*shrug*

i didn't have any expectations and i thought her speech was superficial, didn't say much and was what i thought it might be. i was not WOW'd but didn't expect to be. she doesn't have the experience for the VP slot IMHO.

Didn't watch it. I'm sure if I had, she'd have met my expectations of being a politician.

I didn't listen to her speech, but I did read an article about it that gave some highlights. It sounded as though she was divisive and even a little vitriolic. It made me happy that Obama's speech hadn't been that way. I didn't really have any expectations for her speech, although in general she doesn't seem like a very strong candidate. She's pretty much the opposite of everything I believe in. I also love that her campaign boils down to "I'm just as inexperienced as Obama is." That'll definitely be a winning strategy.

I think I'm the only one in the country who thought her delivery was poor, and I also thouhgt she tried to be a little too cute. Further, when she wasn't being cute, she got too nasty for my taste. However, my expectations were pretty low, so she didn't really fall short either.

I'm not American. I might beg Linda for the return of the ethics surveys for a break in the monotony.

I think she makes me really nervous because of John McCain's age and medical history. She's right of right wing.

Why is this survey rated so low; it seems spiteful to me.

I didn't watch her speech but have certainly heard plenty from various sources and have come to the conclusion that she's evil. She's against women's right to choose; she owns guns and is a member of the NRA; she shoots wildlife for sport; she's all for oil drilling in Alaska... this alone is plenty for me. Jeez. Why anyone would actually be interested in someone like this as VP is beyond me,

Not a scooby-doo, not my country.

I didn't listen to the speech; I read a few articles about it after. One was a fact-checker, which showed how she stretched many of her claims about different issues.

What speech?

Whatever man. Whatever. I didn't see it and I don't plan to torture myself.

Sarah Palin did a great job delivering her speech and she did meet my expectations.

Ok, I listened to parts of it on the Guardian Daily podcast. Overly headstrong. It's a shame, as right (wing, that is) as she is, I think she was totally dumbing down for her audience.

I'd like to make it clear I am no supporter of Miss Palin, but I was trying to be objective.

Well, she was full of crap.. so that would be a yes. It beggars belief that the Republican Party think they can get away portraying themselves as anti-establishment. Despite them being in charge for the last 8 years, it almost felt during Palin's speech that "Washington" was a euphemism for the Democrats.

I didn't have any expectations to begin with. She did come off a bit whiney though.

I had no expectations of Palin.

Sarah Palin rocked the house!

Oh yeah, she met my expectations. She didn't remotely hide that she was encouraging the votes of women who don't consider platform in their vote. I don't recall reading or hearing a single thing I agree with her on except less taxes for small business. Obama promised no capital-gains taxes on small and starting businesses. The republicans didn't offer any specifics that I heard, but I missed much of McCains speech, I think.

..and yet at the same time they make out like they're not a continuation of Bush either.

It makes me embarrassed to be an American, not so much that there are such candidates out there, but that half the country votes for them, and many of those actually know what they are voting for; "Destroy the environment and kill foreigners so Americans can enjoy the highest excesses of anywhere in the world? Sounds good to me. Let big business rape labor and consumers for the sake of investors? Sounds good to me." ..and then suggest this is the holy thing to do, makes me think the only hope today for legitimate christianity is to dismantle organized religion, which has subverted most of the major tenets in much the same fashion as Bush has dismantled the constitution for the sake of patriotism.

Meah

What does it matter what she says ? If McCain gets in it's George all over again.

*getting ideas*

I can't take it back, can I?

Well, I don't really have many ideas left (for now) but I was thinking of one based on something I was saying in the forum.

Cool

Yes Sarah Palin i liked what she had to say and Obama he is going to pay the price big time for his big mouth

> Whatever man. Whatever. I didn't see it and I don't plan to torture
> myself.

Oh Lindsay please ! you know you gotta like it someday Obama is begging you with soup and crackers "

Obama is too skinny to be the President his bones are showing

I think Palin is being used to win the election, and that she won't stick around for long before being replaced by someone else if McCain wins. That's just my theory about what's going on.

'for long'? Four years? I suppose VP's can quit, but I've never heard of it, and I think the speaker of the house would take their place.

My conspiracy theory (which I'm hoping for) is that these Republicans are a stage act designed by the one central party to make the general public feel they got a reasonable deal with Obama.

