She doesn't believe in book banning

Of course she "believes" in book banning or some form of censorship.  On some level everyone believes in censorship, particularly of generally agreed to obscene materials.  For example, most people agree that the sale of child pornography is rightly banned and should be illegal to sell in the United States. But that is a reasonable restriction on the protections of the constitution.  Palin's alleged* acts are troubling because of the purported basis of her inquiry.  The question that should be framed to politicians is not do you believe in censorship; its how do you define free expression?  Are words that challenge, repudiate or mock your politics, faith or beliefs tolerated or do you believe they are so offensive and dangerous that the constitutional protections of the first amendment must be suspended.  Does the person ask "how much can I allow" or do they ask "how much can I restrict?"  Whether a politician believes in censorship is a poor question -- where he or she draws the line on free speech is much more pertinent and reveals much more about the person's character. 

*I say alleged here because I am not entirely conversant in the facts of the story and I did not understand it to be completely verified, I don't want to make a false accusation about Governor Palin.

I believe he chose those exact words specifically because of what Palin had
said.

••

Perhaps you can use your great mental powers to predict the winner and
save the Nation a whole lot of time and money.

Why the condescending tone?  I was in no way condescending in my response.

Edited to correct puncuation.

 I still stand by statement that any politician who would pose the question...

"How would I go about removing books from the public library should it become necessary?"  is someone that would have no problem removing books from the public library, and I have a problem with that.

I quite agree! And that was what I was trying to articulate.  But I was also adressing the ridiculous notion that she did not believe in "banning books."  If you believe that there are appropriate instances that merit government restriction on speech or expression (distinguished from self or corporate restriction) then you believe, on some level, in censorship.  Her looking to ban certain books is evidence of that belief and raises questions of where her censorship "trigger" or barometer is. 

Is Obama now expected to memorize everything Palin says?

***

Now and then, as a law professor, I have to engage in some long lectures -- upwards of four or five hours. And after that I am frazzled for the rest of the night until the next day. The amount of speaking-time a presidential candidate is forced to engage in strains the bounds of the possible. Four hours is a blip. Obama could easily be talking in any one of a vast varieties of ways to a vast variety of audiences a good 18 hours per day. But the media can split the atom of a mere second of that time and ride the shock waves for days. Meanwhile, Rome burns....

Sheesh.

Where's Joe Biden hiding?

"Is Obama now expected to memorize everything Palin says?"
Everything, no.  But one would hope that he or his advisors would remember a specific line from her acceptance speech that got tons of applause and was talked about in the media ever since.

"Where's Joe Biden hiding?"
St. Louis.  Asking a man in a wheelchair to stand up.

Michael:

For your sake I pray that the 4 to 5 hour lectures are not on tax law!

"Where's Joe Biden hiding?"
St. Louis.  Asking a man in a wheelchair to stand up.

Biden fucked up.  He apologized.  Was it dumb? Yes.  Was it with bad intent?  I don't believe so.  Thats more a non-story story than the "lipstick" line.