>>>>>>>>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.

Nobody believes me but for the record it really was not offered as a partisan shot.