It pains me to write that sites such as ThinkProgress or DailyKos haven't reported on this either. Perhaps they will, perhaps they have, and I just missed it. In any case, if it was reported, it hasn't been done so in a way that would appropriately highlight it.

When, on August 16th, the Washington Post reported (http://tinyurl.com/5rsa3d) on Mukasey's plan to "make it easier for state and local police to collect intelligence about Americans, share the sensitive data with federal agencies and retain it for at least 10 years," I don't recall much traditional media angst over that either. Indeed, that Mukasey's latest assault on civil liberties was merely "quietly unveiled late last month," and that "supporters say the measures simply codify existing counterterrorism practices and policies that are endorsed by lawmakers and independent experts such as the 9/11 Commission [and that such supporter] say the measures preserve civil liberties and are subject to internal oversight," should tell us all we need to know about what's happening here.

It's beyond disgraceful to witness these assaults without even the most passive acknowledgment by media, traditional or otherwise.

"McCain made a maverick's choice -- a gut choice feeling out the odds."

Doesn't seem so. Max Blumenthal at the Nation (http://tinyurl.com/58hhzt) writes: "Last week, while the media focused almost obsessively on the DNC's spectacle in Denver, the country's most influential conservatives met quietly at a hotel in downtown Minneapolis to get to know Sarah Palin. The assembled were members of the Council for National Policy, an ultra-secretive cabal that networks wealthy right-wing donors together with top conservative operatives to plan long-term movement strategy."

McCain's maverick status is about as rusty as Ford's version of that automobile, circa early 1970's.

"Palin's offenses are insignificant compared to ANYONE who supports the wars in Afghanistan or Iraq. That 'bridge to nowhere' would cost less than our cost for an afternoon in Iraq."

This would a meaningful comparison had Palin been holding executive or legislative office. Since she hasn't, and the issue at hand is her spending as mayor, this isn't a matter of "ignor[ing] the real issues and spew[ing] BS."

The only line you write here that I agree with is "you and your writing should be flushed," although I suggest it not be applied to Schaller.

So Obama didn't respond to Ailes' statement that Fox won't be "in the tank" for him as MSNBC and CNN apparently are?

That's too bad. It bothers these shills not at all that they've been in the Republican tank for lo these many years and contributed mightily to the countless deaths, infrastructure destruction here and abroad, relentless civil liberties assaults, and the amassing of debt that are the fruit of that party's policies. The last thing this network needs is the imprimatur of legitimacy Obama's presence will grant it unless, of course, he calls them out on all of the above. I won't hold my breath.

Your statement "I think a lot of it is sexism of a peculiar kind. What is sexist is that *everyone*, male and female, feels they have a right, a responsibility even, to judge a woman's behavior" is perplexing. When senators Larry Craig and David Vitter were ridiculed for their actions, they were remonstrated for their hypocrisy since it stood in contrast to the GOP's stunted, adolescent notion of "family values." Certainly, many judged their behavior on that basis and nary a word was said, that I recall, that it amounted to a sexist attack. If they weren't immune from criticism why should she be?

More broadly, it may upset Republicans that her behavior, particularly her insatiable hunger for pork objected to by McCain (although he apparently forgot about that), flies in the face of her party's public position, but Palin is responsible for that, not the media. I'd guess Halperin's real complaint is that there are still too many people in this country not sufficiently moronic enough to uncritically read the likes of him, Friedman and Kristol.

Your exquisitely written comment, pithy and observant as it is, epitomizes the right wing's complaint of "liberal" bias.

It goes something like this: God Damn you people! Examining the record of McCain and Palin and finding contradictions and hypocrisies right and left is out of bounds! And when you covered Obama's ties to Rev. Wright and others, you didn't go far enough and were much too timid in stating the obvious, that he is an UnAmerican, foreign, closeted Muslim! What's wrong with traitorous wretches? Have you no sense of balance? Thank God Rush exists to feed me the truth as it is.

Having just read Noonan's column, I note she's adapted the tried and true line applied to George W. Bush, "this is a guy you'd want to have a beer with." Now we have "she wears makeup and heels and eats mooseburgers and is Alaska Tough" (which, I guess, is something like "Ford Tough"). There we have it! "This is a woman you'd like to have a mooseburger with." Too bad that will sound revolting to many voters on numerous levels.