Palin's Mother-In-Law Not Sure Who She'll Vote For

Sarah Palin's mother-in-law hasn't decided who she will vote for in November.

Faye Palin admitted she enjoys hearing Barack Obama speak, and still hasn't decided which way she'll vote. "We don't agree on everything. But I respect her passion," she said. "Being pro-life is who Sarah is."

Faye Palin said the entire family was shocked by the news on Friday. "I'm not sure what she brings to the ticket other than she's a woman and a conservative.

One of the residents of Wasila told the News: [More...]

She's an excellent social conservative, fiscal conservative and political conservative," said Tom Baird, 68, a Vietnam veteran who sat with his Gideon Bible opened to 1Corinthians. "If she can energize the conservative base, it won't matter if she gets the women's vote."

He's right. This nomination is about pandering to evangelicals and the radical right. It's not about women.

There's no sexism here. There's no misogeny. Democrats make a big mistake if they fail to criticize Palin because they fear appearing sexist. She should be treated the same as any other candidate. Did she abuse her power as Governor? Who would she put on the Supreme Court if she assumed the Presidency because something happened to McCain? What does she know about the Justice Department? About the Defense Department? About responding to terror threats in major cities? About FEMA? National disasters?

Judge Palin by her views on issues, her record while in office, both as Governor and as Mayor (since that's all there is aside from being on the City Council and an unsuccessful run for Lieutenant Governor) and her lack of record on national issues.

On those criteria, she fails miserably as an acceptable Vice President. Democrats should not be afraid to go after her. They won't be getting the evangelical vote anyway, despite the Democrats attempt to reach out to them.

Every time Palin talks about the 18 million cracks, she's not only unwisely comparing herself to Hillary, she's suggesting that women vote for her because she's a woman. I hope women are smarter than to fall for that. The last thing any woman should want is a woman in the White House just because she's a woman. It has to be the right woman. Hillary was the right woman, on her own merits, her position on issues and her record of accomplishments. Palin doesn't come close.

To put her in the second highest leadership position in the country, especially given McCain's vulnerabilities in the top slot, is simply foolish.

I'm not falling for the victim meme. Sarah Palin is no victim. She's just the wrong candidate for Vice-President.

< GOP Platform: No Abortions, No Exceptions | USA Today Poll: Palin Has Lowest Vote of Confidence Since Quayle >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    She's not a victim..... (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by Maria Garcia on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 12:01:17 PM EST
    ..so lets not help her paint herself as one. That's all I'm saying.

    Good for her (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 12:02:18 PM EST
    On the issues, she sounds like she is going to vote for Obama.


    Her son is registered as unaffiliated (none / 0) (#43)
    by nycstray on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 12:41:43 PM EST
    as is her grandson as I understand it. SP my have different views than one side of the family. I saw a quote somewhere that her father said he would rather be hunting re: politics.

    Palin's (none / 0) (#70)
    by Andy08 on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 01:27:08 PM EST
    husband and she also --I think-- are proud UNION member....



    To be fair, the mother-in-law was also said (none / 0) (#118)
    by andrys on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 02:18:13 AM EST
    Well, she's a better speaker than McCain," Faye Palin said with a laugh. "People will say she hasn't been on the national scene long enough. But I believe she's a quick study." ... "She said people doubted Sarah Palin when she ran for City Council, but that her daughter-in-law had a "singular focus."

    The mother-in-law seems no-nonsense honest, but the fuller quote doesn't seem as totally dismissive.  I do get the impression Faye Palin probably is not keen on Sarah's focus on work outside the home and maybe even more responsibilities that mean making the children (in m-i-l's view) secondary to her ambition.  I do think, though, that some mothers are better off concentrating on that work and, as a result of not burying their own ambitions, the kids are probably better off too.  

    I also liked the mason contractor's

    "She's not afraid to speak her mind. She really dropped the hammer on the politicians fleecing Alaska."

    Contrary to any idea of McCain's choosing her only for the gender attribute as I keep reading here, it's been evident that he was also heavily interested in shoring up his very-conservative base who were loudly not interested in going to the polls to vote for him, and now they are.  She also has the 'maverick' and "get the rascals out" history too.

      Hillary supporters are not 'fooled' by his choice.  As we have kept saying and it seems not to be heard, SOME Hillary supporters were quite conservative and supported Hillary for her extraordinary capabilities but if Hillary's not there, then they will go 'home' to the more conservative place.  They're entitled.

      However, many of us leaning left are also still sensitive to any putdowns that treat a woman candidate who has an effective working and governing background as someone chosen ONLY for being a woman and a woman with no other qualities.  

      Too many candidates are NOT qualified for these offices, but more is made of tha if the candidate is a woman.  So it's best for Democrats not to be insulting in the criticism of her.

      While her goals are not mine, I am fully aware she's a Republican and true to her party's philosophy.  Those to the left of center will not vote for her while admiring some of the things she's done but those leaning more to the right, who joined us for awhile, will vote for her and McCain.

      In the meantime our sensors are a bit high now (due to too-much experience with things said about Clinton) for putdowns that focus entirely on her less-serious attributes and that ignore her more serious work and successes, which make for better news copy and readership.  


    Her mother in law actually said, (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by Lil on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 12:02:47 PM EST
    "I'm not sure what she brings to the ticket other than she's a woman and a conservative."  Talk about a ringing endorsement?  

    Please let's make sure Obama gets elected!

    LOL, but pointing out that she has... (5.00 / 5) (#5)
    by Maria Garcia on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 12:03:58 PM EST
    ...mother-in-law issues does make me feel a little sorry for her.

