A little odd I think that the Washington Post has started up a bit of a media vendetta against Palin - vendetta maybe too strong, but they're sure targeting [now, c'mon] her for special negative treatment that seems personal and therefore markedly biased. I mean, there's a chance [slim I think] that she'll be a presidential candidate in 2012 - how can it be right to single her out for abuse and still lay claim to being a credibly objective news source? Abuse here being implied, and I suppose that's the equivocation they're hiding behind - one of their staff political writers, Dana Milbank, has declared February a Palin free month and the Post is supporting this effort by linking to a Twitter feed that I guess they're hoping will go viral or some such thing. This is unquestionably wrong, right?
One day someone's gonna write a fascinating book on the left's obsession with Palin and their seeming boundless contempt for her - she's a potent cultural signifier or bellwether or simulacrum or delineator or some god damn thing because she has absolutely burrowed into their collective brains and is gnawing away at something unpleasant - an astringent introduced into body politik of the left. Is it fear or contempt? Or is it fear expressed as contempt? And of what? If Obama wasn't president, I wonder if the animus against her would be as intense - I mean, the relative comparison of them with the idea that she could be president too, I wonder if that's what infuriates them, insults them even - ie, as with Reagan, that someone who could be characterized as the anti-Obama could not only be president but actually be quite good at it - not to engage in the silliness of comparing Palin to Reagan, but if you look at the world through the designer, academy approved rose colored glasses of a liberal, the type who sometimes acts as if The West Wing was a documentary, the idea of Palin being not only president, but maybe like Reagan possibly even a good one, must represent an almost unbearable thing to contemplate.
