Archive for ‘media bias’

August 9, 2011


REASON: “President Obama’s approval ratings are plummeting along with the Dow, and he’s just lost his stare-down with House Speaker John Boehner while presiding over a historic downgrade of U.S. credit, writes Gene Healy. Even so, Obamaphiles in the intelligentsia are finding it hard to fall out of love with “the One.” From Esquire to Mother Jones, really smart people are proving to be stupidly good at defending a president who doesn’t deserve it.

[Read Gene Healy’s “Obamaphiles Still Longing for Camelot” at]

Tags: ,
August 2, 2011

JONAH GOLDBERG TO MSM: “Go to Hell. All of you.”

GOLDBERG: “So flashforward to this week. Tom Friedman — who knows a bit about Hezbollah — calls the tea partiers the “Hezbollah faction” of the GOP bent on taking the country on a “suicide mission.” All over the place, conservative Republicans are “hostage takers” and “terrorists,” “terrorists” and “traitors.” They want to “end life as we know it on this planet,” says Nancy Pelosi. They are betraying the Founders, too. Chris Matthews all but signs up for the “Make an Ass of Yourself” contest at the State Fair. Joe Nocera writes today that “the Tea Party Republicans can put aside their suicide vests.” Lord knows what Krugman and Olbermann have said.

Then last night, on the very day Gabby Giffords heroically returns to cast her first vote since that tragic attack seven months ago, the vice president of the United States calls the Republican party a bunch of terrorists.

[Read more of Jonah Goldberg’s “To Hell with You People ” at the National Review Online].

July 26, 2011

REASON: Barton Hinkle on the MSM’s Tea Party coverage Double Standard

HINKLE: “...those opposed to raising the debt ceiling—or willing to do so in exchange for a slowdown in the rate of government growth—are “obstreperous,” “flatly and dangerously wrong,” and “not interested in governing.” (These are all quotes from major media organs, not obscure blogs.) They’re “crazy” proponents of a “dangerous delusion”—”ridiculous,” “extremist,” “ultraorthodox tax haters,” players of “ideological games,” “totally unrealistic,” authors of “madness,” etc. etc. Hey, what happened to people of conviction? Aren’t the Tea Partiers “firebrands”? Isn’t there little doubt where their hearts lie? Rather than praise Tea Partiers as passionate advocates for their beliefs, many in the press have taken to marginalizing them with mean-spirited attacks on their sanity.

At this point it might be useful to clarify precisely what the dispute concerns. The question is not whether the federal government should grow. As Reason’s Nick Gillespie pointed out a few days ago, nearly nobody in Washington has actually proposed shrinking the leviathan. To the contrary, the dispute is whether to raise federal spending from the current $3.8 trillion to $4.7 trillion over the next decade (the Paul Ryan plan)—or to $5.7 trillion (the Obama plan).
Bear in mind that those increases would come on top of one of the fastest expansions of federal spending in U.S. history. When President Obama took office, the budget stood at $2.9 trillion. Two. Point. Nine. Spending has risen 30 percent in the past three years.

[Read Barton Hinkle’s “Is the Tea Party Crazy or Just Nuts?” at]

July 3, 2011


More and more I get the feeling that the national media’s understanding of American history is based entirely on some mythic and superficial elementary school frame of reference, completely absence of detail, nuance, and understanding.

If Sarah Palin, for example, said, ‘Well, of course, as we know, George Washington didn’t actually cut down a cherry tree. That was an invented anecdote. ‘The front page headline would be: “Palin Doesn’t Know Her History (Again!): Claims Washington Cutting Down Cherry Tree is a Myth”. MSNBC would run the story all day: How Can Palin Be Trusted to Lead Our Country When She Doesn’t Even Know Basic Stuff Like George Washington Cutting Down the Cherry Tree. Bill Maher’s HBO show: “Can you believe this woman? Read a book!” he’d yell. “She doesn’t even know basic history that all elementary school kids know!”

On and on and on…

Point being, there’s a disconnect between the people who bother to read a book or recite history that they’ve learned — information that may not be so known to the public at large — and the mainstream press who seem to rely on a very shallow kindergarten-like knowledge base. It’s tiresome to do these stories where we find out a week later, Oh, hey! Palin/Bachmann was actually kind of right and if we’d bothered to read a book, we’d know this (and now we’re going to sit here with our tail between our legs and not even bother to give them credit! We’re just going to continue maligning these women, pushing the narrative that the conservative female is a flaky ditz, and not even bother passing a critical eye at our own Captain Awesome at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.)

