First Reaction to McCain's Choice of Palin

My first reaction to John McCain's pick of Sarah Palin for VP: He just gave the election to Barack Obama.

McCain is 72 years old. The likelihood that his VP pick will be President during his four year term is a serious consideration.

A first term Governor from Alaska with only a year in the job? McCain now has no "ready to lead" argument to use against Obama. It was his best one. He may be ready to lead, but given his age, we have to consider whether his veep pick is.


I don't know a thing about Palin yet, in fact, I've never heard of her. She looks like she came straight out of central casting -- a little bit like Geena Davis in the show where she portrayed a female President with a run so short I can't even recall its name.

McCain's best bet was Mitt Romney. One part of me is relieved because McCain-Romney would have been a serious contender. Another part of me is worried, what if Obama's campaign makes a serious misstep, McCain wins, is unable to serve out his full term and Palin becomes President?

< Palin A Calculated Gamble For McCain | Tread Carefully Regarding Palin >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    2 terms as mayor (5.00 / 4) (#1)
    by kredwyn on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 10:42:26 AM EST
    and has taken on the Murkowski admin on a number of fronts as well as big oil?

    I think you may be wrong on this...

    Obama experience and Hers is a wash IMO (5.00 / 3) (#3)
    by Saul on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 10:47:01 AM EST
    except... (5.00 / 6) (#7)
    by kredwyn on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 10:48:06 AM EST
    she's running as VP...and he's running for POTUS.

    Exactly - and Obama's running for POTUS (5.00 / 6) (#12)
    by Shainzona on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 10:50:14 AM EST
    I think this is a great pick for McCain.

    Master-stroke by McCain (5.00 / 3) (#83)
    by myiq2xu on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 11:14:10 AM EST
    Hillary bashed her head against the glass ceiling, creating 18 million cracks.

    Now Sarah Palin will break through it.

    All the misogyny of the OFB has now backfired on Obama.

    Plus, no one is talking aqbout Obama's speech anymore


    Which has already begun (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by lambert on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 11:34:26 AM EST
    See here. The beauty part here is that both age-ism and sexism can be combined. It's a two-fer!

    My 2 Cents Regarding Palin (5.00 / 1) (#134)
    by Mshepnj on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 12:45:26 PM EST
    McCain's VP pick won't change who I'm planning to vote for. Even if Obama fails walk the talk going forward after the brilliant build up his fellow Democrats gave him, I'd vote Green or Nader (or nobody) before I'd ever vote for McCain/Palin.  

    However, I think choosing Palin is a very smart move for McCain for the following reasons:

    1)    She seems to be a social conservative - at least conservative enough to appeal to the GOP base.
    2)    She's a successful woman leader which would impress people like my successful "Independent" socially moderate, fiscally-conservative, pro-NRA friend who tends to vote Republican because of tax policy (and doesn't believe the GOP means it when they claim they want to overturn Roe v. Wade).
    3)    She brings youth and freshness to a campaign that looks stodgy and old in contrast to Obama/Biden. To the extent that Obama's newness and branding and his compelling biography as representative of the bright future of the Democratic party, she may have the same going for her among Republican voters who are looking for someone new, young and attractive with a compelling story.
    4)    To the extent that Obama's candidacy is historic, Palin - if elected VP - would also be historic.
    5)    To the extent there is scandal in her record (trying to maneuver her ex-BIL's firing) she may be able to use that to distract attention by focusing on the issue of child abuse and to domestic violence.
    6)    Since relative "inexperience" is no longer a major factor (she may neutralize to some degree the complaint about Obama's inexperience), it comes down to how the MSM and the bloggers and other opinion-makers on the left conduct themselves. As recent history has shown, some of the progressive bloggers, the MSM and even DNC party elders, proved to be misogynistic, sexist, dismissive and condescending towards Hillary and her supporters, or they effective enabled of sexism and misogyny (by their silence or manipulation of the process). It's the critical reason why I had to stop going to some of the "A-list" progressive blogs and have stopped watching the TV news and have lost respect for some of the "progressive" leaders in the Democratic party.  If Democrats attack Palin the way they did Hillary, they risk giving the GOP the opportunity to look more respectful of women (even if we know otherwise) and further alienating women in the middle, those moderate Republican women and Indies who were honestly appalled at how Hillary was treated, as well as skeptical Democratic women - and fair-minded men.  It may not cause a mass defection from Obama/Biden to McCain/Palin, but it may cause some of those voters to stay home on election day.


    NO NO NO (5.00 / 1) (#172)
    by noholib on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 02:52:41 PM EST
    This is not a master-stroke.  Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton is a mature seasoned individual who demonstrates complete intellectual mastery of any issue, immense talent, and uncommon grace and dignity.  I have never seen Governor Palin before but this one picture does not show even an ounce of gravitas or dignity.  Please, surely one woman is not interchangeable for another.  Not all alike.  Senator Clinton is admired by her 18 million not just because she's a woman, any old woman with the right chromosones, but because she's an outstanding individual.  Any woman who takes out her justified bitter disappointment with the sexist behavior of the Democratic Party and the media by voting for this right-wing Governor is a complete idiot in my opinion.  

    Karl Rove must read these blogs (none / 0) (#138)
    by hairspray on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 12:51:48 PM EST
    When obama by-passed Hillary there was some talk about how McCain could pick a woman or gasp! (Hillary).  I said at the time if MCain picked Palin Obama might have kissed the presidency goodbye.  There are a lot of GOP women who were going to vote for Hillary or the Dems this season, but McCain's pick is pure genius. And isn't she beautiful? What will Oblaberman do now?

    She is beautiful. She's a Tina Fey ringer (5.00 / 1) (#145)
    by Cream City on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 01:24:47 PM EST
    and a lot of young voters loved Mean Girls and watch 30 Rock and SNL and will be reminded every week of Palin.

    This tells me Fey will be back on SNL's season premiere, you bet.  I can picture Fey and Amy Poehler's opening skit already.


    So do I. (5.00 / 1) (#113)
    by MonaL on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 11:31:25 AM EST
    This looked like "check mate" from McCain to Obama.

    exactly (5.00 / 7) (#45)
    by TimNCGuy on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 10:59:14 AM EST
    comparing two candidates with the same amount of experience (Palin and Obama) when one MIGHT be called upon to become president and the other wants to be president doesn't seem like a winning move to me.  Especially when no dems were touting Tim Kaine's lack of experience against him as a potential VP.

    And, if dems start to tout the ILL State Senate experience for Obama, I can see the repugs having a big discussion of the Obama resume building that was performed by Emil Jones.

    Now let's compare Palin's style of reform in her state to Obama's style of reform.

    Palin has taken on the likes of Ted Stevens within her own party to weed out corruption.

    Obama's reforms resulted in pols having to eat their free food & drink standing up with no forks.  Was that real rough in Denver this past week?  I saw a report that one caterer had designed a special "spoon" used to serve the food so the poor pols didn't have to actually use their fingers.


    Disagree (none / 0) (#91)
    by magster on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 11:16:07 AM EST
    on urban issues, agriculture, transportation Obama's experience in Chicago, Illinois and in the US Senate crushes her experience.

    Also, he has been campaigning 19 months and has been briefed by advisors and experts, traveled to and heard voters from 49 states, operated a huge national campaign that has been very succesful -- compared to Palin who did not even seem to be aware that she might be picked as recently as a month ago, and is coming in cold.


    of a village of 5,000 people (none / 0) (#8)
    by JoeA on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 10:48:19 AM EST
    The village she was mayor of had a smaller population than Barack Obama's state senate district.  I'm not sure that is a qualification for the presidency,  any more than Obama's time in the Illinois state senate.

    but she's not running for president (5.00 / 4) (#11)
    by kredwyn on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 10:49:28 AM EST
    I'm not sure that most voters will look at it (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by JoeA on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 10:56:18 AM EST
    that way.  Statistically Palin would be much more likely to be elevated to the presidency in the next four years than Biden would be.  I think she would be held to a "is she ready to be president" standard by voters,  and I'm not sure that the GOP can make that case in the time they have left.  

    OK so Obama isn't an insider traditionally "experienced" candidate,  but he has been on the national stage for 4 years, is well known, and his campaign has spent hundreds of millions over the last year on selling his candidacy and story to the American people.  Palin is a complete unknown, and the GOP is running out of time to make the case that she is ready to be president.  I agree with Jeralyn that she is a very high risk pick for McCain.


