Lorie, remember that whole "I'll denounce the slur artists" thing ObamaMessiah pulled shortly after the Palin announcement?

Would you be surprised it didn't and probably never will mean jacksh*t?

Check this page from his own campaign webpage.

The top entry note the "banned books" is listed by the author "Mark Brickman." It was posted just afternoon on Friday and still is there, what... 18 hours later.

Also note the first comment in the thread is from a librarian who warns against using the list. The authors response? He has "no way to vet this information." Asswipe, like it's hard to check publishing dates.

Secondly, check this YouTube clip from a Biden campaign stop in Philly, that's Philly "mayor" calling the RNC the "Repulsive National Convention."

Guess Biden didn't get the ObamaMessiah memo asking to lay off this kind of crap.

her are all the links, these are all news articles, you can make you own decisions!
She lived in Juneau, her doctor was in Wasilla, 600 miles away by Plane?

"you can make you own decisions!"

Unfortunately for you creeps.

Go Lorie! Keep on putting up posts like this one!

Your key observation: "people heard her speak... without interruption or editing from the Obamedia." Ann Coulter pointed out a few years ago: if conservatives get to braodcast themselves without being edited by the media, they win the event, but if they get into a situation where they are recorded, then edited, then broadcast, the media can always make them look bad. Under those conditions, the media can make anyone look bad.

With regard to:

#2. Just a slight overstatement. She has clearly connected with the Republican "people," She has clearly not connected with the Democratic "people." The independent "people" we don't know about yet.

Why is it that 90%of the right's rhetoric is about Palin rather than McCain? Do you folks fancy her just shoving him aside and moving into the oval office herself?

#3 Did any of you listen to the rabid pack of hit men, ie. Romney and Rudi when they spoke, Palin's little snarky comments aside.

#5 Troopergate???????? Now I don't know the facts as none of you know the facts. If she's so tough (which I think she is) let her go deal with it. It is appearing as if the stonewalling has begun. Let's hope not. If she has nothing to hide she should be anxious to tell what she knows.

JFO, there's no stonewalling with the trooper issue. Palin did the smart thing since the Left has clearly decided to make it a cause celebre'....she has hired a lawyer to handle it for her. That's smart, not an admission of anything (as the legions of Democrat trial lawyers will grudging admit).

The "trooper" in question, her brother in law, threatened the life of Palin's parents and sister, tasered his step son and told another family member they might "eat a bullet", all the whilw apparently drinking alcohol in his state owned cruiser.

Given Palin's popularity now, she could easily crucify this guy on the national stage, but clearly there are bigger fish to fry.

Romney and Rudi were no more rabid than the usual suspects at the Dem convention.....Kucinich comes to mind.

And why is everyone talking about Palin instead of McCain? Because she is more poular.

I love the complaint about how her doctor was a plane flight away. You obviously have not spent much time in Alaska (or with Alaskans). The number of people who are licensed pilots and own personal planes (or share them as a group) is dramatically higher than here in the "lower 48". The terrain and how spread out things are up there (the scale is unbelievable) make a plane a practical mode of transportation.

The bumper sticker "My other car is a Cessna" is no joke.

Hugh

Yes she's more popular but as much as some on the right might wish it, she's not going to be the president. I find it interesting that there's not much talk about the man who might be president and why folks from the right think he should be.

As to stonewalling - I hope it doesn't happen. But there seems to be some indication it might. Now those staffers who were willing to testify are lawyering up. The rules of the game are trying to be changed - after her nomination and not before. She said she would cooperate, lets hope she sticks to that.

Yes there are rabid folks on both sides. I was only commenting about the inference in #3 that the Repubs are above it. That's not true and it's not true for the Dems. It's sad that politics is a dirty game but it always has been and probably always will.

JFO, let me take you out of your alternate reality for a minute.

Your party smeared not only Palin but went after her minor child. That alone is disgusting.

Your party stated that had she not been so abitious and selfish, when her water broke and she went home to Alaska from Texas, that caused her baby to have a disability. Again, vile.

Your party said that her accomplishments weren't anything to brag about, dismissing her AND her state as less then average.

Your party said she should be home trying to be a good mother instead of being selfish and driven. Wow!

