Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Who wants Sarah Palin to be president?

I haven't seen the question asked this way before. But this finding, buried in the internals of the new Politico poll, strongly suggests that while Sarah Palin's recent activities have elevated her national profile and dramatically enhanced her influence in GOP primaries, they have made her presidential candidacy far less likely:

As you may already know, Sarah Palin has been the Governor of Alaska and was the Republican nominee for Vice President in 208. She resigned from her position as Governor in 2009 and currently runs a political action committee and works as a news commentator for Fox News.

Based on what you know, would you say that Sarah Palin's efforts since resigning as Governor in 2009 have made you more likely or less likely to support her if she runs for President?

More likely/strongly 17%

More likely/somewhat 14%

UNSURE 5%

NO DIFFERENCE 7%

Less likely/somewhat 13%

Less likely/strongly 45%

There's no quibbling with Palin's soaring popularity among Republicans or her rising influence in GOP primaries. But it seems a sizable majority, 58 percent, see Palin's decision to quit as governor of Alaska after a half term and her strategy of elevating her media profile on Fox and via an endless stream of attacks on Obama on Twitter and Facebook as a reason not to back her for president.

This seems to support the idea that her current strategy is working brilliantly to enhance her brand, but only in her current role of celebrity/quasi-candidate. It's rendering her completely toxic for the broader electorate as an actual presidential candidate.

UPDATE, 11:24 a.m.: Headline edited to be fairer.

By Greg Sargent  | September 27, 2010; 11:07 AM ET
Categories:  2012  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Is Petraeus 'out of control?'
Next: The Tea Party-fication of GOP continues apace

Comments

Palin for President in 2012. She is rested and ready to serve for a couple of years.

Posted by: Liam-still | September 27, 2010 11:11 AM | Report abuse

"Nobody"?!

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 27, 2010 11:18 AM | Report abuse

not an unfair objection, Jake. I actually have edited the hed.

Posted by: Greg Sargent | September 27, 2010 11:25 AM | Report abuse

The HEADLINE in that Politico poll, of course, is "Rocky road seen ahead for Obama" especially since Obama only leads Palin 50-42 (so, that's hardly "nobody" although I will admit there's certainly some more ground that needs to be made up before 2012 ; )

Amazingly, only 38 percent of respondents (including Democrats) think that Obama deserves to be re-elected

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0910/42737.html#ixzz10kCyPP5E

From the crosstabs of the poll (the Palin/Obama portion starts on page 133) almost 95% of the undecided voters are from two demographic groups that Palin is winning by 51-40 and 52-33 margins. The undecideds are also comprised by around four times as many Republicans as Democrats and by over 4.5 times as many McCain/Palin voters as Obama/Biden voters from 2008. So, Obama doesn't have much more room to grow with his base -- he will probably just get worse -- while Palin does with her base, especially once they realize she is the nominee and we have to get Obama OUT.

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 27, 2010 11:31 AM | Report abuse

Sarah Palin doesn't have the fortitude to compete in a Presidential run. She probably padded Pres. Obama's win in 2008 by a few points outright, and that's getting a fraction of the scruteny she'd get as a true candidate for the big chair.

I hope she runs, reeks havok on the GOP primary, and eeks out a close/divisive win. Pres. Obama will get re-elected and the down ballot races will bring back many of the losses we'll be seeing in a few months.

Posted by: TheBBQChickenMadness | September 27, 2010 11:31 AM | Report abuse

Re: UPDATE (thanks for the edit).

As of right now, 42% of Americans want Gov. Palin to be President (compared to only 38% of respondents who think that Obama deserves to be re-elected). I'll take those odds ; )

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 27, 2010 11:33 AM | Report abuse

She will never be President.

Not just because she is plainly not up to the task mentally, but also because she could never handle the campaign process. It is tough out there, even for a hardened political pro like Hillary Clinton.

Palin would, I'm guessing, have a mental breakdown well before the end of the primaries.

I don't think Palin really wants to run, she just wants to boost her profile to sell more books.

Posted by: nisleib | September 27, 2010 11:35 AM | Report abuse

OT but of timely significance to the discussion (well, some of us were trying to discuss; jenn was just hurling insults) on the weekend thread:

http://www.nationalreview.com/exchequer/247825/70-percent-myth-consumer-economy

Posted by: quarterback1 | September 27, 2010 11:48 AM | Report abuse

Polls schmolls. She'd be a great President.

Run Sarah run! You're just like us!!!

Posted by: mikefromArlington | September 27, 2010 11:52 AM | Report abuse

nisleib:

Never say "never".

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 27, 2010 11:54 AM | Report abuse

I've long felt that Palin's supreme objective is to find the easiest way to ride the biggest gravy train.

She has no interest in governing, much less leading in any but a celebrity sense.

As a candidate she's a particularly bad joke and embarrassment to the United States of America, its history, and its legacy.

Posted by: akaoddjob | September 27, 2010 11:58 AM | Report abuse

qb, that NR doesn't prove anything.

So what if HC is part of the 70%, the point is still valid that consumer spending is the largest driving force in our economy.

Or maybe you don't believe in all that supply and demand mumbo jumbo either eh?

Posted by: mikefromArlington | September 27, 2010 12:05 PM | Report abuse

akaoddjob:

You've "long felt" that? All the way back in time since Fall of 2008?

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 27, 2010 12:06 PM | Report abuse

If you're reading the Politico, that's no one's fault but your own.

Posted by: CalD | September 27, 2010 12:06 PM | Report abuse

Why does journolist always fail to acknowledge is the ONLY way that Palin could ever be President is if the Democrats keep acting the way they have been for the last 2 years. If unemployment is over 10% in 2012 (not unlikely, the Obama is going) she has a real shot.

To get started, all she needs is new tax hike in January as the economy struggles to stay above recession. I am afraid she is going to get off to a pretty good start.

Posted by: TECWRITE | September 27, 2010 12:06 PM | Report abuse

I pray queen of the trailer trash runs. She's the best thing for Democrats since Dubya, and Republican's endless philandering.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | September 27, 2010 12:09 PM | Report abuse

While I wouldn't mind Sarah Palin as president, the things cited--quitting the governorship, her Facebook and Twitter life, her Fox gig--are all things that make me believe she has no intention of running for president.

Because I don't think those are the things someone who seriously wants to be president does in full view of the public eye. I think lots of eventual presidents do lots of things that folks who want to be president perhaps shouldn't do, but not as publicly as Palin.

Especially resigning as governor. Sorry, excuses aside, that just demonstrates a lack of seriousness. And, rightly or wrongly, looks a little too much like striking while the iron was hot on the media career.

If she runs, I'll still be a bit surprised. However, if the only other choices I have are Romney and Huckabee, I'd sure vote for Palin in the primary. But, whoever it is, history indicates that person will most likely lose, unless Obama faces a primary challenge from the Democrats, which seems unlikely.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | September 27, 2010 12:10 PM | Report abuse

How about?

Update: Headline edited because the first one was so blatantly biased it killed my credibility.

www.mentalrecession.com

Posted by: mentalrecession | September 27, 2010 12:11 PM | Report abuse

42% of 300 million Americans = 126 million (it will be even more if Obama's approval ratings keep sinking to new lows):

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_obama_job_approval-1044.html

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 27, 2010 12:14 PM | Report abuse

As I have spelled out before, she has positioned herself to win the Republican nomination, and only Palin can defeat Palin, in the Primary Season.

The Right Wing Male Base love her, and she has a lot of endorsement IOUs that she can call in, during the primaries.

One popular flashy woman, against a large number of very dull Republican male candidates. How are they going to attack her, without alienating all those Rich Lowry types, who just need to have her wink at them, and they see sparkles flying out of their TV sets,.......

Only Palin can stop Palin, but she has those Tea Party types in thrall, so I still make her the odds on favorite to win the nomination.

Can she win the Presidency? Absolutely yes. The American voters have already shown that they will elect someone with an awe shucks, simplistic mindset. They vote for someone who they feel "is just like them, and who they feel they could have a beer with".
In other words; morons will vote to elect a fellow moron.

Back in 1999, people were writing off George W. Bush as someone that the voters would reject, for much the same reasons that they are now saying Palin would be rejected. Look at how that turned out.

Can Palin be elected President? The Iraq War was already going South, back in Nov. 2004, and the majority of voters still reelected George W. Bush. That is why Palin has a solid chance winning the Presidency.

Posted by: Liam-still | September 27, 2010 12:15 PM | Report abuse

"qb, that NR doesn't prove anything."

I didn't say it proved anything. But it in fact does at least prove that actual household consumer spending is far less than the "70% of the economy" that is bandied about. A large part of that 70% isn't discretionary household spending at all, and a big chunk isn't even actual spending.

Beyond that, nothing can ultimately be "proved" one way or the other. But I certainly share the view that saying we have a "consumer driven economy" makes no sense. No more, at least, than saying we have a "producer driven economy." It's just a rationalization for what I'll henceforth just call "jenn's mattress theory" for short -- one that has no empirical basis and isn't even logical.

"So what if HC is part of the 70%, the point is still valid that consumer spending is the largest driving force in our economy."

It wouldn't appear you actually read the column or the one linked very thoroughly. But in any event, your assertion is just your assertion.

"Or maybe you don't believe in all that supply and demand mumbo jumbo either eh?"

On the contrary, I do but "you" don't. That's why people like jenn spin fantasies about how labor is "undervalued" because the "rich" are stealing all the money and hiding under their mattresses.


Posted by: quarterback1 | September 27, 2010 12:17 PM | Report abuse

Kevin:

"History indicates"?! I'll be right back with a list of ONE-TERM Presidents.

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 27, 2010 12:18 PM | Report abuse

"I pray queen of the trailer trash runs. "

Why do I bother responding to anything this person says? I guess a reminder is needed now and then of the character of some commenters.

Posted by: quarterback1 | September 27, 2010 12:22 PM | Report abuse

Palin for President 2013-2015

She is rested and ready to serve for a couple of years.

Posted by: Liam-still | September 27, 2010 12:24 PM | Report abuse

John Adams
John Quincy Adams
Martin Van Buren
James K Polk
John Tyler
Millard Fillmore
Andrew Johnson
Chester Arthur
Franklin Pierce
James Buchanan
Rutherford B Hayes
Benjamin Harrison
Theodore Roosevelt
William Howard Taft
Calvin Coolidge
Herbert Hoover
Harry S Truman
Lyndon B Johnson
Gerald R Ford
Jimmy Carter
George HW Bush

(Note to mention the five U.S. Presidents who died during their first terms and so had no opportunity to seek a second)

Two-term Presidents are the EXCEPTION, not the rule (thank God ; )

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 27, 2010 12:29 PM | Report abuse

"one that has no empirical basis and isn't even logical."

Supply and demand aren't logical?

Folks, quarterback has proven the basis for economic theory to be illogical!

"So what if HC is part of the 70%, the point is still valid that consumer spending is the largest driving force in our economy."

and

when you quote this

"So what if HC is part of the 70%, the point is still valid that consumer spending is the largest driving force in our economy."

to be interpreted as this:

"It wouldn't appear you actually read the column or the one linked very thoroughly"

you're just flat out wrong. That article didn't go into specifics. I had to check Bloomberg and other sites to determine what's the largest consumer spending items, and the largest chuck IS personal consumer spending. If that goes down, supply will be met which means productions would go down hiring, etc and ultimately will GDP.

Govn't spending doesn't nullify anything in this case. Now, if whatever parts of Medicare/Caid, etc spending accounted for say, 80% of total consumer spending and only 20% were personal, then an argument could be made that personal spending would have a lower affect on our economy but it would still influence it none the less.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | September 27, 2010 12:32 PM | Report abuse

Jaked2: Stop calling her governor. She willingly gave up that right. Call her Pundit Palin. I'll vote for Nader like I've grown accustomed to but in Sarah Palin all I see is how a great portion of the American population has allowed their inability to distinguish fantasy from reality to allow them to see some kind of leader in her. I see no kind of leader, just a B-grade actress playing at being a leader.

Posted by: curtb | September 27, 2010 12:37 PM | Report abuse

it sad but, more importantly, gutless that greg sargent isnt concentrating on the choice facing americans whether to give pelosi's agenda 2 more years.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-09-25/-black-swan-author-taleb-says-obama-s-stimulus-made-economic-crisis-worse.html

that would explain why we ended up in a worse jobs situation (10% earlier this year) than obama's admin. predicted was the worse case without the stimulus (9%)

Posted by: dummypants | September 27, 2010 12:38 PM | Report abuse

So "nobody" wants Sarah Palin to be president. I am reminded of Yogi Berra's comment: "Nobody goes there, it's too crowded." The GOP will nominate her. Fortunately, nobody anywhere left of Karl Rove will vote for her.

Posted by: cabinbks | September 27, 2010 12:39 PM | Report abuse

I'd love to see her run. It would be like watching a car wreck. The demographic changes in this country don't auger well for any member of the GOP for a national office. Also, if she were to get the nomination, I'd bet that Obama would flip Biden and Clinton and have her as his running mate. By 2016 Hillary would be the same age that Reagan was in 1980. That would make the right wing flip their lid.

Posted by: filmnoia | September 27, 2010 12:39 PM | Report abuse

I would LOVE to see Palin as president -- if only to watch the heads of liberals explode like a scene out of "Scanners"!!!

Posted by: pmendez | September 27, 2010 12:40 PM | Report abuse

She is not "Governor Palin". She is Quitter Palin, or if you prefer; Granny Grizzly Palin.

Posted by: Liam-still | September 27, 2010 12:40 PM | Report abuse

"

"I pray queen of the trailer trash runs. "

Why do I bother responding to anything this person says? I guess a reminder is needed now and then of the character of some commenters."

Yes QB. I think Sarah Palin is trashy. You might call it real murican or something but I think she's just a trashy individual. She belongs on Jerry Springer and that's about it. I find her mannerisms trashy. I find the way she interacts with people as trashy. I find the way she dresses to be trashy. Her family is trashy.

She might reflect your values but my values aren't represented by someone who can't finish things out, relies on vengeance to get anywhere, can't have and/or is afraid to have a mature discussion with people, has a family that's all over the place, a son who joined the military to avoid prosecution, tries to dumb down the conversation to her uninterested level.

So yeah, she's trash.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | September 27, 2010 12:41 PM | Report abuse

Nobody? I do. I guess that means I am a nobody. Perfect liberal thinking, if a person does not think correctly, they are a nobody.

Posted by: VastRightWingConspirator | September 27, 2010 12:42 PM | Report abuse

A more accurate statement would be that persons who are neither unintelligent to the point of retardation nor anarchists would like Palin to be the President. The simple people identify with her and the anarchists are in favor of completely breaking the system as they think it beyond repair.

Posted by: jhadv | September 27, 2010 12:42 PM | Report abuse

All, check this out, new polling and evidence on the extent of the Tea Party-fication of the GOP:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2010/09/the_tea_party-fication_of_gop.html

Posted by: Greg Sargent | September 27, 2010 12:42 PM | Report abuse

curtb:

I will not stop calling her "Governor" (until January 20, 2013 ; )

It is customary to address former legislators and chief executives by the highest title they once held. Or, do you think calling Bill Clinton "Mr. President" is wrong too?

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 27, 2010 12:43 PM | Report abuse

Palin's "strategy" of using Fox/Twitter shows what a complete coward she is.

She's not very bright but smart enough to know that she'll implode if she does an interview with a legitimate media outlet.

Posted by: Richard18 | September 27, 2010 12:46 PM | Report abuse

Palin for President in 2012. She is rested and ready to serve for a couple of years.

Posted by: Liam-still | September 27, 2010 11:11 AM
----

A rather meaningless question. Palin as a best-in-field candidate may not do well, but at the rate Obama's going, she may do okay one-on-one against that bozo.

