I just finished an article by a British reporter in which he described the Palin phenomenon. I can't link from my mobile device, but it's up on Drudge.

McCain's audiences have shot upward from the low hundreds to the thousands. She gives her stump speech to a highly energized audience who is just excited to be getting a glimpse of her. Then McCain comes out and says ""I'm so delighted to have been introduced to you today by the Governor of Alaska, and I can't wait to introduce her to Washington."

He's smart to allow himself to stand in the warm glow that is reflecting off her for as long as it lasts. It may last through the rest of the election and on into office.

Obama's supporters would have you believe they are offended by the Palin pick, while they try to lecture her supporters over what they deem is "phony" outrage. Perhaps while looking in the mirror as they really need to do right now they'll admit what bothers them is that they thought the star power phenomenon was theirs, almost as if by heavenly fiat, and they can't come to terms with anyone else attracting the same enthusiasm and spotlight. And they can't admit the bloom may be off Obama's rose.

I'm reminded more and more of Bill Clinton's hypothetical during the Democrat convention. What if the candidate you don't prefer can deliver half of what you know needs to be done, while the one you really liked can't get a thing accomplished.

McCain keeps hammerin that with his record of reaching across the aisle and driving reform, and Palin's record of taking on the old bulls and beating them, that they give us the best chance at actually attacking waste and balancing the budget.

This isn't even close to over, but the Democrats are, for the first time in this cycle, close to having it slip out of reach.

but is "winning" so important to the McCain/Palin voters that they don't mind that they are pretty much just doing a greatest-hits-speech-bits from the convention and not really saying anything much of substance? They don't mind that it's a song and dance show with the pretty lady getting the crowd all warmed up for the man who can't quite get it up for the "believers"?

The whole thing just smacks of slight of hand techics..."watch us do the hand jive...vote for us...we'll do it for YOU!"...then it's back on the bus and on to the next town...who's the "Rock Star" now?

With slight variations over time. That's why bored trail reporters pounce on any variation. The difference with Sarah is the huge crowds and press attention. So we know the speech is the same, because we're hearing it live from every town on the trail. Heck, it's only been a week since she delivered the expanded version.

Of greater worry is that Kaz is checking the Fray on his mobile device. That's just wrong.

Helps pass the time while travelling. Just finished Jonah's book and didn't grab a new one yet.

Ya big jerk. ;-)

this will be a good contest. A little rough, but that's the way Americans like it. Obama offers change - and it's a tempting offer right now, but he certainly hasn't sold the nation that he can deliver that. McCain does have a demostrated ability to 'reach across the aisle', but he sure hasn't done much of that lately - and those days were back before he got old and cranky.

I don't think much of Sarah's record. So far, I'm not impressed. But she was a good pick for McCain. Somebody needed to breath a little life into this.

So we have ourselves a ballgame. Coming out of the seventh inning stretch, we got a rookie on the mound just up from the minors who is up against a old time big swinger who probably should have retired a couple of years ago.

I'm a Cubs fan. I only come because I like the playing field, I got a good spot in the bleachers, and the beer isn't too warm.

You're probably right, but we might look back on these last two weeks and be reminded of the great Yogi Berra:

"It just got late early."

Kazillions:

Is the best that you, McCain, and Palin can do?

~$5 trillion in deficit with the greatest benefit going beyond what Bush bestowed upon 1% of the taxpayers in the upper income bracket as opposed to what Obama bestows upon the majority of the taxpayers who live in this country.

It goes something like this: "I have an old ink pen and I'm going to use it to veto the first pork laden budget that comes to my desk. We're going to tell the world their names, my friends, we're going to make them famous."

He's the only senator that does not seek earmarks for his state. So he's got the record to back this up. Obama stopped asking for earmarks when the campaign started to get serious, but last year he sought over $300 million. I'm referring back now, of course, to Clinton's hypothetical.

But you feel free to keep pretending it'll work to run against someone who isn't on the ticket.

You guys don't even pay attention to poor old John anymore. Got himself "Obama-ed" off the stage today speaking without her in Philly (damn, I do miss that town!).

I haven't heard anybody say they're offended by the Palin pick. Surprised, to be sure. But not offended.

I also hav eno trouble admitting that some of the shine has come off Obama. A primary season fighting the Clintons will do that for you.

RE: Clinton's hypothetical...I used to like McCain (really...I voted for him happily). McCain may have been a maverick at one time, but that time has passed. Palin is an ideological carbon copy of George W. I don't buy the "reformer" label that's been slapped on this ticket. I see a McCain/Palin administration as nothing more than 4 more years of what we've had for the last 8. What I think the country needs and what they think the country needs appear to be two very different things.

In short, they offer nothing I want. And half of nothing is still nothing.

It's a fun idea, but I'll stick with McCain at the top. In four years though?

What a brotherly way to treat a war hero, huh? Sounds like an Ayers inspired stunt.

You may find this difficult to understand, but many people see a huge difference between President Bush's proud family dynasty and the mother of five who went from running a fishing company to school board to mayor to Alaska oil council to governor ... silly us.

We can actually admire President Bush for everything he's done and still recognize a fresh new face.

I've seen many people take offense at the Palin pick, calling it a slap. Marylb comes to mind. And she linked Steinem. There were others. Apparently that line of attack fell flat.

Exactly.

And stump speeches with nothing in them.

"Hi, yeah, it's really me; Now let me tell you all about me and what I didn't do in Uh-lass-ka. Thanks, now heeerrre's the Old Dude."

ot... hey, you're in Texas. Mom posted to the Ike Everywhere top post by Days____what-ever. It's an official Evacuation Plan for what looks like just about the whole coast of Texas. You near any of that mess?

Peace & Blessings, either way.

Kazillions:

is pork. $1 trillion beyond Bush and 2 trillion beyond Obama. You feel free to pretend that this is fiscal responisbility in light of the issues we have today bought to us by Boy-George Bush.

His old ink pen ran out of ink except for his plans.

I understand your desire to continue down the same path we've been traveling for 8 years. I simply don't share your admiration.

I didn't say that GWB and Palin shared a family history. Of course I see a difference in that regard. Doesn't change the fact that their ideology is almost identical.

As for the slap, I do think it's a slap at Hillary supporters to choose a woman, thinking you can simply substitute one for another. I don't think I'm wrong to assume that this thinking played a role in choosing Palin. But I don't know that "...offended he picked Palin..." is really the right way to describe that reaction.

I can admire President Bush and yet hope for a strong new push against congressional spending. I call myself Kazillions as a reminder of government spending. As bad as the GOP has been at this there is no doubt that Obama wants to reverse the reverses we have made against so-called Great Society nanny stateism.

As to Palin and Bush, they have very different backgrounds, and she has a record of taking on people in her own party. Or do you have a beef with them both being religious and pro-life?

Feeling offended at the choice of a person with more real experience than Obama, and that's honestly the way I see it, well, talk about faux outrage.

Again I go back to Clinton's hypothetical. We all want to see government over-spending attacked in a way it has not been attacked before, don't we?

I definitely don't want socialized medicine, which is a basic campaign tenet of the Democrats. I don't want a return to welfare as we knew it before the GOP congress forced Clinton to enact it over his three prior vetoes. And I don't believe in wealth redistribution as much as we have it today, which Obama would make much worse. And I believe victory is possible in the War on Terror, but not under Obama.