McCain's Advisers Explain His Choice of Palin

According to this story, Joe Lieberman was John McCain's preferred choice for VP. Ultimately, he listened to advisers who gave him the obvious news: McCain-Lieberman was a losing ticket if he wanted to hold his base.

For weeks, advisers close to the campaign said, Mr. McCain had wanted to name as his running mate his good friend Senator Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut, the Democrat turned independent. But by the end of last weekend, the outrage from Christian conservatives over the possibility that Mr. McCain would fill out the Republican ticket with Mr. Lieberman, a supporter of abortion rights, had become too intense to be ignored.

Polling didn't help McCain pick Sarah Palin since "virtually no one had heard of her, a McCain adviser said." She beat out Tim Pawlenty and Mitt Romney because she had "glowing reviews from influential social conservatives" and McCain felt he needed an "attention-grabbing choice." [more ...]

McCain's advisers told him not to worry about choosing a running mate with little experience, after making Obama's inexperience a campaign theme, because his senior campaign team "had long decided that Mr. McCain’s 'experience versus change' argument against Mr. Obama had run its course, to the extent that it had worked at all."

So we almost had Lieberman lending his Jomentum to the McCain campaign. Instead, McCain pandered to the religious right. So much for the maverick candidate.

< Late Night: Like a Hurricane | Eyes Wide Open >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Well, it's certainly been an attention grabber. (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by Teresa on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 12:16:13 AM EST
    This may have been a pander to the religious right, but I still believe those 18 million cracks had something to do with it.

    If not, it's a side benefit because I feel like after a wonderful convention, we are re-fighting the primary.

    Limbaugh's top choice (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by nalo on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 02:01:09 AM EST
    Not just Dobson...this is mainly a pander to Limbaugh ("glowing reviews from influential social conservatives") Limbaugh has literally been the loudest advocate for Palin as VP for months.  

    It's highly unlikely that Rush Limbaugh's top choice will have much appeal to Hillary voters.  Just don't see how they can thread that needle...


    Got a link (none / 0) (#154)
    by Wile ECoyote on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 05:23:20 AM EST
    of Limbaugh pushing Palin?  

    Here are a couple (5.00 / 1) (#168)
    by indy in sc on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 07:52:40 AM EST
    This one is post the announcement, but makes reference to how she's been on his radar since February for being "right" on the issues and a "babe."

    Here is one from his website from February--more on the "babe who is right on the issues" front.

    Here is Rush beside himself with joy at the pick.  Be sure not to miss this gem of an exchange:

    RUSH:  A lot of people are, and I think it's justified.  I agree with you.  It's a great pick.  She's not shrill.

    CALLER:  Right.

    RUSH:  She's not going to remind anybody of their ex-wife, she's going to remind men, "Gee, I wish she was single."

    CALLER:  Exactly.

    If you can stomach it (it was difficult for me so I stopped here), you can just go on his website and put "Palin" in the search field and you will come up with a lot of pro-Palin mentions of her from February to today.


    To counter Hillary (none / 0) (#199)
    by nalo on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 11:42:56 AM EST
    The impeccable Rep "logic" was designed to counter Hillary as nominee. The blogger for the "Draft Palin for VP" site cited Limbaugh as the big endorser in Feb. 2008 who made her visible nationally with the Neanderthal reasoning linked above: "Rush Limbaugh has not only mentioned Gov. Palin as a VP candidate for the second time this week, but he has even gone so far as to design a McCain-Palin logo and post it on his homepage."  Her support in the national Rep. party for the last 6 months has been almost entirely from male fratboy ogling from the Limbaugh crowd.  

    well (5.00 / 0) (#190)
    by pukemoana on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 09:59:33 AM EST
    I understand that Green has her own agenda where Palin's concerned.  The soundbite is effective, but not necessarily substantive

    Green has her own agenda (5.00 / 0) (#195)
    by americanincanada on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 11:00:57 AM EST
    I have been doing a lot of reading.

    Indeed (none / 0) (#201)
    by daring grace on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 12:39:34 PM EST
    and Lyda Green was the subject of the now infamous radio program segment where Governor Palin is heard laughing and offering no protest when the shock-jock hosts call Green a b*tch, a "jealous woman"  question whether she 'likes' her three children and refer to her, a cancer survivor, as "a cancer on the progress of the state of Alaska".

    I'd say whatever agenda Green had against Palin to begin with, she probably really had one after this segment aired.



    Lyda Green (none / 0) (#202)
    by daring grace on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 12:53:14 PM EST
    President of The AK State Senate

    But now she's leaving  

    "So the Senate leader, who presided over an unlikely coalition of five fellow Republicans and nine Democrats, has decided not to seek re-election."

    Apparently, she's behind in a primary against another woman (! Lots of women running things in AK!) and she opposes many of Governor Palin's positions which her constituents are in favor of.



    Interesting though (5.00 / 0) (#3)
    by americanincanada on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 12:18:27 AM EST
    that Sarah Palin has been on his list from the very beginning of the vetting process right after he secured the delegates needed for the nomination.

    What a sorry way to make (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by byteb on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 12:20:29 AM EST
    such an important decision.

    How so? (5.00 / 0) (#5)
    by americanincanada on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 12:21:03 AM EST
    Because it shows his decision (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by byteb on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 12:32:43 AM EST
    making skills are not particularly sharp nor wise nor solid.

    Under pressure from his advisors (because they feared the wrath of the religious right), he abandoned his first choice, the moderate independent Lieberman and did a complete about face to the other extreme to chose a hard right conservative that makes George Bush look like an elite progressive. Although the Republicans don't have a particularly deep bench, they do have ppl who are a little less James Dobson and little more moderate.
    It sounds like McCain was panicked by the Dem convention and acting on impulse picked Palin.
    It shows that it was a sorry way to make such an important decision.


    If he had picked Lieberman (5.00 / 4) (#27)
    by Manuel on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 12:56:10 AM EST
    we would be rightly skewering hin for making a stupid choice.  McCain pandered to his base.  Wish Obama had done the same.  Of the five finalists mentioned in the article, Palin was the clear high risk high reward candidate.  

    and Obama picked Biden because? (3.77 / 9) (#19)
    by angie on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 12:46:52 AM EST
    really, the hypocrisy is breathtaking -- pols make decisions for political reasons -- Obama wanted Kaine, but he ended up with Biden -- do you really think there was no pressure from his advisers to go with the guy with more foreign policy cred after the Russia/Georgia dustup? And you know what -- both of them were well advised to listen to their base.
    If you stick to attacking McCain/Palin on their f'ed up issues & the broken Republican "brand" the Dems can win this thing. Keep talking about silly things like pols making decisions based on making their base happy and the Dems will lose.

    And you know Obama's (5.00 / 2) (#39)
    by byteb on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 01:08:58 AM EST
    first choice was Kaine because of what? Name a source in Obama's tightly controlled vetting process who has spoken to you or leaked to a newspaper or blog. Caroline Kennedy told you, perhaps?

    Palin (McCain met her once) was a last minute decision made as a very successful Democratic convention was coming to a close. It was an inexplicable decision made in panic.

    The decision making ability of the future President is an important criteria when chosing who to vote for..Obama said as much in his acceptance speech when he spoke of all those wrong decisions McCain has made over the years. If you've lost your breath over someone questionning the rationale for McCain choosing Palin or questionning his decision making abilities, then politics might be too much of a blood sport for you.


    Nothing you say here (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by angie on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 01:12:06 AM EST
    disputes the fact that Obama picked Biden for political reasons -- to reassure his base that the ticket would have the foreign policy cred needed in these "dangerous times."
    You are insisting on going down a path that is not helping the Dems here. Can you not see that or are you part of a Rep. ratf@#king operation?

    Everything politicians do is for (none / 0) (#47)
    by byteb on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 01:20:17 AM EST
    political reasons, you're either being obtuse or deliberately missing my point.

    And who is your source about Palin? (none / 0) (#163)
    by massdem on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 07:05:37 AM EST
    I have been aware of Palin as a possibility for months, and I'm certainly not a Republican insider.  I wasn't that shocked when I heard it was her - it was a gamble for sure, but sometimes they pay off big.  We'll have to wait and see.

    The fact that McCain thought Lieberman (5.00 / 3) (#9)
    by tigercourse on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 12:34:59 AM EST
    would be a good VP pick says more about his judgement then possibly any other thing yet. Lieberman would have been a disaster.

    However, you can bet he'll be put in charge of Homeland Security or something else of high importance should McCain get elected.

    Exactly, First McCain (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by byteb on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 12:39:37 AM EST
    thinks Lieberman is a good choice and then after having his arm twisted, he thinks Palin is a good choice. The man thinks clearly, doesn't he? (snark alert.)

    Lieberman is finished in theSenate (5.00 / 2) (#90)
    by MKS on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 02:25:54 AM EST
    after the November election and he knows it....

    Lieberman's only chance to have any pull is to be appointed by McCain to a position in the government....And if Obama wins, Lieberman will be all by himself in the Senate without Committee assignments.....


    And good bye to him! (none / 0) (#91)
    by gentlyweepingguitar on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 02:27:31 AM EST
    Buh Bye Joe LIeberman!

    Nah, I seriously doubt it (none / 0) (#142)
    by sociallybanned on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 04:32:43 AM EST
    Funny, how so many liberals hate him yet he has voted 99% Dem/Lib and is now an Independent.  He isn't finished.  

