USA Today Poll: Palin Has Lowest Vote of Confidence Since Quayle

USA Today has released the results of its first poll on Gov. Sarah Palin, John McCain's choice of a Republican vice-presidential running mate.

39% say she is ready to serve as president if needed, 33% say she isn't, and 29% have no opinion.

That's the lowest vote of confidence in a running mate since the elder George Bush chose then-Indiana senator Dan Quayle to join his ticket in 1988. In comparison, Delaware Sen. Joe Biden was seen as qualified by 57%-18% after Democrat Barack Obama chose him as a running mate last week.

There's other numbers in the poll that are favorable to the McCain-Palin ticket, particularly those related to the lack of importance of the VP candidate of both parties to their decision as to whom to vote for. And while Obama's speech was viewed favorably, it doesn't seem to have resulted in gaining him a lot of new voters.

< Palin's Mother-In-Law Not Sure Who She'll Vote For | Hurricane Gustav >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    I don't understand how (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 12:22:04 PM EST
    this really works. If it's Bush/Quayle again do we have Duakakis Bentsen now? I'm old enough to remember that one and it's not a cherished memory.

    I worry that (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by Cream City on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 12:25:02 PM EST
    Bush/Quayle, of course, won.  

    First you have to have a Dukakis (none / 0) (#2)
    by Molly Bloom on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 12:23:54 PM EST
    So your 2nd half isn't there.

    I think we had him... (none / 0) (#7)
    by reynwrap582 on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 12:27:28 PM EST
    in 2004.

    being from MA (none / 0) (#103)
    by massdem on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 03:01:06 PM EST
    I would vote for Dukakis over Kerry any day.  Although he didn't run a very good campaign, IMO he was a good Gov.  And it was unfortunate for him that the economy in MA started to tank during the campaign, since he started his run on the "Massachusetts miracle".

    Are you sure? (none / 0) (#8)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 12:27:58 PM EST
    Both are intellectuals who tend to overthink questions when they are asked.

    The difference (3.00 / 0) (#18)
    by zvs888 on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 12:35:18 PM EST
    Is that Dukakis had no spine and people saw him as weak and ineffectual.  Obama comes out firing and can at least act tough when necessary.

    you let me know (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by Chisoxy on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 01:28:47 PM EST
    the first time this happens. Other than saying "I'm not about to be bullied" or words to that effect in speeches a few times Obama hasnt shown much of a fighting dem spirit.

    Did You Hear The Convention Speech? (none / 0) (#75)
    by daring grace on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 02:03:10 PM EST
    That wasn't fighting words enough for you?

    I would say it was somewhat (none / 0) (#99)
    by inclusiveheart on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 02:43:09 PM EST
    omnivorous - better than the vegetarians we were getting during some of the earlier parts of the convention - but it was not entirely carnivorous as some of us who enjoy red meat would like to see from time to time.

    He probably did the right thing - I did see some people say that if he had been meaner they would have been turned off - but it is a matter of taste on some level - Obama had to strike a balance.

    What I am most interested in though are the nielsen numbers that Obama racked up with that speech.

    38.4 million viewers supposedly watched Obama's speech which is the largest audience for any convention speech and is more than four million viewers more than watched the Olympics Opening Ceremonies - another record.


    That's a lot of people.  Election day numbers are going to be interesting this year I think.


    Newly Miffed about the weekly conjured slight (none / 0) (#78)
    by Ellie on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 02:06:54 PM EST
    ... which Team Obama and the Text Messaging Squadrons of Pesterers then inundate media to shape the latest hooey isn't the same as fighting for issues.

    It shouldn't always be about Obama evah but it always is.

    It shouldn't always be about piling on the latest Bad Monster Lady either but, lamentably, that's been the most baldly apparent strategy that followed DemCon '08's stadium extravaganza.

    The complaints about McCain ace-ing the afterglow were kind of hilarious. So was the wrong-footing on the fauxgressive pivot from declaring McCain as classy for applauding Obama and then complaining that the Palin announcement DEPRIVED Obama of "his" media time of lavish self-congratulation for that week's fussily choreographed and set-designed Weekly Best Speech Evah.

    Obama needs to run on more than how well or badly his team engages in gaming the system and the media. The fauxgressive blogosphere cares deeply about this cr@pfest of repeating talking points.

    His team can't separate the value of their "brilliance" as campaigners, system-gamers, caucusers and lever-pullers on Pesterbots to go out and sling sh!t by repeating "memes" (a word that's grossly misunderstood and misused by poligeeks.)

    Apologies to Jeralyn for this skunky stink bomb if it's inappropriate, rude or violates the new site mandate to clap hard for Obama.

    Still sticking to the plan to read more, post less and wish all of the above good luck with the GE strategy. Had the "acceptable" sexist sh!tstorm not come out in Hurricane Gustav-force against Palin, including here, I'd be skimming the open threads and poll-cats threads and tossing in minimally.

    [/just when I think I'm out the misogyny PULLS me back in again]


    2008 is not 1988 (none / 0) (#24)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 12:39:10 PM EST
    Why (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 01:19:42 PM EST
    mention Quayle then? IMO, this is just a bunch of silliness to even bring his name into it.

    the LAST (5.00 / 0) (#87)
    by ccpup on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 02:25:24 PM EST
    thing we need is for people to begin comparing Dan Quayle's experience (two terms in Congress with one full term and then two years as Senator before being chosen for VP) to what Obama has now running for President.

    Opening the door to have Quayle mentioned AT ALL in relation to Obama is an invitation to bad news, in my opinion.


    Yeah (none / 0) (#109)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 03:27:06 PM EST
    IIRC, the issue with Quayle wasn't so much that he was inexperienced as that he was a fraking moron.  And he looked about 13.

    She's been on the ticket for 2 seconds (5.00 / 3) (#3)
    by Polkan on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 12:24:59 PM EST
    so I wonder if it's worthwile putting much faith in these numbers. Especially since the Democrats are known for having dismissed similar weekend polls on Obama. Her "personal story" is going to be chewed over and over. Then the "inexperience" meme will lower the expectations so much that she will need very very little to be declared a winner in her debate with Biden. I expect her basic message to be: I'm the REAL outsider, and unlike Obama/Biden I balanced budgets, taken on big oil and my own party and gave big tax rebates. In other words - they will completely ignore Biden and will both go after Obama. Once that sinks in, I'm sure her numbers will go up.

    Is this a Presidential campaign or American Idol? (none / 0) (#60)
    by myiq2xu on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 01:34:27 PM EST
    Were we supposed to call in and vote?

    American Idol? (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by Polkan on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 02:40:05 PM EST
    I wonder where I heard this line before.... Hmmmm..... Can't say.....

    Two problems with that: (none / 0) (#114)
    by seeker on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 04:19:43 PM EST
    1.  It's not hard to balance a budget when you get enough oil royalties to pay much of the state budget and to give money back to state residents.

    2,  She claims to have "stood up to big oil".  Can anyone tell me exactly what she did?


    Well, more people think she's prepared (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by andgarden on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 12:27:01 PM EST
    than don't.

    Not a great place to start if we really want to have this debate, and I think at this point we probably don't.

    the number Jeralyn (5.00 / 0) (#17)
    by ccpup on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 12:34:57 PM EST
    chose to highlight and trumpet basically shows, as the story states in their first paragraph, that voters don't know who she is yet.  

    For someone introduced to the public stage only two days ago, people not being familiar with her is perfectly reasonable.

    Someone stands before you wanting a job.  You've only just met them and have yet to see their resume.  You're asked if you think they have the experience to do the job and you respond "I don't know yet".

    In some people's eyes, that reads as you having NO trust in her experience.  In most people's eyes, that will read as "let me learn about her and get back to you on that".


    Introduction (none / 0) (#66)
    by Johannes on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 01:50:08 PM EST
    It's virtually impossible to introduce a new person in a few weeks.  There are already enough doubts and skeletons in her closet to keep the press busy for 60 days, and there will no doubt be more to come.

    Even if she clears those hurdles, it would take an enormous amount of campaign resources that should be devoted to McCain and the core strategy.

    Forget about experience, gender, etc.  Bottom line, Palin is an enormous distraction that takes away the advantage McCain had on "experience," and exacerbates the questions about his judgment and impulsive nature.


    maybe (none / 0) (#112)
    by ccpup on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 03:57:52 PM EST
    but she's also, as I understand it, very impressive on the campaign trail which is where they're putting her.  Especially in rural, blue collar Swing States the Dems need to win (think OH, PA, MI, NJ, VA, etc)

    Chuck Todd (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by standingup on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 01:17:36 PM EST
    pointed to Bush/Quayle as one example of a prior ticket and a reason Dems might want to carefully consider mocking McCain's choice.  He did this on Friday, while it was looking like Palin was the choice but had not been confirmed.  

    I am afraid Dems are having a forest/trees moment again here.    


