The media isn’t giving me much to work with in the realm of politics…it’s all about “who is going to be on the cabinet,” and “what is Obama going to do first in January,” and “what kind of puppy is he going to get.” The only other items of politic/policy interest involve a lame-duck attempt at a stimulus package (on which no details have been released) and Proposition 8 in California (and New York is considering something similar).
Why can’t they give us something about relations with Iran, or Korea? Or maybe a bit more detail on Iraq’s recent DEMAND for a pullout deadline, and how our presence past January 1st is unauthorized?
Who am I kidding…it’s still “all about Sarah” and in large part because she seems to want it to be. In response to Newsweek’s recent revelations regarding what they learned while “embedded” with the campaign, Palin decided to give a long (and somewhat rambling) interview in her Alaska Governor’s office where she calls the staffers disclosing the information “jerks” and certain members of the media “stinkers” for reporting it:
Does Palin not realize that “unnamed McCain staffers/advisors” doesn’t equate to “anonymous?” It means McCain staff (plural) spoke ON RECORD with Newsweek and that Newsweek knows exactly who they are, and that their identities are being withheld to protect them from political retribution. AND much of what is alleged (the spending in particular) is a matter of DOCUMENTED RECORD, and therefore her denials sound pretty hollow…unless she in insinuating that they bought her $150,000 (or more) of Diet Dr. Peppers at Neiman and Saks. And that all those staffers credit card receipts from Neiman and Saks for items she and her family wore were just the staffers’ own “personal expenditures” or maybe “gifts.”
But she’s right about something…and if she would quit making excuses for her own behavior for a second she could make the point more clearly: the people leaking the information ARE jerks.
It’s really not about whether the information is true…is it. We know that it is likely true. It’s about loyalty, and the shared responsibility for her selection as VP candidate. According to the New York Times story, “Ms. Palin fought back after the infighting had made its way up to Senator John McCain, who made it clear that that he was upset by the back and forth, and ordered his campaign workers to stop it, aides said. Some in the staff worried that questioning the qualifications of the woman Mr. McCain had chosen as his running mate was damaging his reputation.” That’s it. It’s obvious that Palin was a poor VP choice, that she is and always has been unqualified, and that if they had properly vetted her they would have know that she is a religious extremist, scandal prone (because she’s abuse-of-power-prone), married to an secessionist, and doesn’t know anything about the world outside of Alaska. And NOW they’re worried…that these so-called “revelations” will make John McCain look bad…because as Campbell Brown pointed out, “Palin is who she is…she did not become measurably more intelligent or measurably less intelligent during this campaign…to those top McCain advisors…you picked her!”
Of course…she’s right. Any flaw or fault they want to disseminate to somehow scapegoat Palin…really only reflects on THEIR poor judgment. Whether all of these “tidbits” are true or false, the fact that the individuals think they are somehow mitigating their own culpability, is simply inane. It makes Palin look bad…sure…but it makes them (the McCain advisors) and John McCain himself look just as bad if not worse.
The truth will out, as they say…and perhaps whether we want to hear it or not. Perhaps it is important to know these things if only so that in 2012 we aren’t faced with a Palin candidacy again.
On a lighter note, I personally enjoyed David Letterman’s Top Ten Revelations about Sarah Palin: