DNC (OR AT LEAST MY) PUBLIC ENEMY NUMBER ONE

Tonight I watched (after a few necessary mind-numbing drinks) the speech of RNC vice-presidential nominee Sarah Palin.

After all, no one - not even, it seems, John McSame - knew exactly who this person was. The only way to know the competition is to listen to their side of the story.

Firstly, I had to endure the low-blow jabs of former (and much over-hyped and over-rated) mayor of New York Rudy Giuliani. Blow after below-the-groin blow he laid into the DNC and it's candidates. That was to be expected. He has been reduced from former RNC presidential hopeful (with 0 votes in the primaries) to RNC grunt. Where he stepped over the line was a direct attack on the city of Chicago. His statement that serving as a "community leader in the suburbs of the third largest city in the nation was somehow inconsequential" (sic) was an outright declaration of war to the residents of Chicago. I mean, the McSame campaign probably figured, "Hey! We won't get any votes there so why not level one at them...", but did they not think ahead that the 10 million residents of the Chicagoland area who might take offense at that remark have relatives in other states that they would share their ire with?

(Remember that '70s ad for Faberge shampoo? "They'll tell two friends..and THEY'LL tell two friends....and so on...and so on...").

Kudos to Giuliani though - he mentioned 9/11 only ONCE this time..........

Then came the main act herself - Sarah Palin.

What would she be like? Will she come across as a strong confident woman? Will she somehow prove the naysayers wrong and put forth strong arguments?

No, in my opinion - she came across as her true self: a narrow-minded, back-woods, back-stabbing bitch. T

HIS is the person who McSame thinks will be able to fill the role of president if something should happen to him (if he is elected as president)? This redneck hate-spewing religious zealot?

God/Yahweh/Allah/Krishna/Buddha help us.

She made reference to the fact that persons expressed concern that she should be spending more time with her children - why didn't they make the same claims to the male candidates of this campaign?

BECAUSE, STUPID, IF GOD/YAHWEH/ALLAH/KRISHNA/BUDDHA INTENDED FOR MEN TO BEAR AND NURTURE CHILDREN HE WOULD HAVE GIVEN US VAGINAS AND LACTATING BREASTS!!!!!!!

AND SOME MEN HAVE BEEN TRYING TO TAKE UP THE ROLE OF CARE-GIVERS, BUT YOU HAVE FOUGHT AGAINST GAY ADOPTION YOU STUPID HEIFER!

Sheesh!

In my opinion she also made a HUGE boo-boo: she described the media as weak-kneed lap-dogs.

Big mistake. HUGE.

If you were a well known public figure you could take that chance. When you're a little known public official from a remote state you're only setting yourself up for the ire of investigative journalists. And that is a mean crowd to pick a fight; remember Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein?

Now instead of looking forward to a riveting election campaign I am having flashbacks to the 2004 campaign - one side rooting for change and a new direction; the other side basing they're campaign on ignorance stoked on manufactured patriotism.

Suddenly I feel very afraid......

But one thing was clear: Sarah, you are no Hillary Clinton. You are Pale-in-Comparison.

And let's hope the voting public sees you for what your truly are: a Pale-imitation.