Cindy McCain Says She Disagrees With Palin on Abortion

Cindy McCain was interviewed by Katie Couric this morning on CBS about Gov. Sarah Palin's views on abortion:

COURIC: Some, even Republicans seem surprised that Senator McCain picked a running mate who opposes abortion even in-- in the cases of rape and incest and believes creationism should be taught in schools. And I'm just curious, do you believe--or do you agree with that?


MCCAIN: What I agree with is the fact that she is a social conservative, she is a reform minded woman, she is someone that will shake the-- the-- Washington up, which is exactly what we wanna do. We differ on many issues, we differ with-- across the board with people. We don't have to agree on every issue.

COURIC: Abortion has suddenly become, again, a hot button issue, because of her--

MCCAIN: I think to you all it has--

COURIC: Well, I think probably, at least, it's reported that a lot of people are now talking about this. And I-- where do you stand on abortion?

MCCAIN: I'm pro-life, I'm on the record as being pro-life, like my husband.

COURIC: So, do you oppose it even in the cases of rape and incest?


COURIC: No? So, that's where you two differ--


< Ground Forces Enter Pakistan | Palin , Prisoners and the Alaska Prison System >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • "Like my husband." Interesting. (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by oculus on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 01:08:29 PM EST

    I have never believed (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 01:10:28 PM EST
    McCain was really a threat to RoeVWade.   I guess we could be in the odd position of hoping he stays healthy.

    Of course he's a threat. (5.00 / 8) (#8)
    by TChris on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 01:16:39 PM EST
    Being opposed to abortion except in cases of rape and incest is not a pro-choice position.  And McCain has promised to nominate judges who are similar to Justice Alito.  That isn't a threat to Roe v. Wade?

    we will have to see what kind of judges (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 01:20:30 PM EST
    he nominates.  I have said many times what I hope will happen is that he will seize the opportunity to stick it to the far right with his first pick.
    I think it is possible.  but who knows?
    but heres a quote from one of those awful PUMAs I thought was interesting:

    "The Wingnut Branch of the Republican Party owned all three branches of government for 6 out of the past 8 years, and Roe v. Wade is still the law of the land. Why and how would a President McCain suddenly overturn it, given the large Congressional Democratic majority which will exist to prevent him from doing so?"


    Not just the judges he nominates, but (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by stefystef on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 01:32:06 PM EST
    WHO the Senate and Congress allow to get through.

    If you want to keep Roe v Wade the law of the land (personally, I don't see it overturned the same way I don't see the ban on slavery overturned), then makes sure McCain, if he becomes President, can not put someone on the bench who would threaten this all-important human right.

    If the Congress is going to be Democratic, then damnit, it must do its job to ensure democracy!!!  Stop giving the Congress free passes.  Tell them to do their darn job!!!


    Cause they have shown (5.00 / 4) (#34)
    by Molly Bloom on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 01:45:49 PM EST
    so much backbone in the past!

    McCain will simply send up another Roberts, who you know in your heart is anti-roe, but no paper trail. And they will do it as many times as they need to. Who do you think will blink first?


    oh there you go with those pesky facts... :) (3.50 / 4) (#24)
    by PssttCmere08 on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 01:33:53 PM EST
    And they say (4.50 / 2) (#35)
    by CST on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 01:45:54 PM EST
    Hope is just for Obama fans.

    As Bush has taught us, this is wishfull thinking.  Not gonna happen.  Hasn't happened in the past, what makes you think it will happen in the future?

    The republicans will not nominate any pro-choice judges.  Period.


    No (5.00 / 5) (#23)
    by daring grace on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 01:33:39 PM EST
    Hopefully, we'll never have to see what kind of judges McCain would nominate.

    He will not stick it to the right (4.80 / 5) (#21)
    by litigatormom on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 01:33:05 PM EST
    with his first pick, unless it happens by accident, a la Souter.

    You don't really think that McCain is a maverick or a moderate, do you?


    I think he is not the (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 01:59:37 PM EST
    Mad Dog right wing nutcase he has been made out to be for the last few months.
    it is certainly undeniable that he has bucked his own party more than anyone else you can name I think.  I am sure republicans think so.
    this is what I do think and have said many times.
    he never forgets.  he will not forget what the religious right did to him in 2000.  it was the only  political situation I can think of that comes close to what has been done to Palin.  I am sure you know the details.
    I think it is completely within the realm of possibility that he will NOT nominate a right wing nut case simply to stick it to those people who cost him the presidency and cost the country 8 years of Bush.
    thats what I think.  for what its worth.

    Lincoln Chaffee bucked his party (5.00 / 0) (#53)
    by litigatormom on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 02:07:12 PM EST
    McCain stopped bucking a long time ago.

    I hit post too soon (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by litigatormom on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 02:10:15 PM EST
    McCain may not forget how the Bushies treated him eight years ago, but he seems to have forgiven them. I'm not even talking about the infamous Bush hug in 2004.  He's now employing every Rovian tactic that is suggested to him -- if he's not thinking of them himself.  He's pandering to the right as if there were no tomorrow.  On his signature issue, torture, he gave his consent to legislation that allowed the CIA to continue torturing.  

    I have to place much more emphasis on recent history than I do on what happened eight years ago or earlier.


    Both Obama and McCain (none / 0) (#130)
    by Grace on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 02:51:51 PM EST
    know how this political game works.  

    They can say anything they want to while running for office.  They don't have to do any of it once elected.  (For the history of how this works, look at GWB.)  



    Look at what he has done and said (5.00 / 2) (#141)
    by MKS on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 03:04:06 PM EST
    McCain has been very consistent in saying he is pro-life, voting that way, and in appointing a VP who is very much that way.

    There is no reasonal basis for saying that McCain would appoint pro-choice judges.


    Doesn't have to be (5.00 / 0) (#65)
    by CST on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 02:12:56 PM EST
    A religious wing-nut to be pro-life.

    I think we can expect him to nominate someone like Roberts.


    you could both be correct (none / 0) (#72)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 02:16:53 PM EST
    I am not saying you are not.  I am just trying to find the silver lining.
    as for torture.  just a day or so ago I saw McCain go off on a tear about how many of the things done by the Bush administration was torture that he would never do and never allow.  I believe him.
    I am not defending or endorsing McCain.  just trying to see through the fog.
    as for the hug and the rest.  come on.  he is doing that to win.  if he did not do that he would not win.

    I'd feel a lot better about that (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by CST on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 02:19:19 PM EST
    If he didn't just vote against a law that would ban torture in the CIA.

    Honestly that moment is when McCain's "maverick" thing lost all credibility for me.

    I used to buy it, not anymore.


    I dont really buy the maverick thing (none / 0) (#119)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 02:43:39 PM EST
    but then I never did.  the truth is I think McCain is probably going to win this election. that doesnt make me happy but I am not going to stick my head in the sand and spew the happy talk that is sooo popular.
    and I actually think that McCain may surprise some people if he wins.  that is purely MO and means nothing to anyone but me.
    I also think that IF Obama wins he may also surprise some people.  and not in a good way.
    also MO, meaningful only to me.

    To be honest (5.00 / 1) (#128)
    by CST on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 02:51:00 PM EST
    I thought Mccain would win this thing from the beginning, and only recently have begun to let myself think that it may be otherwise.

    I think Obama will surprise people.  He will not be nearly as good as his biggest fans think, and he won't be nearly as bad as his biggest detracters think.

    McCain... I don't know.  I don't know that anything he does surprises people.  I hope to be surprised by him but I am less optimistic than you about that.


    I am a hopeless optimist (5.00 / 1) (#136)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 02:58:24 PM EST
    but I agree completely with your statement about Obama.  I have never been particularly excited by him or his chances to win but I have also never been an Obama hater.  in fact I was an early supporter and on the day Hillary declared her candidacy I was on a blog (AmericaBlog - believe it or not) telling  her to stay out of the race because she would only cause the split that has happened.
    well, I was wrong and Hillary was right.  I came to support her because of that.
    as I have said, its not Obama I would like to see lose.  it is his supporters.  

    I am not making "happy talk" (5.00 / 0) (#176)
    by litigatormom on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 04:03:19 PM EST
    either about the election itself or Obama.  I started out backing Clinton, because I thought she was much more ready to president and was more progressive (contrary to popular opinion on certain orange blogs).  Having said that, I have some hope that if Obama plays his cards right, he can win the election, and that he'll be a decent president, and in any event, a better president than McCain. He's unlikely to be as progressive as I'd like, but he's not going to govern as a right wing extremist.

    Whatever McCain was in 2000, he has changed, and he's changed permanently.  


    I did not mean to explicitly (none / 0) (#200)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 04:38:41 PM EST
    accuse you of happy talk.
    but you have to admit its everywhere.

    Or you could just take his word for it (4.66 / 3) (#55)
    by indiependy on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 02:07:17 PM EST
    From the McCain web site:

    John McCain believes Roe v. Wade is a flawed decision that must be overturned, and as president he will nominate judges who understand that courts should not be in the business of legislating from the bench.

    And "stick it to the far right", really? You mean the way he did with his anti-choice, global warming denying, intelligent design believing VP choice? Yeah, he really stood up to them.


    and you understand McCains (4.00 / 1) (#82)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 02:19:32 PM EST
    job description for the VP right?
    as has been said repeatedly.  this choice is about winning. not governing.

    So, if he doesn't care (5.00 / 0) (#93)
    by MKS on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 02:26:03 PM EST
    about social or domestic issues, but rather is all about foreign policy, then he will throw more sops to the Right.....just as he has done with Palin.

    Is there a real threat to Roe v Wade? (none / 0) (#144)
    by stefystef on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 03:07:00 PM EST
    It's one of those issues both sides uses to scare the crap out of women.

    This is when the country is supposed to stand up and say NO!

    I mean, we know how successful Prohibition was and that was pushed by a handful of loud-mouth Temperance folks and religious zealots trying to get popular and rich off of God.

    Just because these politicians say one thing doesn't mean we have to go along with it.


    really? (1.00 / 1) (#70)
    by wystler on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 02:16:03 PM EST
    we will have to see what kind of judges ... he nominates.

    Goodness, i hope not.

    What are you doing to assure that John McCain never nominates a federal judge?


    I said I was voting for Obama (none / 0) (#74)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 02:17:30 PM EST
    when the VP was picked.  dont push it.

    eh? (1.00 / 4) (#95)
    by wystler on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 02:27:48 PM EST
    dont push it.

    was that a threat?

    i don't take kindly to threats.

    glad that you're giving minimal support to the only candidacy that has a chance to assure that the rightward slant of federal judiciary appointments stops next year. wish you could find a way to do more.


    Look (5.00 / 7) (#108)
    by Steve M on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 02:35:36 PM EST
    Your personal attacks are not welcome here.  Chill out.

    You have absolutely no right to go around demanding that other commentors provide you with assurances of what they are doing to help elect the Democratic ticket.  Stop it.


    Im being really good (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 02:38:21 PM EST
    arent I Steve?

    personal attack? (none / 0) (#154)
    by wystler on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 03:26:04 PM EST
    where? please cite.

    hmmmm (none / 0) (#92)
    by Faust on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 02:25:23 PM EST
    maybe because they are 1 justice shy of a majority.

    and isn't it true (5.00 / 4) (#12)
    by TimNCGuy on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 01:24:18 PM EST
    that the dems had the opportunity to keep Alito from even getting to a full vote by the senate by not letting his name get out of the Judiciary Cmte?  Wasn't there a repug on that cmte who voted "abstain" on that nomination?  And had the dems all voted NO the final vote in cmte would have been 10 - 10 and Alito's nomination would not have gone forward for a full senate vote.  Now, let me see if I remember this right, which dems on that cmte decided to vote YES to let the nomination go forward?  Was it Schumer and Feinstein maybe?  Two senators from the liberal bastions of NY and CA?

    Next time around dems shouldn't even need to have a repug abstain in cmte.  they now control the cmte and can stop any nominee they want to from ever getting a full vote on the floor of the senate.  How about the voters ask the dem senators to grow a pair and step up to the plate?


    I am going to try to not get drawn in (3.50 / 6) (#18)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 01:31:05 PM EST
    because as one of my many fans pointed out in a previous thread, I have been tending to "chatter" lately.
    it is from my natural tendency to come to the defense of the downtrodden and wrongfully attacked.
    personally I think there are other threats and dangers that are more pressing than any danger to Roe V Wade.  which I happen to think is not in all that much danger.

    I think it was Feinstein (none / 0) (#26)
    by litigatormom on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 01:34:28 PM EST
    And believe it or not, Feingold.  Or maybe that was just with Robers. I can't believe it was Schumer, but if I'm wrong, please let me know so it can inform my future voting decisions.

    Roe v Wade is the great Carrot. (5.00 / 2) (#91)
    by rooge04 on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 02:24:07 PM EST
    It is used by both sides.  I don't think the Republicans would ever actually overturn it via the Supreme Court because its value as a political tool is much too high.

    They can't help it--it's their nature (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by MKS on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 02:28:59 PM EST
    If McCain were to win, he would owe the Right big time.  McCain cares little for domestic issues, so it would be no big deal to give them what they want....

    Complacency can be very misleading....


    Why the heck not? (5.00 / 5) (#10)
    by LarryInNYC on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 01:19:51 PM EST
    He's consistently promised to appoint justices that would overturn Roe v. Wade.  No ifs, ands, or buts.  You don't take him at his word?

    Actually (4.33 / 3) (#85)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 02:20:59 PM EST
    I don't. I think he really doesn't care that much about Roe v. Wade. Remember he was one of the gang of 14. Same goes for Obama. I think both of them are using it as a club to beat voters over the head with.

    Palin is an example of the type of (5.00 / 0) (#89)
    by MKS on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 02:23:27 PM EST
    people he will pick for high level positions....He reached to the right to pick her.

    People assumed in 2000 that George Bush would work across the aisle too because he had done it in Texas....

    McCain is Bush on steroids.....


    Whatever. (none / 0) (#107)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 02:34:41 PM EST
    McCain won't have the Republicans controlling the entire government either like Bush did.

    McCain's ads are positioning him as a centrist. All Obama has been doing in his ads is screaming NO! NO! He's McBush! It's silly. Stop talking about how he's McBush and start telling us why? Obama should run ads stating that McCain believes that Roe should be overturned instead of letting McCain define himself in the middle.


    No, it will be just like the last two (5.00 / 0) (#137)
    by MKS on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 02:59:15 PM EST
    years....and Roberts and Alito....

    If the Democrats can't stand up to an unpopular Republican President, they would to what would be a very popular, come-from-behind folk hero who has a Moose-burger eating icon as his VP?

    I know you are very, very anti-Obama, and pooh-pooh that the Republicans would actually do what they have been saying they will do, and have actually done over the last four years (appoint very conservative judges), but your ODS clouds your judgment....

    BTW, Obama ran very blunt radio ads yesterday on choice.


    The quadrennial Supreme Court fear (5.00 / 1) (#159)
    by christinep on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 03:29:36 PM EST
    Ga6thDem: Exactly. Both sides have to work themselves up to a fever pitch over something that both candidates don't put anywhere near the top of the real list.

    better you should ... (none / 0) (#90)
    by wystler on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 02:24:03 PM EST
    ... check out this club (and put your own weapon down)

    I don't (5.00 / 2) (#102)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 02:30:44 PM EST
    care what NARAL has said. Didn't they support Lieberman in CT? They are a joke.

    Lieberman... (none / 0) (#134)
    by Brillo on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 02:57:32 PM EST
    For all his faults, has been extremely strong on choice, that's why NARAL supported him.  And they are not a joke.  

    chicken: a dangerous game (none / 0) (#104)
    by wystler on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 02:31:48 PM EST
    I don't. I think he really doesn't care that much about Roe v. Wade.

    this might serve to remind you about the dangerous game you're playing.


    Haven't you learned yet that McCain will do (4.20 / 5) (#15)
    by Molly Bloom on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 01:26:25 PM EST
    whatever is politically necessary for McCain?

     If that means appointing anti-Roe judges, he will do it. That is a campaign promise he has been making at every stop. It is a check the anti-abortion nuts will make demand he make good on.

    It was necessary to be for the confederate flag in in SC in 2000, so he was for it.

    He opposed drilling in Anwar, until he was told to be for it.

    He opposed the Bush tax cuts, before he was informed he had to be for it.

    He was for invading Iraq, before he was against it and bravely decided to stick out the surge.

    Putting McCain first is the name of the game.  


    Interesting (5.00 / 2) (#64)
    by JAB on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 02:12:44 PM EST
    Haven't you learned yet that McCain will do whatever is politically necessary for McCain?

    Um....and couldn't you say the same about Obama?  (Yes, you could).

    They are politicians.  They will do whatever is necessary to get elected.



    Even if true (5.00 / 0) (#88)
    by Molly Bloom on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 02:22:24 PM EST
    this is irrelevant to whether or not the right wing would demand McCain honor the check he has given them.

    there's a difference (none / 0) (#75)
    by wystler on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 02:17:41 PM EST
    Um....and couldn't you say the same about Obama?  (Yes, you could).

    but you'd be wrong.


    Not hardly (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by JAB on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 02:19:21 PM EST
    ANWR? Has McCain (none / 0) (#106)
    by MKS on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 02:33:03 PM EST
    reversed himself here?  I know he has reversed himself on off-shore drilling...but not yet on ANWR.....

    I hope not.  Palin repeats the lie that only a small area would be used for drilling, forgetting that thousands of acres would be used for roads, gravel pits, industrial buildings and other environmentally devastating activities.


    I am not too sure Palin would make it her (3.80 / 5) (#13)
    by PssttCmere08 on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 01:25:24 PM EST
    priority to try to overturn Roe v Wade, imo.

    Cindy's response:  To you all I think it has...sez it all.

    The sky is falling, the sky is falling.


    If McCain is elected (5.00 / 7) (#28)
    by litigatormom on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 01:35:35 PM EST
    the sky WILL fall, on Roe and a whole host of other issues.

    I find this argument curious (4.50 / 4) (#50)
    by miriam on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 02:05:20 PM EST
    In the past few months the Obama campaign and a complicit media have ferociously and mercilessly assaulted two historically singular female candidates.  Why is there any reason to believe that women will be shown any more respect, or be listened to any more, by Obama if elected than they have been during his campaign?  

    And please don't answer "Because he says so."


    The Obama campaign (5.00 / 4) (#77)
    by IndiDemGirl on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 02:18:47 PM EST
    hasn't "ferociously and mercilessly assaulted" Sarah Palin.  The media is investigating her background, just like it does for every  other candidate.  Sarah Palin shouldn't be treated differently just because she's a woman.

    And the treatment Sarah Palin is getting is NOTHING when compared to how Hillary Clinton was treated by the Republican right for 8 years.  


    That is only because the Democrats (none / 0) (#185)
    by Valhalla on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 04:15:17 PM EST
    haven't been at it for 8 years.  Only 8 months.  Give them time, I'm sure that's a competition they stand a very good chance of winning.

    Back that up! (5.00 / 4) (#94)
    by indiependy on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 02:26:13 PM EST
    Can you back up that the Obama campaign has "ferociously and mercilessly assaulted" Sarah Palin?

    He's on the record as saying her personal life is out-of-bounds, and his campaign has focused all their criticism on her record and stances on the issues.


    curious, eh? (1.00 / 4) (#84)
    by wystler on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 02:20:36 PM EST
    well, if you're curious enough to learn, you could start here

    but that'd be, like, hard work, eh?


    The really bad part about a McCain (none / 0) (#190)
    by hairspray on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 04:21:02 PM EST
    presidency is all those right wing bureaucratics waiting to be appointed to all those jobs in DC. Think of all of those underlings messing up the nation's civil servants.

    That's good to know.... (5.00 / 3) (#2)
    by JustUs League on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 01:10:18 PM EST
    ...but Cindy McCain is not running for office.  

    Palin scares the hell out of me....because she seems to think hell actually exists.  It's ironic that having her in the White House would mean losing the freedom of choice that women have fought for bitterly.  Think Goodling went overboard?  Palin has a history of replacing long time city/state staff with her own loyal supporters.

    I want a woman in the White House one day...but not this woman.

    Thanks You! (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by flashman on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 01:16:09 PM EST
    Cindy McCain's position on abortion is no more relevant than Cheny's lesbian daughter's postion on civil unions was.

    Except for the fact that (none / 0) (#60)
    by Jane2009 on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 02:10:07 PM EST
    her personal relationship with the VP affected his position on the subject.

    Um, What? (none / 0) (#101)
    by flashman on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 02:30:39 PM EST
    Their positions were diametric opposites.

    Hell (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by demchick on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 01:29:14 PM EST
    does exist

    look around


    Wow. Is this your first election? (5.00 / 2) (#39)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 01:51:36 PM EST
    A)Heaven forbid a newly-elected mayor, after a very contentious election battle, utilize her legal prerogative to replace some city officials (who - by the city charter - explicitly serve at the pleasure of the mayor, and who were appointed by and had signed loyalty oaths to the defeated ex-mayor) with appointees loyal to her.

