In article >,
blake murphy > wrote:

> On Sat, 30 Aug 2008 23:08:42 -0400, Stan Horwitz wrote:
>
> > In article >,
> > Goomba > wrote:
> >
> >> Michael "Dog3" wrote:
> >>
> >>> Of course but most of us might need a tad bit more experience than 2
> >>> years as Governor before stepping into the White House. Would you like
> >>> her running the country? I wouldn't. Nothing trumps her current
> >>> position. Apparently Alaskans are fond of her for whatever reason. IMO
> >>> she sure as hell doesn't have what it takes to assume the Presidency. As
> >>> VP I'm sure she would be fine.
> >>>
> >>> Michael
> >>
> >> I'd venture to say her two years of executive state government
> >> experience is about equal to Obama's, eh?
> >
> > If so, then McCain and his supporters can't take Obama to task for
> > lacking enough experience to be president. Eh?
>
> trust me, it won't slow them down in the least. repeat after me the
> all-purpose mantra: 'it's o.k. if you're a republican.'

Perhaps, but I don't think so. I strongly suspect that all of those who
are on tap to speak at the Republican convention this week hurriedly
rewrote their speeches to de-emphasize Obama's lack of experience when
McCain picked Palin. I expect that McCain will stop airing radio and TV
ads that talk about Obama's lack of experience, which is what he's been
running in Pennsylvania (a key swing state).

Even if you're right, it will just sink the Republicans' credibility
lower in many voters' minds and give more grist for Democrats to take
Republicans to task for their flip flopping. With Palin, McCain made a
lose lose selection. Heh! heh!

Don't get my wrong. I have nothing against Palin as a person, but as a
VP candidate for McCain's platform, she is totally opposite of the kind
of person he needed on his team. At best, Palin will win over voters who
already intended to vote for McCain, so her presence on his ticket will
be a net wash for him, and spell a huge win for Obama.