Okay, I broke down and watched Oprah Winfrey interview Sarah Palin.
Color me underwhelmed. By both women.
It was like watching two lightly muzzled Doberman Pinschers, behaving because they have to, but with an undergrowl that translates, roughly, into “if we’re ever alone together in the yard, you’re going down…”
Oprah needed Palin for the ratings; Palin needed Oprah to push the book,
Going Rogue; An American Life. Both endured hour of excruciating discomfort for the sake of their respective ends.
Oprah tried to be magisterial on her turf; she was professional and polite, which is really all she needed to be. But beneath the cool, calm exterior, there was that sense of an impatient leash-tug. Her questions were alright, but I do wonder whether Oprah would have asked Palin the very stale question about whether she could be a veep with five children, had she had a D after her name.
Palin gave a stale answer, “I would do it the same way men do it.”
To which Oprah responded, “but they have wives!”
And Palin went off on some spinny herky-jerk when all she had to say was chuckle and say, “and I have a very capable husband.”
Such a response would have gotten a big round of applause from the mostly-silent audience, and it would have reinforced the whole sense Palin wants to convey, that her marriage is “equal,” and “strong,” without her having to say so as she did, later. Showing is always better than telling; actions more convincing than words.
And a little chuckle with flippancy signals that you’re not taking the interview too seriously, that the interviewer is not the Alpha dog.
Palin struck me as too guarded and needlessly defensive. Toward the end, Oprah asked if she had anything else to say, and Palin unwisely blurted out, “you can’t turn off my mic…” which was very revealing. As I said over two twitters:
there is a brittle defensiveness to Palin that was not there before; she’s clearly carrying scabs from being savaged in ‘08 BUT…you can’t do that in politics. She was treated (IS still treated) abominably by press, but if she can’t transcend that she’s out
Okay, political analysis in 140 characters doesn’t really work, but yeah, it seems to me that Palin is showing her scars from the detestable way the press descended on her and her family like a pack of rabid canines and worked to literally destroy Palin when she emerged in ‘08.
But the press tried to destroy Reagan, and they tried to destroy Bush; they could only get so far, because both men were able to shake the rutting mutts off their legs with aplomb, and look forward. It is a quality of character, part of it comes from knowing who you are and -as we see happening- it encourages people to take a second look, or a third, if need be.
I have suspected that Palin does know who she is, but she’s been rattled, and it shows. And so, she is talking about media mistreatment; her charges are not untrue, but tonguing the wounds will not help her with the people she needs to win over. They will see it merely as an unattractive, vindictive quality, rather ala Obama. Who wants more of that?
In September ‘08, Camille Paglia rightly called Palin “a natural”. She was so natural, that she was a terrifying powerhouse to the left, hence the immediate and fevered rush to destroy her. Recently Paglia wrote:
Whether Palin has a national future or not will depend on her willingness to hit the books at some point and absorb more information about international history and politics than she has needed to know in her role as governor. She also needs a shrewder, cooler take on the mainstream media, with its preening bullies, cackling witches, twisted cynics and pompous windbags. The Northeastern media establishment is in decline, and everyone knows it. Palin should not have gotten into a slanging match with David Letterman or anyone else who has been obsessively defaming her or her family. Let surrogates do that stuff.
I wholeheartedly agree. I know Palin is a tough, frontier spirit, and that serves her well in many ways, but she needs to learn to delegate the punches, so that she can remain above the fray, or she will never get past this guarded, watchful, overly-cautious and defensive vibe that rang out of her like waves from a tuning fork on the Winfrey show, today. She has to know that someone else will throw the punch for her, and she has to learn to be okay with that. She also needs to do better explaining her strategy in quitting the Governor’s post; reasonable people can understand the distraction of incessant and bogus “ethics” charges, but she needs to tell it better. There is nothing smooth; it’s all disjointed and halting. That won’t work.
So, not that my opinion on Palin matters at all, I give her a B- for the Oprah show. Nice video of the family, good response when she was pitying the pathetic Levi, and talking about how he is still “part of the family,” but she should have left the “Ricky Hollywood” gag home. The rest was kind of just okay.
The New Republic: Was more impressed than I, so, there you go.
I know the folks that really adore Palin will not like my assessment, but I think I’m being fair, here. When I see tweets from people who love Palin saying that they hate the interview and they want it to end, then I know they too did not see the Palin they really, really were hoping to see.
Meanwhile:
Legal Insurrection roundsup the lefty bloggers who live-blogged the “event” and laughs: Get a life, people. Palin is so far into your head she’s about to give you an aneurysm. That’s quite true, which is why if she can soften her edges, she can, I think, still recapture the middle. But she is not there, yet.
UPDATE I : Palin’s Facebook complaint about Newsweek’s cover illustrates what I am talking about. If this can’t roll off the back, nothing will. If she wants to be a serious contender for high office, she can’t even notice magazine covers; that is someone else’s job. This is a very “Obama-style” bit of micro-image-managing complaint. It’s small, picayune and it is not becoming, not when she does it, and not when Obama does it. Obama gets away with it, because the press helps him, but even with their protection, his thin-skinned brittleness is turning people off. Palin does not have that sort of political capital to spend.
UPDATE II: Melissa Clouthier is writing about Palin on Rush today, and she says on substantive issues, Palin was “flawless” and “like a breath of fresh air” – do go read her take, which is very interesting and serious. The Rush Transcript is here.
Related:
Sorry about the photoshops! Mean it!
Malkin: Female Conservative Derangement Syndrome
CNN Palin-Forum: Defining Obama-approved Journalism
Baseball Crank: Always well-reasoned
Allahpundit: has video
Gay Patriot: Has Palin learned how to play the victim card? Actually, I think she hasn’t; which is why she does it poorly.
Al Gore: Keeping it classy in business
Rich Lowry tweets that Going Rogue is a good, “dishy” read
Rasmussen: 59% of voters say share Palin’s values
More Gay Patriot: Why Palin Matters
Althouse: A pleasant chat
November 16th, 2009 | 7:06 pm | #1
I agree and will have more to say, myself. Ironically, I felt she came off in much the same way she came off with Couric–like she knows she’s in the presence of someone who hates her….which she was. Doesn’t mean she has to show it, though.
[Yes, it's that trapped look; she needs to reach a point where she can seem utterly unfazed by these folks. -admin]
November 16th, 2009 | 7:16 pm | #2
It’s true that Reagan and Bush were able to effectively shake off enough of their detractors to get elected, but I wouldn’t write Palin off on this yet. The smear merchants occasionally paused to take a breath when it came to Reagan and Bush. So far, with regard to Palin, they’ve been relentless, and so I can’t fault her for not yet having thoroughly overcome their ankle biting.
There’s still plenty of time.
[I have not written her off. But the press is not going to back down, so she is going to have to transcend them. If she can do it, she'll win. -admin]
November 16th, 2009 | 7:43 pm | #3
I pretty much agree with your Oprah/Palin assesment. I too broke down and watched, and I loath Oprah and show.
Palin looked very nervous, I thought, as if she knew Oprah couldn’t stand her and Oprah LOOKED like she couldn’t stand her, albeit was trying to be cool and polite. It was most obvious during the pro life segment.
There was one great line, I thought, when Palin quoted her dad after she quit her gov. office:
“She’s not retreating, just reloading!”
I don’t know. I certainly like Palin, and ANYONE would be better than Obama, but I suspect her political days are behind her.
November 16th, 2009 | 7:44 pm | #4
Yes on the husband answer! As soon as Oprah asked the question I said I wanted to hear Palin say “And I have a husband” and leave it at that. That would have been more resonant than her long-winded answer. I’m not on the Palin bandwagon. As was pointed out in the quote, she needs to know a lot more about a lot of things before I would feel comfortable putting her in charge. Her defensiveness only plays to the people out to belittle her, unfortunately. I’m happy to see a strong pro-life woman speak out, but she does not represent my views, not yet.
November 16th, 2009 | 7:45 pm | #5
I completely agree with your assessment. I understand why she’d be rattled (given the vicious and unrelenting personal attacks and mockery that have been heaped on her and her family since she first burst on to the national stage), but it’s time to step up and prove to everyone that she can handle the mainstream press.
My new hero is Liz Cheney. She hasn’t been subjected to the same kind of personal assault that Palin has, but she handles the mainstream press with aplomb. She is exceedlingly well-informed and articulate and certainly has learned a few things from her father in terms of making her point in the face of unfriendly and sometimes hostile questioning. Palin could learn a few things from her.
