Sir,

In your writing you refer to John McCain as a liar and question Mrs Palin's qualifacations as the next "President". You seem to enjoy mixing up the truth and (as Hillary put it) giving out miss information. If you now look at things in their true light McCain hasnt lied about anything, he has just evened out the board, so to speak by bringing in a person who has worked against her own party at times, to get to the truth. Now Husein O Bin Baden has a real equal to be conserned with. Point fingers shoot people down when they dont agree with you wow what is this world digressing into?Get it straight John McCain is the GOP President Elect and Sarah Palin is his choice for Vice President. That is The Fact.

I totally Agree BCINU2.

Obama is a marxist and black liberationist. This is obvious from his spirtual advisor Jerimiah Wright. The media really let Obama off the hook since it was politically correct to do so. I am an individualist not a collectivist. Therefore, I am soley judging Obama by the content of his character not the color of his skin.

I've stumbled into online Kindergarten, where the 6-year-old trolls go to play!

Well, I knew she won a beauty contest, but I didn't know she was Miss Information.

here's another ist, it starts with r...a...c...

Let's face it. Palins got the nomination because she's a woman, and McCain want to target the Clinton supporters who won't vote for Obama. It is 'betting the farm' on an unknown. If she screws up, McCain is toasted.

McCain likes to play dice, while Obama likes to play poker. Their vice president candidate is a reflection of their respective philosophy to life.

Interesting.... see I saw Palin as a candidate that is a human being and multi-dimensional. She's a she (which Appeals to Hillary voters and Women who feel discounted by the appropriately named DNC), but she's all a tom-boy life NRA member who hunts, fishes, and gets out there. She's a pro-lifer that put her money where her mouth is (unlike Obama). She's proved herself far more than with the Anti-corruption actions, unlike Obama who seems to be more pro-corruption. If you want a washington outsider and change, she's far more of that than a Chicago politician. She's a working mother. And she's got energy experience and has been to ANWR, Obama couldn't find it on a map. So there's a lot of reasons more than just Woman. Now that token Presidential candidate has far less going for him other than being a smooth-talker and a Affirmative Action choice... Obama is basically Jimmy Carter in Blackface. Lucky for him most of his supporters are too young or took so many drugs in the 70's, that they don't remember what a walking disaster that was.

I think if you sat Obama and Palin down with maps, Obama would be able to find a lot more places than Palin could.

She's anti-choice - You can't be "pro-life" and pro death penalty.

She lacks experience in dealing with the more diffuse power that exists in WA DC, she has almost no experience in dealing with the press (she has actively shunned interviews), she has no experience in international politics (and while Obama USED to have none, his euro trip and his primary win demonstrate his diplomatic abilities).

The fact that you use the term "Jimmy Carter in Blackface" demonstrates your rather virulent prejudice.

Prove me wrong. Take the Election 2008 Implicity Association test

'You can't be pro-life, and pro-death penalty' is an oft repeated diatribe by the small-minded, that is about as intellectually valid as claiming you can't like protecting the innocent AND want to see the guilty get punished. It's cute that Democrats can't wrap their unimaginative minds. In case you didn't get it -- some people want to protect the innocent children that have done nothing wrong. On the other hand, in extreme cases of guilt (serial murder, rape, etc.), about the sanest thing you can do to a broken individual is put them down in as humane a way as possible (far more humane than an abortion). What makes no sense, is the hypocrites, er Democrats that are pro-infanticide (murdering the innocent) but against punishing the guilty. BTW, I'm a pro-choice Californian. But having read Roe-V-Wade, I understand that it should reasonably apply to first term -- not snuffing viable babies, and the fanatics (er Democrats) have taken the law WAY further than it was ever reasonably or morally intended.

I don't understand that test -- it said I had no discernible preference. Also, it isn't racist to acknowledge that race or more importantly, culture, can impact things. Or to note that there are differences. Jimmy Carter was a nice man at one time, but a lousy President. I feel the same about Barack. I could sit and have a beer with him, I suspect I'd like him personally, and I'm impressed by his speaking ability -- as long as it isn't impromptu (he seems to have a very slow pattern on his own). But liking the guy, and liking his philosophy and politics are different. Please review his and Carters promises and results, and explain why they will be different this time (under Obama) when they were blatant failures under Carter. Which brings up the next obvious question, can you explain why Carter's were such failures in the first place. (That answer will explain why Obama's would be as well).

