A 4-month old special needs child (Down's Syndrome)...

^^^That fact alone has me a bit concerned. I plan on researching her background, but I have a problem with that, as a mother. My child, thankfully, was born healthy, but if she had some serious issues, then I'd be hard pressed to do something as intensive and time consuming as being the Repub. VP candidate.

And I can't get over the fact that he seems to have selected her ONLY because she is a conservative, Republican woman as a way to lure HRC voters to his party. That's a slap in the face to them, IMO.

thats those good old-fashioned "family values" they've been pushing !:rolleyes: slap the kids with a nanny. only the rich think thats okay...

and ive mentioned this in a few other threads, but the "obama is a celeb" tactic has lost a lot of credibility...she was a runner-up Miss Alaska, and posed not too long ago for the cover of Vogue magazine!!! uh, celeb?

Funny thing is that she has mentioned Hillary twice in speeches and was booed both times. (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...llary-clinton/) Such a welcoming atmosphere for the Hillbots who can't bring themselves to vote for the Black guy! :rolleyes:

What does her hubby do? Is he going to stay at home with the kids?

not likely
 

i read recently he works for BP/Amoco

sidebar - can you email me please - divinediva72@comcast.net :D

end sidebar.

(Sorry for the board crash - I like following the politics discussions...)

You realize there may be reasons why they don't vote for Obama, beyond the color of his skin, right? That there may be reasonable minds within the Democratic party who have an issue with Obama's policies, etc?

I don't think she was the right choice for VP candidate, but I'm concerned that people are making assumptions on her personal life. I tend to think that the personal lives of the candidates should beyond the scope of scrutiny, unless they are engaged in something that compromises their ability to be an effective leader (i.e., are a drug user, criminal, etc.).

I hear what you're saying, but I really want to believe that people wouldn't make themselves unnecessarily suffer (4 yrs. of McCain) just so they can elect Hilary the next go round. So much can happen in 4 years. Bush's first term is a perfect example.

Yesterday, I was watching Face The Nation (missed Meet The Press) and I saw Bob Sheiffer (sp) talking to former NY Mayor Gulianni (sp). Gulianni was trying to defend McCain's choice of VP. He said that Palian is a good choice because she has had municipal experience and experience running state government. She may be a governor (there are more people in some major cities than Alaska) but running a city of less than 10,000 is different than running a city with millions of people.

I was watching NBC Nightly News last night and Brian Williams was interviewing McCain. He brought up on why he made his decision. He listed some of the things that Gulianni said, but also added that she has PTA leadership. Yes, PTA. :eek:

PTA was brought up again by Gov. Sanford (the governor of SC, where I live). He said that it was good seeing a PTA and soccer mom make this historic rise. Sanford was on the long list of VP canidates and he has been governor here six years, on top of the six years he was on in the US House.

PTA does not equal foreign policy experience. Is that the best explanation the Republicans got?

Wow PTA. Not to disparage those of you on the PTA, but that should not be used as a talking point for a VPOTUS candidate. It just shouldn't. *smh*

CNN is reporting Palin's teenage daughter is pregnant: http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/...ter/index.html

This election gets interesting by the day.

Yeah, reasons like he is a Muslim (false), he is unpatriotic (huh?), oh yeah, and he was sexist toward Hillary (prove it!). ALL FALSE! All through the primaries, the pundits, pollsters and even the candidates themselves highlighted the fact that there is little daylight between them on the issues and matters of policy.

So what else is there, oh yeah, experience....He has about the same amount of elected political experience (10 yrs) as Clinton (15), Bush Sr (12) and Reagan (8) and more than Carter(7), FRD(6) and Bush Jr (5) (source:
http://www.ipl.org/div/potus/).

Is it because he was not a POW? Uh, the last President that had real military experience was Eisenhower, I believe. So that doesn't pass muster either.


PLEASE tell me why Democrats, esp those who supported Hillary, are not voting for Obama. I really want to know.




FYI, I am not a Democrat, I am a Registered Independent.


ETA: One of the last die hard Hillbots converts! http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...083101620.html

Bush Sr. also had significant military experience. As to the other points, I understand what you're saying

Thanks for the additional information. I also appreciate that you understand what I am saying. However, I REALLY want to know the answer to my question. WHY are there some Democrats who can't bring themselves to vote for Obama?

Some may be really upset about how Hillery was treated. Imagine how the record numbered of AA, who registered to vote because of the historical possibilities of this election, would react/feel if Obama was not the nominee.

Then there are a huge number of Reagan Dems. and some of those do not agree with his policies.

Don't get me wrong he will suffer from the Bradley effect, how badly, guess we'll see in Nov.