Palin?

[TexasTiger 14,070]

This part of my post got lost in the shuffle because I added it while Tex was answering it:

I read several places that Obama's first choice would have been Kathleen Sebelius. That was who he wanted. But his campaign knew that foreign policy experience, according to their internal polling, was still a bigger obstacle for him than they hoped it would be after the Germany and Iraq visits. So he picked someone that he felt filled a gap in his own resume and would get those for whom foreign policy experience was a big deal to be willing to give him a chance. He chose the person he could stomach (sorry Hillary) that gave him the best chance to win.

So why is it wrong for McCain to choose someone he feels can help him with certain groups of voters and "fill in the gaps" they perceive in his resume?

How would Sebelius have been "ready on day one" to be a heartbeat away? She wouldn't have been. She has as much foreign policy experience as me. But that's who Obama wanted. He chose strategically, as did McCain.

Think about how silly and tenuous your argument is-- he didn't pick her. He likes her. Maybe she'll get a cabinet position. But he concluded she wasn't the most prepared for the job and chose the person he thought was. McCain passed over numerous people, including women, better prepared than Palin-- How about Kay Bailey Hutchinson? And how do you know what Obama wanted to do, anyway?

[OldNewby 27]

Was Biden picked because Obama thought he was the best prepared person to be a heartbeat away from becoming POTUS? I don't think so. He was picked because he is almost as liberal as Obama. Like McCain, Obama had many choices.

Ideology played a major part in both picks. And why not?

[TitanTiger 21,064]

This part of my post got lost in the shuffle because I added it while Tex was answering it:

I read several places that Obama's first choice would have been Kathleen Sebelius. That was who he wanted. But his campaign knew that foreign policy experience, according to their internal polling, was still a bigger obstacle for him than they hoped it would be after the Germany and Iraq visits. So he picked someone that he felt filled a gap in his own resume and would get those for whom foreign policy experience was a big deal to be willing to give him a chance. He chose the person he could stomach (sorry Hillary) that gave him the best chance to win.

So why is it wrong for McCain to choose someone he feels can help him with certain groups of voters and "fill in the gaps" they perceive in his resume?

How would Sebelius have been "ready on day one" to be a heartbeat away? She wouldn't have been. She has as much foreign policy experience as me. But that's who Obama wanted. He chose strategically, as did McCain.

Think about how silly and tenuous your argument is-- he didn't pick her. He likes her. Maybe she'll get a cabinet position. But he concluded she wasn't the most prepared for the job and chose the person he thought was. McCain passed over numerous people, including women, better prepared than Palin-- How about Kay Bailey Hutchinson?

Actually, he didn't conclude she wasn't the most prepared. There were two reasons it didn't happen in the end according to people within the Obama camp. First, they feared that picking a different woman than Hillary would be perceived as a slap in the face by her supporters. Second, Sebelius didn't shore up the foreign policy gap that internal polling showed. That is why it wasn't her.

Now that said, Biden was a good pick. But don't pretend Obama sat there and used his Solomonesque wisdom and altruistic spirit to choose while McCain made a flat strategy move.

[TexasTiger 14,070]

This part of my post got lost in the shuffle because I added it while Tex was answering it:

I read several places that Obama's first choice would have been Kathleen Sebelius. That was who he wanted. But his campaign knew that foreign policy experience, according to their internal polling, was still a bigger obstacle for him than they hoped it would be after the Germany and Iraq visits. So he picked someone that he felt filled a gap in his own resume and would get those for whom foreign policy experience was a big deal to be willing to give him a chance. He chose the person he could stomach (sorry Hillary) that gave him the best chance to win.

So why is it wrong for McCain to choose someone he feels can help him with certain groups of voters and "fill in the gaps" they perceive in his resume?

How would Sebelius have been "ready on day one" to be a heartbeat away? She wouldn't have been. She has as much foreign policy experience as me. But that's who Obama wanted. He chose strategically, as did McCain.

Think about how silly and tenuous your argument is-- he didn't pick her. He likes her. Maybe she'll get a cabinet position. But he concluded she wasn't the most prepared for the job and chose the person he thought was. McCain passed over numerous people, including women, better prepared than Palin-- How about Kay Bailey Hutchinson?

Actually, he didn't conclude she wasn't the most prepared. There were two reasons it didn't happen in the end according to people within the Obama camp. First, they feared that picking a different woman than Hillary would be perceived as a slap in the face by her supporters. Second, Sebelius didn't shore up the foreign policy gap that internal polling showed. That is why it wasn't her.

