Apparently John McCain’s campaign manager is contending that Palin is being shielded from the media, not because she can’t handle an interview, but because they’re gonna be mean to her:
“Why would we want to throw Sarah Palin into a cycle of piranhas called the news media that have nothing better to ask questions about than her personal life and her children?” he asked. “So until at which point in time we feel like the news media is going to treat her with some level of respect and deference, I think it would be foolhardy to put her out into that kind of environment,” he said.
Three things occur to me:
1) If McCain’s people were taking this position with a male candidate, the perception would be that he’s weak and inept. So McCain’s people are banking on the concept that her being a woman will preclude that criticism, because anyone who says that will be tagged as being insulting and anti-feminist.
2) This sounds unbelievably patronizing to her and monumentally arrogant to the media. They’re saying she can’t handle tough questions, or at least shouldn’t have to, and they are endeavoring to dictate terms as to how the media has to treat her in order to rate an interview.
3) Someone who needs this much handling and protection doesn’t exactly inspire confidence in contemplating her being toe-to-toe with various foreign dictators and strong men, particularly if a stilled heartbeat thrusts her into the presidency anytime after January 2009. Golda Meir didn’t need insulation. Neither did Margaret Thatcher, to whom Palin has ludicrously been compared. Well…NOW Thatcher needs insulation, because she has dementia. So basically Sarah Palin needs as much protection as a former world leader who has trouble recalling her husband is dead. Make of that what you will.
PAD
• 
Amen Peter. Couldn’t have said it better myself.
And i wanted to add that it was a pleasure meeting you at Dragon Con this year.
Peter,
I agree. Amazingly, however, it seems that many in the base of the GOP seem to think that this is just showing the media what for.
I find it disturbing from a democracy standpoint that someone who is interviewing for a very important job refuses to speak to the interviewers (i.e,. the voters). The McCain campaign can say what they like about the mass media, but the truth of the matter is by keeping Palin under wraps they are denying us answers to key questions.
That key word that gets to me?
“Deference”.
Sounds kinda sexist to me….
The AP reported a little while ago that she will do an interview with ABC News (with Charlie Gibson, I believe) this week. Her son leaves for Iraq on Thursday, so I expect it won’t be that day.
It’ll be interesting if she can defend the contradictions between her statements and her actions.
“Deference” jumped out at me as well.
Governor — the media does not exist to do your bidding. Time was when politicians actually had to defend their viewpoints time and again.
A certain level of politeness is called for, yes — but deference? Nope.
TWL
Yeah, unless this is a rope a dope strategy, to make the claim and then suddenly have her show up everywhere, it makes no sense.
NOW would be the time to get her out there. Many in the media now feel cowed by the reaction to their initial response. Let Sally Quinn interview her, she’ll be afraid to say anything that might come off as confrontational. Don’t give the media time to locate their balls.
That’d be my advice, anyway.
They’re buying time.
Some Latino voting groups have tried to find out what her opinion is about immigration. They haven’t found a single time that she’s ever mentioned the subject. They’re a little worried because right now they have no idea what she believes.
Her comments about Iraq are a little more common, but not much. Even when she visited Kuwait last year, she said she didn’t want to say anything about the war, the surge, or anything else. She just wanted to talk to the Alaskans stationed there and see what they needed. Good answer for a governor, but it highlights the fact that she hasn’t dealt with the war.
She just isn’t up to speed on many national issues. She’s an intelligent woman, but an intelligent person with as much knowledge as most of us will get into a lot of trouble on those Sunday morning shows. I watched Joe Biden on Meet the Press this morning and he talked about Iraq in a detail I can’t match. Then he started talking about the banking industry with just as much detail. There are a lot of issues that a VP is expected to know about.
Right now Palin is spending her time either giving stump speeches or cramming on policy positions. Her tutors are people who used to work on the Bush Campaigns. Since she’s never said anything about stuff like immigration, she’s probably just going to memorize whatever McCain’s stances are on those issues.
They’re just trying to get enough cramming in to make her look competent before they release her. All the indignation about her treatment in the press is just a convenient excuse.
AP is now reporting she will be interviewed on ABC later this week.
