1. Republicans, and some Democrats, were tired of carrying George Bush’s water. In the last eight years, George Bush has asked Congress for a lot of money. He’s asked them to fund the war. He’s asked them to pass the Medicare Prescription Drug Bill, in the middle of the night no less, when nobody was watching. They did. When he asked for Social Security reform many House Republicans put their foot down. They did that again today.

The Bush Administration did a terrible job selling this bill and members of the House were not willing to be the ones on the front lines doing his work yet again, no matter how crucial the impact of not passing it.

2. The importance of protecting their congressional tails. Constituents across the country are furious. They don’t care who started this mess, they just don’t want to have to pay for it.

This close to an election many members weren’t willing to put their political careers at risk to appease the Administration and Paulson, no matter how much arm twisting, and how many parks and statues they were promised for their districts.

3. At last, House Republicans did not go against their DNA. They bucked massive government intervention and the nationalization of our financial markets. Spending like drunken sailors over last few years, many put their foot down this time around as if to say no more. Voting for a 700 billion dollar bailout bill was inherently against the genetic code of many Republicans. Unlike the Medicare Bill, this time they knew America was watching.

To many political insiders it is apparent that the McCain campaign has mismanaged Sarah Palin.

The first female governor of Alaska broke onto the political scene a confident, competent contender. She was a take-no-prisoners, fearless female who cut through the bull to do what's right, no matter which corrupt politician is in her way. The evolution over the past few weeks from what the world originally witnessed until now has been staggering and paints a picture of a woman who seems quite the contrary.

With each passing day Palin appears increasingly mishandled and marginalized, two crucial characterizations that are not her fault. There is something about her disposition that signals she isn't allowed to be who she really is, or who she wants to be. Any good press staffer knows that in order to maximize the mojo of your candidate you must accentuate their assets, not hide them. And anyone with a functioning brain knows that when you've got a good thing, you use it.

I’d like to point out that this problem was observed over a month ago on my website, www.andreatantaros.com, with a column that urged the McCain campaign to let Palin be Palin, long before any other outlet addressed the issue. Since then we’ve seen the campaign relegate her into a defensive bunker, and when she emerges, she seems unsure, and uncomfortable with the message she's been fed. Some would argue the messenger is flawed. Or perhaps the message is broken, boring and regurgitated, three things that Sarah Palin is not. My money's on the latter.

Palin was comfortable with the media until she met the McCainiacs, who have all but declared a jihad on the mainstream media. After McCain announced she was his pick for Vice President, his camp was inundated with requests from media outlets, as expected. These inquiries were rebuffed and ignored. The McCain camp has even ignored inquries from a prominent women’s magazine and its millions of curious and valuable readers.

Many of the former Bush aides that now surround Governor Palin suffer from extreme paranoia. They behold an obvious insecurity that manifests itself in stubbornness and incessant bullying. Most of all they approach tough situations from a position of weakness rather than strength. Rumors swirled that many of these same staffers were worried she would get asked about abortion thus they declined every interview offer. Sarah Palin, in my opinion, is someone who is so morally grounded in her positions she doesn't shy away from tough questions. Something many beltway baffoons should learn a lesson from.

Another lesson: Sarah Palin is a force to be reckoned with. She is the antithesis to the elitism that often plagues politics. She is someone who has common sense and a cause. She deserves to speak her mind and engage with the people she hopes to represent. And she deserves a team around her that will capitalize on her strengths, not try to run from them. Let her shine McCain camp, before it's too late.

McCain won tonight's first debate. He appeared strong, seasoned, and resolute. But he was supposed to win. This was his strong suit. Obama didn't press McCain as hard as he could have. Let me make one thing clear: Obama did not bomb it. Some might say by holding his own it's a win for Obama, McCain simply seemed much more solid. This solidity comes from years of experience because when you have been through as much as Senator McCain has, adversity never leaves one where it finds them.

The most apparent difference between the two: how stylistically different both candidates are. After tonight this couldn't be more evident.

McCain's strengths:

- Tough times call for tough leaders and McCain was relentless. He did not cede one inch of ground to Obama.

-McCain went negative without seeming offensive. During a handful of times Obama seemed rattled. Specifically when it came to negotiating with rogue nations without pre-conditions and the Russian - Georgian conflict.

McCain's weaknesses:

-Where's the eye contact, John. I'm no body language expert but you seemed snobby.

Obama's strengths:

-Senator Obama showed a command of the issues, even though he's grossly off base with his solutions. Someone's been studying.

-His ability to persuade through emotion. Obama's opening statement and language during the beginning of the debate was much more relatable to the common voter.

-Obama came across very, very likeable. I don't care what anyone says. He was polite--almost too polite-and exponentially more bi-partisan, though his record indicates otherwise.

Obama's weakness:

-Obama missed significant opportunities to hammer McCain, and Republicans. Big mistake.

This makes the next two debates even more interesting, and the stakes even higher for both.

Webster's has two (plus) definitions for the word suspension:

1. To cause to stop temporarily;

2. To keep from falling or sinking by some invisible support.

John McCain's surprising move to suspend his campaign and postpone the first Presidential debate is hoping to invoke the meaning of the first. Sadly, it appears glaringly more like the second, or what I'd call a recipe for trouble: one part reality, one part gimmick with a dash of desperation.

