McCain picks woman for VP slot

[kimmy]

Obama says families are off limits.

I guess we know where Obama stands.

Obama is smart and savvy enough to recognize what many of his supporters are simply too dumb to recognize: There's little to gain by attacking Palin's personal choices or her children, and a lot to lose.

I'm sure that Republican strategists won't mind a bit if Obama supporters disregard his advice and continue to pursue this line of attack against Palin.

I'm sure that he's a very decent human being who is sincere when he says he'd like to run a respectful campaign. But more than that, he's a smart guy who knows that it is not going to help him if it looks like his campaign is bullying a 17 year old girl.

edit: he'll leave that kind of stuff up to people who aren't directly connected with him. Turds like Bill Maher, for instance.

I'm not sure if Maher's intention here is commentary, comedy, or to create a caricature of the frothing "progressives" who are going after Palin. Whatever the intention was, the result is that Maher has created an instructional video for Obama supporters on how *not* to approach Palin.

Ultimately, Maher winds up saying not much about Palin, but a lot about himself with this performance, which should be a cautionary tale for people who have it in their heads to "help" Obama with similar antics.

-k

Edited September 1, 2008 by kimmy

[Guest American Woman]

The whole scenario is bizarre. Even the McCain campaign admits Palin will be 'learning' foreign policy and national security over the next four years. But the really good news? McCain's doctors expect McCain to live at least that long. Correction. Make that "most doctors" expect him to live that long.

Phew. It's such a relief that if McCain is elected the VP will be getting 'on the job training,' and that McCain is (mostly) expected to live long enough for her to be trained.

Mr. McCain’s advisers said Friday that Mr. McCain was well aware that Ms. Palin would be criticized for her lack of foreign policy experience, but that he viewed her as exceptionally talented and intelligent and that he felt she would be able to be educated quickly.

“She’s going to learn national security at the foot of the master for the next four years, and most doctors think that he’ll be around at least that long,” said Charlie Black, one of Mr. McCain’s top advisers, making light of concerns about Mr. McCain’s health, which Mr. McCain’s doctors reported as excellent in May. link

Edited September 1, 2008 by American Woman

[Shady]

She has no positions on domestic affairs.

I disagree with your entire premise, but especially your inaccurate statement about her having no positions on domestic affairs. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, and assume you probably received some faulty information. You may not agree with her positions on domestic affairs, and that can be a legitimate concern. But to say that she has no positions on domestic affairs is ridiculous.

[Liam]

I disagree with your entire premise, but especially your inaccurate statement about her having no positions on domestic affairs. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, and assume you probably received some faulty information. You may not agree with her positions on domestic affairs, and that can be a legitimate concern. But to say that she has no positions on domestic affairs is ridiculous.

OK, maybe I should rephrase. She has expressed no interest in domestic affairs. Is that better?

But you raise a point. What's her position on monetary policy? About federal funding of No Child Left Behind? Where is she on means-testing of Social Security benefits? Can you tell me what she has ever said about stem cell research or tax breaks for solar or nuclear power? What about continuation of the Bush tax cuts? How about SCHIP benefits? Medicare coverage of prescription drugs? What does she think is the best way to fight inflation? Cut the deficit? Deal with the mortgage crisis? If she can't talk about these things what business did McCain have in asking her to be his 2nd in command on such matters?

[bush_cheney2004]

If this is vetting, then I'd really hate to see what a President McCain would do with a national security briefing that contradicts a conclusion he's already made.

Nobody asked you to like it...vote accordingly. One vote to a customer.

Get real. She's a small state governor who is on record as having no interest in global matters. She has no positions on domestic affairs. Her only knowledge of the surge comes from what she learned on the local news. Her main position on Iraq is solely about having an exit strategy (contrary to McCain's). She is on record as having lied about the poster-child of bad government pork (the bridge to nowhere), but then she took the money and spent it on the road to the bridge to nowhere. Look it up. She is under investigation for abusing the power of her political office to settle an internal family score. She is on record as having no idea what the VP does. This possible future commander in chief got her first passport at age 43 when she went to visit those Alaska National Guard troops under her command in Kuwait -- which was her national security bona fide per the GOP. And now an underage, unwed pregnant teenage daughter. This was the candidate who passed McCain's stringent vetting process? Cripes, what was in Mike Huckabee's closet if she passed the test and he didn't???

This only demonstrates the lack of objectivity and partisanship you have accused in others. I don't give a rip if her daughter is knocked up. The vetting process eliminates political liabilities, not pregnant teenagers.

