No, I was wrong about that earlier. It was to acknowledge that women have rights too, that they are qualified to run for high office, and that the Republican party is willing to support those rights!rn79870 wrote:I thought Palin's appointment was designed to woo Hillary's supporters?
Well there is plenty of good reading in the not so MSMaudtatious wrote:That assumes you believe gallup and other polls. With the way the MSM is actively attacking and making allegations about Palin it seriously brings into question the accuracy of anything being "reported" by the MSM.
They ask them if they were Hillary supporters.Soravia wrote:BTW, how do you know if those people are Hillary supporters? They have Hillary tattooed on their foreheads? Did the voting polls keep their names?This is like Republicans for Obama. And Black Republicans for McCain.
Wow. So you know them all personally and well, do ya, Greg? And if those same individuals who were supporting Hillary listen to what Lieberman said last night and put their support to the McCain/Palin ticket, will they STILL not be what you'd have called "brilliant"?AZhitman wrote:Then again, women who supported Hillary aren't exactly what I'd have called "brilliant", so they may miss the entire importance of this issue.
Typical hate site ... does not know when to give up?telcoman wrote:This is not going to stop until she resigns?
The left's approach to hardball is to physically attack convention delegates. Sorry, that is not "hardball", that is called "sleazeball".telcoman wrote:Now that the left is playing hardball the right is upset.
I thought you were above such generalizations and hyperbole.szhosain wrote:
The left's approach to hardball is to physically attack convention delegates. Sorry, that is not "hardball", that is called "sleazeball".
Z
You thought that erroneously. Thus all your following analysis is misguided. Palin was brought on for much more than being a woman. The dems continued dismisal of women as nothing more than a marketing tool is going to come back to bite them in november.rn79870 wrote: I thought Palin's appointment was designed to woo Hillary's supporters?
Psssstttt...remember Palins comment in her speech. A comment about 18 million cracks and how they.....(that was a reference to the 18million votes Clinton had that they wanted) And you say the dems failed, when 81% of those votes have gone to Obama? Bite them in Nov...I suspect it will bite them on Oct 2nd. when Lady Sarah gets an introduction to one of the real shakers and movers with real experience. She's toast.themadscientist wrote:
You thought that erroneously. Thus all your following analysis is misguided. Palin was brought on for much more than being a woman. The dems continued dismisal of women as nothing more than a marketing tool is going to come back to bite them in november.
rn79870 wrote:
Psssstttt...remember Palins comment in her speech. A comment about 18 million cracks and how they.....(that was a reference to the 18million votes Clinton had that they wanted) And you say the dems failed, when 81% of those votes have gone to Obama? Bite them in Nov...I suspect it will bite them on Oct 2nd. when Lady Sarah gets an introduction to one of the real shakers and movers with real experience. She's toast.
You are correct! My apologies.rn79870 wrote:I thought you were above such generalizations and hyperbole.