The L.A. Times has an interesting, summary guide to who's who in Sarah Palin's e-mails: "Sarah Palin emails: The Alaska archive - who's who." There is only a picture associated with some of Palin's correspondents, but if the Times has articles about them, they link to the article(s).
The relationship between Sarah Palin and Lyda Green may be most interesting. "Kathleen," now at the blog Political Gates, once commented at palingates that Lyda Green had informed them -- them presumably being "Kathleen" and "Patrick" -- that Lyda Green had told them of one of Sarah Palin's miscarriages. That comment came in a post about Sarah Palin's book, Going Rogue, in which Palin described a miscarriage early in her life.
I was surprised, at the time, that they would blow away a "source" like that. And I am continually surprised that although they claim to have information from someone inside Alaska government that Palin faked a pregnancy, they will not even quote that source anonymously. Newspapers do it all the time: "A source who requested anonymity for some specified reason, told us, "Blah-blah." Readers are entitled to enough information to evaluate the veracity of the source.
Lyda Green's relationship with Sarah Palin, and her (Green's) motivation and veracity have become very interesting, now that the Washington Post's Rachel Weiner wrote, "Sarah Palin faced Trig rumors from start." An e-mail from Palin is quoted there, and it is clear that Palin blamed Lyda Green for the rumors that Bristol was the mother of Trig Palin.
Update: Politico's "Palin emails show top Alaskan lawmaker blamed for Trig Palin rumors" has a statement from Green disclaiming involvement: '"I was never part of the network that thought that Sarah wasn't pregnant," Green said in an interview. "I said, 'That's a non-starter for me.'"'
Green has undercut an earlier statement she made, "It’s wonderful. She’s very well-disguised. When I was five months pregnant, there was absolutely no question that I was with child," which has been used by some to support an argument that Palin wasn't pregnant.
Nick Jans, an Alaskan writer and outdoorsman, has written an intereresting article, "What Palin's show says about us," which states, in part: ... Those of us who've actually lived off the land are less than impressed by Palin's televised exploits and, more important, by what they tell us about her. Tentative, physically inept, and betraying an even more awkward unfamiliarity with the land and lifestyle that's supposedly her birthright, Palin deconstructs her own myth before our eyes. ...
... From the opening credits, Palin's not actually leading, as the show's stirring theme song (Follow Me There) suggests. Instead, she's tucked far under the wings of professional guides, friends, or family members — in a curious subtext, almost all males.
They instruct and coddle her along, at one point literally hauling Palin uphill on the end of a rope. ...
... But the story is in the story. All but Dowd seemed to miss the boatload of delicious allegory about Palin's life and politics wrapped up in the [hunting] episode. It was Palin on the hunt; on the hunt always. First, it was small-town politicos in Wasilla who befriended her, then GOP Chief Randy Ruedrich, then Frank Murkowski, who appointed her to a cushy job, and finally, a shot at Barack Obama. Older white men carrying her guns, loading them and handing them to her, advising her, telling her when to shoot, showing her how to do the job. Letting them do the work. Out of her element. Indoor girl in an outdoor world. Missed shot after missed shot after missed shot. Blaming someone or something else when it all goes south. Killing a scrawny little caribou to sell the image. Jumping the ship of state after only two disinterested, unengaged years, going for something bigger. Out of her element. Peddling the lie. The mama grizzly. Sarah the Sniper.
Jenkins' article uses the words disinterested and unengaged to describe Palin while she was governor. Was she governor in name only? Who made the decisions while she was governor?
Jenkins' article appeared about the time that Alaska Dispatch's "Palin's record vs. Palin's Facebook" appeared, which is concerned with the discrepancies between Palin's record and what she has since claimed she did as governor. An explanation of those discrepancies could simply be that she doesn't know what she did, because someone else acted as behind-the-scenes governor.
Maureen Dowd's column, mentioned by Jenkins, is here.
Update: Andrew Sullivan wrote (more than) a few words about the USA Today article and noticed that where it appeared (USA Today) is important. Sullivan's title is "Levi's Vindication: The Self-Exposure Of Sarah Palin."
