If you guys would like to base your views and opinions of a person on those who refuse to stake their claim to their own words then that's fine by me, it speaks loud and clear all by itself as far as I'm concerned.  I'd gladly be the person in any debate who was standing on the side of the issue that places more faith & believability in those who stand by their words than those who do not, and that places more faith & believability in those who were most intimately familiar with the subject/person, than those who are not.  If you concede that higher ground, as you seem to be doing, then I gladly take it.

Now on the issue of Ayers I'll speak briefly since its a complicated topic and not the subject of this thread.  Ayers was not an issue of anonymous sources versus named sources.  It was named sources supplying documents to support themselves VS named sources with no documents to support themselves.

If you want a good example of vetting your source before you go to print, check out this story(interesting in its own rite).  The article is about the naming of Omaha & Utah beach and explains a bit about the 3 years they've had this information and been vetting it...and it was from a named source.  The issue was as simple as "How was this beach named?". Note the list of sources and places they checked to confirm to see if things added up.  The situation is far from identical (that's not the point I'm making though) and I'm not suggesting they should have sat on the Palin story for 3 years.  What I am saying is that I've yet to see any cross-checked facts or even an attempt at the kind of investigative thoroughness that we see in this Omaha/Utah Beach article. This kind of work is called journalism, and is what a real journalist would do as part of basic journalistic integrity before running such a story to begin with (even when its not a story that could ruin someone's livelihood).  It seems to me that the only support for the rumors so far is the previous round of debunked rumors, which in all likelihood came from the exact same source(s).

In fact the only cross-checked fact that I've seen mentioned thus far was the conversation involving Africa in which Steve Beigun (the guy who was actually having the conversation with her) said “Somebody is taking a conversation and twisting it maliciously,”.  Beigun is not a palin stooge, the man is a former NSC with an impressive resume and no reason to poison his own political career by throwing in with an idiot. You would have to believe that both Beigun and Palin are co-idiots for this story to have believability at this point.  Because if Palin were even 1/10th as clueless as Madskillz and yourself seem to believe Beigun would be taking a massive risk that only a moron would take, because he gains literally nothing by helping her if she is an idiot. His only play here is to set himself up for a future play in the event that she were to gain power in Washington down the road. Now, if he thought her to be an idiot he likely wouldn't put any weight behind the notion of her future prospects, and thus none behind her defense as well.  Speculation to be sure, but far more reliable speculation than your speculation on the potential altruistic motives of an unnamed source.

This is why named sources for rumors are important, because in addition to opening themselves to scrutiny of their motives, if they are proven wrong they are forced to take the responsibility. An anonymous source can simply move on to the next rumor without need for rehabilitation or cause for concern about their future reputation.  The paper does take some risk, but it is largely mitigated by the fact that they routinely shift that blame back to their source when it proves wrong. Even then a paper only attests to the fact that things their source has said in the past were reliable, they have no actual knowledge of the current situation.

So again I say, I've named my sources, who are yours?

PS - You really should read that story I linked in this post, its a fascinating WWII story.

Clearly that was a slip of the tongue (he says 57 with one to go and two he would not visit). Unless you're willing to believe Obama thinks there are 60 states. I find it less hard to believe that he simply said "fifty" instead of "forty".

I love Sarah Palin, I wish she would be our future VP.

Yeah, i didn't realize until after she lost the primary how sexist things were with Hillary. 

She caught a lot of flack simply because she was a woman... a lot of the "attacks" she made weren't really anything, and wouldn't have been seen as anything big, and often as fairly valid criticisms if she were a man.

It didn't help that Obama was just the perfect candidate to play off it... without really responding or doing anything it was easier to make her look more like a bitch.

Of course that's the problem with Women in general in the workforce.  They get hit with double standards due to preconceived notions everywhere.  If they are too bossy they're a bitch and lose respect a lot more then a guy who is a dick would... and they've got less leeway, if they're not bossy enough they're weak... etc.

A lot of people have always hated Hillary and think she is too bossy, hence the bitch remarks. And Obama was definitely a person who without even trying could make her look like even more of a bitch, because he is pretty level-headed. And honestly, her campaign was getting so dirty towards the end that even I, a former Hillary supporter, thought she was acting like a bitch.

I could care less that Palin is a woman, I can't stand her because she is Dan Quayle 2.0 with even more religious extremism to boot.

Due to a lot of people being sexist.

Sexism is worse then Racism and doesn't get half the attention...

heck there is still segregation of the sexes in some areas today.

Oh yeah, I completely agree with you Kasz. Its just so funny to me how people who hate Hillary (usually white males) would be downright offended if you told them they were sexist. At this point in our country's history, sexism is a much bigger problem than racism.

I just thought it was even more funny when Republicans turned on Democrats and the media calling them sexist for going after Palin after they had finished thoroughly lambasting Hillary for the last year or so. Its like the pot calling the kettle black.

Oh man, that happened to my wife a LOT.  She's from Panama as well and I don't know how many times I've heard that ignorant comment.  A lot of people, more than I thought, have this perception that all Hispanics are the same, or Mexican.  I'm Puertorican and my sister is going through this in school now, with one of her friends literally debating with her about whether she is Mexican or not.  It's hilarious and very sad at the same time.

Seriously, Sqrl, I know you like Sarah and will defend her. That's fine. You are entitled to your opinion. But honestly, regardless of what someone posts, you'll dig and cherry pick until you find the information favorable for her. He asked for sources and I provided. Unless a person is actually there, anyone can say what they want.

There are two things I want to address - first, the video. So, you are saying it's ok to support a political party in your state that wants to secede from the Union? Why even make a video saying 'Welcome' to a group like that? There was a group like that back in the day - and tried to secede. It was in the 1860s. How sending a shout-out for a group like that - and defend it is very interesting.

Second, you would have virtually no news without a source. If they are unnamed and the information is credible, you run with it. Any news today - breaking news - never has a named source.

Of the major news announcements recently - Obama's transition team, him picking Biden, GOP folks saying McCain was finished and such - all were unnamed sources. I am a journalist - I have been for 12 years - and that's how it works. You can have a major player giving you the info - and it checks out, you name the source, you lose credibility. Sources will only get burned once. Reporters and editors have been to jail to protect their sources. Name them? Anyone not in the biz would say that, but that's not how things work in the business.

Exactly.  Sqrl is treating a common journalism practice like it is something reprehensible.  And the people speaking out against Palin have a lot more to lose than the people who would support her (like her own aides, who would probably benefit from supporting her).  They could potentially be alienated from the Republican Party and might never work again in politics.

But obviously they are just out to get Sarah Palin.  I mean what other explanation is there?  They've obviously got the pettiest intentions in mind and don't care at all about the Republican Party itself.  They just want to hurt Sarah Palin.  That's the only explanation.  Its a vast liberal conspiracy with Michael Moore at the bottom of it fabricating lies to slander the good name of Sarah Palin.