This comment was flagged for review.

would someone out there care to explain this to me? And to whoever flagged this comment, grow up, or at the very least, let me know what you found so objectionable.

I enjoy watching slow-moving train wrecks as much as the next guy, but even I am getting pretty tired of the All-Palin-All-The-Time media coverage. And I got fully sick and tired of the whole birther ridiculousness a while ago.

But of course, that's just me. Alas.

The American Public loves a Spectacle, and Palin never fails to provide the cable and blog punditry trainloads of red meat to satisfy. No doubt “we” will still be gabbing about the latest Palin triumph/disaster/discussion/whatever tomorrow and on the next day, the next week, the next month, and I suspect the next year as well. And just as much as the American Public loves a Spectacle, they love a Conspiracy Theory as well. I suspect the whole Birther nonsense will join the pantheon of “great” American conspiracies, right next to the JFK murder, 9/11 conspiracies, and Who Shot J.R.

So, I repeat: ****sigh***

I strongly suspect Pres. Obama was born in Hawaii. Birther arguments are not persuasive, and the newspaper announcement of the birth was persuasive. However, as in Climategate: why must I rely on opinion and assurances? Why am I not presented with THE proof? That “Birth Certificate lite” was as unsatisfying as lite beer, and was not legally persuasive.

mgardener,
Palin is doing interview after interview during her book tour. She is being questioned, and she is answering – just as she answered the question about the Birth Certificate, instead of ducking it.

JSpencer,
Maybe she is an interesting American story. An American original. A political Elvis. Or, a political Elvis careening drunkly down the road, if that is your preferred imagery. Maybe the interest in her is partially tied to conservatives' interest in her, but not totally tied to that. Maybe she is interesting in her own right – and “own right” is pregnant with meaning (see what I did there?), as Palin speaks conservative principles more plainly, more overtly, than any other serious potential Repub. candidates. The rest of the potentials are smoother, more modulated, more likely to throw the left a soothing bone. Palin rears back and punches liberal doctrine right between the eyes. This, also, is part of the fascination with her. There is no other serious potential Repub candidate who consistently and overtly does this.

I don't know which is more mystifying – why anyone would support someone like Palin in the first place or why the left is so fascinated by her and her family.

I share your mystification with regard to the first question, but the second is easily explained. Lest we forget, Palin was the enthusiastically recieved pick for VP of the US of A in the 2008 election. Since then she has been the darling of people on the right who might most politely be described as “overly enthusiastic”. She is also loved by certain GOP standard bearers in the media who the party seems to be willing to let speak for them, one of who several republicans have even gone so far as to apologize to after accidently getting up on their hind legs and having the temerity to criticize. I guess maybe there is suffcient reason for the left to find her a little fascinating.

What does this really say? How about that she did not support McCain and his vision for the US? What other policies of his was she not willing to support or did not agree with, but went along with just to be VP?
Is this just sour grapes? I don't think so. Palin has some peculiar ideas.
She is a coward for posting them on face Book where she can neither be questioned nor explain anything.

BUT the Right is not innocent here. There are segments of the Right that play up Sarah Palin's “down home regular-ness” (real or fake) incessantly. They lift her up as the champion of regular folks. She has been elevated to the de-facto REAL AMERICAN by certain segments of the Right. And they damn sure going to make you know about it.

So the Left and Right are both guilty of Palin fascination. And guess what? The fascination will continue. For better or for worse. Pecan pie, anyone?? It's made Southern style!

Great point. I don't know which is more mystifying – why anyone would support someone like Palin in the first place or why the left is so fascinated by her and her family.

JG isn't the creator of the Sarah Palin “phenomenon”, and debunking her is a step toward the UNdumbing of America.

Who is the person at TMV continually bemoaning the dumbing down of political discourse and who is the person at TMV continually searching the blogosphere for anything related to Sarah Palin?

All the pointed fingers should be bent 180 degrees.

It might be helpful to add the fact that Andrew Sullivan lied about this issue to your repetoire.

My repetoire? I think Sullivan can manage his silliness on his own. I'm not sure what you're talking about, but based on some of the posts at your blog it seems reason may not be a strong suit. Palin is a dolt and now you're just mad because she's trying to throw you and your crowd under the bus. Face it, you just need to find another walking carnival to cheer for.

Sarah “The Barracuda” To Talk Radio Host Rusty Humphries In Interview: Show Me The Obama Birth Certificate
She’s polling high in popularity surveys, she’s got a hot new bestseller called “Going Rogue”, she’s no…

Also, I have a challenge for Joe Gandelman: why does Ed Morrissey think Hawaiian state law is a “birther theory”? Cap'n Ed falsely stated that HI only holds certs for those born in HI, when in fact HI has had a law on the books since 1981 allowing those born outside the state to obtain HI certs.

That is, Ed Morrissey made a false claim. When I asked him to post a correction, he just said he didn't want to discuss “Birther theories”.

Could Joe Gandelman ask Cap'n Ed to post a correction and stop misleading people?

Her in-context response amounted to an assertion that President Obama's background ought have been investigated, and still ought be investigated. Her in-context response was about the McCain Campaign's failure to adequately focus on issues in Sen. Obama's background. Here's the conversation preceding, the quote in your post above:

6:45
Humphries: “You really seem unaffected by this tremendous media scrutiny you've been under. Why have you been so unaffected? Or, are you just good at playing it cool?”

Palin discusses “political shots my family has taken”, and how Trig's circumstances and Track's circumstances have helped her: “I can blow off a bunch of the bullcrap that goes on in the political arena, b/c of these things that God has allowed me to go through that, again, keep it in perspective.”

7:38
Humphries: “You have a daily Thanksgiving perspective, almost?”

Palin: “Yeah, that's right on.”

7:45
Humphries: “One if the questions Jason asks is 'Would you make the birth certificate an issue if you ran?'”

Palin: “I think the PUBLIC, rightfully, is still making it an issue. I don’t have a problem with that. I don’t know if I would have to bother to make it an issue, because I think that members of the electorate still want answers,” she replied.

[my note: Palin is not giving an opinion, but is merely asserting the public's right to investigate and to gain knowledge about POTUS candidates]

“Do you think it’s a fair question to be looking at?” Humphries persisted.

“I think it’s a fair question

[my note: of course it's a fair question! I think Obama was born in Hawaii, and I absolutely think its fair to demand proof of his legal qualification for the office]

, just like I think past association and past voting records — all of that is fair game,” Palin said. “The McCain-Palin campaign didn’t do a good enough job in that area.””

Verdict: tempest in teapot. Palin's response was reasonable. Smearing her over this, in future, is either dishonest or misguided.

Verdict #2: Smearing her, in future, will be made more difficult by the “boy who cried wolf” dynamic of past smears against her.