Your party is now trying so hard to say she cheated on her husband. Wow! Bill Clinton anyone?

Your party said her husband had a DUI 22 years ago. Again, Barack and cocaine anyone?

The bottom line is you and your lefty friends attempted and failed miserably at trying to bring her down before her speech and all you did was increase viewership and she won over the independents. For that, I will say thank you.

And as far as showing how vile your party is to the independent voter, again thanks. ww

The Left is throwing EVERYTHING at the wall...and is whining because NOTHING is sticking!

And they're cycling thru their slime-a-tion playbook so fast they can't their stories even close to straight.

e.g., yesterday morning some Lefty MSM'ers (ok, redundant) were still pushing the "Eagleton" meme. Asking THEMSELVES questions like: "Will John McCain replace her if the Republican Party rejects her?". Rejects her?

Of course, even the dimwitted Left now knows there is less than zero chance she is going away. And so the Left is getting more and more SHRILL!! (if that's possible)

McCain/Palin '08

I'm fully on board!

I think they've shown their true colors by staging an EBay page selling
Trig Palin as a "used stage prop." Just think what would be happening
in this country as we speak had that been the youngest Obama daughter
instead of a white DS baby belonging to the GOP VP candidate.
The Leftists have lost the what few brain cells they possess. If you go to
The Discerning Texan and read the piece on Obama as a Community
Organizer, what the Left is trying to do to Gov Palin won't seem so "out
there."

"Why is it that 90%of the right's rhetoric is about Palin rather than McCain?"

Why is it that 90% of the LEFT's rhetoric is about Palin rather than McCain? The right's "rhetoric" is in response to the left's obsession. An obsession that's turned into a full blown psychosis that has produced some of the most outlandish and vile bullshit that even the media is treating as valid reporting material.

Willie

Lets attempt to be civil with each other for once. If you can't admit that politics is dirty on both side, that neither is any cleaner than the other then there's nothing to debate.

You can believe what you want but I don't think most of your fellow bloggers actually think the "left" plays any dirtier than the "right." It's a shame politics is that way. And I think some of the reason is the blogging community - and I include myself in that, i.e my nasty tone at times.

Oyster

With all due respect I have to disagree. The right has been ecstatic since her nomination - and I can understand why. But really, look at the political posts just here on Wizbang since just prior to the convention - almost (with the exception of Jay Tea) have been about Palin. I just think that's interesting. From my perspective it's because the right side of the middle has never been enthused by McCain and it is now about Palin. Perhaps I'm wrong but I think the evidence shows me to be correct.

Were you as enthused about McCain pre-Palin as you are now?

We already /know/ who Senator McCain is. We've known McCain for 20 years. He's perhaps the most consistent guy in the Senate - the 'Maverick' label is because he's consistent in a direction that so often crosses party lines.

So there's really not much left to discuss about him except what he's doing today.

Governor Palin, on the other hand, is someone we are in the process of getting to know. So there is /lots/ of room to post analysis, biography, and commentary about her.

So is it really that surprising that she's getting most of the traffic right after her introduction to the national stage? Only if you didn't stop for ten damn seconds to put two and two together.

Well Chukg I did put it together but I wanted to hear it from folks like you.

My two and two (I can do it in about 2 seconds) added up to this: the right really doesn't care for McCain that much. Palin is more in line with the right than McCain is - despite his sell out of his principles to the right.

Interestingly, if he wins he will probably govern from the center.

How on Earth could someone become a candidate for National office without spending their entire life yearning and striving for it?

How could someone spend 22 years in the military, or even consider being a small-town mayor...instead of launching into politics almost immediately upon graduation from college?

These question vex the Left. Biden is a career politician..but hey, at least he HAD a career. Obama? He's all set to have one!

The scandal chargers are unfair, to say the least, but to blame this on Obama and his supporters is equally unfair.

There is no evidence that Obama is behind this. In fact, it is the National Inquirer who is behind this story, the same people who brought us the democratic scandals of John Edwards and Monica Lewinsky.

Do you believe the NI would be hush hush if it were Obama who had the affair? Of course not!

"But really, look at the political posts just here on Wizbang since just prior to the convention - almost (with the exception of Jay Tea) have been about Palin."

