If You Must Make The Argument . . .

And I believe it is a bad idea (remember McCain is much much more experienced than Obama), then this is the way to do it - hoist them with their own petard:

Republican strategist Karl Rove said on Face The Nation Sunday that he expects presumptive Democratic nominee Barack Obama to choose a running mate based on political calculations, not the person's readiness for the job. . . . Rove singled out Virginia governor Tim Kaine, also a Face The Nation guest, as an example of such a pick.

"With all due respect again to Governor Kaine, he's been a governor for three years, he's been able but undistinguished," Rove said. "I don't think people could really name a big, important thing that he's done. He was mayor of the 105th largest city in America. . . So if he were to pick Governor Kaine, it would be an intensely political choice where he said, `You know what? I'm really not, first and foremost, concerned with, is this person capable of being president of the United States."

BTW, how about Rove's argument? You think the Left blogs would have been saying "you know, Rove has a point" if Obama had selected Kaine? Me neither.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

< Early Saturday Sarah Palin Thread | Obama Runs New Ad After Palin Selection >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Palin (5.00 / 5) (#1)
    by Coral on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 07:23:32 AM EST
    My feeling is that if anyone needs to spend time attacking Palin, the best approach is to attack her political policies and ideology. Her environmental views are a disaster, for example.

    As you observe, McCain certainly does have the credentials and experience. It's not the experience, but how that experience would be applied to the job of President that worries me.

    The Obama campaign would do best to sidestep Palin -- and some of the tricky gender issues involved in personal attacks on her.

    Especially annoying are some of the attacks on her on other blogs that I've read -- implying that her family responsibilities (young children, etc.) preclude her ability to be vice president or to spend enough time on the campaign.

    After all, the Obamas have young children, too. And that hasn't kept either of them from campaigning vigorously all year long.

    I think (5.00 / 4) (#3)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 07:26:17 AM EST
    we can see just how politically obtuse some on our side are.

    Only if... (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by Brillo on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 07:41:57 AM EST
    You believe that Obama's inexperience is comparable to Palin's inexperience...  Personally, I don't.  The two are on completely different planes.  

    Now, Obama certainly has less experience than McCain, just as he had less experience than Senator Clinton and most of the rest of the Democratic primary  candidates.  But he's got significantly more experience than Palin.  And more importantly, he has I believe, demonstrated that he has the capacity to be President, in spite of how much time he has (or hasn't) spent in government.  I don't think that Palin does.  

    Do you?  


    Obama is running against McCain (5.00 / 6) (#17)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 07:47:35 AM EST
    not Palin.

    If you are arguing experience is a big factor in deciding who should be Vice President, then you are making an argument for McCain.


    I'm Not... (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by Brillo on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 08:00:55 AM EST
    Making that argument, or saying it should be made.  I agree with you that it shouldn't.  However, the argument is correct.  

    Exactly! "Experience" is a trap (5.00 / 4) (#54)
    by myiq2xu on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 08:17:08 AM EST
    for Democrats.

    It's like McCain is daring them to make an issue of her experience, and the Democrats can't resist the cheese.

    The need to go after her on the issues, and not look like they are piling on the way they did to you-know-who.

    Otherwise, the GOP gets to look like the party that supports and defends women.


    I'm Actually... (5.00 / 4) (#23)
    by Brillo on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 07:57:04 AM EST
    Concerned with keeping rabid right wingers out of the White House.  The fact that she might not have to immediately assume the mantle of the presidency and begin destroying everything I've worked for my whole life isn't really comforting to me.  

    I guess this is kinda off-topic though.  We should go back to talking about whether she has the experience necessary to begin dismantling everything important to me.  I'm still gonna go with, 'No'.  


    I wish I could give this comment a million 5s (5.00 / 3) (#49)
    by indy in sc on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 08:13:38 AM EST
    and I wish you worked for the O campaign.  They have had the exact wrong response on this so far (except for the statement put out by Obama/Biden after the initial terrible response).  Focus on the policies that are disasterous for women and the country at large.  All of their surrogates should be given these marching orders.

    Actually... (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by Brillo on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 08:23:35 AM EST
    And at risk of being told I need to watch more of the Teevees again, most of the responses after about noon yesterday looked exactly like that.  Yeah, there was some initial stuff about how unqualified she was, but most of what I heard from the campaign and surrogates later on focused on how horrible she is on the issues.  Many with the perfunctory "Grats on making history!" lines.  

    Heck, I've heard more conservatives in the MSM making the 'unqualified' argument than I have Dems.  But again, I may need to watch more of the teevees.  


    But focus on them accurately (5.00 / 3) (#127)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 11:18:47 AM EST
    So far, the Dem talking points on Palin have included some tremendous distortions and half-truths.

    I have heard she is more of a libertarian (5.00 / 2) (#73)
    by BernieO on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 08:34:52 AM EST
    on social issues. Socially conservative herself, but not going out of her way to impose it on others. Her veto of a bill that banned the partners of gay state employees from getting benefits suggests this is true. Also she apparently has not pushed a lot on the abortion issue except for a parental notification bill which a lot of moderates support. Her statement on creationism being "discussed" in school was not a call for it to be taught in science classes which is not a small point. People who are on the front lines fighting the creationists say that there is nothing wrong with it being discussed in a comparative religions or issues class, just not in science class.

    She seems to have made a bigger issue of corruption than anything else which is a real plus for McCain given the image the party now has. I hope he has the guts to speak to this issue.

    I think the inexperience issue goes more against Obama than Palin. It is not uncommon for VP's to be a lot less experienced, but not the guy on the top. I think that was a big problem with John Edwards when he ran against Kerry. He had not been a Senator that long and it bothered a lot of people (since he had not run big company or something like that before). But no one complained about him as VP. Surely being a mayor, even of a small town and then a governor for two years is as experienced as Edwards was. As for foreign policy experience, Obama better hope that the fact that he has never held even one policy meeting of the subcommitttee on European affairs that he chairs becomes a talking point. Most people do not know about this and it really looks bad.

    Palin took on the corrupt bosses in her local party while Obama befriended those in his. He has avoided taking controversial stands in order to further his political career. I think the Dems need to leave this alone.


