Did she really just get her first passport last year?

And she has to debate Joe "No Lipstick" Biden?

This should be fun to watch.

In case anyone missed this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-QevraCQUc

Like the usual gang of idiots used to say back when they still kicked real ass...you could do worse - and you always have!

I'm up late because I think I dragged home a bug from the hospital which I work but I might stop at the news stand tomorrow and buy this if it's real. It's funny, real or not . Even though I havn't bought a "Mad magazine" in years it's a great mag. I look forward to folding together the back page.

I seem to remember Quayle, who we all found just as scary/hilarious back in '88, was elected.I cleave to the opinion that Palin's a stroke of genius and might well be the decisive stroke that defeats Obama/Biden.

I think that Johnny just has a crush on her. Infatuation is blind. And do I really want to watch this unrequited love drag on for 4-8 years? Nah.

The Juneau parody is also an amusing movie riff: http://nevafeva.com/blog/?p=1172

Nice to see MAD get some love too, after Cracked has been dominated Digg lists and such, I hadn't heard from MAD in awhile!

#5, if the choice of a creationist, book-banning hard-right-wing gun nut proves to be what America's been looking for, that makes me very sad for the future of our country.

This parody, although it has a funny title, only reminds me of the sad fact that the Obama campaign refused to vet Hilary for veep, even though she got 18 million votes. Now the other party has a live-wire, kickass woman candidate, and a lot a people who don't read Mad or HuffPo can identify with her. I think it was a brilliant choice.

Whether she was politically a "brilliant choice" or not, the thought of this woman being a heartbeat away from the nuclear button scares the hell out of me.

Dms mst b vry scrd t b ths rlld p. Bwr f th Brdly ffct.

The thought of Obama being a heartbeat away from the nuclear button scares the hell out of me.

Bush's policy kills hundreds of thousands and Obama scares you?

@Gobo, #8: Me, too, but after Bush managed to get himself re-elected four years ago I lost any illusions that USA was any different.

Because he's not white enough?

Ugly Canuck @13 - Take a look at the numbers though...more people died in Chicago violent crime than American soldiers did in Iraq. Safer to be in Iraq as a soldier than a citizen of Chicago?

http://cbs2chicago.com/local/chicago.summer.shootings.2.810166.html

So, what about all those otherdead people in Iraq? Should they have gone to Chicago, or what?

Stll wtng fr smn t xpln t m ...f ws wrtng Cnstttn tdy fr ny cntry s thr ny rgmnt t ll fr gvng ndvdls Cnstttnl rght t br hndgns?
By nt rplng th 2nd mndmnt m scty gs bckwrds ...thr s n rtnl rgmnt fr gvng rbn pps rghts t gns...ts n hstrcl nmly xpltd by pwr-grbbrs s wdg ss nd s wy t kp scty vlnt frgmntd trrfd nd hrt - t jstfy thrws ncnscnbl plc vlnc nd t kp wpns mkrs rch, drnkng th bld f thr fllw-ctzns.

What about the Iraqis you were purporting to help when you decided to invade? Oh yeah, they are not white or American enough to count.

Back OT, it should be noted in this context that the FBI went after MAD magazine for twenty years...as a potential threat to the Nation and its Laws of some kind, presumably (that's why the FBI gets your tax dollars, right?).
http://www.counterpunch.org/randall0916.html

"As for that VP talk all the time, I'll tell you, I still can't answer that question until somebody answers for me what is it exactly that the VP does every day? I'm used to being very productive and working real hard in an administration. We want to make sure that that VP slot would be a fruitful type of position, especially for Alaskans and for the things that we're trying to accomplish up here for the rest of the U.S., before I can even start addressing that question."

Mad is good at out-of context propaganda

It's amusing, but it doesn't really have much to say. All those jokes are a tad obvious and have been making the rounds for over a week now. Cracked is better.

