The power behind sarah palin

[stu2002]

http://www.americanfreepress.net/html/behind_sarah_palin__204.html

By Michael Collins Piper

Many conservatives and liberals alike will be astonished by the fact-filled series of articles recently released by AFP on Sarah Palin, particularly the clear demonstration that the “liberal” Washington Post and its sister publication, Newsweek, have been—for a long time—promoting the political and personal fortunes of “right wing maverick” Sarah Palin.

To understand that Palin is not at all “going rogue” as she would like to suggest (and Going Rogue happens to be the title of Palin’s new much-hyped memoir) it is critical to understand the nature of the Washington Post Company and those who control it.

While the Post and Newsweek invariably convey a culturally liberal, “politically correct” outlook, often aligned with the Democratic Party—and certainly contrary to what is perceived to be the world view of Sarah Palin—the bottom line agenda for both publications is the maintenance of the American political system as it exists today, dominated by a tightly knit clique of families and financial groups, international in scope, hardly at all concerned with the needs and concerns of grass-roots Americans.

So, in a sense, neither the Post nor Newsweek is, in the bigger picture, really “liberal” at all. Rather, instead, they are a combined and powerful force for the most secretive and yet most powerful interests operating on American soil.

To understand the Post-Newsweek connection to the banking elite is to understand why even an ostensible “rogue” such as Sarah Palin is considered useful to the designs of the global money masters.

In fact, the publishers of the Post and Newsweek have been intimately and directly linked, for almost a century, to the privately-owned Federal Reserve System, the Rothschild- dominated international-banker-controlled money monopoly that controls the American economy, a point many Americans are just now beginning to realize, thanks to the efforts of genuine mavericks such as Rep. Ron Paul (R-Tex.) and former Rep. Jim Traficant (D-Ohio).

You see, the Post was purchased at firesale prices, facing bankruptcy, in 1933 by Wall Street manipulator Eugene Meyer who earlier made a vast fortune as a World War I-era war profiteer under the administration of Woodrow Wilson.

banner_newsletter

But—more significantly—Meyer was named as one of the earliest chairmen of the board of governors of the Federal Reserve System and later as head of the World Bank, along with the Fed one of the primary sources of financial manipulation (on behalf of big money interests) on the face of the planet today. In addition, through his family relationship to the grand rabbi of France and to the Levi-Strauss garment empire (like the Meyer family, one of the biggest of America’s Jewish fortunes)Meyer was certainly one of the most powerful figures in America, especially after he began utilizing the Washington Post as a foremost political force in the nation’s capital.

Meyer’s daughter, Katharine Meyer Graham, later emerged as a major power broker on her own and, with her son Donald Graham, became a regular attendee at the international Bilderberg meetings. Sponsored jointly by the billionaire Rockefeller family of America and their senior partners, the even wealthier Rothschilds of Europe, Bilderberg is an annual, heavily-guarded gathering of a select and secretive group of global financiers, industrialists, politicians, policy makers and others who—despite their claims to the contrary—work directly to shape the course of world affairs through the high-level influence in the nations of the West.

Yet, despite the Meyer-Graham family’s close attention to promoting the Rothschild-Rockefeller Bilderberg agenda in the pages of the Post and Newsweek, reports about Bilderberg itself never appear in Meyer-Graham publications or in any of the other major American media voices controlled by the inter-connected elite of Bilderberg.

And while the Post-Newsweek empire is most publicly identified with the Meyer-Graham heirs, the truth is that another major figure behind the publishing giant is Nebraska-based investor Warren Buffet who—while portrayed as a “maverick” himself—has long cultivated close financial ties to other institutions (with substantial stock holdings in the Post-Newsweek holding company) that are, like Buffet himself, closely intertwined with the Rothschild empire.

The point of all of this is to demonstrate the nature of the influential corporate interests that are now promoting Sarah Palin. They hardly constitute the “grass roots” Americans that many might believe have fueled the interest in Palin’s political future.

A journalist specializing in media critique, Michael Collins Piper is the author of The High Priests of War, The New Jerusalem, Dirty Secrets, The Judas Goats, The Golem, Target Traficant and My First Days in the White House All are available from AFP.

Subscribe to American Free Press. Online subscriptions: One year of weekly editions—$15 plus you get a BONUS ELECTRONIC BOOK - HIGH PRIESTS OF WAR - By Michael Piper.

