I'm reading Philip Rucker's Washington Post piece on Sarah Palin's decision to resign her governorship. Supposedly, personal attacks, particularly attacks on her children, played a major role in her decision to step down. But can we still bring up the fact that most of the supposed 'attacks' on Palin's family and children were self-generated efforts to use her children to garner more publicity and keep herself in the spotlight? The infamously silly Letterman incident being only the most recent example?

Please?

Late Update: A very good point from TPM Reader RW ...

It is shocking that a paragraph like this could appear in one of the nation's 2 major newspapers (from the Washington Post):

Yet Palin's vulnerability masks her firepower, ambition and strong will, advisers said. Not one to fit comfortably into convention -- and not comfortable being a victim, either -- Palin spoke Friday as if she was rolling the dice and betting on herself. She presented herself as a game-changer stepping onto a stage of her own making.

That is absolutely unreal. I'm guessing Philip Rucker, the author of this article, didn't bother to listen to Palin's resignation speech (or pretty much any public speech Palin has given since McCain tapped her for VP). Just wow.

I'm sure Rucker saw the speech. But it is bizarre to say that Palin is uncomfortable in the role of the victim. In fact I'm not sure I've ever found a better use for this much over-used word. As Noam Scheiber explained in one of the earliest and perhaps most insightful profiles of Palin, victimhood and resentment are Palin's twin touchstones. They define who she is.