The Washington Post’s fine political columnist Dana Milbank has pledged not to write or utter the name “Sarah Palin” for the month of February, an interesting and worthy experiment in which I suspect he will be joined by…no one. Milbank’s self-described “obsession” with Palin—42 columns thus far—“cheapens and demeans me,” he writes, occupying brain space that might be taken up by loftier subjects. And yet, she is almost irresistible, he writes: "If any of us refused to partake of her Facebook candy or declined to use her as blog bait, we would be sending millions of Web surfers, readers, viewers and listeners to our less scrupulous competitors."

He calls on peers like Maureen Dowd and Ross Douthat of the New York Times to join him, along with Keith Olbermann, Sean Hannity, and even the Huffington Post. Good luck with that. (For what it’s worth, beneath Milbank’s column are links to three articles from the Post’s Outlook section, all of them about Sarah Palin.)

This seems like a particularly difficult stunt for Milbank to pull off, if only because when he inevitably shows up on the Sunday talk shows, he will be asked about his self-imposed ban. (Perhaps he can thread the needle by talking about his stand without saying her name, which would safeguard the letter, if not the spirit, of what he’s doing.) I suspect there will be some interest in the idea of a media prohibition of the former veep candidate, if only because it affords an opportunity to discuss how fascinating we all her, despite ourselves, as well as to excoriate the press for paying too much attention to her—in the context of the press paying too much attention to her. Can a discussion about how we’re all sick of hearing Sarah Palin’s name get as many eyeballs as every other article/TV roundtable/blog post related to her? No doubt.

Tags: dana milbank, Palin, Sarah Palin, washington post

—According to a recent post on Facebook by Sarah Palin, burning the Koran on 9/11 is as unethical as building a mosque at Ground Zero. [Gawker]

—Supermodel Naomi Campbell is coming to terms with her turbulent past. "I admit to my past. I own it. I don’t deny it. Denial is a very bad thing." [New York Times]

—Carly Fiorina, who is in the middle of battling Democrat Barbara Boxer for a Senate seat in California, made the rather curious choice of spending Labor Day Weekend in Israel. [The Daily Beast]

—In the aftermath of false-claims lawsuits against the makers of Botox, the FDA is thinking about approving it for use in the treatment of migraines.  Allergan, the company that makes the injectable, is also studying whether it can be used to treat overactive bladder condition. [New York Times]

—Britney Spears is being sued by one of her former bodyguards. He claims that the formerly troubled popstar repeatedly exposed herself to him and abused her children. [TMZ]

Photograph of Sarah Palin by Tricia Ward for Wikimedia Commons.

Tags: botox, Britney Spears, carly fiorina, koran, naomi campbell, Sarah Palin

Jessica, I'm happy to see you take on the task of promoting fiery progressive women to be the sort of "Sarah Palin of the left," a job the Democratic establishment has basically refused to do.  But I have to take issue with the way that Sarah Palin is assumed to have a lot of power because she can get a lot of attention.  Honestly, if someone waved a magic wand and made her and Hillary Clinton sudden death contenders for the presidency right now, Clinton would win in a heartbeat. Being able to get a lot of attention doesn't mean you win anyone's hearts. Look at Paris Hilton.

Hanna, I have to disagree with your assumption that a liberal version of Sarah Palin would have to compromise on basic issues, such as a woman's right to exhibit willingness to be nonprocreative at any point in time without apology. To be the "Sarah Palin of the left," you would have to be able to be as firmly on the left as Palin is on the right, and that would mean being pro-choice without apology.

But you can't really draw direct equivalences, for a couple of reasons. One is that Palin's main appeal is that she offers herself as proof that a sexist culture's lies aren't lies. In a sexist culture, women are expected to be strong yet submissive, maternal yet sexually exciting, sure-footed enough to get all the work that's put in your lap done, but not intelligent so that you threaten insecure men. Real women basically find these conflicting demands to be impossible to achieve. Sarah Palin draws in her worshippers by implying all you need to be the perfect woman who manages to fit every single male fantasy is to vote Republican. She hides the ugly realities of how she isn't doing it all, and people gather around her, wishing to believe.

Liberals can't be fed a fantasy woman because we don't even agree on what our fantasy is. Many liberals are openly uneasy with feminism, lured by conservative arguments about how women having too much freedom would mean the end of sexual fun for men but the beginning of a sea of dishes and nagging. Many male liberals, particularly in positions of power, are openly made uncomfortable by feminist demands, even when they agree intellectually that women should have rights. (Witness the way that Democratic men in Congress erupted into childish giggling when asked by their female colleagues to listen to a presentation on the economic value of contraception subsidies.)  Even when liberal men can manage not to squirm, many still have a tendency to dismiss "women's issues" as second-tier concerns, as if half the population were a narrow special interest group, like people who want ferret-owning to be legal in New York City.

