McCain had the advantage in selecting his running mate second. If Obama had picked Hillary or any other woman, the Repugs would have whined that the Ds were turning their backs on white men and McCain would have picked Mittens. McCain's pick of Palin is as desperate a move as Mondale's was of Ferraro.

Well, she smart, experienced, passionate, encyclopedic on all issues and comes with 18 million + energized supporters (not all of us Clinton-ites are women, BTW). She is also a democrat who has the respect of our military leaders and is associated with the most successful Democratic administration since Roosevelt. I thought Obama would show wisdom and humility and select Hillary, but I guess Barry still wants to be the rock star. He went the safe route and took a career Washington insider. And a white guy, to boot. Huge opportunity wasted.

If Obama is elected he ought to tap Clinton for a Supreme. Or Secretary of State, at the very least.

Eight years of REALLY BAD decisions.

McSame did not disappoint.

The Dums ought to make mincemeat out of Palin. Tell everyone that the American people are SICK of bad decision making (which they ARE) in the White House and that the selection of Palin is MORE OF THE SAME bad decision making.

“ As for that VP talk all the time, I’ll tell you, I still can’t answer that question until somebody answers for me what is it exactly that the VP does every day? "

Sarah Palin, a month ago.

The republicans took a good long look at that stadium being set up in Denver. After checking their drawers, they blinked, & chose Palin because they thought that because she's a woman the women who voted for Hillary would vote for her. Unfortunately, Hillary's female (& male) supporters voted for her because she was Hillary - an exceptional leader and champion of Democratic causes - not because she had two x chromosomes.

"picking Palin, a politician with only a few years of experience, is a pandering and condescending sop toward them, one that suggests that by dint of her gender alone, Palin could stand in for Clinton, who spent years being fire-forged for her place in history."

Isn't this exactly what we/ the Dem party did with Obama? We nominated (picked) a nominee with only a few years of experience because of the historical nature of his campaign. Let's face it...we said it was about jugment not experience. How can anyone now question Palin's experience? Her resume is about as lengthy as Obama's and he is running for "the" Presidency. This is not a constructive line of attack for Dems and it will likely hurt us in the end.

Also, fighting on issues is one thing-- but in case any of you forgot, during the primary while some Obama supporters in the media lashed out at Clinton, folks on FOX news were commenting on the double standard and the sexism in the Dem party. Even Laura Ingram cried foul on behalf of Hillary.

Well, now that we have another female in the race-- one with whom we have nothing in common-- we have a choice: are we going to challenge her policies and judgment or are we going to hold her to a different standard simply because she is a woman? Laura Ingram defended Hillary and now you can be damn sure that she will defend Palin-- and call it a trend in the dem party.

Dems should be very careful here. We claim to be the progressive party and yet Republicans have been able to outpace us in recent years with regard to African American and female cabinet appointments. Now they have boldly put a female on ticket. We may not agree with her or McCain about the direction of the party but just as both the dems and republicans can be proud of Obama's journey --we should congratulate Palin and the republicans on their selection. It is history in the making.

Political pundits are right to say that most women will vote their self interest and that many women feel the dem party is their home because it has supported the women's movement/ agenda. Many women have been fighting for abortion rights, equal pay etc. for over 50 years and while these issues remain important to women, some have come to believe that broad sweeping change for women will only occur when a woman is elected to the highest office in the land. These women continue to gather in numbers and have patiently waited for 28 years for their party to follow-up on the promise of Geraldine. These women now need only a slight push to move their vote or to leave our party all together.

Being married to a president is not the same as political experience.

In real politics, Obama is far more qualified to lead than Clinton: a community volunteer and organizer, coucilperson, state senator for one of the largest states in the union and US Senator, which Senator Clinton has a lead on him by a mere two years.

Please disabuse yourself of any myths that Obama is under-qualified. Were that true he would not have made up a 30-point deficit from virtually nowhere to capture the nomination, 38 million people would not have tuned in to watch him for almost 1 hour give a political speech (this is almost unheard of in the age of instant gratification), and he would not, despite his complexion, name and background, have the RNC shaking in their boots.

The rest of this election can be a cake walk if you join in and walk with us. Together we can do it. Yes we can.

But even among more reasonable Democrats, the Palin pick does create worries for the still-tender party, not the least of which is that it will reopen a debate about whether Barack Obama should have picked a female vice president, or more specifically, Hillary Clinton.

Only if the media keep writing about such "likely" debates....

Let's have a little faith here, people. Even Pat Buchanan said this was the best convention speech ever. Can't democrats even enjoy that and start working on beating McCain-Pallin in November?

It's only eight weeks. Can we not beat up on our nominee YET again? No circular firing squads for democrats? Just once?

If he loses, god forbid, write all of the shoulda-woulda-couldas you want.