VEEP - a candidate with SUBSTANCE!

Good points, Cuzz. Here's the lowdown on Biden's vote on the Trans-Alaska pipeline. (They're talking points from a conservative watchdog group out of Tennessee, but the facts and the timelilne are correct despite that):

Sen. Joseph Bide of Delaware, Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama's hoice for vice president, has been a Senator since 1972.

He is one of only five senators who were present in 1973 when Congress passed legislation authorizing construction of the trans-Alaska pipeline system (TAPS).

Biden, then 30, was the youngest member of the Senate and not a leader in the lengthy debate over the pipeline. But his voting record is striking - at least to an Alaskan interested in history.

Biden was a reliable "no" on TAPS. In July, when the Senate passed the Gravel-Stevens amendment allowing immediate construction of the line and precluding further judicial review, Biden voted no. The amendment passed after Vice President Spiro Agnew broke a 49-49 tie.

In November, Biden voted against final passage of the bill. The vote was 80-5, Biden one of the five.

SINCE BIDEN'S "NO" VOTE, THAT PIPELINE HAS SUPPLIED 15 BILLION BARRELS OF OIL INTO OUR DOMESTIC SUPPLIES HERE IN AMERICA.

That pretty much sums up the energy crisis. We're low on oil in the heartland because somebody forgot to check it - and most of our dipsticks were in Washington, D.C. If Biden had had HIS way in 1973, we would be even MORE dependent on foreign oil today.

Now THERE'S a question of judgment all of us can sink our teeth into.

Yeah, well, I also helped with the child-rearing and probably wouldn't have offered myself for an all-encompassing job like PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES if the opportunity had been offered. Shall we hold Mr. Obama to same the standard as you're trying to hold Mrs. Palin to, or shall we be male chauvinist pigs and believe the woman of the house should be barefoort, pregnant and happy to stay home while Babydaddy gets all the glory?

How far will Democrats take this game before it blows up in their faces, JohnB? I'm personally enjoying their dilemma.

DEMOCRATIC PARTY LEADERSHIP: No women with young children need to apply. Membership DENIED.

Yeah, that'll play well in the heartland, won't it?

Bill Clinton  wasn't 17. Monika wasn't underage either.  Difference between consenting adults and minors dummy.  Bill didn't knock Monika up either.  Another welfare mouth to feed

Any "responsible" parent should be in control of their underage child to have had:1) the "sex talk" with them and 2) provided birth control and proper supervision of their activities  and friends to AVOID pregnancy and 3) taught   enough "MORALS' to them about abstinence, unprotected sex  and sex out of wedlock..  Typical response I'd expect from the moral rightious, if Bill did it, so can my underage kids.

  JD, while I end up siding with most posts of yours PLEASE keep your Holiness to yourself. Do NOT mistake your younger parenting age or youth as better than mine, NOR SHOULD YOU infer anything anout MY parenting or social skills sir.  You would be sadly wrong and highly mistaken   I had my son at 18 ( after I was in the military, married and not under mommy & daddy' roof) but would do it over if given the chance.  No child should HAVE children.  I would have continued college and my military career so I could have done more and supplied better skills to my son. 17 is not any age to be a parent, and this child will be a ward of nannies, secret service and media.

I Never put one bit of faith in any PUBLIC official who touts responsibility, morals and ethics  while she/he allows her MINOR to skru around ( here's a word for you to gripe about JD)   Political leaders are suposed to be ROLE MODELS, so is this what you support as your role model?  I see this as more expense from the GOP  ( if she wins....my money pays for HER kid's pregnancy/medical and childcare from Secret Service, plus the undoubted "wedding' under protection from media..)  Wanna ban someone, ban the Christian Right.   I won't give up so easy..

Proud of you, Wyatt. An entire post without a single profanity.

You DO have more than one brain cell. Wanna go for three and go back and re-read what I wrote earlier - only this time, pay attention? 

Wyatt, the Second Amendment protects your guns. The First Amendment protects the Christian Right. Do you support Constitutional rights, or do you not? I mean, it's OBVIOUS you don't support women's rights and equal opportunity in the workplace. How far are you willing to push that? 

Virginia, I'm not being hard on left-leaners. I'm being hard on people who lean right on gun issues, lean left on enviromental issues, then lean all over the map on women's right issues. Seems to me in the last few days that getting Hillary into the White House wasn't a WOMEN'S RIGHTS issue as much as a HILLARY RIGHTS issue or, perhaps, a LIBERAL RIGHTS issue.

I don't believe you fit into that category of wishy-washy liberal, dear. You know where you stand - you just get confused like every other Democrat when a conservative defends a female politician or a black politician. (Still can't stand J.C. Watts, can you? Talk about a bunch of ill-advised children in that family background.) 

As women are being offered better jobs, more men are becoming the stay-at-home parent(ex.-her hubby).  I get tired of there being a double standard.

JB(sorry), you chauvinist you, for shame

 Seems like the Palin family supports NO form of birth control. That and the abortion stance are just 2 problems I have with her.  I see her as a token woman choice, not the most qualified.  The choice was tough to begin with and seems to get worse every day.

guess YOU should go back and read...I did use a profanity dude!

What the HELL does women's rights have to do with unwed teens getting pregnant ???  Are you saying it's her RIGHT to deny the Bible and have carnal knowledge,under age & out of wedlock, and make this issue about woman's rights?????

Obviously if THAT is your take on "woman's rights",  then hell yes I DO NOT support that right to burdon the taxpayers with uneducated, illegitimate/ bastard kids being taken care of on MY tax dollars, DUDE!

If you read what I write here, since last year I voted Billary Clinton and now support Obama who supports woman and equal pay for equal work.  Neither Demo supports unwed teens, undereducated children or moral failure of parents.

 Seems like the Palin family supports NO form of birth control. That and the abortion stance are just 2 problems I have with her.  I see her as a token woman choice, not the most qualified.  The choice was tough to begin with and seems to get worse every day.

-confused

Absolutely right Confused!   The GOP saw an opportunity to take advantage of Billary's non-nomination and slide in for that "18 million women under the glass ceiling" vote.    Purely politically motivated!  There was so many better qualified and more acceptable females who could have been selected, and many more men who could have helped McCain  ( or at least helped him to his walker and read the teleprompter for him).

The GOP always touts morals, experience and leadership. Palin sways every topic away from what they say is their platform.

(WYATT ALTERED HIS POST BEFORE THIS RESPONSE WAS SUBMITTED. It is a response to his initial reference to children of unwed mothers as "uneducated, illegitimate/bastard kids" and his claim that he's a Democrat because Democrats don't support benefits for such children. I started to change my response when he watered down his post, but why bother?) 

But, Wyatt, they DO support additional public benefits for what you call those "uneducated, illegitimate/bastard kids" - and they want to use more and more of your tax dollars to spend on those things.

By the way, Wyatt, you should look up the definition of "infant" sometimes. They're all uneducated initially. That's where we adults come into play.

There's at least one big thing you obviously don't understand about Christianity, Wyatt. Yes, we moralize. Yes, we judge. Yes, we crilticize. But when push comes to shove, if our children, our neighbors, our felllow Christians make mistakes in their lives (such as becoming pregnant out of wedlock, in spite of our teachings), WE DON'T THROW THEM OVERBOARD.

You opinion of children born out of wedlock - it's not the fault of those children, you know, because they have absolutely no control over the circumstances of their birth - indicates to me that you have a cruel, uncaring streak in you about as wide as you are shallow. What's up with that, DUDE?

Hank.....if ever there was a reason to support better education, abortion and birth control, it's YOU.   Try spelchek onse in awile dumshat!  Like I give one shat your opinion about me, bakwuds rednek.

newzflash spanky.  Palin is elected, so her salary comes from TAXPAYERS ( y'know people who got JOBS and pay taxes.....). Not family money like McCains wifey.   Damn pooh-pooh head yankee!

SORRY, i USED facts HANK, SURELY YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT THOSE THINGS ARE.

Don't uze big werds  like' nominated' with Cranky, cunfused.....relly fraks his pour liddle hed up.

Condi CHOSE not to run, she knows the elections are about the men's club and not real issues.