The reality: the bailout has gone over like a lead balloon in Congress, and across America. The bill has faced stiff opposition from both sides of the aisle giving Bush and his Administration yet another massive bruise. (Part of that was because it wasn't sold properly, but that's a whole other column.)

Often the middle man working to find common ground and consensus on Capitol Hill, the McCain campaign sought to revive their candidate's infamous un-cola, un-Bush persona and paint him as a noble, non-partisan leader on the financial meltdown.

The gimmick: Running from Bush has always been a smart, and necessary component for McCain, until now. In his defense, as a Republican, McCain will take heat if Bush's bailout fails. This is another reason he wants to return to Washington. But suspending the campaign seems erratic and dramatic. And though, in past, the modus operandi of putting politics aside in a crisis has proved a fruitful media strategy, it reeks of politics this time around. What did the McCain campaign expect 40 days away from a Presidential election?

The desperation: some allege that another goal of this decision was to distract and divert attention. McCain has been slipping in the polls because of our emerging economic woes and has increasingly been pushed on defense. His camp needed an opportunity to create a diversion and rebrand McCain as a hero, but this is hardly what I would call changing the subject. While the McCain campaign answers process questions about the suspension, and has to defend why he has time to hang out with Bill Clinton at his Global Initiative but not debate Obama, his opponent implies skilled lawmakers should be able to multi-task and stresses the need for a debate now more than ever, a crafty counterpunch.

A contrast between the two is beginning to come to fruition. Last week McCain boldly called for the SEC Chairman's head. Never one to take a tough stand on anything, Obama chose to deliberate at a glacial pace and use a wait and see approach. Republicans tried to paint Obama as weak and unwilling to be decisive but as days passed and the proposed solutions tanked in popularity, Obama didn't seem cowardly, but practical. If our economic crisis is the unruly child then Obama has made it his mission to appear as the pragmatic, patient mother while McCain seems like the hotheaded, impulsive father. While Obama refused to rush to judgment, McCain leapt to impose a time out, a punishment and a "wait until I get home" approach. McCain's emotion may resonate with voters but from a communications standpoint this suspension move is a challenging one to message.

In an effort to run from Bush and set a trap for Obama, did McCain stumble into the netting himself? Time will tell. All Barack Obama had to do this Friday in the first debate was convince Americans he is ready to be President. Because of the McCain camp's potential misstep, he gets to seize that opportunity much sooner.

I typically tune into awards shows for one reason: to see what stars are wearing. But last night I tuned into the 60th annual Emmy awards to check out the baubles, and the bias. I knew the celebrity love affair with Senator Obama and the ridicule of right would be on display. You see, as we get closer to Election Day, liberals are becoming increasingly unhinged and outspoken. They seek to embarrass and destroy anyone who has or is currently posing as a threat to Obama. Hollywood is no different. At awards shows this is how stars gain favor with their peers. Think of college hazing in better outfits.

During the show Laura Linney thanked "community organizers" in her acceptance speech, Steven Colbert compared McCain to a prune, and co-host Howie Mendel took a swipe at Sarah Palin referring to the infamous Bridge to Nowhere as hers. (Howie: Palin was offered federal funds to build the bridge when she was governor. She said no deal). During the "In Memoriam" portion of the program, the academy included an old clip of the late Tim Russert asking former Obama opponent Hillary Clinton if she had intentions to run for President, to which she responded "no" as if to subliminally say: "See America, she's a liar. We nominated the right one."

There is no question celebrities can help candidates when it comes to money. They are responsible for a colossal infusion of cash into Senator Obama's campaign, and just like any other special interest Obama will be beholden to them if he wins.

Having a celebrity endorsement can also raise a candidate's profile and garner headlines, mostly in negative ways. Just this past week Obama supporter and newly sober Lindsay Lohan took a swipe at the left's favorite punching bag, Palin. (Frankly, I liked Lohan better when she was club hopping and crashing her car into trees. At least we didn't have to listen to her talk).

What stars fail to realize is that most Americans do not identify with them. They're not "just like us" as magazines allege. In fact, quite the contrary. Most voters are struggling to pay for groceries let alone $28,500 for dinner at Barbara Streisand's house. Though Obama needs to raise campaign cash because of his decision to forgo public financing, the reports of him hobnobbing at Bab's mansion when the country was in the middle of a financial meltdown weren't exactly the best narrative for him.

Obama's strength is his ability to motivate by emotion, not reason. When stars stump for him it runs in direct contrast to his message of helping the little people and makes him a target. McCain's camp seized on his celebrity ties this summer with ad featuring Barack, Brittney Spears and Paris Hilton. To be fair I think a candidate for President invoking Paris Hilton is pathetic. It's the typical gimmick we often see out of DC creatures and though some argue it worked, I still think it made McCain look ridiculous. Celebrities have that effect.

Going forward the smartest thing the glitterati can do is keep quiet. George Clooney is staying silent about his presidential pick this time around because he believes Tinsletown's embrace of John Kerry cost him the election. He might be onto something.

We pay to hear celebs sing, watch them act, and check out their clothing. Most of us do not care to hear their political ideology. For them to assume we will somehow listen to their musings the way we listen to their movie monologues is laughable. Hollywood, if you truly want to help Mr. Obama you'll stick to your script.

