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.

Senator Barack Obama claims he wasn't calling Governor Sarah Palin a "pig" with his remarks the other day. Judging from the audience reaction, Sen. Obama was the only one in the room who didn't make the connection between his remarks and Governor Palin's joke about hockey moms being pit-bulls with lipstick. Her remark got so much attention, it is unimaginable that it just never occurred to Obama that people would immediately connect his comments with Palin's.

Then, of course, Obama went on David Letterman's show last night and made a joke calling Palin the "lipstick" being applied to "the pig" John McCain. So as usual, the Democrats want to have their cake and eat it too -- they expect to get away with slanderous remarks, to later deny the remarks were slanderous, and then make more slanderous jokes about the slanderous remarks. No doubt, anyone expressing further outrage over Obama's continued offensive jokes on Letterman's show will be met with more denials followed by more offensive wisecracks from the Democrats.

What surprises me is, nobody has mentioned that Obama's initial insulting remark about "lipstick on a pig" preceded yet another even more potentially crude and offensive bit of innuendo from Obama. Immediately after the "lipstick on a pig" slander, Obama made a remark about "old fish". Now, I'm not going to get into much detail explaining the obscene nature of the implied insult there, but I think everyone can pretty easily figure it out.

So, if Obama was indeed trying to make a not-so-subtle reference to Governor Palin with his "lipstick on a pig" remark, it seems to me that his very next comment about "old fish" has to be taken in the same light. And it is simply a disgusting way for a presidential candidate to conduct himself. Of course, disgusting behavior is nothing new for the Democrats, but this is really a new low even for them.

And even if we take Obama at his word -- a dangerous proposition, and not one I would ever recommend mind you -- then he was calling Palin nothing but "lipstick" and McCain the "pig", and further calling McCain "old" with the "old fish" insult. Right? I mean, whichever way Obama tries to spin it, either McCain was being called "old" and smelly, or Palin was being called a smelly fish. So which is it, Sen. Obama?

I'd also point out that, in Obama's version of events, him calling Palin "lipstick" still has rather overt sexist overtones. So she's just there to pretty things up, eh? Just comparing her to "makeup", right? Why not toss in a joke about shoe-shopping while you're at it, Senator? And really, we're supposed to think it's entirely appropriate for you to call Sen. McCain a "pig"? And "old"? And stinky? Really, you think that this spin on your slander makes it all acceptable?

Of course you do. Because how dare we even begin to question you, someone who lives so high above the rest of us unwashed masses down here on Earth, right? Palin's just some broad without substance and good for nothing but eye-candy, and McCain is just some old pig who smells bad, right Senator? I can't wait to hear you call Palin "sweetie" or whatever it is you go around calling women this week.

So yes, by all means, call Palin a "pig" or "lipstick" or a "fish", or call McCain a "pig" and "old" and smelly. Because one thing we'll never call YOU is "President".

That may sound like four crazy words, but history says it's not so crazy after all. The Democrats have only won a majority of the vote in California  during a presidential election four times since the FDR-Truman years, out of a total of 13 elections. Three of those majority victories were the last three presidential elections -- 1996, 2000, and 2004. The other was Johnston in 1964. Prior to Johnston's victory, Wilson's 1916 victory is the only other Democratic Party victory in California's presidential vote since the 19th Century (and even then, the Democrats managed only four other victories in the entire time since California became a state.

Even during the liberal hysteria that swept much of the country through the 1960's and 1970's while "flower-children" and leftist radicals flocked to California, our party managed to keep winning California election after election. Bill Clinton couldn't manage a majority in 1992, and had to accept a plurality.

Our party has a long history of dominating California during presidential elections over the last 50+ years. We've elected 15 of the 19 governors elected after the 19th Century, including 3 of the last 4 (meaning we dominated through the Clinton years and only gave it up briefly to Ray Davis before he was recalled by voters). Democrats rely on winning a thin strip of voters straight down the coastline, and we take the rest.

More than a quarter of California's population is foreign-born. Over 35% of the population is Latino or Hispanic. African-Americans make up only about 7% of the population. Women make up half of the population. California also has a large percentage of gay residents. In these numbers are some of the keys to recent Democratic Party success in California, but also the keys to our party's retaking of the state.

The immigration issue was such a force in the 2006 mid-term elections that the winning Democratic Party margin can largely be found in the overwhelming rise in support for the Democrats within the Hispanic voting population. Our party tried desperately to use this issue, but it backfired and could be the single issue that really cost us our majority in Congress, even more than the war issue. John McCain can remove this problem our party has developed with Hispanic voters, especially if Mike Huckabee campaigns for him in California among the Hispanic communities. Sarah Palin also can reach out to these voters as a mother and a churchgoer. Palin can also help with female voters in the state, if she focuses on family issues and particularly the role of women in the workplace and in taking more leadership roles in government. Cutting into the Democratic margins among female and Hispanic voters will go a long way toward eroding the Democratic majority in the state. If our party can successfully challenge the Democrats in California this election, we can not only retain the White House, but also bring California back into the GOP fold.

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.]