Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For all the people criticizing Palin, would you vote for McCain instead of Obama if McCain had picked another VP choice? It's seems the people criticizing her were voting for Obama anyway.

I just don't want asinine small-minded people who've never set foot outside the states making policy decisions that affect 300+ million people in the US and billions outside of it. Alaskans are very removed from the rest of the country not just in geography, but in mentality and reality. They refer to to rest of the US as "the lower 48" as if it were another country, somewhere far, far away. Intelligent Design policy decisions on a national scale, good God. How does she promote women's issues with a pro-life stance? Not to mention, a heartbeat away from the Presidency with an under educated blue collar husband in the White House greeting ambassadors and other diplomats?

Anonymous wrote:I don't think people are skeptical about her ability to be VP because she is a mother to young kids. No. She has minimal experience. She was mayor of a small town which covers 12.4 sq. miles and she has been mayor for 2 years of Alaska, with a population of 600K inhabitants. I'd say Adrian Fenty has more experience to be VP than she does.
Picking her was an act of desperation. They were looking for people of color or a woman to attract the disaffected voters from the democratic party and the rest of the country because the race is that close. Bobby Jindal, governor of Lousiana, was waaay too young. If he were a few years older with a couple years more experience, I'm sure he would have made the cut. As a woman of color, I love that they are considering women and people of color, but if their candidate lacks experience and screws up, it gives a really bad image for future qualified candidates of color.

Anonymous wrote:
ITA!!!! I'm also a minority woman (not super liberal) and I'm offended by this choice. Obama was chosen despite being black. Meaning he had to prove he could get white votes. Pallin was chosen because she's a woman. Meaning they assume she can get white female votes.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For all the people criticizing Palin, would you vote for McCain instead of Obama if McCain had picked another VP choice? It's seems the people criticizing her were voting for Obama anyway.

I just don't want asinine small-minded people who've never set foot outside the states making policy decisions that affect 300+ million people in the US and billions outside of it. Alaskans are very removed from the rest of the country not just in geography, but in mentality and reality. They refer to to rest of the US as "the lower 48" as if it were another country, somewhere far, far away. Intelligent Design policy decisions on a national scale, good God. How does she promote women's issues with a pro-life stance? Not to mention, a heartbeat away from the Presidency with an under educated blue collar husband in the White House greeting ambassadors and other diplomats?

I'll take this as a no - you were not planning on voting for McCain regardless of VP pick.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Actually, you've got it backwards. It will constrain McCain from making the inexperience argument against Obama... which has been his only semi-effective attack on him thus far. I'm shocked that McCain just rebutted his own argument!

But Obama is running for president, while Palin is running for vice president. McCain's experience is at the top of the ticket; Biden's is at the bottom. Yes, McCain undercuts his argument, but Obama undercut his change argument by choosing Biden. So that's a wash. And the McCain campaign is already pointing out that Palin first ran for office in 1992. The Atlantic's Ross Douthat notes that, ". . . it's also quite possible that any conversation that ends up happening about whether Sarah Palin is ready to be Vice President after ten years in local government and two years in statewide office can only end up hurting the Obama campaign - by raising, indirectly, the Democratic ticket's biggest liability." Obama's going to hammer it, for sure, but in the meantime you have a very articulate and personable woman telling voters "I just put down the BlackBerry and pick up the breast pump." I think a lot of women are going to relate to her.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Actually, you've got it backwards. It will constrain McCain from making the inexperience argument against Obama... which has been his only semi-effective attack on him thus far. I'm shocked that McCain just rebutted his own argument!

But Obama is running for president, while Palin is running for vice president. McCain's experience is at the top of the ticket; Biden's is at the bottom. Yes, McCain undercuts his argument, but Obama undercut his change argument by choosing Biden. So that's a wash. And the McCain campaign is already pointing out that Palin first ran for office in 1992. The Atlantic's Ross Douthat notes that, ". . . it's also quite possible that any conversation that ends up happening about whether Sarah Palin is ready to be Vice President after ten years in local government and two years in statewide office can only end up hurting the Obama campaign - by raising, indirectly, the Democratic ticket's biggest liability." Obama's going to hammer it, for sure, but in the meantime you have a very articulate and personable woman telling voters "I just put down the BlackBerry and pick up the breast pump." I think a lot of women are going to relate to her.

We'll have to see how this plays out, but I think McCain did much more to undercut his "inexperienced" attack than Obama did to undercut his change message (and the difference between attack vs message is why I think McCain did himself more damage). But there's no way to know, yet, which effect will be stronger -- but I doubt seriously it will be a wash.

Here's the other problem -- McCain has repeatedly said his criteria for his choice for VP would be to find somebody who could step into the Commander in Chief position at a moment's notice. So, sure, Palin is the VP on the ticket... but she doesn't even meet McCain's criteria for running for Vice President.

A lot of women may relate to her, but I think most of them will not identify with her views. Remember, a majority of women support choice in general, and a larger majority still supports abortion rights for women who are the victims of rape or incest. Sarah Palin does not.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Actually, you've got it backwards. It will constrain McCain from making the inexperience argument against Obama... which has been his only semi-effective attack on him thus far. I'm shocked that McCain just rebutted his own argument!

But Obama is running for president, while Palin is running for vice president. McCain's experience is at the top of the ticket; Biden's is at the bottom. Yes, McCain undercuts his argument, but Obama undercut his change argument by choosing Biden. So that's a wash. And the McCain campaign is already pointing out that Palin first ran for office in 1992. The Atlantic's Ross Douthat notes that, ". . . it's also quite possible that any conversation that ends up happening about whether Sarah Palin is ready to be Vice President after ten years in local government and two years in statewide office can only end up hurting the Obama campaign - by raising, indirectly, the Democratic ticket's biggest liability." Obama's going to hammer it, for sure, but in the meantime you have a very articulate and personable woman telling voters "I just put down the BlackBerry and pick up the breast pump." I think a lot of women are going to relate to her.

We'll have to see how this plays out, but I think McCain did much more to undercut his "inexperienced" attack than Obama did to undercut his change message (and the difference between attack vs message is why I think McCain did himself more damage). But there's no way to know, yet, which effect will be stronger -- but I doubt seriously it will be a wash.

Here's the other problem -- McCain has repeatedly said his criteria for his choice for VP would be to find somebody who could step into the Commander in Chief position at a moment's notice. So, sure, Palin is the VP on the ticket... but she doesn't even meet McCain's criteria for running for Vice President.

A lot of women may relate to her, but I think most of them will not identify with her views. Remember, a majority of women support choice in general, and a larger majority still supports abortion rights for women who are the victims of rape or incest. Sarah Palin does not.

Good points all. Just remember that the vice president has zilch to do with abortion policy, and that many women, Democratic or not, don't vote solely on the basis of choice. I suspect increasing numbers of us are uncomfortable with the Democratic Party's hard line on abortion, given the availability of so many post-coital contraceptives. I have always resented Democratic attempts to frighten women into voting on the single issue of abortion and, frankly, I think that's part of what has lost so many elections for us. Yes, a majority of women support the right to an abortion. But they also support some limitations on it. Still, good points, PP.

Heck, I'm not going to vote for McCain. But I can still think Palin's a gutsy choice.

Anonymous wrote:

Good points all. Just remember that the vice president has zilch to do with abortion policy, and that many women, Democratic or not, don't vote solely on the basis of choice.

Finally, since you mentioned post-coital contraception you should know that the current Administration is pushing a change to HHS funding regulations that would allow healthcare providers -- which includes everything from ob/gyns to pharmacists -- to define contraception as abortion and refuse to provide contraception if it is against their conscience, meaning that post-coital contraception is potentially about to become much less of an option for a lot of people. Given that Palin appears to even be further to the right than the Bush Administration, there's nothing that should make us believe that she would temper this belief in a McCain/Palin administration.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I posted earlier and thought of another reason why I'm not entirely thrilled with the pick.

Putting on my flame suit as I know I will get scorched

I prefer my leaders to be a little bit more sophisticated. Not in the hunting and fishing sense, but academically. I see her education is a BS from the University of Idaho. I don't know - doesn't seem that impressive to me. Will she be able to hold her own against the heavyweights? Is she potentially too much of a lightweight intellectually?

Her resume seems like one of an everyday American. Which is all swell and good, but I don't know if I want an everyday, average American helping to run this country! I want someone who is intellectually above average, sophisticated in those types of dealings.

And yes - I consider myself an everyday, average Amercian. I wouldn't want me running this country.

Amen. Now, what kind of image is Sarah Palin going to project during diplomatic missions? She can carry a conversation about huntin' moose and rats, but YES, this time around, I want some sophisticated leaders, too!

Anonymous wrote:McCain is against drilling in ANWAR. He got his excuse to move forward by having Sara Palin as his running mate! Makes me want to VOMIT. Just what I've always DREAMED for my child-having to clean up a fucked up environment. Sorry for the language-the word ANWAR makes my blood boil.

Drilling in ANWAR isn't CHANGE-it's the SAME. Obama/Biden will offer CHANGE through alternative fuels. That is change!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Since public officials are fair game... can we talk a bit about their choice in names for their kids:

Track
Trig
Willow
Bristol
Piper

Thoughts? I for one think it sounds a bit foolish.... Just my humble opinion.

Thank you!! I seriously question the judgment of someone that would choose these names for their children. Shows a lack of common sense, IMO.