That's because they're sheep. They will go apeshit for whomever is put up there.

She also just had a baby and is still carrying more weight than normal, hence, leg shifting.

But you in the race of Gamma Regularus would no nothing of our human ways...

I felt so angry watching Palin up there ripping open wounds about culture wars, demonizing the hope and progressive idealism I love about Obama.

But then I remember that elections are won by whoever captures the middle-- the undecideds. Tonight was so shrill, I find it hard to believe it's going to make many people excited outside of the right wing of the right wing.

Ultimately, I think this plays directly into Obama's message. It will be so much easier to pair McCain/Palin with the polarization of Bush/Cheney.

Seemed more defensive to me. The McCain campaign from here on out is only going to react, and grow more vicious as they back deeper into their corner.

She's also given Biden license to crush her instead of holding back.

I think its obvious that she is really creeped out by McCain.. Just sayin.. Fucker is creepy.

my wicked, sarcastic aside: levi sure looked like he was enjoying himself tonight (and bristol's giant, swollen breasts).

zing!

Um, Iago brought Othello DOWN. Are you sure this is the analogy you want to use?

Remember, Brendan, she had a captive audience that pretty much HAD to go wild with anything she said. It's a political convention.

How she would play in the real world is another matter entirely. But will we ever see an unscripted Sarah?

Angry bloggers can't defeat Slapshot Palin:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/47446064@N00/2826386989/sizes/o/

Let me be the second to state my amazement at the hugeocity of those jailbait jugs. I mean god damn, people. That'll make me an advocate for abstinence-only education.

Before her speech, Biden was saying "Palin deserves respect." Great. Glad you think she's so qualified. I hope he follows up that mushy headline with a brutal attack on her speech.

Isn't that cute? Somebody's still buying the lie that this woman was pregnant recently. Well, Republicans are known for their gullibility.

I hope Obama releases Biden on that bitch. It's no longer taking the high road, it's going in for the kill. Frankly, it needs to be done.

She reminds me of my old school superintendent. God, I hated her. So very much.

She could open her legs and say: "I prithee let me bring thee where crabs grow."

@ 7: She might bring McCain down—just give her some time.

Sarah Palin is in the crucible of national politics. Just as sunlight through a magnifying glass becomes concentrated to a burning intensity, so too will the media's focus either destroy Mrs. Palin or strengthen her to a tempered resolve. Her Wednesday evening speech is David's stone flung at the liberal establishment's Goliath. If she delivers, we will soon be speaking of 'Palinism' politics and the era of the 'Palinites.'

She's an evil genius and so is whoever is responsible for her selection for VP. If the Obamites (self included) don't get off the island and go make sure that every single Democratically inclined voter registers, and gets to the polls, in the swing states, this crazy, awful woman will be President of the United States, and make Cheney look like JFK.

Dear Hillary (and Bill) Clinton: please do your thing, join the Obama/Biden team and TAKE THIS HORRIBLE PERSON APART.

Thank you.

If you believe that VPILF is, in essence, the Republicans' last-ditch answer to Obama, then there is no way she will stand up to the next 8 weeks...Obama is already battle-tested v. Hillary AND McMaverick. Stand tall, DemoBelievers...

So, does that mean Palin is going to make McCain think his wife's sleeping with Mitt Romney (or Mike Huckabee? or the Shrub?) in order to take him down from the inside?

I don't think it'd work, considering McCain already thinks Cindy's a trollop and a cunt. How much lower can you go?

Agreed, @18. Only Hillary can dismember Tracey Flick. Anyone else is gonna get called "sexist" and "unfair." Unleash her now... unless she's just waiting for Obama to lose so she can face Palin in 2012.

Time to stand up, Hillary.

A 'great orator'? Are they passing the crack pipe down there on the convention floor? I saw someone reading a teleprompter, as competently as one might expect from a former television reporter. Although admittedly she did not appear to comprehend the words she was mouthing about her family and background any more than those about her accomplishments as governor or critical of Obama. Would be semi-impressed if she could define 'haberdasher'.

Hate to admit it, but I thought she was pretty effective.

McCain*Umbridge

Department of Mysteries

A 'great orator'? Are they passing the crack pipe down there on the convention floor? I saw someone reading a teleprompter, as competently as one might expect from a former television reporter. Although admittedly she did not appear to comprehend the words she was mouthing about her family and background any more than those about her accomplishments as governor or critical of Obama. Would be semi-impressed if she could define 'haberdasher'.

