It's sad that the brits understand this election better than the US msm

[smogcity]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/gerard_baker/article4677799.ece

[PatriotnMore]

"So let's stipulate one obvious and important piece of wisdom about US elections. The choice of a vice-presidential candidate rarely makes much of a difference. The pundit class waxes historical in the excitement of the moment but usually the vice-presidential choices go back to playing second banana. However mawkishly we dwell on the mortality of the presidential contenders, it is they who determine the voters' decision."

This is the fault within the message, the author is overlooking the obvious. The fact she is a woman, has a vetted political background, has teeth in terms of leadership, hunts, is pro 2A, is pro life, and is not simply a warm body, is what makes this choice so interesting, and quite honestly, refreshing.

What has polarized McCain voters, and infused light into the McCain election, was his choice for a VP.

[Theseus]

I had long believed that McCain was reform minded and hell bent on fixing Washington. I also believe that he supported Bush and the party long enough to not jeapordise his chances of being nominated for the presidency.

His selection of Palin reinforced the belief and faith I had in McCain. Honestly I like SOME of hat Obama talks about, but I don't believe he has the power or true intent to do any of it. I am a Republican at heart, and would have voted against another Bush. McCain does not a Bush make.

[stag1500]

McCain does not a Bush make.

We shall see. Political campaigns are like dating/courting. The candidates always put on their best face when they're working to get the affection of others. Once they've achieved their goal, they're true nature always comes out. Bush, even Clinton, turned out way differently than their campaigns led us to believe. They won because they were the better liars.

[motorhead]

elections are more like bar dates, we'll see what they look like when the buzz wears off.

[fullrearview]

well maybe this time the choice will make a difference..... I mean, heck we have the 1st ever black nominee for a major party, and the 1st women nod for VP. You never know with politics. I will say one thing though, I was going to vote for Ron Paul based on the fact that commiefornia is always blue, but you never know so now I am voting for McCain! Not to mention I am telling all my dem friends dont bother wasting your time.....cali is always blue!!!!

[Yankee Clipper]

Interesting piece written by Mr. Gerard Baker but I take issue with him regarding the importance of the VP candidate. I hate to admit this in front of this forum, God and even the unwashed but, in my short life time I've lived through three presidential successions that were, I think, history making. The 1st shortly after taking office ordered the dropping of two atomic bombs, the second sent a few thousand to Indo-china to die and the third took over when the incumbent admitted his judgment was so seriously flawed that he had to step down. I don't mean to sound condemnatory but that was just the way I saw it.
Hopefully the younger members of this forum will not go through any of that. But if we must learn from history.....!
On a less somber note: it would sure be nice to have an NRA life member presiding over the senate. I don't think a reconstituted AW bill would get that far during her term.

[Glock22Fan]

I'd rather have an experienced president who is a bit long in the tooth and a young VP learning the ropes, than a young president learning the ropes with an elderly many-times failed presidential hopeful in the wings.

With the first, we would hope that the president lives for quite a long time (did anyone else see his spry mother in the audience yesterday?), in the other (without wishing him any harm) we will probably soon be praying that something does happen to give the VP the job.