I've got nothing against any emotion. I'm personally not allowed to hate my neighbor but that doesn't mean I can't loathe policies and take others to task. Thus, even actual hate (for things, not people) has a place.

And of course, though I think its wrong for me personally, in order to protect freedom of conscience we must to defend people right to actually hate other people (much less the saying of "negative" words, which is called today, in true thought-police-style "hate speech" regardless of intent).

However, there are those in the media who speak as though "hate" and "negativity" should be absolutely verboten, despite so clearly spewing such vast quantities of it themselves, during the last several days. (And aimed at such appalling targets as candidate's children!) So when Palin gave her acceptance speech, we all heard afterward it was characterized by "hate", "sarcasm", and "negativity".

For example, CNN:

Former primary season rivals Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani set the evening's tone with sarcastic broadsides that brought the crowd to life. Sarah Palin followed suit, her scorn layered under a sunny smile and small-town demeanor.

Australia's The Age:

"Plenty of red meat," was how several commentators described Palin's performance, which showed with just one speech that she was a political force to be reckoned with. Palin began her acceptance speech conventionally enough, introducing herself and her family to the crowd. But she quickly moved to a scorching attack on her opponents, likening herself to "a pit bull", but with lipstick. At times her words dripped with sarcasm as she attacked Obama's elitism, his liberalism, his experience, his patriotism and his commitment to keeping America safe.

Alex Spillus at UK's Telegraph:

... much as the faithful in the hall lapped all this up, I can't help thinking that for some swing voters watching at home there was too much attack dog and not enough mom. In a series of attacks on Barack Obama, she stuck the right side of angry, but the wrong side of dripping sarcasm. The pen and venom of the ex-Bushies who now drive the McCain campaign was blatant.... Humour goes along way, but you don't have to be a yoghurt-knitting Vermont liberal to think that this was bordering on excess aggression.

Tom Shales in The Washington Post:

The crowd went wild for the speech, especially its nastier and more combative passages.

Palin is certainly no shy Little Miss Buttercup. In her more hostile moments, she went on the attack against Barack Obama, usually referred to as "our opponent," vice presidential nominee Joe Biden and all living Democrats with malicious zeal. Her use of sarcasm was, it must be admitted, crudely effective, as when she scoffed that "the American presidency is not supposed to be a journey of personal discovery," a mocking reference to the loftier oratory in which Obama specializes.

Commentators on more than one channel said the crowd in St. Paul's Xcel Energy Center wanted "red meat," and from last night's speakers, obviously including Palin, they got it -- blood red.

Susan Brooks Thistlethwait, also at the Washington Post:

What we witnessed in Sarah Palin's speech to the Republican National Convention was an attempt to check Senator Obama and Michelle Obama with an aggressive culture wars attack. The sarcasm dripped from line to line. Barack Obama's community organizing experience became a punch-line and the media took several hits. The basic frame for the speech was "I'm small town and therefore virtuous. Michelle and Barack Obama are cultural elitists and therefore you can't identify with them."

Rosa Brooks at Slate:

But what an unbelievably vicious speech! The nastiness level was just sky-high (or gutter low). And though Palin certainly didn't write the words she spoke, she sure looked like she enjoyed every second of delivering those zingers. That speech wasn't meant to inspire—it wasn't about our better selves or what we might be able to accomplish, as a nation—it was all about rage, sarcasm, resentment, mockery. And the crowd just lapped it up.

(From its repeated use, I would guess that only Republicans "lap up" rhetoric from their candidates, apparently. Not Obama's followers.)

Similar comments from CNN and NBC were captured on video.

Are we detecting a theme yet? (a) Palin was "nasty", used sarcasm, and attacked her opponents, and (b) That's bad, bad, BAD!

Or is it?

Jim Lindgren decided to count the attacks and uses of sarcasm. Score? Obama: 3 sarcastic remarks, and 21 negative comments about opponents. Palin: 1 sarcastic remark, and 11 negative comments. Exactly half as much.

This suggests that the media will swallow (and even promote, given what I've seen in the news lately) rather large quantities of sarcasm, "hatred", and negativity without blinking -- as long as it comes from themselves, or someone they support. On the other hand, a fraction of that will incur an electronic roar of disapproval -- when it's against their own candidate or policy.

In short, there's no hatred of hatred, really. Hatin' is just fine and, indeed their bread and butter, as long as it's their hatred, not someone else's. It's even okay (or good!) to lie about somebody else being hateful, if it promotes more hate against them, hate which helps them achieve their goals.

The shorter description of this is "blatant hypocrisy".