While we wait for Noon’s on-the-scene reportage, I thought I’d mention that I agree with Steve’s take on the Purdum article; it’s either stuff you already know or not very damning. A representative example of what, when you strip the pejorative language/sexist double standards, is pretty weak tea as exposes go:
In dozens of conversations during a recent visit to Alaska, it was easy to learn that there has always been a counter-narrative about Palin, and indeed it has become the dominant one. It is the story of a political novice with an intuitive feel for the temper of her times, a woman who saw her opportunities and coolly seized them. In every job, she surrounded herself with an insular coterie of trusted friends, took disagreements personally, discarded people who were no longer useful, and swiftly dealt vengeance on enemies, real or perceived.
Or, in other words, she’s…a politician. How many political figures of any consequence could most of this not be applied to? The same goes for the alleged dirt about her family; basically, I don’t see anything she’s done wrong that would be worth mentioning, which is rather more than you can say for, say, Saint McCain. The guilt-by-association we can recognize from Purdum’s Clinton story and it’s not really much more convincing, although at least it involves her family rather than her business associates.