The most striking revelation about the choice of Palin that I have heard recently is how poorly she was vetted. This woman is barely qualified to be governor of Alaska let alone VP or, God forbid, Commander-in-Chief. And her choice by McCain reveals once again that he is nothing if not a reckless and impulsive man who will seemingly do anything to attain the White House.

I hate the countries choices as I am by no means an Obama fan or Dem supporter (never voted for one). But in this election there is no doubt in my mind that McCain is by far the worse of the two choices. I guess I'll be sitting home on election day drowning my depression in brandy as I watch the Republican party turn into ashes before my eyes.

Yet you read the current Obama talking points like the page is sitting in front of you. Amazing coincidence.

What, exactly, "qualifies" someone to be an executive?
And a good executive at that?

Some say it is years in a field, doing the same thing over and over. (like Richard Daley?)

The essential quality needed ,is look at a situation, see it clearly, and have the guts to act on the info.

Decision making is key. THAT is the job.

Not waffling, obfuscating, delaying, debating ,pointing fingers, holding conferences, issuing proclamations, maintaining the status quo, or hiding behind a wall of aides.

Decision making.

Purely random, I'm sure Mark.

Raven, you sound like any one of many execrable GWB speeches. Look where that approach has put us. Every politician makes decisions, so I fail to see how doing so impulsively, or "from the gut" in the vernacular of the press, without thinking through them counts as anything to be admired, promoted or even discussed. The way you've chosen to spin this assumes your audience is composed of nothing but idiots, and I am frankly offended.

But why don't you explain how the choice of Palin by McCain demonstrates any of the alleged positive qualities you suggest? What is the situation that McCain "looked squarely in the eye, saw clearly, and made a decision" on, beyond that he's desperate to get elected and will do anything to achieve that?

Just for anyone wondering what the current democrat marching orders currently are vis-a-vis Palin/McCain:

"Instead of retracing that well-trod ground, consider what the process reveals about John McCain himself.

With his first “presidential” decision, McCain has cast considerable, and mostly unflattering, light on his own character and thinking.

First and foremost, it underlines his rash and impetuous nature."

The Hill
Mark Mellman, Democrat political consultant.

Well, obviously his number one concern is to get elected- any and all other "presidential" decisions he may make depend on it.

Second, this lady has guts- nobody takes on their own party and wins without steel.

third, you are correct, every politician makes decisions- but a hell of a lot of them make them by default-by waiting until other factors make their choice for them. (being outside the OODA loop.) Often this dithering is covered up with study groups, outside assessments,yada yada. There is every reason to delay, as one is far more likely to be held accountable for a decision one does make than for the lack of a decision.
(It is always easier to say"no".)

Fourth, I do not see where I mentioned "impulsive", "from the gut" or "not thinking them through" at all.

This choice does resonate well in the parts of the country that are outside the big cities.

And just for the record, I vote usually about 30% Democrat, so please no whacking me for being some Bush crony. I get this all the time from friends who would never, ever, consider a republican of any stripe worthy of their vote who accuse me of being "extremist" or "partisan". And they insist they are "middle of the road" ?

The Republicans hate her.

Apologies for repeating a point which many Democratic partisans have made (it's hard to be original wrt a topic which has been flogged to death); but isn't it weird that we keep hearing it mentioned that both Republican nominees are famous for offending their own party? Would it have been better to nominate them in secret and let them run as the Maverick Party candidates?

Kevin,

I think the point is that the Republican politicians hate them. If the people out at the polls didn't like McCain, he wouldn't have gotten the necessary votes. And if the established party is running on enough fiscal irresponsibility that we need more intrusive government taxes to fix things, they need to be offended, and thrown out for that matter. (Give me someone who doesn't believe that government is the answer to all problems though.)

She gave a two-finger salute to Conoco Phllips and Exxon Mobile, raised their taxes on their oil, put in place a transparent way to bid for the seed money and the licenses to finally, finally, put in a natural gas pipeline in Alaska. And it was won by a Canadian company. And she went to the mat and made it happen. She has been systematically pulling the drilling licenses of Conoco Phillips and Exxon Mobile for areas that they haven't touched. I mean, they've been hoarding reserves, and she says, you know, use it or lose it, and she has been sending the attorney general time after time to revoke these things. It's absolutely fascinating.

