Sarah Palin on OprahMike Rappaport

My wife taped it and so I watched the first half hour with her.  Palin seemed the way she normally does -- as a down to earth person with an engaging personality.  I then read this New York Times piece on the interview.  It bears no relationship to the reality at all. 

It's funny, the New York Time embarrasses itself with their negative bias against Palin, but they and their readers hate her so much they don't realize what they are doing.  It reminds me of a situation in law school.  A women who was my friend was quite pretty and skinny.  She had met her boyfriend's mother, who didn't want the two of them to get married.  So the mother told her son, "well, she is kind of nice, but she is awfully fat.  I wouldn't want to marry anyone that fat."  It was so outlandish you just didn't know where to start.  She should have called my friend too skinny, and made fun of her that way, if she had wanted to attack her.  But her animosity was so great she couldn't understand how absurd she was being.  So with the New York Times.  The Grey Lady -- a bad future mother-in-law behaving absurdly. 

Update: The comments to this post almost seem to confirm my point.  There is an extreme dislike of Palin.  It does not appear to be based on anything she has done.  I don't believe the commentators are upset with how she governed in Alaska.  I don't even think they have that much trouble with what she has said on the campaign trail.  No, it is just a hatred for who she is, for what she represents, and for how they imagine she would govern -- for "an epochal disaster  . . . in ways we cannot entirely now predict." 

Comments

[Peter Connolly]

"A down to earth person with an engaging personality." My impression is that she is not particularly "engaging," especially if you disagree with her or get in her way. There are various ex librarians, ex brothers in law, police chiefs and ex governors who could comment knowledgeably on that subject. Also, there is a lot of evidence,with more accumulating each day, that she has a somewhat tenuous relationship with the concept of Truth in recountings of her personal history. But leave all that aside. If all she wanted was a career as a talk show host, complete with ghostwritten books and lucrative speaking fees, more power to her. Who cares unless you have to work for her? But some of us fear that she wants more, as the "Thunderball" theme had it, she looks at this world and wants it all. She wants to be president.

And this, we (liberals) believe, would be an epochal disaster,in ways we cannot entirely now predict. I leave ideology aside and posit that Mitt Romney would not be a comparable disaster, even though I don't like him either. Why? Because Mitt Romney has a brain which he has demonstrated he is capable of using over a long career in various demanding positions.
Sarah Palin has no comparable accomplishments, though she does have a kind of low political cunning,which she has used to get where she is. And she does have a kind of star power. But she is radically unqualified to be president as she lacks the requisite knowledge, experience, temperament, and intelligence. Why oh why do many intelligent conservatives like Professor Rappaport play games about this?

In 2008, then Governor Palin did not appear once on any Sunday network shows, whereas in 2000 Dick Cheney appeared many times. Why? Simple. The McCain people spoke to her and realized that they were dealing with an arrogant ignoramus. So they kept her off the shows and tried to minimize her exposure to the MSM as best they could, with imperfect success. Anyway, I think the Republicans have a decent chance to win in 2012 and for the sake our beloved country I hope the GOP nominates someone with at least half a brain. This is a matter over which I will have zero influence. I hope the Right Coast uses its influence to help choose someone capable of doing the job.

[M.A.]

"It's funny, the New York Time[s] embarrasses itself with their negative bias against Palin, but they and their readers hate her so much they don't realize what they are doing..."

I prefer this much more devastating review from that bastion of liberalism, the Wall Street Journal:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704782304574542051447849052.html

[MDC]

I don't hate Sarah Palin. I just think she's a blithering idiot. She's also a transparently self-serving, backstabbing careerist. But hey, speaking as a Democrat, if that's who you want as a standard-bearer for your party and/or movement, more power to ya! My emotional reaction isn't hatred -- it's fascination that a part of the Republican base is trying to drag the party into the abyss with its Palin obsession.

I didn't used to think it was at all possible that she'd end up as the 2012 GOP nominee, but now I'm wondering if the base could in fact pull it off. Her acolytes don't seem fazed by any of her lies, scandals, flip-flops, or zig-zags, and all attempts to destroy her coming from other sectors of the party (i.e., the rationally self-interested, socially moderate business types) are likely to make the true believers love her even more.

P.S. My assessment of her (again, not "hatred", just an assessment) is in fact based on what she's done, how she's governed, and what she's said, on the campaign trail and thereafter.

[john knox]

M.A., Your preferred article was of course written by that leading light of conservatism Thomas Frank!! Also known for his moronic, patronizing, and self-refuting book What's the Matter With Kansas. You'll have to do better than that if you're looking for an objective review.

[Cynical guy]

MDC, I think your post captures, near-verbatim, my thoughts about Obama, just swampping in his name and the Dems/Repubs where needed.

He's a blithering idiot, has the lies and flip-flops and all that, but hey, he won, and his supporters are fine with all that.

Independents are running away, so I suspect that both 2010 and 2012 will be about firing up the base on the left. If it's Obama and Palin, I see a good shot for a 3rd candidate getting 10 or 20 again -- not winning, but serving as spoiler for whomever he/she takes more votes from. Especially if the 3rd, unlike Perot, and unlike Obama and Palin, is not nuts.

[M.A.]

John, my preference for the Frank/WSJ article was for its content, not its objectivity. Plus I thought it was a nice counter to Professor Rappaport's "negative bias" comments about the NYT.

Now can we talk about Carrie Prejean please? It really is a shame what the liberal MSM did to that nice, wholesome local girl.

[josil]

I'm not all that familiar with Palin other than some TV appearances, but I've seen enough from her attackers to be inclined favorably toward her. Most of the attacks employ her as a surrogate for the segments of the electorate they find distasteful (e.g.,"plain" folks), or the attacks are better classified as simply sneering. I've observed that many in the intellectual class are often be taken in by politicians with educated speech skills, and sneer at those who don't (e.g., Truman, Bush). And so, they are always surprised that a large portion of the population identify with those who have a common touch or, more important, those with character...even if they don't know the name of the Agriculture Minister in Freedonia.