    Oh yeah? (none / 0) (#22)
    by txpolitico67 on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 12:49:23 AM EST
    Was that your view back in 2000 with Gore????

    To give concrete details ... (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by eustiscg on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 01:11:46 AM EST
    ... to back up my #2 above, a poll of Connecticut voters from earlier this year (published by Research 2000 on September 10-12, 2007; ie, less than a year after Lieberman's reelection and well before he openly supported McCain) found that, were the 2006 election to be rerun, Lieberman would go from a 7-point win to an 8-point loss.  Lieberman actually gains among Republicans in this poll, but hemorrhages Dems (-9) and especially Indies (-15).

    Lieberman got past the traffic-jam and promptly took a sharp right.  Most CT Indies, feel they were systematically deceived, and now view him as a Republican-in-all-but-name.


    Liberman has changed a bit (none / 0) (#28)
    by byteb on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 12:58:50 AM EST
    since then.

    Two things: (none / 0) (#29)
    by eustiscg on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 12:58:50 AM EST
    1. Yes
    2. PLUS Lieberman has gone off the rails since his primary ouster

    One of the major reasons ... (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by Robot Porter on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 01:47:02 AM EST
    that Lieberman was picked in 2000 was his criticisms of Clinton over the Lewinsky scandal.

    Doesn't anyone remember this?  His famous statements on the floor of the Senate were played over and over again.


    Yea, that's the problem (none / 0) (#143)
    by sociallybanned on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 04:34:53 AM EST
    with politicians of all kinds; hypocritical and they are actually screwing not getting BJs.  Clinton should have been ticked that he didnt tap it all the way since he had been blamed and scolded so harshly for.

    Yep! (none / 0) (#170)
    by mmc9431 on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 07:59:40 AM EST
    He was part of the Gore strategy to distance himself from Clinton. And we see how well that turned out for the Dem's. Wasn't Donna Braizelle(?) part of the Gore team? And to think we've has 8 yrs of Bush.

    I agree on both points (none / 0) (#61)
    by CoralGables on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 01:42:33 AM EST
    Didn't like his badmouthing of Clinton before 2000, and he has most definitely gone off what little rail he was still on since his primary loss.

    I didn't care for Lieberman's (none / 0) (#179)
    by zfran on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 08:39:51 AM EST
    point of view on the war, but he not only found a way to get re-elected, the people of his state had a choice and they voted for him!!!!! I'd say he had some voices behind him. He probably still does.

    I don't remember what I thought back then. (none / 0) (#31)
    by tigercourse on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 01:00:24 AM EST
    But in hindsight, it sure as hell was a bad choice.

    As I've commented before here (none / 0) (#41)
    by shoephone on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 01:11:08 AM EST
    I thought Lieberman was such a horrid choice in 2000 that as soon as I heard the news I called both the state and national Democracratic party organizations to ream them a new one.

    And so what does that say, in (none / 0) (#180)
    by zfran on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 08:41:13 AM EST
    your opinion, about Gore's judgement, and was he pandering to the Jewish vote.

    No, actually not (none / 0) (#55)
    by Valhalla on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 01:34:34 AM EST
    I don't have any love for Lieberman, but I saw a poll with favorability ratings for prominent politicians in the last week where Lieberman was on the high side.

    I've looked at so many polls lately I don't remember who it was -- maybe Ras?  I'll try to dig it up.

    But I remember everyone (Hillary, Obama, McCain, Kaine, etc.) were about where I'd expect them to be but Lieberman was really high -- over 50 per I think.  I was shocked.

    So while the leftie blogs revile him, I don't think he would have been a bad pick.  I think the problem was much much more that he's pro-choice (arguably) and that would make the radical right Christians stay home.


    Um, he's also Jewish (none / 0) (#67)
    by Eleanor A on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 01:51:31 AM EST
    Which brings nothing to the GOPers, given that Jews vote Dem by ridiculously high margins (think I read 80% somewhere).

    Maybe the county at large (none / 0) (#192)
    by TomStewart on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 10:39:22 AM EST
    might like them a little Lieberman, but the ever shrinking rebup base would have exploded. The announcement would have been made, and the sound of heads popping all over DC would have been deafening.

    I think that Lieberman might have been a decent pick nationally, but with the party already eyeing Johnny with suspicion, it would never have flown.


    Smoke screen (none / 0) (#166)
    by mmc9431 on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 07:39:01 AM EST
    I wonder if the Lieberman name was just thrown out there to insure that whoever else he picked would be acceptable to his party. McCain may have the reputation of a "maverick" but he's no fool. There would have been total revolt in the party. Look at the backlash Obama came up against when Hagel's name was floated.

    Well, Palin is the choice (5.00 / 4) (#10)
    by TomStewart on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 12:36:44 AM EST
    time to let people know her views aren't those of the majority of Americans, and move the subject back to McCain and the administration the promises to be worse that Bush.

    Well, with the exception of Bill Clinton (none / 0) (#181)
    by zfran on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 08:44:41 AM EST
    and one term for Jimmy Carter, I'd say the view of a majority of Americans kept on voting Republican even tho' they disagreed with their positions, as you say. Obama and his minions during the primary pandered to the right. It was all over the place. Bush would not have picked a woman for vp ergo, McCain doesn't always equal Bush.

    Hmm not sure (none / 0) (#191)
    by TomStewart on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 10:34:11 AM EST
    I follows yer logic there. Bush would not have picked a woman therefore McCain does not equal Bush....

    Hmmm. Well, of course I was talking the policies of the two, where they're joined at the hip. As to Bush's pick, well, McCain didn't pick a woman because it was the right thing to do, he did it because he couldn't pick the guy he wanted (for political reasons) so he picked a woman (for political reasons). This makes him worse than Bush, because at least Cheney (shudder) is seen by people as a credible pick (double shudder) while Palin is not.

    The repubs have managed to change the way we view elections, shifting the focus from the issues (where most agree with the dems) to the so-called moral issues, where the repubs are good at what I call 'moral theatre', the appearance of morality where there is none. The dems let them get away with it, time after time, rarely calling them on it, and not working hard, or smart, enough to show that it's a tissue paper wall, behind which the repubs are the same flawed, so-called 'amoral' (human) people eveyone else is.

    Yes, Obama did some pandering to the right (and left), but he's a politician. Hilliary did some pandering to the right as well (MaCain passing the 'commander-in-chief' test anyone?). Doesn't make it right, but it's not surprising.


    I cannot believe what I am (none / 0) (#209)
    by zfran on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 03:19:51 PM EST
    reading!Every time the dems want to drive the conversation, the repubs. beat them to it. Obama voted for Chaney's energy policy. Does that tie him forever to Bush or make him Bush 3? Did Obama pick the guy he wanted? If Obama passed the CIC test in your eyes, terrific. I think my country deserves better then FISA, and a speech, and theatrics. I want a grown-up in the white house. I thought Biden maybe was a grown-up, but apprarently he now is starry-eyed around Obama.
    Obama may win, with or without my vote. I am deeply saddened by what I've been reading here lately and disappointed. I guess we haven't learned much this year.

    Ohio (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by bigbay on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 12:40:43 AM EST
    I think Romney would have hurt him bad in Ohio, and I personally think if Mc Cain holds Ohio he has won the election. I don't see Obama picking off Colorada or Virginia.

    Oh, I think Obama may have a chance (none / 0) (#126)
    by Josey on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 03:41:51 AM EST
    in CO and VA.
    But of course, Repubs haven't had their convention yet where the public will learn more about Obama than Obamedia and the MSM have revealed.

    btw - the diary below from Politico wasn't surprising since Allen could hardly contain his enthusiasm for Obama recently as a guest on Washington Journal. He's another Obama "tingle up my leg" type.
    Vandelhei is a little more objective, but Allen contributed to the article.


    Keith's little head would explode (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by SueBonnetSue on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 12:42:14 AM EST
    Chris Matthew's too.  Instead of the two talking heads, they will become the two exploding heads if their love object doesn't win the election.  

    It's a new world order (5.00 / 3) (#35)
    by gentlyweepingguitar on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 01:04:53 AM EST
    The last 2 elections were in my opinion white man's last hurrah. Those who were in got richer, those who were out got poorer.

    Me, I'm okay. I bought a flip camera this week. I can still pay my mortgage.

    Palin, I guess she's good for those who still believe that abortion is not a woman's right to choose. I hope there's not enough of them to win this election, however.

    As for Obama's lack of experience, I look at "experience" and think of all of those in power right now with experience and think where did their experience get us. A few hundred too many yes votes on this war in Iraq is what I think.

    I read today that Iraq made a multi-billion dollar deal with China for their oil.

    I'm feeling kind of pissed, being that my tax dollars funded China's deal. I don't even know how to process this. We borrowed how many dollars from China to fund this war, then China gets to go in and reap all the oil, but we still have to pay China back?

    This is really hard for me to understand. It is. Unless Bush made a deal with China that we don't have to pay them back for all their loans if they get this oil.

    white man's last hurrah (none / 0) (#173)
    by JSF1 on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 08:09:18 AM EST
    This is both ractist and sexist. Very revealing that this BS goes by on this site by without comment from anyone.  

