First Hillary, Now Sarah
Here we go again. Hillary was made out to be a she devil, too unqualified from her first lady status to run for Senate, with the same thing being said during her presidential campaign. Now we've got the demonization of a diva. It all amounts to the same thing. With Sarah's book being fact checked by the AP before it hits bookstores. Did this ever happen with Newt's book? The Wall Street Journal is reporting that Andrew Sullivan has the distinction of being in Sarah's sights over the bogus baby Trig pregnancy scandal, something that would never have happened to a man:
Ms. Palin was particularly angry at bloggers and the media, associates said, for speculation that her baby Trig was really the child of Bristol, her daughter.
At one point, according to people familiar with the discussions, Ms. Palin considered pursuing a libel suit against at least one blogger, the Atlantic's Andrew Sullivan. Ms. Palin decided against such a move because of the publicity it would bring.Mr. Sullivan, in response, said asking "factually verifiable questions is obviously not libel."
The roll out to Sarah Palin's book has already been a strange trip, as we all wait for the big Oprah interview on Monday. The usual suspects are acting up, with Sarah squarely in their target range. Except for one, Chris Matthews, who never said a nice word about Hillary Clinton as she clawed her way up, with Bill Clinton still on his hate list. But Matthews has been laboring relentlessly to heap praises on Sarah, no doubt having chills run down his legs over the daydream that he might be the chosen one on MSNBC to actually land an interview with Sarah. Eat your heart out, Pat Buchanan.
I haven't read Palin's book and few of the people opining on it have either, I suspect, so I'm not going to posture about it. I'm also going to resist going down the usual low road when it comes to Sarah Palin. It's sport to hate Sarah, just like it used to be to hate Hillary. But to note, the weirdest thing to come out so far is the clip CBS has of Sarah and Oprah where she talks about Levi Johnson. It's hard to know what to make of that one, except that Mr. Johnson gives us his view:
"She's being smart," said Johnston, when a reporter told him last night that Palin didn't blast him in the interview she taped with Winfrey Wednesday afternoon. "She knows what I got on her. It's a smart move on her part."
What a crew. Not exactly First Family material, now is it.
That's on top of Sarah Palin's gravitas questions, which some on the right point to, in addition to her foreign policy knowledge canyons, which have still not been addressed.
However, for Sarah Palin, score settling is job one.
Matthew Continetti, who has written a book about Sarah's "persecution" by the media, has some advice for Mrs. Palin, as she begins her rehabilitation, get reacquainted with the real Sarah tour:
During her book tour, Ms. Palin is sure to mention that the Obama administration's opposition to offshore drilling and domestic nuclear power, and its support for an onerous cap-and-trade scheme, will raise energy prices across the board. But she also might spend less time discussing campaign intrigue and Alaska trivia, and more time outlining how to spur job creation through tax reform.
She might mention, too, that the Democrats' health-care plan would hike taxes, raise the cost of doing business, and lead to rationing down the line. She might point out that, on top of health care, the stimulus and bailouts, President Obama's 2010 budget will further bury the United States in debt. Every time the media try to shift the conversation to personal gossip or past mistakes, Ms. Palin should pull it right back to how the Obama agenda will hurt the middle class.
I realize I'm the only progressive who believes Sarah Palin is not done on the national scene, and that there is a lot of time for her to reinvent herself. She's going to need it, but she's getting a lot of help in an atmosphere that's a great stage for someone like her.
On the right, Joe Scarborough has pronounced her unelectable nationally, quarantined to getting 25% and that's all.
This analysis is not only wrong, but belies the appetite the American people have for comebacks, at least where men are concerned.
It also ignores two things many Democrats are dismissing, to our detriment. That there isn't a politician on the right who comes close to her charisma, crowd drawing power and ability to reach into people's hearts. And that the American people don't vote on intellectual prowess. They vote on emotion, which Sarah sure knows how to tap. That alone should make Democrats take notice. No doubt it has Romney and Pawlenty stewing.
Still some aren't buying it. But they don't understand how this works.
The Republican strategy Sarah is using has been around since Rush started wailing on radio. It amounts to turning on the emotional engine, which ends up fueling Republican surges. It's the best GOTV, throw the bums out tool the right has, because people like Sarah Palin not only know how to turn it on, but she's actually capable of delivering the message and hooking into people's hearts. As with all issues that hit people personally, non fact based motivation works for getting out the vote against us, as we saw with Palin's "death panels" squeal tour, but can also crystallize what they are for, as was the case in NY-23 where tea party activists and what they believed fueled the rise of a talentless spokesperson simply because he spoke their language, who almost took everyone down and now is wishing he hadn't conceded because the vote totals are getting that close.
