• Tips gratefully accepted here. Thanks!:

  • Recent Comments

    jmac on Arrows Up
    jmac on Eli Lilly, Indiana and Do…
    Beata on Eli Lilly, Indiana and Do…
    Beata on Arrows Up
    Propertius on Arrows Up
    Propertius on Arrows Up
    jmac on Arrows Up
    Beata on Arrows Up
    William on Arrows Up
    Beata on Arrows Up
    Ivory Bill Woodpecke… on Kansas Nope
    Ivory Bill Woodpecke… on Arrows Up
    Beata on Arrows Up
    William on Kansas Nope
    Propertius on I Think That There Are Democra…
  • Categories

  • Tags

    abortion Add new tag Afghanistan Al Franken Anglachel Atrios bankers Barack Obama Bernie Sanders big pharma Bill Clinton cocktails Conflucians Say Dailykos Democratic Party Democrats Digby DNC Donald Trump Donna Brazile Economy Elizabeth Warren feminism Florida Fox News General Glenn Beck Glenn Greenwald Goldman Sachs health care Health Care Reform Hillary Clinton Howard Dean John Edwards John McCain Jon Corzine Karl Rove Matt Taibbi Media medicare Michelle Obama Michigan misogyny Mitt Romney Morning Edition Morning News Links Nancy Pelosi New Jersey news NO WE WON'T Obama Obamacare OccupyWallStreet occupy wall street Open thread Paul Krugman Politics Presidential Election 2008 PUMA racism Republicans research Sarah Palin sexism Single Payer snark Social Security Supreme Court Terry Gross Texas Tim Geithner unemployment Wall Street WikiLeaks women
  • Archives

  • History

    December 2010
    S M T W T F S
  • RSS Paul Krugman: Conscience of a Liberal

    • An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.
  • The Confluence

    The Confluence

  • RSS Suburban Guerrilla

    • History
      "To sit in those classrooms where my teachers obfuscated the true reasons for the Civil War and what the passage of the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts meant was to feel alone in America," @GayleCaleb writes:https://t.co/e6TlaUUgDj — The Atlantic (@TheAtlantic) August 7, 2022
  • RSS Ian Welsh

    • Week-end Wrap – Political Economy – August 7, 2022
      Week-end Wrap – Political Economy – August 7, 2022 by Tony Wikrent   Restoring balance to the economy Becoming the Workers’ Party Again Senator Sherrod Brown (D-OH), August 5, 2022 [The American Prospect] …A toxic combination of shareholder capitalism and pliant politicians gutted our middle class, hollowed out our towns, and dried up opportunity for people […]
  • Top Posts

Never doubt the Clown

Salon reports what I predicted a year and one-half ago:

Doubting Sarah
A chorus of criticism and doubt about Sarah Palin is emerging from an unlikely and telling source: Republicans

Sarah Palin is widely considered to be a leading candidate for the 2012 GOP presidential nomination. And while an October story in Politico made a splash (and drew Palin’s wrath) by quoting anonymous Republican “insiders” attacking Palin, we’ve noticed a different, striking pattern in recent weeks: More and more prominent Republicans are publicly voicing doubts about Palin.

June 18, 2009:

Secondly, I didn’t say that everything being thrown at Sarah comes from the left side of the political fence. Before Sarah will have a chance to face a Democrat in a national election again she will have to win the GOP nomination, and there are several men also vying for that prize. Although they have to be more circumspect because of her popularity with the GOPer base, the Republicans invented the bitch-slap theory – Josh Marshall just gave it a name.

So you’re gonna see Sarah get attacked from every direction, often unfairly and sometimes outrageously. But how she should respond is problematic. The conventional wisdom of the Village Idiots is that such attacks should be ignored. Ask Michael Dukakis how well that strategy works.

Now the conventional wisdom on the left is that the GOP establishment is attacking Palin because they are afraid that if she is the 2012 nominee she will lose in the general election. That’s wrong.

They are scared shitless that she’ll win.

132 Responses

  1. I remember this prediction well and always agreed with it. You are very right. They are scared shitless that she will win.

