While I don't agree with the author, I actually found her presentation to be far more intelligent than what can be found internet-wide.
However, to add to the list of misconceptions here: McCain Palin will put gay marriage and abortion issues into the hands of individual states - there will be no unilateral ban on either.
Hmmm... I consider myself a big advocate of women and women's rights, but I'm still pro-life. I appreciate women who can want equal rights and treatment, but don't equate that with a right to terminate their fetus' life.
I've always sorta thought that "a woman's right to choose" was a lame philosophy. It is a woman's right to choose - she should choose to close her legs, or choose to use birth control methods. After that, I think she's already made her choice. I think women do stupid, irresponsible things and then want to have the choice to remove the consequences at the expense of their unborn child's life.
And how is birth control and abortion the same thing?
The point I started out trying to make is that feminism doesn't "have to" go hand-in-hand with pro-choice ideologies - although it often does.
Anyway, beyond my little pro-life rant, I can't say I disagree with you about this woman being an odd choice. She seems inexperienced and embroiled in controversy. I really don't see her attracting any Hillary supporters.
Palin proves in deeds her love and courage: being a proud mother of five children, and a son with Down syndrome, is a good sign. I do not agree with creationism (I agree that there is a Creator God, a different thing). In any case, I think that I could trust in this woman. Even with a not long political experience.
Good luck, America!
Santiago, Granada (Spain) http://opinionciudadano.blogspot.com/
August 31, 2008 3:12 pm
Rachel Cohen
This rant would be more impressive had Nedeau actually accomplished anything. Riding her bike and working on a manuscript? She wrote for two online sites and now this place. Spare me the benefits of her wisdom, please.
Thanks for the engaging comments - we need to continue to discuss decisions like these - and in my mind not necessarily to bash on one party or the other, but to really think about what this means for the advancement of women's rights and how Palin could forward or detract from movements ushc as Equal Pay for Equal Work, Reproductive rights, global feminism, etc.
And Cohen, I guess I'd like to hear from you about at what point it is acceptable to have an opinion, because I was under the impression that 1) it is part of the 1st Amendment and 2) after working for Rep. Pelosi, the Post, being published in the NYT and over 200 other publications in my short lifetime that I might be allowed to have my own blog where I can propose a few ideas from time to time.
Feel free to get back to me when you have something constructive to say rather than just taking time to denigrate my person hood, rather than what I posted here.
You should do a better job of understanding why McCain picked Palin before you start going off the deep end with wild accusations.
It wasn't to pick up PUMA's so much (though that adds something interesting to the ticket). McCain added Palin primarily as a way to shore up conservative support. He couldn't have picked a better female to help him in this way.
Conservatives already feel like McCain was a wishy washy person who hasn't been toeing the line. Palin is reliably conservative, something that Whitman (or Snowe, or Hutch) is certainly not.
I have to disagree. Just because someone is pro-life doesn't mean that they are "wrong" for any executive position.
She is shy of serious executive experience but consider that: Biden is from a state as small as my back yard and Obama is not exactly rich in serious senate experience.
I think that Lance is right that McCain picked Palin mostly for his need for conservatives. I can see a lot of folks now voting for McC just because of Palin.
Not to mention she'd make a great president in 4 years...
September 1, 2008 1:59 am
Ian Samuel
I think the post is spot on, but wow--I'd actually like to say a few words to Rachel and John. Folks, arguing over whether someone is "qualified" to have a political opinion isn't just a waste of time. It's downright undemocratic and un-American, and evinces a real failure to grapple with the way popular democracy works. In an era before Bill O'Reilly told you what to think, political conversation happened the way Jen's trying to have it happen here: individual citizens talking to each other about matters of national importance.
