But when it get's into the political arena, where it can become legislated, then I wonder...because she (Ms. Palin) can still choose to have a baby at a certain age that it might have Down's syndrome, but why take away (based on a 'moral' justification) another woman's choice not to. Really if we were all so moral there would not be quite so many wars- especially from that crew. What do I care if two people of the same sex want to marry each other? I just can't see how it's my business- if they're happy, then I'm glad for them.

So I have to part company with Ms. Palin. Her husband seems great, her kids seem great, she has a strong personal ethic, they seem to do a lot of outdoor type activities, what's not to like?

Well, she might help get a Supreme Court Justice in- that thinks and 'rules' like her personal (and for me), narrow 'moral/religious' views, and she might advocate for oil companies and the super rich that I may not agree with, or think the war is just dandy- or that our poorer urban population should all just be in private/for profit prisons, or she might not be for spending tax money on schools or health care and I'm tired of the rhetoric of god/good and evil as defined by the right.

I have my own moral/spiritual sense and it more closely matches Charles Dickens, or William Blake, or Thomas Paine, or Franklin Roosevelt, or certain native American beliefs, the Gospels and Goethe, and much more- but not the neo-conservatives or "Christian" Right, or corporate, moneyed, 'aristocratic' socially conservative right.

But am I qualified to run the COUNTRY!???? Ms. Palin was on the school board of a disfunctional community (Wasilla isn't an area we advertise to tourists for a reason). She then advanced to the city council of the same disfuncational town (economic upturn they ain't) (I hate the word ain't but I thought it fit here). Then she advanced to Mayor...still disfunctional (try to eat a decent meal in the town...waffles or taco's or nothing) and all reasonable people who live there work here in Anchorage. Umm where was I? Ok they she was Mayor...no biggie, then the soccer mom was lucky. We had this total idiot for Governor (Frank Mercowski) who used his office to fund his lifestyle (personal jet etc). So she beat him out and won the governorship. We've been regretting that for two years.

She's actually allienatied the oil and gas market (you all think she's in bed with them...she is not even allowed to change their sheets). She has significant personal charges of missuse of power to face (big stuff, and well documented here and under legislative investigation) and well, when all is said and done, she's a soccer mom, who, despite our close ties to Russia, hasn't squat in international dealings...and we think that she's a great choice to be the heartbeat (of a weak heart) away from the presidency.

Gad was my position clear here? She's no more, and maybe even less qualified than me to lead the country...and I'm not remotely saying that I'm qualified to lead the country (I could design the country a heck of a kitchen, but make life and death decisions...I think not!).

She's a nice gal. She's become a bit headstrong since her governorship (using the position and abusing it do bring down her ex brother in law to assist her sister in her divorce hearings). She's no Hillary Clinton (who despite any politics, can't be called an idiot) and to think that we as women will vote for her because she's a woman...well that's an insult to thinking women of America.

I'm ranting...so I'll answer more tomorrow. Let me be clear, she HAD high approval ratings. Then she and her staff began running amock...and we're all thrilled to see her in the VP seat...because it means we lose her as Governer and can get a smart human being to fill the seat. As a VP....she's frightening. A heart beat away from the Presidency to a very old man...Horribly frightening.

And as the mother of a special needs child...let me offend all who think that women and men can have it all...she had a son this year, (she's 44 and I'm 45) who has down's syndrome. My son is seriously ill as well (he's 2) and I had to leave my job, a job I was very attached to, and known nationally within my community for my skill level, so that I could provide care to my son. A person, male or female, with a small child with serious mental and physical health issues, is not going to provide quality leadership, to the country or to their family.

Yesterday was John McCain's 72nd birthday. If elected, he'd be the oldest
president ever inaugurated. And after months of slamming Barack Obama for
"inexperience," here's who John McCain has chosen to be one heartbeat away
from the presidency: a right-wing religious conservative with no foreign
policy experience, who until recently was mayor of a town of 9,000 people.
Huh?
Who is Sarah Palin? Here's some basic background:

She was elected Alaska's governor a little over a year and a half ago. Her
previous office was mayor of Wasilla, a small town outside Anchorage. She
has no foreign policy experience.1

Palin is strongly anti-choice, opposing abortion even in the case of rape
or incest.2

She supported right-wing extremist Pat Buchanan for president in 2000. 3

Palin thinks creationism should be taught in public schools.4

She's doesn't think humans are the cause of climate change.5

She's solidly in line with John McCain's "Big Oil first" energy policy.
She's pushed hard for more oil drilling and says renewables won't be ready
for years. She also sued the Bush administration for listing polar bears as
an endangered species—she was worried it would interfere with more oil
drilling in Alaska.6
How closely did John McCain vet this choice? He met Sarah Palin once at a
meeting. They spoke a second time, last Sunday, when he called her about
being vice-president. Then he offered her the position.7
This is information the American people need to see. Please take a moment
to forward this email to your friends and family.
We also asked Alaska MoveOn members what the rest of us should know about
their governor. The response was striking. Here's a sample:
She is really just a mayor from a small town outside Anchorage who has been
a governor for only 1.5 years, and has ZERO national and international
experience. I shudder to think that she could be the person taking that 3AM
call on the White House hotline, and the one who could potentially be
charged with leading the US in the volatile international scene that exists
today. —Rose M., Fairbanks, AK
She is VERY, VERY conservative, and far from perfect. She's a hunter and
fisherwoman, but votes against the environment again and again. She ran on
ethics reform, but is currently under investigation for several charges
involving hiring and firing of state officials. She has NO experience
beyond Alaska. —Christine B., Denali Park, AK
As an Alaskan and a feminist, I am beyond words at this announcement. Palin
is not a feminist, and she is not the reformer she claims to be. —Karen L.,
Anchorage, AK
Alaskans, collectively, are just as stunned as the rest of the nation. She
is doing well running our State, but is totally inexperienced on the
national level, and very much unequipped to run the nation, if it came to
that. She is as far right as one can get, which has already been
communicated on the news. In our office of thirty employees (dems,
republicans, and nonpartisans), not one person feels she is ready for the
V.P. position.—Sherry C., Anchorage, AK
She's vehemently anti-choice and doesn't care about protecting our natural
resources, even though she has worked as a fisherman. McCain chose her to
pick up the Hillary voters, but Palin is no Hillary. —Marina L., Juneau, AK
I think she's far too inexperienced to be in this position. I'm all for a
woman in the White House, but not one who hasn't done anything to deserve
it. There are far many other women who have worked their way up and have
much more experience that would have been better choices. This is a
patronizing decision on John McCain's part- and insulting to females
everywhere that he would assume he'll get our vote by putting "A Woman" in
that position.—Jennifer M., Anchorage, AK
So Governor Palin is a staunch anti-choice religious conservative. She's a
global warming denier who shares John McCain's commitment to Big Oil. And
she's dramatically inexperienced.
In picking Sarah Palin, John McCain has made the religious right very
happy. And he's made a very dangerous decision for our country.
In the next few days, many Americans will be wondering what McCain's
vice-presidential choice means. Please pass this information along to your
friends and family.