VP sits as President of Senate casts vote if tied and replaces Pres. when sick. (That's a "period'.)
I'm not Am but even I know that.

PS Propaganda comes from governments not periodicals...

Bah. Wrong on that one.

@12 & @16
Whether it's Baghdad or Chicago, there are parts of a large city you don't want to stroll though at night.

Making the statement that more people have died violently in Chicago than Baghdad(or Iraq as a whole) is the kind of ludicrous argument republicans love to try to confuse the general populace with.

Yet again some posters I've never seen before, coming in support of trollishly contrary view. So,has Karl Rove recently discovered Boing Boing?

Off-topic, I note that "propaganda" historically was an innovation brought about by religious types..."College of Cardinals"...and then quite openly adopted by "ideological" movements of the 20th C., Nazis/Commies.....others...and that all propaganda is a group activity/product by definition...antithetical to trad Am individualism and truth-seeking.

#16 Obama is a senator. He is not the mayor of Chicago--or even the governor of Illinois. Fighting crime in Chicago isn't really Obama's responsibility, is it? And he did oppose the war in Iraq, so you can't lay that one at his doorstep either.

Ugly Canuck... propaganda.... religious beginnings... good point, but it's a political tradition too. And the Commies, Nazis are just secular religions of course. Thomas Paine, The Federalist, The Anti-Federalist, the broadsheets that inundated this country through the early 20th century -- most openly allied with political parties. Propaganda is an American sport. It's not in and of itself a bad thing if the reader knows the bias and can take the appropriate grain of salt.

MAD magazine is definitely not propaganda to whomever ever said that. Good or bad satire, but I doubt Pelosi is sending them anything -- she's not intentionally funny.

#29 It's very hard to compare Obama's opposition to the war in Iraq with Biden's (or Hillary's et al.) since Obama wasn't in Congress yet. He lacked information they had (misleading as it might have been), he lacked the pressure from within his own party to support their votes, and he was trying to make a name for himself, so taking an idealogical position was far easier for him. This is not to discredit him, but just to add a little context.

Ugly Canuck: Y cldn't b mr cnfsd bt why th 2nd mndmnt xsts. Th fndmntl spct f mrcn scty s tht th gvrnmnt shld srv th ppl, nt th thr wy rnd. Th Frmrs f th Cnstttn wntd ftr mrcn pltcns t knw tht n ttmpt t crt mnrchy wld b mt wth rmd ppstn. Hndgns wnd by trnd, lcnsd ctzns r nt dngrs nd prvd mjr dsncntv t crm. Srch th nws t try t fnd xmpls f crms cmmttd by ctzns wth lcnss t crry cncld hndgns. Y'll fnd lmst nn, bt tht dsn't stp ppl frm mkng fctlly nccrt ssmptns.

Hey yeah were the Corps that laid off the workers (that Obama helped counsel as a community organizer) helping thereby to fight crime? Or did those Corp actions contribute to increase the local crime rate?

Well this ain't about gun control but maybe the liensees were too smart to get caught...yer clearance rates are nothing to brag about IMO.

Stll fftpc: hy dvnt
s tht sm f yr gd gys r dng bttr:
http://ltmsblgs.ltms.cm/hmcdrprt/2008/09/lpd-fwst-sm.html
Lk th Smmr f Lv. Bt nt rlly:
http://ltmsblgs.ltms.cm/hmcdrprt/
Hndgns mk kllng s mch sr.

@16
Have 30,568 Chicago residents been seriously wounded?

Are they walking around with Depleted Uranium in their lungs?

Are they shell-shocked and suffering post-traumatic stress syndrome/disesase?

Are 20% of the above listed wounded Chicago residents suffering serious brain and or spinal injuries (a total that excludes psychological injuries)?

Is Chicago now "Home of the folks with tumors, daily blood in urine and stool, sexual dysfunction, migraines, and frequent muscle spasms!"?

As of Jan 2007, 500+ major amputations?
As of Feb 2007 7500+ traumatic brain injuries?
As of Mar 2008 30% mental illness and suicide?

(That's just American and coalition soldiers...
then there are the 946,000 to 1,120,000 total casualties (human beings killed) in the region...I mean, Chicago...)

Do people really think the Palin pick was bad for McCain? Seriously? His candidacy couldn't have been more flat and uninteresting, and suddenly his VP pick gets viewership during her speech that rivals Obama's. Everyone is talking about her, and the Repub base is once again energized.

If McCain wins, she may well go down in history as the best VP choice ever.

Please note that by "best" I mean competitively, not best qualified or best for the job. Best to improve McCain's chances.

Normally, the VP pick really doesn't mean much. No one wins on a VP pick. With McCain, it is different. McCain and his surrogates have already floated the idea that he is a 1 term president. What does that mean? It means that 4 years from now Palin is going to be the Republican pick (assuming McCain wins). They are trying to bundle the two as a package of presidents... and it is probably a good idea if she can survive the first round of fire by the media.

The idea is simple. Take a fiery woman with just enough of a record such that she can point to good things (anti-corruption mostly) that she has done as qualifications, and yet has not been around long enough to build up a massive record compromises (aka "flip flops") like what Biden and McCain have. On the face of it, she really can't make much of an experience argument, but she CAN make that argument after serving as VP for a 4 years. She is being lined up for the presidency in 4 years.

What makes this so insidious is two fold.

1) She is going to steal a swath of the "angry Hillary" crowd. She won't take a huge hunk of them, but when elections are decided by a few percent, she doesn't need many. Some pissed off women are going to completely ignore the fact she shares absolutely no values in common with Hillary, and vote for a woman for the sake of voting for a woman. It might be enough to nudge McCain over the top.

2) The real horror here is that if McCain wins, she is lined up to be the president. McCain is a fairly moderate guy. A McCain presidency doesn't sound like a fun time, but I don't sit there cowering in terror at it. Palin on the other hand is a frigging nut. Slipping her under the rug scares me. While McCain is fairly moderate, Palin is a bible wielding full on religious nut. We have not seen a fully right wing fully religiously nutty president. Regan was practically an atheist who just pandered to the right (he never mentions abortion once in his autobiography). Even Bush, while certainly religious, wasn't a full on religious nut job (he is just an idiot). Palin on the other hand is the real deal. She is a bible swinging, book banning, creationist, who isn't just against abortion, but frigging contraceptive (exhibit 1: her 17 year old pregnant daughter).

Best VP choice ever?
Tough to even remember any to compare her to...Eagleton?
Along with the 2nd Amend. you guys ought to re-think the need for a VP IMO. That is if the Sacred Constitution is in fact open to human Amendment anymore...haven't seen any in my lifetime.

Yeah ...the "blank slate" who becomes very right-wing AFTER getting into power...like John Roberts?

People who think that the Palin nomination is the deciding point that will win the election for McCain are also the ones who told us that the Iraq occupation would be an easy job.

That is if the Sacred Constitution is in fact open to human Amendment anymore...haven't seen any in my lifetime.

So I take it you are under the age of 16?

#5 Quayle was a trailblazer. Without him, the concept of a genuinely clueless leader existed only in satire form. Now, it's becoming a solid real life tradition. Somehow it has become accepted, maybe even expected by now. Which leads me to:

Ugly Canuck @ 18-We're a culture seduced by violent play. Our love of it is mingled and grown over and around what we consider our fundamental rights and truths. How to pull out the weeds without disturbing the garden?

And thanks for posting the above info, Secret Life.

When did you guys last Amend your Constitution? Americans, that is?

I'm now waiting for the Republicans to call Mad Magazine a member of the "Elite Media".

