I don't remember the specifics, but should we even trust Carly Fiorina with running a Fortune 500 company? I seem to remember there were some problems at HP under her tenure.

Ugh. This is off-base. Palin's background is in politics, not business. The relevant question would have been: "If Palin's background was in business, not politics, would she have the experience to run a major company?"

One might also call to mind that Fiorina was no great success as HP's CEO. As I recall, she took up a successful company and made it less successful, and was forced out. Maybe she thinks that even though she wasn't qualified to be CEO of a large company, she is qualified to be VP.

To be fair, Carly didn't have any business running HP either.

Something bugs me about Carly Fiorina giving her opinion about running the country.

(HP illegal surveillance joke)

obviously, the hp board didn't think carly was qualified to run hp either

apparently the only qualification you need, according to republicans, is the ability to run a country/state/gov't/corporation into the ground. They should have enough applicants to fill that bill.

I might respect Fiorina's opinion on whether Palin is qualified to be a CEO, but why would we consider her any more qualified to determine who is qualified to be President of the US than the average voter?

Employees of Hewlett Packard: 328,000 (according to Wikipedia).

Population of U.S.: 301,000,000.

Sorry, if she's not qualified to manage 300k people, I can't imagine why she would be qualified to protect and serve one thousand times more people.

Many states require that a teacher get/have a Master's degree.

Oh...Sarah Palin has mastered the ways of ____________.

She is also a master at________________.

She gives a masterful speech.

Yes, she doesn't have a Master's degree, but she's not running to be a teacher.

This is off-base. Palin's background is in politics, not business.

Republicans have been telling us for decades that government should be run like a business. now Fiorina tells us Palin isn't qualified to do so. QED.

Well, you really are behind in the news.

She had a 20% interest in a carwash that had it's state registration revoked after a year or so for non-payment of fees (while she was govenor--her name is on the title block of the revocation letter).

So there, you nattering nabobs of negativism, she does have business experience.

But...but...but...

BARRACUDA!!!!!!!

Someone please fill me in on how running the country is less importantant than a Fortune 500 Company?. The thing is if they continue to try and build this backwater neocon into something she isn't , they will eventually find themselves trying to justify it and end up looking like fools

When John McCain spent five years as a POW, he didn't have a corporation to be the CEO of.

In Palin's defense, Fiorina is not qualified to say who is qualified to be CEO.

The real question is how is Obama more qualified than both Palin AND McCain to run the country? Focusing on how unqualified (or perceived unqualified) Palin is is a move of desperation for Obama and his supporters. If your campaign is so weak that you have to compare yourself to the VP nominee then you've all but lost already. Sucks to be an Obama supporter.

"Perhaps, but I'd love to hear Fiorina, or anyone else at the McCain campaign, explain precisely what those qualities are. Seriously, what are the skills and credentials that Palin brings to the table that make her a superior choice to be one heartbeat from the presidency of the United States -- indeed, to McCain, the single best choice in the entire country -- but make her a poor choice to head a major corporation.

A background in finance? That would be beneficial in both jobs. The ability to manage a large bureaucracy? Again, a good quality for a CEO or a Vice President of the country. Leadership skills? Gravitas? An ability to think quickly on one's feet? Once again, it applies to both."

Since Obama lacks all these things as well, he would not be qualified to be Vice President according to you either. So why exactly are you supporting him for President? lol

Kevin, perhaps you could point out to the Democrats that this might be a good week to be running a lot of "Bush/McCain want to give your Social Security to the Wall Street Bankers," ads I'm just saying.

Besides, the guy Obama picked to be "one heartbeat from the persidency" already admitted he was the wrong choice. To quote Joe Biden, "In fact [Hillary Clinton} might have been a better pick than me." I can understand bias, but this article is just more of the stupid crap that passes as journalism nowadays.

This is GOLD.

The relevant question would have been: "If Palin's background was in business, not politics, would she have the experience to run a major company?"

I understand what you are saying but that question makes no sense. More precisely, that question would be tautological.

