Sarah Palin: Storytelling, by Martha Thomases

Martha Thomases

Martha Thomases brought more comics to the attention of more people than anyone else in the industry. Her work promoting The Death of Superman made an entire nation share in the tragedy of one of our most iconic American heroes. As a freelance journalist, she has been published in the Village Voice, High Times, Spy, the National Lampoon, Metropolitan Home, and more. For Marvel comics she created the series Dakota North. Martha worked as a researcher and assistant for the author Norman Mailer on several of his books, including the Pulitzer-Prize-winning Executioner's Song, On Women and Their Elegance, Ancient Evenings, and Harlot's Ghost.

You may also like...

93 Responses

  1. Johanna Hall says:

    Thank you Martha! This is so well-said that I am forwarding it to friends across the country. Friends and family who were sickened by the lies and innuendos, lost sleep this week. This will give heart to the disheartened.

  2. Anonymous says:

    As always, Martha, you are the soul of discernment. Your essay should be required reading of all the people who say they're going to vote for McCain because "He's just like me." I'm thinking that the thing they have in common with the senator is not owning more houses than they can keep track of.But your off on one point. Peter Parker would make a great president, someday. If the Lizard doesn't get him first. Remember, in the comics world, he isn't even old enough to run.

  3. Linda Gold says:

    Well done Martha but I think it is a mistake to assign the choice of Palin to a bid for Hillary's voters. I am sure that they hoped some of them would be so gender biased that they would crossover but I believe the real constituency aimed for is the religious right who never cared for McCain and whose money he desperately wants. In fact, I have heard that donations came pouring in after the announcement. She is their choice, not McCain's. He wanted Lieberman but those who really runs things on that side killed that. The Christian zealots would like nothing more that to have one of theirs a heartbeat from the presidency and in line to run on top of the ticket after that.

  4. Brian Alvey says:

    Some kids who are products of high school pregnancies do just fine — like both me and my wife. ;-)We'll just have to wait and see how Bristol's kid does.I did think Bristol's pregnancy was a genius defense against the whole "we think Palin's lying and that it's really her daughter's baby" storm. You can't plan that kind of stuff.

    • Mike Gold says:

      The issue — for me — isn't that a 17 year old unmarried kid got pregnant. Happens all the time, and if it never happened, none of us would be here. The issue is the stellar combination we always get from the Religious Right of lies, hypocrisy, privilege and self-righteousness. We have a woman running for president (vice-president mean, and ONLY means, you become president if your boss dies or is incapacitated — ergo, we hold the vice-president to the same standard) on a platform and a history of anti-sex education, anti-choice (except for her family, evidently), and anti-contraception (which is how you get pregnant). She wants the teaching of "creationism" in the public schools, and felt she had the right to fire the school librarian for refusing to remove books from the school library that offend her narrow-minded bigoted philosophy. And this, the Religious Right tells me, is "family values."I'd rather vote for Hitler. At least he didn't hide behind a phony smile and a pledge to uphold the U.S. Constitution.

      • R. Maheras says:

        I'm sorry, Mike, but as an Independent, your statement, "The issue is the stellar combination we always get from the Religious Right of lies, hypocrisy, privilege and self-righteousness," seems to me to apply equally to the Liberal Left as well.I'm appalled at how those on the left had a virtual feeding frenzy over the all-too-normal life of Palin. The lies and viciousness were as bad as anything spewed by the worst neocon, and any Democrat who repeated or forwarded any of those lies before trying to substantiate them should be ashamed of themselves.Regardless of one's politics, the fact is, against some pretty daunting odds in what is still a man's world, Palin has fought and scrapped her way to the top of a very tall heap and emerged as a formidable force in politics. And don't think the old-school boys don't know it. On the morning after Palin's impressive speech, as Joe Biden prepared to answer some questions on the Today Show, the residual discomfort was all over his face. He, like many others around the country, was startled by this woman from nowhere who burst on the scene to shake up an already historic presidential race.Frankly, I think this is the best presidential race in my lifetime, and when it's all over, I'll honestly be just fine no matter which side wins. It's been a very long time since I've been able to say that.

        • Mike Gold says:

          Russ, I've got a thing about that First Amendment. I don't like bullies who try to get librarians fired for not dumping books they don't agree with, I don't like bullies who try to ram their religious points of view down other people's throats by trying to turn them into law. I like Alaskans and I like their independent spirit, but I'll tell you: the statements Palin made before the Alaskan separatist movement make Rev. Wright sound like Rush Limbaugh.As for Ms. Palin's speech Wednesday night, it was powerfully delivered indeed. It was also an astonishing crock of lies, even for such an august occasion.As I mentioned previously, I was a Chicago community organizer and, like Obama (but before him) I, too, did anti-drug work in Altgeld Gardens and the southeast side from sundry church pulpits. So after Rudy 911's crap, I was in no mood for Palin's bullshit.However, I share your feelings that this is the best, or at least most interesting, presidential race in my lifetime. At least since Nixon/Kennedy. Yep, I followed that one — as a 10 year old. Batman was hanging out with aliens, Superman was getting his hair cut by Lois twice a month, the FF hadn't gone into space yet, and I was bored — ripe for participation in Chicago's great municipal sport. Of course, I had already voted five years earlier, in what is now Rahm Emanuel's district.Gotta love it.("911" is a trademark of Rudy Giuliani. His Rights Reserved.)

          • R. Maheras says:

            Mike Gold wrote: "Of course, I had already voted five years earlier, in what is now Rahm Emanuel's district."Hah! Figures! Only in Chicago, right? Vote early and often, living or dead.

          • Tyson Durst says:

            ""911" is a trademark of Rudy Giuliani. His Rights Reserved."Don't country music stars share the trademark as well?I hope the RIAA doesn't get wind of this. If they're willing to sue their own grandmothers for sharing some music, I really feel sorry for Rudy if they unleash their lawyers on him.

        • Martha Thomases says:

          None of my objections to Palin have to do with her gender. They have everything to do with her beliefs and her abilities. For example:http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2…Somehow, this makes Jeremiah Wright seem downright reaasonable.

          • Mike Gold says:

            If the Repubs actually see Palin as somehow responding to the gender issue, they're even more patronizing — or more stupid — than I've imagined in my most giddy moments. Palin's record is quite, quite clear: she has no choice but to run on that record as she hasn't been around long enough to show equivocating activities.

      • Zonker says:

        As a registered Republican seriously considering voting for Obama, I've been scratching my head at the Palin choice. My first reaction was oh, no another Dan Quayle. But I have to say it has been positively delicious seeing all y'all once-oh-so-smug lefties running around hyperventilating over trying to paint this woman as a book-burning nut-job. Here's what CNN is reporting:http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/11/palin.trut…"One Internet rumor alleges that Palin tried to ban a list of books from the public library when she was mayor of Wasilla, Alaska, including Harry Potter and several classics. According to the Anchorage Daily News, Palin asked Wasilla's city librarian in 1996 if she would be OK with removing certain books as part of a larger discussion on policy. The librarian said no, and there's no evidence supporting a book ban. In fact, some of the books cited on this list weren't even published 12 years ago — namely the Harry Potter series, which first appeared in July 1997. Another false claim churning in the rumor mill: that Palin slashed Alaska's special-needs education budget by more than 60 percent. According to a recent Education Week article, Palin tripled the amount of money each student will get during the next three years. But some rumors do have a bit of truth. It's been rumored that Palin wants to teach creationism in schools. While she vowed not to add it to Alaska's curriculum, she has spoken in favor of classroom discussion of both creationism and evolution. 'I don't think there should be a prohibition against debate if it comes up in class. it doesn't have to be part of the curriculum,' Palin told the Anchorage Daily News in a 2006 interview."

        • Mike Gold says:

          Sorry, Zonk. She IS a book-burning nut-job. When the mayor of your town goes to the town librarian with a "request" to remove books she finds objectionable, that's crossing the line. The fact that the librarian didn't do it is beside the point: the librarian understands the constitution, the mayor does not. Same thing about "requesting" religious indoctrination be forced down the throats of our public school students. Maybe if ALL philosophies about the origins of the planet were taught, but that's not going to happen.Of course, maybe I'm being unfair. Give me a call when your local schools add the Devi-Mahatmya and the Goddess Kali to the curriculum.In fairness, the part about Harry Potter is bullshit — only because the first book was released the year after Palin made her "request."

      • Zonker says:

        Oh, and "I'd rather vote for Hitler" WTF? That's gotta be a contender for the decade's silliest invocation of Godwin's Law yet! Sheesh!

        • Mike Gold says:

          Hey, everybody's entitled to their opinion. Note the statement was "I'd rather vote for Hitler" and not "I'd rather vote for Stalin" or "I'd rather vote for Mao."Personally, I'm enamored of the phrase "I'd rather vote for Hitler" because it pisses off my old pal Joe Lieberman. And, yes, I said that to him while he was still the junior democratic senator of my state, too.And I meant it.I like his wife, though. Smart, caring person. She should be our senator.

          • Zonker says:

            Ok, fair enough. In the Mike Gold hall of infamy, we have Sarah Palin as preferable to Stalin and Mao, and Hitler as preferable to Palin. Got it. ;-)Peace out, man! If Joe Lieberman's your old pal, you must really be having a bad week after "Smokin' Joe's" performance in Minneapolis. Oy vey!

          • Mike Gold says:

            What, you mean after the Republican party rebelled against their candidate's first choice for vice-president and passed him off with nothing more than his typical Droopy Dog convention speech? Yeah, I completely LOVED it! The clown got what was coming to him — Joe "Man Without A Country" Lieberman, rejected by the Democrats, passed over (pun not intended, sadly) by the Republicans, and with a voting record that disqualifies him to be a Libertarian. Heck, even the "Joe Lieberman Party" here in Connecticut threw him out. Honest; I'm not kidding.

  5. Neil C. says:

    Unfortunately there is a lot of dumb in America who will fall for her "she's one of us" bull without realizing her stands are even further right than the people who have gotten us into this mess. When did we start fearing leaders who were smarter than us and just want to elect dolts?

    • Linda Gold says:

      When the majority of us became dolts is my guess. I am really, really frightened by what the "low information voters" will do on 11/4.

  6. Tony Isabella says:

    Love the video and especially McCain fiddling with his wedding ring as he keeps stealing glances at Palin's rack. Hope Cindy noticed, too.

  7. mike weber says:

    Not only did she do the things you mention when she was Mayor, but the town also spent a lot of money on her watch employing a DC lobbyist whose job was – surprise/shock/horror – to get earmarks passed that would benefit the town.And there's the question of just how much involvement she and/or her husband have/had with the Alaska separatist party. (I forget its actual name.)

    • Alan Coil says:

      She took over a town that had no debt, and left it with $22 million in debt. Another Rightwing "fiscal conservative".

  8. Rick Taylor says:

    I've got to say that as much as either of the candidates would like to get the former Clinton base ('older' white men and women), I have yet to see either of the be successful at speaking to them in a meaningful way. McCain's Veep choice left me shaking my head. The recent Obama radio commercial uses the repeal of R vs. W as a kind of scare tactic. That'll attract women.This has got to be the sloppiest campaign since the Supreme Court appointed Howdy Doody.They BOTH need to get a lot more focused FAST!

  9. Swayze says:

    Well done article, Martha!A little known fact about the Palin family is that while they was living elsewhere, their daughter was living with and aunt in Anchorage, going to West High School, when "her boyfriend should have kept his Johnson in his Levi's" (I wish I could claim that line, but it was Michael Feldman's).I agree with Obama and his campaign that the kids should be off limits – But why was she not living at home? Was she too hard for Sarah and the 1st Dude to handle? If a feisty teen is too much, then what about, say, her neighbor Vladamir Putin? God help us all if the Dems lose this one.

  10. R. Maheras says:

    I’m a bit surprised with women of any political affiliation who say they believe in breaking barriers for women, but refuse to even consider supporting Sarah Palin because she is a conservative and a Republican. As an Independent, I think the idea of ONLY supporting women breaking barriers if they have “the proper ideology” is a tad narrow-minded, don’t you think?If you don’t, let me clue you in on a fun fact regarding breaking barriers. Every progressive-minded person worth their salt knows the story of Jackie Robinson and how he broke the color barrier in Major League Baseball in 1947. Just a couple weeks ago, as a matter of fact, the Rev. Jesse Jackson likened Obama’s historic run to Robinson’s much more harrowing ordeal. A few might even know that it was Branch Rickey, general manager of the Brooklyn Dodgers, who hired Robinson from the Negro Leagues with the specific intention of breaking baseball’s color barrier. But I’ll wager almost no progressive thinkers – especially liberals – know that Branch Rickey was a staunch Republican.Do any of you think Rickey asked Robinson whether or not he was a Republican before he supported his bid to be the first black player in baseball? No, Rickey did not. He didn’t care. Rather, Rickey did what he did because he thought it was the right thing to do.As a father of two free-thinking adult daughters and an executive-level wife who makes more money than I do, I’ve had quite a few discussions over the years about women’s rights, equal pay for equal work, feminism, and the like. And yet, just the other day, when I pointed out to my wife that freed male slaves in this country were guaranteed the right to vote 50 years before women of any color were, she was shocked.But you know what shocks me? That any woman, especially a feminist, would pass up this golden opportunity to move their own cause into the 21st Century. Then again, as I've been told more than once, I'm just a dumb ol' guy…

    • Uncle Robbie says:

      Mr. Maheras, your analogy bites. Do you really think you can equate voting for an executive of our government to baseball? PUHlease!As for what's left of your "point," I have never voted for anyone solely on the the basis of their genitalia (interior vs. exterior) and I'm not about to start. I vote for candidates I think will represent my ideals and support my interests. That is, after all, what they're supposed to be doing, isn't it? Being the voice for those they represent? Do I want a woman as president? You bet your ass I do! Am I willing to sacrifice my values to achieve that goal? Not a chance! [Activating anti-whinge subroutines]

    • pennie says:

      Sir,You wrote:"But you know what shocks me? That any woman, especially a feminist, would pass up this golden opportunity to move their own cause into the 21st Century.Then again, as I've been told more than once, I'm just a dumb ol' guy…"Advancing one's cause requires forethought, research, and action. Action alone isn't sufficient. You recognize that women could not even vote in this country until well after the turn of the 20th Century. To vote for Ms. Palin just because she shares my anatomical construction is indeed a simplistic and poor persepective. I would no more vote for Phyllis Schlafly, purportedly another female. THis VP choice is so transparent it defies imagination aimed at disaffected Hilary supporters as well as Moral Majority fanatics but in reality, just another pretty face (and rack). My legs deserve more substantial hose.Is there anything meaningful present? Any novel approach? Mavericks? The closest they get here is poker's definition: The name of a Queen and Jack in the pocket, suited or otherwise. Possibly this one from Merriam-Websters first association on-line: "an unbranded range animal; especially a motherless calf"Vote for this marvelous combo meal? Not so much,Anyone who advocates book banning brings up so many nauseating associations as to lose ALL credibility.pennie

