What is your take on Sarah Palin?

[stevoh]

Not in my mind. Picture's from Gray's Anatomy(the text book), not the show are detailed and as erotic as a dead fish. On the otherhand educational videos from Annie Sprinkle are explicit.

Then we agree.

[HisSelf]

In other Palin news, hot air levels from conservative windbags like Limbaugh, O'Reilly, Hannity and Laura Ingram, should be even higher than normal election year levels as Sarah Palin's handlers have whisked her Back to Alaska for at least the next three weeks.. They are making a concerted effort to keep her away from challenging interviews for as long as possible. No word on whether or not she will do Meet the Press or the other Sunday Morning shows.

Ha ha. Exactamundo. There was no time for training. I'll bet one bleary-eyed morning some eight o'clock genius in the GOP shouted out "How about Sarah Palin? She looks good on tv." Bingo bango. Write her a speech. Whadda we got for imagery? Hockey mom. Check. Family issues. Check. Religious right. Check. Write her a speech....

Meet the press. Yikes! Back to Alaska. Family issues. Gubernatorial issues. O my....

Ha ha. Off to Alaska with a planeload of political hacks for a little indoctrination...

But the question that sort of lingers on the air like a beer fart in a quiet room... Do you want this woman running the most powerful national in the world?

And just as importantly. Washington is an insiders' game. Jimmy Carter suffered greatly because he was not an insider. What do you think is going to happen when a President McCain starts trying to manoeuvre a bill through and he's gotta rely on his entire team to squeeze some heads. What heads will Sarah Palin squeeze? Hockey dads in Nome? Maybe if she had of had a decade or so under her belt as governor. But she doesn't.

Maybe her most important credential is that she served as Ethics Supervisor of the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission from 2003 to 2004. Funny how the Republicans always end up somehow in the greasy old pocket of big oil.

Oh right. She's a woman. Shame on me. I must hate women. LOL.

[Guest American Woman]

And you know I would vote for you Americangal.

Thanks. I'd make a damn fine president.

All kidding aside

What do you mean, "kidding?"

....we know whys he was picked. McCain had alienated the Christian fundamentalist rump of the Republican party with his tolerance of gay rights and viewing abortion as a private issue between a woman and her fdoctor/family.

However that did not go down well with the fundamentalists and he had to do something drastic to bring them back.

She was brought in to pander to the Christian rump and that is a big strong group of voters who have been responsible for putting Reagan and Bush in the white house.

In fact some believe they are so powerful its impossible now to win an election without their support. Palin is the classic anti-abortion, Christian evangelical, NRA, Stepford wife. She is Anita Bryant reincarnated. She is Kate Smith.

Anita Bryant reincarnated. Loving that one too!

I'm one who is starting to believe it's impossible to win an election without them, and they'll vote republican every time. It's funny how Palin's speech down-played her ideals, though. They don't want too many Americans to know their stand or they wouldn't get their vote. A lot of women who support McCain don't realize that he isn't pro-choice- they think he is. It's up to Obama and Biden to get the message out there.

Me personally I find that version of what a woman should be to be something the anti-thesis of I taught my daughters. I taught them their identity was not determined by their value to a man. I taught them the best way to respect their body was to exercise control over it and not delegate that control to anyone else.

Again, couldn't agree more. That's exactly what I taught my daughters.

This over-emphasis on her looks and gender is bullshit. Her looks and gender are irrelevant, her views are what we should be looking at.

That's what I keep saying. Who cares if she's "liked" or not? This isn't a vote for the next American Idol, but sometimes I feel as if that's how people are seeing and treating it.

Americans should be discussing their economy and environment and medical care and foreign policy not whether Palin is good looking or not but who is kidding who, the vote will be decided on people's subjective gender and race stereotypes.

Again- totally agree.

[WIP]

And you know I would vote for you Americangal.

All kidding aside we know whys he was picked. McCain had alienated the Christian fundamentalist rump of the Republican party with his tolerance of gay rights and viewing abortion as a private issue between a woman and her fdoctor/family.

However that did not go down well with the fundamentalists and he had to do something drastic to bring them back.

