Taking Her Seriously
In light of Matthew Continetti’s latest blog post about Sarah Palin, her presidential aspirations, and the media’s treatment of those subjects, I’d like to reiterate a question I posed but that he never answered: Do you, Matthew Continetti, think that Sarah Palin is qualified to be President of the United States?
And why not add a few more specific inquiries while we’re at it. Would you be comfortable with Sarah Palin as Commander In Chief of the United States Armed Forces? What do you regard as the most insightful direct quotation she has ever uttered? In the whole of her time in public life what is her most impressive policy achievement? During a foreign policy crisis, is she the Republican you’d most trust to lead the country? Is she in the top five? The top ten? The top twenty? If you were the owner of five Applebee’s restaurants in California’s Inland Empire, would you trust the managerial capacity of Sarah Palin enough to put them in her care while you took an extended vacation abroad? We know how seriously you take Sarah Palin as a candidate. How seriously do you take her as a policymaker? A diplomat? A responsible steward of civil liberties? An interviewee in foreign media outlets where she is the face of America? Pending a response, I’ll continue to find it telling that Sarah Palin’s most prolific defender in the American media has no answer for these questions.
Continetti has a clear choice: Enjoy privileged access to a significant figure in American conservatism or tell the truth. To choose hackdom at such a tender age! At least Fred Barnes waited awhile.
— Peregrine · Nov 18, 02:16 PM · #
I like the specific inquiries a lot better than the qualified question, Conor, for the reasons I discussed the last time you asked the question. Thanks for adding them.
My guess for Continetti’s response would be:
1) Palin’s the best-qualified candidate who has a chance of advancing his preferred policy goals. (Which seem to be basically “national greatness”/“neo-con” goals).
2) Palin will be well advised, and her folksy common sense and sound principles will help her to act on that advice.
I don’t agree with either of those principles personally, but if Continetti doesn’t believe them, then presumably he’s defending Palin (1) out of contrarianism (2) as a publicity stunt or (3) for the evulz.
— J Mann · Nov 18, 08:35 PM · #
So, according to J Mann, Continetti’s reasons could be applied equally well to a mentally retarded person running for President. They couldn’t be invoked to defend the candidacy of a head of lettuce, so I guess that’s something.
Mike
— MBunge · Nov 18, 09:43 PM · #
For some reason I read a whole bunch of crap about Palin the other night and one thing that really stood out is the she really doesn’t like government work. She hired a city manager when she was mayor. She quit a director of the Alaskan oil board and then quit as govenor. But it seems like she liked the fame and attention so she kept applying/running for these offices.
But right now, she has all the fame and attention, plus a butt-load of money without having to do the boring government jobs. Really, it’s the ideal world for her. SO the question is, will the lure of the presidency be enough for her to risk this ideal world she now enjoys. Because if she runs for president and loses, especially if she loses in the primaries, then she also loses that credibility that gives her all the influence and money right now. It’s that “will she, and if she does’t wouldn’t she show them?” spark that energizes her followers. If she loses she just becomes Al Gore, or John McCain, or Ross Perot, or Rudy Giulani, or any other political has been.
If she were rational, I don’t think she would risk it. If she doesn’t run she could milk this thing for a while longer. But one thing I don’t think she is, is rational. No rational person could speak like that. If we were going by the rules of Shakspeare this would be a tradgedy (a la GW Bush) and her fatal flaw (pride, resentment, ego) will force her to run and it will do her in. Because there is no way in normal circumstances she could win. She is just too hideous. She would have to be hugely self-deluded to think that she could win, but that doesn’t seem like much of a stretch.
— cw · Nov 19, 05:40 AM · #
I’d like to reiterate my question for Conor Friesendorf: Did you ask these questions of Barack Obama? If not why not?
And do you think the answers to these questions regarding say Barack Obama 2006 (i.e. two years before the upcoming Presidential election he participated in), George W. Bush 1998, Bill Clinton 1990, etc etc would have been any more impressive or satisfactory than when asked about Sarah Palin? Basically, why does Sarah Palin in particular merit these questions and not 95%+ of other public figures whom various pundits write about, for whom (I assert) these questions’ answers would on net be no better whatsoever?
Or do you dispute that? If so on what basis because I would disagree, and in that case please feel free to list the public figures who impress you greatly, when it comes to the implicit criteria you’ve laid out above, so that we may judge your discernment as well, which would be very helpful in evaluating the relative merits of your insinuations about Sarah Palin. Thanks in advance,
— Sonic Charmer · Nov 19, 07:02 AM · #
Sonic Charmer,
As far as experience that I’d want in a presidential candidate, Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush are two people to whom I’d point as ready to run for America’s top job.
Bill Clinton had less experience, partly by virtue of being younger. Still, I found him to be a perfectly reasonable candidate, even if more foreign policy experience is ideal. (I don’t think he was a particularly prudent foreign policy steward.) And experience isn’t everything. Al Gore was VP for eight years. I’d still have rather had Bill Bradley, a rare politician I admire, win the Democratic nomination that year. I think he would’ve made a better president than Gore or Bush.
Even these guys I’ve mentioned favorably aren’t my ideal leaders, and made all sorts of mistakes. Such is politics. You can always think of people you’d prefer to the people running. But even among the flawed class of American politicians, Sarah Palin strikes me as worse on almost every metric, certainly worse than everyone I’ve so far named in this post, and yes, worse than Barack Obama too. Certainly she is bad enough that I find it questionable judgment for someone to write a book length apologia for her. You’ll certainly never see me write at book length about how a politician is being persecuted by her critics in the media.
— Conor Friedersdorf · Nov 19, 08:14 AM · #
Conor’s response here does a nice job of clarifying his position, but also point to the insufficiency of his original question. As I pointed out in comments to the original, all you can really do is compare people in terms of “qualified” versus “unqualified.” (He still won’t say whether Obama was qualified, only that he was a better candidate than Palin. Was he qualified or not?)
In a position with a job description as open ended as “president of the United States,” there are so many things the person can be (a statesman, a wonk,a symbol) and so many ways to farm out other tasks that it’s clear that posing the question is a rhetorical stance rather than a actual inquiry about Continetti’s views.
In the interests of re-posing questions, I again ask Conor what Palin could do in the next few years to become qualified to be President of the United States. Let’s say she becomes senator from Illinois for two years, but does not change any of her views. Would that qualify her to be president? Let’s say she becomes governor of Arkansas, but does not change any of her views. Would she then be qualified?
In fact, is there anything Palin could do in the next two to five years that would make her qualified to be president of the United States? What if she becomes CEO of GE? Would that qualify her for the job? Secretary of State?
On the other hand, let’s say that in the future, someone becomes governor of a small state and quickly establishes a track record that shows them to be in agreement with you on all issues, from economics to health care to foreign policy to drugs to education, etc. The person’s personal history speaks tp you emotionally. (Perhaps it’s a young cosmopolitan who worked in long-form journalism and traipsed around California for a few years and admired good beer.) And that person goes out and establishes a hugely devoted public following, a gargantuan propensity for the fund-raising ability needed to run a campaign, etc. And suddenly it seemed like this person who agreed with you about everything had a real shot. Maybe you have some quibbles with the personality and all that, but it’s someone who you think is right about things.
