Early Saturday Sarah Palin Thread

Readers can't get enough of discussing Alaska Governor Sarah Palin. I'm already Palin'd out but the LA Times tells you all you need to know:

Palin's evangelical faith shapes her social views; she opposes abortion and believes creationism should be taught in public schools.

My theory on why he picked her: Money. His campaign sorely lags behind Obama's in fundraising. He needed to excite the evangelical radical right wing of his party to get them to pony up big dollars and this will do it. James Dobson is already on board.

So if McCain becomes unable to serve as President and she takes over, who do you think we'll get on the Supreme Court?

< Report Condemns Inequitable Access to Health Care | If You Must Make The Argument . . . >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    To me the fact that (5.00 / 3) (#2)
    by Serene1 on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 02:18:20 AM EST
    that she vetoed a bill that would have been harmful to gay rights speaks volumes about her and her conservative beliefs. With her I get the feeling that she is more moderate and middle of the road than she is being credited for and that we will have to wait and watch to see the true Palin emerge.

    Currently to me she compares more favourably than Obama on experience, accomplishments and representing true change.

    You dont k now what you are talking about (5.00 / 3) (#10)
    by thepoliticsofinsanity on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 02:36:29 AM EST
    This is how we got Roberts and Alito. No one bothers to check on the right wing spin. Here's what really happened:

    "Palin vetoed HB 4001. Before you get too excited, she signed HB 4002 - to put benefits up to a non-binding vote of the people. Palin also stated that while she believed in HB 4001, her advisors had told her it was unconstitutional. Rather than go through the court costs, she vetoed the bill. Yeah, she's no ally."

    She didn't do it because she was a moderate on gay rights issues.


    we got Roberts and Alito (5.00 / 8) (#14)
    by TimNCGuy on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 02:43:38 AM EST
    because the likes of Schumer and Feinsein, who did know exactly what they were approving, have no backbone. Maybe it would be wise for the progressives in their states to have a discussion with them.

    And remember (5.00 / 3) (#107)
    by cal1942 on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 03:53:32 AM EST
    that Obama wanted to confirm Roberts and voted FOR cloture.

    ignorantly spoke on issues of which you know nothing about. If ou are going to stick my issues of gay rights into the debate, you better at least know the facts rather than regurgitate spin meant to manipulate your bias.

    She did veto it though, right? (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by angie on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 02:48:00 AM EST
    Because I recall a story in the NYT that Obama wanted to vote to confirm Roberts but his advisors convinced him that wouldn't be a good idea, so he voted against him. Personally, I think he should get credit for his actual vote.
    And do you know how we got Scalia? The Dem majority Senate was so proud of actually doing their jobs for once and knocking out Bork that they rolled over for Reagan's replacement nominee, who is just as bad as (and arguably worse than) Bork, faster then you can say Jack Robinson.

    If you don't care as to whether (5.00 / 2) (#22)
    by thepoliticsofinsanity on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 02:51:20 AM EST
    your comments in fact reflect reality, and your goal is to pretend like she's a moderate on gay issues when she's not just to justify your own echo chamber, that's your right. But I am going to continue when I know better to post the facts. These things affect my life and those of my friends directly. The Democrats aren't percfect on my issues, but I m not going to allow you to spin an enemy into a friend.

    I'm not pretending anything bub (none / 0) (#51)
    by angie on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 03:13:23 AM EST
    I hardly know anything about her, but if in fact she listened and learned and decided to veto the bill that doesn't exactly make her Donnie McClurkin, does it?
    And where do my comments "not reflect reality?" Obama did change his mind on Roberts because he listened and learned and the Dems in Congress rolled over on Scalia -- those are facts.

    So she did it because she is a fiscal (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by Grace on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 02:55:15 AM EST

    Well, bravo!  I love fiscal conservatives!  We need more of them in government to cut out the wasteful spending.  


    You know this blog is getting better (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by thepoliticsofinsanity on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 02:37:51 AM EST
    but there is still this tendency to rationalize your irrational behaviors regarding Obama compared to McCain. As a gay man, i find your comments deeply disturbing that you would use this as an example with out bothering to even confirm that it was true or not.

    Palin seems to be the kind of .. (5.00 / 10) (#15)
    by Robot Porter on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 02:44:22 AM EST
    Republican that Obama has claimed he can work with for the last two years.

    They disagree on many issues, but can find common ground on others.

    This was always my problem with the bipartisan shtick.  I thought it helped McCain in many ways.  And with Palin that help is increased.  


    false as to what happened with this issue, form an opinion based on that spin, and then proscribe how this somehow weakens Obama. At least know of what you speak first before agreeing with the poster who wrote this lie. I assume it wasn't intentional, but the lie that Pallin was for gay rights here is spin.

    Note: New members are ... (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by Robot Porter on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 03:00:31 AM EST
    limited to 10 posts a day.

    Are you serious?? (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by thinkingfella on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 03:19:35 AM EST
    Palin is no moderate. She's to the RIGHT of McCain.

    1. Thinks abortion should be outlawed even in cases of rape and incest.
    2. Thinks creationism should be taught in Science class.
    3. Thinks global warming is fiction.
    4. Wants polar bears removed from endangered species list.

    Who said Palin was a moderate? (5.00 / 2) (#76)
    by Grace on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 03:30:35 AM EST
    I think we all know that she represents the very conservative base of the Republican party.  

    She's a "social conservative."  

    She's also a "fiscal conservative."  (Those are two different things.  I applaud fiscal conservatives and wish we had more.  George W. Bush was a fiscal liberal.)  


    Bush a fiscal liberal? (5.00 / 4) (#111)
    by Ellis on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 03:54:44 AM EST
    Actually, Bush is a fiscal incompetent.

    Someone who is a complete incompetent can appear to be liberal, conservative, libertarian, socialist, or anything else depending on the context and circumstances.

    Bush is a complete incompetent.

    He took the Peter Principle and beat it to death with a club a hundred times over.


    She is the Republican VP nominee (5.00 / 10) (#82)
    by angie on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 03:34:33 AM EST
    NOT the Dem. VP nominee -- I don't find her positions to be that different from what I think of as "Republican." Were you expecting McCain to pick a liberal VP?

    Need to check her record (5.00 / 3) (#192)
    by mmc9431 on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 05:54:02 AM EST
    Before everyone gets caught up in the negative or positive spin, I think we should look at her record as governor. She's a very popular Rep in a Rep state. What legislation has she introduced to either prove or disprove the arguments being made? Has she issued any executive orders or made any appointments that reenforces the argument? In reading up on her, the reason she vetoed the gay bill was becasue the Alaskan SC advised her it was unconstitutional. Evidently she has enough political capital to push through any agenda she might have.

    See post #191 (5.00 / 3) (#197)
    by andrewwm on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 06:04:00 AM EST
    She's in favor of a ballot measure that will do what the legislation would have if it had been constitutional - ban benefits for partners of gay people in the state of Alaska.

    She was also in favor of the gay marriage ban in Alaska, and routinely talks about the "need to protect families" when talking about gay people (with all of the obnoxious implications that has).


    The fact that your creationism item (5.00 / 2) (#122)
    by Valhalla on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 04:01:25 AM EST
    is false, and in fact rebutted on this thread tells me two things: 1) you didn't read the thread (check the timestamps); and 2) I cannot trust anything else you have said.

    This is a high information site.  Provide links.


    Polar Bears - another view (5.00 / 2) (#195)
    by ding7777 on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 06:02:11 AM EST
    Because of the ban on sport killing polars, the bear population has grown from 5,000 to 25,000 in the past 35 years.

    The argument of placing the Polar on the endangered list is that it would ban subsistence hunting by Alaskan Inuit on the theory that Global Warming might be a danger to the polars in the future


    For me the important point is ... (5.00 / 3) (#3)
    by Robot Porter on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 02:25:25 AM EST
    will Obama run as the fighting Dem he showed he can be in parts of his speech on Thursday?

    Or will he "return to mama," spouting the bipartisan unity crap again?

    If he stays the fighting Dem, these SCOTUS arguments are unnecessary. Progressives will have a lot of reasons to vote for him.  They won't need this lame plea about SCOTUS, which heretofore only underlined Obama's weak progressive credentials.

    The Palin selection makes running as a fighting Dem even more imperative, imho.

    But will Obama see it that way?  

    Or will media fawing over Palin, which is bound to intensify, force him to return to his old ways?

    Gay rights (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by thepoliticsofinsanity on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 02:35:05 AM EST
    This is how we got Roberts and Alito. No one bothers to check on the right wing spin. Here's what really happened:

    "Palin vetoed HB 4001. Before you get too excited, she signed HB 4002 - to put benefits up to a non-binding vote of the people. Palin also stated that while she believed in HB 4001, her advisors had told her it was unconstitutional. Rather than go through the court costs, she vetoed the bill. Yeah, she's no ally."

    She didn't do it because she was a moderate on gay rights issues.


    The only way to attack Palin (5.00 / 4) (#48)
    by otherlisa on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 03:09:54 AM EST
    is to attack her on the issues, and what the consequences of her positions are. Anything else is foolish, IMO.

    sorry wrong person- reposting above (none / 0) (#9)
    by thepoliticsofinsanity on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 02:35:37 AM EST
    Just for the record (5.00 / 3) (#6)
    by angie on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 02:32:36 AM EST
    As a niece of two women who have survived breast cancer, I find the whole "McCain can drop dead at any moment from cancer" meme very disturbing -- there are many people who are living with cancer and/or have survived cancer who live long productive lives.

    long bouts of cancer, and who knows the stats, I find it more disturbing  that you are pretending this is a non issue.  What I find even more disturbing is that we are talking about the Presidency of the United States. This isn't Bob downt the street. This is guy whose health is not a private matter. That's true of any person wanting to be President. The American voter regardless of party should know this. It's that simple.

    of course the bigger issue (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by DandyTIger on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 02:55:36 AM EST
    here is, I don't see McCain and Palin any different on these issues. So in this regard, mentioning McCain's age is a giant red haring. Given that they're both right wing socially and are about the same, it seems a non issue. Now experience is of course something else. If something happened to McCain, we'd have someone with more experience than Obama taking over. snark.

