She probably forgot to mention that almost nobody lives in the areas close to Alaska. But sure, clear understanding of chukchis who live there makes her a valuable expert in international politics.

It just seems that if you look at it objectively and compare the candidates both parties have put up over the past 30 years or so, you could come to that conclusion, although perhaps a better conclusion would be this: Whoever nominates the more likeable guy wins, no matter how more qualified the other guy was. Democrats tend to focus not on likeability but other things, and that's why they lose, whereas Republicans focus on likeability and often win.

1980: Carter (smart but ineffective) v. Reagan (Hollywood actor with charisma)

1984: Mondale (smart but boring) v. Reagan again

1988: Dukakis (very smart but super boring) v. Bush (smart but more likeable than Dukakis. This is one election where the negatives for both were higher than the positives, which doesn't happen too often)

1992: Clinton (smart but actually likeable -- the Democrats finally learn!) v. Bush (smart but unlikeable)

1996: Clinton (see above) v. Dole (also smart but unlikeable)

2000: Bush II (dumb but more likeable) v. Gore (smart; although technically, more people voted for Gore than Bush II so the theory kind of fails here)

2004: Bush II (dumb but more likeable) v. Kerry (smart but not as likeable)

Kerry was not smart...

Why is it every time I see Sarah Palin,
I think of Margaret "Hot Lips" O'Houlihan?

"Hot Lips" was never one of the people.
"Hot Lips" was the elitist and not with The Swamp.
She and Frank Burns were always duty-bound in the same way that athletes on steroids
are muscle-bound.

For the record, I have no problem with Palin having gone to Iowa. Its a good school, and frankly, politics could use some diversification in its educational background.

I have a problem with her politics and her utter lack of comprehension of issues that the pres and the vp regularly deal with.

Groucho, I see your list and it triggered this lovely pearl:

The problem is this; likeable people are more often listened to, but in reality less often heard.

Uh, I'd have to disagree with this though. This past primary Obama was considered much more 'likeable' than Hillary.

Its just that in the general election the Dem candidate seems to be less likeable than the Reps. (Though, as you pointed out, this wasn't the case with Clinton vs. Bush, so it goes both ways). The Dems are suspect to the same voting tendencies in the primaries that everyone is suspect of in the generals.

I'd honestly support her death right now

This having a legitimate chance of being president is just too scary. I mean it's not just the possibility of McCain getting in and dieing, she might just win in 4 or 8 years on her on.

No, hers is much more of a Cinderella story than Obama's, because just like Cinderella, a "fairy godmother" came and granted her wish without her having to do any real work to earn it.

Obama, on the other hand, rose through the system through hard work and study, without anyone giving him a free ride.

I chose Obama in 2004 exactly after hearing that speech.
It was so good that I immediately found myself wondering why the heck were we messing with Kerry?

Obama pushed himself to an education, excelling in the worlds #1 ranked PoliSci department, then to Harvard, becoming editor of a little something called the Harvard Law Review. He then turned down lucrative careers offered by Wallstreet, major law firms, and the typical path of a Harvard Law Review editor and become a clerk to the Supreme Court as a segway to becoming a career politician. He instead put himself into a much less glamorous, infinitely less "Rock Star" position that's SOLE PURPOSE was working to help a community. He rose through local politics into state senate and then the national senate. Yes, his leaps were quick, but it's not like he appeared overnight from Hockey Mom to Presidential Candidate.

True. They both rose quickly to national political prominence from being virtual unknowns, and in fact rose to national prominence in part due to the fact that they were virtual unknowns.

One just has shit politics, zero familiarity with global issues, and a really, really, really freaky world view. Remember, global warming is just God hugging us a little closer. Thank-you Tina Fey!

more like he played some the hardest politics ever to become a state senator and getting the Senate nomination because the state Senate leader liked Obama...

She must have been watching Red Dawn alot back in her youth

It kinda is.

Actually, no. Scratch that. It absolutely is.

Except, of course, Obama has never said that, but you guys don't care much about facts, do you?

The difference being that one side is twisting happenstance and creating false narratives out of thin air, while the other has at least lived with the repercussions of his circumstances, whether he's made a point of claiming some "secret insight" or not.

When did he, in fact?

More to the point, when did you become so blindly right wing, loyal?

I thought loyal liked Obama...

I have no idea if that's even true or not. As a guy sadly subjected to British news outlets, I'm not really privy to the fluff parts of Presidential hopeful's campaigns.

That said, I do think that we could avoid a lot of pointless red-tape by settling the presidential race with a simple basketball game. Hell, let's just elect Teen Wolf and be done with it.

uhmmmm.loyal....do you still want to vote for McCain....even with Palin as VP?

So how have you even heard about Palin at all?

Republicans hate community organizers now. Because Obama was one. They are to be mocked and ridiculed.

so are small town mayors and anyone from Alaska.

Remember George Bush Sr. talking about how great America was because of community organizers? He called them the "thousand points of light."

Well, true Republicans spit on these people, apparently. Just like they did to Vietnam veterans who got purple hearts.

It amazes me that people seriously can defend these guys.