Yep, you hit it. I really liked her speech in the sense of I admired her delivery and laughed at her punch lines. So I'd give her an A. I think she's a fine public speaker. But I'm not voting for a ticket with a creationist on it. Just not going to happen.
Please remember that it is electoral votes that count, not the popular vote, which is what these polls are tracking. As we have seen, it is entirely possible to win the popular vote and lose the presidency. Basically, the vote of someone in a large undecided state (OH, MI, PA) is worth lots more than the vote of someone in a large decided state (CA, TX). Obama could win by a huge, huge margin in CA and it wouldn't change the number of electoral votes he got. Similarly, McCain could take 100% of the popular vote in Texas, and it wouldn't increase his electoral votes by a single one.
Do we have any recent polls on Palin's effect on the swing states, particularly the heavily blue-collar ones? That's what I want to see.
That sounds like they were booing Palin for bringing up Hillary's name, not booing Hillary herself. (As in "You have no right to bring up Hillary Clinton given your political stance on women's issues.")
And they're already started attacking Palin's hubby, too (for his old membership in the Secessionist party.) It won't be long before they attack him more fully -- they just need more info. And while I don't really support attacking spouses, at least they are adults and can stand up for themselves. The kids can't, so I think they should be left alone.
That's not holding Barack responsible for his kids' actions and trying to make political hay over it. Th example I cited -- where the kid said she wanted to redecorate the White House and people said "See, her Dad's so arrogant he's already promised his daughters he's going to be President!" -- is much more relevant.
Re: The photo shoot: A few -- VERY few -- people objected to the photo shoot on the grounds that it was using his kids for political gain. I don't think it gains Palin anything politically to reveal her teenage daughter's out-of-wedlock pregnancy.
The problem with that (and I can't quite tell if you were serious or snarky, so I'm going to assume serious) is that if Hillary attacks Palin too strongly she's going to come off looking hypocritical to many women voters -- "I support women's rights -- unless they're REPUBLICAN women!" That's not a winning line to take. I think in some ways it's harder for her to attack Palin than for Biden to do it, since she risks her standing among independent women, who are among the shakiest constituents for the Dems right now.
Sorry, I have to disagree. I think that Bristol's pregnancy would NOT have been announced until after she was wed if it has not been for that idiotic "Trig is Bristol's kid!" farce posted on Kos and picked up by other sources.
Think of it this way: Wouldn't the Palins rather announce the pregnancy after the girl is safely wed? Makes it much less scandalous that way. Yeah, she still had premarital sex, but at least she's not a single mother.
No one has gone after either the Obama or the Biden children. Well, there was some stupid talk about one of Obama's girls saying how much she wanted to redecorate the White House or some such, but it died a richly deserved quick death. Still, there's been nothing compared to the coverage on poor Bristol. (And don't tell me it's her mother's fault for running for office. That's like saying if something bad happens to one of Obama's kids it'll be his fault. Not true.)
I think the idea is that this is supposed to be Joe Biden's job. How come we haven't heard anything from him about Palin? (I suspect he may be saving it up for the October debate, but that's still four weeks away.)
History is littered with mediocre and outright bad Veeps. Can't you pick a couple who failed to get elected? I know it's harder, because they're just footnotes, if that, in history books, but the point is no one remembers them at all as either good OR bad, if they don't actually take office.
And so let us compare Palin to those forgotten politicos, and not to two who actually held office, okay?
Yes, that's correct, but what I was trying to say is that the 17 year old's PERSONAL chances of having a Down's baby are very small, while the chance of a 44 year old having a Down's baby are, while not huge, much more likely than for a teenaged Mom. I mean, the odds against any one young mother, like Bristol, having a Down's baby are are huge, while the odds of one older mother like Sarah having a Down's baby are much less so.
Anyway, I haven't seen anyone take Trig's disability into account when trying to evaluate the "Trig is Bristol's kid" rumor. And I think they should.