Ras Poll: Palin Makes Good First Impression

Ras poll:

Sarah Palin made a good first impression. She was unknown nationally before being introduced as the GOP Vice-Presidential pick but is now viewed favorably by 53% of voters nationwide. Her counterpart, Joe Biden, is viewed favorably by 48%. While Palin has made a good first impression, the more significant numbers will come a week from now after the nation has a chance to learn more about her.

Inside the numbers:

Palin earns positive reviews from 78% of Republicans, 26% of Democrats and 63% of unaffiliated voters. . . . Among all voters, 29% have a Very Favorable opinion of Palin while 9% hold a Very Unfavorable view.

If I were the Obama campaign, I would ignore Palin as much as possible. Attacking her will not do you any good. That is why the new ad is smart.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

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

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    I'm (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 08:53:07 AM EST
    not sure even putting her in that ad was a good idea come to think of it. It reminds everyone about the fact that McCain picked a woman to run with while Obama did not. It evokes images of Hillary and picks at the primary scabs.

    I don't see Obama's ads getting any better.

    Wow (1.00 / 1) (#89)
    by Politalkix on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 10:14:49 AM EST
    It seems Senator McCain has picked a Governor who sees humor when another woman (who happens to be a political rival) is called a b_ _ _ _

    Wow that changed my mind completely (5.00 / 3) (#124)
    by Marvin42 on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 11:00:01 AM EST
    Now I see the light!

    I am speechless, this is exactly the kind of distortions and crap that made me hate the republican party tactics so much. Now we have "democrats" who have adopted the same repulsive tactics (observer primary and now this) and yet still are completely incompetent (unlike the republicans) when it comes to actually getting their agenda passed.

    Great to now. Democrats are now sleazy repulsive republican types without any of the policy accomplishments.


    Distortion? (none / 0) (#135)
    by Politalkix on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 11:12:27 AM EST
    Where is the distortion? Do you have any evidence that the audio clip is not real but fabricated? If you cannot prove that the audio clip is a fabrication, would you kindly accept that Sarah Palin participated in misogynist slandering of a political opponent?

    You mean, just like the Democrats? (5.00 / 4) (#160)
    by Upstart Crow on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 11:51:03 AM EST
    Look, I didn't expect much else from a Republican.

    The party I expected more from was the so-called "progressives," the Democrats.

    What you are saying is that she's just as bad as Nancy Pelosi and Donna Brazile.


    I just posted this on the previous thread (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by Saul on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 08:58:47 AM EST
     Why run an ad with her at all?
    When you react to something many times it's because you are afraid that your loosing  and this is also showing your hand to the opponent.   If you want to show how confident you are  and that Palin is of no consequences then you let it go and do not react defensively.    By playing the ad it signals to McCain


    OH OH they are worried about Palin

     and from there McCain prepares his strategy for their counter ad

    [ Reply to This ]

    Obama's camp showed their hand (5.00 / 5) (#42)
    by Josey on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 09:45:16 AM EST
    with their initial nasty statement dismissing Palin and small towns.
    It wasn't a verbal kneejerk response - but a press release developed and written by Obama's team.
    Think about that - Obama's team wasn't even ready mentally for McCain's SURPRISE! VP pick!

    It is shocking! (5.00 / 3) (#127)
    by Robot Porter on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 11:02:58 AM EST
    A lot of us here have been discussing Palin for months.  And the Obama campaign wasn't even ready for it?

    I think the Obama campaign is showing signs of fatigue.  Maybe it's time to shake things up a bit.  Bring in some new people.

    They certainly need a new ad team.  Their commercials are lackluster.

    The ad today was okay.  But it lack originality.  It lacked spark.  A 16 year-old blogger with some editing software could have created that ad.


    I think a great post-convention (none / 0) (#150)
    by Redshoes on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 11:37:13 AM EST
    ad would be highlight the great lines:

    Barnye Smith, not Smith Barney.   No Way, No How, No McCain.  Enough!

    You catch drift.


    Yeah that annoyed me (5.00 / 3) (#171)
    by daria g on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 12:00:51 PM EST
    First thing out of the gate, they mocked her as the mayor of a 9,000-person town.  She is a governor.  Way to go, team Obama - when in doubt, resort to belittling her accomplishments.  

    The Obama Campaign and many of the blogs (5.00 / 9) (#3)
    by Jjc2008 on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 09:00:15 AM EST
    underestimate the deep seated anger so many women feel at what happened in the primary.  The sexism hurt all of us on a personal level.  The sexism combined with the ageism on the blogs got me to an angry place I did not even know existed in me.

    Last night I was listening to the Charlie Rose show and authors were discussing the LBJ years, and they were talking about how RFK tried to get LBJ to take his name off the ticket (interesting history in the discussion).  I drifted off hoping to wake up to hear that Joe Biden took his name out and Hillary stepped up.  It seems even dumber now that the petulant campaigners for Obama did not have the forward thinking.  It makes me angrier than ever that Dean, Brazille and the others got away with their dirty, sexist, nasty race baiting.  

    I will never vote McCain.  NEVER.  I am insulted by the sexism being used by the right to stick it in our faces.  I am insulted by the left that does not get it still.  I am thinking all women, right and left, old, and young, black and white and brown, need to form our own party....

    I am tired of fighting this battle. I have been fighting the same battle since I was 10 years old in 1955 and tried to join Little League and was told NO...boys only even though I knew in my heart I was as good as my boy friends, and loved baseball ten times more than they did.  Who knew that at 62 I would be fighting some of the same battles?

    Just thinkin out loud.

    I think you make a good point.... (5.00 / 7) (#4)
    by Maria Garcia on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 09:04:22 AM EST
    ...also I think that the Obama campaign will make a mistake if they think that because they won over Hillary delegates that means they've solved their woman problem. Delegates, after all, are much more invested in the Democratic party than your average voter.

    McCain set a trap, I hope they (Dem party) don't bungle it.


    I'm insulted too (5.00 / 8) (#20)
    by Pianobuff on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 09:34:28 AM EST
    and women should be by the suggestion that the Palin pick was a gender-based pick.  In my opinion, McCain picked her because of her reform background. ESPECIALLY within the Republican party.  McCain is and will continue to move and try to re-claim the "maverick" brand.  He will be presenting himself as the real candidate of change and he believes Palin helps him shore up those credentials, given her own track record and accomplishments, for which there is no response on the Dem ticket.  

    Chiefly, he views the Biden pick as an opening he can drive a truck through.  He is about to paint Obama/Biden as the real Washington insiders/same old politics.  You heard it here first, and you will know I am right if, at the Repub convention, he gives his own party a "coming to Jesus" speech.  

    The fact that Palin is a woman is incidental, though admittedly helpful.  I'll go as far as to assert that if Sarah Palin was "Sam" Palin, he would have still made the pick.

    Conveniently overlooking McCain's real strategy and thowing out accusations that she is an affirmative action pick undermines all women.  Unfortunately, given many of the views expressed on this board, that apparently is not a problem.

    People need to look behind the pick more closely before perpetuating myths.


    I think her being a woman was part of the.... (5.00 / 9) (#27)
    by Maria Garcia on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 09:36:49 AM EST
    ....calculation. But he picked her because he thought a woman would be an asset, so its kind of hard for me to feel insulted by that.

    Helpful... (5.00 / 6) (#35)
    by Pianobuff on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 09:42:02 AM EST
    but still incidental.

    He had noone else with her resume - which is focused on being an extreme Washington outsider with the fortitude to take on reform even in her own party. This is what made the pick.  The other stuff is just icing - good icing perhaps - but still adjacent to the real need he is trying to satisfy.  If she wasn't a reformer, she would never have been picked.

    I think people are underestimating how much McCain's campaign has improved and the "real" leg sweep McCain will be trying to execute over the coming days/weeks.  It's all about re-claiming the title of "change candidate".

    A huge gamble, but that's McCain for you.


    I agree (5.00 / 5) (#75)
    by befuddledvoter on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 10:04:15 AM EST
    If McCain could have created a running mate out of whole cloth, Palin would have been that creation.  Lifelong NRA; hunter; basketball star; union member; reformer; courageous; mother of 5, with one disabled child and another about to be shipped to Iraq; prolife but with an authenticity that few ever have; not just a woman, a runner up for Miss Alaska; stable longterm marriage.  Need I go on??  

    She is McCain's dream running mate.


    Agreed - Only thing to ad (5.00 / 3) (#126)
    by Marvin42 on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 11:01:27 AM EST
    Is that this is true only because Sen Clinton was not the nominee and Sen Obama chose to not even seriously consider her as VP. Because if he had picked her this would not be happening right now. The republicans would be planning the move out of the WH.

    In addition, to all that, she (5.00 / 3) (#136)
    by hairspray on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 11:13:31 AM EST
    hunts, fishes, worked with her husband a Native American.... Wow whats not to admire?  The Democrats went off the reservation in their typical teenage boy shoot from the hip nonsense. I have heard her called anti-choice. I have also heard her say she would not use personal beliefs in government and I understand from what I have read that she is a pragmatist and a moderate, but a real reformer and has stood up to oil and the big GOP corruption people in Alaska. Trying to make her a simple character is going to fail.

    And she used the money from that (5.00 / 2) (#147)
    by hairspray on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 11:32:28 AM EST
    beauty contest to put herself through college.  Not too shabby.

    I think it will be change vs fixing washington (5.00 / 0) (#86)
    by WelshWoman on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 10:12:05 AM EST
    Yes, I agree (none / 0) (#173)
    by daria g on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 12:04:41 PM EST
    Some of both.  Yesterday I watched part of this interview she and Janet Napolitano did on the Charlie Rose show.  It is uncanny.  Everything she talks about regarding energy policy, national security, reforming government could be straight out of McCain's current playbook.  And the interview is from October 2007.

    Way back in the beginning of the primary wars (5.00 / 5) (#63)
    by Jjc2008 on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 09:57:55 AM EST
    when I was posting at places like dkos, oblivious to the fact it was becoming one of the most sexist and ageist blogs on the NET, I tried to say this:
    There is a reason why IDENTITY politics is in play.
    RACE matters; GENDER matters. If those things did not matter then why did we have 200+ years where only white males were able to run for president.
    The difference, the POSITIVE difference, in 2008 is that being black and being female were FINALLY able to have some positive effects.  Yes, they both also have negatives but being an AA was also a positive for Obama; being a woman was also a positive for Hillary.

    Yet, Ferraro saying that labeled her a racist by some.

