Discussion: What Do You Think of McCain's Choice of Palin As His Running Mate

First I was disappointed because it seems McCain chose her based on gender, and that's sexist.

Now I'm disappointed by people's reactions.

This sucks. Only an hour in and so far she's corrupt, a bad mother, irresponsible for having a child with Down's Syndrome, etc.

People are attacking Palin for McCain's choice.

Just wait until they start in on her pantsuits, hairstyles, and botox injections. Or maybe a poll on whether she should change the style of her eyeglass frames.
It will happen by mid-afternoon...

I'll happily forgo that for some simple questions:

your right. especially about her glasses.

I'll keep an open mind - i just find it interesting that they're broadcasting reasons to dislike her before she's even officially announced.

And if you are surprised by this you haven't been paying attention.

borrow away

Because she is the worse pick ever? Why is it everyone can't say blue is blue. Why do we have to let people say well I think it might be green.

Meg Whitman would of been a better pick, at least she ran one of the largest companies for 10 years. You can't do an attack on someones experience and then say "The next best person for this job after me is someone that has less experience then Obama." The VP is by all standards the second best person to run the country.

This might be the worse VP pick ever. I mean seriously what does she bring to the ticket? Does the GOP really think this is the best person to have as President next to McCain?

If a doubleX chromosome was required, would have preferred Meg or Carly Fionna. Neither of them would probably be for teaching creationism in schools (gulp, I hope).

I am not a Republican fan but I will say those two women on the ticket the idea of it scared me. I think they would of done well, even with little experience in government they have insight that no politician could. I think if he was going to pick a women he took the wrong one big time.

Why did you say welcome aboard when I see now you disagree with me?

Because you said you can't have people in Government that do negative attacks there is no way you can ever vote for McCain, let alone 90% of the Republicans, or Democrats I have to be fair here. But you can vote for Barak Obama, who has been trying to keep the high road this whole election. So Welcome aboard, good to have ya along.

That was to your post in another section not this one up here.

I heard a wicked remark by a pundit that's just brutal:
"Hillary has been replaced by another woman...AGAIN."
Man, it doesn't get any truthier than that...

Kear 1221,

First I was disappointed because it seems McCain chose her based on gender, and that's sexist.

It would not be only sexist, but condescending and disrespectful to women if, in fact, McCain chose Palin for the reason stated in your quote. It would be less believable if pundits did not suggest he did for this reason and if he wasn't trying so adamantly to win over a portion of Hillary Clinton's 18 million supporters, especially Hispanic votes. McCain and surrogates/supporters went as far as instigating the notion that Obama and Obamanites snubbed HRC and supporters when Obama did not vet HRC for the VP slot. Obama and Hillary is not a good marriage and had he chosen her for VP, it would be for the same reasons supposedly McCain chose Palin--to win women votes.

Now I'm disappointed by people's reactions.

People have a right to react and offer their viewpoints, regardless of who agree or disagree with them. Though we may agree on some things, we will never synonymously agree on all things. We are individualist and, quite naturally, our thoughts and reactions are diverse.

This sucks. Only an hour in and so far she's corrupt, a bad mother, irresponsible for having a child with Down's Syndrome, etc.

I don't believe anyone commented on Palin being irresponsible for having a child with Down syndrome, because Palin, and any other parent who has a child born with this disability, does not have any control over it. So, to assume she is responsible is an ill-informed notion or judgment. I believe some comments asserted that she was irresponsible for having a Down syndrome child and not spending adequate time to nurture her. But it is a known fact that some children born with Down syndrome, and other disabilities, live productive lives and parents still nurture them during childhood. Albeit I support Barack Obama, it would be unfair for me to suggest Palin is an unfit mother, because she chose to work and not stay home care for her child 24/7. If the notion is true of Palin, then it is true of many men and women in the professional world, including my parents.

People are attacking Palin for McCain's choice.

People are attacking Obama for his VP choice and Biden for Obama choosing him. The bottom line is supporters on both sides are going to find reasons to attack opponents, even if reasons are unfounded and do not make any logical sense what so ever or arguments are invalid. That's usually the case when people don't like others for whatever reasons, and are trying to convince people to feel as they do. It's termed human behavior. Therefore, don't be disappointed in what is already expected of us.

Thanks Scoop!

AnnForTruth - I agree with mostly everything you said. However, I guess it wasn't on this post, someone did have the audacity to claim Palin was irresponsible for attempting to get pregnant at her age because of the increased risk of Down's Syndrome - and someone else even said she was irresponsible for following through with the pregnancy after finding out. To me, that is astrounding and far surpasses any "right to opinion" expected following the VP announcement.

I, too, do not support McCain and Palin, but I also don't support the ways in which non-supporters try to tear down the other side's candidates. Either we have logical, reasonable, and relative reasons for our choice in candidate, or we rely on slander to make our point. This goes for Democrats and Republicans alike.

I have to say that Obama's reaction to Palin's daughter's pregnancy re-affirms my respect for Senator Obama.

Kear1221, thank you.

Scoop- I think you mean her son's Downs Syndrome, but point taken.

Me too, Scoop, it's disturbing and shameful. I know great people who have Down's syndrome and hope they don't happen to read anything these people have said about Palin and her son. Since they are from Alaska, though, they probably will.

Alaska is actually very progressive in regards to individuals who experience developmental disabilities. It was very hard for me to see how so-called liberal states "handled" people with developmental disabilities after acclimation to Alaska's progressive understanding. I hope that if Palin spends some time outside of Alaska and in mainland America she will note the need for reforms.

Sidenote: I've been to Wasilla; I spent a week there last summer. Absolutely gorgeous area, absolutely unlike any other American "town" I've been. Just a different vibe, a different place altogether, and I've lived in some fairly rural areas before. I'm astounded at the amount of money she raised for the area, that's...tenacity, or something. I don't know. It's unreal that she's running for VP, and I don't mean that in a bad way, to say she's not experienced, etc. It's just unreal. I have no other way to explain it. There's no other political jump of such magnitude I can think of.

