Palin Derangement Syndrome?

The Left has officially lost their minds over Sarah Palin.

As evidence, please see Josh Marshall:

On the stump, not a single word that comes out of her mouth -- or not a single word that the McCain folks put in her mouth -- is anything but a lie. I know that sounds like hyperbole. But just go down the list. None of them bear out.

Keep in mind, Marshall's part of the wacky-but-somewhat respectable Left. Every word? And note the condescending reference to words being "put in her mouth" by the McCain camp.

Need more proof? Charlie Martin's list of debunked Palin rumors is 71 items long in less than two weeks. And it's not just American lefties who are going crazy -- check out the CBC commentator who likened Palin to a porn actress.

Apparently, this sense of derangement has infected the Obama camp as well, according to Newsweek's Howard Fineman...

Democrats dare not issue [Sarah] Palin a pass—she's too dangerous a foe. Normally vice presidential candidates fade into the background. Nobody is expecting that with Palin; indeed, her newfound celebrity has made even Obama look dull.

The usual rule is that voters don't trust attacks from people they don't know, but Palin is turning the adage on its head. Democrats are determined to attack her credibility, even if it gives her more visibility. "We've got to go after her, and fast," a top Democratic strategist, who asked for anonymity when discussing strategy, told me.

Too dangerous a foe? I wonder how these people would cope with Putin if they can't handle Palin.

I don't get it. I know Bush inspires an immense level of hatred from the Left, but this feeding frenzy is ridiculous for a politician most of them had never seen prior to 10 days ago. I know the media's stunned that Obama could (gasp) lose the election, and they're throwing every bit of available dirt at Palin after vetting Barack with kid gloves for nearly two years.

As to the substance of the attacks, I don't understand how they're helping Obama. Just off the top of my head, here are the basic charges leveled against Palin:

1. She's too inexperienced to be VP. This would be great if the Democrats hadn't just nominated a man with arguably less relevant experience for President. I know Palin's only run a small town and now a state government, but exactly what has Obama run? The Annenberg Challenge... oops, no reference to Bill Ayers, so scratch that. The Harvard Law Review? Well, someone has to make sure the bagels are available in Gannet House every morning.

2. She fired her Public Safety Commissioner, allegedly because he wouldn't fire her ex-brother-in-law, a state trooper. Forget the fact that there's no proof that Palin was involved in any of the communications with the Public Safety Commissioner regarding her brother-in-law, and that Palin has fully cooperated with the investigation, which is being run by an Obama supporter. No, let's remember that the brother-in-law is accused of, among other things, tasering his stepson and threatening Palin's father. I'm having trouble understanding how the left thinks this will drive voters away from Palin.

3. Her daughter is pregnant, yet she supports abstinence education. I'm not sure why this is a problem -- no one on the right actually believes that abstinence education will stop every teen pregnancy. And as Megan McArdle notes, the alternative birth control education is not successful on this front, either. Perhaps the left believed that the evangelical right would rip Palin as an unfit mother for having a daughter who got pregnant before marriage. Instead, the right rallied around Palin and her daughter, Bristol. I'm still not seeing how this was an issue.

4. Palin is a hypocrite for denying other women the right to terminate their pregnancies. Apparently the logic goes like this: since Sarah chose to bear her son Trip even after she learned he had Downs syndrome, she should recognize that other women should have that choice. Having to decipher this logic gives me a headache. The summary response -- if you believe, as Palin does, that a fetus is actually a child, then abortion constitutes the taking of an innocent life. Therefore, it's not a question of whether she chose to have the baby -- it's a question of whether she lived up to her beliefs. To her, the only choice was whether to keep the baby or give him for adoption. You may believe women should have the right to terminate a pregnancy, but she believes that would be ending a human life. I think I can see how this could be a political issue, but I'm not sure why Dems want to debate it with Sarah's son as part of the debate -- politically, that seems foolish.

5. Palin initially did not oppose the Bridge to Nowhere. Let's ignore the fact that she eventually opposed the boondoggle. Let's ignore the fact that Alaska Democratic Party removed a page crediting her with opposing the bridge, which they used when attacking Ted Stevens. How does it help Obama and Biden to attack her when they voted to fund the bridge, and even voted against an amendment to shift the funds to Katrina relief?

I'd continue, but it doesn't get better. Someone needs to explain to the Obamamaniacs and their cohorts in the media that their attacks on Sarah Palin are diminishing Obama, not her, while leaving John McCain untarnished.