And it seems like he's only the front-runner in a veritable Boston Marathon of such people. They are legion.

Glenn,

I don't necessarily think the problem is 'liberal media bias' or conservative bias for that matter. The problem with the 'media' is that they are a bunch of frontrunners. They look at who they think will win and then champion them ad nauseum. Basically, the modern-day media is akin to the worst type of sports fan. They choose a side, whether Bush in 2004 or Obama today, and once they do their side can do no wrong. It is sad and shameful that journalists / reporters etc. have degraded into a bunch of mouth-flapping hate-mongers. People can go along and deny the bias but it always remains...whether it be right or left...in fact, it has become the only consistent thing about the modern-day media.

... Halperin admits that it is right to scrutinize Palin's record. He simply has employed his awesome powers of mind-reading to ascertain that she is being scrutinized for the wrong reasons. Just like radical leftist anti-Americans opposed the Iraq war for the wrong reasons, while its supporters were wrong, but for the right reasons.

I don't know whether to laugh at Palin or to be intensely afraid of her. To me there aren't many crimes a politician can commit that are more serious than trying to limit "offensive" books.

On top of that, this woman has a clear record of trying to intimidate those who don't agree with her. She really is the perfect fit for the modern Republican party. I think she understands the Right's values better than the party leadership does.

The very notion of the "Liberal Media" is one of the most inane myths in American politics

To think the right and its fringe literally depends upon that "Liberal Media" for both its existence (it sure as hell can't practice what it advocates in this day and age) and to broadcast its 'message'. Worse, its such an inane myth that literally can't be disproven to the satisfaction of those holding to it. You could stock every radio show and every newspaper in print with Limbaugh clones, and you'd still hear complaints about 'lefty bias'; reality, after all, has a liberal bias all its own.

The mind boggles as much by this latest angle vis-a-vis Palin as what we've learned to date about her. No wonder the Obama campaign is hammering at how she was chosen, not the 'nominee' herself.

Palin is undoubtedly the most mysterious and unknown individual to be inserted into our national political scene in decades, if not longer.

Obviously the comparison will be made to Obama, and that's fine. But surely anyone can see that Obama has been scrutinized just as Palin is.

There's been all sorts of digging into his past - his school, his parents, his siblings, his drug use, his pastors, his law firms, etc. And there have been many outright fabrications about his history that have been passed along by the press.

So to claim that the scrutiny of Palin is proof of a liberal press is absolutely absurd.

Scrutiny? Excuse me, Hillary Clinton? As if she never endured any? If Chelsea had gotten pregnant and had a baby at 17 can you imagine how much garbage would have spewed from republican mouthpieces?

God help us if McCain gets elected, and Palin becomes president. Dems need to start attacking hard on this VP pick. She's completely unqualified, she's George W. Bush in a dress, and a far right christian fundie too boot. Not only is she the worst VP pick in US history, it shows John McCain has zero judgement. This is a gift to the Obama campaign, if they take advantage of it. We can sink McCain on this issue alone. I only hope they take advantage of it.

But I can't help but note that some of the good reporting that your linking to comes from his employer. I think that with a few notable exceptions (Halperin being high on the list) many journalist are awakening to McCain's utter contempt for them and are thus now reluctantly rising to the occasion and doing some reporting.

And you have to admit that a journalist reviewing Palin's career is like a kid opening a toy box; the deeper you dig, the more entertainment you find.

Obviously the comparison will be made to Obama, and that's fine. But surely anyone can see that Obama has been scrutinized just as Palin is.

Obama has been running for President for 2 years now - he's been interviewed, picked at, debated, scrutinized. He's now a known commodity. I'm not talking about who has more "experience" - which I've always thought and still do is an over-rated attribute, especially how it's meant. I just mean in terms of scrutiny and transparency -- we know virtually nothing about her and what she thinks. That can't be compared to Obama.

she would have been given a position in the Dept. Of Justice.

She wold have fit right in among some of the worst. She might have wanted a coronation similar to Paulose.

She obviously would have agreed with the clique to disqualify the applicant that liked wolves, and not just their "splatter pattern".

She's scary.

I'd be interested in what Halperin believes is the appropriate amount of press scrutiny under the circumstances.

Palin was completely unknown to virtually every voter outside of Alaska. She has had virtually zero exposure. Under the circumstances, intense scrutiny is obviously appropriate, and shouldn't be derided as a "feeding frenzy."

But then consider that Palin's pick was a complete surprise, to republicans, the press and the nation as a whole. There had been no scrutiny of the sort generally given to "short list" candidates for the V.P. slot.

Most astoundingly, however, the McCain campaign revealed that even it didn't know a damn thing about Palin. If the press weren't already disposed to intensely scrutinize Palin, the obvious lack of scrutiny by the McCain campaign increases the likelihood that there is something juicy out there. Again, the press would obviously be induced to scrutinize Palin even more closely under these circumstances.

The McCain campaign then compounded this alleged feeding frenzy problem by completely misrepresenting Palin's record, characterizing her as a Pork-buster and Ted Steven's critic when she in fact is the Queen of Pork in Alaska and a former director of Stevens's 527 corporate shakedown operation. Once you're caught completely misrepresenting an issue to the press you have to expect that the press will start digging in to the subject you've misrepresented.

Toss in the pregnant teen daughter, Palin's weird association with some radical secessionist group, a pending corruption investigation in Alaska, and you've got the perfect recipe for a media feeding frenzy.

It's absolutely outrageous that Halperin, as a journalist, would perceive a feeding frenzy at all, much less make a pejorative attribution of such frenzy to some alleged "liberal media."