Susie--Everyone here seems to be equating "creation" with "creationism."  They are two very different concepts.  People like me believe the universe is a random happening; people who believe in God believe that he is the intelligence behind the universe.  But, honestly, there is no way that I can even contemplate that anyone can believe that the bible should be interpreted literally, that God created the universe in seven days, in the sense of a 24 hour day, in a 365 day calendar.  First, the concept of a day (and our calendar) has changed drastically over the centuries. There is no contradiction in religious thought to believe that the earth is evolving and was not created in seven days and that there is a higher being responsible for this creation.  What is irresponsible, I believe strongly, is to take the bible as some absolute truth, which necessarily means throwing out what we've learned through science. 

And I have no problem if some people choose to believe in Creationism, but I have a huge problem if that person is the president of my country, as it will impede the flow of ideas and progress.  The little I know of Jindal impresses me, particularly his knowledge of health care problems, but I'll admit if he also is a Creationist then I have to amend my view.

I am now very fearful that Hillary might be the candidate in four years, as it means that McCain will win this election.  Who else would a Sarah Palin turn to if McCain died in office, but the Cheney's and Bush's of this world, and that is beyond hell--in which as you all know I don't believe!

Shokk--maybe we'll meet in the middle some day, as we both see the world moving in the same direction, you to the left and me to the right, which in our case is the middle!  LOL 

Shokk--I'll send you a PM with my real name.  I must confess, I don't know what WI stands for!  If I'm in New York I'd be delighted to have lunch with her.  Sounds like a very intelligent woman--and that's not a dig at you, promise.  Perhaps she'll talk you into voting for Obama, or maybe even Nader!  I heard that over here!

Since there's a mixed group of folks reading this thread, I thought I would post this article in its entirety. I was even surprised at the difference that having a Democrat or a Republican in office, makes to the general economic well-being of most of us.  Of course if you make above $180,000 a year you may prefer to again vote Republican, but if you make less, please do read this article. The writer may not be totally unbiased but the economic data stands on its own.  If you vote based on your own interests, this may enlighten you.

Is History Siding With Obama’s Economic Plan?

CLEARLY, there are major differences between the economic policies of Senators Barack Obama and John McCain. Mr. McCain wants more tax cuts for the rich; Mr. Obama wants tax cuts for the poor and middle class. The two men also disagree on health care, energy and many other topics.

Such differences are hardly surprising. Democrats and Republicans have followed different approaches to the economy for as long as there have been Democrats and Republicans. Longer, actually. Remember Hamilton versus Jefferson?

Many Americans know that there are characteristic policy differences between the two parties. But few are aware of two important facts about the post-World War II era, both of which are brilliantly delineated in a new book, “Unequal Democracy,” by Larry M. Bartels, a professor of political science at Princeton. Understanding them might help voters see what could be at stake, economically speaking, in November.

I call the first fact the Great Partisan Growth Divide. Simply put, the United States economy has grown faster, on average, under Democratic presidents than under Republicans.

The stark contrast between the whiz-bang Clinton years and the dreary Bush years is familiar because it is so recent. But while it is extreme, it is not atypical. Data for the whole period from 1948 to 2007, during which Republicans occupied the White House for 34 years and Democrats for 26, show average annual growth of real gross national product of 1.64 percent per capita under Republican presidents versus 2.78 percent under Democrats.

That 1.14-point difference, if maintained for eight years, would yield 9.33 percent more income per person, which is a lot more than almost anyone can expect from a tax cut.

Such a large historical gap in economic performance between the two parties is rather surprising, because presidents have limited leverage over the nation’s economy. Most economists will tell you that Federal Reserve policy and oil prices, to name just two influences, are far more powerful than fiscal policy. Furthermore, as those mutual fund prospectuses constantly warn us, past results are no guarantee of future performance. But statistical regularities, like facts, are stubborn things. You bet against them at your peril.

The second big historical fact, which might be called the Great Partisan Inequality Divide, is the focus of Professor Bartels’s work.

It is well known that income inequality in the United States has been on the rise for about 30 years now — an unsettling development that has finally touched the public consciousness. But Professor Bartels unearths a stunning statistical regularity: Over the entire 60-year period, income inequality trended substantially upward under Republican presidents but slightly downward under Democrats, thus accounting for the widening income gaps over all. And the bad news for America’s poor is that Republicans have won five of the seven elections going back to 1980.

