Vetting the GOP VP Nominee Online, in Realtime
 

Palin has only been McCain's official VP pick since late last week,,,,plenty discovered since the announcement.....and.....I suspect, much more to come. I doubt that the BBC report contains the whole story.

This BBC reporting is about the daughter of a politician committed to abstinence and who is a member of an organization distributing false, negative info about legal, safe, contraceptives.

How much time could Palin or her husband be spending with their daughter? Both have chosen
careers that either keep them away from home for long periods or are very demanding,

,,,,So why is a woman's right to choose whether or not to stay pregnant, any of these same "right to life" political party members' business? Why did the Alaska legislature, after the state Supreme Court struck down a parental notification requirement before an abortion can be performed at the request of a pregnant minor , quickly pass a new law with the same notification requirement?

I remember when Chelsea Clinton was asked about President Bill Clinton's affair. I remember being really, really pissed about how terrible it was to include her in the sideshow. Chelsea didn't run for office, and she sure wasn't involved at all in President Bill Clinton's affair.

I know that I brought up the Palin/daughter baby swap theory elsewhere, but I did so in order to illustrate to the other side what it was like when one introduces something deeply personal to attack a politician—like attacking Obama because of Wright or because his father-in-law is a Muslim—, and Pan did understand it as something inappropriate (which was my hope).

Because McCain didn't allow his campaign or party more than a few days to vet Palin, it's likely that in the coming weeks we'll continue to get more and more crap that will show her to be literally the perfect storm of bad nominations. I think discussions about Palin may be better served if they examine her professional career and policies. Not understanding the job of VP, leaving her town's economy in shambles after being mayor for only a short time, being elected governor in order to restore ethics to the state and then being investigated herself for ethical violations, being pro-life and anti-gay, the fact that she was chosen because she doesn't have a y chromosome.

Stories about Bristol Palin's pregnancy and Sarah Palin's terrible decision to miss opportunity after opportunity to give birth to her son when she went into labor might be better to be left to liberal bloggers. The more she can be shown to officially be a bad pick by citing her professional career, the better.

Hey everybody! It's a mountain!

http://www.arkive.org/media/B6472F29...arge/photo.jpg

it's the republicans who got into bed with the evangelical right.
it's the republicans who took advantage of ralph reed's political mobilization skills in the context of the christian coalition.
so it's the republicans who chose to legitimate this kind of sanctimonious nonsense as an element in their platform.
live by the sword, die by the sword.

but like i said in the other thread, you have to feel for palin's daughter, who is 17 and has not been nominated for vice president and who obviously has alot of think through and now even more to think through. welcome to america.

rb....(what's this "roachie" nonsense....I noticed who started it, and then he gained at least one copycat....), Palin could have considered the abuse of power investigation involving her and her husband, her lack of experience....she managed a tiny town and then, for 20 months, a state with a total population equivalent to ten percent of NYC...., and her daughter's "problem", and quietly left the stage.....she could have shown the wisdom and sensitivity to do that....even if McCain knew all of it and chose to pick her anyway....but she didn't.

She's put her daughter on stage, and it is truly sad that her daughter and her choices have been caught up in this. Her daughter did not choose a religious fanatic for a mother. Now she will be forced into an early marriage and an instant family....can't have the VP elect.... just before next Jan. 20th.... watching....along with the nation, as her first grandchild is placed in the arms of an adoptive mother,,,,

THE BIG ISSUE IS; IN REPUB-Christo worldview.....your pregnancy...what you choose to do in response to it..... is their effing business, and their pregnancy is their family's PRIVATE business, and none of yours!

I don't think this is going to matter to the GOP voter anymore then Cheney's gay daughter.

I think if the tables were turned the right would be slicing and dicing this issue 24/7 on the babble news channels. If one of the Dem nominees had a pregnant teenage daughter this would be being played very differently. It would be on their talking points with a bullet and they wouldn't be saying "see what family values looks like." Which is basically what they're saying now.

I think you are right. If this was a democrat politician this would be played very differently. If one good thing comes out of this (besides the baby) I hope it is that we can remove this bit of political posturing -- family values -- out of the discourse.

host---there's no disagreement on this one. the response line is already taking shape ("this is the sort of thing regular families deal with" so "palin's one of you" which i suppose is understood as having worked in the context of cowboy george)..but the implications are all obvious of the state of affairs, all the way around.

even so, the kid's no in a good place---as a result of her mother's decisions in this case.

and there's also no doubt that were the situation reversed, the right sleaze machine would be on it like white on rice. and in such a reversed situation, i would also be wondering what about the kid in all this...

Obama says Palin's family off-limits - CNN.com

I don't know if you've read this, but I give kudos to Barack Obama for realizing how much of a non-issue this is.

Unfortunately it will be like everything else. HE won't talk about it, but others will do it for him.

And I agree that if this were the daughter of Joe Biden (just using him since he is the Democratic VP candidate), the Republicans would be doing the opposite of what they are doing. But so would the Democrats.

Ah, politics.

I wish I could believe this will remove that bit of political BS from the discourse but I don't. They're already playing up the "see she keeping it, how much more family values can you get?" spin. This won't change anything.

Personally I'm glad Obama's come out and said her family off the table. I freaking hope the PAC's don't try to use this poor girls situation as a political issue. Leave the girl alone, she's got enough on her plate.

Nice to see Palin experience a taste of the results of her own tiny POV and medieval thinking:


forseti-6...this one is for you:
Cheney had the sense to STFU about anti-gay issues......Palin was chosen because she was on a crusade to promote the batshit crazy christian fundy, controlling, anti-women, agenda....because McCain was deemed "weak" in that area..... If you think my description is too harsh, consider how many women had to suffer and die before they achieved the sexual and reproductive emancipation that put them in a position that men had enjoyed since the beginning of time. McCain, Palin, and the GOP want to voice threats against those rights? Eff them.....they are terrorists subverting women's reproductive health and rights, and Palin does not even know what is in her own best interest and in the best interests of her daughters. She's too brainwashed to be governor or VP.

She would force her own daughter to host and deliver a sexual assailant's baby:

i don't like the idea of family members being dragged into the fray unwillingly, but her daughter seems to be a product of her mothers supported policies, and puts a face on the issue of teen pregnancy, like it or not. i think the dems should use this as a jumping off point for policy discussion/debate about sex ed and teen pregnancy, but they need to be very careful to not do it in a way that attacks the kid.

and things like palin's "terrible decisoin to miss opportunity after opportunity to give birth to her son when she went into labor" shouldn't be left to liberal bloggers. that is a perfect example of how she prioritizes things, and what kind of decision maker she is. as far as i'm concerned, it shows her to be totally irresponsible. the policies she supports, things she said to the press, done as mayor and govenor, just adds to the mountains of reasons i have for being against her.

