Why are Republicans better than Democrats at the "political game"?

First before I post this...I know 9/11 is a politics-free zone but something happened yesterday that needs discussion.

My contention has always been that Republicans are better than Democrats at running a presidential campaign. It seems like every four years that Democrats come up with a candidate that excites their base and looks like a real contender and most of the time they mess it up. This year the Democrats had a clear path to the White House. People were so upset and ready for change that either Obama or Hillary Clinton should have rolled through the season uncontested....but it did not happen.

The DNC's past failures are what made something standout to me yesterday. Obama and McCain visited ground zero yesterday. I immediately noticed that Cindy McCain was there but Michele Obama was not. I did not think much of it because of the importance of the day and because, frankly, I didn't care. Michele Obama not being there is no great offense or a great mistake for her or her husband. What it is, is a lack of understanding by the DNC of the political game. I find it hard to believe that none of Obama's advisers saw a problem with Michele not being at ground zero.

Michele Obama's absence was not a major blunder but it was a mistake for a woman who has been repeatedly accused of not being patriotic. She was hammered for saying, "For the first time I am proud of my country." and she was harassed for not wearing a flag pin. So, why oh why, would anyone in the DNC not see that Cindy McCain being at ground zero and Michele Obama not being there would be more fuel for the fire? She could have skipped the appearance at ground zero under any other circumstances and in any other campaign....but not this one.

The press didn't make a big deal of it. The RNC isn't making a big deal out of it. Heck, even Fox News isn't making a big deal of it. But I guaranty you that people, who were already questioning her, now have another piece of evidence to back up their opinion that she isn't patriotic and does not love her country. The accusation is unfair and most likely untrue but when has fairness and truth ever mattered in a presidential election?!?

Lipstick

Obama called Palin a pig!!! At least that is what people would have you think.

In my opinion, Obama did not mean to directly call Palin a pig! His comments were about Bush policies versus McCain policies!

This does raise a funny comparison though. Democrats are appalled that Obama is being taken out of context. They cry, "That isn't what he meant!". But, wait, I remember a huge number of Obama supporters talking about how McCain said he would be willing to wage a 100 year war in Iraq? That was a lie and a distortion. What McCain said was that he would be willing to have a "military presence" in Iraq for 100 years. "Presence" as in the "presence" we have had in Germany and Japan since World War II. The presence we have in the Philippines, Cuba, and South Korea. To distort what McCain said to use it against him is the exact same thing that is being done now, to Obama, with the lipstick comment. I find it laughable how one side cries foul when their own tactics are used against them!

Palin speech: What wasn't there

I was impressed by Obama and his speech at the DNC but I was blown away by Palin's speech last night. The question I have is: what was not there in her speech? I found it interesting that there was no pro-life statement in her speech. Strategy? Yes. After looking at her experience and hearing her speak it is obvious, to me at least, that she is qualified for the job BUT she is still an obvious tool being used by the Republican party. She is being used to court the base but she is also being used to court disenfranchised Hillary voters.

It was smart of her and the Republican party for her not to make a definitive pro-life statement in her first big moment. I think the Republicans know that she could have turned off a large portion of pro-choice women with a definitive statement. What she did do is hint at the subject with a "wink, wink" to the base but no statement that the Democrats could run with. She did so by introducing her new baby with downs syndrome as, "And we were so blessed in April. Todd and I welcomed are littlest one into the world. A perfectly beautiful baby boy named Trig". That statement is an obvious pro-life statement and falls in line with the Republican stance that all life is precious from the minute of conception. It says to people that they could have terminated the pregnancy when they found out their baby had downs syndrome but they didn't. She managed to make a pro-life point without taking a definitive pro-life stance in her first and most important major address.

Question: Is it okay for Palin to use her son Trig in a speech and in the politics of "choice" if it is not okay for Democrats to involve her family? Her speech