As for the propriety of the question and Fiorina's answer, it seems to me that even if her answer is strictly correct, CEO's really use different skill sets than Governors or whatever, its worth exploring just what skills Fiorina is basing her opinion on. After all, from the beginning what we have heard about Palin, including from Fiorina herself, is how much executive experience she has. Well, how important is that really? What executive skills does she possess that will really make the difference here? Its not just an academic question.

Um, it's not like Fiorina is that qualified to opine on what exactly makes someone a successful CEO.

A failure as a CEO, that's another point entirely.

James Litvak, please explain why Biden's graciousness toward Clinton is a definitive evaluation of either Biden's or Clinton's qualifications.

What's the difference between a corporate CEO and a Republican VP?

Please, please don't say, "lipstick!"

Ugh. This is off-base. Palin's background is in politics, not business. The relevant question would have been: "If Palin's background was in business, not politics, would she have the experience to run a major company?" Posted by: DKE

I think the point is that running a large corporation, where the CEO has pretty much dictatorial powers, is a hell of a lot easier than being the head of the U.S. government. That being said, I think Michael Bloomberg would probably have done a much better job running the country than the last four presidents have. On the other hand, Palin, by all accounts, was a pretty lousy mayor for a podunk town and was beginning to run Alaska into the ditch before she was inexplicably thought to be up the job of second-in-command of the most powerful nation in history.

"A background in finance? That would be beneficial in both jobs. The ability to manage a large bureaucracy?"

If you look at Obama's campaign as a corporation, it would probably be cited in business text books from now on as the best start up in the past 10 years or more.

If you look at his campaign as a bereaucracy, it's the best-run, best-managed one in history. Another successful case study for the text books.

The real question is how is Obama more qualified than both Palin AND McCain to run the country?

Superior judgment. Superior analytical skill. Superior capacity to understand and explain complex issues. Greater empathy with a broader range of people. Greater demonstrated independence. More even-tempered. Greater energy.

Next question.

The answer is pretty simple. The Fortune 500 companies run the government. The president is simply a stooge for big business. I'd say Palin is not just qualified for VP (after all, everyone else is, too, because the VP doesn't do anything), but the top spot, ready to go on Day-One.

If your total resume is: local weather girl, 4 years on the city council and 6 years as the mayor of a town with less than 7,000 people, 20 months as the governor of a state with only 650,000 people, then you're qualified to become the country's second highest ranking executive.

I would think those Fortune 500 head hunters would be knocking on her door! If for no other reason according to McCain, "She knows more about energy than anyone in America!"

Doesn't Palin have a 70-80% approval rating as Governor of Alaska?

Not much of an accomplishment when your state's oil revenues are so huge that you can send every citizen an annual check for a couple of thousand dollars.

my understanding is that the 80% approval rating was from right after the election . if that's the case, it's not representative of what her constituents think of her job performance. also, any approval rating taken after the vp nomination would be biased (hype, attention for alaska, etc.) and therefore not accurate.

Let's see, time to emend the list:

... lipstick, arugula, tire gauges, celebrities, sex-ed for kindergartners...

Hey look over there!

Carly Fiorina!

Uh, Joanne? You may want to double check that approval rating for your girl up in Alaska. Folks up there seem to be getting a little tired of Sister Sarah's Traveling Salvation Show.

The country IS one LARGE business.

It's also currently an insolvent one to boot.

Sheesh.

CEO's really use different skill sets

The major skill of CEO's is negotiating their pay and retirement packages, and Ms. Fiorina was very good at it. Nothing else really matters.

As soon as Palin gets within fifty miles of a Fortune 500 company she will magically know about business. Just as being within fifty miles of Russia magically made her know foreign policy.

Considering how Fiorina handled Hewlett, I think she was paying McCain and Palin a compliment.

About that popularity... Tuns out that the "Alaska Women Reject Palin" rally last week was the largest political demonstration in the history of the state.