Would you vote for that person?
I would.
Palin’s not that person for me. I disagree with her about everything. But I am not fooling myself that my objection to her candidcacy would be based on some objective considerations about her “qualifications.”
Quick: Who’s more qualified to run for president: Bernie Sanders or Rand Paul? I don’t even know how Paul will conduct himself in office, or which of his campaign promises he will break. But he strikes me as at least vaguely committed to some libertarian principles I hold dear, and Bernie Sanders is a socialist. So I would pull the lever for Rand Paul. Qualifications be damned.
I suspect the vast majority of people decide along those lines.
— Sam M · Nov 19, 01:24 PM · #
“also point to the insufficiency of his original question.”
There was nothing insufficient about the original question. It’s the 2nd most basic and run-of-the-mill question that is asked of a candidate or his or her supporters. The 1st being “Why do you want to be President?” An inability or refusal to answer it demonstrates shockingly frivolous thinking.
Mike
— MBunge · Nov 19, 04:30 PM · #
Wait MBunge, who is ‘unable’ to answer it? I did so immediately in the prior thread: 35+, native-born -> qualified. Anyone rejecting this conclusion may have a case but for that case to be considered they need to state their alternative criteria for ‘qualified’. An inability or refusal to do so demonstrates shockingly disingenuous game-playing.
Further, even if someone were finally, after two threads, willing/courageous enough to step forth and concretely define ‘qualified’ and detail why it excludes Palin, it remains to be explained why Palin and no other public figure (as far as I can tell) is randomly falling under this microscope for special discussion over it. Conor at least goes into some specifics about other candidates above, but I find myself disagreeing that Palin is ‘worse’ than candidate Obama. By what criteria exactly? Square one.
It’s interesting that of the more substantive examples Conor gives of the ‘qualified’, in most cases the line between they and Palin is far from sharp or gigantic, mostly boiling down to ‘spent a few more years than she as a state governor’ – this is a category that includes Reagan and Clinton. Is that the big gap I am supposed to be concerned about? To follow on Sam’s point, had Palin hung around the Alaska governor’s house for N more years would she have transmogrified into ‘qualified’ in your eyes? What is the magic N for this phase-transition?
The two politicians he cites that I do see as materially more ‘qualified’ than Palin – by the criteria I can only conjecture Conor is tacitly using, anyway – are Bush I and Gore. Interestingly, both of them make me question just how much value I’m supposed to place on ‘qualified’, and in any event their ‘qualified’ credentials may be mostly an illusion, an artifact of their both having been 8-year Vice Presidents (which can be basically read as “8 years in a very public non-job”).
I’m left with only this – Clinton spent a few years (with a gap in between) as a podunk state governor, then decided to run for President, and was ‘qualified’ (at least I do not recall any of these complaints), whereas Palin spent a few years as a podunk state governor, and is Obviously Not Qualified. What exactly accounts for the supposedly giant gap between them.
Frankly the only objective, material differences I can see are (1) her sex and (2) her ‘culture’, i.e. the hockey-mom, you-betcha thing. I don’t suggest that these are the real reasons why all her detractors dislike/disparage her so much (though it is certainly the reason for some of them), but if there are other, deeper, objective reasons – they are simply not in evidence here. And he may not be writing at book-length about this ‘qualified’ thing, but he’s well on his way especially for someone who hasn’t actually seen fit to define it.
— Sonic Charmer · Nov 19, 06:11 PM · #
“Further, even if someone were finally, after two threads, willing/courageous enough to step forth and concretely define ‘qualified’ and detail why it excludes Palin, it remains to be explained why Palin and no other public figure (as far as I can tell) is randomly falling under this microscope for special discussion over it.”
I have to say that this gets at the heart of a lot of silly nonsense over this issue.
1. What is the point of offering up a standard of qualifications, any standard at all, to someone who denies that such a standard can even exist? It would be like trying to argue the concept of civil rights with someone who believes blacks are genetically inferior to whites. You can’t somewhat hysterically attack the very idea of someone being qualified for a job like the Presidency and then angrily demand people offer up a list of qualifications for you to tear apart in a fit of sophistry.
2. Every other public figure has been expected to describe and explain their qualifications for any elected office, let alone the Presidency. Everyone else has been asked some form of this question. NONE of them have responded by saying “What do you mean by qualified?”
When someone has an extreme, paranoid and insecure reaction to a run-of-the-mill question, they shouldn’t really expect others to indulge their weird idiocy.
Mike
— MBunge · Nov 19, 06:58 PM · #
What ‘extreme, paranoid and insecure’ reaction are you talking about? For the third time, I think she’s qualified, and I’ve stated why. If you disagree, feel free to explain why, with something resembling an argument. This would include either (a) establishing that she doesn’t meet my definition of ‘qualified’ (which you can’t do), or (b) stating your own definition of ‘qualified’ which she doesn’t meet (which you can’t or won’t do for some reason). Your choice, I’ll be here…
To your points,
1. I’m not denying such a standard ‘can exist’. State your standard and let’s talk about it. You’re insisting on using the word, I’d be happy to accept and work with your definition for the sake of argument, but I can’t do that if you won’t tell me what it is. (I’ve told you what mine is!)
2. Palin is not the one responding by saying ‘what do you mean by qualified’, I am; I doubt Sarah is participating in this comments thread. Anyway, it may or may not be true that all public figures are asked to explain their qualifications. I don’t recall Obama having been asked at great length. I don’t remember the scant answers he did give (‘community organizer’, ‘well I’m running a Presidential campaign and that’s pretty good’) having been met with nearly as much skepticism or criticism even though (I assert) it merited far more.
Basically, if you ever got around to stating your definition of ‘qualified’, one possible outcome – I would wager, the most likely outcome – of this conversation could be this: you state your criteria for qualified, I agree that Palin doesn’t meet it, but you are forced to concede that neither did Obama, or Clinton 1992. But you won’t and can’t do that, presumably because – where would that leave us? Hence the games continue.
— Sonic Charmer · Nov 19, 07:24 PM · #
I think Palin was qualified by virtue of her experience, but disqulified herself by her inability during the campaign to even half-way fake a jr.-high-school-level of knowledge about current policy and the world, by her long string of easily disproved lies, by her actual record as mayor and gov., by her quitting the govenorship, by her reality tv show and employment by FOX, by the enormous list of stupid tweets she has piled up the past two years.
Everyone was pretty interested in her when she was introduced based on her hype as a non-partisan reformer from out of nowhere, myself included, but then as we all got to know her—and continue to get to know her more and more—most of us realize that she is niether tempermentally, nore emotionally, nor intellectually qualified to be president. Look at her polling. That is a reflection of this realization. A huge majority of americans actually shudder when they think of her. That disqualifies her right there.
There’s more to it than the jobs listed on the resume.
— cw · Nov 19, 08:17 PM · #
“For the third time, I think she’s qualified, and I’ve stated why.”
By your standard, a mentally retarded person would be qualifed for the Presidency. By your standard, a deaf-mute quadruple amputee would be qualified for the Presidency. By your standard, a convicted child molester would be qualified for the Presidency.