We could dispute Jen's credentials (I think they're sterling, and I think I'm right, but let's set that aside). We could dispute whether attacking someone's credentials rather than the quality of what they write is a useful form of argument (I think it isn't, and I think I'm right, but let's set that aside, too). What we can't dispute is that Jen's an adult citizen who, in these post-19th Amendment days, exercises the franchise. Thinking seriously about politics and political topics isn't just her prerogative; it's her responsibility, just like it's the responsibility of every other adult citizen of the United States. If you don't get that, then you've got bigger problems than the vapid empty suit that was just selected to be #2 in your party.
I think it's wonderfully ironic that the same band of folks who are whooping Sarah Palin's elevation to the #2 spot as a victory for women are eager to tear down an intelligent young writer for saying what she thinks about it.
This is probably too much effort to expend slapping at comment trolls, and normally I wouldn't expend the effort. But I think this is a teachable moment, as people say.
@Rachel Cohen & @John -- blindly hating in the comments on a 24 year old who has just begun her career is pretty low.
It should be noted of this post: Jen makes some very insightful, sourced thoughts that I believe are an important voice in the collective democracy. Try also thinking about it this way: If Jen was an experienced, 20-year veteran of a field like, say, journalism, she wouldn't be able to present the view of the 20-something still growing in her career.
It should be noted of her accomplishments: I return again to (1) the fact that she is 24 and on her way to great things and (2) has accomplished a great deal to date. Furthermore, as a co-worker, colleague and confidante of Jen's over the last year I can tell you this: she is years ahead of her age in all that she does. Whether it is receiving 2 promotions in 8 months, or co-founding and maintaining various issue groups, this girl is on the move.
Final thought: I am all for productive dialog online, but these kinds of blind attacks on bloggers/authors ruin it. Take your hate somewhere else, please. Kthxbai.
PS: Jen, keep up the amazing work. If it was easy and risk free, Rachel & John might actually have their own blog as well and not troll on your guest posts here on Brazen or back on Absurdities!
Rachel - thank you for linking to another blog of mine instead of actually revealing who it is you are. I appreciate the promotional efforts.
As for the list of misinformation that is compiled in this thread:
"Palin’s a brilliant, cynical choice."
--First off if you are going to say she is brilliant at least say why. The Evangelicals have been sitting at home up until this point - bringing her into the picture may get them out to vote. Duh. This is so transparent it hurts.
"Anyone doubting her lack of appropriate experience has to swallow Obama’s lack of same. In fact, his campaign is the biggest thing he’s ever run."
---> 8 Years as a state senator, 3 years as U.S. Senator, President of the Harvard Law Review, a capacity to out fund raise every politician in history and draw over 38 million people to his nomination speech is far beyond what Palin has ever done in her lifetime.
"Palin’s a sop to the conservative right, with whom McCain’s not comfortable."
--> Sure, she is the Christian Right. She will motivate that base as McCain couldn't. But how she balances her pro-life stance with her passage of bills that allow wolves to be shot from helicopters with AK47s is still unclear to me.
"Palin has no political coat-tails, mentors, connections. While that might be bad, Hillary had all of those, and look where it got her."
Palin has yet to prove that she can garner 18 million votes and be a serious political candidate in her own right. Unlike Hillary who actually made strides for the women's movement, Palin is a prop - she is not going to help women, she is there to help McCain.
"Anyone who attacks her lack of experience has to swallow Obama’s lack of same."
--> see earlier bullet. This is a false narrative.
"If Biden’s supposed to be Obama’s fount of experience, two words: Dick Cheney."
---> Dick Cheney? We really want to bring him up now? Didn't everyone within 10 feet of him get indicted. Yeah - that's what we want to be in office again, corrupt politicians.
"Al Gore had grown up in DC, around power. Fat lot of good it did him as VP. He could have had a day job."
--> Is there a point here? More unsubstantiated commentary. Next.
"Her non-name brand education, beauty pageant stuff, mom of 5 is as non-elitist as it can be, and takes the curse of McCain’s zillions of wifely $$."
--> That's all fine and good - but it doesn't answer the question: does her no-name brand education, beauty pageant stuff, mom of 5, non-elitist background make her a good VP? What if McCain dies, you really want that to be POTUS? A hockey mom?
September 1, 2008 5:11 pm
Tyler
I agree that the Palin pick was cynical but it was far from brilliant.
While it may bring McCain some of the evangelical support that Bush enjoyed, the Palin pick is too little too late for many of them.
At the same time, the pick raises serious questions about McCain's judgment in picking as his #2 someone he had met twice and has zero experience with issues of national domestic policy. Her foreign policy experience, namely flying over Canada in route to the lower 48, is sparse to non-existent.
For McCain to win, he needs the enthusiastic support of three groups: social conservatives, fiscal conservatives, and security voters. In other words, those Americans who rank any of the following issues as most important: social issues, lower taxes, and national security.
The Palin pick bolsters his standing with the first group at the expense of the latter two. Club for Growth conservatives are skeptical of her tax record as governor of Alaska, not to mention their skepticism of Sarah Palin generally. Security voters are understandably worried about someone with zero foreign policy experience or understanding of military issues (with the exception of the AK National guard) being commander-in-chief.
Once the buzz of the pick dies down, and the harsh lights of pointed inquiry are on her, Palin's worth will tarnish.
September 1, 2008 5:02 pm
Rachel Cohen
"Person hood"? Hahahaha.
September 1, 2008 3:48 pm
Jeremiah
"I suspect some people will be on the site saying Obama is less qualified, she actually has executive experience.
Even Presidential scholars are having a hard time making a case for her experience
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0808/13001.html"
Yes, 0bama is less qualified. this is obviously the case. Please do your research. Matthew Dallek is a shill for the obama not a reputable source.
I couldn't agree with you more. I am fully aware that McCain chose Palin to close the conservative gap. To me, I'm more interested on how someone is going to fix the economy, rather than make sure that Roe V Wade is abolished or that gays won't be able to marry. I don't know what experience Palin brings, but I doubt she's ever traveled in the lower 48 or even outside of this country. Can you imagine her negotiating in the Middle East?
I feel as if this country is moving in an entirely scarey direction. What is scarier to me is if the Republicans are elected again. I just may move to somewhere very south - like Argentina or Chile.
What 200 publications exactly? And being an intern for Pelosi doesn't exactly give you hands-on experience in government, management or anything but getting coffee and xeroxing.
Palin's a brilliant, cynical choice.
Anyone doubting her lack of appropriate experience has to swallow Obama's lack of same. In fact, his campaign is the biggest thing he's ever run.
Palin's a sop to the conservative right, with whom McCain's not comfortable.
Palin has no political coat-tails, mentors, connections. While that might be bad, Hillary had all of those, and look where it got her.
Anyone who attacks her lack of experience has to swallow Obama's lack of same.
If Biden's supposed to be Obama's fount of experience, two words: Dick Cheney.
Al Gore had grown up in DC, around power. Fat lot of good it did him as VP. He could have had a day job.
Her non-name brand education, beauty pageant stuff, mom of 5 is as non-elitist as it can be, and takes the curse of McCain's zillions of wifely $$.
September 1, 2008 4:06 pm
John
> This rant would be more impressive
> had Nedeau actually accomplished
> anything.
Her qualifications are about as high as her boss, Penelope "Beach-Volleyball" Trunk.
Rachel - I think it's hilarious that you're standing here defending Palin's relative inexperience, while launching an ad hominem attack against the poster of the original blog by saying that she is inexperienced.
And unlike Palin, Jen's life experience is not public for you to weigh and measure.
But guess what, regardless of Jen's wealth or lack of experience, I enjoyed reading her post and I enjoyed *most* of the conversation that followed.
If you don't feel she's qualified enough to influence your thinking, then move on to the next poster and keep your comments to yourself. Don't insult her and the rest of us, who think that we all have a place and an important voice in the discussion of national issues.
I suspect some people will be on the site saying Obama is less qualified, she actually has executive experience.
