>>>>>Some will reflexively say this is just a partisan post. But I don't see how anyone can read this article with any degree of open mindedness and not be troubled about the prospect of this person becoming President of the U.S.
>>>>>
>>>>>http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/14/us/politics/14palin.html?scp=13&sq=sarah%20palin&st=cse
>>>>
>>>>Read your post again Mike. It's like the women who says 'Some of you will just disregard my statements because I am a woman.' You already put the premise out there that anyone who would want to discuss it is either partisan or is not open minded. It's a typical democratic ploy and I'm dissappointed in you. You're starting to copy the pundits...
>>>
>>>I didn't demand that anyone even read it, much less discuss it. It was intended as food for thought. The premise I put out there was that anyone who read it with an open mind and wasn't at least a little troubled about her might be, yes, too partisan to be swayed by facts.
>>
>>Were you troubled by the Clinton's stint in Arkansas at all?
>
>This seems to be a popular response! -- "Well, gosh, just look at the Clintons!"

But of course no one did in 1992 (except for the Vast Rightwing Conspiracy). And I think the point is valid. Are you saying that as mayor of Wasilla Palin crossed an ethical boundry in rewarding friends and punishing enemies and that this standard should apply to all those seeking high office? Or that the spouse of a governor having influence is disqualifying? (or have we just learned our lesson?)

For the Democrats - the party of Lyndon Johnson - to even raise this issue with a straight face is ludicrous.