Agreed. That's all required. McCain must not have seen this local news report on Troopergate

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6UojMnCgqVA

Still, I think she is going to make Obama's job harder.

McCain is once again a maverick instead of McSame. You may say WTF or but, but, but and make valid or insane arguments. Nonetheless, the waters have been muddied. What used to be an obvious, almost-impossible- to-credibly-deny fact is now open for discussion, mitigating greatly the strength of the McSame argument.

I imagine the Republican tactic is to co-opt all of Obama's signature distinctions and muddy them the same way. It doesn't matter that the co-opted version is hollow. The goal is imbroglio. And Palin makes it possible.

John McCain's first executive Decision, Sarah Palin. shows he cares nothing for this Country, is incompetent, and is not ready to lead. With all our economic problems, threats of terrorism, he picks someone with much less executive experience than Barack Obama, who by the way was 10 years in the state senate before being elected to the U.S. Senate (a bio very similar to Lincoln who is considered one of our greatest if not the greatest President we have ever had), and which takes away McCain's most ardent argument to date that Barack is an empty suit! Is this another Alan Keyes moment when GOP put up Mr. Keyes to run against Barack in Illinois just because he was Black?

In her speech on Friday, they already have Gov. Palin "lying" to the American people that she was always against the Bridge to Nowhere, however recorded information will prove that this is not accurate and that she was for the Bridge to Nowhere, before she was against it!

"According to the Ketchikan Daily News edition on August 8, 2006, this is what Sarah Palin rushed over to tell the voters of Ketchikan during the primary election campaign:
'People across the nation struggle with the idea of building a bridge because they’ve been under these misperceptions about the bridge and the purpose,' said Palin, who described the link as the Ketchikan area’s potential for expansion and growth. Palin said Alaska’s congressional delegation worked hard to obtain funding for the bridge as part of a package deal and that she 'would not stand in the way of the progress toward that bridge.'” AND

according to the Ketchikan Daily News on September 29, 2006 this is what Sarah Palin rushed over to tell the voters of Ketchikan during the general election campaign:
'Part of my agenda is making sure that Southeast is heard. That your projects are important. That we go to bat for Southeast when we’re up against federal influences that aren’t in the best interest of Southeast.' She cited the widespread negative attention focused on the Gravina Island crossing project. 'We need to come to the defense of Southeast Alaska when proposals are on the table like the bridge and not allow the spinmeisters to turn this project or any other into something that’s so negative,' Palin says"
Taken from Blogger AndrewHalcro.com

Not only is Palin less experienced and less qualified than Barack, she seems to lack the intellectual curiosity, or unwillingness, and depth to probe and understand the important and complexing problems/issues knocking at our door today. For example, "What is it exactly that the vice president does all day?" Palin offhandedly asked CNBC anchor Larry Kudlow in July. And when asked about her stance on Iraq by Alaskan Daily Palin answers "I've been so focused on state government, I haven't really focused much on the war in Iraq. I heard on the news about the new deployments"! Does this show someone who is ready for Prime Time! And, was she truly vetted? Sarah/McCain get ready for she is about to come under the "media" microscope!

McCain’s VP pick also shows a disdain for this country because if something were to unfortunately happen to McCain, Sarah Palin would be our next President of the United States. Can you imagine in her that role? This proves two things in my mind, McCain’s lack of love for this country and that he does not have the judgment to lead this country at this most profound time.

Some in the media call it Historic but in reality Is this decision Historic or Hysterical and a mockery to our political system? Some in the media label it a game changer but is it really a roll of the dice? And should a Presidential candidate play Russian roulette with the people's business? It is telling of McCain's character and judgment that with all the problems we face here today, he did not have the People's interest at heart in this V.P. pick but rather a desire to win for winnings sake and did not think of the consequences of his actions or maybe did not care what it would mean for this country if she were to be sworn in as President of the United States! And, ironically, the very things he accused Barack of being (which he is not) -- empty suit, no experience -- he got in his own V.P. Pick, Sarah Palin!

In McCain's/GOP's calculated ploy to pull Hillary women from Barack without consideration as to whether or not this woman has the ability and experience to lead the United States here and on a world scale shows a lack of sound judgment and it also shows that McCain is NOT READY TO LEAD in the 21st Centruy and is not serious about solving the monumental problems which must be faced -- problems which need serious thinking and not strategic games.

McCain's pick of Sarah Palin, a woman with very little executive experience, a woman who has approved a 26 billion dollar oil pipeline to a Canadian business instead of a business here in the United States, a woman who the Alaskan legislature approved a $100,000 investigation into her motivations in firing Public Safety Commissioner Walt Monegan, on the allegations that Monegan's firing was the result of his refusal to fire Mike Wooten, a trooper who is Palin's former brother-in-law." has proven to the world how really pathetic the Republican party has become that they will try any trick in the book to keep the power in the hands of big oil and special interest and out of the hands of the people where it belongs.

Angellight,

You are in the dark, honey!

Sarah Palin has more integrity, more grit, and more ethics than Sen. Obama, the kid of the "Chicago machine" and Sen. Plagiarism have EVER had.

But, go ahead! You guys take your best shots.

They won't wash, because they're not true, even with biased and sliced articles like the above.

Scared?

You should be.

You should be.

While I agree that her status as a working mom, mother, former beauty queen, etc, should be off-limits, her lack of experience is not and should not be. McCain's most compelling argument against Obama wasn't 'celebrity' but 'experience'. Before Palin, he could say without irony, "The world's scary and complex, and Obama just isn't ready yet." Now, he can't say that without irony and that fact should be pointed out.
Now, yes, she shouldn't be attacked for her lack of experience; it's not her fault. McCain should be attacked for it right off the bat. She can, however, open herself up to such attacks, legitmately, if she attempts to argue that she does have the experience because of her 20 months as governor.

It's more fruitful ground to attack McCain and ignore Palin. Most studies have show VP choices only effects voters preference by a few points at most so Democrats would do well to ignore Palin the person and talk only about Palin's policies. I'd even leave her experience alone, attacking it only indirectly by calling McCain's judgement into question.

If people vote 95% based on the top of the ticket, then the top of the ticket should draw 95% of the attacks.

Ideology aside, Gov. Palin is every bit as credible as a Tim Kaine or Brian Schweitzer.

I worry about Democratic partisan brawlers dinging Palin for the hell of it and it blowing up in Democrats face. Calling her things like "Quayle with tits" and questioning her skills as a mother is a recipe for disaster

She's a far-right-wing conservative idealogue (with no other credientials), under an ethics cloud, who's apparently developed a taste for abuse of power -- after less than two years in office?

This IS more of the same.

This is Monica Goodling. This is the wingnut welfare kids who were brought in to rebuild Iraq. It's Brownie. Only even Bush wouldn't have thought about putting one of these clones in the #2 spot.

Is Palin inexperienced? Yes. She's an inexperienced Dick Cheney.

I have mixed feelings about your notions, Dana.

Palin was clearly chosen for purely cosmetic purposes. That is not her fault.

What is her fault, so to speak, is her problem with ethics and her ideological rigidity.

What is McCain's fault is at least two-fold - he has made a bad judgment call about the fitness of his VP pick to be a Vice President, let alone President and it negates any argument that he is trying to work with the Democrats, to create a bridge between the parties.

Palin deserves to be scrutinized, but that should not be the work of the Democrats (and certainly not the two candidates), and she deserves to be criticized for her governing capabilities.

After all, the Repuglicans never hesitated to call Hillary a bitch. Are we going to play patsies for them again, or stand up for what is right...er, correct.

Good job, Dana.
This selection actually goes against McCain's reputation as a maverick. Most people think (falsely) that he stood up to the GOP machine/Bush on issues; many people think he's pro-choice, anti-corporate, populist.
The choice of Palin - anti-choice, oil-loving, anti-science, basically GW Bush of the Tundra is just what the party leaders want.

Dana I mostly agree.

Look, Clinton was just governor of a much less important state had significant scandals already (involving state troopers).
I don't see Palin as more or less experienced than Bill Clinton or Obama and in that case it is the number one slot.

The garbage I have read, from my own Democratic party about her having young kids makes me wonder if those people thought JFK should have been disqualified as well.

