Regarding Palin and the coverage of her, I do think some of it has gotten too personal. I very rarely comment on things like that myself, but I wouldn't exactly call it extraordinary. Granted, the “baby switching” rumor was pretty over the top, but it did turn out there actually was a little bit of “there” there (namely, the daughter really was pregnant, just not with Trig).

As for the other stuff on Palin, what do you expect, Mr. Moran? The McCain campaign hung her out there last Friday with not so much as a single page of biography. The press was working in a vacuum on a very interesting surprise, and in a very compressed time frame. Given the scenario, it's hardly surprising that some of the reporting has been intense, rushed, and sometimes exaggerated. There's been some pretty ridiculous stuff reported about Obama too, but over a longer period of time. And I think we all know there will be more.

I don't know much about you, Mr. Moran. I've read a couple of your articles and I thought they were okay. I'm not very familiar with Mr. Dibble either. But I found your little tirade here rather out of line. You take Dibble to task for what you “consider unfair criticism and not putting the other under the same microscope.” You're entitled to your opinion. But in a relative sense, perhaps even in an objective sense, it's hard to call the criticism unfair. Some of it may not be entirely accurate, but then again some of Palin's claims about herself clearly aren't. And that compounds the problem. And as for your suggestion that Mr. Dibble should have extended his column into a tome by giving Joe Biden equal time is patently ridiculous.

Exactly! This has been an amazingly counterproductive attack line.

It has united the GOP, raised money and Palin's national profile, and driven conservatives who would otherwise balk at Palin into grudgingly defending her.

When the media's near-obsessive focus on Palin, sex and babies . . . the general public is outraged in sympathy . . . and the McCain team can easily swat away more penetrating criticism.

Palin has been in the public eye for less than 2 weeks. By necessity, the media scrambling to find out everything it can about someone who might be the next president of the United States in a few short months. That's the media's job.

We live in a democracy, and the citizens are owed a chance to see the unscripted Palin. Otherwise we should assume the worse.

I respect most of the writers who appear on this site. But if someone presents himself as even handed as Mr. Dibbell was attempting to do while assailing one candidate with what I consider unfair criticism and not putting the other under the same microscope, I believe that is the definition of hypocrisy – not the criticism itself but the manner in which the writer attempts to disguise their partisanship.

Republican digs at the media were not about questions regarding her qualifications but the extraordinary smearing of Palin and her family with demonstrably false accusations and half baked charges of impropriety. Is the media paying half the attention to Biden's family connections with MBNA including the lavish and improper favors given he and his by executives of the credit card giant? The microscopic scrutiny paid to Palin and her record compared to Biden is outrageously unfair and should have been mentioned as the true justification for GOP attacks on the media.

Trying to hide one's partisanship behind a veil of ostensible fairness is why I referred to Mr. Dibbell as a hypocrite. He raises some good points about Palin and the McCain campaign's reluctance to expose her to probing questions from the media. But that doesn't excuse his penning a hit piece disguised as analysis.

The knuckleheaded focus on things like who gave birth to their youngest baby doesn't make anyone look serious.

It just gives Republican partisans an excuse to shout down serious questions.

Your links and rebuttal are greatly welcome and your writing elsewhere is admired. FYI people who look at something can reach a conclusion. — and it is an honorable process where they just see things differently. Look at polls and you will see moderates and independents divided. Moderate Republicans may not like the Palin pick. That is what they may conclude based on how they process information. But that doesn't make them biased or hypocrites because they see things differently — just as you are not a biased hypocrite if you see it differently from them. Everyone's take is welcome and it is respected./

But being an executive is a helluva lot different than being a legislator. Biden has zero executive experience and thus “assailable” qualifications for president. Only a rank partisan would say otherwise.

So, you would argue that Palin was qualified to be president the day after she took office as mayor of Wasilla?

Is it not true that at that point she had more executive experience than McCain, Obama and Biden have even now?

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2008/08/23/politic...

And I would argue that his “qualifications” to be president are certainly assailable. If you believe longetivity in Washington allows for some kind of osmosis where knowledge of how to be president sort of seeps in through the pores of super annuated senators like Biden, then of course you believe him to be “qualified.”

But being an executive is a helluva lot different than being a legislator. Biden has zero executive experience and thus “assailable” qualifications for president. Only a rank partisan would say otherwise.

There is only one thing that makes me angrier than unfair attacks on candidates – including the ones you mention on Obama. And that is hypocrites like you pretending to be even handed only to reveal yourself as partisan as any employee of the DNC.

I trust that, should Senator Obama win the Presidency, and he and Michelle and their children are onstage — usually at a late hour in the evening — proudly watching their father in one of the most important moments in his life . . . you will write again criticizing the Obamas for their awful parenting.

It is good that Michelle Obama never had her children onstage in Denver. The criticism from concerned Democrats would have been awful . . . oh, wait . . . .

So McCain and Obama have been asked to provide medical records to prove that their children are actually THEIR children, and not the child of someone else?

Have McCain, Biden and Obama been asked — by Sally Quinn in a national publication — to prove to the American public that they can be both parents and political leaders?

Jeremy, you have focused on the issues and Palin's lack of qualifications. This is an excellent and appropriate focus.

But much of the backlash against the media circus over its grilling Palin has to do with the personal (and sexist) nature of much of the questioning.

I saw yesterday reporters chasing down rumors about a neighbor of Palin sealing his divorce records. Could Palin have been his secret lover? (Nope, he just wanted privacy from the media).

A lot of Democrats here at TMV defended the media's refusal to investigate rumors of Edwards' affair. It is purely a personal, family matter, they said.

I wrote here at TMV a while back criticizing conservative attacks on Obama using his children.

Oddly, there has been little comment or outrage about the media pursuing every single rumor of infidelity or extramarital activity on Palin's part. It is open season on Palin's family.

Jeremy, again, you focus on the real issue of qualifications, ethics etc. As ChrisWWW and GeorgeSorwell note, these are valid and important questions.

But the media's focus in its pursuit of Palin has been heavily…and tackily…personal.

How many are there now, like a thousand?

She won't tip the election one way or the other. Focus on something else..before it's too late..

“Gov. Sarah Palin won’t submit to a formal interview anytime soon. She may take some questions from local news entities in Alaska, but until she’s ready — and until she’s comfortable — which might not be for a long while — the media will have to wait. “

If Sarah Palin is not ready/comfortable to even take questions from the American people (through the press), “for a long while,” how can we expect her to be ready to step into the shoes of the President–if necessary–come January?

One can fiirehose facts about domestic and foreign affairs into Sarah's brain (she seems inteligent enough)–we all know that McCain's staff is doing exactly that– but one can not firehose experience and judgment into her person.

Interesting how all this will play out.

The media blackout is a tacit admission that she is inexperienced, and will be unable to defuse the scandals surrounding her in Alaska.

McCain and her have repeatedly lied about her “maverick” credentials with regards to the Bridge to Nowhere and her support for Ted Stevens and earmarks.

Palin is stonewalling the bipartisan investigation into the troopergate scandal.

McCain has often spoken of open government (he even mentioned it in his acceptance speech) and the virtues of so-called “straight talk.” What happened to all that Mr. McCain?