Gwen Ifill should not moderate the debate

Gwem Ifill wrote a book called "The Breakthrough: Politics and Race in the Age of Obama," and now we are stretched to believe that Ifill will be an unbiased moderator at the VP debate.

Liberals are crying 'Of course, you right wing wingnut, she's unbiased! Get over it!'

OK, so if there is a second debate, let's have Kaylene Johnson moderate, author of "Sarah: How a Hockey Mom Turned Alaska’s Political Establishment Upside Down". I am sure Johnson would be equally as un-biased as Ifill.

Right?

Obama coming apart

You'd think that with the most hated Republican, who has the lowest poll numbers of any president Democrat or Republican, ever, that the Democrat ticket for President would be a lock. That is what the Dems thought, "It's a lock!"

Then why on earth do the following polls have McCain ahead (except Newsweek shows a tie). Could this be? Yes. Nine major polls can't be wrong.

Gallup Tracking
Rasmussen Tracking
Hotline/FD Tracking
Newsweek
FOX News
Associated Press/GfK
ABC News/Wash Post
USA Today/Gallup
CBS News

Here are some opinion analysts who have some ideas as to why McCain/Palin are resonating with Americans: Obama was a flash in the pan? Euphoria superseded facts? Obama is a Muslim? Palin and McCain are the real deal? The Atlanta Journal Constitution, Washington Post, and Reuters are a few of the recent opinions to try and figure out why Obama is deflating like a balloon. Click headline for the full story.

Panic sets in for Obama, Democrats
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution

Barack Obama knows it. The election he had in the bag is slipping away.

The selection of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin as John McCain’s running mate has so thrown him off stride, as it has most other Democrats, that all the momentum he had has vanished. He’s getting panicky advice from everywhere. He intends to launch more and sharper attacks, abandoning any pretense of a new and different, more civil campaign. Democrats know something, and desperation is setting in.

----------------------------------

Palin steals Obama's fading spotlight

Washington Post

WASHINGTON — The Democrats are in a panic. In a presidential race that is impossible to lose, they are behind. Obama devotees are frantically giving advice. Tom Friedman tells him to "start slamming down some phones." Camille Paglia suggests, "be boring!"

Meanwhile, a posse of Democratic lawyers, mainstream reporters, lefty bloggers and various other Obamaphiles are scouring the vast tundra of Alaska for something, anything, to bring down Sarah Palin: her daughter's pregnancy, her ex-brother-in-law problem, her $60 per diem, and now her religion. (CNN reports — news flash! — that she apparently has never spoken in tongues.) Not since Henry II asked if no one would rid him of his turbulent priest, have so many so urgently volunteered for duty.

----------------------------------------------
Obama tries to regain his stride
Reuters

The emergence of Palin, an anti-abortion and pro-gun conservative who electrified the party's base supporters, seemed to knock Obama off stride and propelled the Republicans into a slight lead in the November 4 election race in a flurry of national opinion polls.

-------------------------------------------
5 reasons why McCain has pulled ahead
Politico.com

John McCain's surge in the polls comes even as Barack Obama has inherited the most favorable Democratic environment since the Watergate era — an unpopular Republican president, an unpopular war and a flagging economy. Suddenly, though, Democrats have found themselves in a world turned upside down, where Republicans have the momentum

Ready to smear but not ready to lead

I really do not like that phrase "lipstick on a pig", no matter to whom it is applied. An obama misstep, and a shameful one at that.

Watch video here

The problem with feminists are...

...they don't like women. At least, the women who aren't on their clubby little approval list.

I bowed out of the feminist movement early. I thought the movement was about choice for women: opening up job opportunities for females should they choose (through personal want or dire need) to enter the workplace. But for those who wanted to enjoy the traditional role of mother or wife, her choice would be honored as well.

