An Internet hub for moderates, centrists, and independents, with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, and right

« McCain/Bush in 2008

“Right” Convention, Wrong Country? »

The Education of Sarah Palin

Posted by JAZZ SHAW, Assistant Editor in Politics.
Sep 5th, 2008 | Comments

Sometimes I really hate it when I’m right. Particularly when it only takes a few hours to pan out. Earlier, I wrote the following:

Sarah Palin will eventually show up for such questioning, but she’s going to look much more tired and haggard. It won’t be from the rigors of the campaign trail, though. Word will leak out from the McCain campaign that Palin is spending 14 hour sessions with a series of wonks drilling her on matters around the globe like a high school student cramming the week before the S.A.T exams.

Somehow I expected this to take a week or two. Apparently I forgot how fast the political world moves these days, particularly as we get closer and closer to the debates and the elections. The Politico latched on to some of the Cone of Silence plans, and they include these:

Sarah Palin will, after a brief stretch on the trail, head back to Anchorage and away from the national media.

“They’re basically taking Palin back to Alaska,” said Fineman, citing a senior McCain campaign official.

She also seems unlikely to do many major media interviews between now and then, and the campaign seems to feel no urgency about putting her on the Sunday shows.

The campaign will “also use the plane time and time on the ground to begin the education of Sarah Palin,” Fineman said. “They want to take that pause to train.”

Don’t you just hate it when you’re right?

There are some, such as Big Tent Democrat, who feel that the media should simply ignore her entirely and see if the lack of exposure smokes the ticket out of their Northern hideout to speak to the press. I don’t happen to agree, but you can be the judge yourself.

Ads by Project Wonderful! Your ad here, right now: $0

GeorgeSorwell

I suppose this is just a way of lowering expectations of her. But I'm not convinced it really matters how well or poorly she performs.

However she performs, there will be two talking points:

1. They were mean to her.

2. Even though they were mean to her, she did great!!!1!!

Then: blame the media!!

JSpencer

Well, I think George is probably right, and I honestly think it's too bad. I believe that a strategy of ignoring her would do the people of this country a grave disservice though. So why is there such a fear about letting the country see Palin in an unscripted setting? Let me use that word again: Unscripted. If her education for the job is so questionable she has to be sequestered, then what is that telling us?

StockBoySF

Well.... if the media can't get answers out of her, then on every news segment with a story about election issues the media should simply state, "We have tried to interview Palin on these issues but Palin refuses to meet with the press to talk about these issues. Palin's views on the important issues facing Americans remain a mystery and we find it difficult to give Americans the information needed to make informed voting decisions on Palin and McCain."

Or something similar.

jwest

Palin is going to do what Ronald Reagan did – talk right over the heads of the media.

The MSM is apoplectic that she was chosen without their knowledge or approval. They can’t stand the fact that she is unbelievably popular even though they have done everything to smear her.

As we all know, the traditional media is dying, and this is just one more step in their death march.

Rambie

George: For the talking points, I think you're that they'll "blame the media" as it's been the GOPs mantra for years. See JWest above for an example. :)

However, I think Palin may end up a better debater than you think George. She, like the rest of the candidates, are getting practice in on debating and policy briefings. Debates today are not the stuff of the Lincoln-Douglass era, they are just media events.

StockBoy: That would play into the whole "Evil Liberal Media" ploy. The media SHOULD ask tough questions of all politicians no matter which letter is after their name.

GeorgeSorwell

Rambie--

I agree with you. She may prove to be a good debater.

What I'm suggesting is that's a gamble Republicans just can't afford to take.

So--even as stories like from the big, bad media this serve to lower expectations--Republicans will play proven defenses and offenses, no matter what.

Jazz

The unfortunate part is that the National Enquirer has now taken the lead (following John Edwards) as the people doing the heavy lifting before the MSM touches any stories. Todd Palin's former business partner just filed an emergency petition to have his divorce papers sealed (which was denied, it seems). Holy cow. You take an unvetted, unknown entity and all manner of things can pop up. Troopergate is heating up and speeding up also, as per CNN this hour. I think this drama is far from over, and it may actually come to a boil before we ever see the VP debate.

CStanley

Hey Jazz, deep breaths and take a walk around the block after you read Andrew Sullivan, OK?

Oh, and that headline about mutant alien babies on the cover of National Enquirer? Not true. Also not true that the NE has become a pillar of journalistic integrity, despite what some in the blogosphere will have us believe since the Edwards story broke.

