Posted by
Matthew on Thursday, September 04, 2008 2:18:03 PM
I saw an article on Politico a little earlier where the author was mocking the idea that the media owed Sarah Palin an apology. The article was well-written sarcasm. Made me want to write, "It's a human thing; you wouldn't understand."
If anyone is asking the media to apologize for questions about Palin's position on issues, I'm not aware of it.
If anyone is suggesting that the media crossed the line by doing any research into what folks in Alaska think about her - both her supporters and detractors - they're mistaken.
The issue is not that the media asked questions. I don't even think her family (or Obama's) should be off limits.
The point where the "media elites" crossed the line was when questions started to come up that would never be asked of Barack Obama. Or John McCain, for that matter.
The idea that CNN's Campbell Brown (one of many, sadly) would question Palin's fitness to serve because of her recent maternity is mind-boggling to me. The idea that a reporter would use the euphamistic "Some would say..." to cover the fact that the specific reporter is the Some in that statement is ridiculous. The idea that being the mother of a pregnant, unwed teen in any way reflects on Palin's ability to lead...sheez!
Apparently, many members of the press are closet Puritans. Who knew.
It is also apparent that they were never teenagers, never went through that time of life where the idea of parental respect usually goes on vacation for a few years.
In today's society if two of Gov. Palin's five kids remain unscarred by promiscuity prior to marriage, she's beating the odds, regardless of what she teaches.
I also saw an article today on ABC's site repeating the claim that Sarah had once belonged the the Independent Alaska Party. There was a quote waaaaaaay down at the bottom of the article from the woman who leads that party saying she already made it clear that wasn't true. How's that for responsible journalism?
And what of "Troopergate"? Heard yet that no one claims she was involved in the pressure on the appointee? Heard yet that the issue was an abusive father who tasered his stepson? As I wrote elsewhere, anyone involved in getting that thug out of a cop's uniform should get a medal, not an investigation.
If the media wants to ask about issues that relate to the job she's vying for, I say more power to 'em. But taking the easy way out by looking for excuses to dismiss her rather than weighing her experience and growth in her political life is not Pulitzer material.
Am I sold on her as the very best qualified person for the Veep slot on the ticket? Don't know. Don't care. She is the candidate; second-guessing that now seems kinda pointless to me. If the McCain campaign had asked my opinion, my suggestion would have been even wackier than a moose-hunting beauty queen.
I think she brings a lot to the ticket, and I know that's why people are usually selected for the junior spot. Selecting her was no more cynical or desparate than was Kennedy choosing LBJ, or Obama choosing Biden.