Sarah Palin Owns the Hall, But What About the Country?

posted by John Nichols on 09/03/2008 @ 10:26pm

Email
Print
Share
- Buzzflash
- del.icio.us
- Digg
- Facebook
- Mixx it!
- Reddit
What is this?
Take Action
Comments (55)

Subscribe Now

ST. PAUL – Say what you will about Sarah Palin.

Love her or despise her, celebrate or denounce her, but recognize this: The governor of Alaska has not just electrified the conservative base of a bruised and battered Republican party.

The woman who would be John McCain's vice president has super-charged a convention that until Wednesday night seemed lost and listless.

The hall that never quite filled for the Republican National Convention's truncated first and second nights packed toward capacity as Palin's moment approached. And every defense by party stalwarts such as defeated presidential candidate Mike Huckabee, Hawaiian Governor Linda Lingle and former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani of the embattled vice-presidential prospect -- especially those that bashed media reports that have revealed her political and family history -- was cheered with an enthusiasm unparalleled at what until Wednesday night had been a tepid gathering of the faithful.

When Lingle said that Democratic nominees Barack Obama and Joe Biden had between them "zero" experience as executives, the chants of "Zero! Zero! Zero!" literally shook St. Paul's Xcel Center.

It was clear then, if it had not been before, where this night was headed.

There was no question that the convention's energy level would peak when Palin arrived on stage to address the largest audience she has ever faced.

Even before she opened her mouth, John McCain's choice to run with him on the 2008 Republican ticket had won the hall – thanks to a rigid social-conservative bent that fits far more neatly with the sentiments of delegates to this convention than do those of the man who will accept their presidential nomination tomorrow night.

After all this buildup, only two questions remained: What would Palin say? And how well would she say it?

Here, from the convention organizers, is some of what Palin is expected to tell the convention:

On her experience as a public servant:

"I had the privilege of living most of my life in a small town. I was just your average hockey mom, and signed up for the PTA because I wanted to make my kids' public education better. When I ran for city council, I didn't need focus groups and voter profiles because I knew those voters, and knew their families, too. Before I became governor of the great state of Alaska, I was mayor of my hometown. And since our opponents in this presidential election seem to look down on that experience, let me explain to them what the job involves. I guess a small-town mayor is sort of like a ‘community organizer,' except that you have actual responsibilities."

On why she is going to Washington, D.C.:

"I'm not a member of the permanent political establishment. And I've learned quickly, these past few days, that if you're not a member in good standing of the Washington elite, then some in the media consider a candidate unqualified for that reason alone. But here's a little news flash for all those reporters and commentators: I'm not going to Washington to seek their good opinion - I'm going to Washington to serve the people of this country."

On energy policies that the McCain-Palin administration will implement:

"Our opponents say, again and again, that drilling will not solve all of America's energy problems - as if we all didn't know that already. But the fact that drilling won't solve every problem is no excuse to do nothing at all. Starting in January, in a McCain-Palin administration, we're going to lay more pipelines...build more nuclear plants...create jobs with clean coal...and move forward on solar, wind, geothermal, and other alternative sources. We need American energy resources, brought to you by American ingenuity, and produced by American workers."

On John McCain:

"Here's how I look at the choice Americans face in this election. In politics, there are some candidates who use change to promote their careers. And then there are those, like John McCain, who use their careers to promote change."

That will be enough for the Republican base that has packed the Xcel Center tonight.

The question is whether it will be enough to prove right Lingle's claim that, "When the rest of America gets to know her, they will agree with me, as you agree with me, that Sarah Palin will be a great vice president."

Comments (55)

well...peggy noonan and mike murphey don't think she's so awesome...

http://tinyurl.com/5zy8cz

check it out!!!

Posted by ibbleblibble at 09/03/2008 @ 10:34pm
I think everybody expected a good speech from her tonight...and of course the Right will call it "Reaganesque".

And McCain will get his "Convention bounce".

The troubles for Palin come NEXT week and the 7 weeks to come.

Bristol....Alaska secessionists....even a Miss Alaska 1984 swimsuit photo will be minor...

