I don't think it means what she thinks it does

It always amuses me to see the wingnuts redefine the meaning of the First Amendment.

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.

"If [the media] convince enough voters that that is negative campaigning, for me to call Barack Obama out on his associations," Palin told host Chris Plante, "then I don't know what the future of our country would be in terms of First Amendment rights and our ability to ask questions without fear of attacks by the mainstream media."

First of all, I don't think the voters need the media to convince them that Palin is running a negative campaign. I'm pretty sure they can figure that out by themselves. In the second place, the First Amendment means everybody gets to talk. Palin gets to spew her hateful rhetoric and the media gets to call it mean and spiteful.

Additionally, as as Glenn points out, if you want to drag the Constitution into it: "The Constitution also guarantees freedom of association. Thus, by Palin's "reasoning," when newspapers -- or Palin herself -- criticize Obama for his associations, they're threatening his constitutional rights."

Some days this campaign feels more like a really bad SNL skit than anything else. I mean, how bizarre is it that someone this uninformed about basic rights is running for VP?

[More posts daily at The Newshoggers and The Detroit News.]