    Voce of reason (5.00 / 1) (#133)
    by RalphB on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 11:29:48 AM EST
    Thanks for being straight about her.  I've seen more lies about this woman perpetuated in the last 24 hours than I've ever seen before.

    Seems like people just take a couple of words and make something up out of whole cloth about it.  It's despicable and, for the first time that I'm aware of, TL has been guilty of it.

    Saw an interview with the editor of the Juneau paper last night who talked about her in positively glowing terms.  That meant more to me than all the petty BS'ers on the intertubes.


    That's THE Reason. n/t (none / 0) (#34)
    by Brillo on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 08:06:39 AM EST
    Yes that's the only reason. (5.00 / 3) (#51)
    by Maria Garcia on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 08:14:15 AM EST
    ...on issues I think the vast majority of Democrats would say no to Palin, but this election doesn't want to be run on issues, does it? Ridiculous and unfortunate, IMHO. What I have seen is Democrats tear into this woman on some very personal levels. Its deja vu all over again. I've said a million times that I won't vote for McCain under any circumstances. There were 2 diaries on DKOS trying to "prove" that Palin faked her last pregnancy. Do Democrats need to go there? I mean, really?

    This (5.00 / 3) (#26)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 07:59:18 AM EST
    is such a loser argument. If you are arguing that Palin isn't qualified to be VP because of the remote possibility that McCain will die in office then you are also arguing that Obama should not be elected because he will be unqualified on day one.

    and these shouts set her up (none / 0) (#76)
    by sancho on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 08:40:08 AM EST
    to look good later if she just performs passably.
    as happened win 2000 with bush. (not that i thought he passed.)

    I would say the odds of (none / 0) (#129)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 11:23:43 AM EST
    her being a rather extraordinarily capable person and a fast learner are fairly high, given that she went from small-town mayor to governor of a geographically very large state with a large number of very complex issues to manage without any significant missteps that I've heard about, at least.

    What ever happened to "Being President (none / 0) (#143)
    by Christy1947 on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 12:35:52 PM EST
    job where  you can do 'on the job training.'? the whole meme being put out to excuse Palin's exceeding thin resume is that she'll get training as VP and it will be OK then. thereby as with Bush ceding the government to unelected persons who like Cheney run the government out of our sight and out of any control with Bush as a front. Apparently on the job training is OK for Republicans, and for those whose idea of the most important principle of all, better by far than the good of the country is to punish O and the Dems for whatever it is the speaker wants to punish them for.

    I am not supporting her (5.00 / 3) (#18)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 07:48:11 AM EST
    I am condemning the sexism she is facing.

    A little OT (5.00 / 2) (#22)
    by Claw on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 07:55:34 AM EST
    But can you imagine what a Palin/Clinton debate would look like?  You could make it PPV.  Biden's biggest job on the campaign trail is going to be not sounding like a jerk (something he sometimes has a hard time with).  I still think this is a hail mary, but I grudgingly agree that we should just let the media go after her for us.  

    That would be great! (5.00 / 2) (#42)
    by robrecht on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 08:10:40 AM EST
    Of course, a more fair fight would be Obama v Palin in the VP debate.  But, it's a moot point since Palin would never have been chosen if Hillary had been the nominee or the running mate.  Had Obama asked Hillary to be his running mate, we'd be picking out drapes for the Oval Office.

    Feminists will be (5.00 / 2) (#50)
    by magisterludi on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 08:13:54 AM EST
    joining the ranks of the GOP?

    This is insane.


    Reap what you sow (5.00 / 3) (#126)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 11:16:00 AM EST
    You greatly underestimate the quiet rage many women feel that has been building up over the course of their lives.  Everybody has a different point when they stand up and scream, Not going to take it anymore!

    There will be a fair number of even liberal women for whom this election will be that point.

    Haven't decided myself, but I haven't ruled it out, either.


    No way I could vote for McCain/Palin (none / 0) (#144)
    by otherlisa on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 02:13:32 PM EST
    Her environmental stances (from what I know so far) alone would stop me.

    But the immediate bilge tide of misogyny directed at her from people who are supposed to be on my side - "progressives" - makes me ill.

    I don't see the pick as tokenism - and if you think that it is, what do you call Obama's selection? I think it is smart politics from McCain. The confusion and uproar the choice has provoked on the so-called "Left" demonstrates why it is smart.


    Uhh... (none / 0) (#15)
    by Brillo on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 07:46:07 AM EST
    The MSM coverage of her has been overwhelmingly positive.  Lots of talk of her 'maverickiness' and moosburgers.

    You really do not believe that do you? (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 07:49:04 AM EST
    Indeed, that is another point. Dems do not need to do the dirty work on Palin in any case. the Media is doing it for them.

    Really? (5.00 / 2) (#44)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 08:10:48 AM EST
    My Obama loving newspaper screamed about how McCain had made BOLD pick with a VP candidate who is known as a "reformer" and a "maverick".

    The argument I keep hearing (5.00 / 3) (#71)
    by sancho on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 08:34:28 AM EST
    is that the only way to make the Democrats understand that the voice of women matters is to vote for McCain/Palin. I've heard some women say that voting for Obama at this point is like an abused wife returning to her spouse. The Dem Congress' behavior on Alito does not suggest that Roe is a top priorority for them--mostly they use it as a political threat. Finally, the glass ceiling for women is a more important issue for many women than any other--especially after the contemptuous way Hillary's candidacy was treated by so many male democrats.

    I am not voting for McCain (5.00 / 4) (#104)
    by MichaelGale on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 09:11:45 AM EST
    but if the sexist attacks continue with Palin, I may do something else, like stay home.

    I read what someone posted pornographic commentary from a Prog blog and I'm just saying THAT it has to stop. All those months with Clinton and the vile commentary and then more of the same for another woman.....it will back fire.

    In addition, female commentators and reporters jumping on the bandwagon of "let's see how down and dirty we can get" when speaking of her" is also beginning to get disgusting also.

    McCain?...then keep it up.


    This is pretty much where I am (none / 0) (#145)
    by otherlisa on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 02:14:45 PM EST
    I won't vote for McCain but I might leave the top of the ticket blank.