    How is she an 'aggressive' feminist? (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by Dr Molly on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 12:30:18 PM EST

    Ah, yes, it is a tricky dichotomy (none / 0) (#26)
    by Dr Molly on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 12:40:58 PM EST
    Flattery (none / 0) (#33)
    by Gobbluth on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 12:49:07 PM EST
    I'm glad that your flattered by Sarah's kind words about HRC, but if you've seen the previous tapes about her opinions you should easily see that its cynical politics.  If Hillary was at the top of the ticket, first she probably wouldn't have been picked and secondly she would be calling her a "whiner" and I'm sure much worse.

    Her comments (none / 0) (#41)
    by Valhalla on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 01:00:16 PM EST
    (I watched the Dayton speech too) were limited to acknowledging Ferraro and Clinton, stating that women weren't done yet with the 18 million cracks, and a joke about breaking up the old boys club.

    And the audience in Dayton loved it.  I'm assuming the crowd was mostly Midwestern Republicans -- the heartland folks that are the key to a win for either side.

    For booing -- someone else mentioned that, are there any links?  Are they booing the mention of Clinton's name, or the idea that women can take prominent national office?  It's a critical difference.

    I think a lot of folks may be letting their hope cloud their critical judgment when they expect that Palin's brand of feminism is going to turn people off in heavily Republican crowds/states.  Clinton won Appalachia (Extended), by some shocking margins, remember.  I always thought is was strongly related to her deep pragmatism, and Palin seems to have a strong streak of that.


    Her stance on right to life (none / 0) (#68)
    by oculus on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 01:55:09 PM EST
    with zero exceptions will bring the conservative portion of the GOP to McCain.  She talks the talk on wiping out Iran. She whole-heartedly supports the war in Iraq.  She favors increased domestic drilling for oil.  Yes, she is a female voice speaking forcefully; but the words are welcome.

    I think (none / 0) (#110)
    by jondee on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 03:31:18 PM EST
    she might be seen as an aggressive feminist only by those of believe in the Pauline hierarchy model, ie: woman "beneath her husband", not talking in church etc

    Other than that, what feminist issues has Palin ever gotten "aggressively" behind?


    one wonders (5.00 / 0) (#10)
    by ccpup on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 12:31:10 PM EST
    if Quayle had a "don't know who this is" rating over 50% like Gov Palin currently has.  I trust, as most reasonable, not blindly partisan people would, that as people come to know her and then later see her in the VP debate, that number will change.

    Seems odd to be trumpeting a Poll taken so early in the process as some kind of proof that Americans are concerned with her inexperience.  

    What that poll shows -- which is stated clearly in the very first paragraph of the story at the link -- is Americans know very little about her.

    Let's hope she's a better speller (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by DemForever on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 12:33:25 PM EST
    Although having lived in Idaho (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by DemForever on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 12:34:03 PM EST
    she ought to get potato(e) right

    The Spelling demographic will be thrilled! (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by Valhalla on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 01:05:39 PM EST

    did I (none / 0) (#23)
    by ccpup on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 12:38:39 PM EST
    misspell something?  I'm only on my first cup of coffee, so it's entirely possible.

    My apologies if that's the case.


    No, sorry, I was referring to (none / 0) (#29)
    by DemForever on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 12:44:41 PM EST
    Once again, she, Gov. Palin, is not (5.00 / 4) (#11)
    by zfran on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 12:31:49 PM EST
    talking about carrying on the legacy of Sen. Clinton. When she mentions Ferraro and Clinton, she is paying homage to who have come before and gotten so far. For instance, Ferraro was on the ticket for vp, Hillary was a viable (and most)qualified person to stay through the primaries. Never had been done before, glass ceiling, Gov. Palin acknowledging same. Look to Hillary Clinton's tone and reaction to this pick. All who have derided Gov. Palin for being a "woman", a "token" and a "pander" should follow Hillary's grown-up example.

    Following Hillary's grown-up example (5.00 / 0) (#84)
    by Lysis on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 02:17:21 PM EST
    Would be a hell of a way to make the world, not just our political dialogue, more productive and less dehumanizing.

    I think I need to get me a WWHD bracelet.


    If Obama's speech didn't get many new voters (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by Edgar08 on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 12:34:08 PM EST
    Does that mean that the contrast springs eternal strategy is not effective in every single circumstance??

    Perhaps because it's only been one speech in the last years worth of mush?

    Perhaps the holdouts are waiting for something more consistent?