    Palin's gender and looks are both postive and negative.  But if not for the history of sexism, expecially the recent history of the sexism the left was willing to use against one of its own, I think her gender would have both positives and negative but not be able to sway so many.  NOW, the anger many women feel is really deep.  And it seems some dem blogs are ready, willing and able to rub salt in that wound.  It baffles me on so many levels.


    Besides, why would I be insulted (5.00 / 8) (#28)
    by rooge04 on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 09:37:28 AM EST
    that someone actually wants my vote?  I disagree with her on everything, but it's not insulting to be courted at all.  Besides, the GOP is just reminding all women that the most qualified woman got pushed aside. That is not easily forgotten (nor forgiven for me).

    Although it might have been shameless.... (5.00 / 6) (#121)
    by jeffhas on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 10:56:45 AM EST
    Was it not nice to hear someone say "we would like to ask for your vote November 4th"...

    So refreshing after all the 'you have no where else to go'... 'get over it'... statements my own party threw at me.


    I agree (5.00 / 7) (#133)
    by parttime on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 11:09:34 AM EST
    I am not insulted by McCain's choice. I am insulted by my own party.

    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


    You forgot (none / 0) (#175)
    by Upstart Crow on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 12:14:52 PM EST
    Michelle's comment that HRC couldn't run the country because she couldn't keep her husband from screwing.

    This is really the point (5.00 / 7) (#70)
    by Chgohunt on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 10:00:07 AM EST
    I have been shaking my head repeatedly for the past 24-hours, after my partner texted me (while I was teaching my grad student seminar) that McCain had picked Palin.  And do you know what the response of my 20-somethings in my liberal clinical psychology seminar was -- "good for him, he learned from the Obama campaign what he needs to do."  I was first a bit shocked and then pretty much amused.  Because while Palin is female, and that is an important point, she is also another young, vibrant challenger, who is willing to put investment in change over experience as her moniker.  And this is what interested my students.

    This was followed by a phone call from my crazy, sexist Republican uncle -- who went off on how amazed he was at McCain's chutzpa.  Funny how this rather misogynistic man is captivated by a woman, who he sees as shaking up the party he supports.  I just had to laugh out loud.

    The Democratic elite decided that youth and challenge from a less experienced candidate was the plan for this election some time ago -- and McCain has hit them right back in the kisser with it.  We can be all cynical about McCain's choice and try and second guess it ad nauseum, but I truly believe we're missing the point.  We're in for a fight because Obama puts the lack of experience at the top of the ticket and we're stuck with it now.  We better learn to go for the issues -- and counter to Obama's recent acceptance speech, to remind voters of the differences each party presents in its world view -- if we want to win this election.

    Right now, I'd sadly, but amusingly call it a draw.  Time to see if the Democrat at the top of the ticket can get partisan.  


    I think your analysis is so spot on... (5.00 / 2) (#132)
    by jeffhas on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 11:08:58 AM EST
    McCain's move was bold because it was about the future for the Republican brand... he gives them a direction for the next generation.

    Think about it, he chooses Romhuckawlenty and the party is the same as it always was... He just gave the Repubs a future.... brilliant.

    Of course, there are pitfalls... she is going to have to perform at a high stakes game at a high level pretty quickly, or she will be shoved aside... but if she can adapt quickly and play the game, and so far she's impressive - did you see her response to criticism from the Obama camp about her experience??... Graciously saying she felt her 15 years of public service was good to have on her resume - but no pot shots to her competitor AT THE TOP OF THE TICKET - and the questions came while she was shopping for an outfit for her newborn.... smart.

    I have not been supportive of Obama, and had told myself I would never vote for him, then the speech in Denver cracked that a little - he FINALLY stopped talking down to me... I was finally IMPRESSED with him for being able to adapt/adjust... and then less than 24 hours later, McCain makes a bold move for the future of his party and you have to give him credit for taking a chance.

    Very interesting now... It's a shame the primary made me view Obama as a charlatan with the 'new kind of politics' sham.... Very tough now indeed.


    The notion that Palin was chosen to get Clinton (5.00 / 7) (#108)
    by esmense on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 10:43:11 AM EST
    voters is insulting to Clinton voters. Unfortuntately, the people promoting this insulting idea are almost exclusively Democrats.

    It's just a new form of the Obama blogosphere/media argument that Clinton supporters were merely "identity" voters.


    THIS democratic party (5.00 / 7) (#125)
    by Jjc2008 on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 11:01:19 AM EST
    seems neither liberal nor progressive.

    They had the uniquely perfect ticket.  A competent, experienced, intelligent, popular woman who appealed to the hearts and souls of women who had labored for the party for decades; who had experienced the pain of being "passed over" for younger males all their lives; who had been excluded based on gender for years.  For VP they had a young, intelligent, attractive AA male whose lack of experience could be overcome by years as a VP.  When this started, I saw the Clinton/Obama ticket as the possibility of securing the WH for the next sixteen years.

    But instead, the democratic leaders, Kennedy, Kerry, Dean, Richardson decided they were not going to allow no damn woman to win what they couldn't.  Especially not a woman who had been married to the Bubba who showed them up.

    We, women, were talked down to, were called racists, were ignored.  We watched as an intelligent woman, not unlike ourselves, who did the hard work all her life, treated with disdain and sexism.  All the while we were told "stop whining."  Too many bloggers on dkos or Huff who hated Hillary talked just like Palin. NOW, they want us to condemn her.  They did the same freaking thing.

    Kennedy, a man whose past is hardly pure, was honored.  Bill was dissed. While Kennedy and Kerry betrayed the majority of their constituents, they were honored as the party leaders. When Hillary did the bidding of her constituents she was condemned. Caroline Kennedy gets to help choose the VP.  Her experience?  And she publicly said her kids convinced her that Obama was the one.

    She and Obama and their team could not get beyond their pettiness to acknowledge the fact that 18 million voters chose Hillary.  Apparently their egos were too fragile.

    I was ready, willing, and able after Thursday to support the Obama/Biden ticket.  But now, the sexism being displayed in the media, on the blogs, is really rubbing me the wrong way.

    Republicans are, imo, sexist, racists and all the rest, and not above using race and gender to manipulate.  I GET THAT.  Every woman I know sees through that stuff.  But what the left does not get is that what hurt the most is that OUR OWN used sexism, allowed sexism and ageism to be used as tools against half their party.
    How the hell do we reconcile that????


    I just said upthread how.... (5.00 / 2) (#134)
    by jeffhas on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 11:12:04 AM EST
    I might have let Obama's speech in Denver crack through my anti-Obama force field...

    Your post reminds me of what a complete crazy F-U Obama and the party gave me....

    Thank you....  


    Umm (5.00 / 1) (#139)
    by parttime on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 11:14:54 AM EST
    Were you a Clinton voter? If not, don't tell me what should insult me and what shouldn't..

    McCain made this choice for a lot of reasons (5.00 / 1) (#176)
    by esmense on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 12:16:00 PM EST
    most of which had to do with exciting his own base of supporters and less partisanly attached swing voters, especially women. But also working class and rural and small town men. Her background is one they can (culturally) relate to. In rural and small town America, especially in the West, the farmer, mechanic, etc., with or a more professional, more community activist, wife is not unusual. My sister-in-law, a nurse married to a mechanic, just ran for the School Board in her small town in Montana. Knowing her, and her passion about certain issues (that arises from her experience as a mother, a nurse, a member of the community) I wouldn't be surprised if her involvement doesn't end there. When Palin says here political interest started with the PTA, there are a lot of men and women who can relate. And a lot of rural men who can relate to a smart, hard working, hunting, fishing, deer killing woman like my sister-in-law and Palin.

    Most working class men have working wives -- a fact that more affluent "liberals," who presume they are troglodytes on gender issues, never seem to consider.

    If McCain's pick also stirs up and makes obvious the mysogyny of the Democrats, and thereby adds further encouragement to Clinton voters who have already decided they can't vote for the this Dem ticket because of it, that's just gravy.

    I, personally, my vote 3rd party -- to the left of the Democrats -- in protest. Can't bring myself to pull a lever for McCain. But, I understand why some women are angry enough to do so. I just don't think, and I don't think the McCain campaign believes, there are enough of them be a determining factor in Palin's choice.



    Non-transferable (none / 0) (#169)
    by Valhalla on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 11:59:45 AM EST
    I think all the 'insult to women' riff is coming from a belief that the anger about sexism is simply transferable from one target to another, with a little nudge by them in the 'right' direction.

    It feels like the response is coming from the people in the Democratic Party who themselves created the problem, or that they're picking up their spin ideas by reading Kos or something.

    I agree with BTD that at this point, they are better off ignoring Palin.  But if they insist, here's a much better line to follow:

    "Women are too smart to fall for John McCain's panderering/blahblah/whatever."

    See how that gives women credit for something?

    What the 'it's an insult to women!' line does is assume women need to be told how to think or feel, that they can't figure out for themselves whether Palin's got the chops for VP.  Bad.

    And for jeeper's sake, could someone tell Begala to stop carping on the 'beauty queen' thing?  It only reinforces the idea that a woman's looks are somehow a valid basis of criticism or praise in relation to their competence.


    No! No! No! (5.00 / 1) (#181)
    by Upstart Crow on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 12:30:11 PM EST
    "Women are too smart to fall for..."

    I don't want any guy telling me what I'm too smart or not too smart for... I can think for myself.

    And I don't want the little passive-aggressive game of ignoring the woman at the table, either.

    Enough already.


    They shouldn't make the argument (5.00 / 1) (#201)
    by esmense on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 03:02:24 PM EST
    "women" specific at all.

    Palin is "a new face on old ideas."

    Leave her gender, and our gender, out of it.


    Come on (none / 0) (#202)
    by democrattotheend on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 03:05:10 PM EST
    You really think she would have been a serious contender for the VP slot if she were a male? The governor of a state that is not traditionally a swing state who has the potential to undermine McCain's experience argument?

    I think it's cool that he picked a woman, but there are several other women he could have picked who would have better supported his claim to be a maverick and avoided the experience/ready to succeed him questions. Why not pick someone like Olympia Snowe, who comes from a potential swing state, has a much longer resume, has a record of working with Democrats and had the courage to stand up to the Bush Administration on the 2003 tax cuts even in the face of attacks from the Club for Growth? If he had picked her or Jodi Rell, who is also a reformer but has more experience as a governor and helps to reinforce the maverick image, I think you could argue that gender wasn't a factor or wasn't the only factor. But it's kind of hard to make that argument with someone like Palin, who was completely unknown and doesn't change the electoral map and risks undermining McCain's argument about experience.


