McCain picks woman for VP slot

[kimmy]

I didn't say any of them would win the race for McCain, just that the public could look at any of the three and say, "OK, I could see [Ridge, Romney or Rice] as the VP."

Whether people would see Romney or Ridge or Rice as potentially the VP is a purely academic question if they're on a ticket that has zero chance of winning.

I said that the feeling I get from most of the people I've spoken to about this is that McCain's selection of her must be some kind of joke.

And I just can't convince myself that people would have thsat kind of reaction if McCain had chosen a male.

Is it just experience? Would it be different if she were in her 2nd term as governor instead of her first?

Is it just that Alaska is just inherently funny? Would it be different if it were some less funny small state like Vermont or North Dakota?

Is it that Alaska is a small state? Would it be different if she was governor of some inherently funny medium-sized state like Minnesota or Nevada?

I simply don't buy it. I could imagine a male equivalent to Palin getting reactions like "bad choice" or "who?" or most likely just yawns, but not the shock or "is this a joke?" type reactions you've said your friends have had.

-k

[maldon_road]

If McCain wins the election - which is what I expect - Obama and H Clinton become minor footnotes to history (as is the case always with the losing side in a Presidential election) and Sarah Palin immediately becomes a major figure in the struggle for women's rights.

[Liam]

Whether people would see Romney or Ridge or Rice as potentially the VP is a purely academic question if they're on a ticket that has zero chance of winning.

And I just can't convince myself that people would have thsat kind of reaction if McCain had chosen a male.

Is it just experience? Would it be different if she were in her 2nd term as governor instead of her first?

Is it just that Alaska is just inherently funny? Would it be different if it were some less funny small state like Vermont or North Dakota?

Is it that Alaska is a small state? Would it be different if she was governor of some inherently funny medium-sized state like Minnesota or Nevada?

I simply don't buy it. I could imagine a male equivalent to Palin getting reactions like "bad choice" or "who?" or most likely just yawns, but not the shock or "is this a joke?" type reactions you've said your friends have had.

-k

The best answer I can give is that, as with your response to my proposition of Rice and Ridge, it's a purely academic question. But I will try to provide an actual answer, or maybe an opinion is the better way of saying it.

The one potential candidate of equal "youth" on McCain's list was Bobby Jindal, the first term governor of Louisiana. If he had been selected, I think the reaction would be surprise and I think it would be taken more seriously. But not because he's a man and because Palin is a woman. Jindal would be taken more seriously because he served in Congress, ran his state's university system, defeated the sitting Democrat governor of Louisiana, was a protege of the Bush White House, is considered incredibly brilliant and is widely talked about as THE next best hope of the GOP, all by his mid-30's. In short, he's got a name and a bit of a track record and a national reputation. Palin doesn't.

Frankly, yes, if Palin was a second term governor of if she was widely known as a potential senator or a national spokesperson on certain political issues, if she was occasionally on "Meet the Press" or some of the political/news programs as a known commodity, no one would question McCain's selection process.

As it stands, she has been in statewide office for 18 months, prior to which her biggest job was mayor of a small town. She's currently under investigation for using her office to get her former brother-in-law's boss fired. She's also on record as having lied about it that abuse of power. She is also on record as being in favor of the infamous bridge to nowhere but is now saying she was against earmarks all along. She is also on record as saying she doesn't know what the VP job would entail and she's on record as having called Hillary a whiner (not good if you want to woo disaffected women). She's on record as having no knowledge of international matters, the surge or her own party's (and her candidate's) position on the Iraq war, veteran's matters or the eventual "exit strategy" from Iraq. People within the Alaska GOP have stated that if there was *any* vetting of her going on, it was incredibly stealthy because no one was ever asked by the McCain campaign about her. How serious was McCain's vetting of her? That's the joke, not Palin the person. She could very well prove to be a shrewd politician (actually, I think she will be), but McCain's taking such an enormous risk is what strikes some people as puzzling at best and possibly suicidal at worst.

