On cue, media attacks Palin in unison

  Conservative media have been pointing out lately that Obama's opponent in the upcoming election appears to be Sarah Palin. His campaign just produced a video attacking her, although, to be honest, it's a pretty lame attack considering it's just tape of her attacking Obama in fully justified reasoning. 
  But a look around the web reveals a coordinated attack.
  Just as the supposedly objective (and you wonder why we're so cynical about the lame stream media) George Stephanolopolous began the accusation that Republicans want to ban contraception, the LSM is continuing the vitriol against Palin.
  Take a look:
Jake Tapper at ABC, who simply reports on the attacks.
Andrew Rosenthal at the NY Times:

Mrs. Palin doesn’t specify what she thinks the Obama campaign intended to accomplish by taking her comments out of context. Is her complaint that it appears as if she were launching a racially charged attack against Mr. Obama? Well, she was. What else can you call it when a white right-wing Republican accuses an African-American of trying to return the country to a time when people like him were slaves? This is not racist dog whistling. You don’t need to have canine hearing to pick up that signal.

Richard Cohen Drama Queen at the WaPo, in a piece weepily entitled "Sarah Palin's foolishness has ruined politics", anguishes that all candidates have devolved since Palin's candidacy although, thank the Heavens!, it's only Republican candidates who are idiots!

The movie portrays Palin as an ignoramus. She did not know that Queen Elizabeth II does not run the British government, and she did not know that North and South Korea are different countries. She seemed not to have heard of the Federal Reserve. She called Joe Biden “O’Biden” and she thought America went to war in Iraq because Saddam Hussein, not al-Qaeda, had attacked on Sept. 11, 2001. Not only did she know little, but she was determinately incurious and supremely smug in her ignorance.

  So here. And here. 
  Some of these people have never met the woman, have never held a conversation with her and only know about what they themselves write in the fishbowl that is the WAshington media yet they proclaim Schmidt and Wallace as truthtellers. It's all true. Everything nasty about Palin. Nothing good is true about her.
  This is a concerted attack.
  Liberals are so bereft of real issues that they have to drum up resentment against lightning rods like Rush and Palin to gin up support. They can run through the money now. Can they sustain the fundraising, given this candidate's widely unpopular viewpoints?
  It's doubtful.
  Frank Bruni over at the NYT again brings up an interesting point. I had observed both Steve Schmidt and Nicole Wallace as commenters and felt instinctively they were both RINOs sucking up to whoever had the most money to pay them for their esteemed opinions. 
  Bruni's question is this: Who will ever trust these consultants again? Will every candidate now have to be wary of the very shoulders they lean on to make decisions with the realization that if their campaign sinks under its own weight, the candidate will be completely trashed in the press as those consultants fan out to convince the media and public that the fault was not their own but the candidates?
  So yes. And yes.