    She's not a complete (5.00 / 4) (#55)
    by kredwyn on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 11:02:13 AM EST
    unknown. From what I've been hearing...

    Her names been discussed as a probable/possible pick for months.

    He may be taking a risk. But I suspect that it's a risk that'll pay off. She's smart, savvy, and has no issues taking on big challenges.

    I suspect that with 4 years as VPOTUS, she'll be a force to be reckoned with re: 2012...if McCain wins.


    You think she would run against McCain (none / 0) (#79)
    by JoeA on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 11:11:45 AM EST
    in 2012?  That wouldn't be very loyal.

    No... (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by kredwyn on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 11:18:13 AM EST
    I was thinking about a rumor I heard that McCain was only planning on serving 1 term.

    If he runs and wins second time, then she'll have had 8 years of training...


    8 years of McCain (none / 0) (#121)
    by MrPope on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 11:36:36 AM EST
    i will move to Canada....no way

    He was considering making a one term (none / 0) (#184)
    by JoeA on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 06:05:32 PM EST

    Apparently the McCain campaign dismissed the idea out of hand in the run up to the Dem. convention when the polling was beginning to look more favourable for them.


    yes but you have to picture any vp as president (none / 0) (#26)
    by DFLer on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 10:54:21 AM EST
    as well. For example, that's why Tim Pawlenty would not work

    Two words... (5.00 / 0) (#32)
    by kredwyn on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 10:56:08 AM EST
    Dan Quayle

    It remains to be seen whether (5.00 / 2) (#49)
    by coigue on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 11:01:01 AM EST
    she brings more than her experience to the job.

    Obama clearly does.

    Quayle clearly did not.

    Bush II seemed to bring less than his experience (if that is possible)


    In TX... (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by kredwyn on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 11:04:04 AM EST
    the real power was held by the Lt. Gov. Though most people didn't know that...

    weakest governorship (none / 0) (#85)
    by coigue on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 11:14:33 AM EST
    in the 50 states. I read "Shrub" I expected him to be a disaster.

    Experience isn't everything. If you have more to offer than experience, that's also a factor.


    George I was not turning 72 (1.00 / 1) (#56)
    by scribe on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 11:02:29 AM EST
    on the day he picked Quayle.  

    McCain is.

    Nor was George I the physical specimen McCain's extended incarceration has made him into.


    My father is turning 72 (5.00 / 2) (#68)
    by kredwyn on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 11:07:29 AM EST
    and given that he's recently started teaching at univ. after a lifetime in gov't service.

    He's not dying anytime soon. Indeed, the odds are that I could die quicker than him on my way home from vacation Monday.

    Frankly, I seriously doubt that McCain will be dying anytime soon either.


    My pop is 70 (none / 0) (#90)
    by coigue on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 11:16:06 AM EST
    and he can't even balance a checkbook.

    BUT he would NEVER EVER confuse Pakistan with another country the way Mccain did.

    McCain's mistaks worry me very much.


    And the US has 57 states ;-P (5.00 / 2) (#99)
    by kredwyn on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 11:19:30 AM EST
    and there is one of the (5.00 / 2) (#104)
    by TimNCGuy on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 11:25:53 AM EST
    great lakes in Oregon

    sunni v shia (none / 0) (#135)
    by coigue on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 12:47:43 PM EST
    I believe that Obama actually knows the reality of his gaffes.

    McCain...not so much.


    the operative word being... (5.00 / 1) (#139)
    by kredwyn on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 12:53:02 PM EST
    "believe" rather than "know."

    and your point is......? (none / 0) (#151)
    by coigue on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 01:53:44 PM EST
    I hear that Obama's education is quite good, and he had to work very hard to get where he is. Chances are he knows where ALL of the great lakes are and he can probably name all the states.

    Do YOU have so little faith in higher education? (Or lower education, for that matter?)

    The mess-ups of Mccain made were on important yet not commonly known foreign policy items. Items that Bush would mess up too. Items that many Americans would mess up. Items that Obama has not. McCain should not. The man is running on foreign policy. Too bad he can't use his knowledge and instead must revert to fear.

    McCain got where he is due to a bout of patriotic bad luck and financing by mistress turned wife.

    I actually "believe" in the power of a hard-won education over someone getting it through a rich spouse.

    I have no faith in McCain's knowledge or judgement. His blatant political use of Georgia is in the GOP SOP manual for election. He is their front-man, and he belongs to them.


    that neither you nor I are (none / 0) (#159)
    by kredwyn on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 02:12:54 PM EST

    Look...I don't have faith in either candidate's judgment or character.

    I don't think that Obama is going to do great things. And from what I've read, I don't see him coming from a "humble" background. I think he made some political decisions and experienced some very good political luck by getting the right mentors in Chicago.

    And his suggestion that we go after Pakistan was not a good idea.

    McCain's a moot point as far as I'm concerned.

    And frankly, I'm not voting for either one at this point.


    that's patently obvious. (none / 0) (#161)
    by coigue on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 02:21:34 PM EST
    but to suggest that Obama does not know where the great lakes are is really delusional.

    Ha! I heart you coigue... (none / 0) (#163)
    by kredwyn on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 02:40:48 PM EST
    a. That wasn't me.
    b. The great lakes thing was in one of the fliers that was mailed out by the Obama campaign to people in OR. It was just another one of those gaffs

    LOL (none / 0) (#165)
    by coigue on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 02:43:14 PM EST
    I am confusing posters now.

    Good thing I am not running for President.


    also... (none / 0) (#166)
    by kredwyn on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 02:43:46 PM EST
    not for nuthin...but I'm thinking it was snark.

    Just shoot me now. (5.00 / 1) (#167)
    by coigue on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 02:45:10 PM EST
    I am getting too serious about all this.

    And yes... (5.00 / 2) (#73)
    by kredwyn on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 11:10:35 AM EST
    the "McCain's an antique and could die any day now" arguments are really effing annoying.

    Life does not end at 60. I know oldsters who can run circles around all of us...mentally and physically.

    Scribe? I know that you can come up with better arguments on his policies and positions.


    if people aren't having trouble (5.00 / 2) (#51)
    by TimNCGuy on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 11:01:11 AM EST
    picturing Obama (with no more experience) as president without having to be "elevated" to the position.....

    Trapper John at Kos (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by magster on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 10:51:50 AM EST
    pointed out two huge holes in the resume of any Alaska politician -- 1)  they have no agricultural economy, which is one of the backbones of the country; and 2) Anchorage is USA's 65th largest city and thus she has no experience whatsoever to manage or weigh in on urban issues.

    the village she was mayor of has a population (5.00 / 0) (#37)
    by JoeA on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 10:57:15 AM EST
    of about 5,000.  How does that rank in terms of urban conurbations in the US?

    Lapel pin (5.00 / 0) (#2)
    by TChris on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 10:44:15 AM EST
    I don't know what's on her lapel, but it sure doesn't look like an American flag.  How unAmerican!  (Goose, meet gander.)

    It looks like a seal... (5.00 / 0) (#4)
    by kredwyn on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 10:47:05 AM EST
    how Alaskan of her.

    BTW...have you ever noticed that women haven't been expected to wear the flag pin on their lapels?


    Isn't Ted Stevens trial this fall? (5.00 / 0) (#9)
    by magster on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 10:48:39 AM EST
    This pick will put a spotlight on AK politics, and will hurt not just McCain but Republicans across the board.

    Palin was one of the few (5.00 / 3) (#22)
    by ccpup on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 10:52:48 AM EST
    Republicans who actively fought -- and still actively fights -- corruption in  Alaskan politics.

    I'm suspect Gov Palin was a thorn in Ted Stevens' side and her being chosen has gotta be burnin' him.


    Maybe so (3.00 / 1) (#43)
    by magster on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 10:59:01 AM EST
    But I would guess that the Republican GOP in AK is a very tight knit group, and once she was sworn in, the sleaze-mizers worked their way into her administration.

    Also, Debbie Wasserman Schultz already pointed out her ongoing ethics investigation and lumped her in to Young and Stevens group in the same sentence.

    And then pointed out that she is 180 degrees off from Hillary's positions on women's issues.


    it's very difficult to be lumped (5.00 / 2) (#81)
    by ccpup on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 11:12:47 AM EST
    into the same group that she worked to expose and oust and then worked overtime to bury her.  (They obviously failed)

    You might want to read up on her history before spouting what appear to be solely assumptions.

    And do not take for granted just how tough this race really became.


