Ivyman68's Blog

Please, open your hearts and your wallets and sponsor an executive.

Who knew Leon Panetta was really James Bond? The 70-year-old former congressman is considered a very nice guy in the political world, a world that is anything but nice. But now President-elect Obama has tapped Panetta to be a tough-guy spy, the head of the CIA.

The choice is perplexing. Panetta is very smart, but has absolutely no intelligence experience unless you count his days as Bill Clinton's White House chief of staff. Some old hands inside the CIA are reportedly aghast at the choice. Former CIA guy Michael Scheuer, who headed the agency's bin Laden unit, put it succinctly: "I think they pulled his name out of a hat."

Besides his lack of experience, Panetta opposes many of the CIA's anti-terror measures. He's against any kind of coerced interrogation, wants the FISA overseas wiretap law repealed, and would completely disband the rendition program whereby the CIA sends captured terror suspects to be held and interrogated in other countries.

Without those tools, which former CIA Chief George Tenet and others say have been very effective in uncovering terror plots, the agency's ability to disrupt potential attacks would be gravely damaged. In fact, it was just last February when 68 senators, some of them Democrats, voted the FISA wiretap strategy into law. For the record, Obama declined to vote on the issue.

But now Obama can't sit these things out. He must decide how to wage the war on terror, and by selecting Panetta as his point man he's taking a huge gamble. If terrorists again attacked the United States, Obama's soft intelligence-gathering approach would also come under attack. Simply put: A successful terror mission could bring President Obama down.

So why is Obama putting himself in this position? The media have convinced many people that the Bush administration degenerated into a bunch of criminal torturers, people who persecuted innocent Muslims worldwide. Now the committed-left media are demanding that Obama reject any experienced intelligence people who have supported President Bush's terror initiatives. That's why Leon Panetta was chosen, to appease the left-wing zealots.

It seems to me that common sense, not ideology, is vital in preventing terrorists from killing us. Could Panetta learn on the job to run the CIA? Certainly. Should he be in charge when we are fighting two wars and terrorist bombs are going off all over the world? No way.

As for tapping calls to suspected terrorists overseas, come on. Judges have to see the data after the fact, and federal law still applies to any abuse. A private detective named Anthony Pellicano just got a harsh prison sentence for violating the wiretap law.

It's the same thing with coerced interrogation. The president should have the power to order it when lives are in imminent danger from a terror threat. However, Panetta recently told a newspaper that all interrogations should abide by the Army Field Manual, which prohibits making any captured person "uncomfortable."

Well, that kind of restriction should make you uncomfortable. Because in the war on terror, a lack of quick intelligence could make you dead.

Who knew Leon Panetta was really James Bond? The 70-year-old former congressman is considered a very nice guy in the political world, a world that is anything but nice. But now President-elect Obama has tapped Panetta to be a tough-guy spy, the head of the CIA.

The choice is perplexing. Panetta is very smart, but has absolutely no intelligence experience unless you count his days as Bill Clinton's White House chief of staff. Some old hands inside the CIA are reportedly aghast at the choice. Former CIA guy Michael Scheuer, who headed the agency's bin Laden unit, put it succinctly: "I think they pulled his name out of a hat."

Besides his lack of experience, Panetta opposes many of the CIA's anti-terror measures. He's against any kind of coerced interrogation, wants the FISA overseas wiretap law repealed, and would completely disband the rendition program whereby the CIA sends captured terror suspects to be held and interrogated in other countries.

Without those tools, which former CIA Chief George Tenet and others say have been very effective in uncovering terror plots, the agency's ability to disrupt potential attacks would be gravely damaged. In fact, it was just last February when 68 senators, some of them Democrats, voted the FISA wiretap strategy into law. For the record, Obama declined to vote on the issue.

But now Obama can't sit these things out. He must decide how to wage the war on terror, and by selecting Panetta as his point man he's taking a huge gamble. If terrorists again attacked the United States, Obama's soft intelligence-gathering approach would also come under attack. Simply put: A successful terror mission could bring President Obama down.

So why is Obama putting himself in this position? The media have convinced many people that the Bush administration degenerated into a bunch of criminal torturers, people who persecuted innocent Muslims worldwide. Now the committed-left media are demanding that Obama reject any experienced intelligence people who have supported President Bush's terror initiatives. That's why Leon Panetta was chosen, to appease the left-wing zealots.

It seems to me that common sense, not ideology, is vital in preventing terrorists from killing us. Could Panetta learn on the job to run the CIA? Certainly. Should he be in charge when we are fighting two wars and terrorist bombs are going off all over the world? No way.