My co-blogger, snowbilly, wrote "It Was Fact-checked," which surmised that because one critical part of Levi Johnston's Vanity Fair story, "Me and Mrs. Palin," was clearly fact-checked all of it must have been fact-checked.
Sullivan's point is different than mine -- that Sarah Palin may have been Governor of Alaska in name only -- but is a valid point, nonetheless. Jans' article (and Jenkins' (and Dowd's)) are a rich source of insights into who Sarah Palin was (or wasn't).
By the way, Jans' point, although he deconstructed Sarah Palin's myth, is that many politicians strive to create a narrative, or myth. Remember George Bush? Clearing brush in Crawford, TX? Well, as soon as he left the White House, George got out of Dodge Crawford and moved to Dallas. He was really a city-slicker at heart. And didn't the Reagans (Remember the wood chopper? At the ranch?) really live in Pacific Palisades, CA? Sarah Palin's myth is, in some respects, easy pickins, but someone like Jans, who has articulated something we "know," so that we really do know it, is worthy of our praise. When a politician's myth gets busted, he or she will soon exit the stage.
The delicious irony of it all is, as Jans wrote, "Palin deconstructs her own myth before our eyes." She's done herself in.
..."I think it's Willow's year to go down," Griffin snarked to The Hollywood Reporter. "In 2011, I want to offend a new Palin."
With her being only 16, Willow would seem to be a target fraught with disadvantages, but that doesn't matter to Kathy.
"[She] genuinely can't stand any of the Palin family," a friend of Kathy's tells me. "Yet, the real reason she won't leave them alone is she loves all the headlines she gets whenever she attacks them."
What would it take to pry Kathy's claws from the Palin family? My source thinks that if people would just doggone stop caring about the Palins, then Kathy would be the first to move on and "find another victim."...
Uh-oh. Bristol Palin to run for John McCain's seat? David Kahane, writing in "I Hate You, Bristol Palin," has proposed:
... In the wake of Tron, the air has gone out of the market for film sequels in Hollywood, but reality television — that’s where the money is. So why not this:
Beyond Celebrity Thunderdome II: Bristol Palin vs. Meghan McCain — This Time, It’s Personal. Two babes enter, one babe leaves. Hosted by Sheriff Joe Arpaio. Because you know — you just know — that one of them is going to run for Meghan’s father’s seat when it next comes up in 2016, by which time we’ll be in syndication and rolling in residuals.
Bristol, honey — have your agent call my agent and let’s make a deal. Better yet, let’s have lunch at Chaya.
Meghan McCain (born 1984) will be old enough for a Senate seat in 2016, but Bristol Palin will have to settle for a House seat. Sorry, Dave.
... Roseanne Barr -- comedian, author, political activist and former star of the hit television sitcom "Roseanne" -- took shots at former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin during an interview about her new book on ABC's "Nightline" on Tuesday.
In "Roseannearchy: Dispatches From the Nut Farm," she wrote that Palin is "ripping off my act."
"She's not even telling the truth to the American people. I think she took a lot from me and from my show, absolutely," she said. ...
I'll have to watch my intellectual property more closely. NBC New York and, now, CNN have started Circus News columns.
In another "roundup" post -- What did I just say about my IP? -- Oops! "Palingates in 2010 - The Year in Review" -- They do live in the past, a lot, don't they? -- palingates' Patrick may have admitted to having a ghostwriter!
... Then there is Kathleen, whose influence on Palingates is much greater than is visible from the outside. Kathleen is a highly skilled professional researcher -- Is that a fact? Show us the offer letter! -- who doesn't get fooled by anyone -- Oh, really? -- and that's exactly what you need when you deal with Sarah Palin, the woman of many, many secrets. Also, many thanks to Kathleen for correcting my grammar on a daily basis.
One day Patrick gloated over discovering, he said, that Sarah Palin's ghostwriter is Rebecca Mansour. Now, Rebecca Mansour can be linked stylistically to some of Sarah Palin's Facebook rants, but not to all of them. A blogger with a ghostwriter -- Ach mein Gott! -- hasn't completed his research :)
This may be a signifigant development, because The Business Insider may have carried water for Palin in the past. I'll have to watch it, though, because they (I think it was at The Business Insider, if I remember correctly.) posted an article about Sarah's reality show performing poorly, then, later, replaced the article at that link with an article that would be more pleasing to Sarah Palin.
