Women, don't get fooled. Sarah Palin is NO Hillary!

John McCain recently announced his VP pick, Alaska Governor Sarah Palin. Gov. Palin took office in December 2006 (which IMO really blows that whole "experience" argument..."Pot meet kettle").

He's 72. If he dies, we get a leader with NO national experience. NO diplomatic experience. NO foreign policy experience. NO experience dealing with issues that don't affect her own insular 3-electoral-vote state. We're supposed to believe that she's capable of facing down leaders of terrorist-supporting nations and working diplomatically on the world stage, but Barack Obama and Joe Biden aren't?"

Just before Obama announce his VP pick, I said, "If he is desperate and it looks like he doesn't have a change, he'll pick a woman VP."

McCain has picked woman that has endorsed Obama's energy plan, he is promising to "change" Washington, and he's endorsed a time table for Iraq. I wonder what the McCain/Palin ticket will think up next all by themselves.

So why'd he choose her then? My only guess is he thought he could sway those women voters who were disappointed that Hillary did not secure the nomination. So will it help him?

My guess is no, picking Sarah Palin will NOT help him. Reason why...SHE's NO HILLARY!!

She's everything Hillary is NOT. While she uses the "I've got 5 kids and I'm a Hockey-Mom" as an angle, remember, Hillary said she's not the "baking brownies" type of woman.

She's pro-life...and Hillary respects the woman's right to choose.

She wants religion in schools...Hillary wants to protect the rights of everyone and keep church and state separated.

So why'd they do it? Did they honestly think women were THAT stupid? Did they actually think we wouldn't notice their blatant attempt to choose a woman as a token?

I am even more disgusted with McCain after this lame attempt! I know this woman isn't fooled I certainly hope others aren't.

What is really important...Not just having a women on a ticket...but ensuring our rights AS WOMEN remain protected!!

McCain's real Faith Forum Fumble

Media Ignored McCain's Faith Forum Fumble

After watching the presidential forum at Rick Warren's Saddleback church on Saturday, I was amazed at how complimentary the media has been of John McCain's performance. I gave up on his portion of the event after 30 minutes, tired of watching McCain fumble through his stump speech talking points instead of answering the questions.

The media was so kind to McCain after the forum that they missed (or ignored) the biggest jaw-dropper of the night -- his answer to the question of which Supreme Court justices he would not have nominated.

Warren: ... which existing Supreme Court justices would you not have nominated?

McCain: With all due respect, Justice Ginsburg, Justice Breyer, Justice Souter and Justice Stevens.

Warren: Why? Tell me why?

McCain: Well, I think that the president of the United States has incredible responsibility in nominating people to the United States Supreme Court. They are lifetime positions as well as the federal bench. There will be two maybe three vacancies. This nomination should be based on the criteria of proven record of strictly adhering to the Constitution of the United States and not legislating from the bench. Some of the worst damage has been done by legislating from the bench.

Warren did a better job asking questions than professional journalists have done in most of this year's debates, but that answer was crying out for a Tim Russert-style follow-up.

As Taegan Goddard points out today on Political Wire, McCain voted to confirm Breyer, Ginsburg and Souter. (Stevens was nominated before McCain was elected to the Senate back in 1946.)

McCain's answer may be the most glaring flip-flop of the general election campaign. He voted yes on most of the Supreme Court's liberal wing, yet he just said -- in a purpose-driven house of God, no less -- he wouldn't have nominated them.

Is Walmart against Obama?

The Straw That Broke the Camel's Back: Why Wal-Mart lost one more customer.

I have never been one of those people who is 100% against Wal-Mart. While I find myself at odds with many of their business practices, I understand that they serve a purpose. They provide service to some of the poorest individuals in our country who are not able to afford goods from more expensive retailers. And not being terribly wealthy myself, I have found myself shopping at Wal-Mart from time to time. However, this time they went too far.

This past Monday I went to Wal-Mart in order to purchase some contact lens solution and chap stick. As I walked by the medication aisle, I noticed the book and magazine stack were selling a slanderous book about Barack Obama. I looked all over the book aisle and noticed that no books promoting Obama, or books counter to the slanderous book, were being sold. Even Barack Obama's two books which are currently best sellers, were nowhere to be found.

The incident struck me as a bit unfair, considering Wal-Mart is the world's largest company, and thus has access to the world's largest customer base. So I spoke to an assistant manager who told me that individual stores have no control over what they can sell, but that I could file a complaint by calling 1-800-WALMART. I called and left a message, not thinking too much of the situation.

But then I heard a story on CNN about a secret taped recording of a meeting with Wal-Mart, which shows that many managers are being urged to tell WalMart employees to vote for John McCain. Things that make you go hmmmm... and the more I thought about, the more I began to connect the dots, and decided to post this story.

I want to make one thing clear. Wal-Mart has a right to sell whatever it wants, but this store has now become very pro-Republican and very pro-John McCain. While they have a right to do that, I also have a right to decide not to spend my money there anymore. If this business chooses to alienate one group of their customers by throwing their hat so blatantly into the political arena, then that means that I am going to use my right to take my business elsewhere – I encourage others to do the same.

Wal-Mart shouldn't alienate an entire group of people based on their political ideology. I don't care if they want to sell a slanderous book, but they should at least sell books which show both side, by doing this it gives me (the consumer) a CHOICE. And isn't that what capitalism and the free market are supposed to be about? Freedom of choice?