rather than a uniter they mean she does not agree with them. Re those who agree with her, she is a uniter. I am in unison with her. All of this is just libs being unable to accept that everyone does not think like they do.

Libs hate Palin because she has belief in herself, her country, her culture, and her religion. Libs want americans to be like europeans, people who hate themselves too much to reproduce, and who are willing to let their culture die out in favor of a third world culture or islam. Americans are not and libs cannot stand that. Europeans have totally accepted the lib message that western europe is the fount of all evil. We have resisted and we will continue to do so.

Libs need a course in anthropology.

Not exactly. I grew up in a very small town (700 people) and neither of my parents went to college. Why I resent Palin -- and why most people resent her -- is that she thinks that small town people are too stupid to understand when people are patronizing them. Small town people -- at least the ones I know -- understand that their leaders must be GREAT people, great in the sense of Lincoln, Kennedy, Roosevelt, people who had complex, multi-faceted understandings of very complicated issues. People whose achievements, intellectual abilities, academic accomplishments, and writings mark them as MORE QUALIFIED than a "joe six pack" from holding office. We live in a global world, where Sarah Palin's answers to reasonable questions -- like the impact of the Bush doctrine, or which Supreme Court cases should not be replicated, or which media sources are important ones, or why living in close proximity to outer reaches of Russia gives her foreign policy experience -- are truly pathetic. I have no problem with her background... Fine, it took her several years from several state colleges to get a basic communications degree. Fine, her record in Alaska is one marked by begging for earmarks and lying about her stand on the Bridge to Nowhere. Fine, she has extremely conservative stands on social issues (women raped by their fathers should still be prevented by the government from making the "choice" -- as her own daugher did -- to have an abortion or not). I COULD STILL be supportive of her if she sounded like someone who was not a fear monger, who could sound somewhat intelligent on basic issues without resorting to stump speeches or ridiculously simplistic formulations of public policy. She is truly pathetic. I support small town candidates -- and everything they represent -- but I RESENT (more than anything I have ever resented in American politics) someone like Sarah Palin, who as David Brooks (a deeply conservative intellectual) is a "fatal cancer" on American politics.

Fenella, to start with, ask yourself why prominent, intellectual conservatives have called for Palin to step down. You probably have no idea, but it ain't because liberals don't like her.

As the above poster said very well, Palin is ignorant and proud of it. She is hateful. She actively encourages her supporters to dismiss those who are not like them, and to think of non-conservatives as unpatriotic and not worthy of our country. She is shamelessly power-hungry and dishonest. In short, she is a disgrace.

Actually, for those not stuck on dumb labels, it is perfectly possible to disagree on substance but still respect your opponent. It's that second part that Palin is missing, which even conservative commentators recognize. From Kathleen Parker:

"The McCain campaign knows that Obama isn't a Muslim or a terrorist, but they're willing to help a certain kind of voter think he is. Just the way certain South Carolinians in 2000 were allowed to think that McCain's adopted daughter from Bangladesh was his illegitimate black child.

But words can have more serious consequences than lost votes and we've already had a glimpse of the Palin effect.

The Post's Dana Milbank reported that media representatives in Clearwater were greeted with taunts, thunder sticks and profanity. One Palin supporter shouted an epithet at an African-American soundman and said, "Sit down, boy."

McCain may want to call off his pit bull before this war escalates."

Anyone know how Palin ran her campaign for governor?

I'm not convinced this is her personality. She set the tone with her nomination speech, but she didn't write that speech. I wonder if McCain told her that she was the attack dog in the race and she didn't have a choice. I figure they realized that coming from a pretty woman, they could get away with more venom.

liberty, I'm sure you're correct that she's being directed by McCain to attack Obama...and liberals, and city-dwellers and East Coasters, apparently. And I have no idea how she ran her campaign for governor. But what I've noticed about her in her short time in the limelight is quite telling of her real character, I think. She is painfully awkward and uncomfortable when discussing actual issues or anything requiring rational thought, but seems to truly relish her recent opportunities to spout ugliness, hate, and smears. The gutter seems to be her natural habitat.

We can’t have a genuinely thoughtful discussion unless we are careful about defining who “we” and “they” are. Any post titled “what libs want” is a good case in point.

I am a feminist. I believe that women should have the same rights as men – vote, hold office, attend any school, pursue any profession – and I think there are few women, Republican or Democrat, who find that abhorrent.

Sarah Palin is a case in point. She certainly would not have achieved any of her dreams without the early feminists who took great risks to open doors.

Having said that, I really need to know: who are “libs”? Can I assume those are the people Kathleen Parker recently called hirsute Birkenstock wearers? What exactly makes them different than other women and men?

We need to talk carefully and clearly about political and economic theories. We need to be respectful of other voices, and base judgments on authentic sources and not wild accusations. Name-calling, innuendo, and other childish tantrums just don’t cut it. It's just too divisive.

Wow.

That was quite an analysis. I'm not really sure why it was done except maybe to vent a spleen to the point of being air conditioned.

Here's a clue: If you are trying to persuade people, it's not usually a good idea to presume to declare why people think as they do. I'm not talking about persuading hardline liberals, what you did might well convince moderate conservatives that if you are representative of their party, maybe they should reconsider some their own choices.

But if you were just intending to rant, well, you did.

By all accounts, Palin ran a similar race when she ran for Gov. She was attacking a sitting Gov on the accusation of corruption and cronyism. Some of it was valid. Some of it was cronyism she had benefitted from knowingly. Part of why she ran against him was that instead of being given the Lt Gov position after she actively campaigned for him, she was given a slot on the oil pipeline commission.

She didn't like getting passed over for the job she thought was supposed to be hers.

IOW, she was as nasty in her Gov campaign as she is now.

Degs,

You haven't sold me. I guarantee you there are people who are expecting positions in an Obama or McCain administration, it's just how government works. I wouldn't call it cronyism if they're qualified.

You're really saying that making corruption charges that are TRUE is as dirty as saying Obama is pals with terrorists?

IOW you're crazy, unless there's more to Palin's governor campaign that you're not saying.

Fenella wrote: "rather than a uniter they mean she does not agree with them."

No it just means that they are stating the truth. Hell, she's sunk to racism and encouraging assassination. You'll overlook that because she agrees with YOU!

libertyforall wrote: "Anyone know how Palin ran her campaign for governor?"

Petty and vindictive.

Correction on the appointments part I got it a bit wrong.

She ran for Lt Gov and came in 2nd in the primary and then supported Murkowski's bid for Gov.

Apparently the tacit agreement was that if Murkowski won the gubenatorial election, that he would appoint Palin to the US Senate in the seat he vacated. Instead Murkowski appointed his own daughter to the Senate and Palin to Oil and Gas Commission.

Her accusations of corruption against the chair of the AOGCC were politically convenient because the Chair of the AOGCC was also the chair of the Alaska GOP and a strong supporter and fundraiser for Murkowski.

IOW a lot of this was about paybacks for political sleights.