This is an opinion piece, not an impartial analysis. This blog post on the conservative Town Hall site is loaded with derogatory language ("bloated", "redundant", "verbose", "farce", "child abuser"), which makes me question its veracity at the outset. However, the author makes a reasonable point that the Branchflower report about Sarah Palin's conduct in this case may lack enough evidence from independent sources to be considered a definitive document. I look forward to reading more on this topic from less partisan sources. Though I have duly noted that conservatives like Bill Dyer (who is guest blogging for Hew Hewitt) don't think much of the Branchflower report. Why am I not surprised?

This news analysis has high journalistic merit. The author has done careful research, and provides accurate context for the story being analyzed. The author is far more careful in his reporting than most of the rest of the media. He provides a balanced and comprehensive report.

"Gov. Palin's office and the McCain-Palin campaign have each put out press releases making some of the same points I've made in this post" Surprise, surprise. Factual reporting would not have been all that unfavorable to Palin - a slap on the wrist for overstepping ethical boundaries; cleared of improper exercise of power - but this blogger has chosen to spout a party line rather than deal with undisputed facts ( such as the inconvenient fact that the investigation was authorized by a bipartisan committee in the dear dead pre-nomination days). Words are heavily weighted ("Josef Stalin"?) and chosen for the maximum impact among the faithful. Hardly journalism, and scarcely Christian.