As for tapping calls to suspected terrorists overseas, come on. Judges have to see the data after the fact, and federal law still applies to any abuse. A private detective named Anthony Pellicano just got a harsh prison sentence for violating the wiretap law.

It's the same thing with coerced interrogation. The president should have the power to order it when lives are in imminent danger from a terror threat. However, Panetta recently told a newspaper that all interrogations should abide by the Army Field Manual, which prohibits making any captured person "uncomfortable."

Well, that kind of restriction should make you uncomfortable. Because in the war on terror, a lack of quick intelligence could make you dead.

Who knew Leon Panetta was really James Bond? The 70-year-old former congressman is considered a very nice guy in the political world, a world that is anything but nice. But now President-elect Obama has tapped Panetta to be a tough-guy spy, the head of the CIA.

The choice is perplexing. Panetta is very smart, but has absolutely no intelligence experience unless you count his days as Bill Clinton's White House chief of staff. Some old hands inside the CIA are reportedly aghast at the choice. Former CIA guy Michael Scheuer, who headed the agency's bin Laden unit, put it succinctly: "I think they pulled his name out of a hat."

Besides his lack of experience, Panetta opposes many of the CIA's anti-terror measures. He's against any kind of coerced interrogation, wants the FISA overseas wiretap law repealed, and would completely disband the rendition program whereby the CIA sends captured terror suspects to be held and interrogated in other countries.

Without those tools, which former CIA Chief George Tenet and others say have been very effective in uncovering terror plots, the agency's ability to disrupt potential attacks would be gravely damaged. In fact, it was just last February when 68 senators, some of them Democrats, voted the FISA wiretap strategy into law. For the record, Obama declined to vote on the issue.

But now Obama can't sit these things out. He must decide how to wage the war on terror, and by selecting Panetta as his point man he's taking a huge gamble. If terrorists again attacked the United States, Obama's soft intelligence-gathering approach would also come under attack. Simply put: A successful terror mission could bring President Obama down.

So why is Obama putting himself in this position? The media have convinced many people that the Bush administration degenerated into a bunch of criminal torturers, people who persecuted innocent Muslims worldwide. Now the committed-left media are demanding that Obama reject any experienced intelligence people who have supported President Bush's terror initiatives. That's why Leon Panetta was chosen, to appease the left-wing zealots.

It seems to me that common sense, not ideology, is vital in preventing terrorists from killing us. Could Panetta learn on the job to run the CIA? Certainly. Should he be in charge when we are fighting two wars and terrorist bombs are going off all over the world? No way.

As for tapping calls to suspected terrorists overseas, come on. Judges have to see the data after the fact, and federal law still applies to any abuse. A private detective named Anthony Pellicano just got a harsh prison sentence for violating the wiretap law.

It's the same thing with coerced interrogation. The president should have the power to order it when lives are in imminent danger from a terror threat. However, Panetta recently told a newspaper that all interrogations should abide by the Army Field Manual, which prohibits making any captured person "uncomfortable."

Well, that kind of restriction should make you uncomfortable. Because in the war on terror, a lack of quick intelligence could make you dead.

Who knew Leon Panetta was really James Bond? The 70-year-old former congressman is considered a very nice guy in the political world, a world that is anything but nice. But now President-elect Obama has tapped Panetta to be a tough-guy spy, the head of the CIA.

The choice is perplexing. Panetta is very smart, but has absolutely no intelligence experience unless you count his days as Bill Clinton's White House chief of staff. Some old hands inside the CIA are reportedly aghast at the choice. Former CIA guy Michael Scheuer, who headed the agency's bin Laden unit, put it succinctly: "I think they pulled his name out of a hat."

Besides his lack of experience, Panetta opposes many of the CIA's anti-terror measures. He's against any kind of coerced interrogation, wants the FISA overseas wiretap law repealed, and would completely disband the rendition program whereby the CIA sends captured terror suspects to be held and interrogated in other countries.

Without those tools, which former CIA Chief George Tenet and others say have been very effective in uncovering terror plots, the agency's ability to disrupt potential attacks would be gravely damaged. In fact, it was just last February when 68 senators, some of them Democrats, voted the FISA wiretap strategy into law. For the record, Obama declined to vote on the issue.

But now Obama can't sit these things out. He must decide how to wage the war on terror, and by selecting Panetta as his point man he's taking a huge gamble. If terrorists again attacked the United States, Obama's soft intelligence-gathering approach would also come under attack. Simply put: A successful terror mission could bring President Obama down.

