If you needed any more evidence as to how frightened liberals are of Sarah Palin, you got it during Friday's "Real Time" on HBO.

In fact, the panel discussion featuring The Atlantic's Andrew Sullivan, author Naomi Klein, and hip hop singer Will.I.Am was potentially the finest example of Palin Derangement Syndrome seen on television since she was first announced as John McCain's running mate three weeks ago.

From Sullivan calling her "a farce" and her nomination "the most irresponsible act any candidate has ever made," to Klein saying "she's basically Bush in drag," and Maher calling her "not very bright and not very knowledgable," this was the mother of all pound Palin sessions (video available here courtesy our friend MsUnderestimated):

Jeffery Goldberg from The Atlantic Magazine is reporting that underhanded, leftist photographer Jill Greenberg has just been let go by her Representing Agency, the Vaughan Hannigan photo agency. This is a perfect example of a lesson of consequences. When Greenberg admitted that she lied and tricked John McCain so that she could manipulate his image to slander him and did so in the employ of The Atlantic Magazine, she lost any future work with that magazine for her unprofessional behavior. And now, more consequences have come her way.

No one is, of course, saying that Jill Greenberg isn't allowed to be as bigoted as she wants to be, but she should be ready to accept the consequences if she does so while acting as a representative for someone else. In this case she was representing The Atlantic Magazine when she was assigned to photograph McCain and then used her position to trick him into a situation where she could use his image for political attacks at a later date.

Reacting to photographs of Sen. John McCain taken by a freelance photographer for Atlantic Monthly, MRC President and NewsBusters Publisher Brent Bozell took aim at the photographer while noting the magazine has reacted appropriately by denouncing her work. [audio of segment here]

"In this case, I don't know that I blame Atlantic Monthly for this reason. [Jill Greenberg] is a rogue photographer," Bozell told Fox News Channel's Sean Hannity and Alan Colmes on their September 15 program.

Bozell added that Atlantic's editor denounced Greenberg as "appalling." "This wasn't the [fault of the] Atlantic Monthly, this was the photographer" who is among a segment of the political left that "is just out of control." That doesn't negate that fact that the media have not been biased in this election cycle, Bozell added.:

In a follow up to Noel Sheppard's last post on the controversy over the choice of partisan photographer Jill Greenberg to shoot the cover shot of John McCain by Atlantic Magazine, we find that the Atlantic folks have issued an apology for ever having hired her. After it was revealed that she indulged in tricks and lies to ridicule John McCain while she was in a position of representing Atlantic Magazine as its photographer, the folks at Atlantic expressed their disappointment and shock at the photog's unprofessional behavior. They promise not to repeat the error of hiring her again.

The photographer that viciously smeared John McCain at her website might be facing a lawsuit for violating the terms of agreement in her contract with The Atlantic magazine.

As NewsBusters reported Saturday, Jill Greenberg not only admitted to taking a rather sinister picture of the Republican presidential candidate that she hoped The Atlantic would use on its October cover, but she also generated some truly disturbing and disgraceful images of McCain which she proudly displayed at her website.

The magazine's editor, James Bennet, told Fox News's Megyn Kelly Monday that he was deeply sorry about this incident, and that The Atlantic isn't taking it lying down (audio available here, video and partial transcript follows, h/t NBer blonde) :

As NewsBusters reported Saturday, a freelance photographer hired to shoot John McCain for The Atlantic's October issue has not only admitted to taking a rather sinister picture of the Arizona Senator that she hoped the magazine would use on its cover, but also generated some truly disturbing and disgraceful images of the presidential nominee which she proudly displayed at her website.

Clearly embarrassed by this revelation, folks associated with the magazine are already responding to what is now being widely disseminated across old and new media.

The magazine's editor, James Bennet, issued the following statement Sunday which was e-mailed by the Senior Vice President of the public relations firm that represents The Atlantic (with permission):

UPDATE at end of post: Atlantic editor responds.

Media watchers are well-aware that it's not only words that can be used to spread propaganda, but oftentimes it's the pictures involved in the articles.

For months, people around the country have been noticing the always flattering photos of Barack Obama, and, by contrast, pictures that make John McCain either look older than what he is, or sickly...or even worse.

On Friday, the photography website PDNPulse published a virtual exposé about a professional photographer that admitted taking an intentionally diabolical looking picture of McCain that she hoped would be on the cover of October's Atlantic magazine (emphasis added throughout, photo courtesy The Atlantic, h/t NB reader Drew Hallowell):

Give Hanna Rosin at The Atlantic Online credit for investigating something most journalists wouldn't even think of touching. Her article is a long read, but an important one.

Rosin's report out of Memphis (HT Instapundit) chronicles how a criminologist husband and his housing-expert wife made a correlation that makes so much sense, you just know it will encounter fierce resistance from media and political elites (bolds are mine):

(Richard) Janikowski might not have managed to pinpoint the cause of this pattern (of spreading crime) if he hadn’t been married to Phyllis Betts, a housing expert at the University of Memphis. ..... Betts had been evaluating the impact of one of the city government’s most ambitious initiatives: the demolition of the city’s public-housing projects, as part of a nationwide experiment to free the poor from the destructive effects of concentrated poverty. Memphis demolished its first project in 1997. The city gave former residents federal “Section 8” rent-subsidy vouchers and encouraged them to move out to new neighborhoods. Two more waves of demolition followed over the next nine years, dispersing tens of thousands of poor people into the wider metro community.

Again today, the New York Times demonstrates that the MSM isn't opposed to America's invasion of foreign countries. There's really only one precondition: the national security interests of the United States must not be at stake.

Thus it is that the NYT op-ed page today runs Aid at the Point of a Gun by Robert D. Kaplan, a national correspondent for The Atlantic and a fellow at the Center for a New American Security. The gist is that while it could bring ongoing obligations, the armed invasion of Myanmar for purposes of bringing aid to the cyclone victims is justifiable and feasible. Extended excerpt [emphasis added]:
France’s foreign minister, Bernard Kouchner, has spoken of the possibility of an armed humanitarian intervention, and there is an increasing degree of chatter about the possibility of an American-led invasion of the Irrawaddy River Delta.

Despite having officially left the White House in December 2006, the mere mention of former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's name is almost as certain to evoke uncontrollable vitriol from liberal media members as someone saying in their presence "George W. Bush," "Dick Cheney," or "Halliburton."

With this in mind, it certainly was not surprising to see Atlantic magazine's senior editor Andrew Sullivan on Sunday's "The Chris Matthews Show" assert that Rumsfeld, along with other Bush administration officials, will soon be indicted for war crimes.

Here's how Sullivan indelicately put it (video available here):

A funny thing happened on the way to the wife of America's first black president being coronated: more than twice as many African-Americans voted for "Mr. Uncommitted" as Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) in Tuesday's Michigan primary.

Clearly, the recent racial sparring between the Clintons and Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) has not helped Hillary in the black community.

As reported by the Atlantic's Marc Ambinder: