Sara Palin surprised everyone because she could simply talk. She is the most under qualified candidate that has run for one of the highest jobs in this country. It's pathetic, it's sad, it's dangerous and above all, it's like a bad dream.
THIS is a thoughtful post. Astonishing on so many levels.
Now, if you can support your claim, with evidence, that she is the MOST "underqualified" VP candidate in history, then perhaps I'll give your so-called argument some credence.
having said that, here's my brief thoughts on the debate:
again, both candidates have repeatedly mis-led, distorted, or simply lied in many of the attacks....very typical for debaters.
I think on foreign policy, Joe Biden hands down won, although I will say that Sarah Palin held her own (kinda like Obama).
As for who appeared more likeable as a person, Sarah Palin was clearly more energetic as well as telegenic, and she wins that category, which will ultimately be the deciding factor, in my opinion, among uncommited/independent voters.
Overall, I thought both candidates did well, but I don't think the debate itself necessarily is a game-changer. Of course, the GOP will say she kicked ass, and the Dems will say likewise about Biden.
But this isn't about those who already made up their minds....these debates are appeals to the independents, and I'm sure Sarah Palin, at the very least, reassured many voters that she's not a flash in the pan candidate that many were beginning to suspect she was.
I think what Palin needs to be doing from now until November 4, is go hard on the attack, and energize the GOP base, because that would be where she will be most effective....while McCain tries to appeal to independents and shore up his maverick cred, go bold on economic policy because it seems like there's no way he can escape the economic crisis, and he needs to explain how the subprime mortgage economic crisis unfolded (he needs to tie Obama to Freddie and Fannie, just as Obama for the past year and a half have been desperately trying to link McCain to President Bush).
McCain can attack Obama on the sub-prime scandal because there's strong evidence that links Obama to Freddie and Fannie that will work to McCain's favor, and now is the perfect opportunity to do this because the bailout package has already been signed into law, so there's no need for McCain to act "bi-partisan".....now is the time to play politics again.
I've been reading some of the above comments, and sorry I'll try to respond some later time.....but quickly, I will say this.....yes, this election has gotten ugly, but remember what is at stake.
"Principles" have for a long time now, been shoved aside by both candidates. This is the nature of politics, and it's going to be ugly.
As for the "socialism" thing.....I'm not necessarily saying it's a bad thing. I can understand why it works in Europe, and that's because Europe has a history of conflicts between the aristocratic elites (the nobility) vs. the landless peasants (or serfs), and over time, you've had the French Revolution, which initially was a movement by the elites that evolved into a mass movement that included the "Third Estate" (all those who were not in the nobility or clergy class)....and so, Europe has a strong history of the "working class" vs. "upperclass/wealthy"....heck, Karl Marx is from Prussia/Germany, hence from Europe....he wrote about the growing materialism of capitalism as spawned by the Industrial Revolution and predicted that ultimately the "proletariate" (the working class, or industrial laborers) will overthrow the burgeoise (factory owners/upper class), and that the proletariat will control the distribution of wealth in the economy......which influences later Communism in Russia and China.
Now, in the USA, we have a slightly different development. Keep in mind that those who migrated to the original 13 states/colonies were those who were religiously persecuted, most were Protestants (look up Protestant Reformation in Europe vs. Europe Catholicism), and also, merchants, traders, adventurers, which will later be those we call, "entrepreneurs".....so in short, the original colonists in America were either family clans with strong Protestant "work ethic", or businessmen/entrepreneurs.....both kinds of people would find "capitalism" appealing. And so during the Industrial Revolution, the very same capitalism that thinkers such as Karl Marx was criticizing, Americans were just going along with it. Which is why the American government were originally strong backers of industrialists (i.e. railroad companies), and opposed to Unionists......over time, however, when huge corporations in America started forming "trusts", the government started to regulate big business to curb corruption (see Theodore Roosevelt and "trust busting"). Unions are largely popular in Europe, whereas it wasn't so popular here in America, not until recently.
In Europe, you think in terms of "working class" and "upper class", whereas here in America, we think in terms of lower, "middle class", and "upper class", because Americans assume we all have opportunity to become rich......Europe for a very long time operated almost as though they had a "caste" system....you are what you are based on your lineage. Which is why, for most Europeans, you find socialism an acceptable idea. Americans normally don't. Although recently, socialism is becoming a popular theme among Democratic politicians here in America, masked as "welfare" or "regulation".
It's not that socialism is such a bad thing....I can understand why Europeans are inclined to socialism, due to their history. Americans are naturally capitalists, and the problem with converting a capitalist economy in the middle of the game, all the sudden with "socialism", is because socialism will kill capitalism.....the two systems just don't work well together.
Perhaps some regulation are in order, and necessary, but I'm afraid Obama will do more than just regulation. He will expand the role of government more than any of the Presidents who came before him, and the reason I suspect this is based on his past legislative activity, while a State legislator in Chicago and during his brief stint as a US Senator.
Edit
oh, I didn't even notice when watching it, maybe I wasn't paying attention......but damn, Joe, you just uttered the dumbest thing I've heard from a supposed "foreign policy" expert....wow. The media apparently did not even pick it up.
