Thank you UT. Very well put and accurate as hell.

I watched Rachael Maddow... She nearly had multiple orgasms in anticipation. As did her buddy Ed and & Larry whatshisname.

In the beginning, I had some-kind of a respect, or or at least a neutral feeling toward her, now I have a disrespect and feelings like she ought to be ashamed of herself.

She's probably named a couple diversified accounts, 'self-respect' and 'public image'.

So you dont think she bears responsibility as a result of her claim of executive privilege or other stalling tactics?

OK :rolleyes:

I didn't say that at all. Please don't do that - its really beneath you. srsly.

Personally, I think Palin is an idiot, a sideshow and nothing I would want near the office of the president. That was not my point, nor the point UT was making.

My point is that there would not have been a media frenzy last week if she had complied and not delayed the release of the e-mails for more than two years.

And IMO, the media frenzy would have occurred in 08 and been no different than Clinton faced in 92 or that Obama would have faced if his e-mails were subject to a public records act.

F&B is right. Belittling 'liberal' media for their excitement is disingenuous.

No. If that were the case, it would be quiet news, and not followed by the breathless "and we're gonna let you help us read every last one of them!" But don't listen to me, listen to Jon Stewart on the matter:

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mo...-13-2011/pmail

Looking in from the outside, I'd say you're both right. Palin absolutely created the context for the feeding frenzy by her own actions and words. But that doesn't mean it isn't a feeding frenzy, and it doesn't mean the press aren't desperately trying to hype things up and search for the most salacious or saleable details.

But that is less to do with her being on the right, and the media having a 'liberal bias' and is far more to do with her status as the celebrity politician and whackjob people most love to hate.

BS.

She's an attention-whore and the media idiots feed right into her "game."
If they stopped that attitude and realized that 70-80% of the people don't care about her, she would go away much faster. (hopefully and thankfully)
Unfortunately, by paying attention to her every word and covering her self centered & meaningless bus tour, they give her far more credibility - which she does NOT deserve. She deserves ZERO press.
Simply put, She is not a viable candidate, nor has she even even committed to running. Why even bother asking her? They continually portray her as the spokesperson for the right, which she isn't.

I think the frenzy would have been the same with any national political figure (and she is one, with millions of followers, whether she runs for office or not) who smugly has boycotted the media for two years, limiting her political pronouncements on policy or attacks of others to her Facebook, her Fox News show, Sean Hannity's show and a very select few others.

That's fine - although I disagree.
Now when Weiner's come out ... or Ahhhhnolds...

Double standards abound. It is not only Obama's emails that should be examined it is his actions surrounding his thesis and tenure at Harvard Law Review. All this came out during the time he was a valid candidate for President. And people were prevented from seeing the information. There are many issues about his past associations with radical elements of the Left that have been called into question, all pushed aside on done with minimal activity by the press. Now we have a gore fest by the Liberal Media and what did they find? Nada. :lol:

Because she sells newspapers, magazines, and television advertising time.

She is a revenue generator.

I know it is sometimes hard to remember that "news" media are only called that.

That is all any media organization has become anymore. The internet is destroying most of their credibility and competing for their dollars.

I hear ya Foot3 ... point taken.