In other words, Palin and Bachmann are being punished because many Americans — including the one’s with nightly news shows — have gone through the U.S. public education system. Palin and Bachmann are getting flogged by people who are probably unaware of what the federalist papers are. Yet these are the same people who rip on Palin and Bachmann for not knowing their history.

From the Washington Times a compilation of quotes on what the founders thought of slavery at the time:

“There is not a man living who wishes more sincerely than I do, to see a plan adopted for the abolition of it.”

George Washington, letter to Robert Morris, April 12, 1786

“Every measure of prudence, therefore, ought to be assumed for the eventual total extirpation of slavery from the United States. … I have, throughout my whole life, held the practice of slavery in … abhorrence.”

John Adams, letter to Robert Evans, June 8, 1819

“It is much to be wished that slavery may be abolished. The honour of the States, as well as justice and humanity, in my opinion, loudly call upon them to emancipate these unhappy people. To contend for our own liberty, and to deny that blessing to others, involves an inconsistency not to be excused.”

John Jay, letter to R. Lushington, March 15, 1786

“I believe a time will come when an opportunity will be offered to abolish this lamentable evil.”

Patrick Henry, letter to Robert Pleasants, Jan. 18, 1773

[Please READ MORE of “Bachman was right” at the Washington Times]

July 2, 2011

RED EYE FLASHBACK: Red Eye crew rips on Media Matters, Maddow’s Tea Bagging fetish, and Olbermann

oh, the teabagging jokes of yesteryear…

July 2, 2011

RED EYE FLASHBACK: The Sequel — Red Eye Crew Skewers Garofalo (Tea Parties are about: “Hating a black man”, “Racism straight up”, “Tea bagging rednecks”) & Olby

July 2, 2011

RED EYE FLASHBACK: Red Eye Crew Rips Garofalo and Olbermann

June 30, 2011

CHRIS MATTHEWS: “I ADMIT THERE’S A MAINSTREAM MEDIA, SORT OF FAVORITE” — Hardball anchor says media pulled for Cuomo, Powell, and McCain (for awhile)

On Hardball Chris Matthews just admitted that the American Press plays favorites. According to Matthews, the MSM had crushes on Mario Cuomo, Colin Powell, and John McCain. Presumably, the McCain affair ended when Matthews and the Journolisters found a tingle thrill up their leg for a younger congressman from Illinois.

Chris Matthews (“Hardball” on 6/30/2011): (underline and italics added for emphasis)

“It seems to me over the years the media has been falling in love with – and you’ve been correct – people like me have always loved Mario Cuomo. We thought he was a true believer. A really good, progressive liberal guy.  And a good man. A good man. And then we all fell for Colin Powell. A lot of us. We thought Colin Powell would be great. None of these guys go anywhere. And then we all were — for awhile there — for John McCain.

Matthews continues, “I’ll admit there’s a mainstream media, sort of favorite at the time — but they never win.” During the crosstalk Matthews laughs and says, “Well, Obama! Obama won.”

It goes without saying that the media and their penchant for falling in and out love is a problem. The MSM needs to be the physician administering an exam in a calm, professional manner. Not fondling the hell out of one patient, and administering an unnecessary rectal exam on the other. It’s called being a professional.

NOTE: Matthews admits the MSM was rooting for a progressive liberal. Then he switches to Colin Powell who is obviously not a progressive liberal. So why root for him then? He’s a good man and he’s got military credentials, but I suspect liberals like Chris Matthews root for Colin Powell partly for the same reason someone like Barack Obama caught their eye to begin with. They want the big racial story. Wouldn’t it be great if…? Wouldn’t it be historic if…? Matthews and his ilk look at the optics and never wonder about policy and principles (I assure you Colin Powell and Mario Cuomo are quite different in this regard and it would be inconsistent to support both). Why did they like McCain? Because he ripped on his party I suppose, and that held some appeal for the MSM (for awhile there).

I think Matthews catches himself before he says, ‘I admit there’s a mainstream media bias.’ He knows he can’t say bias. And then he tries justifying his mistake by basically saying: well, they never win, so who cares if there’s a MSM bias anyway?

Someone might want to forward this to Mr. Jon Stewart to address his discussion with Chris Wallace. Stewart’s view of so-called Left bias in a nutshell:

uhh, yeah, MSNBC sort of leans angles crouches to the slightly  ever-so slightly left not right of center. hey look! i’m making a funny face!

