This is so sad. I hesitate to call his thoughts cynical because they're pretty accurate.

Still, I think it's possible that we'll see someone rise above this mess and really lead our country anew. I have no idea who that person is, but I still hold out hope. Part of me hoped that Obama would be this person. Aside from his ideological views, the things he said really offered me a genuine hope that we would see DC rise above all of the problems mentioned here under his leadership. He certainly still has time, but I don't see anything happening, at least in the near future.

Because the media is so one-sided, I don't think change relative to this problem can happen under a Republican. Maybe we'll see a teflon President like Reagan come along again soon. I don't know if his Presidency occurred under a better era of media or if he just handled it better - I'm really too young to give a personal opinion. I just know that, historically, he tended to absorb and rebuff most media attacks on his Presidency.

I saw one headline that said that she was quitting politics for good, but I'm not so sure this is true. If it is, it's quite the 180. If she is planning to come back and she's not coming back in 2010 for the Senate, she'll have to take a pretty extended break and cite raising small children as her reason. She'll have to drop out of sight for a good four years, or so, at least. I could see her returning to run against the Democrat who just won a Senate seat. That would see a return to the scene in 2013.

That last sentence is like a punch to the political gut.

Ouch.

I've pretty much thought that all my life though. The days of the citizen-politician who goes to washington, serves his time, and then goes back to the farm are over. Come to think of it...I'm not sure we ever had that. Even 150 years ago those elected to national office were already wealthy, powerful or well-known.

We are to blame. We value something called "experience" (i.e. political experience) and something else called "name recognition" (i.e. "hey at least I've heard of that guy.").

Daniel, I think the exception for Palin isn't that the spotlight has been harsh for her, but that the spotlight has been more harsh for her than for anyone else in national politics.

The point of the post is that when what has happened to her is allowed, as it has been, considering the criticism is as vast and deep as it is, we've reached a really deep point in our culture/society/media. Do you disagree with this?

the spotlight has been more harsh for her than for anyone else in national politics

the spotlight has been more harsh for her than for anyone else in national politics


I'm not so sure about that.

More harsh than anyone might be a stretch. But National Review Online had a brilliant editorial a month or so back where the writer wrote a "review" of the press coverage Palin would have gotten, had she been President and had made all the gaffes that the Obama administration has made (like scaring the bejeebers out of the NYC residents with that flyover). It was a real eye-opener into how the press has torn into Palin and fawned over Obama (as if we really needed any more eyes opened there).

Didn't JC Watts do something similar? Is he planning on running for Senate or President? I know he's got his own baggage, but I'd regard him as far more substantive than Palin......There are rumors here in Atlanta about Newt gearing up for a big push too.......he seems to be a little to damaged by his past to be taken seriously though.

I mean come on, we have the Republican party who has taken it upon itself to tell us how we should live morally putting up Palin. When it turns out her daughter is an unwed pregnant teen how could the press not jump on that?

Scott, are you saying that family is fair game?

I hear all the time about how Republicans are always telling everyone how to live morally. Meanwhile Democrats are advancing a nanny-state that is wanting to dictate all sorts of morals (in the new realm of eco and civic morals) such as what we eat, how high or low our thermostat is, etc.

Short of abortion and gay marriage, most Republicans are out of gas talking about morals. And many of them (Guilliani, for instance) are on your side on those issues.

Palin also, you might recall, got criticism for bringing Trig into the world. Some of it was veiled, but not all.

I recoil at the idea that you seem to be presenting that the family of a politician is fair game. Maybe that's not your take, but it appears that you accepted what happened to Palin with a shrug and a "well, she deserved it. Her daughter got pregnant out of wedlock, after all. The hypocrite".

I'm hoping that's not what you're saying. Politicians should be criticized for their positions and, granted, even for their own moral failings. But I don't see why suddenly it was OK to pick on Palin's kids, come up with wild conspiracy theories about their parentage, etc.

Doesn't that seem beyond the pale?