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5h21ZbzgPbTVRftcJPT5vkHkonY5QD93225VG1
Oh, right. Because it’s not like any other politician ever got asked about his/her personal life by journalists, including family issues. It’s not like any other politician ever had to defend his/her positions in an environment that wasn’t long on respect and “deference.” *shudder* It’s not like, say, Hillary Clinton ever swam around in the middle of those “piranhas” and then hopped out again with her fortitude intact. And it’s not like there are myriad other uncomfortable questions about Gov. Palin’s record that a reporter might want to ask.
Sorry, there’s just something about this woman that hits my sarcasm trigger.
‘Oh, poor little Sarah. The big, ol’ nasty press is gonna be mean to you. We’ll protect you, Sarah.’
Equine manure. She isn’t qualified. No matter how much they prepare her, no matter how well she presents herself in interviews, she is not qualified to be running for national office.
And her views are abhorrent. Banning books. Preaching Intentional Deception. Working against birth control.
She isn’t qualified in any manner to be vice president.
One of the best commentaries I’ve read (“best” as defined by Websters: it agrees with what I think) comes from Nick Cohen at The Guardian.
excerpts
Hatred is the most powerful emotion in politics. At present, American liberals are not fighting for an Obama presidency. I suspect that most have only the haziest idea of what it would mean for their country. The slogans that move their hearts and stir their souls are directed against their enemies: Bush, the neo-cons, the religious right.
…When a hate campaign goes wrong, however, disaster follows. And everything that could go wrong with the campaign against Palin did. American liberals forgot that the public did not know her. By the time she spoke at the Republican convention, journalists had so lowered expectations that a run-of-the-mill speech would have been enough to win the evening.
As it was, her family appeared on stage without a goitre or a club foot between them, and Palin made a fighting speech that appealed over the heads of reporters to the public we claim to represent. ‘I’m not going to Washington to seek their good opinion,’ she said as she deftly detached journalists from their readers and viewers. ‘I’m going to Washington to serve the people of this country.’
…In an age when politics is choreographed, voters watch out for the moments when the public-relations facade breaks down and venom pours through the cracks. Their judgment is rarely favourable when it does. Barack Obama knows it. All last week, he was warning American liberals to stay away from the Palin family. He understands better than his supporters that it is not a politician’s enemies who lose elections, but his friends.
Gee, I don’t remember anyone doing that for Hillary… Guess we know who is a stronger, smarter woman.
This whole thing is beyond bizarre.
My brain can’t wrap itself around how people are ok with this.
Bill, the urgency to establish a taboo you and Cohen refer to was disregarded by the Bush campaigns for their crazies, and doing so hasn’t hurt them. It sounds like you’re trying to erect a taboo to shelter a privilege like any other taboo does.
Here’s the TRUTH about Sarah Palin:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/kilkenny.asp
I posted the Snopes site to prove its truth, and not the letter.
Let’s see what Palin says, if anything, about what’s addressed in that letter.
From what I’ve read (Washington Post?), Joe Lieberman and a team of experts are tutoring her to prepare her for debates and interviews. So at least she’ll express the best opinions your GOP can teach her.
From what I’ve read (Washington Post?), Joe Lieberman and a team of experts are tutoring her to prepare her for debates and interviews. So at least she’ll express the best opinions your GOP can teach her.
It’s interesting to me how the Republicans can act like they’re above the usual rules and laws and deserve special treatment from the media and claim all sorts of double standards specifically for themselves, and then turn around and claim that it’s the Democrats who are elitist.
“treat her with some level of respect”
She can and should expect politeness. But respect is something one earns, and she hasn’t begun to earn it yet.
As for deference: I thought you Americans got rid of aristocracy and royalty ages ago.
It’s not a good sign when McCain signals that he can’t trust his running mate to handle the media. Perhaps he’s buying time while he does the vetting he should have done prior to making his selection.
As for the media’s treatment of Palin, Jeanne Cummings of Politico put it best during last Friday’s edition of “Washington Week” when she expressed “no sympathy” for those who feel Palin has been mistreated. Cummings pointed out that McCain has given everyone 60 days to get to know his choice for VP. The media doesn’t have time to fool around. Their job is to enable the public to make an informed choice. And yes, that includes a glimpse into a candidate’s private life.
