I stole this brilliant image from Not Your Sweetie blog, illustrating a story on the smear campaign currently being waged against Palin by the Stupid Media, Obama’s surrogates, the so-called “progressives,” the Bots, and the regressive morons who compose the political party formerly known as Democrats.

They first launched baby-gate, a carnival of misogyny celebrated by world-class misogynists accusing Sarah Palin of being her son, Trig’s, grandmother. Then they trotted out Dan Quayle-gate, Barbie-gate, go go boots-gate, trooper-gate, polar bear-gate, pipeline-gate, vindictive bitch-gate, book banning-gate, racist-gate and on and on it goes. And now the Obamacans are using faux personal emails to smear Palin. Here’s the beginning of one that I received from a friend, who received it from a friend, who also received it from a friend:

This is from a Bryn Mawr college grad to her fellow alums

Dear classmates -

As an Alaskan, I am writing to give all of you some information on Sarah Palin, Senator McCain’s choice for VP. As an Alaska voter, I now more than most of you about her and, frankly, I am horrified that he picked her. The most accurate description of her is red neck….

This email is allegedly from a former Bryn Mawr graduate (read, she’s no one’s fool) sent as a heads-up to her fellow alums. In the many paragraphs that follow, the email leaves no stone unturned in its attack against Palin. The biggest giveaway that it’s a fake, besides the relentless savaging of Palin, is the claim that Biden will make a much better VP, followed by the assertion that anyone who supported Hillary should now support Barky. But this is line that cracks me up:

Palin isn’t “squeaky clean” and causes me to think there may be more issues that could come to light.

I have a few names for that light:

William Ayers, Tony Rezko, Jeremiah Wright, Khalid al-Mansour, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Jesse Jackson Jr.

This email was followed by another:

Books Sarah Palin wanted banned in Wasilla

This was the subject line of an email from my worried sister-in-law. Based on a Time Magazine article, the email includes a list of dozens of books that Palin is said to have wanted banned from the Wasilla library:

[Former Wasilla mayor] Stein says that as mayor, Palin continued to inject religious beliefs into her policy at times. “She asked the library how she could go about banning books,” he says, because some voters thought they had inappropriate language in them. “The librarian was aghast.” The librarian, Mary Ellen Baker, couldn’t be reached for comment, but news reports from the time show that Palin had threatened to fire her for not giving “full support” to the mayor.” Mary Ellen Baker resigned from her library director job in 1999.

I found a rebuttal to this smear from the comments to Conflucian garychapelhill’s very fine post “Sometimes They Write (Fake) Letters.

SimoFish, on September 5th, 2008 at 12:41 pm Said:

BTW —- the smear campaign is saying the Gov Palin wanted to ban books — but my girlfriend did all the research and guess what — IT’s NOT TRUE.

HERE’S THE RESEARCH AND e-mail she sent back to her friend.

http://www.gamepolitics.com/2008/09/03/republican-vp-choice-sarah-palin-tried-ban-books

http://www.cityofwasilla.com/index.aspx?page=136

hey, so i researched the link you sent me about banning books. i researched this further since I am skeptic about Time.
Time mag had BO on several covers, more than any other candidate. almost monthly. i subscribed to Time and then cancelled after seeing BO on the cover for the 10th time. and was sick of the biased reporting.

check out the first link: i found the article on gamepolitics that reports the story a whole less explosive. no details on books were ever discussed.

i went on line to the Frontiersman and other local papers in Wasilla and Alaska — no such story is depicted. I researched archives 1995- 1999. nothing in the four local and state papers.

which took me to the local board, city council post their records on their local website.
Apparently there are many inquiries, and you will see the link from the City of Wasilla, who has received several inquiries and the Mayor herself says there was no banning.

If she ever made the comment, she didn’t do anything, didn’t pursue, and not a matter of public record. if she ever made more than one comment, it would have made the papers, an ‘letter to the editor’, something. NOTHING is there.

So i don’t buy much into this story line. these are the stories that I call the “sound bites” that feed fear into people who wont’ do the research.

footnote: she is not in support of same sex marriage YET, her first Gubernatorial veto supported securing benefits for same sex partnerships for state employees

I really appreciate SimoFish’s corrective to this smear but, like me, you probably don’t have time to research and debunk each and every attack. As I was writing this, I received two more emails: one citing all the damage Palin will do to women and including the full text of Gloria Steinem’s article in the LATimes. Funny how the same people sending this email called Steinem an old hag when she wrote in favor of Hillary. And the second email contains an article by Charley James entitled “Alaskans Speak (In A Frightened Whisper): Palin Is “Racist, Sexist, Vindictive, And Mean.” Damn she’s scary! No doubt these emails will worsen and continue until Obama’s surrogates have filled every inbox in America. So, I’ve come up with the following response. Feel free to copy it and use it as your own and please include your additions in your comments:

BTW: This looks like a good clearing house on Palin rumors.