Does it bother any Palin supporters that she was involved in the party that wishes to secede from the Union? I hear a lot of anti-American rhetoric about people Obama knows, but this women didn't want the state she represents to be included in the United States of America. How do you justify how that's anything but anti-American?

I don't think many people who haven't spent time in Alaska, especially rural areas like Wasilla, understand how different a way of life it is. How disconnected it truly is from mainland America, and what a different social environment Palin was in charge of up there. I'm not trying to dissuade people from liking Palin, she seems to have done well for Alaskans, but it is something to seriously think about and decide on.

Kear

To correct you, last night NY Times corrected their story, Sarah never was a member of the independent party. Their source was wrong who was the chairman of the Independent party, it is turning out it is her husband Todd that was a member. I am not a fan of her, but I will try to stop any bad rumor no matter who it is against if I can.

Also a ll that money for Wassilla was federal money. She loved the earmarks and still does, when she said she was the pick for VP she said "And I will do what I can to help the people of Alaska." There is a big separation that it is obvious she only cares about that one state.

Daniel-

Thanks so much for correcting me! And I apologize for sending out false information. I've gotten lazy about checking my sources, I'll have to take the time out before I post.

I don't like Palin's stance on a lot of issues and I do not feel comfortable with her becoming President if something happened to McCain, but I do like some of the things she has done, like make all state money spent available to view online.

That in no way means I'll vote McCain, but I like to be as fair as possible to all candidates, because no one is all one thing or all another. I've only begun to strongly dislike McCain as the campaign has worn on.

But, trying to be diplomatic, I could never withstand the pressure and public scrutiny that comes with a campaign. I could never handle being surrounded by the people McCain is surrounded by. It would take a toll on me to have my former marriage, regardless of how long it's been or how devoted I've been to my new partner, be criticized and used against me to judge my leadership abilities. I'd falter under the constant mentions of my POW experience, especially if I felt the need to talk about it all the time. It would hurt me to hear the crass worlds of strangers toward my partner and to falter under the shadow of another person- especially if that man was George W. Bush.

It would hurt me to read people's comments about my baby, or my teenage daughter, my wife, my friend, or my sister's marriage.

I couldn't be a politician because I don't see how a governmental job mandates the public scruntinization of a private life.

How many good politicians, people good at their job who can make a difference, never succeed because they aren't willing to play the media game and undergo the ridiculousness of the pedestals we place our politicians on?

It's disappointing not only because of the media but because of us civilians who blindly, and gladly, follow the slanderous path we're led down.

I count myself among those I criticize, as exemplified by how I further propogated a rumor as if it were fact.

Kear,

I understand what your saying. I will say this though, those attacks have been worse from one side that I have seen. I mean just straight up lying, like last night for instance.

Let's take Fred Thompson's speech, he lied about John McCain's POW experience twice. That just completely blew my mind it is a wonderful story no one can fault John for what he went through so why lie about it. The first was saying John didn't ask for medical help when they told him if he gave them info they would Fred said John replayed no. That isn't the fact at all, he said yes but then lied to them and didn't give them info. It is just amazing what they will do.

Another note was on MSNBC some Republican family was saying Obama didn't vote for the right to life act I think it was called. It was an act in Il, that said if a baby is aborted and is alive from medical reasons at that moment you treat it as a baby and try to save it. Of course this would be damming but luckily Keith Olberman jumped in to say, everyone at IL voted against it because IL already had laws that covered such a case so it would of been a double law. Again the lady would of known that but lied to make Obama look completely heartless.

Those are the attacks that upset me more then someone questioning something that is fact.

You also last night had Bill O'Rielly who was saying everyone shouldn't talk about Palin's Daughter being pregnant because it wouldn't be a tax payer burden. But I found an article where he attacked Jamie Lynn Spears mom saying she can't control her kid and it is completely the mothers fault.

To me I don't like personal attacks as in name calling and lies. If a family issue has merit to talk about though it should be but in a respectful way.

Oh to point out to be fair the budget online, Alaska would of been late on that bus almost all states do that. One thing people forget about Governor's is their main job is to sign bills not come up with them.

To me I just want fair to be fair. If they attack some kid for being pregnant then yes very much if one of theirs ends up that way they deserve those same attacks. At least they deserve to be pointed out that they attack that way all the time. That is what I see more of then the attacking of the same, it is pointing out their lies their hypocrisy for what it is.

I absolutely, positively, 100% agree with you. Very well-stated.

Daniel Sage,
I just wonder if you were in Viet Nam with John McCain to know what he said and did?

McCain knocked this one out of the park!!!

More than just a political stroke of genuis its an awesome historical choice

Talk about a qualified experienced executive and a real life person!

This women has got it all. An athelete, a former beauty queen, a former sportscaster, a mayor, a governor, married to a native born Indian aleutian, who works with his hands as an oil field worker, 4 kids one going to Iraq, another she knew would be born with downs syndrome she had the child anyway....WOW!!!!

Shes fighting corruption in her state in both parties, she's knowledgeable regarding the Russian border her state is on and to top it all off...she just recently won an oil pipeline bid despite the politics against it...shall I go on?

I'm completely stoked!!!

Enough with this Vogue, People Magazine, beautiful people nonsense! Lets get some work done

Good solid pick that's worn better on me the more I think about it. Reinforces McCain's "maverick" status. Her reformer credentials are far superior to either Obama's or Biden's. Given the fact that the vp choice is almost never really determinative except perhaps for LBJ giving TX to the Kennedys this was a good choice. Romney would have been far too prone to being demagogued by the Democrats although he too would have been a good choice.

I like her about as well as I like Biden. There are different things to dislike about each. With her, the drill Alaska thing is a big negative point for me, but being from Alaska, her state would stand to make some $$$ from it, so you could rationalize that it favors her constituents.

One thing to like is that she didn't have a chance to vote to authorize the war in Iraq. Maybe Obama should have picked her and given Biden to McCain. I like that she seems self-made, from a modest background, yet has achieved much at a young age. But you can say the same for Biden on that count.

She also ran a couple of businesses, so she has at least some concept of how private industry works. It's funny as hell how audacious Obama picks the 'safest' most establishment VP and j. McSame picks straight out of left - or is it right - field.