    I've posted on this before (none / 0) (#204)
    by Pianobuff on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 03:09:22 PM EST
    Palin fits the mold he is looking for, which is much more about being a Republican reformer and conservative than a female.  I will admit, in the identity politic world it helps, but without her other features, McCain would have looked for the closest "him" to her.  Pawlenty...meh.  Romney... not even close.

    Actually (none / 0) (#205)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 03:23:08 PM EST
    Palin herself undermines the idea that this pick was "just about gender".  I would be far more suspicious if the pick were Snowe or Whitman - women who do not share McCain's views or priorities.

    Palin is a woman and I'm sure that was A factor, but it's hard to believe it was THE ONLY factor when she also has a reputation as a reformer/maverick.  Conveniently the same labels McCain himself has cultivated (through a docile media) for ten years.  

    All year the biggest problem McCain has is that he's been seen as the Washington insider and "more of the same" rather than as the circa 2000 "straight talker".  I'm betting that "reform" and "maverick" were used to describe his campaign more in the last 24 hours than in the preceedng 4 months.

    That's a big thing Palin brings to this ticket.

    (which, incidentally, is what Democrats should challenge, along with the issues.  not her experience, family or looks).


    Thank you for speaking for me... (5.00 / 3) (#67)
    by mogal on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 09:58:54 AM EST
    The sexism combined with the ageism on the blogs got me to an angry place I did not even know existed in me.

    My husband who hasnever voted Republican says he is not going to start now. My Mother, a Hillary delegate, has made the switch. Our daughter was at the Dem. convention and "the speech" convincened her to"get in line."

    However, I too am still angry, and I don't know how I will vote. Having McCain picked a woman who started her rise to the top in the PTA is very appealing. Yes, I know, I have preached issues my whole life but I'm remebering an old saying,
    "works speak louder than words."


    The sexism bothered me to, but it was (5.00 / 1) (#130)
    by hairspray on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 11:06:04 AM EST
    the caucuses and the DNC who refused to look at the race in an objective way.  I just read P. Cronin's statistical analysis again of the disenfranchisement of the voters and the thuggery of the caucuses.  Hillary won more votes and was deprived of her rightful votes in states where the evidence proved the caucuses were wildly skewed. Has the mainstream media examined this?  Hardly.  The caucus system would not pass the HAVA regulations.  The Democrats do not count every vote, oh yes, maybe they do, but in a way they get the one they want.  I say become an independent.

    This is the kind of stuff that annoys (5.00 / 7) (#14)
    by BarnBabe on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 09:26:13 AM EST
    Her biggest test may be proving her intellect, said Michael O'Hanlon, a foreign policy expert at Washington's Brookings Institution.

    ``Since we all know there's nothing there in terms of national security, does she have the intellectual ability to get up to speed quickly?'' he said. ``We're going to have to get a feel for how smart she is.''

    I am not for McCain, but this is the kind of sexism I do not like. Would they say this about Kaine, who BTW been a quick wit on Jon Stewart and Bill Mahr? Maybe I am over reacting, I know, but why question whether she was smart enough to learn fast. Our Democratic candidate is going to have to get up to speed quickly on the same things but he needed a Biden for his lack of experience. Same scenario.

    Michael O'Hanlon, (5.00 / 7) (#16)
    by Katherine Graham Cracker on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 09:28:36 AM EST
    He should talk...one of the bigger cheerleaders for the Shrubian policy in Iraq.  He is not in a position to be talking about anyone's learning curve.

    And what if she IS that smart.... (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by Maria Garcia on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 09:34:40 AM EST
    ...what more will they have to say?

    ...she should stay home with her child (5.00 / 4) (#66)
    by Josey on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 09:58:48 AM EST
    Parents and teachers of public school Special Needs children will certainly take a look at Palin.

    otoh -Obama has never even attended a public school!

    btw - Minnesota Obamabot on Washington Journal this morning claimed Biden was not a Washington insider because he's never lived there.
    I kid you not.
    Biden has only been "in" Washington since the Nixon administration.


    It's (5.00 / 2) (#73)
    by tek on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 10:03:12 AM EST
    the new meme.  Biden is in Washington not of Washington.  Heard that on PBS Thursday.

    A hole (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by Pianobuff on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 10:09:02 AM EST
    I think Obama's campaign may be starting to realize that McCain isn't happy with his 45% voter ceiling and is placing an all-or-nothing bet that they can perform a leg sweep and re-frame the entire election.

    The "he's never lived in DC" (none / 0) (#193)
    by oculus on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 01:18:35 PM EST
    refrain is really, really silly and seems more silly each time it is repeated.  

    I've read that she's dumb (5.00 / 7) (#24)
    by rooge04 on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 09:35:15 AM EST
    because she went to the University of Idaho.

    This article from the Post is dead-on.   They cannot help themselves.  How can they with a straight face sit there and claim "inexperience?" It IS a trap. And as per usual, Democrats and liberals are falling for it, hook, line and sinker.


    My guess is that O'Hanlon is for McCain (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by DemForever on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 09:36:34 AM EST
    He has been an incessant Iraq hawk

    O'Hanlon on McCain (5.00 / 2) (#39)
    by DemForever on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 09:43:50 AM EST
    "I don't think they're neocons. I think they're pragmatists because they've been right. He (McCain) himself has been proven right about Iraq, and so on Iraq, I think you can say McCain has a strong track record."



    I agree (5.00 / 8) (#31)
    by cmugirl on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 09:39:47 AM EST
    I find it offensive as well - especially those bloviators (and some who have made comments here) about the fact that she went to GASP the University of Idaho - you know - (whispers) - a state school!

    Well, as a proud product of a medium sized state school (Central Michigan - hence, my onscreen moniker), a big state school for graduate work (Texas A&M) and a city school for law school (Wayne State in Detroit), I think I could handle my own when it comes to intellect.  And after being out here in DC and meeting all these people with big fancy Ivy League degrees, I can say for sure that while I'm not the smartest person ever,  I'm smarter than many people who went to fancy schools (GWB comes to mind).

    Where doe these people get off criticizing her for being "backwoods"?  This is verrrrry dangerous for the Obama camp, considering most people in America live in small cities, towns, and rural areas.


    Like I was saying above (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by elonepb on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 09:43:19 AM EST
    It's dangerous for EVERYONE.

    The right-wing blogs and pundits are talking about how they have the "hot babe".

    Smug Republican frat-boys will be running around talking about how "sexy" she is, and I've already seen the term VPilf being tossed around.

    Disgusting on all levels, no matter who is saying it.


    The hot babe meme is also (5.00 / 3) (#156)
    by hairspray on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 11:41:13 AM EST
    being spread by the left wing boys over at DKos.

    I'm sure it's done to marginalize (5.00 / 2) (#159)
    by Redshoes on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 11:50:09 AM EST
    but don't they know that it's a compliment -- once you get to be a woman of a certain age comments like that are more amusing than anything else.  

    As near as I can tell, (none / 0) (#178)
    by EL seattle on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 12:17:17 PM EST
    60 is the new 30.  That's not a bad thing, is it?

    ( Karen Allen is definitely a babe, after all.  By this new calculation she's still just about 27.  Wanderers forever! )  


    Amen (5.00 / 4) (#58)
    by JimWash08 on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 09:53:32 AM EST
    And after being out here in DC and meeting all these people with big fancy Ivy League degrees, I can say for sure that while I'm not the smartest person ever,  I'm smarter than many people who went to fancy schools (GWB comes to mind).

    Great post.

    I think it was really silly for anyone to argue Palin may be stupid because she went to a state college.

    I've always believed that you could go to a lesser-known, public college, do well and excel, and still vy for the same high-level positions at Fortune 500 companies (if that's ones' goal).

    For many it isn't the lack of intelligence that prompted them to choose a 2nd-tier or 3rd-tier school, but the lack of finances to do so.

    And let's face it, the percentage of people/voters who went to schools equivalent to University of Idaho is much, much higher than someone who went to Harvard University/Law School -- and will be extremely insulted by such comments.

    And on that same account, anyone who dares to suggest that Palin will be a bad mother when she has two adolescent children and an infant with a disability at home is out of their minds.


    Harvard and Yale and the (5.00 / 3) (#62)
    by rooge04 on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 09:57:12 AM EST
    like are known for their grade inflation (so much so that law schools take this into account) .  And I've met people from both those schools.  None of them were smarter or more intelligent then your average somewhat educated citizen.  Most of the times it's only finances that prevents one from going to Yale vs. State school.

    It only makes Palin that much more likable.


    Many years ago (5.00 / 4) (#112)
    by BarnBabe on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 10:47:33 AM EST
    When I was working in California and was a Accounting Supervisor, we got this new CFO. And she called a meeting to introduce herself to her new managers, about 8 of us. The first thing she did was ask us to say our names and state our degree. I was surrounded by MBA's, etc. At the time I only had an Associate degree but was going to school for my BA. I was embarrassed about having the lowest degree of everyone in the room. A few days later, one of these 'degreed' persons said to me, "I forget, when you are adding to an asset, is it a debit or credit? Left or right side?" After that, I never was embarrassed that I was going to a State College. And I got two promotions, the CFO got fired for being incompetent.

    BTW, I believe it was revealed in 2004 that GW and Kerry were both C average students. So if Yale inflates grades..........


    Joe Biden graduated from Univ. of (none / 0) (#195)
    by oculus on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 01:24:08 PM EST
    Delaware undergrad and Syracuse University School of Law (private school, but not Ivy).  

    And... (none / 0) (#96)
    by cmugirl on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 10:25:01 AM EST
    She majored in (wait for it)....journalism.

    Maybe she will be able to beat the press at their own game?


    hmmm...wondering if Palin is also a (5.00 / 1) (#123)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 10:59:52 AM EST
    bitter knitter, religious clinger and gun toter :)

    IMO obama is not a fast learner....he is (5.00 / 1) (#120)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 10:56:26 AM EST
    still making the same rookie mistakes he was making months ago...just what is the acceptable learning curve?

    Men do not have to prove (5.00 / 3) (#131)
    by Jjc2008 on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 11:08:17 AM EST
    their intellect in general.  Exceptions to the rule are used to say "men suffer that too..."  It's like  this one man who angrily told me I was sexist for not acknowledging that "men are abuse victims too."
    Yes there are exceptions to every rule.
    But rarely are men asked to prove their intellectual abilities.....

