I've never really been sure how I felt about Sarah Palin.
Granted, I had my doubts about putting a former mayor and a first–term governor a heartbeat away from the presidency (although it wouldn't exactly have been a first for America — that sounds a lot like Calvin Coolidge's political résumé when he ran in 1920).
But I also had my misgivings about making someone who spent much of his adult life working as a community organizer the 44th president of the United States. So when I went to the polls last fall, I voted for Ralph Nader and left the decision (which I had come to regard as a foregone conclusion, anyway) in the hands of others.
And, although I hope for his success, as I have mentioned here before, I feel that Barack Obama is a polarizing president. He evokes strong reactions in both his foes and his supporters.
But he isn't the only one.
The same, it seems to me, is true of Sarah Palin. Last year, everyone I knew had very definite ideas about Sarah Palin — more definite than the ideas I had about her. I thought she made some mistakes. I disagreed with her on some issues. But, when the election was over and members of the McCain–Palin campaign staff seemed intent on blaming her for their defeat, I thought she was being made a scapegoat. I felt the election was irretrievably lost when the economic meltdown occurred — and that was not Palin's fault.
Frankly, it has bothered me this year to see some (not all) Democrats trying to deflect criticism by attacking Palin. I think that kicking someone who is down is unseemly for winners.
That may seem a little inconsistent, since I have written in this blog that I think the Bush administration, which was much maligned in its final months in power, should be investigated. But, that, I think, is a different matter. George W. Bush held the presidency for eight years. Bush's actions and the actions of his subordinates directly contributed to the weak economy we have today and the poor image we have beyond our borders. An investigation is the only way to establish the mistakes that were made and on which levels so they can be prevented from happening again.
Palin, on the other hand, was not elected to federal office. She and John McCain lost by a wide margin. They were put in the unenviable position of having to defend a discredited incumbent from their own party. Guilt by association may not have been the only reason they lost, but it was way up there on the list.
Nevertheless, Palin is, as I said earlier, a polarizing politician, and I cannot think of anything that demonstrates it better than the reaction — from the left and the right — to her decision to resign.
In the last few weeks, as Palin has prepared to step down as governor of Alaska today, there has been much speculation about her plans. Will she write a book? The answer appears to be yes. Will she go on a speaking tour? At the moment, that seems likely but it is less certain. Is she planning to run for president in 2012? That one remains unanswered for now.
And many pundits have said that leaving office in the middle of her term will work against her if she is planning to ask first Republican voters and then voters in general to trust her with the presidency.
But leadership really is a funny thing in a democracy, isn't it? When you look at the men who have been president of the United States, the majority of them have been lawyers — but they've come from all walks of life. The man who today is regarded as the patron saint of the Republican Party spent much of his life prior to the presidency performing in movies. The man who was president before that had been a peanut farmer.
Career soldiers have become president on several occasions, but I think all of them rose above the level of enlisted men. My grandfather's favorite president had been a college professor. Both occupations require leadership skills, but they aren't often thought of as ones that will prepare you for the unique demands of the presidency.
But leadership is an intangible. What it comes down to, I guess, is whether enough people feel they can trust a person to handle whatever may come up in the next four years. And it's almost impossible to guess what the next four years may hold.
Well, normally that is the case. But I find it hard to believe that the candidates in last year's presidential election didn't realize that the economy and unemployment would play major roles in the next four years. So 2008 may have been an exception to the rule.
But to get back to my original point — do you suppose that, nine years ago, either Bush or Al Gore thought for one minute that terrorist attacks would dominate the agenda through nearly all of the four–year term they sought? If they ever entertained that notion for a second, it's a surprise to me. I don't recall either man mentioning terrorism in that campaign.
One thing that Bush and Gore had going for them in the 2000 campaign, though, was the fact that they were both officeholders. Gore had been vice president for nearly eight years. Bush had been governor of Texas for nearly six years.