The bitch, and yes I say bitch as a woman, needs a good AK47 and a polar bear up her ass NOW. She is McCain's pitbull in lipstick. Oh yeah,, she can give a speech like a sweet little pussy on crack... bitch needs a good smack down.

2 Links to Renew My Faith:

http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/09/obama_campaign_on_palin_divisi.php

""The speech that Governor Palin gave was well delivered, but it was written by George Bush's speechwriter and sounds exactly like the same divisive, partisan attacks we've heard from George Bush for the last eight years. If Governor Palin and John McCain want to define 'change' as voting with George Bush 90% of the time, that's their choice, but we don't think the American people are ready to take a 10% chance on change."

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/04/us/politics/04assess.html?hp

"From here, Ms. Palin moves into a national campaign where she will have to appeal to audiences that are not necessarily primed to adore her. She will have to navigate far less controlled campaign settings that will test not only her political skills but also her knowledge of foreign and domestic policy. And she must convince the country she is prepared to be vice president at a time when the definition of that job has been elevated to the status of governing partner."

2 More:

http://www.time-blog.com/swampland/2008/09/the_republicans_tonight_1.html

"The Democrats are betting that the pain will trump the sarcasm this year; the media reaction you're seeing, including my own, comes from the knowledge that sarcasm has trumped pain so often in recent history. The question remains the one Obama raised last week: will this be a big election or a small one?"

http://www.time-blog.com/swampland/2008/09/angry_amateurs.html

"There is a tendency in the media to kick ourselves, cringe and withdraw, when we are criticized. But I hope my colleagues stand strong in this case: it is important for the public to know that Palin raised taxes as governor, supported the Bridge to Nowhere before she opposed it, pursued pork-barrel projects as mayor, tried to ban books at the local library and thinks the war in Iraq is "a task from God." The attempts by the McCain campaign to bully us into not reporting such things are not only stupidly aggressive, but unprofessional in the extreme."

It's true that she gives a great speech, but she has a debate coming up. Let's see how she does when challenged face-to-face. Catch phrases and vague, inaccurate statements of policy will not hold up against Biden. Her charisma will only take her so far, not to mention America's ADD. The RNC speech was the pinnacle of excitement where Palin is concerned - it will only diminish from this point forward.

The Ds and the Rs are both pretty hateful and petty. This is why it takes Independents so long to decide. Neither side is really worth liking.

I think Palin did a nice job tonight giving the most important speech of her life.

@27's first quote about the speechwriter is irrelevant. Every politician uses a speech writer.

The second is the telling one...except the electorate doesn't vote based on who the VP is. They vote for the top name.

#30, Independents, unaffiliated, etc. are also hateful and petty. In fact, those words describe the American people. Also, given that the electorate thinks there is a high probability that neither top of the ticket candidate will live to serve out their first term, more importance is placed on the VP candidate. It's foolish to think otherwise.

So, wait. "Wearing your heart upon your sleeve" means bullshitting people rather than showing yourself raw, for what you are? huh.

@30: Yeah, all politicians use speech writers, and Obama's campaign pointed out in their statement that Palin used Bush's speech writer, thus tying her to Bush, which is sorta their central argument: McCain/Palin equals Bush/Cheney. More of the same, not change.

We vote on the whole ticket, not just the top, particularly if the top of the ticket could, you know, die anytime.

@32:

In the case of Iago, it's a calculated move, intended to give the effect of "showing yourself raw", but only so that others will believe in his sincerity; in other words, he's only pretending to expose himself as a means of bullshitting people.

So yeah, still an apt analogy...

Interesting, reading through the left-wing echo chamber here. I can feel the fear, because what we have here is a woman who's going to peel off about three million former Hillary Clinton supporters who aren't buying Mr Obama's quack nostrums about "hope" and "idealism." He has to talk like that ... I mean, what else has he got? "I'm gonna raise your taxes" is a proven killer, as Fritz Mondale found out.

As a governor, Mrs Palin's also the only major-party candidate in the Presidential race with actual executive experience. She got the Trans-Canada pipeline project through after thirty years of stalling, and with NO Federal money required. Those of you who hate oil companies should applaud her for getting into their pockets and making them cough up some real revenue-sharing for the people of Alaska, $1200 per citizen. I won't wait for the applause though.

I'm gonna enjoy watching her go up against Joe Biden, listening patiently to his trademark bloviation, and then taking him apart piece by piece. I'd enjoy even more watching her debate Mr Obama, but unfortunately it won't happen. Maybe when he's back in '12 of '16. I can wait for that.

