Thank You, John McCain

The more I'm learning about Gov. Sarah Palin, and now having heard the McCain's weak justification for it, the more I'm convinced McCain just conceded the election.

McCain's political director just told Campbell Brown on CNN that Palin is qualified to be commander in chief because she was the commander of the Alaska National Guard and has a son who will be going to Iraq.

Gov. Palin is completely unqualified to stand in for a President should that need arise.

Nothing shows McCain's poor judgment as much as this choice. He picked a VP candidate he had met one time before their meeting this weekend. So much for his claim that he prides himself on having strong personal relationships with the people he surrounds himself with.

Campbell says stay tuned, we'll have more on this candidate who is "poised to become a Republican superstar." Hardly, I think she will crash and burn faster than any national candidate in recent memory.

Her complete lack of national experience matters a great deal. I can just see the next 3 am telephone call ad. America won't be laughing. If she had any good sense, she would have turned McCain's offer down and refused to be used as a pawn to grab evangelical and suburban women voters.

< Why It Matters | Fired Police Commissioner Speaks About Gov. Palin >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Hmm (5.00 / 7) (#1)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 07:26:30 PM EST
    Her complete lack of national experience matters a great deal. I can just see the next 3 am telephone call ad. America won't be laughing.

    I bet you we see no 3AM Ads from anybody.

    Excuse me, but Obama will not be arguing experience in this election.

    I'm with BTD on this... (5.00 / 3) (#7)
    by dskinner3 on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 07:34:31 PM EST
    Her "lack of experience" only highlights Obama's. The key difference is that Obama is at the top of the ticket.  I don't understand the claims that this inoculates Obama from that line of attack. Were the two up for the same position, yes, but that's not the case.

    I'm with dskinner (5.00 / 4) (#99)
    by kempis on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 07:58:11 PM EST
    Her "lack of experience" only highlights Obama's. The key difference is that Obama is at the top of the ticket.  I don't understand the claims that this inoculates Obama from that line of attack. Were the two up for the same position, yes, but that's not the case.

    Absolutely. In no way does her lack of national experience (2 years as governor of Alaska) take Obama's lack of national experience (3 years as U.S. Senator) off-the-table.

    Instead it invites a comparison, and it's a comparison that hurts Obama. Obama does not benefit from the tit-for-tat discussions of his brief experience to hers. You can bet the McCain campaign is hoping the Obama camp attacks her lack of experience and her unpreparedness to serve as president should something happen to McCain. It gives them an opening to say that Obama's national experience isn't significantly greater than Palin's--and she at last has some executive experience, which is something no one else on either ticket has.

    I think the Democrats need to be careful here. Palin is a much smarter choice than a lot of folks are giving the McCain campaign credit for. She'll energize the ticket and the media seems to have a new sweetheart--just in time for the GOP convention. And she makes the ticket more appealing to the under-50 folks.

    I'm concerned and I think some of the mocking I've seen is premature.


    Especially as two (5.00 / 2) (#116)
    by abfabdem on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 08:02:35 PM EST
    of those three years he was pretty much running for President.  So hw much did he learn in the Senate during that time?  How much was he focused on the issues of his Illinois consituency during that time?

    No...you would not (5.00 / 1) (#212)
    by americanincanada on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 08:31:44 PM EST
    She has tangible success to point to.

    McCain's age makes it the same argument. (none / 0) (#30)
    by Faust on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 07:42:16 PM EST
    No it does not, (5.00 / 2) (#59)
    by dskinner3 on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 07:46:43 PM EST
    unless you have inside information that proves McCain is not healthy enough to last 4 years. His mother is 95 and going strong. All that I've seen is a healthy John McCain. McCain's age is just one more excuse for people to try to overlook Obamas' lack of experience.

    No (5.00 / 2) (#69)
    by Radiowalla on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 07:50:39 PM EST
    McCain's age and health are valid points to consider.  He has had recurrent melanoma, a particulary lethal type of cancer that can recur at any time.

    I don't believe he has released his medical records, either.  

    Discussing McCain's ability to perform as president has nothing to do with Obama's experience or lack of experience.  They aren't related topics.


    iirc - McCain released many pages (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by Josey on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 07:53:35 PM EST
    of his medical record.
    Obama released a short letter from his doctor.

    link please. (none / 0) (#83)
    by Faust on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 07:54:15 PM EST
    McCain released his medical records (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by Grace on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 07:55:31 PM EST
    Obama got a letter from his doctor that said he was healthy but didn't allow reporters to sift through his medical records like McCain did.  

    I don't know what any of this proves though.  

    People live with skin cancer for years and years and years.  It's only fatal if it's left untreated.  And 72 isn't old anymore.  Maybe it was 100 years ago but lots of people live to be 85+.  


    As I recall (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by Steve M on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 07:59:53 PM EST
    McCain invited reporters to look through his medical records one Friday afternoon on short notice, no doctors or other experts were allowed to examine the records, and the reporters were not allowed to take copies of anything.

    It was, frankly, a highly suspicious process.


    Sanjay Gupta, MD (none / 0) (#187)
    by robrecht on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 08:26:08 PM EST
    was among those who reviewed McCain's medical records.  Not sure if any other doctors were there but I think so.

    What's Suspicious About It? (none / 0) (#229)
    by JimWash08 on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 08:38:34 PM EST
    Presidential candidate or not, both Obama and McCain are American citizens and have a right to privacy when it comes to personal medical records.

    That is why we have the HIPAA law.

    I'd be happy with a physician's assurance that they are healthy and well enough to lead.

    However, McCain went one step further and allowed reporters to view his records. Of course, why should he allow anyone to take notes or copy them?

    Would you hand out copies of your records for the world to see? CNN and the New York Times dispatched their reporters who are physicians (Sanjay Gupta and Lawrence Altman) and hence qualified to make head or tail of his records.

    They really had nothing "suspicious" to report.

    But, Obama had a physician write a note, but didn't show any records to the media. He was a smoker, and by some accounts, manages to still sneak puffs. How healthy might he be, and what health conditions may he be at risk of developing that we know nothing about?


    You were not paying attention (5.00 / 1) (#141)
    by Valhalla on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 08:12:36 PM EST
    McCain released his medical records in the spring, after some big medical exam -- it was reported in the news for days.  I wasn't even paying attention to McCain then and I heard about it.

    Couple things (none / 0) (#79)
    by Faust on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 07:53:41 PM EST
    1. I was pointing out Jeralyns argument. For her McCains age is an issue when considering Palin. She's said it repeatedly.

    2. I don't give a hoot about Obama's lack of experience. Or Palin's for that matter. The experience argument is a non-starter with me.

    3. It's pretty funny to read all the Obama haters defending Palins obvious lack of experience while continuing to pound on Obamas. Get some f*cking consistency. If you care about experience then Palin is just as big a problem as Obamas. The VP should be held to the same standards as the President. I PERSONALLY don't give a hoot about the "experience" issue, but if you do then Palin is pretty obviously problematic.

    Experience isn't important? (none / 0) (#140)
    by justonevoice on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 08:11:57 PM EST
    Think about that if you ever get operated on.

    Think about that the next time you get on a plane.

    Think about that when you are working for someone who might be less competent than you are.

    Experience DOES count.  


    not according (none / 0) (#179)
    by TimNCGuy on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 08:23:30 PM EST
    to what the Obama campaign has been telling us for 18 months now.  It's Judgement, not experience.

    You can't claim than Palin isn't qualified to be VP unless you concede that Obama isn't qualified to be President


    How has Palin demonstrated (none / 0) (#199)
    by byteb on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 08:29:09 PM EST
    her good judgment or an even keeled temperament or wisdom or an ability to grasp complex issues or demonstrated depth understanding domestic or foreign policy or being on the national stage under intense scrutiny for months and months?

    Lets try broadening (none / 0) (#177)
    by jondee on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 08:22:59 PM EST
    our imaginative horizens and try thinking about the kind of QUALITY (and quantity) of experience Obama is likely to surround himself with vs McCain.

    Of course there may be some of you who cant get enough of that imperial, PNAC, trickle-down feeling that comes with a RW brain trust, but for alot of people world wide it dosnt seem to have panned out too well these last 8 years.


    I also think (5.00 / 4) (#11)
    by janarchy on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 07:36:38 PM EST
    that claiming to have more foreign policy experience than either McCain or Clinton because you lived in Indonesia for 2 years as a small child is pretty laughable too.

    It's dumb all around but apparently hyperbole is the key to this year's election.


    So he just concedes it? (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by Dadler on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 07:40:15 PM EST
    What do you want him to do, bow down to McCain when McCain hammers experience?  At least Obama has experience representing, at the local, state and national level, populations that are large and diverse, much larger and much more diverse than EITHER Palin or McCain.

    If that's his only comeback, at least it is something and logical.

    He cannot get away from the question or just conceded.  No way.


    Cocncedes what? (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 07:47:08 PM EST
    The experience issue? Of cours.e My gawd, this is great for Obama PRECISELY because the experience issue is dead.

    Jeralyn purports to see an angle for experience for Obama or the Media.

    I do not see it.


    You think McCain isn't going to play it? (none / 0) (#120)
    by Dadler on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 08:04:26 PM EST
    You really think he isn't going to hammer inexperience home still?  Who cares about the VP, no one ever does, no one EVER really worries, when it comes down to it, that the president is going to die.  If they did, if this really was a worry polled by the Repubs, they never woulda picked her.  He picked her, obviously, not even WORRYING about experience.  I happen to think the Republican machine is dumb as bricks on certain things.  They only win because the Democrats run scared from EVERYTHING.  So they figured, who cares experience, she's a woman and a hyperconservative and we can STILL hammer Obama's inexperience because he'll cower on it.

    If experience doesn't get played by McCain, I would be more than surprised, I would be shocked.


    No, what McCain will do is (5.00 / 1) (#158)
    by Valhalla on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 08:17:20 PM EST
    exactly what the Republicans have done, and the Democrats have already fallen for.

    They will wait until the Dems try to 'zing' them on the inexperience issue based on Obama having 5 more minutes of experience than the VP pick, and then they'll fire back.

    They keep baiting the trap for Democrats, and the Democrats just can't help themselves from walking right into them.


    i'm amazed (5.00 / 2) (#203)
    by TimNCGuy on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 08:30:12 PM EST
    that every repug pundit on TV tonight hasn't done it already.  

    Any time someone does  the heartbeat away complaint about Palin, all the repugs have to say is that noone has to die for Obama, with no experience, to be in the same position.

    So, if Palin as VP frightens you, then Obama as President should scare you more.


    This morning before she (none / 0) (#183)
    by tlkextra on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 08:25:45 PM EST
    was introduced, the Obama Camp already took that bait - something about the "heartbeat away from Presidency" line. Fox News was asking Karl Rove how McCain should respond. His answer was that they should ignore it for now and that Obama had made a grave mistake by issuing that comment.

    They can argue (none / 0) (#115)
    by waldenpond on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 08:02:34 PM EST
    Obama has experience (if he has experience, isn't he an insider?) but the Repubs will argue Palin has more at governing.  They will say (legitimate or not) that his experience is campaigning.  Facts/Reality do NOT matter. All of this is merely perception. If the Obama campaign mentions, again, that he did community organizing (stereotype that has been slammed over and over) for a larger constituency than Palin has governed, they will get slammed again for dissing small town America.

    The Obama campaign has a difficult path to negotiate.  If they ignore Palin, they are saying that the McCain choice is merely affirmative action.  If they attack on her inexperience of governing small town America, they are open to charges of elitism... both failing strategies that can be attached to the Obama campaign.

    Will be interesting to watch the strategies.


    Also, Obama just added Biden (5.00 / 1) (#127)
    by nycstray on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 08:06:17 PM EST
    to the ticket because he needed experience. Reality in the Obama campaign or not, many saw it that way.

    Obama has had 17 months (4.50 / 6) (#4)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 07:31:53 PM EST
    of learning while campaigning. He's learned every aspect of Government while running for President. He may not have had that much more experience when he began running, but it's silly to say he doesn't have it now. She can't get close in 2 months.

