Or will he "return to mama," spouting the bipartisan unity crap again?

If he stays the fighting Dem, these SCOTUS arguments are unnecessary. Progressives will have a lot of reasons to vote for him.  They won't need this lame plea about SCOTUS, which heretofore only underlined Obama's weak progressive credentials.

The Palin selection makes running as a fighting Dem even more imperative, imho.

But will Obama see it that way?  

Concerning education, while running for Governor of Alaska she was asked about the teaching of creationism in public school science classes. Palin answered that she thought it was healthy for both creationism and evolution to be taught together; although she clarified the next day that she meant that open debate between the two ideas should not be prohibited if it came up in discussion, but that creationism did not need to be part of the curriculum. She also added that she would not appoint State Board of Education members based on their opinions on evolution or creationism. Since her election she has appointed three of the seven Board members, who serve five-year terms: Patrick Shier, Phillip Schneider, and Geraldine Benshoof. None of these appointments attracted criticism on this issue.

I'm not defending her or saying it's a good thing at all, but it's something conservatives like to hear and can get behind.

He picked her to energize his base and get more votes and to prove that he wasn't going with the tired old white guy thing. Considering how many Democrats are now sitting around wringing their hands about how wrong and stupid his choice was, how much this has dominated the news cycle for the past 24 hours and how positive the reaction from the Republican base seems to be, I'd say it was a smart choice on his part.

While I have no intention of voting for him, I'd say that this has certainly generated more buzz (both good and bad) than Obama's pick of Biden last week, and it took the media fawning over Obama's Acceptance speech as the best convention speech of all time completely off the table.

If McCain hands out a plan with detailed goals, timelines, and specifics, the Obama team had better be ready to issue a carefully prepared plan of their own.  Otherwise they'll seem to lack the experience to react to these sorts of challenges.

What remains important to some of us is how women with ambition are criticized.

What's also interesting is the topic of experience and how a party that nominated Obama will be able to criticize Palin.

I disagree with most of her values (all of the social conservative values, though I do agree with her fiscal conservative values).  I do admire the fact that she practices what she preaches (having a Downs Syndrome child).  

The time to worry about the Supreme Court was before GWB was elected.  I find it hard to believe that so many "nouveau Dem" websites are now worried about Conservative justices when they sure didn't care before.  We now have a Conservative majority and it's going to stay like that for the foreseeable future.  

I think exciting the base to get them to vote is the big thing. I seem to remember a poll a month or two ago when something happened in the news to temporarily excite the repub base. And when that happened, McCain shot up by 5 to 10 points. That is what McCain is looking for. If he can get his base, I think he'll be 5 points ahead after the convention bounces settle. And then if he can hold onto that 25% of Hillary supporters and gain ground on those clingy people, then he's in good shape.

I had cancer 23 years ago.  I'm still here.  My father had the same kind of cancer McCain has 10+ years ago.  He's still here.  

I actually met someone years ago who had a girlfriend who died of the same cancer McCain has.  You want to know why she died?  She died because she had this "mole" and even though it kept getting bigger and bigger, she didn't get it checked.  She didn't get it checked until it was huge and then it was too late because it had spread.  Yes, it's a dangerous cancer but not if you know that you are prone to having it.  If you know you could have it, you go to the doctor for any sign of anything on your skin that changes.  

Did you know that men under 50 are more prone to having heart attacks and not surviving them?  This is because younger men lack the collateral circulation that older men have.  So, there is something for you to worry about with Obama -- will he die of a heart attack in the next three years?  And what about the fact that black men don't have the lifespans of white men?  Should we discuss that too?    

was raised in a small town
went to public school
went to a State College
was Mayor of a small Town

Obama:

So if McCain becomes unable to serve as President and she takes over, who do you think we'll get on the Supreme Court?

Talk about violating the rules about the same "tired" arguments.

This may be the most tired scare tactic argument of the campaign.

For the umpteenth time, this is the way the process works:

Presidential nominations are just that; nominations.  A given nomination is assigned to the appropriate committee for consideration.  For federal court nominees that would be the Judiciary Committee.  If the nominee is rejected by the committee then that's it, case closed on that nominee.  In case court scare promoters haven't noticed, Senate committees are controlled by the majority party.  The majority on every committee will be Democrats.  

If Democrats refuse to assert their control of the Senate then we are truly lost. The court scare argument reinforces the notion that Congress has abandoned its Constitutionally mandated role as a check on the executive.

The first thing that people who care about progressive issues should demand is that Congress do what it's supposed to do.

For that matter what happens if Obama wins and nominates Cass Sunstein, who believes that Roe v Wade is wrong? What will the Democratically controlled Judiciary Committee do with a Sunstein nomination from a Democratic president?

