So...did anyone soften their opinion on Palin after her speech?

[Anonymous]

The speech may have done its job - well written, well delivered but....

I would have liked some content.

I generally don't like people who are proud of the character traits they share with pit bulls.

And, I have no doubt she can make a decision - so can "THE DECIDER." I was not in the least convinced she could make an INFORMED one (again, think about our beloved decider....)

[Anonymous]

I am sitting here listening to Lindsay Graham at the Republican Convention. His delivery is aweful. I am a flaming liberal, but let's be honest, Palin delivered a great speech. She is far better than most of the politicians whom have been around for decades (and don't have the pressure she was under last night)! I agree, she didn't have much substance, but we do need to applaud her.

[Anonymous]

Also, it's worth notinng that no matter how terrific or not she may be as a parent or Governor, she voted to reduce funding for a program aimed at helping teen moms get on their feet.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/09...ding_to_help.html?hpid=artslot

This thread has run its course but I thought I'd point out that this story in the Post is totally misleading. While Gov Palin did do a line item veto for that one line, the budget as she signed it actually tripled the funding for Covenant House over 2007 levels. So why didn't the Washington Post see fit to publish the whole story? How can we trust them to be impartial? Sounds to me like the news media could use their own fact checker!


"Contrary to a report from the Washington Post, Alaska Governor, Sarah Palin, did not slash funding for a program for teen mothers.

The Washington Post’s Paul Kane reported late yesterday that “Palin Slashed Funding for Teen Moms.” To support this contention Kane pointed out that “Palin reduced funding for Covenant House Alaska by more than 20 percent, cutting funds from $5 million to $3.9 million.”

Covenant House Alaska is a faith-based, not-for-profit agency which provides a variety of services to troubled teens, including a home for teen moms. Although the work with adolescent mothers is only one component of their work, Kane focused on this aspect of their work due to the revelation that Governor Palin’s teen daughter is 5 months pregnant.

In Alaska, the governor is allowed to reduce spending allocations in the service of sound management and fiscal accountability. To prove his contention that Palin slashed funds for teen mothers, Kane produced the Alaska 2008 budget with Sarah Palin’s line by line adjustments. It is true that lawmakers allocated 5 million to Covenant House Alaska and that Mrs. Palin cut that allocation to 3.9 million dollars. However, what is misleading about the Post headline is that the allocation of 3.9 million is three times more than Covenant House Alaska received from government grants in 2007. According to records on the Covenant House Alaska website, the organization received just over 1.3 million dollars from grants in 2007 and nearly 1.2 million in 2006. Even with the reductions, Governor Palin signed a budget which provided three times more funds than the organization received in 2007.

Thus, the Post report is misleading on two counts. One, the funding in question went to an organization which engaged in many different services, including work with teen mothers. There was no funding exclusively earmarked for pregnant teens.

Two, the report leaves the impression that the Governor reduced existing funding levels, when in fact, the Palin-approved budget allowed a massive expansion of funding for this worthy faith-based organization. The organization’s total revenue for 2007 was just over 3 million dollars and so the 3.9 million approved by Palin and the Alaska legislature was a huge increase.

Viewed within the context of prior expenditures, it becomes clear that Governor Palin increased funding for social services which benefit kids, not “slashed” them as the Post reported. However, it also appears clear that she is not afraid to exercise some measure of fiscal discipline, even when the reduction targets those of similar ideology. "

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:This is where I totally disagree. Yes, she galvanized the base. But I think she pushed crossover women toward Obama. I'm not sure how it will play with blue collar men, but I don't think she will be the deciding factor. I also think that you are over emphasizing the "woman on the ticket" aspect. If there is one issue that is particularly tied to the "coastal elites", its feminism, or as they call it out there "women's lib". To the extent that Palin is seen simply as a "woman" candidate, I think it hurts her.

Me again. I hope you're right. I grew up in the south, went to college there but both my grad schools are here, and I live in a conservative part of California half time. Having gone to a college with a religious affiliation, and keeping up with my friends from TX who now work in the Bush Administration, I see it a little bit differently. I know a lot of women from that sort of background who don't specifically identify as feminists because they associate that term with abortion rights. But they are feminists in the sense that they choose, at different times, to work or to stay home, and they believe strongly in the right of women to do both. They really identify with Palin, they like her, and while many of them have trended Democratic in the past few elections, she is pulling them in. You're right, they don't see themselves as being into "women's lib," but that's not how they see Palin. They see her doing what they do, but on a bigger scale, and they admire it. Who knows, really. Just my take.