To make it clear, because that obviously has to be done with you, your understanding of “qualifications” is…
A. Ludicrous, and…
B. Almost totally disconnected from what normal people understand as “qualifications”.
And since you insist on willfully misunderstanding the point, Barack Obama was asked about his qualifications. He answered the question. George W. Bush was asked about his qualifcations. He answered the question. Bill Clinton was asked about his qualifications. He answered the question. It was pretty much skipped for George H.W. Bush, but Ronald Reagan was certainly asked about his qualifications and he answered the question. There are folks who didn’t like those answers and thought that Obama, Bush II, Clinton and Reagan were not qualified for the Presidency. But we got to have a discussion about it and through that debate, people were able to examine and evaluate those candidates to try and get a handle on whether or not they were up to the job.
What Conor is focusing on is how one of Palin’s chief advocates is determined to avoid having that simple and traditional discussion. And you, by your moronic concept of “qualifications”, are also seeking to avoid that discussion.
Mike
— MBunge · Nov 19, 09:54 PM · #
Yes of course such people would be qualified. Whether I would vote for them is a different matter, but that’s because I don’t feel the psychological need to try to smuggle in ‘qualified’ as a synonym for ‘I would vote for them’, in order to drape a veneer of Considered Objectivity over my subjective political opinions, like y’all do.
You assert that my usage isn’t what normal understanding of ‘qualified’ would be. Maybe you’re right! So what are your objective criteria for ‘qualified’?
Is that so hard to answer? Who’s the one unable to have a simple discussion?
— Sonic Charmer · Nov 19, 10:21 PM · #
“Yes of course such people would be qualified. Whether I would vote for them is a different matter, but that’s because I don’t feel the psychological need to try to smuggle in ‘qualified’ as a synonym for ‘I would vote for them’, in order to drape a veneer of Considered Objectivity over my subjective political opinions, like y’all do.”
And there’s what I meant by paranoid and insecure. Asking about a candidate’s qualifications is not a trick question and it’s not an attempt to drape a veneer over anything. That you can’t comprehend that means…well, that there’s something wrong with you. I don’t know if an Objectivist stuck a part of himself inside you at some point in your childhood or what, but I feel no need to humor your problem.
But just in case anyone else is confused, you can’t have an intelligent conversation about a candidate’s qualifications to be U.S. President with someone who thinks the only such qualifications are to be 35+ and native born.
If a midget billionaire gave an NBA team 20 million dollars so they’ve give him a contract and put him on their active roster, that wouldn’t mean the midget billionaire was qualified to play in the NBA in any sensible meaning of the word. Bothering to argue with someone who claimed that he was qualified would be foolish.
Mike
— MBunge · Nov 19, 10:48 PM · #
I am a bit confused about Mike’s consternation here. Palin’s qualifications are pretty obvious to even a casual observer:
1. Successfully ran for executive office at the state level.
2. Served as executive of same state.
3. An observed capacity to gain media and voter interest at the national level.
4. Observed capacity to emerge as a leader in her political party of choice.
5. A recognized “charisma” that while repellent to some is appreciated by others.
6. A demonstrated business sense with regard to her own finances.
I am not sure what else to say. I think that these things make her ‘qualified” to be president. If I we putting together a job listing, these would be some of the things I would have in the ad. I might have others, like extensive foreign policy experience or a degree in economics, but anyone who has ever hired someone knows that the perfect person hardly ever exists.
So there. I listed her qualifications as I see them. Do you disagree that she posesses these things? Do you not consider them qualifications for the office?
What does your job listing look like? I shared mine.
In the meantime, the whole crux of your argument so far rests on your notion, expressed in the previous thread, that she’s not qualified “because she is stupid.” I don’t think it’s asking too much to have you go beyond that.
As mentioned a hundred times, I did not vote for her, and I will not. But that has nothing to do with her qualifications.
Here’s another one for you: If I had to choose between Chris Christie and Ed Rendell in an election, I’d choose Christie! Just a few months as governor versus Rendell’s bajillion. Christie’s extremely problematic history as a county official, and his stint as a US Attorney… a job for which he was… by all accounts… UNQUALIFIED.
And yet I’d vote for him. Because the things i like about him overcome other qualifications that I might normally otherwise want to see.
— Sam M · Nov 20, 01:30 AM · #
The main qualification to serve as president is getting more electoral votes than the other candidates. The constitution lists a few others, but that’s the main one. You could look it up.
— The reticulator · Nov 20, 07:28 AM · #
Reticulator,
That’s what a few of us have been arguing all along. Other not only disagree, they say that makes us INSANE. So in order to further the conversation, we’ve asked for a list of the qualifications as they see it. In fact, we have asked time and time again, but neither Conor nor Mike will oblige. Draw your own conclusions!
— Sam M · Nov 20, 02:58 PM · #
If you take a step back and just sort of consider the entire pro-Palin phenomenon, take the whole thing in, from her hard-core defenders to her more soft-core apologists (like we have here), it’s painfully obvious that it’s mostly about pissing off people you don’t like.
And so we end up with ridiculous statements such as “Yes of course such people [mentally retarded, child molesters] would be qualified.”
Or Jonah Goldberg: “I love Sarah Palin for her enemies.”
Whenever we finally, mercifully, come to our senses, and this entire sorry episode is over, America will need a very long, hot shower.
— Socrates · Nov 20, 03:30 PM · #
Socrates,
I have a hard time understanding who’s a Palin apologist here. Certainly not me. I have said time and again that I do not like her, I did not vote for her presidential ticket, and would not consider voting for a ticket that includes her in the future.
What some of us are trying to do is continue with the conversation Conor started. The quesition of presidential qualifications is indeed a good one. There are a lot of implications. Serious ones. But it seems that all Conor is interested in doing is boxing Continetti in. We see that when he says things like, well, I ask because I think it would be interesting for readers of his magazine to know X, Y and Z! And wouldn’t A imply B? And clearly if Continetti believes this, he will admit that.
The breadth of the original query was very instructive, and his refusal to engage the question as he originally posed it is telling.
Maybe Continetti won’t answer the question. I surely understand why. But others have answered it. Yes. I think she’s qualified to be president of the United States. This requires some explanation, seeing that I won’t vote for her. So I offered an explanation. I defined my terms. Some people don’t like those terms, don’t like that definition. The next step would obviously be for them to offer their counterarguments so we can examine them. Instead, we get brilliant rhetorical fourishes “she’s stupid” and “somthing something retarded quadrapalegic,” combined with charges that we refuse to explain what we think her qualifications are. Despite repeated offerings along those lines. And this makes sense. If your only goal is to sink Continetti’s ship, dropping your own anchor by defining your own terms and your own preferences only serves to limit your own maneuverability.
I agree that we’ll need a shower after this. But Palin supporters are not the only ones wallowing in the muck.
But again, there is a way forward. We can continue the conversation. But only if those who insist that there is a way for someone to be “qualified” to be president define their terms and explain what qualifications they have in mind.
They won’t. So again, judge for yurself. In the meantime, please leave me off your mailing list of Palin apologists.
