Rep. Diana DeGette: Palin Choice an "Insult to Women"

Go, Diana! Here's the statement Colorado Rep. Diana DeGette released today about John McCain's nomination of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin as his running mate (no link, received by e-mail from her office):
"The selection of Governor Palin is an insult to women. She has obviously been chosen to appeal to female voters, but she lacks both the experience and policy positions to serve as Vice-President of the United States."

"The announcement of Governor Palin's selection on John McCain's 72nd Birthday highlights the fact t hat the Vice-President must be qualified to step into the Presidency from Day One. Sarah Palin is a 2-year governor with zero foreign policy experience whose former position was mayor of a town of 9,000."


"To assume that women will simply support Governor Palin because of her gender is insulting. In fact, the Governor is out of step with mainstream America on women's economic and social issues. For example, Governor Palin embraces John McCain's commitment to overturning Roe v. Wade and protecting a women's right to make her own health care decisions."

"Governor Palin has also enthusiastically supported the Bush-McCain doctrine of standing up for Big Oil and failed economic policies that has led to a struggling economy."

"American women need quality health care for themselves, economic security for their families, an energy plan that will give us energy independence, and a plan to bring our troops home from Iraq responsibly. "Barack Obama will give us the change we need, while John McCain and Sarah Palin will give us more of the same."

< Palin, Crist , Jindal And Kaine | Hurricane Gustav >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    I wonder if Tim Kaine (5.00 / 25) (#1)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 08:37:14 PM EST
    would have been an insult to women.

    I find Ms. Degette's outburst bizarre.

    She must be low on the list (5.00 / 12) (#4)
    by Cream City on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 08:38:24 PM EST
    or not checking her messages.  CNN reported that this line already was abandoned by the Obama camp, after blowback.

    Interesting (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by Faust on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 08:46:24 PM EST
    do you have a link? That's a pretty fast turnaround. Also I'd like to read about the blowback. I'm having trouble keeping up with this story there is so much stuff flying around.

    Check (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by nell on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 08:59:51 PM EST

    They had the story. Obama said that the campaign got a little trigger happy and they fired too fast on this and then both he and Biden were both complementary.


    Well I'm glad they are striking the right tone now (none / 0) (#195)
    by Faust on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 09:36:30 PM EST
    You can be positive this Representative (none / 0) (#88)
    by JavaCityPal on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 09:07:04 PM EST
    has held her position for more than a decade, and has a very respected position in the Republican party in Colorado, too. Right?

    Credibility of her statement would come from where?


    Abandoned by the Obama campaign.... (none / 0) (#102)
    by mattt on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 09:13:10 PM EST
    which doesn't mean they object to others making these (very valid) points.

    Obama should have named Diana (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 08:39:49 PM EST
    for VP candidate. She's my favorite Congressperson and has done more on women and children's issues, as well as stem cell research, than anyone else I can think of. She's also a former criminal defense attorney.

    You just listed what she did (5.00 / 20) (#13)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 08:46:02 PM EST
    Not how much "experience" she had.

    Last night, Al Gore likened Barack Obama to Abraham Lincoln, whose "national experience" was one term as a Congressman.

    I think this line of attack is monumnetally stupid and frankly, sexist.

    I find DeGette's attack to smack of sexism.


    I think the McCain Camp (5.00 / 4) (#31)
    by tlkextra on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 08:52:50 PM EST
    has done what they set out to do. This VP pick was kept a surprise and it has created a life of it's own. Additionally, we're back on the "sexism" issue which reminds us of the recent division of the Party. So far, the GOP has set the direction of this GE and Obama is playing catchup. I too like DeGette, but I think it is a mistake to go down this path of criticism.

    Diana has been our Congresswoman (5.00 / 2) (#64)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 09:01:29 PM EST
    for six terms, 12 years, she succeeded Pat Schroeder. Her bio is readily available. She's very experienced, even served as Minority Whip.

    In 2005, Rep. DeGette was promoted to the House Democratic leadership as Chief Deputy Whip. Now in the Majority, she works to assure passage of key pieces of legislation. Steadily rising in the Democratic Whip organization since her first term in Congress, Rep. DeGette previously served six years as Regional Whip and two years as the Democratic Floor Whip.

    She's also vice-chair of the Energy and Commerce Committee.


    Well (5.00 / 15) (#76)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 09:03:31 PM EST
    She certainly is more experienced than Tim Kaine and yet he made the short list and she did not. Do you feel insulted by that?

    I do (5.00 / 12) (#213)
    by chrisvee on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 09:44:11 PM EST
    and guess what? The more we discuss this subject, the angrier I get. And since I already know Republicans don't care about women's issues, I don't expect anything from them.  However, since I do expect better from my own party, the people I get angry at are the Dems.

    I'm starting to understand why people vote against their own interests. I would advise the Obama campaign to change the subject, quickly.


    Respectfully- how is this sexist? (none / 0) (#83)
    by samtaylor2 on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 09:05:39 PM EST
    That is a pretty powerful word.

    I have explained it in ten threads Sam (5.00 / 4) (#120)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 09:17:06 PM EST
    and a number of posts.

    Please read them.


    Really? Even Hillary Clinton? (5.00 / 14) (#29)
    by JimWash08 on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 08:52:27 PM EST
    She's ... done more on women and children's issues, as well as stem cell research, than anyone else I can think of.

    I see she's sponsored 23 pieces of legislation in the House, while Hillary's proposed 187.

    Diana has been a House Rep. for 11 years. Hillary's been in the Senate for about 7 years.

    Obama should have named Hillary for VP candidate, but that's just my opinion.


    JimWash (5.00 / 8) (#47)
    by Brookhaven on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 08:57:04 PM EST
    Thank you for this post. You beat me to it.  

    And, what you said about Obama picking HRC for VP.  You are not alone, Jim, in thinking he made a mistake not picking her.  You are far from alone in that.


    I wasn't comparing her to Hillary (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 09:03:26 PM EST
    Diana had a leadership role in Hillary's Colorado campaign and stayed with her till the end. Not everything is about Hillary.

    Of course not everything is about Hillary (5.00 / 11) (#105)
    by Brookhaven on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 09:13:48 PM EST
    Jeralyn, if you had said, this Congresswoman should be vetted and then chosen by Obama to be on his cabinet, I would never made the leap to Hillary and said, well, why not Hillary.  That would be ridiculous.  But, for VP?  Of course, it's about Hillary in that case for many of us.  Even if we take out the fact that she is the most qualified (there's that word again) for the position, HRC on the ticket would have been the surest way for a win in Nov.  I know others differ with those of us who believe that but that's how many of us believe.

    Ditto on Everything You Said (5.00 / 4) (#141)
    by JimWash08 on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 09:22:29 PM EST
    You seemed to have gone from (5.00 / 23) (#179)
    by rooge04 on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 09:32:45 PM EST
    "Biden is a deal breaker" to fawning Obama supporter in short order.

    I am sincerely shocked that you are going with this line of attack against this woman.   It's not insulting. It's just the Republicans once again being wrong on policy and perfect on strategy. They win elections because they consistently outwit the Democrats.

    Ridiculous to claim her inexperience.   It only highlights Obama's. Not to mention that the line of argument that she's only got 2 yrs of a small town gives you a two for one insult and misguided attempt---Obama has 3 yrs and he's at the TOP of the ticket, and Obama isn't exactly winning with the rural voters he (and surrogates as above) so desperately wants to insult at every turn.

    As a woman I'm not insulted. Why would I be?  The Democrats did far worse to me in the last 6 months.  


    And Hillary is turning out to be (5.00 / 10) (#182)
    by rooge04 on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 09:33:58 PM EST
    the determinant of who wins the election.  Too bad she's not an actual candidate.  

    But if Obama screws up his VP pick (5.00 / 15) (#42)
    by Cards In 4 on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 08:55:02 PM EST
    why is McCain putting a woman on the ticket an insult?  I've said it before that if the Obama campaign weren't so stupid or arrogant or both to have not picked HRC (or another woman), it's their fault and not something the McCain campaign could take credit for.  

    Had HRC been VP, it is unlikely SP would have been picked.  But Obama left that door open and McCain drove the truck through it.  


    Well (none / 0) (#229)
    by JavaCityPal on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 10:02:31 PM EST
    [new] I see no sexism (none / 0) (#85)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 07:06:18 PM PDT

    I see inexperience and a pandering to women and evangelicals.
    This post is about whether his choice is pandering and insulting to women, not about Obama's potential choices.

    [ Parent | Reply to This | 1 2 3 4 5  ]

    Or to men (5.00 / 19) (#6)
    by ruffian on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 08:40:28 PM EST
    I remember how insulted all men felt when Quayle was nominated. So much so they elected Bush/Quayle in a landslide.

    I like Diana DeGette, but she should stick to the issues.


    Quayle (5.00 / 3) (#191)
    by Brookhaven on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 09:35:47 PM EST
    Is a horse of a different color because Daddy Bushie said women would vote for the ticket because of Dan's boyish good looks.  Now that was a sexist and insulting reason to all women for selecting a running mate.  But, even with that insult, many women voted for Bush/Quayle.  

    Yup.  Criticism should stem from the issues and how wrong they are on on so many of them.  


    These (5.00 / 7) (#109)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 09:14:35 PM EST
    people are not helping. Why do they keep arguing experience when there's plenty of other things that would be far more effective?

    Agreed- and since the Dems have (5.00 / 10) (#139)
    by kenosharick on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 09:22:19 PM EST
    nominated one of the least experienced candidates in history to TOP our ticket- they might want to stay away from that argument.

    Tim Kaine??? (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by NWC80 on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 09:16:06 PM EST
    Why would it?

    Kaine has more "experience" by a country mile than Palin.

    The insult to women would be if Obama had picked some political novice without any history of dealing with a wide range of issues who just happened to be female... just to bald-facedly appeal to the Hillary voters.

    The fact that Palin's few stated positions on national issues appear to be the antithesis of those that Hillary fought so many years for is what makes this so difficult for some to swallow. Why not find offense?

    If McCain just wanted to pick someone to fire up his base, there were plenty of other options.

    The cynical ploy on his part was to deal with his  desperation at seeing the Democrats finally coming together at the convention by going way out into left (or really really right) field and pluck Gov. Palin as his runnning mate.

    He needed the buzz and so he threw long.


    In what way does Tim Kaine have (5.00 / 1) (#135)
    by ruffian on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 09:21:21 PM EST
    a country mile more experience than Sarah Palin?

    Guess (5.00 / 4) (#140)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 09:22:24 PM EST
    You really were serious? (5.00 / 1) (#199)
    by NWC80 on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 09:38:08 PM EST
    Are you telling me that you think being mayor of Wasilla (I hope I spelled that right) is the same experience as Kaine's involvement in the political life of Richmond for close to two decades?

    Or his time as Lt. Gov and Governor of an incredibly diverse commonwealth that had more voters cast ballots for him than the entire population of Alaska?

    Come on, now. You've got to be kidding?


    But the guy that was a community (5.00 / 11) (#207)
    by rooge04 on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 09:41:50 PM EST
    organizer and half-time Senator has more? You do not want to go there. It's beyond ridiculous to claim the VP candidate is not experienced enough when we have that problem with the PRES candidate.  The woman ran a state.  

    One word: (5.00 / 1) (#180)
    by Landulph on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 09:33:07 PM EST

    Tim Kaine was elected Governor (5.00 / 6) (#137)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 09:22:01 PM EST
    in 2006, the same year as Palin.

    It is quite revealing that you think Kaine has "country mile more experience" than Palin.

    Now what could have made you think that?


    This may be a little off subject (none / 0) (#220)
    by NWC80 on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 09:50:47 PM EST
    To the original point, but I was puzzled by your choosing Kaine to drag into this.

    Kaine was elected Lt. Governor of VA in 2001.

    I don't get why you would try to equate Palin's meager background with Kaine's.


    Not only bizarre (5.00 / 6) (#127)
    by gmroper on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 09:19:27 PM EST
    but also showing how desperate these folk are.  Are the progressives now the misogynists and sexists?

    Now? Now? Unlike Rip van Winkle (5.00 / 7) (#161)
    by Cream City on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 09:28:05 PM EST
    you can catch up by checking archives here or youtube or all over the internet toobz.  Now?!

    Yeesh (5.00 / 7) (#171)
    by echinopsia on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 09:29:55 PM EST
    DeGette sounds like a trufan.

    She's a convert, you know; she was initially a Clinton suporter.

    I guess there's no irrational fervor like that of the recently converted.


    Better analogies: (5.00 / 8) (#176)
    by Landulph on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 09:31:56 PM EST
    Would Kaine have been an "insult" to Catholics or Southerners?

    Was the Superdelegates' support of Obama an "insult" to African Americans?

    If the Democrats keep up this bizarre line of argument, they will lose, and deservedly so. By all means, make an issue of Palin's quasi-Christianist social views and her abominable environmental record (let's just say the wolves, moose, and polar bears of AK weren't polled for her 90% approval rating). But both the "experience" and "insult" attacks are ridiculous.


    Sorry BTD but as a woman, (3.85 / 7) (#24)
    by Jjc2008 on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 08:51:34 PM EST
    a woman who worked four decades for liberal causes, I find this an insult to women too.  Do people think we will be thrilled because McCain's VP is a woman, and totally ignore her views are totally against things we have worked for for years to IMPROVE the lives of women.

    Why would anyone think women who have advanced the causes of women would be excited about this?


    Why shouldn't we be thrilled? (5.00 / 19) (#44)
    by Grace on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 08:56:06 PM EST
    We don't have to vote for her.  

    The fact that a major party chose to put a woman on the ticket is something to be thrilled about.  Ask Geraldine and Hillary.

    We can disagree with her on policy issues but to denegrate the fact she was chosen?  Please!  


    I agree with your point (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by tlkextra on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 09:08:34 PM EST
    But, I wish McCain had picked Senator Susan Collins from Maine, so that these attacks wouldn't be happening. I've watch many of the House hearings that she's led, and even though she may be Republican, I've been impressed. I would even consider voting for her if she were to run for POTUS because I think for there to be "real" change, a woman needs to be President.

    True but I think McCain (5.00 / 7) (#136)
    by Grace on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 09:21:37 PM EST
    probably saw Palin as more "Change" where a politician already in Washington isn't really that much Change.  

    Palin's husband is a member of the Steelworkers Union.  That should play big in Pennsylvania and Michigan.  

    She's an interesting choice but I'm anxious to see where this will lead.  I'm hoping Obama will start re-adopting his progressive platform (Hillary's) that he seemed to be waffling on.  I'm also hoping he will try to appeal to women more instead of treating us like we don't matter.  


    I believe Senator Collins is unmarried. (none / 0) (#222)
    by prittfumes on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 09:52:22 PM EST
    As stupid as it is, that would work against her in a national general election.

    My problem is that no one is giving me a chance... (5.00 / 8) (#45)
    by Maria Garcia on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 08:56:44 PM EST
    ...to even decide what I think about this. Before I even have time to process the nomination, people are screaming at me from both sides of the issue. I don't get the urgency.

    If I am screaming (5.00 / 19) (#69)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 09:02:15 PM EST
    I apologize.

    But I see sexism here and it bothers me.

    By all means, what we know of Palin's position on issues invites contempt.

    IF people could STICK to that, I would have no objection, though I would question its wisdom.

    Instead, an "experience" levle not required of men is being imposed and it is blatantly sexist.


    I see no sexism (5.00 / 2) (#85)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 09:06:18 PM EST
    I see inexperience and a pandering to women and evangelicals.

    This post is about whether his choice is pandering and insulting to women, not about Obama's potential choices.


    Two words (5.00 / 14) (#113)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 09:15:39 PM EST
    Tim Kaine. Two other words. Charlie Crist.

    DeGette would not have said a word had either been chosen VP. By HER OWN WORDS, Degetee singles  Palin out BECAUSe she is a woman.

    Excuse, it is clearly sexist.


    Oh, stop it, BTD (5.00 / 1) (#189)
    by mattt on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 09:35:39 PM EST
    Kaine and Crist both have substantially longer resumes at state level than Palin.  There's really no comparison.

    And neither were selected as VP nominee.  The fact that their names were bandied about in the media means nothing.  They are irrelevent to this discussion, it seems you just keep throwing their names out to stir the pot.


    Evangelicals are part of the Rep. base (5.00 / 11) (#157)
    by angie on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 09:27:10 PM EST
    why shouldn't McCain pander to them? Also, there actually are Republican (and so called "soft Republican") women -- why shouldn't McCain pander to them? Anyone who expected McCain to step down and hand the election to Obama is in for a rude awakening. Contrary to the new msm meme -- this pick was not to appeal to women who voted for Hillary: this pick was to appeal to right-leaning independent women, blue collar men & evangelicals (who Obama himself is courting) and it does that -- the fact that the surprise factor of it all has stepped all over Obama's acceptance of the nomination last night is just a bonus for the Republicans.

    LOL, BTD....... (5.00 / 6) (#89)
    by Maria Garcia on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 09:07:34 PM EST
    ...you are probably one of the few who isn't screaming. To me you seem incredibly reasonable because you are not asking me to think one thing or another. Just to think.

    agreed 100%v with BTD (5.00 / 10) (#111)
    by londonamerican on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 09:14:56 PM EST
    i don't understand why some people want to hold palin to a standard that they refuse to apply to obama. it seems very sexist and will undoubtedly backfire, as it should.

    Thank you, BTD (5.00 / 15) (#112)
    by janarchy on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 09:15:35 PM EST
    Seriously. Thank you. The unbelievable levels of sexism that have come out in the past 12 hours have just reinforced the double standards and hypocrisy of the supposed Left and supposed progressives out there. Tear apart Palin on her positions, on her policies, whatever. But her experience, her looks, the number of kids she has and her gender? No -- they should not go there.

    It is sexism! You're 100% correct! (5.00 / 9) (#166)
    by Grace on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 09:29:04 PM EST
    It's bothering me too.  

    This comment (5.00 / 3) (#78)
    by Steve M on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 09:04:01 PM EST
    speaks to me.

    I understand that it is stupid for them (5.00 / 2) (#46)
    by ruffian on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 08:56:55 PM EST
    to think that.  But how is it insulting to you? I really don't get that.

    Dammit! (5.00 / 18) (#91)
    by Upstart Crow on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 09:08:08 PM EST
    The equality of women is a political issue, too!

    Every day during this campaign has left me stunned and beaten up by the blatant sexism and misogyny. And the DNC said NOTHING, and Obama said NOTHING, and the media were the biggest perps.  

    I don't agree with SP on a lot of things, but I find it cheering that the Republicans, at least, are giving at least token respect to women. They are doing it in their own interests, of course -- but it's better than the mud flung at me by the DNC!

    And I wish the DNC would address THAT rather than attacking a successful woman.


    Crumbs (5.00 / 4) (#183)
    by Athena on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 09:34:12 PM EST
    Hell, I'll take a little tokenism in the GOP over complete invisibility to the Dems.  That's my choice in 2008.

    at least token respect (none / 0) (#218)
    by noholib on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 09:49:14 PM EST
    Tokenism or trophyism is not how we want to break the glass ceiling.  A woman who doesn't support women's rights is not my idea of a great achievement for women or women's equality. I do find this choice insulting to women because it suggests that women will be drawn to vote for a woman regardless of her policies or principles. The "token respect" supposedly shown in this choice is not respect at all; it's cynical and political, not respect at all.

    JJc- sorry, but there was no chance (5.00 / 5) (#121)
    by kenosharick on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 09:17:15 PM EST
    in reality that McCain or another repub would pick a liberal woman to put on a national ticket. You and I may disagree profoundly with mccain and palin, but they think that they ARE advancing the cause of women.

    Sorry, Jjc, but I'm a woman, too. (5.00 / 13) (#148)
    by Cream City on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 09:24:12 PM EST
    And I'm not insulted.  But then, I'm not a Republican, nor am I going to vote for a Republican.  So it's like being insulted that somebody I don't like didn't invite me to a party.

    And I was not insulted when the Republicans were the first to nominate a woman for president, either.  At least that time, I got to stay up and watch the roll call being completed.  For a little girl watching it, that was very cool.

    So let's stop saying that any woman, anywhere, making history is insulting.  The Dems had their chance to insult Republicans by picking Clinton.  Funny, I just can't picture the term "insulted" being used by Republican blogs, if the Dems had made that VP pick.

    Nope, if we're gonna talk about being insulted, I have been a lot more insulted by many of the men that the Dems have expected me to support after just sucking it up and taking it like a woman.  

    And I have been a lot more insulted by many of the things that Republicans have done to me.  But this one, they've done to themselves and for themselves -- well, with a lot of help from the Dems and their picks.  

