That’s what Ben Smith and Jonathan Martin at Politico are reporting.
What can it all mean? Not running for re-election, one could understand if indeed she wanted to seek the GOP nod in 2012 but why quit now?
Much of the negative said about Palin during the election was not accurate (as I documented). Since the election, she is often mentioned as a contender for 2012. However, I wonder how an early departure from Alaska will effect those plans.
Lord knows, neither of us is guilty of that, huh Eddy?
@Eddy,
Great explanation–you have captured the difference.
I suspect that often we all start by “discussing,” or trying/intending to, then end up debating.
LOL. The difference I’m seeing, though, Michael is that because some view it as a debate, they simply refuse to answer for fear of conceding the point or they answer in vague and undefinable jargon that dodges the challenge or question. I would (and have) happily moved on once an overstatement, understatement or opinion stated as fact is acknowledged. The debate mentality seems to explain why some, though, even after concessions are made to their ‘point’, just won’t let the conversation move on. (Or why notions established and discussed over and over again in previous discussions continue to be reintroduced into new discussions.) Rather than “let’s work together to see where we can find some common ground” it’s “ah, here is their Achilles heel, if they appear to be gaining momentum (i.e. making sense), toss that into the mix–even if it has nothing at all to do with direction of the conversation. We cannot let their side come away looking good.” (Note: because some approach this from a debate sensibility, I am required to state the obvious…that, yes, I realize that’s true for both sides.)
Thanks, Carole. Actually I think it was responses to a number of your posts that helped me to start seeing the dynamic that was breaking down our chances of productive conversation. On other threads, you wrote lengthy and thoughtful posts only to have one sentence pulled out and seized upon. (LOL. It happens to me a lot but I could be a bit more objective when someone else was the victim.)
In this thread, though, I didn’t feel that you were debating…or even being testy. You seemed to be trying to explain the appeal that Palin has to some people and why it could actually make her a viable candidate. (If enough of those people get motivated to vote…). Just presenting a point of view. And then Michael, exasperated, declared “you win”. LOL. You were involved in a discussion and he was involved in a debate.
I hunger for us to move on past the same tired and repetitious conversations that this site is famous for…I dream of the day when we’ll actually stay with the actual topic of the discussion without detours. Of the day when instead of dismissing each other’s points of view, we’ll actually find some common middle ground that we could successfully articulate to a very needy world. If the dynamic that some are debating while others are discussing is a principle cause for our dysfunctional conversations, I’m very up for addressing and resolving that dynamic.
Back to topic: My appreciation for Sarah Palin’s qualifications still mirrors Michael’s but the dynamic that Carole expressed is sobering. If Obama (and most of our presidential candidates) are perceived as ‘elitist’, there could be sufficient momentum to back a ‘homespun’ people’s candidate. Every elitist criticism of her could be summarily discounted and rejected simply because it sounds elitist.
@ David,
Paglia is good at identifying cultural pulses because she is willing to look outside the Beltway, something writers/pundits on the East Coast are not only not willing to do, but not ABLE to do–they have been immersed in a culture for so long, they can’t see beyond that culture, kind of like the young person in college who has stayed there so long he or she doesn’t even know another world, the world of work and bills and crying children and runny noses and broken bones and making hard, practical choices, choices that place others ahead of yourself.
I do think that the thing that attracts so many to Palin is that she is indeed not polished; right or not, they believe that means she is speaking from the heart (that’s up to them to decide for themselves, not me), but they prefer her style and words to the words of pols whom they absolutely know are speaking from a script, a script meant to mislead or a script meant to say absolutely nothing at all.
Also, regarding the article, I never knew there was ever, ever a negative story about Chelsea Clinton, nor do I think I deserved to know one since Chelsea is not an elected official, yet I despise how American “journalism” has devolved over the last decade or so.
While the government does not issue paychecks to those who call themselves journalists and while it would be incorrect to say we have a direct state-run media, we do have a state-influenced MSM that is, in many ways, hard to distinguish from Pravda. Of course, the non-MSM is no better, whether it’s a left or right wing outlet/site.
Journalists who remain neutral in their writing are a thing of the past.
Here we are in CA without a budget, issuing IOUs, the speaker of the Assembly having walked out of the room, refusing to meet with the guv, and one has to search for comprehensive articles on the topic. The local news shows devote about 60 seconds on the eleven o’clock news to the subject; the newspapers just a few columns. Then too, what percentage of Californians read newspapers or anything else? Too few.
Unless you are one who was issued the IOU, people in CA act as if it’s business as usual, and you know what? It is–because business as usual in California means the state is deadlocked, unmovable, ungovernable! What else is new?
@Eddy,
Yes, the “win” vs. “lose” mindset is confusing to me, especially since there are no judges scoring anything! There is no prize–no ribbon, no trophy, no money, no notoriety at the end of a “discussion” so why treat it as a debate?
It does, however, explain the nature of the tone, the style of writing, the choice of words, in essence, the sarcasm I have tried to point out on occasion on this blog and others. I try not to do that, but if I do, I ask you to call me on it.
Ahhhh…
California.
Not just California. Minnesota has been there a few times. Pennsylvania is there right now. LOL. I’m going in tomorrow to take a test to become a part of the state’s clerical pool. Ironically, as of this week, the state hasn’t approved the budget so no one’s getting paid. The wonders of governmental logic.
@Eddy,
Good luck, both on the job and money budgeted for the job!
Yes, Kaliphornya. Perhaps the governmental powers will finally learn how to say ‘No’. As in No, you can’t have everything you want, you can’t do everything you want, you can’t save everybody, you can’t feed everybody, you can’t pay for everyone’s medical needs, etc etc. Which has nothing to do with Palin, sorry.
Regarding Palin vs. Biden:
consider this quote:
from this article
http://www.politicsdaily.com/2009/07/08/sarah-barracuda-palin-and-the-piranhas-of-the-press/