— Sam M · Nov 20, 04:42 PM · #
I think you are confusing “eligible” (over 35, natural born, etc.) with “qualified” (intelligent, informed, serious, etc.)
I think “eligible” is objective, “qualified” is subjective.
Palin is, of course, eligible (I think – have we seen her birth certificate?)
Qualified? Not even close. Does anyone here really think President Palin would be anything other than settling of scores, a joke, and a disaster?
— Socrates · Nov 20, 05:58 PM · #
I agree she would be a disaster. Which is why I wouldn’t vote for her. But I have been positing all along that there needs to be something more to “qualified” than “I would vote for her.” But that’s what it comes down to. I think Continetti would vote for her, probably, and for any number of defensible reasons. Maybe he thinks she’s malleable enough to push for policies he likes. Maybe he’s convinced she knows her strengths and weaknesses and would choose advisors accordingly. Perhaps he sees a president as less of a wonk and more of a cheerleader or election-manager or a leader of a national party. Maybe he thinks the person in office now is so dangerous that the most important priority is to beat him, and that Palin offers the best hope of doing that. Depending on what you think the qualifications ought to be, you can argue that someone like Oprah Winfrey would be more qualified than, say, Madeline Albright. (Maybe you see Winfrey as a talk-show host. Others see her as a hugely successful business magnate along the lines of a Michael Bloomberg.) But of course that depends on how you define qualified. I have laid out my answer regarding Palin and have explained how I arrived at that conclusion. Others in this conversation are not willing to do so.
I suspect that what some of the people in the conversation REALLY mean is not that Palin isn’t qualified, but rather that certain things make her DISQUALIFIED. This is a real distinction with a real difference. For instance, someone with a medical degree from an accredited school and several decades of experience and a Nobel Prize in heart surgery is clearly qualified to work at a hospital. But if that person has also been convicted of child molestation or murder, they are probably not going to be considered for the job.
Palin’s bizarre personal story, her tendency to fib and all the rest make me less likely to vote for her. But if she agreed with me on a wide range of policy issues I’d vote for her without reservation. She meets the minimum requirements for the job with regard to when and where she was born. But beyond that, as mentioned, she won a state-level election, she has at least some degree of management experience in that regard (about the same number of years that Obama had as a senator, I think), she has shown at least some capacity to run her own party, etc.
But the thing is, I don’t disagree with her about a wide range of important policy issues. I think she’s not only wrong, but dangerously wrong. And I’d be happy to argue the merits of those policies on a case by case basis. As such, I see no reason to hide behind some claim that she’s “not qualified” for the job. For instance, if she were to spend the next 20 years as a Senator from a major state, then as president of a major university, then as governor of California, then as the CEO of a Fortune 500 company, I STILL wouldn’t vote for her. Unless of course she changed her mind and started to agree with me about things.
That is, my objection to her candidacy has nothing to do with “qualifications.” And if you were to present me with a cnadidate who had exactly half of her qualifications in terms of experience and ideas and whatever else, and that person agreed with me about everything, I’d have no objection to voting for that person. I suspect I would see that lack of experience as a virtue. I would say, “Look at this maverick! Look at this outsider taking on the powers that be!” And that lack of experience would become a VIRTUE. Just like it did for Obama. You know, change this and change that. Because if you want experience and a laundry list of qualifications, you vote for Robert Byrd or Al Gore.
So it’s quite easy to see a lack of qualifications as someone’s primary qualification. Throw the bums out! Etc.
I can see how someone might object to this analysis. Mike and conor obviously disagree. They think there is some set of “qualifications” that someone needs to have, and they argue that Palin doesn’t meet these qualifications. OK. I can accept that. But I find it extremely odd that once that’s established, they refuse to publicly declare what these qualifications are. Wouldn’t it be interesting of Continetti’s most public and persistent critic in this regard would go public with this information, so readers of the American Scene could get a better sense of what he means?
— Sam M · Nov 20, 07:28 PM · #
MBunge,
Asking about a candidate’s qualifications is not a trick question
I’m not saying it’s a trick question. Question has been asked and answered (I think she’s qualified). Yet you guys keep talking as if it hasn’t. So, I guess you use a different definition of ‘qualified’? Which is fair enough, but then why won’t/can’t you articulate what it is?
Asking you to state your definition of ‘qualified’ is not a trick question.
Socrates,
I think “eligible” is objective, “qualified” is subjective.
Perhaps so. Please inform MBunge et al. In which case the question of whether someone thinks Palin is ‘qualified’ is just equivalent to, and no more nor less informative than, whether that person would vote for Palin. If Conor & MBunge are indeed operating from a subjective definition of ‘qualified’, why won’t they just admit it? Moreover, if they like you agree that ‘qualified’ is subjective, then what’s the point of all this inquiry as to whether one Matthew Continetti ‘thinks she is qualified’? (For the record, till these posts I had no idea who the hell Matthew Continetti is, nor is it obvious why this person’s views on Palin are so important to Conor)
Qualified? Not even close. Does anyone here really think President Palin would be anything other than settling of scores, a joke, and a disaster?
I do, yes.
Yours is a subjective opinion and you’re entitled to it. Personally, I don’t share your conviction that she’d be a disaster. (I really don’t know, and have very little in the way of fixed views on the subject, but I would conjecture she’d be just fine – good in some ways bad in others – like most Presidents.)
So now you’ve stated your subjective opinion on how Palin would be as President, and I’ve stated mine. And perhaps Conor has implicitly done the same. Are we done? Great! What has been proved? Nothing! Other than the (boring) fact that people differ in their subjective opinions about Sarah Palin. Regarding which: so what?
Is that the point that Conor has been trying to prove all this time? I reckon not. What would have been the point? He could have just written one post ‘I don’t like Sarah Palin’ and been done with it. But what would have been the point of even that?
Basically, Conor has thrown a question out there, and I have answered it, I think Palin is qualified to be President, and I have stated in plain terms why I think that. If Conor or someone else disagrees – possibly with good reason – they are perfectly free to make what is known as an ‘argument’ to that effect. But that is not what he is doing, as nothing resembling an argument is in evidence, only this continued stuff about some dude named Matthew Continetti. So it’s only fair to wonder, what the heck is he doing?
— Sonic Charmer · Nov 20, 07:43 PM · #
Yes, Continetti has implied by his support for Palin that he believes Palin is qualified and feels comfortable with her performing all the duties of president. For Conor to insist on Continetti answering his questions, which Continetti has no obligation to do, Conor appears to imply that Continetti is being dishonest and supports Palin for some other undisclosed reasons, or that Continetti has not thought of these questions — both implications are offensive, so it’s no wonder Continetti is not replying.
— mike farmer · Nov 20, 08:43 PM · #
“In which case the question of whether someone thinks Palin is ‘qualified’ is just equivalent to, and no more nor less informative than, whether that person would vote for Palin.”
I don’t agree.
I would say that all of the other most-talked-about Republicans (Huckabee, Romney, Daniels, etc.) are qualified – some minimum respectable combination of experience, intelligence, policy knowledge, sanity, etc.
But I don’t like their policies and I wouldn’t vote for any of them.
It’s interesting that there’s really no discussion as to whether these other people are qualified. Most everyone thinks they are, even if they disagree with the policies, and would never vote for them.
