That Vanity Fair article on the Gal was pretty lame. (Mentioned it here.) It was notable mainly for two giant holes: nothing about the $150,000 shopping spree, nothing about “Africa is a country/who’s in Nafta?” and the other imbecilities Palin was supposed to have committed during her debate prep. Those were major stories: if a really plugged-in behind-the-scenes tell-all piece about Palin comes out, I want to hear anything I can about whether those allegations are true.

All right, the piece mentions the shopping spree, a one-time passing mention, and refers to it as if spree and pricetag were established facts. But no details and no presentation of evidence. At the time of the original stories, some paper or web site reported that one of the stores in question said it had no record of the purchase allegedly made there. One hopes a big-deal piece like the Vanity Fair article would help us wade into questions like that. But the best we get is the forlorn hope that the spree story must be true because the article acts as if it were. Ah well.
(update, The corollary of that last point: the “Africa is a country/who’s in Nafta?” stories are probably not true. If the article could have used them it would have, especially since it makes so much noise about the problems between Palin and McCain’s staff during the runup to the debate. Now I get to play told-you-so because I warned friends when the stories came out. Never believe a story sourced to a Republican political operative, especially when he/she is anonymous. It’s a measure of GOP flacks’ moral standing that they are more dishonest than Palin is stupid.)

Another big gap: the fiasco over her nominee for Alaska attorney general. The guy got voted down — “the first time in Alaska history that a cabinet nominee was rejected.” Sounds major! But why did the guy get voted down? The article mentions that he has said dumb things about gays and that he is against “subsistence hunting preferences for Native Americans.” That’s it? That’s enough to get you voted down in Alaska? Well, okay, I guess it’s possible, but sounds like there’s something missing.

Another: Palin’s communications shop. The article says it’s lousy, but everyone has heard that already. How about some examples, or something about the background and style of the shop’s allegedly incompetent director? How about a concise summary of the back-and-forth over whether Palin would speak at the Senate-House fundraiser? That was a damn mess, a great chance to watch her staff’s incompetence in action. Nothing.

The article is just all the usual stuff everyone knows, most of it mentioned headline fashion (did you know Levi Johnston did some tv interviews?), plus a few bits of new material as garnish. The Palin-as-God email, a couple of poignant blind quotes by McCain advisers about what a jerk Palin is, nothing else.

Fuck, what a disappointment. 
update, Now this looks promising. A story headlined “Palin E-Mails Show Infighting with Staff.” Something to check out.