Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Palin in Comparison

Sarah Palin/Caroline Kennedy. Double standard? You betcha. Just not the one Palin was moaning about in her recent interview.

I’ve admitted being sweet on Caroline, despite her lack of traditional credentials. I was certainly tough on Palin, despite the fact that hers admittedly outshine Kennedy’s. The difference is not one of party but of position. It’s not a “class issue,” as Palin put it in her interview , but a job issue: vice president vs. senator. If Barack Obama had tapped Kennedy to be his vice-presidential nominee, I would have been howling about her unfitness, not getting all misty-eyed about the cute little girl on her pony. The vice presidency may be, as John Adams, the first occupant of the office, said, "the most insignificant office that ever the invention of man contrived.” But it is critical that it be occupied by someone prepared to assume the presidency. Palin -- and Kennedy for that matter -- was manifestly unsuited to this task. The Senate is a different story. Senators are one of 100 (or, these days, 98). An individual senator, with the possible exception of Tom Coburn (R-Obstruction), can’t do too much harm; there is space for experimentation and time for on-the-job training.

As to Palin’s wondering whether Kennedy “will be handled with kid gloves or if she will be under such a microscope," I think, you know, we already, like, know the answer to that, you know, question.

By Ruth Marcus  | January 9, 2009; 12:15 PM ET
Categories:  Marcus  | Tags:  Ruth Marcus  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: The Electorate: Moderate, and Slowly Moving Left
Next: Oh, Sarah

Comments

If this is going to be everyone's excuse then people must certainly have a low opinion of Senators. I don't mind liberals applying a double standard, people do it all the time, but really do we need to pretend we aren't doing it?

Posted by: Dremit97 | January 9, 2009 12:35 PM | Report abuse

Between Palin and Kennedy, who blames others for her public displays of personal shortcomings? It IS a class issue, after all: an issue of who has more class.

Posted by: watchbird1 | January 9, 2009 12:52 PM | Report abuse

Latest Poll Kennedy 51 percent vs King at 33 percent

Kennedy vs. King Polling in New York By JAZZ SHAW, Assistant Editor (The Moderate Voice)

http://themoderatevoice.com/25523/kennedy-vs-king-polling-in-new-york/

If Caroline Kennedy is appointed to the U.S. Senate, she is favored to win re-election against her likeliest Republican opponent in 2010.

The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of New York voters finds Kennedy would attract 51% of the vote in a match-up with Republican Peter King, a longtime congressman form Long Island. King, who has made his interest in such a race clear, earns 33% of the vote at this time. Nine percent (9%) say they would vote for a third-party candidate, and seven percent (7%) are not sure.

Posted by: cooday | January 9, 2009 12:53 PM | Report abuse

At least you admit your bias, but to rationalize it by minimizing the importance of a lone senate seat is a stretch to say the least.

Posted by: BillEmm | January 9, 2009 1:24 PM | Report abuse

Anyone who believes this garbage Sarah Palin is handing out is just kidding themselves. The Katie Couric interviews demonstrated one thing convincingly: that Katie Couric is 1000 times more qualified to be Vice President than Sarah Palin. I mean, if there is a single person less intellectually curious than George W. Bush, the Republicans found her in Sarah Palin. She knew nothing about the world outside her little corner of existence, and she was mean-spirited and revengeful as well -- the perfect candidate. It seems like a bad dream that our nation actually even considered for a moment elevating this buffoon to the Vice Presidency.

The media should see this attempt at revisionist history for what it really is, and put a little reality check on the Palin spin machine...

Posted by: jerkhoff | January 9, 2009 1:30 PM | Report abuse

The Caroline Kennedy thing has nothing to do with class and everything to do with who she is as an individual: the last surviving member of a family most Americans--regardless of class or race-- loved and identified with in 1963. The little girl with a pony grew up, got a law degree, wrote books, did good works, avoided scandal, and became a good wife and mother. Phew, she didn't let us down. Normally we cringe when nepotism rears its mediocre head, but for Caroline we make an exception, and not just because she is not mediocre. It may be chuckle-headed, but it's all about nostalgia and sentimentalism and hope. It actually matters to us to think her parents would be proud of her. When we see Uncle Teddy passing the torch to Caroline, we begin to think about the shy daughter completing the years of public service that her charming, dashing father lost when he was assassinated three years into his presidency. Come on, this is a fairy tale come true, New York. Broadway may be struggling, but we will definitely watch this show!

Posted by: Ladyrantsalot | January 9, 2009 1:45 PM | Report abuse

After bending over for Bush, going along with his phony Iraq war, parroting Republican nonsense about smaller government, no taxes, and fiscal responsibility, the myth of the 'liberal' press has to be shattered by now.

Sarah is an incompetent yahoo who was plucked from obscurity by a desperate McCain to try to save his failing campaign. Everyone, including McCain himself, has since repudiated that decision. Please ignore her and maybe she'll go away.