Here's the blog of a woman who was there: http://mudflats.wordpress.com/2008/09/14/alaska-women-reject-palin-rally-is-huge/

Quite ironic, because 8 years ago the right was touting Bush's MBA and business background as proof of his ability to be CEO of the country.

In the words of George Costanza, we've done a complete 360.

Only in America does a person who was an abysmal failure as CEO get to pontificate on who would make a good CEO... and people listen.

Superior judgment. Superior analytical skill. Superior capacity to understand and explain complex issues. Greater empathy with a broader range of people. Greater demonstrated independence. More even-tempered. Greater energy.Posted by: Jeffrey Davis

You forgot superior education, better traveled, more varied private and public work experience.

I swear to god I'm going to half to trademark "Neil's Law"

"The volume and pettiness of postings by right wing trolls on left wing message boards are inversely proportional to the quality of the news cycle for Republicans"

today is proving my theory to a tee.

*is there anyone here with a propensity for eloquence that could clean up the language of my law? If so, I'll add your name to the law like a Bill or something :D

I nominate Richard "Dick" Fuld, CEO of Lehman Brothers, as a replacement for either Sarah Palin or Carly Fiorina. He is out of work and needs a new job, and has way more experience running a major trans-national corporation. He probably has some experience directing the operations of certain depts. of the government in matters economic. And, it is another Dick as VP nominee.

peace,
st john

this is an endorsement coming from Fiorina, I wouldn't trust her with HP, either, as history has shown.

As Dilbert creator sez :"But remember that CEOs are paid to be advocates for their stockholders, not advocates for voters. Asking CEOs what should be done about the economy is like asking criminals for legal advice"

Only in America does a person who was an abysmal failure as CEO get to pontificate on who would make a good CEO... and people listen. Posted by: ckelly

No. I believe we will be seeing and hearing a lot less of Ms. Fiorina on behalf of McCain/Palin after today. I think she'll be deep-sixed the way Mr. Toad (Phil Gramm) was after his "whiner" comment.

A spokesman completely on board and on message would be telling the public that not only can Palin run a Fortune 500 company, but I that she saw her walking across the pool at the convention!

Superior judgment. Superior analytical skill. Superior capacity to understand and explain complex issues. Greater empathy with a broader range of people. Greater demonstrated independence. More even-tempered. Greater energy. Posted by: Jeffrey Davis

You forgot superior education, better traveled, more varied private and public work experience.

Posted by: Jeff II on September 16, 2008 at 3:10 PM |

I'm surprised that you guys didn't mention that he's a superior life form, sent by God Himself, although some atheists may object, to save us all from the troubles of this world. LOL

Businesses are trying to make money (and deficits are bad). The federal government just spends money (and deficits are apparently OK). And, as "hark" points out, businesses would prefer a stooge they can control as president, to help spend that money in the right directions.

Why Carly would say something like that. Carly ran a once great company into the ground with a misguided and poorly executed strategy, forced through massive layoffs and outsourcing, destroyed company morale, and left it a financial basket-case before waltzing away with her $21 million golden parachute, at the expense of her shareholders. Sarah Palin shows she's perfectly able to do just that.

I'm with maurinsky. What would Fiorina cite as HER qualifications to run a Fortune 500 company? HP certainly thought they were wrong in hiring her.

Only in American Fortune 500 companies can you fail upward.

Chicounsel wrote: I'm surprised that you guys didn't mention that he's a superior life form, sent by God Himself, although some atheists may object, to save us all from the troubles of this world.

That's because you're an idiot troll who suffers from bizarre delusions as to both your political party and your opposition.

You might check out what Sun Tsu said about what happens when you don't know either yourself or your opponent.

Jackass.

Joanne - get a clue. July was before she was announced as VP. July was before the McCain campaign and the RNC started running Alaska. July was before Gov. Palin refused to co-operate with an investigation that she said she welcomed. I've been reading the Alaska newspapers and blogs for a couple of weeks now and it doesn't sound as though they are real happy and are maybe even finding out a few things they themselves didn't know about the good Gov.

Here's something else I would like to hear Carly expound upon.