    Maybe (none / 0) (#142)
    by daring grace on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 12:59:59 PM EST
    But when she ran for governor (two years ago?) she stood next to him in campaign ad and beamed as he endorsed her.

    Stevens Endorsing Palin

    Depending on the direction of the campaign this fall that could video could make an appearance on the news programs.


    She stopped (none / 0) (#178)
    by MichaelGale on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 04:38:31 PM EST
    The Bridge to No Where.  That should earn her a few points.

    The US Congress wouldn't or couldn't even do that.


    Not really. Quite the opposite in fact. (5.00 / 3) (#35)
    by Southsider on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 10:56:19 AM EST
    Palin's political history is basically the story of a woman who took on the Stevens/Murkowski/Young political machine, got slapped down initially, but kept pushing against corruption and started winning, a little at a time.  She's positioned herself - whether out of conviction or smarts - against both Big Oil (which dominates the state) and the old-fashioned GOP ruling group of the state.  She will come out very well in any examination of AK politics.  

    Now all that said, I think Jeralyn is right that the experience deficit is a significant factor that will begin to cut against the McCain/Palin ticket.  I tried to put myself in a GOPer's shoes the other day and came to the same conclusion that she did - that Romney was the most formidable choice - but honestly, who knows?  If Palin comes out great guns and makes a solid first impression, doesn't seem like a fumbler candidate, then ZOMG this race becomes topsy-turvy.  All of a sudden we're playing with a greased watermelon of an election...who knows which way it'll slip?


    To your point (5.00 / 1) (#126)
    by MonaL on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 11:40:27 AM EST
    that Romney was the most formidable choice, I would disagree just based on my own reaction to Palin VP pick.  I would not consider voting for McCain/Romney, but will now seriously consider voting McCain/Palin.

    Not to beat a dead horse, but this is why we should have had Clinton/Obama 08.  


    Take that DNC (5.00 / 5) (#10)
    by Missblu on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 10:48:48 AM EST
    The DNC should take note. Theircounterparts did two things right.  They picked a candidate for the number two spot who is bright, mid level experienced and tough and who happens to be a woman. Ready in time to lead.  At the top an old hand who knows the reigns of government well. What was so difficult about that? Whom do they offend?

    Um (5.00 / 0) (#18)
    by elonepb on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 10:51:41 AM EST
    They picked her because she's a woman, not because she is ready to be Vice President (according to McCain's own set of guidelines).

    Don't be fooled by all of this.


    Don't be fooled (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by JavaCityPal on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 11:05:11 AM EST
    by what?

    Experience level? Pandering?


    Why do you think the DNC picked Obama? (5.00 / 4) (#76)
    by Grace on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 11:11:02 AM EST
    It certainly wasn't because he was a woman.  

    'Mid level Experienced (none / 0) (#156)
    by daring grace on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 02:02:58 PM EST
    2 years as governor of Alaska and before that mayor of a town of 8-9,000 adds up to mid-level experience to be a heartbeat away from the White House these days?




    The two tickets are a reversal of each other (5.00 / 4) (#14)
    by Saul on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 10:50:32 AM EST
    Obama very little experince picks insider with 35 years experience for VP

    McCain an insider with 25 years experience picks governor with very little experiece

    Plus this just adds salt to a wound for the Hilary supporters who are so mad than Obama dig not pick Hilary a woman for his VP.  

    Maybe they won't for McCain but it will make many just stay at home.

    you're wrong on this, BTD (5.00 / 10) (#15)
    by ccpup on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 10:50:35 AM EST
    McCain's choosing Palin has quite literally sucked any air out of whatever bounce Obama might have gotten post-Speech.

    For those voters who were more than likely tune in the morning after to get a sense of Obama's speech, all they're hearing is Palin, Palin, Palin.

    Secondly, the "curiosity" factor just skyrocketed for McCain's campaign.  

    Whereas before voters had the chance to go and see a historic candidate on the Democratic side, they now have even more reason to go out and see another historic pick on the Republican side.

    And what will they see on the campaign stump will be far from the Bush II ogre Obama and the Dems will be painting him as.  Had McCain made a more conventional pick, the crowds would not have been as great or as interested.

    McCain has bought himself a very long second look, has increased viewership for the Republican Convention and Palin has just temporarily stolen the spotlight from Barack when it comes to youth, change and history.

    Temporary media buzz (none / 0) (#23)
    by elonepb on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 10:53:00 AM EST
    Means nothing when we have many many weeks till the election.

    This was a last gasp of air for McCain and an attempt to temporarily steal the light before he's wiped out during the debates.

    Again, we cannot be fooled by the McCain pandering. To me, it's sickening that he would do this.


    you're so wrong on this (5.00 / 9) (#36)
    by ccpup on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 10:56:35 AM EST
    it's almost not even worth responding to.

    The biggest mistake Team Obama and his supporters can make is to not take her and the historic nature of her candidacy for granted.


    Historic Candidacy (none / 0) (#158)
    by daring grace on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 02:10:17 PM EST
    I guess in the sense that an inexperienced woman can be nominated to the VP spot just as an inexperienced man can be IS really a step forward in equality.

    I'm serious. It's long been true (and in many places still is) that a woman has to be twice as good at her job to compete successfully.

    So maybe this is historic.

    And a second woman VP candidacy after 24 years...

    HRC got the Republicans to do something I doubt they would have ever done if she hadn't run such a groundbreaking campaign herself.


    How dare (5.00 / 8) (#44)
    by Wile ECoyote on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 10:59:09 AM EST
    he pick a woman!  Only progressives can do that!

    What a double standard! (5.00 / 7) (#61)
    by Upstart Crow on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 11:03:32 AM EST
    Sorry, everyone was weeping and fainting last night due to a good speech -- ALSO TEMPORARY MEDIA BUZZ!

    Temporary media buzz seems to be what this election is about.


    Not me (none / 0) (#31)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 10:55:47 AM EST

    my sincere apologies (5.00 / 2) (#39)
    by ccpup on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 10:57:35 AM EST
    BTD.  I neglected to notice the author of the thread.

    But Jeralyn being wrong about this doesn't surprise me.


    sorry, just missed this. (none / 0) (#42)
    by JoeA on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 10:58:58 AM EST
    apologies for the duplicate below.

    It's Jeralyn . . . not BTD (none / 0) (#41)
    by JoeA on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 10:58:13 AM EST
    Jeralyn, you are completely missing it (5.00 / 13) (#16)
    by goldberry on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 10:51:22 AM EST
    This was a brilliant move on McCain's part.  The DNC is completely responsible for the McCain presidency.  The age argument doesn't really hold anyway.  He seems to be up to the challenges of the campaign trail.  But more than that, Palin brings freshness and reform to the Republican party, which desperately needs it.  And now all of the older, more conservative Hillary women have a place to go.  
    I'm sorry, Jeralyn, the DNC played a very rough, top down, paternalistic game and dismissed more than half of its voters as quickly as Pelosi said, "All those opposed"  The Democrats deserve all the bad karma they are about to get.  I will support down ticket Dems but I won't give Obama the time of day.  He is an empty suit who just got checkmated.  He can't point to her inexperience without pointing out his own.  He can't attack her gender without driving even more women to her.  And he can't really even go after her on her pro-life stance because she's not asking anyone to do what she hasn't done herself.  She is friendly to gays but hostile to oil companies.  
    This is not a loss for the Republicans.  Quite the opposite.  Obama has already lost, with the help of the DNC.  
    Don't blame us.  We voted for Hillary.  

    What goldberry said..Amen! (5.00 / 6) (#28)
    by Shainzona on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 10:54:52 AM EST
    Downticket Dems, only.

    Prolly not the way to say it..... (5.00 / 4) (#141)
    by Oje on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 12:56:44 PM EST
    But McCain only needs to point out that, even if he dies his first day in office, Sarah Palin will have more experience as a federal executive than Barack Obama has now.

    She is the VP pick, she has time to learn the ropes in a way he will not.

    The ungracious attack on her resume - the obvious parallel between community organizer and PTA (and one post more Americans will understand), the obvious parallel between state senator and mayor (and one whose record more Americans will understand) - was a terrible gaffe out of the gates. That kind of reaction by the Obama campaign affirms in part the tin ear that the faux progressives have for sexism and the (possibly emerging) new women's rights and equality movement.


    it would also be fair (5.00 / 2) (#150)
    by TimNCGuy on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 01:45:34 PM EST
    to point out that if McCain dies, Palin would get to pick a VP just like Obama has.  So, what's the diff?