Here, we see Sarah Palin squirming, under interrogation, in the film noir classic, "Gone to Arizona."
I never know whether to believe what is happening at palingates, but they're saying that Sarah Palin tweeted the letter 'T.' Of course, all sorts of speculation ensued. Why would she do that? Tara! Investigate that, kids, and find someone Sarah Palin is more comparable with than with Joseph Goebbels! Is Patrick projecting German guilt onto America?
A photo analyst has looked at satellite images of the house in Maricopa, AZ and tells me that it's really quite inaccessible. It's at the end of a twisty maze of streets. There is only one vehicle entrance to the development, and, of course, it will be easy to spot anyone who doesn't belong there. And there may not be just a small playground near Bristol's house; there may be a footpath to a nearby park, which is much larger.
Andrew Sullivan mentioned that Sarah Palin quit Fox! Would anyone be surprised? But it's a hoax. Nevertheless, there are some stories about why people like Palin and Huckabee may declare their candidacies for the Republican nomination later rather than sooner: George Stephanopolous has said so.
Finally -- for now; I am posting from a phone, and it's not easy -- Slate Salon has an article about how Republicans have soured on Sarah Palin. The article contains a link to a list of pundits (mostly) who have expressed misgivings about Palin; however, a better indication of how and why people (Republican governors, no less) have not only soured on her but have taken positions against her can be found in my recent "Sarah Palin has Lost The Food Fight" post.
Update: I'm now at a four-monitor Palin Surveillance Station. Things are much easier, now. A reader has mentioned that the "Slate" article is actually at Salon -- corrected. Also, there is a more recent article than the Salon article at CNN, here, about the skepticism Palin is facing from Republicans (thank-you, Malia), but even that article doesn't compare with mine. Dailykos' Steve Singiser's post "Even GOPers won't defend Palin's latest idiocy," echoes mine (it came later). Of course, we are both indebted to a very good Washington Post article, here.
Update: 5 January, 2011: Gryphen has posted an offer letter sent to Bristol Palin. Gone to Arizona!
Much of a candidate's narrative or "myth" is presented visually, and for that reason it's useful to become familiar with some basic film editing techniques. A Candidate's narrative is often constructed out of emotional associations. In Wikipedia's Film Editing entry, we're told:
... Editors can choose between emotional and storytelling aspects of any given film over continuity -- something that is much more abstract and harder to judge. (Which is why films often take much longer to edit than to shoot.) Emotional continuity, and the clarity of storytelling, can take precedence over "technicalities." In fact, very often something that is physically discontinuous will be completely unnoticeable if the emotional rhythm of the scene "feels" right. If you were to slow down scenes from many of your favorite movies, you could easily find many minuscule physical differences from one cut to the next, which are completely hidden by the course of the emotional events. ...
For a simple example, we're meant to believe that the Going Rogue tour bus is moving while Sarah Palin is being interviewed by Greta Van Susteren:
Is the bus moving during the interview? How do you know? If you think the bus is moving, is it on the road actually going anywhere? How many cuts were there? Where are the discontinuities? Are there any sound cues? Does that bus sound like any you've ridden? Is that a bumpy road or is someone wiggling the camera?
Wikipedia has some basic information about film editing. Some things can be learned there that may be of assistance in evaluating a candidate's narrative, even her "reality show," more effectively. The See Also section at the bottom of the Film Editing entry has links to some of the cuts commonly used by film editors. Film Editing: Great Cuts Every Filmmaker and Movie Lover Must Know is well written and illustrated with movie scenes.
But more than cuts can be used to fool people; compositing can be used to place someone where they're not. That's how the TV weather person appears to be standing in front of a weather map. And there are even more tricks available to Sarah Palin ... .
We can enjoy TV and movies, because we willingly suspend our disbelief. We shouldn't always do so.
