To claim any media treatment of Palin is unfair or sexist. Hillary Clinton anyone? Michelle Obama anyone? What Palin's getting is nowhere near what Clinton and Obama have endured, not even close.

I'm speechless.

I am thinking that this tripe is just designed to keep idiotic discussions regarding Palin going.

tripe of the tripiest hype type.

...and, female or not, treat this lying idiot to a good old fashioned, no-holds-barred, REAL press conference.

All of the rest of this garbage about "sexism" is exactly what Karl Rove wants the press focusing on. Quit being his sock puppet, will ya?

This moron is potentially one heartbeat away from having her fundamentalist finger on the nuclear trigger!

1. "fuckable"

2. "Christian Stepford wife"

3. "she is their hardcore pornographic centerfold spread"

4. "Sarah Palin is a bit comical, like one of those cutthroat Texas cheerleader stage moms"

5. The part where she compares electing Sarah Palin to allowing child-rapist Warren Jeffs to babysit her kids

6. The part where electing Palin "is akin to ideological brain rape"

7. "this Republican blowup doll"

When these choice phrases would be defended by “Broadsheet” as non-sexist (but sexism still exists). And the Republican party would take control of the news cycle by decrying sexism because of a statement that contained the word lipstick.

This especially after the outrage over at this very board regarding the Country Music T-shirts and other minor slights against Palin. Come on.

We live in Amazing times. I did not want to take part in the Palingate thing, until we have something to talk about. Right now she’s nothing. JUST IGNORE HER.

The ludicrous attack on her religion has been moved to the lead story, and now this. Jezabel got it exactly right. That Salon would publish Wilson's piece and now, in the face of a well-worded, reasonable critique, defend it suggests a new low in this site's editorial standards.

The argument that Wilson's piece may have contained sexist attacks but isn't really sexist because it uses other methods as well does not fly. In fact, most of the conservative media had, and enunciated, many arguments with Clinton's goals and political history. But the sexism was prominent and on-going. And the same is true of Wilson's piece. And most of Salon's pieces are still attacks on her character and trumped up charges based on associates rather than personal actions. This is really dispicable.

And the central message always is that a refrain from attacking Palin through gender-degrading terms and stereotypes does not equal a support for Palin as a political figure. This isn't about getting her elected. It's about not getting her elected by looking at the relevant facts. Salon is shooting itself in the foot. Most Obama supporters are doing the same thing. This is the lemmings jumping off the cliff. Please stop. Because I want Obama in the White House and Democrates continuing to hold the Senate.

I've posted similar thoughts elsewhere, but I agree. There's something incredibly perverse about condemning as sexist those who discuss the incredible, cynical overtones of Palin's candidacy.

Her (purported) physical attractiveness is undeniably part of the rationale behind her nomination for VP. It's not all of it; her simple appeal as a woman and her impeccable social conservative chops must not be forgotten, but to deny that her ability to draw a particular kidney of male voters had to have been a factor in the decision to put her in the veep slot is to be willingly blind.

And it's not sexist to draw attention to this fact, not sexist to discuss its extremely troubling ramifications. It is, in fact, the opposite. And the inflammatory terms in Cintra Wilson's article? Well, it's not necessarily the tack I would have taken, but I somehow don't think the outrage these phrases mask is rooted in any sort of underlying misogyny.

IGNORE HER.

IGNORE HER.

She is unwilling to define her positions. She is unwilling to engage. She is getting fre publicity.

PLEASE IGNORE HER.

She means nothing, except a shout out to the Extreme Right in shifting outfits. That's it. Stop everything else.

Can we please drop this fiction? She has kind of non-threatening looks, with a bit of Alpha-female thing about her. In other words she’s the female Bush (no pun intended). She is nothing extraordinary. Stop writing any more chapters in the mythology.

If Wilson's piece was an attack on GOP cynicism, it was poorly written, and the basic point was not communicated. If, however, it was a personal attack against Palin, then the point came across well enough. (The same criticism may be made of Obama's "lipstick on a pig" comment; Obama may not have meant to call Palin a pig, but his audience definitely viewed his remark in that context, and responded accordingly.)

Wilson's article as a whole seemed to me less sexist than crass: The language was uncivil, intended to offend as wide a swath of readers as possible. Her argument, to the extent she had one, struck me as deeply misguided: Feminism has always been multi-faceted; it cannot be reduced to a crude, ideological litmus test.

I cannot determine Wilson's intent in writing the piece, and frankly I'm not sure I care to, but this list of 19 smears was not a case of words taken out of context. It was clumsy at best, vile at worst.

I haven't heard that anywhere, you can't even say "fuckable" without FCC penalty, anywhere on the air!

Stop inventing shit.

I can't believe that a Broadsheet writer would even try to defend the phrases and demeaning language contained in Salon's Palin article.

It would be so easy to attack Palin's actual views, many of which are terribly uninformed, but instead this Salon writer has chosen to indulge in misogynistic schoolyard taunts.

I am ashamed for the author. It is exactly this kind of discourse that makes American politics so unpleasant--filled with personal attacks rather than actual criticism of policy or ideas.

But I worry, that the real problem here is that I am afraid, that there will be endless coverage of Palin, just for her symbolic value.

She doesn’t have to defend her positions. She doesn’t have to do anything, she just needs to make a cameo. It’s stunt casting. She’s Tom Cruise in Tropical Thunder (but without the talent).

I worry that even though many keep requesting that the Liberal Media Ignore America's gun toting Sweatheart, there are not enough people qualified on this site or any other to actually analyze policy positions or even public statements. Who wants to write about what is actually at play, when there needs to be an article written about her Vagina or other people’s thoughts about her vagina. And Renaiscence imagery, etc.

Please, I know it might not be sexy, but can we get back to covering significant players, rather than the Cheerleaders. When she gets back into the ring, and is willing to define her own positions, or her vision of America, we can start something. But for now leave the mannequin alone.