    Sleeze not brilliance (2.00 / 1) (#24)
    by elonepb on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 10:54:02 AM EST
    Pander pander pander.

    By McCain's own standards, she is not qualified to be VPOTUS.

    Yet he picked her?

    Pander pander pander.


    What standards (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by Wile ECoyote on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 11:00:27 AM EST
    did McCain put out for VP picks?  

    You're not getting it (5.00 / 6) (#70)
    by echinopsia on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 11:08:37 AM EST
    Those who are already committed to voting for Obama are not the ones whose opinions of this counts. Sorry. McCain is not doing this to please you.

    What matters is how it looks to those who are opposed to Obama or on the fence. And to them, it looks good, especially after a primary that disrespected women so blatantly.

    No, it isn't a case of "any woman will do." But it matters that McCain is man enough not to be threatened by a woman, or by those who will not like his choosing a woman.  


    Double super bonus pony bingo (5.00 / 5) (#130)
    by lambert on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 11:42:53 AM EST
    "it matters that McCain is man enough not to be threatened by a woman"

    Not sure how much it matters, but it's a good thumb in the eye from McCain.


    sorry (5.00 / 3) (#107)
    by Upstart Crow on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 11:26:48 AM EST
    but she was in the mix even before Obama refused Hill as VP. Just a darkhorse. I knew her name. And I thought she would be a brilliant gamble.

    Obama isn't fit to be president. (4.12 / 8) (#40)
    by goldberry on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 10:57:59 AM EST
    In fact, he has NO executive experience while Palin has at least been a governor.  
    I don't think McCain is pandering.  He just made a wily choice among some newcomers in his party.  
    Brilliant.  Just brilliant. I still don't want to vote for him but I'm not worried about his political skills after this.  

    if i were a woman and a Hillary supporter (1.00 / 3) (#38)
    by MrPope on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 10:57:16 AM EST
    I would be disgusted and insulted with McCains pick..... Using PALIN as a prop to pander.

    and her being a pretty woman i am sure factored in to McCain Picking her.



    Which shows how out of touch you are (5.00 / 10) (#57)
    by goldberry on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 11:02:34 AM EST
    McCain chose a person who is close to him ideologically.  She is not filling a weakness that John has to compensate for.  She is complementary to him.  And she is a woman.  Many Hillary supporters will recognize that they are being courted but his choice is such a good one that they won't really care.  It would be different if it was Kay Bailey Hutchison or Elizabeth Dole.  But Palin is actually someone that many Hillary supporters can admire and respect.  
    Obama is toast.  Sorry.  

    No (5.00 / 5) (#80)
    by echinopsia on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 11:12:43 AM EST
    You wouldn't. Because I am a woman and a Hillary supporter and I am not disgusted or insulted at all. I am pleased.

    Please stop assuming you know how women and Hillary supporters think. You don't have a scintilla of a clue. McCain's picking Palin is not pandering to women any more than Obama picking Biden is pandering to old white guys.


    Are you serious (2.00 / 1) (#89)
    by flyerhawk on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 11:15:54 AM EST
    Sarah Palin was selection for one reason and one reason alone.  

    Like I said (5.00 / 3) (#108)
    by echinopsia on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 11:28:05 AM EST
    It doesn't matter what you think. You weren't going to vote for him anyway.

    Apparently, you're neither and have no (5.00 / 4) (#88)
    by JavaCityPal on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 11:15:23 AM EST
    frame of reference to draw from.

    I say this choice also speaks loudly to the differences between Michelle and Cindy, as well.

    If it wasn't true that Michelle had a huge voice in making sure Hillary was not on the Obama ticket, his campaign needed to come out and say so. Instead, we all believe that Michelle presented herself as a solid barrier against Hillary.


    I am a Hillary supporter and I think the move (5.00 / 2) (#152)
    by hairspray on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 01:54:25 PM EST
    is pure genius.  The Axelrod boys were gleeful at how smart they were to maniuplate the caucuses and outfox Hillary.  If you have read Caucuses and Primaries by P. Cronin you will understand the anger women feel about how the election was given to Obama.  So frankly don't come crying about how sad their maneuver is.  We are sad that the real winner of the Democratic nomination was pushed aside for the "roolz" Anything McCain does in his pick of Palin pales in comparison to what the DNC did.

    Really (1.00 / 1) (#54)
    by flyerhawk on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 11:01:50 AM EST
    Age doesn't matter.

    Let's take a look at every President that was withing 10 years age at the time they reached office.

    Zachary Taylor - Died in office.

    William Henry Harrison - Died in office.

    James Buchanan - One of the worse presidents in American history.

    GHW Bush -

    So half of them died while in office.

    Age is most definitely relevant.


    So Palin becomes first woman president (5.00 / 8) (#63)
    by goldberry on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 11:04:36 AM EST
    Tell me why this is worse than Obama becoming president, who has less executive experience than Palin.  
    See, this just goes to show you how brilliant this pick is.  All your arguments are DOA.  

    That would be worse (none / 0) (#75)
    by indy in sc on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 11:10:53 AM EST
    because she is a staunch conservative.  She could have been VP for the last 8 years and I still couldn't support her.  It's not really about her relative experience--it is about her policies.

    If the only thing that matters to you (none / 0) (#86)
    by flyerhawk on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 11:15:04 AM EST
    is the gender of the nominee, then this is a good pick for you.  

    What makes Palin a horrible choice is that she is a hard core conservative.  She is well to the right of McCain and George Bush.

    But, as I said, if that doesn't matter to you I'm sure you would be thrilled with this selection.


    Go read up about her (5.00 / 6) (#116)
    by goldberry on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 11:32:22 AM EST
    It is true that she is a Christian Conservative but she has been friendly to gays.  She has opposed big oil.  She is seen as a reformer in her own party and has challenged the GOP. She was a mayor for years and head of the council of mayors in Alaska.  Her political experience is more relevent than Obama's as it has been executive, not legislative.  
    She's pro-life.  Ehhh, so what.  If we get enough down ticket Dems, there won't be any significant threat to Roe that Obama and Leah Daughtry, CEO of the DNC and pentacostal minister weren't capable of threatening anyway.  
    Give it up!  The DNC lost the election.  McCain and Palin are it.  If I weren't so opposed to Republicans, I'd make a donation.  McCain has won.  You have lost.  
    I voted for Hillary and I feel vindicated.

    So what if she's a Christianist (5.00 / 1) (#133)
    by lambert on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 11:46:22 AM EST
    Obama's for faith-based cr*pola just as much as Bush was.

    It nets out neutral on Christianist lunacy, given the givens.


    erm....do you like science? (none / 0) (#137)
    by coigue on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 12:50:23 PM EST
    Cause Palin is a Creationist.

    Whose father was a science teacher (none / 0) (#160)
    by echinopsia on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 02:18:17 PM EST
    and who believes both evolution and creationism should be taught in schools.

    I *am* a scientist (none / 0) (#164)
    by goldberry on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 02:41:47 PM EST
    I couldn't do my job without knowledge of evolution.  However, I do believe that creationaism and evolution can co-exist in a science classroom.  In fact, that is how I was taught in high school.  Creationaism was covered with several other origin theories in the first two day sof the evolution unit.  These theories are much simpler than evolution and the flaws in some of them are obvious.   There are many forms of creationism.  But they all involve the guidance of supernatural force.  Once you get that theory out of the way, the class can concentrate on natural selection, which takes a lot more explanation and, fortunately, requires explanation of evidence.  Then, the student can say they've heard all sides of the story.  There is no taint in the study of natural selection and other POV are accommodated.  
    Everyone is happy.  The minute I learned about natural selection, I became a true believer.  It doesn't have to kill your faith.  

    You are outdated (none / 0) (#173)
    by coigue on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 02:55:27 PM EST
    today's "creationism" is not what you or I were taught.

    Today's creationism distorts itself into ID and distorts actual science by using false examples and false assertions.

    For instance:

    The idea that there are no fossil intermediates between reptiles and mammal-like reptiles. There are ! Tons. Also, the flagellum argument is based on the false idea that it is unique in nature with no simpler homologous structure. FALSE! Botulinum has a toxin injector that has many similarities to the flagellum.

    Point number 2: Science is not just evolution, the GOP thwarts science in all sorts of ways: the FDA, the EPA, Global Warming, Faith-based organizations are allowed to make claims like: there is a link between abortion and breast cancer. People are being gagged professionally. People are being hired based on political party.

