nsTeam1RO, nsTeam1RW, nsTeam1_talkRO, nsTeam1_talkRW
13,818
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 1:
Line 1: − Line 372:
Line 371: − − ==Campbell Brown on the Palin Backlash== − − I'm not sure if this is even appropriate for the article itself, but I thought I'd post this here for the benefit of people interested in Palin. Brown's [http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/11/06/campbell.brown.palin/index.html?iref=mpstoryview#cnnSTCText commentary] is the most concise and fair refutation I've seen of the backlash against Palin from the McCain staff whose comments have surfaced post-election. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 12:36, 7 November 2008 (EST) − − :Sorry, but that article is still mostly a backhanded slap in the face that pretty much ends with the message 'you were dumb enough to choose her'. Expect it to be removed shortly -- along with my comment. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 14:45, 7 November 2008 (EST) − − ::I didn't intend this to be taken as an anti-Palin piece. My point was the same as Brown's - when criticism of Palin comes from people ''on McCain's team'', then they are either trying to use her as a scapegoat for their own mismanagement, or they didn't vet her enough in advance and lied to the American voters by saying they had. Either way, the commentary is about the shortcomings of the McCain campaign management, not Palin. As Brown said, you can like or dislike Palin, but she is who she is, and she's still the same basic person she was 10 weeks ago. − − Frankly, I'm still not a fan of Palin, but I dislike people taking shots at her as "anonymous sources high in the McCain campaign". Her critics should have the integrity to make their comments in the open, or not at all. I thought Brown's commentary would be useful as a reference for an edit about people unfairly scapegoating her after the election, but I wanted to propose it here first. If it's seen as anti-Palin bias, then I'll drop it. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 22:34, 7 November 2008 (EST) − − :People already understand that anonymous sources talking without any backup is wrong -- if they don't no opinion piece will matter. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 22:38, 7 November 2008 (EST)
no edit summary
== Sexist ==
== Sexist ==
In the section "Vice-presidential candidate" there is a redlinked image. I would remove it, but the page is protected. Could someone with protect rights remove it? Thanks. --[[User:PhilipV|PhilipV]] 12:15, 7 November 2008 (EST)
In the section "Vice-presidential candidate" there is a redlinked image. I would remove it, but the page is protected. Could someone with protect rights remove it? Thanks. --[[User:PhilipV|PhilipV]] 12:15, 7 November 2008 (EST)