    I didn't say "non issue" (5.00 / 4) (#32)
    by angie on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 02:58:17 AM EST
    I clearly said the "drop dead at any moment from cancer" meme is disturbing because that is not the reality of cancer in 2008 and you should d@mn well know that if your mother had it as you claim. Furthermore, we are talking about melanoma here which does not carry the same grim prognosis as other types of aggressive cancers -- to lump all types of cancers together as being fast acting and hopelessly fatal is plain old ignorant. There were times when the word "cancer" carried a very heavy social stigma -- just like AIDS did back in the '80s. Lets not return to the dark ages of medicine. There are plenty of reasons to attack McCain on policy -- his having had MELANOMA is not one of them.

    Oh yes- now question my honest (2.66 / 3) (#41)
    by thepoliticsofinsanity on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 03:05:31 AM EST
    because I am not buying your throwing out the cancer card to deflect from the discussion about the state of health of a guy who would be running  a country of 300 million people.

    But since you asked- I have an undergrad degree in Biology, researched these issues a great deal, was the primary provider for my mother who was low income so she lived with me, and am presently writing a feature based on those experiences (including having done extensive research on the state of cancer research). If you want to pretend this is a non issue- or not that important - you are talking to the wrong guy.


    Skin cancer? Many people who are (5.00 / 1) (#145)
    by Joan in VA on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 04:19:44 AM EST
    exposed to the sun get skin cancer. Since he has had it, he is monitored closely and actually has less chance of dying from it than people who aren't monitored(which would be most of the rest of us). There is no connection between him having had skin cancer and the other types of cancers which are deadly because they're internal and go undetected for a long time. If he had that kind of cancer, you might have a point.

    Creationism thing is a distortion (5.00 / 5) (#8)
    by janarchy on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 02:35:31 AM EST
    Concerning education, while running for Governor of Alaska she was asked about the teaching of creationism in public school science classes. Palin answered that she thought it was healthy for both creationism and evolution to be taught together; although she clarified the next day that she meant that open debate between the two ideas should not be prohibited if it came up in discussion, but that creationism did not need to be part of the curriculum. She also added that she would not appoint State Board of Education members based on their opinions on evolution or creationism. Since her election she has appointed three of the seven Board members, who serve five-year terms: Patrick Shier, Phillip Schneider, and Geraldine Benshoof. None of these appointments attracted criticism on this issue.

    I'm not defending her or saying it's a good thing at all, but it's something conservatives like to hear and can get behind.

    He picked her to energize his base and get more votes and to prove that he wasn't going with the tired old white guy thing. Considering how many Democrats are now sitting around wringing their hands about how wrong and stupid his choice was, how much this has dominated the news cycle for the past 24 hours and how positive the reaction from the Republican base seems to be, I'd say it was a smart choice on his part.

    While I have no intention of voting for him, I'd say that this has certainly generated more buzz (both good and bad) than Obama's pick of Biden last week, and it took the media fawning over Obama's Acceptance speech as the best convention speech of all time completely off the table.

    Do we know who Obama would likely pick for SCOTUS? Or Joe Biden? Other than Cass Sunstein who doesn't make me very comfortable either.

    thank you and lyle for researching this (5.00 / 4) (#54)
    by Valhalla on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 03:14:27 AM EST
    We've seen the creationism thing all day long and the papers are approaching just as much truthiness as the cable news shows these days.

    Not exactly music to a liberal's ears, but certainly not pro-creationism nuttiness, either.


    Just trying to keep it honest (5.00 / 3) (#77)
    by janarchy on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 03:30:35 AM EST
    I've been seeing the creationist thing all over the internet and wanted to rectify it. Considering how much the Left screamed about awful distortions were when it came to their candidate, they're once again overjoyed at doing it to their opponent.

    Me, I'd rather have the actual facts surrounding everyone so I can make an informed choice. It's not music to my ears either, believe me, but not exactly the WTFery of Mike Huckabee either.


    They've all been ridiculing her (5.00 / 4) (#106)
    by janarchy on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 03:52:03 AM EST
    And honestly, it's been kind of offensive given the depth and breadth of what's being said, nearly all of it personal and very little of it to do with issues.

    HuffPo even went so far as to post a picture of her playing basketball in HS. Thank goodness no candidate on the Democratic ticket ever did something as heinous as that!


    Seriously???? (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by otherlisa on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 03:53:39 AM EST

    The Stoopid...it BURNS!!!!!!


    The first comment in the Van Jones piece (5.00 / 6) (#146)
    by otherlisa on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 04:20:23 AM EST
    which starts out, dare I say hysterically, proclaiming that: "None of my pro-Hillary female friends are falling for this obvious GOP pander. To the contrary, McCain's selection of Sarah Palin as his VP is drawing hoots of derision.

    Once they learn that Sarah Palin opposes rape and incest exceptions for women seeking abortion, they completely write her off."

    Wow, dude.

    Anyway, here's the first response:

    "I find it ironic, disgusting, and vomit-inducing how all these people are coming out of the woodwork saying this woman is no Hillary Clinton, but then had no problem with the disgusting punches thrown at Clinton throughout the campaign.

    They had no problem when the Kennedys and Obamas teamed ganged up on Clinton, and the media picked at her shrill voice, cleavage, pantsuits, leaning on Bill, stuck unflattering pics of her all over this website and a million others, etc. etc.

    In the meantime Obama comes out of nowhere as well and he is the messiah.

    Now you have the nerve to say this woman is no Hillary Clinton.

    Guess what? She isn't. And either is Obama!!!

    Hillary was the best candidate out of all of them!!! The Democrats will soon learn this the hard way.

    You all should have recognized a good thing when you had it."


    She's not like Hillary (5.00 / 5) (#153)
    by Grace on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 04:26:44 AM EST
    but they didn't like Hillary anyway -- so they dislike Sarah now?  Why?  Because she's a WOMAN?

    I'm so freakin' disgusted.  


    Wow (5.00 / 5) (#158)
    by janarchy on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 04:31:08 AM EST
    Nice one. I had to smack down a few people along those same lines, although not nearly as eloquently. The total disconnect between how Palin is being treated (which is, of course, allowable because she's The Enemy) and how Hillary was treated (which was, of course, allowable because she WAS The Enemy) is incredible. Of course now that Hillary has been vaniquished, duly humiliated and put in her place as a surrogate of The One, she's okay (until she decides to run for office again). But she is the one that has to go out and do battle with the evil Sarah Palin apparently -- even though, you know, she's not even on the ticket.

    They also (none / 0) (#133)
    by janarchy on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 04:07:22 AM EST
    had a headline reading "Sarah Palin, you're no Hillary Clinton!"

    Does this mean the HuffPo is endorsing Palin given how much they hate Hillary?


    Un-freakin-believable (5.00 / 5) (#140)
    by otherlisa on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 04:13:06 AM EST
    I was just skimming the letters for the Joe Conason article at Salon (logline of his piece - the Palin pick "reeks of tokenism"), and it was just unbelievable, the level of juvenile chest-thumping and name-calling.

    I know it was naive of me, but the amount of misogyny directed at Hillary really took me by surprise (and I had not been at the beginning a Hillary supporter). God knows I loathe Republican policies and what they've done to this country, but watching this tidal wave of bile rise up against Palin is nauseating, as is the immature certainty that they're all gonna kick the girl's ass...


    As much as I hate to say it (5.00 / 6) (#149)
    by janarchy on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 04:24:03 AM EST
    I really want to see the Republicans hit back on all of this. I've really had it, especially after the non-stop misogyny and race-baiting we had in the primaries.

    I can't tell you how many fricking Livejournal entries I had to skim over by younger women who are Obama supporters screeding about how Sarah Palin was an offense to the writer and she wasn't ever going to vote for heron a bet -- as if Sarah was going to come bursting through the door, guns blazing and make them. As if McCain is such a fool that he expects all the Obama voters (esp those who swoon over him and write daily paens to him worthy of a teen magazine) to suddenly switch in mid-stream.

    It's like the line from Rocky Horror "I didn't make (him) for YOU!"

    And people wonder why I've had it with both sides of the aisle?


    Yes, (5.00 / 1) (#176)
    by andrewwm on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 04:57:57 AM EST
    such johnny-come-lately feminists as Jeralyn, Amanda Marcotte, Jesse Taylor, Gail Collins, and others are all wrong.

    Meanwhile, all five of the anonymous posters that have clogged up the SP threads are right to tell them to buzz off because they can't be true feminists. (looking at you Palomino, DandyTiger, janarchy)


    A lot of us are old time (5.00 / 3) (#180)
    by Grace on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 05:07:16 AM EST
    feminists here.  

    This is why the backlash against Palin has been so frustrating.  

    Yeah, she doesn't share our values.  But she is still a woman and we should be happy about what she has accomplished!  

    Some people can't separate the two, obviously.  


    I'm not sure what you're talking about (5.00 / 3) (#183)
    by otherlisa on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 05:13:32 AM EST
    Most of the posts in these threads talk about how not to deal with Palin, in particular decrying the misogyny directed at her that could very badly backfire for the Obama camp. And also, misogyny is, you know, wrong.

    Disagreeing somewhat with Jeralyn about why McCain selected Palin is not a personal attack or an attack on anyone's feminist principles. It's just a difference of opinion.

    And do I have to say it again? I'm not voting for McCain, period. Recognizing that this could be a very smart move on his part is not an endorsement of him as a candidate.


    No (5.00 / 1) (#194)
    by andrewwm on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 06:00:27 AM EST
    Most of the examples or "supposed" misogyny are what strident feminists across the internet are arguing. They're saying its an insulting pick because McCain is trying to lure women by picking probably the least qualified one he could find and present with a straight face.

