Campaign Desk

02:24 PM - November 13, 2009

Sarah Palin: Just Not That Popular

Continetti’s unpersuasive pitch for a Palin comeback

A similar model recently worked for Bob McDonnell in Virginia, Continetti writes, and it could work for Palin on the national stage. And who knows? If the economy remains bad enough for long enough, maybe it could. But evidence that Palin will actually choose this approach is… scarce. Bob McDonnell may have written a controversial graduate thesis a couple decades ago, but he didn’t write a campaign biography called Going Rogue. And if Palin were going to recast herself as Continetti suggests, it’s hard to imagine she would have, either.

One Page
1
2

Greg Marx is a CJR staff writer. Follow him on Twitter @gregamarx.

Comments Post a Comment

There seem to be some words missing from the part where he blames "horrendous media coverage." What he meant, I assume, was "horrendous media performance, despite tightly controlled, carefully orchestrated coverage."

#1 Posted by Mollie, CJR on Fri 13 Nov 2009 at 09:44 PM

CJR trashing Palin again? Why even bother - we already know what you're going to write about her or any Republican. And of course you had to toss in another gratuitous reference to Bob McDonnell's 20-year-old thesis.

Here's a newsflash, Greg: The Washington Post's campaign (and it was a carefully orchestrated strategy involving numerous staff members and editorial writers) to discredit McDonnell utterly failed because voters recognized the Post's hypocrisy. Just as we recognize your hypocrisy in focusing only on negatives for conservatives and positives for liberal candidates.

Don’t you find it dull to be so predictable?

#2 Posted by JLD, CJR on Sat 14 Nov 2009 at 02:31 AM

Mrs. Palin isn't unpopular because she was McCain's PITBULL....she just came across as a natural maroon.

#3 Posted by DEO, CJR on Sun 15 Nov 2009 at 10:15 AM

The POST tried to discredit McDonnell? ... When was that... oh yeah, when they pointed out that his 20 page transportation plan had already been rejected by both Republican and Democratic houses in the past.. and his '30 year old paper' was followed by a 20 year effort in the state's legislative body to install a USA version of Shi-ite Islamic law. Oh that..... Yeah.. okay. That was the Post's fault. right. Typical of Republican whiners... when the press presents an unhappy truth - they have an undergone an 'orchestrated strategy to discredit' their favorite son.. and they whine 'liberal bias'. If you want real bias, stick with Fox and the Journal.

#4 Posted by Larry Eldridge, CJR on Sun 15 Nov 2009 at 10:06 PM

I am not sure that independents will want to vote for a known quitter - this also means you Newt Gingrich and Trent Lott. If they do consider it, you have to spend a LOT more time vetting her VP nomination as you never know if she will "resign" when the heat gets ramped up.

#5 Posted by EndTheEcho, CJR on Sun 15 Nov 2009 at 11:08 PM

@Larry: Does that Kool-aid taste good? McDonnell installing Sharia law? You might want to take your head out of the Democratic Underground sewer. Fox at its worst doesn't produce garbage like that.

Meanwhile in real life, McDonnell won handily. Who's the whiner, Larry?

#6 Posted by JLD, CJR on Mon 16 Nov 2009 at 08:07 AM

Remember when CJR was supposed to be about journalism and not just another lefty attack on Palin?

#7 Posted by Dan Gainor, CJR on Mon 16 Nov 2009 at 09:13 AM

Hi Dan,

Thanks for reading, and for the comment. I've been writing about Palin a lot lately because she's in the news a lot, and because I think many journalists and news organizations are devoting more attention to her political future than is warranted. News attention is to some extent zero-sum; too much focus on Palin means not enough focus on something else. So to my mind, I am writing about "journalism" here.

#8 Posted by greg marx, CJR on Mon 16 Nov 2009 at 10:56 AM

Sarah Palin, whatever her shortcomings, had in 2008 (and continues to have, though it is ebbing) an air of authenticity lacking in machine-tooled national politicians. That was what made her something of a grassroots sensation in the red states. Her speech, bearing, and even family troubles were refreshingly down-to-earth to a lot of people who don't get their instructions on how to be hip from the usual media sources.

As time passes, Palin grows a little more calculating, a little more media-packaged, of course. "The only true currency in this bankrupt world is what you share when you're not being cool." - 'Almost Famous' (2000).

Urban-oriented reporters like to celebrate honesty and authenticity in liberal-left politicians, often with a 'Mr. Smith Goes to Washington' shout-out. But it's condemned in conservative politicians in the banal terms seen on this thread. If Palin had been a Democratic VP nominee (like, oh, Geraldine Ferraro, perhaps?), inexperienced but from an urban background, her 'faults' would have become virtues. Come to think of it, Ferraro later complained about 'minders' from the Mondale camp being too bossy toward her and trying to remold her during the 1984 campaign. I seldom see coverage of Palin put in the context of Ferraro - or, for that matter of the Democratic VP of just four years earlier, the fragrant John Edwards. Gee, I wonder why?

#9 Posted by Mark Richard, CJR on Mon 16 Nov 2009 at 12:53 PM

I got the same "air of authenticity" from Palin initially, but I never did have a sense that she could actually accomplish anything, beyond entertainment. Other politicians who've impressed me in this way are Ross Perot and Barack Obama.

I don't think it matters much once the candidate gets into office. As far as I can tell, Washington D.C. is a well maintained political machine, designed to obtain money for officeholders in exchange for a chance at bending the law into shapes that make it easier for the "donors" to make money.

Any fool who believes that a single officeholder can change this--or any aspect of the US Federal Government can just go on being a fool. I do believe, though, that we ought to come out and tell our children what's actually going on. It doesn't have to be snarky, or vicious. The plain truth will do.