I remember, as if it was yesterday, my initial shocked reaction to how ignorant and extreme Dan Quayle seemed in the 1988 campaign when he told a Missouri high school audience that, if his wife was impregnated by a rapist, he would counsel her to have the child, but that she would be protected from pregnancy by a routine, post rape "D and C" procedure.

Now, this position has evolved to the point where, for some time now, Palin and like minded folks advocate changing the law to make abortion illegal in all instances not related directly to saving the life of the pregnant woman.

We must describe bat shit crazy extremism for what it is, and not be polite and dismiss it as everyone having a right to their beliefs. The GOP, McCain, and Palin are committed to eliminating the right to an abortion, universal sex education, and routine and easy availability to contraception techniques and products. Their support for this extremism has emboldened some pharmacists to refuse to fill prescription orders duly signed by a physician, and led to protections of their continued employment if they refuse to dispense prescribed items promptly and courteously to all customers, instead of to enforcement of the state licensing requirements designed to protect the consumer and ensure that licensed pharmacists duly carry out the prescription orders of physicians.
The rest of us accept all of this extremism too politely, and we must stop now, We most call it what it is, and take a stand against it. It's bullshit and the media needs to describe it that way. What is happening to this country? Why are we like sheep in our quiet acceptance of the extreme right wing influence on our society and politics?

Obama excels at that. It's like he ignores issues that he should be talking about to the point that his base gets fed up and speaks for him. He gets it both ways.

Also, I agree that this isn't a left or right issue as the Republicans would do the same thing if it was Biden's daughter.

Calm down hostie. Roachie is an affectionate term of endearment used out of genuine respect and amity for Roachboy. If you got a problem with it (and what don't you have a problem with, sheesh) don't use it.
-----Added 1/9/2008 at 10 : 56 : 41-----
Agreed, Obama showed some class her in my opinion. Even if it's just lip service, I feel it's a step in the right direction in civil political discourse.

[/roachie jack]I too sometimes call roachboy "roachie". We often disagree on some political issues, but I absolutely respect roachboy. We've had some great exchanges on various other topics. Some call me "otto"... I like to think nicknames may help soften the intensity at times. We can argue but still remain friends. In this cyber environment, I consider roachie a friend or comrad (as he often says). It can happen that folk of a different opinion can remain civil if not friends.[/roachie jack]

....'kay....here's some of what we know...

The McCain campaign tells us Palin was fully vetted and there have been no surprises (to him about Palin and her family.....) in what has been disclosed since McCain announced she was his VP choice.

His campaign is saying then, that he knowingly selected a relatively inexperienced woman with fringe religiously motivated convictions that she integrates into her politics, a mother with a four months old, special needs infant, and a pregnant, 17 years old, high school student daughter, as his running mate, during what he and his fellow party members/elected high officials constantly remind us is...."a time of war".

His running mate, Palin, although she claimed to not reveal her own pregnancy until March 6, 2008, when she claimed she was 7 months pregnant and governor of Alaska, chose today to issue a public announcement that her daughter, Bristol, aged 17, is five months pregnant and plans to marry the man who impregnated her.

Aside from being prompted to do so, presumably because of a 3 day wave of "internet rumors", why is she releasing the details of her daughter's pregnant state, much earlier in the pregnancy than when she chose to make her own pregnancy public? She kept her own privacy, even as governor, much longer than she chose to keep her daughter's prenancy a private matter, and her daughter is a private person, a minor, and not a celebrity or an elected high official?

Pictures of Palin's daughter posted on Mehan McCain's blog:
Palin related that she flew to Texas to give a speech, and before delivering it, she felt contractions and was leaking amniotic fluid. Although she knew she was at an advanced age for giving birth, and knew she would be delivering a baby with Down's syndrome, knew he was also premature, at that point. She chose to stay and give the speech, and then to take a flight back home on Alaska airlines, with a stop over in Seattle, and spoke several times with her physician by phone, but did specifically not seek advice as to whether to make the at least seven hours long flight to Alaska, or inform anyone with the airline about her condition. She then rode 50 miles on Alaska roads before delivering her son on April 22.

We've been exposed to reports that daughter Bristol missed between the last five to as long as eight months of school, due to a long bout with mono..... Since the new school year is just starting, she was absent from school either from last January forward, or as long as from last October.

How has the long illness affected her announced pregnancy, and was it concurrent with a portion of the pregnancy. If she is 5 months pregnant now, she must have conceived within a few weeks of the time her mother announced her own pregnancy, on March 6.

Again,,,,if the McCain campaign is telling the truth, why did they choose Palin? Can I put all of my baggage, over here, John?

Wow, geez, with all this going on, I feel like McCain is having a genuine facepalm moment with his Palin choice and is wishing that he could have a mulligan.

First there's Palin's daughter. Next comes the reveal that Palin supported the 'bridge to nowhere' at first but then changed her mind. Sure, ok, I'll grant you that you're allowed to change your mind on stuff, but don't claim that you were against it all along during your "hey, i've just been selected as the VP nominee" speech. Then there's the revelation that this fringe Alaska separatist group apparently has ties to Palin.

And most disturbing of all is the controversy generated by her possibly illegal/un-ethical firing of her ex-brother-in-law.

I haven't made my decision on who to vote for president yet, but all of this is quite disturbing...

McCain chose Palin because he thinks women are idiots and/or he likes beauty queens. Who was it that said "A woman supporting McCain is like a chicken supporting Colonial Sanders"?

My lands the girl is only 17 and kids do make mistakes, that's what makes them kids. I have a sneaky suspicion that all of you taking advantage of this situation, mostly for lack of anything other faults to take advantage of, would be appalled if the the republicans was to use something of this sort to take advantage of or attack a democratic candidate. Typical far left wing bullshit and you wonder why you have lost the last two presidential elections and it's beginning to look like you might lose this one for the exact same reasons you lost the last two.

thing is that there are real problems with palin's politics and track record.
she is about as far to the right as is imaginable in the context of evangelical protestants.
she has shown no particular competence.
she could be president in a heartbeat.
she is quite dangerous politically, a whole separate set of problems for the republicans, a walking talking demonstration of the illusory moderation of the party.

and there is a strange symmetry between the present flurry of lint over the situation with her daughter--which is only of the slightest interest because of palin's extreme right-wing evangelical viewpoint--and the convention scale-back.

personally, i think the republicans should be pleased about this: they have press. they knocked obama off the front page. this will pass, it is a problematic angle on palin. i smell a rove.

