treat faerie

This is strictly for fun.

This is not about the fact that hacking email is illegal (we all know it is)

nor is it about how her privacy was violated (ethically it was, no matter if you think it was partially justified).

So last night I was reading about all this and found a chat thread were a few people were ticked because the know the conspiracy theory people will immediately blame the DNC camp and Obama.

Others pointed out that while that was an easy conclusion to reach, it was really too simple an answer given that only the most useless information from the account got publicly posted (seeded across) on the web. That a more interesting assumption was that Karl Rowe had it done so he can spin it into a sort of watergate issue and make people sympathize with the victim, i.e. Palin.

As I'm going to sleep though a beautiful theory occurs to me. What if this is Carleton Fiorina paying back Sarah Palin for cutting her off from the main campaign? That's a great motive for someone who probably has the skills to do it in an untraceable way. Plus it has the added benefit of them almost certainly turning back to Carly for advise on how to toughen up their PC security to prevent another hacking!

A very pretty little theory I think. And maybe, just maybe Karl Rowe sort of suggested it to Carly because he a) knew he could spin the results in favor of the McCain ticket and b) that he felt having Carly around was more important than the mistake she made in the interviews the day before

Why Carleton Fiorina was cut off from media access thus giving her a motive for this: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/9/17/2172/51510... & why Palin was so mad at Carly: http://thinkprogress.org/2008/09/17/palin-fiorina-...

I have to admit I like FactCheck because they get a bit snarky when rebutting falsehoods in so much of the political advertising. But lately they seem to be out and out exasperated with McCain's camp for continuing to repeat falsehoods well after the general media has openly discounted them.

http://www.factcheck.org/faq/ makes for really great reading.

http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/ may be more colorful in its presentation

Which do you prefer to use, or have you found another non-partisan outlet for determining fact from fiction?