Strollerderby

I find it insulting, actually. Apparently, all women are interchangeable and former Hillary fans will now vote for McCain because he has a woman on the ticket ...

It sucks that it's become this woman vs. black guy popularity contest.  This is our country people!  This is our future!  Vote for the best interest of your family!

I agree with both. The politics behind the politics have become so transparent, this isn't even a fun game to watch anymore. Is my entire gender expected to jump on the bandwagon just b/c the GOP just threw a lady on the ticket?? Please, they have to know that at least some of us are paying more attention to the issues and not the mouthpieces for them...

I think it's a blatant attempt to win Hillary supporters, a political choice rather than picking someone who would do a good job. Obama's pick made a lot more sense as Biden would be a good VP and his strengths complement Obama well. And I think all Hillary supporters would do better to vote in 2 men who support choice and other women's rights rather than 1 woman who is pro-life + 1 man with an abysmal record on women's issues. Just my 2 cents.

One candidate was willing to stand up and put a woman on the ticket, and the other played it safe and put on a white guy, Washington insider to be VP. And BTW, she has more executive experience than any of them.

Executive experience, please.  She's been governor for less than 2 years, and of a state that has no taxes (the government actually give money back to everyone in the state every year), so how that qualifies her to run the country, I don't know.  She was picked not just because she's a woman (and young) but because she's a rabid right-winger.

I want to like Palin: she seems grounded, she's crusaded against corruption, she's a successful, outspoken woman.

BUT, then she goes and has to be anti-choice. And pro-drilling in a wild life refuge.

And, though this isn't her fault, she's a blatant attempt to steal Hillary supporters. She's been a governor for less than two years in a state that does not represent the majority of America. This is so bad.

So all of you Hillary supporters who didn't want to back Obama -- have fun with your new anti-choice VP...

I think the way to look at is one candidate picked a white male to fill the gaps where his weaknesses were and one candidate picked a female version of himself.

Please. Pandering. Pandering. Pandering. Enough already.

And frankly, as a woman and a mother, why is this woman with a FIVE children including a NEW BABY with special needs looking to be VP of the USA? I have two kids and my own business, (so yes, you can work and raise a family) but I am not VP of the (most powerful?) country in the world. And frankly someone who has a good chance at needing to step up to the plate as Pres.  

Totally insulting. Anyone who pays more than a sound bite worth of attention gets that.

You people have no right to post these PRO ABORTION comments next to these innocent sweet baby pictures. I am frankly sickened by this!! What a sin it is to want to protect these babies. Get a life people!!!!!

Oh, Melissa.  I don't think like you do at all.

What a shame that so many of you (women, apparently!) are disgusted with such a progressive choice on Senator McCain's behalf.  I cannot argue against Governor Palin as a Pro Life candidate, for I am as well.  Nor can I degrade her executive abilities as demonstrated in her native state.  

What I can say on her behalf, after almost a full day of reading up on her, is that she seems to have been the single greatest catalyst in changing a corrupt government system in Alaska.  She has done this while mothering four children and producing another, so I fail to see how the addition of one more would hamper her ability to lead in the VP capacity.   As a mother of five, I can attest to the fact that time management and organizational ability, as well as prioritizing and multitasking ability grow exponentially with each subsequent child.

I am proud of Senator McCain for adding her name to the GOP ticket.  Was this politically strategic on his part?  Surely, but one must consider that in a world as precarious as the one we live in today, a wise and forward thinking strategist would be a welcome change as leader of our nation.  

As for her stance on drilling in the Alaskan plain, it is well documented that the reason Alaska became a state was so our nation would benefit from its natural resources.  I am a moderate environmentalist, and as such would prefer to be weaned from unclean fuel sources as soon as possible.  But I feel that Palin's energy plan vastly surpasses the currently proposed energy bill by leaps and bounds.  Rather than raising our energy expense by a further $325/year, and gas by 1.50/gallon (as well as the subsequent food price hike) as the Environmental Protection Agency (as well as the Energy Information Administration) says will result from the Lieberman Warner Cap and Trade Bill, Ms. Palin wants to increase our domestic energy sources, so that we can cut down on fuel shipped in from overseas, and offer incentives to companies that develop alternative energy sources.  Sounds reasonable to me.