So why is Obama putting himself in this position? The media have convinced many people that the Bush administration degenerated into a bunch of criminal torturers, people who persecuted innocent Muslims worldwide. Now the committed-left media are demanding that Obama reject any experienced intelligence people who have supported President Bush's terror initiatives. That's why Leon Panetta was chosen, to appease the left-wing zealots.

It seems to me that common sense, not ideology, is vital in preventing terrorists from killing us. Could Panetta learn on the job to run the CIA? Certainly. Should he be in charge when we are fighting two wars and terrorist bombs are going off all over the world? No way.

As for tapping calls to suspected terrorists overseas, come on. Judges have to see the data after the fact, and federal law still applies to any abuse. A private detective named Anthony Pellicano just got a harsh prison sentence for violating the wiretap law.

It's the same thing with coerced interrogation. The president should have the power to order it when lives are in imminent danger from a terror threat. However, Panetta recently told a newspaper that all interrogations should abide by the Army Field Manual, which prohibits making any captured person "uncomfortable."

Well, that kind of restriction should make you uncomfortable. Because in the war on terror, a lack of quick intelligence could make you dead.

Who knew Leon Panetta was really James Bond? The 70-year-old former congressman is considered a very nice guy in the political world, a world that is anything but nice. But now President-elect Obama has tapped Panetta to be a tough-guy spy, the head of the CIA.

The choice is perplexing. Panetta is very smart, but has absolutely no intelligence experience unless you count his days as Bill Clinton's White House chief of staff. Some old hands inside the CIA are reportedly aghast at the choice. Former CIA guy Michael Scheuer, who headed the agency's bin Laden unit, put it succinctly: "I think they pulled his name out of a hat."

Besides his lack of experience, Panetta opposes many of the CIA's anti-terror measures. He's against any kind of coerced interrogation, wants the FISA overseas wiretap law repealed, and would completely disband the rendition program whereby the CIA sends captured terror suspects to be held and interrogated in other countries.

Without those tools, which former CIA Chief George Tenet and others say have been very effective in uncovering terror plots, the agency's ability to disrupt potential attacks would be gravely damaged. In fact, it was just last February when 68 senators, some of them Democrats, voted the FISA wiretap strategy into law. For the record, Obama declined to vote on the issue.

But now Obama can't sit these things out. He must decide how to wage the war on terror, and by selecting Panetta as his point man he's taking a huge gamble. If terrorists again attacked the United States, Obama's soft intelligence-gathering approach would also come under attack. Simply put: A successful terror mission could bring President Obama down.

So why is Obama putting himself in this position? The media have convinced many people that the Bush administration degenerated into a bunch of criminal torturers, people who persecuted innocent Muslims worldwide. Now the committed-left media are demanding that Obama reject any experienced intelligence people who have supported President Bush's terror initiatives. That's why Leon Panetta was chosen, to appease the left-wing zealots.

It seems to me that common sense, not ideology, is vital in preventing terrorists from killing us. Could Panetta learn on the job to run the CIA? Certainly. Should he be in charge when we are fighting two wars and terrorist bombs are going off all over the world? No way.

As for tapping calls to suspected terrorists overseas, come on. Judges have to see the data after the fact, and federal law still applies to any abuse. A private detective named Anthony Pellicano just got a harsh prison sentence for violating the wiretap law.

It's the same thing with coerced interrogation. The president should have the power to order it when lives are in imminent danger from a terror threat. However, Panetta recently told a newspaper that all interrogations should abide by the Army Field Manual, which prohibits making any captured person "uncomfortable."

Well, that kind of restriction should make you uncomfortable. Because in the war on terror, a lack of quick intelligence could make you dead.

Who knew Leon Panetta was really James Bond? The 70-year-old former congressman is considered a very nice guy in the political world, a world that is anything but nice. But now President-elect Obama has tapped Panetta to be a tough-guy spy, the head of the CIA.

The choice is perplexing. Panetta is very smart, but has absolutely no intelligence experience unless you count his days as Bill Clinton's White House chief of staff. Some old hands inside the CIA are reportedly aghast at the choice. Former CIA guy Michael Scheuer, who headed the agency's bin Laden unit, put it succinctly: "I think they pulled his name out of a hat."

Besides his lack of experience, Panetta opposes many of the CIA's anti-terror measures. He's against any kind of coerced interrogation, wants the FISA overseas wiretap law repealed, and would completely disband the rendition program whereby the CIA sends captured terror suspects to be held and interrogated in other countries.