Plus, liberals don't have as many contradictory demands, so we don't really need fantasies spoon fed to us that these contradictions can be managed. We don't have a need to believe women can be appealingly stupid yet capable—we're fine with just plain smart women. We're not nearly as invested in the idea that our leaders should demonstrate a sexual magnetism that we're lacking in our own lives. How well a candidate shoots a gun or how productive his or her loins are doesn't matter as much to us. Politicians like Palin understand that their base is insecure and needing of distracting fantasies, and so it's just a matter of providing them. But the emotional needs of the liberal base are far harder to sum up and provide with a few photo ops.

Tags: conservatives, Hillary Clinton, liberals, Sarah Palin

—Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) says the wording of the House health care reform bill can be changed to keep taxpayer dollars from funding abortions without placing new restrictions on abortion rights. Stupak, who sponsored the proposed amendment to the House bill barring federal subsidies for abortions, accuses pro-choice advocates of making abortion part of the health care debate. [AP]

—Sarah Palin has finally come up with an excuse for her 10th grade note-taking style: Her palm-scribbling is further evidence of her divinity, or perhaps God's Palinity. At the Ohio Right to Life fundraiser Sunday, she paraphrased Isaiah 49:16, "I wrote your name on the palm of my hand to remember you," and added, "I'm in good company." [Daily Intel, Huffington Post]
Here's a clip from the fundraiser:

—Even Kenneth Starr is chastising Liz Cheney for questioning the "values" of Justice Department lawyers who have represented terror suspects. Starr is one of 19 prominent conservative attorneys to sign a letter protesting Cheney's representation of the Justice lawyers as "the al Qaeda seven." [Salon, Politico]

—Confirmed! Betty White will host Saturday Night Live! But will she mention that Oscar dead-folks montage that didn't mention fellow Golden Girl Bea Arthur? [People, New York Daily News]

Tags: abortion, al qaeda seven, Bart stupak, bea arthur, betty white, health care reform, kenneth starr, liz cheney, Palin, Rape, snl, stupak amendment

For at least two decades now, whining about the oppression of political correctness has been a powerful recruiting tool for the right. Rush Limbaugh and his countless imitators have had a smashing success in painting a picture of liberals as a bunch of finger-shaking schoolmarms depriving red-blooded American white men of their God-given right to use racist, sexist, ableist, and homophobic language without risking criticism from the uptight, effeminate left. It was deafening, the weeping and wailing about out-of-control language-Nazis oppressing the conservative male with lip snarls and eye rolls when he merely wants to say something vicious towards disempowered groups. But now, of course, the biggest finger-shaking schoolmarm in the nation is apparently Sarah Palin, on the warpath against the improper use of the word "retard," and you have to wonder how the right that worships her will reconcile the cognitive dissonance.

The latest offenders who are no doubt squealing with glee about annoying a censorious authority figure is Seth MacFarlane and the writing staff of Family Guy, who made fun of mentally disabled people and specifically of the Palin family for having a member who has Down syndrome. If Palin were a Democrat, there would be no question of how this would be spun. The shock-jock, right-wing establishment would immediately snap into place, protecting the right of white guys like MacFarlane to act like junior-high-school kids who think it's "daring" to make fun of disempowered people, instead of turning their satirical eye toward the mighty. But, of course, Palin is on Team Conservative, and so this has to play out a little differently. Now that conservatives officially have embraced political correctness along with liberals, can we just stop playing the game of shaming people for having basic decency?

The answer is, "possibly." Palin, who is not known for being consistent about her outrage, broke out of character to shame Rush Limbaugh for using the word "retard." Cynics might point out she's trying to snatch his throne, but I do think that many conservatives have consistently demonstrated that when the disempowered are members of their own family, they suddenly grow a conscience on that particular issue. Arlen Specter's battles with cancer made him break against the Republicans to support stem-cell research. Dick Cheney's own daughter is gay, and while he's too much of a political coward to issue full-throated support for gay rights, he's come out in favor of gays in the military and always tepidly supported gay marriage rights. So I do think Palin's offense is sincere. Though I'm sure she's still fine with political incorrectness, as long as it's not aimed at her family.

Tags: family guy, political correctness

Emily B, Hanna: I, too, gobbled up the gossip-rich excepts and reviews of Game Change, but they left me feeling kind of sorry for the people who go into politics. Sure, we are entitled to know as much as we can about those we entrust with our security, freedom, and money, but there is something a little squirm-making about the post-election book frenzy in which staffers unload every embarrassing private anecdote about their former bosses. And while this book clearly fills in a lot of detail, the behind-the-scenes portrait makes a case that the press coverage and exposure to the candidates as they run really does do a good job of telling us what we need to know. Game Change only reinforced my knowledge that we didn’t want Bill and Hillary’s relationship back at center stage at the White House, and that, duh, she can’t control him. That John Edwards is an oily, lying, narcissistic lightweight. That Elizabeth had unhealthily made his election her life’s justification (although her mortification is horrible to read about). That Sarah Palin was dangerously incapable of grappling with the issues of the day. That John and Cindy McCain can’t stand each other. That Harry Reid says stupid things.