November 16th, 2009 | 8:08 pm | #6
Oprah backwards is Harpo.
November 16th, 2009 | 8:12 pm | #7
Of course Liz Cheney does well, daddy was VP and they are an established Washington family. I’m pretty appalled that voters seem to desire that in their political candidates. We aren’t meant to have geniuses or insiders serve as our representatives in Washington. Our representatives in Washington are supposed to be outsiders, of the place they’ve come from. Frankly I find it refreshing that Palin doesn’t behave like an automaton who’s thoroughly comfortable with the pack of rabid dogs that the press has become. Why should anyone behave as if they are comfortable with that kind of BS?
November 16th, 2009 | 9:11 pm | #8
[...] Anchoress writes about Sarah Palin on Oprah: It was like watching two lightly muzzled Doberman Pinschers, behaving because they have to, but [...]
November 16th, 2009 | 10:24 pm | #9
Palin needs to . . .
No she doesn’t.
She doesn’t need to do anything. She doesn’t owe us anything, she has no obligations here. The only thing she needs to do is whatever she wants to do consistent with being true to herself.
It’s just like people who kept saying that Bush needs to do this, Bush needs to do that. No he didn’t. And even if he did, it would not have mattered one iota. “Bush needs to explain Iraq better.” Of course, Bush had explained Iraq a hundred million times, but that didn’t matter. Whatever he did, whatever he might conceivably do, it was never enough, it was never, ever, ever going to be enough, ever.
Palin doesn’t need to do anything. She sure as hell doesn’t need to explain herself.
November 16th, 2009 | 10:44 pm | #10
Wow — we must have watched a different interview. I thought Sarah was great.
November 16th, 2009 | 11:00 pm | #11
Love Ms. Palin….wish she could read your comments. They are spot on, as usual
November 16th, 2009 | 11:11 pm | #12
Once again you are spot-on, and I was energized by McCain’s pick of Palin. I wish she was up to it, but the Oprah performance was sub-par. I’m disappointed but hoping either another leader will arise or Sarah will grow.
November 16th, 2009 | 11:24 pm | #13
Is there any way we could get the sane version of Peggy Noonan writing for Ms. Palin?
November 16th, 2009 | 11:36 pm | #14
Okay another opinion:
link
[pulled from spam filter and edited to admit link. If you do not embed your url's you will likely end up in the spam filter -admin]
November 17th, 2009 | 12:05 am | #15
At this point (the show was taped on November11, and the official release of the book is on Tuesday) not losing is a win. Events make or break statesmen.
Oprah knows that Obama’s presidency and her own reputation are on the line. It was only last month that she, the First Lady, and the President made a futile attempt to sway the IOC into awarding the 2016 Olympics to Chicago. That embarrassment explained at least part of the reason Oprah held herself in check. Sarah Palin will have good days and bad days in the future, but she knows who she is and where she came from, and that’s more than her rival in the 2012 game can say.
November 17th, 2009 | 12:08 am | #16
I agree with Bender.
I hadn’t seen in Oprah in years, but I used to watch her in my young motherhood years as did Sarah. I read the interview in a very different way than you, Anchoress. I swear that the two women had had a little “connection” backstage before coming out. Later it came out that Sarah had given Oprah a heartfelt compliment. I really felt that Oprah was seeing Sarah as a real (and genuine) human being for the first time. I wondered if she was more guarded later on because of “her friends” on “the other side.”
But that’s just me, the eternal optimist.
November 17th, 2009 | 12:09 am | #17
I like the Daily Beast article today who compared Palin’s critics to humping dogs. They’re frenzied, and they’re certainly annoying, but they don’t have real teeth.
However, I believe Palin has always had this prickliness. She had to keep it bottled during the campaign. You can tell because on Facebook she will post rebuttals to criticisms I haven’t even heard yet (and I follow politics pretty closely these days). She has to learn how to harness and channel it. But she’ll get there.
Oh, and you know who else is brittle and prickly and can’t hide it? Mm-hmm.
November 17th, 2009 | 12:55 am | #18
Palin will never be president unless she toughens up, and the reality is that she has not been in public office long enough to develop the thick skin that Reagan and Bush had.
Second, I like her, but I will not vote for her unless she gets a much deeper understanding of foreign affairs. She should be able to crush the news media with facts and history about the various situations around the world. She should have answers that she doesn’t have to study because she already knows this stuff – but she does not. She doesn’t have a natural interest in foreign policy and doesn’t have the years of studying it that someone as green as she is should have in order to talk like a president. Obama, another inexperienced candidate, got away with his shallow knowledge because his stance was that he was not George Bush. In any other election, he would not be able to get away with that.
I don’t think Palin can pull it off, but I hope she tries.
November 17th, 2009 | 1:47 am | #19
“If this can’t roll off the back, nothing will. If she wants to be a serious contender for high office, she can’t even notice magazine covers; that is someone else’s job”
Oh, I dunno. I think her immediate objective is to sell as many of her books as possible. Pointing out the Runner’s World photo won’t hurt sales a bit. Heck, that Newsweek cover is gold, Jerry, gold! The publisher has already announced a second printing above the initial 1.5 million copies already printed. More controversy = more books. And if she can stick a shiv in the MSM at the same time, it’s a two-fer. Americans like a winner, and she’s winning, now.
November 17th, 2009 | 2:19 am | #20
I agree that Sarah Palin looked very ill at ease, but for someone that is on her own program and has been doing TV for years, Oprah looked like she was in pure pain. Not sure how you act natural when it is obvious you have two people who disagree on almost every point, have very strong opinions, and are eager to make their point. I think she could have used a few, “oh Oprah, there you go again” moments to get a rise out of her. I think it would have been easy to set Oprah on a path where she would have lost her cool and showed herself as very biased. Reagan had a way of pulling out a joke to force people to back off. Also remember this was an Oprah audience and she has lost anyone that would have supported Palin in any way after he sell out to Obama.
[Oprah looked uncomfortable, but -to be fair- she was polite and professional to Palin. In that case, had Palin done a "there you go again," on Oprah, it would have backfired on her. When you're someone's guest, that's the wrong place to have at them and make them lose their cool. I think Palin is too polite to do that. -admin]
November 17th, 2009 | 2:41 am | #21
Anchoress, et al:
Have you folks seen this critical 11/16/09 post by Rick Moran on his “Rightwing Nuthouse” blog?
“IS THERE ANY WAY SARAH PALIN CAN RECOVER?”
By Rick Moran,11/16/09
Hate to say it but Mr. Moran does seem to make a good point (or 2)….
Would anyone care to weigh-in on this?
(Thanks in advance.)
[Recovered from Spam Filter and edited to admit link. Posting unembedded urls in the comments section will very often end you up in the span filter. admin]
November 17th, 2009 | 3:04 am | #22
She needs to develop a thicker skin?? She needs to be tougher and let things roll off her back??
Come on. Let’s be real here. We are talking about THE MOST REVILED WOMAN in the country. We are talking about someone who has been savaged and attacked and vilified more than Osama bin Laden! The only one coming close to having that level of vicious malice and bile directed toward him or her is George Bush, and even then they did not go all out against his family.
Do that to practically anyone else and they would be permanently incontinent from the trauma. Sarah Palin has shown extraordinary restraint and toughness throughout this entire ordeal, which was thrust upon her. And if she might throw a couple of elbows back here and there, well, good. If she body slams some people to the pavement, good.
That’s not being a whiny, prissy baby, like our whiny prissy president, that is merely hitting back.
As far as her running for higher office again? America does not deserve her.
Sarah Palin shouldn’t run. She shouldn’t. Not until they come crawling to her, kissing her rear-end and begging her to run.
Until then, she is doing a much greater service doing exactly what she is doing now. Obama and Pelosi might have more raw power, merely by the force of Democrat numbers, but Sarah Palin has shown that she drawfs them in influence. With merely a couple of Facebook columns, Palin seized control of the healthcare “reform” debate, while Obama has been in frenetic campaign mode, pushing, pushing, pushing, including a joint session of Congress address, all to little effect.
She is plenty strong to do what needs to be done.