    This is what you are risking to continue.


    please! (none / 0) (#187)
    by noholib on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 06:18:31 PM EST
    How can a Hillary voter say they are vindicated by the Palin nomination?  A life-long liberal Democrat is the same in your eyes as a NRA rightwing conservative?!!  Please, look at policies.  Look at values.  One woman is not interchangeable with another.  If someone thinks all women are the same and a vote for one is the same as a vote for another, without regard to policies and positions, that to me is an ultimate form of sexism.  
    Can you honestly think that Republican policies are better for women?  Just because McCain now has another pretty face close to him. He does have a history of that, you know.

    There was and is no stauncher Hillary Clinton supporter than I.  But to be bamboozled by the Republicans on gender issues is something I simply cannot understand.  Compare Sarah Palin to Hillary Clinton for one moment -- and you will see the ridiculousness of the comparison itself.
    It simply devalues and degrades Senator Clinton.

    Please listen to what Senator Clinton said about the causes and values she believes in and how she opposes what the Republicans have done and will continue to do to this country.  You really don't care?  Do you really see the advancement of women's rights and equality in the Palin nomination?  We've already had a woman nominated for Vice-President, Rep. Geraldine Ferraro.  It's not a novelty in and of itself or a significant break in the glass ceiling.  

    Please do not go ga-ga over this cynical nomination of a woman.  Keep your heads on, everyone.


    You know (5.00 / 3) (#117)
    by echinopsia on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 11:32:27 AM EST
    If hardcore Obama supporters had any idea of how to appeal to women, there wouldn't be a divided Democratic Party right now.

    Obama and his followers have been slapping women around for months. McCain just figuratively stood up for women - even if it is a conservative woman. Symbolically it's brilliant.


    How is Palin Worse? (none / 0) (#185)
    by daring grace on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 06:12:48 PM EST
    Anti choice
    Anti environmental advocacy
    Pro Big Oil

    You need a sliding scale for this, flyerhawk (5.00 / 2) (#69)
    by Upstart Crow on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 11:07:48 AM EST
    A sliding scale according to date.

    In fact, at the time social security was instituted, the average life expectancy was 63. People routinely live into their 90s and beyond nowadays.


    don't you think the level (5.00 / 2) (#77)
    by TimNCGuy on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 11:11:02 AM EST
    of medicine has advanced some since Taylor and Harrison?

    And yet (none / 0) (#98)
    by flyerhawk on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 11:19:25 AM EST
    the American people have only one time in the past 150 years elected someone within 10 years of John McCain for their first term.

    And, life expectancy at the (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by JavaCityPal on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 11:16:42 AM EST
    time was......

    Harrison? (5.00 / 2) (#96)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 11:18:25 AM EST
    I'm not sure life expectancy in the 1800s is really comparable to today.

    How can you have missed (5.00 / 2) (#106)
    by Ed on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 11:26:31 AM EST
    the oldest man ever to be elected to the office of the presidency, Ronald Reagan?  You're also missing Eisenhower

    The average age in Congress (5.00 / 1) (#179)
    by MichaelGale on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 05:09:59 PM EST
    is 61.5.  Pelosi is 67; Feinstein is in her 70's and sits on powerful committees, ect

    If the Democrats keep up this age thing, they will have to consider getting rid of almost the entire US Congress.


    That post is wrong (none / 0) (#180)
    by MichaelGale on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 05:11:13 PM EST
    61.5 is the average age of the US Senate. Sorry

    goldberry (none / 0) (#74)
    by coigue on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 11:10:43 AM EST
    you might as well not bother voting for down-ticket Dems. It's near impossible to get the Dem agenda going with a GOP obstructionist president.

    And make no mistake, McCain owes his GOP masters. He is owned. He is completely reliant to the GOP due to his own spending limits, and the GOP have stated that they believe Mccain will "come around" to their way of thinking.

    When you choose a president, you choose a platform.


    Look who selected Obama (5.00 / 3) (#122)
    by goldberry on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 11:37:17 AM EST
    It's the same people who did nothing in the past 2 years except cave to the Republicans over and over again.  And then Obama gives a long, boring speech and says he's all about post-partisanship???  How clueless could the DNC get?  
    New downticket Dems are what is needed to shore up the progressive base in the House and Senate and make it easier for them to resist the pressure to compromise.  I'm actually kinda psyched that Hillary is staying in the Senate now.  She has an opportunity to lead.  Obama will come back to his Senate seat in December and have to do some real work.  It will be a completely novel experience for him.  

    What is that disease called? (none / 0) (#136)
    by coigue on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 12:48:51 PM EST

    I call it reality (5.00 / 1) (#168)
    by goldberry on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 02:46:50 PM EST
    Obama has alienated half of his base due to the hardball tactics he and the DNC used to select him.  Now, those voters are going to get even.  If it makes you uncomfortable, good!  Next time, you'll think twice about the political expedience of pissing off voters you need.  Maybe we;ll even have a normal roll call vote for a woman who deserved praise and honor instead of the old heave-ho.  
    Can you hear us now?  

    I am a woman (2.00 / 1) (#174)
    by coigue on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 02:59:37 PM EST
    you don't speak for me, or for many others.

    Your comment is both bitter and narcissistic.


    BTD (5.00 / 4) (#20)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 10:52:19 AM EST
    you are all wrong on this. This is the Dukakis/Bentsen argument against Quayle in 1988. It just never works. And pointing out McCains age is a loser. Biden is only a few years younger than McCain. It also the age of my father who passed away recently and I find Obama's age argument deeply offensive. It's like saying that my father deserved to die because he was too old. There might be other people who feel the same way.

    Obama's campaign has been messing up a lot lately. Apparently they are trying to turn it around.

    I guess we'll have to wait for a new round of polling after the GOP convention to see where we are.

    I did not write this post (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 10:55:27 AM EST
    While I agree Romney was the best bet, I actually think Palin was the best calculated gamble.

    I'm sorry. (none / 0) (#97)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 11:19:04 AM EST
    I guess I had read so many of your posts i got confused. :)

    Is one of the new rules... (5.00 / 0) (#67)
    by EL seattle on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 11:06:35 AM EST
    ... that we're supposed to mis-attribute 4 posts a day that we disagree with to BTD?



    His best possible choice. (5.00 / 4) (#27)
    by jimotto on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 10:54:38 AM EST
    She's very bright and articulate.  I think she'll have alot of appeal to some independents.  At the same time, she will have huge appeal to the GOP base.  They may run through walls for her the way they did for Bush.  This is a huge plus for the GOP ground game.

    Your comment that this takes the "ready to lead" argument out of play is irrelevant.  You assume that the GOP needs logic to make an argument.  They'll say she has executive experience, while Obama does not.

    Biden will have to tread carefully with her in the debates (in a way that he would not with Huckabee, Mittens or Pawlenty).

    She's got a real cute kid that will give Sasha a run for her money.

    She's a very good, bold pick.  McCain didn't have much of a chance before, he certainly will have a much better shot now just on the basis of getting a ground game and giving the base someone to vote for.

    We all knew McCain would pick a younger person (5.00 / 4) (#33)
    by stefystef on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 10:56:11 AM EST
    Of course.  Duh.
    But she's a woman, so it plays up to the women in the Republican Party and disenfranchised Dem women.

    She can't be less qualified than Obama.  If you read some of the articles about Obama's years in Chicago, it was more about positioning himself for bigger political life, no real achievements on a legislative level that has improved the lives of people in Chicago or Illinois.

    At least this choice takes the wind out of Obama's sails for a few minutes.

    She's been a gov, for pity sake (5.00 / 3) (#82)
    by Upstart Crow on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 11:13:26 AM EST
    And she's actually been in charge of running something -- which BHO hasn't.

    If she spends half a year sitting in the Senate, she'll already have clocked more days than Obama.


    Palin Vs Biden VP Debate (none / 0) (#48)
    by MrPope on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 11:00:56 AM EST
    Sorry..its going to be a bloodbath

    biden been around too long  to lose that one


    Keep it up (5.00 / 4) (#101)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 11:19:58 AM EST
    with the low expectations for her.  That simply plays into McCain's game here.  Biden will certainly come off better on FP than Palin, but she's a very smart woman and a quick study, so she will not likely be completely wiped out.  And the VP debate is about as insignificant an event as there is in a presidential campaign.

    I don't think so (5.00 / 2) (#125)
    by lambert on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 11:40:11 AM EST
    All Palin has to do is point out that the Rs put experience at the top  of the ticket. "You're the one who ought to be President, Joe!"

