What Clinton Said About Palin

We should all be proud of Governor Sarah Palin’s historic nomination, and I congratulate her and Senator McCain. While their policies would take America in the wrong direction, Governor Palin will add an important new voice to the debate.”

Personally, I think that is about all I would say about Sarah Palin myself. But if you must, attack her crazy right wing positions, not her experience, or lack thereof.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

< What Palin Said About Clinton | Non-Palin Open Thread 2 >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Agreed (5.00 / 7) (#1)
    by andgarden on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 04:26:22 PM EST
    Leave it to the press to dig up stuff, if there is anything.

    Huh? (5.00 / 3) (#136)
    by eustiscg on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 05:14:10 PM EST
    Because the press has done such a fantastic job this campaign season?

    I mean, c'mon, this is what the blogosphere is for.  Finding and pushing the angles that the media can't or won't cover ...

    Don't become doormats, people.


    Here's Irony again. (5.00 / 4) (#160)
    by Brookhaven on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 05:22:30 PM EST
    I mean, c'mon, this is what the blogosphere is for.  Finding and pushing the angles that the media can't or won't cover ...

    Oh.Our.God.  as the brilliant Bob Somerby would say.

    You've got to be kidding me.  Most of the left blogs did nothing worth while vetting Obama.  They uncovered nothing but their own gasbag bloviating ego's while throwing acid at HRC who was the sourse of all evil in the universe.  And, they believed their own copy and status.  And, in the process, they became Obama's cheerleaders.

    Oh, but I bet they will do their much vaunted jobs now with Palin, hey?  

    Oh, the ironies (and add in a smidge of hypocracy).  Sickening.  


    Wall St. Journal has a detailed bio (5.00 / 1) (#156)
    by andrys on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 05:21:13 PM EST
    which indicates someone who's a bit more formidable an opponent than might have been thought.

      Already she's made super-conservatives and evangelist groups happier, I read.  The Wall St. Journal details some of her experience with regard to negotiations and confrontations most might not have entered.

      I think she is close to the edge when I hear her speaking, but apparently she copes pretty well and has gotten more accomplished than we might think, whether or not we like those accomplishments.  Apparently her voters like what she does, for the most part.


    Ok so tell me this (3.00 / 4) (#159)
    by elonepb on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 05:22:30 PM EST
    If she's a man, is she picked for the position?

    Hell no.

    McCain needed a skirt and he found one. Sexism at it's finest.


    If Obama Were White (5.00 / 5) (#174)
    by BDB on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 05:27:42 PM EST
    would he be the Dem nominee? Because it's the AA vote that put him over in the primaries.  Without it, his coalition looks an awful lot like Bill Bradley's.

    This is a very dangerous argument for Dems to be making.  It's also insulting to Palin who brings other things to the ticket and is every bit as experienced as Tim Kaine, who many were fine with having as the Dem VP (I was not). What's more, she doesn't have that much less experience than Obama.  

    BTW, I don't think the DNC selected Obama just because he's black so that's not what I'm saying.  But I do think it helped him secure the nomination and if that's not wrong, then why is it wrong for McCain to consider Palin's gender a plus.


    And One More Thing (5.00 / 5) (#180)
    by BDB on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 05:31:03 PM EST
    It's not like every man considered or selected for VP has some incredibly impressive resume and so the woman must've been selected solely for her sex.  Dan Quayle was Vice President.  Obama considered Tim Kaine as has been noted (including by me).  For some reason bad policy positions and a somewhat thin resume only ever disqualifies women or gets them labeled as some sort of affirmative action pick.  You can nominate all the lame men with thin resumes you want and that's not sexist at all.

    Yes it absolutely is sexist (1.00 / 2) (#194)
    by elonepb on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 05:37:22 PM EST
    Women who are qualified for positions absolutely deserve it. I'm not justifying the sex reversal one bit, I'm saying both ways is sexist and wrong.

    And sure, it's great to see a woman in the position of VP. Hillary deserved it, she's the one who has the experience to actually be competent in that role, she's the one who spent years in the White House and understand the position

    Palin does not and at THIS point in her political career does not deserve the VP spot over the other choices whether they were men or women.

    She was chosen because she was the best skirt available, and that is sexist.


    If Obama is qualified to (5.00 / 2) (#214)
    by RalphB on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 05:48:42 PM EST
    be President, and it's a big if, then Palin is certainly qualified to be VP.  Not admitting that is just stupid!

    Or maybe he started pandering (5.00 / 2) (#175)
    by rooge04 on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 05:28:03 PM EST
    to the groups Democrats so easily pushed aside and derided as unnecessary. Say what you will, it was a smart move by McCain.

    Democrats (5.00 / 5) (#184)
    by echinopsia on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 05:32:54 PM EST
    no longer have the high ground from which to denounce sexism.

    Sorry, that dog won't hunt.


    And, Johnson (4.20 / 5) (#173)
    by Brookhaven on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 05:27:26 PM EST
    was selected because Kennedy needed someone from the South and from Texas and he hated Johnson.  Kennedy was one smart cookie.  As is McCain.  Obama not so much.  He lets his personal feelings get in the way of making the smartest decisions like not selecting HRC for his VP to ensure a sure thing win, imo.  

    So if what McCain did is sexism (which is ridiculous) what do we call  Kennedy in his selection of Johnson?  Does this makes Kennedy a Texist?  See how silly this becomes.  What it is is smart politics at it's best.  


    Smart? (3.00 / 2) (#189)
    by elonepb on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 05:34:31 PM EST
    I guess we should be happy he chose a woman, even if she is entirely unqualified to be Commander in Chief of the most powerful military in the world - just because she's a woman.

    It's absolutely sexist. He didn't care who she was, and only met her once in his life. He needed the best skirt available, and he got it.

    Obama didn't think Hillary was right for the position. I totally disagree, but he made that decision knowing the impact it could have.

    McCain didn't care one bit. Leave my wife for the rich chick on the block. Leave the duty to my country by bringing in a skirt for shock value.

    Deplorable really.


    Your comments, elonepb (5.00 / 4) (#202)
    by caseyOR on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 05:42:18 PM EST
    indicate to me that you harbor a serious case of sexism. Palin may not be your cup of tea, but  I doubt your vote is the one McCain is after.

    All running mates are chosen for what the pres. candidate perceives they bring to the ticket. Palin may bring in some female votes, but she also has appeal to the conservative base, and McCain could use some help there.

    Your self-righteous sneering about Palin would be a bit more convincing if you also were outraged about Biden being an obvious pander to Catholics and the working class.


    The best skirt? (5.00 / 3) (#208)
    by Brookhaven on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 05:44:08 PM EST
    You and your cadre with the language you are using are going to be part of the reason the Dem ticket goes down in flames or in sparkles as the case may be.

    Go on.  Keep going with your attitude, bud.  Why do I get the sneaking feeling, sexism was never on the tip of your tongue before today?  But, I can see you are going to be a huge advocate of anti-sexism now.  Heh.

    And, it's not sexist what McCain did.

    And, your excuses why Obama didn't pick HRC?  Keep that up as well.  He was wrong and just plain dumb and let his emotions trump his common sense.  


    or blogs (none / 0) (#163)
    by magster on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 05:24:20 PM EST
    the nuggets keep coming, as in she did not oppose the Bridge to Nowhere after all.

    she is going to be slammed for that (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 04:26:54 PM EST
    wanna bet?

    Yup (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by cmugirl on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 04:27:32 PM EST
    They will say she wasn't tough enough on Palin.

    also I would say that (5.00 / 4) (#5)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 04:28:56 PM EST
    I am rather apalled and amazed at some of the comments here today.
    do we seriously not know that this is playing right into the game they have set?

    Predictable (5.00 / 3) (#39)
    by janarchy on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 04:44:03 PM EST
    And that's why I have to give McCain's campaign mucho credit for doing it the way they did. He's proving to be more of a formidable opponent than the Dems wanted to admit.

    I hope we remember (5.00 / 2) (#47)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 04:45:36 PM EST
    that I said he would be when he won the nomination

    actually I believe my exact words were (5.00 / 3) (#77)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 04:53:59 PM EST
    he will come at the sideways.

    Obama campaign, meet sidways.


    I did (5.00 / 2) (#127)
    by janarchy on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 05:10:50 PM EST
    And I never misunderestimated him. Unlike too many Democrats who just assumed they had it in the bag and did nothing to keep it that way.

    Now they might actually trying working.


    young, fresh & a DC outsider (5.00 / 6) (#158)
    by angie on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 05:21:51 PM EST
    WHAT was McCain thinking! :-)

    They know his supporters well (5.00 / 2) (#197)
    by blogtopus on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 05:38:39 PM EST
    All you have to do is go to DKos and see how popular the most trollish-sounding manure is becoming.

    Are we sure that McCain's minions didn't climb into the cattle driver's saddle a few months ago, fanning the flames of misogyny, driving the cattle into the exact box canyon he wanted them to go?

    The Obama campaign has got its hands full stopping a full stampede (one that had run Hillary down) from dragging it into defeat.


