The Sarah Palin VP announcement

[SarahG]

Well, if by stupidity you mean the sort of ignorance that typical non-geeks possess, perhaps you're right.  Not all of us know what an encrypted email address is, let alone how or why to use one.  I for one have a yahoo account that I use for personal emails, and until this week I had no idea that was grounds for ridicule.  It wasn't so long ago that Palin was an ordinary private citizen, with no thought that people might have any desire to hack her personal information.  It seems to me quite plausible that she used her business email for business and kept the personal one she already had for personal use.

And if she was doing things she wasn't supposed to, wouldn't that make her MORE careful and not less?

Of course I don't know whether she was hiding things or whatever; I just don't think we can immediately assume that because she had a yahoo address she must be a criminal.

EDIT: darxbane beat me to it.

[CthulhuKefka]

It wasn't really hacking though, if you think about it. Someone just found a way to get her password. Not too difficult, what with the majority of her personal information floating around. Pet name, high school attended, mother's maiden name, etc. etc. Easy enough to figure it out and reset the password.

Not that I'm saying anyone was in the right for doing it, of course. I'm fully against the government spying on me, no doubt the government doesn't take too kindly to people spying on their people. 

[SarahG]

Once again, I've shown my lack of geekiness.  I didn't even know the definition of hacking excluded breaking into someone's account by figuring out their password!

[GreenMonsta]

Ok I guess she could use the account for things she didn't deem important enough to secure. I guess all personal files aren't that important. I was only saying that she had the resource to protect all of her files and she didn't use it. And yes she has been involved in the government long enough to have had an encrypted e-mail to protect her stuff. I use mine all the time, not out of fear someone will steal my password or hack the site but out of habit. I guess that's a habit she is gonna have to get used to.

[Skar]

So, I'm worried about Palin.  She sounds dumb when she talks and that can't be good.

[CthulhuKefka]

So, I'm worried about Palin.  She sounds dumb when she talks and that can't be good.

Yeah, and at the debate tonight Sarah Palin said the Commander of the Ground Forces in Afghanistan is named McClellan. Well, he WAS a general....in the civil war. 

By the way, anyone else watch the debate?

[GorgonlaVacaTremendo]

I caught pieces--it was on during band practice.  Hard to hear it over the ruckus.  I did manage to catch the part where Palin says, "I haven't made that many promises.  What have been at this, like five weeks?"  That's a real confidence booster.  Her approval rating from the focus group PLUMMETED at that point.  Talk about a serious faux pas.

[Peter Ahlstrom]

I caught most of it and read the transcript of the end. I thought Palin avoided quite a few questions tonight, and Biden refused to admit to many of his earlier comments when Palin challenged him to.

[darxbane]

It's almost like you have to see who makes the most mistakes instead of who has the best ideas.  One avoids questions while the other answers them with bad information.  I can't believe the news stations don't put all of the mistakes out online for all to see.  Some are spin or minor oversights, but a few things were flat out false.

[Peter Ahlstrom]

I saw a pretty good three-page fact-check from Newsweek (I think) with debate quotes and earlier quotes with firm dates, but I still noticed a few things that were missing, like the things Palin said Biden had supported or complimented McCain on and Biden denied—those were left out.

[darxbane]

I can't say I am surprised by that.  After the debate, I had given Biden a slight edge.  However, after hearing how innaccurate he was, and how he flat out lied at least 3 times, I switched and gave Palin the win.  She didn't have things 100% correct, either, but she was George Washington truthful compared to Biden.  Oh well, I'm just glad I work for a company that would have way too difficult a time moving our plant to another location.  We will have to eat the Corporate tax increase if Obama gets elected.  It's funny how few people realize that increasing taxes on corporations will just cause them to either A) relocate to a more tax-friendly country, or B) increase the cost of goods to make up the difference, or C) downsize because they can no longer compete with foreign companies.  Increasing taxes on the richest 1% will decrease charitable donations and grants.  The vast majority of these super wealthy people are that way because they are very good with money.  This is why I still can't fathom why anyone would think it is wise to take money away from these people and give it to an entity that everyone agrees is terrible at managing money.  Before any tax increases take place, I would demand that the Congress show some real fiscal responsibility.  I bet we would all be surprised to see just how much money is wasted, all the way down to the city levels of Government.

[Peter Ahlstrom]

Oh man. I finally actually watched part of the Katie Couric interview. It was so painful I can't stand to watch the rest. They hardly had to make anything up for the SNL spoof of it. I had read descriptions of it as painful, but I had no idea how truly bad it was.

I suspect that her note cards were a major reason why she was much better in the debate. Or I suppose it's possible she was just having a bad day on the day of that interview. Either way, it was truly terrible, and the less she talks to the press, the more weight each individual appearance will be given when people judge her competence.

[GorgonlaVacaTremendo]

I don't think it was a bad day--if it was, her party would have her doing a lot more interviews.  It's pretty clear they consider her too incompetent to handle the media en masse, or too inexperienced.  Either way, Biden screws up a fair amount with the facts and he's all over the media, which shows, I think, how much more faith the Democratic party has in their VP than the Republican party.  For whatever the reason, I don't think you should ever pick a candidate you see as incapable of handling parts of the job--it looks like, because of how little they're putting her out there, that they just picked her because they wanted the demographics they thought she'd bring in.

And it's definitely true that if they put her out there more, her major screw ups would carry less weight.

[Peter Ahlstrom]

Well, she is out there now giving a lot of speeches at campaign rallies, but it's not her ability to follow a script that anyone is worried about.

I'm getting less and less enthusiastic about both slates of candidates as we get closer to the election.

[darxbane]

It's the big problem you get when two candidates are so similar on the vast majority of issues.  There are so few differences in policy that most people would have trouble seeing it, so they distort each others record and bring out the fear talking points to ignite the bases and all that nonsense.  With the cry for Palin's head that echoed throughout the Left, we were force-fed a preconceived notion.  Once again, you have to look up prior interviews she had when before she was nominated.  It is like two different people.  When I think about it, it reminds me of Good Morning Vietnam, when Robin Williams gives an "Interview" with Richard Nixon.  Katie Couric's ratings are horrible, and it would not at all surprise me that her crew would stoop to editing Palin to look like a fool to boost herself.  What I don't understand is why they chose who they chose for her two interviews.  It's almost like they wanted the left media people to make her look bad so they could further show the bias against her.  It doesn't make sense.  She should have been on O'Reilly by now.