    B)Have you really no clue what will happen to all of Bush's appointees when a new pres is elected?


    Are you just beginning to watch? (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by wystler on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 02:13:57 PM EST
    B)Have you really no clue what will happen to all of Bush's appointees when a new pres is elected?

    I'll bet you lack a clue too.

    Outside of those in policy-level positions, the BushCo hires are protected thru civil service. Many of the Regent University Law School clowns populating the DOJ will be untouchable unless they have done something that's beyond merely being a right-wing toady.


    Oy, there are appointees, (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 02:29:58 PM EST
    and then there are hires. It is a distinction with a difference.

    Perhaps the analogy is less directly applicable than I would have wished, but the fact remains that there are appointed positions in both the federal and Wasilla and many/most other gvt entities that serve at the pleasure of the big dog, and who are routinely replaced when the new big dog moves in.

    Palin replaced several "serve at the pleasure of the mayor" appointees who had signed loyalty oaths to the ex-mayor she had defeated in a bitter election.

    I fail to find any outrage at that, in fact I find it ridiculous that anyone else would.


    Politicizing (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by MKS on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 02:19:16 PM EST
    local chiefs of police and librarians seems very, very odd....It sure wasn't normal for that town.



    Actually it was. (5.00 / 1) (#109)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 02:35:37 PM EST
    Or, rather, these positions, according to the city charter, have always served at the pleasure of the mayor.

    Of course, there had been only one mayor in the town's entire history prior to Palin, so afaik no one ever got booted before.

    An then there was that appointees signing letters of loyalty to the defeated ex-mayor stunt...


    Thanks for bringing back memories of (3.25 / 8) (#16)
    by PssttCmere08 on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 01:28:02 PM EST

    Obama will do the same thing (none / 0) (#27)
    by stefystef on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 01:35:09 PM EST
    He will replace people who loyal followers who have made many sacrifices for him.

    All politicians do this.  Even Bill and Hillary Clinton spend their first 2 years in the White House was plagued with nepotism accusation.  Not something unique to Palin.  And not enough to bring her down.


    Actually purging the ranks of people you (none / 0) (#169)
    by hairspray on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 03:47:11 PM EST
    know dislike you is smart. Look at some of the characters that Clinton left in the WH after he came in.  Can't recall the name of the security guy who later wrote a book saying Clinton sneaked out of the WH at night. LOL! The secret service smacked that down but the book was a best seller.  very gossipy.  And of course we all remember Linda Tripp, don't we?

    What about an individual's personal beliefs? (none / 0) (#151)
    by christinep on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 03:21:59 PM EST
    This is a tricky area. The what-consequence-is-it-if-I-believe-in-heaven & hell area...even if I am a candidate. Really? I know that we believe that Sarah Palin may well try to force her religious and family views on the rest of the nation; but, from a proof standpoint--from what she has actually done in that regard in elective office--what is the specific basis for that belief? Please understand that it is hard for me to ask that question because I am a lifelong liberal and will always be so. But, two things especially concern me: (1) When either right or left actually shove their spiritual or antipathy toward spiritual position down my throat, because freedom to have those beliefs are fundamental to our society and (2) When the left starts showing signs of Salem witchcraft hysteria in response to a VP pick. I'm a solid Democrat; yet, the pot-banging screeching about an individual's family and personal spiritual beliefs are excessive, destructive, and ugly IMO. Lets focus more on the facts or what are perceived as facts. I.E., what do we know about her judicial appointments? What is really behind the reform label of taking on the oil industry with the windfall profit tax (is it something other than meets the eye)? What is she doing as governor, and what did she do as mayor?

    Sounds familiar. Did you also say that (none / 0) (#165)
    by hairspray on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 03:42:53 PM EST
    about Hillary?

    OMG! (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by Strick on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 01:10:36 PM EST
    The prospective First Lady disagrees with the prospective VP on an element of an issue while agreeing on the fundamentals of it.  I imagine there are any number of issues where they disagree, just as there are disagreements between Biden and Michelle Obama, which I'm sure are equally relevant. :rolleyes:

    Thanks for sharing that.

    McCain and Palin (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by Grace on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 01:12:40 PM EST
    don't agree on Global Warming either.  

    I have a feeling, in the next 60 days, we are going to find out that Palin and McCain don't agree on a lot of different subjects.  Palin represents the far right wing of the party.  McCain is more moderate.  

    That's what (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by Makarov on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 01:16:49 PM EST
    the McCain campaign wants people to believe, true or not. I've watched the McCain commercials here in PA since May, and he's been positioning himself as a center candidate the entire time.

    You will be glad to know (5.00 / 0) (#52)
    by litigatormom on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 02:05:41 PM EST
    that Rudy Giuliani believes that Palin could have handled 9/11 had she been president.  

    She's a quick study on on how to respond to investigation, though.

    As for McCain's supposed moderacy, I ain't buyin' -- especially after this pick.  The notion that he could swing from Lieberman (who, as much as I dislike him, is experienced and a relative centrist on most issues other than Iraq) to the inexperienced and extremist Palin, is mind-boggling.  He decide to pander to "the base" instead of to swing voters.  That speaks volumes about how moderate he really is.


    LOL. Oh Rudy! (5.00 / 2) (#86)
    by rooge04 on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 02:21:25 PM EST
    No relevance unless it's about 9/11. And who is he to judge? It happened on his watch and it was his bright idea to put the command center in the WTC so he could have a love nest with his girlfriend.

    Biden was spot-on about Rudy (5.00 / 2) (#98)
    by shoephone on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 02:29:56 PM EST
    "Noun, verb, 9-11."

    Ugh. (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by nycstray on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 02:40:20 PM EST
    he was answering a question

    In an interview Wednesday on ABC's "Good Morning America," Giuliani was asked, "If she were the president on 9/11, you would have been confident?"

    I feel so dirty now. I just defended RUDY! ARRRRRRRGH!


    He didn't have to say "yes" (5.00 / 3) (#120)
    by litigatormom on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 02:44:47 PM EST
    If he really believes that, than just about anyone could have handled 9/11, which rather diminishes his great heroism, don't you think?

    lol!~ very good point! (5.00 / 0) (#147)
    by nycstray on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 03:16:40 PM EST
    thanks for the laugh!

    Not at all (none / 0) (#148)
    by Steve M on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 03:18:05 PM EST
    The question was whether Palin could have done Bush's job on 9/11, not Giuliani's job.  Surely Giuliani believes his job was much, much harder than Bush's.  (Maybe it even was.)

    I still find Giuliani's answer more than a little comical.  "Oh, sure, she's been the mayor of a town!"


    Well, in a way it was (none / 0) (#184)
    by litigatormom on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 04:13:49 PM EST
    since Bush spent 9/11 reading "The Pet Goat" and then roaming the country in Air Force I like the Flying Dutchman. But it shouldn't have been that way.

    In the meantime, here is where Mayor Palin worked.


    I just read how he was pressured (none / 0) (#153)
    by hairspray on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 03:25:46 PM EST
    by the Christian conservatives to pick someone like her. They were going to stay home and sink his candidacy otherwise. Wish I could cite it now.  I don't think he had much choice.

