So, failing to find any ad hominem attacks on Sarah Palin in my postings, you move the bar to include ad hominem attacks on her supporters, the definition of which seems to be taking exception to emotional reactions resulting from suggestions that she needs seasoning as a politician before running for President.
You want specifics? Here they are:
She botched the Couric interview.
She booted the Gibson interview.
Her speeches were often filled with repetitious platitudes.
Does that mean she'd stupid? No. Does that mean she isn't destined for greatness? No. It means that she was handled poorly by the McCain campaign. And that she is not ready to run for President. Will she be ready in time for 2012? I don't know, but my gut tells me 'no".
That's not an attack, that's an objective opinion. I wish she were the New Ronald Reagan, but she's not, and saying that seems to bring on the same kind of knee-jerk emotions that her endorsement of McCain does.
Blind emotion is for liberals, and cults of personality is what brought us Obama.
I think she has morphed into "becoming" a seasoned political person without losing the qualities that we all love within her.
She may never speak like a Rush Limbaugh or another smooth talking person who has years of radio/tv experience but when she talks it's still from the heart still with the knowledge that true leaders put the country first!
Quite frankly, if in 2012 I had a choice in a voting booth of Zero or Sarah it would not be much of a choice whether she was 100% or 65% ready.
Until someone else comes along looking Presidential I'm with Sarah.
If you took time to read the transcript of the Gibson interview you actually learn she didn’t “boot” it at all.. ABC CUT it to try and make her look bad... and ... it was Gibson who booted it on the Bush Doctrine question, he didn’t know the answer to his own question.