[Never said she wasn't strong, Bender, but she'll have to be stronger. Yes, she has been savaged (I think I was more than clear about that in my post) by a relentless and frankly hate-demented press. Yes, they went after her kids (they went after Bush's too, as much as they dared, but Jenna and Barbara did not serve up the red meat the media crowd needed to gorge on. But for all that, she must be stronger, still. There is that old cliche, that a woman has to be twice as good as a man, to receive half the praise. In Palin's case, the cliche is true. I have not said I don't think she can do it, but she needs to start. I think Paglia's advice to Palin was very right. -admin]
November 17th, 2009 | 4:38 am | #23
What does everyone here make of Palin’s statements on creationism vs. evolution, as detailed in the book?
You can guess that I make pretty short shrift of it, as I did with her assertions about that fancy-pants, gay-ass fruit fly research.
I suppose, though, she herself is delighted with the interview, simply because it makes her money. Such is the world we live in.
[I would want to read her remarks in context, within the book, rather than assessing them out of context in a hostile review. That's only fair, I think, right? -admin]
November 17th, 2009 | 5:02 am | #24
[...] Read more reactions to the Oprah interview from conservative sites here and here and here. [...]
November 17th, 2009 | 8:35 am | #25
I think Michael Medved made the best point yet on his radio show yesterday.
First of all, he thinks Palin is great on TV. His biggest beef was “too much gossip, personal andsmall stuff, not enough on issues.” Some called in strongly disagreeing, but he then Medved made this great point: Is the goal to see books or to set herself up for the POTUS?
True, an Oprah audience probably doens’t want to hear about deficits, but again, Medved made a very important point. Using Obama as an example of being “well like” but almost the opposite in terms of “policies liked”, Palin could do herself (if the goal is to run), a HUGH favor by being “issue specific” and not so personal.
Medved suggested that if Palin only concentrated on “Out of control big government”, even people who hated her personally would jump on her train, as Americans clearly have had it with big government and big spending.
I think he’s right, and if that were the case, Palin might be able to pull off a run and win, but she would have to get more toughed skinned (as you so correctly point out Elizabeth), and more “issues only.”
[I agree with that assessment. Hillary Clinton managed to strike a good balance; she was a married woman with a family, but [personal or political leanings aside] one first and foremost thought of her as a serious woman who understood policy and made policy, and was just a little bit wonky in that respect. Palin runs the risk of becoming National Mom, which is great for a talk-show host, but not for a politician. I think Medved’s assessment is spot-on. -admin]
November 17th, 2009 | 8:58 am | #26
The Hitch expresses himself
I tried to write a bit of commentary, but something went wrong with my computer when I hit send. Perhaps it is knocking around, but probably not.
[Nothing in the spam filter from you today, DV, sorry -admin]
November 17th, 2009 | 9:04 am | #27
I find it impossible to watch Oprah for more than 10 seconds given how big her head is. I’m sure it was excruciatingly difficult for Palin to subject herself to Oprah’s smarmy condescension, but it sounds like she did okay. She is still young and will grow a lot in the next 3 years before 2012. I think she is every bit as capable as Reagan, and she is authentic. A great human being too, she gave birth to a Down’s Syndrome baby when the easiest thing in the world to do would have to have an abortion. That is character.
November 17th, 2009 | 10:12 am | #28
If you will be kind enough to allow me, I would like to propose a toast:
Here’s to Sarah Palin; may she never – EVER – go away.
I am going to go out on a limb here: No woman since Eleanor Roosevelt has done more to further the cause of progressive politics in the United States of America than our Sarah.
Don’cha just love her? I sure do!
Tom Degan
Goshen, NY
[Recovered from spam filter and edited to admit links. If one inserts unembedded url's in the comments section, one will likely end up in the spam filter where -depending on my mood of a day- I will either fix the link or hit delete. -admin]
November 17th, 2009 | 10:24 am | #29
I have a friend who is an ardent feminist and hoped there would be a female POTUS….but not any longer. After seeing the affirmative action president, my friend wants the most competent person in the whitehouse and not another failed experiment. Reagan and Bush came up through the ranks and received many attacks on themselves and their families and learned how to handle them…..I have every faith Gov. Palin can achieve that. Strong, brave,centered woman with a great love for this country….and hope for the future…..so refreshing.
November 17th, 2009 | 10:45 am | #30
Sarah’s got a couple of years to polish her act. And they hate her, which shows she’s got what it takes–the silver bullet–to kill them. Trust her enemies’ instincts even of you don’t trust your own.
November 17th, 2009 | 10:59 am | #31
I really, really hope that Sarah is able to get the nomination in 2012…she is absolutely able to get Obama re-elected by landslide proportions. Wouldn’t it be funny if the GOP didn’t crack 20%? Keep up the great work.
November 17th, 2009 | 11:28 am | #32
Teddy Kennedy was being called a MURDERER for his entire life….he just went back and WORKED, and passed laws and did charible acts, and WORKED, and amassed an impressive body of solutions. His personal redemption.
Palin is a tap dancing vaudeville act doing the shimmy to the tune of KA-CHING.
Sarah Palin/Fabio
November 17th, 2009 | 12:13 pm | #33
Colour me underwhelmed by your “review” of the interview on Oprah. You, like so many others, have decided who Sarah Palin should be, so that she can fulfill some arbitrary checklist for political success, rather than trying to understand and maybe even appreciate who she really is. She will never be that cool, detached, sophisticate that you want her to be, not if she is going to stay true to herself and who God made her to be. She is an intelligent, attractive Christian woman who does not appear to have the necessary strengths to be POTUS. Unless and until she declares her candidacy for same, you should reconsider critiquing her as though she had.
[Well, if you are saying that Palin is unable to grow without giving up who she is, then I have to disagree; we're all capable of growth, if we are willing to work to grow, and growth does not necessarily change the essential people we are. If you like Palin exactly as she is, that's fine. But -as much as I find a lot to admire in Palin, and think she has natural gifts for politics- if she continues to be what I saw on Oprah yesterday, I don't think I'll be able to vote for her. Perhaps she is not intending to run for office again, but she did not make that clear in the interview; she gave a politician's answer, so I will continue to look at her as a politician who is worth watching and evaluating. Finally, even if Palin manages the growth I do think she is capable of, if the Cult of Sarah Adoration That Will Not Tolerate A Critical Word Against Her persists, I still may not vote for her, because we already have one thin-skinned president with a Cult of Personality behind him; we don't need two. -admin]
November 17th, 2009 | 12:35 pm | #34
It may seem strange to invoke St. Paul here, but I believe it fits. When outlining the qualifications for priests and bishops, Paul includes family. A bishop should be the husband of one wife (yes, a bishop was expected to be married in those days) and you were to consider their kids. If the father could not properly raise his family, how could he be a father to the church?
I’m afraid I consider Sarah Palin in the light of how she raises her family. While she was off running a town and then a state, some things went terribly wrong with son and daughter. It says volumns for how she governs her affairs. And I’m afraid it says the wrong thing.
When she gave her speech to the Republican Convention, my wife and I were so overwhelmed that when the speech was over, a call was made to RNC with a donation. We had avoided McCain like the plague up until then. But as the campaign wore on and it was apparent how ill prepared she was, we voted for her, but that’s where it ended. A wonderful spokesperson for the conservative cause, but at this point she is not ready for political prime time.
November 17th, 2009 | 1:11 pm | #35
Jim,
I have to ask, what went wrong with her son? I know her oldest son is in the military and her youngest was born. I’m not sure how either could be called “terribly wrong.” Of course you may know of something that I don’t.
November 17th, 2009 | 2:01 pm | #36
what is this “Cult of Sarah Adoration” that you speak of? No one I know adores the woman, we’re just appalled how she has been treated. The media have created a situation in which any conservative newcomer without pre-existing deep connections in DC is going to be trashed. And you are playing right into their game by demanding she behave according to some 1960’s notion of media propriety, wherein Palin is supposed to act like everything is kopacetic while herself and her family are mercilessly savaged. Her treatment at the hands of the media is unprecedented. Get over your Walter Cronkite fantasies and become acquainted with the fact that the media is at war with Sarah Palin and with you.
["I" am appalled at how Palin has been treated, and I've been exceedingly clear about that. My sense of outrage on her behalf, however, does not preclude my being able to acknowledge her weaknesses as a potential candidate. The "cult of Sarah" is visible on some political forums where you will see any criticism of the woman denounced as "trolling" or where critics are told "you are not a 'real' conservative". When I get emails from people telling me about how all of someone's hopes rest on "my Sarah" or "our Sarah" I see a cult of personality that has trumped plain old common sense, and frankly I think Palin would be appalled by it. I don't have any "Walter Cronkite" fantasies -i never much liked the guy, myself, and was a Huntley-Brinkley fan- but the FACT (and it is a FACT) that the media is at war with Palin has absolutely nothing to do with her capabilities at this point. If one cannot see past the painful savagery inflicted upon Palin by the press - if that savagery is all one can see - to make honest assessments of Palin's strengths and weaknesses, then one is allowing one's sympathies to trump one's sense, and is doing a disservice to Palin and (potentially) to the country. We don't need another candidate whose fans are so enamored of her that they are willing to overlook weaknesses. We already have that in the White House. -admin]
November 17th, 2009 | 2:08 pm | #37
Reagan and Bush had years of political exposure and game playing before taking on the big Presidential challange. Sarah Palin has come on the national scene with the bare minimum of Republican party support and mostly has depended on plain American red staters for encouragement to proceed to higher political ground. I watched Oprah, first time in years, and agree with those who believe that Sarah did what she needed to do. She got exposure to an audience outside her usual sphere, and experience in mingeling with media types on the level of Oprah. This was not a time or forum for pushing policies or politics. Sarah has three years to learn and grow in all the ways that will make her a credible presidential candidate. I do believe that her family is actually pretty representative of the various situations that many parents deal with and therefore can relate to Palin as a kindered spirit. Stay at home moms are no guarantee of unwed pregnancies or children who choose the good path in later life. I have known both sides of working and non working parents, small and large families, any variation you can think of, and none has a lock on total success with their offspring. I learned the hard way to never claim that ‘my child would never do that’. It will sooner or later bite one. Sarah certainly could use a more streamlined presentation of her interviews for the sake of clarity but it will not matter to the media who will just find something else to mock her about. I wish her success in whatever she does . I also appreciate that she is helping to make the political path more accessible for the other Republican women now being heard from. She is a trail blazer and for that alone I am grateful.
["Sarah has three years to learn and grow in all the ways that will make her a credible presidential candidate." No, she doesn't. She has -at best- 9 months to a year. -admin]
November 17th, 2009 | 2:09 pm | #38
What kind of growth are you looking for in Sarah Palin? I have re-read your original post and your comment to my comment, and the best I can come up with is that you want Mrs. Palin to be more polished, more quick-witted, less thin-skinned when dealing with the mainstream media. I wouldn’t agree that any of those qualities have anything to do with growth and would merely hide but never change who she really is, much like they did for the current president.
I do like her as she is. I don’t think she’ll ever be POTUS because her strengths (moral courage, strong sense of justice and fair play, belief in objective truth, inability to dissimulate) are not considered desirable in a political leader. I’d say that’s America’s loss, and only hers if she decides to play along.
[I am defining growth as something interior to herself, which manifests itself outwardly as calmness and strength, but I suspect you and I are not going to agree because you see what I am saying as negative criticism and I see it as constructive criticism. And yes, if -as you say- "moral courage, a strong sense of justice and fair play, belief in objective truth" are not considered desirable in a political leader, then we're lost. admin]
November 17th, 2009 | 2:31 pm | #39
If Obama ever was a credible presidential candidate, then so is Palin. already. Let’s not be so precious about our side’s candidates when the other side sees fit to nominate someone with no experience, no maturity and apparently no competence.
[Sorry. We HAVE to be that "precious" about our side's candidates. Just because the other side is content to nominate someone wholly unsuited to an office doesn't mean we can justify doing so. Someone has to be the grownup side. Obama was only a "credible" candidate because the press made him one. I can't think of a stupider idea than, "hey, he's not competent so our candidate doesn't have to be either." That's just biting off the country's nose to spite its face. -admin]
November 17th, 2009 | 2:36 pm | #40
I don’t know of anyone — anyone — who has been able to look all that spectatular when under the unrelenting, withering assault of irrational, malicious leftist media people, Reagan included. To be sure, not everyone has been as bad as Dan Dear-in-the-Headlights Quayle, but no one has been able to shine in that arena. Reagan many times was made to look like he did not know his facts. Even Rush Limbaugh, supreme communicator that he is, has been reduced to looking less than stellar when in the enemy’s camp.
Of course, all of these people were and are supremely knowledgable and capable. If you look at interviews Palin has done in a neutral or friendly forum, then she hits it out of the park more often than not. Especially looking at the pre-nomination interviews, one can see that she is very knowledgable and has great instinct and commonsense. Just now, she sounded great in her interview with Rush.
But for those who want Palin to look and sound better when under the interrogation krieg lights, being attacking by those who are purposely trying to make her look bad, consider how you would do in that circumstance. More likely than not, you would either be reduced to stammering from the complete left-field illogic of the questioning or you would come across looking angry and out-of-control. And yet, you trust yourself, don’t you? You trust your own judgment, your own intelligence.
Being able to look and sound spectacular in the face of attacks by hateful inquisitors is far down the list of qualifications for leadership. There are some who have been acclaimed as masters of the style game. One of them is currently president. How you like the job he’s doing?
[Bender, with all due respect (and you know I respect you) "being able to look and sound knowledgeable and unflappable in the face of attacks by hateful inquisitors" is part and parcel of being a successful and effective conservative politician. How would I do? You know me well enough to know that under circumstances such as Palin faces, I would go into full Irish-warrior mode, paint my face blue and show up with a knife between my teeth...which is precisely why I am not a politician, and know I do not belong in politics. But if Palin WANTS that arena, then she has to be be twice as good as anyone else. Again, I think your understandable sympathies to the very unjust way Palin has been treated and caricatured is overwhelming what is simple reality, here. It is irrelevant how "I" would do, under the same circumstances. Nobody (quite rightly) is wondering if I will be making a run for the most powerful (and most stressful) office in the land. We are all wondering it about Palin, though, and all of her expertise (particularly in energy) is not going to do her a damn bit of good if she cannot lay it out there when she needs to, without allowing herself to get distracted by magazine covers and old grudges. Again, it is the same weakness we see in Obama (plus he has less experience, less expertise in energy); it betrays an inability to choose which battles matter and which do not, and it is NOT GOOD for any president, or the nation, period. -admin]
November 17th, 2009 | 2:40 pm | #41
Dan Dear-in-the-Headlights Quayle
Even Bender isn’t always perfect, even if he is not Dan Potatoe, Deer-in-the-Headlights Quayle.
November 17th, 2009 | 2:53 pm | #42
Sorry Anchoress, I can’t take your point, since you have nowhere near demonstrated that Palin is “wholly unsuited to an office”. You’re setting up a straw man. And by the way, has it occurred to anyone that in the most recent decades the candidates nominated by the GOP who supposedly were “wholly suited to an office” were ineffective and bumbling? We finally managed to squeak someone in b/c he was a former president’s son who knew the Washington game and had enough connections to keep the press in check. Meantime we are content to sit back and let the press destroy everyone else, and even join the chorus of clucking tongues.
[Hey, you and I don't have to agree, we just have to treat each other decently - that's the thing the whole nation seems to be forgetting about discourse. I disagree with you that Bush was ineffective and bumbling. He may have bumbled, but he was very effective until -for some reason- the thought the defeat in 2006 seemed to mean a surrender of sorts. But even then, he effectively managed the surge against all doubters. I for one have never been "content to let the press destroy everyone else and even join the chorus of clucking tongues. " I am generally at war with the press, so perhaps you are speaking for yourself. As for clucking tongues...again, that goes back to the cult of personality. Are we not permitted to critique Sarah Palin without being accused of building straw men and clucking? That is, in itself a straw man. admin]
November 17th, 2009 | 2:59 pm | #43
“Being able to look and sound spectacular in the face of attacks by hateful inquisitors is far down the list of qualifications for leadership.”
Indeed, Bender. In fact, I’d argue the ability to do so is more indicative of a sociopath.
November 17th, 2009 | 3:15 pm | #44
Well, for what it’s worth…I’m quietly studying Mrs. Palin because I would like to be more of the woman she is. Not political but more controlled and aware of my facts…being able to present them more clearly. Being able to withstand the “bullets” fired by the enemy.
I really think she could make it. We’re fighting for the soul of our country. Does she believe in God and country? Is she being seasoned so that she’s not “full of herself” and will lead by a moral standard? I think so. She is walking through the fire. This is the type of person I’m looking for who will lead us through the chaos and troubles that the current POTUS is leading us into.