Print subscriptions: 52 issues crammed into 47 weeks of the year plus six free issues of Whole Body Health: $59 Order on this website or call toll free 1-888-699-NEWS .

Sign up for our free e-newsletter here - get a free gift just for signing up!

(Issue # 52, December 28, 2009)

[sofia]

this is spot on!


By "attacking" Sarah Palin, the media elite are in effect validating and annointing her in the eyes of the mindless conservatives.

These clowns who show up at her book signings have no idea that the "liberal" media is putting Sarah at the head of the "conservative" opposition.

[parocks]

The analysis in this article about the nature of the Washington Post sounds reasonable. I knew that Graham attended Bilderberg meetings. Yes, the establishment media has been pushing global socialism, one world government, new world order for years. For many, that's what "liberal" and "progressive" mean. People who we call "liberals" are pushing global socialism, etc., and have been. Certainly, it is possible to craft a definition of liberalism which includes an opposition to global socialism / NWO, but the actual Democrats who hold office, the actual politicians that we call liberals are pushing global socialism / NWO and have been for years.

I don't agree with the assessment that the WP/Newsweek has been "promoting"
Palin.

I know some here at this particular forum do. I've been trying to wrap my head around why people think that the msm has been helping Palin or is in favor of Palin in any way.

I'm not sure I have the answer, but I have some preliminary thoughts.
Andrew Loog Oldham was the manager of the Rolling Stones, and felt that it was
extremely important to get the Rolling Stones in the press. Praise, criticism, it didn't matter. That philosophy is referred to, sometimes, these days, as the Andrew Loog Oldham - No Publicity Is Bad Publicity school, the As Long As They Spell The Name Right school. For believers in the ALO school, any time Palin is mocked, belittled, criticized, insulted, it's good publicity. After all, according to the ALO school, any mention in the press is good. And Palin is certainly talked about more than any other Republican these days. Therefore, according to the ALO school, because she's mentioned more than any other Republican, she must be liked more than any other Republican.

There are good reasons to believe that many Ron Paul supporters are believers
in the ALO school. A fairly convincing case can be made that Ron Paul would've
benefitted by more publicity, positive or negative, back in 2007 - 2008. If people just knew something, anything, about Ron Paul, the thinking went, they would
like him and support him. And, it appeared to many (validly I think) that the media
was doing its best to not mention him at all. Based on their experiences, many Ron Paul supporters are biased in favor of the idea that the ALO theory is valid,
and in Ron Paul's case it was.

Unfortunately, the ALO theory/school typically is wrong in the case of politicians.

ALO developed his school of thought based on the selling of a rock band, not the selling of a politician. At any given time, there are thousands, maybe even millions
of bands all seeking recognition. A victory for a rock band would be to place, maybe, in the top hundred of all bands. You don't need too many people to do that. Your behaviour, as a rock band, could be repellant to 90% or more of the American people. But if 10% love your shit so much they'll buy your record, your huge. Rock bands benefit when a small number of people like them passionately
enough to give them their money. It doesn't matter if almost everyone hates
the rock band, as long as enough people care passionately enough.

How do you get people to care at all about your rock band? Back it ALOs day, it was through the Press, Publicity - good or bad. Typically, rock bands start out completely unknown. The only people going to their shows are friends and family.
(Let's leave aside bands with people who are famous from being in other bands).
How do bands go from being completely unknown and completely uncared about to selling a million records? Well, a Rolling Stone or two got arresting for pissing in public. Instead of thinking that this was a bad thing that most people wouldn't like, ALO thought this was an opportunity for people to know the Rolling Stones
and form an opinion about them. You rarely buy records from bands you've never heard of. If 99% of the people hate you, and 1% like you, you're up from 0% to 1%.

That's how it works in the world of rock bands. It doesn't work that way in politics.

If 100% of the people know who you are, and 99% hate you, you lose.
If 0% of the people know who you are, and 99% hate your opponent (assuming a 2 way race), you win.

In the real life of politics, you need to do 2 different things, based on the primary and the general. The primary works like the rock band scenario. You don't need 50% to win the primary. Many candidates are unknown and need the press to give them basic name recognition. To win the primary you need a passionate base
or indeterminate size (20-40% in Iowa / NH?) You can do the political equivalent of pissing on a wall to get that.

