Peggy Noonan:- Palin Must Be Destroyed and Destroyed Now

Peggy Noonan sums it up

Because she jumbles up so many cultural categories, because she is a feminist not in the Yale Gender Studies sense but the How Do I Reload This Thang way, because she is a woman who in style, history, moxie and femininity is exactly like a normal American feminist and not an Abstract Theory feminist; because she wears makeup and heels and eats mooseburgers and is Alaska Tough, as Time magazine put it; because she is conservative, and pro-2nd Amendment and pro-life; and because conservatives can smell this sort of thing -- who is really one of them and who is not -- and will fight to the death for one of their beleaguered own; because of all of this she is a real and present danger to the American left, and to the Obama candidacy.
She could become a transformative political presence.
So they are going to have to kill her, and kill her quick.

Ross Douthat Continues to be on a tear at the Atlantic such as at A Further Note On The Palin Coverage:

Judging by my email, a number of readers seem to be under the impression that what we've been witnessing in the media and online over the past couple days is a very serious, nuanced and thoughtful exploration of Sarah Palin's record in Alaska politics, a comparison of that record to the record of her Democratic opponents, and a sober discussion of whether she has sufficient experience to step in and run the country should John McCain, God forbid, die in office. If that's what you seriously, seriously think has been going on lately, then you should probably look elsewhere for analysis of the media's Palin coverage, because you and I are living on very different planets.

He later says as to media Coverage at
Publications I Normally Admire
03 Sep 2008 03:30 pm
A reader writes, regarding this post's reference to "publications I normally admire":

Can you share with us ... which publications have disgraced themselves in your eyes?

I normally have great admiration for the New York Times, which decided to run three above-the-fold stories about a seventeen-year-old girl's pregnancy yesterday (we all remember, of course, the zeal with which the Times pursued the John Edwards-Rielle Hunter scandal during his Presidential campaign), while publishing (and then retracting) the claim that Sarah Palin was a member of the Alaska Independence Party. I normally have great respect for the Washington Post, which trumpeted the claim that Palin - "the Republican vice-presidential nominee who revealed Monday that her 17-year-old daughter is pregnant," in the words of the item - used her line-item veto to "slash funding" for a program "benefiting teen mothers in need of a place to live." (This is true enough, if by "slash funding" you mean "reduce a sixfold increase in the program's funding to a fivefold increase.") I normally have great admiration for Slate, which decided to kick off a reader contest to "name Bristol's baby" after the news of her pregnancy broke. I could go on, but I think you get where I'm coming from on this.

It is going to be a wild ride to the finish