I see the nation has been rendered half hysterical — maybe wholly hysterical — over the possibility of Sarah Palin as vice president of the United States. Again, we are a divided nation, half for her, half against her. I simply urge a slightly cautionary wait-and-see. Let’s calm down just a little. We ain’t learned or seen nothing yet. And I don’t believe the legitimate media has been on her case; she was simply sprung on the world overnight so there was a lot to be learned. (We are over-familiar by now with Barack Obama and everyone else in the political spectrum, but the governor of Alaska gave us a whopping kick of curiosity.) 

The viciousness being attributed to media comes directly from the overkill of unedited, unsupervised blogging on the Internet and from the incessant talking heads on cable TV. And did you really believe the National Enquirer would just sit there waiting for her to be knighted? But believe me, almost everybody else is leaning over backwards. No one credible at the major networks or at big newspapers and magazines wants to be accused of being anti-Ålaska, anti-feminist, anti-privacy for children, etc.

So, if I may, let me recommend that if you want to read a balanced assessment of Sarah Palin, go to the new Newsweek where she is on the cover under the headline "PALIN-TOL-OGY." This is an excellent example of how this brand-new candidate sees the world and what is known and unknown. If people can just stop bashing one another over Sarah Palin, in a very few weeks — after she has opened herself up to press questioning and after she has jousted with Joe Biden — we will know more. She has already set her most important face-to-face interview with the estimable Charles Gibson of ABC; he gives everybody a fair shake. Now, if you think you already know enough just from the obvious facts at hand, don’t you think you still ought to give her a chance in open forums? After you’ve seen her in action, after you’ve studied your favorite commentators and both her supporters and detractors, you’ll have better arguments for and against.

I’ve been reading reader responses on wOw and the mind boggles at how bright, how articulate, and just how fair and then how mean-spirited some of you can be. Normal, I suppose. But, for instance, I love and honor my friend Whoopi Goldberg who was recently taken to task for not expressing her own "opinion" enough on "The View." I love that show, but this isn’t "The View." That TV hour is a part of show business. Whoopi is the lead cat and if she doesn’t display some reserve at expressing her opinions it’s because she is there to marshal thoughts and talk, not to always be shouting out her opinions. "The View" is an entertainment, and Whoopi and Barbara Walters are there to run things and keep the troops from rioting. They are in a managed "entertainment" and some of that means, containing potential riots. And it is also "entertainment" that depends on people like Elisabeth Hasselbeck and Joy Behar to offer divisive, excited comment. 

No, "The View" exists for its own reasons. The wOw site exists for you to say pretty much anything you want. Whoopi, too. To be down-to-earth and sincere. We are here exchanging thoughts, feelings and heartfelt sentiments. So just be thankful that the wOw site exists where Whoopi can say any damn thing she pleases. Nobody can get away with doing anything they damn please on TV; look at Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews. Everybody in TV has a boss. The wOw site doesn’t really have any bosses. We are all here for you and we are all equal. 

Click here on this text to read my New York Post column.