Christian Science Monitor article earlier this week explains alot about Palin's decision

Here's the link.  In short, people start feeling that Palin wasn't putting the State first.

Palin's popularlity was slipping.  Even among people with her own party.  Her rambling announcement about loving Alaska so much that she wants to resign to spend more time out of it doesn't tell a credible story as much as this story does.  People were souring on what some called a "narcissistic personality disorder."  Alaska supporters of her were leaving her in droves.

I don't think even the biggest Palin booster can say that Palin's work in Alaska was done.  Like other governors, just like Governor Strickland, she was facing painful choices in her state's budgets due to gas prices dropping.

Incidentially the Christian Science Monitor is now an entirely on-line publication, Connie. :)

Imagine if a corrupt Democratic official tried to spin their resignation as a stand against "wasteful government spending."

Palin actually boasted about getting rid of junkets as Governor, and then resigned because she can't travel as much as she wants if she stayed Governor.  It's just funnier every time I watch it.  How she thought this resignation would get the media to report more on the positive things she's done.

It's clear nobody wrote a speech.  It's just rambling.  A stream of conscious that leads the listener with a "WTF?" reaction.

I wonder if Palin will support Governor Strickland in not responding to the Ohio GOP's never-ending series of public record requests because it waste taxpayers' money?

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

I am always amazed

at how the liberals attack Sarah Palin. I was never her biggest fan, but then I don't focus on the VP candidate of either party very much. But it seems she garners more press from the left side of politics than she does from the right! It certainly makes me wonder.

Maybe it has to do with...

how she says things like Obama pals around with terrorists and such, but that's just my theory...

And that makes it ok?

I agree that Pres. Obama was hit with a lot of (in his words) "campaign rhetoric". But it still doesn't make it ok. Besides, if she's so insignificant, why does the left keep attacking her? Four different posts here with two different speculations on the reasons? Seems a little overboard.

I've read with interest the blasts here again the Cleveland paper. I don't know anything about the paper, but find it interesting that the best I've seen here is links to other papers and news sites. Is that what our press is doomed to become?