To a larger point, when I found out Bristol Palin was pregnant I immediately wondered why Sarah Palin chose the spotlight at that precise time. I wouldn't have, I don't think. I wish she had said no to McCain, in retrospect.

But she hasn't deserved the fire that's been directed at her. I hope I would feel the same were I in your shoes and Palin was a politician I didn't like or agree with.

I don't see how we can say that family is off limits. Are "attacks" irresponsible? Sure. What would you say constitutes an attack?

But we say the family is off limits all the time. The guy you voted for (to his credit) said that about Palin's family.

I'm not talking about outlawing free speech or anything like that. I'm talking about common decency. This time it was someone you don't like. Next time it will be someone you support. I think, personally, that the press needs to be shamed out of going after the personal life of a politician, where it does not intersect with their public life. I thought that was a liberal value as well.

I think the right used the things people were saying about those issues as a smoke screen to cover more legitimate issues that the news was pointing out. "Don't look at the real news. Look at what the evil liberal mainstream media is saying." That's what I heard on Fox and talk radio.

You heard conservatives say "Don't look at the real news?" Scott, as hard as it may be to believe, some of us thought that she was at least as qualified to be vice president as Joe "gaff-a-minute" Biden or Barack Obama, for that matter.

Maybe we were wrong. Maybe we're idiots. But it wasn't a "smokescreen", unless you really think we're all just full of it and we "know" that Palin's unqualified but supported her anyway because we want to wreck the country or something.

I'm absolutely disgusted with the press's treatment of Palin. You disagree and think it was par for the course and expected. We'll have to agree to disagree on that, I suppose. But I'm not going to impugn your motives or judgement for supporting Biden even though I think that was a pretty whack choice too. I assume you had good reason, and voted in good faith. It would be nice if you could assume the same about me.

As far as Democrats and the "nanny state" go, I'd say that's a fairly new development compared to the moral majority. Personally I don't think either end of that spectrum is good.

I don't either.

The nanny-state dreams of many liberals are by no means new, though. A dozen years ago our current SecState wrote a book "It takes a village". As P.J. O'Rourke aptly pointed out, the village is the Government.

The child is you and me.

And, the "moral majority" is SO 1987 :-)

Good talk, Scott. We disagree, but thanks for engaging me on this.

And I hope that the parties can start fighting with more honor. It seems the knee-jerk reaction when it comes to the opposition, politically, is to dispatch operatives to dig up dirt, whether they be dispatched to Wasilla or Chicago. That's not good for our country's political health.

But it works. In Palin's case, it worked in spades. So we'll see more of it, unless we start speaking out against it.

If Obama said that the families were off limits as far as reporting on them is concerned then I don't know that I can agree with him. If he said they were off limits in terms of political attack ads or as part of mud slinging then I agree, they should be.

Question though, a man's family says a lot about him doesn't it? Aren't we to examine the lives of the men that are to be our leaders? Again I'm not excusing the bad reporting or attacks that were waged against her and her family any more than you would excuse the same sort of attacks leveled against Obama or his wife and children. And didn't Michelle suffer from similar attacks on her character? I'm just saying there's no way we can't look at a politician's family. They should be reported on responsibly.

I heard Conservative pundits/commentators/"reporters" dismiss the questions about her experience, focusing instead on the "liberal media bias" and the attacks on Palin's family. So yes in that sense I did hear them saying "ignore the real news" if not in those precise words. Now just because they said that doesn't mean every conservative bought it, just like not every liberal believes every word that falls from Olbermann's mouth. I give you, most of you at any rate more credit than that.

I'm sure that you thought she was qualified and I don't understand that any more than I guess you'd understand why I think Obama/Biden were the right men for the job. No one here that I've met is thoughtless or an idiot. We just disagree and thankfully can do so respectfully.

I suppose the main problem I have with what you're saying is that you say things about "the press" as though every journalist is part of the problem or that there is some wide ranging liberal bias. Are some news outlets biased? Certainly. Are there statistics that show that a majority of reporters are democrats? I've seen them, I just give most of them the benefit of the doubt and take everything any reporter says with a grain of slat.

I'm interested in what "worked in spades". Are you blaming the attacks (again according to the Pew report, the personal attacks were the minority of negative reporting) for her/their loss?

I too am glad that we can engage respectfully and I feel welcome in places like this, among brothers whom I might not agree with, but who treat me as a brother regardless. Hopefully I treat you half as well.

Thanks Scott,

Yes, of course I think families can be reported on. But would you not agree that questioning, for instance, whether SP was actually the mother of Trig was a bit out of the norm?

Regarding the Palins: yes, one daughter got pregnant out of wedlock. But overall they seem like a splendid family. Mom and Dad are active, seem to love each other. The kids showed remarkable poise in the national spotlight. They all seemed to love each other. So if that's a commentary on Sarah Palin, I think it's a pretty good one.

And didn't Michelle suffer from similar attacks on her character? I'm just saying there's no way we can't look at a politician's family. They should be reported on responsibly.

She did. It is a bit different when we're talking about the first lady. The role of FLOTUS is a more or less official one - she has a staff, offices in the WH, etc. But decency must reign.

I suppose the main problem I have with what you're saying is that you say things about "the press" as though every journalist is part of the problem or that there is some wide ranging liberal bias.

I didn't intend to generalize like that, if that's the way it came across, I apologize.

I do, however, think that there is quite a bit of liberal bias in the media. Although I've been in enough "yes there is"/"no there's not" arguments to know it's not worth us wasting our time on it. :-)

I'm interested in what "worked in spades". Are you blaming the attacks (again according to the Pew report, the personal attacks were the minority of negative reporting) for her/their loss?

No, I'm not blaming the McCain loss on them (although, in politics, every little edge helps or hurts).

I think the personal attacks were just low-class. And, for the record, I think most of them were engaged in by the meta-press - not necessarily mainstream reporters (although there was some of that) - more by the opinion press. And everyone's entitled to an opinion. To reiterate, I'm not saying free speech should be curtailed.

Here's how I break it down: If you (not you, scott, but a generic "you") call yourself a "journalist", you need to report news. This is what Helen Thomas was on about the other day - the press needs to be free to report news, not parrot the party line. A journalist should try their best to remain unbiased, even if they really, really disagree with the policies they are reporting on.

If you call yourself an opinion journalist/pundit, of course we want your opinion. But if your opinion consists of snarky/hateful words toward the children/infant of a politician you don't like, then I'll have an opinion of you, Mr. Opinion Journalist. And my opinion will be that you suck and you have no decency.

Not that anyone will care what I think :-)

Finally - if you are a party operative and your first reaction whenever someone stands against your candidate is to investigate them (especially when they are private citizens), then you're hanging yourself on your own petard, because you're just assuring that the other side will do the same thing to you. And we all go down with that ship.

National Review Online had a brilliant editorial a month or so back where the writer wrote a "review" of the press coverage Palin would have gotten, had she been President

This brilliant piece of satire is here if anyone is interested.

Vitriolic satires from conservative publications don't prove anything about liberal media bias.

Do vitriolic, sarcastic columns from liberal pundits prove anything about Sarah Palin, then?

No. I'm not a liberal and I don't hate Sarah Palin. My point wasn't about conservative media in general, just that satires and hypotheticals don't prove anything when it comes to who gets the most junk thrown at them by the media.

I figured these columns would be enjoyed by a few commenters who think kind of like I do, and I figured they would offer a new perspective to those trying to make up their minds. And that's really what satire, as opposed to rank sarcasm, is about -- a perspective delivered up with biting humor.

They were enjoyed by me, too. By the tone of one of your comments (#24), it sounded as if you were offering it up as evidence in your debate with Scott. I probably just misread it, though.

How quickly we forget. Do you not remmber the pictures of Chelsea Clinton all falling down drunk and the press let it slide. Even the "other side" said that it was off limits. THere were not even any "comedians" jumping on that one. it sure would have been easy.