If you don't think what I said is true, you are not in tune with what most Dems know. Most women are pro choice and like their power of freedom of choice, against abortion or not. They don't want the government telling them what they can or can't do with their bodies. They are NOT going to vote for Palin just because she is a woman, just like most blacks would NOT vote for Clarence Thomas if he was added to the Republican ticket.
I have just missed it, or is the mainstream media not covering the negative press out of Alaska about THEIR governor?
I simply don't buy that theory and find it insulting, with all due respect, to the millions of women that chose to support Hillary Clinton. It belittles the incredibly strong effort by Ms. Clinton to get the nomination. It belittles the fact that the wife of a former (and successful) President who, while an ardent Democrat that devoted decades working for the party and had no experience, herself, running for office, captured a senate seat representing the state of New York in Congress, got reelected with high approval ratings, to boot, decided to run for our highest office, and damned near pulled it off. My own opinion is that absent some early mistakes in her primary campaign, a lot of those mistakes attributed to under estimating Senator Barack Obama a lot, Clinton would be the nominee today. Heck, if the Reverend Wright kerfluffle (nods to basso for stealing one of his favorite words for a "minor conflict" - used wrongly sometimes, IMO, but I like the word. reminds me of a omelet or pancakes, for some reason, and I haven't had breakfast)) had come out early in the cycle, or Edwards' affair had come out equally early, we would be seeing the McCain campaign, disgustingly, if understandably, rather than doing everything possible to try and "steal" her supporters, as we see today, would be throwing not only the "kitchen sink" at Hillary, but 3 or 4 of those homes McCain can't keep track of. Ah, the irony! Might mention, since you may not have been reading this forum much the last few months, that while I voted for Barack in the primary and was an early supporter of him running for President, I also supported Hillary Clinton. I don't recommend attempting something similar in future (not here, anyway).
Maybe you didn't understand it well as it seems. It was not an attack on Hillary or her candidacy. It was an attack on McCain thinking the women who voted for Hillary did so only because she was a woman and not because she was qualified. That is McCain insulting women and their intelligence. He will pay for that in the polls, mark my words and watch the percentage of women that he wins verses what Bush won the last two elections. You have a lot of IFs in there. If "IF" was a "fifth", we would all be drunk based on your analysis! Stop living in the past because the democratic primary is over. Obama is the nominee and Hilllary and Bill are supporting him. I'm cool that you supported Obama and Hillary...to a degree I did as well. But that has nothing to do with the analogy of what a terrible choice that McCain has made.
you are assuming that all Hillary supporters and on the fence women are absolutely pro-choice. That's not the case. Republicans wouldn't have picked Palin if they didn't think they could get some hillary supporters and women to their side with a pro-life candidate. They did their homework and the results bear out that in fact, they will get some....even a few percent might be enough to shift the election.
That is not what I was doing at all. I was giving an opinion I thought pertinent to the point I was making. And I've seen a heck of a lot more of the past than this late primary campaign. If bringing up history, recent or otherwise, to make a point here is seen by someone as a "sin," I will gladly declare myself guilty.
Wishful thinking at it's best. Maybe you haven't read any of the polls on this thread about how women think about the pick. Maybe you didn't notice that she has the lowest VP initial approval rating since Dan Quayl? But hey, you can hope...Dan won.
I don't recall accusing you of a sin. But my question remains, what does what you said have to do with the fact that McCain made a terrible pick?
If you don't "get it," I'm not going to invest more of my time typing with my two fingers repeating my point.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/pol...sarah_palins_motherinlaw_uncertain_about.html Palin's mother-in-law: "I'm not sure what she brings to the ticket other than she's a woman and a conservative. Well, she's a better speaker than McCain." I think a lot of Alaskans (Palin, included) are still learning what to and not to say to the media. It's going to be entertaining for the next few weeks. The newspapers up there completely railed on her as a pick, apparently.
Polls amongst independent white women show that Palin is compelling. So I don't know where your data is coming from. In other news, Palin's mention of Hillary at a rally drew boos! Wonder how Hillary Supporters would feel about that? http://blogs.reuters.com/trail08/20...n-draws-boos-when-mentioning-hillary-clinton/
Those polls won't matter in a few weeks anyway....but you can review this thread if you want to know where I got the polling data. I noticed that yesterday as well that the crowd booed when she mentioned Hillary Clintons name. It appears that they have planned for her to continue to mention the 18 million glass cracks slogan on all of her stops. They better seriously reconsider that strategy or they will be energizing the Hillary voters to rally against Palin even more! Just let her keep doing it and getting boos and see what happens. Wow, amazing how dumb they think people are.