Posted by: thebobbob | January 9, 2009 1:48 PM | Report abuse

Palin's whiny comments today just pushed her another notch down on the pathetic meter, if that was possible. No, Sarah, it has nothing to do with the fact that you think Africa is a country, that you claimed foreign policy experience because your state borders Canada (even though you couldn't name Canada's PM later), can't cite a newspaper you read on a regular basis, don't know what the devestating Bush Doctrine was all about, or any number of other evidence of ignorance you showed during your short time on the national scene. It has nothing to do with your getting certifed "witchcraft free" by a preacher during an exorcism prior to your run for Governor, or your pushing to ban books or get "abstinence only" sex ed in the schools despite having a teenage daughter who (in keeping with every major study of the issue) got pregnant using the miracle of "just say no to biology", or like your unmedicated schizophrenic Commander-in-Chief think that invading Iraq was a "task from God". It also has nothing to do with your interfering with the administration of your state troopers for a personal vendetta, and it had nothing to do with you and your husband supporting a vocally anti-American secessionist political party.

It was about... socioeconomic class. Yeah, that's it!

It never ceases to amaze me the lengths Republican politicians will go to to try to convince their poor working-class useful-idiot followers that they are "just like them". Lookee here! The #2 on a ticket that wanted to keep helping the corporate and private fatcats with tax breaks at everyone else's expense are "just like you"! She shoots moose! We think you're stupid! Don't you agree? Vote for us!

Posted by: B2O2 | January 9, 2009 1:58 PM | Report abuse

Ms. Marcus,
You probably don't deign to read these comments, but here goes anyway. In your last on-line chat, you mentioned that you had graduated from both Yale and Harvard Law School and that you thought that graduates from schools like those typically made better political appointees than other people. Well, your elitist bias is showing again!!! If you think that ANYBODY is dumb enough to buy that your double standards regarding Palin and Kennedy, then your Ivy League education was for naught, because we're not. Face it you, you savaged Palin and drooled over Kennedy because the former is a Republican from humble roots who graduated from a state school and the latter is a Democrat from aristocratic roots who went to the same school that you did. Nobody's fooled by your excuses.

You should listen to the wise words of your former ombudsman and be a little more humble and accepting of criticism of your bias and mistakes.

Posted by: WashingtonDame | January 9, 2009 2:27 PM | Report abuse

Who cares how Caroline stacks up to Palin?
Caroline does not stack up well to the other 11 potential nominees for the seat- therefore she would be getting the job simply on the basis of her name and status rather than qualifications. I am a very progressive New Yorker and I don't want her to be my senator. If Paterson picks her- I will vote for whomever the 3rd party that is progressive nominates for both governor and senator in 2010.
Leon

Posted by: nycLeon | January 9, 2009 2:35 PM | Report abuse

Sarah Palin bursted her own bubble. Not only was she ill prepared to campaign for such a high political office she carried too much excess baggage. She made a mess out of herself, now she is looking for a pat on the head in order to case her embarassing failure. I don't know what she has been capable of pulling off in Alaska, but she actually thought she would become the next vice president of the USA. She should really just go away.

Posted by: alwaysAlabama | January 9, 2009 2:38 PM | Report abuse

Ms. Marcus, you are correct, but do you think Sarah Palin will either agree with you or understand what you are saying? Sarah Palin reminds me of people who believe everything wrong in the world is somebody's fault; they never think they are wrong. She probably will say to you, "Don't bother me with facts, my mind is already made up...the Media is just SOOOO mean to me! BOO, HOO, HOO! sob, sob, sob.

Posted by: fridaolay | January 9, 2009 2:59 PM | Report abuse

Gov Sarah Palin has ran her State for the GOOD of the People of Alaska. Thats more than most of us from NY and a lot of other big cities can say. Sarah does NOT put up with corruption and thats why so many are against her.
Then you have all the air heads who are so against hunting. Those of us from the city need to realize that a lot of people all across the USA need to hunt and grow their vegetables and fruit or they will have a hard time feeding their families. These same anti hunters sure as hell jumped all over Sarah because of her beliefs about abortion. Sarah like so many of us feel it should NOT be used as a means of birth control by all you smart educated college girls. You cannot have it both ways. You cannot think you are so above it all and then be so dumb that you cannot even prevent an unwanted pregnancy. NONE of us said we would change the Law.. We just ask that most of you, educate yourselves and use your birth control.
As for Kennedy having more class..haha I do NOT think so money does not = class. Caroline is supposed to be so educated than why were there more than 30 " you knows in her one and only interview". I would love to know what private schools she went to. I guess its the same schools as Bush attended.
As for GUMMY BEAR Katie Couric, look in the mirror and stop smiling and showing the world your mouth full of GUMS. Katie you look like a chimp. Smile with your mouth closed there is NOTHING nastier than seeing so much gum on a person when they smile. I could NEVER understand how this witch ever got anywhere on TV with that ugly mouth of hers.
The republicans should have KNOWN better than to think that NBC would play fair with Gov Palin. Most of America loves you and we have good common sense and are not part of a cult who faints and carries on like teens at a girly concert like the fake girly men who fainted at Obama's staged speeches.
For America I pray that most of us were wrong about Obama.

Posted by: USAAlways1 | January 9, 2009 3:05 PM | Report abuse

Hmmm...most of us were wrong about Obama? I seem to recall on 11/04 that most/more people actually voted for Obama. So maybe you mean to say "most of us were right about Obama"?

As to this whole kerfuffle, especially state schools vs. Ivy League, whatever. Let's ask ourselves one really important question:

If we ARE inclined to appoint a non-traditional politician to the senate or nominate such a person as a vice-presidential candidate, would we prefer someone who is, in fact educated at an Ivy League school, has written books regarding the first amendment, and has served her community at large in several different ways, or someone whose position is based on making themselves likable to the citizens of a relatively small state with distinctly different needs and perspecitves then most of the rest of the country?