    Nope. The misogyny and sexist filled garbage from (5.00 / 5) (#216)
    by rooge04 on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 05:50:49 PM EST
    the left, sadly, is all on THEM.  Let's not try and blame the GOP for something wholly on the shoulders of the likes of progressives like Moulitsas and liberals like Olbermann and sooo many other Democrats.  They were on their own.

    Pitch perfect. Too bad the Obama (5.00 / 11) (#6)
    by oculus on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 04:29:14 PM EST
    campaign fired from the hip.

    Yes and I want to know why Cyburn brings up (5.00 / 5) (#16)
    by Teresa on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 04:37:10 PM EST
    GF. Are there no men he could have used as examples? Did he not get offended when Bill Clinton said JJ won South Carolina?

    This election is going to ride on Hillary now. Too bad she's not on the ticket.


    I think Cyburn (5.00 / 4) (#19)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 04:38:38 PM EST
    is on McCains payroll

    Clyburn (5.00 / 4) (#53)
    by chrisvee on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 04:46:15 PM EST
    is making a huge mistake. First Hillary isn't POTUS or VP material and now GF was a disaster? Keep making women feel good like that and they'll sit home on election day -- just enough to lose a close race.

    He is trying to walk back that (5.00 / 2) (#40)
    by BernieO on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 04:44:05 PM EST

    I just heard someone on cable say that Palin is not a typical Christian conservative, which makes sense considering that Democrats in Alaska like her. Supposedly her first veto was to block a bill that would have prohibited the state to grant benefits to partners of gay employees.

    As for her stand on creationism, she said she thinks schools should allow it to be discussed. That is not inconsistent with a lot of people who oppose teaching creationism in science classes. They do not oppose allowing it to be discussed in comparative religion or classes that deal with social issues. What she meant isn't clear, however.


    She may be backtracking (none / 0) (#72)
    by Jjc2008 on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 04:51:57 PM EST
    on that but her original stance is that it could be discussed along side of evolution, as if they were both science.

    She was a Buchanite....a strong Buchanan supporter...


    Speaking of friends (5.00 / 2) (#83)
    by MKS on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 04:55:15 PM EST
    McCain only met Palin once before selecting her, according to Andrea Mitchell.

    I do agree (I think) that Obama should step back and let the media do the analyzing....

    McCain has taken experience off the table....Obama does not need to belabor the point.   No need to focus on the VP pick....

    After a week or so, I think it will be hard to see Obama as so inexperienced, and Palin will be a conservative that McCain picked as a Hail Mary....


    Ridiculous (none / 0) (#48)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 04:45:52 PM EST
    slamming begins (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 04:49:32 PM EST
    had a statement ready? (none / 0) (#64)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 04:50:24 PM EST
    we have known this since 9 this morning.

    We've known that she's been on the list (5.00 / 3) (#87)
    by kredwyn on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 04:55:34 PM EST
    for months now. That HRC had a statement ready to go in such short order tells me that she's thinking on her feet...and that there was a stack of responses on her desk...ready to go.

    true (none / 0) (#104)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 05:00:52 PM EST
    but I dont think that many people were seriously considering her.
    I guess CNN didnt even have a bio ready.

    Then CNN (5.00 / 2) (#161)
    by kredwyn on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 05:22:59 PM EST
    was stupid.

    What Palin said about Clinton (5.00 / 16) (#8)
    by Cream City on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 04:33:09 PM EST
    today is going to matter a lot more than what Palin said about Clinton last March -- or what Clinton said about Palin today, for that matter.

    It is the Dems who would look bad if Clinton dissed Palin today, after Palin thanked her.  And Ferraro.  And hailed the anniversary this week of the 19th Amendment, Women's Equality Day.

    Compare that to the Dems calling Clinton and Ferraro racists.  

    Compare the GOP noting the anniversary, which was supposed to be feted by the Dems on the day, but they did not.  They decided to have Mark Warner as the keynote speaker instead of Clinton.  

    Clinton can't say it, so I will:  Do. Not. Go. There. Dems.  We're watching.

    I think its to late (5.00 / 4) (#11)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 04:35:08 PM EST
    for that particular warning

    WRONG WRONG WRONG (5.00 / 3) (#103)
    by ps911fan on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 05:00:20 PM EST
    Please drop the "hate obama" behavior just long enough to see the key points here.

    This is an easy issue to address IF YOU ARE WILLING to follow it to a logical conclusion. Those of you who are still complaining about Obama's experience still may decide not to accept that (Al Gore re-stated my belief on this again with the lincoln points and your other hero, Bill Clinton also showed why Obama could also be a winner here) but that is your choice.

    I'm really disappointed that many still decide to try to use their Obama anger to blunt logic even after a very successful convention.

    Palin is a very bad choice and its pretty obvious.

    Think about this while hopefully letting the Obama hate go...or at least suspending it for a few mins

    Palin is anti-women's rights and anti-privacy which was a requirement for Rush
    and Hannity to approve the choice McSame did.

    He flipped on his "experience" issue by picking someone with virtually no
    experience. She was a city council person before pulling off the upset for the
    governor's spot. So that comes off the table.

    She is a walking conflict of interest as she will directly benefit from her
    husband working for the GOP master, big oil. He works for BP. We already had one
    oil-loving VP already. Palin is moe of the same.

    She's bad on the evironmental issues (promotes wolf kills as well as wants to
    drill instead of do serious work on energy alternatives)

    Biden will have her for lunch on foreign policy where she has absolutely no

    I love her strong background as a "former beauty queen". This is her signficant
    accomplishment prior to the city council and mayor and governor jobs.

    Hillary supporters will not be fooled by picking a woman just for the sake of
    being a woman. she supports the same things McSame supports which is the same
    things Bush supports....so she is unable to take up the change mantle.

    McSame had to flip on "experience" as change will always defeat "experience" in
    a change year.

    She is under investigation and has no real understanding of the vp role
    as this lovely video shows....so not only mcsame is clueless, now his vp choice
    is as dumb as dan quayle as well.


    McSame's choice was a flip, desperate, and truly sad. I thank him for failing
    this task. His judgement continues to demonstrate why this dangerous man should
    not be President much less have access to the POTUS.

    Im laughing up a storm....on this choice.


    You know (5.00 / 8) (#110)
    by Steve M on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 05:04:38 PM EST
    I am waiting for just one of the people who thinks Sarah Palin is an idiot for not knowing what the Vice-President does all day, to actually tell me what the Vice-President does all day.

    I do not think it was a dumb answer at all.  Different administrations have defined the job much differently - right after Quayle, we had Al Gore - and it seems just fine to me to say "I'm a doer, and I only want the job if it's going to involve doing."

    What does the Vice-President do all day?  Apparently everyone on the planet knows this but me!


    you have this way (5.00 / 3) (#129)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 05:11:27 PM EST
    of beating me to the punch with my response.

    On the Internet (5.00 / 8) (#133)
    by Steve M on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 05:12:42 PM EST
    it's not how smart you are, but how fast you type.

    If you were going to run for VP (none / 0) (#165)
    by elonepb on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 05:25:09 PM EST
    You are telling me you wouldn't know what a VP does?

    Don't be ignorant.


    could I just attempt to appeal (5.00 / 3) (#170)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 05:27:17 PM EST
    to the better angels of your nature and suggest that  IF you want Obama to win please drop the beauty queen stuff.

    She's bad for us but (5.00 / 1) (#177)
    by andrys on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 05:30:33 PM EST
    is going to draw 'Reagan Democrats' thinking that a mother of so many couldn't be extreme (in other ways) and his choice was not to add votes from us, so you don't need to try to convince us about her stands.

      However, they already are finding positive interest by evangelical and other conservative groups who were passive about McCain because his history is not conservative enough.

      I linked to a WSJ article above but in case it's missed, check this out.  She's popular in her own state and this details why.


    Oh please (1.00 / 1) (#152)
    by elonepb on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 05:20:01 PM EST
    It's thinly veiled pandering for Hillary supporters.

    It's an INSULT that McCain picked any Republican with a skirt to join him.

    He just needed a woman, it didn't matter who. He gave up his ENTIRE BASIS FOR PRESIDENCY by picking her (experience).

    An absolute insult to women everywhere.


    Yeah, she couldn't possible be qualified (5.00 / 8) (#164)
    by angie on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 05:24:50 PM EST
    for VP -- she is only a woman, after all. (rolls eyes)

    Keep rolling your eyes (1.00 / 2) (#169)
    by elonepb on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 05:26:45 PM EST
    If she were a man, she would not have been chosen.


    She was chosen because she was a woman, not on her credentials.

    If she was chosen on her credential I think this would be a glorious moment. Instead, it's an insult.


    If she were a man ... (5.00 / 8) (#178)
    by Robot Porter on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 05:30:54 PM EST
    she might be the nominee for President.

    this seems an odd comment to me (5.00 / 4) (#179)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 05:30:58 PM EST
    I assume you are female.
    as a gay man if a openly gay man was picked as VP, and I thought he was up the the job as she clearly seems to me to be, I could care less if he was picked because he was a gay man.
    I would revel in the moment.  I mean, even if you hate everything she stands for it would be historic to have a female VP.
    I am not saying you should vote for her I just dont get the "insult" part.

