Some of us will vote Dem because we are following what seems the better ticket for our philosophies; others will not vote Dem this time because they don't know what Obama stands for and don't trust him and/or feel the DNC is not 'democratic' and needs a huge change.

  Obama got $66 million this month and certainly can afford an ad to millions of voters illustrating the lies, can't he.

  Moreover, for an allegedly post-partisan candidate of "new politics" he advocated this week that his supporters

"I need you to go out and talk to your friends and talk to your neighbors. I want you to talk to them whether they are independent or whether they are Republican. I want you to argue with them and get in their face," he said.

  Of those, many (probably most) send it on to others.  I certainly get a lot of email on it, some of it friendly, some of it definitely not.  Wall St. Journal considered it possibly the origin of the viral letter's heavy-distribution (but it wasn't -- just one of them).

  For me, it was only a place to start exploring the complaints and my initial interest was because it also included a few positive statements (even if grudging), unlike pure-advocacy pieces pro or con, since I always prefer to know more than what some invested stranger wants to tell me.  It's now expanded to as many articles as I can find pro and con but mainly ones that have some balance to them.  And it also includes rebuttals to the more searingly-ignorant rumor-ridden pieces that go around in the same way as the Muslim pieces do re Obama.  I'm opposed to that on both sides.

  Since I am not pro-Obama for many reasons but I retain Democratic values, this is the only way I care to 'contribute,' and I'd say his campaign should be quite happy.  Anne Kilkenny is a very engaged/active Democrat.

  By the way, if you come on like gangbusters telling less-interested Democrats they must do this or that
you will alienate those away from the Obama vote because many are hanging in there, on a thread, to vote Democrat.

  While Obama may want you all to get in your neighbor's 'face,' and 'argue' with them, as he says, that alone can really turn people off.  

  He is a scarily living contradiction at almost anytime, and there are just quite a few who will not automatically vote for him because of his alternating post-partisan and virulent-partisan sides.  He's too often like two different people.

Former House Speaker, Gail Phillips, a Republican, who indicated that she had contacts throughout the Republican party, was one of the people who was really shocked. From the Anchorage Daily News, upon hearing about Palin's selection, she exclaimed to her husband, "This can't be happening, because his advance team didn't come to Alaska to check her out."

That was a familiar refrain throughout Alaska from what I can gather. Now, I know he tried to keep it under wraps, but it would seem that, at least, several people would know, even if they disclosed it afterward. I haven't read all of the news on Palin, but I haven't read about anybody revealing that they were contacted.

I think that he picked her for several reasons, one of which is that it would galvanize the support (money) from the Religious Right leaders who have been instrumental in funding campaigns in the past. Also, it would energize that faction's on-the-ground people. Also, they're obviously using gender politics to win some of Senator Clinton's former voters as well as Independent women. There are many more reasons, but it's my view that McCain cared more about his campaign than he did for his country, because I don't think that she'd be prepared to become president if required.

PPP Virginia