I dunno know, McCain may have may a great move here. I spent some time last night dinking around reading right wing blogs and checking out Fox, Rush, Hannity et el. They all love her. They may not of vetted her much but they spent some serious time on the talking points memos. McCain needed someone to rally his base to get it back to a 49-49 race, she seems to be doing that in spades. On several forums i read comments where people were saying they weren't that thrilled with McCain now, with Palin in there, they're donating. Now the GOP just needs to keep pushing and donating to the anti-Obama 527's and they'll get a few percent of the swings. Then welcome President McCain.

On Morning Joe this morning he held up a copy of the NYT's. They have three negative stories on Palin on the front page this morning (maybe yesterday's?) Joe said this will rally the right wing base like nothing else. They hate the NYT's like the left hates Cheney. The NYT's running neg stories about GOP candidates is one the best fund raisers for that candidate.

The lie about the bridge to nowhere and keeping the money? I haven't heard it anywhere. I have heard the story of her returning the money repeated several times. Right out of the GOP play book, repeat a lie often enough and it will become fact. I'm hoping the Obama camp is waiting for the storms to pass and the GOP convention to end. I'm hoping they're doing a little rope-a-dope just to see how much more rope she'll give them before they hang her out to dry with her own comments and lies. I'm hoping- but I'm still thinking there's a good chance McCain could win this. The good news is even if he wins, even though he's been on Bush's side 90% of the time, I can't imagine him not being better at the job then Bush. Course I could be wrong and he could start telling leaders of foreign countries to go fuck themselves regularly and start bombing countries that pissed him off at any time.

This all started because of internet rumors that Bristol (Bristol? Her other kids have equally white trash names) actually gave birth to the autistic baby.

Anybody with half a brain would know that's wrong. Conservative Christian Sarah Palin, who firmly believes every baby is planned by God, took very high risk fertility treatments, because, as a politician with a a very busy husband, she though four kids was NOT ENOUGH. At her age, many doctors would not even agree to treat her.

But Mrs. Will of God Palin decided to create an autistic baby with the use of heavy drugs. Drugs that also put her at high risk for cancer (see: Elizabeth Edwards).

This is the kind of woman we want to be an embolyism from the White House?

And now Bristol, a country song in the making, has been thrust onto the national stage by those dirty democrats.

No, wait. It wasn't the democrats. It was the GOP, giving statements on the floor that this was a GOOD thing, a celebration of life, an event that will make her "grow up", some actually gave examples of Jamie Lynn Spears as an example of handling teen preganancy.

What, the fuck?

Of course Bristol will never want for anything. They say she'll marry the babydaddy, who has said he does not want kids.

The GOP has put her out there. Palin was mum about her own pregnancy until she felt it couldn't hurt her, but willingly shouted her daughter's promiscuity when it rumors started that WOULD hurt her. She threw her daughter under the bus. What a bitch.

I guess there's all kinds of trash. So what's your real name?

It's Track Trig Willow Piper McBristol.

I believe the child has Down's Syndrome, not autism.

And I happen to like the name Bristol.. perhaps not Trig, Track, Willow, or Piper. They don't seem like "white trash" names to me.. maybe "hippie" names, but not white trash.

Reality check, please.

Taken from James Kunstler's page James Howard Kunstler

So many stereotypes in a single picture.

http://www.kunstler.com/Grunt_SarahPalin.jpg

Photo shopped?

Also almost looks like a pellet gun.

yup... pellet gun

I doubt she would have a permanent and glasses while out by the pond.

I think that's an obvious fakery. There's no trailer in the pic.

My screens kind of small, I figured it was either a pellet gun or some low end .22.

Rusty "Snapdragon" McFisticuffs.

Still, it's better than my name, Rainbow Tide Moonbeam Abercrombie (possibly some day Mayor Dr. Rainbow Tide Moonbeam Abercrombie, esq.).

/threadjack

Getting back, I think that her nomination is a slap in the face to women voters. If she's supposed to be a draw on ex-Hillary supporters, then they're expecting women will ignore all of Hillary Clinton's politics and simply vote for a candidate because she has a fallopian tube, which is insane. Palin really is the anti-Hillary from a policy perspective: Palin is anti-abortion/contraception, pro-war, pro-useless drilling of ANWR, anti-climate change, and a slough of other things. She's even teaming up with Captain Cunt (referencing McCain's terrible treatment of women, including his wife, in the past). I can understand deeply conservative evangelical women voting for Palin, but I don't think the conservative evangelical woman vote was ever Hillary Clinton's base.

Oh... you're that kind of trash. :)

Most of family names include uncle dad, aunt mommy, cousin big brother uncle grandpa, little-sister-Mrs. Ottopilot.

A parent has a right to know if their minor daughter is having an abortion or any other medical or surgical procedure. A parent is legally obligated for the care and welfare of minor children. A parent of a minor child is required for a child to enter into any legally binding agreement.

If you want the legal system to fundamentally change the legal relationship between a parent and a minor child then the state Supreme court may create legal justification for their decision otherwise they don't have good justification. We know that court decision's are not always correct or the final word.

I am not interested in debating these points, I just wanted your question to be answered.
-----Added 2/9/2008 at 02 : 00 : 53-----
The vicious attacks from the left are disturbing. I know there are some right websites that have viciously attacked Obama, but I never saw that get onto on TFP. A sad few days here.:shakehead:

Perhaps a focus on the issues will resume soon.

This would be a point of contention between many conservative and liberals. The other side of this argument is that many parents may put undue pressure on their daughter not to have the abortion, thus removing her right to regulate her own body. While the girl would still be a minor, this is still a deeply personal decision. I wish there was something I could compare it to in order to illustrate the severity of parental interference, but this is a singular situation.

But you're right, this is a good conversation for elsewhere.

I thought I was pretty obvious that was a joke. I forgot to stick this on there: :devious:

I think most people know the Palins live the life of luxury and will easily beable to support Bristol, and Trig through his difficulties.

Unlike many other Alaskan residents who face the same fate. i guess they should all serve on the BP board.

Is your new standard based on what boards a person has served on? Is that the new game you want to play?

No, my same old standard is the governors should govern as if they had lived the life of their region's least advantaged. Don't be all for these porgrams when you don't know real costs yourself.

Sorry for leaving off the smiley, though I see the picture as satire, rather than a vicious attack on anything. Pretty much rolls up all the stereotypes into a single picture (the Schlitz can is a nice touch).

Where exactly are these vicious attacks by the left? Surely you'd expect the VP nominee for the Republican party to be thoroughly vetted by the press.

So, as an example, driving on public roads - "governors" should govern this issue based on....? What? I would suggest a minimal level of competence, balanced against logistics and individual needs and desires. If the "least advantaged" can not meet the level of competence then they should not be allowed to drive on public roads. Hence the blind should find alternatives to driving.