Even Presidential scholars are having a hard time making a case for her experience http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0808/13001.html
Stories about her brand of governing in Alaska are starting to leak and it's not all sunshine and roses. She sounds like a tried and true Republican, not a maverick when you start reading about how she left Wasilla about $20 million in debt after bungling a development debt and her alleged abuses of executive power.
It's going to be interesting because feminists will want to stand up for her in battling sites like vpilf.com and other sexism that's going to come to a full boil, while not supporting her because she's a staunch pro-lifer who wants Roe v. Wade overturned, and who fails on other progressive social issues like gay marriage.
With you 100%. There have to be a dozen more qualified Republican women out there, especially Condi. My guess is that Mccain really is attracted to Palin, and that's the main basis for his pick.
I want to address the Condi Rice issue right off the bat because I would LOVE for her to run for the nominee spot. The fact is that people in the current administration are anchored by Bush and have no chance of winning no matter how loose an association they have, that is very unfortunate. McCain made a very smart pick and would have probably considered Rice, if she would have even wanted to, had the administration been more popular. It is pretty obvious that liberals will claw at anything remotely resembling a tie to the current administration to bring down McCain's campaign. Hell it is either that or his age, how sad is that!?
Jennifer, out of your list of experience "points" for Obama, the only one that I actually consider experience for him running anything was President of Harvard Law Review and even that is PRETTY LOOSE. I would love to talk to you about his experience in a one on one interview basis so that you wouldn't have time to pour over the internet for hours searching and searching for the answers to post back at me, cause really, that is what it would take to find his accomplishments and experience.
29 RESPONSES TO "GOV. SARAH PALIN, THE NEXT HARRIET MIERS?"
@All - don't feed the trolls.
While I don't agree with the author, I actually found her presentation to be far more intelligent than what can be found internet-wide.
However, to add to the list of misconceptions here: McCain Palin will put gay marriage and abortion issues into the hands of individual states - there will be no unilateral ban on either.
Correction: Palin voted against the constitutional ban on gay marriage.
Hmmm... I consider myself a big advocate of women and women's rights, but I'm still pro-life. I appreciate women who can want equal rights and treatment, but don't equate that with a right to terminate their fetus' life.
I've always sorta thought that "a woman's right to choose" was a lame philosophy. It is a woman's right to choose - she should choose to close her legs, or choose to use birth control methods. After that, I think she's already made her choice. I think women do stupid, irresponsible things and then want to have the choice to remove the consequences at the expense of their unborn child's life.
And how is birth control and abortion the same thing?
The point I started out trying to make is that feminism doesn't "have to" go hand-in-hand with pro-choice ideologies - although it often does.
Anyway, beyond my little pro-life rant, I can't say I disagree with you about this woman being an odd choice. She seems inexperienced and embroiled in controversy. I really don't see her attracting any Hillary supporters.
Palin proves in deeds her love and courage: being a proud mother of five children, and a son with Down syndrome, is a good sign. I do not agree with creationism (I agree that there is a Creator God, a different thing). In any case, I think that I could trust in this woman. Even with a not long political experience.
Good luck, America!
Santiago, Granada (Spain)
http://opinionciudadano.blogspot.com/
This rant would be more impressive had Nedeau actually accomplished anything. Riding her bike and working on a manuscript? She wrote for two online sites and now this place. Spare me the benefits of her wisdom, please.
Thanks for the engaging comments - we need to continue to discuss decisions like these - and in my mind not necessarily to bash on one party or the other, but to really think about what this means for the advancement of women's rights and how Palin could forward or detract from movements ushc as Equal Pay for Equal Work, Reproductive rights, global feminism, etc.
And Cohen, I guess I'd like to hear from you about at what point it is acceptable to have an opinion, because I was under the impression that 1) it is part of the 1st Amendment and 2) after working for Rep. Pelosi, the Post, being published in the NYT and over 200 other publications in my short lifetime that I might be allowed to have my own blog where I can propose a few ideas from time to time.
Feel free to get back to me when you have something constructive to say rather than just taking time to denigrate my person hood, rather than what I posted here.
