Sarah Palin has demonstrated a profound lack of understanding of the basic tenets of the U.S. Constitution.
According to ABC News ( http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/10/palin-fears-med.html ):
“In a conservative radio interview that aired in Washington, D.C. Friday morning, Republican vice presidential nominee Gov. Sarah Palin said she fears her First Amendment rights may be threatened by "attacks" from reporters who suggest she is engaging in a negative campaign against Barack Obama.
Palin told WMAL-AM that her criticism of Obama's associations, like those with 1960s radical Bill Ayers and the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, should not be considered negative attacks. Rather, for reporters or columnists to suggest that it is going negative may constitute an attack that threatens a candidate's free speech rights under the Constitution, Palin said. (My emphasis)

The First Amendment states that “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech …” Subsequently, the Fourteenth Amendment held that “ … No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States …,” thus prohibiting the states from enacting laws that would, among other things, abridge one’s First Amendment right to freedom of speech.

It is impossible for a private citizen to deprive another private citizen of his or her constitutional right to free speech. The First and Fourteenth Amendments only relate to laws enacted by governments that do so.

The GOP vice-presidential candidate lacks even a rudimentary understanding of the Constitution that she would swear to “uphold and protect” if elected next Tuesday. Palin’s gaffe does not relate to obscure provisions of our Constitution, but rather to our Bill of Rights. Immigrants must demonstrate an understanding of Constitution before being granted U.S. citizenship, but we have no similar test for persons seeking the second highest office of the land.
In my view, the media has not been hard enough on Palin’s profound incompetence and McCain’s reckless lack of judgment in choosing her as his running mate.

"Alarming"? Calm down. It's just another example of Palin doing her "victim" schtick. It will, of course, play well with her constituency, which likewise cherishes its sense of victimhood. But in both cases, "victimhood" is just another word for "marginalization." They're complaining because nobody takes them as seriously as they take themselves. That could be alarming if they had a real chance to gain actual power, but we're 3 1/2 days out and they're still 6 points behind according to the poll aggregators. That being the case, it isn't "alarming"; it's "pathetic."

A couple of times, we've had laws that made it more-or-less illegal to critize elected officials. The Alien and Sedition Acts in the early 1800s, and some laws that I can remember the names of around WWII. And before we decided that the Bill or Rights applied to state laws, there were a bunch of states with laws that limited criticism of public officials.

So Palin is just being a good conserviative, looking back to the golden age.

When correctly viewed, down is up.

Assuming the GOP loses this time, McCain and Palin will be decoupled permanently. Without Big Daddy's minions to form a protective cordon around her, Palin will have to pursue any future political plans solo. Press conferences will be a must, and then she'll have to account for all these ridiculous things. Her so-called charisma might serve her well with the wingnuts, but that's about it. My guess is she's headed Quayleward.

I wonder if Palin overheard some of the current conservative hysteria about the possibility of bringing back the Fairness Doctrine, and was feeding it back in garbled form.

I mean, I realize the woman is so scatter brained and inarticulate that anything is possible, but I still find it hard to believe that a candidate for the vice presidency of the United States could seriously think that the First Amendment protects her from being criticized by the press.

My, Sarah does wear out the victim card. This brings up the interesting question, though, of whether it would be reasonable for all candidates for public office to demonstrate a basic understanding of the Bill of Rights. At the very least, they should indicate knowledge that criticizing them is not unconstitutional. Maybe for the benefit of those who share Palin's beliefs, there could be a Wingnut Party whose members are never criticized in any way but are not allowed to appear on any national ballot.

My, Sarah does wear out the victim card. This brings up the interesting question, though, of whether it would be reasonable for all candidates for public office to demonstrate a basic understanding of the Bill of Rights. At the very least, they should indicate knowledge that criticizing them is not unconstitutional. Maybe for the benefit of those who share Palin's beliefs, there could be a Wingnut Party whose members are never criticized in any way but are not allowed to appear on any national ballot.