This is not about Palin. She is who she is. She may be lovable for all her faults, she may be vilified for the idiocy of her policy positions. Frankly, part of me wants to like her, but this isn't about her. The past 72 hours says all you need to know about the impulsive, sloppy, radical, imbalanced and irrational nature of the McCain campaign and, by extension, his potential presidency. His political calculations makes him as bad as the Clintons, for god's sake. Actually, worse, because the Clintons actually appointed effective people.

So what? Senator McCain will or wil not be elected president by the American electorate, regardless of your "expert" analysis vis-a-vis the "Clintons" or any other administration.

It must be very reassuring to know that someone like McCain is going to be appointing similarly qualified and similarly vetted people in his administration. We've already had eight years of "deciders" directing policy decisions to fit political needs. McCain is only showing himself to be more like Bush than ever. This is enough.

Enough of what? And for who...just you? For the record, Bush is a two term US president.

So, yes, pat yourself and McCain on the back for picking someone the evangelicals will love on election day. How fantastic. But look inside and ask what you'd be saying if Obama's vetting process and his choice for VP was equally risky. Seriously, what would your reaction be?

Frankly, I don't know why you are so excited about a candidate and his choices if he really has no chance of winning the election because of "Bush" tendencies. Senator McCain and crew get to run their campaign the way they want, just like any other. Hell, there are people who would have preferred Governor Palin over Dick Cheney as a running mate.

[bush_cheney2004]

But you raise a point. What's her position on monetary policy? About federal funding of No Child Left Behind? Where is she on means-testing of Social Security benefits? Can you tell me what she has ever said about stem cell research or tax breaks for solar or nuclear power? What about continuation of the Bush tax cuts? How about SCHIP benefits? Medicare coverage of prescription drugs? What does she think is the best way to fight inflation? Cut the deficit? Deal with the mortgage crisis? If she can't talk about these things what business did McCain have in asking her to be his 2nd in command on such matters?

What business does McCain have? It's his choice according to the veep nomination process of his political party. There is nothing about having to satisfy all of your questions. Her answers are just as qualified as another candidate's....Barack Obama.

[jdobbin]

Tomorrow's New York Times:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26501863/

Among other less attention-grabbing news of the day: it was learned that Ms. Palin now has a private lawyer in a legislative ethics investigation in Alaska into whether she abused her power in dismissing the state’s public safety commissioner; that she was a member for two years in the 1990s of the Alaska Independence Party, which has at times sought a vote on whether the state should secede; and that Mr. Palin was arrested 22 years ago on a drunken-driving charge.

The Alaskans are saying:

“I started calling around and asking, and I have not been able to find one person that was called,” Ms. Phillips said. “I called 30 to 40 people, political leaders, business leaders, community leaders. Not one of them had heard. Alaska is a very small community, we know people all over, but I haven’t found anybody who was asked anything.”

[WIP]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25970882/

Hopefully Palin's nomination won't get held up by the investigation she faces on her hiring practices.

Any possibility it could be held up by an attempt from Karl Rove and Romney delegates to replace her with Mitt?

[WIP]

Sorry, but while kids ought to be off-limits in most cases they won't be for Palin. The woman has based too much of who and what she is on her sense of Christian morality. The good Christian mother raising her dutiful children the good, Christian way, teaching them, presumably, good, Christian values. Only it turns out she wasn't such a good teacher. Opposed to sex education, and opposed to birth control, her teen daughter becomes pregnant. Who can resist the way the irony of that shows up Palin's beliefs as idiotic? Add in that she endangered her youngest child's life by flying home after her water broke - apparently more concerned with the optics of having a baby born in Alaska, and what's emerging isn't all that family friendly.

I was surfing the convention coverage and all of the Republican spin doctors are on the same message: Sarah and her husband are looking forward to being grandparents and support their daughter's pro life decision to keep the baby; and it's a private family matter that Democrats or others opposed to McCain should not comment on any aspect of this event.

But, like you said, Sarah Palin is adamantly opposed to sex education in schools and distributing birth control information and now she should have to answer questions about why the policies that she is trying to force onto others through legislation aren't working effectively in her own home!

As for Republican and religious conservative indignation: I have to ask these people if they would have been as reserved and non-judgemental if this was the Democratic candidate we were talking about! Let's say Chelsea got pregnant when Bill was running for re-election; would the Republicans and their hatchetmen on talk radio and the right wing blogs have taken a hands off approach? I doubt it!

[August1991]

Tomorrow's New York Times:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26501863/

The Alaskans are saying:

If you look in the dictionary under the word "desperation", you'll find a link to this post by Dobbin.

