The one I read -- Newsweek? -- said that was because of McCain's unpopularity among other Republican Senators. They don't like people who buck the party. (Any more than Democrats do).

>I read an article that stated (not sure my numbers are precise) that McCain had 55% of his bills bi-partisan and Obama was 17%...
>
>Here it is:
>
>http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/sep/15/records-show-mccain-more-bipartisan/
>
>
>
>>I do admire his war heroism and would distrust anyone who doesn't. His time in the Senate, not so much. His maverick stance won him few legislative allies. I believe I read Obama has already sponsored or co-sponsored more bills that passed than McCain has -- will have to check that.
>>
>>>By that argument you should be a huge McCain supporter because of his 20+ years in the Senate, as a squadron commander, and leader of a band of POWs.
>>>
>>>>Don't you see the distinction between what one has done him/herself and what people they know have done or said?
>>>>
>>>>The "no resume" and "inexperieced" labels have stuck with a lot of voters but again I disagree. 10 years of legislative experience (in a big state, not a lightly populated remote one) is far from no experience. And I don't see why he doesn't get more credit for his community organizing before that, when he could have been making big bucks with his educational background.
>>>>
>>>>>Yes, I read the article. And I don't see any ethical or legal problems so why is this news? If petty stuff like this leaves you doubtful about her capabilities "objectively" then I guess you're OK with Obama's dubious associations and lack of resume.
>>>>>
>>>>>>Did you read the article? Because if you did I don't see how you could dismiss it as much ado about nothing. Everyone seems to want to defend her by yelling "biased media, biased media." This article is long on facts and direct quotes from people who know her. To me it left me extremely doubtful about her suitability to be president or even VP. I say that without regard to her party or positions. Why won't anyone see that? Practically all I am hearing is this is a partisan attack by me and the hopelessly biased media. I don't agree with either part of that.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>She promoted old friends to posts and made life difficult for enemies? Gasp! Holy Moly, no one does that!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>The media is after this woman with long knives and anyone who can't see that is myopic, to be charitable. There are so many negative articles on her that could be boiled down to "much ado about nothing". Many in the media have just walked away from what could be called objective journalism. There's almost literally an army of media and Obama sycophants in Wasilla AK trying to dig dirt on her to the point that the mayor has to start handing out numbers to come in like in a deli.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Today I was reading an article (I think on MSNBC - go figure) about a McCain ad and the author made sure to use the word that McCains claim was "exagerated" with no explanation. None whatsoever. When I took journalism in school using a subjective word like that with no proof would have earned me a bad grade.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Her email was hacked and rather report that as a Federal crime, the media focused on whether or not she conducted state business using the account. Hello??? Shouldn't the concern be that an candidate for executive office has been hacked? If it had been Obama there would have been great gnashing of teeth and rending of clothes.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>The problem I would think from your perspective should be that the media is so slanted and so biased that if they truly do find newsworthy dirt on Palin or McCain no one will pay attention because they've already discredited themselves as honest purveyors of news. Chicken Little Syndrome I would call it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Mike, you might be raising a good issue. But you might not. The problem is that the media is so in the tank that no one can tell so conservatives will automatically see this as BS while liberals will cheerlead it but neither of us knows the facts because objective facts are hardly in evidence in todays "news" climate.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Some will reflexively say this is just a partisan post. But I don't see how anyone can read this article with any degree of open mindedness and not be troubled about the prospect of this person becoming President of the U.S.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/14/us/politics/14palin.html?scp=13&sq=sarah%20palin&st=cse