  2. ‘Sarah Palin’s Alaska’ explains ‘refudiate’ on TLC show as simple mis-typed Twitter message

    Sarah Palin feels like she no longer has to repudiate her use of the word “refudiate.”

    On Sunday night’s episode of “Sarah Palin’s Alaska,” the ex-Alaska governor tried to explain how one letter changed the English language as we know it.

    While checking her BlackBerry during a logging trip, the 46-year-old politico complained to her husband, Todd, that “refudiate” was a top Google search term only because she mis-typed a tweet.

    In July, Palin caused a flurry when she used the misspelling in a Twitter message about Park51.

    “Ground Zero Mosque supporters: doesn’t it stab you in the heart, as it does ours throughout the heartland?” she tweeted. “Peaceful Muslims, pls refudiate.”

    But Palin’s memory is not entirely accurate. Prior to her Twitter message, she misspoke the word on Sean Hannity’s Fox News show while discussing the NAACP’s stance on Tea Party racism.

    “[Barack and Michelle Obama] have power in their words,” she said. “They could refudiate what it is that this group is saying.”

    After her tweet caused a furor, Palin argued that she was a modern-day Bard.

    “‘Refudiate,’ ‘misunderestimate,’ ‘wee-wee’d up.’ English is a living language,” she tweeted. “Shakespeare liked to coin new words too. Got to celebrate it!”

    • Somehow I doubt she claimed to be Shakespeare 😉

      • So you’re refudiating the article?

        • Who knows. She just doesn’t seem delusional. RW but not really delusional.

          • Refudiate doesn’t bother me. Stupid crap like “skin in the game” bothers me. I heard it used on the mornign news today. At least I know what refudiate is supposed to mean. What the hell skin is coming off in a game?

          • Glad I missed “skin in the game”, but I’m gonna guess it had something to do with economics in this case.

            If “skin in the game” means something to lose, I have a lot less of it than Mr MoneyBags.

          • “The notion that somehow”

          • I thought “skin in the game” had something to do with the pigskin ball. I’m sooooo out of touch!

          • I think Warren Buffet made up that phrase. The football players were probably wearing less equipment at Nebraska when he was in college.

          • I took “skin in the game” as those players who play hard and get banged up, be it base-ball, football, hockey, etc. that they literally leave skin on the field from scratches, or even blood. I then took that metaphor to mean that someone who gets into something and can lose beyond the score. Hillary for example went for the prize with all she had, and put some of her skin in the campaign for the presidency, her own money (she lent to the campaign) and her heart.

          • Google it – seems it comes from company executives investing in their own firms.

          • Yes, the financial metaphor is that one must put something in the company (W.Buffet said it), but it’s a metaphor, and the question is, what is that metaphor. AlphaDictionary dot com

            Latest Clichés: Skin and Haircuts
            Thursday, April 2nd, 2009
            The latest Beltway clichés are beginning to irritate me and I can no longer resist the inclination to complain about them. “Put some skin in (the game)” brings up memories of falling and scraping knees, elbows, heads, and the like.

            This cliché replaces “ante up”, which replaced “cough up”, whose demises please no one more than me. ”Put some skin in” is milder than “give a pound of flesh”, donated by Shakespeare but still it is pretty raw. “Ante up” comes from poker; it means literally to put more money in the game and hence is more fitting for the financial crisis than “putting in more skin” (unless, of course, you’ve been skinned by Bernie Madoff).

            It’s a metaphor for leaving skin when playing.

  3. If they slowly take her our over a year and a half, maybe people who like her won’t notice? That sort of thinking will get the GOP establishment in a world of trouble.

  4. First, you should remove the picture of what are supposed to be Palin legs. It’s really outrageous.

    Obama, as awful as he is, will lose to most Republicans, but it is not necessarily the case that he’ll lose to Palin. I can easily envision several scenarios in which she will lose and even badly. If she stays on Fox, she is toast. If she debates Obama, she is toast, etc.

    In the Jewish tradition the saying is: current day prophecy (prediction) was given to dunces (no more Jeremiah, Isaiah, etc.). Translation: let’s all stay away from certainty about the future; it is a book yet to be written.

    • Those are her legs. It was taken at the VP debate.