I think what our nation is lacking in a President is a connection - I feel we deserately need someone who is in touch with the real issues and problems folks are facing. Who better to lead than someone who is/has faced or will be facing social issues such as healthcare, equal and reproductive rights?

I'm also confused as to why you feel her any less "Presidential" than Obama? Qualifications? - they are pretty neck in neck and their experience isn't significantally different either.

It makes me really sad that folks would preclude someone from office based on their child's disability. Noone knows the extent of the Palins baby's medical issues, nor do I think it is pertinent - I'd really hate to see that become a qualifier.

I have to say based on the biased press so far, I have heard more actual tangible things accomplished by Governor Palin than I have by Senator Obama. And I would be delighted to have more people in office who are willing to take an unpopular stand and shake up the the "good ole' boy" environment. However Governor Palin could get eaten alive once she steps outside Alaska - we'll see.

So as much as the person in the office, so who has their ear is important.

- Part of me says "Yes! Finally a parent who will understand. Who will put the teeth back into special education requirements. Who will require insurance companies to cover the tests and treatments our children need. Who will understand that they are not 'second class citizens' -- that there are no second class citizens."

- But another part of me says "Why should I assume that because Palin has a child with special needs, that she will feel the same way I do about it? For ages, there have been wealthy parents who have paid to have their special need children cared for by others. And as Governor and VP, how could Ms. Palin realistically do anything else? How could she share my experiences as a mother? And how could she - a political virgin - muster the support needed to invest/spend the kind of money needed to really make a difference?"

IMO, Part of what makes our country great is the constant 'teetering balance' between somewhat right of center and somewhat left. We rarely seem to get too far off center, and when we're leaning too far off course, we generally tip back toward the center. In my opinion, we've tilted too far to the right and need a course correction back to the left. And while I respect John McCain and can support many of his own personal beliefs, the possibility of a second in command who is far-right and lacks personal political muscle concerns me. And it greatly concerns me to hear the McCain camp attack Obama's relative lack of national and international experience, yet announce a VP with far less! On the surface at least, the Palin announcement seems calculated to do two things, both of which I find objectionable:

1 - Appease the religious right and Republican party power heirarchy with a candidate they can control.

2 - Appeal to the voters who want a woman on the ticket and/or who are having trouble supporting Obama.

I'll be watching and listening to find out more about all of the candidates. IMO, this is the most interesting race in years...

I'm hoping you do post back HERE as oppose to posting privately to the OP, as many of us who know nothing about Palin (other that what we read/hear) want to know more, and especially from a local resident of AK. Thanks for the info provided thus far.

And thanks in advance.

1. Obama has zero foreign policy experience, too.
2. I believe, and will recheck my facts, that she opposes abortion EXCEPT in cases of rape and incest.
3. The Pat Buchanan thing... I'll give ya that ;)
4. Creationism should be taught in public schools, along side evolutionism and any other theory that exists. Since we weren't there, who can know for sure?
5. I don't believe humans did cause climate change, so I'm right with her on that one.

So to me, she is not a mistake choice at all. So far, all I'm reading sounds pretty positive to me. But I'll keep researching and reading, which is what everyone should do and not vote for someone based on skin color or gender. Too many people choose their candidates for superficial reasons, which would be the biggest mistake of all.

If McCain only met her once in February -
WHO chose her and WHY?

"She would not seek out this issue. She feels like there are several other issues that are paramount to the future of the state," said Curtis Smith, spokesman for the Palin campaign.

Smith said Palin is opposed to abortion, but believes an exception should be made if the health of the mother is in danger.

That's the only exception Palin would make, though, Smith said.

"She doesn't make exception for rape and incest, only for health of the mother," he said.

So next, what are the "issues" here, and where are we getting our information?

First, let me say that our family is around the political world here in Alaska by association with many of our friends and acquaintences. We own a very large company, and if you want to be successful here, you have to have your ears to the ground at all times. We have neighbors who are lobbyists, public attorneys, political office holders, and yes, some media. We sit in the club and rant and rave about many of our co-members who are in office on a regular basis. I don't get to do that as much as I used to when I didn't have a child with special needs, but I still do get out and DH is always active.

SO I'm not just spouting media information. We have acquaintences who've been present when her or her staff have said and done stupid things. And we care because of the bad things she's doing involving oil. (Everyone thinks she's so good for oil..except anyone in oil) :O)

So here's a few things to ponder. Sarah ran with a pledge to have an open and tranparent government. She is now saying "Well I didn't mean everything being open and transparent" after she was caught sending messages to Walt Monagan telling him to fire her exbrother in law. She had her buddy (who she installed in the AG's office who has no experience in state goverment law...he's not even a prominent attorney...he's just a little attorney from podunk not prepared for his job). Ummm anyway that's another issue, but she had him draft a decision that basically says that Public Employees (including her) have an expectation to privacy when using state issued communication devices and therefore that information is now no longer "Open and transparent". THis overturns a previous state and federal law which was enacted when another state employee used his computer at the office to entice a 14 year old girl to meet him in ALaska. The meeting was stopped because the state caught onto it and the girl saved. Sarah's little change allows public employees to go back to surfing for porn, or enticing children to meet up with adults...It will go to federal court and all attorney's (Even in the AG's office) know it's going to be overturned, at which time the blackberry information will be public and we'll all see how she abused her office for a personal vendetta.

So anyhoo, she can't get Walt (an acquaintance for many years, going back to my Rotary days...he's a very highly ethical man) to fire her ex-brother in law, but he does investigate all claims made against the cop (the EBIL) all of which are from Sarah's family and a few staffers, and they're found to be without substance. But she still can't get him to fire the guy, so she fires Walt. Her undoing here because he has so many supporters. He's truely a great man and I'm proud he stood up to her.

So what else...how about the interview she did with Bob and Mark Show (in January). In the interview, she calles our senate president "A b*tch and a cancer on the progress of Alaska" She also laughs out loud at a comment on the SP's weight and then refuses to appologize for anything she has said. Very governatorial isn't she? Oh by the way, the SP is a recent cancer survivor. So what's she going to say when she gets ticked off at China?

Oh open and honest government communications...let me tell you about another friend of ours...He was using his computer at work and also working for the a political organization. Sarah, who feels her communications should be private, used his communications to get him fined and fired. Now in his case, he did make the mistake of not sending the emails from home, and for that he should be punished. The state has specific laws (Or had) forbidding that to happen, particularly in the case of lobbying for other political interests, but she used her "Open and Transparent" political stand to get to this information and see him punished. Now she feels that she's above the old law.