On her view on abortion, I disagree, but I think her position of opposition "even in cases of rape and incest" Dana mentions is actually the ethically consistent point of view. I believe in choice for all women, but if I didn't and believed human life as such began at conception, then rape and incest are not relevant.

As far as creationism, The issue is not what people believe. People who believe in god in any form are in my mind superstitious. The form of the belief is irrelevant ot me. What is relevant is what public officials believe should be taught in schools, and there Palin comes down as wrong.

In terms of energy views, which are a good lens with which to examine her attitudes generally, since this involves powerful interests and lobbying in Alaska, it is a mixed bag. On human causes of global warming she is off base. But she also has taken on the powerful industry groups and opposed their interests in favor of the interests of her constituents.

Palin is one of the most compelling personalities to make a presidential ticket. REally it ihas added a huge amount of respect of McCain. I'm not voting for them but I also have been turned off by 90% of the Democratic blogs and our pundits who are broadly and idiotically off base in their critique of her.

I did a lot of work for the Clinton campaign. He had zero foreign policy experience. His state had one one hundredth the importance of Alaska. Our own people are now repeating the meaningless and ineffective arguments we heard against him only for a VP

Palin is an anti-choice, anti-equal rights, anti-science, anti-alternative energy, pro-oil, pro-gun, and anti-woman American Taliban.

Her decision to have a mentally retarded child, even though she could have ended the pregnancy and saved the child of the suffering, also shows bad judgment.

Attacking Palin herself is completely unnecessary, and indeed probably beneath the Obama campaign itself. Certainly any mention of her being a beauty queen is completely beneath them. What I want to know is, how will McCain ever attack Obama for lack of experience ever again?

Now you have people like Lindsey Graham on TV arguing that it's judgment, not experience, we should be examining. That's Obama's argument! If McCain brings it up, Obama can say "is he attacking me or is he attacking his VP candidate?" And then he can explain why his judgment has been superior. I don't see any way out of this for McCain.

Her decision to have a mentally retarded child, even though she could have ended the pregnancy and saved the child of the suffering, also shows bad judgment.

Now I have to say, Madeleine, that I find that argument completely beneath anyone. That child will be loved and have a supportive family. When I say I'm pro-choice, I really mean that it's the woman's choice, and I won't make snide remarks about it. The more important fact is that Palin wants to take away that choice for everyone.

"Now I have to say, Madeleine, that I find that argument completely beneath anyone."

No, it's not. Burying your head on face of scientific evidence does not make for an argument either. The point of my comment was that it shows extremely poor judgment to me, maybe not to you.

Her decision to have a mentally retarded child, even though she could have ended the pregnancy and saved the child of the suffering, also shows bad judgment.

If you're gonna play this card, and you really, really freaking shouldn't, it would be better to focus on her decision to conceive a child in her forties, when the risk of Downs is much higher.

You've still got a really stupid argument, though. I'm not sure most people would characterize Down's Syndrome as a "life of suffering".

It also might be worth looking into her record as mayor of Wasilla. Apparently her desire to create a sports complex for that small town left it in quite a fiscal hole, especially due to the problems associated with building it on land that the town didn't have clear title to.

Consumatopia, WTF are you talking about "playing this card"? This ain't no election, everybody has her own opinion about things. This is the first time I've been to this site and probably the last, so I am not running for any position within it, just to let you know.

Oh, I see. Agent provacateur. Clever.

As far as her approval w/ the voters, I can't say. It does seem to be a preposterous pick, given McCain's reliance on the experience and judgment arguments. However, the American people appear to not care the slightest about internal consistency from their Republican candidates - if consistency mattered from Republicans, McCain would be an undeniable flip flopper (but who notices that). At any rate, I can't say if this pick is a political winner. It seems like it should not be to me, but then I thought McCain should have been permanently sunk by the signing of a timetable for troop withdrawal and Malaki's endorsement of Obama's plan.

As to Madeleine's statement about having the downs baby, I would ask the attackers if they really think it is ethical to have the downs child given the lack of social services. Downs and other mentally retarded people are outliving their caregivers these days, and the state, gutted by Republican rule, is not picking up the tab. What happens if Palin runs into tough times? Who takes care of the kid when the Palins die?