Do you remember the Panic of 1837? I sure don’t, but historians tell us it happened after a period of massive real estate speculation and poor financial regulation by the federal government. According to author John Steele Gordon:

"highly illiquid borrowers defaulted loans, a wave of bank failure swept the West and began to roll eastward. Bankruptcies in other sectors of the economy followed as liquidity vanished… Wall Street plunged… The American economy began to slide into deep depression."

Sound familiar? If so, it could help us to put things in perspective. As in 1837, we are dealing with an economy that engaged in massive real estate speculation. This speculation was followed by a liquidity crisis, bank failures, and stock market declines.

Nonetheless, these similarities do not necessarily mean that we are about to plunge into the Great Depression of ‘08, for there are a multitude of differences between today and yesteryear.

First, the depression following the Panic of 1837 was bad, perhaps worse than what we will see in the coming days, months and years. It brought the wheels of commerce to a screeching, hair-raising, break into a cold sweat, and buckle your seat belts stop. According to Gordon, 90% of our nation’s factories closed and federal revenues were cut in half. In contrast, our economy -- however bruised it may or may not be -- has yet to flat-line.

Second, there was no central bank in 1837 to alleviate the worst effects of the panic, it having been killed by one of the great opponents of centralized banking: President Andrew Jackson. Last, we are living in a much different technologically advanced post-industrial economy than in 1837.

I do not want to suggest an endorsement of the recent or past actions of our federal government; only in the coming years, will we truly understand the efficacy of the bailouts, non-bailouts, stimulus packages, interest rate adjustments, and novel credit facilities.

I also do not want to suggest that family, individual and governmental pocket books will not be impaired for some time to come. Or even suggest that a more dramatic correction might not occur.

I simply want everyone to realize that this nation has been through some pretty bad if not worse financial situations, and survived. In spite of years like 1837, wealth accumulated, and securities appreciated. Why? I would like to credit the resiliency of American economy coupled with indefatigable American optimism.

Most forget the Panic of 1837. I know I forgot about it. So forgotten is it, that Andrew Jackson, who probably fueled the crash with his visceral opposition to the Bank of the United States, now appears on the face of a paper note issued by the very sort of central bank that he opposed. A historical irony we should enjoy every time we whip out a 20 dollar bill.

So too will people in time forget the Summer of 2008 and those neglected historical ironies that will fill our future.

Just when you thought the behavior of the media couldn't get more shameful and offensive, the press has stooped to a new low, even for them. It seems Governor Sarah Palin's email was hacked into and her information was posted on notorious gossip website, Gawker.

Guess what they found?! (Besides an opening for a lawsuit.)

-Her husband's legitimate email! Imagine that!

-Correspondence from a known associate of Palin's from Wasilla who "might" have the governor's personal email. Groundbreaking! (Just think, a friend of Palin's might have her personal email). Someone call Dick Wolf. This has Law and Order written all over it.

-The most stunning: pictures of her children! Gasp!

Gawker followed these jaw dropping revelations with an ironic, and moronic, headline: "Palin Emails Reveal Press Hate." Gee, I wonder why.

The media has called Sarah Palin names, ridiculed her children, crucified her for her conservative beliefs and questioned her personal choices, ability to govern and adeptness at mothering. Now they've broken the law and invaded her personal privacy. Spiro Agnew wasn't even treated this badly.

What do Democrats have to say about this? Not a peep. But they'll raise hell about protecting the privacy of suspected terrorists when an illegal wiretapping bill hits the Senate floor. If Obama was smart he'd condemn this behavior. It'd be advantageous for Democrats to do the same thing. But they haven't. And they won't.

Anyone who tries to debunk the fact that Palin isn't under attack or defend the media's behavior is delusional or just plain lying. The more the press tries to disgrace her, the more they affirm the suspicion that she is deeply threatening to anyone favoring Barack Obama. It's vile, it's out of hand, and it must stop.

As we watch balance sheets fall to pieces on Wall Street, now is probably a good time to examine the fiscal agenda of the man who promises change: Barack Obama. The next President will deal with some difficult fiscal issues, and Obama wants us to believe that he is somehow different than your typical politician, but he is not.

Barack Obama has made some big promises over the past year, but none is more astonishing than his pledge to cut taxes, balance budgets and increase government spending. While he is surely capable of fulfilling any of one of his fiscal pledges, Obama cannot do all three at the same time. This is probably why Obama has started breaking these promises before Election Day and will continue to break these promises should he find himself elected.

One the more underreported stories this cycle is the effect Obama’s tax plan will have on the deficit. His tax plan will raise taxes on the wealthiest 5% of families. He also proposes a variety of new tax credits and enhancements. The estimated cost according to the Tax Policy Center is $2.9 trillion over 10 years.

Unfortunately, the Obama plan will widen the projected deficit. According to the Tax Policy Center (TPC), Obama's tax plan “would substantially increase the deficit compared with current law and would add nearly $3.3 trillion to the national debt over ten years”

Obama’s deficit presents a big problem, because it runs contrary to his promise to balance the budget. Obama’s website writes that he supports pay-go budgeting, which to most Democrats, means that he must offset the costs of his tax plan with new revenue (e.g. taxes), or additional spending cuts. In this case, Obama’s tax plan, would require $2.9 trillion tax increase, or a $2.9 trillion cut in spending.