And why is that, JFO? If you want to ignore that it's mostly in response to fast and furious erroneous charges leveled by those on the left then you lose. And look at the media. Who are they talking about the most? They are not "this blog". And I'll say this again because it obviously bears repeating, the coverage is largely negative for Palin and positive for Obama. Look at many of the lefty blogs. Who are they talking about most? Did you watch any of the RNC Convention coverage on various channels? Who were the "reporters" on the left talking about and asking about most?

It's pretty obvious to me that your criticism is unfair mostly because equal time being spent offering defenses and debunking all the initial charges is not unreasonable.

Would it please you more if these charges were simply ignored and it was left to the rumor mongers to assume silence as an admission of guilt? They haven't used any better judgment that would lead me to believe they would do otherwise.

It strikes me as disingenuous to criticize this blog for its choice of topics when you narrow it down to "political posts" over the course of a few days. Because there have been many other posts about unrelated subjects by all the authors. And everytime stories of any magnitude come out someone will invariably complain about how much is said here about it.

"From my perspective it's because the right side of the middle has never been enthused by McCain and it is now about Palin. Perhaps I'm wrong but I think the evidence shows me to be correct."

I think you're right that many are a little more enthused about McCain now because, in my opinion, he was thinking outside of the box for once and not just "reaching across the aisle". In my opinion, he has a history of doing that with bad results and then using it on his resume.

But see? That's not what you said initially. Initially, you said, "Do you folks fancy her just shoving him aside and moving into the oval office herself?"

JFO I am being civilized. I expect rough and tumble politics but to openly smear someones kids is below the pale. Should not ever happen. Obama's peeps are behind it. But actualy, he helped. Now the right is energized. ww

I totally agree with the Palin supporters. Palin's personal life of infidelity, polygomy, and hypocrisy should not be looked into by the people of this country who may or may not vote for her. She should be free to tell "Her story" and nobody else should ask questions about her, nobody should find out who this "Unknown" Palin really is, and we should just leave it up to the GOP to tell the American people who Palin is and where she's come from; the GOP doesn't lie, didn't you know?!

So what if Palin says that her daughter should have the choice of what to do with her body and baby; if you vote for McSame-Palin they'll try their hardest to make sure no other woman in American is stuck with such a difficult choice and ban abortions across American like all Alaskins want.

Maybe Palin did abuse her power and tried to get her ex-brother in-law fired because of the divorce and custody battle he was going through with her sister, but America needs another 4 years of politicians who abuse the power they are given to insure we win wars with countries, wars against abortion, and to win the war on Palin's horrible track record (kind of like Republicans across the country are doing now by refusing to answer questons and sueing people that question her character).

The fact of the matter is if Palin can raise 5 kids and be the major of a town of almost 10,000, she obviously has the skills to be the vise president. And for those of you who say she doesn't have the skills to run this country if the 72 year-old presidential hopeful were to have a lethal bout of melanoma, well just look at G.W. Bush...he had on-the-job-training and look how great our country is today! Our unemployment rate is at just 6.1% nationally, the debt is only pushing $1 trillion, and other countries looks at us with hate and fear rather than with respect and friendship. We've dug ourselves in this far, so why don't we all band together and bury this country together with McSame-Palin.

Doesn't it all make just 'oh-so-much' sense?

#19 should be disenvowelled or deleted. The second sentence is libelous. And the writer is an idiot.

#20

Opinions are opinions.

#19 - and fiction is fiction - so what is your point. Go back and crawl under you rock.

#20 shld b dsnvwlld r dltd. Th scnd sntnc s lbls; th wrtr s nt n dt. nd th wrtr f #20 s, n m pnn, n dt.

@ #20

"and fiction is fiction"

Please explain how this is fiction. I formulated my opinion based on the GOP stating they may sue and the fact that Brad Hanson immediately actions following the release of this information. One could draw the conclusion that Hanson solely wanted "to protect himself from conspiracy theorists" or that "Mr. Richter wants to protect his son from lunatics", however, by sealing the details and record of his divorce he is inticing a nation to do exactly what he doesn't want them to do; to come up with 'so called' conspiracy theories (which may very well turn out to be facts) and have reports, a.k.a. lunatics, swarm his son, his friends and family, as well as himself.

