I was reacting to your comment that seemed to equate them, not saying that Obama was responsible for the recent actions.

I did make the point in another thread though that when someone from the right does something sleezy, then this board gets inundated with posts and comments about how this is just another Rovian-type coordinated dirty trick to throw mud that cannot be attributed to the candidate directly, but really is being run from the campaign headquarters, and shows how the right will stoop to any level to win.

But when the left does the same thing, then it is just a few (or one) people, who are independent, and it is an uncoordinated attack that says nothing about the left as a whole, or the left candidate and his campaign, who are pure of heart.

In this case, obviously, we are comparing a direct comment of McCain to actions I truly believe had no input from the Obama campaign, just to be clear.

McCain is supposed to be a leader that we can respect and look up to. He
knows that as a national figure anything he says has the potential to end up
on cable news, or on the internet, or on late night talk shows. So yes, I
lost respect for him, and have seen no reason lately to regain it.

Obama at least said he wanted Palin's family left out of the slime that
counts for a campaign.

Usually, I respect your views but disagree with you — but this time I
think you are going off the deep end with partisan one-up-man-ship. Nowhere
did I say which was worse– BUT both are devastating. Cell phone numbers can
be changed. Scars from ugly comments like McCain's involving an adolescent
girl last forever.

I have a vague memory of that. I also remember something about Rush Limbaugh calling Chelsea the “White House Dog” on air to millions of his listeners.

That was disgusting. For a young girl.

I totally agree with you. Yes, I am tired of this campaign. Especially tired of Palin.

But I fear you are right . . . it will only get worse in coming weeks.

Cheers> Subject: [themoderatevoice] Re: Why is Sarah Palin Soft on Child Molesters?> From: > To: marlowecan@hotmail.com> Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2008 03:34:05 +0000> > kritt11 wrote:> > Marlowe-Yes, I remember McCain making some disgusting comments years> ago, that Chelsea Clinton was so ugly that she had to be the daughter of> Hillary and Janet Reno. I really couldn't think of him the same way after> that. How humiliating for a young girl who never even ran for office!> > I really don't know how anyone with a family survives the viciousness of> these campaigns! No wonder so many of the spouses end up on drugs or as> alchoholics.> > One thing– this campaign season has lasted too long, and its only going to> get uglier. This is just the tip of the iceberg!> > See ya at TMV> > Link: http://themoderatevoice.com/politics/sarah-pali…> > –> You may reply to this email to post your response. To turn off notifications, go to your Disqus settings at: http://disqus.com/settings/notifications/
_________________________________________________________________

Nope, no mindless, reflexive bias to see here. Move along you looky-loos. Get back to your houses.

I really don't know how anyone with a family survives the viciousness of
these campaigns! No wonder so many of the spouses end up on drugs or as
alchoholics.

One thing– this campaign season has lasted too long, and its only going to
get uglier. This is just the tip of the iceberg!

See ya at TMV

Look, we live, alas, in a world of limited resources. There are LOTS of good programs that can't get funded at the levels that those who favor the programs would like. Governments have to make choices about those programs. In the federal government, in administrations of BOTH parties, agency officials who argue in favor of X billion within the Executive Branch, and then have the President's budget resolve the internal debate at .9X billion are expected to defend the President's budget in Congress and to the public, not to go argue for X, and they'd get booted pretty quickly if they didn't. I doubt that it is or should be different in Alaska. The Governor, not the individual agency heads, balance the competing demands of all the many good ideas for spending money. If Monegan's arguing for money Palin hadn'd approved was why she fired Monegan — which sounds plausible to me, but I haven't been following this issue with the obsession of some — then it was clearly justifiable.

In any event, “soft on child molesters” is an immoderate cheap shot.

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/09/17/palins-…

Oh, BTW – Micheal, don't lie to us. Shaun wrote that headline for you, didn't he?

Yah, investigating Palin is one thing, but this is something else.

Yes, as Obama said, family should be off-limits.

I remember some right-wing bloggers using Obama's kids to embarrass him back in the primaries . . . I forget precisely the issue . . . and I thought that was low and appalling.

I hope the DOJ and Secret Service visit lots of people.
I doubt it, though.
They have bigger fish to fry . . . as we speak, working at the behest of the RIAA tracking some grandmother in Florida who is downloading a Frank Sinatra mp3.

Anyway, it does appear that many women's groups weren't too thrilled about her firing Monegan, because he apparently was a champion of victims' groups dealing with violence against women. Oddly,
Palin even praised his efforts just a couple of months before she canned him. Also, consider the guy she hired to replace him. He only lasted two weeks, due to his history of sexual harrassment. So if she's going to try to push this latest meme as her rationale for firing the guy, it sounds like it will be up-hill sledding.

For one reason, it is against the law, and the DOJ is now investigating.

Second, exposing the personal cell phone numbers of minors – and leaving obscene messages at those numbers – is simply inexcusable . . . even if the minor happens to be the child of a political opponent!

You, and most Democrats, would be howling if this was Obama's family and children having their privacy invaded in this way. . . and rightly so.

Equally rightly, this is beyond the bounds.

John McCain supports pedophiles.

Seems like it is in the same level of ridiculousness.

On the e-mail hacking, clearly stupid and breaks the law. I also think the governor hiding on a private e-mail account to stop application of FOIA is particularly disturbing, especially after the last eight years. So much for transparency in government right??

The RNC is getting one of its own smear tactics blown back in their faces– and complaining about it is like the pot calling the kettle black.

The issue at hand here is differing views on policy vs outright character assassination. I mean, if you were accused of child molestation, went to court, and were acquitted, you'd still be walking under a dark cloud in many people's eyes. Accusing Palin of being “soft on child molesters” is just plain stupid. Look at my first comment to see where this logic can take you.

Loons and truthers.

This whole Palin affair will do wonders for Alaskan tourism. I want to visit the state now, and I had never thought I would.

Crazed dairy farmers, hunters and all sorts of naughty goings-on out behind the dairy barns beneath the glimmer of the Northern Lights. Sounds like a state out of “Twin Peaks”.

Look at the initial attacks on Palin. Some people talked about experience . . .then the mob started howling about: “Is Trig really her baby, or is she covering for her daughter?”

The venom of her opponents and their attacks on her family made Palin sympathetic . . . and diverted attention from her weaknesses.

Not only tacky, its not smart politics.

The posting of personal information is reprehensible – can't wait until they find the 15 year old in Seattle who hacked in and punish him for it.

Now back to the fundamental story – Sarah Palin is a Liar.

I couldn't agree with you more. This is just sleaze; I see its moving on up the line over at memeorandum. Although in that GAWKER piece you mention, the first thing they ask is, “Did the internet just cause Sarah Palin to destroy evidence?” Let me see if I get this correct. Someone hacks her account, multiple people try to log in, the account is closed, and somehow she destroyed the evidence?