Republican VP with strong ties to big oil

[Arlos]

Mart, there are some crazy tax cuts for the uber-wealthy that are in place. Hedge Fund managers, for example, pay the same tax rate as a low wage worker, 15-20%. This is on someone making 50-100 MILLION a year, and whose personal income is entirely unrelated to job creation. You're saying that someone making 50 mil a year is suddenly going to stop with that job if his tax rate is raised to the same max 35ish % rate that everyone else in the top bracket makes? Yeah, right.

How about ending the tax breaks that businesses get for exporting jobs abroad?

Also, did you miss his comment that part of how we'd pay for it is by cutting back government bureauocracy and reducing waste. Not an easy task to be sure, but with a democratic Congress behind him (especially if we get a filibuster-proof margin in the Senate), it just might be possible. Ultimately, that was a really really amazing speech last night, I thought. Detailed, interesting, and provided a direct refutement to the whole Republican "Celebrity" attack line. I mean, which is more in touch with the average person: someone who had to get financial aid and a ton of loans to go to college, or someone who can't even remember how many houses he owns? I also liked the gut shot comment about McCain's "Temperament". McCain is well known for having a explosive temper, but it's been something of a taboo subject until now. Valid point, though: do we really want someone who can be that big of a hothead with his finger on The Button?

As for the VP selection, I don't care about inexperience. I just, like Gyps, think that it will be the height of hypocrisy if the Republicans keep ranting about Obama's lack of experience, when their #2 has as little or less, and is one bad health episode away from the presidency, and the #1 is the oldest person ever to run for the office! Furthermore, she's already under a scandal cloud. Why give the Democrats such an obvious weapon to hammer the republicans with?


-Arlos

[Arlos]

It depends what 'tax on wealthy' means. If it means very wealthy people who do not employ others, that's one thing. If it means across-the-board corporate taxes, that's another thing entirely.

Pretty sure he was talking about taxing personal income, not increasing corporate taxes. (except on Big Oil). Whether or not someone employs others is irrelevant, if the income in question isn't being used for that purpose. A CEO's personal income isn't being used to turn around and hire more people, even though he works for a company that does.

-Arlos

[recks]

Companies will build and create jobs wherever it is financially attractive. And currently, it's not very attractive to build in the United States.

Not to mention bringing a credible wage to borderline 3rd world situations. A sizable CHUNK of incomes in these countries are because of factories like Nike etc. Sure the wage is fucking atrocious compared to 1st world standards, but much of it is better than they can ever hope to achieve where they currently reside.

Is it fair then, for the US to pull out of these countries if they provide enough incentive to take the work BACK to the US? Why is it OK to use people for own gain, make them dependent, then fuck them later?

Edit : I can't spell.

[Haylo]

In the end though, what votes does this add? I can not believe that serious Hilary Clinton supporter would turn to voting for McCain because of Palin. So you pick up women who were simply voting for a woman. But don't you also turn off those same amount of idiots who refuse to vote for a woman?

It just seems like a gimmicky move to me. There were much better choices for a republican VP, I just don't get what it is that they can honestly point to as a reason they picked her over Romney, Huckabee, Ridge or Liberman. I think that the sole reason she was picked is because she's a woman who is relatively young, has a family and can be touted as McCain's choice to bring about change. It just looks to me and i'm sure many others as a desperate effort to counter some of the positives of Obama.

[Martrae]

Removing the tax breaks that were put into place for the wealthy that Bush enacted a few years back, for one - those tax cuts were intended to be temporary.

Creating more jobs here - more US taxpayers rather than cheap labor that doesn't pay into US government.

You do realize the people who create jobs are the ones with the money, right? If you increase taxes on them they hire less people, buy less items so the places they shop hire less people, the shops order less items so manufacturers hire less people......seeing a pattern here?

There's no need to be jealous of what rich people have or force it from them. We just need to give them more incentive to pass it around instead of hoarding it.

I'm not jealous of the wealthy, if that's what you're insinuating. I'm not saying increase their taxes, I'm saying put it back to how it was originally intended to be. All this does is put it back to what it was, it's not a new tax increase for them. Do you dispute that the tax breaks they currently enjoy were intended to be temporary? Prior to the tax cuts they currently have, we enjoyed fantastic employment rates, so no, I don't think your pattern is a huge danger.