The act to seal the record contrridicts what this site is implying. He could get rid of the media attention by releasing the details of his divorce to a few very credable news papers or magazines to review with a semi-confidentiality agreement only to release whether Sarah Palin was a part of, or the whole reason, behind his divorce. Will he choose this avenue of openess? Will the GOP be open and honest about the situation? We'll see. If no party, be it the GOP, Palin, or Hanson, discusses this topic it will be seen as true by many Americans.

Opinions are opinions. Profound! Even though you never used the word "opinion" once in your little screed. I'm glad you clarified that for us so we can move on to something with substance.

"...by sealing the details and record of his divorce he is inticing(sic) a nation to do exactly what he doesn't want them to do; to come up with 'so called' conspiracy theories..."

Ah yes, blame him for an attempt to protect his privacy from the ghouls who were invading his privacy.

Whew! Does twisting yourself up like that hurt?

JFO

"Interestingly, if he wins he will probably govern from the center."

That is likely accurate. And if Obama wins, he will govern from the left. He won't have a choice given the forces in charge of the Senate and House.

Whatever positives Obama brings to the table are more than cancelled by the out of control self interest of partisan politics in Congress. Neither the Congressional Republicans nor the Democrats have shown the ability to do their job in the best interest of the rest of us. Not only is it time for a worn out Bush/Cheney to exit, it is time for a Newt type turnover in Congress. Unfortunately it looks like that will happen with "more of the same" elected posing as "Change."

#19, you don't have the facts under command. Richter's records were NOT sealed, have been examined and there are no references to either of the Palins in all 94 pages. He really was trying to protect his sources.

Look up Robert A. Dillon blog. I am not going to make it easy on you by telling you where it is so you can learn to research instead of spouting off ill conceived opinions masked as facts. Then you will know more about Palin's so-called affair.

So long as you detail facts, you can conclude whatever you want with no grief from me. But when you spew thinly disguised rhetoric in place of fact, you only discredit yourself and help the other side from where you are. Think about it.

OOps, I meant to say, "He really was trying to protect his family."

Larry

I disagree. I think Obama will govern from the center also. It may not be the inclination of either McCain or Obama but I think the reality of today is that both will.

"Ah yes, blame him for an attempt to protect his privacy from the ghouls who were invading his privacy."

Lol Ghouls. I didn't know people still use that word. Maybe it's just the paranoid Republicans who always try to instill fear in people who use words like "ghouls" when discribing people who oppose them and the same people who use words like "invade" and "privacy" in a positive context when really it's anything but (i.e. Bush & #20).

Anyways, his privacy was all but tossed out the window when this issue caught media attention. Now that he's attempting to seal his divorce record that's only going to generate more media attention and give him and his family less privacy. We all know how the media works, and when there's a story that gains national attention it's better to face it head on than turn your back to it and say it doesn't matter; that will never stop our media from invading your privacy if they think the story will sell; this story WILL sell.

Willie

I agree that smearing anyone's kids is beneath the pale. I have no idea what Obama's "peeps" are so I can't respond.

Oyster

I wasn't being critical of Whizbang at all, merely trying to understand why the emphasis. I accept that you folks feel a need to defend her - and for the personal stuff she should be defended. My observation was that it seems the folks who post here and other right leaning folks weren't too enthused about MCCain till Palin was chosen. I wasn't being critical of anyone. As I've written before there is much to be admired about Palin - not her political beliefs from my perspective - but her success as a mother, wife and effective politician.

Yo, numbah 19....wait a minute, is dat yaw IQ?

@ # 35

Yes it was. That's why I use words like "numbah", "dat" and "yaw". Good input.

#19 - "I formulated my opinion based on the GOP stating they may sue and the fact that Brad Hanson immediately actions following the release of this information. One could draw the conclusion that Hanson solely wanted "to protect himself from conspiracy theorists"

Correct, you formulated an opinion. One based on thin air, that is to say factless which makes your assertion an obvious pile of dung.

Is the website The Smoking Gun a right-wing/Republican shill? If you believe that, well so be it, carry on with your remarkable delusion.

If not read it and weep, the divorce records are not sealed, never have been, yet partisan hacks such as yourself and far too many in the msm didn't bother to check them.