Posted by: JohnDinHouston | January 9, 2009 3:40 PM | Report abuse

Brilliant satire, USAAlways1.

Posted by: Nosy_Parker | January 9, 2009 3:41 PM | Report abuse

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/2009/01/palin_crazy_or_crazy_like_a_fo.html?hpid=sec-politics

Posted by: Nosy_Parker | January 9, 2009 4:15 PM | Report abuse

Ms Marcus your column is a joke. Both you and Maureen Dowd of the NY Times are so dazzled by the Kennedy aura you have obviously lost your minds - or is from Obama koolaid overload ??? You stated that an individual Senator can do no harm and the position lends itself to on the job training. Is that the circumstances that lead to your employment? Did the WAPO hire you and then train you ? Maybe they did and you r still in training. Too funny !! Please - dont treat the American people as though they were stupid. Senators are paid well and we expect them to be knowledgeable when they ENTER office !!! We all know how you bashed Sarah Palin and Hillary Clinton and how you write Princess fluff columns on Caroline Kennedy and Michelle Obama. You arent fooling us and dont delude yourself either dearie. 2008 was the year that responsible journalism died and the media played favorites and rammed their favorites down our throats. You, Dowd, Andrea Mitchell and that traitor to all Democrats Dona Brazile did all you could to get Hillary thrown out of the race and Palin slandered from day one. You all are despicable and your columns are sugary sweet fluff on Obama and company 24/7. Enough already !!

Posted by: JUNGLEJIM123 | January 9, 2009 4:45 PM | Report abuse

Let me see now...if I understand the argument....in the Senate it is OK to appoint a person with absolutely no credentials, because well...it is the Senate. Ms Kennedy, by all accounts, has absolutely no qualifications or credentials to be a member of the 100 member body which has given birth to more US Presidents than any other institution in America. I can understand the reasoning, however, as it would also apply to her father and two uncles. Kennedys are entitled at birth to a seat in the US Senate because...well...because they are Kennedys. Interesting.

Posted by: worldnomad1 | January 9, 2009 4:50 PM | Report abuse

I see this argument from a log of liberal commentators in the media. "Yes, we were mean to Palin because she was running for VP, but we're nice to Caroline because she'll just be, you know, one of like, 100 seanators, who really aren't all that important anyway."

This is such a bogus argument. Senator is an important job. Caroline Kennedy has zero qualifications for that job. She should be mocked and harrassed and vilified until everyone hates her and she gives up and goes home.

Posted by: ZZim | January 9, 2009 4:53 PM | Report abuse

"Tom Coburn (R-Obstruction)"

Bwaaa ha ha ha ha haaaaa! Clev.

Posted by: mobedda | January 9, 2009 5:15 PM | Report abuse

Oh please. Put Sarah Palin and Caroline Kennedy in a room, and ask them some questions. Listen up. One is a brite light, the other is a dud. Sarah Palin made her own bed. She is a disaster.

Posted by: biggirl90 | January 9, 2009 7:05 PM | Report abuse

Gosh darnit people, isn't this a democracy? And don't our leaders represent the people? And aren't a lot of Americans dimwitted, ambitious, opportunistic bottom-dwellers? And don't they deserve to see one of their own in a position of global power and influence? Well gosh darnit, it's about time we found someone we can all really say for certain represents the worst of us. Surely there's room on the West Wing for a woman with zero proven intellect, zero curiosity, zero credibility, zero experience and mountains of cute winks and sexy little grins! Gosh darnit people, are we going to be obsessed with quality or are we finally going to let rampant mediocrity get a toehold at the top?

Posted by: Attucks | January 9, 2009 7:21 PM | Report abuse

Whalin Palin can cry me a river everyday for the next 4 years, it won't drown out the fact that she is highly unqualified to be anywhere near the Oval Office.

Posted by: AverageJane | January 9, 2009 7:57 PM | Report abuse

Well, Marcus is right, Palin has no issue with the Kennedy thing.

On the other hand, there is the issue of why the media (excepting Fox News, of course) gave a pass, and continues to give a pass, to the man who was elected President.

To quote Marcus: "I think, you know, we already, like, know the answer to that, you know, question."

Posted by: magellan1 | January 9, 2009 9:24 PM | Report abuse

SARAH SIX PACK IS NO CAROLINE KENNEDY. WHAT WAS OLD McCAIN THING OF WHEN HE PICKED SARAH SIX PACK?

Posted by: usapdx | January 10, 2009 12:10 AM | Report abuse

We've been suckered into giving Sarah an extension of her 15 minutes of TV fame. I fear the "15 minutes of fame" cliche is no longer operational, as one is supposed to simply go away once time is up. But perhaps we are among those who cannot let go of Palin's hillarious VP run, so we tune in whenever she speaks to a camera, hoping to get more good laughs.

