He'll be able to pull on past presidential experience and claim he can't recall anything if he gets in trouble if that's true.

 

Good for him, bad for us.

 

That is enough to scare off any voter. The man eerily reminds me of John Kerry.

This country needs new, not the type of big government same old same old that book knowledge boy wonder Obama brings to the table.

 

Not even close. Washington lead the Continental Army in the revolution. Teddy Roosevelt was the Governor of New York, and Vice President before he became President after McKinley's assassination, and had military experience. Lincoln was an Illinois state legislator and a US House of Representative member before being elected President, and had military experience.
I would say all 3 of those had far more experience than Obama.

 

Well PecKeRWUD, I see very good thank you. Our view differences are probably due to my IQ of 138 and yours. Where you see a forest, I see investment, lumber, ecology, habitats, soil conservation, minerals, opportunity. The article is most definitely a Democratic smear tactic against Palin. But if you can find an article from the same writer about Obamas inexperience, you might want to post it up to level the playing field and give this writer some form of credibility. But since this is a smear tactic, you won't find one. The article is trash.

 

I wish you didn't go there but since you did...I have to ask...
If my IQ is 140 or more depending on the test, does that make me more right than you?
Does it mean that those that disagree with me are wrong if my IQ is higher than theirs.

 

You gotta love it when conservatives turn on each other because one doesn't tow the line.

 

It's not my fault you scored that low on your IQ test, but it does help to explain your ignorance.

Finding other articles by that author isn't very complicated, but since you're "special", I'll help you out. Here is the 12 month archive of her articles posted on that website. I'm not going to waste my time reading them all, since you're the one that's looking for something, but I will link one of them for you.

Enjoy!

 

I'm sure you would, but you'd be mistaken.

Washington had zero years experience in elected office prior to being our first president.

Lincoln had 10 years experience in elected office prior to becoming our 16th president; 8 years as a state legislator and 2 years as a Congressman.

Roosevelt had 5.5 years experience in elected office prior to becoming our 26th president; 2 years as a state legislator, 3 years as a state governor, and 6 months as a vice president.

By January 20, 2009, Obama will have had 12 years of experience in elected office; 8 years as a state legislator and 4 years in the U.S. Senate.

Military service, while quite honorable, is not an elected government office.

 

And a far as candidates none have presidential experience, as none have been elected president. Two have leadership experience. Neither of those are on the democratic side.

 

And your post says it all. Washington was the only one who had less experience than obama.... and that is because we were a new country. He couldn't have gotten the experience if he tried. obama was state senator for 8 very ineffective years. He did NOTHING. he has been a U.S. senator for 143 days. He has NOT been there 4 years. He was running for pres 143 days after taking office. He is an empty suit. I love the line "you can't vote present as the president"


Palin has been a governor for 2 years. She actually did things presidential. She may not have the experience of other possible candidates, but she also isn't a Washington insider either. That is VERY attractive. Now if she could only remove McCain from the ticket and put a Conservative there, we would have a perfect ticket.

 

My first political post on F150online...

Palin was the choice of a man desperate to be seen as standing apart from the herd. McCain refers to himself, and now his running mate, as a "MavericK." He is doing this for two reasons:

1. The democrats are strategically tying him to the failed administration of George W. Bush. A label that is only partly true and clear to anyone who remembers the dirty tricks W played on mcCain in their primary races in the south back in 2000.

2. McCain is a man desperate for attention, he is addicted to it. He was a fighter pilot, and every fighter pilot is an adreneline junkie; his own account of his days at Annapolis support this contention. He was elected to Congress NOT on his abilities to govern, but on a combination of his father and grandfather's military connections, his wife's family money and political connection, capitalizing on his notariety of being a Vietnam POW.

I agree with the substance of the column, Palin is neither good for the ticket, nor the country. She's a nice lady with admirable personal convictions. But we need more, much more if she is to potentially take over the most important and powerful job in the world. Regardless of your political leanings, she is no Hillary Clinton, nor a Joe Biden, and from what i ahve seen about his ability to think, speak and inspire, she is no Barack Obama.

So let's assume McCain wins, forget about our political selfserving issues that usually guide us in the selection process. Do we want to wake up on September 1, 2010 with the headline reading, "President McCain Dead at 75, Palin Sworn Into Office"???

 

The title of this thread is miss-leading
I'm waiting for some clear thoughts

 

Better than, Obama assasinated, Biden can't rember chit, Pelosi sworn in.

 

Chris, you need to stop relying on false emails for your information. As of today, Obama has been a U.S. Senator for 1,364 days. That means, as of today, he has 11 years, 8 months, and 25 days of experience in elected office, which is more than Washington, Lincoln, or Roosevelt had when they became president, just like I said. Twist and contort it any way you want to, Chris, you can't change the facts.