What has John McCain done? Based on the media reaction to his selection of Alaska Governor Sarah Palin as his running mate, one would think McCain made the biggest political blunder since the Watergate burglary. Good grief, Mrs. Palin has been vilified as an uncaring Mom (New York Times), castigated for accepting tainted campaign contributions (Associated Press), berated for her stance on abortion, guns, and creationism (The Baltimore Sun), denounced for exposing her unmarried yet pregnant daughter to media scrutiny (New York Times again), ridiculed for having a thin resume (The Californian), criticized for relying on a moral philosophy rather than political instincts (David Brooks in the Press Enterprise), belittled for her lack of foreign policy experience (Los Angeles Times), rebuked for betraying her religion (CNN), and on and on. If memory serves, no previous vice presidential pick has raised the hackles of so many so fast. Neither Spiro Agnew nor Dan Quayle drew this kind of fire. It should be noted that the Republicans didn’t do this to Geraldine Ferraro. Even George McGovern’s second choice for V.P., former ambassador to France and brother-in-law to JFK Sargent Shriver, escaped Palin-level ridicule and he deserved it. Is Sarah Palin really all that bad, or is something else at work here?
Conservative pundits are pointing out that Governor Palin’s accomplishments stack up very nicely to those of Barack Obama. Initial reactions to McCain’s pick notwithstanding, Republicans may not have yielded the experience argument by tapping the little known Palin to complete the ticket. The McCain campaign says it “will launch a television ad directly comparing Gov. Palin’s executive experience as a governor who oversees 24,000 state employees, 14 statewide cabinet agencies, and a $10 billion budget to Barack Obama’s experience as a one-term junior senator from Illinois.” Moreover, as Bill Clinton famously pointed out before his wife was vanquished by Obama, more than half of Obama’s less-than-four-years in the Senate have been spent campaigning for President, whittling Barack’s actual in-Senate experience down to a mere 18 months, prompting Fred Thompson to declare Obama “the least qualified Presidential nominee in the country’s history.” In further contrast to Obama, Palin actually has political accomplishments to her credit, not the least of which is her dismantling of the corrupt Republican establishment in Alaska. Yet the political and personal attacks persist, so much so that even left-leaning journalists are warning of a backlash.
New York Times writer Bob Herbert is among those warning Democrats to tread lightly on Governor Palin. “She may look like an easy target, an appalling lightweight who will send serious voters scurrying to the more substantive Obama-Biden ticket [you gotta love that one]…But the Democrats should not push this stuff too far….” Herbert goes on say the Democrats should stick to the issues, lest pounding the girl distract American voters from the winning formula articulated by Bill Clinton: the country and world are on a greased poll to Gehenna and only bigger government, commanded by enlightened cognoscenti with superior education and values, can make things better. Whether he knows it or not, Herbert is on to something. The Dems should be able to win this election on the issues, as Charles Krauthammer has pointed out. However, they won’t be able to jump off “the bash-Palin bandwagon,” perhaps becoming their own worst enemy in the process. Here’s why.
The liberal response to Governor Palin is not intellectually based, but a visceral declaration dominated by pathological hatred for a traitor. Palin’s sin is that she is a woman who dared stray off the servile collective reservation, making her far worse in left-leaning eyes than any white male. Conservative white men are the enemy of the left, but a conservative woman is a seditious, ungrateful lout whose betrayal cannot be forgiven. Blacks, browns, and women of all colors are required to toe the socialist line, demanding big government solutions to their oppressed condition. A strong, independent, conservative woman like Sarah Palin threatens to reveal the groveling, dependent nature of subordinated minorities, and the left cannot and will not stand idly by while one of their own dares break the lockstep march expected of all good comrades. Just ask Clarence Thomas.
So, Bob Herbert, the left-wing nuts will ignore your good advice, continuing to bash our gal until she or they break. It promises to be an interesting fight. During her vetting process, Mrs. Palin was warned that she and her family would be attacked unmercifully. Sarah responded by saying, “Do you know the difference between a hockey mom and a pit bull? Lipstick.” Let the games begin.
Posted by Jerry Pomeroy in Campaign 2008, Video