      • R. Maheras says:

        Pennie wrote: "To vote for Ms. Palin just because she shares my anatomical construction is indeed a simplistic and poor persepective. " Oh, really? Substitute "race" for "anatomical construction" and you'll see how Barack was able to knock off Hillary Clinton in the Democratic Primary. Knowing how rare such opportunities are for presidential candidates who are not white males, blacks stuck together in a voting bloc of 80 percent. They sure didn't vote for Barack because of his experience or record, because, as Giuliani was quick to point out in his recent speech at the RNC, Barack has neither.Democratic women were not so wise, as they let Hillary get away. If Palin gets away, women in America have no one to blame but themselves for their inability to crack the Oval Office. It would mean that they had two golden opportunities this year, but were unable to put aside their differences long enough to deliver on a woman candidate for either party.This is the first year when a woman really had a real chance to be elected into the White House. Because the fact is, Ferraro in 1984 was nothing more than a symbolic pick in a campaign the Democrats knew was totally un-winnable.

        • Ken Lowery says:

          Oh, really? Substitute "race" for "anatomical construction" and you'll see how Barack was able to knock off Hillary Clinton in the Democratic Primary.Actually, I prefer Obama because I like his economic plan better, and he's been against the war since day one. Hillary was not. But thanks for presuming to know the intentions of millions of strangers.The reason no one cared about a baseball manager's politics is because it was baseball, not setting national policy. Palin's stances — insofar as anyone can get her to say anything of substance — are the very definition of anti-feminist.And I take it in your grand sweep of history you never heard of Jim Crow laws and poll taxes. But I guess we can't all know everything!

          • R. Maheras says:

            What I was alluding to in my comment is if women had stuck together in a voting bloc for Hillary like blacks stuck together for Obama, Hillary would have won the nomination. As a result, your Obama vote would not have mattered, and we would not even be having this conversation.The whole "Is Palin a feminist or not" is not the point. Those women who have liberal views had their opportunity to vote for a woman representative in line with their views in Hillary, and they blew it.

          • Ken Lowery says:

            Except — try to stay with me here — they did not agree with Hillary's positions enough, it seems. Imagine that! Voting on substance! Amazing.There are many women on this thread telling you that Palin's stances ARE rather the point. I'm going to go ahead and go with their word over yours, since they're, you know, the actual women in question.. and not just some guy claiming to know what's best for them.

          • pennie says:

            "There are many women on this thread telling you that Palin's stances ARE rather the point. I'm going to go ahead and go with their word over yours, since they're, you know, the actual women in question.. and not just some guy claiming to know what's best for them."Thank you Ken!!!!Most smart people I know vote for professed polices–or against them. And history is rife with those who profess to know what is best for others. Thank you Martha for this column which has surely stirred the pot.pennie

          • R. Maheras says:

            Not so, Ken. The substance of the two seems nearly identical to me. But Obama was fresh and new and advocated a very generic call for "change." Hillary, by comparison, had been around awhile and had a thousand-pound albatross around her neck in Bill Clinton. The old adage, "The grass is always greener on the other side of the fence," applies here. Obama is also charismatic, while Hillary often comes off as wooden. But philosophy-wise, Obama's views and Hillary's seem pretty darn close on almost all issues.

          • Ken Lowery says:

            Except you've just described a variety of issues that differentiated them, none of which have anything to do with race or gender. Thanks for making my argument for me.It boils down to this: You are telling women to embrace a female candidate because she is a woman, regardless of the fact that her stances are anti-woman in every way that matters. You are operating, in other words, under the same belief the Republican Party is… that women will vote for a mascot and not substance. I'm sorry you think so little about more than half the population.But please feel free to tell all the women here how they're wrong about what women should do. That should go well for you.

          • R. Maheras says:

            No, Ken. Charisma, speaking ability, freshness and newness are not issues. Issues are things like, the economy, national security, education, etc.Also, I'm not telling anyone to do anything. I'm just pointing out that for this presidential election, women in this country had their first real opportunity to elect a woman to the White House, and they have, or soon will be, letting that opportunity slip away.

          • Ken Lowery says:

            For some reason it's not letting me respond directly to you…I guess context didn't help you there, so I guess I have to spell it out for you. "Issues" in that sentence meant "aspects of the candidates" — and anyway, as many people have already pointed out, they have some very different philosophies about key issues that DO matter.The only opportunity women are "letting slip away" is the one to vote for a mascot whose stances are fundamentally anti-woman. That seems an enlightened attitude to me. That you can't see how patronizing YOUR stance is.. really is the source of the problem. But that's just another thing you share with the Republican Party.

          • R. Maheras says:

            You wouldn't have to spell anything out if you had originally made it clear that instead of the accepted definition of "issues" you were re-defining "issues" on your own terms — mainly a candidates traits.Your disrespect for Palin by calling her a "mascot" is typical female bashing. You apparently believe she could not have been picked for any other reason than her "cheer-leading" ability. That's typical sexist and intolerant crap, if you ask me.Personally, I think Palin is too inexperienced to have been selected as a VP at this point in time. But despite the fact that I voted for Obama in 2004, I feel the same way about him. He's been thrown into the fray eight years too soon.Hillary should have been the Democratic candidate.

          • Ken Lowery says:

            That's weird; when I look up "issue," the first definition is NOT platform planks! In fact, the word "political" doesn't show up until the 6th definition! It's as if words have different meanings that can change with context. Guess you were so busy reading up on Jackie Robinson's manager that you skipped English 101. But thanks for trying to suggest I was doing something sinister.There's nothing about Palin that qualifies her for the spot, as you yourself admit. What, then, might her selection be about? She's a mascot, as conservative pundits have said, alongside liberal ones. I am not "female bashing"; I am saying the Repubs picking her is an obvious and cynical ploy. Seems the women here agree with me. OMG, are they female bashers too???

          • pennie says:

            Thanks again Ken.You are no more female-bashing than I am. And last I checked under my skirt, I am one of them there females.Recognizing poor quality and a true lack of substance and meaning is certainly an admirable trait. Why deal with real issues when gender and race can obscure them?You go guy!pennie

          • R. Maheras says:

            I've been a journalist or have worked with journalists for 16 years. A political issue is not a personality trait, no matter how much you try and twist that pretzel. Regarding your mascot accusation, then Barack, by your definition, is also a "mascot."Since I am not partisan, I have a different view than you about the selection of Palin as VP nominee. McCain has his flaws, but insincerity is not one of them. Even many of his enemies say so.