On the issue of serving on boards, given the responsibility of board members, politicians having the experience can be good. I would not dismiss a political candidate just because they served on a board, even if it was for an organization I fundamentally dislike.
-----Added 2/9/2008 at 02 : 45 : 08-----
I started reading posts today from the past three days, I think there are about 3 or 4 threads on the subject of Palin, they are not issue based but are mocking and are dismissive of her, her family, her state, her experience, her values, and McCain's reasons for selecting her. Granted, it could be me - because I think she is a good pick and in my perception the attacks are vicious. I did not see the vicious smears that were circulated on Obama show up on TFP, but I don't think the folks here have missed any smear regarding Palin.

No I agree with you Ace, I see it too. It's rather vicious.

Well, hey... we're not going to sit around singing kumbaya around the campfire about these candidates. Personally, I think there has been just as much debate/attack about Obama/Biden as there has been about McCain/Palin, and that's fine with me. We're talking about the next POTUS here... not Monday Night Football. In other words, I'm not surprised or offended by "vicious" treatment of either candidate, and to some extent, I think it's necessary. No one ever said that a presidential campaign should be pleasant.

I agree that the discussion about the daughter may be over the top..at least some posts. IMO, much of it could have been avoided if McCain/Palin had been up front about it on the day of her selection. As is often the case, the cover-up compounded the problem of the original act...no one to blame for that but themselves.

But, is it vicious to point out that Palin:

is under investigation by a Republican legislature for alleged abuse of power

actively lobbied for earmarked funds for the "highway to nowhere" before she was against it after Congress killed the funding

was a fundraisier for Sen. Steven's PAC, but has "thrown him under the bus" since his indictment

holds an extreme position on abortion (total ban) and abstinence only education

has surrogates claiming that she has foreign policy experience because of the geographic proximity of Alaska to Russia

Is it really more vicious then many of the "guilt by association" claims made about Obama?

Or ace's claim that Obama and all democrats are either liars or ignorant?
-----Added 2/9/2008 at 06 : 40 : 44-----
A brief history of political mudslinging:

examples:

* 1800: Jefferson hired a writer named James Callender to attack President Adams. He wrote that John Adams is "a repulsive pedant," a "gross hypocrite," and "a hideous hermaphroditical character which has neither the force and firmness of a man, nor the gentleness and sensiblity of a woman."

* 1876 the opponents of Rutherford B. Hayes spread around a rumor that he had shot his own mother in a fit of rage.

* A Democratic newspaper told voters that Lincoln should not be elected president because he only changed his socks once every 10 days.

* 1912: Theodore Roosevelt is shot in the chest while preparing to give a campaign speech, then proceeds to deliver it anyway: “I don t know whether you fully understand that I have just been shot, but it takes more than that to kill a bull moose!”

* 1828: a Republican pamphlet said Democrat Andrew Jackson was "a gambler, a cock fighter, a slave trader and the husband of a really fat wife," an insult for which he never forgave his opponents.

* 1844: Democrats call Whig candidate Henry Clay on his "supposed baggage train of gambling, dueling, womanizing and "By the Eternal!" swearing." Clay lost.

* 1836: Congressman Davy Crockett accuses candidate Martin Van Buren of secretly wearing women’s clothing: “He is laced up in corsets!”

"If you vote for Nixon, you ought to go to hell." -Harry S Truman, campaigning for John F. Kennedy, in 1960

Thanks for pulling those up, dux.

abaya....I think some of our colleagues here who are so offended by the "attacks" on Palin may have lost perspective.

One last thought....remember the Swift Boaters!

or remember limbaugh accusing hillary clinton of murder.
or remember that lovely plame affair.
remember the centrality of personal attack in populist conservative media over the past 20 years.

while i find the effect of this sort of thing to be depressing, rendering american politics even more idiotic than it has been, you reap what you sow.

and this isn't even to start wondering about this newest little bon bon:

Palin was member of party calling for vote on Alaskan secession from US | World news | guardian.co.uk

Sure, I see your point abaya, but I think we're just bringing up issues of balance. Nothing wrong with questioning, scrutinizing the candidates. It would be irresponsible not too. The criticisms or "attacks" on Obama/Biden and his subsequent responses actually convinced me to switch from McCain to Obama. So yes, critical analysis serves an important purpose in our democratic process. However, the recent threads attacking Palin's daughter are disgusting to me. I wouldn't tolerate it if it were Chelsea, or Obama's kids, and I don't think it right to do it to Palin's kids. That's what I (and my guess Ace as well) was referring to.
-----Added 2/9/2008 at 07 : 03 : 23-----
Yes, this is what I was referring to. However I don't agree it's the fault of McCain/Palin.

Anything else is fair game of course and we all should scrutinize and review the candidate's stances and policies.
-----Added 2/9/2008 at 07 : 06 : 22-----
No, I don't think we've lost perspective. Just merely bringing another one to the table. We're hardly one-dimensional here right? I think you could agree that a diverse array of opinions is preferable to the group think here.

The swift boat campaign was a disgrace in my opinion just like the Willie Horton ads were too. So far this run has not been so abhorrent. Let's hope it stays that way.

I'm curious, please post examples of people attacking her daughter here. I want to see what your definition of an attack is.

i'm curious too.

and considering palin is the one who brought her daughter into it, by making her pregnancy a press release, i think it's a somewhat valid topic. her daughter being pregnant could be seen as a direct result of palin's belief system and policies. if it involved anything other than her daughter, we'd have a free pass to discuss. why should this be any different (if handled respectfully)?

I'm not sure what attacks I've seen aimed at the daughter either. People have questions her mother's experience, competence and her honesty. Seem like those are completely legitimate questions.

as to-

Because she's a kid.

she's 17. legally she's a minor, but if she's adult enough to handle the responsibility of pregnancy and motherhood, i say she's fair game now that her mom has brought her into it by using her as proof trig is not her daughters.

and i have a theory that basically says "if you say something legitimate that others don't want to hear, they'll accuse you of arrogance or malice." i've seen nothing vicious about what's been said about palin, but people who claim viciousness always seem to be her supporters. i didn't notice much sexism against hillary (although there definatly was some) and yet her supporters were screaming bloody murder as though obama was trying to tell women to get back in the kitchen. if you question someone's beliefs or people they support/admire, and say things they dont' want to hear, they'll accuse you of arrogence, malice, viciousness, etc.

You guys want to focus on the daughter being pregnant, knock yourselves out. I find it completely lacking class, but that's just my opinion. Personally I'd rather stick to debating issues and Palin's creditability and competence myself.