Stranger things than a Sarah Palin comeback have happened. George W. Bush beat Democrats twice, the second time based on emotion that keyed in on the bigotry of people thinking America was changing just a little too much, with anti gay marriage amendments the tool. Are people really going to argue that Bush is smarter than Sarah?
And don't underestimate the bailout blues people are experiencing across this country, regardless of party affiliations, topped off by the Democrats seemingly aligning themselves with Wall Street. The populist anger exhibited through the classic brawl of Wall Street versus main street, something Sarah Palin knows how to tap into, is very dangerous for Democrats.
But whether Sarah runs for national office or not, you can bet there will be a huge audience for her interview with Oprah, as her makeover begins. At the very least, she's getting revenge and doing so by traveling battleground states one by one hawking her bestselling book.
People love to hate Sarah, just like they did Hillary. But strong, resilient, determined women can survive anything and live to rise again.
Taylor Marsh, with podcasts available on iTunes.
Follow Taylor Marsh on Twitter: www.twitter.com/taylormarsh
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Sorry, but Dubya IS smarter than Sarah. Not much, but at least he was able to fake it better, AND to finish a full term as governor. And he DIDN'T beat Al Gore, except by a vote of 5 to 4.
You know, Hillary is NOT going to thank you for this. Equating these two doesn't flatter Hillary Clinton in the least.
Palin and Clinton - how can you put the two women in the same category? What an insult to Hillary Clinton.
Ludicrous. Hillary Clinton doesn't have a thing that wasn't handed to her by her husband and wealthy family. Her dad was a factory owner and paid her way through Wellesley and Yale Law. She waltzed into a safe Senate seat in a deep-Blue state on the strength of Bill's Rolodex, Bill's rich friends, Bill's famous name, and sympathy for Bill's marital transgressions. Sarah Palin's accomplishments are about twenty times more impressive than Hillary Clinton's.
Gov. Palin came from a lower middle class family that couldn't afford to send her to college. She had to work and scratch for every credit hour, which meant taking some time off to work in the fish cannery and entering a demeaning beauty pageant that she hated in order to win some scholarship money. All of this, of course, is fodder for endless sneering from people who attended college on trust funds and affirmative action scholarships, and have never engaged in productive work in their lives.
When she ran for office, she didn't have any famous rich daddy or husband to pave the way like most female Democratic politicians. She did it all by herself herself in the most macho state in the union. She knocked off crooked and powerful men of both parties who underestimated her, again and again and again. And she'll do it again in 2012.
None of the above has any bearing on governing--it's a story to stir the masses.
In education, qualifications, temperament, diplomacy and experience, Hillary Clinton bests Sarah Palin by miles.
It is hard to imagine a Hillary calendar; but, Sarah is a real pin-up girl. Don't ignore that.
I would LOVE a Hillary calender; Hillary as first lady, Hillary as senator, Hillary on the campaign trail, Hillary as Secretary of State, giving an international speech about the importance of women and girls that left not a dry eye in the house.
Bring it on, I'll buy 10 for my best girlfriends. Hillary rocks my world.
( And PS I voted and campaigned for Obama!)
Interesting that Taylor Marsh wants to paint both Sarah Palin and Hillary as victims. Claining victimization is certainly a characteristic they share, but it seems a great stretch. Both have lived comparitively privileged lives and had far more success in politics than their abilities justify.
I am reminded of column by Peggy Noonani in the WSJ on May 28, 2008 addressing the charge that Hillary lost the nomination to sexism. I'm no fan of her politics, but she offered insight in this column.
Noonan describes signficant world leaders, who were women: Golda Meir, INdira Ghandi, Margaret Thatcher, and major challenges each faced in their lives. Then, she observes:
"Great women, all different, but great in terms of size, of impact on the world and of struggles overcome. Struggle was not something they read about in a book. They did not use guilt to win election -- it comes up zero if you Google 'Thatcher' and 'You're just picking on me because I'm a woman.' Instead they used the appeals men used: stronger leadership, better ideas, a superior philosophy.
...Meir and Gandhi and Mrs. Thatcher suffered through the political downside of their sex and made the most of the upside." http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121148557268715077.html
Hillary lost because she is not a strong leader, lacks integrity, and shows poor judgment. Continuing to spin the canard that she was victimized is absurd, and the same for Palin.