    He had the choice to pick someone (5.00 / 0) (#189)
    by litigatormom on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 04:19:31 PM EST
    who was more experienced, and not as wingnutty, as Palin is.  Did he really need to pick someone who believes that creationism should be taught in the public schools.  Someone who believes, and says, that the Iraq War (not to mention other governing decisions) has to be conducted according to God's will?

    Well, maybe he did.  In which case he's just as morally bankrupt as I think he is.  This is the man who condemned the evangelicals' stranglehold on the party in 2000.  Where is that man now?  He's gone.  Now he's just a hack who would rather lose his soul than lose the presidency.


    I heard it, too. (none / 0) (#166)
    by Aqua Blue on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 03:45:48 PM EST
    McCain was not given a choice according the media report.   He wanted Lieberman and party "owners" said no!

    I saw the Lieberman thing (none / 0) (#172)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 03:53:40 PM EST
    for some reason I dont buy it.  I could see him picking Ridge possibly but not Lieberman.
    I cant see the logic.  he is hated by both republicans AND democrats.
    but what do I know.

    Sure he is hated by voters (none / 0) (#174)
    by CST on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 03:58:43 PM EST
    But he is loved by McCain :)

    You're right though, because McCain didn't pick him.  I think he would've if what you said about Lieberman wasn't true.  McCain is a smart politician, I'll give him that.


    McCain may not KNOW that (none / 0) (#186)
    by litigatormom on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 04:15:57 PM EST
    Dems hate Lieberman, any more than he knows that very few, if any, HRC supporters are going to be attracted to Sarah Palin just because she's a woman.

    McCain? Moderate? (5.00 / 4) (#58)
    by wystler on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 02:09:02 PM EST
    You've been far too accepting of traditional media's Disney-fication of the McCain candidacy. He's no moderate.

    Linc Chafee is a moderate.

    Ben Nelson is a moderate.

    The Maine ladies are moderates.

    John McCain is a big military saber-rattling right wing radical who is no different than the folks now occupying the executive branch. If you want to know the difference between McCain and Palin, look at their stances on earmarks.


    Disney-fication (5.00 / 0) (#131)
    by Fayed X on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 02:52:17 PM EST
    I like that description.  It is so appropriate.

    watch for that meme (5.00 / 1) (#181)
    by wystler on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 04:11:05 PM EST
    i'm trying to spread it, and could use help

    it's not merely mccain/this_election ... it's what the traditional media always seems to do ... it's the reason the right, so many years ago, went off half-cocked, calling the media "liberal", a wrong label for a media that was not reporting news the way people on their side see it ... and, more recently, afflicting our side as well, from before the persecution of Bill Clinton, the phony Al Gore memes, the Kerry's-so-French ...

    the media wants - badly - to present a storybook line (it took soul-searching for WaPo to decide to run with the Watergate investigation)


    Susan Collins is moderate???? (none / 0) (#110)
    by TimNCGuy on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 02:36:31 PM EST
    LOL.  I'll admit she has gotten MORE moderate as the election and fear of losing nears.  But, she doesn't qualify as a moderate at all.

    touche (5.00 / 0) (#114)
    by wystler on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 02:41:12 PM EST
    but if i were asked to pick the moderate between her and John McCain, there'd be no contest.

    In another thread I read that Obama has (none / 0) (#152)
    by hairspray on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 03:22:34 PM EST
    asked for a larger number of earmarks than the last Palin request.  Better look that up before you throw out facts(?)

    is that per capita? (none / 0) (#156)
    by wystler on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 03:28:14 PM EST
    or is it just trumped up balderdashery?

    I've never been a one-issue voter (5.00 / 1) (#135)
    by christinep on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 02:58:12 PM EST
    Political life is certainly upside-down. Time was when my friends and myself criticized a number of individuals on the right for being "one-issue" voters. Believe me, I do understand the intricacies--legal and emotional--of the long abortion debate. Even we liberals can and do differ on aspects of the abortion debate. For myself, I appreciated Barack Obama's effort to hunt for common ground on several of the "social issues." (The riff re: abortion--we might not agree on x, but at least we can agree that people do not prefer to see the need for abortions increase, etc.) As an old negotiator, I've come to believe that finding an areeable point/middle/core may ultimately be the strongest position in most areas. It isn't wimpy; its hard (very hard in the case of values differences) to realize. We will all learn more about Sarah Palin as this plays out. Essential conflict will certainly continue...a good thing, in systemic respects, as a way to thread toward democratic consensus. I'm an optimist: After all these years of hard-and-fast right or left, perhaps  this topsy-turvyness will upend us a bit from artificial notions about each other long grown stale.

    Laura and Barbara Bush (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by JAB on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 01:15:51 PM EST
    were /are pro-choice.

    R v W (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by JAB on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 01:26:17 PM EST
    not going anywhere - they would have pushed a case through before Bush left office.

    RvW is a huge rallying cry and fundraiser for Republicans. If they get rid of it, what do they have to bash "godless liberals" with?

    Oh, the fact that we aren't (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by litigatormom on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 01:31:51 PM EST
    warmongering patriots, want defeat in Iraq, want to keep religion out of the schools and public buildings, the usual.

    In the meantime, women would have to go to Canada to get an abortion or go back to "self-help."  Oh, women like me could probably persuade our OBs to help us or our daughters, but poor women would be at the mercy of coathangers and amateurs.


    They are one vote shy (5.00 / 3) (#29)
    by Molly Bloom on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 01:36:46 PM EST
    It helps to know the makeup of the court.

    No point in pushing a case to certain defeat.

    Don't kid yourself.

    Since 1968 the GOP has appointed about 11 (all but 4 hard right) justices. Democrats, 2.

    The makeup of the court is 5-4 on this issue.

    When you go down to the crossroads to  sell your soul like McCain, there is a price.


    Thanks (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by JAB on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 01:46:38 PM EST
    I learned the makeup of the court in law school. I also know Kennedy is a swing vote and with the right case, it could have be gone this term.

    I'm just saying, it's too big of a wedge issue for them to REALLY want to get rid of it.


    Nice theory (5.00 / 0) (#37)
    by Molly Bloom on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 01:47:32 PM EST
    do you want to risk it to find out?

    Also... (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by Thanin on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 01:58:43 PM EST
    it almost was overturned in 1992 with the case Planned Parenthood v. Casey.  The only reason why it wasnt was Souter  -- who'd been strongly conservative, having voted with scalia close to 85 percent of the time -- began his ideological shift to the left on that case and a case about prayer in public schools.  So if it hadnt been for ONE justice realizing what the right thing to do was, we'd be an abortion illegal country.

    So the silly arguments that they want to keep it as a wedge issue and that it will never happen are just flat out wrong.


    Ask that (4.00 / 3) (#45)
    by txpolitico67 on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 02:01:12 PM EST
    of all those Obama voting Dems out there who haven't taken a closer look at their almost-voting-Justice-Roberts pick.

    All those "bitter-knitters" fought for their reproductive rights for the past humteen years.  It's their turn now.  They are too busy trying to emulate Rachel and Monica from "Friends".