    Actually Karl Rove (none / 0) (#25)
    by elonepb on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 09:35:58 AM EST
    Went off about Kaine, saying he had no experience, only governed a small area, and that, if Obama picked him, it would be all for political reasons.

    Eating his words of course.


    Actually (5.00 / 3) (#33)
    by cmugirl on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 09:41:29 AM EST
    If you think Karl Rove was not in on the decision making of this pick, you are not paying attention.  This is a game being played by Karl Rove, and as any good chess player will tell you, sometimes you have to give up a little to eventually back your opponent into checkmate.

    Oh I don't doubt it (none / 0) (#41)
    by elonepb on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 09:44:52 AM EST
    There's so much doubletalk coming out of the right that nothing surprises me.

    But that makes it even worse for me. There's no way Karl Rove has the interests of women equality in mind. He's trying to exploit a situation, and I don't like that at all.


    True (5.00 / 5) (#57)
    by cmugirl on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 09:53:10 AM EST
    But there's been a lot of double talk coming from the Dems as well, so after this primary season, I don't know WHY it surprises me when more cr@p comes out, but it does.

    They want to WIN - (5.00 / 2) (#94)
    by Jeannie on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 10:21:34 AM EST
    and this is a good strategy. Now the interest and excitement has shifted from the D's to the R's.... and Obama's speech faded into oblivion within 12 hours.

    Rove's comments (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by Pianobuff on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 10:25:42 AM EST
    have nothing to do one way or another with women.  It was all about pushing Obama into picking a Washington insider.  

    Ha (5.00 / 2) (#84)
    by Pianobuff on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 10:10:48 AM EST
    You don't think the Rove was using reverse psychology to goad Obama into picking a Washington insider?  Please.....  Funny how it worked, too.

    Sen. Patty Murray, from my state, was early on (none / 0) (#203)
    by esmense on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 03:07:26 PM EST
    referred to as "the stupidest politician in Washington." But she has served her constituents well and certainly displayed more smarts AND, at times, gumption than many a male legislator.

    Running as a "mom in tennis shoes" whe got a lot of derision. But, she also got a votes.  


    Of course it is a trap. (5.00 / 7) (#17)
    by Fabian on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 09:31:24 AM EST
    Of course the GOP was studying media coverage and blog reactions during the primary.

    So the GOP sets up a big box trap, puts in Palin as bait and the drooling misogynistic hyenas rush to be the first in.

    Yesterday I watched diary after diary, comment after comment try to calm the ravening mobs.  Even quoting Kos(regarding attacks on Hillary generating sympathy - in January!) didn't have any effect.

    Unless Obama himself puts the word out, this kind of predictable behavior will continue with predictable results.  I totally agree with BTD about ignoring Palin, but the people who attack Palin's everything-but-policy have no respect for BTD and will not listen.

    It's not on Hillary.  It's on Obama now to lead.

    So true. (5.00 / 3) (#46)
    by tek on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 09:47:50 AM EST
    On PBS last night the whole dialogue was about how Obama is not what the progressives want him to be , Moyers--a devout Obama supporter--called him a "reluctant liberal."  The discussion centered on how the grassroots can force Obama to be what they want.  It seems to me what this country needs is a leader, not a follower.

    Even though I disagreed with it (2.00 / 0) (#68)
    by elonepb on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 09:59:54 AM EST
    I think the FISA thing shows Obama is willing to break away from the liberals if he wants to.

    Then again, like McCain has voted with Bush 90% of the time, Obama has voted with the Dems agenda 90% of the time.


    but even McCain didn't vote (5.00 / 3) (#111)
    by Josey on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 10:46:46 AM EST
    (nor Hillary) for Cheney's energy bill that gave HUGE tax breaks to the oil companies.
    Obama did though.
    This week Jesse Jackson, Jr. told the Illinois delegation not to be concerned when Obama moves right after the convention. (wink, wink)...he doesn't really mean it, etc.
    With Obama flip flopping on major Dem issues after he became the presumptive nominee, I'm not sure what he means anymore.

    Obama has messaged he's easy (5.00 / 2) (#85)
    by Josey on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 10:11:52 AM EST
    When McCain's Obama-Britney ad appeared, the Obama camp went bonkers immediately claiming it was "racial" - hoping to duplicate the primary.
    And again yesterday, Obama's camp reacted to Palin with a nasty statement.

    There are other examples that Obama is too easy... and McCain has learned how to push his buttons.


    Obama's Got Friends To The Job For Him (5.00 / 5) (#18)
    by JimWash08 on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 09:32:46 AM EST
    This is part of a comment I made in the previous thread about the new ad that I think is appropriate for this suggestion.

    If I were the Obama campaign, I would ignore Palin as much as possible.

    His campaign may try to ignore Palin, but Obama's cheerleaders in the media and the blogosphere will not ... they'll continue to do a disservice to him but bring her "experience," gender and McCain's apparent pander-pick into the discussion.

    And why is it a problem? Because,

    • Obama is no more experienced than her, and he's AT THE TOP of the ticket.
    • Palin will receive the same sexist/misogynistic treatment that Hillary got, which no one in Obama's camp (himself or his high-level surrogates) tried to tamp down.
    • Obama chucked Hillary (his one sure-fire move that would have presented him the keys to the White House) aside, opening the door for McCain to walk right through with his pick.

    Those 3 topics are where Dems will lose the argument big time, and Obama's friends on the blogs and in the media (talking heads, Olbie, Tweetie, Cafferty) will ensure those arguments stay right up there in voters' faces.

    And if you think the McCainites, GOP high-rollers, and the Christian Cons./Evangelical base won't protect Palin -- like the Democratic equivalents failed to do for Hillary -- think again.

    And again, the choice of Palin may (or will) not bring the disenfranchised Hillary voters into the fold, because they may just decide not to vote at all. That's a loss for Obama, not McCain, because McCain's energized the bases he needed to attract in the Republican column with Palin.

    NOTE: I am not endorsing McCain or Palin, or voting for them.

    That's the key right there. (5.00 / 5) (#54)
    by rooge04 on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 09:51:49 AM EST
    The GOP WILL defend Palin.  The same attacks HRC got will come her way...but her party will defend her and protect her and get up in the face of anyone that tries.  You know, totally unlike what the Dem establishment did for Hillary. In fact, the exact opposite.

    I knew the Repubs would make the liberals regret how they treated Hillary. Now I see exactly how.  


    How true (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by Pianobuff on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 09:58:45 AM EST
    And for that segment of voters who could be swayed, the accusations (especially from women) on the left that this is an affirmative action pick will only make those Dems look like fringe protesters that are just jealous that a woman isn't on their ticket - e.g. "The only good woman is a Democratic woman".  It's not going to fly well and those that push that line will look like a bunch of bitter whiners.  The moderate women will be revulsed.

    BINGO (5.00 / 5) (#77)
    by Jjc2008 on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 10:05:51 AM EST
    What many fail to see, refuse to see is what HURT so many of us SO DEEPLY is that the so called progressive party was comfortable with sexism aimed at one of their own....and on some blogs, gleefully joined in.

    Back in the primary wars, on another blog, I asked. If certain MSM pundits used blatant racism in the way they used blatant sexism, we would have seen dem leaders, the DNC, the blogs going crazy.  But when sexism was pointed out, I was told "You are overly sensitive; or it was JUST a joke....."

    Can you imagine if anyone had placards at an Obama rally that said "SHINE MY SHOES"?  Would the reaction be "snickering" and "Well they were just some radio guys."  
    Well, "IRON MY SHIRTS" at a Hillary rally got that reaction........accusations of not having a sense of humor, overreacting....and they were just some radio guys.  
    The reaction to Palin being on the Republican ticket is bringing it all back again.
    There are still too many democrats who don't get it and it will hurt us all.


    number 3 (5.00 / 2) (#72)
    by tek on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 10:01:33 AM EST
    That's why the Palin choice is so smart.  No rational reason why Obama shouldn't have picked Hillary, just personal animosity either from him or his surrogates to kick the Clintons out--even though the people wanted her.  That's what makes the Palin choice so glaringly different from Obama and makes McCain look non-traditional and outside the status quo.  Republicans are supposed to be sexist, Democrats are supposed to be equal and supportive of women's progress, but who has the woman on his ticker?

    Now this will be deleted since TL has become a censored site.


    I think TL (none / 0) (#184)
    by Upstart Crow on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 12:43:12 PM EST
    is more open-minded than you give it credit for.

    The trap is for everyone (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by elonepb on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 09:33:40 AM EST
    Rush Limbaugh, the scumbag, is going around bragging that the Republicans have "A Babe on the Ticket".

    Like that's all she is???

    Unfortunately, Obama's supporters and McCain's supporters I feel will all fall into the "trap" of misogyny and continue to make sexist remarks.

    Depends How You See It (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by JimWash08 on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 09:41:32 AM EST
    The "Democratic sexism" will push some men and women, especially the hardcore feminists away from Obama -- either away from the polls on Nov. 4 or to McCain's ticket.

    The "Republican sexism" will draw people to the ticket, because from the sounds of it, the choice of Palin has energized the really conservative women in the party, roused the attention of Repub. women who were considering Obama, the Christian and Evangelical base and some Hillary supporters.

    So, I think it would be in the best interest of Obama's camp to tread slowly, and suggest to his supporters -- especially the vocal ones -- to do the same.


    Yeah (2.00 / 0) (#45)
    by elonepb on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 09:47:00 AM EST
    I wasn't saying that it would turn the Republicans away - just stating that the misogynistic statements are being made by all parties involved.

    And since the selection of Palin was a calculated move to try and woo Hillary supporters and still capture the conservative base, I don't see Republicans chanting about the "hot babe" pulling too many Liberal or Liberal-leaning women in.


    And "Obama Girl" does? (5.00 / 0) (#90)
    by tootired on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 10:16:24 AM EST
    I don't care so much if Limbaugh thinks and says that Palin is a "babe". She is a very attractive woman. As long as he also says that she is smart, courageous, clever, a strong leader . . . If he calls her a "bimbo", then it's another story.

    And the test is for everyone too. (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by Maria Garcia on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 09:45:25 AM EST
    And its a damned hard test. Why didn't we study?

    You called her a "skirt" (5.00 / 2) (#163)
    by echinopsia on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 11:53:50 AM EST
    Obama's Illinois senate job was parttime - (5.00 / 2) (#53)
    by Josey on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 09:51:43 AM EST
    so there goes about 1/2 Obama's "experience."

