Why Disney? Why ABC?

I can think of a reason. Because so far that has been the ONLY access to Palin we've seen. She has not answered questions for anyone else.

Next week, we'll hear her on Hannity.

Because she has not answered questions from anybody other than Gibson, we will probably talk about her answers to Hannity, too.

Because it's the only glimpse we've had of her other than her snarky RNC speech and "Thanks, but no thanks to the Bridge form Nowhere" stump speech.

When she agrees to go on Moyer's, let me know, I'd love to watch it and form a larger picture.

Now the RW excuse being given for Palin not knowing what the Bush doctrine is that in previous debates the moderator outlined the Bush doctrine, Gibson didn't.

They never stop to think that it might have been outlined for the people watching, not for the candidate hearing the question.

It really strains credulity to think that Clinton, Obama, Guiliani, Thompson, McCain or ANY other candidate (including Greens and Libertarians) had never heard of the Bush Doctrine and wouldn't have been able to tell their view on the topic. Then again, worrying about credibility isn't something the McCain camp is worried about, now that Palin is out of Alaska she is campaigning on "Thanks, but No Thanks" on the bridge to Alaska story. (This morning Kurtz did a "he said, she said" critique with a you decide ending, because obviously there are two sides)

And I doubt that we will hear much about the Bush Doctrine, the McCain attack ads will be relentless, Obama will spend a good part of his time responding and if you look at the blogs, people do want him to respond and hard.

Who held up the "Iron my shirt" signs? Do you know?

I thought it was some idiot morning show guys as a prank, dignifying them with a response would be validating them.

Can you imagine all the Dem congress people holding a press conference in outrage over some dumb ass thing a radio clown did? We'd look as stupid as Heather Wilson-R crying (literally) over Janet Jackson's wardrobe malfunction.

then why isn't censorship okay?

Censorship is simply freedom of choice of the website owner.

AG, I really am just poking at you....

Whoopi was citing the Founding Father's viewpoints on the subject. She said obviously some things the Founding Father's believed in needed to be changed.

McCain, to his credit, said he saw her point.

An amendment, by definition, is a change to the Constitution.

The trouble with watching and waiting is that when it hits, it's too late.

The warnings are being issued NOW. The next thing that will occur is the takeover, just like IndyMac.

As to the JP Morgan story, they are denying it, but who knows.

We are talking about a Republican politician who seems to have no inner conflicts about using power for personal ends.

Yeah, getting token jobs and cush baliouts certainly tanked G.W.'s career.

Peck is one of the few people that can make me question my atheism, that can make me have a small hope there is a God.

His book People of the Lie was disturbing.

I have to agree with him that people that continually leave you exhausted and tired after talking to them, leave you confused, are not good people.

The whole "appearance" thing is scary, not actually being good, but just making sure you look like your good.

BTW, GG has his radio show up, there were no comments there the last I looked.

To the posters that insist it's racist that 90% of blacks are voting for Obama because he's black are wrong. It's because they are Dems.

I daresay they'd vote for Hillary-D against Alan Keyes-R in the same proportions.

from California, maureen...if I travel to the border. That makes me an expert on immigration.

Come on. I want to mantain my completely one dimensional view of you...though it's a positive one.

You can't show a sense of humor, too.

That would be like Tiberius showing himself to caring about the facts...oh wait, he did today, openly and honestly.

I wasn't trying to be mean, maybe it just comes natural. Did you read art guerillas's posts? I did.

GG covered what happened on Minn., he covered (with appropriate outrage) what happened to Goodman. It's his blog, he can cover whatever the hell he wants. If it bores me, I can move on.

art's comments that were "censored" and he so offended about, were his lists of phone numbers that would have been PAGES (is that appropriate use of caps?) and pages long. Post a freaking link and don't disrupt the flow.

I know, that makes us so bad, but I don't care at this point.

Hammer away, I won't hijack the thread on the victimization of art guerilla anymore. Even if he does show up at the freaking baby shower next weekend.

Yeah, we get it. Here at Salon we hate freedom.

The fact that pages and pages of phone numbers (when a link would have sufficed, to any that felt inspired, to any that didn't know where to find them) were not posted is the end of the world.

The fact that some comment (not here on GG's forum I think) about some particular woman's clit to some animal-animal-animal woman (art's description) was deleted means that we want to supress all truths.

Yeah, it's show's our disdain, our "elitism", our hypocrisy.

I better vote for McCain and look in the mirror and recognize that I am no different than those people that want to dismantle the Constitution, and not just the all important 2nd Amendment.

Art's censorship was the worst thing ever! Ever!