...no longer seems quite so paranoid. And what is this fantasy?

That Bush/Cheney will determine it's no longer "safe" to leave office on Jan. 20, 2009 -- that the situation here and around the world makes a Constitutional transition of power, orderly or otherwise, too "risky". They've already suspended or subverted multiple Constitutional guarantees of other sorts -- why should THIS one be any different?

The third Bush term could actually become a literal third Bush term. How's THAT for a nightmare scenario, gang? Ya gotta have a little "muscle" to back up such a coup -- this Army unit would seem to fill the bill. Say, have they got any of those fabled BLACK HELICOPTERS?

...that Obama is engaging in "class warfare".

Seems to me that the "haves" have already been engaged in this battle for decades (centuries?) with all of the "have-nots" who make up the vast majority in this country.

To borrow Dubya's infamous phrase, if this is class warfare, "BRING IT ON!"

Maybe Sen. Joe Biden would agree to introduce Gov. Palin to all these foreign leaders, since he already knows them. It would probably save some of Sarah's valuable time -- he already knows which countries they're from, as well as how to pronounce their names.

That means she could devote even more time to energy and economic issues -- oh, wait a minute, she's ALREADY an expert in those areas! Never mind.

...but how do you deal with this kind of "thinking" in any rational way?

Truly rational thought and discussion apparently has no place here. My wife is an elementary schoolteacher, and I'm amused at the push for "critical thinking skills" that she's supposed instill in her students.

These are the same students who come into her classroom, day after day, robotically spewing back the pro-McCain, anti-Obama crap that floods deeply conservative southwest Ohio. I sometimes despair at prospects for our country's future, with so many adults who use their "God-given" brains so little. Just sit in their church pews, then open all these mass e-mails, and take your marching orders to support the only "Godly" candidates, McCain/PALIN (emphasis on the latter name, of course!).

*sigh*

Then, does McCain have it wrong?

"Daniel Dvorkin" asked the right question a couple posts back -- shouldn't Obama point out Palin's apparent agreement with HIM, and her disagreement with McCain?

Simple, really -- here's how McCain and company will do it:

"But Obama called her a PIG! And did we remember to tell you? OBAMA WANTS COMPREHENSIVE SEX EDUCATION -- FOR KINDERGARTNERS!!!"

No -- at least not to her current supporters. They are offering her what can best be described as "unconditional love". Won't matter what she says or does -- they'll LOVE HER ANYWAY.

All we can hope is that those who are truly undecided get a good, long look at her and don't like what they see, and that the youth vote finally turns out in the long-predicted massive numbers in November to support Obama.

Let's also hope that Obama's campaign has the sense to include clips from this interview in upcoming commercials (being sure to crop out Charlie Gibson so no complaints as with Katie Couric can be lodged!). Given McCain's age, voters have to wonder about the likelihood she'll ascend to the Oval Office sooner rather than later -- she may be the first V.Pres. candidate who DOES decide the election, and being unprepared and unworthy might actually hurt GOP chances this year.

Uh, given that most of us probably consider Bush "Worst. President. Ever.", this is a surprise?

Amen, brother, amen. I might have used different words, but after seeing YOUR post, you said it best. This isn't even CLOSE to a gaffe. Self-deprecation, modesty (false or otherwise), yes -- but a GAFFE? Dear God, no.

I miss Tim Grieve greatly at times like this. Salon shouldn't be doing the dirty work of the GOP for them.

When asked for her opinion about the possible removal of the words "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance, Palin has already demonstrated breathtaking ignorance by saying:

"Not on your life. If it was good enough for the founding fathers, its good enough for me and I’ll fight in defense of our Pledge of Allegiance."

Quite obviously, she doesn't know that Francis Bellamy, a Socialist (gasp!), wrote the Pledge in 1892, or that the words "under God" were inserted by Congress in 1954 (double gasp!) in response to anti-Communist hysteria. Our Founding Fathers had zilch to do with any of this. (Triple gasp!)

No one should think she's researched the latest quote any better; no doubt she has no idea who said it, or why. It just SOUNDS good, and pleases the rabble, just like her response to the Pledge question. Sadly, though, far too many Americans are just as ignorant as Palin about most such "issues" -- even seeming to take PRIDE in their ignorance.

Oh, yeah -- it's SPEAKING THE TRUTH in a political setting.

Guess this is simply another gaffe -- and Noonan doesn't exactly disown her "bullshit" comment, she just tries to say she was somehow "taken out of context". Huh -- seems to ME the context was right there for all to hear in that extended audio clip. There really aren't too many ways to interpret her comments except that she really thinks Palin's selection was, and is, BULLSHIT.

Noonan's published WSJ column linked in yesterday's War Room item was very adept at refusing to stake out her personal opinion about Palin. Talk about weasel words -- Noonan simply fell back on saying, well, the Palin choice was a gamble that might or might not work. That was about it. She pointedly did NOT write anything very positive about her -- so read between the lines and you can see what ISN'T there. And that would be a positive opinion about the actual selection of Palin!