I find it puzzling when people say that they don't want Obama near the nuclear "button", when he believes that war should be the last possible option. While a lot of the right wingers can't hear much over the din of their own saber rattling. I can imagine a President Palin, after nuking the middle east, saying "It was Gods' will. My preacher told me so."

To be honest, I think that the appointment of the Honorable Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United states of America John Roberts may over time prove to be the best thing Bush did during his 8 years. At least, here's hoping. But prior to getting the top job, he really was a blank slate as to his views on many issues. And...he's very young.

Anthony: it is never to early to start your kids on a course of "Media Study", to disempower the Media, at least as far as Jr.s thinking goes.

Our extremism is sanctioned by God, but theirs is driven by fanatics who worship a false God. Do both sides of the conflict say the same thing?

The old Cold fears return.

@Deviant, #31:

> The fundamental aspect of American society is
> that the government should serve the people,
> not the other way around."

"The country was founded on the principle that the primary role of government is to protect property from the majority, and so it remains." -Chomsky

Step back and take a squint at the country. Which of those two quotes is most consistent with how things actually are, today, in the real world? Personally I find it depressing that Chomsky's description fits the apparent facts so well. (Or am I just getting more left-wing as I age?)

Agree with your #36 though, Palin's a brilliant move and (unless something really bad turns up at the back of her closet, or she makes a terrible gaffe on camera) has a good chance of making Cain electable.

Incidentally I just came across this piece by Michael Moore in Guardian, dated August 9th, on how the Democrats could still manage to lose this year.

Canuck,
Media Study, Arabic, and Spin 101.

Hmmm. Why is the thought bubble coming out of McCain's mouth? Everyone who's seen McCain fielding questions knows he can't easily get thoughts generated via his mouth.

Further to the (off-topic) "Chicago ain't Iraq" discussion above:
http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/iraq/iraqdeaths.html
Death ought not be the business of politicians, especially by self-appointment.

Bluetooth device?

In case some of you have forgotten, this woman was involved with a political party that supported Alaska's SECESSION FROM THE U.S.

Anthony: I doubt that there is anything as cohesive as "the other side" here, there is an awful lot of projection (in the psych sense) in Am politics esp. foreign relations.

@54 What about "Us against Terror" in all its permutations?

It seems to me that outside of the context of invaded nations (Iraq, Afghanistan) the people physically attacking Americans all have "personal" reasons...not "reasons of State".
That is, there's nothing over-arching here like a unified nation state or even church, nothing but an association of individuals arrayed against you. It is thus more properly a criminal matter and not an affair of State (like eg a war between states or even eg picking sides in a civil war like israel/palestine or 1918 Russia) except insofar as international co-operation is needed to bring these criminals to justice.

Ahh...sorry... I thought Obama had helped to organize the Chicago communities :/

Still waiting Rindan...what was changed in 1992, in the US Constitution?

Canuck @56 I would say at the very least it is implicitly a war of ideologies tied to religion, or justified by religion. Don't you think so?

I don't follow your reason for the Constitution question-sending Rindan on an errand? I looked it up when the question was first raised on the thread.

Canuck @56 I would say at the very least it is implicitly a war of ideologies tied to religion, or justified by religion. Don't you think so?

Not implicitly, explicitly. War is a byproduct of religion.

Cute but weird. Palin makes the Republican look nearly French:
http://blog.wired.com/sterling/2008/09/the-unsurprisin.html

#60 I say it's implicit because the intent is concealed. Calling the Other "evil" is as close as we get to announcing our religious superiority outright. The belief is implied, not fully articulated.
This war stems from land and resource coveting, although religious issues seem to be rooted in such conflicts as well. Do the religious aspects predate the actual physical boundaries?

Ugly Canuck and Deviant, please refrain from having off-topic arguments here about hot-button issues like firearms rights.

