Friday, January 09, 2009

Palin Fans - Updated

A regular reader who likes Palin better than I do has this to say about the post below and the Ziegler interview:

I disagree with your comments on Palin. Certainly, she did not help her cause during the campaign, and for that I have to admit that you were probably right with your reservations when she was first named. Not that I don't think she doesn't know national issues (A number of well-regarded foreign policy experts who worked on the campaign have vehemently denied the charges that she didn't know any of this stuff), I just don't think being picked on a Tuesday, unveiled on a Friday and put out on the trail gave her nearly enough time to get ready.

That said, the campaign mishandled her from day 1. Over the weekend after she was named, a narrative began to emerge on her from the media and left wing blogs - she was a radical, religious nut job, an anti-semitic supporter of Pat Buchanan, wanted to force schools to teach creationism and abstinence only sex ed, tried to ban books, wanted to arrest rape victims who had an abortion and charge them for the cost of the rape kits, covered up her daughter's pregnancy by pretending Trig was her child, a member of an Alaskan secessionist group, had an affair, and so on. All of it - ALL of it - was untrue - every last accusation that emerged about her that weekend. The campaign hit back at NONE of it other than the Trib accusation. So, people started to believe that a lot of it could be true, and the myth emerged that Palin was from the radical right of the party. In reality, though she was personally conservative and religious, she has never governed as such. She truly was a reformer in the Alaskan Republican Party, taking on a Mayor, a Governor, an Attorney General and a Party Chairman all from her own party. She was generally speaking a fiscal conservative (yes, she asked for earmarks, but has each year significantly reduced the amount), libertarianish on social issues (vetoed a bill banning same sex partner benefits for state employees, never even brought up abortion as governor and didn't really make much of an issue of it when she ran for governor, said that school boards could teach whatever they wanted and that she wouldn't interfere or use the issue as a litmus test in making Board of Ed appointments, etc) and generally cleaned up state politics after her predecessor. The campaign blew this part too, choosing to pretend that like McCain she never asked for an earmark and the claims about selling the plane on eBay and killing the Bridge to Nowhere. Rather than tell the truth about these points (that she did sell the plane, but not on eBay, and that she eventually came to realize the error of federal earmarks for the bridge, though she did still think Ketchikan needed that bridge) they would have still been impressive. Instead, they decided to get cute about it, thereby leaving the door open for claims that she was lying.

And then there was the rest of the campaign. After a very successful convention speech in which she talked about small towns precisely b/c she had been criticized (including by the Obama campaign and Obama himself) for "only" being the mayor of a small town. For whatever reason, the campaign decided not to go with the libertarian-leaning reformer image and instead went with the small town culture warrior schtick (something she is not, as all the Alaskan newspapers - even the ones that don't like her - were genuinely surprised by the role the campaign had her play). There was also the decision to allow her interviews to be aired over multiple nights so instead on 1 bad interview with Couric, it looked like she was consistently blowing interview after interview. Again, as I said, she did not help herself with those interviews. Nevertheless, I'm not sure it would have mattered given the way the campaign blew even her first week as the nominee

And a libertarian reader who also likes Palin adds:

As someone who thinks quite favorably of Gov. Palin (despite being a long-time reader of your blog!), I was horrified by the self-pitying tone of the Ziegler interview. It was the first time since she was nominated that I was shaken in my belief in her as potential Presidential material (emphasis on potential). To be sure, I think you're overstating how badly she hurt herself in the campaign - yes, her first two major interviews were disasters, but she markedly improved in later interviews, and she would be fine if she puts in the time to learn national policy. Most persuadable voters seem to like her at some level, even if they thought she was unprepared in 2008, and will keep an open mind in 2012 or 2016. But you're absolutely right, she won't be able to win if she wallows in self-pity like she did in that interview. Few if any voters cared when Hillary acted like a victim during her campaign, and nobody will care if Palin does the same thing in 2012. It might do Palin a world of good in the next four years to study the career of Margaret Thatcher. Or perhaps she could take a lesson from President Bush, who has taken much more abuse over a longer period of time than Palin ever will, and who has not for the most part responded in kind.

I also was annoyed that she agreed to sit down with Ziegler at all. I don't know much about him except for his silly "How Obama Got Elected" video, but spending too much time with people like him will just further pigeonhole Palin as a far-right partisan in the eyes of independent voters. If she's going to keep doing national press at all in the next couple of years, she should seek out "non-partisan" venues where she can discuss something other than the 2008 campaign (why not go back on CNBC this summer to talk about energy policy?)

From a reader in Alaska, Anthea Shirk:

Thank you for your comments on the Palin interview. I, however, must disagree with you about your reading of the situation. One of the things we forget about when speaking “politics” is context. The context and discussion between Mr. Ziegler was personal and about the honest feelings of one woman concerning her treatment in the media. It is no different, say, than any of the many interviews with Mr. Obama about his relationship with his wife or children or his upbringing as the son of a single mother.

To attack a woman on the basis that her comments are too honest and personal when the questions were meant to get at the heart of her feelings about the questions put to her and the handling of the media by her campaign and to elicit an honest, self-examining response is to deny that all politicians are human and prone to the same things that every other citizen experiences. If that were not so, then we should give our nation’s government to the elite, Harvard-educated neo-royalty and be done with it.

What I, as an Alaskan, appreciate about Gov. Palin is that she tells the truth about how she feels, calls a lie a lie, and gets real time results in our state. I am sorry only that the media has painted such an ugly picture of a brave woman who, like many great Americans before her, takes what she has been given, increases it, and gives it back to the people ten-fold. All the nuanced, political savvy in the world will get you nowhere if you are not honest, responsible, and courageous. It is too bad that you do not have the time to experience life as I have under a good governor who thinks a hell of a lot of me, too.

And one more:

I felt the same way you did after watching the Palin interview. It was intended to help, but by being so user-friendly, it only supported the arguments against her. This was particularly the case when she answered the question "What do you read," by first saying that she reads local papers and publications because her concern is Alaska. That's fine, and what one would expect from the Governor of Alaska, but it only hangs a light on the fact that she has no interest in national or international affairs. Things got even worse, though, when she tried to show that she does have broader interests by saying that she reads....USA Today! Why not throw Tiger Beat in as well? She quickly tried to add "The New York Times" to her regular reading list, but the damage was done. I used to buy USA Today every March because their coverage of the NCAA tournament was so extensive. A friend saw me reading it, though, and asked, "What? You need your news in color?" I suppose I've never gotten over that one.

I liked Sarah Palin and almost wrecked my car when I heard her speak at the McCain rally that announced her inclusion on the ticket. I liked her even more when they tried to kill her over that following weekend. It soon became apparent, though, that she wasn't - and isn't - ready for prime time. I think she's clearly bright and has the right personality for politics and tremendous charisma. But this is the big time, and she doesn't have "it," whatever that is.

And maybe this is the expression of Palin's ultimate source of trouble:

I was not aware of Sarah prior to the week or so before her selection. My initial reaction was really not that positive. I'm a mom to three, and I know what it takes to raise kids. I couldn't see how a woman who just had a baby would be able to handle the demands of the Vice-Presidency. So shoot me, but that was my first thought.

Then Rush and Beck and other conservative commentators were all gaga over her, so I thought, well, let me take another look. Her speech at the convention blew me away. It sent me to the moon. I was almost embarrassed that I had any doubts about her in the first place. I design websites for small businesses, and so I quickly posted a pro-Palin website. I found myself caught up in the Sarah! movement, even while pushing away ever-increasing doubts about her as a candidate.

There were so many people who were very excited about her. Smart people whom I respect and admire. I continued to give her the benefit of the doubt. Why wouldn't I? I have never voted anything but the Republican ticket my entire life. I've run political campaigns, and had my photo taken with Ronald Reagan when was just a young girl working the Republican convention.

After awhile though, I knew in my heart that Sarah Palin was not yet ready to be Vice-President. She clearly was not ready to be the President. Neither is Obama, of course, but I wasn't voting for him anyway. I was disappointed because I wanted her to be ready, I think she is a wonderful grounded person with so much to offer. But she doesn't have a grasp of the details necessary for the office.

As a suburban "conservative" mom, I should be one of her greatest supporters. But until she (I hate to say this) gets a little bit more "political" experience (gag, I can't believe I said that), until she understands nuance and appropriate responses under pressure, she needs to stay in Alaska.

01/09 11:45 AM