    It's not a foregone conclusion that Biden will win. He's good, but I don't know if he's faced a bright, young, and telegenic woman in debate before.

    And on the teebee in this debate, everything that works against McCain in the Presidential debates works against Biden in the VP debates.

    No, McCain isn't stupid.


    Since my candidates rarely get to the White House (5.00 / 4) (#50)
    by Redshoes on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 11:01:04 AM EST
    no one comes to me for my advice but I think she's an exciting choice for McCain.  I think the arguments re: experience cut both ways, whereas for independents, those who are not single issue voters and the die hard Republicans they will look closely.

    Corporate media is calling her a "reformer" and just read Obama's statement and if I heard it correctly they're off their game.

    Exactly.. (5.00 / 3) (#71)
    by ks on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 11:08:41 AM EST
    Your Obama vs. Palin comparison is dead on.  

    Cuckoo for cocoa puffs (5.00 / 4) (#72)
    by RedSox04 on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 11:09:54 AM EST
    Palin's experience is about the same as Obama's.  And I'll go out on a limb and guess that McCain did extensive polling on Palin before choosing her.  So any idea that McCain "gave the election away" seems premature.

    Palin changes the dynamic, to be sure, and may ultimately end up being an albatross.  But I think it's far too early to know what the impact of her selection will be.

    However, if Palin serves to unite the GOP base and to appeal to women and working class voters, then McCain has become more formidable, obviously.

    Seriously Jeralyn? (5.00 / 3) (#78)
    by ks on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 11:11:15 AM EST
    "I don't know a thing about Palin yet, in fact, I've never heard of her. She looks like she came straight out of central casting -- a little bit like Geena Davis in the show where she portrayed a female President with a run so short I can't even recall its name."

    That's pretty bad.  Anyway, she was mentioned a potential pick for some time before McCain picked her.

    Really (5.00 / 5) (#100)
    by echinopsia on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 11:19:56 AM EST
    Hating the woman for the way she looks?

    She can't help it that she's beautiful. And Obama's pretty central-casting for the first black president, too.

    Double standards don't appeal to me.


    Frankly (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by Upstart Crow on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 11:14:25 AM EST
    I didn't think he would have the balls.

    Maybe the McCain campaign (5.00 / 4) (#87)
    by TimNCGuy on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 11:15:15 AM EST
    will suggest they change the debates around to reflect the relative experience of the candidates.  That way McCain can debate Biden Obama can debate Palin.

    headline on the news: (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by ccpup on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 11:16:20 AM EST
    "Obama campaign disses Palin for small town origins"

    That is SO not the way to get rural, blue collar votes.

    You better step it up, Team Obama.

    Palin (none / 0) (#109)
    by JThomas on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 11:28:08 AM EST
    is a ardent supporter of Pat Buchanan. The GOP base is already polling at almost 90% behind McCain. She is to the right of McCain on most issues. It draws an even greater contrast between the two tickets.

    Game on.


    OK (none / 0) (#114)
    by MrPope on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 11:31:27 AM EST
    so Obama's team isnt allowed to go after Palin?

    Not for personal issues (5.00 / 1) (#129)
    by dianem on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 11:42:49 AM EST
    There is plenty to go after in her political views, or even her character (although the pickings seem to be slim, there are a few cracks they can exploit). Attacking her for being a beauty queen or from a small town is just plain counter-productive. Hopefully, these kinds of attacks will be quashed quickly.

    Quashed quickly? (none / 0) (#143)
    by lambert on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 01:04:58 PM EST
    If the primary is any indication, they'll turn the knobs up to 11.

    Wow (5.00 / 4) (#105)
    by Lowtideppm on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 11:26:19 AM EST
     McCain shored up his "maverick" cred here.  This woman would have gotten even more attention if she'd been not-a-woman, I think.
      Five kids? Pro-choice  - with the focus on "choice" - on record as saying that this right will not be taken from women. An Alaska Republican who bucked her party there, fought against corruption.  Naw, she has more experience than Obama in doing actual, like, work.
     Gun owner, hunter, standout athlete. Oh, also a beauty queen. It'll be disgusting but perhaps not surprising if the some of the anti-Hillary blogs brought out the misogyny they displayed in the primary campaign.
      Nothing like rubbing THAT in.
      From what I read, her husband is a stay-at-home Dad, (and FWIW)of Inuit ancestry.  She won't exactly embody the stereotypical Stepford Republican wifey image.
      This is thin, first day reaction, but it's fun.
    It's not just old weird McCain anymore.
      I'm excited because (at this hour anyway) I think it wakes up the campaign. She ought call Hillary to get some advice on staying strong in the face of the stereotyping bs. (and showing her intelligence and strength no matter how much it is disregarded.)

    maybe you better hold off on critical comments (5.00 / 5) (#110)
    by TimNCGuy on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 11:28:11 AM EST
    on her experience until after you have a chance to assess her "judgement".  I was under the impression that this time around the dems had decided judgement trumps experience.

    Bad judgement to join the (none / 0) (#169)
    by coigue on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 02:47:24 PM EST

    Case closed.


    Wow. (5.00 / 8) (#111)
    by Lysis on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 11:28:32 AM EST
    The Republican candidate puts a woman on the ticket and the Democratic candidate does not, even though there was a female Democrat who earned 18 million votes.

    The reason Clinton/Obama was a dream ticket was it would shatter two ceilings, plus put a young and promising leader in the understudy position to one of the most accomplished political leaders on the planet.

    Obama/Clinton would've been the next best thing, as it would represent the diversity of the party's various voting blocs and truly represent them working together.

    Now, we have a Democratic ticket with less experience on top and a person in the understudy position who will likely never be elevated to the top spot, versus a Republican ticket with experience up top and a young and promising leader that will also shatter a ceiling.

    This election was not supposed to be close.  It was not supposed to be debatable which ticket to root for.  It was supposed to be the difference between black and white, not midnight blue and navy blue.

    Then again, I never thought I'd be turning on the television and hearing a Republican candidate celebrating a woman after a primary where the Democrat defeated one with the knowing assistance of misogny.

    And you wonder why some of us are undecided for the first time in our adult lives?

    McCain hooks another (none / 0) (#118)
    by MrPope on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 11:34:02 AM EST
    why do u think he picked PALIN... u spelled it out for him.... McCain's pander machine is effective for this week...maybe next

    He hasn't hooked me. (5.00 / 2) (#120)
    by Lysis on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 11:36:02 AM EST
    So you can spare me your condescension, though it speaks volumes that picking a female candidate is automatically seen as pandering.  

    Very well said Lysis (none / 0) (#148)
    by MonaL on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 01:38:59 PM EST
    I love this:

    "It was supposed to be the difference between black & white, not midnight blue and navy blue."


    Great Speaker (5.00 / 1) (#128)
    by MS39047 on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 11:42:05 AM EST
    <go easy on me - long time lurker, first post>  She's giving a great speech; I like her.  My associates/friends/family are mostly Independents and "middle of the road" Democrats; I've already gotten several emails full of excitement about this pick.

    Let's face it Obama is in trouble (5.00 / 1) (#146)
    by Saul on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 01:36:32 PM EST

    Narrow-minded (5.00 / 1) (#190)
    by mabelle55 on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 06:43:16 PM EST
    Democrats fall into deep traps when we forget that feminism doesn't = Democrat and that women in the political sphere are and have been a minority, generally, regardless of party.

    I'm also stunned that so many Democrats know so little about Sarah Palin! It shows how limited Dems are in the way they see women in politics (hint: they are only Democrats).

    I'm a feminist. This is the lens in which I most often view progress in our world, for reasons that are too numerous and intellectual to go into here.

    McCain's naming of Palin is gutsy. It shows his maverick streak. It is a great day for women because it shows that on some level he understands that women are and will be a major part of the political landscape.

    You don't have to agree with or like her conservative positions to understand and appreciate that this is a terrific day for women and for change.

    Democrats -- and the Obama campaign -- deride and dismiss this at their peril.

    shorter jeralyn.... (4.70 / 10) (#21)
    by p lukasiak on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 10:52:36 AM EST
    An unqualified male is acceptable in the top spot, but an unqualified female in the second spot is a disasterous idea.   And John McCain is old.

    I really expect better of you Jeralyn.  I know that you support Obama now, but to descend to sexism and dog-whistle agism as a means of rationalizing your support is pretty low.

    Wow (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by flyerhawk on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 10:59:19 AM EST
    Sexist?  You create your own interpretation of what Jeralyn said and then accuse her of being a sexist based on that ridiculous interpretation?