      If she debates Obama, he’s toast.

      • I’m sure MSNBC will allow him to use a teleprompter. I don’t know why, but I will assume it has to do with someone being raycist.

      • Funnily that picture, or at least similar pictures, where up on the McCain/Palin website. So if Palin is fine with that shot, why would anyone be offended.

        I’ve never seen more prudish, 50’s style sensibilities towards women, than I’ve seen in the last couple of years from so called progressives. It’s really strange. Remember all the Palin shouldn’t be able to hold office because she has young kids crap. Or that having a baby out of wedlock was the greatest sin ever (regarding Bristol). All from progressives. The world is upside down.

        • I only put that pic up there because RD told me about your fetish fondness for shoes.

        • Palin is a very dangerous politician. She is ignorant and a fascist. This doesn’t imply that we can appeal to the sexist or misogynistic lower instincts of male readers.

          • When exactly has Palin done anything dictatorial, or are you just using fascist because it’s a bad word?

          • Ignorant and fascist my left butt-cheek. She just doesn’t agree with left-wingers on everything.

            Her economic polies are broken but internally consistent, and she’s way more populist than any other GOP contender. She’s done more to protect people from corporations than practically any other pol working today.

          • But it’s so much easier to demonize and rely on tropes than to form cogent arguments supported by facts and logic.

          • Yep, and there’s nothing dangerous about Obama. We’ve thrived under his leadership, haven’t we JR!

          • Fascist? You must be kidding me. I won’t even give you ignorant. Palin’s not a navel gazer but few politicians really are.

          • she’s a fascist? Based on what?

      • I saw mostly what everyone else here saw in the primary debates. But I preferred Hillary too. I think it’s impossible to be objective.

        As for the vice-presidential debates, I just don’t know what everyone is talking about. But, then again, I’m not a scots-irish, working class American with deep cultural and class resentment.
        My cultural and class resentments are of a different sort. (First generation son of South American legal immigrant parents. I’m not “really American”, you see. In spite of being born and raised in California, taking an oath and wearing the uniform.)

        So I can’t see the whole elitist versus regular folks thing in the Biden-Palin debates that everyone else sees. I just saw a deeply stupid and ignorant candidate versus a deeply privileged and compromised (by virtue of position) candidate.

        I know many of you really want to see Obama humiliated by Palin, but I just can’t follow the argument that it could actually happen.

        Palin will choke on some question regarding a treaty, or the difference between Sunni and Shia, or the Taleban and Al-Qaeda, or the deficit and the national debt, or what is NATO, or who are the Pashtuns, or whatever else will be passing for substantive knowledge.
        And Obama most likely won’t. One of the running themes here is the effectiveness of Obama’s marketing. Debates are marketing.

        • Palin would be pilloried for any gaffes or mistakes while Obama’s gaffes or mistakes would be ignored or explained away

          Seen this show already….don’t want to see the re-run.

        • Uh-huh.

          What state were you governor of?

          • I just saw a deeply stupid and ignorant candidate

            Seriously, can you back that up with evidence? What did she say that proves your contention?

            If you need to refresh your memory, here’s the whole debate:

          • OK. Let’s see if I get your syllogism right.

            If a person gets elected governor of a state, then that person is smart.
            Palin was elected governor of a state.
            Therefore Palin is smart.

            Fair enough, smart enough to get elected governor. You really think she’s smart enough to be president? Or just offended I called her stupid.

            Moreover, if not having been a governor means I am unjustified in calling her stupid, then what does not having been president mean in your case?
            I doubt you think it means you shouldn’t criticize Obama for his demonstrated faults.

            This argument is pointless, as are most of the cheerleader type arguments here. But I like the non-cheerleader stuff.
            I can’t back up my claim with evidence. Or rather, there is no evidence that would convince you. You think she’s smart. Fine. She’s freaking brilliant. Whatever.

          • I notice you skipped over the part about providing evidence to back up your claims.

          • First, as if it needs to be repeated, we’re liberal. As in we don’t like Obama because we’re liberal. And we don’t like Palin’s politics. With that disclaimer…

            Smart is a bit relative. I don’t think she is as smart as say a scientist doing good work. But I think she is as smart as most politicians. Perhaps not saying much. She beat her competitors in the gov. debates, handily. She got herself selected as the VP candidate. She beat Biden in the VP debate. She’s leveraged that into lots of power and 10s of millions of dollars.

