At least we could pick a hotter one.  Compare the two videos for your self

  Miss South Carolina 2007 on foreign policy issues

 Sarah Palin (runner up Miss Alaska in 1983) on foreign policy issues

   We already elected a cheerleader to be president (George W Bush was a Yale cheerleader) and look how well that turned out.  Can we really afford 4-8 years of a beauty pagent contestent too? I mean if we want a clueless floozy to be VP at least we could go with Miss South Carolina, she's way hotter and not nearly as aggressively clueless.

Even my art major wife knew immedietly what the Bush doctrine was when I asked her the same question as did everyone else I asked, its pretty common in discussions about Iraq if someone has watched any news in the last 6 years.  Jon Stewart had it right when he called Sarah Palin "intriguingly unqualified".

   I wouldn't even vote for her for PTA president much less commander and chief.

   It isn't even a sexist thing, its an anti-stupidity thing.  I thought Bush was just as unqualified.  I really didn't want Hillary to win because I disagreed with her on many things (particularly her campaign style which was very similar to the McCain smears we see now) but I wasn't terrified she would be too stupid to understand rudamentary issues like Sarah Palin is.  Hillary would be a bad choice, Palin would be a catastrophic one.  In both cases their failings are in no way related to their gender.

   Also in the interview see confused responses to questions about her 50 running scandals, her meandering nonsensical responses to other foreign policy questions and her suggestion that we start a war with Russia even though technically Georgia provoked the confrontation by bombing the province it ended up fighting Russia over.   What do you call George Bush with lipstick on?  Sarah Palin.

I'm not exactly sure I can fault Sarah Palin in that instance. A momentary stutter doesn't make her incompetent. The Bush Doctrine is a tricky creature. To be honest, there are times when ALL OF US have been put on the spot, and had a lapse of memory. I think Palin bounced back nicely!


I'm still voting for Obama.

He has a sound point, that its more cost effective to be preemptive with health care, you didn't include the whole context but I still got the gist of the point he was making which is a correct point. Yes he jumbled his words in getting that thought out but that is a rarity. Also, at town hall meetings and in interviews he never has a TelePrompTer so the "obama lost without a TelePrompTer title" is just silly.

Misspeaking happens to the best of us. Bill Clinton, one of the best public speakers of the last few decades, occasionally went off into tangents and spoke too long without enough clarity early in his campaign as well. There is a PROFOUND difference though between stumbling on your words regarding a correct thought and not understanding basic tenants of foreign policy. Obama had trouble expressing his idea in this context, but not because he did not understand what health insurance is.

If you can find a tape of Obama misunderstanding important ideas vital to national security that is something else entirely. It is not speaking poorly that is at issue here, it is her dangerous lack of understanding. Like Bush she is an incurious zealot, she has the will to make decisions but not the wisdom to make correct decisions. Nothing is more dangerous then a headstrong fool in a position of power.

It was quite clear listening to Sarah Palin that as soon as she was off the topics she had been coached on by her aides, most of which were veterans of Bush's 2000 and 2004 campaign, she had no idea what she was talking about. Her breadth of knowledge is non existent. If you listen to Obama answer questions off the cuff it is quite clear he has a strong understanding of a huge range of issues even when he has a hard time, on occasion, distilling those thoughts into short sound bites.

http://www.suntimes.com/news/huntley/1102552,CST-EDT-hunt12.article

"It took first-term Sen. Barack Obama three tries to get it right. Headed for a vacation in Hawaii, the presumed Democratic candidate for commander in chief issued an even-handed statement, urging restraint by both sides. Later Friday, he again called for mutual restraint but blamed Russia for the fighting. The next day his language finally caught up with toughness of McCain's."

"Making matters worse, Obama's staff focused on a McCain aide who had served as a lobbyist for Georgia, charging it showed McCain was "ensconced in a lobbyist culture." Obama's campaign came off as injecting petty partisan politics into an international crisis. This was not a serious response on behalf a man who aspires to be the leader of the Free World. After all, what's so bad about representing a small former Soviet republic struggling to remake"

Wow, what a biased title.

I disagree with Palin on a lot of things but someone who is clueless does not oust an incumbent Republican for the position of governor at the age of 42.

Besides, that Bush Doctrine question was bullshit.

But go ahead and keep piling on Palin... You're only making her more and more popular.