Good solid pick that's worn better on me the more I think about it. Reinforces McCain's "maverick" status.

Oh Bull$h*t,

it reinforces the fact that McCain is cynical beyond belief and will do anything to win, including insulting 51% of the population and assuring that anytime any woman earns anything for another generation, she's suspect of being favored because of her gender. Including leaving Ms Congeniality in charge of the country if he dies. Do you honestly believe that there's any way that McCain thinks "if I'm not president, I think she should be...?"

While it's nice that she wants to keep gays opressed and wants to choose what medical procedures other women can and can't have,
The meat of why she was picked is clearly her gender and that's just plain sad.

She maybe was a rising star in the GOP based on her merits, but that's all taken from her now, those things are now afterthought. What has been placed first and foremost is her gender.

McCain, in trying to appeal to women, has set women back at least a couple of decades.

Scott

The truth is, aside from all the half-baked posturing you're seeing on all of these similar threads, we really don't know what this choice will turn out to be until we see her out on the trail. On the face of it it's a very good pick. Gov. Palin ran against an entrenched and corrupt GOP Alaskan machine (who spread a lot of taxpayer money around AK) and dethroned an incumbent governor who was part of that crowd in Frank Murkowski in a primary test. It reinforces McCain's reputation as a "maverick" and gives him a lot of daylight between him and Bush. Choosing her in this regard also draws sharp contrasts with a guy who's been in DC for his entire adult life and who has deep ties to the credit card industry and has a lobbyist son in a spot of potential trouble. Insofar as not having any foreign policy experience, neither did Lady Thatcher and she turned out to be no slouch in that department.

One thing she has done already is to make sure that no one will be talking about Obama or Biden for the next week.

A massive amount of people tuned in to watch Obama's speech. Palin may be dominating the airwaves - and not all good - but it isn't as though people have forgotten the speech. They may have kept it from being praised and repeated over the weekend - but that's all it was ever going to get anyway, as the RNC is due to start next week.

Obama's speech will be back. When it's compared to McCain's. By then either Palin will have fallen off the radar, or everyone will be talking about how New Orleans (or wherever) got crushed, or both.

The raids in and around St. Paul in advance of the RNC convention is going to take the front pages this weekend I fear.

JaRagga,

The raids in and around St. Paul in advance of the RNC convention is going to take the front pages this weekend I fear.

Isn't this suppose to occur during elections? Obama experienced many illuminating moments and allowing McCain a few is perfectly all right. After all he needs the publicity more so than Obama does, which is the main reason for his presumptive VP Palin. Additionally, allowing McCain to grab the spotlight and shine for a minute won't hurt or impact on Obama any. But, I am curious as to how much coverage McCain will receive, considering this is a holiday weekend. Also, I doubt very seriously if he'll have millions of viewers like Obama had. But then again, this is a premature statement, but we'll see. On the other hand, McCain doesn't possess the same motivational skills to inspire people like his opponent.... Before you make any comments, it's inspire, not manipulate.

This brings to mind the most important message Kirk ever gave the away team:
"Phasers on stun
Good luck.
Kirk out."

Choosing her in this regard also draws sharp contrasts with a guy who's been in DC for his entire adult life and who has deep ties to the credit card industry and has a lobbyist son in a spot of potential trouble.

Problem with that theroy is that it highlights McCain's longer time in DC, deep ties to lobbyists and who has a campaign full of former lobbyists despite trying to pretend to be anti-lobbyist crusader.

I can only imagine what kind of insulting claims you would have if the Democrats had chosen a woman with so little expereicen with a disabled infant at home and a pregnant unmarried teenage daughter . She claims to put family first, given that her husband works full time, who is going to take care of the children?

I agree with you on the experience front, but what do her children have to do with anything? this seems sexist to me. Men do not receive this question.

Men do not receive this question.

Perhaps they should, however, this may be the first time in modern history that any President or VP candiate had such a young disabled infant at home. Edwards when running for VP was questioned about his committment to family when he continued to campaign despite his wifes diagnosis with cancer. Was that out of bounds?

If a man were running for President with a disabled infant at home, a wife who worked full time and a unmarried pregnant teenage daughter, and he claimed to put family first, he should be asked the same question. When you campaign on family values and personal integrity and choose to make those issues, then you invite scruitiny.

She says what she means and means what she says. How refreshing after so many months of listening to hot air speeches.

hear hear!

Call me old fashioned and sexist but a woman with five children, one only 6 months old should not be running for vice-president.

Calling you old fashioned and sexist would probably be a violation of the CoH, otherwise I'd be all over it.

Calling you old fashioned and sexist would probably be a violation of the CoH, otherwise I'd be all over it.

I'd be right with you!

Aren't the rest of her children grown? Doesn't that mean she really has one child to raise? And if one gets the opportunity, seemingly out of nowhere, to become Vice President of the United States, they shouldn't because they have a child? Doesn't her husband have as much an obligation to raise the child?

Syren:

Soooooo, when women get pregnant in the work force, fire them for not "having their priorities" right?

Wow, what a position.

most mothers with a ill child or a child that has problems would be devoting all their efforts and attention to that child this woman sems cold and calculating to me

Her child isn't ill. Her child doesn't have "problems". Her child has an extra chromosome. Not running for VP won't do anything to change that.

She was nominated VP, a career move that a majority of people in the world will never experience. To expect her to say "no thanks" because her child experiences developmental disabilities - an issue that at six months doesn't play a vital role in care - is unfair. If her husband was nominated we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Palin successfully raised four other children. Women can have a career and children at the same time.

Yes, I have. And I would not categorize newborn children with Down's as having "problems." Later in life, surely, there will be different obstacles than young children usually face. But all children develop and grow in different ways, all children encounter obstacles, and all children deserve to have parents whose lives consist of more than being their parents.

I find the treatment of individuals with Down syndrome fascinating. In this sixties parents would give babies with DS to institutions. DS patients had low mortality rates. Nowadays people with DS are living longer with less complications.

People lump all individuals with DS into one category. I don't think most people even know what it is, exactly. They can recognize the facial features but they make a lot of assumptions about mental retardation without getting to know a person. People with DS - or any developmental disability - are as individualistic as any other person in our society.