    Any woman who's raised 5 kids and maintained a healthy marriage while breaking the glass ceiling in an old boy network - can handle the demands of the White House.

    20th Anniversary (5.00 / 2) (#80)
    by JimWash08 on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 10:08:01 AM EST
    Sarah and Todd Palin celebrated their 20th Anniversary on the day she was named as VP to McCain's ticket.

    How amazing and timely is that?

    And 20 years of marriage is nothing to sneeze at in this day and age when you have politicians, celebrities and regulars Joes/Joannes splitting up within months of their wedding.

    And also, I was reading that the Palin kids were told to pack their bags on Thursday night and hop on the plane to Ohio to celebrate their parents' anniversary.

    Nice surprise for them too, I'd bet.


    Well apparently (5.00 / 1) (#129)
    by Jjc2008 on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 11:04:43 AM EST
    saying someone is not experience, is a risk is a RACIST thing to say.  But NOT a SEXIST thing to say.

    Maybe the liberal blogosphere and the DNC should put out a memo listing the rules .....because my head is spinning.


    Unfortunately (none / 0) (#76)
    by elonepb on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 10:04:49 AM EST
    I think the responsibilities of the White House are a bit more demanding than those in Alaska.

    Definitely a proud moment to see a woman on the GOP ticket, but how it happened makes you question whether she earned it among the boys or was given by a man who just wanted any available woman.

    She has a bright political future regardless, she seems to be smart, intelligent, and her attractiveness will make the media give her attention like they give Obama's attractiveness.

    It will be interesting to see how she addresses the issue of pro-life.


    Missing the point (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by Pianobuff on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 10:30:40 AM EST
    Her outsider credentials as a reformer within her own party were the top qualification.  The chess game started several moves ago and has several more to be played.  Not saying it will work, but this was a strategic pick, not a tactical ploy to get some of the Hillary vote.  McCain would have picked "Sam" Palin if the same credentials were there.

    Yes, after all of the teeth (4.00 / 1) (#164)
    by hairspray on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 11:54:56 AM EST
    gnashing I would like to see the Pro life issues addressed.  I have read that she is opposed to bringing personal beliefs into govt and that she stuck to that as a pragmatist. I want more info on this.  I also heard the left say that she wants creationism taught in the schools, but the text I read did not say that.  She said that both evolution and creationism should be discussed in the schools. That is different than making it part of the science curriculum.  These are important distinctions to make.  A few college profs on this site believe that the way to defang creationism is to discuss it in a comparative religion course and I agree.  It is healthier to see it in the light of day rather than in the fire and brimstone church setting.

    You might not be offended (1.00 / 2) (#98)
    by elonepb on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 10:26:03 AM EST
    But you are among a minority.

    Please stop (5.00 / 3) (#170)
    by echinopsia on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 12:00:34 PM EST
    the evidence-free pronouncements that a majority of women, or Hillary supporters, or Democrats, or Americans, are offended. Or that they should be.

    You do not get to tell me what offends me. But I'll give you a hint: so-called Democrats who refer to women as "skirts."


    You need to bone up on alaska (none / 0) (#143)
    by hairspray on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 11:28:51 AM EST
    From a poster yesterday it is foolish to dismiss the largest land mass state. It has large and complex problems of environment, industry, native american tribal concerns, bad roads, 5 military bases, and boundary concerns with Candada and Russia. In addition there has been lots of GOP corruption which she sucessfully fought.  I would hold my fire on the dismissive stuff.

    There WERE other available women! (none / 0) (#188)
    by Upstart Crow on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 12:48:36 PM EST
    You forget that McCain has to fight the image of being an old fogey.

    She's smart, she's aggressive, she's attractive, she's appealing.

    Another poster said that McCain has, in one stroke, given the Republicans a new future.

    Look at the Dem convention -- with Bill, and Hill, and Gore.

    What to the Republicans have to equal that?

    If they're smart, they'll instead focus on the new generation - Palin, Jindal, Pawlenty, etc.

    Moreover, he has shaken up a national conversation that was fixed in certain perceptions of him.  

    Obama's camp is wrong. She does matter. I think it will be hard to argue that this is "Bush's Third Term."


    Here's something to watch for (5.00 / 2) (#60)
    by cmugirl on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 09:56:00 AM EST
    It would be interesting to see what kind of effect Palin's husband could have.  While I don't know if he would be making any speeches, he was member of the United Steel Workers, and she is a former union member, so maybe they can connect to voters in Michigan, PA, OH....No need to wax poetically of stories of grandfathers or great-grandfathers being "regular working people" - these people have lived it first hand. I can't wait to see the polls in those states when this part of the story gets out and into people's heads.

    It's (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by tek on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 10:07:43 AM EST
    also seems to me that however you feel about her Party, Palin is a person who has very definitive principles that really do guide her life.  I can tell you that knowing her baby was Down's Syndrome and going ahead with the pregnancy will resonate with every  woman who loves her children even though they may not have been planned and are not perfect.  It's a courageous thing when so many people choose abortion--even evangelical christians who claim to oppose abortion frequently cave in when a problem pregnancy threatens to alter their lives.  I've seen that happen a hundred times.

    Well, (5.00 / 1) (#200)
    by eleanora on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 02:25:30 PM EST
    I respect that Governor Palin is not a hypocrite. But I find it difficult to give her credit for making a "tough choice" when she believes that other women shouldn't have any choice at all. Following her line of reasoning, she had no choice.

    That's what being pro-choice is all about--acknowledging that each woman has the right to decide when she will or won't carry a pregnancy to term. By her record, Governor Palin apparently believes that right doesn't exist.


    I've read only 10% of fetuses (none / 0) (#197)
    by oculus on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 01:33:41 PM EST
    diagnosed as Down's Syndrome are carried to term now.  

    They Still Are (5.00 / 0) (#87)
    by JimWash08 on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 10:12:56 AM EST
    ...he was member of the United Steel Workers, and she is a former union member,...

    In McCain's introduction yesterday, he said they still are union members. He definitely is though; it was mentioned several times on the news channels and articles today.

    She also worked in manual labor jobs too, so the fact is that both of them not only relate to many voters, the lived their lives too.


    *sexism alert* (none / 0) (#81)
    by Jane2009 on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 10:08:32 AM EST
    I'm not going to insult any voters by implying his total hotness is going to make a difference (it really won't), but, you know, wowza.

    But, yeah to the connection to union membership. I'm really curious as to how his status will fit into the narrative the McCain campaign is forwarding in terms of policy positions.


    Plus he's Native American (none / 0) (#189)
    by Upstart Crow on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 12:49:43 PM EST
    She makes a very good 1st impression (5.00 / 6) (#83)
    by Redshoes on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 10:10:14 AM EST
    and has "mom" appeal -- my Mom likes her.    I do too.  And after the Obama campaign failed to fax the right set of talking points to its surrogates they look completely unhinged -- Paul Begala joins the pantheon of natting fools.    

    I'm not voting for McCain but he's impressed with this pick.  Sets up the "experience" trap, sets up the "sexist" trap.  The Obama camp walks into both and McCain gets bonus points because they walk into the "elitist" trap all on their own.  The Palin pick keeps the discussion on personality not policy; energizes his base; reinforces the maverick image (see he's the same guy you liked in 2000 just had to ride out the last 8 years just like us biding his time) and oh by the way sets the stage for next week when he'll tell us how he will lead the nation and reform our government.

    Nicely played.  

    I'm suprised (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by Pianobuff on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 10:14:02 AM EST
    ...more people aren't picking up on your last point.  That's the endgame with the pick.  The other things are decoys placed along the way to keep discussion while the message change occurs. All helpful, of course, but not the central thrust at all.  McCain felt he had to make an all-in bet and he made the best one possible.  I'm surprised people are so slow to pick this up.

    Slow on the uptake (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by Redshoes on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 10:27:41 AM EST
    is what the Republican machine relies on -- otherwise how else can you explain close polls.  By any standard this race shouldn't even be close and yet Dems act defensively instead of just getting out there and hammering home that it's Republican policies and philosophy that led to this mess.  

    We capitulate and compromise (government spying on you, okay) and have happy talk about bipartisanship.  What in heck's name is wrong Dems?  Take the fight to them.  Just once.


    Prediction (none / 0) (#105)
    by Pianobuff on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 10:37:07 AM EST
    McCain's acceptance speech will be a "coming to Jesus" moment.  He will frame himself and Palin as the uniquely qualified people to help the Republican party "re-find" its way that they have lost over the years.

    What many posters on this board are not acknowledging is that:

    1. This campaign has a personal side to it.  McCain is ticked that the image he's worked on for so many years has been stolen by an upstart candidate.  He's pissed and he wants it back.  This isn't political for McCain, this is personal.

    2. McCain is not running a tactical campaign and making a reactive decision about Palin, particularly for some short-term bump or small slice of the female vote.  Every chess move has been well thought out going back to Obama's announcement that he was going overseas.

    Nope (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by Pianobuff on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 10:17:31 AM EST
    Haven't been there, but I would suspect they are probably lower profile.  I'm sure his campaign is content to have the dialogue focused on exactly where it is right now.

    As I've said in other posts, it's an all-in bet.  I'm not saying it will work, but that's the plan.

    One thing that I'm sure (5.00 / 4) (#103)
    by frankly0 on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 10:32:26 AM EST
    that infuriates Obama supporters and his campaign is how effectively the Palin announcement stepped on the impact of Obama's own speech.

    I just imagine their outrage over it.

    It was beautifully played by the McCain camp. First, they come out with a comment praising Obama for his own historical nomination. Then, the next day, they come out with an historical nomination of their own -- one which had all the greater impact because it was so successfully kept as a complete surprise.

    And then the Obama campaign and its supporters, ever in touch with their kneejerk anger and outrage, spill their vile stuff, thereby once again undercutting the "new politics" message.

    I think we can say that from the standpoint of the Palin announcement, it's very much Mission Accomplished -- probably beyond the wildest dreams of the McCain camp.

    Likely Palin -- precisely because she's so inexperienced, and so will commit many a gaffe -- will do some level of damage to the McCain effort from her on out.

    But I think her most important virtue was that she would squash the Obama bounce, and allow McCain to recover immediately in the polls as the Republican convention commences and progresses. If, at the end of the two conventions, Obama and McCain are both roughly tied as they were before, that would be a huge win for McCain, who, most importantly, can't be perceived as out of the running.

    I've got to guess that that effect is going to come to pass -- though let's see how it progresses.