    This pick is an embarrassment for both of them.


    Really?? (5.00 / 3) (#9)
    by TheRizzo on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 07:35:18 PM EST
    Do you honestly believe he has been learning to govern while campaigning???  He's barely been able to take a breath from being on the go fighting to prove himself let alone learn all aspects of governing.  

    He's learning to be a better politician but a better governorship body?   I disagree with you here.


    Beach reading? (5.00 / 2) (#41)
    by Cream City on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 07:43:50 PM EST
    I mean, really.  The Dems have got to have better than this argument, don't they?  By now?  It has been hours.  Plenty of time to text-message what to say.

    She wouldn't be answering the phone (5.00 / 3) (#29)
    by nycstray on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 07:42:02 PM EST
    McCain or Obama would.

    I don't think it's a total embarrassment. She has been working on reform since she started. She went up against the big boys there. And has some accomplishments. I think she has more experience than she is getting credit for. If community organizer is experience, why isn't Mayor? Part time state Senator? 2 term Mayor? Do you think McCain is not going to live more than 17mos if he's elected? I'm sure if he has her as a working VP, she'll be more qualified than Obama in 17mos.


    McCain is 72 with a history of cancer (5.00 / 2) (#47)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 07:44:37 PM EST
    Yes, there's a fair possibility she'll be answering that phone.

    Hasn't his cancer risk lowered (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by nycstray on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 07:53:34 PM EST
    significantly with each year he's been cancer free? He may have a history of cancer, but he might also be considered a survivor. And I'm sure they'll have an experienced SoS to back her up. Really, then it's no different on experience than Obama/Biden. Rookie with an experienced sidekick.

    I was diagnosed last year at 50 - (5.00 / 2) (#95)
    by tlkextra on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 07:56:41 PM EST
    with a rare Cancer, so it doesn't just have an impact on 72 year olds. I have a 50% chance to see the 2012 Election. I agree McCain selected her because of gender, but that only reminds us that Biden was picked to deflect criticism away from Obama's own lack of experience. Also, there seems to (once again) be a double standard out there - in reference to some of Obama's possible VPs. So, to but it bluntly, in that analysis, women should have just as much right to be as under-qualified as a man.

    Not to mention (none / 0) (#216)
    by americanincanada on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 08:33:37 PM EST
    the risks associated with Obama's smoking.

    the problem with your argument (5.00 / 3) (#96)
    by TimNCGuy on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 07:56:42 PM EST
    is that there is a 100% probability that Obama will be answering the phone.  No one has to DIE first.  But, he has attempted to calm people's nerves about that by adding Biden to the ticket.

    If McCain dies, Palin gets to pick a VP like Biden too.  She won't have to go it alone anymore than Obama will.


    C'mon, Jeralyn! (5.00 / 3) (#109)
    by Upstart Crow on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 08:00:30 PM EST
    If she sits in on the Senate for four months she'll already have clocked in more days than Obama!

    The Republicans made a brilliant move -- but it's only a move, and it could backfire. She's never done a national campaign before.

    It was in Obama's hands to put HRC on the ticket. They passed, and McCain took up the gauntlet. She hasn't been on the shortlist, but she's been on the longlist for months. I was aware of her. Didn't think McCain would have the guts to pick someone who's not an old crony. It's been 24 years since a woman was on the ticket. This was the year for the Dems to rectify that.

    Day after day, women were taking so much abuse and misogyny from the Dems and the media. Regardless of her politics, we're all walking a little taller today. It's nice to be respected and valued. It's nice to have a candidate actually ASK for our vote.

    The Dems responded with more sexism today. But I have no doubt the Republicans will call them on it -- I wish the Dems had done the same months ago!

    They have only themselves to blame.


    Where (none / 0) (#232)
    by mbuchel on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 08:39:01 PM EST
    was the sexism today?

    Even if... (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by ineedalife on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 08:02:20 PM EST
    Palin has more relevant experience NOW than Obama. If McCain's health deteriorates in a couple years she will be that much further along if it should come to that.

    All you can argue is that Obama's few years in Washington is more relevant experience. But that throws the whole foundation of his campaign out the window doesn't it? McCain has it all over him in that argument.


    Age and experience? (5.00 / 3) (#117)
    by rooge04 on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 08:03:06 PM EST
    Are we really hearing this?  The route we're gonna go with is:
    1. McCain is old and he's had cancer. He may die.
    2. She's got no experience.

    #1 is just utterly, bafflingly insulting to older voters and people in general.
    #2 is laughable and the Democrats would do well to never ever bring it up.

    Not liking cancer being used as talking point. (none / 0) (#135)
    by Lysis on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 08:10:21 PM EST
    Nor McCain's age.  Death can come at any time to any one of us, presidential candidate or otherwise. It's pretty ridiculous (not to mention morbid and disgusting) to use it as a talking point.  

    Stick to the issues, please.  


    How (none / 0) (#248)
    by chrisvee on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 09:03:05 PM EST
    is Joe Biden's health? He's of an age with McCain, he's had a serious medical condition, and he was added to the ticket to add experience cred.

    This entire line of argument does the Dems no good and I frankly find it distasteful. The Republicans have managed to craft a mirror-image ticket. Attacking Palin's resume is going to read as sexism given Obama's level of experience. Attacking McCain's health/age is going to invite debate about Biden's. If disgruntled women have to sit through two more months of listening to sexist remarks from the MSM, the campaigns, and the blogs, some percentage of that group is going to sit home. Which helps McCain.

    McCain may not even need to stop the experience argument since any comparison of Palin/Obama only reinforces that idea that the Dem ticket is upside down. Plus, he probably has the next phase of his attack ready to go, goddess help us all.

    The Obama campaign ran on character against Hillary and McCain has made them pay for that by dictating that the GE stay in that arena. Any of the arguments that the Obama campaign could use have been neutralized by their own behavior in the primary against Hillary. Damn clever strategy on McCain's part.

    There needs to be an all all effort to get the conversation back to issues. Sarah Palin's personal story alone and her political skill (which from all reports seems to be quite impressive even though I entirely disagree with her on issues) are winners if the conversation stays focused on character.

    And harping on her small town/small state experience is just going to annoy rural and 'middle America' voters.


    Two term mayor to a town (none / 0) (#207)
    by byteb on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 08:31:16 PM EST
    of under 8,000.

    I disagree... (5.00 / 2) (#34)
    by dskinner3 on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 07:42:54 PM EST
    I don't understand what possible lessons he'd be learning on the campaign trail that increases the prepared for presidency column in his ledger. If anything, all I've seen is consistent vagueness, and not one leadership position on an issue.

    He learned a lot from Clinton (5.00 / 3) (#55)
    by Cream City on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 07:46:27 PM EST
    but maybe she was busy today.   Doing the work of national government, not just learning about it.

    Don't think so.... (none / 0) (#194)
    by oldpro on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 08:27:46 PM EST
    not from the way he ended his speech.

    Selling and Caving (5.00 / 3) (#37)
    by Athena on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 07:43:09 PM EST
    What has Obama been learning other than how to sell himself?  And he's learned that, judging from his FISA stand and other turnarounds.

    No, Obama is still highly vulnerable on the experience front.  

    But it's worse - he's vulnerable on the leadership front.  I don't know where he has shown any leadership on any issue - any political risk - at all.  Where is any courage?  

    If McCain can sell Palin as a risk-taker or network buster, etc., that will be an attribute that Obama (or Biden) will not be able to match easily.


    I think Palin may top him in (5.00 / 2) (#106)
    by nycstray on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 08:00:05 PM EST
    leadership skills, just on initial impressions and the bit I've learned about her. I'm guessing by her nickname and the fact she's been referred to as a pit bull etc, she's got some chops. I'm absolutely not with her on some major issues, but I do like some of her characteristics (is that the right word?!)

    obama's on the top of the ticket (none / 0) (#80)
    by londonamerican on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 07:53:48 PM EST
    where experience matters, and he has none.

    he's unwise to bring even more attention to that fact by attacking palin. but i am enjoying the spectacle of watching his surrogates do so and undermine him in the process.

    candidates who acted like experience was a bad thing - and who have none - just come off looking even more arrogant than they normally do when they try that kind of attack.

    mccain hit it out of the ballpark with this pick.


    This is so wrong. (5.00 / 6) (#45)
    by alexei on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 07:44:30 PM EST
    You don't learn governing by campaigning.  If that were true, Bush would have been a good President.

    Really? I mean, REALLY? (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by tigercourse on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 07:45:22 PM EST
    Jeralyn -- with respect, I never thought I would (5.00 / 5) (#63)
    by magnetics on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 07:48:50 PM EST
    say this, but you are, IMO, way off base -- about what he has learned in 17 months of campaigning.  One learns about governing by governing, not by campaigning.

    I've had you on a pedestal these last 6 months.  My viewpoint diverges, from yours, widely at times; but I always conceded (until now) that your views were strongly based.  Sorry, I'm not with you on this one.


    This is an argument (5.00 / 5) (#67)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 07:50:25 PM EST
    I recommend NO Democrat adopt.

    This indie agrees with you! (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by nycstray on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 07:55:25 PM EST
    I'm not speaking as a democrat (3.50 / 2) (#119)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 08:04:25 PM EST
    but as a citizen. I could care less about the politics of it.

    Hmm (5.00 / 1) (#147)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 08:14:44 PM EST
    Your title says that you think that political effect is disastrous for McCain BECAUSE of the experience issue.

    I think you might be right, but not because Democrats can start arguing experience.

    It is because McCain can not argue it anymore.

    As a citizen, if experience is a critical issue for you, then you must admit that McCain is much more experienced than Obama. In which case, as a citizen, the Palin pick MIGHT highlight a rationale for someone to support McCain over Obama.

    PErsonally, I think government experience is one of the most overrated things ever.


    You can't be serious (5.00 / 4) (#88)
    by Emma on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 07:55:22 PM EST
    One learns about running the government from campaigning?  

    Campaigning and governing are totally (5.00 / 3) (#146)
    by Valhalla on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 08:14:43 PM EST
    different activities.  Flying on a jet plan to Germany is not FP experience.  Neither is giving a speech someone else wrote for year, not even if you give it 100 times.

    And the Obama campaign recognizes that it's not, or they wouldn't have picked Biden as VP.


    Sorry Jeralyn, but I must disagree (5.00 / 2) (#157)
    by zfran on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 08:16:55 PM EST
    Obama learned how to sell himself into making us all believe he knew what he was doing. He surrounded himself with people who were there to advise him, as Gov. Palin would be as Biden would do as well. You reconciled your differences with Obama/Biden in order to support that ticket and to do that, you had to accept certain things. We all must accept certain things and make compromises. Gov. Palin is not perfect, Sen. Biden is not perfect, nor is John McCain or Barack Obama. What embarasses me is some of the comments made here that refer to the fact she's a woman. Has no one learned anything?

    Unreal. That's all I can say. (5.00 / 1) (#204)
    by LatinoVoter on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 08:30:39 PM EST
    How about judgement? (none / 0) (#136)
    by NWC80 on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 08:10:44 PM EST
    Leaving aside the experience debate cul-de-sac for a moment.

    What on earth does this pick say about McCain's judgment? The audacity of flippancy more like it.

    There is an awful whiff of Bush and Harriet Miers, here. The only difference is that Bush at least seemed to take more time thinking about his pick.

    How does anyone explain to the American public with a straight face that his decisionmaking process isn't seriously flawed if he only bothered to meet his pick less than a handful (and perhaps I am being generous with that number) of times?

    The press better be all over the process questions on this one.

    Now one gets a real sense of why young John ended up at the bottom of his USNA class. He just doesn't seem to take governing seriously.

    This is NOT a joke and shouldn't be treated as one. Picking a vice president was the first big decision of his very own on the national stage during this portion of the election cycle and he has recklessly managed to crash and burn spectacularly.