It certainly seems to help a presidential candidate's prospects if he/she is holding an office when asking the voters for their support, but it isn't unheard of for someone to run for president while not holding office. Reagan had been out of office for several years when he was elected president. So had Richard Nixon. So had Carter. And many other out–of–office politicians have sought their parties' nominations over the years.
But if Palin does so, she will be the first one I am aware of who chose to resign her office rather than finish her term.
Maybe, if one is from Alaska and wishes to be nominated for president, it makes sense to shake the shackles that keep you in Alaska and prevent you from doing the things that can build important connections in the Lower 48.
That doesn't concern me as much, though, as her comments today regarding freedom of the press. She spoke highly of the concept of freedom of the press, then she slapped the media, telling reporters that her successor "has a very nice family, too, so leave his kids alone!"
Now, I am not defending the fact that Palin's family has been dragged into the public discourse. But, to be fair, I think her real argument is with David Letterman.
And it made me uncomfortable the way she allied herself with America's troops at the expense of the press. She scolded reporters in her farewell address: "How about, in honor of the American soldier, you quit making things up?"
Maybe it is my background in journalism that makes me feel this way, but I got a Nixonian impression from Palin's last speech as governor, a sort of a "This is my last press conference ..." sensation.
Well, back in '62, Nixon encouraged the press to "think about what you're going to be missing. You won't have Nixon to kick around anymore."
I don't think today was the end of anything for Palin — except her tenure as governor. I don't think we will be missing anything.
But if Palin wants to be president, she needs to learn — as Nixon never really did and his combative vice president, Spiro Agnew, certainly never did — that a cordial relationship with the press is preferable to an adversarial one.
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
Behind Blue Eyes
john blumenthal
David McClain
Bill Beck
Kris T Parker
yekdeli
Salon.com
Comments
The comment you quote here really sums up Palin for me. As with so many of her comments, I end up saying, "Huh? What?" The quote is just so loaded with anger and innuendo that one could write an entire essay about it and still be confused.
As I was reading your post, I was so impressed with its balance, and then you say you're a journalist. Not surprised!
Great job. Rated.
And VP Gore was already involved with terrorism before the 2000 election, remember the conservative elements chants of "Wag the Dog" when the Clinton administration talked about going after bin Laden in 1998? Only Bush ignored the advanced warnings of a pending terrorist attacks, a President Gore wouldn't have gone on a month long vacation.
Finally once again Palin holds a press conference to tell the press to stop doing stories about her. And the sheer chutzpah to try to compair the troops in Afghanistan and Iraq to her disfunctional family that she herself keeps trotting out in front of the cameras? If the GOP was smart they would dope her up like the did Rush when he started spouting off in Feburary.
The Congress and The Senate run the country not the figure head we call President. He’s no better then the Queen of England at this point. Using tax payer dollars to make a basket ball court and go out for hamburgers or on a very public date. They’ve never lived in The White House before. You would think it would be very exciting to set up a dinner created by the White House Gourmet Chef and have a very Romantico time! I’m from Illinois. We had and now currently have one of the most corrupt governments running our state in the union. Obama comes from here, what do you think the American People did when they voted him in? lol History was made when he was voted in but not the one every thinks or hopes for. I hope Obama and his family have fun at Martha’s Vineyard.. As for voting for Nader. I hope you’re not in one of those states…. and this is a legal practice in many…..that if you vote independent, Libertarian, etc. and your Party doesn’t get enough votes, your vote now goes to the Democratic Party. Very interesting that little law is.
1) I never said that "all President Obama ever did was be a community organizer." I said he spent much of his adult life doing that, and he did.
2) Although I made a few brief remarks about Obama, some readers insist on turning this article into a discussion about him. I think that speaks volumes about how polarizing he is.
3) To explain my vote for Nader (although I do not have to defend it -- in fact, I was never obligated to say who I voted for), I didn't feel comfortable voting for either major party ticket last year.
