So, Ron, don’t mind Bob. Bring it on!

What negates the HuffPo article above is two things: 1. In any given instance public figures can rightfully take issue with just about any joke or criticism they want; and 2. It strategically made sense to go after a major network figure like Letterman because the timing was apparently right and much traction was gained from doing so. This wouldn’t make sense at most other times and in most other situations. Simply in terms of time and resources it’s logistically impossible to go after each and every criticism or bad joke. An advisor of mind said leaders have six shots to fire. By the time they hang their hat on more than about six issues, they begin to lose effectiveness. It’s strategic to know when to take issue with something with this much visibility; in most cases, it is pointless to do so.

Keep in mind this is irrespective relevant political ideologies or qualifications, which I take few positions on anyway. It is the job of politicians to do what they do. Comedians and talk show hosts have every right to make tasteless jokes about anything they want (I’m a fan of tasteless jokes); conversely, people have the right to fight back. In this instance, Palin’s pushback was successful. Her timing was on the mark and she managed the traction gained to the point of getting a response she could live with. To me, that’s strategically impressive. And again, this irrespective of her performance elsewhere on other issues.

At the same time, I don’t think that dismissing “left-wing sources” is helpful. The problem with such sources is not so much their position but rather how their stance influences their worldview. Too often partisan pundits — people like Rush Limbaugh — and sites — like the HuffPo — are blinded to divergent perspectives regardless of validity of such points of view. Such attachment to ideology ultimately blinds one to wider possibilities and outlooks.

But hey, most people do it and it makes for good ratings and pageviews, so what do I know?

On a side note, governors are always weak on foreign policy, as senators are weak on executive experience. That’s just life on planet earth.

There had been numerous jokes about her daughter before, why suddenly so p.o.’d? And what about the gross jokes from Limbaugh and McCain about Chelsea Clinton — as Huffpost’s Shannyn Moore asks, shouldn’t they, too, apologize to their (direct and clear, not inadvertent) target and the rest of the female population, as well?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/shannyn-moore/top-10-reasons-sarah-pali_b_215468.html

As a mother, I would defend my kids, too. But I never would have taken them out of school and put them on public display the way she did. That seemed sociopathic to me. Obama did not do that to his kids.

And to Ron: What planet have you been living on? The criticism of Palin was primarily about her inexperience and utter stupidity — she couldn’t answer the simplest of foreign policy questions, for example.