There’s no excusing what some people did at the Republican National Convention.

That having been said, the so-called “anarchists” who engaged in criminal behavior don’t represent liberals in general any more than the Republicans are represented by people like, say, Fred Phelps. (And if one were going to use a few extremists to characterize the whole bunch, then it’s only fair to stack the extremists up against each other; but then that would be a counterproductive and stupid exercise, so let’s not do that.)

If you’re concerned about reproductive rights, environmental issues, progressive taxation, education, or healthcare–by which I mean, if you think people should have any of those things–then the Democrats may be far from ideal, but they’re a damn sight better than what you’re likely to get from a McCain administration by way of leadership or appointments to the cabinet or judiciary. On top of that, it’s reasonable to ponder the odds of a Palin presidency–McCain is not young, has had health issues, and the presidency is a job that ages people–and Governor Palin is, as far as anyone can determine, to the right of Senator McCain on many, most or all political issues. She may be a wonderful human being and she might be a wonderful Governor of Alaska, but if you agree with almost any of the stands she’s taken publicly on key issues, you were probably concerned with McCain’s rampant liberalism to begin with. I speak broadly, of course–there might actually be an issue I’d agree with the Governor on, and I’m someone who considers the fact that I’m no longer really a socialist and marvels at my drift to the right; but you get the picture.

There were those who were ostensibly on the side of JFK or MLK who resorted to violence or juvenile tactics. The extremists smear neither of those men. And the people who resorted to angry and illegal activities in the Twin Cities don’t smear the left or, for that matter, the Democrats, either. There are those who would tie the two, ’tis true, but they have an agenda when they do it, and they’re wrong in points of fact and morals.

When asked what Obama thought of Mrs. Palin’s early pregnancy he made it crystal clear that he would not involve families in his campaigns. He said he would fire anyone on his campaign team that violated this directive. He then pointed out that his mother was 18 when he was born. Make no mistake: he does not press for the kill because he identified with her. He is an a man of integrity–and that is why he will bring change to D.C.

McCain believes he will bring change, but his rhetoric is the same we’ve elected year after year. When he first began campaigning he denounced dirty campaigning. This weekend, when asked how that fits in with his commercials that compared Obama to a celebrity fad and even the anti-christ, he laughed. He claimed he was just making the differences clear. He thought they were funny, and those that didn’t see it that way were lame.

Every hero will attract supporters that don’t understand the ideal that is being championed. Let’s not hold that against Obama. Worse yet, let’s not let it motivate us to throw our support behind someone who embodies the very thing you despise.

I wholeheartedly disagree with your assessment of the Sarah Palin issue. I do NOT think it was” a stroke of genius” by McCain to “vet” and nominate her for VP.I found this a rather transparent insult to women in general and to the 3 disenfranchised Clinton supporters that remain after the brilliant spectacle that was the DNC.
I feel he chose this wholly innapropriate running mate based solely on her genitalia. PALIN IS NO HILLARY!!
While some of her decisions were admirablle( the choice to bear a child with Downs syndrome), and her support and love of her pregnant daughter, there are serious questions that remain about her suitability to hold the proposed office of VP.
She is currently being investigated in a an abuse of power issue….Lord knows we have endured enough of this through the last 8 years, she is a candidate who is in every fibre of her being, an ANTI- conservationist, and a true ANTI- feminist on most issues that involve women.
Senator Obama, uncategorically stated that the daughter situation SHOULD REMAIN OFF LIMITS. and threateded to fire ANYONE on his staff for so much as commenting on this, once again, taking the high road,in thought and deed.
I hope that you do not think that the violence that you refer to was sanctioned by Senator Obama!!
I personally marched in a PEACEFUL protest during the RNC in Nyc in the last election. Maybe after the last 4 years the RAGE of having our country highhjacked by Mr Bush and his cronies, that has reduced this country to a morass of hopelessness and frustration in most folks is bubbling over.
No excuse, maybe and explanation.
As for Senator Obama, we have a great gift of hope and vision for this country..in this man.

I think the reason Mccain chose Palin was not an attempt to try to draw Hillary supporters at all. Palin is a die-hard pro-life supporter, her views are by far way more conservative than anyone else that was mentioned as a running mate seriously for Mccain. His advisors had to know that a very right-winged conservative like Palin was not going to draw the support of Hillary supporters. The reason that Palin was his choice was obviously because of a large amount of pressure from the religious right part of his party. The religious right were not fond of McCain to begin with as he has a long history of not going along with their desires. This selection was a move to placate them as Palin is -their- choice for a VP candidate and most likely not his first or even second or third choice.

Mccain had a chance to be my vote for this election prior to this choice as I desperately look for a moderate candidate, someone who is willing to work bi-partisan with both sides (Republican and Democrat), which Mccain has a long history of doing. If Mccain had chosen someone like Lieberman as his running mate, which it seemed very likely that Mccain really -wanted- to do, I likely would have voted for him. I am no fan of Lieberman, but the willingness to be a Republican presidential nominee who is going to buck the system, put his deaf ear to the religious right and bring in a ticket that is the most moderate of any in recent history would have been appealing to me.

Somewhere along the way, Mccain chickened out though. Whether someone from the religious right threatened him with an entire block of non-support at the convention or something else, it is dissapointing to me to see him back down and cater to their wishes and select their candidate instead of whom he likely wanted to choose. I likely won’t be voting for him now.. not because of who Palin is. For all intents and purposes, if you look beyond all of the smear campaign against Palin (most of which has been shown to be untrue), you end up finding that Palin is wildly popular in Alaska, their most popular politician period. She campaigned against an incumbent Republican governor there and worked hard to try to remove the corrupt Republican Party that was in place in Alaska. Because of such she appears to have little fans from the actual Republican party there (as many were corrupt or resigned because of her actions). I won’t be voting for Mccain because this selection just means it is business as usual and once again the religious right won out and put a giant albatross of their candidate choice for VP around Mccain’s neck. Mccain obviously gave in to their desire and it makes me wonder how many other things he’ll give in on just to make the religious right happy in the future.

You’re comparing the idiots who storm the G-8 meetings with the mainstream. When did you start working for Fox News?