    This particular crack is not in the glass (none / 0) (#6)
    by oculus on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 12:07:22 PM EST
    ceiling.  Dr. Laura, I have a dilemma.  

    well I agree with that (none / 0) (#7)
    by Lil on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 12:08:55 PM EST
    but that line is beyond the pale. Doesn't she know her son could eventually be the first, first husband.

    TX2point0 (none / 0) (#53)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 12:49:56 PM EST
    you are a chatterer and a blogclogger, see our comment rules. Come back another day, you are over limit.l

    TX2point0 has previously been banned (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 12:54:42 PM EST
    using the name truthsayer, a direct violation of the comment rules.. All 141 comments and the account have been vaporized.

    My mother in law would have (none / 0) (#45)
    by zfran on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 12:42:31 PM EST
    supported McCain/Palin. I knew her like a sister (we were only 15 years apart)and if I were on the ticket, even knowing how much she loved me and I her, believe me, with her religious background and how she believed (she was from La)she would still have voted for McCain/Palin. So it doesn't say much there. Remember that old saying, all's fair in love and politics.

    Do you really think Obama knows that much more (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by Saul on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 12:16:11 PM EST
    What does she know about the Justice Department? About the Defense Department? About responding to terror threats in major cities? About FEMA? National disasters?

    No one is experienced for such things until they are actually put into play. You can't be a good war president unless you are involved in one.  You cannot be a good disaster president unless your involved in one, etc etc.   Plus you just need to surround yourself with great advisers.  I would not know what to do about those areas but I would learn very quickly especially if I learn to have the best experts at my side.

    what is your point? (none / 0) (#17)
    by Lil on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 12:19:41 PM EST
    I agrre with what you said, but are you making the case for Palin? I think more importantly, the last thing this country needs is another delusional Evangelical right winger running the country into the ground, while the non delusional wing of their party profits off their ignorance.

    The message was to Jeralyn (4.60 / 5) (#21)
    by Saul on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 12:24:18 PM EST
    I like Jeralyn but she just got obsessed with this Palin thing.  I never seen her like this.  Give it a rest.  It was she that posted  the following when the Palin thing first came out :

    Gov. Palin is yesterday's news. Big Tent Democrat may decide to write more about it, and you can continue the discussion on his threads. I've had enough. Time to change the conversation to other things.

    The meme that women are their own worst (5.00 / 2) (#107)
    by hairspray on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 03:17:12 PM EST
    enemies at times is true.  We may like the Democratic brand better because we believe it is better for women (now I am not so sure) but some people go overboard. I don't care for what the Dems have done for women this year, but I while I dont trust the GOP on women's issues, I don't think the rank and file are all raving lunatics.

    I'm guessing (4.50 / 2) (#24)
    by flyerhawk on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 12:27:05 PM EST
    that Jeralyn is really upset about Palin because Palin is against almost everything that Jeralyn passionately believes in. But I'm sure Jeralyn could explain it better if she felt the need to.

    I feel that way about pretty much every.... (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by Maria Garcia on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 12:29:32 PM EST
    ...Republican. Still this is getting old. Would there be so many threads about Pawlenty? Just asking.

    I dunno (4.00 / 1) (#36)
    by flyerhawk on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 12:34:34 PM EST
    Maybe/maybe not. 2 days isn't a long time. I think that had Lieberman been the choice it would have generated lots of commentary as well. And if McCain had picked some other peripheral politician with hard core conservative beliefs, they would have been attacked just as much. We talked about Biden for quite some time. This is presidential politics. It isn't paddycake.

    If Lieberman had been the pick.... (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by Maria Garcia on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 01:09:46 PM EST
    ...we surely would have had quite a lot to talk about. Me included.

    I was thinking the exact same thing, (none / 0) (#49)
    by zfran on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 12:43:49 PM EST
    only I had Romney in my head.

    I don't feel the need to explain (5.00 / 3) (#58)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 12:58:43 PM EST
    I will oppose McCain/Palin on this site. As long as she's the main story of the day, I'll continue to write about her. I thought she would be a one day story. As new reasons to oppose her candidacy arise, I'll be following them. And yes, McCain/Palin is in opposition to everything this site stands for.

    It's taking longer than one day... (5.00 / 2) (#69)
    by dianem on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 01:26:33 PM EST
    ...just to figure out who she is. Right now this woman is little more than a cartoon character. We know that she has 5 kids including a Down's Syndrome baby, she is opposed to abortion in the strictest way possible, she was a beauty queen contest runner up, she came from a middle class family, is not well traveled, and moved quite rapidly from mayor of a small town to Governor of a large (size, not population), powerful state. She is against corruption, but has been accused of misusing power in a family matter. She has made a lot of enemies among Republicans, but is very popular with the people of Alaska.

    That's it. Not much to go on. She is obviously bright, but how bright? How will she stand up in a debate with Biden? Can she spell "potato"? How will she come across when presenting canned speeches? She has a very feminine voice. It was strange to hear her at speaking when she spoke at the first McCain/Palin press conference. I'm used to women with more "gravitas" (older, deeper voices). How will that come across? She carries her baby with her a lot. How will that influence people? Does it reinforce the "mother who has successfully compromised" meme or the "can't focus on issues because of the baby" meme?

    All I can say with absolute certainly is that this nomination is forcing us to address some serious issues about women in power and in the workforce, and that is a good thing, and that as much as I know I don't want somebody like this woman as President, I have no idea how the right wing will feel about this. It's not the "PUMA"'s whose vote is at stake here. They are by and large disaffected liberals who won't vote for this woman. It's all of those women in the middle who have had to juggle kids and work and will see this woman as a hero, and all of the fundies who already see her as a hero for not considering abortion when she found she was carrying a "challenged" baby.