June 30, 2011


Note some of the similarities in how the MSM went after Palin and Bachmann.

1. Mountain out of a molehill: Take little side-issues no one cares about (or should care about) and magnify them until they scare away independent voters. Manufacture the appearance of impropriety.

With Palin the media poured over her every word, every clumsy phrasing, every stammer. They went through all of her language and they isolated a few subjects to pick on. Examples, the troopergate issue, the “book banning” non-issue, her characterization of the role of the vice president, as well as the tanning bed, and the amount of money the RNC allowed her to spend on her wardrobe, and all the fantastical garbage regarding the birth of Palin’s baby. Three years later, has anything come of these issues? No. But at the time in ’08, whenever the anchors discussed these topics they used their serious Edward R. Murrow news voice, as if they’d just stumbled upon Watergate, Part Deux.

(In the case of Charlie Gibson’s question to Palin about the Bush doctrine, Gibson asked an unfair question. Who knew there was an official Bush doctrine that had been outlined and critiqued by historians for decades? Krauthammer didn’t even know what the hell Gibson was talking about. Apparently Gibson just meant neoconservatism. In any event, it made Palin, to the public at large, look unsure of herself and gave the appearance of incompetence.

In the case of the Russia from her house comment, that wasn’t something that Palin even said. But the Fey caricature became so embedded in the mind of the public (thanks in no small part to the MSM replaying it as if was something Palin had in fact uttered), that, for all intents and purposes, it became fact that she’d said it.)

For Bachmann, the press is already trying to trip her up on all these comments about the Founding Fathers, is Barack Obama un-American, John Wayne (?!?). The John Wayne issue is a great example. How does that little blip of a non-issue take up so much air time in the mainstream press? But it does because they made it so. It serves no other purpose but to give the appearance that Bachmann is incompetent. How do you go Defcon1 on the John Wayne bit, but then have no comment on Obama not knowing how old one of his daughters is?

The press is already aware that Bachmann is craftier than Palin was in 2008 at handling questions. They know she can handle herself. So the point won’t be to catch her in a question they think she won’t know the answer to. Their objective will be to focus on questions the press can harp on and blow out of proportion. They’ll focus on Tea Party areas, Obama’s background, the abortion issue, gays, and also try to get her to talk about socialism. Any topic that makes her look like a right wing radical (refer to Rand Paul’s troubles with MSNBC). Anything, as long as they avoid substantive discussions about the economy (i.e. Obama’s glaring weakness).

It’ll be interesting to see how they attack her on the abortion or even the gay marriage issue given her principled position on the rights of the states to determine their laws (even if they run contrary to her own beliefs).

They’ll certainly go after her on details and particulars. Some part of the Constitution or the Bill of Rights.  Refer to Palin’s recent media drama over the Paul Revere issue. The truth is, most MSM reporters and journalists don’t seem to have as nuanced an understanding of their history as they should. They themselves don’t know the difference between myth and reality, so how they can judge a GOP candidate’s knowledge of history. My fear is that all this great discussion about nuance and details from the past will only serve to make candidates less willing to have a dialogue about them. If Obama trips on important facts and details, it’ll be swept under the rug. If Bachmann messes up on something trivial, it’ll be front and center and it will be overhyped until apolitical Americans simply assume out of shear exhaustion that she doesn’t know anything.

2. The specter of shady dealings: Take some part of the GOP candidate’s past and imply nefarious intent. Cover the story to make it look like the candidate is hiding something even if she is being forthright and transparent.

The other thing the media attempted to do with Palin was stain her with what they portrayed to be the seemingly serious promise of scandal and corruption from her tenure as Governor of Alaska. None of these issues came to anything. There was Troopergate, there was Todd Palin’s role in some administrative tasks, etc. etc. Has anything stuck? Has she been found guilty of anything?

At least with the Clinton’s where there was smoke there actually was a huge forest fire! Whitewater (someone went to jail), Travelgate, Monica, Gennifer Flowers, Juanita Broderick, etc. If there was the whiff of impropriety in the Clinton administration, chances were Billy was being a bad, bad boy.

Palin and Bachmann? Not so much.

(I’m going to guarantee there’s going to be some kind of investigation regarding Bachmann’s 23 foster kids. The legitimacy of the paper work, any information on each child as a reflection on Michelle Bachmann’s worth as a President. And look for this Minnesota RNC guy, and ex-Bachmann staffer, Ron Carey, to be the press’s new favorite interview and character witness over the next few months. How has he not already showed up on CNN or MSNBC??)

