If an actress is crass or ignorant than that should be ridiculed. But pretending that Palin and Bachman are "unfairly" attacked is a mistake. They bring it on themselves in countless ways. By defending them so vigorously, it associates people who are absolutely caricatures to the GOP and that hurts the party substantially.

Simply put: There are much better candidates to be had, period.

Feminism's clarion call in the beginning was the ERA, now, you are most likely to seem them in an activist movement in support of abortion rights. I'm making an accurate statement. If a successful Catholic over-comes religious discrimination to be a public figure, but takes a public pro-abortion stance, than the Catholic League absolutely should take a stance against that individual. The position trumps the religious affiliation.

And I am not saying the left is any different. Actually, their head-scratchingly staunch support of Holder is at their own peril.

Sorry for the lack of clarity - I meant everything about Couric's intonation, body movement, questions, etc were markedly different between the interview with Palin and the interview, and joking around, with Biden. OK, so there is a bias there. Doesn't excuse Palin's stilted performance. She wasn't ready for the big time.

Perhaps if Betty Freidan was treated by the news and entertainment media they way Palin has been there would be an out cry by feminists. But, then again, every group - gender, politics, race, creed, religion, etc. will always want to "protect their own" from unnecessary scrutiny. In a way, we are all hypocritical, however, perhaps the strongest pillars within the feminist movement is Planned Parenthood. So, if a female candidate wants to dismantle that pillar can you blame feminists for ignoring their gender and attacking their policies? If feminists were tearing down republican females because of their stance on fighting terrorism then the term "hypocrisy" can more legitimately argued - just because you disagree with their foreign policy you should still show respect for their attained position as a woman in solidarity. However, there is nothing hypocritical about a feminist chastising a female candidate for saying something incredibly stupid.

In the end, the GOP has taken the old mantra, "Sure he's an a-hole, but he's our a-hole!" to the extreme with such rabid support of Palin and Bachman and O'Connell, etc etc.

Solution: it's not the message as much as it is the messenger.

Pretty much every objective source can agree that media scrutiny amongst candidates is at times wildly inconsistent.

There is a difference between being gaffe-prone, and appearing out of your league in simple conversations with the media.

I do not think it is an issue of feminism when successful women knock other successful women because of political ideology.

Look you don't get to become governor or senator or congresswoman merely as window dressing. These woman should be applauded for their success, but when they exhibit behavior in TV appearances that are embarrassing, they should be criticized. For example, many on the right thought Michelle Bachman "schooled" Chris Matthews in an interview by joking about that "thrill up his leg", however, to an independent watcher she appeared moronic, and indeed in a trance. It was embarrassing. Now, comparing everything from the body language, to her intonation, to the questions themselves from Katie Couric between her interview with Sen. Biden and Gov. Palin was indeed not always equal. However, "what are the full names of every leader in the Middle East?" is a "gotcha" question. Now, "What papers do you read" is certainly a sophomoric question with an arguably strong polemic intent, but it is hardly a "gotcha" question.

If one is on pins and needles listening to someone speak because they often say something that can be easily ridiculed on the coasts, they can still be a strong successful woman, but not necessarily a qualified presidential candidate. And if some actress wants to point that out, no need to ask them to turn in their feminism card.

When so many independent voters who may have voted for Obama in '08, but could just as easily vote for his opponent in '12 finding nothing but ridicule or derision in the current crop of candidates, and republican personalities, it is not wise to continue to defend those whose comments are cringe-inducing or idiotic because it alienates those who have no strong allegiance one way or the other. In other words, fairly or not Palin and Bachman have become egregious caricatures of themselves, and it is irreparable. Slavish defense of them is only done at the GOP's peril.

Arlene: I think you may be mistaking strong female leaders with good potential presidential candidates. Although there is no shortage of asinine tweets emanating from mansions in Holmby Hills, I think the fact that these three actresses do not praise, and in some cases smear, these three political women is not evidence of anti-feminism or hypocrisy at all. Does being a feminist mean that you must vocally support all women regardless of ideology? The examples you give is just evidence of a preponderance of people in the entertainment business of being left of center. Not a story, really. Additionally, by constantly defending Palin and Bachman (or Perry for that matter) from attacks on the left as if they were the female Regan and Goldwater severely undermines the GOP's election chances. To be blunt, most independent minded voters think that because of the consistent blunders, and off-putting personalities of these two strong women, they are morons. With the fortunes of the GOP tied so closely to caricature candidates with a poor understanding of American history, or international politics, and who seem to celebrate less-academic folksiness messaging is to doom the party in 2012 against a struggling president.