What I'd like to know is Palin's positions on policies meant to help women with work-family balance. If she has the typical Republican position, which is basically against all public policies in this area, then, well, we've learned about her value of families.

Not surprised her numbers are better than Biden's. He is a veteran of many a partisan battle in Congress. Palin is a complete unknown, who presented herself well her first time up. Best strategy is to follow that outlined in Clinton's statement: Congrats but you are all wrong on the issues. She will either make it or break it on the stump and in the debate, and Dems shouldn't be seen as giving her a shove. It's going to come down to Obama vs. McCain anyway.

Dana you are probably right, but, still, between you and me, it is outrageous that a 72-year old would pick someone who was the mayor of a town of 8000 yesterday, who moved in the Governor's mansion today, and doesn't seem to have any views on domestic or foreign policy. (I won't even mention--well, actually, I will--that her educational background is a degree in journalism--okay then.) There I said it, now, let's all attack her views, such as they are.

Stop making sense

Whatever winning attributes she may have, Palin will not be able to surmount voter concerns about her inexperience. Presidential historians have already confirmed that she is probably the least experienced person ever nominated by either party for V.P. in U.S. history. Under the intense glare of the remaining presidential campaign, this inexperience cannot help but show and ultimately voters rightwing and undecided alike will surely balk at placing her that heartbeat away from the job of commander-in-chief. It's notable that even Drudge has already speculated that this could be an Eagleton-like disaster for McCain. Personally, I think the more voters learn about Palin, after some of the novelty of her selection wears off, the more wary they will become and this will ultimately come to be seen as the biggest blunder of the McCain campaign

FOR ALL DEMOCRATS, LET"S DEMAND that the press get tough with Palin and ask her some hard questions -- really vet her, and hold nothing back so we can see how she holds up under critical scrutiny. And let's not cut her any breaks, or allow her to whine about how our questions are sexist or how they might be offensive to her 'as a woman". Because she is considered offensive to Hillary supporters and pandering for votes, let's hold nothing back and expose her as a fraud or a no-nothing. Here goes:
1. Please list your political achievements as governor. How do they compare against three months as a community organizer in Chicago? Lastly, did you use your time in office to run for president? No? Then how do you expect to be vice president?
2. You say you have a history and rep as being a reformer - an advocate for change . But have you ever -- can you -- speak eloquently about change in front of large crowds? No? then how can you expect to be vice president?
3. You say you went to Iraq to visit our troops and there are pics of you visiting the sick in hospitals. How many times did you go to the gym while there or skip visits to the hospital in order to work out? And did you go there surrounded by media to make yourself look "presidential" or on top of the situation? No? then how can you expect to be vice president?
4. How many of your friends and close associates are terrorists or are in favor of wounding/killing innocent americans to make a political point? None? Then how can you expect to be vice president?
5. You say you are a deeply committed Christian. How many times did you sit in church and listen to your pastor commit verbal hate crimes against whites or his country? Never? Would you bring your 5 children to a church like that? You say No?? Then how can you expect to be vice president?
6. Have you ever bought great property at low cost, or land for a dime by a notorious slum lord that could also help you fund your campaign? No, then how can you expect to be vice president?
7. Would you ever take the non-committal stance of voting "present" on hundreds of non-controversial issues, but take a strong stand against the Born Alive Infants Protection Act? No, and you would even give birth to a child with disabilities? You did? What a completely selfish thing to do --- obvious pandering to the religious fanatics...how do you expect to connect with people and become vice president....
8. Would you be willing to flip-flop on just about every major issue you ran your primary campaign on in order to fill the "centrist" void vacated by your woman opponent that your campaign and staunch supporters branded racist? No? then how can you expect to be vice president?
That's a start we can ask if she knows what arugula is or if she would be willing to put on bowling shoes to win votes or if she is bitter being from rural Alaska. Feel free to add to the list