    A very good post Diane (none / 0) (#75)
    by flyerhawk on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 01:37:48 PM EST
    That really sums up the points nicely.  

    Te best story on the Police Commissioner (none / 0) (#112)
    by hairspray on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 04:09:17 PM EST
    firing story came from McClatchy, not the Washington Post.  McClatchy was detailed and pretty factual from MPOV.  WaPo used lots of trickey little words like soap opera and adjectives that made the whole thing sound like a soap opera rather than the complex and illegal behavior of some of the people involved.

    But so is McCain (5.00 / 2) (#71)
    by Andy08 on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 01:29:27 PM EST
    and it is McCaoin the one runing for POTUS. So, why
    not get back to Obama versus McCain ?

    This election is not Obama versus Palin.....


    because she would be President (none / 0) (#72)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 01:34:12 PM EST
    if something happened to McCain to make him unable to serve. This has been answered repeatedly. Your disagreement has been noted. Now let's get back to discussing Palin as a candidate.

    Sure, (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by Andy08 on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 01:54:53 PM EST
    Plain is a Conservative, with CAPITAL letters and her positions are to the Right again in capital letters). I disagree with her take on abortion, gay rights and ANWAR. I AM a scientist so I of course cringe at creationisim. BUT she is against making part of the curriculum so her take here (that IF a student asks there is nothing wrong with the two things being discussed) a PRIORI doesn't seem crazy:
    discuss both and as a science teacher make your case for the science; no need to ban a disucssion that could well serve to differentiate "faith" (some kind of faith actually) from "science".  

    One thing I do like : she ahs said there is already ENOUGH money for faiuth based initaitives in Gov. ttehre is no need for more. I find that a good thing and regret terribly Obama has gone
    the other way (i.e for MORE faith basded initiatives -- I find this "idea" so much pushed by GW Bush to be a shameful excuse not to put Federal dollars DIRECTLY to help the poor).


    Correction (none / 0) (#84)
    by Andy08 on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 01:55:22 PM EST
    "Plain" should have been "Palin" (sorry for the typos).

    Or grow the economy to create jobs. (none / 0) (#113)
    by hairspray on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 04:11:11 PM EST
    It's great to see REAL info you posted re what she (none / 0) (#120)
    by andrys on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 02:42:09 AM EST
    is about in action rather than the b&w renditions I've read on other forums.  Part of that was due to Jeralyn's doing so much research for us.  Am grateful for all of that.

    Of course we don't know (none / 0) (#78)
    by flyerhawk on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 01:39:22 PM EST
    but the fact that Palin denies doing any such thing suggests something is going on.

    Jeralyn (2.00 / 1) (#37)
    by LatinoVoter on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 12:35:04 PM EST
    also seems to me about being against police officers covering for their own, police officers who abuse their power and use their badges to intimidate people and tasering individuals and threatening the lives of others.

    But you couldn't tell that by the way she's drumming up "trooper gate."


    I don't understand your linking (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by flyerhawk on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 12:45:33 PM EST
    What does any of things you are talking relate to trooper gate, an example of a governor using her official power for personal retribution? If there was a reason to fire the guy, she should have told her police chief the reasons and had him fired formally, not through personal coercion.

    I'm also against vigiliante justice (5.00 / 2) (#65)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 01:20:24 PM EST
    and for following due process and the rule of law. No one gets the right to take matters into their own hands in violation of the rules. Allegations that a candidate did that need to be investigated.  

    please discuss troopergate on a thread related to that. This isn't.


    I agree (none / 0) (#88)
    by Andy08 on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 01:59:28 PM EST
    if it is proved that she used her office (despite Wooten being a real piece of work) to influence Monegan that would be a political mistake even though personal rather than political.
    That is it would not be an abuse of power a la Bush and Gonzalez with the prosecutors around the country but a mistake nontheless.

    What happened to innocent (none / 0) (#94)
    by LatinoVoter on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 02:16:54 PM EST
    until proven guilty?

    Are you still for that too?


    Plus the story (none / 0) (#30)
    by Lil on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 12:29:44 PM EST
    is only a couple of days old. I think and expect that we haven't sufficiently beaten the Palin story to death. I mean it is only 2 days and what the hell do most of us know abot this woman anyway?

    Why not just listen to what she did say (none / 0) (#119)
    by andrys on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 02:35:39 AM EST
    instead of expecting her to post against other aspects of Palin.  She was responding exactly to certain ones having nothing to do with 'delusional Evangelical right winger' but to the point that neither Obama nor Palin can know about those things until in the situation (though Hillary would have known from experience how these work) and will rely on good advisers.

      She is not advocating but discussing pros and cons.  If this were just a place to only talk pro about the Dem candidates then I would not be here.  (Jeralyn has wisely allowed some minimal questioning or disagreement.) That would remind me of the Chairman Mao praise-daily routines.  I say that as a Chinese person who read too much about ritualistic correct-talk in China and how one must not say anything that seems supportive of a person with wrong-attributes.

     We need to talk pros and cons and realistic expectations and not be limited to just-SIDING or characterizing the other as only something horrific and barely human.  Obama himself has said he decries these kinds of conversations.  

     Nothing is learned that way of others' thoughts that discomfort.  No searching as to why.  No way to reconcile differences.


    Except (none / 0) (#22)
    by flyerhawk on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 12:24:47 PM EST
    that she is going to be asked NOW about these things. How she would or would not handle these issues is a matter of speculation. How she will respond to these questions is going to come out very shortly.