Once you've won the primaries with the help of your passionate base, you have the general election ahead of you. At this stage, the ALO school of thought does not apply at all. In the general (we're talking about the 2 major parties now) people will know who you are. You don't have to do anything to make that happen. It just happens. What you need is one more electoral vote than your opponent. If 49% love you and 51% think the other guy is kinda ok and don't like you, you lose.

Here's where we are with Palin. Palin was the VP nominee last year. People know who she is. Palin does not benefit by bad press the way the Rolling Stones did, because people already know who she is. If the media does not like Palin (and I believe that is an accurate assessment), it cannot damage her by ignoring her. She became famous instantaneously last August. The media can't make her unfamous. Another thing to understand is that the media knows what I'm saying here. They know that it's different to win a primary and a general.

Primarily, the media is not trying to deny Palin the Republican Nomination (although there is some of that, with the whole "must appeal to moderates" thing that they seem to pull with the R's every time). I think they recognize that Palin is the likely Republican nominee and has been since last fall at the latest. They're simply trying to keep her from the 51% she needs to win the Presidency in the fall of 2012, and they doing that by trashing her, mocking her, doing whatever they can to do that. They may use different tricks later, more subtle, nuanced tricks, but they don't want her to be President.

Some, I suppose can argue with that assessment, that the media does not want Palin to be President. That's fine. What I've been attempting to disprove here, though, is the idea that bad press = good press in the case of Palin. When the press mocks Palin, it is not evidence that the press likes Palin.





http://www.americanfreepress.net/html/behind_sarah_palin__204.html

By Michael Collins Piper

Many conservatives and liberals alike will be astonished by the fact-filled series of articles recently released by AFP on Sarah Palin, particularly the clear demonstration that the “liberal” Washington Post and its sister publication, Newsweek, have been—for a long time—promoting the political and personal fortunes of “right wing maverick” Sarah Palin.

To understand that Palin is not at all “going rogue” as she would like to suggest (and Going Rogue happens to be the title of Palin’s new much-hyped memoir) it is critical to understand the nature of the Washington Post Company and those who control it.

While the Post and Newsweek invariably convey a culturally liberal, “politically correct” outlook, often aligned with the Democratic Party—and certainly contrary to what is perceived to be the world view of Sarah Palin—the bottom line agenda for both publications is the maintenance of the American political system as it exists today, dominated by a tightly knit clique of families and financial groups, international in scope, hardly at all concerned with the needs and concerns of grass-roots Americans.

So, in a sense, neither the Post nor Newsweek is, in the bigger picture, really “liberal” at all. Rather, instead, they are a combined and powerful force for the most secretive and yet most powerful interests operating on American soil.

To understand the Post-Newsweek connection to the banking elite is to understand why even an ostensible “rogue” such as Sarah Palin is considered useful to the designs of the global money masters.

In fact, the publishers of the Post and Newsweek have been intimately and directly linked, for almost a century, to the privately-owned Federal Reserve System, the Rothschild- dominated international-banker-controlled money monopoly that controls the American economy, a point many Americans are just now beginning to realize, thanks to the efforts of genuine mavericks such as Rep. Ron Paul (R-Tex.) and former Rep. Jim Traficant (D-Ohio).

You see, the Post was purchased at firesale prices, facing bankruptcy, in 1933 by Wall Street manipulator Eugene Meyer who earlier made a vast fortune as a World War I-era war profiteer under the administration of Woodrow Wilson.

banner_newsletter

But—more significantly—Meyer was named as one of the earliest chairmen of the board of governors of the Federal Reserve System and later as head of the World Bank, along with the Fed one of the primary sources of financial manipulation (on behalf of big money interests) on the face of the planet today. In addition, through his family relationship to the grand rabbi of France and to the Levi-Strauss garment empire (like the Meyer family, one of the biggest of America’s Jewish fortunes)Meyer was certainly one of the most powerful figures in America, especially after he began utilizing the Washington Post as a foremost political force in the nation’s capital.

Meyer’s daughter, Katharine Meyer Graham, later emerged as a major power broker on her own and, with her son Donald Graham, became a regular attendee at the international Bilderberg meetings. Sponsored jointly by the billionaire Rockefeller family of America and their senior partners, the even wealthier Rothschilds of Europe, Bilderberg is an annual, heavily-guarded gathering of a select and secretive group of global financiers, industrialists, politicians, policy makers and others who—despite their claims to the contrary—work directly to shape the course of world affairs through the high-level influence in the nations of the West.