Go ahead nitwit, check them yourself, all 90 plus pages of them are available and the single place the Palin name appears is in the motion to seal them (that was denied) filed just this week.

And the reason? He wanted to protect his address and other contact info to keep nitwits like yourself from intruding on his families privacy.

And BTW, if you hadn't noticed, I think you're a nitwit. In addition to being intellectually dishonest, a far over the top partisan hack and just plain STUPID (in a trailer-trash kinda way).

JFO - "My observation was that it seems the folks who post here and other right leaning folks weren't too enthused about MCCain till Palin was chosen."

Wow, your powers of observation are, are... well, no so good if you're just formulating the idea McCain hasn't been the darling of the ring-wing.

So Marc are folks who weren't enthused about McCain going to vote for him merely because of Palin. If so why? (This is a straight up question).

JFO - From what I've seen, yes and with convection based on his VP choice and the opponents they are running against. There would have been a certain number without Palin, that number rose dramatically after her selection and yes... if will scrape off some Hillary supporters it remains to be seen how many.

Surely you know about the "lesser of two evils" selection process.

@ Mrc / # 37

<>"tht s t s fctlss whch mks r ssrtn n bvs pl f dng"

Pln's, Hnsn's, nd th GP's ctns r ll pntng n n drctn; r cmpltl dvd f ddctv rsnng r r s t bsd t stp bck nd jdg thr ctns fr wht th r? knw, knw, 'll g n t s whtvr t s tht 'v rd r wht th md hs tld , bt cm p wth smthng wth lttl mr sbstnc nd lt mr rgnlt.

<>s th wbst Th Smkng Gn rght-wng/Rpblcn shll?

Nvr hrd f tht st nd hld n llgnc r ts t thr prt.

<>"th dvrc rcrds r nt sld, nvr hv bn,"

knw th hvn't bn sld...Hnsn fld n mrgnc mtn t hv hs dvrc rcrds sld. Th m nt hv bn sld t, bt h sr s trng hrd nd fst t sl thm ff bfr nbd ls cn gt lk t thm.

<>"nd BTW, f hdn't ntcd, thnk 'r ntwt"

thght ppl wh s 'BTW' nd th wrd 'ntwt' wr th nl ppl tht cn b ctgrzd s 'ntwts' s pr HllBl Lw.
HIllbilly law at work!

#19 "Palin's, Hanson's, and the GOP's actions are all pointing in one direction;"

Presumably that was a slip of the keyboard and you meant to say, you're actions are all pointing in one direction - at intellectual dishonesty.

The records are public, you are free to access them. Meaning instead of defending what is defenseless you can look at his records and decide for yourself.

Have you? Have you read all 94 pages?

And if you have please quote ALL the sections that contain the Palin name.

And please, if you have the additional delusion I will hold my breath while waiting. Don't

#19

You said:

" know they haven't been sealed...Hanson filed an emergency motion to have his divorce records sealed. They may not have been sealed yet, but he sure is trying hard and fast to seal them off before anybody else can get a look at them."

No, Hanson did NOT file any such thing. Another former partner of the Palins DID attempt to seal his divorce records and the Judge turned him down. The records have been examined as I previously stated.

Again #19, get your facts before you open your mouth. That said, you have to go to reputable sources like the Alaska papers try to be instead of taking your taking your talking points out of unabashed liars like dailykos.

JFO

I really, really hope you are right if Obama wins. The problem is that in San Francisco, Pelosi is known as a "Moderate." I have that as a private observation from a SF Chron editorial writer. Dirty Harry is far left for a very practical reason. Take a look at his list of contributors to see who is pushing him where.

When you want to know where a politician stands, shut your ears and open your eyes to where the money is. Money is the mother's milk of politics. That hasn't been said in a while, yet is a total truth. McCain went along with Powell's son because of the Telecom lobbyist who steered funds to him. Powell then sailed forth and destroyed the competitive telecom industry and I was one of the casualties. That is the single unethical act I can find on him and it is not a pretty one. This is the same lobbyist who he is reputed to have had an affair with, which I don't believe because Cindy acts like she has his balls in her purse if you watch closely when they interact.

Palin's personal life of infidelity, polygomy, and hypocrisy should not be looked into by the people of this country who may or may not vote for her.

