Cazza,

Palin would make a great VP for a number of reasons.

1) She actually has some experience in executive office. Obama has none.
2) She represents faithfully the views of a very large proportion of the electorate. Rather than a minority of liberal elites.
3) She isn't bound by the PC nonsense that those on the left of politics are bound to.

Ruby,

Your suggestion that Terpstra was being sexist for having his post titled "Girl Power is Back" is simply vacuous. Its right up their with the morons who use the word womyn. The suggestion that Terpstra was metaphorically patting Palin on the head is utter nonsense. What really is instructive is the abuse, sexist abuse, from across the left and in particular by leftist women, who have singled out Palin's looks and her mothering capacity, amongst other things, in their frenzied attacks on her.

Furthermore your statement that "Palin’s views oppose Clinton’s on every single major issue, including the issue of women’s rights" is clearly not correct. Your attempts to suggest that Palin and Clintons similar views on the death penalty and gay marriage are irrelevant is clearly not true. This was a sweeping statement that you should have been more careful about.

So lets focus on Palins policies. Her conservative agenda is shared by huge numbers of Americans, they are not some kind of aberation. Furthermore, it is clear from the ongoing surge in support for Palin, that the self-serving PC agenda, and the blatant hatred of the lifestyles of rural Americans by the so called progressive has had a huge impact on the outcome.

The very idea that because Palin is a woman she should be speaking for women is as sexist as it gets. The corollary is that black men should speak for black men and so on.

There is currently a massive reaction to the rights based agenda that the left has been pushing for the last 30 years. In particular the idea that women are so badly off that they need their own policies and representaives is starting to wear thin.

Paul.L states "So lets focus on Palins [sic] policies". Please, lets. What are they in relation to the economic meltdown? What are they in relation to foreign policy? What are they in relation to health care reform? What are they in relation to energy security?

Go to Obama's website, a full view of policies (whether or not you agree, they are there). Biden has detailed policies on his website also. Palin has been thrust to the front of the campaign by the GOP, so what are her policies (in detail)?

And please put aside references to "liberal elite" etc... Just talk policy details.

A well argued defence against Terpstra's shallow and empty attack.

As pointed out by others, it's good to see the discussion focus on policy for a change. Palin will never be elected if journalists do their job properly and hold her to account and make her expand on her policy positions across the board. Her glib one-liners might get her through the usual sound bite interview but they won't hold up to proper scrutiny for very long.

Terpstra's reference to Michael Moore was totally unnecessary and unsubstantiated. If you're going to drag someone's name into an argument to make a point, you need to do a lot more than simply toss it out there and hope the reader gets on side. It's lazy and cowardly journalism. Now that he has seen fit to cast this slur, Terpstra could perhaps follow it up with a proper rebuttal of Moore's position on the forthcoming election.

And by the way, can we please put to bed once and for all that dreadful term quoted from the Women Against Sarah Palin website - 'cosmeticize'. Where the hell did that come from? And why would any self-respecting female candidate want to 'cosmeticize' anything, let alone a political campaign in which she herself was a serious contender. I know it was used in reference to Palin's relationship with the Republicans, and it probably is an apt term in that particular context, but I felt the implication was there to be drawn for female candidates more broadly, which I consider quite demeaning. People like Terpstra might think a woman's role is to 'pretty' up the campaign, but most of us aspire to something much better for our female politicians.

I just received an email from a good friend in Anchorage (Alaska's largest city). Part of what he had to say was a forward from another friend of his, which as he said seems to sum up the Palin "phenomenom". It read as follows:

^^^^^^^^^^

I'm a little confused. Let me see if I have this straight.....

* If you grow up in Hawaii, raised by your grandparents, you're "exotic, different."
* Grow up in Alaska eating mooseburgers: a quintessential American story.

* If your name is Barack you're a radical, unpatriotic Muslim.
* Name your kids Willow, Trig, and Track: you're a maverick.

* Graduate from Harvard law School and you are unstable.
* Attend 5 different small colleges before graduating: you're well grounded.

* If you spend 3 years as a brilliant community organizer, become the first black President of the Harvard Law Review, create a voter registration drive that registers 150,000 new voters, spend 12 years as a Constitutional Law professor, spend 8 years as a State Senator representing a district with over 750,000 people, become chairman of the state Senate's Health and Human Services committee, spend 4 years in the United States Senate representing a state of 13 million people while sponsoring 131 bills and serving on the Foreign Affairs, Environment and Public Works and Veteran's Affairs committees, you don't have any real leadership experience.

CONTINUED IN NEXT POST

CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS POST

* If your total resume is: local weather girl (sports caster), 4 years on the city council and 6 years as the mayor of a town with fewer than 7,000 people, 20 months as the governor of a state with 650,000 people, then you're qualified to become the country's second highest ranking executive.

* If you have been married to the same woman for 19 years while raising 2 beautiful daughters, all within Protestant churches, you're not a real Christian.
* If you cheated on your first wife with a rich heiress, and left your disfigured wife and married the heiress the next month, you're a Christian.

* If you teach responsible, age appropriate sex education, including the proper use of birth control, you are eroding the fiber of society.
* If while governor, you staunchly advocate abstinence only, with no other option in sex education in your state's school system while your unwed teen daughter ends up pregnant, you're very responsible.

* If your wife is a Harvard graduate lawyer who gave up a position in a prestigious law firm to work for the betterment of her inner city community, then gave that up to raise a family, your family's values don't represent America's.
* If you're husband is nicknamed "First Dude", with at least one DUI conviction and no college education, who didn't register to vote until age 25 and once was a member of a group that advocated the secession of Alaska from the USA, your family is extremely admirable.

OK, much clearer now.

^^^^^^^^^^

Thank you Paul for at least trying. However, I fear you've mostly reinforced my point.

"1) She actually has some experience in executive office. Obama has none."
True - but if executive experience is such an important requirement, surely picking someone with only a year or so experience of governing a tiny state is hardly the best option.

"2) She represents faithfully the views of a very large proportion of the electorate. Rather than a minority of liberal elites."
Presumably you are talking about issues such as guns, religion, homosexuality and abortion. Even if we accept your view that these are held by a 'very large proportion' of the electorate, we have already seen in George W Bush that this is hardly a good indication of effective executive power. And none of these issues are particularly important when it comes to the economy, health care, foreign policy or defence.

"3) She isn't bound by the PC nonsense that those on the left of politics are bound to."
Now you've simply reverted to attacking the opposition again