[Max Goodman]

The pick shows that McCain understands he needs to shake up the campaign.

According to Slate's collection of national polling data (http://www.slate.com/id/2195956/) the Dem lead in "safe" electoral votes is 190-78. When states "leaning" in one direction or the other are added, it tightens to 260-191; still the Dems need only 10 of the remaining 84 "toss-up" votes.

The size of Obama's lead is obscured by the more widely reported national-popular-vote polling, which is much closer, and which is, thanks to the electoral college, meaningless.

[Rick Mullin]

Janice--I don't know what you are basing that on. Now, don't get me wrong, the Republican ticket is distinctively less appealing to me today than it was on Thursday, when it had no appeal whatsoever. But Palin is a meant by McCain to be a very formidable opponent to Biden and a strong VP candidate. McCain isn't going for a Vanna White here. Yes, he wants to appeal to women, but Hillary supporters are not going to vote for him. He is primarily moving to shore up his conservative Republican base (men and women) and win back righ-leaning independents. Her CV can be, and is being, framed as a saga of beauty queen from Palookaville takes on the big boys (like Biden) and wins. Pure Holywood. It sells.

RM



[This message has been edited by Rick Mullin (edited August 30, 2008).]

[Janice D. Soderling]

Pure Holywood. It sells

Rick, I should have sense enough to keep my big mouth shut.

[Laura Heidy-Halberstein]

Originally posted by Janice D. Soderling:

McCain doesn't want anyone smarter than he is. He doesn't want any one who can advise him.

Well, from all appearances, if that's what he's looking for, he picked well.


I beleive conservative women will be alienated by what they perceive as shirking her mom/family duties. I think Hiillary women will not regard her as a role model.

I think you're 100% right on this one. She's placed herself squarely in the middle of nowhere - she's neither fish nor fowl in the vast space between conservative stay-at-home-children-and-family-come-first women and the women who scorn the lifestyle.

You cannot have your cake and eat it, too. "Strong family values" does not compute well with "drag a three day old special needs infant to the workplace with you every day."

Being really snide here, and freely admitting it, does anyone else find it strange that she posed for Vogue in December 2007 with her daughters and never mentioned her pregnancy, and in fact, did not bother announcing her pregnancy to her staff or coworkers until March 5, 2008 when she announced that she was 7 months pregnant. Two months later she's in Texas when her water begins leaking. She consults with her physician (by phone, I presume) and they decide she can stay, give her speech and then fly home. She did not tell the pilot or the stewardesses on her flight home that she was a double high risk pregnancy (maternal age and a known Downs fetus,) para 5 gravida 5 and 36 weeks pregnant, much less in real danger of going into full-blown premature labor.

Wouldn't your first instinct, as a mother, be to check yourself into the nearest ER and make sure everything was ok before treaking back on a 7+ hour flight to Alaska from Texas? Call me a wuss, but I'd be terrified I'd deliver a dangerously premature infant with anticipated special needs (Downs children have a high incidence of heart related illnesses) in a damn plane.

http://www.celebrity-babies.com/2008...n-governo.html

For that matter, The ACG recommends that even women with normal risk pregnancies do not fly after their 36th week.
http://www.pregnancy-info.net/wellbeing_flying.html

Now I realize that a woman with the strength and courage to return to work when her child is only 3 days old is far stronger than I - and I give her all the credit in the world for managing a family, an infant and a full time job without losing her mind - but where was the concern for the unborn child in all this?

Somehow, if you think about it carefully, she just doesn't seem to be the role-model for family values and motherhood that McCain would like her to be.

I'm not so much knocking her for doing what she's doing, or even for what she's done, we all do what we think we'vegot to do at any given time - what I'm knocking is the fact that she's allowing herself to be held up as a motherhood role model when, in fact, it appears she's taken horrible risks not only with her own health but with the health of her unborn child.

If she's as intelligent as McCain claims she realized the risks of flying after her water broke and very deliberately chose to ignore them - and if she acted in innocence and did not know the danger she was placing her child and herself in, well then all I can say is - she's not as intelligent as we're being led to believe.

Lo




[This message has been edited by Laura Heidy-Halberstein (edited August 30, 2008).]

[Quincy Lehr]

Yeah, where are the days when the parties relied on professional career politicians?

[Jones Pat]

Originally posted by Laura Heidy-Halberstein:
Well, from all appearances, if that's what he's looking for, he picked well.


I beleive conservative women will be alienated by what they perceive as shirking her mom/family duties. I think Hiillary women will not regard her as a role model.

I think you're 100% right on this one. She's placed herself squarely in the middle of nowhere - she's neither fish nor fowl in the vast space between conservative stay-at-home-children-and-family-come-first women and the women who scorn the lifestyle.

