Obama's vs. Palin's Experience - The tale of the tape

The media has been ripping into Sarah Palin's lack of experience while their own candidate has just as little. The major difference is that Palin is the VP candidate while Obama is the Presidential candidate. Since both of them are similar in age, what I've done here is to outline what both of them have done since high school.



Here are the results:



It all looks fairly similar.

• Foriegn policy experience - both have none. How many Presidents actually have foriegn policy experience before being elected: not Bush, Clinton, Carter, or Kennedy.

• Executive experience- Palin has two years, Obama has none. Having to implement law, run a state budget, etc is far more challenging that just voting on stuff.

• Major experience in economics or business - both have not much to speak about. Not many

While it's annoying to see the blatant hypocrisy in the media, it may backfire on them. With all the discussion about the importance of experience regarding Palin, it raises the value of experience as a criteria in general. In other words, Obama is going to get a negative side effect from it as it reminds everyone that experience is important.

Hurricane Ike sucks

We were lucky to suffer no permanent damage. While trees fell on our neighbors and people down the street got flooded, we manage to escape both fates. We had water nearly at our door.

The amount of national press that Hurricane Ike has gotten is quite minimal. I guess if we don’t descend into anarchy within hours, that means there’s no story.

We’ve been without power for 16 days now. It sucks. What’s been frustrating is that it seems Centerpoint Energy is not managing the crisis well. As Entergy finished their repairs, they offered crews to Centerpoint, which turned them down. Meanwhile their priorities seem off. Devastated and unlivable areas of Galveston were getting new utility polls and power line while there was no one there to use it.

1st Debate Reactions

I think in the beginning of the debate, regarding the economic crisis, there was a lot of back and forth, and there wasn’t a clear winner. I don’t think the current economic crisis will have a huge effect on the election. Obviously a recession would hurt Republicans, and allowing a financial crisis would cause a recession, but even if the crisis happened, it would take some time before the recession happened. It’s like standing outside on a pretty fall day and someone tells you that it’s going to be really hot the next summer. It’s hard to imagine.

When the debate moved to foreign policy, McCain began to show real leadership. He appeared much more knowledgeable about the Georgian crisis and how it can affect other ex-Soviet states such as the Ukraine. He was a able to explain the Iranian situation and put Barack on the defensive for his desire to meet with Iwannajihad.

Lastly and maybe most importantly, McCain closed a lot better than Obama. Obama was talking about how people in the world don’t like us. That won’t reasonate with the marginal voter. That resonates with the university professor crowd. The guy on Main Street in Ohio doesn’t really care about whether “The World” likes us.

A Little Gouging Would Help Us in Houston

In the press, we keep hearing about "price gouging"...i.e., those evil capitalists trying to take advantage of people in need.

However, a little gouging helps prevent shortages. After Hurricane Ike, important and easily available commodities such as ice were in very short supply days after the Hurricane hit. By preventing price increases, there isn't a large incentive for an ice supplier in Dallas to make the trip down.

I would have gladly paid a much higher price for ice, but the Stage-one thinkers in government prefer the "no gouging" soundbite.

Yahoo Watch Continues

The saga continues:



I'll give you a hint which party the article says is better.... and it's not Republicans.

"...historically, the initial reaction of the market to a Republican presidential victory confirms this thesis.... However, a closer look tells a far different story."

Will I have to Start Yahoo Watch?

A few hours after pointing out Yahoo's bias, I am back at it again. First, is an innocent looking cover, about frequently asked question.

Then it links to a FAQ on Slate where almost all of the FAQs are negative. They either the reiterate a rumour or try to make people aware of something by making it a frequently asked question.

Out of 23 questions, 17 of the questions and answered portrayed her in a negative light, including the first 13. Five were neutral. Only one portrayed her in a good light. 17-1-5.

The overall message was: she's not qualified; she hasn't done what she claims; she has a lot of skeletons in her closet. The media is trying with all it's might to shoot down Palin.

I listed the question, a summary of the answer, and my take on the question and answers message.

1. How long has Palin known John McCain? Not long. Says he didn't vet her. She's not qualified.
   
2. Did Palin tell the McCain campaign that her daughter Bristol was pregnant before she was picked as the vice-presidential nominee? Probably not. Implies she's sneaky
   
3. Did she recite her speech at the Republican National Convention from memory after the teleprompter broke? Despite rumours, No. Implies she's not really a good speaker after all
   
4. Did she oppose the so-called "Bridge to Nowhere"? Not until after it was already dead. Implies she is not so bullish against pork spending.
5. What command experience does Palin have as head of the Alaska National Guard? None. Implies she has no defense experience.
   
6. Cindy McCain and others have asserted that Alaska's proximity to Russia has contributed to Palin's foreign-policy knowledge. What dealings has she had with Russia? None. Says she has also no foriegn policy experience.
7. Did Palin fire a public official because he wouldn't fire her brother-in-law? Yes. Says she's corrupt and for nepotism.
   
8. Was she ever a member of the Alaskan Independence Party? Maybe. Questions her loyalty to the US.
9. Was there a recall attempt against Palin when she was mayor of Wasilla? No, but it was considered! Implies she isn't liked. Wants to give credence to the charge.
   
10. Did she want to ban books from the public library as mayor of Wasilla? Yes (but only ones with offensive language). The phrasing of the question is improper as it implies she is against all books. A common charge of religious people is that they are anti-science.
11. What was her position on the surge? Not enthusiastically for it. Implies she is weak on defense.
12. What's Palin's record on environmental issues? Shit. Implies she hates cute animals.
13. Does she oppose federal earmarks? Only a little. Says she isn't anything special on spending.
14. Did she really stand up to big oil? Kinda.
15. What is her record on ethics reform? Good. A positive light.
    
16. Does she believe in evolution? Yes.
    
17. What are Palin's views on abortion? Against it.
    
18. Is Palin's church anti-Semitic? Possibly. More mud slinging
19. Did Palin ask her daughter Bristol to get married before news broke that she was pregnant? Maybe. Implies she is decidingly embarassed. reminds people that her daughter is pregnant.
20. Did Palin elope with her husband while pregnant with her first child? Maybe.Implies she was irresponsble
21. Did she fly all the way from Texas to Alaska this April after her water broke? Probably. Implies she's irresponsible.
22. Palin competed in beauty pageants in the early 1980s. What was her talent? Playing flute.
23. What's her workout secret? Jogging
    

Yahoo's bias is blatantly obvious

I'm definitely getting tired of Yahoo's election bias.

Earlier it was "Separarting fact from fiction on what Palin said." You would certainly never see that similar story about Obama.

Before that it was a story "Is the Edwards scandal, worse for Republicans?" Basically, they raise the question in order to bring up the fact that McCain got divorced 30 years ago.

Now they are trying to tell voters that "values don't matter." They ask a question and answer it in the headline.



They go on to say, "The abrupt shift to bare-knuckled partisanship in the middle of this week's convention appeared to indicate that Republicans intend to rally their rural and socially conservative base with culturally-tinged attacks painting Democrats as elitists..." Remember it's only partisanship is Republicans are attacking Democrats. The Republican base also live in urban areas as well. Liberals like to think of Republicans as hicks, who are too dumb to know what is best for them.