Why? Because he is almost completely irrelevant.

Dems and the media have talked more about Palin than anything else in politics since she was nominated? She is just as irrelevant as Biden.

But she is a conservative woman, so she must be destroyed. The dems and the media have tried to convince everybody that the republicans are anti-woman. Lucky for her she is not also a minority or she would be attack even more viciously.

The attacks on Palin will not change the outcome of the election. But that is not as important as destroying a conservative woman.

Granted, before the debate, when she was doing that Deer In The Headlights imitation during her interview there were a lot of Conservative Pundits that were calling for her withdrawal form the ticket, but they got death threats from the extremists, so that quickly subsided.

Other htan that, can you name anyone who has attacked her?

As far as irrelavant goes, well, seeing how the Polls are predicting that Obama will be taking in well over 300 Electoral College Votes in a few weeks, I have to agree. Palin is pretty irrelevant.

Have you read this board or any blog?

The media sent dozens of crews to Alaska to find any dirt they could find on Palin. The attacks on her from the liberal media are constant.

But you asked for just one. Tina Fey.

you're right, wmou. how dare the press want to vet the newcomer? how dare they want to ask her questions?

McCain advised the press that Palin must be deferred to, that she was to be treated differently.....like a girl in a men's game.

I thought you meant relevant people were attacking her. Like when she was attacked by Kathleen Parker, a deeply conservative columnist who called for her to step down because she was so uninformed that she was dragging down the McCain ticket.

Or Peggy Noonan, another conservative that thought she was off camera and started ranting about McCain having lost the election by recklessly picking a know nothing.

Maybe Charles Krauthammer who was explaining in his article how Palin was the decisive factor in McCain's downturn in the polls.

Fey was having fun. She is pitch perfect in everyway with Palin. Everyone laughed their ass off. And you know what? Most of what Fey said was almost verbatim. She didn't have to make much up to get a laugh.

Palin was attacking Biden's record, while Biden barely attacked Palin's. He was being too nice to her.

Biden is a vicious partisan. He is arrogant and snotty. They had to reign him in. If they turned him loose on her, it could have cost some votes.

The VP debate turned out to be as relevant as all others in the past. Not at all. Dems and the media thought Palin would destroy herself in the debates. She did not, so the attacks on her started back up again.

Almost half of the posts on all liberal blogs and bulletin boards like the Fray are about Palin. One in one hundred is a positive post about Obama's policies.

Biden had 2 chocies: attack her on her record, make a couple of memorable remarks that would over shadowed the discussion, or treat her nice and ignore her record. He chose the latter, and made her look just as good as Biden (which is really outrageous). The moron pundits are given her a B to B+. Talk about grade inflation.

Biden's first answer to the first question was preposterous and is not even discussed.

He blamed the entire economic mess on Mr. Bush. The problems started over thirty years ago and have continued to get worse while Biden was in the Senate. Biden does not think he or the democrats deserve any of the blame.

He is an arrogant jerk. The only more irritating member of the Senate is Schumer.

McCain tossed a Hail Mary with Palin and it didn't even land out of bounds, so the clock is still running.

McCain was never a contender and Obama knew it. Biden and Palin is just a side show. The polls have Obama over the 300 mark for election day. I bet he does even better than that because the polls have always underestimated Obama.

What happened to the surpluses that Bush inherited? "I'm spender not a saver".

Biden was right on.

Why were we supposedly running surpluses at the same time the debt went up each year?

Why did we need to borrow more money if we had a surplus?

Mr. Bush and the republicans are guilty of out of control spending. The congressional republicans fought against clinton's spending proposals but pass Mr. Bush's. They deserve to lose power for betraying conservative principles. They showed themselves for what they truly are. Big govt liberals.

Government's operating budget (which is different than the national debt) was in the black when Bush took over. It sends a message: govt is not being reckless.

If my family runs a deficit, we need to borrow money to survive. We my family runs a surplus, we pay down our debt not borrow more money. Why would we borrow money to put in our savings accounts?

The surpluses were not real. Just creative accounting.

But clinton and the republican congress did cut the deficit significantly. A perfect example why we need gridlock.

All democrat rule is going to be worse than all republican.

Assume the surpluses were phoney. Why would Bush offer rebates, tax cuts for the wealthy knowing they were phoney?