>>>>>>>>>>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.
>
>My point is that this is politics and to imply there is something "unethical" about this when it is the accepted rules of the game (at least among the players) is smarmy hypocrisy.

Well, the fact is, at this point in time it isn't unethical. that is what is being investigated. The bottom line question is this: "Is this something that should or should not be investigated. If it is, then Mike's talking about it is perfectly just. If it is something that should not be investigated and is only happening as a democratic ploy to attack Palin, then talking about it simply perpetuates the hypocrasy.

To my mind, yes, it is something that should be investigated. If it had been done by Obama, then I'd feel exactly the same way, just as I feel his connections are fair game for investigation. But let's keep in mind that I said 'investigate', not pillory.

>
>Keep in mind, I really am not a rabid partisan on party lines. I can see much good in world view of Obama and much I personally find ridiculous in the world view of the right. But I am offended by the whining of people who hold themselves out a smarter, hipper, cooler, more progressive, and morally superior and therefore divinely annointed to rule the stupid rubes who are too dumb to know what's good for them. I don't like the righteousness of the Christian right and I don't like the righteousness of the politically correct Left.

I agree, although, there really are people too dumb to know what's good for them. We've all met some of them from time to time. ;)

>
>I find Palin interesting just because they don't know what to do with her so they have become rabid in attacking her and aren't even smart enough to realize how badly that tactic is failing.

Frankly I find her interesting too, although, having said that, I also really don't have much use for her. She and I have diametrically opposed beliefs in far too many things for me to want to see her in a position of any real power.

>
>I liked Bill Clinton for the same reason. He made the Righteous Right crazy.
>
>I turned off to the left when their arguements started centering around being smarter, purer and more enlightened that all those fools who weren't smart enough to do what their intellectual and social betters told them to do. I'm certailny as much of an elitist as anyone, but the idea that somehow a particular political persuasion makes you smarter or cooler or closer to God or a Better American is offensive.
>
>I'd probably buy and Apple if they'd shoot Steve Jobs, stop talking about "Apple Geniuses" and 86 that damn commercial.