Will We Ever Learn?

Steve Benen writes about the Palin pick:

A top "loyal Bushie" told the Politico's Mike Allen that McCain's decision is "disrespectful to the office of the presidency." That's actually a pretty good way of characterizing it. . . . Campaigns have their ads, their polls, and their tactics, but at the end of the day, credible people who care about the country know that this is more than just a theatrical game -- the future of the nation counts more than the future of a candidate. . . . [H]onorable Americans of character don't gamble with the nation's well-being. They know there are lines that can't be crossed for expediency's sake, no matter how strong the temptation.

(Emphasis supplied.) [More...]

For gawd sakes, a "top loyal Bushie" said THAT? And Benen cites it approvingly? Think what you want about Palin, but does anyone think picking her for VP remotely compares with ginning up evidence to start the most disastrous war in recent history? A little perspective Steve. A VP choice is not the most earth shattering decision in history and when you start quoting "top loyal Bushies" about "disrespecting the Presidency," you are proving yourself to be "manifestly unserious." Get a freaking grip. I assure you the American People are wondering what Democrats are freaking out about.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

< TrooperGate Dogs Gov. Sarah Palin | Late Night: Like a Hurricane >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    She's not nearly as threatening (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by rooge04 on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 10:51:32 PM EST
    as the progressives and the media are making her out to be.  They're making way too much a deal of this woman.  Why can't they just not care and bring the contrast of policies?  They're determined to make her a game-changer, even if she doesn't have the capacity for it.  

    Not only that... (5.00 / 2) (#12)
    by Exeter on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 11:02:57 PM EST
    but she is very, very relatable. She looks and sounds like the lady next door. It comes off as unfairly attacking her personally, instead of on the issues.

    Yup, America will fall in love with her, (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by SueBonnetSue on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 11:15:15 PM EST
    Just as the emotional wing of our party fell in love with Obama.  Just as Chris Matthews about his tingly leg.

    Relatable in sound and appearance (none / 0) (#147)
    by elonepb on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 12:06:51 AM EST
    But not in a single important issue to women.

    She's smart, tough, and a good family woman it appears. But just because she's a woman doesn't make me want to give her a pass on all the issues that are the reason I'm a Democrat.

    I think the Obama campaign is doing the right thing by ignoring her and attacking McCain.

    After all, apparently the VP slot has never decided an election.


    When did they start ignoring her and (5.00 / 4) (#190)
    by Valhalla on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 12:56:04 AM EST
    attacking McCain?

    I agree (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by bluegal on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 11:03:14 PM EST
    It shouldn't be about Palin it needs to be about McCain's JUDGMENT. The sooner dems figure that out the better off we will be.

    For all of McCain's "Country First" and "I'm ready" talking points this decision that he made after meeting her once goes to his JUDGMENT.  

    What McCain did was dangerous and shows just how cynical and arrogant he is. Do we really want this man running our country? I say hell no and I think many folks would agree.


    Yeah (5.00 / 3) (#28)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 11:14:34 PM EST
    Because he's got to be crazy to pick a woman with equivalent experience to Obama.  /snark

    this is the experience argument packaged another way.  it's still a loser.  


    Wrong again (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by bluegal on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 11:22:53 PM EST
    You can have all the experience in the world but if you don't have good judgment what good is that experience?

    That is the issue here. I know you want to play the sexism card but I'm not buying it.

    McCain thinks it is okay to gamble with the country's future. He has shown this time and time again. He is dangerous and I don't want him anywhere near the White House.


    If you are going to couch it that (5.00 / 6) (#75)
    by tree on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 11:30:59 PM EST
    way, then you can say the same thing about Obama. He took a gamble that he, as inexperienced as he is, would be up to the task of being President. Mccain is taking the same gamble on inexperience with his Vice President pick that Obama took running for President. You've got a double standard here.

    No I don't (none / 0) (#94)
    by bluegal on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 11:40:54 PM EST
    It is more than obvious that you are an Obama hater so whatever I say it will be like talking to thin air.  

    It's not all about experience!!! My goodness. Experience can be defined by so many things but at the end of the day it is about judgment.   Obama has so far shown that he has the judgment and temperament to be President. McCain has not.

    I'm judging both of them on their judgment nad temperament to be President. I think it is very important to look at those two qualities especially given the tough times we are living in.


    We undercut our own (5.00 / 1) (#125)
    by Redshoes on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 11:52:26 PM EST
    CNN did a profile on McCain and Obama.  On the McCain segment Senator Feingold said he thought McCain had the temperament to be President.

    But that's because integrity still matters.


    I'm not an Obama hater. (5.00 / 8) (#166)
    by tree on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 12:21:31 AM EST
    I just am not voting for him. I'm not voting for her either. I AM pointing out that your argument is inconsistent and hypocritical and is NOT an effective argument to make. If you are going to faul McCain for putting someone with little experience in the race, then you can't turn around and applaud Obama for doing the same thing AND have your argument taken seriously by anyone other than the choir.

    Obama's judgment is supported by the wrong record (none / 0) (#146)
    by Yotin on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 12:06:09 AM EST
    Obama's claim to his fame on judgment is based on the one speech he gave. He has the wrong voting record to support that claim.

    Look (5.00 / 7) (#93)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 11:40:40 PM EST
    If you question McCain's JUDGMENT by saying he picked someone too INEXPERIENCED, than that is still the EXPERIENCE argument.  It's just once removed.  the only additional factor that would make it criminally dangerous (or whatever you said) to pick the very inexperienced Palin while it's dandy to pick the inexperienced Obama is that she is a woman.

    You say it's a gamble to the country's future to pick an inexperienced Palin - but Obama has little more experience.  Isn't that a gamble as well?  Do you really want to litigate that argument for the next two months?

    This is a loser argument for Democrats this year.  Dem strategists have been walking into it with the Republicans all day and they end up looking like idiots.  It should stop.  


    True unfortunately (5.00 / 3) (#151)
    by IzikLA on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 12:08:10 AM EST
    The McCain camp knows that, at the base of the issue, they are stirring up the "experience" theme here and they know that if the Democrats challenge it we will be in the midst of a losing argument without even noticing.  McCain doesn't seem to mind that he is losing one of his big arguments because he is still putting the Democrats in a Catch-22.   Hell, the fact that she is a woman is merely an added bonus at this point.

    If it was such a loser (none / 0) (#101)
    by bluegal on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 11:43:14 PM EST
    why is Obama ahead?  It would be a loser if Obama was 72 years old with health issues.

    I may be wrong but I do not think that this Palin pick is going to help McCain in the long run.

    People seem to forget that this year more people were looking to VP choices and IMO and I'm ready to be proven wrong, McCain has failed.


    Hillary and Bill gave great speeches (5.00 / 1) (#140)
    by nycstray on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 11:59:58 PM EST
    polling hasn't been done since his afaik. But he flipped back into the lead after Hillary's speech.

    What? (5.00 / 6) (#149)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 12:07:45 AM EST
    There have been no head-to-head match-ups since Palin has been picked so you have no idea if Obama is still ahead, or by how much, or by how much after folks get more of a chance to see her on the national stage.  that's very premature.

    The experience argument has NOTHING to do with Obama's age, so I have no idea why you keep bringing it up - it doesn't matter if Obama is 46 or 72.  What the argument hinges on is - is obama really that much more experienced than Palin?  Many people will say no.  And he's at the top of the ticket.  That is why it makes no sense to freak out over her but not him.  What you are doing right now is comparing our #1 person to their #2 person - it elevates her and diminishes him.  It's a loser.

    And there is ALSO no reason why people would be looking that much more closely at this year's VEEP picks than any other except the fact that there was so much HRC speculation.

    And I expect that the long-term effects of this pick will be to remind people that before he started holding hands with Bush, McCain was a "maverick".  If that is the case, then it will be a success in a year where the Republican brand is in terrible shape.


    And just maybe, among other things, (5.00 / 3) (#136)
    by zfran on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 11:59:14 PM EST
    McCain is showing us that altho' a Palin presidency may be a heartbeat away with so many thinking she isn't experienced enough, and yet so many are so willing to elect Obama willy-nilly with less experience to run the country immediately if elected.Crazy, no. Watching Biden spoony-eyed today makes me even more aware of how much trouble we are in in this country.

    The argument seems to be... (5.00 / 4) (#105)
    by reynwrap582 on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 11:44:48 PM EST
    That people think McCain is more likely to die or lose his mind in his first term because of his age and past health.  Maybe it's true, but I'd strongly advise Obama and his supporters to not use that line of attack, it comes off looking pretty terrible anyway...

    Especially if you consider how many of our black leaders have been taken from us far too early, the argument can be used against Obama as well (and by extension, the Presidency would go to a guy who couldn't break 5% of the votes in his own party's primary?), though it won't be because...can you imagine the fallout from such a statement?  Holy crap.

    But ya, ageism is perfectly fine.


    FDR / Truman? n/t (none / 0) (#131)
    by joanneleon on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 11:55:12 PM EST
    where do you get "two" from? (none / 0) (#154)
    by A DC Wonk on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 12:10:44 AM EST

    (and near misses with Ford and Reagan)


    more correct (5.00 / 0) (#167)
    by AlSmith on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 12:25:07 AM EST

    More correct but I think Harding is really the only case that parallels what we are talking about with McCain.