It’s not just the “experience” issue. Palin is a woman who admits she has never CONSIDERED America’s place in the world. Should McCain/Palin win she would be a heartbeat away from being the President and while definitely not “stupid” she is staggeringly “ignorant” of the threats this nation faces and how to meet them.
Additionally, her positions on Women’s rights issues are so far out of the American mainstream that the mainstream is not even in sight. She is anti-choice EVEN if the mother’s life is in danger, even in the case of rape, even in the case of incest. She is against birth control, even condom use by married couples. She is a far right Evangelical Christian creationist from a tiny crazy-right religious community in a valley in Alaska.
This woman is so far out of the mainstream on every issue, is so “ignorant” on SO MANY issues that she doesn’t bear any serious consideration.
AND YET - She is not the issue – her judgment is not the issue – her sex is not the issue. The ISSUE is John McCain’s outrageous LACK OF JUDGMENT in even thinking for a second that this woman should be a heartbeat away from the Presidency. Mrs. Palin is a fine woman, a GREAT mother and an exemplary Alaskan – none of which matters – none of which is an issue. John McCain – by choosing her over so many others so vastly more qualified, informed, interested and available is AN INSULT to the American people and shows that in his case “MAVERICK” means as Obama said about him - “John, you just don’t get it.”

Folks, I have to tell you, I'm loving this!

You all have no clue, do you?

You have no clue of who and what she is. You still don't understand this country.

You're about to nominate a man who voted AGAINST helping a child born alive because of a botched abortion, and you call her (let me make sure that I get this straight, Mylegacy, "a fine woman, a GREAT mother and an exemplary Alaskan"...but also "staggeringly 'ignorant" of the threats this nation faces and how to meet them," and also "a far right Evangelical Christian creationist from a tiny crazy-right religious community in the valley in Alaska.")

Whew!

Well, good thing that it's not like a certain presidential candidate I know who voted FOR that "Bridge to Nowhere" and who threatened to *invade Pakistan* (an ally) on a moment's notice!

Now, THERE'S staggeringly ignorant (and, I have so many, many more DOCUMENTED idiocies for this candidate, such as he is. Maybe, for once in her life, Hillary Clinton, in the primaries, finally told the truth about someone).

"John, you just don't get it."

Oh, actually, yes he does. He's forgotten more than the Chicago-machine boy and Senator Plagiarist could ever LEARN!

But, whether Sen. McCain vs. Sen. Chicago-machine, or the Alaskan reformer Governor vs. Mr. Plagiarist/Inside Washington, let me use three words that we know you understand:

BRING*IT*ON!

Have a good day, all!

Dana's post is just wrong. Few people are attacking her "personal life." The only reference was a Andrew Sullivan reader email.

The left is having a field day with her because she's a ridiculous, completely absurd choice. It's not a matter of over kill or sexism or going too personal, she's simply that ridiculous a choice.

She's a purely political move that undercuts months and years of McCain's blathering about honor and country first.

Obama is not experienced, but she makes him look like Henry Kissinger. But it's not just lack of experience, it's lack of ... EVERYTHING!

This is a woman who didn't have a position on the Iraq war, who doesn't have a position on Iran, who doesn't have a position on the national economy, who doesn't have a position on ... ANYTHING!

It's Alaska, it's very very very parochial politics. It's insulting and down right dangerous to have selected this person as the running mate to a 72 year old man just to try to score political points.

I do not expect the Obama campaign to attack her much, I don't think they'll have to. She's manifestly unfit for this position and I suspect that however likable she is, her complete lack of world view or, well, anything, will shine quite clearly as she wades into the campaign.

Obama was a failed community organizer (read his book) and then he joined the enemy side, the Chicago/Cook County/Illinois Democratic Machine. Hell, those crooks commit more crimes every hour than Palin has even thought of committing in her entire life. And the Dem-controlled Chicago cops have tortured more people than even Bush has! But Obama doesn't care, they're mostly black and brown losers who are getting worked over by the boys in blue. And comatose cons can't vote for the Big O anyway.

Obama's another McSame, bought and paid for by corporate interests (Excelon, Wall Street etc.) and Richie Daley. Palin's the only decent person on either ticket--America needs the chick, not those dicks.

I have to assume that Alinsky is a misguided Obama supporter hoping to give Palin supporters a bad rep. Even if he is, however, I still have to call out the obvious.

One of the toughest bills Obama got through the state legislature was to curb torture by state cops. He battled police, Republicans, and the Daley machine to do this.

Regardless, it's clear that AG isn't a honest voice.