    The implication is that a woman, any woman, will do. It's obvious that this is the ploy - look at how Palin framed her speech - she's appealing to Clinton voters explicitly. It's insulting to their intelligence and it's an insult to feminism; just having a woman there does not make having rabidly anti-feminist positions okay.

    Jeralyn, Amanda, Jesse, Gail, and basically the entire feminist blogosphere (plus some of my dedicated feminist friends, who randomly emailed me today out of the blue to make this point) are saying. It seems a little silly to dismiss them as livejournal whiners that don't understand "real" feminism.


    I am not referring to Jeralyn (5.00 / 1) (#198)
    by janarchy on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 06:05:46 AM EST
    I was referring to the actual people ON Livejournal that I know. And guess what? I don't agree with them. Just as I haven't agreed with them on other points. I think it's ridiculous and dismissive of people to underestimate John McCain's reasoning for picking Sarah Palin as a running mate. Full stop. Of course her being a woman is part of it, but it's not the one and only reason and she was not picked to appeal to 20-something year old women who are already firmly in the Obama camp. The fact that the conservative base is loving her and rushing to support McCain proves it's more than just 'she's interchangeable with Hillary Clinton'.

    Pardon me? (5.00 / 1) (#196)
    by janarchy on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 06:02:24 AM EST
    You know nothing about me or my background as a feminist. I am not attacking Jeralyn. I am answering some questions and giving some valid answers as to why there's more to Sarah Palin than just mere tokenism. I'm disgusted by all the sexist and misogynist behaviour I've seen on the internet regarding her and while I don't agree most of Ms. Palin's positions on anything, I find the attacks on her for being a woman utterly heinous.

    So what is there beyond mere tokenism? (5.00 / 2) (#201)
    by andrewwm on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 06:10:14 AM EST
    They've clearly positioned her that way, with her shoutout to Clinton voters - implying that any woman will do for those voters. It's insulting to Clinton's supporters and its insulting to all women.

    I cannot think of another pick that McCain could have realistically made that would hold more anti-feminist positions than Sarah Palin.

    And if you're definition of misogyny includes saying this and calling out this very crass ploy by the republicans, you've just called almost the entire feminist blogosphere misogynists.


    what are you talking about (none / 0) (#181)
    by DandyTIger on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 05:11:19 AM EST
    where did I say anything disparaging about those people. And andrewwm, if that is your real name, we're mostly all anonymous here. And besides, who are you calling a feminist.

    they were the worst I've ever seen (5.00 / 3) (#136)
    by DandyTIger on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 04:10:19 AM EST
    they were even talking in negative terms about her baby. I mean, they were beyond the pale. Bugala especially. It made me want to vote for them in the worst way, just to punish Obama supporters. Great strategy on their part if you think about it. snark.

    I happened to watch CNN early (5.00 / 2) (#152)
    by Joan in VA on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 04:25:42 AM EST
    today(nothing else on) and saw Begala totally embarass himself. I have never seen him spout such nonsense.

    Shakesville's Hillary Sexism Watch (none / 0) (#168)
    by otherlisa on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 04:43:46 AM EST
    is on it.

    Unfortunately that is the link to what is already the first of three in their "Palin Sexism Watch" series.


    It's amazing (5.00 / 3) (#203)
    by mmc9431 on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 06:13:49 AM EST
    The attacks on her have been like 8 yrs olds in the school yard. I wouldn't vote for her because she is a Republican and her agenda goes totally against mine, but the reactions to what I'm hearing make me sympathetic to her as a person.

    Her name has been floated out there for months. I can't believe the Democrat's have neen caught so flat footed on this. The Obama camp really needs to get their act together. When Biden was picked the Republican's had a very professional and concise battle plan in place the next day and as usual, they all stuck to script.


    Palin might become a serious... (5.00 / 5) (#12)
    by EL seattle on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 02:38:09 AM EST
    ...distraction, and if the Obama team gets distracted doesn't prepare for the policy plans and proposals that the McCain team will probably be issuing at their convention, that could become a big problem.  

    If McCain hands out a plan with detailed goals, timelines, and specifics, the Obama team had better be ready to issue a carefully prepared plan of their own.  Otherwise they'll seem to lack the experience to react to these sorts of challenges.

    This stage of the campaign can be viewed as an exercise in negotiating skills, and how each side handles themselves will probably be a reasonable indication of how capable they'll be when they handle quickly-developing problems for the nation.

    As far as I know (5.00 / 6) (#13)
    by Edgar08 on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 02:42:11 AM EST
    No one, or very few, would be trying to argue that Palin's views are acceptable.

    What remains important to some of us is how women with ambition are criticized.

    What's also interesting is the topic of experience and how a party that nominated Obama will be able to criticize Palin.

    So I think as long as people just keep repeating that Palin believes a victim of rape should be forced to give birth and stays away from the other stuff then the voters are smart enough to figure it all out.

    Obama should focus ... (5.00 / 4) (#25)
    by Robot Porter on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 02:52:19 AM EST
    on the economy, and avoid getting pulled into debates about wedge issues.

    The economy is, was, and always will be the Democratic Party's surest path to victory in a Presidential election.


    Sounds good too (5.00 / 4) (#34)
    by Edgar08 on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 02:59:45 AM EST
    Either way, stick to the issues.

    If people think it would be wrong to undermine the historical importance of Obama, then it's wrong to set about trying to undermine the historical importance of Palin.

    Stick.  To.  The.  Issues.


    Exactly. (5.00 / 2) (#42)
    by Robot Porter on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 03:06:50 AM EST
    agree (5.00 / 7) (#46)
    by DandyTIger on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 03:08:42 AM EST
    if they talk about experience, they lose. If they belittle her as a woman (as they've done all day long), they lose. If they point out she's conservative (just like McCain), the lose. I know that one is hard for dems to get. But majority of people don't dislike Bush or generic republicans because they're conservative. Dems need to figure that out. They dislike them because they were inept, inexperienced idiots, that got us into a mess in Iraq, and in a mess with our economy.

    The dems have a candidate, for better or worse, that looks a lot like Bush (with experience, swager, etc.). He still wins because he's not Bush. And he still wins because people will think he'll get us out of Iraq and fix the economy. Sooo, talk about Mccain = Bush, and talk about the economy and Iraq.

    What I'm seeing today instead is them getting mad, turning red, and pointing their finger at Palin and yelling, she can't be VP, she's a giiiiiirl. That's the gist of it. And then worse, they point at her and say, she can't be VP because she doesn't have enough experience and she's from a small town, with rural, little clingy people in it. Ewwwww. Believe it or not, that won't work. I know, tough to understand, but belittling most americans kind of turns them off.


    Also, stick to the truth. (5.00 / 5) (#128)
    by Valhalla on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 04:05:05 AM EST
    No need for crazed hyperbole, McCain's and Palin's real views are scary enough.

    Credibility -- hard to build, easy to lose.


    She's pro-life but also (5.00 / 2) (#43)
    by Grace on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 03:07:55 AM EST

    Maybe this would push McCain into covering birth control pills?  


    She a member of (5.00 / 8) (#50)
    by janarchy on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 03:12:34 AM EST
    Feminists for Life. I don't know what they really stand for (other than the obvious!) and it sounds like an oxymoron to me, but I was at least pleased to see she's pro-contraception.

    It was disheartening to hear all the derision on tv tonight about how she's the mother of five, as if that somehow is a terrible thing. I've never heard any male nominee derided for having too many kids, including RFK who fathered 11 of them.


    One idiot pundit on MSNBC (5.00 / 5) (#69)
    by angie on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 03:26:37 AM EST
    actually said that as a mother of a downs syndrome baby shouldn't she be staying home to care for him. Thank god the female pundit said "uh, I've think we've come a long way from that."

    Andrew Sullivan (5.00 / 2) (#80)
    by janarchy on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 03:32:48 AM EST
    is now apparently convinced that because a Catholic friend of his was horrified that a mother of five could leave her baby to be a Vice Presidential Candidate that no conservative woman is going to vote for the Republican ticket.

    So I guess that's the final say on everything.


    lol, stop that, you're going to hurt someone (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by DandyTIger on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 03:51:29 AM EST
    with that humor.

    I know very little about where she stands on (none / 0) (#55)
    by Edgar08 on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 03:16:02 AM EST

    If she gets Dobson back on board, that says something.

    If she doesn't then McCain is back where he started with his own party.


    got him on board (none / 0) (#62)
    by DandyTIger on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 03:21:57 AM EST
    ... as I said, it's all about the base first, and about the change/new/dynamic thing second.

    I think McCain picked Palin for a (5.00 / 7) (#21)
    by Grace on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 02:49:20 AM EST
    bunch of reasons:  Young, conservative, evangelical, corruption fighter, fiscal conservative, Washington outsider.  I think the fact she's a woman was a bonus.  

    I disagree with most of her values (all of the social conservative values, though I do agree with her fiscal conservative values).  I do admire the fact that she practices what she preaches (having a Downs Syndrome child).  

    The time to worry about the Supreme Court was before GWB was elected.  I find it hard to believe that so many "nouveau Dem" websites are now worried about Conservative justices when they sure didn't care before.  We now have a Conservative majority and it's going to stay like that for the foreseeable future.  

    This campaign season has taken some crazy turns so far.  I'm still an "undecided voter."  I lean all over the place but I don't think I'll totally make up my mind until I watch the debates and see more of the candidates.  

    Re: the SCOTUS (5.00 / 5) (#30)
    by janarchy on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 02:55:58 AM EST
    What's also pretty staggering is that many of the people who are nouveau Dems were Naderites in 2000. When the SCOTUS argument was brought up in terms of Gore v. Bush, it was a non-issues. NOW it's important? There's already a conservative majority on the bench. What's one more amongst friends?

    Maybe, just maybe the do-nothing Democratic Senators of the past 8 years are partially responsible for being complicit in their appointments. (Not to mention Biden and Kennedy's help in letting Clarence Thomas get his job back under Daddy Bush)


    She was picked because McCain (none / 0) (#26)
    by thepoliticsofinsanity on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 02:53:46 AM EST
    realized there are folks who will rationalize her choice and make this about the Democrats rather than about McCain and his choice.

    Supreme Court (none / 0) (#134)
    by Ellis on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 04:07:39 AM EST
    There is a huge difference between a court with Kennedy as the deciding vote and Kennedy as someone who will periodically be the sixth vote.

    I can't believe how many people seem to think the Supreme Court couldn't get any worse. That's really naive and very dangerous.


    With all due respect, Jeralyn, (5.00 / 9) (#23)
    by FemB4dem on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 02:51:34 AM EST
    you are wildly missing the point.  Once the Democratic party not only allowed the rampant misogyny against Hillary, but supported it, this became an election about symbolism, not issues.  Yes, I disagree with Sarah Palin on many issues, but she is a strong and dynamic woman who has made it in politics in that "manliest of manly" states, Alaska.  She is a mother who has managed not to have her motherhood prevent her from having an incredible career.  She speaks with style and candor, without the prop of a teleprompter, and she clearly stands by her principles.  I already like and respect her, just like I respect my many republican friends, even though I am (or at least until this year have been), the most liberal of Dems.  She is very attractive to working women, who despite all the good talk of the last decades, have began to think that "having it all" is a myth for women, if still true for men.  Governor Palin is the embodiment of hope and change on this issue, no matter her views on choice. In the face of the MSM misogyny (which came roaring back again today), she is another chance to beat it back.  She is not Hillary, but she will more than do for four years while those of us so disgusted by the DNC and its selection of an unqualified man over a qualified man, not for VP, but for President, work to reclaim our party.

    Good points - but (5.00 / 2) (#57)
    by andrys on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 03:18:18 AM EST
    It's one thing what she decides for herself, but she's on record as opposing abortion for ANY reason, and that includes opposing that for even cases of rape or incest.

      Now, I can understand why she feels this way - it's a religious or spiritual belief.  But if something happened to McCain, she'd be choosing the next few long-term supreme court justices. That did not really worry me about McCain because for ages he's been soft on the issue and recently he became hard-nosed and some feel that's for the conservatives, whom he really needs for this election.  With her, you know she believes it through and through.

      I admire her guts, her independence of mind, her tenacity.
    And it's great to see ONE of the parties acknowledge a woman for the ticket after so much time, with regrets it's not ours and that's a sore spot, since we had such an extraordinary one and not only ignored her but pushed her out.
      But while I was going to vote the Dem lower ticket to help in having a large Dem margin, Palin will make the difference for me and if it's close I will make the vote for Obama even though I have been repulsed by how he and the DNC handled the primary disputes and manipulations, etc.  I'm in California, where it isn't close, so there's not as much pressure.  

      Re people's talk about cancer, McCain has the most virulent type and it's a very bad diagnosis, with recurrences common.  John Wayne Cancer Institute (UCLA) has an excellent experimental program that's helped a famous pianist with 4 recurrences and several others.  Most still don't make it.  Normally she'd be gone by now.  Very serious.  I've had an advanced form of cancer and have been luckier so far, but there's no doubt that chances are not as good for people who've had it, long-range.

      So it's important to think about what we need in a VP in this situation especially though anything can happen to any President as we've sure seen.  That he's met her only once is disquieting.


    Please see my response (5.00 / 2) (#79)
    by FemB4dem on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 03:32:28 AM EST
    above.  I am surprised that on a site about the law, so few people have apparently read Gonzales v. Carhart.  Abortion rights are pretty much over on the federal level for now as a constitutional right, except possibly on the edges.  The only real question is will Anthony Kennedy be convinced to jetison Roe all together, or will he find a restriction or two he might find beyond the pale?  Face it, on the federal constitutional level, for the foreseeable future abortion rights are in the hands of a conservative Catholic justice.  Look to your state legislatures and constitutions folks, that's where the action will be on choice in the coming years.

    sadly a good point (5.00 / 2) (#85)
    by DandyTIger on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 03:37:26 AM EST
    which is why we need to also be talking about local politics. Local is boring, but often even more important than national.

    Heh. (5.00 / 2) (#87)
    by Robot Porter on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 03:39:24 AM EST
    I think they just like "playing doctor."

    (Double meaning intended.)



    I had several (5.00 / 5) (#129)
    by Grace on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 04:05:24 AM EST
    posts deleted here today.  I think it was because I was standing up for nominating a woman, even if her ideas are different from most of ours.  

    I think her nomination should be celebrated and I was rather gobsmacked that others thought it was a bad thing!  Why are the liberal blogs falling to the same sexist thoughts that did in Hillary?  

    We don't need to vote for Palin just because she is a woman -- but we should support the idea of nominating women for better positions!  

    I was totally floored that the same people who complained about the sexist treatment Hillary got were totally prepared to provide sexist treatment of Palin.  They looked at her as "merely a woman" instead of seeing what she added to the McCain ticket (for McCain).  

    Anyway, pick on Palin for whatever she supports -- but do not pick on her because she's a woman.  It's a losing position.  McCain didn't pick her "just because she's a woman," he picked her because she fit his idea of a good running mate.  If he had really wanted to appeal to us Clinton Democrats, he would have picked Hillary!  He didn't.  He picked someone who is a great running mate for him (versus Obama) and she just happens to be a woman.  We should rejoice that he was gender blind when he made his choice.  I read that she was his second pick, after Joe Lieberman.    


    Oops, (none / 0) (#31)
    by FemB4dem on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 02:58:11 AM EST
    getting late.  Read "begun" for "began" in sentence 7, and "unqualified man over a qualified woman" in the last sentence.

    disagree about money angle (5.00 / 2) (#24)
    by DandyTIger on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 02:51:34 AM EST
    since McCain has managed to tie Obama while spending a small fraction of what he spends. I seem to remember Hillary only had to spend 1/3 to 1/5 of what Obama spent to beat him in the last three to four months. I think McCain will only have to spend 1/5 to tie or beat him.

    I think exciting the base to get them to vote is the big thing. I seem to remember a poll a month or two ago when something happened in the news to temporarily excite the repub base. And when that happened, McCain shot up by 5 to 10 points. That is what McCain is looking for. If he can get his base, I think he'll be 5 points ahead after the convention bounces settle. And then if he can hold onto that 25% of Hillary supporters and gain ground on those clingy people, then he's in good shape.

    And don't underestimate the effect of Palin's husband, a steel worker union member, will have in OH, PA, MD, and other places. I think there were a lot of great reasons for him to pick Palin. I think exciting the base for votes is 90% of it.

    I disagree as well (5.00 / 12) (#45)
    by otherlisa on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 03:08:13 AM EST
    Palin is a huge trap for Obama, and he's already walked into it with boneheaded statements about her lack of experience. I completely agree with BTD here - this is a really bad angle of attack given Obama's own resume.

    I also think that this stirs up the primary pot once more, bringing to the surface the latent misogyny that so poisoned the process, particularly among the media and the progressives who are supposed to women's allies, not their enemies. As others have remarked, some of the comments at a progressive blog like this one have me shaking my head - not in disbelief, unfortunately, but that these sexist responses are so predictable.

    I don't think that progressive women are suddenly going to turn around and vote for McCain, mind you, but for a lot of women who were wounded by the primary, this keeps the anger alive and makes it harder to "get over it" and support the ticket. You know, I'd really like to "get over it" and feel like Obama/Biden and progressives in general have my back, but I'm still not feeling the love.

    As for more conservative women and independents, I think this will definitely attract some of their votes. Frankly you can make all the speeches you want about equality, but actions are what counts - and what they are seeing is a woman being placed in a position of real significance. Those who can get past the cognitive dissonance around choice are going to see this and respond to it.

    Further, this both resurrects McCain's "maverick" image (which is what people have always responded positively to about him) and also gets the evangelicals on board.

    It's not so much about money as it is about votes.

    This pick could backfire in a big way if Palin can't handle the pressure, but if she can, look out.


    pretty weak, and not true (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by DandyTIger on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 03:29:43 AM EST
    either. They met many many times over the phone (or via teleconferencing). The how many meetings thing is really lame.

    same here (5.00 / 4) (#114)
    by DandyTIger on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 03:55:45 AM EST
    it felt like "sticking it to he man". Funny how dems have turned that around so that watching repubs do something feels that way. scary.

    Carville and Begala (5.00 / 2) (#200)
    by kimsaw on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 06:06:47 AM EST
    are more ticked at Obama, because Obama brought this opening for McCain on himself. He could have picked Hillary and problem perhaps solved. Now its more challenging to be the change agent, when McCain offers up a woman who in her own right is a fighter in action not just words. I'll see your words, and raise you with action. Gotta love the theater of it all.

    Not to mention the entire snowmobile (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by oculus on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 03:25:37 AM EST
    crowd will now vote Republican.

    heh, wonder what the snowmobile demo is? (none / 0) (#78)
    by DandyTIger on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 03:30:57 AM EST
    Does it match the motorcycle demo? Somehow in my mind I see those as similar things.

    Laugh all you want, (5.00 / 5) (#89)
    by FemB4dem on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 03:39:34 AM EST
    but the "snowmobile demo" is the Western demo.  Unless you lived out this way, you wouldn't believe how infuriated many in both parties have been over the snowmobiles in Yellowstone Park controversy.  Gun-toting, snowmobile-riding, Idaho born, Alaska Gov. Palin is an incredibly smart Western choice.  I would say the Dems western strategy is now officially gone, jay, goodbye.

    ah good to know, yes, agree about western (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by DandyTIger on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 03:44:31 AM EST
    demo and this choice. I also think the small town, rural demo is almost certainly going with this choice now. I mean, she hunts moose at 3am. Hmm, 3am, what does that remind me of.

    I think we may be serving moose burgers to the DNC in november. Hope they like them. Snark.


    Her parents were hunting caribou (none / 0) (#100)
    by oculus on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 03:48:53 AM EST
    when they were told to stand by!

