A Vice Presidental candidate thread.

This is fair, to a point. I was ready to be very, very happy about Romney, Lieberman, or Pawlenty -- not because they would be good vice presidents, but because I thought they would help sink McCain.

After my initial WTF?? response, I'm now similarly -- actually more -- happy about Palin. I'm happy on a few different levels. 1) McCain has just destroyed his main argument*, 2) this choice has resulted in McCain's judgment being seriously questioned, and 3) she really doesn't seem to have been carefully vetted. Stuff is in the pipeline already and more seems to be on the way.

So while I wouldn't have approved of any of the Republican choices per se -- I would have pointed out their problems, and I wouldn't have wanted to vote for any of them -- this choice is just a whole other level of WTF-ness.


*Charles Krauthammer, hopefully recognized as NOT a lib, on the choice:



http://voices.washingtonpost.com/postpartisan/2008/08/the_palin_puzzle.html

Sarah Palin Is NOT The Mother [Photos+Video]

http://bellaciao.org/en/spip.php?article17293

Palin is in fact a leading member of the group Feminists for Life. Look it up.

I gotta echo Bill here. For a year on end, even as Obama built a political platform chock full of concrete proposals, even after he wrote books, and books were written about him, covering his life story, principles and beliefs, even as he went from porch to porch in Iowa and New Hampshire to introduce himself, you have kept repeating, "what do we really know about him?" "Do we really know who he is?" "McCain has proved himself over decades of service, who is this neophyte?" I am paraphrasing of course, but there's dozens of quotes of yours exactly like that. Obama is a nobody, a newbie, and we dont really know who he is, ergo, we cant trust him.

Now Palin comes on the scene, with even less experience (2 years of governing Nowheresville and a couple of years as mayor of a town of 8,000 - yes, 8,000, smaller than a single neighbourhood in a major city). And you obviously have hardly looked into who she is, as demonstrated here when you laud a leading member of Feminists for Life as someone who is, thank god, not a feminist. But suddenly none of that matters, no questions about "who she really is" here? That's a pretty stunning double standard.

I may agree with Krauthammer, Sozobe.

I think this choice has some big pitfalls, one being McCain's judgement. I would have gone for a more established person, that has proven themselves over the long term. Palin seems to be a good story, alot of people in Alaska love her, but one nagging worry is that somebody that has risen so far so fast, can also fall pretty fast. We shall see.

Personally, I tentatively endorse her, pending further information, because I had never heard of this woman before a few days ago, and I have not written anything to the contrary, if you would actually read what I have written. I simply don't have that much confidence in McCain. More than Obama, but you have to remember that McCain was virtually my last choice on the Republican side.

I think you would have to agree that the brand of feminist is a totally different brand, nimh.

Nimh, if you would read my posts, you would read that I have in fact said this choice has a big risk, with alot of upside, but also alot of downside. I put some credence into the liklihood that McCain has thoroughly checked out this woman, which would be even more crucial in a case of a person that is a relative newcomer to politics, but we don't yet know for sure just how good his background checks and familiarity with personality and character have been.

You would also know from my numerous posts, that I have said on numerous occasions that I think McCain is a bit naive in regard to many things, so bottom line, I await further developments in regard to Palin. My first reaction is still valid, but I have always characterized it as a first reaction. She appears to be a great story, but we don't know much yet. If the same media had vetted Hillary Clinton like they will this woman, Hillary would have gone from politics a very long time ago.

So, bottom line, my evaluation of Obama, still the same, and still valid. I don't think he is a known quantity, and again, running for president and being picked for vp is a totally different scenario.

Here is what I said about Palin in one of the earliest posts:

"Regardless of how good this turns out, Palen appears to be a great story, and many little great stories within the story. The best things going for McCain and Palen, is they are genuine, they are sincere, they are real, no faking, they are what they are. They never prepared their whole lives to be president, they are true Americans. "

Please note how I qualified the statement, saying Palen "appears" to be a great story, and the rest of my post, I hope turns out to be correct, that was my first impression. All I can say is, McCain, this better turn out to be a wise choice, and that is the same thing I remember saying as one of my first posts on I think another thread.

How many times are you going to call Palin 'Palen?'

Lol

Cycloptichorn

I'll get it right pretty soon, cyclops.