            She sure as shit ain’t dumb.

          • Dismissing Palin as dumb is wrong for two reasons.

            First of all it is intellectually lazy. Why not analyze and refudiate her policy positions?

            Secondly, it doesn’t work. We spent years mocking George Bush as dumb. Eight years. Meanwhile the Village Idiot of Texas ran roughshod over us as he pretty much did as he pleased.

        • If debates were marketing, O would have lost the election. Not only does nobody watch, but O BLOWS at debate. The dude couldn’t put together a cohesive sentence without a prompter.

        • Well, I would never call someone as yourself ‘not really an American’ but that is awfully sweet/rude of you to imply such things about the board.

          As far as the elitist vs regular folks implication, well that thought is also, all yours. Have you ever listened to Biden he doesn’t do elitist stuff? He was the man of the people who took the train home for decades and didn’t party in the elitist DC. The guy who chomps on his foot regularly as part of his charm isn’t doing elitist either.

          However, while watching the debate I saw Biden flat out lie or get wrong several basic concepts. It was stunning how bad he was when his competition didn’t have his foreign policy and DC credentials. If you aren’t aware of what things he was in error over then I guess you were too caught up in seeing Palin being ‘humiliated’ to notice Biden falling on his face all by himself. It was truly one of the worst VP performances since Stockdale.

          • Wasn’t implying it about the board. Only about some of the people I’ve met along the way.

            The question mark in your second paragraph confused me. In calling Biden elitist I meant that he is part of the insulated elite. He’s not a billionaire but he is a Senator.

            Yes, his performance was bad. But to me so was Palin’s. But that’s because her “jus’ one of the folks” manner doesn’t work on me. I work with some guys from West Virginia and Montana. They call themselves the biggest rednecks in the company. Their folksiness isn’t an act. It’s real. It’s why I like them and why Palin is so repulsive to me. They admit to their ignorance of certain topics. I admit to mine on others. We respect that about each other and learn from each other.
            Palin pretends her ignorance is badge of honor, or when she’s called on it sees it as a sign of others’ bias or hatred or whatever.

            I’m digressing. My point is perception of Palin’s performance and Biden’s performance is colored by a person’s inclinations. Seems most of the people here don’t like Biden much, don’t like Palin either but resent some of the attacks on her, so somehow she comes out looking good.
            But to me Palin is so deeply ignorant, so deeply stupid, coming right up to the line of fascism without going over, that for me to see her as winning in a debate the other candidate would have to turn green and throw up on himself.
            Perception. That’s all I’m saying.

            I agree it was striking that he didn’t wipe the floor with her. But I think he was probably coached not to. Remember the mainstream media and their treatment of Gore for supposedly being pedantic? (See Daily Howler).
            So what if Biden had come out and “schooled” her, and really shown how ignorant she is? He’d have been called a know-it-all, an elitist, and who knows what else. And all the voters inclined to buy her “regular folks” act would have been confirmed in their beliefs. Few minds would have been changed. Those not inclined to buy her act made their minds up early, as did those inclined to the opposite.

            I think I’m digressing again. Not well practiced at the concise posting.

          • fachero, I’m still not seeing any specific references explaining how you got the impression that she’s dumb. I disagree with her on practically every damn issue, and I’m about as liberal as they come. But I’ve looked at it carefully, and I’m not convinced that she’s any stupider than, say, John Edwards.

          • Palin pretends her ignorance is badge of honor, or when she’s called on it sees it as a sign of others’ bias or hatred or whatever.

            Can you give examples of:

            A) Her ignorance?

            B) Where she has pretended it was a badge of honor?

        • Hillary made Obama look like an idiot during the debates and even though the people chose her, we got stuck with him.
          I am guessing he will not be as bad as he was in 2008 when he refused to debate Hillary anymore. But Palin is neither ignorant nor stupid and she is a populist in comparison to his out of touch elitism. I doubt that he will find it that easy to debate her.

          ps… you have made a lot of assumptions about what people here want or feel. I’d cut that out if I were you and wanted anyone to take me seriously.