    I think this had far more to do with (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 07:33:50 PM EST
    exciting the evangelical base and getting their money to compete against Obama than going after former Hillary voters or women.

    I agree with you on this point (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by bjorn on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 07:41:57 PM EST
    and that is why I don't think this is a bad pick for him.  If Palin stumbles in the next few weeks you may be proven right.  But I think she may be smarter than anybody is giving her credit for at this time.

    Everyone (5.00 / 1) (#173)
    by mmc9431 on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 08:21:55 PM EST
    Expected McCain's temper to have gotten him in trouble by now too. I think it's really dangerous to under estimate this ticket. Democrat's have dismissed McCain from the start and yet here we are with a real race on our hands.

    sure (5.00 / 5) (#40)
    by pukemoana on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 07:43:35 PM EST
    although every time the Republican leadership stands up against sexism where Palin's concerned, some Democrats are going to remember that the Democratic leadership didn't.  

    Wouldn't Huckabee have been better then? (none / 0) (#8)
    by Teresa on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 07:35:00 PM EST
    I think it's all about women.

    Huckabee (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by Fabian on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 07:41:14 PM EST
    had a lot of skeletons hinted at during the short primary.  Huckabee would be a heckuva campaigner, but if he was weighted down with "baggage", it wouldn't help with the Values crowd.

    I think its all about... (5.00 / 7) (#81)
    by p lukasiak on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 07:53:58 PM EST
    ...restoring McCain's image as a "maverick" in a way that will resonate with women especially.

    What Palin signifies is "I'm not George Bush, I'm the guy you thought well of back in 2000."

    Palin's stance on social issues (and, since I happen to be a gay man, I'm pretty damned impressed with her) aren't going to matter in this election.  What is going to matter is the kind of leadership each candidate will provide, and the economy.  

    Palin personifies the antithesis of the "old boys network" -- Palin's presence on the ticket signifies the kind of real "change" that people want that Obama can only talk about.  She's an overall plus on economic issues for McCain because Alaska's economy is flush with oil money, making her about the only governor that doesn't face major cutbacks thanks to the economic disaster engineered by Bush -- in other words, its merely the illusion if fiscal responsibility that Palin presents -- the same image of fiscal responsibility that GOP governors enjoyed during the Clinton years.  But illusion or not, its still is going to be a plus for McCain/Palin.


    All of the Above (5.00 / 2) (#180)
    by santarita on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 08:23:43 PM EST
    The selection of Palin is a risky move but isn't an insane pick -
    as a social conservative she solidifies the base, as a woman she appeals to a certain demographic, as a relatively young woman, she appeals to a certain demographic, as an outside the Beltway person she represents change, and apparently she has fought against vested interests and makes McCain look like a forward thinking kind of guy.

    Her inexperience cancels out Obama's inexperience.  Both tickets have people with solid experience, both have people without solid experience.  The Democratic ticket is looking more like a team sport while McCain can rightly say that he'll show her what she needs.

    I think if the campaigns stayed rooted in the personalities, the Republicans will win.  The Dems have the issues on their side and should present the election as a choice between two fundamentally different views of the world.


    Yes, I'm waiting for the debates (none / 0) (#208)
    by tlkextra on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 08:31:21 PM EST
    (provided they are run fairly and unbiased) to see if Obama can do better than his appearance at Saddleback. If not, since he's had the Primaries to get better, I think I stop watching the coverage of this Election. It can be way too stressful to keep talking back to the TV screen.

    Mrs. Smith goes to Washington (none / 0) (#236)
    by Lowtideppm on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 08:40:28 PM EST
     whoa!  I totally agree with this.  It remains to be seen how she makes it through the next couple of months.  But - she can't just be dismissed.  
     Mrs. Smith goes to Washington.  She's the outsider that Obama has only presented himself to be.

    Last March, Palin while (none / 0) (#235)
    by byteb on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 08:40:21 PM EST
    discussing women leaders and Hillary Clinton in particular told a Newsweek reporter that she felt bad she couldn't support Hillary Clinton but she didn't like Clinton's "whining".

    Somehow I don't think this will endear Palin to Hillary supporters.

    HuffPost has the story up now.


    Ok. I'm voting for Obama. But, I don't get the (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by Teresa on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 07:33:51 PM EST
    talk on TV all day. Over and over it's asked, how is she qualified since she has no foreign policy or national experience.

    What's with that? Neither did Kaine. Did they ask that of him? I thought we normally elect governors as Presidents. This is a double standard.

    On the issues, she's bad. Even as a governor, she hasn't been there long. But the no foreign policy experience line is making me angry. Are only Senators qualified now? At the time Obama announced, he'd been a senator for a little over two years.

    Has there ever been (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by americanincanada on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 07:37:11 PM EST
    a senator elected president? I had the impression it was always governors. What is the big thing and why is everyone so upset? It makes no sense, especially whe Obama's glaring lack of experience is at the top of the ticket.

    Kennedy, but not lately. (5.00 / 5) (#24)
    by Teresa on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 07:41:29 PM EST
    This whole thing is driving me nuts. Today, I've read comments like, she's a MILF but...and they don't even get troll rated. She's got kids, she needs to be in Alaska with them. These are liberals writing that stuff? This is nuts.

    I'm not going to change my mind and I think she is a bad pick, but the reasons some people are giving just blow my mind.


    Sexism (5.00 / 8) (#108)
    by nell on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 08:00:29 PM EST

    It's totally okay for a man - Obama - to be a political neophyte, nobody in the media ever went after him for it. So what if he was only a community organizer? So what if he was a part-time state senator and had all of his major accomplishments in the state senate handed to him by emil jones? so what if he has only been a senator for a year? Nobody card. He was change, he was the outsider.

    But when the woman (at the bottom of the ticket, not even at the top) lacks experience it is the biggest travesty. It is not okay, it is a disaster for the country.

    I don't get it. Is it sexism? That is my first assumption...I mean, I don't want to take every criticism as sexism, but how was it okay for Obama to have no experience at the top of the ticket, but it isn't okay for Palin? After the way Hillary was treated, I am not sure what to think...


    JFK (none / 0) (#25)
    by darryl on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 07:41:37 PM EST
    senator from Massachusetts

    There have been two (none / 0) (#49)
    by caseyOR on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 07:44:45 PM EST
    senators elected to the White House-- Warren G. Harding and John F. Kennedy.

    JFK for one (none / 0) (#62)
    by JavaCityPal on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 07:48:01 PM EST
    It's not that she wasn't a senator (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 07:37:56 PM EST
    it's that her experience is as mayor of a small town and 2 years as governor in a small state.

    You don't bring change to Washington by picking someone who has no knowledge of how it works.

    McCain is 72 with a history of cancer. If anything happens to him in the first half of his term, this country will be in the hands of a total neophyte.


    You can say the same thing for Obama (5.00 / 6) (#48)
    by americanincanada on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 07:44:38 PM EST
    And no, campaigning is not learning to govern, you know that better than anyone.

    Obama has been running for office since the day he was elected and he would still be running for office the day he is sworn into the whitehouse. He has less than 200 days of actual work under his belt in the senate and he was a part time state legislator.

    Let's get real here. Palin has dealt with both Canada and Russia on issues of gas/oil/fishing and has done many things that Obama has only talked about doing.

    I think the patronizing tone towards a woman who just happens to be in a different party than you is a bit much. She deserves our respect just not our vote.


    Interesting. (5.00 / 3) (#60)
    by chel2551 on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 07:47:04 PM EST
    You don't bring change to Washington by picking someone who has no knowledge of how it works.

    That's what I used to say to Obama supporters who argued that he would change DC politics.


    me too (none / 0) (#197)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 08:28:36 PM EST
    I've always thought the "change" meme is just a campaign theme. McCain has now fallen for it too.

    forgot to add (none / 0) (#201)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 08:29:47 PM EST
    I could care less about change in Washington. I want competence, good instincts, judgment and positions on issue in Washington.

    I think that's what (5.00 / 1) (#223)
    by tlkextra on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 08:35:50 PM EST
    most voters want, but this cycle has been all about non-issues and what the Media has chosen to dwell on.

    Cancer subject, a bit of a low blow.... (5.00 / 6) (#50)
    by PssttCmere08 on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 07:44:50 PM EST
    so you CAN'T be inexperienced as VP on the off chance you might be prez, but you CAN be inexperienced and run for president?  Sorry, but I am not sure that flies.

    Of couse it doesn't fly. (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by alexei on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 08:00:47 PM EST
    It is totally hypocritical.

    I was against Obama (none / 0) (#168)
    by Radiowalla on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 08:20:08 PM EST
    and campaigned for Hillary.

    I am against Palin for the same reason.  She isn't even remotely qualified.

    I see no inconsistency at all.


    Small state, big state. The way I see this is (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by Teresa on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 07:46:38 PM EST
    I spent 18 years at a large retail corp as Accounting Manager/Director. I did the financial statements, general ledger, analyzing accounts for auditors, etc.

    In December, we has 400 million in sales, in February we had 60. Did my work change? Not one minute. Every single duty I had was the same, the numbers were just bigger.

    As far as mayor of a small town, I agree with you that she didn't face near the issues that a large city mayor does. But as governor, she has the same issues.


    So Delaware is bigger than Alaska? (none / 0) (#68)
    by JavaCityPal on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 07:50:32 PM EST
    I didn't realize that.

    I'm saying what you are saying. Being a (5.00 / 2) (#104)
    by Teresa on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 07:59:48 PM EST
    governor is being a governor no matter how big or small (population size) the state is. I think some of this questioning of her is pure sexism.

    Do I think this was a wise choice? No way. They were beating Obama up over his lack of experience and they killed that argument to an extent, but I seriously doubt that Tim Kaine would be taking hits today like this woman is.


    her issues as a Gov (none / 0) (#73)
    by ccpup on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 07:52:01 PM EST
    of Alaska are actually different as she works with both Russia and Canada on oil/gas/energy issues.  So her foreign policy experience may not be as slim as Obama's is.

    States and Companies Analogy (none / 0) (#249)
    by joanneleon on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 09:05:09 PM EST
    When you made the analogy between states and companies, it got me thinking.  I've worked at really large companies and I've worked at small companies.  At small companies, my breadth of knowledge was increased because I had access to the big picture and I had to do more different kinds of tasks.  At large companies my work was more compartmentalized, and the depth of my knowledge was better because we were more specialized, but there was less breadth.

    It's an interesting argument about which experience is more valuable to a pres/vice pres candidate, governing a smaller or larger state.  I can see good arguments for both sides.


    This is a really sickening argument... (5.00 / 6) (#71)
    by reynwrap582 on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 07:51:14 PM EST
    The whole "McCain is old and going to die" argument is not going to win any supporters who aren't already against him. It's a pretty sickening line of attack and I really hope it will go away.

    I'm really hoping for better from the person who runs my favorite (and only) politics blog.

    Obama's already been painted as sexist, the last thing we need is for ageism to creep in.

    Besides, Palin can just claim she has good judgment and automatically be on the same level as Obama.  2 years as the governor of any state is probably better experience than 2 years as senator for President anyhow.  Plus, wasn't Alaska 'invaded' by Russian bombers not to long ago?  Certainly didn't happen in Illinois.  The experience dog don't hunt in this one.


    Total RIGHT-WING neophyte to boot! (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by Radiowalla on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 07:57:32 PM EST
    Her positions on social issues are simply repellant.  She believes in creationism and would force her own teenage daughter to carry a child to term!

    I don't want someone in the Oval Office who is so green that they have to get out the manual to find out where the red telephone is.  I don't want a president, I mean another president, who seeks advice from James Dobson.


    Where does she say (none / 0) (#156)
    by kredwyn on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 08:16:42 PM EST
    that she believes in creationism?

    Start here... (none / 0) (#185)
    by EddieInCA on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 08:26:06 PM EST
    Oh...I've read that... (5.00 / 1) (#218)
    by kredwyn on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 08:33:53 PM EST
    now where exactly does she say that she's a creationist?

