Do you mean Palin is "Dangerous" like, say, altering the enormously successful free market capitalistic economic model of the United States for all time? Like THAT kind of "dangerous?" As for how "dumb" and uneducated she is, we really don't know Obama's IQ and how much he benefited from affirmative action in his college career. We do know that he can read a good speech but once he's off the teleprompter, well, not so much. So I resent the implication that Palin is so obviously "dangerous" while Obama's driving us into a failed euro-socialistic economic model is proof that he's some sort of wise shaman that America has waited for far too long...

I see your point - there were a few days when Palin was first announced as running for veep that I just found her kind of amusing, the latest example of Republican cluelessness. But then her popularity soared, briefly, and at the same time it turned out that she was one of those Christian fundie types who think it's their duty to hasten Armageddon, and for a few weeks in October I was scared shitless. I grew up in the Christian Right, and I do not want those people with their hands anywhere near a nuclear button. So for me, the anti-Palin overkill had nothing to do with misogyny, nothing to do with class issues, but a genuine fear that the country might fall into the hands of a member of a very dangerous cult. To me the overkill seemed justified to keep the levers of power out of that woman's hands (and the hands of any of those fundie fanatic bastards) by any means necessary.

Is just what Palin supporters call any and all criticism of Palin in an attempt to deflect said criticism. It works for them. That way they answer none of the charges. Read the letters here to see it writ small. Not one Palin defender has actually defended her. They just blame the liberals. This is how Palin survives. Don't explain your positions, attack the liberals.

Gee, KateTex, I thought Pastor Horace and the rest of us were discussing Sarah Palin. I don't need you to fix my letter by turning it into your racist anti-Obama screed showing no better grasp of the facts than Palin has. There's rarely been a president with as solid and comprehensive a grasp of issues as the current one has.

And FYI, I supported Hillary Clinton for the presidency until early June of last year. Once Obama had clinched the nomination, I naturally supported him as someone closer to my policy preferences than the other candidates. What did you do, go from being a Hillary supporter to a Palin supporter simply because of their shared anatomical features?

It would be one thing if she were merely stupid and self serving, but her hateful behavior on the campaign trail was beyond excuse. She's much more than an annoying celebrity gadfly, she's a cancer on our society. Her attacks on Obama weren't just hardball politics, they were poisonous and dangerous and she had no shred of remorse delivering her venom. She's without conscience, and she appeals to the very worst elements in this country: the bitter, rancorous, paranoid and bigotted.

She's a festering, running sore covered with a shiny bandage. Relentlessly ridiculing her every idiotic word and deed isn't just fun, it's an obligation. She needs to be held up as the blank-eyed, dumb, mean-spirited, self-serving hate-mongering symbol of what we as a nation should reject.

Phony Journalists like you and everyone else here who would much rather go panty diving than report about anything that requires a three digit IQ. Glenn Greenwald being the exception.

How many articles did Salon do about McKinney being a POW and hostage?

Too black, eh?

Phony Journalists like you and everyone else here who would much rather go panty diving than report about anything that requires a three digit IQ. Glenn Greenwald being the exception.

How many articles did Salon do about McKinney being a POW and hostage?

Too black, eh?

I can tell you before the toxicology report comes in.

It was the KING syndrome. The spoiled celebrity with the inner circle of toadies and yes men. Michael gets what Michael wants the moment he wants it. And so with sleep. The surgical knock-out drug allowed him to snap his fingers and get what he wanted even with sleep. That nurse said that's what he said he liked about it. He could see the first drop coming down the tube and then he was out.

Have a nice sleep.

Sarah Palin entered national politics with the honesty and integrity of her small town, grass roots, Alaska heritage, and then faced the personal attacks of effect liberal snobs, those nattering nabobs...

Oh, wait. The presentation of Sarah Palin to the nation was a fraud. She had no ideas; so we heard lies, and many of them were about Sarah Palin the person.

Sure, lay off the children, but she signed up for the personal attacks when she agreed to run for office by pretending to be informed and intelligent.

In a country not besotted by fame, a politician as intellectually deficient as Palin, whose ambitions are that untethered, and above all who is petulantly unwilling to do the hard, prosaic work of governing, would be ushered permanently offstage.

Except in Italy where Berlesconi the Buffoon continues to wreck his country's reputation.

1: "The national reaction to Jackson's death was false and overblown, but it didn't hurt anyone."

2: "It's irritating that we can't get Michael Jackson off our national screen. But it's positively frightening that we have to keep watching Palin".

Sorry, Salon-ers, that I'm not adept with computer modes and can't post in the form many of you do (with easy links and quotes). I'm pretty old.

And in that I know I'm probably posting the wrong things to the wrong site. I think there've been about 24 letters posted so far. I haven't yet had time to read them but tend to imagine they'll mostly be talking about Jackson and Palin and other issues this article raises.

My concern (for the moment) is other -- hence the two sentences I started with.

"The national reaction...was false and overblown but it didn't hurt anyone"?? You mean there is no 'hurt' to 'anyone' by "a national reaction that [is] false"?

"It's irritating... we have to keep watching..." Palin

My concern is this captivity to the media themselves. [Yes, "media" is a noun plural, o.k. guys?]

I do not believe that a "national reaction that is false and overblown" "didn't hurt anyone". Ay yi yi, o.k.? How much ?"hurt"? is there in a "national reaction that is false and overblown"??!!

And as for it's being "positively frightening that [you] have to keep wathing Palin"...

What's ?"positively frightening" to me (n part any way) is this subjugation to the media themselves.

Why don't you just turn the screen off?

Hope to get some responses because I know I'm being obscure, but it just seems to me there's something awfully "off" here as to what's real and what isn't.

salonmarte