"And Alaska -- we're set up, unlike other states in the union, where it's collectively Alaskans own the resources. So we share in the wealth when the development of these resources occurs. ... It's to maximize benefits for Alaskans, not an individual company, not some multinational somewhere, but for Alaskans." --Sarah Palin, explaining the windfall profits tax that she imposed on the oil industry in Alaska as a mechanism for ensuring that Alaskans "share in the wealth" generated by oil companies, New Yorker interview, Sept. 2008

http://politicalhumor.about.com/od/sarahpalin/a/palinisms.htm

virtue001: "“Joan Walsh held her own against O'Reilly.” Only on the planet Bizzaro did JW hold her own."

You're basing that solely upon opinion, and I haven't seen you provide your reasoning behind that opinion. Here's mine: Joan Walsh stood up to Bill O'Reilly's shouting and gave back as good as she got. Walsh also provided several answers that O'Reilly couldn't respond to. One was Walsh's contextualization of the abortion debate, pointing out what a small minority of abortions are late-term. O'Reilly had to change the subject, and indeed that was his strategy -- to attack Joan with a loaded question completely off the subject. Joan smartly did not play into his plan, and he pushed it with such doggedness that HE, not SHE, ended up looking the fool (culminating in his embarrssing "air fist" triumph, which he ended up CUTTING from the segment...what does that tell you?). Walsh also had several moments where she reacted to O'Reilly in a way that defused or dis-empowered his approach, as when he kept talking over him and she casually asked "Do I get to speak, or are you going to keep talking over me?" By the end of the interview, it was O'Reilly, not Joan, who looked deflated and spent. So that's why I think she held her own. If that's Bizarro World to you, then maybe you are the one living in Bizarro World and looking at the real world thinking it's strange.

virtue001: "“Upon what basis would Palin's press conference call for compassion?” On the basis of watching a human being engaged in a “meltdown” as Joan put it."

A political meltdown is not the same as an emotional meltdown, but in either case I question why you would demand that Joan Walsh respond with compassion. I challenge you to point out any of your favorite commentators in the media who have responded with compassion when figures on the opposite end of the political spectrum got into hot water. (And who are your favorites?) I'll be waiting.

virtue001: "“The second fallacy in your comment is the idea that Palin's resignation is somehow tied into sexism against her” I never said that. I simply wondered why Joan felt no "sister-to-sister" compassion – having just given a stunningly bad performance on the national stage herself."

So you "never said" that Walsh was sexist or misogynist? That's interesting considering you say it a few lines later. In any case, why do you think Walsh is obligated to have a "sister-to-sister" response to Palin? Do you expect all men to have a "brother-to-brother" response when commenting on what male politicians do? Do you criticize them on that basis? If not, then why do you criticize Walsh on that basis?

virtue001: "“Nor did Walsh claim, as you state, that O'Reilly attacked her because he's a misogynist.” Yes, she did in the letters thread. She called him, “a conservative misogynist nutjob.”"

If you read what I wrote, my point was that Walsh did not say O'Reilly attacked her BECAUSE he is misogynist. And that's not what Walsh said in the letters thread. She didn't make a claim that his misogyny was the reason for his attacking her. She merely gave him the all-purpose label of misogynist, which is something that has been borne out again and again in O'Reilly's behavior elsewhere (loofah, anyone?).

virtue001: "“Why would Joan Walsh have blood on her hands merely because she criticized O'Reilly's rhetoric” Again, I never said she did. Nor did I say that I agreed with O’Reilly saying that. In fact, I never brought that statement up at all."

So you're conceding this now? Earlier you had claimed equivalency between O'Reilly's assertion that Walsh had blood on her hands, and Walsh's much milder criticisms of Palin. If you're admitting that O'Reilly's comments were outlandish, then the burden is on you to show why Walsh's comments are just as outlandish.

virtue001: "“This is an ironic statement coming from you.” Er… okay… if you say so."

Yes, I do say so. Because you repeatedly attack Walsh and others for being "hateful." Yet even a skimming of your posts shows that you don't hold yourself to the standard you demand in others. That's irony, bubba.

virtue001: "“Do you really think there's an equivalence between O'Reilly's commentary about Tiller and Walsh's commentary about Palin?” No, not in one isolated article."

Good. You admit your original claim was inaccurate.

virtue001: "But, yes, just as O’Reilly has trashed Tiller for an extended period of time, JW has trashed Palin for an extended period of time. Moreover, Salon in general has trashed Palin since the day she was nominated."

Now you're changing your claims. First, even if Walsh has commented about Palin in the past, that doesn't mean she has attacked Palin in a single-minded way like O'Reilly did Tiller. In fact, she hasn't. In at least one instance I have seen Walsh defend Palin in past message threads, saying she doesn't understand the level of hatefulness that Palin brings out in some people. Guess you missed that.

virtue001: "I am not against criticism. But Salon has been particularly vicious and misogynistic in their coverage of Palin."

I responded to this elsewhere. You cite 3 examples: A Kamiya article, a Citra Wilson article, and a Tracy Clark-Flory post on Broadsheet. I examined all three examples. None of them qualifies as "particularly vicious and misogynistic."

virtue001: "“It's also worth pointing out that O'Reilly has frequently assigned producers to go to people's homes and ambush them with an interviewer and cameraman who ask hostile questions while the person's walking out to check the mail or whatever.” Er… okay… and what’s the price of bananas in Afghanistan these days?"

So you're denying that O'Reilly's style of rhetoric against his political opponents is different from Walsh's? My pointing out O'Reilly's methods is hardly a non-sequitur, but actually integral to this debate.