The hypocisy and disconnect is enough to make my head explode at this point!

Ewwwwwwww...............

It would be unprecedented AFAIK for any VP to completely avoid the press in the run-up to a national election and I have a hard time believing that the independent/undecided voters will vote for McSame, particularly since he is now running with an "invisible" VP candidate who happens to only be a "heartbeat away from the Presidency". My faith in the electorate and the MSM is at an all-time low but I sincerely hope that people care more about fixing the highly visible problems in our country than having a woman VP. I'm beginning to think that the McSame campaign played up the MSM's "sexism" against and "attacks" on Palin just so that they could provide themselves with an excuse for her to not have to "subject" herself (and, of course her family) to the press, at least not without a script handy. I have no doubts that their "base" will understand and support their avoidance of "the press" (which they loathe with a passion anyway) and gleefully pull the lever for McSame (but really for HER) on November 4. Frankly, I think that, for those watching, Sarah Palin told everybody in the world who Sarah Palin is and what she "knows" and stands for in her "speech" on Thursday and I sincerely hope that enough people are offended and turned off by her that they wouldn't think of voting for McSame just so they could get her as VP. At the very least, I hope that there is enough common sense left among the remaining independents/undecideds to refuse to vote for an "invisible" VP candidate (particularly one who, god forbid, might very well need to suddenly assume the Presidency).

But he's repackaged himself almost as many times as Madonna it's difficult if not not impossible to determine WHICH "version" of McSame we're actually seeing at any given time. The man I've seen since 2004 seems so obsessed with becoming President that there's not really much he probably isn't willing to compromise in order to win. Do I believe that everything he says is truly heartfelt? No. Not really. But if he were really the "maverick" he claims to be, then I can think of a lot of ways that he could have demonstrated it better over the last few years than he actually has. Despite whatever "noise" he has made about Bush's policies over the last few years in the end he has always ended up supporting/defending Bush and helping him get whatever he has wanted. Although his speech last night had a lot of nice platitudes about wanting to reach across the aisle and work with Democrats, I'm not convinced of the sincerity of his statements based on his past behavior but more importantly, the tone of most of the speeches (most notably Palin's) and I believe that if he is elected he will not be genuinely interested in working with Democrats nor do I believe that he would be able to encourage his fellow Republicans to work with Democrats even if he was sincere about it. A lot of people fell for Bush's "uniter not a divider" mantra in 2000 but Bush, as we all know, ran one of the most divisive (mis-)administrations in recent history and his partisan crusade only stiffened and polarized the tone in Washington. Had McSame been truly interested in projecting a more unifying bipartisan image for the party he would have done well to encourage his fellow Republicans to tone down their attacks on Democrats and/or talk more about bipartisanship and if I were him I would've never let Palin deliver such a hateful and vindictive speech as the one she gave on Thursday. However, of course, his campaign prepared it for her with his blessing, so, in the end, as far as I'm concerned, McSame apparently doesn't really care all that much about bipartisanship and promises more of the same if elected.

But he's repackaged himself almost as many times as Madonna it's difficult if not not impossible to determine WHICH "version" of McSame we're actually seeing at any given time. The man I've seen since 2004 seems so obsessed with becoming President that there's not really much he probably isn't willing to compromise in order to win. Do I believe that everything he says is truly heartfelt? No. Not really. But if he were really the "maverick" he claims to be, then I can think of a lot of ways that he could have demonstrated it better over the last few years than he actually has. Despite whatever "noise" he has made about Bush's policies over the last few years in the end he has always ended up supporting/defending Bush and helping him get whatever he has wanted. Although his speech last night had a lot of nice platitudes about wanting to reach across the aisle and work with Democrats, I'm not convinced of the sincerity of his statements based on his past behavior but more importantly, the tone of most of the speeches (most notably Palin's) and I believe that if he is elected he will not be genuinely interested in working with Democrats nor do I believe that he would be able to encourage his fellow Republicans to work with Democrats even if he was sincere about it. A lot of people fell for Bush's "uniter not a divider" mantra in 2000 but Bush, as we all know, ran one of the most divisive (mis-)administrations in recent history and his partisan crusade only stiffened and polarized the tone in Washington. Had McSame been truly interested in projecting a more unifying bipartisan image for the party he would have done well to encourage his fellow Republicans to tone down their attacks on Democrats and/or talk more about bipartisanship and if I were him I would've never let Palin deliver such a hateful and vindictive speech as the one she gave on Thursday. However, of course, his campaign prepared it for her with his blessing, so, in the end, as far as I'm concerned, McSame apparently doesn't really care all that much about bipartisanship and promises more of the same if elected.