God bless America
God Save America
November 17th, 2009 | 3:26 pm | #45
“being able to look and sound knowledgeable and unflappable in the face of attacks by hateful inquisitors” is part and parcel of being a successful and effective conservative politician.
Then we haven’t had a successful and effective conservative politician yet. Reagan could not do it. Not consistently.
—————-
The fact is, it does not matter how Palin conducts herself. She could be the greatest politician ever. AND IT WOULD NOT MATTER. They will NOT LET HER succeed, no matter how good or how bad she is.
Even if God Himself were to come to this world, there would be a sizeable proportion of the population that would refuse to recognize Him and would reject Him. Come to think of it — He did, and they did.
It ain’t about Palin. It is about the hateful, national suicide left. She does not need to change, and even if she did, it would not matter one bit. There is nothing she could do to change them. They must change themselves.
Maybe with their own messiah and prophet dragging us all into the abyss, maybe now they will begin to change. In fact, I believe we might soon be witnessing an FDR political sea change in reverse. But it is all on them to do that.
Like I said before, I don’t think she should run. America does not deserve her. Only if there is a massive effort to draft her should she even consider it.
November 17th, 2009 | 3:30 pm | #46
Anchoress: I think Palin and Obama share just one thing: The way they are viewed by an individual tells you something about the viewer.
I detest Obama more completely than words can express, and my attitude will not change — ever.
I admire Palin tremendously, for her accomplishments,grace, and “perkiness”.
I have no desire to read anyone’s opinions about Obama, because I do not care at all about HIM. However, your words about Palin are of interest — I know I have too much of an emotional attachment to be clear about potential issues.
If Palin is to succeed on the national political stage, then she needs to trouble-shoot. I think opinions from rational, thoughtful people who love America would be something she would welcome. If I were her, I would rather hear from loving friends where my “flaws” are, so I could have the opportunity to improve. I sense she would agree.
You have to give Palin kudos from braving Oprah and Barbara Walters, knowing how much they support her opponents and how intrinsically they are tied to the elite media that is trying to discredit her career, family, and style. She didn’t HAVE to go on Oprah, to promote her book — it would be a raging success without this appearance. I think she did it to show she could face her demons.
I do not think it is entirely fair to compare ther media treatment to that of Reagan and Bush, either. I think a woman is much more inclined to be “defensive” (e.g., the “mother bear mode”) when her family is attacked than a man (Note – I am always explaining to my beloved husband that it is OK for me to weigh his happiness and that of my son before my own, as this thinking comes naturally to me and I don’t view it as “bad”). I think this mode is probably what caught your eye. I don’t know if it can be “overcome”, nor do I think it has to be either.
Palin continues to show more leadership, grace, and dignity as a private citizen than the entire Obama Administration can or ever will. No matter what God has in store for her, I am grateful for Palin’s example of “citizen activism”, which continues to inspire me in my “Tea Party” pursuits.
Thanks for a great post on one of my favorite subjects.
November 17th, 2009 | 3:40 pm | #47
Anchoress, I’m sorry you don’t think I’m treating you decently, but the fact remains that you have not demonstrated why Palin is “wholly unsuited” for national office. It’s that simple. You don’t even attempt to discuss her positions on any substantive issue, instead choosing to dissect her presumptively insufficient media persona. This is precisely what our friends in the media do to try and discredit Palin. You are dancing to their tune.
By the way, I never meant to say W was “ineffective and bumbling.” Bush 1 in 1992, Dole in 1996, and McCain in 2008 on the other hand ….
[You completely misunderstand me, or I am at fault for not being clear. I never meant you were not treating me decently, I was simply observing that it's perfectly okay for us to disagree, and that discourse in this country is so eroded that we seem to forget that. It's okay to disagree, all we owe each other is civility, and I happen to think you are very civil. My observation was poorly worded, I guess. Sorry. If you want to pick apart "wholly unsuited" well, fine. I wrote those specific words, if you look back, about President Obama, and suggested that Palin is at this point in time not up to snuff either, (kind of on the order of my mistaking your "ineffective/bumbling" attribution to Dubya) but I doubt I can "demonstrate" that to your satisfaction which is why I say "we are allowed to disagree." As I said in my original piece, watching Palin fans who genuinely love her tweet that the couldn't wait for the interview to end spoke volumes to me about how she was coming off, with Oprah, to many others besides myself. As to my "attempting to discuss Palin on substantial issues - you are a little unjust toward me, there. I have stated that she has real expertise on energy, and I have stated elsewhere that Palin's "death panel" remarks, rather than being -as the press and even some on the right suggest- off base were quite on the mark. But I don't know how discussing Palin on Oprah -where she did little-to-no talk of policy or issues of substance- can justify your laying a charge of insufficient attention the substantive Palin. She did not show that Palin on Oprah, and indeed that was probably not the purpose of her being there. I GET it that you are a passionate defender of Palin, and there is nothing wrong with that. But I'm not going to allow your passion to indict me as "dancing to the tune" of the media. You are a new reader here, so you cannot possibly understand the depths of my disgust, distrust and dislike of the media, but that means you also do not understand that I insist on the right to think for myself, without being told that I am wrong or illegitimate for doing so. I left the left because I was not being allowed to think for myself. When I get that message from people on the right (couched in the suggestion that I am some useful idiot "dancing" to the tunes of a media I do not watch, do not listen to and do not trust) well...that's when I remind my readers that I am not a conservative, I'm a classical liberal. I'm sure you and I will disagree on immigration, too. But we're allowed to disagree, I think, and still be decent people? Right? -admin]
November 17th, 2009 | 3:49 pm | #48
“under circumstances such as Palin faces, I would go into full Irish-warrior mode, paint my face blue and show up with a knife between my teeth…which is precisely why I am not a politician, and know I do not belong in politics. ”
Goodness. That’s the media’s game — don’t you see? The way they treat Palin is a warning shot to all of us to stay the hell out and shut the hell up. We’re all scared to run for office now, and rightfully so. For people on the right running for office has become a trial to see how much character assassination one can withstand (not to mention one’s family). The least we can do as fellow conservatives is not join in on the unfair accusations and unreasonable expectations.
Thank God we have someone like Palin who is willing to put up with it. At this rate — with the guff she’s getting from both the right and the left — she might not be willing to do so for much longer, and I for one wouldn’t blame her.
[Oh, for crying out loud. I do not stay out of politics because of "the media's game" I stay out of it because I'm not called to. It was a JOKE, and it was all about ME, and nothing else, but as you are a new reader, you may not get that. And again, sorry, I must reject this notion that "The least we can do as fellow conservatives is not join in on the unfair accusations and unreasonable expectations." I am neither unfair to Palin nor subjecting her to unreasonable expectations; I am not "joining in" on character assassination. I speak as I find, though.
Given the disaster we have currently in the White House, I am not in the mood, at this point, to overlook serious weaknesses in a candidate because of a notion -all too similar to the democrats idea in '08- that a candidate's deficiencies could be overlooked because he/she is LOVED so much. I won't do it. I will vote for the person I feel can best do the job. In a contest between Obama and Palin, I would frankly vote for Palin, because even with her weaknesses, I am certain she would be better than him, and I know she loves the country. But if the contest waer between Palin and someone else? I don't know. Palin vs. Liz Cheney? Liz Cheney. Palin vs. Pelosi? Palin. Your passion is admirable, but it doesn't pursuade me any more than my caution pursuades you. But I do wish you'd stop accusing me of "dancing" to anyone's tune or not kowtowing to whatever it is you want me to do about Palin. You really don't know me well enough to impugn my motives or my intelligence in such a way, and it is not very civil. -admin]
November 17th, 2009 | 4:06 pm | #49
I guess I don’t recall any former vp candidate getting such scrutiny on absolutely everything they did or didn’t do, say or didn’t say. I must say, I respect her, she is real. I don’t think she will march to the beat of the drum, the beat that is the same ‘ol beat….she gives me the impression that she is more than capable of marching to her own beat…..the beat of America….the one she will no doubt have many hear…..and I suspect the beat many have been waiting to hear….like it or not…..she is the beat to which many consider music to their ears….I for one, am sick and tired of the same ‘ol. We were promised many things, many times, by many presidents…..I think it is time for a woman to teach, to all, what it is to not only make a promise but keep it…..Mothers are not known for making a promise and not keeping it…..she comes off to me as that kind of leader….and one also, that has proven, she will “go rogue” if needed……I like that, and I feel it is time for the promises to be kept…Sarah Palin is that person…she is that leader…..