But poor Sarah – such a debate over whether she’s qualified! Maybe it’s because: she is not.
— Socrates · Nov 20, 10:28 PM · #
Since Palin has not even announced she will run, the hoopla surrounding her qualifications is, indeed, odd, when we have an unqualified president in office doing enough damage to deserve twice the hoopla. The left is surely dishonest on this account.
— mike farmer · Nov 20, 11:10 PM · #
Socrates:
“Maybe it’s because: she is not.”
OK. Now we are getting somewhere. Sort of. If you can describe to me how Huckabee is qualified but Palin is not, that might move this forward a bit. Is it years in office? Time spent on Fox news? Or is it a based on your interpretation of his “seriousness” or some such? Any answer is fine by me. But I’d be interested in hearing why a governor of Arkansas is qualified but a governor of Alaska is not. And so obviously so that you can sort of shrug it off and and assume that we will all be able to figure out the reasoning.
For me, Mike Huckabee is easily one of the most risible figures in American politics. has nothing to do with anything other than my maniacal hatred for nanny-state laws about smoking and eating. I hate it, hate it, HATE IT. I would vote for a ticket of Dick Cheney and Bernie Sanders before I voted for Huckabee. In fact, I would vote for my five-year-old twins before voting for Huckabee.
But that doesn’t mean I don’t think he’s not “qualified.” Of course he’s qualified. He was the executive officer of a state. He won an election. He’s a good communicator.
I just HATE his politics.
At least I can admit it.
— Sam M · Nov 21, 01:20 AM · #
Sam, that’s obviously the only reason they think she’s unqualified — they don’t like her. I believe Obama was unqualified because he didn’t have any executive experience, that and his complete lack of understanding of the market. I think executive experience and market understanding are vital quaulifications for a president. After all, the president is the chief executive officer of the US government, and understanding the market prevents stupid interventions.
— mike farmer · Nov 21, 01:37 AM · #
Building off my maniacal hatred of all things Huckabee, let me offer a scenario. Let’s say it’s a three-way race for the GOP nomination, between Gary Johnson, Chris Christie and Mike Huckabee. On a scale of 1-10, I support Johnson at a level of about 15. Christie at maybe a 6. Huckabee? I would say a negative 276. What’s that? Zero on the Kelvin scale or something? Again, I admit to being maniacal.
At any rate, when it came to a race between Johnson and Christie, I could fashion an argument based on “qualifications,” saying that Johnson has more years of executive experience, and gosh, I just think Christie is unqualified.
But let’s say Christie beats Johnson in the early running and it comes down to Christie versus Huckabee. I could change my tune and say it’s Huckabee whose unqualified because he was executive of a smaller state. Huckabee is unqualified!
And I might be tempted to do this. Only I hope I don’t. Because it’s complete BS. If Christie were running against Al Gore, I’d vote for Christie. Qualifications be damned. I don’t like Al Gore. See? That’s how it works. And if a quadrapalegic, retarded dog were running against Huckabee, I’d vote for the dog. In fact, I might be tempted to stuff the ballot box.
This is exactly what happened with Hilary supporters with regard to Obama. They spent months and months tarring him as unqualified. Literally, they used that word. He was not fit for the office! Only he was! They voted for him! Over 200-term senator and war hero John McCain. Who cares about qualifications? It’s about hope and change. Suddenly.
“Qualifications” is a ridiculous ruse. And it’s beneath Conor to argue in that fashion. You don’t like Palin? Fine. Me neither. But it has nothing to do with qualifications. So I’ll ask it for the 500th time: If Palin were to spend the next 20 years building a bullet-proof political resume but kept her views the same, would you vote for her? Hell no. I don’t care how qualified she is. Know why? Because that doesn’t mean anything.
— Sam M · Nov 21, 02:35 AM · #
Here’s an easy one: “If you were the owner of five Applebee’s restaurants in California’s Inland Empire, would you trust the managerial capacity of Sarah Palin enough to put them in her care while you took an extended vacation abroad?”
Yes, that’s one thing I would trust Sarah Palin to do more than I would trust any recent president, even GW Bush.
It’s good that Conor put some easy questions in with the hard ones. Not sure what this one has to do with Palin’s suitability as a presidential candidate, though.
FTR, I might vote for Palin, though I didn’t last time around. I’ve never voted for any Clinton, never voted for GW Bush, and never voted for Obama, and never will. I did vote for GHW Bush, twice, though it wasn’t easy to make myself do it. And I might vote for Palin, though it’s pretty sad if the Republicans still can’t come up with anyone better than that.
I also voted for Saint Ronald, twice, though wasn’t enthusiastic about it the first time. Voted for Gerald Ford in 1976, though didn’t see that it was that huge a difference over Carter. Wished Ford would have run in 1980. Planned to vote for George McGovern in 1972, but didn’t register in time. That would have been largely an anti-Nixon vote. I would have voted for Nixon in 1968 if I had been old enough, but was also learning to dislike Young Republicans that year, much as I dislike conservative/Republican Palin-haters now. Campaigned for Goldwater in 1964. Would have voted for Nixon in 1960 if I had been old enough. On election night in 1956 I had to ask my parents to remind me now and then who it was we wanted to win. (Answer: Eisenhower.) I don’t remember anything at all from 1950, much less the elections.
— The Reticulator · Nov 21, 04:31 AM · #
Oops. I should have said 1952, not 1950. I do remember some things from 1952, but not the elections. In 1948 while the Hiss-Chamber hearings were taking place I was busy getting ready to be born. They didn’t make much of an impression on me.
— The Reticulator · Nov 21, 04:38 AM · #
I would say that all of the other most-talked-about Republicans (Huckabee, Romney, Daniels, etc.) are qualified – some minimum respectable combination of experience, intelligence, policy knowledge, sanity, etc. […] Most everyone thinks they are, even if they disagree with the policies, and would never vote for them.
But poor Sarah – such a debate over whether she’s qualified! Maybe it’s because: she is not.
As Sam M says, now we’re getting somewhere indeed!
Let me answer this way: I see no obvious metric by which “Huckabee, Romney, Daniels” are ‘qualified’ while Palin is not. Because the issue seems so boring/beside the point, I am inclined to just declare them all ‘qualified’ (by my metric). Or I can imagine other metrics, by which perhaps none of them are ‘qualified’.
Yet you imply that it’s simply obvious that Palin isn’t whereas those others are ‘qualified’. Ok, but prove it!
You cite the fact that the question is being raised (by Palin-detractors) as somehow proof of this. But if you’ve read my posts with even a minimal amount of reading comprehension, you’d know that I have put forth an alternative explanation for that:
Palin-detractors have a visceral dislike of Palin, and know it isn’t rational or objective, thus want to drape a veneer of respectability over it, by smuggling ‘qualifications’ into the equation.
Maybe you think I’m wrong/unfair in that charge. Perhaps! One thing that would go a long, long way to refuting me would be to define this word ‘qualified’ you keep using such that it would be objectively clear why Palin isn’t while those others are.
You haven’t and (seemingly) won’t. Perhaps it is because you can’t.
