world

Sarah Palin says U.S. due for a woman president

70 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2011 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

©2019 GPlusMedia Inc.

70 Comments
Login to comment

Ah huh? But presumably not some doe-eyed, crazy lady who thinks the world was made in 7 days by some sky-fairy, and that all the world's ills can be cured with a 'YOU BETCHA' attitude and a bit of grandma's ole parlour wisdom! The women (like so many from her party) is a certifiable loony-tune; and whilst I would love to see the US vote her in so I could laugh for 4 years..... man the damage she could do!

7 ( +8 / -1 )

As an American citizen, I am horrified to even imagine a cheap bimbo, as David Letterman called her, be our so called Commander in Chief of all the US armed forces in the USA and ALL AROUND the world, i betcha she could really make the USA and the rest of the world a whole lot worse! Now if it was a question of Mrs. Clinton then I would really think about voting for her, buy Palin?? Hell no!

4 ( +4 / -0 )

I have no problem having a woman as President but its gotta be a smart women (like Condeleezza Rice) not this airhead country hick >:(

7 ( +7 / -0 )

The US, and any other nation for that matter, should always have a president who is qualified, regardless of gender (or ethnic background). I agree the US should have a woman as president if she's qualified, but that doesn't mean throwing one in just to please the PC crowd (I'm a member, by the way). So, yes, palin, the US is due for a female president, but most certainly not one like you, so thanks for backing out on the running (as you did with your job).

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Palin at the World Knowledge Forum? Ha ha ha! I hope they didn't pay her.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

As an ex-Military guy I say the following.

I will never serve under a CIC that has NO military background/training, no matter if he/she calls himself /herself president of the world or not.

Kinda like taking someone of the street with no training to run a company/country.

-5 ( +2 / -7 )

If the United States does get a female President in the future, what will her husband be called? First Gentleman?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

It"s ME: "I will never serve under a CIC that has NO military background/training, no matter if he/she calls himself /herself president of the world or not."

Why? Should there always be war so people like you will 'serve' without question? Seems a pretty stupid reason to support a person. Anyone with any grain of intelligence knows that war is not necessary -- so you're saying you won't serve under someone who thinks the same? How smart does that make you?

5 ( +5 / -0 )

Smith.

Did you serve? Your post makes no sense beside trying to provoke a fight, which usually comes from people that never served or fought for anything besides from their arm-chairs.

BTW, you got my post totally wrong I don't want to be sent into a war(Iraq, Afghanistan, etc come to mind) by someone that has no actual training/experience/understandings and thus only sends troops for political reasons. Lost way too many friends for some arm-chair guys that never experienced being under fire.

-4 ( +3 / -7 )

Palin is in Seoul? So she finally got a passport?!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

It''s ME, Your posts seems not be in touch with most people here. The topic is about woman president. Not war experience president. And serving in the military isn't compulsory. By the war, Obama didn't serve in any war but his achievements are envious by even the hard core republicans.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

It's ME, Reagan also had no war experience.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Of course it seems out of touch, considering I replied to ONE poster and than got attacked by another. Serving in the US military is no longer compulsory but it still is in many countries(Israel, etc). Recall wwII, vietnam?

Plus compulsory service or not people die in wars/get crippled and thus why should their and their families fate be decided by someone that never been there, done that, etc.

Ever thought about the current soldiers that die, etc right now those aren't just some figures on the news.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Haha American voters and their heated debate on non-political/philosophical criterions for executive office.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

ITS ME - George W. had war experience all right. He made sure daddy got him into the Air National Guard so that he could keep Texas air safe from the Vietcong. Cheney? 5 deferments kept his hands clean during the Vietnam war. How about good ol' WW2 (or dubya dubya two for all the Patriots) Entered into by FDR himself with not a minute of military schoolin' or fightin'. I guess you would have stayed out of that one too, eh, with FDR having no experience.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

I swear a lot of Americans must enter the military for no other reason than to get out and then whine to everyone they meet "You've never been there!" "You don't know what its like!" for the rest of their lives.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Somebody once commented that coupling Palin's intellect with her political amibtion was like coupling a golf cart and a jet engine. I think that sums it up nicely