Anyone find this remarkable? This sounds like a page out of the Obama energy plan.

Anyone find this remarkable? This sounds like a page out of the Obama energy plan.

Actually, does anyone else find this unintentionally hilarious? Isn't this what Republicans (including McCain) have been nay-saying for months? Obama should shove this back down their throats.

Palin is like Christmas: She's the VP pick that keeps giving.

It seems McCain has aimed right at Obama's waterline. Good luck for the audacious!

isn't it weird that we keep hearing it mentioned that both Republican nominees are famous for offending their own party?

Kind of. But in a year where the Democratic mantra is "8 years of GOP rule is too much"--and they have a convincing case for it--I suspect the emphasis you noticed is deliberate branding by the candidates, rather than just a hasty response to a talking point.

Would it have been better to nominate them in secret and let them run as the Maverick Party candidates?

Actually that's an interesting thought question. In a year where empty promises of "CHANGE!" are sufficient policy platform when chanted loudly enough, I suspect a McCain/Palin ticket would have made for an election-spoiling 3rd party run if they chose to try it (for whatever reason).

I haven't seen the Democratic Party this thrilled with a political opponent since W (both times) and before that, Reagan (dim-witted ex-actor that he was).

I hope they'll be just as satisfied with the lady.

If we're quoting people's opinions on her, AL, I believe she caused the elder conservative woman among journalists, Peggy Noonan, to use the word "bitch" in her column today.

Anyone find this remarkable?

Not really. Alaskans essentially own the oil, so efforts to push the oil companies to drill more oil puts more royalty payments in the pockets of Alaskans. It's not an energy policy she is promoting, its the pecuniary interest of Alaskans.

I haven't seen Obama's energy policy, but I imagine that there are differences between it and the types of legislation he supported as the Senator of Illinois, which is a state strongly in favor of ethanol, nuclear, and coal.

I am, already SOOO tired of Sarah Palin conversation.

I can absolutely see why, given the perception of her, McCain would choose her.

The perception being, one tough lady, taking on corruption in her state, speaks well, continually underestimated, hard-working "regular folks".

I get that.

But c'mon guys - it is also pretty clear, that the vetting was very, very, weak, when it came to the McCain team vetting Palin. This was a last minute decision, that wasn't well vetted, and is risky. Issue after issue keeps raising it's head.

Given that Palin is underestimated, I'm going to go the opposite direction, and assume she will give a GREAT speech tonight. Raves and smiles all around.

Still, is this what you want with a VP pick? To have the focus be on the media reporting out all of the non-vetted aspects of the VP? Which is the inevitable result, of a unvetted candidate.

Seems a bit strange to me, as a campaign tactic.

What's the upside of this strategy?

NOTE: This is a serious question, and I'm interested in hearing from those that accept the above premises:

a. She is an un-vetted candidate (but an awfully good one)
b. That unvettedness, inevitably attracts lots of reporters to fill in the gaps.
c. Anything that is questionable in those gaps - then gets reported out of proportion with the seriousness of those "questionableness" -Alaskan Independent Party, firing issues with sherriff, others, the baby out of wedlock, etc.

In and of themselves, most of those questions are explainable.

So why did the McCain campaign not predict this - or was the campaign COUNTING on this reporting feeding frenzy, for an as yet unnamed upside?

This is a serious question, and I'm interested in hearing from those that accept the above premises:

I'm sure we all fell for that trick in high school debate club. But given the evidence (from as far back as May) against your first assumption, I think your entire argument--especially that the intended effect of McCain's veep pick was to create media speculation as a sort of deflecting shield--is rather untenable.

A is quite possibly false. Perhaps a better formulation of your premise is that the press didn't take her presence on the list seriously, and didn't do their homework - no shock, that.

At least in part, the McCain camp was counting on the frenzy. They obviously have someone on staff that understands the vileness of portions of the kos/DU crowd, and realized that they'd go overboard, allowing them the opportunity to fight back, show more spine than we've seen to date, and do it without directly attacking Obama. The upsides are that the display of fighting spirit will energize the base; the repulsiveness of the questions and allegations (viz. Alan Colmes' idiocy on her "pre-natal care") will peel off some of the idealistic young voters, and drive some PUMAs to their side; and open an opportunity to hit the press corps with retorts about their lack of interest in unearthing and dissecting Obama's resume.

and at any rate, a McCain/Palin White House wouldn't deliver whatever it is the Religious Right wants.

