Somebody has to check this out for me. I don't pay much attention to right-wing media, but my mom does. And in the past couple of weeks, as I have forwarded her various commentary citing Sarah Palin, both directly and tangentially, mom has shot back a couple of times with comments like "When is the left going to stop talking about Sarah Palin?" and "They just can't seem to shut up about her."
The latest discussion on Palin was prompted by Thomas Frank's column in today's Wall Street Journal, "Poor, Perscuted Sarah Palin."
My mom is usually a bit smarter than this (she voted for Obama, after all), so I have to figure there's a new set of talking points making the rounds that Sarah Palin should be left alone. You know, like that guy with the YouTube video about Britney Spears.
The other thing that gives it the whiff of a GOP-sourced meme is that it makes no logical sense.
I mean, what person on the up-side of the lawn believes that it's the left that has the monopoly for fascinating on Sarah Palin? Palin could have gone quietly back to governing the state of Alaska. It was her choice to resign, and that's not something just any governor does. You pretty much have to get caught with a prostitute these days to do that. A disappearance to Argentina to dally with a mistress doesn't clear the bar.
And less than two weeks later, she publishes an op-ed in the Washington Post lending her, ehem, expertise on cap-and-trade. These are not the behaviors of someone who doesn't want to be talked about.
So when will the left stop talking about Palin? I'd say about the time the right stops talking about Hillary Clinton. The big difference is nobody on the left is publishing books about how Sarah Palin murdered Vince Foster.
Frank is right, of course, that Sarah Palin has played the victim card so expertly that it can't be coincidence. He makes the case that it was pre-ordained strategy. Before she even accepted the nomination as McCain's running mate at the GOP convention, Frank notes that Bill Kristol -- who, to date, continues as her biggest fan-boy -- penned a Weekly Standard piece that predicted Democrats would trash Palin and her white working class fan base.
And let's be clear: Kristol is not known for his predictive abilities. If he forecast something that came true, it was because he already knew the outcome.
But this nonetheless touched a nerve with white working class folks like my mom. She found Frank's column "very dismissive of her appeal to white working class Americans (the attitude seems to be, well what do you expect from these morons?)"
I just don't get it. Since when is having appeal to the white working class supposed to be some sort of shield of invincibility against criticism, like the Get Out Of Jail Free card in Monopoly or garlic against vampires? Velveeta has appeal to the white working class too, but I reserve the right to point out that it's nutritionless crap, and I won't apologize in the least for preferring smoked gouda. Same goes for my politicians. If they are intellectual lightweights with Foot in Mouth Disease masquerading behind a telegenic face and practiced poise, I expect it to be talked about robustly. Those who expect better shouldn't have to suspend their criticism just because the lightweight can win districts in Appalachia.
Someone needs to explain to me how the George W. Bushes and Sarah Palins of the political world aren't the ones doing the disservice to the white working class by talking down to them, dropping the g's from the end of words, blaming the media, blaming the liberals, blaming Michael Moore for victimizing them? Not that he is perfect, but at least Barack Obama talked to everyone like they were grown-ups. Call me a crazy idealist, but I'd like to think that refreshing change from our leader is one of the main reasons he got elected.