Thanks for showing up well prepared. I didn't see the segment but figure you "kicked ass". I bet it won't be hard to find Republican dishonesty on her part. I bet it's just below the surface and that this dishonesty surrounds her.

But as you become more informed I wonder how long you will last on the TV circuit. I think the suits want debate like they want a case of the "clap".

On the other hand I bet this will provide you with more, better stories. Please keep it up. It's cool having someone on "our" side for once on the TV who references facts when expressing opinions and judgements about events.

Okay, Joan, this one deserves a response from you. I'm no fan of AP, but can you dispute the figures they quote?

I think she lies about everything, what do they call that a congenital liar?

Good journalism, thanks!

This information should have been on every network and in every newspaper within 48 hours of her announcement. Making fun of Sarah is too easy, and not so helpful. Rebutting her claims with facts though-- that's powerful.

Excellent point--but where *is* the spreadsheet? Have you seen it? None of my friends, including a number of professional journalists here, have. It was briefly mentioned in yesterday's headlines, but none of the stories contained a link. There's nothing on the State of Alaska government page: http://www.state.ak.us/

Seems like a glaring omission to deprive your supporters of such relevant details--unless it's just another smokescreen. I'm especially interested in the claimed $70.00/hour rate paid to state employees--$425,000 divided by 6000 hours. Judges in Alaska start at $74.00/hr; sounds like a waste of resources and skills to have judges doing basic research.

And we still haven't seen a detailed breakdown of hr personal legal bills--which she claims she took on to save the state from the same excessive costs she feels have 'paralyzed' her chances at finishing her term.

If you have the document, please share it. Otherwise, your defense seems as ineffective as Palin's pathetic attempts at explaining her actions.

I love what you said on Hardball! You totally nailed it. Thank you for posting the video, too!

1. I'm still on my weekend extension, so please -- no reminders that I promised to go.

2. To Joan's point, the ADN states that 300K is the personnel board's tab. Palin gave the Fairbanks paper a spreadsheet showing $1.9 million in state costs, including FOIA costs linked to the ethics charges. For Palin to be a liar, you need to drill down on that spreadsheet.

3. Speaking of polls, the Rasmussen poll today was interesting. Taken Monday night, post-Palin resignation, it went 25-24-21 for Romney, Palin, and Huckabee. Social conservaties (Palin/Huckabee) beat fiscal conservatives (Romney/Gingrinch) by 45-38, consistent with recent surveys.

Takeaways? There are three. a. Socials are beating fiscals in the battle of the blocs. b. Palin is beating Huckabee in the sub-social mini-primary. c. If Pailn can cram down Huckabee, and Romney crams down Gingrich, more votes exist for Palin.

More takeaways. Romney is a good person to match up against, for three reasons. a. He isn't charismatic. b. Although he's considered "serious," he has no signature issues. c. Although he's considered a "second time around" Republican, he pales in comparison to predecessors. Other second timers were Reagan (who won a slew of primaries in 1976), G.H.W. Bush (who won Iowa with the "big mo" in 1980), Bob Dole (who won Iowa in 1988 and nearly got the nomination -- "stop lying about my record"), and John McCain (who made a big splash in 2000 -- the "straight talk express").

Romney is a second timer whose first time was a bomb -- he outspent Huckabee 10 to 1 in Iowa and still lost, then outspent McCain 10 to 1 in New Hampshire and lost again. d. Romney might find it impossible to run in Iowa after his poor showing there before. Unlike Hillary and Edwards, he refused to address supporters after his Iowa loss, flew back for interviews the night of the caucus, then told reporters on national television he was relieved to be home; i.e., the dreaded "blue state" northeast. Asking him to return to Iowa might be like asking Ned Beatty about a Deliverance sequel. And, please, don't mention moonshining to Mike Huckabee.

4. By the way, of all the nascent Romneyite wise men (i.e., Republican strategists) in the media who dribbled out free advice for Palin over the past six months, none seriously considered how she might win the nomination in 2012. Look at this like an MBA project: start with the goal, then develop the business plan.

I submit that (a) you choose an emphasis between Iowa and New Hampshire -- you must win one of them; (b) Iowa is the better bet; and (c) you've got Huckabee who won there before, is practically living there now, and probably is above 21% there if he has 21% nationally. Sitting in Alaska for the next 18 months would put her at a disadvantage.

It is ironic, because the stereotype of Palin is that she would parachute in late, if she ran at all, and try to get by with winks and charm. However, in her Runners World interview, she spoke of the movie "Rudy" and the kid who doggedly pursues the big dream for years. What big dream? In two weeks, she's used these phrases: higher calling; all options on the table; I would beat Obama in a run. Somehow, people still ponder what this could mean.

Bottom line: I'm not saying the move was brilliant. I'm saying it was sensible. If I were a professor grading business plans for victory in Iowa, Palin's would be the best. Winning there at age 48 could also help a "second run," if that became an option.

5. Let's talk just a bit about the media. Surprisingly, the MSM has been very equitable of late. They've couched everything properly in terms of probabilities: things might help, or they might hurt.

By contrast, the rightest media has lost its senses. Rich Lowry, who confessed being "over the moon" last year on Palin, bitterly unloaded yesterday, then linked to a nastygram by Kathleen Parker (complete with new anonymous quotes from Republican operatives which comically tracked her own lazy argument).

I suspect NRO really thought she "died" last weekend, to use Palin's own expression. This week, they resemble the "Turk" in the Godfather after failing to kill Don Corleone. "He's still alive!", the Turk wails in despair. "We hit him with five shots and he's still alive!" Poor Lowry, who normally tracks every political tid bit, could not bring himself today to allow mention of either of the new pro-Palin polls.

6. A final word on general elections. Palin's three signature issues: oil drilling, less spending, and anti-abortion, enjoy even or bare majority support in national surveys. (Yes, I'm talking Gallup on abortion). You might boil it down to this: save, drill, nurture. She's fought Obama on stimulus, she has more experience with energy than any GOP rival, and she has both personal narrative and parental consent legislation on abortion. That's a good place to start.

7. Okay, one final thought. Yes, yes, yes, people will say, but what about the fact that she's an idiot? I had to laugh when I saw one of her answers to a "are you running for president?" question. She said she thinks any average, hard working American with good judgment could be a good president. That's the most audacious thing anyone has said on the subject . . . since Harry Truman expressed almost exactly the same sentiment after his elevation in 1945.

Here's the most audacious thing of all. Although I do think she will "study up" on issues per her Rudy theme, I also think she doesn't intend to change who she is, or how she handles herself politically. The more she stays the same, the more I will support her.