Noting that the corrupt media was only interested in emails
from Sarah Palin's past, and not those of Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, or any of the current crop of announced GOP presidential hopefuls, Dan Calabrese condemns the lamestreamers' "search-and-destroy mission" to find dirt on her, "and only her":
All the headlines offered by the egg-on-face media tell us that the e-mails were full of mundane, day-to-day governing stuff, but held no bombshells or major embarrassments.What it tells us about the media, Calabrese points out, helps explain Monday night's circus disguised as a presidential “debate” and the stupid CNN questions “Elvis or Johnny Cash?” What was that all about? the explanation for such nonsense, says Calabrese, is that beyond the horse-race details of elections, today's media have no clue to how to cover the serious business of the governing of the nation. So the trivial and idiotic questions of candidates allow the media Obamabots to coast, as it doesn’t obligate them to investigate how these candidates would rise to the challenge of doing the job they are competing for.
Now, what does that tell us about what they consider to be news?
You’ve got 24,900 e-mails, many of which contain Palin’s correspondence in the course of governing her state. That’s not news. But if she said something idiotic, shallow or religious, that would be news?
Presumably the reason the media cared about the e-mails at all was that Palin might run for president, or at least they think she might. So why not give us a series of stories on the policies Palin implemented in Alaska? Wouldn’t that give us a lot of valuable insight about the kind of president she might be, if she decided to run? What could possibly be more relevant than that?
Oh. Right. Gaffes, bombshells and slip-ups. Certainly not the substantive details of how she governed.
This sorry exercise tells us more about the media than it does about Palin, although it appears the e-mails demonstrate a fair amount about Palin being engaged in the day-to-day details about governing, serious about budget-cutting and on top of the state’s operations.
"And these are the same people who tell us Palin is stupid," remarks Calabrese. Indeed, she was smart enough not to let herself be drawn into this particular sideshow, which we figure makes her smarter than anyone who was asking or answering the questions at this so-called "debate."