And as far as her experience…..I think it is time for all to understand one thing…..she is more experienced than our current president in office today….so do not use that….Because he is a man….he is more qualified?…..I say to that…..behind every good man is a good woman…..look at your own family…who is really the leader, the heart, the one that is rational and committed to your family….my guess is, the mother is playing that role….because it comes natural…..Sarah is a Natural……
November 17th, 2009 | 4:16 pm | #50
The Rush Limbaugh interview of Palin is up.
RUSH: Do you consider yourself one of these unanointed ones within your own party?
GOV. PALIN: Well, to some in both parties, politics is more of a business. It’s not so much a commitment to an agenda or a person or values or issues. It’s more of a business — and, no, I’m not a part of that. So if they’re going to keep using that way of thinking in their decisions on who they anoint, who they will support or not then, no. I’ll never be a part of that. But hopefully we’re going to see a shift with independents, with the Republican Party and the Democrat Party, and we’re going to get back to what the issues are, what really matters, and then hopefully we’re going to go from there, which will be much fairer to the electorate. . . .
GOV. PALIN: . . . And I say that, though, acknowledging that I’m not an obsessive panther, I understand why people — good people like my own husband — refuse to register in a party. Todd’s not a Republican and yet he’s got more commonsense conservatism than a whole lot of Republicans that I know because he is one who sees the idiosyncrasies of the characters within the machine and it frustrates him along with a whole lot of other Americans who choose to be independent. . . . In Alaska, about 70% of Alaskans are independent. So that’s my base. That’s where I am from and that’s been my training ground, is just implementing commonsense conservative solutions. Independents appreciate that. You’re going to see more and more of that attraction to the GOP by these independents as the days go on. . . .
RUSH: Let’s talk about your book tour, your career in general, Governor Palin. Who are you trying to reach, and for what purpose, with the book and your book tour? What’s your goal here?
GOV. PALIN: I’m not trying to reach the liberal elites in this country, and it’s a good thing I’m not trying to, because I’m not succeeding there. Just everyday, hardworking Americans who want government back on their side and I want to help them have their voice be heard.
[Bender, if the boldface is for my benefit, I never said Palin should try to reach out to the "liberal elite" - she wouldn't succeed if she did try. But I am not a member of the "liberal elite" and I actually admire much about her, but she is not, right now, succeeding with me. And I can't believe I am so unique. I want her to do well. I am willing to be persuaded - particularly because I think Palin would do something wonderful for the economy and our energy independence if she could make it to the WH- but the persuasion has to come from Palin, and what I see and hear from her, and not from passionate folks who adore her and are requiring nothing from her beyond what she has already shown. She's shown me some good things; she's also shown me some iffy things and -and this means a lot more than perhaps you can appreciate- she has shown me too much that reminds me of Obama, in terms of her need to address every slight and go to war with individuals. THAT propensity may well be the thing that is turning me off about her the most right now. What I do not like in Obama, I cannot find admirable in Palin, even though one has been anointed by the press, and the other has been savaged. Regardless of how one is being treated in the media, that behavior is not presidential. -admin.]
November 17th, 2009 | 4:30 pm | #51
[...] opera stuff”, but that’s Oprah’s audience. Palin did relatively well. The Anchoress sums it up this way: Palin struck me as too guarded and needlessly defensive. Toward the end, Oprah asked if she had [...]
November 17th, 2009 | 4:32 pm | #52
[...] called the questions "soap opera stuff", but that's Oprah's audience. Palin did relatively well. The Anchoress sums it up this way:Palin struck me as too guarded and needlessly defensive. Toward the end, Oprah asked if she had [...]
November 17th, 2009 | 4:32 pm | #53
Dear Anchoress,
-admin]
I read your review with interest and rewatched the interview–I have to take issue with you on one point, when Sarah says “You can’t turn off my mike”; it is because she is paying Oprah a lovely complement. She isn’t being brittle and defensive, but saying the equivalent of “I’m going to complement you and no you can’t stop me”. If you rewatch that part of the interview you’ll see that there is no defensiveness there, Sarah is talking about how Oprah inspired her when she was a stay at home mom.
[Interesting. I will have to rewatch; I've never said I can't be wrong about anything!
November 17th, 2009 | 4:32 pm | #54
You say you would prefer others to Palin, if they were not as utterly antithetical to you as Obama, Pelosi etc.
It might be a choice you soon end up having to make what with the likes of Pawlenty, Romney, Huckabee etc. sniffing around.
In a Republican primary I would support whoever was the most secular, libertarian-minded & likely to withstand the ultra-hawks on foreign policy. I dread to imagine Obama facing an opposition made up chiefly of people like Charles Murray etc. But I might not support Democrats at all if the GOP were made up of people like that.
(Which it isn’t & is unlikely ever to be).
[I would have a real problem with Huckabee, because he comes off, for me at least, too much like a car salesman. I don't know enough about Pawlenty and Romney...ugh, I don't know. They're all so stale and used-up. We really need new blood, and I am convinced that we may have to step outside of career politicians to find it -admin]
November 17th, 2009 | 4:37 pm | #55
By “support” I don’t mean cynically, I mean in the same way you’d presumably want Clinton or the like amongst leading Democrats.
I am not by nature partisan- none of my British pals actually knows which party I support & I enjoy teasing them at every election by inviting them to speculate
Though I wouldn’t call myself a centrist as I am more likely to agree with the “left-wing” than the “right-wing” position. But it is my view that different parties may meet the needs of different times.
I also think that long incumbencies of whoever it is (step forward Blair/Brown & their right-wing predecessors) are bad news, which is why the 2-term rule in America works so well. I am particularly intrigued by the idea that Gore may have differed from Clinton in 2000 (though I think he wouldn’t be anything like as much of an eco-warrior in office) or McCain might have turned away from some Bush policies. In a similar way to Bush I’s differences of emphasis from Reagan.
November 17th, 2009 | 4:46 pm | #56
Have any of you seen the interview she did with Charlie Rose back in 2007? You can see some of it here. Gosh, does she ever come across differently than she does now, or than she did during the 2008 presidential campaign. Business-like, smart, cool. If she could just get back to that. But, as the Anchoress said, she’s been badly rattled, and I think she may never be able to regain her composure. A pity. In any case, I don’t think many of us would be able to endure the truly ugly and cruel onslaught that just keeps coming her way, and her family’s way.
November 17th, 2009 | 4:48 pm | #57
Why is everyone so into Liz Cheney on this thread? Unlike Palin, Liz Cheney has never held executive office, so I can only conclude you like her for the same reasons people liked Obama — she speaks well in front of the media. You make the same mistake as Obama supporters here when you interpret obsequeiousness from the media as an indicator of competence on the part of the candidate. How ironic, given your lengthy explanation of how dangerous it would be to mimic the democrats in the nomination process.
BTW Anchoress I’m not new to this blog. I lurk here often. I usually find your points very substantive and hard-hitting, which is why I frankly was disappointed by this post.
[I am sorry to disappoint, but as I say, I can only speak as I find. Considering all the positives I have to say about Palin - and they are and have been many- I am amazed at the energy you have put into pushing against my ummm...perceived heresy here. That's a joke, btw. Still, your passion is surprising. I didn't think she did better than a B- on Oprah; you thought she was an A+. As Dubya used to say, "this is just a difference of opinion."
Liz Cheney has not held executive office, but Palin only held hers for two years and -like it or not, even though we may find her resignation from office understandable under untenable working conditions- her resignation will weigh very heavily on her recovery in the perceptions of many. I am not at all sure where you see obsequiousness from the media re Liz Cheney. If they do not savage her as they did Palin, then they are "obsequious"? I think they're just keeping their powder dry. They have not savaged Cheney YET because she is, so far, not running for political office. If that changes, you will see the press change in how they treat her, but I am pretty sure we will not see Cheney rattle. Yes, she speaks well, but everything she has ever written that I have read has been intelligent and her competency has not -as yet- been questioned. Why must you -again- imply that I am some useful idiot who is buying into a media-peddled illusion of Cheney, or that I am "sold on superficials" like an ability to speak well? An ability to speak well is not a superficiality, but it is also not something that sways me overmuch, as you -as a longtime reader- doubtless can recall my affection for George W. Bush, and his speechifying. I never thought any reader would agree with "all" of my postings, so I can accept that you disagree with me. Why can't you accept that I disagree with you?
