Let me say first: I agree with Palin on one thing: the anonymous McCain advisors who've savaged her since she became a drag on their ticket are cowards and jerks.

If she were savaged unfairly, dishonestly, you make a good point. But where did these stories come from? Out of the blue? No basis in fact whatsoever? Perhaps from a handful of disgruntled "handlers"? Or perhaps embodying some truth on a larger scale? Hearing the ever-so-NON-eloquent Palin call the whole diss on her "flabbergasting" does not convince me there was no nothing nada truth to the hooplah. I'd rather get some viable investigation on this and either wipe it out (in her favor) or get the full facts, ma'am, which goes to her character. And to her intellect.

Whatever her flaws, McCain is to blame for all of them, because he's the one who "went rogue" and picked her with inadequate vetting.

I blame him and his gung-ho base "team" for the pick, but certainly NOT for all her flaws. Those are her private property--she earned them, ya betcha--and she didn't blink in exposing them to the public. I'm not at all sure she believes she has ANY flaws.

Your example of "Trademark Palin grammar" was spot on. Her inability to answer specific questions or engage in intellectual discourse around international or domestic policy, landmark legal decisions, even her alleged energy czaress expertise...knowledge? curiosity? Is she really smarter than a 5th Grader?

Banned books. Well, the bit about the "Harry Potter" series--I can't vouch for whether she wanted those books banned or not, but it was a flat-out lie to say that none of the series had been written yet. Four of the series had been published at the time she was mayor. She claims none had.

All right, enough of my rant. I find this person to be not only disengenous, narcissistic, divisive, mean-spirited beneath the aw-shucks veneer, but also potentially downright deluded (despite or because her God tells her which doors to open, much like the game show--curtain 1 2 or 3 or the box, Sarah? Let's make a deal!).

Maybe she'll keep on truckin' to 2012, but POTUS? Mexico, here I come.

I want to start calling you "Flamingo" now ;)

(Saw your earlier post, different thread, re: prez/vp/family code names...CJ's was my favorite, too.)

Barone's remarks are despicable.

The Dylan video was great ;)

finds the bashing full sway.

Dem VS. Dem.

I'm talking us on here, not the out there them.

Ask me, Joe should go.

Yet most of me and thee ain't really in the know,

behind the scenes,

got the ways and means.

Before our eyes, a specific spine grew steel.

A lot o' votes sealed the deal.

Yes and yay, protest and rail

plague with human-made hail

to say if me/you happen to think

Joe's a treacherous fink.

Heed signals! green? yellow? red?

But judging a leader not in place to have led?

I'm going cautionary yellow

to edge revved-up angst toward more brain-engaged mellow.

Could be a dope.

Could be hope.

Or maybe both.

Sans rhyme, the fate of the Dems--the sheer validity of the Dems--relies on Joe? Even in the subtitle: "what the Democrats are." Nothing has changed? Nothing can ever change? What an amazing power this Joe the Schmo wields.

I finally had to bite (usually try to figure out acronyms unknown to me in context) but damn.......what is YKW?

Exit the bad war. Deal with the undermanaged war. Get that horrific smirky rich tall guy (dare I say: dead or alive?) and his merry band of thugs--i.e., those who SHOULD have been sought in the first place. Try war crimes on those who weren't good hunting dogs, lied about scent-and-smell to distract to the bad war, ignored the other one where attention need to have been paid.

All news, all the time: Sarah and Joe. Something is really wrong with that picture.

News Now. Speculation. Educated guesses, even those be rare. Knowingness without knowledge. Mandate to fill the hours.

Eight days hence and it's all for nought? Got no blinders. No rosey glasses. Just not ready to throw in the towel just yet. Yeeesh capeeesh.

hatchshin posted this (p. 15):

"I expect that Bush will issue a blanket pardon before noon on January 20, 2009, so it will not matter what Obama wants to do. All members of the executive branch will be insulated from criminal responsibility for what they did. Bush probably cannot legally pardon himself, but he would be the only target left for criminal prosecution, and I suspect that Obama would not want the DOJ to go after him alone. Congress could have hearings, but because they could not lead to prosecutions, they would look to the public as purely political and would likely be politically counterproductive. For better or worse, our Constitution gives the President the power to pardon and, thus, there is a built in mechanism that allows rampant lawbreaking to go unpunished so long as it is approved by the President before he leaves office. Of course, if Bush does not issue a pardon all bets are off, but I cannot imagine why he would not do it.

hatchsin raises points I have considered and make some sense to me. But I'm no expert. I'm asking if such presidential pardons (should they come to pass--and I, too, expect they will) essentially render moot the viability or even the possibility of "investigating crimes committed by Bush officials."