Besides, Palin hasn’t shied away from using her “Hockey Mom” image to her advantage, so she hasn’t got much cause to complain when some of her family’s dirty laundry is aired out. I agree that the media would be well-served to simply report the facts and not attack Palin’s family. But can anyone name any mainstream media outlets (rather than the Daily Kos) that have published editorials bashing Palin for having a pregnant teenage daughter?
I’m watching the most recent Real Time with Bill Maher, on which Michael Steele, the former lieutenant governor of Maryland and current chairman of GOPAC, is a panelist. Throughout the discussion on Palin, he regurgitates the same hypocrisy, as if it exudes from within, like some type of hormone. He says that criticism of Palin’s background constitutes “belittling her mayorship of Wasilla, and belittling women who got their start in politics as mayors of such towns”, as if this is what’s it’s really about, making no mention that Obama was thus criticized first, when it wasn’t called “belittling”, and even though the capitol of the state of which he’s senator has four times the entire population of Alaska, and as if Palin hasn’t been criticized for a bunch of things she did as mayor and governor. He says that we “no nothing” of Obama, as if he’s some type of mystery man whose accomplishments as a community organizer, state senator and U.S. senator are not a matter of public record. When actress Kerry Washington pointed this out, and stated that Obama’s policies and plans are spelled out on his website, Steele responded that what’s on paper or a site does not mean we know exactly how his Presidency will be, as if this is the same thing as “knowing nothing” about him, and as if this cannot be said of every candidate, such as McCain. He even had the nerve to suggest that Washington “not draw conclusions” based on t his information, as if he had refrained himself from “drawing conclusions” about either candidate. The guy is completely shameless in his double standards.
Bill Maher is an áššhølë. His opinion isn’t worth anything.
Sounds unbelievably smart to me, They need to get her up to speed. She will put herself out there and the media will do its “job” on her and she will shake it all off and move on to better things.
Oh, how dare they shun the media…please
Oh, how dare they shun the media…please
Last I checked, it’s this same media McCain is giving the finger to that he has to rely on to get his own agenda out there for more than 25 years.
But then, your posts seem to indicate that you’re not opposed to the Republicans using double standards at all.
Pat, one of the defining characteristics of authoritarian politicians of all political positions is that they despise and distrust the media. From George W. Bush to Hugo Chavez.
The fact that anyone would even defend Palin *needing* time to “get up to speed” is laughable. As if the treating the Vice Presidency like geography test to cram for isn’t cause for alarm.
Glenn Greenwald at Salon has a pretty good analysis of the situation, most of which was written before the announcement that Gibson would be interviewing her.
Posted by Alan Coil at September 7, 2008 06:12 PM
“‘Oh, poor little Sarah. The big, ol’ nasty press is gonna be mean to you. We’ll protect you, Sarah.’
Equine manure. She isn’t qualified. No matter how much they prepare her, no matter how well she presents herself in interviews, she is not qualified to be running for national office.
And her views are abhorrent. Banning books. Preaching Intentional Deception. Working against birth control.
She isn’t qualified in any manner to be vice president.”
Alan, snippy but accurate.
However, she has certain qualifications.
She appeals to the party base, she covers the candidates most glaring short comings (age, about as exciting as tapioca, sex appeal to match), she has no real power base in DC, and she knows nothing about the issues that she hasn’t been coached on.
Posted by Jason M. Bryant at September 7, 2008 11:29 PM
“Bill Maher is an áššhølë. His opinion isn’t worth anything.”
Bill Maher says what needs saying, you just don’t like it. His opinion is worth a hëll of a lot more than Bill O”Reilly, who makes up reality on the fly, or Rush Limbaugh, a drug rehab hypocrite who’s never met a half truth he didn’y like. Both these “commentators|” resort to the Josef Goebbels style of interview. Drown out dissent, and accept the robotic adulation of their followers as their just due and proof of their infallibility.
Of course the right wants hands off Sarah. They want to present her as a pitbull/teacup chihuahua crossbreed. Tougher than hëll until the evil liberal media get at her.
Jason M. Bryant: nice reading comprehension skills, Luigi Novi didn’t say one word about Maher’s opinion, it was all about the guests.
As for the media’s treatment of Palin, Jeanne Cummings of Politico put it best during last Friday’s edition of “Washington Week” when she expressed “no sympathy” for those who feel Palin has been mistreated. Cummings pointed out that McCain has given everyone 60 days to get to know his choice for VP. The media doesn’t have time to fool around.
