But First Ladies really do have to give up so much - stop being smart and professional and stay-home-and-bake-cookies, so to speak. Bill Clinton wouldn't have had to do that. I didn't see the speech (just the syrupy intro and the first few words - it had been a hard day and bed called), but this account says Barack came on (on screen) afterwards and called Michelle "cute". Says it all.

...was so ghastly I could only watch (since I was alone) with the aid of live-bloggers. Tonight with (haha) Ghouliani and the perky VP-to-be (NO! please, no!) should be excruciating. It was sanghria last night, but tonight looks like calling for something harder. (Chocolate. Chocolate liqueur? Argh, don't think stomach can handle it all...)

What he said.

Terrible speech, amateurish production, revolting delegates.

Glenn said - I'm not saying that her position as I heard it is defensible - it't not - I'm just asking if you're correct in your claim about her creationist views?

Well, perhaps the original reference to her being a creationist should have contained a "presumably" or something. She is a Pentecostal, and they believe in creationism. (And why would anyone who isn't suggest having it 'taught' in school?) (And even if she isn't a creationist, suggesting it be taught in school is stupid and offensive - not saying she ain't smart. The world is full of dismally stupid people who are smart. Fast-talkin', quick-footed smart.)

Maybe the MSM won't do the job, but the National Inquirer is hot on it...

said of Obama "the man without a country or a principle."

Please elucidate. Was he not born in the US? Educated here for most of his youth? Outlined his principles and proposals in books and speeches?

All those "Country First" folk are against paying higher taxes. "Country" is supposed to operate w.o. money. Look to that platform for lack of principles.

Sometimes I think Obama gets this empty-suit appellation because people can't get with an intelligent "cool" presentation - they can only relate to, well, pitbulls...

Obama's house thing with Rezko and his association with the Weatherman have got lots of ink. And I daresay they will again... If anyone's got a sweet deal from the press, it's BBQ McCain

However, Canada's Liberals and Conservatives are pale imitations of the U.S. variety. For instance, when the current Conservative government came into power, it did nada about taking away abortion availability and gay marriage, and the question of teaching creationism does not arise. (Yet the Conservative prime minister is a religious man of some kind of more-or-less evangelical variety.) There was also no question of following the U.S. into Iraq. (It'll be safe to move here if the worst happens!) (Well, politically safe anyway. None of us is safe in many crucial ways if the Republicans retain the white house.)

We need a chuckle out of this whole godawful mess.

I'm vanilla and a feminist, and I think it's funny. (Perhaps because I find the whole S/M thing hilarious to start with...)

Gary had one good (non-sexualized) point - if the Republicans want to get government out of people's lives, and get churches and private charities & people involved, why are they sneering at community organizers.

But that's FUNNY.

(And I'm afraid that McCain/Palin will win...and THAT will be the End Times.)

Couple points.

1. How much influence does Salon have that people are concerned about this article? Seems a few hundred people post when really stirred up. Some HuffPost items get THOUSANDS. And I don't think HuffPost and its readers will influence much of anything. (Like, preaching to the choir and all that.)

2. Hey, Salon runs plenty plenty articles about zee issues.

3. The psycho-sexual undertones brought to the surface are very interesting.

Okay, that's three points. (My husband always complained that "a couple" means two. Like him and me. No third parties, please.)

4. One more point. Goddam but we need a laugh. This whole election scene is so awful and scary that we need an occasional time-out.

But, 5. - There are sexual undertones to this whole scene ... with Obama too, I think. With Biden and McCain, not so much. (Tho all that dwelling on torture and imprisonment has some S/M echoes...)

Good one, Godot

High dungeon, it seems. (Yes yes, I know it's "dudgeon". One has to be careful making jokes around here.)

Tuned in this morning to see what kind of fulminating got done overnight. A quite satisfactory amount.

Couple observations - fetboy said "AKA Smith, you continue to make the mistake that voters really care what gets written on the blogs. If McCain wins, it will be because the voters voted him into office, not because of anything that you, I, Kamiya, or anyone else writes about on blogs or internet news."

Quite. All this worry about how the article & pic will make any kind of difference, sheesh.

Harlemita - what you said!

Kagikaze - "channelling Maureen Dowd a bit too much" - cute. (Wait for MD's version any minute now.)

Deeply Imbedded - For the booboisie, a candidate with boobs.

Couple notes of my own - this article is being castigated for sexism against women. I read it as sexism against men. (Not complaining, mind you!)

For all those people complaining about not enough yammer about issues, check out the WP this morning. It doesn't strike me as terribly damning (as politicians go), but this will no doubt be the first of many, many negative articles about Palin and her doings. The press wants blood (Palin should be out taking pre-emptive shots from the air), the "fresh-faced" bit getting tired now...

has over 1100 comments on the WP article (Palin's possibly naughty billings) as of this moment, compared to ca. 350 for this article...and y'all are worried that Salon is going to influence anybody? P.S. - Gary, you might consider submitting (haha) to 23/6.