She was brought in to pander to the Christian rump and that is a big strong group of voters who have been responsible for putting Reagan and Bush in the white house.

It's not just about the votes; the money-motivated Republicans, who want lower taxes, deregulation, reduced government spending, do not have much of a presence aside from campaign donations. The defense conservatives, or war hawks, who made up McCain's original base of supporters, are more actively involved in politics, but the people who man the phones, put up the campaign signs and drive voters to the polls for the Republicans, are mostly coming out of the churches, and Republicans have to campaign against abortion, gay rights, and in favour of "school choice" and "faith-based initiatives," to get enough of them to do the groundwork.

In fact some believe they are so powerful its impossible now to win an election without their support. Palin is the classic anti-abortion, Christian evangelical, NRA, Stepford wife. She is Anita Bryant reincarnated. She is Kate Smith.

Me personally I find that version of what a woman should be to be something the anti-thesis of I taught my daughters. I taught them their identity was not determined by their value to a man. I taught them the best way to respect their body was to exercise control over it and not delegate that control to anyone else.

I don't think Sarah Palin allowed a man to define her personal identity, even though that's the message she preaches to other women! She has as much personal ambition as any male politician, and has admitted in these fluff bio-pieces that her husband and older children have had to take on larger shares of looking after the home and the younger children. She hasn't expressed any desire to help lesser mortals with the daycare problem that many working women who can't do it all, have to deal with on a daily basis; and combine that with her abstinence thing and abortion-only-if-you're-going-to-die positions, and I get the feeling that most American women who know what she stands for will be able to figure out that she doesn't have a whole lot of sympathy for most working mothers.

This over-emphasis on her looks and gender is bullshit. Her looks and gender are irrelevant, her views are what we should be looking at.

Americans should be discussing their economy and environment and medical care and foreign policy not whether Palin is good looking or not but who is kidding who, the vote will be decided on people's subjective gender and race stereotypes.

Exactly! And environment, health care, Iraq and Afghanistan weren't even mentioned in McCain's or Palin's speeches! And somehow they managed not to mention George Bush either! With all of the pivotal issues that a successor of George Bush will have to deal with, Republicans should not be allowed to make this election a campaign of style over substance. Especially since a so-called "maverick" like McCain would keep all of the Republican Whitehouse staffers in place, and nominate more conservative whackjobs to the SCOTUS to appease the mob that support Sarah Palin.

This is not just a matter of ideology! Change is needed to take the garbage out every so often to keep entrenched interests from hanging on to power for too long. People usually have to be extremely happy for a party to control the White House for three consecutive terms. Do the Republicans deserve a third term? No! And even Republican strategists have made it obvious. That's why they ran their convention as if some other party was in power. Dick Cheney wasn't at the convention, and not even mentioned by name. But then again, either was George Bush! He got a few minutes to teleconference with the delegates on Tuesday, and then the Republicans gathered in St. Paul acted as if he never existed and someone else was controlling America's destiny. Can they get away with it? I sure as hell hope not! The most cynical, reptilian strategists like Karl Rove, think they have come up with a formula for a permanent Republican majority. If they can fool a majority of voters into believing that two Republicans have no baggage from a disastrous administration, then anything is possible.

[HisSelf]

It's not just about the votes; the money-motivated Republicans, who want lower taxes, deregulation, reduced government spending, do not have much of a presence aside from campaign donations. The defense conservatives, or war hawks, who made up McCain's original base of supporters, are more actively involved in politics, but the people who man the phones, put up the campaign signs and drive voters to the polls for the Republicans, are mostly coming out of the churches, and Republicans have to campaign against abortion, gay rights, and in favour of "school choice" and "faith-based initiatives," to get enough of them to do the groundwork.

I don't think Sarah Palin allowed a man to define her personal identity, even though that's the message she preaches to other women! She has as much personal ambition as any male politician, and has admitted in these fluff bio-pieces that her husband and older children have had to take on larger shares of looking after the home and the younger children. She hasn't expressed any desire to help lesser mortals with the daycare problem that many working women who can't do it all, have to deal with on a daily basis; and combine that with her abstinence thing and abortion-only-if-you're-going-to-die positions, and I get the feeling that most American women who know what she stands for will be able to figure out that she doesn't have a whole lot of sympathy for most working mothers.

Exactly! And environment, health care, Iraq and Afghanistan weren't even mentioned in McCain's or Palin's speeches! And somehow they managed not to mention George Bush either! With all of the pivotal issues that a successor of George Bush will have to deal with, Republicans should not be allowed to make this election a campaign of style over substance. Especially since a so-called "maverick" like McCain would keep all of the Republican Whitehouse staffers in place, and nominate more conservative whackjobs to the SCOTUS to appease the mob that support Sarah Palin.

This is not just a matter of ideology! Change is needed to take the garbage out every so often to keep entrenched interests from hanging on to power for too long. People usually have to be extremely happy for a party to control the White House for three consecutive terms. Do the Republicans deserve a third term? No! And even Republican strategists have made it obvious. That's why they ran their convention as if some other party was in power. Dick Cheney wasn't at the convention, and not even mentioned by name. But then again, either was George Bush! He got a few minutes to teleconference with the delegates on Tuesday, and then the Republicans gathered in St. Paul acted as if he never existed and someone else was controlling America's destiny. Can they get away with it? I sure as hell hope not! The most cynical, reptilian strategists like Karl Rove, think they have come up with a formula for a permanent Republican majority. If they can fool a majority of voters into believing that two Republicans have no baggage from a disastrous administration, then anything is possible.

Nicely said.

[Shady]

Mike Gravel, the voice of reason???

[CANADIEN]

Again, care to explain that one? The rest I can understand, but what makes her a "Stepford Wife"?

It seems like one of us has a serious misconception of what that term actually means.

-k

Mark the day... something we agree on.

[CANADIEN]

And just as importantly. Washington is an insiders' game. Jimmy Carter suffered greatly because he was not an insider.

He also suffered greatly because he was an overgrown boy-scout. I believe he was the most decent individual to have occupied the White House since WWII. And the worst President until Bush Jr came aboard.

[bush_cheney2004]

He also suffered greatly because he was an overgrown boy-scout. I believe he was the most decent individual to have occupied the White House since WWII. And the worst President until Bush Jr came aboard.

Yea.....Bush Jr was so bad he got to serve two terms....not so for Jimmy.

[theAdviserMe]

McCain made the right decision of picking up a fresh face in Sarah Palin...but Sarah Palin does not represent something fresh at all...she represents the core of conservatism in America. the only fresh on her is the fact that she is new...and had never underwent yet the knife of the mass media and the scorching scrutiny of the whole voting populace of the nation.

I am voting for Palin...but not McCain...

[moderateamericain]

McCain made the right decision of picking up a fresh face in Sarah Palin...but Sarah Palin does not represent something fresh at all...she represents the core of conservatism in America. the only fresh on her is the fact that she is new...and had never underwent yet the knife of the mass media and the scorching scrutiny of the whole voting populace of the nation.

I am voting for Palin...but not McCain...

Here is the thing, If Obama LOSES the Campaign now. Where all poles showed him ahead before. Does that mean that Palin's values are what the majority of Americans want. If the answer is yes, then shouldnt we just shut up about her values at that point because would it not be clear that Americans have made there finally answer on the subjects? If no, then Why not?

[Guest American Woman]

Here is the thing, If Obama LOSES the Campaign now. Where all poles showed him ahead before. Does that mean that Palin's values are what the majority of Americans want. If the answer is yes, then shouldnt we just shut up about her values at that point because would it not be clear that Americans have made there finally answer on the subjects? If no, then Why not?

It's not about more Americans supporting Palin's values. There are those who are on her bandwagon just because she's a woman. That should be obvious from how much support McCain has managed to get since picking Palin. Obviously everyone wasn't thinking before he picked her that 'gee, Palin would be a good choice' because no one had heard of her. Her views aren't different from McCain's, they aren't any more appealing to women than McCain's, so it's not about "values." In fact, I've read where a lot of women aren't even aware of some of their stands regarding restricting choices. A case in point is Palin's speech writer for the RNC downplayed Palin's ideologies. He kept them more 'middle of the road moderate' than what they really are.