#19 obviously means polygamy. Where is the evidence of that? It's not an opinion, it's a vicious lie.

This is how the fever swamps on the left get a vicious lie into mainstream dialogue. They bury it in a sentence with other accusations and work with it from there using a process of incrementalsim.

He/She/It should be banned.

#19

I am one right winger that shares your call for the release of records from Todd Palin's partner's divorce records -- it will satisfy a lot of people who are asking questions.

However, I am sure then that you will agree then that we want to allow a full and aggressive investigation into exactly what level of friendship Ayers had with Obama, exactly how Obama was able to buy a home at such an amount below market value with the help of his friend Rezko, and also how deep Obama's philosophy is affected by the muslim religion, even if he is not in-name a muslim (like madonna would get mad if you called her a whore, so okay, she's in-name not a whore).

HughS - "He/She/It should be banned."

True enough, but he/she/it does serve a purpose. If your purpose is to laugh until puking up your latest meal.

I mean come on, for he/she/it to first admit knowing the records have never been sealed and STILL hold the position he/she/it does is pure unadulterated comedy gold.

#19

Doesn't it all make just 'oh-so-much' sense?

Only when lefty trolls really put their heads together and form a concussion. No sources, no manners, loaded with hatred and not one ounce of common sense.

"So Marc are folks who weren't enthused about McCain going to vote for him merely because of Palin."

May I answer your question? Because I'm one of those people who wasn't all enthused about McCain.

That lack of enthusiasm didn't exactly equate to not voting for him. I was going to vote for him anyway, but it was going to be more like the same ol' tired crap of voting against someone else.

And let me add one more important note here too. On my voter registration card my party affiliation is listed as "none". I like it that way. Both parties court me all the time through mailings.

On the one hand I get literature all the time from Republicans touching on all manner of issues; national security, judicial nominations, the economy, taxes, etc.

On the other hand I have never gotten anything from the Democratic Party but warnings about the Republican Party's threats to take away my "reproductive choices".

I can't help but think the Democratic Party only envisions me as nothing more than standing at the voter's booth, a giant uterus gripping a pen in one fallopian tube.

They insult me and every other woman out there who has genuine concerns about things beyond those related to sex and reproduction.

That the Florida Democratic Party Chairperson is a woman is doubly insulting. I'm so fed up with it, I wrote them a letter telling them so.

I thought people who use 'BTW' and the word 'nitwit' were the only people that can be catagorized as 'nitwits' as per HillBiily Law.

See what I mean? It's the concussion talking.

marc
There is a lot of comedy here but I am concerned about one serious issue concerning Palin and I've mentioned it several times here at Wizbang.

Read this article (you can skip the first part on her live mic remarks if you want)

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122044753790594947.html

I've been reading Peggy Noonan's work since she wrote speeches for Reagan. Don't always agree with her, but she is always worth the time to check out when she writes something.

If comments like #19's are going to get traction in the MSM, then I think the conservative 527's need to step up the pressure.

nehemiah #47 asks some questions that are noteworthy, but if the libs like #19 are going to get away with libeling Palin as a polygamist then the gloves have to come off (but we will stick with facts). Let's start with the name of the dealer Obama bought cocaine from.

@ # 20 - 44 (excluding myself)

I've been sitting at work on my weekend finishing work for Monday and found myself lacking ambition to do what I came in to do. I hopped online for, what I thought would be, a minute to take a short break and read some recent Google-news. Just by change the first few comments sections were extremely left and right (guess which one this one is) and thought I'd get a laugh trying to rustle all your feathers, which I must say has been quite fun. I've been doing the same things on other forums and comment sections regarding Obama, but you all are getting much more defensive and offended.

Truth is, my vote will not be affected by either party's television ads, or the color of their skin, or who their VP choice was.

Seriously, I had hopes for other candidates from both parties, none of whom are McCain or Obama. Because of this, I've been forced to look past my pre-selected favorite candidates and either vote for the plan I prefer. I don't really care about Palin or Biden; a little, but not much. Fact of the matter is the VP has never mattered to me except for in 2004.

