I think it is kinda funny that people keep saying that before she was a Alaskan gov. she was just a Mayor of 8500 people. As if towns that size are just backwoods hick folks that don't no anything about anything. I myself am not from a small town I grew up in a middle sized town of 300,000 however now I live in a small town of 15,000 and let me tell you the people are just as quick, just as worldly, understand the issues just as much, and not only as politically active, but even more so then their big city conterparts, go look it up there are more per capita voters in small towns then in big cities. The point I'm trying to get at is that by saying she was just a Mayor of 8500 is alienating small town America, and basically saying that any idiot can run a city that size, and that in the big scheme of things it is meaningless. That will not bode well with those voters, and just may turn them off. Sure McCain was problably going to get alot of those voters anyway, but I'm sure there is still a lot of swing voters in small town America that are becoming more offended by these suggestions, and with a election that is getting closer and closer in the polls despite what the MSM has been saying about an Obama Slam dunk those voters are the voters he needs the most.

Obama took blows against Clintons that were incorrigble. He used Bill Clinton's campaign playbook and then openly attacked Clinton's presidency. Whatever Clinton's afflictions, we all know his administration helped America (no one is talking about the great Carter administration -- will Obama use Carter as a foreign diplomat. Yikes). We all know the Clintons are not racists. All candidates have flubs, but these were direct attacks by Obama not flubs. Even Jesse Jackson takes exception to Obama. After the election, he never even called the last former two term President. Etiquette would suggest that Obama should contact Clinton if he wanted Clinton's help, especially after he made public speeches catigating the accomplishments of the Clinton presidency. When I say Clinton appeal, I mean the Clinton-type democrats not the Clintons themselves. Edwards played to the Clinton democrats.

He also proved he was a lot like Bill, except he had preached and preached about morality while being immoral. Obama might want to send out the hench men and get Edwards to stay in his house for 66 days. I saw an interview in the campaign early on with the Edwards, and I turned to my husband and said the way he is talking he sounds like he cheated on her. I did not think about it again until my husband mentioned it to me right after it was confirmed by Edwards last month. So, in some ways, I am the type that goes with my gut too... My gut is usually right, but I can't trust McCain's gut -- so, I will continue to stay tuned and research what I can. . .I have determined Salon will probably not be a good source for balanced research.

" you're a jackaknape asshole who can't stand it when women call you on your blathering sexism. Your dick seems to catch fire whenever there is a conversation/article about (or by) strong women....[A] whiny baby.."

Hmmm. So if a man called a woman a shrill-bitch asshole whose pussy exploded whenever there was talk of strong men...would he be deemed a sexist?

Are feminists who do what they condemn others for doing not to be called on it because, faux egalitarians, they expect to be accorded "special" status simply by virtue of sporting vaginas?

Tokenism it is not - at least there is no evidence at this time. Tokenism presupposes that there are no qualified R women candidates. Dangerous proposition. Kay Bailey Hutchinson, Libby Dole, Sandra Day O'Connor -- are they all tokens too....(Were Nancy, Hillary, Sebelius (sp?) tokens, too). Tokens are usually classified as having a reduced capacity compared to the other characters and may have bland or inoffensive personalities so as to not be accused of stereotyping negative traits. Palin so far as proven she is not bland. Hillary proved she had more capacity when it came to policy issues and intelligent analysis than any of the other D candidates. And, in the end, proved she can give a better speech than Obama.

The R party has very active Republican women and Republican woman groups - some are pretty scarey, others are more moderate. Some say Palin is scarey, my jury is out. I have women friends that are Republican and they are not ignorant or less intelligent (sarcasm/double entendre). But, I am the type passionate with my opinions that can respect others with a different opinion. I have never voted for a R in a presidential race.

McCain was not resonating with R women - important part of winning on an R ticket or a D ticket. Newsflash women are a huge segment of the voting electorate. There was fear if Hillary was on the ticket, R women would cross lines and vote for her. She is not on the ticket. A R on the ticket is a double win as it speaks to R women and independents, not to mention a way to reaffirm a maverick image (even if the idea was sprouted by Rove it appears maverick).

Strategy is putting the best person up based on the landscape and disarming your opponent. McCain proved he is going to be a nat circling Obama. It was seen during the primaries that Obama couldn't handle pressure. McCain wants to heap it on. His spokeswoman had that "cat that ate the canary" grin when she and Carville were debating the Palin selection. I tried to say months ago it is a lot easier to campaign against a Dem because in that case your opponents have their arms tied behind their back and can only push so hard before being called divisive. If Bush was qualified (under the vote of a democracy -- Paul Begala's standard) then you, me and most of America is qualified but for the fact, at least speaking for myself, my daddy was never President. We all (most Rs and Ds) agree that Bush was not a shining moment in U.S. history. . .