    All it says is that she is the daughter of a science teacher and that she supports a healthy debate.

    I see nothing in there that declares her to be anti-evolution...nor a creationist.


    Not exactly what she said (none / 0) (#237)
    by americanincanada on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 08:40:34 PM EST
    I hate it when people get misquoted. But thanks for the link. I really like this part:

    Her respect for the state constitution was illustrated by her first veto as governor. Alaska's Supreme Court had ordered the state to provide health benefits to same-sex partners of public employees, finding that this was mandated by the state constitution's equal protection clause. Palin vetoed a subsequent attempt by the legislature to enact legislation to take away the same-sex benefits. After being advised by the state attorney general that the legislation was unconstitutional, she said that signing the bill would be in direct violation of her oath of office. (Anchorage Daily News, Dec. 29, 2006 article.)


    Then you're not for Obama. (none / 0) (#188)
    by echinopsia on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 08:26:31 PM EST
    I don't want someone in the Oval Office who is so green that they have to get out the manual to find out where the red telephone is.

    No, I wasn't for him (none / 0) (#200)
    by Radiowalla on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 08:29:17 PM EST
    I supported Hillary.

    He has a history of skin cancer (5.00 / 2) (#151)
    by kredwyn on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 08:15:54 PM EST
    that is a very different beast than breast cancer, pancreatic cancer, or even prostate cancer. Life expectancy rates are much lower for each of the ones I've listed than with treated melanoma.

    The treatment for melanoma is fairly standard. My diss director had it on a semi-regular basis from his, as he called them, "sun bunny days."

    People live to ripe old ages with melanoma...so long as its treated.

    To imply that he'll be dead fairly shortly is a fear tactic.


    Melanoma is very treatable as long (5.00 / 1) (#245)
    by Mari on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 08:54:02 PM EST
    as the cancer cells do no pass into the blood. Once they pass the skin barrier, then it becomes difficult to treat. If it's confined to the skin, it is excised and the cancer cell are gone. I'm sure McCain's doctors do thorough, frequenct checks of his skin looking for any new lesions.

    You never know for sure (none / 0) (#176)
    by Radiowalla on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 08:22:30 PM EST
    with melanoma.  He has had it 4 different times and when it spreads it is particularly lethal.  

    I don't think it is an irrelevant issue at all.  


    I didn't say it was irrelevant (5.00 / 1) (#205)
    by kredwyn on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 08:30:45 PM EST
    but the fact is that he's not going to be dying any day or month soon.

    The odds are better that I get into a car accident on I-84 than he goes under with a fatal dose of skin cancer.


    Lysis's issuse with it (none / 0) (#224)
    by kredwyn on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 08:36:06 PM EST
    here are a mirror of my own issues with the use of cancer as a political tool.

    Sister is in stage 4 breast cancer. Mother is 3 years out of a bout with breast cancer.


    Skin cancer is very treatable (5.00 / 3) (#155)
    by Lysis on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 08:16:39 PM EST
    And quite frankly, you using cancer as a political weapon is infuriating me.  Every single member on my father's side of the family has died of cancer. It doesn't run in our family; it gallops.  

    My father was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer in September and died the following January.  In my family, a diagnosis of skin cancer would be like hitting the genetic lottery, given the far more severe types that my family members have been stricken with.

    I ask, respectfully, that you be a lot more careful with throwing that word around.  


    We are choosing a president (none / 0) (#214)
    by Radiowalla on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 08:32:48 PM EST
    here.  A president's health matters.

    I have lost many family members to cancer so I know about cancer.
    In fact, I have family members with melanoma.  But they aren't running for president.


    And the sites set up to push her as a VP candidate (none / 0) (#16)
    by Christy1947 on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 07:38:25 PM EST
    were up in late 2007, when she had been governor less than a year.

    I think you are mistaken there (none / 0) (#46)
    by Radiowalla on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 07:44:37 PM EST
    about Kaine.  It seems to me that his lack of foreign policy experience was mentioned all the time.  I believe it is why he wasn't chosen and I'm glad for it.  

    Evaluating a candidate's ability to negotiate foreign policy and to understand the geopolitical situation is perfectly valid.


    But (5.00 / 1) (#210)
    by Upstart Crow on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 08:31:36 PM EST
    Kaine was expected to make up for Obama's lack of foreign policy experience. Palin doesn't have to make up for that deficit in McCain.

    Mentioned by the media or those of us wanting (none / 0) (#75)
    by Teresa on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 07:53:05 PM EST
    Hillary? I didn't hear the media question whether he was qualified the way they are doing today. If the situation in Georgia hadn't happened, I'd bet everything I own that Obama would have picked Kaine.

    I must admit (5.00 / 9) (#10)
    by ccpup on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 07:35:34 PM EST
    that this derisive, almost mocking tone is something I wouldn't have expected of you, Jeralyn.

    Gov Palin is a fierce debater, a beloved figure in Alaskan politics, certainly savvy enough to take on and win the entrenched Republican machinery well enough to beat an incumbent Gov and is quickly becoming the new Media Darling (sorry, BTD).  That you so casually and thoughtlessly underestimate her is a (slight) cause of worry for me.

    One journalist who's intimately familiar with Alaskan politics is quoted as saying something to the effect of "Alaska is littered with the bodies of those who got in Sarah Palin's way".

    If the Obama campaign takes the attitude you've decided to take -- which seems like yet another premature, We've Got This In The Bag, It's Over Victory Lap --, we're sure to lose.

    This just surprises me from you.  But I'll get over it and look at the thoughts you offer in the future from a different perspective.

    on another note, (5.00 / 6) (#14)
    by ccpup on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 07:37:21 PM EST
    as for foreign policy experience, talk on TV has centered around the fact that, as Gov of Alaska, she works on an almost daily basis with officials from both Canada and Russia.

    So she may not be the neophyte everyone is assuming her to be.

    It'll be interesting to learn more about her, that's for sure.

    she's a much more interesting figure than (5.00 / 4) (#128)
    by kempis on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 08:06:33 PM EST
    a lot of people are giving her credit for being. Not that I'd vote for her, but I think a lot of people will find her a compelling addition to the ticket--and not just evangelicals.

    She's being written off as a pretty face and a likely lightweight. I get the impression that this is not accurate at all.

    And, BTD, the media may have a new darling....


    The new darling (none / 0) (#159)
    by byteb on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 08:17:34 PM EST
    is against abortion even in cases of rape and incest.

    well (5.00 / 1) (#182)
    by massdem on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 08:24:20 PM EST
    then I guess it's a good thing there will likely be a vetoproof dem majority next cycle

    Actually (none / 0) (#206)
    by echinopsia on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 08:31:01 PM EST
    Although I vehemently disagree with this position, it's a lot more honest than giving exceptions for rape and incest.

    If you think abortion is murder, it shouldn't matter how a pregnancy happens.


    up here in Canada (none / 0) (#148)
    by pukemoana on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 08:14:54 PM EST
    Stephen Harper has been pushing Canadian sovereignty in the Arctic (melting ice is opening up waterways and access to mineral resources etc), and the Russians are busy undertaking exercises to assert ownership as well (hey, let's go plant a Russian flag on an underwater shelf!).  Now I have zero idea how clued in Palin is on any of this, but it stands to reason that Alaska is deeply embedded in a percolating mix of international boundaries, globalization (shipping will soon be able to go above the N. Amn continent), resources, and policing of the region

    From what I have heard today (5.00 / 1) (#240)
    by americanincanada on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 08:43:50 PM EST
    she is pretty involved. I am waiting on friends in gov here to get back to me on their thoughts of her.

    I was aware of her because, as a GLBT activist, her stance on GLBT partners benefits in Alaska was amazing given she is conservative. We were all amazed at the time.


    Speaking only for me... (5.00 / 5) (#17)
    by kredwyn on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 07:38:38 PM EST
    I think you're wrong on this.

    oh my (5.00 / 7) (#19)
    by TimNCGuy on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 07:39:44 PM EST
    enough with the "is Palin qualified on day one" question.

    Look, McCain would have to DIE on day one for that to even matter.

    Nobody will have to die for Obama to have to be ready on day one and he isn't any more qualified to be CIC than Palin by comparing their resumes.

    Thank you, Jeralyn! (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by Radiowalla on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 07:41:56 PM EST
    The choice of Palin was cynical and ill-considered and reflects very badly on McCain's judgment.   I just heard Paul Begala on CNN pointing out that McCain is 72 and has had cancer 4 times.  Given that, one would think that he might pick someone completely prepared to take over as commander in chief at a moment's notice.

    I also just learned that McCain had only just met the woman!  

    As for myself, I'm simply aghast.

    So, Biden has had 2 anuerisms . So (5.00 / 2) (#171)
    by zfran on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 08:21:50 PM EST
    what? Obama has a letter from his doctor saying he's okay. So what? Biden is 66 so I wouldn't make McCain's age an issue. Obama's judgement had him voting against FISA.

    this is ageism at it's best. (5.00 / 1) (#227)
    by kimsaw on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 08:37:23 PM EST
    McCain is not dead, and so he's had cancer, a lot of people have. Begala's comment is offensive to say the least. Didn't McCain release his medical records. Did the doctor say he was at death's door?  

    If this reflects badly on McCain's judgment, how does not picking Clinton reflect on Obama's judgment. Was his judgment to flick Clinton off presidential? He picked Biden because of his lack of foreign policy creds. Obama's resume isn't pages of heft. Palin is a respected executive officer elected in her state. Obama was a state legislator. He now represents Illinois as a US Senator, but what exactly was his attendance record after his first year in the Senate? Exactly what has he accomplished? Didn't Clinton's experienced get questioned? As I recall many pundits offered her service as First Lady wasn't really considered experience in leadership.

    Palin's first journey into the belly of the beast went well. She was confident in her presentation. Do I agree with a lot of  her views probably not, but then I didn't agree with all of Clinton's views, nor am I an Obama or McCain supporter. But I am willing to listen and then decide.

    I finding the feeding frenzy quite amusing. McCain threw a wrench in the mix and it is as much political theater as the Obama extravaganza last night. Oprah may have been crying her eyes out last night, but today I'm laughing out loud.

    The media is out of control. Gov. Palin has a right to be heard.


    IMO, women are fungible to McCain (none / 0) (#174)
    by byteb on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 08:22:04 PM EST
    Cynical, I know but his attitude towards women seem prehistoric.

    This is a very strange path to continue going (5.00 / 9) (#32)
    by tigercourse on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 07:42:39 PM EST
    down. If Palin isn't qualified to be VP, then there is no way in heck that Obama should ever be elected President. I'd stop arguing this pretty quick if I were involved with the campaign.

    the campaign isn't arguing it (none / 0) (#74)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 07:52:22 PM EST
    I am, as a citizen. I have nothing to do with any campaign.

    Here, in essence is the argument that you (5.00 / 5) (#87)
    by tigercourse on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 07:55:06 PM EST
    are making. "Their VP nominee (who is only a little less experienced then our Presidential nominee) does not have enough experience to be a second fiddle." That is a bad argument to make when our guy has spent less time in public service, has less executive experience and less state wide experience.

    the first statement that came (5.00 / 3) (#112)
    by TimNCGuy on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 08:01:51 PM EST
    from the Obama campaign about this choice did argue she wasn't experienced enough.  Then later in the day after thinking things through, Obama made a personal statement that didn't mention her experience.

    yes, evidently Obama's campaign (5.00 / 2) (#150)
    by Josey on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 08:15:22 PM EST
    is still "uncomfortable" with any woman running against Obama.
    Initially the campaign said Obama and Biden wouldn't be making on-camera comment about Palin.
    Then after his campaign released a nasty statement that derided Palin and small towns, Obama and Biden did release a nice statement - and later Obama did make a nice  on-camera comment- hoping to smoothe over everything and blamed it on his campaign staff.
    Shades of Punjab and 4-page memo casting the Clintons as racists.

    and next week (5.00 / 1) (#238)
    by TimNCGuy on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 08:40:35 PM EST
    the Obama campaign will claim that Obama never SAID anything negative about Palin or her level of experience.