Posted by: Brigade | September 27, 2010 12:50 PM | Report abuse

Who considers Palin more qualified to be President than Obama?

I do. I do.

Posted by: hz9604 | September 27, 2010 12:50 PM | Report abuse

JakeD2, Palin is not the only person who is considered for President. You have to realize that there are others that she has to take on before the primary is over: You have Romney, and Pawlenty are the few at this point but more will join over the next year or so. Secondly, she will have to start answering tough questions which she has not done so instead to deliver catchy phrases just to rile people (like you) up.

Lest you said that she has done so it is only on FOX News and no where else and many of the questions are mostly softball questions that almost anyone can answer which she can refudiate it instead of repudiate it(there's a difference).

Posted by: beeker25 | September 27, 2010 12:53 PM | Report abuse

Sarah the Quitter!

Talk about cut and run.

Posted by: HillRat | September 27, 2010 12:53 PM | Report abuse

Me too!!!

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 27, 2010 12:54 PM | Report abuse

Sorry, that last one was for "hz9604".

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 27, 2010 12:55 PM | Report abuse

Talib also wanted to nationalize the banks if you don't remember with his friend Arianna Huffington plowing the way on every talk show.

Would that have been good?

Posted by: mikefromArlington | September 27, 2010 12:56 PM | Report abuse

Lets's put it to rest.. Palin will not run for President... She stepped down as Governor because she didn't like it.. she likes to give speeches and show up at rallies not pass bills or try to figure out a budget. So what does she want in 2012?? To have Repub candidates fall all over themselves to get her endorsement. To be the star at other peoples political events.. and give a prime time speech at the Republican convention. She wants to be a king/queen maker not the queen herself. What kills Liberals is she seems very good at it...

Posted by: sovine08 | September 27, 2010 12:56 PM | Report abuse

MikefromArlington wrote,
"I pray queen of the trailer trash runs."

Who would that be? I think Nancy Pelosi is quite happy where she's at.

-----

She's the best thing for Democrats since Dubya . . .

"By Dubya I guess you mean the guy who served two terms as president. You think she'll be THAT good for Democrats?

Posted by: Brigade | September 27, 2010 12:56 PM | Report abuse

2008 - Loser!
2009 - Quitter!
2012 - President?

Posted by: vagator | September 27, 2010 12:58 PM | Report abuse

2012 = President-ELECT ; )

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 27, 2010 1:00 PM | Report abuse

This should read "Nobody at the Washington Post wants Palin to be President". They used to speak of Reagan the same way, treating him like he was the village idiot. He was the best president we've had in my lifetime (I'm 58). The only idiots are at the Washington Post. Get ready for President Palin!

Posted by: cbtole2 | September 27, 2010 1:02 PM | Report abuse

JakeD2, you might quote from sources more non-partisan than Politico, or for that matter, any right wing source, and it might be more credible--

It gets me how so many right wing posters clamor on about how inexperienced and unqualified Obama is to be president, then turns right around and endorses Palin for the office - I'll take inexperienced intelligence over inexperienced dumb blonde (or in this case, dyed) syndrome anytime--what happened to conservatives wanting outsiders for the job?

Posted by: southernbutnotstupid | September 27, 2010 1:03 PM | Report abuse

"They used to speak of Reagan the same way, treating him like he was the village idiot."

Reagan was charismatic. Palin is just trashy.

There's no comparison.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | September 27, 2010 1:04 PM | Report abuse

Polls schmolls. She'd be a great President.

Run Sarah run! You're just like us!!!

Posted by: mikefromArlington

Who considers Palin more qualified to be President than Obama?

I do. I do.


Posted by: hz9604

She's just like "us":
believes the Earth is 6000 years old, and that dinosaurs and humans co-existed;
believes science and the scintific method is "elitist";
evolution is a myth;
public policy is just good old conservative common sense--that budget thing is all too much work;
that if you take 6 different universities to get a 4 year degree, the answer is to close those universities because they aren't educatin'

SUUUURE Sarah is more qualified--put the pipe down dude. A mayor of a 7000 person town who came in with a balanced budget and left with a 27 million dollar deficit;
a woman so intellectually incurious as to make George W Bush seem scholarly;
a person who as governor claimed to be agianst federal spending but hired lobbyists to help Alaska maintain its pre-eminence as earmark pig of the US;
a person so unethical that her own party initiated all but 2 of the ethics probes which actually prompted her resignation after 2 years;
A woman whose, shall we say, casual disregard for the truth is epidemic, and whose relentless self-promotion is legendary?
A woman who barely made it through college vs a college professor?

Lord, you're dumb--but then--you are the paradigm for Palin supporters.

Posted by: bklyndan22 | September 27, 2010 1:04 PM | Report abuse


Nobody wants Obama to be president.

Then again, Obama hasn't been a president, at least not a real president.


Posted by: Jerzy | September 27, 2010 1:05 PM | Report abuse

southernbutnotstupid:

ALASKA is about as "outside" the Beltway as you can get! What does it matter, though, since Christine O'Donnell is a complete outsider and she's getting shot at from BOTH sides of the aisle?

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 27, 2010 1:06 PM | Report abuse

Personally, I believe she should formally be referred to as "Half-Governor Palin." Works on so many levels...

Posted by: TillerJoe | September 27, 2010 1:07 PM | Report abuse

Jerzy:

If Obama was not born in Hawaii, then he's not even LEGALLY President.

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 27, 2010 1:08 PM | Report abuse

John Adams
John Quincy Adams
Martin Van Buren
James K Polk
John Tyler
Millard Fillmore
Andrew Johnson
Chester Arthur
Franklin Pierce
James Buchanan
Rutherford B Hayes
Benjamin Harrison
Theodore Roosevelt
William Howard Taft
Calvin Coolidge
Herbert Hoover
Harry S Truman
Lyndon B Johnson
Gerald R Ford
Jimmy Carter
George HW Bush

(Note to mention the five U.S. Presidents who died during their first terms and so had no opportunity to seek a second)

Two-term Presidents are the EXCEPTION, not the rule (thank God ; )

Posted by: JakeD2 |
----------
You have to remember many of the Presidents followed George Washington's two terms by tradition until FDR was elected 4 times (1932, 1936, 1940 and 1944) the last two due to the wartime situation(WWII) and the country felt the need for continuity. The only reason the Republicans put the amendment for two terms in the late 1940s was the fact they dislike the fact that FDR was elected 4 times and wanted to follow George Washington's tradition.

Funny thing about it, the amendment affected Eisenhower, a GOP who happens to be popular at the time but was term limited.

Posted by: beeker25 | September 27, 2010 1:08 PM | Report abuse

A President Palin could only serve for a little over two years.

She already spelled out that she would not run for a second term, because that would make her a "lame duck", and she would not want to stick around as such a creature. She then went on to spell out that since she could not run for a second term, the second half of a first term, would also turn her into "a lame duck", and therefore she would not stick around for the remainder of her first and only term, either.

That was how she explained why she Quit her post as Governor of Alaska, and the very same "lame duck" obstacles would confronting on the far bigger stage, as President Of The USA.

Therefore: All you can expect is Palin For President: 2013-2015. She has already told you; she can not function in office, once she enters "the lame duck" time zone.

It Is Two And Done For Sister Sarah.

Posted by: Liam-still | September 27, 2010 1:09 PM | Report abuse

TillerJoe:

You mean like HALF-Senator Obama?

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 27, 2010 1:11 PM | Report abuse

I would like to see someone who knows something about the economy.


And Romney really doesn't cut it.

The economy is the most important issue.


.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 27, 2010 1:11 PM | Report abuse

OT but Alternet has an article that highlighted how the beltway freaked out about Colbert.

http://www.alternet.org/news/148309/why_d.c._is_scared_of_stephen_colbert/?page=entire

Honestly, I'd say the beltway are terrified of Colbert and Stewart, both sides because they highlight just how hypocritical they can be. Sure, it's overwhelmingly highlighting elected Republicans hypocrisy but still. The press fears them because they don't go along with the beltway meme du jour and cut through the garbage and make everyone look like idiots.

Sometimes it takes comedy to get through the noise and get a point across and this is why those two are so important for our country imho and why having them elevated to a more prominent role to slice and dice through daily events will help us better at understanding ourselves as a people.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | September 27, 2010 1:13 PM | Report abuse

I love listening and watching liberals wring their hands and panty hose over Sarah Palin. One is reminded of a bunch of sheep, penned up, with a wolf snapping at the gate. The wolf has no key, and probably no way to get in to eat the sheep, but the sheep spend all their time fretting and whining about the wolf.

It's funny.

Posted by: Curmudgeon10 | September 27, 2010 1:16 PM | Report abuse

She resigned from office in order to cash in while the getting was good. Why would she now give up her multimillion dollar income as a professional celebrity for a very hard job that doesn't pay all that much?

Posted by: turningfool | September 27, 2010 1:20 PM | Report abuse

turningfool:

Because she loves America more than she loves money.

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 27, 2010 1:24 PM | Report abuse

who wants a moronic liar as president, besides she total trailer trash.

Posted by: calif-joe | September 27, 2010 1:26 PM | Report abuse

Palin is doing enough damage as it is. A fire on the right can spread to engulf the entire house. The GOP wing has already collapsed. Yeah, fires are fun to watch but who will clean up the mess? We're not even done cleaning up after W.

Posted by: DavidH3 | September 27, 2010 1:27 PM | Report abuse

calif-joe:

I definitely don't want Obama as President.

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 27, 2010 1:28 PM | Report abuse

I love how hack Mitch McConnell is now referring to Witch O"Donnell as a fresh face. This is her THIRD time running for the Senate, and will be her third defeat.

Anyone think Tom Carper is quaking in his boots -- he's up in 2012?

Posted by: Observer691 | September 27, 2010 1:29 PM | Report abuse

I'll pass on Palin. In fact as a Republican from AZ I voted for Obama over the McCain/Palin ticket. I can do the same in 2012 if Republicans/Tea Party are stupid enough to give her nomination. Remember that at the RNC too.

Posted by: Desertdiva1 | September 27, 2010 1:29 PM | Report abuse

TheBBQChickenMadness wrote: "I hope she runs, reeks havok on the GOP primary, and eeks out a close/divisive win." I would have gone with the less imaginative "wreaks" and "ekes" but after thinking about it a bit, "reeks" and "eeks" are much more applicable to Ms. Palin.

Posted by: n_mcguire | September 27, 2010 1:30 PM | Report abuse

DavidH3:

A fire on the left is BURNING DOWN ROME as we type!!!

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 27, 2010 1:30 PM | Report abuse

I see other people have noticed that Joke still refers, incorrectly, to Quitter Palin as Gov. Palin, and is still defending it with idiotic references to former presidents.

Jokey, there's nothing wrong with calling her former Gov. Palin.

Posted by: Observer691 | September 27, 2010 1:31 PM | Report abuse

Desertdiva1:

Thankfully, Arizona's electoral vote will go to Palin regardless of your vote.

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 27, 2010 1:32 PM | Report abuse

People like curmudgeon don't get it. Democrats WANT Sarah Palin to be the GOP nominee in 2012.

Posted by: Observer691 | September 27, 2010 1:33 PM | Report abuse

Sargent: " Yeah, well, actually I take that headline back. Racists and warmongers and people who hate The Earth want Sarah Palin to be President. I just got excited about my sophomore year here at WAPO U. It's all Bush's fault."

Posted by: chatard | September 27, 2010 1:37 PM | Report abuse

Observer691:

Standard Addressing Conventions

First, let us just briefly review standard address for a person in office. In a written address, as on an envelope, there are two recognized options. One is to address the person as Honorable or The Honorable. The other is to address the person by his or her title. So we could address a letter to The Honorable John Smith or Senator John Smith. It is also fine to address a letter to The Honorable Sen. [or Senator] John Smith.

In the United States, it is still fine to address the Senator as Mr. John Smith, although the office title on the envelope may help direct the letter more quickly.

For a salutation in a letter, we would generally write "Dear Senator Smith" or "Dear Mr. Senator." We would use the same manner of address in person, that is, "Senator Smith" or "Mr. Senator." While there is nothing "wrong" with calling him "Mr. Smith," it is usually seen as being a mite disrespectful, unless you know personally that the official prefers that means of address.

This pattern applies to most ranking officials such as mayors, elected legislators, governors, ministers, presidents, secretaries, and titles formed from these names like lieutenant governor, vice-president, or undersecretary.

What happens when they no longer hold the office?

Usually out of respect, we would still refer to them the same way. While we might refer to a retired Senator Smith as former Senator Smith or ex-Senator Smith, that would not be appropriate as an address - whether a direct personal address or address on a letter. It is perfectly acceptable and appropriate to continue to address him as "Senator Smith" or write him in care of "Senator John Smith." The term Honorable is usually reserved for those still in office.

For the salutation in a letter, it would still be fine to write "Dear Senator Smith." "Dear Mr. Senator" tends to suggest that he is still in office. There is usually nothing wrong with addressing him as "Dear Mr. Smith," but it is probably better to avoid it unless you know for sure that he does not mind. This is especially true after an election loss. Calling him "Mr. Smith" rather than "Senator Smith" might be calling more attention to his loss - and gloating is never good manners.

http://englishplus.com/news/news1200.htm

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 27, 2010 1:37 PM | Report abuse

Polls schmolls. She'd be a great President.

Run Sarah run! You're just like us!!!

Posted by: mikefromArlington
----
Well, mike, she may be just like you, but she is nothing like me, because I am not an idiot and only an idiot would think that that woman is fit to be president. Because she isn't. Let me repeat it for your small brain. Sara Palin is unfit for the presidency. That is a FACT, not an opinion. You know, like 2+2=4. That is a fact. Sara PAlin is unfit to be president. That is also a fact.

The idiocy of comments like yours galls the heck out of me. That the educational system of this country can produce such unthinking boobs like you is something beyond my understanding and I am, unlike you, a person of intelligence and one who can actually think.

Posted by: nyrunner101 | September 27, 2010 1:37 PM | Report abuse

"Desertdiva1:

Thankfully, Arizona's electoral vote will go to Palin regardless of your vote.

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 27, 2010 1:32 PM | Report abuse"

And you wonder why people call you Joke. Palin will never run for president, Jake, so she will never get Arizona's electoral vote. This is nothing but fantasyland.

Posted by: Observer691 | September 27, 2010 1:37 PM | Report abuse

@jakeD2 "Because she loves America more than money." That's a laugh. The woman puts money and fame above everything, including the kids she holds up as her reason for living. What has she donated to Haiti? To New Orleans? Top a homeless shelter? To a literacy program for Alaskans? What foundation has she started to help unwed mothers? She is now a multimillionaire and she even gets paid for her canned speeches to small colleges and small groups helping others. She herself helps herself to the Republican spare cash.
She did not work in Alaska. As mayor of tiny Wasilla, she HIRED a city manager to run things for her. As Governor, she relied on Democratic Congressmen to help her get an agenda (that they began) through. She would not work for us if she were POTUS; she would work for herself.
Finally, just imagine Sarah Palin choosing a Cabinet. Let's see, since Todd was co-Governor, he would probably be White House Chief of Staff so he could access the nuke codes and all emails. Since Bristol has assured the world in magazine stories that she hoes to get a college degree, she can be Sec. of Education. I'm sure the disagreeable Sharron Angle deserves something...how about DC dogcatcher? And don't forget Christine, who will be out of work again come November: she could be the religious adviser, with a big salary. Or maybe she could be Press Secretary...since she is following Angle and avoiding them.
You cannot become President without talking to the press. Without including ALL Americans in your tent. Without being truthful.

Posted by: smgess | September 27, 2010 1:38 PM | Report abuse

Nobody wants Obama to be president.

Then again, Obama hasn't been a president, at least not a real president.