She claims to be a big reformer, saying she gave back the money for the "Bridge to nowhere" and said "No thank you". Actually, the state kept the federal money in it's coffers and will use it for other transportation projects.

Let's see, so then she fires Walt suddenly. She then puts another cop in Walt's place on a snap decision (she's known for them...sounds like McCain does the same). This cop she puts in Walt's job...see there's this little thing they didn't bother worrying about or even asking about his history. He's under investigation and has now been charged with a crime in his jurisdiction involving missuse of power. Ya well then he resigns two days later, Sarah claims they didn't get a chance to really investigage him, and we here pay him a couple hundred thousand in severance money because Sarah didn't do her due dilligance. Nice work Sarah. Can you see that applied to foreign policy?

Then there's big oil. You know, she loves it blah blah. So she enacts some new taxes that actually recently made a big splash downwards for exploration in the oil industry. SHe then was kind enough to pass that tax on down to the little folks by having the dividend give us alaskan's another $1200 extra this October (About $3000 total per alaskan). So her approval ratings spiked quickly...but then her EBIL thing started and she went down. But with big oil..she's been spiriling downwards quickly. She has made decisions to revoke leases which have been on the books for decades, even leases which have been sold with a right to develop. This is all tied up in court, and will be for a few years, but the sad part of this is, the lack of progress in the industry and the stimmied projects that sit doing nothing, are all costing many American's jobs. And then what does she do? She awards a $500 million contract to a Canadian firm??? What Sarah? NO American firms could handle the work? Not so at all.

Then there is her pipeline to no where (as we call it here). She's put such bad policies in place on the bidding of that contract, that the people who could actually build the pipeline, won't (the ConnacoPhillips of the world). She's made it economically impossible to now get the stranded gas off the slope which can be used by all American's to reduce dependance on foreign oil. But then, what does Sarah care...she knows NOTHING about foreign policy.

I could go on...but quickly on the comment about her having a child with a disability. I do know the extent of her new born child's disability. I don't get this from the media thank you. And I approach this from the perspective of a mother raising a child with a disability. What's right? You have the child and hand it over to someone else to raise...that makes you a good parent? A parent who understands what it's like to raise a child with a disability? And a baby, a tiny baby, just born a few months ago...I'm sorry, but a baby should be with it's mother and father if that's possible. Even more so a child with a disability because they can have bonding issues. Have you seen much of Sarah with McCain carrying her baby? I'm sorry, that's wrong. You either commit to public life and you give it your all, or you commit to your family. DOing both means your babysitter commits to your family, and you miss being a parent. We're not seeing something that equates to a parent with a normal job, or even a hard working professional who works more than the usual 40 hours...but instead, a parent of an infant who is the Vice President. That job does not end. I am a very liberal woman who believes that women belong everywhere, and parents belong everywhere, but perhaps if you want to be President or VP and toute your wonderful family values...you should prove how important they are, by holding off on your political aspirations until you've had a chance to bring them past infancy.

Although, my vote was decided for me when McCain chose her as a running-mate. Still, it's a good idea to have as many facts as possible about the candidates.

Ms. Palin's child medical issues have not been brought into the arena as yet, thank goodness. As clearly you are not a family member or close personal friend of her, your knowledge of the child's health is either again, gossip or speculation. Very unfair.

Re: big oil, of course they're not happy with her. They want to come in, use the resources and people as much as they can get away with, then leave. They will do whatever is necessary to protect their interests, not the interests of Alaskans. They didn't like the terms of the gas pipeline, so they didn't bother to submit bids. It remains to be seen if the pipeline deal will be good for the State in the end, but would it really be worse than catering to what the existing players would have wanted? If you look at it from big oil's standpoint she's horrible because she's not letting things stand as they were, which was much more advantageous to them. If you look at it from the standpoint of the average citizen with no ties to the "club", then maybe she's not the devil incarnate.

I was also under the impression that she didn't fire Walt. She offered him another position which he refused to take, then Troopergate erupted. Regardless, that situation has been badly handled.

I will stay away from the political discussion, but I wanted to point out that igloochik's "inside info" is actually a well documented fact.

First, I am not a close friend of Sarah's. I don't actually care for her politics and wouldn't want to be. However, ALaska is often called a "Very small town". For instance, if you are a high risk pregnancy, with a high risk child, there is just one doctor who treats those women here in the state. Folks know folks (and no I don't chat about her with the doc, who I saw with my son, because it's , not my business, and she's too ethicle to gossip and umm I don't really care frankly). But about Sarah's child. His condition was well documented. She herself brought out the information prior to his birth. It's not speculation or gossip. There's A LOT Of gossip about the Palin baby circulating, gossip I won't repeat because it's gossip, but his down syndrome and the circumstances of his birth are clearly documeted. Paulines, do some homework...this stuff was brought to the forefront by Ms. Palin herself and continues to be discussed with the public by Ms. Palin.

Listen to the recordings. Ms. Palin said what she said, and is taped as doing so. B & M also said other appropriate things to Lyda and should have been chastised by our Governor, because that's the respect due to the position, but she instead chose to laugh about those comments.

She fired Walt. It's again clearly documented. She then offered him a lesser position within the security field, which he passed on. Funny thing about that. She recently said she fired Walt (do your homework before you say she didn't because SHE says she did). She fired him, according to her because he wasn't taking a tough enough stand on the issues of booze smuggling to the villages.

Do you know what the position she offered him was? The dude in charge of monitoring booze smuggling to the villages! She also praised him one month before for his work with the same issue, but this week said that's why she fired him.

The woman didn't own a passport until recently..sheesh foreign policy queen she just ain't!

This is the woman you want one step from the President? She's basically Goomer Pile. She's a charasmatic chick, pretty smile, can handle some stuff, but if Andy gets shot, what happens when Goomer is in charge? The hells angels ride in and take over Mayberry. I don't want Goomer Pile running America, do you?

Quick lesson on the oil and gas pipeline (to nowhere). Sarah did only receive one bid. She had several american oil firms working to that point, but then put out a contract that basically said "you'll do it for X amount of money (which is documented in the industry to clearly be no where near what it will cost) and if you don't do it for X amount of money, you'll have to finish it on your own dime". Exxon isn't that stupid, nor is Connaco Phillips. The canadian firm is able to use international arbritration law to get past the contract rules (we've been down that road before) for just a few million, so they have no risk, hence the contract.

Physical health and cognitive issues vary greatly among those with Downs. As the baby is still a baby, I suspect even his Drs. don't have a firm understanding of the extent of impairment, but evidently the folks at 'the club' do (and thank you igloo for not sharing that nonsense).

My point is, why discredit Ms. Palin based on her child's disability and before the facts of this disability are/if made clear? Should it matter if the baby is profoundly retarded as opposed to mildly, or if the baby has an intact heart, or not? And if Ms. Palin was a man would I be asking these questions, lol?

We all have our points and response to the election. Being able to open up and share such is a learning experience for each of us. Whether we agree or disagree is part of making a choice.

