NY Times Fillets Sarah Barracuda. Now Will Obama Bite Back? - GET POLITICAL w/ VIC LIVINGSTON
• Barack should listen to Biden and call up Hillary as replacement VP
The New York Times, in a Sunday front page story, is doing the vetting on Sarah Palin that John McCain either did not do, or did not care to do -- and that the rest of the mainstream media seems fearful of doing, lest they be accused of engaging in a "sexist" piling on.
Even Washington Post media critic Howard Kurtz has sprung to Palin's defense, castigating his journalistic brethern on CNN's Lou Dobbs show for their treatment of Palin.
Yet it could be reasonably argued that outside of the Sunday Times piece, and some professorial old-school interrogation by Charlie Gibson of ABC News, the treatment of Palin by the mainstream media has been overly genteel to the point of cowardice.
Even Gibson failed to follow up on some key points, such as Palin's views about intelligence failures leading up to the decision to invade Iraq.
Howie, we thought we knew ye... Has the McCain camp's voodoo gotten to you?
This is a potential president of the United States we're talking about. The Times is doing the job that major media outlets should be doing -- "without fear or favor," as the saying goes.
According to the Times account, Gov. Palin engaged in cronyism and used her office to settle personal scores and wage vendettas against her enemies; employed a $68K per year assistant who was referred to by her staff as the "babysitter"; and spent nearly a whole year of her year-and-a-half tenure as governor at her Wasilla home -- playing gubernatorial hookey so often that members of the state legislature took to wearing lapel pins asking, "Where's Sarah?"
The article also related how Palin's husband Todd, elected by no one, often acts as the Governor's hatchet man. Example: The Times piece maintains that Alaska's First Mate sought retribution against a former Palin high-school classmate (who later became an aide to Palin) upon the subsequent hiring of the old acquaintance by a political rival.
The Times piece implies that Todd did it out of spite, but leaves it to the reader to surmise just what he might have been spiteful about.
Todd Palin, of course, has been subpoenaed by state investigators probing "Troopergate," in which Palin is accused of firing her public safety director when he refused to fire Palin's former brother-in-law, a state trooper who was involved in a messy divorce with Palin's sister. (Palin denies that her former brother-in-law was the reason for the termination, a claim disputed by the fired official.)
The big question now is whether the Obama-Biden campaign will incorporate these revelations into campaign ads -- or whether they will sit back passively and fail to attack, fearful of being accused of bias or sexism.
Such a posture is reverse sexism at its worst; would the Obama camp -- or the mainstream media -- extend the same courtesies to a male candidate for vice president?
Even talk jockeys at progressive-lib Air America radio are calling out the Obama campaign for their gutlessness; who woulda thunk it?
McCain's selection of Palin -- if indeed it was his idea to put her on the ticket in the first place -- speaks volumes about his judgment and calls into question not just McCain's vetting process, but the wisdom of his decision-making and the independence of his thought processes.
Can a "maverick" also be a marionette? And just who is pulling the strings?
Politico.com did an interesting piece the other day about how Bush operatives and former corporate lobbyists permeate the McCain camp and his Senate office.
Few average Americans in flyover country read The New York Times. Will the Obama campaign see to it that the revelations of the Sunday Times piece are fully aired nationwide as the subject of take-no-prisoners political advertising -- you know, the kind of ads the McCain campaign is doing against them?
Or will the Obama camp continue to cower, fearful of being accused by Palin apologists as "mean" or "sexist"?
Depending on the rest of the mainstream media to publicize these revelations would be a grave strategic error, so great has been their deference to the GOP's first female candidate for national office.
And where is the attack dog Joe Biden on this? Will he step up? If he won't get out there and mix it up, he should consider a strategic withdraw to clear the way for Hillary to do battle with the GOP's VP marvel -- as the only potent antidote to Palin-mania.
Perhaps that's his plan: He did remark last week that Hillary would have been a better VP pick than he. On Monday morning, Obama explained away Biden's comment as self-deprecation -- just Joe being Joe. But Obama never directly answered the question: Was Biden right? And if so, would Obama heed his words and ask Biden to step aside, clearing the way for the a Palin counter-force -- Hillary Clinton as his replacement running mate?
If Obama really wants to win, perhaps he should take Joe at his word, and act on it. If Obama-Clinton were to win the White House, Biden would be a true power behind the throne. And if the Dems suffer another presidential meltdown, a Biden withdrawal would inoculate the long-time Delaware senator against having to shoulder some of the blame -- a preferable alternative to becoming a three-time presidential campaign loser.
But for now, Obama's sticking with Biden, who has yet to mount a full frontal assault on Sarah Palin. Nor has the Obama campaign's advertising honed in on Palin's vulnerabilities. That could soon change as the mainstream media starts to react to charges that it's gone soft on Palin over fears of being labeled as "sexist."
Amy Poehler's "Hillary" on NBC's Saturday Night Live openly mocked the Fourth Estate, offering to "lend them my set." With an invitation like that, perhaps the Obama campaign finally will feel emboldened to give as good as it gets from Sarah Barracuda.
TO: Mssrs. CHERTOFF, MUKASEY, PAULSON, GATES, McCONNELL, MUELLER
"GOV'T AGENCIES SUPPORT DOMESTIC TERRORISM"
What do you know about this, and what are you doing about it?