Yet, despite the Meyer-Graham family’s close attention to promoting the Rothschild-Rockefeller Bilderberg agenda in the pages of the Post and Newsweek, reports about Bilderberg itself never appear in Meyer-Graham publications or in any of the other major American media voices controlled by the inter-connected elite of Bilderberg.

And while the Post-Newsweek empire is most publicly identified with the Meyer-Graham heirs, the truth is that another major figure behind the publishing giant is Nebraska-based investor Warren Buffet who—while portrayed as a “maverick” himself—has long cultivated close financial ties to other institutions (with substantial stock holdings in the Post-Newsweek holding company) that are, like Buffet himself, closely intertwined with the Rothschild empire.

The point of all of this is to demonstrate the nature of the influential corporate interests that are now promoting Sarah Palin. They hardly constitute the “grass roots” Americans that many might believe have fueled the interest in Palin’s political future.

A journalist specializing in media critique, Michael Collins Piper is the author of The High Priests of War, The New Jerusalem, Dirty Secrets, The Judas Goats, The Golem, Target Traficant and My First Days in the White House All are available from AFP.

Subscribe to American Free Press. Online subscriptions: One year of weekly editions—$15 plus you get a BONUS ELECTRONIC BOOK - HIGH PRIESTS OF WAR - By Michael Piper.

Print subscriptions: 52 issues crammed into 47 weeks of the year plus six free issues of Whole Body Health: $59 Order on this website or call toll free 1-888-699-NEWS .

Sign up for our free e-newsletter here - get a free gift just for signing up!

(Issue # 52, December 28, 2009)

[parocks]

this is spot on!


By "attacking" Sarah Palin, the media elite are in effect validating and annointing her in the eyes of the mindless conservatives.

These clowns who show up at her book signings have no idea that the "liberal" media is putting Sarah at the head of the "conservative" opposition.

No Publicity = Bad Publicity, right?
As Long As They Spell The Name Right, right?

[klamath]

The analysis in this article about the nature of the Washington Post sounds reasonable. I knew that Graham attended Bilderberg meetings. Yes, the establishment media has been pushing global socialism, one world government, new world order for years. For many, that's what "liberal" and "progressive" mean. People who we call "liberals" are pushing global socialism, etc., and have been. Certainly, it is possible to craft a definition of liberalism which includes an opposition to global socialism / NWO, but the actual Democrats who hold office, the actual politicians that we call liberals are pushing global socialism / NWO and have been for years.

I don't agree with the assessment that the WP/Newsweek has been "promoting"
Palin.

I know some here at this particular forum do. I've been trying to wrap my head around why people think that the msm has been helping Palin or is in favor of Palin in any way.

I'm not sure I have the answer, but I have some preliminary thoughts.
Andrew Loog Oldham was the manager of the Rolling Stones, and felt that it was
extremely important to get the Rolling Stones in the press. Praise, criticism, it didn't matter. That philosophy is referred to, sometimes, these days, as the Andrew Loog Oldham - No Publicity Is Bad Publicity school, the As Long As They Spell The Name Right school. For believers in the ALO school, any time Palin is mocked, belittled, criticized, insulted, it's good publicity. After all, according to the ALO school, any mention in the press is good. And Palin is certainly talked about more than any other Republican these days. Therefore, according to the ALO school, because she's mentioned more than any other Republican, she must be liked more than any other Republican.

There are good reasons to believe that many Ron Paul supporters are believers
in the ALO school. A fairly convincing case can be made that Ron Paul would've
benefitted by more publicity, positive or negative, back in 2007 - 2008. If people just knew something, anything, about Ron Paul, the thinking went, they would
like him and support him. And, it appeared to many (validly I think) that the media
was doing its best to not mention him at all. Based on their experiences, many Ron Paul supporters are biased in favor of the idea that the ALO theory is valid,
and in Ron Paul's case it was.

Unfortunately, the ALO theory/school typically is wrong in the case of politicians.

ALO developed his school of thought based on the selling of a rock band, not the selling of a politician. At any given time, there are thousands, maybe even millions
of bands all seeking recognition. A victory for a rock band would be to place, maybe, in the top hundred of all bands. You don't need too many people to do that. Your behaviour, as a rock band, could be repellant to 90% or more of the American people. But if 10% love your shit so much they'll buy your record, your huge. Rock bands benefit when a small number of people like them passionately
enough to give them their money. It doesn't matter if almost everyone hates
the rock band, as long as enough people care passionately enough.