    For me... (5.00 / 3) (#83)
    by Thanin on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 02:19:57 PM EST
    his voting record on abortion (which is 100% Pro Choice) is the determining factor as to what he'd do, since those are in fact his votes on the issue.  McSames voting record is about 75% pro life, according to pro life groups.  Thats not acceptable.

    Molly Bloom... (3.50 / 2) (#146)
    by Thanin on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 03:10:07 PM EST
    why the troll rating?

    Don't know how that happened (none / 0) (#161)
    by Molly Bloom on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 03:33:00 PM EST

    Id say the way a person votes... (2.00 / 0) (#145)
    by Thanin on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 03:07:46 PM EST
    is very important in determining how they'll appoint.  roberts wasnt properly vetted.  End of story.

    I am not sure (5.00 / 5) (#22)
    by Steve M on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 01:33:11 PM EST
    with no disrespect intended to Mrs. McCain, what relevance the First Lady's position on abortion could possibly have to this election.  Unless, of course, she was put in charge of vetting judges when I wasn't watching.

    Laura Bush is supposedly pro-choice but it sure hasn't stopped her husband from running around hugging snowflake babies, or from appointing as many anti-choice judges as he can find.

    The whole series of her answers (5.00 / 4) (#25)
    by scribe on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 01:34:10 PM EST
    is one mass of boiling internal contradictions:

    I'm pro-life, like my husband.
    I favor availability of abortion for cases of rape and incest.

    These two positions are irreconcilable.  But, hey, she's an attractive blonde, so we're expected to take whatever she says and accept it without thinking.

    As to those commenters who point out the Bush women are (supposedly) pro-choice, one needs to remember that, for them and those of their class, abortion will always be available (and has always been available), even if it means taking a little European vacation or spending some time in an exclusive clinic for an undisclosed ailment that no one noticed before or after.

    Money, class and status buy a lot of choices the average prole can't get.  And that's the real core of Republicanism - they get the choices, and you get to pay for them.

    Well - (2.00 / 0) (#202)
    by Josey on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 04:45:08 PM EST
    >>>>I'm pro-life, like my husband.
    I favor availability of abortion for cases of rape and incest.
    These two positions are irreconcilable

    This is the position of Cindy McCain as well as many Dems.


    those of their class? (none / 0) (#113)
    by coast on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 02:40:25 PM EST
    "for them and those of their class, abortion will always be available (and has always been available)"

    What exactually do you mean by this?  Do you mean people who actually pay for medical coverage?  

    Do you really think that Sen. Kennedy would have received the care that he has under a nationalized system of health care.  I doubt it would have paid for the private jet that flew him to NC or the specialist that have cared for him.


    Yes, I do think Kennedy would (5.00 / 2) (#124)
    by TimNCGuy on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 02:47:58 PM EST
    have gotten EXACTLY the same care under nationalized healthcare, because he simply would have purchsed all the additional coverage that will still be available through private insurance.

    Those who FEAR that National Healthcare will force them to have worse care than they now have don't understand that they will still be able to purchase additional coverage to add to tyhe base plan that the National Plan would give you.  I would bet that many large employers would offer the additional coverage to entice the better employees to work for them.


    That simple is it? (5.00 / 0) (#132)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 02:55:34 PM EST
    He could just call up and say I need additional coverage and would have gotten it?  

    Sadly, no!  He has enough medical history that no HMO or health insurance Company would have approved him.  They tend to be risk adverse.  I've seen people turned down for coverage because they have acne.  


    well, I'm talking about (none / 0) (#138)
    by TimNCGuy on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 02:59:30 PM EST
    people who think that a National PLan would be worse for them than what they have now through their employers or on their own.  If theose people can get it now, why don't they think they will be able to purchase it as supplemental insurance after a National system is put in place?

    Every insurer already offers supplemental insurance NOW to go along with Medicare.  There will be just as many private insurers offering supplimental insurance to go along with a National plan as well.


    And what I'm saying... (5.00 / 2) (#142)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 03:05:59 PM EST
    ...is that just because someone is offering coverage, doesn't mean that they will assume the risk.  Until we deal with pre-existing conditions exclusions, there can be no real change in health care.  The health care industry will continue to cherry-pick the healthiest risks.  

    Offering coverage doesn't mean squat if you can't actually get coverage.


    Explain to me why Ted Kennedy (none / 0) (#158)
    by independent voter on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 03:29:27 PM EST
    needs insurance. He can easily afford to pay for any health care out of pocket.

    that''s right (none / 0) (#167)
    by TimNCGuy on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 03:46:32 PM EST
    the original question was would Kenned y get the same treatment under national healthcare that he got now. and the answer is es because he can BUY it.

    The availability of universal healthcare will (none / 0) (#168)
    by Elporton on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 03:47:09 PM EST
    greatly alter the issue of pre-existing conditions.

    You're right that the insurance providers today are in a position to greatly control their risk profiles.  But under a universal plan, the health insurance providers will be forced to take a different view of risk because they will have far fewer customers from which to choose because most of their current insureds will no longer need their services.  Most of the remaining clients for the insurance companies will be interested only in coverage for high risks and known conditions.  It seems reasonable to think that the providers will change their risk tolerances or they'll get out of the business.


    If you're talking about a single payer... (5.00 / 0) (#192)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 04:22:39 PM EST
    government run plan, perhaps.  I don't see that happening anytime in the near future.  Way too "socialistic" to get passed and Big Insurance has way too much to lose.  

    We may see some sort of universal healthcare that is ran by the insurance companies, but the regulatory laws will be to rewritten to provide for guaranteed issue--like for small business groups in some states.  


    I think he meant that there is (5.00 / 1) (#160)
    by hairspray on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 03:30:15 PM EST
    always a clinic offshore somewhere that will cater to the wealthy for abortion if they need them. Back in the '50's women went to Mexico or places in the caribbean and came back tanned and unpregnant.

    Inquiring minds want to know: (5.00 / 2) (#30)
    by Robot Porter on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 01:40:15 PM EST
    What do McCain's pet turtles "Cuff" and "Link" think about the abortion issue?

    Better yet, (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by Anne on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 01:44:26 PM EST
    what does McCain's mother think?



    Perhaps ... (none / 0) (#51)
    by Robot Porter on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 02:05:25 PM EST
    but those turtles are slippery, I think someone in the media should force them to give their views.

    Ive heard (5.00 / 1) (#122)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 02:45:52 PM EST
    people tend to look like their pets.  this does nothing to dispute that idea.

    And since McCain (none / 0) (#177)
    by tree on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 04:04:02 PM EST
    has shamelessly shoved them into the spotlight, Cuff and Link are fair game to attack for their views and lifestyles. Are they both males? Or male and female? Living together? Shocking!

    She thinks (none / 0) (#96)
    by Grace on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 02:28:02 PM EST
    people should hold their noses and vote for John.

    McCain will not be able (5.00 / 2) (#38)
    by TimNCGuy on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 01:48:35 PM EST
    to do anything to the courts that the judiciary committee in the senate doesn't ALLOW him to do.  period.