You should do a better job of understanding why McCain picked Palin before you start going off the deep end with wild accusations.
It wasn't to pick up PUMA's so much (though that adds something interesting to the ticket). McCain added Palin primarily as a way to shore up conservative support. He couldn't have picked a better female to help him in this way.
Conservatives already feel like McCain was a wishy washy person who hasn't been toeing the line. Palin is reliably conservative, something that Whitman (or Snowe, or Hutch) is certainly not.
I have to disagree. Just because someone is pro-life doesn't mean that they are "wrong" for any executive position.
She is shy of serious executive experience but consider that: Biden is from a state as small as my back yard and Obama is not exactly rich in serious senate experience.
I think that Lance is right that McCain picked Palin mostly for his need for conservatives. I can see a lot of folks now voting for McC just because of Palin.
Not to mention she'd make a great president in 4 years...
I think the post is spot on, but wow--I'd actually like to say a few words to Rachel and John. Folks, arguing over whether someone is "qualified" to have a political opinion isn't just a waste of time. It's downright undemocratic and un-American, and evinces a real failure to grapple with the way popular democracy works. In an era before Bill O'Reilly told you what to think, political conversation happened the way Jen's trying to have it happen here: individual citizens talking to each other about matters of national importance.
We could dispute Jen's credentials (I think they're sterling, and I think I'm right, but let's set that aside). We could dispute whether attacking someone's credentials rather than the quality of what they write is a useful form of argument (I think it isn't, and I think I'm right, but let's set that aside, too). What we can't dispute is that Jen's an adult citizen who, in these post-19th Amendment days, exercises the franchise. Thinking seriously about politics and political topics isn't just her prerogative; it's her responsibility, just like it's the responsibility of every other adult citizen of the United States. If you don't get that, then you've got bigger problems than the vapid empty suit that was just selected to be #2 in your party.
I think it's wonderfully ironic that the same band of folks who are whooping Sarah Palin's elevation to the #2 spot as a victory for women are eager to tear down an intelligent young writer for saying what she thinks about it.
This is probably too much effort to expend slapping at comment trolls, and normally I wouldn't expend the effort. But I think this is a teachable moment, as people say.
@Rachel Cohen & @John -- blindly hating in the comments on a 24 year old who has just begun her career is pretty low.
It should be noted of this post: Jen makes some very insightful, sourced thoughts that I believe are an important voice in the collective democracy. Try also thinking about it this way: If Jen was an experienced, 20-year veteran of a field like, say, journalism, she wouldn't be able to present the view of the 20-something still growing in her career.
It should be noted of her accomplishments: I return again to (1) the fact that she is 24 and on her way to great things and (2) has accomplished a great deal to date. Furthermore, as a co-worker, colleague and confidante of Jen's over the last year I can tell you this: she is years ahead of her age in all that she does. Whether it is receiving 2 promotions in 8 months, or co-founding and maintaining various issue groups, this girl is on the move.
Final thought: I am all for productive dialog online, but these kinds of blind attacks on bloggers/authors ruin it. Take your hate somewhere else, please. Kthxbai.
PS: Jen, keep up the amazing work. If it was easy and risk free, Rachel & John might actually have their own blog as well and not troll on your guest posts here on Brazen or back on Absurdities!
Rachel - thank you for linking to another blog of mine instead of actually revealing who it is you are. I appreciate the promotional efforts.
As for the list of misinformation that is compiled in this thread:
"Palin’s a brilliant, cynical choice."
--First off if you are going to say she is brilliant at least say why. The Evangelicals have been sitting at home up until this point - bringing her into the picture may get them out to vote. Duh. This is so transparent it hurts.
"Anyone doubting her lack of appropriate experience has to swallow Obama’s lack of same. In fact, his campaign is the biggest thing he’s ever run."