You are all getting side tracked by Palin and losing focus on why you should be voting. Both parties will continue to bad mouth the other one, but start looking past all of the bu!!$h!t and figure out who YOU believe will be the best president, not who your media tells you who would be the better president. All sides will be biased, that's why you need to ask questions and gain knowledge from both sides to have a full look at who these people are.

Quit getting so emotionally attached to Palin just because she Sarah Palin; she's not who you're voting for to be your president. Being so emotionally charged about such a futile matter will cloud your judgment when you cast your ballot. I didn't like the Obama fans being so over-the-top emotionally charge about him, but now both sides are doing the same thing and it's become irritating to even talk politics with friends or family because there are so many people who are now starting to take serious offense and lack all reasoning.

Politics will always be politics, but you should filter the politics out and listen to what these two great candidates have to say about us, the American people, and about our future. Who cares if Obama is a good speaker or whether McCain is old? Both of them have big plans for out country, but when the Republican Party was showing low numbers in the polls they reverted back to politics; before that McCain talked about his plans. It's these plans that Obama and McCain have to talk about that should consider when you cast your vote, not the politics.

Rather than judging the presidential candidates on WHO they picked for VP, ask WHY they picked that person for VP. Both parties have good reason to pick who they've picked. Don't question who's more or less qualified, ask who you want for president and then question your own decision on why you want them to be your president.

My brother told me he was voting for Obama because he's black. Seriously, no other reason. When I asked him why he quoted an article from the news paper one week earlier, but when I called him on it he said 'whatever' and walked away. My father is going to vote for McCain because he too is not sure if he can trust Obama. When I asked what he couldn't trust, his only response was 'with be president'...Not foreign policy, not education or religion, just because that's what he's been told. You all sound like my family, voting for either superficial reasons or because one party has instilled fear and/or doubt about the other. GET REAL!!!

This is American, not a small country the world has never heard of. We're supposed to be able to think on our own and draw our own conclusions. Why are you all regurgitating every slogan, catch phrase, and headline your hear or see? Do any of you know anything about politics or are you of the breed that only follows politics for 2 months every four years?

Either way, my I've finished what work I came in to do and that's my opinion.

"Both parties will continue to bad mouth the other one, but start looking past all of the bu!!$h!t and figure out who YOU believe will be the best president, not who your media tells you who would be the better president. All sides will be biased, that's why you need to ask questions and gain knowledge from both sides to have a full look at who these people are."

Don't insult my intelligence.

@ # 51

"Dn't nslt m ntllgnc."

Frst 'll nd t cnv wht ntllgnc clm t hv bfr nslt wht ntllgnc ssm lck.
Hijacked threads equal disemvowelment.

First you'll need to convey what intelligence you claim to have before I insult what intelligence I assume you lack.

I thought you said you were "done". Or did you confuse your long drawn-out rhetoric with "work"? Evidently, your lack of ambition has spilled onto this blog. "Mission accomplished."

It's also okay if your dad doesn't trust Obama. Sometimes instincts are all you have to work with when the politics are based on media sway.

Spare us the lecture #19. We've heard it before.

Prove that Sarah Palin is a polygamist. Absent that you're just another long winded moron troll demagoguing here.

#19 - "@ # 20 - 44 (excluding myself)"

And after you visited for "a minute to take a short break and read some recent Google-news," you posted completely false and easily debunked nonsense.

After "that minute" you return and in this subsequent comment you posted a nine para treatise and as yet haven't admitted your were and still are completely and utterly wrong with respect to the divorce papers in question.

Be gone with you.

"First you'll need to convey what intelligence you claim to have..."

So while you preach to me/others here what our responsibilities are in making decisions on who we think will best lead the country with no indication that you've spent more than this afternoon here (your conclusions based on a minuscule sampling of comments, many resulting from your attempts to "ruffle feathers" and be purposefully antagonistic) we're to feel what? Properly schooled? Chastised? Reverence? Exactly what?

You deliberately create a ridiculous atmosphere, and continue with it throughout a number of posts, and accuse us of being defensive and offended.

Then you pretend that the problem lies with us and not your manufactured "fun".

Why should I even bother to convey what intelligence I have to you when you've already made an assumption by the means you have?

Nevermind, don't answer that, because I don't care.

HughS - I b eg to differ he's not a moron troll, he's a BlogRoach.