I'd look to ..."Why was Walt Monegan fired...and is there a pattern there?"

Posted by Maskdelta at 09/03/2008 @ 10:34pm
BTW, couple of fave pics from the Uncyclopedia...

http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Image:McBush.png

http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Image:McCain-Palin-2008.jpg

http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Image:John_McCain_with_Britsol_etc.jpg

Posted by Maskdelta at 09/03/2008 @ 11:02pm
As I am watching this speech I realize how difficult it is for the person who is unaware to sift through the lies. She is of course repeating the same lies that they keep speaking.

Don't get me wrong, she is a good speaker, she has successfully sold herself as the small town girl. But she told multiple lies in her speech. You don't want your first speech to America being based on lies. I listened to the first 10 minutes of her speech and saw EXACTLY where it was going to go. I could have listed off every talking point she is going to hit. I wish we could hear HER voice, of the voice of some Republican writer. I want to hear HER speak. This speech apart from her life story is cookie cutter at best.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/03/2008 @ 11:02pm
I wonder if Palin didn't have a script writer and a teleprompter if she would have anything to say at all other than, "I support world peace." and "God Bless America!" like any good beauty pagent contestant (I mean Vice Presidential nominee)

Overall for the night, I've heard more blantant lies than truth, right-wing smear machine in full force. The most disconcerting that amid cheers and applause all the speakers have slimed what Democratic ticket has DETAILED it will do while offering nothing about what they will do. But we were assured that John McCain has a 'plan', mysterious as it may be.

Posted by jane3246 at 09/03/2008 @ 11:05pm
To expand on this point. I think Palin has the potential to be a great speaker. There were moments of passion out of her but I could notably hear when she got to points where she was not speaking in her voice. There was a lull when she left talking about her life story and instead started throwing the red meat. There was a lack of passion when talking about McCain. I think she has the potential to be an amazing speaker when she is speaking in her own voice on something she is passionate about. I don't think she is passionate about being VP. I don't think she is passionate about this election. I think she is doing it because she was chosen. I think what she is passionate about is the work she was doing in Alaska. Does this make her the wrong person for the job? No. This is just my observation. I can't wait to hear HER speak.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/03/2008 @ 11:11pm
Recently, when asked her opinion of having "under god" in our pledge of allegiance, Palin remarked something along the lines of "It it is good enough for the founders, its good enough for me." Of course, the pledge was written in 1892, and "under god" wasn't added until the 1950s. Inexperience is one thing, but shouldn't our vice president have a grasp on our own history?

She pushes for "abstinence only" sex ed for students, and her seventeen year old daughter promptly gets knocked up. Is this not an indicator that this system simply doesn't work?

Just a couple of things that show her idiocy. I just hope that the rest of the voters can see through her.

Posted by GrouchoMarxist at 09/03/2008 @ 11:12pm
The most disconcerting that amid cheers and applause all the speakers have slimed what Democratic ticket has DETAILED it will do while offering nothing about what they will do. But we were assured that John McCain has a 'plan', mysterious as it may be. Posted by jane3246 at 09/03/2008 @ 11:05pm

Usually it is the Presidential nominee who speaks in detail. The VP just throws the red meat.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/03/2008 @ 11:13pm
Posted by jane3246 at 09/03/2008 @ 11:05pm

You know, when the left starts complaining about lies, you know someone has finally stood up and told the truth. Nice job, Sarah, I haven't heard this much gnashing of teeth from the left since Reagan was President.

Posted by pontificus at 09/03/2008 @ 11:13pm
Posted by GrouchoMarxist at 09/03/2008 @ 11:12pm

Oh, hell, Groucho, these people still have a 79% approval for the guy who came up with "strategery" and "helping families put food on their families"!

LOL

Posted by Maskdelta at 09/03/2008 @ 11:14pm
Posted by GrouchoMarxist at 09/03/2008 @ 11:12pm

Surely you are aware that many of the primary constitutional documents written by the Founders make reference to God, as does the pledge of allegiance? In fact, it is my understanding of the Constitution that the Founders thought the rights of man only made sense at all except in that they were bestowed by the Creator. In other words, without a belief in God, we might as well all be, God forbid, Marxists in the inevitable totalitarian Marxist state.