Given that Obama has already laid out his tax plan, and that it does not appear to include an additional $2.9 trillion tax increase, he must be planning to cut spending. He is not.

Obama wants to increase spending, by at least a trillion dollars over ten years. Because Obama has been speaking guilefully for so long, estimates vary widely on the exact costs of his spending. A Republican analysis puts his total spending at $1.4 trillion over five years (that’s roughly $2.8 trillion over ten). Two reasonable analyses, one by the TPC and another by the National Taxpayer's Union Foundation (NTUF) put his new spending estimates at between $1.6 trillion and $3.4 trillion over 10 years respectively. The TPC analysis is significant because it appears to be limited to the costs of Obama’s health care plan. Even the liberal Paul Krugman doubts that the Obama tax plan will deliver enough revenue to pay for universal health.

Depending on the math you choose to believe, Obama will need to cough up at least $4.5 trillion and as much as $6.3 trillion to pay for the costs of his spending and tax cuts.

Given that Obama has yet to identify $4 -6 trillion in unnecessary government spending, he will be forced by standard Democratic pay-go rules to break his promise to provide tax cuts for 95% of families. According to one Republican analysis, Obama will need to raise taxes 61% on those earning over $62,000 if he expects to balance the budget while keeping his promise to increase spending.

Clearly, Obama cannot keep his fiscal promises because he cannot cut taxes, increase spending and balance the budget. To cut taxes, he will have to abandon either his plans to increase spending and/or balance the budget. To provide universal health care, he will need to break his promise to provide middle class tax cuts and/or balance the budget. To balance the budget, he will probably need to abandon his tax plan and/or his promise for universal health.

Obviously confronted with the illogic of his campaign rhetoric, Obama is now retreating from his promise to balance the budget. He has adopted a clever accounting trick that eliminates the costs of his tax cuts, even though the TPC says that these cuts will cost trillions, increase the deficit and enlarge our national debt. So much for pay-go budgeting.

My guess is that Obama will have no option but to continue breaking his fiscal pledges. Working with what should be Democratic Congress, Obama will probably let the Bush tax cuts expire, without much modification except for the very lowest brackets. He will also permit deficit spending, which could hit record highs in light of recent government bailouts. This environment will force Obama to abandon his health care schemes faster than Bill Clinton did in the 1990’s.

With what are we voters left? Not change, just a politician making promises that that he knows he cannot possibly keep without taking our current fiscal difficulties and making them worse. Either way, by act of commission or omission, Obama will probably leave our national balance sheet in worse shape than some financial firms. That is of course, if he succeeds in getting elected.

Christopher Coffey is a Republican consultant, veteran of numerous political campaigns and contributor to AndreaTantaros.com.

Watch Bob Beckel and I go for round two Wednesday at 10:30am on Fox. You can also catch me on CNN's American Morning at 6:15am, MSNBC at noon and Larry King Live, all on Wednesday.

There is a growing chorus beginning to crescendo among women. Married females with kids feel compelled to tell me they aren't sold on Palin. Not because she's a conservative, not because she hasn't been in office for the last two decades, but because she is a mother a five who is juggling some personal hurdles and running for the job of Vice President. (For the record these are Republicans). One woman said she thought having a teen daughter who was pregnant and a special needs newborn were "two-parent issues" no matter how fabulous the "First Dude" is rumored to be.

At first I was taken aback. These women used to be hard charging career gals. Some still are. Could it be Sarah Palin makes these women feel inferior? Is the task of rearing one child, let alone five, so daunting that mothers can't fathom how Palin could manage motherhood and be second in command of the free world? Why are mothers doubting her ability to do it all?

Geraldine Ferraro touched upon this same sentiment to Time magazine recently when her interviewer recalled focus group data from 1984 that showed many stay at home mothers found her candidacy for Vice President particularly threatening. "They thought it would somehow hurt them," Ferraro said. "That if I could do all these things--be a supermom or whatever--how would it look for them? If all they were doing was taking care of their children at home."

Come again? Aren't trailblazers like Ferraro and Palin supposed to inspire, not intimidate? I believe they are.

Palin has displayed a superhuman ability to multitask through her rise to Governor of Alaska. Her reputation paints her as someone who is able to take out tough competitors at work while taking out tough stains at home. Men run for office all the time, why is it any different? As Vice President she'll be a tremendous advocate for her son, and for special needs children everywhere. And she will surely have help. Her other children alone will be a huge resource. Hired staff can assist with the mundane aspects of life: laundry, cleaning, cooking. Maybe women are just jealous she won't have to do the dishes anymore?

Before the election is over Palin must connect with her skeptics by letting them know that she is human. That motherhood, marriage and campaigns are tough, but they aren't mutually exclusive. That she's so lucky to have her husband Todd, and like everyone else, gets tired at the end of the day. These are the things we aren't hearing from her. Instead we're relying on the perception that she is the modern day bionic woman, making many moms across the country feel like failures when they can't balance life's challenges as adeptly as she can.

To cement my hypothesis I called my own personal superhero: my mother. She raised four kids, the youngest being a special needs child, and helped run a number of family businesses along side my father. Not exactly the White House, but certainly a chaotic house at times.

