Is Sarah Palin still around? Yes she is but here's what I believe Ms. Padlia has missed. Palin is spunky, sharp and is in so far over her head it isn't funny. If the Council for National Policy (look it up its frightening) has waited to bring her on the national stage after she matured a bit more, she might be a real force in 2016 or beyond. However the intelligence aspect that Camille gushes over fall apart for me in the simple fact that Sarah truely believes (ala George W) that she has been chosen by God (well Dobson anyway). What she fails to acknowledge is she isn't ready and its obvious. It really doesn't matter how smart she is. It really doesn't matter she can bring out 20,000 people to a rally ,what matters if the depth and breadth of all her attributes. She reeks of charisma but doesn't have a lick of experience. And if the Republicans are going to nominate a 72 year old guy with a pre existing cancer and make her a heartbeat away from the Presidency then they deserve neither respect nor power. Her placement on the ticket was an act of desperation to begin with. Since their convention, that desperation has completly colored the campaign. McCain looks lost and he is.

That is not to say Sarah isn't good. Her delivery and pumping up the days talking point are that of a true trooper. When she said she has foriegn policy experience because she can see Russia, that kind of shallow thinking will be remembered forever. Sarah as part of the machine isn't that formidable because the Repubilcan's are out of ideas, out of candidates (New Republic said this morning McCain isn't a real conservative) and the deregulated economy advoacted by "true" conservatives have established the largest socialist intervention in the history of the world. I disagree however with a previous post that this piece by Camille is Free Republic material. This doesn't every get to name calling, use the word Barry or quote the New Republic above. Sarah might have been more formidable in a different time. Today all she is shoring for the base, and actually alienates true feminists because of her lack of depth or honesty, either one would work.

DHS was created at the height of W's control, with a poor management, ill conceived planning and by an administration that ran on the premise that government is the problem. They hired thousands of people, they are poorly led and are working for an administration that is clearly inept. Add Rovian fear if you challenge them, a no fly list that is based on who knows what equals what is clearly the most hated (after the IRS and they're working on that) government function there is. The only way to deal with the DHS is to completly take it apart and try again. Remove the politics that has been the basis of everything in the Bush administration and do it correctly. A brown man with a name that isn't anglo isn't grounds for removal.

Whether it's channeling McCarthy, Palin doing George Wallace or McCain doing Bush but telling us he's not, progressives must respond in some fashion. Campaign donations clearly send a message (full disclosure I made a contribution) and this is the sort of response everyone gets. Crudely put money talks, bullshit walks. Ms. Bachman will hopefully no longer have her forum in the United States Congress where she can spew this crap.

After reading the responses to Garrison's piece it struck me just how sour we as a nation have become and what the last 35 years of divisive politics have done to us. In this country you may not agree with the other guy but this is America and the other guy is entitled to his opinion. He isn't less of an American, he warrants respect because he is a citizen of your country. If you don't care for the life in Abilene you don't have to live there. If a person from Abilene comes to your town, he is damn sure entitled to the same respect he showed you when you were there. You don't get to call him names, belittle his part of the country or even besmirch his judgement because he voted for the current occupant. Everybody makes mistakes.

Katherine Mueszkowski clearly lives in the Bay Area I thought it might be a good idea to point out why people are slow to accept public transportation and the information she omits is a great example. In California we have a chance to actually build the first High Speed Rail System in the United States. It's the first proposition on the ballot and represents an oppurtunity to begin to catch up with the rest of the world. Everyone and I do mean everyone supports the measure except for some Howard Jarvis folks and the don't like anything. While the system design and construction isn't cheap it's cheaper than the new runways and roadways that will have to be built in the next 40 years and there is a major reduction in the use of fossil fuels as the system is all electric. It will begin to tie into local train and Light Rail systems which is what makes the system useable and rider friendly.

Katherine doesn't discuss the good system that she has in San Francisco where Muni, Caltrain and Bart are interconnected presenting great options for the people of SF. I know, I know it isn't perfect but as Katherine correctly points out the bias is towards the automobile and refocusing to transit will take a generation to understand the benefits and improvements that a well run system can offer.