    Where am I supposed to go? (5.00 / 3) (#49)
    by coolit on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 01:24:11 AM EST
    I have been posting on and reading this blog for over a year now.  I have learned a lot from everyone here and have always been respectful in my conversations with both the readers and the posters.

    At this point, I feel really removed from he democratic party leadership.  I think most of the blogs have turned into branches of the DNC.  Now you are saying that we can't have too much dissent from the party line.  We can't disagree with Obama and the DNC.

    I suppose if this turns into Americablog, I will leave.  Why would the democratic party want to push me away so bad?  

    Are you pushing us to the PUMA sites?  I don't like them, but where else are we supposed to go?

    you can disagree with (5.00 / 2) (#50)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 01:28:34 AM EST
    their position on issues, campaign strategies, their records all you want. I disagree with Democratic positons frequently.

    You cannot shill for the Republican ticket at all, and you cannot express your support for the Republican ticket or opposition to the Democratic ticket in more than 4 comments a day.


    Thanks (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by coolit on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 01:30:06 AM EST
    Sorry, i misunderstood.

    I am completely opposed to the republican ticket.  As a democrat, I am frustrated with what's happened, but am certainly no republican shill.

    Sorry for the misunderstanding.


    Coolit, don't leave (5.00 / 2) (#58)
    by befuddledvoter on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 01:38:14 AM EST
    Jeez, this election cycle has caused such schisms!!  Not a good thing at all. I will begrudgingly vote the Dem ticket, but I don't feel I have to demonize Palin to do that. I can even like her and still vote Democratic.  

    I can understand why she was chosen. Republican advisers did not care about experience.  They said experience counted for nothing against Obama in the last 6 months and they were right.


    We agree (5.00 / 2) (#63)
    by coolit on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 01:46:43 AM EST
    I wont vote for her, but Palin seems like a good person. I also will not demonize her. Human nature is to crucify others when we do not feel confident about our own position.  If we were all cock-sure about a win, there would be glee and high fives, not made up accusations.  I'm worried about Obama mostly because of how crazed the dems have gotten in the past 2 days over Palin.

    Your other point about the schisms.... it's right on.  Everyone who likes Obama wants to yell at me when I say I wont vote for him.  It's like if you don't worship him, everyone hates you;  that's not the way to get my support.  I wonder what the future holds for the democratic party.


    The future of the Democratic Party (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by Grace on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 02:01:20 AM EST
    is going to be quite bleak if they give up trying to convince Undecideds/Others to vote for their candidates.

    It's hard to win elections by insulting voters.  

    Part of politics is Salesmanship.  If you can't sell what you've got, then you need to find a new product or get out of sales.    


    Obama and his supporters alienated many (5.00 / 2) (#76)
    by Prabhata on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 02:05:18 AM EST
    Clinton voters already.  It's their m.o. How many times did we see journalists asking: "Are you going to vote for McCain and be responsible for Obama losing?"  I find it funny that voters are responsible for the candidate losing instead of making the candidate responsible for not attracting the voters to his/her camp.  Go figure.

    Funny side joke in Boston Paper (5.00 / 7) (#51)
    by befuddledvoter on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 01:28:42 AM EST
    Here's the joke making the rounds: It's the vice presidential debate. The moment Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin mentions Hillary, Joe Biden does a Lloyd Bentsen.

    "I know Hillary Clinton. Hillary Clinton is a friend of mine, and Governor, you're no Hillary Clinton."

    But here's Palin's drop-dead reply: "Senator, I know your running mate, Barack Obama. And he's no Hillary Clinton either."

    I have a feeling Biden vs. Palin won't (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by tigercourse on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 01:31:13 AM EST
    go as well for the elder statesman as Cheney vs. Edwards did.

    the matchup (5.00 / 2) (#60)
    by befuddledvoter on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 01:41:54 AM EST
    has been predicted to be like the one between Geraldine Ferraro and Bush I.  Recall how she hit him between the eyes with "Don't patronize me."  I can see that happening if Biden is not careful.  

    I would be surprised if Palin (none / 0) (#80)
    by Prabhata on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 02:10:31 AM EST
    does something like that.  She strikes me as being more sophisticated.  Remember, she got rid of the sitting Republican governor by a wide margin in the primary, and then went on to win against the Democrat who had been governor of AK.  It will be interesting to see her performance.

    It's a Republican state (none / 0) (#117)
    by MKS on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 03:23:34 AM EST
    so beating a Democrat is not that big of a deal...but she will be better than many think...

    She has yet to give an interview...she is still being kept under tight control.....How long can she go without a serious press interview?


    Lets (5.00 / 0) (#156)
    by Wile ECoyote on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 05:29:42 AM EST
    ask Obama.  He is very careful to not get off the practiced, telepromted speech.  Saddleback shows what can happen when he has to wing it.

    Palin 'Serious Press Interview' (none / 0) (#205)
    by daring grace on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 01:06:41 PM EST
    Does this qualify?

    Maria Bartiromo (CNBC?) interviewed Palin last Monday for Business Week

    She was on Meet the Press this AM touting Palin's strength on 'energy issues", i.e. drilling in Alaska.


    That is (5.00 / 2) (#62)
    by Cream City on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 01:44:26 AM EST
    if she can get a word in edgewise, as they say.

    Interesting, too (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by Upstart Crow on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 01:54:23 AM EST
    She's not pretending to be Hillary Clinton. During that debate, Quayle was dropping JFK references a lot, and inviting comparisons. She is not.

    SP is saluting her predecessors HRC and GF, but isn't at all like them -- except, of course, that HRC was accused of inexperience, too. Remember all the cracks about baking cookies in the White House?

    Two very different candidates standing for very different things. But the media keeps trying to link them, and then faulting Palin for the comparson.

    Why not fault Obama for not being like Ted Kennedy, or Al Gore?  

    See? It wouldn't happen to a guy.


    Obama said that Hillary (5.00 / 3) (#72)
    by Prabhata on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 01:57:28 AM EST
    served tea and cookies in the WH.  We know what Obama thought of Hillary too.

    When did he say that? (none / 0) (#177)
    by indy in sc on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 08:33:02 AM EST
    I hope you're not talking about this:

    "It's that experience, that understanding, not just of what world leaders I went and talked to in the ambassadors house I had tea with, but understanding the lives of the people like my grandmother who lives in a tiny hut in Africa," [Obama] said in Iowa.

    Cause it's not there.

    Wow (none / 0) (#184)
    by chrisvee on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 09:00:50 AM EST
    I had forgotten how much I hated that remark but now seeing it again...here we see the cleverness of McCain's pick. We can relive the wounds of the primary.

    Really, I couldn't agree with BTD and Digby more. Attack her on issues, not qualifications lest we end up raising more doubts about Obama or suppressing turnaround amongst women.


    Palin today (5.00 / 2) (#119)
    by MKS on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 03:25:10 AM EST
    repeated her same speech about thanking Hillary and she was roundly booed.....

    Palin is a conservative Republican....and so are her supporters....


    They booed at the name of (5.00 / 0) (#183)
    by zfran on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 08:52:24 AM EST
    a democrat, namely Hillary, much the same way the Obama crowd booed when Gov Sebelius  mentioned Hillary's name. At least repubs. booed at a dem. At the Obama rally, dems. booed another dem.

    Many wished Obma had pandered (5.00 / 4) (#69)
    by Prabhata on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 01:54:50 AM EST
    to the women and selected Hillary. That Obama has pandered to the Christian right and Republicans it's OK, but pandering and strengthening the base is not for Democrats. No, sirree.

    If you try to appeal to those... (5.00 / 0) (#75)
    by EL seattle on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 02:05:18 AM EST
    ...who want the strongest candidate that's available for the VP position, is that pandering?  And if so, what group is that pandering to, exactly?  I think Clinton had more than 1 set of fans, besides just "women".

    I'm just following the logic (5.00 / 0) (#81)
    by Prabhata on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 02:14:09 AM EST
    that McCain pandered to the base.  I'm just being facetious.

    This shows McCain (5.00 / 2) (#83)
    by MKS on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 02:14:34 AM EST
    shoots from the hip.  He is an ad hoc, emotional decision maker.  Have we not had enough of that?  

    Hell Yeah! (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by gentlyweepingguitar on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 02:23:01 AM EST
    I've had enough.

    Yup (5.00 / 2) (#85)
    by MKS on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 02:19:21 AM EST
    I have received more than my share of such downrating for not trying to undermine the Democratic Nominee.

    I don't know if anyone (5.00 / 2) (#86)
    by onlyme on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 02:21:03 AM EST
    has been reading the Daily Kos since Palin was picked, but the sleaze and sexism is unbelievable. Even the front pagers are indulging in it. I've left the place in disgust.

    It's now a fauxgressive site as far as I'm concerned.

    Rather than run, (none / 0) (#89)
    by gentlyweepingguitar on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 02:25:40 AM EST
    You have to find a way to teach. They don't get it. Don't abandon the party. Enlighten those who don't get it. Okay? I mean, whose wife would you rather be? Bill Clintøn's or George Bush's?

    Do you want to put that way? A wife? (none / 0) (#96)
    by Prabhata on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 02:34:58 AM EST
    BC is a womanizer and Bush is like the village idiot.

    I'd rather not (none / 0) (#120)
    by gentlyweepingguitar on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 03:29:08 AM EST
    But if you're asking me to choose, if there's only two choices,  I'd rather be the wife of the womanizer than the village idiot.