"We're not all made the same," my mom noted humbly. "Some women have boundless energy and can handle a great deal. I didn't have her kind of energy. I had help. And she will, too. We might not know how she does it all but one thing's for sure, she is an exceptional woman."

Right as always, mom. An exceptional woman she is, indeed.

For a candidate who has made the concept of change the hallmark of his entire campaign for President of the United States, Barack Obama has mobilized an echo chamber that is reflective of anything but. Policy positions aside, this crucial juncture calls for surrogates who will highlight and bolster the reform message, not negate it.

Webster's defines a surrogate as a substitute for oneself. If that's accurate, why is the “agent of change” turning to the same stable of democratic spinners?

When it was time to pick a Vice President, a compliment to one’s skill set, a partner and a mouth piece, the pick was...Joe Biden?  Not only is Biden the furthest thing from change, he is also one word away from the political equivalent of a Janet Jackson wardrobe malfunction. Politicians are prone to word, not wardrobe, malfunctions. And Biden is a repeat offender.  Just this week, rather than laud Hillary for her achievement, he admitted Obama should have picked Senator Clinton instead. I couldn't agree with you more, Joe. And after that sentiment we all see why you're right on this one. Can't wait for the debates.

When the wheels started to come off Barack's bus thanks to Sarah Palin's epic rise with American females he ran to...Hillary Clinton? Let's get one thing straight. Biden was right. But a symbol of change she is not. Obama dispatched her anyway. She wasn't good enough for the ticket but she was good enough for a cat fight? Putting a political institution like Hillary, as popular as she may be, to go a few rounds with a peripheral prize fighter like Palin only contrasted the change verses experience argument to Obama's detriment. To her credit, Hillary was much too smart to take the bait.

Next in the change conga line? None other than Bill Clinton. You know it's bad when the Obamas are dispatching Bubba. Unpredictable, often off message and a relic of our country's political past, Clinton adds no refreshing shift in direction and runs in direct contrast to Obama’s alleged “different kind of politics.” Bill is damaged goods from a primary season of Days of Our Lives drama and hits rewind as a reminder of the scandal plagued 1990’s.

When it comes to really profound political friends and ambassadors, we can’t forget the epicenter of change and diversity: Hollywood. The sprinkles on the icing have been the immergence of Democratic deities like Matt Damon who recently compared Sarah Plain to a bad Disney movie.  If Palin equals Disney then Obama's film genre is Ben Affleck: grossly overhyped, hard to follow, anemic on substance, and poised for a disappointing ending.

McCain, on the other hand, has looked mostly outside of the beltway for his motley messengers: Huckabee, Romney, Rudy, and best of all, Sarah Palin.

Obama interpreted the Webster’s meaning precisely. If surrogates are a substitute for oneself, his team is a clear indicator we're not poised for change you can believe in, but more of the same we should run from.  

"Make no mistake about this, Hillary Clinton is as qualified or more qualified than I am to be vice president of the United States of America. Let’s get that straight...She is qualified to be president of the United States of America, she’s easily qualified to be vice president of the United States of America, and quite frankly, it might have been a better pick than me.  - Senator Joe Biden, and Barack Obama's Vice Presidential running mate.

Amen, Senator. Perhaps you should have told Obama that when he asked you.

 

Dear Democrats,

You still don't get it. Election Day is weeks away and you appear as discombobulated as Republicans did a few short months ago. Your anger at the GOP, at Bush, at anyone who is unlike you in mindset and values is more than palpable, it's nauseating, even for the centrists in your party. I know you are ticked at our current President (I can appreciate that sentiment on some fronts) but you are doing major damage to your cause. Your nominee looks weak, his running mate is worthy of a missing person’s report, and your party looks rattled. It is rare that I give you advice, but I can't help myself.

Tighten up and pick a message. I know McCain effectively yanked the change mantra out of your hands when he selected Governor Sarah Palin as his running mate and your nominee settled on establishment fixture Joe Biden, but you've got to get over it. There are other ways to go after Republicans. You tried the John McBush routine. It bombed. There is no plausible way anyone would believe McCain is Bush when conservatives still bristle at the mere mention of his name and resisted warming up to him until two weeks ago. (Remember immigration reform, campaign finance, stem cell research, etc.? Many conservatives do.) You can broaden that theme. (Pssst! We've been running the White House for the last eight years.) Run against our brand.

Rein in the lefties. It's time you told the progressives to stop being so awful. Especially to Sarah Palin. It's like they have nothing else to do but call people names and insult their choices. Where's the tolerance you preach? I'm wondering, is this some kind of bizarre revenge on the popular girl who rejected them in junior high manifesting itself? How low do Obama's poll numbers need to drop before they realize that, just like junior high, taunting the "it" girl to get a reaction doesn't work. They are hurting the man you want to elect and reversing all of his efforts up until this point. Do Senator Obama a favor: tell them to shut down their laptops and head to anger management for the next two months.

Get off defense. In politics, when you're explaining, you're losing. The only thing we've heard out of the Obama camp since Denver are excuses on why your candidate didn't get a bigger bounce after your convention, why the polls are wrong, and why Barack has more experience than Sarah Palin. Senator Obama: you should not be comparing yourself (the top of the ticket) to Palin (the bottom of the Republican ticket). It looks bad. Plus that's my job.

Democrats, you still have time to turn it around, and not with those veiled jabs at McCain's age and stability. By executing real discipline. By intelligently going on offensive. And by not letting us distract you so damn much.

This is what you like to call the fierce urgency of now. Simply put: check yourself before you wreck yourself. If your motto is change you can believe in, right now is the time for some change--believe it.

This just in: John McCain's 6 percentage-point bounce in voter support spanning the Republican National Convention is largely explained by political independents shifting to him in fairly big numbers, from 40% pre-convention to 52% post-convention in Gallup Poll Daily tracking. Up until that point both candidates had been in a dead heat, hovering at percentages in the high 40's.

Why is this important? Because this group, arguably, is how the election will be won. This demographic is particularly important for John McCain because self-identified Democrats now outnumber Republicans.

So what gives? One theory for the John McCain surge in likely voters is that Obama still hasn't closed the deal with Hillary supporters. White women have moved from 50-42 percent in Obama’s favor before the conventions to 53-41 percent for McCain now, a 20-point shift that’s one of the single biggest post-convention changes in voter preferences. Couple that with the shift in Independents, enthusiasm in the conservative base thanks to Palin the pit bull and the Mac boasts an overall lead with likely voters.

These numbers spell trouble for the Obama campaign. Voters were uneasy about handing the Senator the keys to the White House before McCain - Palin but had no compelling reason to let the Republicans keep them. It appears they are changing their minds.

I'll be on Fox with Bob Beckel at 10:30am ET like I am every Monday as well as Hannity and Colmes Monday night 9/8, and Fox and Friends at 8:15am, Wednesday 9/10.

For a woman who used to encourage millions of females to "find their spirt" Oprah Winfrey has certainly lost hers. The queen of daytime gab fests refuses to have Republican vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin as a guest on her program--at least not before Election Day. We all know she's backing Barack Obama but why wouldn't she interview the first female Republican ever to be nominated as Vice President? Isn't this the same woman who lauds women who do it all? "A career, babies, a husband, adversity...you go girl!" One doesn't need to be Dr. Phil to diagnose O's prideful, blatant favoritism. The icon used to give away cars. Now she gives away her obvious bias.

Someone as smart as Oprah should understand that by snubbing Palin she risks turning off even more of her viewers. Many flipped the channel when she didn't support Hillary, but now this? (I'd bet more of Oprah's viewers likely identify with Palin than they do Winfrey). She could, in fact, use this opportunity to even better her brand (though she probably doesn't think she needs it). She could invite Palin on the show to showcase that even though she's backing Barack she wants to celebrate the achievements of women in America. The dialogue would go something like this:

Oprah: "You know, Governor, it's no secret I'm supporting Barack Obama."

Palin: "I can appreciate your loyalty. I am fiercely loyal, too. Remember the whole pit bull - lipstick thing?"

Oprah: "But I must say, to be 44, a former point guard and beauty queen, a Governor, a reformer with five children, AND a special needs child and now the first Republican woman to be nominated Vice President. You have electrified women across the country. It's monumental and as I woman I feel so proud. (Oprah raises her palm) High five girlfriend."

Palin: (high fives O back)

Cue Chaka Khan's "I'm Every Woman." The audience goes berserk. Oprah's ratings skyrocket as every housewife with big hair, a son in hockey and a teenage daughter watches at home with misty eyes and a spirt that Palin has helped them find.

Instead Oprah's decided to ignore the interests of her viewers for her own personal wants. A bad business decision if you ask me.

If McCain pulls it off and Palin becomes Vice President she should skip the Oprah Winfrey Show and give an exclusive to Ellen instead. It'll be there that they can blast "I'm Every Woman." She'll certainly have something to dance about.

If Sarah Palin isn’t it, what kind of woman is the right (more like left) kind of woman for female Democrat voters? Democrat women across the country are claiming Palin’s pick is an insult. They will not have a fast one pulled on them. This is NO Hillary Clinton clothed in better pant suits. Well on that point, they’re right. Sarah Palin is a far, refreshing cry from Hillary Clinton.

But even if liberal women are not going to vote for Palin, their arguments against her ring phony and hypocritical. “Sarah Palin can’t run the Eisenhower Building and her own family at the same time.” “Sarah Palin has a bachelor’s from the University of Idaho; Barrack Obama was president of the Harvard Law Review.” “Sarah Palin doesn’t support special needs children.” “She was the mayor of a town with less than 7,000 residents.” Maureen Dowd mockingly speculates that if Palin one day takes over as POTUS and faces an international challenge, she’ll have to put “away her breast pump” while facing down the threat, pointing her rifle, kissing her husband and changing her baby’s diaper all at once. Wait, isn’t that the heroine of every feminist’s wildest dream?

How is it that the very women who have fought for women’s rights and equality and opportunity are so opposed to a woman who lives and breathes their talking points?

They challenge her level of education and her judgment as a mother, but let’s be honest – the real reason they’re attacking her is due to their narrow-minded belief that there’s only one kind of woman who can ascend to the White House. There’s only one kind of woman who can stand up for other women. There is only one kind of woman who can fight the boys’ club in Washington and shatter the glass ceiling. If it can’t be Hillary or a liberal clone, it shouldn’t be anyone else.

