In another example of the liberal media showing its bias while also unwittingly helping their opponent, bloggers and many "news sources" made a big to do about Sarah Palin's slip of the tongue of saying that North Korea is our ally. The Left went nuts showing how this was example of how dangerously underqualified Palin is. Now, that may be 100% true but by making what seemed to be or, more importantly, can be passed off as a minor slip of the tongue into a key sign of Palin's weakness, the press has allowed the former Governor and her team to blow off the criticism, point the finger at the media, and later use it to deflect legitimate shortcomings.

Palin's lack of experience and basic knowledge about foreign affairs (and, by some reports, our own history) is a definite issue and one that SHOULD derail any hope she has of running this country. However, by picking on little miscues, the press makes it seem like this flaw is almost a media concoction rather than a very significant and potentially dangerous shortcoming. And we've all seen how good Palin is at shrugging off even the most obvious of attacks so if you're going to come at her on such a serious topic, it needs to be substantial and not a trifle like a possible slip of the tongue.

And while the press is harping over the North Korea comment, they seem to be missing the more problematic Palin move: her attack on Michelle Obama's anti-obesity initiative. Palin recently commented that Obama's initiative is yet another attack against Americans' "god-given rights to choose", a very odd wording since a) God really didn't give the choice of obesity; gluttony and sloth are two of the leading causes of obesity and are also two of the seven deadly sins. (and Saint Gregory, Pope Innocent XI, and Saint Thomas Aquinas all took FAR tougher stances on gluttony than the First Lady has.) and b) she's 100% against the right to choose in terms of abortion or gay marriage or to serve openly in the military, etc.

Palin's argument also focuses on Obama trying to usurp power from the people when, in fact, the initiatives plans (as I know them) seem to focus on HELPING parents. It wants to limit the amount of advertisements for junk food during childrens' shows, it wants to improve the quality of school lunches. It doesn't say that people must pack healthy lunches for their children, rather that the government supplied lunches should be held to a higher nutritional standard. These are things that help our children, our future, and to oppose them seems ridiculous. Instead, it's politics as usual which is a key strike against Palin who, despite her constant need to go after cheap political points, claims to be bringing a new brand of politics to Washington.

This is a clear example of Palin politicizing an issue and trying to make an Us vs. Them argument when it not only doesn't belong but actually could harm the majority. Also, it's yet another example in which the Right has complaints but no solutions. 33% of children in the US are obese. Clearly something is not right and to just promote the status quo isn't a viable option. The people need better nutritional information and parents need help giving their children quality food. All that Sarah Palin has offered are sugar cookies.

In the end, Sarah Palin literally served up the perfect metaphor for her entire existence when she showed up at a Pennsylvania school gathering with sugar cookies. She can be appealing but offers no real value of any sort and is better to avoid or just take in small servings. Her political attacks are similar: cheap, easy, and barely substantive. Sadly, the media is too busy making mountains out of a molehill and giving Palin all the more ammo to complain that she's unduly scrutinized by the media.

Yet again, I'd call out to the liberal media to go back to actual reporting because their attempts at activist journalism do more harm than good.