As for the "anti abortion" label, you must realize that those of us who wish to protect the unborn consider this a compliment.  We do not consider inflicting pain on a preborn child, or using a misinterpreted amendment to impede his/her inalienable right to life a viable choice.  Granted, I have experienced two unplanned pregnancies myself, so I understand how this can be a tempting option, but certainly I don't, as one of my friends so eloquently said, "understand how an innocent new life is a punishment, or how defending its right to life is above anyone's pay grade."  I do however think that deciding that an innocent life must die is certainly above everyone's pay grade.

I am a young mother, and there is an increasing number of young women who have seen the immediate repercussions of legalized abortion.  We know that more resources must become available to women wishing to parent an unborn child, and there are many of us doing our part to make that so.  I would challenge many of you to research the different support networks for women who are experiencing an unplanned pregnancy.  I think you might be surprised.  The vast majority of post abortion counseling and healing is done by the pro life movement.  We love these women, and feel deep sorrow for their loss and pain.  We also have a multitude of opportunities for parenting mothers, or women placing for adoption.  I know because I have had the opportunity to experience the two different forms of aid.

The only counsel or support commonly promoted by the pro choice community is the "right to abortion", which is a staggeringly limited list of options, really.

I do not find this nomination insulting in the least.  Actually I find it uplifting not to mention feminist.  What better way to show confidence in the women of this nation than to show a young mother who is also a capable worker and an honest politician, all at once.  Not many men could accomplish such a fete.  Beautifully done, Sen. McCain, you and your VP will have my vote this November.

The woman is under investigation for an Ethics violation (abuse of power), she was for the "Bridge to Nowhere," in a 2006 interview; then when it became a political liability she flip-flopped over to voice opposition for the project, and she owns three houses, but doesn't apparently count two of them as they're only vacation homes... whose the elitist?  No wonder McCain likes her - it's someone just like him.

I think it's a terrible choice; however, I'm not surprised. There are press releases that spout how great it is that Palin was back at work, as Governor, the day after delivering her youngest child... but, that child is severely disabled! As a special ed. teacher, I'm appalled that she is leaving her youngest child, an infant with special needs, to a nanny to raise while she romps around the country to become VP. VP is not a 'job' it is your entire life... this is 'Family Values' she espouses?!?  Having the income to hire a household staff is not the same as being a 'working mom;'  I look at her and see "Handmaid's Tale."

Downright shocking, superficial, sound-bite, IMAGE based choice.

Let's see...a former City Council member...a former Mayor of a small town (population around 7000)  in a state with a very low  and mostly male population. A  Governor for LESS than TWO years. Holds ONLY a B.A in journalism from a simple state university. No Masters nor PH.D.  Minored in Political Science; which takes all of THREE courses to achieve.  Made odd, narcissistic choices as a young women. Beauty pageants? Second runner-up, Miss Congeniality?

Currently popular due to being adept at glad-handing perhaps?♠

That helps the country how?

A staunch NRA member? An Evangelical Christian in a non-theocratic country. (remember, we are a melting pot, NOT a bona fide theocracy driven by Christianity)

Oddly enough, I'm a Christian AND a woman but there is no way...absolutely no way that if something happened to John McCain that THIS woman has the know-how to dare sit in the seat of the Oval Office and make critical decisions that deal with crucial issues that affect MILLIONS both here an abroad.

Ultimately, her Nanny's name is ___________?

How does one attempt to mother five children, govern a state and THEN run for the Vice-presidency?

Think about it.

She may be a very nice, attractive, personable, bright woman but she most certainly does NOT belong by the side of a potential President of the US of A.

This is a joke, correct?

If a male candidate had ONLY those credentials, he would NOT have even been considered.

If the Republican Party is under the assumption that this choice will pull in the female/Hillary vote, then they are sadly and sorely mistaken. A Wellesley AND Yale graduate vs. an Idaho State graduate with merely a B.A in journalism, stacks ups against how?

Goodness gracious, even Michelle Obama has better credentials. She is both a Princeton University (undergrad) AND Harvard Law graduate, having worked in law extensively and quite successfully.

Again, Sarah's Nanny's name is __________?

Family values? Hmmm.

It's near laughable...and a pity as well.

It's a sad, sad day when a political party puts the country AND the world at risk based on 'image and so-called popularity.'

Her international credentials are? (besides a VISIT or two to Iraq or some other war-torn places) We are at war, correct?

No really, her documented, LEGIT  vice-presidential credentials are?

Who would genuinely feels safe in her hands?

