--Well, we DID win the election; does that mean something?

--Yes you did and all I see is nice middle class foks getting thrown out of work. The guys on Wall Street who overwhelmingly donated to Obama are still well employed and there are various ways of their avoiding the caps on their salaries.

Well finally, someone from the right seems to understand how much trouble you're in as a political party at the moment. It's a trip: everyone from the right has been talking here as if, besides being the party of Love all of a sudden (as if your statements about Obama aren't a constant mantra, exactly equaling the "hatred" being "spewed" at Palin), we're going to feel hurt about being smirked at and lied about. It hurt far worse when you actually held power in a branch or three. At least you realize that your party is not in power. You're the only rightist here who has realized this.

The rest have spent their time convincing--again, who, exactly? Who do you think you have convinced that Sarah Palin is "intelligent," as you keep calling her? We on the left have mentioned many, many times that it is simply a requirement for the office of Vice President or President that one be intelligent, thoughtful and intellectually diligent. We have provided many, many examples showing very clearly that she is not.

Have you provided any--even one--example of a quote or a public action from her, showing such intellectual diligence?

If you have nothing, then go ahead and call any criticism "hatred." That will look like hypocritical lying, considering your similar statements against Obama, so as to bray support for one political party over another. It's simplistic; more to the point, it's begun to lose you elections, and you don't even seem to be aware of it.

Politicians must be intelligent. Sarah hasn't convinced us that she is, but has convinced us, with many, many statements, that she's not. When we've asked you for convincing evidence that she is, you've covered up the question with complaints of "hatred," instead of answering it honestly. But I'm glad you're at least fooling yourselves, because it's not as if you're snowing anyone else. The 2012 election was the easiest one we've ever won.

Sarah's gonna beat all you commie libs to a bloody pulp. In the meantime, to help her along, we're going to turn the amber plains of grain into scorched earth.

God bless America.

Over and out.

for a little palate cleansing of humor, after all the seriousness, name calling, etc. here. Some really funny stuff over there, but caveat emptor since some of it crosses even my line. But ANYway, just wondering, is there a "Wingnut School of Bad Grammar/Spelling/Punctuation/Capitalization" somewhere? With the notable exception of readerreader, who seems to actually give a crap about such stuff, there's a noticeable lack of attention to this from many of the trolls under this here bridge. Are you so het up that you are just typing furiously and don't care about such commie nonsense as the English language and how it's intended to be used? I'll just believe that, for now. But isn't it ironic that some of these folks who want to make English the official language when you order a cheesesteak, don't know how to, or don't care to use it properly?

Could she be giving herself more time to prepare a defense for her "Housegate"? Someone forwarded me a current chapter on peculiarities about the Palin homestead from Kos. When I ran a google to see if more info is available, I typed "Sarah house" and Google suggested "Sarah housegate"

You betcha!

And maybe Sarah's alleged grandchild with the down's syndrome isn't really her daughter's kid after all - but is in fact Sarah's own child.

Isn't it just typical of a Republican to appropriate for her own use an expression which originally arose out of contempt for-- Republicans?

And by that I mean Sarah Palin's claim yesterday that she's a victim of, "the politics of personal destruction," a phrase which I believe originated in the 1990s and arose from G.O.P. smears of the Clintons.

This is rich, really rich.

"Certainly, accounting for different conditions in that different country and conditions are certainly different."

http://blog.cleveland.com/openers/2008/10/transcript.txt

"Also, John McCain's maverick position that he's in, that's really prompt up to and indicated by the supporters that he has." http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/10/03/politics/2008debates/main4498708.shtml

Yup, no "straight" sentence could substitute for complex ones such as those.

I think this is a misunderstanding. Many people comment on the complexity of Palin's sentences.

CNN interrupte 8 days of covering Michael Jackson to cover the announcement of Sarah Palin. Joan Walsh catches the announcement on CNN and calls it a soap opera, wierd, and bazarre. How could anyone call that press conference those names after the last 8 days of CNN Programing?

Thank you very much for the nice word on making an impression. That really made my week. It makes the 1000+ letters worth while; there was no way I could stay away in this news cycle.

The more I think about this, the more I like it. Pawlenty in Minnesota will be out doing victory laps and Iowa dinners his final year as governor, and no one will care because no one cares about him (politically speaking). Palin is saying: if I do the same, and it sets off hysteria, then why not just "pass the ball"?

Who acts like this? It reminds me a bit of high school student council politics, where people just serve or don't serve if they feel they can do some good (at least, that's the way I approached it), as well as Hermann Hesse's Siddhartha. In Siddhartha, a young Budhist without a care in the world moves to a coastal city, dabbles at being a merchant, and ultimately becomes consumed with the cares of the world. Our political culture is like that. Sarah Palin is not. She's grounded. To me, it's very refreshing.

Ultimately, I don't care what she does next. She's landed in the briar patch, as far as I can tell, and I wish her (and friendly Salon readers like you) the very best.