I think Republicans are, for the most part. But registered Democratic voters outnumber Republicans by big margins this year, and I don't think (and the first polls don't show) that the choice will do anything much to sway moderates and independents. I think McCain had to choose between reassuring social conservatives and appealing to moderates. He made his choice, and it will certainly be interesting to see how it plays out. http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-08-30-palin-poll_N.htm It's early yet, though.

There's also this site: http://www.electoral-vote.com/ the webmaster is biased, but the polls he uses are not. It's interesting, because it has a feature you can click on to compare the way the race looks now to the Kerry/Bush race on the same day 4 years ago.

I wouldn't think she'd be too old. Do you mean would it be too juvenile for her? I don't think so--I got it for my now 5 year old, but my 7 year old thinks the characters are funny, too. I think it might be really good for improving reading speed. My 5 year old is actually getting a little frustrated with it right now (halfway through the lessons) because it's emphasizing reading speed a lot and he's having trouble catching up. But he started as pretty much a complete non-reader.

So do you think the government should do nothing if we know where bin Laden is in Pakistan and the Pakistani government refuses to act? Because I don't think you'll find anyone running for president who would say the same thing. I don't think anyone (including Obama) is suggesting it's not a complicated issue. But I'm still waiting for anyone who is criticizing him for saying he would take out Al Queda targets in Pakistan to say they would respond differently. He said very clearly if we have actionable intelligence and if Pakistan refuses to act. I don't think he would have won over any critics by saying, "look--we have to do whatever Pakistan says--they're a nuclear power!" ETA: I'm really not debating what we should or shouldn't do in Pakistan. I'm just pointing out that this is an instance where Obama was criticized for taking exactly the same position the people criticizing him have taken (see: my earlier quote from Clinton, McCain's "follow bin Laden to the gates of hell" comments)

The article you linked to doesn't say anything about him making a "gaffe" or backing off his position at all (he hasn't, so far as I know, and you've yet to point to anywhere where he has). In fact, the article shows people criticizing him for the statement and then, when pushed, repeating the exact same idea: If attacking terrorists in Pakistan is the same as attacking Pakistan, then would you say we've been at war with Afghanistan since 1998? I still haven't heard anyone (here, in the McCain campaign, the White House, or Obama's opponents in the primary) say what they would do differently. I have a hard time believing that anyone would come out publicly to say that if we found Al Queda bases in Pakistan we wouldn't attack the bases unless Pakistan told us it was okay first.

So you would agree that Sarah Palin is not ready to be president, should the need arise?

certainly: http://elections.nytimes.com/2008/president/conventions/videos/20080828_OBAMA_SPEECH.html He said he would attack the terrorist targets, not Pakistan as a nation. I don't really get the criticism of this (and no, I didn't get it even when it came from Biden or Clinton). What should the president do if we know exactly where terrorists planning attacks on the US are and the country harboring them refuses to act?

what he said was: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/01/AR2007080101233.html and it was "scripted." He was giving a speech. He's stood by the statement, and reiterated it in his speech last night.

but why do it anonymously?

yep, me too.

...actually, looking again, you're including social security in your "almost 10%" figure, too. Certainly social security is an issue that will need to be dealt with in the coming years, but it's not an income based program, nor is medicare.

Much more of it medicare than medicaid (medicare is for seniors). Do you favor eliminating medicare? How would seniors get insurance coverage then?

Although I also realize I phrased it in a snarky way. My apologies. That's why I meant to stay out.

probably. I just think it's odd that she'd even be considered in today's political climate given that there's an ongoing ethics investigation against her. I'm not saying it should or shouldn't be a factor, I'm just surprised.

Keating 5? lobbyists doing their lobbying work from the Straight Talk Express? Abramoff? He can go there if he wants to, I guess. http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/rezko_reality.html

I think she's going to have to clean up her own ethics scandal: http://www.adn.com/3127/story/478090.html before she can really push the anti-corruption angle (and Obama has a very strong history of authoring and sponsoring ethics reforms in both Illinois and the Senate). It seems strange that she'd even be considered for VP with something like this going on. It's an interesting pick, I'll give McCain that. We'll see how it goes. Reaction to it thus far seems to fall largely along partisan lines.

I see the "but how is he going to pay for it" idea repeated a lot here. It's interesting, because of course we had a big surplus under Clinton, yet we're worse off than ever in that department after 8 years of a Republican administration. I don't think Republicans will get much mileage out of painting Democrats as the fiscally irresponsible party this year. Indeed that's one of the big reasons so many mainstream Republicans are disillusioned with the party. If McCain wants to take that approach, he's really going to have to strongly disassociate himself from Bush in a way he seems so far to be unwilling to do. Obama did say in his speech last night that "every dime is accounted for" and mentioned cutting unnecessary spending and closing tax loopholes for corporations. More details, once again, are in the hundreds of pages of proposals on his website. (I'm not sure if people are looking for a power point presentation at Mile High Stadium or what). Now. Is it all going to work out just the way he says? Is he going to get into office and the next day implement a Democratic utopia? Of course not. This is how people run for president. They lay out the best case scenario. But it's simply not true that he doesn't present a plan for paying for his proposals. And, of course, ending the war in Iraq would be a pretty big money saver in and of itself.

I totally agree that McCain is not nearly as strong as Obama on carefully considered, reasoned ideas. I guess that's why his books were all ghost written and Obama's weren't. McCain has the edge in one-liners and zingers, though. Seriously, though, I get really tired of the implication that because Obama delivers speeches well, he's someone's puppet. This is a guy who's written two best selling books, was president of the Harvard Law Review, and never had a speechwriter until he started his presidential campaign. The speech at the 2004 convention that put him on the map? He wrote it himself. His speech on race a few months back? First major speech from a major party presidential candidate NOT written by a speechwriter since Nixon. I completely relate to the fact that he's better with the written word and some space alone with his thoughts than he is speaking extemporaneously. I'm the same way, and that's why if you were one of my Republican family members you'd be SHOCKED at how I go on and on about politics here ;). And I thought the speech was amazing.

A friend of mine suggested that maybe they deliberately put some little stuff on there so the younger kids would be able to get them something.

I have very mixed feelings about Wikipedia. But their entries are generally well-footnoted, so, while I don't trust something just because I read it there, I do feel like I generally have enough information to judge whether to trust it or not.

you can see their wedding registry at walmart.com. I went to look it up, purely as a gawker, and thought, "oh, I don't know the first initial!" and went off to google. And then I remembered. And felt very foolish.

ha! I posted this in the other thread before I saw this one. I am highly amused.

Check out Bush's strikingly similar 2004 set: http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0808/Bushs_2004_temple.html The lefty blogs are having a field day pointing out how the McCain campaign can't keep their Greeks and Romans straight.

We go out all the time, and I've literally NEVER had anyone ask me why the kids weren't in school. My kids are still fairly young (the oldest is 7), and we live in an area where homeschooling is very, very common, so I imagine one or both of those things factor in. I honestly don't even think about it when we go out--when I see other school-aged kids at the park or wherever, I don't even think about how they must be homeschoolers, too, unless they say something about it.