2008-09-02, 11:43 AM
Afrobean Wrote:Not surprising, I would think. Some people might not have cared enough to contribute, but with her achieving national recognition, more people surely came to the page, which would, in turn, bring more contributors. So long as things aren't REMOVED, I don't think it's a problem, but even if it is, would you really be upset with an entire presidential campaign because a lone person decided to make sure their favored side gets a shine of positive light?
Protip: being a congressman won't prepare a person to be president.
Protip#2: being a governor won't even do that much better of a job at preparing either.
Saying "oh boo hoo they don't have experience", you might as well be thinking that presidents should be president for life. The only job which gives them the required experience is the job itself. You can't say "they don't have enough experience" because NO ONE has enough experience going into a first term.
This thread is tl;dr, but I would like to clarify that the wikipedia page was edited before she was announced as the VP pick (as in before anyone knew who the heck she was). The circumstantial evidence seemed to point to someone very close to her doing the editing so that people who looked her up after she was announced as the pick would get a better first impression of her. I realize that this is probably something that people do all the time (capitol hill is blocked from editing wikipedia), but I just wanted to tell all y'all about it because I thought it was interesting.
I also agree with you for the most part about experience, but I think you should play it safe with a VP pick. The VP can become president without being elected, so it seems to me that you should get someone "safe," someone who knows the issues and whose judgment you trust. But mainly my problem with Sarah Palin is that there's no way she'd be the pick if she weren't a woman.