Thank you for this important post. Mike Allen is breaking rules that I learned in my entry-level night class in journalism. Unfortunately I fear that many will buy his lame self-defense, because asking someone's permission to print what they've already said seems like the polite thing to do. I fear our society has entirely forgotten the proper role of journalists, which is not to make buddies but to uncover the truth and print what is actually said, even at the risk of making enemies. Allen's editing of the real quote as given to him is, of course, absolutely outrageous, and any credible news organization would fire him for that. But this isn't a news organization, it's a fraternity.

As for Politico, I had tried reading them during the election season and soon quit for the very reasons you've laid out here. Their "reporting" is ingratiating and irritating, and brings nothing of value to the reader.

What's really annoying about Facebook is when people who join it get upset when others actually use it. If you don't like being tagged or getting app requests or reading random thoughts or participating in other light diversions, why are you on Facebook? Being tagged is not a gun to your head. If you don't like receiving the email notifications, you can turn them off. You can also block app requests and ignore all requests from any particular person. Facebook makes it very easy to ignore stuff.

"I didn't join Facebook, after all, to be anonymous, incurious or left alone." Exactly.

No, a blogger calling a public figure a skank is not the most provoking thing about this story. Without the lawsuit, there would not even be a story. If she won, a hell of a lot of websites would have to worry. Jezebel's GOOP Scoop regularly smacks down Gwyneth Paltrow, but Broadsheet thought that was pretty funny just a couple of weeks ago. Do we really have to wait until Jan. 20 to start taking the first amendment seriously again?

I am an unapologetic atheist. Suing over something as low-stakes as a traditional invocation is a bad use of time/energy/money, as well as bad politics.

What a jagov!

Looks like He just slammed a door on Sarah!

If she was honestly annoyed by that question, it only shows that, (a), she is irrationally defensive about where she lives and therefore could not be expected to govern a diverse nation with even-handedness, and (b) she is ignorant and uncurious about the kinds of questions candidates are commonly asked in interviews, and likely has not followed national campaigns in the past. Keep digging that hole, lady.

I doubt a charity would take them, but maybe they can sell them on eBay. Like the jet.

So she supports Roe v. Wade after all? Who knew.

while she's heading to the front of the 2012 GOP pack

I think this woman will be forgotten about two weeks from today. At best she will be the Gary Bauer or Alan Keyes of 2012.

There is 100% no doubt about the racist connotations. These people are not just assholes, they are lying assholes. May they rot in the dustbin of history.

Cary, thank you for your brilliant articulation of these visceral feelings that so many of us feel. It is an apt postscript to Orwell's The Politics of Language.

As for all those "50-state strategy" advocates: They seem to be deafeningly silent now, don't they?

Um, no...

And are you suggesting that the Democrats' strategy in 2000 and 2004 was smart?

Palin and her associates' refusal to comply with the subpoenas is exactly in line with the Bush administration's contempt for the law which it is their job to uphold.

What a joke that McCain/Palin are trying to run as "maverick reformers" who are going to bring "accountability and transparency" to government.

If they continue to ignore the subpoenas, I hope to God that the Democrats and the Obama campaign make a LOT of noise about it. SOMEONE has to hold them to account, if the State of Alaska won't.

Eh, I don't buy it. Anyway she probably thinks Halloween is one of those evil holidays that Christians shouldn't celebrate.

Because war with Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Syria, and North Korea aren't enough.

Sounds like a pro-life plan to me.

I haven't donated to Obama since the primary, but after Palin's grating and nasty speech, I donated $50 to the Obama campaign, plus bought a T-shirt from the website, plus donated $20 to MoveOn which is soliciting $ for voter registration drives. Will continue donating to Obama so long as Grandpa Simpson and his psychotic book-banning lipsticked pit bull are seeking the Oval Office.

Seriously, I cannot listen to this woman's voice, the tone is so grating and shrill. It makes my skin crawl. And her facial expressions were pure Tracy Flick.

and yet Palin and McCain both want to make ALL women's "uterine activities" subject to public discussion and control. I feel for Bristol that her private life is being scrutinized by the public, yet her mother wants to put ALL young women in her position by making this private decision into a public one.

Thank you for pointing out that the Palins have now TWICE used the word "decision" in a situation where Gov. Palin would like to outlaw decisionmaking, and for reminding us that McCain also used that word in 2000 in total contradiction to his declared pro-life stance.

Also, while there are always bottom feeders out there, I have to say that the great majority of comments I've seen on this matter have to do with how this shows (yet again) the hypocrisy of Republican policy positions. Most on the left that I've seen are expressing sympathy for Bristol, not attacking her. If the larger point is that even talking about this at all is a terrible thing -- well, McCain and Palin came out with public statements about it, so I don't see why everyone should pretend it doesn't exist.

Thank you for continuing to be a voice of reason.