Unfortunately, this kind of intra-gender discrimination will ultimately lead to a fractured female front and put the brakes on the remarkable progress women’s rights advocates have achieved.

The criticism from one organization in particular—NOW—is perhaps the most disturbing. NOW President Kim Gandy has said Palin is “not the right woman.” Odd coming from the same person who once said, “There is no job that women should be excluded from because of their gender. If you can do the job, you should have an opportunity to get the job. If you can't, you shouldn't be there, male or female.” Note that Gandy doesn’t list reasons why Palin is not qualified for the VP slot, only that she is “not the right woman.”

NOW’s mission statement claims government and the mainstream media, among others, engage in “pitting us against each other” as an “essential mechanism for maintaining the status quo.” For an organization whose aim is to unify women who are being pitted against each other, why is NOW leading the effort to pit women against one woman who is poised to make historical strides for her gender?

The truth is, no other candidate for the White House in U.S. history has so effortlessly represented the many dimensions, faces, hats, and attributes of the American woman. And it's not just women of the West or female athletes or beauty pageant contestants. It's women of all walks of life, levels of education, races, marriage statuses, and hair color. She's real. Her personal tribulations are gritty. Her triumphs are hard-won. Her principles are firm. And her human warmth permeates through the television. This is one woman whose advisors will not need to caution to shed tears "spontaneously" at a campaign coffee stop to woo women voters.

Anti- Palin feminists are threatened because the tables have turned. They were convinced a woman would take the country by storm in November and change Washington forever. But their gal didn't make it. And in their narrow field of vision, they never imagined an even better female contender would fly in out of right field and energize the nation. At least not from the right.

Liberal women are all for women's rights until the woman in question is everything they ever dreamed of except she's pro-life. Many women will overlook this issue and break with their party. But to those who seek to assail Palin, they should take a look a hard look at what women's rights really mean and get behind one of their own who has exercised her right to choose. If not, it's time for a new mission statement.

Last night was a tall order for national stage new comer Sarah Palin, but she seized her moment with tenacity, had the Excel Center on its feet, and St. Paul screeching. From her delivery to her diction, the speech was electrifying on all fronts and was the shot in the arm the Republican Party needed. An email I received on the heels of her oration summed up the entire evening: "I care again."

She was aggressive and authentic:

"Here's a little news flash for all those reporters and commentators: I'm not going to Washington to seek their good opinion. I'm going to Washington to serve the people of this country."

She was tough:

"This is a man who can give an entire speech about the wars America is fighting and never use the word 'victory' except when he's talking about his own campaign."

She was funny:

"You know, they say the difference between a hockey mom and a pit bull? Lipstick."

And my favorite:

"In politics, there are some candidates who use change to promote their careers. And then there are those, like John McCain, who use their careers to promote change."

It was so true, I had chills.

My email has been innundated with comments hailing her performance from friends and family to Democrats and Republicans, and aquaintences who I would consider apolitical and typically disinterested. For Hillary supporters, it had to be a tough pill to swallow. Though watching Take-No-Prisoners-Palin zing Obama so shrewdly had to be mildly fulfilling.

Most laughably, the Obama campaign's response to her speech accused her of not including enough substance. Reeaallly. If there ever was a pot/kettle situation, this was it. To the New York Times and her detractors, last night wasn't the time to outline a fifty point plan on healthcare. And on the issue that matters most to voters right now, energy, she displayed why it's her strong suit and why she's ready to lead.

Watching her from the convention floor was something I, nor anyone who witnessed history in the making, should ever forget. I felt she was speaking to me. And for me. I would never say this is the first time in my adult life I've been proud of my country, but it certainly was one of the proudest moments to date.

John McCain has tough shoes to fill tonight. Perhaps he will be able to; but it will be a challenge. They are, in fact, high heels.

As the newly minted candidate for Vice President, Alaska Governor Sarah Palin takes the stage tonight she will have more eyes on her than John McCain will likely have on him Thursday in St. Paul. I know it's cliche to quote Vidal Sassoon on such a big occasion, but you never really do get a second chance to make a first impression. The mainstream media and the radical left has tried to make a first impression on behalf of Palin to the voters, but she must use tonight as her introduction to America. It must be flawless. She must appear poised, personable and ready to serve. And she can accomplish that by doing these important things:

-Give America the go girl moment the Democrats couldn't. She must stress tonight is not only an historic night for Republicans, but also for every woman--and every WORKING woman, mother, daughter, wife and sister in the electorate. By doing so she will creep into Independent, undecided and Democratic territory. And for Democrats who have long thought that they own the working mother vote, hammer home the fact that Republicans are ready to do what Democrats could not: put a working mom in the White House.

- Maintain her authenticity. Though the McCain camp has added new handlers, senior advisors and speechwriters from the Bush Administration to her entourage, her style, her words and her mantra must be anything but. She must be herself: spunky, uncluttered, passionate, blunt, youthful, and free of the dull platitudes and talking points that the GOP has recycled, and like robots, regurgitated for the last decade.

-Inject piercing intellect. The left wants to stereotype her as naive, inexperienced, not serious or seasoned enough. It is imperative she show a command of the issues that the country cares most about. Not just surface spin and catch phrases, but a display of depth and understanding coupled with comprehensive policy based solutions.

