>>>>>>>>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!"
>>>
>>>Pot calling the kettle black...
>>
>>Except that Mike isn't the pot. That would be the Clintons. Mike is just an observer calling the kettle black.
>
>Mike is an observer selectively calling a kettle black from an entirely partisan perspective. Not uncommon or sinful in a political campaign, but not to be accepted without question when offered as something objective.

I'm sorry, but I agree with Mike at least in the sense that if somebody does something unethical and is criticised, it's no good responding simply by pointing out that somebody else did something unethical a number of years ago.