    Because... (5.00 / 0) (#167)
    by Cairo Faulkner on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 07:49:37 AM EST
    ...the womaniser is a Democrat? Honestly, does everything have to be politicised?

    Go back, it's a trap! (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by Manuel on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 02:32:37 AM EST
    The issues are on the Dem side.  There is no need for character/personal attacks on Palin.  The experience attack is dangerous as it can cut both ways.  Ditto for scandals.  There are scandals on the Dem side that the media will feel compelled to bring up for "balance".  Age based attacks on McCain are also not smart politics.  Avoid the judgement attack.  It is just another form of the experience argument.  Don't belittle Palin's small town experience.  Recall that in PA and OH there are key rural districts Obama needs to win.

    By all means, do not let McCain get away with having this pick reinforce his "maverick" image.  This was a sop to his base pure and simple.  In fact, Governor Palin's positions stand well to the right of mainstream America.  Hammer this point home.

    My sense is that a lot of the left is reacting in a panic about the damage that Palin can do to Obama's prospects.  In the process, a lot of self inflicted damge may ensue.

    I agree (5.00 / 2) (#98)
    by gentlyweepingguitar on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 02:37:59 AM EST
    This election must not be about experience. I mean, look where experience got us. Into this war. All those experienced folks in
    Washington. Let this election be about values and ideologies! Washington experienced insiders led us into this war with Iraq.

    I don't think you want to bring up (5.00 / 2) (#113)
    by Grace on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 03:08:40 AM EST
    "Washington insiders" since only one of the four has never lived in Washington or worked in Washington -- and that's not the one you want to highlight.  

    Barack Obama is not (3.00 / 2) (#122)
    by gentlyweepingguitar on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 03:31:19 AM EST
    a Washington Insider. He is not.

    disagree (5.00 / 2) (#129)
    by Josey on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 04:00:20 AM EST
    Of course Obama is a Washington insider! he made that clear when he became the only Dem to state Bush and Cheney had not committed impeachable offenses.
    Washington lobbyists funded his political career - until he entered the presidential race.

    How did he get his Senate (5.00 / 1) (#140)
    by Grace on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 04:23:52 AM EST
    experience then?  He had to live or work in Washington to do that.  I'm sure he knows where the bathrooms are in the Senate building.  You can't claim he has experience as a US Senator and then claim he's "never been around Washington."  You can't have it both ways.  

    This is the same problem with the "experience" and "judgment" arguments.  McCain has set up a mirror image campaign and it's impossible to talk about those things without having them reflect back.

    The best thing to talk about now is issues and positions.  


    I can't help but think of... (none / 0) (#105)
    by EL seattle on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 02:52:20 AM EST
    ... the sad fate of the Faber University marching band in the movie "Animal House".  They all probably starved at the end of the dead-end alleyway where they were misdirected to by those Delta House troublemakers. But they kept on marching....

    As the late John Vernon would have said - Delll-ta House!!!!!


    I'm a zit. Get it? (none / 0) (#107)
    by gentlyweepingguitar on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 02:58:45 AM EST
    See if you can guess what I am now.
    [puts mashed potatoes in his mouth, chews it, hits his cheeks with his fists and spits it out]

    Interesting (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by Far Leftie on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 02:34:56 AM EST
    You want to know something interesting... When was the last time someone talked about Sentors Obamas speech from the other night????

    Mission accomplished (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by Prabhata on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 02:36:22 AM EST
    Wanna talk about it? (none / 0) (#99)
    by gentlyweepingguitar on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 02:38:42 AM EST
    It was amazing. It was spectacular!

    stick to the topic of this post (none / 0) (#100)
    by Prabhata on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 02:40:01 AM EST
    It's Jeralyn's rule.  Only open threads allow all topics.

    Jeralyn's Rule's Not So Bad (none / 0) (#101)
    by gentlyweepingguitar on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 02:45:16 AM EST
    Is it? Lead us back to a thread where we can talk about Obama's amazing speech. I'll follow you there! What an amazing speech it was! Wasn't it?

    Is McCains Hasty Last Minute Decision (5.00 / 1) (#161)
    by john horse on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 06:30:32 AM EST
    to choose Palin an example of the type of President he is going to be if he is elected?  There is evidence that she was never even thoroughly vetted.  

    I find Palin a little scary (5.00 / 1) (#164)
    by andjustice4all on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 07:17:32 AM EST
    but not because she's a woman (so disturbing that this is even an issue) or has a lack of national experience; like BTD, I don't think experience is the most important thing to focus on. The ability to make a decision and use sound judgment are more important to me. What scares me about Palin is that she may be a bit TOO capable: she seems to be quite happy and not the least bit hesitant to make decisions, but I'm not that impressed with some of her decisions (TrooperGate and all that rot) and don't agree with ANY of her policy stands that I've seen, so far. I certainly don't want her making decisions on my behalf or "leading" the country in her direction! PLease take care of yourself, Senator McSame! And let's all make sure that this pairing isn't elected in November...

    Are these the new Obama (5.00 / 0) (#185)
    by zfran on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 09:03:46 AM EST
    talking points?

    McCain and Palin (5.00 / 1) (#165)
    by magisterludi on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 07:38:32 AM EST
    went to the Gulf coast today. I hope Team Obama doesn't follow suit.

    There's too much going on with the evacs. Adding SS details and all that ensues is not helpful. Why add to the confusion with their own logistical nightmare?

    Oh, right.

    Howdy Doody would have been a better (4.50 / 6) (#2)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 12:18:21 AM EST
    pick than Lieberman.  But I have to say, Palin looks like a great choice and she seems to be a fighter like Hillary, which I like...even though we are not on the same page on issues.

    Commenters (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 12:43:52 AM EST
    supporting the Republican ticket are chatterers here and limited to four comments a day that either express support for the Republican ticket or opposition to the Democratic ticket.

    Any self-respecting (5.00 / 3) (#20)
    by txpolitico67 on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 12:47:19 AM EST
    Liberal would NEVER support a Republican ticket, no matter HOW bad the primary went down.

    There are other options.  The election is NOT binary.


    Bolded the important part for you. (none / 0) (#25)
    by Faust on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 12:55:19 AM EST
    supporting the Republican ticket are chatterers here and limited to four comments a day that either express support for the Republican ticket or opposition to the Democratic ticket.

    Just because we deend Sarah Palin (none / 0) (#26)
    by americanincanada on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 12:55:28 AM EST
    does not mean we are supporting a republican ticket. I plan to keep my voting choices to myself, thank you.

    I agree. (5.00 / 2) (#44)
    by jerry on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 01:13:11 AM EST

    There is no way I'll be voting for McCain / Palin, but I think an honest discussion of the two tickets does indeed call for an occasional defense of either McCain or Palin without being deemed a supporter of that ticket.

    I think choosing a woman was an obvious choice after all the identity politics us Democrats partook.  I think a lot of our criticism of the cynicism of choosing Palin is typical pearl clutching.  I think that in 2006, someone predicting choices of either Obama or Clinton could have been declared to be cynical.

    I think Geraldine Ferraro's statement regarding Obama, the one that got her called a racist, is about on a par with statements calling Palin's choice cynical.

    I would hope the lesson for Democrats, all of Big Tent Democrats (not specifically referring to BTD) who are proud of the many different stripes of people who vote Democratic, is that we should avoid identity politics, and not play off one group of people for another.

    The problem I have with identity politics is summed up in two poems:
    Pastor Niemollers:
       In Germany, they came first for the Communists, And I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist;

        And then they came for the trade unionists, And I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist;

        And then they came for the Jews, And I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew;

        And then . . . they came for me . . . And by that time there was no one left to speak up."

    and Tom Lehrer's National Brotherhood Week:

    Oh, the white folks hate the black folks,
    And the black folks hate the white folks.
    To hate all but the right folks
    Is an old established rule.

    But during National Brotherhood Week, National Brotherhood Week,
    Lena Horne and Sheriff Clarke are dancing cheek to cheek.
    It's fun to eulogize
    The people you despise,
    As long as you don't let 'em in your school.

    Oh, the poor folks hate the rich folks,
    And the rich folks hate the poor folks.
    All of my folks hate all of your folks,
    It's American as apple pie.

    But during National Brotherhood Week, National Brotherhood Week,
    New Yorkers love the Puerto Ricans 'cause it's very chic.
    Step up and shake the hand
    Of someone you can't stand.
    You can tolerate him if you try.

    Oh, the Protestants hate the Catholics,
    And the Catholics hate the Protestants,
    And the Hindus hate the Muslims,
    And everybody hates the Jews.

    But during National Brotherhood Week, National Brotherhood Week,
    It's National Everyone-smile-at-one-another-hood Week.
    Be nice to people who
    Are inferior to you.
    It's only for a week, so have no fear.
    Be grateful that it doesn't last all year!

    As a Jew, I truly dislike Identity Politics.


    Thanks for the tolerance lecture (none / 0) (#196)
    by Boia on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 11:03:47 AM EST
    As a Jew, I truly dislike Identity Politics.

    Well, of course you do.  That's why the button on your post makes sure to hide your Identity.


    Thats (none / 0) (#155)
    by Wile ECoyote on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 05:23:59 AM EST
    right, we must goosestep in time.

