Sarah Palin's book

The Huffington Post had some excerpts up today:

I still wouldn’t vote for her in a million years, but I have to admit she does offer some fascinating insights into how a modern political campaign is run. This is the sort of stuff that you wouldn’t get from a jaded political operative who, even if he did dish out some dirt, wouldn’t get into the nitty gritty workaday details that Palin does here. It’s that whole idea of “going into this with fresh eyes.” Needless to say McCain’s campaign manager Steve Schmidt comes off looking like a Grade-A douchebag.
But ultimately, it’s also clear that she was woefully unprepared to run with the big boys, and unready to deal with the emotional and spiritual ass kicking that a national campaign can mete out.

And she can see Russia from her house. :rolleyes:

I think it’s a nice look into the workings of Narcissistic Personality Disorder. Everything is somebody else’s fault. Nothing is her own. She has no responsibility for anything. If everyone had listened to her, things would have been fine. Jesus, what self-serving tripe. Is there anyone in her life she doesn’t eventually turn on?

I understand she even tries to blame Katie Couric for the fact that she couldn’t answer softball questions from Katie Couric.

There’s no chance that this book will contain any self-examination or genuine insights. It will only be self-aggrandizment, victimization and platitudes.

A pretty brutal takedown:

Did she comment about her son in law flashing the family jewels in Playgirl?
That’s one part of politics I really don’t need to see. LOL

Yeah, she supposedly “felt sorry” for Couric, says she was told by a McCain adviser that Couric had low self-esteem, a claim that McCain’s people say is “ridiculous.”

So, ok, the Vice Presidential candidate does an interview with a major name because…she’s the Vice Presidential candidate? Because she’s an unknown and needs to let the country and the voting public know who she is? Because interviews are expected from all political candidates?

No. She does the interview because she (says she) “felt sorry” for the interviewer.

Holy shit. Way to make the scenario even worse ditz!

She has a habit of trying to deflect one thing with “information” that makes her look like an even bigger idiot/ditz/asshole/incompetent, like countering the silly rumor that Trig was really Bristol’s child by releasing the astounding story that has her traveling while in labor and putting her life and the baby’s life at risk.

Tina Fey said that.

Sarah Palin said that Russia is visible from an island that is part of Alaska. which I believe is true.

It’s true. It’s utterly irrelevant to her foreign policy experience, and she’s never been there, but it’s true.

She can write a thousand books… i wouldnt’ vote for her to lead my NIECE’s Girl Scout troop!!!

I’m also thinking about writing a book. If I do, I will use complete sentences, so please don’t compare me unfavorably to Ms. Palin.


I stand corrected. And she is so well read! :slight_smile:

I have no interest in reading her book.

I LIKE Sarah Palin, who seems like a cool person. And she shares most of my stances on the major issues. That said, she was a HORRIBLE candidate in 2008, and she CAN’T blame that (solely) on the liberal media.

I think Radley Balko put it best:

“Here’s all I want to say: It is possible that Sarah Palin was **both **unfairly mistreated and personally attacked by the media and many on the left, and that her family was rather ruthlessly and mercilessly run through the wringer . . . **and **that she’s a not particularly bright, not particularly curious, once libertarian-leaning governor who sadly devolved into a predictable, buzzword spouting culture warrior when she was prematurely picked for national office by John McCain.”

The two are not contradictory. To use a crude analogy, Heath Shuler took a lot of unfair abuse from Redskins fans. The fact remains, he was a terrible quarterback.

Just because Sarah Palin was (and is) unfairly smeared by the other side, it doesn’t follow that she’s a great candidate for high office. Conservatives who like her do her no favors by pretending she did great in her interviews, and that it was all that liberal meanie Katie Couric’s fault.

I don’t know, I could see some campaign functionary telling her that as a way of humoring her, especially considering how difficult she proved to be.

If Palin did not want her family commented upon she should have kept them out of the limelight altogether by not running for office. She used her children and then had the nerve to be mad that people responded in kind.

Frankly I think the same of Obama in some ways. I voted for him but running for office when his poor girls are so young wasn’t exactly the most admirable thing he’s ever done.

Softball? Hell, I can’t really see how anyone, no matter how sympathetic to Palin or hostile to Couric, could consider the magazine question to be anything but an absolute gimme.

Seems to me that Couric was being downright friendly and accommodating in asking a question like that, in the way she did. I imagine she might have been surprised at the bizarre response.

It could be a book so brilliant that it’s an instant modern literary classic. It doesn’t mitigate (nor does anything else) the fact that she took a huge shit on the people of Alaska by quitting her job after getting a huge advance from the publisher. That little move showed her true colors and what a venal little bitch she is.

I’m frankly surprised, given your assessment of Ex-Gov. Palin as a “cool person”[sic!?] that we would concur on this point, but I wholeheartedly agree that she was unfairly smeared.

She should have been “smeared” completely, revealed as what she is (a dishonest, shallow, self-glorifying, narcissistic zealot) in every interview, rather than handled with mink gloves by the likes of Fox News, which schemed and spun desperately in hopes of prolonging the absolutely insane idea that she was qualified to hold national office (or, as is now evident, *any *office).

As an aside, I think Obama expected to do well enough in the primaries to be named VP candidate to Hillary, and then run in 8 years with more experience under his belt. He may have been surprised as anyone else to get the nomination.

Here’s the biggest problem with that general idea (which I’ve heard before from quasi-Palin defenders) - “when she was prematurely picked for national office by John McCain.”

If a person is “not particularly bright” and “not particularly curious” and who easily “devolved into a predictable, buzzword-spouting culture warrior,” how is another 2-6 years in any particular office going to change these qualities so that they will no longer be considered “prematurely picked”? If her knowledge and basic personality is at that level at 44, is it at all realistic to think that she will somehow “mature” at 48 or 52? Describing someone as “not particularly bright” and “not particularly curious” as well as prone to spouting recycled, pre-programmed garbage sounds pretty close to calling someone irredeemably stupid who lacks genuine ideas of their own. This is not someone who should be considered a serious candidate for any political office.