Card carrying conservative John Bolton, who is considering running against President Obama in 2012, doesn't know enough about Sarah Palin's foreign policy views to comment on whether she's comparable to Obama on foreign policy issues, but says, "the Republican field is filled with people who would be better than Obama on foreign policy."
From The National Review Online's The Corner, which quotes Bolton:
“There will be at least one debate entirely on foreign and national-security policy,” Bolton says. “Let’s face it, Obama gives a good speech. After four years of practicing, he’ll almost look like a commander-in-chief. So if the Republican nominee isn’t capable of going toe-to-toe with him, we’re going to come away second-best on an issue where we should absolutely have people’s attention.”
Does Bolton see Sarah Palin as a strong potential nominee? “I don’t know enough about her views on foreign policy to comment, but the Republican field is filled with people who would be better than Obama on foreign policy,” he says.
“We have to acknowledge that Obama goes into the 2012 campaign with a huge advantage, having been commander-in-chief,” Bolton says. “He will have the pictures from, for example, his most recent visit to Afghanistan. He will be able to talk the talk. What we need is a candidate who can show that despite the glitz and the glamour, he has not walked the walk. That is the key.”
I would be remiss if I didn't remind readers that during the Obama/McCain foreign policy debate in 2008 it was Obama, not McCain, who came across as commander-in-chief. So, with four years experience in the job, it's hard to imagine Republicans trying to claim in 2012 that he hasn't "walked the walk."
On defense spending, Bolton is opposed to cuts, apparently unaware that the U.S. military is second to none and vastly superior to any other military organization on the planet:
How would a Bolton administration handle the defense budget? “There is no excuse for waste, fraud, and abuse in the Defense Department budget,” he says. “The next Republican administration ought to make waste, fraud, and abuse there just as much a priority as elsewhere in the federal government. But it is fundamentally wrong to say that a dollar well spent on defense is no different than a dollar well spent in the Department of Agriculture, the Department of the Interior, or something else. [Defense] is absolutely critical to holding the ring, to protecting America from external threats so that we can do what we need to do in terms of the domestic economy. Calls for across-the-board budget cuts, including the defense department, are badly misguided.”
Perhaps rather than spending profligately on ever-newer, ever-more-expensive weapons systems, just because we can, this or the next President ought to set a new course for Defense: Have them go to work figuring out how to fight low-tech wars against small, loosely organized terrorist organizations. Bolton's is the position that other Republicans will adopt, but their position doesn't afford them an advantage, considering that President Obama hasn't cut the defense budget. And, President Obama is just as interested as Republicans, if not more so, in cutting out waste, fraud and abuse in defense spending.
So, we have John Bolton, who reads and has the capacity to think about these things, unable to come up with a reason to replace President Obama. That puts Sarah Palin's unthinking rants into perspective, doesn't it?
Palin' in Progress might be a better title for this TIME cover story about Sarah Palin. It was written with the help of Rebecca Mansour, Sarah Palin's "speechwriter."
Apparently, however, Mansour isn't entirely happy with the article. About 7:00 AM PST, she tweeted, "Every other line in this TIME piece gibberish. Obama "hiring his way out of a recession." No, Palin accused him of "spending" his way out."
But GOP12 posted what it may consider to be points Palin scored with the article:
1. Palin thinks Obama is vulnerable, and she implies that she is the one to take him on. "In battleground states, he's polling at 40% or below," she notes.
2. "The country is rejecting his agenda ... My vision of America is diametrically opposed to his. He sees America as the problem. I see America as the solution."
3. Asked what she makes of Obama's presidency thus far, Palin quipped, "Two words: Jimmy Carter."
4. Asked who can beat him, she needed seven more: "Someone who can draw a sharp contrast."
The weakness of these "points" is illustrated by my ability to easily rebut them:
1. What can I say? Palin has more reason to be embarrassed by her poll numbers. For a while, after the Republicans' 1994 takeover of the House, it was thought that Bill Clinton couldn't be reelected. He was and presided over four years of prosperity and low unemployment. When he left office in 2001, he left a budget surplus to Republicans, who quickly squandered it and racked up unprecedented debt. "Sarah Palin Is 'Virtually Unelectable' " puts Palin's attempt to crow about polls into perspective.
