The Republicans won't let Sarah Palin speak to the media? Oh, wait, they'll let her speak, but only to someone they designate and that will be a while from now? Oh, and the guy they select might be a lapdog? Shocking.

Why is it that Rovian politics can devote flyspecking media outrage to "issues" as earthshattering as whether Obama is a bad bowler or Hillary is not "sincere" enough for a shot and a beer, but the Dems instantly agonize over whether they will be chastized if they question the background of Sarah Palin when she is sprung from nowhere at the convention and prevented from answering even the most obvious questions by her Rovian handlers?

Why is it that Meet the Press leads today's interview with Joe Biden by playing a clip of Sarah Palin's smarmy convention soundbite about her mayoral experience as involving "real responsibilities", and Joe Biden is not prepped to observe that this VP candidate's first act once given "real responsibilities" in an American town was to try to have books banned from the town library? What does that one action tell the American public about this woman, and doesn't that also itself provide a pretty clear explanation for why the Republican Party won't let her be interviewed? Why should the Democrats let the Republicans have a week or so to prepare this shill to give a hand-picked shill interview, when the Democrats could be nailing this person for demonstrating exactly the very lack of judgment and outright disdain for fundamental principles of the United States that every American, in every town large and small, should recognize almost instinctively?

We don't ban books here. It's a Kevin Costner baseball movie, Field of Dreams: "Who's with Eva Braun here? Who wants to spit on the Constitution of the United States of America? Who wants to stand up for the kind of censorship that they had under Stalin?" Let the Republicans explain what part of Civics 101 Sarah Palin missed that caused her to start her elected career by attempting to ban books, don't watch her belittle community activism and tout her valuable elected responsibilities and say nothing more than "that was a good line", which is what Biden did on national television.

Or maybe the Dems will just keep wringing their hands and waiting for the media to grow a spine. Maybe it's a different Costner baseball movie, Bull Durham, where Costner says to the rookie pitcher (here, the Democrats): "You couldn't hit water if you fell out of a f*cking boat."

Do the Rovians overthink their attacks like this? NO.

Americans don't ban books. Let the Republicans try to parry that by arguing that it's just a constitutional principle and we all know those don't matter after 9/11. I dare them.

Sure, there are Rovian talking points that haughtily presume we can torture, wiretap and do whatever Jack Bauer does, President Bush said so. But you think that applies to banning books at a visceral level? Is there some "9/11 mileage, the Dems are weak on Terra" concern that militates against saying that banning books is Unamerican? Why should the Dems shrink and cower before the astonishly brazen abuse of power reflected by a newly-elected mayor whose first action is to try to ban books? How does this differ in any material respect from the new dictator in Woody Allen's Bananas: "From now on, every citizen of San Marcos under 16 years old, is 16 years old. Underwear is to be changed every half hour; underwear shall be worn on the outside, so we can check."

Or put another way, giving up before you start because people might not listen plays perfectly into Rove's thought processes.

Not taking Palin on over her demonstrated conduct on this issue because maybe people won't think it's "important" only assures that people won't treat it as important and gives Palin a pass on something that bears directly upon the candidate's judgment, demeanor and commitment to American ideals. And don't for a moment believe this topic would not burn up the airwaves if a Dem had done it (you know, like that gigolo John Kerry, who has a rich wife and therefore couldn't possibly be considered a serious candidate for president, so unlike McCain...).

Nothing personal, I understand what you're saying perfectly. It's just that I see this certainly rational choice of a reaction as being one of the major contributors to the Democrats' collective and pervasive failure to take control of the discussion, again and again.