I've had enough of old white guys - my current dream ticket is Barak Obama AND Sarah Palin - it all seems to come down to East (Obama/Biden: economy sucks, we'll do better) VS West (McCain/Palin: everything's fine) - I'm voting for Obama because he doesn't have a pedigree like John Sidney McCain III or George Walker Bush, etc AND he a progressive who want's to sunset/abolish obsolete Govt programs.

And now Democrats are waking to the fact that no negative narrative has been built around the McCain brand.

Here's what we have right now.

A population that believes 10-1 that the press has been unfair to Palin.

A population that recently stated they've heard TOO much about Obama and not enough about McCain.

A population, that before her speech last night, thinks Palin the VP candidate is as ready to be President as the Democratic Presidential candidate.

A population that is saying the press is pro-Obama.

And here we are whining about how the press is so pro-Republican, when people are saying the exact opposite, and whining about how it's so unfair that the Republicans get to attack and we don't.

So, I guess the glee bloggers were posting about Bristol Palin being pregnant isn't an attack.

Every side distorts and uses facts to their best advantage. Some are misleading, some outright laws.

Examples.

Palin is the Governor of the largest State. In terms of land mass, it's 47 in size in terms of population. But saying largest State seems more impressive.

Obama claimed credit for a welfare reform bill in the State Senate he voted against.

This type of spin is not only common, it's ubiquitous. Both sides do it, but for the most part people only recognize it when it's pointed out on the other side.

Crying about the fairness of it all doesn't help. Asking for more personal attacks doesn't help, because certain personal attacks only hurt you.

People claiming that Palin is an unfit mother thus unfit for the VP position only hurt themselves and provide a shield for legitimate criticism.

Most of the talking points over the weekend were not legitimate. Questioning who is the actual mother of Trig is not a legitimate area. Calling a women bitch isn't either.

Can this be turned around? Unlikely. Attacking Palin on the experience issue only highlights Obama's lack in the same area. Can McCain be painted as a dangerous reactionary? Not in two months, it takes that long just to plant the seeds, they will not sprout in time. Can the Obama campaign really drive up McCain's negative numbers? That's hard as well, because it drives up your negatives, and you need a narrative to make it work.

It's like the wishful thinking that somehow Biden is just going to blow away Palin the the debate and thus Democrats will win. First, he won't. She's a better debater than he is. Yes, he'll have more facts at his command. That hasn't helped any of the other people she has faced. Second, it wouldn't matter. Quayle being actually destroyed in 1988 didn't exactly help the top of the ticket.

Democrats elected a vulnerable candidate, and yes, Republicans are going to exploit that vulnerability. To top it all off, people are crying about attacks that have traditionally been fair game.

If Obama is the change candidate how is it not fair to question what he has changed in the past? He has no executive experience, and he shouldn't try to invent one of running his campaign.

Obviously, he was going to be attacked on the experience issue, and they should have had canned responses already mapped out. They didn't. And it's too late to lay much of the foundation needed to win a general election.

But then again, we elected someone who has never had to run a real general election, so those mistakes are understandable.

...bust this Hero-POW miracle-bubble... -- Jim

Ain't gonna happen. Not from the Dem campaigns, nope. No way. The Dems put down their weapons on that one at the start; they wouldn't know what to do with them now.

Too bad they disarmed themselves and their friends and allies, too, while they were at it, and too bad they exiled one of their strongest voices, Gen. Clark, for telling the truth about McCain.

Can't have that! Won't have it. Don't have it.

Now what? As the Rs run wild....

(Their trolls were sure reinvigorated by their venomous Veep nominee last night, weren't they?)

How would they criticise Edwards..for his haircut? You lot nominated a cynical, empty suit with no experience. You reap what you sow.

Only a third party with a strong showing is going to change the dynamics of America's dysfunctional political system. Only a third party can force Dems and Repubs into a better quality of debate.

Vote Nader.

-- jmcdf

How would they criticize Edwards? Maybe they'd accuse him of having had an affair?

Yeah, I can just see those radical fundamentalist Islamists out there building day care centers.

What a hoot!

Bwahahahaa! Yep, wasn't that hilarious! And oh yeah, it was also true.

Fail.

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.

I see. So we can't leave a sovereign nation we invaded (under very shakey pretexts remember) and basically reduced to rubble, for fear doing so would make the US look weak in the eyes of a diffuse network of anti-American radicals.

Given Iraq wasn't ours in the first place, and its considerably more dangerous to live there now than it was five years ago...what exactly are we "surrendering" and to whom?

Your logic utterly escapes me.

Obama said he would meet with President I'm-a-nutjub of Iran, Chavez of Venezuela and others "without preconditions."

Ahmadinejad isn't in charge of Iran and has no real say in its policy (either internal or external), so we wouldn't be meeting with him anyway.

Chavez is the legally elected leader of a sovereign country, so whether we like him or not is immaterial. He's who we have to deal with.

I've no idea what "others" you might be referring to.

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.

"People like this"? You mean the sort that engage in reckless military adventures in distant lands, spout bellicose and confrontational stupidity, invade countries on questionable pretexts, and refuse to leave when asked?

Why the hell should they negotiate with us given the current Administration's record?

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

And you show all the ignorance and ideological blindess I've come to expect from the Right. Guess we're both happy now.