I know a lot of the MSM were fawning over her speech last night (or to put it correctly: her DELIVERY thereof) but I simply can't imagine that it will win her any converts and will probably end up further driving the moderates/independents towards Obama (or at least hopefully away from McSame and her). She certainly tossed a lot of "red meat" to the GOP's "base" by viciously attacking Obama and Democrats directly throughout most of her speech, which is understandable given the fact that this is THEIR convention. She also sure didn't stoop to Obama's level by praising him for anything like Obama did with McSame's past military service in his acceptance speech.
However, I can't help but think she perhaps went a bit TOO FAR by mocking and demeaning Obama's past experience as a community organizer and, by extension, anybody who rolls up their sleeves and gets out there everyday and serves their fellow citizens in the community regardless of whether or not they are obligated to do so as part of their normal job responsibilities. What is beautiful and important about being a community organizer is that such work is done not because they hold some "title" and that's just what they're supposed to do but they do it out of a sense of personal responsibility and concern for improving the lives of others and the rest of the community. What is more noble or, dare I say, "Christian" than THAT? I thought that was the kind of community-based/non-bureaucratic work that Bush's "faith-based" initiative was supposed to promote? Heck, I thought that that is what the GOP has always been promoting (at least rhetorically): People helping their neighbors and improving their community without relying on the government to "save" them?


What do comments like these say about the Republicans and their so-called "concern" for lower and working class people in this country? WHO exactly are the "elites" in this "cultural jihad" she's opened up?

-by putting himself in "unfriendly" territory most Democrats (rightfully or wrongfully-depends on your point of view) usually avoid he demonstrates the courage of his convictions and that he is willing to listen and talk directly to "the other side" however wrong or misbegotten "the other side" may be. It may not win him any votes but it does keep Obama out there in the public eye and gives him an opportunity to show a wider group of people that he is NOT the "boogeyman" that McSame/Palin and the rest of the GOP want everybody else to believe he is. I can't say that I'm not anxious at all about Obama going on
"O'Lielly's" show tonight but I have faith that he wouldn't be going on there without some kind of plan to avoid being slimed by him. It may be wishful thinking but maybe he might even be able to "charm" him a bit. He's been pretty successful DESPITE incredible odds of drawing in some GOP voters like my mother and mother-in-law (here in Indiana) and maybe this will help more with that. I don't hold out a lot of hope for any of the hardcore Fox News personalities and think they are all pond scum (Colmes excluded but he's certainly not much help) but if Obama were to go on any Fox show I'm at least glad that he's NOT going on Hannity & Colmes!

I hesitate to suggest that if I don't know who he is then most people probably won't either but I imagine that most people wouldn't know who he is either which is why Obama should push some kind of meme using Palin's quotes about community organizers. Her comments were simply too demeaning to ignore. I agree with you that the whole William Ayers smear seems to have become the Republican's favorite comeback despite the fact that I didn't know who he was until this campaign and I am not even sure I understand his connection to Ayers aside from the fact that he was once a colleague but then again I know that the GOP doesn't think it's worth the time or effort to make a REAL argument on the issues and would prefer to spend their time simply disseminating propaganda to the masses.

