The same people who f....d up McCain's campaign are now scared shitless of the next Palin-campaign for president.
She will eat them alive after a solid Obama disaster.
The "flower people" who are now looking at "Messiah" Obama will spit him out in 4 years.

Dat kunnen wij nu nog niet weten traveller, net zoals wij op dit moment niet kunnen weten of Palin echt een goede kandidate zou zijn. Dit gezegd zijnde, ik geloof heel weinig van al de slechte dingen die over Palin verteld werden.

Dan Gillmor is een sukkel. "So, let's consider this: this is a campaign that did almost nothing but lie during the campaign anyway. That's an exaggeration, but the McCain campaign lied a lot."

Wat een halvegare, en het feit dat hij het nu voor Palin opneemt doet niets ter zake. Als er 1 ding is dat McCain niet genoeg gedaan heeft dan is het de waarheid naar buiten brengen. Zowel Obama's connecties met WU terrorist William Ayers, zijn doorsluizen van geld naar een PLO woordvoerder toen die organisatie nog als terroristisch geboekstaafd stond, zijn jarenlange trouwe kerkbezoek aan een racistische pastoor, zijn voorkeur voor Marxistische profs bij het uitzoeken van vrienden, zijn banden met Kenya's Odinga (een moslim opgeleid in de DDR), alsook zijn banden met Nation of Islam stichter Louis Farrakhan, zijn staalharde feiten. Om dan te zeggen dat McCain gelogen heeft, DAT is pas een leugen.

Krokodilletranen om Palin's behandeling door mensen uit haar kamp NA de verkiezingen is nog eens de dolk in het vlees ronddraaien. Als die Gillmor iets had willen zeggen had ie dat moeten doen VOOR 4 November, toen de MSM en zeker de media in Europa letterlijk ALLES hebben gedaan om Palin volledig en totaal door het slijk te sleuren.

En dat die Gillmor ook iets aan de layout van zijn blog doet. Ik ben er in slaap gevallen.

Out of a feeling of discipline towards luc, I will keep it in English. This is my only discipline this year.

@ Kaal

I am not used to mince my words or be careful about predictions. Palin has terrorized the Republicans in Alaska and therefor the elephants in Washington.
They hate her. McCain, himself quite impulsive, appointed her and did so the only good thing in his campaign as a personal decision.
Obama has no repairprogram for most of the economic ills but he will further bankrupt the US in trying to solve the stupidities of his democrat and republican predecessors, except for Reagan, who created an economic turnaround from Carter's mess.

@ OutlawMike

200% right.

The African country quote is indeed a rumour of which there are no direct accounts. Fox News cited the rumours coming from the McCain staff (http://www.youtube.com/watc...).

However, the Couric interview sends the African quote to the realm of irrelevance. Her ignorance on supreme court rulings, her rambling on the 700B bail-out, her ignorance about what vice presidency incurs, her being baffled when asked which newspapers she reads, ... all of these are kept for posterity in numerous fragments on the net.

What "courage" does it take to speak out for having heard Palin say Africa is a country? What repercussions would there be? It is not the same courage required for a Russian citizen to publicly accuse Putin of corruption. So treating these commentators as "cowards" is a heavy overstatement. If the Africa quote is not truthful, it won't help the image of Palin for a bit.

So, if you want to discuss the value of anonymous sources, there are much better examples than this tiny quote.

I trust that the journalist from Fox knows the identity of his sources. In that perspective, this was not an "anonymous rumour" but an allegation for which the journalist protects the identity of his sources.

I consider this an important distinction: journalists should not report on anonymous rumors, but if they have sources which they know but want to protect their anonimity, they have the right to do so and it is within the "ethics" of journalism. Still, Gillmor is right that the credibility of such reports is much lower than if the identity of the sources would be made public.

@ Mr. John McCain, his staff or the GOP board,

Why a GOP-candidate for VP is, * before * nomination not tested on his/her knowledge about K12-level issues like 'the Bush doctrine', 'Nafta', 'the First Amendment' and more? A one hour chat with Mrs.Palin must have made things clear. So did you talked with her before about American politics, or not? And if you did, again, why did you underestimate and insult the American voters by accepting her?

@ A.Rouet

Back to school please

Rouet has a point. Sarah Palin was out of her depth in some interviews. There are several explanations for Palin's shortcomings however. The easy explanation is that she is a complete idiot. There are other explanations though, one being that Palin has probably never given a serious thought to national issues and that it showed when she was confronted under pressure with concepts and issues she was not at all familiar with. I remember a Belgian budget minister that performed so badly during an interview that she was allowed to start over. Does that mean Freya Vandenbossche is a complete idiot or could there be another explanation?

The idea that Palin was simply not ready is in my view a far more likely explanation. She *could* be an idiot of course, but I find it hard to believe that a popular governor would be both very stupid and unable to hide it.

So no, Sarah Palin is probably no idiot but she was definitely not ready for the federal level and that is where I find myself in agreement with A. Rouet. Mc Cain's choice was, in retrospect, a risky gamble, and therefore unserious. Palin seems to have a lot potential but she was not ready. That doesn't mean she will never be ready, however ! If I were an American liberal, I would drop the cheap sarcasm and keep an eye on the lady.

I would like to point in passing to A. Rouet that Joe Biden also displayed ignorance on some key subjects, like the role of the vice-president in the American constitution, which is quite strange for a long-term Senator. But that was not deemed as important as Palin's missteps. Could it be because he is so much better at wrapping his ignorance in intelligent-sounding blather?

I thought Luc was addressing an 'anonymous source' topic (as Gillmor did) and not the fact being Palin better or worse than Obama or Mc Cain. Are we able to talk about shortcomings of people we never met in private or at work? What means being intelligent or being stupid? Palin, Obama, Mc Cain, Reagan, Bush etc. Will we ever know there hidden agenda, etc? We will only know what we hear from all kind of sources (journalists, media, blogs, ...), a mixture of tendencies, strategies and propaganda. Maybe we should better look at results. We can not judge Obama yet, he just started. And if Palin becomes president later on, we can judge her later on.

Sarah Palin is a rough diamond and I hope to God she stays unpolished for four more years. The only "informed" presidents were Eisenhower, Nixon and Bush senior. The "holy" Kennedy was so well informed that he started his presidency with the Bay od Pigs and let Cuba slip away.
Clinton's foreign policy lead to 9/11 and the enormous expansion of Al-Quaeda.
If Palin would be president she would scare the shit out of Iran, Irak and the Taliban/Osama. She would have a thousand people telling her where exactly the target was and she would go after them, no ifs and buts. You know what? They would ask for a truce and negotiations. The West has lost the initiative and Palin would take it back.
First we will have to watch the demise of the US by the new "Messiah".

Anonymous 'sources' lack all credibility, are NEGATIVELY credible, and trustworthy. IMHO, it is not just the anonymity causing this, but the effect of contagion that every expression has among listeners, readers, groupies, activists,... and lately, very unfortunately, the 'objective' media as well, who FOR GOD'S SAKE started to openly endorse their holy candidate, protecting him and attacking the other. Fortunately they did it openly, for if they had not done so, it would have been even more morally refutable, AND we would not have known about it. Objectivity, independent confirmation, Truth, should be holy; not the golden parachutes and CEO's money. However we live in a western democracy (still) and nothing better has seen the light of day yet. Has it?

Oh my. Traveller is having a senior moment.

@ Michel Vuijlsteke

Meaning? I cannot change my age, unluckily enough, but did I say anything wrong?

@ Michel

http://www.wordspy.com/word...

Where is traveller's alleged momentary lapse in memory in #71533?

More than 20 years ago I worked for the consulting company X X & Co (*). We had a female colleague called Chantal (*) and during my first weeks I wondered why they could ever hire her. Stupid as a donkey she was never put on any critical or difficult assignment. But every Friday night you could see her in the pub near the office for the start of a wild booze & dance night with colleagues. And although she was married she was constantly telling us in full detail about her fuckie-fuckies on business trips. And most of the time at work she showed a jawdropping cleavage. She participated at every presentation for which they prepared her well, and although she hardly understood what she was saying and never had to answer serious questions from the audience, the male part of the (potential) clients adored her.
When Palin was giving her speeches at the GOP Governors convention in Miami, at the end you saw all the men enthusiastically applauding, while the women were sitting with blunt face and arms crossed. She made me think of Chantal (*) 20 years ago.

(*) = fictitious names

I feel like the leftist illuminati has made a sport out of picking on sarah. It has already been discovered that the Africa comment didn't really happen. If you TRY to pick on someone and find things to criticize about anyone, it isn't hard.

Here's probably the source about the "dinosaur" story the MSM (and Matt Damon) picked up, but they refuse to follow the disclaimer; stating it was all made up.
http://unbearablebobness.ty...