    Wish I could give this a 10. (5.00 / 2) (#199)
    by echinopsia on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 05:40:46 PM EST
    HA (5.00 / 1) (#210)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 05:45:28 PM EST
    I think you just did
    have a great long weekend folks.  and buckle your seatbelts.  its going to be a bumpy 66 days.

    I don't think (5.00 / 3) (#187)
    by Democratic Cat on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 05:33:17 PM EST
    this is a profitable line of argument to pursue. The counterattack is that Sen. Obama wasn't chosen on his credentials either. We should spend less time feeling "insulted" and more time focusing on the issues.

    Well that could be said about other things... (5.00 / 2) (#191)
    by rooge04 on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 05:35:03 PM EST
    but we'll not go there for now since when Ferraro said it she was crucified.

    Listen, the truth holds. Simply because Hillary was a woman is not WHY we voted for her. The fact that Palin IS will not make her any less desirable to conservative women and Republican die-hards either.  Common gender didn't make women vote for Hillary, but that doesn't mean it won't necessarily make women NOT vote for McCain and Palin.

    I think it was almost genius on McCain's part.  He's not trying to sell a liberal women. He's trying to sell a solidly Republican one.


    I think what she could become (none / 0) (#204)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 05:43:02 PM EST
    is a repository for anger.
    clearly McCain hopes so.

    Exactly right on Hillary's part (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by Jjc2008 on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 04:34:54 PM EST
    It's good that the grand old party is putting their foot into the 21st century....women should be as considered as any man when it comes to politics.

    BUT, if I were Kay Baily Hutchinson, or Whitman or any of the women who put in decades for their party, I would be pretty angered by this.  What's that about?

    It's about (5.00 / 2) (#119)
    by chrisvee on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 05:06:51 PM EST
    picking a woman with essentially no negatives amongst the general public. It will be much easier for the average person to sympathize with her personal story and the victimization she's about to suffer in the media mudslide of misogyny (hello, remember Hillary?) without any distractions like mushroom clouds or toxic air.

    hmmm (none / 0) (#20)
    by AlSmith on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 04:38:53 PM EST

    You do know they put a black woman in line to the presidency right?

    Condi, presumably (none / 0) (#35)
    by andgarden on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 04:42:49 PM EST
    I was commenting on (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by AlSmith on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 04:54:21 PM EST
    "It's good that the grand old party is putting their foot into the 21st century"

    The republicans appointed the first black SOS and then appointed the first black woman in line to the presidency.

    Democrats had the first woman in line to the presidency I believe but realistically the GOP wasnt far behind.


    Actually it does (5.00 / 1) (#144)
    by Redshoes on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 05:17:31 PM EST
    SoS is 4th in line.  

    right (5.00 / 1) (#148)
    by AlSmith on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 05:18:13 PM EST

    I am assuming that


    Yes I do (none / 0) (#118)
    by Jjc2008 on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 05:06:46 PM EST
    a conservative black woman who worships George W.

    And they also push every black conservative to the front in the media wars....
    It's called "look at us, we really love women, we love black people even if we have never, will never support legislation that levels the playing ground; and will push issues that hurt women and minorities..."


    McCain's gift to women across the country. (5.00 / 5) (#12)
    by Lysis on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 04:36:01 PM EST
    And I don't mean this in a snarky way at all.  I think McCain has set up the possibility that we will have a woman on the top of both tickets by 2016, maybe even running against each other.

    Obama wins.  Runs for re-election, perhaps against Palin in 2012.

    Obama loses.  McCain runs against Hillary in 2012.  Hillary wins, runs against Palin in 2016.

    Obama wins.  Loses re-election to Palin in 2012, she runs against Hillary in 2016.

    My oh my, what will the media do, should there be two female candidates?  I suppose third parties will finally have a real shot at the presidency.

    Or (5.00 / 3) (#21)
    by americanincanada on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 04:39:03 PM EST
    Obama loses

    McCain decides only to serve one term

    Palin vs. Clinton 1012


    wow (5.00 / 3) (#32)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 04:41:46 PM EST
    pass the freakin popcorn

    and kick action on climate change further (none / 0) (#142)
    by Iris on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 05:16:40 PM EST
    down the road?

    I didnt getcha (none / 0) (#182)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 05:32:25 PM EST
    I laughed (5.00 / 3) (#15)
    by Steve M on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 04:36:47 PM EST
    the criticism is just expressed so casually!  "while their policies would take America in the wrong direction, yadda yadda."  Oh, other than that, they're wonderful folks!

    Casual doesn't do the trick here, does it? (none / 0) (#46)
    by Pegasus on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 04:45:14 PM EST
    I can't understand why such a weak criticism of a rightwing religious ideologue is seen as a good response.

    Simple (5.00 / 7) (#121)
    by Steve M on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 05:07:38 PM EST
    This is a historically significant nomination and if your first reaction is a scorched-earth attack, you hurt yourself more than you hurt the target.

    Democrats for the most part played this poorly, mostly due to the conventional wisdom that if you lose a news cycle the world comes to an end.  Say nice things, keep your attacks limited the way Hillary did, and then sit down and chart out a coordinated attack for the Sunday talk shows.  Don't just unload both barrels before you've thought it through.


    If it's a one-off, and the big guns are coming, (none / 0) (#140)
    by Pegasus on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 05:15:16 PM EST
    then fine.

    I will say this (5.00 / 4) (#153)
    by Steve M on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 05:20:12 PM EST
    The vast majority of Democrats would be well-served to say nothing more than "Hillary, show me how to set the right tone here."  Because some of the crap I've heard today is just unbelievable.

    Yeah, CDS is always ugly. (5.00 / 1) (#183)
    by Pegasus on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 05:32:28 PM EST
    Clinton's come up huge for the party since the primaries ended, IMO, so all I'll say is here's hoping it continues.

    I guess I'll stay out of whether or not she should obliterate Palin on women's issues (and issues in general), but it's undeniable that she could do it better than anybody.


    Kill 'em with kindness. (5.00 / 3) (#188)
    by Mshepnj on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 05:34:29 PM EST
    Hillary's not the nominee and probably only responded because Gov. Palin mentioned her today. Hillary is being polite and gracious while succinctly getting to the heart of the matter: "Their policies would take our country in the wrong direction..."

    If Hillary had attacked Palin (after Palin was gracious to her today), she would have been attacked by the MSM and then Obama would have been attacked, because of course Hillary will perpetually be considered an appendage to the Obama/Biden campaign as far as the MSM are concerned, because outrage at Hillary is good for ratings, doncha know?

    It kind of reminds me of what my Kentucky Granny used to say when we would do or say something that pissed her off: "Well, bless your heart."


    Can you humor me and explain it? (none / 0) (#80)
    by Pegasus on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 04:54:29 PM EST
    If the point is to win in November, which it is, why not say "congrats on the historic nomination" and "Palin's views make her a totally unacceptable pick w/r/t women's issues."

    Not mutually exclusive.  In fact, it's true.


    Sheesh (5.00 / 3) (#90)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 04:56:30 PM EST
    Because attacking Palin's experience does not help you win in November.

    I think I would do more than this eventually (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by fuzzyone on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 04:38:17 PM EST
    But I think this is the right way to come out of the gate (as opposed to that fool Rahm).

    Mark Armbinder says a lot of the Republican strategists are worried.

    They expect her to have a good week... and then to crash and burn when she hits the campaign trail as scrutiny catches up with her.  Some of these strategists are close to those Republicans who were vetted but not picked, but many of them aren't.   "It's like playing poker blind," one strategist said. Another e-mailed: "Obama's lack of readiness was THE only way to win."  When these Republicans ask the McCain campaign for guidance, all they hear back is: "She's more experienced than Obama is."

    I think they are right to be worried.  She already has an endorsement to disown on top of the other stuff that has been discussed.  Also she and John need to talk about global warming.

    I'm also waiting for the media to talk about how Mitt's supporters are going to be all upset, etc.

    The issue with Mitt's Supporters (none / 0) (#26)
    by andgarden on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 04:40:34 PM EST
    could hurt McCain in Nevada and Colorado.

    True (5.00 / 4) (#73)
    by BDB on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 04:52:08 PM EST
    But they need to give GOP women a reason to stick with the party.  I read awhile back on pollster than there were fewer than 2 million women voting in the GOP primary this year than did in 2000.  Some probably crossed over to Dem to vote for Hillary, some Obama, and some were simply disgusted and staying home.  In that regard I don't think this is a play so much for Hillary's Dem voters as it is to win back GOP women.

    But mostly what Palin does is focus the party on the future.  If she doesn't crumble (and I don't think she will, I can't believe McCain didn't vet her), then she's going to give the ticket energy and a fresh face and let all those GOPpers unhappy with McCain focus on the future.  If she's only so-so, then they can shove her in a back room and put McCain out front.  

    But Romeny or Huckabee didn't add anything to a McCain ticket.  They shored up the base (Palin does that too), but didn't add spark or energy or excitement and that's what McCain needs right now.  More than enything else he needs people to want to watch his convention and want to watch his ticket.  Palin gives him that.  


    Agreed (none / 0) (#78)
    by andgarden on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 04:54:00 PM EST
    But for McCain, who has to run the table, weakening himself in those three states could cost him the election. Winning back a few Republican women in PA--and he won't win back enough--won't do the trick.