    I am sick of people arguing that McCain's age is off-limits.  It is absolutely relevant and the people that argue otherwise are simply trying to manage the discussion.

    What about Sarah Palin's resume do you find appealing, other than her having 2 X chromosomes?


    She stood up to oil interests (5.00 / 4) (#124)
    by dianem on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 11:38:44 AM EST
    Repeatedly. She withdrew from a commission in order to draw attention to Republican political corruption. She has the courage of her ideals - she didn't get an abortion when she found she was carrying a foetus with Downs Syndrome. She signed a law giving providing same sex benefits (Under a court order, which the previous administration challenged, she also supports an Alaskan referendum overturning this with a constitutional amendment). She voted against the "bridge to nowhere". She ran on a Republican anti-corruption platform. There are also lots of negatives, but this woman is no lightweight beauty pageant winner. She's not my cup of tea, but she seems to be the kind of Republican I respect - not the kind that trashed the nation over the last 20+ years.

    She Stood Up To Oil Interests (none / 0) (#189)
    by daring grace on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 06:37:53 PM EST
    to get them to be more aggressive about drilling, according to this Reuters article.

    Personally, I like and respect many elements of her bio--including her attitude about her child's Down

    But I strongly dislike her unwillingness to let other women make different choices.


    Yes, it is sexist to judge a woman (5.00 / 3) (#131)
    by Joan in VA on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 11:43:50 AM EST
    by her appearance and mock her by comparing her to an actress in a failed tv show. If you don't agree, maybe we can agree that it is at least needless and petty.

    Of course she is unqualified (1.80 / 5) (#132)
    by flyerhawk on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 11:45:56 AM EST
    Her only qualification is being a woman.

    WTF? (none / 0) (#170)
    by flyerhawk on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 02:49:17 PM EST
    Sarah Palin was picked because she is woman.  How you could possibly argue otherwise is baffling.  Less than 2 years of elected office beyond mayor of her tiny hometown.

    But your sexually explicit comment certainly is appropriate.  Really it is.


    Not really fair to Jeralyn (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by Southsider on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 11:01:46 AM EST
    I think we all owe her the respect of granting the sincerity of her convictions.  Especially given the space that she has provided for an honest discussion of the election from a left perspective.  How many other top-flight sites provide such space without down-rating away dissenting views?  ANSWER: none.

    So while some of us may disagree with her POV (I half-agree, but I'm getting progressively more worried the more I talk to the people in my life), it certainly behooves us not to insult her reasoning.  Disagree with it, yes.  Ad hominem it, no.


    Double standard.... (5.00 / 7) (#102)
    by p lukasiak on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 11:20:18 AM EST
    its the double standard at work in Jeralyn that I have a problem with.

    Jeralyn had no problem supporting Obama -- while she supported Hillary in the primaries, she immediately switched alligience to Obama when Hillary bowed out, and her only reservation was IF Obama picked Biden for VP -- and she got over that after three days of being surrounded by friends and peers all of whom were supporting Obama and had no problem with Biden.

    Yet she thinks that Palin's inexperience is disasterous -- and throws in the death specter for good measure because of McCain's age

    I'd like to suggest that what Jeralyn is doing is the kind of thing that discredits the Democrat party among women in general -- we're talking not just about "Hillary supporters", but independent women, and Republican women who are unhappy with the direction of the GOP.  


    If only (5.00 / 1) (#176)
    by flyerhawk on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 04:11:33 PM EST
    she stayed true to the faith like you.

    'the Democrat party' (none / 0) (#182)
    by Alien Abductee on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 06:03:47 PM EST
    Ah, that makes sense of a lot of things.

    If Hillary had won and not selected Obama as (4.66 / 3) (#6)
    by steviez314 on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 10:48:05 AM EST
    her VP, do you think McCain would have picked a black Republican as his VP choice?

    It feels like that to me.

    No, he wouldn't..... (5.00 / 6) (#112)
    by p lukasiak on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 11:29:06 AM EST
    Because Hillary would have spent the last three months actively engaged in consolidating her base of support, and would have been successful at it.

    And that's the difference between Clinton and Obama.  

    And I really wish that people would stop discussing this in terms of Clinton voters.  Its about women voters of all parties.  Palin represents something to them -- the woman who has worked her way UP thanks to her abilities -- and has done so while being a wife and mother.


    Absolutely agree (3.33 / 3) (#13)
    by elonepb on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 10:50:31 AM EST
    Pandering to women he thinks are too stupid to see through his sleeze.

    At least someone is pandering to us! (5.00 / 6) (#52)
    by Grace on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 11:01:20 AM EST
    We've got a Democratic candidate who is brushing us off and pandering to the Evangelicals!  

    Exactly (5.00 / 2) (#103)
    by echinopsia on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 11:23:59 AM EST
    My reaction was, "Oh good. This election will have something to do with women after all."

    Ahem (5.00 / 1) (#127)
    by TChris on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 11:40:54 AM EST
    Do you suppose the Fair Pay Restoration Act has something to do with women?  The one that McCain opposes?  Do you suppose that all the issues Obama talked about in his speech (and that Bill and Hillary and Biden and Gore talked about in their speeches) have something to do with women?  Do issues matter, or is the gender of the candidate the only thing that matters, even if the candidate opposes progressive legislation that would benefit the entire country, including women?

    You don't get it (5.00 / 2) (#157)
    by echinopsia on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 02:06:11 PM EST
    Obama, the DNC and the OFB have been sh!tting on women and at the same time demanding their votes, telling them they have nowhere else to go, for months.

    Obama does not pay his own women staffers as much as he pays the men. McCain does. And McCain chose a woman as his running mate. And is asking for women's votes.

    Obama didn't say a word about women's rights or equal pay in his speech last night. Not. A. Word.

    So yeah, issues matter, that's why I wanted Hillary. Obama does not care about women's issues. And if the first woman to win the vice presidency is a Republican, it's still a win for women.

    The DNC had their chance to nominate a woman who cared about women's issues. They blew it. Maybe this will teach them not to take women's votes for granted.  


    With all due respect (none / 0) (#175)
    by TChris on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 03:27:07 PM EST
    Obama expressly talked about equal pay in his speech.  You must have missed it.

    And now is the time to keep the promise of equal pay for an equal day's work, because I want my daughters to have exactly the same opportunities as your sons.

    So you prefer McCain, who called his wife the "c" word, who said Chelsea Clinton is so ugly because Janet Reno is her father, and whose party has turned its back on women for ages, all because he chose a woman as a running mate?  Fighting sexism with more sexism will, if you succeed, "show" the DNC that the country prefers the political party that opposes equal rights for women.  How does that help?  Seems to me it will only encourage Dems to follow the Republican lead, as they too often do.


    With all due respect (5.00 / 1) (#177)
    by echinopsia on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 04:17:04 PM EST
    I defy to to find a post in which I ever said I prefer McCain.

    Take your time. You won't find it. So please stop accusing me of something I never said. I will not vote for McCain and I've said that many times. I also will not vote for Obama. It's not a binary choice, you know.

    You miss the whole point of what I am saying. This election now HAS to be about women. It has not been so far, except to disrepsect and insult them and tell them they have no where else to go.

     And one fookin line in a long speech about what he wants for his daughters (how about the rest of us, right now?) does not make him a staunch supporter of women's rights, and he still pays his female staffers less than the men.

    If he wants to counter this, he's going to have to throw women voters a whole lotta bones. He can start with rolling back his lukewarm abortion stance. He could promise to pass the ERA and then do it. He could pay his staff equal pay for equal work.

    Best of all, he could apologize for being a sexist and tell his woman-hating fanboys to knock it off.


    I forgot to add (5.00 / 1) (#162)
    by echinopsia on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 02:28:57 PM EST
    This will force Obama to pay attention to women's issues. Let's see him outpander McCain with women.

    Or conversely, let's see him rev up the He-Man Woman Hater's Club misogyny machine and take it out for an assault against a woman whose party will actually stand up in her defense.



    They do this all the time. (5.00 / 0) (#59)
    by indy in sc on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 11:03:28 AM EST
    They dispatched Alan Keyes to run against Obama for Illinois senate in the foolish hope that black people would be "confused" as to whom to vote for (or at least split the vote enough to eke out a victory).  It's annoying.  I'm more annoyed by the fact that Ms. Palin is being used in this way.  This could end up ruining her future in politics rather than propelling it.  From my standpoint--not so bad since we agree on so few issues, but, just as a woman, I hate to see her career ruined.