If so, why?

John McCain has met her ONCE?

ONCE?

Surely he jests.

Consider THAT as well.  

How often do you meet someone once and decide that they will be the person that sits with you in times of

crisis and engages in the VERY intense decision making process?

*sigh*

Hmm.. not sure Pro-Choice people actually WANT women to have abortions. I am sure most Pro-Choice people would be very happy if not a single abortion was performed.

"The only counsel or support commonly promoted by the pro choice community is the "right to abortion", which is a staggeringly limited list of options, really."

This is quite a blanket statement, and quite wrong, frankly. In fact, there is a section of the Pro-Life community who also oppose birth control. In this case, I could say "have the baby or don't ever have sex" is also quite a staggeringly limited list of options... of course, I'd be making an incorrect blanket statement about this group of people.

Here's my beef with her: I like her. I like what I've heard about her. Hell, if she wanted to come to my state of Illinois and run for governor, I'd vote for her in a heartbeat. I'm a Democrat from Chicago.

But *vice president*? My worry is that this woman who has a ton of potential will be seen as a laughingstock because some old guy thrust her in the limelight too early and for his own personal gain. It just seems like such an odd choice, even she can't believe it.

To use a journalism metaphor, it's like being the evening anchor at some small-town NBC affiliate and then taking Tom Brokaw's job.

Here's my beef with her: I like her. I like what I've heard about her. Hell, if she wanted to come to my state of Illinois and run for governor, I'd vote for her in a heartbeat. I'm a Democrat from Chicago.

But *vice president*? My worry is that this woman who has a ton of potential will be seen as a laughingstock because some old guy thrust her in the limelight too early and for his own personal gain. It just seems like such an odd choice, even she can't believe it.

To use a journalism metaphor, it's like being the evening anchor at some small-town NBC affiliate and then taking Tom Brokaw's job.

I was heartened by McCain's choice for VP until realizing that He/She actually stand a chance of getting elected! By all account she is preeminantly UNqualified to be Vice President. Other posters have summed up her lack of experience quite well. Those individuals who would vote for her simply because she is anti-choice when it comes to abortion are deranged. The country is in critically bad shape - are those people willing to "throw the baby out with the bathwater" so to speak? Folks, this woman is NOT QUALIFIED to lead the country.

And it's possible to be anti-abortion but very much pro-choice. They are not inconsistent positions. Obama/Biden are committed to reducing the number of abortions in this country. Isn't that what being pro-life is all about? Don't you think it's time to come together as a nation and address the really important issues facing all of us? The economy, healthcare and national security?

BREAK THE GLASS CEILING !!!

WOW ... What a great pick!!! America should elect

McCain & Palin for the Whitehouse in November,

for a return to wholesome American values.

An experienced Governor for V.P. vs. a

community organizer for President ... I pick Palin.

No Wright, no Farrakahn, no Ayers, no Rezko,

no mean Michelle, NOBAMA

Wow Gina.

You have really drank the kool-aid haven't you?

Our country cannot take 4 more years of the last 8 years. We are extremely broken. And I will be biting my nails for the next 66 days waiting to see if our country collectively is capable of an intelligent decision rather than a decision based on "who we'd like to have a beer with."

Your comment reminds me of one my mother-in-law who is indeed phone banking for Obama relayed (caller says) "I don't know . . . there's just something about the way he looks". Wow. I am really dumfounded by such ignorance in 2008.

I am 34 years old and grew up in lily-white middle america. I now reside in Los Angeles where I am so pleased that my children will always be surrounded by a diverse collection of people and ideas. I do not expect or perhaps even want them to agree with me 100%, but I do insist that they take the time to learn about what they are saying and have facts and reality backing their opinions. Not a Fox News sound bite or a rallying cry from a Klu Klux Klan rally.

As for abortion. Why is this a government issue in the first place? NO ONE WANTS PEOPLE TO HAVE ABORTIONS! The decision should be between a woman, her family (if she chooses), her doctor and her God. Period. Educate and provide options -- absolutely!

Have you ever LISTENED to Obama or Michelle for that matter? They are both eloquent, open, hard working, idealist people. I want them BOTH in my corner for the next EIGHT years!

As an Obama supporter I am THRILLED with Mcain's choice for vp...and that it should only help the democrats to win.

Anybody with ANY common sense can see that Palin is not qualified for the job...much less to potentially be President!

18 million votes wasn't enough for the democrates to take a woman serously. Obama closed the door on the women and McCain kicked it open.

I'm sorry people, Obama talks change but has never changed anything.

She walks the talk.

We have had 5% unemployment, the economy is growing every quarter. Just did 3% growth. Things have been good but the media has repeated the lie that we are doing poorly so often, people believe it.

Wake up! For being attacked & at war, we have been doing ok.

Obama has surrounded himself with socilist. He has never voted for a tax break. It has always voted for a tax increase.

His actions & friends he keeps speak the truth. Don't fall for a empty suit.

Gee, I'm so happy that no one is posting the same thing under multiple names!

Response to Shannon:

"As for abortion.  Why is this a government issue in the first place?"  I am going to address this point only, as the rest of your post I can either peacefully agree with, or agree to disagree with.  I must genuinely respectfully ask that you consider your statement carefully.  

We now know that a fetus, and even a zygote, is a new being with individual DNA, it must be considered a living thing.  The question is then, how does one view the value of its life.  

We cannot possibly know the value of a life in the womb, when ensoulment occurs, or the ultimate outcome of the life once lived outside of the womb.  So it lies with us to decide whether or not to give this life the benefit of the doubt.  I believe it is more reasonable to assume that this life has a value and potential equal to that of its mother.  It is always wiser to err on the side of caution, if the exact facts cannot be known.

In such a case, it is precisely the governments place to govern abortion.  Just as homicide is unlawful, so too is infanticide, which is essentially what abortion is, when considering the fetus a young life.  It is illogical to say this decision should be between a woman and her God, if we do not say the same thing about homicide, abuse, neglect, or even suicide.  Furthermore, abortion was not legal until the government allowed it, thusly it was no longer simply an issue between a woman and her God.

In a purely objective way, if a baby is a separate living entity from the mother, needing only time and education to become self sufficient (as is the case with most infants and young children), it is precisely the governments duty to protect these little human lives.  No other manner of systematic genocide has ever been thusly tolerated.

People forget, and some never knew, that the amendment to the constitution used in the Roe V. Wade case reads as follows:

Amendment One

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

A loosely interpreted "right to privacy" was found somewhere in the wording of this amendment.  I can't find it.  What i do see is that it clearly states that no State shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process[...]nor deny[...]the equal protection of the laws.  I find that abortion directly deprives one person of life, liberty and property; while carrying a baby to term need not deprive a woman of any of these.  

I suppose one could argue that the first line states "Any person born or naturalized in the United States..." excludes the unborn child.  I fear this is rather a recent phenomenon.  You see, our predecessors did not know, and I am certain never foresaw, a time when abortion would be legalized.  I think it is safe to say that had they been prescient it would have read something like this "Any person conceived, or naturalized...".  That would be the most likely reinterpretation of the original amendment.  I find it unlikely they would have meant that if a woman is pregnant and she finds the baby burdensome, she has the right to deprive it of life, because it is not yet born.

Also, I know my thoughts are unpopular, I simply want to remind people that my primary concern is for the mother and her emotional well being, upon which abortion has a history of having a phenomenally negative impact.  As well as the unborn child, upon which the impact is equally profound.

Sorry for any confusion I have caused, the actual amendment is Amendment XIV.  I must have been very sleepy last night!

I'm just impressed that the "Family Values" candidate, if her story is true (which I am somewhat doubtful of), is applauded for risking her life and the life of her one-month premature baby with a disability known to be highly correlated with other complications at birth by getting on a ten hour plane ride (with stopover!) after her water breaking, then driving a whole hour to the hospital.  I suppose as an opponent of abortion, this was the only way she could think of to kill the kid without it being "her fault" - I think its abominable.