Fooling around is exactly how I would describe the job they’ve done so far. But it’s late and I’m sure we’ll pick this up tomorrow.
Jason M. Bryant: Bill Maher is an áššhølë. His opinion isn’t worth anything.
Luigi Novi: Okay. But since I never mentioned any opinion of this, what does this have to do with anything?
Being a mum of 4, 3 of whom are (field) hockey players….ie I’m a Hockey Mum…;-)
Luigi, Connor had it right. I misread your post and thought you were describing something Maher said.
I think the article Will Devine points out has some good points. The media blackout tells us that she needs time to study, not that she’s actually weak and needs protecting. We shouldn’t expect her to do badly in the interviews, she’s going to get by fine.
I don’t even expect her to do badly in the debate with Biden. I expect that she’ll be able to B.S. her way through anything she doesn’t know about. It’ll probably be like the Saddleback thing, some people will say that Biden gave the more intelligent answers, others will say that Palin gave the more decisive answers.
Luigi,
Well thought-out post, as always. I will definitely answer your well thought-out responses, point-by-point in the other thread in the next 24 hours. But I am averaging 4 hours of sleep for the past two weeks, so let me just say this for now:
As far your comment on Steele’s appearance on Maher, let me just say that if the focus is on her ISSUES, then the Obama camp and the media (though I feel sometimes they are the same entity) has every right to investigate, question, etc.
But focusing on her personal life the way the media has is beyond the pale. It is extremely vicious and seems angry.
Combine that with the Obama camp’s first response belittling her as the mayor of 9,000 people – rather than an actual governor of an actual state – then Steele’s comment has resonance.
Let me end with this for now:
I think Obama himself has a lot more class than a lot of his operatives. His defense of Bristol Palin, and more importantly, making it personal by mentioning his mother having him when she was 18 struck me as being absolutely classy and genuine. I find it increasingly impossible to feel any animus toward the man himself from what I’ve seen so far.
It’s the lack of record, flip flops on policy and positions he does hold dear that terrify me. But I don’t feel anything close to hate for the man, unlike what I felt for John Kerry in 2004. I do feel Obama is different. It is just clear, to me at least, that he is not ready for the most powerful position on earth.
One more thing: the emphasis is that she is not going to talk to the press because they have nothing better to do than talk about her personal life and children, which has been true for a week now.
Ðámņ, if Andrea Mitchell wants to ask her why she is so pro-drilling, go right ahead. But the media, coupled with some careless Democrats are really setting the table for a “perfect storm”-style backlash: ordinary people will like her more and empathize with her (see; Hillary, 1998); political junkies will have their expectations low, like they did for her speech, setting her up to impress even more if she comes off as strong as her speech; conservatives will rally behind her; and the McCain campaign actually looks like they are taking the high road by saying she will answer questions that matter to ordinary people and not tabloid crap.
Unless, she flops badly, we are witnessing the birth of a star. One that will burn a long time.
Jerome: But focusing on her personal life the way the media
You say “the media” as if it’s all one guy. “The media” said something rude to her so she’s not going to make eye contact with “the media.”
OK magazine running an article that she didn’t like is not an excuse to avoid going on “Meet the Press.” Sorry, that’s a ridiculous excuse.
Exactly how much did the Obama campaign say about her being the mayor of a small town? You keep talking about how belittling the Obama people were, but was it really that bad? I think I remember a press release that said something about it, but that wasn’t nearly as insulting as the things she said about Obama. Are you really telling me that she’s so thin skinned that a couple of comments from people who she isn’t even running against are a serious problem?
By the way, according to the 2000 census, Wasilla actually had less than 6000 people while she was mayor. According to her record, she left them $20,000,000 in debt. Since her political career in that town comprises 5/6ths of her experience, it’s open game.
Don’t forget, this is the woman who said that Hillary was whining a few months ago and that it was counter productive. The amount of bad treatment she’s gotten is pretty insignificant for a politician. Palin isn’t hurt but all this stuff, she probably laughed at the questions about being able to raise her kids while VP. Pretending that “the media” and the Obama campaign hurt her feelings is completely transparent.
Bill Mulligan: “Fooling around is exactly how I would describe the job they’ve done so far.”
Nevertheless, I don’t believe she’s been treated worse than Obama or anyone else. It simply appears that way because Palin was a relative unknown, and therefore the media scrutiny is taking place in a compressed span of time.
Food for thought: If Edwards had wound up being Obama’s VP, and suddenly word got out of his affair, and the Democrat’s position had been, “His personal life should be off limits,” I wonder how far that would have gotten with the GOPundits? I mean, personal is personal, right? The nature of the personal aspects shouldn’t matter.
Honestly? Here’s what I hope. I hope they ask her a variation on the question that sank Dukakis: “Governor Palin, a hypothetical: At some point in the future, your daughter Willow–still underage– is raped. The rape results in pregnancy, and she begs you to let her have an abortion. Begs you. Sobbing. How do you say no to her?”
PAD
I’ve had the same thought, PAD — maybe not asked quite so dramatically, but asked during the VP debate and getting to the heart of the issue.
TWL
Palin doesn’t deserve any softballs. I hope that she doesn’t get any, but I’m worried that the media (or rather certain parties in the media since it has been accurately observed that “the media” is not an individual) might wind up caving and agreeing to the McCain campaign’s demands.
Something else I’m wondering about: does anybody think she’ll start to cry if she does have to answer some tough questions? If she does, do you think it will help or hurt her? Based on what happened with Hillary, we know now that a female candidate who cries doesn’t always suffer the same consequences as poor old Edmund Muskie.
On behalf of the state of Maryland, I’d like to apologize for the idiocy of Michael Steele. We didn’t vote for him, we only elected his partner, the asshat Bob Ehrlich, by the slimmest of margins, and we’ve since put a new Democrat in Annapolis. We regularly vote blue in presidential elections. I voted for Townsend.
And Sarah Palin is still a soap opera character. She wants the media to focus on her family–until they start looking at Bristol and the impending grandbaby. Nice try, Governor, but you can’t have it both ways.
Honestly? Here’s what I hope. I hope they ask her a variation on the question that sank Dukakis: “Governor Palin, a hypothetical: At some point in the future, your daughter Willow–still underage– is raped. The rape results in pregnancy, and she begs you to let her have an abortion. Begs you. Sobbing. How do you say no to her?”
PAD
WOW PAD, Just WOW. Not sure what you would hope to accomplish with a question like that but I would hope NOBODY would ever be put in the position of having to answer such a question.
Really what would that prove?
While it may not be right, I can understand their stance with the media bias in favor of Obama.
I think all the media attacks on Palin are going to have the exact opposite effect than was intended. The public will get tired of them beating her up and will feel sorry for her making the general public like her even more. This will only help McCain.
Here’s the TRUTH about Sarah Palin:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/kilkenny.asp
I posted the Snopes site to prove its truth, and not the letter.
All that verifies is that the letter is real, not the content. It doesn’t verify that it’s true or accurate information or that the writer doesn’t have it in for Palin.
He hopes for the same result as with Dukakis: that she’ll stick with her position of no exception for rape, and be revealed in the debate as the intolerant ideologue she is.
Unfortunately, she will be prepped with a pro-life sales pitch in a way Dukakis wasn’t prepped with an anti-death-penalty sales pitch.
WOW PAD, Just WOW. Not sure what you would hope to accomplish with a question like that but I would hope NOBODY would ever be put in the position of having to answer such a question.
Really what would that prove?
Well, for starters, it proves that you have either a selective or short memory. It’s a simple variation on the question that effectively sank Michael Dukakis in the Presidential debates: Bernard Shaw asking him in regards to his wife,”Governor, if Kitty Dukakis were raped and murdered, would you favor an irrevocable death penalty for the killer?” Since Dukakis was opposed to the death penalty, it seemed a legit question. With Palin opposed to abortion even in the case of rape, the question is equally legit.
In the case of Dukakis, his answer was so detached and emotionless that he sealed irrevocably the perception that he was a cold fish. In Palin’s case…dunno what it would prove. That would depend on her.
PAD
Posted by Peter David:
With Palin opposed to abortion even in the case of rape, the question is equally legit.
My memory is neither selective or short, I just think the question is harsh and uncalled for. As it was with Dukakis.
Then let her say — to a US that mostly wants to allow abortion in cases of rape — the question is too harsh and uncalled for.