The title of a recently released Yahoo! article is "Palin Story Sparks GOP Family Feud". If we think back to the announcement that her daughter Bristol Palin was pregnant, despite not being married and her son having Down's Syndrome as an infant along with the fact that he could also have been Bristol Palin's son (meaning that Bristol Palin would be a mother of two as a teenager), we know the soon-to-be ex-governor of Alaska is no stranger to controversy.

The first two sentences are most significant: "A hard-hitting piece about Sarah Palin in the new Vanity Fair magazine has touched off a blistering exchange of insults AMONG HIGH-PROFILE REPUBLICANS over last year's GOP ticket - tearing open fresh wounds about LEAKS SURROUNDING PALIN and revealing for the first time SOME OF THE INTERNAL WARS THAT PARALYZED THE CAMPAIGN IN ITS FINAL DAYS". This proves that Palin was much more of a hindrance rather than an asset to Sen. McCain's White House bid. In fact, it wouldn't be a stretch to say that PALIN WAS A NUISANCE AND A DISTRACTION. In other words, the 'Palin effect' was clearly negative.

"Rival factions close to the McCain campaign have been feuding since last fall over Palin, usually waging a battle IN THE SHODOW OF ANONYMOUS QUOTES". The Republicans fail to consider what's important. "anonymous quotes" may be important or they may be trivial AND THE GOP HASN;T BEEN ABLE TO MOVE BEYOND THE 'ATTACK DOG' IMAGE.

So what's causing all this fuss? "William Kristal, the editor of The Weekly Standard and at times an informal adviser to Sen. John McCain touched off the latest back-and-forth with a post on his magazine's blog criticizing the Todd Purdham-authored Palin story and pointing a finger at Steve Schmidt, McCain's (former) campaign manager". "touched off the latest back and forth" = nasty exchange.

Kristol wrote: "In fact, one aide who raised this possibility in the course of trashing Palin's mental state WAS STEVE SCHMIDT". There is a rumor going round that Palin suffered from post-partum depression after giving birth to her son Trig.

Schmidt fired back at Kristol in the following e-mailed statement released to the Associated Press: "I'm sure John McCain would be president today if only Bill Kristol had been in charge of the campaign. After all, his management of (former Vice President) Dan Quayle's chief of staff IS STILL SOMETHING THAT TAKES YOUR BREATH AWAY (but obviously, not in a good way). His attack on me is CATEGORICALLY FALSE".

As far as the notion (or perhaps rumor) of Palin suffering from post-partem depression is concerned, Schmidt said "His allegation that I was defaming Palin by alleging post-partum depression at the campaign headquarters is CATEGORICALLY UNTRUE". How can we distinguish whether something is "categorically" or "absolutely" something? Also, where is the line between "false" and "untrue"?

"In fact I think it rises to the level of a slander BECAUSE IT'S THE WORST THING THAT YOU CAN SAY ABOUT SOMEBODY who does what I do for a living". Schmidt has to 'get with the program' Politicians and pundits "slander" each other all the time. This is not a big deal (i.e. people will not go to jail for this kind of thing; this is called "freedom of expression").

Then, Randy Scheunemann, a longtime foreign policy adviser to McCain threw his opinion out there for us to evaluate: "Steve Schmidt has a congenital aversion to the truth. On two separate and distinct occasions, he speculated about Governor Palin having post-partum depression and on the second, he threatened that IF MORE NEGATIVE PUBLICITY ABOUT GOVERNOR PALIN EMERGED, THAT HE WOULD LEAK HIS SPECULATION (about post-partum depression) to the press. IT WAS LIKE MEETING TONY SOPRANO". Well, the post-partum depression has been leaked now and Sarah Palin has been a circus for a long time.

Schmidt shrugged off Scheunemann's charges as "categorically untrue".

Schmidt continued: "IT IS INAPPROPRIATE FOR ME TO DISCUSS personnel issues from the campaign". Whenever people are forced on to the defensive, they say something like "It's inappropriate for me to discuss..." or more often, 'No comment' because naturally, they're afraid of more bad/negative publicity.

"But suffice it to say Randy is saying these things not because they're true but becaue HE WANTS TO DAMAGE MY REPUTATION because of consequences he faced for actions he took". Now the personal attacks have officially begun. So it was Schmidt vs. Scheunneman to start off.

Schmidt promptly fired back: "I've got a pay stub through the 15th". Schmidt evidently worked under Scheunemann.

Schmidt, shortly after resuming his political consulting activities, claims that he "has worked INCREDIBLY hard during the camapign TO DEFEND SARAH PALIN AND HER FAMILY AGAINST A LOT OF ATTACKS that I thought then and I (still) think today are UNFAIR". Is Schmidt TRULY defending Palin against the others?

Next came a shot at Kristol: "Bill Kristol, going back to the time of the campaign, has taken a lot of cheap shots at the campaign WITHOUT EVER OFFERING A PLAUSIBLE PATH TO VICTORY" which sounds like a lot of Republicans these days.

"He's in the business of ad hominem insults and criticisms". ad hominem = 'attacking the person instead of the subject matter'. All politicians do this but this has been especially prevalent among disgruntled Republicans since 2006 when Democrats took back control of both the Senate and the House for the first time since the 1994 mid-term elections when Bill Clinton was in office.

Kristol immediately fired back an insult at Schmidt: "It's a simple fact that when the going got tough, STEVE SCHMIDT TRASHED SARAH PALIN, both within the campaign and (on background) to journalists". There's absolutely nothing wrong with that. Initially the 'Palin effect' was positive and then it became negative when Palin's attacks on Joe Biden became rambling statements that were incoherent and didn't make sense.

"This was after Steve took credit for the Palin pick, when, at first, he thought it made him look good". So this political adviser to McCain picked Sarah Palin TO MAKE HIMSELF LOOK GOOD. "John McCain deserved better". This flies in the face of politicians putting party before themselves and country before party. As soon as the article links Palin and McCain, we can stop BECAUSE PALIN WAS A KEY REASON (perhaps the only reason) WHY MCCAIN LOST TO OBAMA ON NOVEMBER 4, 2008 BY SUCH A WIDE MARGIN (besides financial issues). The rest of the article is either about political pundits trying to strangle each other or only about Palin and nothing about McCain.