Palin will NOT attract disgruntled Hillary voters. People who liked Hillary liked her because she was a Democrat and a Clinton (still the only national Democrats in my lifetime not defeated by the Republicans or hounded out of office or killed).

Secondly, like Kemp or Quayle, her conservatism with a young face is just going to turn people off. Only Reagan ever really got away with conservatism in any case, and that was only because people understood that he blew off most of the hard parts.

She is going to be faced with a barrage of questions, the likes of which she has never faced in her life. I doubt that either her experience or her philosophy is going to get her through without major stumbles. Biden isn't going to face those questions, because he's a known quantity.

This election seems to be shaping up to be an eerie replica of Dukakis/Benston vs Bush/Quayle. Let's hope this one turns out better for the Democrats and the country than that election did.

"She is going to be faced with a barrage of questions, the likes of which she has never faced in her life. I doubt that either her experience or her philosophy is going to get her through without major stumbles. Biden isn't going to face those questions, because he's a known quantity."

Feminists believe that Hillary was mistreated by the media and the DNC. If Sarah is faced with a barrage of questions that Obama was not (and Obama was not a known quality through out the campaign) - then those feminists will very likely stay home on the election day. After all, do you really expect them to vote for the abusive liberals?

Abusive liberals against feminists? That's some funny stuff your side has been rolling out today.

I know quite a few "feminists." None of them think that Senator Clinton was mistreated by the media or the DNC, certainly not because she was a woman.

Sorry, "feminists" have a little more conviction than to vote for a woman, merely because she is a woman. When she stands diametrically opposed to everything Senator Clinton stood for, they are going to hop on over to her merely because she is a woman.

that thought that MSM and DNC were abusive towards Hillary and chose a much less qualified candidate simply because he was a man? Hm. What if I quote those feminists? would it disprove this?

BTW, Clinton's staff are on record saying that Fox was more objective in the primaries than most other media outlets. Does this count?

Obama certainly did face a barrage of questions, he went through some tough debates with Hillary and the other Dems. And he didn't fall on his face.

Palin will be in an even tougher situation, facing questions alone without other Republicans around to take the heat. She'll be in the same position Dan Quayle was in 1988. And I'm not sure that any but the most talented of newcomers can fare well in such a situation.

What is she going to do when asked foreign policy questions? Does she even KNOW anything about the rest of the world? There's no reason to think she does. And that's just the start of her problems. What plays in Alaska might not well play in the rest of the country.

You can prepare a list of them, and we can ask her exactly same one. Of course, she does not have to explain why she was an active participant of a fascist cult, or why her political career started with the help of a terrorist, or how much financial aid he get from a convicted fellon. You can start with the questions now. I will be waiting.

I agree that it shapes up like Bush/Q and Dukakis/Bent. But i do think it's a rather shrewd choice. She is compelling politically in many respects. She's got as many "official" political chops as Obama. She's got some executive experience. She's faced some rather difficult and personally tortuous decisions in her life- believe me, the pressure to abort is tremendous when you have a down's fetus- even if you don't ultimately agree with her decision to deliver the child you have to credit her for the courage of her convictions. From McCain's standpoint, she is a credible counterpoise to Hillary, who has been near to power all her adult life and a good senator. I think Hillary was a much much better candidate than Obama and personally I would have strongly considered voting for her. Palin will peel off voters. She's got a verycool husband and family- definitley not traditional. She's Western, with all of it's appeal- independent thinking, environmental, anti-establishment in some respects. And if Mcain loses, she's none worse for the wear. Romney would have committed political hari-kari if he had run with McCain and lost. He's legitimately looking at 2012 if McCain loses.

It'll be interesting. I've met Biden on a couple of occasions and he's a terribly nice and charming guy. Always liked him as an "opposition" senator because of his forwardness and in your face style. He's a very sharp and prncipled guy, even if I think he's wrong sometimes. Skewered the Repubs on Iraq war troop sufficiency, funding, tec. Great stuff. I would have voted for him against all of the dems and strongly considered a vote for him over all or most of the repubs.

Still undecided overall, though I'm afraid Obama wants too much of my money- i'm barely in the top 5%, which should draw no sympathy but that's how i see it.

I don't want to be painted as a Republican supporter because I'm not but I don't think this argument really works.

I don't think the Democrats can really make too much of the inexperience issue for Palin because it allows her to reply that she has about as much foreign policy (or other) experience as Obama. That's a pretty neat reply to trot out and hard to counter. Biden is also going to have to be careful about how he debates Palin. If he goes too agressive there will be a backlash. Hillary Clinton exploited this fact in the primaries. If he goes too soft he risks allowing her to control the debate.

Of course all this is predicated on how well she debates anyway. This is a big scary unknown for both parties but a slight advantage for the Republicans as they have more knowledge on this matter.

Because nobody knows how good/bad she is the Republicans can try to set a low bar for her. However if she then fails to deliver even on that they will be in big trouble. But if she is good then she can come across big time.

For the Democrats the worry would be that she is an excellent debater. They are going in almost blind (there must be some video of her debating that they can find) and therefore may find it hard to set the right tone for Biden.

I'm not so sure her lifestyle will appeal that much with the kind of voters she needs to peel off. Alaska is a big state and it costs a lot of money to live and play there--one of the reasons it's not so populated. You generally need to fly to get around the state.

Dog sledding may seem like a working class person's activity, but in fact it requires at least as much income and lesuire time as windsurfing, if not more. It requires dogs, feeding and care of the dogs, a sled and a way to get the sled around the state to the various races. It's not a poor person's hobby. The same with hunting, fishing, and all the rest of it. A lot of people would like to do those things, but can't afford it. A lot of people aren't going to look at the picture of her with the big fish and think "Oh, she's one of us."

No. (And since you can't quote any of the feminists I know, that's a pretty stupid offer.)

No. ("Clinton's staff...." Cite?)

Feminists cannot possibly believe that MSM and DNC was abusive towards Clinton, and no amount of citing would disprove this notion to you, because the feminists you know don't think this way.

I guess, mathematically, this means that no one who critisizes MSM and DNC for abuse of Hillary can possibly be a feminist. Right?