FOR fair-minded people, the 2008 United States presidential campaign will go down in American political history, as one which produced some of the most heated, vicious, slanderous insults against one particular candidate, Sarah Palin, than any other.
Locally, I’ve heard Catholics, who obviously know little about the woman, rubbish her, yet she had the most impeccable pro-life credentials among all four candidates involved.
For example, Obama and “Catholic” vice-presidential candidate Joe Biden are in favour of partial-birth abortion and federally over-riding any state, which has pro-life legislation.
Much of the media and almost all of Hollywood were up in arms over Palin, mainly because of her pro-life stance, in my opinion.
Locally, here in Australia, it was next to impossible to have a pro-Palin letter published in a newspaper.
But closer to home in Alaska, where she is Governor and well known, she has an approval rating of 86 per cent.
The recent strategically placed endorsement of Obama, by supposedly Republican, and pro-abortion former Secretary of State Colin Powell made big headlines, but endorsement of McCain by five other Secretaries of State, including Henry Kissinger, were all but ignored.
Then, after running out of new insults to be directed at Sarah Palin, the media whipped up a campaign over the Republican party spending $150,000 on clothes for her, even though the same clothing was to be auctioned for charity following the election.
Finally the Left can always be relied upon, to provide us with some unintentional humour.
They went on the attack over how much the Republican vice-presidential candidate spent on hair care.
Strangely, in my lifetime, I have met a lot of women who care for their hair, but surely the amount Sarah paid for her coiffure would pale into insignificance when compared to the amount Democrat vice-presidential candidate Joe Biden spent on his well publicised, but not that effective hair transplant.
FRANK BELLET
Petrie, Qld