If Miss Streep, for instance, mocks Baroness Thatcher's economic or international successes with a screed ripped from the pathetic rantings of Communist Ken Livingstone then she is ripe for ridicule, but if her views on Thatcher's regime are merely condensed opinions from a union employee on set who's father was a coal worker than that is hardly unfair, nor anti-feminist, and Streep is entitled to her opinion and to share it.

What is lacking are attacks from the vocal liberal Hollywood set against intellectual conservatives. Perhaps your piece would raise more eyebrows if Ellen Barkin was attacking Jeanne Kirkpatrick, or Condi Rice, or even Margaret Tutwiler.

I think my views might still be in the minority here:

In the end, TV is still hugely influential, and though many people get their news from alternative digital outlets, a good many confine their consumption to like-minded political sites which adds to polarization.

I do not think the GOP should shun the mainstream media, nor continuously attack it, rather they should form a 5th column and work within it - not as folksy outsiders more interested in denim than D&G, nor plastic personalities with a Southern drawl (sorry, but it's true), rather, some more urbane, intellectual and thoroughly engaging personalities that form more of a charm offensive, and when need be quickly out-wit media interviewers with a slanted agenda (not hard). For example, imagine if the VP candidate from 2008 said this with a smile, "Gee, Katie, what a unique question, what papers do I read? No doubt you think there is relevance in asking it, so, tell me, what did Sen. Biden say? As for me, first and foremost it is the NY Times, for Science and Technology stories that is. Obviously, with my schedule and the disruption in media most of my daily news is read online, and when reading stories online you often find yourself linking to multiple publishers within the same story. But, for sheer ink on my fingertips, my favorite paper is my local one, and being Governor of Alaska my communications team gives me a dossier each morning of every article in every newspaper & media source which discusses Alaska and issues with an impact on Alaskans. Now, since I was honored to be chosen as the VP running mate to Sen. McCain that has certainly altered my media consumption habit a bit as I focus beyond my already insatiable appetite for national and international issues and broaden that to levels of greater minutiae so many media sources are quite vast. Finally, since this is a campaign and people live their entire lives for the sole pleasure of writing about campaigns, praying that they're the next Woodward & Bernstein, I make certain to read papers like the Washington Post who have an amazing ability to find less than flattering stories from a crowd of 10,000 cheering our speeches."

But, that is wishful thinking

Yes, people indeed do believe the media is rather biased towards the left, but why do independents have such feelings ranging from uninspired to revulsion over most of the national GOP candidates? Why does most everyone not know the RNC Chairman's name? And those that do can't even pronounce it?

Americans are generally in favor of keeping more of their money, have more effective gov't programs, strong national defense, stringent crime fight techniques, and some semblance of tradition and morality in their schools, and on their TVs, yet, the GOP remains a media and pop culture punching bag greatly influencing independents, Reagan democrats, and the uninformed.

President Obama has terrible ratings, but he is not maligned in the press, and only loses but mostly beats every single GOP candidate in a presidential poll. Why?

1.) The GOP cannot find an effective, likeable spokesperson to be the "voice" of the party. The loudest voices (and the media loves to trumpet them), are Palin, Bachman, O'Donnell, Perry, Cain, etc... all intriguing characters, but have said often some outrageously ignorant, and un-presedential things that lends the GOP to utter ridicule. A Ronald Reagan presence would have dampened this JV candidates, and stifled the media frenzy.

2.) A friend -- a liberal democrat singer/actress on Broadway said the most extraordinary thing to me one day, "When I saw Arnold Schwarzenegger on TV at the 2004 saying what is a republican, I thought, I guess I am a republican too." Of course, the very thought of a republican in Times Square is an anathema so she quickly dispelled with such nonsense, but you see, it is the MESSENGER, not the MESSAGE that is hurting the GOP.

3.) The most popular, clear voices for right of center thought are firmly entrenched in right wing outlets. They are incredibly successful, but the media is so fractured that their salient points are hollered in silos of rightward media, but their personalities are often lampooned on a national level. Where are the media savvy republicans that can be loved on the coasts? This is vital because as mentioned before, its the messenger not the message.

4.) Wedge issues. Example: Veganism has some wonderful health benefits, but their PR is horrendous (malnourished hippies who put animals on a higher plane than humans and judge all carnivores as monsters). Similarly, there are some very intriguing intellectual, ethical, and Constitutional arguments to be made on some of the most divisive issues of our times, but the flag bearers on the conservative side of such issues come off as wildly unhinged bigots and psychopaths. IN short, the PR for Conservatism sticks, and the GOP needs a Goldwater, or a Reagan to resurrect its political image...and their are some great ones out there: Gov. O'Donnell, Rep. Pence. And on the media side, a second coming of William F. Buckley Jr. would do wonders for rightist thought on TV (the GOP has plenty of folksy-ism, too much, more urbanity is greatly needed.