How do you get people to care at all about your rock band? Back it ALOs day, it was through the Press, Publicity - good or bad. Typically, rock bands start out completely unknown. The only people going to their shows are friends and family.
(Let's leave aside bands with people who are famous from being in other bands).
How do bands go from being completely unknown and completely uncared about to selling a million records? Well, a Rolling Stone or two got arresting for pissing in public. Instead of thinking that this was a bad thing that most people wouldn't like, ALO thought this was an opportunity for people to know the Rolling Stones
and form an opinion about them. You rarely buy records from bands you've never heard of. If 99% of the people hate you, and 1% like you, you're up from 0% to 1%.

That's how it works in the world of rock bands. It doesn't work that way in politics.

If 100% of the people know who you are, and 99% hate you, you lose.
If 0% of the people know who you are, and 99% hate your opponent (assuming a 2 way race), you win.

In the real life of politics, you need to do 2 different things, based on the primary and the general. The primary works like the rock band scenario. You don't need 50% to win the primary. Many candidates are unknown and need the press to give them basic name recognition. To win the primary you need a passionate base
or indeterminate size (20-40% in Iowa / NH?) You can do the political equivalent of pissing on a wall to get that.

Once you've won the primaries with the help of your passionate base, you have the general election ahead of you. At this stage, the ALO school of thought does not apply at all. In the general (we're talking about the 2 major parties now) people will know who you are. You don't have to do anything to make that happen. It just happens. What you need is one more electoral vote than your opponent. If 49% love you and 51% think the other guy is kinda ok and don't like you, you lose.

Here's where we are with Palin. Palin was the VP nominee last year. People know who she is. Palin does not benefit by bad press the way the Rolling Stones did, because people already know who she is. If the media does not like Palin (and I believe that is an accurate assessment), it cannot damage her by ignoring her. She became famous instantaneously last August. The media can't make her unfamous. Another thing to understand is that the media knows what I'm saying here. They know that it's different to win a primary and a general.

Primarily, the media is not trying to deny Palin the Republican Nomination (although there is some of that, with the whole "must appeal to moderates" thing that they seem to pull with the R's every time). I think they recognize that Palin is the likely Republican nominee and has been since last fall at the latest. They're simply trying to keep her from the 51% she needs to win the Presidency in the fall of 2012, and they doing that by trashing her, mocking her, doing whatever they can to do that. They may use different tricks later, more subtle, nuanced tricks, but they don't want her to be President.

Some, I suppose can argue with that assessment, that the media does not want Palin to be President. That's fine. What I've been attempting to disprove here, though, is the idea that bad press = good press in the case of Palin. When the press mocks Palin, it is not evidence that the press likes Palin.



I agree that it is pretty far out there to say the press is proping up Palin by attacking her. Somebody smoked a little to much weed.

[Zippyjuan]

Go ahead and hype her like crazy now. By the time the election comes people will be tired of hearing about her. She gets coverage because there is nobody else out there right now trying to "pre" campaign.

[Dunedain]

She is a pawn of the powerful.

I will never forgive her for being the running mate of the traitor John McAmnesty. I don't care if she hunts and hates "libruls". There is more to the political landscape than abortion and gay marriage.

[Dieseler]

To be honest with you, I don't think very many people are watching the news anymore.
They're sick of it at this point.
They have seen and heard all they need to.
Wait till the 2010 elections though. You're gonna see middle aged Conservatives who have never, ever voted before at the polls.
I guarantee you that.

[Dunedain]

To be honest with you, I don't think very many people are watching the news anymore.
They're sick of it at this point.
They have seen and heard all they need to.
Wait till the 2010 elections though. You're gonna see middle aged Conservatives who have never, ever voted before at the polls.
I guarantee you that.

You're probably right....but are they going to vote the Republicrats back in? We'll be in the same situation as with Bush making war-war on the world and rebuilding the bridges in foreign countries after we bomb them. We need to steer these conservatives to the right 3rd party option.

[parocks]

To be honest with you, I don't think very many people are watching the news anymore.
They're sick of it at this point.
They have seen and heard all they need to.
Wait till the 2010 elections though. You're gonna see middle aged Conservatives who have never, ever voted before at the polls.
I guarantee you that.

That sounds about right.

[parocks]

You're probably right....but are they going to vote the Republicrats back in? We'll be in the same situation as with Bush making war-war on the world and rebuilding the bridges in foreign countries after we bomb them. We need to steer these conservatives to the right 3rd party option.