If she's unaware that the pledge reference to God was not written until the 50's, well shame on her, but if you're not aware of the many references to God by the Founders, then shame on you as well.

Posted by pontificus at 09/03/2008 @ 11:18pm
A frightening night .. Giuliani helping to pass-out the pitchforks, and following was , as far as I can figure, is McSame's cheerleader .. Sarah "MooseJaw" Palin .. as mentioned by others a good speaker, but gave no indications as to what she was bringing to the table other than the same things we've already heard, a smattering of half-truths, more than a few insults, a glories to McSame.

..and as noted on a previous GOP convention thread .... the crowd was OLD with a capital "O"

Posted by leftofcenter at 09/03/2008 @ 11:18pm
Surely you are aware that many of the primary constitutional documents written by the Founders make reference to God, as does the pledge of allegiance?

Posted by pontificus at 09/03/2008 @ 11:18pm

I think his point was that the incarnation of the pledge of allegiance was not written by the found fathers and that the part about God was not added in until LONG after the founders, the 1950s and that a VP should have some knowledge of that history.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/03/2008 @ 11:26pm
Posted by pontificus at 09/03/2008 @ 11:18pm

I am perfectly aware of many of the founders personal beliefs in God, actually. The point in my comment wasn't the relevance of "under god in the pledge of allegiance, though quite frankly I don't think the founders who so strongly supported a separation of church and state would allow it, but moreso regarding Palin's obvious lack of a grasp of simple facts of American history.

I respectfully disagree with your interpretation of Marxism as necessarily being totalitarian. I believe the totalitarian states that claim to be Marxist are misunderstanding the philosophy of Marx, that being a genuine populism. Democracy is important in populism, and I think the reason that what past attempts at what they think is Marxism have failed is due mostly to their lack of democracy. Sharing of the wealth does not require breach of human rights, but it would seem any system involving a single leader that does not have to answer to an electorate, be it a monarchy or a dictatorship, fails miserably in human rights.

Posted by GrouchoMarxist at 09/03/2008 @ 11:27pm
"In other words, without a belief in God, we might as well all be, God forbid, Marxists in the inevitable totalitarian Marxist state."

I don't think the FFs knew what marxists were.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/03/2008 @ 11:28pm
NAME THAT OPPORTUNITY

NEWSWIRE--Republican women are complaining that media coverage of Governor Sarah Palin is sexist.

The equal rights quandary hangs over her star; Young mom and political newbie: Worse not to be chosen for what you are, Or to be?

www.newsandverse.com Light verse, ripped from the headlines

Posted by newsandverse at 09/03/2008 @ 11:30pm
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/03/2008 @ 11:28pm

Very true... Marx didn't publish his Manifesto for the Communist Party until 1848.

Posted by GrouchoMarxist at 09/03/2008 @ 11:30pm
Posted by GrouchoMarxist at 09/03/2008 @ 11:27pm

In today's parlance, I would say that 'totalitarianism is not a defect of Marxism, it's a feature.' This is not only an observed fact, but it can be inductively concluded why. In a society where the government can arbitrarily strip citizens of their property rights, all other rights are forfeit. Any competent reading of the Founding Father's documents makes it crystal clear that they understood this. Apparently, you do not.

Posted by pontificus at 09/03/2008 @ 11:32pm
RE: Palin's more experienced than Obama

Angry lefty men just couldn't help attacking Palin. She turns out to be more liberal than some of them.

Posted by HelenDAO at 09/03/2008 @ 11:32pm
Posted by pontificus at 09/03/2008 @ 11:32pm

It is no more arbitrary to strip people of property rights, than it is to institute a system of capital that creates class warfare and leaves some without clothing, food, or shelter. I can't disagree with you more about totalitarianism being a feature of Marxism, especially on a social level. There is nothing in Marx's political writings that suggests that it is a requirement of the system to squelch social rights. Economics will probably be in control of the state, true enough, but that doesn't require a dictatorship or any removal of human rights, it has simply been falsely practiced in such a way. I will no longer argue with you, however, as comments regarding my personal understanding of the subject are insulting, and you are clearly not the kind of person who can have an honest argument without calling into question the other person's intelligence. Good day.