Relax, Madeleine, once we get the national health care system in place, all those kids officially categorized by the bureaucrats as “life unworthy of life” ("lebvensunwürtiges Leben") will be painlessly euthanized in order to save the state a lot of money and bother.

Or if you really can’t wait, we can have Palin’s little retard sent over to your place so that you can strangle him at your convenience. How's Tuesday looking for you?

Zephyrus, I double-dog-dare you to claim that the Chicago coppers have stopped torturing suspects (hard to say for the state police under Blago but they’ve got a bad rep too, regardless of Obama's alleged do-gooder legislation. And why didn't Obama use his mighty powers to rein in the Chicago boys?). Are Chicago's Finest videotaping all confessions? No. Any confessions? No. Do they have video cameras in the squad cars? No. Have they given up railroading innocent men? Probably not. Is there real accountability when they gun somebody down? No. The cops in Democrat Ruled Chicago are still scary as hell, even for a staunchly middle class white guy like myself (I've been harassed, perhaps because they mistook me for a "faggot"). Imagine what it's like if you had the misfortune to be born black or brown and poor in this town. Zeph, ol' boy, are you reading the blotters in the Trib or Sun Times to find out what's up? Better yet, spend a little time strolling or biking the streets, especially the South, Southwest, West, and Northwest Sides. You'd see the coppers and the rest of da Machine in action. It ain’t pretty.

Don't even get me started on the Crook County coppers or the Crook County jail, which is apparently a little too much like the slammer in "Midnight Express" for anyone who actually believes in human rights.

Obama owes the Machine pols big time. Some wiseguys have even suggested that the Daleys control the Big O, have created him to be a house n+gg+r. Now, don’t misunderstand me, I’m not claiming that, I’m just quoting wiseguys, and I think they may be exaggerating somewhat. Somewhat.

It’s a cliché that a presidential candidate’s choice of a running mate is the first clue what kind of president she or he will be. Most of the time this really isn’t so. Not this time. John McCain’s choice of Governor Palin tells us quite bit. And frankly, it ought to scare the hell out of everybody.
First, it shows that Senator McCain has no core principles. None. Here’s a man who’s been running for President the last two years solely because of alleged superior credentials in foreign policy and national security. He used this argument not just against Senator Obama, but also against his rivals for the Republican nomination, Governors Huckabee and Romney and Mayor Giuliani, men with vastly more executive experience than he has. Over and over, he claimed that he’d make a better president because of years of service on congressional defense and foreign policy committees. A service, however, which never included actually formulating, deciding or executing policy. So who gets his first major appointment? A young governor with no experience in this area—or any of national issue—at all. By comparison, Senator Obama who has a degree in international relations from Columbia University, who has worked on important issues such as nuclear non-proliferation in the Senate, and has assembled a formidable team of foreign policy advisors, looks quite ready to start managing foreign policy from Day 1. And his Vice-President would have the experience, knowledge and character to tell him when he’s wrong. Would Vice-President Palin have that ability? Maybe, but I wouldn’t bet the house on that.
Second, what does this tell us about Senator McCain’s management style? He met Governor Palin once, for fifteen minutes at National Governors Association meeting, talked to her for five minutes on the phone, and then picks her for the second most important job in country. I’ve spent way more time selecting a junior member of my staff. Would you hire a guy as a CEO who makes decisions like that? Maybe if he was a genius with superb instincts, but if there’s any evidence that Senator McCain is such a leader, it’s hard to detect. Consider:
Until Joe Lieberman corrected him, he repeatedly stated that Iran was training Al Qaeda. In fact, Al Qaeda in Iraq slaughtered thousand of Iraqi Shiite Muslims. Iran is a Shiite Muslim country with intimate ties to Iraqi Shiite community. But of course, Senator McCain doesn’t know there’s difference between Sunni and Shiite Muslims, an elementary fact in Islamic politics for the past 1400 years. And what do we make of someone who thinks Czechoslovakia still exists or that Pakistan and Iraq share a common border?
Finally, let’s take a look at the politics of this decision. If Senator McCain wanted to select a woman as a running mate, he had plenty of choices. There were his economic advisors Carly Fiorina or Meg Whitman. There was Governor M. Jodi Rell of Connecticut, Governor Linda Lingle of Hawaii, or former New Jersey Governor Christine Todd Whitman. He could have picked Senators Collins or Snow of Maine, Liddy Dole, twice a cabinet secretary to boot, or Texas’s Kay Bailey Hutchison. So why did he decide on Governor Palin? Could it be because she has the strongest support among ardent social conservatives? That’s fine if you agree with hard line positions on abortion, gay rights and other contentious social issues. But if you’re a moderate then it’s pretty plain that Senator McCain doesn’t give a fig for your views or concerns.
So what can we expect from a President McCain based on this decision? A president who isn’t serious about governing, a president who with no rational system of decision making, a president with chronic confusion about basic facts in his area of claimed expertise, and a president who would do nothing to heal the country’s deep political wounds. I think we’ve seen this movie before.

