The letters are getting less substantative, and a lot more angry.

Why?

Sarah Palin, a woman, obviously doesn't let others define who she is. She demonstrated that last night.

Were she not a Republican, she'd be considered a strong feminist.

...The salonistas snarling in the corner.

Nice rundown.

I laughed particularly hard at the "nanny state" comment. If voters want small government, they certainly shouldn't be looking for it in the GOP. (Most GOP members don't seem to have really thought about what small government is. They think it's a goverment with huge military spending, subsidies for big business and interference with the public's privacy, but no welfare or education programs. They only want certain parts to be "small.")

That "nanny state" crap is a mere Rush Limbaugh creation at this point thrown out when nothing else seems available. The funniest expression of it I have heard lately came in an interesting place - the Yahoo! sports page. The story reported that the Seattle Mariners, a private corporation, decided to have two sections of seats at, I believe, two games where peanuts would be banned. This was to allow fans with serious peanut allergies to enjoy the game. So, a private entity engaged in a marketing ploy to sell tickets in response to a particular public demand. In other words, it was the conservatives' sacred free market at work. What did half the comments to the story say? "It's all those liberal, commie hippies up in Seattle forcing the nanny state down our throats" or some variation thereof. (I'm not going to even sure why people would be so pissed off about two sections of seats lacking peanut sales - any excuse to slam [perceived] liberals, I suppose.) So ironic, but that's what you get when you give those who lack any sort of intellectual curiosity their AT&T tote bag full of talking points (h/t Kitt).

They think the quotes are self-evidently ridiculous, yet it only proves how good soundbites they are, and what a dismal failure the DNC Convention has been in comparison, because no one was quoting from Biden or even Obama. To the small circle of social activists, the remarks may have been way off the mark. To mainstream America, they go right to the point.

As much as I abhor opinion polls, they are here, so let's look at them.

"Last night’s polling shows that, by a ten-to-one margin, voters believe reporters are trying to hurt Palin’s campaign rather than help. Republicans and unaffiliated voters strongly believe that a double standard is being applied to Palin because she is a woman. Democrats disagree. Perhaps most stunning is that, among unaffiliated voters, just 42% believe Obama has better experience than Palin to be President. Thirty-seven percent (37%) say Palin has the edge on experience. Again, most of the interviews for this survey were completed before Palin’s well-received speech last night." (Rasmussen, 9/4/08)

Will you please stop posting that link to a (poorly) photoshopped image?

Look, the truth about Sarah Palin is more than enough to make any thinking American vote against her. We don't need faked photos to make the point.

Yet, again, liberals fail to see that their feckless political heroes are just as nasty, snarky and catty. And try to do it while remaining politically correct on all the "right" issues. It's hilarious.

When speaker after speaker at the Democratic convention, especially Obama, Biden and the Clintons, kept praising McCain as war hero and a nice person, I kept gasping in disbelief. Presidential elections in the US are never about issues but about tearing down the opponent. It shouldn't be that way, but this is not an electorate that's capable of nuance, rationality and making decisions based on intellectual comparison based on knowledge and analytical thinking. Most of the electorate now perceives McCain as a maverick war hero and one of the few honest politicians in Washington. That perception is a total fallacy, but the Democrats refuse to attack him on all fronts and again, after so many defeats, believe that rationality, fair play and campaigning only on the issues would win this election. In reality, they are headed for another defeat, because they are incapable of an all front relentless attack against the GOP.

You said:

"Nice try, but that list, and the language therein, is so loaded as to be worthless.

Obama was for unconditional surrender in Iraq years ago. If he'd gotten his way, the radical Islamists and al Qaeda would have been handed a huge propaganda victory, and Iraq would be fare more dangerous place today. Bush, Petraeus, McCain and others now say we can pull troops out that our objectives are being met and al Qaeda in Iraq has been crushed. Big difference.

Obama said he would meet with President I'm-a-nutjub of Iran, Chavez of Venezuela and others "without preconditions." The Bush administration (as well as the EU) is talking to Iran presently with a long list of preconditions. It's not the talking that's the problem; it's the naive idea that you can negotiate with people like this in good faith.

In short, your list is the usual highly selective, slickly worded crap I expect from the Left."

My god. Do you people ever listen to yourselves?

Were she not a Republican, she'd be considered a strong feminist.

-- NotOrbitBoy

With her anti-choice, pro-abstinence education policies?

Hardly.

Nuff said. Two leftist organization that believe in and advocate redistribution of wealth.

You can spin numbers any way you want. Here's the important point, though: Obama and the Democrats gleefully talk about how they'll raise taxes on corporations. Who is it, precisely, who creates jobs and pays people salaries?

It's an undeniable law of economics. Make business more expense and they spend less money, and the easiest way to spend less money is to lay off or not hire people.

Just look at the permanent unemployment rate in some European countries.

Apart from providing fodder for Bush's wars on terra, small town America is not under any direct threat from al Qaeda. The Pentagon or the World Trade Center were not in Wasilla. Any newcomer to a small town would be immediately noticed, unlike say anyone in New York City. If Palin knows foreign policy by virtue of being in the state closest to Russia, then she doesn't know anything about the supposed foremost threat to America because she doesn't live close enough to any place likely to be hit.