Posted by: RepubliCult | January 10, 2009 2:36 AM | Report abuse

First of all, I am no fan of Kennedy being a senator. Having said that, Ms. Kennedy does have the necessary requirements to be a leader - she has a mind that has been trained to think. She is a graduate of Radcliff and Columbia Law School, on the Bar in New York and Washington D.C., and the head of numerous charities that are well-known and respected. Few elected officials actually have real experience in the offices that to which they are elected, but one thing people at least hope a candidate to have is a set of critical thinking skills. Palin doesn't have this set of skills. In the 21st Century, no educated person should believe in witches or that dinosaurs and people coexisted 4 or 5 thousand years ago (her own words). If these are a person's beliefs - that's fine for them. However, they simply cannot have the access to power that would allow them to shape policy around those beliefs for the rest of us critical thinkers. And if she feels it necessary to berate people of critical thinking and education, ambitions that she didn't find important enough to pursue, then she should expect to be ridiculed for her hubris. End of story.

Posted by: bobcra | January 10, 2009 4:02 AM | Report abuse

Ruth Marcus makes an excellent point. To state that there is a significant difference between the needed qualifications of someone who must be prepared to step into the presidency--the most powerful job in the world-- on day one and the qualifications needed to be a Senator is NOT to diminish the importance of Senators. Consider that a Senator has one out of a hundred votes on any issue but the President, one vote--the veto--can nullify those hundred votes. And that is just one example of the difference in power and responsibilities between a Senator and the President. That is why a Senator has more leeway to learn on the job.(However, I still would vote against Sarah Palin for Senator and consider carefully voting for Carolyn Kennedy in that position, depending on the choices.)

Posted by: Kristin2 | January 10, 2009 7:33 AM | Report abuse

If Sarah Palin read as many papers as she claimed she did (to Couric) "anything; everything!" then she would know that Caroline Kennedy is controversial, including with liberals.

Posted by: tselis | January 10, 2009 8:17 AM | Report abuse

It was a matter of basic intellect.

The only way John McCain coul expect to win the presidency was to persuade democrats and moderates to vote for him.

Palin stepped up to the stage with at least 18 million women determined to give her a listen....

and disparaged everyone but the ultra right religious base she alrady had.

Insults followed nasty inunendo and potty mouth until the only people who came to their rallies were the not very bright racists who could not figure out they could not elect Palen by themselves.

Palin really is as dumb as she sounds...

Posted by: dutchess2 | January 10, 2009 8:36 AM | Report abuse

Sarah Palin's latest faux-controvery, as well as the typical Palinistas coming to her defense on this post, are full of false either-or propositions that do not stand up to scrutiny.

1) If you do not support Palin, you support Kennedy, because it is really all about class. I, as well as many others, do not support either. Palin because I just consider her a generally incompetent empty head that is dangerous because she believes she is on a mission from God. Kennedy because there is no particular reason to choose her, and after the last two decades, we should be highly wary of dynastic thinking (moreover, 2008 saw both the Bush and Clinton dynasties brought low).

2) either you are an elitist who thinks Ivy League is a must for entry into politics, or you are a down-to-earth Joe Six-Pac who knows more about the world and what the people want than any Ivy League snob. As someone who went to two top-flight universities, I can tell you that there are alot of idiots who get into them (and perhaps many people, including readers of this post, think the same of me), people whom I would never trust to run anything, much less the USA. Going to a top school is no guarantee of anything, but for a person to gain admittance to a top school and successfully complete it may be an indication that he or she is highly intelligent and resourceful. Why do we have so many world class universities if we denograte them and their graduates as useless? On the other hand, there is no reason to suppose that just because someone did not go to a top-flight school that they are not both highly intelligent and would not make an excellent public servant. But we cannot assume that lack of educational and intellectual achievement somehow means the person would be an ideal public servant because they are "at our level" or "just like us". Assuming you nothing else about them, would you want the pilot flying your airplane to have graduated top of her class from the airforce academy or someone who just squeaked through a course in the Bahamas? Ditto your brain surgeon? So why would anyone want as our president someone who cannot demonstrate any intellectual achievement or any ability whatsoever to intelligently comment upon or analyze any of the problems that would have to be dealt with in office. It is beyond me.

Just two points (among many that could be made), but if anyone has bothered to read this far, they probably would not want me to go on any further.

Posted by: marecek | January 10, 2009 10:29 AM | Report abuse

I think Sarah is the smartest person alive. Who cares if she doesn't know the difference between Africa and Antarctica, she is preparing us for the end of times rapture. Certainly if she were elected president we would be much closer to a doomsday scenario.

Sarah has been picked on by the elite media unfairly. They showed her interviews on TV and the internet. When Sarah's ignorance became apparent the media should have covered up her ignorance like they did for Bush. Sarah may not have a clue about anything other than dirty politics but she sure knows how to wink real good. That is al a good president needs to do, right?

Posted by: jimwalksdogs | January 10, 2009 10:36 AM | Report abuse

I forget - did you soundly bash Barack Obama for his total lack of qualifications to be president? At least Palin has some government managerial experience and a working knowledge of how governments function.

Posted by: OldNavyMan | January 10, 2009 11:47 AM | Report abuse

I'm sorry but this is absurd.

Why is everyone afraid to state the obvious? Sarah Palin and Caroline Kennedy had the same scrutiny, however what people found was utterly different.

Palin showed herself to be barely able to construct a coherent sentence, Kennedy has written numerous books. Kennedy is a lawyer with an impressive career behind her, Palin was the mayor of a tiny town and then was elected Governor barely more than a year before she was chosen as VP.