    Conservative Blacks... (none / 0) (#77)
    by Brillo on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 08:42:39 AM EST
    Have been making this argument for the rest of us for ages.  We still refuse to fall for it.

    really? (none / 0) (#92)
    by sancho on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 08:56:33 AM EST
    conservative blacks have argued that women should vote republican in order to chasten the democratic party? when did they start doing that.

    Wow. The only person I've heard (none / 0) (#142)
    by oculus on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 12:10:43 PM EST
    even suggest that is the PUMA spokesperson on MSNBC yesterday.  

    Slightly Limited... (none / 0) (#27)
    by Brillo on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 07:59:33 AM EST
    I suppose.  I've read a handful of online stories and watched an evening PBS.  If she's being treated as something other than the second coming of John McCain 2000 in other places, I'll gladly admit to being wrong.  But that's how she's being portrayed in what I've seen.  

    I Totally... (none / 0) (#41)
    by Brillo on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 08:10:36 AM EST
    Have time to sit around and watch all the cable news shows all day...  Sorry, but a handful of big MSM news sources is fine with me.  

    That's fine, but (none / 0) (#125)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 11:10:47 AM EST
    then don't give yourself permission to opine grandly on what "the media" is or isn't saying.  Right?

    BTD A question does Palin help in Pennsylvania? (none / 0) (#86)
    by WelshWoman on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 08:53:16 AM EST
    Also do you think McCain could be running on fixing as opposed to change.

    Obama picked Buden didn't exactly reinforce his change mantra.

    McCain picks someone who has taken on corruption in her own party. The broken ad just seems to pop into my mind.


    I have no idea (none / 0) (#91)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 08:55:27 AM EST
    The Palins both are union members (none / 0) (#120)
    by Cream City on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 10:44:16 AM EST
    she said, and that may help in Pennsylvania -- and Ohio and Michigan and Wisconsin, actually.  Hmmm, I wonder when last we had a union member on a presidential ticket?  Or even as a spouse?

    There is so much more to be worried about with the Palin pick than her gender.  We'll see how long it takes the so-called libruls to smarten up on this.

    That said, I also have to think it's a huge gamble for gender reasons -- but not because of women.  As in every recent election, it is men that are the worrisome group for Dems.  White, working-class men -- although just saying so will get me called a racist like Clinton, I know.  But like Clinton, I do not have time or patience for the fools who said and would say so.  

    So: I have to wonder how the Palin pick will play with those voters in Pennsylvania, Ohio, et al.  As BTD said, a big gamble.


    Don't think for a moment (5.00 / 1) (#124)
    by Pianobuff on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 10:59:43 AM EST
    That along the way, it won't be pointed out in their formative years Palin was a union worker and McCain was a soldier while Obama and Biden were...ahem... laywers.

    I agree... this line of attack (5.00 / 3) (#16)
    by Exeter on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 07:47:18 AM EST
    is only bringing up alot of the bad feelings of sexism that I felt during the primaries.

    The PUMA women are having flashbacks (5.00 / 4) (#62)
    by myiq2xu on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 08:24:19 AM EST
    "There they go again" is a common reaction.

    Attacks on Palin are like poking at half-healed scar tissue for women still angry about what happened to Hillary.

    That's why picking Palin was a brilliant move.


    Yeh. It wasn't about THAT woman (5.00 / 3) (#121)
    by Cream City on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 10:49:25 AM EST
    as well we knew.  But that was a convenient cover.

    The sexists and misogynists blew that cover yesterday.  And for that, I watched with glee as the fools did it to themselves again.  We didn't have to lift a ladylike finger this time to tsk at them.  But there is another finger for them that I have at the ready. :-)

    I was sorry to see the cover fly off of some I had misread, like Begala.  But better we know who they are now.  Because we're not going away.  We haven't gone away for a century and a half now.  

    They're back, but we're baaaaaaaaack.  Bwwwaaaahhh.


    I don't have a problem (none / 0) (#97)
    by parttime on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 09:00:06 AM EST
    I don't have a problem that McCain politically is requesting my vote with his VP choice. If Obama camp came after my vote I'd feel better too, but I still feel they don't care.. They still keep up the attitude:

    Barack: I can get Hillary's supporters, but I don't know if she can get mine.
    Michelle: I am not sure if I can vote for Hillary if she wins.
    Brazile: Democrats do not need working class voters this election, creative class is enough.
    DNC: They'll come around, where else will they go?
    MSM: There will be street riots in Denver if Hillary gets the nomination

    I don't know about you, but how can I vote for somebody that threatens his way through so shamelessly? Now they are blaming McCain for being after my vote. Do and say anything to get elected...


    Good one, BTD! (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by robrecht on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 07:25:55 AM EST
    Won't quite work with repugs, though, since they'll surely claim that Palin has distinguished herself quite well, despite the fact that they didn't know who she was.

    She's been on the list (5.00 / 3) (#8)
    by kredwyn on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 07:39:44 AM EST
    for months. I started hearing rumblings about her back in April.

    I know (none / 0) (#11)
    by robrecht on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 07:43:37 AM EST
    She was also being suggested as Romney's running mate by someone.  All I meant is that most Republicans and Democrats alike probably did not know who she was prior to the pick.

    probably... (5.00 / 3) (#24)
    by kredwyn on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 07:57:07 AM EST
    I gotta admit, I was kind of surprised by the reaction yesterday...especially here where so many people have been paying attention to the primaries and the run up to the conventions.

    It was like watching the various stages of grief all smush together into one short period of time.


    VPs do a lot of things (5.00 / 3) (#4)
    by Fabian on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 07:35:01 AM EST
    They send a message:
    Biden - Experience.
    Palin - Change, kind of.

    They improve the chances of a win, whether through voter turnout(Palin) or increasing the voters' comfort level(Biden).

    They are often expected to act as attack dogs, so the presidential candidate can keep his hands clean.
    Biden - to be determined.
    Plain - to be determined.
    Clinton - excellent atta- ....huh, how'd she get in there?  She's not the VP pick!