Right you are, Seajay. A beautiful, whipsmart Christian women like Sarah will help McCain take the Obama radical Marxist snake oil machine that will convert our children to homosexuality.

My only complaint was that she didn't mention anything about Obama's secret Muslim agenda.

35 and 36 are idiots who think 3 million Clinton supporters will vote for McCain/Palin, in spite of the fact that they oppose so much of what she stands for, particularly the right to choose.

35 and 36 are probably also the same person.

or 36 might be making fun of 35.

X-posted at http://www.Soundpolitics.org

Here's what I find interesting. Sarah Palin was unknown less than 1 week ago. Now I feel as if I know her, what she stands for, her family, and her whole life story!

Now take Obama. He's written, what...two books? On a life of complete undistinction. And he's been in the media for almost 2 years...and yet, I can't really say that I know the guy.

I mean, I know his "story" about being the son of a "single parent", but we all know that most of that is pablum to be fed to lower income people...to make them think that he's one of them. But he's not...obviously he's an upper middle class guy born of academic parents.

But after all is said and done -- he seems ever more like a stranger...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll

@38
1)Why are you still here?

2)Your logic about knowing the candidate has no bearing on anything and is, in essence, illogical. The fact that you know someone after one week says more about how much you want to gravitate towards someone than how much pull their biography has. Palin's fucked-up bio is interesting, but I can't tell what she's lying about when.

35 and 38: no Hillary supporter is going to vote for someone who would force women to carry their rapist's child to term.

Not to say she isn't a crafty, hellaciously good-looking fearmonger and doesn't scare the bejeezus out of me, because she is and she does.

@38
Besides, if you were paying attention at all, you'd know that what she stands for is lying. A lot. From the earmarks to the bridge to nowhere. Since you didn't mention that, you're clearly trolling.

Oh never mind.

I love the "lower income people" thing. So, is that how Republicans think that they can trick Democrats into thinking a troll is the real deal? By talking about a lower class like some "I wasn't paying attention in history class" version of the French Revolution or something? Do they really think "liberal elites" talk like that?

I fell asleep right after her speech last night, so tell me -- did she blow McCain on stage?

Catty is not a foreign policy. Imagine our reputation in the world after W gets done and then this cunt steps in.

I saw a woman get doored on the way to work this morning (Boston, MA). I called an ambulance. I think she was mostly ok, probably a concussion or something like that because she wasn't wearing a helmet, but the fellow who opened the door into her was there along with some other people who helped her sit down on the sidewalk. I hope she's ok. I'm always really paranoid when I ride my bike about being doored, so far I've been very fortunate!!

Had an early morning meeting at work. The man speaking first opened up with "Did anyone see Sarah Palin's speech last night? I don't think the Democrats thought she would be so...uhm...snippy."

I think he was trying to praise her.

@36: If only Mr Obama WERE a radical Marxist, OR a radical Muslim, I'd respect him more, and as for "converting" people to a sexual identity, that's rather absurd. You make it sound like sexuality is a religion. I suppose, actually, for many on the left, it is.

@43 and 44: Ah, the glories of liberal political discourse. True descendents in spirit of "We have nothing to fear but fear itself" and "Ich bin ein Berliner." With a line of devolution like this underway, in another fifty years we'll spared toilet-talk like this because liberals will no longer be able to read and write.

Sarah Palin's motto ought to be, "To boldly go where no woman has gone before." Because she's going to.

Sarah Palin is every guy's psycho ex-girlfriend or wife. She's the HR manager who got promoted from secretary because they didn't have the guts to fire her. She's the bitch behind the counter at the motor vehicle office.

She's a cunt.

Okay, so me and my hubby are undecideds. We read the Stranger, NY Times, and Washington Post. We've tried to rationalize each candidate's platform to something tangible....but here's the rub. We barely make it with the current tax base. We eke out just enough to pay our bills and get groceries. Over a third of my paycheck goes to the government and that's still not enought! So on this hand, I can't support the Democrats and their tax happy spending. (and yes, i know the Republicans are just as bad) On the other side of things, I can't get over how narrow-minded the Republican side is. It's exciting to see a strong, articulate woman in politics- but God help me, I hate her. I think everyone should be able to enjoy the slave-chain of marriage (hey, if I have to so does everyone else). And I think you're naive and dangerous if you don't properly educate your children about safe sex. The moral base of the Republican party gave way in the 50's, now it's just a really bad slight-of-hand trick. So Stranger fans, give me your best advice. Which is the lesser of two evils? The tax-happy intellectual with great speeches and no experience.... or the sabre-rattling, fear-mongering war hero teaming with Joan-of-Arc? I'm open to everything.