Good Lord, at the rate these idiotic smears are coming, someone's gonna have to start a snopes type of page for the Palins.

That way, each increasingly incredible new smear can be added with, you know, "the truth" for balance and anytime one of these whiney "OMG, you know what Sarah Palin did now?" pr*cks pops up and ONCE AGAIN reiterates what has already been disproven, we just direct them to that single location.

It should have a search feature like snopes too, so the people with PDS can just enter "Sarah Palin Hunts Bigfoot!", and it takes them right to the debunking.

Of course logic and actual facts aren't as strong as what one actually feels in lefty circles, but why not try?

Son Of The Godfather, good point.

Some folks are already thinking along the same lines:

http://palinsexismwatch.blogspot.com/

marc
Thanks...another addition to my online vocabulary. I bookmarked the site.

Not a problem HughS, nothing demonstrates his idiocy better than this section of his/her/its last comment.

We're supposed to be able to think on our own and draw our own conclusions. Why are you all regurgitating every slogan, catch phrase, and headline your hear or see?

So which books did she want to ban?

Just John

Palin didn't ban any books, but word is the the Obama campaign wants all copies of Dreams of My Father and Audacity of Hope sent to the restoration and repair dept until after November.

Seriously.

Why would she have brought it up if she didn't have any bools in mind?

"Why would she have brought it up if she didn't have any bools in mind?"

Why harp on something that didn't happen.

Every and ANYbody with a grudge against Palin or a desire for 15 (or so) minutes of fame is being thrust forward by the Dems/MSM...and given credibility and believeability WITHOUT any proof required!

The MSM has utterly abandoned even the pretense of "investigative reporting"...it's all Fire & Forget now!

The NY Times, goes from "respecting John Edwards privacy" to "FIRE WHEN THE INK IS DRY, BOYS!" [they have already re-tracted several of their stories...though not on Pare One, above the fold where the smears ran]

Marc's link doesn't support his assertion:

"It's TRUE that she did ask the librarian about censoring some books, and I admit that's not one of Palin's better moments, but it's not the list shown, as some of those weren't even published at the time. I'm unable to find a real list. Some time later she did ask the librarian to resign, along with other holdovers from the previous administration, so it's hard to the "censorship question" as the cause here. She later relented and no books were ever banned."

Marc has shown us that she did want some books banned. I'd still like to know what books she thought should be banned.

SARACUDDA!!!

"Marc has shown us that she did want some books banned. I'd still like to know what books she thought should be banned."

Maybe you should have been more observant, a link to the list is in the sentence before the section you quoted.

Geesh, maybe that's why you came up with the conclusion you did. (that my assertion wasn't supported) And for review, just for you, my "assertion" was it didn't happen.

And in case you're even more think-headed than first glance would indicate the book banning NEVER HAPPENED.

Try to keep up, Marc.
The list is phony, but the fact remains that she was interersted in banning some books.
YOUR source states, "It's TRUE that she did ask the librarian about censoring some books".

My question is
WHAT BOOKS WAS SHE INTERESTED IN BANNING?

Hint: The answer is not "none".

I have to keep up, remind me again who it was that couldn't find a very prominent link in a sentence just above your quote.

Yet YOU have had no trouble "keeping up" (in your own mind) failed to see it. And given the context of the links ref it's plain she was just asking a hypothetical.

"So which books did she want to ban?"

Why? So you can make a determination whether or not you approve? But first we must ask if she ever intended to ban any books at all.

Read this now: NOBODY KNOWS if there was ever any list. Someone created a list hoping to add something concrete to a flimsy story. It has been debunked, as no such list has ever been proven to have been produced by Palin.

That's about as simple as I can put it. Any more questions?

It is sick and disgusting, going after a child like that. I was going to vote for Obama because I'm a brain dead idiot. But now I'm going to vote for cynthia mcckinney. She hates america even more then Obama.

So much for that affair rumor. Yes, there's an affair. No, it doesn't directly involve Sarah Palin. Her first legislative director John Bitney was having an affair with the wife of Scott Richter, the guy trying to seal his divorce record. He didn't inform his boss of this little detail, and was fired for it. Both Bitney and his new wife admit that they're at fault for cause this in the first place.

[url=http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122092043531812813.html]WSJ article[/url]