[PBzeer]

Even though I know it's an effort in futility sck5, I'm going to make one more effort to try to explain to you what I actually said. Not what you think I said, or may want to believe I said, but what I actually said.

Obama entered statewide politics as a candidate for the state senate. Prior to voting in the primary election for that seat, he had his rivals disqualified by technicalities. By doing so, he ran unopposed, thereby not needing any votes to defeat his rivals, and taking away any choice from the voters. One can argue that's simply good politics, just as one could say he was afraid to put it to a vote. The end result though, is he required no votes to win his first state election.

On the other hand, in Palin's case, she first lost one race and won her second, by running against inumbents. In other words, she let the voters make the choice.

Apples to apples. State race against state race. It is not cherry picking, nor any other devious comparison. I did not, by implication, by words, or any other means, equate running for state office with running for national office. Which was the whole point of the example. To attempt to say I meant anything else, is a flat-out distortion.

I have made every effort to clarify, what could easily be understood by anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of the English language. Beyond this point, I have no choice but to assume that rather than fairly debate the issue, you choose to willfully distort my views. If that is indeed the case, then I have nothing further to say to you, and request you direct no further posts to me.