    The others were assassinations and in FDR's case people knew that he wasnt going to make it a year into his 4th term.

    If the question is what are the chances of a healthy president with access to modern health care dropping dead in a four year term, I'd say pretty slight.


    I had a thought... (5.00 / 3) (#192)
    by Jeannie on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 12:56:32 AM EST
    Obama is an actor, playing a part. Most of his background is fiction, and because he is just acting his positions aren't clear and he doesn't seem to have a clear set of principles. He blows with the wind.
    Palin is living her truth - whether we agree or not, she is doing what she thinks is right. She is REAL.
    Maybe we all sense this at some level. Maybe that is what is scaring the Obama supporters so badly and why they feel they must trash her.
    Hillary and McCain are real, too - but they have been around politics for long enough to blur the edges of the reality for political reasons - not necessarily a bad thing.

    Well said! (5.00 / 4) (#2)
    by SueBonnetSue on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 10:53:11 PM EST
    The regular American voter is most certainly wondering why the liberals are freaking out over this choice.  

    Why must democrats make such an effort to appear disconnected from the average American?  Does it make them feel superior?  Or is there some other reason?  It sure doesn't win votes.  

    Good Lord, why on earth would (5.00 / 6) (#4)
    by Anne on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 10:57:00 PM EST
    anyone quote a loyal Bushie on what disrespects the office of the presidency?

    There hasn't been a president who disrespected the office more than the person who currently holds that office; Bush beats Nixon by a landslide on that score.

    God forbid (5.00 / 2) (#200)
    by blcc on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 01:08:16 AM EST
    we should discount the wisdom of a "top loyal Bushie!"

    I am convinced! (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by AlSmith on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 10:58:37 PM EST

    I dont want a nation party to run an inexperienced empty suit who main appeal is demographic!

    What kind of cynical game players would nominate such a person?

    Wrong (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by bluegal on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 11:06:22 PM EST
    For all of your Obama hate you are making a fatal mistake.

    The voters chose Obama and even looking at the polls he still has a lead which means that enough people are comfortable with him being President.  

    McCain is behind right now and has been running his whole campaign on having experience. He's also 72 and the fact that he has had health issues makes his VP choice more important.  Putting up a former Mayor of a town in Alaska does not speak well of his judgment.  If he wins we are stuck with Sarah and heaven forbid something happens to McCain.


    Maybe we should have an Obama/Palin debate (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by nycstray on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 11:20:01 PM EST
    or a throwdown on the court?

    quite a portmanteu of falacies you have there (5.00 / 4) (#45)
    by AlSmith on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 11:21:04 PM EST

    How dare a former community organizer run for President! Oh he has held other offices? Then maybe you can drop the mayor talking point.

    The 5 year survival rate for skin cancer is 99%- its not like John McCain is going drop over in a single day.

    On the other hand with our ticket you have a 100% chance of having an unqualified person in charge.

    I point this out because the linked article said "how dare a party run an unqualified person because of their demographic appeal". In our wisdom the democrats have chose to do this with under-qualified Senators in Obama in Edwards. It is absurd to say that now it is beyond the pale when the GOP does it.


    Oh Really? (2.00 / 1) (#59)
    by bluegal on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 11:25:40 PM EST
    According to you but an average of 47% of the public disagrees.   Sorry, this is about judgment.

    It's not just skin cancer, have you seen McCain in public? I have, he limps, he moves slow. This is not a man in tip top shape. The presidency makes you age far faster than the average person. His judgment is crucial at his age and as I've said before, he has shown a dangerous lack of judgment.


    Jeez (5.00 / 7) (#77)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 11:31:36 PM EST
    He limps and moves slow because he was injured in war.  Bob Kerrey also limps because part of his leg was blown off.  Bob Dole had a partially paralyzed arm.  These aren't old age symptoms - most people view them as badges of honor.

    Do you want to lose this election?  Because attacking McCain for injuries he received while he was a POW is probably the fastest way to do it.


    I'm pointing out legitimate concerns (none / 0) (#82)
    by bluegal on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 11:34:41 PM EST
    that voters have. My grandma is one of them and she is older than McCain.  

    I'm not attacking him for his injuries I'm bringing up a legitimate issue.


    Funny, though, that he hasn't needed (5.00 / 5) (#96)
    by Anne on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 11:41:14 PM EST
    nearly as much "vacation" time as his considerably younger opponent...haven't heard anyone suggest McCain's having trouble maintaining the pace of campaigning, either.

    Just sayin'


    Um (none / 0) (#109)
    by bluegal on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 11:46:09 PM EST
    McCain has taken off practically every single weekend which would be far more than the mere 7 days that Obama took off. McCain does only one event a day compared to Obama who does an average of 2(as of right now).

    If you had your legs broken (5.00 / 7) (#103)
    by miriam on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 11:44:13 PM EST
    in Viet Nam and were held in captivity without top medical/orthopedic treatment, you might limp too...regardless of age.  Yours was a calloused comment and reminiscent of daily kos, not Talk Left.

    Whatever (none / 0) (#114)
    by bluegal on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 11:48:17 PM EST
    Call it callous. My grandmother and her friends are saying the same thing about McCain and they are older than him and in better physical shape than him and they think he is too old and unhealthy to be President. I'm sure they aren't the only ones.

    Well, they're old enough to know better. (5.00 / 3) (#133)
    by Cream City on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 11:56:42 PM EST
    That fact that your grandmother makes (5.00 / 3) (#170)
    by SueBonnetSue on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 12:27:51 AM EST
    Unkind comments does not excuse your's.  

    interesting, this changes my perspective (5.00 / 3) (#181)
    by DandyTIger on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 12:36:44 AM EST
    a bit. Hearing these really disgusting, demeaning things about someone because of they were tortured kind of puts all the other things you've said into relief. Now the attacks and rumor pushing and general hate messages make a lot more sense. Thanks for clearing that up.

    And how often does the public (5.00 / 1) (#205)
    by blcc on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 01:15:48 AM EST
    beat down a path to your Grandmother's door in search of her guidance?

    Nothing against your Grandmother personally, but really, so what that she thinks he's too old?  Similarly I know people who are in the senior demographic who believe their lifetimes of accomplishment and achievement are not finished and that they still have valuable contributions to make to society.  

    It sounds like you and I are related to different kinds of people.  All of which is entirely beside the point as the plural of anecdote is not data.


    really (5.00 / 3) (#108)
    by AlSmith on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 11:46:03 PM EST

    The average male 72 yo would live to 85. Other than his war wounds McCain is in good shape and has access to executive health care. He does have skin cancer but that is rarely fatal. There is no reason to think he is going to drop over dead.

    Your point about the number of people who approve of Obama candidacy is specious. That just demonstrates his demographic appeal. The article was decrying that parties cynically nominate people who have low political experience just because they have a good image and can get people to vote for them with mindless slogans. If you would like to disavow that theory you have to do it for both tickets- Obama and Palin. I kind of endorse it and dont intend to vote for either.

    Palin has at least been in politics since 1992. Edwards had only been office at any level for 4 years when he ran for president and 6 years when he was the candidate for VP.  


    Another point (5.00 / 5) (#152)
    by MichaelGale on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 12:08:33 AM EST
    again, all this talk about age.

    The boomber voter is 45 - 60.  Don't you think that talking down to age is a little dangerous? Biden is heading there, what is he 65? In four years he will be almost 70? Are we going to ask him to step down so we can get someone younger?


    Jeez, a limp? (5.00 / 5) (#145)
    by BarnBabe on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 12:03:31 AM EST
    My BF is 60. He walks with 2 canes for the last 5 years. He has AS which is constant back pain. He used the canes for posture and does not walk fast at all. FDR could not even walk. We can attack McCain on his stances, but Democrats should leave out the physical attacks. BTW, have you ever in your life seen McCain walking fast? And, I am glad your Grandma is still in good health.

    Palin seems like a very quick learner (5.00 / 2) (#49)
    by SueBonnetSue on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 11:22:18 PM EST
    As long as McCain doesn't die before Inauguration, I think most Americans will be fine with Sarah's ability to learn quickly on the job.  She seems to have done fine doing that in the past.  Too bad Obama won't have that kind of on the job training.  He must be ready from DAY ONE.  

    Odd logic (5.00 / 8) (#70)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 11:29:20 PM EST
    Because voters choose Obama, he has experience?  Does that mean GWB was experienced?

    And while she might be a former mayor, her current job is governor.  Would you like it if I called Obama a former state senator as his main descriptor?

    This experience argument reflects negatively on Obama.  


    Sigh (none / 0) (#80)
    by bluegal on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 11:33:05 PM EST
    I didn't vote for W.

    My point is that the voters got to judge Obama for themselves and made their decision. The voters also get to judge McCain and because of McCain's age, they are going to be judging him far more than they are Obama. Sad but true.  

    This experience argument would reflect bad on Obama if he was 72 years old with previous health problems.

    It's about judgment.