    Jeralyn, I am neither a republican (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by zfran on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 01:00:56 AM EST
    nor am I opposed to the dem ticket. I hope I have not violated your rules, however, if these discussions and attacks (other than issue attacks) keep up, I will be leaving TL. It's difficult to believe that after all we've all gone through with a woman running for president, such vile sexism still exists when it comes to the other side of the coin. So, in case I do go, thanks, I've had a grand time.

    you are very welcome (3.66 / 3) (#37)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 01:06:19 AM EST
    Your readership is appreciated. But personal attacks are not allowed here against anyone and not one of my posts on Palin have been critical of her because of her gender. My criticisms of her are based on her record and lack thereof and position on issues and would apply equally to a male candidate.

    There is no need to defend her because of sexist attacks when none have been made on this site.


    Among some other things, (5.00 / 1) (#174)
    by Dr Molly on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 08:17:22 AM EST
    I found your linking to questions about her readiness for VP office while having a 4-month-old baby to be highly sexist and offensive.

    I know the Geena Davis show (none / 0) (#59)
    by Cream City on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 01:41:39 AM EST
    had "a run so short that I can't even remember its name" either.  But comparing Palin to her probably was more kitschy pop-cult cute than sexist.

    But it is too bad that, for balance and other reasons, Biden doesn't look like Martin Sheen.


    Commander in Chief? (none / 0) (#65)
    by nycstray on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 01:49:35 AM EST
    great show (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 02:09:26 AM EST
    I watched every episode and couldn't remember the name either, itwas a short run.

    She was the VP candidate and after the ticet one, the pres.died right away and she became President. They had kids in the White House with them but by the time the show ended, the husband got wandering eyes. It seemed like if it was booked for another season, that would be a part of the story, and one I wasn't interested in, so I'm glad they canned it.


    "Commander in Chief" (none / 0) (#66)
    by tree on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 01:51:00 AM EST
    was the name. Don't ask me how I remember.

    Wow. Really? (none / 0) (#21)
    by SueBonnetSue on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 12:47:54 AM EST
    Why is that rule in place?  

    Excuse me, but that kind of thing scares me.  I guess I am a bit extreme on the 1st Amendment and thought most democrats were too.  


    IF I may... (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by txpolitico67 on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 12:53:33 AM EST
    and Jeralyn you can delete this comment if you so choose to, but there's a difference between going to your local city hall and banging a drum and screaming about something (1st amendment covers that) as opposed to someone who pays for a blog and all the other trappings that go with it.  

    I for one would SURE as SH!T be deleting and moderating comments on my blog (oh wait! I DO!) against those who I vehemently disagree with.

    Kinda like that old addage:  "Free speech is fine but doesn't give you the right to scream fire in a crowded theater."

    I dig where ur coming from Sue, but be objective here.  


    It has been our comment policy (5.00 / 4) (#33)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 01:02:41 AM EST
    since day one. Please read it. I will not allow this site to be taken over by conservatives or Republicans. TalkLeft is not the Government, it's my personal site. There is no first amendment right here.

    I'd go one further ... (none / 0) (#93)
    by Robot Porter on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 02:29:21 AM EST
    editing the content of your own site is the First Amendment issue here, not allowing other to speak.

    Freedom of the press allows me to publish a book, magazine, newspaper, or blog without having others alter that content.

    If this were not the case, freedom of the press would be meaningless.

    Remember the term "press" in the constitution means "printing press" not "news media" as the term is largely used today.

    By editing and/or restricting comments, Jeralyn is exercising her first amendment rights; because the site is hers.  This is exactly the type of press freedom that the founders wanted to protect.


    Um, it's not at all (4.00 / 0) (#112)
    by Valhalla on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 03:07:29 AM EST
    The 1st Amendment protect the press (printing, media, otherwise) from government censorship.  That's all.  Nothing to do with ink and paper vs airwaves either.

    Protecting the press from alteration by others would be, if anything, grounded in property rights, ie Jeralyn owns the blog site, so she gets to say what goes in and what doesn't.

    But the distinction isn't really relevant, because people aren't actually arguing the 1st Amendment here, it doesn't apply.

    They're arguing the principles that underlie the 1st Amendment, to which we all are pretty attached, for freedom of speech.  Which include some idea of balance.

    Whether the principles are correctly argued in relation to the comment policy, I'll stay away from, but the idea that the control of ownership is "exactly the type of press freedom that the founders wanted to protect" is totally off mark.


    Nonsense ... (3.00 / 0) (#131)
    by Robot Porter on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 04:05:01 AM EST
    The ability to edit is both an implicit and explicit first amendment right.

    By granting someone the right to publish what they want to publish, you implicitly grant them the right to not publish what they don't want to publish.

    Abolitionist newspapers were allowed to exist during the antebellum period. They could only be abolitionist newspapers if they included abolitionist material.

    No private citizen or government officer could force them to print pro-slavery material.

    The right to make an abolitionist newspaper is an explicit right in the first amendment.  And this includes the implicit right not to have to publish pro-slavery material in that newspaper.

    This is the same thing Jeralyn is doing.

    Jeralyn's decision to delete certain comments is clearly an action that is both implicitly and explicitly protected under the first amendment.

    The first amendment would be meaningless if publishers weren't allowed to make editorial decisions, which includes the right both include AND exclude material.


    No, you're wrong, and you're conflating (none / 0) (#210)
    by Valhalla on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 03:29:50 PM EST
    two different things.

    The 'right to edit' (which I've not even seen discussed in caselaw, btw) is only a right against the State editing your publications.  That's all.  If Jeralyn deleted on of my comments, and I hacked into TL and returned it, she has no case in law under the First Amendment against me.  None.  Zero, zip, nada.  She has a variety of causes of action against me based on propety rights and anti-hacking legislation, but they are not based in any Constitutional clause or Amendment.

    Apart from the actual law, there are the principles that underlie the First Amendment, which virtually all of us subscribe to (evidenced by the fact that so many mistakenly think that the 1st Amendment covers non-government action).

    On that score there is a strong feeling that of course Jeralyn gets to set her comment policies as she wishes -- she could do it in even a totally arbitrary manner -- but there's also a strong feeling for the principles of balance, fairness, and against censorship.  I was speaking to the latter, but not disputing the former.


    I can't edit comments since 2006 (none / 0) (#103)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 02:48:26 AM EST
    when we moved to Scoop. I can only delete.

    Of course the 1st Amendment doesn't apply here! (none / 0) (#212)
    by SueBonnetSue on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 12:15:51 AM EST
    I know it's your site and you are free to run it anyway that you choose.  I was merely expressing my opinion that I enjoy and support free speech, even on my democrat blogs that I read.  

    Your results may vary.  


    And here I thought Palin (3.66 / 3) (#6)
    by miriam on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 12:22:59 AM EST
    might have been Rove's choice.  Whoever made the final decision, it was a sure-fire way to take over the weekend news.  And I still think it hurts Obama to have the "inexperience" topic revisited, as well as the reminder to women that Obama didn't choose the most experienced woman whom 18 million voters wanted to be president. We underestimate the Republicans at our peril, especially since they win the presidency more often than we do.  Every four years, Democrats seem to forget that fact.  

    Rove is too smart, too devious (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by byteb on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 12:37:34 AM EST
    to ever pick Palin.

    Link? (none / 0) (#48)
    by nycstray on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 01:24:01 AM EST
    pro-"hey, gang, let's require public school students to learn the tenets of evangelical Christian fundamentalism"

    Donald (5.00 / 1) (#130)
    by janarchy on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 04:02:36 AM EST
    Go read the last 5 posts about Palin and find the places where I and others posted the actual and full comments Ms Palin had about creationism. In a nutshell, no. She doesn't want it taught in the schools. She thinks it's okay to be discussed in the schools. Along side evolution. If the school board wants to go there, and she definitely was not using creationism as a litmus test to hire people for the board.

    Her father was a science teacher.

    And by the way, her views on the subject are parallel to Obama's. (I just wish I could find the proper citation for that part.)

    Sarah Palin is not a creationist. Hearing this...pssst, guess what! stuff is as annoying as the Obama-is-a-secret-Muslim stuff. I wish people on the left would actually do their own research.


    I'm not voting for her either (none / 0) (#203)
    by janarchy on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 01:00:58 PM EST
    I'm just tired of the disinformation. I don't like it when Republicans do it. I don't like it when Democrats follow suit. If you're going to go after someone, do it based on actual facts and not distortions.

    And really, if you're so hung up on people who wear their religions so prominently on their sleeves, you might as well give up on the Democratic party and its nominee. Or are you unaware that he is going to continue Faith-based intiatives, go after the Evangelical vote and has set up several programs for more Evangelical involvement within the party?


    Heh, your snark is too close to (none / 0) (#135)
    by nycstray on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 04:09:45 AM EST
    some of the BS that's being thrown out there that it should be labeled :)

    She has said she isn't against creationism being taught in schools along side evolution and debate is healthy. I don't see her having an agenda to govern based on her personal beliefs (and she has said something along those lines). She vetoed a bill that would have banned same sex couples from getting state benefits (I think I have that right on the state part) basically, it was a good for same sex couples. I also heard an interview with her on the polar bear issue and it wasn't as cut and dried as the one sentence.

