@ fuster:
no

@ fuster:
I think it was obviously a certain always thoroughly objective if sometimes somewhat slightly contentious voice of reason we all know so well.

miguel cervantes wrote:

This painful episode, as the Frumster, calls it, is defending oneself against the implication that one is responsible for the death of a nine
year old girl, a judge, and several others, as well as the injury of 14 others including a congressman.

No, silly Don - the shameful episode to which Frum refers is the one that began in late August of 2008. The only reference to Tucson was made in passing in the Taranto piece that Frum excerpted.

Now that claptrap of a speech, has
actually enabled Obama to profit politically from that atrocity, there
aren’t words to describe the indecency of that.

You believe that, when called upon to speak on the events, Obama should have striven to divide a seething resentful, defensive, and self-absorbed minority from a disgusted majority, just like your dreamboat does every time she's called upon - or calls upon herself?

There are three things about Palin that the country reacts to negatively, both personally and politically: Palin herself, her supporters, and her pandering to her supporters.

@ fuster:
In a way you're right - because focusing on Palin's qualifications or personal baggage, or on the "apparatus" defending her, can easily turn into an excuse for not confronting her politics.