    So: Much of the Rep.'s statement here is okay.  But this word "insulted" about picking a woman is being used too much by so-called liberals today, and it's messing up the rest of the message.  I just saw it on two local liberal blogs, too.  So instead, I am just getting the message that Dems still don't get that saying that picking a woman ought to make insulted -- that's the insult.


    Answer my question then (3.66 / 3) (#36)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 08:53:43 PM EST
    why is Tim Kaine relevant to my post? (5.00 / 2) (#79)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 09:04:25 PM EST
    He isn't.

    He is absolutely relevant (5.00 / 5) (#116)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 09:16:15 PM EST
    And it seems unreal to me that you do not see his relevance.

    Of course he's relevant (5.00 / 9) (#123)
    by Dr Molly on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 09:17:33 PM EST
    He is the analog. Why is he also not an 'insult'??

    Palin vs Kaine? (none / 0) (#132)
    by mattt on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 09:20:46 PM EST
    These comparisons are pretty weak.
    Both have been governors for only a couple of years.  But before being governor, Kaine served as lieutenant gov. of a large state, and before that as councilman and mayor of a city of 200,000.

    Before her 1.5 years as governor of Alaska, Palin served as mayor of a town of about 5,000 people.

    There's a lot of daylight between those resumes.

    And, Kaine wasn't selected.


    Speaking just for me (3.66 / 3) (#205)
    by Maggie on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 09:41:26 PM EST
    This really is insulting.  Affirmative action is a double-edged sword.  It can lift up people who face discrimination and obstacles, but it also creates a climate wherein every woman who achieves something faces questions about her qualifications.  If Hillary had won, there'd have been neanderthals who would have argued that she only got the nomination because she's a woman.  (Much as there are people who think Obama only got the nomination because he's black).  But surely everyone here agrees that Hillary was very well qualified.

    Well, McCain is implicitly saying that all that mattered about Hillary was her XX chromosomes.  The attempt to appeal to Hillary voters by picking a woman who could ONLY be a pick because she's a woman diminishes Hillary's achievement which was to do so well despite the fact that she's a woman.  When Palin started crowing about how she'd punch the hole in that ceiling -- I just cringed for Hillary. Palin didn't do the hard work of running for national office.  Palin hasn't built up an organization.  Palin hasn't worked hard to craft well-thought out policy positions on the full range of issues confronting our nation.  Palin hasn't put together a team of great advisors.  If she ends up as the first woman in that high office it'll be because a guy offered her the job in order to score political points with women by exploiting Hillary's situation.

    Ugh.  I'm not even a big fan of Hillary, but I think this move takes a lot away from her.  It would be too politically tricky for her to say what she really thinks, but McCain has basically just p*ssed all over her achievement.  My respect for him has cratered.

    Speaking for me only.


    Would Sebelius have been? (none / 0) (#81)
    by Pegasus on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 09:05:00 PM EST
    Because I heard that a lot in these parts.

    What's the difference here?

    Re: Kaine, I think it absolutely would have been.  And I notice he wasn't chosen, though I can't speculate as to why not.


    Here's the difference (5.00 / 9) (#119)
    by Upstart Crow on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 09:17:03 PM EST
    If the very same campaign and candidate that had dissed Hillary and participated in the misogyny towards her and her supporters had put up a second-bester to appease us -- yes, it would have been an insult.

    But McCain is the other team. I never expected him to put Hillary on his ticket.


    I stand corrected (5.00 / 1) (#147)
    by tlkextra on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 09:24:01 PM EST
    I see your way of thinking.

    the bigger point here (5.00 / 6) (#151)
    by TimNCGuy on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 09:25:07 PM EST
    is that the entire dem party put a "second- bester" at the TOP of the ticket.

    Has nothing to do with the question. (1.00 / 2) (#160)
    by Pegasus on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 09:27:55 PM EST
    Sebelius was viewed as a potential insult, right?  Because she was unqualified and it would have been a pander, right?

    What the heck's the difference with Palin?  I can not see one, other than "Obama bad, anything else good."


    i guess the point i was making is (5.00 / 3) (#172)
    by TimNCGuy on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 09:31:01 PM EST
    if putting a second-bester woman on a ticket insults women, then putting a second-bester at the top ofthe ticket should insult ALL voters, men and women

    Well, we voted, and a bare majority (5.00 / 1) (#196)
    by Pegasus on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 09:36:45 PM EST
    thought he was the first-bester, I guess.  So I'm not sure how to respond there.

    The running mate picks are discretionary appointment made by the nominees, though.  And they're made almost entirely for electoral reasons, let's be honest.


    Again (5.00 / 3) (#185)
    by Upstart Crow on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 09:34:50 PM EST
    he would have turned down a top-notch candidate who threatened him for a secondbester who did not.

    Palin is a bright vital young woman who offsets McCain's old-fogeyness.


    Alright. (none / 0) (#204)
    by Pegasus on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 09:41:18 PM EST
    Thanks for explaining your perspective.  That makes some sense to me.

    I guess I'm just looking at the political pandering angle, not the "being threatened" one.  Food for thought.


    If the <em> Dems</em> had picked (5.00 / 11) (#198)
    by rooge04 on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 09:37:10 PM EST
    a  woman it certainly would have been an insult. Since the most qualified DEMOCRAT woman is Hillary. Why would who the opposition chooses as the VP and their gender make any difference?   We voted for Hillary based on policy. That holds utterly.  Trust me, these are not the lines of attack Obama wants to take.  Telling women they should be insulted when his campaign insulted us the most will not wash.

    You want the laundry list of McCain's misogyny? (none / 0) (#153)
    by Pegasus on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 09:25:44 PM EST
    I'm not sure I could pull it off, given that it involves one of the words you can't say on TV.

    I never expected better from McCain (5.00 / 10) (#194)
    by Upstart Crow on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 09:36:26 PM EST
    I expected better from the party I have supported for 30 years.

    So McCain has pleasantly surprised me today, that's all.


    On that note- (none / 0) (#101)
    by tlkextra on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 09:12:46 PM EST
    I think she may have lost out because the "insult" word was tossed around about her as well

    Her "policy positions" (5.00 / 9) (#2)
    by Redshoes on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 08:37:28 PM EST
    should be what mobilize progressives the rest is just talking points and not effective ones at that.

    Use Palin's radical social conservatism to get out the Dems.

    Agreed (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 08:38:13 PM EST
    And in fact, she has no policy positions (none / 0) (#9)
    by steviez314 on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 08:42:59 PM EST
    on any foreign policy matter that anyone is currently aware of.

    Now This is a fair critique (5.00 / 3) (#17)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 08:47:08 PM EST
    It does not depend on the ephemeral concept of "experience."

    She called for an exit plan in Iraq (none / 0) (#156)
    by Exeter on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 09:26:59 PM EST
    back in march of 2007, to name one.

    I'm sure the Republicans are on that (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by Redshoes on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 08:49:54 PM EST
    By the time she accepts the VP nomination next week I'm sure she'll have them embedded in her speech.  And as soon as the McCain campaign feels she's ready they'll have her doing all the talk shows.  

    It's only just begun...


    A clean slate on foreign policy (5.00 / 2) (#62)
    by ruffian on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 09:00:34 PM EST
    Made to order for McCain

    Well (5.00 / 6) (#8)
    by Steve M on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 08:42:44 PM EST
    There is clearly quite a difference of opinion on this topic.  Some women I have talked to, including my sweet wife, consider it an insulting pick.  Other women do not.

    I don't really get the point of this line of attack since anyone who sees the pick as an insult already sees it that way and doesn't need to have the thought put in their head.  And meanwhile you inspire those who disagree to support Palin and defend her from the arguably unfair attacks.

    I really think BTD had the strategy issue 100% correct and I really don't see what the Democrats have to gain by doing this.

    Is your wife insulted because she is presented (5.00 / 7) (#20)
    by Teresa on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 08:48:26 PM EST
    to us as a chance to vote for a Republican Hillary when she stands for nothing that Hillary stands for? I am.

    The national experience stuff is insulting to me on Palin's behalf until I see men with similar experience ripped like this.


    Exactly (5.00 / 2) (#40)
    by Steve M on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 08:54:33 PM EST
    It is sort of a "how stupid do you think I am?" pick.

    But unlike your reaction, the lack of qualifications point enters into her view as well.  In other words, if McCain had picked a woman with a solid resume, my wife would not have thought "well this is obviously just a pick to try and win women voters."

    I would see the experience critique as valid if it were done in moderation (I was a Hillary supporter, I think experience counts) but when it's way over the top it turns me off too.  I start to wonder if Palin might have opposed the war in Iraq, which of course would trump any and all experience issues, eh?


    You miss something very simple (5.00 / 5) (#142)
    by Upstart Crow on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 09:22:36 PM EST
    She's young and bright and energetic -- part of the "new generation." McCain is an old fogey.

    Certainly that's one of the reasons she was picked.

    Plus she's appealing and attractive. Don't tell me Obama hasn't gained a LOT by being attractive.


    Was your wife aware of her (5.00 / 7) (#158)
    by nycstray on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 09:27:48 PM EST
    much before today?

    While she doesn't have a deep resume, there's a lot I like about her. I do think she brings more than her gender. That said, I would never vote for her because of issues, but I wouldn't vote for McCain either. She might end up being fun to watch and a nice positive imagine. McCain referred to her as one who doesn't just sit down. I like that after all these months of being told to STFU by half the Dem party. I imagine she's a young Republican Hillary type/work style and that might be part of the choice. She counters Obama talking points nicely, lol!~ Historic, outside of Washington, lacking baggage, changing old ways, new and up and comping party star . . .  McCain's cagey.


    So do I (5.00 / 15) (#32)
    by Brookhaven on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 08:52:53 PM EST
    BTD is spot on about this because it's the most reasonable, productive course of action to take.  It's the course of action HRC has taken in her comment today about Sarah Palin.

    This other stuff spewed about Sarah Palin is going to backfire and it's already backfired with me.  I've only spoken with two of my women friends and they both feel the same that this type of attack and taking her down in this manner is going to backfire.

    This reaction is the hallmark of being scared.  I am taking HRC's lead on this and BTD's.  I just don't understand how others cannot get this.  I truly don't understand.  


    Every woman I have talked to (5.00 / 3) (#35)
    by Jjc2008 on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 08:53:32 PM EST
    from my 30 year old niece who has been fairly centrist since she came of age, to my cousin and her partner who were die hard Hillary fans, to the female friends I have who like me worked hard for Hillary's run.