4) Incidentally, ocularnervosa, I supported Gore in 2000. And I am aware of the activities during the Clinton administration. My reference was to the campaign itself. I remember no discussion about terrorism. Do you? If so, please provide references.
The GOP, and many right-wing voters, have settled on a game plan of demonizing Obama. Given their weak condition, I guess it makes sense as a political tactic, although I don't see how it makes things better for them or for us. But their demonizing of Obama doesn't make him a demon. JR
All the evidence I've seen suggests that Obama is a polarizing figure. I never said he acted in a polarizing way. Nor did I say he was to be faulted for it. To Mr. Ranta's credit, he did not say that I said that. He said I implied it.
Perhaps his "polarity," as Mr. Ranta says, is due to things that are beyond his control.
By the same token, the implications that readers draw from my writing is beyond my control.
Just to clarify for you -- I wrote about Palin because her resignation was in the news. Ponzi schemes are not in the news right now, and, while it may be different in Chicago, the University Hospital of Chicago is not in the news where I live (Dallas).
I have written about many topics in my blog, from which my posts here originate. I invite you to visit my blog and read my past posts (there are more than 900 of them now, going back over nearly two years). Sometimes I've gotten into heated discussions with those who have commented, but I always appreciate input.
And, again, I want to thank you for sharing your thoughts.
Her "leadership" is hardly a mystery. She has become the spokesperson for the fundies and those segments of the society that resist change. She comes in a "new" package as a woman making the appeal, but her intentions are totally clear.
Having seen her function in the spotlight now as much as she has have shown me she is typical of what the Republican party has been reduced to given their strategy basically since Nixon. Since Palin lacks any social conscience beyond pure political expediency, she is likely candidate to represent those interest well--and now the question is how much power and numbers that constituency now has given the contrast with Obama.
Only the ideologues, blind to all else, can escape this comparison. The re-election of Bush proves how strong they can be, and the spirit of reactionarism is in the American electorate, populous, and those who portend to some views that are of benefit to more than themselves, their class, and the fears of the ignorant.
As for Palin, I can't understand your choice to leave out of your analysis altogether her incoherent speech and thinking. I'm very open-minded and was prepared to appreciate Palin even if I disagreed with her politics. But she has alienated her critics all by herself with her smarmy, sarcastic, alternating aggressive and oversensitive, and just plain anti-intellectual statements to the press, going back to the beginning of her time in the national spotlight. And all of this ignores her scariest quality of all--her ideologically rigid positions, most especially related to religion. She has the incurious, inflexible mind of George W. Bush with the addition of a genuine embrace of Christian fundamentalism, that last being something about which I think W was a fraud. Your piece smacks of pity, and she is not deserving of it. She has chosen to bring all manner of scrutiny upon herself and her family, and she is a player in the worst sense of the word. Her cynicism is breathtaking.
You're right that she might be considered a "leader" if by that you mean a charismatic individual who engenders a following. But then you'd have to include Jon and Kate Plus Eight in your calculation as well. That some Americans find her "refreshing" says a lot more about them than it does about her ability to lead this country.
I don't think the media has the best interests of this country at heart.
I guess, when you get down to it, every president is polarizing, to a certain extent, even those who are elected by landslides. No matter how popular a president is, there always seems to be a portion of the electorate that is against him.
Perceptions differ, and some people have suggested that, because he is personally popular, Obama is not as polarizing as some presidents. But the reactions to some of his policies clearly show that many people distinguish between the man and his ideology. They continue to like him, but they do not so readily embrace his agenda.
Why is this not about Palin? Because she could not begin to ante in at a presidential level. She is playing to the microphones, to the media she holds in such disdain. She is a one-trick pony, no, maybe two tricks--she also plays well to adoring audiences.
One other thing that I'd like to point out, since you asked me to compare Obama and Bush.
I recall, in 2000, that many people framed the choice like this: "Who would you rather have a beer with, Bush or Gore?"