Pretty much what I assumed. Like I told my wife, I'd be much more wary of a creationist candidate for Superintendent of Schools than I am about a creationist candidate for Vice President. It all has to do with who has the power to enact their beliefs into official policy and/or law.

Unbeliever,

But given the evidence (from as far back as May) against your first assumption

Well, one of those links lead to a anonymous party flack - which is questionable, by it's very nature.

The other link, the one that shows McCain meeting Palin, alsoshows that McCain was meeting with ALL kinds of potential VP's. Again, not conclusive proof of any kind.

But I can understand your position, though I disagree. So many of the Repub talking heads, that first 3 or 4 days, had a deer in the headlights look, when asked about her. They hadn't gotten a coherent set of talking points, didn't know her, and it showed.

Still, it pretty clear that these

Phil,

That might be the case - certainly more evidence for this, is the obviously staged meeting of McCain with the boyfriend (and father) of Palin's daughter's baby.

We might see the culmination of that strategy tonight, in Palin's speech.

To summarize the left-wing logic vacuum :

The argument against McCain is age.

The argument against Palin is a lack of experience.

However, each month that McCain ages also results in 1 month more of experience for Palin.

The left, so accustomed to lies and false narrative, is trying to control the flow of time itself. Time works against McCain to exactly the extent that time works in favor of Palin. But the left would have you believe that time is accelerating forward for McCain, but simultaneously at a standstill for Palin.

What will the left do in 2012, when Palin will have 6 years of cumulative experience as governor? Their strongest point against Palin is diminishing by the day....

I am, already SOOO tired of Sarah Palin conversation.

Then why repeat the Obama talking point already parroted by today's assigned troll in #1? That's just an attempt to shut down the conversation, on your terms. Didn't work, and you're left just making unsupported assertions - "no he didn't". How about dropping the ad homs and just talking about which of her polices you hate?

I rather enjoyed watching the Repub (as well as Dem) talking heads thrash around. Why does McCain (or Palin for that matter) owe them anything, let alone advance notice? As one who'd like to see the go-along, get-along pork barrel and log rolling part of the GOP cast into darkness, that makes me feel GOOD about McCain and Palin, as does the original post here.

Well, one of those links lead to a anonymous party flack - which is questionable, by it's very nature.

Just like the sources cited in the original NYT article which kicked off the "inadequately vetted" meme the media is circulating. I don't see why your anonymous flacks beat should beat my anonymous flack, especially when other named sources and the campaign's official stance and the candidate himself says things in line with my interpretation.

I just used a link with more details, for convenience's sake; your assumption (a) simply doesn't hold water.

The other link, the one that shows McCain meeting Palin, alsoshows that McCain was meeting with ALL kinds of potential VP's. Again, not conclusive proof of any kind.

It's proof that he didn't just think this up last week as a panicked grasping at straws.

But I can understand your position, though I disagree. So many of the Repub talking heads, that first 3 or 4 days, had a deer in the headlights look, when asked about her. They hadn't gotten a coherent set of talking points, didn't know her, and it showed.

What? All the talking heads with a conservative bent that I saw absolutely loved her as a pick, and already knew her because her name has been bandied around the "conservative elite" circles for months (along with Jindal) as the dream pick.

The media in general was thrown into confusion because they hadn't gotten their talking points from Obama's campaign, which had commercials ready for immediate release to blast other candidates but not for Palin. This would be a great time to rant about liberal media bias, but in the case for it is so glaringly obvious I'll leave off regurgitating what a simple Google search will confirm.

But c'mon guys - it is also pretty clear, that the vetting was very, very, weak ...

Was it because her records are locked up in the Richard J. Daley Library, while Sandy Berger stuffs all the embarrassing material down his pants?

Well, here's what I learned about Sarah Palin so far in her speech tonight:

She just had a daughter. One of her daughters is pregnant. That means her kid and grandkid will be about the same age. Hey, they can celebrate birthdays together! I'm sure it will be a hoot to hear a two year old to refer to her little friend as "Aunt" or to have to explain what that means to her.

Ba-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da

Duh-da-diddy-duh-da-duh-dah-doo

[Simoni: You're new here, aren't you?