    I'm at the point of looking for direct past quotes from her as there's so much BS flying around it's hard to tell truth from fact in the media sources currently. I don't agree with her on issues, but she's really being misrepresented by in some areas. Heck, FOX was so confused at one point yesterday afternoon they had her listed as "Pro-choice/Anti-waste"! She's pro-contraception/anti-waste if that's the road they want to go down, lol!~

    Gosh, I wish I can remember who said it when I was flipping channels a couple hours ago, but basically the talking head said the tickets were clear and balanced. One was a Dem ticket and the other was Republican and that's what voters should be looking at.



    I wonder what religion she is? (none / 0) (#146)
    by Grace on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 04:48:45 AM EST
    The Catholic church is against contraception (except for the rhythm method.  I think they changed their mind about condoms too but I'm not sure under what circumstances).  

    Biden is best for the Catholic vote.  


    according to the AP (none / 0) (#207)
    by nycstray on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 01:12:47 PM EST
    She now sometimes worships at the Juneau Christian Center, which is also part of the Pentecostal Assemblies of God, said Brad Kesler, business administrator of the denomination's Alaska District. But her home church is The Church on the Rock, an independent congregation, Riley said.



    Link for you (none / 0) (#206)
    by nycstray on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 01:10:11 PM EST
    and perhaps the LAT also

    Actually, (none / 0) (#162)
    by massdem on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 07:01:26 AM EST
    I'm pretty sure she vetoed a bill that would ban healthcare coverate for same sex partners a few years ago.

    Yes, she did (none / 0) (#208)
    by nycstray on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 01:16:01 PM EST
    here's a link for ya  :)

    has nothing to do with Clinton (none / 0) (#56)
    by bigbay on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 01:37:58 AM EST
    that's just bandied about by a Clinton obsessed media. It's about solidifying the base, i.e. $5 million in donations in less than 2 days. She's going to appeal to a lot of people, especially if she gets through the debate without a disaster.

    $7million (none / 0) (#71)
    by Upstart Crow on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 01:57:28 AM EST
    in 24 hours.

    But who's counting?


    McCain's VP choice seems to shout - (none / 0) (#124)
    by Josey on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 03:34:00 AM EST
    a major Repub Party realignment and Palin gives Repubs an "out" to move from the hardliners of the past 8 years. Just mentioning the possibility of Lieberman on a ticket seems to indicate that too - whether McCain was really serious about it or not.

    IF there is a Repub convention this week, I expect the "green" Evangelicals to be highlighted with proposals for solar and wind energy, green jobs, taking care of the earth, and no time given for the anti-global warming nuts.
    Palin has praised Obama's energy plan of drilling in the Alaska Reserve.
    The NEA's press release on Palin as VP was very positive.
    Yes, she's pro-life, but doesn't seem to be a major focus of her administration.


    the new face of the Republican Party (5.00 / 1) (#182)
    by rise hillary rise on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 08:47:41 AM EST
    IMO, Sarah Palin is EXACTLY what the New Republican Party wants: bright young, energetic, hugely engaging and smart.

    Of COURSE she's anti-abortion, pro-gun, pro-Iraq war, pro death penalty and all that. she's a REPUBLICAN. and a CONSERVATIVE.

    this is the part that I do not get. the howls of outrage coming out of the left, particularly Obama supporters (and women) tying themselves in knots over how bad this choice was.

    OMG don't you know that they want to win in November too? and her conservative views are going to attract many of the base as well as some disaffected Hillary supporters?

    there is absolutely no chance that I would support her. but I applaud her for her guts, and grudgingly, respect McCain for picking her. and the coverage really did obliterate the Obama speech.


    It may not "inspire" yearning (none / 0) (#186)
    by zfran on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 09:09:43 AM EST
    masses, but women are extraordinary creatures. When one of them is visciously attacked as a woman, many tend to rally around that woman. I'll bet the McCain camp studied and studied the dems approach to Hillarygate and as if on cue, the dems fell into their trap (for lack of a better word). This dem (now indy)was sickened by what I heard, saw, and was insulted by the lack of maturity of Obama and his minions. McCain has asked people like me to "take a look" and he asked respectfully. Why shouldn't we just look! Issues matter, of course, but the dems again told me that my issues as an over 40 voter doesn't matter.

    Donald, you're not exactly on a (none / 0) (#213)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 11:53:52 PM EST
    charm offensive here are you ;-)

    I'll fight you til the end. (3.66 / 3) (#108)
    by gentlyweepingguitar on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 02:59:48 AM EST
    No way. No how. No McCain!

    Absolutely! (5.00 / 2) (#160)
    by Roosevelt Fan on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 05:58:25 AM EST
    Hillary herself said it. That should be good enough. Somehow there are people who choose not to hear her or they ignore her or they think she's lying. Any of those three don't match with reality or our situation. She said no way, no how, no McCain for a reason. We ignore or dismiss her words to our peril. And that's all of us -- the nation -- not just Democrats.

    No way no how.No McCain. (3.00 / 2) (#104)
    by gentlyweepingguitar on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 02:49:05 AM EST
    No way. No how. No McCain.

    A question for BTD... (none / 0) (#30)
    by EddieInCA on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 12:59:36 AM EST
    ..or any other astute student of politics.

    Do you think that the McCain campaign having to actually put out WHY McCain made the choice is troublesome.

    Has Obama not told us why he (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by zfran on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 01:04:35 AM EST
    picked Biden? Of course he has. It's not illogical to ask the question of either candidate.

    You're missing my point. (none / 0) (#40)
    by EddieInCA on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 01:09:45 AM EST
    There weren't any articles (that I'm aware of) about how Obama wanted Kaine but his advisors made him pick Biden...

    ...or about how his advisers wanted Clinton, but Obama wanted Biden/Kaine/Sebielius/etc...

    ...or how liberal activists were in an uproar over his original choice...

    ...so my question is, rephrased:  Why did someone from the campaign feel the need to feed this story to the New York Times.

    In my opinion, it doesn't make McCain decision-making process look good in a time of war and quickly-changing global events, along with a 24 hour news cycle.


    That's if his campain fed it to the NYT (5.00 / 2) (#57)
    by Valhalla on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 01:38:03 AM EST
    I can believe they did, but I'm also extremely skeptical of any article that names anonymous sources only.  The NYT was as bad as any reporting all sort of anonymous source cr9p on Clinton.

    McCain has a long-running feud (4.20 / 5) (#111)
    by FemB4dem on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 03:05:56 AM EST
    with the NYT.  I doubt his campaign fed anything to that paper.  Take this whole article with a large grain of salt.  While some of it makes some sense, it either leaves a lot out, or McCain just got unbelievably lucky by making a wild stab of a pick that is accidently brilliant on many levels:

    1. Palin re-opens the experience issue in a new way that lets McCain bring back an issue that was getting tired.  VP vs. Prez is a new spin on this, and makes it look like the Dem ticket is backwards, just like Dukakis/Bentson seemed to many.

    2.  Her Western cred and charm plunges a dagger into the heart of Obama's Western strategy.  A caribou shooting, moose-eating, snowmachine riding, government reforming, spouse of a Native, governor from a western state may suddenly be the much more interesting candidate to western voters than the urbane urban black guy.  If Obama can't win Ohio, he has to win in the West.  This pick makes that much harder, IMO.

    3.  She re-starts the Obama is a sexist meme and heats up the Hillary voters who haven't reconciled to Obama and are still steamed at MSM misogyny and DNC shenanigans.  The attacks on a woman VP candidate who has as much experience as many of the MSM "accepted" male candidates for both VP and Prez, is a potent new brew that may drive many women to vote for Palin (and incidently McCain) no matter her view on the issues.

    4.  She gives new life to the Obama is an elitist who can't get votes from small-town and middle America meme.  The Obama supporters and pundits just haven't been able to stop themselves from attacking Palin's lack of an Ivy League education, her supposed lack of understanding of urban issues, and the fact that Alaska is a small, rural state.  Those "bitter" voters are still out there, particularly in southern Ohio and the middle of PA, places Obama must win.  The fact that Palin is a past union member, and her spouse is a current union member, could hurt Obama too.

    5.  She takes away the race card.  She is the first candidate in an interracial marriage on any major party's ticket.  Hard to scream racist effectively at voters undeterred by that.

    6.  Todd Palin as the macho Irondog champion, "First Dude" and stay-at-home "Mr. Mom," and Sarah Barracuda as the hard-charging career woman and hockey-mom, may well be very attractive for suburban Independent women.

    7.  She is the ultimate "change" candidate.  Unlike Obama, she actually has done what he preaches -- changed an entire political environment (albeit in small state Alaska) by reaching across party lines.

    8.  She is an interesting character.  Doubt how important that is?  Jsut check out the reactions to the speech Gov. Schweitzer gave at the Dem Convention.  People like characters with interesting stories and styles.  Palin certainly has that.

    9.  She has totally thrown the Obama camp on how to respond, and knocked his "greatest speech evah" off the discussion track.

    I don't believe in that many accidents.  Palin has been on McCain's list since the start.  When Obama failed to pick Hillary as his VP but picked Biden instead, he opened the door for Sarah Palin to walk through, and allowed McCain the chance to reclaim his mantle as a maverick and true agent of change.  We'll see how it plays out in the end, but my guess is that the McCain/Palin ticket will turn out to be the ultimate proof that Obama's refusal to pick Hillary as his VP will be the bad judgment that costs the Dems this election.

