I'll let others do the talking for once

So, McSame tried to steal Obama's thunder. And damn if the old dude didn't succeed! He chose a running mate who is anti-woman, anti-choice, anti-environment, anti-gay, and pro-just-about-everything-else-I-find-reprehensible. Oh, but apparently I am supposed to vote for the ticket because she's a woman. How stupid, pandering, condescending, and desperate a campaign tactic is that?

Kim Gandy writes,

As the chair of NOW's Political Action Committee, I am frequently asked whether NOW supports women candidates just because they are women. This gives me an opportunity to once again answer that question with an emphatic 'No.' We recognize the importance of having women's rights supporters at every level but, like Sarah Palin, not every woman supports women's rights.

Exactly.

Hunter at Daily Kos writes,

A McCain/Palin pairing? I'm sorry, but that's just... weird. It's a pairing that seems to be drawn not from politics, but from a 1980's network sitcom.

HE is an ex-POW turned multimillionaire. He has power, wealth, and more houses than most people have ties. But can anything -- or anyone -- calm his savage temper, and teach him to love again?

SHE's a young creationist who knows little about politics and is in trouble with the law. He'll take her in -- but can he teach her the ways of Washington before she embarrasses him at the big Telecom Ball?

Find out this fall on Dharma and Mthuselah...

He continues,

Don't tell me it's his "brave" choice because she's a woman -- the Republican Party has many women more qualified for the Vice Presidency. I don't agree with them on issues, but they'd be more qualified. This choice is indeed akin to choosing Quayle -- it smacks of choosing someone because they won't get in the way, or because all the other potential candidates were too personally threatening. It's just a bad choice, period.

Indeed.

Ann at Feministing says,

Let me say right off the bat that, overall, I think it's great that Republicans have chosen to elevate a woman to this level -- no matter what their motivations. I want to see more women of all parties involved in politics. But, as we stated over and over in the primaries, a politician's gender isn't everything. It's merely one factor to be considered. And quite frankly, Palin's political views suck.

First up, she's super anti-choice. The forced-pregnancy crowd is thrilled today! (She recently had her fifth child, who has Down's syndrome.) She's against marriage equality and supports a federal gay-marriage ban, but has made sure to note that she "has gay friends." Though she has signed on to same-sex partner benefits. She believes schools should teach creationism. She's also pretty terrible on environmental issues, and is a huge advocate of drilling in the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge. Plus, she's embroiled in a scandal:

But Palin's seemingly bright future was clouded in late July when the state legislature voted to hire an independent investigator to find out whether she tried to have a state official fire her ex-brother-in-law from his job as a state trooper.

She makes a very valid point later in her post when she writes,

Bill Kristol was claiming McCain would pick Palin -- and that would prove that Republicans are "much more open to strong women." Frankly, that's bullshit. Republicans are more open to a certain type of woman -- one who is strongly against things like equal pay, universal health care, and reproductive freedom. In other words, the party is pro-woman-candidates, as long as they enact anti-woman policies.

Honestly, I don't have anything more to add other than she ain't no Hillary. No way. No how.

What to do? First, register to vote. Second, get out the vote. Third, vote. Fourth, learn about the V.P. half of the Republican ticket so you can form cogent arguments to counter the b.s. that will be flying around post-Minneapolis.

P.S. If you want to read another good post and some AWESOME comments, go to Jezebel. 

Obama/Biden 2008