What made Dick Cheney qualified to run Fortune 500 company?

st john: "I nominate Richard 'Dick' Fuld, CEO of Lehman Brothers, as a replacement for either Sarah Palin or Carly Fiorina. He is out of work and needs a new job, and has way more experience running a major trans-national corporation."

Oh, yeah? Well, I nominate Kerry Kellinger, formerly of Washington Mutual, who holds the exact same credentials.

I suggest that we seek firm resolution to this conflict, by sponsoring a death match with the two. Both men will enter the arena, salute President Herbert Hoo -- excuse me, I meant "Senator John McCain" -- and then fall on their swords simultaneously.

While it won't solve McCain's spokesperson problem, it will most certainly cull the herd of golden parachutists.

What was the name of that RICH GUY who didn't think old Carly should run HP either?

Gregory: "... what happens when you don't know either yourself or your opponent."

That's not fair. Judging by the content of his posts, I'd say that that Chicounsel probably makes a habit of knowing himself whenever the opportunity affords itself.

Fiorina obviously is not qualified to run a corporation either. "Shares of HP (Research) jumped 6.9 percent in heavy trading on the New York Stock Exchange Wednesday on the news [of her being forced out]. But at one point, the stock was up as much as 10.5 percent. "

That's Just What I Said

Well, if anyone would know about not having what it takes to run HP, it would be Fiorina.

What qualifications does Obama have? How about graduating Magna cum Laude from Harvard Law School, specializing in Constitutional Law? And then teaching Constitutional Law in Chicago? I know Republicans don't care about this, since their latest twit in the Whire House has spent 8 years trying to get around every provision in the Constitution he finds inconvenient, but Obama's education is perhaps his strongest qualification, IMO.

As for Palin, don't knock her work experience. It's plainly obvious that the major reason we haven't been able to get Iran to stop making nukes is that there is no one on our negotiating team with a sufficient grasp of the Anchorage high school football situation. She can change that.

As I recall, she took up a successful company and made it less successful, and was forced out.

I disagree - without the Compaq merger, HP wouldn't be nearly as successful as it is now. Fiorina had the vision, and it was her style that put off many - I never understood why exactly people disliked her so much. She laid the foundation for the success HP has today. Also, you don't need to be a former CEO to be qualified to say that Palin is unqualified - you just need to be reasonably logical. I was never a CEO, nor have I ever held office, but I can reasonably ascertain that Palin is unqualified as a potential President right now.

I think ultimately, Carly Fiorina burned too many bridges on her way to remake HP, which probably led to her downfall, but I still think that ultimately, Fiorina laid the foundation for HP's success. Remaking HP However, I'm not sure even if a successful CEO is really qualified to say who is or isn't qualified to be VP. A CEO is a dictator, who's ultimate goal is to bring profit to the shareholders.

If I had been the interviewer I would have asked:

(1) Is Sarah Palin qualified to President or Vice-President since it would seem that, if having a life-time of business experience is part of the qualifications to be a CEO, one would be qualified for those jobs only with a life-time of political experience? As much as McCain and his staff want to cling to the adjective "executive," we should be talking about "political" experience.

(2) What does Fiorina think about the recent efforts to pit main street against wall street with McCain and Palin both claiming that that would cut failing CEO salaries and deny them "golden parachutes?" How would Fiorina fair under the new McCain-Palin Doctrine?

Enough of this "Most Popular Governor in America" crap. Alaska is populated by a bunch of transplants from Idaho(like Palin)for whom the local white supremacist knuckle-draggers were to "librul," along with a ton of immigrants from the oil fields of Texas and Oklahoma. Being a super popular gavernor of Alaska is like being named Queen of the Pigs. Not that Sarah Palin's a pig. As far as I know.

"What qualifications does Obama have? How about graduating Magna cum Laude from Harvard Law School, specializing in Constitutional Law? And then teaching Constitutional Law in Chicago? I know Republicans don't care about this, since their latest twit in the White House has spent 8 years trying to get around every provision in the Constitution he finds inconvenient, but Obama's education is perhaps his strongest qualification, IMO."

Posted by: Tim H on September 16, 2008 at 4:14 PM |

Too bad Obama couldn't find the time either at Harvard or at U of C to author a single paper that clearly demonstrated his superior understanding of the Constitution to the rest of us mere mortals. Which perhaps explains why he could make such nonsensical statements like agreeing with Scalia that the 2nd Amendment provides an individual right to keep and bear arms, yet somehow claim that DC's complete prohibition of handguns by residents was not unconstitutional so as to avoid pissing off liberal gun banners.

Moreover, so what that he went to Harvard. W went to Yale for both undergrad and grad school, had better grades than both Gore and Kerry and yet, you guys consider him to be an utter moron. Why can't I think the same thing about Obama? Because you're right and I'm wrong? Well, gee, it's now so obvious isn’t it? LOL

Fiorina: Obama Camp ‘Deceitful’ in Clipping My Quote

Barack Obama’s campaign was “deceitful� when it clipped part of an interview in which Republican Victory 2008 Chairwoman Carly Fiorina said John McCain was not qualified to be the head of a corporation, Fiorina said Tuesday.

Earlier in the day, Fiorina, the former CEO of Hewlett-Packard, appeared on MSNBC, where she said none of the candidates is qualified to run a major corporation, but that should not prevent them from running the country.

“I don’t think John McCain could run a major corporation. I don’t think Barack Obama could run a major corporation. I don’t think Joe Biden could run a major corporation. But on the other hand a major corporation is not the same as being the president or vice president of the United States,� Fiorina said.

“It is a fallacy to suggest that the country is like a company. So of course to run a business you have to have a lifetime of experience in business, but that’s not what Sarah Palin, John McCain, Joe Biden or Barack Obama are doing,� she said.

But the Obama campaign, pointing to a version of Fiorina’s statement that was clipped after the first sentence, berated McCain for not winning the trust of even his own supporters.

“When John McCain’s top economic adviser doesn’t think that he’s qualified to run a corporation — how on Earth can he run the largest economy in the world in the midst of a financial crisis?� Obama spokesman Bill Burton said in a statement accompanying the shortened clip.

“Apparently even the people who run his campaign agree that the economy is an issue that John McCain doesn’t understand as well as he should. Senator Obama has been ahead of the curve trying to prevent this crisis and he’s called for new rules of the road to make sure that it doesn’t happen again.�

Fiorina lashed back at the suggestion she doesn’t trust McCain and said Obama is the least qualified of any of the candidates to run the country.

“I think this is a pattern of the Obama campaign. What they did was deceitful. They literally cut words off,� Fiorina told FOX News.

“Secondly, they are sort of flooding the zone with nonsense. Look, different experiences prepare you for different jobs. Sarah Palin and John McCain are uniquely experienced to be the president and vice president of the United States. Barack Obama is the least qualified candidate running today in terms of his executive experience, in terms of his time in public office. So I think the Obama campaign would do very well to stop hurling the experience argument, because their candidate for president has less than any one else for office right now on these two tickets,� she said.

Chicounsel @ 3:22: I'm surprised that you guys didn't mention that he's a superior life form, sent by God Himself, although some atheists may object, to save us all from the troubles of this world. LOL

Isn't that what Republican Presidents are for?

And doesn't this remind you of when you were a kid and made the mistake of revealing a preference for something that the other kid didn't like? 'Why dontcha marry it then?'.

What an absolutely retarded thing to say. Oh yeah... this nation is toast.

"“I think this is a pattern of the Obama campaign. What they did was deceitful. They literally cut words off,�

HAHAHAHAHAhahahahahaha HA HA HA HA HA

IOKIYAR pure and simple.

What about the pig/lipstick brouhaha. And that's just off the top of my head.

' ' @ 5:41: HAHAHAHAHAhahahahahaha HA HA HA HA HA

IOKIYAR pure and simple.

What about the pig/lipstick brouhaha. And that's just off the top of my head.

Okay, thanks but no thanks for posting this so close to my comment about Chicounsel's comment. ;o)

Ms. Fiorina is, as we say in some corners of the internet "farktarded".

Who is qualified for what is pretty subjective, and even political.

More important is what process Ms. Fiorina would go through in hiring a VP, or even her highest ranking administrative assistant, or even the lowest ranking.

Would she hire someone who was currently under an ethics investigation, regardless of the facts?

Would she hire someone based upon a application for employment, without doing background checks, or at least verifying that the details were accurate?

Don't people call references when they hire a nanny, or a contractor?

If Ms. Fiorina did hire someone into an important position without the normal checks, could she survive as CEO? I would think that running a Fortune 500 company, you would have folks looking over the shoulder of those checking all the boxes for each high level job applicant, because the first surprise will be very un-good for the career of the CEO.

The difference between a CEO and a VP is that we don't have a Board of Directors and shareholders to review their decisions in real time. We get one chance every four years.

I don't understand at all why this experience question is such a big deal among Democrats, considering that Obama's resume is also laughably thin, lacking even the limited executive experience that Palin can claim. He's a 4-year Senator who has spent the better part of half of that time campaigning for the Presidency. The more this issue is raised the more it hurts him as well as Palin, assuming it hurts either one of them, of which I am not convinced. And his own pick of a lifetime political hack with very little to show for 36 years of residence in the Senate, as opposed to the excellent Democratic governors -- with executive experience, mind you -- that he could have chosen (Bayh, Granholm, Richardson) -- does not speak well of the decisions we might expect from him after the election. Of course, any one of those candidates would have outshone him completely, charisma or no charisma, and he's rather too insecure to countenance that.

McCain's pick of Palin can be criticized on a lot of grounds, but unless one of the scandals-du-jour actually turns out to have some meat to it (none have shown much yet), she's looking more and more like a brilliant one. The pick energized the conservative Republican base to a degree they hadn't been before, it set the Democrats completely on the defensive -- you will notice that most of the comparisons for the past few weeks have been between the Democratic presidential candidate and the Republican VP candidate, which is not a good thing -- and it brought a level of celebrity to the Republican ticket that had previously been the sole property of the Anointed One alone.

I can't say I'm less than cynical about either ticket. But it's actually somewhat heartening to see how little traction the various tacks being taken against Palin are getting. Take away her Christianity and her anti-abortion stance and she's the poster child for the success of modern feminism. If the ideologues were more tolerant of different viewpoints, and of religiosity in general (which, I suspect, is a large part of where the animosity originates anyway), they might just see that.

Carly Fiorina? An affirmative action dud in her HP career dares spew forth? LOL.

WTF? Conservatives think there is not much skill involved in running a country, one with the world's largest economy, military, and nuclear arsenal. No wonder they keep nominating incompetent boobs for the top two offices in the country.

My dog can run a company if all she has to do is bark orders at others and dig a hole to bury the company's stock price. And my dog won't call me incompetent on live TV. Which is what Carly did with HP the company and her political boss, McCain. McCain is doing a great job picking advisers.

I don't think anyone in CorporateWorld trusts the Queen of Outsourcing to run a Fortune 500 company now, either - not since she got the bounce from HP for her botched acquisition of compaq, and had to jump out the window with her $48 million platinum parachute.

Let's see....

McCain's chief economic advisor, Phil Gramm, is the guy who tossed out the Glass-Steagall Act, which is responsible for the mess we now find ourselves in on Wall Street...

Carly Fiorina, whose primary experience is running the ship aground when given command, is the expert on corporate leadership abilities...

And John McCain, whose naval career was marked by failure until he flew back over the target he'd just bombed and got shot down, is qualified to be Chief Executive...

Oh well, at least they're consistent: incompetent Republicans who continue to promote each other waaaaaaay over their Peter Principle top position.

MB: ...Obama's resume is also laughably thin, lacking even the limited executive experience that Palin can claim. He's a 4-year Senator who has spent the better part of half of that time campaigning for the Presidency.

