I think that with the exception of her stance on Global Warming, which McCain shares and really OBiden won’t be better on, I don’t think there isn’t anything I’ve read that I don’t like about her.

Palin is now being attacked by the Obama camp for being the mayor of a small town with zero foreign policy experience.

Because Obama just hasn’t insulted small towns enough yet.

For many years I’ve been saying there will not be a first Black or first Woman President without there being a first Black or Woman Vice President. Even then it will be a Conservative. The dirty secret is Americans don’t really like change. However, they do like progress and that’s what conservatism is really about. Moving forward by making good and responsible decisions. If it’s a good decision to send her to the White House (ok the Vice President’s mansion, but you get my point) send her on in.

Let’s hope she can stay that way, and McCain will learn that it’s OK to be a real conservative.

... I’m not so on board with the women will flock to her theory. Sure, some will vote woman no matter what. Just like some people vote pro-life regardless of what else the candidate believes in. But a great many Democrats are more interested in getting a Democrat President than a Woman President.

As an aside, I read somewhere about Palin debating Biden as all VP candidates do.

Now this isn’t a statement about this election in particular. I would really like to see the candidates debate each others running mate. After all, the VP is always just one heartbeat away from being president and I would like to know the candidate I would vote for has himself made a good decision.

Jim, you actually seem really pumped about this. Out of curiosity, has this changed your mind about voting in this election, or are you still sitting out until they give you a candidate to vote for rather than just against the other guy?

Jim, you actually seem really pumped about this. Out of curiosity, has this changed your mind about voting in this election, or are you still sitting out until they give you a candidate to vote for rather than just against the other guy?

I am excited by the choice of Palin.  She seems to be the kind of pork-busting, incorruptable politician you want.  although no one is incorruptable. :)

She’s got *some* social conservative stuff, but she’s also pretty libertarian in her attitudes.  She’s fiscally a mega-conservative in a lot of ways.  I really think I can vote *for* her, even though she’s not the top of the ticket.  McCain is, as the media likes to remind us, old as shit.  He ain’t gonna make it through a second term.  My support of this ticket is more of a long-term attempt to steer the ship Palin’s way.

Plus I really want to see how Hillary would campaign against a woman in 2012.  Half her arsenal would be out the window.

You will completely disagree with this blog, but I’d be interested in seeing you comment on it: http://michaelianblack.typepad.com/blog/2008/08/what.html

I have to admit, it’s a surprising choice, and I’m not convinced she’s anywhere near ready to run the country. I don’t think she’s sophisticated enough to come up with fiscal or international issues.

That being said, I do like her voting record with regard to libertarian issues. I still have a lot of research to do before making my decision.

no foreign experience, BHO had to make a grand tour of the middle east to qualify in that area.  She has the most excutive experience of the 4 running, if she has any inexperience she is in the second chair and would gain what she needed there.  the governor is a microcosm of the presidentency and she was a governor long enought to make some serious changes in Alaska.

I’m a bit wary of her social conservatism. There was a point where she was calling for creationism to be taught in schools. Red flag right there. Still, much of her existing record is fairly impressive. I think it’s hilarious that the Obama camp is blasting her for little experience. Guys, she’s not running as the president, so her lesser experience isn’t as big a deal as, say, your candidate.

Except for the fact that McCain is super old and could drop dead at any time.

Except for the fact that McCain is super old and could drop dead at any time.

So the solution is to immediately elect someone less qualified to President.

was a point where she was calling for creationism to be taught in schools. Red flag right there

“[url=http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/31088_Sarah_Palin_and_Creationism/comments/]I don’t think there should be a prohibition against debate if it comes up in class. It doesn’t have to be part of the curriculum.”

She added that, if elected, she would not push the state Board of Education to add such creation-based alternatives to the state’s required curriculum[/url].

Ah the comment messed up.  Anyways there’s some more on that link.  Basically she’s not opposed to it being mentioned if its asked, and views on evolution or creationism weren’t going to be criteria for the State Board of education.

Thanks for the clarification. That is comforting and I’ll be sure to spread the correction.

Creationist stuff aside, there’s a lot more that puts me off about her.

The left has been throwing a lot of mud, seeing what sticks. Thing is, a lot of it IS sticking.

Leaving the town she ran $20 million in debt.

Pretty extreme views on abortion.

