Sarah Palin? What Say You, Polsters?

We’re as surprised as many of you to hear that Tina Fey Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin is John McCain’s choice for a running mate. Palin is so little-known that the initial AP story about her selection included lines like this:

Congressional Quarterly said her past occupations included being a commercial fishing company owner, outdoor recreational equipment company owner and sports reporter.

Nobody even knows anything about her, which isn’t necessarily a bad thing – but she’s really, really unknown. And what is known about her is that she is involved in a scandal involving a fired state trooper who was in a child-custody battle with her sister.

But the strangest part of the Palin choice in our view is that she doesn’t really stand up as a person who the public could see as PRESIDENT should anything happen to the 72-year-old McCain. She’s only been a governor for 2 years, and in a state that’s basically Canada. It makes it difficult for McCain to rip Obama for a lack of experience when his running mate is the most inexperienced of the entire bunch.

What do You Think of Sarah Palin as McCain's VP?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

291 Community Comments, Facebook Comments

  1. Dabee47 says:

    and that’s fine.

    But what story are you going to be watching for the rest of the day on MSNBC, CNN, and the like?

    It’s going to be “who is Sarah Palin,” not, “Obama rocked the mile-high city last night.”

    Yes, the experience argument cuts right at the heart of Palin.  But just like Joe Biden’s experience doesn’t make Obama any more experienced, Palin doesn’t make McCain any less experienced.  This race is between McCain and Obama, not Palin and Obama.

    It’s a bold choice, it may be a bad one, it may not.  Obviously we’ll know in Nov.

    And finally, is anyone, anyone going to at least recognize the fact that McCain and the GOP are at least making a historic choice?

    • colorado76 says:

      Its blunted by Ferraro, but its still significant.

      • One Queer Dude says:

           That’s an accurate measure of how out of step the Republicans are.  Which means in the year 2032, they may be ready to place a minority on their ticket.

        • ardy39 says:

          2008: McCain announces Palin as VP choice

          2005: Katrina drowns New Orleans

          1988: Sarah Heath marries Todd Palin

          1966: Beatles perform last concert

          1949: Soviets test their first atomic bomb

          There’s more at

        • jericho says:

          Always last to the table when it comes to being socially progressive.

          For example:

          The first black secretary of state

          The first American born female secretary of state

          The first black female secretary of state

          The first hispanic attourney general

          Nominating and confirming the first woman for the supreme court

          And on and on.

          • BlueCat says:

            the first black SOS and first Hispanic AG  have been such incompetents.  Cute how you feel you have to take away first female SOS from Albright by adding American born. And where is Janet Reno, the first woman AG? Not that she was anything to write hime about either but she was a first.  

            For the GOP it’s much easier to have a president appoint women and minorities than to get Republican voters to elect them.

            Democrats elect many times more women minorities at all levels then do Republicans because Democratic voters are so much more willing to vote for them. Take a look at the Colorado state legislature some time for starters. There is simply no contest between the GOP and Dems in terms of diversity among elected officials in DC or throughout the states.  None.

            • BlueCat says:

              and “women and minorities.”

              • jericho says:

                speaking ill of minorities there Bluecat, you may have your Democrat card revoked.

                OQD spoke of placing minorities, so that’s what I spoke to. If you want to speak of elections, well then that’s a tricky proposition.

                Perhaps more minorities currently associate themselves with Democrats, but I wouldn’t claim the high road so quickly.

                Yours is the party of Dixiecrats and George Wallace and Jim Crow and segregation.

                Ours is the party of Lincoln, and Eisenhower (first president to desegregate) and the reconstruction.

                You may have built up a certain cache with the “great society” and tokenism and affirmative action, but that doesn’t mean your party has a monopoly on equality.

                Truth be told, the very fact that you treat “minorities” like some abstract bloc kind of makes me sick. (and yes, I’m engaging in the same rhetoric, but only to respond to yours and OQD’s attacks, otherwise I wouldn’t ever stoop to this level, but you both dragged me down.)

                • Aristotle says:

                  All the dixiecrats  and segregationists are found in the GOP today. They all switched parties in the 60s and 70s. They realize Jim Crow is dead but still fight for those ideals where they can.

                  I really wouldn’t try to seize the high road here if I were you.

                • BlueCat says:

                  Stating the simple truth that all the various minorities are better represented among elected Dems is not treating them as a block and nothing that should make anyone sick.  Just pointing out a simple fact.  If you are a female, black, Hispanic, non-Christian or combat vet elected official the chances are much higher that you are a Democrat than that you are a Republican.  Go check some stats.  

                  And as Aristotle states, the Dixiecrats became Republicans after civil rights and the party of Lincoln has been using race to hang on to the south ever since.

                  And would it make you sick to know that Eisenhower was a self described liberal with next to nothing in common with conservative Republicans today? Probably why his grand daughter is such a strong Obama supporter.

                  As I said, there is no question which party’s grassroots voters are more open to electing minorities of all kinds.

        • Stringer says:

          I would vote for Condi Rice in a New York minute.

            • redstateblues says:

              She’s far more experienced in the executive than ANY of the 4 nominees. Could it be because she thinks that a woman shouldn’t be forced to bear their rapist’s child? Or because she praised Obama’s nomination? So far the people up there (aside from Gonzales) are far more qualified to be president or VP.

              • Haners says:

                Rice couldn’t be considered for the same reason that while on paper, the former governor of Flordia was never considered for either President or VP.

                Any member of the Bush administration is going to be kind of off limits for consideration

              • BlueCat says:

                during the greatest foreign policy strategic blunder in our entire history? Because she sneered and dismissed the Bin Laden memo as irrelevant historic info? Because she was a cipher who never stood up to the big boys? Because since she’s been kicked upstairs to SOS she has been completely ineffectual, even in the Russia/Georgia crisis, her area of expertise? Because she thinks Georgie is God’s gift?  Just for starters.

        • cologeek says:

          Have the Dems put on the ticket since then?   Ferraro (who is apparently now as popular with Obama’s supporters as Joe Lieberman) hasn’t been followed up on in any way shape or form since then.  Hillary wasn’t even considered for the job this time around despite her obvious qualifications and potential positives to add to the ticket.

      • Another skeptic says:

        In an interview conducted earlier this week, she sounds more expert and articulate about energy than McCain, Obama and Biden.

        That interview will be replayed on NBC, etc., and it will put the experience nonsense to rest big time.

        • redstateblues says:

          Because the vice-president sets energy policy? The VP’s sole purpose (aside from breaking tie votes in the Senate) is to step up to the presidency in the event of the death, incapacitation, or removal of the current President. You would seriously feel comfortable with Sarah Palin as commander in chief?

          Let’s see 15 military commanders stand by her and say SHE’s ready to lead.

          • Laughing Boy says:

            Has only shown that he’d steamroll through his misguided partition program regardless of what they think.  Maybe as long as she at least listened to them they’d view her as a positive alternative.

            • redstateblues says:

              and you know it. Has she even met ANY military commanders who are outside the scope of Alaska? You can’t defend this pick LB. If McCain wins like you want him to, and the unthinkable happens, are you really going to be able to live with yourself as President Palin stumbles through the rest of McCain’s term?

              • Laughing Boy says:

                That’s why you guys are screaming like mashed cats.

                It’s cool.

                You know what?  Have a great weekend.  Aside from all this.  I’ve had a really nice time talking to most of you this week. Thanks.

                • redstateblues says:

                  because I am genuinely scared of having her as second in line to be president.

                • Karinthy says:

                  LB, I think you are confusing the difference between screaming and laughing our asses off. Go check out the NRO blog to watch the Cons twist their way into thinking it’s ok pick.  

                • BlueCat says:

                  And neither is Obama.  McCain just did us a favor.  Nobody will ever look at her and see a potential Commander in Chief. McCain just imlpoded his Not Ready to Lead mantra.  She has no appeal to women  except on the far right and they don’t vote Democratic anyway.  We don’t have to worry about Mittens handing him Michigan or Pawlenty handing him Minnesota.  In fact I hear both those guys are incensed. She’s a great pick.  For our side, not yours.  Wonder how thrilled Cindy is?  

          • Another skeptic says:

            Sarah Palin has shown more leadership abilities than either Obama or Biden.

            They are big suck ups, pandering to special interests in unions, the environmental community and the AARP.

