[presently no screen name]

you should want her to have an opportunity to step out from behind the massive McLame shadow that hinders her at this point.

It is NOT hindering her. She's only behind that shadow to you!! Don't you see that - you put her there and those who want to use an 'endorsement of a candidate' to hang their 'anti Sarah' stance on.

It's so weak, it's pathetic! There is no way any conservative can be that weak in their thinking - absolutely no way.

It's like her endorsing Cheerios and I decide to eat it even though I know it makes me sick. So it's her fault I'm sick. That's the liberal mindset you and the 'anti Sarah' groupies are demonstrating.

[Retired Greyhound]

It's like her endorsing Cheerios and I decide to eat it even though I know it makes me sick. So it's her fault I'm sick. That's the liberal mindset you and the 'anti Sarah' groupies are demonstrating.

But if she KNOWS its poison, and endorses it anyway, then she bears responsibility.

She knew McCain was a loser (especially after getting to know him up-close as his running-mate), and she still pushed him on Arizonans.

To further your ridiculously flimsy analogy, she endorsed a poisonous, defective product unto a small segment of people (Arizonans). The rest of the country didn't have a say, yet we are stuck with the consequences.

[Carling]

It's like her endorsing Cheerios and I decide to eat it even though I know it makes me sick. So it's her fault I'm sick.

Are you comparing McLame to something good for you, like Cheerios? What a ridiculous analogy. You aren't making any sense. I'd eat Cheerios because I know they are healthy. If Palin endorsed a piece of poop (which she did), would you eat the poop?

As for this only being a problem for me, I count at least two other posters in this thread stating that this is a great opportunity to break from McLame. On the flip side, you seem to be the only one who thinks it is a bad idea.