And for the record, Americans haven't "made up their minds" until the election is over. And since people didn't "shut up about Obama and his values" when he was leading in the polls, and I didn't see you suggesting that they should, your suggestion that 'we shut up about Palin's values' is even more moronic than it would otherwise be.

[bush_cheney2004]

It's not about more Americans supporting Palin's values. There are those who are on her bandwagon just because she's a woman....

And this is unacceptable because...????? How many Obama supporters are on his "bandwagon" just because he is "black" ?

[Guest American Woman]

I think McCain had shown astuteness in his decision to choose her for a running mate.

Karl Rove said it best,* so I'll borrow his words.

I think McCain made an intensely political choice, not a governing choice. I think he viewed it through the prism of a candidate, not through the prism of president; that is to say, he picked somebody that he thinks will on the margin help him in a state like Indiana or Missouri or Virginia. He's not thinking big and broad about the responsibilities of president.

I think he made an intensely political choice where he said, `You know what? I'm really not, first and foremost, concerned with, is this person capable of being president of the United States? What I'm concerned about is, can he bring me the electoral votes of the state of Virginia, the 13 electoral votes in Virginia?'"

*Of course Rove was talking about Obama picking someone who's been governor a year longer than Palin, and was mayor of a city with over 20 times the population of Wasilla, but his words sum up McCain's pick perfectly.

Edited September 13, 2008 by American Woman

[August1991]

It's not about more Americans supporting Palin's values. There are those who are on her bandwagon just because she's a woman. That should be obvious from how much support McCain has managed to get since picking Palin.

There's more going on here than the simple fact that she's a woman. After all, if a woman on the ticket jsut brings those votes in, why didn't it work for Mondale/Ferraro? And why didn't it work for Hillary Clinton?

Come to think of it, the same applies to Obama. If putting a black guy on the ticket is the winning trick, why do I see so few black men as president?

----

The point about both Palin and Obama is that they are charismatic. They manage to project their personality in large crowds or through a media.

Would that make either a good leader? As they say in logic, it's a necessary but insufficient condition. (Some might argue that charisma is a sufficient condition to disqualify them.)

AW, you oftan talk about "issues" or "policies" and how you would not vote for Palin because you disagree with her on issues. In this world, I don't know if many people select their politicians that way or even if they should. Issues change and politicians frequently change their policies once elected. (The Canadian Liberal Party is a notorious example.) Politicians hate hypothetical questions because real world situations are far more complex.

Instead, we can at best choose someone who seems to have good judgment or whose head is firmly attached to their shoulders. We want someone with a large enough ego to keep themselves together but also willing to listen.

I don't know Sarah Palin anymore than you do but what I have seen so far implies to me that she has good judgment.

I read this NYT interview with McCain recently:

Q: Do you like organizations with competing circles of influence. What did they used to call it at the Washington Post? Competitive tension?

Mr. McCain: I think that when Jack Kennedy went to see President Eisenhower, president Eisenhower kind of rattled him a little bit, because he said, you know, none of the easy decisions will reach your desk. Only the hard ones. Those are the ones that you’re going to have to make the decision. All the easy ones will have been, decisions will have been made before it gets to your desk. And so you’ve got to have competing views. You’ve got to have a circle of people who you know and trust. John Taylor’s future is not dependent on my campaign. But he is a noted economist in this nation, and if he thinks that I’m wrong, he’s going to tell me I’m wrong. If Henry Kissinger thinks that I’m wrong, he’ll pick up the phone – and he has, several times. And say ‘You’re wrong on this, you shouldn’t be so hard on the Russians, OK?’ You’ve got to get competing opinions, and you’ve got to do that in campaigns as well, in my view. So I think a certain amount of tension is very healthy. And a certain amount of differing views. Because the bubble that a president is in, and the bubble that a candidate is in, sometimes you find out afterwards, Oh boy, I wish I had heard thus and such and so and so. So I appreciate and want some of the tension, I don’t want too much of it, obviously, because we have to have certain efficiencies. But I think there is a balance there. I hope that that explains it. When I was commanding officer of a squadron in the Navy, I would call in other people and I would say, OK, what’s your opinion.? How do we best do this?

