Sarah Palin's been getting a lot of attention lately due to the release of her new book, but the truth is she's been getting a lot of attention over the course of the entire year since the end of the 2008 election. And frankly, right now I care about Sarah Palin about as much as I cared about John Edwards in 2005. Nobody can deny that running for President has practically become a full time gig 4 years before the next election, but what Sarah Palin says and does now will have absolutely no bearing on her results in the primary season 2+ years from now.
Yet it seems that everyone engaging in debates and discussions about Sarah Palin are ignoring that simple fact and treating every little controversy as the climax of some culture war. It doesn't take a wonk to break down the ongoing palinsanity coming from all sides.
I will preface the rest of this post by noting that I'm not a fan of Sarah Palin at all. However, it's clear that many liberals have an inexplicably visceral response to anything Palin. Which is kind of funny, given that a majority of white women share most of Palin's political beliefs. And when it comes to nutty ramblings, Palin can't hold a candle to Michelle Bachmann, who I bet many of the Palin bashing liberals couldn't identify But just the thought of Sarah Palin can make a New York Times syndicated columnist write indecipherable babble.
Conservatives often accuse liberals of being sexist against Palin, sometimes justifiably and other times not.
Sarah Palin could make a full time job out of accusing the media of treating her unfairly, sometimes justifiably and other times not.
But liberals and the media aren't the only ones who turn rabid when it comes to Palin, because the other side's response to Sarah Palin has turned many conservatives into mindlessly supporting Palin just as rabidly, and in manners that make them seem demented.
Regardless of the true motivation of Palin's critics, that critcism has no bearing on whether Palin actually should be a viable candidate. While conservatives are busy taking liberals to task for their strong dislike of Palin, Steve Schmidt's blistering criticisms of Palin and her book seem to fly under the radar.
No, the thing that really gets me is that in their rush to defend Palin, conservatives clearly diminish their expectations to protect her. It was bad enough when a sizable contingent of conservatives believes going to an Ivy league school is somehow a badge of dishonor or automatically makes someone an elitist. Palin herself has somehow turned this into her own talking point/excuse to deflect criticism.
But that was just a teaser for the stupidest discussion of the week. And no, I'm not talking about the Newsweek cover. I'm talking about the discussion over the Charlie Gibson and Katie Couric interviews. The interviews that thoroughly embarassed Palin. Once upon a time Palin blasted those as "hitjobs," although she now seems to admit to Oprah she knew the Couric one went poorly. Did the media treat the candidates differently? Yes. Was the Couric interview a hit job? Since when does asking an interviewee follow up questions or asking her to clarify statements that make no sense qualify as unfairly tough or out to get her? Couric doesn't exactly seem hostile toward Palin here. But apparently it's now a hitjob to point out the obvious: that Palin was tripping over her answers in an effort to get back to talking points.
Yet the discussion of these 15 month old interviews is enough to turn even the normally reasonable Instapundit Glenn Reynolds palinsane. Reynolds even calls for candidates to bring their own camera to interviews, as if the editing of the interviews is what made Palin's answers so pathetic. It also led fellow Wisconsinite Ann Althouse to call on CBS to air the unedited version. As if anything could have been edited out that would make sense out of this.
This is all apparently in response to the transcript of the full Gibson interview, which shows what was edited out. Watching Palin's defenders complain that ABC edited out "knowledgeable" parts of Palin's answers is comical. My favorite part is which the editor of the Newsbuster article points out that ABC edited out a section in which Palin calls for sanctions against Russia and claims, "That answer presented Palin as a bit too knowledgeable for the purposes of ABC News." Right.
I invite anyone to go read that full transcript and tell me Sarah Palin channels a Baker or Albright or even a Rice or H.W. Bush. The truth is ABC merely edited out parts where Palin trips over regurgitating the most basic foreign policy talking points, and conservatives are upset that Palin doesn't receive her due credit for pointing out that Russia is seeking to control energy supplies in the region. Really? That's what it's come to for vice presidential candidates?
Maybe after she's decisively rejected in 2011 and 2012, Palin will go away. Until then I fear we'll continue to see palinsanity coming at us from all sides.
But I will give her this much: it definitely doesn't take a wonk to be made a vice presidential candidate.
No comments:
Post a Comment