There’s That Sharper Microscope

I was at a party last night at which there were in attendance a number of journalists from Outside news sources who’d been sent up by their respective editors to answer a number of questions, key among which, of course, is: Who Is Sarah Palin?

As we sat around the table hashing out the rumors, the known facts, the positives, the negatives and the conspiracy theories, it dawned on me just how glad I am that it’s not my job to sift through this mountain of information in search of the truth.

Also? Boy howdy, is this going to be an ugly election.

Here’s the thing, though: It’s been an ugly election all along. It got ugly the second Barack Obama entered the race. Except in Obama’s case, there were no whispers about bad parenting or marital infidelity. In Obama’s case, it’s been accusations of anti-patriotism, of failure to be adequately American. It’s remarks about his being a Muslim or a terrorist sympathizer or the fact that his middle name is also the last name of a deposed dictator (which, by the way? Really effing mature, people. Hey, I have a friend named Adolf. Want to get together and accuse him of attempting to exterminate the world’s Jewish population? It’ll be hysterical!), or the references to him as “Osama” (get it? Because he hates America! Hates it so much he’s willing to be sacrificed on the altar of public opinion trying to make it a better place!).

It was ugly when Hillary was in it, too, but for some reason the same people who think it’s okay to tear down Hillary Clinton are the first to cry sexism when the same manner of remarks are made about Sarah Palin. I’m not saying some people aren’t being sexist in their treatment of Sarah Palin. I’m saying she’s not the first or only candidate in this race to encounter narrow-mindedness and bigotry. It’s just that, as far as I can tell, the McCain campaign hasn’t taken much of an interest in sexism until now.

There’s a letter bumping around the Intertubes written by a woman from the Valley named Anne Kilkenny. She has history with Palin and is critical of her. And as you can see from the comments, a lot of people who disagree with her are writing her off as being petty and jealous — you know, the way women are, with all our hormones and whatnot. A number of commenters and e-mailers said similar things to me over the weekend when I posted about Palin misnomers. Do men get called “jealous” when they criticize male candidates? Of course not. That’s politics. But for a woman to offer her opinion on a female politician — that’s a catfight? I don’t think so, kids.

For the record, I’m not jealous of Sarah Palin. I’m not a fan, but I’m certainly not envious of anyone who runs for public office, particularly at the level at which she’s running. I’m not interested in having my every move dissected by the public, thank you very much. And I wouldn’t care to take the kind of abuse politicians take on a regular basis.

And while we’re on the subject — about that abuse? There’s a difference between legitimate criticism and/or questioning of a candidate’s record and making unfair attacks. Looking into Sarah Palin’s background as a mayor, governor and citizen is not an unfair attack. That’s called reporting, and it’s the media’s responsibility to do it. Do the American people need to know if she asked what it would take to ban certain books from the Wasilla public library? You’re damned right they do. She’s running for Vice-President of the United States. Her philosophy on the reach and applicability of the First Amendment to the Constitution of said United States is, in fact, a relevant consideration.

On one hand, the underhanded comments and cheap shots ought to stop — on all sides. They don’t get us anywhere. But please, America, don’t insult women by handling Sarah Palin with kid gloves just because she’s pretty and she’s got young kids. And don’t demean those of us who don’t support her by chalking up our disagreement to jealousy or cattiness. I disagree with Sarah Palin’s politics. I also think she has lousy taste in shoes, but that’s not why I don’t want to send her to Washington. (I hate the way Hillary Clinton dresses, but I’d still vote for her in a heartbeat, given the opportunity.)

Sarah Palin threw down the gauntlet in her speech on Wednesday night. She says she’s ready for the big game. I say let her play hardball. But don’t criticize the press (or the public) for bringing the heat. There’s no crying in baseball.

Or, you know, you can ignore me and take it straight from the horse’s mouth:



******

UPDATE: Here's an anecdote from James Rainey of the Los Angeles Times that sums it up better than I did:

We heard it for the second day running Wednesday. The Republicans devoted much of their energy to knocking down the mythical, monolithic "media." A group of Republican women led by Carly Fiorina faced down a room full of reporters at the convention center here and demanded that the Palin "smears" stop.

Former Massachusetts Gov. Jane Swift, in particular, railed about the unfairness of it all. I thought maybe I had missed something, so I followed Swift into the hallway.

I asked her to name the legitimate news outlet that had smeared McCain's running mate. Swift looked crestfallen.

"Well, the Daily Kos," she finally offered, citing the blog where political lefties go to post their rants.

"How about one big mainstream news organization?" I prodded. "There must be one that has smeared Gov. Palin."

Swift seemed confused. She looked toward an aide. Surrounded by a scrum of reporters, she lowered her head and moved away.

That's because partisans don't feel one iota of guilt about damaging the press, one of our most important institutions, if it helps them rouse their core supporters. Why not slam all the media for smearing Sarah Palin, rather than single out the tabloids or blogs that have earned the derision?