Do we think that no one ever mentioned Palin's government positions? When it suited her, she was pushing her life story more than anyone. She touted her vast experience herself, just as she missed no opportunity to talk about her family, her son serving in Iraq, her husband, her beliefs, and so on. If the actual family, government career, and beliefs were then examined in public, why should she scream "bias!"?

One of her selling points was her family values, which she touted constantly in speeches, while slamming others whose values she found lacking. If people looked at the actual results of her religious values, for example of abstinence-only education for teens, is that unfair scrutiny?

Granted, there is a difference between being chosen as Senator and as VP, with a very real chance of being President before too long. However, that's not the main difference here.

Posted by: jfburr@yahoo.com | January 10, 2009 11:51 AM | Report abuse

To compare Caroline Kenney to Sarah Palin is the same as Chris Matthews said it: comparing Hillary Clinton to Sarah Palin was like comparing the Empire State Building to an igloo.

Posted by: vs25314 | January 10, 2009 1:40 PM | Report abuse


palin: media's fault public thinks I'm a dumb bimbo!

REALITY: the public KNOWS palin is a stupid vacuous C!!T because she IS a stupid vacuous C!!T.

Posted by: Archie_Leach | January 10, 2009 1:42 PM | Report abuse


There's more brains oozing out of the tip of my c!!k than there is in palins head.....

Posted by: Archie_Leach | January 10, 2009 1:53 PM | Report abuse

Real Americans love Gov. Palin -- and, BTW, she's several orders of magnitude brighter than the dim "Italian grandma" Pelosi, who (terrifyingly) is just one heartbeat farther from the Oval Office that Gov. Palin would have been. That's a more pertinent comparison than the idiot heiress Princess Caroline Schlossberg.

The calumny of the elites against Gov. Palin is malicious, sickening, enraging, and profoundly ignorant. Shame!

Posted by: zjr78xva | January 10, 2009 4:24 PM | Report abuse

zjr78xva writes: "Real Americans love Gov. Palin." That's exactly why she will never succeed on the national stage. There is no such thing as "real Americans" -- we are ALL Americans. If ANYONE should be ashamed, it is Sarah Palin who used the myth of a "real America" in order to divide the electorate. Those days MUST be over - we have too much to do TOGETHER as a country.

Posted by: goldengateview | January 10, 2009 5:53 PM | Report abuse

Huh? If not to "divide the electorate", then the point of holding elections and counting votes eludes me.

If you object to the term "real Americans", fine. How about "real people with a traditional love of God and country." People grounded in the real world of work and family, who just want to save their families and businesses from the amoral atheist utopian fantasies of the fancy-pants liberal elite and to be left alone.

The assertion that there's "much to do together" supposes we want the same things. We don't.

Posted by: zjr78xva | January 10, 2009 8:02 PM | Report abuse

The assertion that there is "much to do together" presumes that despite our differences, we can at least agree that we are all patriotic Americans who want what is best for our country. "Real people with a traditional love of God and Country" is easily translated to "homosexuals go away" and "love it or leave it." If amorality is accepting those who are of different nationalities, races, religions, political philosophies, and sexual persuasions, then sign me up. Ever hear of the melting pot? Those differences are the true beauty of "Real America."

Posted by: jimestw | January 10, 2009 10:11 PM | Report abuse

Mmmmmmm - so Ms. Marcus believes graduates of schools such as Harvard and Yale make better political appointees. And no doubt grads of such awesome halls of learning make better Wall Street financiers. Let's not leave out their proven abilities as activists and lobbyists.

But please, Ms. Marcus, explain how the abilities of these well-educated and no doubt well-mannered politicians and political appointees, financiers, and lobbyists will get us out of this mess we are in right now. That is......the mess they got us into.

Let me know, so I can tell my granddaughter (and write notes to future great-grandchildren and great-great-grandchildren), who will have to pay for their poor judgment, their greed, their utter lack of common sense, and their actual theft.

Because common sense would have prevented most of the mistakes that caused this mess. As those of us in ordinary circumstances know, common sense is not a common thing. And it's not taught in the halls of higher education........certainly doesn't appear to be taught in the halls of ivy.

Posted by: AzaleaAnnie | January 11, 2009 11:03 AM | Report abuse

I must have missed it. When did Marcus ever introduce the Ivy League into the discussion? Some of us (not me) elected a common man (yeah right), and he drove the country off a cliff. We tried it your way... Thanks for your brilliant insight.


Posted by: jimestw | January 11, 2009 7:56 PM | Report abuse

You're LIKE, YOU KNOW, rationaling a double standard.

Furthermore, in a state with a population in excess of ten million, there are other more qualified individuals for Governor Patterson to select.

Posted by: ljsack | January 12, 2009 12:20 AM | Report abuse

Sarah,
Hope U are the GOP candidate in 2012!
Sarah for President! She would be a really historical candidate!

Posted by: Obie3 | January 12, 2009 2:14 AM | Report abuse

to USAAlways1
Are you really that pigheaded and obtuse?
If you really want the US go down the drain, the US becoming a large failed former superpower, then continue to support total zero’s like Palin. USA always 1st? People like YOU are in fact the US’ greatest and worst enemies.

Posted by: pegasus2 | January 12, 2009 4:17 AM | Report abuse

It seemed a bit mysterious, why Governor Palin's health records were such a secret, and only released on the eve of the election. She seemed adamantly determined to keep those personal health records from advanced public scrutiny, a most unusual stance for a candidate for such high office. What on earth was the lady hiding so grimly?