          • Ken Lowery says:

            Except I didn't say "political issue." The word "issue" has many meanings, which can change with context. If you really ARE a lifelong journalist, it is kind of pathetic that I have to explain something like this. Way to sidetrack us on something totally ridiculous, while avoiding the actual meat of the comment.("But comments aren't meat, Ken. Meat is something else entirely! Meat is food! Stop trying to twist that pretzel!" That is how you sound right now: obtuse on the verge of farcical.)The difference between Obama and Palin is that he actually earned his spot. He campaigned, debated, did interviews, suffered the slings and arrows, and beat out several very qualified opponents. Palin, on the other hand, was selected by someone who had met her only once before, and indeed she didn't even know what the hell a Veep does a month before her selection. So she was picked on the basis of… what, exactly?So no, Obama does not fit my definition of "mascot." You are just terrible at this.As to McCain's sincerity.. you must be talking about liberals I don't know. All I can say is he's not the man he was in 2004, and we're all poorer for it.This is all pretty far from the original point, though: telling women they should rally behind Palin (and missed out with Hillary) on no other basis than she is a woman is ridiculous and patronizing in the extreme.

          • Linda Gold says:

            Thanks Ken, you took the words out of my mouth. How anyone can say that McCain is not insincere with a straight face is beyond me. it is clear that he will do anything, say anything, pander to anyone to become President. "Country first" my ass-all these people care about is power and enriching themselves and their cronies so they wrap themselves in the flag, God and motherhood and hope the fools get fooled again.

          • pennie says:

            The below is reprinted from today's NYT Op-Ed column by Frank Rich:"Palin and McCain’s Shotgun Marriage""As is nakedly evident, the [acceptance] speech’s central argument, that the 72-year-old McCain will magically morph into a powerful change agent as president, is a non sequitur. In his 26 years in Washington, most of it with a Republican in the White House and roughly half of it with Republicans in charge of Congress, he was better at lecturing his party about reform than leading a reform movement. G.O.P. corruption and governmental dysfunction only grew. So did his cynical flip-flops on the most destructive policies of the president who remained nameless Thursday night. (In the G.O.P., Bush love is now the second most popular love that dare not speak its name.)""Even more fraudulent, if that’s possible, is the contrast between McCain’s platonic presentation of his personal code of honor and the man he has become. He always puts his country first, he told us: “I’ve been called a maverick.” If there was any doubt that that McCain has fled, confirmation arrived with his last-minute embrace of Sarah Palin.""We still don’t know a lot about Palin except that she’s better at delivering a speech than McCain and that she defends her own pregnant daughter’s right to privacy even as she would have the government intrude to police the reproductive choices of all other women. Most of the rest of the biography supplied by her and the McCain camp is fiction. She didn’t say “no thanks” to the “Bridge to Nowhere” until after Congress had already abandoned it but given Alaska a blank check for $223 million in taxpayers’ money anyway. Far from rejecting federal pork, she hired lobbyists to secure her town a disproportionate share of earmarks ($1,000 per resident in 2002, 20 times the per capita average in other states). Though McCain claimed “she has had national security as one of her primary responsibilities,” she has never issued a single command as head of the Alaska National Guard. As for her “executive experience” as mayor, she told her hometown paper in Wasilla, Alaska, in 1996, the year of her election: “It’s not rocket science. It’s $6 million and 53 employees.” Her much-advertised crusade against officials abusing their office is now compromised by a bipartisan ethics investigation into charges that she did the same. ""How long before we learn she never shot a moose?"

          • R. Maheras says:

            Ken wrote: "Except I didn't say "political issue." The word "issue" has many meanings, which can change with context. "Well, you seem to be having so much fun running around in circles parsing words out of context, I'll just let you continue on your own. I thought it was obvious we were having a political exchange, but apparently, it was not so obvious to you.As far as Palin goes, she earned her place in the spotlight just as much as Barack did. She may have not campaigned for the VP spot, but she certainly campaigned as governor of her state — knocking off an entrenched Republican incumbent in the primaries, and beating a former Democratic governor of her state in an election where the Democrats had all the momentum. And while governor, she has had an approval rating that most other governors would love to have.Are you belittling her accomplishments because she is a Republican, a conservative, a woman, or all three?

          • Linda Gold says:

            I am a woman with ultra-liberal views (I prefer progressive, liberals aren't liberal enough for me) and I would have voted for Hilary while holding my nose if she were the candidate but not in the primary. She's too Washington insider for me, never renounced her initial support for the Iraq war and is a member of a fairly right-wing prayer group that meets regularly in Washington. Not really my cup of tea. I am not interested in gender politics. I am concerned with who will do the best for the most of us no matter their genitalia.

        • Linda Gold says:

          You can say what you want about women letting there chances pass them buy but it would be insane to support a Republican woman who is the antithesis of everything the women's movement has fought for since the 1970's just to break a barrier. That's 1 step forward, 20 steps back. I'd rather have a man who believes in my right to control my own life and live the way I want then a hundred women who want to shove their ideology down my throat and tell me who I can marry and when I have to give birth or what books I am allowed to read.

          • R. Maheras says:

            Fair enough, but keep in mind that many conservative and independent women feel the same way about getting someone else's ideology shoved down their throats. And this is why women don't generally vote as one bloc — which is too bad for Hillary, and could very well be too bad for Palin. But don't shoot the messenger. I just call things as I see 'em.

    • Martha Thomases says:

      The Republican Party at the time of Jackie Robinson stood for a much different set of ideals than the Republican Party of Bush, McCain and Palin.

    • John Tebbel says:

      Yeah, and Lincoln was a Republican and these days a Republican thinks Clarence Thomas is an intellectual. You write like a Giants fan.

      • R. Maheras says:

        I'm actually from Chicago, and I voted for Barack in 2004.

        • Karl Foil says:

          There you have it, Mr. Maheras, if you think reasonably, you are "one of them" — that heinous vein of right-wing hate-mongers who don't swallow the Left's bilge hook, line, and sinker. You leave them frothing if you don't consider accusations as facts, opinions as proof, and voting independently or voting for conservatives is de facto evidence that you, my friend, are a moron. You must be if you don't agree with them. Invoking your vote for Obama is deemed either a lie or as insufficient to redeem you. Bigoted hatred has found its modern, self-righteous home squarely on the Left.Agreeing on one point but not another disqualifies you from comment or due consideration by "progressives" — which is an absurd identifier for a bunch who harken back to the misbegotten ideals that birthed every 20th Century anti-human dictatorship from the Soviet Union to Nazism to Red China. They imagine that if the insane and failed are just tried once again, by the leader of their choosing, of course, it will yield a different result. In their jaded, paranoid, and history-retarded view the only way George W. Bush could've won twice is voter fraud and the subversion of the Constitution. When the unwashed, "uninformed" masses voted Clinton in twice, it was wonderful, populist uprising. What was it when Congress went conservative in landslides across America? And when they voted for Bush? "The election was stolen!" or "The American people are vengeful neanderthals!" Oh, how the mighty Everyman has fallen.Someone here called it presumptuous to suggest that women might want to vote for Palin, a proven female leader. (If less experienced than Bill Clinton, she is still vastly more experienced than Mr. Obama or, at the executive level, than his Beltway Boy VP pick.) But then they presume to suggest that only uninformed idiots will fall for Palin's "bullshit." I guess it all depends on who is doing the presuming. (And on who here actually heard her speech or believed the false claims made by even Obama himself re: the content of her speech.)The irony and the condescension from the Left are stultifying. Definitive GroupThink. How else could they justify the personal attacks against Palin that have nothing whatever to do with her positions or her experience, the ridiculous claims that she should stay home and mother her brood? Attacks which, if levelled against a liberal woman, would launch protests and press conferences far and wide in her defense by NOW and others.But the cry is ever, "Right-wingers are divisive! They're tearing this country apart!" Your paranoid us-and-them tactics are about to tear the bonds of conservative and centrist voters from the Democrat Party. Whether they agree with the platform of the McCain-Palin ticket or not, they've been left with no choice but to vote for McCain, or stay home.(I would ask you to think about it, but it isn't thinking that we're seeing evidenced on the Left in the unfounded rage against Palin, but rather hyper-emotionalism, bigotry, and unfounded fears.)

