Huh.

[ciroccoj]

The Tragedy of Sarah Palin, by John Ridley.

Excerpt: You don't have to be a Palin supporter to acknowledge -- tested, vetted and brought up to speed -- she would have been positioned to truly lead her party, as opposed to merely appearing as the illegitimate love child of Dan Quayle and Geraldine Ferraro.

Comments

[mynuet.livejournal.com]

Sarah Palin could never be equivalent to Barack Obama, because she's not a liberal Democrat, and would never get a pass on being asked tough questions the way Obama has. She's a politician, so asking about her wardrobe and her family life is all fair game, if distasteful - but where are the reports of similar scrutiny being put to Obama by the press? When reports do filter up from the blogosphere, their framing is in terms of "meanspirited fascist trolls are trying to smear Obama, but he is too awesome to be affected."

You've seen the reactions to Obama, and to Palin. Do you really think it's just about when she was introduced? And if it was a mistake to bring Palin onto the national stage before she had more experience, why was it not a mistake for Obama to choose to run despite his own statements in the recent past that he didn't have enough experience?

Everything was set for this to be a blowout year for Democrats. Bush is hugely unpopular, and people associate the even more unpopular Congress with Republicans, even though it's currently controlled by Democrats. We're fighting a difficult war, and the long period of sustained economic growth is finally showing signs of slowing down. Not to mention that the mainstream media is overwhelmingly liberal - I can dig out reports if you need this substantiated - and there's been a constant drumbeat of reports and jokes on how awful things are and how evil Republicans are. Not just wrong: evil.

And yet, the race is within the margin of error. Obama still has to campaign in states that should be a lock, and even the most optimistic polls don't have him running away with it. (Well, except on sites like dK, but that's not exactly a neutral source with representative samples of the electorate at large.) We're going into the election on Tuesday with Obama slightly favored to win - but only slightly, and John Kerry was also polling well going in.

The fact that the race is close at all is, I think, largely due to Sarah Palin. She brought a sense of freshness and enthusiasm to the race, and convinced a lot of Republicans that there is a difference between Obama and McCain, so it's worth the time to go to the polls and vote for a RINO that holds policy opinions (and has a legislative record of accomplishments) that are anathema to a lot of conservatives. The base adores Sarah, and once she's no longer being subjected to the "Truth Squad" treatment by the press on a daily basis, she'll be well positioned with national recognition to write her own ticket for the future. She's gone from being a hugely popular figure on a state level to being a bloodied but unbowed national figure. It's a net win, and there's quite a lot of people on the right saying "Palin/Jindal, 2012!"

[bast2.livejournal.com]

Points up to most of what she says.

[ciroccoj.livejournal.com]

Leaving aside the rest of your points - for now ;) - quickie response to this:

Do you really think it's just about when she was introduced?
To be honest I'm not sure I buy Ridley's argument at all. She's learned well, I'll grant her that, and maybe he's right that given more time she would've been able to overcome many of her liabilities. And maybe Palin/Jindal 2012 is a realistic ticket to pin conservative hopes to. But I think she's also got a lot more going against her than merely being thrust into the spotlight too early. I could see a lot of conservatives taking a more measured look at her and deciding that, without the fear of putting a Democrat in the White House if they go against Palin, she's really not what they want in a high office after all.

That said, I reserve the right to be dead wrong :)

[mynuet.livejournal.com]

I'd have to know what you consider her liabilities before I could frame a response.

[daf9.livejournal.com]

Not to mention that the mainstream media is overwhelmingly liberal

perhaps this is because the mainstream media is more informed about the issues than your average conservative.

[mynuet.livejournal.com]

Whether or not the premise is accepted that it is somehow more intelligent or informed to hold liberal opinions, it would be nice to be able to turn on the tv or read a newspaper and have some confidence in getting some objective facts rather than partisan spin.

[daf9.livejournal.com]

Everything in the media is reported with spin. There is, after all, only one 'set' of objective facts and if objective facts were to be reported without spin, there would be a single news source. If you want a non liberal spin, read a non liberal writer; it's not like they don't exist.

[ciroccoj.livejournal.com]

Heh, well, the fact is the mainstream media is more informed about the issues than your average liberal too, what with it being their job to be informed ;)


...although OMG listening to some of them sometimes you realize you really can't take that for granted ::sigh::

[daf9.livejournal.com]

Heh, well, the fact is the mainstream media is more informed about the issues than your average liberal too
Now there's a truth!