What's this? A one-sided thread with a bunch of liberals agreeing with one another? How boring! Allow me to introduce some objectivity to this 9 page discourse, or at least, a little diversity.
I like Sarah Palin. Like with Obama, she's a fresh new face in politics, which is something Americans are hungry for. While her daughter appears to have made a serious error in judgment, that wasn't something Sarah did. If you're not predisposed to a Democratic bias (in which case it matters little who we're discussing), then you'd simply judge Sarah on how she deals with the situation, and I think she's dealing with it properly.
Clearly, she's not a "social elite"; They don't have "pregnant teenage daughter" issues, not because it doesn't happen but because they "deal" with them quietly. I don't think this is a net plus or a net minus, but it certainly makes her more human in the eyes of voters. What she has going for her is that she appears authentic. And that appeals to ordinary, working class folks who're sick of politics-as-usual and the hypocrisy of the political class.
Policies aside, I think you folks miss the point with Palin (or choose to ignore it). I don't believe she was selected solely because she is a woman. Sure, that must have been part of the calculation, but it's incredibly naive to think that's all that mattered to the McCain campaign. If you look into some of the analysis or just pay a little attention, there are other reasons for the selection, which collectively only she could bring to the ticket:
1) appeals to social conservatives (pro-life) and 2nd amendment advocates (pro-gun), two pillars of the Republican Party which he had credibility issues with
2) appeals to the working class (union member, challenged big oil, knowledgeable on energy issues)
3) has a track record for reform on ethics and pork barrel spending
4) brings an excitement to the McCain campaign that no other candidate would have brought
5) she actually walks the talk
6) AND she's a woman!
As for the election itself, the last thing the world needs is another under-experienced, under-qualified man in the White House (I thought Democrats had reached this conclusion with Bush), and the last thing America needs is a president that is weak - or looks weak - on foreign policy issues. Obama must have agreed given his selection of Biden, but Biden isn't the one running for President; Obama is. So the Democratic ticket is shaping up to be eerily similar to Bush-Cheney, only with a different set of priorities, and
the Freudian slips only reinforce the idea that Biden will assert himself on Obama much in the way that Cheney has on Bush. This is only natural when the ticket is too light in experience at the top and too heavy in experience at the bottom.
This is not change we can believe in.
Now, I genuinely like the guy. I think he's a decent man, something which we just don't see in politics anymore, and has a bright future ahead of him, but he has unquestionably gotten ahead of himself here. The only people really buying his line that experience doesn't matter are young, idealistic voters who simply don't understand the value of experience to begin with. If you have a problem with an inexperienced VP, you should MOST CERTAINLY take issue with an inexperienced president. The VP is just along for the ride (with only 2 constitutional responsibilities).
p.s. Veilan, that Rush Limbaugh quote in your Spiegel article has no context. I'm not a regular listener of his show, but he's never struck me as racist. He might be referring to the hyper-sensitivity of "color" and "race" in the United States, which is a cultural phenomenon you wouldn't necessarily understand, to the extent that the Democratic leadership couldn't prevent Obama's nomination for President despite recognizing his lack of credentials.
p.p.s. Mulu, I suspect you must know this already having children yourself, but Sarah wouldn't have known that her child had Down's Syndrome until at least the 4th month of her pregnancy. That's when Amniocentesis is typically performed and verifies if in fact chromosomal abnormalities exist. I also suspect that you know she's been an avid runner long before she was pregnant with this child or even knew it had Down's. She may well have run even with her other children - a lot of women do to try to remain as slim as possible during their pregnancy. So to suggest that she started running to abort a Down's Syndrome pregnancy is about the most indecent, disgusting display of partisan smearing that I've seen. Congratulations. I hope that someday, you reap what you sow. That you would be permitted to post such stuff here is an indication of what ails this community.
