[FTJM]

Because she was from Alaska, and had energy credentials. She could hardly contradict McCain coming from Alaska which doesn’t have an illegal immigrant problem.

So she was for a path to citizenship because she didn't have immigration credentials? Does she have them now?

Here is her position on a path to citizenship:

Q: So you support a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants?

A: I do because I understand why people would want to be in America. To seek the safety and prosperity, the opportunities, the health that is here. It is so important that yes, people follow the rules so that people can be treated equally and fairly in this country.

If your implying she has the same views as McCain on all positions then that is obviously incorrect, and is laughable.

If I noted that she disagreed with McCain on ANWR, how in the hell could I be implying that she has the same views as McCain on all positions? That makes no sense.

[militanttoby]

“Because she was from Alaska, and had energy credentials. She could hardly contradict McCain coming from Alaska which doesn’t have an illegal immigrant problem.

So she was for a path to citizenship because she didn’t have immigration credentials? Does she have them now?
“

I talk about contradicting the top of the ticket in a tight presidential campaign, and you reply about credentials. I know both words start with the letter “c”, but ...

“Here is her position on a path to citizenship: “

No, as I said, she wasn’t going to flame McCain and look like an idiot undermining the campaign.

[Nea Wood]

A: I do because I understand why people would want to be in America. To seek the safety and prosperity, the opportunities, the health that is here. It is so important that yes, people follow the rules so that people can be treated equally and fairly in this country.

Typical wishy-washy politician talk, trying to please all sides at the same time; just vague enough that both the pro- and anti-amnesty folks can grasp at straws wanting to think she's on their side.