— Sonic Charmer · Nov 21, 02:45 PM · #
No doubt your mind reading is correct: all of Sarah’s critics are, simply, Palin haters.
That’s what Sarah thinks too! Simpatico!
You are a charmer. I give. She’s qualified.
— Socrates · Nov 21, 05:00 PM · #
“I am a bit confused about Mike’s consternation here. Palin’s qualifications are pretty obvious to even a casual observer:
1. Successfully ran for executive office at the state level.
2. Served as executive of same state.
3. An observed capacity to gain media and voter interest at the national level.
4. Observed capacity to emerge as a leader in her political party of choice.
5. A recognized “charisma” that while repellent to some is appreciated by others.
6. A demonstrated business sense with regard to her own finances.”
Well, at least this is better than “she’s over 35 and native born”.
However, reasons 3, 4, 6 and 6 have absolutely nothing to do with whether or not Sarah Palin is qualified to be President. At best, they speak to her qualifications to run for President. I think it’s telling that 2/3rds of your supposedly obvious list are completely unrelated to the subject at issue. I suspect that Conor suspects that’s why Continetti refuses to answer the question.
Mike
— MBunge · Nov 21, 05:29 PM · #
“The main qualification to serve as president is getting more electoral votes than the other candidates.”
That’s like saying the main qualification to have sex with Jennifer Aniston is to have a penis.
Mike
— MBunge · Nov 21, 05:30 PM · #
“But it seems that all Conor is interested in doing is boxing Continetti in.”
How do you “box someone in” by asking them the same, standard, run-of-the-mill question that is asked of every candidate and their supporters?
Mike
— MBunge · Nov 21, 05:32 PM · #
“But I find it extremely odd that once that’s established, they refuse to publicly declare what these qualifications are. Wouldn’t it be interesting of Continetti’s most public and persistent critic in this regard would go public with this information, so readers of the American Scene could get a better sense of what he means?”
When someone refuses to answer the 2nd most basic question ever asked of a candidate and their supporters, the problem isn’t with the people asking the question.
Mike
— MBunge · Nov 21, 05:35 PM · #
“I’m not saying it’s a trick question. Question has been asked and answered (I think she’s qualified). Yet you guys keep talking as if it hasn’t.”
You haven’t answered the question in any meaninful way. Saying someone is qualified to be President if they’re 35+ and native born is not only stupid, it’s wrong. That means a person is qualified to run for President, not that they’re actually qualified to be President. If a major corporation is looking to hire a new CEO, the janitor at corporate headquarters is qualified to submit his name for consideration. That doesn’t mean he’s qualified for the position.
Mike
— MBunge · Nov 21, 05:39 PM · #
“But I have been positing all along that there needs to be something more to “qualified” than “I would vote for her.””
Which is exactly what Conor is trying to get Continetti to say, that there is some standard by which you evaluate a candidate fitness for office other than political agreement. Not just anybody can do the job of President of the United States, regardless of what their politics or views on policy. The question is about the ability to do the job.
Mike
— MBunge · Nov 21, 05:43 PM · #
“Palin-detractors have a visceral dislike of Palin, and know it isn’t rational or objective, thus want to drape a veneer of respectability over it, by smuggling ‘qualifications’ into the equation.”
There’s that paranoia and insecurity again.
Mike
— MBunge · Nov 21, 05:45 PM · #
Socrates,
No doubt your mind reading is correct: all of Sarah’s critics are, simply, Palin haters.
Not ‘all of Sarah’s critics’. Just all the ones who attempt this particular line of attack. Or at least, they are not demonstrating otherwise.
MBunge,
However, reasons 3, 4, 6 and 6 have absolutely nothing to do with whether or not Sarah Palin is qualified to be President.
Because the definition of ‘qualified to be President’ is ______?
Saying someone is qualified to be President if they’re 35+ and native born is not only stupid, it’s wrong. That means a person is qualified to run for President, not that they’re actually qualified to be President.
Because the definition of ‘qualified to be President’ is ______?
You are the expert on ‘qualified’. Why won’t you share your expertise with the rest of us?
— Sonic Charmer · Nov 21, 05:46 PM · #
Sonic: “Not ‘all of Sarah’s critics’. Just all the ones who attempt this particular line of attack. Or at least, they are not demonstrating otherwise.”
Sonic, this may be lost on them. I’m not sure the people here do nuance.
— The Reticulator · Nov 21, 07:00 PM · #
Mike sez:
“When someone refuses to answer the 2nd most basic question ever asked of a candidate and their supporters, the problem isn’t with the people asking the question.’
Well, some other people stepped up and did answer the question. So let’s move on. You tell us how you define qualified.
“However, reasons 3, 4, 6 and 6 have absolutely nothing to do with whether or not Sarah Palin is qualified to be President.”
I obviously disagree. But fair enough. Thats why people have conversations. But now that you’ve explained why you think my definition of “qualified” is not up to snuff, please go ahead and tell me what YOUR qualifications are. I’ve done it. Why can’t you? You obviously have some in mind. Yet, oddly, you will not identify what they are. I am really starting to wonder.
Someone asked if Palin is qualified to be president. I said yes, she is, and offered some reasons why I think so. You obviously think she’s not, but so far, the best you can offer is “because she’s stupid.” I am not sure what role this plays in qualifications. If someone with her exact resume were running, but demonstrated an IQ that’s 30 percent higher, would that person be qualified? If that’s the case, are you positing some base-level IQ as a qualification? If that’s the case, should we not then subject all the candidates to the IQ test? I mean, if that’s the most important thing, surely the media should start asking questions along those lines.
Or is Palin’s stupidity not really the reason you think she’s not qualified? If someone has the same IQ as she does, but has 25 years experience as a senator from a major state and 12 years as secretary of state, is that person qualified? If that’s the case, I think we’ve just demonstrated that her stupidity is not really the disqualifying factor.
Or more likely, in my mind, you are calling her stupid because she disagrees with you about a lot of things, or because she communicates in a way that you don’t like. Because honestly… do you really think she’s stupid? I don’t like her at all, but I bet there’s a good chance her IQ is higher than average, and much higher than a lot of other people you might otherwise vote for.
So get serious. And explain what you mean by “qualified.”
— Sam M · Nov 21, 11:51 PM · #
Mike knows if he states his qualifications, it disqualifies Obama — if he fudges to take Obama into account, it qualifies Palin.
— mike farmer · Nov 22, 01:46 AM · #
This is one of the most retarded threads I have ever seen here at TAS.
— cw · Nov 22, 06:33 AM · #
“This is one of the most retarded threads I have ever seen here at TAS.”
You mean because it contains substance-free comments like yours?
— The Reticulator · Nov 23, 05:23 AM · #
Reticulator,
The substance of most of the other comments was a very poor substance. 45 comments about the meaning of the word “qualified” and most of them completely irrelevant to the actual question at hand.
You are very cranky lately. WIntertime blues?
— cw · Nov 23, 07:05 PM · #
Wait. So now Conor is arguing that NOBODY is qualified to be president of the United States? Because the job is too hard?
http://blogs.forbes.com/conorfriedersdorf/2010/11/18/the-presidency-is-too-big-for-one-man/
So if this is true, Continetti would have to admit that Palin is not qualified. But he could point out that ANYONE you prefer to her is unqualified, too. So it becomes a question of who is more un-qualified?
I said from the beginning that this was a ridiculous question. And it appears that I was right! It also appears that I was correct in assuming that it was a trap for Continetti. A trick question. Is Palin qualified? That of course makes people wonder what Conor means by that term. But now we see that his view of the office precludes a “yes” answer regardless of who your preferred candidate might be.
Job’s toop hard! macCain? Not qualified. Bush? Not qualified. George Freaking WASHINGTON? Accroding to Conor, GW wouldn’t even consider taking the job!
Poor Matthew Continetti. How in the world could his journo-politico-crush ever live up to these standards? They can’t. By design.
— Sam M · Nov 24, 05:55 PM · #
From the link, in Conor’s own words:
“What possible ‘management experience’ prepares one for the White House? An MBA and two terms as governor of Texas didn’t seem to do the trick. Obviously we could pick better public officials in theory. Welcome to politics.”
Welcome, indeed. More:
“I’d suggest that if your idea about how to improve America requires better quality politicians, yours isn’t a plan that’s going to work.”
Huh? Isn’t your entire dig at Continetti based on the idea that Palin is a low quality politician? She’s not qualified! Which you said would be a disaster for the country. Not her ideas. Not her preferred policies. The fact that she’s just not QUALIFIED. Presumably, as she gained more qualifications, she would become a higher quality politican, someone worthy of consideration, if not necessarily support.
But as you argue here, that wouldn’t make a lick of difference. The quality of the politician doesn’t matter. Suddenly.
What gives? After all this, nobody is qualified. Seriously?
— Sam M · Nov 24, 06:02 PM · #
Sarah Palin’s best claim to executive experience – Governor of Alaska – ended with her quitting in the middle of her term so she could go make a bunch of money appearing in Conservative media/reality TV/etc, all the while whining about how persecuted she is.
Yeah, totally Presidential material there. I have all sorts of other issues w/her, but that is very, very revealing.
— Rob in CT · Nov 24, 06:43 PM · #
Sam M – “I said from the beginning that this was a ridiculous question.”
It’s the second most basic question asked of any candidate or their supporters. To my knowledge, no other candidate or their supporters have ever had even the slightest difficulty in answering it. What’s ridiculous are the completely inane objections to the question.
Mike
— MBunge · Nov 24, 06:50 PM · #
“It’s the second most basic question asked of any candidate or their supporters.”
And I have answered it. Repeatedly. I say she’s qualified.
Now, the FIRST most basic question to ask someone who disagrees with you about whether someone is qualified is, OK, so you say she’s not. I guess that means you have a different definition of “qualified.” Let’s move on to that. What qualifications do YOU have in mind.
You have repeatedly refused to answer this question. So has Conor. Either you are afraid of the consequences of doing so with regard to your own preferred candidate, you are too lazy, you really don’t have any qualifications in mind, or you are refusing as a way to discipline those of us with the temerity to ask. You fill in that blank. Or don’t.
But what this new post of COnor’s reveals is the TRUE depth of the ridiculousness of the question. Because Conor doesn’t think ANYBODY is qualified to be president. Even people he has voted for. NOBODY can do the job.
Wouldn’t it be ridiculous for someone who does not believe in the afterlife to go around complaining that someone hired an unqualified medium to run a seance? ALL MEDIUM’S ARE UNQUALIFIED, according to that view.
— Sam M · Nov 24, 07:28 PM · #
“To my knowledge, no other candidate or their supporters have ever had even the slightest difficulty in answering it.”
Then you don’t have much knowledge. Or you accept dishonest answers pretty easily. As demonstrated on the previous thread, a huge number of Clinton supporters raised all kinds of hell about Obama being “unqualified” for the presidency when their preferred candidate was running against him. Know what he did to become magically qualified? He beat Hilary in the primaries. No new executive experience. No new foreign policy eperience. No new management skills.
Know what a major qualification was for these people? “Is not George Bush.” Another might be, “Can get my preferred political party into power.” I am not sure why Continetti should be operating with different definitions.
— Sam M · Nov 24, 07:33 PM · #
To my knowledge, no other candidate or their supporters have ever had even the slightest difficulty in answering it.
You should have been around when Barak Obama was running for President.
— The Reticulator · Nov 24, 07:37 PM · #
Sarah Palin’s best claim to executive experience – Governor of Alaska – ended with her quitting in the middle of her term so she could go make a bunch of money appearing in Conservative media/reality TV/etc, all the while whining about how persecuted she is.
I agree, not a good showing, perhaps putting her only a step or two above the current President.
— The Reticulator · Nov 24, 07:43 PM · #
“And I have answered it. Repeatedly. I say she’s qualified.”
No one’s have an argument with you over Palin’s qualifications. I don’t care that you think she’s qualified. I doubt Conor or anyone else cares either. What I and I suspect others are interested in are those folks who refuse to answer the question of Palin’s qualifications in even the minimal way you have.
Mike
— MBunge · Nov 24, 07:47 PM · #
“Then you don’t have much knowledge. Or you accept dishonest answers pretty easily. As demonstrated on the previous thread, a huge number of Clinton supporters raised all kinds of hell about Obama being “unqualified” for the presidency when their preferred candidate was running against him. Know what he did to become magically qualified? He beat Hilary in the primaries. No new executive experience. No new foreign policy eperience. No new management skills.”
What are you talking about? The question was asked of Obama and his supporters. They answered it. The fact that Obama opponents disagreed with those answers or even that they later changed their mind about them is completely irrevelvant. They answered the question. Conor is wondering why one of Palin’s biggest supporters in the media will not do the same. If Continetti would answer the question, and folks like Sonic Charmer could figure out that being qualified for the Presidency means more than being 35+ and native born, then we might be able to move onto all the other stuff.
Stop trying to prove how smart you are and maybe you’ll be able to remember the actual point of this discussion.
Mike
— MBunge · Nov 24, 07:55 PM · #
The fact that Obama opponents disagreed with those answers or even that they later changed their mind about them is completely irrevelvant. They answered the question.
Ahem.
— The Reticulator · Nov 24, 08:15 PM · #
“The question was asked of Obama and his supporters. They answered it.”
Some of them have. Like… the ones who supported him all along. But a very large portion of Obama’s supporters didn’t suport him al the way through. We know this because they used to support Hilary Clinton. And when they did support her, they said Obama was not qualified. After she dropped out, they shifted their support to the person who five minutes before they claimed was unqualified.
I am not aware that a huge portion of those people have since explained their decision in this regard. I am not aware of a single person who has answered it in a convincing way.
Instead, if you’d just pull back for two seconds and look at it objectively, you will see that their complaints with regard to Obama were almost surely miscast in the first place. He wasn’t “unqualified” in some objective sense. He was simply less “qualified” than the person they supported. And in the two seconds after Hilary dropped out, Obama didn’t magically gain some new qualifications. Instead, what happened is that they were defining his qualifications in terms of who he was running against.
So can Continetti say whether Palin is qualified? Depends. Is she running against McCain or running against Bernie Sanders? Pelosi? Jeb Bush?
All we can surmise is that Continetti very likely prefers her to a lot of people. And in a race against them, he’d pull the lever for Palin. For any number of reasons that I mentioned above.
In short, whether she’s qualified depends on whether he’s planning to vote for her.
Otherwisse, it’s a ruse, as well demonstrated by the people who switched from Hilary to Obama. Including Hilary. Who used to say he wasn’t qualified. Was she lying when she said that, or lying when she changed her mind?
— Sam M · Nov 24, 10:30 PM · #
For your review, Mike insists that “is he qualified” is a really popular question that nobody in their right mind has any trouble answering. Let’s see.
Is Hillary Clinton a Barack Obama supporter? I’d say so. But when she first started running for president, three people asked her whether Obama was qualified to be president. She refused to answer all three times:
http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2007/01/23/hillary/index.html
A few monhs later, she had made up her mind and sent her spokesman, Howard Wolfson, out to declare that Obama was NOT, in fact, qualified to POTUS:
http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2008/03/clinton_spokesman_declares_oba.html
Then they created a huge mess when the campaign put out feelers to see if maybe Obama would be interested in being VP. But… if you aren’t qualified to be POTUS, should you be VP? Obama called Clinton on this in a debate, and commentary sites like HotAir started using words like “stupid” when talking about the Clinton camp:
http://hotair.com/archives/2008/03/10/obama-to-hillary-how-come-im-qualified-to-be-vp-but-not-president
Then places like HuffPo started laughing at the entire question of “whose qualified” and what the “commander in chief test” really means in the first place. (Conclusion: it’s not a very good question.)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eric-schmeltzer/wtf-is-the-key-commanderi_b_90834.html
Then, when it was finally Obama versus Bush, Clinton guys like Mark Penn and Wolfson finally rolled and endorsed Obama, despite spending about a year carping about how unqualified he was. And people like Kos cheered thusly:
“I still don’t forgive Penn for his abysmal ‘strategy’, I believe that he deserves the brunt of the blame for Hillary’s loss. Still, it’s good to see the most pugnacious figures at the top of the HRC team publicly displaying their party stripes.”
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/9/1/142459/8294/488/582263
Yeah. I know. A party system!
Whodathunkit? That someone could consider someone completely unqualified when running against one person, but consider that same person supremely qualified in other circumstances?
Umm… everybody?
— Sam M · Nov 25, 03:46 AM · #
Have you, Conor, ever voted for anyone qualified for the office? Can you name someone who would be? But Sarah is really that much worse than the other sorts we’ve had to pick from in the last few elections? Always, much much worse, somehow. The real story isn’t the general decline of our public figures to the likes of gore, bush, kerry, obama, mccain – no it’s palin who is embarrassing. Look at her!!! Listen to her iananity, not those we actually call qualified.
We must keep insisting to ourselves and singling her out as fundamentally distinct and incomparable to serious qualified types we competent and informed people endorse and vote for. But these other guys – their job performance is self-evidently superior and competent – at least to the competent.
Since your question isn’t even relevant to the real world, maybe you could qualify it to reflect any actual choice Matt has ever really had concerning Palin and her inferiorities: do you think she will be as bad, slightly better or worse at being president than old man Biden, or the preeminently qualified author and editor in chief? (there, tried to snot it up for you!)
— Sullivan's Poison · Nov 25, 09:10 PM · #
This argument started out stupid and got old a long time ago, but I’m finding Sam M’s continued efforts to be quite funny. I don’t know if I’ve ever seen someone work so hard to prove their intelligence and only succeed in demonstrating their infantile view of the world.
I mean, I think most grown ups understood that when Hilary supporter’s accused Obama of being “unqualified”, what they actually meant was that he was less qualified than Hilary. They said “unqualified” because it’s a more powerful phrase that “less qualified”. Apparently this sort of subtlety in adult communication escapes Sam M. To him, what people say in a political campaign is never for effect, exaggerated, tactical or strategic. Nope. Sam M appear to believe that everything people say in political campaigns are 100% accurate representations of what the speaker honestly believes. I guess the Tooth Fairy told Sam M that’s how it works.
Restating the obvious point that he still doesn’t grasp the difference between people who disagree on whether or not person X is qualified for job Y and people who deny the concept of being qualified for any job will also probably continue to go right over his head.
Mike
— MBunge · Nov 26, 06:26 PM · #
I mean, I think most grown ups understood that when Hilary supporter’s accused Obama of being “unqualified”, what they actually meant was that he was less qualified than Hilary. They said “unqualified” because it’s a more powerful phrase that “less qualified”. Apparently this sort of subtlety in adult communication escapes Sam M.
Thanks for the LOL. I’m sure that kind of “subtlety” escapes a lot of people. Good work for weasels, though.
— The Reticulator · Nov 26, 09:51 PM · #
“Thanks for the LOL. I’m sure that kind of “subtlety” escapes a lot of people. Good work for weasels, though.”
Are you an actual troll or are you some sort of meta-troll where you’re fully aware that no one takes any of your comments seriously?
Mike
— MBunge · Nov 26, 10:13 PM · #
Glad to see that one person took my comment to heart, anyway. I hope it helps him improve his behavior
— The Reticulator · Nov 27, 11:04 AM · #
Wow. Now that thanksgiving is over, I’ll retroactively give thanks for better reading comprehension than Mike posseses. MIke, read the links. They did NOT mean “less qualified.” In fact, Hillary’s main spokesman said obama was UNQUALFIED to be VICE PRESIDENT. They specifically spelled out the reasons he was NOT UP FOR THE JOB.
I mean, they were very specific about these things Mike. SO much so that pundits around the globe took them to task for saying such things. Because that was the only way to interpret them.
I find is fascinating that you can read those links and come to the conclusions you did. Seriously. Read them again. You don’t strike me as an unintelligent person. But you have to be either that or dishonest to interpret those comments to mean “less qualified than Hillary.”
Pay attention. Read closely.
— Sam M · Nov 27, 09:00 PM · #
Sonic Charmer,
Clinton served approximately 11 years as Governor of Arkansas; Palin served about 2.5 years as Governor of Alaska. The span of time each served as Governors of those ‘podunk’ states is one obvious objective, material difference between their qualifications to be President.
Sure, Palin’s folksy (as was Clinton) but she’s also ignorant and boorish. Clinton Clinton attended the Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service at Georgetown University and was a Rhodes scholar before he was governor of Arkansas. These are material differences in their qualifications for the Presidency, although she is qualified according to the Constitution.
Qualified or not, I’m not worried about Sarah Palin as a general election candidate.
— prufrock · Dec 1, 07:40 PM · #
“I find is fascinating that you can read those links and come to the conclusions you did.”
I find it fascinating that you spent as much time getting those links together as you obviously did. I mean, for someone who CLAIMS they don’t like Sarah Palin and are really only arguing about…well, I’m not entirely sure. Regardless, why don’t you just go rent one of those Palin porno parodies and get it all out of your system.
And again, I don’t want to spoil your innocence…but people in politics, especially in the midst of a campaign, occasionally say things they don’t really mean. I hope your little brain doesn’t explode at that simple truth.
Mike
— MBunge · Dec 1, 10:51 PM · #