 "Photo:")
That Sarah Palin has been shielded from tough questions by reporters may indeed be unprecedented, but it is hardly surprising (save for that real brain buster posed by ABC's Charlie Gibson about the Bush doctrine). Her farce of a candidacy was foreshadowed plainly enough by John McCain's own campaign manager, Rick Davis.
"This election is not about issues," said Davis, in an interview with the Washington Post shortly after McCain unveiled Palin as his running mate. "This election is about a composite view of what people take away from these candidates."
That "composite view" of Palin is more about her current role as a hockey mom than her potential role as a bulwark against Hezbollah, more Hallmark than Hillary. There's no need to face legitimate scrutiny from the press (no vice presidential candidate on a major party's ticket has gone as long without holding a press conference in American political history), when a rudimentary question might trip her up-as was the case in her first major interview with Gibson, conducted nearly two weeks overdue. This, in turn, might cause voters to forget about her folksiness and charm as they learn more about her stunning ineptitude.
There is nothing sexist about questioning the prowess of a woman who could conceivably be commander-in-chief this January, as the now politically correct Republicans would have it.
Such outrage over chauvinism was conspicuously absent from conservatives 10 years ago when McCain made a bawdy sexual joke about Hillary and Chelsea Clinton and Janet Reno. No matter. The "Palin phenomenon" (as it was dubbed by gushy conservative commentators and a largly cowed Washington press corps) has never been rooted in honesty or substance.
Voters are left with a "composite view" of Palin manufactured by the McCain camaign as slickly as a marketing campaign is unrolled by a Madison Avenue boutique.
Consider the assertion that she is a reformer who stood up to the party establishment in Alaska. Palin has repeatedly charmed crowds with a story about her opposition to the much-maligned "Bridge to Nowhere," even though she celebrated the embarassing project as recently as 2006. McCain, whose own lack of understanding about his running mate's background has become increasingly obvious, tried to sustain this narrative when he claimed that Palin never requested an earmark as governor of Alaska during his awkward appearance on The View. The problem: Alaska is showered with more earmarks than any other state in the country and she requested $197 million of them just this year.
That leaves her small town background as the last remaining piece of her candidacy's tenuous foundation.
It was highly visible at the Republican National Convention earlier this month, where Rudy Giuliani chastised Barack Obama's "cosmopolitan" background and previous role as a community organizer. His intention was clear: revive the classic 1990s culture war that pits the honest folks from small towns against the snarky elitists in the cities.
What's glossed over in this endearing tale of a small town mayor being thrust into the national spotlight are some of the most dubious moments throughout her career in Alaska.
Questions about the city of Wasilla, Alaska billing sexual assault victims for the cost of rape kits and forensic examinations during Palin's tenure as mayor of the town are deflected by the McCain campaign, as have most inquiries about a suspicious firing of Alaska's Public Safety Commissioner in July of this year.
The McCain campaign has treated the relationship between Palin and the media much the same way that Angelina Jolie's publicist probably views the paparazzi (Davis said the media should treat her with "deference"), which is odd considering the oft-invoked criticism of Obama's "celebrity" status. But the addition of Palin to the ticket was never about her readiness to lead or her maverick tendencies.
The real explanation behind the selection could always be found on a demographic chart containing information about white women. What McCain and Palin are surely discovering, however, is that issues will always surface in a campaign and, when they do, lies and hypocrisy are often exposed.
Reach columnist Tom Kludt at Tom.Kludt@usd.edu.
Be the first to comment on this article!