          • Well, I haven’t been reading the posts regularly for a few weeks but I doubt anything has changed much. I don’t think I’m making undue assumptions. I read the posts.

            Some wish Hillary would run again.
            Everyone agrees she was a better candidate.
            Everyone agrees she was robbed of the nomination.
            Some were really pissed off by Obama’s “guns and religion” comments. (But I’ve seen little mention of Hillary’s “…hard working Americans, white Americans…”. Both comments were stupid, in a campaigning sense, even if objectively true. And both were used dishonestly by the opposing side.)
            Many believe Bill Clinton was a good president.
            Everyone agrees Obama was a fraud and is a bad president.
            Some have a brazen redneck pride that I think is too earnest by half.
            And others have a graduate seminar demeanor that enlightens me while causing great despair.

            So, no, I don’t think I’m making undue assumptions. And I don’t care if anyone does take me seriously. I’m just some dude with a keyboard and no power. Why would anyone else take me seriously if even I don’t?

      • I have asked about twenty people now why they think she’s so stupid. They can only come up with three things: Refudiate, the Katie Couric moment, and stereotypes based on her accent. I can’t WAIT to see them hear her debate. She’s no Hillary, but she’s lightyears ahead of the Precious.

        • Anyone who was following closely at the time will know that the Couric interview was deliberately edited to make her appear as stupid as possible. I read the entire transcript, and they chopped and manipulated it to make her answers appear ignorant and cut out anything that sounded intelligent and thorough. It was a very effective hit job. Look how people just reflexively repeat that she is stupid without really knowing anything about her positions or even listening to her much. Same old, same old.

          Obama is a historic genius.
          Hillary is a ruthless dishonest bitch.
          Palin is an idiot.

          When will people wake the f*ck up and realize this is all fabricated and shoved down their throats by the Emperor Class?

      • I agree. She proved when she was green that she could handle herself in debates. Americans seldom punish a debater for not answering a question. She will be a formidable debater in 2012. She’s been studying and she has the experience of 2008. She can take a question and shift it to attack.

    • You may have missed her debate with Joe Biden, where she ate his lunch easily. Don’t be too sure who comes out toast.

      In 2008’s debates everyone was too afraid to turn up the heat on Obama. Don’t look for a repeat of that lame crap from a GOP candidate in ’12.

      • No one really talks about this, but Biden was wrong or just lying his rear off some 15 times in that debate. The papers just focused on Palin going rogue.

        But wouldn’t it be fun to watch Obama and his debating style of “Me too.” against Palin?

        How would they prep “Me too” to debate a woman who won’t be pinned down?

        • Not only won’t be pinned down but will look you right in the eye and say whatever she darn well wants. That would be hilarious.

      • I don’t think Palin ate Biden’s lunch but she, as a state governor, held her own against a senator with thirty-six years experience. It was a very close debate.

        I disagree that the MSM won’t continue to lob softballs at Obama. They will. Elitism hasn’t died and, clearly, neither has sexism.

    • She became governor of Alaska in large part due to her debate performances.

      Don’t let that Fargo-esque “You betcha” stuff fool you.

    • Palin presents herself now as a right, conservative, Republican. Quite different than how she governed in Alaska of course, very different, but I’m going to assume she’s saying what she means. So as much as I like that she ruffles the feathers she does, I think she would be bad for the country.

      Having said that, if after what we saw in the primary debates between Obama and Hillary (and others), and then the general with Palin vs. Biden, anyone who thinks Obama would beat her in a debate is delusional. I suggest you watch those debates again.

      • Exactly. Based on her how she governed in Alaska, it would be easy to say she wouldn’t have made the same mistakes as Obama has.

        That said, it is hard to ignore the current rhetoric and wonder if that will be her driving force.

        Where is a populist centrist when you need one? That would be taking a huge step left from Obama.

        • Agree. And I’m not going to be like an Obot and assume she’s lying. That is, is using 11-dim chess. That crap doesn’t tend to work out to well in your favor. 🙂

          • Yeah, I am not into deluding myself either.