Obama has represented more people than Palin, but as to executive experience, he has been a [gasp] community organizer. Not that that would have given him any insight into negotiating with politicians and bureaucracies.

...he could have chosen (Bayh, Granholm, Richardson) -- does not speak well of the decisions we might expect from him after the election.

Bayh is as bland as they come. Granholm would have been great, but she was born in Canada [do your homework]. Richardson would have made a great VP, but he probably would have been a liability as a candidate. In the debates and interviews during the presidential campaign, he fumbled many times. Shows some political acumen for Obama.

And who headed the campaign that ultimately beat the fearsome Clinton machine? I guess that took some executive abilities.

Take away her Christianity and her anti-abortion stance and she's the poster child for the success of modern feminism. If the ideologues were more tolerant of different viewpoints, and of religiosity in general (which, I suspect, is a large part of where the animosity originates anyway), they might just see that.

Except that feminism, like most progressive policies, is not particularly interested in "poster children." It is interested in policies. Part of what makes our political culture so brain dead is precisely this sort of substitution of personality for any substantive debate on actual political differences and approaches to governance.

Whatever one considers Palin's positive personal characteristics to be, how do they help women? Does the fact that she is an apparently independent woman somehow trump the fact that she is in favor of forced pregnancy? Did her winning personality make the women in Wasilla who had to pay for their own rape kits feel better about their situation? Does her love of shooting defenseless animals from the sky trump the fact that she supports a running mate who doesn't agree that women should be paid equally for the same work as men?

In short, this notion that Palin is any sort of a representative of feminist principles is, how you say, stupid. "Poster child" or not.

"Bayh is as bland as they come...Richardson would have made a great VP, but he probably would have been a liability as a candidate."

And Joe "Hillary would have been a better choice than me" Biden isn't? The Republicans should pay to get him more airtime. They gain votes every time the guy opens his mouth. America -- or at least that small portion of it that honestly gives a damn about who the VP candidate is -- is about to get a good look at one of the Senates biggest and most vacuous blowhards.

"And who headed the campaign that ultimately beat the fearsome Clinton machine?"

And is currently in the process of botching one of the biggest gimmes in the history of presidential elections, to quote a Democratic "strategist" (and I think he's right).

"forced pregnancy" -- that's rich. But why bother going there, since no one is prepared to give an inch in that particular debate? The rape kit story, as far as I've been able to tell, is a lot of hot air and little in the way of facts so far. As for your "same work" comment, same job/same level, fine. Otherwise, have fun defining "same work", and have fun with the tremendous bureaucracy that will be created to make and enforce those definitions, to the detriment of everybody.

In point of fact, Sarah Palin is a highly successful woman, one of a vanguard of women who, minus one or a few deviations from the accepted orthodoxy in their personal beliefs, are also successful feminists. If you insist on excluding her from that company simply because she isn't pro-abortion, then we'll just have to call her a successful "person" and relegate whatever is left as truly "feminist" to the margins where they clearly belong. It's a very small tent, apparently.

"Obama has represented more people than Palin, but as to executive experience, he has been a [gasp] community organizer."

A community organizer has executive experience? Now _that's_ the funniest thing I've seen here yet. Especially given that I have found it nearly impossible to get a decent description of exactly what it is that a community organizer does. My impression is that a very large number of people would qualify under any definition that would cover what Obama did. You need to face two facts: (1) Obama is even less qualified than George W. Bush was back in 2000, and he was alarmingly unqualified; (2) You are making comparisons between the Democratic presidential candidate and the Republican VP candidate. That's bad news for Democrats. No one votes for or against the VP.

"And who headed the campaign that ultimately beat the fearsome Clinton machine?"

Right, and nearly every time the Democratic primary involved an actual vote, he lost. He was lousy with elections. Heck, to get elected to the Senate he had only to face Alan friggin' Keyes, who could only have won election from Mars, if that. Where he did well was in caucuses, where actual popularity among the voting public means less than having a cadre of young and enthusiastic organizers.