Also, Canuck, the last amendment to the US Constitution was the 27th, having to do with congressional pay raises, ratified in 1992, though it was submitted way back in 1789. Kind of a funny story -- it was one of the original dozen amendments first submitted for the Bill of Rights in 1791, but it didn't get enough support to pass. Everyone just sort of forgot about it, but since it didn't have an expiration clause, it was still technically available for state legislature to ratify. In 1982, a university student discovered it, and drew attention to it, whereupon states started ratifying it.

The 26th Amendment, setting the voting age at 18, was introduced and passed in 1971, and there were three amendments passed in the '60s.

Mnkygrl: bm's ppstn t th wr n rq s lk mst Dmcrts' ppstn t th wr n rq: thy fnd mr ccptn. t's bn th Dmcrts' wr snc thy tk cntrl f Cngrss n th md-trm lctns.

bm's spprt fr wr gs n: h hs lng spprtd snctns gnst rn, lnchng mssls nt rn (s hs ntrvw n th 4 Sptmbr 2004 Chcg Trbn ntrvw fr bth), ncrsng wr n fghnstn (whr h sys th rl wr ls), nd rdcng ccntblty by ppsng mpchmnt (whch h sys s "dysfnctnl" dstrctn bst rsrvd fr "grv, grv brchs, nd ntntnl brchs f th prsdnt’s thrty"). Thn h ws dstrbd by th "ncmptnc" wth whch th wr n rq ws prsctd, nt tht th nvsn nd ccptn ws bsd n ls nd shldn't hv bn strtd t ll.

S th crprt prts ffr vtrs tw chcs whr bth wnt t fght mr wr nd thrtn rn wth mr wr. thnk f bth prts skng th ntn hw pr y'll lt thm mk th cntry ($3 trlln s fr ccrdng t Stgltz nd Blms) nd whr y wnt yr chldrn t d.

EH, my wife reminds me that Palin considers the war "God's war", so that's pretty explicit after all. My bad.

Most of the time, wars are fought over the control of useful things like land and trade and so forth. There may have been some wars that were truly fought over the superiority of one belief over another, but more often than not, religion is the excuse.

Roger Wilco Avram.

PS Thank you for enlightenment re:US Constitutional Amendments, I was around in 60s. Was not paying attention though.
Thanks also to enlightenment for US Constitution.

lwys ht t whn Cry dps nt crss pltcs. Pltclly n sdd cvrg whl fn hbby, s ncrdbl lntng t crtn sgmnts f yr dnc. t jst dsn't blng n drctry f wndrfl thngs.

Whl pprct mny f Cry's dvccy cmpgn's ths knd f dmcrtc bstrsm jst trns m rght ff. Prpgnd s prpgnd.

Fr nyn wrryng bt bm's fngr bng n th "nk bttn," nt t wrry. r y frgttng tht h hs sd h wll dsrm mrc nd pprv n bdgts fr nw rms dvlpmnt? Thr wn't b "nk bttn" fr hm, r nyn ls, t psh.

Dn't y knw tht w'r gng t hv lttl t prty nd lv n pc wth ths dtrmnd t dstry mrc nd ll mrcn "nfdls?"

bm thnks hs lqnt spchs cn wn th hrts f th wrld's trrrsts th sm wy h hs msmrzd nn-thnkng, lbrl mrcn vtrs nd w wll ll lv hpply vr ftr.

sn't h jst wndrfl?

Gee Prodigious it kind of turns me on...and that's a wonderful thing.

Hey another right-wing first time poster!

With a website that my computer tells me may be trying to trick me!

"Hey another right-wing first time poster!"

Cha-ching!!

You can't swing a dead cat in here lately without swatting a few of those.

Somebody should invent a little counter applet to keep track of them all. :)

#70, OHSAYCANYOUSEE an astroturfing troll? puh-leeze, beeotch!

Sure sounds like one...and no recent posts...

#74 Indeed. Though "Oh Say Can U See". I loled.

I'm so tired, already, of the attacks on Sarah Palin's daughter, and the many comments designed to portray Sarah Palin herself as some sort of back woods ignorant white trash. Is there no room anymore in American politics for mature discussion of actual matters of policy?