Now that said, Biden was a good pick. But don't pretend Obama sat there and used his Solomonesque wisdom and altruistic spirit to choose while McCain made a flat strategy move.

So just who are your inside sources in the Obama camp, because my inside sources in the McCain camp confirm it was pure identity politics bourne out of desperation.

What we know for a fact is who each of them picked. Obama chose someone very well prepared to step in on day one and McCain did not.

[TitanTiger 21,064]

Granted, this is from a conservative magazine, but I heard the same thing expressed on one of the cable news stations (not Fox. I hardly ever watch them).

In selecting Sen. Joe Biden as his running mate, Sen. Barack Obama may have selected the safe pick, but according to several campaign insiders, Biden wasn't necessarily his first or even his personal choice.

"He really wanted [Kansas Gov. Kathleen] Sebelius," says one Obama insider with knowledge of the Democrat candidate's vetting process. "And if our European tour had played better here at home, she might have been the pick."

But, says the insider, the campaign's internal polling indicated what the public polling indicated -- that Obama failed in his European sojourn to build out his foreign policy credentials. "We needed the foreign policy on the bottom of the ticket more than we want to admit," says the insider...

But beyond his failure to create the impression that he had any foreign policy experience, Obama's polling also indicated that Sebelius's presence on the ticket probably further damaged his relationship with Hillary Clinton supporters. "We have enough problems with them as it is. Putting Sebelius on the bottom of the ticket would have been another stick in the eye," says another adviser.

Yet, say those with knowledge, with all that, Obama would still come back to Sebelius as the first option. And that, say some insiders, indicates the influence inside the campaign of former Senate majority leader Tom Daschle. Not only do his former aides and advisers fill the top ranks of Obama's campaign, but Daschle himself is being credited with helping Obama through the selection process, and he steered Obama toward Biden over other options that were on the table, including New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson and Sen. Evan Bayh.

http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=13755

What we know is that Obama chose someone that shored up his resume and he thought would give him the best chance to win without having to add The Shrew to the ticket. McCain made his pick on the same basis. But he didn't need someone with foreign policy credentials to bolster his ticket. He needed help with women and his conservative base.

[DKW 86 7,866]

I got to say, the Obama campaign has got some serious nerve to put out this statement:

But the Obama campaign calls her a candidate with "the thinnest foreign policy experience in history"

No, aside from a trip to Germany to give a speech, your MAIN CANDIDATE has the thinnest foreign policy experience in history.

You are losing your grip on reality. Obama doesn't have much. Reagan had none. Clinton had none. Bush had none. Palin has none.

And your point would be what exactly? By your own words, you have to compare the Dem PRESIDENTIAL Nominee to the Rep VICE Presidential Nominee. Even at that, Palin basically smokes him in experience as an executive. Now, she isnt a perfect pick, she has faults, we all do. But as Titan has said, her plusses are just huge.

1) She has taken on her own Party, Big Oil, and career politician corruption and has kicked ass. As one caller from Alaska said about her today on Boortz, "She has bigger man berries than most men."

2) She ignites the Pro-Life side of the nation with her choice to have Trig.

3) She ignites the Women because she is a self defined "Pro-Life Feminist." She kissed the rings of Ferraro and HRC today.

4) She said the Jesus buzz words today as well. For once in this dull campaign, the Conservatives are pumped and ready for the fight again.

5) Gold Member in the NRA. She carries the Gun issue perfectly for the Conservatives.

6) She is OMG middle class, as is her husband and family. And not that "I am from Princeton/Yale/Harvard, yet middleclass" we hear from so many politicians these days.

7) She is hotter than hell, too. NEVER under-estimate the TV camera loving you. Just ask JFK-Nixon how important that is to a campaign.

8) She is a self described "hockey mom." Man, a blue collar version of "soccer mom" could not be better.

9) Her announcement just crushes any bump from the convention Obama got.

10) The McCain Campaign is showing some of us jaded Conservatives that they are at least two steps ahead of the Obama Campaign, with a convention yet to go. Do they even need to go there? Just donate the money to New Orleans and get on with the campaign.

This Campaign as Compared to WWII Pacific Battles?

Saddleback was Obama's first blodying on a national scene. (The Doolittle Raid on Tokyo.)

The randomly DIRECTIONLESS convention has many commentators wondering if the best pick wasnt HRC.