To me, that was beside the point. The election wasn't to choose your best friend or your drinking buddy. It was to choose the leader of a nation of 300 million people.
It's important for a president to be liked. But I think it's more important to feel confident that the president will make the right decisions.
I haven't advocated scapegoating anyone.
I recognize that your polarizing comment was not intended to be your major point, which is why I posed my objection to it briefly and moved on to your substance, Palin. I'm still wondering why you chose to ignore the most compelling evidence against her: her ideology and her anti-intellectualism.
I don't mean to seem hostile or argumentative. I genuinely enjoy dialogue with thoughtful people. I just think your "balance" on Palin feels a bit contrived. I hope that's the case anyway. It's preferable to the alternative, in my view, which is that you actually believe she's a victim of sorts.
"Now, I am not defending the fact that Palin's family has been dragged into the public discourse. But, to be fair, I think her real argument is with David Letterman."
Perhaps I misinterpreted, but this seemed to indicate the position I have heard from so many others about how her poor family has been so hounded by Letterman and the media, and it is nauseating to me because the fact that family was put in the spotlight was her own damn fault. My apologies if I misconstrued your words and/or intentions.
For your benefit, I will try to address your questions as best -- and as briefly -- as I can.
First of all, I'm sorry if what I have written was interpreted by you -- or anyone else -- as a defense of Palin. I said, from the outset, that I've never really been sure how I feel about her. My basic sense of fairness has been offended, at times, by how she has been treated, but I certainly do not feel that she is a "victim." I do feel it was wrong for the members of McCain's campaign staff to point their fingers at her after they lost. But she's brought many of these problems on herself.
Perhaps this -- or anything else I have written or will write in the future -- will make more sense to you if you know that I am a Democrat. I have always been a Democrat. But I am a centrist Democrat. And I often feel caught in the middle in these tug-o-war contests the right and the left insist on having over every issue. I have frequently said at my blog (again, that is where my Salon posts originate) that I think Obama's urging that we look ahead, not back, is noble. Unfortunately, as I have also written, his efforts at bipartisanship have been misguided and unsuccessful. If he openly seeks bipartisanship and fails to achieve it, how can he not be seen as polarizing?
Of course, polls on issues (i.e., health care reform) indicate the gap between public approval of Obama as a person and public approval of his agenda. When I say he is polarizing, I refer mostly to the reaction to his policies.
Throw into the mix the fact that I have been out of work since Labor Day. The Bush administration did me no favors, and I wanted to see the nation get back on track, but Democrats frustrate me when I ask for evidence that things are getting better and the answer I get is, "Well, it was Bush's fault." True enough, but Bush is no longer president. Obama is. This is his responsibility now.
lorelei,
I have a B.A. and an M.A. in journalism. I worked for newspapers for many years. I taught writing and editing on the college level for four years. If anything, I thought my post demonstrated that I am an advocate of freedom of the press.
I resent it when Palin plays the "blame the press" game. When a person is a candidate for national office, that person's family members become -- to a certain extent -- objects of discussion for the media. Sometimes it is fair, sometimes it isn't. But such an examination is to be expected when someone who is, for the most part, unknown to the general public bursts onto the national stage.
Since the end of the campaign, there have been various things that have kept Palin's family in the news. Letterman was one of them. The actions of Palin's family also played a role. But, as far as I can tell, the press merely reported these things.
The press did not dig up or manufacture anything. And I resented it when Palin told the press to "quit making things up."
I blogged on this just today, from the perspective of her image as a "hockey mom" ... as a Canadian, I know from hockey moms, and the quitter thing isn't part of their DNA.
http://open.salon.com/blog/lyle_bateman/2009/07/27/on_hockey_moms_and_moose_in_the_headlights
About the polarizing thing, I still think that's the wrong word, especially if you are applying it mostly to reactions to policy. I think this country is about evenly divided on policy matters, so it seems kind of silly to use a special word for that. I mean, every single president would face the same thing. A personality that elicits strong love (Obama, Hillary, W are examples) and hatred (both Hillary and W but not Obama here imo) seem "polarizing" to me. But I agree with you that this isn't really an important focus of your post. As an aside, I do think that someone like Obama who ran on something like post-partisanship should be held accountable to the degree which he has been able to achieve that, and I think he has not delivered on that score. We can blame partisan Congress people kowtowing to partisan talking heads all we want, but the reality is that Obama has not really been able to transcend the pettiness like he hoped and sold he would.
I couldn't agree more about Palin's games with the media. I've always hated that "poor me" thing that some politicians do when it comes to their bad press, most of which is well deserved. It's what I have always liked about Obama, btw--he almost never plays the victim thing. What Palin needs to learn quick is that blaming the press almost never works. Americans like the sunny, optimistic politicians like Reagan, Clinton, and more recently and with a slightly different nuance, Obama. When Bush I and Dole whined about the press, they were just seen as negative by the moderates who don't follow everything closely.
I wonder what precisely Palin thinks the media "made up" by the way? I suppose she could be referring to the Letterman thing, as you suggest, as well as the business about whose baby Trig was. But really, those stories were never mainstream, so I resent right along with you that she's painting "the media" with one broad stroke.
If Palin runs for president, I expect her rivals for the nomination -- and her opponent in the general election, in the event she wins the nomination -- to raise that very point.
In some circles, I have noticed, she is already being called "Bailin' Palin."
Which word would you prefer that I use instead of "polarizing?"
When you are called on it, you produce more ambivalence. It is a classic philosopical conservancy and withdrawal. Palin is transparent to all but the most recidivist. She has no views that are not dictated by political expediency. To not see through her makes you suspect, but you bob and weave and pretend you are not there even to the most rational inquiry.
You want your right to disagree and be "objective" more than you want to reveal anything about what you really think. This is a standard ploy. I am proud to be among those like Lainey who call you on your stuff. At least that way you know we aren't all suckers for credentials and pretense.
I am well aware that when the affectation is as deeply imbeded as it is in you it rational discourse is not an option. You will go away. You will not reveal yourself as that is your nature. Your security is knowing how many are like you.
I suggest that you read more than just one of the posts I have written in the last two years before you pass judgment on me.
If, when you accuse me of ambivalence, you are referring to my attempts to be fair, I plead guilty. It is the way I was brought up.
But I do have definite opinions about things, and my post was a response -- mostly -- to Palin's gripes about the press. Again, I was trained in journalism school. Bias is something we were told repeatedly to avoid. I resent it when someone like Palin makes what I feel are unwarranted charges of bias against the media. In all my years of newspaper work, I never once encountered anyone who let bias dictate how they reported the news.
I never suggested that this post was intended to be a critique of Palin's philosophy or lack thereof.
Well, my dictionary (that's the Random House Dictionary, if you care to look it up) defines "polarize" this way:
"to divide into sharply opposing factions, political groups, etc. i.e., 'The controversy has polarized voters into proabortion and antiabortion groups.' "
In other words, it is a reference to a political agenda. It was not intended to be a reference to whether or not an individual is likable.
I stand by my choice of words.
Also, I'm sorry if you were bothered by the fact that I did not vote for Obama last year (in case it didn't register with some people, I didn't vote for McCain, either). I voted for the candidate I was comfortable voting for.
And I guess I'm uncomfortable voting for anyone whose supporters call "The One" or "The Messiah." I think that's pretty polarizing.
But if his policies turn the economy around and I can get a job, I'll vote for him for re-election. And I won't care what anyone calls him.
Until then, he's got a lot to prove to me. It comes with the territory. As Harry Truman famously said, "If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen."
I find it hard to believe your beat if you were a journalist was politics. Palin is the most transparent figure to reach the national scene in years. I find it hard to even find a comparison. With all her exposure to even consider her a serious candidate for national office is absurd.