I have grave misgivings concerning Sarah Palin. I find her views that we are fighting "God's War" in the Middle East to be dangerous; I find her lack of regard for the Constitution to be extremely disturbing; and I do not feel she is has the experience necessary to step into the role of President of the United States of America.

How about actually discussing those things, instead of making snide hints that she is ignorant white trash? I find this attitude to be digustingly elitest and counterproductive.

Watching people pat each other on the back and yuck it up while they attack her daughter for making a mistake in life nauseates me.

Eh @ 60 -

War is a by-product of humanity.

I agree with you Gnugeek, up to a point. But rudeness, cheap shots and snide hints are (fortunately or not) an integal part of the the American political process. No politician is immune from, or gets a free pass from the ugliness. If Palin or her supporters can't take it, she should get out. It isn't going to stop.

On the other hand I haven't seen a single scrap of anything that shows me she's remotely qualified to be (potentially) president. Being a "pit bull" or a "hockey mom" don't cut it. I look forward to her putting forward some serious policy ideas and answering some tough questions. I'm sick of the media show.

GNU, I'm missing the white trash innuendo on this thread. With only a few exceptions of rudeness-over-polite discourse, this one has been rolling along fairly smoothly.

While i don't have your frequency of posts Canuck, indeed i do have recent posts. I just usually have better things to do than argue with someone on the internet. You caught me on an off day.

Oh well, I'm sure I'll just get lumped in with the conservatives and dismissed. Libertarian leaning Anarcho-Capitalists never get any of the love.

anthony, with out the strawman arguements, people like GNU got nothin'. please don't take that away from him.

Also, in response to earlier comments-

Wikipedia: "Creationism is the religious belief that humanity, life, the Earth, and the universe were created in their original form by a deity (often the Abrahamic God of Judaism, Christianity and Islam) or deities, whose existence is presupposed."

I don't care if she's a creationist or not as long as she doesn't try to require its teaching in science classes or something. Personally I find it ironic that she has absolutely no respect for the world that she thinks her God created.

*tink*

Prodigious, my apologies. I was not aiming at you with my second comment but at Ohsaycanyousee. My 2 comments' posting one after the other and my not naming the target of the barb made it confusing. Once again, sorry. Still disagree with the point you made though.
I like Libertarians, and do not consider them right wing. "My" right wing is Authoritarian.

I have no plans to vote for Palin. I do have an issue over saying she favored book banning. There is very little concrete evidence in this area and we have yet to hear from the librarian involved.

I think I'd rather highlight her dubious previous political affiliations, that she has more experience being a beauty queen than public official, and her rather smarmy speech that failed to address some of the cold issues that are facing us.

I worry that that a vast swath of women will turn a blind eye to this and want to vote for her anyway. We really can't afford another eight years of what we have had.

You Yankees gonna have to learn the difference between white trash and rednecks. My Tennessee family are admittedly rednecks and would be highly indignant to be called out of their class. As my aged grandmother, rest her soul, said back when George Wallace was making a run for the presidency and she was asked if she was going to vote for him, "No, honey, I know white trash when I see it."

Palin & Co. are REDNECKS.

Re: the book banning issue (again):

Palin Asked City Librarian About Censoring Books, Insisted It Was ‘Rhetorical.’

In 1996, according to the Frontiersman, Wasilla’s library director Mary Ellen Emmons said Palin asked her outright if she could live with censorship of library books. Emmons said, “This is different than a normal book-selection procedure or a book-challenge policy…She was asking me how I would deal with her saying a book can’t be in the library.” Palin said in response, “Many issues were discussed, both rhetorical and realistic in nature.” [Frontiersman, 12/18/96]

Then, in an incident that is fast turning into the stuff of political legend, Palin was revealed earlier this week to have attempted to censor Wasilla's library. The idea is almost laughable when you see the library itself. Its small collection of books includes a prominent section on hunting and fishing, and no visible copies of Lady Chatterley's Lover. Yet in 1996, after parents complained about a book their child had taken home, Palin took umbrage. Frustratingly, no one can remember the volume concerned. What we do know is that Palin turned on the then librarian, Mary Ellen Emmons, asking her in a council meeting what she would do if she were told by the mayor to remove certain books from the collection.


