Even before Palin got the nod, I too have wondered what the Republicans are up to. Could it be that they want McCain to lose? They sure could use a 4 year breather to re-group after these last 8 disastrous years. Maybe they hope that Obama will be a big dud and, of course, they will do everything they can to sabotage his administration - lies, smears, innuendo (same old same old). But a handful of Republicans will stay above the fray. In 2012 one of these guys will be presented as Mr. Clean, Mr. Normal, Mr. Competent - and a new Republican regime will be unveiled - sun shining through parting clouds, Deus Ex Machina, blah, blah, blah. Could this be the plan? Could it work? Not unless we, the American people, let it work.

From the top of the ticket to the bottom, Republicans are in trouble across the country. I live in Virginia, until this year a reliably Republican state. There is a very good chance that Obama will take Virginia. There is a 98% certainty that former Democratic governor Mark Warner will join democrat Jim Webb in the U.S. Senate. The Congressional delegation from Northern Virginia could very likely consist of 3 Democrats. I live in the 10th Congressional District. Republican Frank Wolfe has held that seat for nearly 30 years - until this year he has never faced a credible challenge. Judy Feder, a very impressive, talented, and smart woman, is challenging him. The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee has identified her campaign has a possible win and given the campaign resources to make that happen.

In 2006 Congress did not really capitalize on its win. But this year there will be even more Democrats in Congress and a Democrat in the White House. It is the Democrats who will have plenty of breathing room to turn the country around.

But the Republicans are desperate, they know that a McCain/Palin presidency could be an utter disaster that would destroy their party forever. The only wee bit of hope they have is to allow McCain to lose and to sabotage the Obama administration. Sort of pathetic, like the last gasp of the scary monster in a horror movie just before the guys and gals finish him off.

Thanks for referring to the latest Republican debate stifling mindgame: you criticize this woman, therefore you are sexist (i.e., you think all women are inferior). As a woman I find this insulting and demeaning. Why is it that I should be held to a different standard than a man?

When I graduated from law school I took a job with a big city law firm. To be perfectly honest I was a lousy associate and fully deserved the lousy year-end review I got. The people I worked for judged my work on its merit - was it good? did I get result? If I was not up to the job than I deserved to be criticized. It is not sexism (especially not when many of my female colleagues received stellar year end reviews. In fact, it would have been more sexist to lower standards because I was a woman and would not have been fair to me, my colleagues or my employer. It is equally unfair to hold Gov. Palin to a lower standard. In fact, as citizens we have the right and duty to question any candidates qualifications - it is irresponsible to do otherwise.

To those who would point out the sexism is rife in law I say "Duuhhh! Tell me something I don't know." But holding everyone to the same standard is absolutely no sexism.

Friday, September 12th sounds good. Can they get away with later than 8 pm (that way doesn't get into the a.m. papers)? So, a late night press release announcing her withdrawal and press conference scheduled for whatever time would get the least attention. Anyone follow college football? Any big games on Saturday the 13th?

On "Executive Experience" you say:

"There are those that belive in a singular unitary executive who rules over congress, makes no compromise with any individual, group or country, and is beholden to no law, no power, nor check that might have been placed in the constitution to prevent tyranny. Others however believe that the president is just one piece in the puzzel of govenment, that they must lead, and represent the will of all the people, and must make compromise at home and abraod to accomplish the will of the people."

I too believe in the latter. And I believe that this is what the Founders intended for our federal government: a system of checks and balances where no one branch of government has more power than the other. "Executive Experience," in and of itself, is not particularly relevant to one's ability to be President of the United States.

The needs of individual states vary - as you point out, Alaska is not the United States nor is it Massachusettts or California or Rhode Island or Michigan or Oregon or Iowa and these states are not the United States. Being governor of any of these states does not necessarily mean that one will be a good President of the United States.

Maybe we need to start thinking of the word "executive" as an adjective to "experience." The American Heritage Dictionary (2d College Edition) defines executive as: adj. 1. Of, or pertaining to, capable of, or suited for carrying out or executing. This definition would lead us to ask the correct questions about whether a candidate has adequate "exectuive experience."