Here lies the problem. You, and several others, hate Palin and have spewed so many lies about her over the last two months that you've put in me in the position of being the only person around here who is willing and capable of correcting your mountain of BS, which I've done consistently and which you've ignored consistently (predictably).   Now, I disagree with her on a large number of issues albeit less issues than I do Obama, and I've defended both of them against this crap consistently.

I'm one of the few who has been consistent throughout the campaign about tabloid trash like this. From the 57 states comment, banning books, mixing up article I and II of the constitution, lipstick on a pig, the Trig Conspiracies (which you still believe in), asking a handicapped guy to stand up, the muslim accusation, the terrorist accusation, people reading his prayer when he was overseas, etc..etc.. I've been against the ignorance spewed about all of this stupidity regardless of who it is meant to attack, because it's all trash and I've personally looked into each and every case before forming my opinion about it (some required more digging than others of course).  I know for a fact you can't say the same thing as you've engaged in perpetuating several of these tabloid smears in this thread already, so spare me the talking-points ad hominem attack trying to paint me as a Palin stooge and stick to the substantive points, because frankly I'm not going to stand for it, that much I promse you.

Now on the issue of her speach to the AIP: I just want to be clear, is it your assertion that what she has done amounts to an association and an association with a disreputable group/individual is valid criticism?  I find it interesting how giving a pre-taped speach to a group of political opponents is somehow more troubling to you than a lengthy association and working relationship with a known terrorist who had plans to kill 25 million Americans (I could go into much greater detail, but I'm not looking to deter the discussion to Obama)....but Palin as a sitting governor gives a pre-taped speach to an officially recognized political party and only then do you have a "Z0MG!!"? reaction.   Pah-lease.

Now on the issue of the AIP specifically, you have your facts off a bit.  The AIP contends that Alaska was never properly brought into the Union and they want the citizens of Alaska to be given a fair vote on the issue.  Several members of their party do not want Alaska to be part of the US, including several officials of the party, but their platform is for the issue to be brought to a vote because it was never properly handled..not a secession vote. A subtle distinction certainly, but quite important because I can understand the motivations for one but not the other. The party is attempting to remedy what it views as a fruadulent vote, which is far different than a vote to secede. I have no desire to see Alaska no longer part of the Union and Palin has never said a single thing to indicate she does either, so the entire argument is a bit of a non-sequitur.  To be honest I would emplore any individual who hasn't seen the video to watch it and then form their opinion, it says everything that needs to be said.

And for the record I think all intellectually honest individuals should be able to agree that regardless of our wishes about Alaska remaining in the union (and I feel strongly that they should) the fact is that if the people of Alaska were actually denied their right to vote on the issue the first time then that problem needs to be corrected. Obviously they first have to prove it was corrupt though, and I don't think they've done a very good job of it thus far. If they do manage to convince me though, I would be compelled to support a new vote and I would hope the majority of people would support their right to a fair vote as well. Whether I like the outcome or not I won't hold up the curtain of ignorance to protect a fraudulent vote.

On your second point, yes you are correct that sources are important for news, even unnamed sources, I never suggested otherwise and if you read what I wrote you will see that (that was the point of the Omaha/Utah beach story I linked as well as the ensuing two large paragrapsh that dominated the post).  The problem here is that, and as a journalist you should know this, an unnamed source is usually used as justification for starting an investigation and upon discovery of sufficient (not just "some") corroborating evidence for the source's story you then go to print highlighting the corroborating evidense as well as the original information from the source labeling each appropriately for the public to make a determination. 

Furthermore the type of story you would use unnamed sources for is the classic whistleblower situation like a Watergate story, typically something involving government malfeasance.  Comparatively, the standards for running with an anonymous source on a character assassination piece are, and ought to be, significantly higher because you can potentially ruin someone's life/career with even an innocent mistake let alone malicious intent from the source, this is basic journalist integrity 101.  Any journalist worth a damn knows that an anonymous source alone is completely insufficient for running with a story and it is irresponsible to air. Even in Watergate with what they felt was a very reliable source they still corroborated and backed up the story and information before going to print.

The issue isn't "should you use anonymous sources", the issue is "should you use anonymous sources as your only justification for a story" and the answer is an emphatic and resounding "NO" and it should echo from any journalist with even the slightest shred of decency and integrity.  These very basic standards were not met in this case, and it was plain to see from the stories that were written, and you linked, that there was no corroboration.  You really don't have a leg to stand on here, and frankly I wish you would man-up and admit that these stories were and are unsubstantiated tabloid trash rather than childishly continue to stick to a position after it has been shown to be untennable.

For the record I'm not asking for any reporters to name their sources, I understand and respect that relationship which is why I feel it should not be abused. I am however asking you to name your source for your positions here as I have been able to.  If you are relying on unnamed sources to combat my named sources then please refer to the first paragraph of my last post where I thank you for conceding the high ground. I do appreciate it.

Re-read my posts and you will see that my issue was with the lack of corroboration and that the only substantiation provided by the reports were the words of the anonymous sources themselves.  While I do dislike anonymous sourcing I did not, and have not said that it should be abolished.  This is a bit of a strawman argument actually, although I would not go so far as to say it was intentional, thats what it is.

In fact, and this alone should be cause for you to admit your mistake, the person who broke the story (Carl Cameron) has stated that the way he presented the story came across far different than he had intended and that he regrets how things have played out.  Cameron has said the story was meant merely to show that there was fighting within the campaign in the aftermath of the election using these examples to show the childish lengths some staffers were going to in order to place blame.

In short, the journalist is now saying he has not put his weight behind the comments either, leaving us with a purely anonymous without even the most rudimentary journalistic support for the source that you would expect.  This one isn't even on life support anymore folks.

Now on your second paragraph here I'm not going to dignify it with a direct response.  I merely would ask when I've treated you with such disrespectful mockery to deserve such a response?  I presented my case with facts and remained civil and yet both of you chose to respond to me by attacking my character and integrity. Rather than a subsantitive point-by-point response I get two character attacks trying to paint me as a Palin stooge despite my record as someone who has stood for none of this unsubstantiated crap regardless of who it effects.   I expected this from Madskillz, but I'm dissapointed that you would go here as well.

And now there are rumors that this entire "Africa" thing was a farce, just like the clothes horse rumor.

Really, some of you people are nauseating. Give it up and let the woman go back to Alaska. She's not nearly as stupid or uninformed as you make her out to be and from an objective point of view, you're the ones who look like fucking morons by spreading these unconfirmed rumors, not her.

Besides, we ended up getting a VP who thinks FDR went on TV and talked to the nation in 1929.

Who's the dumbfuck now?

Well said, Sqrl. It's sad to see you labeled as you have by the idiotic left when you've defended ridiculous accusations at Obama, just as you have Palin. So have I.

People shouldn't be attacked by fearmongers (yes, that's what some of the left has been doing by spreading these very Bush-like unsubstantiated rumors about Palin) for simply trying to find the truth and for trying to sort out the bullshit from the facts.

It's particularly frustrating that these same people would ignore anything short of Obama or Biden psychically throwing a grenade into an audience live on television but the slightest slip from the right and they're up in arms. The inverse is true of the right side of the spectrum, also.

In short, get over yourselves. If some of you would take a moment to realize just how fucking ridiculous you look to a moderate or independent, you would have shut the fuck up a long time ago. You're no different - or better - than Bush clones during his administration. You're doing the exact same things that I heard you bastards bitch about for the past eight years. The difference is that I used to sympathize with you; now I just think you're a bunch of back-stabbing, hypocritical, and whiny little bitches who were just waiting for an opportunity to pull the same sleazy tricks you accused Republicans of using for years.

Fanboys are fanboys, regardless of the side, or the thing they are fanboys of.

It's honestly part of the reason I don't hang around here so much. Too negative sometimes.

I call bs on this news.

I refuse to believe she didn't no Africa was a contintent without solid proof.

I saw her in a debate and she new all sorts of specific stuff about nations like Afghanistan and Pakistan and the complicated situation there with rebel attacks, US-raids n stuff.

I agree that the Africa story was a little far-fetched to begin with (regardless of whether it is true or untrue), but the stories about infighting within the campaign had already been leaking out well before the election was over.

I really don't think it was ever in question that she and McCain didn't see eye to eye on everything. This is completely common in political campaigns between candidates and the VP candidate. It happened to Kerry and Edwards when Kerry wanted Edwards to be an attack dog but Edwards wouldn't do it for his own political future. I don't think it is going out on a limb to say McCain and Palin were fighting some (which was probably aggravated even further by the fact that they were running behind in the polls). Its incredibly normal.

And Palin was put on political lockdown by the campaign shortly after the Couric interview so that something similar didn't happen again (which was a smart move in my book simply to let the story get out of the frontpages). Once again, it doesn't prove that Palin is an idiot, but it shows that people within the campaign had major concerns about the public perceptions of her in that way.

Regardless, don't expect Sarah Palin to disappear from the spotlight. We will hear a lot about her between now and 2012. Both the media and Palin are happy to see her in the news, and people are interested in stories about Palin. She's definitely famous after this election season and she has higher aspirations as she claims herself:

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/11/11/palin-not-ruling-out-2012-bid/

Palin not ruling out 2012 bid

As Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin heads to Florida to attend the Republican Governors Association annual conference in Miami, she says she'd consider a run for the White House in 2012 or beyond.

I just realized that I typed "Obama or Biden psychically throwing a grenade".

lulz.

Right after the election, Palin said she just wanted to go back to Alaska and be governor and couldn't imagine running for president in 2012 and she couldn't imagine running for Ted Stevens's Senate seat. But a few days go by and suddenly she's saying that she believes G-d will show her the door to the White House in 4 years? Looks like she wants to stay on the front page of my Google News, no matter the cost. I need a 4 year supply of popcorn.

After the Africa comment - and normally, I don't rely on FOX for nada, when I saw Newsweek with it, I said 'It's cool.' I was wrong. And honestly, it's about reporting news, whether it's good or bad. You can just ignore negative stuff about a candidate you like and try to cast doubt about the source, but in the end, the truth will surface.

As far as the comment, I wasn't the only person duped. AP ran a story about that - as well as Newsweek and a few other news outlets. Eventually, the real facts will come to light. Still, why did the McCain camp keep her under wraps and never allow her to hold one press conference - and she even joked about it on SNL?

Regardless, we don't have to deal with this crap for 4 years.