The convention showed many still not unified with Obama.

The "Well done Senator" spot was total class. (These three combine to look like the 'Battle of the Coral Sea,' effectively shunting the "inevitability of Obama.)

Palin Announcement just topedoed the good ship Obama and damn near left it DIW. (Was this Midway for the Obama Campaign?)

Republican Convention now looks like something to watch. Many more viewers will tune in to see 'The Barracuda' as she was nicknamed on the basketball court. (Retaking the Phillipines?)

Three Debates to go all in the format that McCain excells in and has already drawn first blood. (The Mariannas Turkey Shoot)

[TexasTiger 14,070]

Who knows? An unnamed source in the Spectator? He likes Sebelius. He probably considered her. He may have wanted women to think he was strongly considering a female. Who knows? She's a solid two-term governor of a very Red state and has about 22 years in state office. Significant "executive experience", if that's so important. Perhaps events, such as Georgia tilted the scales. Who knows? What we know is that Obama's pick may have been " relatively safe" politically, but also seen as a very sound pick from a governing standpoint. In fact, given his capacity to gaffe, Biden is a much better governing choice than a political one. Palin is all about shaking things up. It's a Hail Mary. Maybe it works, maybe it fails miserably, but it is in clear contradiction to everything McCain has claimed to value. It is grossly hypocritical. You don't have to care about that-- an improved prospect of winning may trump all that for you-- but quit acting like you just can't see it.

Granted, this is from a conservative magazine, but I heard the same thing expressed on one of the cable news stations (not Fox. I hardly ever watch them).

In selecting Sen. Joe Biden as his running mate, Sen. Barack Obama may have selected the safe pick, but according to several campaign insiders, Biden wasn't necessarily his first or even his personal choice.

"He really wanted [Kansas Gov. Kathleen] Sebelius," says one Obama insider with knowledge of the Democrat candidate's vetting process. "And if our European tour had played better here at home, she might have been the pick."

But, says the insider, the campaign's internal polling indicated what the public polling indicated -- that Obama failed in his European sojourn to build out his foreign policy credentials. "We needed the foreign policy on the bottom of the ticket more than we want to admit," says the insider...

But beyond his failure to create the impression that he had any foreign policy experience, Obama's polling also indicated that Sebelius's presence on the ticket probably further damaged his relationship with Hillary Clinton supporters. "We have enough problems with them as it is. Putting Sebelius on the bottom of the ticket would have been another stick in the eye," says another adviser.

Yet, say those with knowledge, with all that, Obama would still come back to Sebelius as the first option. And that, say some insiders, indicates the influence inside the campaign of former Senate majority leader Tom Daschle. Not only do his former aides and advisers fill the top ranks of Obama's campaign, but Daschle himself is being credited with helping Obama through the selection process, and he steered Obama toward Biden over other options that were on the table, including New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson and Sen. Evan Bayh.

http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=13755

[TexasTiger 14,070]

I got to say, the Obama campaign has got some serious nerve to put out this statement:

But the Obama campaign calls her a candidate with "the thinnest foreign policy experience in history"

No, aside from a trip to Germany to give a speech, your MAIN CANDIDATE has the thinnest foreign policy experience in history.

You are losing your grip on reality. Obama doesn't have much. Reagan had none. Clinton had none. Bush had none. Palin has none.

And your point would be what exactly? By your own words, you have to compare the Dem PRESIDENTIAL Nominee to the Rep VICE Presidential Nominee. Even at that, Palin basically smokes him in experience as an executive. Now, she isnt a perfect pick, she has faults, we all do. But as Titan has said, her plusses are just huge. She has taken on her own Party, Big Oil, and career politician corruption and has kicked ass. As one caller from Alaska said about her today on Boortz, "She has bigger man berries than most men."

She is hotter than hell, too.

With her year and half of governor for a tiny government, she smokes John McCain in executive experience-- which is grossly overrated.

She's real cute. I'll give you that.

[Tigermike 3,657]

Let's let Sarah go on Meet the Press this Sunday and show us what she knows...

When is Obama going on Fox?

[TexasTiger 14,070]

Let's let Sarah go on Meet the Press this Sunday and show us what she knows...

When is Obama going on Fox?

http://video.google.com/videosearch?hl=en&...a=N&tab=wv#

Been there, done that.

[DKW 86 7,866]

Let's let Sarah go on Meet the Press this Sunday and show us what she knows...

