1. What is your opinion about the media coverage you received after you were nominated for Vice President of the USA? Did you feel that you received unfair scrutiny? If so, what do you consider unfair? How do you think the media treated you differently than Obama? If not, how do you respond to Steve Schmidt's complaint about the media's response to your nomination?

2. You and McCain have both explicitly claimed that your respective administrations as governor and president would be "more" transparent. Some observers are concerned that your campaign's recent responses to the ethics investigation in Alaska does not demonstrate your commitment to transparency. What is your view on Ethics Investigations in general, and how would a McCain/Palin administration differ from the Bush/Cheney administration on the matter of transparency?

3. What is your view of the role of the media in a democracy? How do you judge the current effectiveness of the media in the USA?

4. While a change in opinion is acceptable to many people in response to growth or new information, a "flip flop" is generally considered a change in stance motivated by pandering, and hypocrisy is generally applied to situations where people demonstrate a double standard. Which of these terms would you apply to the different responses certain voices in the media have applied to Brittany Spears' 17 year old sister's pregnancy and your daughter's? Which of these terms would you apply to certain media voices' reversal on how important experience matters to the job of the Vice President of the USA?

Perfect illustration! Great article! Fun, optimistic, insightful. Well done!

I went to the Palin as dominatrix image myself after reading the Seattle Times (serious, investigative) article in Sunday's paper about how Palin, during her first year of mayor of Wasilla, required all her "subjects" to submit letters of resignation as part of a loyalty test. The 6' 2" chief of police, who had supported her but nonetheless feared for his job, was fired, after some body language indicated he wasn't thrilled with her requirement that he submit weekly Happy reports in addition to all the other reports he had to submit. (You can read the article here: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politics/2008163431_palin070.html)

Then, during the George Stephanoplous interview with Obama last Sunday morning, they showed a clip of Limbaugh's gaspingly rave reaction to Palin's convention speech (I think he literally said he didn't want the speech or the night to end!), and I thought, wow, these guys (not only guys, I'm sure...) are really aroused by the combination of toughness and sexuality this woman exudes. No problem in the bedroom, of course! Each to their own! But when it comes to politics, well, not all of us are into that kind of pleasure. :-)

I disagree with Kamiya that that kind of personal energy couldn't sustain a party's enthusiasm for a whole election, but I do agree that the Palin/McCain is not going to be elected. If she had enough political experience to go WITH the dominatrix persona, it could be...but she doesn't.

Thanks again for a good read!

Tiberius is right. We "dems" are looking awfully fearful. Yeah they've beat us eight years in a row, and dominated over the last fifty, but let's take a page out of their book--show no fear and just do what we want. God, if we can't have a sense of humor about politics and sex, we're doomed!

Lets give Gary a break, and take some deep breaths.

If there isn't enough evidence already that Palin is being packaged by her party as a kind of "dominatrix" (doesn't it go without saying that that's a metaphor for God's sake?), check out this site the Republicans are touting:

http://www.palinfacts.com/?paged=4

Kamiya's article is both serious and funny commentary. Palin is serious business, but the Republicans are having a ball with her pitbull image. Without stooping to lying at all, dems can fight fire with fire.

The Obama campaign needs to...

Tell McCain that IT'S NOT ALL ABOUT SARAH!

The pig is about McCain. It's about Bush/Cheney policies in Iraq. It's about the economy. It's about the fact the US has NO national health care. The pig is the elephant that sits and sits and sits in the Palin/McCain campaign.

CALL THE OBAMA CAMPAIGN AT (866) 675-2008

Why are you here if you can't contribute with some emotional intelligence to the conversations? Is it fear that brings you here? Since you're here, can you tell us if you are not just a little bothered by the lies and lack of honor McCain is demonstrating in this campaign? If you're not to afraid to do so, or too defensive, can you be honest with us about the issues?

Here's a letter that appears in this morning's Seattle Post-Intelligencer:

SARAH PALIN

Governor on ticket just puts lipstick on a pig

I'm not sure whether guest columnist Anika Smith is really enthusiastic or just being satirical (Sarah Palin: "She gives us reason to vote," Tuesday).

She seems to be embarrassed that many members of the current administration and many of its minions in Congress are corrupt, but she lauds adding Palin to the Republican ticket "to remind Republicans why they are Republicans."

Palin says the difference between her and a pit bull is lipstick. By the same metaphor, adding Palin to the Republican ticket only adds lipstick to a pig. The pig is still a pig, and adding a pit bull to the sty is just ludicrous.

James Bruner

Oak Harbor

Why are you so unwilling to see that this lipstick metaphor has been around for years and years? Are you afraid that the Palin/McCain campaign's dishonorable rhetoric will be exposed if you don't keep making vicious (but ultimately stupid) attacks on Obama's?

Letter can be found here: http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/378440_ltrs10.html