The TA types have shown up here before each of the last 2 presidential elections, spewing disdain & contempt, cheerfully laughing at the unwashed, kindly sharing their condescending bullshit with us.  Strangely, they've all disappeared completely by midnight on the day of the last 2 elections.  I doubt we'll have to put up with TA beyond November 4th.

Always good to find common ground.

McCain is far from being honest these days.....He's being led like a puppy dog by his campaign strategists which is quite disturbing. As I said before I used to like the guy as far as politicians go but he seems to get worse every day. He's using Bush's speechwriters which is a problem. He ought to be editing his speeches before using them because Straight Talk no longer applies to what he is throwing out at the public these days.

OK, I agree (some of the glassy eyed MSM left might disagree), lets say "rock star" (wannabe).

Well when your attack ad sites the oil debate for lasting 30 years and McCain being part of the problem since he was a senator for 26 years, yes it is an issue. Especially when you then choose a VP that has been an insider since Nixon was president. What was he? An innocent bystander? Or do you just fail to see the hypocrisy of it?

You know who else was a "rock star" (wannabe)? Tony Blair.

He trumpeted change, wanted to be popular above all, and promised to transform politics.

He went to war in Iraq, pledging 'change' against the dictatorship there.

Change is a dangerous thing.

No hypocrisy on my part at all ... again at all. I realize that Biden is a washington insider as much as McCain. But he is not the main man .. he will follow Obama's lead. the real hypocrisy is to say that McCain and his VP are agents of change. Even assuming Palin is a new and not an insider, she is still not the main policy maker here. This whole discussion is made meaningless by you guys pumping palin as if she was the top of the ticket.

the only criterion for any VP is that he/she should be qualified to hold the office in an emergency situation. On that basis she is not qualified, Biden is regardless of whether he is an insider or not.

stick to the issues and you will see the difference clearly .... but you guys are doing your best to avoid that .... you talk about "celebrity", "messiah", "big speeches" ... etc. not once anyone discussed the difference in policies or leadership qualities of the two on top the tickets.

McCain's campaign went on a negative spree before coming up with the Palin's gimmick.

I realize one thing though ... the GOP are all excited because palin is a pro-lifer. This is the only meaningful issue you care about .... nothing else matters ..... as if the whole country will fall or survive based on that.

There are more pressing issues facing this nation .. but none of you care about that ..... all what matters is being anti-aportion. as if this is not a private matter .. while you cry against anyone who brings out-of-wedlock sex as an issue and say that is private !!!! who is hypocrite here? .... aportion is not private and having babies out-of-wedlock is??????? for someone who says abstinance is the only way to go as far as family planning is concerned?

Just so you know .... i am against aportion except in a very limited cases and only during the first 3 months of pregnancy ... but even more against out-of-wedlock sex ....

but this is only one issue and it is a personal one at that ... it does not affect others in any way .... but you guys make it as if it is the central issue and palin is qualified based on that.

be serious and i will be more than happy to debate the issues with you. my sarcasim is the only appropriate way to respond to the nonsense of trying to offer palin as a qualified candidate for the VP.... it is laughable ... really ... and as a politician ... true to form she started her campaign with outright lies about her opposition to earmarks, about her abuse of power, about her skills as executive while she left her town in debt ... etc.

Now, before  you dismiss any of the above facts please check them and see if they are true or not .... is that what you want in a VP? a liar? a hypocrite who doesnt practice what she preaches? especially regarding abstinence?  then again ... the man on top of her ticket is a major hypocrite ... he sold all his past for this nomination ... again check that before you respond. in 2000 he learned that if he didnt submit he will never get it .... and he surely did.

Obama's policies are nothing new.  Raising taxes, slashing the defense budget, and making sure our intelligence agencies are hamstrung and unable to do their jobs.

Sorry, you want us to believe any of it, show us your research.  Empty claims aren't worth the electrons used to make them.

I thought they were going for tax cuts, i.e. letting the rich keep their money; now they are giving money to the rich? That's insane!

Yes, that can never work.

As I was thinking when I was playing Super Mario Brothers back in Germany, invading a country and spending lots of monies rebuilding it just doesn't work. No good ever came of it.

