DISQUS

While not a smoking gun to prove Palin unworthy of holding the VP's office, this e-mail does eat into much of the myth of Palin having a decent resume to hold the office.

I followed Ms. Tessier suggestion and read the update on the San Francisco Chronicle's web site, SFGate.com, the address is: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/.... She changed the story to be that the librarian was fired "after" rather than "because" she refused to ban books and that she didn't know any titles were named, that she shouldn't have said Palin "hated" her, that she was wrong, Palin never was in the PTA and that she should have capitalized "native" when she spoke of Native Americans.

I also checked w/ factcheck.org about the letter as suggested in a comment. While it had rejected the list of books that Palin is credited w/ wanting to ban, it did validate Kilkenny's revised statement that the librarian was fired after she refused to ban books. Now why the librarian was fired, factcheck.org could not ascertain, but certainly didn't rule out it was because she wouldn't agree with Mayor's Palin's request if she would ban books in hypothetical situations.

I am wondering what genegrant was writing about when he says "This feels somewhat late on the draw..."; was the reference to the story or the e-mail? The e-mail was originally sent on Aug. 31, 2 days after Palin was named as the Repub VP candidate. As far as factcheck.org knocking down any of Klikenny's info, other than noted above and revised by Klikenny, factcheck.org didn't have any other comments on the information in her letter. Factcheck.org says they are working on the checking out the information in the letter and will have an article on it latter.

As noted in Kilkenny’s 2nd e-mail in the SF Chronicle, 30 journalists have checked her info and none have found errors other than the changes noted above. I will hazard a guess that when factcheck.org issues its article on Kilkenny’s e-mail there won’t be much repudiation of it as much as other possible perspective offered,

While not a smoking gun to prove Palin unworthy of holding the VP's office, this e-mail does eat into much of the myth of Palin having a decent resume to hold the office.

I followed Ms. Tessier suggestion and read the update on the San Francisco Chronicle's web site, SFGate.com, the address is: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/.... She changed the story to be that the librarian was fired "after" rather than "because" she refused to ban books and that she didn't know any titles were named, that she shouldn't have said Palin "hated" her, that she was wrong, Palin never was in the PTA and that she should have capitalized "native" when she spoke of Native Americans.

I also checked w/ factcheck.org about the letter as suggested in a comment. While it had rejected the list of books that Palin is credited w/ wanting to ban, it did validate Kilkenny's revised statement that the librarian was fired after she refused to ban books. Now why the librarian was fired, factcheck.org could not ascertain, but certainly didn't rule out it was because she wouldn't agree with Mayor's Palin's request if she would ban books in hypothetical situations.

I am wondering what genegrant was writing about when he says "This feels somewhat late on the draw..."; was the reference to the story or the e-mail? The e-mail was originally sent on Aug. 31, 2 days after Palin was named as the Repub VP candidate. As far as factcheck.org knocking down any of Klikenny's info, other than noted above and revised by Klikenny, factcheck.org didn't have any other comments on the information in her letter. Factcheck.org says they are working on the checking out the information in the letter and will have an article on it latter.

As noted in Kilkenny’s 2nd e-mail in the SF Chronicle, 30 journalists have checked her info and none have found errors other than the changes noted above. I will hazard a guess that when factcheck.org issues its article on Kilkenny’s e-mail there won’t be much repudiation of it as much as other possible perspective offered,

It would have been a more informative story if the issues that created the divide would have been noted and explored. Much to brief a story to have much impact for me - seems more like a snippet or a TV teaser. Not what I am looking for when I load up a NM Independent story.

It would have been a more informative story if the issues that created the divide would have been noted and explored. Much to brief a story to have much impact for me - seems more like a snippet or a TV teaser. Not what I am looking for when I load up a NM Independent story.

I too would like to see a section on the Pueblos & Tribes. Great work so far keep it up.

I too would like to see a section on the Pueblos & Tribes. Great work so far keep it up.