When is Obama Any Democrat going on Fox?

FTFY...

[Tigermike 3,657]

Let's let Sarah go on Meet the Press this Sunday and show us what she knows...

When is Obama Any Democrat going on Fox?

FTFY...

To be fair, Hillary went on Bill O'Reilly's show. I thought she did pretty good and it seemed to me he treated her fair and respectably. She said later that she thought he had been very good.

[TexasTiger 14,070]

Let's let Sarah go on Meet the Press this Sunday and show us what she knows...

When is Obama going on Fox?

http://video.google.com/videosearch?hl=en&...a=N&tab=wv#

Been there, done that.

you guys just ignore everything that doesn't fit into your narrative, don't you?

[Tigermike 3,657]

Let's let Sarah go on Meet the Press this Sunday and show us what she knows...

When is Obama going on Fox?

http://video.google.com/videosearch?hl=en&...a=N&tab=wv#

Been there, done that.

you guys just ignore everything that doesn't fit into your narrative, don't you?

No not ignoring anything. I had forgotten that "The One" had gone on with Chris Wallace. What I was remembering was Obama telling O'Reilly that he would come on his show. Is he going to do that?

[TexasTiger 14,070]

Let's let Sarah go on Meet the Press this Sunday and show us what she knows...

When is Obama going on Fox?

http://video.google.com/videosearch?hl=en&...a=N&tab=wv#

Been there, done that.

you guys just ignore everything that doesn't fit into your narrative, don't you?

No not ignoring anything. I had forgotten that "The One" had gone on with Chris Wallace. What I was remembering was Obama telling O'Reilly that he would come on his show. Is he going to do that?

I doubt it. O'Reilly's an a$$.

[Tigermike 3,657]

Let's let Sarah go on Meet the Press this Sunday and show us what she knows...

When is Obama going on Fox?

http://video.google.com/videosearch?hl=en&...a=N&tab=wv#

Been there, done that.

you guys just ignore everything that doesn't fit into your narrative, don't you?

No not ignoring anything. I had forgotten that "The One" had gone on with Chris Wallace. What I was remembering was Obama telling O'Reilly that he would come on his show. Is he going to do that?

I doubt it. O'Reilly's an a$$.

He wasn't to Hillary. But then she has bigger balls than Obama.

[TexasTiger 14,070]

Let's let Sarah go on Meet the Press this Sunday and show us what she knows...

When is Obama going on Fox?

http://video.google.com/videosearch?hl=en&...a=N&tab=wv#

Been there, done that.

you guys just ignore everything that doesn't fit into your narrative, don't you?

No not ignoring anything. I had forgotten that "The One" had gone on with Chris Wallace. What I was remembering was Obama telling O'Reilly that he would come on his show. Is he going to do that?

I doubt it. O'Reilly's an a$$.

He wasn't to Hillary. But then she has bigger balls than Obama.

He's one everyday.

[TitanTiger 21,064]

Help me understand something. As was stated earlier, other presidential candidates in the past, as well as the current Democratic one, had little to no foreign policy experience. Now, we're not talking about a presidential candidate with Palin but she's in line if something happened to McCain. We don't know a ton about her so obviously she could turn out to not be as much as conservatives are hoping she'll be, but why all the hand wringing about her being ready to take the reins?

What about Arkansas prepared Clinton to be ready to lead on day one that Alaska doesn't? How does one term in the Illinois state senate and less than one term in the US Senate make one ready to lead on day one?

What I'm not arguing is that I KNOW she's ready. We'll find a lot of that out over the coming weeks and people will vote accordingly. What I am arguing is that it's a tad ridiculous to be assailing her as unqualified when we've obviously given the benefit of the doubt to others with no experience such as Reagan, Clinton and (for around half of us) Obama.

Let it play out a bit. We'll see what she's made of as the campaign gets going and the debates come.

[Grumps 3,706]

How about we cut the nonsense and finally call this what this was: a political stunt aimed at getting women votes - period. If that does not tell you every thing you will ever need to know about McCain, I don't know what will.

Exactly.

Not exactly.

Was it a pick made with getting women to take a second look at McCain? Yes.

Was it a pick to help solidify his conservative base? Yes.

Was it a pick to bolster his maverick image with someone else who has bucked their own party in the past? Yes.

Was it a pick intended to surprise and steal some of the spotlight from Obama after his big night? Yes.

But continue to view things in the myopic way that you choose to.

