I wasn't going to vote in this election. Didn't like either McCain or Obama. When I heard Palin had been tapped, I made a donation to the McCain campaign and even bought a lawn sign--what a difference a day can make! To imagine that possibly next year the president of the US will be counselling with a MOM on the most important issues facing the US is indeed gratifying. A mom knows better than any man the price of a young soldier's life. A mom knows better than any man what an economy is really for. A mom knows better than any man how to juggle many important priorities, and get them all accomplished. A mom knows better than any man what national security really is all about. Just daydreaming about a mom breastfeeding in the Oval Office brings tears to my eyes. The healthiest families have a mom that shares equally in decision-making; it is time for our country to have the same healthy arrangement of power.

The subtext of the VP debates is going to be experience vs judgment, and Biden will be able to beat Palin on both issues, and the VP debates will be a shinny example of who had the better judgment is selecting running mates.

Women's issues is one of Biden's strong suits, and he will really be able to lay into Palin about how bad McCain's positions are on women's issues such as equal pay, reproductive freedom, insurance coverage of the pill, and paid baby leave (all of which are issues where McCain has a very bad voting record).

Palin puts McCain's bad position on women's issues front and center, and she really kills McCain's "experience" arguments. She also really makes McCain look old and creepy.

In any case I can't imagine that Palin will be anywhere near ready to debate, and will probably fall for every trap.

But Palin wasn't brought in for her debate abilities, she was brought in for her two sons; the eldest because he is on his way to Iraq, and the other for being a poster child for the pro-life movement (and apparently Young Trigg the poster child is extremely adept at editing his own mother's wikipedia page 30 times, despite being less than one year old).

Cut the crap--its done!

I'm so sick of Salon with it's wierd pathological Hillary fetish. I liked her too but guess what kittens-- we've moved on and we have an election to win now. So keep your eye on the god damned ball and quit the stupid fucking hand wringing over Hillary.

MaBelle: "I was wrong in the criticism of you at another Joan Walsh post. Wow! You have one long memory, bro. I had to do some digging to find the post you were talking about."

It was about a week ago, and it was so bizarre and un-called for that it was memorable. It's about the only exchange I can remember having with you. Thanks for the apology -- that's more than most are capable of around here.

MaBelle: "On the other point, though, about my "sexism": it doesn't feel very good, does it?"

I'm not sure what the point of your rhetorical question is. Are you asking that because people have been accusing you of racism, or something? Because I make it a point not to accuse people of racism unless they really unleash it. (I suspect there is probably some racism motivating some of the people around here, but there's no point in bringing it up because nobody will admit to it anyway.)

I don't really care if you want to call me a sexist, because I have gotten used to that sort of thing on Salon. But I don't find it to be an accusation grounded in anything I've actually done. I argue vehemently with people of all types around here, and half the time you can't tell whether somebody is male of female anyway, considering the names people use. I also strongly encourage people not to criticize or mock others on the basis of their sex. For whatever that's worth. You can check my messages -- I haven't called anybody "bitch," or "menopausal," or whatever, though I am more than happy to call people assholes, since everybody's got one (and let's face it, a few of the female posters around here are as worthy of that term as the males here).

As for attacking Joan Walsh and Rebecca Traister, you might notice that I criticize Alex Koppelman and several of the male writers here too. I have tended to criticize Joan Walsh because I have felt some of her arguments and treatment to be lopsided, and the funny thing is, both Walsh and many of her supporters have admitted this to be the case. Some of them rationalize it by saying that Walsh has acted to counter-balance people like Chris Matthews. I would respect that argument more if Chris Matthews wrote a column on Salon, or if anybody could explain to me why he should be taken seriously to begin with. Most of the media sexism against Hillary Clinton has been from the kinds of twits who are known for all sorts of other garbage, such as the propagandists at Fox-News, and I strongly resent it when people lump Fox-News dillweeds in with sincere Obama supporters who couldn't be ideologically farther away from those asshats if we were hanging out with Antarctic penguins while they were eating cookies with Santa. (Yes, that was a tortured metaphor.)

Anyway, I only ask that you find some other line of attack than groundless accusations of sexism. Like, do you disagree with something tangible? Do you disagree with Obama on his policy or issues? Or something? From my perspective, I don't think it's necessarily about Obama, I think it's about the whole political landscape and about punishing the Republicans for their failure by bringing a whole new administration into office. I am completely sincere and honest when I say that I think Obama's team have the intelligence and vitality to grapple with the country's problems in a way that the Bush administration never could. I will also say that had Hillary Clinton been the nominee, I would have voted for her without hesitation.