    The West won't (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by MKS on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 03:18:43 AM EST
    be wowed by Palin.  The West Coast is out of reach.....

    She will help carry Alaska.  Okay.

    Colorado, Nevada and New Mexico voters who would be impressed with her conservative positions are already voting McCain....Her anti-environmental and anti-Libertarian views will hurt.....especially in Colorado.

    Obama does well in the West for a numberr of reasons.....

    But if bio matters more than positions on the issues, then McCain has already won the West....He wouldn't need Palin for that....


    Disagree. Montana, Nevada and (3.25 / 4) (#127)
    by FemB4dem on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 03:52:22 AM EST
    New Mexico are still relatively rural states, and outdoor sports are huge.  Those three, plus Colorado, are what the Dems mean by their new Western strategy, not the west coast.  One of the biggest local issues in Montana over the past few years has been the running debate about snowmobiling in Yellowstone National Park.  It infuriates a large chunk of the Montana population that easterners get to decide whether Montana, Wyoming and Idaho folks can drive their snow machines into the Park. And gun-toting Sarah will play well to the NRA crowd.  There's a reason no pro-gun control politicians even try to run in most of the Rocky Mountain west.  Colorado may have become urban enough to off set this factor, but IMO not the other three. Without them, Obama no longer has a western strategy.

    Democrats will win New Mexico (none / 0) (#134)
    by MKS on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 04:07:36 AM EST
    and have a good shot at Nevada because of the Latino vote....

    Westerners are not as shallow as you make them out to be.  The issues actually matter.  


    Who said anything about shallow? (5.00 / 1) (#144)
    by FemB4dem on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 04:36:11 AM EST
    Being one myself, I don't think westerners are shallow at all.  I do think we have different ways of thinking than easterners, a kind of frontier, libertarian, leave us alone mentality, if you will.  So far, Sarah Palin seems to be a quintessential western woman.  That is very attractive.  As to the issues, westerners tend to see gun rights as an issue (plus Palin, minus Obama), open access to federal land as an issue(plus Palin); energy development as an issue (plus Palin).  As far as I've been able to tell, Obama has little attraction to Westerners on issues, it's all about his personal story and change mantra.  IMO, Palin takes that away.  Then, on issues, Obama will lose.  There's a reason the Rocky Mountain states have consistently voted for Repub presidents --issues that Dems are traditionaly bad on.

    You may be right about the Latino vote.  That is a wild card that may be a plus for Obama, and may not be.  We'll have to wait and see.


    Obama was trailing in all (none / 0) (#150)
    by facta non verba on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 05:01:18 AM EST
    Rocky Mountain states except Colorado in polls right before the Democratic Convention. I haven't seen any state polls since.

    By West, she meant the Mountain West not the West Coast. I thought her comment one of the most astute comments ever on TL. She should be a pundit on a network.


    I think... (none / 0) (#172)
    by Cairo Faulkner on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 08:04:35 AM EST
    New Mexico will go blue, but Palin will play well in Colorado and Montana. I just don't see either of them going Democratic. If one had to, it would be CO, but I just don't think it's going to happen. Nevada will stay Republican I think, narrowly.

    The thing is I saw polls for these states and the ones Obama led were well within the margin of error: 0.1, 0.5, 1%. Once it gets down to fierce ads, swiftboating and all, that'll chip away.

    There's also the big question of Virginia floating above us. Polls put it at a tie, but Bush won it by 8% both times. I don't see it going blue, despite all the talk.

    I think the real danger is that Obama will make great progress in CO, NV, VA, MT, NC, pushing to within 2.5-4%, but never quite breaking over the top.


    Palin's anti-Libertarian views? (none / 0) (#128)
    by FemB4dem on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 03:54:35 AM EST
    Please clarify what you mean.  

    Being a Buchanan (none / 0) (#132)
    by MKS on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 04:05:12 AM EST
    supporter, Pro-life evangelical, belief in teaching Creationism in public schools....

    Um, the creationist story has already (5.00 / 1) (#145)
    by FemB4dem on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 04:42:13 AM EST
    been discredited, as has the Buchanan thing. On abortion, Palin said she would leave it to state voters.  Have you paid any attention to how many life/choice initiatives have been on Rocky Mountain west ballots over the past decade?  Lots.  Win some and lose some.  We Westerners love our inititive process.  So on this, Palin is not outside the mainstream.  

    The real libertarian issues are guns, lower taxes, small government, etc.  On those, Palin is a screaming libertarian compared to Obama.  Sorry, this dog won't hunt.  (Black lab, red bandana, rides in back of pickup -- yep, it's a western thing).


    Do you know if Alaska (none / 0) (#194)
    by MKS on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 10:58:29 AM EST
    has an initiative process?

    How has Palin's support for Buchanan been discredited?  I haven't heard this before.

    One thing I do not like to see is people putting their dogs in unenclosed backs of pickup trucks....I can still see, after many years, the sight of a pick-up driver picking up his dog with blood spurting from all four shoulders/hips of the dog.  Compound fractures.

    I had been following the pick up through a Rocky Mountain city along a residential street on my way with the flow of light traffic winding towards the freeway.  We were driving through a nice neighborhood at about 20 miles per hour.  There was a beautiful black Lab in the back of the pick up.  Bright sunny day, the kind that are so radiant at the higher altitudes of the West.

    The Lab was craning his neck over the side of the pick up and was walking around in the back.  The driver took one turn just a little too quick, sending the Lab flying out the back.


    Pawlenty today on MTP (none / 0) (#204)
    by MKS on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 01:02:15 PM EST
    confirmed that Palin favors the teaching of Intelligent Design in public schools along with Evolution.

    OR WA and AZ (none / 0) (#136)
    by Prabhata on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 04:10:11 AM EST
    are very connected with AK.  People commute between those states.  Their frontier thinking parallel each other.  I don't know personally about the other states, but it would seem to me that MT, WY, ID, SD, ND would also follow.  I know that hunting is BIG in PA, upstate NY.  Men connect with hunting outings.

    Oregon and Washington (5.00 / 2) (#138)
    by MKS on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 04:13:14 AM EST
    will not vote for McCain because of Palin--that is absurd.  Oregon is very, very anti-war and has been since the days of Republican Mark Hatfield.

    These pro-Palin posts are wishful thinking....


    You're definitely right about Oregon (none / 0) (#158)
    by Roosevelt Fan on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 05:48:41 AM EST
    The war issue is huge. Now, economics are coming into play more, too. Obama bumper stickers are all over the place, but I haven't seen a single McCain. Really. A Palin addition to the ticket will not mean anything, IMO.

    This is excellent (none / 0) (#151)
    by facta non verba on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 05:02:01 AM EST
    analysis. Thanks.

    If you read the linked story more than once... (none / 0) (#92)
    by EL seattle on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 02:27:39 AM EST
    ...you'll notice some cute little details.

    For instance, look at these three snippets:

    Mr. McCain had wanted to name as his running mate his good friend Senator Joseph I. Lieberman

    Mr. McCain finally picked up the phone last Sunday and reached Ms. Palin at the Alaska State Fair.

    Mr. McCain was comfortable with two others on his short list

    What do these three passages tell us?  That John McCain is a good friend of Lieberman (a very post-partisan quality, yes?), but he was comfortable with Romney (and didn't dislike the guy at all, really!), and that Gov. Palin went to the Alaska State Fair on a Sunday (and I bet she took her cute lil daughter, too, awwwwwww!).

    Spin, spin, spin!  It may be part of the press side of the roll-out of a new Palin product, but ultimately it's part of the overall John McCain - Maverick(tm) ad campaign.


    Joe Lieberman (none / 0) (#36)
    by Ellis on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 01:04:57 AM EST
    McCain is hopeless! After Joe's pathetic 2000 performance, McCain still preferred him as VP?

    I've never thought McCain was particularly intelligent, but this campaign has made it clear he's a danger to himself and others.

    I'll bet his mother is going to vote for Obama. Cindy might too, because it's hard to believe that McCain won't be absolutely insufferable if he is elected president.

    I suppose it's good news that McCain is willing to listen to advice from others, but less comforting when one considers how bad the advice is likely to be. Although, telling McCain that Lieberman would be a loser is good advice (how stupid is McCain that he couldn't figure that out for himself?), it doesn't require either intelligence or experience to make that call. All that's really necessary would be to watch a few minutes of video from the 2000 campaign, for example a brief clip of Joementum in the debate with Cheney and another of Joe's masterful election-losing performance in the Florida aftermath.

    Somebody (Peter Jr?) needs to revise the Peter Principle. Guys like McCain and Bush make it clear there is no mechanism to get people to stop rising once they reach their level of incompetence. If there were, McCain would be mowing lawns somewhere and attending anger management classes at night, while Bush (out on parole) would be a greeter at some West Texas WalMart. Even there he'd only last a couple of days -- greeters can't smirk, ridicule and grope people, or take half hour breaks twice an hour. And I've never heard of a WalMart employee getting three months vacation a year.

    Wasn't it Obama who told us he (none / 0) (#38)
    by zfran on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 01:08:15 AM EST
    wanted a veep who would tell him when they disagreed with him? Isn't that the same thing as how McCain didn't pick Lieberman and decided on Palen? What's the diff.

