For a lot of voters (even die-hard Democrats like me), John McCain was one of the better Republicans. He did denounce torture; he supported some immigrant rights.

When McCain selected Gov. Palin as his running mate, I, like many Democrats AND Republicans, lost any respect I had for him.

How could he, on the one hand, state that he would pick a running mate who would be qualified to be President, and then pick Sarah Palin?

Karl Rove told him that he would never get elected President if he did not choose a running mate who would thrill the fundamentalist hard core right wing of the Party. McCain concurred or gave in, sacrificing his own choice, his friend Senator Lieberman so that he could win.

Palin is now playing the V-P attack dog role to the hilt. She is playing bad cop (revving up the frothing at the mouth, vicious, nasty, screaming mobs, pandering to racism, lying.)

McCain then came into personal contact with the results of the lies his supporters have been spreading.

McCain heard a pitiful woman who believed what she was saying -- that Obama was an Arab and therefore untrustworthy...McCain finally spoke up. The poor woman almost couldn't believe he was disagreeing with her, when McCain said Obama was a decent, family man, a citizen.

(Such is the cynicism of the Rove/Cheney/Palin Republicans is that they despise those who swallow their lies, and have contempt for those they use.)

So, is McCain playing Good Cop to Palin's Bad Cop? Or has he been told that the attacks are not spinning well? Has he been affected by honest criticism from former supporters? Or does he have some integrity left?

I suggest that the answer to all four questions is yes.

Presidential candidates are human beings, and all human beings have multiple agendas -- times when we are pulled towards our worst selves, and times when we embrace our best nature.

The tragic element of this election is that McCain sold his soul to the Devil -- and like many victims of the Prince of Lies, he's been cheated. He has tarnished his honor and character, and he will not be president. Lose/Lose.

I finally feel just a little sorry for him, as I cannot feel sorry for Karl Rove or Sarah Palin who are so obviously consumed by hatred and the lust for power.

Goldwater had some integrity. One of his famous quotes was "Moderation in pursuit of justice is no virtue. Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice."

Of course, it depends on how you define extremism. Does that mean bombing civilians? Does that mean torturing people? Of course not.

In his old age, he came out for gay rights in part because of a gay grandson. His grandson introduced him to a member of the military who was gay, and former Senator Goldwater had an epiphany...In June of 1993, when Goldwater came out against the ban...(you don't have to be straight to shoot straight) pro-ban forces cried foul. The godfather of American conservative politics, they declared, had sold out or gone senile.

(George Wallace apologized for his racism. The author of Amazing Grace was a slave holder who repented. People can change).

McCain -- in his old age -- has been shown to have no integrity. He only said what he believed in when it felt safe (torture, immigration). Now, he's willing to betray everything he's believed in to become President. How horrible.

In contrast, Cheney has a lesbian daughter. She and her partner have a child. Cheney supports his daughter (great), but not her civil rights.

The Republicans all have lesbian/gay friends. It's rumored Condi Rice is a lesbian. But, unlike Goldwater, this does not translate into a principled public stance. They have gay/lesbian aides, colleagues, business associates, but they won't advocate for lesbian/gay rights because they would lose power. THIS is the real test of integrity.

All they care about is power.

Shame

As a lifelong feminist who voted for Sen. Clinton because of her qualifications, I applaud this article.

I would no more vote for Sarah Palin than I would vote for Mitt Romney. Or Margaret Thatcher. Or Nancy Reagan. Or Ronald Reagan. OR GEORGE BUSH

Ms. Traister, I could not agree with you MORE about the unbelievable sexism of the male left (and their female supporters).

But there really isn't any problem about Palin among the folks (women and men) that I would call feminists.

Feminists do not believe that just electing women or just elevating women to the positions of power that men had will help things.

(Real) feminists believe that racism, homophobia, classism, environmental destruction, etc. are wrong, and that if someone is a feminist she or he will work for reforms and changes that benefit ALL WOMEN AS A CLASS.

Those of us who supported Hillary Clinton said time and again that we would not have supported a Maggie Thatcher or Phyliss Schlafly, nor will we be supporting Palin.

I was dismayed that your own Salon editor and Geraldine Ferraro complimented the Republicans because they nominated a woman for Vice-President. No. They did so in a cynical attempt to play on feminism's gains. They nominated an anti-feminist who would destroy everything we feminists believe in.

Susan McGee

You're correct...most organizers have read Alinsky's

Rules for Radicals...

What's disappointing is how the Left (and Obama) ignore feminist influences on organizing -- and models of organizing that are not patriarchal, not oppositional, not based in war metaphors.

One of Alinsky's tactics (mirrored by 1990s tactics of organizing) was to humiliate and target individuals.

It's an "in your face", the enemy is bad model.

It ignores feminist models (and models based on Gandhi) that see adversaries as human beings who should be respected and persuaded, who may be implacably imposed, but still must be regarded as individuals with immanent value.

Susan McGee