NYT

From what I've seen, Palin is no ditz. She can apparently carry the weight. (The interview also puts to rest any idea that McCain doesn't know what the internet is. Also, I learned that John Young is advising McCain. Young is a smart guy.)

Edited September 13, 2008 by August1991

[Guest American Woman]

There's more going on here than the simple fact that she's a woman. After all, if a woman on the ticket jsut brings those votes in, why didn't it work for Mondale/Ferraro? And why didn't it work for Hillary Clinton?

Hillary did get a lot of support. Surely you're aware of that. In fact, some of Palin's support is coming from her camp. I assume you're aware of that, too. As for why it didn't work for Mondale/Ferraro -- I'm assuming that "didn't work" is synonymous with "didn't win the election" in your mind. Since McCain/Palin haven't won either, I'm not sure what you're getting at. Are you saying Ferraro didn't have a lot of support from women? If that's the case, you'll have to prove it. But I will say this-- they were Democrats. Social conservative Republicans are less likely than Democrats to cross party lines as they stick to their social conservative agenda at all costs. I've said the same thing before; the Christian conservative anti-choice crowd will stick to whoever will give them that.

Come to think of it, the same applies to Obama. If putting a black guy on the ticket is the winning trick, why do I see so few black men as president?

Probably because population wise there are so few blacks compared to whites?

AW, you oftan talk about "issues" or "policies" and how you would not vote for Palin because you disagree with her on issues. In this world, I don't know if many people select their politicians that way or even if they should. Issues change and politicians frequently change their policies once elected.

Are you serious? If we shouldn't vote on issues or policies, why even bother with them? Why not just make it a popularity/beauty contest and not even talk about anything of substance?

Fact is, for the most part, politicians stick to their stands. We're not going to see Palin suddenly turning pro-choice any more than we're going to see McCain suddenly becoming a pacifist. If we don't vote on the candidates issues and policies, we might as well not vote.

(The Canadian Liberal Party is a notorious example.) Politicians hate hypothetical questions because real world situations are far more complex.

Instead, we can at best choose someone who seems to have good judgment or whose head is firmly attached to their shoulders. We want someone with a large enough ego to keep themselves together but also willing to listen.

And whether or not they have "good judgment" can only be determined by their stands on the issues/policies.

I don't know Sarah Palin anymore than you do but what I have seen so far implies to me that she has good judgment.

I never claimed to "know" Palin, and in fact have made it quite clear that I don't care if I "know" her personally, because I hate to break it to you, but we don't "know" any of our leaders. Unless you do know Harper? In which case you are an exception. So once again. I care about her stand on the issues. I care about what policies she would enact. So far I don't agree with her on the issues, I don't agree with things she's done as governor, and therefore, politically, I don't think she shows "good judgment."

I read this NYT interview with McCain recently:NYT

From what I've seen, Palin is no ditz. She can apparently carry the weight. (The interview also puts to rest any idea that McCain doesn't know what the internet is. Also, I learned that John Young is advising McCain. Young is a smart guy.)

I never said Palin was a ditz. Never so much as insinuated it. I think there are tons of people who are not qualified for the job of VP who are not a ditz. In other words, the job qualifications for VP require more than "not being a ditz."

[August1991]

Are you serious? If we shouldn't vote on issues or policies, why even bother with them? Why not just make it a popularity/beauty contest and not even talk about anything of substance?

Fact is, for the most part, politicians stick to their stands. We're not going to see Palin suddenly turning pro-choice any more than we're going to see McCain suddenly becoming a pacifist. If we don't vote on the candidates issues and policies, we might as well not vote.

Issues and proposed policies change. When Bush ran in 2000, who knew that he would face an unprecedented attack within a year? When Nixon ran in 1968, who knew that he would go to China during his first mandate? Reagan met Gorbachev and Clinton bombed Serbia - both would have been hard to believe before they did it.