    Or perhaps some holdouts are waiting for something Obama can't deliver with a speech?

    As has been said (3.00 / 0) (#25)
    by zvs888 on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 12:39:33 PM EST
    That's because Palin was chosen the following morning.

    Most independent focus groups showed modest movement towards Obama after the speech, which is a pull towards him but then the next day Republicans and independents leaning Republican rallied on the Palin choice which blunted the speech's effects.


    Will the McCain/Palin ticket (none / 0) (#72)
    by oculus on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 01:58:00 PM EST
    get a bounce from a more compact convention due to intervention of hurricane?  'Twould be ironic.

    While McCain/Palin (5.00 / 3) (#27)
    by DemForever on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 12:42:28 PM EST
    are going to go hang out in Mississippi and try to look busy, I like this response by Obama:

    "Sen. Barack Obama said that he plans to mobilize his huge e-mail list of supporters to volunteer or send money once the impact of Hurricane Gustav becomes apparent and authorities know better what kind of help is needed."

    Awesome! (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by eleanora on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 02:01:50 PM EST
    Less talk, more action plus reframing one of his negatives as a force for good. Handled carefully, this could be a big plus for the Ds.

    Look (none / 0) (#98)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 02:42:56 PM EST
    they are both doing something and both should be applauded for trying to help the people of the Gulf coast. That's all that matters in this situation.

    "Progressive" boards have (5.00 / 2) (#36)
    by Edgar08 on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 12:54:21 PM EST
    Decided that because Rove defeated McCain in 1999 with a certain political style and because they believe that the swifties beat Kerry in 2004 with a certain kind of political style that the best thing the Dem party can do is adopt a certain sort of can't beat 'em join 'em mentality.

    I put quotation marks around the word progressive when I refer to those blogs.

    Like this:  Huffington Post is a "progressive" blog.

    Not surprised (5.00 / 2) (#47)
    by janarchy on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 01:10:09 PM EST
    And while Obama's speech was viewed favorably, it doesn't seem to have resulted in gaining him a lot of new voters.

    Which just goes to prove that just because there were 40 million people who watched it on tv doesn't mean they're all going to vote for him. The Democrats have to do more than just talk -- they have to show some backbone and give more substance. And obsesseding day after day over McCain's vice presidential candidate as if she's the one running at the top of the ticket is just madness.

    My take on these overall numbers (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by frankly0 on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 01:19:52 PM EST
    combined with the latest Gallup and Ras tracking polls is that the Palin announcement has performed very well its intended purpose: to step all over the glowing press Obama was receiving about the Greatest Acceptance Speech Ever.

    Mission Accomplished.

    Likewise, Mission Accomplished (none / 0) (#79)
    by daring grace on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 02:09:04 PM EST
    40 million people tuned in for the speech--more than any other political convention speech in history.

    People heard what he said and the immediate after-effect in the media was overwhelmingly positive.

    The lack of continued buzz due to the Palin announcement is not that big a deal, especially since next week when McCain gives his speech there will be comparisons drawn. Wonder who will win in that match up?


    Took the oxygen away from the dems and (none / 0) (#89)
    by WelshWoman on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 02:27:55 PM EST
    if Palin becomes the media darling that could hurt the dems ticket

    That piece is the problem (5.00 / 2) (#54)
    by MichaelGale on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 01:20:58 PM EST
    Democrats have to worry about. Small town OH, PA, IN, WWVA, Va and the west.

    It is not about if Palin is experienced or not.  This is a woman Conservatives can fall in love with -to  half quote: Brains, Babies, Guns and Jesus.

    I think we need Hillary Clinton out there to talk about the rare, legal and safe and other choices we have, foreign policy and women, owning guns and responsibility, the economy and families, separation of church and G-D, and health care, health care, health care. In essence, make her the VP for 60 days.

    Of course I wouldn't if I were her but that's me.

    "women's work" (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by marian evans on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 01:56:58 PM EST
    No, I don't think she should do it either.

    From a woman's point of view, the unsubtle arrogance and presumption (btw I am not implying that you yourself feel this way) of the notion that Hillary Clinton should devote herself to "cleaning up the mess" so the boys don't have to dirty their hands is beyond infuriating (perhaps somewhere beyond the Horsehead Nebula or maybe even Alaska!). This is an attitude with which the vast majority of intelligent and capable women are depressingly familiar - and absolutely bloody sick of, quite frankly!