Posted by GrouchoMarxist at 09/03/2008 @ 11:36pm
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/03/2008 @ 11:28pm

"I don't think the FFs knew what marxists were."

As usual, you miss the point, which was: even if Palin was incorrect if she thought the Pledge reference to God was written by our Founding Fathers, she was nevertheless correct in her belief that they believed our country's Bill of Rights was written based on the belief that those rights were natural rights, bestowed by the Creator. Not by man. Not artificial rights, to be created and destroyed at the whim of any passing government exigency. Do you see the difference?

Posted by pontificus at 09/03/2008 @ 11:37pm
ponti-Our FFs had an amazingly wide variety of views on every subject including the wording of the bill of rights and it's naive to try and lump all of them in together,as you are trying to do..

Posted by i'm nobody at 09/03/2008 @ 11:41pm
er, it really matters little whether it's the corporation that owns the gov or the gov that owns the corporation-- it's whether the gov is by and for the people and not for and by the corporation.

Posted by hsuBfools at 09/03/2008 @ 11:44pm
Posted by GrouchoMarxist at 09/03/2008 @ 11:36pm

"There is nothing in Marx's political writings that suggests that it is a requirement of the system to squelch social rights. Economics will probably be in control of the state, true enough, but that doesn't require a dictatorship or any removal of human rights, it has simply been falsely practiced in such a way."

This is precisely where you are wrong. If a government has the right to strip you of your property rights, then your life and liberty are forfeit as well. The pattern has been followed over and over again in socialist states all over the world. The fact that Marx failed to understand or anticipate that in his writings is irrelevant, as it is in your case. I've been hearing this 'it can't have been REAL socialism if it FAILED' bleating for decades, what's surprising is that people still do it.

Posted by pontificus at 09/03/2008 @ 11:45pm
GrouchoMarxist:

"Sharing of the wealth does not require breach of human rights"

Kind of depends on your definition of "sharing", doesn't it?

Posted by sntauri at 09/03/2008 @ 11:47pm
Palin has thrown the first punch in a divisive small town vs. big city war. Another Rove creation, but this time it will come crashing down on his head as America learns more about the incompetence and corruption of Palin and how dangerous she would be at the helm of America.

Posted by Metteyya at 09/03/2008 @ 11:48pm
I still can't figure out if it's hysterical or horrifying that the modern GOP became instantly energized by someone that most had never heard of and who none,even now,know much about.Some on here even claimed that they sent this unknown person money.How much more mindless can you get.It took Obama much time and effort to get known and to energize people,but the modern GOP gets energized by an unknown person.When FrankGrits first came on to express his excitement he called her Sarah Balin.One should,first,learn their name before one gets excited.It does,now,look like it's the Palin/McCain ticket.

Posted by i'm nobody at 09/03/2008 @ 11:49pm
I don't know who's less qualified:

Obama to be president

OR

Palin to be vice-president

But I'm pretty sure Palin could whip Obama's ass in a street fight....

Posted by bleedingheart at 09/03/2008 @ 11:49pm
"In fact, it is my understanding of the Constitution that the Founders thought the rights of man only made sense at all except in that they were bestowed by the Creator."

Except the "God" isn't mentioned once in the Constitution. You also won't find the idea that these are rights bestowed by a deity in the Federalist Papers.

Further, many of the FFs were Deists, who believed in God-as-watchmaker--having shaped the physical laws of the universe but doesn't interfere in human affairs. They believe that morals are ascertained through reason and not revelation.

Posted by brunowe at 09/03/2008 @ 11:50pm
As I am watching this speech I realize how difficult it is for the person who is unaware to sift through the lies.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/03/2008 @ 11:02pm

thank you for expressing that so concisely.

<<<<<>>>>>

this whole palin extravaganza is just

so

cheesy,

so

disney channel,

that it has the power to work.

<<<<<>>>>>

FACTS - TRUTH '08

Let Freedom Truly Ring!

Posted by frosty zoom at 09/03/2008 @ 11:50pm
I suspect Palin could beat Obama in basketball too...

Posted by sntauri at 09/03/2008 @ 11:50pm
"If a government has the right to strip you of your property rights, then your life and liberty are forfeit as well."

Posted by pontificus at 09/03/2008 @ 11:45pm

What evidence do you have to suggest that it is so? I mean, I understand your perspective, of simply not trusting a big government, but there is nothing implicit in a socialized form of economics that automatically leads to people being unable to express opinions, or have rights like habeus corpus (sp?). It is a consequence of poor priorities that these things happens. Socialism is a system for the people, the greater good of the people, and it is simply not socialism, not a populist society, if these rights are being taken away. Its fascism. Thus why I suggest that a socialized economic system needs to have a balance of power, and a democracy. Representative government with the three branches our own system... one that actually balances itself to prevent any one branch from getting the power to take away these rights. I feel we are just going to go in circles in this argument, though.... I'm off to read other articles.

Posted by GrouchoMarxist at 09/03/2008 @ 11:51pm
A Baracuda the good Gov. was not.....but here's my PREDICTION that her lone scheduled debate w/Joe Biden will be the most watched VP Debate ever.....and I don't think it bodes well for a 36-yr DC insider! Whatever Gov. Palin maybe, she didn't sound Washington in the least! That's an Ace card held close to the heart that can't be beat! Posted by 2HAPPY at 09/03/2008 @ 11:47pm

Do you agree with me Happy that it sounds like she is speaking in someone else's voice in this speech? I just want to hear her voice.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/03/2008 @ 11:54pm
"Creator" and "God" are two very different items. If you don't think so, then instead of Creator, use Allah. We also might add that the Declaration of Independence is the one that mentions Creator...and conservative types are always quick to point out that this document means nothing for the legal underpinning of the country. Which is true. But the document that is the legal underpinning does not mention god, so regardless of what some of the founding fathers may have thought, it is irrelevant to the text.

The idea of "inductive" reasoning (see proof of god's existence) proving that from property rights follow all others is not only bad reasoning, it is false. See in this country where we have a very fine amount of rights, and yet it is a country based on stripping others of their property rights.

Posted by onthehelm at 09/03/2008 @ 11:55pm
redriver-All of you will be doing the my politician can do better speeches than your politician, like you partisan types always do.I find their speeches to be boring and pandering so I ignore them and look at the relevant things about them.

Posted by i'm nobody at 09/03/2008 @ 11:56pm
"In today's parlance, I would say that 'totalitarianism is not a defect of Marxism, it's a feature.' This is not only an observed fact, but it can be inductively concluded why. In a society where the government can arbitrarily strip citizens of their property rights, all other rights are forfeit."

Posted by pontificus at 09/03/2008 @ 11:32pm | ignore this person | warn this person

Let's talk about property rights and founding fathers. I think these are the same people that created a state instituting laws disallowing the ownership of property except by White Males. And you are clearly uneducated, confusing Marxism with Soviet and Maoist abberrations.

Posted by jane3246 at 09/03/2008 @ 11:58pm
If a government has the right to strip you of your property rights, then your life and liberty are forfeit as well.

Posted by pontificus at 09/03/2008 @ 11:45pm

PONTI,

thank you, thank you.

this is the first time i've ever heard you defend the people of "palestine*"

*or whatever you want to call it. many of them call it "orchard" or "home"

excellent work, brother ponti.

excellent.

Posted by frosty zoom at 09/04/2008 @ 12:06am
Wow.

What a bile-filled speech, rich in symbolism, rich in lies, and totally bereft of substance.

She's everything that's wrong with the Republican party today.

Every independent (except one) and every Democrat I was with tonight thinks she gave a mean, sarcastic, spiteful speech, and now won't vote for McCain.