    Knew I forgot something (none / 0) (#102)
    by otherlisa on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 03:49:27 AM EST
    in my laundry list of "why McCain chose Palin" above.

    Absolutely right. What happens when the 18 State Strategy runs into Palin?


    I'm not laughing. My ears (5.00 / 2) (#104)
    by oculus on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 03:50:21 AM EST
    perked up when she threw the snowmobile sentence into her speech today.  There was a reason for that sentence being there.

    Yep, McCain/Palin just won (5.00 / 1) (#123)
    by FemB4dem on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 04:01:42 AM EST
    eastern Montana (including Billings, where most of the people live) and a good chunk of Western Montana.  I guess Big Sky Country won't be seeing Obama anymore.

    What I'll be really interested to hear is how this choice plays in Washington, which has such interesting ties with Alaska.


    Oh, didn't think of that. Good point (5.00 / 1) (#130)
    by DandyTIger on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 04:05:28 AM EST
    And given that Palin's husband is part native american, that might be a pull for other western states. And did I mention that he was a steel worker union member. :-)

    And so much for the race (5.00 / 3) (#151)
    by FemB4dem on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 04:24:21 AM EST
    card.  Will it really be credible now for the Obamabots to argue that it's racist to vote for a white woman married to a Native American man?  Yet another barrier broken, the first interracial couple on a national ticket.

    Factually inaccurate (1.00 / 2) (#29)
    by thepoliticsofinsanity on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 02:55:41 AM EST
    McCain has not matched Obama in fund raising.

    lol, um, that was my point (5.00 / 4) (#35)
    by DandyTIger on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 02:59:46 AM EST
    yes, he has not matched Obama in fund raising. In fact I'd say he's only raised about 1/4 or so of what Obama has raised. And with that amount, just before the dem convention, he was tied. That's my point, it's not about the money because he doesn't need as much. Just like Hillary didn't need as much in the last four months.

    Public Financing kicks in when? (none / 0) (#40)
    by angie on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 03:02:31 AM EST
    Doesn't McCain have to "stop" accepting private contributions after that date? (For some reason I'm thinking the date is 8/31 -- but I could be totally off about that). Of course, that doesn't mean the Party itself can't continue to accept contributions, or does it?

    I think it kicks in when he's the official (none / 0) (#71)
    by DandyTIger on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 03:28:02 AM EST
    nominee. And I don't think it limits the party itself. But of course there are limits to what the party can do with money for his campaign. And of course 527's have no such limits money is speech. Really loud speech. :-)

    If I have to listen to one more person (5.00 / 9) (#65)
    by Grace on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 03:24:25 AM EST
    talk about McCain "dying in office" -- I think I'm going to scream!  

    I had cancer 23 years ago.  I'm still here.  My father had the same kind of cancer McCain has 10+ years ago.  He's still here.  

    I actually met someone years ago who had a girlfriend who died of the same cancer McCain has.  You want to know why she died?  She died because she had this "mole" and even though it kept getting bigger and bigger, she didn't get it checked.  She didn't get it checked until it was huge and then it was too late because it had spread.  Yes, it's a dangerous cancer but not if you know that you are prone to having it.  If you know you could have it, you go to the doctor for any sign of anything on your skin that changes.  

    Did you know that men under 50 are more prone to having heart attacks and not surviving them?  This is because younger men lack the collateral circulation that older men have.  So, there is something for you to worry about with Obama -- will he die of a heart attack in the next three years?  And what about the fact that black men don't have the lifespans of white men?  Should we discuss that too?    

    Frankly, I find this whole discussion distasteful and disgusting...  But you appear to want to have it so here you go.          

    it is disgusting, (5.00 / 1) (#188)
    by kimsaw on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 05:37:59 AM EST
    but it follows the Obama play book- racism, sexism, ageism, is there any "ism" left?

    And as far as Palin goes, Obama and his supporters  offer his judgment on Iraq means he's qualified to be President but shouldn't Palin be afforded at least a platform to present herself and her ideas to demonstrate her judgment.  These attacks on Palin stem from the Dem. fear that Obama's fight to become President may have hit a huge obstacle. Obama may be a post partisan but my question is still what issues will he stand up for and on which ones will he collapse.  Obama's had 19 months to tell us who he is. The spectacle on Thurs. night didn't really answer my main question. Biden's pretty much a political institution more of the same.  Palin deserves at least a week!


    Exactly right. (5.00 / 10) (#66)
    by FemB4dem on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 03:25:16 AM EST
    Choice has become a red-herring on the national level.  Once the Dems refused to filibuster Alito, the writing was on the wall.  It didn't take long for that writing to appear on paper in a majority U.S. Supreme Court opinion.  Read (or re-read) Gonzales v. Carhart, please. Any restrictions on the right to choose, which doesn't even exist in reality anymore for poor and rural women, will be upheld in the federal courts.  Battles over choice will now be fought out on the State level.  

    As for the "McCain will die in office" meme, may I simply ask why this is so attractive and acceptable to Obama supporters, and yet they were so thoroughly outraged, indeed appoplectic, when there was even a whiff of a suggestion that Obama also could die in office?  Yes, I speak here of the insane reaction to Hillary's RFK comment.  Mortality is a fact.  My question is, if McCain's mortality is in issue, why can't Obama's even be mentioned?  Biden has now run for president twice, and has been soundly rejected by voters.  He is a heartbeat away from the presidency if Obama is elected.  Shouldn't that be discussed?  And if the only issue is, that Biden is an ok VP candidate because he has foreign policy experience, and nothing else matters, then how in the world can Obama be acceptable as the Presidential nominee when he has no more foreign policy experience than Palin?  He will be the President next January if the Dems win. That certainty makes this argument over possibility seem ludicrous.  

    Thank you! (5.00 / 3) (#84)
    by janarchy on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 03:36:11 AM EST
    As for the "McCain will die in office" meme, may I simply ask why this is so attractive and acceptable to Obama supporters, and yet they were so thoroughly outraged, indeed appoplectic, when there was even a whiff of a suggestion that Obama also could die in office?  Yes, I speak here of the insane reaction to Hillary's RFK comment.  Mortality is a fact.  

    Thank you for raising this point. I've been trying to figure out how to mention it calmly myself. Paul Begala was yammering on about this on Larry King tonight and I had to turn him off. It would be ridiculous but another round of hysteria regarding people being wished dead in public is not what this campaign needs. Its bad enough no one said a word when both Republicans and Obama surrogates kept up the 'Obama would need a food taster if Hillary was his VP' stupidity.


    and, in those short nearly two years (5.00 / 7) (#97)
    by DandyTIger on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 03:47:24 AM EST
    as governor, it's sounding like she actually has a pretty impressive long list of accomplishments. of course it doesn't take too many to be more zero. snark.

    so yes, this is a good choice. did I mention her husband is a steel worker union member. (joke because I keep saying it...). PA and OH anyone...

    Add to that (5.00 / 4) (#98)
    by janarchy on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 03:48:08 AM EST

    was raised in a small town
    went to public school
    went to a State College
    was Mayor of a small Town


    was raised in Hawaii as well as Indonesia
    went to expensive private prep school
    went to a private college, then Ivy League university
    Went to an Ivy League graduate school
    worked in Chicago

    Court Nominees, Again (5.00 / 4) (#99)
    by cal1942 on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 03:48:42 AM EST
    So if McCain becomes unable to serve as President and she takes over, who do you think we'll get on the Supreme Court?

    Talk about violating the rules about the same "tired" arguments.

    This may be the most tired scare tactic argument of the campaign.

    For the umpteenth time, this is the way the process works:

    Presidential nominations are just that; nominations.  A given nomination is assigned to the appropriate committee for consideration.  For federal court nominees that would be the Judiciary Committee.  If the nominee is rejected by the committee then that's it, case closed on that nominee.  In case court scare promoters haven't noticed, Senate committees are controlled by the majority party.  The majority on every committee will be Democrats.  

    If Democrats refuse to assert their control of the Senate then we are truly lost. The court scare argument reinforces the notion that Congress has abandoned its Constitutionally mandated role as a check on the executive.

    The first thing that people who care about progressive issues should demand is that Congress do what it's supposed to do.

    For that matter what happens if Obama wins and nominates Cass Sunstein, who believes that Roe v Wade is wrong? What will the Democratically controlled Judiciary Committee do with a Sunstein nomination from a Democratic president?

    The court scare schtick is possibly the single most tired advocacy argument of this election cycle. That argument informs the Congress that its perfectly OK to surrender its power to the executive.

    Also, the SCOTUS scare ... (5.00 / 1) (#189)
    by Robot Porter on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 05:44:18 AM EST
    argument reinforces the view that Obama isn't very progressive, because it's always couched as a last ditch plea.

    This is another piece of (5.00 / 2) (#110)
    by FemB4dem on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 03:54:34 AM EST
    kiss the Dem's western strategy good-bye.  If the Dems do have a natural constituency in the West, it's Native Americans.  Todd Palin may well change that.  What an incredible year for identity politics.  

    and much of what you say about the west (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by DandyTIger on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 03:57:03 AM EST
    is also true about rural america. you know, those clingy people.

    Hah! (5.00 / 1) (#125)
    by FemB4dem on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 04:04:00 AM EST
    They maight not be so bitter now. :-)

    heh, maybe there is a cure for all that (none / 0) (#131)
    by DandyTIger on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 04:06:51 AM EST
    bitterness after all. snark.

    Are ya'll kidding me????? (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by Joan in VA on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 03:55:12 AM EST
    Up in the middle of the night talking about SP? Hardcore! Silly me couldn't sleep so I checked here but I never thought J would make another thread for her. Or that so many people don't sleep. ; )

    hee hee, yea, what's the world coming too (5.00 / 4) (#119)
    by DandyTIger on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 03:59:04 AM EST
    but I have to admit, this day was something with this pick. And really it isn't just the pick, it's the extreme reaction I'm seeing from MSM and Obama supporters that's been so stunning. It's got my head whirling.

