It is extremely important that the media don't pile on now. Most decent people don't want to see someone go down in flames because they do badly on camera or in interviews-- they should go down because of their position on issues or character flaws. The media have given her ample time to get her sea legs, and I suspect that the time for going easy on her ends the night of the debate.

I know it is obvious, but it bears repeating: Imagine the unholy media shitstorm there would be if journalists admitted that they were censoring their comments about a Democratic politician like this. Howie Kurtz would be leading the charge as his masters on the insane right, like Malkin and Powerline, exploded.

Biden should say very little during the debate. He should yield much of his time to Palin and turn it into a live TV interview.

Steve Benen wrote: "If I'm Kurtz, I might find that worth exploring in more detail"

If you were Kurtz, you would be writing fawning, obsequious odes to the greatness of Rush Limbaugh.

Kurtz wrote: "sources say CBS has two more responses on tape that will likely prove embarrassing."

So, when do we get to see them?

Some journalists absolutely make me want to hurl. No journalist ever worried about piling on Gore in 2000 or Kerry in 2004 or John Edwards at any point in time. Why are they worried about piling on Sarah Palin?

It's not like she's a media creation. She was selected by the nominee of one of two major political parties to seek the office of the Vice President of the United States, and she accepted the nomination quite willingly. She put herself out there and she can either take it or cry and go home.

The instinct to avoid further piling on is, in its own way, more devastating that a full-throated attack; it means Palin is an object of pity. People don't vote for the pitiful.

Shortly after she was selected I commented that Palin was a mistaken choice. Then the wingnuts went for her big time, which was disconcerting. Now, though, the GOP ticket is looking dire. If Palin goes down hard, it may contribute to the breaking of the right wing (as their hero gets humiliated). At least we can hope.

Well, just to pick a nit, Kurtz said "comments", but you said "coverage", which are not exactly the same thing. How much should journalists really be commenting, anyway? Isn't that supposed to be for the commentators and pundit type? I think if you're trying to be an actual journalist, just reporting on what she actually says and does speaks for itself. I guess this would make more sense to me if Kurtz gave an example of what he's talking about.

And the worst may be yet to come for Palin; sources say CBS has two more responses on tape that will likely prove embarrassing.

Eh. Why wait for CBS to release the tape when we'll all see it live Thursday night anyway? If CBS were smart, they'd leak the segments out now, just to get some mileage out of it.

I can imagine Ms. Couric, who was treated none to gently when she started her current gig, despite being at least as competent as her network anchor peers, might have been a little put off by the deference given to a plainly less accomplished woman. Which isn't to say that Ms. Couric was intentionally harsh, but that she wasn't going to cut Gov. Palin any slack either.

Kurtz knows reporters who are willing to admit that they're self-censoring their coverage, deliberately going easy on Palin? If I'm Kurtz, I might find that worth exploring in more detail.

If you find reporters who self-censor their coverage to deliberately go easy on the Republican VP nominee worth exploring, believe me, you're no Howard Kurtz.

If I'm Kurtz, I might find that worth exploring in more detail.

If you're Kurtz, you would realize that you don't want to explore this in more detail unless others force your hand. Kurtz doesn't want Obama to run away with this election.

When Ms. Couric said interviewing Palin was "an interesting experience" it was obvious she was self censoring. This is one time I won't be critical of her for it. She didn't lay out a soundbite for the right to prove "liberal bias." Yet, everyone knew what she wanted to say. Sometimes diplomacy can be more devastating thn frontal attack.

Lifelong Dem: "No journalist ever worried about piling on Gore in 2000 or Kerry in 2004 or John Edwards at any point in time. Why are they worried about piling on Sarah Palin?"

Because in 2000, the ultra-rich right-wing corporate CEOs who pay those journalists' salaries wanted to put George W. Bush in the White House. Therefore the job of the corporate media's so-called "journalists" in the 2000 campaign was to character-assassinate Al Gore and glorify George W. Bush.

Because in 2004, the ultra-rich right-wing corporate CEOs who pay those journalists' salaries wanted to keep George W. Bush in the White House. Therefore the job of the corporate media's so-called "journalists" in the 2004 campaign was to character-assassinate John Kerry and glorify George W. Bush.

Because in 2008, the ultra-rich right-wing corporate CEOs who pay those journalists' salaries want to put Their Man John McCain in the White House, to continue the policies of George W. Bush. Therefore the job of the corporate media's so-called "journalists" in this election is to character-assassinate Barack Obama and glorify John McCain.

They also, initially, tried to glorify Sarah Palin. However, Sarah Palin herself fatally undermined that effort by demonstrating on prime-time TV, in her own words, that she is hideously, nightmarishly unqualified for national office. So the best the corporate media's so-called "journalists" can do now is to keep their mouths shut about her.

There are OTHER debates going on, in the indiviual states between Senate -- and in some cases, I imagine -- House Candidates. I hope Democratic candidates -- particularly challengers -- are asking their opponents how they feel about the possibility of a Palin Presidency.

