WTF

[todicefor]

so, i hate sarah palin. OKAY i might be slightly biased but you know what? i don't care. i don't see how being smarmy is being personable. how can people find that appealing in a vp candidate? i don't want the people in the white house to seem like they are on the same intellectual level as me or like they are folksy or quirky. i want the people

Comments

[cristyissues]

LOL! election years are bad for my blood pressure. Poor Diana! *pets*

Palin isnt qualified. period.

Biden <3<3

[todicefor]

WAAH stupidity makes me angry.

seriously. governing alaska != governing the US. SHE DIDNT EVEN KNOW WHAT THE ROLE OF VP WAS! THE ONLY LEGISLATIVE POWER THE VP HAS IS TO CATS A TIEBREAKING VOTE IN THE SENATE. and seriously, wouldn't it make more sense to have a former SENATOR doing that than a former governor? she has no idea how the senate works! she lives in fecking alaska!

i have so much biden-love. always have, always will.

[smilencheer]

way to say that being gay is a choice, btw, not that we didnt all know about your opinions there before.I can't say that I was pleased overmuch with either of their answers. What we really need is for the government to say, hey, we aren't allowed to grant 'marriage' to anyone, that's up to religious organizations. That word has become too religiously loaded to be used in a government setting. Of course, I understand why the Obama ticket can't come full out in their support, as it is not and perhaps should not be a main issue in this election. Of course, Palin reeks of homophobia and it truly worries me to think that she could get into any sort of office in this day and age. To say that being gay is a choice? To use the 'I have a friend who is' excuse? It's fairly disgusting to me, actually, to see such hateful opinions bandied about as if they are nothing

[todicefor]

nobody who said that would ever get elected, though. it might work out better this way, actually, with gay rights NOT being a big issue but still having the dem candidates be very pro-gay rights. that way, if they win, they can still do stuff about it but no one, or at least not as many people, will be voting against them because of that issue. then again, most of the people who would vote against them because of gay right shit probably will be voting against them anyway. but still, i think that maybe, in issues like these, it is better to keep them out of the main debates, where things can get bogged down in particular language and other things that don't matter, but actually just DO things about them

[smilencheer]

That makes some sense, actually, but at the same time, it is important to talk about these things on the worldwide, or at least nationwide stage. There are many people who do not think about these issues, as their world sphere is unaffected or perhaps just seems that way. To not discuss these things is akin to pushing them under the rug, out of sight and out of mind. In that way nothing gets done. Many people do not think much about political issues, but they may watch at least the debates. It is a chance to reach to them. I worry about leaving things just up to a politician, no matter who he or she may be. They might hold good views themselves, but will they be brave enough to do anything about them, willing to jeopardize their career in that way? If they made a campaign promise it is more likely, if not certain, of course, that they might feel obligated to do something

[todicefor]

oh, that's true, that wasn't what i meant at all. of course its important to keep these thing in the public eye. i guess what i really meant was that a lot of times these elections get clogged up with so many issues: all the issues are important, but there are just too many for all of them to be the main focus. in this election, the important things are really the economic crisis, foreign policy esp. with the war in iraq and with helping isreal (though again, maybe i'm biased), the energy crisis, environment etc... then again, i think you might be slightly naive... politicians are fairly notorious for promising and not delivering. no, i think that activism should fall more on the people's shoulders. the average american might not be able to understand the minutiae of diplomacy or health care plans if they haven't studied that sort of thing, but equality? i think most people can understand equality. looking backwards, at the ever important precedent, some if not most of the important rights related breakthroughs in US history come from

[asher_says_rawr]

I choose to be gay. :)