There are none so blind as people who can’t see

Snork. Couldn’t help myself.

Ahem. Anyway, a certain Michael Kinsley wrote a little opinion piece in the Washington Post in which he is mystified about David Brooks’ claim that “snobs” were attacking Sarah Palin. But I fear many, many things must mystify our Mr. Kinsley, who is blind not only to the faults of Democrats, but to the naked partisanship that twists his perspective.

Let’s start at the beginning:

David Brooks, the conservative New York Times columnist, says that Barack Obama “needs to attack the snobs who are savaging Sarah Palin’s faith and family.” Actually Obama has already attacked Palin’s critics. When the story broke that Palin’s teenage daughter is pregnant, Obama said that any discussion of Palin’s family was “out of bounds” and even reminded people that his own mother was a teenager when he was born.

So let’s see – where was Obama’s attack on critics again? He simply made a policy statement, adding that he would dismiss any of his staff who violated his policy. Though, of course, he never enforced that policy.

That was a remarkable spin by Kinsley – turning Obama’s words into an “attack on Palin’s critics” – but it wasn’t really blindness. This is blindness:

He got no thank-you from Palin.

I don’t recall the McCain campaign getting a thank-you from Obama, either, for keeping the Obama and Biden families off-limits. But Kinsley can only see things one way.

Then our errant pundit continues:

But who, exactly, are these snobs that David Brooks is so upset about?
…
The only example Brooks supplies is Bill Maher, the TV comedian, whose living depends on saying outragreous things, and all he said, apparently, was that Palin is a “stewardess.”

Of course, David Brooks’ column wasn’t directed toward defending Palin or identifying her critics – it was a take on how unconventional approaches seemed to be succeeding in the Presidential race. The paragraph that Kinsley seized upon was written in the context of advising Obama to go against the grain and defend Palin, thereby shoring up his own image.

But I think I can help Mr. Kinsley with his problem – there are plenty of examples of “snobs attacking Palin’s faith and family.” Here are a few:

• Barney Frank says her family is fair game.
• Alan Colmes attacked Palin’s prenatal care
• The New York Times dove right in, repeating every lurid rumor and questioning her parenting values.
• The AP tried to paint her as a dangerous fundamentalist
• Do I need to mention US Magazine?
• The Washington Post’s Sally Quinn is worried about Palin’s priorities
• Slate’s worried about what Ronald Reagon would have thought about having Bristol on the stage
• Chris Matthews and The New Yorker fretted about her extremist views
• And to finish up: here’s an excellent summary by NewsBusters:
  

  …NBC’s David Gregory falsely disputed the idea that the media had crossed a line by suggesting Palin’s family life conflicted with her candidacy.
  …
  Gregory was wrong — that precise question was posed repeatedly on ABC, CBS and NBC as the networks invaded every nook and cranny of Palin’s family life. From August 29 through September 4, the Big Three network morning and evening shows ran a total of 59 stories mentioning Palin’s family, or about eight per day. Nearly two-thirds of those (37) brought up the pregnancy of Palin’s teenaged daughter; another ten questioned whether she could balance her family obligations with a campaign

I hope that helps Mr. Kinsley out. But unfortunately, I think this sort of help has been completely wasted on a man who wrote, with a completely straight face, this sentence:

Democrats are petrified about criticizing her for fear of seeming sexist.

I guess I’m stunned that Mr. Kinsley has been blind to Obama’s go-to tactic of crying “racism” whenever his position or record is questioned. I mean, to write that sentence without any sign of awareness that he is defending the glassiest of houses speaks of a complete lack of political introspection.

But I suppose that nothing in his column ever suggested otherwise.