I'd rather hear from the gal next door right now than all the news coverage to wade through. Any point not agreed with is more than likely documented for further reading.

On a personal note regarding working mothers. I was an executive that traveled throughout my career and pregnant 3 times while doing so. My oldest is legally blind from birth. Am now retired after those 30 years. My greatest regret is all that was missed with my wonderful "kids" while they were growing up. I question myself a great deal regarding giving them what was best. An answer to how this may have been different never seems enough. We all do things differently and my feelings regarding this most likely are not shared by all. Perhaps the meloncholy of my just being old hangs around and knowing life is shorter than understood "back then".

It's just that her understanding of the facts puts Ms. Palin in an unflattering light.
And IMO, her understanding of the facts is likely to be rather good...

Blue, from a blue state with green beliefs

I just read this on another forum and wonder about it:

"It does seem a bit far fetched. However, the way that Palin handled this last pregnancy, if indeed the baby with DS is hers, is truly bizarre. From what I read (and most of it is what Palin herself said):

--Palin didn't let anyone outside of family know that she was pregnant until she was about 7-7.5 months pregnant. (Why hide it that long??)
--When Palin was 8 months pregnant, she was in Dallas about to give a speech. She said her water broke, but decided to give the 30 minute speech anyway.
--After the speech, she didn't go to a hospital in Dallas. She hopped on a plane and flew to Seattle. She didn't go to a hospital in Seattle, but got on another plane to Anchorage. She didn't go to a hospital in Anchorage, but got in a car and drove 45 minutes to her hometown to give birth. The whole trip from Dallas to her hometown took 8 hours!
--She didn't tell anyone on her flights that she was pregnant (apparently, no one could tell) nor did she inform anyone on the flights that she was or could possibly be in labor.
-- she returned to work 3 days after giving birth!

Now why would ANYONE, especially one who is pregnant with a special needs child, not go directly to the hospital in Dallas when your water breaks and you're an 8 hour (at least, what if there were delays of some sort?) flight away from home? She didn't even go, just to be on the safe side. Sorry, it just doesn't add up."

What doesn't add up to me is how any presidential candidate could have announced a pick with so much controversy and what appears to be very little investigation or consideration. It seems to me that she was chosen not for experience but to be a trophy VP. It doesn't seem that McCain intends her to have a significant VP role.

EARLY ARRIVAL

Palin was in Texas last week for an energy conference of the National Governors Association when she experienced signs of early labor. She wasn't due for another month.

Early Thursday -- she thinks it was around 4 a.m. Texas time -- she consulted with her doctor, family physician Cathy Baldwin-Johnson, who is based in the Valley and has delivered lots of babies, including Piper, Palin's 7-year-old.

Palin said she felt fine but had leaked amniotic fluid and also felt some contractions that seemed different from the false labor she had been having for months.

"I said I am going to stay for the day. I have a speech I was determined to give," Palin said. She gave the luncheon keynote address for the energy conference.

Palin kept in close contact with Baldwin-Johnson. The contractions slowed to one or two an hour, "which is not active labor," the doctor said.

"Things were already settling down when she talked to me," Baldwin-Johnson said. Palin did not ask for a medical OK to fly, the doctor said.

"I don't think it was unreasonable for her to continue to travel back," Baldwin-Johnson said.

So the Palins flew on Alaska Airlines from Dallas to Anchorage, stopping in Seattle and checking with the doctor along the way.

"I am not a glutton for pain and punishment. I would have never wanted to travel had I been fully engaged in labor," Palin said. After four kids, the governor said, she knew what labor felt like, and she wasn't in labor.

Still, a Sacramento, Calif., obstetrician who is active in the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, said when a pregnant woman's water breaks, she should go right to the hospital because of the risk of infection. That's true even if the amniotic fluid simply leaks out, said Dr. Laurie Gregg.

"To us, leaking and broken, we are talking the same thing. We are talking doctor-speak," Gregg said.

Some airlines have policies against pregnant women onboard during the last four weeks of pregnancy, and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists advises against flying after 36 weeks.

This was going to be Palin's last flight anyway, her doctor said.

Alaska Airlines has no such rule and leaves the decision to the woman and her doctor, said spokeswoman Caroline Boren. Palin was very pleasant to the gate agents and flight attendants, as always, Boren said.

"The stage of her pregnancy was not apparent by observation. She did not show any signs of distress," Boren said.

Palin never got big with this pregnancy. She said she didn't try to hide it but didn't feel a need to alert the airline, either.

They landed in Anchorage around 10:30 p.m. Thursday and an hour later were at the Mat-Su Regional Medical Center in Wasilla.

Baldwin-Johnson said she had to induce labor, and the baby didn't come until 6:30 a.m. Friday.

"It was smooth. It was relatively easy," Palin said. "In fact it was the easiest of all," probably because Trig was small, at 6 pounds, 2 ounces.

Palin said she wanted him born in Alaska but wouldn't have risked anyone's health to make that happen.

"You can't have a fish picker from Texas," said Todd.

Palin said she won't take maternity leave but will go with Trig to doctor's visits, physical therapy, whatever he needs. She's breast feeding and plans to bring Trig to work with her, just as she did with Piper.

"It just feels like he fits perfectly," Palin said. "He is supposed to be here with us."

And then you add in the things she has done. Walt has been a friend to me in the past. He's a good man, and you'd find most in Alaska will agree. She's made a mistake there.

We were in Palmer (near Wasilla) it's goofy with investigators from the Rupublican party (all staying at the one and only decent hotel there). Way to do your background work, after picking the nominee :o(

I'm sorry, I said the "club" because that's what we call it here. It's the Petroleum club, an active political and social private club that most prominent politicians belong to here, as well as those active in the oil and gas field.

I never said I knew the extent of her son's condition. What I said, and would continue to say, is that as VP (this is NOT a normal job) there is no way you can be a good parent, and a good VP at the same time to a four month old baby, and even more so a child with special needs. His special needs do not make her unfit for the office, but for any parent, man or woman, a child with special needs brings on special commitments. You can't meet those yourself in that position. I couldn't meet them in my position within bank management, and therefore, given that I chose to have the child, I did what was right, I gave up my career for the child.

Where do you see this Palin thing going? She is not ready to be president...so let's say, hopefully that if elected McCain lives through his term...she's going to be the Presidential candidate? Good gravy, I'm sorry, it's still the Beveryly Hillbillies and Goomer Pyle in the White House, managing our country...scary! Yes that's my opinion, the rest, the things about Walt and the issues with the oil industry, those are documented. Research and you'll learn what we know, about Sarah. It's not hard to find the information.

As to the issues with her son. Frankly, I think those are rumors. She made some stupid choices when he was born, which are now causing issues (it's not responsible to hop on a plane for several hours when you have broken your water...especially with a premature child). Hopefully she'll put out the information to clear that sillyness up. It would be the best thing to do for the sake of herself and her daughter.