Nuance, people. Or don't you have any friends who you really like and who you view positively, but you wouldn't want to be dogcatcher, much less vice president because of their views, temperament, or inability to do the job?

You can view someone positively, but still conclude they aren't right for a certain job.

I do think it was a mistake for bloggers and party faithful to immediately pile on. It felt rude and overly partisan, and confirmed all the worst stereotypes of partisan politics. Obama, Biden, and Clinton, being better politicians, took the right road.

It's going to be obvious that Palin is not just inexperienced in years, but in outlook and in preparation for this type of stage. You won't need to push this view on people, and it will probably be apparent. Once the initial, positive, excitement wears away, that's probably what will stick out over the long term, and it will be best if people discover it on their own. Bashing her as a beauty queen is below people who claim to be "better for women". As for her family decisions, well, who among us hasn't ever "judged" someone else's parenting choices, or at the very least preferred our own? There would be no mommy war industry if that were not so. But we can confine our judgments to our homes and own heads. People who are not Democrats certainly wouldn't take kindly to that sort of thing, especially from Democrats.

It is interesting to me that the GOP seems to have put some money into hiring people to troll liberal blogs. But I'm not sure why. Is the Obama campaign putting bucks into trolling right wing blogs - well, the very few that have comments sections? And should they?

Like spamming, I'm not sure what is accomplished by the trolls. You can tell them by the greetings - things like "folks", "friends", etc. It is the equivalent of "I enjoyed your blog. I'm sure you would enjoy my blog, about collectible gold coins!"

As for Palin, the best strategy is, of course, to let her destroy herself with her own positions. I like the support for hunting polar bears from the air - I wonder if she is also into clubbing baby seals? As for supporting letting mining companies pollute rivers to any extent and degree their CEOs feel necessary, that is going to be a gift. Hopefully, the Dems in Alaska will get busy photographing the result of the policies of this one woman Chernobyl.

Agreed. After all, Sarah Palin believes that if your daughter is raped by her uncle and is at risk of death if she carries through with the pregnancy, the federal government should force her to carry the baby to term against her wishes. She also believes the government should teach your children the "theory" of intelligent design, and that human activity does not contribute to global warming.

If I may add to the marching orders: critics should also focus attacks on John McCain, not Sarah Palin. Two arguments in particular:

1. John McCain is a raving hypocrite, attacking Barack Obama for lack of foreign policy experience one day and then nominating Sarah Palin for VP the next. A hypocrite and a political opportunist. Rinse, repeat as necessary.

2. Selecting Palin was not the move of a "maverick". It was a bone tossed to his political base, plus an attempt to appeal to women and boost his "outsider" image. A maverick would have gone with his first choice, Joe Lieberman, the religious right be damned. This was pandering plus shrewd political calculation.

Goldstein, you are right on the money in saying that Palin is going to attract a lot of voters just because of who she is. In my opinion, it would be more effective to focus on her lack of knowledge than to criticize her extreme positions on a few issues.

Neil, I disagree. This election is going to be conditioned by the further downturn in the economy over the next three months. This part is two pronged - a consumer pullback and the cutting of spending my states and municipalities. Obama/Biden should be very issues focused. Obama was the anti-Clinton, which was ultimately about the war. He now needs to turn around and be the pro-Clinton domestically, which is ultimately about the warm glow people felt in the late nineties. Luckily, Palin's positions provide an excellent target. She adds, to McCain's pro-wealthy platform (cuts in corporate taxes, support for Bush tax cuts) a mix of truely throwback anti-environmental positions which simply won't cut it.