Edited August 31, 2008 by Liam

[Liam]

There are two ways that Democrats can approach Palin's nomination. The first is the emphasize McCain's age by repeating that Palin is just a heartbeat away from the presidency and keep asking her questions on things like trade, foreign policy and to find out if she knows the entire Republican playbook. She might be up to date but asking her these questions on national security and Iraq will shed some light on views that few know right now.

The next thing to emphasize is that a vote for McCain Palin is a vote to strike down Roe versus Wade. If people want safe, accessible and legal abortions, they probably should not vote for McCain Palin.

I think the "heartbeat away" approach is wrong. First, it didn't work with Quayle and it runs the risk of making Palin a sympathetic character. Like we need more carping about the old boys network piling on a woman.

I think the best approach with Palin in to treat her as seriously as you would treat Dick Cheney, but to pull her apart based on her extremist positions. Point out that she opposes birth control even by married people. Point out that she left her town of 9000 people with a budget deficit of $20 million. Point out ehr flip flops on federal spending on bridges to nowhere. Point out that she wants to have intelligent design and creationsim taught in the public schools. Point out that she once asked about censoring the library books in her town's library. Point out that she wants polar bears removed from the endangered species list. Point out that she doesn't believe polution and population growth or burning of rain forests have anything to do with global warming.

If she's her party's VP nominee, you have to show respect above all else and it would be demeaning to everyone to be disrespectful. There are plenty of substantive and issues-based arguments to be made against McCain/Palin. If you destroy her on the issues, the "heartbeat away" matter will take care of itself.

[jdobbin]

I think the "heartbeat away" approach is wrong. First, it didn't work with Quayle and it runs the risk of making Palin a sympathetic character. Like we need more carping about the old boys network piling on a woman.

I think the strategy won't be to gang up on her but the fact remains, she is a heartbeat away and serious questions have to be asked about what she knows about the Republican platform and if she is capable of directing the country.

NBC just asked McCain the "heartbeat" question and he responded that her executive position made her the right choice. That obviously has to be challenged.

NBC also asked if McCain's first choice of Lieberman was dumped because a floor flight at the convention would result.

I think the best approach with Palin in to treat her as seriously as you would treat Dick Cheney, but to pull her apart based on her extremist positions. Point out that she opposes birth control even by married people. Point out that she left her town of 9000 people with a budget deficit of $20 million. Point out ehr flip flops on federal spending on bridges to nowhere. Point out that she wants to have intelligent design and creationsim taught in the public schools. Point out that she once asked about censoring the library books in her town's library. Point out that she wants polar bears removed from the endangered species list. Point out that she doesn't believe polution and population growth or burning of rain forests have anything to do with global warming.

I totally agree. Her sympathies on opposition to birth control are out of step even for the majority of Republicans. Any support given to those who wish to deny birth control to people would make many people blanch. I also agree that she should be asked about her record in Alaska and her personal beliefs.

If she's her party's VP nominee, you have to show respect above all else and it would be demeaning to everyone to be disrespectful. There are plenty of substantive and issues-based arguments to be made against McCain/Palin. If you destroy her on the issues, the "heartbeat away" matter will take care of itself.

I agree.

It might actually make her look bad if she starts the flames against Obama.

Edited August 31, 2008 by jdobbin

[Liam]

As you can probably tell from the length of my posts, I'm a lawyer. Anyhow, in my trial practice class, a law professor used to say that the most powerful conclusion is one a juror makes after you give him no other choices. I think the best way to make the "heartbeat away" argument stick is not to actually articulate it, but to dismantle her and let the people at home think "holy sh_t! this is the woman who's one heartbeat away from the Oval Office?!"

[jdobbin]

As you can probably tell from the length of my posts, I'm a lawyer. Anyhow, in my trial practice class, a law professor used to say that the most powerful conclusion is one a juror makes after you give him no other choices. I think the best way to make the "heartbeat away" argument stick is not to actually articulate it, but to dismantle her and let the people at home think "holy sh_t! this is the woman who's one heartbeat away from the Oval Office?!"

The issue of McCain's age isn't something that can be avoided. North America is age obsessed and McCain will face the question often and people will look to whether the VP is capable of doing the job.

[peter_puck]

If McCain wins the election - which is what I expect - Obama and H Clinton become minor footnotes to history (as is the case always with the losing side in a Presidential election) and Sarah Palin immediately becomes a major figure in the struggle for women's rights.

With her opinions of birth control and abortion, she will be thought of as a figure for womens rights ?

I suppose Clarence Thomas is going to be though of as a major figure in the civil rights movement ?

[peter_puck]

As you can probably tell from the length of my posts, I'm a lawyer. Anyhow, in my trial practice class, a law professor used to say that the most powerful conclusion is one a juror makes after you give him no other choices. I think the best way to make the "heartbeat away" argument stick is not to actually articulate it, but to dismantle her and let the people at home think "holy sh_t! this is the woman who's one heartbeat away from the Oval Office?!"

To a point. I think you have to be really worried about tearing her apart like they did Quayle. She seems like a very likable and competent person. She has a very compelling story. She will no doubt appear on The View and charm people.

An attack dog like Joe Biden tearing her apart in a debate might backfire. "I knew Hillary Clinton, I worked with Hilary Clinton - you are no Hillary Clinton" would be a disaster.

Mind you, all they would have to do would be to quote from right wing blogs. The "She isn't even qualified to be governor comment from that Republican from Alaska would be a start.

[Alta4ever]

All blogs aren't credible? Of course, you know that's an absurd statement. How convenient you can't remember which democratic senator it was.

Blogs are opinions, not balanced news. To take them as any but is very foolish

Sorry I can't remeber every guest who speak on Hannity and Combs, it was last tuesday's show and the first person they spoke to from the floor of the convention that day.

[bush_cheney2004]

Time will tell whether or not her critics will twist in the wind. But time will also tell if the one twisting in the wind will be McCain. Your failure to even consider a negative outcome to this selection shows that anything you say is purely partisan spin and not to be taken seriously.

Really? Then why are Democrats already treading carefully with their newest campaign ads? All selections have pros and cons, and in this case, Palin brings more to the contest than she loses. Governor Palin is as qualified as any in a long list of lightweights who just happen to have testes instead of ovaries. I needn't review the parade of pretenders who have competed for their respective party nominations; Ross Perot actually got 18% of the vote in 1992.

Palin may prove to be a decent campaigner and a quick study, and I would caution anyone from underestimating her. Frankly, expectations for her are so low that all she has to do from now to November is not slip in dog sh_t for GOP spinners to equate that with brilliance. But the lack of even a shred of skepticism or without even acknowledging the risks associated with selecting her (and that it could be McCain's undoing as much as it may be a boon to him) tells me you've abandoned rationality in favor of partisan bravado.

I haven't abandoned anything, preferring to focus on reality, not your fantasies about what could have been. The deal is done, and America will be treated to a real horse race. If you don't like risk, then don't play this game.

Edited September 1, 2008 by bush_cheney2004

[Liam]

To a point. I think you have to be really worried about tearing her apart like they did Quayle. She seems like a very likable and competent person. She has a very compelling story. She will no doubt appear on The View and charm people.

An attack dog like Joe Biden tearing her apart in a debate might backfire. "I knew Hillary Clinton, I worked with Hilary Clinton - you are no Hillary Clinton" would be a disaster.

Mind you, all they would have to do would be to quote from right wing blogs. The "She isn't even qualified to be governor comment from that Republican from Alaska would be a start.

You'll get no argument from me on anything you said. Biden will need to be very smart about their debate.

[bush_cheney2004]

....An attack dog like Joe Biden tearing her apart in a debate might backfire. "I knew Hillary Clinton, I worked with Hilary Clinton - you are no Hillary Clinton" would be a disaster.