See Taylor Marsh's Profile
party-of-one - That you have used women leaders beyond the U.S. is illustrative of the challenge women have in this country, and actually helps prove my point. Peggy Noonan fell for the same trap.
I'm also not positing either Palin or Clinton as "victims," but pointing out that women go through a gauntlet of media coverage in the US that no man ever has to experience. People like you, because you are not alone in your denial of the obvious, keep women stuck in this hamster wheel by denying the obvious and calling people on it.
I'll leave it at that, because it's clear that your analysis of Sect. Clinton is not based on facts, but emotions, which cannot be reached through offering proof, facts or appealing to reason. As for judgments of Sarah Palin, it mimics what HRC has experienced, regardless of the difference in their politics and resumes.
Thanks for your response. I think Peggy Noonan's point was that women who have achieved stature as world leaders on merit overcame great obstacles, too, without playing victim. I agree with you that their politics aside, there are great similarities in Sarah Palin and Hillary Clinton, one being that neither has the capacity for global leadership.
There are plenty of facts and corroborating opinons to support the view that Hillary Clinton ...
...lacks leadership skills as evidenced in her campaign's flawed strategy, staff wars, and deep debt http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200809/hillary-clinton-campaign
lacks good judgment as evidenced in her ill-informed vote to give President Bush the authority to invade Iraq http://www.tnr.com/article/hillarys-war
lacks integrity, as evidenced in the views of the majority of Americans who found her not to be honest or trustworthy at the time of decision on her presidential candidacy: http://www.gallup.com/poll/105097/perceived-honesty-gap-clinton-versus-obama-mccain.aspx
It is important to remember that Hillary Clinton had more advantages going into her presidential campaign than virtually any candidate in history: universal name recognition, a huge campaign war chest, the most powerful and experienced policial machine in Democratic history, a dream team of hand-picked consultants and staff, a popular former Democratic president campaigning for her full-time, AND a media accepting and communicating her campaign spin of inevitability. But, she was not able to succeed.
I remember when the media slowly destroyed Hillary and then she fought back. She would have won the nomination and the Presidency if she had realized the BO trap of the caucuses. Regardless she has not lost her fans and when she was defeated many of us looked at Sarah and said Yes we could go that way. I know many say that Hillary fans did not go there but I know many of my friends who did and they enjoyed Sarah's fighting spirit and dispised the Media for the way they treated her and continue to treat her. Be careful MEDIA what you wish for because WOMEN will turn against the MEDIA completely and go for SARAH if you are not extremely careful. A fair and balanced rendition from the MEDIA on Sarah's books and interviews would be great but as Taylor pointed out "Joe Scarborough" has said she is dead. Joe Scarbourough who I usually enjoy is way off the mark on this one. I look forward to the remaking of SARAH. It is going to be a wonderful ride!! Go GIRL!
Wow. I just hope for all our sake that you live in a red-red state so our country won't have to deal with the consequences of your "insight" come 2012. Anyone who understands an iota about what Hillary Clinton stands for can never vote for Sarah.
Nope Connecticut !!!
geriak, are you saying Hillary would have won the nomination if she had been a better candidate and leader of her campaign? Are you saying "women" will go for Palin out of spite and revenge? Anyone interested in putting the good of the nation first?
No I am saying that her staff screwed up and did not see the pot holes of the caucuses and that is why she lost - not because she wasn't a strong leader. At the end of the campaign it was clear Hillary was the better candidate and a stronger leader but the rules are the rules and she did not fight the final total. I argue quite the contrary - she was and is a strong leader and would have made a better President than BO but we are left with what we have and have to hope that BO does a good job. I do not wish him to fail just to stand up and fight for something. He appears a bit weak to me. I am sure that Hillary and or Sarah would be stronger than this President has exhibited so far. Women do not vote out of spite or revenge. We are very analytical and compassinate and emotional species who always look at all the views of candidates unlike Men who vote for the STRONG LEADER and that's it. Sarah Palin may surprise you but you will have to open up your objectivity to see it. If you go in closed minded from the beginning than she or anyonelese you treat like that will not get your vote. I hope you are open minded when it comes to chosing our leaders!
I tend to agree with Joe Scarborough on the 25%. I cannot see her possibly winning any 2008 blue state. Her intreviews with Katie Couric demonstrate her complete ineptitude which she will never live down with the other 75%. There is nothing to rehabilitate. She is amusing but you need more faith in the electorate.
Can't agree with you. Sarah P. was uniquely unqualified for the job she had, and then she quit that job (after screwing up) in order to make money sucking up to the absolute worst factions of our nation. Palin made her femininity and her motherhood campaign issues, and she dressed and shopped as if her turn in the spotlight was her chance to get come decent clothes. Whatever is coming to her, she has asked for formthe beginning, by advertising herself as a certain type of woman. HIlary DID NOT do that. So I think you are wrong wrong wrong.
1) What makes one qualified?
2) How did she "screw up"?
3) How do you justify draining public resources and compromising your goals when it becomes clear that your presence in an administration has made it target practice for the opposition?
4) If you've been reading the recent news, you'll find that the McCain campaign finally admitted that Nicolle Wallace was the operative tasked with buying clothes for the Palin entourage-- and that indeed Palin was one of few uncomfortable with the cost.
5) Exactly what type of "woman" is she advertising herself to be, praytell? If she were a man, might that perception of yours be different?
1) Education. If not formal, at least an intellectual curiosity and drive to inform oneself.
2) She was brought on the national stage and allowed herself to be used as the front person for personal attacks which were later found to be her own. Hypocrisy. She lied about her accomplishments and her role in a number of controversies back home.
3) It's called leadership. It's justified in the same manner Gov. Sanford or Gov. Schwarzenneger work through their lame duck administrations and, rather than quit, both have forged ahead to continue their agendas through diplomacy and the tools available to them.
4) Leaders who are uncomfortable with a campaign decision veto it. They don't go along to get along then cry victim after the fact. It's not some other dude's fault; they take responsibility. Reagan's most memorable moment was taking responsibility for the actions of his underlings, stating, "It happened on my watch." That's leadership.
5) Here's Palin's advertisement: "What's the difference between a hockey mom and a pit bull?" she asked. "Lipstick." If she were a man, she'd have been Dan Quayle.
At least, for good or bad, Sarah Palin has built her career on her own. Hillary has built a "career" based on her marriage. She also has been unqualified for the jobs she has had and had some major failures (healthcare reform in 1993-94, selling influence to gain campaign support, voting to give Bush authority to start a needless war, leading a Rove-style, failed, debt-ridden presidential campaign, the most gaffe-pron SoS in modern times).
At least be even handing when comparing.
Hillary is educated and extremely intelligent. She is able to hold a conversation and avoid all "talking points" and yet will manage to convey her argument. Sarah is not educated, her intelligence is questionable, although I will acknowledge she is "street smart" and has an anstonishing ability to play to the PWT crowd.. Her conversation is dotted with less than truthful statements and many, many talking points. During the campaign, the McCain people knew and understood her well; which is why I believe they kept her from the big cities and sent her to the boonies to deliver her irresponsible messages. There is in my opinion no comparison between the two women other than they are both women in politics who live in the USA..
Some "talking points" are legitimate issues of concern. Funny that a politician actually talk about what the people are concerned with, eh?
Don't forget they gave her the messages to deliver. Palin too, is extremely intelligent, if you're willing to come to terms with reality.
Hillary is certainly intelligent, but she lacks integrity and good judgment.
Im sorry, I cannot feel any sympathy for Sarah Palin. She makes excuses about everything, then claims she is a victim of the elite media.
Hillary Clinton was a victim , but she did not complain about it. She kept moving forward doing her best to give public service, and her approval ratings are the highest in her career.
Sarah Palin uses the media as an excuse to cover up her lack of qualifications to be dog catcher, let alone a Governor or President.
Actually, Clinton directly and publically attributed her criticisms to the fact that she was a woman. While Palin has censured the media for irresponsible reporting, she has *not* played the same gender card as Hillary did. Again, what is your "qualification" that she's missing? Do you guys even have anything in mind when you repeat that "qualifications" notion over and over?
were you paying attention last year? Hockey mom? - I'm a "woman" just like you.
She used her looks (winking, letting her hair down) , the fact that she has a disabled child, and the fact that she has had several kids to gain sympathy.
There's a world of difference between Sarah Palin and Hillary Clinton. To begin, Sarah Palin is a religious fundamentalist right wing extremist who makes up and continues to tell lies as naturally as taking a breath.
Studs Terkel said she was Joe McCarthy in a dress. How true, except she also embodies Sinclair Lewis' Elmer Gantry, as well.
Studs Terkel died on October 31, 2008. I hope he knows she was not elected so he can rest in peace.
You can call anyone anything-- doesn't make either charactarization valid or true.
Joe McCarthy was right, and so is Sarah Palin.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