There’s a video out there of her saying the military must be used to carry out God’s will. That’s… well that’s just fucking horrifying to be honest.

I don’t give a shit if her daughter is teen-pregnant. That’s garbage. But thus far I’m not very impressed with some of the things I’ve been hearing.

Leaving the town she ran $20 million in debt.

Now, I don’t actually follow this myself, so I don’t really know and maybe you can clarify it for me, but is it typical for a city to not be in debt at any given time? It’s just my general impression from many things that I’ve heard that any given city government is running a fairly sizable debt at any given time, due to having created their budget with certain almost impossible to collect taxes getting collected in mind, among other things.

I mean, in a day and age where we’ve got city governments just plain shutting down due to lack of funding, coming out of an administration only $20 mil in debt doesn’t seem that bad, to me. (Hell, in plenty of large cities, the school system alone is in that much debt, to hear them talk.)

There’s a video out there of her saying the military must be used to carry out God’s will. That’s… well that’s just fucking horrifying to be honest.

What is God’s will?  Do you know what she thinks it is?  Is it really as horrifying as you think? 

Here’s a few things I believe would be God’s will:

Protect the innocent.  Liberate the enslaved.  Provide aid to victims.

What does the military do?  Defend the civilian population.  Free nations from tyranny.  Utilize their logistics to provide humanitarian aid to disaster relief.

Yeah man I got to tell you, that’s just FUCKING scary.  Wanting to do good in the world.  Terrifying I tell ya.

The horrifying part about her claiming to carry out “God’s Will” is the fact that she’s a) claiming her “god” is superior to other people’s “gods”, b) justifying our military presence in a foreign country by reasoning that an intangible force, (most likely) a mythical human creation that doesn’t exist is willing us to do something, and c)the fact that she bases “facts” on feelings and intuitions of what she thinks “god” is telling her to do, much like our current president.

While, theoretically, questioning just what someone would mean by such a statement is valid, I’m calling bullshit on you personally, chipjet. I think your own argument boils down to “Agh, godfags with military power! My hardcore X-TREEEEME atheist bunghole burns with the thought!”

Hahaha… well-worded, Rann.

However, the fact that the vast majority of wars/casualties/imperialistic regimes have occurred because of some sort of “higher calling” makes me extremely apprehensive to support anyone of our nation’s leaders justifying killing people overseas (or anywhere) because it is what “god” wants.

Perhaps we want to remain in control of oil or overthrow dictators that are oppressing their people, but at least don’t support the loss of our soldiers, the use of billions of dollars of our tax dollars, and the killing of innocent people overseas because some invisible force told us to. That is crazy.

I’m not Richard Dawkins-esque either. I have no problem with others being religious if it gives them hope, but justifying wars in the name of god as unforgivable to me. That is the kind of consolidation of church and state that makes me shudder.

But yes, my atheist bunghole feels like it got sodomized by the Chrysler Building.

she’s a) claiming her “god” is superior to other people’s “gods”,

Yes how dare she hold the belief that her God is superior to other people’s God.  God that is a retarded statement.  That’s like getting upset that the pope believes Roman Catholicism is the correct religion.  Or a Rabbi thinking that Judaism is correct.  You know if I didn’t think my God was “superior” or the right one I might be worshipping a cow.

Here’s what I’m going to do. I’m going to go throw a screaming hissy-fit about how dare you think your opinion is superior to mine.  You should follow my opinion and not yours.  Its horrifying that you think you are right instead of thinking I am right when we disagree.  That is what you are doing in your post.

However, the fact that the vast majority of wars/casualties/imperialistic regimes have occurred because of some sort of “higher calling” makes me extremely apprehensive to support anyone of our nation’s leaders justifying killing people overseas (or anywhere) because it is what “god” wants.

And when they haven’t been they’ve been just oh so peaceful.  Let’s see, there’s Stalin, Ho Chi Minh, Mao, Pol Pot.

You’re such a pathetic small-minded little slug it would be almost cute if you weren’t so bloated full of bile against people who actually have belief in something.

Did you even read my post? Nice insults, by the way. It’s weird because, before you insulted me, I had no idea how I actually portrayed myself to others, and now I know. So, thanks for clearing that up for me. You’ve been quite helpful.

In my post, I made it clear that I don’t have disdain for people that have “belief in something”.