    In WaPo, Marie Coco wrote an article in which she quoted Senator Clinton's memoir "Living History" - "...this is how Clinton described her reaction to her earliest political loss, during her senior year in high school: "I ran for student government president against several boys and lost, which did not surprise me but still hurt, especially because one of my opponents told me I was `really stupid if I thought a girl could be elected president.' As soon as the election was over, the winner asked me to head the Organizations Committee, which as far as I could tell was expected to do most of the work. I agreed."

    Yeah, we've come a long way, as they say. Or as the French put it so elegantly, "Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose"


    The danger re Clinton now (none / 0) (#113)
    by jar137 on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 04:03:59 PM EST
    is that the more prominent her presence in the campaign, the greater the likelihood the disappointment/anger at her not being on the ticket will grow.  If Clinton becomes a surrogate for Obama in dealing with Palin it will implicitly raise the question- why isn't she on the ticket?  I think similar problems would occur if they send other women out as well.  This should not and cannot be a gender battle.  Biden has been generally good on women's issues, so he should be able to counter Palin, but only on the issues- her views on the environment/global warming, Stevens, women's right to choose, to name a few.  The Dems should remind the public that she represents the right wing of the republican party which brought such disaster over the past eight years.

    those attacks are not on this site and will be (5.00 / 2) (#56)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 01:28:32 PM EST
    deleted if they appear here. Rumors about her personal life are off-limits. We don't do personal attacks here.

    Thank you Jeralyn (none / 0) (#69)
    by americanincanada on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 01:56:16 PM EST
    Glad to hear it.

    misogyny (5.00 / 2) (#59)
    by Tim V on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 01:31:23 PM EST
    Isn't the treatment of some journalists and some bloggers towards Palin similar to how Hillary was treated ? Do we ask a male candidate who is going to take care of the young children ?

    You get an A+ (5.00 / 2) (#61)
    by Dr Molly on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 01:35:39 PM EST
    for paying attention, integrity, and consistency!

    No it isn't (3.00 / 2) (#64)
    by flyerhawk on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 01:45:36 PM EST
    Sarah Palin has a 4 month old baby with Down's Syndrome.  That is a uniquely demanding responsibility.

    What male candidates have been in a similar situation?  I remember that people questioned whether John Edwards could do the job with a sick wife.


    Are kidding me? (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by PlayInPeoria on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 01:56:53 PM EST
    I won't hold it against a women or a man if they had resposibilites for their family.

    Of course I have some experience in raising aspecial needs child.


    Of course not (none / 0) (#77)
    by flyerhawk on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 02:05:49 PM EST
    The question is whether it is appropriate to ask Palin about whether about handling both her family and the job is something she can handle.  

    It seems completely appropriate with respects to Palin because of her situation.  

    While I personally believe that she could certainly do both that doesn't invalidate the question and it is understandable why she was asked why others were not.


    Men always ask this question of women (5.00 / 2) (#83)
    by Lysis on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 02:14:12 PM EST
    Because men can't imagine having to do all of the domestic and professional tasks and do them well.

    Every working mother I know juggles these responsibilities without complaint and with great success.  Quite frankly, if you want a job done well, give it to a working mother who already has her plate full.


    Not appropriate (5.00 / 2) (#85)
    by PlayInPeoria on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 02:17:53 PM EST

    it is understandable why she was asked why others were not.

    Since when is it ONLY a women that is responsible for children? She has a husband.

    Nope... still doess't do it for me. No one should be asked.


    Well, here's your evidence Jeralyn (5.00 / 3) (#74)
    by Dr Molly on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 02:03:01 PM EST
    Um, last I checked, that 4 month old also has a father who is just as capable of caring for the child as she is. Just like the young Edwards' childen would have been cared by the other parent for if he had been elected.

    That's your view (none / 0) (#80)
    by flyerhawk on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 02:09:24 PM EST
    You haven't explained why the question is inappropriate.  

    I think the question would be entirely appropriate if the candidate was a male.


    The question would never be asked if she were male (5.00 / 2) (#82)
    by Dr Molly on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 02:10:49 PM EST
    And you know it.

    Actually I don't know that (2.00 / 1) (#90)
    by flyerhawk on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 02:28:29 PM EST
    I don't know of any similar situations in the past.  Do you know of any?

    Did (5.00 / 0) (#97)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 02:40:59 PM EST
    anyone ask Obama who was going to care for his children while he ran for office? His children are young and can't be left alone. Palin has at least two children that are grown or almost grown that could help her. Don't use the baby that has down's syndrome as an excuse.

