As far as I'm concerned, Joan made excellent points. It makes sense to consider how any public pageant/occasion offers experience that can build poise and to discuss that experience as an interesting side story, but surely much more important than poise is the substance behind the person who is being poised. Further, is not the attention to poise itself a sexist consideration? How many times, if ever, has anyone commented on a male candidate's "poise"?

Also, I agree with Joan's take that Begala's pronouncement about his own wife's credentials sounded more defensive or grandiose than explanatory.

Gender focus aside, I still say McCain showed terrible judgment in choosing Palin. To me, his decision can be compared to the selection of a teacher who manages her/his classroom brilliantly to run the whole college or high school without any intermediary training or experience. It could work, but my God, why take that risk with the whole country (or school!)? Has Palin ever travelled outside of the country? Has she ever met a foreign leader? Does she know who leads Cambodia?

Obama may not have the kind of executive experience that Palin has had (I think that's arguable, actually), but he certainly brings a whole lot more thought about foreign affairs with his personal background, his experience as an academic, lawyer, and writer, his tenure in the Senate and his very successful Europe visit.

Not only does McCain's choice demonstrate poor judgment at a management level, I agree with Kamiya and others that it was incredibly cynical. Isn't it obvious now that McCain made his choice about who would be his second in command to gain evangelical voters and their money. (I think his motivation was the evangelical vote first, the women vote second.)

Slate.com is running an interesting article on why not to worry about McCain's choice. I'm hoping Bruce Reed is right. But if McCain/Palin do end up getting elected, I agree with Joan yet again that it's one thing to push back hard on issues, and another to think winning at any cost is okay.

Great story. This provides the most plausible explanation I've heard yet about McCain's choice on Palin.

Palin gives a good speech and comes across as very likable, but is there anything she said tonight that wasn't either mean or ultra conservative? (Or a lie?) I didn't hear her mention one piece of policy that would be DIFFERENT from the last eight years.

It seems to me the cheerful viciousness is not only rallying the Republican base, but the Democratic base as well. Also, I like the way some of the new Obama ads are taking the McCain/Palin stance on abortion right to the people. He seems to be taking the gloves off when it comes to the issues.

For what it's worth, I'm going to send some $$ to Obama today. Political donations have never sat well with me because in my mind there's way too much money already being spent on politics and politicians in the USA, but at this point I'm all for doing what I can to send a message that Obama's got a big, spirited and non-Rovian-led team behind him.

Who is going to reach out to him from the other side when he not only allows but himself uses vicious, mean, nasty, ugly smears on Obama?! Who is he kidding? He comes across as a narcissistic, mean old man. If it's on his terms, he'll reach out to the other side? What kind of selfless, country-first leader is that?

It would not be going low to use McCain's blatant acts and statements of hypocrisy against him in attack mode. I'm thinking Jon Stewart productions, but with more anger mixed in with the humor. Lots of such productions. In ads and in speeches. Visual representations. Many people are understandably immune to Republican rhetoric (or political rhetoric in general?). They think it's all lies, so why worry about McCain campaign lies. Obama can make the case that the lies about Palin and his own record are way out of the range of normal. He can use the word evil, now that Palin used that word in her speech. Call Rove Satan, if you will. He's a snake. He's diabolical! But he's not invulnerable.

Reporters can't ask her questions directly, but here's a link to a very interesting investigative story about Palin on the front page of Sunday's Seattle Times:

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politics/2008163431_palin070.html

(She sounds like a Dominatrix to me, which might help explain all the gasping, public big O's by Limbaugh and so many other Republicans.)

Also, here's a link to a pretty compelling indictment of Palin's environmental stances written by a professor at University of Alaska.

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/377955_palinenvir07.html

1. To what extent do you as a potential world leader feel an obligation to ensure that the discourse in this campaign, or later in your administration, does not resort to smears and innuendo? Are you willing to fire any member of your campaign who insists on promoting the idea that Obama's name connects him to Islamic terrorists?

2. How would you seek to find balance in the policy you currently promote of drilling in Alaska with policies for protection of the environment? How do your environmental policies, as Governor or as future World Leader, contrast with the Bush/Cheney administrations'?

3. As a potential future President of this country, do you support a litmus test on abortion when it comes to choosing future Supreme Court justices? If not, how will you balance your own personal pro-life stance on abortion with other considerations about qualifications for that job? Would you consider nominating Hillary Clinton to be a Supreme Court Justice should you ever be in that situation? If you do support a litmus test approach, please explain how this fits with your understanding of the Constitution.