Politicians frequently change their policies or opinions to meet the precise nature of new issues. Politics is the art of the possible.

So, if you choose your politician based on a precise set of proposed policies, you're bound to be disappointed. Indeed, I don't think many people choose their politicians that way.

Instead, we choose our politicians based on our opinion of their moral values or ability to decide.

----

Look, if you don't like Palin because she's against abortion, then I'd say you are a one-issue voter. That's fine. There are many like you around. (Here in Quebec, many of my friends choose their politicians strictly on the issue of Quebec independance. Some would never consider ever voting for anyone but the Bloc or PQ candidate.)

Edited September 13, 2008 by August1991

[Guest American Woman]

Look, if you don't like Palin because she's against abortion, then I'd say you are a one-issue voter. That's fine. There are many like you around. (Here in Quebec, many of my friends choose their politicians strictly on the issue of Quebec independance. Some would never consider ever voting for anyone but the Bloc or PQ candidate.)

Abortion is only one of many issues of which I disagree with her. I highlighted that in my last post because that's the 'biggie' for the social conservatives who will vote for whoever will give that to them. They are the one issue voters.

Now here's what I said about me: "So far I don't agree with her on the issues, I don't agree with things she's done as governor..." That's "issues," plural, and "the things she's done as governor" have nothing to do with abortion.

So how you are concluding that I don't "like" her [only] because she's "against abortion" and go on to say that I am a "one-issue voter" is hard to figure.

[capricorn]

Last night, Sean Hannity said he will be interviewing Sarah Palin on his show Tuesday Sept. 16. He said he would let her do all the talking. I'm not so sure of that.

[Guest American Woman]

Last night, Sean Hannity said he will be interviewing Sarah Palin on his show Tuesday Sept. 16. He said he would let her do all the talking. I'm not so sure of that.

I think he will; that way he won't inadvertently trip her up with any questions/issues she might be clueless about. A good conservative right-winger like Hannity wouldn't want a repeat of the "moose in headlights" scenario. It's hardly an "interview," but then, she should come across better than she did when she actually had to answer 'though' questions, and I'm guessing that's the whole point of having her on the show.

[Drea]

And Hannity will have to exchange his bowtie for a long tie to cover his hardon.

The only reason Repub men are happy about the VP is that they have a pretty face to masturbate to. I would bet my next year's salary that 99% of Rebub men masturbated during her speech.

Wool, meet eyes.

[Sulaco]

And Hannity will have to exchange his bowtie for a long tie to cover his hardon.

The only reason Repub men are happy about the VP is that they have a pretty face to masturbate to. I would bet my next year's salary that 99% of Rebub men masturbated during her speech.

Wool, meet eyes.

Why are you so concerned with how Republican men spend their seed?

[Topaz]

The interview she did with ABC's Charlie, you could see the interview was edited. He did ask hard questions but she's sooooooooo much she doesn't know about the world and foreign affairs it would be like have the female version of GW back in the White House. There's no problem her being VP but her being the head of the US should scare people! I think if people start to think of her as president then this could lose the election for McCain since he was going to name Joe Lieberman as VP. I think he should have gone with Joe.

[bush_cheney2004]

The interview she did with ABC's Charlie, you could see the interview was edited. He did ask hard questions but she's sooooooooo much she doesn't know about the world and foreign affairs it would be like have the female version of GW back in the White House. There's no problem her being VP but her being the head of the US should scare people! I think if people start to think of her as president then this could lose the election for McCain since he was going to name Joe Lieberman as VP. I think he should have gone with Joe.

That's the idea...we want to scare people....just like in 2004. Are you still "scared"? Who takes over as PM if Harper dies? Oh wait...nobody gives a damn.

Edited September 13, 2008 by bush_cheney2004

[GostHacked]

That's the idea...we want to scare people....just like in 2004. Are you still "scared"? Who takes over as PM if Harper dies? Oh wait...nobody gives a damn.

Whooowowoahaha Canada .. yeah that's it .. Canada baby .. CANADA !!!