Sarah Palin

Just read Todd Purdom's piece in Vanity Fair on Sarah Palin, and while no one despises that woman more than I (even while ashamedly admitting I find her pretty damn hot), I have to say I found the article to be about 50% hatchet job. Which makes it 100% invalid, for me.

There are several examples where he falls back on an old journalistic technique of using the word "many" which is vague and can be misleading. He'll say things like (not a direct quote) " ...which had many people in Alaska wondering why?" My first response is, really? Many? You took out a poll? What are the numbers, please." Even the word "some" --another journalistic chestnut-- is inaccurate and vague. Often it is the opinion of the writer himself, but newspaper style calls for him not to include himself in the story, so he falls back things like " In a move that has some people questioning his sanity..." Some? Who please? If it was relevant to mention, then the names of the sanity questioners are relevant too.

The use of "many" is too open to interpretation, and I don't trust political writers to appreciate the difference. 3 people in 100 is not many when talking about people who cheat on their taxes. 3 people in 100 who are child molesters living on my block is too fucking many!

He often criticizes Palin for her sometimes capricious personality, but show me the politician who isn't narcissistic, self-important, and petty when they can get away with it. Lyndon Johnson was notoriously so--hell, even Lincoln knew how to screw over a person for an advantage. All politicians think the world revolves around them. They used to say, walk into the Senate Chamber and say "Excuse me, Mr. President?" and 100 heads will turn.

There is a peculiar anti-intellectualism in America which is, frankly, getting old. "He's got a lot of book learnin', but he ain't got a lick of common sense." Of course the people who say this don't read, and consider themselves chock full of common sense. Sarah Palin is locked into this feeling...er, feelin'. She seems rather proud of what she doesn't know. The new conservative columnist for the NY Times, Ross Douthat, draws the distinction between Obama and Palin:

"Our president represents the meritocratic ideal — that anyone, from any background, can grow up to attend Columbia and Harvard Law School and become a great American success story. But Sarah Palin represents the democratic ideal — that anyone can grow up to be a great success story without graduating from Columbia and Harvard."

Sarah Palin has always been a party of one--the Palin Party. Her history of rising through Alaska state politics on the backs for former mentors and friends is a local legend up there. Many people say so. :)

Purdum suggests she is vaguely conservative,but an Alaskan conservative is a different animal. Up there, they say a liberal is someone who owns a .357 Magnum or smaller. Her core beliefs are whatever propels her forward.

Really? And what politician doesn't reserve the right to change his or her opinion when faced with the possibility of electoral defeat? Can you say the name of that great Democratic Senator, Arlen Specter, perchance?

Anyway, as I say, I have always considered Palin a joke. She is no more qualified to be President than I am. And I, at least, have read a book. And a magazine. And a paper. And can name them. But just because she can't doesn't mean Vanity Fair can just hatchet her at will. Or...does it?