Tully, here's the real deal. Having a militant anti-abortion anti-sex-ed right winger's daughter be an unwed pregnant teen looks really bad. It exposes the cracks in the policy. To prevent that being a legitimate thing to point out, that faction has to hide behind the "dirty pool bringing family into it" argument. They don't have a leg to stand on--not since Palin sent out the frilly pregnancy announcement to the press. But it's the best they've got.

AND I'm completely with you--as I've said before--there's plenty to bury this woman without bringing her daughter into it.

i'm not focusing on her daughter being pregnant. i am focusing on palin's policies, severe anti-abortion stance, and support for things such as abstinence only education. unfortunately, her daughter is a huge reminder on why those policies suck. you may think it lacks class, but i think if your (in this case palin's) policies obviously don't work and your family has fallen victim to them, that's a valid discussion starter.

if obama never saw his kids, and seemed to be a neglectful parent, i think that it would be a valid point to make against him. if someone is a bad parent, that tells us about their character, and allows us to make inferences about how they would fare as president/vp. the kids SHOULD NOT be the focus. the parents policies/stances/beliefs and whether or not they are a good or bad parent should be.

It does expose the cracks. But to make political hay off some kids likely stressful situation looks really bad too. And in my opinion it's just wrong. It's not like the kid choose to be born to some fringe belief mom who thinks the earth is 6000 yrs old and science is crap.

Plus, yes there's a ton of crap already coming out on this women. Some of her first words to the nation have proved to be lies.

Except that Wright is a mature racist bigot, and Obama neither objected to his vileness, nor shielded his children from it.

I don't get your meaning by calling Wright mature. Do you mean that Obama was an adult when he attended Wright's services?

Assuming that's what you meant, it's an interesting point, but still I'm sure many adults attend churches that don't teach exactly what they believe. While my father is conservative by my standards, he's actually quite liberal for an LCMS pastor. My father would never excommunicate a member for being homosexual, and wouldn't directly attempt to "cure" such a person. Many LCMS pastors would, and it's policy that homosexuality is a sin and those who are gay should be treated as those living in sin. So my father, a seasoned and well established pastor, doesn't necessarily agree 100% with the policy of the LCMS.

I'll give another example. Whenever I can, I like to go and listen to Noam Chomsky. I think he's brilliant and I always learn something new and exciting when listening to him (yes, I'm one of them). Noam Chomsky believes in god. He was born and remains in the Jewish faith. I am an atheist. Even so, I still accept him as a great teacher. If he mentions god, I simply filter it out. One day, I'd like my kids to listen to Noam Chomsky.

While I've never been to Wright's church, I've read up on his history, general philosophies, and religious beliefs. While he does have some rather extreme views, they don't exist in a vacuum. He's actually very well rounded. He served with distinction in the Navy, and upon returning became not only a pastor, but an active member of his community. He's been a great leader in the black community for decades, having many accomplishments. He does have some extremist views, but do those cancel out all that he's done and all of the other things he preaches?

ace, I've posted this response before, to another poster, but, IMO, the shoe fits, once again. By the way, the politcal ideals you seem to support, and the overwhelming majority of the folks who support them, alongside of you....have no history that I know of...of sincerely discussing the issues....they predicatbly "go for the throat"....isn't that why Rush and Hannity are able to command such high compensation for "the work" that they do....because advertisers are willing to pay for it to be done?



If I, as you do, found my own POV to be so closely in synch with the wealthiest, conservative white men who call the shots in the good ole USA, (AS SARAH PALIN SO OBVIOUSLY DOES...) i wouldn't be posting confirmation of it on an internet discussion forum..... I'd be too concerned about triggering suspicion that I was incapable of thinking anything that was not influenced by huge amounts of investment of those who require many to think the way you do, if they hope to overcome their lack of a natural constituency, each election day.

http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/general...ml#post2407361

Sorry, pan. It isn't the way that it works. I've shown you that, if you read it and considered it.

There is no way to "come together" when the influential force working on those furthest away from your POV is getting what it is paying for.

Humor me for a sec....it's 1934 and one out of five workers in sunny Cali-forn-eye-A is out of work, and everyone else is struggling with reduced pay, hours, or both.

A familiar face comes along, a man known to have exposed and forced the government and industry to clean up the meatpacking industry, years before. He gets your ear, and your neighbors, and he offers solutions that seem to make sense.

The newspaper owners disagree, and so do the Hollywood studio heads. They know that there is an underlying concern that, based on anecdotal obeservation and pride in the climate and the place, many residents already believe that there is a growing influx of out of state workers and their families, streaming into the state seeking work or just food and shelter.

The studios start making and circulating visual "aids", represented as current photos or newsreels (and the newspapers, too....) depicting "bums" packing railroad freight cars, riding the rails into their state and jumping off to slip into their communities, breeding crime and competing for scarce jobs and county welfare.

The newspapers incessantly remind everyone that the candidate is a socialist which is the same as a communist and is on record refusing to embrace the sanctity of marriage.

You believe in unity, and you avoid letting your opinion be shaped to where it is nearly indistinguishable from the owner of that newspaper or movie studio's take on things.

Others don't avoid that, pan. If you compromise with them, unite with them, you're doing what the people who pay to have people think and vote just like they do, have paid to influence them to vote for, and taken you part of the way with them.

They won't compromise pan, they never have. So, how and where can you?

We're spending ten times as much as the closest military rival, and an amount equal to all of the rest of the world combined, on our military. I think it starts there....what is the middle way on that issue? Which candidate, besides Ron Paul, has even mentioned a middle way?

What is the middle way on judicial appointments, to the supreme court for example, or on gay rights, or on abortion? Do we make it illegal on odd days?

Can we all agree that the purpose of the voting enforcement section of the DOJ is to oppose restrictive state laws....like new ones requiring official state issued photo ID's?

Maybe it''s just me, pan, but if it's good for General Dynamics or Haliburton, Ruppert Murdoch, Exxon Mobil, Merck, or Council for National Policy, chances are, whatever it is, it ain't so good for me or my family,

If it means no new restrictions on trial lawyers, planned parenthood, union labor organizers, or people who don't believe religion has a role to play in government or in public schools, chances are I'll be supportive of it....this spirit of unity.

The McCain camp almost appears to have chosen her to gain a victim stance. Now when people point out the obvious flaws in her selection the GOP can scream they're attacking her because she's woman et el. And "see it the liberal media's fault." They may have looked at it and realized- we need to rally the base, we're not only loosing the swingers in the swing states our base may not even show up on election day. This may have been a brilliant move.

Hey Ace and Pan, you've yet to say why you like her other than she's an "outoors man" - Ace.

Do you like her anti abortion stance? Her anti- sex ed stance? Her Alaska secession stance?

And do please show where her daughter has been attacked.

