"Let me tell you something," said Luanne Van Werven, a Republican delegate from Lynden, Wash., as the convention closed late Thursday night. "I secretly think Hillary loves Sarah Palin."
Why?
"Because she wants Barack to lose, so she can run again, of course!" Ms. Van Werven said with a laugh. "I just bet Hillary was watching Sarah's speech on T.V. Wednesday night and cheering, `You go, girl!' "

"It's not rocket science," Palin said, "It's $6 million and 53 employees."

To think that after she proved she could manage that, the people trusted her with 15,000 employees and $6.7 billion (2007 operating budget).  Isn't it amazing how far a woman can go if she doesn't let the bastards get in the way?

Why do I sense that people who go so far out of their way to belittle Palin's actual accomplishments do so out of a sense of insecurity?  As if they are afraid to admit how tough a real comparison would be.

Obama's plan offers a $1,000 "emergency energy rebate" to families, paid for by an increase in windfall profit taxes on oil companies.

(This is in addition to the $1,000 per year tax credit to working families.)

Do people know this?  Why would they?  For reasons known only to the Obama "brain trust," he didn't even bother to mention it in his convention speech.  In fact, the phrase "gas prices" also wasn't used.

The Wilson Sisters have shot off thru their record label an order to "cease and desist" to the RNC and McCain for co-opting "Barracuda".

McCain's campaign has said they obtained the rights to use the song thru the proper channels (they did).  One of the writers of the song, who as you know, has the power of the copyright, said he was thrilled to have McCain to use the song.

The proceeds gained from the GOP and McCain to use the song are being donated to Obama.

"It's not rocket science," Palin said, "It's $6 million and 53 employees."

it wasn't rocket science, that candle would have crashed and burned.

as i analyze the "accomplishments" of gov. palin, it becomes abundently clear that she fits right in with the current iterration of the republican party: fiscally irresponsible, rigidly doctrinaire, and intellectually immune to facts.

she represents the complete evolution of the modern republican. well, perhaps the "creation" of it.

Polar bears are considered a vulnerable species, not an almost extinct species.  

The placement on the endangered list did not provide an exemption for subsitence hunting by native people, as Governor, Palin was correct to sue because of this omission.

Also, the bears were placed on the endangered list, not because they are endangered (bear population has steadily increased since the ban of commericial hunting) but because computer models said the ice shelf might melt in 45 years.

Alaska's government receives more money per capita in federal earmark money than any other state, despite being the only state in the union with no income tax and no sales tax. They fund their government primarily with petroleum money, and recently distributed oil profits to its citizens in the form of rebate checks.

The theme of the Bush/McCain team is that they are supposedly putting "country first".
So if they are putting country first then why does Palin continue to bill the rest of the country for paying for Alaska's infrastructure improvements especially given they have so much oil revenue that they can pay for it themselves?  Couldn't the oil rebates that Alaskans received been used to pay for their own infrastructure?  How is Palin giving Alaskans rebates instead and billing the rest of us for Alaska's infrastructure an example of putting country first?  

Over the objection of many in her own party she worked with Dems to pass a law that instituted a windfall profits tax on the oil companies. This law also cracked down on their deductions and imposed stricter enforcement of the law. She has also fought to have state inspectors oversee the pipeline rather that trusting the oil companies to do this. Needless to say the oil companies and the power brokers in her own party (Think Don Young and Ted Stevens) fought against her on this.

She worked with Democrats to pass a strong ethics bill, also angering the right wing of her party.

When she was on the Alaskan Oil and Gas Commission she blew the whistle on Randy Ruedrich, Alaska's Republican Party Chairman who also served on the commission, for ethical violations such as being too close to a company he was supposed to be regulating and for doing party business on state time. She pushed for his resignation, then resigned because of this.

I also have heard that the Natural Gas Pipeline that she has managed to lay the groundwork for (after her task force studied the issue in depth)is part of Obama's energy proposals.

I got this information from the Alaska Daily News, from an interview on NPR's broadcast last Thursday on Here and Now ("Convention Roundup" segment), US News, CNN's Money, and the Juneau Empire.

As I said before, attacking this woman for lack of experience will backfire. There are plenty of issues to go after McCain and Palin for - like the proposal to lower taxes while being fiscally responsible, like the lies about Obama raising everyone's taxes, like his promise to appoint right wing judges to the Supreme Court. However to challenge Palin's experience opens Obama to closer examination of his experience. This is not a winning strategy, especially if his record fighting corruption is compared to hers. Passing a bill that requires lawmakers to stand while eating their free meals and having a close, long-term relationship with Tony Rezko whom you call your "political godfather" does not make Obama look good in comparison.

You gotta be on your toes, so you get it. Otherwise, the same surprise lesson will keep popping up over and over again, til you get it.

That's the way God works which may be the explanation for the right wing Christian movement in the United States government today.

Any questions you think I should ask any evangelicals willing to speak to me? I'n not sure I'm required to interview anyone for Salon, but it might be fun for TL readers.

What should I be on the lookout for other than checking for how their message to evangelicals is different than the one they gave to the RNC?

We keep losing elections because the parties are fighting on two different levels. We talk about competence and issues. They talk about character and values.

We appeal to narrow self-interest and a laundry list of issues. We are down in the weeds. They appeal to a higher plane, as pollster Cornell Belcher puts it, getting a substantial number of low income whites to vote not `against their economic interests' as some would have it, but for what they see as higher interests.