Also, it isn't racist to acknowledge that race or more importantly, culture, can impact things

Depends on what you mean by this. If you mean that recognizing that racism and the myths of race being projected onto others has impact - then yeah, that's not racist. OTOH to suggest that "black culture" or "hispanic culture" is somehow responsible for the outcomes and behaviours that are logical outcomes of our governmental policies and endemic racism - then Yeah that IS being racist.

Carter BTW, wasn't that poor a POTUS. His biggest flaw was his failure to suck-up to the DC media. But in terms of policies, it was Carter's appointment of Volker that ended the stagflation the GOP caused (Nixon put wage freezes into effect etc.), it was Carter that started the support of the Mujahadeen against the russians in Afghanistan (it was Bush pere that hung them out to dry), Carter's proposed re-building of the US Military was larger and more effectively focussed (no $billions wasted on battleships) than anything Reagan did.

And actually if you've listened to Carter in the last 2 decades, his impromptu speaking is better than Reagan's, Bush pere's or GWBs. So if Obama is as good as Carter, and has the clearly demonstrated better media skills, then we have a real winner here.

Carter's failures were largely 2 fold:

1. He refused to play the DC media and "power insiders" game. It was not unusual for him to have dinner alone with Roslyn in the WH private quarters. Carter failed to recognize these private moments as mechanisms for controlling policy and direction within DC by dispensing or withholding the favor of dining in the White House.
   
   As a result Carter's ability to hang onto, influence, move and even identify the levers of power was dramatically compromised.
   
   There is zero evidence that the same applies to Obama, who has been borderline brilliant in figuring out where the hidden levers of success are in the primary process. And Obama comes out of the politics of Chicago not GA, where this sort of backroom finagling is a high art.
2. Carter was let down in a borderline treasonous fashion by his Joint Chiefs. David Jones and his peers were more focussed on maintaining their individual branches' operating perogatives and initiatives rather than providing cooperative task forces.
   
   This was as a consequence of the post Viet Nam military reductions, but it was personal fiefdom building that put personal career advancement ahead of national security to a level bordering on treason (note that this is the time of Powell's ascendency as well). Furthermore there was a failure by the Pentagon leadership to maintain morale post Viet Nam.
   
   Morale of one's command is probably the most critical part of operational readiness - high morale troops with inadequate materiel have succeeded well beyond expectations time and again. Yet the JCs and their subordinates (Their brigadier and major generals like Powell) failed to address morale issues.
   
   As a result, Operation Eagle Claw failed It was the failure of Eagle Claw, that resulted in Carter losing the election. Nothing more

So we have no reason to believe Obama will be subject to #2 and we know he won't be subject to #1.

When Fitzgerald wrote:

The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposing ideas in mind at the same time

He was being sarcastic. The notion that you can be "pro-life" and somehow pro death penalty is about as oxymoronic as it gets. Sure you can redefine "life" to be restricted to only "the innocent", and you can further NewSpeak it to exclude those who must be punished, but you are twisting the meaning of language past the point even Orwell would have recognized.

Either you are Pro-Life - ie against the taking of life - or you are not. If you are not, then you allow rationalizations for the taking of other human life. And as GB Shaw wrote - at that point you're just haggling over the price,

OR

You reserve the right FOR YOURSELF to judge /Choose which life is "innocent" and which deserves to be "put down"

Now you can rationalize all you want, but those are your two positions. Which means that if you are pro Death Penalty, then you cannot be "pro-life". You can only assert that you want the choice for yourself as to who lives and who dies.

And that means that you are being dishonest in describing yourself as "pro-life".

As for Roe. Let me ask you this:

I assume you consider that carrying a fetus to term is a valuable thing for a woman to do. That in doing so she provides the fetus with the opportunity to gestate and grow, and she helps society's moral standing. Am I on track?