John McCain picks Alaska Governer Sarah Palin as VP.

[The Germanator]

Originally Posted by mickydaniels

So, picking a senator without even 4 full years of senate experience for the MAIN job is any better?

4 years is better than one...And considering Obama has had the correct judgment on Iraq and Afghanistan that many didn't? Yes, I'll trust that man's judgment over McCain's any day.

[mickydaniels]

Originally Posted by The Germanator

4 years is better than one...And considering Obama has had the correct judgment on Iraq and Afghanistan that many didn't? Yes, I'll trust that man's judgment over McCain's any day.

Obama is the one running for president, not Palin.

Obama can say whatever he likes about Iraq and Afghanistan, the fact is he was not in the Senate by the time voting came around. I'm pretty sure he would have joined Hillary in voting yes.
Then again, it doesn't matter because he didn't have to make that choice.

[The Germanator]

Originally Posted by mickydaniels

Obama can say whatever he likes about Iraq and Afghanistan, the fact is he was not in the Senate by the time voting came around. I'm pretty sure he would have joined Hillary in voting yes.
Then again, it doesn't matter because he didn't have to make that choice.

"In October 2002, before being elected to the U.S. Senate, Barack Obama made a speech opposing the Bush Administration's plan to go to war in Iraq because he felt it was an ill-conceived venture which would 'require a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undermined cost, with undetermined consequences.'

Does that sound like somebody who would've gone along with Hilary voting yes? You can say all you want about how he wasn't there, but the only actual information says that he didn't. He's also pushed for time-tables for a long time now which the Bush administration has even started to agree to in the form of "time horizons" to exit out of Iraq safely.

You can say all you want about experience. I'd rather have a guy who has been right for a few years rather than the guy has continuously voted with the guy who has done the wrong thing for the last 8 years.

[Bond]

Originally Posted by The Germanator

Does that sound like somebody who would've gone along with Hilary voting yes? You can say all you want about how he wasn't there, but the only actual information says that he didn't. He's also pushed for time-tables for a long time now which the Bush administration has even started to agree to in the form of "time horizons" to exit out of Iraq safely.

You can say all you want about experience. I'd rather have a guy who has been right for a few years rather than the guy has continuously voted with the guy who has done the wrong thing for the last 8 years.

That sounds a lot like the Obama talking points...

Just as a side note, if you go by the "McCain has voted with Bush 90 percent of the time" fact that the Obama staffers are throwing around, you should be aware that Obama voted with Bush 60 percent of the time. More than half.

Fair statistical attack? Probably not. An argument to polarize our country? Probably yes.

[Professor S]

More on your point, Bond, its very easy for someone who is completely outside of the conversation to make a statement against a war that their opinion has no bearing on, and of its details he had no knowledge of. Its like me saying "I'm completely against grilled cheese sandwiches" when I've seen pictures of bread and only heard about cheese in conversation.

There was no poltical gain he could make by giving a favorable response considering his constituency at the time, and nothing for him to lose by being against the iraq war because his opinion at the time was LITERALLY irrelevant and heard only on a large scale in hindsight.