Local resident Anne Kilkenny was in the public gallery and heard the librarian's reaction: "She sucked in her breath, and replied that the books in the library were all acquired in accordance with professional criteria and she would resist completely."


Palin has since claimed her question was purely rhetorical. That is not how Naegele and Kilkenny perceived it at the time. A few weeks later, Palin sent Emmons a letter terminating her employment. "People in the town rose up in anger," Kilkenny recalls. "The library is an important institution in our city, as there's not a lot else to do here in the winter but sit by the fire with a good book. There was real public pressure, and Sarah was forced to rescind the letter."

I would like to second Buddy66 on his point. Some of the most capable people I've ever met were and are rednecks. White trash is something else. I suppose they could overlap, a small set of shared members.
Would not vote for a redneck Pres or PM though. America and Canada too are now urban nations, and I'm a city boy.
To represent a redneck district, though...well maybe.
If they can win election, why not?

If that's it, then that's it. Document it, affidavits and all, and hang her out to dry. "SARAH PALIN, BOOK-BURNING ('rhymes with "witch""-- Mrs. G.H.W. Bush)

I'm so tired, already, of the attacks on Sarah Palin's daughter, and the many comments designed to portray Sarah Palin herself as some sort of back woods ignorant white trash. Is there no room anymore in American politics for mature discussion of actual matters of policy?

Two things:
1) The pregnant 17 year old is relevant due to Palin's stance on policy issues. She is against teaching about and distributing contraceptives. She is all for "abstinence only" education. The fact that in her own home where one can assume she has a direct hand in her daughters education abstinence only education failed is a pretty powerful point. No one cares that her daughter is pregnant. It is just seen as proof that her "ideas" on teen pregnancy are out of whack of reality. If it doesn't work in your own home, why on earth would you want to try this insanity on a national scale?

2) The pregnant 17 year old is a land mine waiting for a democrat's foot. The above point is extraordinarily compelling. Anyone who finds the idea of abstinence only education to be absurd is going to reflexively make the above (and perfectly valid, IMO) point. At which point, they and anyone they are associated with are going to be lynched for picking on a poor pregnant teenager and launching character attacks on the candidate's daughter. A high ranking democrat is going to fall for it. I bet my left nut on this point. Republicans should be overjoyed and waiting in eager anticipation.

I find this attitude to be digustingly elitest and counterproductive.

You REALLY want an "elitist" at the controls. You don't want an everyday man. You want someone better than an everyday man. The president should be super human. So, cut it with the "elitist" crap. We need and should WANT an elitist.

You know, I agree that some books should be consigned to the flames. It's just that this is a choice that must be left to each individual, to use her best judgment in any particular case.
I don't want the goovernments to tell me which volume to burn to heat my pottage or my cottage, no thank you Ma'am.

Er, Rindan, I think that at this point it is important to make a distinction between an ELITE person and an ELITIST person. Yes?

sojourner strange,

Then what is it?

People.

The Democrats are not scared of her. As candidate Obama said, he's been called worse on the basketball court.

We're scared of you all who constantly fall for her brand of all talk B.S. We're scared you'll fall for ANYTHING.

In the meantime though, we're making popcorn so we can watch Joe "Chair of Senate Foriegn Relations Committee"/"bulldog without lipstick" Biden rip her to shreds.

If she's not too chicken to debate him, that is.

It's just a matter of time before someone digs up Joe Biden's lurvechild. Why not join the fun. Don't forget your shovel.

