A couple quick points.

1. First, we need to know if Ken is still a Republican, and whether he voted for Bush or Kerry in 2004. If he is a Republican, and believes its platform is superior across the board to the Democrats, he needs to make an argument as to why Obama's persona trumps all of that. I don't see it here.

2. The Powell *stamp* would mean more to me if Powell himself put meat on the bones of his endorsement. He says, for example, that Obama is *exciting.* Does Powell think that with a little more *excitement,* he could have persuaded the French and Russians to join his use of force authorization motion in 2002/2003? Powell also says the party has moved too far right, even though his patrons, Reagen, Bush, and Bush, were all even or further right than McCain, and opposed abortion. Simply incorporting by reference the Powell endorsement says very little.

3. Three interviews before working at McDonalds? Let's compare McDonalds to the Supreme Court instead of the vice presidency. How many *interviews* would Ken have us believe Ronald Reagen conducted of Robert Bork in 1987. Or Anthony Kennedy. Reagen was barely compenent by that time, as is well known. Or compare this to Bush II. He knew Harriet Myers pretty well; she was a flop. He picked Roberts and Alito sight unseen; they have been well regarded.

In addition, I suggest Ken take a look at the story of Seabiscuit. Charles Howard picked Tom Smith as his trainer on the spot, and it was an unconvetional hire. Smith, in turn, spotted Red Pollard with the horse in Detroit and summarily hired him. "The horse just picked his jockey," Smith said upon seeing the two together. Point being: you can make successful hires with or without the McDonalds policy. And furthermore, McDonalds does not conduct three interviews. Ken is being silly.

4. And speaking of Ken's state of mind, if you are going to diss McCain, why not address him directly? Why dance around and attack Palin instead? Buck up, man. If you have something to say to McCain, say it.

If you parse the sentence closely, it starts with a description by Palin of a scenario in which the country is *convinced* that character/association attacks against political opponents are out of bounds, impermissible, etc. She then questions: if we live in a country where a majority of people believe political criticism is unacceptable, how well does that bode for free speech?

Ironically, you could make the case here that McCain/Feingold implicates the same concerns. There, a *majority* became convinced that too much money used for political speech was *tainting* or *corrupting* our politics. So, what to do? We passed a law which four-five members of our current Supreme Court concluded (depending on which part you look at) violates the First Amendment.

So, I agree with Palin, to a point. If the media refuses to even report on what McCain/Palin are saying about Ayres, and the country goes along with it, on the theory that *criticism* of our political leaders is bad, then we're likely to get McCain/Feingold type of legislation to *clean up* our political discourse, and thus implicate the First Amendment. I'm not sure we're going to get there, but neither is Palin. That's why she couched it as a hypothetical, not a certainty.

If you read the sentence carefully, she takes a "what if" approach; she doesn't say the First Amendment is implicated today.

This brings to mind a recollection: John McCain's statement in 2000 that he would *ban* so-called *negative campaigning* if he can find a way to do it, and make it constitutional. That's similar to what Palin is saying here, although obviously with a tinge of irony. If the purists of the world (like McCain in 2000) have their way, look out for free speech.

A final point. I know Democrats who received robo-calls or mailers in their yard about Ayres et al, and reacted hysterically with phone calls to local news outlets, the police, anyone who would listen. Their complaint? "Stop saying negative things about my candidate!" Imagine those same people writing their Congress-creatures instead, after Obama is elected, and requesting legislation to stop anyone from putting bad thoughts in their head about their guy. That may be where we're headed, with Obama in charge. Palin is worried, and judging from some of the people I know, so am I.

You're right. There is no evidence, to my knowledge, that Obama would support new McCain/Feingold-type legislation to enact McCain's dream from 2000 of banning negative campaigning.

There is no point in arguing further about Ayres. Although, I disagree slightly that the media reported on the comments objectively. Can you point me to a broadcast network which, in a story on Ayres, (i) described his group's role in terror bombing and attempting to assassinate a judge and his family by setting their house on fire at night; (ii) noting statements by David Axlerod and Mayor Daley that Ayres and Obama are *friendly* and/or *friends*; then (iii) discussing whether Ayres' conduct constitutes *terrorism* and whether the word "friend" is synonomous with "pal," as Palin suggested? I certainly doubt it. Most reporting I saw was reporting by omission; Palin said something negative which the AP believes is racially tinged: now let's have a panel discussion on how and when John McCain lost his honor.

As far as what Palin meant, that is why I said earlier it was either ambiguous or accurate. She says: what will the world hold for the First Amendment if X, Y, and Z is the mindset of our country? That's pretty hard to pin down as being *factually inaccurate* with respect to the Constitution. You think she meant something different, evidently, which is your perogative. I guess that's a vote for *ambiguity."