To assume because her child has DS what that child's physical and/or mental symptoms are is unfair. We don't know what "problems" her child will face - we don't know what "problems" any child will face and to discredit her ability to lead or devalue her as a parent for succeeding at her career is unfair.

To expect her to say "no thanks" because her child experiences developmental disabilities - an issue that at six months doesn't play a vital role in care - is unfair.

The right thing to do would be to say "no thanks, you're only picking me because I'm a woman, with no regard for the good of the country.. "

Her husband working for BP probably have to quit his job? Conflict of interest? She didn't want to run for Senator because she'd have to leave Alaska. so where does she think the VP lives? anchorage?

Of course, her husband can become Mr. Mom, so someone will be nurturing her young children. Or she can get a nanny. Lots of women work and have children, I agree. But they don't fly off on jets for two months, and then visit foreign countries and funerals all the time. Most VPs are older, and their children are grown. I'm not holding her youth against her, I'm not holding her inexperience against her. But I betcha when John McCain calls her a derogatory name insulting women, she walks. When his cancer cells begin to go wild, she's our choice?

There is a DS person in my family and she is quite capable, in her mid 50's. Lives in a group home, works, rides the transit, but only in one she knows. Little things like that. Yes it was rough for my aunt, but she is a sweetie. Now, all of the girls in my generation were told to be careful when we got older and had kids because when grandma had hers, she was too old. Past her early 40's. This was family information, but it was also gaining ground scientifically as I grew up.

As most intellegent women know the older a woman gets, the more chances for problems to occur, not only for the baby but for herself. And the numbers get worse after the high 30's.

Every woman knows this.

Which leads me to this point. Ms. Palin is intellegent, and knowledgable woman.

I find that there is a bit of a gap between the last of her older children and this newest one. Seems to me, she had the kid when she may have been running for office or got preganant shortly thereafter. Figure it out yourself.

Don't you think that at any time she would have asked herself at least once if this would get her the sympathy vote.? Especially after the diagnosis?

This plays so well to the right to lifers, and the religious right wing.

Too well.

This is just my thinking. But, It does seem like something a politician would do. The thinking of 'Whats in it for me?'.

Sure you say you want to be there for your people, and show off how good a 'family' person you are. This really gives her a leg up on the sympathy vote big time. But, there is always that question a politician asks. Whats in it for me?

dcston01, I'd say you'd be reaching pretty far to make that assumption without any facts to back you up. Best to leave it alone.

All I'm saying is look at the timing, (anybody can see the dates she was in various offices, its all on public record) and when she ran for governor and now this VP thing.

And who is to say what people say in their own heads. She would never verbally admit to the 'thought', but who really is to say she never thought it?

Politicians are a different breed of people.

Sometimes something more important than family comes up. I left my wife to take care of our family for a year at a time because I believed that the defense of my country came first. I respect her for her decision and for her supportive family!

Wow that is a way out theory. One is it known that people have problems when someone gets older and have kids yes. But well we don't know she might not of had sex that long with her husband. I would stay away from talk like that it just makes everyone look bad.

Ok, wait a minute.....hasn't McCain and his crew of miscreant been going around the country spewing that Obama can't possibly be ready to lead this country....because of HIS INEXPERIENCE?

Unlike Obama she's more than just a brilliant speaker....shes an actual doer with an actual tangible and impressive track record.

She has actual executive experience. If you've run a Dairy Queen you have more real world experience than Obama and Biden combined...

Judging from what I just heard, I'd hardly call her a brilliant speaker. charles-254901, could you enlighten us with her tangible and impressive track record?

She has actual executive experience. If you've run a Dairy Queen you have more real world experience than Obama and Biden combined...

lol .....you got my vote on that one!

Judging from what I just heard, I'd hardly call her a brilliant speaker. charles-254901, could you enlighten us with her tangible and impressive track record?

With one stipulation....you have to list Obama's first!

( crickets chirping )

She has actual executive experience. If you've run a Dairy Queen you have more real world experience than Obama and Biden combined... Yes, quite obviously right. After all, Obama's successful campaign isn't remotely indicative of his talents or experience. You've convinced me! I will now switch my support to Captain Gramps McGrumpy and Granddaughter.

for a communications/journalism major........her speaking style is not exactly eloquent....doesn't even sound intelligent. It sounds like a soccer mom running for PTA office.

Honey, pass the graham crackers and apple juice......Alaska ain't Washington.....and the White House and Naval Observatory aren't the PTA.

I hope McCain is going to stop with the experience crap.

Way to dodge the question. I'll assume you can't back your statement with evidence.

Yes, quite obviously right. After all, Obama's successful campaign isn't remotely indicative of his talents or experience. You've convinced me! I will now switch my support to Captain Gramps McGrumpy and Granddaughter.

You've summed up Obama supporters thinking perfectly and succinctly.....put a good show, talk good, look good and you're ready to lead America based on him putting on a show biz campaign....give me a break.

Thats sums up the MTV and YOUTUBE generation's love for Obama! Without knowing for sure I bet you there's an Obama fan club already....anybody know?

All that crying, fainting and plain old Spielberg enduced emotionalism .....I say if you wanna cry that much go watch a repeat of ET

If I have to see that tear jerking Obama life story one more time I'm gonna puke in HD!

Way to dodge the question. I'll assume you can't back your statement with evidence.

Its more like...I already know you don't have a list of Obama accomplishments to post and Palen's as well as McCain's are already well documented...so no need to waste time posting something you can google on your OWN time.

Its called research...something most Obama fans don't take to kindly to

....Evidence that she doesn't sound eloquent or intelligent? Uhm, I think we all just heard her speak. She hardly sounds political let alone presidential.....let alone like a journalist as her degree from the University of Idaho suggests.