    Also True (none / 0) (#141)
    by BDB on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 05:15:21 PM EST
    McCain was in a terrible position because it's a terrible year to have (R) after your name, despite how much help the Dems seem determined to give him.

    I think he had to take a gamble and of the gambles he could take, this was a smart one.  Whether it will pay off is another matter.  But people are talking about McCain again and that's a good thing for him.  Maybe not good for the country, but who cares about that?  


    Interesting point (none / 0) (#54)
    by MKS on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 04:46:30 PM EST
    McCain already has the Mormon vote because he is conservative....Adding Mitt would not have added many additional Mormon voters to his column.  Buit dissing Mitt?  It might decrease enthusiasm some....But Palin's pro-life and Creationist credentials may overcome that....

    Nevada is Utah with Las Vegas and Reno attached (none / 0) (#59)
    by andgarden on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 04:49:24 PM EST
    McCain is going to need every vote he can get from the Utah part, and being seen to diss Romney probably won't help enthusiasm there.

    Here is just the beginning of what I think is (none / 0) (#98)
    by fuzzyone on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 04:58:30 PM EST
    coming.  She was for the bridge to nowhere before she was against it, which was when the feds refused to pay for it.

    I really wonder how well they vetted her.  I really do.

    This stuff will trickle out.  Obama must stay away from it.  Feed it to the press and see what they bite on.


    Today was not the day for one woman (5.00 / 11) (#22)
    by Anne on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 04:39:13 PM EST
    to come out and savage another, especially one who gave her a shout-out in Dayton.

    Sarah Palin is not running for president, so to attack her as if she is, is not a great use of the time we have left.

    I do think you can go after McCain on the basis that he has picked someone whose positions are proof positive that McCain is not looking to turn away from the conservative positions we have been seeing for the last eight years.

    Palin's record in Alaska as a fiscal conservative, with a sky-high approval rating, and the argument that she will help McCain bring the same kind of approach to the national scene, is going to be hard to counter.

    Trust me when I tell you the last thing we want to see here is something that will be called a "catfight," and would be egged on by the usual-suspect, adolescent-boy media-types, giggling and providing sound effects.

    exactly right tone.... (5.00 / 6) (#23)
    by p lukasiak on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 04:39:27 PM EST
    Congratulate Palin, and concentrate on issues.  

    Camp Obama responded to Palin as if her nomination was an attack -- very bad approach.  (and is one more data point in the "Obama campaign is improvising, and in reactive mode" theory.  A smart campaign, when it doesn't know how to react, doesn't react until it knows what to say.)

    The Obama campaign wanted the media to spend some time on their convention and Obama's big speech today.  By attacking the choice the way they did, they extended the discussion of the Palin selection, and further marginalized any of the "Obama gave a great speech" discussion.

    if you've seen the clip (5.00 / 4) (#139)
    by ccpup on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 05:15:05 PM EST
    of Obama responding (with Joe lingering awkwardly in the background) to Palin being picked, you'd swear someone had just b*tch-slapped them with a bucket of whoop *ss.

    Put them in dark suits standing graveside and they wouldn't look out-of-place.  Exhausted, haggard, ashen.  They both looked in total shock.

    It was surreal to see two politicians without their Game Face on.  Definitely NOT the day they had anticipated.


    I have won many bets on this today (5.00 / 6) (#185)
    by Marvin42 on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 05:32:57 PM EST
    I made them the day Biden was announced, I bet that McCain would select a woman, most likely Palin.

    So how can the greatest political operation in history of history who took down she-who-will-not-be-named get caught flat footed?


    the only excuse I can (5.00 / 3) (#195)
    by ccpup on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 05:37:46 PM EST
    think of for them not being as prepared for a Palin pick as "average" Johns and Janes like you and I were is that Obama and Biden were too busy lacing up their shoes for their Victory Lap into the White House.

    They both looked just absolutely shell shocked.   Especially Biden.  I think he's beginning to see the handwriting on the wall and it isn't saying 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.


    It is a historic event (5.00 / 6) (#24)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 04:39:50 PM EST
    One that Obama passed on.

    Pitch perfect ... (5.00 / 10) (#27)
    by Robot Porter on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 04:40:44 PM EST
    Hillary always knows how to do this sort of thing.

    I agree with BTD that this is all that needs to be said.

    In fact, I think Obama should just quote Hillary's statement, and leave it at that.

    I think that (5.00 / 7) (#34)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 04:42:38 PM EST
    it will again be Obamas supporters who are the problem.

    Let's hope no one is listening to them ... (none / 0) (#51)
    by Robot Porter on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 04:46:06 PM EST

    I'm trying (5.00 / 2) (#192)
    by chel2551 on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 05:36:22 PM EST
    to scroll past their comments.

    This is dredging up all the awful stuff that was said in the primaries.  I absolutely hate it.  And the entreaties to tone it down are once again being totally ignored.

    They're driving people away.


    The Right Response (5.00 / 7) (#28)
    by Prosecutorial Indiscretion on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 04:40:45 PM EST
    Clinton has it exactly right.  The Obaman piling on will not go over well, especially when the public finds out that all the pundits succumbing to fierce attacks of the vapors at Palin's inexperience neglected to mention that she's the most popular governor in America and has more expertise and experience with energy issues than anybody else on either ticket.  Responding to Palin in any way other than on the issues will reinforce the image of the Obama campaign as misogynistic and mean-spirited.

    Sweet! (none / 0) (#172)
    by wincolo08 on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 05:27:26 PM EST
    I hope you enjoy the next 40 years under a SCOTUS that overturns Roe, among other benefits of the great feminist team of McCain/Palin.

    Do they teach civics anymore? (5.00 / 3) (#207)
    by angie on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 05:44:06 PM EST
    Does anyone understand the three separate branches of government? Does anyone understand the "checks and balances" system? The Executive branch doesn't write the laws or interpret the laws -- it enforces the laws. The Congress writes the laws -- laws, which btw, the Dems have allowed to chip away the protections of Roe v. Wade. The USSC interprets the laws. If you understood the separation of powers you would understand how nebulous the Roe v. Wade threat is. If the Congress doesn't write laws like "banning so-called partial birth abortions" in the first place, the USSC has nothing to interpret. While it is true that the Executive branch nominates the Justices it is the Congress that CONFIRMS those nominees -- this is not supposed to be a "rubber stamp" procedure -- the Congress can keep rejecting nominees until the President picks one they want to confirm. So, if the Dems in Congress would get off their you-know-whats and do their job we would not have these stupid "partial birth abortion ban" laws in the first place. Heck, if the Dems in Congress did their jobs Scalia, Thomas, Roberts wouldn't even be on the USSC.

    WTF? (5.00 / 5) (#219)
    by echinopsia on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 05:59:00 PM EST
    Feminism means standing up for women even if you don't agree with them. That is how feminism works.

    And the SCOTUS/Roe threat has been debunked so many times I'm not even going to take the bait.

    Saying Palin is a historic choice, a smart choice, a kick in the teeth to the misogynist DNC is in no way a vote for her, her running mate, or their policies. And for the record, a woman vice president is still a win for women, even if her policies are wrong for women.

    Hillary handled it perfectly.


    Leave it to Hillary (5.00 / 15) (#29)
    by janarchy on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 04:41:22 PM EST
    to get it right. Polite, concise and to the point without being insulting, stupid or sexist.

    Pity the rest of her party and most of its supporters can't figure it out.

    I'm still laughing at the volumes of "OMG, IT'S UP TO HILLARY TO SMACK HER DOWN!" comments I'm seeing. I'll say it again -- she's not on the ticket, remember?

    I particularly like the HuffPo headline:

    Sarah Palin, You're No Hillary Clinton.

    By that argument, HuffPo should be madly in love with her. HRC's the horrible monster lady, remember?

    Did Huff Po (5.00 / 4) (#86)
    by Brookhaven on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 04:55:27 PM EST
    Actually say "Palin, you're no Hillary Clinton?"

    Oh, I wish I was a word named Irony today.  I would be making a bundle.  lol

    HRC was picture perfect in her comments about Palin.  Perfect balance.  She had no reason to attack Palin.  None now or in the future.  She made the appropriate and sufficient comment about how wrong their policies would be. Period. The end.  She was also the great stateswoman she has become by saying that "Governor Palin will add an important new voice to the debate."  Yup.  


    Joe Biden is no Hillary Clinton either n/t (5.00 / 6) (#138)
    by angie on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 05:15:01 PM EST
    awesome!!! (5.00 / 5) (#146)
    by Dr Molly on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 05:18:09 PM EST
    Oh, I was in such despair that the sexism would never have to be faced and 'owned' (to use Obama's word). Now this! I'm loving it.

    That was Debbie Wassermann-Schultz's line (none / 0) (#107)
    by steviez314 on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 05:02:27 PM EST
    this morning.

    Can we now agree that McCain (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by MKS on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 04:41:46 PM EST
    is (no-joke) a pro-life conservative.....Palin proves that....