        • Mike Gold says:

          Perhaps John was referring to the Chicago Giants, the Negro League baseball team.

    • Russ Rogers says:

      Do you think Rickey asked what Robinson's batting average was in the Negro League? Do you think Rickey looked at the stats on Robinson's fielding to see if he was prone to errors? You bet! That was the RECORD, mindset and ideology that Rickey was interested in. Now, you expect women to put aside their political views to vote in a POLITICAL campaign? That's IDIOCY. Women have more at stake in this election than, "Does the unvetted, inexperienced, lying, number two on the Republican ticket have a vagina?"Mr. Maheras, it may be more than your gender that has people telling you that you're a "dumb ol' guy."

      • R. Maheras says:

        See my comment to Pennie. As a man, your argument rings hollow. Because gender is exactly why women are not paid equally or given the same opportunites as men. I've seen it through those close to me plenty of times, and frankly, it pisses me off.

        • Russ Rogers says:

          I'm not saying that gender inequalities don't exist. And I gave Barack Obama a really careful study BECAUSE he was black. That may have been an advantage for him. His unique personal history, heritage, experience and qualifications certainly set him apart from the rest of the Primary Democrats. I found that I not only agreed with many of his views, I found Barack Obama to be an inspiring speaker and leader. Those are qualities I look for in a candidate, someone who shares my political views and better yet, can explain and motivate me to take BETTER views.Trust me, I look LONG and hard at Hillary Clinton and I've looked LONG and hard at Palin. I like Hillary. I respect her. But I thought her connections to Bill were too close for leading the country into a new future, a new direction. We wil have had a Bush or Clinton in the White House for 28 years. It's time to expand the oligarchy.I've looked at Palin. I've considered her record far more closely than say, Dan Quale's or Joe Biden's. And other than her being a woman or a hockey mom, there isn't much there that I like. She tried to find out how she could ban books from her library! She's against scientific sex education in the schools that included education on forms of birth control. She is under the impression that parents can do a better job of that. I agree. But, I think that children NEED a basic education of the facts and general mores of sex education in the schools, because SOME parents are going to be lazy or shy and avoid teaching their kids what they need to know BEFORE they get pregnant, get some potentially lethal social disease or put themselves in some other dangerous or life altering situation. I don't think Parents should RELY on the schools. But I don't think society can RELY on the Parents alone.Palin doesn't believe that Global Warming is man made. She thinks creationism should be taught in public schools. She's against teaching about birth control. This is completely bogus thinking. I can't support this from anyone.

    • John Ostrander says:

      "I’m a bit surprised with women of any political affiliation who say they believe in breaking barriers for women, but refuse to even consider supporting Sarah Palin because she is a conservative and a Republican."I challenged some Republican members of my family bwith the notion that Bush was the true "RINO" — Republican In Name Only" and I'd suggest the same thing about Palin based on what we've heard about her so far. Traditionally, a Republican would not have racked up the kind of debt that both Bush and Palin have done in their respective offices. Nor would have a TRUE Conservative. Fiscal responsibility was usually the Republican thing. Not with Bush or Palin.When did "conservative" become equated with "Right Wing Religious Evangelical"?All black Americans have supported Obama because he was black? I seem to remember a deep debate about whether or not Obama was "black enough" or if he had truly had the "black experience". I seem to remember Jesse Jackson Sr. being less than convinced.Will there be women predisposed to vote for Palin because of gender. There sure will just as there will be some black who will be predisposed to vote Obama. Just as a bunch of folks voted for Bush on the (mistaken) notion he was "just like them".But if Palin doesn't support the issues that many women find important, then the notion that they should vote for her on the basis of gender is unrealistic and, frankly, demeaning. Palin would staunchly oppose the issues those women feel are important. Gender or race is insufficient reason to vote for someone in and of itself. Voiting for Palin would not carry women's issues into the 21st Century.

    • Melanie Fletcher says:

      As an Independent, I think the idea of ONLY supporting women breaking barriers if they have “the proper ideology” is a tad narrow-minded, don’t you think?Nope. I don't vote for people based on their genitalia, even if it is the same kind as mine — I vote for people based on their record. Sarah Palin scares the shit out of me with her anti-choice beliefs, her poor budget management skills and her basalt-like belief that her way is the only right way. I don't want her anywhere near the White House.

    • Richard Pachter says:

      Voting for a candidate with whom you disagree on issues just because of her/his gender is sexist. Or by race, racist.Not a difficult concept, Russ.

      • R. Maheras says:

        Perhaps. But I don’t think things are so cut-and-dried when it comes to historically unrepresented groups seeking to break the political representation barrier.As I pointed out, Barack Obama routinely got 80 percent of the black vote during his primaries battle with Hillary Clinton. Do you attribute that solidarity to racism, or is the solidarity there because blacks know such opportunities are rare for black candidates and view Barack’s candidacy as an opportunity to break historical barriers? Black voters certainly did not vote for Barack because of his experience and long list of legislative and leadership achievements. Among women, the same should have been the case for Hillary, and now Palin. But, as I mentioned, women did not come together as a voting bloc for Hillary, and they probably also will not for Palin.In short, women had a golden opportunity this year to make history and shatter the biggest glass ceiling there is, but because of their inability to overlook various philosophical differences, they very well may have failed.Frankly, considering that women make up 50 percent of voters, one has to wonder why in the 88 years since women earned the right to vote, no woman had ever served in the top two positions in the Executive Branch. One of the most impressive leaders I’ve seen in my lifetime was English Prime Minister Maggie Thatcher. I got to see her in action almost daily when I was stationed there from 1979-1982 — especially her tough-as-nails handling of the British military during the Falklands War. Even if one hated her policies (and many did – especially in the Labour Party), few could argue that the “Iron Lady” was an impressive and imposing leader.

        • Richard Pachter says:

          Sorry. I just don't see it. The Obama-Clinton race is a poor sample, as are most primaries, imho.Regardless, if Obama had expressed support of policies counter to those voters' interests, I don't think he would have prevailed despite his race.Similarly, a non-conservative woman who votes for McCain-Palin based on the vice presidential candidate's gender despite being opposed to their policies is still votng against her own interests. Gender is beside the point. As it should be.Now, if she headed the ticket, there might be an issue there. I'll give you that. I still think the principle holds, but we MIGHT have something to talk about.But as VP? Nope.

        • Martha Thomases says:

          As she so always does, Gloria Steinem will explain it all to you:http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-steinem…,0,7541303.story(h/t to Charlie Kochman)

          • R. Maheras says:

            If, as Steinem says, the majority of women agree on the “progressive” issues Steinem touts, then women would have no problem forming a voting bloc and electing a woman into the top Executive Branch spots.Since that has never happened before (and may not happen in this election), it can only mean that contrary to what Steinem says, women are not united on the issues. As a matter of fact, because viewpoints are so divided, women are woefully underrepresented across the political spectrum. And Steinem is actually hurting her own cause by being intolerant of any woman who does not think like she does. Hers is not the attitude of a unifier, and that is why she may never see a woman in the White House in her lifetime. Steinem is part of the problem, not the solution.