JSpencer

As we speak there are many, many journalists either headed for Alaska or already in Alaska. Whether the R's want the 4th estate to do it's job or not, I suspect it's going to do so anyway. I have to say though, anyone who's been around for the past few decades has to recognize the immense irony in a paper like the National Inquirer taking lead in any of this stuff. And btw, that old blame the media shtick? It might still work for R base, but I don't think it's going to hold up very well for the majority of the country.

CStanley

Yeah, JSpencer, those selfless journalists are kicking it into high gear in Alaska, even though they must be exhausted from the endless vetting they've done on Obama's Chicago connections.

The public has a right to know though!

Jazz

Please do remind me to bookmark CStanley's last comment, much like all of the Democrats who screamed about tabloid journalists impugning Senator Edwards' reputation. Not saying we know how it winds up, but it was hardly just Sullivan. It was the local government in Alaska and their press reporting it. Smoke does not always lead to fire. Sometimes it does. Palin was an unknown entity. Like so many regular folks in America, you never know what may turn up. In the age of Google vetting, sadly "regular American people" can't pass muster for high office. Not saying that's a good thing, but it's the reality of full contact politics today.

If Todd Palin's former business partner really *did* move to seal his divorce records today, obviously we will look forward to some sort of retraction from CStanley.

ChrisWWW

CStanley,
Shouldn't the American people know about this woman so they can make an informed decision? Bush and Cheney have accelerated the accumulation of power to the executive. We are, in essence, electing a monarch for 4 years. That's a lot of power to give to an unknown.

And we can't exactly trust the McCain camp to give us the information we need. They've repeatedly lied about her support for the Bridge to Nowhere, and her support for Ted Stevens. The evidence points to little or no actual vetting. She's on record lying about the Troopergate scandal, so there is little reason to trust her to be forthcoming about her colorful past.

CStanley

Jazz, smoke sometimes leads to fire, but that doesn't mean everytime there's smoke that there should be publication of what amounts to vicious rumors.

If anything comes of the story, I have nothing to retract because I'm simply criticizing people for publishing innuendo without proof. If someone gets proof and then publishes, that's fair game at that point.

And since you already refused to publish a retraction of the faked pregnancy story, Jazz, I'm not sure why you're demanding a higher standard from me than the one you hold yourself to.

Why have extramarital affairs now become fair game anyway?

JSpencer

Remember, a president has almost unfettered ability to start wars. Maybe it didn't use to be that way, but it is now. Anyone who has the power, or the potential power (think VP here) to send American youngsters off to fight and die in foreign lands should be properly vetted, researched, should become a know quantity. Get it? Does the idea of a person who could start a war help bring this into focus? Now we see the R VP pick being hidden away until she can be properly brought up to speed, educated, coached in a cram session. Is that really the best person for the job? Is it ok if I worry about that a little? Is it ok to want to learn more about her? Or should I worry about offending someones PC idea of unfairness. Remember, this person won't just be the VP of the R's.

CStanley

JSpencer, worry away, but don't be surprised that Obama's opponents also worry.

And same to your comment, chris- if this supposed newfound executive power (FDR, anyone?) is so overwhelming that we have to now know every personal detail (and ask candidates to disprove every rumor) then why shouldn't Obama and Biden be treated the same way?

How worried were you about Obama being caught lying about NAFTA, chris? Does that mean that he's probably hiding an affair or an illegitimate child? After all, we can't trust him after he was caught in that lie, by your logic.

GeorgeSorwell

CStanley--

Give me a break!!!

The previous President of the United States was impeached over an investigation into an extra-marital affair.

God Almighty!!

Jazz

"Why have extramarital affairs now become fair game anyway?"

Good point. I stand chastised. I mean, it's not like anyone talked about Bill Clinton or John Edwards or Elliot Spitzer, or....

Are you really serious? If the woman who stood up at the "hockey mom" and talked about her small town values and the strength of her family actually DID have an affair (and we don't know that yet, so I'm not posting about it) are you *really* saying it's none of the voters' business and shouldn't be factored in to the decision by voters about the "values" of the candidates? Is it really a case of IOKIYAR here or is there something deeper I'm missing?

ChrisWWW

then why shouldn't Obama and Biden be treated the same way?

How worried were you about Obama being caught lying about NAFTA, chris?

Obama has been subjected to intense media scrutiny for nearly a year. Wright, Ayers, his lapel pins, Rezko, his bowling score, what he drinks for breakfast, have been analyzed to death by the media. Biden has been through more than one Presidential election and has been in politics for 3 decades.

To even claim that Palin has been vetted by the media in nearly the same fashion is absurd on its face.

And I did complain that Obama lied and pandered on NAFTA. He did the same thing with wiretapping. But we have a lot more information on which we can judge Obama. We have very little on which to judge Palin, and what little we have seems brazenly distorted.

GeorgeSorwell

I have to say, I don't I approve of this inquest into people's personal lives.

And as for Palin, I see very little actual smoke, let alone any fire!

But there is a political party that has made character its cornerstone issue. Infidelity is an important signifier of poor character for the members of that party.

Does anyone know what party I'm referring to?

How 'bout you, CStanley?

IOKIYAR?

CStanley

No, what I'm saying is that the same people who felt it was patently ridiculous for Clinton's sex life to have been in the public eye shouldn't now claim that affairs are relevant.

Hypocrisy works both ways.

And for the record, I personally don't think that Clinton should have been impeached, and if the Lewinsky affair really did come out as an entrapment during questioning than even the perjury charge wasn't really on the up and up (the perjury being the only thing he should have had to answer to the public on.)

CStanley

Actually, George, the whole meme that family values of the GOP make the members of that party answerable to every detail of their personal life would be an attempt to claim that IOKIYAD.

Or are you guys consistent in insisting that Gore should actually live a green lifestyle, Edwards should have donated all of his wealth to those of the 'other America', etc?

CStanley

Chris, no one but conservatives have even gone near the Ayers story. (Stanley Kurtz has been chasing the story and getting stonewalled.) Even Elrod had never even heard of the Annenberg Challenge- it's ridiculous the way Obama's been shielded from scrutiny on some of his Chicago connections and some of the projects he's been involved with (which actually are relevant to the campaign.)

JSpencer

CStanley, like it or not, the republicans have long tried to set themselves up as the standard for family values. Maybe you personally don't buy into that, but they have worked to position themselves that way and have even won elections based partially on that influence. Here's my question: Is it the job of democrats to shield them from evidence of the hypocrisy involved in that positioning? My own answer to that question is no. They can't have it both ways. Being self-righteous about something one day, and being a hypocrite about it the next is going to result in a reality check.

Jim_Satterfield

JSpencer, don't try to talk reason to her right now. Given she just lied about what Jazz did and didn't post I doubt it will help. In fact Jazz did post about it when the initial rumors about Palin's pregnancy turned out to be false. He just refused to apologize for the fact that he'd made the initial post.

GeorgeSorwell

CStanley, like it or not, the republicans have long tried to set themselves up as the standard for family values. Maybe you personally don't buy into that, but they have worked to position themselves that way and have even won elections based partially on that influence. Here's my question: Is it the job of democrats to shield them from evidence of all the hypocrisy involved in that positioning?

JSpencer knocks it out of the park.

CStanley, I can hardly believe your argument: Because Democrats don't endorse a Republican criteria of judgment, Republicans should be exempt from it.

CStanley

Right, Jim, which is exactly what I said- that Jazz refused to retract (which is what you do to apologize for publishing slanderous rumors.)

JSpencer- I think anyone who asks for a shield themselves shouldn't then ask the media to go after dirt on others for the same offenses. As I've already explained, that's hypocrisy too.

If Democrats don't think that values and character should matter, then they should focus more on issues and explain to the public why they think that another candidate is squeaking by on a wholesome image instead of real policy. That would be the honest way to push back against a political strategy that you consider unfair.

Ricorun

CStanley: Jazz, smoke sometimes leads to fire, but that doesn't mean everytime there's smoke that there should be publication of what amounts to vicious rumors.

I was one of those that tried to explain why the MSM wasn't going after Edwards as aggressively as many thought they should. And the point you bring up was a big part of it -- how does a media outlet know whether the smoldering embers of a story are going to burst into flame or a pile full of snot? I still stand by every word I said in that regard, by the way. It's a very hard question. And many times what outwardly appears to be reticence may actually turn out to be behind the scenes attempts to move the story before going public. Ultimately, that appears to be the case with Edwards -- he finally decided that there was too much "there" there to deny it (at least completely). And once the gun started smoking the media was all over it. The same questions and issues apply here.

