Shame Shame Shame on you.

Once again a journalist stoops just about as low as you can go in search of a few extra reader interest points. Here's hoping that you fail tremendously in that effort. Your disgusting reference reminds me of the equally disgusting Keith Olberman.

Shame Shame Shame on both of you!!!

G.Langdale

Dear Ms. Traister,

You wrote:

"Palin's decision to continue her pregnancy, despite the fact that the illness was detected in prenatal genetic tests, will be a rallying point for the religious right."

But you missed the point - SHE CONSIDERED MAKING THE CHOICE OF TERMINATING THE PREGNANCY! So how pro life could she be? Or is it another right wing do as I say not as I do? The right wing may be thrilled with her decision, but she thought about making that choice.

The media seems to assume that it's our genitals. Like suddenly, we're all going to lose our gray matter and like Stepford Wives start moving toward McCain. I'm sick of this kind of feminism that assumes that being biologically female is the same thing as having a feminist consciousness. If that was the case, we would not have had Margaret Thatcher cutting back the welfare state in Britain along with her buddy, Reagan, who happened to have been a man.

Either the choice of Palin is such a national joke that both she and McCain are laughed off the stage, and waiting for the inevitable slaughter of them both in November by Obama-Biden will see both anticlimactic and interminable, or the moron wing of the American electorate will follow up its idiotic choices of Bush twice with McPalin and this country will be toast. The Palin choice is so pandering and absurd that it has nothing to do with Obama's not choosing Hillary. Biden's a much stronger choice than Hillary anyway, on the merits. He's a much better potential president and leader, and he's a better person by any measurement you choose. starting with his family life and integrity. It would have been absurd for Obama to saddle himself with Hillary and Bill themselves, not to mention the endless soap opera of are they upstaging him? do they have too much power? are they entirely loyal? are they being slighted? Who needs that for the next four years? Neither Obama nor America! Hillary made a good historical point; she broke the glass ceiling by making it irrelevant from now on whether a presidential candidate is a woman. Who cares? The only question is whether the candidate is the best leader we can find. Now Hillary will be put to the test of her own words. Will she walk the walk and "gut" Palin, thereby fighting for all the poor people who will be left in the cold, with no health care, by Palin and McCain, not to mention keeping our daughters from having to go to back alleys for abortions again, often dying in the process? Or will Hillary hang back and let Palin ride, as if Hillary were honoring her "sisterhood" with Palin, when Palin is in fact the bitter enemy of everything that Hillary feminists have fought for for decades, except the right of a beauty queen moose hunter to run for Vice President? If Hillary doesn't take out Palin, it will raise suspicions that Hillary, as usual, is operating out of blind ambition and narcissism, rather than fighting for needy, vulnerable women, since it will look like Hillary wants Obama to lose, so she can beat Palin in '12. But if the American public is stupid enough to vote for Palin this year, Palin will crush Hillary in '12, since Palins women's values are so different from Hillary's women's values. And the defeat of Hillary in '12 would therefore be a rejection of Wellesley feminism by a majority of America's women, the most crushing defeat among women feminism would have ever suffered in this country and a HUGE step backwards. Of course, Roe would already be history long before '12, so Palin's victory over Hillary would just underscore that the era of choice would be gone for good. Are Hillary's fans going to risk all this by allowing Hillary to sit on her hands if she seems to want to this year?

Of course, "The Obama" should have picked Hillary, like Kennedy picked Johnson. However, "The ONE" clearly despised Hillary because she was a strong woman willing to criticize him in public. His background growing up in a culture (Indonesia) where most woman are treated little better than property insured that he could never be comfortable around a strong woman who might disagree with him. So he went to the Good Ol Boys club and picked a Good Ol Boy. McCain showed his character and commitment to real change by picking a female reformer who's faced and defeated corruption head on. And what was the first reaction from "The Obama"? A repeat of the sexist attacks on Hillary. She has more executive experience than he has, but he's betting he can paint her as less competent than he is because she's a woman. If you want change and hope this year you have to vote McCain/Palin. Obama/Biden give you dirty Chicago machine politics, the race card, and sexism, not change. Hillary 2012!!!

Only republicans who think the election process is a shell game or a PR gimmick instead of serious business would be asking such a stupid question. Obama went through a selection process, he spoke with the senator and she was not his selection. There are many powerful and useful positions in government that Hillary can do more than in the VP position.

Maybe Obama plans to appoint her to the Supreme Court to satisfy all those PUMA complainers and the republicans complainers. After all, with that position she could put her poerful decisions to all court decisions for a lifetime.

I am sure the republicans will agree that this may be a better way for Obama to use Hillary.

THE ANSWER IS NO

Shouldn't anyone be happy that Governor Palin kept her baby, not just the religious right?

It is comments like these that show the true face of partisanship and how out of touch the chattering class and the liberal elite are from normal people.

Perhaps all the "thinking" people believe all the crap you think they should and it may come as a surprise to many but there is a large percentage of the population that does not believe all of the supposedly "antiwomen" positions you attribute to Ms Palin are to be derided and yet they still appreciate the fact of a smart, tough woman suceeding to such a level.

Perhaps Obama should have picked Hillary and one can certainly impune many motives to he and his cohorts as to why he did not but if nothing else it does indicate a collosal arrogance for one in such a position as he to ignore the woman who received more votes than Mr. Obama and yet is left unvetted.

Perhaps a small inkling of this possibility seeps into the thinking of all those unwashed masses on not such an enlightened plane as the Democratic elites.

Get a clue.