You're in a message forum about Sarah Palin's abrupt resignation. Yet for some reason you've chosen to harp on a completely unrelated subject, John Kerry. You're stuck in 2004.

Regarding Kerry's Purple Heart, I wonder what it is that offends you so much about this. Kerry didn't choose to get wounded. Nor did he choose to be bestowed with the same medal that others who had similar injuries received. Your criticism in this case would logically have to be directed at the military for their policies regarding medals.

if you get an encore invitation from O'Reilly (whose response was "She wouldn't answer the question.")

As McMurphy said to Martini in One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest: "Do me a favor -- stay off my side."

Center stage is a lonely place when you do not have the support of your party and McCain confirmed it publicly. I don't believe she'll run in 2012.

Palin has run into difficulties in Alaska and she is bailing out with sensationalism in mind. Much better to play 'martyr' for her base-it will keep them wanting more. She can't leave the spotlight, though, she likes it too much.

Palin has the book deal, and there's speaking engagements that are very profitable. Some of radical right media may even hire her to do commentary or be another Rush. She won't be quiet-she said so-she even had to take some parting shots during her resignation rambling.

The premise of Alaska of being some kind of 'mecca' for the rest of the U.S. was mentioned in her ramble. A capable Governor would have prepared for population explosion. Those earmarks should have been used for things like a sewer system if everyone is relocating to Alaska.

virtue001: "I find it stunning that you take such glee in the “rolling hilarity” of Palin’s "meltdown" after your humiliating performance on O’Reilly."

Joan Walsh held her own against O'Reilly, and it is O'Reilly who ended up editing the segment to make himself look better. Walsh's "debate" with O'Reilly would not preclude her from making comments about Palin in any case.

virtue001: "I would have thought you might have found some compassion in your heart for her after what you just went through, particularly because you claim to be a feminist."

Multiple fallacies in one sentence. The first fallacy is that Walsh lacks compassion. Upon what basis would Palin's press conference call for compassion? Palin was announcing that she was quitting, and she evaded explaining why. If Palin had given a reason, then perhaps compassion would be one possible response. Perhaps not.

The second fallacy in your comment is the idea that Palin's resignation is somehow tied into sexism against her. This has not been established, and Palin herself has not made such a claim.

But I’m realizing now that you really only stand up for feminism when you want to play the victim card. Like when you called O'Reilly a "misogynist nutjob" after he humiliated you. Do you really believe THAT'S the reason he reacted to you the way he did -- because he's a "misogynist"?"

I don't see Walsh playing any victim card. Walsh merely stated a plain fact, which is that O'Reilly said "You have blood on your hands." Walsh didn't say this made her a victim so much as that it was an absurd statement.

Nor did Walsh claim, as you state, that O'Reilly attacked her because he's a misogynist. Walsh did describe him as a misogynist in general (and I would agree, along with many other forms of bigotry), but she didn't claim his attack had a misogynist element.

virtue001: "Don’t you think the fact that you tried to link him to a murder was the more likely motivator?"

More illogical nonsense. Illogical because whatever Walsh said, it doesn't justify O'Reilly's statement. Why would Joan Walsh have blood on her hands merely because she criticized O'Reilly's rhetoric?

virtue001: "There’s an awful lot of hate on this thread, Joan."

This is an ironic statement coming from you.

virtue001: "And isn’t that exactly what you accused O’Reilly of inciting? Didn't you accuse him of getting people riled up with hateful rhetoric? And you’re different than him HOW?"

Can you really be this obtuse, virtue001? Do you really think there's an equivalence between O'Reilly's commentary about Tiller and Walsh's commentary about Palin? How so -- what are the parallels?

O'Reilly's rhetoric involves shouting down guests. O'Reilly singled out Tiller on numerous occasions and referred to him as a murderer and a baby killer. I think he had a pet name -- something like "Tiller the baby killer." O'Reilly's commentary showed support for the groups who post abortion doctors' home addresses online, and that sort of thing. It's also worth pointing out that O'Reilly has frequently assigned producers to go to people's homes and ambush them with an interviewer and cameraman who ask hostile questions while the person's walking out to check the mail or whatever.

So how does Joan Walsh's rhetoric compare to the above? Well let's see: Walsh hasn't singled out Palin for ongoing ridicule at all (I've seen Walsh defend Palin against some of the more extreme Palin-bashers, and this column is in response to a very topical situation). Walsh hasn't said anything to incite over-the-top hatred toward Palin. Walsh doesn't do anything that encourages people to harass Palin or other political opponents. Walsh doesn't send Salon reporters out to ambush people at their homes or workplaces.

Looks like your comparison is full of shit. But, we knew that.

Even Sarah Palin is sufficiently realistic to recgonize that her future is in pulling in the big bucks for FOX(?) or NBC. Rush is getting old and cranky...she could pick up his radio mantle and not even have to relocate!!

Follow the money!!! Again.

I mentioned Siddhartha only to make a discrete point about career politicians who, like Siddhartha during his time as a merchant, become consumed with worldly cares and essentially lose their bearing. Look at the Republican "class" of 1994 -- their careers were supposed to be "brief but brilliant" because they would pass a sweeping agenda and then go home like Cincinnatus. They didn't. Most clutched to power and stayed as long as they could. I also distinguished Palin, who did not clutch to power as long as she could.

Now, you could posit lots of motives for her behavior, pro and con, but the simplest is the best -- that she plans to hit the campaign trail this fall with her PAC (not unlike Pawlenty, who is still a sitting governor, but is going directly to Iowa for himself) -- and figures her state will be better served by giving her hand picked successor a leg up in his own primary next spring.

It is interesting, at least to me, that Palin posits she couldn't do both: be a governor and a national campaigner. Indeed, we've seen evidence of that -- major carping from Republicans when she didn't attend the leadership retreat in Virginia, for example. But that raises this question: why does she need to be a national campaigner in the first place? It doesn't make sense unless she plans to run for president. (Or, unless she's quitting politics for good once she does a few appearances and sells her book, which also seems possible).

But here's the final point. I'm a cynic as well as a Palin fan. All the post-announcement press releases have come from Palin's PAC chair or Washington friends, not her gubanatorial spokesman. I deduce from that . . . a scent of strategy. I also think a rambling, emotional exit is absolutely essential in these circumstances. Remember Nixon's maudlin farewell address ("No one will ever write a book about my mother"). Why necessary? Because you're quitting early, you want to inspire some sympathy, and you want a bit of deflection. (Palin did only a half-Nixon, which was prudent -- she didn't need to oversell it). Why deflect? Because if you're running for president, you want to stay off the lead of the sprinting ponies (e.g., Huckabee in Iowa) and minimize the resignation itself, to the point of confusion (all the media criticism that she foolishly announced her 'bombshell' on a slow news day was 180 degrees off base).

And look at where we're at. The story of quitting was buried by Saturday, and today we have a statement regarding a "higher calling." To the extent any journalists are working this weekend, they're interpreting whether "higher calling" means a presidential run. These kinds of statements (e.g., saying "I could be beat Obama in a race" to a running magazine) strike me as utterly strategic, vague, and coy . . . which makes me thing she knows what she's doing. Oh, and the surprise announcement was pure Nixon too -- when he gave his silent majority speech, no one on his staff knew whether he was going to announce a "stay" or "go" from Vietnam.

By the way, I'm not writing this to convince you to like her. When I've addressed the issues, you've ignored me. I'm analyzing events. And if perchance, she really is burned out and ready to chuck it, then I don't care what she does politically -- she could do nothing, and it would suit me fine. In that event, I'll just hope she and her family are happy.