I'm listening to some bitch on the RNC talk about Palin saying no to the "good ole boys" and only a "mother of 5 could know".

oh, and she's spouting off about how they "will show the boys what girls can really do!"

Oh god, now she's talking about Nascar and "gun toting". I wish I were making this up.

Point is, why is it bad now to be part of washington or to have experience? I'll be honest, I don't know much about politics, I watched cause of all the hype (Obamas black, Hillarys a girl). From what I've seen, every fucking politician is wearing Nascar hats and trying to make themselves look like they're "one of the good ole boys from Kansas" and going to Nascar rallies, etc. Don't we want government to be run by intelligent, well studied people? Not "JIMMY BOB FROM THE BAR". It's getting me pissed.

All of a sudden, Obamas bad cause people like him and he travels around the world. Why do Americans love having rednecks with funny trucker hats as president? It's all fucking talk.

>>1
Because all people of all political leanings have seen people promise them what they want, and then not deliver.  Irregardless of whether the politician didn't try or couldn't manage, people take this as a failure.  And every current and former Washington Whatever has failed at one point or another, so people who have HOPE CHANGE HOPE think that some nobody will deliver the promises everyone else fails to.

Of course, there is the fact that Legislative experience doesn't actually prepare one for an executive position, no matter how much you have of it.

Another reason is that people see Washington politics as something dirty, because in large part they are.  So they want to send in some shining soul who will clean it up.  The problem then is that you take a mop and stick it in a bucket of mud, you end up with a bucket of mud and dirty mop, not a shining glorious mop and a bucket of pure clean water.

That is why intelligent folks put an experienced name on the ticket, and then the clean name they intend to groom for future use, as a back up.  That way the old mop gets dirty, and the new mop learns how to get what they want from the mud.

Because the old mop gets thrown away after two cycles max.

With Palin, though, she managed to fight and win against a political machine very similar to the one that keeps mayor Daily   in power in Chicago, or that produced FDR, and then she did do an OK job of cleaning house once she got to the top.  Unfortunately that means she is a little soiled, but such things are relative. 

Obama on the other hand, was the product of the same political machine as Daily, and unfortunately will probably know how to get what he wants, for his good, from the mud, but won't deliver half of what he promises.

So the question boils down to, what promises do you want broken, and how likely is it that the party that you vote for will deliver the promises you want.

Obama already reneged a campaign promise, the promise that he would vote against the bill that gave the Telecoms immunity.  What does this tell you about a politicians fortitude, and what does it tell you about a campaign?