Mark Whitaker, the Washington Bureau Chief for NBC News, has a column up on msnbc.com entitled "Spare Sarah Palin the Self-Righteousness," in which he argues that the media commentary on Palin, her new book, and her qualifications to be a viable Presidential candidate in 2012 has been "ridiculous." What follows in his article is some of the more vapid, baseless complaints about the media's role in covering Palin that I've read in quite some time.
Whitaker opens the article by labeling the recent media coverage of Palin as "more than a little selective, and hypocritical." He then goes on for a page -- not describing how said media coverage has been selective or hypocritical -- but instead just describing how there was infighting between the McCain and Palin camps after the 2008 election, how her book slams McCain's aides, and how Palin tiptoed around answering Oprah's questions about her 2012 aspirations. All that stuff may be true, but it says nothing about how media coverage of her has been "selective" or "hypocritical."
Ah, but then, we get to page 2! Now, here's where those charges come in:
Still, the widespread suggestion in some of the media commentary that she simply isn’t qualified enough to be considered a viable presidential candidate is ridiculous.
Whitaker complains that it's ridiculous that "some" in the media have suggested that Palin is unqualified to be a serious contender for the Presidency. He doesn't identify who that "some" is, but more importantly, he doesn't explain why such an observation is ridiculous. Instead, he just offers the following groundless speculation of sexism:
For male politicians, it’s always been a rule of thumb in politics and the media that once you were on a presidential ticket, you were automatically elevated onto the short list of contenders for future races.
If George H.W. Bush had lost in 1988, does anyone think Dan Quayle would not have been talked about as a potential candidate for 1992, even with all the political flaws he revealed in that race? Would the media have taken John Edwards as seriously in 2008 if he hadn’t been John Kerry’s running mate in 2004?
Call it sexism or what you will, but why should the media only compare ambitious women to impressive men, when so many ambitious but underwhelming men get so far in this world?
I wonder why Whitaker is so quick to jump to the conclusion that if "some" in the media have criticized Palin for being unqualified for President, then it's because it must be sexism. He seems to be leaving out a few important facts about Palin, so I'll try to fill him in. If "some" people in the media have questioned her qualifications to be President, perhaps it's because:
- She dropped out of four colleges, graduating from the fifth one in six years.
- She completely failed to answer basic questions in interviews with Katie Couric like, "Which newspapers or news sources do you read?"
- When she was Mayor of Wasilla, she was not exactly the "fiscal conservative" she claimed to be, leaving the city $20 million in debt.
- She argued that because Alaska shared a "narrow maritime border with Russia," that she was a foreign policy expert.
- She lied about how she opposed pork spending for the Bridge to Nowhere, even though she more than happily took the money and then became magically opposed to it only when it became a national joke.
- While she was Governor of Alaska, she was under investigation for some serious ethical violations after she fired the state police chief when he refused to dismiss her brother-in-law. She was later found to have "unlawfully abused her authority."
- She quit her job as Governor so she could go chase millions on a book tour for a book that was ghostwritten by someone else.
- She has been spreading lie after lie after lie about how Obama wants to reform the health care system by creating "death panels" for senior citizens.
- She has argued that creationism should be taught in public schools.
- She has argued that global warming is not really man-made, when all of the scientific evidence says otherwise.
- She does nothing in her interviews except parrot right-wing talking points over and over and over again, as though the majority of Americans who didn't vote for her in the last election have forgotten just how discredited Republican policies are.
- Oh, and lest we all need a reminder, there was this:
Whitaker conveniently ignores that these reasons, among several others not listed here, might just explain why "some" in the media (not to mention 70% of Americans, according to the recent CNN/Opinion Research poll) think Palin is unqualified to serve as President of the United States. It has nothing to do with sexism -- it has everything to do with credibility and intelligence. John Edwards, for all of his faults, was considered a serious contender for the Presidency in 2008 because he at least showed during his campaign that he was well-informed, articulate, and passionate about the issues that voters were genuinely concerned about. Palin showed that she was the exact opposite: Intellectually incurious and ill-informed about foreign policy, energy policy, health care, and the economy -- except to say that she was a "maverick" on each of those things and that she hates taxes.
But my favorite part of Whitaker's column is this little gem near the end:
Is she qualified to be President? If she decides to run, that’s a judgment for voters to make, not us in the media.
Honestly, I love that line of thinking -- that the media should just leave the issue of Palin's qualifications (or lack thereof) alone and not expose them for what they are. That laundry list of criticisms I pointed out above? Nope, the media should keep quiet about all of that. The media's job isn't to criticize Sarah Palin for her right-wing views or for being unqualified for public office, but rather to repeat her distortions about "death panels," and why she thinks America is turning into a socialist hellhole, and why ACORN is ruining America from the inside, and why bringing Khalid-Sheikh Mohammed to New York City for trial is going to unleash terrorism on everybody. Oh, and to ask Palin some softball questions about her campaign wardrobe.
I will say that I happen to agree with Jeffrey Feldman's point on Wednesday about how progressives need to understand why Palin appeals to the far-right base. Sure, she's popular with conservatives, and sure, she could very well run in 2012 and win the Republican Party's nomination for President. But that still doesn't mean she's qualified to be President, nor does it mean that either voters or members of the media should treat her views as though they have any credibility.
Thank goodness I trust the majority of Americans to understand just how unqualified Palin truly is to be President, even if conservatives don't, and even if Mark Whitaker thinks we're all just being "ridiculous" and "sexist" by dismissing her credentials.