Titan, you're a bright guy, and generally reasonable, but on this thread you are acting like a typical one-issue voter. She supports your key issue, so you rationalize and excuse everything else.

Was she picked because McCain thought she was the best prepared person to be a heartbeat away from the President? Was she even in the top 50? Get serious.

Please do not forget, Obama and McCain are POLITICIANS. Obama picked Biden because he and his handlers thought that Biden would give him the best chance to be elected president--they felt that he would best fill the gaping holes in his resume (for example-lack of experience). McCain and his handlers picked Palin because they thought she would give him the best chance to be elected president--they felt that she would fill the holes in his resume (for example-boring).

Both candidates right now are trying to become POTUS. If you think either candidate has more noble goals RIGHT NOW then you are being naive. McCain either just made a genius move that shows that the Republicans are at least a step ahead of the Dems or he just made a boneheaded move that will enable the Dems to win their struggle to get back to the White House. We will know soon which it is.

No matter what your views, McCain's pick adds excitement to the election. Obama was gutsy with his pick, and McCain was gutsy with his. This will be a fascinating 2+ months. With this and FOOTBALL SEASON things will certainly not be boring!

[au2004ece 30]

I think part of the play by McCain of picking Palin is that it brings the experience argument up more. I don't think the Obama campaign is going to want to continue to argue that a VP choice doesn't have enough experience when many Americans see the same thing in the P choice for the democrats. If you can't see Palin as the president, then how can you see Obama as president? If you vote for Obama, you are guaranteed an inexperienced president. If you pick McCain, Palin only becomes president if something bad happens. If Palin is able to perform as well as many believe she will in this campaign, her experience will become a non-issue since she is only the VP candidate, while Obama (having brought up the experience question himself now and since he is the P candidate and not VP) will be hampered by the continual comparison of his history not being any more rich in experience than somebody that everybody would concede has no national experience.

Also, this choice brings the excitement that Obama had earlier this year to the McCain campaign. But, now the McCain campaign is the only one with excitement because Obama's one hit wonder story of the primaries has already played out because of the media's choice to over cover him in an attempt to ensure his election.

[au2004ece 30]

Just found this article that states what I mean better:

from page 2 of article:

"The other potential trap is luring the Obama campaign onto the "experience" field. The early conventional wisdom says McCain's pick was boneheaded because it takes the experience issue off the table. But it seems that it has done the opposite: The importance of experience is the topic of the day.

The more Democrats complain about this, the more Republicans can turn it on them and say, "If you are so concerned about the amount of experience of the vice president, what about the top of your ticket?"

Obama's argument thus far has been that experience isn't what counts; it's judgment. By attacking the Republican woman relentlessly on this issue, Democrats are undermining their own man.

"

http://www.nypost.com/seven/08302008/news/..._cha_126765.htm

[AFTiger 282]

Frankly, for some of you folks to be so giddy about someone you know next to nothing about is pretty shocking.

What is even more shocking TT, is that you can be so giddy about a ticket that we know everything about.

[TexasTiger 14,070]

Help me understand something. As was stated earlier, other presidential candidates in the past, as well as the current Democratic one, had little to no foreign policy experience. Now, we're not talking about a presidential candidate with Palin but she's in line if something happened to McCain. We don't know a ton about her so obviously she could turn out to not be as much as conservatives are hoping she'll be, but why all the hand wringing about her being ready to take the reins?

What about Arkansas prepared Clinton to be ready to lead on day one that Alaska doesn't? How does one term in the Illinois state senate and less than one term in the US Senate make one ready to lead on day one?

What I'm not arguing is that I KNOW she's ready. We'll find a lot of that out over the coming weeks and people will vote accordingly. What I am arguing is that it's a tad ridiculous to be assailing her as unqualified when we've obviously given the benefit of the doubt to others with no experience such as Reagan, Clinton and (for around half of us) Obama.

Let it play out a bit. We'll see what she's made of as the campaign gets going and the debates come.

AGAIN. Quit repeating lies. He did not serve only one term in the Illinois state senate.

Arkansas didn't prepare Clinton any more than Alaska did. Clinton had at least tried to prepare himself because he knew he had to be able to talk intelligently about international matters. The same for Obama. When someone decides to make a serious run for president, they have to stake out positions on a wide variety of issues. This is especially true in the current environment. Palin has been thrust onto the national scene immediately without having gone through that prep process. Dick Lugar, for example, is faced with those issues in his day job. So is Obama, Biden, Hagel, Rice, etc.