    This is a total insult.


    You've nailed it quite nicely. (5.00 / 13) (#122)
    by chel2551 on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 09:17:20 PM EST
    Honestly is everyone insulted because McCain had the audacity to nominate a woman or because the Dems didn't?

    Thank you.


    McCain is insulting to women (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by gardian on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 08:44:20 PM EST
    I totally believe this pick to be totally politically motivated and insulting to women...another thing that might be insulting to women is McCain during Palin's speech..
    don't know if anyone noticed, but watch Palin's speech...before and during the time he is talking directly about the 18,000,000 women and the glass ceiling being shattered, John McCain is STARING at her butt. It lasts for around 15 seconds and is done several times up until they start clapping...He has never fought for equal rights for women, and was the final holdout for the MLK holiday..This is a total pander

    Politically motivated pandering, yes (5.00 / 12) (#27)
    by ruffian on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 08:52:04 PM EST
    But insulting?  Some groups pay lobbiests millions of dollars so politicians will pander to them, but women are supposed to be insulted when we are pandered to, at long last?  I plan on enjoying a little pandering for a couple of months.  I'm hoping McCain's pandering leads to some Obama pandering.

    If McCain states at my butt and makes me uncomfortable, I'll let him know.  That's another issue.


    Pander to me, Johnnie!!! (5.00 / 2) (#53)
    by Emma on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 08:59:11 PM EST
    Hillary was on the right side of the issues (4.66 / 3) (#86)
    by Jjc2008 on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 09:06:38 PM EST
    and has been for decades.
    Hillary worked for pro choice, for healthcare, for education, for issues that important to women and children.  Hillary believes ALL women should have the opportunity to be well educated, to be healthy and be able to care for their children and elderly parents.  Hillary has worked to tighten gun laws so our children won't be gunned down in the city streets.  

    What has Palin supported for women.  She's against choice; is pre teaching religion in schools; against universal health care. Social conservatives, the ones who have paternalistic leanings, love her.  HELLO.

    I am supposed to believe that intelligent women would not be insulted by someone who implies I vote for ovaries.  


    McCain disrespecting women (none / 0) (#50)
    by gardian on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 08:58:25 PM EST
    A qualified person should be chosen..man/woman  black/white/hispanic/etc..sexual orientation...none of that should matter...If you can look me in the eye and say that a person with her exact qualifications would be chosen if she were male, then i would be so proud of this choice....otherwise, it is a 100% token political ploy.  And as far as looking and staring at her butt during an initial political speech for VICE PRESIDENT, it is highly disrespectful.

    I give you Dan Quayle, with fewer qualifications (5.00 / 6) (#97)
    by ruffian on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 09:11:44 PM EST
    than Sarah Palin, as an even more egregious male example of the same thing.  It only took us 20 years to get to the point where a woman with better credentials was picked for the same job.  That is progress of a sort.

    Of course it is a political ploy.

    Yes, that was disrespectful if it happened as you say. I'll add it to my rather long list of reasons not to vote for McCain.


    womens rights (none / 0) (#128)
    by gardian on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 09:19:32 PM EST
    you are absolutely correct..
    it is done all ways--who can give them a state, who will give them a constituency, whatever...
    race, sex, male, female....it is ALL offensive...i am disgusted looking at all the limitations to dreams many girls and women have...when my daughter asked me why women don't get to play professional baseball, i think of all the barriers that have been set over many centuries, which have such a long way to still go...i look forward to the day when equal will truly mean equal

    amen - I'm with you there (5.00 / 1) (#159)
    by ruffian on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 09:27:51 PM EST
    Good luck to your daughter.  I know she will have more opportunities that we did. Any female VP pick gets people familiar with the idea and makes it easier for the next woman. The first one does not have to be the one I would like - but it sure would have been nice.

    hillary clinton (none / 0) (#186)
    by gardian on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 09:35:00 PM EST
    it is why there is such a difference between hillary and sarah palin...mrs. palin may be the greatest person in the world, but no one knows it...Hillary has demonstrated strength and growth for so many years...democrats really were lucky...both hillary and barack are extraordinary and have shown as much...

    Look, (5.00 / 6) (#228)
    by Gabriele Droz on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 09:59:58 PM EST
    John McCain's campaign is John McCain's campaign, a Republican campaign.  He has every right to pick an inexperienced woman VP candidate as Obama (himself as if not more inexperienced) had to pick Joe Biden over Hillary, who would have been a far stronger VP pick.

    Who are we to tell the Republicans who they should or should not nominate for VP?


    daughter (none / 0) (#190)
    by gardian on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 09:35:43 PM EST
    thanks for the comment too

    then you need to ask the same (5.00 / 2) (#106)
    by TimNCGuy on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 09:14:01 PM EST
    question about Obama. If Obama was a 1st term senator from ILL would he have gotten 90% of the black vote in the primaries and been selected as the dem candidate?

    asking the same (none / 0) (#146)
    by gardian on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 09:23:30 PM EST
    no, but that is the voters choice(and it is a shame that race and gender play such an important role in the popular decisions, but it is their right)and if i was to ask each specific voter, i would express my disappointment in choosing race over substance to all that did for race alone...as i am disappointed further for a LEADER to do the same, as he has a greater responsibility with his decision.

    Yeah because (5.00 / 4) (#34)
    by justonevoice on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 08:53:19 PM EST
    Obama being selected by the DNC certainly didn't insult progressive blacks that I know who clearly saw all of his negatives.

    This could go on and on............


    PULLLEEEZZEE (1.00 / 2) (#70)
    by freethinker25 on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 09:02:47 PM EST
    Selected by the DNC???? Really??? If you really believe that you need your head examined.

    May 31st, 2008 (4.50 / 8) (#155)
    by justonevoice on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 09:26:27 PM EST
    RBC Meeting:  Donna Brazile and her MOMMA.

    get a clue obamabot!


    obamabot, please?? (none / 0) (#164)
    by gardian on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 09:28:50 PM EST
    no one debates anymore...they just argue

    obama (none / 0) (#57)
    by gardian on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 08:59:51 PM EST
    obama was voted on by the people of this country...he wasn't hand picked by McCain.

    voted (5.00 / 6) (#152)
    by justonevoice on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 09:25:29 PM EST
    by LESS than Hillary's vote count.  

    I think... (5.00 / 23) (#11)
    by Cairo Faulkner on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 08:45:31 PM EST
    ...what is really getting peoples' goat is that there is a woman on a ticket - and she's a Republican. How terrible. What an insult to women. Women belong to the Democratic Party, donchaknow.

    Though I agree her candidacy would be far less likely without Hillary (though she was talked about as a possible-though-unlikely candidate months before Obama sealed the nomination), isn't that a good thing? Hillary put eighteen cracks in that glass not just for herself, and not just for Democrats, but for all women.

    Amen (5.00 / 22) (#28)
    by bjorn on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 08:52:09 PM EST
    I am for Obama/Biden but all this BS about insults to women is more than I can take.  Obama did plenty of insulting himself by not shooting down sexism and by not picking Clinton.  The republicans love Palin, they are excited and that is where all this hysteria is coming from.  Give me a break, she is pro life, I am pro choice.  Am I insulted by that, absolutely not.  I just won't vote for her.  How dumb does the honorable congresswoman from CO think women are???? We are so dumb we will now vote for McCain just because he picked a woman VP.  We should all be glad that women are getting opportunities to be involved at a national level.

    No, I totally disagree (4.00 / 3) (#43)
    by Jjc2008 on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 08:55:58 PM EST
    I have grown up with women as peers that were accomplished.  Some were like Hillary, working for causes that IMPROVE the lives of women.
    Some women were like Phyllis Schafley whose worked to prevent things that would be good for women.


    Would you say that about ANY MAN?  


    Sarah Palin is accomplished.... (5.00 / 7) (#66)
    by Maria Garcia on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 09:01:53 PM EST
    ...I hope you are not saying that she isn't because that is not the point.

    Sarah Palin would kick (4.80 / 20) (#110)
    by Valhalla on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 09:14:42 PM EST
    Phyllis Schlafly's butt.

    Sorry, but this argument is so far off the mark.

    Palin is a very accomplished person, and from what I can tell is proud of her accomplishments.  Schlafly spent the better part of a decade lecturing people that women belong at home, because they were not the equals of men in any respect.

    Palin would crush her in the Celebrity Deathmatch just for implying that.

    And for the record, I AM a woman (which I believe trumps the 'some of my best friends are women and they said...' argument) and I don't find this to be an insult at all.

    McCain is reaching out to women with this pick, sure (not just to women but that's the issue here).  What would be an insult is if he felt entitled to women's votes by maundering on about their 'grieving process', proclaiming that 'they'll come home in the end because they have no place else to go' and the ever-winning 'STFU and send me money' approach.  Now that would be an insult.


    Palin quote (5.00 / 7) (#177)
    by nycstray on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 09:32:29 PM EST
    Mark Halperin writes on The Page:
    -She is very adept at juggling work and family. When daughter Piper was born during her Wasilla mayoralty, she returned to the office the following day. A trim runner, she did not announce news of her most recent pregnancy (with Trig, born April 18) until her seventh month. According to Palin, "To any critics who say a woman can't think and work and carry a baby at the same time, I'd just like to escort that Neanderthal back to the cave." Her older children are Track, Bristol, and Willow.

    Whassup with (5.00 / 9) (#216)
    by Emma on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 09:46:32 PM EST
    those names?  How can anyone vote for a woman who would name her children Bristol, Trig, Track, and Willow.  Seriously?  She needs more experience naming her kids, she should stay home and have more.  She lacks judgment, her children will be the butt of jokes their whole lives.  Her policy on naming children is abominable.  I an insulted by her children's names.

    Val, your last two sentences (5.00 / 11) (#193)
    by Cream City on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 09:36:19 PM EST
    are great.  I'm not grieving.  I'm giggling now.  How can so many so-called libruls be so lacking in irony?  

    And now, the message is "STFU and be insulted!"


    Funny, I'm not insulted (5.00 / 25) (#12)
    by Emma on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 08:45:40 PM EST
    Hey, if McCain wins, there's a woman as VP.  I don't have to vote for her, but I don't see what's so darn insulting about that.

    She doesn't have any less experience than Obama.  Obama's lack of experience doesn't seem to offer insult to African Americans.  In fact, what I seem to remember as so insulting was having the temerity to point out Obama's lack of experience.

    I think I'll stick with that standard.  I'm terribly insulted that Rep. DeGette would say that picking this woman with at least as much experience as Obama is somehow insulting to women.

    Right on Emma. (5.00 / 15) (#65)
    by prittfumes on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 09:01:43 PM EST
    Why is it "insulting" that McCain picked Palin to be his running mate? If women CHOOSE to see it as an ASSUMPTION on McCain's part that women will flock to vote for the R ticket, that's their problem. What PROOF do they have that McCain EXPECTS them to vote for the R ticket just because Palin in on it?

    None of the women in my life (including my wife) are "insulted". They feel free to evaluate and vote for candidates of their choosing. Palin's selection has not changed that.


    should be Palin IS on it.... (none / 0) (#71)
    by prittfumes on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 09:02:55 PM EST
    Uh because (4.00 / 2) (#60)
    by Jjc2008 on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 09:00:19 PM EST
    her belief system goes against legislation that would improve the lives of women.

    I don't see how ANY woman doing it is just fine and dandy because it is a woman.  If some conservative African American who goes against legislation that would help minorities would that be good for the African American community to support him?

    I really do not get how true women democrats could ever think this woman would be good for women in general.  Showing poor women who cannot afford to feed their kids or get them health care that a woman can be in the WH and as ruthless in being against  legislation that helps women as any man is not a good thing.


    I don't think she would be good for women (5.00 / 15) (#75)
    by ruffian on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 09:03:30 PM EST
    and I don't plan on voting for her.

    But I don't find her very existence as a candidate insulting, any more than I find McCain insulting. I just don't agree with them.


    Exactly (5.00 / 18) (#94)
    by Emma on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 09:10:18 PM EST
    I didn't say she was going to be "good for women".  I also never said Hillary was going to be "good for women".  I don't even know what that means, it's so subjective.

    I said:  I'm not insulted that he picked for it.  Let's just say he picked her to try and get women to vote for him.  How is that insulting?  He's asking for my vote.  He asked for my vote with the ABBA thing.  I didn't find that insulting either.  

    What I find insulting is being forced out of my own party by misogyny and being told to stay home on election day because my party doesn't need me.  And then, when things get a little tighter than they would like, being told that if I don't vote for Obama that I'll be responsible for the end of the world as we know it. That's insulting.  

    McCain's not telling me I HAVE to vote for him b/c Palin's a member of the gynocracy.  He's trying to get my vote. This is a pander that doesn't work for me, but I'm not insulted that McCain wants my vote.


    I know - he is hoping women will vote (5.00 / 3) (#224)
    by ruffian on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 09:53:19 PM EST
    for a woman just cuz.  He can hope all he wants - he had to roll the dice to shake up the race.  It is not insulting to me that he hopes I'll vote a certain way.  He's not saying he thinks I personally will vote that way.

    You're right - I don't really know what 'good for women' means. Palin won't have any power to do anything at all, really. I was just going along with the commenter's wording.


    Which is more or less (5.00 / 5) (#100)
    by chel2551 on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 09:12:31 PM EST
    what Hillary said.  Smart politician.

    I really don't like these "new" democrats.


    True woman democrats... (5.00 / 4) (#163)
    by Upstart Crow on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 09:28:44 PM EST
    like Nancy Pelosi?  Or maybe Donna Brazile?

    that you would support a candidate (3.80 / 5) (#115)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 09:16:07 PM EST
    whose views you oppose, who has no relevant experience, just because she is a woman is curious.

    I always said I wouldn't vote for a candidate based on sex or race. The presidency is too important to leave to a historical marker.

    My support of Hillary was not because she was a woman but because she was the best person for the job.


    Emma said she wouldn't vote for her. (5.00 / 2) (#231)
    by Cream City on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 10:15:58 PM EST
    So she would seem to be as discerning in determining how to vote.

    "At least as much experience"? (none / 0) (#55)
    by Pegasus on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 08:59:42 PM EST
    Let's see, four years as mayor of a minor city and two years as governor on the one hand, and eight years in the state legislature of a large state and four years in the US Senate on the other.  6 is now at least as much as 12?

    I mean, I don't like the "inexperienced" attack vs. Palin either, but why exaggerate so much?


    Obama (5.00 / 13) (#80)
    by Emma on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 09:04:28 PM EST
    Part time legislator in IL with no legislative accomplishments that weren't handed to him by Emil Jones.  5 of those 6 years as a backbencher in the minority.

    3 years in the Senate, 2 of which have been spent campaigning.  143 or somesuch actual working days.

    No significant legislative accomplishments in the U.S. Senate.

    Too busy campaigning to hold any meetings of his own subcommittee.


    Served '97-'04 in the legislature. (1.00 / 1) (#130)
    by Pegasus on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 09:20:23 PM EST
    You're just making your numbers up now.

    Even granting your distortions, that's still more time in government than Palin has had, so your "at least as much" assertion is still demonstrably false.


    Think about it (5.00 / 12) (#173)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 09:31:03 PM EST
    You are arguing over whether BARACK OBAMA has more experience than Sarah Palin.

    This is just so foolish of Democrats.


    Look, I know. (1.00 / 1) (#178)
    by Pegasus on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 09:32:38 PM EST
    You can see it there upthread, I acknowledge it.  There are no points to score off me here.

    I'm just being a bit litigious and pointing out a distortion of simple facts.


    she actually has 12 years (5.00 / 5) (#126)
    by TimNCGuy on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 09:19:07 PM EST
    of elected office in Alaska. The Mayor's job was not her 1st office.

    LOL, so big points for city council now? (none / 0) (#133)
    by Pegasus on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 09:21:00 PM EST
    OK, can I bring up the law review?

    City council is at least elected (5.00 / 8) (#138)
    by americanincanada on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 09:22:15 PM EST
    community organizer? Not so much.

    Tim Kaine's experience (5.00 / 1) (#167)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 09:29:13 PM EST
    on the Richmond City Council is what? Chopped liver?

    Not talking about Kaine. (none / 0) (#174)
    by Pegasus on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 09:31:24 PM EST
    You and I are pretty much on the same page with Kaine, so that doesn't really work on me.

    Anyway, I'm just talking facts in this thread.


    For example, the Dems need to (5.00 / 3) (#14)
    by Redshoes on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 08:46:15 PM EST
    To focus on her more extreme (although now I'm hearing her called a libertarian) positions re: abortion, 1st Amendment etc. and how that touch average Americans in real (not abstract or theoretical) ways.

    Also start developing responses to her "likability" -- I think anyone other than the Debbie Wassermans of the world gives Palin points for being like their "neighbor."

    I've seen bits of interviews Palin has done, the topic was energy and she makes the argument for Alaska's natural resources being shared with the lower 48 and sounds very reasonable -- let's tackle that.

    As to the issue with Iraq she as a "Mom" wants an exit strategy.  Let's talk about that.

    good points! (none / 0) (#33)
    by Josey on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 08:53:06 PM EST
    Begalla on CNN (5.00 / 7) (#19)
    by TimNCGuy on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 08:47:58 PM EST
    keeps saying McCain has shown he has no judgement by naming Palin VP. Because he reportedly has only met her once and she lacks experience. If I was the repug answering him back I would be asking about the judgement of the entire dem leadership who put Obama, with the same level of experience at the TOP ofthe ticket where no one has to die for him to be in charge of our safety.

    Met only once (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 08:49:33 PM EST
    makes sense to me as a critique.

    But what if they have spoken (5.00 / 2) (#54)
    by JimWash08 on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 08:59:30 PM EST
    multiple times on the phone? Or tele-conferenced?

    We may never know. Also, McCain was campaigning while also examining the candidates put forth by his vetting committee.

    I'm sure Obama met with people like Bayh and Warner only once (the other key contenders -- Kaine, Sebelius etc. were his surrogates and endorsers so I'm pretty sure he met them multiple times.)

    Obama also probably only met Biden once after he dropped out of the race (and meetings at debates wouldn't count).

    This "one meeting" argument holds as much merit as the "experience and foreign policy" argument.


    Obama and Biden have also served together (1.00 / 1) (#93)
    by DemForever on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 09:09:46 PM EST
    in the Senate club for four years.  My guess is that they have talked dozens of times and know each other pretty well.  

    Four Years? (5.00 / 6) (#129)
    by JimWash08 on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 09:20:21 PM EST
    How did that happen?

    And whatever it is, picking Biden was obviously  strategic, but at the same time, a massive cop-out.

    Strategic: To attract the White working-class, Catholics, and PA and VA states.

    Cop-out: Total 180 on his message of change, new politics.

    Let us not forget that Biden himself didn't have faith in his leadership and readiness. Biden also voted for the Iraq war; a key criticism he had of Hillary.

    But overlooking all that, Biden was a very safe and boring choice. So for anyone to be so critical of McCain's pick would be a total hypocrite.


    Obama served 143 days before announcing (5.00 / 6) (#200)
    by nycstray on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 09:38:30 PM EST
    his run. I wonder how many meetings he's actually attended? And who was it that called him out on never holding a meeting for his subcommittee?

    Obama has so many people propping him up it ain't funny. And has in his prior jobs also.


    Yeah, but that may have (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by tlkextra on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 08:59:46 PM EST
    been tactical - in an effort to keep her as a complete surprise

    maybe, but the rest of his (5.00 / 4) (#61)
    by TimNCGuy on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 09:00:25 PM EST
    argument was that he was afriad for the country and people's safety based on her level of experience IF she has to step up to President. So, he should have been sked why he isn't equally afraid of Obama actually BEING president. If he said because he has Biden there, then... Everyone making that argument must think if she becomes president, she doesn't get to pick a Biden like VP in the same manner Obama has to cover for his SAME lack of experience.

    It seems to me (5.00 / 5) (#162)
    by gmroper on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 09:28:17 PM EST
    that if Obama and company continue to harp on the "experience" issue, they're going to end up shooting themselves in the foot (yeah I know, feet would be more correct but it stinks!)

    As has been said, she with little experience as VP would be a hell of a lot better than he with no experience as Prez.


    And using the "insult" (5.00 / 2) (#192)
    by tlkextra on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 09:36:14 PM EST
    attack only opens up old wounds as well

    I know (5.00 / 7) (#201)
    by TimNCGuy on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 09:40:21 PM EST
    that's what I'm not getting about this whole line of attack. For 18 months now dems have been saying Obama isn't qualified. Both of the Clintons, Chris Dodd and Joe Biden all said it repeatedly. Once he became the candidate, then he was suddenly qualified. And now, they want to talk trash about someone as a VP who has arguably as much experience as Obama has. It's crazy. It's just as crazy to think the repugs would need to nominate a LIBERAL woman in order to nominate a woman. Many of Hillary's supporters in vital swing states like PA and Ohio are CONSERVATIVE women. Reagan dems. Palin's position on abortion will not offend them at all. Plus, he's looking at Indy women and bringing BACK and repug women that were considering Obama. I don't believe Obama ever thought Palin would attract any of Clinton's voters who are liberal or progressive.