Dear friend,

I received your email with the attachment about Sarah Palin. While this report might be scary and threatening to some, to me it sounds like the same the kind of trash written about Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton and even Barack Obama. However, since the Clintons are no longer in the race we can leave them out. But what I wonder is why it’s okay to say that Palin is a fundamentalist Christian but not okay to ask why Obama spent twenty years in the pews of Jeremiah Wright’s intolerant church? And why is it okay to allege that Palin wants to destroy Alaska’s wildlife but not okay to ask if Obama plans to support Hamas instead of Israel? And people can can accuse Palin of racism based on rumor and hearsay but not hold Obama accountable for playing the race card, quoting Malcolm X and accusing good people, particularly the Clintons, of racism. While I may not agree with Palin’s politics, I am unmoved by the smear campaign launched against her. Please do not send me any more political emails. While this e-mail goes to great lengths to appear to be politically correct and to be doing me a favor, it’s actually savaging someone’s reputation based on shoddy evidence or outright lies. After forty years of voting for the Democratic candidate for president, I want you to know that these sexist and hateful lies against Sarah Palin you forwarded go against the reason I am a Democrat. Therefore, under no circumstance will I be voting for Obama.

Best Regards,

What I love best about No Quarter is the smart, lively debate about issues of critical concern, the colorful and flamboyant language that is often enough wildly clever and can be knee-slapping funny, and the fact that it does not shut out visitors simply for disagreeing with each other or the author of the post. (Some current blogs—including larger ones–only allow comments that support their agenda.)

But, beware of Trolls who can ruin the party. Trolls have been around since the Internet began, sort of like how maggots emerge from good fruit. The usual definition is someone who has no real interest in lively debate but rather aims to sabotage the post by making irrelevant, often inflammatory diatribes that disrupt the communication process.

The Obama Trolls are out in full force, and it remains inconceivable that the campaign has not attempted to spray them with a pesticide. On the contrary, the Obama campaign actually hired 400 of them to engage, we presume, in disruptive folly, usually to take the story messages way off track and turn the post into an adolescent food fight instead of a place where vigorous but substantive debate thrives.

There are several types of trolls, which I summarize for your possible edification.

1. “Onramp Hog,” the Hijacker Troll. This spiteful little menace lurks around for a new blog entry and then makes the first comment without even bothering to read the post. The missive is always off-topic, or it is inflammatory or provocative and totally unrelated to the purpose of the main story. This piggy hijacks the post because others immediately react to Onramp Hogs’ bait and interest is diverted away from the original authors’ efforts. It is often difficult or impossible to bring the discussion back on track again. Onramp Hogs probably have no life.

2. “Snot” the Mucilage Troll. Snot is posting Obama talking points wherever it can stick them. Whether the subject of the original post is relevant is immaterial to Snot. Snot probably gets paid for every time it does its blow job.

3. “Alligator Tears,” the Concern Troll who plays like it is on your side, but attempts to persuade readers by pretending to share their goals. This dainty nuisance may take a while to spot, but true colors emerge as the discussion begins to shift. It hates being called out, and quickly disappears once its ruse is discovered. Alligator Tears are usually just annoying, like a “noseeum” that gets in your face at picnics.

4. “Anchovy” the Bait Troll. Anchovy purposely sets people off with an emotional or inflammatory post. This slimy little fish is easy to spot, but sometimes difficult to resist because its comments are so profane or inflammatory. Anchovy Troll needs an outlet and is probably seriously constipated.

5. “Leak” the Mole Troll. You won’t see this lurker because it doesn’t stick its head out, but it is reporting back to the opposition’s camp. Remember, the Internet is a vast highway far wider that the lane you are driving in, so anything you say can get back to the source.

6. “Masturbator” the Sock Puppet Troll. Masturbator uses pseudonyms to add friendly comments to its own blog comments and rises to the defense of the itself, pick fights with those who disagree with it (and sometimes with itself), and frequently praises the brilliance of itself. Masturbator is not getting laid in real life, hence the substitute activity.

7. “Junker” the Spamming Troll. Junker inserts its own agenda into posts, usually irrelevant to the original post. Junker would probably be an Onramp Hog if it could get in as the first post, but is content to insert its irrelevancies anywhere in the thread.

8. “Outhouse” the ID Troll. Outhouse “outs” other bloggers (sometimes also members of their families) by revealing their true identities in malicious ways. Because this can cause real harm to real people, Outhouse may get into legal trouble. Outhouse is a piece of shit. (Can you tell that I have been hit by one of these menaces who, itself, hides behind a pseudonym on Daily Kos? Fortunately my boss is very understanding.)

9. “Snatch” the Identity-Snapping Troll (Pictured above). Uses other real people’s names to embarrass or misrepresent their views. This exceptionally nasty practice can only be attributed to a ruthless coward. Legal action is warranted. You wouldn’t want to know a Snatch in real life.

Best to never feed a troll.