    Reports of her imminent demise may be (5.00 / 5) (#33)
    by Redshoes on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 07:42:50 PM EST
    greatly exaggerated.  

    When HRC refused to quit everyone kept wondering why.  I read an article (long lost) that kept it simple.   She's competitive.   People on the national stage (and I consider individuals who run for governor) are very competitive personalities.  

    Regardless of what weight you give her short tenure as governor and her prior work Palin strikes me as someone who will be a quick learner and someone who will play to win.

    And the visuals are already contradicting the no foreign experience -- photos of her visiting her National Guard troops in Iraq.  

    Plus while it's true McCain turned 72 most people don't expect him to keel over immediately upon taking office.  So everyone who already has him in the grave maybe overthinking this one.

    It was a good day for the Republicans -- they send a gracious message last night congratulating Democrats' on their historic night and today stepped all over what should have been Obama's day and message with their own historic message.

    he could get (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 07:55:58 PM EST
    hit a car or his plane could crash. She would be President. If he goes in for surgery, she'll be acting President. I wouldn't buy this ticket if I were a Republican.  As a Democrat, it's nothing short of scary.

    You and we aren't Republicans. She's a gun (5.00 / 3) (#111)
    by tigercourse on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 08:01:39 PM EST
    toting, God loving, small town girl makes good fairy tale. They love her.

    Who's running the government now? (5.00 / 1) (#129)
    by chel2551 on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 08:06:57 PM EST

    What If Something Happened To Biden? (5.00 / 3) (#139)
    by JimWash08 on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 08:11:26 PM EST
    Obama picked him to shore up his thin resume.

    If Obama is President and something happens to Biden, are we all going to be doomed because our President is under-qualified (he doesn't have any foreign policy experience)?

    Of course not. The Prez and VP do not live alone on an island and govern this country. There are multiple contingencies and an army of advisers and experts to help both of them.

    It's absurd to have a different standard for her.

    And no, I'm not supporting her or voting for her ticket. I am just calling it as I see it, and this double-standard argument should not be used.

    I'd much rather use an argument on policy; i.e. health care and abortion rights.


    Lost: Jeralyn Merritt (5.00 / 5) (#181)
    by justonevoice on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 08:23:45 PM EST
    Please return Jeralyn back to Talk Left.  She was last seen standing up for her principles by putting Biden in an Oldsmobile with Obama crusading against Biden's "Justice League" baloney.  Estimated time she went missing:  around the time she met up with Arianna Huffington and all the big whigs at the CNN sports bar during the DNC.

    If found, please have her return to her normal channel of reasoning.  

    I cannot BEEELIEVE I am reading this stuff!!!


    Last Seen with WKJM (none / 0) (#217)
    by Dan the Man on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 08:33:51 PM EST
    For the first time (5.00 / 2) (#186)
    by Serene1 on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 08:26:07 PM EST
    even I find myself totally disagreeing with Jeralyn. Palin is as if not more qualified as Obama for the presidency. Like Bill C said even he was new and lacked experience when he became President. So how is it o.k. for Bill C to lack experience and now Obama but not Palin?

    Also I think McCain was very bold in his choice of Palin. It was a bold and risky move and kudos to McCain for taking. In comparison Obama's choices and actions till date have mostly been safe and the conventional old way of doing things.

    After a long time I am reenergized about this election and am seriously looking forward to how it plays out.


    The last Pres. who died in office was 40 (5.00 / 2) (#226)
    by angie on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 08:36:55 PM EST
    I honestly don't get this line of reasoning. Anyone can get hit by a car or die in a plane crash -- should we only vote for the President based on who the VP choice is? I think this argument is weak. Same thing could happen to Obama and then we'd be stuck with Biden as President -- I find that a pretty scary proposition too (although for very different reasons then a Pres. Palin). As far as McCain's "history of cancer" -- I thought it was skin cancer -- not to diminish it, but that doesn't exactly carry the same grim prognosis as brain or liver cancer. Come on -- my uncle was treated for skin cancer 15 years ago and he is fine -- heck two of my aunts had breast cancer 4 years ago & they are fine. We are in the 21st century here.
    I'm not advocating for Palin -- just pointing out that I find this argument difficult to accept.

    and unlike Obama - (2.00 / 1) (#123)
    by Josey on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 08:05:17 PM EST
    Palin has actually visited wounded soldiers at Landstuhl base in Germany in July 2007 - with no press corp.
    During his World Tour this summer, Obama opted not to visit wounded soldiers there.

    The Obama campaign (5.00 / 2) (#35)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 07:43:04 PM EST
    won't attack her lack of experience. They won't have to. The media and pundits will do it for them. They are already in full swing.

    I don't care what she did for Alaska. It doesn't qualify her to be vice president.

    I'd be laughing if the prospect of the evenagelicals and Obama haters pushing McCain to victory wasn't so terrifying.

    Again, why aren't you being honest.... (5.00 / 2) (#103)
    by alexei on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 07:59:16 PM EST
    and "attack" Obama's complete lack of experience.  I agree with BTD, it is not in the best interests of Obama and yes the Media to be attacking another female candidate and using the inexperience factor only with the female candidate.

    The odds are they won't... (5.00 / 1) (#118)
    by kredwyn on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 08:04:24 PM EST
    not when their Democratic presidential darling had about as much experience as the Republican vice presidential candidate.

    And BTW...my dissertation advisor has McCain's kind of skin cancer and he's still annoying the crap out of students. You can die from a car accident more frequently than from melanoma.


    She'll win the undecideds and middle voters (5.00 / 1) (#241)
    by Valhalla on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 08:45:31 PM EST
    Really, the 'Obama haters'?  C'mon.

    I grew up in small, rural, lower middle class town.  Yes, it was in liberal Mass., but it was very working class (yes Mass. does have a working class, Hillary won them by a landslide in the primary).  Demographically, politically and socially, they are very like voters in the Midwest.  I've also lived in 3 Midwestern states, so I'm pretty confident on the comparison.

    And Sarah Palin is all sorts of the person to attract those voters.  She's tough.  They admire tough.  She worked her way up to the top spot in the state.  She and her husband have middle class/working class roots.  She's a working mother, she an outdoorswoman, she can play with the big boys and yet is still knock 'em dead gorgeous.  She knows what they're lives are like.

    And she's got an 80% approval rating in the state that is the last of the American frontier.

    And I think proof that she's a real threat is the utter panic convulsing through the infotainmentsphere since this morning.  Hell, I think she'd be a threat to a Clinton-Obama ticket, never mind an Obama-Biden one.

    McCain's not trying to get your or TL's vote.  He's trying to get Indpendents, moderate Republicans, and the working class vote.

    And we Americans are all suckers for person with a storybook background.  (see Obama, Barack. 2008 presidential primaries).


    It sounds like you are worried (none / 0) (#70)
    by bjorn on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 07:50:48 PM EST
    this pick really helps McCain, and it does.  But I think he is still a long way from the Whitehouse and that Obama will prevail.  Palin excites the Republican base but I would say Obama does that for his base and then some.  Palin does not help McCain with Independents, at least not imo. Unless Obama blows in the debates I think he can win this thing.

    It should all be about judgment. (5.00 / 0) (#36)
    by steviez314 on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 07:43:08 PM EST
    Voters have had 2 years to decide about Obama's judgment.  He had told us where he stands on the important foreign policy issues.

    It's not Palin's experience that should be an issue, but we have absolutely zero idea what she thinks about Iraq, Iran, North Korea, Russia.  And we only have 60 days to find out.

    Framing (5.00 / 2) (#39)
    by Pianobuff on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 07:43:20 PM EST
    I expect McCain to subtly correlating "experience" with "accomplishment".  As the argument starts moving to Palin, she has some substantial items to tick off.  If Obama tries to use the three legislative examples he recently cited, they will poke pins into them - which I don't think will be hard.

    McCain has been studying Hillary's campaign long and hard and as with other issues are copying and optimizing her playbook in ways that are easier in a GE.  Hillary's cast-in-stone image as a "let's start working" candidate may serve as a model for Palin (and even JM).  Now that some of the celebrity bubble has been burst, the Repub team (particularly Palin) can be more effective, using lines like "Obama will bring you up to the heights, McCain will get down to business".  This rhetoric will be solidified by Palin's presence, who can draw on some comparatively substantial accomplishments.

    My thoughts aren't fully developed, so some of this may sound like rambling.  

    I like the first part... (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by Oje on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 07:56:34 PM EST
    Redefining experience as accomplishments, rather than as "the number of years I lived/worked as a [INSERT EXPERIENCE HERE]." That may be effective, and the Obama campaign's and fauxblogosphere's responses reflect an understanding of experience in simply annual terms.

    As to the second part, I doubt the Republicans are copying a Democrat's playbook.


    LMAO (5.00 / 3) (#51)
    by sociallybanned on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 07:45:02 PM EST
    I'll come back and comment on Nov. 4th.  I'm beside myself today.  I can't stop laughing.

    I think we should take a step back (5.00 / 2) (#58)
    by joanneleon on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 07:46:38 PM EST
    and try to get a few different points of view on these stories about Palin before coming out with strong statements.  She's got a few non-admirers (to put it lightly) in Alaska, including some who had a lot of power there for decades.  It's likely that there is some credible information out there but also some that is questionable.

    For instance, she's credited, at least partly, with killing the "Bridge to Nowhere" project.  And she made an enemy of Ted the Hulk Stevens and the Murkowski crowd.

    Gov. Sarah Palin said Friday the project was $329 million short of full funding.

    "We will continue to look for options for Ketchikan to allow better access to the island," the Republican governor said. "The concentration is not going to be on a $400 million bridge."

    Palin directed state transportation officials to find the most "fiscally responsible" alternative for access to the airport. She said the best option would be to upgrade the ferry system.
    CNN link 9/22/07

    Ted Stevens, the grand-daddy of Alaskan politics, has a wary relationship with the new Republican VP pick -- Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin.

    When Palin was running for governor in 2006, she ousted long time Alaska fixture Frank Murkowski in a hard fought primary. Stevens and Murkowski are long time friends and Palin was able to defeat the sitting governor by running on ethics and clean government reformist platform.

    Stevens ultimately came to endorse Palin, but it was late in the game. He endorsed her less than three weeks before the general election, although he did cut a television advertisement for her.

    In July of last year, Palin shocked and angered Stevens by publicly criticizing him for his role in the VECO scandal and called for him to speak out about it.
    MSNBC Link 8/29/08

    Man (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by Steve M on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 07:49:39 PM EST
    These arguments the Republicans keep coming up with for why she is sooooo experienced are just ridiculous.  She's the Commander-in-Chief of the Alaska National Guard... and the Alaska National Guard is in Iraq!  So you see, she already has experience as the Commander-in-Chief of troops in Iraq!!!!

    I can't help but be reminded of when they tried to claim that Clarence Thomas was the most qualified person for the job.  I mean, they know it's not true, they know no one believes them, but they just keep saying it!

    Oh, I think there's enough criticism to spread (5.00 / 4) (#89)
    by JavaCityPal on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 07:55:23 PM EST
    around today.

    The Democrats who are Obama followers are using all the same arguments they fought and excused and defended with very lame points of fact against their own guy.

    This whole thing is laughable at the highest level. Both tickets, BOTH tickets fall way short of being what is needed to get this country back on the right track!

    The next four years are doomed to the leadership of one of these people. Get over it.


    Well (none / 0) (#126)
    by Steve M on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 08:06:15 PM EST
    I do not think I am personally guilty of any flip-flops, so I can sleep easy tonight.

    You (5.00 / 2) (#134)
    by RalphB on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 08:09:55 PM EST
    aren't going to join in this stupidity parade surely.  This thread is embarassing.