Here is another followup to nimh claim that I am not holding her to the same standard as Obama, etc. Another quote from one of my first posts about this on another thread:

"It isn't a safe pick I don't think. She will either help or hinder I think, possibly big time one way or the other. I am not particularly happy about it, as I thought it made sense to pick a more experienced vp, somebody that had actively run for the job, after all McCain will likely not be able to run again I don't think, if he wins now."

"There better not be any serious scandals. If there aren't, it may turn out okay."

Again, to McCain, I hope you know what you are doing. I hope this is not yet another case where you put the screws to your own party.

If folks think I am covering my tracks, I admit I am to an extent, I like her story, it could be a great pick, but my final judgement is still in a state of flux. Expressing a feeling of relief to see a real person and a woman, instead of a feminist or an elitist political activist, such as Hillary, is still very valid, but I withhold my final approval for her being qualified as vp, I withhold that until more information is gathered.

I finally agree with what you just said, okie. I'd really question the sanity of anyone, except maybe an evangelical Christian, who wholeheartedly thinks this woman is a great pick as VP. Other than the fact that she may energize the conservative religious right, there is little reason for any Republican, or any voter, to be really happy about this choice.

You really don't seem to understand feminism, okie. It is, and always has been, all about the equality of women, and equal rights for women. Are you against that idea, since you disparage feminists so much? Feminism made it possible for Palin to be on the ticket, it made it possible for her to be Governor of Alaska. Men did not give women equality and political power, women had to fight for it.
All working women, and certainly all women in political life, are feminists. Some female politicos are more outspoken than others in terms of making women's issues part of their political agenda, but I can't think of any woman in public life who does not champion the equality of women and does not want the needs and issues of women addressed--and that includes Sarah Palin. She wants to shatter that highest glass ceiling.

That's why I find your use of the term "real woman"--as opposed to "feminist"--downright offensive. What are "real women"? Those who keep their mouths shut about social issues--education, health care. affordable day care, etc.-- that matter to women?

Palin is no more nor no less of a "real woman" than is Hillary Clinton. Palin's past work experience, other than a brief stint as a sports reporter, has apparently all been in elected public office or a politically appointed position. Hillary, in fact, has a much more diversified background than Palin. She worked as a lawyer, then served as First Lady of Arkansas and then First Lady of the United States. She has promoted women's issues internationally, and not just in the U.S., as part of her commitment to human rights, something, I would guess, that Palin approves of, and probably admires. Palin, as governor of Alaska, deals with a state of about 670,000 people. Clinton, as senator from NY, represents a state of about 19,300,000 people, and all of their diverse interests and needs, as well being in the body of the senate and dealing with all national issues, both foreign and domestic. Obviously, Clinton has the more high-powered and demanding job. Where Clinton is impressively qualified to function as Commander-In-Chief, Palin is not.

Both Palin and Clinton are "real women"--including being wives and mothers--but Palin is no Hillary Clinton in terms of accomplishment, background, or preparedness for the highest office in the land. To say that Palin is an acceptable substitute for Clinton, in terms of the women's vote, or those who just want to see a woman, any woman, in high office, is absurd, and insulting to women. Palin appears to be a perfectly nice woman, with a reputation for political toughness, but she's just not ready for the job she's been selected for. She is, in fact, so lacking in qualifications, it looks like another instance of a man, McCain, exploiting a woman to achieve his own goals.

At a time when our foreign policy and our economic problems should be the main issues in the campaign, I am also afraid that Palin's presence on the ticket will shift interest to the abortion issue, and the threat to Roe vs Wade that her religious opposition poses, particularly if she were ever to become president. Not that it is not a valid social issue to discuss, it is more that there are far more urgent and pressing problems confronting us in this election that threaten our domestic economic security and our national security. This is not the time to get distracted by side issues.

Regarding the abortion issue, I find it quite inaccurate to characterize people as being "pro-abortion". I am not pro-abortion, I am pro-choice, and there is a considerable difference between the two. I do not advocate abortion, I might not even personally condone abortion, but I want all women to have the choice to decide the matter for themselves. I lived through the times when abortion was illegal, and women resorted to back alley butchers. I want the optional of medically safe, legal abortion available to all women. I also want birth control methods available to all women. I want medical care available to all women--especially pregnant women. I want affordable child care/day care available to all women. I do not want children living in poverty and attending sub standard schools. If one is genuinely "pro-life" then we better start taking much better care of the children, and their mothers, already in our population. One social issue leads into another.

