The Worst Vice-Presidential Nominee in U.S. History

Palin isn't the worst VP choice. Quayle was definitely worse, and history is loaded with bad choices. I thought Lloyd was a good choice - I even remember people joking about a Bush - Bensten ticket.

All said - McCain wanted Lieberman and wasn't allowed to pick him, so he went with someone with shock value and made a political move.
I think that is a poor way to make a veep pick. but we will see if others think that as well.

 

End of the day: I'd feel more comfortable with bush as vp.

Now that is change you can believe in.

 

I don't think most people question Palin's experience or lack of thereof. I mean, the VP doesn't do anything (Palin even asked what the VP does a few months ago).

The real issue is that McCain attacked Obama as inexperienced and then goes ahead and picks someone with less experience.

What does that tell you? That either McCain really doesn't think Obama lacks experience, or that McCain has poor judgement himself.

So which one is it?

 

We shall compare notes in two months.

 

Harry Truman was once a haberdasher.

 

Nobody has the pulse of the people like a haberdasher.
They spend 10 months a year just standing around listening to people talk politics.

-My Dad-

 

I wonder what part of the country you live in? Oh...wait...perhaps Texas? I would be surprised if a good number of women there were republican or republican leaning for sure. Are all the Hillary voters from Texas? And don't all women agree that all women have more experience than men?

 

Guess what? I do live in Texas (San Antonio). However, I own a freight brokerage, and I deal with clients and carriers all over the United States -- virtually every state in fact (Hawaii and Alaska are exceptions). Many of my clients and a goodly number of the carrier dispatchers are women. Although the freight industry is slightly skewed toward a conservative base, the regional feedback I get is remarkably representative of the populace as a whole. The Hillary supporter to whom I referred lives in Kansas.

 

First of all, a column from the Huffington Post should not be taken as anything other than left-wing propaganda. That would be like me posting Rush Limbaugh Show transcripts as legitimate commentary.

Secondly, how can anyone trash her selection before she's even had a chance to speak on the national stage yet? So far, she's had a single nationally televised event she's appeared at since she was picked and she absolutely nailed it. If she blows it at the convention, on the campaign trail, or in the VP debate with Biden, by all means pile on the woman(figuratively, not literally).

But anyone calling her the worst VP pick ever at this point in time, especially with an equally unqualified Presidential nominee on the Democrat ticket, is engaging in way too much hyperbole and comes off as a scared Obama supporter.

 

For what it's worth, the heads of both the Alaskan Senate and House (both Republicans), along with Palin's mother-in-law, and the two major newspapers in Alaska said they don't think she is qualified.

 

That's enough for me!

 

Two things.

1. If you are going to bash huffington's website, please show the inaccuracies and display how that site is less accurate than other sites. Rush gets bashed because his inaccuracies are a matter of record, and have been shown to be inaccurate time and time again.

2. As far as not judging her before she gets to speak on the national stage that is part of the problem. Even Obama who has been called too inexperienced by McCain had spoken on the national stage before running for office.

 

Excellent points. But the reason they won't be considered or gained from by those whom you are writing to is that they don't want to hear truth, they only speak from a partisanship standpoint. So it just falls on deaf ears.

 

If I were Diogenes, I certainly wouldn't look for truth in the Huffington Post. That's like looking for the brass ring in a sack of corn meal.

 

What HuffPost is most useful at is what Drudge is useful at - dissemination of information. While the content is obviously biased, they do source their material and serve as a way to get quotes and other things you might not get elsewhere. Like most other sites, HuffPost is an extremely useful source of info if you are able to recognize and separate the inherent bias.

 

you still didn't answer the question i posed to you.

How can McCain attack Obama on experience when he picked a running mate with less? And if you say that she has more executive experience than Obama or Biden, than you should say that she has more experience than McCain as well.

I mean, it just completely makes his attacks on Obama completely puzzling? Or does your silence indicate you have no answer?

 

I'm still waiting for you or anyone else to post the scores of false reports from Huffington and show how it is worse than other websites. People are badmouthing it, but they haven't shown what it is based on.

I understand that the website is indeed a progressive one. They are going to cover stories that are related to progressive issues. That doesn't mean they aren't accurate.

I wouldn't take only Huffington Post if looking for a balanced view of things, and the same goes for Fox News.

 

Fixed.

 

Good points. If you notice on tv..whenever one of the pundits says she has more experience than Obama and Biden...and then they get asked does that mean she has more experience than McCain also, they act like the question was never asked. Of course the soft whimpy media never pushes them on it.

 

I disagree - both sites are extremely useful sources of information. You just have to recognize and ignore the bias. Drudge links to all sorts of important stories in local papers that you wouldn't know about otherwise and gets them national attention. HuffPost does similar things, although it also editorializes the information in addition to linking to the original source. In both cases, the core information is basically sourced.