    I sure she is now very aware this by now (none / 0) (#26)
    by Saul on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 12:27:45 PM EST
    and is preparing for the onslaught.

    she will be totally prepped (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 01:35:46 PM EST
    in a few weeks and certainly by debate time. Which makes it more critical to examine her statements now and while Gov and Mayor. That's the real her. Not the prepped candidate we'll be seeing shortly. She's a fast study, she'll get the lines right. But they will be spoon-fed lines.

    The famous last words of Dan Quayle (none / 0) (#32)
    by flyerhawk on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 12:30:40 PM EST
    Of course she is being prepped and has been I'm sure for some time. But it takes time and immersion in the issues.

    Dan Quayle was an idiot (5.00 / 2) (#77)
    by Valhalla on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 01:39:10 PM EST
    From what I've seen and heard of Palin, she's not.

    The Democrats are pushing the Quayle comparison really hard, but I don't think it'll get any traction outside hacks like Olberman and die-hard Democratic circles.  She doesn't look like him, she doesn't talk like him, she doesn't act like him.  The only comparison  of the two that's accurate is on the issues, which is exactly the comparison that's not being made.

    And as for making the comparison on the issues, Quayle is the last person they should go to because he was viewed as an ineffective doofus.  That's far less threatening to many than comparing Palin to someone who shares her views and is effective.

    Even the Republicans came to think Quayle was a bad scr*wup as a choice, before the election.  But conservatives are bouncing off the walls in joy at Palin's pick, and I don't remember that happening when Quayle was picked.


    Unfortunately they still won though (none / 0) (#42)
    by Saul on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 12:41:22 PM EST

    Well hopefully (none / 0) (#47)
    by flyerhawk on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 12:43:25 PM EST
    Obama won't decide to get in a tank. And I doubt there will be a Willy Horton ad popping up this year.

    Issues, Not Distractions (5.00 / 5) (#14)
    by santarita on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 12:17:41 PM EST
    One of the best lines from Hillary's speech was the question she posed to those supporters who wanted to withhold support for Obama - "Was it just about me?".  She's right - this election (and all elections) should be about issues and policies not about the sex, color, race, religion etc of a particular candidate.  Focus on the issues not the distractions.  The Republicans are the masters of distractions from the issues.  The Dems should avoid playing that kind of game and keep the focus on the lousy economy, lousy health care, the misguided war on terror and energy/environment.  

    To the extent that people like  Josh Marshall  expend their energies on Palin's peccadillos instead of exposing real corruption, they lessen their credibility as commenters.  

    I tend to agree with BTD (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by flyerhawk on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 12:22:21 PM EST
    in the sense that I don't believe that the Democrats really need to attack Palin. She is going to get destroyed by self-inflicted wounds. She is charming but how is she going to handle the trap questions that the media absolutely love to ask? Does she understand the difference between strict construction and originalism? Can she talk about the complexities of the American tax code in a coherent manner? How will she handle the creationism questions when people really start to probe on them? Sarah Palin may be brilliant but if history is any guide thrusting someone onto the national scene with essentially no national political experience is a recipe for disaster, especially given that we are only 2 months away from the election. How will she overcome the almost certain gaffes that she will make. How will she handle the questions about the police chief and her ex-brother in law? Lying to some podunk newspaper is one thing. Lying to the New York Time and Washington Post is another thing entirely. So while I agree with everything you say, Jeralyn, as to why she is a terrible choice, the truth of the matter is I don't that we need to go after her. She will self-immolate.

    She, as you put it, is again (5.00 / 2) (#38)
    by zfran on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 12:37:55 PM EST
    not the one running against Obama. McCain is. Again, linking Palin pick, to Obama presidency, to McCain being GWB's 3rd term in one sentence as Sen. Dodd did this morning on CNN only underscores these lame talking points of the dems. Again, Gov. Palin is the veep running with McCain. McCain is running against Obama and vise-versa. The more you attack Palin, the sillier and illogical and wrong it gets.

    you seem to be advocating for (3.00 / 1) (#66)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 01:21:43 PM EST
    the McCain/Palin ticket. If you are, you are limited to four such comments a day.

    I think that is a criticism of strategy (none / 0) (#101)
    by Grace on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 02:46:37 PM EST
    I thought we could criticize strategy more than 4 times a day?  

    Jeralyn, you certainly are entitled (none / 0) (#104)
    by zfran on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 03:05:46 PM EST
    to your opinion as to what my posts mean and respresent. I, however, am not shilling for McCain/Palin nor am I an advocate of Obama/Biden. What I see, hear and read, is a rabid attack on this woman, mostly for being a woman, and the attacks are coming from other women. You have said enough, you don't want to talk about this anymore, but yet, here we are again. Just because the subject is on the other side of the political isle doesn't excuse what I've read and what has been linked to. This is your blog, your rules, and to stay we must abide. I feel like I, along with others I've read, need to defend this woman simply because she is a woman. To me, this has nothing to do with shilling, or endorsing. It has to do with the lessons we should have learned after this primary. Many said if Hillary is picked as Obama's vp then it was pandering. You and others derided that assumption. What is different now from the attacks against Gov. Palin. Again, we should follow the example of Hillary herself.

    Jeralyn (5.00 / 4) (#20)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 12:24:09 PM EST
    I only wish Obama hadn't spent so much time pandering to them. This has got to be seen as strategic disaster by the party regulars. Instead of doing that, he could have been working to get Hillary's voters on board. Instead, he spent the time pushing them further away.

    Well... (5.00 / 3) (#23)
    by reynwrap582 on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 12:24:48 PM EST
    If polling suggests that the VP pick doesn't matter that much, shouldn't we just pretty much ignore Palin and focus on attacking McCain?