Rindan, it seems you wish to have a person of superior merit to be president. Not an "elitist" ...whether that elite is defined by money, religion or inherited name.
Think George Washington whose merit as a person was universally acknowledged even in his lifetime.
Meritocracy is a pretty good way to go if you're hiring, and what is an election if not a way of hiring executives and representatives?

#82 "Libertarian leaning Anarcho-Capitalists never get any of the love."

w00t! lets here it for the Libertarian leaning Anarcho-Capitalists! we can be tough to find on boingboing but its always fun to see another one lurking in the depths of the discussion board.

Hay falcon seven why not share what you've got? Besides innuendo?

falconsebbin@#98, what the hell is a "lurvechild" ? similar to a truffle? joe biden is so selfish!

just a point. Palin's daughter is off-limits... nor I do not believe in collective punishment, nor in punishing family members for an member's offenses.
It is irrelevant and immaterial to her abilities and merit for the job.
The election is not about who has the more morally pure family members its about how well these people will do managing the tax receipts. That is all. How those receipts are spent is what the Gov is about and forms the difference between governments. This moral stuff about the candidates' families from either side is all hogwash.
There's a reason military spending is as high as it is and it has naught to do with threats...

How about hearing it for us Free Market Socialists?

Mintphresh: Perhaps he meant 'larvachild", some kind of sci-fi/horror thingy. Something to dig up.

canuck, maybe he left off the 'e' at the end and it is really spelled 'Lurvechilde" like "Rothschilde"...and we need the 'shovels' to dig up the CONSPIRACY! whoa! but, 'larvachild' does sound cooler. you damn canadians...

Buddy--

In everyday conversation, as far as I can tell, an elite person is someone who is very good at what s/he does; an elitist person is someone who looks down on anyone who s/he perceives to be inferior.

Ugly Canuck - Her daughter is not entirely off limits. As an individual, yes, but as a prime example of the kind of people she has worked against (her record of cutting benefits for single teen mothers), her daughter exists in the discussion as a single brilliant data point.

Her daughters "choice" to keep the baby is a second dazzling data point.

Kids will be kids, but how you manage your own offspring says a lot about how you will run the country - and it seems Gov. Palin is perfectly okay with setting rules that, in reality, cannot go unbroken (like honestly expecting 17 year olds not to have sex).

Also, she believes the earth is 6,000 years old - so really, nothing is off limits.

"it seems Gov. Palin is perfectly okay with setting rules that, in reality, cannot go unbroken (like honestly expecting 17 year olds not to have sex)."

It seems not:

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-sexed6-2008sep06,0,3119305.story

"In a widely quoted 2006 survey she answered during her gubernatorial campaign, Palin said she supported abstinence-until-marriage programs. But weeks later, she proclaimed herself "pro-contraception" and said condoms ought to be discussed in schools alongside abstinence.

"I'm pro-contraception, and I think kids who may not hear about it at home should hear about it in other avenues," she said during a debate in Juneau."

How they manage a seventeen year old?
Why is a seventeen year old not free?
Seventeen is independent of parents. On their own. What seventeen year olds do, does not for me reflect at all on the parents' abilities, except perhaps as parents, very arguably.
Certainly not as to skills and abilities outside of parenting. Not on their skill as public servants. They may indeed have neglected their kids, to do a better job for the public.
I understand that its bogus republican hogwash 'family values" BS biting her in the a**. But don't be crowing about it, and it is Repub. BS. Don't make it Dem. BS too.
Merit and ability of the Candidate to perform the job and fill the Office to which they aspire.
That's what counts. How they will do the job.
Not how they control their adult children.

I'm counting all kinds of "spin" as propaganda. (which should be a neutral term anyway: there's good and bad, and seminal SF author Cordwainer Smith (Paul Linebarger) wrote the book on it.

Mad's quote of her saying "what does a VP do anyway"