    What did you expect Hillary to say? (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by Dadler on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 04:43:26 PM EST
    Do you really think she finds it historic that a cynical Republican ploy has resulted in the Republicans selecting a female VP nominee almost a quarter century after the Dems did?  Please, she is being polite and, I suppose, what she thinks is strategic.  Hell, there was a FEMALE president in PAKISTAN two decades ago, what on earth do we think we're being so historic with.

    Get over ouselves is more like it.

    Palin is ONLY there in the hypercynical belief she will attract enough disgruntled Hillary supporters to make a difference.  And it logically follows, they would've nominated her even IF Hillary were the presidential nominee of the Democratic Party in the hopes they didn't LOSE Republican and fence-sitting women to her.

    Every way you look at it, her pick is cynical, nothing more nothing less.  And the women who vote for that ticket based on her alone, well, there is nothing you can say and there would have been nothing the Dems could've done short of nominating Hillary.  Maybe they really were only in it for her, as Hillary herself suggested in her speech.  And that's fine, it's their right, but it is not something we should be wasting time, money, or intellectual effort on countering.

    Thank you. (5.00 / 2) (#52)
    by RickMassimo on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 04:46:15 PM EST
    Hell, there was a FEMALE president in PAKISTAN two decades ago, what on earth do we think we're being so historic with.
    Get over ouselves is more like it.

    Same with nominating Obama. Better to do it than not, but can we (or Our Media Stars) stop talking about how world-historic it is?


    Huh? (5.00 / 4) (#57)
    by Dr Molly on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 04:48:27 PM EST
    Is the fact that Pakistan can elect a female president before the U.S. can supposed to reflect well on the U.S.?

    Clinton knows, as you must not (5.00 / 5) (#101)
    by Cream City on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 04:59:52 PM EST
    -- and believe me, she does know this, so you were not listening to her -- that your first sentence just begs for an update on Dem actions this week:

    Do you really think she finds it historic that a cynical Republican ploy has resulted in the Republicans selecting a female VP nominee almost a quarter century after the Dems did?

    The Republicans were the first with a woman's name put in nomination for president, 44 years ago.  And it was followed by a full roll call vote, unlike the travesty at the Dem convention this week.

    Or, sure, we could talk about that first Dem woman whose name was put in nomination, and how cynically the Dem nominee has treated her -- for saying what he said about himself.

    Help me here.  How do you think all this helps?!  At least, for the many among us who do know history.


    Repubs. nominated first female USSC Justice (5.00 / 2) (#145)
    by angie on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 05:17:46 PM EST
    Sandra Day O'Connor (Reagan). The author of Roe v. Wade.

    That roll call had to be cut short (5.00 / 1) (#222)
    by andrys on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 06:07:02 PM EST
    because the DNC had decided, to enhance their chances in the GE and therefore gave full voting rights to Florida and Michigan, which would then give a not very desirable LARGE addition of delegates for Hillary for the roll-call.

      Very unseemly - because if they all voted as Elected delegates (more-strongly-pledged) to be supplemented by superdelegates to get to the new even higher delegate total needed, it would have been close to a tie then, and they had something like 150 Undecided delegates moreover.  So, it's pretty clear why Hillary had such a good slot (and Bill had his own).

      On Tuesday she released her delegates to vote as they wished.  And they were still doing negotiations about how they'd have the move for nomination by acclamation go.

      It wasn't just unity - there was a chance (w/FLA-Mich) for and unseemly result, which would have killed the party's chances this close to November.  Understandable they couldn't afford that.  Also, some Hillary elected delegates did want to go with 'the winner' so everyone compromised.


    Obama has made statement (5.00 / 3) (#56)
    by Rashomon66 on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 04:48:16 PM EST
    He backpeddled from this mornings' campaign statement.

    "I haven't met her before. She seems like a compelling person ... with a terrific personal story. I'm sure that she will help make the case for Republicans, unfortunately the case is more of the same, and so ultimately John McCain is at the top of the ticket. But the fact that she ... will soon be nominated ... is one more indicator of this country moving forward ... one more hit against that glass ceiling. I congratulate her and look forward to a vigorous debate."

    good on him (5.00 / 2) (#70)
    by bjorn on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 04:51:16 PM EST
    Again about personalities. Too bad (5.00 / 3) (#128)
    by Cream City on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 05:11:13 PM EST
    he didn't say this:

    Their policies would take America in the wrong direction.

    Clinton did.  Straight to issues, in a simple declarative sentence, no need for ellipses and multiple commas.  That's how it's done.


    Much more on target (none / 0) (#63)
    by andgarden on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 04:50:15 PM EST
    It's good that he did (none / 0) (#67)
    by Redshoes on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 04:51:05 PM EST
    and ridiculous that he had to.

    Whose side? (5.00 / 3) (#65)
    by wincolo08 on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 04:50:46 PM EST
    Really, whose side are we all on here?

    Regardless of what you all feel personally about Obama and/or Biden, the choice we make at the polls this November will have profound and lasting impacts on us, our kids, grandkids, nieces/nephews, etc.

    If we lackadaisically allow McCain/Palin to be elected:

    1.  Goodbye Roe v. Wade, hello back-alley coathanger abortions.  Yes, it really is that bad.

    2.  Permanent enshrinement of the police surveillance state.

    3.  A dramatic increase in bellicose, dangerous non-diplomacy, likely resulting in military confrontations with Iran and possibly even Russia.

    4.  The end of any hope of actually attempting to combat the global climate crisis.

    5.  A dramatic escalation in the erosion of the boundary separating church and state (take a gander at Palin's bio if you don't believe me).

    6.  Losing my train of thought, as it's Friday afternoon.

    But, I think it is clear that we need to win this election.  Obama wasn't my first choice, and Biden wasn't my second choice.  I have decided, however, to do whatever I legally can to block the election of McCain and Palin to the White House.

    Your comment is a response to what? (5.00 / 2) (#75)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 04:53:18 PM EST
    I see nothing you write in any way relevant to my post.

    Please get on topic.


    I agree, kind of (none / 0) (#198)
    by wincolo08 on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 05:39:24 PM EST
    If I deleted the unnecessary and inflammatory part about "which side are we on?," then most of the rest of my comment is an attack on Palin's crazy right-wing positions(anti-choice, pro-creationist, anti-environment, pro-fossil fuels, etc.)--positions which would be greatly furthered by the election of McCain/Palin.  Since your post stated:  "But if you must, attack her crazy right wing positions, not her experience, or lack thereof," I am following your advice.  My comment is relevant to your post because I did precisely what you advised:  [I]f you must [and I must, indeed], attack her crazy right-wing positions.  A relevant remark is one which is pertinent to, or which is connected with, the matter at hand.  

    Oh yay - another coathanger comment (5.00 / 6) (#81)
    by Dr Molly on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 04:54:33 PM EST
    How compelling.

    Four, I'll Grant You (5.00 / 4) (#100)
    by BDB on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 04:59:26 PM EST
    As to your other points:

    1. The Dems have permitted Roe to be eroded for 30 years.  It might not be overturned by Obama appointees, but I don't know that the Dems should be bragging about how thanks to them women can still get an abortion if she drives six hours.  The GOP is awful.  The Dems only marginally less so.

    2. FISA w/immunity was passed with the support of the Dem leadership and Obama.  Also, I didn't hear word one about this during the convention.  So what makes you think Obama doesn't want all those nice neat authoritarian powers?

    3. Biden has been almost as bellicose on Russia as McCain has been.  I'm beginning to think there's no one in D.C. who can intelligently talk about Russia right now.

    4. Obama has made it clear that he will continue Bush's faith-based initiatives, chose his first GE encounter with McCain to be with Rick Warren, and has said nothing about the new birth control regs out of HHS.

    McCain is worse.  No question.  But don't tell me Obama isn't going to spy on me when he just voted to spy on me.

    Oops, meant to just reply, not rate..... (5.00 / 3) (#105)
    by Oje on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 05:02:14 PM EST
    The extent to which Roe v. Wade and the Supreme Court rise to become the most compelling reason to vote for a Democrat this election is the extent to which all progressive Democrats should have rose to support the best voice to defend our courts. If this is truly the unifying point for a Democratic electorate in 2008, why did we not elect the most electrifying and qualified person to defend our freedoms?

    It is clear who that person should have been, now it is nothing but patronization and fear-mongering to raise these points. As Barack Obama himself said last night, "If you don't have a record to run on, then you paint your opponent as someone people should run from." The ones who lack a record to run on, in this case, is a Democratic party that failed to adhere to a program of social justice for all women when it silently abided and/or inflamed the attacks on Hillary Clinton.

    That said, we need the Democrats to win, but we need to quickly find a more articulate message than this fear-mongering and the sexism that has once again flowed from the faux progressive blogs and strategists on Obama's campaign team.


    Is that "articulate" message (none / 0) (#203)
    by wincolo08 on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 05:43:00 PM EST
    to be found in McCain's choice of Palin?

    The children! Think of the chldren! (5.00 / 3) (#108)
    by Cream City on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 05:02:47 PM EST
    Thanks, but I think about children every day.  And I think about other people's children every day, because I teach them.  Thousands of them so far, and hundreds more in a few days.