You cannot have your cake and eat it, too. "Strong family values" does not compute well with "drag a three day old special needs infant to the workplace with you every day."

Being really snide here, and freely admitting it, does anyone else find it strange that she posed for Vogue in December 2007 with her daughters and never mentioned her pregnancy, and in fact, did not bother announcing her pregnancy to her staff or coworkers until March 5, 2008 when she announced that she was 7 months pregnant. Two months later she's in Texas when her water begins leaking. She consults with her physician (by phone, I presume) and they decide she can stay, give her speech and then fly home. She did not tell the pilot or the stewardesses on her flight home that she was a double high risk pregnancy (maternal age and a known Downs fetus,) para 5 gravida 5 and 36 weeks pregnant, much less in real danger of going into full-blown premature labor.

Wouldn't your first instinct, as a mother, be to check yourself into the nearest ER and make sure everything was ok before treaking back on a 7+ hour flight to Alaska from Texas? Call me a wuss, but I'd be terrified I'd deliver a dangerously premature infant with anticipated special needs (Downs children have a high incidence of heart related illnesses) in a damn plane.

http://www.celebrity-babies.com/2008...n-governo.html

For that matter, The ACG recommends that even women with normal risk pregnancies do not fly after their 36th week.
http://www.pregnancy-info.net/wellbeing_flying.html

Now I realize that a woman with the strength and courage to return to work when her child is only 3 days old is far stronger than I - and I give her all the credit in the world for managing a family, an infant and a full time job without losing her mind - but where was the concern for the unborn child in all this?

Somehow, if you think about it carefully, she just doesn't seem to be the role-model for family values and motherhood that McCain would like her to be.

I'm not so much knocking her for doing what she's doing, or even for what she's done, we all do what we think we'vegot to do at any given time - what I'm knocking is the fact that she's allowing herself to be held up as a motherhood role model when, in fact, it appears she's taken horrible risks not only with her own health but with the health of her unborn child.

If she's as intelligent as McCain claims she realized the risks of flying after her water broke and very deliberately chose to ignore them - and if she acted in innocence and did not know the danger she was placing her child and herself in, well then all I can say is - she's not as intelligent as we're being led to believe.

Lo

You go, girl! These were my thoughts exactly! Tell Dan hello for me. Hope you newlyweds are doing great.

Pat
(ImaginePat)

[Anne Bryant-Hamon]

Lo,

Another thing I found odd for this "pro-lifer" is that I heard she had an amniocentesis before giving birth and was told the baby had Down's Syndrome. Unless things have changed since I was birthing babies, getting an amniocentesis is an unnecessary risk that sometimes causes spontaneous miscarriage. Why would anyone who would not consider an abortion take such a risk? It makes no sense at all. And call me old fashioned, but I think it is child neglect to have five children AND pursue a time-consuming career. I heard a rumor on one of the talk shows on Air America that her 17 year old unmarried daughter is thought to be pregnant. I can't confirm that -- just something a caller said.

The right-wing base is very happy with McCain's pick. I think they're all insane.

During the debates, I'd really like someone to ask her point blank if she believes that non-Christians are all going to hell when they die because they have not confessed the name of Jesus before taking their last breath. Most, if not all fundamentalist Christians do believe that very literally and it is a belief written in many church statements of faith.

[David Rosenthal]

Originally posted by Laura Heidy-Halberstein:
Tell that to John Tyler, Millard Fillmore, Andrew Johnson, Chester Arthur, Teddy Roosevelt, Calvin Coolidge, Harry Truman, Lyndon Johnson and Gerald Ford.


It's mattered a lot 9 out of 43 times. That's a better than 1 in 5 chance that it'll matter again.

Oh no Lo, don't get me wrong, I personally think who the VP is can be extremely important (to wit, Cheney in addition to those you listed). I also think the selection of a running mate shows something of the judgment and decision-making process of the lead candidate and his or her staff. I think it does matter.

What I meant in my admittedly flippant post was that the selection of a VP candidate hasn't seemed to have had much impact on the outcome of the election in recent history. That is, most voters vote for the headliner they like best, regardless of the running mate.

David R.



[This message has been edited by David Rosenthal (edited August 30, 2008).]

[Janice D. Soderling]

I'd really like someone to ask her point blank

Anne, with respect, aren't there more relevant questions to ask a politician who theoretically might become president? Aren't state and church still separate entities in the United States?

[Laura Heidy-Halberstein]

[quote]Originally posted by Anne Bryant-Hamon:
Lo,

Another thing I found odd for this "pro-lifer" is that I heard she had an amniocentesis before giving birth and was told the baby had Down's Syndrome. Unless things have changed since I was birthing babies, getting an amniocentesis is an unnecessary risk that sometimes causes spontaneous miscarriage. Why would anyone who would not consider an abortion take such a risk? It makes no sense at all.