NYT is reporting that Obama is mobilizing HRC and a "rapid response" team of women surrogates, of whom HRC has the highest profile, to be dispatched to different battleground states to try to neutralize Palin. So Obama seems to be taking her seriously, which is good.

[Anonymous]

Just heard this amazing quote from the film bio of Sarah Palin at the Republican Convention:

"When Alaska's maverick joined America's maverick, the world shook, the world trembled and the world will soon be a better place."

In my neighborhood, the world is giggling!

Puh-lease, the world shook?!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was brought to tears. As an HRC supporter, I really have been missing having a woman on the national stage. I guess I was spoiled by a woman finally having relevance and power during a presidential election. I also think it is wonderful that the socially conservative republican party is willing to embrace this working mom, and that the proven sexist pundit class may have some egg on their face for bashing her so fully.

This is so unbelievably self-indulgent. You know what really brings me to tears? Women who can't get past themselves and their navel-gazing enough to realize that there are people out there REALLY suffering--every day--and not because they miss seeing a woman on the national stage. Yeah, it would be nice. I'm a feminist, too. But THIS woman at THIS time in history? Is she RIGHT for the country? Is she ready to meet all the challenges that could come her way?

I fail to see how it advances our sex when the first women the Republicans pick for a national ticket is grossly less qualified than many women in their party? Why not THOSE women? I'm no fan of Christie Whitman, or Kay Bailey Hutchison, or Olympia Snowe, but good Chr*st, at least I could believe they were picked because they were qualified.

I am new to this whole thread- but I did read this and just think- let's not put the bar tons higher for a woman versus man- so- she should be PERFECT (in each of ours definition) to be the first woman vp- no one will ever meet that criteria- not even the hillary supporters- there are still the hillary haters- every male candidate has their weaknesses- let's just not make it that the person should be THE best since clearly NO president or vp in history has ever a perfect example.

[Anonymous]

I am hearing so much excitement about her from my female undecided friends. These include women who trend conservative but were lacking enthusiasm for McCain and also women who were interested in McCain and disagree with Palin socially but love seeing a strong woman on the ticket as a complement to McCain in a #2 spot.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Just heard this amazing quote from the film bio of Sarah Palin at the Republican Convention:

"When Alaska's maverick joined America's maverick, the world shook, the world trembled and the world will soon be a better place."

In my neighborhood, the world is giggling!

Puh-lease, the world shook?!

We'll see who gets the last laugh.

[Anonymous]

Well, hey. I'm the one that posted the Post link. Touche and mea culpa. Interesting.

...I am now perusing the Alaska state budget.


Thanks....thanks a lot.

[Anonymous]

No, I did not soften my opinion of her at all after the speech last night. If anything, I went from thinking that she was vastly unqualified to thinking that she is vastly unqualified and downright mean. I'm floored that so many people were impressed with that speech -- why, just because she didn't stutter? Delivery isn't everything, and her content was deplorable. As Jeffrey Toobin said, it was smug, sarcastic, and cutting, not to mention dishonest.

Now, in addition to just disagreeing with McCain and Palin on policies, I find their tactics absolutely repellent as well. Before, I disagreed with McCain but was willing to give him every benefit of the doubt that he was at least better than Bush, Cheney, Rove et al. -- now I'm not so sure. And frankly, if I were a Republican, I'd be so offended that the party powers-that-be (and McCain and Palin) believe that my fellow Americans and I are so gullible.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Also, it's worth notinng that no matter how terrific or not she may be as a parent or Governor, she voted to reduce funding for a program aimed at helping teen moms get on their feet.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/09...ding_to_help.html?hpid=artslot

This thread has run its course but I thought I'd point out that this story in the Post is totally misleading. While Gov Palin did do a line item veto for that one line, the budget as she signed it actually tripled the funding for Covenant House over 2007 levels. So why didn't the Washington Post see fit to publish the whole story? How can we trust them to be impartial? Sounds to me like the news media could use their own fact checker!


"Contrary to a report from the Washington Post, Alaska Governor, Sarah Palin, did not slash funding for a program for teen mothers.

The Washington Post’s Paul Kane reported late yesterday that “Palin Slashed Funding for Teen Moms.” To support this contention Kane pointed out that “Palin reduced funding for Covenant House Alaska by more than 20 percent, cutting funds from $5 million to $3.9 million.”

Covenant House Alaska is a faith-based, not-for-profit agency which provides a variety of services to troubled teens, including a home for teen moms. Although the work with adolescent mothers is only one component of their work, Kane focused on this aspect of their work due to the revelation that Governor Palin’s teen daughter is 5 months pregnant.

In Alaska, the governor is allowed to reduce spending allocations in the service of sound management and fiscal accountability. To prove his contention that Palin slashed funds for teen mothers, Kane produced the Alaska 2008 budget with Sarah Palin’s line by line adjustments. It is true that lawmakers allocated 5 million to Covenant House Alaska and that Mrs. Palin cut that allocation to 3.9 million dollars. However, what is misleading about the Post headline is that the allocation of 3.9 million is three times more than Covenant House Alaska received from government grants in 2007. According to records on the Covenant House Alaska website, the organization received just over 1.3 million dollars from grants in 2007 and nearly 1.2 million in 2006. Even with the reductions, Governor Palin signed a budget which provided three times more funds than the organization received in 2007.

Thus, the Post report is misleading on two counts. One, the funding in question went to an organization which engaged in many different services, including work with teen mothers. There was no funding exclusively earmarked for pregnant teens.

Two, the report leaves the impression that the Governor reduced existing funding levels, when in fact, the Palin-approved budget allowed a massive expansion of funding for this worthy faith-based organization. The organization’s total revenue for 2007 was just over 3 million dollars and so the 3.9 million approved by Palin and the Alaska legislature was a huge increase.

Viewed within the context of prior expenditures, it becomes clear that Governor Palin increased funding for social services which benefit kids, not “slashed” them as the Post reported. However, it also appears clear that she is not afraid to exercise some measure of fiscal discipline, even when the reduction targets those of similar ideology. "

This is the spin zone! What do you think you are doing posting the facts? huh?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I like Jane Smiley's novels and stories very much (though she lost me with Ten Days in the Hills), but she never does well when she veers into political commentary. She's well to the left of almost anyone I can think of, except perhaps Barbara Ehrenreich. And given her own history with marriage and parenting, it's more than a little hypocritical of her to not opine on the "chaos" of Palin's life.

I don't see why Smiley's lefty views and complicated personal life should keep her from opining. In fact, that complicated personal life is one reason she writes insightfully about complex human relations, but does not run for vice president.

[Anonymous]

I was pleasantly surprised on how strong she came off and how eloquent she was- I do believe that these perceptions are in the eye of the beholder (in this case, meaning- depending on your overall political stance- i am republican)... I cannot stand Hillary but for many reasons aside from political stance- to me she was a weak person trying to ride her cheating husband's coat. I could not get over her blind ambition and living such a facade. I do cringe on what some republicans say so i'm not completely blind to all of this- but her speech was refreshing since I was unsure if she'd be a strong person..

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:
NYT is reporting that Obama is mobilizing HRC and a "rapid response" team of women surrogates, of whom HRC has the highest profile, to be dispatched to different battleground states to try to neutralize Palin. So Obama seems to be taking her seriously, which is good.

I sincerely hope that Obama showed up hat in hand to very humbly request her support. I equally sincerely hope that Hillary extracted a suitable quid pro quo. Hillary's stock has certainly risen.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:While I still don't think she's qualified for the job or agree with her on the fundamental issues - I must admit that seeing her tonight did give me a bit of a different perspective. I thought she was very charismatic, came across as smart, yet down to earth - and also looked great, which never hurts. I was also somehow touched by seeing her little son (and the rest of her family) up close and personal for the first time. Ultimately, her being on stage holding that little baby (even if only briefly...) having just given a speech accepting the nomination for VP of our country did, as a woman and a mother, connect with me on some level.
That all said, she'll still never get my vote for the reasons initially stated.

I was reserving judgement over the weekend, but I will be voting for her.