    Symbolism and pandering to critical demographics.
    Palin - a LOT of demos, guns, hunting, small town, rural, Native American and women, of course.
    Biden - white men and ???

    5000 Downs babies born every year in U.S (5.00 / 3) (#69)
    by Burned on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 08:31:04 AM EST
    I'd put a lot of those families in her column just because she gives the Downs community so much exposure.
    She covers a lot of bases.

    The Dems are going to have to tread very carefully with her.


    As for Biden (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by Burned on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 08:38:03 AM EST
    I guess it's white men and my 78 year old solidly liberal mom. He is the only reason she is voting at all.
    This would have been her first time skipping a presidential election.She also switched from Dem to Independent during the primary.

    Comfort level. (none / 0) (#78)
    by Fabian on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 08:43:03 AM EST
    Obama got that much with Biden.

    Yes, focus on McCain not Palin (5.00 / 3) (#5)
    by barryluda on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 07:35:36 AM EST
    Criticism of Palin's lack of experience probably hurts Obama more than helps him.  But there's no need since McCain's choice of Palin really undermines one of his biggest clubs against Obama.  Obama seems like he has tons of experience next to Palin.  More to the point, the two tickets now seem about balanced in that regards.

    I do like the argument that the VP pick is an early indicator of the types of judgments each candidate would make.  Are they politically motivated or for the good of the country?  What do they tell us about the policies each would endorse?

    Really? (5.00 / 3) (#9)
    by Wile ECoyote on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 07:41:53 AM EST
    Obama seems like he has tons of experience next to Palin.

    Please outline Obamas experience from his 143 days working in the Senate.

    IMO, Obama's best strategy would be to not even mention Palin.  Put her in the Wright, Grandma, Ayers box and keep the lid closed.


    You getting your facts from Limbaugh? (none / 0) (#47)
    by barryluda on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 08:13:15 AM EST
    You make a good point that even comparing Obama to Palin doesn't make Obama look like he has tons of experience.  That wasn't my main point.  I was thinking about her 20 months in office verses Obama's eight years in the IL senate before his two years in the US Senate.

    I gather you're looking to Limbaugh for your facts about Obama's 143 days of experience?

    In any event, I agree the best strategy is to not even mention Palin.  As I say, keep the focus on McCain.


    I only (none / 0) (#116)
    by Wile ECoyote on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 10:28:21 AM EST
    get my facts from TChris (economic) har!, and BTD everything else.

    20 months (none / 0) (#138)
    by RalphB on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 11:45:08 AM EST
    She has been in public office since 1992.

    I meant Governor's Office, but you're right (none / 0) (#148)
    by barryluda on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 09:00:13 AM EST
    Her public office experience began in 1992 with her being on the Wasilla city council and then the mayer of the same city.

    The response is really simple... (5.00 / 7) (#6)
    by kredwyn on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 07:38:09 AM EST
    "Of course politics and voters reactions are considered when choosing a running mate. Next?"

    An important distinction: this is VP (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by Exeter on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 07:45:01 AM EST
    This is not the president we are talking about, its the VP... who usually doesn't do much more than attend funerals and ribbon cuttings. Yes, McCain could keel over in two or three years, but there is no medical indication that will happen and if it does she will have had the experience of being VP for two or three years.

    And if having a "distinguished previous career" is a requirement, you would have to eliminate most of the presidents and vice presidents this century.

    They should have been prepared (5.00 / 6) (#14)
    by mmc9431 on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 07:45:28 AM EST
    Her name has been thrown out for months now and yet the Obama camp and his surrogates were caught completely flat footed. When Biden was announced the Rep had a game plan all laid out and they (as usual) all marched in step. The attacks on Palin have been all over the place. They're throwing anything they can think of out their in the hopes that something might stick. It comes off as sour grapes.

    They planned for "female VP candidate" (5.00 / 5) (#20)
    by Exeter on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 07:50:14 AM EST
    That's why we saw this ridiculous, patronizing parade yesterday of every Democratic woman official coming out and ripping into Palin. Wisconsin Lt. Gov Barbara Lawton even said that Palin was to "fragile" to be President. Embarassing.

    Ugh...too fragile? (5.00 / 5) (#21)
    by Maria Garcia on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 07:53:35 AM EST
    Too fragile (5.00 / 6) (#46)
    by befuddledvoter on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 08:11:55 AM EST
    Palin hunts and kills what she eats.  LOL  Lifelong NRA member.  

    i wont vote for her but (5.00 / 4) (#103)
    by Democratic Cat on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 09:08:44 AM EST
    I definitely support her. I'm thrilled that he picked a woman. We knew he was going to pick someone completely wrong on the issues. After all, he's running for the GOP, it's not like Dennis Kucinich was on his short list. But I admire her for who she is.

    Hillary was the class act yesterday. And Obama seems to have clued in about how to approach this. But Hillary's instincts again proved superior to the great majority of the Dem politicians.


    The men were as bad or worse (5.00 / 4) (#38)
    by myiq2xu on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 08:08:40 AM EST
    Sometimes the smart move is keeping your mouth shut.

    As in "If you can't say something nice, don't say nothing at all."


    Oh, no. Not Lawton, too. (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by Cream City on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 09:02:11 AM EST
    Link?  I'll go look, but I'm really disappointed, if so.  Lawton has been so smart and so good on so much, and really has faced a battle here.  

    I have another fund appeal from her on my desk.  It will stay there for a while, while I go see. . . .


    Now, Gabriel, you must know about Lawton (5.00 / 1) (#122)
    by Cream City on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 10:52:22 AM EST
    something that I don't know, since you gave that a 1.

    Interesting; I didn't know you're in Wisconsin.  Have I seen you at the Lawton events, where I have been for years now?  So what do you know that justifies that 1 about my dismay at what she said?

    (And yes, now I found it.  It's not as bad as put here.  But it's bad.  And she will hear from me.)


    And when they throw anything (5.00 / 12) (#52)
    by Cream City on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 08:15:15 AM EST
    in hope that it might stick, the problem is worse than sour grapes.  They're not throwing those grapes.  They're throwing her life story at people who may share parts of it or simply admire it.

    For almost 24 hours now, the stuff thrown has stuck -- to a lot of voters who also just got attacked for, let's see: having jobs, wanting better jobs, having kids, keeping kids with disabilities (and, gasp, loving them), living in small towns, gun owners. . . .

    Well, that's gotta be more than half of America right there.

    And let's toss in those who were in beauty contests because that's a way that women of our age could get college scholarships.  As Palin did.  Because then and since, even women athletes such as Palin can't get the big football scholarships.  

    (Really, so many guys just don't get that this is an attraction of beauty contests for the working class.  I have had several students enter them -- and win -- for just that reason: scholarships.  And they get dissed for it.  But if they were guys who wanted to get to college by putting on big pads and running into other guys on a football field, oh, that way of using their bodies is okay.  Because society gets to decide that men's bodies can be used if they're covered with pads and spikes and used to hurt people, but women's bodies only can be used if they're uncovered and used to please those people who are, guess what, men.)

    Let's throw stuff at the mooseburger lovers, too.   And it's not condiments being thrown, although I have no idea which condiments complement moose.  And I don't want to know.  I do know a lot of venison lovers here in deer-hunting country, and I bet that this nonsense is sticking to them, too.

    Me, I share little of her life story -- except the last almost-24 hours of it in terms of how she is being treated.  It's not enough to make me vote for her and McCain.  I cannot imagine what could make me do so, even if she were my sister.  (And by the way, I do admire that the gov tried to help her sister and children who were being beaten and abused.  I don't know if how the gov did so was legal or not, and I'm not a lawyer, but we have seen pols put in prison for all sorts of trumped-up stuff lately and discussed that here, haven't we?  So I don't need to go to law school  to say: innocent until proven guilty.)  

    Nope, I can't imagine voting for her.  But I can imagine that how so many so-called libruls handle the next 24 hours could continue to convince me not to   vote for or with them, either.  

    Because those so-called libruls have shown me, yet again, that they are not educable.  They have not listened, they have learned nothing.  And that makes for lousy followers and lousy leaders.


    Yes (5.00 / 4) (#66)
    by chrisvee on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 08:28:25 AM EST
    Nope, I can't imagine voting for her.  But I can imagine that how so many so-called libruls handle the next 24 hours could continue to convince me not to   vote for or with them, either.  

    I said yesterday that I thought this was one of the reasons behind McCain's pick. He may not get the votes, but he can suppress Obama's vote.

    I'm disgusted that a woman who is governor of her state is being referred to as a token pick.


    You said it (5.00 / 3) (#96)
    by Cream City on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 09:00:00 AM EST
    and more succinctly, as usual. :-)

    Suppressing turnout is how Republicans win.  This time, they may not have to do it illegally.  Or do rain dances, either.  (In the big blue cities like mine in the North, that's the best way to keep down working-class and poor voting blocs: bad weather that makes it just too hard to take a bus to the polls.  Btw, that worked for Obama here in the primaries.  But early November is not February.)


    Cream City, (5.00 / 4) (#84)
    by Angel on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 08:50:30 AM EST
    You always say what I'm thinking.  From now on it will be just "ditto" to your comments.  I wish I had time to sit here and join the conversation but I've got to get to the airport and get my sister-in-law and her husband, they're here until Wednesday.  So keep up the great comments and know there is at least one person here who thinks you are the best.

    Silly gneralization (5.00 / 2) (#31)
    by mmc9431 on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 08:04:14 AM EST
    I really don't believe woman are going to march in lock step to support her because she's a woman. If her political views don't line up with their's it won't happen. The danger to me is if people pound her on drivel, she may be percieved as the victim. In that case all bets are off.

    It's the "Tweety Effect" (5.00 / 5) (#43)
    by myiq2xu on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 08:10:47 AM EST
    When the media line up to bash a woman for being a woman, women rally to her side

    To be fair (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by indy in sc on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 08:30:46 AM EST
    Palin and McCain's camp are also making this about her woman-ness (trying--thus far sucessfully--to bait the MSM into responding on that basis).  If you heard her speech yesterday (which I thought was very solid), she played that up.

    The Rs all have the talking points now.  It's clear they didn't yesterday as some of them were caught off guard with nothing specific to say about her other than "this is a bold choice."  Now everyone of them I have heard today is calling her a "maverick outsider."  The Dems need counter that image by showing her to be a right-wing ideologue and stop focusing on the experience factor.  

    I don't think the Dems should put too much focus on her at all as she is the VP pick and they should focus on top of the ticket.  Any attention they choose to place on her should be spent showing how she's no different than McCain (in fact, she's to the right of him on some important issues).  If anything, that is what should be used to impeach her.  Anything else is stepping into an unneccesary minefield.


    To be fair, Dems taking their cues (none / 0) (#123)
    by Cream City on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 10:53:46 AM EST
    from Republicans is exactly the problem.  And they repeated it yesterday.  Fools.

    This should all be about Presidential judgment. (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by steviez314 on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 08:05:44 AM EST
    Obama made the judgment than Biden would best help him govern.

    McCain made the judgment that Palin would best help him politically.

    Now, voters may decide that politics is more important than governing, but look how well that worked for the past 8 years.

    Besides, McCain met her ONCE.  I vetted my kids' nannies more carefully than that.

    Did you hire your nanny from Alaska? (5.00 / 2) (#59)
    by Cream City on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 08:22:18 AM EST
    This is, now that at least some of us know more as you apparently do not, another unwise argument.

    Apparently, though, you actually are considering hiring the Republican ticket.  I might expect that  retrograde political views would lead to retrograde views on the use of that newfangled 21st-century technologies for interviewing.  (But that sly dog McCain who claimed to be so untechie, ha.)

    But you're capable of using a computer, so perhaps you are capable of actually analyzing Palin on the issues.  Let's see.


    amazing thing telephones... (5.00 / 4) (#101)
    by kredwyn on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 09:05:40 AM EST
    oh...and yeah, Obama made a political choice when it came to selecting Biden. Ostensibly, Biden's FP experience helps cover Obama's six in one of the areas in which he's weak.

    So while governing was in there. Political came into play as well.


    How on earth did you make THIS distinction? (5.00 / 4) (#110)
    by Ellie on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 09:49:02 AM EST
    Obama made the judgment than Biden would best help him govern.