The Democrats even managed to screw up an attack on the much hated VP Cheney's (daughter) in 2004. Another nail in Kerry's coffin. Maybe they will be smarter this time, but I doubt it.

Edited September 1, 2008 by bush_cheney2004

[capricorn]

I found the booing interesting because I thought the republicans wanted to pick up the disgruntled Hillary voters, and booing her doesn't seem the best way to go about doing that. So yes, they were booing Hillary, but if Palin's comments are going to draw boos for Hillary, I don't think her nomination is going to pick up many Hillary voters.

I would think Hillary supporters realized that the assembly was biased toward Palin and probably expected the reaction Hillary's name received. IMO the positive comments aimed at Hillary, and by extension her supporters had a more positive impact than a negative effect. Praising a person's achievements from a different political spectrum is savvy, especially for Palin as she is testing the ground and presenting herself to the nation. What's that saying about honey being a better attractor than vinegar?

[capricorn]

People see her as a joke because of the big deal the McCain campaign made out of Obama's inexperience; then he goes and picks someone who makes Obama look down-right seasoned.

I have read so many contradictory opinions about who is the most experienced between Obama and Palin that it's getting downright boring. I'm taking a wait and see attitude.

This is the kind of answer that makes me shake my head when I think in terms of her possibly being POTUS:

"Are you ready to be President Palin if necessary?"

"I am ... I am up to the task, of course, of focusing on the challenges that face America," [...] "And I am very pleased with the situation that I am in, when, when you consider the situation now that Alaska will be in.

"And that is Alaska, and Alaskans will be allowed to contribute more to our great country and they'll be allowed to do that because I -- if we're elected -- will be in a position of opening the eyes of the country to what it is that Alaska is all about and what Alaska has to offer. So, I am happy to and very honored to be asked to do this. I know it's going to be great for Alaska."

AW, I could link tons of stuff that shows Obama, the presidential candidate no less, has flip-flopped and misspoke on important issues before and throughout his campaign. It would just turn into a tit for tat. Maybe Palin and Obama both need a teleprompter.

Even her mother-in-law wonders what she has to offer [emphasis mine]:

Palin's mother-in-law, Faye Palin, told a New York Daily News reporter that she didn't agree with Sarah on everything and hadn't yet decided how she would vote. She added: "I'm not sure what she brings to the ticket other than she's a woman and a conservative. Well, she's a better speaker than McCain," Faye Palin said with a laugh.

link

If she is this candid and unsupportive of her daughter-in-law in public, I can just imagine what she says about her in her back. I'm a mother and if my daughters-in-law overachieved my sons, that might just get my goat...not to mention they took my boys away from me.

[kimmy]

The best answer I can give is that, as with your response to my proposition of Rice and Ridge, it's a purely academic question. But I will try to provide an actual answer, or maybe an opinion is the better way of saying it.

Do you agree with my view that putting Rice or Ridge on the ticket would have guaranteed defeat?

Because McCain first and foremost had to choose somebody who can help him win, or at very least not doom the campaign before it even starts.

The one potential candidate of equal "youth" on McCain's list was Bobby Jindal, the first term governor of Louisiana. If he had been selected, I think the reaction would be surprise and I think it would be taken more seriously. But not because he's a man and because Palin is a woman. Jindal would be taken more seriously because he served in Congress, ran his state's university system, defeated the sitting Democrat governor of Louisiana, was a protege of the Bush White House, is considered incredibly brilliant and is widely talked about as THE next best hope of the GOP, all by his mid-30's. In short, he's got a name and a bit of a track record and a national reputation. Palin doesn't.

And Palin has her work as ethics commissioner and chairing the oil and gas committee. Most of this argument boils down to Bobby Jindal having a higher profile than Sarah Palin, and to some degree I suspect that is a result of the "see, there's colored folks in the Republican Party too!" thing that has become an unfortunate necessity due to their opponents' tactics.

Interesting aside, Palin didn't just defeat one governor, she defeated two. She defeated former 2-term governor Tony Knowles in the election, but before she did that, she first defeated the incumbent Republican governor, Frank Murkowski, in the Republican primaries.

Think about that for a moment. How many incumbents, at any level, have been prevented from seeking a new term in office because somebody in their own party defeated them to take the party's nomination? People who have already made up their minds that she is a lightweight might want to reflect on that accomplishment.

Frankly, yes, if Palin was a second term governor of if she was widely known as a potential senator or a national spokesperson on certain political issues, if she was occasionally on "Meet the Press" or some of the political/news programs as a known commodity, no one would question McCain's selection process.

Translated: Jindal has a modest amount of celebrity, and Palin doesn't.

Someone earlier in the thread mentioned Ralph Klein; if you're not aware of him, he was a former Alberta premier, and a guy with some interesting parallels to Palin.

Like Palin, Klein is from a broadcasting background. She is probably as at home in front of a microphone as Ralph.

Like Palin, Klein had a reputation as a social conservative (though unlike Palin, with Klein the key word is reputation.)

Both seem to have a folksy quality. Klein was known for parking his butt in pubs and downing a few (or more than a few) while shooting the breeze with whoever was handy. Everything about him from his rumpled, portly appearance to his manner of speaking created the sense that this was just a regular guy. Palin seems to carry off the same type of thing, calling herself a hockey mom, talking about hunting and moose-burgers. She has a bunch of kids, she has a husband with a real job.

Like Palin, Klein rose to power in his own party by defeating party insiders who were better connected and better backed by the party brass.

Like Palin, Klein enjoyed absurdly high levels of popularity among his constituents.

Klein's opponents and critics tried to attack his educational background or his general level of intelligence. In Ralph's case, that never worked. In Palin's case, we shall see.

As much as it infuriated Klein's opponents and critics, Ralph Klein was an extremely formidable politician. In Palin's case, we shall see.

-k

[Pliny]

Spoken like a true "gun nut." You're basically saying that terrorist acts against the U.S. are justified when one doesn't agree with the government. I find your attitude despicable.

I think he is saying "When government doesn't agree with the Constitution" not when he disagrees with the government. You seem to get it half right you just need to go the rest of the distance.

[Pliny]

And here's the other conservative tactic from mindless conservative drones: just pile on with despicable potshots, smears, and character assassination rather than addressing any points or responding to questions.

I did address the point but I guess you missed it. "Eugenics" -creation of the beautiful people.

PS I'm not really a Conservative.

Edited September 1, 2008 by Pliny

[CANADIEN]

I noticed you didn't answer my question as to whether you're pro-choice and against Palin's stand on abortion.

And your conclusion that I didn't say whether or not I am pro-life is based on... quoting a posting of mine where I say I support Governor Palin's pro-life position.

Governor Palin's decision to become pregnant and to give birth to her child is no more and no less your business than another's woman decision to have an abortion is the business of any strangers. You cannot have it both ways.

Prime study in citing people out of context. First I did it. I have misinterpreted past comments by WIP has meaning he thought the decision to abort was a strictly to a private matter. Hence my response to him.

Then you did it. There is nothing in my posting that inferes that Governor Palin's decision not to have an abortion is a private one. In fact, the protection of human life is a very public matter.

[WIP]

You are missing the larger point, and cannot defend your position with statistics, regardless of birth defect occurrence. Again, you are stepping over the line of who shall/shall not be born.

Since you still can't elaborate and explain your "larger point" I am going to assume that it doesn't exist, and you just want to shut down any questioning of this woman's choices as interfering with her personal life. No Sale!

I suspect she will do everything to protect the life of her unborn child, including the risk of death. This is something that perhaps you cannot/will not ever understand.

No, I don't understand, and neither do you! You just won't admit it because you have to advocate for every Republican candidate no matter how loony they are. If it was a pro life Democrat, that we were talking about, you wouldn't be able to shut up about how fanatical they were!