The Great Partisan Inequality Divide is not limited to the poor. To get a more granular look, Professor Bartels studied the postwar history of income gains at five different places in the income distribution.

The 20th percentile is the income level at which 20 percent of all families have less income and 80 percent have more. It is thus a plausible dividing line between the poor and the nonpoor. Similarly, the 40th percentile is the income level at which 40 percent of the families are poorer and 60 percent are richer. And similarly for the 60th, 80th, and 95th percentiles. The 95th percentile is the best dividing line between the rich and the nonrich that the data permitted Professor Bartels to study. (That dividing line, by the way, is well below the $5 million threshold John McCain has jokingly used for defining the rich. It’s closer to $180,000.)

The accompanying table, which is adapted from the book, tells a remarkably consistent story. It shows that when Democrats were in the White House, lower-income families experienced slightly faster income growth than higher-income families — which means that incomes were equalizing. In stark contrast, it also shows much faster income growth for the better-off when Republicans were in the White House — thus widening the gap in income.

The table also shows that families at the 95th percentile fared almost as well under Republican presidents as under Democrats (1.90 percent growth per year, versus 2.12 percent), giving them little stake, economically, in election outcomes. But the stakes were enormous for the less well-to-do. Families at the 20th percentile fared much worse under Republicans than under Democrats (0.43 percent versus 2.64 percent). Eight years of growth at an annual rate of 0.43 percent increases a family’s income by just 3.5 percent, while eight years of growth at 2.64 percent raises it by 23.2 percent.

The sources of such large differences make for a slightly complicated story. In the early part of the period — say, the pre-Reagan years — the Great Partisan Growth Divide accounted for most of the Great Partisan Inequality divide, because the poor do relatively better in a high-growth economy.

Beginning with the Reagan presidency, however, growth differences are smaller and tax and transfer policies have played a larger role. We know, for example, that Republicans have typically favored large tax cuts for upper-income groups while Democrats have opposed them. In addition, Democrats have been more willing to raise the minimum wage, and Republicans have been more hostile toward unions.

The two Great Partisan Divides combine to suggest that, if history is a guide, an Obama victory in November would lead to faster economic growth with less inequality, while a McCain victory would lead to slower economic growth with more inequality. Which part of the Obama menu don’t you like?

Obama on Palin's Family:

MONROE, Michigan (CNN) -- Sen. Barack Obama said firmly that families are off-limits in the campaign for president, reacting to news that GOP running mate Sarah Palin's 17-year-old daughter is pregnant.
Sen. Barack Obama campaigns in Monroe, Michigan, on Monday.

Sen. Barack Obama campaigns in Monroe, Michigan, on Monday.

"Let me be as clear as possible," Obama said. "I think people's families are off-limits, and people's children are especially off-limits. This shouldn't be part of our politics. It has no relevance to Gov. Palin's performance as governor or her potential performance as a vice president."

Obama said reporters should "back off these kinds of stories" and noted that he was born to an 18-year-old mother.

"How a family deals with issues and teenage children, that shouldn't be the topic of our politics, and I hope that anybody who is supporting me understands that's off-limits." Video Watch more of Obama's comments »

Bristol Palin, a senior in high school, is about five months pregnant, according to an aide to Sen. John McCain who asked not to be named.
Don't Miss

* Teen daughter of GOP VP pick is pregnant
* Ticker: Palin backed abstinence education

The aide said the Palins and the McCain campaign decided to reveal the information now because of rampant Internet rumors that Sarah Palin's 4-month-old baby, who has Down syndrome, was actually Bristol's.

Obama became annoyed when asked about a Reuters news service report that quoted an unnamed senior McCain aide saying that Obama's name appears in liberal blogs speculating about Trig's parentage "in a way that certainly juxtaposes themselves against their 'campaign of change.' " Video Watch analysts weigh in on the Palins' announcement »
advertisement

"I am offended by that statement," the Illinois senator retorted, not letting the reporter finish his question. "There is no evidence at all that any of this involved us.

"We don't go after people's families; we don't get them involved in the politics. It's not appropriate, and it's not relevant," he added. "Our people were not involved in any way in this, and they will not be. And if I ever thought that there was somebody in my campaign that was involved in something like that, they'd be fired."