    McCain made the judgment that Palin would best help him politically.

    So Obama didn't pick Biden as a political move to appease concerns about his own lack of DC and foreign policy experience, gravitas, appeal to Catholic, male &or working class voters, white voters, &c?

    And McCain didn't pick an energetic, younger, bold self-made woman with diverse personal and professional experience to help him govern ...

    ... and you know this because ... ?


    Frankly (5.00 / 3) (#36)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 08:08:12 AM EST
    I think the best thing to do is ignore Palin and go after McCain. Obama's campaign is apparently more full of idiots than I realized. When their back is against the wall, they revert to their losing divisive primary strategy. McCain set a trap and Obama walked right into it.

    As far as Kaine goes, I don't think anyone would have cared if he was picked if he didn't exacerbate the inexperience of Obama.

    I'm anxious to see some polling and how all this plays out. I imagine that Obama will lose the slight advantage he has in the polls right now. It's probably going to be tied until election day.

    Fox news (5.00 / 2) (#39)
    by PlayInPeoria on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 08:08:55 AM EST
    It hurt!! But I went there anyhow. It's like more of the same .... as a matter of fact... go to any blog and it is the same.

    Palin is no longer an unknown. Everytime the inexperience come up... McCain is winning ... because now.... it is all about McCain/Palin.

    McCain gave the Repub Party what it needs ....buuuuzzzzzz! And if the buzz word is inexperience... so be it. Keep comparing the Dem Party Pres to the Repub Party VP.

    You are right for now (none / 0) (#108)
    by DemForever on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 09:29:47 AM EST
    She has generated great sizzle, and taken attention away from Obama's great speech.

    But it is a long way to November, and I think it won't be too long before the GOP is asking, what have we done?

    I think it is a bit of reckless pick, and does not reflect will on McCain decision-making and judgment.


    My take (5.00 / 4) (#40)
    by jb64 on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 08:09:15 AM EST
    If you are young, rural, working class, state college educated, like sports, go to church, have a family and love your country, John McCain just gave you a reason to vote for him.

    It seems that Democrats are going to fall all over themselves to prove to "low information" voters how incredibly elitist they are by implying that the governor of a state lacks the qualifications to be President because she's a hick. That effete attitude cuts directly to the genius of this selection. It's as if McCain is daring Democrats to prove their own prejudices against anyone who doesn't live in a major city, or attended an Ivy league school, and sadly, they've taken the bait. Throw in a lot sexism, (would her credentials be questioned if she were male?) from the party that "supposedly" champions the rights of women and you have a game changer.

    You know, Hillary Clinton had the right response to this pick, look it up.

    Yes, this was pure genius (5.00 / 2) (#55)
    by befuddledvoter on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 08:17:36 AM EST
    Palin's spouse is also a union member.  As soon as she was picked I thought of the working class/small town/gun totting/Catholic voter, not the women. Women is the bonus only.

    This was a very smart move.  Palin will appeal to all the groups Obama has thrown under the bus.

    As I have stated over and over, Obama peaked months ago. His challenge is and has been those voters who are not on board.  I don't think he is increasing his base, other than what Hillary and Bill have delivered FOR him.  


    Palin herself is a union member (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by Cream City on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 08:26:04 AM EST
    she said in her speech yesterday.  I found listening to that far more useful than listening to almost every pundit or blogger yesterday, as so many proved once again that they are faux libruls and cannot walk all their big talk.  Hypocrisy reigned again.

    I LOVED Palin's shoutout to union membership (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by Ellie on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 10:08:09 AM EST
    It was the secondary thrill to the "18 million cracks in the glass ceiling ... and we're not done yet!"

    Flip a card, any card!

    I've worn every color collar except Incarceration Orange but I wouldn't dismiss that possibility just yet.

    Small matter of walking off with the cash equivalent of my illicitly withheld VISA tips by the d0uche bartender who "rang them up" on his invisible cash register.(Oh, and that was a union job too!)


    This hurts O's "western strategy" (5.00 / 2) (#94)
    by BernieO on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 08:58:07 AM EST
    which is fine with me because, as Ryan Lizza points out in the New Yorker, this strategy is a deliberate attempt to shift the party away from the have-nots to focus on the haves, particularly the knowledge and tech workers in western cities - who, as I understand it, already vote for Democrats. Go figure.
    This is the problem I have deciding how to vote. I do not like a lot of McCain's policies like his economic ones (although with enough Dems in Congress he won't be able to implement them, anyway) but if Axelrod, Dean and Obama succeed they will be rewarded for their tactics. They  will also have the power to shift the party away from what I think are its most important principles, liking fighting for the disempowered. I think that is the big reason they have gone out of their way to dis Clinton's record. Clinton helped the poor and working classes (while also benefitting the more affluent) but they want to focus on the young and upwardly mobile who are not social conservatives. So our choice will be between Republican and Republican Lite, not a party that builds on Clinton's legacy.

    That's what I was thinking (5.00 / 2) (#102)
    by kredwyn on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 09:07:46 AM EST
    I just talked to some (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by Jjc2008 on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 08:21:34 AM EST
    of my friends who happen to live in rural PA.  She and her children are all college educated; have family, go to church and like sports (hunter husbands).....and they feel they are being manipulated and sneer at the choice.

    Even rural Americans can see through this....they can actually read and know how Palin stands on the issues.


    Its not monolithic (none / 0) (#60)
    by jb64 on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 08:22:46 AM EST
    And that (none / 0) (#81)
    by Jjc2008 on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 08:45:46 AM EST
    was my point in replying to someone who was assuming rural voters would go republican because of the pick.

    I never said that (none / 0) (#82)
    by jb64 on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 08:48:35 AM EST
    What I said was that the pick gave them a reason to vote for McCain

    Perhaps you should have (none / 0) (#112)
    by Jjc2008 on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 10:11:10 AM EST
    said "some of them" because your comment suggested monolithic thinking.

    where did I say (none / 0) (#146)
    by jb64 on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 04:02:07 PM EST
    that anybody was going to vote for McCain?