Why have extramarital affairs now become fair game anyway?

Oh please.

CStanley

George, that's hilarious because you are twisting my words to try to convey the opposite. Here, let me help you out:

Because Republicans don't endorse a Democratic criteria of judgment (in this case, that personal lives shouldn't be relevant in a campaign), only the Democrats should be able to claim that exemption. (per your argument, that is.)

It works both ways is what I'm trying to help you understand. It's hypocritical to say that a set of standards applies to thee but not to me, no matter who sets the standards.

Jim_Satterfield

Um, no. He refused to apologize for making the original post, but admitted that it was wrong. The admission of inaccuracy is what makes a retraction, not an apology for having written it though some people obviously don't understand the distinction.

Ricorun

Damn you guys are fast. Don't you have jobs??? Lol!

CStanley

So, if I go onto a well read blog and publish unsubstantiated rumors about your private life, Jim, and then later admit that I was wrong, that's all that's required, right?

Just checking.

CStanley

So, if I go onto a well read blog and publish unsubstantiated rumors about your private life, Jim, and then later admit that I was wrong, that's all that's required, right?

Just checking.

GeorgeSorwell

Why have extramarital affairs now become fair game anyway?

CStanley, you might have come back with a concession that you'd said something ridiculous.

Are you really sure you don't want to stop digging?

Jazz

Ok, we're on to the "sell the plane on e-bay" story now. Let's all scroll up.

CStanley

I'll admit I was being deliberately provocative, but I do wish people would think these accusations through in a nonpartisan way. I feel that the "Rovian" politics are really just as much due to people buying into these ideas that we can rationalize mudslinging if it's against the other party as it is due to any one particular political operative.

GeorgeSorwell

Good heavens! You are as partisan as any of us, CStanley.

elrod

Wow, that was a head-spinning exchange!

I'll just make a point about Jazz's original post: It was ME who first blogged here about Palin going into her cocoon!!!!!!!!! :)

GeorgeSorwell

The comments have gotten out of order on this thread.

JSpencer

George, does that mean my home run doesn't count? ;-)

Ricorun : "Damn you guys are fast. Don't you have jobs??? Lol!"

Work full time here, but am often close to a computer. Probably been here more lately than is healthy - but like the rest of you am slightly obsessed with politics.

Rudi

Chris, no one but conservatives have even gone near the Ayers story.

CS Your comment is an outright lie. Try a Google specific site search for the Chicago papers.

http://www.google.com/search?ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&...
Results 1 - 10 of about 744 from www.chicagotribune.com for ayers obama.
http://www.google.com/search?ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&...
Results 1 - 10 of about 55 from www.suntimes.com for ayers obama.

StockBoySF

Rambie, I agree with you, the media should be given the opportunity to ask questions, and if they do their job properly those questions will be probing questions. My point is that if Palin is not made available to the press or refuses to answer questions, then the press (rather than ignoring Palin) should state in simple but firm terms that Palin refuses to cooperate.

AustinRoth

Well, to a lot of people's surprise here, I think this should be looked into now. Actions are starting to happen that suggest there is some real grain of truth to the affair story, and the reality of it being true or not needs to be established.

I actual have found, particularly in political stories, the NE has become quite the successful and correct early breaker of true stories. Don't dismiss it out of hand.

If there is anything behind it, yes, the hypocrisy of presenting yourself as a 'family values' candidate while having affairs is difficult to reconcile for a very large portion of the voting public, particularly the Religious Right wing of the Republican party, which is her base.

As for the Clinton comparison, well, as he was NEVER a 'family values' kind of guy, so I didn't have an issue with his infidelity per se. It was the totality of the circumstances - young intern (abuse of power, whether conscious or not); debasing the Oval Office, the Presidency individually, and the institute of the Presidency; the perjury; and getting up in front of America and lying

That is the past, though, and just as the Democrats needed to get past Vietnam, the GOP needs to get past Clinton.

CStanley

So, does this settle it then, or are there other friend's divorce papers that we need to look into now? I mean, you never know, right?
http://hotair.com/archives/2008/09/05/another-p...

CStanley

Oh and Jazz, feel free to keep my comments bookmarked as you suggested you would. And:

"Don’t you just hate it when you’re right?"

Yeah, I just hate it.

GeorgeSorwell

Wow--even my comment about the comments being out of order is now way out of order!!

blog comments powered by Disqus