    How could they not see this? (5.00 / 1) (#117)
    by cmugirl on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 10:53:13 AM EST
    McCain told the world last week that he would announce his VP pick the day after Obama's speech (as many had also predicted here).  This was like watching a football game that has 2 seconds left, Team A is losing by 4, and they are on their own 40 yard line.  The whole world knows that Team A is going to throw the Hail Mary Pass (and I'm not comparing the Palin pick to a Hail Mary - I'm saying the whole world knew what play was coming).  Team B drops all their guys in the backfield to defend against a touchdown pass.

    Why were the Dems caught so unawares about this?


    Well (5.00 / 2) (#122)
    by frankly0 on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 10:59:05 AM EST
    the one thing I think no one anticipated was that the VP pick would itself be such an historic occasion, and so very surprising.

    If McCain had picked Romney, I don't think it would have stepped nearly so hard -- if at all -- on Obama's speech.

    But of course the Obama camp should have been fully prepared for all possibilities. To use your analogy, it's like they sent their defense back only to cover only the wide receivers in the Hail Mary, and the tight end was left wide open a little bit upfield.


    Second day look (5.00 / 2) (#106)
    by Missblu on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 10:37:48 AM EST
    Sarah Palin may turn out to be the woman that
    fate has chosen to break through that heretofore crashproof glass ceiling She may assuming Senator McCain is elected,in one way or another ascend to the presidency.  

    The early reports coming in from mainstreet:

    *    From Alaskan pundits, politicians and others are favorable.  Women, especially mothers, may see in her a model of strength, humor, compassion, incredible achievements personal and otherwise, and courage.
    *    These reports tell us she is willing to work with and in fact works well with liberals, defends gay rights, deals in issues before her aggressively, and is likable.  She is quick, smart and as a runner,full of energy.

    All of this light shining down on Sarah Palin can be laid at the doorstep of the DNC. The Democratic leadership in the months leading up to this time,  thumbed their noses through actions and just plain unfairness, not once but twice at the woman in the country who was the top drawer most brilliant female politician probably in the world. This from the party of women's rights. BTD was sooo right on this one.  It was stupid.

    John McCain definitely has many problems with many woman of the liberal persuasion but one thing is hard to deny.  Deep down quietly in their hearts they are feeling a moment of gratitude to someone who had the courage to recognize that women are so special and that specialness is increasingly necessary in solving this country's problems.. The argument that she is untested and inexperienced  begs the same question people put forth when this is noted about Obama. Could she be any worse than Bush or Cheney?

    Does anyone know which blogger wrote the line (5.00 / 3) (#113)
    by esmense on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 10:47:40 AM EST
    she quotes in that column:

    "following in a long line of reckless men who have rolled the dice for a beauty queen."

    It is outrageous.

    Dan Gerstein (none / 0) (#190)
    by tootired on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 12:55:03 PM EST
    'Nuance' (5.00 / 8) (#137)
    by Dr Molly on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 11:13:33 AM EST
    You know, sexism and feminism are complicated and too easily caricatured, just as Sarah Palin is currently being caricatured.

    I won't vote for the McCain/Palin ticket based on issues important to me. But the arguments I'm hearing about her are so simplistic - that's what's insulting, not Sarah Palin.

    Is being anti-choice non-feminist? Of course. But there are many facets of feminism. She is a working mother for example, and unapologetically aspiring to high office with 5 kids, including a baby. Contrast that with Michelle Obama who, despite being a smart and accomplished woman, has chosen to downplay her own accomplishments and to frame herself as a mother first and foremost, and supporting her man's ambitions. She is playing the warm and fuzzy role a la Laura Bush. Complicated.

    And I gotta tell you - if I hear one more 'liberal' make a clueless comment about the audacity of Sarah Palin running for office while having 5 kids and a baby, I'll go offer to babysit and do her laundry for her while she's campaigning. Don't people realize how difficult this issue is for women?  How we've struggled against these comments from our co-workers forever?

    The irony never ceases in this campaign. While her stance on many issues is wrong for feminists, in many ways she exemplifies feminism just by doing what she's doing and what she's already done.

    It's not black and white. I will be completely and utterly confused if Republican men come out on her side after what we've witnessed Democratic men doing and saying. Everything is so confusing this year.

    Agree with all you say (5.00 / 2) (#142)
    by nell on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 11:27:57 AM EST
    Thank you.

    The thing I have been most disturbed by is the comments about her leaving her baby at home. This is an issue that women across this country are dealing with, and it is one that is often very emotionally difficult....they would NEVER be asking these questions of a male candidate. No one ever suggests that Barack Obama is a bad father for having his mother-in-law care for their children while they are on the campaign trail. And why should anyone suggest that? The Obamas love their daughters, and they also have higher aspirations. Good for them. And good for Sarah Palin for being a loving mother to her 5 children and wanting to do something bigger and better for herself and in her view, for the country.

    If this becomes a line of attack in the MSM, as it was on CNN yesterday, I predict a backlash from the working mothers of America...


    I predict they will keep after Palin (5.00 / 1) (#141)
    by DandyTIger on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 11:18:58 AM EST
    for the very same reason they couldn't help with the sexism and misogyny towards Hillary. It's the same with their (and the republicans for that matter) hate of the Clintons, they just can't help themselves.

    Seriously (5.00 / 1) (#144)
    by nell on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 11:30:34 AM EST
    Anyone who believed them when they said their hatred was just about Hillary and had nothing to do with her being a woman was foolish. It had everything to do with her being a woman. And their irrational attacks on Sarah Palin's motherhood (leaving her baby at home), and inexperience (when Obama has just as little), are showing it. I mean they are HYSTERICAL, they would NEVER attack a man in this way.

    I hope Sarah Barracuda shows them all what she is made of. I won't vote for her, but I am rooting for her to take on the boys club and smash them all with the fabulous red heels she was wearing yesterday!.


    This is my reading time to decompress (5.00 / 5) (#145)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 11:32:18 AM EST
    I have about 30 mins and I choose to read you.  It isn't often that I find myself disagreeing with you on anything but I am now and ignoring Palin is the WRONG way to play this.  H. Clinton played it right on the money......respect the human beingNESS of the candidates but the McCain/Palin policies will land this country everywhere except where it wants to be.  The McCain/Palin policies will not heal what ails this nation and give every indication that what ails us will progress and worsen.  Sadly the Obama campaign has ticked off women.........strong women who know stuff and have slain more than a few dragons in their day.  Don't think for one minute that strong women haven't also been "ignored" as a way of hoping they will just go away damn it.  Want to make the smart strong women of this country angry again, ignore Palin.  Obama and Biden will feed the monster they have created with their out of touchness with "their" women if they ignore Palin.  Nope, respect Palin....attack what she does and chooses to do but don't attack her personhood and definitely don't ignore her personhood.  Whether we like it or not she is an accomplished woman, she is an accomplished woman that would take this country in ALL the SERIOUSLY WRONG DIRECTIONS!

    When you have more time, MT, (5.00 / 1) (#198)
    by oculus on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 01:40:34 PM EST
    read BTD's posts from yesterday about this subject.  I think you and he agree.

    How is your son doing?  How are you doing?  


    Then what (none / 0) (#167)
    by zvs888 on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 11:57:35 AM EST
    Yeah, but then how do you deal with her?

    What issues do you take her on on?

    Protecting polar bears?  Maybe ANWR but McCain opposes that anyways so there's no reason to go there.

    We don't know anything about what she thinks of foreign policy.  All we know is that she fixed corruption up in Alaska and said no to the bridge to nowhere (2 years after saying it was a good idea).

    Attacking her is a blatantly bad idea because it will just get her sympathizers.  Just stick to attacking McCain's plans for America.

    Notice that McCain completely ignores Biden.  That's the same as how this has to be.

    Presidential candidates go after one another, VPs go after the other Presidential candidate.


    Debate her on the issues (5.00 / 1) (#168)
    by joanneleon on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 11:59:24 AM EST
    and treat her as the equal that she is.  

    Ignoring her completely could be viewed as dismissive.  Just treat her as you would any other candidate and exercise respect.  But absolutely, do not demean her or use sexist terms.  She's a new and sympathetic figure.  

    Issues first (5.00 / 1) (#172)
    by Rashomon66 on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 12:01:14 PM EST
    I agree. Just stick with the issues and avoid criticizing Palin. McCain, I think, chose Palin in part because he knew it would be difficult for the Obama campaign to go after her without looking like they are picking on her or being hypocritical about the experience thing. Just show the voters what the McCain Palin ticket believes in and then offer better solutions.

    greatest danger for dems, the cynical/token issue (5.00 / 2) (#186)
    by DandyTIger on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 12:44:29 PM EST
    I've heard from a number of sources including this site that her choice was cynical and she was a token choice because she's a woman. And it's especially cynical because she is inexperienced. OK, I hope you all see the supreme idiocy of that argument. And I can't believe anyone who actually wants the Democratic party to win in November would ever bring this issue up. For any kool-aid drinkers out there that won't get it, um, your candidate is, well, kind of inexperienced (arguably less so than Palin), and was chosen over more experienced candidates possibly because of what bold new changing characteristic. It's great that both parties are breaking down barriers. But in both cases, there is a definite cynical dimension to it. Don't go there.

    Re: the favorible impression amongst (5.00 / 1) (#199)
    by oculus on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 01:47:19 PM EST
    63% of independent voters.  Yikes.  Obama campaign better tread with extreme care.

    In the view of another pollster (2.00 / 0) (#30)
    by DemForever on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 09:39:20 AM EST
    she may be the worst VP pick ever

    Hmmm, this pollster's analysis (5.00 / 1) (#180)
    by Valhalla on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 12:28:49 PM EST
    tracks perfectly every Democratic talking point we heard yesterday about Palin.  Funny, that.

    she will undoubtedly scare the hell out of the soccer moms and 98% of Hillary voters. In fact, many of these women may feel insulted by this choice in that McCain and the GOP think they are stupid and would bypass their own interest (reproductive and economic) to vote for the ticket due to gender and anger that Hillary was not the nominee.

    A bit sloppy -- 98%?  When has any group had a 98% agreement on anything?  If this person is really a pollster, why are there no numbers to back up the statements, or at least collateral data that might be put forth in support?  (eg, '98% percent of Clinton voters identify themselves as 'Very Liberal' so would be unlikely to accept Palin, blah blah blah).  There are only some wild predictions.  Even Zogby uses poll numbers in his arguments.

