"I don't want to present myself as some sort of singular figure. I think part of what's different are the times. I do think that for example the 1980 was different. I think Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not. He put us on a fundamentally different path because the country was ready for it. I think they felt like with all the excesses of the 1960s and 1970s and government had grown and grown but there wasn't much sense of accountability in terms of how it was operating. I think people, he just tapped into what people were already feeling, which was we want clarity we want optimism, we want a return to that sense of dynamism and entrepreneurship that had been missing".

"I think it's fair to say that the Republicans were the party of ideas for a pretty long chunk of time there over the last 10 to 15 years in the sense that they were challenging conventional wisdom."

http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=3263

Those excesses, of course, were feminism, the consumer rights movement, the civil rights movement, the environmental movement, and the antiwar movement.

There is something seriously wrong with the Democratic party when it's chosen nominee makes a statement like that!

The Democratic and Republican national conventions have long been the targets of big spending by corporations and interest groups looking to grab a piece of the political action. But they are also a rich target of opportunity for elected officials and candidates looking to pad their campaign wallets. And thanks to a loophole in the 2007 lobbying and ethics law, they also provide a channel for lobbyists to host fundraising events for individual lawmakers.

The law (PL 110-81) was supposed to cut down on the shoulder rubbing between lobbyists and lawmakers at conventions, prohibiting anyone that lobbies the federal government from holding events to honor a specific member of Congress. But as long as money passes hands, such gatherings are apparently legal because fundraising events are exempt from the ethics rules.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/cq/20080826/pl_cq_politics/politics2940995;_ylt=AmztXmq1lD2OxLJ.DD3Z3G6s0NUE

thats the thing about not having a record, you can pretend to be whoever you want at anytime you want

that is the perfect definition of Obama!

Palin would be the Vice President and Obama would be The President.

She is a former mayor of Wasilla who became governor of her state in December 2006.

Palin has a long history of run-ins with the Alaska GOP hierarchy, giving her genuine maverick status and reformer credentials that could complement McCain's image.

Two years ago, she ousted the state's Republican incumbent governor, Frank Murkowski in the primary, despite having little money and little establishment backing. (Unlike Obama)

She has also distanced herself from two senior Republican office-holders, sen. Ted Stevens and Rep. Don young. Both men are under federal corruption investigations.

She had earned stripes — and enmity — after Murkowski made her head of the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission. From that post, she exposed ethical violations by the state GOP chairman, also a fellow commissioner.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080829/ap_on_el_pr/cvn_veepstakes

the blacks against the women.

Fourteen U. S. Vice Presidents became President. Five were elected in their own right; four inherited the office through the natural death of the incumbent, four by assassination, and one by resignation.

good odds or bad on palin taking over for mccain?

http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Vice_President.htm

except for his carefully choreographed trip.

So what's the difference? Obama will be the one in charge and Palin would be second in line.

Alaska: where it takes hard work and effort just to survive vs. Hawaii: where the biggest concern is which SPF factor to use at the beach that day.

the delegates/superdelegates

by the DNC/Obama/Media, thats why McCain picked her.

Bush/Quayle won the election.

Three out of four Democrats (74%) say the party's ongoing national convention has unified them as they roll out now in full force to put their nominee, Barack Obama, in the White House.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/rasmussen/20080828/pl_rasmussen/convention20080828;_ylt=AgpiZnA1D0T8pB3BZ8FQdnOs0NUE

moved away from the powerful old guard of the state Republican Party and has refused to kowtow to the powerful oil industry, instead presiding over a tax increase on oil company profits that now has the state's treasury swelling.

Palin's confrontations with the state GOP began when Murkowski named her chairwoman of the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission. There, Palin exposed current Alaska Republican Party Chairman Randy Ruedrich, who was also on the commission, for ethical violations.

In 2005, Palin co-filed an ethics complaint against Murkowski's longtime aide and then attorney general, Gregg Renkes, for having a financial interest in a company that stood to gain from an international trade deal he was helping craft.

She brings a strong anti-abortion stance to the ticket and opposes gay marriage — constitutionally banned in Alaska before her time — but exercised a veto that essentially granted benefits to gay state employees and their partners.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080830/ap_on_el_pr/cvn_veepstakes_palin;_ylt=Ar4hV3HhJDN4u9H80kIzmi5q24cA

In Obama's 134 hours of experience in the Senate he.....um, well.....he smeared the leading Democratic candidate and her husband (one of the best president's in the 20th century) as racist, he bought the delegates/superdelegates he needed for the nomination, he flip flopped on every position he has taken from bringing the troops home to off shore driling.