3 ( +3 / -0 )

@Its ME

I have never had military experience but i can see what you mean. I think it would be an advantage for someone to have military experience in that position. Its not a matter of wanting to fight or liking war. Its a matter of understanding what WAR involves. I dont want a president that sends people out to fight blindly and has no idea what they go through. Many people need to think about in the opposite way also, would you want someone that has been in the military all their life and doesnt know what its like to be a citizen to be president? I mean I want a president that understand what its like to be poor

In actuality i dont want to vote for any of the candidates that are wasting all this money on their campaigns. Where is a candidate that is using public access TV only or goes around in their own car.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

In the future there should be a lady president, but if my only options are going to be palin or bachman we can wait another decade. I mean Sam Adams was the founder of the civil rights movement right? He did give us all the 6-pack.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@Its me,

I have to disagree with your logic, the President whom ever they are has the top ranking military advisors to give them the advice they need. You do not need a military background to be President, infact maybe it would be better to not have one then the first reaction isnt to bomb your enemy. The President is there to perform a role and has key advisers Military, Finance, etc etc to advise.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

This from a woman who just over four years ago didn't know the reason why there were two Koreas.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

That Ms Palin is for the electorate to decide, but, I doubt that if their is ever to be a female President that you would ever attain that honour

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Spidapig24.

You are talking from an ill-informed POV. Most of the Vets and military guys are actually anti-war, for the simple reason they seen & experienced it 1st-hand.

Spend some time talking to vets of ANY war. You will notice that they don't want to talk much as the memory hurts.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

People people!!! U seem to be forgetting; a president has EXPERTS that give him options and then HE just chooses what he thinks is the better option. But, as we all know, a president is pretty much powerless without backing...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

It"S ME

You are talking from an ill-informed POV. Most of the Vets and military guys are actually anti-war, for the simple reason they seen & experienced it 1st-hand.

Ill informed, ok so you have the only POV that is correct l see. Did l say anyone was pro war. Lets look at it this way GWB senior was President he served in the military during WW2 a lot had changed between the time of his service and when the Gulf war was on. His thinking and opinions on how things should have been done could have been clouded by his own memories and he may not have taken the advice of his experts as freely as someone with no military past. I am just saying while it could be advantageous it could also be harmful

Spend some time talking to vets of ANY war. You will notice that they don't want to talk much as the memory hurts.

I have and l do, that has nothing to do with what is being discussed here though

0 ( +0 / -0 )

only if it's Oprah

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

its gotta be a smart women (like Condeleezza Rice)

But preferably not a goma-suri lackey like Rice.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

It seems every country in the world has historically had more male than female leaders. Australia ( where I'm from ), we have just had our first female Prime Minister be elected, and only now a movement is starting to have women in top political roles. I know in France for example they have a law which states that their parliament should be an equal balance of genders, therefore (in theory) should mean France has 50% chance of having a female leader. The problem is though that their isn't enough women wanting roles in French Parliament. So this law has never been fulfilled! And no french female president has ever existed. Just curious, what does the US do to encourage woman to become a President?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Reagan also had no war experience

Absolutely false.

Reagan was a lieutenant commander in the Ford Television Theatre production of "Beneath These Waters."

3 ( +3 / -0 )

All readers back on topic please. Posts that do not focus on Sarah Palin's comments will be removed.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Some of the things she said in her speech not used here in the article;

"Technology means individuals have been empowered in ways they have never been empowered before in our entire history," she told the World Knowledge Forum hosted by Maeil Business Newspaper.

"Technology has taken power away from central authorities and provided individuals with more choices. We are no longer living in a top-down world. Now we are living in a bottom-up world, from entertainment and information to education."

But governments seemed to be going in the opposite direction, with the European Union in Brussels "dictating terms for the member states across the continent", she said.

In China, "where there have been some movements towards reform, the Communist Party still dictates to the Chinese what they can and what they can't do in so many respects", she added.

Even in the United States, the political elite "believe we just can't get along without them", Palin charged.

"Government officials like to push this idea because it gives them the opportunity to pick the economic winners and losers in our system... in other words, it gives them ultimate economic power.

"I just call it crony capitalism."

Pretty astute I must say.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

"Pretty astute I must say."

when you place on the other plate of the balance her idiocies, she's not that bad off, with about 0.01% of the time saying something coherent. anything but her, please

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I truly amazed people are just not done with this woman?

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Yes, the world is ready for a woman president, just not Sarah. WHY is this still news whatever this crazy lass emits?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I agree with her statement only if the woman is qualified for the position. Certainly that would exclude her who could not differenciate between North Korea and South Korea.

Most people do not see this. Currently, Palin is in S. Korea encouraging S. Korean government to continue unfair trade practice against US auto industry while Obama has been negotiating. Is she for Americans? Hell, no. She only thinks about herself.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Most people do not see this. Currently, Palin is in S. Korea encouraging S. Korean government to continue unfair trade practice against US auto industry while Obama has been negotiating. Is she for Americans? Hell, no. She only thinks about herself.

You've got your facts wrong.

President Obama in November 2010

President Obama and President Lee Myung-bak of South Korea failed to reach an agreement Thursday on a long-awaited free-trade agreement, saying they had decided instead to give their negotiators more time to work out differences, which revolved around Korean imports of American autos and beef.

Sarah Palin in today's keynote speech.

On issues in the Korean peninsula, Ms. Palin said there needs to be a regime change in North Korea given the brutal dictatorship in the country and separately called for a stronger partnership between the U.S. and South Korea, noting the latter country’s impressive development in the past 50 years and voicing her support for the South Korea-U.S. free-trade agreement.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

globalwatcher,

If you want her exact quotes on the matter,

Bloomberg Business Week covered her whole speech in depth. Left out the fluff that A.P thought was important though.

‘I support what is being debated right now in Washington, D.C., with the FTA with South Korea because we are natural trading partners from automobiles to agricultural products.

‘‘What government can do is to open the gate and then get out of the way and let the people trade, let the markets dictate what should be traded and much of the terms, and I do look forward to seeing that outcome from the U.S. and Korea free- trade agreement.’’

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

"Technology has taken power away from central authorities and provided individuals with more choices. We are no longer living in a top-down world. Now we are living in a bottom-up world, from entertainment and information to education."

Pretty astute I must say.

It was astute of whoever wrote it for Half-Governor Palin. She's living proof that we're in a "bottom-up" world: The Republicans went to the bottom to find her, and up she went.

I can't help but believe she's just given an inadvertent and unintended nod to the thousands of people who are now "occupying" dozens of our cities. Technology has certainly given them the means and capability of speaking out against those who want to continue to use top-down power. Within a week, however, Half-Governor Palin will be back on Fox casting aspersions on the "Occupy" crowds -- making her statement in Korea look downright foolish.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

I can't help but believe she's just given an inadvertent and unintended nod to the thousands of people who are now "occupying" dozens of our cities. Technology has certainly given them the means and capability of speaking out against those who want to continue to use top-down power.

Agreed, that Corporate developed Technology in the first place is sure is helping them get the word out to others to overthrow those corporate fat cats.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

sailwind, I will read Bloomberg as you mentioned. Thanks. Then, why did S. Korea invited her to S. Korea for? Any insight? She did not pay for this trip.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

My guess is that she is there (SK) for a fund raising for Tea Party. Legally she can do this as she is no longer a presidential candidate.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

globalwatcher,

Actually, I take news articles from sources both left and right with a huge grain of salt. And when I see an article that pikes my interest and curiosity I hit the internet to try and form as much as I can an unbiased opinion out side of the article I am reading at the time. I usually do a google search on the title of the article and hit the news button. There I can find sources not only reporting from the U.S but also from the rest of the world. It was how I found out about what she actually said at her speech. I found it pretty surprising that she was actually in agreement with the Obama administration on Free Trade policy with South Korea.

As far why she was invited. Before I looked into other news articles on the story I actually goggled "World Knowledge Forum" first. Was pleasantly surprised also. This group has been around for awhile and it is comprised of some of to most top notch talent and leaders of the world to discuss policies that mainly effect Asia on a global scale.