Perusing various sites and forums this evening, I came to the conclusion that McCain's choice of running mate has apparently thrown the left into utter disarray.

IMV, she's just a VP nominee. Spiro Agnew got elected.

The Left is all symbol and no substance. The Left is obsessed with Identity Politics. If I were the Left, I'd ignore this VP nominee and, uh, move on. How many electoral votes does Alaska have?

Edited September 2, 2008 by August1991

[bush_cheney2004]

...As for Republican and religious conservative indignation: I have to ask these people if they would have been as reserved and non-judgemental if this was the Democratic candidate we were talking about! Let's say Chelsea got pregnant when Bill was running for re-election; would the Republicans and their hatchetmen on talk radio and the right wing blogs have taken a hands off approach? I doubt it!

A moot point...as President Clinton gave them something far more juicier to talk about, culminating in his impeachment. The last time I checked, teenage pregnancy did not rise to a high crime or misdemeanor.

[jdobbin]

If you look in the dictionary under the word "desperation", you'll find a link to this post by Dobbin.

I think desperation is what McCain used when rushing through approval of Palin. You disagree? You think they knew everything about her?

Perusing various sites and forums this evening, I came to the conclusion that McCain's choice of running mate has apparently thrown the left into utter disarray.

IMV, she's just a VP nominee. Spiro Agnew got elected.

The Left is all symbol and no substance. The Left is obsessed with Identity Politics. If I were the Left, I'd ignore this VP nominee and, uh, move on. How many electoral votes does Alaska have?

The right wants you to move along, nothing to see here.

If that is the case, why do they have the McCain spin team in Alaska now?

All the people who were not asked about Palin's record are going to be asked now.

[bush_cheney2004]

A pithy retort from Ontario:

The only real news here is that she is keeping the child instead of flushing it down the toilet, and marrying the father. Way to go! How un-liberal!

[August1991]

You disagree? You think they knew everything about her?

Won't stick Dobbin, and you know it.

Barring something horrendous, Palin is no Eagleton.

If she has to, she can do as Nixon in 1952.

[WIP]

I'd be willing to compromise. How about when an unborn baby develops a heart-beat? Can we at least say then, that it constitutes human life?

Before science discovered that the brain was the seat of all cognitive functions, including memory and emotions, it was believed that the heart was the source of our emotions and feelings. That's why the Bible is always referring to hearts being gladdened and hardened hearts and such. But now that we know that the heart is not much more than the pump that circulates the blood through our arteries and veins, I can't see a good reason for making it the determining factor when human life should be protected.

Maybe it should be 24 weeks -- when the fetus can be viable outside the womb; or at about 26 weeks or so, when the developing cerebral cortex is producing brain waves that match or at least similar to brainwaves detected during REM dream states - that could be an indication that uniquely human higher thinking patterns are starting to develop; another reason for selecting 26 weeks is that it is around the time when the thalamacortical system that enables sensory information sent to the thalamus to be reprocessed and sent to the cortex where we become consciously aware of the information. This is where sensations of pain and discomfort may first be felt, but it's difficult to determine how they might be experienced by the fetus considering that even newborns cannot determine location of a painful stimulus. But arguments for giving a fetus anesthetics during medical procedures usually start around this point of development. link

I think these stages of development, all in the third trimester after most abortions are performed, would be a better cut off line to start granting human rights. But even then, those rights shouldn't be absolute! If there are birth defects or the possibility that having the baby might endanger the mother's life, a third trimester abortion may be necessary. It was already pointed out by someone else that most Western European countries follow a policy of relatively free access to abortion in the first and 2nd trimester, with restrictions on third trimester abortion; this seems to be the most sensible policy to follow!

[bush_cheney2004]

....Barring something horrendous, Palin is no Eagleton.

Oh, but they so want it to be another Thomas Eagleton. Attacking Palin, even through McCain, will exact a political toll.

Time to reheat the Joe Biden leftovers....much less risk there.

No wonder they are pissed off.....

[August1991]

A calculated but wise and legitimate choice. McCain (1) shores up the conservative base and (2) appeals to the female independent vote.

There is a significant gender gap in American presidential politics today, but it is confined for the most part to white voters who are politically independent. There is very little difference in presidential vote choice by gender among blacks and Hispanics, and among whites who are Republican or Democratic in their political identification.

Many assume that McCain's choice of a female running mate could increase his chances among female voters. If that is the case, it would appear that white independent women -- who are currently split almost down the middle in terms of their candidate support -- would be most susceptible to changing sides, given the strongly skewed (and gender-neutral) existing vote choice among blacks, Hispanics, and loyal partisans.