McCain, likt Bush, simply advocates the hope that Iraq will somehow turn into a rich liberal democracy because of the invasion and rebuilding; but as all the "anti-war" protesters in Germany know, this has never worked before.

McCain and Bush hope in vain. Hope doesn't work. Regime change doesn't work.

We need a candidate who doesn't hope or support change.

We need a candidate who knows that hope is a useless stupidity and that change doesn't work; who supports keeping things like they are, with Saddam in power in Iraq and civil wars in Sudan and Liberia.

We need a no-hope and no-change candidate.

We need Obama!

Actualy, you are wrong.  Conservatives give to the poor in much greater numbers and percentages than liberals.

Now if you are saying that conservatives dont give YOUR money to the poor, instead giving their own, then you would be correct.  Conservatives believe giving from their own wallet, not robbing yours to give.

YOu finally hit the problem - partially.  It is not only the republicans pushing it, but the democrats.  Perhaps you can explain why the democrats are campaigning against Palin, and not McCain?

ON that basis, Obama is not qualified to hold the office at any time.  So what is your point?  A statement ago, you made a valid point, and then poved mine.

What facts?  You just stated opinion.  And did not even try to couch them as facts (good for you on that last part).

LOL.  Palin isn't the one pregnant, so she can't practice what she preaches about abstinence.  I would be more concerned about what Obama was doing at 17 than the daughter of a VP candidate. 

What about the plagarist Biden?  Don't see you criticizing him for his lies and BS over the what....30 years as a Washington hack.

And you think Obama is not a hypocrite....oh please.  Keep drinking the Obamessiah kool-aid.

You are saying that Sarah Palin is a hypocrite because she "doesn't practice what she preaches", "especially regarding abstinence".

I don't know what Sarah Palin said about abstinence, but I do seem to remember that she is married and just gave birth to a handicapped child (presumably from her husband). It seems to me that calling a married mother of a handicapped child a "liar" and "hypocrite" for not practicing abstinence is a bit rude.

Can you list any other "facts" about Mrs Palin, ideally with source, that make you as angry as her refusal to practice abstinence?

After reading some of the comments and this story it is now time to interject some REAL FACTS.  First, I am not for EITHER CANDIDATE!  This is a fact. 

The Author states that McCain has voted for Bush 90% (this is a wrong percentage) yet he has gone against his party 33% of the time before.    Obama since becoming a senator has nearly 100% of the time voted with his party which leaves oh about .01% of the time against his party.  You can see this at the congressional quarterly voting study. 

Alaska and Delaware have very close population sizes so enough with the argument of small states. BOTH STATES ARE SMALL STATES! 

The author also states "But no offense but that was 40 years ago" essentially what does that have to do with today.  This shows a person character.  For example Biden, somebody here has stated that McCain has lied while Biden has consistly lied as well.  Biden has lied about that he graduated at the top of his class, said that he had a ful scholarship, and that he has three degrees.  It won't allow me to cut and paste websites but go to the NY Times and search for Biden admits error and criticizes the last report.  What someone has done x number of years ago to now has a lot to do.  Biden has shown that he is a consistent liar.  What we do sometime ago affects has in the present.  Yes, people do change but Biden has lied in the past, he's lied in the present.  This doesn't mean he will or won't lie in the future.  It is consistent with his personality and Vegas would put the odds that he will continue to lie about his character (each of those lies were dealing with his character and him trying to make himself seem like a better person)

Smoothsea said "that McCain has stated before that he knows little about economics."  At least he's willing to admit that instead of trying to make himself look better by saying that he has multiple degrees got great grades ect ect.  This statement is true, but again WHY DON"T YOU TYPE THE REST OF THE STORY!!!!  Here is part of that speech by McCain "....The issue of economics is something I've really never understood as well as I should.  I understand the BASICS, the fundamentals, the vision, all that kind of stuff. but I would like to have someone I'm close to that really is good strong economist.  As long as Alan Greenspan is I would certainly use him for advice and counsel."

Well, I don't want to interject too much, because I know some people like living in their world of make believe.  Again I DO NOT LIKE McCain, but I also do not like neonates totting around half truths.