Kim dear, I hate to be a drag, but whomever is the next president will raise taxes. There's no way he can't: We've run two wars on credit, paying mercenaries when we could have paid soldiers a real wage to do the same work. We're in debt, darling - and the time to pay the fiddler is at hand.

But, this is interesting. From the AP:

The Tax Policy Center, a think tank run jointly by the Brookings Institution and the Urban Institute, concluded that Obama's plan would increase after-tax income for middle-income taxpayers by about 5 percent by 2012, or nearly $2,200 annually. McCain's plan, which cuts taxes across all income levels, would raise after tax-income for middle-income taxpayers by 3 percent, the center concluded.

You know who she is? She's the rent-a-car woman from "Planes, Trains and Automobiles".

@49

Honestly? It's interesting to see how the Republican base has done such an effective job making it seem like they will bring with them tax cuts and the Democrats will enter poor peoples' houses and tear the paychecks from their cold, listless fingers.

Kim- that's a lie. In the last two Republican terms the only tax breaks that have gone into effect are for the top 1-2% of the country. When it comes to you and me- people who are either middle class or lower- we got to relief in terms of taxes. None. A stimulus check that didn't go nearly as far as it should have, perhaps, but not much else.

In terms of taxes for you and I? Nowhere in any research I've done tells me that the Democrats will bleed you any drier than the Republicans. When Obama talks about tax increases he's meant repealing the breaks Bush gave to the rich. In other words: increases that will NOT effect you. Or effect you minimally.

And when it comes to Republicans being "fiscally responsible" and Deomcrats being "spend-happy" . . . . this is a massive lie. When it comes to government spending both sides use about as much- they just use it for different things. Sure- the Republican administration of the past eight years hasn't exactly been doing much to fund schools, extracurricular programs or public works projects- but that's because all the money has been fueled into one of the most expensive "wars" our country has ever seen. Billions upon Billions of tax dollars get funneled into the war effort each year. If you think Republicans are any less spend-happy than Demcrats you simply have not been looking at their ledgers properly.

So really the issues you have had with the Democratic party are the exact same problems you WILL have with the Republicans. Yet the problems you listed in terms of the Republicans ARE very real (making illegal the right to choose and gay marriages, abstinence-only policies, religion being further pushed into politics, warmongering) and they are NOT commonly shared by both parties.

So the choice is this: vote Democratic and get only 50% of the bad . . . or Republican and receive 100% of the bad.

Your choice.

"You can follow the action, which gets you good pictures. You can follow your instincts, which'll probably get you in trouble. Or, you can follow the money, which nine times out of ten will get you closer to the truth."

I should have posted this before. Both my husband and I served in Iraq since the beginning. I was serving before the WTC attacks and continued to serve after for many years. I didn't leave the military because of any disagreement over the war or because I hate Republicans. I believe that what I did and what I was part of was a good thing. I hate that the public was deceived as to why we were going in- but make no mistake, we did a good thing.

And I do object to the idea that taxes have to be raised. That is akin to a kid saying he HAS to have a bigger allowance. You make do with what you have first, then ask people for more. I have no problem with taxes being raised to account for changes in inflation/currency fluctuations/necessary programs. My issue with both parties is that neither has shown themselves even open to the idea of budgetary discretion. Dems don't want to let go of the useless crap they're funding now, and Reps are mired in ridiculous pork-barrel and good-ole-boy politics. I want proof that one of these two candidates is going to buck the trend....open to all evidence.

Kim, I hope by "useless crap" you don't mean things like Social Security, the EPA, the NSF, the FHWA, or welfare and food stamps.

Anyone remember the last great vice presidential speech?

Yeah, exactly.

This won't matter in two months.

No, I mean useless crap like the NEA, Rural Electric Project, and National endowments for the Arts. And Gomez is right, these speeches won't matter in 2 months. Not a whole lot of what is happening now will matter. I guess I'm just coming to the realization that I gave nearly 10 years of my life to this country, and in the end, it really didn't matter. Bush didn't need my vote to win or lose in the last elections and I don't think it'll matter if I vote in Nov. To hell with it all.

@57,

The NEA and the National Endowment for the Arts are one and the same. Very little of the federal budget is spent on those kinds of "useless" programs. The biggest burdens we have are the military, Social Security, and Medicare. I'm guessing that, as a veteran, you don't want to see military spending or veterans' benefits cut.