The tax breaks they currently have still doesn't stop them from shipping jobs overseas and hiring illegals, does it? Greed is greed. They had incentive, they've had tax breaks for the last few years, and more jobs are being shipped overseas and given to illegals than ever because it's cheap and puts more money into their already fat pockets. How is that benefitting us? To think that giving them more incentive will stop that is a little naive, imo.

Who gives a shit if the current cuts were meant to be temporary? If you want things back to the way they were 'meant to be' you'd have to look farther back than what our current tax system is like.

The dotcom burst plus the Sep 11 attacks put our country into a tailspin and the jobless rate soared. The 2001 tax cut wasn't enough to stem it but the 2003 one dropped the jobless rate back to 98-99 levels. It's only in the last year, with rising costs of gas (and thereby goods) and the housing crises, that the unemployment rate has started creeping up again. The tax cuts had nothing to do with it.

[Arlos]

Her choice really panders to the social conservative wing of the GOP. That's why Lieberman was an impossible choice for McCain, honestly. While Lieberman is in lockstep with McCain about the war, on social issues he lines up with the Democrats, including on the question of the legality of abortion. There are a fair amount of voters out there who simply wouldn't have voted for McCain if he'd picked a pro-choice VP. By picking a staunch anti-choice VP choice, he's trying to get the evangelicals and other arch social conservatives back.

So, given that he HAD to pick an anti-choice running mate, I think he went with her because he felt it might do something to offset the Hillary factor, and to try and steal a bit of the "Maverick who doesn't do the same-old Washington way" aura back. Romney was viewed as not strong enough on the anti-choice agenda, given that he'd been pro-choice in the past. Huckabee would have not given him that maverick type reaction, even though he was the same sort of fit she is from the social conservative point of view.

Of course, as I mentioned before, she's got plenty of other issues with her: Direct ties to Big Oil, ongoing scandal investigations, etc.

But, given the constraints he was working under, the choice does make a certain amount of sense from his point of view. Of course, any pro choice person who votes for this ticket should have their head examined. Even one more anti-choice Supreme Court appointment, and right to choose goes byebye, and it's back to trips out of the country or back alleys and clothes hangers again.

-Arlos

[Arlos]

The dotcom burst plus the Sep 11 attacks put our country into a tailspin and the jobless rate soared. The 2001 tax cut wasn't enough to stem it but the 2003 one dropped the jobless rate back to 98-99 levels. It's only in the last year, with rising costs of gas (and thereby goods) and the housing crises, that the unemployment rate has started creeping up again. The tax cuts had nothing to do with it.

Except that's not looking at the whole picture. You need to look at WHAT jobs got created. As has been noted many times, average family incomes rose something like 6000 a year under Clinton, despite the tax rates he ran. Under Bush's terms, it's gone DOWN 2000, even with the lower tax rates.

-Arlos

[Martrae]

Arlos, I didn't watch the speech last night so I have no clue what anyone said about anything.

And I know McCain has a NASTY temper on him and can be mean as hell.

Honestly, I hate them both and won't be voting for either one.

As for the tax code. It's no secret to anyone I think the whole thing needs scrapped and we go to a Fair Tax system. Then everyone just pays their taxes when they buy things and since the rich buy far more things they'll pay more.

[numatu]

Pretty sure he was talking about taxing personal income, not increasing corporate taxes. (except on Big Oil). Whether or not someone employs others is irrelevant, if the income in question isn't being used for that purpose. A CEO's personal income isn't being used to turn around and hire more people, even though he works for a company that does.

Pretty sure isn't definitive, and I'm not sure how taxing Big Oil more will do anything except cause a price increase on gasoline for the same amount as the tax. U.S. oil companies' profit margin hover around 7-9% last I checked. This is far behind almost all industries whose margins are 10-15%. Oil has been scoring record profits because of the total amount, which always increases due to inflation and widespread use. I realize many people have a seething hatred for Big Oil, but I just don't see how taxing them more solves any problem at all. As I've said, Oil refinery already has a low profit margin. They'll simply increase the price to match the higher tax.

I also disagree on the difference between personal income of people who employ and who do not employ. CEO's, like everyone, will be drawn to wherever is the most attractive area. Personal income taxes added onto corporate taxes will certainly be considered when looking for where to start up or expand a business. I believe the highest tax bracket starts at around $350,000/year.

The total tax burden is definitely something that is taken into account.

Now if you're talking about personal income of people who do not employ others, I don't see the harm in repealing tax rates back to 1993 levels. This would also provide an incentive for wealthy people to start businesses to get a lower tax rate.

[Arlos]

Mart, I'd definitely recommend finding the speech online and giving it a listen. It really was one of the best political speeches I've ever heard going back near 30 years.

Oh, and I don't completely disagree with you on changing the tax system to a fair or flat tax, I just am not sure a sales tax is the best way to go about it. Perhaps if there was no tax on foodstuffs, and the tax level ramped up for items as they get vastly more expensive. Want to buy a 150k BMW? Sure, but pay a higher sales tax rate than someone buying a Civic. Can even set it lower or eliminate it entirely for green vehicles, to encourage purchasing them. There'd also need to be some sort of method to reimburse the sales taxes to people below certain income thresholds, like who aren't paying taxes now, or only paying tiny amounts because they're below the poverty line.

-Arlos

[numatu]

I watched the speech, I didn't find it to be particularly exceptional; it was more of a longer version of all the sound bites we've heard for the past year. I expect the same from McCain's speech. No substance, just normal rhetoric.

I can't remember a speech that was profound that has happened in the last 30 years. From the ones I've seen, you'd have to go back to 1964, 1960, and then back to FDR to get any kind of substance from a candidate. I encourage anyone to watch, listen, or read speeches from candidates or presidents of the past. It's extremely depressing how dumbed down our culture and candidates are now.

[Arlos]

Actually, I disagree there, Numatu.

Think about what Obama had to do in that speech: He had to refute the "celebrity" attack, he had to connect with middle-class voters, he had to try and woo the bitter Hillary-only types back, he had to start turning the election back into a referendum on GOP policy rather than on his personal experience, he had to give specifics to his plans and policies, he had to refute the other republican attacks that have cropped up recently, and he needed to carry the attack back to McCain.

Not only did he need to do all that (and more), he had to do it all without either coming across as too High-Falut'n, but at the same time be lofty enough to fit in with the occasion (40-something years to the day from the "I have a dream" speech), his attacks had to come off without him sounding like the stereotypical angry black man, and he had to both come across as Presidential, and yet still grounded.

And the thing is, he managed to do ALL of that, and did it fairly brilliantly. *shrug* I've seen a LOT of speeches, and this one impressed me.

-Arlos

[Tossica]

Removing the tax breaks that were put into place for the wealthy that Bush enacted a few years back, for one - those tax cuts were intended to be temporary.

Creating more jobs here - more US taxpayers rather than cheap labor that doesn't pay into US government.

You do realize the people who create jobs are the ones with the money, right? If you increase taxes on them they hire less people, buy less items so the places they shop hire less people, the shops order less items so manufacturers hire less people......seeing a pattern here?

There's no need to be jealous of what rich people have or force it from them. We just need to give them more incentive to pass it around instead of hoarding it.

This is such a fucking crock of shit. Yeah, kiss the rich peoples ass and HOPE they throw everyone a bone? Yeah, that's worked great so far hasn't it? Thanks Reagan. Trickle down economics is great! NEWS FLASH! The rich have gotten RICHER and the poor have gotten POORER. Who'd a thunk it? The middle class were duped in to handing all their money over to the wealthy in hopes of getting a decent return on it and instead they got ripped off every step of the way while the money continues to funnel directly to the top.

[Naethyn]

Rich people don't get rich by spending money.

[Reynaldo]

I started watching the Obama speech with an open mind, but he immediately jumped into "McCain is devil spawn George Bush" and "I'm cool cause I'm down with Martin Luther King" so I rolled my eyes and turned over to NFL network.

At least he looked pretty good in HD.

[Arlos]

Actually, that's not really what he said. While he did link McCain to Bush, that was far from the only part of his speech, and he was quite gracious towards McCain's in general, with the exception of that veiled slam about his temper. Here's some excerpts:

Now let there be no doubt. The Republican nominee, John McCain, has worn the uniform of our country with bravery and distinction, and for that we owe him our gratitude and respect. And next week, we'll also hear about those occasions when he's broken with his party as evidence that he can deliver the change that we need.

But the record's clear: John McCain has voted with George Bush ninety percent of the time. Senator McCain likes to talk about judgment, but really, what does it say about your judgment when you think George Bush has been right more than ninety percent of the time? I don't know about you, but I'm not ready to take a ten percent chance on change.

Now, I don't believe that Senator McCain doesn't care what's going on in the lives of Americans. I just think he doesn't know. Why else would he define middle-class as someone making under five million dollars a year? How else could he propose hundreds of billions in tax breaks for big corporations and oil companies but not one penny of tax relief to more than one hundred million Americans? How else could he offer a health care plan that would actually tax people's benefits, or an education plan that would do nothing to help families pay for college, or a plan that would privatize Social Security and gamble your retirement?

It's not because John McCain doesn't care. It's because John McCain doesn't get it.

For over two decades, he's subscribed to that old, discredited Republican philosophy - give more and more to those with the most and hope that prosperity trickles down to everyone else

You see, we Democrats have a very different measure of what constitutes progress in this country.

We measure progress by how many people can find a job that pays the mortgage; whether you can put a little extra money away at the end of each month so you can someday watch your child receive her college diploma. We measure progress in the 23 million new jobs that were created when Bill Clinton was President - when the average American family saw its income go up $7,500 instead of down $2,000 like it has under George Bush.

And when I hear a woman talk about the difficulties of starting her own business, I think about my grandmother, who worked her way up from the secretarial pool to middle-management, despite years of being passed over for promotions because she was a woman. She's the one who taught me about hard work. She's the one who put off buying a new car or a new dress for herself so that I could have a better life. She poured everything she had into me. And although she can no longer travel, I know that she's watching tonight, and that tonight is her night as well.

I don't know what kind of lives John McCain thinks that celebrities lead, but this has been mine. These are my heroes. Theirs are the stories that shaped me. And it is on their behalf that I intend to win this election and keep our promise alive as President of the United States.

What is that promise?

It's a promise that says each of us has the freedom to make of our own lives what we will, but that we also have the obligation to treat each other with dignity and respect.

It's a promise that says the market should reward drive and innovation and generate growth, but that businesses should live up to their responsibilities to create American jobs, look out for American workers, and play by the rules of the road.

Ours is a promise that says government cannot solve all our problems, but what it should do is that which we cannot do for ourselves - protect us from harm and provide every child a decent education; keep our water clean and our toys safe; invest in new schools and new roads and new science and technology.

Our government should work for us, not against us. It should help us, not hurt us. It should ensure opportunity not just for those with the most money and influence, but for every American who's willing to work.

That's the promise of America - the idea that we are responsible for ourselves, but that we also rise or fall as one nation; the fundamental belief that I am my brother's keeper; I am my sister's keeper.

That's the promise we need to keep. That's the change we need right now. So let me spell out exactly what that change would mean if I am President.
.
Change means a tax code that doesn't reward the lobbyists who wrote it, but the American workers and small businesses who deserve it.

Unlike John McCain, I will stop giving tax breaks to corporations that ship jobs overseas, and I will start giving them to companies that create good jobs right here in America.

I will eliminate capital gains taxes for the small businesses and the start-ups that will create the high-wage, high-tech jobs of tomorrow.

I will cut taxes - cut taxes - for 95% of all working families. Because in an economy like this, the last thing we should do is raise taxes on the middle-class.

And for the sake of our economy, our security, and the future of our planet, I will set a clear goal as President: in ten years, we will finally end our dependence on oil from the Middle East.

Washington's been talking about our oil addiction for the last thirty years, and John McCain has been there for twenty-six of them. In that time, he's said no to higher fuel-efficiency standards for cars, no to investments in renewable energy, no to renewable fuels. And today, we import triple the amount of oil as the day that Senator McCain took office.

Now is the time to end this addiction, and to understand that drilling is a stop-gap measure, not a long-term solution. Not even close.

As President, I will tap our natural gas reserves, invest in clean coal technology, and find ways to safely harness nuclear power. I'll help our auto companies re-tool, so that the fuel-efficient cars of the future are built right here in America. I'll make it easier for the American people to afford these new cars. And I'll invest 150 billion dollars over the next decade in affordable, renewable sources of energy - wind power and solar power and the next generation of biofuels; an investment that will lead to new industries and five million new jobs that pay well and can't ever be outsourced.

Now, many of these plans will cost money, which is why I've laid out how I'll pay for every dime - by closing corporate loopholes and tax havens that don't help America grow. But I will also go through the federal budget, line by line, eliminating programs that no longer work and making the ones we do need work better and cost less - because we cannot meet twenty-first century challenges with a twentieth century bureaucracy.

And Democrats, we must also admit that fulfilling America's promise will require more than just money. It will require a renewed sense of responsibility from each of us to recover what John F. Kennedy called our "intellectual and moral strength." Yes, government must lead on energy independence, but each of us must do our part to make our homes and businesses more efficient. Yes, we must provide more ladders to success for young men who fall into lives of crime and despair. But we must also admit that programs alone can't replace parents; that government can't turn off the television and make a child do her homework; that fathers must take more responsibility for providing the love and guidance their children need.

Individual responsibility and mutual responsibility - that's the essence of America's promise.

And just as we keep our keep our promise to the next generation here at home, so must we keep America's promise abroad. If John McCain wants to have a debate about who has the temperament, and judgment, to serve as the next Commander-in-Chief, that's a debate I'm ready to have.

For while Senator McCain was turning his sights to Iraq just days after 9/11, I stood up and opposed this war, knowing that it would distract us from the real threats we face. When John McCain said we could just "muddle through" in Afghanistan, I argued for more resources and more troops to finish the fight against the terrorists who actually attacked us on 9/11, and made clear that we must take out Osama bin Laden and his lieutenants if we have them in our sights. John McCain likes to say that he'll follow bin Laden to the Gates of Hell - but he won't even go to the cave where he lives.

And today, as my call for a time frame to remove our troops from Iraq has been echoed by the Iraqi government and even the Bush Administration, even after we learned that Iraq has a $79 billion surplus while we're wallowing in deficits, John McCain stands alone in his stubborn refusal to end a misguided war.

You don't defeat a terrorist network that operates in eighty countries by occupying Iraq. You don't protect Israel and deter Iran just by talking tough in Washington. You can't truly stand up for Georgia when you've strained our oldest alliances. If John McCain wants to follow George Bush with more tough talk and bad strategy, that is his choice - but it is not the change we need.

We are the party of Roosevelt. We are the party of Kennedy. So don't tell me that Democrats won't defend this country. Don't tell me that Democrats won't keep us safe. The Bush-McCain foreign policy has squandered the legacy that generations of Americans -- Democrats and Republicans - have built, and we are here to restore that legacy

But what I will not do is suggest that the Senator takes his positions for political purposes. Because one of the things that we have to change in our politics is the idea that people cannot disagree without challenging each other's character and patriotism.

The times are too serious, the stakes are too high for this same partisan playbook. So let us agree that patriotism has no party. I love this country, and so do you, and so does John McCain. The men and women who serve in our battlefields may be Democrats and Republicans and Independents, but they have fought together and bled together and some died together under the same proud flag. They have not served a Red America or a Blue America - they have served the United States of America.

We may not agree on abortion, but surely we can agree on reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies in this country. The reality of gun ownership may be different for hunters in rural Ohio than for those plagued by gang-violence in Cleveland, but don't tell me we can't uphold the Second Amendment while keeping AK-47s out of the hands of criminals. I know there are differences on same-sex marriage, but surely we can agree that our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters deserve to visit the person they love in the hospital and to live lives free of discrimination. Passions fly on immigration, but I don't know anyone who benefits when a mother is separated from her infant child or an employer undercuts American wages by hiring illegal workers.

This country of ours has more wealth than any nation, but that's not what makes us rich. We have the most powerful military on Earth, but that's not what makes us strong. Our universities and our culture are the envy of the world, but that's not what keeps the world coming to our shores.

Instead, it is that American spirit - that American promise - that pushes us forward even when the path is uncertain; that binds us together in spite of our differences; that makes us fix our eye not on what is seen, but what is unseen, that better place around the bend.

That promise is our greatest inheritance. It's a promise I make to my daughters when I tuck them in at night, and a promise that you make to yours - a promise that has led immigrants to cross oceans and pioneers to travel west; a promise that led workers to picket lines, and women to reach for the ballot.

And it is that promise that forty five years ago today, brought Americans from every corner of this land to stand together on a Mall in Washington, before Lincoln's Memorial, and hear a young preacher from Georgia speak of his dream.

If you want to read the whole thing, or listen to it, there's plenty of spots on the web where it can be found. There's a lot more that he went over in the speech too. Seriously, I encourage those who haven't to give it a listen the whole way through. I'm generally pretty cynical, and it impressed me.

-Arlos

[Lueyen]

There is very little difference between Hillary and Obama's stances on the major issues. I can not fathom beyond sour grapes how someone can vehemently dislike one over the other when it comes to matters of policy. There is of course the issue's of Obama's associations that Clinton doesn't seem to have but I don't think that is at the core of Hillary supporters dislike for Obama.

McCain picking a female VP will attract former Hillary supporters who's preference is based on her gender. For those just jaded enough they will not vote for Obama, McCain's VP pick won't do much to influence them. I suspect however that McCain didn't pick Palin as much to attract moderates or liberals as he did conservatives. There is a huge portion of McCain's "base" that doesn't care much for McCain, so picking a far right conservative is going to do far more for him getting those people to the polls, then would picking a liberal who MIGHT attract some Hillary supporters. I suspect that as time goes on, Anti-Obama Hillary supporters will gradually gravitate toward him because the message and stances aren't that different.

As far as her experience, a state governorship is at least an executive position something neither McCain, Obama, or Liberman has. While McCain is older it's not as if he's on his death bed. And no, McCain is not solely attacking Obama's experience... that was more a Clinton tactic due to the lack of actual difference in policy. In the end however is someone places great importance on experience, they'll have a joice between a ticket of an "experienced" president and an "inexperienced VP", or an "inexperienced" President and an "experienced" VP. Personally the value I place on experience is to the extent it shows a history of a candidates stances and views.

When it comes to the investigation, that is what it is, but I'd be quite surprised that anyone with a presidential nomination would pick someone as a vp who was the subject of an investigation that will eventually turn into a scandal or legal issue, especially an investigation that is predicted to conclude by November. Her responses to it, and the fact that McCain was comfortable picking her indicates to me that it's a whole lot of smoke, accusations and a situation that should be investigated sure, but I suspect it will find she had no wrong doing.

As a side note Mart mentioned the fair tax. I would encourage anyone who has not really taken a hard look at it and it's origins to do so, I personally feel it blows either sides tax plans out of the water, but it's hard to get politicians to support it as it removes the power to use taxes to influence behavior (like tax breaks on certain types of cars, or tax incentives to ship jobs and industry over seas). It of course also creates transparency. Unfortunately I think the only one who ran for the office of the president who spoke in support of it was Huckbee unfortunately thats about the only thing I saw with him that I would consider a redeeming quality.

[Gypsiyee]

And no, McCain is not solely attacking Obama's experience... that was more a Clinton tactic due to the lack of actual difference in policy.

I'd do a little search for McCain ads and watch them all if you really think this. He's released ads almost daily targeting his 'lack of experience' and portraying him as an empty suit celebrity. There has been little to nothing in his ads regarding policy - his ads have been centric around the "inability to be ready on day one" rhetoric Clinton tried in the primaries.

[Tikker]

Imagine how much you'd save in tax dollars if you quit your war mongering ways!

[leah]

pardon me for veering off-topic, but i think i maybe have to avoid facebook until november because all of the conservative people i'm friends with (which is a pretty sizable amount, given where i live) seem to think it's their duty to change their status update to a new vitriolic obama slam on a daily basis and i'm getting kind of sick of it. i know ppl will say "oh that's true of both sides," but i also have a good chunk of liberal friends, and while they might change their statuses to pro-obama (probama? haha) statements and phrases, not one of them has change their status to "Joe Blow is FUCK MCCAIN" like some of the anti-obamers i know. it's annoying. i get it, you don't like obama, now stfu before i unfriend you for the duration of the elections hehe

[Minrott]

Haha. Figured it would be DU Lite here. Governor Palin is an excellent choice. One in fact, I'd been hoping for as a long shot. Pawlenty would have been all right with me as well.

I can't wait for November.

[dammuzis]

i give credit for mcain picking a MILF or perhaps VPILF is a better use?

woot me on 1337 posts

[Lueyen]

I think the democratic attacks are solely due to the fact that the entire platform has been to attack Obama's experience

Well in your own words the entire platform isn't to attack his experience, which is what I stated.

And no, McCain is not solely attacking Obama's experience... that was more a Clinton tactic due to the lack of actual difference in policy.

I'd do a little search for McCain ads and watch them all if you really think this. He's released ads almost daily targeting his 'lack of experience' and portraying him as an empty suit celebrity. There has been little to nothing in his ads regarding policy - his ads have been centric around the "inability to be ready on day one" rhetoric Clinton tried in the primaries.

Here is one regarding policy, so the entire platform is not lack of experience and you newly added portraying him as an empty suit celebrity.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NVy5REoiDJo

I didn't bother looking for the one I saw the other night concerning his relationship with William Ayers, while that one also is not about policy, it is neither a lack of experience add or a celebrity add.

[Tossica]

I for one think McCain's pick was a surprise and has definitely changed my mind. He's got my vote! McCain/Palin 08!!!

[Martrae]