After weeks of bashing Republican Vice Presidential nominee Gov. Sarah Palin over the so-called "Bridge to Nowhere", it turns out both Obama and Biden voted AGAINST redirecting the project's funding, and both voted FOR the final legislation funding the bridge.

An added bit of hypocrisy can be found if you look closely -- another issue the Democrats have tried to use as an attack on the Bush administration is the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. Yet when given the chance, neither Obama nor Biden voted to send the "Bridge to Nowhere" funding to help the rebuilding of New Orleans.

But wait, it gets even better!  Biden, who continues to blow hot air about the bridge in Alaska, is responsible for $342 million in earmarks for Delaware, for things like an opera house and a water park. And the icing on the cake is -- can you guess? -- a bridge connecting two beachfront towns. The kicker? They already HAVE a bridge. A bridge that the head of the Rehoboth Beach-Dewey Beach Chamber of Commerce says is just fine. And really, the bridge is just a shortcut anyway, since an extra 30 minutes is all it takes to get from one town to the other without using the bridge.

We've got bridges in dire need of repair in this nation, as recent tragedies have clearly demonstrated. Yet here comes Biden, deciding that HIS bridge gets priority despite the fact there's already a bridge that isn't in need of any immediate repairs.

Obama and Biden refused to redirect the "Bridge to Nowhere" funds when they had the chance, they refused to send the money to New Orleans instead, they voted to build the bride, and Biden himself has his own little bridge back home that is a complete waste of taxpayer money and is just one part of hundreds of millions of dollars in pork Biden sends to his state.

And yet these hypocrites still stand up in front of the American people and sling mud at Gov. Palin, still use their applause lines about the bridge in Alaska, and still spout off in disingenuous anger about "pork" and insist they will bring change to Washington. But Republican Presidential Candidate Sen. John McCain is the only one who has consistently refused to seek any pork projects for his home state of Arizona.

Bottom line: the Obama-Biden campaign will lie about anything and everything to get elected.

So the Democrats think it's fine and dandy to mock Alaska. More moose than people, a dozen people and some caribou, and other such snide insults have been tossed around by liberals and the MSM since Sen. McCain announced Sarah Palin as his Vice Presidential running mate.

Apparently the Democrats think it's acceptable to spit on states with smaller populations. Well, unless it's New Hampshire -- do you think the Democrats would dare mock residents of that state as unimportant and their leaders as unqualified? How about Montana? How about Wyoming, which actually has a smaller population than Alaska by the way? Why don't the Democrats just come out and say it: the only people who really "count" to liberals are those living in California, New York, and a handful of other left-leaning states. If you live in any states in-between, well forget about it, you aren't important and your leaders are worthless.

Palin is the only candidate on either ticket who actually has executive experience. She also has "legislative" experience from city council work. She also has business experience, what some of us who aren't named "Biden" call WORKING for a living. And she has family experience. Someone needs to inform the Democrats and the MSM that despite their smug opinions, the life experiences of people NOT named "Obama" happen to matter, too.

I seem to recall a lot of hoopla made about the fact that Obama's life OUTSIDE of the United States, his time pontificating about his place in the world while he snorted cocaine, and his time as a father are all supposedly very important and this life experience (especially, in typical liberal fashion, the time spent in other countries) is supposedly an actual qualification to be president. Yet being a working woman, a working mother, fighting for education and ethics reform in her community, and running an entire state aren't qualifications. Obama can spend four years doing nothing in Congress, on the heels of his time spent avoiding voting on anything in Illinois, and that (combined with his time as a child living in places not called "The United States") make him the best choice to lead our nation and command our armed forces. Oh, I forgot, he knows how much arugula costs... I guess that proves his superiority to all those knuckle-dragging normal people who live in Alaska with the moose, right?

And besides the actually very positive comparisons we can draw between Palin and Obama, how about a VP-to-VP comparison? If the Democrats want to talk about experience and qualifications, I'd like to point out that while it's indeed true that Biden has spent more than half his life sitting in chairs during committee meetings talking endlessly about his liberal ideas for foreign policy, that's not actually "experience". My uncle does that, too, with the minor difference that he doesn't bore us to death. While Biden's been holding his little meetings to explain in extremely long detail what he'd do if he were in charge (all of it wrong, of course) and spending months running for president (where he called Obama too inexperienced to be president but said he'd be "honored" to be McCain's VP), Governor Palin was running a state. Biden talks, Palin works. It's that simple.

So every time the liberals and the MSM spew some new insult about Alaska and why Palin running a state isn't experience, we need to remind them -- LOUDLY, so they can hear us over Biden talking about himself -- that a few years running a state full of working people counts for more than doing nothing in Congress for a few years more. Both Palin and Obama have spent less time as elected officials than their running mates. The difference is that the time Palin spent counts for something, and that the narrative of HER life was spent here in America and she's smart enough to be PROUD of that fact.

[Side Note: Can Republican crowds PLEASE stop booing and jeering, or otherwise making extremely unhelpful negative displays, when Palin refers to Hillary Clinton and her supporters? If you are endlessly committed to working against our party winning over women voters, reaching out to former Clinton supporters, and generally recognizing the importance of the impact of Clinton's campaign on women in politics and presidential elections -- then sure, by all means, continue to be unhelpful and obtuse and utterly kill important lines in Palin or McCain's speeches. Boo your hearts out, create embarrassing moments on television at our party's public events. But if, just by chance, you are showing up at the events because you perhaps SUPPORT conservative issues and actually maybe LIKE Palin, maybe -- just MAYBE -- consider not booing when she's trying to help our party's outreach strategies, okay? Yeah, just think it through, people. Thanks.]