Palin's position on abortion is rather extreme. She is against abortion even in those circumstances where the woman has been raped, or in cases of incest. I find that stance downright inhumane in terms of disregarding the psychological trauma to the woman of bearing a child under such circumstances. Because of her extreme position, the abortion issue is almost certain to take up precious time during this campaign--something I have already said I view as unfortunate.
While Palin opposes state sanctioned gay marriage, she does support the rights of unmarried gay domestic partners, so issues pertaining to gays are less likely to "disrupt" what should be the main issues of this campaign. But abortion, and abortion rights, are such emotionally charged issues, for both sides, that it will be difficult to tone things down, and get back on track, if the campaign starts focusing on such matters.

Hillary Clinton was subjected to a good deal of sexism by the media, by some of her opponents, and, possibly even by her party. Some of it was subtle, some of it was obvious. There was a double standard operating that did negatively affect a a female candidate and made things much more difficult for her. As much as I disagree with Sarah Palin on issues, and feel she is unprepared to be VP, I would not want to see that happen to her. Her gender is the one issue, in all of this, that should be completely irrelevant.

All Palin has to do is energize the evangelical vote. That's it. Forget about Clinton voters. Forget about undecideds. She was selected to shore up the Republican base.

McCain will move toward the middle (where he's always been) and will now not lose the evangelical vote. This is the strength of the Palin pick.

You can listen to ALL of the Obama supporters to get her weaknesses.

Agreed, maporsche, but in energizing the evangelical vote, she may also bring the pro-choice forces out of the woodwork, and that issue crosses party lines. So, she may cost McCain as many, or more, votes than she gets for him.

Ok......maybe......but completely unknowable until polls come out.

The fact that Palin's 17 year old daughter is 5 months pregnant may well damage her popularity among those evangelical Christians and social conservatives she was supposed to be attracting.

Teenage pregnancy...sex with a minor...failure to practice birth control or abstinence...teenage marriage....These matters might really not sit well with voters who are concerned with "family values".

It will be interesting to see how news of Palin's impending grandmotherhood affects the poll numbers.

There aren't enough of the 'base' to win it for McCain. And he's abandoned the 'undecideds' with this pick, big time - they strongly dislike his choice.

SC justices, man. Think about it.

Cycloptichorn

Palin on SEX ED / abstinence-only
Mon, 09/01/2008 - 1:26pmBy: jackyldo
In 2006 candidate Palin said she would fund abstinence-only education programs in schools. "The explicit sex-ed programs," she added, "will not find my support." The stance, which reflected the priorities of the GOP, nevertheless led to an incredulous editorial in the Juneau Empire.

"Abstinence may be a laudable goal, but failing to educate teenagers about how to protect themselves from disease or unintended pregnancy is tragically misguided. According to the National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy, abstinence-only programs do not reduce sexual activity, teen pregnancy or sexually transmitted disease. Every day 10,000 U.S. teens contract a sexually transmitted disease, 2,400 get pregnant and 55 contract HIV. Unintended pregnancies happen to Republicans, Democrats and people of all faiths."

Now today we learn her 17 year old daughter is pregnant.

Irony here wouldn't you say?

Once, aboard the Straight Talk Express, McCain was asked if he supported the use of contraception or President Bush's abstinence-only education program to stem the spreading of AIDS.

"After a long pause, he said, 'I think I support the president's policy.' Does he believe that contraceptives help stop the spread of HIV? After another long pause, he replied, "You've stumped me."

Quite a pair Republicans
http://www.thecitizen.com/~citizen0/node/31350

blueflame, The Straight Talk Express isn't even honest about simple matters. How can we expect him to be straight about anything? He's a Bush twin; same old BS about morality and patriotism from the party that doesn't understand either one.

Firefly, I think I am just as qualified as anyone else to evaluate feminism inasmuch as any man can. Admittedly, I am not a woman, so perhaps I don't know how women think. I know how my wife thinks, and how she thinks about other women, and the world in general.