It’s not horrifying that we disagree. Horrifying is when people don’t respect others’ viewpoints because they’re so closed (read: small)-minded that they think that there can not be any other possible solution or compromise other than their own.

I’m not saying that, nor am I saying that ALL wars have been religiously based, just the vast majority.

People should disagree on stuff! We just have to respect other’s beliefs and try to see where other people are coming from. It’s a very small-minded viewpoint to think that you are right about everything all the time.

It’s great to have beliefs about something, but there are so many unknowns that we have yet to see or experience in the world, we have to keep an open mind to be able to see other’s views. We all come from completely different backgrounds and your viewpoint is a direct result of the environment you were raised in. If you were born in a Muslim country, you would be Muslim… NOT Christian. People can’t help where they’re born, how they were brought up, or the socioeconomic status of their parents. If there are so many different situations in the world to be born into, why do people automatically assume that the specific one they were born into is the “right” one? That, to me, is an extremely small-minded viewpoint.

Because we can’t be sure about who’s society is right, we must respect all cultures as equal. That is why the founding father wrote in provisions into the Constitution for a separation of church and state. To effectively lead a melting pot such as ours, claiming to use military force to carry out “god’s” will is a severely misguided way to get a country to rally behind the cause. All it will do is cause further segmentation between religions and alienate people that don’t believe the way the politicians running our country do.

I don’t think the majority of the country has a problem with a war that has a just cause, but if we have not been given a thorough explanation other than “we are carrying out God’s will”, then people will justifiably be upset with the government and its politicians.

Might doesn’t make right when you’re wrong.

I know you’ll probably just throw out more personal insults instead of having an intelligent conversation, but I guess that’s just the difference between me and you. I relish hearing different viewpoints and coming up with a more informed opinion, and you prefer to discuss how right you are with people brought up in your little box of “what’s right” and attack people that think outside of your box. Maybe we have different definitions of “small-minded”.

In my post, I made it clear that I don’t have disdain for people that have “belief in something”.

No you just think its horrifying that they have those beliefs.  I’ll congratulate you on being a successful graduate of the “I don’t hate you but your entire faith and 75% of what has made you the person you are is completely despicable” class.

It’s not horrifying that we disagree. Horrifying is when people don’t respect others’ viewpoints because they’re so closed (read: small)-minded that they think that there can not be any other possible solution or compromise other than their own.

I thought it was horrifying when we thought our view was superior to other views.  Now its horrifying when we don’t respect other viewpoints.  Nice little shift of the goal posts there.  I can respect your viewpoint and still think mine is superior.

People can’t help where they’re born, how they were brought up, or the socioeconomic status of their parents. If there are so many different situations in the world to be born into, why do people automatically assume that the specific one they were born into is the “right” one? That, to me, is an extremely small-minded viewpoint.

Awfully small of you to assume that people believe the culture they are born into is the right one.  In fact its pretty insulting to their intelligence that you believe they haven’t taken the time to look at others.  No they just automatically assumed it, without any thought.  Unlike you oh enlightened one above all others.  You alone have not made this assumption.  Apparently you are the only person in history to have looked around and not accepted things around them as 100% correct.

Because we can’t be sure about who’s society is right, we must respect all cultures as equal.

Oh bull fucking shit.  That right there is completely retarded.  My culture is not equal to others.  It is better.  And there is a simple reason that Western culture is better.  You cannot simultaneously believe in the equality of cultures if you believe in the equality of man.  My culture holds as a truth that all men are created equal.  Other cultures do not share this view.  Women are subjugated.  People of different ethnicities are treated as second class citizens in other cultures.  I do not see this as equal and do not for one second hold any thought that I should have to accept these cultures as equal to my own.

That is why the founding father wrote in provisions into the Constitution for a separation of church and state.

No they didn’t.  They wrote in an amendment preventing the establishment of religion, and allowing for the free exercise of religion.  What you want is for people to not use views and ideas that they have come to partly because of their religious upbringing to be unable to implement these views and ideas because they think they have come about from God.

All it will do is cause further segmentation between religions and alienate people that don’t believe the way the politicians running our country do.

That’s why you vote for the people you believe to believe the same or similar to you and hope they win.

I don’t think the majority of the country has a problem with a war that has a just cause, but if we have not been given a thorough explanation other than “we are carrying out God’s will”,

Show me where the authorization of military force in Iraq that Congress passed mentions God.  Show me that the only justification the administration used is that “God wants us to invade Iraq.” And while you’re at that:

the killing of innocent people overseas because some invisible force told us to. That is crazy.