    Well (5.00 / 8) (#124)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 11:52:10 PM EST
    Voters will also get to look at Palin and judge for themselves.  Democratic harping on it is only going to make those same voters re-examine Obama.  And expose our party to accusations of hypocrisy and sexism.  

    This argument is a loser.

    (And "raising questions" about McCain's injuries is also going to hurt Democrats.  By making us look like heartless jerks.)

    But you should be consistent - by your argument, Obama has proven his experience by winning the primary.  So I would guess that that would make GWB more experienced because he won a primary AND a general.


    According to your logic (none / 0) (#201)
    by Amiss on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 01:10:19 AM EST
    All the popularity that FDR enjoyed was all from folks with really bad judgement.

    I am interested in your opinion of David Paterson, the Governor of New York State, just curious.


    The argument could also be made that (5.00 / 4) (#107)
    by Anne on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 11:45:53 PM EST
    Obama picked Biden to reassure voters that there would be a licensed driver in the car with the rookie...but Biden's had some serious health problems - what happens if he falls over one day?  There goes the safety net, huh?

    it's like that cowboy song in Mars Attacks (5.00 / 4) (#8)
    by DandyTIger on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 10:59:47 PM EST
    that causes all the aliens heads to explode. It's kind of funny to watch. Even extremely reasonable people are going batsh*t over this. I don't know if it's a sore point that the first woman in office will be a republican, or if it's just misogyny, or what it is. But it's strange.

    My recommendation to anyone who wants the dem ticket to win, take a deep breath. Calm down. And don't say anything about Palin for a full two weeks. Yep, two weeks. It's not hard. :-)

    It's an easy answer. (5.00 / 4) (#123)
    by Jeannie on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 11:52:08 PM EST
    The Democrats have been out-strategized, and they are scared. They were scared of Hillary's power so they demonized her. They are scared of Sarah and her power-to-be, so they demonize her. And they are WOMEN! Women should be subservient and know their place.
    This is the Democratic party? The party of equality? The people who care about others? I am so tired of the Democratic nastiness.

    Translation: if it were a man, it would be OK (5.00 / 6) (#9)
    by Exeter on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 10:59:50 PM EST
    but a woman... well... cough... cough... then she's got to have alot more experience than just being a mayor and a governor!

    even the passport (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by DandyTIger on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 11:03:07 PM EST
    We've heard you had the nerve to visit your troops overseas, well we better just have a look at that passport missy. After all, you're just a giiiirl, so we better see what you've been up too. You might have gotten lost. Seriously, they just don't get it.

    Um... (none / 0) (#24)
    by Brillo on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 11:12:10 PM EST
    Bush and Obama were both asked this question.  

    Next, they'll be asking (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by Cream City on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 11:44:42 PM EST
    for her birth certificate.

    But she can just post a blocked-out copy on the internet?  Okay.


    One has to wonder, though, (5.00 / 4) (#165)
    by JavaCityPal on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 12:20:53 AM EST
    how many more whacks is it going to take before someone realizes this horse was dead hours ago?

    I am shocked, and embarrassed for the democrats who started shooting these blanks in rapid fire succession at the person who was selected for the VP position on the Republican ticket.

    Is there a large contingent of republican voters on this site? Or is it a bunch of democrats who simply feel a need to bash this woman for reaching a level of success that makes them jealous?

    I know I'm not voting for her, and feel absolutely no need to justify that by looking for any and every negative thing I can find on the internet about her.


    You are missing the point (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by bluegal on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 11:07:34 PM EST
    If Tim Kaine was picked I would be questioning Obama's JUDGMENT.

    This pick goes to McCain's judgment. It has nothing to do with Palin being a woman. If McCain had picked his son I would be asking the same questions.

    Stop with the faux sexism crap.


    You would be lonely (5.00 / 7) (#22)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 11:10:53 PM EST
    don't think she's taking the advice on (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by DandyTIger on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 11:35:22 PM EST
    opstay ashingbay alinpay. OK, I admit I had help with a pig latin translator. [stop bashing Palin] :-)

    I agree with BlueGal (5.00 / 1) (#117)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 11:50:02 PM EST
    Her gender is irrelevant and she's not being attacked for being a woman. McCain on the other hand should be attacked for pandering to women.

    Your comment (5.00 / 4) (#127)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 11:53:02 PM EST
    is not responsive to mine.

    She said she would have criticized a Kaine pick by Obama.

    I said she would be lonely.

    I do not know what you would have done but I feel confident about others, including the Media.


    just beware of the opening (5.00 / 3) (#142)
    by DandyTIger on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 12:01:35 AM EST
    that makes. An inexperienced person selected for pandering reasons is a doubled edged sword.

    Why? (5.00 / 1) (#148)
    by SueBonnetSue on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 12:07:11 AM EST
    It's about time someone pandered to women.  I'm glad that at least someone is caring about the votes of women, although I wish it had been our candidate.

    Jeralyn, her gender has become (5.00 / 3) (#155)
    by zfran on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 12:10:46 AM EST
    relevant. We have seen it running throughout all of these posts yesterday and today. Your initial reaction was that she was a woman and therefore McCain was pandering to women. You didn't express it as your opinion, your tone was one of anger. You then showed us the reaction of your Rep. and praised her for saying it. If Obama had picked Kaine, some may have questioned, but most, would have said, well, if he picked him, he must be okay and justified it, just like you did with his Biden pick. That those who saw it with Hillary were appalled, and cannot see it know, is almost laughable if it were so scary!

    No you wouldn't, (5.00 / 4) (#66)
    by SueBonnetSue on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 11:26:17 PM EST
    We would all know exactly why Obama would have chosen Kaine.  He needs to carry Virginia.  Obama chose Biden for his time in the Senate, on the foreign relations committee.  It's not rocket science.  

    McCain needed to fire up his base.  Palin did that for him.  It's still not rocket science.  


    I'm sorry do you know me? (none / 0) (#72)
    by bluegal on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 11:29:41 PM EST
    I would still criticize Obama and question his judgment. There is no guarantee that with Kaine Obama would win Virginia.  He won his own race because of the coattails of Warner.  

    Also, McCain is very weak on the economy. Why didn't he pick someone to shore up that weakness since afterall it is the number one issue.

    Not only does he have bad judgment he is arrogant.


    Did Obama have bad judgment (4.57 / 7) (#81)
    by tree on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 11:34:19 PM EST
    running for President as inexperienced as he is? If you are willing to criticize him for that, then I'm willing to admit  that sexism doesn't influence your viewpoint.

    Inexperienced? (none / 0) (#86)
    by bluegal on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 11:36:16 PM EST
    That is a matter of opinion. I respectfully disagree.

    If experience was such a problem then no one would have voted for him.  

    I'm looking at Obama from a judgment perspective and right now, he is far more stable than John McCain.


    Objectively, his public service (5.00 / 6) (#98)
    by tree on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 11:42:19 PM EST
    experience is not significantly different than Palin's. If you think it is, I would suggest that its likely that you are seeing things subjectively instead.

    If your point is that running for the Vice Presidency with minimal experience is bad judgment, then why is it different when someone runs for the Presidency with similar minimal experience? It isn't. Its a double standard.


    She has just as much experience (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by Exeter on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 11:39:26 PM EST
    or lack thereof as Obama... so I guess that brings us full circle.

    no she doesn't (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by A DC Wonk on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 11:40:19 PM EST
    she has a lot less, if you can be objective about it.

    She has more executive experience than (5.00 / 8) (#106)
    by tree on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 11:45:23 PM EST
    he does, he has more legislative experience. Since the Presidency is an executive job, not a legislative one, its more likely that her experience is more relevant to the job they are applying for. Objectively speaking.

    If she was a man from Alaska (none / 0) (#160)
    by elonepb on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 12:13:35 AM EST
    There's NO way you take this point of view.



    Are you talking to me? (5.00 / 2) (#169)
    by tree on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 12:27:42 AM EST
    Do you think that I only note  women's executive experience and not men's? Do you think that a male governor doesn't get credit for executive experience?  Or is this some type of advanced snarkage, too subtle for my ears.I don't get it.

    Obama was a (5.00 / 6) (#121)
    by Exeter on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 11:50:58 PM EST
    entry-level field organizer
    part-time state Senator from 1996-2004
    U.S. Senator from 2004-present (two years spent campaigning for president)

    That's it.

    Palin spent one term on the hospital board, two terms on the city council, two terms as mayor, one term as the statewide Ethics Commisioner, and also served as President of the Association of Mayors.

    Neither has alot of experience, but Palin, at least, is only running for Vice President.


    And of course, 2 years as Governor. (5.00 / 4) (#158)
    by tree on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 12:13:03 AM EST
    Karl Rove on Tom Kaine as a pick (none / 0) (#32)
    by A DC Wonk on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 11:15:33 PM EST
    When Tom Kaine's name was floated, here's what Karl Rove said:
    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 ... [Kaine] 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.

    Andrew Sullivan in response notes:

    Palin has been governor for less than two years of a state with 600,000 people, compared to Virginia's 8 million. Before that, she was mayor of a town with 6,000 inhabitants, compared to Richmond's 200,000. Someone able to become president of the United States at a moment's notice?