Every Republican I was with (except two) thinks she knocked it out of the park and she showed fire and energy and spirit and will totally vote for McCain.

Before the speech, McCain was down 12-7, now he's down 13-6, still with 2 undecideds.

Good job, John, your "attack dog in lipstick" has incrementally moved rural Iowa away from you.

[Disclaimer: the plural of anecdote is not data.]

Posted by Omnibus at 09/04/2008 @ 12:08am
If a government has the right to strip you of your property rights, then your life and liberty are forfeit as well.

Posted by pontificus at 09/03/2008 @ 11:45pm

PONTI,

thank you, thank you.

this is the first time i've ever heard you defend the people of "the americas*"

*or whatever you want to call it. many of them call it "athabasca" or "alaxsxaq"

excellent work, brother ponti.

excellent.

Posted by frosty zoom at 09/04/2008 @ 12:08am
Just saw Palin's speech... and I think she stood her ground well. She's no push over la-la land beauty queen type at all... is she. She's for real, and she means business.

My first realization as she was speaking was that she has that 'something' that Hillary doesn't... She 'made' herself what she is today. This comes through in a myriad of different ways... from her body language, to her use of the concept 'the people'... and in her unconcern for the waves inevitably made through the status quo by taking the thorny road of 'doing right'... and reforming a 'broken system'. Something Hillary, the shoe in, never had... Backbone.

Then again... she was just 'chosen'... and didn't have to prove herself through the long and weary vetting process we call 'campaigning'. This is yet to come...

Her speech was moving and directed... but it contained some 'not very true' assertions... and I'm afraid that she will come to regret any tendencies she has at making them now or in the future... as this is no longer 'small town' politics... or assertion based fact creation...;^)

She did land some solid blows Obama's way... on style... but she doesn't yet 'get' Obama's substance... and that's fine when speaking directly to the party base... like tonight...

I think, overall, she will bring a more substantive legitimacy to the call for change in this country... and I'm glad McCain had the 'guts' to choose her.

Are you ready Mr Biden? She's all yours...;^)

Posted by ttr at 09/04/2008 @ 12:14am
I'm Nobody is correct. It's frightening that the GOP delegates have become so crazy about a woman neither they, nor their candidate, had heard not long ago. Their enthusiasm is frightening. A collection of buzzwords stirs them up, and the main emotion always seems to be resentment--which is weird, considering that the Republican Party defends the interests of the corporate elite and the superrich, who don't feel patriotic enough to pay the taxes required for this $10-billion-a-month war.

If Pontificus is actually interested in the Founders and religion, he should read some of The Nation's articles on that subject.

He might also look at http://www.thomasjeffersonspeaks.blogspot.com to read some excerpts from Jefferson's personal letters.

Jefferson, Franklin, and Paine were indeed Deists, and Paine wrote a scathing critique of Christianity entitled The Age of Reason. Paine's pamphlets, however, were crucial to our independence. George Washington passed them out to his soldiers to encourage them to continue the fight.

Merely using a word does not make you a believer. We all exclaim, "My God!" in moments of excitement or disbelief, but not all of us are theists.

Posted by redemma at 09/04/2008 @ 12:15am
"What a bile-filled speech, rich in symbolism, rich in lies, and totally bereft of substance."

RICH IN LIES

You're not going to believe the one I heard last week.

"I'M GONNA GIVE A TAX CUT TO 95% OF WORKING FAMILIES"

Anybody who believes that one should buy some oceanfront property in McCain's state!

Posted by bleedingheart at 09/04/2008 @ 12:15am
Party defends the interests of the corporate elite and the superrich, who don't feel patriotic enough to pay the taxes required for this $10-billion-a-month war.

Posted by redemma at 09/04/2008 @ 12:15am | ignore this person | warn this person

Finish that thought: ...that they are making billions of dollars off of through oil-speculation and thier investments in the military industrial complex.

Posted by jane3246 at 09/04/2008 @ 12:18am
Posted by ttr at 09/04/2008 @ 12:14am

oh,

she seems nice.

but she's attached to mccain.

and that's attached to even more debt than obama.

and that means inflation and/or exploitation.