            Palin and McCain try to do what they think is right for their constituents, not their special interests.

            Thus, Palin has been getting reforms done, taking on the special interests in her state, just as McCain has taken on special interests in Congress.

            Meanwhile, Biden has made a career of pandering, forcing congress to back his beloved Amtrak and bullying people he disagrees with, including judicial appointees who appear before his committee.

            You want Obama, who has called for a criminal investigation of someone who’s funding a harmless and routine ad against him, to be president of the U.S. You want a man like that to have the power to launch criminal investigations of the press, just like W?

            I don’t understand how you think BHO or Biden are leaders, much less stronger leaders than McCain, who backs protections for journalists, and Palin, who was a journalist?


            • One Queer Dude says:

              ….using the power of her office to take revenge on her sister’s ex-husband.  Wasn’t it your President Nixon who used the FBI to harass political opponents?  Somewhere down in hell he’s probably looking up and smiling at Sarah Palin.

              • Another skeptic says:

                Guess Palin had reason to be concerned.

                • The stepson confirms that he asked to be tasered, and it was a one-second “demo” that he (the stepson) claims did nothing but jolt him – a claim that Taser says is a valid description for a short burst.  Palin’s daughter’s account paints a much more brutal picture, but it doesn’t apparently match the rest of the circumstances or testimony.

                  And in typical domestic dispute fashion, his threat to her father was deemed “non-criminal” because he hadn’t made the threat directly (and probably because it was in the middle of a domestic dispute, which seems to excuse many things in the eyes of some policemen and laws…)

                  IOW, Wooten was, at least at the time, an asshole.  He’s also got serious relationship problems – 4 divorces already at the age of 35.  And, also in typical domestic dispute fashion, it appears that both sides engaged in telling lies and half-truths in order to make the other side look or feel worse.

                  But that doesn’t excuse the cover-up and misuse of government authority that’s got Palin in hot water now.

                  • BlueCat says:

                    sorry affair is under investigation so it was deemed worthy of investigation and the truth is still being sorted out. We’ll have to see how  the allegations and counter allegations shake out.

    • ChrisCooper says:

      It’s not Obama who needed the experience argument against McCain.  If experience is taken OFF THE TABLE, it is Obama who wins…in a HUGE way.

      Yes, Palin will be the story today and through the weekend….but mostly as pundits try to make heads or tails of a choice that appears risky at best, desperate at worst.  Is that really ‘eclipsing’ the Obama story??

      • Whiskey Lima Juliet says:

        Thank you John McCain for making this race a lot easier.  Barack is going to wipe the floor in the debates against McCain and Biden is going to embarrass Palin on the national stage.

        She not ready for this, and it is sad the Republicans have put this women up knowing she is going to fail miserably.  As a leader you never set your people up to fail.  Republican leadership at it finest.

        • Laughing Boy says:

          Has avoided nearly every opportunity to debate McCain he was offered.  McCain offered 10 town hall joint appearances and he declined and now we’re stuck with three standard network debates.

          Sen. Obama isn’t necessarily at his best off the teleprompter, is he?

          Neither is McCain, but there’s no expectation of McCain doing well.

          • Aristotle says:

            any two major presidential candidates debated before convention?

            That’s a non-issue. McCain did not make the challenge with any expectation that it would be met. What would McCain have done if Obama had excepted? Hint: he wouldn’t have debated him, that’s for certain.

            • Laughing Boy says:

              Look at how badly Obama has damaged himself speaking off script…

              He’s so amazing on script – it’s a real contrast.  The debates should be really interesting – especially the foreign policy one.

              • Aristotle says:

                That McCain’s earlier challenge wasn’t serious? No, that’s the truth. And that was really the only point I was trying to make.

                That Obama damaged himself off-script? That’s arguable but not a predictor of how he’ll do in debate, especially against McCain, who has his fair share of self-inflicted wounds too.

                • Laughing Boy says:

                  Obama put him off because he was slightly ahead in the polls, and because McCain is going to kick his ass in a debate.

                  You have to get specific about policy in debates. You have to comment on hypotheticals in debates.  You have to get pinned down in debates.  

                  • sxp151 says:

                    So at some point McCain may have to decide where he actually stands on torture, immigration, Bush’s tax cuts, campaign finance, ethanol, etc.

                    And most damaging of all, he’ll have to openly admit that he’s very much anti-abortion. I’ve seen people considering McCain because they think he’s pro-choice. In an event with the biggest audience of the campaign, he’ll have to admit what he actually believes on abortion, and it’ll kill him.

                    As for McCain’s “town halls,” he does really well in them because he fills the audiences with his donors and supporters. The “ten town halls” schtick was to keep Obama from campaigning for two months. Fortunately, Obama ain’t stupid.

                  • Aristotle says:

                    My prediction – Obama will get under McCain’s skin and get him to erupt into one of his famous temper tantrums. If that happens, no one will give a whit about any policy positions.

                    But even if he doesn’t, you’re dreaming if you think McCain will win, let alone easily.

              • Arvadonian says:

                pick a consistent script to read off of.

                Against offshore drilling/for offshore drilling;

                Against Bush’s tax cuts/for Bush’s tax cuts;

                For amnesty for illegals/against amnesty for illegals;

                Bomb, bomb, bomb Iran/Don’t bomb, bomb, bomb Iran;

                Religious conservatives are agents of intolerance who I chose not to associate with/Religious conservatives are agents of intolerance whose ass I’ll kiss to get their votes.

                Who knows, as much as he’s flip-flopped lately he might withdraw from the race next week.

          • Ray Springfield says:

            Why debate when winning?

            Nixon refused flat out to debate Humphrey. Why? Because he was winning.

            The other practical thought is why give your opponent free publicity when the financial advantage resides with your supporters?

        • One Queer Dude says:

             I see the potential for another “You’re No Jack Kennedy” moment coming from Biden’s podium during the deebate.  

            Or maybe, “You’re No Hillary Clinton” thrown at Palin.

          • Laughing Boy says:

            Obama’s staff is going to hold their collective breath that Biden uses his own material.

            Biden was a desperate pick, IMO.

            • BlueCat says:

              Palin is the desperate pick.  McCain is a 72 year old cancer survivor and he is offering us, as Commander in Chief in case anything happens to him, a former Cheerleader and extremely small town mayor (I’ve seen figures ranging from 6+ to 8+ thousand), 2 year governor with absolutely NO credentials on national or international issues, not even academic credentials.  

              How can he (or you, LB) now, with a straight face, accuse Obama of being the one putting politics before country.  This is putting the most blatant desperate political gimmickry before country.  This is outrageous.  

              As for scoring points with Hillary supporters, to put Palin in the same league with HRC is hugely insulting to her supporters.  In you heart of hearts, LB, how can you possibly see this light weight as your President and Commander in Chief.  I’m sure NONE of our generals can.  

              And while there was no love lost between Romney and  McCain, Romney must be incensed at this ridiculous slap in the face pick. Pawlenty can’t be too happy either about being dangled right up until this morning just so McCain could get maximun miles out of his surprise.  He can’t be enjoying the fact that last night all the pundits were calling him the pick and this morning the pick is the least qualified of all potential VPs on either side of the aisle. Dems are breathing a sigh of relief that McCain won’t have Mitt to give him Michigan OR Pawlenty to hand him Minnesota. We were pretty sure it would be one or the other.

              This isn’t just a bad pick. It isn’t just a short sighted gimmicky pick. It isn’t just a politically stupid pick.  It puts  McCain completely beneath contempt no matter how many times he uses “POW” to answer any criticism.

              No real patriot would dream  of saddling us with this completely unqualified person as our President in these perilous times.  McCain, as he said in his own book, really  DOES want to be president only out of personal ambition.   He’s made it clear that he can’t POSSIBLY care more for his country than he does for his ambition.  

              I can’t bear to believe that you really approve this pick, LB.  It disappoints me deeply.

          • Disinterested17 says:

            It’s also true that less than 5 million people will watch the VP debate, most of them already know who they’ll vote for . . .

            • redstateblues says:

              but the media will spin it, and that is where the real damage lies. Just wait till she says something absolutely insane, like women who are raped must deliver their rapist’s babies.