Posted by: Jerzy | September 27, 2010 1:05 PM | Report abuse
---------------
Correction, amigo. Nearly 60,000,000 American voters cast their ballot for him. And nobody but the aluminum foil set thinks he's not the president. Perhaps in your mind, you don't perceive him as president. But then again, I don't really care to know what goes on in there.

Posted by: Keesvan | September 27, 2010 1:39 PM | Report abuse

I don't want Palin to be a resident of this planet.

Posted by: wrw01011 | September 27, 2010 1:39 PM | Report abuse

If Palin wins the Republican nomination in 2012 or 2016, the Democrats could have a Dukakis/Mondale ticket and still win 60% of the popular vote. President Obama would get 65% against her.
Run Sarah Run!

Posted by: wbowers | September 27, 2010 1:40 PM | Report abuse

You can't dodge the media forever. Millions upon millions of Americans don't watch Faux News, so you can't hide there forever and win a national election.

Posted by: nsu1203 | September 27, 2010 1:41 PM | Report abuse

Joke, why did you waste all that space talking about Senators? We're not talking about Senators. We're talking about Governors.

The difference is that there are multiple Senators at any one time, but only one holder of a particular Governorship. Since there can be only one Governor of Alaska, that person is Gov. Parnell. Palin is former Gov. Palin.

Nice try Jake, but it fails for irrelevancy.

Posted by: Observer691 | September 27, 2010 1:44 PM | Report abuse

nyrunner101:

That post from Mike was "sarcasm".

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 27, 2010 1:46 PM | Report abuse

To JakeD2 who said, "A fire on the left is BURNING DOWN ROME as we type!!!"

You're wrong. The fire is on the right. It's called the Tea Party and people like Palin, Angle, Limbaugh and Beck are fanning the flames and yowling for November.

Look what's happened to the proud old GOP. The moderates have been lynched. Open your eyes.

Posted by: DavidH3 | September 27, 2010 1:46 PM | Report abuse

Maybe you missed it, Sargent, but nobody really wants Barack Obama to be President either.

Only 38% say he deserves re-election.

But you keep obsessing about Mama Grizzly. You seem to enjoy it.

(And no, it's not creepy or sketchy AT ALL......um, right)

Posted by: etpietro | September 27, 2010 1:47 PM | Report abuse

How many of the people who have become less likely to vote for Palin, were likely to vote for her to begin with? I don't think that Palin is the most likely Republican candidate. But, I doubt that this poll means anything. The scenario for her to become President starts in the Republican primaries. Assuming the Republicans are about half the electorate, that means she needs about 25% of the electorate's support to become the Republican's candidate. Clearly, there is a substantial segment of the Republican Party that does not want her. But, given the choice of voting for her or Barack Obama, most of them will choose her. A more likely Republican choice is someone with enough record to be attractive to the Tea Party wing of the party but not enough record to build up too many negatives. Tim Pawlenty looks like one possibility who fits that description. But it is foolish to count Palin out until the primaries have actually happened and the Republicans have chosen a candidate. The enthusiasm of the conservative wing of the party got Barry Goldwater the Republican nomination. There was also a time when it was widely believed that Ronald Reagan could never be a serious candidate for President.

Posted by: dnjake | September 27, 2010 1:48 PM | Report abuse

DavidH3:

We'll have to agree to disagree then.

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 27, 2010 1:48 PM | Report abuse

dnjake, you appear to be operating in the same fantasy world as Jake. You, like Jake, don't seem to understand that Palin will NEVER run for public office again, because she will NEVER let herself get into the position of being forced to answer questions from anyone other than friendly, sympathetic interviewers.

But dream on!

Posted by: Observer691 | September 27, 2010 1:52 PM | Report abuse

The successes of the Obama administation and Dems will be evident, even with work to do, in time for the 2012 election - bank reform that geets credit card and banking fees under control, continued work on education, getting banks out of the federal student loan program so our money goes further for students, easing of the war, wanting trials for internment for terrorism suspects, working on overturning DADT and giving honorable military Vets the voice they deserve, a healthcare bill that makes sure insurers can't drop you for pre-exisitng condidions, dropping tax cuts for the wealthiest 3% of Americans so we can pay down fed debt, $ to states to help duel funded jubs in jump start hiring in private sector. These are real, tangible, successes for the Dems.

Posted by: cadam72 | September 27, 2010 1:52 PM | Report abuse

@JakeD2 I can vote for anyone over Obama today except Palin. I mean literally anyone the Republicans can front but Palin. If Republicans are serious about winning the presidency they will find a compromise. Palin cost McCain the election in 2008 and she will cost Republicans the presidency again in 2012 if they are stupid enough to run her. This country is ready for a Republican president but they will never elect Palin.

Posted by: Desertdiva1 | September 27, 2010 1:52 PM | Report abuse

smgess:

I beg to differ. As for how much Gov. Palin has donated to Haiti? To New Orleans? Top a homeless shelter? To a literacy program for Alaskans? What foundation has she started to help unwed mothers?

"But when thou doest alms, let not thy left hand know what thy right hand doeth" (Matthew 6:3)

And, I think that SENATOR Angle (R-NV) will do just fine there, no need to demote her to Cabinet ; )

Finally, of course, Sarah Palin can become President "without including ALL Americans in your tent." Both Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush did it (twice ; )

You probably thought that those two Presidents weren't "truthful" either, right? Yet Bill Clinton never fibbed, even once.

LOL!!!

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 27, 2010 1:55 PM | Report abuse

Desertdiva -- this coming primary season will be a test of who controls the GOP. The teabaggers will demand someone who toes the line 100 percent. But someone who toes the line will never get enough votes to win the general.

Posted by: Observer691 | September 27, 2010 1:57 PM | Report abuse

Because she loves America more than she loves money.

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 27, 2010 1:24 PM | Report abuse
---------------------------------
Funny, she didn't love Alaska more.

Look, you're an obvious groupie, Jake. You will believe as you wish. Enjoy, and don't let reality intrude on your bliss.

Posted by: turningfool | September 27, 2010 1:58 PM | Report abuse

Desertdiva1:

Like I said, she won't need your vote in Arizona (and I think I could easily prove that McCain would have lost by even MORE votes had he gone with Lieberman -- don't you remember the bump in the polls McCain got with Palin only to shoot himself in the foot by "suspending his campaign" to stage a photo op in D.C. -- it was the only time that McCain led Obama BTW ; )

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 27, 2010 1:59 PM | Report abuse

@JakeD2: History does indeed indicate that Barack Obama, as the incumbent president, will win, unless he faces a primary challenge or a credible 3rd party candidate (no matter who people think the 3rd party candidate takes votes away from).

Your examples, for the most part, help prove my point:

John Adams -- Dude, he was running against Thomas Jefferson. Y

John Quincy Adams - A good example of your point, except it's from 1825.

Martin Van Buren - Possibly the most likely comparison to Obama, and it's to a guy who was elected president in 1837. I think history is on my side in this.

James K Polk -- Sought no second term

John Tyler --Tyler was going to run 3rd party, withdrew and threw his support to Polk.

Millard Fillmore -- was never elected president. He never got the nomination of the Whigs (he was the last Whig) and thus never actually ran for president.

Andrew Johnson -- He was impeached and didn't seek renomination, as far as I know.

Chester Arthur -- was not renominated, due largely to poor health.

Franklin Pierce - actually lost a primary battle. I don't see that happening to Obama. And the incumbent party won again, so . . .
(cont)

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | September 27, 2010 2:01 PM | Report abuse

turningfool:

She LOVED Alaska so much so that she put Alaska before her own selfish interests in serving out a lame-duck term, so that instead of nothing productive getting done for the past year, her more-than-capable Lt. Governor has taken over and carried forward with their agenda. Much to the chagrin of state Dems BTW ; )

"Greater love hath no (wo)man than this, that a (wo)man lay down his life for his friends." (John 15:13)

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 27, 2010 2:04 PM | Report abuse

James Buchanan - John C. Breckinridge mounted what we would call a "primary challenge" and the convention, and even the Democratic party, was split.

Rutherford B Hayes -- Pledged not to run for a second term, and did not. Folks who declined don't serve as good historical indicators of what will happen if the incumbent president runs, which Barack Obama almost surely will.

Benjamin Harrison -- His presidency oversaw the admittance of 6 different states into the Union. And beat for a second term by the president he beat initially (Grover Cleveland), I don't think the story of Benjamin Harrison is likely to ever occur again.

Theodore Roosevelt - Roosevelt won a 2nd term for his party after serving almost all of McKinley's term, and declined to run for a 3rd (2nd elected) term, but the incumbent party won.

William Howard Taft - Faced a primary challenge from Teddy Roosevelt . . . and Taft also represented the 3rd term in power for his party. After two terms in the Whitehouse, it's increasingly less likely for the incumbent party to hold it in the next election. With Obama, the Democrats have had one term in the Whitehouse, while with Taft, the Republicans had had 3 terms in the Whitehouse.

Calvin Coolidge - Won handily (for the incumbent party) after having taken over upon Harding's death. Almost certainly would have won had he not declined to run in 1928, but also declined.

Herbert Hoover --Depression, stock market crash, was running against FDR

Harry S Truman -- He won election in 1948, as sitting president, against Dewey (And he had served more than two years of the previous term), and he sought no 3rd (or second elected term).

Lyndon B Johnson -- sought no second term

Gerald R Ford - Primary Challenge from Ronald Reagan

Jimmy Carter - Primary challenge from Ted Kennedy (also, was running against Ronald Reagan)

George HW Bush - 3rd Party challenge from Ross Perot

The power of incumbency is a historical fact. It means it's not impossible, but highly unlikely, that Obama will lose, if he chooses to run for a second term. A credible 3rd party challenge, or a primary challenge, are the historical elements that could would hurt Obama, and perhaps make him a single-term president. And, of course, if he decides not to run.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | September 27, 2010 2:04 PM | Report abuse

Let's hope he pulls an LBJ then ; )

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 27, 2010 2:07 PM | Report abuse

The GOP won't nominate Ms. Palin unless polling shows that she will win. They have 2 years to groom a candidate and wide field of possibilities.

I could see Chris Christie, Mike Pence and Marco Rubio just as examples

Now if polling supports it they might add her to the VP ticket.

Obama won't back away from his hardcore liberal ideology and won't work with the GOP after they take the congress in November any more than he has so far.

That being the case and since Americans have rejected the left, one of the "new conservatives" will be president in 2013

Posted by: Straightline | September 27, 2010 2:13 PM | Report abuse

Who owns Sarah Palin now? William Kristol or David and Charles Koch?

I'm going to guess that it will be the person(s) who can make her the richest. And that would be Koch.

Posted by: HookedOnThePost | September 27, 2010 2:14 PM | Report abuse

As recent history has shown us, being a complete moron doesn't preclude being nominated by the Republican party and subsequently being elected president.

Posted by: sthoswiley | September 27, 2010 2:17 PM | Report abuse

The weight of that incumbent advantage is debatable Kevin. If you make your bets based on incumbency alone, I'd probably take that bet in '12. There are a lot of factors at play here; unfairly, the economy is chief among them.

I'm curious about one scenario though: if conservatives take back one or both houses of Congress, and the economy is on the upswing in '12, will Obama get credit, or the new Republican majority? I think as usual, it will be a battle of propaganda. And by most of the comments I read on washingtonpost.com from both sides, propaganda works (ie the racism of the tea party, etc.).

In the case of Palin though, I think she's completely and utterly unelectable (and this is a guy who voted for Bush in '00 and '04 and stands confidently by both decisions). Palin winning the primary would be a virtually guaranteed defeat for Republicans in '12.

Posted by: DrLove82 | September 27, 2010 2:17 PM | Report abuse

sarah may lust to be president but don’t forget about her bursting closet full of skeletons. Sarah’s gullible adorers will be in for some nasty surprises and realities when the true vetting begins.

Before the2008 election, sarah told NBC’s Brian Williams that there is something controversial in her medical records. This likely is why sarah pulled a fast one on the voters--by WAITING UNTIL THE NIGHT BEFORE THE ELECTION to release not her med records, but rather just a letter from her doctor! I could NEVER trust this sneaky and conniving woman.

So, sarah, what are you so terrified of the voters finding out about your past?! Just remember, unlike your failed run for VP, you will get a proper vetting when you run for president. I can’t wait to see your convulsions when the public learns about the REAL sarah which you’ve worked so hard to keep hidden.

The Repubs will deserve to lose the 2012 election if they are so foolish as to choose a nominee so laden with baggage and skeletons. Sarah will give the Dems sooo much to work with—October surprise, anyone?! You betcha! And there goes the election for the Repubs AGAIN...

“Palin releases letter from doctor”

“She waited until 10:37 on the night before the election, but Sarah Palin has released a medical summary."

http://www.politico.com/blogs/jonathanmartin/1108/Palin_releases_letter_from_doctor.html

Posted by: Shelbysez | September 27, 2010 2:18 PM | Report abuse

Palin has no interest in actually governing. Her main interest is money and celebrity and she is using it wisely to make herself the wealthiest Republican. Her teabagging Talibaners, 98% old, white, and retired, are willing to shell out their retirement funds to her because they are easily bamboozled.
Palin has shown her true character by her illiteracy about her own country. She didn't know Canada was a separate country and actually thought it was part of the U.S.A.
Even a fourth grader knows that.
Palin couldn't explain the difference between North and South Korea. She doesn't really read, but she doesn't have to because her "preacher" prayed the witches away from her.
She has exploited her kids egregiously, but whined that the "liberal media" was nasty to them. I cannot think of another mother who would parade her unwed pregnant teenager acrossed a national stage as though this teen was some kind of role model.
She uses her Downs Syndrome son for media attention but she is never with him because she is either twittering or on the huskings sucking up bucks for her personal coffer.
The main reason most intelligent Americans will not vote for her is because she is illiterate, thin-skinned, vengeful,
dishonest, deceitful, and a liar in every way.
She has made her fame by continuously demeaning and defaming our nation's President. She has no sense of patriotism or humanity. Decent Americans don't want anything to do with this self-serving narcissist. That is why she'll never be President.

Posted by: papafritz571 | September 27, 2010 2:19 PM | Report abuse

Straightline:

Did you see the crosstabs I posted above? That's close enough for the GOP to nominate her.

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 27, 2010 2:19 PM | Report abuse

...hey, let's just listen to Palin and the failed GOP, and go back to cut taxes / cut govt that we tried for the 3 decades of the Reagan/Bush era. In fact, let's get ANOTHER big tax cut to the wealthiest as we did in 1981 and 2001.

I mean, that worked SO well to deliver Trickle Down prosperity. Almost nobody is unemployed now. And the banks and oil companies and health insurers, heck - they POLICED THEMSELVES!!! Get government out of the WAY by golly!

Abe Lincoln would have said;
"You can fool some of the people, ALL of the time"... ;^)

- Balkingpoints / www

Posted by: RField7 | September 27, 2010 2:20 PM | Report abuse

TO: JakeD2 who wrote:
“turningfool:
Because she loves America more than she loves money.”

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

What a hearty har har!

Palin quit being governor because being a celebrity was paying more money.

Republicans just make up whatever they want to be true, but there’s no truth in it.

Palin is being paid, right now, $200,000 per appearance to repeat Tea Bagger talking points.

FYI: WE DON'T WANT THE REPUBLICANS BACK.

Posted by: lindalovejones | September 27, 2010 2:21 PM | Report abuse

he GOP won't nominate Ms. Palin unless polling shows that she will win. They have 2 years to groom a candidate and wide field of possibilities.

I could see Chris Christie, Mike Pence and Marco Rubio just as examples

Now if polling supports it they might add her to the VP ticket.

Obama won't back away from his hardcore liberal ideology and won't work with the GOP after they take the congress in November any more than he has so far.

That being the case and since Americans have rejected the left, one of the "new conservatives" will be president in 2013

Posted by: Straightline | September 27, 2010 2:13 PM
..................