    I have no idea (none / 0) (#102)
    by flyerhawk on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 03:00:33 PM EST
    If I had to guess I would say that he was asked many times about caring for his children and the demands of being President. I just don't think his answers warrant much attention. It's a softball question. It's a softball question to Obama and it's a softball question to Palin.

    LOL (none / 0) (#104)
    by Dr Molly on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 03:04:31 PM EST
    If I had to guess I would say that he was asked many times about caring for his children and the demands of being President.

    No (none / 0) (#106)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 03:12:44 PM EST
    he was NEVER asked about who was going to take care of his children while he ran for President.

    Never asked (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by jondee on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 03:17:27 PM EST
    and you know that how, exactly?

    Because (none / 0) (#111)
    by flyerhawk on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 03:52:26 PM EST
    that's why.

    Burden of proof is on you babe (5.00 / 0) (#116)
    by Dr Molly on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 07:31:22 PM EST
    You're the one who made the (ridiculous) assertion.

    I am not aware of any male candidates (none / 0) (#92)
    by Dr Molly on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 02:34:54 PM EST
    for higher office ever having been asked the question of how they would balance family and work demands.

    She is approximately the same age as Obama. I guess the unstated assumption in Obama's case is that his partner will be the primary childcare provider.


    The unstated assumption (none / 0) (#100)
    by flyerhawk on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 02:44:19 PM EST
    is that neither of Obama's children are infants with Down's Syndrome. I don't get why some of you wish to ignore that fact or treat it as if it is irrelevant. I have no idea whether previous candidates had been asked this question but even if they had been I doubt I would even remember them being asked the question.

    I didn't ask the question (none / 0) (#95)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 02:40:04 PM EST
    and stop saying I did.

    What are the "unique" (none / 0) (#118)
    by lilburro on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 09:38:33 PM EST
    responsibilities of caring for a child with Down's syndrome that are somehow especially urgent for the American people to consider?  Can you explain?

    I don't think it's necessary to ask her this question at all, and I am sure she can handle raising her family.


    The poll shows only 18 point difference favorable (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by Saul on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 01:36:38 PM EST
    from someone who just started politics with someone who has 35 years in politics.  

    In my book that is not such a bad poll for Palin. I feel the poll will close in her favor from here to November unless she falls flat on her face.  

    I am not a McCain supporter.  Just trying to be fair here.

    Interesting (5.00 / 2) (#108)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 03:22:40 PM EST
    I'm tempted to say that she will help his ticket in the long run but I'll know better after the convention.  But here's why I think she can move numbers:

    Conservatives - they were wishy-washy with McCain but are now fully behind him with money AND votes.

    Media - the shock value is clear.  Palin has dominated the news cycle since she was announced.  Since the Democrats stupidly advanced the "experience" argument, there will continue to be a lot of focus on her through at least the VP debate and if she does even modestly well, she's going to hit expectations out of the park.  Thanks to Paul Begala and the like, all she has to do at this point is speak in complete sentances and not say her number one wish is for "world peace."

    Reform/Maverick - McCain doubled down on this.  The Republican brand is in the dirt - people don't trust and don't like 'em.  McCain is promising that he'll take on his own party and move it in a new and exciting direction.  With Palin, a supposed "GOP slayer" in AK, at his side, they just might believe him.

    All the energy and buzz was on the Dem side. If McCain had picked Romney or Pawlenty, that would have continued.  There would have been a few hours of coverage of the new ticket and then back to the Dem Convention.  Now that's clearly not the case.

    What should Dems do?  Belatedly start ignoring her.  Don't play the game.  If they'd done that from the start, it would have diminished the pick much more than any stupid arguments over a "former small town mayor".  But they didn't and I'm thinking that moment may have passed.

    And the continued focus on whether this was an appeal to Hillary voters is just stupid:

    1. It re-emphasizes the split that we supposedly put to bed last week.

    2. Palin may appeal to some moderate to conservative working class democrats who voted for Hillary.  But that's not the group of Hillary voters pundits care about - they focus on long-time democratic women.  They are missing the bigger picture.  And inevitably, they can't help themselves from saying something disparaging about this latter group - usually by proclaiming that if they don't vote for Obama it will be because of an "emotional" response.  Because these voters are "bitter" or "hurt" and "can't get over it".

    3. As has been said again and again, saying he just picked her because she's a woman is insulting to many - at least as many, I'd guess as are insulted by the pick itself.