              • BlueCat says:

                Lieberman was so awful it couldn’t have helped.  Cheney looked like the guy who knew his stuff and Lieberman looked like a wimp. Even I thought Cheney won that debate and I hated his guts.

            • RedGreen says:

              That’s just not even remotely true.

              44 million watched the Cheney-Edwards debate.

              51 million watched Gore-Quayle-Stockdate.

              57 million (the record) watched Bush-Ferraro.

              It’s true, viewership has fallen slightly over the years, but those Nielsen numbers don’t take into account PBS, C-Span, TiVo or online viewers, which have all increased (or didn’t exist) since the peak numbers.

              We’ll know in a month whether she’s up to the task, but either way, viewers will turn out in droves — to watch a good debate or witness a train wreck. I’m betting on the latter, but either way, it’s going to be great TV.

              (You can download an Excel spreadsheet with ratings for all the presidential and vice presidential debate at the bottom of this page)

      • Another skeptic says:

        With the selection of Gov. Palin, John McCain has put character and integrity on the table, taken age off the table and brought back the GOP base—and picked up some conservative women who voted for Hillary in the primaries

        Some are hoping that her anti-abortion stand, with which I disagree, will hurt her with Hillary’s voters.

        Probably with the Emily’s list voters, but not with most women.

        Social issues aren’t big in this campaign because Congress will be controlled by the left regardless of who wins the White House.

        Therefore, the question becomes, who will do the best job of advancing women’s issues, an old egotist like Biden, or the mom of a man in Iraq, three daughters and an infant with Downs Syndrome an married to a native American who reportedly has been a stay at home dad?

        Neither McCain nor Palin have made social issues the focus of their political careers, unlike the Clintons and W.

        What will sell Palin is that she’s a strong woman who’s not Hillary.

        She’s honest and a reformer, not dishonest and plagued by White Water, hidden files and other scandals.

        She’s Idaho and Alaska, not Ivy League and DC.

        And she “gets it” as none of the other three candidates do. While  Barack has spent the last 15 or 16 years running for office, probably spending little time with his kids, Sarah Palin has been having and raising kids, even while serving in offices.

        She’s a super mom. The guys are absentee fathers.

        As for experience, Biden has been wrong on most important foreign policy issues. He’s a joke in Washington, and hardly a man who is known for integrity or writing his own speeches.

        Heck, Palin’s a journalism grad and journalist, among other things. She’s a writer, and writers are clear thinkers.

        This will be a fun campaign.

        • She’s not plagued by scandals?  She’s a reformer?

          No – she was just outside the Alaskan Corrupt Bastards Club.  That doesn’t mean she’s immune.

          She’s already proven in several instances that she’s willing to go all the way to get her way.  And it’s not just her trooper-gate spat.  She also replaced the entire Ag Board, which in turn replaced the Dairy Board, just so she could try to save an unprofitable (and state-run) dairy co-op back in her home town.

          That’s not change.  That’s more of the same.

        • Whiskey Lima Juliet says:

          You are as confused as McCain.

          Hillary supporters are not going her way in any measureable point spread.

          McCain still will turn off most women.  He won’t escape the no choice even in rape or incest.  Nor will he escape the “cunt” quote or the “bitch” quote no matter how many “hockey moms” he surrounds himself with.


          • Another skeptic says:

            Watch what they do, not what they say.

            McCain is recognizing the smarts of an honest super mom who is a reformer and will break the glass ceiling.

            That’s more important than any of his many irreverent quips, but the bitter don’t get it, and they won’t. That’s ok, most voters will.

            • BlueCat says:

              You, AS(S), Haners and LB would be the first to accuse the Dem of doing it only as a political stunt with no consideration for possible consequences to the country. And you would be right for a change.

              • Haners says:

                There you go assuming everything again.

                Remember how when Biden was announced, and all the Dems said that “no one votes for the VP”-is that still true, or has it been cast aside for the opportunity to make a politically motivated attack?

                I’m not concerned about Palin’s experience.  Two years as a govenor is a lot more executive experience then four years as a U.S. senator.

                Oh, and don’t forget that the inexperienced Senator is the one running for president, not vice-president

                • redstateblues says:

                  is good experience, sure… If you’re running for another term as Governor.

                • Danny the Red (hair) says:

                  and its a big difference.

                  Obama has spent 2 years being poked and prodded by the media and his opponents.

                  He had an opportunity to flesh out his policies on a host of issues.  Campaigns are crucibles.

                  Palin is about to be shredded.

                  Experience as governor? my word she has been governor for 20 months and Alaska has almost no state government. She might be dangerous in 4 years…if she doesn’t embarrass herself.

                  • Haners says:

                    Paraphrasing here:  A governor draws up a budget instead of just voting on one.  A governor sets the state’s agenda-instead of voting on nominees.  A governor manages large full-time staffs-not nominal legislative staffs.  A senator votes, a governor is the head dog.

                    Alaska doesn’t “almost have no state government”, they do a lot.  Alaska deals with everything from energy issues to education-in many areas moreso then other states.

                    • redstateblues says:

                      let’s say your point is valid (which, superficially it is) why not pick Tim Pawlenty, who has had more experience in gubernatorially, and has run a state that has 4.5 million more people? It’s also a blue state that saw it fit to elect a Republican governor. All of these arguments about Sarah Palin apply to Tim Pawlenty, only 100 times moreso.

                      Since Pawlenty was (supposedly) on the short list, all this talk about executive experience goes out the window. McCain picked her because of her far-right ideologies, plain and simple.

                    • Haners says:

                      Most of them were governors.  But Palin has a ton of experience with energy issues, something that T-Paw and Romney didn’t have.

                      And who knows, maybe Pawlenty wasn’t ready for the prime time?

                    • Danny the Red (hair) says:

                      Mayor Hickenlooper has more employees.

                      He’s been a great mayor for 5 years, is he qualified to be President?  How about Ritter he’s been Governor just as long as Palin?

                      I know you like her, but come on Haners her executive experience is almost nonexistent.

                      I don’t think experience is critical, but you are no longer allowed to criticize Obama for his perceived lack of experience.

                    • Haners says:

                      Did Hickenlooper ever deal with energy issues?  Statewide educational issues, specifically dealing with Federal standards?  Has Hickenlooper passed anything for gas-price relief?  Has Hickenlooper dealt with native American issues?  Has Hickenlooper been in command of the state patrol or the national gaurd?

                      Has Hickenlooper taken on corrupt memebers of his party and cleaned house?

                      Come on-Hickenlooper couldn’t plow the streets of Denver-you really think he’s qualified to be president?

                      But we’re talking about VPs, right?  Tell me what experience Joe Biden has governing anything in his tiny state.  Show me the state he governed.  Or show me the business he ran.  Yeah, that’s hard.  You can give me Obama’s examples too.

                      Oh yeah.

                      Never mind

                    • Danny the Red (hair) says:

                      I can accept the arguments that Obama is unqualified, but to say Palin is more qualified than Biden is laughable.

                      Hickenlooper has water issues, budget issue, urban issues, energy issue, transportation issue, homeland security issues, budget issues (during a recession)–he’s way more qualifed than Palin based on experience.

                    • Haners says:

                      I’m making a point.  The point is this: to say that Palin doesn’t have experience is laughable.  The truth of the matter is that both Biden and Palin are experienced; just in different ways.  Palin has gubernatorial experience, which is HUGE.  One term as a governor is worth at least two terms as a Senator.

                      Biden on the other hand, has a lot of experience in international affairs.  But he hasn’t ever held a real job, or been the executive for a business or in the government.  

                      Both have equal claims on experience, both have weaknesses.  They’re experienced differently from one another.  They both help their respective presidential candidates balance out their weaknesses.  But no one fills in all of the gaps.  

                      But let’s give Gov. Palin some respect (which many people here haven’t given her).  She has executive experience, which is more experience then being a Senator for four years.  Don’t forget that before that, she took principled stands on fighting corruption within the Republican party.  She’s got the kind of personality that relates well to the country.  She would make a great VP, and if it so becomes, even a great President.

                    • Dabee47 says:

                      I basically disagree, but it’s a good point.

                      The chasm between Biden and Palin is huge…just like it is between Obama and McCain.  There’s nothing wrong with that.  All four have strengths and weaknesses, but in a purely political sense, Palin is definitely at the bottom of the experienceometer. 😛

                      What Palin does have is the conservative cred that no other potential candidate aside from Bobby Jindal has.  Kay Bailey Hutchison, Snowe, Collins, Lingle, Mittens, Ridge…none of them come close.