That is a big IF my friend. and IF it came to pass, then I guess a perosn who is more in touch with real people would be our new President (Palin) and that is not so bad at all. As for the members her of the Silly Party (an old Monty Python skit) they seem to be really be upset at McCanin's choice, so it MUST be quite shrewd indeed. One item which no one seems to get so far is that McCain, nor the Republicans are trying to get the Hillary Clinton voters not the feminists who back her. What McCain has done is gone outside the beltway, promoted real chnage and added a person who can help bring in the ordinary folkks, the undecide voters and especially the independent amd moderate women who do NOT necessarily buy into the Clinton's agenda. The Palin pick is more subtly shrewd and savvy that most of you have contemplated so far. Look at it from the non-partisan view and you have to admit McCain hit a homerun this time.

Obama's successful campaign isn't remotely indicative of his talents or experience.

Running a campaign is not real world experience. In the real world when you start a business you don't have millions of dollars flowing in with which to hire expertise. Yes, he's run a good campaign Yes, he's good speaker. But we're not electing a campaigner or speaker in chief.

Look, you know what? The problem with Palin is this: she's an obvious attempt to court Hillary people, and it's insulting. She may turn out to be a wonderful person and even a good VP - but the SOLE reason she was chosen was because of her vagina. How do I know this? Because if you go down the list of GOP "positives", you could easily identify a dozen more people who are better qualified. More conservative credentials, more leadership experience, the lot of it. If McCain were concerned about good governance, he would have chosen one of them. But (and you can't exactly fault him on this) he's concerned, right now, about getting elected. And Palin is just a piece in that puzzle. Otherwise, she's a GOP nobody.

S. from FloridaOk, "so where is the distinction? That she's a governor? She's a first term governor...... "

The distinction is she is running for Vice President and he is running for President. Two different offices, two different jobs, two different responsibilities.

Don in California,

The distinction is she is running for Vice President and he is running for President. Two different offices, two different jobs, two different responsibilities.

Both are relatively new and considered inexperience and unknown to the American people, on either side, in the beginning. The distinctions are we now know more of Obama and must learn more about Palin, like we did with Obama. Even though we are familiar with Obama more so than we are with Palin, some still consider him inexperience as some feel about Palin. I can imagine once we do get to know her; sentiments pertaining to inexperience will still exist as they do when it comes to Obama. Unfortunately, for some people, the most prominent distinction is male vs. female, and not positions or offices either candidate is running for, or their jobs and responsibilities, which is a warp measure for siding with or choosing anyone.

Its called research...something most Obama fans don't take to kindly to

Its called hypocrisy. You have shown zero research and you are the one who made the claim.

Obama has many years more experience try some research you might find a lot. Here is a quick list in alphabetical order:

Author
Civil Rights Lawer
Constitutional Law Professor
Illionois State Senator 8 years
United States Senator 4+years

vs.

Mayor of small Alaskan town and governor of Alaska for less than 2 years.

Talk about out of touch. Is this person ready to take over as President. She has been governor for less than 2 years, and governor of Alaska a very small state politically.

That means she's been a Governor on more year than Obama has been a Senator. Add to that she spent her time as Governor being a Governor and not making a bid for the White House.

Question..... do they have Junior Governors?

Geesh.....does the term hypocrisy mean anything at all

That means she's been a Governor on more year than Obama has been a Senator. Add to that she spent her time as Governor being a Governor and not making a bid for the White House. He was elected in November of 2004. She was elected in 2006. She's been governor for a year and a half, roughly half the amount of time that Obama has been a senator.

If you're going to make claims, at least check your math.

He was elected in November of 2004. She was elected in 2006. She's been governor for a year and a half, roughly half the amount of time that Obama has been a senator.

If you're going to make claims, at least check your math.

Good point, I stand corrected....But now all you have to do is subtract the time Obama has been running for President and the amount of time he's missed LEARNING to do his job and I think the math will give you the grand total that Palen knows more about being a governor than Obama knows about being a Senator.

Multiply that times one is an Executive and the other isn't.....the result is McCain moves to the head of the class!

Obama is the more experienced at running for President ...hes done that really well, thats for sure!

In other words, even when you're wrong, you'll spin it however you need to in order to justify your conclusion.

Yeah, that's about what I expected. Good job.

In other words, even when you're wrong, you'll spin it however you need to in order to justify your conclusion.

Whatever
The facts bear the truth that traditional mathematics will give you the grand total that Palen knows more about being a governor than Obama knows about being a Senator.

Thanks for proving my point.

In other words, even when you're wrong, you'll spin it however you need to in order to justify your conclusion.

This appears to be a side-effect of the kool-aid they serve at McCain rallies. I have seen more tortured rationalization for the McCain ticket by staunch conservatives than I have ever seen before for any candidate. The lengths they will go to is really pretty funny. I can't imagine they are able to keep a straight face while typing some of this stuff. I mean, honestly . . . criticizing Obama for lack of experience and then praising McCain's vice presidential pick. What a joke.

melb33, If she is not ready to be Vice president, then Obama cannot possible be ready to be President since she has more executive experience than he does.

Given Sarah Palin's lack of experience on every front and on nearly every issue, this vice presidential pick doesn't show judgement: it shows political panic," Emanuel said in a statement.

Get serious! What else can they say...they have to say something. What...you think they're going to say wow isn't the fabulous? And CNN like NBC is nothing but Obama central! They don't even try to be balanced!

I'll never forget the time Soledad Obrien and the other reporter were so impressed with Rev Wright after his NAACP speech. They gave such a glowing analysis of Wright's speech they completely missed the mark of unbiased reporting. It was so sad they both should have been fired!

The fact of the matter is Palen IS a governor, She HAS put reform through, She HAS been a mayor, she HAS run a business

She's only the VP pick but yet and still she has more LEADERSHIP experience in her little toe than Obama has in his entire body of work.

A great move by McCain, politically practically and historically.....Get over it...

Wait, are you really saying there are not still some problems in the Democrat problem re: Hillary?

Actually I honestly don't think there is. Hillary performed like gangbusters, so did her husband, her speech was fabulous, his was great, and the roll call was some of the best political theater in a generation. Moreover, I think most of the disaffected Hillary voters were going to end up voting for Obama anyway - they were just registering their frustration, but would have "come home". And Obama sealed the deal with his own speech last night.