I also wonder if the 'holding back' is such a bad idea. The tapes are still available, and reporters might just be suggesting that they will be released if Palin ducks out on the debates.

The 'piling on' problem is also a valid one. Too much can start to 'work in reverse' and I don't think there are many reporters, or many anythings except for Conservative Christian Republicans, who aren't scared sh*tless over the possibility of the words "President Palin."

I still expect that local Republicans, even Conservative but not Christian Conservative ones, will be doing their best to sabotage the head of the ticket.

Reading Kurtz, you have to wonder how many people he actually talks to. Looks like he has his staff digest the day's articles from a dozen or so papers and magazines, then strings them together with his own priceless commentary. When he says "some journalists" he's probably talking about himself, in the tradition of "many say...." I think it was Molly Ivins who named the "Sabbath Gasbags." Kurtz is a daily, plus Sunday on CNN.

She'd make a good Fox News anchor.

SJRSM wrote: "Where's the story on Ayers in the Big Media? I'd like to know just how tight Obama is with the former terrorist."

The fact is you already know there is nothing to that story, but you continue to flog it because you are an incorrigibly and shamelessly dishonest sleaze bag, just like John McCain.

The story, SJRSM, is that there is no story about Ayers. People have picked over all the records and interviewed everyone, and it turns out that they served on a board of a foundation together. They did not do shots and hunk skanks together, as you apparently wish they did.

And the worst may be yet to come for Palin; sources say CBS has two more responses on tape that will likely prove embarrassing.

It is not like she is running for president or anything. We voter-citizens don't care about her critical thinking skills, her ability to articulate, or her belief system assumptions.

That's none of our business. Is it?

If you believe that, I got some dinosaur saddles over here I want to sell you...

When someone is so far down as Sarah Palin is now, it's just bad style to kick again and again. The crowds shouting "Sarah, Sarah!" won't listen to further piling on or just be infuriated, and everybody else will either cringe or yawn.

I watched Howie's show on Sunday and what I noticed was how he said that Palin's interview with Couric was "not pretty", but he only played the most innocuous clips from the interview.

There and elsewhere they played clips from the SNL fake interview, but not the devastating identically nonsensical real interview.

What we need from Palin is a similar performance against Biden. Or they could just ask Tina Fey.

Piling on may encourage a sense of martyrdom among Republicans. I'd rather see them completely mortified and embarrassed. Thursday night should accomplish that. I do like the suggestion above that Biden talk very little and allow Palin the space to hang herself. But when has Biden ever talked without excess? If he is capable of it, this would be the time.

I miss Molly Ivins so agonizingly much. She would be *such* a great guide to Palin-handling. Can we channel her?!

If McCain gets elected and dies in office, and President Palin screws up, somehow I don't see Vladamir Putin holding back from kicking Palin while she's down out of pity. If she can't take it and overcome it, she doesn't belong in office. A feeding frenzy isn't necessary, but there should be no holding back by Obama/Biden, the Dems, or the media.

I miss Molly Ivins so agonizingly much. She would be *such* a great guide to Palin-handling. Can we channel her?!

I'm sure I'll be making the same point several times (this time is too far down thread) but don't look for Palin to do badly on Thursday. The bar is extremely low and she will come in with memorized answers to specific topics that don't have to exactly answer the question. There will be no give and take with Biden as the Dems were dumb enough to "show deference" in formatting this debate. She'll get rave reviews on her performance, alas.

@ Capt Kirk - The MSM did do it this morning. The Today show did a side by side split screen with Sarah /Tina. The words were identical - it was hilarious. Tina does a better Palin than palin

It is the patriotic duty of reorters to publicly vet (expose) Sarah Palin - since neo-john mcshameless would/could/did NOT. She should be treated as a national security RISK - no more, no less.

Remember last time they went all out there was pro-Palin backlash. Let stuff trickle out steady, it'll work.

All these people Obama hangs out with, yet shares no ideology. Ain't that an odd peculiarity.

Leaving aside the ridiculousness of your claim that Obama "hangs out" with Ayers, let's apply the same standard to your beloved wingnuts:

-Palin is married to a man who is a separatist. You know, someone who wants to DISSOLVE the United States. Not even to mention her own connections to that party.

- McCain has actively sought the support of pastors who claim that it was GOD who sent terrorists to attack the US on 9/11.

How'd that line go again? Oh, yeah, All these people McCain/Palin hang out with, yet share no ideology. Ain't that an odd peculiarity.

Remember last time they went all out there was pro-Palin backlash. Let stuff trickle out steady, it'll work.

Mmmmhmmmm. The CBS interviews have gotten people's attention. Thursday's premier of "Sarah: Director's Cut" will finish the job without any media commentary whatsoever.

***If I was her handlers, I I'd have her say repeatedly, "Joe is right on that." Mirror Obama's line from the last debate. Focus on where she agrees with Biden.

