Yesterday I noticed a link on the Drudge Report to a CBS editorial talking about the diminishing "Sarah Palin Phenomenon". The piece wasn't talking so much about Palin's political status so much as her star status. And frankly, while it had some decent, but truths to swallow, in the end I felt like Charlie Gibson during the Palin interview and lost in a blizzard of words. Mostly, because it was laughable at best.
This charade of an editorial seemed to view Governor Palin, not as a vice presidential candidate, but as a celebrity like that of Britney Spears or Michael Jordan (their words).
The primary reason why the Palin bubble will burst is that the media will decide that they are bored with her. They'll need to move to shine a light on a fresh issue or individual.
This is how the world works in the age of 24/7 news cycles. Whether the subject is Britney Spears, Michael Jordan or Sarah Palin, we inevitably raise stars to mythic levels, out of all reasonable proportions. Then we knock them down.
Forgive me as I almost spit out my food while writing this. Did that just say they raised Palin to mythic levels only to knock her down? Am I missing something here? She was never raised, but was knocked down to begin with and continue the process by repeating stories that originate out of the lefty loonisphere only to be proven wrong once the media is put on the defense and actually has to do real digging.
Or how about that interview with Charlie Gibson:
Gibson, as dignified a newsperson as America has now, treated Palin fairly and didn't resort to hectoring her with "gotcha" questions, either.
Palin's supporters may be chagrined that their candidate didn't sound more self-assured or expert when she discussed Alaska's relationship to Russia. But Gibson didn't try to trip her up. He pretty much asked the kinds of questions I would have put to Palin as well.
Gibson treated her with the respect befitting a vice presidential candidate. ABC, while discussing the interview Friday on "Good Morning America" unleashed political correspondent Jake Tapper to assess the "truthiness" of Palin's remarks on the ABC show.
I won't deny that Mr. Gibson is a dignified newsperson. I won't deny that, at times, he may have treated Governor Palin with respect, but please what interview was this person watching?!
When I turned on the interview, I started watching right at the point he asked about the "Bush Doctrine". I had missed everything up to that point. Was I surprised at her answer? Yes. Then again, ask the current 535 members of congress what the Bush doctrine is and I'm guessing you get 535 different answers if any of them know exactly what it is in the firstplace. If you check out the "Bush Doctrine" wikipedia page, that the site is continually changing in fact, it was changed as of this writing days after the Palin interview.
And excuse me! Didn't resort to "gotcha questions'?!?! While Mr. Gibson may not have, the editors of the interview sure made it appear as if he did.
This piece of unadulterated fluff tries to make the point that they are treating Sarah Palin with kidgloves. I would beg to differ. And frankly, anybody who has been watching the news would beg to differ. Are they asking honest and tough, but fair and fitting of a VP candidate? Yes. But when they going around distorting her words, such as the instance at her church, they must be the ones wearing the rose colored sunglasses.
Let's be honest here. The media won't tire of Sarah Palin in the next 50+ days. She's a VP candidate who has drawn more attention to herself and the McCain team than Joe Biden has to Barack Obama. And let's not forget that the media loves Obama's celebrity even as he implodes on himself. And who is Obama making a big deal about? Sarah Palin.So excuse me if I think the media will not be tiring of her.