Also, how much money do you make exactly? Obama's plan will cut taxes for the middle class and only raise them for people making $250,000 a year. Are you that wedded to the idea that you *might* become rich someday that you're willing to shoot yourself in the foot now?

@57,

I'll also add that the government is bankrupt. The only way to save it now is to eviscerate huge programs, like Social Security, Medicare, and the military. So, Kim, how'd you like to lose all of your veterans' benefits? Because that's the only way to save our asses without raising taxes.

May I suggest that you learn something about: 1. How the government actually works. 2. What the government actually spends money on, like war and your and your husband's benefits. Stop just listening to Republican talking points and think for yourself for once in your life.

@58

National Education Association (NEA) and the National Endowment for the Arts are not one in the same moron.

And I am thinking for myself. I was asking Stranger readers for advice, not insults. The paper's readership has (to me) seemed educated and informed and I hoped to LEARN something from others rather than slamming them down like some party-mouthpiece.

I don't want my benefits to disappear- I paid for them jackass and I earned them. And by paid, I actually spent MY money to get MY benefits.

Right now I make a little over 80K a year. My husband is unemployed and we have a small child. I do expect to be in the > 250K tax bracket in the next ten years. I work in a demanding, highly technical field with alot of growth and opportunity. So, yes, I have an expectation of making alot of money. When I say that I am worried about making ends meet with a higher tax bracket I mean just that. I was asking if anyone had reliable proof that when a politician (Dem or Rep) said they were going to alleviate the middle class tax burden that they actually did that.

I've made it pretty clear in my posts that I am not affiliated with either party. I've never listened to sound bites as fact and not once in 30 years have I let someone else think for me. There is one party element that I think is important....Obama's biggest hurdle isn't McCain or Palin. It will be people like you who condescend and insult independent voters seeking information.

@60: If you manage to find a forum offering non-insulting, non-partisan political chat with semi-anonymous users, please don't tell anyone else, as it will be immediately ruined once exposed to actual humans. Slog is full of condescension at best, and always will be. Typically Slog is only helpful or friendly when a topic is obscure enough not to attract the general populace. Registration will not fix this problem, see Metafilter political threads for proof.

To Kim Burke: I'm a veteran, and an ex-Republican. (I didn't leave the party; the party left me. Rather like Zell Miller on the other side.) I'm now an independent conservative.

It's always best, I think, to vote for the candidate/s you believe in your heart to be the best. If you don't have a strong belief--and it sounds like you don't--then you have to look at facts. Not promises, not polls, not bloviating: *facts.* What--specifically--is each candidate proposing, and how are they going to make it come about? Do they have a track record of successfully putting their programmes into action? Or do they have a track record of failure?

I don't have space to go over all four Presidential/VP candidates' records here. I'm probably one of John McCain's oldest supporters, and have unswervingly felt he ought to be on a GOP ticket since 1988, when George H. Bush was sounding him out for VP. (Mr Bush of course went with Dan Quayle.) I for one am gratified to see him at the top of the ticket, and I think he made a better VP choice than Mr. Bush Senior did. Personally I can't find any declared candidate, from the beginning of this race, that I'd rather see one heartbeat away from the Presidency than Mrs Palin. (Bring it on, folks.)

My advice: never vote for someone you don't believe in. Find a third-party candidate if you must, or write in someone. I've done those things, too. As someone involved in the effort to re-elect Dino Rossi as Governor--yes, I know--I can tell you that every vote does, indeed, count.

If the party left you, then why do you keep voting for their candidates?

@63; I don't 'keep voting' for their candidates. I've mentioned three that I support or have supported. I'm certainly no fan of Mr Bush, and would not have supported any Republican but Mr McCain in this Presidential election, and, as I've mentioned, I think he made a canny choice for a VP in Mrs Palin, rather than opting for the oft-discussed Tom Ridge (who would have added nothing to the ticket). Sen. Lieberman's was also mooted, but he would not have accepted the position if offered--he has said that often and publicly.

While I'm not going to lay my entire voting record out here, I will tell you that I've also voted for Democrats as well as many independents, by which I mean anyone but a D or an R. I vote for any candidate--of any party--whom I like the best, for whatever reasons I adduce for liking them. (I happen to like Mrs. Clinton by the way.)

As a rule I don't discuss Democrats I support in this forum because there are enough Democrat supporters here already. I have discussed Democrats I've supported in other forums.