Scrutinizing Sarah Palin

In her first public interview with ABC's Charles Gibson, Palin clearly had the tenacity to fight for her vice-presidential nomination but her obscurity about where she stands on the Bush Doctrine elucidated her lack of experience and knowledge. She fumbled around the questions to push her agenda instead of providing a "straight-talk" answer. Some argue that the press has been going after her unfairly, but we're talking about a vice-presidential nominee here and, come on, would that argument really stand if we were talking about Hillary Clinton? The reporter's mild-mannered but poignant questioning voiced concerns of both the media and Americans. He asked questions Palin should have been obliged to answer. Palin didn't firmly state that she agreed or disagreed with Bush's policy and attempted to bring the interview back to McCain, but that hindered her still. Did she even know what it was? This late in the game she has to be transparent, just like the media, or else we'll have a field day and she'll only have brought it upon herself. 

Back to Hoyt, though, who said: "Let's face it, the press and the campaign have two different roles. The campaign is trying to sell a candidate, to package a candidate and to present her to the American people. The press has a job to find out who this person is and what this person's character is, and what this person's background and record are, and the to fill out the picture for the American people." Go Fourth Estate!

With the election about seven weeks away, the American people need to know whether or not they can expect a significant change in the country come January. I disagree with what some critics say is an attack on Palin because she is a woman. Nobody was hesitant to ask Hillary Clinton tough questions nor did they criticize the media's motives when asking her questions about experience. Nor was anybody hesitant to grill Joe Biden. I don't think it is the media's job to protect a potential vice-president when it is the vice-president's job to help lead the Free World. Palin was relatively unknown and the press is gradually uncovering facts about her that may or may not have been known previously. Certainly these facts weren't known to the masses as they are now. Maybe that is where McCain faltered when he chose someone who is less experienced. Of course the press is going to be critical because it has to act as a watchdog.

On the McCain website, Palin has the tagline "A Fresh Perspective." The major "fresh perspective" I can think of is that she is a woman. So much for not making the campaign about race or gender. Other than that, her own policies and beliefs as the governor of Alaska are very conservative. She was chosen to balance McCain's liberal conservatism and is now being called a "maverick" by association. McCain was probably one of the better Republicans for the job, but in the eyes of liberals he probably did himself a great disservice by choosing Palin despite a boost in recent polls. Maybe it was a maverick move on his part to choose a woman for vice-president--it hadn't been done in a major party since the Mondale-Ferraro ticket in 1984. But he chose an ultra-conservative, which, to me, negates his own more liberal views and plays into Obama's "more of the same" mantra. McCain chose someone who would appease his party not someone who would appease the country.

Credits: Images from Palin's bio page on gov.state.ak.us; Clark Hoyt, nytimes.com; Palin's shoes during speech, gettyimages.com; Sarah Palin and John McCain, gettyimages.com