IOW, since both the “Troopergate” issues and the Obama/ Ayers issue, as far as we know right now, don't involve any allegations of lawbreaking (just potential ethical misconduct) it makes no sense to say that any suspicion of Obama can be dismissed because he hasn't been charged with breaking the law. Neither has Palin (in fact it's quite clear that she had every legal right to fire the commissioner in question- even her detractors don't dispute that his position was a political appointment and that governors are within their rights to replace them at will.)

In neither case (regarding any possible issues of Palin and Obama regarding their political positions) is there a question of criminal behavior, so why do you keep bringing up the lack of criminal allegations against Obama as a defense?

By your own admission, then Chris, there are no 'goods' on the salacious stories about Palin, yet folks seem determined to spread the innuendo in the absence of fact.

You're comparing apples to oranges. The Rezko and Ayers stuff came up months ago. There is simply no evidence that Obama did anything criminal. Continuing to bring them up even in the absence of evidence months and years after the fact is clearly underhanded smearing. It's not far removed from saying that Obama might be Muslim because of XY+Z in the past.

The Palin stories, on the other hand, are fresh meat to media investigators. Unlike Obama, who has been under ridiculous scrutiny for months, Palin has been on the national scene for less than two weeks. A lot of the reporting we see now is filling in the dearth of information left by the McCain campaign and her own misleading statements. If they actually gave us her story (without the lies and embellishments about earmarks, Ted Stevens and Bridges to Nowhere), then maybe there would be something other than ongoing investigations to report on.

By the way, why is she lawyering up no longer cooperating with the troopergate investigation?

Yet someone mentions some of the connections between Obama and known criminals (and you're right, we don't know the whole story, because he's being protected- for instance, the papers describing the activities of the education project that Obama and Ayers worked on were buried for long enough to certainly allow for scrubbing of any potentially embarrassing diversion or waste of funds) and you consider the mention of this to be mudslinging. The double standard is beyond ridiculous.

To me it makes a lot of sense that Alaska would have a plane and I wondered why Palin would sell it.

Of course she has her own plane so she didn't need the state jet. I guess her own plane is nicer so she kept it.

Here is a link with travel times/distances in Alaska…. as one can see many of these places do not even give travel times by land, many just have air travel time. So it seems that a lot of travel is by air. I would imagine that the State of Alaska would want a plane to travel to many of its cities. I suppose when Palin leaves office the state will have to spend millions more on another plane to reach those cities and towns more readily accessible by plane than ground… I also can't help but wonder how some other government officials travel around the state if the state doesn't have a plane and Palin uses her own…. I can see why she's made so many enemies.

http://www.anchorage.net/467.cfm

LOL, I wish…. (and I love your sarcasm). But seriously… the story is told to accomplish a goal. That goal is to show Palin has experience and good judgement. Camp McCain and Palin obviously talked about which of her decisions they could use.

The Palin story is fresh, we don't know the extent of it. Obama's life is old news, he's been vetted by the media and the combined might of the Republican party and Clinton machine.

Obama has questionable real estate deals with a criminal slumlord and a terrorist- nothing to see here! Mentioning that is mudslinging!

You're a mud slinger, pure and simple.

The media strains every gnat concerning the Alaska governor's sale of a plane & firing a trooper who threatened to kill members of her family, tasered his stepson age 11, was caught drinking in his police vehicle, shot game out of season, and used a crooked union to get him reinstated after the head of the State Troopers had got him put on unpaid leave.

Yet the MSM swallows large camels when it comes to Rezko [whose financing is still opaque & perhaps from overseas], Ayers [who admits to felonies & served with Obama & is unrepentant about his terrorism activities] and Wright, whose racist rhetoric is on tape. Even Obama's spouse has bad-mouthed the USA. Yet she admitted on 60 Minutes last year that she thought black men were discriminated against because of their disproportionate numbers in prison. And how she was afraid her husband would be shot—-on 60 Minutes, for chrissakes.
Not a peep from the Obamamessiah-adoring MSM.

Yet when Hillary said the same thing on a tiny SD radio station, it was a one-week wonder in the screeching headlines & talking heads—-how dare Hillary mention RFK's assassination was in June, '68.

The MSM waxes delirious about every mote in Palin's eye with ignoring the beams & rafters in Obama's skeleton-filled closet.

Points well taken, except for “The only part of the story that's remotely relevant (and very remotely at that) is that perhaps the sale didn't yield quite as much as she had intended it to…”

I believe that the following is very relevant, perhaps even more relevant than the “original little white lie,” That is, that there is your Vice-Presidential candidate cheering and whooping it up when her mentor gleefully explains how is VP pick sold the plane on e-bay and made a profit on it (one must assume that the profit was also made on e-bay)

Thanks for your feedback

*********
This lie in and of itself isn't a big deal. It's about an inconsequential story. I would probably put it somewhere below Hillary's Sniper fib.

The problem is that it's one lie of many packed into an eventful two weeks. McCain has repeatedly lied about Obama's tax plan (FOX News and WSJ have even said as much). McCain and Palin have lied about Obama's bipartisan legislative record, claiming he has none. McCain and Palin have lied about the Bridge to Nowhere. McCain and Palin have lied about her opposition to earmarks and Ted Stevens.

After you strip away those lies, you see the true face of an ugly and cynical McCain campaign. You're left with a VP pick that has little reformist credentials AND little experience. You're left with an economic policy that apparently can't survive on the merits. You're left with a candidate that's rushing to trade in his integrity and respect in a bid to be President.

AR: “I also pointed out I am not, in any way, a Palin supporter.”

not in this thread, you haven't. but i don't give a d@mn where exactly you say you stand on palin. she lies. obama lies. politicians lie. i just want the smart people in charge.

and, no, you started the “bomb-throwing” by referring to one of my own posts, which appeared before either of yours. i read the thread before replying; maybe you should re-read.

but this is tiresome. ad hominem attacks solve nothing. why won't you respond to what i actually said in the first place? because, i think, you really don't have a response — not a reasonable one, anyway.

You should have read all my posts in this thread. I made my point about the issue. I also pointed out I am not, in any way, a Palin supporter.

I also didn't start the bomb-throwing between us, you did. If you cannot take it (and respond with some wit like ChrisWWW) go crawl back to Kos.

Lastly, I needed a grammar checker for the error you pointed out, not a spellchecker. You got that wrong, too.

it only took you all night to think of that — your parents must be so proud! my last name is Onley, btw. have you ever heard of a “play on words”? “now I calling people trolls” — maybe you should take your own advice, re: spellchecker.

neither you nor your friend have addressed my question. i know it's a lot easier to call names than actually make a real argument, but you should really try it sometime.

The bidding on Ebay was not restricted to rich, Alaskan GOP contributors. Everyone had an opportunity to bid, which (if sold) sets the price in an open marketplace.

Note to liberals who don’t understand economics: Something is worth exactly what a willing and able buyer will pay to a willing seller.

When the plane didn’t sell on Ebay, a buyer purchased it for a similar price to the high bid through a broker.

Note to liberals who aren’t very well versed in private jet purchasing: Out of all the objects someone may buy, a jet, with it’s myriad of paperwork, the need for a thorough inspection by reliable A&P mechanics and the legal/tax implications is one of the things someone would be a fool to do without the help of a competent aviation broker.