Why Gore But Not Palin in the Mainstream Media?

If there is a single question that ought to dog the "liberal" media relentlessly, it is why they are more willing to give Sarah Palin (and John McCain) a pass than they were Al Gore:

In 2000 Al Gore was pilloried by the mainstream media ("MSM") for his alleged untruths or exaggerations -- Love Canal, Love Story, Internet, Who he visited in Texas. In every instance, at the very most he had chosen the wrong word or failed to clarify the misunderstandings of others.

Now in 2008 the McCain-Palin ticket revels in inaccuracy, wallows in whoppers, lies like a pair of rugs, buys ad time to tell still more lies. So tell me why the MSM doesn't talk about their dishonesty endlessly, turning them from celebrity stars into pathological figures?

As author of the High Performance Computing and Communication Act of 1991, which lead to the National Information Infrastructure, a good deal of what Gore said about "inventing the Internet" was true, and yet the media assailed him mercilessly for the mere suggestion. And instead of repeating it over and over again, Gore acquiesced and got sheepish about it.

Contrast that to Sarah Palin (and John McCain), who shamelessly repeats the same lies over and over again about the bridge to nowhere and about earmarks and ethics with the awkward media trying to restrain themselves from assailing them about the myths. Sarah Palin is now back in the lower 48 again repeating the lie that she said, "Thanks, but no thanks" to the bridge to nowhere even though support for it was central to her campaign for governor. If Al Gore had done that, the media would have ran him off the ticket on a rail.