Already the media is going into “serious investigative journalist” mode with these stories about how Bachmann’s husband accepted Medicare payments at his clinic. (Oh, the horror! Bachmann shouldn’t be accepting any form of payment for services rendered!). What’s the endgame of this story? To prove that Bachmann is a hypocrite about her desire to decrease the scope of government?? So her husband shouldn’t accept Medicare payments?

Where is the big  five-part investigation on Michelle Obama’s Urban Health Initiative, aka Michele Obama’s role in a shady patient dumping scandal? Where’s Anderson Cooper, Keepin’ ‘Em Honest? Where’s Diane and George with the hard-hitting investigation? Or are they just outsourcing Democrat scandals to the National Enquirer as they did with the John Edwards’ love child? Still waiting for ABC’s hard-hitting exposes on criminal mobster and convict, Tony Rezko, and that land deal with Obama in Chicago.

June 18, 2011


In Bill Keller’s little excuse for a blog, otherwise known as a New York Times op-ed, the former editor gives one of the sadder and more pathetic missives you’ll ever read in the world of pseudo-journalism. And when I say sad and pathetic, I mean that genuinely. This is a defeated man crying uncle because little, uneducated Sarah Palin — nemesis to all intellectuals and faculty academics — has checkmated him and his staff of credentialed dunces once too often.

If the 2012 election were held in the newsrooms of America and pitted Sarah Palin against Barack Obama, I doubt Palin would get 10 percent of the vote.

Seeing as how she likely would get anywhere from 30-40+% (at worst) in an actual election matchup against Obama, what does that say about the state of the current newsroom in America?

The evidence of Palin’s scorn for what she calls the lamestream media is abundant, but I was struck by the gratuitous quality of one remark she tossed off during that Rolling Thunder rally in Washington the Sunday before Memorial Day. When an NPR reporter asked what had brought her to the event, she replied, “It is our vets who we owe our freedom — not the politician, not the reporter — it is our vets, so that’s why we’re here.”

There is, I suppose, a gracious way to translate her comments. She might have meant to convey something along the lines of: “I’m sincerely humbled by the sacrifice our veterans have made to defend the freedoms I enjoy in my capacity as a politician and Fox News media pundit.” But I think we all know she meant nothing of the kind.

No, actually we don’t know that. And this is part of the problem with Lefty Liberal Whackadoos covering conservatives and libertarians. It’s a little thing from college undergrad called deconstructionism. Sometimes when normal, everyday Americans speaketh, they literally mean exactly what they say. I know, I know: you, Bill Keller, don’t give two caffe latte’s about U.S. veterans or the military. You despise them. We get it. And you think all human beings couldn’t possibly be serious when they praise the military. They’re just giving lip-service according to your world view. When she said that politicians and reporters were not directly responsible for our freedoms in the direct hands-on way that the U.S. military is, it was not an indictment of pols or the stenographers who report on the pols. But of course everything is about you, isn’t it Bill?

“I’ll let the politicians stick up for themselves; I do hope they’ll ask if her contempt applies to the politicians who wrote that Constitution our worthy veterans swore to defend.

Now you’re just not even making any damn sense. You seriously need an editor to go over this stuff. Where in Palin’s statement do you find an enmity toward politicians? What are you even talking about, Billy-boy? Are you writing this from Jerry Maguire’s hotel room, under the blankets??

But I do not think Palin intended her remark simply as a cheap applause line; after all, at that moment she was not pandering from a Tea Party stage but speaking to an audience of NPR listeners, who I’m pretty sure have a less malign view of the press. No, her remark was automatic, like acid reflux.

Automatic like acid reflux? That doesn’t even make any sense.What you meant to say is, “No, her remark was automatic, like the Babinski reflex.” Or “No, her remark was automatic, like a facial tic.” Those responses, on top of making intuitive sense, are also medically consistent with your point. Acid reflux is not automatic per se. There’s a chronic wear and tear process on the gastro-esophageal junction that allows acid to leak back up into the esophagus.  I’m guessing somehow you’re confusing reflux with reflexive? Is that what you’re going for?? You know, Bill, I have a lot of respect for what you attempt to do at your job. But, for an educated, elite Pomona grad: you’re kind of a fuckin’ moron. And, I mean that respectfully.