                      And some of the absolutely asinine comments I see on here disrespecting Palin are disgusting.  She does deserve respect if for no other reason than she’s the Governor of Alaska.  Disagreeing is one thing…disrespecting is another…

                    • Haners says:

                      Disagreeing is one thing…disrespecting is another…

                      Well said.

                      The only thing I would add is this: not only is Palin conservative, but she’s not a “fall in line” conservative.  Look at how she took on the corrupt Republican establishment in Alaska.

                      As a conservative, I LOVE that about her!

                    • Danny the Red (hair) says:

                      respect is earned

                      but I do respect both you and Haners.

                    • Dabee47 says:

                      But even in your questioning of Palin, as far as I’ve noticed you haven’t resorted to ridiculous attacks.  You’ve asked questions, pointed out errors in her judgement…nothing disrespectful in my book.  Others who know nothing about the woman aren’t being nearly as civil IMO.

                      And of course I respect you as well.  You are after all the reigning Polster of the year.  😛

                    • Haners says:

                      Yes, respect is earned, but most people should be treated respectfully.

                      For instance, I have zero respect for Doug Bruce.  But I saw him a couple of weeks ago, and I shook his hand and asked him how he was doing.  Just because I dispise the guy and I don’t respect him doesn’t mean I have to be disrepectful.

                      I respect you as well Danny (and Dabee).  Again, I apologize for jumping to conclusions about your comment about Palin’s daughter.

                    • One Queer Dude says:
                • BlueCat says:

                  It’s one of your favorite arguments against Obama. And while people do vote for the top of the ticket the VP can hurt or help a little in close ones. Also all the Dems I know said “Great! We love Biden”.  I know a LOT of Dems.

                  But we’ll see, won’t we.  We’ll see if people are comfortable with the most light weight VP since Dan Quayle paired with the wrinkly old, old dude.

                • parsingreality says:

                  That would depend on what state.  Texas, California, NY, sure.  Wyoming, Alaska, Idaho?  No way.  

                  Being an Illinois Senator requires as much management skills as a governor from such a tiny state as Alaska.  In fact, probably a lot more.  

    • McCain’s pick is unconventional enough that it will continue to make news through the weekend, bumping some of Obama’s coverage.

      Whether this is a Good Thing or a Bad Thing revolves around what the media finally decides to say about Sarah Palin.

    • BlueCat says:

      to suck energy from the Obama convention coverage but it seems like a very short-sighted gimmick to me.  

      She is anti-choice so she doesn’t represent much of a threat on the women’s vote front.  She is younger than  Obama with tons less gravitas as a former beauty queen and cheerleader, like GW, God help us.  

      She’s been a small town mayor and became governor of Alaska 2 years ago,  so that makes it hard to continue to stress Obama’s inexperience and even harder for people to picture her as the kind of person ready to step in as president while Biden is so clearly qualified to step in.  

      McCain is also going to have to back off the patriotism knock with Biden’s son serving in Iraq.  Since his whole campaign is that he’s more experienced and secondarily that Obama puts politics before country, Biden is going to do Obama a lot more good than Palin will do McCain. This also detracts from the “Obama is just a light weight celebrity” message since Palin is THE most light weight of ALL the names floated for VP and potential president.  

      Once the initial media feeding frenzy dies down it’s going to wind up looking like a foolish, desperate gimmick compared to Obama’s solid pick. This is BLATANTLY politics before country considering that McCain is 72 and this is what he’s offering us one heartbeat away from the presidency in such a difficult and dangerous time?  Seriously?  And Biden is just the guy to demolish her in the debate without looking like a bully.  

      • Dabee47 says:


        But I wonder if we’re ever going to get a good look at the choice of Palin.

        After the frenzy dies down, we’ll be into the repub convention. Then, Friday-Sun. of next week will be about the repub convention fallout/did McCain get a bounce/how were the speeches/blah, blah, blah…

        By then we’re 15 days from the first debate.

        If repubs and Palin can weather those two weeks and avoid any major screw-ups (which may not be all that hard to do as the bar is set really low) we may not hear the name Sarah Palin (from the MSM) until the VP debate.

        Just a thought…

        • BlueCat says:

          going over of her incredibly skimpy resume.  There is fodder galore for Obama ads here.  All they have to do is present the facts about her background and level of qualification and ask the American people to try to picture her, with everything that’s going on in the world and country today, as President and Commander in Chief, a distinct possibility with a 72 year old cancer survivor in office.

          Then ask the people the same question about Joe Biden. Then ask us which  presidential candidate just made the better first choice as potential President of the United States of America.  

          Which choice shows concern for the country and which choice is a political stunt?  I dare McCain to ever again accuse Obama of putting  politics before country after this.

          Oh and there’s also the fact Dems have a much better chance now in both Michigan (Romney) and Minnesota (Pawlenty). This choice shows the same lack of foresight that has been a hallmark of his campaign so far.  

      • One Queer Dude says:

           I’d be careful about that attitude.  The NARAL members will never vote for the GOP ticket (even if Tom Ridge had been VP.)

          However, there are a lot of women who are mildly pro-choice but not completely opposed to voting for a anti-choice ticket.  How else can anyone explain how the Shrub got as many suburban married women to vote for him in ’04 (which made the difference in that election)?

          Those same women may not be entirely put off by McCain and Palin’s awful record of opposing reproductive rights.  They should be, but they may not.  

        • I love activists, but when will folks learn that voting on a single issue is DUMB?

          So women voters considering this ticket would rather see: 100% anti-abortion, less pay for equal work, creationism and abstinence-only teaching, and (at least for as long as she’s only the VP and not the President) all of the other anti-woman baggage that goes along with John McCain?

          • BlueCat says:

            but if HRC supporters considered the possibility of Sebelius an insult to HRC, how much more of an insult is it that MCain thinks they’ll come over like so many trained seals for ANY woman, even one as manifestly under-qualified as this one.  I heard a woman on call in radio today say that Palin isn’t fit to iron Hillary’s pants suit.  

            Bottom line: Can anyone see THIS woman as President and Commander in Chief?  Her only appeal is to the conservative right and they aren’t voting Democratic anyway.  Is she enough to get them to turn out in huge numbers, fired up for McCain?  If so, I’d get a food taster if I were in his shoes.

        • Another skeptic says:

          Women will be taken by her personality, life story and family.

          Sorry, guys.

          • She vetoed it because it wasn’t linked to a ban on gay marriage.

          • DUDem says:

            she is a staunch opponent to the gay community.

            She did, however, veto legislation passed by the state legislature in 2006 that would have prohibited providing DP benefits to state workers, in defiance of the Alaska Supreme Court’s ruling.  She did this after the Supreme Court had already ruled and the Attorney General (Republican) advised her that the legislation was unconstitutional.  Palin went on to state that, as a matter of policy, she was in favor of the bill.

            She supported STRIPPING state employees domestic partnership benefits away and Alaska’s constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.  

            She is a conservative evangelical christian in probably the most stereotypical sense.

            She is likeable, though.  I mean my mother who is a not-very-strong Republican (she is pro-life but not radically) who had considered voting for Obama will LOVE Palin because they have similar stories and definitely she will vote for her.

  2. Whiskey Lima Juliet says:

    I am not a medical professional, but as a betting person I would wager there is a higher percentage than not that a President McCain could be a liability as far as longevity.

    President Palin makes no sense to anyone.  

    I am listening to her speak right now – I have heard better speeches for High School class President.  She sounds weak and extremely inexperienced.

  3. colorado76 says:

    She will certainly generate excitement among conservatives, and she will most likely generate more excitement among women than, say, Mitt Romney.

    That said, there’s not much of a way to look at this other than senator McCain ceding round one of the election to senator Obama.  He has been running on the narrative that excitement and change is not enough, and is in fact dangerous, without experience.  He’s either decided to give that up entirely, or he’ll stick with it for a few days until he is ridiculed into giving it up.  

    This isn’t to say he won’t win, but he’s admitting that this election is about change and bringing new voices to the executive branch, experience be damned.  And in that respect, his opponent has a significant head start.

  4. Whiskey Lima Juliet says:

    It points out how far out of touch McCain is.  He believes women will vote for any woman.  Not true. Women are notorious for not voting for women.  Women wanted Hillary – experienced, tough, known, competent.  Just like Blacks want Barack and not Jesse Jackson, women do not want Palin.  She is no Hillary.

    • sxp151 says:

      in pretty large numbers. Maybe you mean Al Sharpton?  

      • BlueCat says:

        women don’t want just ANY woman.  Palin stands against everything that Hillary stands for, even more so than McCain.  Being for Hillary is the opposite of being a far right social conservative which is what Palin is.

        Ann Coulter is a woman too but running her for President or VP wouldn’t get the HRC vote either.  There is little difference between Palin and Coulter on the issues.  There is  pretty much NO intersection between her views and HRCs.  

        The PUMAs are so few and irrelevant they shouldn’t be given any serious consideration as a force to be placated.  

        • Disinterested17 says:

          I appreciate you telling us what all women in America think.  You’re comment is possibly more ignorant than what you accuse McCain of, and I hate the guy.

          • BlueCat says:

            I said Hillary supporters. I’m sure women who are Ann Coulter fans agree with HER on the issues and likewise wouldn’t support just any a woman.  

            I’m assuming nothing about all women, just that Hillary supporters stand with Hillary on the issues and are not JUST supporting her because of her genitalia. Palin is as far as possible from Hillary on the issues.

  5. H-Dog says:

    This is Geraldine Ferraro redux-a blatantly political choice, a reach at best. This is McCain’s first executive decision, and gives us a clue-or confirms what many have suspected-that he’s more interested in sensation than substance, more interested in one-upping Obama than actually providing the nation with a competent successor.  This is a guy who’s in his 70’s, has had three bouts of melanoma, and has a host of health problems-he could buy the farm any day. I’ve always thought that Romney was a jerk, but an extraordinarily competent jerk-he could step into the presidency without ruffling a single hair on his bizarrely well-coiffed head.

    McCain what were you thinking…or di you misspeak, and tell your aides ‘Palin’ when you meant ‘Pawlenty’?  All those governors-how can you tell the difference?

    • Fidel's dirt nap says:

      and now this !  I look forward to the Vice Presidential debates.

      • ThillyWabbit says:

        The media will suddenly wake up to sexism and Biden will get criticized for every attack as being overbearing or misogynistic.

        Palin is McCain’s human shield.

        • 404notfound says:


          Palin is clearly a play to grab the “bitter Hillary supporters.” It strikes me as incredibly sexist that the McCain campaign seems to believe that women are willing to sacrifice their ideals just to put a woman on the ticket. As if women aren’t smart enough to see anything other than the sex of their candidate. Besides, Hillary’s supporters liked her because she is a strong, intelligent, highly-experienced woman-not because she was ‘any woman’. I think that the number of women who will actually make the switch is insignificant at best. You’re confusing women with the “Anybody but Bush” voters.

        • BlueCat says:

          Nobody can do a better job of demolishing Palin in a debate without looking like a bully than charming Joe Biden.  

          He and Obama  already have lots of experience fighting against a woman; Hillary.  Her camp’s protests that they were being mean to the girl didn’t get her very far because they weren’t particularly, she was plenty mean herself and a girl who complains the boys aren’t being nice to her is not exactly making the potential Commander in Chief argument. It’s a line just as hard for the women to walk as for the men.  

          The  Commander in Chief thing is Palin’s hill to climb.  Biden is already there.

  6. Go Blue says:

    McCain must be the most jealous man alive. In a campaign stunt, he asked a woman to run with him so he can say “Hey, look at me! We’re historic too!”

    This is going to be a total blunder when it dust settles.  

  7. dwyer says:

    Reminds me of that four year old girl whose mother pushed her into flying across the country…big promo about how brave and all that crap…then the plane crashed on  takeoff in Cheyenne…

    Where did she go to college?  And what will happen to her infant….is she still a nursing mother?

    The choice speaks volumes about the contempt McCain must have for the public…and his conceit that he will live another four years, unimpaired.  

    This is not about a campaign, this is gambling with the security of the United States….


  8. 404notfound says:

    Interesting that McCain has chosen to remove ‘experience’ from the comparison. I was pretty confident that he was going to choose Carly Fiorina to try and attract former Hillary supporters.* Interesting that he would choose someone with no name recognition. No news is good news?

    * I still think that the idea that there are large numbers of Clinton supporters who are going to switch to the GOP because their candidate didn’t win is bogus.

  9. Palin has a SOLID record as Governor of Alaska

    Do some digging – you’ll find that this was the best choice out there

  10. Haners says:

    Palin is a great choice-a conservative Republican who’s been a great Governor and who has taken on corrupt Republicans.  The more people get to know her the more people will like her.

    Her blue-collar working class background is perfect to confront someone like Biden.  If she can hold her own in the debates, it’ll be viewed as a win (and Obama/Biden better be careful how they approach her).

    Good job McCain-everyone in my office, Republicans, Democrats, undecideds are all excited about his pick and think it’s strong

    • Laughing Boy says:

      Is that the Republicans are more unified with this pick, and the Dems were less united with theirs.

      That’s a good thing, right?

      • … that McCain needed to go with a unifying pick, while Obama was free to pick the person he wanted regardless.

        • Haners says:

          That’s why Biden was picked!  Obama needed help on the experience front-as everyone here as admitted is a major weakness.  If Obama could have picked whoever he wanted, he probably would have picked Kaine.  But Kaine didn’t help Obama on the experience front, so his friend wasn’t the pick.

          You could say that McCain did the same, but that’s not the point-the point is that Obama wasn’t in a position to pick whoever he wanted

          • BlueCat says:

            You can’t seriously expect anyone to believe that Joe Biden isn’t a hundred times more qualified  than Palin to step in as Commander in Chief and president.  it’s absurd and you know it.  

            And where do you Republicans get the idea that the choice of Biden was divisive or unpopular.  The overwhelming majority of Democrats LOVE Joe and think he’s a great, smart choice.  The talking heads were just making that stuff up to have something to talk about between the pick and the convention.  Now they’re all researching Palin for something to talk about and most of what they find will make McCain look like a fool for picking her.

            Picture yourself as a high ranking General, a Chief of Staff, a theater commander.  Now picture yourself looking at Palin as your potential Commander in Chief. Pretty picture?  

            • Haners says:

              I thought I was talking about whether Obama was “free to pick whoever he wanted” as PR stated.  The truth was he wasn’t.  Obama had to pick someone like Biden to shore up his weaknesses.  That’s not the freedom to “pick whoever”, is it?

              • Colorado Pols says:

                Because he has the issue of age to address (as in, who would succeed him if something happens to his health?)

                • Haners says:

                  As I recall, a couple of comments above I said:

                  You could say that McCain did the same, but that’s not the point-the point is that Obama wasn’t in a position to pick whoever he wanted

              • BlueCat says:

                for a combination of reasons.  He also resisted pressure from those within his own campaign who insisted Biden didn’t fit the whole “change” mantra.  Obama’s choice shows he’s not just a one trick pony and that he isn’t going to be bound by any pet mantra if it gets in the way of solid judgement. He picked a well qualified VP who can take over if he has to. That’s number one for VP.

                Every decision is subject to considerations that are limit imposing.  there is no “free” decision unless you are just tossing dice so that’s a meaningless distinction.

                McCain’s choice is a political gimmick, another reactive choice and everyone knows it and knows that Palin is nowhere near the best qualified Republican for VP. You and LB may not admit it but you DO know it.  Of that I’m sure or I’ve seriously underestimated you. As for AS(S) who cares what he thinks or pretends to.

      • One Queer Dude says:

           Not exactly true.  I was as devout a  Clintonista as you’ll find, but I think in the long run (i.e., during the VP debate), the wisdom of selecting Biden is going to be on display.

          Ms. Palin better start brushing up on spelling “potato” and recognizing that Georgia is not just the setting for “Gone With the Wind.”  She’s got a hell of a learning curve ahead of her.

    • bob ewegen says:

      Wasn’t that really Tina Fey there with McCain?  This a Saturday Night Live skit, right?  Not an actual ticket pairing the Old Soldier with the Unknown Soldier.

    • ModerateGal says:

      let’s give it until tomorrow or the start of the RNC. Then we’ll be able to decide for ourselves if a) she does that on purpose, b) she tries but fails on a regular basis, c) the campaign’s stylist expense will probably make John Edward’s $400 haircut look reasonable.

      All I’m saying is, give her hair a chance …

      Happy Friday and long weekend, y’all!

  11. Ralphie says:

    1) She’s shorter than McCain

    2) She’s a slightly less boring speaker

    Way to pad the ticket!

  12. Danny the Red (hair) says:

    1. less experienced than Obama–takes the best line of attack off the table

    2. embroiled in an easy to understand ethics flap

    3.  makes McCain look ollllld.  really highlights the age issue.  She turned this election into Obama v. Palin, because McCain looks like dead man walking.

    4. Nobody I mean Nobody knows who she is.  Hell even Tucker Bounds, McCain’s spokesman mispronounced her last name.

    Good things about her

    1.  Kills a good news cycle for Obama.

    2.  Shores up the religious right

    3.  may, may give the lunatic PUMA fringe a place to go if they don’t recognize the pander.


    1.  Pretty with a grating voice

    2.  Blue collar speaking style but lacks gravitas

    3.  knows something about energy, but close to the oil companies.

    How do others feel about her campaigning with a 4 month old kid?

  13. Dabee47 says:

    And no, I don’t have a problem with her campaigning with a 4 month old.  

    My question is, would anyone be asking that question if BHO, JSM, or any male candidate had an infant?  I doubt it…

    • Dabee47 says:

      this was in response to Danny…

    • It’s not unknown for folks to attack parents running for office for “neglecting their children in the pursuit of power”.  Palin has, IIRC, 5 children and a working husband.  It’s bound to come up.

      But reaching for the possibility of becoming the VP isn’t necessarily bad parenting.  I don’t personally have a problem with it.

      • Laughing Boy says:

        The “family values folks” are terrified of Obama.  She could leave her 5 kids in the car while campaigning and they’re still going to vote for her.

        • BlueCat says:

          But they are irrelevant to the Dem vote.  The question is does she do enough to get them to be really enthusiastic about McCain.  The size of their turn out is the only thing relevant to Dems. Does she do more to make it huge or more to convince  the great middle that McCain is out of his mind, couldn’t care less about our future or both?

          • cologeek says:

            to connect with the working class better than any of the others in this campaign.  Biden might talk of his working class background, but she and her husband have lived the blue collar life.

            Obama is weak in the blue collar voting block, and with a United Steelworker as a husband, she has the potential to seriously cut into that vote.

            You can talk about how she is too inexperienced to be one heartbeat away from the Presidency, but how can you then say that Obama has the experience to be that heartbeat?

        • sjintheknow says:

          You liberals are lying sacks!  You all do not care about Liberal Women with children running for office.  But Oh No a Conservative woman must stay home with her children.

          You Liberals are running scared!  

          McCain has made the perfect choice!

          McCain/Palin ’08 Winners!

  14. Walter Mitty says:

    I suspect the same people who put George W. in office are setting up their next puppet.

    Heck, if she becomes President, she can always choose Dick Cheney as VP, to shore up her lack of experience.

  15. colorado76 says:

    Sen. John McCain on Friday announced Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin as his vice presidential candidate, calling her “the running mate who can best help me shake up Washington.”

    Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, here in February, will be Sen. John McCain’s running mate, the campaign announced.

    “She’s exactly who this country needs to help me fight the same old Washington politics of me first and country second,” the presumptive Republican nominee said at a Dayton, Ohio, rally of about 15,000 supporters, who welcomed the surprise pick of the relatively unknown politician with cheers and flags.

    • Senator McCain, why did you use the public financing system to help you get a loan from a bank and then back out of your commitment to public financing?

      Senator McCain, why were you named as one of the Keating Five?

      Senator McCain, as head of your Senate Committee, why did you withhold so many documents from the public during the investigation of Jack Abramoff?

      Senator McCain, why is your campaign staff (still) so heavily comprised of lobbyists and Washington insiders?

      • BlueCat says:

        Is this really the person you think is best qualified to lead us through the morass of Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, Russia, China in our foreign policy should anything happen to you?  You ARE 72, a cancer survivor, victim of years of maltreatment as a POW and don’t look so hot. You REALLY think this is best person for the job?

        • redstateblues says:

          How can any patriotic Republican–hell, any patriotic American–think that Sarah Palin is qualified to be commander in chief should, god forbid, something happen to John McCain.

          When you are the oldest presidential candidate in history, you don’t pick THE most inexperienced running mate in history. Come on, at least pick someone who has military experience. I mean, what’s going to happen if something happens to McCain, and there’s a national crisis? Are we going to trust someone who has never even been to Iraq or Afghanistan (or Korea, or Germany, or any place our troops are stationed) as the leader of military–and the free world?

          McCain derided Obama for not having been there in gasp well over a year. Yet he thinks that Palin is qualified to be his running mate? Are the American people really going to fall for this stunt?

      • sjintheknow says:

        Reaching for straws!  LOL, you Liberals are afraid very afraid and you should be!

        McCain/Palin 08 Winners!

  16. PERA hopeful says:

    I had no intention of watching it, but it may be worth tuning in to see how this goes over with the Repub faithful. I will definitely watch her speech! She must have something going for her, but so far I can’t figure out what the heck it is.

    Another site commented that McCain’s first pick(s) must have declined for him to land on Palin, and wondered who that first pick was. The next comment said, “Everyone who heard Obama’s speech!” So far that’s the most persuasive argument I’ve heard for picking Palin.

    However, I have to say something to all the folks who ask who will care for her infant: Knock it off. It is possible to be a mom (even a nursing mom) and handle a demanding schedule at the same time. Sheesh.

  17. parsingreality says:

    I would call it cruel and unusual job hazing.  

    And this woman with relatively no experience and a four month old infant is going to take this endurance test?  

    The baby will have to be on formula if it isn’t already.  Dad must do most of the parenting, or some nanny.  Not exactly a two parent family values home at crucial developmental times, like bonding.  

    Look, I wish the whole family well in terms of health and healthy outcomes.  I just think that this is a wall that may not get climbed over.  

  18. Disinterested17 says:

    was a Hillary person, and she REALLY liked this choice.  It’ll be interesting to see.

    BTW, anyone see out in the blogosphere the term VPILF?

    Crude, sexist?  Yes.  Funny?  Also yes.

  19. hobbylobby says:

    All I’ve been able to think since watching her speech is that now John McCain has his own “Janet Rowland”  Yikes!

  20. One Queer Dude says:

    …I cast the same vote here for Sarah Palin as I did for Joe Biden last week:  Eh, whatever.

      Neither selection makes me rethink for whom I’m going to vote.

  21. redstateblues says:

    that the inexperience card is now off the table, right? The fact that a 72-year-old man who has voters concerned over his age would pick someone who in NO WAY is qualified to be president, let alone vice president, is shocking to me. I don;t know if he thought that he could get.

    People are now going to have to ask themselves a question–and I LOVE that I can ask this–about their vote in November: if John McCain should be incapacitated after being sworn in, is Sarah Palin ready to lead? Nobody can deny that Senator Obama is ready to lead after last night’s speech. And nobody can deny that he is ready to be commander in chief. How many generals and admirals came out and stood up on the stage for him? No military commander would put their faith in someone they didn’t think was ready to lead the armed forces.

    I look forward to seeing how this plays out.

    • Ralphie says:

      Many GOPundits, LB included, have gotten the talking points:

      “as inexperienced as she is, she has more executive experience than Barack Obama.”

      You’ll hear that over and over until it becomes true.

      • redstateblues says:

        in 10 years in the Illinois state legislature, and 4 years in the US Senate he has LESS knowledge of how the executive works?

        I’ll give you that he has never won office as an executive, but does that make him any less knowledgeable about the executive branch than Sarah Plain with her whole 2 years of governor experience? Or are we counting the time she spent as mayor of 8,000 people?

        • Dabee47 says:

          not 10 in the leg.

          regardless, i totally agree w/ your point.

        • Ralphie says:

          Is not whether she’s a complete rookie (mayor of Wasilla doesn’t exactly pass my personal snicker test for experience).  What I’m disagreeing with is that the issue is off the table.

          It’s still on the table.

          • ChrisCooper says:

            It’s not the Dems who have to make the experience argument against Palin.  They aren’t trying to beat Palin (If they are smart, they won’t even acknowledge her).

            But the GOP absolutely DID need the experience arg against Obama.  So every time someone says “Obama is inexperienced” – the Dems can come back by saying, “But your party thinks that someone who has never held national office, never been to Iraq/Afghanistan, and has only 2 years experience as Governor of a state is perfectly qualified to be commander-in-chief.

            And as for the “Executive Experience” argument…she has more than John McCain and Joe Biden combined…

            (…which proves how ludicrous this argument is…)

            • redstateblues says:

              And as for the “Executive Experience” argument…she has more than John McCain and Joe Biden combined…

              That is why it’s not executive experience that matters, it is overall government experience. And if that is the case, then Sarah Plain–er, Palin–has 2 years in a state house in Juneau. We’re talking about someone who is going to be on the NSC if they are elected. How does she bring anything to the table when it comes to national security and foreign policy?

        • Disinterested17 says:

          does not an executive make.  At least this lady, whoever she is, must have seen presented a budget, vetoed a bill or managed a staff larger than 3 state house staffers, 50 senate staffers, or a campaign of a few thousand…

          It’s plain scary that either Obama or her would be in the white house.

          • Danny the Red (hair) says:

            McCain has never managed a staff either.

            I think Alaska has about 10K employees.

            Obama’s campaign infrastructure is about 1/3 of the size, but he built it she inherited hers.

            She has presented 1 budget.  

            • BlueCat says:

              McCain has done an imminently lousy job of managing his campaign staff.  What would he do heading an entire administration? And with no one better qualified than Palin?   Shudder!

      • sxp151 says:

        But I don’t think anybody ever believed it.

        This is one of those blogger things that very few public figures can actually say on TV, but if McCain dies on the campaign trail, do you really think anyone would vote for Palin for President?  

      • colorado76 says:

        The press is willing to repeat a lot of lines to fill time, but the attempt to keep up the ruse that she’s more prepared than Obama will be too much to swallow.

        Every time they bring up experience now, the response will be to ask about governor Palin, and the choices are making a joke of an argument to say she’s more experienced than Obama or say experience matters less for VP, which opens up the conversation about McCain’s age and health.

        • BlueCat says:

          more doubts about the choice in the media than plaudits. Most are describing this as a big gamble. Unless you watch the Murdock conservative propoganda organ.  One of their talking heads actually said she does have international experience because Alaska is so close to Russia.  I guess that makes everybody in states that border Canada and Mexico foreign policy experts,too.  

      • Laughing Boy says:

        Try to make one argument without looking down your nose at others.

        It’s not a fucking talking point.  It’s reason.  I came up with it myself.  Just because it disagrees with you doesn’t mean it’s propaganda I’ve been fed.

        It’s hard to take you seriously when it’s all ad hominem, all the time.

        • sxp151 says:

          Your language offends me.

          If you need to curse to make your point, you might not have a very strong point.

          • Laughing Boy says:

            You disgusting human.  

            Loved your jokes making fun of veterans and POWs yesterday.  Very classy.

            So glad such a horrible person gets paid by the State to be around children.

            • sxp151 says:

              The only veteran or POW I’ve ever made fun of is John McCain, since “POW” is his answer to everything.

              As for you responding to me, I couldn’t care less.

              It’s just funny to see how bullies react when someone treats them exactly as they treat others.

          • bob ewegen says:

            then I can only assume you’re a last-minute convert. Only yesterday, you posted this vile doggerel”

            There once was a man from Nantucket, whose dick was like John McCain’s in that, in a moment of seriousness, spent years in a POW camp being tortured.”

          • parsingreality says:

            A lot of people here use “fuck” occasionally. It’s out there, you know, part of our culture.  Not the most glorious part, but it is.  No big deal.

            Frankly, I’ve been a lot more offended by a lot of your accusations and general demeanor. “Bull in a china shop” comes to mind as a descriptor.  You rise to every comment given by a conservative here and it is immediately an ad hominem attack, not dialogue.  

          • Disinterested17 says:

            Laughing boy.  Clean that shit up.

        • ardy39 says:

          Frankly, your point is so forced (although technically correct) that it is easily mistaken for a talking point.

          Piece of Advice: I would avoid using this “argument” when sitting across from a person who has food in his/her mouth.

          • Laughing Boy says:

            So Senator Obama does have more executive experience than Governor Palin?

            No, technically he doesn’t.  Now, you can make the argument that his campaign, and some of his community activism would substitute, but that’s an “argument”, isn’t it.

            It might be laughable in your eyes, but if it’s so easy of a target, then make the argument.  

            • colorado76 says:

              If “executive” experience matters, senator McCain is wholly unqualified with zero.

              If overall experience, executive and otherwise, matters, governor Palin is the lease experience of the four Pres-VP candidates.

              Again, I think eventually folks will give up the ghost on this one.

            • ardy39 says:

              (Assuming ONLY executive experience counts.)

              Come on, LB, you’re way smarter than this.

              If you want to stick with your technically “correct” executive experience (talking) point, swell. But if you say it in front of me when I am eating, I will spray masticated food all over you!

              However, anyone who is not trying to put lipstick on a pig can see right through this. It is obvious that the objective here is for the listener/reader to ignore the ‘executive’ part and hear only the incorrect argument that Palin has more experience than Obama.

              Obama has more years of experience than Palin at both the state and federal level. He has more experience with law. He has more experience helping people who are down on their luck. He has more experience organizing (and winning) a 50 state campaign. He has more experience … you get the point.

              In contrast, Palin has 20 months drawing a state government paycheck in a state with a population roughly similar to Colorado’s 3rd CD.

              Can you see now why your (talking) point is so funny?

            • Aristotle says:

              The most effective President since WWII was Johnson. His prior experience was in the Senate. His VP experience can only tenuously be claimed to have prepared him for the presidency.

              That talking point will probably be effective, but it isn’t true.

  22. waltzeswithdog says:

    If McSame doesn’t understand that so much about Hillary’s qualities, particularly, standing up for choice and for pay equity, can not be met by any old woman, it just proves how much he doesn’t get it.  Progressive women will not be lured into voting for a pretty face that has no history in feminism.  Additionally, I would think the “fukus on the family” conservatives would be disturbed by a woman with an infant and four other children undertaking a job that will take her away from her God-given role as a mother.  Additionally, since conservative Christians believe a woman should be deferential to her husband, do we get to vote for her husband too?  Lastly, oh boy, oh boy, if the Dems wanted some red meat about the Republican ties to the oil and gas industry, this lady brings them.  The gloves will come off before this is over.  However, all this being said – the timing was good for the Repubs, and it will make more people watch their boring convention.  In the end, the candidate will bring little but novelty and a pretty face to the ticket.  

  23. Danny the Red (hair) says:

    Turnout models indicated there was a real enthusiasm gap which was going to turn this into a route.

    McCain nosed around with picking lieberman or ridge which pissed off the right further killing enthusiasm.

    This is less about PUMAs than it was about the conservative base.  If he picks up a few dead enders that’s a bonus, but it wasn’t the point.

    The point is that social conservatives are wetting themselves over this.  The McCain campaign made the calculation that taking her was worth it for conservative excitement even though it meant giving up the experience/age argument.

    I feel bad for her. She has about a month to learn and understand national and international sufficiently well to BS her way through a debate against Biden.


  24. colorado76 says:

    But Hillary will go after governor Palin like no one else.  If she’s as focused on being President one day as everyone says she is, she will feel the immediate threat of another woman who would become the VP most likely to ascend to the presidency in decades.

    Also, while we seem to be in the era where no one has to be accountable for political attacks, if there’s one person who can attack Palin without a whiff of sexism, it isn’t senator Biden.

  25. thumper says:

    I mentioned her back in July.  

  26. Go Blue says:

    Mittens and Pawlenty are not happy. In fact they’re down right enraged over McCain using them as bait.

    Though it was high in shock value, the Palin pick left bruised feelings among the short-list contenders who were not picked — and infuriated some Republican officials who privately said McCain had gone out on a limb, unnecessarily, without laying the groundwork for such an unknown. Two senior Republican officials close to Mitt Romney and Tim Pawlenty said they had both been rudely strung along and now “feel manipulated.”