Could it be that, since the date of her first delivery is known and also the date of her marriage, being a public record, is also known . . . that her health records would reveal to all that this first birth was not premature, but full term, and that it strongly indicated the conception occurred before her marriage?

And that is exactly what the medical record showed, that the birth of her first child was full "term," which means 9 months, plus or minus 2 weeks. Yet the lady gave birth only 8 months after her elopement marriage. Such marriages are often rushed, for pregnancy reasons, and that seems to have been the case here.

This certainly would have been damaging in the election for one who professes such fundamentalist views and such personal virtue as the Alaska governor. She, after all, has been an ardent promoter of premarital chastity and abstinence, and an equally ardent opponent of sex education.

Seems to make her a hypocrite, no?

Posted by: alfeldzamen | January 12, 2009 5:35 AM | Report abuse

I can not believe we are still talking about Sarah Palin's health records when Obama has ALL his records sealed and has not been vetted. Pitifull!! Education does not equate, always, with common sense.
Being a lawyer does not mean one will be a good congressman or president. Sarah Palin has much more experience than Obama or Caroline Kennedy in governing. I hope Sarah wins in 2012!!! She has my vote!!!
The MSM deserves what it gets. Bias is awful.

Posted by: annnort | January 12, 2009 6:46 AM | Report abuse

Somewhere, there are guilty people. The first one who hyped her to McCain, the first one who discovered she could not speak in complete sentences. The first one who told her to trash the very people they needed to pull to their side, the one who decided she would not make herself available to the press; the one that decided she did not need to submit financials, the one that decided she did not need to provide a medical, the one that decided her hockey mom image needed thousands in duds to put one over on us; ordereing the shopping, the make up artist, the hair stylist; the one that pushed the claim that with all the fakery and bluster she would appeal to Clinton supporters when we've seen Clinton work tirelessly, we've vetted her intellect, her votes, her life of service, and don't have a clue who her hair stylist is, or where she buys her clothes.

The net result was a baloon full of hot air PFFFTTTTIIIIINNNNGGGGGGGG across the room that we all knew was empty, no there there.

Sarah Palin has absolutely nothing we want.

Sarah Palin has one other thing - a husband that has belonged for long stretches of time, to the Alaskan Independence movement... to secede from
the United States, with her full support.

Caroline Kennedy is very intelligent. We look at her favorably because of her family's service and sacrifice for this country.

But even Kennedy's staunchest detractor cannot find a single public pronouncement that trashes whole sections of the very constituency she would serve.

Palin's trash mouth will reverberate for the rest of her life. She really needs to stay in Alaska.

Posted by: dutchess2 | January 12, 2009 8:43 AM | Report abuse

annort,

I guess my parents, first generation Italian Americans, had it wrong, then, when they thought that education made a difference, and made sure that all of their children had a chance at a college education, and even advanced degrees. Your philosophy, and that of the far right, is that education doesn't matter. Well, Obama, unlike Palin,is both educated and, because he has an iquisitive mind, possessed of broad knowledge of the world. This is what most right wingers lack, and all the "experience" in the world can't make up for it.

Posted by: nita3 | January 12, 2009 9:54 AM | Report abuse

Many of the postings have hit on the difference in treatment.


Palin is a Republican; Kennedy is a Democrat (when she bothers to vote).


Kennedy is from a famous wealthy liberal family, Palin parents were middle class and her mother was a secretary and father a science teacher.

Palin had to work for a living to support her family; Kennedy ... did "good deed" things.

Palin occasionally says "You betcha!" in a very common accent; Kennedy adds "You know" to every sentence ... but with a distinguished Radcliffe tone.

Palin has been through the Liberal interview meat grinder; Kennedy wisely is above the media mob. (Do we really want the royalty of Camelot to be subjected to such degrading treatment?)


And, most importantly Kennedy has supported Obama ... and did I mention she is a democrat.

Actually, I do support her nomination. I think we should install, without elections, the "brightest and the best".

Those with money, status, correct breeding, and impeccable family heritage should lead those who are of lower status; those correctly characterized by the phrase “The Mob”.


I always thought the French Revolution went too far.


Posted by: jgfox39 | January 12, 2009 11:11 AM | Report abuse

Comparing Palin to Kennedy...

Is comparing dog crap (Palin) to roses (Kennedy)......

Posted by: AlexP1 | January 12, 2009 11:13 AM | Report abuse

What amuses me is that on January 12, 2009 I open up the opinion page of the Washington Post and see two columns mean-mouthing Sara Palin. You good people, with all of your education and sophistication seem to be afraid of people who are busy actually living their own lives rather than sitting around commenting on how others choose to live their lives.

Posted by: Provincial | January 12, 2009 11:33 AM | Report abuse

Lillian Hellman opined that "nobody outside of a baby carriage or a judge's chamber believes in an unprejudiced point of view." What a travesty it might have been had someone so naive as Sarah Palin been elected to the second highest office of the last superpower on Planet Earth. While the world suffers the fate of phalanx after phalanx of guided missiles eroding the bloody grounds of Gaza and Israel, Sarah would have been diligently pursuing fairness in reporting from a battlefront piled high with human corpses.
Why do I think this? Because that is what she is doing while LIFE is happening. Not a single word about the real problems on this earth, only the imagined slights of political punditry in an election long decided.