But I'd suspect young Bristol didn't even tell her parents until after the VP nomination was a done deal. I mean, I just can't see the Republican Party knowingly choosing the very conservative, abstinence-only mother of a pregnant teen as their nominee. And I have a very hard time imagining what kind of mother would agree to thrusting her entire family into the national spotlight (and a cruel one) under such circumstances.

Not to mention the hypocracy of praising her daughter's "choice" when she's all about revoking a woman's right to choose... Just how much "choice" did that girl have?

Again, pure conjecture -- But I'm guessing the Republican Party is claiming advance knowledge of the pregnancy because to admit to such an inadequate vetting process would look even worse.

I'm wondering - Has there ever been an instance where the VP nominee has "voluntarily stepped down"?

Apparently Palin was a last minute McCain snap decision -- he wanted Lieberman or Ridge, Karl Rove was pushing Romney or Pawlenty, and no one even started checking out Palin until late last week.

I admire Palin for making a difficult choice with her youngest baby, and feel sorry for the 17 year old and the rest of the family, but there's lots of other reasons to question the mom's ability to lead the country. Not to mention McCain's snap judgment in picking her. JMO.

The entire process does feel strangely familiar doesn't it? Remember Harriet Miers?

It's already happening...

Gotta admit I seem to have been wrong about Bristol's pregnancy would play out in the media -- but kinda surprising given how the world reacted to Jamie Lynn Spears' similar situation. Or am I missing the glaring dissimilarities?

But one of the good things that has come out of this is that I have been motivated to take a closer look at Joe Biden, a candidate who, until then, had not inspired in me anything more dramatic than a yawn. Seems to be a pretty good guy, and a great balance for Obama's weaknesses.

Did anyone else besides me think that Republicans playing Barracuda by Ann & Nancy Wilson at the end of their convection was amusing?

Judith Warner has a very interesting article in her Domestic Disturbances column in the NY Times, which is worth reading.

shequit, I know what you mean about not always trusting the press, but I find there's plenty of opinions to go around, no matter what side of the fence you find yourself on. There will always be someone playing ''Devil's Advocate''. I welcome the opportunity to change my mind, if the argument is any good, and I enjoy listening to both sides. If it's the press who makes me actually THINK about something, it doesn't really matter where the information comes from, as long as I can still think for myself.

OK, I'm done now. Forgive me if I went on too long.

McCain: "Bomb, bomb, bomb, Iran. Bomb-bomb-bomb Iran."

Jeane, Iran aside, your comments about terrorism and your interpretation of the various ways of dealing with them scares the living daylights out of me. I'm a bit afraid to ask ... is it your impression that we have been dealing with "terrorism" the right way thus far? The attack-now/ask-questions-later doctrine: does this make you feel more comfortable than a more contemplative, deliberative strategy based on assessing, strategizing and coalition-building ???? (Consternation in the extreme here). I don't mean to suggest that McCain isn't for a coalition-based approach but your post reads overly naiive on the one side and overly cynical on the other.

There is not a question that dealing with terrorism cannot involve negotiating with the terrorists ... I mean to say, how in the blue blazes would that go? Where would he-who-is-willing-to-negotiate-with-terrorists send a telegram or send his emissary with the note that he would want to talk??? That is logistically absurd and frankly not worth debating so it would be best not to spout nonsense like "xxx would negotiate with terrorists".

Otherwise, I concur that McCain is a good man and a sensible man. In fact, between Obama and McCain, my preferences had me leaning towards McCain (but then again, Biden had been my hands-down choice for Prez! *grin*!). But then McCain chose to have Karl Rove do his campaign management for him and later, he chose Karl-Rove-the-governor to be his running mate. Game over.

Not one thing funny about that. Not for one running to be President of a rather important country on the world's stage. And I *have* been following McCain.

Re: Iraq.

I agree McCain would have been more deliberative about starting a war there. However, I don't understand his goals re: Iraq now (*not* mind you, that I am in favour of rushing pell-mell out of there now, either) and I'm not convinced that when McCain talks that he's trying to clarify between how he sees Iraq-policy and terrorism policy. Bush has roundly lumped 'em together and McCain gives *no* indication that he sees enough to separate them or to distinguish between them.
Now, how much of that is to leave things be as-is for the benefit of the tub-thumping, incurious, isolationist, conservatives who want to hear guns being fired to believe that they are winning (even if all they're winning at is being a prize-chump), and how much is his own personal conviction, is hard to say. (Yes, I'm an elitist without 8 homes. No reason to get upset, I'm copping to it).

Regarding Iran: I think that you, like a lot of people, are painting Iran and Ahmedinajad with the same brush. Iran's presidency has been overtaken by the conservative right also. Sound familiar? :-) I'd suggest you read a couple of the articles from some of the Iran experts - I'd suggest a Jim Walsh from the MIT Security Studies program. He's pretty balanced and not in the slightest way an apologist for Iran, Ahmedinajad or the revolutionary guards forces.

Lastly, I apologize for the "nonsense" remark - it does read like it was said to you. I do think that "negotiate with terrorists" phraseology is nonsensical, but in my mind's eye, I was writing a rebuttal to the many, many times I've read this phrase in the media accounting and chafed at it. *sorry*!

Weissman, It is quite remarkable how many people in ol' "liberal, left-wing" centers in Mass were similarly inclined. From what I hear on the "T", a lot of people are still trying to learn about Palin before making up their minds. How's that for being open-minded?! I was prepared to ... until, under the lipstick, all I saw was Karl Rove. *Brrr*

BTW, The Sept 6 edition of The Economist has a great review of McCain's deliberative process (NOT!) in choosing Palin (see: Lexington). I'll let you read it if you haven't yet, but with true British erudition, they have summarized her as: "Inexperience and Bush-level incurious.". Terse and to the point, eh? ;-) Actually, the last paragraph in that writeup by Lexington is quite the punctuation mark on the present complexion of the extreme right-wing presence in the Republican party of which, I'm afraid, Palin seems to be another foot-soldier.

Weissman, exactly! That was THE reason that I had not firmly committed to McCain pre-running-mates. For me, it is all about the Supreme Court - it is already too right-leaning an activist court and any more listing to the right would be dangerous, imo. I figured I'd wait to see who he selects for his second-in-command so as to guage his mood. Fortunately, he made it easy. :-)
If he'd gone for either of his other two front-runners, I'd probably have keeled over in sheer delight.

If anyone thinks he cares about the economy, they're not paying attention...he's already said he ''knows a lot less about economics''. People...pay attention! Wasn't it Maya Angelou who said, ''When someone tells you who are they are, Believe Them''? You only have to LISTEN. The war(s) are also directly related to our economics, they're not only just about being tough on terrorism. And tell me please, how does bailing out mortgage companies seem like a strong Republican thing to do? Let's bankrupt the entire nation...we're already well on our way. I understand why people think it needs to happen, yet I thought Republicans were more interested in Less Government. (Here we go Again.)