We all would give a good speech if we had Matthew Sculley for our speechwriter.  How do you think George Bush has been able to pull off any speeches. With the help of Matthew Sculley.  We have seen his unscripted moments and we all know he is not a rocket scientist. So when the teleprompter is off and there is no speech for her to read what will we hear from her.  Remember she is a journalist at heart herself. Her degree is in journalism/political science.  I am married to a wonderful man with the same credentials and his ability to spin words into magic whips me off my feet everyday.  As for Obama affecting a social change look at his record @ boston.craigslist.org/.../830778238.html.  He was especially instrumental in helping the Katrina victims and has not forgotten them.  Can we say the same for McCain.  His visits to Louisiana come only as press ops. Did you know that she came into Wasilla as mayor with a surplus economy and left them in debt to the tune of 22k?  Did you know that she reserves the right to be pro-choice when the life of the mother is at stake? Did you know she tried to fire a wildly popular librarian for refusing to ban books in the public library but the townspeople fought back and refused to let her fire her?  Did you know that she hired the Steven Silver a former chief of staff to now-indicted GOP senator Ted Stevens --who it turns out is well connected to lobbyist Jack Abramoff who has just been convicted and sentenced for corruption.  What did Steven Silver do for Sarah?  He got her $16 Million dollars in earmarks and next year she has applied for requested 31 earmarks worth $197.8 million in 2009 federal budget.  Look up the definition of Earmark as I am sure like me before this time many of the people in the USA do not know what that really means.  When you do look it up do you see the Reference to "Pork Barrel" at the bottom of the page. Here is the link to look it up.

en.wikipedia.org/.../Earmark_(politics)#Definition

For having a special needs child such as Trig don't you as a parent find it appalling that she hid her pregnancy?  Why would she do that?  She had such an opportunity to call attention to Special Needs Children from the onset of her knowledge and with her power it seems as a waste of time.  We have already seen in her daughter Bristol what happens when you juggle to many things as a mother.  I can speak with experience on that subject as I myself was a teen mother.  I became pregnant because my mother was not as involved in my life as what I needed her to be.  She was religiously just like Sarah.  Extreme conservative all the way.  Now when Bristol will need her there will not possibly be the ability to concentrate her full attentions upon her with campaigning, caring for a Special Needs child.  Maybe she will hire a administrator to run Alaska for her when she is off running for VP just like she hired a city administrator to run Wasilla. Running Wasilla is akin to running Ludington, Michigan today which by the way is run by mayor ( no city administrator). These are points from her own speech. 1. "I suspended the state fuel tax, and championed reform to end the abuses of earmark spending by Congress".-The legislature had a hand in suspending the state fuel tax and saying she championed reform to end the abuses of earmarks means the state only asked for 31 earmarks this year totaling $190 million dollars. 2. And despite fierce opposition from oil company lobbyists, who kind of liked things the way they were, we broke their monopoly on power and resources. As governor, I insisted on competition and basic fairness to end their control of our state and return it to the people.-No she did not. With the exception of the major tax hike in November of 2007, nothing has changed any facet of the competitive landscape on the North Slope. In fact last month when BP announced a new development on federal lease lands, their president said the development would have never happened on state lands because Alaska's taxes are too high. #3-I fought to bring about the largest private-sector infrastructure project in North American history. -No she did not. What passed was legislation to give $500 million to a Canadian company to do the permitting paperwork. TransCanada's CEO has already stated that they can't afford to build the gas pipeline without the oil companies paying for it.  #4-And when that deal was struck, we began a nearly forty billion dollar natural gas pipeline to help lead America to energy independence-Blatantly false. There is no deal to build any pipeline. It is a deal to have a Canadian company spend $500 million of taxpayer money to try and get permits for a pipeline they can't afford to build on their own. Meanwhile, the oil companies who have the legal leases to develop the gas and are the only ones who can financially backstop the pipeline are still waiting to be invited to the table.#5-"She's the commander of the Alaska National Guard. ... She has been in charge, and she has had national security as one of her primary responsibilities," he said on ABC.

THE FACTS: While governors are in charge of their state guard units, that authority ends whenever those units are called to actual military service. When guard units are deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan, for example, they assume those duties under "federal status," which means they report to the Defense Department, not their governors. Alaska's national guard units have a total of about 4,200 personnel, among the smallest of state guard organizations.  I could go on and on about how she conveniently colors the subject to make her time in Alaska seem substantial but if you the American people just sit on your couches and let everything be spoon fed to you without doing the work to educate yourself then you deserve the likes of McCain/Palin because if we ignore the current state of the economy aren't we doing the same as they are and lying to ourselves to sugar coat our fear and whitewash our daily lives to make them better than what they truly are in reality. Stop watching the teleprompter in front of you and find out for yourself what you believe not what they give us.  Be educated and be proactive before you vote.  When doing your research stay away from sites that are polarized party supporters.  Look for watchgroup sites for the truth.  By the way no matter what shade of lipstick you put on a pitbull to make it prettier makes it less of a pitbull.