Great lets point to a conservative talking point writer from the notoriously right wing Sun times. The Sun times is Chicagos New York Post, its for people who care more about misinformed right wing crap. Anyone with any real acumen reads the Chicago Tribune or at least the Herald.

Reading a few of his other stories its like listening to McCain press releases. All this crap about Sarah Palin cleaning up her state...yah by taking tens of thousands of dollars in travel per diem to stay home or using her office to push personal vendettas against people like her ex brother in law the trooper? Squeeky Clean, Bush administration style.

So what are you saying Squrriel? You agree with Palin? We should go all in with Georgia even if it means war with Russia as a result? (see later in the interview, she says JUST that).

You do know that Georgia started it right? When they attacked South Ossetia they first off knew that Russia had a huge interest in it. Most of South Ossetian citizens hold Russian passports and Georgia attacked them as a "separatist enclave" to draw Russia into a war. They set a trap for Russia, Russia attacked, and then they said "Russia is so aggressive! We did nothing!" It's like kicking the schoolyard bully in the balls then pretending that he attacked you unprovoked.

Russia should not have attacked Georgia, nevertheless they were provoked. Blame rests with both sides and going to war with Russia when Georgia was the initial aggressor is a very bad idea. Obama had it right in saying it was a diplomatic problem between the two sides and both needed to work it out, it was not like Iraq and Kuwait or other examples of clear unprovoked aggression by one side against the other.

Please watch the following youtube clip. It includes proof that McCain is rather bad off the cuff and heavily dependent on the TelePrompTer (part of why he comes off so wooden when speaking). After that there is a CNN explanation of the South Ossetia situation.

the georgians were getting attacked by ossetian seperatists and had enough of it. seperatists that were funded, armed and trained by russia. russia, their allies and their campaign of ethnic cleansing are the real problem.

Impulsivity,

What you don't seem to get is that the President of the United States is an Executive position, which means that all of their decisions are made based on the advice of their advisors. The fact that a candidate doesn't know about something which is not a fundimental concept and by no means adds to her ability to make an executive decision shouldn't be held against her. Seriously, do you need to know what the Bush Doctrine is to be a good president or vice president?

    Bush was a Governor of Texas in his 40s as well and is equally clueless.  On the republican side, hell in politics in general, having a clue is not a requirement for holding political office.  You should see some of the congressmen interviewed by Steven Colbert in the discontinued better know a district series, a lot of them are dumber then you would hope our leaders would be.

    She is indeed dangerously clueless, and with Bush we know exactly what dangerously clueless+power equals.  

    Liking McCain is justifiable in some ways for some people, but Palin is just not qualified at all.  I would argue, given the excessive abuse of power shown time and time again in both her mayorship and her governorship she is not even qualified to remain governor much less be elevated to vice president.  How do you have 3+ running scandals in just a few months as governor?  I would greatly prefer the old style scandals of infidelity, hers are about things like fighting for the bridge to nowhere earmark and then only later saying she was against it after it lost support, then keeping the 200 million dollars from the earmark and spending it on other things.  I would prefer Monica Lewinski to finding out that as governor she took tens of thousands of dollars of extra tax payer money in the form of a travel per diem to stay at home more then 300 days of the year 400 miles away from the state capital.  I would prefer she hire a prostitute to finding out she used her office to attempt to ban books and carry out personal vendettas against people she knows.

    Not only that but she is a huge fan of cronyism just like Bush.  She took rampantly unqualified people from her high school days and put them in high paid positions of power (see todays NYTs front page, also on the new york times website).  I mean she really is Bush but worse, at least Bush knows what the Bush doctrine is.

  It wasn't just that sound bite though, everything she said had clearly been prepared for her just like her convention speech;  she managed to say she would start another war, this time with Russia, lied yet again about her bridge to nowhere stance and clearly lacked understanding on many pivotal foreign policy issues of the day.  On top of that on the Sept 11 commencement for troops stationed in Alaska she AGAIN drew a connection between 9/11 and Iraq which has been shown again and again to be patently false.  Even president Bush has cut that out by now.   It's disgusting how unqualified she is, and given McCains age if he wins there's about a 1 in 3 chance she will be president (both the historical rate of VPs becoming president and from the actuarial tables for someone of McCains age, with his history of cancer it might be even higher then 1 in 3).

   I disagree with McCain on a lot of things, but he is more then qualified for the job.  She has neither McCains experience or Obama's judgment and intelligence however, she is a danger to this countries future if she is put anywhere near the white house.