Palin vs. Obama... Who Has More Experience?

The answer to the OP question is obvious, straightforward, and undeniable.

Barack Obama clearly and irrefutably has more experience running the United States into the ground. When it comes to failing to put a check on a ruinous Presidency and failing to bring change to the direction our country is headed in, Obama's experience far outweighs that of Sarah Palin.

Obama's experience as a career politician, and his proven track record of being able to create meaningless buzzwords are leagues above anything Palin has demonstrated during her short history of actually making a difference and helping the people who elected her

[edit on 31-8-2008 by mattifikation]

Originally posted by jetxnet

Investors are not investing, and business are not creating jobs. This Trickle Down stufff doesn't work

They are investing, stocks are going up every other day, just as much as they are going down.

So, you think by doubling the Capital Gains tax, this will create jobs and somehow spur us out of this GLOBAL recession??

Sounds like flawed logic to me.

Really stocks are going up because this line graph of the Dow Jones shows a stagnant market. Do you know what inflation is? Because it is outpacing any gains. In any financial sector if you are not growing and moving forward then you are going backwards. Same reason that a savings account will usually end up losing you money because inflation usually outpaces your interest rate, thus making your money worth less every year even if you have more of it.

Source

Originally posted by Andrew E. Wiggin
reply to post by mhc_70

 

Either way, Palin has more executive experience than Obama.

she also has more experience than McCain (by YOUR standards)

does that make McCain ineligible for president?

By that standard she actually has more experience than all the candidates and Obama would be at the bottom of that list.

Executive experience is only one varible of many that can be used to determine who has more overall experience, but Palin is the only one running whos got any.

reply to post by mattifikation


Hey how worst can Obama be, at least he is more intelligent than the Bush administration that already had sunk our nation into the ground.

Tax cuts has prove to be the downfall of this nation, Reagan experienced and spend half his presidency trying to fix what he did in the beginning.

And then the reminding mess passed to Bush Sr and cost him his second term, because he could not fix it either.

Bush manage to bring this nation into the worst recession in history and is going to take at least 20 more years to recuperate.

This time we have been sold, our nation is no longer in the hands of the American people.

We are on the auction block and everybody with money can bid at will.

Wake up and smell the rotten stench of a government out of control.

Originally posted by iamcamouflage
reply to post by jamie83

 

You would rather just win than ensure that the most qualified person is put into office? This is the defintion of party politics. You are putting party before country. You would rather ensure that a Republican was elected regardless of there qualifications.

You are self-projecting.

This thread is about Gov. Palin's experience being comparable to Obama's experience.

However, Gov. Palin isn't running againt Obama. McCain is.

There is no comparison between who is more qualified to be POTUS when you are choosing between a man with a 23 year career as a Navy officer and another 26 years in the U.S. Senate vs. Obama's 4 years in the Senate.

Using your own reasoning, it is quite apparent that McCain is more qualified than Obama, and as Hillary said, even she would rather it be McCain answering the call at 3:00 am than a neophyte like Obama.

Originally posted by marg6043
Bush manage to bring this nation into the worst recession in history and is going to take at least 20 more years to recuperate.

This is quite a stunning display of ignorance on your part. The economy is growing. It's not in any recession at all, let alone the worst recession in history.

You really should try to educate yourself instead of just parroting talking points from ignorant liberals.

Maybe I am missing something, but last I checked, Obama isn't running against Palin....he's running against McCain. So, in a lot of ways, this is a moot point.

I'll admit, McCain lost some of his "experience" argument by putting Palin on his ticket.....but, on the flip side of that, Palin does have executive experience. She has run "something", even if some folks want to call it a "backwater state". That, in and of itself, is insulting. A state is a state, and like it or not, she has run a state, and from all appearances, run it rather well.

And, Obama can't really argue that she is inexperienced without shining a light on what he has actually done.....which in terms of executive experience is nil.

But, Palin isn't running for President; Obama and McCain are. Let's get to know the woman. Let's hear her stances on issues before we disqualify her. She is a heartbeat away from the presidency.....but, she was elected to govern a state. It's not like she has no clue, folks.

reply to post by jamie83


Perhaps you need to get off fox news and start looking into what is going on at state and local level in this nation.

We are not getting better and we are not going to get any better.

Stop listening to the lies of the bush administration.

I can not believe that people are still falling for the this.

Incredible.

reply to post by mhc_70

Executive experience is only one varible of many that can be used to determine who has more overall experience, but Palin is the only one running whos got any.

okay - so your disqualifying your OWN candidate to support someoen who has 20 months experience.

She's made no major executive decision
She's anti-women rights
She's anti-gay rights
She's got a pretty twisted version of immigration


oh - but she's sexy
lets vote for Palin/McCain

Originally posted by jamie83

Originally posted by marg6043
Bush manage to bring this nation into the worst recession in history and is going to take at least 20 more years to recuperate.

This is quite a stunning display of ignorance on your part. The economy is growing. It's not in any recession at all, let alone the worst recession in history.

