Of *course* Big Media love Palin! All they wanted was a story that can sell ads around.

If McCain picked another boring white male like Romney or Pawlenty, they'd be tearing their hair out. They've told that story a million times, and no one wants to hear it again. Palin gives them a new story to tell. It allows them to sex up their political coverage, which of course, will sell more ads. The only way they could be more ecstatic is if McCain picked an extraterrestrial for veep.

It's easy to forget sometimes when our guy is doing so well that the MSM doesn't care a whit about truth. Truth is an impediment to them. It limits them. What they care about is manufacturing a narrative that keeps this a close horse race, and keeps people tuning in. They can't say what everyone can see -- that Palin is shockingly unqualified and a disastrous, desperate pick -- because then the race is over. So they will say anything but that.

They'll say exactly what they're saying, that she's a "maverick", that she was a "gutsy" choice, that she's a "gamechanger". I think the mistake that Dems often make is that they think they're running against the Republicans, when the Republicans often shoot themselves in the foot (when they're not literally shooting their hunting partners in the face). It's the 24-hour cable news cycle and the vapid coverage of the major networks that is the biggest enemy of Democratic candidates.

The question was whether Palin was a good choice, and a couple of the panelists (I think Nora O'Donnell and Howard Fineman) said "yes," simply because it was exciting and stirs up the campaign.

Then Page said, looking at them, said that many journalists LOVE this choice for personal reasons, because it's much more fun to report and write on. But then he said from the standpoint of politics and governances, it was a rotten choice.

Thank you, Clarence!