I think most of the "problems" were a media creation. And you know what? The DNC took those lemons and made lemonade. It was artful. All that drama - what will she do? What will he say? What about Bill? It kept people glued to the TV. What does the GOP have to compare? Hell, they're even shunting Bush out of the way ASAP - and then what? Stump speech after stump speech?

Nah, the Democrats will be fine. And the choice of Palin just drove most of the genuine Hillary people still on the fence to Obama, not McCain.

My friend I think you're mistaking the demographic McCain's aiming at here. It's not the Hillary Democratic women voters it's the independent married women's vote which went for Bush last time out. This is an attempt to kill two birds with one stone. Shore up and excite the base with a good solid conservative pick and double that down by going with a bright and attractive woman and mother with solid reformist credentials.

The standard talking point from the Democrats is that McCain chief strategist Steve Schmidt is a straight Rove clone. That's only true up to a point as this profile of him points out:

Schmidt often projects a combative partisan demeanor, but his allies insist he is no ideologue. He has referred to himself as a "raging moderate." In fact, sources say, it bothers him to be called a protege of Rove's, whose name became synonymous with the contentious partisan politics of the Bush era.

Schmidt's sister, his only sibling, is gay, and he has made it clear that he is appalled by the party's hostile attitudes toward gay rights. He urged Schwarzenegger last year to sign the California gay marriage bill, which the governor vetoed.

And you just have to love a guy who has a "David Gergen" (one of the most clueless of the talking heads) theory of the campaign:

If senior members of the campaign disagree on a strategic move, they watch what Gergen has to say. They then do the opposite.

That's postively Seinfeldian.

You might be right Bill, but Bush won by extending his base - and I don't see this pick doing that. He's instead solidifying a minority. Now, if that minority GOTV more than the Democrats, he'd win - and in many years that would likely end up being the case - but I suspect not this time out. Time will tell. Hell, she may surprise us all. I'm just a tad suspicious of that is all.

Actually I honestly don't think there is. Hillary performed like gangbusters, so did her husband, her speech was fabulous, his was great, and the roll call was some of the best political theater in a generation.

Interesting fact, for the longest time I had no idea what "gangbusters" was, though I said it frequently. One day someone asked me what that meant so I did some searching. There was a radio serial back in the day called gangbusters that would come on with a loud intro and scare the bejesus out of people. So that's where "came on like gangbusters" came from.

And now you know!

Duh nuh nuh NUH!

Chasing

Bush won by extending his base - and I don't see this pick doing that.

That's certainly not my reading of the '04 results unless by "extending" you mean mobilizing the base. Rove and Mehlman offset the gains Kerry made among former Bush voters by getting out more of the Bush base to vote. The chief worry for McCain this time around was that much of that base would stay home because of McCain's stances on stuff like campaign finance reform and the like. This pick has energized that base and just y'day after it was announced McCain raised $7 million (including another $100 from yours truly). Another worry for the GOP are the so-called Reagan Democrats who began coming home in '06. I see Gov. Palin helping McCain immensely in key battleground states like OH, PA and MI.

Ah, you noticed that too? I was wondering if anyone else did. Quite a Freudian slip eh?

That might actually be a plus...will fit right in with the other 'soon to be convicteds'.

because the man who would have been fired is her sister's soon to be ex-husband......they are going through a bitter divorce and custody battle.

she is under criminal investigation in Alaska for abusing her official power in firing a man who wouldnt fire her brother in law

I am an Obama supporter, so I think its important to correct distortions.

She is not under criminal investigation. The Alaska state leglislature has hired an investigator to look into abuse of power allegations.

Palin herself suspended an implicated staffer and released the audio tape of the infamous phone call.

The Democrat overseeing the investigation has been cited as saying that Palin's administration is cooperating so well, subpoenas are not required.

(Sourced from Wikipedia)

just watched msnbc and they are going over her life and already she is a liar about the bridge to no where

renard, I can't believe anyone watches MSNBC and then actually believed what they had to say.

Actually she told the feds what they could do with their money and said that Alaska would take care of themselves.

Umm, yeah about that money, Congress let Alaska keep it to do with as it "deemed appropriate".

Fact- she did lie about the bridge. Here is one of the stories with the details of what she did and said.

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5h1HWeeFRLRyGcNH4UYtN1sLp51EgD92TEV9O0

"I have championed reform to end the abuses of earmark spending by Congress," Palin said in her vice presidential campaign debut in Dayton, Ohio. "In fact, I told Congress, I told Congress 'thanks but no thanks' on that Bridge to Nowhere."

"If our state wanted a bridge, I said we'd build it ourselves," she said.

She didn't talk that way when she was running for governor. The Anchorage Daily News quoted her on Oct. 22, 2006, as saying yes, she would continue state funding for the bridge because she wanted swift action on infrastructure projects. "The window is now while our congressional delegation is in a strong position to assist," she said.

According to the Ketchikan Daily News, the bridge issue came up on Sept. 20, 2006, during an appearance the gubernatorial candidates made in Ketchikan.

"The money that's been appropriated for the project, it should remain available for a link, an access process as we continue to evaluate the scope and just how best to just get this done," the newspaper quoted Palin as saying. "This link is a commitment to help Ketchikan expand its access, to help this community prosper."

The newspaper also reported that she said "I think we're going to make a good team as we progress that bridge project."

With criticism over earmarks increasing, Congress stripped the provision from the bill, requiring instead that some of the money be used for an airport. Alaska eventually received about half the money. Palin last fall directed that money to transportation projects statewide instead of for Ketchikan's bridge.

Ketchikan Mayor Bob Weinstein, who campaigned for Palin's Democratic opponent, said he was there at the candidate forum when "she was asked about the bridge and she supported it."

A lie is a lie. It's okay for politicians to lie these days, but they better not get caught. Seems she has been caught squarely to me.

"She didn't talk that way when she was running for governor. The Anchorage Daily News quoted her on Oct. 22, 2006, as saying yes, she would continue state funding for the bridge because she wanted swift action on infrastructure projects. "The window is now while our congressional delegation is in a strong position to assist," she said"

As I read this she is talking about state funds, not federal!

Well what do the words 'congressional delegation', and 'assist' mean then?