---> 8 Years as a state senator, 3 years as U.S. Senator, President of the Harvard Law Review, a capacity to out fund raise every politician in history and draw over 38 million people to his nomination speech is far beyond what Palin has ever done in her lifetime.
"Palin’s a sop to the conservative right, with whom McCain’s not comfortable."
--> Sure, she is the Christian Right. She will motivate that base as McCain couldn't. But how she balances her pro-life stance with her passage of bills that allow wolves to be shot from helicopters with AK47s is still unclear to me.
http://www.defenders.org/newsroom/press_releases_folder/2007/03_27_2007_...
"Palin has no political coat-tails, mentors, connections. While that might be bad, Hillary had all of those, and look where it got her."
Palin has yet to prove that she can garner 18 million votes and be a serious political candidate in her own right. Unlike Hillary who actually made strides for the women's movement, Palin is a prop - she is not going to help women, she is there to help McCain.
"Anyone who attacks her lack of experience has to swallow Obama’s lack of same."
--> see earlier bullet. This is a false narrative.
"If Biden’s supposed to be Obama’s fount of experience, two words: Dick Cheney."
---> Dick Cheney? We really want to bring him up now? Didn't everyone within 10 feet of him get indicted. Yeah - that's what we want to be in office again, corrupt politicians.
"Al Gore had grown up in DC, around power. Fat lot of good it did him as VP. He could have had a day job."
--> Is there a point here? More unsubstantiated commentary. Next.
"Her non-name brand education, beauty pageant stuff, mom of 5 is as non-elitist as it can be, and takes the curse of McCain’s zillions of wifely $$."
--> That's all fine and good - but it doesn't answer the question: does her no-name brand education, beauty pageant stuff, mom of 5, non-elitist background make her a good VP? What if McCain dies, you really want that to be POTUS? A hockey mom?
I agree that the Palin pick was cynical but it was far from brilliant.
While it may bring McCain some of the evangelical support that Bush enjoyed, the Palin pick is too little too late for many of them.
At the same time, the pick raises serious questions about McCain's judgment in picking as his #2 someone he had met twice and has zero experience with issues of national domestic policy. Her foreign policy experience, namely flying over Canada in route to the lower 48, is sparse to non-existent.
For McCain to win, he needs the enthusiastic support of three groups: social conservatives, fiscal conservatives, and security voters. In other words, those Americans who rank any of the following issues as most important: social issues, lower taxes, and national security.
The Palin pick bolsters his standing with the first group at the expense of the latter two. Club for Growth conservatives are skeptical of her tax record as governor of Alaska, not to mention their skepticism of Sarah Palin generally. Security voters are understandably worried about someone with zero foreign policy experience or understanding of military issues (with the exception of the AK National guard) being commander-in-chief.
Once the buzz of the pick dies down, and the harsh lights of pointed inquiry are on her, Palin's worth will tarnish.
"Person hood"? Hahahaha.
"I suspect some people will be on the site saying Obama is less qualified, she actually has executive experience.
Even Presidential scholars are having a hard time making a case for her experience
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0808/13001.html"
Yes, 0bama is less qualified. this is obviously the case. Please do your research. Matthew Dallek is a shill for the obama not a reputable source.
http://snipurl.com/3lqfx
http://snipurl.com/3lqhk
trying to make the palin brother in law scandal anything close to rezko, birth certificate, ayers, wright is just embarrassing.
I couldn't agree with you more. I am fully aware that McCain chose Palin to close the conservative gap. To me, I'm more interested on how someone is going to fix the economy, rather than make sure that Roe V Wade is abolished or that gays won't be able to marry. I don't know what experience Palin brings, but I doubt she's ever traveled in the lower 48 or even outside of this country. Can you imagine her negotiating in the Middle East?
I feel as if this country is moving in an entirely scarey direction. What is scarier to me is if the Republicans are elected again. I just may move to somewhere very south - like Argentina or Chile.
What 200 publications exactly? And being an intern for Pelosi doesn't exactly give you hands-on experience in government, management or anything but getting coffee and xeroxing.