Woops, no -- looks like you acted the same way once before, back in April '08. Well then.

Because of benefit of the doubt, you get one drive-by, and that's it. Care to stick around and contribute substance? Great! We like debate. But if your content doesn't improve, we'll be asking you to have a nice day somewhere else. --NM]

"She just had a daughter. One of her daughters is pregnant. That means her kid and grandkid will be about the same age. Hey, they can celebrate birthdays together! I'm sure it will be a hoot to hear a two year old to refer to her little friend as "Aunt" or to have to explain what that means to her. "

Leftists are so removed from the concept of reproduction that they don't realize that large families have gaps between children, and that generation age overlaps are gasp not rare.....

Didn't Robert Kennedy have 11 children? Look how far Democrats have sunk since 1968.

I smell fear..... the Donkey is about to be crushed under the mighty foot of the African Bush Elephant (which actually comes from Kenya, you know)....

tee hee.....

hypo - just off a plane, so catching up. In your #17, you suggest something not in evidence. Is there in your idea a difference between being 'vetted' by the campaign and 'aired out' by the media?

It's certainly possible for her to have been vetted by McCain and not have been enough of a public presence to have been under the media spotlight.

A.L.

That was a surprisingly good speech.

So far as political historians are concerned, only Democrats give good convention speeches (often written by future political historians) and usually only by saying something completely insane, like Wm. J. Bryan's crackpot "Cross of Gold" speech.

This was so good that Keith Olbermann forgot to compare it to Hitler. And I can tell that Chris Matthews is starting to panic, because he's trying to salvage his journalism career all of a sudden.

Glen, I pointed to the published text in another thread, but I might as well do it here, too. (link)

Can you tell if she went off-text? The paper version does sound pretty effective as I read it to myself.

What I'm noticing so far is a lot of press reaction to Giuliani's speech, which was immediately prior.

I don't know if she departed, but my favorite line is in the text: "the American presidency is not supposed to be a journey of personal discovery."

That one, for me, echoed deep in the cultural fault line.

She stayed far away from a defensive, don't-pick-on-the-little-girl tone. It was surprising how cutting she was. Now I'm thinking that this is a ploy to smoke out Joe Biden and his big mouth.

Tomorrow's Democrat talking point- helpfully vetted by Hypo:

McCain didnt vet Palin properly. We know because the media didnt know anything about her, and there were some potential scandals. The scandals didn't actually pan out, and as it turns out, Palin is a really strong figure and popular running mate. How lucky McCain was that his lack of vetting worked in his favor.

Anybody who doesn't see the terrible flaw in this logic (and again the circular reasoning) really needs to take a few plays off.

Glen Wishard@29.

In total agreement with you about Matthews. He had a very serious, almost grim, visage on his face post-speech. I think he realized this is a woman that is going to be extremely difficult to trivialize or blacktop and that, to use his own words, she is a torpedo aimed right at ship Obama--and that he, for the first time, I believe, senses that the ship might not just take on some heavy-duty water, but actually might sink. No grins and jocular commentary tonight from our man Chris M.

Here's a feed of the speech for those who missed it, courtesy of a poster at Wretchard's place: (link) and it runs 38:17. I'm going to make some actual popcorn for this. No lie.

The article next to the feed is titled: "Palin Rips Obama During RNC Speech" -- awwwwww.

She really is good for my mood. :)

PS: I note with interest that they say:

Palin took crowd-delighting swipes at Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama and what she called the "Washington elite."

Umm. Do I see an element missing here? Let me think, let me think...

As for my running mate, you can be certain that wherever he goes, and whoever is listening, John McCain is the same man. I'm not a member of the permanent political establishment.

And I've learned quickly, these past few days, that if you're not a member in good standing of the Washington elite, then some in the {blink}media{/blink} consider a candidate unqualified for that reason alone.

But here's a little news flash for all those {blink}reporters and commentators{/blink}: I'm not going to Washington to seek their good opinion - I'm going to Washington to serve the people of this country. Americans expect us to go to Washington for the right reasons, and not just to mingle with the right people.

Umm, the other folks she slammed -- it's right on the tip of my tongue. The word starts with "M", I think... Umm, ummm ummm....

Darn, I just can't find that word!