FACTS - TRUTH '08

Look At The Past. Do The Math!

Posted by frosty zoom at 09/04/2008 @ 12:27am
alas....

Posted by frosty zoom at 09/04/2008 @ 12:27am
Newsflash people.......they ALL have speechwriters. Their speeches are ALL scripted. They ALL work off telepromptors. Why is this only an issue with Sarah Palin?

Sounds pretty damn sexist and condescending to me.

Posted by jimmylove at 09/04/2008 @ 12:36am
Why is this only an issue with Sarah Palin?

Posted by jimmylove at 09/04/2008 @ 12:36am

because the psychologists planned it this way.......

FACTS - TRUTH '08

Please. Please. Please.

Posted by frosty zoom at 09/04/2008 @ 12:40am
I can't wait to see Sarah Palin and Cindy McCain on the same stage together tomorrow night. Two stunningly beautiful, intelligent, strong, pro-life, family-oriented Republican women with perfect hair and makeup and dressed to the nines.

You're going to hear the bodies of angry, ugly feminists hit the floor thousands of miles from St. Paul.

I think Katha Pollitt may have an aneurism on the spot.

Posted by jimmylove at 09/04/2008 @ 12:46am
jimmylove-You are sounding like the sexist that you said others were.

Posted by i'm nobody at 09/04/2008 @ 12:48am
Don't worry Nobody...it's just satire. I'm married to a strong career woman, who has the nerve to out-earn me...and I love it. :)

But let's not kid ourselves...there will be some daggers shot at those women tomorrow night through the eyes of people who think that feminism is the dominion of the left. It is not.

Posted by jimmylove at 09/04/2008 @ 12:53am
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/04/2008 @ 12:27am...

It's no slur to concur

And no slight to invite

But the real will reveal

How the known must be shown

Just to give the positive

At this time is sublime

Soon McCain must explain

Stage-lights dim highlight him

Posted by ttr at 09/04/2008 @ 01:03am
ignore palin she is a pawn.

there are many legitimate reasons why Obama should be elected:

healthcare for all lower taxes for the middle class a levelheaded foreign policy etc...

who cares about sarah palin?

Posted by tskinner at 09/04/2008 @ 01:16am
Without doubt, the hard left, yes, but also the liberal media, and pretty much anyone connected with the Obama campaign, are afraid of Sarah Palin.

Smart, savvy, interesting, and oh yeah, gives a great speech, whether on a teleprompter or not (one up on the Democratic Presidential nominee).

Being a woman petrifies them, so here comes the mud, more than even in the past few days. Such pathos.

You're in trouble, and you know it. And you'll magnify that trouble the more shrill you become.

Democrats know one thing beyond all else: How to lose an election. And they're succeeding again, by smearing Sarah Palin.

Posted by J. Saxon at 09/04/2008 @ 01:17am
Without doubt, the hard left, yes, but also the liberal media, and pretty much anyone connected with the Obama campaign, are afraid of Sarah Palin.

Smart, savvy, interesting, and oh yeah, gives a great speech, whether on a teleprompter or not (one up on the Democratic Presidential nominee).

Being a woman petrifies them, so here comes the mud, more than even in the past few days. Such pathos.

You're in trouble, and you know it. And you'll magnify that trouble the more shrill you become.

Democrats know one thing beyond all else: How to lose an election. And they're succeeding again, by smearing Sarah Palin.

Posted by J. Saxon at 09/04/2008 @ 01:20am
Posted by J. Saxon at 09/04/2008 @ 01:17am...

Trouble... with a capital "T" and that rhymes with "P" and that stands for pool... which rhymes with fool...

Don't be one. Loose an election? Not this time...

It may be too easy for you to confuse a backpedaling Republican convention that is doing everything it can to imitate Obama's correct perception of the American dream... for a winning ticket... but it would be foolish to do so.

The Dems are stronger than ever.

Posted by ttr at 09/04/2008 @ 01:36am