That's what happens when you go take a shower.

That was the big one, her lie about opposing the bridge to nowhere. She never opposed the bridge to nowhere, and as far as I have been able to tell she never said anything against it till about two months or so ago. I could be wrong about that, but I know for a fact that she campaigned for Governor in favor of it.

There's also the lie about lower taxes in Alaska, when she in fact raised them, or her outright lie about being a reformer against earmarks, when she hired a lobbying firm in Washington to get Wasilla $27 million in earmarks while mayor, and that Alaska gets $$750 million in earmarks, which I think makes it the most in the country. I won't get into the multitude of lies she told about Obama. Or the dumb lies about selling the jet on ebay and such.

Politicians often say things that are not necessarily true. Often times they feel they have to, for whatever reason. They do it in a few certain ways:

1) They exaggerate- Take a fact that makes your point, and make it sound like far, far more relevant or important a stat than it actually is. "Issue A is right, because Minor stat B proves it." Not a lie as such, because while the candidate may be far overstating the relevance of the stat, there's no way to empirically prove they don't find the stat as relevant as they say they do.

2) They embellish- somewhat the same thing, but often times more about stating something without using numbers, only implying them. "Issue A is right, because all the studies that I have seen make it abundantly obvious." Not a lie either, because even if the candidate has never seen any study supporting their position, it still doesn't contradict their statement if they haven't seen any studies about it at all.

Embellishing also means using anecdotal stories as if there as some golden rule, and a few other kinds of things, but that isn't the same kind of thing as skirting around a lie, so I'll leave that be.

3) Using hyperbole. Saying something that is absolutely false, but going so far out to do it that no reasonable person can think you were being serious. The intended effect is to get your implication across without needing accuracy. See Huckabee's crack about Biden getting less votes for President than Palin got for Mayor as an example of this; patently false, but everyone knew what he implied. And it was no big deal.

4) They distort- The closest thing to a lie. Probably why its also the closest the 'objective' media will come to calling a politician a liar no matter what he/she says. A prime example of this of citing a stat or survey to make your point, without pointing out the survey in question is twenty years old and conducted in Zaire.

While none of these kinds of tactics are necessarily honroable, they are very tried and true methods that all politicians, of all parties use all the time. Obama, Biden, and McCain all use them to varying degrees all the time, some of them worse than others. And their not only for bad reasons. Mostly yes, but not always. Sometimes the full answer is just too complicated to get into all the time for all people. Sometimes its to try and avoid an unwarranted and disproportionate attacks from your opponent. Of course, good politicians avoid doing these kind of things whenever they can, and the closer you get to distorting and not the other three, the worse you are.

What Sarah Palin did Wednesday, in many cases cannot be seen to fall under any of these categories. Maybe an argument about some of them falling under distorting, but she was nowhere close to any of the others.

Her Bridge to Nowhere claim is a direct conflict with all stated facts, and there is no way humanly possible she is not aware of this, either her past stand or her present dishonesty. So it is a concious, complete and total lie.

Her claim about taxes is not true. She raised taxes. If she had been less absolute in her wording, ie, 'I lowered taxes on such and such people', and implied it was significant compared to the taxes she raised on everyone else, then she would only have distorted. Still bad, but not a lie. But she didn't that, so she lied.

As far as earmarks, well, fine maybe that was just distortion, and not a complete lie. But I don't think so. Because it was so willfully said, its the centerpiece of her phony reformer image, and she knows its not true, not true in the slightest. She is one of the worst offenders in America when it comes to earmarks, both as Mayor and Governor. You may say that is hyperbole, but it a fact that its a helluva lot more accurate about her record than anything she has said.

There, Xanthro, is that enough explanation for you?

Oh, and because I think its my new closing line, Palin is a liar.

She never said no thank you to the money. She took it, after congress cut the money in half. Which on Wednesday she said she didn't. She was in favor of the bridge, even though she said she was against it in no uncertain terms. Those are far more than embellishments or exaggerations, those are both lies.

So, because I'm loud and I'm proud: Sarah Palin is a liar.

Looks like yet another thing might be out there for Sarah Palin to lie about.

Because she is, you know, a liar.