We have important work to do for Mrs. Palin.

She needs to build a defense against the green meanies.

The ones who continue to torment her.

Even though we've gotten the bitter Mr. Letterman to back off.

Or is it if the shoe fits. Well, you schmucks know who you are. I saw the excitement when Sarah came to town, drawing many times the crowd of O'Bama. McCain made a good choice even though McCain was a bad choice. Sarah is as close to Reagan as we'll get.

But you be sure to vote for Baracky the Bullcrapper, Jowinkle and Fiends.

Me thinks she doth protest too much. There is much fire behind this smoke.

The more I read posted comments of Sarah Palin from stories and articles written in tabloids and websites the more I realize fear from the left wing and liberals. I myself believe that she would not be a good presidential candidate due to the ill effects of sectarian media and that the Republican party needs to be smart in their choices. What is it that liberals fear? What is it that gives them the willies that she could someday be President? Could be that they are afraid of the thought that this country could once again be one of free choices of the individual. Not the country they foresee where government makes the decisions for the people unable to think or care for themselves. Is this really the way American citizens want to think of themselves?

It does strike me, though, that had we not gone after Palin to set her up as clownish, quite so much, Palin would now so much more likely be out of the public spotlight for good. We've set up a situation where, through continuing to support Palin, some folk feel they can stick it to "elitist" "better-than-thous"--us.

Sarah Palin will never become President. Even though she shares Ronald Reagan's mean-spirited, ignorant, and backwards view of the world, she lacks the superficial charm and kindly old man demeanor that allowed Reagan to worm his way into the Oval Office. Palin cannot disguise her cruelty and ignorance.

What she will do, I expect, is keep the wingnut faction of the American electorate stirred up and resentful. She will excel as a demagogue, and a dangerous one at that.

"He (O'Reilly) added fuel to the fire that took Dr. Tiller's life."

Actually, that's an astounding leap in logic, my friend. Reports by the Kansas City Star indicate that Scott Roeder (Tiller's killer) had been a crackpot for many, many years. In fact, he was involved in the "Freeman" militia movement long before the first episode of The O'Reilly Factor ever even aired. Not to mention the fact that Joan didn't even know if Roeder ever watched The Factor in the first place. Yet she blithely tried to connect O'Reilly to the murder anyway. And that was wrong.

But don't misunderstand, I'm not condoning O'Reilly's rhetoric. As I said before, I think O'Reilly is a blowhard. Much like Joan, but from the opposite end of the political spectrum. However, his protracted and often heated campaign against Tiller reminded me of the protracted and often heated campaign against Sarah Palin here at Salon.

"She (Palin) invites harsh condemnation."

Yes, I'm quite sure many folks on the left believe she does. But it can be civil condemnation as well. Not the consistent, relentless, misogynistic condemnation found here. I gave three excellent examples of Salon's misogynistic campaign against her a few posts back if you're interested.

"...but I know you find her compelling and so disagree with that assessment"

Not really. I don't know quite what to think of her. I don't think she represents herself or her party very well. And perhaps she's come to realize that. Or perhaps not. But she doesn't deserve the vicious, misogynistic treatment Salon seems to dish out at every turn. No woman does. Hope that explains my position for you.

To properly understand Salon and Sarah, you must go back to October, 2008, when Max Blumenthal penned a column for Salon on the wacky world of Alaskan fringe politics. It was a decent column, and it came back again this summer, though not in the manner which Max and Joan suppose.

Writing on a web site called the "Daily Beast," Max reflects back on Salon's column and says, per CBS News, that it caused Palin "deep personal distress." But that's not quite accurate. In fact, what caused Palin distress was a CNN review of the story expressly set-up as an expose on Todd Palin, not Sarah. It began with the question "Who is Todd Palin?" and in the very first interview question, CNN asked whether the AIP is akin to the duo which blew up the federal building in Oklahoma City.

This week, in his "Daily Beast" column, Max is hawking an out-and-out rumor that Palin stepped down because she is being investigated by the FBI. He acknowledges it as a rumor. The story has circulated widely, even washing up on the shores of Alex Koppelman's column here on Salon (he expressly cites Max, but discounts his rumor).

Today, the L.A. Times reports that the FBI has categorically denied the existence of any such investigation; the Palin camp has done so as well.

Joan wonders in her prior column why Palin and her supporters won't give the full scoop on Todd and the AIP. Gee, I don't know. Maybe it's because her reporter, Max, is a rumor peddler, and Palin doesn't like feeding that flame. Maybe it's because she already faces $600,000 in legal bills inflicted by Democratic plumbers chasing down similar rabbit trails for "news." Maybe it's because Todd really does want Alaska to be independent from the U.S., maybe it's because he made an inadvertent registration, and maybe it's because he went to a couple of meetings but never had much investment in the cause (recall, he registered in 1995 only after an AIP man, Wally Hickel, became governor on the AIP ticket in 1990, but Wally never did anything radical or secessionist).

But Joan doesn't stop there. She wrote in response to me that Sarah deflected the story from herself to Todd, and suggested this implies dishonesty. Not true. Again, the CNN story was expressly about Todd ("Who is Todd Palin?" was the dark intonation at the outset of the story). Joan also uses the term "Big Lies," but disclaims any intentional echo concerning the origin of that term. I think that's Stalinistic of her, and by that I don't mean Josef Stalin, but my neighbor Fred Stalin, who does that sort of thing all the time. If you thought I meant Josef, that's your mistake, not mine. Joan also repeated twice that Palin "lied" about the AIP being secessionist, even though I effectively refuted that charge.

So, what do we have? A rumor peddler named Max, a few scraps of intrigue surrounding Todd Palin, and Salon.com. However, the most intriguing thing to me is the relationship between the "plumbers" and their rumors on the one hand, and people like Max who report them on the other. It's not a high water mark for American journalism.

Joan, bottom line. I don't begrudge your reporting. I really don't. In fact, I find it interesting. But you did overcharge Palin, and your association with base rumor mongering (see above) undermines your cause.

I still like you, and hope you do better in the future. As for Palin, I doubt you'll ever "get it," even on the level of simple respect. That's your misfortune. :)