You really should try to educate yourself instead of just parroting talking points from ignorant liberals.

Oh here you go again...

What makes you think you can do what your doing and get away with it?

Even more so ... how many stupid idiots do you think believe this bat squeeze of yours?

Are you writing this crap from a script?

Are there others posting in this forum that are in the same room as you and getting paid to do this crap too???


Because you are so full of crap it is ridiculous.

I am sure the next and most likely the last line on that pathetic mayonnaise stained script in front of you says something about ...1%

Please... if only you should go out in such an honorable way.

You don't have the balls though...

reply to post by Tuning Spork

Okay, you've got me baffled with this one. The problem is a dependence on foreign oil, and the solution is to increase domestic production AND develop cleaner renewable energy sources.

Domestic oil ends up in the same place as foreign oil. It all goes to the same supply fund. Drilling domestically only increase the supply by (govt estimates) 1million barrels a day. We use 20million a day. And to mention again that extra 1 million barrels goes into the global oil pool. Its not as though we drill the oil, its refined and goes right into the American supply of oil.

reply to post by euclid


So basically - a female version of Bush


we'll have no rights
gays and women especially


drilling is fine and i support it - but republicans think drilling is the answer

and it is most definitely not

the last time this country voted for "one of the good ol boys" was George W. Bush

and look where that got us

So now we'll be voting for McCain and mini-me to run the white house?


I think i'll pass, and vote Obama.

reply to post by iamcamouflage

Domestic oil ends up in the same place as foreign oil. It all goes to the same supply fund. Drilling domestically only increase the supply by (govt estimates) 1million barrels a day. We use 20million a day. And to mention again that extra 1 million barrels goes into the global oil pool. Its not as though we drill the oil, its refined and goes right into the American supply of oil.

But the problem you're not addressing yet is that you're talking to a bunch of people who look to Rush Limbaugh for guidance.

These people no more understand how oil is turned into gasoline than they understand where babies come from.

The stork still works i guess?

Originally posted by Andrew E. Wiggin


okay - so your disqualifying your OWN candidate to support someoen who has 20 months experience.

Which is more time than Obama has as an active US Senator.

She's made no major executive decision

LOL, I have no clue exactly how many she made, but if you think in 20 months she made zero then I see no reason to continue to debate with you.

That is a purely sarcastic or ignorant statement. I will give you the benefit of the doubt and argue against the sarcasm, by just saying an approval rating of 80+ speaks to her judgement regarding the executive desicions she has made.

She's anti-women rights
She's anti-gay rights
She's got a pretty twisted version of immigration


oh - but she's sexy
lets vote for Palin/McCain

I did say she was a conservative right winger, but you knew that, no lefty will ever look that good.

reply to post by mhc_70


your argument consists of running around whatever bush is in front of you

and totally forgetting what the last bush looked like

thats the problem with you conservatives

you cant keep your bush in check.

reply to post by jamie83


It was photoshopped poorly enough for you to figure it out but it was able to trick the people in the government who check theses things. He has run for office on more than one occasion. The people who have to look into these things are not just looking at a BC, they have access to the databases where the actual information resides.

You are quite the detective to solve the mystery that fooled the Illinois govt and the federal govt.

reply to post by euclid


I really like how all the fans of Palin have to add that she is attractive. As though that should have any impact on how to vote.

Originally posted by Andrew E. Wiggin
reply to post by mhc_70

 

your argument consists of running around whatever bush is in front of you

and totally forgetting what the last bush looked like

thats the problem with you conservatives

you cant keep your bush in check.

Sorry, didn't think the details would confuse you so easily.

Originally posted by iamcamouflage

You are quite the detective to solve the mystery that fooled the Illinois govt and the federal govt.

I'm guessing the .jpg file he have to the DailyKos wasn't the same thing that was turned into the Federal government.

Of course that's just a guess.

Originally posted by mattifikation
The answer to the OP question is obvious, straightforward, and undeniable.

Barack Obama clearly and irrefutably has more experience running the United States into the ground. When it comes to failing to put a check on a ruinous Presidency and failing to bring change to the direction our country is headed in, Obama's experience far outweighs that of Sarah Palin.

Obama's experience as a career politician, and his proven track record of being able to create meaningless buzzwords are leagues above anything Palin has demonstrated during her short history of actually making a difference and helping the people who elected her

[edit on 31-8-2008 by mattifikation]

Hello! The Republicans had the majority from 1992 -2006. They are the ones who were supposed to keep bush in check. Wake up! I will post this again and ask anyone to explain to me how the Republicans are not responsible for the current state of affairs in this country:

Majority in congress- 1992-2006
Republican President- 20 of the last 28 years

How does the current democratic congress accomplish anything when the president vetos anything that doesnt tow the party line and the Dems do not have a large enough majority to override that veto.

Bush vetoed 1 bill in the first 6 years in office while Republicans had majority. He has vetoed 9 bills since the Democrats have taken majority.

Please anyone explain to me how it is reasonable to accuse the Democrats for anything that is going on in this country.