          • Martha Thomases says:

            What intolerance are you talking about? She describes those of Palin's opinions that she thinks are counter to feminism. Disagreement is not intolerance.

          • R. Maheras says:

            Steinem made it clear in her op-ed piece that women like Palin, regardless of their achievements, are not worthy of her support. She doesn't just disagree with Palin, she considers Palin a non-entity, or even a step backwards, in the quest for equal rights.In my mind, that is intolerance. There are tens of millions of women in this country who agree more with Palin's overall philosophy than with Steinem's, and those women would not have Steinem's support either.So until the perfect woman candidate comes along — one with an "acceptable level" of Steinem's political philosophy — Steinem apparently plans to keep letting men call the shots. Hell, you may as well change the lyrics of Helen Reddy's song to, "I am woman, hear me squeak, in numbers fragmented and weak, and I know lots more but still can't do a thing…"

          • Richard Pachter says:

            Right. Steinem is hurting her own cause by not supporting someone opposed to nearly every issue that matters to her.Life am good. Me so happy.Hello!

          • R. Maheras says:

            Steinem said in her op-ed piece that most women were in agreement with her views regarding the women's rights movement. I merely pointed out if that were the case, then women would be voting as a large bloc, and they would be far better represented on the national political stage than they currently are.The fact is, Steinem's paradigm of the women's rights movement is exclusionary,and in its current form,does not represent a significant majority of women. If it did, there would have been a woman running this country a long time ago. If the woman's rights movement was truly about gender, it would celebrate successes of all women, regardless of their ideology. But the woman's rights movement that Steinem represents is intolerant and exclusionary, only celebrating women who adhere to the "proper" ideology. And Steinem's exclusionary view of "the right kind of woman" even spreads beyond woman's issues, as was made clear when her op-ed piece chided Palin for her stance on Global Warming.No, instead of embracing all women, and focusing on issues where there is substantial common ground (equal opportunity, equal pay for equal work, etc.), Steinem chooses to refuse support for those who do not adhere to her ideology.

          • Richard Pachter says:

            Somehow, Steinem can manage to support whomever she wants without your advice or consent, Russ. I know that it's a painful notion, but please accept it and move on.You, Russ, are free to embrace and support anyone who doesn't agree with you if you so choose. I have no idea why you would want to do such a thing, but you can if that's what makes you happy.Me, I prefer to support candidates whose values and ideologies I agree with. Call me crazy, but that's just the way I feel. It's a zany world.

          • R. Maheras says:

            True, but the difference between Steinem and I is I don't pass myself off as a figurehead/spokesperson for a particular group and then ignore half the group because their philosophy does not match mine.

          • Richard Pachter says:

            You might be projecting just a wee bit, Russ, and ascribing values that you think she should hold instead of ones she does hold.I don't recall her ever supporting any so-called conservatives. Ever.Why would she start now?Because you say she should?Doesn't work like that.

          • R. Maheras says:

            Isn't that what I said? Steinem is supposed to be a spokesperson for women's rights, correct? But she doesn't speak for all women, nor does she, or her followers, care. And that's the problem — the woman's movement has no solidarity.And frankly, if the the women's movement is really just about liberal vs. independent vs. conservative philosophy and NOT gender, then it's all just a facade. Women may as well just stay in their own political parties and throw the whole sisterhood schtick into the trash heap.

          • Richard Pachter says:

            The solution, of course, is for you to set up your own women's group, Russ. You will then be able to set its agenda to ensure that it adheres to your standards without deviation, question or compromise. You can then speak for all women to protect the purity of what you call "the whole sisterhood schtick."Some surgery might be required so that you can qualify for your new role but that should be a minor inconvenience, I suppose; a "cutback in membership" might be one way to put it.That would be a small sacrifice (no offense!) for you to make to ensure that your views prevail, since it would be most inappropriate for a man to dictate policies to a women's group, right?Let me know how that works out for you, Russ.

          • R. Maheras says:

            Is that your solution? Ignore valid observations with dismissals laced with heavy doses of sarcasm?Maybe you think the status quo is fine, with partisans on both extremes hunkered down on both sides lobbing grenade after grenade at each other, but I don't.Someone in my vantage point sees the Steinems and Coulters and Frankens and Limbaughs for what they are: Intolerant windbags.

          • Richard Pachter says:

            My solution is to mind my own business. Feminist groups don't need your advice, Russ. Nor mine.In the blog world, it's called "concern trolling;" mostly Republicans telling Democrats what they should and shouldn't do "for their own good."I maintain that supporting a candidate based on gender despite their polices being antithetical to your own is ridiculous and not a "valid point." It's not extremism either, Russ, or partisanship. It's self-interest.Rail against whomever you like… even a sweet, shy, subtle fellow like me… but expecting a person or group to conform to your standards, contrary to their own, is more than a little unrealistic.

          • R. Maheras says:

            Your troll accusations do not ring true, as trolls generally use pseudonyms, go from board to board dropping insults and stirring up trouble, and then disappearing. But you know exactly who I am, as you’ve been acquainted with me since about 1990 through CAPA-alpha. In addition, while I frequent quite a few Web sites on a regular basis, at the present time, I only actively participate on this message board, The Comics Journal’s, The Beat’s, and occasionally, Peter David’s. Also, I’m not, and have never been a Republican – registered or otherwise. I’m an independent, which is why I don’t look at the world through your political lens. For example, your assertion that “mostly” Republicans troll the Web sites of their political opponents is laughable. Democrats do it all the time as well, which is why I see more similarities than differences with the tactics of the two major parties when they run for office. Neither party has the moral high ground in that regards, in my opinion.And I don’t post here to change anyone’s mind. I post here to give my opinion – just like you. You wrote: “I maintain that supporting a candidate based on gender despite their polices being antithetical to your own is ridiculous and not a "valid point."But you ignore key points of my discussion. Gender and race – superficial characteristics of a candidate – should be ignored by voters, but if traditionally underrepresented voter demographics ever want to change the balance of representation, they need to overcome their differences – at least initially – and vote as a bloc. Black Democrats understood this when they routinely gave Obama 80 percent of their vote bloc in the primaries. Unfortunately for Hillary, woman Democratic voters were not so accommodating, and she lost. Adding insult to injury, Obama never even considered Hillary for his short list of VP candidates, so Democratic women voters were given short shrift, representation-wise, yet again. That’s not advice. That’s not telling someone to conform to my personal candidate selection standards.I’m just making an observation about an election dynamic and giving my opinion as to what I think the driving forces behind that dynamic are.

  11. Uncle Robbie says:

    Mr. Maheras, your analogy bites. Do you really think you can equate voting for an executive of our government to baseball? PUHlease!As for what's left of your "point," I have never voted for anyone solely on the the basis of their genitalia (interior vs. exterior) and I'm not about to start. I vote for candidates I think will represent my ideals and support my interests. That is, after all, what they're supposed to be doing, isn't it? Being the voice for those they represent? Do I want a woman as president? You bet your ass I do! Am I willing to sacrifice my values to achieve that goal? Not a chance! [Activating anti-whinge subroutines]

    • R. Maheras says:

      See my comments to Pennie and Russ, same subject.

    • pennie says:

      "Do I want a woman as president? You bet your ass I do! Am I willing to sacrifice my values to achieve that goal? Not a chance!"Thank you Uncle Robbie!!!!!!!!It is futile to argue with a closed mind. So I won't.To compare this situation and pioneer Jackie Robinson with the elephant party's VP "choice" "pales in" comparison to Robinson's true peers–sort of like intersecting James Joyce with J. Danforth Quayle.Most women I know are not fooled by the elephant.Reminds of the child's story and it's punchline: Q. "How do you eat an elephant?"A. "One bite at a time."pennie

      • R. Maheras says:

        Closed mind? How do you figure? I'm an independent who routinely splits my ticket. In presidential elections since 1972, I've voted Republican, Democratic, Independent and once I refused to vote at all.It's the ever-partisan voter who is closed-minded, if you ask me!

      • Uncle Robbie says:

        "It is futile to argue with a closed mind. So I won't."My dear Pennie, you have so much more self control than I've ever imagined having. I'd strive for such restraint, but the bon-bons are so darn tasty!

    • R. Maheras says:

      Uncle Robbie wrote: "Do you really think you can equate voting for an executive of our government to baseball? PUHlease!"Again, you try and shoot the messenger. It was actually the Rev. Jesse Jackson who made the original comparison a couple of weeks ago.

    • Mike Gold says:

      "Do you really think you can equate voting for an executive of our government to baseball?"True. Baseball's more trustworthy.

  12. Elayne Riggs says:

    The thing about Palin's story is that she's been such a relatively blank slate that many voters have been putting their stories onto her. It's the same thing that was happening with Obama for awhile — he's the Agent of Change who's going to do all but part the waters, and she's the Feisty Gun-Toting Mom who's going to embody whatever her supporters want her to. So much of this campaign has been about voters making up their own stories and fitting them to their preferred candidates.I agree with Russ that some liberals have been itching for a feeding frenzy. Karl Rove knows this very well. That's what's behind the supposition in some circles that it was Rove who planted the story in the Daily Kos (to which Brian alludes) about how Palin's youngest son might be her daughter's instead. We need to be very careful in this election not only to avoid writing our stories onto other people, but in believing every revelatory story that comes down the pike about these people.

  13. Uncle Robbie says:

    What's your point (which seems to be a common theme with you)? It was crap whan Jesse said it and it's still crap after you've swallowed it and thrown it back up.

  14. Uncle Robbie says:

    You certainly like to bang your Independent drum, don't you? But it's just a meaningless label, like all the others you've been tossing around. When my state told me I had to register as either a Democrat or a Republican (no third option), I registered Democrat. Not because I am one, mind you (I'm not, I'm a liberal), but because the very thought of being a Republican made me want to bathe in acid (instead of just soaking my tongue in it). "The Party of Lincoln," as they are so keen to point out these days, has come a long way since then, and not in a healthy direction. That said, it hasn't stopped me from voting for a GOP candidate when their stance on the issues is more in step with mine than the other candidate(s). I am independent, but with a lower case i.Wow. I almost miss Usenet.

  15. Russ Rogers says:

    59 Comments and counting! Rock ON! At least we aren't disinterested bystanders. I applaud Martha Thomases for setting the stage and R. Maheras for sparking and fueling the debate. And I think we can all pat ourselves on the back for staying moderately civil. We are in a WIN/WIN situation this year as far as social change goes. If the Democrats are elected we will see the first Black President in Our Nation's History. That is something I cynically doubted could happen in my lifetime. If the Republicans win, we will see the first Female VP elected to the White House! Either way, a "Glass Ceiling" is going to shatter for a significantly under-represented constituency. Some barrier has already been broken, we just don't know which on. This is great! McCain has trumped the Democrats, taking away some of the motivation to vote for Obama/Biden, just because the make-up of that ticket is unique and electing them would be Historic. Now the election of the McCain/Palin ticket would also be historic! McCain has also trumped the Republican argument that Obama lacks the required experience for the job. I think Obama's stint as President of the Harvard Law Review, as well as his record as a legislator in Illinois and the U.S. Senate surpass Palin's record of being the mayor of a town of less than 10,000 or the Governor of a state of less than 1 million. Obama's executive record of organizing and running a national campaign for the Presidency is at least arguably equivalent (and I say superior) to whatever executive experience the Republicans want to credit Palin with. We don't need to vote for Obama just because he's black and that would be historic. We don't need to vote for McCain, just because he claims to have more experience. Both those arguments can now be taken off the table! Race, gender and experience can become non-issues. YEAH!We can look at the candidates and vote on their platforms, positions, character and their ability to be the kind of leaders we need. We can judge the two tickets based on what we think are the proper goals and directions for Our County. Both parties are running on a theme of CHANGE. Both recognize that the current course of domestic and foreign policy has been a failure. I just don't think McCain's stay-the-course policies of making tax cuts for the wealthiest permanent or extending our military involvement in Iraq indefinitely are the kind of "Change I can believe in." I don't think it makes sense to try to effect change by keeping the status quo of the same Party that has been in Power, with the same policies. Where's the CHANGE in that? McCain has voted with Bush 90% of the time. I don't think electing McCain would be like getting four more years of Bush. But I don't think this country can survive even four more years of 90% of Bush and that failed agenda.This country hasn't seen anything close to a balanced budget since the last time the Democrats controlled the White House. I don't think we can take any more of the radical fiscal policy that has driven this country for the last eight years. Republican tax cuts and unrestrained Republican spending have not created the economic prosperity or national security that was promised. We need a change. But I don't think it can come from the Republican Ticket. Not this time.

  16. Anonymous says:

    WOW! To say I am insulted by this cartoon would be a gross understatement. I come here to ComicMix to read COMIC BOOKS, and about COMIC BOOKS and all I have read over the last few weeks are political swipes…Most of them being dominated by the "Pro-Obama" crowd.There is a reason that most celebrities, writers, and artists should focus on their craft, rather than wax political science philosophy. Especially considering that most of them, don't even know from which they speak, and in the process, lose 50% of their audience. If I wanted to read about the latest presidential race, I would turn to the newspaper, or cable news. I WANT TO READ ABOUT THE INDUSTRY THAT I LOVE…COMIC BOOKS!!!I beg and implore all of you contributors here at ComicMix…Please, please, please stop confusing this site with a place like "MoveOn.org".

  17. Russ Rogers says:

    McCain and Palin are trying to sell themselves at Mavericks and agents of change in Washington.Bush's RADICAL fiscal policy of cutting taxes and expanding the budget has nearly ruined our economy. McCain wants to make those tax cuts permanent. McCain wants to stay the course indefinitely in Iraq. McCain's foreign, economic, energy, health care and environmental policies are essentially the SAME as Bush's. He's from the SAME party, the Republicans! McCain/Palin and the Republicans are NOT agents of CHANGE. They are MORE of the SAME. They are NOT the Mavericks or Reformers in this picture. A vote for McCain is NOT a vote for change, no matter how many times the Republicans say it is.McCain saying that he's against the influence of Lobbyists in Washington, when his campaign is being RUN by lobbyists, is deluded. Palin claiming that she is against special interests, earmarks and said, "Thanks, but no thanks" to the Bridge to Nowhere; when she supported the bridge and, as mayor of a town of less than ten thousand, sent representatives to lobby Washington and make sure they got a share of earmarks: that's exaggeration crossing over into pure fabrication! Claiming that McCain/Palin are Mavericks and will change things in Washington is storytelling, a fiction. I'm sorry. You can't put Lipstick on a Pit Bull and just call it a Hockey Mom. There is a difference and it's more than cosmetic. Somebody is lying!