    Me too. (5.00 / 1) (#141)
    by FemB4dem on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 04:14:51 AM EST
    I have to say, I thoroughly enjoyed watching Jack Cafferty's head explode. He sputtered as much as Obama does. He sounded so incredibly stupid saying but, but, but, compared to Biden, Palin has no foreign policy experience.  Amazing.  Can it be that the MSM didn't see this trap and walk right into it with eyes wide open?  Listening to Carville and Begala (both of whom I normally love) was absolutely painful tonight.  They got whupped by the conservative women commentators.  Begala finally said -- I kid you not -- that he's raising four kids so he's way to busy to be VP.  He really needs to read Dee Dee Myers' book.  She looks so prescient now.  I hope to see her back on the talking heads circuit soon.  This is right up her alley now.  What a year!  

    Feeling those karmic vibrations! (5.00 / 1) (#173)
    by Joan in VA on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 04:51:28 AM EST
    I agree with many ... (5.00 / 2) (#139)
    by Robot Porter on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 04:12:42 AM EST
    that Obama just needs to stick to issues.

    But we must remember he doesn't have a great track record of talking about issues.

    And this is why many of us, dodging charges of racism, continued to argue in the primaries that it was a mistake to nominate a candidate based on personality and largely empty rhetoric.

    With the Palin pick, Obama and his supporters have reaped what they sowed.

    Or as Palomino put it, using video game parlance, Obama (and his supporters) got pwned!

    I think I'm going to have to find new (5.00 / 6) (#174)
    by Grace on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 04:55:30 AM EST
    blogs to post on.

    Any blog that thinks it's bad when a woman does good isn't a blog I want to belong to.

    I'm happy to see any woman move up the food chain, no matter where she might be located.  For too many years we have been locked out of the highest echelons in business and government because people thought we were too "different."  For anyone in power to pick a woman voluntarily to be at the highest level means a lot to me.  It means that women can finally be considered seriously for better jobs and the highest wages.  

    Since this is politics, I may not vote for that person -- but I still applaud the placement of a woman on the ticket.  

    I would encourage any woman who thinks this is "bad" to look at their own motives.  It's bad, why?  Because it undermines your candidate?  Because she's not a woman like you?  Why is it bad?  It's great for women that people consider us to be the equivalent of a man!!  We should be rejoicing!        

    I am, I'm really happy (5.00 / 3) (#179)
    by DandyTIger on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 05:03:37 AM EST
    that there is a woman on one of the major tickets. Even if VP. I think it's a serious step forward. When Hillary didn't get selected by the DNC/SD's, and then didn't even get vetted for VP, I was pretty depressed about it and thought it might be another 20 years or more before we'd see another opportunity. Now this surprise has me very excited and happy. That doesn't mean I'll vote for this ticket, but it makes me happy just the same.

    I love women (5.00 / 4) (#177)
    by mexboy on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 04:58:35 AM EST
    How about we celebrate them?

    How about we celebrate the fact that this woman has been picked to run for the second most powerful position in the U.S.

    No one has to vote for her, but the fact that a REPUBLICAN nominee chose a woman in a quantum leap in gender equality.

    I know many people hate her because she is a social/fiscal conservative...hey, she's a Republican, but I think mostly people are angry because Democrats are supposed to be the ones championing minorities, women, gays and the underdog and when we had a woman (who was the most qualified) we thugged her out of the race, and here comes McCain and puts  the ideals we claim to have into practice. HOW DARE HE!

    I don't know enough about Palin to have an opinion yet, but the fact that she as an evangelical vetoed an anti-gay bill because it was unconstitutional tells me she is willing to respect the law of the land above her religious beliefs.

     Believe me, as an ex-evangelical I can guarantee that gay issues are a deal breaker to evangelicals. McCain did a brilliant strategic move. With that mind he might not be that bad a president after all.

    Not quite. (none / 0) (#184)
    by andrewwm on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 05:13:37 AM EST
    1. She vetoed it because it wasn't constitutional and she didn't want to pay for the legal appeals. She's come out very strongly against gay rights in other areas.

    2. I think it's great that parties now feel like they need to put women (and also probably minorities) on tickets to appeal to women and other constituencies. This is one of the great legacies of this election - politicians have woken up to what market The thing that's offensive about it, though, is that Palin's positions are about as anathema to issues that are important to most women as could possibly be.

    So he's basically betting that any woman will do. We'll see if the PUMAs take the bait.

    Can you tell me more? (5.00 / 1) (#187)
    by mexboy on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 05:33:04 AM EST
    Can you tell me where and how she came out against gay rights?
    I am trying to learn as much about her as possible.  Links would be great.

    What I am encouraged about is the fact that she did veto that bill. Believe me I know how evangelicals feel about gays, but the fact that she knew it was unconstitutional and vetoed it means a lot. Most right wing evangelicals would push it through anyway.

    Since I am not a woman I will let women decide what is anathema to them and I will support them. My sister is an intelligent woman and has similar positions to Palin when it comes to abortion and gay rights. Thank God I left the church!

    I am not trying to defend the woman, I don't know her personally, nor am I a Republican, but come on, a lot of unfair attacks have been launched at her on this site...What happened to being progressive and for equality?

    Vote against her if you must, but this is a great year for equality!


    It's pretty easy to find with a google search (none / 0) (#191)
    by andrewwm on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 05:51:38 AM EST
    but, since I'm bored:

    Prior to being elected governor, Palin supported the 1998 constitutional amendment barring marriage for same-sex couples and has said she would support a ballot measure overturning a state supreme court decision mandating benefits for domestic partners of state employeesShe is close to "traditional values" groups, like Family Research Council, because she is strongly anti-choice Marriage and Relationship Recognition                    

    Palin told the Anchorage Daily News that she supported the 1998 constitutional amendment on marriage.In addition, she told the Daily News that she would support a ballot question that would deny benefits to the domestic partners of public employees, which were ordered by an October 2005 decision of the Alaska Supreme Court, because, she said "honoring the family structure is that important."While she followed the Court's decision and he also signed legislation -her first legislative act as Governor of Alaska--to put the issue on the April 2007 ballot for a nonbinding advisory vote. This was the only issue on the ballot and that election cost the state taxpayers $1.2 million. This measure passed, but the legislature did not follow the public's advice and it chose not to take any further action to overturn the court's decision.

    She did, however, veto legislation passed by the state legislature in 2006 that would have prohibited providing DP benefits to state workers, in defiance of the Alaska Supreme Court's ruling. She did this after the Supreme Court had already ruled and the Attorney General (Republican) advised her that the legislation was unconstitutional. Palin went on to state that, as a matter of policy, she was in favor of the bill. Ties to Anti-LGBT GroupsShe will be honored alongside anti-gay Representative Michelle Bachman (R-MN) at an event at the 2008 Republican Convention, the "Life of the Party," sponsored in part by long-time opponent of GLBT rights, Phyllis Schlafly.

    Palin said she's not out to judge anyone and has good friends who are gay, but that she supported the 1998 constitutional amendment.

    Elected officials can't defy the court when it comes to how rights are applied, she said, but she would support a ballot question that would deny benefits to homosexual couples.

    "I believe that honoring the family structure is that important," Palin said.

    She said she doesn't know if people choose to be gay.


    How I Came to Hillary in Under Two Minutes (5.00 / 7) (#186)
    by Ellie on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 05:27:26 AM EST
    At the start of the nomination campaign, she wasn't even on my short list. However, something (Katha Pollit?) said made me reconsider. Paraphrasing: if the sexism and misogyny persisted she might just have to vote for Sen Clinton.

    Well, we all saw the historically unprecedented derangement, viciousness and outright that came spewing out, and here's the reprise for Palin.

    Dems and fauxgressives just never learn. Someone at an A-list, purportedly feminist blog referred to Palin, an elected Governor, as 'somebody with a vag!na'.

    Bitter Knitter Doofus Rahm called it "political panic". Rilly?.

    Dems in Congress didn't give a crap about women when Alito and Roberts got swipecarded onto the SCOTUS (and all the other egregious appts) so why all the sudden drama now?

    And where's the vaunted youth vote to carry their share of load for someone as inexperienced as Obama offered up as Presumptive Possumus Potus?

    It wouldn't surprise me in the least if in the exquisite privacy of the voting booth -- almost the last remaining refuge for a woman to be be left the f*ck alone in peace and quiet, without everyone and his Crazy Uncle barking threats and demands about her personal decisions -- more women didn't try out being a Republican for a Day.

    Dem feet, meet fire.

    here's your Palin link (5.00 / 1) (#202)
    by ding7777 on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 06:13:37 AM EST
    for teaching creationism.

    Here's what she said originally

    Teach both. You know, don't be afraid of information. Healthy debate is so important, and it's so valuable in our schools. I am a proponent of teaching both."

    She then backtracked/clarified the  "teach both" statement

    she meant only to say that discussion of alternative views should be allowed to arise in Alaska classrooms

    National Guard (5.00 / 1) (#208)
    by cmugirl on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 07:08:28 AM EST
    In response to an earlier Steve M comment on another thread about the silliness of Palin being head of the Alaskan National Guard....

    Um, Bill Clinton used that argument too (and how big is the Arkansas National Guard).  In fact, it was even thrown in a West Wing episode.

    While it may be a silly argument (no one commands troops during war except POTUS),  they do give orders for deployment within the state.

    And while others (including Jeralyn) keep talking about Alaska being a small state (which is true, population wise, the land mass of Alaska would cover around 20% of the lower 48 states, which still has to be managed by the Alaskan government. It sits only 55 miles from Russia, and with 1 person per square mile
    (avg), it presents a unique set of challenges that no other governor faces (evacuation plans, search & rescue, etc).

