Response to The Anti-Soma's 'Hooray...'

First, let me be clear: I love The Anti-Soma. Anti-Soma is a dear friend of mine no matter how often (and it's only been once) I get mad at them. We are often at opposite sides of many issues and we have stated that, as long as we back up our own arguments, we can get as cut-throat as we want because, hey, it's fun! So, here I go.

Let me be equally clear: Anti-Soma is not going to vote Democrat if Jesus Christ himself came down from his banqueting table and ordered them otherwise. They were never looking for a reason to vote for Obama but they were looking for a reason to vote for McCain. But, come on, A.S., find a better reason. I mean, really!

On Friday, I wrote a piece regarding McCain's terrible choice for V.P. The Anti-Soma responded and you can read that here. Now, like them, I do agree you need a reason to vote for a candidate. Simply voting against a hopeful is not enough. It completely goes against the whole process. A.S. stated that they found a reason in Sarah Palin, and began to refute my reason's against her.

A.S.' logic has totally escaped them. Gone. Kablooey. Call the paddy-wagon.

In response to my suggestion that her lack of identity nation wide was going to be a liability and the McCain camp was going to need to define her before the opposition does, A.S noted:

...she did a fair job defining herself in her initial acceptance speech,
and I think she'll define herself better than anyone else possibly can
within the next two months.

It takes more that one speech to define a Presidential candidate. Just ask John Kerry. He had an excellent self-promotion tour just prior to the 2004 DNC, but the Republicans did a better job of defining him. Kerry defined himself as a war hero. Bush defined him as a traitor.

Bush won.

Think about it. She defined herself as a wife and mother. Great. But a wife and mother doesn't make you experienced enough to be President of the United States. And that's the argument that the Obama Camp is going to make. Duh.

As for the op-ad piece in the Daily Kos: it's disgraceful. It's tasteless and I won't link to it on the principle of frivolity. I agree with A.S. It's crap.

Continuing, I stated she was under Federal investigation. A.S.:

First of all, she's not under federal investigation. She's under
investigation by a state ethics committee. There are allegations, but she
has discussedwhat's going on.

Yes, I miswrote. I apologize to Mrs. Palin, her family and her supporters. But A.S. totally missed the point.

The mere fact that she is under investigation, state or otherwise, whether or not she discussed the problem, is moot. The average American voter does not care about details. They hear "investigation" and it's a black mark.

She's only held elective office for two years. Again:

This completely ignores her eight years as a mayor of a small town. John
Zogby rightfully points out that small town politics can be far more vicious and
cutthroat than those of larger towns. In other words, she's not only got two
years of elected office experience on Obama, but that all ten of her years of
elected office--as mayor and governor--give her ten more years of executive
experience than all of the other candidates, presidential and vice, put
together.

Let me see if I'm clear because I don't want to misunderstand: a small town mayor, a town roughly the size of Webb City, Missouri, gives you the 'executive experience' needed to run a country? Are you telling me that Small Town, Alaska, population 35,000 (and I am being very liberal with that number) readies her for dealing with Russia, Georgia, Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq?You are telling me, if I am clear, because Small Town, Alaskan politics are cut-throat, that she is ready for the world debate and a nation wide campaign? A.S., if that is your argument, all you, Palin and McCain are in for a very rude awakening.

Let me point out the fact that Senator Obama, who I am not endorsing by any means, has far more foreign policy experience than she does. Why? Oh, yeah. She has none. Obama has about the same amount experience on the Nation wide stage as she, but McCain keeps touting Obama's lack of experience. All I am saying is Gov. Palin totally diminishes his own argument against Obama. Her time in Small Town, AK has prepared her for conflict with Caribou, not Putin. Give me a break.

Now, I agree that Palin is not to be underestimated. I am not saying that she is going to be a bad campaigner. I am simply saying that McCain's choice, at first read, looks senile. He wanted a woman so he chose a woman he met once, during the vetting process who has no experience what so ever. There are far more qualified women to take that spot if he really wanted a female. The fact he chose THIS female is what will be perceived as being condescending.

Geraldine Ferraro even said so.