Per Akuma

Sympathetic to a group that encourages secession from the Union - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZwvPNXYrIyI

Thanks for posting the video that debunks your point.  Just watching the video makes it obvious how BS this one is, she refers to them as competition, never endorses secession in any way(which given how gung ho about it you seem to think she is, is rather odd), and in general seems to be giving a "we disagree but lets work together" speech.  Seriously, if anyone watches that video and sees "secessionist sympathy" please inform me where you saw it, because I sure as hell didn't.

Married to a person who has strong ties to a group that wants to secede from the Union - http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-aip3-2008sep03,0,6399468.story

First of all his "strong ties" are that he used to be a member before he left the party.  Even if he was still a member he isn't running for office any more than Michelle Obama was, so what does it matter?  Or are you suggesting the Michelle Obama should have been thoroughly vetted?  Or does the creed "Families are off limits." espoused by Obama only apply to candidates you support?

Multiple sources that she went hogwild on expensive shopping sprees -
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/david_hughes/blog/2008/11/06/sarah_palin_and_that_150000_clothes_bill

and ... http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/06/us/politics/06mccain.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

Your first link doesn't even try to cite a name and your second link says "...who spoke on the condition of anonymity..".  That's not very convincing when someone won't put their name next to their comments.  Why not?  Where, exactly, is your source for this? 

How about a named source?  For instance Meg Stapleton who actually stakes her name and reputation when she says ' Palin was told "here's your people, here are your clothes.”' and the campaign said, "'this is what you need as a VP candidate.'. 

Was asked basic questions in interviews and was completely clueless - on camera - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XbQwAFobQxQ

I said it then, and I'll say it now.  It was a bad interview, but its not even close to the Palin-hater's love-fest you guys have tried to turn it into. 

Of course the counterpoint to this would be her selection for a documentary she filmed back in April,  "Incredible Women".   Apparently the guy who filmed it didn't see the "completely clueless" person you saw in this interview...but what does he know?  He only spent several weeks with her day in and day out, getting to know her far better than either of us and well before she was surrounded by the bias inducing VP selection.  Again the people who know her best are unanimous about her high intellect & strong character, only those with political motivations seem to find any fault.

Indisputable fact?  Hardly.  Neither of us have any actual proof, but at least my source has intimate knowledge over a long period of time and well before there was reason for him to inject bias into his assessment.  This compared to  a heavily edited interview which you simply formed a personal opinion about well after you'd decided you despised the woman (you probably wouldn't even disagree with that assessment).
 
Has no clue on major events, party policies and doctrines and sticks to GOP talking points like glue - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z75QSExE0jU

I personally debunked this in a thread on this website when then interview came out, and I think you were involved in that thread (could be wrong on that).  But just in case you missed it, the bush doctrine is not a single clearly defined thing.  Her confusion was not only legitimate but her answer was the correct answer given the scope of the phrase and the lack of any indication which aspect Gibson was questioning, an indication that is essential for the question to make any amount of sense.

Even wikipedia gets this one right: "The Bush Doctrine is a phrase used to describe various related foreign policy principles of United States president George W. Bush. ".  I'm not going to go digging up that thread to debunk something I've already debunked, if you need cited sources feel free to dig through my post history to find them.  Charles Krauthammer, among other writers from both sides of the isle, wrote an article on this at the time stating they wouldn't have known what Gibson meant because the question was ambiguous.  For the record, Krauthammer is the one who actually coined the phrase all the way back in Feb '01.

Had the VP debate gimped to allow her to compete - http://www.adn.com/opinion/sarah-palin/story/539459.html

First, ADN being a paper that opposes her in Alaska, and routinely ran and still runs op-ed hitpeices on her is questionable to begin with  If that wasn't bad enough the person they chose to write the article, Mr Andrew Halcro, is one of (if not the) biggest political enemy she has in Alaska and the article itself is simply his opinion of her.  Now, to be clear, simply being politically opposed isn't the issue I have with Halcro, its that he actively seeks to hurt her on a regular basis. 

I'm pretty sure that invested political enemies don't count as a legitimate source.  But nice try (again, I know I've debunked you on this one before, which speaks for itself).

Has proven time and time again she is a diva, not a leader - http://thinkprogress.org/2008/10/25/palin-diva/

Yet more anonymous sources linking to other articles who also have anonymous sources.  And yet again real people (the kind with names to associate with their comments) are willing to defend her. Again who is your source exactly?