My blog has never been short of sarcasm. You are right, and it was “less than civil,” but it was written in response to multiple years of experience with DC Bloggers. I’ve rarely been treated graciously. When I moved away, I even got hateful comments for expressing my desire to move back to Tennessee and daring to question the superiority of living in an urban environment.

You can shoot for civility, but it’s a misnomer that it has ever existed in our society. It’s a hopeless quest.

I’m sorry that you were offended. However, in my position, how would you have reacted? Imagine living in an environment where you opinions are reviled and every single media outlet goes out of its way to attack your beliefs. From that perspective, writing a sarcastic comment doesn’t seem that bad, does it?

That said, the “welcome DC blogs” comment was less than civil…if the point is to offer a different point of view, wouldn’t it be better to be welcoming and gracious, vs. harsh and sarcastic? Aren’t we supposed to shoot for civility in public discourse so everyone gets a chance to speak?

The DC Blogs comment wasn’t just directed at you. I’ve been listed there for a number of years. I’ve rarely had a positive experience when my blog is highlighted. Most people in DC are alarmingly liberal and hateful towards me.

As far as Oprah goes, I think it was a good move for both of them. Oprah’s ratings have been tanking since she had Obama on her show in December 2007. Until Palin, her highest-rated show in recent history featured the Osmond family in November 2007. Oprah’s taken a lot of heat for her Obama love, and she came off as snarky with her refusal to have Pain on the show last fall.

Palin’s appearance helped rebuild that bridge to right-of-center voters, especially in a period when Obama’s ratings are below 50%. Oprah is so closely linked to him, and many view her as the “kingmaker.”

Palin was smart by going to Oprah. Oprah has wide appeal, and it at least gave the appearance that she was reaching across the aisle to heal some bad blood from the election.

There aren’t that many general interest outlets, and Oprah is the most prominent one. You want exposure, go on Oprah.

The difference this time is that Palin can control her message and strategy. Previously, she was on McCain’s turf and had to do his bidding. The campaign never found a good strategy for her, which caused most of the issues. When the media questions her, she doesn’t have to stop and think, “what is the campaign’s position,” but can freely give her own opinion.

That sort of sums it all up right there…

Welcome DC establishment, Sarah haters. This is what a real conservative looks like. It’s hard to take, I know. Not many of you are exposed to dissenting views from the Obama-worship in this area. In fact, I’m willing to bet that this is the first conservative blog that most have stumbled upon or deign to read. Prepare for your head to do the “exorcist” turn.

Nor did I ever say that Couric gave a tough interview. I merely said that she was the wrong outlet to start with.

This post wasn’t about defending Palin or Katie Couric’s journalism ability, it was written to question Wallace’s strategy. Thus far, only one comment has understood that point.

I don’t believe Couric is a particularly good journalist. In fact, I hated her on morning news for many, many years. She knew her Palin interview was ‘do or die.’

It’s still strange that the campaign would start with Couric. Palin was a relatively unknown entity and should have been introduced to the base first.

Miles-Couric was tough on both Hillary and Palin because she was in the tank for Obama. Watch John Ziegler’s Media Malpractice. It’s eyeopening.

It’s a sad state of news that there’s no one who is not “biased.” That’s the worst part of this story.