            The only ones that have even resembled that remark during my lifetime, had Clinton in their names. And frankly, they have provided me countless hours of fun reading in between the lines when they’ve had to be discrete.

            But that 11-dim chess skill is due to their professionalism and the fact they are among the best prepared politicians in the room. It is much harder to pull a fast one on someone who has done the hard work.

            Something Obama has never done.

          • I don’t think it’s kool-aid logic to suggest that someone plays to their audience (right now, that’s the GOP core). That was part of what was so astonishing about Hillary. I would have forgiven her if she had pandered, but she never did. Not even when she took heat for refusing.

          • Without a doubt I will continue to watch I do hope that she remains true to how governed in Alaska. Because that veto of a unconstitutional law against gay people earned a lot of respect from me. It is more brave than anything Obama has done.

            And I agree, Hillary had a brilliant strategy by not pandering. She ran a general election platform in the primary thus denying Republicans their usual footage of a flip-flopping Dem.

            She kept her hawk credentials in tact by not playing that game either. And let’s be brutally honest. The first female President, who is a Dem, is absolutely required to have those credentials.

          • I always look at the past as the best indicator of the future. How Palin governed in AK says more to me than what she says for the consumption of the right wing. That she’s taking the GOP now, as we speak, says more about who she is than anything she says. Palin has a core that we may disagree with, but she’s no Obama.

    • I agree with Jack Rip about the picture of Palin’s legs. No one would bother to post a picture of Mitt Romney from the knee down no matter how nice his shoes were.

      • That’s cuz Mitt has flabby cankles and bad taste in shoes

      • It’s part of the reason people in both parties are scared shitless about her. And it’s pushing a button here as we see.

        • Then there’s the artistic effect – head at the top, feet at the bottom, the “body” of the post in the middle.

          Artists are always misunderstood.

        • It’s pushing the sexist button.

          • Do you think Melissa McEwan at Shakesville is a sexist?

            Cuz she does posts about shoes all the time. Then there is the Hillary/PUMA blog Hire Heels.

            Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

          • I don’t read Shakesville but women talking about shoes is vastly different than posting a picture of a woman politician from the knee down.

            That point is made, imo, by your response about “flabbly cankles and bad taste in shoes”. In fact, that was very similar to one of the many tasteless ways that Hillary was marginalized during the campaign.

          • Tasteless remarks towards Hillary, really, none of us would know about that. I think that remark was in fact a play on that sexism.

          • Last week i was accused of trying to polish my feminist credentials. But that was an odd week.

            This is an even week so I’m trying to tarnish them.

          • This is an even week so I’m trying to tarnish them.


            Mission accomplished!

          • Is it? To write a post about why women candidates are frightening to the mainstream, and to illustrate the post with a photograph that elicits this reaction? You don’t think maybe that’s just good editorial work? The photo could be taken as a dehumanizing instance of a woman being reduced to her gender. Or it could be taken as illustrative of the iconic value of women in power- the powerful idea of a woman in charge, any woman. Sarah Palin isn’t just a woman in theory, she’s a woman in reality, and she gets smeared for both. But she can also be celebrated for both.

          • I thought that Myiq posted that photo to demonstrate what Palin will be up against. Making her a babe is another form of attack.

            Well done Myiq.

          • Sandra S., but the picture of Palin from the knee down is offensive to me. It’s dehumanizing to reduce women to a body part. It doesn’t scare me at all. It makes me sad that Palin is more acceptable to some voters because she has nice legs.

          • Actually I was trying to induce lustful thoughts by showing off her nekkid ankles.

            Besides, I couldn’t find a picture of her in a burkha.

          • Actually I was trying to induce lustful thoughts by showing off her nekkid ankles.

            Besides, I couldn’t find a picture of her in a burkha

            That’s quite a strawman argument you’ve got going there, klown. I wonder if you’ve ever acknowledged when you were wrong.

      • I don’t like it either. I think the sex appeal thing with Palin probably appeals to more men than women. That said Obama got elected campaigning with his bare chest in the tabloids. And millions of Obot women and Obot men went crazy for him. Though I noticed an Obot was trying to get rid of her Obama dildo on twitter the other day.

  5. If Obama is the candidate Palin can win.

  6. The Republican establishment hates her with a passion. They hate her the same way the Democratic establishment hated the Clintons in the early 90’s.

    Whatever unfolds, it likely won’t be boring.

    • The Republican establishment didn’t like Reagan, either. The sure liked Nixon, though.

      • Oh, they really didn’t like Reagan. He was once a Dem. after all. In fact in his first term he deficit spent us out of a recession. Sin of all sins. But they turned him around soon after that. Resistance is futile.

      • I think they liked Reagan after the used car dealers in CA bought him. Before, not so much,

    • I really believe, in both cases, it’s fear of someone you can’t control. That leads to virulent hatred.

      • Yes, but I believe is those behind the GOP establishment. She’s demonstrated that she can go against the big companies, as she did in AK. By now those companies are giving all the money to the right people, like Rove, to make sure that Palin never gets close to the prize.

    • Hate her sooooo much, she came in #2 in the MOST ADMIRED Gallup poll. You think they ONLY polled Democrats??

  7. What I would love to see is after the Republican establishment trashes her the way the Dem establishment did to Hillary. Esp. if it involves similar voter fraud and outright cheating in the primaries and convention, that she take her toys and run independent. Especially if she actually has a majority like Hillary had. Would server the Repubs right.

    Of course the system is really well rigged that a third party can never win. Neither party wants that to ever happen again. So the chances of an independent winning are astronomically small. But I would so love both parties to be scared shitless. Even if it’s over a candidate I don’t prefer.

  8. No doubt the mysoginst haters do, but they also express intense feelings of dislike for Obama.

  9. Just my crazy point of view, but I think a big reason the Republican establishment desperately doesn’t want Palin as the nominee is precisely because she can beat Obama. That’s not the agreed upon plan. And she’s not a big moneybags team player like Obama or the Bushes.

    And the big money will do anything to prevent that from happening. If I were her, I’d be careful in those little plans. Just saying.

    • I think anyone who wants the top job should have to earn it rather than be anointed. If Palin can’t handle what’s being thrown at her she doesn’t deserve the nomination.

      Hillary took everything they could throw at her and won the most votes. Obama got a free ride and had to be dragged across the finish line.

  10. People, and by that I mean liberals, are really silly to fear Palin. She really is the least offensive right winger to come along in a long, long, time. Seriously, you want to hear a real extremist, listen to Huckabee. He’s kind of charming and funny on his TV show but listen to his opinions on the issues. Oh boy, he makes Palin look downright liberal! The worst part about Huckabee is his fascism, by that I mean he wants government to exercise complete control over citizens, everything from women’s reproduction to what people are allowed to eat.

  11. awe schitt………

    Youtube Andrews Sisters “Gimme Some Skin, My Friend”

  12. I really believve the “special interests”, Wall Street and the like would have a hard time controlling her. She just might spill the beans on some stuff.

  13. I don’t believe Palin will go rogue and run as an independent, but I think she will demand plenty if the nominee wants her help in the campaign. She may demand V.P. again. I also think that If she doesn’t get what she wants, she’ll endorse, but she’ll campaign for candidates running for congress only.

  14. Re watching Biden’s performance in the Veep Debate. He’s a liar, a plagiarist, and he ain’t too bright. There’s a reason that his nickname is “Slow Joe” Biden. He impressed the voters in the Presidential Primaries in 2008 to the extent that he got all of 7,500 votes total–from all the primaries he was in. Of course you get that way from hanging out with the common folk “just last week” in an eatery that’s been closed for a dozen years. Joe may not have been lying. in a technical sense, since it’s entirely possible that he actually thought he was there. He does live in his own little bubble.

  15. I’m not at all sure she could win. I don’t know how she will pull from moderate Dems enough to beat Obama. That’s my concern: whoever is running, I want him out. In my eyes, as I have said many times before, he is as illegitimate as Bush was. He manipulated votes to win. End of story. Got to go–so I want contenders to have a strong chance, because he will pull the same “dirty politics” he railed against to push himself over the edge again. I’ll have to save pennies for popcorn, because it’s going to be quite a show.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: