I'm sure there are plenty of journalists who would love to write about Obama's college transcripts. But guess what? They can't just demand that the universities provide them the transcript. And therein lies the difference. Palin was a public official when she was guv, so her emails are public record. Obama was a private citizen when he was a college student, so his transcripts are not public record. barfo
The funny thing is that the entire stack of emails was released to the asking parties as a stack of papers - because the state of Alaska did not want to go to the technical difficulties of sending them in electronic form. This is just hilarious. Probably did not want people to use the easy search feature to look at them - but it is beyond idiotic that emails were distributed as paper... ... and they say emails do not kill trees...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...s-Enemies-sent-a-series-of-death-threats.html Sarah Palin emails: Enemies sent a series of death threats The release of 24,000 pages of Sarah Palin's emails shows that she received a barrage of abusive emails including death threats in the run up to the 2008 presidential race.
On the one hand I agree. On the other, it's smacks of a ploy to spin some of the more frank or mis-written ones against someone to try and politically damage her. That's uncalled for. I mean, we could do this to virtually any politician, government appointee or court nominee and just make their life miserable. Lie I said- it's just a bunch of crap.
People who send anyone death threats (politician, famous person, stranger, or someone they know) should, imho, forgo their "living freely among us" card.
does anybody think she has a chance to actually win an election of any kind? i thought she was polling at like 60% negative
For her own purposes (making money), she'd be better off not running. What exactly have some of the past losing candidates done for themselves? Outside of Al Gore, most of them have gone onto be fairly unimportant. Kerry, Dole, McCain just to name 3. If she runs, she'll get hammered in the press. If people think they're being unfair to her now, just wait until she's actually forced to answer questions and disclose stuff. She's pretty much skirting any responsibility of running. She doesn't have to disclose where she's going, or what her plans are. She can just talk, say code words and vague statements, and get away with it. The more we learn about her, and know about her, the worse off her chances are. Same thing happens to both parties each year. Someone comes in, is the "odds on favorite" and then is exposed for being a goob.
For President? She has no chance what so ever. For US Senator from Alaska, she has a pretty darn good shot.
She probably could do more of what she wants to do, as a senator. She'd get an unequal amount of clout as a senator and would probably get a lot more of the stuff she talks about, into the eyes of the people.
Agreed. Not that I think she'd make a good US Senator, but she seems beloved in Alaska and they tend to vote for republicans who can portray themselves as the 'maverick' type- which she has tried to cultivate.
She missed her chance to run against Murkowski in 2010 if she were serious about being in political office. It's much less work and much more lucrative to be the kingmaker, so that's what I suspect her path will be.
Ummm, there is an election coming up. Do you not think the voters have a right to information so they can make a more informed choice?
Huh? She was twice elected to the city council of Wasilla, Alaska, twice elected mayor of Wasilla, and eventually elected as Governor of Alaska, where she had an incredibly high approval rating. Where have you been?
I find it difficult to believe that there's anything in the President's college transcripts that can change a voter's mind about him. In fact, I don't think that there's anything more the President need to say or do to campaign, other than maybe attempt to make whichever opponent steps up look bad. He's already campaigned for 2 years on "change", he's been President for 2 1/2 years already (and has been able to implement just about whatever he wanted to do) and he's not fundamentally changed from 3 years ago. If his birth status or college transcripts or friendships or church attendance were going to be any factor, it would've been 3 years ago when he was a relative unknown with little political record to speak of and little experience to either applaud or criticize. For this election, I don't imagine that anything prior to 2008 will be that relevant.
I've never seen ANY President's college transcripts. I doubt anyone here has. The reason being, like what he ate for lunch on May 19th 1994, nobody gives a rat's ass about meaningless trivia which has no bearing on his abilities to lead our country. He's already earned re-election by finding and killing bin laden, after Bush protected the P.O.S. for 7 years.
Wasilla has a population of around 7,800, or about 1/10th the population of Houston Community College. Being mayor of or on the city council of Wasilla is comparable to being on the student council of a community college, but with far less actual work to do. Since when is 56% (her rating just before leaving quitting on her state) an incredibly high approval rating?
i mean now gumshoe, i didnt ask "hey, did she ever win an election?" fucking a so like i said............ does anybody think she has a chance to actually win an election of any kind? i thought she was polling at like 60% negative
First of all, you're talking out your ass, because there is no way that being on a student council is more time-consuming than being the mayor of a town. But the point is irrelevant, because I was responding to the the poster who said she couldn't win any kind of election. She has obviously won several kinds of elections, and could easily do so again. Moreover, her approval rating for most of her term as governor was much higher than 56%.
