Rock star like candidate; all image and little substance; Paris Hilton and Brittany Spears move over.

No I wasn't referring to McCain's attacks on Obama. I'm referring to Sarah Palin. Another McCain irony in that he picks someone who fits the very description McCain claimed disqualifies Obama as president.

At the convention last night the republicans chanted "Zero, zero" when references were made to Obama and Biden's executive experience. Pray, tell us exactly how much executive experience John McCain has had? Zero, zero. How much foreign policy experience has Sarah Palin had? Zero, zero. Hypocrisy in action.

As for Palin's executive experience, she has exactly six years as the mayor of a town of 7,000 people and 20 months as the governor of a state with less than 700,000 people in it. That hardly qualifies her as some hot shot executive. The mayors of most of the major U.S. cities have more and greater experience as an executive than she has.

Bill Clinton had 8 years as the Governor of Arkansas and the republicans claimed he didn't have enough executive experience because Arkansas was too small a state to have the right kind of experience to be president.

But I guess you have to remember that the qualifications when you are a republican are much lower and according to their way of thinking there is no amount experience that would ever qualify you to be president if you are not a republican.

The republicans under John McCain are now claiming to be putting serving American first over politics. After 14 years of being extremely partisan and self serving the republicans are now allegedly going to do what is best for America? After 14 years of believing what is best for America is for the republicans to always have their way by whatever means and it should be their way or no way they are now allegedly concerned about doing what is right?

The same bunch that mocked John Kerry's Purple Hearts, accused Max Cleland of causing his own wounds are singing a different tune because McCain is at the top of the ticket? This same bunch has been supporting King George and Five Deferments Dick Cheney and we're supposed to believe they've changed their stripes?

When Bill Clinton ran for president in 1992 the republicans claimed he was a governor of a "small" state and therefore didn't really have the executive experience needed to be president. They also claimed he lacked the foreign policy experience to be a world leader.

Now John McCain and the republicans are defending Sarah Palin's minimal experience as the mayor of a town of 7,000 and her 20 months as governor of Alaska which has a population less than a third of Arkansas'. Palin has no foreign policy experience in the least and McCain defends her by saying she has good judgement rather than experience. Almost word for word what Obama has said about his own qualificaions.

No matter how you slice it the republicans are playing their double standard card again. Democrats don't let them. Point out the gross hypocrisy.

John McCain has criticized Obama for saying he would go after Al Qaeda in Pakistan. According to McCain this declaration by Obama shows poor judgement and is allegedly is proof that Obama is unqualified to be commander-in-chief.

If this is the standard than Bush's ordering an attack into Pakistan today against Al Qaeda by U.S. Forces must show Bush's poor judgement and disqualification as commander-in-chief.

Oh, wait, I keep forgetting the republicans have a double standard. They don't have to have the same qualifications to hold office that they say others must have and it's only wrong if someone else does it. They can never be wrong let alone responsible for what they do or say.

It may take a while but even George W. Bush shows he can learn from the past. Bush and the republicans are making a concerted effort to show they are concerned and prepared for Hurricane Gustav as it hits Louisiana. What a contrast to Hurricane Katrina in which Bush knew nothing about the whole thing until 4 days after it hit New Orleans. It does show the republicans can learn from the past or at least it shows they learned what the political fall can be by being totally inept in a disaster. It's embarrassing to have a president who waits until well after a problem happens to react - whether it is reacting to the terrorist warnings before 9/11 or watching a simple thing like a weather report about a major U.S. city being flooded.

John McCain has criticized Obama as having too little experience to be president, particularly in the area of foreign affairs. So what does McCain do. He picks a running mate with even less experience than Obama has, particularly in the area of foreign affairs where she has none at all. Is it only for the office of president that experience counts and for the office that is "only a heartbeat away from the presidency" that it doesn't matter. Or it is once again the standards for republicans aren't the same as they demand of others?

In one of John McCain's ads against Obama he claims Obama is for deficit spending. In another ad McCain claims Obama is responsible for the high gas prices. Once again the republican propaganda machine is at it. They are blaming the democrats for what they are responsible for particularly McCain's buddy George W. Bush. He is the king of deficit spending which they have defended time and time again. Between Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush and Bush Junior they are responsible for most of the national debt. Only under the democrat Bill Clinton did the national debt go down.

A lie, as we saw with John Kerry, no matter how ridiculous, when repeated often enough and poorly refuted, becomes accepted as fact in the minds of many voters.

Obama has raised tons of money but I haven't seen it used much. Obama you can't wait until the last week of the election to undo the damage from McCain's ads. Obama has to hit back and hit back hard. The harder you hit back without being nasty like the republicans the more people will see you as a leader. Fail to stand up for yourself and they won't see how you'll stand up for them.

Obama said "We will take America back". Such a sentence could easily be taken the wrong way. I suggest not saying that anymore. Instead I suggest saying "We will restore this democracy and this country".

It takes a shot right at the Bush presidency and John McCain's support of that so called presidency. It lets people know he will not have an imperial presidency and at the same time he understands how Bush's policies have hurt them personally. Most voters will not vote for someone who will lead them into unknown territory, but they will vote for someone who they believe will restore what has been lost.

Joe Lieberman's strong support of John McCain and his willingness talked about as a possible vice presidential candidate this time on the republican ticket might help explain why he did such a poor job of trying to win as Al Gore's running mate. His reluctance to criticize Tricky Dick Cheney during the debates in 2000 is one glaring example. It makes you wonder whose side Lieberman was on.

But then again maybe having Lieberman as John McCain's running mate might be a good thing for the democrats. If Lieberman does for McCain's candidacy as he did for Gore's it could help to ensure a democratic victory.

