>>>>>Let's not change the subject. You started a thread with the apparent premise that any articles about Palin that do not put her in a flattering light are smears. I responded that I think the concerns about her use of state money for herself and her family are legitimate avenues of inquiry. I truly don't understand why you insist on viewing everything through the lens of Democrats or Republicans, or liberals and conservatives, as though we are two different species.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Wow, where did you get that?
>>>
>>>Just from reading, ma'am.
>>
>>The article was written to capture the readers attention and suggests corruption where none existed. It was definite media slant. I'm surprised you didn't read that.
>>
>>Obama just experienced the same nonsense about his pig and lipstick comment. I'm sure you read that as media slant...
>
>That was the most ridiculous accusation of a slur campaign I've ever heard and I can't see how anyone could have interpreted that as referring to Palin. So if Obama had been unknown and they'd referred to him as "a dark horse" then that would have been a racial slurr? So now politicians will have to avoid expressions liek " a pig in a poke", "let the cat out of the bag", etc., etc.
>
>Anyway, this tedious, interminable, hideously expensive business has been going on for so long now I wouldn't be surprised if certain less bright UK citizens thought that the President had been chosen, and that it was obama.

For such an intelligent man, it was poor judgment on his part. Granted the speech was 'off the cuff' and not scripted, coming on the heels of her pitbull/lipstick comment (widely publicized), the comment should have been off-limits. However, his intelligence paid off once again because now he has worked it to his benefit and come out the victim.