If it were truly JUST state funded, there wouldn't be a need for congressional delegation to assist now would there?

Don,

She said federal funds is why they stopped it. Alaska is an odd place, they lean right but many are libertarians, but they do like Federal funding on everything.

Palin spokeswoman Sharon Leighow said Saturday that as projected costs for the Ketchikan bridge rose to nearly $400 million, administration officials were telling Ketchikan that the project looked less likely. Local leaders shouldn't have been surprised when Palin announced she was turning to less-costly alternatives, Leighow said. Indeed, Leighow produced a report quoting Palin, late in the governor's race, indicating she would also consider alternatives to a bridge.

Another note is that money was never sent back to the Feds. The earmark money it is in the article as well that they used money to build the road up to the bridge so they didn't have to send that money back.

The bridge was intended to provide access to Ketchikan's airport on lightly populated Gravina Island, opening up new territory for expansion at the same time. Alaska's congressional delegation endured withering criticism for earmarking $223 million for Ketchikan and a similar amount for a crossing of Knik Arm at Anchorage. Congress eventually removed the earmark language but the money still went to Alaska, leaving it up to the administration of then-Gov. Frank Murkowski to decide whether to go ahead with the bridges or spend the money on something else.

They would have to pay less then 200 Million from Alaska they said no but thanks for the money and kept it. She left that part out too, the money was never sent back to the Federal Government.

Sarah Palin is pretty and young. How can she help McCain? She has absolutely no foreign experience other than giving the pipeline project to a CANADIAN company.

She's met a payroll (in a business environment), that by itself puts her ahead of Obama in the experience column, in my view.

Really? When? The only thing that falls outside government experience that I've seen in the several brief bios I've read on her is her brief stint as a local sportscaster.

I've read she and her husband ran some sort of fishing or fish processing business.

A link would be nice. So far, I haven't found a single thing touching on her private business experience.

Who knows if the rumor about her daughter is true (and I sincerely wish that such topics did not matter and were not discussed) but it will not bother the religious right as long as he promises to be pro-life and bans gays. If he does those two things nothing else matters. He can even cheat on his first wife, dump her for a wealthy woman and still be the torch bearer of the "family values" party.

Yes, and she probably keeps voodoo dolls in her desk and a shrine to Elvis in her basement. Come on.

People in Alaska are totally shocked. She was voted into office because the last Governor was despised. Even the Alaska voters were not ready to pass judgement on how well she has done in a year and a half.

Scott,
I was referring to the rumor that her oldest daughter is pregnant.

I think that the blog slur machine has become beneath contempt.

The rumour is absurd although it's being networked heavily. The so-called video is a young woman standing in a pose interpreted as "must be pregnant".

Then we add the silly idea that Palin pretended to have a downs syndrome child on her daughters behalf to cover up the pregnancy.

OK, well, Obama is a secret Islamic Jihad wacko intent on Kenyan domination of America.

In a desparate attempt to discredit Palin, alleged Obama supporters are now attacking a young woman and, by extension, a 4 month old?

Perhaps more shocking is that people are repeating the rumour.

I hope no one posting or repeating this rumour as possible fact is actually supporting Obama for President. A good man elected by people who are beneath contempt is tainted by default.

Just the leftist attempt to come up with anything at all to sling mud--no one could honestly believe such drivel about Palin---You said it all ==they are desperate..and of coarse it won't work..it may reinforce how idiotic Obama supporters are..The longer this campaign goes on the more I believe the democrats are the party of dumb, mean, rednecks.

Why is it always a 'leftist', liberal ,'right', 'conservative'?

Seems to me if people disagree about something is one thing, but to label someone anything is a bit more divisive and rude.

As adults aren't we above that?

The attacks against Obama were towards Obama himself and HIS words His actions His Issues these have a direct bearing on his views and issues--It would seem the attacks on Palin and her family are rumor..inuendo..and just plain mud tossing that has nothing to do with the issues at hand..granted their was alot of criticism of Obama over his past associations but they have a bearing on his politics -- the fact that Palin has a family and they are being smeared does not have anything to do with politics

The attacks against Obama were towards Obama himself and HIS words His actions His Issues these have a direct bearing on his views and issues Right. That's why we spent so much time discussing what Reverend Wright may or may not have said, and what position Reverend Wright may or may not have, and whether Michelle Obama is or is not proud of America-- because we were discussing Obama's words, actions and person.

It would seem the attacks on Palin and her family are rumor..inuendo..and just plain mud tossing that has nothing to do with the issues at hand Palin is a staunch supporter of abstinence-only sex education. Her pregnant daughter is relevant as an inidication of the problems of such an approach, which time and again has been found to be ineffectual. That's a legitimate issue, and sufficient reason to raise questions concerning her approach to sex ed and its likely outcome as exemplified by the goings on in her own house.

That you would claim their [sic] was alot [sic] of criticism of Obama over his past associations but [sic] they have a bearing on his politics, while in the same sentence claim that discussion of Palin's pregnant daughter has no such justification highlights the one sided nature of the discussion you wish to have.

Palin's fair game. Palin's policies are fair game. And to the extent that Palin's family exemplifies or even implies the regular outcome of her policies, they are fair game.

Get over it.

How is lieing about someone being a Muslim when everyone knows he is a christian how is that attacking someone standing and views? How is calling them the Antichrist like in John McCain's ad. How about all the attacks on Michelle, how about the cover of the New Yorker. How about the rumors Obama has a love child, even though there is not one single thread of proof.

I think Palin's views are shown that a speech was more important then her unborn child. She risked that child's life pulling a stunt like that. Go to any OB and ask them if she did was ok and make sure you get the times right. They all would say that is nuts.

I agree with Iarnuocon on the rest of the issues.

I just love how one rumor that most were waiting for the truth comes out you all cry "unfair don't make lies about us" Yet you do it all the time to Democrats and we are weak if we can't take it or as McCain said with the Messiah ad "It is all in fun."

Again-- the attacks on Obama were on him Because of HIS actions and words--whether they were deserved or not is another thing---bUT no one did to the best of my knowlege attack his children or his relationship with his children or even how he is raising his children nor should they...Palin's children should not be political fodder nor should Obama's --and people that resort to this are immature or worse..

katlin.

Again-- the attacks on Obama were on him Because of HIS actions and words--whether they were deserved or not is another thing

This is not necessarily true. Obama, at times, actions and words were criticized because they did not coincide with what others believed they should be. Take for example the issue regarding the war and surge. I have yet to hear McCain admit Obama was right when he urged US not to invade Iraq, because Iraq had nothing to do with war or Bin Laden. But yet, Obama is criticized for not given McCain credit for the surge, which mind you, would not have occurred if many had listened to Obama in the first place.

---bUT no one did to the best of my knowlege attack his children or his relationship with his children or even how he is raising his children nor should they...

Well unless your excluding the Reverend Wright issue, Obama was criticized for allowing his children to attend the church for 20 years, which can be considered an attack that questions his parenthood.

Palin's children should not be political fodder nor should Obama's --and people that resort to this are immature or worse..

I totally agree with this one, except we're talking about humans, who are far from perfect and will find criticism to validate their cases, even when none exists. They'll make up arguments and make issues appear important when in actuality, they aren't, except to them and others who believe they are.

Tell me what words or actions Obama gave that makes it ok to call him the Antichrist. I want one example not taken out of context either.

They have attacked his mother, and her judgement to take him to Indonesia and who she even decided to marry. They have attacked Michelle for her comments even though it wasn't dead on to what she meant. They don't attack his kids because they are too young, or they be all over it. He has been questioned if he has a love child again no proof but the National Enquirer even did a cover ad for that when John Edwards affair was confirmed. They have even attacked him for "using" his kids in an interview. So that is on how he raises his kids. Here is a link of Michelle Malkin a conservative that is attacking Michelle for taking their kids to that church. So attacking Michelle on how she raises her kids would be attacking Obama too.

I don't think Palin's children should be attacked. There are questions of Palin's own judgement though. Luckily Trig is ok, but how can all these pro life people say leave Palin's decision to risk her unborn child out of this. If anyone would attack Trig I be the first to tell them to lay off, the kid has enough problems. No one is attacking the kids that I have seen, most even say leave Bristol out and I agree there too. To bring her up about absent issues well you do have to question, if it didn't work in her home why should she be allowed to make that the only choice for our homes? But I have not seen one person call her daughter a name at all. As I said else where at my school there were 5 girls that were pregnant their senior year. Now the Right and Catholics of the towns had a lot of names for them that I won't repeat. As well as all those great Right wingers out in front of planned parenthood calling girls things when they go in even for information. I wonder if ever once you talked out against those people.

Let's look at it like this, Michelle Obama was at a speech waited X number of hours and flew back to her home state to have the baby. Would that of been ok?

Daniel:

I think Palin's views are shown that a speech was more important then her unborn child. She risked that child's life pulling a stunt like that.

Yeah, that's why her son was born with DS. She gave a speech while she was pregnant, instead of sitting at home. Do actually read anything but tabloids?

Pregnant women can actually move around, and it's healthier for them to do so, unless they have specific health problems. Downs Syndrome has nothing to do with whether or not the mother gives a speech. The baby had been diagnosed a long time before that.

I'm not happy with Palin's "abstinence only" teaching - that is crap and it didn't work out well for her daughter. We can hope she'll learn from it, although I don't hold out much hope for that. But to imply she risked her baby by doing what her doctor probably told her was just fine for her to do is ridiculous.

Katrix,

Sorry for the late response I most of missed your comment.

The fact is flying at 36 weeks isn't recommended by doctors. Not only that when they break or leak fluid, you are to get an exam, if she would of been examined and found ok then flew to Alaska ok. It isn't about her moving around, it is about her flying when she should not of been. Then to fly again after the water "leaked". What I want to see is the medical report that says it was a leak and not a break.

The DS thing is just she had the baby late, she risked that. I am not attacking her for doing that either. Wow I would be a huge hypocrite being my mom was 40 when she had me. I don't know why your attacking me for the DS thing being I never said anything about DS being the risk.

The risk of flying is this, it can cause premature birth as it did in this case. It is also dangerous because the Oxygen level is lower and can add to toxins to the baby and the Mother. That is minor though, if she gives birth on the plane well that isn't the best place to do it. Her bad judgement comes in the fact she should of got checked out first.

Her doctor said she never asked for Medical Ok to fly, and I am sorry you can't just say "Oh well her doctor was wrong." If she isn't smart enough to know the doctor might not be the best and doesn't get a second option, then how is she ever going to know an adviser is wrong and that maybe bombing Russia wasn't a good idea either. Also you do know that no doctor in this country is to give an exam over the phone that doctor should have their license pulled.

uhm it would be sexist if I was a man......i'm just calling out the airheads as I see them.

uhm it would be sexist if I was a man

Being female does not preclude prejudice.

The idea that Palin is an airhead is misplaced and comparisons to an SNL Jessica Simpson skit is unnecessarily dismissive.

I thought the Obama/Biden lead on this subject was appropriate.

When it comes down to it, Palin's nomination doesn't change the demographic at all:

1. McCain is still the top of the ticket. and
2. McCain is still the top of the ticket.

The whole experience and heart-beat away from the presidency is silly.

As it happens, one of the most powerful women in politics is two heart-beats away from the Presidency.

I haven't seen anything that suggests Palin would not be an able President if events conpsired to place her there.

The biggest reason we do not want her in a place from where that could happen is that to get her there, McCain has to be elected. And the second biggest reason is that we want neither McCain's nor Palin's policies and political philosophies in the Whitehouse.

I think, if we support Obama, that needs to be the focus.

Being dismissive of Palin makes it an Obama vs. Palin race.

I think, if we support Obama, that needs to be the focus. Being dismissive of Palin makes it an Obama vs. Palin race.

Good point and I think focusing their guns on Palin the way they are shows that a lot of Obama people are plain ol scared.

McCain supporters haven't reacted nearly as much regarding Biden...because who cares about Biden when the top of the ticket has enough problems comparing his experience with the 2nd slot on the GOP