As you point out, the mainstream press is either unable or unwilling to put any bite behind their shrill, Pomeranian bark. (The national Enquirer, on the other hand...)

But the beauty of the game form McCain's standpoint is the other significant bit of context here -- that the far right has already so utterly brainwashed their followers into the unshakable belief that the press is a nest of liberal snakes.

That puts an elegant explanation in play for the total lack of vetting of this Pandora's Box of a VP pick.

Maybe they didn't vet her because they were lazy or stupid or desperate. But think about the situation from the perspective of the mouth-breathing base -- the folks who actually believe that the press has an overwhelming liberal bias. By picking someone completely off the radar, McCain has set up a very useful game:

1) Press finds abundance of dirt on Palin;

2) Republican noise machine cranks up the "liberal media" charges;

3) Obedient sheeple repeat liberal media shibboleth and tune out even the most egregious revelations about their new sweetheart.

Pretty creative, actually. And it means they have an effective play whether or not the "media watchdogs" continue to snooze.

A splendid bit of evidence of exactly what Glenn is talking about is on display at Media Matters today:

http://mediamatters.org/countyfair/200809060003?show=1

I think the contrast you draw between doctors and lawyers on the one hand and journalists on the other is worth exploring, because it explains so much.

Just as the Founding Fathers recognized the weaknesses of man, and designed institutions intended to limit the evil we can do, the medical and legal professions decided long ago to create (or had created for them) institutions to police the excesses of those who pursued self-interest at the expense of patients/clients. And so a lawyer who violates the rules is disbarred; a doctor who does so has her license yanked.

When the New York Journalism Association yanks Judy Miller's journalism license, I'll call what she did a profession.

Speaking of which, as despicable as Our Lady of the Chalabi Hobby is, I think referencing her here doesn't really help your otherwise excellent argument; defenders of the 4th estate will argue that her dismissal from the Times is actually an example of the system eventually policing itself. I think that gives them too much credit, but you have chronicled so many better examples over the years that I would have left her out here.

I'm not so sure licensing is a good idea, because the other thing Bar Associations and Medical Boards do is artificially restrict supply, and the only reason blogs have been as effective as they have is that we have in a small way busted the cartel created by the concentration in the mainstream media.

September's selection will be, "But government spying is different from private hacking!"

Assuming Obama wins in November, we know an early 2009 selection will be a fairly precise inversion of that construction.

There is, sadly, nothing new here. What is happening in Alaska now has, as you duly note, been happening in Washington for at least 7 years. And the scoundrels who most reflexively take refuge in patriotism are the ones most eager to sanction the wholesale dismantling of the principles that formed the basis of what they claim to honor.

Perhaps it is all of a piece. We nationalize banks and insurance companies (well, their losses, anyway). The government increasingly accumulates the indicia of ownership of major corporations (next: GM and Ford). The gap between our founding documents and our de facto governance grows to Soviet proportions, as do high-level corruption and the domestic surveillance apparat. There is a post-Cold War irony brewing here of tragic and massive proportion. All brought to you by those who claim to be guided by a desire to conserve all they destroy.

The rhetoric is completely different from the Soviet propaganda. But the chasm between word and deed is eerily familiar.

And our last best hope is to place faith in a man who promises only to dismantle less.

Indeed. Perhaps the most significant remaining difference is the one that is least flattering -- the level of skepticism toward government propaganda among the people. The gullible don't need gulags.

Last night Andrew Sullivan made a complete ass of himself badgering Naomi Klein about her suggestion that socialism for the rich ought to be paired with socialism for the poor. He kept pointing to the holiest of the holy -- Adam Smith. But the phrase "too big to fail" is not found in the 200-year-old "Wealth of Nations."

What should happen here is the final burial of belief in unregulated markets. But, as with conservatism as a whole, Friedmanesque capitalism cannot fail; we can only fail to fully implement it.

Capitalism as economics is not the issue; capitalism as religion presses on regardless.