I have been a avid reader of your website for the last six years or so. Normally, I enjoy your out-of-the-box takes on political and cultural issues, but no more. Your relentless cheerleading aside, the sheer gall and zealotry you are presenting about Ms. Palin is just gob-smacking (to use one of your own appellations). Let me see if I understand this correctly:

Regarding Andrew Sullivan: “I think a fair assessment of these tactics would be blackmail and intimidation. I ignored them as I have learned to ignore most such threats over the years. To answer them is to give legitimacy to the very premises of their argument: that the most intensely personal details of someone’s private life can and should be used for political purposes. The truth is: no-one’s legal, consensual, adult private life should be plundered and exposed for political purposes. I ignored the requests for comment because there was nothing to comment on. . . . I was asked to confirm a story presented anonymously, the only salient details of which I believed to be untrue. Why should I answer?” (May 31, 2001 — http://time-blog.com/daily_dish/main_article.php?artnum=20010531).

Regarding Sarah Palin: “Why not kill this rumor with Palin’s medical records? A 43 year old woman’s pregnancy with a Downs Syndrome child would have been intensely monitored, and the records must be a mile long. Just release them, ok? If necessary in a closed room for reporters, just as with McCain. And we can all breathe a sigh of relief and move on.” (Sept 1, 2008 — http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/09/the-rebuttal.html).

[the above taken from Patterico] So, basically, your privacy is fine and dandy, but hers (or, more to the point, the privacy of her minor child) is not. But, wait: I can hear your objection already. “That’s different, because she’s a public figure”. (As a side note, any time I hear someone say “But that’s different”, it’s a shorthand way of saying “Dammit, I just got caught by my own logic and have to find some way out of my own rhetoric”.)

Regarding John Edwards: “I think the reason the MSM is leery of this story is because someone else has actually claimed to be the father of the child in question and because Elizabeth Edwards is extremely sick, and this story would be an horribly traumatizing question for a cancer patient to deal with. And there’s enough to this story already to bar any near-future public office for Edwards. So, yes, occasionally the press is humane. Sometimes, that’s a good thing.” (Aug 5, 2008 — http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/08/why-cover-the-e.html).

Okay, that’s not directly on point; *you* are not saying that the Edward’s private life should be respected, but rather that *the press* is respecting their private life while you hand them approbation for their restraint.

Regarding Obama’s daughters: “Lastly, I was gob-smacked by the Obamas’ decision to include their children in a soft-focus TV interview. I can barely credit that Michelle Obama agreed to this and that Barack Obama went along with it – it’s not what they would have done a few months ago. One great aspect of the Obama marriage has been the way in which they appear to have brought up their daughters as very regular girls, down-to-earth, normal and sane. Displaying them in this way was bad judgment and poor parenting. Fame is a toxin. Children deserve to be protected from it as much as they would from lead paint.” (Jul 10, 2008 — http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/07/the-hubris-of-o.html).

Ah, maybe now I’m starting to see. It’s better for the children of a politician to be kept out of the limelight. Except when you think they shouldn’t. I’m sure that you will point out that Palin somehow “used” her children during her introduction. I haven’t watched the tape (and I’ll allow that I might be wrong), but I would bet that Obama had his children around when he announced his run for president. I do know that his children were involved in the Democratic convention on Monday night with their mother. But, I know — “that’s different.” Now that I have that understanding, let’s move on to Obama’s past connections and Palin’s

Regarding Palin’s connection to the Alaskan Independence Party: “”I’m an Alaskan, not an American. I’ve got no use for America or her damned institutions.” The late Joe Vogler, founder of the Alaskan Independence Party. Sarah Palin and her husband are said to have been members from 1994 to 1996.” (Sept 2, 2008 — http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/09/alaska-first-al.html).

Regarding Obama’s connection to Rev. Wright: “Look: it’s clear that Obama has kept contact with the kind of politics that Wright represents; but it is also apparent to any fair observer that Obama himself represents a clear and powerful break with the culture and language of permanent black victimhood and identity politics.” (Apr 29, 2008 — http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/04/rush-on-wright.html)

Hmmm…. So, having a connection with a group that many might find offensive is okay, so long as a denunciation is issued. Someone alert the McCain camp — they’ll have a speech out inside of a few hours which will both satisfy your need for a strong, well worded speech *and* point out that the connection between Palin and the AK separatist group is both shorter in duration (2 years vs. ~20 years) and further in the past (over a decade vs a few months ago).

As much as I have enjoyed your writing in the past, it has become increasingly pedantic and monotone in it’s unfailing support for Mr. Obama without any regard for the principles to which you claim such high allegiance. And I say that as someone who did not vote for Mr. Bush either time and did vote for Mr. Obama in the VA primary this year. I’ll try to stop back by in a few months; maybe by then some semblance of rationality will have revisited your writing and it will be enjoyable to read. Until then, I can summarize your future writing with a few sentences:

McCain/Republicans bad.
Obama good.

With regrets,
Casper

“I know I’m not a hypocrite. Anyone who has bothered to read my writing with any care knows that as well. I know I’m not a moralizer.”

What a pretentious, self-righteous, little phony Obama-boy is.

Not too long ago, people kept saying to leave John Edwards alone because he wasn’t running for public office. I guess those were the good old days.

Like on Aug. 5th:

I think the reason the MSM is leery of this story is because someone else has actually claimed to be the father of the child in question and because Elizabeth Edwards is extremely sick, and this story would be an horribly traumatizing question for a cancer patient to deal with. And there’s enough to this story already to bar any near-future public office for Edwards.

So, yes, occasionally the press is humane. Sometimes, that’s a good thing.

Apparently, traumatizing a pregnant 17-year-old is totally cool, however.