But we must remember he doesn't have a great track record of talking about issues.

And this is why many of us, dodging charges of racism, continued to argue in the primaries that it was a mistake to nominate a candidate based on personality and largely empty rhetoric.

With the Palin pick, Obama and his supporters have reaped what they sowed.

Any blog that thinks it's bad when a woman does good isn't a blog I want to belong to.

I'm happy to see any woman move up the food chain, no matter where she might be located.  For too many years we have been locked out of the highest echelons in business and government because people thought we were too "different."  For anyone in power to pick a woman voluntarily to be at the highest level means a lot to me.  It means that women can finally be considered seriously for better jobs and the highest wages.  

Since this is politics, I may not vote for that person -- but I still applaud the placement of a woman on the ticket.  

How about we celebrate the fact that this woman has been picked to run for the second most powerful position in the U.S.

No one has to vote for her, but the fact that a REPUBLICAN nominee chose a woman in a quantum leap in gender equality.

I know many people hate her because she is a social/fiscal conservative...hey, she's a Republican, but I think mostly people are angry because Democrats are supposed to be the ones championing minorities, women, gays and the underdog and when we had a woman (who was the most qualified) we thugged her out of the race, and here comes McCain and puts  the ideals we claim to have into practice. HOW DARE HE!

I don't know enough about Palin to have an opinion yet, but the fact that she as an evangelical vetoed an anti-gay bill because it was unconstitutional tells me she is willing to respect the law of the land above her religious beliefs.

Well, we all saw the historically unprecedented derangement, viciousness and outright that came spewing out, and here's the reprise for Palin.

Dems and fauxgressives just never learn. Someone at an A-list, purportedly feminist blog referred to Palin, an elected Governor, as 'somebody with a vag!na'.

Bitter Knitter Doofus Rahm called it "political panic". Rilly?.

Dems in Congress didn't give a crap about women when Alito and Roberts got swipecarded onto the SCOTUS (and all the other egregious appts) so why all the sudden drama now?

And where's the vaunted youth vote to carry their share of load for someone as inexperienced as Obama offered up as Presumptive Possumus Potus?

It wouldn't surprise me in the least if in the exquisite privacy of the voting booth -- almost the last remaining refuge for a woman to be be left the f*ck alone in peace and quiet, without everyone and his Crazy Uncle barking threats and demands about her personal decisions -- more women didn't try out being a Republican for a Day.

Here's what she said originally

Teach both. You know, don't be afraid of information. Healthy debate is so important, and it's so valuable in our schools. I am a proponent of teaching both."

She then backtracked/clarified the  "teach both" statement

she meant only to say that discussion of alternative views should be allowed to arise in Alaska classrooms

Um, Bill Clinton used that argument too (and how big is the Arkansas National Guard).  In fact, it was even thrown in a West Wing episode.

While it may be a silly argument (no one commands troops during war except POTUS),  they do give orders for deployment within the state.

And while others (including Jeralyn) keep talking about Alaska being a small state (which is true, population wise, the land mass of Alaska would cover around 20% of the lower 48 states, which still has to be managed by the Alaskan government. It sits only 55 miles from Russia, and with 1 person per square mile
(avg), it presents a unique set of challenges that no other governor faces (evacuation plans, search & rescue, etc).

She opposes same-sex marriage, but she has stated that she has gay friends and is receptive to gay and lesbian concerns about discrimination.[9] While the previous administration did not implement same-sex benefits, Palin complied with a state Supreme Court order and signed them into law.[28] She disagreed with the Supreme Court ruling[29] and supported a democratic advisory vote from the public on whether there should be a constitutional amendment on the matter.[30] Alaska was one of the first U.S. states to pass a constitutional ban on gay marriage, in 1998, along with Hawaii.[31] Palin has stated that she supported the 1998 constitutional amendment.[9]

Palin's first veto was used to block legislation that would have barred the state from granting benefits to the partners of gay state employees. In effect, her veto granted State of Alaska benefits to same-sex couples. The veto occurred after Palin consulted with Alaska's attorney general on the constitutionality of the legislation.[29]

It has been about trying to equate a pseudo-scientific theory (creationism) with a scientific theory (Evolution).

They aren't equal. But that doesn't mean that the creationism theory can't be used to explain the difference between scientific theories and pseudo-science.

What Palin said was that she thought the debate would be healthy. And frankly, coming from a "teaching critical thinking skills POV," she's right. Debate can be a healthy part of the learning experience.

Super...she is a woman.  I wish society were such that we could get beyond that and look at her resume and where she stands on the issues.  I didn't like the sexism put forth in the primaries toward Hillary, but it doesn't bother me so much that I will put in office a president that promises to extend the disastrous policies of Bush.