I discovered that was not the case, much to my dismay. Feminists derided women who still chose to work in traditional positions. I was and am one of those women who enjoy serving in the traditional role. When I was teaching elementary school I also chose to stay at home in the summers and be a wife. If I had had children, I would have stayed home to rear them. Those choices are not kosher to the militant 'break the glass ceiling' kind of feminists who think that any sentence with the word 'serve' in it means the person who uttered it is a moron.

For women like Sarah Palin, who hold traditional values (I mean biblically traditional, not secularly traditional: valuing life, staying married, rearing family personally, and loving Jesus) I am pleased to see that they are also successful in the public forum. Palin believes "that women can balance family life with ambitious careers," something I thought the feminist movement was supportive of. Of her pregnancy while being Governor, Palin had said, "To any critics who say a woman can't think and work and carry a baby at the same time," she said, "I'd just like to escort that Neanderthal back to the cave." But feminists like Steinem disavow any support for women like Palin and that is why ultimately I became disenchanted with the feminist movement.

It is too bad that the feminist movement has secret strings attached. If you sign on, you must seek a high-powered career, not one that involves staying at home. If you sign on, you must be a Democrat, not a Republican. Gloria Steinem, poster-woman for the feminist movement, said this week of Palin:

"She opposes just about every issue that women support by a majority or plurality. She believes that creationism should be taught in public schools but disbelieves global warming; she opposes gun control but supports government control of women's wombs; she opposes stem cell research but approves "abstinence-only" programs ..." So when did these positions get relegated to the second class status in Ms. Steinem's club? Who says a majority believe them? Why are Palin's positions somehow not acceptable, but Steinem's are? Finally, why do Palin's positions deserve derision from the very movement that offered women a place to promote them in the public spheres?

Steinem goes on to say "we" women owe much to "Shirley Chisholm, who first took the "white-male-only" sign off the White House." Reader, understand that Chisholm was listed and lauded by the feminists because she was a Democrat. Steinem and other feminists who deride Palin forget the accomplishments of women like Margaret Chase Smith:

"Former Senator Margaret Chase Smith, Maine's First Lady, is perhaps best known for her contribution to the well being of the United States and its people with her consistent stand for the condemnation of bigotry and injustice wherever she found it. Her stand against "McCarthyism" in the early 1950's marked her outstanding courage and devotion to conscience and justice."

"Margaret Chase Smith is the only woman elected to serve in both houses of Congress. She was first elected to the House of Representatives from the Second District of Maine in 1940. In 1948, Mrs. Smith was elected to the United States Senate by an overwhelming margin. She received the greatest total vote majority in Maine history."

"In 1954, when Senator Smith was re-elected to a second term in the Senate, she received the most votes of all candidates for all offices. In the primary that year, she set a new record for the total number of votes received in a contested primary, a great illustration to all women that gender is not an obstacle if one is willing to work hard and be honest. In 1966, the Senator repeated her record."

"Senator Smith put her name at the forefront of women's achievements that have significantly improved the lives of women when, at the Republican Convention in 1964, her name was placed in nomination for the President of the United States. This is the first time a woman had been so nominated by a major political party."

Gee. And nary a mention by Ms. Steinem. But not surprising: Chase was a Republican.

To be a feminist you have to believe only certain things, behave a certain way, subscribe to certain mores. And here I thought all that went out with the Victorian era.

Oprah Palin Obama update

OPRAH'S STATEMENT: "The item in today's Drudge Report is categorically untrue. [see below] There has been absolutely no discussion about having Sarah Palin on my show. At the beginning of this Presidential campaign when I decided that I was going to take my first public stance in support of a candidate, I made the decision not to use my show as a platform for any of the candidates. I agree that Sarah Palin would be a fantastic interview, and I would love to have her on after the campaign is over."

From Oprah's slideshow captioning past shows:

Oprah has one more question for Senator Obama. "If you ever would decide to run within the next five years…would you announce on this show?" she asks. "I don't think I could say no to you," Senator Obama says. "Oprah, you're my girl."

I dont mind if she has Palin on or doesn't have Palin on. Oprah should at least be honest about her bias though. And consistent in her stances.