So, Mr. Keller goes on and on about Palin’s disdain for the media. Is this really worthy of the op-ed column of a once proud newspaper? Politicians having an adversarial relationship with the people who cover them ( at 11)? No one really cares about the New York Times not getting along with Sarah Palin. But the timing is unusual coming a couple of weeks after Palin’s Memorial Day media blitz when she completely pwned, used n’ abused, and played the mainstream press. Keller even acknowledges this (underline and bold added for emphasis): “The press, I think, returns her antipathy in part because she makes us feel ridiculous.

And I suspect the media embarrassment Keller and the entire MSM feel is what this entire silly and sad op-ed is truly about: Sarah Palin kicked our ass, wah! wah! wah! I can only imagine, in the weeks after Palin’s bus tours and Harley rides when she made the MSM grab their ankles and touch toes, Keller was cornered at Upper West Side dinner parties and confronted by haughty members of his crusty peer group: Sarah Palin made us look like fools, how could you let this happen, Bill? Your newspaper in particular has single-handedly done more to make Palin look sympathetic (and our liberal cause look pathetic) than anything else! Even Demi and Ashton are mad at you guys for pilfering through her emails!!

Plenty of others have endured the pain of mainstream-media excoriation but have remained civil and responsive.

This comment reveals Keller’s inability to grasp the current political climate and the role his paper plays (or, truly, does not play in it). No one needs the New York Times’ seal of approval to do anything in the news. Sarah Palin, and no Republican for that matter, doesn’t need an endorsement from the Editorial staff at the Times to defeat Obama. Palin, by my mind, has not been uncivil. She has been quite effectively mocking, playing with, and teasing the press. Within the swath of America, outside of the tiny isle of Manhattan, there are those who share Palin’s bewilderment and contempt at the state of news reporting and journalism; particularly at those who make no effort to report two sides of a story and allow their own personal biases and political affections to seep into their coverage. Palin has been very responsive to people who want to hear from her. Apparently, just not to the New York Times, and that’s fine by the rest of us. We canceled our subscriptions years ago, and we no longer even bother sneaking a peak at the stray copies on the floor of our local coffee shops. Hey, Bill, Palin doesn’t owe you a damn thing.

“Perhaps one key to Palin’s dislike of the news media is a streak of intellectual insecurity, or a trace of impostor syndrome.

Why say ‘perhaps’? Why not just say what you really mean: “I think Palin’s dislike of the news media is due in part to her lack of intelligence.” I don’t see your paper investigating the intellectual bankruptcy that is one Barack Obama, Jr. 57 states? Profits to earnings ratio? Cinco de quatro? Corpse-men? Giving asthmatics breathalyzers? Physicans needlessly taking out tonsils to scratch out a payroll?  Shovel-ready not so shovel-ready? And where are Barry’s legendary and stellar transcripts? He’s so well-educated, like the NYU woman on the Metro North, he doesn’t need to show his immaculate transcripts, right? Tell me again, Billy, about intellectual insecurity and a trace of the impostor syndrome.

“A few months ago I was startled to hear my 13-year-old daughter, who has a Hillary Clinton campaign sticker on her bedroom door, say she thought Palin was “cool.” I wondered if this was just a burst of teenage contrarianism. It turned out Molly’s sympathy had nothing to do with politics or feminism.”

Yes, yes. Because 13-year olds are so obsessed with politics and feminism, Bill. And why would it be contrarianism? Unless you’re preaching to your daughter that Palin is uncool, and she’s rebelling against you. Smart kid.

“It was simply that in watching “Sarah Palin’s Alaska” on TLC, my empathetic daughter had perceived a woman happily, spiritually at home. She suspected the Palin family would be miserable in the shark tank of national politics. ”

Bill, are you embarrassed that your daughter empathizes with Sarah Palin? Be honest.  (By the way, if you’ve seen Palin’s show, do you really have the impression that she’d be miserable in a shark tank?)

I thought of my daughter’s remark as I followed coverage of Palin’s bizarre noncampaign campaign bus tour, featuring Greta van Susteren as a sidekick in a sort of Sisterhood of the Traveling Palins.

Sisterhood of the Traveling Palins? Ahhh, I get it Bill. Because they’re both women and they’re gabbing, gossiping, and doing whatever it is that women do when they’re bonding. Great observation! With regards to Palin’s media blitz Keller concluded, “…on the whole it felt like an excruciating, fish-out-of-water sequel to her earlier reality show. ” You watch quite a bit of Fox News there, Billy. You intuit really peculiar things, because by my eye it looked like Palin was having  a blast. Perhaps you wished Palin felt more like a fish out of water so you could bully her and ostracize her out of politics. Every journalist’s wet dream is to satiate their Palin derangement syndrome by reenacting the opening gym shower scene from Carrie.

The most surreal moment in this odd cavalcade was 10-year-old Piper Palin scolding a Time magazine photographer, “Thanks for ruining our vacation.” That was the sound of a kid lashing out at her mom’s new live-in boyfriend.

How is that surreal? There’s nothing the least bit surreal about that. Surreal would be if Piper appeared in a mime costume in full make up and released a dove from her hands. That would be surreal, Bill! A 10-year old girl trying to protect her mom from reporters who are always trying to rag on her family is pretty normal well-adjusted behavior. What’s with this “live-in boyfriend” analogy?? Why you gotta’ go there, Bill? Something you want to get off your chest? I swear, between this and the acid reflux, you come up with the worst and the weakest metaphors. (Might I recommend the Gotham Writer’s Network? They could seriously help you with your writing.)

Palin can’t ignore us. ” Uhh, I’m pretty sure she does.

Or was that supposed to read more like, “PALIN CAN’T IGNORE US, DAMMIT!”? More along the lines of Glenn Close’s “I won’t be ignored, Dan!” from Fatal Attraction?

But if she does have ambitions for higher office…” Is that what this is all about Bill? Are you still worried Palin is going to be your President come January 2013 and you and half of Manhattan will have to make good on your promise to move to Canada? Perhaps I’m not reading her correctly, but I’m not really sure she does have those kinds of ambitions. I know you have no idea what she’s thinking. So why are you even fretting about something that hasn’t even happened yet? Let me try using one of your analogies: it’s like, she’s this hot girl who is completely of out your league and isn’t the least bit interested in your scrawny ass, and so there’s no point in you writing a long, long (long!) letter to pre-emptively break up with her, because, at this point, she still doesn’t even acknowledge your existence. Get it?

We can’t ignore her, either. ” If you really despise this woman as much as you do, then I believe, Bill Keller, that you can do anything you set your mind to. Example, I can’t stand the Kardashians. When I channel-surf, I don’t linger on the E! channel for hours at a time, watching and obsessing over the Kardashian show, and thinking about how much I hate the Kardashians. I just flip to the next channel. It’s called being a well-adjusted emotionally healthy adult, Bill. Try it out sometimes. It’s never too late.

The fact is, reporters want as badly as anyone else to see the country led by someone who inspires confidence. ”

As long as that leader is a nanny-government statist who believes in trillions of dollars in debt, massive government spending on useless social programs and entitlements that we can’t afford, and he must hate capitalism above all else. (I’m curious: three years on, does Barry still inspire confidence in you? And aren’t you a little sick and tired of constantly needing to be inspired by other people? Isn’t that old?)

But watching Palin answer a question is like watching a runaway train struggling to stay on the rails, and fact-checking her is like fishing with dynamite.

I must confess, Bill, I’m actually wondering if you have any real experience with these things (i.e. runaway trains, fishing). It’s just that you’re so, what’s the word…full of shit. I can’t take anything you say seriously.

I think a lot of journalists, regardless of their politics, find her confounding and a little frightening.” This is like that ‘some people say…’ trope. Billy: grow a pair and take ownership of your opinions. Say: “I find Palin confounding and frightening.”

Evidently, so do most Americans; only 21 percent of voters have a favorable impression of her in the latest CBS poll. ” Do I really have to point out to you that a low favorable rating is not the same as finding her ‘confounding’ and ‘frightening’. That’s a leap on your part.

So what was the real point of Bill Keller’s serious-minded critique of Palin? It sounded more like a mercy plea. Palin is ignoring us and we’re going to try and bully her into paying attention to us by making the New York Times seem like the helpless victim. Keller’s op-ed is more like cat-calling from a guy who thinks he’s a player, “HEYY, LAYYY-DEEEE! I see you ignoring me. Think you’re better than me? That’s cold, girl. Gonna’ just ignore me like that? Who you think you are? You can’t ignore me! (Do you know how well educated I am??)

Bill, I’m going to tell you what I’d tell any guy at a club in a similar predicament: “Dude, that chick is making you look the fool. She’s not interested in you. You’re not all that. Let it go.”