    Well (none / 0) (#39)
    by bluegal on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 11:19:19 PM EST
    I hate Karl Rove but I would be applying his standard to both Obama and McCain.  This is all about judgment and McCain has failed.

    by your logic (5.00 / 7) (#120)
    by Edgar08 on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 11:50:51 PM EST
    the dem party super delegates made a similiar error in judgment.

    They...... Failed.


    And by her same logic (5.00 / 4) (#156)
    by tree on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 12:11:15 AM EST
    Obama failed by not picking the most qualified candidate for Vice President and the one most likely to help the ticket win.

    If McCain has so failed (5.00 / 5) (#162)
    by zfran on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 12:14:41 AM EST
    as you say, why are we still talking about this. All day yesterday, all day today, I imagine all day tomorrow. And Hillary's name keeps getting mentioned as well. I don't think Sen. Obama intended for that to happen. McCain may not win this election, but I thought this was a brillant strategic move and I agree with BTD who's voice from above and his postings is the only one who's thrown sanity into this discussion.

    Sorry, but when we did we agree that (5.00 / 1) (#197)
    by Valhalla on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 01:03:49 AM EST
    KARL ROVE is the arbiter of the proper anything?

    This is the new line?  Rove is a hypocrite, ergo McCain made a bad choice?

    Did I miss a memo or something?


    there is a de minimis experience level for VP. (none / 0) (#30)
    by Christy1947 on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 11:15:19 PM EST
    there are mayors and mayors - Rudi G knows a lot more about running a big bureaucracy than the person  who ran a town of 7000 and left them with a twenty Million Dollar debt, about ten grand per familly, and a governor for less than one full year before she began her Palin for vp website.

    The fact is that even AK has 600K people, and the Federal government has five or six times that in civil service employees alone. It's a whole magnitude of difference in skills, for which McCain used to say that 'on the job training' was inappropriate.


    Oh, please (5.00 / 2) (#48)
    by tree on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 11:21:55 PM EST
    do not mention Rudy G as if he was a successful mayor. The man was a disaster.

    there is a de minimis experience level for VP. (none / 0) (#36)
    by Christy1947 on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 11:18:40 PM EST
    there are mayors and mayors - Rudi G knows a lot more about running a big bureaucracy than the person  who ran a town of 7000 and left them with a twenty Million Dollar debt, about ten grand per familly, and a governor for less than one full year before she began her Palin for vp website.

    The fact is that even AK has 600K people, and the Federal government has five or six times that in civil service employees alone. It's a whole magnitude of difference in skills, for which McCain used to say that 'on the job training' was inappropriate.


    But apparently not for the presidency. (5.00 / 5) (#62)
    by Anne on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 11:25:58 PM EST
    Your argument fails because the GOP has its less experienced person in the #2 spot - the Democrats have that person in the top spot.

    Palin still has more executive experience than Obama, even if it is as a mayor of a small town (and small towns are the norm in Alaska) and as a governor, since he has no executive experience at all.


    It took a Bloomberg to clean up Rudy's mess (none / 0) (#50)
    by nycstray on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 11:22:35 PM EST
    just sayin'.

    VPs role during the campaign (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by WakeLtd on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 11:08:11 PM EST
    Irregardless of the hand-wringing over "a heartbeat away from the Presidency", the running mate for the Presidential nominee is traditonally the "surrogate-in-chief" and primary cheerleader for the top of the ticket. Judging by her acceptance speech the other day,  Sarah Palin in that role seems to  add very much to the McCain campaign. She seems energetic, engaging, likeable (never estimate this quailty), fresh (not another all-too-familiar face from the Beltway), and probably most important, she does not seem to be tentative, or overwhelmed, by her sudden national exposure. In other words,  she promises to be a great campaigner for McCain. As far as debating Joe Biden, he may be in for a bit of a shock. This woman was nicknamed "Barracuda". Plus,  she has been in politics in a state well-known for its dominance by political dinosaurs, and has prevailed. I read somewhere a quote about her,: "The landscape is littered with the corpses of people who have crossed Sarah..." I think McCain may have just brought the gun to the knife-fight.

    "Loyal Bushie"? (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by miriam on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 11:09:28 PM EST
    Is that the same thing as "a highly placed source" (always unnamed so we can reasonably wonder if, in fact, the whole quote was made up)?

    Did anyone else see CNN Campbell Brown's meltdown last night when questioning a Republican spokesperson about Palin's "inexperience?"  Her voice got higher and shriller as she insisted that this guy agree with her.  It was ludicrous and he finally called her on it by saying "I know you're upset about this, Campbell."  Which of course she denied with that familiar simper glued over her face.  

    There is an unseemly amount of weird agitation among Democrats taking place over the Palin choice that is truly curious.  Why don't the Democrats just ignore it?  Anyone...?  

    Because McCain's pick was a good one... (5.00 / 6) (#112)
    by Dawn Davenport on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 11:47:27 PM EST
    ...from a political point of view.

    Do you think Huckabee or Romney would have gotten this much attention if they'd been picked? Would any other pick had the ability to pick open the scab of sexism left over from the Dem primaries? What other choice would have had the intent of uniting evangelicals, independents, and maybe even a few disaffected Democrats?

    The Dems are in panic mode, as are the media who support them, which is why we see this kind of poo-flinging to see what sticks. Palin sucks the wind out of Obama's strategy: his personal story (hers is good, too), the ethics reform (she's done it, too), and the personal appeal and charisma (she's got them in spades).

    Had he been running an issues-based campaign all along--as he finally did during the convention--I don't think we'd be seeing this level of agitation, as you correctly label it.


    Republicans are calling it a stroke of genius, (none / 0) (#177)
    by SueBonnetSue on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 12:32:56 AM EST
    among other gushes over this choice.  They're thrilled, as evidenced by the money pouring into the McCain campaign.  

    I'd love to have "hockey mom" live next (5.00 / 0) (#25)
    by A DC Wonk on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 11:12:15 PM EST
    ... door -- but not a heartbeat away from the Presidency (to a 72 year old guy with a history of skin cancer).

    Why are Dems apoplectic about this?  Easy.  We've seen the American public make a lot of dumb decisions before (see: Bush, '04), and we're scared that they may see a fresh face, rather that her paper-thin experience, and hard-core-radical right views (creationism, climate-change isn't man made, opposes abortion even in cases of rape and incest).

    FWIW, the Alaskan papers (who ought to know her best) also think McCain is nuts for picking her.  (See here for a summary)

    McCain clearly showed that he'd rather win an election than do what's right for the country.

    I thought Obama Nuts for not picking Hillary (5.00 / 6) (#83)
    by BarnBabe on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 11:34:50 PM EST
    McCain clearly showed that he'd rather win an election than do what's right for the country.
    Can't that quote cast both ways. I like Biden. If not Hillary, then Biden will be find. He will lend the necessary experience for Obama.

    I did not like the sexism with Hillary and I do not like the sexism with Palin. In fact, I am astounded that Democrats who were horrified at the sexism against Hillary are ready to throw it at the opponent. I cringe that this woman is being so personally attacked and that our party has not learned one thing from the primary.

    The thing that I see is that it is all about her being a woman. I am sure that if the candidate was a man we would be attacking him also but not because he was a man. I like to think it would be about the issues. I admire Palin's courage after having seen what the media and Obama bloggers did to Hillary. I believe if they continue in this avenue of attack they can assure the GOP women will vote for her and other Independent women might just say enough is enough. We need to stop the personal attacks right now and deal with McCain and why we are a better party. Right now we look like school kids on a playground badgering the new kid at school.  


    Your link to the Alaskan papers (none / 0) (#163)
    by Grace on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 12:19:03 AM EST
    links to national pundits instead.  Do you have a link to the Alaskan papers?  

    links to Alaskan papers: (none / 0) (#175)
    by A DC Wonk on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 12:31:31 AM EST
    Well, I guess some Neanderthal (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by ding7777 on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 11:12:48 PM EST
    "loyal Buhsie" could believe that picking a women is "disrespectful to the office of the presidency."

    Strong women scare weak people (5.00 / 8) (#27)
    by nycstray on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 11:13:11 PM EST
    didntcha know? The result is irrational people :)

    The character slams on her from the left are pretty out there also once they stop screaming about her inexperience.

    Women can't win.

    this isn't about gender (none / 0) (#38)
    by A DC Wonk on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 11:19:16 PM EST
    Palin fails in two ways: woefully under-experienced and extreme right wing views.

    And maybe a third way: using public office for private vendettas (the issue about which she is currently under investigation).


    These should not be our talking points. (5.00 / 4) (#97)
    by BarnBabe on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 11:41:34 PM EST
    Are you listening to yourself?
    woefully under-experienced and extreme right wing views.
    Change this to Progressive views or centralist and you have our candidate.

    using public office for private vendettas
    We don't even want to go back to the Resko, Wright, etc allocations. Attack McCain with Bush. Not because he chose a woman and believe me, it is about her being a woman. Obama had his chance of choosing a great woman to be his running mate.

    extreme right wing views? (5.00 / 2) (#100)
    by DandyTIger on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 11:42:30 PM EST
    for a Republican VP candidate? Really? That's very strange. Experience? You mean how she arguably has more experience than Obama, that failure. Really? Not the best argument imo.

