I'm not a Hillary hold-out, but I was looking forward to the possibility of seeing a woman in the White House. I think a lot of people will feel the same sentiment, and so this plays to that.

Palin is also incredibly likeable in general, and adds glow to McCain.

Unlike what many people on here say, it's definitely not going to hurt.

If they were considering voting for McCain before, I don't see why this of all things would dissuade them. Even if it ends up not helping, it's not going to do any harm.

The irony is that the Hillary backers who vote for McCain because of the VP will be voting for a symbolic victory (a woman VP) over a substantive one (support for abortion rights, vigilance on discrimination, etc).

I thought it was obvious that McCain would pick a woman; which one I don't know. This along with him being 'strong' will win the election for him, I think. Of course, i make no secret of my belief that the average American is an idiot...

It will be interesting to see how Palin handles national level politics. Her "Independent streak" may very well be the flip-side of a coin of someone who's goat can be gotten. Obviously the Dems need to be careful about how they approach that, but I suspect that Palin's "troopergate" and her advocacy of creationism in schoolsare areas where she can be pushed into coming across as ridiculous.

I don't see her as likeable, but I recognize that she might be that way to others and make McCain seem more down to earth. But I think this largely is going to end up being a pander to the conservative religious base and will have very little traction with the independents out there.

McCain I suspect had 3 goals in picking her

• Blatant appeal to the PUMAs
• solidify his anti-choice, pro creationist cred with the Religious Right
• Re-establish his "maverick" brand.

But I think in this case #3 is gonna come back to bite him

I think this takes a lot of steam out of McCain's argument that Obama is inexperienced. Palin has even less experience! Less than 2 years as governor and before that mayor of a town of 6,000 people.

Personally, I don't really think experience in Washington is necessarily the only experience that counts, but I think he's going to have a much harder time attacking Obama on experience.

Nah, experience is important for the President, not nearly so much for the VP. If I actually expected McCain to keel over dead in the next couple years it would be an issue; but he's healthy enough to last a good while longer. Her experience is also far more valuable than Obama's, as her's is in the executive branch.

I think it's a pretty clever choice, myself. I don't like her stance on abortion or approve of creationism; but I do like fiscally conservative policies and think that a NHS type system would be a disaster.

Pretty sure I'm still writing in Hillary, though this pick may just tip me to McCain.

What fiscally conservative policies are you talking about? She's running a socialist government (payments to individuals simply for being residents), and is socializing corporate investment risk (building an NG pipeline) while privatizing the profits that investment generates.

and how would an NHS be a disaster? We already rank 42nd in the WHO analysis of our healthcare system. Compared to #1 for the French who spend 1/3 of what we do on their system.

And she's advocating teaching religion in schools as though it is science.

Seriously - you'd consider McCain for this pick?

I love the "lack of experience" slams on Obama. First his positions at a state senator was viewed as lacking because it was state and not national. His experience working for the poor in the community is viewed as a not important. An although he is the only person this primary season who has actually worked hand and hand with poor communities, and has the lowest income, he is an elitist.

Experience as a 4.0 law school graduate, a community worker, state senator and almost 4-year U.S. senator vs. Clinton's only position as 2-time elected U.S. senator is viewed as a loss for Obama.

Now experience as a major of 6,000 people and 2-years of governor for Alaska is seen as superior to all positions and experience by Obama.

I guess at this point one can possibly spin a story that your average kindergarten student has both more executive and legislative experience than Obama. After all, we still don't know if Obama knows how to tie his own shoe laces.

So madscientist, which issues are important to you? How do each of these tickets stand on issues that are important to you?

The issues that matter are limited. Its largely the same old story of

• CHRISTIAN creationism vs. evolution (I doubt Palin and McCain suggest teaching Shiva in US schools)
• Government control of women's bodies and individual rights vs. authoritarian control
• Government control of our bedrooms
• US international alliances

The rest is all subject to the personalities elected.

Good set of issues, Degsme but are you sure they're at the top of your agenda for the country's vice-president?

Who cares whether a vice-president believes that God created the world, how does that disqualify her? We don't know whether she is anti-scientific or not from the info you presented. Maybe she believes that her god created the big bang. I need more info before judging her unfit based on this factoid.

How important is her stance on abortion, especially since she can't influence the issue?. She believes in the power of life over death, in giving legal rights to what she believes is a human life. What the heck is wrong with that? I don't share her point of view on abortion but it's hard not to respect it.

She won't be appointing any judges, but if she were, it's likely that she would appoint judges who respect individual civil liberties. The same cannot be said for her opponents, who promise to appoint judges like justices Breyer and Ginsburg. These two judges gave us Kelo in which the supremes said that government can take your land for any purpose it wants, including getting more tax dollars for it. They also suggested that the constitution does not protect the right of an individual to keep and bear arms, even though it's plainly written in the second amendment.

Governor Palin's opponents are also good and able folks who promise change and since their party will control Congress, they will be better positioned than McCain/Palin to deliver on that promise.

Should be an interesting election. Will be even better if folks can keep the trash talking about the candidates and their supporters to a minimum.

McCain states very clearly on his webpage that he believes that Roe V Wade should be overturned. Ginsberg and Stevens are 75 and 82 (if I remember correctly) respectively. Thus, it is a certainty that one or both would be replaced. Given McCain's age, I think it is pretty critical to know where she stands too-you know that whole heart-beat-away thing.

Again, I think the issue is not whether there is a woman or not, but whether McSame/Palin would be good FOR women (and men too).

McCain could die the moment after inauguration. Remember that Benjamin Harrison contracted pneumonia DURING his inaugural address and died 31 days later. And we know McCain is not only some for whom cancer is in remission, pre-cancerous colon polyps, vertigo, high cholesterol, but he is pushing the average age of male mortality in the USA.

So it is quite feasible that Palin WOULD be in a position to nominate SCOTUS justices.

As for Palin's position on abortion - it is very easy to disrespect it. Because it seeks to bring the full power of The Government to bear on compelling fertile women to surrender control of their bodies to The Government. This is an approach that treats the US Constitution as secondary to personal religious belief. That may be acceptable in private life, but it is anathema in any sort of political leadership role, much less that of POTUS.

Furthermore it would be highly dismissive to suggest that McCain nominated Palin only to relegate her to the role of a warm bucket of spit. So its unwise to believe that Palin would NOT have any policy influence in this area. After all, it is not unusual for a POTUS to hand off pre-vetting of justices to the V-POTUS.

As for Kelo - that's about as straight a reading of the US Constitution as you can get. The 5th Amendment protections simply guarantee that you get paid "just compensation". So while I wish the ruling went otherwise, its a perspective that I've long wondered why it wasn't held the way Kelo was held.

As for the 2nd Amendment, Scalia is the one who is truly bent on that issue. Am 2 was very clearly intented to provide the population with the weaponry to go toe-to-toe with the Foederal Army. At the time that included the most powerful weapons platforms in that era - weapons that could level a city killing most of its population. These weapns platforms were more commonly owned by individuals in that era, than by the US Government. Yet Scalia turns Am 2 into an amendment who's primary purpose is to satisfy a Freudian predeliction, while turning the phrase "bear arms" to mean only those weapons a man can personally carry.

so I have no problems with Ginsburg or Stevens. Compared to ScAlito and the other right wingnut activists (thomas, roberts), my individual liberties are much safer with Ginsburg and Stevens rather than those who would roll over and play dead for the Administration on torture, habeas, Writs of Attainder, warrantless searches, involuntary servitude, freedom of speech, police power, etc. etc. etc.

So no, Palin would NOT appoint judges that respect civil liberties. Because at the core she does not BELIEVE in civil liberties. Her position on governmental control of women's bodies tells us that she puts her religious beliefs (and hence her political beliefs) AHEAD of civil rights.

It sounds like you support Palin. Let me ask you this.

The majority of the population actually lives their lives contrary to the beliefs espoused by McCain and Palin (I can support this but that's a digression) and the Republican Party in general. We've had 2 elections where the GOP at best "won narrowly" yet governed as though it had a mandate.

The result has been a nation that is increadibly fragmented and internally hostile.

If the GOP wins this time, at best it will once again win by a narrow margain. And even if it recovers marginal control of the Senate (Lieberman siding with his buddy McCain and switching parties) it won't have the House. That means either McCain continues to govern the way GWB has governed for the last 2 years - essentially ignoring the public - OR McCain goes back on his campaign promises and gives in to public opinion on tax cuts for the middle class, Iraq drawdown alienating his base.

Meanwhile all the Obamaniancs are completely alienated and the PUMAs quickly realize what a disaster they made by believing in Palin.

What does McCain do? How does he govern in a way that does not lead to serious civil discontent?