    Are you of the opinion (none / 0) (#166)
    by Steve M on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 08:18:49 PM EST
    that Palin has Commander-in-Chief experience?  Do you not agree with me that it is a dumb argument?

    And yet (5.00 / 4) (#138)
    by janarchy on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 08:11:11 PM EST
    Clarence Thomas got the job, didn't he?

    And was given it to him by Joe Biden. So maybe not the analogy you ought to use.


    Huh? (none / 0) (#164)
    by Steve M on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 08:18:03 PM EST
    I am not making a case for anything.  I am talking about the reaction I had in my own mind.

    You folks can be weird sometimes.


    Not weird. (none / 0) (#189)
    by janarchy on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 08:26:56 PM EST
    I'm just saying that even though all of that is true about Thomas, he still wound up on the SCOTUS, experienced or not.

    Mockery is useful... (5.00 / 5) (#143)
    by Oje on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 08:13:13 PM EST
    but we Democrats better start thinking about the political play that will follow from these acts.

    Liberals consider our troop's lives precious. The experience of sending even one battalion of Alaskans to Iraq may not be easy to trifle with. She will be able to speak about the lives effected under her executive care (to the extent that it is), how she understands first hand the gravity of sending troops overseas.

    One of the best things about talkleft during the long primary was the effort of posters to think through what was happening in the process. Instead of agitprop and (sexist - note,  this is not directed at any talkleft posters) ridicule a la TPM, dkos, and Exchaton, would not talkleft play a more useful role thinking through the challenges that the Democrats face following Obama's and McCain's VP picks?

    I realize the PUMAs will not get on board, but we have something to learn from their resistance as well, the kind of things that need to be said to enlarge our party's constituency. Not to be flippant, but it seems like too many bloggers are treating Obama's speech last night as the end of the general election. McCain's desperation? Yeah, right.


    Sounds like the Obama campaign. (5.00 / 1) (#195)
    by zfran on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 08:27:51 PM EST
    At least Gov. Palin doesn't have a seal, and big columns and come across as an elitist. In fact, to me, should came across as a very strong individual. Why are people so afraid of strong women?

    McCain is moving to the right (5.00 / 3) (#76)
    by ding7777 on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 07:53:07 PM EST
    This has nothing to do with whether Obama supporters think she's qualified... the Republican base likes her!

    moving to the right? (none / 0) (#198)
    by Josey on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 08:28:42 PM EST
    With Palin, I see McCain moving to the left - and definitely away from Bush and only men in the White House.
    Parents and teachers of special needs children will certainly take a look at Palin.
    And her veto of a ban on gay health benefits...
    She may not be as Green as Obama, but at least she acknowledges the existence of global warming - unlike some of the more rabid Fox News viewers.

    Top Of The Ticket vs. VP Candidate (5.00 / 3) (#82)
    by JimWash08 on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 07:54:09 PM EST
    I don't know, but there really isn't an argument there.

    This "heartbeat from the Presidency" talking-point is being repeated ad-nauseum, and it's a creation of the Obama campaign PR folks that even the biased CNNers are parroting.

    Well, in the GOPs case, it's the more inexperienced, or "unqualified" person in second-position, as opposed to the Democratic ticket.

    Besides, when Biden was picked, everyone was countering the attacks of that choice with, "Oh, but no one votes for the Veep, it's who's at the top of the ticket."

    Palin, if indeed she is unqualified -- despite having had executive and business management experience, which neither of the two on the Democratic ticket have -- then she will learn the ropes quickly, as opposed to Obama, to whom she's being compared to but instead sits at the TOP of the Dems ticket.

    The McCain camp probably calculated that it'll be more of a comfort to voters on the fence, the Independents and the Reagan Democrats who are reconsidering Obama that it's the 2nd-in-line, and not the Presidential candidate, who'll be learning on the job.

    Also, according to many commentators I've heard on TV today, she was picked to not only fill some gaps in McCain's resume but to complement his strengths as the "maverick" and "no-nonsense fighter," and also energize the ticket with a young, fresh face and name.
    A little O/T, but I'd like to add "heartbeat from the Presidency" to the phrases ("thrown under the bus" especially) I never hope to hear again.

    It will be interesting to see (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by DemForever on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 07:55:00 PM EST
    how Palin performs in the national spotlight, assuming they have her out there and not surrounded by a shield of aides.  She is obviously very bright, but she is in a whole new league now.  

    Well, her kickoff speech today was (5.00 / 4) (#213)
    by Valhalla on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 08:31:51 PM EST
    great.  I was having a hard time resisting her.  She hit all the high points -- anticorruption, integrity, no matter what party you're from you can get behind true government service, etc etc.  She has very clear and confident delivery, and holds the audiences attention.

    I predict viewership of the Repub convention on the night she speaks will go way up, and she'll hit a home run.  I think she's the only VP pick that could have done that for McCain.

    Of course it will all be a stage-managed spectacle, but so was the Democratic Convention.

    Btw, the only Democratic response made today that wasn't a political loser was from Clinton.


    She appears to be able to handle (5.00 / 3) (#101)
    by MichaelGale on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 07:58:18 PM EST
    anything that comes. She is a feisty woman, was called Sarah "Barracuda" on her HS basketball team because she is so competitive.

    Biden better watch out.:-)

    This is the most interesting election. An AA for Democrats; a woman for Republicans. Amazing

    cnn.com headline calls her a "maverick (5.00 / 3) (#102)
    by tigercourse on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 07:59:15 PM EST
    pioneer". San Francisco Chronicle calls her the "GOP dream candidate".

    I think you are way off base in calling this a disaster for McCain.

    I Think It's Awfully Sexist... (5.00 / 4) (#107)
    by semidi on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 08:00:26 PM EST
    ...to say that she's being used. I have no doubt that she believes that she can raise her profile and those of the issues that matter to her  in a positive manner by running.

    Her views are abhorrent to, y'know, HUMAN BEINGS, but she feels strongly about them,  and I don't believe this is a woman who gets used.

    I wouldn't underestimate someone who could take out Frank Murkowski.

    I was happy too (5.00 / 2) (#122)
    by melro on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 08:05:17 PM EST
    My blog tonight and other nights highlighted Sarah Palin. Here is a quote from an immediate press release by Roger Sclickeissen of Defenders of Wildlife today that I included:

    "Sarah Palin, whose husband works for BP (formerly British Petroleum), has repeatedly put special interests first when it comes to the environment. In her scant two years as governor, she has lobbied aggressively to open up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to drilling, pushed for more drilling off of Alaska's coasts, and put special interests above science. Ms. Palin has made it clear through her actions that she is unwilling to do even as much as the Bush administration to address the impacts of global warming. Her most recent effort has been to sue the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to remove the polar bear from the endangered species list, putting Big Oil before sound science. As unbelievable as this may sound, this actually puts her to the right of the Bush administration."

    And oh there will be more.

    Her complete lack of national experience matters (5.00 / 2) (#133)
    by delacarpa on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 08:08:03 PM EST
    and Obama??

    I don't care for either of our choices (5.00 / 4) (#144)
    by caseyOR on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 08:13:20 PM EST
    for president. And Joe Biden does absolutely nothing for me. The addition of Sarah Palin certainly makes the election interesting again.

    I first heard of her over a year ago. And, while I disagree with her on so many issues, I like her. And that is more than I can say for either of the gentlemen on the Democratic ticket.

    And, Jeralyn, your response to this development sounds a bit panicky, and I don't understand why. Are you worried that Palin just might pull enough women's votes away from Obama to make a difference?

    I can't think of... (none / 0) (#154)
    by EddieInCA on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 08:16:20 PM EST
    ...one issue on which Palin would convert a PROGRESSIVE woman to vote for McCain if the progressive woman knew Palin's actual positions.

    It's not liberals that you should worry about. (5.00 / 2) (#175)
    by tigercourse on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 08:22:12 PM EST
    Swing voting moderates, white small town women, Evangelicals. She's good with the base, and the middle.

    Rather than fight over a losing argument (5.00 / 1) (#167)
    by Redshoes on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 08:19:38 PM EST
    what is the Democrat's response to the Republicans who are pushing the story that Palin is a reformer and someone who bucks her own party?

    McCain doesn't care about my vote (he knows I'm not giving to him) he cares about his base and -- those leaning toward a 3rd party candidate  or undecided enough to be persuadable.  Here's somebody who has outsider status but a frontier life story and she's got energy.  

    Hello Dems let's wake up and focus.

    I'm more than a little surprised (5.00 / 1) (#170)
    by chel2551 on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 08:21:41 PM EST
    that such debate about a republican candidate for vice president has been the focus of almost every post today.

    Yes, there's trouble all right.  And I see no quick fixes.


    The longer range implications of this pick are not (5.00 / 3) (#184)
    by jazz on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 08:25:45 PM EST
    yet clear.  Some thoughts about the new calculus:
    1. McCain gets to reclaim his maverick status.
    2. The candidate of change, Obama, picked a conventional, "safe" VP.  The more "traditional" candidate showed he could shake things up.
    3. McCain's pick will probably not sway many traditional Democrats, but it seems Obama has to be much more careful about the attention he gives to women and women's issues.  Thanks Hillary for making this pick possible which may mean health care moves back up the list.
    4. A win by either side will now be history making for one group or another.  This takes some oxygen from Obama.
    5. Palin is insulated from attacks on her experience, but so is Obama.

    Like it or not (5.00 / 1) (#233)
    by justonevoice on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 08:39:26 PM EST
    him picking Palin changes the dynamic in his favor.  On ABC's blogger comment section, there were over 3000 comments (and going).  Townhall, Red State, Michelle Malkin are all off the charts as well.  

    And those are THEIR sites.

    The PUMA sites are revelling in this for many reasons.  Between No Quarter and Riverdaughter, there were easily over a 1000 comments.  And most of them were in support of this decision.

    I think people are WAYYYY underestimating the rifts from the Dem primary.  McCain, what ALL politicians do (see Barack and evangelicals for details) PANDER.

    McCain ain't stupid.  He KNEW what Palin could bring:  shore up his base (refer to aforementioned blogs to get confirmation) and has the likes of Geraldine Ferraro praising this move.  PUMAS didn't need a really big excuse to possibly vote for McCain.  He just gave them one.

    Thank you? (5.00 / 1) (#253)
    by mabelle55 on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 09:16:21 PM EST
    And "Go Diana"?


    I can't believe my ears and eyes. The comments I'm reading on "leftie" blogs are just mean. And I'm with BTD and others who see this as really hypocritical.

    The "insult to women" comments are OT and remind me once again why I pause about Democrats, also. Comments like this ALSO treat women as a monolithic group.

    Shame on you, Jeralyn. I expect better of you. That you publish this demeaning stuff makes me realize you are just scared that maybe Obama-Biden will lose in November. You sure don't give women the benefit of the doubt that we actually have brains or critical thinking skills with these comments...

    Obama campaign could lose big if they (4.33 / 3) (#43)
    by zvs888 on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 07:44:17 PM EST
    underestimate her.

    The problem Jeralyn is that people on the left are setting expectations so low, that all she has to do is stand next to Biden and not cave in (which she won't) and she'll beat him in their debate.

    So, let's be realistic here.  She clearly got elected to be a governor, so she's not someone to be taken lightly.

    What some think is a liability could become the ace in the hole if people don't catch on.

    The biggest thing Obama got out of this is that McCain doesn't have an attack dog VP (unless somehow Palin is going to do that), which can enable he and Biden to go and attack McCain hard.

    However, this underscores that he needs to ask the Clintons more than ever to help him get the votes in Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania and out west in Colorado and Nevada.

    The worst thing would be for Obama/Biden to go after her for a while because it will just backfire and she'll get way more than the PUMAs and disaffected Hillary voters.

    No (5.00 / 5) (#65)
    by ccpup on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 07:50:09 PM EST
    the Clintons are not on the ballot.  Obama and Biden need to get those votes themselves.  If they can't, then they shouldn't even be on the ticket.

    The last thing the Obama campaign (5.00 / 3) (#211)
    by zfran on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 08:31:42 PM EST
    wanted today after his big acceptance speech was talk of Hillary Clinton. From this morning on throughout the day Hillary's name was mentioned. It only reminded people again. I watched all day, all channels and Obama's name was hardly mentioned. They had to put out statements just to get his name back in the mainstream!

    You know (5.00 / 1) (#161)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 08:17:54 PM EST
    I'd forgotten about this, but she did take out both Murkowski and former Dem governor Tony Knowles to be guv.  That means she's probably a pretty capable campaigner given that neither of these guys are lightweights.

    She may be a dud, but it bears watching and not assuming she'll crash and burn on her own.


    not going to work (5.00 / 3) (#169)
    by hlr on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 08:21:24 PM EST
    he needs to ask the Clintons more than ever to help him get the votes in Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania and out west in Colorado and Nevada.

    • rural small-town voters will love Sarah Palin.

    • it's silly to send Hillary out to woo women at this point. She's not on the ticket, which is why we have this situation in the first place. She's the wrong person to send out to say 'don't vote for this woman.' Send Claire instead -- she's good at that sort of thing.

    The only thing that's left is to campaign on the positives of the Clinton admin, but BO is adament on separating himself from that.

    No (5.00 / 2) (#172)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 08:21:52 PM EST
    Obama didn't want them before. Now that he's in trouble he can't expect them to bail them out. If Obama doesn't think he can win by himself then he should have never run for the nomination.

    She was entirely a pick to get women, IMO (none / 0) (#2)
    by Dadler on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 07:29:41 PM EST
    Evangelicals will NOT vote for Obama, period, and never would.  They think black people were a separate creation.  Seriously, I was taught that at my high school, largest evangelical h.s. in the entire country, to beat a dead horse.  Had a history teacher tell us, and I quote directly, "Just because the Declaration of Independence says all men are created equal, doesn't mean God intended it for his creation."

    Palin was picked entirely, and with great stupidity, to supposedly get disgruntled Hillary voters.  Evidence of how absolutely tone deaf McCain and the Republicans are.  The Dems maybe pretty deaf these days, to women especially, but the Republicans make them look like Susan B. Anthony in comparison.

    On second thought (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by Dadler on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 07:31:11 PM EST
    I suppose there could have been some tilt toward the evangelicals, but, i don't know, I just don't see them going for Obama at all, or deserting the Republican party.  They hate liberals and abortion too much.  

    If I am not mistaken James Dobson is (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by PssttCmere08 on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 07:42:29 PM EST
    back in McCain's corner after today's announcement...don't know how much weight that will carry; we will just have to wait and see.

    back in McCain's corner from where? (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by Dadler on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 07:46:32 PM EST
    Dobson is not exactly a trustworthy guy, he's full of sh*t 24/7.  The religious right will back McCain as fully as they back any Republican.  I don't care what anyone says, I spent years immersed in evangelical culture, they don't sit out elections, they vote Republican when push comes to shove.

    Tone it down....it was just a comment (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by PssttCmere08 on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 07:50:17 PM EST
    and alot of people listen to Dobson, like it or not.

    Not people who would vote for Obama ever (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by Dadler on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 07:55:01 PM EST
    My point was clear: the religious right does not desert the Republican Party.  Ever.  Hasn't happened to datea and won't happen this time.  Sorry if the tone was rude, was not my intent.

    Try telling that to Obama then (5.00 / 3) (#215)
    by janarchy on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 08:33:33 PM EST
    He's been pandering to the Evangelicals for weeks now with his Faith-Based stuff and his Youth Ministry stuff and his Matthew 25 Network. Both parties have been courting them -- and now the Republicans have just reeled them back in. You may not like it, but it was a smart move.

    Invoking Susan B. Anthony (5.00 / 2) (#12)
    by Cream City on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 07:36:43 PM EST
    on this is perilous.  I can just hear what she would have to say about a lot of so-called Dem "leadership" these days.  

    The good Quaker lady just might get her claws out.  Periodically, when she's feeling down.  And not likable enough. . . .   So who would say such tone-deaf nonsense?  And just where is that line between pretty tone-deaf and absolutely tone-deaf?!  

    Go after the Republicans on the issues.  Period.  And not, y'know, periodically.  

    If getting back to the issues is what Palin's nomination accomplishes, then hallelujah.


    What issues? (none / 0) (#44)
    by Dadler on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 07:44:21 PM EST
    They keep getting brought up and laid out, and people simply keep saying "Oh, no, McCain won't be that bad."  He has a very conservative record, he almost NEVER bucks his party, despite what the popular belief is.  Palin has a record, clear as day.  She is hyperconserative.  Quakers, btw, are some of the most liberal people I've ever met.  Almost up there with Unitarians.

    "They"? "People"? (none / 0) (#153)
    by Cream City on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 08:16:15 PM EST
    There really is no way to engage in that sort of discourse.  I don't know who the heck you mean.

    I do know about McCain, Palin, Quakers, Unitarians, et al.  But those seem to be not on your point about "them" and "those people," whomever they are.


    I doubt any HRC supporters will be swayed by this. (5.00 / 3) (#42)
    by reynwrap582 on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 07:44:01 PM EST
    This is a ploy to both reduce the historical nature of Obama's campaign (perfectly timed to step on the toes of his MLK-anniversary nomination speech, too), and to secure independent or right-leaning women who might have either be leaning toward Obama or are disaffected, non-dem HRC supporters (and polls show she had a lot of them).  I seriously doubt many democratic women will be swayed to McCain over this, and I'm sure McCain's people were well aware of that.  Stop making it sound like it's Hillary (or her suppoters') faults.

    Of course they won't. Not Dem women. (5.00 / 2) (#165)
    by Cream City on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 08:18:29 PM EST
    But that's not who will decide this election.  Puhleeze look at the polls.  It will be decided by white men, as ever.  

    And that is why McCain may have made a mistake.  But no one here wants to talk about white men being the Dems' problem.  Why not?


    and Biden was picked... (5.00 / 2) (#124)
    by kredwyn on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 08:05:42 PM EST
    to give Obama more cred in the foreign policy arena.

    Can you (5.00 / 2) (#202)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 08:30:09 PM EST
    explain to me why Obama spent ANY time trying to woo these voters? It seems to me he made a HUGE mistake doing this when he could have spent that time working on Hillary's voters? He wouldn't be in this mess now if he had done that. There are also plenty of mainstream Christians that are disgusted with Bush who might be persuaded to vote for him.

    Personally I think McCain (none / 0) (#21)
    by lilburro on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 07:40:27 PM EST
    might argue Palin can learn from him, and that Obama has no one to learn from.  That's why he made her VP.  [Look, I'm not saying it makes sense...]

    I guess it remains to be seen how much people are disturbed by her inexperience.  I haven't had time to really take it in yet.  I really do think it's all issues-oriented - there are a lot of people around who will, if not answer the phone, tell you what to say as you put it to your ear.  And I know who I want to be swarming around that phone.

    Amen... (none / 0) (#72)
    by freethinker25 on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 07:51:49 PM EST
    Yes, Obama actual experience on foreign policy is light, but at least he has discussed foreign policy and knows the issues. I think he has proven over the course of the campaign that he has a firm grasp on the issues around the globe. He has met with foreign leaders and served on the Senate Foreign Relations committee. This is the extent of Palins foreign policy depths:

       Alaska Business Monthly: We've lost a lot of Alaska's military members to the war in Iraq. How do you feel about sending more troops into battle, as President Bush is suggesting?

        Palin: I've been so focused on state government, I haven't really focused much on the war in Iraq. I heard on the news about the new deployments, and while I support our president, Condoleezza Rice and the administration, I want to know that we have an exit plan in place; I want assurances that we are doing all we can to keep our troops safe. Every life lost is such a tragedy. I am very, very proud of the troops we have in Alaska, those fighting overseas for our freedoms, and the families here who are making so many sacrifices.

    being Gov of Alaska (5.00 / 1) (#113)
    by ccpup on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 08:02:19 PM EST
    puts you in constant contact with both Russia and Canada when it comes to oil/gas/energy policies and politics.

    As I've said elsewhere, she may not be the neophyte people are assuming she is.


    You're actually trying to use this quote ... (none / 0) (#219)
    by Inky on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 08:34:02 PM EST
    sd sn srgument againt Sarah Palin as VP pick?

    Talk about desperate! Especially given that she now has a son serving in Iraq, I don't think the fact that she was focused on her gubernatorial duties, unsure of the Bush administration's direction, and hoping for a clear exit plan from Iraq is going to hurt with the electorate.


    Also... (none / 0) (#100)
    by Cairo Faulkner on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 07:58:15 PM EST
    The mere fact that we are comparing Obama with Palin shows his deficiencies as a candidate. You do know that she is running for VICE President?

    your first comment was deleted (none / 0) (#131)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 08:07:40 PM EST
    Please read the comment rules and don't be insulting or you will be banned.

    Second, yes, she's running for VP which means she would be President if anything happened to make the President unable to serve.


    Insulting? (none / 0) (#142)
    by Cairo Faulkner on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 08:12:46 PM EST
    Where was I insulting?

    Things you probably don't know about Palin... (none / 0) (#130)
    by EddieInCA on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 08:07:39 PM EST
     1. Creationist who wants Creationism taught in schools.

    1. Denies Global Warming exists

    2. Wnats to OUTLAW Abortion, including in situations of rape and/or incest.

    3. Supported Pat Buchanan in 2000.

    4. Agreed with Barack's Energy Policy as of... 24 days ago.

    5. Said... 25 days ago.. that she didn't even know what the VP does and that she wasn't interested in the job until someone tells her what the VP actually does.

    6. Under investigation by Special Prosecutor in Alaska for possible ethics violations.

    7. Entire Alaska budget is only $2.9B, less than most medium sized cities in the USA.  For example, San Diego, CA, has a City Budget of 3.29B

    8. She vetoed wind power and clean coal projects, including a 50-megawatt wind farm on Fire Island and a clean coal facility in Healy that had been mired in a dispute between local and state governments.

    9. McCain offered her the job after meeting her one.  I'll repeat that... ONCE.

    This is an argument (5.00 / 1) (#137)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 08:10:54 PM EST
    That I can embrace.



    You (none / 0) (#222)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 08:34:30 PM EST
    don't embrace #7 do you? That's the one about the abusive husband.

    11. She's from the same party as George W. (none / 0) (#152)
    by tigercourse on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 08:16:06 PM EST

    12. Has absolutely no opinion recorded (none / 0) (#191)
    by steviez314 on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 08:27:09 PM EST
    anywhere about Iraq, Iran, Syria, Pakistan, Russia, etc.

    Is there a similar list for Obama? If so post it. (none / 0) (#220)
    by Saul on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 08:34:18 PM EST
    She does not deny global warming (none / 0) (#242)
    by americanincanada on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 08:50:43 PM EST
    She is one of the few repubs who acknowledge it and set up a task force.

    AS far as creationism here is a direct quote from her:

    Teach both. You know, don't be afraid of information. Healthy debate is so important and it's so valuable in our schools. I am a proponent of teaching both. And, you know, I say this, too, as the daughter of a science teacher. Growing up with being so privileged and blessed to be given a lot of information on, on both sides of the subject -- creationism and evolution. It's been a healthy foundation for me. But don't be afraid of information and let kids debate both sides.

    I hate to see misinformation about people of either party. jeebus, it is so hard to use google?!?


    in total agreement (none / 0) (#149)
    by shmerritt on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 08:14:56 PM EST
    My impression from CNN's first tentative announcements to its confirmation (I didn't watch the Dayton thing live) is that McCain has handed the Democrats this election.  Any reason that people who question the "experience" of Barack Obama may have thought they had for voting for McCain is now gone.  In my view, retrospectively, the placement of this 44-year-old inexperienced one and half-year one time governor who was the mayor of Wasilla, Alaska--I may be one of the few who actually knows where that is, as I have a longtime friend who lives there (it's near Denali National Park area)--makes it clear how lucky Obama is that he did not choose Hillary Rodham Clinton for his VP candidate.  If he had, the people who dislike her but still want a woman VP candidate might have voted for the Republican ticket with the "other woman".  Now the Dems can get back the women who argue the "experience" issue; or, none of them will vote for anyone.  The election will be decided among those who refuse not to not vote and will simply cast their votes for the best (and totally) more-experienced ticket.  Should something happen to McCain after he might take office were he elected, how could the country have such an totally-inexperienced person at its helm? It boggles the mind, especially since the age of McCain makes the possibility of such an occurrence more realistic than fanciful.  In Obama's ticket, one at least knows that an experienced person could take the helm.  That could have been Hillary, but it's not, and perhaps that's best now.   All Dems (not just those initially for Obama) must be thrilled.  I know I am.

    Lets be serious... (none / 0) (#160)
    by freethinker25 on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 08:17:48 PM EST
    If Sarah Palin was a man is there any shot in the world that Mccain chooses her as VP?????

    If Hillary was a man... (5.00 / 9) (#178)
    by Lysis on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 08:23:16 PM EST
    ...Any shot that Obama would have a shot at the nomination?

    Give me a break.  The Hillary line "She's too establishment! We need change!" has been replaced with the Palin line "She's too new! We need experience!"

    There will always be an excuse to talk down the woman and keep the men running things.  Sadly, the above arguments for doing so have been coming from alleged progressives.  Disgusting.  


    Very different... (none / 0) (#193)
    by freethinker25 on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 08:27:26 PM EST
    Clinton was very experienced and was ready to be commander in chief, she was qualified. If Hilary was a man I don't think she would have done as well as she did. Part of her appeal was that she was a women and she was trying to break barriers. In the same respect Obama got a boost because he was an African-American. However, Palin, out of all the possible choices, was the least qualified. The most qualified, although I oppose her politics, would have been Kay Bailey Hutchinson, she is ready to be President. But alas you cant have two older people on the same ticket.

    I just don't see how she's unqualified. (5.00 / 2) (#221)
    by Lysis on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 08:34:28 PM EST
    If she's qualified to run a state, why not the country?  I find it strange that what's being said is she's completely unprepared and unqualified, as if the whole world will fall apart if this delicate little flower is forced to step in for the big macho man in charge.   At least you quantify it by saying she's the least of "all the possible choices", though I'm not sure how you formulated that.  

    Then again, with the very first stroke of her veto pen, she made a stronger stand for human rights than most Democrats have done, and more than our candidate advocated for in his acceptance speech.


    Let"s be serious, part II (5.00 / 1) (#196)
    by caseyOR on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 08:27:54 PM EST
    If Joe Biden is a woman is there any shot in the world that Obama chooses him as VP?????

    ABSOLUTLY!!!! (none / 0) (#230)
    by freethinker25 on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 08:38:40 PM EST
    He is clearly experienced and knowledgeable of all aspects of government. I don't understand feminism some times. I thought the whole point was equality to men, that if one person is more qualified than another they should get the job, regardless of gender. I didn't realize that it was that a women should be favored over a man regardless of qualifications. I had a discussion today with a coworker who is a feminist and she was appalled by the choice by Obama. She said that wasn't what she stood for. She cheered on Clinton because she felt she was the most qualified AND a woman. Not just because she was a woman. Isn't that what we should be judging people on. Palin was definitely not the most person for the job, let alone the most qualified woman. It was a pure political pander, pure and simple. Just as you should be appalled if I picked a President only because he was a man, I am appalled people would pick a President solely on the basis she is a woman.  

    The longer range implications of this pick are not (none / 0) (#192)
    by jazz on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 08:27:21 PM EST
    yet clear.  Some thoughts about the new calculus:
    1. McCain gets to reclaim his maverick status.
    2. The candidate of change, Obama, picked a conventional, "safe" VP.  The more "traditional" candidate showed he could shake things up.
    3. McCain's pick will probably not sway many traditional Democrats, but it seems Obama has to be much more careful about the attention he gives to women and women's issues.  Thanks Hillary for making this pick possible which may mean health care moves back up the list.
    4. A win by either side will now be history making for one group or another.  This takes some oxygen from Obama.
    5. Palin is insulated from attacks on her experience, but so is Obama.

    my total agreement was w/ Jeralyn (none / 0) (#225)
    by shmerritt on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 08:36:17 PM EST
    Just want to clarify that.

    Also: another thought that has come to the mind of this professional woman (me) relates to how angry makes qualified professional women when they see another woman's simply being a woman (token genderism) as grounds for advancement to positions of great responsibility.  Women, like men, must earn their positions.

    Among women, just as among men, there are degrees of experience and qualifications for positions.  No one should be picked just for one's gender or sexual orientation or race or ethnicity or religion or whatever.  If one has the experience and qualifications and judgment to do the job, then one is "entitled" to be considered a candidate for it.  Otherwise, one should not be a "candidate" at all.  This woman should have been ruled out for not meeting the qualifications for the office.  That she is a woman has nothing to do with anything at all, just as Barack Obama's or Joe Biden's or Hillary Clinton's race, ethnicity, religion, or other irrelevancies should not be the factors in their candidacy.  What matter is whether or not the person can do the job and improve the country and the condition of its citizens and its image and actual value to the world in the course of doing that job.

    No way, No how, No McCain!

    List past experienced president that were failures (none / 0) (#231)
    by Saul on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 08:38:56 PM EST
    How many past nominees who had experience ended up as failures which showed that their past experience did not mean anything after they left office.

    Competence to be determined (none / 0) (#239)
    by SomewhatChunky on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 08:41:12 PM EST
    I think the inexperience issue will be decided by what the people think after they have had a chance to hear her speak a few times - not by the partisan pundits on each side.

    Lack of experience can be overcome by perceptions of competence.  Obama lacks "experience."   So did Dan Quayle.    Yet Americans view their competence very differently.  We will soon know what they think of Sarah Palin.

    And let's not forget that Qualye was elected.......

    vs Biden... (none / 0) (#243)
    by Lowtideppm on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 08:53:13 PM EST
     Oh yeah, Obama picked Biden because of Biden's strong foreign policy credentials. And his strong foreign policy credentials informed his choice to vote for the Iraq war.
      Gag me.
     Change Obama can believe in is Obama as President.

    How on earth (none / 0) (#244)
    by shmerritt on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 08:53:40 PM EST
    "is Palin insulated from" her lack of experience? Has she been through 18 months of primary election debates and criss-crossed the country holding her own in such a difficult primary contest for this ticket? Has she campaigned nationally ever for anything? Has she been embraced in visiting Europe and the Middle East to the degree that Obama was? There are photo ops with her, so what?

    The McCain/Palin ticket is weak, and the choice of Palin only illustrates McCain's lack of judgment (as Obama and Clinton have claimed all along).  If the Republicans are trying to appeal to their base, they need to remember that their base is outnumbered by the base of the Democrats.  What happened to the issues: the economy, the war, health care, self-sufficient green energy, global warming, poverty, overtaxation of the middle class, a woman's right to choose, women's right to equal pay for equal work, gay rights: the Democratic Platform?  A female lifetime right-to-life NRA member who loves to hunt and fish: Please!?

    We don't need 4 more years of the last 8 years!

    (Earlier immediate response: I said to my husband: she may have to drop out after or even before she reaches the first debate.  How could she possibly measure up in a debate (I cringe at the thought)?  I expect disaster in the McCain/Palin ticket; if they were to get elected--I know not how, except for by sheer incompetence of the electorate--it would be disaster for the United States of America.  Eek!!)

    She is a young Phyllis Schlafly (none / 0) (#246)
    by denise k on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 08:58:07 PM EST
    and about as appealing to Hillary supporters.  I don't think she will do much for McCain in the long run, but I also don't count her out.  

    She beat out an incumbent Republican governor and has popularity in the stratosphere up in Alaska.  An Alaskan friend whose judgment I trust says not to discount her ability -- that she is tough and smart and a straight shooter -- and not just with a gun.  And by the way, the Christian Right luuuuvs her so more money and votes for the old white guy.  

    On point editorial in Minneapolis Star-Tribune (none / 0) (#252)
    by shmerritt on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 09:12:12 PM EST
    Here.  Similar point of view.

    I love Sarah Palin because (none / 0) (#254)
    by jes on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 09:26:52 PM EST
    I want to punish my ex-Party this year. Will I?

    Undecided. I'll wait to see if PA could be a swing state.

    An interesting Alaskan blog view link!!! (none / 0) (#256)
    by dstaton on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 12:41:03 AM EST
    I found this blog site about Gov. Palin baggage from someone who claims to giving a Alaskan perspective. So what do you guys think about

    An interesting Alaskan blog view link!!! oops (none / 0) (#257)
    by dstaton on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 12:47:11 AM EST
    McCain just WON, not conceded this election (none / 0) (#258)
    by zridling on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 02:02:38 AM EST
    Jeralyn, once again you're dead wrong. Every good ol' boy in America will now unqualifably vote McCain, and probably 40-50% of Hillary supporters will, too. Think about it. JUST THIS ONCE. As a result, your messiah is crushed in a temple of his own ego, and all the obama supporters -- and media wackos -- will spend the rest of their lives scratching their heads and telling us what idiots we were for not electing their chosen one.

    Of all the negatives for Palin and McCain, they've never committed the cardinal sin of REFUSING TO COUNT VOTES or of BEING GRANTED ANOTHER CANDIDATE'S VOTES/DELEGATES when they weren't even on the ballot. And do I remind you about obama refusing re-votes in FL and MI? I'll bet you a Ruth Cris steak dinner that McCain wins hands down now.

    JERALYN and BTD (none / 0) (#259)
    by jxstorm on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 02:49:26 AM EST
    The purpose of the Vice Presidency is to learn on job!  Its not the purpose of Presidency!  Hillary is now in a much stronger position and I am so happy!

    McCain/Palin (none / 0) (#260)
    by bmc on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 08:00:37 AM EST
    Picking Sarah Palin as his VP is an insult to women according to some Democratic bloggers. I laughed at McCain's bold pick all day yesterday, didn't feel the least bit insulted or offended at all by McCain's pick. In fact, I felt gratified that he thought it was important enough to invite women to vote for him. But, I am amused by women who say I should be insulted that John McCain picked a female for his VP and it's just an attempt to get my vote.

    And, uh, your point would be? Of course it's an attempt to "get my vote." What's wrong with that? McCain invited me to support a woman as VP. And, I'm supposed to be insulted by that?  

    John Kerry articulated publicly that "Barack Obama is uniquely qualified to be president because he's black." No one seems offended or insulted by that. Should black voters be insulted or offended that the Democratic Party hopes to tap into unregistered black voters in Florida because they expect that they'll support Obama? No?

    Yet, women are not allowed to support a woman for VP just because she's a woman, because that is somehow insulting and offensive! We are denied the best candidate for the nominee in the Democratic Party, and then we are denied the right to be outraged by the actions taken to deny her the nomination. We're told we have "nowhere else to go." We're told to stay home in November if we don't like the DNC's actions. Now were even denied the right to be excited about Palin because it's "insulting" that McCain would pick a woman. Ha. Damed if we do; damned if we don't.

    Well, as a great feminist said about her support for Hillary Clinton, "I'm not supporting her because she's a woman. I'm supporting her because I'm a woman."

    Palin gave a great speech, and I'm impressed by this bold move by McCain. Moreover, the Democrats in Alaska are highly complementary of Palin, and the Republicans she has challenged on ethical violations in the state party in Alaska, not so much. That says a lot about her integrity and her determination to stand up for her convictions--no matter the party. She's clearly an independent minded politician, who knows her own values, and isn't afraid to stand up for them. I like that. So, I think I'll vote for McCain/Palin on Nov. 4.

    As one former Democratic party delegate said in an ad for McCain, after she was thrown out of the party for not supporting Obama, said:

    "It's alright. Really."