The Volokh Conspiracy

Videos of Sarah Palin:
Maybe this is obvious, but you can see a lot of interviews of and speeches by Sarah Palin over at YouTube.
Norman Bates (mail):
I like her take on the polar bear issue!
8.29.2008 12:13pm
J. Aldridge:
She is already driving liberals wild. CNN already linking her with Stevens! Someone better inform the loonies she is Stevens worst critic.

Obama already dissing her for being a small town girl. I guess he was hoping on another Washington insider like Biden.

Going to be fun watching Dems shoot themselves in the foot.
8.29.2008 12:36pm
ChrisIowa (mail):

Obama already dissing her for being a small town girl.


Obama just lost Iowa.
8.29.2008 12:41pm
Eric K.:
She's from a small town, she clings to guns and religion... outrageous, isn't it?
8.29.2008 12:48pm
Sarcastro (www):
She's full of foreign policy experience, cause she's like rightnext door to Alaska!

Seriously!
8.29.2008 1:05pm
Michael B (mail):
Palin is an inspired choice, potentially a very inspired choice. That will be up to Palin to substantiate, to prove, but virtually every indication suggests she has the mettle, has the gravitas, has the wherewithal. Palin is well grounded, soundly and thoughtfully articulate, probative in terms of domestic policy issues, not at all prone to gaffs, not at all a Ferraro-styled gamble, not even remotely close.

A sound choice, potentially a formidable choice. Time, and Palin, will tell, but there is reason to be more than merely cautiously optimistic about this pick.
8.29.2008 1:08pm
Michael B (mail):
Kristol on Palin gets to the heart of much of it. Properly framing the oil/gas/energy debate, a genuinely accomplished reform governor and executive - speaking to responsibility and stewardship and heritage, politically sound and energetic as well.
8.29.2008 1:25pm
EH (mail):
Michael B brings up a very astute point. Palin's experience with the Alaska Oil and Gas Commission continues a tradition of the VP having deep connections to energy lobbyists.
8.29.2008 1:30pm
Michael B (mail):
Palin was the head of the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, and how could that be anything but a plus? While head of that commission, she filed ethics complaints against then state Republican Party Chairman Randy Ruedrich as well as another Republican, a Gregg Renkes. Which means she's not a hackneyed party loyalist.

link
8.29.2008 5:18pm
Michael Drake (mail) (www):
"Obama already dissing her for being a small town girl."

Got a citation for that?

"CNN already linking her with Stevens!"

You mean in that he endorsed her in 2006? Or something else? Again, a citation would be nice.

"she is Stevens worst critic"

Really? Just back in July she said that Stevens "has dedicated his life to the betterment of the state." I'm pretty sure I've heard tougher criticism.

"I guess he was hoping on another Washington insider like Biden."

Should we trust your guesses as much as your assertions?
8.29.2008 7:14pm

Post as: [Register] [Log In]

Account:
Password:
Remember info?

[Important Note to Helpful Readers: If we have confusing typos and especially ugly formatting errors, such as an unclosed underline or bold tag, we'd love to hear from you about them -- but please e-mail the author about this, rather than leaving a comment. We often won't read the comments for a while after the post, and if there's a glaring formatting error, we'd see it quickly when we revisit the post, even without the comment; and in any event the comment likely isn't going to be that helpful to your fellow comment readers. So please e-mail us directly about glitches like this. Thanks!]

Comment Policy: We'd like the posts to be civil, of course (no profanity, personal insults, and the like), but we're also hoping that people try to be as calm, reasoned, and substantive as possible. So please, also avoid rants, invective, substantial and repeated exaggeration, and radical departures from the topic of the thread. Sticking with substance -- and staying on-topic -- will make the comments more helpful to other readers, and more pleasant.

As editors, we reserve the right to delete posts, and even to kick out posters, though we hope that both of these will be exceptional events. (We also reserve the right to be busy with other things, and therefore (1) not remove all the posts that might merit removal, and (2) ignore demands such as "You should remove A's posts, because they're just as bad as B's!")

Here's a tip: Reread your post, and think of what people would think if you said this over dinner. If you think people would view you as a crank, a blowhard, or as someone who vastly overdoes it on the hyperbole, rewrite your post before hitting enter.

And if you think this is the other people's fault -- you're one of the few who sees the world clearly, but fools wrongly view you as a crank, a blowhard, or as someone who overdoes it on the hyperbole -- then you should still rewrite your post before hitting enter. After all, if you're one of the few who sees the world clearly, then surely it's especially important that you frame your arguments in a way that is persuasive and as unalienating as possible, even to fools.

Our goal is to provide an interesting and pleasant environment that can help inform readers. To do that, we'll occasionally have to exercise our editorial discretion. Think of this as an in-person discussion group, where having different voices is critical to a great conversation -- but where sometimes the leader has to deal with cranks who sour the conversation more than they enliven it.

Naturally, there's always a risk that this discretion will be used erroneously, no matter how well-intentioned the editor. But discussion groups (especially on the Internet, but also off it) generally need an editor who'll occasionally make such judgments.

And, remember, it's a big Internet. If you think we were mistaken in removing your post (or, in extreme cases, in removing you) -- or if you prefer a more free-for-all approach -- there are surely plenty of ways you can still get your views out.