    On another note, as was pointed out on another blog, we now have a race where the candidates have connections to the 1st state (Delaware) and the 48th (Arizona), 49th (Alaska) and 50th Hawaii(states)

    Palin Choice is Cynical, Sexist (5.00 / 1) (#210)
    by No Blood for Hubris on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 08:07:47 AM EST
    And has pushed this PUMA right back into Barack Obama's arms.

    agree if there are specific issues (none / 0) (#59)
    by DandyTIger on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 03:18:57 AM EST
    of this candidate that bother you (vs. what McCain believes). I assumed they were about the same in the conservative spectrum. If there is something even worse about her, then that can be an issue.

    But as I said, if it's because she's just like McCain, then that's silly. And of course if it's about experience, that's a massive loosing argument. And similarly, if it's about judgement, that's also a loosing argument. That is, how can picking someone who many could argue has more experience than Obama bad judgement.

    Arg (none / 0) (#159)
    by andrewwm on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 04:31:27 AM EST
    I think I'm going to go insane seeing this again and again.

    It's "lose" not "loose." The latter are what your shoelaces become, the former is what happens when you make a bad argument.


    grumble (none / 0) (#164)
    by DandyTIger on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 04:37:47 AM EST
    I do make silly mistakes like that. Of course it's "The latter is what your shoelaces become" and not "The latter are what your shoelaces become".

    Watching the GOP (none / 0) (#75)
    by lilburro on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 03:30:19 AM EST
    do gotcha politics all day, I don't know what direction they will be going with this pick.  It seems to me impossible for them to win the election if McCain doesn't have anything to offer.  Their talking points for the day were a)this is a good person, and b)you are all sucky hypocrites!  Which IMO is really going to wear after day 2.  

    Maybe the GOP has gone over the edge because they don't understand how unpopular they are.  Maybe McCain will get on some message tomorrow and this will just have been a moronic day.  Today they seemed frighteningly far from reality.

    today they won big (5.00 / 4) (#81)
    by DandyTIger on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 03:34:19 AM EST
    I'm not sure what you're talking about here. They are massive winners in the politics of the day. They're base is excited. And the press is buzzing. The only gotcha, nasty, venom, crap I've seen all day is from the dems. They're have been total idiots in how to handle this pick. So I'd say the opposite, maybe the dems will get another message tomorrow. Because if they continue with what they've been doing today (sexist, nasty, bashing, making fun of Palin's baby, etc.), then they will lose in November.

    Apparently (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by janarchy on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 03:39:33 AM EST
    this also raised $3 million for McCain too. And ringing endorsements from both James Dobson and another arch-conservative group (sorry for the lack of citations. It's way too late here in NY).

    I know the Dems (none / 0) (#109)
    by lilburro on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 03:54:22 AM EST
    have been miserable today, but watching the Republican explanations for Palin just made me want to tear my remote apart, they are so inane, all built upon "but you said...," you being the Dems.  What have the GOP won, other than a mandate to continue the media hijinks?  They definitely got a lot of attention, but I don't see what they did today that helps them in the overarching national narrative.  

    As far as the base goes, I guess it is good for the GOP, but recent polling suggested that fewer Americans want to see government involved in religion and vice versa.  To me that suggests the conservative movement is shrinking and isn't enough to build a coalition upon.  So all in all I don't get this choice.


    Except that (5.00 / 6) (#126)
    by janarchy on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 04:04:03 AM EST
    McCain already had a solid support of 80% republicans behind him. He didnt have the evangelics on board. Guess what? Now he does. He just got 2 ringing endorsements from them which means the evangelicals who were going to stay home now have a reason not to.

    Palin appeals to conservative women, to conservative and working mothers, to a number of other demographics which fit into that swing voter category.

    For some bizarre reason, Democrats just keep assuming that they're going to win because the people they interact with on a regular basis all say they're going to win and it's like an echo chamber. Guess what, there are a lot of people who are in that Appalachian/Small Town/Low-voter demographic that the Creative Class loves to sneer at who aren't there. Who have other reasons for voting and don't necessarily love Barack Obama or Joe Biden. Look at the national polls -- they've been pretty much neck and neck for months with a large chunk still undecided. Just because Obama gave a good speech at the convention doesn't mean anything. Most of those people didn't even see it.


    And that's the problem (5.00 / 2) (#170)
    by janarchy on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 04:46:27 AM EST
    Other than the Clinton campaign, it seems as if the Democratic campaigns are always ridiculous overconfident and certain of wins, and can't anticipate what the Republicans are going to do. And then the Republicans strike back. David Axelrod thinks he's a master of campaigns but he's never done a GE before, just astroturfing for big corporations and local Chicagoland races where he managed to get Obama's opponents thrown out. I realise that Rachel Maddow thinks it's a huge deal that Obama beat Alan Keyes for his senate seat but I am pretty certain that a sack of potatoes could beat Alan Keyes by pretty handy margins too.

    I never knew anyone who voted for Bush in the last 2 elections. However, he manage to win (in theory) twice. I never knew anyone in MA who voted for Mitt Romney, but he won there handily too. So nothing's a guarantee. If all you talk to is left leaning liberal Democrats/Independents, you're not seeing the bigger picture.


    I'm not convinced she appeals to (none / 0) (#138)
    by lilburro on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 04:12:31 AM EST
    non-conservative working mothers.  

    Right now, thanks to the convention, possibly with lasting effects, Obama is ahead by a good 5 points over McCain.  I don't know how Palin will affect that.

    I think it is possible this VP choice hurts him in Ohio, for instance.  If you're looking to win Reagan Democrats, do you lose ground on C-in-C and experience as issues?  If you're looking to win white men, do you lose ground on those issues?  I think McCain hurt his Ohio chances today.

    I don't have anything against Palin but I don't see how this is going to work.


    Just how many working moms (5.00 / 3) (#144)
    by FemB4dem on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 04:18:24 AM EST
    do you hang out with?  All the ones I do were all talking nothing but Palin today.  All are excited now to vote for her.  And yes, most are moderate to liberal Hillary voters.

    same here (5.00 / 4) (#155)
    by DandyTIger on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 04:27:53 AM EST
    I'm seeing lots of local women really fired up over this pick. I've never seen so much smiling (at least since Hillary was picking up momentum and winning every month). That's not to say as they learn more they'll stay that way. But of course if they hear a lot sexism and hate and lies (like the creationism stuff) about her, and ridiculing her for keeping her baby or for not taking care of the baby, etc., they will defend her, and thus stick with her.

    Unless you hang out with thousands of them (none / 0) (#150)
    by lilburro on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 04:24:09 AM EST
    why does it matter?

    lol, that's a good one (5.00 / 2) (#157)
    by DandyTIger on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 04:30:41 AM EST
    given that most of what we have been hearing from Obama supporters for the last year has been from within their echo chamber. Pardon me for having a chuckle there.

    Yes, of course that is anecdotal and of no statistical value. But of course it matters just the same. It's our story, our experience.


    Anecdotes are fine (none / 0) (#166)
    by lilburro on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 04:41:58 AM EST
    so here is one:  My dad is completely bewildered by McCain's choice of someone whom he considers to have no ability to take control of the country if McCain passed.  I don't know if my dad is informed in part by sexism; I do know that he voted for Hillary, that he is white, independent, and middle-aged.  Discussing Jindal and Kaine works with political junkies; it isn't much solace for someone who might not be as interested in the ins-and-outs of the political race.  

    I am really proud of Hillary's achivement in making her case to be Commander in Chief.  That she was able to do it and overcome the prejudices many had about a woman in charge of the military is to me mindboggling.  It was a really, really big task.

    Palin has to start that process now and she only has a few months to do it.  I think McCain may bleed white male support over this one.


    that is a good point (none / 0) (#171)
    by DandyTIger on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 04:47:48 AM EST
    I think some male voters who would otherwise vote for a conservative may indeed have issues. EIther with her as a woman, or maybe as a strong women, or just because of experience. If it's experience it's hard to imagine they would vote for Obama instead.

    But then in the end, I think most people vote for the top of the ticket. So who knows, maybe this won't matter that much in a few weeks. Nah, who am I kidding, the fact that a woman is on one of the tickets and an AA is on one of the tickets is indeed a big story. We'll see how it plays out.


    Because (none / 0) (#161)
    by janarchy on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 04:35:03 AM EST
    it's a pretty small sample to base an entire demographic on.

    You also might be interested to know that it's energized the PUMAs who are now pushing for their members to vote for the McCain/Palin ticket. No idea how many of them will actually do it and I'm not advocating that anyone should or shouldn't, esp if it's not in their best interest, but many of them are more indicative of the women McCain is trying to attract than not.


    So... (none / 0) (#172)
    by andrewwm on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 04:50:58 AM EST
    the idea is to support a ticket because they put on it an anti-choice, unprepared (remember, this was Hillary's key argument, that she was the most prepared/ready to be president) woman?

    I assume any woman would have done then for the PUMAs? Because there are very few others that stand more diametrically opposed to what Clinton ran on than Palin.


    A lot of them seem to feel (5.00 / 1) (#204)
    by janarchy on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 06:15:24 AM EST
    that the Democratic party has failed them. The DNC has failed them. Obama's campaign has failed them. It's been dismissive, abusive, sexist, degrading and pushed them out. They were told they weren't needed or wanted by the party and that they could sit and home and knit instead by assorted officials and surrogates. They were told they had to vote for Obama because there was nowhere else to go.

    Well, now someone's said 'We want you here.' So they're taking their votes elsewhere, and even if it's a token gesture, the Republicans are now showing more interest in women voters and a woman candidate than the Democrats.

    And no, I won't argue the logic/illogic of such thinking as this is not the place to get into the PUMA movement at all. But they've already declared publicly that they're now throwing behind McCain. Take that as you will.


    exactly (none / 0) (#148)
    by DandyTIger on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 04:23:03 AM EST
    Dems won't win because they're liberal. Repubs won't lose because they're conservative.

    1/3 vote dem when they're fired up, 1/3 repub when fired up, 1/3 can go either way. What McCain just did was fire up the rest of the 1/3 base (probably 5 point difference). And that 1/3 in the middle vote is what's left.