    I don't think of them and haul them out as political ploys every four years.


    my own side (5.00 / 4) (#117)
    by AlSmith on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 05:06:01 PM EST

    Here is what Obama said re Russia :
    "I will rebuild our military to meet future conflicts. But I will also renew the tough, direct diplomacy that can prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons and curb Russian aggression."

    He also closed his speech with quote from Hebrews 13.

    I dont think you have the candidate you think you have.


    That's the caricature (none / 0) (#93)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 04:57:25 PM EST
    They say we're giving out buy one get one free abortion coupons to high school students.

    Some say it's a battle to define not the extremes but the middle.


    Good one! (none / 0) (#201)
    by wincolo08 on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 05:41:26 PM EST
    We definitely need more humor, especially on a Friday.

    Her experience is not something to go on (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by RickMassimo on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 04:51:34 PM EST
    the offensive after, I agree.

    It's something to, when McCain starts yakking about Obama's inexperience, fold one's arms and say, "Um ..." But no more than that. It takes the issue off McCain's table; it doesn't put it on ours.

    Palin Unites Republicans (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by Katherine Graham Cracker on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 04:53:26 PM EST
    Both the Club for Growth and the religious right have issued enthusiastic statements for her.
    She seems to have bridged the enthusiasm gap for the GOP.

    I don't think many Democrats will vote for her but right leaning independents might and she may be able to bring some Republicans home.

    I think this is right (5.00 / 3) (#89)
    by Dr Molly on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 04:56:02 PM EST
    All the histrionics about Hillary supporters and Palin are a bit off the mark I think. I the choice of Palin was based on her right-wing base cred. which none of the other alternatives really had.

    if you dont think many democrats (5.00 / 2) (#95)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 04:57:49 PM EST
    will vote for her I would disagree.  I have been reading comments on blogs all day that say other wise.  and I have heard from some women friends, life long democrats, who say otherwise.
    he will not get all of them but he is going to get a substantial number.

    How and Why? (none / 0) (#109)
    by Rashomon66 on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 05:02:50 PM EST
    Are these Democrats only voting for gender? I find that a bit odd. Seems to be when a majority of Democratic women [and men] know where Palin stands on each issue they will say no thanks.

    I think we should be careful (5.00 / 5) (#115)
    by Dr Molly on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 05:05:55 PM EST
    with these accusations of women voting based only on gender. There are plenty of feminist rebuttals to this - the easiest one being that men have been voting based on gender identify for centuries. Obama's pick of Biden, for example, can be viewed as based largely on gender identity - he picked Biden over Hillary for macho male cred with the white male voters who wouldn't vote for Hillary. Gender identity works on men forcefully, and has been working for centuries.

    what people dont seem to get (5.00 / 5) (#124)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 05:09:25 PM EST
    is that for many women, at least this is my impression from what I read today, this is not just about issues it is at least partly about how Hillary was treated.  not only by the Obama campaign but by the media and the DNC.

    well, it's complicated for women (5.00 / 5) (#155)
    by Dr Molly on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 05:20:59 PM EST
    because people talk about voting on the issues vs. voting on gender or against sexism. But sexism IS one of the issues. Not the only one, of course, but definitely one. And god knows, men don't consider it one to be worried about.

    Seriously, a lot of (5.00 / 4) (#120)
    by abfabdem on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 05:07:14 PM EST
    dems voted solely because of race, too.

    Must be those Ronny Raygun Demicrats (none / 0) (#114)
    by Katherine Graham Cracker on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 05:05:46 PM EST
    Palin is an interesting conservative but still very very conservative and I am thinking all the new registrations and the majority of people who switched are Democrats.  I can't see them switching back for the general.

    Some idiot Democrat (5.00 / 3) (#85)
    by masslib on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 04:55:17 PM EST
    just called Palin unqualified and an "affirmative action" pick.  

    That' s what many here (5.00 / 6) (#154)
    by waldenpond on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 05:20:18 PM EST
    are actually saying... ignore her, she's a beauty queen, here's a good one.... she has a high pitched voice.  

    McCain got exactly what he wanted from this.  I said his commercials should keep Dems in the primary... Clinton is the talk.  Expect more on the 'why not her' and the Obama supporters demand Clinton come out and deal with Palin.


    Which one? (none / 0) (#143)
    by shoephone on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 05:17:16 PM EST
    That person will, hopefully, be thrown under a bus somewhere. Right alongside Clyburn, perhaps.

    No I'm pretty sure (5.00 / 2) (#157)
    by Redshoes on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 05:21:18 PM EST
    Clyburn is driving the bus.

    Do you all realize .... (5.00 / 3) (#94)
    by kmw0382 on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 04:57:38 PM EST
    That Sarah Palin took on corruption in her own party (the self-styled "Corrupt Bastards Club", if you can believe it) and some of them are currently in jail?

    That she managed to steer a bipartisan effort to get the natural gas pipeline (which will quintuple the amount of natural gas available to Midwestern markets) through the Alaska legislature after it had languished for 30 years?

    That the ethics "scandal" involves her former brother-in-law, a state trooper who tasered his stepson with a state issued training taser (this charge was substantiated by his commanding officer).  

    That she has the highest approval rating of any governor in the United States?

    That she deals with foreign nations--especially Canada and Russia--on a daily basis.  Alaska is also a major import conduit for goods arriving from Asia.

    Please keep an open mind about this remarkable woman--at a minimum, you should not underestimate her or her experience.

    Don't underestimate this woman.  No, she is not Hillary Clinton--but she is smart and highly ethical.  

    I am hearing conflicting things about (5.00 / 1) (#131)
    by BernieO on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 05:11:59 PM EST
    her stands on social issues. Her first veto upheld the right of gay partners of state employees to get benefits. A couple of commentators said she has a libertarian streak. Others say she is anti-abortion except in the case of the life of the mother. But then I read that although these are her personal views she made it clear she was not running (for governor) to advocate for them.

    That may seem odd, but that was exactly the position of my father and several of my friends who say they do not believe in abortion but do not think their views, (which they realize are based on religion, not science) should be forced on others. One thing I am sure of is that she truly does not believe in abortion. She knew her baby would have Downs and refused to abort. I respect her for that as long as she does not want to force others to do the same. Of course it is hard to tell.


    She followed the law (none / 0) (#227)
    by Carolyn in Baltimore on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 02:34:02 PM EST
    She was told the ban on benefits for gay partners was unconstitutional and she vetoed so it wouldn't get tied up in court. But she supports changing the constitution to ban benefits.....

    I think she's a rigid stickler for the law and what she sees as right and is practical to boot.
    I think she's a right wing nut but smart, popular, and formidable.


    She also (none / 0) (#217)
    by wincolo08 on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 05:54:08 PM EST
    has stated that she opposes allowing women the right to choose even in cases of rape and incest.  

    Obama has it right (5.00 / 2) (#113)
    by Paladin on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 05:05:35 PM EST
    in his most recent statement, not too dissimilar from Hillary's.  I think his campaign made a mistake in issuing that first statement which came across as petty.  Plus, if everything I'm reading about Palin is true, she could come across as a very attractive character at their convention. She certainly has a great family story.  So strategically I would lay off on the negative stuff until we have more information.

    Women may not be won on policy (5.00 / 1) (#126)
    by nell on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 05:10:29 PM EST
    I think the assumption that women in middle America are going to choose to go with McCain or not because of policy is misguided. We know people do not vote on policy.

    See this quote


    Talk about the straight talk express...

    Now tell me, what working mother in America isn't going to relate to this woman? If you aren't already on the Obama bandwagon, or if you don't have especially strong feelings about specific policy issues (most Americans don't), whether you supported Hillary or not, you aren't going to care. You are going to vote for the candidate you relate to.

    Sarah Palin will help with women, especially the blue collar women who went to Hillary in droves.

    Palin Will Be/Is A Bad Mother (5.00 / 3) (#181)
    by JimWash08 on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 05:31:16 PM EST
    because she will be on the campaign while she has a 4-month-old baby, who has Downs syndrome, at home.

    HOLD UP! That is not my argument, but an argument a colleague of mine (a female and huge Obama supporter) made at work today.

    I almost wanted to smack her, but I do not believe in any violence, against a man or woman. I just gulped and said, "Oh, sorry, my phone's vibrating. Phone call" and walked away.

    And my opinion of this colleague has changed forever.

    Would it make her feel (5.00 / 1) (#211)
    by Redshoes on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 05:46:53 PM EST
    any better to know that if today is an indication it looks like "bring your kids" to work just got a boost.

    So offensive (5.00 / 2) (#212)
    by nell on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 05:47:23 PM EST
    That opinion is so offensive.

    Women can't have a baby and have their own dreams too. You know what? Sarah Palin puts them in their place. Disagree with her or not on policy, she says what she means. About such people, she says:

    From The Page
    -She is very adept at juggling work and family. When daughter Piper was born during her Wasilla mayoralty, she returned to the office the following day. A trim runner, she did not announce news of her most recent pregnancy (with Trig, born April 18) until her seventh month. According to Palin, "To any critics who say a woman can't think and work and carry a baby at the same time, I'd just like to escort that Neanderthal back to the cave." Her older children are Track, Bristol, and Willow.


    desperate times (4.75 / 4) (#209)
    by ccpup on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 05:45:00 PM EST
    call for desperate measures.