-Show some humor, and teeth. This election season has gotten nasty. To be able to laugh off some of the criticism and showcase wit she can make her detractors look like fools. She must also show that though she may have a beehive, she's also got balls. That she is not going to back down from a fight with anyone who wants to attack her family or the United States of America.

With all the sass and style that got her this far in life, she must make her sales pitch to the country tonight for the first time on a national stage. The expectations are high, but my confidence in her to close the deal is even higher.

Carpe diem, sister.

There is something authentic about Governor Palin. The hair, the family, the husband. Everything seems farm fresh, and not genetically modified. It is what makes her such a spectacular Vice Presidential pick, and a future party leader.

The problem with authentic people is that they often have authentic issues. Authentic people drive, shop, drink, date, and marry. Through it all, they try to abide by their respective beliefs.

At times the authentic fall short of their values, but at other times, a select few become the embodiment of those things that we as a nation cherish. Even among these people, we still find saints who have had their share of sins; achievers who have had their share of failures; and common folk, who have shone brilliantly in the face of adversity.

Governor Palin is one of these authentic people, and we will marvel at the reality of her life even though there will be nothing completely foreign about it. She is not the first mother in our nation's history; nor is she is the first working mother; nor is she the first mother with an unwed pregnant daughter. What is unique is that she could be the first mother to be Vice President of the United States. Other issues might arise, but this is the life of Governor Palin. People will be curious and will want to know more about her.

This is why the beltway dominated McCain campaign must allow voters to see the real Palin—the good, the bad, and the potentially embarrassing. Let people meet and judge her authenticity. Let her talk to the press in large and small markets. Let us decide. The GOP might be pleasantly surprised by the results.

My fear is that the initial Palin revelations will compel the McCain staff to hide her from the press and public. I expect that they will attempt to reduce her authenticity to a series of platitudes set in 12 point Garamond bullet points, and drain from her that which makes her exciting.

Over the past four years, Republicans have been running from their fears, and not towards them, choosing to ignore the fact that the unexpected provides infinite opportunities. They prefer the pre-packaged to the homegrown. Anything requiring the slightest improvisation will close them up tighter than a frightened armadillo.

McCain does not seem like himself in this election because, as many have already observed, his campaign will not "let McCain be McCain." The campaign hides the genuine candidate as part of their mission to manufacture a more palatable public official. We see what this mission has done for Bush's popularity in his second term, and we see the consequences in this cycle: McCain for the most part is playing catch-up with a candidate whose only demonstrable skill is the ability to deliver a big speech that is heavy on hope and light on workable solutions.

The panacea for the McCain campaign's message constipation will be Palin, provided the McCain staff lets her loose and does not hide her from the nation. By preserving her authenticity, and letting her be herself, the GOP might just win this one.

Christopher Coffey is a Republican consultant who has worked on numerous campaigns at all levels of government. He is also a contributor to Andrea Tantaros.com +++

The moment the McCain camp confirmed it had chosen Alaska Governor Sarah Palin as its choice for VP, conservatives, females and many mothers across the country rejoiced. She brought so many positives that I couldn't help but wonder how long it would take the left to dig for the negatives.

Shortly after the announcement a friend asked me "when do you think the weird, rural farmer's daughter rumors will start?

Apparently, not long after.

The Daily Kos (or as I like to call it, The Daily Gross) has stooped to a new low by repackaging a plot line from last season's Desperate Housewives and publishing it as a disgusting hit piece alleging Palin's special needs son is really her grandson. And that she pretended to be with child to cover up her teen daughter's underage pregnancy. Now, we've just learned Palin's teen daughter Bristol is pregnant, debunking this awful rumor, yet still igniting the attacks of angry liberal bloggers.

This could only mean there must be something about Sarah Palin that is deeply threatening to the left, a constituency that has long believed they have cornered the working mother market. Five kids? She should be at home begging Democrats for a handout. A husband in a union? He should be on the picket lines.

Liberals like to pretend they are tolerant and accepting of those who are different but when it comes to anyone not ensconced in their progressive, elitist dogma they mock and attack their lifestyle to inspire hate. But because governor Palin is endearing, authentic--and with this latest revelation--easy to identify with, she invokes panic in the left. Why else would they assail a very popular, promising lady and her children?

The key question here is: what is the extreme left trying to prove? How does this make Sarah Palin unfit to serve? And how exactly will this story look bad to voters? A mother stands behind her child. I can think of worse stories than "Palins Come Together to Support Teen Daughter." This is America. This is life. And this is private.

Ridiculing McCain's VP pick for her commitment to family, poking fun at her hobbies and pushing smear about her kids will only bite back. Remember there's a reason the naked protesters that ran up and down eighth avenue in New York City during the 2004 convention helped Republicans: they made liberals look cuckoo for cocoa puffs. Perpetuating laughable legend and assailing the American family is akin to the in the buff boycotting. It makes the lefties look desperate, unstable, paranoid and downright mean. And it will hurt the Democratic brand if it continues.

The back story here has nothing to do with Palin and her family but more to do with the extreme left. All Americans should take note: if liberals aren't going to show Governor Palin or her family any respect, voters shouldn't expect their policies to either.