Tags: Clinton, Edwards, Game Change, McCain, Palin, Reid

I'm suspicious of this new poll showing that Americans are tired of hearing about Palin, and that they follow the health care debate more closely than they follow the news about her. This is a classic in the category of virtuous self reporting, along with studies about diet and exercise. In the study, only 3 percent of Democrats say they paid attention to coverage of Palin's book tour. But there are two big problems with that statistic. One, paying attention to news about Palin's book tour is not the same as paying attention to news about her. People may not even know she has written a book but, as any web site editor can tell you, they will read any story with Palin or Angelina Jolie in the headline. Second, if I asked you to rank your preference about stories on celebrities, child horror or health care, what would you say?

Tags: going rogue, Palin, Palin book tour, tired of Palin

Like Jessica, I devoured Todd Purdum's blistering report in the current issue of Vanity Fair about Sarah Palin that draws on sniping from former John McCain aides, shrugging statements of disownment from acquaintances in Wasilla, and sorrowful head-shaking from the Republican intelligentsia. The wide-ranging “profile” of the woman who almost stood second in line to the presidency pre-empts the forthcoming book that netted the Alaskan governor seven figures. And, having undergone the saga of the 2008 presidential campaign—particularly the post-Labor Day sprint that made up Palin’s first months in the public spotlight—it’s astonishing to think that there could POSSIBLY be more to the story.

And yet, writes Purdum:

N]o serious vetting had been done before the selection (by either the McCain or the Obama team), and there was trouble in nailing down basic facts about Palin’s life. After she was picked, the campaign belatedly sent a dozen lawyers and researchers, led by a veteran Bush aide, Taylor Griffin, to Alaska, in a desperate race against the national reporters descending on the state. At one point, trying out a debating point that she believed showed she could empathize with uninsured Americans, Palin told McCain aides that she and Todd in the early years of their marriage had been unable to afford health insurance of any kind, and had gone without it until he got his union card and went to work for British Petroleum on the North Slope of Alaska. Checking with Todd Palin himself revealed that, no, they had had catastrophic coverage all along. She insisted that catastrophic insurance didn’t really count and need not be revealed. This sort of slipperiness—about both what the truth was and whether the truth even mattered—persisted on questions great and small.

Palin’s lies are rather despicable, but perhaps par for the political course. What really stands out is the swirling background drama (Palin’s “life has sometimes played out like an unholy amalgam of Desperate Housewives and Northern Exposure,” says Purdum) that is completely divorced from “politics” as we understand them. Sure, Bristol Palin’s baby (and Sarah’s own last son) implicate big social questions, but more than anything the sideshow, and her handling of if, tags Palin herself as being fundamentally unserious, and unpolitical.

Even Meghan McCain, daughter of Palin’s former running-mate, was a bit confused about how to treat the family during my brief run-in with her at the White House Correspondents’ Association Dinner. “Do you think I have to go talk to him?” she asked, about Palin’s husband, Todd. No one, it seems—particularly the political folks in this article—want to be within ten feet of the sideshow, either.

Is that fair? Not really—politics has always about second acts. But Palin famously “didn’t blink” before charging headlong into the embarrassing stint in the national spotlight that Barack Obama, Purdum reports, knew she wasn’t prepared for. And compare her lack of self-awareness to the GQ-narrated plight of Levi Johnston, father of her grandchild:

The reason Levi often seems like he has about seventy-five English words with which to process and articulate these experiences and their effect on his interior life is that he has been thoroughly traumatized by them.

What’s Palin's excuse? As this article demomonstrates, the governor seems to have no idea what havoc her preening and ignorance wrought on both female politicians and the GOP brand. She breezily tweets about her kids and her plans for Alaska—that welfare state in the sky—without realizing what an opportunity she's missed. And in that respect, she has been as irresponsible with her party as John Edwards, who blundered into a presidential campaign with a love child in tow

(Cross-posted at The Browntable.)

Photograph of Sarah Palin by Michael Nagle/Getty Images.

Tags: Bristol Palin, GOP, John McCain, levi johnston, Republicans, Sarah Palin, todd purdum, Vanity Fair

There are many things that I find deeply upsetting about Sarah Palin. But in the new Vanity Fair assessment of Palin's current place in the political universe, the most disturbing thing Todd Purdum reveals is her inability to discern or care about the truth:

At one point, trying out a debating point that she believed showed she could empathize with uninsured Americans, Palin told McCain aides that she and Todd in the early years of their marriage had been unable to afford health insurance of any kind, and had gone without it until he got his union card and went to work for British Petroleum on the North Slope of Alaska. Checking with Todd Palin himself revealed that, no, they had had catastrophic coverage all along. She insisted that catastrophic insurance didn’t really count and need not be revealed. This sort of slipperiness—about both what the truth was and whether the truth even mattered—persisted on questions great and small.

I was going to try to summarize Purdum's epic article further, but Alex Balk at the Awl already did such a superlative job of it, I'll let you read his take instead.

Photograph of Sarah Palin by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images.

Tags: alex balk, Sarah Palin, the awl, todd purdum, Vanity Fair