    True, but what's your point? (5.00 / 2) (#40)
    by Molly Bloom on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 01:53:26 PM EST
    well, the world for Roe will not (5.00 / 5) (#49)
    by TimNCGuy on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 02:05:05 PM EST
    come to an end if McCain is elected.  The senate just has to do their job on the McCain nominees.

    On the other hand, if Obama is elected, what will the dem senate do if Obama appoints Cass Sunstein to the supreme court?  Sunstein thinks Roe was wrongly decided.  Do you think the senators will go against a dem presidential nominee?


    They haven't gone against Bush's nominees (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by JoeA on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 02:10:41 PM EST
    Where does the idea that Cass Sunstein would be an Obama nominee to the Supreme Court come from?  Never going to happen.  Like Obama would waste political capital and goodwill by nominating anyone to the Supreme Court that would potentially be an Anti Roe vote.

    Sunsteen also says it should not be overturned (5.00 / 2) (#76)
    by Molly Bloom on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 02:18:21 PM EST
    You are doing cartwheels trying to make this work.

    Lie to yourself if you must. But John Kerry was right. McCain is a prisoner of the right wing. Worse yet he has Stockholm Syndrome.

    McCain has made the promise to appoint more Scalia's more than once.  That check will be presented for cashing should he be elected.

    You are willing to take the chance, but then you won't have to actually pay the price.


    No. (none / 0) (#57)
    by miriam on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 02:08:31 PM EST
    The Gang of 10 in the Senate (5.00 / 3) (#54)
    by JoeA on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 02:07:16 PM EST
    and the Democrats in congress have shown such great deference for the Presidents power to pick judges for the Supreme Court,  I would not be relying on them to moderate McCain's picks.

    Then the "Choice" issue (3.00 / 7) (#68)
    by miriam on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 02:14:41 PM EST
    will have to be fought all over again.  But this time all the younger women who have genuflected before Obama can fight the battle.  God knows they deserve some consequences for dismissing and dissing Hillary Clinton and the concerns of those of us who fought the last battle.  

    Our democracy is at stake. (5.00 / 1) (#170)
    by Aqua Blue on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 03:49:57 PM EST
    Hillary and Bill convinced me that I must vote for Obama.

    I am angry, too.   Not angry enough to risk what this nation must become...a democracy.  The great experiment needs my Democratic vote.  


    So women who didn't support (4.66 / 9) (#118)
    by IndiDemGirl on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 02:43:37 PM EST
    your candidate deserve to lose power over their own bodies?  What about Gitmo -- do people there deserve to be tortured because your candidate didn't win?  Do the soldiers in Iraq deserve to stay there longer because your candidate didn't win?  

    Does the entire world deserve the consequence of a McCain/Palin presidency because Hillary didn't win the nomination?


    YESSSSSSS!!!!!! (3.67 / 3) (#157)
    by glanton on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 03:28:49 PM EST
    Her answer is YESSSSSSS to all the questions that you ask.

    Thank you for calling out the banality for what it is.

    Thank you.


    the Judiciary Committee *could* (5.00 / 2) (#117)
    by litigatormom on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 02:43:00 PM EST
    stop him, although even some liberal senators (see Feingold) will vote for "qualified" conservatives, but the Judiciary Committee can't nominate judges.  McCain will keep sending conservative picks to the senate and sooner or later they will cave.

    that's how we got Clarence Thomas.


    Well, actually we got Thomas from (5.00 / 1) (#163)
    by hairspray on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 03:39:49 PM EST
    the egregious behavior of the GOP on the senate judiciary committee and a few Democrats like Joe Biden.  His behavior toward Anita Hill was the reason I do not trust him.

    Um yeah. (5.00 / 2) (#175)
    by Valhalla on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 04:01:07 PM EST
    Biden was perfectly happy to pass Thomas onto the SCt, he was just super annoyed about all those nagging women's groups that made him do it in public, where we got to see his complicity in beating up on Anita Hill.

    I went to law school (5.00 / 1) (#180)
    by litigatormom on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 04:08:56 PM EST
    with Hill, so I was doubly appalled by what happened to her. And Biden was not at the top of my list for VP, in significant part because of that.

    But he was abetted by the other Dems on the committee. They were afraid to stand up to Bush I twice in a row.

    I'm not saying they should have confirmed Bork.  But McCain will keep sending the committee the same or worse.  Maybe Leahy will be better than Biden.  But I'd rather the Senate never have to be tested in that regard.


    And you would be supporting the Senate (none / 0) (#71)
    by domerdem on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 02:16:46 PM EST
    standing up to President McCain  in selecting Roberts/Scalia type justices, right?

    A Candidate first (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by Rashomon66 on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 02:17:26 PM EST
    What infuriates me about this current frenzy [other than the personal b.s. coming from some bloggers] is that the McCain campaign thinks that if someone questions anything about Palin it borders on a sexist issue or that everyone is picking on her. It is as if they are trying to make her into a victim because people ask questions or investigate her voting record, her views or her experience. I cannot understand how McCain would actually think the public and the media would just ignore him picking a candidate who very few people know anything about.

    ya (none / 0) (#103)
    by connecticut yankee on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 02:30:51 PM EST
    Yeah, I predict they will overreach with this line.  All it takes is a few young spokespeople throwing it in the media's face that they don't have a right to know any more and it will be on.

    Playing victim of the media and claming up has not historically been a winning move.


    For the Republicans, it has always worked (5.00 / 1) (#178)
    by Valhalla on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 04:06:21 PM EST
    It just has never worked for Democrats, until this year's primary campaign.  But it worked during the primaries only because the Democratic party went to war with itself, and because it gave them vent to their massive CDS.

    The Republicans have always played the media card well.  What were the lastest numbers out of Pew?  Aren't the media only above insurance salesmen or something on trustworthiness?  At the same time that the media was fawning all over Bush 2, he managed to harness both middle of the road folks' distrust of the media and Republican's hatred of it to his advantage.


    Who cares? (5.00 / 3) (#105)
    by lizpolaris on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 02:32:34 PM EST
    Cindy McCain isn't running for office.

    Sarah Palin is.

    Democratic President v Republican President, (5.00 / 1) (#121)
    by KeysDan on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 02:45:03 PM EST
    Row v Wade, Progressive v Regressive, hands-down, in my view, for Obama/Biden administration picks for Supreme Court Justices. Moreover, if Palin, for some reason, succeeded McCain, matters may well become even worse than with a McCain presidency.  Palin is beholden to her right-wing champions, for plucking her from obscurity and for protecting her with new-found feminism. While she may not now know of the Federalist Society, she would soon become well-acquainted with them. After all,  Governor Palin sure looks like a version of Phyllis Schlafly separated by two degrees of generation

    dont worry (5.00 / 1) (#123)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 02:47:54 PM EST
    Palin wont succeed McCain. Hillary will.

    Did not hear that (none / 0) (#140)
    by KeysDan on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 03:00:02 PM EST
    McCain replaced Palin, but then, there have been rumors along those lines.  I do like the second choice, however.

    Sarah Palin has selected an AK (5.00 / 1) (#164)
    by hairspray on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 03:41:58 PM EST
    Supreme Court Justice.  He is a straight down the middle highly recommended non ideologue.  So check it out if you really want to that is.