    “They now know that they were used as decoys, well after McCain had decided not to pick them,” one Republican involved in the process said.

    Democrats quickly absorbed the Obama talking points. Democratic Sen. Ken Salazar, of Colorado, said it demonstrated a “lack of judgment” on McCain’s part.

    Even some former Clinton supporters said Palin would not automatically draw disenchanted women voters — and would face fierce pushback from the Obama campaign over her conservative social views.

    “I know Hillary Clinton, and Sarah Palin is no Hillary Clinton,” Debbie Wasserman Schultz said in a phone interview with NBC.


  27. WritterWrocks says:

    Great choice – she helps OUR ticket  

  28. nonlawyerlobbyist says:

    The Post this morning speculated (for the wrong reasons) that Pawlenty “abruptly” canceled his appearences yesterday and today.  He didn’t cancel to fly to Ohio, apparently.

  29. oklahoma09 says:

    Once again you liberal don’t get it. Palin was a stroke of genius by picking Palin. First of all, she is female, hockey mom who has a child with down syndrome, her husband a commercial fisherman. This is american as apple pie. In addition, she has been a chief executive and commander-in – chief of the State of Alaska for the pass 2 years. Palin emphasises the average everyday blue collar worker. She is a member of the pta, she is a hunter and fisherman, in addition, to being a hockey mom and raising 5 children very home-spun image. Plus this was a message directed directly to the Angry Clinton supporters in Ohio, Michigan and Pennslyvania. Obama-Biden no longer have the CHANGE issue. This move will give the McCain-Palin ticket positive news coverage up to the end of the Republican convention. Palin will hold her own against loose lip Biden. Palin will appeal to the mass majority of Clinton supporters because she will be talking about the same issues that was compassionate with them plus,those Clinton supporters will feel that this is their opportunity to break the glass ceilling. Very smart political move on McCain’s part will energize those Clinton supports upset with the way the Democratic Pary ostracized Clinton for Obama. The results of this impact will be an historical win on November 4 for McCain. The Obama camp should be very concern, plus the spotlight of what happen on last night with Obama’s speech has been lessen with this bold move on McCain’s part, of picking a Woman to be his running mate. What perfect timing. Go McCain!!!

  30. ohwilleke says:

    background checks?

    Yeah, I get it.  McCain needs a woman who has held high political office on the ticket who is pro-life.  But, seriously, there were better options.

    • redstateblues says:

      It was so obviously a token choice that it makes me sick. They could have chosen a qualified woman, of course, but they went for the “wow” factor.

      Pawlenty seems like so much of a better choice. If McCain loses in November, he’ll regret not picking Tim.

    • One Queer Dude says:

      …it was conducted by the folks in Colo. Spgs. and she passed.  Ridge, Lieberman, and Mittens, not so.

  31. ChrisCooper says:

    She opposes choice even if a woman is raped.  She opposes benefits for same-sex partners even in the face of an Alaska Supreme Court decision stating that the question of same-sex benefits must be determined separate from the question of marriage.  AND she supports drillng in ANWR, which, the last time I checked, even McCain opposed.

    • nonlawyerlobbyist says:

      She cooks a mean moose stew, according to NPR.

    • bob ewegen says:

      hardly makes one an extremist.  

      • ardy39 says:

        in the lower 48 than in ANWR. There are more untapped reserves in the lower 48 than in ANWR (according to DOE-EIA).

        So, if you want to drill where the oil is (and where the demand is), ANWR doesn’t make sense.

        • bob ewegen says:

          Oil is where it is, you’re saying some very promising parts are off limits because we haven’t drained every drop from other other source?  And if we only drilled “where the demand is,” as you say we should, then obviously, nobody should drill in Saudi Arabia.

          • ChrisCooper says:

            This whole drilling debate is a farce.  There is no difference between foreign and domestic oil.  Oil is a commodity traded on the world market.  It all goes into the same bucket.  So when oil is drilled in ANWR, it is just as likely to be sold to China as New Jersey.  The only way to change that would be to pass a law that requires domestically drilled oil to be sold domestically.  But not only would such a law be a blatant violation of the WTO, guess who would be the most vocal opponents of such a move?….the same oil companies who are demanding more offshore drilling rights.  Hrmmm….

  32. Danny the Red (hair) says:

    the worse this is.

    I’m not talking about the pick itself, but rather the roll out.

    I think the media is a bit pissed. they are going to dig in to her.  The media will have something to prove because they don’t know who she is.

  33. divad says:

    …is nothing if not consistant.  When his political life is in danger of flaming out yet again, he picks another young woman to advance his political career.

  34. Danny the Red (hair) says:

    McCain doesn’t even know anything about her.

    John McCain today announced a running mate whom he met only six months ago and whom he spoke with just once on the phone about the position before offering it in person earlier this week.

    McCain’s first encounter with Sarah Palin came at a Washington meeting of the National Governors Association in February, according to a campaign-provided reconstruction of how the little-known Alaska governor was thrust into the national spotlight. The two discussed the position by phone on Sunday before McCain invited her and her husband to Arizona to formally make the offer. McCain, joined by his wife, Cindy, did just that yesterday morning at their home near Sedona, Ariz.

    Pure political pander

    • BlueCat says:

      McCain would pick someone he doesn’t know at all to be ready to lead us should anything happen to him.  Way to give a damn about your country, McSame.  All he cared about was  stepping on Obama’s convention and pandering to the far right.  And some of the most extreme social conservatives will not be comfortable with a woman, no matter how conservative.  Some believe that a woman should always be subject to the authority of men in general and their husbands in particular.

  35. Barron X says:


    This blend of misogyny and jealousy,

    sprinkled with shock, political correctness and a touch of raw stupidity –

    makes for the most interesting reading on Pols in a long time.  


    Just so you know, I’m pretty sure that I would have made a much better President than GW Bush or his second stringer Darth.

    Golly, I believe my dead dog would have.

    And Palin looks far better qualified than me.

    I looked up the qualifications for VP.  They are explicated in some obscure document available at the Archives.  

    That “piece of paper” doesn’t require any ties to lobbyists, or any pledges to uphold counterproductive policies.  

    For those who call for more “experience,” those ties and pledges are part of the baggage that comes with experience as a US Senator.  

    Palin is not as good a choice as Castle, IMHO.  

    But I don’t reject her for supposedly usurping what’s rightfully Hillary’s.  

    You want CHANGE ?  This is also change.


    • redstateblues says:

      SEXIST argument. Change is not purely from race or gender. Change comes from policies, and Palin represents more of the same. I am glad that the Republican party chose to nominate a female VP 88 years after women won the right to vote, but to say that her gender alone signifies change is misguided.

      I understand why you like her though, Barron, considering your party affiliation.

      • Barron X says:


        How did you find out ?  

        Not from the BIG LINE, was it ?


      • Thorntondem says:

        Your correct. Her policy’s are more of the same (W like). But, it gives a boring campaign a serious shot in the arm. Although I do not agree with many of her positions, she will be appealing to conservative and moderate women. A McCain/Romney (much more of the same) ticket would not have excited the soccer moms. In 2000, W did well with the suburb, professional, working soccer mom. Unaffiliated women, republican women and conservative to moderate professional women will like her. Pro-life or pro-choice will not determine the way these women vote. I heard a poll that found only 3% of the women who fit my desription above believe that the abortion issue will determine how they will vote. I was hoping McCain would pick Romney and we would have won by at least 5 points. This is a risky, but, interesting choice. This either makes the race a dead heat or the media (Chris Mathews or Keith Olberman type) could beat her up so bad because of her inexperience they will flop badly.  

  36. Barron X says:


    But she didn’t get to the Promised Land.  

    If Sarah becomes VP, them that barrier is gone.  


  37. sjintheknow says:

    This VP choice was wonderful!  

    It takes the Republicans to put a strong woman, Gov. Palin, who has more executive experience than the Democrats Presidential Candidate Obama who had 140 days in the Senate.

    You can all cry, whine, complain,  criticize, and bitch but this is the ticket that will win…McCain/Palin 08!

  38. parsingreality says:

    I recall one by Gecko burned up the internets awhile back, but this?  

Leave a Reply

Comment from your Facebook account

You may comment with your Colorado Pols account above (click here to register), or via Facebook below.