    Also, this lowering the bar on expectations for Palin (i.e. not experienced, token choice, etc.) is just going to make things worse for Obama/Biden on the off chance she mops the floor with Biden in the VP debate (not on issues, obviously, most people seem interested in personality, especially in the VP race).  Her lack of experience makes her far less predictable.  You can bet every second she's not in front of a camera, she's being drilled on every right wing talking point.  I doubt she'll look like she's not prepared or knowledgeable...  Bush was certainly never the disaster he should have been at debates (though still a far cry from saying he was any good)...

    You're Right... (5.00 / 2) (#67)
    by santarita on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 01:22:31 PM EST
    She will be coached.  And she doesn't have to come up with novel approaches or policy positions.  She'll be given talking points to cover just about everything.  It will be interesting to see how well she stays on message and how well Biden stays on message.  

    And it will be interesting to see if the mainstream media tries to trip her up and how they will react if she makes a gaffe.  Will she be given the same kind of passes that Bush got or the same kind of nastiness that Hillary got?  


    Wow (5.00 / 6) (#27)
    by standingup on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 12:28:37 PM EST
    Where in the world are you coming up with the suggestion of there being a "victim meme" here?  I agree it is fine to be critical of Palin on issues but let's not have a blind eye to sexism either.  Some are being sexist in the way they are discussing Palin as a VP candidate.  It is just as wrong to overlook any sexist behavior as it is wrong to use allegations of sexism as a deterrent from being able to objectively examine her as a candidate.  

    'victim meme' (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by Dr Molly on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 12:31:44 PM EST
    Shades of Nancy Pelosi.

    Slightly OT but (none / 0) (#102)
    by Grace on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 02:57:37 PM EST
    our Catholic newspaper (I think it has national circulation) has a huge series of articles in it this week about Pelosi.  She's the main article on the front page.  

    Evidentally, she was on a TV or radio show and stated that the Catholic Church had not decided when life begins.  

    They are taking her to task since the Catholic Church decided this question about 200 years ago:  Life begins when sperm meets egg.

    As a good Catholic and a politician, she's supposed to know this.    

    I haven't had a chance to read the whole thing yet, but she's got the cover and three stories on the third page.  (There are only three stories on the page.)

    Since Catholics typically vote Democratic for reasons other than abortion, I don't know if the articles are meant to do much more than "spank her" for misstating the church's position.  


    As satellite (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by JThomas on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 12:32:46 PM EST
    photos indicated yesterday a historic moment has been reached besides the selection of Governor Palin to be on the GOP ticket.

    Those photos confirmed that for the first time in 125,000 years, the Artic's NW and NE Passageways are clear of ice and the Arctic is officially now naviagable by vessel.
    Meanwhile we hear on MTP from Maria Bartiroma(sp)
    of CNBC who interviewed the Governor yesterday that Palin is an expert in energy which is Maria's basis for saying she knows the economy.
    Palin's expertise is in fossil fuels. Like Dick Cheney and George Bush. The Arctic is melting and the GOP puts up oil people to solve our energy issues.
    This is change? No thank you, Governor Palin/John McCain.

    Bartiromo was a joke (5.00 / 2) (#44)
    by flyerhawk on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 12:42:17 PM EST
    Her cheerleading for Palin was sad.  Of course Palin supports more drilling in Alaska.  It is their primary source of revenues, both in the form of jobs and in the form of Federal kickback money.  Yet Bartiromo completely ignores that fact and says that Palin is somehow an expert on energy policy.  She is as much an expert on energy policy as Hugo Chavez.

    I don't think gas and oil had (none / 0) (#105)
    by hairspray on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 03:06:14 PM EST
    anything to do with her nomination.  Neither did her being a woman.  She is young, a reformer and conservative.  They were interested in her shoring up the base and puffing up John McCain's attempt to be seen as a reformer as well.   I understand the day after she was announced the GOP raked in 7 million dollars in one day.

    Why (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by flyerhawk on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 12:38:12 PM EST
    What is the point of snark responses like this? Do you really believe that Barack Obama, lecturer on Constitutional law at the University of Chicago, doesn't know the difference between strict constrution and originalism? Do you believe that, after campaigning for 20 months, he doesn't understand tax policy? Comparing Palin to Obama is silly. Obama has been dealing with these issues for nearly 2 years. Palin has been for 2 days. Even if we assume that their past experience is roughly equivalent, their recent experience most certainly is not.

    For all this experience (5.00 / 2) (#46)
    by americanincanada on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 12:42:56 PM EST
    Obama has or has gained her sure has not shown us anything with it. If FISA is any indiction of his constitutional bent.

    Oh brother (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by flyerhawk on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 12:48:10 PM EST
    And you guys wonder why Jeralyn is imposing certain limits on what can be posted here. That horse has been thoroughly beaten. It's time to move on. Or don't and vote for McCain if you like. But FISA has no relevance to your comment. It's snark in response to previous snark.

    that comment was deleted as a (none / 0) (#59)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 01:00:02 PM EST
    personal attack on Obama.

    2000 debates (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by wasabi on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 12:40:49 PM EST
    "Bush was certainly never the disaster he should have been at debates (though still a far cry from saying he was any good)... "

    He most certainly was a disaster in the debates.  Polls/focus groups right after the 2000 debates showed Al Gore mopped the floor.  It wasn't until the next day that the media turned that around and basically made the meme that Al Gore isn't someone you'd want to have a beer with or stare at on your TV for the next 4 years.

    See The Daily Howler.

    I feel like Obama. Enough!! This in-fighting is (5.00 / 2) (#86)
    by Teresa on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 01:56:19 PM EST
    bothering me. I wish everyone would calm down. We are doing their work for them if we let this tear us apart.

    I will be yelling along with everyone else when she is the victim of sexism (and she has been) but let's examine her on the issues where she comes up far short of what Democrats believe. The last thing we need is to drive any sympathy vote toward her.

    Well, Palin's Mother-in-Law's endorsement (5.00 / 3) (#95)
    by Valhalla on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 02:17:06 PM EST
    is, of course, vital to my voting decision in the GE.

    But what I'm really waiting on is her manicurist's.  What does she think?

    Good Points/Silly Lede (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by WakeLtd on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 02:59:46 PM EST
    Outlining the staunch conservative stances of the GOP VP nominee makes perfect sense & is a useless avenue of analysis to judge Sarah Palin as someone that you would, or would not, want to see elected to this high office.

    Making the headline about who her mother-in-law would vote for is just plain silly. My mother would vote for Sarah Palin. In fact, so would my six sisters. Their views are identical to hers. Would that make my opposition to the political positions of Sarah Palin less valid? Even my own mother doesn't agree with me?

    Good.... (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by Oje on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 03:58:59 PM EST
    Now that should be widely reported! Far more powerful than bleating and braying from the faux progressive blogs!

    This is what makes me think she isn't (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by hairspray on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 04:00:33 PM EST
    an ideologue.  If she grew up in a house with parents who were school teachers she had to have had a lot of common sense "learning"

    Are we serious here? (4.56 / 9) (#55)
    by Anne on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 12:53:17 PM EST
    Hey, how about a post on Palin's husband and oldest son not being registered Republicans?  I'm sure that has to mean something...bad...for Palin.

    And how is a woman nominated to be VP not entitled to put herself among those - like Hillary - who are putting cracks in the glass ceiling?  Okay, Hillary was the "right" woman to break that barrier, but doesn't that suggest that perhaps the barrier should remain for women deemed not to be the right women?  Do we, as Democrats, have exclusive rights to determine which woman will break that barrier?

    If this isn't about Palin's gender, you ought to stop bringing it up, and stop denying her the right to her own advancement.  Is that really what we women should be doing?  Belittling the accomplishments of a woman because she's on their side and not ours?

    I sure wish all the details of Obama's life and career and associations had been considered fair game, and that every time anyone even mentioned the race issue, they weren't accused of race-baiting - maybe he'd have been better vetted instead of sitting there like a deer in the headlights for the GOP onslaught.  Now, I guess, there will not be a single thing said about Palin that will qualify as gender-baiting; I find that really disappointing.

    The nomination is about John McCain making the same kind of strategic move to win as Obama did - so appealing to his base should not be seen as a surprise.  And if there is a candidate who has pandered more to non-Democratic voting blocs than Obama, I don't know who it is.  Where was the outrage for that?

    I don't know where this zeal to "go after" Palin is really coming from - I guess if you can't go after your own ticket, you might as well direct it at the GOP.  But it would be refreshing to be discussing real issues, instead of who Palin's family is voting for.

    all you are doing is (3.00 / 2) (#60)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 01:04:02 PM EST
    attacking Obama who is now the second most vetted candidate in history. If you have something positive to say about Palin's experience, history or record, by all means do so. But when you drag Obama into it with a false claim that no one looked into him, you are out of line.

    And I criticized Obama numerous times for going after the evangelical vote.

    The topic here is Palin, not Obama.


    Well, I guess I will re-post, without (5.00 / 5) (#64)
    by Anne on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 01:17:09 PM EST
    the Obama reference, which was minimal, and perhaps you could address that:

    And how is a woman nominated to be VP not entitled to put herself among those - like Hillary - who are putting cracks in the glass ceiling?  Okay, Hillary was the "right" woman to break that barrier, but doesn't that suggest that perhaps the barrier should remain for women deemed not to be the right women?  Do we, as Democrats, have exclusive rights to determine which woman will break that barrier?

    If this isn't about Palin's gender, you ought to stop bringing it up, and stop denying her the right to her own advancement.  Is that really what we women should be doing?  Belittling the accomplishments of a woman because she's on their side and not ours?

    The nomination is about John McCain making the same kind of strategic move to win as Obama did - so appealing to his base should not be seen as a surprise.

    I was respondng to what you said about Palin and what came across as her temerity in daring to refer to that glass ceiling.  You do your cause no favors by continuing to do that.


    Come again? (5.00 / 6) (#76)
    by Andy08 on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 01:38:39 PM EST
    Obama who is now the second most vetted candidate in history.

    Are you serious?? C'on Jeralyn. No, he is NOT.
    I AM a Democrat and I cannot stop laughing at that sentence.... And do not please even suggest that
    I am for McCain/Palin here.  I despise Repubs.



    He's been vetted, yes, (none / 0) (#122)
    by andrys on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 03:12:17 AM EST
    by others and unfortunately for us, much of that will come up later because Dems did not want to pay attention to much of it, as it was unseemly for any Dem to do so.

      We're going to pay for that with the mainstream voting public later, but it's wiser to know this and to be prepared for it.  

      These things have more strength if they're "surprising" or they go against someone's carefully presented image (including one put out there sincerely).  There need be nothing 'illegal' and most of this will be using facts, facts not important to us but possibly important to moderate-conservative voters.  As a Dem, I'll say no more but anyone can google to see what he'll be up against and I don't mean anything with the word 'muslim' in it.

      I'd say most Dems have not vetted Obama, actually.  And those who did are of course hoping problems are minimal.  One of the reasons there was so much intensity about running another candidate was the chance for surprises in Obama's case.


    They're not afraid to criticize her (4.42 / 7) (#61)
    by dianem on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 01:08:38 PM EST
    The problem seems to be that a lot of the criticism is coming off AS sexist. I really hope that the quote I heard from Obama about Palin is a misstatement. It was along the lines of "She's a good mother and an up and coming politician". That has to be wrong, right? He cannot have actually put the VP candidate being a mother ahead of her political credentials? I haven't found the context for the comment, so I'm hoping that there is more.  If you find it, please post it.

    This woman has a lot going for her personally. She is smart, confident, has leadership experience, and has strong ideals. She is also, unfortunately, a committed right wing idealogue. The "could she be President and take care of her baby" nonsense has to stop. There is plenty to attack here without reinforcing stupid sexist sterotypes.

    No one here is attacking her (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 01:39:45 PM EST
    on that basis, so please stop bringing it up. We are addressing her qualifications and position on issues.

    If you are reading that elsewhere, complain to those sites about it.


    Yes, she has been attacked here (5.00 / 5) (#87)
    by Dr Molly on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 01:59:10 PM EST
    for daring to run for high office while being a mother with 5 kids. And you linked to 5 questions she 'better be ready for', including one that questioned how she could do her job while being the mother of 5 kids.

    I'm not criticizing you, I'm just humbly suggesting that this kind of sexism is not helpful to your cause.


    I think that comment is on the 60 minutes show (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by hairspray on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 03:12:45 PM EST
    due to air tonite.  I saw it too.  It was very hesitant with all the umms..ahhs... and very sexist in my view.

    As a mother, (none / 0) (#124)
    by andrys on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 03:23:24 AM EST
    she's likeable enough  :-)

    Everytime we have a major (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by Grace on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 03:35:56 PM EST
    earthquake in the LA area, there are two female geologists from Cal Tech who appear on TV to tell us what just happened (Lucy Jones and Kate Hutton).  

    After one of the big earthquakes of the '90s, I turned on the TV and there was Lucy holding her baby and giving a press conference.  

    People need to get used to the idea that women have babies and women can hold responsible jobs too.  It's a bummer that they think the two cannot possibly be compatible.        


    You are (none / 0) (#93)
    by Andy08 on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 02:08:23 PM EST
    correct, that was his statement, unfortunately.

    And unfortunately, though not awful, Biden (none / 0) (#123)
    by andrys on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 03:20:48 AM EST
    said today re differences between himself and his opponent, that she was better looking.

      He didn't mean it in a bad way -- he just said he couldn't beat her on looks, though many women will disagree.  For 65 he is amazing.

      But to give that as a focus, it sort of diminishes her to mainly looks.  What can be problematical is that Dems think of her as 'slight' -- not a real player.  We don't know her.

      If she turns out to be articulate and thoughtful in their debates, then his lowering our expectations for her will boomerang and her mild successes will seem larger because we didn't expect that from her.  (I'm biased because just the way she uses her voice puts me on edge and I sense that behind that particular edgy use of the voice at a higher pitch than expected is something not wholly positive.)

      Obama added his buddy-buddy thoughts and some thought it was all very cute.  But ...


    Can we have a thread for Gustav/Climate Crisis? (none / 0) (#10)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 12:12:27 PM EST

    just put one up (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 12:55:15 PM EST
    Thanks Jeralyn, much appreciated. (none / 0) (#117)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 07:41:49 PM EST
    Again, I disagree (none / 0) (#15)
    by Dadler on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 12:18:51 PM EST
    You are giving Republicans too much credit.  Palin was picked ONLY because she was a woman.  Evangelicals do not sit out elections, they would never vote for Obama, they would never help him win. They hate liberals and abortion too much, they would have always voted McCain, save the radical fringe that was never going to vote for him anyway.  ANY nominee for VP they chose was going to be more "religious" than McCain, and obviously so, which means she was selected ONLY because of her gender.  They actually thought they could pick off a number of disgruntled Hillary supporters.  They are dumb as bricks.  It will fail and badly.  Then again, to beat another dead horse, since no one wants to talk election fraud or that our elections now belong to private corporations and their proprietary computer software (which "we the people" are not allowed to inspect or control) I think we are avoiding the Gorilla in the room to talk about the mouse.  

    I have a very big fear that this election will be decided ENTIRELY by fraud.  And that tells you who will most likely win.  With each passing day, this fear gets more and more acute, since NO ONE IS FACING THE REALITY of how serious the problem is.

    Evangelicals are mad (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by dianem on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 01:15:45 PM EST
    Bush made a lot of promises that he didn't keep, and McCain was never actually one of them to begin with.  It is only in recent years that fundamentalists have seriously started voting. They could very well sit out this election, and it would probably cost McCain the Presidency. I knew that McCain wasn't going to pick Lieberman, because that would have cost him their vote. He needed a hard conservative who wouldn't threaten the moderates too much. Palin was a terrific pick. She's very conservative, but as a working woman she doesn't fit into the "home schooling, passive woman" (false) image that many moderates have of the far right.

    This election is all about images. The Dems tried running substantial candidates the last two elections, and this time they've decided that no matter what their candidates qualifications are they are going to run on style. The right has been running on style since Reagan, with a brief "substance" diversion with Bush I (and we see how badly that went). We get the government we want, even if it isn't the government we think we want.


    I dunno (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by jar137 on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 01:37:47 PM EST
    about evangelicals always voting.  If I recall correctly, Bush I's loss to Clinton was attributed in part to lack of enthusiasm among evangelicals.  My guess is that McCain's internal polling showed that evangelicals were not willing to hold their noses and vote for McCain, so they needed an offering.  This is the only context in which Palin makes sense.  He shores up the right wing base and may pull in some women with it.  But, I believe that Americans are even more fed up with ultra-conservatives than they are with republicans generally.

    Studies show you wrong in your 'only' (none / 0) (#121)
    by andrys on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 02:50:22 AM EST
    statement.  Her conservative credentials are actually TOO solid and they have attracted conservatives, including evangelicals planning to SIT this one out until now.

      You're seeing this in the poll results already but more in statements by conservatives who are thrilled that someone chosen by McCain (who is too 'liberal' for them) speaks for them.  That's no small thing.  

      Carping on future cheating is useless and is excuse-making in advance.  I agree that we need to have people following up on the machine problems and the easy fraud possible by people able to access and edit the data easily.  But we have to emphasize issues and where candidates really stand and then try to get a BIG vote out so that machine cheating cannot easily be done.  Diebold goes under another name now but that's for another topic...


    *sigh* (none / 0) (#54)
    by jtaylorr on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 12:51:48 PM EST
    You do realize Obama was a constitutional law professor at the University of Chicago, right?

    Honestly, I'm dumb-founded at how ridiculous that comment was.

    In fact, (none / 0) (#68)
    by Andy08 on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 01:24:10 PM EST
    I would like to know all these questions

    What does she know about the Justice Department? About the Defense Department? About responding to terror threats in major cities? About FEMA? National disasters?

    about both POTUS candidates; especially our Dem. nominee, Obama....

    Actually I heard her speak to (5.00 / 1) (#109)
    by hairspray on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 03:58:56 PM EST
    Charlie Rose on her work with FEMA.  We in the lower 48 have so little knowledge about Alaska that we don't realize all of the work that is going on in Alaska as a state high on the list of possible disaster, both from terrorists and natural disasters.  Ms Palin talked about that for a bit.  The state has a national guard, all of the departments we have "down" here, with immigration and crime and education problems, etc. They also have several important industries, leases, border issues and it is fascinating to hear about it all.  They are just on a smaller scale and with less people to deal with them of course.  I am finding out so much about Alaska that I didn't know.

    He's stated his positions on those matters (4.33 / 3) (#80)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 01:41:00 PM EST
    for the past 17 months. Go read about them on his website. Or google search. But don't pretend he hasn't addressed them or stated his position on them.

    I have and my (none / 0) (#82)
    by Andy08 on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 01:44:47 PM EST
    post stand. (btw, I don't need to be patreonized; I am quite educated voter and otehrwise, thank you)
    I still have no idea how he will respond. Go after
    McCAin and Palin's POSITIONS but not hypothetical questions that apply to EVERYONE.

    It is easy to point the SHAMEFUL DISASTER GW Bush
    has been.


    The Obama supporters ARE (5.00 / 1) (#125)
    by andrys on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 03:32:33 AM EST
    trained (openly) to tell people to go to Obama's website to see what his stances or programs are, but I've now seen people questioning some statements there and heard him saying his staff wrote this or that and it's not really what he thinks and that will be changed.

      We need, if we ask it of the opposition party's candidate, in a debate, to hear it from him, in a spontaneous way too.

      What I loved about a candidate (in a situation that's 'done') is the ability to, on the spur of the moment, talk all about those ideas and plans in detail and with enthusiasm.  I've come to want to hear that more than read someone's official group-written text.

      I liked quite a few of his answers in the recent Warren Saddleback appearances but he needs to tighten things up a bit, and that's fair to say because communication (in other than prepared speeches) is an important aspect of leading.
    WE know who would make a better leader of the two presidential candidates, but others, with different listening modes and who do want easier-to-understand answers  
    will react better.  I was struck by Bill Clinton's ability last week to take any topic and put it into conversational tones and make it seem like a normal talk rather than a speech to people.  Little use of the teleprompter.  

      I sometimes think this has to do with thinking about these things (issues) for a long time but also the ability to get into others' heads about how they need to hear it.


    sorry for the typos above (none / 0) (#90)
    by Andy08 on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 02:03:08 PM EST
    I can see them now that I have my glasses on LOL

    hmmm back (none / 0) (#91)
    by Andy08 on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 02:04:55 PM EST
    right back at you.

    I'm sorry Jeralyn (none / 0) (#114)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 04:20:43 PM EST
    But I cannot agree with this comment at all:

    The last thing any woman should want is a woman in the White House just because she's a woman. It has to be the right woman.

    Because I heard it too much in the primary.  Usually from so-called liberal women of the Maureen Dowd ilk.  Of course they wanted a woman eventually, but not Hillary.  She was "too divisive" and "had only gotten as far as she did because of her marriage."

    I support Hillary and oppose Palin, but neither should be judged by some platonic idea of the perfect first woman president.  It's unfair and we'll never find someone who can measure up.

    The right person to break through will be the one who does.  I still hope that's Hillary, but I won't denigrate other women who dare to do the same.  

    Go after her on issues, absolutely.  But not because she's an "insult to women" or "not the right women".  I've never heard any male candidate - even the cowboy poseurs like GWB and Reagan - called an insult to men.

    Of course, Palin... (none / 0) (#115)
    by Cal on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 04:37:52 PM EST
    ...has been hit with sexism and misogyny.  Deleting my comments doesn't change that fact, Jeralyn.

    Y'all Should Stop Fighting.... (none / 0) (#116)
    by nclblows on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 06:00:49 PM EST
    The Right is dangling a shiny object in front of you (Palin) to distract you from what they're doing Right Now....