As I said, I'm sure you would have hated me, back when the immigration issue was burning hot, in election year 2006. -admin]
November 17th, 2009 | 4:56 pm | #58
Why is everyone so into Liz Cheney on this thread?
Because she is smart and tough and no-nonsense. She also has extensive experience in foreign affairs, international finance, and national security. She actually does have experience, unlike that poseur Barack Obama.
[To praise Liz Cheney is not necessarily to "diss" Palin, either. It is simply praising a praise-worthy woman-admin]
November 17th, 2009 | 5:28 pm | #59
“Finally, even if Palin manages the growth I do think she is capable of, if the Cult of Sarah Adoration That Will Not Tolerate A Critical Word Against Her persists, I still may not vote for her, because we already have one thin-skinned president with a Cult of Personality behind him; we don’t need two. -admin]”
Bingo! This is my concern. I admire Palin tremendously for her values, courage and authenticity. But, I am concerned about a movement among conservatives like what we saw among liberals with Obama and still see in the polls today. People find him personally likable, they just detest his policies (now that they have been revealed in action rather than speeches). I don’t think I’d dislike her policies, but I also don’t think she could win at Obama’s “magnificent me” game.
Still, I hope you don’t mean that you wouldn’t vote for her in the general election, Elizabeth, if she were the GOP nominee?
[I have never automatically voted for a president based on his party. I was still a registered Democrat when I -very enthusiastically and with great pride- voted for Dubya the first time. I have already said that if Palin were running against Obama, I would vote for her. The truth is, the Democrats have gone so utterly insane in the past year that I cannot off the top of my head think of any moderate Democrat who would get my vote over a Palin. That however, is not an automatic endorsement of Palin over other Republicans, and it does not preclude my wondering if we do not need someone else on the scene -in both parties- because so much within each party is stale, or corrupt, or caricatured into international uselessness.
Super Off-topic: I was thinking today that in some ways, Obama has made me miss Hillary Clinton, and that even she would have been better on Health Care, she would be treating our allies better, and I am convinced she would not be trying KSM in NYC. I honestly think she should resign from this administration, where she is not shining as SecState, and where she is being treated shabbily by the O's, and try something else, like heading the Red Cross or something, and see where that takes her. -admin]
November 17th, 2009 | 5:35 pm | #60
Bender, if the boldface is for my benefit . . .
Not necessarily. It is in order to highlight a major point about Palin’s motivations. Too many people out in the world are operating under this false premise that Palin is running for political office. It is pretty clear that she is not. It was abundantly clear when she resigned from the governor’s office.
Because she is not, she does not need to win over elites or liberals or Dems or anyone. Rather, she is interested in everyday Americans, middle America, getting their country back. She is interested in those simple, hardworking, common people having their voices heard. And she can do that because she is one of them (us).
She does not need to be president. I’m pretty sure that she does not want to be president. But she does want a better America. And that is her motivation.
[And if that is all she is looking for - to be a player, a kingmaker, a force for representing an ideology and an advocate for policies that can strengthen and better America, I think she's quite up to the job. But while it is clear to you that she is not interested in running for office again (and I think you've hit a big nail with her resigning her Governorship) it is not clear to many, and Palin is not outright saying it. "It's not on my radar" is not a clear and unambiguous "no." But I think if she had said "no" yesterday on Oprah, she would have upset many in her base. She would also have instantly raised her stock with the MSM, though, so kudos to her for not playing that game. We'll have to play along with her ambiguity for a while, though. -admin]
MORE::: I am enjoying the debate in this thread. Melissa Clouthier is discussing Palin on Rush today, which unfortunately I did not hear, and she describes Palin as “flawless’ and “like a breath of fresh air.”
I will check out the transcripts later, (linked to in this comments thread by Bender) admin]
November 17th, 2009 | 6:09 pm | #61
[...] Sarah Palin on Oprah – UPDATES [...]
November 17th, 2009 | 6:09 pm | #62
Audio available at Real Clear Politics.
November 17th, 2009 | 6:16 pm | #63
I don’t believe she is running.
And if she were elected, she would not be a particularly successful president.
Why? Not because she is not up to the job. She absolutely is. But because the left would not let her be successful. Like with George W., they would torpedo each and every thing she tried to do. It takes more than being competent or good or even great — it takes the willingness of the other side to cooperate. Even if you are great, the left will not let you do anything.
She knows this. Hence, she is not running. Only if the left started beating its collective breast, mea culpa, mea culpa, would she seriously consider it. But that doesn’t mean that she won’t posture, especially if it sends the other side into a tizzy.
[And too, let's face it, if you're hawking a book, you're not going to tell your fans that a run for the WH is out of the question. As evidenced by some of the comments here, it's what they're dreaming about. -admin]
November 17th, 2009 | 6:49 pm | #64
My point about Liz Cheney is that we need to have a political process where a non-connected, non-DC-insider can run for office and get respect on her own merits…even if said outsider has a wacky accent, poor syntax, and winks at the audience. Palin has displayed those qualities, but also she is intelligent and can give a speech like nobody’s business. (It isn’t exactly easy to go live in front of millions and debate Joe Biden, or give a convention speech. Most of us can barely imagine doing such a thing. She has real political skill and is developing before our eyes. )
I lived in DC for 13 years. The town is incredibly harsh toward people who didn’t go to the right schools or know the right people …. which would be okay, i guess, if those “right” people actually could run a government with some degree of competence and ethics. But they can’t, and DC desperately needs some fresh blood. Conservatives really have to stop kissing up to an incompetent and unimpressive establishment. It’s time to think outside the box.
[You're very harsh on the rest of us, aren't you? I and others here have said she "has real political skill" we've called her "a natural" but it is, as you admit, "developing." It's not there, yet. It seems unless we bow down and concede the Unconditional Wonderfulness of Sarah, nothing else will satisfy, and that -again- is too much like Obamaworship for my liking.
I don't really care how hard it is to debate live in front of millions of people; that's what politicians do, so it should not be remarkable that Palin has done it. Yes, DC has a terrible prejudice against people who don't have ivy degrees; I have defended Palin's schooling in the past. No one is arguing that we don't need fresh blood. Must you keep implying, though, that those who do not share your unquestioning passion for Palin are ignorant pawns "kissing up to" or "dancing with" the establishment and media we despise? Telling people who disagree with you and dare to think for themselves that they're not thinking for themselves? It's...such a lefty thing to do!
And I know whereof I speak, having left the left because of just that sort of attitude, one that can't show respect for the opinions of others, but must instead sneer about "kissups" and such. Time to think outside the box? Sure. Also time to stop denigrating people for having honest (and reasonable) differing views. -admin]
November 17th, 2009 | 7:47 pm | #65
Anchoress, it is a joy to read your blog.
I relentlessly defended Sarah Palin during the campaign because she was treated with merciless condescension and contempt. I don’t know if I would ever support her as a presidential candidate, perhaps we shall see. I have been impressed with Liz Cheney. It seems to me just as wrong to dismiss her because of her lineage and education as it was/is to dismiss Palin because of her background. Of course Liz Cheney will be equal-opportunity crucified by the mainstream media for paternal association alone. Maureen Dowd has already looked down her dripping nose at all of the Cheneys; what’s in their name if not reason to link then sink?
David Brooks reached a new level of spineless mediocrity when he called Sarah Palin a joke. What Sarah Palin represents to millions of Americans is no joke at all. She stands for values and liberty amidst the current regime. Anyone willing to stand up as Palin and Liz Cheney are is worth a look, in my book.
November 17th, 2009 | 8:01 pm | #66
Candidates can and do develope maturity and expertise as they campaign for office. I was not impressed with George Bush the first few times I saw him with other presidential candidates. It was some months later that I was able to observe him in person at several events and he was far more at ease than earlier on and able to project himself to an audience in a memorable way. He might not have won without his personal appearances and growth during the months preceeding the election. Once Sarah joined the McCain campaign she overshadowed him to the extent that Obama seemed to think she was his opponent. I think Sara is already a match for anybody now considered a viable presidential candidate. While she may have to declare her intentions in nine months or so, she can and will continue to study and keep abreast of national interests, some of which are not even evident today. Nine months from now is only the beginning if Sarah chooses to run for office. I hope she does but have to agree with the poster that says America does not deserve her.