    The republicans can't use this response (none / 0) (#117)
    by Redshoes on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 09:16:17 PM EST
    but I can't believe we'd be any worse off under a Palin Administration and the Bush one we've (thus far) survived.  Do they really believe that Americans as stupid.  The Democratic talking points on this just make them seem mean, petty and a little unhinged (I just watch Paul and Debbie).  I would have said don't know much but McCain's not good for American because ..... it's a wonder we get elected dog catcher.

    But not a strong one (none / 0) (#48)
    by Redshoes on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 08:57:30 PM EST
    Palin was interviewed prior to the announcement by CNBC and she said that she and McCain had talked a number of times (primarily on what matters to Alaskans).  So he knows her reputation, consults her on issues like energy, etc., she was obviously asked to turn over all relevant documents.   So he has that and they meet in person for the face-to-face job interview.

    Just as her discussion of what the VP's responsibilities are that can be interpreted that she's a dunce or that she negotiated a role should win.


    Begala is being a pig (5.00 / 11) (#211)
    by Dr Molly on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 09:43:57 PM EST
    Oh, how quickly the sexism pops right back up like whack-a-mole. He keeps repeating 'she's just a beauty queen', must have said the 'beauty queen' about 10 times tonight. Like she's accomplished nothing else.

    don't Illinois senators work parttime? (5.00 / 3) (#26)
    by Josey on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 08:52:02 PM EST

    I don't get this argument. (5.00 / 22) (#59)
    by caseyOR on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 09:00:16 PM EST
    As a woman I am insulted that the Democratic ticket does not include Hillary Clinton, but so what? That's politics, right? Vice-Presidential candidates are chosen because the person at the top of the ticket believes the veep candidate brings something of value to the ticket. And that something of value has a lot more to do with votes than it does with experience.

    Obama chose Biden instead of Kaine because of the recent foreign  policy dustup. Had Russia not roared into Georgia, Kaine would have gotten the nod because Obama thought  he could turn Virginia blue.

    I am not insulted by Sarah Palin. I am insulted by the ugly and misogynist comments that are once again ruling so much of the so-called progressive blogosphere. And I am insulted by those who consider the only woman currently on a national ticket to be a token candidate.

    She works against things (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by Jjc2008 on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 09:02:11 PM EST
    that would be good for women in general.  How is that being sexist to point that out.  She is a right wing conservative who supported Pat Buchannan in 1999.  
    It's sexist to me to say ANYone regardless of her views on choice, health care, education, the war is good as long as she has ovaries.

    She works aganst things. (5.00 / 6) (#84)
    by chel2551 on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 09:06:14 PM EST
    Oh, no!

    I'm not insulted but I am disgusted becuase of the comments I've read today.  I won't vote for McCain, but you people are ruining the dem brand.

    What a freaking turn-off.


    Why (5.00 / 2) (#118)
    by Jjc2008 on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 09:16:40 PM EST
    Because I don't respect candidates, men or women, black, white, latino who work against causes that I think are important to improving the lives of the poor, of women and children????


    You honestly expect true liberals to be respectful of a conservative right winger because she happens to be a woman?  
    I have trashed Pat Buchannan on his stances too.

    Would that turn you off too?


    Show me a true liberal. (5.00 / 3) (#125)
    by chel2551 on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 09:18:57 PM EST
    I've not seen many around the A-list blogs in quite a long time.

    I stand up for women (5.00 / 3) (#230)
    by echinopsia on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 10:06:04 PM EST
    regardless of whether I like them and their views or not. That is how feminism works.

    Well, (5.00 / 6) (#99)
    by Emma on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 09:11:50 PM EST
    It's sexist to me to say ANYone regardless of her views on choice, health care, education, the war is good as long as she has ovaries.

    when anybody says that, you let me know.


    As someone else pointed out (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by chel2551 on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 09:14:15 PM EST
    downthread, her son's leaving for Iraq.

    People have been implying that (5.00 / 2) (#149)
    by Jjc2008 on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 09:24:14 PM EST
    on many blogs...by saying things like "why not have a republican woman break the glass ceiling" as if it is the same thing?

    How is a woman whose party and who supported a candidate who is even more extremely right than her party breaking the glass ceiling a good thing for women?  Why would I want a person in charge regardless of gender or race or religion who believes women have no right over their own bodies?
    Why would I want a woman who thinks affirmative action that helps women, a class that has been denied a fair playing field for over 200 years, is a bad thing?  
    Why would I want a woman who chooses to go against the restriction of assault weapons so that my children and grandchildren are more likely to be shot just walking down the street?  
    Why should I support a woman who has shown no where she is even a little bit interested in universal health care?

      That's not breaking any ceiling...that's pouring concrete on the glass ceiling...so the rest of us will never have the time, energy, money or OPPORTUNITY to break through.


    I'm so confused.... (5.00 / 9) (#165)
    by tlkextra on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 09:28:54 PM EST
    are the attacks sexist? Yes. Am I insulted? I don't think so. As a feminist I'm happy to see a woman achieve, no matter where, why or when. I felt tons more insulted by what happened coming from the Democratic side.

    Some times you can't win (5.00 / 3) (#68)
    by mmc9431 on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 09:02:15 PM EST
    We want experience politicians, but we don't want them too experienced.(then they have baggage) We don't want them to be Washington insiders but we want them to know how things work in Washington. Confusing isn't it? It like job hunting and having the employer wanting you to be under 30 but with 20 yrs ewxperience.

    Job experience didn't help Gore. He had 8 yrs OJT.

    Somehow the only people feeling insulted (5.00 / 6) (#77)
    by Redshoes on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 09:03:43 PM EST
    probably wouldn't have voted for her anyway.  We all need to dial back what offends us.

    this (5.00 / 13) (#87)
    by tek on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 09:06:53 PM EST
    move is brilliant.  While the Democrats spend the whole year dissing women and talking about change, McCain does something truly audacious and puts a woman on Republican national ticket for the first time ever. Palin stood up to oil companies in Alaska and is making them pay taxes, Obama voted for Cheney's giveaway to the oil companies.  Palin studied the Constitution and concluded that it would be unConstitutional to deprive gay couples of benefits so she vetoed a bill passed by the Alaska legislature that would have deprived gays, even though she's a Christian. She has a lot of strong points.

    I just heard Bill Moyers say that the good thing about Obama's candidacy is that he can bring back the Clinton policies!  I thought my head would explode.  Then Katrina van what's her name(The Nation) said women won't get anything from Palin and then she immediately started ridiculing Gerry Ferraro and Hillary.  It's so sad that the Democrats just really don't get it where women are concerned.

    I'm sure this will be deleted but (5.00 / 2) (#90)
    by janarchy on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 09:07:51 PM EST
    does that mean that African American men should be insulted by the nomination of Barack Obama?

    or embrace (5.00 / 1) (#168)
    by hlr on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 09:29:20 PM EST
    Joe 'Drug Czar' Biden?

    What foriegn policy experience did (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by ding7777 on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 09:10:36 PM EST
    Bush have 8 years ago?

    And wasn't it the "experienced" boys (Cheney/Rumsfeld) that got us into the Iraq mess?

    Thank you (5.00 / 3) (#108)
    by ruffian on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 09:14:33 PM EST
    How could I forget the most obvious example of all?

    Though Bush really is an insult to men everywhere.


    is obama an "insult to men" (5.00 / 10) (#98)
    by londonamerican on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 09:11:47 PM EST
    given that he's got less experience and yet he's running for president?

    these attacks are just plain silly and there's a clear double-standard operating.

    how sad to see this kind of stuff at talkleft!

    my take on this.

    Jeralyn, I think you are protesting too much (5.00 / 4) (#104)
    by Saul on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 09:13:28 PM EST
    I have lots of respect for your blog and what you wanted to accomplish with it but I think this protest is over kill.  

    Who knows how a VP might do if called upon.

    If tomorrow out of the blue someone said Jeralyn you got to take the reins and run the country.  Sure you would take it and do the best job you could do.  You would learn the ropes very quickly.  You would know not to trust everyone.  You would research your decision and ask for guidance.  You would know who on your staff were telling you the truth. You would know that all your decisions are for betterment the people and not for special interest.  You would know that the people are everything and you need to do everything for them.  You are just a servant of the people.  They are the masters.   You just step up to the plate and seize the moment.  I do not think anyone is truly ready to be president 100 percent.  Bush was a governor with several years of experience yet look at the lousy job he did.  So having lots of experience for this job IMO is over rated.  

    This all reminds me of (5.00 / 7) (#131)
    by hlr on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 09:20:31 PM EST
    the unpleasantness of MD-Sen two years ago.

    MD, despite being a solidly Dem state w/ almost 30% AA population, has never had an AA elected statewide.

    Kweisi Mfume announced for MD-Sen's open seat.

    The Dems rushed to bring on Cardin. When Mfume narrowly lost, the Dems then had to campaign against another AA, Michael Steele.

    One AA surrogate after another sent out to tell AA voters not to vote for the AA candidate -- including Barack Obama.

    In the end, Dems lost 25% of the AA vote to Steele.

    The same will happen here. Some fraction of the Dem female vote will be lost simply because the parties have not been proactive about being more inclusive. It truly is moving at a snail's pace. Take a look at a list of "netroots" candidates, and tell me that this is the face of the Dem party.

    The only difference here is that Dems in MD did not attack AA voters directly for their choices. They knew better than to do that.

    Insult to women?!? Absolutely absurd. (5.00 / 13) (#134)
    by Exeter on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 09:21:08 PM EST
    She has more experience than OUR nominee, for crys sake!  Frankly I find these attacks on Palin extremely sexist and offensive. Attack her on the issues, but this bs orchestrated "cat fight" attack by the Obama campaign has me very, very angry

    she has no experience on the issues to attack (5.00 / 1) (#169)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 09:29:52 PM EST
    The experience argument is unrelated to her gender. Her gender is only relevant to whether McCain picked her to pander to Hillary supporters.

    No one is attacking her for being a woman (although I cringed at her trying to co-opt the "glass ceiling" meme -- and her invoking Geraldine Ferraro.)

    She should run as a person, not as a woman. As a person, I believe she is completely unqualified for high national office.


    First of all she's not running for President... (5.00 / 10) (#225)
    by Exeter on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 09:54:32 PM EST
    She was asked to serve as VICE president-- that's an important distinction.  She has approximately the same experience as many other VP picks being discussed in both parties.  But, even assuming that she was running for President, she has has just as much experience as Obama-- more, in my opinion.

    She served one term on the hospital board, two terms on the Wasilla city council and two terms as mayor / city manager, before she was elected governor.  While mayor she also served as the statewide Ethics Commissioner and made a name for herself by going against the governor that appointed her and her own party.  She also was head of the Association of Mayors -- usually a big deal in most states. It's also signigicant that although she's only been governor a couple of years, she is very, very popular and has an approval rating of 80%-- in other words people think she's doing a great job... and she also slayed TWO heavy weights to get the governor job.


    Why should she not (5.00 / 5) (#227)
    by americanincanada on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 09:59:42 PM EST
    pay homage to the women who came before her?

    I guess it depends on your definition (1.00 / 1) (#206)
    by DemForever on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 09:41:40 PM EST
    of experience.  If serving as governor of one of least populist states for two years means more than serving as a Senator from one of our larger states for four years, then you are are right.  If serving on the city council of town of 9000 equals serving as a member of the Illinois legislature, then you got me.

    Insult is Right (5.00 / 2) (#143)
    by melro on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 09:22:42 PM EST
    I agree. McCain supposedly made this erroneous judgment based on the idea women are what--ninnies that will mindlessly migrate toward another woman candidate? To even suggest Palin is any sort of match to Hillary makes me furious.

    Palin's wildlife policies are extreme and cruel. And her ethics relative to special interests will be revealed more and more. It appears she cares more for money than living things. Sounds like Cheney doesn't it? Since Hillary has referred to Cheney as "Darth" says much about their character differences.

    We should step back and think (5.00 / 7) (#150)
    by mmc9431 on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 09:24:18 PM EST
    I'm amazed at the choice of attack the Dem's and progressives have taken on this. I listened to Rachel Maddow rant to the point that even KO tried to soften it. Nail her on her political or social positions, GREAT Suggesting she's the "token" woman will come off to most people that aren't political junkees as sour grapes at best and at worst it can be seen as totally offensive.

    This Seems Like A Double Standard (5.00 / 18) (#154)
    by BDB on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 09:26:23 PM EST
    How is it okay for Obama to consider TIm Kaine as VP when he has the same level of experience as Palin, but not okay for McCain to consider Palin?

    And if McCain showed lousy judgement picking Palin, didn't the Dems just do the same with Obama?

    I just spent a week hearing about how it doesn't matter that Obama has so little experience.  Think of Lincoln!  So when it's a male candidate, he can make up for experience with his awesomeness and the experience of his female opponent totally doesn't matter?  But when it's the woman with less experience, then she's unqualified and none of her personal qualities can make up for it?  

    And if this is insulting to women, then I wish both political parties would be insulting to me.  Because both have been nominating awful men for years and I don't hear men complaining they're being insulted.  There's a reason for that.

    I am going to hate this election campaign even more than I thought - racism from the right, sexism from the left.   I need to take up heavy drinking.

    Interesting (5.00 / 2) (#170)
    by NJDem on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 09:29:54 PM EST
    interview (with pics) of the McCain and Palin families.  FWIW

    Aren't there GOP and Independent women who may like Palin?  Won't it help with them?      

    Interesting (5.00 / 1) (#175)
    by NJDem on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 09:31:33 PM EST
    interview (with pics) of the McCain and Palin families with People mag.  FWIW

    Aren't there GOP and Independent women who may like Palin?  Won't it help with them?      

    Certainly will, IMO (5.00 / 4) (#208)
    by ruffian on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 09:41:56 PM EST
    Much more than with Dem women.  The GOP base has been roused from slumber.

    Stop the insanity!! (5.00 / 10) (#181)
    by caseyOR on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 09:33:17 PM EST
    There are so many substantive reasons to oppose McCain/Palin. Stop this "insult to women" ridiculousness. Women do not blindly make decisions based on some estrogen quotient. Progressive women will not suddenly swerve to the republicans because ooh look, it's a girl.

    Maybe McCain chose Palin because he likes her. Maybe he agrees with her on issues. Maybe the fact that she is 44 (younger than the generational game changer Obama) strikes an electable chord with McCain. Maybe, just maybe, McCain's thinking "Hey, that Sarah Palin's a bit of a maverick. Kinda reminds me of myself. That's the ticketm mavericks."

    BTD (5.00 / 3) (#187)
    by tek on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 09:35:04 PM EST
    said earlier that Palin has only been Gov for 2 years and Obama has 3 years in the Senate, but Obama started campaigning for prez when he had only been in the Senate 1 year and he pretty much neglected his Senate duties since then.

    Strategy Change (5.00 / 12) (#188)
    by Pianobuff on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 09:35:07 PM EST
    Here is what the pick is about.  While it arguably is a win-win that Palin is a woman, McCain has always wanted to be the candidate of change.  With the pick of Biden and the celebrity-fatigue of Obama he saw his opening and moved on it.  He wants a new face with few ties to Washington.  He's trying to reclaim his maverick role.  She is an excellent pick, whether male or female.  To suggest otherwise misses the point of what's really going on.

    Just wait until the Repub convention.  You will see McCain/Palin present themselves as reformers of the Rebpublican party. It WILL happen just as I've said.  There could be no better choice for McCain than Palin in this regard.  He will be trying to turn the tables.  Obama/Biden will be the old politics/insiders and McCain/Palin will re-cast themselves as the real candidates of change.  Just wait and see.

    Echo (5.00 / 7) (#219)
    by Prabhata on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 09:50:10 PM EST
    From Wikipedia:

    Running on a clean-government campaign in 2006, Palin upset then-Governor Murkowski in the Republican gubernatorial primary.[3] In August, she declared that education, public safety, and transportation would be three cornerstones of her administration.[20] Despite being outspent by her Democratic opponent, she won the gubernatorial election in November, defeating former Governor Tony Knowles 48.3% to 40.9%.[3]

    I predict that the Democrats may be surprised what a great campaigner Palin is.  Her address impressed me as someone who connects with blue collar workers and women.  I was impressed that she paid respect to Hillary, Ferraro and winning the right to vote.  Obama didn't do that.  It might seem small, but it's the small stuff that touches the heart.  It takes a thoughtful person to make small gestures.


    Yup (5.00 / 1) (#226)
    by NJDem on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 09:57:14 PM EST
    I had a feeling last night that JMc was going to begin framing himself like TR.  There was a good ad he did making the comparison using archival footage of TR at the Panama Canal while telling his early bio.  

    Sad to see you this way,Jeralyn (5.00 / 6) (#197)
    by mrjerbub on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 09:36:48 PM EST
    You seem to be taking this as a personal affront. She is a very accomplished young woman who knows whats up. You should check yourself, girl. Seems kind of "Catty". I know you'll delete this and ban me from your comments. Don't worry, I'll ban myself. Good luck

    Insulting? Saying women have no place else to go (5.00 / 11) (#203)
    by Ellie on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 09:40:37 PM EST
    ... so we can be treated like cr@p despite carrying the Dems for years, as Dem leadership explicitly said this whole campaign, is insulting.

    But seeing the Repugs fielding a candidate who "looks like us"? Not so much. (Jeez, is everyone in Miffed Mode tonight?)

    I'm not sure why anyone would find this insulting, given that women can vote however they want. They don't HAVE to vote for her or anyone else in the field if they're not into the candidate.

    And once again, it's wrong to micro-manage other people's votes this way.

    Try to picture Gov. Palin as President (5.00 / 1) (#209)
    by DFLer on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 09:43:25 PM EST
    no thanks.

    Secretary of (Defense or Interior): Ted Nugent?

    Let's stick to the issues (5.00 / 8) (#210)
    by Manuel on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 09:43:38 PM EST
    We can't reasonably claim that selecting Palin is more of an insult to women than not picking the obvious most qualified VP candidate.  By their actions the Democrats have lost the moral authority to decry McCain as sexist.  Was Geraldine Ferraro an insult to women?  Just today Rep. Clyburn appeared to suggest as much.
    Hillary and Obama are striking the right tone.  It doesn't hurt to be gracious.  Piling on on Palin will only get Palin a lot of sympathy (including mine) and votes (not mine).  I am sure KO will be naming her "worst person in the world" real soon now.  This is what McCain is counting on and so far a lot of the left blogospgere and pundits are falling for it.

    Jeralyn please don't do this (5.00 / 13) (#215)
    by Serene1 on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 09:45:40 PM EST
    If choosing Palin is supposed to be insulting to women then why is not choosing Obama insulting to men. Experience wise both of them are in the same boat though he is campaigning for a higher job. Accomplishment wise she is far ahead of Obama.
    The insulting thing for women is that, like BTD rightly pointed out, criticisim to Palin is more in terms of her gender than her beliefs or any such thing. The more the left insults Palin, the more I am going to rally behind her. This is just ridiculous.

    McCain has achieved his goal (5.00 / 18) (#217)
    by waldenpond on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 09:48:31 PM EST
    Way to go McCain????????

    He has achieved (which I said he should do) keeping the Dems in the primary.

    His pick has brought back sexism (which frankly, showed the Dems in a less than positive light)and affirmative action candidacy (which frankly,  showed the Dems in a less than positive light)...

    it has brought back questioning the intelligence of constituencies.. women vote for Clinton only because she's a women, any woman is stupid if they vote for Palin (which frankly, showed Dems in a less than positive light) and the Obama tacked on an insult to small towns with their reference to Palin's mayoralship of a small town (which frankly, showed the Dems in a less than positive light)...

    it has brought back the discussion of experience.. mayor of small town plus limited time as a governor v community org plus limited legislative experience.

    McCain has grabbed the discussion.

    Democrats not only ate their own in the primary, but have so embraced the goal of winning no matter the cost that it has carried over to the GE and it is not appealing. just sayin'

    seems to me (5.00 / 5) (#221)
    by TimNCGuy on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 09:51:30 PM EST
    the argument that "voters" selected the inexperienced Obama and McCain by himself selected the inexperienced Palin is a bit weak. Actually the "voters" split about 50/50 on Obama vs Clinton and it was only a few hundred super delegates who selected the inexperienced Obama for the TOP of the dem ticket. You can say Obama got more 'elected" delegates. But, that was just based on dem rules for delegate apportionment and not on one person, one vote,

    NOT AN INSULT TO WOMEN AT ALL (5.00 / 4) (#234)
    by chopper on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 11:23:11 PM EST
    McCain did not have the option of choosing Hillary.

