It seems pretty clear that the unspoken point of the article is that women are such sheep that they will vote for someone who stands against everything they believe in just because of her gender. "Duh, me no like Republicans, but this one have tits! I vote for her!"

Shame on you, Ms. Traister...

I see you are a new reader!

c'mon joan, you're going to vote for her, right....puma in hiding

Hiding? If that's hiding its as subtle as a root canal.

A polemic like this article that calls me names if I take the time to consider what each side brings to the table will only drive me farther away. This is the Dems mistake from the beginning -- party leaders, spurred on by self-satisfied journalists believing they know what women want (as if we're cookie-cutter cut-outs) and calling us names if we make a choice that defies their contrived charts.

Guess what? I'm a voter and my vote has not yet been cast. No pretentions here. The Dems thought they had the right to cast my vote for me and they made me invisible. I'm not simple or one-issue.

A McCain-Palin ticket has much to offer me as a feminist and a mom.

Ain't it the truth?

VICE PRESIDENT SARAH PALIN!

It’s hard to imagine a better pick for VP than Governor Sarah Palin of Alaska!

Attractive, conservative, articulate, smart, pro-life, pro-Second Amendment, pro-energy independence, Palin is the breath of fresh air that the country has been craving for in Washington for decades. A fearless reformer, sportswoman, mother of five, she’s shown that a woman can indeed balance a career with a home life and conduct both with aplomb and distinction.

In addition, she’s cleaner and more articulate than Senator Biden ever envisioned Obama to be!

And did I mention she’s a woman?

For a slew of past interviews of Governor Palin, please see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TXfiOSCfY44&feature=related.

Senator McCain just sealed this election with Governor Sarah Palin. Just beware of the mud-slinging from the national media and the Obama campaign that will has already begun.

Fear not, however, McCain will serve four years and then Palin will serve eight more.

America is back on track!

"Should Obama have picked Hillary?"

Are you freaking kidding me?

Your editorial decisions are just plain ugly.

There are a lot of women who care less about politics than they do about symbolism, and McCain made a significant symbolic reach-out to these women when he nominated a woman for his VP.

Are you talking about yourself? In any case, "those" women are part of the problem--symbolism is pretty hurtful to a lot of people. It's the reason we are stuck in a symbolic "war", don't have equal rights for gays and lesbians, nor have equal rights for women. And the list goes on.

We aren't going to know if it would have helped to have Hillary on the ticket until the election is over. I think the one thing a lot of do know is that speculation about it has become tiresome and pointless.

I heard that 38 million people across America watched Obama's speech last night. Please do some digging and let us know the last time that many people watched a candidate accept the nomination of their party.

Also, please note that my brother, a conservative Republican, is voting Democratic for the first time in his life. He told me last year that he would never vote for Hillary.

So, did they leave their white-guy flank open while they went PUMA hunting?

Women are actually so dimwitted that they would vote for any woman at all, regardless of her credo, no matter how feckless, bizarre or right wing?

Is that the thrust here?

there's a big wide world out there where people dress different from us. Obama was visiting it, isn't that from Kenya where his father was from?

what's the big deal? please explain

(I ask expecting intelligent discourse)

[heh heh, she said 'discourse']

This is why all those drumming hippies get on my nerves: Drumming is really annoying.

That picking a woman who wasn't Clinton would be worse for Obama than picking a man. Just last week? I seem to remember something about it...the commentary seemed to be that that would just be pandering.

Now, I don't think that Clinton on the ticket would have been good for Obama. I just don't think they could have gotten along, and I think that Clinton hate would have turned off many swing voters. So, while I like Janet Napolitano, and don't know much at all about Kathleen Sibelius, the strategy hounds seemed to be recommending against that. Now McCain picks a woman (someone who was on the radar, just not expected, back when people were poo-pooing the idea of a non-Clinton woman on the ticket) and the strategists are changing their tune.

Blah. This is what turns people off politics.

Women were excited about voting for Hillary not just because she was a woman, but because she represented feminist and humanist values. We thought she had the experience and temperament to do great things.

Palin is a woman. That's it. Anti-science. Inexperienced. Anti-choice, even in extreme cases. Already has a corruption case against her - but that's par for the course with Alaskan Republican politicians.

And she has a 4-month-old infant with Downs Syndrome? How much campaigning can she possibly do?

It's funny, but it seemed like she herself was really surprised at being picked. Like even she knows she is not qualified.

She won't split feminists - the real kind anyway - because they look at the values, not the gender. In fact, most women know that their worst enemies are often - yep, women. Sad, but true.

I'm done. If the Salon cabal can't let go of this constant "Hillary for Prez" meme, better to just move on....

Ever hear the right wing fundamentalists who are central to the Republican base talk about the Bible-ordained roles of men and women? Or their reading of Genesis to the effect that, because Eve let herself be tempted by the serpent, women need men to do their thinking for them? I have, and suspect that a lot of fundies just got a lot more uncomfortable with a candidate they didn't trust much in the first place.