November 17th, 2009 | 8:38 pm | #67
Sorry Anchoress, but as you said before I calls it like I see it too. You say Palin is ineffective with the media establishment and this failing makes her “unready” for public office. But you provide no defense or explanation for this assertion. Skills at handling biased, mediocre, unfair interviewers are utterly unrelated to skills relating to executive governance and forming effective public policy. Indeed the obverse is true: someone adept at handling the media is probably too concerned with image to be an effective leader.
By the way, when did I ever demonstrate “unquestioning passion” for Palin? What I have unquestioning passion for is the idea that someone shouldn’t have to be an insider to get ahead in politics. The founders shared this passion, you may have noticed.
[Ronald Reagan handled media beautifully and was an effective leader, or does that no longer count, now that we have to promote Palin, with weaknesses intact? As I said, there is absolutely no way I could offer anything to you that would satisfy, and so I am not going to try; my intention was never to try to convince you of anything except that other people could have reasonable positions and not be the useful idiots you imply they are. Never have I implied in any way that someone has to be an "insider" to get ahead in politics, and I don't like having words put in my mouth. I also get bored when I am presented with straw men such as that one, and so I think I'm done, here. It's been interesting talking to you. Peace -admin]
November 17th, 2009 | 9:52 pm | #68
Actually, kt, since you bring up the founding fathers, do consider that Jefferson was born to a family that was quite influential and wealthy, he was well educated, considered an intellectual and a creature of comfort. I hardly think you would dismiss Jefferson as you did Liz Cheney. True, she is from “an established Washington family” as you say, but the other founding fathers welcomed Jefferson’s fine mind, and it was put it to good use!
November 17th, 2009 | 11:15 pm | #69
Sarah Palin was also educated. Or are you saying that only people inside the beltway can be considered to have “fine minds”?
You’ve made my point for me. My work here is done.
November 17th, 2009 | 11:25 pm | #70
I’m saying you have a double standard in dismissing Liz Cheney for the reasons you dismiss her.
I have not dismissed Sarah Palin, alleged nothing even close to your beltway comment, defended Sarah, and said, if you read my previous comment, that I think it is wrong to disimiss either of these women because of their backgrounds.
Yes, your work may be done, if your mind refuses to open.
November 17th, 2009 | 11:54 pm | #71
Liz Cheney lives works and has her being inside the beltway. Her daddy was vice president. She got the inside-the-beltway jobs she got because of daddy. That’s how Washington works. You have offered nothing that indicates Liz Cheney would be a superior candidate to Palin, a former governor, so I have no clue why you are even talking about Liz Cheney. In addition, if you can’t comprehend the argument that it’s positively un-American to have familial dynasties ruling in DC then perhaps you are the one who should reacquaint yourself with American history.
November 18th, 2009 | 4:27 am | #72
I can’t even remember the last time I watched Oprah. I began to find her off the planet on some things I care deeply about. When she said, “God is jealous of me?” she ended it for me.
What would she have that God is jealous of except her soul, which she appears not willing to give to Him.
Sarah can give a very simple explanation for resigning as Governor of Alaska: She wanted to be in the lower 48 to help candidates she believed in and it would not be right or fair to the citizens of Alaska for her to do that.
She could add all the vicious ethics charges but that seems like whining.
She has been picked apart like a left-over turkey at Thanksgiving. She must have something going for her or the press and Democrats would not be still talking about her.
November 18th, 2009 | 2:05 pm | #73
Teddy Kennedy was being called a MURDERER for his entire life….he just went back and WORKED, and passed laws and did charible acts, and WORKED, and amassed an impressive body of solutions. His personal redemption.
Oh, so if you leave someone to die, but go back to work and do good things, then you are redeemed?
And if you work hard your entire life, put yourself thru college rather than be born into a life of untold privilege and protection – you are a vaudeville act who desires nothing but money?
Gotta love that double-standard. You think the Kennedy’s did what they did for the joy of it? The fact that they made ridiculous amounts of money while doing it, living a jetsetters life, doesn’t matter.
Sarah Palin is raw, yes. But with time, training and more experience in the public eye, she could have a political future as bright as Reagan’s.
November 18th, 2009 | 9:50 pm | #74
“and amassed an impressive body of solutions”
His pro-abortion votes among them. I see little to admire in Ted Kennedy.
November 19th, 2009 | 6:18 am | #75
I tire so much of incompetent, power-seeking, money-hungry ‘Christian’, ‘right-wing’ ‘conservative’ (since when is buying votes a conservative thing? Palin demonstrably did that one in Alaska by taxing oil corporations and handing the money out as a ‘bonus’ check)white women being given chance after chance to ‘get up to speed’.
Palin gets to prance around being overtly sexual and then my fellow conservatives rush to defend her, even though she’s the one who specially chooses to leverage her (for politics) above-average looks.
Palin doesn’t have to learn anything, conservatives just keep claiming she’ll pick it up in time, no biggie.
It is ridiculous that slack is cut to Obama, and it is even more ridiculous that Palin gets cut even MORE slack. Palin has a history of quitting jobs out of boredom, greed, or both. She’s not a Christian role model, she is actively anti-Christian just for the fact that she resigned because as governor she would have been unable to accept such a large book advance.
And conservatives line up to purchase her book and further support her greed for that of this world. It is obvious that all Palin cares for is money and being in the spotlight. That people who claim so loudly to be Christian and seek after Christ would deign to support her at all is what is so depressing.
Conservatives should be honest and admit they would have no pretty compliments for her if she weren’t attractive for a female politician. She would not have been selected and groomed for office by the Alaska political machine if she were plainer. And that is the pink elephant in the room. She wouldn’t be in our radars, or Alaskans’ radars if not for the looks, but people keep pretending she brings anything else to the table. She brings nothing whatsoever, not even actual Christian values.
The dishonesty regarding why Palin is a politician at all is perhaps the worst aspect of Palin’s public existence.
November 19th, 2009 | 8:58 am | #76
I am late to this thread, but I would like to make a couple of points:
1. Oprah was the questioner, so to cater to her audience (and keep viewers there for the entire hour) there were no policy questions, but rather personal, gossipy stuff. I thought Palin handled those questions well, considering how intrusive they were. (So, would you invite the jerk who impregnated your teenage daughter and then went to Hollywood to make porn movies and trash your family to Thanksgiving dinner?)
In addition, Oprah wasn’t about to ask any policy questions because that would involve discussing what Obama’s doing, and Sarah (as heard on Hannity last night) had some very blunt and critical things to say about the man Oprah annointed as “The One.”
So criticizing her for not discussing policy is simply silly, since in an Oprah interview that wasn’t going to happen.
2. I EXPECT a mother to defend her family. If she hadn’t, we would be having a conversation about how she seemed detached from her family. If you will remember, Mike Dukakis lost his debate with Bush because he answered the “what if your wife were raped and murdered” question in an analytical manner, rather than being outraged.
I am not certain Palin WANTS to be president. She isn’t going to let people know for some time because as long as the media thinks she might run, they cover her every pronouncement in order to give Obama cover. Interestingly, the Obama camp can’t seem to ignore her. It may be that she doesn’t care if she holds the office, as long as she gets the country headed in the right direction. The worry that she MIGHT run is driving other candidates to the right (witness the flurry of support for the conservative Hoffman in NY 23 after her endorsement).
Finally, Anchoress, I must point out that while you criticize Palin for being defensive, there is a fair amount of defensiveness in your responses on this thread. It isn’t very easy to answer critics and strike just that perfect tone.
I am weary about hearing how the most charismatic and conservative potential candidate in decades isn’t quite up to snuff. Palin is smart enough to know what she needs to do, IF she chooses to run.
Meanwhile, democrats NEVER admit that Obama is a BORING speaker and can’t think on his feet without a script. Conservatives, on the other hand, prefer to chip away at their own people, as we have seen from 8 years of people on OUR side participating in the destruction of George Bush’s reputation.
November 19th, 2009 | 9:39 am | #77
From one “unquestioningly passionate” cultist of the “Unconditional Wonderfulness of Sarah” to the other, I’d like to thank Miss Marple for her contribution to this thread.
November 19th, 2009 | 3:20 pm | #78
[...] social-climbin’ and unworthy, impermissible ambitions. Whatever Palin’s weaknesses, and she does have them, the outsized disdain of the press for this woman Camille Paglia has called “a natural” [...]
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact