I don't know chels, in a catfight I think she will more than hold her own. She and Guliani would have made quite a couple.
I also don't think she is nearly as smart as she thinks she is. She is very good looking and I think she has a great deal of street smarts. I do not think she is an intellectual.
I'm not putting on the flak jacket. Does anyone on this board consider her an intellectual?

I don't think she is an intellectual. I know she'll be groomed for the debates, but those commentators have a way of throwing curve balls during Presidential debates. I personally don't think she'll be able to dodge them. Not enough experience.

I can understand why McCain and his cronies have kept Palin away from the media. She is taking a crash course in politics, world affairs, and what a Vice-President's job is. : ???

Wow, Bright, that just gave the warm fuzzies.
And Chels, I hope the commentators won't be so gaga over the novelty of Palin that they'll "give her a mulligan."

We can only hope. Also, hope they remember how, in her first appearance, she attacked them.

Originally Posted by chelsea24

I don't think she is an intellectual. I know she'll be groomed for the debates, but those commentators have a way of throwing curve balls during Presidential debates. I personally don't think she'll be able to dodge them. Not enough experience.

Who would want an intellectual for President? It's a rough world out there, and I'd rather have an alley-fighter who understands how not to lose than someone who thinks they can, with no experience in doing so, "negotiate" with some of the toughest dudes on the planet.

We had one intellectual who peacenik'd us all the way into WWII, and another pseudo-intellectual who disarmed the nation to the point where we became a target.

No, Teddy Roosevelt's "speak softly, but..." works better than all of the "we can work it out" rhetoric. If there is one thing Americans have proven over time not to do well, it's negotiating with other cultures. We always expect them to follow our rules of negotiation, and usually end up with nothing but the bill (remember the Camp David accords?)

Intellectualism is best left for the ivy-covered halls of deep thinking. It's an academic exercise not well suited for the rough-and-tumble international politics world.

Originally Posted by SteveZ

Who would want an intellectual for President? It's a rough world out there, and I'd rather have an alley-fighter who understands how not to lose than someone who thinks they can, with no experience in doing so, "negotiate" with some of the toughest dudes on the planet.

We had one intellectual who peacenik'd us all the way into WWII, and another pseudo-intellectual who disarmed the nation to the point where we became a target.

No, Teddy Roosevelt's "speak softly, but..." works better than all of the "we can work it out" rhetoric. If there is one thing Americans have proven over time not to do well, it's negotiating with other cultures. We always expect them to follow our rules of negotiation, and usually end up with nothing but the bill (remember the Camp David accords?)

Intellectualism is best left for the ivy-covered halls of deep thinking. It's an academic exercise not well suited for the rough-and-tumble international politics world.

If that is the case....perhaps I can run!! I am one tough chic!

I, personally, would want an intellectual for President. It would be a refreshing change.
Ooops, did I say Change??? Yes, I did. ;D

I can't speak for intellectuals in the race for President, however I can you from first hand experience in corporate America....where a so called intellectual was either CEO, COO or President the companies suffered from paralysis of analysis. They NEVER able to jump into the fray and LEAD. They had to have too much information...needed to study it far too long and usually found rationale for not rocking the boat. They did NOT have the moxie so to speak to analyze and assess QUICKLY and the do what had to be done. I mean each and every company that had a problem in the everyday competitive environment they just could not and did not perform.

So I am always interested in knowing, relative to politics, just what is it in an intellectual VS one deemed not to be that is supposed to be an advantage?

I suggest perhaps finding a mutually agreed upon definition of "intellectual" before segregating which is or is not.
I don't think it matters one bit in politics.....THEY ARE POLITICIANS first and foremost.

I will take an action oriented, make it happen person each and every time....generally speaking with no implication to what ever their party affiliation may be.

BTK

Originally Posted by chelsea24

I, personally, would want an intellectual for President. It would be a refreshing change.
Ooops, did I say Change??? Yes, I did. ;D

Then perhaps one day this century an intellectual will run for office. Right now there isn't one at all. The candidates for president are:

1) a lawyer (law license inactive since 2002 and not currently authorized to practice law) who was a law professor (Consitutional Law); member of the board of directors for various non-governmental organizations specializing in civil-rights activities; practicing attorney (associate) for three years in a firm specializing in civil rights litigation and neighborhood economic development; served as a consultant to and employee for various community organizing entities; and served within the Illinois Senate and US Senate (current).

2) a career Naval officer who, as selected examples of his experience as a US Senator, voted to confirm Justices Ginsberg and Breyer to the USSC bench; worked with the Clinton administration on its anti-tobacco efforts; co-sponsored comprehensive immigration reform (with Sen. Kennedy (D)); sponsored the McCain Detainee Amendment to the Defense Appropriations bill for 2005 which prohibited inhumane treatment of prisoners, including prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, by confining military interrogations to the techniques in the U.S. Army Field Manual on Interrogation; and with Sen Feingold (D) got legislation passed which resulted in campaign finance reform in effect today.

I have not noted any "intellectual activities" by either candidate, as none of their publications indicate any particular intellectual pursuit (nothing involving detailed research and analysis), but instead lean toward leadership, motivation, political strategy and self-accomplishment.

Neither gentleman would ever be confused with a Baron Martin Rees, Professor Amos Oz, Judge Richard Posner, or Pope Benedict XVI - all true intellectuals.

OK, one on side we have candidates that are described as non-intellectuals. I might say that doesn't mean not really, really smart. Obama wasn't chosen to head the Harvard Law Review because he was a dummy! And even though McCain finished very near the bottom of his class at Annapolis, they don't give degrees from that place just because your father and grandfather wore lots of stars on their shoulder boards. He was smart enough to learn how to pilot a complicated fighter jet and navigate many years in the Congress. I'd say both of our candidates, while maybe not intellectuals, are plenty smart enough to be the next President.

This morning, as I watched our current President address the Army War College, I thought that here is a man that is either no where near a smart as his educational credentials might suggest...or somehow has became an idealogue committed to very narrow and very conservative objectives, at the expense of completely ignoring any effort to provide leadership to our country and the world. It's been on his watch that we've gone a long, long way towards damaging many of the national strengths that existed when he took office.

As I watched our current President's address I thought--wouldn't it have been great if he had conducted his administration in a way to address many of the serious problems facing our nation and not just what he calls the "war on terror". For almost eight years his entire administration has been based on the idealogy of planting a democracy in the middle east, using the war on terror as a cover story. In the meantime domestic issues have gone unaddressed, the economy has been permitted to implode, we've become the biggest debtor nation in history, our dollar has sunk to an unimaginable low value, we have lost almost all the respect from the rest of the world that existed at the beginning of his term, Americans have woefully low confidence in what the future holds for them and their families, and our children's educations are sagging in an increasingly competitive world. Even more maddening are those who call themselves our leaders. Too many of them--way too many--have been proven to be little more than self-agrandizing crooks or idealogues with little interest in the national good.

I'm not worried that either of our candidates aren't intellectual enough. I'm satisfied that they're plenty smart enough for the job. And if we can believe what they are saying while campaigning...a big question, certainly...either will certainly be more effective in addressing a broad array of national problems and may begin to precipitate the changes our country needs. As important, maybe one or the other will begin to repair the flaws in our national character and morality that seems to have overtaken those that still call themselves our leaders--and that includes way too many of the people that head both the executive and legislative branches of our current government.

Our candidates are smart enough, for sure. I can only pray that one or the other can provide the national leadership that has been so sorely lacking for so long.

??? Sara Plain and her husband were (and still may be) members of a group that advocates for Alaska to secede from the UNITED STATES. Should this person be a heartbeat away from president????
She lied in her speech about selling the official plane on EBAY. It was sold to an oil executive at a $600,000 loss to the tax payers of Alaska.
She also billed the state for perdiem (away from home on official state business)while she was at home.
She also was in support of the bridge to noware until it was made public and it was convenient to be against it. Oh by the way, she kept most of the money for her other pet earmarks.

Originally Posted by benj

The photo of OOOiforgot (Obama) earlier with the pretty white smile was missing one thing. That star thing that twinkles off one tooth and goes ding. Benj

Just in case anyone is still wondering, it's called an Ethnic Slur.

Benj Said "The photo of OOOiforgot (Obama) earlier with the pretty white smile was missing one thing. That star thing that twinkles off one tooth and goes ding." Benj

This has to be one of the worst comments on this board.

Chelsa, I've been following your posts for some time. We get it, you are pro democrat. I also have a hard time taking you seriously. You once stated that you wouldn't feel comfortable with Obama as president because he seems a little naive and although many call him a suit full of hope you stated you think our world is in too precarious position to only rely on hope. My, my, how your opinion has changed and BTW you use that phrase (in my opinion) a lot. You also stated you for one cannot tolerate more years of the same. Just what does that mean? It wasn't long ago you stated you weren't going to post in the political forum anymore, that lasted one day and since then you are approaching 150 posts on the political forums alone. It appears your thoughts and or opinions are subject to change without notice. You have attacked everyone who has an opinion that don't agree with yours and you make sure to get the last shot in. Some of us would like to see some credibility in the political forums and by your many, many responses IMHO yours is in question. You told another poster to get a grip. My I suggest you heed your own advice. This is just my opinion and I should be able to express my opinion once seeing how many time you have expressed yours in this forum.