The suggestions that she's abused her power as a leader (both the "trooper-gate" thing and the fact that she demanded resignations from everyone who was "against" her in her little Alaskan village fiefdom)?

The woman failed at running a car wash. I don't want her running my country.

EDIT: The more I think about the "abuse of power" aspect of her political history, the better a fit she seems for a GOP vice president. Her behavior as both mayor and governor has been downright Cheneyesque.

What about her support for banning books?

what about her support for teaching "creation science" to elementary school kids?

on another note, you can apparently"buy futures" (speculate as to what will happen) here:

Intrade Prediction Markets

there's a little commodity futures trade going on around the question of whether palin will actually get the nomination or not.

i think the idea of this trade is funny in itself.

I think she will fire up the religious right support for the Republican ticket. Her world view seems to be very fundamental Christian based.

Apparently we are on a "mission from God".

I know it is probably unfair but I immediately thought of the Blues Brothers.
http://www.drbongs.co.uk/images/blue...metal-sign.jpg

I have a feeling her close ties to the AIP will get her in trouble. A VP Candidate that thinks Alaska should leave the US and become its own state????

it won't get her in trouble amongst the conservative set for three reasons:

a. the republicans are already trying to head off the association by claiming there's no paper trail to demonstrate it, whereas there is a paper trail which shows her affiliation with the republicans. as if the latter excludes the former.

b. this is a far right group and in the schema of political demonization abroad in the land, so long as you don't blow up a federal building somewhere, anything goes. consider for example the non-reaction to the mobilization of militia groups to operate as de facto vigilante border guards. not a word about the problematic relation of militia organizations to the existing political structure. as a thought experiment, however, consider what would be the case amongst the rightwingers had a negative image of palin belonged to a trotskyist group, even one the membership of which was 3 guys who met in a bar once a month. THAT would be a Problem.

c. so there's no space for far-right groups in contemporary political demonology, and because the republicans are already mounting a counter to this problem of membership in the aip....well, this should not be enough, should it? but fact is that you also see taking shape an attempt to align the press as a whole with some phantom coastal Elite which hates those who "love life" blah blah blah, and because the campaign is based not on issues but on the construction of affinity, what results is a situation in which the republican denials will probably be enough for the faithful---addressing one of those "non-issues" you see (as a function of the non-place for the far right matter)--and information to the contrary will function to confirm the Persecuting status of the evil "elite media" and so will function to delegitimate the messenger.

what seems to already be getting conceded in all this is that the mc-cain base is not going to expand. so what the idea seems to be is to use any and all tricks to appeal to identity as a way of mobilizing that base as a base. whcih means that, in the end, the election will be a test of political machines, one against the other, fought out over who can get the largest number of bodies out.

if this is the case, then it is a mistake for obama to distance himself too much from the approach he was adopting earlier in his campaign, speaking to a broad and new demographic in a language designed to mobilize them. if he allows himself to get hoovered into television-style campaigning, once again the democrats will find themselves fighting on a terrain they do not define.

and i would not underestimate the power of the right's grassroots organization.

i wonder if this is accurate....

Ok, is this fact or fiction?

I can find sources saying she made a welcome video for this years convention and sources that say she has had nothing to do with the AIP.

Is this going to turn out to be a another rumor?

The way this whole Palin thing is being payed out it reminds me of the way the GOP handled Bush's Nam records. Somehow some forged documents were leaked saying what a lot of folks already believed. Then it turned out the documents were faked, in the wrong format and typed on the wrong type of type writer. Suddenly and quickly the nation was focused on these forged documents. Forget that Bush's failed to show up for and extended period of time, forget that his records were lost. "Hey everybody someone forged these documents, see told you it was all BS." I remember watching an interview with a lady who was Bush's CO's clerical person. She said "Yes, this isn't the way these document would have been done, it's not even the correct type face. But I remember typing documents that said exactly basically what these say, just have no idea where they went. Mr. Bush's CO was very unhappy that he was failing to show and we submitted several reports stating that." All the interviewer was interested in was that these documents were forged. Classic bait and switch... and it worked.

The way Palin's info appears to be being released smacks of these tactics.

I smell Rove.

again, if you see in all this a single, narrow objective of bumping obama off the television, this has worked.
i smell a bit of rove as well--there is something fetid in the air.

but i think the outline above holds, regardless.

The problem with that thought is that it's the week of the RNC convention; Obama wouldn't have been getting much air time regardless. This might have been the case if McCain had announced a week earlier...

rb, below is the "blueprint" for how they do it, without increasing the size of their base, because, without a huge investment in time, money, there is a limit to how many will vote with the interests of the tiny fraction of Americans who hold most of the power and the money that it buys.

People who are indignant over opinions posted on this forum that are negative towards Palin, or towards her family members, or towards McCain and his mobbed up father-in-law, the religious right and the GOP, should, as I often challenge them to....examine how it is that "they know what they know". What I "know", is not the result of constant propagandizing by the establishment/rich man owned media....no one, based on manipulating "what I know and how I vote because of what I know", would make a fortune and avoid paying taxes due as a consequence of manipulating labor and leaching off of public investment in infrastructure and military spending....CAN THEY SAY THE SAME ABOUT WHAT THEY THINK ARE THEIR OWN BELIEFS, and by the way they vote them?

As it was in the 1896 presidential campaign, and in 1934 in California, it is today. It does not change. It is a struggle between what those, although much fewer in number, can do to buy the thinking of voters who would, if left to sort it out for themselves, vote against these interests, but are persuaded to vote for them..... versus those who vote their own best interests, if by some good fortune, both major party candidates are not in the back pockets of these elite, controlling parasites.

The last thing I could ever be concerned about would be the victimization of any candidate by "liberals" or by the liberal fucking media. There is no liberal media, and barely even any liberals......

She made a welcome video in 2008, the McCain campaign admitted that she attended in 2000, and multiple witnesses say she was there in 1994. Her husband was a registered member for many years. If you want a paper trail then look at her husbands registration records and the fact that she made a welcome video for them.

Her daughter being pregnant has no relevance to the issues of VP qualification.

Cover up? Just about everyone interested in knowing about the preganancy in Alaska knew the girl was pregnant. Was Rev. Wright a "cover up"? what is the standard used to determine what is a cover up?

None of those points are vicious. However, there is a double standard. Palin being a woman, a conservative woman, is being treated different in the media than if she had been male.

I have been specific with justification for my view and I still hold it. I explained how I cam to the conclusion. I asked for input from others looking for help in seeing the errors in my view. My conclusion is my opinion on policy issues directed at those who take positions on those policy issues. There are clear patterns of unintended consequences to liberal policy positions and often empty rhetoric is used to "sell" the public on those policy positions. I acknowledge when Republican politicians are being dishonest or purely political in my view. I have even called Bush and McCain on it, i.e. Bush support of the Farm Bill and Mccain's seeming lack of conviction that sometimes guides his positions or changes in his positions. I honestly state what I believe and I have been open to changing those views on some issues.