The Dems have to do two things in the next couple of years. They have to reclaim foreign policy not by competing on toughness, which is empty rhetoric, but by insisting on the benefits of peace AND by pointing out that toughness is just rhetoric. And they have to reclaim the environment by destroying the notion put about by the GOP that it is either prosperity or the environment. They should compare that sophism to the notion that it is either honesty or business. Honesty might lose a business a quick buck, but it is definitely good business in the long run. As is, of course, green technology, sensible land policies, and refusing to allow mining companies to poison rivers. This is pretty easy, since it is true and it is visceral. It is easy to point to places where pollution is unregulated and places where people are poorer. Environmental issues are very pictorial, very visual. Obama's campaign is, hopefully, aware of this.

Pro-Rich/Anti-environment. I don't see such a ticket winning this year.

McMorris's husband is NOT a former ADMIRAL. He is a retired Commander.

Get your facts right.

and its Down's syndrome not DOWN Syndrome.

You just lost all your credibility.

Here's a poll from [url="http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-08-30-palin-poll_N.htm"]Gallup[/url] with an opposite result.

Here's that link to the Gallup poll again, hopefully with the syntax right this time. If I got it wrong again, here it is for cutting/pasting: http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-08-30-palin-poll_N.htm .

> It is interesting to me that
> the GOP seems to have put
> some money into hiring
> people to troll liberal
> blogs. But I'm not sure why.
> Is the Obama campaign
> putting bucks into trolling
> right wing blogs - well, the
> very few that have comments
> sections? And should they?
>
> Like spamming, I'm not sure > what is accomplished by the
> trolls

Based on observation I would say there has been an organized Radical Right counter-blogging effort since early 2004. Of course it ramps up during elections but there is also a base level. I don't think it has to be too extensive: 2 or 3 real snarkmeisters, 4-8 people who read and reply, 1-2 web programmers (with some AI background) who write auto-tracking and auto-response algorithms and applications. Probably an entry-level wingnut welfare position that rotates every 18-24 months with those who are successful going on to Heritage, Senate staffs, etc. Not a whole lot of money for the Scaife-type crowd.

As to what they think they are accomplishing: putting a stick in the eye of liberals, always a good thing in itself for them. Disrupting the liberal advantage in on-line organizing.

But the key I think it testing out memes and counter-memes that work well at slicing into liberal arguments and activating the reflexive portion of the brain. I have seen more than one of these seemingly pointless flamefests generate a meme that appears shortly thereafter on the Sunday talk shows and the hard right newspaper columns. Even occasionally heard one pop out of Bush's mouth. That I think is the real purpose.

Cranky

Angellight, you're a tad "light" on facts too.

Palin campaigned, along with everyone else, on getting the funds. However near the end of her campaign, she issued a report that stated she would be considering alternatives.

This was, of course, the price of the bid from 2003 had ballooned to $400 mil approx. There were no funds in the state budget set aside for Ketchikan.

As a Governor, she had the choice to put the state in debt, or find another fiscally responsible access... i.e. improved ferry service.

You should be celebrating that she bucked the GOPers and local officials in order to be fiscally responsible. And was primarily because the cash wasn't there, and it wasn't smart to put the state in debt when they could use the federal cash for other needs.

Unbelievable how the Obamatrons think... or would that be *don't* think.

Mataharley, that is a perfect description of GOP principle. First, campaign for government expenditure that you feel free to dispense since it is coming from the general taxpayers pool, ie, someone else is paying for it. Then, when elected and you learn that you are going to have to make your constituents actually pay for their toys, you get all principled, cause otherwise, you'd have to tax them.

Luckily, in D.C., you can always borrow from the Chinese. So you can have one "war to nowhere" after another, whilst cutting taxes for the corporations. A sweet deal, and let someone else pay for it later. I'm glad you spot this as the equivalent of GOP principle. You are exactly right.

Agreed. Obama is right.

Dragging Palin, personally, and her family into sex/family policy debates are not fair game. It will backfire on you.

After all, how many people went over to Obama after Billary were accused of racism?

I think the major *winning* issues of this campaign are not those issues being most associated with Palin and her family.