Reply to Uncle T: Sarah Palin vs. Obama

No, how naive you are!  "Woulda-shoulda-coulda" counts for squat in politics.  GWB reminded us of that in Florida in 2000.  It's a mean, winner-takes-all sport, so let's use a sports metaphor: Did anybody complain when LeBron James came into the game as a rookie and dunked on a 10-year veteran?  Did that old player who got dunked on cry, "He can't do that, I've got seniority!"  Hell, no!  Obama is LeBron.  He came into the game straight out of high school, went 1-on-8 with the "senior" Democrats, beat them like children, then he finished the game by dunking in Hillary and Bill's faces, thanking them for breaking his landing with their necks, and forcing them to bow to his awesomeness.  "And the crowd goes wild!... "  By contrast, Palin is the college player who graduated and went to Siberia to play ball because she couldn't make the NBA cut.  She's the leading scorer on her plucky club team in Novosibirsk, but... You get the picture.

"Obama has won.. a national primary -- SO WHAT!!!" you asked.  I'll tell you what: 99% of the politicians in Washington would give their left nut and their firstborn to match that feat, that's what.   John McCain had to wait 77 wrinkly years to do that, 25 of them kissing babies and pretending to like creeps like Jerry Falwell, Pat Roberts, and GW Bush, that's what.  As somebody who favors term limits, (the very point of which is to penalize experience), how can you turn around and deny the power of the political wunderkind, the phenom, the man-child that is Obama? 

So maybe if Palin wins something outside of Siberia, er, I mean Alaska, she'll be close to Obama's league.  Until then, the closest she'll get is watching his highlights on SportsCenter, like the rest of us.  Until then, she's Dan Quayle at best.

If you want to ask me who's the most qualified to be President, hell, I'll give you my list.  But it wouldn't include Palin, McCain, Obama or Biden, I'll tell you that.  But that would be idle chatter, conversation over a beer, not a serious discussion.

Anyway, it's interesting to note that you consider Ernie "Kelly Services" Fletcher, Bob "Cointoss" Taft, and Joe "Your Neighbor" Nienaber, Jr. to be more qualified for U.S. President than Obama.  You're entitled to your own crazy opinion!

On Mon, Sep 8, 2008 at 6:42 PM,  <                 > wrote:

How naïve and biased and prejudiced you are.  Winning a national primary and just showing up and being present (pun intended) with no resume of actual accomplishments makes one more qualified for the Presidency than someone that has run a city (however small) and a state (however short ). That's absurd.

I agree that Palin's resume is too short to be President.

However, Palin's list of accomplishments (she can walk the walk instead of just talking the talk) is twenty-five times longer than Obama's.  Obama has won a national primary and gives a good speech. SO WHAT !!!!!

Again, every time that you question Palin's experience and qualifications (and you may be right), you are destroying Obama's qualification's.

I am getting a sense, from various op-ed articles, who lean Democratic, that they are realizing the same thing.

Whether you like Palin , or not, her pick as a vice Presidential candidate, is a brilliant political strategy. It brings the issue of resume and qualifications to the forefront of the race and has the national media bringing up the issue instead of a bunch of disgruntled Republicans. With Obama having such a short and unqualified resume, McCain starts looking better.