Gov. Palin's speech tonight brought to mind, of all things, U2's Bono introducing the band's cover of "Helter Skelter": "This is a song Charles Manson stole from the Beatles. We're stealing it back."

In this analogy, Palin is Bono, Obama is Manson, and Hillary Clinton is the Beatles. Obama stole Hillary's thunder in the Democratic primaries; now along comes Palin to steal not only Obama's own thunder, but also the thunder Obama had stolen from Hillary. By the time 2012 rolls around, Hillary may well find herself being the "other" woman in the campaign; for all we know she may even (heaven forbid) be up against a female incumbent.

(Cross-posted on, well, a whole bunch of blogs ;)

[Since you were man enough to tell us you were cross-posting, I'll let this one stand. --Marshal Nortius "Big Tuna" Maximus, speaking ex cathedra from his bellybutton. ;)]

#29: The GMAFB upward glance and pause after she delivered the "personal discovery" line was fricking priceless.

Mark B:
She was for the bridge (& Stevens) before she was against it.

For someone who stands up against earmarks, she really likes to spend the money on her own town.

For some whose a "good small town woman" she really has a knack for loyalty oaths and politically motivated firings.

If she keeps running on a record that doesn't exist she will be called on it. She's certainly a stronger candidate than the media has led on, but if she keeps using outdated facts, it will eventually kill her credibility.

On a side (and totally irrelevant) note: Does anybody else have problems with her speech voice? I don't know if it's the tone, or the accent (or something else) but when she's talking loudly it rattles my eardrums. I'm going to listen to the whole speech this afternoon... or maybe I'll just read the transcripts...

I thought Palin's strongest point was embracing her small town roots, particularly being a mayor. Essentially she just reached out to all the folks in Colorado, Ohio, and Michigan and reminded them that Obama and the media dont think people like them and their local leaders are as good as the Washington elite. It really does go to the arrogance of the aforementioned that it never occured to them that Palins small town experience is a good thing to a lot of American's, particularly in the battleground states.

The dovetailed perfectly into her point that Obama says one thing to people's faces when they are listening, and something else when their backs are turned. Palin, I think, hit a real nerve on that- Obama may say he is all about regular peoples' problems, but he also says being a mayor of a small town or governor of a small state and dealing with those problems every day isnt worth very much. There is a serious disconnect in that.

Her accent is in fact quite common - outside of coastal cities.

But hey, keep up the attacks on her person and family. THAT will surely go over well with the stupid rubes who might otherwise be swayed by her despite the lack of a single styrofoam Greek pillar or personalized, premature presidential seal on the podium.

[chuckles quietly]

But hey, keep up the attacks on her person and family.

I have not, and do not plan to attack her or her family. I have attacked her record, and you can defend it if you like.

"What? All the talking heads with a conservative bent that I saw absolutely loved her as a pick, and already knew her because her name has been bandied around the "conservative elite" circles for months (along with Jindal) as the dream pick."

Speaking as one of the resident conservatives, she would have made my short list of five. I really didn't think there was much of a chance of getting her on the ticket (I loathe McCain), and I'm leery of 'wasting' her talent by getting her on a national ticket this early, but frankly, I think she was the best pick available.

She's one of about 3-4 young charismatic conservatives that I'm desparate to see become the new party leadership after 12 years of the GOP being led by its liberal wing (Bush, Gullianni, Huckabee, Schwartzeneger, Romney, etc.) and she actually (just a little) makes me excited about voting. Prior to her being on the ticket, quite a few of the conservatives I knew were so depressed about having to choose between Obama Bin Biden and John 'RINO' McCain-Feingold that they were thinking of sitting out the election.

Picking Palin was all about shoring up McCain's weak right flank, and she does a really good job of it. The pick shows that McCain believes he can beat Obama head to head in the middle and that all he has to do is to make sure his base on the rigth is as motivated as Obama's base on the left. The fact that Obama picked someone like Biden shows that he analyzes the election in exactly the same way. The fact that Palin is a women and may help win over female moderates that consider things like that is just gravy.