I know lots of women that have very responsible jobs, hey, my grade school teachers were mostly women, and great ones in my book, they were like mothers to me. I also know a few women, more like feminists, maybe I could count with the fingers on my hand, that really don't like men that well, and there are some that think men are sort of evil by nature. Those are feminists. Hillary, I'm not sure, I would consider her more of a feminist, her marriage is for convenience and political expediency only, in my opinion. True women may be very competitive, but they also work well with men on an equal basis. Not all do. I have worked around some in the corporate world that had a chip on their shoulder against men, and they were more like feminists.

My approach to this subject comes from my belief that the natures of men and women are generally different, and generally they each have roles to play. Just as men do some things better, usually, also women may do some things better, usually. Example, nurses. Yes, there are men nurses, but I don't seem to see as many, and my experience with people in the hospital has indicated to me that women are usually better at nursing. Women are usually more the nurturers, and men are usually the breadwinners in a family. That isn't always the case, and it is up to the people themselves to determine what they want out of life. And I believe in equal pay for equal work.

Some women are fickle, just as some men are in other ways, many women may want to have a career, but often the call of nature tells them they are missing out on a family, or they need to spend more time with a family they do have.

Comparing Palin to Clinton, actually Palin has had alot more experience managing and making decisions. Being a governor requires more decision making ability, with alot of people working directly under you. Senators basically study issues and vote on bills, thats it.

So far so good, she has survived the first couple of days, but the libs are going absolutely nuts. They must have everybody out there investigating this woman. Baby-gate, they went nuts, now Bristol's pregancy, they are going nuts, abstinence, they are going nuts. One thing for sure, Sarah, you better have a thick skin. And just as Clarence Thomas was viciously attacked by the liberal black community, the lib feminist movement will viciously attack you. It is outright hatred.

The womens movement, the civil rights movement, one thing is evident, they are about politics, not gender or civil rights.

You're addressing Sarah personally?

okie, comparing all women who are concerned about women's issues and gender equality to the most negative stereotype of a strident, man-hating feminist, is a little like suggesting that all animal lovers are like the most radical members of PETA.
My point is that most women are feminists, in terms of wanting basic gender equality for women--they want equal political power, equal treatment, equal pay, equal opportunity, etc for all women.--and I think this is true whether these women are stay-at-home moms, or secretaries, or police officers, or doctors, or governors, or senators. I take a much broader view of feminism than you do, and I don't see it in negative terms.

While you say that men are "usually the breadwinners in a family", that's not really true. Last year, women comprised 46% of the total labor force in this country--almost half the working population is comprised of women. And almost 60% of all women over the age of 16 were working or looking for work. Seems to me, that adds up to a lot of breadwinners, and a lot of women who are contributing to family incomes. And not all of these women are career types, or people who work because they want to, many are women who work because they have to, in order to keep food on the table, or to be able to buy their kids new shoes, even though there may also be a male breadwinner in the family, one income often isn't enough. And guess what, women still earn only about 80% of what men earn, so the fight for equality in this area is far from over, although undeniable progress has been made.
So okie, I think it's time to put aside some of your out-dated stereotypes, and old-fashioned notions, and take a more realistic look at the problems that confront women--most women--today. This really isn't a liberal-conservative political issue, it's a social issue that affects most women. The Republican party, particularly as it became more conservative in the past few decades, simply began ignoring women's issues, when it wasn't being down-right antagonistic to them, and this drove many of the women's rights advocates, who had been Republicans, into the Democratic party where they found a more receptive environment.

Now we have an election year where one woman nearly became a nominee for president, and another woman has been designated the nominee for vice president. Both of these events are very bittersweet.

For supporters of Clinton it was sweet she amassed 18 million votes, and clearly proved that a woman, this particular woman, had the ability to lead a nation--she was regarded very seriously. It was bittersweet that she did not get the nomination, and bittersweet that she was apparently not considered seriously for the VP slot.

And, after Clinton's long, hard fight to try to win a nomination, out of the woodwork comes Palin, plucked from relative obscurity by a male benefactor, McCain, to help lead her party to victory. Wow, a woman will be on a national ticket after all! Wait, not so fast. What's wrong with this picture? Well, for one thing, this women has no experience dealing with either national domestic issues or foreign policy issues. Her alleged "executive experience" is as the small town mayor of a place with about 6,700 people, and serving for only about 2 years as the governor of a state that has a total population only about 25% the size of the borough of Brooklyn in NYC (and NYC has 4 other boroughs). Oh, and she was also involved in her local PTA.