Last time I checked, knowing something and acting on something were two different things. I have no problem with amnio. There is, as you say, a slight risk to the fetus, but the benefits far outweigh the possible consequences. Amnio can not only tell you your child is Downs, it can also tell you that your fetus needs surgery or your child needs for you to take special medications. It's becoming more and more common for life saving fetal surgeries to be performed. Amnio is more about saving life than it is aborting it.

And call me old fashioned, but I think it is child neglect to have five children AND pursue a time-consuming career.

What if the woman is working out of necessity, Anne? Is it still child neglect? What if she has only one child, or two or three? Is it still neglect? If so, you're going to be condemning a whole lot of women as neglectful parents. Myself included. I fail to see how my working in order to feed and shelter my children makes me a neglectful parent - and I worked at not one but two time-consuming careers. Are dad's exempt? I mean, someone's got to work, don't they? Why would a mother be considered neglectful and her husband be considered successful for doing the same damn thing?


I heard a rumor on one of the talk shows on Air America that her 17 year old unmarried daughter is thought to be pregnant. I can't confirm that -- just something a caller said.

The rumor is that the child named Trig is the daughter's child. It's not just being bandied about on Air America, it's all over The Internet. I did not mention it because it is, as you say, a rumor. Much like "Obama is a Muslim" is a rumor. It is without basis and potentially harmful. I am unsure why anyone would wish to spread it.

And, although it's off topic, I do feel the burning need to ask - what the hell difference would it make if her 17 year old unmarried daughter was pregnant? Have you any idea of the percentage of unwed pregnancies in the world today? It wouldn't even make her the slightest bit of unique nor would it be the slightest bit scandalous.

I was an unmarried teenaged pregnant girl way back when. So freakin' what? My mother should have hid in the closet and taken me with her for the duration of the pregnancy? Your children are your children, when they make mistakes you ache for them, you pray for them, you care for them, you do not give up your right to pride or your accomplishments because of it.


The right-wing base is very happy with McCain's pick. I think they're all insane.

I think you've shared that opinion with us already.

During the debates, I'd really like someone to ask her point blank if she believes that non-Christians are all going to hell when they die because they have not confessed the name of Jesus before taking their last breath. Most, if not all fundamentalist Christians do believe that very literally and it is a belief written in many church statements of faith.

And that would prove what, Anne? My mother is Catholic and she believes that, my son is Baptist and he believes that. I'd still trust them both with my life. What people believe is or should be a non-issue. When and if they attempt to order me to believe it, then and only then does it become an issue. Last time I checked, most fundamentalist Christians are not ordering anyone to feel the rapture. The fact that some of them might wish it for us is immaterial. It's nice they care - I'm happy to leave it at that if they are.

I'm much more upset at the idea that Sarah Palin has been instrumental in getting The State of Alaska to allow aerial hunting of wolves and brown bears. I'm upset that she thinks grown men with rifles shooting defenseless animals while hovering above them in small planes and helicopters is sporting behaviour.


I'm much more upset that she was offering a $150.00 bounty for each wolf killed because wolves are the natural predators of caribou and moose and she apparently believes that man is the only animal which should be allowed to kill caribou and moose. I'm upset that she refused to quit allowing the bounty to be paid in spite of various lawsuits and the fact that the majority of Alaskan citizens opposed it until The Supreme Court of Alaska stepped in and disallowed it for her. I'm upset that The Alaska Board and Game Commission is still attempting to reinstate the bounty and that the Alaska Board and Game Commission is appointed and controlled by, you guessed it, the Governor of Alaska.


I'm upset that the governor-appointed Gaming Commission has voted to open up the land immediately ajoining a brown bear sanctuary to hunters even though the bears who live there are virtually tame due to the high volume of human visitors to the sanctuary. Brown bears are unaware of the unmarked border between safety and death - like all creatures, they do not recognise where their safety ends and a hunter's sport begins. These brown bears are particularly at risk since they have no fear of humans having been raised in close proximity to them throughout their lives. For years the area near their haven has been off-limits to hunters - but since Sarah took office all that's changed.

If she's consistantly refusing to protect the dumb animal creatures entrusted to her governorship and care because a special interest group whose interests she shares wishes her to - how does she expect us to believe her when she promises to care for us - especially if our interests differ from her own.

Lo

edited to remove thread stretching links. Why is this happening???? If anyone needs or wants the links for confirmation, PM me, please.




[This message has been edited by Laura Heidy-Halberstein (edited August 30, 2008).]