Posted by: deucebollards | January 12, 2009 11:39 AM | Report abuse

Palin's just another politician like everyone else. The only people keeping her star bright are the newspapers who need her to boost sales. Face it - Palin is always good for news. Once the Innauguration is over, the reality of day-to-day policy briefings with President Obama are bad for news. Look at H.W. Bush - who was more like Obama. America was bored bored bored under H.W. Bush. Like Obama, Bush inherited a bad economy. Like Obama, he promoted various stimulus packages to boost things. But all in all, Bush the First was a pretty dull guy. A technocrat. Palin's the only thing interesting for newspapers to print on Jan 22.

Posted by: mwcob | January 12, 2009 2:08 PM | Report abuse

Real Americans love Gov. Palin -- and, BTW, she's several orders of magnitude brighter than the dim "Italian grandma" Pelosi, who (terrifyingly) is just one heartbeat farther from the Oval Office that Gov. Palin would have been. That's a more pertinent comparison than the idiot heiress Princess Caroline Schlossberg.

The calumny of the elites against Gov. Palin is malicious, sickening, enraging, and profoundly ignorant. Shame!

*******************************************

And in that lies the problem - "real Americans love Sarah Palin" - so what does that make the MAJORITY of Americans - unreal Americans? Sounds like your mental capacity would be close to that of Ms. Palin - near zero!

BTW - something both you and Palin need to learn - either you are American or you are not - there are no "real" and "unreal" (say non-patriotic) Americans, only AMERICANS!

Posted by: Kathy5 | January 12, 2009 2:17 PM | Report abuse

WashingtonDame: You claim that Ruth Marcus "drooled" over Kennedy because of her elite degree, and that she disdained Palin because of her humble background. How then do you explain her reaction to Barack Obama?

I love it when Palin people claim all sorts of "humble-roots" glory for Palin but can't see that Obama came from much humbler roots and faced much higher, endlessly higher, obstacles than Pouty Palin. Fact is, it isn't about the glory of humble roots or higher degrees -- it's about "measuring up" by educating oneself. I'm not sure whether Caroline Kennedy should be senator, but in comparison to Sarah ("Crybaby") Palin, she's a class act.

Posted by: cturtle1 | January 12, 2009 11:25 PM | Report abuse

And BTW, I'm with you, Kathy5. I'm sick of being considered somehow a "not-real-American" simply because I see Sarah Palin as bad for America. We're all Americans, and in seven days (which can't get here soon enough), we can finally celebrate that fact.

BTW, do "real" Americans denigrate others by name-calling? If Nancy Pelosi is being considered here as less-than-American as an "Italian grandma", then what is Sarah Palin? An "Alaskan grandma"? I have a fondness for all grandmas. "Dim" is another category, however, and the only "dim" person of the group mentioned is -- yep -- Sarah Palin!

Posted by: cturtle1 | January 12, 2009 11:36 PM | Report abuse

Hey Marcus are you trying to become another
looney toons Kathleen Parker here? Because
your recent constant unwarranted liberal
basis attacks on AK Republican Gov Sarah
Palin might just as well have been written
by Kathleen Parker,who like you Marcus is
sooo totally jealous of Palin that Parker
has become totally obessed with attacking
Gov Sarah Palin,and your starting to sound
just like Parker yourself and just as total
delusional as well.

And,in regard to Her Arrongance Princess
Caroline Kennedy and who is damn well not
qualified to be "Appointed US Senator" from
New York,therefore let's tell the truth about Kennedy the last Princess of the long
Dead Kennedy Camelot and which is Caroline
Kennedy seems to be throwing herself openly
at her secret boyfriend Barack Hussein Obama and only wants to be closer to him
by being in Washington DC as a US Senator is all. Anyone else notice how Princess
Caroline Kennedy hangs on to Obama and drools over him on stage with him? Enough
said.

Posted by: Marilyn80 | January 13, 2009 7:57 AM | Report abuse

Ruth Marcus: I guess that Dr. No ( aka Tom Coburn) is the least liked Senator, which means that he is probably the best American steward of OUR money. We shoul dbe thnaking God every day this man take son Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi. Coburn has saved this Republic millions upon millions of dollars and you need to get on the bandwagon. History is replete with "I told you so's" and you are on the worng side of history on this guy.

Posted by: jgdonahue | January 13, 2009 8:56 AM | Report abuse

WE LOVE YOU, GOV. PALIN!

Posted by: zjr78xva | January 13, 2009 11:45 AM | Report abuse

Oh boo! hoo! both Ruth Marcus and that other twitting twithead Kathleen parker are sooo totally obessed with destroying
Gov Sarah Palin and fawning and swooning
and in love with Princess Caroline Kennedy
the secret Barack Obama mistress that it
has made them them both too damn obessed
and delional to function even as writers
for Fearful Fred Hiatt's WAPO Obama PR
Machine Rag,mistakenly still called a
newspaper and that is doomed to fail just
like the Chicago Tribune,LA Times,Seattle PI,Rocky Mountain News and other Obama PR
copyboy rags.

You betcha Gov Sarah Palin for President
in 2012 whether Marcus and Parker like it
or not! Go Sarah Go! Palin Speaks for
America not Princess Caroline or President
for Life Loser Barack Hussein Obama.