    On abortion (none / 0) (#79)
    by Hozzie on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 02:10:10 AM EST
    I have noticed that a large number of comments here concern the fact that women may not vote for Gov. Palin on the basis that she is pro-life. This assumes that women voters are monolithic in their view of women's rights when it comes to abortion.

    This is incorrect, and bodes ill for those who discount Gov. Palin's capacity to appeal to women voters.

    A quick review of recent polls (circa last five years) shows that generally speaking, around 44-46% of American women voters believe abortion should be illegal or that access to abortion should be restricted more than at present. That's about the same as among male voters.

    There is also the subset argument, that women voters should not vote for Gov. Palin on the basis that she is pro-life. The argument, as I understand it, is that being pro-life undermines womens' rights.

    When the polling numbers are considered, this, frankly, is offensive. Are we to assume that 44-46% of American women voters are incapable of looking after their own interests?

    Criminalzing abortion (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by MKS on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 02:17:52 AM EST
    does undermine women's rights....but if you don't care, so be it--cozzy up to Dobson if you like.

    Midwest and West and South (none / 0) (#88)
    by Prabhata on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 02:24:58 AM EST
    have a strong anti-abortion block of voters (men and women).  Palin it's anti-choice, but she strikes me as a person that puts the views of her constituency first.  When she was asked what she would do if the right to have abortions was left to the states, she answered that she would let the voters decide how to proceed on that.  She was firm that the social values of those she governed was what mattered.

    Let the voters decide nonsense (none / 0) (#114)
    by MKS on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 03:08:40 AM EST
    She dodged the question....Let the voters decides means what the voters express through their legislators....and there was never any doubt she would sign a pro-life statute....

    She is pro-life--completely--and describes herself that way....And all she or McCain have to do is appoint judges.....nothing at all really.

    She is an arch-conservative....and this "leave it to the voters" stuff comes from one written answer on a questionnaiare.....There is plenty of other data that shows she is very socially conservative....

    And, please tell me when did the women's movement say it was okay for the rights of women to control their own bodies to be subject to a vote?  

    After all this time haven't we learned that being socially conservative doesn't mean refraining from interferring in other people's lives....the entire point in being socially conservative is to enlist the government in enforcing certain "moral principles".....

    Dobson and the social conservatives love her--there is a reason for that.


    I quote from a previous post at TL (none / 0) (#139)
    by Prabhata on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 04:13:54 AM EST
      6. If Roe v. Wade were overturned and states could once again prohibit abortion, in your view, to what extent should abortion be prohibited in Alaska?

       Under this hypothetical scenario, it would not be up to the governor to unilaterally ban anything. It would be up to the people of Alaska to discuss and decide how we would like our society to reflect our values.

       7. Do you support or oppose the use of public funds for abortion (e.g., paying for abortion, promoting abortion, subsidizing organizations that provide or refer for abortion)?

       I oppose the use of public funds for elective abortions.


    People can decide (none / 0) (#141)
    by Prabhata on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 04:28:45 AM EST
    How I stand:
    I am strongly pro-choice, not because I agree with abortions, but because it's none of my business what women decide.  Also, let me say that there was a study (I don't have a link) that demonstrated that abortions happen at the same rate whether it's legal or illegal.  In places where it's illegal, the abortions are done by hacks and coat hangers.

    To say that legislators don't follow the will of the voters is not based on facts.  To give you an example, there was a town (I don't have link) that threw out the elected officials in the school board because the officials wanted creationism taught instead of science.  A few years back CA recalled all the justices in the Supreme Court that had been appointed by Gov Jerry Brown because they were not upholding the death penalty.


    Maybe, but... (none / 0) (#159)
    by Hozzie on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 05:57:54 AM EST
    At least 40% of American women voters disagree. That's amazingly relevant to this election.

    In a January 2003 CBS/Time poll, 37% of women agreed that abortion should be "generally available"; 37% said it should be "available, but with stricter limits than now"; and 24% said it should be "not permitted". Here's the link (sorry, I don't know how to embed): www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/01/22/opinion/polls/main537570.shtml

    As I understand it, women voters made up 54% of the electorate in 2004. One assumes ardent pro-choice and pro-life voters will not be swayed to the opposing camp. The battle, as usual, will be for the middle ground, that 37%  who said abortion should be "available, but with stricter limits than now". But one can even abandon that language: assume 37% are "undecided". That leaves 20% of the whole electorate (54x0.37) up for grabs - assuming, as I do, that abortion is an issue which many voters will consider.

    By selecting Gov. Palin, the Republicans have signalled an intractable position on the issue (right or wrong, depending on one's perspective). They have a potential champion in a woman who many may come to respect and admire. Gov. Palin gives the undecided woman voter an opportunity to repose trust on the issue of abortion in a woman. That can be a powerful draw.


    A powerful draw for Republicans. (none / 0) (#193)
    by TChris on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 10:54:36 AM EST
    Zero draw for pro-choice Democrats and independents.

    the "explanation" (none / 0) (#109)
    by cpinva on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 03:01:59 AM EST
    strikes me as "she's the only one we could come up with, that wouldn't make mccain look even worse, by comparison.", because she's essentially an empty vessel. yes, much like our very own presidential candidate, unfortunately.

    however did we reach this point?

    my head just exploded (none / 0) (#110)
    by scourtney on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 03:02:41 AM EST
    From abcnews.com:

    "Sens. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, and Joe Biden, D-Del., risk looking like chauvinistic bullies when they go after Palin -- they need women -- especially Clinton -- to do that for them.

    Will she rise to the task?"


    seriously. my head just exploded.

    They have to be joking! (5.00 / 0) (#118)
    by Grace on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 03:23:44 AM EST
    She's not on the ticket!  If they wanted Hillary to be the attack dog, they should have put her on the ticket!  


    I say:  Let Pelosi and Brazile do it!  They're good at that "attack dog" thing!  


    haha (5.00 / 1) (#121)
    by Valhalla on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 03:30:52 AM EST
    What a moran.  Clinton's was the only smart response to the Palin pick, and he's criticizing it because she wasn't nasty enough?  Congratulate Palin, then turn to the discussion to the issues.  It's hardly on Clinton if she's the only person in Democrat-land who didn't think that attacking her on her looks, her small-town roots, her Down's Syndrome child, being a working mother or her daughter's secret pregnancy would be a winning tactic.

    Taking the fight to McCain-Palin without using sexism shouldn't be such a challenge, especially not with all the issues in their favor.  It's about time they learned how.  


    Hillary's response (5.00 / 1) (#133)
    by janarchy on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 04:07:07 AM EST
    was the only correct one. And I suspect that she of all people knows what it's like to be under that kind of scrutiny and treated like dirt by bloggers, the news media and ill-informed people. She decried the sexism against herself -- she's not going to suddenly throw it all against another woman.

    Pity other people take note or learn from that, including other Democratic women.


    Biden, Biden, where are you? (5.00 / 1) (#152)
    by Prabhata on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 05:03:29 AM EST
    WP contradicts NYT story (none / 0) (#149)
    by Prabhata on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 05:00:45 AM EST
    Aides insisted that the backlash against Lieberman and Ridge did not influence McCain, that it was his genuine attraction to Palin as a fellow reformer that carried the day. "Sure we got some grass-roots negative feedback," one adviser said. "That was not likely to sway McCain. . . . He had a lot of good choices, including Lieberman. He liked a number of his choices."

    Full story

    How often is Zogby right? (none / 0) (#157)
    by Grace on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 05:43:33 AM EST
    I take his polls with a grain of salt.  

    McCain may give his (none / 0) (#169)
    by magisterludi on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 07:53:31 AM EST
    acceptance speech in the disaster area?

    Beyond the political pale.

    Issues on which Palin has no public stance: (none / 0) (#171)
    by steviez314 on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 08:01:54 AM EST
    (From ontheissues.org)

    Families and Children
    Foreign Policy
    Free Trade
    War & Peace
    Welfare & Poverty

    And not much on the other issues.

    2 months to find out at best.

    STOP IT RIGHT NOW (none / 0) (#188)
    by americanincanada on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 09:55:32 AM EST
    This only helps the republicans.

    byteb....now go back and show everyone (none / 0) (#198)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 11:37:33 AM EST
    all the 1's and 2's you give me...we don't agree and according to the rules 2's are acceptable...and I have to live with your ratings...guess you have to live with mine :)

    Only in response to your (5.00 / 1) (#200)
    by byteb on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 11:49:34 AM EST
    vendetta. I had hoped that getting a taste of your own brand of the silly season would give you pause...to no avail obviously.
    BTW, one only has to look on this thread to see your ratings of my comments..but not just my comments, anyone who has a different political view than your and your political views seem to be consistently at odds with those of the democratic party and platform.
    I will no longer respond to you nor rate you from this moment forward. So have at your "1"s and "2"s if this makes you content. I have had my say and I hope that Jeralyn is now aware of this 'pattern and practice' of yours

    byteb....blah, blah, blah....I am not an (none / 0) (#211)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 03:56:21 PM EST
    obama supporter, nor am I a republican supporter and if I see b.s., I will call them on it, especially the nominee from my own party. FTR, your attempt at condescension shows your mindset...not pretty.  If you have to be 100% in agreement with what dems do, then count me out...questioning motives used to be a good thing.