AP Allocates 11 to Fact Check Palin's Book...

Combined number of reporters the AP devoted to fact-checking books by: Obama, Biden, Ted Kennedy, both Clintons, Rudy Giuliani, and Newt Gingrich? Zero.

Yup. The AP let eight books by national politicians slide by unchallenged and then put eleven people to work on Palin's book. That works out to something like 40 pages per reporter.

She's a tremendous threat: a conservative woman with appeal to women voters. OF COURSE they have to go to work on destroying her.

Or, did you REALLY think the New York Times was serving the public interest when it did ELEVEN news stories (+ 2 op eds) on Palin's wardrobe in TEN DAYS and only TWO stories on Obama's close relationship to known terrorist Bill Ayers in TWO MONTHS in the run-up to the election? No issue is too picayune to use against the conservative; no issue is great enough to jeopardize the leftist.

This is what people don't understand: the heavily liberal mainstream media doesn't even have to lie; they just have to tie up the bandwidth with enough questions to keep the heat off their candidates.

Truth be told, Sarah Palin shattered the glass ceiling. She was such a formidable threat that the main stream media and the DNC ignored her gender and went into tabloid attack mode.

And she is further proof that partisanship is more than ugly, it also trumps reason.

But at the same time, they do lie, and, by virtue of lack of scrutiny or "ignoring the problem" - for whatever reason - help to perpetuate lies, which has worked out quite well for Obama.

Of course, he pooched his free pass with the press by baring his teeth at Fox News. Even for liberal news outlets, a president who decides he's going to fuck with any entity of the press hits just too close to home for comfort.

I happened to surf past some CBS fluff show the other night (what's on at 7?), and the group of hosts were engaged in a rampant festival of Palin-bashing while giggling like gossiping school girls. They even had sound bites from her almost-son-in-law on the question "Is she a diva?" Whatever that means. They were very concerned with lots of truly minor cirticisms. 'Twas disgusting.

Well it is Sarah Palin. Just saying.

I really don't care about Sarah Palin






















...until she shows up in my hotel room dressed in a naughty Catholic school girl uniform!

LIBRUL MEEDYU!!1!!11!

[Double Post]

Considering that staffers from the McCain campaign have accused Pailn of fabricating events in the book, why wouldn't they fact-check it?

Were there similar allegations made about other books listed in the OP?

lol whut?? Sarah Palin is President?


In any case....yeah, better buckle up for another season of Sarah bashing. About to get crazy out there.

Yesterday was just the start -- the Newsweek cover story began to boil -- and Barack Obama Thugs (hereinafter B.O.T.s) were out in full force saying "No Professional woman would ever take a picture like that, putting her hand on her hip and lifting her leg up slightly in such an erotic manner."

Also, some of the names I saw in the blogosphere appearing again are names I hadn't seen in a long time, not since the election last year. So the Sarah hate appears to be back on.

USA Today also made an "erratum" that really, was just a thinly veiled attack on Sarah. They had a picture of her book in an article about her.....except that it wasn't her book...it was the other Sarah Palin book "Going Rouge: An American Nightmare." Who knows...maybe it was a genuine mistake..but in this day and age, just seems kinda out of place for a national news organization to make such an elementary error.

Bah. Well, bring it.

Because, while I wouldn't say I am a big Sarah Palin fan -- although, it does seem her re-debut on to the national stage over the last few days has been going better than before..........I do think she should have the right to speak what she thinks, without being endlessly needled with juvenile, baseless, completely irrelevant criticism. Hillary may have been alone when that was happening to Hillary last year, but Sarah isn't.

So, all of you who are defending the media's actions re: Sarah Palin think it is appropriate to give her FAR greater scrutiny than the President? Do you REALLY think she was treated fairly compared to the way the media slobbered all over Obama?

BTW, I thought this was a very sweet gesture/hat tip by Sarah toward Hillary. She says she was wrong for previously thinking Hillary was whining last year....and by way of her own experiences with the media, Sarah realizes Hillary was treated very unfairly and with bias, just like Sarah was.

Here's the video footage:

[wyt=Sarah Palin and Hillary Clinton]lbgH1NmiDKM[/wyt]

Hmm, do I see a coffee summit in the future? Can you imagine the explosions and flashing lights when Hillary and Sarah eventually meet? Quick, somebody hide the dresses -- Michelle is about to go on another sleeve yanking binge!!

Can I ask a simple question. Why does Sarah Palin expect and the legions here insist that everything she says should be taken at complete face value and to question anything she says or does is persecuting her?

I mean some of the exerpts that were realized were pure fabrication(the whole SNL appearance deal. In the book she spins a tale of being behind it and supporting it and campaign e-mails says exactly the opposite), so why not take a fine tooth comb to the rest?

Don't play games like this, Paladin. Obama is Obama, as near a perfect man as has ever held the office. In all fairness, he should at least be given the length of his full first term before any kind of real scrutiny is applied...or perhaps 8 years if he's re-elected. Can't you just give him a chance?

Palin, however.......she could run for president one day. Don't you want to have her thoroughly vetted?

Yeah, but she's such a fucking idiot the chances of her talking shite either deliberately or accidentally are so much higher than with most of those other politicians. 11 makes sense.

Works pretty good that way too, doesn't it, sparky.

The fact checking occurred before the book was released and the McCain staffers bitched.

Therefore they were fact checking on their own and not because of any allegations.

It is true, and I know you lefties love to deny it, but the left is terrified of Palin. Obama and the White House are terrified of Palin. The left leaning media are terrified of Palin. The left telegraphs who they fear will be running for President in 2012. There is only one person on the right that scares them so much that they will continue to smear that person from the 2008 campaign all the way to the 2012 or 2016 campaign. That person is Sarah Palin.

Terrified as in shitting their pants at the thought of her running. If they thought they could get away with it they'd probably try to assassinate her.

After a lackluster if not downright disaster of the current idiot in office Palin will scoop up lots of former "independent for Obama" voters and the biggest fear of the Democrats: all the woman vote.

Oh and in regards to the other books....

Allegations were made about Obama's books. Obviously they were never followed up on by the AP.

The whole world should be terified of her

Meh, my take is that she wrote the book to make money and this will probably end up generating more interest, thus more sales. Good for her, she's always been my favorite sexy librarian.

I must admit it is strange though that the need is felt to vet a book so thoroughly for someone who is out of politics.

Ahh yes another useless idiot from over there......one who pays no attention but simply follows a checklist when it comes to American politics....

A. Not a leftist. Check!
B. A Republican. Check!
C. Likes guns. Check!

If you checked 1, 2, or all 3 boxes make sure to chime in that you don't like her, she's an idiot, and the whole world should be terrified of her.

Well at least we know PGT can follow a simple list.....

ahem......

"It is true, and I know you lefties love to deny it, but the left is terrified of Palin. Obama and the White House are terrified of Palin. The left leaning media are terrified of Palin. The left telegraphs who they fear will be running for President in 2012. There is only one person on the right that scares them so much that they will continue to smear that person from the 2008 campaign all the way to the 2012 or 2016 campaign. That person is Sarah Palin.

Terrified as in shitting their pants at the thought of her running. If they thought they could get away with it they'd probably try to assassinate her.

After a lackluster if not downright disaster of the current idiot in office Palin will scoop up lots of former "independent for Obama" voters and the biggest fear of the Democrats: all the woman vote."

Fox News owns USA Today?

Oh... ...... they don't......

Nevermind then......

In what way did she "shatter the glass ceiling"? Geraldine Ferraro ran with Walter Mondale in 1984 and things were just as ugly then as they were in 2008, only the parties were reversed then.

That's a good question. Shouldn't it ALSO be/have been asked of Obama?

Obama associates with anti-white, anti-American Reverend White and acknowledged terrorist Ayers...why not take a fine toothed comb to that?

Because, of course, Sarah Palin's personal life and personality are much more important journalistic subjects than the people with whom the most powerful man in the world CHOOSES to associate himself.

The question isn't "Why isn't Sarah Palin worthy of scrutiny?" It's "Why aren't MUCH MORE important issues given ANYWHERE NEAR the same scrutiny?" And it's because the leftist media picks the topics and it won't pick topics that present their man in a bad light.

Even though male candidates clothing is never an issue, the cost of Sarah Palin's wardrobe on campaign is hugely significant because it serves the media's goals: to make her look OTHER to the mainly middle class electorate. That's why it gets ELEVEN stories (and 2 op-eds) in THE NEW YORK TIMES, but Obama's relationships with prominent, shady characters go unexplored.

Please don't tell me you CAN'T see this is the case. I don't know how it could be more blatant.

Please..... Ferraro did not face what Palin faced. Hell Ferraro didn't even face what Hillary faced.

And a third hell is that once the campaign was over no one in the media or on the right continued to smear her every chance they got. It's been two years since the election yet the left continues its rampage against Palin. That never happened to Ferraro.

Another useless idiot from over there who follows a check list.

What does Sarah Palin's book and what Sarah Palin says have to do with anybody else but Sarah Palin? The Reverend Wright and Ayers things were done to death during the campaign so I really don't know what you're trying to get at. And you're seriously going to complain about the Palin wardrobe issue when on this very forum people mocking John Edwards for his $400 haircut, reported by the same media. The answer that questions lay right there. Not in the persecution complex you've built around Palin. So can I get an answer to my question now without the foaming at the mouth nonsequitor?

Keep thinking that way.

That's EXACTLY the sort of attitude which is going to leverage a woman who is as much a mixed bag of good and bad points as any other political figure into an icon that will be a real threat to the Dems in power.

Dismiss her as a lightweight or whatever? sure, you can make that argument.

but the current president is a lightweight who got where he is based on preception trumping reality.

Don't think it can't happen again.

and it is happening, right before our eyes - and what you guys on the left don'trealize is every time you belittle her you fuel the fire.