Are You Ready to be President?
If Charlie Gibson asked me if I were prepared to be the President of the United States .... and if I had the experience, both life and professional, of Sarah Palin, I would not answer the way she did on ABC News this past week. I would not say without a blink, Yes I am, Charlie.
A little humility and acknowledgment of my impending learning curve might be in order. But what we learned is that this person who has governed an area the size of Hoboken, New Jersey accepted the nomination call from McCain without even blinking. Does Palin have any idea at all of what she is being asked to do? The responsibilities of a Vice President demand a complex understanding of the world that goes beyond noting that you can see Russia from the Alaska border, that Ukraine should join NATO (Ukrainians are wildly split on that issue), that we are all Georgians, that terrorists are bad guys or that the U.S. are the good guys. Being Vice President means more than remembering good talking points. Hell, being President should be more than that as well.
Listen up, folks. YOU could be President under these conditions. You, with your family and life experience, even if you have barely ever left the country, could have your finger on the red button. Be a heartbeat away from the Presidency as they say. Now I don't know about you, but I just don't feel I'm prepared to be either the Vice President or the President. And the fact that i KNOW I am not prepared is a good thing. It shows I have some awareness of the awesome responsibility of these positions. That I have some judgment..
Bob Herbert of the New York Times notes that Palin is not ready. The Minneapolis Star-Tribune editorializes that Palin is not ready. Even two of Alaska's top newspapers question her fitness for office.
What to make of this confidence? Or over-confidence? McCain and Palin are either clueless or think we are. Whatever you think about McCain, it is no secret that he will be the oldest candidate for President. McCain could have chosen someone with the requisite experience. But in making the judgment he did, seemingly on the spur of the moment on the rebound, must be compared to the careful and considered decision-making process that Obama went through. Obama chose one of the most experienced candidates he could find, knowing that he would be criticized for it, but also knowing that the Vice President is no longer just a ceremonial ribbon cutter but a partner with the President in the govenring process.
There is a lot of talk about how people choose someone for President or VP that they would like to be friends with, to have a beer with. If that is so, then choose another George Bush. He might not drink liquor with you, but he is more like you than Gore or Kerry would have been. But if you acknowledge that we need a President AND a Vice President who are more ready, more experienced, have better than judgment than we do -- then you will vote for Obama-Biden.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Linda, sweetheart, Alaska is slightly larger than Hoboken. It is also larger than Arkansas, former home of your hero, Bill Clinton.(By the way, if the governorship of Arkansas qualified Bill to be president, doesn't the governorship of Alaska qualify Palin to be VP?)
Anyway, Palin is running for VP, not president, and has far more executive experience than Obama, who has none, and has deemed himself fit to be president (Is this a sign of hubris?) Not to worry, though, we haven't had a president die in office (of natural causes) since 1945 (a little history lesson...it was FDR) so in all likelihood McCain will survive his term.
Wow, spponyluv, you're really an idiot.
The significance of a governor's responsibilities is not measured by the square footage of the territory that she or he has control of, but by the population (of people, not moose). And I think that someone even as clueless as you could figure out, from the article, that this is what the author was talking about.
And the statistical probability of a President dying in office is not determined by how many people have in the past, or in the past since 1945. I'm sorry, but you just can't pull a random date out of the atmosphere and imagine that this will serve as a legitimate statistic. That's not how it works. Nor is isolating the reason for death to "natural causes" a legitimate move, since a hypothetical McCain could die for other reasons as well. The probability of his death, as any actuary will tell you, has much more to do with his age and health status.
If any of this is still unclear to you, I suggest a high-school level stats class.
I don't have a say in your elections, I live in Scotland. I think that the majority of Americans are warm-hearted, generous and fair-minded. I have a theory about the 'No Blinking' mindset.
Over here, we were all brought up on a diet of Westerns. We call them 'Cowboy Films'. My dad lapped them up - nice simplistic plot-lines where the good guys always win the day. The 'Bad Guy' shoots up the town, thumbs his nose at the law and generally upsets the law-abiding citizenry. The 'Good Guy' has a mission. He is clean living, possibly a loving partner/father, knows right from wrong and hates injustice in any form. He faces down the 'Bad Guy', offers him a fair fight out on the street - meeting him eye to eye at a dozen paces and he NEVER BLINKS.
America isn't the Wild West anymore. You're THE Superpower - for ill or good. The rest of us only want to know we can sleep safely in our beds at night without the prospect of another round of tit-for-tat with the Russians.
Let me draw a final analogy... America (along with the UN) is at war with North Korea in the fifties. The President asks his advisors what to do next. General MacArthur steps up and in a firm voice declares that America should 'nuke 'em'. Wiser heads prevailed but can you imagine replaying that scenario with Ms. Palin in the hot seat?
Can you AFFORD to?
I think most DNC's delegates are now regretting having picked Obama as the DNC presidential nominee. They forgot that politics is not a college forum where a professor strives to generate consensus among his students by simply arguing facts. Politics is rather a war zone where you either kill or get killed. You do have to be ferocious. It is a competition baby, no time to play nice and sweet. I admire Obama's magnanimousness, but political pundits don't understand that kind of language. Than the question is: If Obama is not able to take on 72yo McCain and the GOP machine, can he take on Dmitry Medvedev,Vladmir Putin, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, kim jon il, Hugo Chaves and Bashar Al-Asad? Thesee fellas only respond to power and fear. If they don't fear you, they will bully and walk all over you. Barack Obama would make a great UN Ambassador where he could articulate and reason. We need a commander in chief who our enemies know they just can't screw with, and Obama is not it.
You obviously don't know the story of Obama's political savvy in Chicago. He took on some major players and eventually won. He is fericious. He just chooses his battles.
I only speak for myself, but I'm offended by these attacks on Pal's experience. O has even less. Yes, he's had a campaign period to sharpen his answers. So? Those are answers. In real experience? He's even less prepared than she is to be president!
He's never actually worked in a bi-partisan way. She has.
He's never actually brought a huge project to fruition such as the gas pipeline renogiation. She has.
He's never truly challenged the old-boy system in his own party and won. She has.
It's starting to make my skin crawl everytime I see an article such as this. My own reaction is opposite of what is hoped for. I'm becoming convinced that there is a darn good reason the Democratic congress has failed the people. It's because of this type of small, petty thinking.
Disagree with Pal on the Republican platform? That makes sense. She is most definitely a Republican.
But this other stuff?
It's offensive.
What is offensive is the number of false statements in your post. He has significant experience in bringing legislation through to fruition, which she doesn't. She has no legislative experience, and had little involvement with any of the bills she signed in Alaska.
He has worked in a bipartisan way in both the Illinois State House and the Senate. Sarah Palin hasn't; in fact, the investigation into her abuse of office was a bipartisan initiative--with 2/3rds of the votes coming from Republicans.
We apparently use the term "fruition" differently. If I were referring to a gas pipeline project using "fruition", it would mean the pipeline was built. Apparently, signing an approval to begin looking into the possibility of securing the necessary licenses to build a pipeline at some point in the undetermined future--if at all--counts as "fruition" for you.
As for challenging the old-boy party and winning, that remains to be seen. She has both sides of the aisle in the state legislature gunning for her doesn't sound like victory is in her future.
One significant difference between Obama and Palin has to do with knowledge: He has it, she doesn't. He is a thinker who has contemplated the great challenges of our time, she isn't and hasn't. One of the things I find most offensive is the fairy tale being built around Sarah Palin, and the number of people like yourself who insist on telling and retelling it with complete disregard for the truth.
He most certainly has worked in bi partisan ways. I won't even bite on the other b.s. you spout. You know nothing about Obama because Repubs don't want to see or listen to the other side. That's where we have an edge. We believe in keeping our friends close and our enemies closer.
Name legislattion that Palin worked through to completion in with a Bipartism committee
The gasline is merely on paper and will probably never be built
Palin didn't challenge "any good ol boy" system, she was an insider of the Republican party that just got rid of her enemies so she could take their place and put her own cronies in
I am glad you are offended dumb never id like smart
Would you kindly go away?
Long ago, you demonstrated that you are in the tank for McCain, that your so-called moniker "Puma" is just a ruse to allow you to post here, and make people think you actually care about the election. I suspect that in reality you are Tucker Bounds.
A few details for your edification:
1. He's a graduate of Harvard Law School and a member of the United States Senate. Exactly how is this inexperience, compared to your lightweight mayor?
2. Have you noticed that the gas pipeline project is not actually online, and that it's likely to fail for lack of corporate willingness to actually pipe gas through it? God, pay attention please.
3. Sarah Palin was elected because she wasn't Frank Murkowski. The scandals started to break after her election and she jumped on the bandwagon. You don't have to be rocket scientist to figure this out, it's readily available information.
4. The Republican platform is irrelevant to this campaign, silly; "it's not about issues." Otherwise the "we don't support bailouts" plank wouldn't be getting the press it has been.
I repeat, you really shouldn't post here without some grasp of reality.
Great Article.
I'm not ready to be President, however I'm ready to help the Obama-Democratic Campaign in such a way that it would put Sara Palins story out of Business now, and on the back-burner in the long-run; when it comes too Stories told & yet to be told in Life.
Life is like Chess, sometimes one piece needs too be moved first, before another piece/s can & should be played-moved.
."Are you ready to be president, Govenor Palin?"
"Of course, Charlie. I DID sleep at the DC Holiday Inn Express last night."
But in making the judgment he did, seemingly on the spur of the moment on the rebound
You said it right there...she was a rebound...and we all know how rebounds USUALLY work out...except in basketball usually not a good thing.
Great article...and NO i'm NOT ready to be president.
She governs an area not the size of Hoboken but twice the size of Texas. Rahter tahna the size of the town she governed or the state she governsthe question should be; Is she prepared to become POTUS if need be? That is all a VP's main function is (and an occasional tie breaker vote in the Senate). Bill Clinton was recently asked if Obama is ready to be POTUS. He replied "I don't think anyone is ready to be POTUS." The NY Times wrote this about an unknown congresswoman from Queens,NY when she was selected as running mate to Walter Mondale in 1984:
" What a splendid system, we say to ourselves, that takes little-known men, tests them in high office and permits them to grow into statesmen.... Why shouldn’t a little-known woman have the same opportunity to grow?... [T]he indispensable credential for a Woman Who is the same as for a Man Who – one who helps the ticket.”
I rarely agree with the Times or Bill Clinton, but I do see their points here and think they're relevant.
By that sentence, Bill was not inferring that anybody could be President, as in your neighbor one day just waking up and deciding to give it a shot. You first have to assume that those who do apply for the job, at minimum have the credentials for possibly doing the job. Then the people and critics get to decide, based on what they bring to the table, wether they're willing to believe they're ready or not, or capable or not, and then vet them and give them a chance. You cannot discount the experience that one brings as irrelevant, be it that the applicant feels ready or not, the past is part of what we, as voters use to judge that readyness and capability.
One thing is obvious here, this pick was made to help the ticket, but for the sole purpose of winning, not governing, thereby belittling the office of the Presidency and insulting the voters' intelligence.
I have to disagree, even though you make some sound points. Don't you vote for the top of the ticket? Joe Biden has been a politician for 99% of his adult life (not much change there). He lost horribly at the polls in the 1988 and 2008 primaries. Obama picked him to make up for his limited experience and McCain picked Palin to get the Republican base. What does surprise me is how liberals and feminists in particular are in such a tizzy over this successful woman.
I agree 100% that this pick was made to help McCain win the candidacy for president.
He sure had a good nose to smell who could boost his points, even 3 times at some places or groups (evangelicals for example) !
Far better than Obama's nose, of course ! (Had Obama picked Hillary as VP he would not be so confused now about McCain's VP? But maybe Obama feels smudgier to work 4 years with a same-sex than with another -sex ? As I think he is a rather shy person).
About experience, McCain who had spoken (in Ads) sharply about Obama's experiences, surely know about Palin's inexperience, but so as you say, he only THINKS about becoming Mr President, so everything else DOES NOT MATTER MUCH ...
om santi, Indonesia
I figured out what got the NOW ladies' panties in a twist over P a l i n. She actually fulfilled all the feminists' benchmarks -- 14 years in politics, a good marriage, 5 kids -- but she's not a liberal. Ergo she is bad. I guarantee you if the DNC could come up with a liberal, pro-chice version of her with the same type of political experience, they would be singing her praises. I know because they are singing the parises of a candidate with a very thin resume right now. Hypocrites. All of you.
Just out of curiousity, when a 12 year old girl is raped by her uncle, and Palin says she has to give birth to the baby, what punishments would you support for her and her mother if her mother allows her to abort the baby from the incestuous rape?
Don't you understand the Roe V. Wade would have to overturned by the Supreme Court. The President can only nominate people for the Supreme Court. Do you NOT realize that every nominee is grilled by a congressional committe?
Even if we had 8 more years of a Republican white house, the odds are very, very slim that it would be overturned.
Stop trying to make it look as if Palin would force her beleifs on the American people. Reagan, Bush 1 and Bush 2 were all against abortion. Together, this is 20 years of Republican Presidents. If Roe V Wade hasn't been overturned by now it never will.
Pro-chice? In what regard, Daisy?
Local politics in a town of 5,500 when she was Mayor is not in the same ballpark as Yankee Stadium. However, the local hockey rink is.
She is in the water so over her head, she would get an embolism trying to reach the surface quickly enough, or drown trying.
On July 31, 2008 she was quoted as saying, "Could someone tell me what are the responsibilities of the VP?" When I interview for a position, I have the intellectual curiousity to research it thoroughly. If experience doesn't matter to your potential employer (G.O.P) then I guess it doesn't require any research on the applicant's part.
Amazing.
14 years in politics? Six as mayor of 5.500 people, and needed an administrator on top of that, 20 months as Governor of a rich state with no financial balancing issues.
First, they don't amount to 14 years, second, as she herself said "it's not rocket science, it's just 6million and 53 employees", speaking of her mayoral duties.
Wow, that's really amazingly lame.
Since when do feminists measure a candidate by how many years in politics (read; as small-town major), or by "a good marriage" (what?), or 5 kids? Good Lord, what next? The Democrats are not stupid enough to nominate a VP who is such a lightweight -- they know she would be picked apart by the press. Palin has been handled with kid gloves so far, but there are signs that even the MSM is getting tired of how sheltered she has been. If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.
The only reason that a person can go through making major decisions without blinking is if that person has her eyes closed. Simple biological fact.
SO true!!!
you know, some people do not realize when they are way over their head in deep water, lets hope she doesn't pull us all down with her
Who should we blame?? John McCain for asking her...or Sarah Palin for excepting without any hesitation. It looks like NEITHER one of them had the best interest of our country in mind.
It truly is a new LOW in politics when George Bush looks like a ROCKET SCIENTIST next to Sarah Palin.
Well 146 days in the Senate and a speech gives me very little confidence in the chosen candidate of the DNC.
Ignoring the last two years of serious vetting, raising millions from small donors, campaiging in 48 States and out-managing every other Campaign w/out stopping -- including McCain's -- while being a sitting Senator from Illinois -- whose population makes Alaska's look like what it is - small potatoes -- dwarfs Sarah Palin's history, background and accomplishments.
Further, unlike Sarah Palin -- and, in the past, John McCain -- Senators Obama and Biden are not under INVESTIGATION. Mr. Obama accomplished this last feat while Sarah Palin was apparently carrying our vendettas and fusing family interests w/the State business -- and her husband was attending State meetings and communicating on behalf of the same, w/out accountability to ANYONE.
How many days was Lincoln in the Senate before becoming President. Considered one of the best Presidents of all time?
How many days was Palin on the job when she billed the state for over 300 days spent at her home in Wasilla - not the state capital where the Governor is supposed to be working from?
Waiting for an answer....
Go read history. OR at the very least, Wikipedia. Lincoln FOUNDED the Republican party then he became a senator. Prior to that he had 15 years experience in public office in now defunct parties.
How about we add to those "146 days" some actual intelligence, more importantly intellectual curiosity. How about we add to those "146 days" two degrees from two of the top universities in the world; Columbia: Undergrad degree in International Studies; Harvard: JD, Magna Cum Laude; President of the Harvard Law Review, arguably the most prestigious academic degree awarded here in the U.S. How about we add to those "146 days" 10 years as a Constitutional law professor at the vaunted U. of Chicago, Civil Rights attorney; how about we add in someone who has since childhood, and through adulthood, traveled the world. How about we add to those "146 days" award winning, best selling author; an autobiography and treatise on the state of American politics. How about we add to those "143 days," four years now sitting on the Homeland Security, Foreign Intelligence and Veterans Affairs committees?
Ms. Palin? Let's see. I believe it took her 6 colleges, over the course of 5 years, to piece together a an '80's "default" BA degree in umm, communications/broadcasting/journalism??? Whichever she's calling it these days. (Though none of the colleges seem able to find one article she's ever written for any of the school newspapers.) . Ex beauty queen runner up, local Alaska TV news sports reader; PTA mom, hockey mom, moose gutter...A "leader" who apparently doesn't read books (let alone write them) but bans them. Yup, yup, she ready!
In the words of Monty Burns - Excellent!
You forgot eight years in the Illinois State Legislature.
LInda,
Humility? Clearly the American people love their hubris, or at least enough of them to make this scary! Good job nailing this one!
GP
I have a couple of contrary thoughts on this article.
We've seen folks with what on the surface appear to be mighty impressive resumes turn in what might be charitably described as unsatisfactory performance. Two recent examples are the current VP of the United States and a former Secretary of Defense. And we've seen a VP with scant experience except local politics in the Midwest rise to the occasion - Truman.
So, assuming reasonable intelligence in a candidate, the question is what is the critical difference between success and failure? My answer is ideology.
Now, if you think the critical issues facing our country are flag burning, the unthinkable spectre of gays having abortions or getting divorces, etc then one candidate for VP stands out head and shoulders above the rest. And I might add over both presidential candidates.
If on the other hand you think the economy and our national security are the critical issues, then that candidate is not.
(In a democracy the voters get exactly the government they deserve).
I just want to reply to your comment re: Truman having scant experience except local politics. This is simply not true. Truman served in the military as a commanding officer in WWI, thereby realizing his natural leadership abilities. He was extremely well liked by his unit. Following his 2 terms as County judge, Truman served 10 years in the US Senate. He was highly regarded- refer to website below for more detail on his Senate career. He was then tapped to be VP- served one year before taking over POTUS following FDR's death. I consider this to be very extensive experience.
http://www.trumanlibrary.org/lifetimes/index.html
Also recommend the excellent biography by David McCullough!
Hey...I've been posting this general idea withoout reading this...I swear. I don't want someone like me running things,because I know I can't do it.I want someone smarter than I am driving!
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