    4. It has encouraged the blogger boyz to act like idiots - again - and could depress turnout among women who are sick of the sexism in the Democratic party.  Someone posted a CNN transcript yesterday of Larry King and in a back and forth with Carville and some Republican woman (can't remember who), she got in a great hit by criticizing the Obama campaign for being "dismissive".  Why oh why would we want to continue to allow republicans to score easy points off of us?

    One thing Democratic talking heads should NOT do right now is presume to speak for Hillary voters.  I've heard far too many in the last two days say, "Hillary voters won't fall for this" or "shouldn't fall for this."  Many are sick to death of being told what they should think and by claiming to speak for them, and these pundits (most of whom never supported Hillary) are hurting their own case.  Seriously, if I hear Olbermann or Colbert King or Eugene Robinson talk about what Hillary voters are thinking and what they should do, after the crap they said about her, I might scream.  The media wants to play this game - it doesn't mean we have to respond.

    Again, not sure how this will play out long term, but those are my thoughts for now.  Sorry for the long post :)

    39% say she is ready to serve as president (none / 0) (#12)
    by MyLeftMind on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 12:32:12 PM EST
    Now that's scary.  

    You're forgetting (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by frankly0 on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 01:16:49 PM EST
    that, when it comes to the question of what's sufficient experience to be President, Obama has singlehandedly lowered that bar.

    If Obama is prepared to be President from Day One, why is not Palin, as VP, and working in effect as an understudy, not going to be prepared in the unlikely event she should ever have to take over?

    And remember that taking over from an administration already fully established and functioning is quite different from establishing that administration ex nihilo.


    And when they compare (5.00 / 0) (#65)
    by abfabdem on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 01:49:36 PM EST
    experience between Obama and Palin, they just talk number of years, not what they actually accomplished in those years. It would seem she accomplished a lot in a short time.  In comparison, Emil Jones stuck Obama's name on how many bills in the part-time Illinois legislature?  And what exactly did he do in the U.S. Senate?  They should tread carefully here.

    Honestly (none / 0) (#22)
    by zvs888 on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 12:37:50 PM EST
    it just goes to show how overrated experience really is.

    For around most voters experience doesn't really matter as long as you did something to your name.  Most vote on policy, which is why McCain threw this curveball.  Because his experience argument had run its course and wasn't working anymore (although I question that because he had been rising all the way to the DNC).


    Now Palin has national security experience (none / 0) (#34)
    by Politalkix on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 12:49:16 PM EST
    for just being from Alaska. According to Cindy McCain "And also, remember: Alaska is the closest part of our continent to Russia. So, it's not as if she doesn't understand what's at stake here." link

    This just shows how the Republican base (none / 0) (#28)
    by steviez314 on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 12:44:41 PM EST
    is weird.  39% think she's ready to president is just 30% (Bush is doing a great job!) plus probably 9% who wanted him to be more theocratic.

    People in glass houses (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by Marvin42 on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 12:53:32 PM EST
    shouldn't throw (experience) stones. :)

    Gamble to get Evangelicals (none / 0) (#16)
    by Rashomon66 on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 12:34:44 PM EST
    On reflection I do not think he chose Palin just because she was a woman. At least it was not the main reason. The main reason he chose her was because she may appeal to social conservatives and evangelical voters - many of whom have been on the sidelines. He was also feeling pressure from the GOP base. Apparently [according to the NY Times] McCain really wanted Liberman.

    Palin's home-state papers (none / 0) (#20)
    by DemForever on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 12:35:50 PM EST
    seem bewidlered by her selection

    Any hope of open thread for other topics? (none / 0) (#21)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 12:36:48 PM EST

    Check out the Police State at GOPconvention thread (none / 0) (#67)
    by DFLer on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 01:50:28 PM EST
    1988 is not a good comparison (none / 0) (#30)
    by steviez314 on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 12:46:06 PM EST
    Reagan was still popular, Bush was his VP, the economy was in good shape, we were not at war.

    Under those circumstances, it was easier to pull a Quayle.

    Another poll (none / 0) (#38)
    by Rashomon66 on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 12:55:45 PM EST
    Anyone see the Zogby poll? It's not pretty. With the addition of Palin the polls are now tied. I don't know how accurate Zogby is but will be curious in the next few days how the Gallup poll looks.

    Yes, it's going to be another repeat (5.00 / 2) (#42)
    by Dr Molly on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 01:00:31 PM EST
    war between social conservatives and liberals. Your point in the other thread is correct I think - she was not picked because she's a woman, but because of her extreme social conservatism, which has brought a flood of money and excitement from the right wing base.

    It's going to be ugly.