Palin's a brilliant, cynical choice.
Anyone doubting her lack of appropriate experience has to swallow Obama's lack of same. In fact, his campaign is the biggest thing he's ever run.
Palin's a sop to the conservative right, with whom McCain's not comfortable.
Palin has no political coat-tails, mentors, connections. While that might be bad, Hillary had all of those, and look where it got her.
Anyone who attacks her lack of experience has to swallow Obama's lack of same.
If Biden's supposed to be Obama's fount of experience, two words: Dick Cheney.
Al Gore had grown up in DC, around power. Fat lot of good it did him as VP. He could have had a day job.
Her non-name brand education, beauty pageant stuff, mom of 5 is as non-elitist as it can be, and takes the curse of McCain's zillions of wifely $$.
> This rant would be more impressive
> had Nedeau actually accomplished
> anything.
Her qualifications are about as high as her boss, Penelope "Beach-Volleyball" Trunk.
The shine on Palin is going to start to wear as his problem areas start making their way to media.
One Daily Kos blogger has already listed about 50 vetting issues, a decent share of those should come to light over the next 2 months.
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/8/30/201818/606
sorry HER problem areas
Rachel - I think it's hilarious that you're standing here defending Palin's relative inexperience, while launching an ad hominem attack against the poster of the original blog by saying that she is inexperienced.
And unlike Palin, Jen's life experience is not public for you to weigh and measure.
But guess what, regardless of Jen's wealth or lack of experience, I enjoyed reading her post and I enjoyed *most* of the conversation that followed.
If you don't feel she's qualified enough to influence your thinking, then move on to the next poster and keep your comments to yourself. Don't insult her and the rest of us, who think that we all have a place and an important voice in the discussion of national issues.
That's my two-sense on the issue.
But the poor trolls looked so hungry.... :)
I suspect some people will be on the site saying Obama is less qualified, she actually has executive experience.
Even Presidential scholars are having a hard time making a case for her experience
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0808/13001.html
Stories about her brand of governing in Alaska are starting to leak and it's not all sunshine and roses. She sounds like a tried and true Republican, not a maverick when you start reading about how she left Wasilla about $20 million in debt after bungling a development debt and her alleged abuses of executive power.
It's going to be interesting because feminists will want to stand up for her in battling sites like vpilf.com and other sexism that's going to come to a full boil, while not supporting her because she's a staunch pro-lifer who wants Roe v. Wade overturned, and who fails on other progressive social issues like gay marriage.
With you 100%. There have to be a dozen more qualified Republican women out there, especially Condi. My guess is that Mccain really is attracted to Palin, and that's the main basis for his pick.
Tim,
The video footage is telling. . .
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1RN5xbWtNSU
I want to address the Condi Rice issue right off the bat because I would LOVE for her to run for the nominee spot. The fact is that people in the current administration are anchored by Bush and have no chance of winning no matter how loose an association they have, that is very unfortunate. McCain made a very smart pick and would have probably considered Rice, if she would have even wanted to, had the administration been more popular. It is pretty obvious that liberals will claw at anything remotely resembling a tie to the current administration to bring down McCain's campaign. Hell it is either that or his age, how sad is that!?
Jennifer, out of your list of experience "points" for Obama, the only one that I actually consider experience for him running anything was President of Harvard Law Review and even that is PRETTY LOOSE. I would love to talk to you about his experience in a one on one interview basis so that you wouldn't have time to pour over the internet for hours searching and searching for the answers to post back at me, cause really, that is what it would take to find his accomplishments and experience.
Correction: Sorry, he has no experience or accomplishments
I think comparing Palin to Clinton is pretty odd, they are from different parties!
A comparison of Palin to the others on the 'short list' for McCain's running mate might be a better discussion.
What is a "President" of the Harvard Law Review?
http://ghjjwpypupjllellu.com ghjjwpypupjllellu
ghjjwpypupjllellu
ghjjwpypupjllellu
GOT SOMETHING TO SAY?