The New Republic hasn't been liberal in over 20 years so it should hardly be a shock to you or anyone they are lamenting Maddow's hiring as troubling. I think liberals should be on tv but she was a complete and total water carrier for Obama with no restraint. And what have you and the left got for its trouble. A candidate who by nuance has skated by the fact that on issue after issue that liberals actually care about, he is to the right of Clinton. Abortion, FISA, health care, energy policy, social security and even more disgusting affirmative action. There's going to be a lot of gnashing of teeth come January 21st when reality sinks in. By all means television needs more liberals but they also need couragous ones who will not drink the kool aid of the moment.

Icr

Hillary Clinton and Hillary Clinton alone is responsible for her defeat and I am not implying he is not. However, I do find it ironic that the so called liberal Obama on a host of issues is actually more conservative than Hillary the neo-con. How do I know? I actually watched the debates, read his his campaign literature and listen to his responses. It's Obama who keeps hinting we have to do something about Social Security. Its Obama who refuses to have a universal mandate for health care. Its Obama who is troubled by affirmative action and is hinting he would consider a system based on income not race or gender. Its Obama who voted for FISA and Cheney's energy plan. Its Obama making cutesy with the right on abortion Is he better than McCain, yes he is, but I refuse to drink the cool-aide, he is not a liberal.

It is a magnanimous gesture on her part. Teddy Kennedy, the man who will be lionized at the same convention as a Democratic icon didn't do it for President Carter. Hart didn't do it for Mondale. The sainted Reagan never did it for President Ford. Had a man been in this position, with so many votes would there have been this outcry for them to give in and not have a roll call? I don't think so. A man is the warrior champion. He would be expected to fight to the finish at the convention defeating a worthy opponent, while a woman, she still has to pay the traditional role as peacekeeper. Poor Hillary, its got to be bittersweet for her especially when you realize that at her age, like Teddy Kennedy she might never get this chance again. So is the role in sex and gender in history.

Tokenism, stop it. What foreign policy experience did Bush have prior to getting elected? What foreign policy does Obama have? Even if you think the war is a mistake the fact that she and McCain have kids in Iraq is going to win them a lot of good will. And as for domestic policy, her resume is just as good as Bush or Obama's in terms of life experience. I wonder if the media would be so condescending if she had gone to an Ivy League school? I could never vote for her. Her politics are scary enough, pro-life, pro oil industry, pro Pat Buchanan, but you and the Democrats are making a big mistake in attacking her on her experience instead of her policies. No she is not Hillary Clinton, but very few women are. She seems like a regular girl you can talk shop with in the office. Hillary on the other hand is the original ice princess merged with smartest girl in the room.

I can understand why McCain chose her. She a woman, pro-life, a gun owner, a hunting enthusiast, she supports the war, her son is being deployed to Iraq, she's pro offshore drilling, her husband belongs to a union and is part native American. She looks like a suburban soccer mom. Now when she goes to Catholic Pennsylvania with its strong snti-abortion supporters, or the local Irish bar, or the veterans hall, or a union hall, or conservative Hispanic Texas, or into West Virginia and Kentucky who are these lower working class people gonna relate to more, Sara Palin or Barak Obama? The Democrats spent a lot of time trying to convince people that the Obama's were the all American story. Well, this lady is also the All American story. She could be the subject of a Capra movie. Democrats are fools to keep laughing at this pick.

I agree with you. She is no idiot but she's no Hillary or Nancy Pelosi either. But the bar for her is being set so low that if she doesn't drool she we be found to be wonderful. Expect one gotcha moment when Sara will be confronted by a hard question, and will respond like Margaret Thatcher on steroids. Then the debate will be did old liberal Charlie Gibson try to destroy her. Been there seen it before.

This is what they should ask her:

Nearly every successful woman in politics in the second half of the 20th century (Thatcher, Ghandi, Aquino) who have actually had the responsibilies of running countries have either taken office after their children have reached the age of maturity or not had children at all (Golda Meir). What was the thought process that went through her mind when she decided to accept the vice presidency?