Me Again:  Good for Obama.  I thought the gender bashing of Hillary by his supporters was ugly, but it turns out it was grade school stuff compared to the attacks on Palin.  It still surprises me that women find so much pleasure in attacking other women.  Sarah Palin has so much political baggage to pounce on, yet the immediate focus seems to be on her role as mother. Feminism of the seventies is dead!  And so, also, are the feminists.

Received just now from WomenCount, a Hillary group that has turned its attention away from Clinton to fight misogyny.  It is now running a campaign to complain of the sexism directed against Sarah Palin, even despite the fact that they are still Democrats and still working for Democratic positions.  I believe that all of us (assuming we really do believe that women in politics are treated differently, and that this is wrong!) owe it to ourselves to respond to their request.  You can send any message you want, including that you don't support Palin's policies just hate the sexism. (Probably won't happen with the Republican women!) Do it for women, please.

Cut out the URL from the middle of the message and access it from your own computer (sorry I don't know how to get their link to work).  It will take you to a message box where you can write how you feel.  WomenCount will send it on.

Love the last phrase, "because that's how feminism works." 

The question came not just from members of the media but also from voters around the country who wrote in to news organizations and on blogs. The obvious retort is whether anyone would ask the same question of the father of a four-month-old with Down Syndrome and a pregnant teenager. We think not.

Radio talk host Ed Schultz on CNN Monday night took things even further by declaring that Palin would not be able to focus on her job given her family distractions.  And Washington Post columnist Sally Quinn wrote: “Of course, women can be good mothers and have careers at the same time. I’ve done both. Other women in public office have children…but…a mother’s role is different from a father’s.”

The message? Sarah Palin:   bad mother.

On that count we have no doubt these accusations would never be made about a man. In that sense, Sally Quinn is right – and that’s why things have got to change.  The very notion that Sarah Palin should not have accepted this nomination because she is a mother with demanding challenges underscores just how far we have to go.

WomenCount has promised that we would jump on these examples of sexism. Here’s where YOU come in.  Tell the media to back off, and we’ll forward your messages to the right places.  http://app.icontact.com/icp/sub/survey/take

Stamping out sexism is about shifting the culture. It will be good for America to watch Sarah Palin on the campaign trail – bouncing from parenting to politics. That’s how most women function – multi-tasking, leaning on friends and family, and waking up each morning and doing it all again.

Throughout the weekend, we have been asked about WomenCount’s views on Sarah Palin as the Republican nominee. It is important to distinguish between the broader issue of sexism and the ideology of an individual.  WomenCount was born of the passion its founders had for Hillary Clinton’s clear view of social issues and progressive values.  We cannot pretend that Governor Palin meets any standard of progressive politics or social values.

But regardless of the candidates’ ideology, we will work to stamp out sexism when we see it on the campaign trail. To paraphrase the words of one blogger who said it best over the weekend: We will defend Sarah Palin against misogynist smears not because we like her or support her, but because that’s how feminism works.

Jay--I have many concerns about Palin, in particular her anti-choice stand, but mainly her denial of global warming and her belief in Creationism--killer items for me, and I would think these things alone are way more than the Democrats need to attack Palin, but I absolutely disagree with going after her because of her children, whatever their needs and however many she may have.  I wouldn't care if she had two dozen children, all under the age of 1.  Sounds like a cat!

What if she is a terrible mother (and not suggesting she is), what does that have to do with her candidacy as Vice President? When a corporation hires a woman as CEO, does it care (and can it even ask?) how she plans to care for her children.  All they want to know is can she do the job. Obama was away from his children for months; Michelle works, and apparently she leaves her children with her mother when they're not at school. And where was the media on that one?  And honestly, even there it's not our business.  And that's the problem here.  With men, no one cares one way or the other, and we won't ever be on an equal playing field until no one cares with a woman.

And even if we did care, Palin will have ample resources available to her to help in child care.  Obvioiusly, she manages in Alaska; why wouldn't she manage here.  In addition, let's be honest.  Aside from Cheney, most vice presidents don't do anything other than attending funerals and weddings (despite their protest, they really don't have any official function other than breaking tie votes in the house).  She will probably have more time available to her as VP to care for her children than she has as the governor of Alaska. And even here I'm violating my own belief concerning women in business by explaining how she could manage. That's between her and her family.

I hope the Democrats go after her for her views and also for her lack of experience (we now have  pres and vp nominees wthout experience--we should put them on the same ticket) but they have to stop with this Mommy stuff! 

Palin was amazing, relaxed, poised, hit every line just about right.  I find it hard to believe that she hasn't been doing this for years.  I would have been terrified and I stood in front of classrooms for years.  A natural talent I'd say.  She also took on Obama, many times.  We'll see later in the debates but I don't think McCain has too much to worry about.  Loved the view of her youngest daugher licking her fingers and pasting down her brother's hair.  Whatever she does later, she passed the test tonight.  Very impressive.

Sure hated that remark about Obama wanting to read terrorists their rights. Damn right! Makes me very nervous.  If the Dems have given this to McCain by choosing Obama over Hillary, they'll have a lot to answer for. 

To get away from the glitz of politics and to the serious stuff (and speaking of glitz, I loved Palin's line on the columns going back to Hollywood Central--for those of you who don't know, apparently $6,000,000 was spent on Obama's staging on the last night of the Democratic Convention.)  

I'm watching MSNBC this morning and all the discussion is about Palin, but again about her role as mother--good, bad, indifferent, whatever, it's not about the issues. (Chris Matthews is having a second thrill up his leg.) But . . . not a single comment on the most outrageous line in Palin's speech, knocking Obama for wanting to read terrorists their rights (by the way, I don't believe that's true, regrettably, since he was willing to bomb Pakistan without a by-you-leave).  And not a single word about this anywhere else, I might add.  

This comment was the most important she made in her speech to indicate the type of leader she might be, and we have to assume that McCain approved her speech.  In the early days of Gitmo, McCain took a principled stand, against Gitmo, and torture.  But to play to the base,  he's dropped his objections.  And the so-called liberal press can only talk about Sarah Palin's motherhood issues!!!  Any of you out there who say that this country isn't sexist, both sides, get real! 

My husband sputters when he hears people talk about the Republican history-making decision to put a woman on the ticket--and really sputters when he remembers the sexist attacks aimed at Hillary.  As he points out repeatedly, the numbers of women political leaders is legion in the world. Below is a list of both 20th and 21st Century leaders.

20th Century:

1. Sirimavo Bandaranaike, Sri Lanka
Prime Minister, 1960-1965, 1970-1977, 1994-2000.
2. Indira Gandhi, India
Prime Minister, 1966-77, 1980-1984.
3. Golda Meir, Israel
Prime Minister, 1969-1974.
4. Isabel Peron, Argentina
President, 1974-1976
5. Elisabeth Domitien, Central African Republic
Prime Minister, 1975-1976
6. Margaret Thatcher, Great Britain
Prime Minister, 1979-1990.
7. Maria da Lourdes Pintasilgo, Portugal
Prime Minister, 1979-1980.
8. Lidia Gueiler Tejada, Bolivia
Prime Minister, 1979-1980.
9. Dame Eugenia Charles, Dominica
Prime Minister, 1980-1995.
10. Vigdís Finnbogadóttír, Iceland
President, 1980-96.
11. Gro Harlem Brundtland, Norway
Prime Minister, 1981, 1986-1989, 1990-1996.
12. Soong Ching-Ling, Peoples' Republic of China
Honorary President, 1981.
13. Milka Planinc, Yugoslavia
Federal Prime Minister, 1982-1986.
14. Agatha Barbara, Malta
President, 1982-1987.
15. Maria Liberia-Peters, Netherlands Antilles
Prime Minister, 1984-1986, 1988-1993.
16. Corazon Aquino, Philippines
President, 1986-92.
17. Benazir Bhutto, Pakistan
Prime Minister, 1988-1990, 1993-1996.
18. Kazimiera Danuta Prunskiena, Lithuania
Prime Minister, 1990-91.
19. Violeta Barrios de Chamorro, Nicaragua
Prime Minister, 1990-1996.
20. Mary Robinson, Ireland
President, 1990-1997.
21. Ertha Pascal Trouillot, Haiti
Interim President, 1990-1991.
22. Sabine Bergmann-Pohl, German Democratic Republic
President, 1990.
23. Aung San Suu Kyi, Myanmar (Burma)
Her party won 80% of the seats in a democratic election in 1990, but the military government refused to recognize the results. She was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1991.
24. Khaleda Zia, Bangladesh
Prime Minister, 1991-1996.
25. Edith Cresson, France
Prime Minister, 1991-1992.
26. Hanna Suchocka, Poland
Prime Minister, 1992-1993.
27. Kim Campbell, Canada
Prime Minister, 1993.
28. Sylvie Kinigi, Burundi
Prime Minister, 1993-1994.
29. Agathe Uwilingiyimana, Rwanda
Prime Minister, 1993-1994.
30. Susanne Camelia-Romer, Netherlands Antilles
Prime Minister, 1993, 1998-
31. Tansu Çiller, Turkey
Prime Minister, 1993-1995.
32. Chandrika Bandaranaike Kumaratunge, Sri Lanka
Prime Minister, 1994, President, 1994-
33. Reneta Indzhova, Bulgaria
Interim Prime Minister, 1994-1995.
34. Claudette Werleigh, Haiti
Prime Minister, 1995-1996.
35. Sheikh Hasina Wajed, Bangladesh
Prime Minister, 1996-.
36. Mary McAleese, Ireland
President, 1997-.
37. Pamela Gordon, Bermuda
Premier, 1997-1998.
38. Janet Jagan, Guyana
Prime Minister, 1997, President, 1997-1999.
39. Jenny Shipley, New Zealand
Prime Minister, 1997-1999.
40. Ruth Dreifuss, Switzerland
President, 1999-2000.
41. Jennifer Smith, Bermuda
Prime Minister, 1998-.
42. Nyam-Osoriyn Tuyaa, Mongolia
Acting Prime Minister, July 1999.
43. Helen Clark, New Zealand
Prime Minister, 1999-.
44. Mireya Elisa Moscoso de Arias, Panama
President, 1999-.
45. Vaira Vike-Freiberga, Latvia
President, 1999-.
46. Tarja Kaarina Halonen, Finland
President, 2000-.  

21st Century: 

Recent elections in Chile, Liberia, and Germany have yielded a new crop of leaders- experienced female politicians with reform on their minds. Angela Merkel was elected chancellor of Germany, defeating Gerhard Schroder on a conservative ticket. Merkel has since lobbied the European Union to decrease bureaucracy, the Iranians to stop producing nuclear power, and the Americans to close Guantanamo Bay. Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf, a Harvard educated lawyer, won a significant election against a popular male soccer player in Liberia. Johnson-Sirleaf became the first female executive in Africa and promised to do all in her power to end the civil strife that has beleaguered Liberia for two decades. Michelle Bachelet, a former defense minister and former political prisoner during the Pinochet government, won the presidential race in Chile against an ultra-conservative billionaire. Bachelet is a single mother, a lawyer, and in her brief period in office has struck a moderate chord for the economy as well as splitting her cabinet evenly between men and women. These eminently qualified women promise to be the vanguard for a new crop of leaders. (And many more--can't keep track of them all!)

Me Again:  Yes, Virginia, there are other countries in this world and they also have a history. The U.S. is extraordinarily backward with respect to putting women in the highest offices.  The irony here is that it will probably be the party to the right that does it first.  It's a bit like Nixon and China, where it was easier for him to open relations with China than it was for the Democrats to do so.  But it sure makes it difficult for women, like me, who are very much against Palin's positions to welcome our first woman when her postions are so alien to ours, particularly on those that particularly affect the needs of women and children.  Sigh!

I suspect the discarded flags story was generated by Republicans to start a culture war with the Democrats and that it belongs in the same trash can as the fairy tale about the $300,000 outfit worn by Cindy McCain, and spun by the Democrats to start a class war with the Republicans.  (As an aside, loved the dress!) 

Republicans and Democrats claim that they long for a non-partisan government and a president who can work across the aisle, when it's apparent to anyone without a horse in the race (at least one who can finish) that partisanship (and hate) are the mantras in both campaigns.

I listened to Joe Biden yesterday tell a crowd of people that McCain is an old, old friend, before he cut McCain into ribbons.  And the Republicans praise the historic candidacy of Obama while questioning his patriotism. Is anyone else gaging?