I do not believe McCain being a war hero automatically qualifies him to make economic decisions, when he has plenty of money to buy real estate, health care and...food, especially when stupid things are coming out of his mouth. McCain has plenty of experience all right, morphing into an unrecognizable altered state from the man he used to be.

If anyone thinks he cares about the economy, they're not paying attention...he's already said he ''knows a lot less about economics''. Wasn't it Maya Angelou who said, ''When someone tells you who are they are, Believe Them''? It's simple really...You only have to Listen. The war(s) are not just about being tough on terrorism, they're also directly related to our economics. This is going to be a tough turn-around, and we need someone who has at least a basic understanding of economics, or at the very least demonstrates a willingness to learn. It should be encouraging that Obama and Bill Clinton are on speaking terms, as that is one of the areas where Bill Clinton shines most brilliantly.

I do not believe McCain being a war hero automatically qualifies him to make economic decisions, when he has plenty of money to buy real estate, health care and...food...especially when stupid things are coming out of his mouth. McCain has plenty of experience all right, morphing into an unrecognizable altered state from the man he used to be. To me, his Change message says more about how John McCain has changed, than anything he wants to Change for the country.

Karl Rove is not running McCain’s campaign. He has been labeled an ‘informal advisor’. That could mean a lot of things. But it is not running the campaign. I live in SC and was here in 2000 when the primary was stolen from McCain. I don’t believe that McCain would trust Rove with his campaign after what happened here. McCain is not Bush.

Claire_de_Luna, I agree that the statement about Gov Palin knowing more about energy than anyone else in the US was a gross exaggeration. But he was trying to make a point about her experience with the oil and natural gas industry – and that it is far more extensive than what most governors would possess. Do you really want to start a back-and-forth of Obama/Biden exaggerations vs. McCain/Palin exaggerations? There are plenty to cite. When you make fun of Gov Palin’s pronunciation of a word, it is getting into the realm of a personal attack. Regarding the ‘Bush doctrine’ - from what I’ve read, there are from four to eight different policies considered to be the ‘Bush doctrine’. I have to say that I didn’t know what Charlie Gibson was referring to either. Did you? As to your statement about McCain saying he "knows a lot less about economics", you conveniently omitted the rest of the quote. It is from the Wall Street Journal in 2005, "I'm going to be honest: I know a lot less about economics than I do about military and foreign policy issues. I still need to be educated." Saying you know more about military and foreign policy is a far cry from saying you don’t know anything about economics. I’m not supporting McCain because he is a war hero. I support him for many reasons. Among them are his fight to end pork barrel spending; his willingness to be held accountable for his decisions; his views on illegal immigration, school choice, cutting wasteful government spending; his stance on terrorism; and his conviction of putting his country first before his own self interests.

And you know this HOW?!? Because Bush and company told you so! The same guys who told us that Saddam had WMD - gee that gives me a lot of confidence! I'm not saying that Iran definitely isn't, but I've seen no credible evidence that they are and yet the neo-cons would be more than happy to invade just in case. I'll be much happier and safer initially pursuing diplomatic solutions like we should have in Iraq.

On the Daily Show last night, the guest was a guy who has just written a book about Chaney. He told one story about how Dick Armey, the Republican majority leader of the house at the time, was planning to vote against the Iraq war. Chaney called him into his office, showed him a stack of papers, and told him that Saddam was developing miniaturized nuclear weapons. It was all a lie, but it got Armey to vote for the war!

I agree that many of the Iranian people are sympathetic to the US. However, Iran is developing nuclear weapons and we cannot afford to let the Iranian government think we are weak.

is proof positive that we have learnt NOTHING from the past 7 years. It was EXACTLY this sort of rationale that got us into Iraq.

Look, there is a bit of conventional wisdom that is oft used to discuss politicking in the US viz. All politics is local.. It is a very good idea to believe this and to understand that ALL politics is local, not just all US politics.

On Saddam ... the other guy who was building nuclear weapons and coming to get us with them ... while there was all this speculation that of course he must have 'em that was why he was being so coy and cagey about establishing once and for all that he had nothing and was nothing to be afraid of, those of us here in lets-analyse-this-for-ourselves Cambridge were debating about the reasonable-ness of the US/UK coalition-of-the-brilliant insistence that Saddam show Iraq in a wide open forum to be a completely impotent, harmless kitten. Well, we were also musing on just for who's benefit Saddam's coyness was all about ... I mean to say, Iraq has fought long wars with Iran, attacked Kuwait and was not entirely BFF with Egypt. So was this really all about sticking a finger in the eye of the US, UK or the UN???

Sure enough, what does the Pentagon report published 1 or 2 years ago now show? That Saddam did not want to broadcast how little equipped the Iraqi army was to his natural enemy: IRAN. That he didn't want to show how badly the isolation of Iraq had decimated the country and how impotent he basically was as a ruler. FOR IRAN. Recall, he'd fought an 8 year long war with Iran and they were hardly in the way of making up.

All politics is local. This is important to understand. It is smart - not insidious - to try to put yourself in the shoes of your enemy to try to understand how they think and/or what you'd do if you were in their shoes. These are not my opinions but those from Sun Tsu's "The Art of War" - essential reading for military strategists for centuries (and actually even for the non-bellicose to wit some of the best Management Schools) and certainly one of the US military's list of must-read books for their generals.

Oh yes. BTW, we have presently flanked Iran on two quarters and are now starting this saber-rattling about "what do we do about Iran", nuclear, chemical, bad men, etc. I'd say that it would be reasonable for Iran to be nervous. If anyone needs to behave with circumspection, it is us! IF anything will drive 'em to high-threat, nuclear weapon-dom, it is backing nations into a corner and threatening to bomb them to kingdom-come.

BTW, the mindset you reveal speaks more of a Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeldian one than even, IMO, a McCain one. Much more of a neo-conservative ideology than I understand McCain to be. If you ask me, you have had the exact foreign and defense policy that you seem to want. Yet you seem to have been for McCain 8 years ago. I wonder why. It seems to me that sadly, you've had the President you wanted, even if not the one you might have voted for. I had started to hope (despite that Bush has largely behaved EXACTLY as he promised people he would in 2000), that people got the President they voted for, not the one they hoped for, but I am now starting to believe that despite the rhetoric, there are many Americans who wanted precisely what they got. I suspect that is what McCain has understood also, and probably why he's got Karl Rove is his quarter.

This started as a civil exchange of opinion and a few of you have turned it into a vitriolic attack. Why haven't you said anything about the Obama/Biden policies instead of railing against the current administration?

I'm done.

Nah jeane, it's just the british accent that makes her sound that way ;)

Luna, the other thread got deleted, so I unfortunately didn't get to thoroughly read through.

