The key here is that Palin makes no change in the policies promoted by John McCain. The problem with her lack of experience and expertise is not simply a quantitative measure of her years of experience -- experience as a mother, as a small town resident could be valuable in setting some perspective in the White House -- but that her lack of experience and clear positions on the issues of the day mean that she would be in no position to challenge a McCain presidency and promote debate within government.

McCain advisor Charlie Black's comments expose the real intent and position of women like Sarah Palin in a McCain administration: ""She's going to learn national security at the foot of the master for the next four years." There you have it: while pandering to women, their real position is "at the foot of the master."

There was a lot of misogyny is the main stream media and in the blogosphere around Senator Clinton's campaign. It seems to be returning with a vengeance now around Governor Palin -- as an appalling example, Maureen Dowd's column in Sunday's New York Times. But please, let's not allow that dark instinct to dominate this discussion, especially from so-called progressives. Let's not focus on beauty contests, or sports reporting, or silly statements. The head of the republican ticket is John McCain, the debate we need to have is about his policies, his temperament, and his judgment. That is a debate we can win and winning that way is the only way to achieve real progress in the next administration.

He is also, quite literally, a gambler -- he loves to play craps, and plays for high stakes, too. No one in his campaign denies this. It's not some "internet rumor."

Then erratic fanatic should be locked in the attic.

One of McCain's fellow senators, a Republican to boot, said that "John McCain shouldn't be put in charge of anything."

How incredible would it be if some day someone in a position to know stood up and, to save the Republic, told us that a candidate for public office was, in fact, unfit for the job. There had to have been many of them who knew that Bush was unfit yet, perhaps afraid of destroying themselves politically in the process, they chose to say nothing. There used to be something called civic duty. Apparently it's taken a back seat to every man for himself.

To be fair, I do think Sarah Palin would do a fine job reading that pet goat story to the second grade, should we be attacked again.

Good grief. Palin is a joke. She's beyond a joke. Americans don't like extremists and she qualifies easily.

Let's bring the conversation back to things that matter, like the Republicans record on the economy.

Ted Nugent can drop a Moose, too, should he be Sec of State?

Come on, bring the Cafe back. Leave the hysteria to DailyKos and Huffington Post.

What a crock.

I was also struck by McCain's willingness to gamble not just with our country, but with his own campaign. He has chosen as his running mate someone he has barely met; who has no experience dealing with the kind of scrutiny she is about to face; who has, by all accounts, not been fully vetted; and who is in the midst of a scandal. That is a shockingly reckless thing to do.

But now of course, you're just a chauvinist.

Saying anything about nothing can sometimes make it look like something. Senators Obama and Biden have correctly decided to continue campaigning against McCain/Bush 2000-2008 -- two pair of eyes kept firmly focused on the prize, most definitely.

I suggest we sentient carbon-based life-forms do the same and not succumb to more deranged distractions typically concocted by our desperate reactionary repugnant ones. For their unevolved part, the Republican planaria worms will go their flat-head way no matter. As Frank Zappa used to sing: "She's a Vally Girl, fer sure fer sure. She's a Valley Girl; There is no cure."

All things insignificant briefly considered, benign neglect of the negligible seems much the preferred Democratic Party strategy here.

@ Gitlin

Have you read Joshua Green's "The Front Runner's Fall" (Atlantic Monthly, Sept. 2008)? The article seems to have been meticulously researched.

One comes away with the impression that Hillary Clinton is a terrible manager, profligate with other peoples' money, an arrogant person who's chosen similar types as advisers. In sum, someone totally unfit to be President.

The Atlantic is a mainstream magazine of the highest quality not known to let its bias interfere with factual reporting. Yet I've seen no comment on this article from you or anyone on this site. Which leads me to believe that you have no real interest in reality.

It may be that John McCain is just as you describe him. Or it may not be. A recent article in the New York Times describes his VP vetting process as meticulous and thorough. Jumping straight from a failed marriage into another is hardly an indication of instability; it happens all the time.

My point is that you simply cannot be trusted.

Todd, Good work as usual.

I have my own theory about the Palin selection.

http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/09/pawlenty-vs-palin.php