Regarding the choice of Sarah Palin, the hypocrisy of the McCain camp continues to amaze. And, the MSM continues to (mostly) eat it up.
Obama was criticized for not having the stamina to select a woman, specifically HRC, as his running mate. What? Just because she came in second? That's not how it works. Otherwise, McCain should have been chosen for VP in 2000 by W. Why wasn't he? Because it would have been a bad fit. Somehow, McCain can understand that about Bush in 2000, but not Obama in 2008.
As for McCain being a "Maverick" with this choice... You've got to be kidding! Choosing an anti-choice, very pro-gun, Evangelical Christian for VP is somehow a demonstration of change? Isn't that more of the same?
At least from what I've learned about Trooper-gate, she puts herself before procedure; herself before what's right. This all does not sound like change, but rather, more of the same. I experienced deja-vu when I saw McCain introduce Palin: Anyone remember, "Brownie, you're doing a heck of a job"? We've had eight years of the under- or poorly-qualified rise to the top. Enough!
And yet 6 out of 12 (alleged) pundits on Tweety's show today thought she was a positive choice. Howard Fineman had the nerve to suggest that this choice was overall a positive one, simply because it made for a bigger and more exciting story! Not that it mattered at the present whether this was a thoughtful choice for our nation. All he was interested in was whether it made for a more interesting story for him to cover. (I call them alleged pudits, since the word 'pundit' implies a true expert on a given topic.)
McCain puts out more of the same, in the disguise of Palin, and the MSM chows down. I, for one, cannot wait for her first major gaffe and for her to be vetted (revealed?) by the blogosphere.