First of all, I am now a monthly donor to SarahPac, thank you Todd Purdum.
Secondly, the obvious question:
When can we expect a similar hit piece on Obama, seeing as he's the actual President and all, hmmmmmm?
I know, I know, when Al Gore goes on a diet....
Todd Purdum's Vanity Fair hit piece on Palin is almost not worth a rebuttal. It's the same old spittle from the campaign trail warmed over, most of which I won't bother going into since it's already been rebutted about five hundred years ago (approximately).
But a few things struck me when I read it, and I had to share them, so here goes. (As we progress, keep in mind that even Bill Clinton called Purdum a no-good dirty liar.)
1. I read this and went, "awwwwwwww...."
"In the run-up to the Couric interview, Palin had become preoccupied with a far more parochial concern: answering a humdrum written questionnaire from her hometown newspaper, the Frontiersman. McCain aides saw it as easy stuff, the usual boilerplate, the work of 20 minutes or so, but Palin worried intently.Even in a Palin hit piece, Purdum rolls out what many anklebiters in Alaska have been saying that Palin doesn't have anymore: a concern for her state and her constituents, even during the campaign itself.
"At the same time, she grew concerned that her approval ratings back home in Alaska were sagging as she embraced the role of McCain’s bad cop. To keep her happy, the chief McCain strategist, Steve Schmidt, agreed to conduct a onetime poll of 300 Alaska voters. It would prove to Palin, Schmidt thought,that everything was all right."
(sticking out tongue) So there.
I find it hard to believe that Palin had a problem playing "bad cop," when she continues to strongly criticize Obama's policies. So I don't actually believe the charge, I just think it's ironic that even something meant to smear Palin could be turned to her advantage.
He also adds:
“Frequently, she would be concerned about how something would play in Alaska. What? You’re worried about your backside in Alaska when there are hundreds of millions of dollars being spent?”
Take that "she-doesn't-care-about-anything-but-her-own-career-advancement"- Dan Fagan.
2. What kind of idiots were these McCain people?
They obviously didn't know her, didn't know how to handle her. Common sense would tell you to hire somebody from Alaska who normally works with her to tag along on the campaign trail.
Instead they tried to take Joan of Arc and put her in ballet slippers. It just didn't fit.
Not to mention the perceptions of Palin herself. People seem to either love her or hate her, I don't know why. She can't possibly be wonderful and horrible at the same time. I think a person's reaction to her says more about the person than it does about her.
And now some McCain staffers are coming out defending her, while the ones who make these wild accusations lurk in the shadows, knowing that if they release their names their careers will be over forever.
They mismanaged the whole thing horribly. They put Palin in a bubble during the campaign. She didn't even know about half the attacks against her until after it was over.
Bottom line, the Pitbull was on something she'd never been on before: a leash. And you could see her straining to snap it early on.
She has always done things her way, she hasn't had anything else, the establishment has always rejected her. These people are just bitter because she wouldn't toe their line. After all, they're very important and must be listened to, otherwise it hurts their self-esteem. (sniff) "Poor witto babies."
Here's a clue: she doesn't have to do anything you say, you brilliant engineers of a horrible campaign.
Just be grateful her respect for John McCain keeps her from telling the truth about you.
She's no second banana, she's the Big Cheese.
And if she runs for POTUS in 2012, it's gonna be done Sarah's way. Because that's the best way, that's the way that works, that's the way that will actually win the White House.
3. Purdum is entirely ignorant of Alaska and its politics.
Any cred I might have given Purdum was gone in this statement:
"To be sure, Palin is “conservative,” whatever that means, but she can be all over the lot in the articulation of her platform.The man is clearly ignorant of Alaska politics and the uniqueness of its constitution. The ignorance is so thick, I can't even stoop to answer such a bizarre smear.
"In a June interview with Sean Hannity, she sounded like a New Dealer when she proudly proclaimed that “a share of our oil-resource revenue goes back to the people who own the resources—imagine that.”