    And that middle doesn't vote liberal vs. conservative primarily. They vote on the economy mostly, and security and other issues secondarily (usually). So this year because of Bush, it's good to be not Bush. Obama is not Bush. McCain is of course not Bush either, but the default assumption will be that he is. Obama needs to paint him that way to make sure it stays that way. Any effort to talk about experience, and I can't believe anyone in the Obama camp could even think of doing this for a second, is time not talking about Bush. Anytime bashing the VP pick because she's a giiiiirl, is not talking about Bush. Oh, and is pissing off lots of women.

    Will they ever get it. Not so far.


    Because (5.00 / 8) (#117)
    by janarchy on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 03:58:28 AM EST
    as BTD pointed out hours ago, the Democrats are so busy crowing that they've won, pointing fingers, looking down their noses, making MILF jokes and sneering, they're failing to notice that the Republican base just wet themselves with joy over Palin, that the Conservatives now have a reason to connect with him, and the disgruntled women in the middle now have a reason to vote for McCain too.

    If anyone saw Obama and Biden give their comment today, they did not look happy. Obama was umming and erring all over the place and looked like a deer caught in the headlights. They weren't expecting this at all -- why, I don't know.

    If the Democrats want to win this year, they can't just assume they're the victors and do nothing for the next two months.


    It wasn't a pretty moment (5.00 / 3) (#142)
    by janarchy on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 04:17:26 AM EST
    If you read Obama's statement, it was very eloquent. But I saw him read it and he was fumphering and umming and looked totally dazed. It seemed it was as if they'd been caught completely unawares that she might be the VP pick and had no actual ability to respond to it. Unlike McCain's campaign who had their videos ready and waiting to smack at Biden within minutes of the roll out. Of course, McCain also managed to keep the name of his VP secret until the very moment he wanted it to, whereas the Obama campaign bollixed that one up too.

    This is the Democrats election to lose. One of the reasons I don't have loads of confidence in Obama is the way everything in the GE has been handled. Considering the way most Americans feel about the Republican party right now, he should be ahead by huge margins and he's not. McCain keeps coming up with ads that the Democrats scoff at, but wind up being really effective.

    While I suspect that Obama will probably win, I wouldn't take it as a sure bet. Overconfidence is a bad thing.


    They weren't expecting this (5.00 / 3) (#169)
    by splashy on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 04:45:50 AM EST
    Because they haven't been listening to the people that supported Hillary at all. If they had, they would have known. This has been talked about as a possibility on many of the Hillary supporting blogs that I have been reading, as a response to Hillary being pushed out without decent treatment.

    It's amazing to me that the Dems had a chance to grab this and run with it by asking Hillary to be in the VP slot, or even having a real vote, but they didn't want that. It's astonishing!


    The television view of (none / 0) (#178)
    by Grace on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 05:01:35 AM EST
    Obama and Biden today showed two men clearly not happy about what happened.  Biden's smile was an upside down C.  I don't think I've ever seen Biden look so down -- but then I haven't looked at Biden a lot either.  (Usually he's looked wild when I've seen him!:))

    I think the Obama campaign's ... (5.00 / 1) (#124)
    by Robot Porter on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 04:03:25 AM EST
    Malox budget rose by about 1000% this morning.

    I agree with you. (none / 0) (#116)
    by lilburro on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 03:57:48 AM EST
    But watching the Republican talking heads is also driving me nutty.  I haven't read a single serious thing about Palin all day - and that eventually is going to be thrown back on McCain, because it's his running mate.

    Will the GOP play the part (none / 0) (#147)
    by Edgar08 on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 04:22:52 AM EST
    Of Holden Caulfield, maybe so?

    But who would vote for Holden Caulfield? (none / 0) (#154)
    by lilburro on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 04:26:59 AM EST
    holden was pretty creepy (none / 0) (#185)
    by Edgar08 on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 05:22:04 AM EST
    and needed to get a life, but some of those phonies were pretty phony too.

    i suppose that's the most cynical way to look at it.


    If she becomes president (none / 0) (#160)
    by s5 on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 04:31:36 AM EST
    We'll get zombie Jerry Falwell and zombie St. Ronald Reagan on the bench.

    Am I missing something here? (none / 0) (#206)
    by kimsaw on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 06:31:03 AM EST
    In a Dem. year the Supreme Court argument is weak. Doesn't Congress play an important role in the appointment of a Supreme Court justice? Isn't part of Biden's problem how he handled the Thomas nomination? It looks like Congress will be loaded with Dems and they may even get their 60 threshold in the Senate, so if they can't say no to a McCain pick or even Sustein tell me why they are in office? Dems have to learn to fight and stand up, complaining about the potential for another conservative on the bench doesn't cut it. Words into action and not capitulation is what I'm looking for.

    Dems inexperience argument could backfire! (none / 0) (#193)
    by sajmba on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 06:00:16 AM EST
    Dems really need to chill out. If anything, anytime the Dems open their mouths to criticise about Sarah Palin's "inexperience" as a VP candidatee they highlight that Obama as a Pres candidate has just as much "inexperience" as Sarah Palin. This argument can backfire on them. Also, if you want to talk about executive experience this woman has more of that then the three other candidates have combined. She has run as a mayor and Governor, what has Barack or Biden done on an executive level where you take direct responsibility for decisions you make. This is a bold choice and as an independent this does appeal to me at some level. Question is will Sarah Palin be able to sustain that appeal. Score 1 to McCain post DNC.

    Palin and Gay Rights (none / 0) (#205)
    by bmc on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 06:17:20 AM EST

    She opposes same-sex marriage, but she has stated that she has gay friends and is receptive to gay and lesbian concerns about discrimination.[9] While the previous administration did not implement same-sex benefits, Palin complied with a state Supreme Court order and signed them into law.[28] She disagreed with the Supreme Court ruling[29] and supported a democratic advisory vote from the public on whether there should be a constitutional amendment on the matter.[30] Alaska was one of the first U.S. states to pass a constitutional ban on gay marriage, in 1998, along with Hawaii.[31] Palin has stated that she supported the 1998 constitutional amendment.[9]

    Palin's first veto was used to block legislation that would have barred the state from granting benefits to the partners of gay state employees. In effect, her veto granted State of Alaska benefits to same-sex couples. The veto occurred after Palin consulted with Alaska's attorney general on the constitutionality of the legislation.[29]

    Creationism in the science class... (none / 0) (#209)
    by kredwyn on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 07:51:26 AM EST
    Look...this whole thing hasn't been about teaching creationism in the science class.

    It has been about trying to equate a pseudo-scientific theory (creationism) with a scientific theory (Evolution).

    They aren't equal. But that doesn't mean that the creationism theory can't be used to explain the difference between scientific theories and pseudo-science.

    What Palin said was that she thought the debate would be healthy. And frankly, coming from a "teaching critical thinking skills POV," she's right. Debate can be a healthy part of the learning experience.

    What really bothers me here is that there's a kneejerk reaction vis a vis creationism=bad/evolution=good when the whole debate is A LOT more convoluted when it comes to who wants to ban what and why.

    I believe McCain mad a historic choice to provide (none / 0) (#211)
    by Salt on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 09:00:12 AM EST
    choice to women, who wish to also see one of their own in the WH a group greatly attack during the Dem primary and his decision was brave and wise.  Palin is the a popular govoner whose run and win of Alaska's Governorship embodies change from the good ole boys club of politics as usual and she has a State budget of 6.6 B.  She actually has walked the talk check her out. And stop with the dumb name calling women can be attractive and smart don't you know Quayle CODE is unbecoming she is obviously not, however it is true she did not attend Harvard.

    then we won;t have to worry about who will be put on the supreme court. of course that would mean democrats actually acting like democrats.

    but honestly these kinds of scare tactics aren't very convincing anymore.

    I think people should vote for McCain... (none / 0) (#213)
    by NvlAv8r on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 09:12:05 AM EST
    Just because he had the guts to choose a woman.  Especially a woman whose viewpoints are so against so many of the issues that are important to women.  Much like lower income folks who voted Bush in office twice against their own interests because he is the candidate you would most like to have a beer with.<snark>

    Super...she is a woman.  I wish society were such that we could get beyond that and look at her resume and where she stands on the issues.  I didn't like the sexism put forth in the primaries toward Hillary, but it doesn't bother me so much that I will put in office a president that promises to extend the disastrous policies of Bush.  

    As for McCain's health.  If you are not considering his health, you really should.  Not just his age, but it has been shown that the deprivations endured by POWs have lasting effects on our vets.  On average they die earlier than their counterparts who were not POWs.  Mentioning that is not a medical diagnosis, it is reality.

    Hunter has a good line (none / 0) (#214)
    by Johannes on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 10:09:06 AM EST
    He anticipates a new campaign slogan from McCain/Palin:

    "Drilling for Jesus."

    Comment Correction, (none / 0) (#216)
    by KeysDan on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 11:13:45 AM EST
    I noted a commenter stating that we got Scalia as a replacement for Bork.  Not so, Reagan needed three tries to replace Lewis Powell: the unhinged confirmations of Robert Bork, followed by the embarassing Douglas Ginsberg, and, finally, the confirmation of Anthony Kennedy. This series of appointments occurred in 1987; Anton Scalia was appointed by Reagan in 1986. Also, with regard to Governor Palin's veto of a bill to block the state from granting health benefits to same-sex partners, the NYT reports that Ms. Palin did so because it was unconstittuional, but raised the possibility of amending the state constitution so the ban could pass muster.  While Ms. Palin's selection may have been disingenous, it is a source of pride for both women and men to have a ticket that "looks like America", in paraphrase of Bill Clinton's cabinet goals.  But we do need to look at Ms. Palin's ideology, just as otherwise proud African Americans look at Clarence Thomas--not a friend of progressive causes.

    So if McCain becomes (none / 0) (#217)
    by Bluesage on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 11:51:52 AM EST
    Unable to serve??  This seems to be the new talking point now - McCain's impending death.  It's morbid and stupid.