As for the left winged response to Palin, I really couldn't have hoped for better:

a) "She inexperienced." Great. Thanks for drawing attention to Obama's even more thin resume.
b) "She's only a Governor of Alaska." Great. Thanks for pitching all the small states into our corner.
c) "She's a girl." Great. Thanks for pitching all of Hillary's supporters into our corner.
d) "She's got 5 kids." Great. Thanks for pitching all of the traditonal families into our corner.
e) "Her daughter is having a baby." Great, now we can roll out endless video of Obama saying, "I wouldn't want my daughter punished with a baby."

Keep it up. I didn't really care who won this election, and for the first time in my life was seriously consider sitting it out. Keep it up and I might not only vote, I might actually start calling myself a Republican again.

Alc- I think women politicians will always be behind the 8-ball to some extent because of their voices.

I've noticed something- people (men and women) listening to a female politician they disagree with very often note they sound shrieky or shrill. I think it varies inversely with how much they agree with what they are saying.

I admit i do it myself. When i hear Hillary or Pelosi giving a policy speech I want to cover my ears. On the other hand it never occurred to me that Palin's voice was anything but pleasant, yet i've heard a number of commentators complain about it.

It helps to acknowledge that you have a problem though. Its obviously not fair, nobody cringes when men speak. I suppose some juvenile part of our minds brings us back to being yelled at by our moms.

celebrim- great breakdown. And all of that is pretty obvious stuff. Thats why this 'McCain didnt think this pick through' nonsense is insulting. Palin was the perfect (forgive me) honey trap for the Obama campaign. The pick just begged the democrats to open up on all the fronts you just mentioned. It was a smart, well thought out pick. This idea that McCain just knocked back a shot and threw her name out betrays the mentality that conservatives are dumb (unless they are evil geniuses of course, but Rove is retired).

The left and the MSM (same thing of course) didnt understand the pick, and since they consider themselves the arbiters of intelligence by definition the pick must have been arbitrary. When it turns out the pick was fairly brilliant, McCain must have been lucky. No way McCain and his people outthought the intelligencia, of course! Must have been luck.

There was a lot to like in that speech. And she threw the perfect jabs:

[Obama] is a man who can give an entire speech about the wars America is fighting, and never use the word "victory" except when he's talking about his own campaign. But when the cloud of rhetoric has passed … when the roar of the crowd fades away … when the stadium lights go out, and those Styrofoam Greek columns are hauled back to some studio lot - what exactly is our opponent's plan? What does he actually seek to accomplish, after he's done turning back the waters and healing the planet?

Did the Democratic convention organizers really think they could get away with that set for Obama's speech, without it coming back to bite them?

When i hear Hillary or Pelosi giving a policy speech I want to cover my ears.

See, I've heard many female conservatives that I don't like talk, and never had an issue. I'm not sure why Palin would be any different.

Celebrim: As for your five points, I again, did not attack her on any of those points, and I agree that all are a waste of media space. Now, having said that, will you defend her existing, (& flawed) record, or shall we save it for the debates?

Thatcher had to get a speech coach, so did Hillary Clinton. Both I think worked to start their voice at a lower level so that excited utterances don't get pinched and shrill. Palin seems more comfortable dropping her tone down for the big line. Much more conversational, but she better hope for good mikes.

Alchemist,

I'm curious about your take on Palin's record, as well as appreciative for you taking on that rather than jumping on the juvenile and pointless name-calling about her family. (That just shows that the people making the account don't actually know any conservatives, because they are arguing to a stereotype that isn't remotely accurate.)

Anyway, to address your points:

She was for the bridge (& Stevens) before she was against it.

I will assume your intelligence, and that you are therefore not making the "flip-flop" argument. So are you arguing that it is not reasonable for politicians to change their actions, behaviors or positions as new evidence comes to light? Or are you arguing that she was taking a stand for political convenience, even though at the time that she came out against Stevens and the bridge it was actually inconvenient for her, in that she was attacking a popular politician of her own party and a popular program? (Talk about far-sighted....) Are you saying that having once supported a politician who turned out to be corrupt, or a program that turned out to be wasteful, a politician must never then oppose corruption or waste? If none of these things, then exactly what is the point of principle you are raising?

For someone who stands up against earmarks, she really likes to spend the money on her own town.

