The Washington Post claim that its endorsement of Barack Obama is mostly about Sarah Palin is boldly indefensible.

Ruth Marcus of the Washington Post said on FOX News, “This was not a choice of the lesser of two evils. We like Senator McCain and Senator Obama.” This statement was the set-up; voters are supposed to believe that the Post struggled over its decision. The Post continued the feint with, “There is any number of things to respect about what he (McCain) did.”  This line pretends to show the sincerity with which the Post admires John McCain.

In order to sell the farce that it was considering McCain, the Post needed to create a boogeyman, or in this case, a boogeywoman.  That fall gal was Governor Sarah Palin.  To construct the illusion that Palin was a disqualifier they had to ignore her accomplishments and obvious talents and concentrate on something else.  Hmm, what could that be? The editorial board of Washington’s leading paper chose to focus on some interviews by left-leaning “journalists” who should be on Obama’s payroll.

The Post doesn’t have the intellectual honesty to admit that many of the questions by Gibson/Couric were silly, a form of petty and small-minded journalism, and not typical queries asked of Vice Presidential candidates. The Post must have also ignored the debate, in which Palin did very well, answered questions more candidly than Biden, and did not make up trips to Home Depot or lunches at a restaurant that closed in the 80’s.  The Post only looked at evidence they considered damning, or they would have arrived at a different decision.

Not only did the Post use convenient and flawed logic to eliminate John McCain from consideration, it brought that consideration to the number two spot on the ticket and compared apples to oranges.  Marcus continued, “I think the difference about their inexperience is that Sarah Palin has not demonstrated what Barack Obama has on the campaign trail, which is a deep and nuanced and broad (read liberal) understanding of issues.”

So, Obama’s ability to memorize information and spew it back with flowery speech is equivalent to wisdom, but Palin’s years of executive accomplishments and efforts to fight the Alaskan Republican parties’ political machine mean nothing?  This is a strange and convoluted double standard.

The Post article stated, “Yes, we have reservations and concerns, almost inevitably, given Mr. Obama's relatively brief experience in national politics. But we also have enormous hopes.”

Are these reservations because Mr. Obama’s centrist rhetoric does not match his very liberal record?  Do the reservations come from the fact that Mr. Obama has a history of associations with extremist, America-hating radicals whom he has not had the courage to challenge?  Is hope enough of a reason to entrust the future of the country to someone whose background has not been completely vetted? Does the Post hope that Biden will not make racist comments to visiting dignitaries?

The most ridiculous claim made in the Post editorial was that Obama was “a master of substance and detail.” Not only is he often wrong, but also he deliberately lies on many occasions. So, Obama’s mistakes and lies don’t count, but Palin’s frustrations in hostile interviews count twice?

Can anyone cite an instance where the Post defended Governor Palin from the indignities that have been aimed at her?  No? That’s okay, though, the Post’s smear, and that’s what it is, is just another nail in the coffin of old-style, liberal feminism; Sarah’s the future.

The Washington Post is guilty of journalistic malpractice.