If it’s plain as plain as a clear sky over the prairies that Sarah Palin is completely unqualified for VP–you’d think Danielle Crittenden would include at least one or two reasons in this column. Maybe she ran out of space, since she spent a good 500 words describing her own background. (Which was interesting, don’t get me wrong.)
Not compelling though, on why I’m supposed to think Palin is incompetent.
Tanya adds: Funny that you’d blog on this, Andrea. I was just watching this clip this morning. The real question that no one seems to be able to answer: “Name the most significant thing Barack Obama has done –” Or, more specifically: “what’s he done other than run for president from the day he graduated from Harvard Law School? ” But Palin, running for VP, is unqualified. Of course.
Andrea adds: Oh but Tanya–don’t bore Crittenden with thoughts like that! (“The other side doesn’t have experience either!”) For she tells us, “That’s an argument you can make without having graduated from elementary school.”
She may not be part of that snobbish “elite.” She is, with this piece, imitating them rather well, however.
Rebecca would like to draw our attention to Michael Novak on Palin, and Palin-bashing:
I wonder if most of the people who are today dissing Sarah Palin, at least among a few conservatives I greatly admire, are more accustomed to debating highly educated liberals. Could it be that they understand the diction of journalism and the academy better than they understand the speech of most of America?”
I think he’s onto something. More than a liberal or conservative echo chamber, I think what’s going on here is the politics-junkie echo chamber. The world of people who spend most of their time thinking about, writing about or practicing politics is fairly small, and as with any group who share an intense but narrow interest, it’s easy to forget that the rest of world thinks and works differently.by