It's a 1994 style election. Those new voter Conservatives will likely vote for Republicans provided they aren't RINOs. Whether or not a specific Republican is a RINO I guess would be up to the individual voter.

Typically, the party out of power picks up seats 2 years after a new President. That 2 year election is typically a referendum on the President, and Obama isn't too popular right now.

If you're worried that the new Reps and Sens won't be Conservative enough, make sure you support the right candidate in the primary.

With this whole Tea Party thing and everything else, people seem to be a little more aware about the dangers of RINOs, so this years crop of Republican candidates will likely be more Conservative than usual.

[MN Patriot]

I know some here at this particular forum do. I've been trying to wrap my head around why people think that the msm has been helping Palin or is in favor of Palin in any way.

I'm not sure I have the answer, but I have some preliminary thoughts...

My theory:

The Establishment supports Palin because they want to create the illusion that the Republicans have a credible, potentially electable maverick candidate. They will promote her, make her look good until about September of 2012 if she is nominated. Then they will turn on her and make her into an evil witch of capitalism and oil. The sheeple will hate her and re-elect Obama.

So what to do about this?

Get involved with the Establishment Republican party and try to reform it? I doubt that could be done.

With the expanding internet, and some creative marketing, the time is right for a third party to put the Republican failures out of business. Socialism marches on; the Republicans continue to collect taxes for it. The Republicans need to be made irrelevant permanently.

[parocks]

Who is this "Establishment" who supports Palin?

It's not the MSM. It's said that the inside-the-beltway Republicans don't like her, but that I don't know about. I'd assume that Republicans don't want to lose, and they would rally around her as she looks like a winner.

Can you give me recent MSM news articles that have as their core message that
Palin is a "credible, potentially electable maverick candidate"?

I've mostly seen MSM articles where they criticize Palin, etc etc.

What the MSM would like to do is push Romney or Gingrich to the Republican nomination, holding back from talking about the clear problems with their candidacies until the Fall. The MSM has been piling on Palin, "scandal" after "scandal" after phony "scandal" and it hasn't worked. They aren't going to find anything new because it isn't there.

Similar to what you're saying about Palin, but with Romney or Gingrich or someone else TBA.


My theory:

The Establishment supports Palin because they want to create the illusion that the Republicans have a credible, potentially electable maverick candidate. They will promote her, make her look good until about September of 2012 if she is nominated. Then they will turn on her and make her into an evil witch of capitalism and oil. The sheeple will hate her and re-elect Obama.

So what to do about this?

Get involved with the Establishment Republican party and try to reform it? I doubt that could be done.

With the expanding internet, and some creative marketing, the time is right for a third party to put the Republican failures out of business. Socialism marches on; the Republicans continue to collect taxes for it. The Republicans need to be made irrelevant permanently.

[James Madison]

My theory:

The sheeple will hate her and re-elect Obama.



I agree with everything except this point. In my opinion, Obama will be a one-term president. He may not even seek reelection in 2012 (ala LBJ).

[MN Patriot]

Who is this "Establishment" who supports Palin?

It's not the MSM. It's said that the inside-the-beltway Republicans don't like her, but that I don't know about. I'd assume that Republicans don't want to lose, and they would rally around her as she looks like a winner.

Can you give me recent MSM news articles that have as their core message that
Palin is a "credible, potentially electable maverick candidate"?

I've mostly seen MSM articles where they criticize Palin, etc etc.


Her book tour has been covered by the media pretty well, showing her popularity. Just building her up at this point, keeping her in the news. The Establishment will only support Palin in order to give us a phony choice in 2012. They haven't gotten nasty with her...yet.

The Republicans don't want to do what is right. That is why they lose. And why a third party needs to put them out of business.

[MN Patriot]

I agree with everything except this point. In my opinion, Obama will be a one-term president. He may not even seek reelection in 2012 (ala LBJ).

He is young, plenty of opportunities later. Until then he can make millions speaking, consulting, investing in carbon credits with Al Gore.

[fj45lvr]

Palin is simply a creation of the MEDIA hype...

otherwise she is a quitter and a not-so-great governor that even betrayed her "base"

[ItsTime]

Palin is simply a creation of the MEDIA hype...

otherwise she is a quitter and a not-so-great governor that even betrayed her "base"

Exactly.