Show me where anyone has advocated the killing of innocent people, let alone that its because God said so.  Then tell me how calling people crazy isn’t an insult.  Along with how implying that they want to shed the blood of the innocent is not insulting.

Might doesn’t make right when you’re wrong

And you are so full of moral equivalence you can’t even accept something being right ever.

I know you’ll probably just throw out more personal insults instead of having an intelligent conversation, but I guess that’s just the difference between me and you.

Just because I’m willing to admit that I think you’re a pathetic piece of slime doesn’t mean I’m not against an intelligent conversation.  But don’t go claiming you’re not being insulting just because you don’t call names.  Tell us how calling people crazy isn’t insulting.  Tell us how accusing people of killing innocents because of belief in God isn’t insulting.  Also tell me how you’re not insulting me by implying I don’t want an intelligent conversation.

I relish hearing different viewpoints and coming up with a more informed opinion,

Tell me how its not insulting to imply that I haven’t heard different viewpoint.  And how its not insulting to believe that your opinion is more informed than mine.

BTW you’re being insulting to Christians by not capitalizing God.  You know since you’re all about not being insulting to people.  To type it out as “god” is really disrespectful and will be seen as an insult and denigrating their beliefs.  And you just would never ever do that would you?

Holy fuck, I’ve been missing out on a great debate that quickly degenerated into flinging crap at each-other…

Personally, I don’t agree with McCain or Palin on about 95% of their policies, but I recognize their right to fight for them. It doesn’t mean I have to vote for them (I’m not BTW). I think that it’s a weak and transparent attempt to woo Hillary voters and wont work on more than about 10% (the polls are speaking there, not me talking out my ass).

As for this other side conversation about religion and politics and who’s being fucked in the ass by what.... GAH! Both of you, just chill. Reading through all of it, I agree with a few, very select, points from both of you.

BTW you’re being insulting to Christians by not capitalizing God.

Umm.... Why? Seriously, do you capitalize everyone else’s deity? Or just yours because “God” (I capitalized it just for you) deserves everyone in the world’s respect? What’s the big deal?

I think that it’s a weak and transparent attempt to woo Hillary voters

I for one think its really funny that people assume that is what McCain attempted to do.  Funny but I think that if Obama had taken Hillary as his running mate no one would have been calling it a weak and transparent attempt to woo her voters.  If McCain chose Huckabee, would people only accuse him of attempting to secure the southern evangelical crowd?  Here’s the other question is that a bad thing to choose a woman in an effort to appeal to female voters?  Isn’t almost the choice of a candidate an attempt to appeal one demographic or the other?  Personally I don’t think Palin was chosen to appeal to Hillary voters, I think she was chosen to appeal to the conservative base more than moderates.  McCain is the moderate, he’s the one with the appeal to them already.

Umm.... Why? Seriously, do you capitalize everyone else’s deity? Or just yours because “God” (I capitalized it just for you) deserves everyone in the world’s respect? What’s the big deal?

Well I’m not the one talking about always being respectful or concern about whether or not I’m being insulting.  But if I were to talk about Allah, then yeah I would likely be capitalizing.  When I speak about the Greek gods I do capitalize the names.  Vishnu would also get capitalization.  As for the big deal, I don’t know ask chipjet, he’s the one with the intelligence and informed opinion to be worried about coming off as insulting.  I’m merely helping to not be such a smug insulting ass that he is.  For me personally smug insulting ass can be quite fun sometimes.

Here’s the other question is that a bad thing to choose a woman in an effort to appeal to female voters?

It’s not a bad thing to choose a woman, but there are a plethora of more conservative and more qualified women that he could’ve chosen.

But if I were to talk about Allah, then yeah I would likely be capitalizing.  When I speak about the Greek gods I do capitalize the names.  Vishnu would also get capitalization.

Alright, I can respect that. Just making sure you weren’t one of those hypocrites. I tend to automatically be on the defensive when religion is brought up online, as I’m not part of any of the “mainstream” religious groups.

It’s not a bad thing to choose a woman, but there are a plethora of more conservative and more qualified women that he could’ve chosen.