Not in the mood to talk politics tonight. DM wound up in a Boston hospital having heart surgery today. Three substantial blockages - she's ok now, but not out of the woods.

While I'm no fan of Sarah Palin, I had to smile at the complaints of her nu-q-lar pronunciation of nuclear. I used to cringe in embarrassment whenever I heard Jimmy Carter (my favorite president) pronounce it the same way. I felt he should have known better especially since he had trained to be the engineer in charge of USS Seawolf , one of the first nuclear submarines. He left the Navy before taking that commission when his father became ill and died.

To my chagrin, Merriam-Webster Dictionary now lists nu-q-lar as an alternate pronunciation! Arrgh!

Hurrah for AHD! (Slightly off-topic :>)

leel, Thanks for that; I'm glad there's one ''official'' word on the matter that cares about the particulars!

Pauline, I posted to you last night, and today I don't see my post. (I'm having so much trouble with GW right now!) I hope your Mom is doing better today, and will be feeling her old self soon. I'm sorry for the stress this is most likely causing you. I'll be sending good thoughts in both your directions. Please keep us posted on her progress.

Jeane, I don't claim to know what you're thinking. I posted a conjecture based on what I've derived (or rather, the singularity I noticed) from your posts. I posted hoping you'd clarify. In fact, your last post complaining about your treatment also appears to me to be taking offense at the current administration's MO ...

It was not my intention to demean or offend and certainly not to attack. I consider that to be very poor debating form. That said, I don't quite understand what you found vitriolic in my post - I patently disagree with your characterization of the events and my rather long post isn't engaging in any flagellation at all. Rather it states the facts that I have stumbled across and summarizes the derivative logic in broad terms that *I* have applied. How is that construed as an attack on you? I've proferred *my* opinions - leaving ME open to construction; it isn't taking up bandwidth making allegations about you. I don't understand.

That said, I might have felt badly that you feel badly reading my post but frankly, after the past 8 years, I can't bring myself to do so. If you want vitriolic attacks, how about allegations of "traitor", "alQ apologist", "alQ sympathizer", "terrorism-supporter", America-hater etc leveled at those who chose to question, criticize or differ with the logic or the laws employed by the govt. I realize that this means that I'm an angry soul, and I'm not happy about that either, but it is what it is ...

As far as not being critical of the Obama-Biden policies ... they're not in command, so hard to be so. If you vote them into office, I promise to criticize them this time, next year. :-) How's that???? ;-)

As for you, Pauline ... :-p
Am very sorry to hear this about DM. I hope she'll be okay. Was this a sudden event or was the surgery scheduled? Three blockages! is serious. Crossing fingers and sending good thoughts.

Sally, absolutely. Supposedly "intelligent" woman that make that argument (sick child, too many children, not a good mother...) don't have a clue unfortunately as to the negative precedent they may be setting. Hello?????

I'd like to address the experience issue of Obama vs. Palin. I'll admit, my info is from Wikipedia--not the most accurate of sources but I think it is accurate enough for a quick comparison. I checked their biographies on the web campaign sites but they were pretty useless.

Obama:
Los Angeles Occidental College for 2 years 1979-81
Columbia University for 2 years graduating with B.A. in political science with a specialization in International Relations.

Worked one year at Business International Corp. and then at the New York Public Research Group (for 3 years?)

Community Organizer in Chicago 1985-88: as Director of the Developing Communities Project –helped set up a job training program, a college preparatory tutoring program, and a tenants’ rights organization. Also worked as a consultant and instructor for the Gamaliel Foundation, a community organizing institute.

Harvard Law School 1988-1991: served as editor of the Harvard Law Review at the end of his first year and then as its president (full time volunteer position as editor-in-chief and supervising staff of 80 editors). During summers of 1989 & 90 he worked as a summer associate in 2 Chicago law firms. Received Juris Doctor (J.D.) , magna cum laude, in 1991.

Directed IL Project Vote in 1992.

Taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School 1992-2004

Worked in a law firm specializing in civil rights litigation and neighborhood economic development 1993-2004.
Founding member of Public Allies in 1992
Board of Directors of Woods Fund of Chicago 1993-2002
Board of Directors of the Joyce Foundation 1994-2002
Board of Directors of the Chicago Annenburg Challenge 1995-2002
Board of Directors of the Chicago Lawyer’s Committee for Civil Rights Under Law. The Center for Neigborhood Technology, and the Lugenia Burns Hope Center.

IL Senate 1996-2004, served as chairman of the IL Senate’s Health & Human Services Committee (pop. of IL approx. 13,000,000)

U.S. Senate 2005-present , assigned to the Foreign Relations Committee, Environment and Public Works Committee and Veterans’ Affairs Committee. Had assignments with Health, Education, Labor and Pensions and Homeland Security and Government Affairs. Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee on European Affairs.
Official trips to Eastern Europe, the Middle East, Central Asia and Africa. (pop. of U.S. approx 300,000,000)

Palin:

1982 Hawaii Pacific College 1 semester, then North Idaho College 2 semesters as a general studies major, then University of Idaho for 2 semesters then Matanuska-Susitna College in Alaska for 1 term, then University of Idaho for 3 semesters completing her B.S. degree in communication-journalism in 1987.

1984 (? not positive this date's right)—won the Miss Wasilla beauty contest and was a runner-up in the Miss Alaska pageant.

TV Sports Reporter in 1988 and
also helped in husband’s commercial fishing family business

Wasilla City Council 1992-1996

Mayor of Wasilla 1996-2002 (pop. 6300)

Was appointed by Governor Murkowski to the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission and served as Ethics Supervisor. Resigned in 2004.

2003-2005 served as one of 3 directors of Ted Stevens Excellence in Public Sevice, Inc. a 527 group designed to provide political training for Republican women in Alaska.

Governor of Alaska December 2006-present (pop. approx 700,000)

People on both sides who spread lies and rumors should be ashamed of themselves. IMO, people who spread lies about Palin are no better than those who support the ridiculous claim Obama is a muslim. Let's stick to the facts!

Sally123, let me assure you that I'm not basing my Obama support on his physical characteristics. If I thought they had the importance you give them I would have started the list of his credentials with "attractive, nice family, good speaker, black." My interpretation of your posts is that the effects of Obama's race and Palin's sex are comparable. Most of the educated opinions I've heard indicate that Obama's race is more of a hinderance than a help. I think the opposite holds true with Palin's sex, it gives her an advantage. I really can't imagine a man with her qualifications revving up the R. Party in the same way. She also wouldn't receive the same press coverage. It's too bad Biden isn't given the same attention. I can assure you that the fact that Palin scares me silly has nothing to do with her sex (I'm a former Hillary supporter.)

igloochic, I'd like to say that as a parent of a 17-yr-old child with special needs I agree with everything you say on this subject. I think the women's movement has moved beyond us having to think that men and women are interchangeable in all situations. When men are able to get pregnant and go through the same physical, hormonal, and psychological changes as women and can form the same exact bond that a woman forms with an infant, then the argument for interchangeablility will be a little closer. Children with special needs need every advantage they can get. I would like to think that I can be pro-child AND pro-woman at the same time. I don't appreciate the way Palin politicizes her young son. She can be a strong advocate for special needs without "using" him.

I'm sorry, but healthcare is not a privilege for the wealthy. Like education, policemen, firemen and other state provided services, it should be a basic right for all citizens. It's an embarassment that the US is the only industrialized nation (at least I think we still are :-) that doesn't provide universal healthcare for it's citizen.

The term "socialized" medicine is used as a fear mongering term. Years ago Bill Clinton was holding a town meeting about healthcare and some older guy told him "we don't need no stinking socialized medicine". Clinton asked him what kind of health insurance he had and the guy proudly replied "I have Medicare".

And don't bother me with argument/refutation or caveats because I have the best one for you: - I just lost a friend less than a month ago. Early to mid 40s. She had been waiting for the past four or five years for a lung transplant. After two false hopes over that time when it looked like a viable match may be found, her lungs just gave out mid-August and she could only be kept on the ventilator for a while. Still, we all hoped for that miracle - but really, if in 4 years there couldn't be a suitable lung found what were the odds that one would turn up just because she was on her way down? Didn't get that miracle and the lady died. This couple were not even close to indigent, btw. Not only did they have insurance, their doctors etc. they could probably have paid for the procedures themselves. It wasn't money that was the issue, it was the availability of a suitable replacement lung.

Look, posts like yours are alarmist and juvenile because they suggest that if only there weren't "socialized medicine", that you can have your transplant any old time you want. You can't - you still need that willing dead body. Unless you're suggesting that fewer people will die if Obama becomes Prez. from which to harvest the organs .... ? BTW, I'm against "socialized medicine" too - and *I* found your post hard to make sense of.

Besides, the problem with "socialized medicine" is as much if not more in the hyperventilation it causes as any real deficiency in it. There is a problem with socializing medicine but allowing universal access to health care services isn't it. I mean to say, do you really want your neighbours running around you with dengue fever, typhoid or whatever sort of contagion might proliferate in our local conditions? I'd really rather not, thank you. Rather, the real objection to socialized medicine is where it has become illegal to allow procedures that the state would not fund for "general access" (too $$$, too rare, risky etc). If that doesn't particular restriction is not imposed, would you still object to universal coverage? THIS is not meant to be contentious - even I need to think on it. Weissman's post is everything that represents the favorable points of unversal care; but the question marks for me are still about how to fund this. Especially given the upheaval we are currently seeing. If we give a trillion away to the best and brightest of wall street for their misbegotten & wanton excesses and therefore socialize our financial institutions, do we have the resources to socialize basic services too???? I dunno.

That said, perhaps if you vote for Obama AND congress and a Prez-Obama allows stem-cell research which revolutionizes medicine and you won't need transplants ... *grin*

BTW, I watched Palin's interview yesterday. Heavens! what a train-wreck. She's a complete air-head! And she had the unmitigated gall to say: "Journalists!" like *they* were responsible for her incomprehensible bacchanalian responses?! If McCain promises to let us see A LOT more of Palin, I'd love to vote for the two of them for the sheer entertainment value she promises, alone. It'll be like having Dan Quayle all over again - and you couldn't keep him out of the news. Palin was hilarious.

that's not obama's philosophy. if you believe it is, please link me to something from obama's website where he says this is his philosophy.

to clarify; advocating for a program that will insure the 43 million americans who currently are without health insurance is not the same as saying "everyone should have equal healthcare".

obama is just trying to get basic coverage for the 43 million who have nothing. more well-off people will still have better care, more complete coverage, and the option of going to whatever doctor they want, however many specialists they want. obama is not an advocate of state-run socialized medicine.

you say you're an RN with a degree, but you don't even have the most basic facts of this argument straight. read for yourself instead of swallowing right-wing talking points hook, line, and sinker.

oh, and if you resent having your tax dollars go to pay for health insurance for people who may have made poor decisions in their lives, remember, you're already paying their way now through inflated insurance premiums. who do you think pays when uninsured people show up at the emergency room with strep throat or an ear infection?

that's right. you and me.

As far our neighbors running around with contagious diseases, we have public health departments, free clinics, and ER's which are frequented by legal citizens and illegial aliens daily. The CDC in Atlanta makes sure that all vaccinations are offered to prevent outbreaks of contagious and deadly diseases. Do I need to remind anyone that we do not live in a 3rd world country?

Weissman, if you think people without jobs and insurance do without healthcare. You are dead wrong. I risk my life everyday going into homes in the community to provide healthcare for all people regardless of color, age, or income.

Vote for who you want. I am just giving my view(I am not trying to be alarming and I am surely not juvenile). Unless you have witnessed what I have, you have no right to judge me!!!!

If the US is such an embarassment, then why are so many people risking there lives crossing the border to get here? End of my discussion!

again, you seem unclear on what obama advocates. he's not proposing "universal healthcare". he's proposing a plan under which everyone will have basic health insurance coverage.

there's a big difference. read up.

Vote for who you want. I am just giving my view

that's fine and i respect that, but your view is based on incorrect information and erroneous assumptions.

Julie, I'm going to give the most simple minded answer to this because the truth is that there are layers and layers to the answer and you are speaking in the simple-minded, sound-bites that politicians dole out to the base at large - probably for them to propagate as you are doing. Please, do as edlakin suggests and read and reason for yourself.

But here's the fact: the reason that there are provisions for emergency care *IS* the reason that the US is not a third world country. Not the other way around. There is nothing about the air or the geography here that prevents the existence of infectious diseases at large. Rather, it is the existence of provisions to put a tamp on it.

Besides, I'd love to understand how "everyone will suffer" if basic health services are available to all. I'd love to understand a bit about the logistic challenges, if you would explain it. The advantages of universal health-care I have comprehended clearly enough but I've never heard the other side of it - well, the how-will-we-pay-for-it argument I have and it is a strong one; I don't reject it at all. However I've never heard or comprehended the "everyone will suffer" one. Would love an elucidation.

Oh, Claire, after last night, I have to say that I really want to hear more from Palin. She's better than a comedy show.

If Republicans don't like her and believe she is out of her league...is there any real hope for them come election time? Don'cha' think they'd prefer someone who can think as well?

The Presidential debate is tonight; you can bet I'll be watching. There is some good news...apparently those registering to vote for the first time are registering as Democrats. I heard Bill Clinton say Republication new voters have flatlined. Time will tell...

that's how you pay for it.

Hopefully, the need for her to impersonate Palin will end on Nov. 4 :-)

"I know Tina Fey. Tina Fey's a friend of mine. You're no Tina Fey!"