It's a great reveal; the post-show Penn and Teller that trumps the actual magic trick.

You start out with a left wing woman candidate. The woman in the stage act is hollering about how this is the great moment for women.

Some man (and many people have the apparent misfortune of being one) is trying to be a principled conservative and win the election.

People who vote for him are scolded for holding back _women_ and being misogynists and sexist and evil and neandrathal. If they for a minute suggest that they just prefer to vote for someone whose policies don't echo Marx, if not Lenin, Stalin and Mao, or at least the French, British and Canadians, they are told that this seals the case, they are definitely sexist, and the thought police are on their tail.

What made the initial setup somewhat less compelling is that the woman was corrupt, had a political marriage that by any account was a failure - as a marriage and almost as a political gambit, was ineffectual as an attempted executive leader of health care, was a mediocre senator, etc. But still, it was close enough that the leftists could pretend.

Here's the fun: a conservative woman enters the race after the leftist is forced out due to executive incompetence running what should have been a sealed-deal campaign, and who did all sorts of damage to her supporters by hanging on and publically wishing her opponant would be assassinated.

The conservative enters... and the women who were earlier making all sorts of accusations about what sort of sexist wouldn't vote for a woman... are now against her. Thus, the reveal. They aren't pro-woman. It isn't about women in office. It is about something else... Anti-religious freedom, Hanna makes that pretty clear. Anti-second amendment, anti-rights of handicapped people to be born (and even other people), ... well, there's a whole complex of what it is about to be explored, but gender, that's off the table.

You are really over complicating this.

Liberals or conservatives shouldnt be asking about whether or not the candidate is a man or a woman. Is the person qualified? Does the persons goals and objectives agree with yours?

The fact is that I dont care If Hillary is homo or hetero, has a great marriage or a joke of a marriage. That is all outside of what she stands for politically. She has championed pro choice, she has championed national health care, she has championed tolerance. This is not true of Palin-she is George W Bush with boobs-her agenda is nothing like Hillary's.

So any THINKING democrat isnt going to choose the McCain/Palin ticket simply because Palin has ovaries. The fact remains that the republican agenda is intolerant of those who are not in traditional sexual roles, specifically wishes to take away a womans right to choose, and is anything but friendly to the idea of health care for all. Voting for McCain/Palin is voting against everything you stand for.

To imply that voting for McCain/Palin is the only way to prove that you support women is a joke and an insult to myself and other democrats with brains.

In truth, I largely agree with your point that Democrats should be ready to support democrats on their policy positions, regardless of age, race, gender or sexual orientation. Republicans should be ready to support Republicans.

Democrats don't make a valid argument when they accuse republicans of not voting for democrats because of the candidates age, race, gender or sexual orientation.

Of course, we could make it more complicated than this; what if what some democrats stand for is electing people based on race, gender, etc, regardless of qualifications? Then perhaps nominating someone unqualified is actually an enactment of such a party plank. Taking the democrat view of the republicans, they could say that if republicans were really racist, for example, then not nominating a qualified minority would be an actual expression of the republican party values.

But now that the republicans have gone with Palin, we can see that glass-ceiling sexism isn't a republican value - while, yes, religious freedom and protecting the next generation from pre-natal death are republican values.

As for things like universal health care - we can debate that policy point independent of the physical traits of the candidate. I'd be happy to, in fact; seeing as state single-payer health care is slowly being abandoned the world over - and Americans are a laughingstock when Canadians see we are considering adopting it - and Massachusetts has just realized what a huge hole it got itself into with its own universal health care 'solution.' But that and more is really the subject of another thread, not this one.

then not nominating a qualified minority would be an actual expression of the republican party values.

###### Well actually no on that point quite clearly. Hillary came in second in a very fair race. In fact, to be truly fair there would have been no consideration for the two states who ignored the rules and rescheduled the voting earlier to get more press or whatever other reasons they had. The fact remains that we didnt "pick" Obama. He ran for the nomination and was ELECTED. Millions VOTED for him. It was hardly an example of affirmative action.

"But now that the republicans have gone with Palin, we can see that glass-ceiling sexism isn't a republican value - while, yes, religious freedom and protecting the next generation from pre-natal death are republican values."

##### What? Tell me McCain didnt use Palin and pick her to get the votes of supposedly disaffected HRC voters. If a man had been the answer to his ever weakening position politically McCain wouldnt have picked Palin. There were many more qualified PEOPLE and most happened to be men. Obama picked Biden to fill needed experience, not because he doesnt use a bra.

#### Religious Freedom? Please show me how the democrats dont value religious freedom. CHOICE allows a woman to make her own choice and that can and often does include carrying a pregnancy to term. As for protecting the next generation, how do see this as what forced carrying of unwanted pregnancy does? Roe V Wade was no accident and it came about because the government doesnt have the time or money to waste trying to force women to carry babies of rapists and of backseat mistakes. CHOICE allows your PERSONAL religious and moral convictions to determine your CHOICE rather than have the government make it for you. And if you listened to Obama, he actually wants to work with Republicans to get sex education and birth control out there more to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies-a goal we can share dem and con.

As for things like universal health care - we can debate that policy point independent of the physical traits of the candidate. I'd be happy to, in fact; seeing as state single-payer health care is slowly being abandoned the world over

##### Please tell me which modern industrial nations with universal health care are abandoning it. NONE. I work in Canada every month, I know many Canadians. They wouldnt trade what they have for the expensive private health care we have. Of course they would love to not have to wait for non emergency medical procedures, but that is a convenience. The fact remains that in the USA most bankruptcies occur because of job loss and medical expenses and of course losing your job usually means losing your insurance. Please tell me that isnt true.......

- and Americans are a laughingstock when Canadians see we are considering adopting it - and Massachusetts has just realized what a huge hole it got itself into with its own universal health care 'solution.' But that and more is really the subject of another thread, not this one.

####### I live in MA and the reason for the "hole" is (suprise suprise) expecting people to come up with the big bucks to pay for their own insurance. The law forces you to pay for insurance (not cheap) or pay a penalty (not cheap). It doesnt provide free health care. So the problem is just more obvious here-if you dont have a job that pays for your insurance you are SOL. Just like MILLIONS of Americans. Its the economy stupid. Private insurance costs money and if you dont have money you dont get good insurance and you go bankrupt. You shouldnt have to chose between medicine and the mortgage.