Wiki entry:

The World Knowledge Forum is a fete of knowledge, the biggest in Asia. It is also known as Asia's Davos Forum (World Economic Forum). Established in October 2000, the World Knowledge Forum gathers more than 100 business and opinion leaders from around the world ranging from environmental and international organizations to world's biggest corporations and institutions. These leaders predict the future and discuss possible solutions for problems that are already, or might become, an issue. The main aim is to highlight the importance of knowledge sharing towards a balanced prosperity of the global economy.

I also went to their actual website.......As after reading Wiki it really got my interest up. This is what they had to say on her.

Sarah Palin first made history on December 4, 2006 when she was sworn in as the first female governor of Alaska. In August 2008, Senator John McCain tapped Palin to serve as his vice-presidential running mate in his presidential campaign, making her the first woman to run on the Republican Party's presidential ticket. In Alaska, her top priorities included fiscal restraint, limiting the size of government, resource development, education, equitable oil valuation. Palin is a contributor for FOX News where she offers her political commentary and analysis across all FOX News platforms, including FOX Business Channel. She is the author of The New York Times best-selling books, Going Rogue: An American Life (November 2009) and was named to TIME magazine's 2010 "100 Most Influential People" list.

I would guess she was invited as she is a pretty influential force in American politics and in Asia people would be interested on her perspective on things from a conservative American's point of view.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Agreed, that Corporate developed Technology in the first place is sure is helping them get the word out to others to overthrow those corporate fat cats.

Ah, the belief that it's corporations who are contributing most to technology development and innovation goes contrary to reality. But it aligns nicely with what a Palin-fan would say.

Can't begin to name all the start-ups that were founded by people who had to leave corporations where their work was being stifled. It's technology and innovation that builds large corporations and not the other way around.

But that's why it's so much fun to watch Half-Governor Palin and her foolish followers: They never met a corporate bureaucracy that they didn't love -- all the while pretending their for the "little guy."

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

I truly amazed people are just not done with this woman?

People are done with her, it's just that she's not done with herself.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Ah, the belief that it's corporations who are contributing most to technology development and innovation goes contrary to reality.

You do understand that we using personal computers and more than likely a windows operating system to have this discussion half way around the world don't you?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

sailwind, I value good post like yours. Job well done, sailwind. I love researchers. Thank you.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

You do understand that we using personal computers and more than likely a windows operating system to have this discussion half way around the world don't you?

Fans of Half-Governor Palin just won't give up or wake up -- no matter how many times the obvious is presented to them.

The most common OS was developed for a large corporation by a very small group of "friends" (Gates, Allen, etc.) because the large corporation couldn't handle the task. Gates, in turn, purchased the basic heart of the OS from the work of another individual -- who developed it alone.

Just about everything that's going into the ability to post on this website was initially conceived and developed by a handful of individuals working independently of a corporation.

Just as Palin thought she was qualified on foreign affairs because Alaska is in the proximity of Russia, some people obviously are under the delusion that the brand name on their technology products was the creator of them.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Due??? Based on what? But it ain't you so boo hoo.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Fine. Just not you, thanks.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Haha American voters and their heated debate on non-political/philosophical criterions for executive office.

Yeah, that's the great thing about America. While we might disagree, and do so heatedly and vocally we at least take the time and energy to debate issues and discuss even the philosophical rather than just accepting what comes as the inevitable.

Can't begin to name all the start-ups that were founded by people who had to leave corporations where their work was being stifled. It's technology and innovation that builds large corporations and not the other way around.

I would agree with the first part, and disagree with the last. I worked for a start-up that left corporate IBM for reasons similar to what you alluded to. However, the goal was to eventually go public and essentially become a corporation. In order to have the capital to fully develop ideas to potential it becomes an inevitable fact of business life. Unless making money is not the goal, and in that case one is unfortunately doomed.