My view regarding liberals being liars or ignorant was general at first ( not targeted to any particular individual), and later became more specific with, for example, Obama as I learned more about his positions and who his advisers are. My attacks against John Edwards where specific and about the contradictions between his lifestyle, how he made his money compared to his war on poverty. My attacks on Gore were again specific regarding his whining about how Bush "stole" the election and his inaction as VP on the issue of global warming. I have never attacked family, or individuals on non-policy related issues. However, I do admit that I can be vicious and that I can lack tact, but the regulars on this forum already know that.

You're assuming the strategy is to remove Obama form the air waves only this week and not the beginning of an attempted long term shift of focus. McCain is not an impressive speaker. He does not seem to create buzz the way Obama does, never has. Now with everyone talking about Palin the focus has shifted. So far it seems like an effective plan to me.

She is not a Washington D.C. insider.
She's got personality.
She is a governor. If I vote McCain it will be the first time in about 30 years I have voted for a presidential candidate who was not a governor. {correction: I voted for Ross Perot a couple of times}
She has middle class roots.
She has balanced family and career.
She is not easily intimidated.
She seems to be direct and honest.
She is from an "oil state".
I trust her judgment in balancing environment compared to economic growth.
She is a winner and has the swagger of a winner.
She is willing to do the work that need to be done.
She sees things as an optimist rather than the Democratic Party message of how everything is wrong.
She supports gun rights.
She is pissing the media off, and that's worth kudos.

On the issue of Palin's daughter, Like I wrote perhaps it is me. I am actually a gentlemen and will always come to the defense of a woman (call it sexist if you want). I have even defended Hilary Clinton and found the attack on her over the top as well. I honestly believe that initially in her run for President that she was treated unfairly by the media and was being held to different standards the the men she ran against.

most of what you just typed isn't based on fact. it's just regurgitating talking points.

you trust her judgement on balancing the environment compared to economic growth? why? what in all that's been learned about her has earned that? i doubt she's dealt with that topic enough in 20 months to be 'trusting her judgement' on it.

and you're not being a gentleman by always coming to the aid of women. i'll say it. you're being a chauvinist. you're saying that women women need your help and protection. how can a woman be VP, possibly Pres, if she needs the protection of big burly men all the time? either she can stand up on her own and defend herself, or she can't and you have to do it for her. which is it? if it's the former, she isn't fit to be VP, if it's the latter, then you obviously don't think she's really up to the job cause a man will need to hold her hand through it all.

It sounds like she's has a libertarian appeal to you.

I have strong reservations about her "oil state" status. Seems like we already have a president from an oil state, look how well that's gone.

I also think a pro-abstinence conservative male who blocked sex ed would be getting easily as much flak.

She's honest? What about the lie regarding the bridge to nowhere and the cash she never gave back?

Looking beyond the scripted convention, I wonder how much access the press will have to her w/o a party "minder" whispering in her ear.

I suspect press access to Palin will be very very selective.

The precedent has been with McCain canceling an appearance on Larry King after an "unfair interview" of a key staffer.

The "unfair interview":

Thanks for the link, _dux, I hadn't seen it in person.

The McCain Official Response is:

So, okay. If I'm CNN, I say, fine. Take your marbles and go home, if you can't defend your VP choice. Okay. See you in November.

I loved this...

Campbell quickly pointed out she's not in command of those units, which of course is true. Bounds didn't seem to like that much.

Whoa boy, when talking points go wrong.
-----Added 3/9/2008 at 03 : 27 : 04-----

What do you expect from a campaign that assigns seating on their plane based who writes the stories they prefer?

So happens now- baggage hold for the CNN reporter?

Blowing off CNN seems like a bad idea to me. To me CNN is the staple of fair news. They are not biased like MSNBC or Fox. And do not have the stigma of being biased like CBS news. The question they asked was a completely fair question and they got bad because they got caught lying with their pants down.

You asked what I liked about her and I answered. the information available is limited and I have not seen her in action. If you don't like her, perhaps you can share that. My first reaction to a politician is from the "gut". For example Obama passed my initial test, and if he was honest and actually believed in change there would have been a possibility that he would have had my vote. I don't like McCain. My first awareness of McCain was when he was against the MLK federal holiday, his justification for his position was wrong in my view. He later changed his view on the MLK holiday but I also remember his response to a question about the Confederate flag flying in SC. I thought his view was wrong, again he changed. I think in both instances his position change was for political reasons. Many of his other "changes" have been political as well in my view.

She lives in an "outdoor" state. She supports economic growth. She is an outdoorsman. given that I think she respects nature but has a realistic view of environmental issues. I think it will be difficult for Biden to explain why he does not support drilling in ANWR in her presence. I think she will be a positive influance on McCain on this issue.

Cool. Again, I am being honest. I was born with a predisposition to want to be protective of females. I can understand if you don't understand. I just hope that you show me and my kind tolerance.


Not at all. I respect women who are strong and who can actually help me when I need it. But if an unknown to me man or woman needed my help, odds are, I would help the woman before the man.

I think Hillery Clinton is as tough as nails, I don't agree with her on much but at least she is consistent, clear and honest. I am not say she would need my help in any way, but that doesn't change my nature.

The irony of all of this is that I would have voted for Clinton before I would have voted for McCain. McCain, picking Palin is the best thing he could have done at this point to get my vote and support.
-----Added 3/9/2008 at 04 : 37 : 44-----
I am a libertarian in many ways. When I left the Libertarian Party (I left the Republican Party during the Clinton impeachment, which I thought was a waste of time and resources) it was because of the Iraq war and the Libertarian Party position on national defense. I was still a registered Libertarian when I voted for Bush in 2000.
-----Added 3/9/2008 at 04 : 40 : 25-----
Do we have her version of the events? Is it clear that she supported the "bridge" or was she supporting funding for improvements in Alaska?
-----Added 3/9/2008 at 04 : 45 : 34-----
I suspect that she won't be fearful of doing an interview with a guy like Bill O'Rielly the way Obama is. Kind of ironic that Obama will be willing to talk to leaders of all countries or specific groups that may be involved in terrorist activity but he won't talk to certain talk show hosts. Again, Hilary Clinton was "man" enough to go on The Factor.
-----Added 3/9/2008 at 04 : 48 : 12-----
If it were me, ladies first.:thumbsup:

Yes, it's clear. She was directly asked if she supported the bridge and she said yes. Here's a bit of an article from The Daily News Miner newspaper:


newsminer.com • Sarah Palin supported Ketchikan ?bridge to nowhere? during 2006 race for Alaska governor

There's also a radio and video clip of her clearly stating she supported the bridge.