    And you're hearing and reading a LOT of desperate statements from Obama Supporters today.

    This pick was a game changer and I think people are realizing that Obama is no longer the Candidate of Change, he's probably losing his Media Darling status and is no longer as Historic as he thought he was.

    Without those three columns on which to stand, his candidacy needs to recalibrate and come up with something new.

    Furthermore, for all those Dem voters who were told to get over it because they had nowhere else to go, there is now what appears to be a less scary, more viable alternative.

    67 days and counting, guys.


    McCain says, "Check." (5.00 / 2) (#218)
    by HypeJersey on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 05:57:05 PM EST
    Looks like McCain out-maneuvered Obama on this one - sucked up all of the media buzz that Obama was counting on giving him a boost after his coronation.  

    Ok.  So now that Obama's new-ness and "new kind of politics" image has worn off, and now that he has lost media attention.. now what?

    Time to pull out that thick resume filled with experience, policy negoations, foreign policy experience, long list of sponsorship of bills in the senate... oh wait...

    Oh well.  Let's just hope that Obama is smart enough not to attack Palin for lack of experience.  

    What sex organ must YOUR president have? (1.00 / 1) (#226)
    by John Locke on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 06:55:09 PM EST
    So, the fact that Palin has a vagina rather than a penis overrides the fact that, should McCain/Palin win and McCain drop dead (a not unreasonable expectation) she will be by FAR the least qualified person ever to sit in the Oval Office.   How interesting.  It is interesting to see that for many women the female answer to male misogyny is an equally odious and moronic female misogyny.

    Hillary Clinton is one of many qualified men and women in both parties who could reasonably be expected to handle the complex, nuanced, and demanding duties of the presidency.  She didn't win (though she came far, far closer than any other woman in America's history) this time around, but she faced an equally, if not more, formidable campaigner in Barack Obama, who out-organized her, out-strategized her, out-fundraised her, and, in the end appealed to enough more people than she did to win the nomination.

    Coming in second is nothing to be ashamed about, and whining and blaming Obama, the media, male misogyny and the evil conspiracy against women is not only counter-productive (creating the very victimized whiner stereotype that women-hating men have long believed in), but demeans the party, the values, and the vision that she has given her life to.  

    In addition, should her supporters, in an irrational fit of pique, hand this country back to the Republicans to finish their demolition of democracy, it will create in the minds not just of many male voters, but of may female voters as well, that we can't risk having our party disenfranchised by another male/female war in the foreseeable future.  Hillary understood this when she (if a bit late) graciously conceded the race and threw her support to Barack.  Now we will find out if the rest of her supporters have developed the political maturity to do the same.

    In America it is NOT about the cult of personality - that, as we have seen with Reagan and Dubya is a dangerous perversion of the Peoples' Sovereignty.  No person is entitled to represent us (note I did NOT say lead us).  We are entitled to select the people who most closely represent our own views, ideals, and needs, to enact them for us.

    In America, the People are Sovereign, not our "leaders".  Those who serve in politics are nothing more than our virtual voices, acting in our names, for our goals.  It is far more important to have representatives who come as close as possible to representing us, than it is to have any single "catagory" of person there, be it male, female, gay, straight, black, white, asian, christian, jewish, atheist, tall, short, fat or thin.  It is MY voice that I want them to speak with, not their own.  Bush never understood that HE is not the decider, WE THE PEOPLE are.

    Hillary would have been a reasonable choice as far as my views, ideals, and needs are, if a bit too wedded to some political ideas and traditions I think we are better off outgrowing.

    Barack is also a reasonable choice as far as my views, ideals, and needs are, though, he, too, falls somewhat short of the progressive/left vision I have for a better American society.  

    John McCain and Sarah Palin's values and ideology, on the other hand, represent everything that I am against, everything that I believe has been destroying the People's Sovereignty, corrupting our government and way of life, and turning our country away from unity and humanity, and into hateful armed camps who would rather do injury to their political enemies at home than our real enemies abroad (and rather do injury to the political enemies in their own party than the real danger across the aisle).

    I think that my voice will be reasonably well represented by Obama (or Hillary, Edwards, Richardson, Kucinich, Gore, or Kennedy, for that matter) in the Oval Office.  

    And that will be more than I had hoped to see over the past 40 years.

    Let's get over this penis vs vagina war and the black vs white war and the young vs old war, and the working-class vs the "elite" war and get down to making this the kind of country where Male-Americans, Female-Americans, African-Americans, Christian-Americans, Gay-Americans, Straight-Americans, Muslim-Americans, Jewish-Americans, Atheist-Americans, Native-Americans, Asian-Americans, Rich-Americans, Poor-Americans and all the other hyphenated Americans can simply be Americans - without all the divisive qualifications and labels.

    To borrow a phrase from Martin Luther King,

    "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, or the homes of their ancestors, or their gender, or their religion or lack thereof, but by the content of their character."

    Let's finally grow up...
    We are still a long way off.

    Yeah that (none / 0) (#4)
    by Wile ECoyote on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 04:27:46 PM EST
    second amendment stuff, crazy.

    yeah just so we are clear (5.00 / 3) (#7)
    by AlSmith on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 04:32:56 PM EST

    her crazy right wing positions are the ones that win elections.

    I am still waiting for someone to point out a line in Obama's speech that was not a DLC position.


    Creationism - teaching Intelligent (none / 0) (#9)
    by inclusiveheart on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 04:33:20 PM EST
    Design - is I think what most people will agree is a bit problematic to say the least.

    She is not a proponent (5.00 / 4) (#25)
    by hlr on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 04:40:23 PM EST
    of requiring it in the classroom.

    From her '06 election coverage:

    "I don't think there should be a prohibition against debate if it comes up in class. It doesn't have to be part of the curriculum."

    She added that, if elected, she would not push the state Board of Education to add such creation-based alternatives to the state's required curriculum.

    Members of the state school board, which sets minimum requirements, are appointed by the governor and confirmed by the Legislature.

    "I won't have religion as a litmus test, or anybody's personal opinion on evolution or creationism," Palin said.

    Palin has occasionally discussed her lifelong Christian faith during the governor's race but said teaching creationism is nothing she has campaigned about or even given much thought to.

    Reading the article, I conclude that her position is mainstream.

    I suspect that she will have the opportunity during the next two months to revisit this.


    The only way to defeat creationism (5.00 / 2) (#111)
    by Cream City on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 05:04:55 PM EST
    is to confront it.  To bring it into the classroom, compare it to other theories -- and to defeat it.

    That's what scientists do.  They test and debate theories.  They don't ignore them in the hope that they will just go away.


    Creationism is NOT science (5.00 / 3) (#134)
    by Jjc2008 on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 05:12:50 PM EST
    Evolution is science.

    If when I teach evolution I also have to teach creationism which in no way is science, then why not have me teach the Wiccan theory of how the world began...
    please creationism is religion.
    Evolution is science.

    One belongs in comparative religious studies; one is science.


    Astrology is not science, either (5.00 / 2) (#151)
    by Cream City on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 05:19:19 PM EST
    so when it comes up in the classroom, as it does, it's a good idea to confront it and defeat it.

    I didn't say it was science, for chrissakes.  Heck, I have to deal with a lot of mythology in teaching history, and that doesn't make mythology into history.  So I confront it and show the difference.


    That's why we teach (5.00 / 2) (#213)
    by kredwyn on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 05:48:05 PM EST
    things like Karl Popper...

    I get freshmen all the time who do not know that there's a difference between scientific theory and pseudo-scientific theory...in part because they aren't being taught the differences in HS.

    If you teach, as my father has in the past, that Evolution is a scientific theory and that creationism is a pseudo-scientific theory...and what the differences are between the two, then you run a much better chance of the students getting it than if you try to ban creationism from the classroom.

    The first essay my students read is Popper's "Science, Pseudo-science, and Falsifiability" as part of their critical thinking module.


    I looked at the link (none / 0) (#14)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 04:36:33 PM EST
    I did not find it very convincing.  she has a quite common position on this actually it seems to me.

    I am amazed by people (none / 0) (#17)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 04:37:18 PM EST
    who think hunting is going to be a problem.
    remember Kerry in camo?

    Remember Cheney shooting (5.00 / 1) (#116)
    by mg7505 on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 05:05:59 PM EST
    a close friend? The Republicans know how to play this issue without losing one lick of credibility.

    Their pitch will be that Palin is the biggest man in this race. They'll have a field day comparing her to our latte-liberal ticket. The woman can kill and eat a bull moose in a hamburger for lunch -- you think she's afraid of Joe Biden?


    Can we now agree that McCain (none / 0) (#33)
    by MKS on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 04:42:30 PM EST
    is a pro-life conservative.  Palin proves that.

    actually it doesnt (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 04:44:13 PM EST
    all it proves is that he knows how to win.
    I am not saying he is not, just that your premise is wrong.

    Hmm (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 04:44:15 PM EST
    Seems to me I've been saying that for a while. Bush's Third Term?

    IT's others who want to play flip flop games.

    I say take him at his word - Bush's Third Term.