    The wonders of satellite TV and internet! (none / 0) (#90)
    by mmc9431 on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 08:55:19 AM EST
    No one lives in the sticks anymore

    Look, (5.00 / 6) (#53)
    by Maria Garcia on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 08:16:32 AM EST
    ...if Bill Clinton could be smeared as a racist, anything is possible. That's exactly why all the stuff that went on in Obama's name by his surrogates was so harmful. Right minded people could say a pox on both your houses, but the high road no longer belongs to ANYONE.

    This point is spot on, (5.00 / 6) (#56)
    by kimsaw on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 08:18:11 AM EST
    but you can't teach an arrogant dog new tricks because they think they know it all. The Dems can't seemed to move away from their primary attack mode. They are still relying on the "isms", you know the divisive ones, the kind that's not new but the old standbys. A dem strategist was on MSNBC referred to Palin as tokenism this very morning. That's not a policy argument, only divisive rhetoric.  I didn't think there was an "ism" left for Obama campaign to use. I need to expand my vocabulary I guess. If Dems think using ageism against McCain, centering on his cancer and then offering up a healthy dose of sexism toward his VP, all while the chuckling Dean refers to Republicans as the White Party is going to win over Independent voters like me, they need to adjust their political lenses because as of this moment they are failing miserable.

    The hardcore feminists weren't voting (5.00 / 2) (#57)
    by myiq2xu on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 08:20:17 AM EST
    for McCain anyway.

    It's the women swing voters and disgruntled Hillary supporters he's after.

    Well... (none / 0) (#67)
    by andrewwm on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 08:28:33 AM EST
    the point of the "hardcore" feminists (whatever that means) is that the pick is offensive to women and offensive to feminism.

    Is this a valid critique or are they being "obtuse"?

    At this point I'm not speaking to the electoral consequences, only to whether or not these critiques are sexist.


    Well, Andrew, you clearly do not know (5.00 / 3) (#80)
    by Cream City on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 08:44:01 AM EST
    much about feminists, as you say.  Too bad you weren't watching them in the primary, when some did stupid stuff, too.

    So what?

    Some Dems do stupid stuff, and it would be pretty obtuse to say that makes it difficult to figure out what a Dem ought to be.


    What I find (5.00 / 5) (#93)
    by chrisvee on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 08:56:40 AM EST
    interesting (to say the least) is that after failing to nominate the most competent, qualified person on either side of the aisle for either POTUS or VPOTUS, some Dems think they now have the right to deride the other party's pick as unqualified. I think the Democratic Party can sometimes feel a little to possessive of their role as champions against privelege.

    Regardless of why McCain did it, he nominated a women (who is also a governor, not some political novice) to be his VP. Actions matter, not motives. If she wins, she does break the glass ceiling. And yet, some seem to be enraged that she even mentions that. Is Palin not allowed to be proud of her historic status? Should women not celebrate if they do manage to win?

    I really don't think I know this party any longer. Attack her on issues but leave the tokenism argument out. And hope the MSM takes the same route because they aren't our friends if they harp on it, either.


    I consider myself a feminist (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by MichaelGale on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 09:22:18 AM EST
    the "hard core" feminists need to get a grip.  

    Let them keep screaming and using the word "abortion" a thousand times in a paragraph, and they just may turn the tide on Roe V Wade themselves.

    People are sick of this same old game of R V W. I am sick of it and I consider myself a very strong pro choice voter. People voted for Bush twice and he had a zillion Evangelicals behind him. jc


    good point (none / 0) (#74)
    by liberalone on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 08:37:28 AM EST
    swing voters, both women and men, are not impressed with an ultra conservative.  palin appeals to the evangelical right, the moral majority, not to swing voters who are generally more socially moderate.  

    if swing voters decide elections, i do not think palin will move the game in mcain's favor.


    It is truly amazing that here will (5.00 / 2) (#117)
    by zfran on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 10:33:00 AM EST
    be another day where Hillary's name will be invoked, discussed and bantied about. Even Obama's new ad is about "a woman" showing Palin's name and in the parts where he links McCain to Bush, Gov. Palin's picture lingers. He needs to find his message about McCain. It's McCain vs. Obama period.

    Please also remember, that (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by zfran on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 10:41:51 AM EST
    altho' Gov. Palin is pro-life except where the health of the mother is in jeopardy, Sen. Obama who is pro-choice, says we should first consult our clergy and family before deciding what to do with our own bodies. So, whereas one is anti-abortion, the other doesn't fully believe we should be "able" to make the decision on our own!
    It shows, at least, to me, that as a woman, one position is quite direct and strong (even if it is different from my position)and one is not a glowing affirmation of a woman's ability to ever make her choice without consult.

    I did not even click the link (none / 0) (#65)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 08:27:25 AM EST
    as you are not interested in what I actually said.

    The Obama campaign, thankj Gawd, is smarter than his supporters.

    It was actually 8 links (none / 0) (#70)
    by andrewwm on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 08:31:20 AM EST

    Pandagon x2
    Gail Collins
    Our Women, Our Bodies
    B*tch PhD
    Pam Spaulding
    Adam Serwer

    Glad to know you think their critiques are stupid though. Because they know nothing about feminism obviously, being only the most prominent feminist women bloggers.

    And that's not even to mention Jeralyn's comments, obviously.


    I think you are stupid (5.00 / 2) (#72)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 08:34:31 AM EST
    I did not click your link.

    What a witty rejoinder <nt> (none / 0) (#85)
    by andrewwm on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 08:51:50 AM EST
    It was a statement of fact (5.00 / 2) (#88)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 08:54:45 AM EST
    You still do not even know what I wrote asnd have been bumbling along ever since.

    As I said, I made no comment on what these women wrote, I commented on your stupidity in not even reading and understanding what I wrote.

    Now do me a favor and stay out of my threads permanently. You are banned from my threads.


    Yes, some are bloggers first (5.00 / 2) (#87)
    by Cream City on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 08:54:32 AM EST
    it seems from that list above and their behaviors (yeh, I looked at the link) but feminists second.

    Just like journalists, they may have to find out that the "scoop mentality" is perilous.  Getting out there on their blogs just to get something out there got a lot of them in trouble yesterday.  And so they will find out as well that reputations built for years can be destroyed in seconds.  

