Neatly said

It's not a new point for readers like ourselves. But I thought David Warren said it well:

As everyone with access to the mainstream media (“MSM”) knows, the Alaskan 17-year-old, Bristol Palin, is pregnant by a high school hockey jock named Levi Johnston, and is going to have the baby and marry him.

The august, liberal New York Times carried three big frontpage “analyses” on this yesterday, in which their top correspondents Elisabeth Muller, Adam Nagourney, and Monica Davey, each had a go at performing journalistic “gotchas” on Sarah Palin, John McCain, and the Republican Party. They don’t need to find any example of wrongdoing or irregularity in Mrs Palin’s past. For their purpose is to reduce her candidacy to a soap opera, so that readers will not be tempted to listen to the woman, or form any judgement of their own about her qualifications to be on a presidential ticket.

One begins to understand why women other than Hillary Clinton are seldom considered for such positions. For the American liberal media grant themselves a free pass on all traditional principles of decency, and every feminist talking point besides, when they are confronted with a woman not in the feminist stereotype. Similarly, should a black man be put forward for an important office, who is not ideologically one of theirs, he will be received, journalistically, as Judge Clarence Thomas was -- i.e. publicly lynched -- back in 1991.

I cannot think of better illustrations of the way women and blacks are reduced to stereotype (and “marginalized”) by the American media, and all the other institutions of “political correctness.” We see the same thing up here in Canada, with respect to women and our “visible minorities.” They must not deviate from a script in which every female role model is a feminist and abortion enthusiast, every “visible” the heroic victim of oppression, demanding societal compensation. How better to cripple the individual aspirations of women and minorities?

davidwarrenonline.com - ESSAYS ON OUR TIMES

And Part 2:

We had been told (by most American, and so far as I have seen, all Canadian media outlets) that McCain's selection of Palin was simply "a mistake," "a muff," "proof that he is old and out of touch," etc. We were led to expect a laughably inept performance by some wet-T-shirt queen of sub-normal IQ, backed by a family of drooling troglodytes.

And then we got what looked, sounded, and felt very like an American Margaret Thatcher.

Mrs Thatcher, incidentally, “the grocer’s daughter,” received exactly the same reception from the British Left when she first rose to prominence: the same sarcastic references to her class origins, the same suggestions that she was utterly unprepared, the same visceral misogyny, the same panicked search for domestic tabloid scandal, the same “why don’t you go home, dear, and take care of your children” dismissals. And likewise, this response played an important part in helping her flatten them.
[...]
The consequence, not merely to the U.S. but to the planet, of a McCain as opposed to an Obama presidency, is almost impossible to overestimate.

As I’ve argued before, the enemies of America and the West will tend to be cautious with John McCain, incautious with Barack Obama. (And with Palin behind him, they’ll be toasting McCain’s health.) It follows that a vote for McCain favours peace and stability, a vote for Obama, instability and worse.