I'm glad to see Snopes debunking her local banning of several great books, though apparently she still did inquire about banning. I've yet to find debunking of her church affilations with the Third Wave, Joel's Army, New Apostles, who apparently keep a database of world locations and groups which will require exorcism. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bruce-wilson/sarah-p...

I don't know. I was thinking maybe she'd come home before then. It's only a theory though. I could be wrong. I kind of don't want to say much about her. She's technically my husband's boss.

I had no expectations. I heard from several that she made a strong speech. So I listened to it and I was...confused. She didn't 'wow' me, I felt no 'electricity' or chills up my spine...she did nothing for me. In fact, she made my decision to not vote for the republican party very strong. She is a strong speaker, yes, but what she said really turned me off.

I watched, just to try to get what people might see in her. What I saw hardly made sense or was not substantiated, so all I can gather is that (like your 'strong speaker' comment), that what appeals to her fans is her temperament and values, both which I object to. I can't, for instance, imagine her coming to any mutually pleasing agreement with any foreign nation, and must therefore conclude that she represents people who don't believe in our making mutually pleasing agreements with foreign nations. That alone worries me.

Aside from replacing the President in an emergency, I can't recall that VPs actually have any official duties, but then presidents only have a handful of official duties themselves, and still manage to create quite a mess.

I still recall the old (probably libertarian sponsored) 'Nobody For President' campaign:
Who do you want taxing your income? Nobody!
Who do you want sending your children to war? Nobody!
Who do you want telling you who you can sleep with? Nobody!
..at this point we should add...
Who do you want tapping your phones? Nobody!
Who do you want arresting you without trial? Nobody!

For sake of some balance, imagining her to be an innocent wolf shooting psycho (from government funded helicopters, no less), I recently discovered a Fish and Game pamphlet describing that predator control (bears and wolves) was for the sake of increasing moose and caribou herds. From what I've often heard about wolves though, they often go a year living on voles, and only hunt sick or injured caribou, so I suspect F&G is just catering to prominent psychos.

> I watched, just to try to get what people might see in her. What I
> saw hardly made sense or was not substantiated, so all I can gather
> is that (like your 'strong speaker' comment), that what appeals to
> her fans is her temperament and values, both which I object to. I
> can't, for instance, imagine her coming to any mutually pleasing agreement
> with any foreign nation, and must therefore conclude that she represents
> people who don't believe in our making mutually pleasing agreements
> with foreign nations. That alone worries me.
>
> Aside from replacing the President in an emergency, I can't recall
> that VPs actually have any official duties, but then presidents only
> have a handful of official duties themselves, and still manage to
> create quite a mess.
>
> I still recall the old (probably libertarian sponsored) 'Nobody For
> President' campaign:
> Who do you want taxing your income? Nobody!
> Who do you want sending your children to war? Nobody!
> Who do you want telling you who you can sleep with? Nobody!
> ..at this point we should add...
> Who do you want tapping your phones? Nobody!
> Who do you want arresting you without trial? Nobody!
>

Actually, you DO get arrested without a trial--- in fact, every time you get arrested. The getting arrested part comes first, then you go to trial. Not a very well thought out bumper sticker message.

Yes, but until recently people were legally guaranteed a trial at some point. If you get accused of being a terrorist these days, they can legally bypass that process and treat a citizen under military law instead. It's already been done once with a college professor. Last I heard, he was finally after some years getting a trial, but only because he had media advocates bringing attention to his case. Had it been more than one person they tried this with, the media would have to concentrate on the new law in general, like the Guantonomo situation, rather than defend individual cases. As we see with Guantomo, that doesn't accomplish much though. There are people there for years without a trial, turned in falsely by their Afgan enemies, and the US sits on it's hands because it would be an international embarassment to admit we've been detaining some 40% innocent for years. It reminds me back in high school of holding my friend in bear hug for half an hour, knowing he was just going to punch me that much harder the longer I took to let go. I hear we're detaining some 50,000 Iraquis in Iraq too (again, without trial, obviously). That's got to be a mess no matter how we handle it from here.

Obviously no one gets a trial before they're picked up, and that's not what it meant. You're digging too hard for something to pick on.

What speech?

I don't like her voice, her glasses, her hair. Neither does my wife.

I don't like anyone on either side except for Joe Biden. I figure he'd be the best President.

i liked her speech