    Now scandals and the like, that's different. So far I haven't seen anything that's a problem politically.


    why does the issue of experience (5.00 / 4) (#102)
    by Edgar08 on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 11:43:18 PM EST
    only matter when we're talking about a woman?

    Look, democrats (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by JThomas on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 11:15:39 PM EST
    are laying low here. It is the blogs who have really gone after her. I did read an editorial in the conservative Chicago Tribune(have endorsed every GOP candidate over the dem since lincoln) Sunday edition that questions the wisdom of McCains selection. Thats not the dems. Lets see how editorials around the country weigh in. I agree dems should remain low key on Palin...McCain is the target.

    What are some GOP reactions? (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by A DC Wonk on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 11:21:11 PM EST
    You're right -- it's not just Dems:

    From Washington Monthly:

    • Charles Krauthammer: "The Palin selection completely undercuts the argument about Obama's inexperience and readiness to lead.... To gratuitously undercut the remarkably successful 'Is he ready to lead' line of attack seems near suicidal."

    • Noah Millman, presenting a defense for Palin: "I realize, of course, that she's totally unqualified to be President at this point in time. If McCain were to die in February 2009, I hope Palin would have the good sense to appoint someone who is more ready to be President to be her Vice President, on the understanding that she would then resign and be appointed Vice President by her successor."

    • Ramesh Ponnuru called it "tokenism," adding, "Can anyone say with a straight face that Palin would have gotten picked if she were a man?"

    • David Frum: "The longer I think about it, the less well this selection sits with me. And I increasingly doubt that it will prove good politics. The Palin choice looks cynical.... It's a wild gamble, undertaken by our oldest ever first-time candidate for president in hopes of changing the board of this election campaign. Maybe it will work. But maybe (and at least as likely) it will reinforce a theme that I'd be pounding home if I were the Obama campaign: that it's John McCain for all his white hair who represents the risky choice, while it is Barack Obama who offers cautious, steady, predictable governance.... If it were your decision, and you were putting your country first, would you put an untested small-town mayor a heartbeat away from the presidency?"

    • Mark Halperin: "On the face of it, McCain has failed the ultimate test that any presidential candidate must face in picking a running mate: selecting someone who is unambiguously qualified to be president."

    Good (5.00 / 5) (#56)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 11:24:03 PM EST
    Let REPUBLICANS do it.

    It's sure a reversal (none / 0) (#68)
    by andgarden on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 11:28:09 PM EST
    My feeling is that even the dems can't screw this one up, though.

    the Palin story? (5.00 / 8) (#74)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 11:30:46 PM EST
    I think the surrogates and the blogs are royally screwing it up.

    Read Digby on the subject as well.

    The expectations for Palin are now so low that she will easily exceed them.

    Just nuts.


    That's the biggest problem (5.00 / 2) (#78)
    by andgarden on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 11:31:37 PM EST
    And she's done TV before. . .

    Is Digby handling this with class then? (none / 0) (#122)
    by Cream City on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 11:51:27 PM EST
    I'll go look.  I'd like to find a librul blog that is handling this well and not being Roved right, and I do mean right, where the GOP wants them to be.

    Realistically and intelligently (5.00 / 3) (#128)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 11:54:04 PM EST
    I would say.

    republican men.. hmm (none / 0) (#110)
    by DandyTIger on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 11:46:23 PM EST
    not sure that will hurt or help her. But it probably is an indicator that there may be issues with republican men in general. I'm sure they'll march right over and vote for Obama instead. snark.

    here's more GOP (none / 0) (#150)
    by A DC Wonk on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 12:07:50 AM EST
    From Republican Alaskan State Senate President Lyda Green:

    "She's not prepared to be governor. How can she be prepared to be vice president or president?" said Green, a Republican from Palin's hometown of Wasilla. "Look at what she's done to this state. What would she do to the nation?"

    Note, carefully: this is the Republican State Senate President. From Palin's hometown.


    someone who also has a long running (5.00 / 3) (#157)
    by Redshoes on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 12:11:59 AM EST
    feud with Palin.  

    Attach policies not personalities.


    She's been cleaning up (5.00 / 2) (#173)
    by Grace on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 12:29:36 AM EST
    corruption in her own party in her state.  I'm not surprised a Republican is complaining.  I understand more Democrats are getting elected in Alaska now.  

    Here's why they love her: (none / 0) (#179)
    by Grace on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 12:36:37 AM EST
    In fact, Palin is almost totally alienated from the Republican Party establishment here. She tried and failed to get rid of ethically compromised party Chair Randy Ruedrich; they're not on speaking terms. In the August primary, Palin urged fellow Republicans to desert long-time Congressman Don Young in favor of her inexperienced and uninspiring Lt. Governor, Sean Parnell.

    Anchorage Daily News

    Maybe we should be wishing for this woman to be VP?  She might singlehandedly turn the Senate and Congress 100% Democrat!  


    I suppose your source for all things (none / 0) (#187)
    by JavaCityPal on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 12:47:40 AM EST
    Clinton is Dick Morris, too.

    All Of Them Are Men (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by JimWash08 on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 11:40:21 PM EST
    What else would you expect?

    Appointing a woman to such a high a position is like near-castration to many of these MCPs in the Right-leaning media.

    Glad to see that Dems will still hold on to the "more progressive" and "women-friendly" tags -- though they collectively dropped the ball on both of them this year.


    Everyone was yelling, (none / 0) (#164)
    by zfran on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 12:20:36 AM EST
    we want no Bush 3. Obama was advertising McCain equals Bush 3. BTD had many posts saying that to win, Obama should hammer McCain equals Bush 3. Now that McCain has done something out of the norm, boldly has gone where no man has gone before, and made a move in a million years GWB wouldn't do, everyone is now yelling what did he do. He is not GWB3, he is a repub. who puts country first, he says, and wants to change washington. Isn't that what Obama says. Why can Obama say it and McCain cannot. Palin in showing it.

    The Trib has not endorsed every GOP (5.00 / 1) (#203)
    by Valhalla on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 01:11:42 AM EST
    candidate since whenever you said.  Please.

    Palin chosen for emotional reactions? (5.00 / 5) (#34)
    by SueBonnetSue on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 11:18:19 PM EST
    Like the emotional reactions we've seen to Obama?  How Keith Olberman and Chris Matthews fell deeply in love with him, based on a handful of speeches that set their legs atingling?  

    Exactly. n/t (5.00 / 3) (#47)
    by lansing quaker on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 11:21:52 PM EST
    I'm just beginning (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 11:25:24 PM EST
    to go after her, via Lexis Nexis. I believe the VP pick matters a great deal, particularly when the presidential candidate will be 76 at the end of his first term and has health issues.

    I will do what I can to keep an evangelical, right winger who opposes abortion and Roe v. Wade from having any say in choosing a future Supreme Court Justice. If anything happened to McCain, she'd also have substantial influence over the Attorney General and the Justice Department. As bad as Biden is, she'd be far worse.

    Here's what you should do to keep her out (5.00 / 5) (#119)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 11:50:41 PM EST
    Ignore her.

    I do not hink you or the blogs are helping the lest on this. I think all of you are hurting.

    I am writing what I write in some measure to avoid her becoming the VP.


    Thank you. (5.00 / 4) (#130)
    by Cream City on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 11:55:03 PM EST
    I think maybe I just have to get an IPod after all, load up enough to last until November 5, and play it nonstop to tune all this out.

    Wake me when the election is over.  Even if we win the White House, we've lost so much as a society this year that the only "hope" I will have is that we have not become Pogo.

    That we have not met the enemy, and it is us.


    sigh, I don't think they can help themselves n/t (5.00 / 1) (#153)
    by DandyTIger on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 12:09:03 AM EST
    Good advice (5.00 / 1) (#198)
    by JavaCityPal on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 01:04:57 AM EST
    The idea that McCain could die has had some 5 months to be addressed at length. It didn't matter until he announced a woman as his VP pick.

    McCain will not unexpectedly collapse and die one day of skin cancer.

    There are so many valid reasons to not vote for McCain that his VP pick isn't even on the first page.

    But, they have to be so pleased with themselves over how right they were in predicting what this choice would do.


    yeah (5.00 / 1) (#161)
    by AlSmith on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 12:14:27 AM EST
    "I will do what I can"

    yeah but will you do it with smears?

    If she has insufficient experience then Biden ought to have no trouble demonstrating that up in a debate.


    ... and not only that (none / 0) (#73)
    by A DC Wonk on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 11:30:20 PM EST
    but McCain is a non-evangelical, right winger who opposes abortion and Roe v. Wade.

    So, yes, the danger to us is that he energizes his base.  The risk is that he alienates the middle.  If the press does it's job . . . . (cough cough)


    Hey Jeralyn: Palin-tology! (none / 0) (#118)
    by A DC Wonk on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 11:50:23 PM EST
    This post on kos, called "PALIN-tology - 45+ Problems for McCain's VP in just 35 hours", might be a good start for your research.  (Some of it's a reach, but most of it is good).

    disrespectful to the office ? (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by Andy08 on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 11:26:10 PM EST
    that alledged comment makes no sense....Why did GW had a lot of "experience" was he "older" ? was he
    wiser? Had he "accomplish" much? (well in his case anything at all??). Preposterous...

    well at least (5.00 / 2) (#95)
    by Edgar08 on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 11:40:58 PM EST
    that sexist cesspool of hate (dkos) is now attacking a republican.

    From what I read (5.00 / 7) (#111)
    by MichaelGale on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 11:47:05 PM EST
    Republican voters are very excited about her. That's not a good thing. They will come out to vote.

    Just two months ago, McCain could hardly afford to buy ads.  Last night they raised over 7M dollars after the announcement...in just a few hours.

    You know those small towns in Ohio, Pa, Ky, WVa....they just might like her. report's are that she is very folksy and down to earth, nothing elitist about her.

    Hey...voters are know to fall in love with their candidates. Republican voters may just do that.

    Just like our party when they fell in love with (5.00 / 1) (#129)
    by SueBonnetSue on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 11:54:43 PM EST
    Obama and began to send him buckets of money.  

    Voters are fickle, and not particularly loyal, as our Hillary learned.  


    money (none / 0) (#144)
    by AlSmith on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 12:03:15 AM EST

    I wonder if there is even any point in donating...

    Can McCain actually sped this money? Doesnt he have less than a week to get in, process and spend this money?

    Beyond that I wonder what people are thinking giving money to politicians.


    Did picking Biden bring in (5.00 / 7) (#115)
    by Cream City on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 11:48:25 PM EST
    $7 million in only hours?  She sure is energizing the base.  That's why I'm having trouble with the claims that she wasn't vetted well.  She sure was pretested well with the base.  No wonder she got the pick.

    Dems falling into the trap (5.00 / 8) (#137)
    by marian evans on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 11:59:20 PM EST
    McCain's VP choice is clever on a range of levels (especially in terms of rousing the Republican base from their disaffection and ennui - as opposed to the Dems, who essentially have told their base to take their bats and go home) - but what should concern Dems is that by choosing Palin, McCain has reheated 2 old pots from the Dem primaries: the experience and the misogyny issues.

    By doing that, he leaves the Dems to be hoist by their own petard - they will condemn themselves out of their own mouths. Moreover, in so doing he gets control of the agenda, and doesn't have to raise a finger to do so. Every time a Dem commentator takes the Palin/inexperience or misogyny paths, it is an own goal for the Dems.

    Hillary Clinton, in her Wonderwoman-wonky way (class act, Hillary Clinton - she keeps giving lessons on how a politician can enact a practical social justice commitment), shows the way to handle this in her recent comments on health care - bypass Palin, focus on McCain, handle the issues that strike voters up close - health, the economy etc.

    Otherwise the Dems will just end up talking to McCain's agenda, AND reveal themselves to be misogynistic (oh, and "elitist") hypocrites as well.

    That will go down well.

    You know what I think? (5.00 / 8) (#138)
    by frankly0 on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 11:59:22 PM EST
    I think Obama supporters have reached such a level of denial about their own candidate, and of self-delusion over him, that they simply no longer can see that Obama's problem with inexperience is every bit as bad, and, as the Presidential candidate, much worse than Palin's.

    They really have, over time, fully deluded themselves into believing Obama has experience that he simply does not. They have willed away that problem as if it doesn't exist anymore, and indeed never did.

    That's why there's no disconnect in their minds when they attack Palin on her experience. They just can't see that Obama has a problem of the identical kind.

    It's, well, cultlike.

    Obama (none / 0) (#183)
    by A DC Wonk on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 12:38:13 AM EST
    has a clue about how the federal government works, how to get legislation passed, how Washington works, has a clue about foreign relations, has spoken with foreign leaders, etc.

    Palin does not.  It's hard to picture her being ready on day 2, if it came to that.

    But, more importantly, Palin -- like McCain -- is wrong on almost all the issues.


    Palin has 2 years of executive experience. (5.00 / 3) (#206)
    by Valhalla on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 01:16:56 AM EST
    Obama has 0.

    There's a reason why U.S. voters tend to favor governors for president over senators.  The governing experience is different from the legislative experience.  And it's not as if Obama has years of legislative experience.  His campaigning experience is almost longer than legislative.  (and no, sorry, campaign experience is not the same as executive experience either).


    Mirror Freeperism (5.00 / 5) (#141)
    by Lowtideppm on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 12:01:05 AM EST
    She's not there as a Gender Pander to those "18,000,000 cracks."  She's there to get the indies and Republicans on board.

    Exactly!   Obama is WINNING among women!
      The Dem obsession with the "deranged PUMAs" prevents them from catching on.  There are just way too many comments dismissing the real work this governor has done because she's "small town mayor" "state college graduate" "beauty queen".
      Wow.  That's sure going to get those blue collar low information votes that Obama NEEDS and Biden was going to (respectfully, of course) attract.
      And all the kneejerk liberal responses painting her as the DemonRightWinger without looking into her work with any objectivity - how Lucianne.
      But! Joe Biden is so much more a serious candidate because of his foreign policy experience which (do I have to say it again?) no doubt  informed his decision to vote FOR the Iraq war.

      So much of this sounds like Opposite Freeperville.  I wish I were more surprised.

    The dems can't complain on this... (5.00 / 4) (#143)
    by Yotin on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 12:02:44 AM EST
    The democrats just nominated an inexperienced candidate when there was someone highly qualified and experienced and would have been just as historic a nomination. For this reason, the dems have disqualified themselves to judge McCain's choice of a woman with few years in office.

    For Pete's sake, the dems don't even know much about this woman. Sometimes, it's what you accomplished while you're in office rather than the years you've been in it. On this score, it seems she's a better candidate than Obama for the presidency.

    watch her pull a reagan about experience (5.00 / 2) (#159)
    by DandyTIger on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 12:13:12 AM EST
    in discussions or in the debate. That is, when asked about experience, she'll say, well really, I don't count it against my opponent or indeed even the two candidates for president that they don't have as much executive experience as me.

    And then the heads will explode. Why, because they focus on experience or the fact that she wants to fire incompetent or dangerous people, or other things like that.

    Here's another hint for you all. No, it's not about the walrus. Go on issues. Tie them to Bush.

    Actually (5.00 / 1) (#168)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 12:27:06 AM EST
    What I would do is turn it into an anecdote:

    "You know, when I was appointed to whatever commission, I saw corruption all around me.  Now some people may have ignored it - some people who may be a little more used to playing the game.  But instead, I resigned my position, spoke out and turned over relevant documents.  That may not be the kind of experience Senator Biden knows, but it's an experience I'm proud of."

    This is all a trap.  We need to focus on why Republicans suck - people already think that.  Let's run with it.


    since Arnold won CA (5.00 / 1) (#202)
    by bigbay on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 01:10:47 AM EST
    , with the worlds 5th largest GDP, I've realized people don't care much about experience.

    I really don't like your post (5.00 / 1) (#176)
    by MichaelGale on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 12:32:35 AM EST
    I know this is a rumor but there is a child involved in this story.  Her children should be out of bounds I think it is very low to post anything from Democratic Underground. I know that DK posted this also. It is all over the web, the blogs who have picked this up.  I have a problem with this kind of atack and rumor when it involves children.

    The story was already debunked.

    I deleted lansing quaker's comment (5.00 / 1) (#193)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 12:59:41 AM EST
    with the link to the rumor.

    Thank you (5.00 / 1) (#196)
    by MichaelGale on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 01:02:53 AM EST
    Wha? Why? (none / 0) (#199)
    by lansing quaker on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 01:07:38 AM EST
    It was demonstrated -- clearly and in-text -- as an example of how this PDS is going to make Democrats look bad.

    I wasn't promulgating it.


    Hilarious (5.00 / 3) (#207)
    by Ellis on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 01:21:15 AM EST
    A top "loyal Bushie" told the Politico's Mike Allen that McCain's decision is "disrespectful to the office of the presidency."

    I can barely contain myself.

    Let me get this straight, McCain's choosing Sarah Palin is "disrespectful to the office of the presidency," but selecting Harriet Meiers for the Supreme Court wasn't disrespectful to the position of Supreme Court justice.

    Someone really needs to explain "irony" to the Republicans.

    Not to mention Alberto Gonzales.

    In fact, Bush and his underlings have made so many appointments that displayed nothing but contempt for the position to be filled that it would take weeks to document them all.

    Now that I think of it, wasn't electing George Bush president a sign of disrespect for the office of the presidency?


    Just to add some kind of rational (5.00 / 1) (#209)
    by frankly0 on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 01:44:57 AM EST
    calculation to the question of how likely it might be that Palin would have to take over because McCain dies while President, it's worthwhile looking at the so-called "life table" in this government document (see p. 9 for relevant statistics).

    As I read the tables, for any 72 year old American, knowing nothing more about them, the probability that they will die in the next four years is about 12%. However, this statistic includes people who are already quite obviously unhealthy at age 72. Given that McCain is generally quite healthy, I'd guess that the real number is only half that, at most -- perhaps 5-6%.

    And of course the probability that he would die in the first year or two is considerably lower, perhaps 1 or 2% or 3% at most, I'd guess. And in that time Palin would presumably get very relevant experience.

    But of course Obama's probability that he will have to serve as President immediately is 100%.

    So who presents the real issue here? If somehow it's poor judgment to choose Palin, what does that say about the poor judgment of Obama and his supporters in the Democratic Party who have put him up for the position with his own paltry experience?

    I'd like to thank Jeralyn (5.00 / 1) (#210)
    by Mr Natural on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 02:30:16 AM EST
    for allowing this forum to continue.  I am profoundly glad to see your spirited yet polite discussion.  The other day when I dropped by I read Jeralyn's admonition - that this was now a campaign site - and I wondered if anyone would still be speaking freely.  But it seems Jeralyn has raised herself up a hornet's nest of upstanding freethinkers, people who won't be silenced.

    This race was in danger of becoming little more than an allegory of the seven deadly sins, with pride ascendant.  Now it's a horserace, (laughing) and the name Hillary Clinton is again on everybody's lips.

    FWIW, I think the attempts to sink Palin based on legalisms are doomed to failure.  That trooper scandal is centered on a cop who tasered his preteen stepchild.  Nobody in the rational universe cares what happens to a man like that.  

    Keep it up... (1.00 / 3) (#171)
    by Garmonbozia on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 12:28:02 AM EST
    ...Armando. Keep rallying the PUMAs. It must be tiring; you have to trot out here 5-6 times a day and come up with something - anything - to rile up the herd.

    Face it: if the governor of Alaska had been some guy named Steve Palin with the exact same resume as Sarah, there's no way in hell he'd have been on the lower half of the GOP ticket. Period. Pointing that out isn't sexist - McCain's desperate little pander is.

    Is it desperate that we're (5.00 / 1) (#178)
    by zfran on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 12:33:14 AM EST
    still talking intensly about Sarah Palin. I don't hear much about the whereabouts of Obama/Biden today, altho' they were in Ohio, or Obama's speech since Friday morning. He again, has put the agenda in his, McCain's court and terms. He is driving the discussion right now, not Obama. Considering Obama's initial reaction to the pick via Burton says alot about Obama v McCain. The dems keep getting pushed out of the news and Hillary's name keeps coming up.

    Surely you don't think a first term (5.00 / 2) (#182)
    by SueBonnetSue on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 12:37:40 AM EST
    Senator from Illinois named Mike Murphy would be the current Democrat nominee?  

    Pot, meet the kettle.  


    Yeah, right... (1.00 / 3) (#188)
    by Garmonbozia on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 12:48:53 AM EST
    ...being a black guy named "Barack Hussein Obama" is the ticket to success in America. Thanks, Geraldine, but that ship sailed a while back.

    The difference is that the public have had 18 months to weigh the Obama experience/judgment ratio. And he still managed to beat one of the two most powerful political dynasties in modern American history. Which is exactly why we're here bickering. My chosen primary candidate didn't win, either...but I'll be damned if I'll pout about it all the way to McCain's inauguration.


    you're seriously arguing that if it were (5.00 / 3) (#191)
    by DandyTIger on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 12:56:24 AM EST
    Mike Murphy, a white guy, from Chicago, he would have beat Hillary? He would have had the DNC drag him across the finish line. Seriously? If so, then let me back out of the room very slowly... :-)

    Blah. (5.00 / 7) (#185)
    by lansing quaker on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 12:45:24 AM EST
    To wit:

    If the Junior Senator from Illinois had been some white guy named Barry O'Keefe with the exact same resume as Barack Obama, there's no way in hell he'd have been on the top half of the Democratic ticket.

    Attacking Palin on gender/experience is the trap that is set.  BTD is right on this.  You're going back to the "experience"/qualifications argument when the Democrats really don't need to touch that one.


    Well....I'm not defending but (5.00 / 3) (#189)
    by MichaelGale on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 12:53:43 AM EST
    you know what is going to happen?

    The right wing opinionators like Kraut and the rest will continue to turn on her.  Then the RW women will begin to be in their own little yuky hole of defending against sexism and misogyny. See how it works?

    No need for the left to continue to embarrass themselves by ganging up on her. Of course, they will. So we will have both the left and right opinionators trashing Sara Palin.

    In one day, this woman has scared the s**t out of the entire bloggosphere and both parties.



    and what PUMA's (5.00 / 2) (#194)
    by DandyTIger on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 12:59:45 AM EST
    from what I see from the Obama commenters, there are no PUMA's any more. They've all come over to Hillary. The party is fully unified. So I don't know what you're talking about. :-)

    Well this sort of proves (none / 0) (#3)
    by lilburro on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 10:55:08 PM EST
    my suspicion that McCain's choice of her will throw white men in a tizzy and hurt his strongest demographic...

    Plus, I am sure that in the awful and improbable situation of McCain's passing as Prez, that the same tools who have been engineering our FP under Bush, will step in and do the same for Palin.  I mean, does anyone truly believe Palin is less intelligent or capable than George W Bush????

    I don't think so. I think the hard-core (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by rooge04 on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 10:58:43 PM EST
    Republicans love this choice.   They tend to love those kind of women---the Ann Coulter type.  This will excited the right-wing base.  I hate it when they're excited. That means they come out to vote.

    Four million dollars proves (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by SueBonnetSue on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 11:23:59 PM EST
    Just how excited the base is!  It's amazing how fired up republican women are.  And that's who gets out the vote, works the polls, makes the calls, etc.  If they stay this excited, it's going to be very difficult for us.

    Wait a minute... (5.00 / 2) (#65)
    by miriam on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 11:26:16 PM EST
    What has Sarah Palin done in the past 24 hours that earns her a comparison to Ann Coulter?  And perhaps the original poster should reconsider the tizzy-falling white men comment.  Alaska is populated by a good many white men and they apparently voted for and now approve of Governor Palin.  I'm sure there are a few in the lower 48 who may hold her marriage to a half-Inuit against her, (racism is not confined to anti-blacks) but Alaskans wouldn't.  Alaska has a highly diverse population--I've spent time there--and there are many, many Native American groups, a good amount of African Americans (because of the military bases), Russians aplenty, and just about everything else.  Bloggers and media are making it sound as if Gov. Palin presides over a homogenous conclave of pure white residents.  Not true.

    Alaskans like her because (none / 0) (#87)
    by A DC Wonk on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 11:36:29 PM EST
    ... she's a Republican who stood up to the corrupt GOP state machine.  Good for her for that.  Seriously.  It was an old-boy-cess-pool, and she was being kept down, but the Murkowski debacle (the governor picking his own daughter for Senator) was too much, and they went with the alternative: Palin.

    (Although now she currently has her own problems/investigation)

    But her knowledge of how the federal government works is next to nil, and foreign policy even less than that.  Not a good combination in an era of soaring record-setting deficits and during a time of war.

    That's why many Alaskan newspapers are criticizing this pick.

    And that's not even mentioning her Neanderthal views on climate change, creationism, etc.


    ANN COULTER TYPE? (5.00 / 7) (#139)
    by Cream City on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 11:59:46 PM EST
    I do not agree with Governor Palin on much.

    And I never expected to find myself defending a Republican.

    But this is just ridiculous.  Too orange for me here.


    Maybe (none / 0) (#10)
    by lilburro on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 11:02:42 PM EST
    I think there are a lot of white guys out there who are thinking about the 3 am ad.  Hillary had to work her @ss off to prove herself worthy of the role of C-in-C; as I said before, Palin only has a few months to prove her case, as a woman and as a governor.  

    From the newscast (5.00 / 1) (#204)
    by Amiss on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 01:12:28 AM EST
    I saw tonite, the white men are really liking her, especially the ones that love to cling to their guns and all, since she is a card carrying member of the NRA.

    Hurt McCains chances with men? (none / 0) (#42)
    by SueBonnetSue on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 11:19:59 PM EST
    Have you seen Sarah Palin?  

    Maybe it's just the three men in my immediate family who think she's 'hot'.  


    And she can handle herself (5.00 / 4) (#85)
    by nycstray on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 11:35:58 PM EST
    in the field with men. The woman hunts moose/caribou and is an athlete. She's going to be appealing to some men and women who are used to working side by side in rural/working class life. She's been there done that. The pictures of her hanging with the Nation Guard show how comfortable she is in her own skin. And the footage of her handling a gun puts a new spin on Kerry "duck hunting", lol!~

    You think (none / 0) (#135)
    by lilburro on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 11:57:28 PM EST
    men vote on "hotness"?  They do other things based on "hotness", voting, I think not.

    "top loyal Bushie"??? (none / 0) (#5)
    by Yotin on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 10:57:57 PM EST
    If one can't name his/her source, it shouldn't be quoted. Gone are the times when journalist can be trusted. And when it comes to politics, we know that no one is unbiased, reporters included.

    Let's not dismiss the source outright. (none / 0) (#15)
    by Southsider on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 11:04:49 PM EST
    After all, it's quite possible a "top loyal Bushie" could have said this.  Perhaps out of conviction, perhaps because McCain is well known to dislike Bush.  (Lindsey Graham said the other day, when asked how McCain felt about Bush, that "he respects the office of the Presidency.")  

    Either way, I doubt Mike Allen is inventing this quote out of whole cloth.  Journalists spin, and spin hard, spin dishonestly, but I just don't think they invent quotes out of thin air unless they're Jayson Blair.  I would have no trouble believing that many would disagree with Allen's characterization of this guy as a "Bush loyalist," but it's probably a true quote as far as it goes.

    Let it be known that I really don't buy into the argument being made by this anonymous fella.  I do care about comparative experience - Hillary more qualified than Barack - but I think the minimum threshold is remarkably low for V-P given the support staff that is in place for these folks.

    Honorable Americans of character don't... (none / 0) (#17)
    by Edger on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 11:06:26 PM EST

    The "Freaking Out"... (none / 0) (#21)
    by Brillo on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 11:10:38 PM EST
    Isn't limited to Democrats.  It's pretty much all across the political spectrum, including a lot of conservative commentators and writers.  It also seems to include quite a lot of the (non-Dem) voting public.

    I'm curious, what do you think about the polling so far showing that the voters seem to think the same thing?  Andrew Sullivan (I know, I know...) posted about this today:  

    But among the critical undecideds, the Palin pick made only 6 percent more likely to vote for McCain; and it made 31 percent less likely to vote for him. 49 percent said it would have no impact, and 15 percent remained unsure. More to the point: among undecideds, 59 percent said Palin was unready to be president. Only 6 percent said she was.

    The last I heard, more Democrats (none / 0) (#35)
    by tree on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 11:18:35 PM EST
    are undecided than Repubs. I'm not sure that your "undecideds" are as significant as you think. Also do you have any source for these numbers other than Sullivan? I can't find them anywhere.

    to. Nothing I saw had those results.

    I see it now (none / 0) (#52)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 11:22:56 PM EST
    Due respect, I suggest that a poll result of such a small subroup (Ras show 6% undecided) is virtually meaningless.

    Only a fool would actually rely on that finding.


    Thanks. (none / 0) (#53)
    by tree on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 11:23:14 PM EST
    Maybe he's pulling it out his @ss?

    Rasmussen Numbers (none / 0) (#61)
    by zvs888 on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 11:25:48 PM EST
    I believe you may have to have a subscription get full access to that?  I could be wrong.

    Andrew is kind of freaking out (none / 0) (#57)
    by AlSmith on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 11:24:58 PM EST

    not sure what his issues are but he is kind of failing around. Its not like he has to publish every thought that goes through his head.

    He thinks Palin named her kids after witch characters on tv shows.


    The youngest was for Van Halen :) (none / 0) (#88)
    by nycstray on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 11:38:32 PM EST
    Andrew Sullivan does not like women (none / 0) (#208)
    by caseyOR on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 01:33:37 AM EST
    Folks who knew about him when he was just an LGBT pundit, and not a big-time MCM pundit, know this about him. He hated Hillary, who is a liberal; he hates Palin, who is conservative. There is just no pleasing this guy where women are concerned.

    Which conservative commentators are freaking? (none / 0) (#76)
    by SueBonnetSue on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 11:31:14 PM EST
    I haven't seen or heard that.  They all seem to be doing backflips over this choice.  Conservatives seem to be thrilled.  

    And wasn't that the whole point of the choice?  Wouldn't Obama have loved it if his base got this excited when announced Biden?  


    GOP negative reactions (none / 0) (#90)
    by A DC Wonk on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 11:39:34 PM EST
    see post #46 above

    I don't get it (none / 0) (#23)
    by Steve M on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 11:11:42 PM EST
    The story here would seem to be that a Republican had this reaction.  Obviously if a Democrat said it, it would be sort of hysterical.

    I don't get what you don't get (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 11:18:53 PM EST
    Did you watch the Dem surrogates on Palin?

    Have you read the blogs? Hell, did you read Benen?


    Sure I have (none / 0) (#54)
    by Steve M on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 11:23:23 PM EST
    but I'm responding to this particular quote.

    The Dem surrogates need to chill out.  That doesn't mean it's not satisfying when the GOP has the same reaction.  I love seeing them divided.


    Well (none / 0) (#67)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 11:26:44 PM EST
    Frankly, it was rather disgusting to me to hear a "Bushie" talk about disrespecting the Presidency.

    Indeed (5.00 / 4) (#71)
    by andgarden on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 11:29:27 PM EST
    And it would have been funny in 2000.

    If ever there were a qualification disparity, it was between George W. and Al Gore.


    I suspect the point is (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by tree on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 11:20:02 PM EST
    that Steve Benen is reporting it approvingly.

    There are many reasons... (none / 0) (#60)
    by wellfleetsurf on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 11:25:45 PM EST
    to like Gov. Palin.  Her policies (speaking as a Dem) are not one of them.  Voters will identify with her on a personal level until those policies become known.  Then it's every man and woman for themselves.

    I dearly hope (none / 0) (#63)
    by A DC Wonk on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 11:26:03 PM EST
    ... that the press will focus on her extreme right wing positions (she was a Pat Buchananite in 1999, thinks climate change is not man made, etc), and her generally anti-women agenda (which actually fits pretty well with McCain), particular abortion (she's against in even in cases of rape and incest.

    McCain judgment (none / 0) (#79)
    by lynnebrad on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 11:32:23 PM EST
    To me, the issue is not whether she does or does not have enough experience compared to Obama. The real issue is about McCain and his judgment. If he truly believes Islamic extremism is one of the major issues facing the United States, and he believes that Obama is unqualified to be president because of his experience, then how can he turn around and nominate the "one heart beat away" person with arguably less experience for dealing with serious issues.

    The issue is McCain's judgment and pandering.

    I believe McCain's argument (none / 0) (#172)
    by zfran on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 12:28:15 AM EST
    is that Obama is "not ready to lead" not about his experience. McCain's judgement has him as the repub. nominee for president. Something at the beginning of this year seemed impossible, but here he is. I'd say his judgement is pretty sound. Biden is 66, not exactly young and has two aneurims so medical problems can be had at any age. Don't focus so much on his age. Look at his 95 year old mother.

    Well... (none / 0) (#99)
    by Oje on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 11:42:26 PM EST
    I am tired of reading that the selection of Governor Sarah Palin is about experience, judgment, honor, respect for the presidency, because he wants a new girlfriend, etc., etc.

    This whole election should have been - could have been - about ideology. About Republicans' governing and political philosophies. Instead, we get agitprop slogans, like "say no to 4 more years of the last 8 years!"

    And TalkLeft has today a slew of new or irregular posters who, quite honestly, are obviously working for the campaigns, if not formally, then informally. Propaganda is being directed at progressives by other progressives at this blog (in the comments) and the discussion that has been going on at this blog (at least since I became aware of it in January) is being polluted. No doubt in my mind.

    What are you saying? (5.00 / 1) (#126)
    by SueBonnetSue on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 11:52:41 PM EST
    The comments should be dissected to make sure no differing opinions are voiced?   Everyone must be a loyal supporter of Obama?  Biden too?  Or just Obama?  

    That's one thing that I will never support.  I hate censorship, and group think, but I realize many in our party do not agree.  

    How will we discern the real issues is squelch freedom of speech and only hear and read what we want to hear and read?  


    Huh? (5.00 / 1) (#134)
    by miriam on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 11:57:23 PM EST
    Is this "working for the campaigns" comment directed at those of us who 1) distrust Obama and his lack of experience and 2) do not see Sarah Palin as a naif-like neophyte who as a potential VP will bring this country to ruin?  Why should everyone have to march in lockstep to Obama's beat?  He is not universally accepted as the best candidate the Democrats could have fielded.  And that is a philosophical issue.

    Shake it up (none / 0) (#180)
    by Prabhata on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 12:36:41 AM EST
    All I know is that I will be watching her speech at the RNC convention.
    Denver ­ - John McCain's surprise selection Friday of Sarah Palin, first-term governor of Alaska, as his running mate has sent a jolt of electricity into the Republican Party on the eve of its convention.

    The popular, telegenic governor of America's 49th state brings to the table a record of challenging the status quo, strong social conservative views, and the potential to attract disgruntled supporters of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, who came close to winning the Democratic nomination but was not chosen as nominee Barack Obama's running mate. Governor Palin's own maverick streak, pushing for ethics in government and opposing special-project funding from Washington, meshes with Senator McCain's stance.


    "meshes with Senator McCain's stance" (none / 0) (#184)
    by A DC Wonk on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 12:42:40 AM EST
    yeah, meshes with Senator McCain's stance are virulently anti-abortion, anti-Roe v Wade, etc.  And "meshes" with the more extreme views of creationism, anti-environment, etc.  Yep, this fresh-faced young former supporter of Pat Buchanan will rile up the hard-right wingers.

    Yes and his "Maverick" brand (5.00 / 1) (#186)
    by Prabhata on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 12:45:26 AM EST
    Simple answers to simple questions (none / 0) (#211)
    by lambert on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 09:46:22 AM EST

    All these attacks are just Mysoginy (none / 0) (#212)
    by Cougar for Clinton on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 10:40:28 AM EST
    It is really sad that the once proud left has been reduced to this.

    Cougars for Clinton