Oh, and check out this nugget:
"Palin was able to increase the annual distribution from the state’s Permanent Fund to about $3,000 per resident, almost double the amount received theprevious year. She could be a fiscal conservative and a big spender all at the same time."And they call us the ignorant hicks. Purdum wouldn't know the Permanent Fund from the hole in his head.
The question is, is he just ignorant, or is he blatantly ignoring the facts to smear Palin?
Methinks it's the latter. (After all, all journalists are brilliant human beings who know so much more than we little people, so it couldn't possibly be that he's just inept.)
Not to mention he slams Alaska itself, giving it the same kind of condenscension Katie Couric did with her newspaper question.
On a sidenote, what on earth is up with Hickel? Could somebody in Alaska answer that? Is he upset she didn't give him a position or something?
Did he expect that since (as he so pompously stated) he had "made her" that she should crawl on her hands and knees and be grateful to him forever? Why do all of these people think it's their job to treat her like a five-year-old and tell her what to do?
Kinda cute pic of her on page 4. Lovin' the frown.
Oh, and I love his allegation about Palin using personal email accounts to avoid disclosing state documents. His proof:
"(The one time Meg Stapleton, who handles Palin’s personal and political public relations, ever answered multiple e-mails was when I wrote her and Palin’s gubernatorial office at the same time, and she replied: “Thank you for emailing. I will email you separately so as to remove us from the state account.”)"
Of course, he made it sound like something nefarious was going on because Meg did not use a state email account to respond to him.
Dude, Meg would have had ethics complaints coming out of her ears if she had answered on the state email for something that - hey, check it out! - wasn't state business.
Todd, love ya, but you're not state business! And talking to you has nothing to do with state documents. You are a hack.
And apparently Tibbles was the true person behind Palin's effectiveness, because when Nizich got in there as Chief of Staff, it all went downhill (rolls eyes). Give me a break.
I also love the allegations that much of Palin's success was due to Democrats loving her.
That's been our whole point for quite awhile now. Dems didn't start to hate her until she started to run against Obama. That should tell you something right there.
These Dems had worked with her for almost two years. Did she suddenly become an idiot? Please. More like she dared to challenge their Messiah.
As for the McCain aides, somebody's lying. It's either the people who say they love working with Palin or the people who say they hate working with Palin.
Considering that the majority of the garbage reviewed so far is laughably false, my money's on the haters, but that's just me.
(And Mike did not fire Monegan. Good gravy, Purdum didn't even get that fact right.)
I will say one thing, I think Palin doesn't always think about how things appear in the media. She's a straightforward person, not always aware of the facade that the media creates. As Ziegler said, I think she was a little naive about that.
4. Purdum contradicts himself (what a shocker).
Throughout the article, Todd is very careful to portray Palin as the diva, someone concerned with nothing but her own success.
And then he spouts out of the other side of his mouth that she paid an inordinate amount of attention to Alaska and ignored the success of the campaign.
Which one is it, Todd?
If she was only concerned about her own career advancement, she would have dropped Alaska like a hot potato. And after the election she would have become a regular on the Fox News cycle, just like every other washed up campaign nominee (Romney, Huckabee, Gingrich, etc....).
It doesn't take much to see through this guy's rhetoric. All you have to do is look at the reality of what actually happened. Unfortunately, many people will believe anything, even a lie about what they saw take place in front of their own eyes.
5. Todd is occasionally hillarious.
(Warning: This portion exhibits symptoms of Palin Derangement Syndrome)
Not only is Palin full of herself, she's also a little looney (according to Purdum).
The way Palin choose to break the news to her family and friends that Trig had been born with down syndrome (which was beautiful, by the way):
"More than once in my travels in Alaska, people brought up, without prompting, the question of Palin’s extravagant self-regard. Several told me, independently of one another, that they had consulted the definition of “narcissistic personality disorder” in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders—“a pervasive pattern of grandiosity (in fantasy or behavior), need for admiration, and lack of empathy”—and thought it fit her perfectly.
"When Trig was born, Palin wrote an e-mail letter to friends and relatives, describing the belated news of her pregnancy and detailing Trig’s condition; she wrote the e-mail not in her own name but in God’s, and signed it “Trig’s Creator, Your Heavenly Father.”
"Several told me." Yeah, and I can guess their names: Tweedle Dee, Tweedle Dum, Hickory Dickory Dock, and the Little Green Man who tap dances on your forehead at night.
Also known as Linda Beagle (Celtic Diva), Andree McCleoud, Phil Munger, and AKMuckraker.
When I read his characterization of her letter to her family, I laughed out loud. If I had had milk in my mouth, it would've been spurting out of my nose.
To even suggest that she meant it the way he took it is a stretch that borders on.......(cue spooky music and deep scary voice):
"PALIN DERANGEMENT SYNDROME!"
The man has clearly fallen off of his rocker. I doubt seriously he was ever seated firmly on it in the first place.
And that post-partum thing was simultaneously sick and hillarious. I mean, if there was one thing Palin was during the campaign it was depressed, right?
Classy allegation, Schmidt. Enjoy your new place on the dirtbag list.
6. Todd is sexist....towards Todd (wait, what?)
The attacks on Todd Palin being too involved are just plain sexist.
I mean, think about it, if Todd were a first lady, would anybody have any problem with him being a part of the state government atmosphere?
I mean, come on, Eleanor Roosevelt practically ran the country for a while there, nobody complains about that. I'll betcha Laura Bush hung around alot, nobody complained about that. Hillary got involved with major legislation when she was first lady, nobody complained about that.
There's only one explanation for the treatment of Todd Palin: sexism. Yes, ladies, apparently it does cut both ways.
It's also a slam to the ladies, since, after all, women can't be in positions of power without constantly having to prove that they can do it all by themselves with no help at all, even though men constantly rely on their wives.
The double standards would be hillarious if they weren't so true.
7. Miscellaneous observations.
Ugh, he touches on the abortion thing. I hate that topic. Yes, let's let women choose whether or not they want to kill their children, that sounds like a great idea.....
Deep breaths, deep breaths.
"Sarah Palin is a star in Evansville and all the many Evansvilles of America, but there is a big part of the Republican Party—the Wall Street wing, the national-security wing—in which she cuts no ice."
Amen! Amen! I don't want her cutting ice with those losers. I want them eating her snow-dust!
Also, he reads Palin's "If I die, I die" statement as a sign that she's tired and rundown.
Nothing could be further from the truth.
It's a sign that she's geared up, that she's got nothing to lose, and that she will fight with all her strength and leave the results in Hands that are much more powerful than hers.
Now, there are some things in the article I don't know about (like Lyda Green's accusation and the insurance thing), but I don't really have the initiative to look them up.
Why? Because when Purdum blatantly mischaracterizes and flat-out lies about so many things I do know the truth about, it makes me doubt seriously his veracity on the things I don't know about, so why waste valuable time?
One more thing before I call it a day (and probably the only theme of the article I agree with):
"She started with a dedicated corps of sort of right-wing true believers who killed themselves for her, and got her going."
Ready to fall on a couple of swords for Sarah?
I've often thought about political leaders in the Bible. Take David, for instance.
David had a ton of enemies before and during his kingship. But he also had a band of "mighty men," who would do anything for him.
These were people whose loyalty compelled them to fight their way through a Philistine host to get their captain a drink of water, without him even asking.
And so, before I turn in, I salute my fellow barbarians. Let's go get a drink of water, shall we?
As for Todd Purdum, his article has a few interesting tidbits, but otherwise it is a...
How did Rush Limbaugh put it?
"A glittering jewel of colossal ignorance."
That about sums it up.