Is there anything more outdated than the warehouse, in this age of digital bartering?

Where exactly does she think the things we buy online are stored? Does she not know how Amazon works? Does she not know the reason .com companies failed the first time around was because beyond their cyber transactions no real exchange of goods was taking place? Does she really think things are so digitally organizied that a world beyond 0s and 1s online have ceased to exist or have relevence?

I mean, this is pretty basic. A warehouse is no more outdated in a digital age than a house or an apartment or actually storing food in the 'fridge.

Of course she knows this. She's just so carried away with her own rhetoric that she doesn't consider whether her readers are as willing to throw aside common sense as she is. I'm not sure we need the hard-sell to get interested in the shows she likes, anyway. Can't she ditch the rhetoric and just write a decent analysis? Why does she so often feel the need to hardsell us the shows she likes?

Though when I was channel surfing, the bit of Fox commentary I caught was not supportive and pretty much as non-plussed as everyone else. But I didn't keep checking back, so I don't know if that was an odd blip in the talking points or not.

Totally agree that while some talking heads and their fan bases will rally around her, the serious contingent of the Republican party will lose whatever confidence they had in her.

One point that no one seems to bring up is what a lame duck political figure she has been from the start. What I mean is, she was brought in suddenly as the second bananna to a sure-to-fail outside-the-mainstream-candidate who only got on the ticket because no one with a chance of winning the presidency wanted to go up against Obama or Clinton. Everything was pointing for a Democratic win after such a long time of Republican rule, and so they let the party crank have his shot.

He took on this neophyte because she was a woman, and it brought some publicity and she got a national image. And, geez, anyone who gets on television is going to develop some following; even Jon and Kate have their partisan supporters.

But none of this suggested he had a chance of winning or she had a greater future in politics. When he failed, as he was expected to, she'd go back to being the nonentity she was, and the party wouldn't want anything else to do with either of them. The most future she could hope for would be an anchor job on Fox News.

This has seemed obvious to me almost from the start. I'm not sure why anyone takes her seriously.

Don't know if you're still reading, but thanks.

I think the vitriol is here because Americans are no longer mature enough to say "I disagree with you, I don't want to vote for you." They've confused rejecting a candidate with demonizing a candidate (because if a candidate isn't a demon, why not vote for them?). The possibility of a civil debate has long since disappeared from our land.

Was it the Republicans who started this trend? I don't know. Certainly, ever since the 1960's, there's been an odd conflation of extremist rhetoric and personality cults. I don't know who started it, but I don't respect people on either side of the political fence who indulge in it. I would have hoped the Obama-Clinton stand off would have taught us leftists a thing or two about demonizing candidates just because we don't support them, but that doesn't seem to have happened.

Please believe me, I don't support Palin. I think she's pretty clueless and a bit of a diva besides. I just don't feel the need to mock her and sneer at her. She's not the candidate for me, she doesn't stand on my side of poltical fence, thanks but no thanks. That's it for me. I don't need her, or anyone, to die of AIDS (as one of the more extreme posters said). I'm a gay man. Do you know how chilling it is for me to read that wished on anyone? I don't need to make fun of her or any of her children, as David Letterman did. I can see her for what she is and let it go.

I mean, who is she, politically? She's not Reagan. She's not well versed in any issue that I ever heard her speak on. She's a flash in the pan. She has almost zero political future (I do think she will raise money early on if she runs for the presidency, but I think she'll be out of the race long before the Republican convention).

I stand in favor of civil discourse. Looking at the issues, figuring out who represents my beliefs, and putting my vote behind them. I wish people would put more emphasis on what they are for rather than what they are against.

Why don't you go ask this question of Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Michael Savage, Bill O'Reilly, etc. and then get back to us? The crap the right-wing zealots (and their followers) dish out is about 50 times worse than anything anybody's said in this message forum. If you don't think Palin deserves at least a mild amount of animosity, then the burden is now on you to explain why.

This is a straw man argument. I've never supported these men, or their message. And no, that the opposition does it doesn't make it okay for us to do it, too.