  18. Richard Pachter says:

    OK; let me repond specifically, Russ.Your troll accusations do not ring true, as trolls generally use pseudonyms, go from board to board dropping insults and stirring up trouble, and then disappearing. But you know exactly who I am, as you've been acquainted with me since about 1990 through CAPA-alpha. In addition, while I frequent quite a few Web sites on a regular basis, at the present time, I only actively participate on this message board, The Comics Journal's, The Beat's, and occasionally, Peter David's. Never said you were a troll; just compared you to "concern trolls" who offer advice to groups they disagree with "for their own good," which is a valid comparison, not an accusation. Also, I'm not, and have never been a Republican – registered or otherwise. I'm an independent, which is why I don't look at the world through your political lens. For example, your assertion that "mostly" Republicans troll the Web sites of their political opponents is laughable. Democrats do it all the time as well, which is why I see more similarities than differences with the tactics of the two major parties when they run for office. Neither party has the moral high ground in that regards, in my opinion.Didn't accuse you of being a Republican, either (see above). Nor did I say that I was a Democrat or had a any type of "political lens" (though I do wear glasses with progressives lenses, so maybe you have a point.)As for Democratic concern trolls, I'll take your word for it; I've only seen the other kind.And I don't post here to change anyone's mind. I post here to give my opinion – just like you.Fair enoughYou wrote: "I maintain that supporting a candidate based on gender despite their polices being antithetical to your own is ridiculous and not a "valid point."But you ignore key points of my discussion. Gender and race – superficial characteristics of a candidate – should be ignored by voters, but if traditionally underrepresented voter demographics ever want to change the balance of representation, they need to overcome their differences – at least initially – and vote as a bloc. Black Democrats understood this when they routinely gave Obama 80 percent of their vote bloc in the primaries. Unfortunately for Hillary, woman Democratic voters were not so accommodating, and she lost. Adding insult to injury, Obama never even considered Hillary for his short list of VP candidates, so Democratic women voters were given short shrift, representation-wise, yet again. OK; but the black Democrats who voted for Obama are Democrats. That's far different than advocating women of either party vote for a candidate with whom they disagree just because their running mate is of their gender or race. I maintain that voting (or not voting) for a candidate solely because of their race or gender is racist and/or sexist. And following your logic, for whom should the black WOMEN voters have cast their ballots? (Where I live, by the way, lots of people don't want to vote for Obama because of his race, yet are also lifelong Democrats and don't want to vote for McCain either. We'll see how that plays out.)And unless you were privy to his inner circle, I doubt that you know whether or not Clinton was considered by Obama for VP.That's not advice. That's not telling someone to conform to my personal candidate selection standards.I'm just making an observation about an election dynamic and giving my opinion as to what I think the driving forces behind that dynamic are.Again, fair enough, though perhaps I can be excused for mistaking your observations for advice.

    • Richard Pachter says:

      Let me try this again;I had tried to format it for clarity but my html looked great as a preview but didn't post. I can feel Frank Miller's pain. Maybe not.OK; let me respond specifically, Russ.Your troll accusations do not ring true, as trolls generally use pseudonyms, go from board to board dropping insults and stirring up trouble, and then disappearing. But you know exactly who I am, as you've been acquainted with me since about 1990 through CAPA-alpha. In addition, while I frequent quite a few Web sites on a regular basis, at the present time, I only actively participate on this message board, The Comics Journal's, The Beat's, and occasionally, Peter David's.Never said you were a troll; just compared you to "concern trolls" who offer advice to groups they disagree with "for their own good," which is a valid comparison, not an accusation.Also, I'm not, and have never been a Republican – registered or otherwise. I'm an independent, which is why I don't look at the world through your political lens. For example, your assertion that "mostly" Republicans troll the Web sites of their political opponents is laughable. Democrats do it all the time as well, which is why I see more similarities than differences with the tactics of the two major parties when they run for office. Neither party has the moral high ground in that regards, in my opinion.Didn't accuse you of being a Republican, either (see above). Nor did I say that I was a Democrat or had a any type of "political lens" (though I do wear glasses with progressives lenses, so maybe you have a point.)As for Democratic concern trolls, I'll take your word for it; I've only seen the other kind.And I don't post here to change anyone's mind. I post here to give my opinion – just like you.Fair enoughYou wrote: "I maintain that supporting a candidate based on gender despite their polices being antithetical to your own is ridiculous and not a "valid point."But you ignore key points of my discussion. Gender and race – superficial characteristics of a candidate – should be ignored by voters, but if traditionally underrepresented voter demographics ever want to change the balance of representation, they need to overcome their differences – at least initially – and vote as a bloc. Black Democrats understood this when they routinely gave Obama 80 percent of their vote bloc in the primaries. Unfortunately for Hillary, woman Democratic voters were not so accommodating, and she lost. Adding insult to injury, Obama never even considered Hillary for his short list of VP candidates, so Democratic women voters were given short shrift, representation-wise, yet again.OK; but the black Democrats who voted for Obama are Democrats. That's far different than advocating women of either party vote for a candidate with whom they disagree just because their running mate is of their gender or race. I maintain that voting (or not voting) for a candidate solely because of their race or gender is racist and/or sexist.And following your logic, for whom should the black WOMEN voters have cast their ballots?(Where I live, by the way, lots of people don't want to vote for Obama because of his race, yet are also lifelong Democrats and don't want to vote for McCain either. We'll see how that plays out.)And unless you were privy to his inner circle, I doubt that you know whether or not Clinton was considered by Obama for VP.That's not advice.That's not telling someone to conform to my personal candidate selection standards.I'm just making an observation about an election dynamic and giving my opinion as to what I think the driving forces behind that dynamic are.Again, fair enough, though perhaps I can be excused for mistaking your observations for advice.

  19. Tyson Durst says:

    I'm watching this electoraltainment (copyright me unless the term has already been coined in which case I defer to any request for ceasing and/or desisting) from afar in Canada where we're in the middle of our own snap circus of an election.So is McCain an old man sustained by the miracles of animatronic technology as portrayed by some or does he possess the wild libido of Bill Clinton as the article suggests at the end?And why can't I log in to the site directly? Do Canadians have to go through a more extensive screening process?

  20. Mike Gold says:

    "And why can't I log in to the site directly? Do Canadians have to go through a more extensive screening process?"Well, they do now.Actually, if you — or anybody else — has a problem with logging in, please click on the "CONTACT US" button on the lower left of each ComicMix page. We read your comments, and our tech team does indeed respond.Even to Canadians.

  21. russ carreiro says:

    Haven't the Republicans just tossed in the gauntlet at this point? I mean haven't they just simply implied that Americans are stupid and that Republicans are even dumber? I mean how you can possibly pass this woman off as someone who is qualified to be VP let alone President? We are talking about a woman who got herself elected to Governor of the smallest populated state that is probably as far removed from anything we in the rest of the country deal with that its basically the butt of a joke. She has been in favor of Censorship, bigger government, more obtrusive government, shotgun marriages and was a member of Church were people speak in "tongues" and think dinos are 4000 years old. I mean what are they saying? These aren't the "values" of anyone I know of. I guess whats so sad is that people are buying it. I wish I could say its just a bad joke but its actually getting very scary right now.