2. Her assertion that President Obama sees America as the problem while she sees it as the solution is just another attempt to gin up some controversy. Palin's "argument" about American exceptionalism originated in a remark Obama made when responding to a reporter's question at a news conference:
Q Thank you, Mr. President. In the context of all the multilateral activity that's been going on this week -- the G20, here at NATO -- and your evident enthusiasm for multilateral frameworks, to work through multilateral frameworks, could I ask you whether you subscribe, as many of your predecessors have, to the school of American exceptionalism that sees America as uniquely qualified to lead the world, or do you have a slightly different philosophy? And if so, would you be able to elaborate on it?
PRESIDENT OBAMA: I believe in American exceptionalism, just as I suspect that the Brits believe in British exceptionalism and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism. I'm enormously proud of my country and its role and history in the world. If you think about the site of this summit and what it means, I don't think America should be embarrassed to see evidence of the sacrifices of our troops, the enormous amount of resources that were put into Europe postwar, and our leadership in crafting an Alliance that ultimately led to the unification of Europe. We should take great pride in that.
And if you think of our current situation, the United States remains the largest economy in the world. We have unmatched military capability. And I think that we have a core set of values that are enshrined in our Constitution, in our body of law, in our democratic practices, in our belief in free speech and equality, that, though imperfect, are exceptional.
Now, the fact that I am very proud of my country and I think that we've got a whole lot to offer the world does not lessen my interest in recognizing the value and wonderful qualities of other countries, or recognizing that we're not always going to be right, or that other people may have good ideas, or that in order for us to work collectively, all parties have to compromise and that includes us.
And so I see no contradiction between believing that America has a continued extraordinary role in leading the world towards peace and prosperity and recognizing that that leadership is incumbent, depends on, our ability to create partnerships because we create partnerships because we can't solve these problems alone.
It's clear that Palin, who relies on a poorly informed speechwriter for her opinions, takes The President's remarks out of context to support her contention that Obama doesn't believe that America is exceptional. The deemphasized portion of the President's remarks, above, is the portion used by Palin to support her claim.
Snowbilly's post, "Strike three! You're out, Sarah Palin!," counts three other ways Sarah Palin or her ghostwriter (speechwriter?) take things out of context in a farcical attempt to buttress her opinion by citing writings that do not support her view. But, of course, Sarah Palin doesn't play by the rules -- this game doesn't have many rules -- and we aren't playing baseball; however, a little intellectual honesty isn't too much to ask.
3. In retrospect, Jimmy Carter is increasingly seen as a good president. What does Palin have to say about another one-term president, George H.W. Bush, who is respected by most Americans? He's a "blue blood."
4. Yes, there would be a stark contrast between Palin and Obama, should that race occur, and it wouldn't be favorable to Palin. Palin would pale in comparison (and contrast). That contrast has many people, even in the White House, relishing the idea of running against Palin.
The TIME article does, however, provide some insight into Palin's organization and staffing:
Like most retainers(she's a queen, if you didn't know), Palin's crew is not a team of rivals: it is devotedly, self-effacingly protective of its boss. Palin has hired some people virtually sight unseen, and yet the most important credential appears to be loyalty....
... The main gang of six — Sarah, Todd, Crawford, Mansour, Van Flein and Davis — has settled into something of a routine this year: Palin and her husband receive a daily morning briefing from Davis and Mansour via e-mail. It includes links to articles on candidates she's endorsed, what's happening inside the Beltway and around the world, and local sports news in the areas where she's traveling. The staff holds three conference calls a week —usually without Palin — but the conversation via Skype, e-mail and cell phone is continuous.
That staffing level, in terms of both quantity and quality, isn't indicative of someone seriously considering running successfully for the presidency.
Update: In the comments, Kerry noticed that TIME did an e-mail "interview" with Palin for this article. Her recent "interaction" with ABC News -- stating that she wouldn't run for RNC chair -- was also written. This information is certainly something to be filed away in long-term memory. Palin will undoubtedly claim that these are examples of "talking" with the media.
Update, Dec. 10: Chris Matthews is on the case. He asks about the e-mail interview ...
West Wing creator Aaron Sorkin today gave Sarah Palin both barrels over her US TV reality show, accusing the contender for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination of shooting an animal "for political gain".
He described Palin as "deranged", a "witless bully" and a "phony pioneer girl". He also said The Learning Channel, the US cable network, "should be ashamed of itself" for broadcasting her "truly awful reality show".
Before the show, in what was likely an attempt to gin up controversy and boost the show's ratings, which failed, Palin tweeted: "Unless you've never worn leather shoes, sat upon a leather chair or eaten meat, save your condemnation." Palin also accused those whom she was trying to bait of hypocrisy.
Deans continues, quoting Sorkin:
"I eat meat, chicken and fish, have shoes and furniture made of leather ... I'm able to make a distinction between you and me without feeling the least bit hypocritical," Sorkin wrote in an incendiary comment piece posted on the Huffington Post website early today.
"I don't watch snuff films and you make them. You weren't killing that animal for food or shelter or even fashion, you were killing it for fun. You enjoy killing animals," he added.
"And you didn't just do it for fun and you didn't just do it for money. That was the first moose [sic] ever murdered for political gain. You knew there'd be a protest from Peta and you knew that would be an opportunity to hate on some people, you witless bully. What a uniter you'd be – bringing the right together with the far right."
Sorkin said he could not make a distinction between what Palin got paid to do in her show and "what Michael Vick went to prison for doing". Vick is an American football player convicted three years ago on dog-fighting charges.
Sorkin's post is receiving a lot of attention. The Washington Post's TV Column, written by Lisa de Moraes, covers it here.
Politico's Ben Smith wrote this morning about Gawker's publication of excerpts from Sarah Palin's book, America By Heart, and quotes a number of legal blogs:
Those of use who work every day -- as linkers and linkees -- in the legally unsettled terrain of fair use watch cases like Gawker's posting of pages from Sarah Palin's book, and a judge's order that they take them down, with a great deal of interest.
The Gawker case marks, perhaps, the extreme end of the spectrum, and my brief sampling of legal blogs on the subject this morning suggests that lawyers find it hard to defend.
[M]y initial, very strong, reaction is no, it’s not fair use.
There is actually a U.S. Supreme Court opinion remarkably close on the facts. In Harper & Row Publishers v. Nation Enterprises, 471 U.S. 539 (1985), the high court held that Nation magazine’s unauthorized advance publication of excerpts of Gerald Ford’s soon-to-be-released A Time to Heal: The Autobiography of Gerald R. Ford, did not qualify as fair use.
In closing, Smith quoted Sandra Baron of the Media Law Resource Center. Smith wrote, quoting her, "It is a very troubling aspect of the case where in an instance where theoretically what they’re really seeking is to keep someone from eating their lunch, in fact what they’re getting is a pre-trial prior restraint," she said, suggesting that politicians or other figures could make similar arguments in trying to suppress stories. This seems to me to be a red herring: Palin v. Gawker is a copyright case, not a prior restraint case. If it were a prior restraint issue, the suit would have been brought before Gawker published.
Palingates did much what Gawker did. Why aren't they under the gun? Shallow pockets? Palin considers them to be useful idiots? Likely.
I know of at least one case in which one of this blog's posts was copied into the comments at Palingates in its entirety. That is clearly not fair use; it is theft.
Breaking news! Protestants conspired to assassinate President Kennedy! Here is the screencap from the comments of palingates' post of 10:00 P.M. (Central European Time) of July 30, 2010:
(Click the screencap for an enlargement)
For those of you who may not know, John F. Kennedy was the first Roman Catholic president of the United States.
A "just askin'" post at Palingates is creating quite a stir. The post hinted that Sarah Palin had committed perjury during her testimony at David Kernell's trial in Knoxville.
Palingates' post was brought up last night on Keith Olbermann's "Countdown" and pooh-poohed by Olbermann's guest, David Weigel of The Washington Post, who wrote about the controversy, yesterday.
Posts