What she has made clear is that she is perfectly in the Bush mold as she lacks any individual conscience whatsoever. If there are folks pushing for her behind the scenes, and she isn't simply making it all up, that's what is encouraging to them. She will go to the highest bidder, which explains her career to date. She needs to be trundled out of town with the rest of the con men--and anybody who can't see that probably doesn't have a conscience either.
On the other hand, there is already little doubt Obama is one of the most dynamic and potentially great presidents in the last fifty years, and calling him "polarizing" is obscurantist at best.
On the polarizing thing, I don't quibble with your definition, only that you applied to Obama as though it didn't apply to every single presidential candidate out there, given that they govern a divided country. If Obama's polarizing, then every President is. And if that's what you're saying, why bother saying it?
I am astonished that I have to say any of these things, but nevertheless ...
1) I have covered many beats in my life. I have also worked on copy desks. I have taught writing and editing.
2) Never -- NOT ONCE -- have I said that I considered her a serious candidate. She was nominated by the Republican Party. It is now the minority party in Congress, but, for much of my adult life, it was the majority party. Obama is the ninth president who has been elected since I was born, and four of those presidents were Republicans.
3) You clearly did not read the definition of "polarize" that I included in my last comment.
4) I am not an obscurantist. Calling me one will not win me over to your way of thinking. I made one statement about Obama -- primarily because he happened to be the candidate on the ticket opposite Palin's -- and you've made it sound like this was all about him. It wasn't. It never was.
My reference was based on this item from one of your earlier comments.
"What seems a little more influential in this discussion, imo, is that you did not vote for Obama and I supported him."
If I misinterpreted that, I apologize.
Maybe you didn't know anyone who called Obama "The One" or "The Messiah," but I sure did. Lots of them.
It's called politics--or presidential politics if you want to be more precise. That's how the game is played. I get Obama has done less polorizing or at least attempted to be polorizing than any president I ever imagined, let alone helped put into office.
If the only reason you'll vote for somebody is because they'll "get me a job," you aren't saying much about yourself. It's hard to believe you can even be serious. (I hope not.)
Because you say you're not an obscurantist doesn't mean it isn't true. That you didn't vote for Obama in the last election supports my thesis of your ambivalence. If there has ever been a clear cut choice in the years you've been around, that was it.
You're twisting my words to suit your purposes.
Let me ask you this, since you insist -- nay, demand -- that this be a discussion of Obama.
If he was put into office to enact a certain agenda, why do the polls show support for his policies steadily dropping?
That, essentially, is what I was referring to in my reference to him.
The fact that you think last year's election was the most clearcut choice in my lifetime does not make it so. I think there were others that were clearer.
OK, I didn't vote for Obama. I also didn't vote for McCain, but no one seems to acknowledge that, preferring instead to make me appear to be a Palin defender. I guess the fact that I refuse to pile on Palin makes me "ambivalent." So be it. That appears to be an argument I can't win.
The fact is you know nothing about me, yet you are determined to pigeonhole me.
What do you want from me?
obama's numbers are dropping for precisely the reasons one would expect because he is vociferating actively for the agenda he promised. the polemics are drawing attention and aligning the opposition. what else is new?
you're right about one thing; we come from such different perspectives that there is little room for discussion. it is a fundamental difference. i want nothing from you. it isn't about winning and losing. it is about seeking the truth.
But that's OK. If it massages your ego and enhances your self-image to think you do, go ahead. But no one can know "tons" about anyone from reading a single post.
You also say I am the reason for the Bushes and the Palins. I already said I didn't vote for the McCain ticket. Did you know I also never voted for either Bush? And that includes the fact that I have been living in Texas since 1996 and could have voted for Dubya when he ran for re-election as governor in 1998. But I didn't.
There are many things about me -- and there are many things about other people -- that you will never know because you prefer to make assumptions based on your preconceived notions.