[WIP]

Looks to me like she made a choice. She chose to consider that human life begins at conception - her only position I agree with. I would find it difficult to question the judgement of a woman who opts for her own life instead of that of her child if a pregnancy threatens her life, but at the same time there is nothing wrong with the judgement of a woman willing to sacrifice herself for another human being.

"human life begins at conception" So you would also confer full human rights to a fertilized egg?

No brain, no nervous system, no capacity for any sentient qualities, only a small collection of cells with a DNA blueprint that will help guide future development while it is TOTALLY DEPENDENT on its mothers uterus for survival, and this is where you would draw the line to confer personhood?

Better shut down all of the fertility clinics then, because they have to produce a surplus of viable fertilized eggs before selecting the healthiest for implanting. And shut down embryonic stem cell research. And since 50 to 80 % of fertilized eggs are spontaneously aborted through miscarriage, you, Governor Palin, the Catholic Church and the rest of the dogmatic "life begins at conception" crowd should be calling for a Marshall Plan to pump billiions into monitoring and providing improved prenatal care to save the millions of tiny souls who are lost every year in the miscarriage holocaust!

My apologies for not being able to take this argument seriously, but it is totally ludicrous! Which is probably why pro life advocates refuse to explain why they believe it, beyond the opening statement of protecting unborn children, and the odd bible quote.

[WIP]

There are two ways that Democrats can approach Palin's nomination. The first is the emphasize McCain's age by repeating that Palin is just a heartbeat away from the presidency

That probably won't work unless McCain has another bout of skin cancer, or something else to noticably affect his health. The 'age' issue didn't work against Ronald Reagan -- but then again, he was a lot more energetic and vibrant than McCain appears to be! But the public will probably ignore health questions unless they see some tangible evidence of poor health.

and keep asking her questions on things like trade, foreign policy and to find out if she knows the entire Republican playbook. She might be up to date but asking her these questions on national security and Iraq will shed some light on views that few know right now.

It's likely better to just stick to the issues and see how well she handles them. She appears to be bright and articulate, but how much does she know aside from oil and energy issues; they're the only national issues that she seems to have taken an interest in.

Even there, she is going to have a hard time appealing to people outside of the Republican base. She may be able to sell Anwar, but her attitude on oil development is so extreme that she is a disaster on environmental issues - she's a global warming skeptic who wants the polar bear taken off the endangered species list! That certainly won't win over many Hillary voters!

The next thing to emphasize is that a vote for McCain Palin is a vote to strike down Roe versus Wade. If people want safe, accessible and legal abortions, they probably should not vote for McCain Palin.

Governor Palin is almost off the chart on the abortion issue! Every day, I find more bizarre, shocking things this woman has said or believes in. When she ran for governor of Alaska less than two years ago, she and the other candidates were pushed during a debate on how far they would go to "protect life"

The candidates were pressed on their stances on abortion and were even asked what they would do if their own daughters were raped and became pregnant.

Palin said she would support abortion only if the mother's life was in danger. When it came to her daughter, she said, "I would choose life."

In other words, if one of her daughters was raped, she would insist that she "protect life" and spend the next nine months carrying the baby to term! Since she was the only one of the three candidates who didn't flinch on difficult questions, I doubt McCain's handlers will be able to reel her in and prevent her from blurting out these kind of chilling personal values.

And for someone who's so concerned about protecting life, it seems she also took a wreckless and cavalier attitude while pregnant with her fifth child, when she refused to leave a conference in Texas after her water broke, and instead gave a speech before boarding a plane to fly back to Alaska. Is this any way for someone who's all about protecting the unborn to behave:

One bit of weirdness associated with Palin concerns the birth of her youngest child. As the Alaskan media reported, Palin was attending an energy conference in Texas on April 18 when her water broke four weeks before her due date. After this happened, Palin didn't head to a hospital or even leave the conference, even though the premature rupture of fetal membranes is normally a cause for an immediate examination by an obstetrician, who will observe the fetus on a monitor to guard against infection and other life-threatening complications. Two other reasons for heightened concern were Palin's age, 43, and the fact that prenatal testing indicated the child had Down syndrome.