    AK v US Supreme Court, (none / 0) (#173)
    by KeysDan on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 03:57:36 PM EST
    yes, I am aware of the referenced appointment.  My concern, however, deals with the odds that that  was then, and  this would be now.  She may no longer be her own woman--she would have all those nasty, new in-laws to deal with, i.e. Dobson, Limbaugh, et. al.

    Of course there are other factors but (5.00 / 1) (#182)
    by hairspray on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 04:11:10 PM EST
    it is interesting that her appointments have been pretty well regarded from what I have read and if she is spewing vile snakes out of her mouth as some here claim you would think she would take her first opportunity to put in an avid pro-lifer.  My momma always told me to watch what they do and not what they say.

    Of course there are other factors but (none / 0) (#183)
    by hairspray on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 04:11:31 PM EST
    it is interesting that her appointments have been pretty well regarded from what I have read and if she is spewing vile snakes out of her mouth as some here claim you would think she would take her first opportunity to put in an avid pro-lifer.  My momma always told me to watch what they do and not what they say.

    I want to know more... (5.00 / 1) (#162)
    by Oje on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 03:37:16 PM EST
    about Palin's association with Feminists for Life. Is Palin's pro-life ideas shaped by this group or by Dobson/religious-right or Eagle Forum groups? I have a suspicion that the FfL's description on wiki was not written by a disinterested hand, but it suggests that the group supported:

    Violence Against Women Act
    Family and Medical Leave Act
    enhanced enforcement for child support

    Does/did Palin support all of these positions? I have seen references to Palin as an "Eagle Forum" stooge, but her association with this group speaks to other intellectual origins/affiliations.

    I agree with the idea that Palin was picked as a nod to Christian conservatives, but it would be a mistake if all of our oppo research simply portrayed her as our caricature ("composite view") of conservatives.

    Well, I don't know about FFL specifically (none / 0) (#197)
    by Valhalla on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 04:31:21 PM EST
    but the oppo research on Palin, authored by one of Obama's staff, reports that she supported mandatory contraception education for teens.

    There was a link floating around the internet which had a pdf of the actual research (not just the summary) but now the links all just lead to an error page.  If someone can find that link, please post it somewhere prominent.

    note: the author was not on Obama's staff at the time, she was working for Republican.

    FFL have posed one of the more difficult cases for pro-choice feminists because ideologically they are similar (we need to work for better conditions for women generally) on most points besides abortion.  Most mainstream pro-choice groups just ignore them, because they don't tick off pro-choice people and rile them up to send money the way that anti-choice groups do.


    Interesting open mike session (5.00 / 0) (#187)
    by domerdem on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 04:16:47 PM EST
    with Peggy Noonan and Mike Murphy wringing their hands over the Palin selection.

    Alaska is near Russia (3.00 / 0) (#31)
    by elonepb on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 01:42:23 PM EST
    That's another thing Cindy McCain said to support Palin's foreign experience.

    It's near Canada too. (none / 0) (#42)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 01:54:41 PM EST
    Oh yeah, so is Illinois.

    FYI...Governors of (5.00 / 2) (#59)
    by oldpro on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 02:09:37 PM EST
    trade-dependent states do, in fact, deal with foreign countries and make agreements with them about all kinds of things.

    In my state, Washington, the governor deals with Canada re fishing, hardwoods and lumber, produce and lord knows what else.  She deals with China, Japan and France where we have trade offices and missions from the state.

    The Alaska governor, too, no doubt deals with Canada - and perhaps, Russia - re gas/oil pipelines, fishing, trade issues and agreements re exports and imports.

    There may be governors who do not do this but these two are not among them.


    Fair point. (none / 0) (#69)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 02:15:44 PM EST
    Hey, I've been meaning to ask you. What do you think of the LPGA requiring it's players to speak English?

    Whaaa? (none / 0) (#194)
    by oldpro on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 04:28:10 PM EST
    You're kidding, right?

    Not at all. (none / 0) (#198)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 04:36:11 PM EST
    I brought it up last week or something on a open thread specifically looking for your input, as I thought I read you say in the past that you are a woman and used to be a pro golfer.

    There was a small but interesting conversation on that topic in that open thread.

    From your response, it sounds like you took my Canada comment way too seriously and/or my memory about your background is faulty.

    If so, never mind...


    Um, there's a whole state in between (5.00 / 1) (#188)
    by Valhalla on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 04:17:30 PM EST
    there.  And not a small one.

    Dam those pesky facts... (none / 0) (#195)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 04:28:39 PM EST
    But apparently (none / 0) (#48)
    by JAB on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 02:01:58 PM EST
    Illinois doesn't border Kentucky!

    Sorry, (none / 0) (#56)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 02:07:41 PM EST
    I thought we were talking about foreign [policy] experience.

    I misread your comment.

    Genius if Picking Palin Part XX (2.00 / 0) (#203)
    by Exeter on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 05:13:51 PM EST
    It makes McCain look like more of a moderate, by laundry listing all of mainstream issues where McCain is closer to the political center.

    ha (none / 0) (#32)
    by connecticut yankee on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 01:42:35 PM EST
    They have the opportunity to clear the court of liberals with his next administration or two.  You think RvW isnt in the sights?   There comes a point where if they have the shot, they have to pull the trigger or the right wing will flip.

    As McCain has just shown, the right-wing does matter to him and he will do whatever is required to keep them voting McCain.  

    So, (none / 0) (#129)
    by JAB on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 02:51:22 PM EST
    Did you know that the story about Palin slashing funding for teen moms in the WaPo was not complete? (shocking, I know).

    The $3.9 million grant request was for an expanded facility for an organization called Covenant House, which is a Catholic charity and according to their IRS 990 Link, the funds described as "slashed" was actually taken from a threefold increase from the government funds they received from all sources in 2006. According to Covenant House's own website Link, "Approximately 90% of our funding comes from the generous donations of friends like you".  Accordingly, they were only supposed to get $155,000 in 2007, according to state documents. Link

    What about the $5 million?? (none / 0) (#143)
    by Fayed X on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 03:06:34 PM EST
    If that was an increase then what happened to the #5 million.  There seems to be a shell game being played with the money and it smells.

    It is good that they do not agree in lockstep (none / 0) (#155)
    by Saul on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 03:28:05 PM EST
    on everything.  I think that is good.

    It is a diffreence without a distinction. (none / 0) (#179)
    by inclusiveheart on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 04:08:25 PM EST
    Particularly in cases of incest, outlawing abortions that do not require proof or reason for the procedure would end up discouraging some portion of young women from seeking them.  More inbred babies will be born as a result and further imprison girls in their private family hell.  It just won't be good.  At all.

    No one's making that argument (none / 0) (#201)
    by Valhalla on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 04:43:40 PM EST
    except folks in the Strawman Factory. (where I wish I worked, because there's got to be a lot of overtime $ these days).

    It's a personal aspect of Palin's bio that will likely have some emotional appeal.  Just like all the personal aspects of Obama's (or any major political candidate's) history that is put out there for its emotional appeal.  Like the barely nonfictional fact that he was raised by a single mother on food stamps.  Is he arguing that qualifies him to be President?