More to topic, I think choosing a President base upon anything other than qualifications and suitability is insane. I think gender and race have always been two points on everyone's mind when thinking of the progressive growth of this country. And yes, I'll say it - I think there are a good many who voted for President Obama simply on the grounds of race, which helped a junior Senator with very little in the way of practical experience in leading the free world become president. People said 'here's an intelligent man, a good man, and an African-American man. Wouldn't it be a tremendous step for this country to take'. And yes, it was. Coming from an area of the South where racism was/is still rampant it was monumental to see. And hey, just because I do not like the man's politics and agree with very little of what he puts into motion for this country, I do think that he is a highly intelligent and good man. He's my President - like his policies or not. But I would not have voted for him nor anyone else based upon race - just to see it happen.

I most certainly would not vote for Sarah Palin, nor any woman just to see it happen. If she's intelligent and qualified, then sure. Not applicable here.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Why should we have a woman president? I figure that since white men built the country, invented damn near everything including the electronics in my computer, the cars, airplanes, spaceshuttles... I can't think of anything they didn't invent... they should be the leader. Why a woman or black or anyone else? What? Build it all up and give it away? But if I was to have any women or black as president I'd choose Michelle Bachman, Herman Cain or Sarah Palin... but I sure wouldn't vote because it's a woman's turn... the presidency is too important for these games and social experiments.. what's next? The first gay president?

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

I give my vote for Lisa Ann.. she looks like Sarah Palin and probably smarter too

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I'd vote for my tube of toothpaste - it's got way more smarts than Sarah P :-)

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Sarah has become more of an obsession of the radical left these days. Most of their counterparts on the extreme-right have either changed handles or are pretending they never really supported her candidacy as they rally around the new list of looney individuals preparing to take part in the 2012, mud-slingathon.

A woman president is inevitable, quite telling that a (half) black man was before a woman, and of any colour for that matter! Racism before sexism in a simplistic take.

Which ladies are credible moderate candidates any way?

Condileeza Rice was pretty smart, but her association with the catastrpohic Bush regime is probably the reason she's disappeared from the political map. And then - suppose there's the potential suggestion of the liquor license which would obviously be repugnant to the fringe elements, something most of us Europeans couldn't really care less about.

The only lady that springs to mind is obviously HRC. The Americans would, in my humble opinion anyway, be crazy to pass her by. To start with, she's about the only democrat with any balls.

But more importantly the dems need someone gritty to take on the GOP attack-ad "politics" of sliming without a better idea, and bringing back a bit of intelligence and dammit dare I say, actually get people to act like adults again?

And the obvious bonus, is of Bubba being back in the Whitehouse. The man who didn't inhale, and who let's face it, is liked by just about everyone. Who better to have as America's First Gentleman?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Oh, PLEASE not Palin or Bachmann!! I don't CARE if it's a man or a woman - but these extremist religious fanatics scare me!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

First woman president will be very intellignet and smart.

Sorry Palin Sorry Bachmann you do not fit the criteria

2 ( +2 / -0 )

yabits: "This from a woman who just over four years ago didn't know the reason why there were two Koreas."

Sure, yabits, just make up stuff and post it, sheesh.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

Sure, yabits, just make up stuff and post it, sheesh.

Your accusation that I made up "stuff" about Palin is a false one. She really is that clueless.

The allegation that Palin could not explain why there are two Koreas comes directly from the people associated with the McCain campaign of 2008. Upon the first briefings of Palin by McCain's team, Palin could not explain what the function of the Federal Reserve is; when asked who attacked the US on 9/11, she said "Saddam Hussein"; and she could not explain the reason why there were two Koreas.

The events are related in the book about the campaign, Race of a Lifetime, by John Heilemann and Mark Halperin, and can be easily searched on the Internet.

So, as I have just demonstrated, I did not make up anything. People who make completely foolish and false accusations, and who don't have the character to admit they are wrong, deserve Sarah Palin as their candidate. The decent, honest people of America deserve far better than that.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

About your book source Yabits.

A review found after researched on the internet as you suggested.

This is real fly-on-the-wall journalism, where long conversations are reproduced in direct speech, and the authors claim to know not just what people said, but what they were thinking. For instance, there is an account of Bill Clinton calling Ted Kennedy in the hope of persuading him to endorse Hillary. Kennedy was impressed by the relative upstart, Barack Obama. Clinton could not believe that the Democrat's senior statesman could want to back someone so raw. "A few years ago, this guy would have been getting us coffee," Clinton exclaimed.

Or did he? After this reported comment had buzzed around the blogosphere, the authors were tackled about it on Fox TV, and had to admit they did not know exactly what Clinton said.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

A review found after researched on the internet as you suggested.

Ah, so you were able to verify that I was "not making stuff up," as Serrano falsely accused.

I think Halperin got it right.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Yabits,

Halperin already admitted to "making stuff up"

the authors were tackled about it on Fox TV, and had to admit they did not know exactly what Clinton said.

Your repeating gossip not fact.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

if any reader believes Palin's opinion is important, look at the surveys. Palin is an attention seeking candidate with no solutions to any problems. "If you are not part of the solution, you are a part of the problem." Palin needs to stop the irritating voice speeches, stand up with determination, and provides some reasonable ideas. Otherwise, eat Romey's and Cain's dust. Sorry, Alaska doesn't have dust. just snow, but people in the USA get the concept.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Halperin already admitted to "making stuff up"

You are wrong.

and had to admit they did not know exactly what Clinton said.

There is a vast difference between not knowing something someone said exactly and making things completely up. The difference between "The guy would have been getting us coffee" and "The guy would have been bringing us tea." is one only a fairly desperate or dishonest person would rationalize to themselves as being "completely made up."

Plus, Halperin was not quoting anyone in the Palin story. He was reporting what folks on the campaign who were prepping Palin were telling people. Nothing in the reality that is Palin suggests that the report is a false one.

Why there are two Koreas is something a lot of Americans don't know. I consider Palin more like the run-of-the-mill ignorant American than someone along the lines of a Jeanne Kirkpatrick or Hillary Clinton -- who outpoint her in sheer knowledge by many orders of magnitude. Bottom line is that the report is out there and I didn't just "make it up." Thank you for your participation.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Palin's right, the U.S. is ready for a female president all right, but unfortunately the Democrats are going to put up Obama again, can you believe that?

yabits: "I think Halperin got it right" ( Palin didn't know why there are two Koreas )

I know Halperin got it wrong. The people who think Palin didn't know why there are two Koreas also think she thought Africa was one country ( she miss-spoke, apparently only Democrats and their supporters never miss-speak, lol ) and think she said "I can see Russia from my house" when it was Tina Fey who said that.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I know Halperin got it wrong. The people who think Palin didn't know why there are two Koreas also think she thought Africa was one country

You accused me of making the story up about Palin and two Koreas. The story came from the people on McCain's campaign who were trying to bring the Half-Governor up to speed on basic issues.

The true accusation is that you don't have the integrity of character to admit you were wrong.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Good grief yabits, when are you going to admit that what you said about Palin is based on hearsay?

You can't prove she said anything that would indicate that she didn't know why there are two Koreas.

You should retract that comment, along with the silly "Half-Governor" jibes, but I know you won't because you don't have the intergity of character to do it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Good grief yabits, when are you going to admit that what you said about Palin is based on hearsay?

Hearsay may not be sufficient evidence to convict someone in a court of law, but it is more than sufficient to form a judgment. Like the famous comment from Steve Schmidt (McCain's campaign coordinator) about Palin that "She knows nothing" -- referring to her grasp of foreign issues and current affairs. (They reported that she could not talk about a single Supreme Court case other than Roe v. Wade.)

You can't prove she said anything that would indicate that she didn't know why there are two Koreas.

I can certainly prove there were stories about her lack of knowledge about Korea and other issues emanating from the McCain campaign. (I never "made them up" as you falsely stated.) The people on the campaign knew best. Nothing I have personally witnessed about Palin causes me to doubt them. What I have seen from the people around her and her fans is of extremely low integrity of character. They'll say and do just about anything to prop her up.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Demand an apology serrano. You can do that. hee hee.

Exactly. Exactly.

Taka

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

How about instead of getting excited about the first woman Pres, or black, or gay, or Asian, or bisexual or trilingual, that we just get a good one.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

yabits: Hearsay... is more than sufficient to form a judgment"

But if what was heard is wrong, your judgement would be wrong too, wouldn't it? Like in this case?

yasukuni - Exactly, exactly.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites