The Palin pick has already accomplished its goals. That is to re-energize the McCain among its base, to distract the media's attention away from Obama, and to distract the Obama from its message.

McCain whether you like or it not is now in the driver's seat in this campaign. The issues being discussed are not the economy, the Iraq war, but lipstick on a pig, sex education in kindergarden, etc. This is definitely in McCain's favor. His campaign is setting the agenda or the issues being discussed in the election at this time.

Also everytime the Obama campaign focuses on Palin, is more misopportunity to hit McCain over the economy, the war, etc.

Also the polls which had favored Obama before the conventions, are now trending to McCain. Everyday that McCain is in the lead the better for him: McCain looks like a winner.

Even if Palin ends up not being very good in the VP debates and on the campaign trail, it is still McCain vs Obama. Now McCain looks like a winner, Obama looks like a loser.

Obama is. He choice of VP was not one that was meant to heal the divisions in the party. It was a choice that was comfortable for him. It was a choice which highlighted his own lack of experience. It was a highly self-indulgent choice and now he's paying the price for it.

Obama made an opening and he shouldn't be surprised that a seasoned politician drove right through it.

The biggest thing that the choice of Palin did was steal the word change. Now people are actually asking "What kind of Change."

Obama put America first and chose the best person to complement his team.

McCain chose the mayor of Wasilla because he could win the election by energizing his base.

McCain knows that he can't win the election by energizing his base. His base is too small. His bump in the polls is already waning.

He chose her so that he could be remembered as the first republican to put a female on a Presidential ticket.

If energizing the social conservative base was the goal, then Huckabee would have been a better choice. If energizing the fiscal conservative base was the goal, then Romney would have been a better choice. The choice of Palin only stirred up a temporary media buzz. Romney was the choice until after the Democratic convention -- at which point McCain realized that he could not win in November.

At that point, his choice of a running mate became nothing more than a cheap gimmick.

But the Trojans did accomplish their goal. Looks like the SEC won't get to pound any Buckeyes in the playoff game this year. Too bad...

Say, anyone asks a question about the Iraq war - and the discussion will obviously turn to the Surge, whether it succeeded or not, who supported it, and who was against it.

You want a discussion about economy? Well, the topic can become unemployment, and whether Obama's European-style ideas would result in European-style unemployment.

You want energy? Well, DNC is solidly against drilling, Obama likes high prices.

In short, this is why Obama jokes about pig in the lipstick - he does not want to discuss the issues.

Oh yes. The GOP has been so wildly successful in creating a free and prosperous nation that they can't possibly lose on the issues.

Have a cup of coffee and wake up!

The complex issues you suggested are not as simplistic as the one-topic misrepresentations you provide. There has been little, if any substanative dialog of these issues by the McCain-Palin ticket (or the RNC) since their convention started. Mr. Obama has been more than willing to discuss these issues at great length (even on FOX with O'Riley). If you want to debate the issues then lets put all the personal sideshow drama (sexism, racism, ageism, maverickism, religous beliefs, family issuses, etc.) in check so we can move forward. Otherwise, it's business as usual.

The surge: You say it worked. Did it disarm one single militia? No. Did it have anything to do with the Anbar Awakening? No. Did it reduce violence in Baghdad? Probably.

There are still about 200,000 armed insurgents, meaning non-Iraqi government armed forces.

Obama said that the solution to Iraq's problems could not be solved by the surge. He was right. Check into what Petraeus said about "victory".

Now that Bush has adopted Obama's plan, it seems kinda funny to me that you are still trying to push nonsense about Obama wanting to lose a war to win an election.

I do want to talk about the economy. You think Obama's ideas are "european"? I don't, but have you noticed that the dollar is less than 1 euro now? I was in europe when the dollar was 1.25 euros. The dollar is worth less than a Canadian loony....McCain's tax cut plan got an "F" from Alan Greenspan.

You want to talk about energy? McCain thinks that drilling will make a difference. All of the ships needed to explore for oil are busy. All of the drilling rigs are busy. Opening up new areas to explore would change the supply of oil when, exactly? McCain says he'd build 45 new nuclear reactors. Really? When has the federal government built a nuclear reactor for commercial use? The answer is "NEVER". Companies build reactors and the last one retired took 6 years to build, was active for 30 years and took 9 years to deactivate and is sitting on about 10 acres that will have to be secured from now until the end of the planet because it is radio active. I wonder what it will cost to have security guards on that parcel of land. The RNC and McCain are pulling in donations from the oil companies that make me wonder who likes the high prices.

Obama wants to focus on replacing oil. He is ok with off shore drilling if it includes adequate protection for the environment.

A “Use it or Lose It” Approach to Existing Oil and Gas Leases.

Obama will require oil companies to develop the 68 million acres of land (over 40 million of which are offshore) which they have already leased and are not drilling on.

Promote the Responsible Domestic Production of Oil and Natural Gas.

An Obama administration will establish a process for early identification of any infrastructure obstacles/shortages or possible federal permitting process delays to drilling in the Bakken Shale formation, the Barnett shale formation, and the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska.

Obama's lipstick remark was in describing McCain's economic plans....you probably missed that in all of the nonsense the McCain campaign was throwing out about Palin.

<link>

Maybe McCain would like to explain which countries we are buying oil from who don't like us. Would that be Canada or Mexico. Venezuela is a distant third.

God, you guys can't handle hearing any criticism of your annointed one.

Annointed one? How about the Mayor of Wasilla being promoted to President?

You guys can't stand to discuss the issues. Obama challenges McCain's policies and you guys start whining about lipstick.

Hey: Can't blame you for being irritated at "EML's" comment that was hitting below the belt (no pun intended). But just a quick question for ya: Aren't you jumping the gun a little about Palin? As you know she is the Governor of the state of Alaska, not the mayor of Wasilla and she is not ruining for POTUS, just VP.

As for Obama challenging McCain's policies, you know my stance on that, bring it on and let the voters decide. Actually let the Electoral College decide that is. Whatever the outcome in November we will see a "change" in the White House. That is guaranteed. Also like the e-mail I sent to you (thanks for the links), if we want to see a real "Change" in the direction this country is going, we need to put the responsibility on those persons responsible, CONGRESS. The POTUS, regardless of who it is, can only propose a budget, Congress sets it. The POTUS can veto any bill proposed by Congress, but Congress can override that veto.

This last bit was for those out there who still think that the POTUS (current or past) is totally to blame for the problems of our country. You and I both know that he is only partially to blame and could do little without congress's backing.

Unfortunately the next POTUS will face the same problems and without the support of Congress can do little to "change" the downward spiral we are in.