    It's interesting to watch, though, as it was in the primaries that took down some feminists, too.  But it has happened before, when the heat of campaigns or movements has helped us find out, in time, just who is in it for self-aggrandizement and who is in it for the cause.

    Then we know how to use them, as they have used us.  Because they still can be useful, dedicated to their keyboards more than the cause as they are.  We just keep them tied to their keyboards but keep an eye on the plug to pull it, as it were, and we'll be fine.  It's quite easy to take down frauds, and we can do that faster now, too -- if we must.  For now, let 'em weaken themselves.


    EVERY woman is a feminist, whether they find it (5.00 / 2) (#114)
    by esmense on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 10:22:05 AM EST
    useful to use that term or not, in terms of any obstacles to their own ambitions and welfare, and/or that of their family. Ann Coulter sure as hell expects equal compensation, equal political participation, and an equal place at the media podium -- despite being on the record saying that women should never have been given the vote (because in recent elections they have tended to vote more heavily for Democrats).

    Nancy Pelosi is happy to congratulate herself for achieving the very difficult task of cracking "the marble ceiling" all the while warning that when other women mention the limitations that gender imposes they are "playing the victim."

    The rights that some women are happy to see denied to other women are usually rights that they just haven't -- yet -- found to be personally important and useful. (One reason why so many women suddenly see the feminist light after divorce.)

    Of course, many women who found Sen. Hillary Clinton sorely lacking in gravitas and qualifications for high political office and power, are thrilled with the selection of Gov. Palin. While others who celebrated Clinton's bid for power are appalled by Palin and belittle her with the same ferocity that just a few weeks ago Hillary's critics were expressing.

    The difference has nothing to do with these women's qualifications, and everything to do with whether other women see them as supporting their own (political) self-interest or not.

    It's a BIG mistake to think that most women are politically motivated by a similar set of issues and views. But also a mistake to think that any woman will take kindly to having her right to put seek power effectively to promote her priorities and views, and/or to support others who will do so, belittled and dismissed.

    If Dems believe in equal political participation, they have to stop demeaning the participation of political opposites like Palin, and the women who are excited by her candidacy.


    No, that is not feminism (5.00 / 2) (#118)
    by Cream City on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 10:36:37 AM EST
    although I think you do know what it is and are being snarky here.

    But here, we have some who really do not know.  So to make it clear:  Feminism is the opposite of a woman being for feminist goals only for herself.

    Feminism not only is for equality for women but actually is for equality for all.  Men, too.  

    So some men fear it, because they have more than their fair share.  But for the many who do not, they can be -- and many are -- feminists, too.

    That's why we don't call ourselves feminettes.  No diminutives, no thanks, no gendered suffixes in any language.  Feminism is gender-neutral in every way.  Equality for all.  Always.  Not just for Dems, either.


    Many of the most prominent (5.00 / 4) (#113)
    by echinopsia on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 10:12:28 AM EST
    feminist bloggers were sexist about Hillary in the primary. Pandagon is one of the worst offenders, and she's been called out by other feminists for other anti-feminist gaffes this year.

    Yes, it's possible for feminists to be sexist. Not all of them can achieve the objectivity of defending women they don't like from sexist attacks.

    So they may "know" about feminism, and they may practice it most of the time, but they have blind spots as well. You could, if you looked, find other feminist blogs with a different take on Palin.

    Feminism, like women, is not monolithic.


    One more talking point (5.00 / 3) (#134)
    by RalphB on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 11:38:56 AM EST
    killed off in the last 24 hours is that people were not against "any" woman but only "this" woman in Hillary Clinton.  Now they're hitting woman #2 with a lot of the same crap, so that was a lie.

    Gail Collins (none / 0) (#83)
    by sancho on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 08:50:04 AM EST
    is a Maureen Dowd feminist. And I am sorry to see her point of view being echoed by these other anti-Maureen Dowd feminists. Calling women stupid who support or think of supporting McCain/Palin is not a winning strategy.

    Now Karl thinks those qualifications are great (none / 0) (#107)
    by DemForever on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 09:27:07 AM EST
    "She's a populist, she's an economic and a social conservative, she's a reformer, she took on the incumbent governor of the state Frank Murkowski -- Republican -- beat him in the primary, won an upset in the general election. She's a former mayor. She's the mayor of, I think, the second largest city in Alaska before she ran for governor."

    Of course, it isn't even in the top ten of Alaska's towns.  

    wow (none / 0) (#109)
    by borisbor on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 09:48:07 AM EST
    the lies just roll of the the tongue of Rove. How does he slip in "second largest city" without blinking, i don't know.

    But it worked (none / 0) (#115)
    by Pianobuff on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 10:22:28 AM EST
    Rove fired off his points in hopes that in some small way it might get Obama to pick a Washington insider.  

    Folks are really under-estimating and not seeing what's really going on here.

    Biden IS the VP pick that Rove was probably dreaming of when he made that point.

    Did they vet her at all? (none / 0) (#141)
    by fuzzyone on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 12:05:28 PM EST
    She was a disaster as mayor of a tiny town

    Seven months ago she could not support McSame because of his opposition to drilling in ANWAR.  But hey, that was seven months ago.

    Troopergate is not going away

    I'd go on but FDL does it for  me

    My favorites in there are that her vaunted ethics don't extend to Senator Ted Stevens and she was for the bridge to nowhere (which in her speech she said she was against) until congress refused to cough up the money.  Nice.  Check FDL, there is plenty more.  And this is just day two.

    BTD, thank you for your (none / 0) (#147)
    by FemB4dem on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 05:04:31 PM EST
    consistent and wonderful posts on the topic of sexism.  It is one that we are seeing again is instinctively understood by folks who have stances on issues all over the spectrum, and is consistently misunderstood the worst by people who have stances that seem to be the most pro-female.  Very strange.  I wonder if Nancy Keenan and NARAL even understand that their incredibly idiotic and offensive decision to endorse Obama while Hillary was still in the race stripped them of any credibility to attack Sarah Palin on the issue they supposedly hold most dear?