    Without that, this is just a guy with an opinion.  I can do better that this.  Around 20% of Clinton voters were already going to McCain, who is anti-abortion.  So probably Palin won't be rejected by 98% of Clinton supporters.

    It's not even the anti-Palin thing here I object to, it's the sloppy reasoning and vacuum of supporting data.  Ptooie!


    it wouldn't hurt (none / 0) (#5)
    by Turkana on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 09:06:48 AM EST
    to quietly emphasize her evangelical side. swing voters are sick of that. as sebelius has proved, even kansans are sick of it!

    I think its better fo focus on McCain.... (5.00 / 3) (#6)
    by Maria Garcia on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 09:08:21 AM EST
    ...I'm still a little wary of waking up the evangelicals. Let them stay disaffected.

    they're awake (2.00 / 0) (#8)
    by Turkana on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 09:10:35 AM EST
    dobson's on board. half a year ago, he pledged to not support mccain. you're right that the focus has to remain on mccain, but this was such a poor selection- even mark halperin sounded aghast- that it says much about mccain's judgement.

    Dobson was moving to McCain (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by nycstray on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 09:15:56 AM EST
    before Palin. Saddleback helped with him.

    certainly helped (none / 0) (#11)
    by Turkana on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 09:17:29 AM EST
    but now he's fully on board. the far right websites are buzzing with excitement. palin's one of their own.

    I just don't want them to feel attacked.... (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by Maria Garcia on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 09:21:50 AM EST
    ....so that they don't start one of their "War on fill-in-the-blanks" campaigns.

    agreed (none / 0) (#23)
    by Turkana on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 09:35:07 AM EST
    and it isn't necessary to attack her, per se- just expose her. that will make the evangelicals happier, and the swing voters more skeptical. i think we can live with the political consequences of such a dynamic...

    Not a good idea (none / 0) (#10)
    by Coral on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 09:17:22 AM EST
    Evangelical voters (a few personal friends are) - at least some of them - are leaning toward Obama. Although I think the Palin pick may swing them back to the GOP.

    It would not be a good idea to attack on basis of faith.

    Best line of attack -- polar bears. Now, lots of people who don't really get global warming don't want to see polar bears go extinct.


    i've never been comfortable (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by Turkana on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 09:27:30 AM EST
    with obama courting evangelicals. he doesn't need them. hillary's primary voters are still the ones who will determine the outcome, and most of them are no more comfortable with evangelicals than they are with hardcore liberals such as myself.

    yeah, but (5.00 / 0) (#100)
    by Dr Molly on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 10:28:13 AM EST
    most of them are mainly not very comfortable with the rank sexism and hatred directed at women from every single corner, including most of the 'liberal' blogs.

    this should get interesting.


    i have deplored (none / 0) (#128)
    by Turkana on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 11:03:16 AM EST
    the sexism of the shrillosphere. but the sexism of the right wing is even worse, and it touches every aspect of policy.

    Oh, really? (5.00 / 1) (#179)
    by Brookhaven on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 12:19:18 PM EST
    Is there a tool that measures the differences in sexism and the effects it has on those targeted when the source is not the same?  Hadn't heard of that.  As a woman, frankly, I see no difference.  A rose is a rose is a rose.  Hate is hate.  It doesn't matter the source, the deep pain and anger are the same in me.  Although one thing is for sure, I always expected it from the Republicans and not from the Dems, or at least not in the rabid way it was on display for so many months in blogs, on my TV, in my newspapers and magazines and from a some of my once-cherished friends.

    We didn't expect it with the full force of a tsunami from the Dems.  When a stranger harms you, it hurts but when a family member harms you the cut is much deeper and longer lasting.  

    That is what sticks in my memory and my gut.  The cut is very deep and will not go away any time soon.  

    And, with the Palin pick I see the same stoopid, disgusting, sexist remarks/attitudes and just plain hate and insane attacks that was flug at HRC and us her supporters for months and months and months.  

    Memory is a funny thing, it remembers.  


    Prove that the right wing (5.00 / 1) (#182)
    by RalphB on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 12:38:16 PM EST
    is more sexist than than the fauxgressives?  Just saying it won't cut it any longer.

    Position (none / 0) (#7)
    by nellre on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 09:10:35 AM EST
    Mother Earth would suffer under her rule.
    I wonder if women are really born nurturing. If so, what happened to her that she would support aerial wolf shoots, the rape of ANWR etc.?
    She thinks the debate is still open about man made global warming.
    She thinks they should teach creation in school.
    These positions make her a nut case in my view. And these positions are what the Obama campaign should attack.

    "Nut Case" or not... (none / 0) (#185)
    by rdandrea on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 12:44:15 PM EST
    ...(and I don't think name-calling is constructive), I don't think the Obama campaign should attack Gov. Palin.  There's a very simple reason.

    Obama is not running against Sarah Palin.  He's running against John McCain.

    In a political campaign, it's all too easy to become distracted by peripheral issues. Peripheral issues come at you all the time.  They're diversions and red herrings--sucker punches--and only suckers punch back.  

    Successful campaigns are the ones that are sufficiently disciplined to not become distracted by anything.


    Sorry but (none / 0) (#196)
    by nellre on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 01:27:52 PM EST
    Making an effort to leave a planet that can support life for my grandchilden often does distract me.
    Obama did not pick Hillary as a running mate. He needs to address this or the bitter knitters like me will end up voting dem down ticket but for McKinney for president.

    Smart (none / 0) (#22)
    by Jane2009 on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 09:34:55 AM EST
    Very smart ad; the Obama campaign needs to keep pushing the McCain-Bush link. I think a lot of the supporters take for granted the McCain/McSame meme, and so don't reiterate it enough, if that's the message they want to push (for the record, I hate any diminutive nicknames applied to either candidate, but I'm just borrowing it for shorthand here). Because of the "Maverick" reputation, a lot of people don't necessarily elide McCain with Bush automatically, even if they do see that McCain's positions agree with Bush. There's a fine, but very important, distinction.

    Plus, focusing on trashing Palin or her policies really makes no practical sense. For one, if someone violently disagrees with her policies (she is, after all, a Republican!), they most likely wouldn't be considering her anyway. Second, anyone objecting to her lack of experience will hardly turn to Obama as a great alternative. And focusing on her being a woman is just plain dumb, for the kajillion reasons already gone over on this site (I really appreciate the discussion being handled in a fair way here, so much better than reading elsewhere about how someone just can't take her voice - seriously, I think some people have learned absolutely NOTHING).

    The add was good but (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by jbradshaw4hillary on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 09:43:22 AM EST
    I think the obama campaign must be careful not to be seen as dismissing her either.  I think that that could possibly upset a lot of people,but particularly  women, who might take offense to see a woman running to be vice president of the USA be dismissed and ignored.  Now I do not think we should all out attack either.  The obama campaign must find a way to show how not just McCain, but Palin to would be more of the same.  I think that the best way to do that would to be focusing on her policies, but I just do not know enough to even say which policies.  

    Good point. (5.00 / 2) (#55)
    by Jane2009 on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 09:52:42 AM EST
    Clinton's response struck exactly the right tone for me; although I've seen her criticized for not going far enough. Apparently acknowledging women moving into serious consideration in our government needs to be condemned. /snark

    McCain/McSame (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by BarnBabe on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 09:49:36 AM EST
    I always thought that saying was dumb. It seemed name calling childish, like when we were kids. I understand the message but I do not think it works. Instead, adults ignore it as coming from their 8 year old.

    Just like you (none / 0) (#64)
    by Jane2009 on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 09:58:15 AM EST
    when I hear someone using that term, I always think, what are you, 8? Yeah, exactly. I find it laughable that many arguments against Palin are telling women that we need to transcend our emotional reactions and to focus exclusively on policy in judging her selection. Because, you know, so many others have shown us how it's done. /snort

    Well, if the Obama campaign finds (none / 0) (#29)
    by andgarden on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 09:38:02 AM EST
    it necessary to knock her down, and I think they probably won't, the past association with Pat Buchanan seems most damaging to me.

    Pat is a smart guy, but he's also an extremist and a racist. Not someone you want to be associated with politically if you want to be considered mainstream. I remember in 2006 he was really excited on MSNBC when he heard that Palin had won her race. Why?

    He was speaking glowingly of her (none / 0) (#32)
    by DemForever on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 09:40:16 AM EST
    yesterday as one of his brigaders in 1996

    I hate Pat Buchanan..... (none / 0) (#40)
    by Maria Garcia on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 09:43:56 AM EST
    ...but he's had some very nice things to say about Obama lately too. The complexity factor has ratcheted up about 100 percent in this election. Friend? Enemy? Who knows.

    Well, (none / 0) (#44)
    by andgarden on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 09:45:32 AM EST
    I actually like Pat, and I respect his political analysis, but I would never let him or anyone who agrees with him on policy get anywhere near the White House. Not if I have anything to say about it.

    The interesting thing about Pat Buchanan... (none / 0) (#47)
    by Maria Garcia on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 09:47:53 AM EST
    ...is that he was not a war cheerleader. Weird, isn't it?

    About Pat (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by Pianobuff on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 09:49:16 AM EST
    He also believes it was a mistake for the rest of Europe to fight Germany in WWII.  Even a stopped clock will occasionally tell the correct time.

    Exactly (none / 0) (#56)
    by andgarden on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 09:53:08 AM EST
    Well, yeah, (none / 0) (#52)
    by andgarden on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 09:51:04 AM EST
    But let's just say that there's a reason why he has his own page on the ADL site.

    Pat does not think very nice things about people who aren't white and Christian.


    Andgarden.... (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by Maria Garcia on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 09:56:13 AM EST
    ...you are preaching to the choir. I'm the one who said I hated Pat Buchanan. I am ambivalent regarding identity politics but Pat Buchanan's "views" are a personal attack on me and mine.

    Ferraro (none / 0) (#36)
    by Gabriel on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 09:43:03 AM EST
    also had positive buzz right after she was chosen by Mondale. That changed quickly as it became clear she was not prepared and her husband's problems became better known.

    The Obama campaign probably doesn't need to do much here. Palin will be investigated and queried enough in the coming weeks.

    Hopefully Biden's comments (none / 0) (#48)
    by DemForever on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 09:48:15 AM EST
    after debating Palin's will be a bit more gracious that Bush Sr.'s were after debating Ferraro

    She is the only other female VP pick (none / 0) (#91)
    by Gabriel on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 10:17:02 AM EST

    er, because that's the comparison being made? (none / 0) (#107)
    by Gabriel on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 10:40:33 AM EST
    I thought it was clear.