    It's very serious (5.00 / 2) (#58)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 01:30:12 PM EST
    the evangelicals will pump untold amounts of money into the Republican campaign to get an anti-choice candidate elected. And we will fight them every step of the way.

    Not just social conservatism. Guns as well. (5.00 / 2) (#63)
    by tigercourse on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 01:37:40 PM EST
    For some reason the NRA crowd didn't really trust McCain (I have no idea why, he's clearly pro gun). Pictures of Palin shooting an AR-15 have them jumping for joy.

    I like the gun part (none / 0) (#93)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 02:36:24 PM EST
    I'm a strong supporter of second amendment rights and opponent of most gun control measures.

    And this isn't even a real Zogby poll (none / 0) (#45)
    by rdandrea on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 01:08:49 PM EST
    It's a Zogby interactive.

    Well, I was looking at (none / 0) (#76)
    by PlayInPeoria on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 02:04:49 PM EST
    McCain after Obama choose Biden for his running mate.

    Since I'm from Illinois... I would not have to worry about my vote.

    McCain choosing Palin...no way, no how!

    It has nothing to do with experience. Now it is about issues I just can't stomach. Soooo conservative.

    I looked at the Green ticket but.....NOW every vote no matter where will count .... because those conservative will now come out to vote.

    Are they doing the vote swap thing this year? (none / 0) (#86)
    by Lysis on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 02:19:31 PM EST
    Where a voter in a safe state votes to send a message in exchange for a swing state vote?

    Well, I really (none / 0) (#88)
    by PlayInPeoria on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 02:26:42 PM EST
    was NOT convienced that McCain would actually go conservative.

    And thank you for being so %$^%%%@%64983y...

    There is a lot of vote swapping going on right now... THAT IS WHY IT IT TIED!


    Come again? (none / 0) (#105)
    by Lysis on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 03:11:09 PM EST
    I was asking if there's a system set up, like in 2004, where a swing state voter who wants to vote on principle for someone other than the Dem makes a deal with a safe state voter, where the swing state voter votes for the Dem and the safe state voter for the third party candidate.

    Who won in 1988? (none / 0) (#91)
    by diogenes on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 02:31:02 PM EST
    As I remember it, the ticket with the inexperienced, low-rated Dan Quayle beat the ticket with the experienced, high-rated Lloyd Bentsen in 1988.  

    Do the Yoots care about Eagleton or Quayle? (none / 0) (#94)
    by Ellie on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 02:37:28 PM EST
    What happened to the politics of change, moving forward and let's work on issues rather than do the politics of division and flinging cr@p, any cr@p, no holds barred cr@p like they did in the olden days and which caused the Obama nose to lift so darned high to get away from the rank smell of that tired old sh!t?

    Again, if the new voters that "justified" the Dem dismissal of a substantial chunk of their loyal support are out there in such force, why are Obama and his team fixating backwardly -- in every sense of the phrase -- on Quayle and Eagleton?

    Are they really searching that far back in time to look for derision to smack onto New Bad Monster Lady?

    Or is this more about the text messaging squadrons mindlessly inundading a feckin' eedjit like Jack Cafferty with 11,000 negative emails about Palin -- and him buying that they were equally from Dems and Pugs.

    Maybe this crankiness slash clarity is residual hormonal zing from tethering to the vast, all-encompasing Giant Chick Brain that directs women to be a pain in Dems' collective do-nothing @ss for equal rights for my entire life.

    Maybe I'm still cranky cause I didn't get a lot for Fitzmas.

    Regardless of the reasons behind ME being an uncooperative b!tch, I just don't see stuff like this resonating with voters.

    The only Quayle that matters in this household will be how many cranberry-cornbread stuffed ones are among the birds on the Fall Harvest table. (That's the table formerly known as the groaning Thanksgiving one.)

    How's Palin doing against Rock Cornish Game Hens is what I want to know.

    Palin was a decent strategic choice (none / 0) (#101)
    by noodles on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 02:44:49 PM EST
    Palin was a good choice for McCain as it shores up the Fundi-Xtian base with a candidate they can identify with: strident anti-choice, pro-NRA, and she wants to mandate that science be counter-balanced with Christian mythology in schools.

    But wasn't the true benefit (none / 0) (#115)
    by Radix on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 05:08:46 PM EST
    for Bush, choosing Quayle the fact that in choosing Quayle, the bobbleheads forgot all about Neal Bush's Silverrado Savings and Loan nastiness? As I recall, that was the hot topic, prior to the Quayle announcement.