From what I read (sorry, I just couldn't watch it) it would seem to me to be THE line that will haunt McSame/Palin and perhaps the entire GOP for the rest of this election. The rest of the speech is pretty much Obama bashing and props for herself and McSame. O.k. Fine. Bashing the media and "Washington elite." Fine. It's their convention. But why would she GO OUT OF HER WAY to demean not only Obama's hard work as a community organizer but by extension everybody out there right now doing the same kind of work? If this doesn't prove beyond a shadow of a doubt how contemptuous the GOP REALLY is of working-class voters (whose votes they somehow always manage to win) and how the GOP (and their loyal supporters) are the REAL "elites" in this country then I'm not sure ANYTHING will. I can't wait to see Obama/Biden shred both of them to pieces in the debates and in the election.

How pathetic. I will say, based on a sampling of RW talk shows that I've listened to today, their prime target seems to be the media at the moment. The Campbell Brown interview seems to be annoying them in particular and they are alleging all kinds of "double standards" for Palin in terms of media coverage conveniently acting indignant as though the whole Democratic primary "smear-a-thon" never happened at all. That Obama managed to weather THAT storm and won the primary and is maintaining a consistent lead over McSame in the polls seems pretty extraordinary but the MSM has been anything BUT Obama's friend IMHO. One idiot caller to one local RW show (I believe it was Greg Garrison-who was hosting David Horowitz) was complaining about the media not being objective and just reporting "the facts" and then he segued into talking about how the John Edwards affair story was covered without taking time to appreciate the irony of his comments.

If (positive) comparisons start flying between her acceptance speech and Obama's. But, seriously, I'm sure that the bar has been set so low for her that being able to recite the GOP's latest talking points (carefully avoiding her fundie creds) her "speech" will be considered a "home run". Her ability to reach out to disaffected Hillary supporters (the REAL ones, not the GOP operatives) seems to have already been severely damaged by her decision to try to appropriate and exploit Hillary's "18 million cracks" rhetoric and any TRUE Hillary supporter would never support her severely backwards cultural agenda (for women), so I'm pretty sure that she's going to play up her questionable reputation as a "reformer" (how she will reconcile this with currently being under investigation for CORRUPTION is anybody's guess) and "maverick", whatever the hell THAT means.

So, McSame was reportedly forced into picking Palin over arguably more qualified candidates (not complaining BTW) and, more damning, Palin is CURRENTLY under investigation for allegedly abusing her power as governor among other things. HOW can anybody argue (with a straight face) that they are a couple of "mavericks" and/or "reformers" (shouldn't she be fighting herself?) as Diane Rehm's...ahem....guests did this morning?

If he didn't vet her properly then that suggests that McSame is reckless and is able/willing to make a momentous decision on the basis of selective and/or minimal information. Would we want ANOTHER President who does this deciding where, when, and how to deploy our military for instance?
If he DID vet her properly then that suggests that, like Obama said about McCain, "he doesn't get it" and I would challenge any other past Presidential candidates to make a compelling argument for McSame's judgment in light of his selection of Palin, especially since she is currently under investigation for corruption (you can tell she's ready-she's ALREADY under investigation and she hasn't even been elected VP yet).

If he didn't vet her properly then that suggests that McSame is reckless and is able/willing to make a momentous decision on the basis of selective and/or minimal information. Would we want ANOTHER President who does this deciding where, when, and how to deploy our military for instance?
If he DID vet her properly then that suggests that, like Obama said about McCain, "he doesn't get it" and I would challenge any other past Presidential candidates to make a compelling argument for McSame's judgment in light of his selection of Palin, especially since she is currently under investigation for corruption (you can tell she's ready-she's ALREADY under investigation and she hasn't even been elected VP yet).

and singlehandedly ordered the internets shut down so that nobody could talk about or possibly question and/or malign Palin (because we know how censored the GOPMSM already is)?



Maybe Al Gore could've helped him with it too since, after all, he "invented" the internets, right?

Oh, wait a minute, according to McSame/GOP, Obama is just a nobody with a "speech". How could HE have single-handedly prevented millions of people with internet access from talking about, well......anything?