The republican propaganda machine is at it again. Once again they are trying to portray the democratic presidential candidate as an elitist who therefore is incapable of understanding the middle class while at the same time portraying themselves as being the best qualified to look out for the middle class interests.

The alleged appeal of Bush has been that he comes across a a good ole boy despite being born with a silver spoon in his mouth and having everything handed to him his entire life including the presidency. John McCain certainly didn't come from humble beginnings and he married into big money shortly after divorcing his first wife. The republican platform has been one of elitism from their tax cuts for the wealthy to whatever big business wants big business gets attitude. It was Ronald Reagan's presidency that ushered in the era of "Greed is Good".

So the republicans should hardly be in a position to call someone else elitist. But they have and they get away with it because the democrats have been so poor at countering the republican ability to control the dialogue. When the democrats would say something the republicans would claim the democrats are using class warfare as a political tactic. True to form the democrats would then back off.

It's not about how wealthy a person is or what their background is that should matter. FDR and JFK came from very wealthy families but they cared and did something for working families and the poor. Bush on the other hand certainly came from a wealthy family but has done all he can to help the wealthy and usually at the expense of all others. But thanks to republican propaganda many people believe the opposite. Some have bought into the lies so much they are still waiting for the wealth will trickle down to them. John McCain isn't showing us he is all that different from Bush and that his presidency would indeed be merely the third Bush term.

No matter how many gaffs Joe Biden has ever made or will ever make he won't ever come close to breaking George W. Bush's record for gaffs. Biden could never come close to making as many incredibly stupid and even dangerous gaffs and remarks that Bush has made such as "Bring it On".

President Bush chided Russia on Friday for Cold War-style behavior, saying, "bullying and intimidation are not acceptable ways to conduct foreign policy in the 21st century."

Could there be a more hypocritical statement that Bush could make concerning foreign policy? Perhaps the Russians are only doing what Bush himself claimed the United States had a right to do. But then Bush thinks something is only wrong when someone else does it and what he does can never be wrong.

The Russians have even cited Bush's invasion of Iraq as justification for their own actions:

Russian lawmaker Konstantin Kosachev said, saying the timetable depends "definitely on how Georgians will continue to behave."

"If I would ask you in response to the same question how fast the American forces can leave Iraq, for example, the answer would be as soon as we have guarantees for peace and security there," Kosachev said. "The same answer would be toward this situation."

Bush and company are the last people who should be lecturing anyone about international relations and conduct. They turned the high moral ground that this Nation stood on into a pit of idiocy.

John McCain keeps saying Obama isn't experienced enough to be president. Tell us John in what way has Bush shown us he has been the least bit competent as president and commander in chief? McCain has stood by Bush again and again no matter what Bush has done wrong including 9/11, Iraq and Hurricane Katrina. If McCain considers Bush acceptable as president it makes me question McCain's own qualifications to be president, especially someone who wants to be in Iraq for 100 years and jokes about attacking Iran.

What irony it is to hear Condoleezza Rice telling the Russians to stop their illegal occupation of Georgia and to respect its borders and sovereignty. She also said the Russians could either be a partner with the rest of the world or risk being isolated.

Perhaps the Russians are just learning from the Bush playbook. Maybe what they should have done was to have their foreign minister go before the U.N. with selective "evidence" and claim they are doing it as a preemptive strike for purposes of self defense. But of course something is only wrong when someone else other than Bush and company does it.

The Bush Administration says it is sending its top gun, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, to Europe to deal with the Russian invasion of Georgia.

Considering how miserably ineffective she has been as Secretary of State I would describe her more as a cap pistol rather than anything resembling a top gun.

It's ironic to see George W. Bush lecturing Vladimir Putin about sending the wrong message and losing one's standing in the world by invading another country as they are in Georgia. The next thing you know Bush will start decrying the use of torture and unlawful detention by the Russians and the evils of Russia trying to control other countries. Even John McCain is claiming Putin is trying to recreate the old Russian Empire of a century ago.

I'm not defending what Putin and the Russians are doing in Georgia in any way, shape or form. But Bush is the last person who should be lecturing anyone about international morality. As usual with republicans something is only wrong when someone does it. But what can you expect from anyone who is so self righteous. After all they have a monopoly on being right and of course can never be wrong about anything.

John Edwards two biggest mistakes in preventing his extramarital affair from becoming a scandal were first in not in divorcing his wife Elizabeth and marrying his mistress. The second mistake was not being a republican while he did it.

It has worked for Rudy Giuliani, Newt Gingrich and John McCain. After all it's only immoral if a non-republican does it.

I'm not defending what Edwards did but hypocrisy thy name is republican.

Every time John McCain runs one of his silly unfounded ads attacking Obama and comparing him to Paris Hilton or blaming him personally for high oil prices McCain shows just how much like Bush he really is and how he will do anything to win no matter how base it may be. Rather than being Bush light McCain is proving he is no better than Bush who as we well know is capable of doing and saying anything to get his way.

Hopefully Obama and his camp have learned that no matter how silly a claim may be it should never go unanswered. A lie, no matter how ridiculous, repeated often enough becomes accepted as fact. Just ask John Kerry. And don't think the American people have wised up over the last 8 years. It's not that they no longer believe the republican lies but are just unhappy with the results. Why else would so many of them want more of the same.

In criticizing Obama's Berlin speech Some say Obama has a lot of nerve making a presidential speech as if he were a world leader.

Perhaps Obama is just filling the void left by George W. Bush's lack of ability to act presidential and mostly certainly as a world leader.

In other words someone has to do it.