I'm one myself. But just a reminder: the last time Hillary was a "bitch" in the White House, she botched universal health care - to the point that we've only been able to reclaim it as a Democratic ideal about 12 years later. Also, the last time she was a bitch in the WH, we got Travelgate.

Oh and then how can we forget about Whitewater, cattle futures, unrevealed tax returns (oh oops! that's Hills being a "bitch" now!)...

Sorry you all, but if being a bitch means being dishonest, unethical, and unproductive, then I'm going to have to say "no" to this bitch.

Bitch isn't the new black. Metaphors detract from America's current reality.

Black is the new black.

...then, given what we now know about Obama's skill as a strategist in the campaign season (1 million + donors, esp. small donors, strong), we could probably assume that Obama would have strategized differently with a different game plan and still be leading in the popular vote. For example, he would probably have spent more time in the "big states" very early on to achieve more name-recognition; he might have developed a larger "top-down" strategy to counterbalance his tendency to work from a grassroots "bottom-up" strategy, etc. etc.

What we also know about Clinton would probably still hold true: she would still have crappy people advising and running her campaign (Penn, btw, was simply demoted this weekend - he didn't fully resign from the campaign); she would still be dependent on a rapidly depleting supply of "large" donors; she would still be using her campaign money in an overly profligate way; Bill would probably still be unmanageable; she would have still voted "yay" for the Iraq war and the Kyl-Lieberman bill calling Iran's national army a terrorist operation, etc. etc.

Oh how I love hypotheticals in the form of a supposedly factually-based argument.

McCain obviously picked Palin not for her substance or her foreign policy credentials (she has neither nor was she even particularly interested in the Iraq War, too focused on Alaska was she, despite her son being going off to Iraq), but because she's female.

She doesn't stand up for any of the core rights Hillary stood up for. Baldly anti-choice to an extreme degree. If she were to actually become President if something happened to McCain, she'd be the leader of the free world. A woman who, btw, left the town of Wasilla (pop: 9000) in debt when she left to become mayor.

You want this person - forget about gender - making policies about the US economy in its current debilitated state? You want this person - who has never sat in on foreign policy sessions or even given much thought to foreign policy - to dictate the foreign policy of a nation in the middle of 2 disastrous wars, with a couple more brewing on the side, in other regions?

I thought that being chosen for VP meant that you had to be qualified first of all - in substance - to be President. How is this person even qualified to be the governor of her state, where she - as governor for less than 2 years - is already involved in an ethics scandal?

Palin is so clearly not qualified, it's crazy. Don't even tell me she's just like Obama. Obama has been proven right since '04 on every major foreign policy issue re: the war, particularly re: Afghanistan. He already has solid relationships with the leader of Syria and a respectful relationship with the other leaders in the Middle East.

McCain could have picked a number of far more qualified Republican women to be VP. He didn't do that. He chose the weakest, wildest card of the bunch. That's not taking women seriously. Nor is it putting the interests of the country first.

I meant to write: Palin left Wasila in debt as mayor, right before becoming Governor. [not right before becoming mayor. sorry!]

1) Last I checked, Hillary didn't want to be vetted unless she was chosen as VP. She'd been withholding records of Bill's Library donations since the Obama campaign asked for them in June. That's the clearest sign that Hillary wasn't seriously considering going through the normal vetting process to become VP, and that simply isn't acceptable for any potential VP candidate to do.

2) Can we give up on the idea that Sarah Palin is some gift to women just because she's a woman? The woman is radically anti-choice and is for creationism in public schools. She left Wasila High School too broke to have AP classes because she cut property taxes when she was a mayor there. This is a woman who would set back women to the 50s in terms of women's rights.

3) Can we please have a discussion here on just plain merit? This woman makes a mockery of affirmative action - she has no foreign policy credentials nor did she even express interest in the war as of a few weeks ago. Affirmative action was supposed to be about leveling the playing field among *equally qualified* candidates. This person has been governor less than 2 years of a state that's less populated than most major cities in the US, who wasn't able to balance the budget for her hometown - and suddenly it's an actual legitimate issue to discuss Palin as a VP candidate for the US?

Yes, the Obama campaign should take her seriously. That's their job - to fight every Republican move in this election season.

But it's *our* job as citizens and journalists to see this move for what it is: 1) McCain pandering to women (and not doing terribly well considering her anti-choice record) 2) McCain's lack of judgment or foresight or care about the complex, manifold interests of this country, which far outweigh any state issues Alaska has ever had.

*We* should be calling this pick for what it is: insulting and dangerous to the country.