Well, good for her. This is America and we can vote for whomever we want, not matter how weak the rationalizations, how poorly grounded in economics it is, and how much it is based on being the bitter ex-employee.

A lot of negative comments has been said by both parties, and the negative comments continues. After reading your comments its seems like you are a republician. Both parties are guilt of spreading negativity and some dishonest statements. I am a family member who help raised a handicap child, that lives today at home with love ones.
If we had listen to the party that was in the white house at that time,that child would be in an instution today. Five years ago I lost my husband due to MS complication. He suffered for fifteen years bed bound. Fifteen years ago a drug that is avilable today was in the testing stage, some people were using the drug but only under trial testing. My insurance would not allow the cost.I belive today my husband would have had a highe percentage of life. Ms Sarah isn’t doing anything different from everyday working people. My income is just pennies above proverty level.I don’t wear designer clothing, I can’t afford thoes type of garments. I am one paycheck from loosing my home after twenty three years. In this world today, I do know a change is forth coming, such a change will not be controled by man alone. I will decided on the right person who I think should be the next president of thes united states according to my faith, not man.

You’re a couple days late, Michele. I always check Fox News to see what the talking point of the day is for the right wing. As of this morning, there is not one mention of Wendy in any headline. A search on the site also brought up nothing. If FOX isn’t hammering Wendy’s defection, then there’s got to be a little more to this tale (aside from her Edwards torch being painfully snuffed out by the revelations about his hijinks).
To me, it reeks of bad fiction. Another poorly articulated, illogical diatribe to feed real sexists with ammunition to disregard feminists as “hysterical.” This woman is long on petulance and short on coherence. To try to follow her logic leads me to believe that she was fired for being a shoddy speechwriter, perhaps confusing sexism with her rejection due to inadequate capabilities. If she defected from the party for Nader, the story might make sense. But to defect and support a candidate that goes against everything that her supposed party believes in? Schizophrenia.
She vaguely criticizes the Democratic economic plan as being based on platitudes, and then offers such unoriginal insights as “stop the bleeding” and “weather the storm.” She seems hurt about mean, trivial things said about Hillary and Palin, but in the context of the current campaign, these things don’t make any sense as substantive reasons for bailing on a political party and candidate.
Really, the overriding irrational nature of this piece makes me think she just got dumped by her Democratic significant other… Which would really, really make for some priceless irony.

My gosh! What kind of speechwriter was this woman? Her article is disjointed and nonsensical. Either she got a big payoff by the McCain camp or she has gone insane. For her to claim that the Democratic party has been the “anti-women” party shows how out of reality she is. Has she not researched McCain’s voting record on key women’s issues legislation? Does she forget that Joe Biden has been one of the strongest champions for women’s rights in the Senate? Does she know that all the major National Women’s Organizations have strongly endorsed the Obama-Biden ticket, NOT the McCain-Palin ticket, who would set women’s rights back 50 years?
There’s something strange about Wendy’s blog post. Yes, she’s entitled to switch sides and vote for whomever she wants, but there’s still something weird about her post. Why is it relevant that she didn’t hear back from the Edwards campaign for three weeks? Why was it anyone’s fault but her own that she canceled freelance jobs before she had the new job? Why did she interpret the job offer she got as a message for her to “go away”? How was this being “pushed out” from a job she hadn’t yet taken? What is her point about mustard and People magazine? Who’s she quoting when she says, “Joe Biden is a ‘good looking’ man”, and what’s her point?
Look, women are having a very difficult time breaking through the glass ceiling, but this election has, interestingly enough, had three different cases of that. Obama, owing to his partial race, has also had to break stereotypes. In fact, this makes the success of his campaign all the more phenomenal. The choice was there this time around and it fell on him. He has had to avoid the “angry black man” stereotype, the “welfare man” stereotype (which is where the socialism code comes in), and so on.
Wendy does not see that, and I suspect it is because she is so involved in this one issue. I also suspect there is something else lurking, perhaps money (often a motivator behind the scenes). What a shame. Doesn’t she see clearly that McCain picked Palin as a trophy?

Did you know that the STANDARD OF LIVING for Americans when compared to both their own averages and that of the world went UP in the last 4 years in BOTH CATEGORIES? Yes, under BUSH.
Did you know that under BUSH America’s unemployment rate was BETTER than EUROPE’S during the last 4 years?
Did you know that under BUSH an unprecedented event occurred? One that has never happened in world history? A formally dictatorial government in the Middle East was replaced by one of a Constitutional Government with Democratic Representation.
Did you know that gas is now, in some places in America only 12 cents more than when Bush took office in 2000 and during Clinton’s tenure it increase 150%?
Next Please!

“Doesn’t she see clearly that McCain picked Palin as a trophy?”
Well, he would be following his pattern. He dumped his faithful, longsuffering wife for a cute, former beauty queen. Then he picks as his VP candidate a cute, former beauty queen contestant.
Sounds to me like he’s hoping Bob Dole will slip him some Viagra somewhere along the line.

Far more Republicans have endorsed Obama than Democrats endorsing McCain.
Maybe this was the woman who wrote the San Francisco speech about being “bitter.”

There are a number of grammatical errors in this article that do not reflect well on the author.

I do think it is unfair the way women have been treated in this campaign. I am a non partisan voter and I think it sucks regardless of who have the votes of the major women organizations. The main reasons that the democratic party got those votes is because they support abortion. No matter what kind and as a Christian I DO NOT support that. I think that Palin has been made to look like she is stupid when she is not because of the fact that she is an attractive woman. And I dont think that she should have to be ashamed of it either. Look how Hilary faired in the race and by most she is not considered just a pretty face. Compare her track record with Obama’s (by the way Hilary’s is far more impressive than Obama’s). Obama only had 134 days logged in the senate before he decided that he wanted to run for president but people say that Palin lacks experience. No matter how much people hate it THE TRUTH IS THAT PALIN HAS MORE EXPERIENCE THAN Obama! Not just as governor. She was a mayor no matter how small the town for eight years. She was on a crucial energy board under the Alaska government and she only had a few days less in her role as Governor than Obama had as JUNIOR Senator. Let’s be real here. If Palin is not qualified neither is Obama. Why is he so much more qualified? Because he is a man? Because he has a law degree? Those two things should not be the only reason that qualify him to run for president because most people in the US don’t have degrees and they still make differences in their communities and people that don’t have degrees should be represented in goverment. The only real experience that Obama has are his years as a community organizer. He has yet to even build a career. The legnth of your community service is what should count. Your progressive role in the community should count as well as your variety. Well on both of those fronts Palin has more experience. She has consistently GAINED more and more important responsibility and valuable experience. So to say that she is dumb or doesnt know what she is doing is faulty on their part, but people beleive it because she is an ATTRACTIVE WOMAN so they stereotype her as being stupid. Let’s be real again. Both candidates have their flaws. They are both human and that should be remembered. I think that people have forgotten that with Palin. And if you are wondering why I am comparing Obama and Palin it’s because Palin is who Obama uses to compare himself to so that he can look better in this campaign. Senator McCain has more experience than Obama. However I do like Biden, just not with Obama. Those are my thoughts not yours please don’t take offense.

I do think it is unfair the way women have been treated in this campaign. I am a non partisan voter and I think it sucks regardless of who have the votes of the major women organizations. The main reasons that the democratic party got those votes is because they support abortion. No matter what kind and as a Christian I DO NOT support that. I think that Palin has been made to look like she is stupid when she is not because of the fact that she is an attractive woman. And I dont think that she should have to be ashamed of it either. Look how Hilary faired in the race and by most she is not considered just a pretty face. Compare her track record with Obama’s (by the way Hilary’s is far more impressive than Obama’s). Obama only had 134 days logged in the senate before he decided that he wanted to run for president but people say that Palin lacks experience. No matter how much people hate it THE TRUTH IS THAT PALIN HAS MORE EXPERIENCE THAN Obama! Not just as governor. She was a mayor no matter how small the town for eight years. She was on a crucial energy board under the Alaska government and she only had a few days less in her role as Governor than Obama had as JUNIOR Senator. Let’s be real here. If Palin is not qualified neither is Obama. Why is he so much more qualified? Because he is a man? Because he has a law degree? Those two things should not be the only reason that qualify him to run for president because most people in the US don’t have degrees and they still make differences in their communities and people that don’t have degrees should be represented in goverment. The only real experience that Obama has are his years as a community organizer. He has yet to even build a career. The legnth of your community service is what should count. Your progressive role in the community should count as well as your variety. Well on both of those fronts Palin has more experience. She has consistently GAINED more and more important responsibility and valuable experience. So to say that she is dumb or doesnt know what she is doing is faulty on their part, but people beleive it because she is an ATTRACTIVE WOMAN so they stereotype her as being stupid. Let’s be real again. Both candidates have their flaws. They are both human and that should be remembered. I think that people have forgotten that with Palin. And if you are wondering why I am comparing Obama and Palin it’s because Palin is who Obama uses to compare himself to so that he can look better in this campaign. Senator McCain has more experience than Obama. However I do like Biden, just not with Obama. Those are my thoughts not yours please don’t take offense.

By the way she is a poor speech writer.

using data from the department of energy (http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/hist/mg_tt_usw.htm), the data tells a different story. unfortunately, i could not find a history of gas prices prior to april 2003 and obviously we don’t have data for the end of 2008, but here are the facts:

gasoline $/gal low high hi-lo avg start end e-s e-s/s
————– —– —– —– —– —– —– —– ——
4/1993-12/1999 $0.95 $1.33 $0.38 $1.15 $1.07 $1.33 $0.26 24%
1/2000-10/2008 $1.10 $4.16 $3.06 $2.10 $1.31 $2.72 $1.41 107%

clearly, bush has been much worse for the price of gas on the consumer than clinton was by any measure. the 2-term (nearly 8 year) average price was $1 more per gallon, the hi-low variance was about $2.70 more (reflects greater volatility) and hit a record high of $4.16 per gallon!
depending on how one measures % of increase (from the high to low, or ending price and beginning price), guy’s numbers don’t add up. looking at increase in the price from the start of the term to the end of the term, under clinton there was a ($0.26) 24% increase and under bush there was a ($1.41) 107% increase. looking at the difference between highs and lows as a percent of the lowest price in their terms, under clinton there was a ($0.38/$0.95) 40% increase and under bush there was a ($3.06/$1.10) 278% increase.

Um dingleberry…Bush didn’t take office until January 2001, your stats start a YEAR when CLINTON was still in office or you are just plain stupid and don’t know when Bush took office..typical LEFTY LIB disingenuousness….
NEXT PLEASE!!!!

Grade-school guy, please learn to write a sentence in English.
There must be somebody who can teach you. There are teachers all over this country.
Please find one.
Thank you.

“Did you know that under BUSH an unprecedented event occurred?”
unprecedented events under bush administration:
* bush spent the most days on vacation (>30% of terms) of any president in history
* the biggest increase of national debt ($4T) under any president in history
* bush signed an unprecedented number (159) of “signing statements” allowing him to ignore parts of enacted laws:
* record deficit ($438B) beat his previous record of $413B
* nationalized banks – largest surge toward socialism of any president
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2008/03/04/BL2008030401392.html
http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2008/10/04/national-debt-soars-under-bush/
http://www.coherentbabble.com/signingstatements/TOCindex.htm
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2008-10-07-deficit_N.htm

Out of the throng and swarm of Republican public figures and voters who have come out for Obama, you find a tenuously-connected John Edwards speechwriter who is defecting based on a personal vendetta? And you have the gall to imply this is endemic? Have you been asleep for the last 18 months?
Heck, this week former Reagan chief of staff Ken Duberstein came out for Obama. Where’s that entry? And let’s not forget the neocons, lifelong GOPpers, and even family members like Christopher Buckley, Ken Adelman, Colin Powell, Christopher Hitchens, Jim Leach, Michael Smerconish, Lincoln Chafee, Douglas Kmiec, William Weld, Charles Fried, Arne Carlson, Susan Eisenhower, etc etc etc, who all back Barack. (Visit Republicans for Obama for a taste of how amazingly long this list is getting.)
And for crying out loud, Joe The Plumber is the most insulting patronization of actual working people that I’ve ever been subjected to. The entire campaign is based on the lie that Obama will take away all our stuff. Republicans once again have the audacity to pretend that THEY haven’t been the ones redistributing the wealth of poor and middle class people up to the rich for years and years. And on the absurd charge of sexism (which you confuse with telling the truth about the disgrace that is Sarah Palin), I guess you missed Rush’s “Babies, guns and Jesus. Hot damn!” and Fox’s utterly horrendous treatment of Hillary during the primaries. It’s all incredibly disgusting.
And your lambasting of the “chattering class” is just ironic. Your closing quote tells me all I need to know about your intellectual honesty: “I guess that’s why many of us have stopped listening to them.” Yes, you have stopped listening.

This is trash. I shouldn’t have expected a remotely objective essay from a blog. “Democrats not recognizing the surge worked”–if they said “The surge worked” would that change anything? Sorry for giving you blog traffic.

“Um dingleberry…Bush didn’t take office until January 2001, your stats start a YEAR when CLINTON was still in office or you are just plain stupid and don’t know when Bush took office..typical LEFTY LIB disingenuousness….”
wow, where is mzellen to decry this sort of behavior? oh, that’s right, she’s a hypocrite.
mea culpa. i made a silly mistake. so, here’s something that you’ll never see a republiCON do on this blog: i will correct the mistake here and we’ll see who is disingenuous (me providing data, even a link to the raw data so you can crunch the numbers yourself, or guy who throws out baseless lies).
yes, let’s fix that date error, because bush didn’t begin to destroy the nation until jan 2001, just as guy pointed out. does anyone but guy think it will change the story?

gasoline $/gal low high hi-lo avg start end e-s e-s/s
————– —– —– —– —– —– —– —– ——
4/1993-12/2000 $0.95 $1.71 $0.76 $1.20 $1.07 $1.45 $0.38 36%
1/2001-10/2008 $1.10 $4.16 $3.06 $2.18 $1.45 $2.72 $1.27 88%

the difference between highs and lows as a percent of the lowest price in their terms, under clinton there was a ($0.76/$0.95) 80% increase and under bush there was still a ($3.06/$1.10) 278% increase. the correction also raised the average price per gallon an additional 8 cents (and +5 cents under clinton).
i guess guy is still wrong. no reason to break that streak.

“let’s fix that date error, because bush didn’t begin to destroy the nation until jan 2001,”
Bush’s first year in office is still Clinton’s last fiscal year. Plus, anything bush signs into law, doesnt become law untill the following year.