Since it was inevitable that Palin would be compared to Clinton, simply given the proximity of events, it was also fairly obvious, by just about any measure, how unqualified Palin was to be picked as VP. This caused many women to become livid. It looked like tokenism, it looked like a gimmick, it looked like another instance of a powerful man simply using a woman for his own gains. And, right now it looks like Palin is a sacrifical lamb who has been set up for the slaughter by McCain.

Do not blame liberals/democrats/feminists/the media, etc.for the intense scruntiny, and negative evaluation of Palin, blame McCain. He picked a relative unknown, so she will, and should, be subjected to the most intense scrutiny. They have to dig up every scape of info--particularly because her resume and public record is so thin, and because the election is only two months away.
Her main negative, the lack of any record of appropriate experience that would warrent her even being offered the position of VP nominee, reflects more on McCain--and his questionable judgment--than it does on Palin. Could she really say no, and turn down her chance to be in this "historic" position? She may really not have fully understood what she was getting herself into. McCain should have known what he was letting Palin, and the Republican party, in for with his very dubious choice.

But here Palin is, on the ballot as the poster child for the anti-abortion forces, bringing the most emotional social issue, legal abortion, to the forefront of this current political campaign, which really should be focused on other matters right now. And all of those who value a woman's right to choose, and control her own body, whether or not they may personally approve of abortion, feel the status of Roe vs Wade threatened by the possible spector of Palin in the oval office--and they are ready to fight her. McCain may share her views, but he'll set her up to take the heat--and serve as a distraction. The more noise made about abortion, the more evangelical votes he might get--so, attacking her might be good for him.

Now we learn that Palin's 17 year old, unmarried daughter, a high school student, is pregnant, and, since Palin has advocated an abstinence policy regarding teen sexuality, the situation is more than slightly embarrassing and controversial. The failure of advocating abstinence-only programs, and issues of teen sexuality, and the choice of abortion, are now glaringly apparent in Palin's own family, but we are being told this topic is off limits because it is a "private family matter" or because "candidate's children are off limits". What kind of nonsense is that! Palin's political positions and positions on social matters are extremely relevant in this campaign. As a candidate for VP, her personal life can no longer be kept completely private--you pretty much forgo your privacy when you step into the public arena to seek the 2nd highest office in the land. And Palin knowingly put her daughter into the media glare when she accepted the nomination--she exposed her daughter's pregnancy to the entire world. You can't put the genie back into the bottle.

The public and the media love gossip--this topic won't die down. And, in this instance, Palin's views about abstinence are so flawed they failed with her own child. The daughter should not be attacked, or used, as part of a campaign strategy--in that regard there should be a hands-off attitude toward her--but Palin, and her public positions on these matters, is fair game for any scrutiny and any really tough, and personal questions that come her way.

Palin asserts that her daughter "chose" to keep this fetus, but her own political/social views declare she would like to take that choice away from all women--even in cases of rape or incest. So how does Palin view "choice", what does she mean by having "choices"? Adoption? For many women, that option is even more emotionally difficult and traumatic than abortion--and it requires that the fetus be carried to term, something a woman might not want to do, or be able to do, for a variety of reasons.

Palin's daughter is fortunate. The family can afford to provide for her child, and they can afford to help in the care of the child, and they are willing to do so. What about the unmarried, young, pregnant 17 year olds who do not have the financial resources, family support, or intellectual or emotional ability to bear and raise a child? Why does Palin want to limit the choices for other people's daughters?

This is no longer just a private family matter. The issues raised by this matter should continue to be discussed--and they will be discussed. Palin has to either face the music or get out of this race. That was the obligation she accepted along with her nomination.

That McCain would have chosen a running mate based mainly on her appeal to the conservative religious right, disregarding her obvious lack of appropriate experience for the job of VP, as well as her personal family problems, and possible ethical problems/violations as governor, is genuinely baffling. Either he has incredibly bad judgment and acts far too impulsively, or he really wants to make sure he won't be elected.