Additionally, of course, McCain's selection may have been designed as much to help reinforce loyalty from his conservative Republican base as it was to change voters' minds. If that was the case, it would be Gov. Palin's conservative positions on issues -- including abortion, same-sex marriage, gun control, and taxes -- more than her gender that would be the operative factor.

Gallup

[jdobbin]

Won't stick Dobbin, and you know it.

Barring something horrendous, Palin is no Eagleton.

If she has to, she can do as Nixon in 1952.

She might fare like many women have in the last couple of decades running on tickets. That's quite a few now.

http://www.newsday.com/news/local/politics...,7527567.column

Edited September 2, 2008 by jdobbin

[WIP]

The most important human right is the right to live. So except when there is a risk for the life of a mother that right to live does indeed supersedes any other right. This is human life we are talking about, not just a collection of cells.

That is a slogan, not an argument! You still have not given any reason why we should regard a non-sentient accumulation of cells as a person, other than saying that it will someday become a person( providing it is given sustenance and nourishment from the mother's womb).

Let's try another situation where right to life would depend on someone else's involuntary cooperation: Harvard psychologist Marc Hauser is conducting a research study online to look for underlying principles beneath the moral decision-making process that people make. If you have the time,you can take the Moral Sense Test and answer a few hypothetical moral problems that often involve deciding between the lesser of two evils or choosing between competing rights. Anyway, one of the questions I recall had someone in the hospital who was discovered to possess a rare blood type needed by another patient who is an important public figure. While unconscious, the subject was hooked up by intravenous to the VIP and informed after he regained consciousness that they wanted him to remain connected for the next 30 days or so to save the other man. Now, it's one thing if the person could remain out of charity or altruistic reasons and put up with being used to sustain another life, but should he be morally obligated to do so? Every time someone says that the embryo or fetus's right to life is pre-eminent, that's what they're asking the prospective mother to do!

In a right to life paradise, there is no consent asked for; the pregnant woman is informed that she is going to sustain and carry around that developing fetus and she has no say in the matter! To make this happen in the real world, a pro life zealot like Sarah Palin would have to criminalize abortion and charge the abortionists and the women seeking abortions with fetal homicide. In a pro life paradise like El Salvador, this has mean't that there have been cases of young women coming into hospitals with severe internal bleeding, being manacled to their hospital beds if the attending physician finds evidence such as a perforated uterus, that would indicate that an abortion has been performed.

The pro life argument is an unrealistic, utopian concept that will be ugly and bring misery and hardship if it is carried out in Canada or the United States, just as it has in El Salvador!

The only unreasonable demand is that the definition of who is worthy enough to be allowed to live be strickly a matter of individual choice. and I don't know how many "pro-choicers' think through all the ramifications of letting who should or should not live be a personal decision.

Unfortunately, at the other end of the abortion debate, the absolute pro choice supporters who would not have any restrictions even in cases where women are having abortions for frivolous reasons like sex selection, minor birth defects that can be repaired such as club feet or cleft palate, or to take revenge on the prospective father after a nasty argument -- they are afraid to invade the realm of privacy rights. There are situations where abortions shouldn't be allowed. Regarding that topic of sex selection, there are concerns from government officials in China and India that women are aborting female fetuses because they want or are compelled to provide a male offspring. So, yes there are problems with the opposite side of the debate from people who want virtually all moral decisions to be private and off limits to any higher principles.

[WIP]

A moot point...as President Clinton gave them something far more juicier to talk about, culminating in his impeachment. The last time I checked, teenage pregnancy did not rise to a high crime or misdemeanor.

No, it's not a moot point, you just want to dodge the question because you know very well how rightwing media would have covered the story! Talk about going after the children, one of your heroes Rush Limbaugh had the gall to make fun of Chelsea Clintons looks when she was only 13 years old! The whining about causing harm to Sarah Palin's child is just more Republican hypocrisy!

[bush_cheney2004]

No, it's not a moot point, you just want to dodge the question because you know very well how rightwing media would have covered the story! Talk about going after the children, one of your heroes Rush Limbaugh had the gall to make fun of Chelsea Clintons looks when she was only 13 years old! The whining about causing harm to Sarah Palin's child is just more Republican hypocrisy!

I don't think you know what the word "moot" means. Please contrive a more plausible scenario given the facts of Bill Clinton's 2nd term.

Rush Limbaugh is a radio entertainer, with every right to do such a thing, just like Bill Maher or John Stewart often do.

I welcome any such attacks, because it will result in more votes for Palin.

[kimmy]

Perusing various sites and forums this evening, I came to the conclusion that McCain's choice of running mate has apparently thrown the left into utter disarray.