Unless things change drastically within the next twelve months, the GOP will have little influence on how their new far right base will vote in the primaries.

Thet could not even get voters in Delaware to nominate Mike Castle.

Posted by: Liam-still | September 27, 2010 2:21 PM | Report abuse

I can't imagine the conservative base would put such an extremist up for election, but look what the liberals did with Obama...it's a good thing for them that John McCain led a completely incompetent campaign (in part by naming Palin as his running mate). If you can't beat a guy with no history, no executive experience, no ideas (except of course CHANGE)...then I don't know who you can beat.

Posted by: DrLove82 | September 27, 2010 2:22 PM | Report abuse

he GOP won't nominate Ms. Palin unless polling shows that she will win. They have 2 years to groom a candidate and wide field of possibilities.

I could see Chris Christie, Mike Pence and Marco Rubio just as examples

Now if polling supports it they might add her to the VP ticket.

Obama won't back away from his hardcore liberal ideology and won't work with the GOP after they take the congress in November any more than he has so far.

That being the case and since Americans have rejected the left, one of the "new conservatives" will be president in 2013

Posted by: Straightline | September 27, 2010 2:13 PM
..................

Unless things change drastically within the next twelve months, the GOP will have little influence on how their new far right base will vote in the primaries.

Thet could not even get voters in Delaware to nominate Mike Castle.

Posted by: Liam-still | September 27, 2010 2:23 PM | Report abuse

Shelbysez:

You mean "a proper vetting" like what Obama was subjected to prior to his election? BTW: please link to all of candidate Obama's MEDICAL RECORDS (as opposed to the doctor's letter that his campaign released ; )

"The letter is the first publicly released information about Mr. Obama’s medical history or current condition. The six-paragraph, one-page statement summarized the senator’s health for the last 21 years and was signed by Dr. David L. Scheiner, who said he has been Mr. Obama’s primary care physician since March 23, 1987. The undated letter was released less than a week after Senator John McCain of Arizona, the presumptive Republican nominee, released his medical records.

A spokesman for Mr. Obama said his campaign would not make Dr. Scheiner available for a telephone interview."

http://www.bloggernews.net/118191

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 27, 2010 2:25 PM | Report abuse

TO: JakeD2 who wrote:
“turningfool:
Because she loves America more than she loves money.”

........

Yes she does, and she has all those 100,000 dollar appearance fees, with the two bendy straws, to prove that she does.

Posted by: Liam-still | September 27, 2010 2:25 PM | Report abuse

lindalovejones:

We get it that you and your ilk don't want the grown-ups back in charge.

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 27, 2010 2:27 PM | Report abuse

No JakeD2. I would have voted for McCain with Lieberman. Palin being a women I was thrilled until she opened her mouth. We women gasped in horror at what came out. I'm sorry but I'm pro choice and moderate. You get points for being a female but you lose them when you turn out stupid and viewing the world with a 1950's mentality.

I can vote Tea Party when necessary like now in the AZ 8th Congressional race. It's tied dead even with Kelly (Tea Party) vs Giffords D incumbent. Last election I voted Giffords this election I'll vote Kelly. Giffords although a moderate voted the Democratic party line too many times (TARP, immigration, and universal health care). I'll take Kelly knowing he's in the minority and his TP agenda will never bear out. We need a Republican in that seat in Washington but again I didn't vote for Kelly in the primary. He's a second choice. I guess I really need a brand new party if the Tea Party plans to take the Republican party over.

Posted by: Desertdiva1 | September 27, 2010 2:30 PM | Report abuse

...well, there are the numbers, and then there are the opinions about the numbers.

I wonder which one should be considered seriously and which should be dismissed out of hand as stupid nonsense.

"Has she made you more or less likely to vote for her as president".

More likely/strongly 17%
More likely/somewhat 14%
UNSURE 5%
NO DIFFERENCE 7%

Total 42%

Less likely/somewhat 13%
Less likely/strongly 45%

Total 58%

Now you just have to consider that they didn't ask, apparently, what they thought of voting for her *before*. But if before they wanted to vote for her for President and lately they've been 'strongly less likely" to vote for her, that still could mean that they would still vote for her for President now, not to mention in 2012. These numbers don't really mean much because they are all relative to subjective historical terms. If anything they say that she's impressed fewer people than she's turned off, on the idea of voting for her for President.

Certainly not that she hasn't impressed anyone into voting for her for President.

Certainly not that NO ONE wants her to be president. Which sounds like something I'd expect to hear about Obama from Faux News.

Posted by: tokenwhitemale | September 27, 2010 2:31 PM | Report abuse

mikefromArlington wants Palin to run because she's "just like us!!!" If people who are just like the rest of us could be President, then mikefromArlington is saying that he and anyone else is qualified to be President. I want someone to be President who is better qualified than "the rest of us". And qualifications are more than just being able to give a good speech; actors and actresses do that all the time.

Posted by: asm_ith | September 27, 2010 2:32 PM | Report abuse

Liam-still:

If Christine O'Donnell wins in Delaware, then ALL BETS are off (except the one with rukidding7 ; )

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 27, 2010 2:33 PM | Report abuse

palin is a detestable quitter. Just no good. However that moron w got elected President and she is way smarter that him. If that moron w could be President so could this stupid woman. Of course she would be at least as great a disaster as that moron w.

Posted by: letemhaveit | September 27, 2010 2:34 PM | Report abuse

At least Governor Palin would be more personable and think more like mainstream America than that arrogant fool in the Oval Office.

Posted by: redroomfotog | September 27, 2010 2:35 PM | Report abuse

Politico is the hardest of hardcore GOBP websites. It's like quoting Rasmussen - totally PREDICTABLE.

Suggest you try Gallup's website where the nearest frontrunner, (Romney), unelectable as satan himself, trails by "only" about 18% - 52-34 vs Obama.

Posted by: BattleOffSamar | September 27, 2010 2:37 PM | Report abuse

Desertdiva1:

"No", you don't you remember the bump in the polls McCain got with Palin? Maybe someone else has the time to get you up to speed then.

tokenwhitemale (from the SAME POLL above):

Obama only leads Palin 50-42 (I already admitted there's certainly some more ground that needs to be made up before 2012 is over ; )

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 27, 2010 2:38 PM | Report abuse

asm_ith (last time I will point this out):

Mike was being "sarcastic".

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 27, 2010 2:40 PM | Report abuse

turningfool:

Because she loves America more than she loves money.

Posted by: JakeD2
********
Where's the proof of that, Jake? I can't think of a single thing she's done that suggests that she loves America more than money or fame.

Posted by: dbitt | September 27, 2010 2:41 PM | Report abuse

asm_ith - that's exactly why Democrats are the party of educational elitism! To you, a good candidate has to have an advanced degree, history of community service, whatever other stupid metrics you people use to define a 'qualified' candidate. History clearly shows the best leaders are those who rise slowly from humble roots, who aren't lifelong politicians - and that the elitists people like you want to put in power bring about the ruin of these civilizations(Roman republic anyone?)

Also, you ironically defined Barack Obama when you said 'just being able to give a good speech." And even that he can only do with a teleprompter at every moment. I'll take George W, who isn't eloquent but always said what he thought, over a puppet who can't even think for himself, but 'can give a good speech.'

Posted by: DrLove82 | September 27, 2010 2:42 PM | Report abuse

dbitt - where's your evidence that anyone on the left is any less obsessed with money? What our Clinton's public speaking fees again? Stop being a total hypocrite.

Posted by: DrLove82 | September 27, 2010 2:43 PM | Report abuse

a poll in 2010 about a hypothetical match up in two years time, is about a useful as nipples on a bull, or a Stanford law degree on a JakeD2.

Go back and compare what the polls, at this date in 2006, were reflecting about Hillary's chances, compared to Obama's, and you will see that pollsters conducting polls now, about how someone will do two years from now, should be told to stop wasting everyone's time, with their fantasy rubbish.

Posted by: Liam-still | September 27, 2010 2:45 PM | Report abuse

would you want someone as dumb as you to be president?

Posted by: eezmamata | September 27, 2010 2:45 PM | Report abuse

As the Republican Party is rapidly becoming a 21st century Know Nothing Party, what better leader than Sarah Palin, who actually knows nothing! The party and its leader will be who they are!

Posted by: captn_ahab | September 27, 2010 2:48 PM | Report abuse

Well, I'm a PhD educated scientist, but yes, I'd like someone as dumb as me to be president.

Posted by: DrLove82 | September 27, 2010 2:48 PM | Report abuse

dbitt:

Did you see my post at 2:04 PM?

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 27, 2010 2:49 PM | Report abuse

So which is it, Nobody wants Palin to be President or Who wants Palin to be President? What's with the misleading lead-in?

I think she has good values and ideas but may not be ready to be President. On the other hand it sure looks like our current CinC isn't up to the task either.

What's with the constant sturm and drang regarding Palin? Me thinks you must fear her mightily to put all this effort into besmirching her. If only you had put as much scrutiny into Obama. Heck, we learned more about a plumber from Ohio than the President's history from the likes of the ComPost and he just had the timerity to ask a good question Mr Obama didn't have a good answer for. I'm still waiting for a good answer to that one.

Posted by: theduck6 | September 27, 2010 2:51 PM | Report abuse

mikefromArlington says:

"Run Sarah run! You're just like us!!!"

Why are you a quitter to?

Posted by: rharring | September 27, 2010 2:51 PM | Report abuse

2JakeD "I definitely don't want Obama as President."

Too bad Jake...HE IS PRESIDENT...

JAKE READ THIS...BARRACK "HUSSEIN" OBAMA IS PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES!

SUCK ON IT AWHILE AND ENJOY THE FLAVOR..UNLESS YOU ARE A FREAKING TRAITOR OR A FOREIGNER..IF YOU ARE A CITIZEN OF THE U.S

GET THIS JAKE...BARRACK "HUSSEIN" OBAMA IS YOUR PRESIDENT. YOU LOST JAKE...YOU LOST JAKE...NOT SOME POLL..YOU LOST THE ELECTION BY A RELATIVE LANDSLIDE COMPARED TO OTHER RECENT PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS.

YOU LOST JAKE!!! YOU LOST JAKE!!! JAKE YOU LOST...STRF YOU LOST TOO...YOU LOST YOU LOST...POST ALL THE FREAKING POLLS YOU WISH...ELECTIONS HAVE CONSEQUENCES...SARAH PALIN LOST...PALIN LOST...JAKE YOU LOST!!!

There it is folks. My best impression of STRF. How'd I do...giving the idiots on this blog a taste of their own rude ignorance..especially JakeD...D for Dummy.
JakeDummy!!!

Posted by: rukidding7 | September 27, 2010 2:51 PM | Report abuse

DrLove82:

You and I are not alone. 42% of 300 million Americans = 126 million of us, so far (and it will be even more if Obama's approval ratings keep sinking to new lows):

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_obama_job_approval-1044.html

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 27, 2010 2:51 PM | Report abuse

YOU ARE WRONG, you are just A another left wing "media" jerk, we on the right are getting stronger every day,and OUR leader Ms. Palin just scares you to your liberal bones, you will find out that the real people of America love her and WE will vote for her. God bess her and Glenn Beck for helping us take back America and helping us yo show you the door out of here. God fearing people of America stand up fo Ms. Palin and Mr. Beck

Posted by: rightwingerright | September 27, 2010 2:52 PM | Report abuse

Reagan's popularity Nov 1982 42%
Bush Jan 21 2009 21%

Posted by: leichtman1 | September 27, 2010 2:54 PM | Report abuse

theduck6:

Our gracious host "corrected" the headline (see UPDATE 11:24 a.m. above).

rukidding7:

If Obama wasn't born in the U.S., then he's not legally President -- as I think you've seen me argue several times now -- how about we just agree to disagree for now?

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 27, 2010 2:55 PM | Report abuse

rightwingerright:

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/121059-rep-clyburn-gop-majority-will-issue-birther-subpoenas-against-ob

THANK GOD!

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 27, 2010 2:56 PM | Report abuse

I'm not worried at all Jake...if things continue on their current trajectory, and we choose an electable nominee, it's going to be an historic landslide.

Samar's "Romney is unelectable as Satan himself" nonself is a constant reminder at how far left the left has really drifted. I think they're the product of very comfortable lives...most realistic people understand the sad reality that war and limited resources will always be a global problem.

Posted by: DrLove82 | September 27, 2010 2:56 PM | Report abuse

@JakeD2:
FYI, Bill Clinton is officially addressed as Governor Clinton, just as George W. Bush is formally addressed as Governor Bush. When a person is no longer President, they revert to the highest title held before holding that office. George Washington set that precedence when he became General Washington after his two terms.

Does anyone know if the office title applies to a public servant if they do not finish a single term in office? This would apply to both Palin, who did not finish one term as governor of Alaska, and Obama, who did not finish one term as Senator from Illinois.

Posted by: WorkingDad | September 27, 2010 2:57 PM | Report abuse

"You and I are not alone. 42% of 300 million Americans = 126 million of us, so far (and it will be even more if Obama's approval ratings keep sinking to new lows):"


That's 42% of those people self identifying as registered voters.

Nowhere near 126 million.

Posted by: eezmamata | September 27, 2010 2:57 PM | Report abuse

GOP voters will determine who the nominee is, not the media.

GOP voters will ignore the media, because they know the media will always back the Dems in a November election no matter what nice things they might say about a particular GOP candidate in the primaries.

A recent national Poll asked the following question of voters:

Whose positions on the issues most closely resemble your own positions: Obama or Palin. Palin beat Obama 50% to 40% on that question.

So, if Palin is the GOP nominee in 2012, she has a 10 point lead on substantive issues.

Palin's biggest personal strength is that most voters trust her to reign in the GOP, as well as reigning in Dems. When Obama says: those Republicans will just go back to business as usual, most people know Palin is likely to oppose that. Going Rogue = Indpendence.

Palin will be ahead on Issues and Independence.

So, then it comes down to Obama relying on personality and presence and resume to win. That get's blown out of the water, if Palin manages to do a credible job in the three Presidential debates.

If Obama doesn't anniliate Palin in the Presidential debates, then get used to President Palin.

Posted by: jfv123 | September 27, 2010 2:58 PM | Report abuse

The number of paid bloggers trolling on the WaPo never ceases to amaze me.

Posted by: dottydont | September 27, 2010 2:59 PM | Report abuse

"Dancing with the Stars" and yahoos who hunt from helicopters would LOVE to see her as president!

Posted by: braultrl | September 27, 2010 2:59 PM | Report abuse

yes Sarah and Beck want to take this country back, TO THE 1950 s.

And Sarah has good values? Doubt you would be saying that if a D's kids were having children out of wed lock. That seems to really fly in the face of conservative family values. And now we are told she wants to lecture teens about abstinence, what hypocrits the whole lot of Palins.

Posted by: leichtman1 | September 27, 2010 3:00 PM | Report abuse

WorkingDad:

I was introduced to Richard Nixon after he resigned, and we ALL called him "Mr. President". We'll have to agree to disagree on that point.

eezmamata:

I'm extrapolating (there are more than 300 million Americans total now too).

jfv123:

Keep in mind that both Gore and Kerry supposedly won their "debates" against GWB ; )

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 27, 2010 3:02 PM | Report abuse

Responding to DrLove82:
I never said anything about "an advanced degree, history of community service" or any other specific way of determining a better qualified candidate. But hopefully people will agree that not everyone is equally capable of being president, just as not everyone can be a surgeon, physicist, CEO, etc. In many cases, these might be people who rise from humble roots. In my view, Palin hasn't demonstrated the leadership qualities needed to be President, and it has nothing to do with specific education. While she may believe the same thing as many others, that by itself doesn't make her qualified to be President, just as it wouldn't qualify her to be a surgeon because some surgeons might share the beliefs.

While it is certainly true that Obama gives good speeches using the teleprompter, he also has spoken extemperaneously in many venues, press conferences, etc.; you may disagree with what he says but you also are probably refusing to give him the same credit you give George W., namely that he is really saying what he thinks. By contrast, Sarah Palin doesn't want to take anything other than prepared questions or appear anywhere except friendly venues.

Posted by: asm_ith | September 27, 2010 3:03 PM | Report abuse

dotty I could be getting PAID for this? Link please.

leichtman you're clearly casting your vote for socialism in '12..we get it, and your cookie-cutter liberal views are contributing nothing to the dialogue. Interesting how Democrats are not a party of individuals..it's like you all read the same pamphlet and aren't smart enough to question it.

Posted by: DrLove82 | September 27, 2010 3:04 PM | Report abuse

dottydont:

I don't get paid to post here.

braultrl:

I seriously doubt that 126 million Americans have "hunt[ed] from helicopters." Gov. Palin says that she has never done that even.

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 27, 2010 3:04 PM | Report abuse

you republicans better not let the liberals talk you into selecting palin for you nominee in 2012.

You might vote for her, you have too -- the democrats teased you into doing it like the children you are.

But you forget the independents. And as much as we dislike Obama now, Palin is worse.

if you choose palin to republican presidential nominee in 2012, I'll do something I've never done before -- vote for a democrat.

Don't let the democrats tease you like this. Grow up already, act like adults.

Posted by: eezmamata | September 27, 2010 3:05 PM | Report abuse

I doubt that many have ever RIDDEN in a helicopter, much less hunted from one. Keep telling yourself she said: "I can see Russia from my house" too ; )

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 27, 2010 3:06 PM | Report abuse

WorkingDad, Palin did serve as governor, albeit for an abbreviated term she ended for reasons that are still unclear, so calling her former Gov. Palin is perfectly acceptable.

Joke never answered my question about what he would call a former president if he entered a room and the current president and a former president were both standing there. He never answered because he knows he's been defeated. When an office can have only a single occupant, prior occupants are never referred to by the title. What he called Nixon is meaningless and irrelevant (not to mention wrong).

Posted by: Observer691 | September 27, 2010 3:07 PM | Report abuse

eezmamata:

I used to be a registered INDEPENDENT too, but this coming election is simply more important than any in my lifetime.

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 27, 2010 3:08 PM | Report abuse

Despite what is written in this article and by the bloggers, it is interesting to take note of the latest Rasmussen poll which shows that at this time Palin would be the pick over Obuma. Very interesting. Of course none of this will be written about in the liberal media who get broken noses when Obuma stops short.

Posted by: MALBENNET | September 27, 2010 3:09 PM | Report abuse

asm_ith I don't disagree - I don't believe Palin is electable. I think socially she's too far on the fringe of the right; however, I think the very evidence of her successes as governor of AK make her a much better choice than an untried candidate with no experience like Obama. Unfortunately, the last 2 years have supported that idea.

I guess I don't put the same stock in the importance of intellectual capacity or eloquence in a President(all presidents in recent memory were well above average IQ). A nobel prize winner would probably make a TERRIBLE president. Hitler was extremely intelligent, look how that turned out.

In the end, I think Obama has been more of a disaster than Palin ever would have been as VP, but I guess we'll continue to disagree about that.

Posted by: DrLove82 | September 27, 2010 3:09 PM | Report abuse

WorkingDad:

If you have any other questions for me, feel free to ask.

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 27, 2010 3:09 PM | Report abuse

Preident Palin. It does make a lot of sense.

Almost as much sense as Pope GaGa!!!

Posted by: Liam-still | September 27, 2010 3:11 PM | Report abuse

eezmamata:

I used to be a registered INDEPENDENT too, but this coming election is simply more important than any in my lifetime


I disagree, this upcoming election is going to be just like the last three -- we're going to elect a moron to be president. Vote for whomever you like, it won't make a difference.

We have to crash and burn before we stop playing these liberal v conservative touched-you-last playground games. The republicans here today are defending someone they wouldn't bother crapping on because the liberals are picking on her.

What children.

Posted by: eezmamata | September 27, 2010 3:11 PM | Report abuse

eezmamata is clearly that breed of independent is undecided in the polls until the last moment, well after all the information has been placed on the table, then makes a split-second decision depending on the weather.

Posted by: DrLove82 | September 27, 2010 3:12 PM | Report abuse

Sarah Palin is an idiot.
She couldn't carry Barrack Obama's breifcase.
Sarah Palin will NEVER hold elected office again. Too much hard work involved.
Anybody who thinks Sarah Palin would make a good elected official is also an idiot.
You idiodic Goobers can't even admit that Palin quit her job as governor so she could MAKE MONEY from idiots who think she has one intelligent thing to say..
America- No shortage of idiots. Many with guns.

Posted by: cjbass55 | September 27, 2010 3:12 PM | Report abuse

If someone insists they do not get paid to blog on the WaPo, they get paid to blog on the WaPo.

Have a great day :-)

Posted by: dottydont | September 27, 2010 3:12 PM | Report abuse

socialism, hmm do you have any idea what that even means.

Dec 2008 Bush and Paulson propose full Nationalizing of the US Banks what would you call that?

March 2009 to Sept 27, 2010 the DOW increases by 4,000 points under socialist Obama's watch. Yea as a market trader in your deslusional wold that make me a socilaist.If that is socialism in your delusional world perhaps 800 point daily drops under GOP leadership is the meaning of true capitalism. Incidentally under capitalist Bush, the markets were down 1% over 8 years and national income was down 5% and capitalist Bush tried like heck to Nationalize CitiBank and Goldman Sachs; you might want to take your meds before making such idiotic comments.

Posted by: leichtman1 | September 27, 2010 3:13 PM | Report abuse

DrLove82 is a dipsht who thinks because he has an opinion about something that it means anything to anybody, other than the wife he beats and the children he screws.

Try that DrLove82, you sickfck.

Posted by: eezmamata | September 27, 2010 3:14 PM | Report abuse

to calif-joe We now have a moronic liar as our president. His name is Obuma

Posted by: MALBENNET | September 27, 2010 3:17 PM | Report abuse

"You and I are not alone. 42% of 300 million Americans = 126 million of us, so far (and it will be even more if Obama's approval ratings keep sinking to new lows):"


That's 42% of those people self identifying as registered voters.

Nowhere near 126 million.

Posted by: eezmamata | September 27, 2010 2:57 PM
...............

JakeD2 does not have a clue about what he is talking about.

130 Million was the total vote count cast in the 2008 Presidential Election, and he is allotting almost that many votes going to Palin alone.

You hate to see when Standford bestows a law degree on a Turnip.

Posted by: Liam-still | September 27, 2010 3:19 PM | Report abuse

JakeD2 no I don't remember a bump. They may have gotten a bump because Palin was female. Now it's just a pipedream. Palin will never, ever become president. McCain lost one election because of Palin and if the Tea Party tries they will lose a second. You might try running a different Tea Party candidate. I am willing to vote for a compromise Tea Party candidate. Heck I'm ready to vote for ANY Republican candidate but Palin. Palin will cost Republicans the presidency in 2012 if you try. This country can not survive another disastrous four years of Obama and for the good of the country I hope TP members understand this fact. I will vote for Obama again before I will ever vote for Palin.

Posted by: Desertdiva1 | September 27, 2010 3:22 PM | Report abuse

Actually, I do! The voters are basically believing the utter nonsense you people in the MSM write about Palin. If they understood that Palin is opposed to free trade, opposed to job outsourcing, and is for using trade tariffs and ending all of thse trade treaties that have cost us so dearly. But, I suspect that is the whole point, really. K-Street has done a remarkable job of portraying anyone wanting to end the free ride of those bloated mutlinatonal corporations as "fanatics". They never talk about the real issues and their pet dogs, people like you Mr. Sargent, havee gleefully participated in the slander of Mrs. Palin and anyone else actually concerned about this country. So we get stuffed shirts like Obama and Bush and Thune and McConnell and Pelosi and hack reporters like you. Empty headed smug and self centered idiots that are "useful" to the corporate elite. Economic treason is no less treason.

Posted by: mibrooks27 | September 27, 2010 3:23 PM | Report abuse

eezmamata - looks like I struck a nerve =D

dotty do you have anything to contribute whatsoever? What a lunatic.

Posted by: DrLove82 | September 27, 2010 3:26 PM | Report abuse

there are approximately 60 million US citizen under the age of 14, out of
300 million. Apparently jake counts those b/w 1 and 14 years old as solid Plain voters.

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hus/hus09.pdf#001

Posted by: leichtman1 | September 27, 2010 3:29 PM | Report abuse

She attended 5 colleges to get her BA degree, she is very flighty,She will never run for President she know her money lies in talking smack about the incumbent, the person who should get smacked in the face is the person in the McCain camp who picked this obscured knuckle head out of the Alaskan wilderness

Posted by: brothastimulus | September 27, 2010 3:31 PM | Report abuse

LOL mibrooks is back spewing his nonsensical gibberish about Palin and free trade.

The only trade Palin understands is trading one of her juvenile speeches for a big fat paycheck.

Posted by: Observer691 | September 27, 2010 3:32 PM | Report abuse

She attended 5 colleges to get her BA degree, she is very flighty,She will never run for President she know her money lies in talking smack about the incumbent, the person who should get smacked in the face is the person in the McCain camp who picked this obscured knuckle head out of the Alaskan wilderness

Posted by: brothastimulus | September 27, 2010 3:33 PM | Report abuse

JakeD2, I was incorrect, Clinton and Bush are not referred to as Governor when addressing them directly. They are addressed in person as Mr. Clinton and Mr. Bush, according to etiquette. But not Mr. President or President Clinton or President Bush.

Observer691, thanks for answering my question.

Posted by: WorkingDad | September 27, 2010 3:36 PM | Report abuse

Observer691 - Ah, the ruminations of one of Obama's lemmings, cow like chewing on the cud passed down by the DNC. Of course, it's not any different than the rubbish peddled by the RNC, but never mind, the mindless minions will cheer themselves silly for "their" side. Free trade has all but wrecked this country and it either end or we do. The multinational corporations and Wall Street that fund your parties has perpetuated the biggest Ponzi scheme in all of history. The voters want and end to your schemes.

Posted by: mibrooks27 | September 27, 2010 3:41 PM | Report abuse

An article from the WaPo about paid bloggers...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/16/AR2006091600575.html

Posted by: dottydont | September 27, 2010 3:47 PM | Report abuse

dottydont - If you look at these forums you will see a lot of them. The Post only points out ones paids for by the two big parties, but K-Street actually employs legions of them. Observer is one, BTW.

Posted by: mibrooks27 | September 27, 2010 3:49 PM | Report abuse

The correct title for Sarah Palin is Half Term Governor Palin. She did not complete her term--she is not the former Governor. Ask any Alaskan.

Sarah Palin knows that if her medical records were released, they would show that she and Todd quickly adopted Trig at the time of his birth. She was not his birth mother...

Sarah Palin has no interest in becoming President. Her first loves are money and celebrity status--fame and fortune--and love for Alaska or our Country is pretty low on the list. She would not be raking in the multi-millions like she is now unless people believed that she was seriously considering a run at becoming President. If she allowed questions at her speaking engagements, it would soon be very obvious that she is more of a cheerleader or Queen of False Self Promotion but she has difficulty understanding facts and getting along with other people. Barracudas and pit bulls do not do well in diplomatic negotiations. There is more to politics than how you look and what you wear. Sarah Palin has chosen to hide behind Facebook or Twitters because her speech writers and staff can address issues. She is a commentator for FOX News because they will give her questions in advance and will give her the correct answers during the interview if she stumbles. She is an over-paid actress for FOX--they give her the lines.

Sarah Palin and O'Donnell have similar beliefs. If O'Donnell loses in November, this will be a sign to the Republicans and the Tea Party that Sarah will also have problems getting elected. Probably a Republican will win the Presidency in 2012--but they would be wise to be looking for someone who is not as polarizing, divisive and lacking in basic intelligence as Sarah Palin.

The American people are not dummies. They can look at Sarah's personal life and if she has such a dysfunctional family and is unable to be successful as a mother, how could she handle the difficult role of being President?

Posted by: Sheryn | September 27, 2010 3:53 PM | Report abuse

mibrooks, you think I'm a paid blogger? LOL

Of course I am paid handsomely for my work, but the blogging is gratis. 8>D

Posted by: Observer691 | September 27, 2010 3:54 PM | Report abuse

mikefromArlington writes:
Polls schmolls. She'd be a great President.

Run Sarah run! You're just like us!!!
++++++++
Assuming you mean what you wrote and are not being facetious, I have this to say about that:

I don't make 12 million a year
I have never run for vice president and have never been a governor
I can't afford to quit my job just 'cause.
I don't draw on my hands
I don't habitually play he victim
My head has not swelled up so much that I can hardly hold it up anymore
I am not a congentital liar

Therefore, Palin is nothing like me or anyone I know.


Posted by: Sandydayl | September 27, 2010 3:55 PM | Report abuse


An article from the WaPo about paid bloggers...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/16/AR2006091600575.html

Posted by: dottydont | September 27, 2010 3:47 PM
.............

You linked to an article from four years ago.

How much are you getting paid to start posting such outdated articles on current blog sites?

What next, a link to a report about rumors that Cleopatra has died!!

Posted by: Liam-still | September 27, 2010 3:56 PM | Report abuse

dottydont _ Actually, I would be more interested in who pays for the morons that write these "columns" for the Post. A bit of research exposes an evoution of talking points. Couple that with the full scale censorsip by this newspaper of ANYTHING having to do with Free Trade and their willingness to publish what they know to be outright lies about things like Smoot-Hawley (SH was passed *after* GDP had fallen 55%, but the Post keeps peddling the K-Street fabrication that it *caused* the drop in GDP). One has to wonder about what is going on in the editorial and staff room of this once great independent newspaper.

Posted by: mibrooks27 | September 27, 2010 3:57 PM | Report abuse

Palin For President 2013-2015

Elect A Half Term Half Wit For A Half Term Presidency.

Posted by: Liam-still | September 27, 2010 3:58 PM | Report abuse

Obama's inability to right a sinking USA economy quickly enough, plus Fox News, created the Tea Party and invented the new and improved Palin version we have now. But, remember how she sunk John McCain? This Palin version, along with the Tea Party, are protest movements and protest candidates. Obama still has 2 more years. If the economy improves, democratic heaven will return. Outlawing abortion, eliminating Social Security, the radicalness of Palin and the Tea Partiers will then fade into the history books, along with them.

Posted by: magnifco1000 | September 27, 2010 3:58 PM | Report abuse

Observer691 _ Actually, I am certain you are a paid blogger. I imagine just about everyone else here is equally convinced of that fact.

Posted by: mibrooks27 | September 27, 2010 4:00 PM | Report abuse

Paid bloggers are evil...be they republican or democrat.

Posted by: dottydont | September 27, 2010 4:04 PM | Report abuse

So many of these comments supporting Sara Palin for President are just plain silly. Of course Sarah Palin is just like a whole lot of you. So put the question another way, would YOU be qualified to run say, IBM, or any other big company? I would bet dollars to donuts that for the company YOU work for, what you want most is that the CEO really knows his stuff, and is capable of leading the company well in perilous times. Would you like that person to be yourself?

Next, take the biggest organization in America, the federal government. Are you qualified to run it? If not, why would you prefer someone who is just like you to run it?

Sara Palin may be the nicest person in the world. She has charisma to burn. But would her policies work? Does she actually know enough? Does she actually have the intellectual capacity to handle everything she would need to be president?

Like it or not, there are few that possess those qualifications. They are all very well-educated 'egghead elites' with enormous capacity for multi-tasking and organizing. And most all of them are not just like 'you'.

And in the view of a majority of Americans, she is not one of them. And most people now know her well enough to be pretty solid in that judgement.