    But, he highlighted Obama's blunder in not choosing Hillary.

    McCain is very shrewd in choosing Gov. Palin.

    Obama people cannot bring up the issue of experience because Palin is more experienced than Obama.

    It makes more sense to have an inexperienced person as VP, not as president.

    All the women I know, mostly Hillary supporters, like the idea of having a woman as VP.  We had hoped for the first female president, but VP is good, too.

    It's too bad Obama didn't see it that way first.

    Experience may not matter but... (5.00 / 1) (#236)
    by Rashomon66 on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 11:34:22 PM EST
    Experience aside it's really about the issues. And from all I can tell Palin is very conservative. Some women may like to have her as VP - but most likely those are not liberal or Democratic women. I think if we simply stick with the issues and not go after Palin because of lack of experience or age or any other reason that could be construed as offensive then the Democrats will win the election in November. This was a gamble pick and I think most voters know it.

    Come again? (5.00 / 2) (#237)
    by Andy08 on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 11:40:09 PM EST
    What an absurd statement from Colorado Rep. DeGette... loony...

    Her statement would have applied perfectly should Obama chosen a woman other than Hillary for VP. But for McCain is completely off... Really loony.

    Insulting (5.00 / 2) (#240)
    by chopper on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 01:12:11 AM EST
    Obama had the choice of choosing Hillary, he didn't.  That's insulting.

    McCain's choice is not insulting at all.  Hillary was not an option for McCain.

    The irony is completely lost on DeGette? (4.83 / 6) (#16)
    by sharmajee on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 08:46:37 PM EST
    the entire thrust of her logic works so well against her choice for the top of the ticket of her own party as well!!

    Oh, Really? (4.67 / 12) (#38)
    by bmc on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 08:53:58 PM EST
    Love ya, Diana, but you're wrong, oh so wrong on this. It's a brilliant choice and some of us are just loving it. It's truly FEMINIST. No way to deny it. So, keep on keepin' on Dems, but you screwed the pooch big time on this one.


    the largest state? (4.66 / 3) (#124)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 09:18:39 PM EST
    in number of acres? Her mayoral city had 5,000 people. Alaska has 670,000 people.

    Here is what I like about Palin (4.56 / 9) (#202)
    by Prabhata on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 09:40:23 PM EST
    I disagree on some of the issues, but her positions are from her heart.  I like integrity, even when I disagree:

    Anti-choice, but she demonstrated her position when she kept her baby with Down Syndrome

    NRA member: she goes hunting

    Anti corruption: She stood up to the Republican party's shady deals.

    She supports Iraq: Her son is going there.

    It just goes on and on.

    The woman stands erect, and that silly investigation that she misused her authority when she fired an employee it's chicken s**t compared to Rezko.  And I like her answer: I welcome the investigation and hold me accountable.  Wow!

    This won me over: her husband is a union member. That spells pro-labor.

    I hardly know how to react anymore (4.12 / 8) (#51)
    by hitchhiker on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 08:58:28 PM EST
    Is it just me, or does this election grow sillier by the day?

    I'm with Jeralyn re: Diana DeGette -- she fights and works and doesn't go for cheap b.s.

    Look, McCain is a patronizing pr**k if he sincerely believes that uterus-voting is going to be a hot new trend.

    That would be the position of someone who despises women, wouldn't it?  How could anyone possibly take it seriously?

    And I'm laughing out loud at the level of outrage from my former friends in the left . . . how dare a politician do or say anything that so demeans women????  

    Geez, I don't know.  Periodically, when I'm feeling down, I just randomly attack people.  My claws come out, you know?

    It's amusing to watch people with such a thin, paltry ration of self-awareness beat their chests--or it would be if the stakes weren't so high.

    I love this comment from a couple of weeks ago (4.00 / 2) (#223)
    by DemForever on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 09:52:54 PM EST
    from Karl "the Architect" Rove:

    "With all due respect again to Governor Kaine, he's been a governor for three years, he's been able but undistinguished. I don't think people could really name a big, important thing that he's done. He was mayor of the 105th largest city in America. And again, with all due respect to Richmond, Virginia, it's smaller than Chula Vista, California; Aurora, Colorado; Mesa or Gilbert, Arizona; north Las Vegas or Henderson, Nevada. It's not a big town. So if he were to pick Governor Kaine, it would be an intensely political choice where he said, `You know what? I'm really not, first and foremost, concerned with, is this person capable of being president of the United States?"

    Obama listened, but McCain did not, lol

    And why was Obama installed (1.00 / 1) (#95)
    by Salt on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 09:10:32 PM EST
    And schock I'm not insulted I applaud this historic selection..

    Dems should let the experience issue slide. (none / 0) (#41)
    by Pegasus on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 08:54:38 PM EST
    And just be happy it's off the table.

    But as for the rest, it's spot-on.  Exactly what we should see from female Dem leaders.  I'm with Jeralyn on this one.

    Ack! Quoting Rove of all people (none / 0) (#233)
    by NWC80 on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 10:32:43 PM EST
    What a great quote from Rove (only misdirected apparently)

    `You know what? I'm really not, first and foremost, concerned with, is this person capable of being president of the United States?"

    and that about sums up McCain's approach.

    At least we had a surplus of capable options on our side. As far as I was concerned from Bayh to Biden to Clark to Hillary to Kaine to Sebelius, etc., they all added something to a strong ticket. Arguments could be made that each were capable of being President. Good ones at that.

    But Sarah Palin? Not even close.

    Palin wants to make a woman's right to choose (none / 0) (#235)
    by JessicanDC on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 11:30:20 PM EST
    illegal in all situations. Rape. Incest, etc.

    She doesn't support full marriage equality for all American citizens.

    I could never rationalize defending this choice as a VP. The experience issue is a valid point since the McCain camp first brought it up, but let's focus on all of the issues on which Palin is just flat out wrong.

    Comments are closing here (none / 0) (#238)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 11:51:11 PM EST
    we are over 200 and I'm going to take the last word to remind readers who don't comment here that the support for Palin in the comments and criticism of DeGette's remarks is mostly by Hillary supporters who want revenge against Obama for not picking Hillary. Most telling is the comment that says :

    All the women I know, mostly Hillary supporters, like the idea of having a woman as VP.  We had hoped for the first female president, but VP is good, too.
    It's too bad Obama didn't see it that way first.

    These same women would have been up in arms had Obama picked Kathleen Sebelius who is good on their issues.

    I have previously limited commenters opposing the Democratic ticket to 4 comments a day. The more than 1,000 comments today about Palin shows a number of them are using Palin as an excuse to bash the Democratic ticket. They will have to do it somewhere else.

    Insulted ... (none / 0) (#239)
    by Sincerely on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 12:52:11 AM EST
    This is my first time posting on this site, although I have been avidly reading it for a couple of months now.  Usually there is someone else who already makes a point in a comment that I am thinking, so I don't feel a need to post... but given how far flung the comments are on this post, I decided to weigh in.

    As a 45 year old woman, lawyer, mother of young children including a 5 month old baby, and Hilary supporter, I concur that the selection of Palin is an insult to women.  Not merely on the obvious level that women are not interchangeable (women will not swap Palin for Clinton at the voting booth just because they want a women in executive office... like we already know how great having Pelosi and Rice in office have been for females--NOT) but on the less overt level, too.

    Where at the end of the day, McCain may have picked Palin merely to energize the evangelical base, not worrying one bit about experience or line of succession because the GOP seems apparently happy with inexperienced puppets like GWB, who comply with their corporate puppetmasters (Cheney/ George Schulz), the selection of Palin screams a subtext of sexism and ageism that I believe a lot of the Hilary demographic is attuned to... hence the continued sense of pique and insult.

    A lot is being bound up in the word "experienced" but I think the real issue is accomplishment. Many accomplished women who work very hard and obtain advanced degrees and put in their time to reach the brass ring are often disappointed by the glass ceiling...being passed over by less accomplished people, usually men... and sometimes women who use their looks/ sex appeal to climb the ladder.

    It can be dispiriting and insulting to women to have a beauty queen with a bachelors degree from a 3d rate school with basically 2 years of governing about 1.5 million people be placed on the same level in the national conversation as a person who has a 30 year career with advanced degrees from top schools, who stood out among the best and brightest at those institutions, and who advocated for clients and citizens, developing domestic policy and interfacing with world leaders,and who worked hard for 18 months in a primary to show how much she really wanted the job of POTUS. Hilary's intellect is threatening to men in power and she does not wear skirts. Palin is plucky and manageable...a big fish in a little pond (how many electoral votes does Alaska have?). There is no way she actually deserves to be on the ticket. (and neither did Dan Quayle...)

    The comparisons of Palin and Obama are moot... he did run in the primary to prove his bona fides and show he wanted the job ... he did not just step in **it.

    Finally, as for Palin as mother of the year... even kittens have litters... she can't be around her kids and that new baby too much if she is on a tour bus with the McCains. I am sure a lot of people have thought that, but everyone seems too polite to say it.

    Good night!

    Hillary held no office (none / 0) (#241)
    by onlyme on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 02:02:04 AM EST
    before being elected NY Senator.

    THEY PASS IT ON (none / 0) (#242)
    by chopper on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 02:21:13 PM EST
    Frequently when a senator or representative dies the office is passed on to the wife.

    I don't think this would happen unless the spouse had a great deal of knowledge about the office, was capable, and agreed on the policies.

    So, even though Hillary was not president, being as bright and curious as she is, I'm sure she learned a great deal about being president from her husband, President Bill Clinton, one of our greatest presidents.

    Hillary was a very active First Lady and was deeply involved in presidential activities.

    I am very upset that her presidential bid was corrupted as it was. I was looking forward to another 8 years of Peace & Prosperity and another Greatest Economic Expansion in History.

    Since Obama put down Clinton's economy I don't expect to see a redo soon.

    However, I have no problem with McCain winning in 2008 and Hillary winning in 2012. I guess I will have to wait 4 years for another Greatest Economic Expansion in History, but it's worth waiting for.

    Oh, and I'm not concerned about McCain because he will have his hands tied with a Democratic Congress.  No legislation or judges passed unless the Dems agree.