IMV, she's just a VP nominee. Spiro Agnew got elected.

The Left is all symbol and no substance. The Left is obsessed with Identity Politics. If I were the Left, I'd ignore this VP nominee and, uh, move on. How many electoral votes does Alaska have?

Not disarray, August, indignation. The left has been thrown into indignation. A certain segment of it, at least (I'll spare Black Dog the trouble of pointing out that "the left" is not a monolithic entity.)

There's plenty on the left who are looking at this rationally and strategically, of course. There are many on the left who looked at Palin, weighed her merits, said "Lame pick, old-dude," and, uh, moved on. Which is a position I completely respect (and kind of agree with.) But there's also a certain segment of the left that is responding to this as if the Republicans stole their stuff and are furious about it. There's a degree of venom in a lot of what I have read that says these people have other issues on their mind than Palin's qualifications. People are generally pretty tickled when they think their opponents screwed up bigtime (I recall CPC supporters being pretty happy when Stephane Dion won the Liberal leadership, for instance.) So why so much sourness from the Obamarama side of things?

It seems almost as if some on the Democrat side are of the opinion that having a female candidate was *their* prerogative.

-k

[CANADIEN]

That is a slogan, not an argument! You still have not given any reason why we should regard a non-sentient accumulation of cells as a person, other than saying that it will someday become a person( providing it is given sustenance and nourishment from the mother's womb).

You mean, I have not given a reason you would accept, and since there are no reason you would accept... And I am not saying that an embryo is a person because someday it will become a person. I am saying that that personhood begins when life begins.

In a right to life paradise, there is no consent asked for; the pregnant woman is informed that she is going to sustain and carry around that developing fetus and she has no say in the matter! To make this happen in the real world, a pro life zealot like Sarah Palin would have to criminalize abortion and charge the abortionists and the women seeking abortions with fetal homicide. In a pro life paradise like El Salvador, this has mean't that there have been cases of young women coming into hospitals with severe internal bleeding, being manacled to their hospital beds if the attending physician finds evidence such as a perforated uterus, that would indicate that an abortion has been performed.

Actually, I believe the criminilazation approach to be the wrong one. The number of abortions will be reduced not by jailing doctors and mothers, but through a culture that welcomes life. Ours does not.

Unfortunately, at the other end of the abortion debate, the absolute pro choice supporters who would not have any restrictions even in cases where women are having abortions for frivolous reasons like sex selection, minor birth defects that can be repaired such as club feet or cleft palate, or to take revenge on the prospective father after a nasty argument -- they are afraid to invade the realm of privacy rights. There are situations where abortions shouldn't be allowed.

And what makes such reasons more frivolous than let's say not wanting to curb one's liefestyle and financial confort, or not wanting to put one's career on hold? Why should abortion be permitted in those cases, but not in cases where having a girl instead of a boy will impose additional financial harship (which is the case in many Asian countries)? Aside from cases where the life of the mother is threatened, or at the very limit when a pregnancy is the result of a rape or incest, there cannot be a hierarchy of acceptable and unacceptable reasons to abort. The pro-choice argument that life does not begin at conception, or that personhood does not begin at conception, is wrong, but it has at least the merit of being anchored around the issue of what is life and what is personhood, not on the fuzzy notion of what is or isn't a good reason to abort.

[August1991]

She might fare like many women have in the last couple of decades running on tickets. That's quite a few now.

http://www.newsday.com/news/local/politics...,7527567.column

I agree Dobbin that women in politics have had mixed experiences (which, come to think of it, is similar to the experiences of men).

By and large, I think women running from the Right will be/are more successful than women running from the Left.

Not disarray, August, indignation. The left has been thrown into indignation. A certain segment of it, at least (I'll spare Black Dog the trouble of pointing out that "the left" is not a monolithic entity.)

I spent a short evening flipping through various blogs and forums so that can hardly be called a comprehensive survey.

I suppose "indignation" may be a better description than "disarray" but I was just surprised at the myriad response to, all things considered, a Veep nomination. In a crazy way, Palin reminds me of Harper's wife. Independent rural women seem to bother some urban women, or something.

Anyway, there are various theories about the VP position but in electoral terms, the person rarely changes much. I guess Spiro Agnew put Maryland into the Republican camp in 1968.

[White Doors]

Uhh, you've never watched Caferty, have you? Watch his rants on illegal immigration and corrupt politicians sometime. The guy would horrify the CBC.

The CBC of the USA Argus.

CNN is very liberal with a couple of token conservatives like Glenn Beck thrown in.