Palin stayed at the conference and delivered a 30-minute speech, then boarded a 12-hour Alaska Airlines flight from Dallas to Anchorage, neglecting to tell the airline her water had broken -- most airlines won't fly a woman in labor. The motivation for all of this appears to be the Palins' desire that the child be born in Alaska. Her husband Todd told the Anchorage Daily News, "You can't have a fish picker from Texas."

[WIP]

I did address the point but I guess you missed it. "Eugenics" -creation of the beautiful people.

I didn't miss anything! You call questioning why aging baby boomers are still having children "Eugenics". If you really understand what eugenics is all about instead of throwing it along with the 'nazi card', you would know that it was an involuntary system of managing fertility, and during its heyday, eugenics was more extensively practiced in the United States than in Nazi Germany anyway.

PS I'm not really a Conservative.

You mean you just carry water for them?

[Guest American Woman]

QUOTE=American Woman: Spoken like a true "gun nut." You're basically saying that terrorist acts against the U.S. are justified when one doesn't agree with the government. I find your attitude despicable.

I think he is saying "When government doesn't agree with the Constitution" not when he disagrees with the government. You seem to get it half right you just need to go the rest of the distance.

I went the distance, but thanks just the same.

This is what he said: I take my 2nd amendments rights very very seriously. They day some government agent comes to collect my guns is the day i become a terrorist to the US.

The day that some government agent would come to take his guns away would be the day that the Constitution was amended. We can amend our Constitution, and we have. So yeah, it would be because he disagrees with the government.

At any rate, nothing gives him the right to become a terrorist to the United States. Timothy McVeigh became "a terrorist to the US," so I take despicable attitudes like moderateamericain's "very very seriously." He spoke like a true "gun nut," just as I said.

[Guest American Woman]

I have read so many contradictory opinions about who is the most experienced between Obama and Palin that it's getting downright boring. I'm taking a wait and see attitude.

As a Canadian, I suppose you have the luxury of taking a wait and see attitude. As an American, I don't want to "wait and see" if they are ready to lead. It's important to know the answer to that question before election day, so I listen to what they have to say and judge accordingly; and Palin saying that "it would be good for Alaska" in answer to "are you ready to lead" tells me that she doesn't have a clue as to what "being ready to lead" means. Add to that: “I’ve been so focused on state government, I haven’t really focused much on the war in Iraq," and I have my answer.

AW, I could link tons of stuff that shows Obama, the presidential candidate no less, has flip-flopped and misspoke on important issues before and throughout his campaign. It would just turn into a tit for tat. Maybe Palin and Obama both need a teleprompter.

Saying that being POTUS would be good for Alaska isn't flip-flopping or misspeaking. And it's not "an important issue" she was speaking in regards to, it was the question of whether or not she was ready to lead. If she can't even answer that question without a teleprompter, one would have to conclude that she's not ready to lead.

If she is this candid and unsupportive of her daughter-in-law in public, I can just imagine what she says about her in her back. I'm a mother and if my daughters-in-law overachieved my sons, that might just get my goat...not to mention they took my boys away from me.

Wow. So Palin's mother-in-law saying she doesn't agree with all of Palin's views and that she's not sure what she brings to the ticket isn't 'speaking the truth,' it's being "unsupportive of her daughter-in-law" because her 'success' has 'gotten her goat' and she's bitter because she "took her boy away." Good grief. You got all that from her mother-in-law speaking her mind? She's talking about a possible leader of our country, and you think her first priority should be to support Palin no matter what? I would hope that she would place more importance on the well being of the country than she would her 'duty to support a daughter-in-law.'

I guess this attitude is what partisan politics often leads to. Thankfully there are still people who think outside the box.