Without those tools, which former CIA Chief George Tenet and others say have been very effective in uncovering terror plots, the agency's ability to disrupt potential attacks would be gravely damaged. In fact, it was just last February when 68 senators, some of them Democrats, voted the FISA wiretap strategy into law. For the record, Obama declined to vote on the issue.

But now Obama can't sit these things out. He must decide how to wage the war on terror, and by selecting Panetta as his point man he's taking a huge gamble. If terrorists again attacked the United States, Obama's soft intelligence-gathering approach would also come under attack. Simply put: A successful terror mission could bring President Obama down.

So why is Obama putting himself in this position? The media have convinced many people that the Bush administration degenerated into a bunch of criminal torturers, people who persecuted innocent Muslims worldwide. Now the committed-left media are demanding that Obama reject any experienced intelligence people who have supported President Bush's terror initiatives. That's why Leon Panetta was chosen, to appease the left-wing zealots.

It seems to me that common sense, not ideology, is vital in preventing terrorists from killing us. Could Panetta learn on the job to run the CIA? Certainly. Should he be in charge when we are fighting two wars and terrorist bombs are going off all over the world? No way.

As for tapping calls to suspected terrorists overseas, come on. Judges have to see the data after the fact, and federal law still applies to any abuse. A private detective named Anthony Pellicano just got a harsh prison sentence for violating the wiretap law.

It's the same thing with coerced interrogation. The president should have the power to order it when lives are in imminent danger from a terror threat. However, Panetta recently told a newspaper that all interrogations should abide by the Army Field Manual, which prohibits making any captured person "uncomfortable."

Well, that kind of restriction should make you uncomfortable. Because in the war on terror, a lack of quick intelligence could make you dead.

The following is an excerpt from a Sarah Palin interview with John Gizzi (Human Events Political Editor) on December 12, 2008.

GIZZI: For my birthday this year, friends gave me the new biography of Andrew Jackson [American Lion, by Jon Meacham]. One of the passages that reminded me of you is when the author is explaining how vilified Jackson was and says, ‘He was the first President to come from the common people, not from an educated elite, and he never ceased to see himself as their champion.’ Is that something you can identify with and do you think the fact you had a similar background to Jackson’s was a reason for some of the criticism you received from some of the punditocracy and the media in general?

PALIN: Maybe initially it is a hindrance for someone starting out. But once the electorate knows what that candidate’s convictions are and positions are, I don’t think that matters. You just prefaced your question with the fact that I didn’t come from that ‘stock’. I got my education from the University of Idaho because that’s what I could afford. It was the least-expensive school that offered the programs I knew would benefit me in my future. My Dad was a school teacher and had four kids in college at about the same time. It didn’t occur to me to ask my parents to pay for my college education. We all worked through school and paid for schools that we could afford. I still got a great education. No, I don’t come from the self-proclaimed ‘movers and shakers’ group and that’s fine with me. It’s caused me, or rather, allowed me, to work harder and pulled myself up by my bootstraps without anyone else helping me. I think it allows me to be in touch with the vast majority of Americans who are in the same position that I am. That is desiring government to be on our side and not against us. And that means, in a lot of ways, for government to get out of the way to allow our families and our businesses to keep more of what they produce, to meet our own priorities.

My own upbringing and what I am today -- with my husband, in a blue-collar job that he has -- allow me a great connection with the vast majority of Americans who live and work and are trying to raise our families.

The following is an excerpt from a Sarah Palin interview with John Gizzi (Human Events Political Editor) on December 12, 2008.

GIZZI: For my birthday this year, friends gave me the new biography of Andrew Jackson [American Lion, by Jon Meacham]. One of the passages that reminded me of you is when the author is explaining how vilified Jackson was and says, ‘He was the first President to come from the common people, not from an educated elite, and he never ceased to see himself as their champion.’ Is that something you can identify with and do you think the fact you had a similar background to Jackson’s was a reason for some of the criticism you received from some of the punditocracy and the media in general?

PALIN: Maybe initially it is a hindrance for someone starting out. But once the electorate knows what that candidate’s convictions are and positions are, I don’t think that matters. You just prefaced your question with the fact that I didn’t come from that ‘stock’. I got my education from the University of Idaho because that’s what I could afford. It was the least-expensive school that offered the programs I knew would benefit me in my future. My Dad was a school teacher and had four kids in college at about the same time. It didn’t occur to me to ask my parents to pay for my college education. We all worked through school and paid for schools that we could afford. I still got a great education. No, I don’t come from the self-proclaimed ‘movers and shakers’ group and that’s fine with me. It’s caused me, or rather, allowed me, to work harder and pulled myself up by my bootstraps without anyone else helping me. I think it allows me to be in touch with the vast majority of Americans who are in the same position that I am. That is desiring government to be on our side and not against us. And that means, in a lot of ways, for government to get out of the way to allow our families and our businesses to keep more of what they produce, to meet our own priorities.

My own upbringing and what I am today -- with my husband, in a blue-collar job that he has -- allow me a great connection with the vast majority of Americans who live and work and are trying to raise our families.

The following is an excerpt from a Sarah Palin interview with John Gizzi (Human Events Political Editor) on December 12, 2008.

GIZZI: For my birthday this year, friends gave me the new biography of Andrew Jackson [American Lion, by Jon Meacham]. One of the passages that reminded me of you is when the author is explaining how vilified Jackson was and says, ‘He was the first President to come from the common people, not from an educated elite, and he never ceased to see himself as their champion.’ Is that something you can identify with and do you think the fact you had a similar background to Jackson’s was a reason for some of the criticism you received from some of the punditocracy and the media in general?

PALIN: Maybe initially it is a hindrance for someone starting out. But once the electorate knows what that candidate’s convictions are and positions are, I don’t think that matters. You just prefaced your question with the fact that I didn’t come from that ‘stock’. I got my education from the University of Idaho because that’s what I could afford. It was the least-expensive school that offered the programs I knew would benefit me in my future. My Dad was a school teacher and had four kids in college at about the same time. It didn’t occur to me to ask my parents to pay for my college education. We all worked through school and paid for schools that we could afford. I still got a great education. No, I don’t come from the self-proclaimed ‘movers and shakers’ group and that’s fine with me. It’s caused me, or rather, allowed me, to work harder and pulled myself up by my bootstraps without anyone else helping me. I think it allows me to be in touch with the vast majority of Americans who are in the same position that I am. That is desiring government to be on our side and not against us. And that means, in a lot of ways, for government to get out of the way to allow our families and our businesses to keep more of what they produce, to meet our own priorities.

My own upbringing and what I am today -- with my husband, in a blue-collar job that he has -- allow me a great connection with the vast majority of Americans who live and work and are trying to raise our families.

The following is an excerpt from a Sarah Palin interview with John Gizzi (Human Events Political Editor) on December 12, 2008.

GIZZI: For my birthday this year, friends gave me the new biography of Andrew Jackson [American Lion, by Jon Meacham]. One of the passages that reminded me of you is when the author is explaining how vilified Jackson was and says, ‘He was the first President to come from the common people, not from an educated elite, and he never ceased to see himself as their champion.’ Is that something you can identify with and do you think the fact you had a similar background to Jackson’s was a reason for some of the criticism you received from some of the punditocracy and the media in general?

PALIN: Maybe initially it is a hindrance for someone starting out. But once the electorate knows what that candidate’s convictions are and positions are, I don’t think that matters. You just prefaced your question with the fact that I didn’t come from that ‘stock’. I got my education from the University of Idaho because that’s what I could afford. It was the least-expensive school that offered the programs I knew would benefit me in my future. My Dad was a school teacher and had four kids in college at about the same time. It didn’t occur to me to ask my parents to pay for my college education. We all worked through school and paid for schools that we could afford. I still got a great education. No, I don’t come from the self-proclaimed ‘movers and shakers’ group and that’s fine with me. It’s caused me, or rather, allowed me, to work harder and pulled myself up by my bootstraps without anyone else helping me. I think it allows me to be in touch with the vast majority of Americans who are in the same position that I am. That is desiring government to be on our side and not against us. And that means, in a lot of ways, for government to get out of the way to allow our families and our businesses to keep more of what they produce, to meet our own priorities.

My own upbringing and what I am today -- with my husband, in a blue-collar job that he has -- allow me a great connection with the vast majority of Americans who live and work and are trying to raise our families.

The following is an excerpt from a Sarah Palin interview with John Gizzi (Human Events Political Editor) on December 12, 2008.

GIZZI: For my birthday this year, friends gave me the new biography of Andrew Jackson [American Lion, by Jon Meacham]. One of the passages that reminded me of you is when the author is explaining how vilified Jackson was and says, ‘He was the first President to come from the common people, not from an educated elite, and he never ceased to see himself as their champion.’ Is that something you can identify with and do you think the fact you had a similar background to Jackson’s was a reason for some of the criticism you received from some of the punditocracy and the media in general?

PALIN: Maybe initially it is a hindrance for someone starting out. But once the electorate knows what that candidate’s convictions are and positions are, I don’t think that matters. You just prefaced your question with the fact that I didn’t come from that ‘stock’. I got my education from the University of Idaho because that’s what I could afford. It was the least-expensive school that offered the programs I knew would benefit me in my future. My Dad was a school teacher and had four kids in college at about the same time. It didn’t occur to me to ask my parents to pay for my college education. We all worked through school and paid for schools that we could afford. I still got a great education. No, I don’t come from the self-proclaimed ‘movers and shakers’ group and that’s fine with me. It’s caused me, or rather, allowed me, to work harder and pulled myself up by my bootstraps without anyone else helping me. I think it allows me to be in touch with the vast majority of Americans who are in the same position that I am. That is desiring government to be on our side and not against us. And that means, in a lot of ways, for government to get out of the way to allow our families and our businesses to keep more of what they produce, to meet our own priorities.

My own upbringing and what I am today -- with my husband, in a blue-collar job that he has -- allow me a great connection with the vast majority of Americans who live and work and are trying to raise our families.

The following is an excerpt from a Sarah Palin interview with John Gizzi (Human Events Political Editor) on December 12, 2008.

GIZZI: For my birthday this year, friends gave me the new biography of Andrew Jackson [American Lion, by Jon Meacham]. One of the passages that reminded me of you is when the author is explaining how vilified Jackson was and says, ‘He was the first President to come from the common people, not from an educated elite, and he never ceased to see himself as their champion.’ Is that something you can identify with and do you think the fact you had a similar background to Jackson’s was a reason for some of the criticism you received from some of the punditocracy and the media in general?

PALIN: Maybe initially it is a hindrance for someone starting out. But once the electorate knows what that candidate’s convictions are and positions are, I don’t think that matters. You just prefaced your question with the fact that I didn’t come from that ‘stock’. I got my education from the University of Idaho because that’s what I could afford. It was the least-expensive school that offered the programs I knew would benefit me in my future. My Dad was a school teacher and had four kids in college at about the same time. It didn’t occur to me to ask my parents to pay for my college education. We all worked through school and paid for schools that we could afford. I still got a great education. No, I don’t come from the self-proclaimed ‘movers and shakers’ group and that’s fine with me. It’s caused me, or rather, allowed me, to work harder and pulled myself up by my bootstraps without anyone else helping me. I think it allows me to be in touch with the vast majority of Americans who are in the same position that I am. That is desiring government to be on our side and not against us. And that means, in a lot of ways, for government to get out of the way to allow our families and our businesses to keep more of what they produce, to meet our own priorities.

My own upbringing and what I am today -- with my husband, in a blue-collar job that he has -- allow me a great connection with the vast majority of Americans who live and work and are trying to raise our families.

Palin says no to Oprah

UPI) - Oprah Winfrey says she would have liked to have interviewed Sarah Palin after the election, but the former U.S. vice presidential candidate wasn't interested.

"I said I would be happy to talk to Sarah Palin when the election was over … I went and tried to talk to Sarah Palin and instead she talked to Greta (Van Susteren). She talked to Matt (Lauer). She talked to Larry (King). But she didn't talk to me," Winfrey told TV's "Extra" entertainment news program.

CNN said Winfrey made the remarks in response to reports she declined to invite Palin, Alaska's governor who is a Republican, on her talk show.

Winfrey, who is a vocal supporter of Democratic President-elect Barack Obama, announced this week she plans to take "The Oprah Winfrey Show" to Washington for the week of Obama's inauguration.

Palin says no to Oprah

UPI) - Oprah Winfrey says she would have liked to have interviewed Sarah Palin after the election, but the former U.S. vice presidential candidate wasn't interested.

"I said I would be happy to talk to Sarah Palin when the election was over … I went and tried to talk to Sarah Palin and instead she talked to Greta (Van Susteren). She talked to Matt (Lauer). She talked to Larry (King). But she didn't talk to me," Winfrey told TV's "Extra" entertainment news program.

CNN said Winfrey made the remarks in response to reports she declined to invite Palin, Alaska's governor who is a Republican, on her talk show.

Winfrey, who is a vocal supporter of Democratic President-elect Barack Obama, announced this week she plans to take "The Oprah Winfrey Show" to Washington for the week of Obama's inauguration.