    BTD, I have given weight to your (5.00 / 1) (#186)
    by MKS on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 05:33:07 PM EST
    approach on the Palin pick, and letting her fade away is best....not an idea that would have come to me on its own...

    Palin was a Buchananite in 1999 (none / 0) (#112)
    by steviez314 on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 05:05:21 PM EST
    because she thought Bush was TOO moderate.

    Bush's 3rd term to the n-th power.


    Well, Goldberry claims to have some secret info (2.00 / 1) (#38)
    by andgarden on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 04:43:40 PM EST
    But she's full of it, as usual.

    You are right, of course.


    Huh? I completely disagree. (none / 0) (#36)
    by Pegasus on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 04:43:04 PM EST
    Where's the politics of contrast in that statement?  The GOP is going to nominate a radically anti-women's issues woman for VP, and "While their policies would take America in the wrong direction, [praise]" just won't do.

    Here's hoping this is a one-off, and Hillary lights Palin up (on issues; there I agree with you completely) every chance she gets.  They stand for totally opposite things.

    Because the person to attack is John McCain (5.00 / 5) (#43)
    by andgarden on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 04:44:18 PM EST
    Therefor Palin must be left alone? (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by Pegasus on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 04:51:00 PM EST
    No, I don't buy that.  Criticize the ticket, at every chance.  Criticize Palin, then slam McCain for putting a social conservative zealot on the ticket.

    I think she just comes off as too nice (none / 0) (#88)
    by andgarden on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 04:55:40 PM EST
    to attack successfully, especially with Hillary at mind. Think Michele Bachmann.

    Bachman is so off-the-charts weird (5.00 / 1) (#193)
    by MKS on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 05:36:49 PM EST
    I had a front page Diary at Big Orange in 2006 talking about her being a religious loon ...I actually got a death threat for posting that diary...first time....really odd feeling....

    But you are so right!  She seems so much like Bachman....


    I think people could feel sorry for her (none / 0) (#205)
    by MKS on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 05:43:18 PM EST
    Thrown in without any warning into a maelstrom.....Kinda like a Stockdale type of figure.

    The media will talk about her inexperience....they already are....Obama and
    Biden need to talk about the Economy, as in that's what it's about, stupid.


    Not worth going after (5.00 / 2) (#45)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 04:44:51 PM EST
    Stick on McCain.

    To the extent that Palin helps McCain (none / 0) (#58)
    by Pegasus on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 04:49:18 PM EST
    with disaffected Hillary voters, especially female ones, I disagree.

    Sure, I don't know how big I expect that effect to be.  I don't think Hillary's voters are stupid.  But better safe than sorry.


    Excuse me (5.00 / 5) (#82)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 04:55:01 PM EST
    To the effect that Palin helps with Clinton supporter ATTACKING her experience will help her help McCain even more.

    For eff's sake, does anyone know how to play this freaking game?


    I'm not advocating an experience attack. (none / 0) (#99)
    by Pegasus on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 04:59:10 PM EST
    I think I was clear about that above.  I'm advocating an issues-based attack, as you are.  I'm just saying it should be much stronger than this.

    Contrast and all.


    Actually, I was less than clear. (none / 0) (#102)
    by Pegasus on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 05:00:20 PM EST
    My mistake, sorry.  Now I've clarified, I guess.  :)

    Hillary is not the nominee. (5.00 / 10) (#84)
    by Anne on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 04:55:16 PM EST
    She is not on the ticket.

    It is not her responsibility to take on Palin.

    Okay, she's a woman, and so is Palin, but if the men on the Democratic ticket cannot figure out a way to take on Palin on the issues, it isn't up to Hillary to do it for them.

    It isn't just that Hillary-the-woman and Palin-the-woman are on opposite sides of the issues, it's that Democrats and Republicans are on opposite sides of the issues.  The Democrat at the top of the ticket needs to take on the Republican at the top of the ticket, and stop calling on Hillary to do his fighting for him.

    I thought the big plus for Biden on the ticket was his ability to be the attack dog; so, is he muzzled?  Still on the leash?  Let him out and let him do his job.


    Clinton has terrific credibility. (none / 0) (#97)
    by Pegasus on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 04:58:14 PM EST
    As she should.  So her voice would be incredibly effective here.

    I'm a Democrat's Democrat; I'm not in it for any personality.  I just want to see the team play well, and that includes all the players.


    Find a credible Dem man (5.00 / 4) (#168)
    by Cream City on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 05:26:38 PM EST
    if there are any left on the so-called left who haven't bashed women, and send him.  How about Biden?  Isn't that what the VP pick is supposed to do, deal with the other VP pick?

    That Anita Hill thing was 17 years ago now, and we don't have long memories or anything, just because we remember exactly when it was. . . .

    Sow, reap.  If the Dems couldn't see this coming when they dissed Clinton yet again, they're really not ready to win, much less ready for day one.


    HIllary is not on the ticket (5.00 / 2) (#125)
    by abfabdem on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 05:10:00 PM EST
    I didn't realize it was up to Hillary (5.00 / 3) (#224)
    by nycstray on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 06:23:45 PM EST
    Shouldn't our DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATE FOR PRESIDENT be the one fighting for women on this issue? Hillary was sent packing, in case you forgot, by the party.

    Hillary's one of the most powerful voices (none / 0) (#91)
    by Pegasus on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 04:56:34 PM EST
    in Democratic politics.  What she says matters to the team effort, and I'm not going to pretend otherwise.  My reaction would be the same regardless of the Dem who said this.

    Obama's surrogates! (none / 0) (#122)
    by mmc9431 on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 05:07:54 PM EST
    I'll be interested in where and how McCain used Palin in campaign.

    I agree I would leave her out of it and just keep pounding on McCain. If Obama allows surrogates  to attack her they'll more than likely do more damage than good. Most of them have not served him well.

    Palin: no plan to end the war (none / 0) (#130)
    by fuzzyone on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 05:11:50 PM EST
    And this is just her first day.  She is going to be a disaster.

    That's why the (none / 0) (#150)
    by Paladin on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 05:19:08 PM EST
    Obama campaign really doesn't need to be issuing negative statements about her right now. It looks like Palin is doing that work for them with statements like the one you provided.

    Totally agree (5.00 / 1) (#166)
    by fuzzyone on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 05:25:53 PM EST
    And Obama backed off from the early dumb stuff saying the campaign had a "hair trigger" (someone is in trouble).  I think part of the problem may be that they are so into the idea of rapid reaction.  He needs to get control over the operation it seems.

    Yep (none / 0) (#190)
    by Paladin on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 05:34:38 PM EST
    His people need to get a better grip on what stuff requires the rapid response operation. Glad they backed off (for their own sake).

    Waiting (none / 0) (#137)
    by zvs888 on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 05:14:53 PM EST
    Like other have said, the election could basically swing around this choice, but Obama can't really do anything about that.

    He can only just keep hitting McCain and hoping to get enough voters to back him to win.

    Voters that are going to go to McCain because of Palin are basically totally out of the game now.

    Who knows that could be up to 40% of Hillary's primary voters; we'll have to see.

    Yeah, she is great on women's issues - Not (none / 0) (#215)
    by fuzzyone on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 05:49:34 PM EST
    In a gubernatorial debate, Palin stated emphatically that her opposition to abortion was so great, so total, that even if her teenage daughter was impregnated by a rapist, she would "choose life" -- meaning apparently that she would not permit her daughter to have an abortion.

    via myDD

    OK with me (none / 0) (#220)
    by chopper on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 06:05:01 PM EST
    Gov. Palin is basically Obama in a dress.

    Same age, same lack of experience, same newness and novelty.

    I doubt that she has all the bad friends Obama has though.

    She may have ideas I disagree with but McCain-Palin will not be able to pass any legislation or judges that the Dems do not agree with because of the new Democratic majority in the House and Senate.

    So, she fits my plan just fine. McCain-Palin 2008 and Hillary-Anybody 2012.


    Experience? Who needs stinking experience! (none / 0) (#223)
    by John Locke on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 06:11:42 PM EST
    BTD said:

    But if you must, attack her crazy right wing positions, not her experience, or lack thereof.

    Isn't this a refreshing flip-flop for this site!

    Hmmmmm...don't I remember somewhere back in the dim fog of the primaries, an incessant drumbeat from not only Hillary Clinton and her campaign surrogates, but from her supporters - many on this site - that Obama wasn't as qualified to be president as Hillary because he didn't have the experience Hillary claimed?

    Of course, now that McCain, whose experience dwarfs both Obama's and Hillary's (though falls somewhat short of Biden's) is partnering with somebody whose entire experience (outside of her beauty contest and sports reporting days) comes from a couple of local positions in a town of about 5,000 when she was in office there, and a mere 20 months as the governor of Alaska, a post she won with less than 50% of the votes - due primarily to the incumbent governor, Frank Murkowski's scandals - all of a sudden, experience is the one word nobody seems concerned about.

    My, it seems that we will be seeing a lot of flip-flopping over the next few months from all sides.

    Re: Kennedy picking Johnson (none / 0) (#225)
    by ErnestoDelMundo on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 06:53:10 PM EST
    Not a good analogy since Palin is against affirmative action, yet she was chosen only for her gender.