Posted by: Darlene5280 | January 13, 2009 3:42 PM | Report abuse

Very lame opinion piece.

The Senate is an enormously powerful body, and it is not at all the place to begin a political career, barring some serious comparable experience. If this is truly your opinion of Kennedy, then you should at least encourage her to start in the House, if not her own State politics.

Posted by: bluejackseattle | January 13, 2009 5:52 PM | Report abuse

WOW! Did Marcus the other Jealous Kathleen
Parker twin sister go crazy as Parker over
Gov Sarah Palin again,but still brown noses
Princess Caroline Kennedy endlessly, How sad can you get here Ruth Marcus and your
hateful twin Katleen Parker since Gov Sarah
Palin has more to offer,then both of you
ugly whiners anyday. Your pathetic Marcus.

You betcha as an Independent Voter I sure
did vote for John McCain and Sarah Palin
in 2008 as I will never trust that Chicago
Gangster Barack Hussein Obama and that old
mouthy fool Joe Biden either. I plan on voting for Gov Sarah Palin for President
in 2012 and you better believe it that
Sarah Palin will be our next President.

So Marcus and Parker and Libs Eat Your Hearts Out you Jealous ugly old hags.

Posted by: sandy5274 | January 13, 2009 8:29 PM | Report abuse

I am a proud social liberal and fiscal conservative. Here is how I see it. Caroline Kennedy appears to have a successful personal career. She belongs to the Kennedy clan, with giant role models in close family. Being so close to them all her life must have taught her something about good policies, governance and waging political battles to achieve what you think is right. She is definitely benefiting from family connections. From her public appearances so far, she did not come across as a forceful person who can articulate her vision. She did not spell out what precisely she is going to fight for in the senate. These last two issues make her a risky candidate in terms of how effective a candidate she can be and how good a dealmaker she can be in the senate to get her legislative agenda implemented.

So, the bottomline is, her nobility is her biggest strength (let's not forget that the senate and the house of reps are filled with a spectrum of personalities ranging from downright crooks to the most upright and honest people) and her effectiveness is untested. Is this a chance I am willing to take? Yes, I am. After all, we are going to have a chance soon to remove her from office if she does not prove herself to be worthy of Hillary Clinton's shoes.

Posted by: Jainr | January 13, 2009 8:32 PM | Report abuse

There is a need to discredit Palin, but no sense of what to do or how to do it. So we get these mindless constructs that never get anywhere. Sort of a "fill in the blanks" attack.

Brilliant.


I guess.

Posted by: gary4books | January 14, 2009 5:29 AM | Report abuse

So, anyone know why both WAPO Twits Ruth
Marcus and Kathleen Parker hate and are so
jealous of AK Gov Sarah Palin anyhow?...

And,why does WAPO the Obama PR Rag even bother to pay these two hateful,jealous
old witches Marcus and Parker to write these endless mindless vicious hate Palin
pieces as well? Oh I know,its all because
Fearful Fred Hiatt and his WAPO Obama PR
Shills are so totally afraid Gov Sarah Palin might get elected President in 2012.
Enough Said Here.

Posted by: Ralphinphnx | January 14, 2009 10:31 AM | Report abuse

Here is Palin's latest Big Lie:

"When I heard Barack Obama state in one of his interviews on national television that his wife was off limits, meaning, family's off limits-- you know, 'Attack me, I'm the public official, come after me, I can handle it and we'll duke it out if need be, but family's off limits'-- I naively believed, OK, they respected that in him and his demand for that to be adhered, naively believing that must apply to all of us, right? But it didn't apply."
While Obama did say that he found attacks on his wife "unacceptable," he also very bodly and emphatically stated that Palin's family was also off limits when asked a question about Bristol Palin's pregnancy:

"I have said before and I will repeat again, I think people's families are off limits, and people's children are especially off limits. This shouldn't be part of our politics. It has no relevance to Governor Palin's performance as governor, or her potential performance as a VP. And so I would strongly urge people to back off these kinds of stories."
He wasn't protecting simply his own family with that assertion, he was also protecting Palin's. And Palin lacks the basic grace, integrity and human decency to acknowledge Obama's gesture. And then she twists the truth to make Obama seem selfish and the media unfair.

And what about her claim that Obama's wishes were "respected" about his own family? The right-wing press went after Michelle Obama relentlessly and so, too, did the McCain campaign. None other than Cindy McCain went after Michelle for comments she made about finally being proud of her country:

"I don't know why she said what she said. Everyone has their own experience. I don't know why she said what she said, all I know is that I have always been proud of my country."

That seemed a little off-base coming from someone born with a silver-spoon in her mouth and who not only served as her husband's connection to the Keating Five Scandal, but then later stole drugs from her own nonprofit organization to sustain her drug habit. But make that charge she did.

And the right continued to attack her through the campaign--from Michelle Malkin to Ann Coulter. Anyone who claims otherwise is wallowing in duplicity.

So here again, Palin utterly distorts reality, fails to acknowledge Obama's gesture, doesn't acknowledge what her running mate's wife said about Michelle Obama, and turns herself, yet again, into a political victim. Where is Ann Coulter calling Palin on her self-victimization? The silence is deafening.

Huffinton Post

Posted by: tinkabell1 | January 14, 2009 2:53 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company