meaning

“above the law”

that way no criminal charges,
or any wrongdoing can be charged against her, in a legal court of battle..It may just be slipped under the rug,
or she can get away with whatever she pleases..

great…
another one….

Too bad this wasn’t fully understood during the vetting process.

And 49er. I also see your point. I was watching part of Palin’s interview with Hannity. He asked her about the bridge to nowhere. I expected some backtracking, but she stood by her story.

I think it’s evident that her initial claim that she refused the bridge outright has been successfully refuted.

She initially wanted the pork for Alaska, the bridge became unpopular in Washington, and she opposed it when it didn’t have any traction any way. And she kept the money for other projects. She can say she opposed it (eventually), but attempting to use that issue as her signature in a battle against earmarks, is a mistake, that everybody is getting.

I think that she would have been better off, explaining at the outset that she initially was interested, but eventually decided not to support it. And wants to fight government waste in the future.

Her unwillingness to back off the claim will become more expensive as the campaign goes on.

Palin, with her hardcore fundamentalist religious beliefs (kinda like Monica Goodling, who violated the U.S. Constitution and perverted the Justice Department), would be appointed by McCain as Evangelist-In-Chief.

Vice President Cheney was/is creepy and corrupt.

A Vice President Palin would be doubly creepy and corrupt, with a rigid, right-wing al Qaeda-like twist thrown in.

And, what exactly is the point of citing Bill Clinton’s remarks? How about the fact that Sarah Palin lies repeatedly on the stump. She never told congress anything. She never said “thanks, but no thanks.” Nobody in congress ever heard her say that because they scuttled the bridge earmark before she ever took office. Why does she continue to repeat the lie and why are you not concerned with a candidate who will continue to repeat a lie after it has been shown to be a lie?

When Clinton made his remarks, the story about Palin’s management style, her habit of following personal vendettas and certainly her stated desire to remove certain books from the Wasilla library were not common knowledge.

49er. Clinton made those remarks yesterday.

And here’s a fact check of Palin’s ‘book banning’.

One accusation claims then-Mayor Palin threatened to fire Wasilla’s librarian for refusing to ban books from the town library. Some versions of the rumor come complete with a list of the books that Palin allegedly attempted to ban. Actually, Palin never asked that books be banned; no books were actually banned; and many of the books on the list that Palin supposedly wanted to censor weren’t even in print at the time, proving that the list is a fabrication. The librarian was fired, but was told only that Palin felt she didn’t support her. She was re-hired the next day. The librarian never claimed that Palin threatened outright to fire her for refusing to ban books.

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/sliming_palin.html

We should all take a harder look at what’s passing for ‘common knowledge’.

The neoconservative philosophy is as elitist as one can get. They are above the law. They “make their own reality.” Certain “special” people have more rights than others. The wealthy take huge profits and socialize their losses. Losses? The hoy palloy can pay for those.

If you like Dick Cheney, then I can understand you supporting Palin – she’s a neocon and a classic “wingnut.” And, she would be a heartbeat away from the office next to a 72-year old man with a history of melanoma.

When Clinton made his remarks, the story about Palin’s management style, her habit of following personal vendettas and certainly her stated desire to remove certain books from the Wasilla library were not common knowledge. Clinton also did not know at that time that Palin would break Alaska law by not cooperating with the legislature and not honoring a court-approved mandate to testify.

Now, when will McCain or Palin go on Rachel Maddow or Keith Olberman’s show for an interview and if not, why not? Are they chicken shits? If they can’t stand up to Rachel Maddow, how do you expect them to stand up to international adversaries?

“Sarah Palin is not ready to be Vice President by any stretch of the imagination and the Republicans know it. They are scornfully mocking us and are waiting to see how stupid and gullible we are, they have polished another turd and are serving it with a straight face. If America’s undecided independent voters buy this pig wearing lipstick, we deserve a government of the stupid, by the stupid, for the stupid.”

Enuf said!