It is a mayor's job to do the best possible for their town within the rules, just as it is a governor's job to do the same. Both will submit requests for earmarks, because that is largely how the budgeting game is played in Congress. Earmarks, per se, are not a problem (except to the extent that complying with too many of them is difficult to impossible for an executive department to manage); it's corruption, waste, fraud and abuse that are problems. Earmarks are a problem only to the extent (and it is at the moment a large extent) that they make corruption easier to contrive and easier to hide. Are you alleging that Gov. Palin, then-Mayor Palin or then-Commissioner Palin sought money for her or her associates in exchange for donations to particular legislators, as apparently happened with Michelle Obama's hospital and some of Rezko's developments? If so, I'd be curious to know which earmarks sought by Palin were corrupt, wasteful, fraudulent or abusive.

For some whose a "good small town woman" she really has a knack for loyalty oaths and politically motivated firings.

I'm tempted to ignore the ad hominem, but I won't. What evidence do you have (direct evidence, not insinuation) that Palin's firing of Monagan (I assume that's the reference you are making) was politically motivated, or more to the point, that any political motivation was for personal or party gain rather than holding a public servant accountable for the performance of his job? Moreover, I have no idea what you are talking about with the comment about loyalty oaths, and would love some elucidation on that point. Finally, are you saying that politics don't exist in small towns? If so, I suggest you visit some; the politics are most vicious where the stakes are most petty.

If she keeps running on a record that doesn't exist she will be called on it. She's certainly a stronger candidate than the media has led on, but if she keeps using outdated facts, it will eventually kill her credibility.

I think that she immediately strikes a good note with at least two thirds of the Republicans (conveniently, the 2/3 that were not happy with McCain), and a sour note with Democrats; that's to be expected. The real question is how she does with moderates, and if that translates into improving McCain's standing. And that is yet to be demonstrated.

The mere fact that Obama and the Democrats generally are focusing on attacking Palin and Palin's record, rather than McCain and McCain's record, is good for McCain's campaign, because it puts him even further inside Obama's OODA loop; with Obama reacting to McCain's agenda, McCain has the initiative to drive the debate for at least a week, maybe two, before Obama can really recover and change the topic. That's huge at this point in the cycle.

On a side (and totally irrelevant) note: Does anybody else have problems with her speech voice? I don't know if it's the tone, or the accent (or something else) but when she's talking loudly it rattles my eardrums. I'm going to listen to the whole speech this afternoon... or maybe I'll just read the transcripts...

It's probably the accent. There is a kind of twang in frontier voices that still exists across the West, MidWest, and Northwest (in all three cases, outside of the major cities), and it can come off as really annoying. In fact, the exaggeration of that twang is why I cannot listen to most country music. I get the same eardrum rattling effect when I hear New York or Boston accents, but the frontier accent doesn't bother me in speaking voices.

Eek, apparently I missed closing a blockquote. Sorry about the formatting issue.

Does anybody else have problems with her speech voice? I don't know if it's the tone, or the accent (or something else) but when she's talking loudly it rattles my eardrums.

She spoke too loudly, as a tension-reliever. Given the vultures that were circling overhead as she stepped up to the podium, can you blame her?

I'm saying that it's interesting that you are against support of a bridge only after the program has been terminated by congress. BTW: Palin still support the Knik Arm Bridge which is expected to cost the government 1 billion. Here is an anti knick arm bridge website

Sorry, should have linked to the loyalty oaths but got lazy. I don't have nexis search, so I can't find the original article, but here's a later one that discusses the loyalty oaths along with her threating to fire a a librarian for not banning requested books (allegedly).

BTW: Palin still support the Knik Arm Bridge which is expected to cost the government 1 billion.

Except that the Knik Arm Bridge is a colossally good idea, whereas the Gravina Island Bridge requires a lot of persuading.

The geography of Anchorage is such that it's expanded as far as it can -- it's surrounded by water on two sides, mountains on one side, and military bases on the fourth. According to my dad, who's lived there since 1959, it's the big land-developer interests in Anchorage who oppose the bridge since having nowhere to expand to keeps real estate prices sky-high. Which of course drives lower- and middle-income people out to suburbs like Wasilla (30+ miles away).

Yeah, there's nothing immediately on the other end of the proposed bridge now, but I guarantee you that they'd be selling homes there about ten minutes after the first car drove across.

We can not let the mainstream media illuminati get us distracted on the real issues going on. Our government is leaning towards the left, and all people are worried about is whether some with Executive experience (the only one of all the candidates) is experienced.