I enjoy talking politics

I really do. It's one of the few things left in the world that you're allowed to actually disagree about. And I disagree with several of my good friends on politics. And we can still be friends! It's ok to disagree.

For example, Easycure has a post up about the "liberal hack job" that Us weekly is doing on Sarah Palin. I commented, and StB replied to my comment. Instead of adding yet another wordy comment, I thought I'd just post here.

My Comment -

I just think she's a bad choice overall. This bit takes the "moral superiority" card off the table. The TrooperGate BS takes the "reform politician" card off the table. And her two years experience running Alaska takes the "my opponent has no experience" card off the table. She may be a very nice person, but politically she takes away valuable ammo from the McCampaign.

I don't doubt that she's a fine person and a good mom, even though her stand on abstinence-only education seems a little retarded now. But she was not the right call for the McCampaign. They would have been better off with any of several more visible, more viable female candidates.

StB's response -

Troopegate takes the reform card off the table??? That is laughable. Sure, let's put aside her ousting her own corrupt party members. No big thing there. How she didn't get pushed around by "big oil".

The experience card is gone because of Obama's experience doing what? Leading a city? Leading a state? It must bother you that Palin has more experience that Obama. That she has accomplished more than Obama. That she has taken on bigger challenges than Obama. Refute that.

See this pick is so much better than Biden that everyone feels the need ot bash it to bits.

As writers you should be concerned about Obama's attacks on free speech. But that isn't the cool thing yet so ignore it.

Now there are a couple of good points here, so I'll address them.

1) To me, Troopergate, unless it's resolved quickly and Palin is absolved of any innapropriate use of authority, does indeed take the reform card off the table. If she is found to have fired her employee because he wouldn't fire her former brother-in-law, then she's not much of a reformer. If she did indeed get a bunch of pork-barrel for her state by the same tactics that every other politician in the world has used for decades, then she's just more of the same. Not saying that the folks I've chosen to support are necessarily better, just that if those things are true, then she's no reformer.

2) The experience card is off the table because she has actually less experience in national-level politics than Obama. Yes, she has led a city. And she has led a state. She has the most chief executive experience of any of the four people on either ticket. She has more chief executive experience than her own running mate. And she still has never had to deal with any type of international politics, or make any decisions for more than 700,000 constituents (based on 2006 Alaska population stats). Obama, in his role as senator from Illinois, represented nearly 13 million people in the US Senate.

Now I'm not going to argue that there isn't a difference between governing a state and being a senator. Obviously the two posts are very different, but you can't really play up chief executive experience when your own lead dog doesn't have any. And since she's got less foreign policy experience than Obama, the card is off the table. And it was the best card the Republicans had t play against Obama.

And yes, she has accomplished great things, becoming the first female governor of Alaska. Raising a family while she's doing it. More power to her. But really, how much more has she accomplished than the guy who came from a broken home to make it to Harvard, then on to the Senate, and to become the first black dude to get on a major party ticket for president? I'd call this one a push on personal accomplishments. Now if we're talking accomplishments in office, we're probably gonna go with a push there, too, since neither of them spent enough time in office to actually make any lasting changes. Obama is a first-term senator, so he's not managed much. And Palin's been governor for less than two years, not nearly long enough to make much sweeping change. But I could certainly be wrong, and am prepared to concede this point if I am.

3) She is a much better pick than Biden. Hands. Fucking. Down.

StB, you picked yourself off the floor yet?

I've never been thrilled with Biden's selection, although I see it for what it was - a move to get some old white guys on board and shore up a weak foreign policy background. Even though I think Palin is totally unqualified to be one more tumor away from the White House, I still think she's a better pick. My gripe about John Edwards four years ago was that he didn't swing for the fences. The Palin pick is swinging for the fences, and that's the kind of moves McCampaign needs to make to win.

But she's just getting the same treatment every other candidate got through the primary season of upon their emergence into national politics. She certainly would have seen this same level of scrutiny by the Republican power machine if she'd run for the big chair herself. So she's getting tagged for having a knocked-up unwed daughter. Well, some of us (myself included) think that's what you reap when you sow abstinence-only education. Unfortunately, she's reaping a dose of reality about the fact that teenagers like to fuck! And the Troopergate thing is just like the Clinton land swindle. It's a pile of BS that the opposing party is bringing forward to make her look bad. Yup, it's BS, but it's no more or less BS than the fact that Obama sat on a board of directors and took $200 in campaign contributions from William Ayers.

TrooperGate is 99% likely to be a pile of crap. And Obama is 99% likely to be completely uninfluenced by the fact that William Ayers was a domestic terrorist. But the 1% makes it worth looking into. Which brings me to the most disturbing allegation - that Obama is attacking free speech. So I googled it, and it looks like the Obama campaign is pissed about some attack ads featuring his connection to William Ayers. And they've asked for a big DOJ investigation into the ads in the hopes of getting them blocked as “a knowing and willful attempt to violate the strictures of federal election law,” according to Obama's general counsel.

This is stupid. It's a terrible move on Obama's part and makes him look too much like the people he's fighting to depose. Srsly, he needs to get back on message and drop shit like this. It does need to be talked about, which might mark a record for number of times I've agreed with StB in any political discussion.

But I do think that Palin was the wrong call for the McCampaign VP slot. If she was a grab for Hillary voters, someone with no national or international-level politics is going to get it. If she was a grab for gun-toting anti-abortion voters, just run another war hero ad and get someone with more experience who has no surprises floating around. But it's gonna be interesting.