    Oh, I agree (none / 0) (#118)
    by Gabriel on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 10:54:56 AM EST
    Plenty of other VP choices fell flat. But one of the main reasons Palin creates a buzz is because she is a woman, hence the comparison.

    Huh? (none / 0) (#148)
    by Gabriel on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 11:33:42 AM EST
    Are you SERIOUSLY saying that Palin's buzz is not related to her being a woman?

    Yeah (none / 0) (#155)
    by Gabriel on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 11:41:12 AM EST
    it would help if you made your points clear.

    The Rasmussen daily tracker has also (none / 0) (#51)
    by tigercourse on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 09:50:15 AM EST
    stayed at the same number it was on Friday. This is a poll that includes Wed, Thurs, Fri. That could mean that the Palin choice halted his convention bounce. If the GOP convention goes well, we could be right back to even.

    It's an 8 point gap (none / 0) (#69)
    by DemForever on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 10:00:04 AM EST
    4 points going by Ras. (none / 0) (#95)
    by tigercourse on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 10:23:48 AM EST
    Gallup usually hits higher when there's an (none / 0) (#183)
    by Valhalla on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 12:39:57 PM EST
    Obama bump than Ras.  But so far, they've both come back down to tied after each one -- last day of primaries, Unity, European tour.

    The polls you link to only goes through Thurs, not Friday.

    I'm interested to see how the Palin thing affects the horse race.


    Now that (none / 0) (#59)
    by tek on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 09:55:58 AM EST
    I know what's really going on with the Democrats--they want a black man to bring the blacks back to the Democrats and they must keep the Faith Based Initiative and create the Neighborhood Project so blacks and christians won't turn to the Republicans for those billions--and then they want the new prez to re-implement the Clinton policies--sans the Clintons and welfare reform--I think I really am done with this party and this election.

    Basksetweaving, that's the thing.  

    Last night (none / 0) (#74)
    by Pianobuff on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 10:03:49 AM EST
    Cornell West was on Tavis Smiley.  He seemed to have some concerns that Obama wouldn't be able to do enough for the black community, or at least discuss it as openly as he would like to.

    Obama must criticize Palin on experience (none / 0) (#109)
    by Exeter on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 10:44:06 AM EST
    Specifically on lack of experience. That is clearly the talking point they are sending out to the surrogates. This is a very risky strategy, but I know why they are doing it:

    If the Obama campaign does NOT criticize Palin on inexperience, then they cannot use Biden's experience to bolster Obama's inexperience.

    They must stress the importance of the VP,  that the position is a key partner in everything, intimate that is like a co-president, ect.

    So, now it is the Obama campaign (who made the boring safe, pick) that must take a very risky path to preserve the perception of their ticket (that Biden is the inexperienced Obama's Cheney).  

    That's why Palin was a genious pick on Obama's part.

    Once again (none / 0) (#115)
    by Pianobuff on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 10:51:07 AM EST
    The Republicans are driving the direction of the narrative.  That is EXACTLY what they want the Obama campaign to focus on at this time, and time will tell if they take the bait.

    I agree... and Obama IS focusing on (none / 0) (#174)
    by Exeter on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 12:07:31 PM EST
    the experience

    Articulate and Intelligent (none / 0) (#110)
    by santarita on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 10:46:27 AM EST
    I saw her hourlong interview with Maria Bartiromo on CNBC.  She is undoubtedly articulate and intelligent.  Despite her lack of experience, it would be a mistake to think that she is a lightweight.   And for people that make light of the State of Alaska, they ought to look at its physical size and  resources. The debate with Biden should prove interesting.

     it is also clear from that interview she is sympathetic to the Oil Industry and she is clearly in line with Republican conservative philosophy.  She will be a very effective advocate for that philosophy.  I would not be surprised if the Bush-Cheney oil lobby didn't push for her nomination.    

    Obama's best argument is to make the case for the Democratic philosophy and to make plain why the last 8 years shows that the Republican conservative philosophy doesn't work.

    Big oil (none / 0) (#152)
    by americanincanada on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 11:38:56 AM EST
    does not consider her a friend. She raised taxes on them in Alaska, much to their chagrin.

    Yes and no (none / 0) (#192)
    by santarita on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 12:57:37 PM EST
    Based on her interview with Bartiromo, I could see that she is not completely a shill for Big Oil the way that Cheney and Bush are.  But she supports opening up ANWR and in the interview she kept stressing how Alaskan oil and natural gas could be used for the "hungry lower 48 states".  I got the impression that she was very protective of the right of Alaskans to benefit from Alaskan natural resources and that that was the basis for taxing the oil companies.  I don't think the same sentiment would apply to profits on foreign oil and gas.  

    She definitely is articulate on energy issues.  Whether she is right would be a good topic for debate with Biden.


    Politico points out, correctly (none / 0) (#119)
    by Gabriel on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 10:56:05 AM EST
    that this pick tells us McCain is desperate.


    Nope (5.00 / 2) (#140)
    by cmugirl on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 11:18:07 AM EST
    I think the Biden pick showed more desperation.

    This was a chess move to back Obama and the Dems closer to the corner and into checkmate.


    Bold vs Desperate (5.00 / 1) (#187)
    by Valhalla on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 12:47:27 PM EST
    I think Palin's a bold pick, not a desperate one.

    The GOP had wrestled Obama to a tie before the conventions, and were starting to tick up in swing states.  Mitt or Pawlenty would have been safe picks.

    Biden was chosen to stop the bleeding in the polls from Obama's side.  Not only were the polls looking not so healthy, but everyone was starting to talk about it, which is really dangerous.  I think that has a bit more whiff of desperation to it.


    It's that kind of political analysis (1.00 / 1) (#149)
    by Gabriel on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 11:35:23 AM EST
    not based on reality, that led HRC to lose.

    i believe this makes my point (5.00 / 1) (#154)
    by DandyTIger on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 11:40:15 AM EST
    mentioned here previously. They just can't help themselves.

    Did she lose? (5.00 / 1) (#165)
    by Marvin42 on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 11:55:56 AM EST
    We are all still talking about her, the election has become about Sen Clinton, not picking Sen Clinton for VP, McCain picking a woman.

    And may I point out that she "lost" because the SDs decided she "lost?"


    Desperate? (none / 0) (#161)
    by frankly0 on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 11:51:53 AM EST
    desperate like a fox, I think.

    Yes, of course he realizes he needs to do something bold to win. So he did something bold.

    I guess we could say that his "celebrity ad" was desperate.

    But you know what? It worked.

    The real problem that Palin represents for the Obama campaign is that any leather and tongs attack on her is likely to backfire. I mean, comparing her to Quayle, when in fact Quayle had vastly more relevant experience than Obama himself?

    And her being a woman makes any over-the-top attacks -- which is to say, any attack Obama supporters seem to be capable of mustering up -- makes it look like still another attack on her gender, however much they may protest it's not so. I mean, they attack not one, but two women who are running for high office? When does it stop seeming as if it might only be a  coincidence?


    The thing I found most disturbing (none / 0) (#153)
    by Bluesage on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 11:40:00 AM EST
    Was all the Obama supporters and media pundits discussing McCain's impending and certain death from melanoma.  Was she ready to step in and be president should that occur?  How could he have been so irresponsible?  I heard this from so many but maybe Cafferty and Begala were the worst.  No mention of the fact that we put an even less experienced person at the TOP of the Democratic ticket.  No discussion that some horrible thing could befall him and we would have Joe Biden -D, MBNA as president.  This is a really stupid argument, not to mention morbid and unconscionable.  Media has literally destroyed our political discourse.

    Yesterday's games from the Obama campaign (none / 0) (#157)
    by DandyTIger on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 11:45:23 AM EST
    made me sick. I agree with your assessment here. They were over the top, and made me enraged. It brought all of the Hillary hate right back up for the Palin bashing, and the health attacks were creepy. And yesterday also made it clear that it was never about Hillary per se, it was indeed about women. And I guess if they're really full of hate of women and full of fear that a women could actually be VP or yikes, even worse, president, it makes sense they would do this. To me with the behavior of my party yesterday, it was a really sad day for my country.

    Let Biden debate her into irrelevance (none / 0) (#158)
    by Dadler on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 11:46:42 AM EST
    I may not be a Biden fan, but I have no doubt he will (he better) make her look quite inferior as a VP nominee when they debate -- in fact, I think he will destroy her in the debate.  I think the isolated and largely segregated nature of Alaska has not given her any notion of what a large, incredibly diverse poplation means in terms of governance -- and you don't get to dole out $2000+ oil royalty checks (as this year's checks will most likely exceed) to needy folks in American cities and towns.  Alaska is as unrepresentative of the US as a whole as you can possibly get.  In fact, if Biden were smart, he'd ask her if she thinks all Americans should be getting checks for the natural resources produced in their states (since every state does contribute in some way).  

    he can just replay what he did to shred Anita Hill (4.00 / 1) (#166)
    by DandyTIger on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 11:55:57 AM EST
    almost word for word. Sadly I think that's exactly the way he will approach this. Now if he sticks to issues, like bankruptcy and helping credit card companies when talking about the economy, I'm sure that will go over well too. And maybe some of that insincere smiling will help. Yea, I'm sure he can make her look "inferior" and will "destroy her" as you say. Then again, she may treat him like the moose she hunts at 3am. OK, a bit snarky.

    My point is, Biden has a lot of vulnerabilities. Palin has a lot of vulnerabilities. Palin will clearly be more likable and have higher approval rating. So trying to "destroy" her as you say is what I expect, and it is what will lose the election for O-B.

    On the other hand, if they want to win, they should know head of time they're dealing with an extremely likable down to earth person. Show respect. Acknowledge the historical moment of her position, and praise that history. Then only go after issues. And only in a nice way. Make clear distinctions. Stick to the issues. And have answers for all of the really bad decisions and policies Biden has embraced in the past.


    "Praise the history" (5.00 / 1) (#194)
    by Upstart Crow on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 01:21:47 PM EST
    Wow. Do you realize it's been 24 YEARS since a woman was on the ticket.

    Do the 2 political parties of this country mean to say there were no qualified women in a quarter century?

    Praise the history indeed.


    The folks in West Virginia, for example (none / 0) (#162)
    by Dadler on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 11:53:21 AM EST
    Could cetainly use a royalty check from all that coal.  Don't you think?  California and Florida from all that citrus.  The plains from all the cattle.  And on and on.