with more intelligence may go to the local junior or state college.
I do want to make clear, though, I was speaking of intelligence, not education. I would expect the undergrads at Harvard and so forth are getting a better education than everyone else :)
In any event, I misunderstood the claim that was made. Sorry about that.
No apologize required. Anyway, my comment and the implied criticisms weren't directed at you personally or for that matter anyone in particular.
"I suspect the explanation, and this is why I guessed you weren't a Democrat, is ideological, not rational. Conservatives have become so hostile to the academe, some of them have lost the ability to discriminate between opinion and certain indisputable facts, e.g., that people with advanced degrees are typically more intelligent than those without."
Well, I have a PhD, and *I* am an idiot.
But seriously folks . . .
I am not as convinced as you are that the intelligence differential is all that high. It exists, of course, and in the direction that you (passionately, and not at all grudgingly) indicate. But I don't know how significant it is. My sense--purely from my own experience, but which is more than most will have in higher ed.--is that the great chasm is between those who go to college and those who don't. The stature of the college is significant only in a much more minor way.
I teach at an "elite research university," which enrolls something like one out of every eight applicants. The students we get are bright, but that's about it. They come from upper-middle-class families. They are driven. They care VERY MUCH about grades, and of course law/med/b-school admissions. And beer and sex. (Hey, I didn't say they were fools.)
I've had kiddos go to some of the "best" professional and grad programs. One of my senior thesis students is now at U. London. Last year's thesis student just started a grad program at Harvard this past week. Both are certainly bright.
But I'm not sure what I'm supposed to take from this. That I should want to be governed by PhD's? I don't. We tried that once, with Woodrow Wilson. I'm not interested in a repeat.
That Ivy Leaguers should run the Federal Government? I've read "The Best and the Brightest" too many times to fall for that one.
That Obama is smarter than Palin? There's no proof, so the jury is still out.
Were I president ((((*shudder*))) at time of international crisis, the guy I'd want advising me, more than any other, went to VMI. Though he once gave a very famous commencement address at HAH-vuhd. But if it makes you feel better, I'd be happy to have a Harvard grad doing research for him. After the Harvard Alumni Association got us into war in Vietnam, the phrase "On tap, but not on top" was coined. That works fine for me.
I don't think so. The general tendency in academic circles these days is to view the best overall intellectual expereince as coming from placed like Bowdoin, Williams, Grinnell, Carleton, etc. The intensity of student contact with faculty is just impossible at an institution with the sort of publication pressures that are exerted on people like . . . me.
Even administrators *here* will say that this is the case. They just won't *do* anything about it.
Reagan deconstructed the minimalist art movement?
Hoosier:
Hard to answer your question. "Reagan," "minimalist," "art," and "movement" are all social constructs, lacking any essential connection between signifier and signified. But that's OK, because Europeans are smarter than we are (except for the whole toilet-paper thing.) But that's OK too, since love conquers all.
Just got back to this. Probably dead but will answer anyway. Michael B. Minimalism was funded by the NEA peer panels. Amongst the dancers and composers it was almost the only real source of funding. One can say that the movement grew out of the NEA at the time. Reagan destroyed the NEA peer panels and Sam Lipman reorganized it including putting a Rabbi on the panel. It was a coup by the Juilliard traditional music folks as they joined with the religious right's desire to cut out the homosexual side of the visual arts. Later Reagan put a panel together to evaluate what had been and decided to refund it but the movement had passed and been dispersed.
Hoosier, those are cute word games but they have little to do with the issue of the value of a University degree. I work in the private performing arts sector and teach as a private teacher and producer.
I have strong feelings about the value of a University and Conservatory education in the private sector. Generally I'm not all that impressed with the "diploma mill" but even in my wildest criticism I would never equate a law degree, whatever it is, from Harvard and the editor of the Law Review with an undergraduate degree in Journalism from Idaho U. That seems so far from reality that it makes no sense.
I can sit and deconstruct the problem of university and conservatory pedagogy and its failure in the world of American complex Art but I would never compare a Juilliard degree to a degree from Kansas University or the University of Oklahoma even though they have good departments. (These are programs I have a history with.) The scale makes no sense. In fact it seems like either gross irresponsibility when it concerns world diplomacy or idiocy. My degree is a Masters from a conservatory and I've worked 48 years in the performing arts in New York City. All of this conversation is very strange to someone who makes his living amongst the 2% who have succeeded and who must always consider the pragmatism of any decision. I wouldn't put the lady on the stage no matter how much she had sung in Anchorage. The world is just a great deal more complicated than that.
It still sounds like that terrible conceit of Republicans electing a 19 year old Mayor for Muskogee, Oklahoma, a town the same size as the state capital of Alaska. Do you know anything about Juneau? How is the train service or the bridges into the city? How much infrastructure is the executive truly in charge of? You have to have something to run.
I'm connected to Alaska by family. They are wonderful people but if the roles were reversed and you had to carry what you know into the tundra or polar bear country you would find that things are not equivelent. I would call them what John Warfield labeled a Trusel: Something that sounds like it transfers from one sector to another but when applied actually doesn't work and is even negative. I think very few on these lists could survive had you the responsibilities in reverse that you now blithely put on the head of poor Sarah Pa