See James, the difference between Obama and Palin is Obama WANTS to change things. He's always said that, from day 1. He says he's seen how Washington works and wants to change how it does things. Whether or not this will be true remains to be seen, but as CC has stated he offers hope to people that maybe someone can change this country for the better. He inspires people.

Sarah Palin came down here, claiming she "changed" politics already, that she said "Thanks but no thanks" to earmarked spending, when in fact, she endorsed it. And the Senator who proposed the bill endorsed her in her Gov race. She NEVER said "No" until after the Senate turned the bill down. In fact, I read she had a road built that will lead to the bridge, even though it never will. Wasteful spending?? She's a myth, again the difference is Obama says  he wants to change things. As i said before, Palin came in here, claiming she kicked ass & made these renegade changes, basically challenging those in the media to prove her wrong. So they did, and it's all unfounded baseless claims. And the media easily discovered it all.

It's like winning the lottery. If you or I won, for millions, the media would be like oh great, a fairly young, working Gnr fan ( ) won the lottery for $100 million. But if I go shooting my mouth off like "Yeah, I deserve to win, cause I'm great, and I deserve it more than anyone else, and if you can prove I'm not worthy of it, well you're wrong!!" The media would hound me & I'd look like a fool. It's all how you play it, you can put them on the offensive, or you can let sleepers lie. (no pun intended with the use of the word "Lie")

^^ The way it's been going lately it wouldn't completely shock me if you did get a reason to....

Jason.

Look, my point is this is America. And we'll be damned if someone comes down here, talking about how their shit don't stink. Our politicians are dirty, and so is she. Plain and simple. So she trots down here, talking about how she cleaned house, cancelled projects left & right, and is a "Renegade", when in fact, she was one of them

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o46YdvT3lwQ

basiically being dishonest & telling lies as she also worked on a fundraising group to raise money for Ted Stevens. The only renegade move she made was firing the man who wouldn't fire her ex-brother in law. Legal yes, but a question of ethical decisions.

Also, as someone previously noted, this woman wants to DO AWAY with sex-ed and teaching safe sex in schools??!! If she gets 2 more supreme justices on board it's possible the neo-cons can get this done.

I question her accepting the VP role, while her daughters pregnancy would come into the national spectacle & media (not Obama but the media, the same people who covered Jaime Spears so it isn't liberal media bias, it's news to them, which equals advertising & $$). She could have turned it down to keep her daughters situation out of the limelight but chose not to.  It does make me wonder when & how she was planning on telling the public, the Republicans sure are bringing up the anti-abortion issue quite a bit with it. Kindof a reverse smear if you will, politicizing the daughter & baby.

Anyway, you can gaurantee if McCain loses, you will NEVER see this woman in the lower 48 again. Losing VP's never go on to anything. I'll try & find a list somewhere.