Ambinder settles the score, by pointing out some major flaws in her anti-MSM logic:
Palin does not make a distinction between a political press corps that thinks she’s not ready and a tribal belief among some Democrats that she is not smart. She does not distinguish TMZ from PBS. In her world, Bill Maher is Katie Couric. The New York Times is Daily Kos … Finally, it’s not the “lamestream” media or gossipy McCain aides who have offered the most-withering criticism of Palin. Her chances are pooh-poohed by everyone from Karl Rove (who has the ear of almost everyone in the GOP) to Bill Kristol (her onetime backer) to the professional conservative smart set (like The New York Times’s Ross Douthat). If this is a display of liberal bias, then liberals are a lot more numerous than we think.
Ambers also writes the following:
The outré conspiracy theories about Trig Palin not being Palin’s son. That lunacy was not taken seriously (and, indeed, was dismissed) by most of the media.
Really? Let us return to September 3, 2008:
Sen. John McCain's top campaign strategist accused the news media Tuesday of being "on a mission to destroy" Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin by displaying "a level of viciousness and scurrilousness" in pursuing questions about her personal life.
In an extraordinary and emotional interview, Steve Schmidt said his campaign feels "under siege" by wave after wave of news inquiries that have questioned whether Palin is really the mother of a 4-month-old baby, whether her amniotic fluid had been tested and whether she would submit to a DNA test to establish the child's parentage…
Some journalists, Schmidt said, have demanded to see Trig's birth certificate, or have asked when Palin went into labor and whether her contractions increased or decreased as she traveled from Texas to an Alaskan hospital in her home town, Wasilla.
So the "lunacy" was taken seriously, until the McCain camp succeeded in ruling such questions out of bounds:
Schmidt spoke on the record in denouncing as "an absolute work of fiction" a New York Times account of the process by which the McCain campaign vetted Palin. He also charged that Newsweek columnist Howard Fineman was predicting that the governor might have to step down as McCain's vice presidential choice. Fineman said that he has "never, ever said that," and that he has pointed out positive aspects of Palin's candidacy. "They decided a long time ago that they were going to work the refs," he said.
Who are the refs? I have no idea.
On a related note, I emailed Jonathan Martin the other day asking simply why his comprehensive piece on the post-Huckabee GOP race contained a mention of every single contender – down to Herman Cain and Rick Santorum – yet for some reason did not mention Palin once. This is odd because the polls after the race settled down again showed Palin neck and neck with Romney – and Palin is now front and center. Jonathan is a great reporter and it seemed a strange lacuna to me. So I asked him how he could have forgotten Palin. His response? He said he'd take a pass on answering. He may well be proven right, and his assumption that Palin is a non-candidate correct. But on what grounds did he make that call? That Palin still has her Fox gig?
He won't tell. But he has far better sources than I do.
The Dish 