Why would she be fearful of going on O'Rielly's show? He's (as well as the rest of the Fox network) bound to love her. It would give her an hour to repeat her talking points and have a host repeatedly agree with her.

Here's a Reuters news story. It's pretty clear she supported the bridge. She's even said that she looks forward to using the V-P position to benefit Alaskans. You can also find news stories from 2007 that clearly show she supported the bridge. She's bragged about the amount of pork she's brought to Alaska, including some provisions McCain attacked specifically as pork.

I think he is going on the Factor tomorrow.
I thought it was common knowledge that she was for the bridge. Didn't Stevens even campaign for her? I guess now we can refer to the money spent for the road to nowhere.

I don't see the clarity you see. Again, I don't know all the facts, but what you posted indicated that she supported the bridge and later changed her view. I don't see this change of position as inconsistent with her most recent statement or a lie. I use a standard of what would I do? First, I would generally support federal infrastructure support. If that support was controversial or had unacceptable conditions I would be inclined to say (my words) - screw it, if we want a bridge we will build it ourselves - we don't need you stink'n money. That's just me, I know most would be more diplomatic.
-----Added 3/9/2008 at 06 : 06 : 43-----
I am impressed. Obama needs to regain credibility, O'Reily was using Obama and tried to make him look like a coward.

Now will McCain go on Rachel Maddow's new show?

What about the following quote? It seems to pretty clearly indicate that she was for the bridge, and only "changed her mind" due to the bad publicity.

I dunno. It goes without saying that the Xian right and the knuckle draggers will eat it up like flies on shit. However, Palin's AIP membership and yahoo-ism doesn't play well in places like Grand Rapids, where conservatives are conservative. It's OK with the East coast old-money crowd -- what do they care as long as they have a free hand & low taxes -- but the less cynical conservatives won't like it. These are the old-church protestants & Catholics + the Main street petit-bourgeois & small town bourgeoisie. Even McCain might be a little too wild for these folks. There's a class anxiety among this strata that makes it difficult for them to identify with Palin, so i don't think the identity politics necessarily works out positively for them.

Looking at how this plays out in terms of states and electoral votes, i could see Palin being a drag on the ticket in Michigan, Wisconsin, Iowa & Minnesota, but boosting it in Indiana and Missouri. In other words, a net loss, at least in the upper Mississippi valley.

And this just in:

US election: Conservative pundits caught criticising Palin

The criticisms seem fair.

guyy...it does make for interesting listening.

Two Republican talking heads - former Reagan speechwriter Peggy Noonan and former McCain adviser Mike Murphy caught on tape when the camera cut away....not sounding very happy about McCain's selection of Palin.

YouTube - Mike Murphy and Peggy Noonan Trip over Live Mics on MSNBC

YouTube - Mike Murphy and Peggy Noonan Trip over Live Mics on MSNBC

Mike Murphy: You know, because I come out of the blue swing state governor world: Engler, Whitman, Tommy Thompson, Mitt Romney, Jeb Bush. I mean, these guys -- this is how you win a Texas race, just run it up. And it's not gonna work. And -

PN: It's over.

MM: Still McCain can give a version of the Lieberman speech to do himself some good.

CT: I also think the Palin pick is insulting to Kay Bailey Hutchinson, too.

PN: Saw Kay this morning.

CT: Yeah, she's never looked comfortable about this --

MM: They're all bummed out.

CT: Yeah, I mean is she really the most qualified woman they could have turned to?

PN: The most qualified? No! I think they went for this -- excuse me-- political bullshit about narratives --

CT: Yeah they went to a narrative.

MM: I totally agree.

PN: Every time the Republicans do that, because that's not where they live and it's not what they're good at, they blow it.

MM: You know what's really the worst thing about it? The greatness of McCain is no cynicism, and this is cynical.

CT: This is cynical, and as you called it, gimmicky.

MM: Yeah.

I wonder how the McCain team will brush this off.....

They'll figure out a way to spin this, you watch. By the time the GOP spinmisters are done they won't even have been talking about Palin. Hell they probably weren't even talking about politics. It was likely a conversation regarding the up coming NFL season. Yeah! That's it! They were talking sports. What's wrong with you liberal anti-life, anti-women bastards? Why must you attack every time a woman discusses sports? Liberal Pigs.

The McCain camp has made it clear she wont be doing interviews anytime soon:
Is she is not ready for Meet the Press, Face the Nation, etc., what makes her ready to hold the second highest elective office in the country?

She is McCain's soul mate and McCain was a POW so how dare you say she is not ready!

i'm going the jaded route
and i am betting..not much, but i'm betting...that there will be an 'accidental miscarriage' in october...

I don't know the whole story but they (the right) seem to be trying to use Oprah as fodder. Sounded like Palin would go on Oprah but that liberal bitch wouldn't let her on her show. I got this cruising a few right wing forums and blogs yesterday afternoon. Haven't heard anything directly out of the McCain camp. Seems like an orchestrated bluff. I'd like to see Oprah call that bluff and invite her on, esp. if she won't go on anything else. I'm not a big Oprah fan, don't need tips on how to apply my make-up and don't care much about what the cast of Grey's Anatomy thinks. But I could see Oprah taking her to task...

So you've stated you're against pork? Why were you the first Wasilla Mayor to hire a lobbyist to get ear mark spending for your town?

When did you go from being in favor of the bridge to no where to being against it? Why did you say you sent the money for the bridge back when you actually used it on other Alaskan projects?

John McCain said you sold the states jet on E-Bay for a profit. Have you had the chance to tell him that's not true, you actually tried to sell it on E-Bay and it didn't sell, so you sold it through a broker... at a loss.

Do you favor the AIP and their bid to separate from the US? If not why did you make a video for their most recent convention?

Are you or your husband members of the AIP?
-----Added 6/9/2008 at 07 : 57 : 29-----
Wow, I thought I was jaded.

I watched as Obama's kids talked to him via Satellite and thought "bet they got coaching to be really happy to see daddy. Make sure you ask him where he is etc..." Then during the GOP conv. I saw the Palin's daughter caring for her younger sister and thought the same. "Hold her in your lap, bounce her on your knee, fix her collar, hair etc..."

I don't think any of this stuff just happens any more, anywhere and everywhere is a stage and it's all staged, IMO.

Poppinjay, that article is some of the yellowest journalism I have seen.

EDIT: In fact, it's from a blog. As much as I dislike McPalin, this is a sorry excuse for an article.

Is it really? It's a blog, while the swiftboaters made their claims about John Kerry on the much more reliable NPR.