Posted by: SJRSM on September 29, 2008 at 11:27 AM | PERMALINK***

Heh, you're assuming Palin would be willing to be caught dead agreeing with Biden on anything. She's so fully hardwired by the GOP to be anti-anything-the-democrats-say, if her hair were on fire & Biden said "Sarah, my God, your hair's on fire," she'd probably douse herself in gasoline to prove him wrong.

The flaw in the media's reasoning for pulling punches in their treatment of Palin is that, not only will the right not credit them for this, there is nothing they can do, short of becoming Fox News, that will insulate them from the charge of liberal media bias. To the extent that the right's "working the refs" bears fruit, that just makes them hector the refs that much more (because they have seen that it works).

The McCain campaign is clueless about the mood of the country and the factors driving this election. They think the electorate's craving bitchy pettiness. Add to this conscious "strategy" McCain's and Palin's shared personality trait of spiteful snarkery and there is no chance in hell either of them ever publicly agrees with Obama or Biden on anything. Go to it, kids! Conceding any point is for pussies! Roll those eyes and curl those lips!

Pass the popcorn.

These are the same people who admitted privately that they knew Bush was an incurious, ill-informed moron, but didn't want to let those inconvenient facts leech into their coverage of him (especially since he gave them all fun nicknames and playfully patted their heads!). Then they tried to even the playing field (which they mistakenly believe is their job rather than, you know, reporting the facts and letting them fall where they may) by pouncing on every Gore foible, exaggerating and making up stuff if necessary. Then they did the same to Kerry.

It's affirmative action for neotards. If we're really lucky, their complete lack of journalistic competence and integrity won't saddle us with another GOP nightmare.

If I was her handlers, I I'd have her say repeatedly, "Joe is right on that."

Well, if you was her handlers, you'd probably get cursed at afterwards by your party's presidential nominee for doing so. That's exactly what happened the other day when Palin agreed with Obama on attacking bin Laden in Pakistan.

***If I was her handlers, I I'd have her say repeatedly, "Joe is right on that." Mirror Obama's line from the last debate. Focus on where she agrees with Biden.

Posted by: SJRSM on September 29, 2008 at 11:27 AM | PERMALINK***

Yes, but Obama, after agreeing with McCain on one point, further explained how that particular point did not fully address the issue and contrasted the statement against his actual position.

I don't think Sarah is up to doing that.

I can just imagine the scathing and unkind comments from Hannity, Limbaugh, et al., if the Democrats had nominated a brain-dead piece of fluff like Palin as Obama's running. It would have been brutal. Too bad the media has double standards for what is tolerated from Republican pundits vs. Democratic ones.

Look, it is now obvious that Palin isn't even qualified to be governor of Alaska, let alone VP.

Where's the story on Ayers in the Big Media?

SJRSM

You know, this is really simple:

Say you finally get a job, SJRSM, and the guy running the fry vat is , say, a convicted child rapist. You choose to stay there, however, because you think the place has the best burgers in the business and think people should enjoy those burgers.

Does that make you a child rapist as well? Does that mean you support child rape? Does that mean you support what Fry Vat Guy did?

Of course not.

Yet that's exactly what you and others are trying to imply with the whole Ayers nonsense -- that Obama somehow supports what Ayers did some 30 years ago (even though, IIRC, he was never indicted, charged or convicted of anything). Countless people with more access than you, me, or 99% of the blogosphere have dug deep and realized there's no "there" there.

It's patently absurd, and the fact you keep brining it up shows an incredible amount of intellectual (and I use that term loosely) dishonesty on your part, and on the part of anyone else who tries to make something out of this proven nothing.

Sorry -- the annony comment at 1:18 was me.

Kurtz might be tricking us, or his Republican sources may be spinning him.

The two more segments are questions that Couric asked both VP candidates. If she asked predictable questions, Palin probably gave a decent answer, so when those tapes come out, she'll look OK.

Y'all, please keep talking about some totally peripheral non-player who may have done something 40 years ago. It keeps us from discussing the actual topic at hand, the media's protection of the Republican vice presidential candidate's towering failures, and that makes the similarly intellectually equipped SJRSM very happy.

I know of very few in the media who would relish in pouncing on a candidate who'd performed as poorly as Palin did in her interview. They are Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh. Were the tables reversed, this would be the opportunity of a lifetime to them.

We'd never hear the end of it. Ever.

Let's see, Ayers, a "terrorist" has never killed anyone (no arrest for it, no trial for it, and no grandiose claims of bravery for having murdered human beings from a safe distance). Bush, through the use of lies and a campaign of bombing terrorized the civilian populace of Iraq and set off chaos that murdered hundreds of thousands.

And yet there are thickwitted America-hating goons who cheer on this mass-murder by Bush but want to pretend that a marginal figure from decades ago is a "terrorist."

And, ericfree at 10:45 AM, Wouldn't you give just about anything to hear what Molly'd have made of Palin? Tartare's my guess.