Are you sure?  Does McCain need someone that is more conservative than Palin.  Do you consider her to not be qualified?  Do these mysterious more conservative more qualified women you speak of have Palins record of fighting corruption?  Have they won a primary against a sitting governor and then won an election against a former governor?  Do they have the record of being reformer like Palin?  Do they have the same charisma and charm as Palin?  Can they appeal to as many people as she is seeming to do?  Can they make the entire left of the blogosphere have a collective conniption fit?

Did you watch her speech at the convention before deciding if she was less qualified and less conservative than these others?

JimK,

Congrats on the Chuck Norris Award. :)

I thought it was a great speech.  At least now this thing is a race.

Are you sure?  Does McCain need someone that is more conservative than Palin.

You’re the one who said that in the first place… see:

I think she was chosen to appeal to the conservative base more than moderates.

And yes, here’s a list of more qualified conservative women that would’ve been a better choice if he needed to choose a woman: Jean Schmidt, Olene Walker, Susan Collins, Elizabeth Dole, Kay Bailey Hutchison, and Kay Granger. That’s just a few.

Did you watch her speech at the convention before deciding if she was less qualified and less conservative than these others?

Yes, of course I did. It’s a weakness of mine, I’m a political/news junkie. I watched all of the DNC and all of the RNC thus far.

{Just to clarify, I’m most definitely non-partisan. I don’t like either party as a rule.}

You’re the one who said that in the first place… see:

I said she was chosen to appeal to conservatives more than to appeal to moderates.  I did not say she needed to be more conservatives.  If I had said someone was picked to appeal to religious voters, it doesn’t mean I think a more religious person than the one picked would be better.  If Rudy was picked in an effort to appeal to Catholics that doesn’t mean a better pick than Rudy would be to choose a a priest.  Get my point?

And yes, here’s a list of more qualified conservative women that would’ve been a better choice if he needed to choose a woman: Jean Schmidt, Olene Walker, Susan Collins, Elizabeth Dole, Kay Bailey Hutchison, and Kay Granger. That’s just a few.

And what qualifies them?  I’ll point out one I see and have heard talked about.  Hutchison.  She’s a legislature.  Palin is an executive. Which would be the better qualified for an executive position? Qualifications ain’t always about the miles you’ve driven, its about the roads you’ve followed.

Get my point?

Got it.

Hutchison.  She’s a legislature.  Palin is an executive. Which would be the better qualified for an executive position? Qualifications ain’t always about the miles you’ve driven, its about the roads you’ve followed.

Then how about Olene Walker? She was in Utah state legislature for 8 years, then was elected governor of Utah in 2003. She has experience in both sides, legislative AND executive. The only drawback for her is her age, she’s older than McCain at 77, but she hasn’t had any health issues to date.

Then how about Olene Walker? She was in Utah state legislature for 8 years, then was elected governor of Utah in 2003. She has experience in both sides, legislative AND executive. The only drawback for her is her age, she’s older than McCain at 77, but she hasn’t had any health issues to date.

So she has been a governor longer than Palin (miles).  What does her record hold though?  Has she worked towards reform?  Has she bucked the party establishment?  Where would she be more conservative than Palin?  Does she have the same experience in dealing with Energy Policy that Palin has?  Taking on oil companies and working a more favorable deal for the citizens?  Here’s a question, what’s her approval rating been for her time in office?  Yeah she may be more qualified to be a vice president but does she have the qualifications that mccain was looking for?  Or would she have really been looked as nothing more than a token appeal to women?  Does she have that charisma Palin does?  I saw the governor of Hawaii speak, and while it was a good speech it lacked a punch to it.  And her motions during it didn’t add to the speech.  So she might be someone you could look at and declare her to be qualified in equal to Palin for the VP spot.  But you can compare the speeches and realize that numbers on the paper don’t stack up in reality.

I won’t dispute the fact that Gov. Palin is very charismatic, but I still see no proof that she’s qualified to take a leading role in our country. Might I ask what you’re talking about with her “taking on oil companies”? I haven’t researched it too extensively, but from what I have read, she’s never really “stood up” to big oil companies.

Its mentioned a few times here in AoS.  She basically put a “tax” on the oil companies.  Also she’s pulled the drilling licenses for the oil companies in areas they aren’t using.

but I still see no proof that she’s qualified to take a leading role in our country

Over 35.  Natural Born citizen of the United States.  Anything else missing?

Its mentioned a few times here in AoS.  She basically put a “tax” on the oil companies.  Also she’s pulled the drilling licenses for the oil companies in areas they aren’t using.

So it sound like she’s done some good things, but so have many others. I hadn’t heard about the pulling of licenses. I must admit, that made me smile a little.

Over 35.  Natural Born citizen of the United States.  Anything else missing?

Oh, Touché… I really left myself open for that one, didn’t I… But I’m still not convinced enough to switch my vote. Mostly because I oppose most of the things McCain/Palin stand for.

Oh, Touché… I really left myself open for that one, didn’t I… But I’m still not convinced enough to switch my vote. Mostly because I oppose most of the things McCain/Palin stand for.

Not trying to persuade you otherwise.  Not my job to convince you otherwise.

And I thank you for that. Most people can’t hold a real intellectual discussion online without having an agenda.

Hmmmm. Is it possible that the concern about Palin believing “We’re on a mission from God,” is all based on AP playing the Michael Moore game?

HuffPo quotes her, accurately:

“Pray for our military men and women who are striving to do what is right. Also, for this country, that our leaders, our national leaders, are sending [U.S. soldiers] out on a task that is from God,” she exhorted the congregants. “That’s what we have to make sure that we’re praying for, that there is a plan and that that plan is God’s plan.”

Here’s what the AP turns it into:

Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin told ministry students at her former church that the United States sent troops to fight in the Iraq war on a “task that is from God.”…

“Our national leaders are sending them out on a task that is from God,” she said. “That’s what we have to make sure that we’re praying for, that there is a plan and that plan is God’s plan.”

Apparently the youtube video of this has been made to leave off the beginning as well.

In the bible it states that god gave us all free will.  Now Palin wants to take that away from women, she believes that abortion isn’t a choice for raped or incest victims. How is taking away god’s will to let us have freedom of choice’s her right?  I was a supporter of McCain but he’s old and may not make it for four years, I can no longer support him because of Palin going against God will, she has turned me into a Obama supporter, because she maybe president in the near future God forbid!

In the bible it states that god gave us all free will.  Now Palin wants to take that away from women, she believes that abortion isn’t a choice for raped or incest victims. How is taking away god’s will to let us have freedom of choice’s her right?

God also told us to follow his commandments.  And one of those is Don’t Murder.  And abortion is taking away the life of a child.  And you can spare your claim of being concerned about rape or incest victims, because I think its pretty obvious you wouldn’t be in support of Palin no matter her view on abortion for rape and incest.

And if you’re so concerned about the will of God is Obama that much better?  You know since he wants to let babies that survive an abortion thrown in the closet to die.

You know since he wants to let babies that survive an abortion thrown in the closet to die.

Lie.

Lie.

A bit of hyperbole.  The practice in chicago seems to be to put aborted babies, still alive, in a room so the doctor doesn’t need to be concerned about it dying.  Obama was opposed to the Born Alive act that would have required doctors to try to save the lives of the aborted babies.  Obama likes to claim that the reason he opposed it is because it lacked language which would protect Roe vs. Wade like the federal act which passed the senate 100-0.  The thing is, Obama was on the committee that put this language into the Illinois act, and then he still went and voted against it.  They didn’t get the act through until after Obama had left for D.C.

There is far more to the choice of Sarah Palin for VP than anyone seems to be saying.

Sure she’s a female, and to a very few voters that may matter.

But:

Her beliefs are more conservative than McCain’s.

She is an outsider. People want that. They know you can’t change Washington if you owe the establishment.

I think McCain pulled a brilliant move. First take public money for the campaign. It starts a disconnect with special interest groups. Then, find an outsider with broad appeal to the sector of your constituency you haven’t quite won over, throwing a curve-ball at the Dem. side that they still still don’t fully understand. Throw in a little, “now lets see who REALLY means they want change.” Last, send her on a GOP fund-raising blitz.

No one has attempted to touch on the Gen X aspect. She’s the first early GenXer to be part of any ticket, don’t discount the importance of this. We are in a critical time when baby boomers are retiring and sucking SS dry. The money will NOT be there. Something has to be done, Now.

For people my age (I’m two years younger than her) these things are important. This will be the first year we can vote for one of US.

I’m just waiting for Biden’s reason to drop out and Hillary riding in on the Pink Unicorn. They just don’t get it. There is way more to it than Palin being a woman.