Corporations get their interests served first because they have more money and more time to occupy the time of the Congress.

#10 Posted by Brad Morrison, CJR on Tue 17 Nov 2009 at 08:42 AM

@Mark Richard,

Can you elaborate on the Edwards comparison? My sense, off the top of my head, was that the media narrative about him was about his calculated efforts to cultivate an "air of authenticity," not its actual presence. I remember a lot of eye-rolling about his frequent mention of his blue-collar upbringing. But if you've got a different read, I'd be interested to hear it.

#11 Posted by greg marx, CJR on Tue 17 Nov 2009 at 01:20 PM

The MSM defended their lack of coverage of the Edwards scandal because he was a "private citizen" who no longer held office. No such qualms about Sarah are in evidence. It's full-on attack mode, once again.

So here in my hotel in Beijing (on the day Obama is visiting) I am treated to a 5 minute segment on CNN featuring Levi Johnson.

This is not news, it's a hit job.

#12 Posted by JLD, CJR on Tue 17 Nov 2009 at 08:50 PM

The other obvious point to make re: Edwards / Palin is that Palin is herself innocent of any transgression while Edwards is an acknowledged liar and adulterer who possibly used campaign funds to bribe his mistress all the while having an out of wedlock child while his wife was getting treated for cancer.

So while Palin is innocent and dragged through the mud, Edwards is guilty as hell and given a free pass.

Other than that, I guess the MSM treated the two VP candidates the same.

#13 Posted by JLD, CJR on Tue 17 Nov 2009 at 09:17 PM

Greg,

I don't have the memory that the media narrative of Edwards in 2005-07 is similar to the one that might prevail today. I think your sense might be colored by the subsequent exposure of Edwards' true persona, and I do have some evidence to the contrary. It's true that conservative organs portrayed Edwards as calculating, but this theme was not taken up as a framing device by mainstream journalists, and there are some examples.

One was an incredible cover story in TIME (August 31, 2007) by Eric Pooley. Pooley, who remains quite prominent in corporate journalism circles, excused Edwards' investment in a tax shelter that foreclosed on Hurricane Katrina victims' homes - even as Edwards was opening his campaign oozing sympathy with New Orleans residents - on the grounds that Edwards' left-wing political views were not self-aggrandizing, since he didn't stand to profit from them; by the same standard, any family-values conservative can be defended for sexual peccadillos. (And by Pooley's ethical test, Al Gore is a villain because he does in fact stand to gain materially from adoption of his policy prescriptions, being heavily invested in 'green technology' companies.) I don't recall reporters belaboring Edwards about this matter, in coverage or in the series of Democratic debates, except in a mild no-follow-up-questions manner. Economic hypocrisy is something from which MSM reporters regualarly avert their eyes, since it is often rich politicians who are denouncing 'the rich' - really, covertly, the desire to get rich on the part of upstarts. That's another story, but it is a subtext of the soft coverage of Edwards . . . By contrast, Palin's expected income from her book is a staple of her coverage. Fair enough. But the story of Edwards' big carbon-eating post-2004 house was covered perfunctorily, compared to say, the material trappings that are associated with Palin.

Throughout the run-up to the 2008 primaries, no television piece about Edwards on the morning shows was complete without a segment on the Edwards' strong marriage, and John and Elizabeth's anniversary dinner at Wendy's. You saw them, and so did I. Did nobody have an inkling of how phony this pair came across - even to the point of cynically using their son's death to gain sympathy? No Republican could have gotten away with that; I expect that few people know that Bush 41 and his wife lost a child in infancy, because they had too much class to shop a family tragedy around for votes from the Oprah crowd. Elizabeth Edwards had already, in 2004, made some snarky comments about the Cheney family and their daughter Mary's sexual orientation, but the MSM overlooked this part of her personality because of her cancer diagnosis, I suppose. CBS has devoted quite a lot of time to Levi Johnson, compared to trying to 'get' Rielle Hunter in an interview, to cite one example of investigative reporting (lol) on the family lives of politicians. They had the story of Palin's daughter's pregnancy faster than the speed of light, but resisted devoting resources to Edwards and Rielle Hunter, even when Edwards was still seen as a retread VP possibility in the summer of 2008.

Just before the Iowa caucuses, NEWSWEEK ran a respectful cover story on Edwards, calling him 'The Sleeper'. This was a guy who won almost nothing in the 2004 primaries, and added not a single state for the Kerry-Edwards ticket, including his own - but find me that story that treated Edwards as a narcissistic figure of satire, as was the subtext with Dan Quayle or is with Sarah Palin. (What isn't written in the MSM is as revealing as what is.) This in spite of the 'I Feel Pretty' video and the tale of Edwards' jaw-dropping 'I've never told anyone this before' story about his late son to John Kerry, when Kerry knew Edwards had in fact told the story before - to him. One southern editor did write a story during the primary season flatly calling Edwards a phony, and

#14 Posted by Mark Richard, CJR on Wed 18 Nov 2009 at 02:00 PM

???
They covered it. Then they covered it again when they found out it was his kid. And they covered it when he promised to marry her and have Dave Matthews play at their wedding. And his wife went on the view to talk about it. and....

Please, for the love of god, stop..

Also, on Edwards in 2004, people were casting him as a pretty boy who lacked experience and had a slippery tongue.
And theere was the infamous talking point "John Kerry and John Edwards are the 1st and 4th most liberal members of the senate".
Most of the attacks were focused on Kerry's swift boat record and "flip flopping". Kerry kept Edwards back from the media because he wanted to take the high road which equated to taking punches from the Karl Rove dirty tricks machine.
Oh god, this whole thing is stupid.

#15 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Wed 18 Nov 2009 at 02:21 PM