On the other hand, I am sure most Democrats would just love to have her run for President in 2012. I am sure they would do everything in their power to make sure she won the primaries and became the standard bearer for the party in 2012.

Posted by: reussere | September 27, 2010 4:09 PM | Report abuse

You are starting to sound like you are being paid to attack bloggers.

Posted by: Liam-still | September 27, 2010 4:10 PM | Report abuse

Run Sarah run! You're just like us!!!

Posted by: mikefromArlington | September 27, 2010 11:52 AM
-------------------------------------------

Yes, she's just like you...

smallminded

arrogant

dumb

Posted by: Supertzar | September 27, 2010 4:11 PM | Report abuse

Okay reussere you crossed the line. As much as I detest Palin Democrats have to admit Obama has absolutely no credentials to be POTUS. The man is a politician which makes him competent to be an actor and that's pretty much it. That and fry boy at Mickey D's. When Democrats start hauling out the "competency" card they best duck. The poster child for idiocy sits in the White House today.

Posted by: Desertdiva1 | September 27, 2010 4:23 PM | Report abuse

The dumb line by Greg Sargent.

ROTFLOL!!! Hey Sarge the question should be "who wants obama to be president?".

Posted by: SayWhat5 | September 27, 2010 4:24 PM | Report abuse

I would LOVE to see Palin as president -- if only to watch the heads of liberals explode like a scene out of "Scanners"!!!

Posted by: pmendez | September 27, 2010 12:40 PM

I guess you want our country to fail then. Why do you baggers hate America?

Posted by: missgirl | September 27, 2010 4:26 PM | Report abuse

Palin wouldn't be able to withstand a real debate with President Obama. She made a complete joke of herself when she debated Biden. Remember all her dumb winks, WTF was that all about. And then all the other jestures she made, many people were like WTF. No Palin is not a valid candiate for the Presidents office, remember the "Africa is a country", like no Palin its not a country. And what about," Well if Georgia was part of NATO we would have to go to war with Russia to defend our ally Georgia". First, Georgia is not part of NATO. Though Georgia has been trying to be part of NATO, many NATO allies doesn't want Georgia to be part yet because they have acted irresponsible and not many people don't trust the president of georgia. And if Georgia was part of NATO,Georgia would of not attacked the enclave they did and Russia would of never attacked them. So again Palin is a not to smart. Now, maybe Mitt and Jindal might be tougher for Obama to be re-elected but Palin, forget it.

Posted by: Realistic5 | September 27, 2010 4:26 PM | Report abuse

Wow! nobody wants an arrogant, empty-headed, leech as POTUS. Go figure! Of course there is always the empy-headed tea-partiers.

Posted by: sux123 | September 27, 2010 4:27 PM | Report abuse

Princess Dipstick in the Oval Office?

Now there's an idea the Chinese can get behind.

Posted by: Bridge3263 | September 27, 2010 4:31 PM | Report abuse

dotty what is your strange obsession with paid bloggers? Get over it and contribute something useful. I'm amazed that someone can actually show signs of OCD on an internet forum.

magnifco1000 as much as I hate to say it, you're right. The dolts on the left will credit Obama with any economic recovery, or the dolts on the right will blame him for it not improving. Sadly, this encompasses 95% of voters and people posting here.

Posted by: DrLove82 | September 27, 2010 4:34 PM | Report abuse

She Is A Perfect Candidate For All Those Addled Tea Party types.

Palin For President 2013-2015

Elect A Half Term Half Wit For A Half Term Presidency.

Posted by: Liam-still | September 27, 2010 4:38 PM | Report abuse

I honestly don't think the woman wants to run. She's all about the tease, and keeping herself in the limelight. She doesn't want the hard work OR accountability that comes with the job. Why do that when she can gets paid big bucks to blab her mouth on Fox or in front of hand picked audiences with absolutely no accountability? If you want to be president, you can't continue to run away from the legitimate mainstream media. Besides, she'd never win. Some Americans were fooled by her at first, and some still are, but for the most part, Americans can see right through her. The woman has serious issues. She's mean, divisive, self-centered, ignorant, and incompetent.

Posted by: ggwalt | September 27, 2010 4:43 PM | Report abuse

Oh come on, Sarah is good to look at. No doubt, she will tuck hubby into bed when he's boozed up a bit. Free trade, the economy, her pretty little head doesn't need to worry about that right now. We will teach her that before the next debate in 2012. In the meantime, she better continue with those tight skirts and workouts.

Posted by: magnifco1000 | September 27, 2010 4:46 PM | Report abuse

Let's see, POTUS pays about $400k, while actually solving no problems, taking no heat, and winking at horny old Republicans pays about $10m. Tough choice....... but not for Sarah, she'll take the money and run.

Posted by: steve-2304 | September 27, 2010 4:49 PM | Report abuse

leichtman1:

Did I say "voters"? The question posed by our gracious host was NOT limited to voters or, even, Americans.

Realistic5:

Gov. Palin never said "Africa is a country".

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/11/13/msnbc-retracts-story-sour_n_143517.html

Just like she never said "I can see Russia from my house" -- perhaps you are thinking of that lady on SNL -- as for NATO obligations were the COUNTRY of Georgia a member (and the job of VP), she was accurate.

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 27, 2010 4:49 PM | Report abuse

Quoted from JakeD...

John Adams
John Quincy Adams
Martin Van Buren
James K Polk
John Tyler
Millard Fillmore
Andrew Johnson
Chester Arthur
Franklin Pierce
James Buchanan
Rutherford B Hayes
Benjamin Harrison
Theodore Roosevelt
William Howard Taft
Calvin Coolidge
Herbert Hoover
Harry S Truman
Lyndon B Johnson
Gerald R Ford
Jimmy Carter
George HW Bush

(Note to mention the five U.S. Presidents who died during their first terms and so had no opportunity to seek a second)

Two-term Presidents are the EXCEPTION, not the rule (thank God ; )

---------------------------------

You listed 21 Presidents. Obama is 44. Half of 44 is 22 (remember way back just before you dropped out of grade school)?

I would say that since 21 is less than 1/2 of 44, that its about 50-50, but saying that 2 term presidents is an EXCEPTION, is sort of well... untrue. It seems a common characteristic that runs through a lot of the flamers on this board.

Posted by: reussere | September 27, 2010 4:50 PM | Report abuse

You were saying something about PALIN not being able to withstand a real debate with Obama?

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 27, 2010 4:52 PM | Report abuse

reussere:

Assuming that Obama is even legally President, he is actually the 43rd person to be so (and you are not counting the ones who DIED or resigned before finishing two terms). In total, there have only been 14 TWO TERM Presidents. 14 out of 43 is, whether you like it not, the exception rather than the rule.

You may want to think twice who you call a "flamer" around here.

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 27, 2010 4:58 PM | Report abuse

So no one wants Sarah Palin to be president. Well you are wrong sh_t head. I do. I know that you elitist sitting in your newsroom during the day and attentding cocktail parties at night think you know what the average american is thinking. Well stupid, you don't. You are so far out of mainstream america that your family hardly recognizes you. You call yourself a journalist. Well your not. You are no more than a slimy columnist who doesn't know how to practice journalism in the way that a professional would. How come you missed me in your poll?

Posted by: lori9 | September 27, 2010 5:03 PM | Report abuse

Wait a minute!

Taking two large groups of Americans; only 33% more disdain Palin as Commander in Chief and Leader of the free world than supporte the idea???!!! What the F is wrong with this idiotic nation?

What we have going on in America is a serious Classical education crisis. Young Americans infected with the deadly combo of poor reading skills and low urge to learn are now voting age adults. "Job skills" now pass for, "getting an education." This country dumbs-down any more, and we are doomed to endless war, corporate control and Fundamentalist religious law.

I've got a poll question for you. How many Teabaggers took Latin at some point in their lives? How many took an advanced science class in High School? Find me one that did, I want to learn how they became so stupid.

Posted by: AIPACiswar | September 27, 2010 5:04 PM | Report abuse

Can you ever stop being a jerk? I'd vote for Sarah. How come you missed me? Your spending too much time at your elitist cocktail parties talking to the wrong people.

Posted by: lori9 | September 27, 2010 5:05 PM | Report abuse

Make that 13:

Franklin D. Roosevelt (4,422 total days in office) Actually served three full terms, but died on the 82nd day of his fourth term. His first term in office (1933-1937) was the shortest term for an elected President (after Washington’s) who neither died in office nor resigned -- because the Twentieth Amendment moved Inauguration Day from March 4 to January 20 beginning in 1937; therefore Roosevelt's first term was 43 days short of a full four years: from March 4, 1933 through January 20, 1937, a period of 1418 days -- this also made him the first President to be inaugurated on January 20.

Thomas Jefferson

James Madison

James Monroe

Andrew Jackson

Ulysses S. Grant

Grover Cleveland (two full terms, not consecutively though, since he was not reelected on his first try for a second term)

Woodrow Wilson

Dwight D. Eisenhower

Ronald Reagan

Bill Clinton

George W. Bush

George Washington (only 2,865 days in office, since the first-term inaugural was postponed 57 days to April 30, 1789 because the U.S. Congress had not properly convened)

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 27, 2010 5:05 PM | Report abuse

The headline should say - Who wants Obama still to be President? Do many of the Democrats secretly wish that Hillary was President instead of Obama? Is her statement correct about questioning if Obama was ready for the 3:00 am?

Posted by: sales7 | September 27, 2010 5:05 PM | Report abuse

As long as Palin takes a LONG run off a SHORT pier, I'm all for it!

Also, she has become so literate, perhaps she should concentrate her efforts on writing history books that TEXAS will accept.

Posted by: rbsher | September 27, 2010 5:05 PM | Report abuse

sales7:

Yes.

AIPACiswar:

I took Latin and science in high school, and I AmJured in Constitutional Law at Stanford. What was your follow-up question?

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 27, 2010 5:09 PM | Report abuse

reussere:

You are free to argue that Obama is worthy of being included among the 13 elite of Presidents, but I already linked to his record low polling numbers ; )

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 27, 2010 5:12 PM | Report abuse

Nice headline for this column on WP.com -- Besides being an outright lie, it's simply desperate.

The Post has become a complete train wreck in recent years. There were always weak links in commentary (e.g., Mary McGrory's name-calling that even 4 year olds would find to be immature), but this newspaper has sunk to new lows with Sargent, Milbank, Milloy, Balz, and Robinson...among many others.

I think the Post has actually made Fox News look fair and balanced.

Posted by: diehardlib | September 27, 2010 5:18 PM | Report abuse

Oh Jake, where do you get your figures.
September 22, 2010, 11:49 am Sarah Palin: Still Not the Front-Runner
Here are two more data points from the weekend to back up my argument that the 2012 Republican nomination is not Sarah Palin’s to lose. First, the Values Voter Summit straw poll, a decent gauge of sentiment among the kind of activists Palin would presumably need to rally, in which the former Alaska governor racked up just 7 percent of the vote, trailing Mike Pence (who gave a barn-burner of a speech), Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich. Second, a new 2012 poll from Public Policy Polling, showing Romney leading with 22 percent, followed by Huckabee at 21, Gingrich at 18, and Palin at 17 percent. And note this statistic:

As is the case every month Sarah Palin is the most personally popular of the Republicans, with 66 percent viewing her favorably. She is followed by Huckabee at 60 percent and Gingrich and Romney at 57 percent.

The problem for Palin is that a smaller percentage of the people who like her personally support her for President than any of the other Republicans. 37 percent of the voters who like Romney also say he’s their choice for the 2012 nomination and the same is true for 32 percent who like Gingrich and Huckabee. But just 24 percent who see Palin positively on a personal level translate that to intent to vote for her. [emphasis mine — R.D.]

About a month ago, I wrote a column arguing that the most interesting pre-primary contest in the G.O.P. was arguably the battle to see if somebody (a Mitch Daniels? a Jon Thune? a Haley Barbour? a Tim Pawlenty?) would manage to unseat Romney from his perch as the safe, competent-seeming, establishment-y candidate. In response, Commentary’s Jennifer Rubin argued that I was missing the point, and that being perceived as having anything to do with the G.O.P. establishment would doubtless be the kiss of death of 2012. (“The party elders, for better or worse, are being ignored,” she wrote. “Ask [Marco] Rubio, Rand Paul, Nikki Haley, Sharon Angle, and the rest if endorsements by the establishment and big-name donors are the key to victory.”) This is true in a sense: Obviously nobody’s going to run for president in ‘12 saying “I am the voice of the Republican establishment!”, and no candidate can hope to win the nomination if they’re perceived as a Mike Castle or Lisa Murkowski-style figure. But right now, in autumn 2010, at what seems like a moment of maximal populist outrage and anti-establishment fervor, Sarah Palin can’t crack 20 percent in primary polling, and Mitt Romney (for all his manifold weaknesses) still has the most plausible path to the nomination. Which suggests to me that concerns about stability, solidity and electability may play a bigger role in the 2012 Republican campaign than many observers seem to think.
Popular yes, presidential no!

Posted by: Betty11 | September 27, 2010 5:18 PM | Report abuse

diehardlib:

The headline (before it was changed) read: "Nobody wants Sarah Palin to be President".

Betty11:

I'm just looking at the polling released today (did you see the links above?).

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 27, 2010 5:21 PM | Report abuse

reussere - Actually, I WILL answer your question. Of course I could run IBM or any other large corporation. I am more than qualified for that. I degrees in engineers and mathematics, more than 50 patents, and have published papers on economic and risk modeling, fuzzy logic, and multivalued logic. I am brighter than any corporate executive I have ever encountered and have a far better business sense. Likewise, I would make a vastly better President than Obama (or Clinton or Bush, for that matter).

The only remaining question is, will I ever have the chance. Not very likely. The political class are inbred. The form a pretty closed club that is driven by their own very short term interests.

As for Palin, of course she would be a better leader than Obama (or, again, Clinton or Bush). She actually cares about this country and it's people. She IS NOT a part of the political class and doesn't want to be. As such, she is perceived as dangerous to them and they have trod out their K-Street opinion makers and useful idiots like the very clueless Mr. Sargent, and slandered her. They do this to ANYONE that would challenge their position. Go watch MSNBC or FOX News (same thing, really) and listen t their spin about the proposed tax increases on corporations outsourcing jobs. MSNBC want to make it look like THE cure for job outsourcing, while Fox continues to blather about the 35% US corporate tax rate. Well, the tax WILL NOT accomplish an end to job outsourcing. At worst it will be a minor (and acceptable) nuisance for those multinationals. As for Fox, they never tell you that most country's don't have the sort of loopholes the US does and that so-called 35% actually has an effective rate (i.e. taxes paid) of around 5% -- the lowest in the industrialized world. Everything you hear or read from the MSM (and I include Fox) is all smoke and mirrors, nonsense dreamt up by some K-Street firm and peddled. I know that. Palin knows that. Obama knows that. And it's time that the voters knew that and really understood the consequences of that. Our elections, at least the choices presented by the two major parties, mean NOTHING.

Posted by: mibrooks27 | September 27, 2010 5:22 PM | Report abuse

Scary. It could actually happen.

Remember we elected Bush. Twice.

Posted by: MrZ2 | September 27, 2010 5:26 PM | Report abuse

Ok, who other than nutbagg mibrooks thinks I'm a paid blogger? I really don't care what you think, but I would like to know how many other lunatics are posting on this board.

Posted by: Observer691 | September 27, 2010 5:26 PM | Report abuse

"Scary" for you, maybe, and your ilk (the rest of us WANT Palin to be President ; )

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 27, 2010 5:27 PM | Report abuse

No Jake, I did not. You see I actually have a job that I work from 4:00 am Alaska time to 12:30 pm Alaska time which gives me very lttle time to debate Palin supporters on line like some people seem to do all day.
Just quickly glancing at some of the posts do you not all rmember that Biden was told to go easy on Palin in his debate?
When she was running for Governor of Alaska she never answered any questions in the debates but rather let her opponents do so and then added to theirs with whimsical statements.
I have not posted in a long time but I will state, I am non-partisan and what truly makes me sick is how hateful the country has become since Obama became president and ir is not because he is spweing hate, it is because the people are following the every word of people like Rush Limbaugh, Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck and others.
Why do you all have to be so hateful and nasty. This is our country damnit and you all are part of the problem and can be part of the solution but instead you sit around and throw hate at each other.

Posted by: Betty11 | September 27, 2010 5:28 PM | Report abuse

So, if we think that Observer691 is a paid blogger, that makes us lunatics? Nice ; )

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 27, 2010 5:31 PM | Report abuse

I will emphatically state that Sarah Palin is not the answer to our needs in this country right now. There is much to much celebrity and attacking going on instead of offering up solutions. Stating we are needing to get back to the basics of government is fine to say but where is the substance. Where are the statements of what she can do for you and I. I do not know who is the answer right now, I will continue to educate myself to seek that answer but I will not follow the Pied Piper Palin. Too many Alaskans did so and she sold us down the river for $$$$. That is not what I want in my President.

Posted by: Betty11 | September 27, 2010 5:33 PM | Report abuse

Betty11:

I'm not the one calling others posting here "lunatics". As for Biden being told to go easy on Palin in his debate, do you have a credible link for that?

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 27, 2010 5:34 PM | Report abuse

http://www.nysun.com/national/at-debate-biden-told-ignore-palin/86746/

Where did I call anyone a lunatic?

I said to quit being so hateful all of you!

Posted by: Betty11 | September 27, 2010 5:38 PM | Report abuse

Palin is Republican Kool-Aid. They would be smart to put-up Romney instead. But, the right-wing base is pretty rabid. No doubt, they would try to repackage Palin for 2012. You know the lines. She was just tricked by liberal reporters in 2008 and is really not so stupid. Still, she is bound to do something asinine line write on her hands again, no matter how they try to package her again. Yes, Republicans, you cannot give her an IQ she does not have. Go with Romney or another real politician. Leave Palin with Limbaugh and Beck.

Posted by: magnifco1000 | September 27, 2010 5:39 PM | Report abuse

magnifco1000:

If I could guarantee for you that Romney or another "real" political would lose to Obama in 2012, but Palin would win, then who would you recommend the Republicans nominate?

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 27, 2010 5:42 PM | Report abuse

I don't want Palin [aka Daffy Dumb S--t] to be president. I just want her to be the Republican CANDIDATE in 2012, with Christine O'Donnell as Sarah's veep running mate.

Posted by: kinkysr | September 27, 2010 5:44 PM | Report abuse

Sarah may have her faults but I'd vote for her any day over the idiot Biden!

Posted by: per_ridere | September 27, 2010 5:45 PM | Report abuse

Betty11:

I didn't say that YOU called us "lunatics". Observer691 did.

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 27, 2010 5:47 PM | Report abuse

kinkysr:

Careful what you wish for.

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 27, 2010 5:49 PM | Report abuse

Jake, may I ask you a serious question?

Posted by: Betty11 | September 27, 2010 5:52 PM | Report abuse

Jake, I think it's really far-fetched to think Palin could win. First of all, she is not popular outside the Republican base. The base is strong now, but that's likely to change by 2012. A big Tea victory now in November will be favorable to Obama. If the economy improves, he still takes credit. If it continues to falter, he blames, "Republican obstructionism." Jake, this play is already written. So, Republicans have to give up whining about RINO's and remember the Tea Baggers are just protestors. It won't last. History shows the same thing over and over. Americans want Presidents who govern from the Center.

Posted by: magnifco1000 | September 27, 2010 5:56 PM | Report abuse

I'm not sure this poll indicates that 42% of Americans would actually vote for her or where that even comes from. In fact, the 7% that indicated "no difference" could mean they've already made up their minds (either way) so nothing she's doing has changed what they think about her.

Posted by: lddoyle2002 | September 27, 2010 5:56 PM | Report abuse

Waiting to see if Jake will take my serious question. . . . tick tock, tick tock. . .

Posted by: Betty11 | September 27, 2010 5:58 PM | Report abuse

Of course people don't want her for President once they are told she resigned as Governor. But! That inconvenient fact can be erased by some good campaigning.

People will be talking about socialism, and death panels, and the secret Muslim President who doesn't share our values, and they will forget Palin resigned from the job she was elected to do.

Posted by: unitcaptain11 | September 27, 2010 6:07 PM | Report abuse

Guess not. . .
Hope you all can realize that what Palin is doing is spewing alot of hate and alot of you are buying in to it. Obama did not get us into this economic mess and he cannot get us out of it in two years. Remember, it took Bush 8 years to get us here. I voted for Bush, I voted for Obama, I voted for who I thought would do a great job. Both have brought good to the table as well as bad. We as Americans do a great disservice to ourselves and our country by listening to people like Palin and Limbaugh who have nothng better to do than attack but not offer up solutions. So, Obama said he would overhaul healthcare, he did. We don't like it, but he did what he said he would do. Bush got us into a war that has costs this country billions if not more. . .
Instead of hating and attacking and berating and belittling. Let us all look for that candidate that has substance and intentions that are for the country and not for lining their already full coffers with more money as they go around the nation. Let us look for someone that can tow the line. We are not all going to agree with each other but why attack. Look, Palin hates the lamestream media as she calls it, but she is part of it. She wants smaller government but she grew the largest government Alaska has ever seen. Lets look at someone who can be honest and forthright and not hypocritical and dishonest.

Posted by: Betty11 | September 27, 2010 6:09 PM | Report abuse

Aren't you "hating and attacking and berating and belittling" Palin?

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 27, 2010 6:15 PM | Report abuse

Actually, why would Palin even want to be President now? She's carved out a nice niche for herself as "political godmother," of the Tea movement. Sure, they have Beck and Limbaugh, but they need a strong female also. She is making plenty of money, and has Fox News wrapped around her. She even has a kid on "Dancing with the Stars." Besides, after 2008, running for President would be a bit anti-climactic, plus probably brings back some bad memories. No, I think she realizes she's in a good position. She won't spoil it with a run for President.

Posted by: magnifco1000 | September 27, 2010 6:16 PM | Report abuse

Betty11:

I've answered every other question you asked me; please feel free to ask a "serious" question now.

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 27, 2010 6:17 PM | Report abuse

captn_ahab - Actually, *every* study thus far conducted shows that Palin supporters and Tea Party advocates are far better educated and brghter than the average Democratic or Republican voter. The demographics completely contradict your sophomoric statements. Intelligent people, people who actually care about this country, people who are well read, intelligent, patriotic, are more likely to be a Plain supporter or a Tea Party member. The hicks, the fools, the drooling slobs, inbred morons, uneducated boobs, nutbars, lemmings, easuly led, are, generally, your typical Obama supporter. The general run-of-the mill epublican isn't much better.

Posted by: mibrooks27 | September 27, 2010 6:19 PM | Report abuse

magnifco1000:

Because she loves America.

Now, back to my hypothetical question: If I could guarantee for you that Romney or another "real" political would lose to Obama in 2012, but Palin would win, then who would you recommend the Republicans nominate?

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 27, 2010 6:25 PM | Report abuse

No, I am not attacking Palin, I am trying to send a message that people need to look for substance in her stand. Sarah never states what she would do to make the country better. . .that is not hateful, it is a fact.
Hate is name calling and being ugly in how things are portayed. I know her very well if you don't recall from earlier debates, you do not. You see what she wants you to see. . . .
Okay, so my question to try and understand you a bit more. What do you do for a living?

Posted by: Betty11 | September 27, 2010 6:25 PM | Report abuse

The Right needs to realize that making excuses for Palin's lack of knowledge won't cut it with the general electorate. She just cannot hold up well enough without reverting to cliches and buzz words. It's possible for her to win, if the economy is bad enough. But, I don't think that will be enough in 2012, although, like O'Donnell, it could be enough in 2010.

Posted by: magnifco1000 | September 27, 2010 6:27 PM | Report abuse

An article from the WaPo about paid bloggers...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/16/AR2006091600575.html

Posted by: dottydont | September 27, 2010 6:29 PM | Report abuse

The Right, The left, The Liberals. . .come on people, "We the People. . . .
WHy do we have to divide ourselves like this. Open your minds so you can better see what is in front of you.
A nation divided will fall. . .
Sigh~

Posted by: Betty11 | September 27, 2010 6:30 PM | Report abuse

Signing off. I am driven to be a productive citizen and this is not productive and it is not helping the country.
JakeD2: I asked that question because I like to try and get in peoples heads and figure out what makes them tick. But it is not relevant, it was a question of curiosity.

Posted by: Betty11 | September 27, 2010 6:34 PM | Report abuse

Jake, your supposition is flawed. How can you guarantee a Palin victory? On the basis of what? I say Romney is more likely to win, because the country will return to more normalcy by 2012. Look, all the popularity of the Tea movement is based on anti-Obama sentiment. Politically, that's a very fickle commodity. Tea candidates are very weak and flawed. Look at O'Donnell and Angle. The bad economy, the "Socialist Obama," that's what you have to ride on. Smart Republicans would back Romney now and get the ball moving. In 2012, Tea baggers will be ancient history. You have to go for what is likely 2 years from now. Cut the RINO crap and realize all politics is based on compromise.

Posted by: magnifco1000 | September 27, 2010 6:39 PM | Report abuse

Betty11:

I'm retired, how about you?

The way I see it, Gov. Palin has stated REPEATEDLY what she would do to make the country better, so your claim that "Sarah never states what she would do to make the country better" is not a fact but rather, it is very "hateful" or at the least "ugly in how things are portayed [SIC]". Any more questions?

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 27, 2010 6:39 PM | Report abuse

magnifico:

I can "guarantee" it because it's my hypothetical -- if you don't want to answer, that's fine by me -- maybe you can be "productive" somewhere else.

Good bye, Betty11, talk about fickle. I guess I didn't post FAST enough for you (that's the first time I've heard that complaint). I hope you are more "productive" doing something other than asking serious questions on The Plum Line.

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 27, 2010 6:45 PM | Report abuse

Palin is like the rest of the Tea party people: weird, whacko, say what they mean but you don't want to hear it, way over their pay grade. Look for Tea party train wreck on Nov 2.

Posted by: dudh | September 27, 2010 6:47 PM | Report abuse

I work fulltime and have since the age of 12. I am 46. I am college educated with degrees in Psychology and Criminal Justice.

As I said the last time I was on here with you. . .you are hopeless. . .

Good-bye, I must go be productive now.

And no, Sarah has not stated what she would do other than reduce the size of government, that coming from someone that grew Alaska's governemtn. . .hmmmmm....

Posted by: Betty11 | September 27, 2010 6:47 PM | Report abuse

The nutbag tea baggers love her, but the sane thinking part of America doesn't want any part of her. This has been the case all along, in fact, but more strongly so now.

Posted by: B2O2 | September 27, 2010 6:58 PM | Report abuse

The problem for Palin and the Tea Partiers is the need to insist on "doctrinal purity." A world of black and white. The "solutions" are always the same. Government is always bad, so is all regulation. Do away with it all. Taxes are bad, nobody should have to pay them. Abortion, always bad. Defense, always good. Obama, always bad. See? That's the Tea Party platform, right there. Deviating Republicans are RINO's. Obama supporters, "commie libs." Is this appealing? You bet, the solutions are right there, like the Bible. Thinking, however, is dangerous, and not required.

Posted by: magnifco1000 | September 27, 2010 7:02 PM | Report abuse

I heard you can win a used pair of Mrs. Palin's fire-engine red, peep-toe, wedgie, strappy sandals if you post 100 times in 8 hours in support of the lovely Mama Grizzly.

Jake, you've only posted 59 times between 1115 and 1845. Better get on your bike son and start hitting the keyboards.

We know you have no life. But this obsession with defending a grizzly is creepy. She's doing just fine without you.

Posted by: arancia12 | September 27, 2010 7:08 PM | Report abuse

Sarah Palin doesn't want to be president, but she'll dupe a lot of followers and raise a lot of money pretending she does.

Posted by: angie12106 | September 27, 2010 7:08 PM | Report abuse

Wait, did you say Michael PALIN? He's From the UK....

It's what most folks I know were thinking when McCain made the dreadful announcement.

Yeah, couldn't have been a lamer choice, and one that basically said, "I'm going to ride on the coattails of a woman candidate because I think a woman will beat out an African American.

That's pretty much the reasoning.

Yeah, JUST BECAUSE HEW NEEDED A WOMAN lololololololol.

Posted by: pgibson1 | September 27, 2010 7:09 PM | Report abuse

Polls schmolls. She'd be a great President.
Run Sarah run! You're just like us!!!
Posted by: mikefromArlington

so,mike, "by just like us" you mean you're all clueless quitters?

Posted by: RedskinWillie | September 27, 2010 7:09 PM | Report abuse

dudh:

The only one who has admitted to being in over his pay grade was OBAMA:

http://www.bostonherald.com/news/opinion/op_ed/view.bg?articleid=1113869

Betty11 (and magnifico1000):

Oh, so much for "no name-calling" huh? And, here's just ONE example of what Gov. Palin would have done differently were she President -- note in this example that GOVERNMENT clearing procedural roadblocks was what she would have done -- contrary to the claim that "Government is always bad, so is all regulation" (and I don't ever recall reading about the Jones Act in the Bible):

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/for-am-sarah-palin-tells-bill-oreilly-she-would-outsource-gulf-oil-cleanup-to-scandinavians/

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 27, 2010 7:23 PM | Report abuse

B2O2 - The only sane part of America left is the Tea Party. We are better educated, smarter, and a lot better informed that you lemmings and paid bloggers. As for the Post, this sorry excuse of a "newspaper" has the gaul to CENSOR any kind of meaningful debate on globalization and free trade. These craven cowards are afraid of that debate, sold out to K-Street, and take their orders from the political class, and their "news" comes from that days talking points or press release. Mr. Sargent, you, sir, are an embarrassment and the Post is a collection of hacks.

Posted by: mibrooks27 | September 27, 2010 7:34 PM | Report abuse

mibrooks27:

Don't even bother with those like captn_ahab and B2O2.

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 27, 2010 7:43 PM | Report abuse

RedskinWillie:

You do realize that Barack Obama QUIT his U.S. Senate position before that term was up too, right?

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 27, 2010 7:49 PM | Report abuse

I thought that question was answered by Colin Powell faulting McCain for an unqualified pick putting his support behind Obama. Less than a majority then and now. Maybe the Tea Party can have a fundraiser on Halloween with O'Donnell performing rites cheered on by Palin and her witchdoctor. Bachmann and Issel can take affadavits from people that had Constitutional rights taken away for their McCarthy witchhunt, Paul can make sure minorities aren't allowed in this public venue, Palladino will weed out the Muslims, and Angle can shoot anyone that gets past the line. Rubio can hand seniors Ryan's $9800 vouchers telling them your on your own after it's spent. Beck will use logical math to explain giving 2 trillion in tax cuts cutting only 10 billion is the way to reduce the deficit after pointing to a flock of bats as an omen.

Posted by: jameschirico | September 27, 2010 7:51 PM | Report abuse

Joe Biden (at least he's ACTING President now) and Hillary Clinton too ...

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 27, 2010 7:51 PM | Report abuse

jameschirico:

Well, that was Powell's answer for himself only -- last time I checked, he only gets one vote too -- did you see his comments about Obama on MTP last week?

Regardless of what Gen. Powell thinks, hopefully, they (O'Donnell, Paladino, Paul, and Rubio) all win on November 2nd!

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 27, 2010 7:57 PM | Report abuse

Palin doesn't want Palin to be president. Once she announces she's not running, her gravy train runs out. She'll be irrelevant.

Posted by: MNUSA | September 27, 2010 8:04 PM | Report abuse

Biden is in a tough spot. If Obama was not born in the United States, he is Constitutionally disqualified from being President, but this would probably prompt a legal crisis unseen since the Civil War. When the 20th Amendment was ratified in 1933, Sec. 3 superseded the 12th Amendment but did nothing to clarify what qualified as a "Constitutional disability":

“ If, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term of the President, the President elect shall have died, the Vice President elect shall become President. If a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified. ”

Despite ratification of these amendments -- the death, resignation, or removal from office of the (alleged) President remained the only means by which a Vice President could legally discharge the powers and duties of the Office of President. After the 25th Amendment, ratified in 1967, clears up many of the issues which surrounded presidential succession and incapacity. Sec. 1 made it clear that in the event of a vacancy in the office of President, the Vice President succeeds to the office, while Sec. 2 established a procedure for filling Vice Presidential vacancies.

“ Section 3. Whenever the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that he is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, and until he transmits to them a written declaration to the contrary, such powers and duties shall be discharged by the Vice President as Acting President.

Section 4. Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.

Thereafter, when the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that no inability exists, he shall resume the powers and duties of his office unless the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive department or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit within four days to the President pro tempore of Senate.

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 27, 2010 8:06 PM | Report abuse

Under both the 25th Amendment and the Presidential Succession Act, an Acting President has identical Constitutional "powers and duties" as the President, being able to sign bills into law, petition Congress for a declaration of war, and perform other tasks, but does not hold the Office of President itself. The incapacitated President remains the sole holder of the presidential office, although the powers and duties of the presidency are transferred to the Acting President. The President who is unable to exercise the powers and duties of the office remains the President of the United States during the period when there is an Acting President; in other words, the incapacitated President does not become an ordinary citizen. The President is deprived of the powers and duties of the office, but not of presidential status. Similarly, while the Vice President is discharging the powers and duties of the presidency pursuant to sections 3 or 4 of the 25th Amendment, he still holds the office of Vice President. He would be both Vice President and Acting President simultaneously.

The presidential oath of office is also not taken by the Vice President upon the 25th Amendment's incapacity provision being invoked. As stated above, Acting President is not the same as President. The former merely exercises the powers and duties of the President, without actually holding the office of President.

While the Constitution requires the President to take this oath upon entering into the office, the 25th Amendment states that, upon it being invoked "the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President." Thus, the Vice President becomes Acting President as soon as the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate receive the written declaration issued under either section 3 or section 4 of the 25th Amendment, no oath being required.

Precedent confirms that, since, in the three occasions when the 25th Amendment was invoked, there is no record of the Vice President having taken the oath. In the case of the Amendment's second invocation by President George W. Bush in 2002, a detailed account of the procedure was subsequently given by the White House Press Secretary, and no mention whatsoever was made of the oath being taken by the Vice President. Instead, it is recorded that Vice President Cheney was informed by telephone that he was now Acting President as soon as the invocation letters signed by the President were transmitted to the Speaker of the House and the President pro tempore of the Senate. Likewise, there is no historical record of Vice President George H. W. Bush taking the oath when he filled in for President Ronald Reagan during the latter's prostate surgery nor of Cheney taking the oath the second time he assumed George W. Bush's presidential duties.

To be safe, and avoid confusion, Biden and the Cabinet should transmit their written declaration as specified Sec. 4.

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 27, 2010 8:12 PM | Report abuse

I cant believe how many rubes are sucked in by this woman.

Sarah is about Sarah and nothing else. Compare her to Hillary who has put up with a ton of garbage but is still there IN PUBLIC OFFICE fighting for her beliefs. Sarah didnt even have to go through a promary and quit with only a few months of people actually putting the same level of scrutiny as Hillary has been thrpugh on her.

Not to mention her trailer trash daughter versus a well educated and goreous wedding chelsea had.

These things may make her seem more "normal" but how is she not the elite she rails on about? A multi millionaire, former governor and VP cadidate...How is that not "elite"??

Posted by: Chops2 | September 27, 2010 8:17 PM | Report abuse

Chops2:

Thank God that Gov. Palin didn't have to go through a "promary" (it sounds painful, and Catholid ; )

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 27, 2010 8:22 PM | Report abuse

I bet all of US's rivals must be rubbing their hands with glee. "Please elect Sarah Palin as president of the United States" they feel. Another nail into the coffin of the United States.

Sarah Palin, whose foreign policy credentials come about because she can see Russia from Alaska. Wait till she faces the likes of Sakorzy, Hu Jintao and Ahmadinejad. Hell, I can't wait till she faces Putin.... he would look at her happily the way a python looks at a mouse being lowered into its cage.

Who knows... maybe the Russians, Chinese and Iranians will donate 1 billion each to Palin's election campaign. It serves THEIR interest to have a stupid person running the United States.

Palin's rise is a great reflection of the state of America today. Where everyone has a voice, even the idiotic, the stupid, the misinformed, the ignorant, the short-minded, the narrow-minded, the fools. In a country of 380 million, if it has 300 million low level thinkers, each of them carrying a vote to appoint their leader, that is nothing more than giving the country a one-way ticket to oblivion.

Wake up America, your Founding Fathers are rolling in their graves.

Posted by: TheBornLoser | September 27, 2010 8:37 PM | Report abuse

Well, I recon I ain't "nobody."

I are amazed at the fear of Palin!

One question: what is the "ruling class" when it ain't rulin'? Huh...

Posted by: Cdgaman | September 27, 2010 8:43 PM | Report abuse

Hopefully, TheBornLoser was not born in the U.S. or otherwise cannot vote for President in 2012.

Posted by: clawrence12 | September 27, 2010 8:46 PM | Report abuse

Palin's job isn't to run for President. Palin's job is similar to that of Glenn Beck, i.e., lead the ignorant rubes in the South and mid-west to the voting booth and have them cast their vote for the people with an "R" by their name.

Palin knows this and she knows that she, like Beck, will be paid handsomely for her hick hustling.

You don't manipulate middle class Republicans with logic and facts. You manipulate them with charismatic rube foolers who tug on their out of control emotions.

Posted by: Miss_Fedelm | September 27, 2010 9:17 PM | Report abuse

Fear of Palin? Are you out of your mind, cdgaman? I SOOOOOOOOOOOOOO want her to win the GOP nomination.

In fact, my mantra is O Palin O'Donnell Oh-Twelve (acronym O POO).

Posted by: Curmudgeon5 | September 27, 2010 9:25 PM | Report abuse

i predicted the illegitimate granny would eventually end up on dwts.well it happened tonight.
next prediction this money grubbing media witch will never attempt to give up her gig to run for prez, not even for 1/2 a term.

Posted by: ninnafaye | September 27, 2010 9:36 PM | Report abuse

B2O2 - The only sane part of America left is the Tea Party. We are better educated, smarter, and a lot better informed that you lemmings and paid bloggers. As for the Post, this sorry excuse of a "newspaper" has the gaul to CENSOR any kind of meaningful debate blah...blah...blah.

Posted by: mibrooks27
_____________________

Mibs, do you see the awful, glaring irony in your post? Do you?

You are so much better educated and smarter that you don't know the difference between a Gaul and to gall.

Oi. This is the awful, glaring irony of the entire teabag party.

Posted by: arancia12 | September 27, 2010 9:36 PM | Report abuse

UPDATE, 11:24 a.m.: Headline edited to be fairer.

Headline wasn't changed on wp.com's main page. I guess the Post isn't interested in fairness here, are they?

Posted by: diehardlib | September 27, 2010 9:42 PM | Report abuse

Here is Bill Clinton on Sarah Palin:
------------

Clinton called the former Alaska governor "tough," "compelling," "attractive" and "resilient" in an interview with ABC News. Those are four traits the former President can appreciate, not least because they have been key to his own success.

He wasn't all praise when it came to Palin. He implied that she has been successful despite — or maybe because of — the fact that she is thriving in a "period in politics that's sort of fact-free."
(Watch a video of Sarah Palin and her Iowa fans.)

But he singled out Palin's appeal to the kind of economically downscale, nonurban voter for whom he ferociously battled in Arkansas and later on the national stage. Clinton didn't always win over those constituents, but he always courted them. He suggested that Democrats these days have forgotten the necessity of fighting for every vote. For some, Palin might be easy to mock, but her fresh, accessible allure has already snagged a lot of fans nationwide. That's a Bubba 101 lesson for Obama, who talked about "bitter" people who "cling to guns or religion" during the 2008 campaign.
-----------
From Time magazine, current issue.

Posted by: rjpal | September 27, 2010 9:46 PM | Report abuse

Here is Bill Clinton on Sarah Palin:
------------

Clinton called the former Alaska governor "tough," "compelling," "attractive" and "resilient" in an interview with ABC News. Those are four traits the former President can appreciate, not least because they have been key to his own success.

He wasn't all praise when it came to Palin. He implied that she has been successful despite — or maybe because of — the fact that she is thriving in a "period in politics that's sort of fact-free."
(Watch a video of Sarah Palin and her Iowa fans.)

But he singled out Palin's appeal to the kind of economically downscale, nonurban voter for whom he ferociously battled in Arkansas and later on the national stage. Clinton didn't always win over those constituents, but he always courted them. He suggested that Democrats these days have forgotten the necessity of fighting for every vote. For some, Palin might be easy to mock, but her fresh, accessible allure has already snagged a lot of fans nationwide. That's a Bubba 101 lesson for Obama, who talked about "bitter" people who "cling to guns or religion" during the 2008 campaign.
-----------
From Time magazine, current issue.

Posted by: rjpal | September 27, 2010 9:46 PM | Report abuse

CAN YOU IMAGINE HAVING AN AVERAGE AMERICAN CITIZEN WITH A LOT OF COMMON SENSE IN THE WH? WOULDN'T THAT BE A HOOT!!!

Posted by: jackwbarnes1 | September 27, 2010 10:02 PM | Report abuse

Inside Palin's head: the sound of two marbles rolling around in a tin can.

Posted by: atroncale1 | September 27, 2010 10:05 PM | Report abuse

Sarah Palin: the Paris Hilton of Presidential candidates!

Posted by: thrh | September 27, 2010 10:10 PM | Report abuse

Sarah Palin
Mike Hukabee
Rick Santorum
...and the rest of the gang.

A list of conservatives who will NEVER be president but who DO work for FOX.

Posted by: rogied25 | September 27, 2010 10:16 PM | Report abuse

Probably the liberal Dems made similar comments about Ronald Reagan in 1978, yet he carried nearly every state in 1984. The Dems are constantly attempting to discredit Palin because they fear her immensely. You don't find a lot of Republican criticism of John Edwards because he hasn't a chance to be elected to national office.

Posted by: amazd | September 27, 2010 10:23 PM | Report abuse

CAN YOU IMAGINE HAVING AN AVERAGE AMERICAN CITIZEN WITH A LOT OF COMMON SENSE IN THE WH? WOULDN'T THAT BE A HOOT!!!

Posted by: jackwbarnes1
_______________

WOW! Wouldn't it be a hoot? But you'd have to elect me to get that average American with common sense cuz you ain't gonna get it from Sister Sarah.

Posted by: arancia12 | September 27, 2010 10:27 PM | Report abuse

Polls schmolls. She'd be a great President.

Run Sarah run! You're just like us!!!

Posted by: mikefromArlington | September 27, 2010 11:52 AM | Report abuse
------------------------------------------

Yup. Plain stupid

Posted by: mackiejw | September 27, 2010 10:45 PM | Report abuse

Sarah Palin started right out from square one showing everyone her ignorance. Whatever she has memorized since then does NOT change her core lack of brains and knowledge about life, history, and our government! KNOWING something vs. MEMORIZING something are two completely different skills. A President has to KNOW the complete essence of history surrounding a problem. He/she can't just rattle off memorizations by rote, which will be missing the feel of really living and understanding any of it, leaving an inability to USE the information intelligently or wisely! We need a REAL President with a REAL brain, NOT a mannequin, with a recording inside, depending on who presses which button!

Sarah is shallow, and I would NEVER want he to represent my country! I'm surprised she isn't blonde because she fits every one of the "jokes"!

Posted by: Maerzie | September 27, 2010 10:48 PM | Report abuse

yes, yes, yes, the one we have now is over his head, Palin for 2012

Posted by: HORNET12 | September 27, 2010 11:44 PM | Report abuse

Say what you will about bimbo Sarah but NBC reporter Chuck Todd said he felt Sarah would be a great President. Now notice how men don't think with their head when the question of Sarah Palin comes up. Levi said Todd and Sarah don't share the same bedroom so men think they just might get lucky if they say nice things about Sarah. The World Leaders see her for the ignorant joke she is and Sarah just keep collecting money from people who like her entertainment. Mae West said it best as she used sex to draw men to hear with those famous lines " come up and see me some time". Now we have Sarah with the wink and Christine the Witch who flies on a broom and does black magic.

Posted by: qqbDEyZW | September 27, 2010 11:51 PM | Report abuse

NOT ME.......She isn't anyone that I think has what it takes. She would do well on SNL.

Posted by: pattikakes10 | September 28, 2010 12:06 AM | Report abuse

Palin gets 42/43 percent totally based on her positive support without any Democrat vote / unfavorable votes of the President. Other Republican probable get 27/28 % of Democrats who shift to vote for Obama when polled in match up. If only Republican and Independents trends are combined she perhaps leads other probable. This is the problem for the President. In two years economy and his numbers may improve and other Opponents will fade out. But Palin with a nomination bump will still be one candidate capable of beating him.

Posted by: akkashyap | September 28, 2010 3:37 AM | Report abuse

check for job openings near you paying up to $29.00/hour part-time & full-time http://bit.ly/9oQhn6

Posted by: henryetu | September 28, 2010 6:40 AM | Report abuse

CAN YOU IMAGINE HAVING AN AVERAGE AMERICAN CITIZEN WITH A LOT OF COMMON SENSE IN THE WH? WOULDN'T THAT BE A HOOT!!!

Posted by: jackwbarnes1

We already have one. Palin is a below average "American" who would make our great country the laughing stock of the world.

Posted by: missgirl | September 28, 2010 8:17 AM | Report abuse

People who vote for incompetents are the bane of democracy.

Posted by: snowyphile | September 28, 2010 8:31 AM | Report abuse

snowyphile:

I wouldn't be that hard on Obama voters (they were apparently HYPNOTIZED, especially the Jewish ones ; )

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 28, 2010 11:21 AM | Report abuse

Some readers are overlooking the obvious fact that Palin has lost the race against HERSELF.

She's not running against the economy as President Obama is. His polls will rise with the economy.

She is losing against HERSELF.

She may be a great lady, but apparently, the majority of people do not see her as presidential material. Palin has quit the last two public-office positions she's had (whether elected or appointed), giving contrived, self-serving excuses. That scares voters, no matter how much they like her personally.

Some argue that President Obama should have fixed, in less than two years, the economy that was delivered to him in shreds.

Surely Palin’s task was easier.

Nevertheless, in the nearly two years Palin has had to rehabilitate her image as a presidential candidate, she has not been successful.

It isn’t that she hasn’t had a podium: FOX News has given her a stage and Facebook and Twitter provide her a one-way medium to deliver her message—unfiltered.

Moreover, she has had the positive attention of the Media, who have acted as stenographers, reporting on her various electronic missives and FOX News proclamations as fact.

No, in nearly two years, she’s only succeeded in becoming the celebrity community organizer she once scornfully accused President Obama of being. Indeed, successive polls only show her as an increasingly undesirable presidential candidate.

What this new poll tells us is the WHY.

Posted by: txclaire | September 28, 2010 1:22 PM | Report abuse

Post a Comment

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.




characters remaining

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company