[UPDATE 3]

Halperin reports that Palin will sit down with Charlie Gibson of ABC News later this week. Seemingly the Republicans feel comfortable there. Will she face tough questions? Will she get the same treatment that is given to Democratic candidates? Why don't we mail in some of our questions. Remember civil questions about her policies, her experience and her credibility. Here is the link to ABC News.

[UPDATE 2]

Gallup Daily Tracking Poll: McCain 48% Obama 45%

Rasmussen Tracking Poll: McCain 48% Obama 48%

You can call this a quick review of press clippings. I thought I would never see the press getting tough on the Republicans but boy are they pissed off.

Let's start with this parody by Politico's Roger Simon:

We have asked pathetic questions like: Who is Sarah Palin? What is her record? Where does she stand on the issues? And is she is qualified to be a heartbeat away from the presidency?

We have asked mean questions like: How well did John McCain know her before he selected her? How well did his campaign vet her? And was she his first choice?

Bad questions. Bad media. Bad.

It is not our job to ask questions. Or it shouldn't be. To hear from the pols at the Republican National Convention this week, our job is to endorse and support the decisions of the pols.

Then we have similar scathing attack by Joe Klein:

Maybe I'm getting old, maybe it's that I've seen this act so often before, maybe it's that the people I talk to when I go out on the road really are having a harder time paying for things like health care, gasoline and college tuition, but I'm finding the Republican attempts to derail the conversation from the actual state of the country really depressing and disgraceful this year. They practice Orwellian politics of the crudest sort. They are trying to sell a big lie--that the election is about the social issues of the 1960s, or Barack Obama's patriotism or his eloquence, or the "angry left," when it's really about turning toward a more moderate path after the ideological radicalism and malfeasance of the past eight years.

And then , surprise surprise, David Frum:

Did you happen to see this clip featuring Jay Carney of Time and Nicole Wallace of the McCain campaign? If not, do please click - it's very short. Carney asks when Palin will take questions from the press. Wallace dismisses the idea. "Who cares?" she answers.

So here's why I care.

A question I am often asked when I give talks or lectures is: Why did the Bush communication effort end so badly? How did an administration that once commanded such public support end by losing all ability to make its case?

My answer is that the ultimate failure was encoded into the initial success. The president's communication team - of which Nicole Wallace was an important part - shared the same disdain of "elites" that permeates so much of my pro-Palin correspondence. It was not just the media elite that they disregarded. (Who could blame them for that?) It was the policy elite too. When the president wished to advocate, eg a tax cut, he did not argue his case before the Detroit Economic Club or send a surrogate to Jackson Hole. He made a rally speech before cheering supporters. That made for effective soundbites and exciting images. But it abdicated any effort to make an argument that could convince people who were not predisposed to be convinced.

Jonathan Martin:

But this aside, does the McCain campaign really want to accuse anybody else of an "attempt to play the victim" after their efforts to gain sympathy and rouse their base by crying out over the coverage of Palin?

Recall: McCain's campaign sent out a fundraising appeal claiming the "Obama-Biden Democrats" had gone after the Palin family and then were able to list zero examples of any such efforts by the Democratic ticket.

Jake Tapper calls out McCain campaign hypocrisy:

Davis -- whose campaign has spent much of the last week complaining about bias in the media and sexism against vice president candidate Gov. Sarah Palin -- continued railing against Obama's vaguely-sourced claims of victimhood, saying, "Barack Obama said he was different. He promised a new politics of hope and change. Is this what that politics looks like? "This week, Gov. [Sarah] Palin said there are two kinds of candidates: those who use change to promote their careers, and those who use their careers to promote change. With each new cynical attack, it's increasingly clear which kind Sen. Obama really is."

Even Joe Scarborough, ex-Republican congressman, is ticked off:

Thankfully Barack Obama showed some spirit today and went after McCain:

"I know the governor of Alaska has been, you know, saying she is change," Obama said of Gov. Sarah Palin. "And that is great. She is a skillful politician.

"But when you've been taking all these earmarks when it is convenient and then suddenly you are the champion anti-earmark person, that is not change, come on!" Obama said. "I mean, words mean something. You can't just make stuff up. You can't just make stuff up. We have a choice to make and the choice is clear."

<snip>

"I have to say, when John McCain says in his speech that he wants to reduce the rancor in Washington ... and I'm thinking, 'Did you pay attention to the last two days of your convention?'" Obama asked.

"I mean, What? Were you not, were you not watching?" Obama continued. "Did they not get the memo?

"You know, there's got to be some consistency in how you approach these things," Obama said, "There's nothing wrong with a vigorous debate because the parties have very real differences. But when it starts getting personal, when you start just focusing exclusively on trying to tear the other person down instead of what you are going to do on behalf of the American people to deal with this economy, then that's not serving Democrats, that's not serving Republicans, that's not serving anybody and that's the kind of politics we want to put to an end when I'm President of the United States."

And finally Joan Walsh at Salon says that it is time to stop being chivalrous and time to start getting tough:

I have always said while it is wise for the candidate to not get involved with Palin in nasty and ugly fight which she would love behind her shield of sexism, it is also increasingly important for Democrats to go after her character, her lies, her fabrications, her abuse of power, her hypocrisy, her greed and yes even her nasty character. She calls herself a pitbull with lipstick so its time for us to call the animal control before she bites anymore.

Update [2008-9-7 11:19:36 by tarheel74]:

Over at TalkLeft BTD quotes Nate Silver. Their basic point being that counterattacking Palin is a bad move and likely to backfire. In a way they are right. The venom being spewed by this woman is basically an effort to distract everyone to her, engage in partisan rancor, get targeted by the "sexist" smear while St. John can preach of unity. But here's why they are wrong. We may not need to respond to their charges directly all the time because reacting to what they say is a waste of energy but we need to use this window of opportunity the Republicans have provided by ticking off the press to define the Republican candidates. The Republicans do it very well but we don't. The opportunity is there for us to expose St. John as an ambitious, two-faced hypocrite who hides behind his pitbull to do his dirty work, as a candidate who is inherently bankrupt of ideas and with huge credibility gaps. Palin is after all just an extension of him.

One other thing, even Josh Marshall noticed today, it is not up to the presidential candidate to counter the attacks of the Republican VP or the character attacks from St. John and his minions. That is the Democratic VP's job. Where is he? It is all very well for him to say that St. John is dear personal friend of his but then it is all the more important for him to tell his friend to stop this campaign of character assassination. Joe Biden has to step up to the plate. He has to get more vocal.