Let's Lay Off Sarah Palin

As of this writing, before Sarah Palin's speech Wednesday night, it is already clear what her message will be. Just read this Washington Post account, which begins:

Sen. John McCain's top campaign strategist accused the news media Tuesday of being "on a mission to destroy" Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin by displaying "a level of viciousness and scurrilousness" in pursuing questions about her personal life.

The McCain campaign wants voters to believe that media bias, along with what Republicans like to call "the angry Left," make Sarah Palin a victim whose scrappy comeback will only further galvanize the Republican base, and maybe pick up some disaffected women.

It might work. Politicians from Richard Nixon to Bill Clinton have come back after being written off (though it didn't work for Kwame Kilpatrick). Everyone likes the underdog.

The McCain campaign can't afford to admit they didn't ask Palin the right questions early enough in the process. ("Are you now, or have you ever been, a member of the Alaskan Independent Party? How about your husband?") Nor can they acknowledge what I'm sure was a heated debate between John and Cindy McCain and everyone else when, the day before she was offered the nomination, Palin revealed her 17-year old daughter was pregnant. Like a supertanker, a presidential campaign is hard to turn on a dime. There could be no backing down at the last minute.

Karl Rove and his disciples on the McCain campaign are leading us into a trap by making it so easy to focus our fire on Sarah Palin. They know the only way to energize the Bush base, and maybe pick up some disaffected women, is to focus on media bias and what they like to call the "angry Left." We need to let Sarah Palin self-destruct, and go back to our primary focus -- change versus a third term for George W. Bush.

Repeating what makes Palin unworthy of her role risks making us look like elitists. I'll never forget the NPR interview during the 2000 campaign in which a woman at a Bush rally was asked if it bothered her when people said George W. Bush was stupid.

"No it doesn't," she said in what I came to realize was the voice of doom. "Smart people don't have all the answers."

But really smart people know when to shut up.

Read more analysis from HuffPost bloggers on Sarah Palin

Follow William Klein on Twitter: www.twitter.com/William_Klein

Comments

[EvilPoet]

I'm curious, is this the type of thing we can expect?

"Stopped outside Wasilla’s post office on a blustery afternoon this week, Cynthia Shoemaker said “people in Alaska want to give the national media a mouthful” for scrutinizing Palin’s background. “She answers to God, not reporters,” Shoemaker said." http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0908/13199.html

It's reporters today, what about if she becomes veep? "She answers to God, not Americans"?

[herhonor]

I totally disagree with "laying off Sarah Palin". She is not the "underdog" at all. Obama is the underdog. Palin is a member of the "staus quo", since when is being a member of the ruling party equate to being an underdog? Except for family money, she is Bush, McCain et al with lipstick. The truth about her and her views must be pounded into the head of the American voters; they won't get the truth from the GOP.

[dcbill]

Yep, it's looking like keeping the powder dry is the best move here. Between the Anchorage Daily News calling for subpoenas and her easily provable lies and misdirections (bridge, ebay, AIP), even the substantive stuff will be beaten to death without us saying much at all. It would be fun to have that Wasilla Bible Church "Jews for Jesus" bit batted around at bit, though. Karma and all.
Anyway, the crabs up in Alaska are elitist. King? Please. How about a bushel of good old regular blues, like you might get in say, maybe Delaware? What say you Doc? There's your angle.

[grendl]

I disagree entirely.

Because Sarah Palin is what's wrong with America today.

Not that she isn't allowed her views, as a citizen, on teaching abstinence in school ( Bristol play hookey that day???), or her right to life stance. It's when someone takes public office and tries to turn their personal views into public policy, even if it infringes upon the rights of other citizens when their opinions turn dangerous.

My niece is 8 years old, and my sister raising her doesn't believe in god. As Americans both are protected by the Constitution to hold those beliefs. Should my niece, at age 17 be walking across the campus of some university, hopeful of one day becoming a doctor, or lawyer, or whatever and be attacked and raped by some individual, Sarah Palin demands that my atheist niece have that child.

This isn't a Christian nation, despite it being overrun by the like, its a free country, one in which Muslims, Buddhists, atheists, agnostics, druids, and any other faith is welcome to worship as they please, ( or not ). If they don't believe conception at the hands of a rapist is the will of some being, what right does Ms. Palin have to make them have that child???

Answer please, I really want to know. Why should someone else's god be dictated my niece's life and determining her future pursuit of happiness.

[zedthewizard]

palin isn't that smart c'mon, the campaign won't let her talk