Talk Back: Reactions to the VP Debate
Find a Conversation
| Thu, 10-02-2008 - 5:14pm |
Hi everyone --
We wanted to get your reaction to the Vice Presidential debate between Senator Joe Biden and Governor Sarah Palin. Did you watch? What did you think -- and who do you consider the winner? Were there any surprises? Tell us what you considered to be the highlights, the low points and everything in between.
Please note: This discussion will be featured on our homepage as well as our Election 2008 feature page (http://www.ivillage.com/0,,dkrjhqbk,00.html) and may elicit some "Guest" responses from our "Talkback" box tool on the page. Inappropriate responses that violate our Terms of Service will be removed.
Thanks for your input!
Caryn Stein
Director of Community
iVillage.com
Beehive: The iVillage Buzz * Tech Update
Power Users' Tips & Tricks * About Our Boards * Customer Support

Pages
I missed the rest of your post. I think you are probably right when it comes to lobbyists getting their corporations favors. Why does our government give them special consideration when they know (or should klnow) our countyr will be hurt in the process. See this is whatI can't understand about your postion. Corporations wouldn;t have their federally gven power and protection (ie fail and we bail you out), if the government didn't give it to them. I fully blame the government.
Yeah, you admit SS needs to change. What are Obama's
Thanks for posting that.
I found this history of the office interesting too.
Under the original code of Senate rules, the presiding officer exercised great power over the conduct of the body's proceedings. Rule XVI provided that "every question of order shall be decided by the President , without debate; but if there be a doubt in his mind, he may call for a sense of the Senate." Thus, contrary to later practice, the presiding officer was the sole judge of proper procedure and his rulings could not be turned aside by the full Senate without his assent.
The first two vice presidents, Adams and Jefferson, did much to shape the nature of the office, setting precedents that were followed by others. During most of the nineteenth century, the degree of influence and the role played within the Senate depended chiefly on the personality and inclinations of the individual involved. Some had great parliamentary skill and presided well, while others found the task boring, were incapable of maintaining order, or chose to spend most of their time away from Washington, leaving the duty to a president pro tempore. Some made an effort to preside fairly, while others used their position to promote the political agenda of the administration.
During the twentieth century, the role of the vice president has evolved into more of an executive branch position. Now, the vice president is usually seen as an integral part of a president's administration and presides over the Senate only on ceremonial occasions or when a tie-breaking vote may be needed. Yet, even though the nature of the job has changed, it is still greatly affected by the personality and skills of the individual incumbent.
http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Vice_President.htm
Super.
Again, super....but, see, the thing about that - even if accurate is....well, wait for a minute:
THAT'S just it: I'm not sure how you start at "I find her refreshing and down to earth, glad she's on the ticket," to "and those that don't think so must feel threatened by her." One doesn't follow from the other. I think you might be confusing unsettled at the thought of such a person as VP with threatened by her. I'm not "threatened" by Palin, I just don't think she'd make a good Vice President at all. I don't want someone "down to Earth" or "refreshing" as Vice President - not if those are the person's sole - or even primary - qualifications.
This is not an insult of Sarah Palin, the person, nor is it "fear" of her; I know plenty of perfectly wonderful people, male and female, who I would no more vote for to be Vice President than I would sprout wings and fly. These people aren't bad, they're not stupid, they're just not Vice Presidential material. We have three hundred million people in this country. Wait, let me write that out numerically, because it's a bit easier to grasp this that way: 300,000,000. In a population that size, I would no more expect my neighbor or a mom on my son's team to be Vice Presidential material than I would expect to win the lottery. In fact, at about 25,000,000-to-1, the lottery's actually more likely to go my way.
What qualifies a person to be President, or VP? Well, ultimately, I suppose just the election. But that doesn't mean that the best-qualified person is always elected. I get it; it's popular opinion (filtered through the electoral college). But honestly, what are your personal expectations of someone to hold that office? Do you want them to be educated? How much? High school? College? PhD? What sort of a background do they need to have? And how knowledgeable should they be about things related to the government? It's a tough question - or it should be - because it's difficult to nail down the complex array of so many different variables, let alone rank them in any sort of order of importance, and each person's ranking will likely be different. I just think it's a crashingly bad idea to elect someone "just like you" because - unless you are an unusual person - you're probably not Presidential material, either.
Sounds pessimistic, I know....like I'm saying no one but "our betters" can be - or should be - President. But that's only partially true. I think many people probably COULD be "Presidential (or vice-Presidential) timber." But not without a great deal of preparation. I don't think raw intelligence qualifies one, nor raw courage, nor raw ANYTHING, for that matter. In order for someone to be fit for that office - IMO - one would need to be all those things (smart, courageous, educated, etc.)....and THEN have spent quite a bit of one's life pursuing either lower elected office, or working in other capacities in government. And - to me, anyway - a "hockey mom" whose main accomplishments are mayor of a town of 6,000 (smaller than most mid-sized COLLEGES, let alone towns), and then convincing a majority of less than a few hundred thousand people to pick her to replace a scandal-plagued, corrupt incumbent as Governor of one of America's least populous states.....just doesn't measure up.
Palin's interviews with Couric, Gibson - even Hannity - reveal a person not unlike George Bush: someone who's spent her life trading on some natural gifts (in Bush's case, one of the truly dynastic American political families, with deep business connections, in Palin's case, good looks, a "folksy" manner and being in the right place at the right time), but who's now attempting to use their meager assortment of talents to apply for a job they're just not qualified for. Shouldn't our experience with George Bush - a man whose DISapproval rating stands at 70%, the highest in HISTORY - be enough to tell us that "folksy," along with $1.95, will get you a cup of coffee at Starbucks....and not much else?
Pages