    I don't think that would have worked (none / 0) (#17)
    by JoeA on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 10:51:34 AM EST
    Blacks are such a solid Democratic voting block (80-90%) that it would have been an even more obvious and clumsy pander than this is.  Besides who could they have nominated that is either not toxic (such as Rice), allergic to the Bush McCain foreign policy (e.g. Powell),  or just flat out bat%$^ insane (Michael Steele).

    This won't work either (none / 0) (#29)
    by elonepb on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 10:54:57 AM EST
    It's actually an insulting choice. McCain thinks women who voted for Hillary are too stupid to see through his scheme?



    some may be (5.00 / 0) (#66)
    by coigue on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 11:05:55 AM EST
    and by that i mean: may be STUPID enough.

    Again Hillary's words:

     'I want you to ask yourselves: Were you in this campaign just for me? Or were you in it for that young Marine and others like him? Were you in it for that mom struggling with cancer while raising her kids? Were you in it for that boy and his mom surviving on the minimum wage? Were you in it for all the people in this country who feel invisible?"


    You're missing the point. (5.00 / 2) (#149)
    by Mshepnj on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 01:44:36 PM EST
    Not all of Hillary's supporters are progressive Democrats. You do realize that, right?

    I'm not planning to vote for McCain just because his running mate is a woman (she's no Hillary, that's for sure) because she's also a conservative and I oppose much of what she stands for. But not all Democrats feel the same way about energy, reproductive rights, guns or other policies.

    I'm thinking of the so-called "Reagan Democrats" who are socially conservative (i.e. not pro-choice), hard working, sportsmen, religious (all those "clingy" folks, you know) who respect the American dream - in this case, a woman who started out as modestly and worked her way up.

    Palin matches Obama and Biden on a number of personal "character" factors:

    Her personal story is compelling, she's young,  seems likable, clean (politically - the current scandal notwithstanding), has a nice family and cute kids. She'd be an historic choice for the GOP (their first female VP nominee) and could be the first woman VP if elected in November.

    The point is, I'm not fooled and I suspect why Palin was chosen, but it doesn't matter what I think because I'm not the voter McCain wants. If choosing her neutralizes some of Obama's distinctiveness, enough to attract some undecided Indies, Republicans or conservative Democrats, it's a brilliant pick.


    I Concur (1.00 / 2) (#25)
    by MrPope on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 10:54:09 AM EST
    McCain biggest ammo agains Obama was lack of experience.  He shot himself in the foot on that now.  He cant use that arguement anymore.

    I see it as the GOP looked for the prettiest woman they could find in the party  to siphon bitter Hillary supporters.

    Ray Charles could see that and he is blind and dead.

    I think McCain over-estimates the number of Democrat women who will just blindly support McCain based on Palin being a woman.

    Palin is no Hillary and Palin supports nothing Hillary is for.

    If i were a woman and a Stauch Hillary supporter  .. i would be insulted.

    We HRC supporters should be so self absorbed (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by Redshoes on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 11:03:28 AM EST
    Maybe he's going for his base, independents and that hockey mom crowd!

    I'm a woman and a Hillary supporter (5.00 / 5) (#94)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 11:17:05 AM EST
    and I find your comments on Palin absolutely revolting.

    I'm not going to vote for McCain, Palin or no Palin, but to brush her off the bottom of your shoe as just a pretty face is disgusting.


    The misogyny line (5.00 / 2) (#123)
    by waldenpond on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 11:38:43 AM EST
    didn't go over well in the primary.  Going to try it again huh?  Good strategy... pfffft.

    well this will likely get me limited to 4 comments (none / 0) (#154)
    by TimNCGuy on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 02:00:43 PM EST
    But, you r comment could be just as easily used against the dems about 18 months ago....  when the anti-Clinton wing of the dem party looked for the prettiest black candidate they could find in order to siphon black voters away from Hillary in the primaries.....

    first thing i thought was (none / 0) (#5)
    by Makarov on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 10:48:01 AM EST
    McCain is trolling the GOP with his choice: "see, this is what you get for not supporting me in 2000".

    In Jan, after the Nov loss, he will resign the Senate and join the Obama administration.

    This makes about as much sense as anything. Also, looking forward to the exercise in cognitive disonance from Bill Kristol and the WSJ.

    Dumb move by McSame (none / 0) (#140)
    by fuzzyone on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 12:53:03 PM EST
    First, it makes it much more difficult for him to criticize Obama as inexperienced.  Its not, as some seem to think, that Obama is going to go after her as inexperienced, its just that any argument on that front applies to her as well and when you are 72 the chance that she will be president ain't small.  This was supposed to be a big problem for Obama and McSame has just negated or at least reduced it.

    Second, she is emeshed in a scandal and there is no way to know how it will turn out at this point.  its amazing to me that he would pick someone with this kind of baggage and makes me wonder how well vetted she is.

    It may be that some are myopic enough to vote for the ticket just because she is a woman.  They would have to not care that she is virulently anti-choice or that she has advocated teaching creationism in public schools.  I doubt there are many who fit that description, but time, and polling, will tell.

    She said Hillary Whined too much... (none / 0) (#153)
    by EddieInCA on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 01:58:17 PM EST
    "Once onstage, together with Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano, Palin talked about what women expect from women leaders; how she took charge in Alaska during a political scandal that threatened to unseat the state's entire Republican power structure, and her feelings about Sen. Hillary Clinton. (She said she felt kind of bad she couldn't support a woman, but she didn't like Clinton's "whining.")"


    Palin Schmalin (none / 0) (#155)
    by magisterludi on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 02:02:43 PM EST
    She's a trophy veep, nothing more.

    She's no Hillary.

    The DNC will be playing real nice with HRC now, I'll bet.

    Too late (5.00 / 1) (#171)
    by goldberry on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 02:51:38 PM EST
    That train left the station.  Being nice to Hillary only counted when there was a chance to do something about it.  That chance has now evaporated.  Obama gave his speech (funny how no one is reporting on that today, eh?) and the deal is done.  End of story.  The DNC powers that be will be the powers that were by November 5th.  
    Party on, ladies!

    trophy (none / 0) (#188)
    by noholib on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 06:21:04 PM EST
    excellent comment: trophy wife/trophy veep.
    another pretty young face ... this is no advance for women or feminism.  And certainly not for liberal Democratic values.

    Let me get this straight. (none / 0) (#181)
    by Bluesage on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 05:33:40 PM EST
    Many seem to believe she was chosen only because she is a woman and is not qualified or experienced enough to be VP and certainly not Prez should McCain die. Well - I think many of us can agree that sexism is still alive and well in the Obama camp.  

    Now, what would be the reaction if it was said that the DNC manipulated our primary and made a cynical pick because they just wanted a black man? Period!  He was chosen only for that reason and his lack of experience didn't matter a whit as long as he was black.  Would anyone be calling those people racist? You betcha!

    Sexism, My Foot (none / 0) (#191)
    by daring grace on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 06:47:01 PM EST
    I don't think Governor Palin was chosen only because she's a woman. I think the fact that she is a governor, and holds extreme right wing positions also played a part in her selection.

    Oh, and her relatively scant public record of service is probably a bonus too. Less to pin on her.

    But her gender also did.

    If HRC had not mounted a strong competitive campaign with the resulting divisions in the Dem party, and if the republicans weren't fighting an uphill battle in enrollment and public opinion as to the last 8 years, Sarah Palin would not be the name on everyone's lips today.

    This is a strategic move by the McCain camp to siphon off some Clinton supporters and to energize his tired image. And, judging by some of the comment here and the intense interest in the media it's working in the short term.

    Time will tell how it plays out in the long run.


    This Rove quote is "inconvenient" (none / 0) (#186)
    by JoeA on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 06:16:23 PM EST
    Rove,  on the possibility of Obama picking Tim Kaine for VP.

    With all due respect again to Governor Kaine, he's been a governor for three years

    Of course Kaine has been governor of Virginia (population 7,500,000) for 3 years,  versus Palin Governor of Alaska (population 670,000) for half as long.

    I don't think people could really name a big, important thing that he's done. He was mayor of the 105th largest city in America.

    Of course he means Kaine was mayor of Richmond Virginia (population 200,000) vs. Palin who was mayor of a Wasilla (population 6,000).

    This blog post by an Alaskan native gives some context and background to Palin, and I'm not sure it makes McCain's vp choice look good.