We have had crippled Presidents (Roosevelt), Presidents that suffered from clinical depression and had that to be drug out of their beds by their aides some mornings (Johnston), Presidents that suffered from various other maladies that occasionally interfered with their duties (Kennedy, Eisenhower, Bush, etc.)

The point is that President (and VP) are a human, and subject to human maladies, and to eliminate all women of child-bearing age because they might become pregnant in office was offensive, IMO.

Before anyone becomes VP or P, they must understand what the job requires and the sacrifices they may need to make to run this country, particularly a country in two wars and negotiating with other countries threatening actions which may cause our country harm. Other countries are not going to wait for the president or vp of the US to handle their own personal issues or problems before invading their enemies or take some action (not necessarily military) against the US.

The Founding Fathers required presidential candidates to be at least a certain age, because FFs value someone with life experience and also in a position to serve the country as commander in chief, which does require maturity and sacrifice.

I think all parents (man or woman) should be able to take time off from work, even if that person is the CEO of the world's largest company, to raise a family. Running a country with enemies that might strike in one way or another is very different than running a company.

By the way, I did not bring up “that time of month”. My general view of that is that everyone, men and women, have good days and bad days and we deal with them. This isn't a perfect world and no one is happy all the time. Hopefully we all know how to deal with people (and ourselves) in a bad mood.

I mean, you can't put women of childbearing age in any position of extreme authority or responsibility (draw the line where you want), because they might become preggers! And with modern medical advances being what they are, that age is getting pushed back and back.

Oh, and what if she has to make a critical decision when it is “that time of the month”? You know how bitchy and irrational women can be then.

They really should just stay home, barefoot and (potentially) pregnant. Can't take any chances, as you point out.

Thompson would have been the better of the two, someone who would address the problems McCain has in being often an anti-GOP or anti-conservative politician when it suits him, though the question has always been with such actions how much was on ideology or principle, and how much was just attention-seeking.

The choice of Lieberman naturally befits and is most compatible with McCain currently, and it might appeal to many additional swing voters (one can't expect a lot from Hillary Clinton voters), but would have destroyed any appeal to conservative voters and many non-liberals. It would have been the ultimate Dem Lite (truly becoming Dem) offering by “the GOP” this year for the White House and I believe that ticket would be slaughtered by the (real) Dem ticket this November.

The other choice some people suspected that was “heavy” would have been Huckabee, to directly address Religious Righties. The problem is that they are far from the only constituent of the GOP-leaning electorate and many would have been put off by such a choice.

It just goes to show, that when confronted with the honesty and character from outside the beltway, political reporters are as lot as a camel in the artic. circle. THis is so refreashing, God I hope this woman goes to Washington.

Palin was picked primarily because Hillary, the media and the pollsters showed McCain that this is not an “experience” election – it’s a “change” battle.

The bar has been lowered on the qualifications for president, just as they were when Clinton was elected. Prior to ’92, who would have thought that someone without basic military experience and a draft dodger to boot would have been considered for the office?

Palin brings the reformer/change message along with a demographic stealing story and personality.

Neocon-try reading the actual text next time instead of having Rush do it for you. I see no sexism inherent in this piece, but since neocons are so good at spinning lies out of vapor I am not surprised.

Guilty of not being a saint? what? Just because she's a woman we have to kowtow? Umm, no. This is second in line to lead a nation of 300 million. We expect mroe from our Pres and VP, but then again Bush has dumbed it down so any PTA -hockey mom-Governor by misadventure and blind luck can jump into 1600 Penn ave and call “shotgun”.
.

Why doesnt the democratic party just change their slogan to “WOMEN SUCK!!”

The reality, of course, is that there are medical situations which are peculiar to the womb-bearing crowd

Just to be clear I'm not suggesting that she or her husband change their lifestyle

This is the most sexist, absolutely demeaning thing Ive heard in years about a woman official. I think I will have to do what others have done and no longer visit this site. It now has become clear to me there is no desire to have discourse only dissection.

Jazz you were better then this. I don't know what caused you to flip out over Palin like you have but even if she turns out to be guilty of not being a saint I still do not understand why you have jumped head first into gutter politics with the far left.

So long TMV. You have tasked me and I was not up to the task.

The reality, of course, is that there are medical situations which are peculiar to the womb-bearing crowd which are not found in men, and there really aren't any comparable conditions unique to men. (True, women can't get testicular cancer or prostrate problems, but men of age for the presidency should already be getting checked for them on a regular basis and treatment programs are pretty standard.) However, asking questions about anything unique to women is radioactive. Fair or not, there you have it. It's off the table.