So do the Republicans really think Sarah Palin is a contender? Or is that just a way to cover up the fact they already think Obama will be a 2-termer?

I don't think Sarah Palin thinks Sarah Palin's a contender at this point. That's why she's courting the Teabaggers, so she can claim that the reason she's not taken seriously in 2012 is because of the good-old-boy mentality of the two party system.

Ben Nelson, and also Mary Landreu (or however you spell her name) in Louisiana.

I don't doubt that you do, just as I think the Senator in question is being a dork. i'm simply trying to point out this sadly, practices like this are nothing new. This tactic specifically is, but it's all politics as usual.

There was great controversy over the Tim Tebow Focus on the Family pro-life ad prior to it airing on during the SuperBowl. Whatever one thinks of the organization or the ad, I'm finding the response of the leadership of NOW to be absolutely hysterical. (by the way, I'm so paranoid now that I had to go check the Drudge Report to make sure there wasn't anything on his page about this.)

From this article -

Granted, this is not a common reaction, but come on....violence against women? Because a football player playfully tackles his mother????? How about something reasonable, like -

"I am so happy that the story of Tim Tebow turned out the way it did, as he is truly a remarkable young man. What I am concerned about, though, is that the full story involves a woman ignoring the advice of her doctor, and while it turned out this way, it's very possible that it might not have. I would encourage women to take the advice of their physicians for their own safety."

Even though I am prolife, I would hear that and say "that's a reasonable response". I don't know much about O'Neill, but if this common to her, those concerned about NOW might want to consider removing her.

I'd agree it is a stupid response.

It is also probably the first time since Pee Wee that Tim Tebow has tackled someone.

Yeah, the response from O'Neill is pretty silly - it strikes me as opportunistic, as well. ("Oh look, we can make this issue about US!")

I didn't see the actual ad until just now, though I know the backstory well enough. But by itself, the ad seems to me to accomplish almost nothing. If I didn't know who Focus on the Family was, I would have had no idea what to make of that ad whatsoever. And the tackling gag was unfunny (because it was lame), though I would never have perceived it as in any way promoting or glorifying domestic violence. (yeesh)

From what I've read CBS requested they make the ad as non-controversial as possible.

A non-controversial ad from a very controversial group - end result, something incredibly pointless. I wonder if they thought their money was well spent?

No matter where you're coming from politically, religiously, morally - the Super Bowl is the wrong time to try to get people to re-think their core values. I hope this doesn't become a trend of vague ads from hot-button organizations. Not that I will be watching anyway. I remain blissfully TV-less!

I would gather they got their money's worth before the ad even ran with all the publicity it received before hand.

If we as a society did not condone violence against men, there would have been no Super Bowl with which to sponsor an ad condoning violence against women.

And don't get me started on the conspiracy of silence regarding violence against Abe Vigoda.