I haven't said she isn't capable. I don't know. In fact, somewhere on this board I expressed that she might have been a potential rising star who might be short-circuited by being thrust into the spotlight before being prepared for it. If she blows it, it might be hard to recover from. I'm arguing that all this excitement about her being such a good choice is premature. Defending her as ready is premature.

My other point is that McCain undercut his argument of what he was looking for. There's no way she's ready right now to step into the presidency. One can argue that no one is truly ready, blah blah blah, but that is not what McCain has said or promised. It is an incredibly cynical and selfish choice on McCain's part. Condi Rice would have shaken things up, too. Folks can argue her ability, approach, but NOT her preparation for the job from a foreign policy perspective. It is possible to help oneself politically AND pick someone who meets the preparation test you lay out. Biden was a choice that attempted to address both needs. Rice would have been such a choice. Palin was not.

[TexasTiger 14,070]

Frankly, for some of you folks to be so giddy about someone you know next to nothing about is pretty shocking.

What is even more shocking TT, is that you can be so giddy about a ticket that we know everything about.

Find evidence of my "giddiness." I mostly think the opposition sucks.

[DKW 86 7,866]

As the good Dr. said, this is going to be fun and interesting. It would be foolish for anyone to think it is over for either side, but I really like how this breaking down.

The Dems: #1 & #3 Most Liberal members of the Senate. Say that about 40 times during the convention until it sets in with the public. Obama has no real track record and few if any legislative accomplishments. He has numerous questionable ties to some of his friends and a pastor from hell that will come back into the news. Biden is one of the most disgraced politicians in America. He was unqualified to even continue his run for President in 1988 after he was busted for plagiarism of a campaign speech. He has gaffes from his speeches all over the place. Senator Plagiarism will be an easy target to discredit during the convention. Rush and others are probably loading their guns for Biden in the next few weeks. Obama has had his time as well. His bump from the convention was a mere 6-8 points. Historically the bump for a Dem is 10-15 and evaporates by the election. He starts out at only half of that.

The Reps: Likely the two biggest mavericks in American politics. McCain is no Rush Limbaugh favorite. He and she are both reformers that have proven track records to reach across the aisle. They have taken on their own party multiple times. They are no party lackies. Palin ignites the Conservative base. She and McCain have sealed the Abortion, Guns, Jesus, CONSERVATIVE base up and ignited them.

What will happen: This is going to get negative and in a hurry. Just keep talking about how Obama and Palin are not qualified gets you to the "Obama is the top of the ticket" realization. Sen. Plagiarism has been a spectacular failure on a national level. He has run twice for president and barely even made the footnotes. Ex. While HRC got 18M votes, Plagiarism probably didnt get 100K total in TWO tries!

I almost feel sorry for Palin. The attacks are coming and they will be incredibly cruel. The attacks on her child with Down's Syndrome are going to be legend by the time they are done. Now, the Obama Campaign isnt going to do it themselves but their accomplices in the press will certainly bash her 24/7 for not aborting the child. Abortion is a sacrement to the Liberal mindset and cannot be questioned. She will be attacked for everything. Being too pretty, being a beauty pageant contestant, having a neanderthal for a husband (Todd is going to get his manhood savaged before all this over.) They are already ripping Sarah for being a mayor of a small town. I mean how can she be taken seriously? She didnt grad from Harvard...

Well, we will see how this plays out. I have a feeling the Dems are about see a huge shift in perception. Biden will attack Palin and look like he is misogynistic. The Dems havent had to play by the PC rules so far in a national campaign. They wont be able to not screw it up. The Barracuda will castrate Biden on national tv and the women will see a strong Pro-Life Feminist for the first time. She will keep reminding the people of Ferraro and Hillary and "Win one for the Gipper" that may really resonate for the McCain-Palin ticket.

To me, the difference will come down to the 2004 campaign. Bush had clear, simple points to be made. People busy with their lives understood that. Kerry bored everyone to death with his nuances.

McCain-Palin will be a simple straight to the point campaign. They will stay on Offense. Obama-Biden will spend the next two months on Defense and tap dancing around not offending women with their certain to come attacks on Palin and her family. Biden will blowup in Obama's face several times too.

Got a bet, I bet Palin mops the floor with biden Oct 2. I just know he cant stay on message and not screw it up. One shot from her about "Plagiarism" and he will implode. What was said about foreign policy etc wont even be remembered.