Joan Smith: Be afraid – Palin's weaknesses are her strength
Sunday, 5 October 2008
It was like watching a sleek Afghan hound compete for best-in-show with a shamelessly winsome mongrel. From the moment Sarah Palin surged on to the stage and grasped his hand, asking if she could call him by his first name, Joe Biden seemed mesmerised by the showy antics of his rival for the vice-presidency. Ms Palin smiled, winked, invoked the deity – when this woman mentions God, it sounds as if she's talking about one of her neighbours – and name-checked a school class back home in Alaska. She described herself for the umpteenth time as a "hockey mum" and used cringe-making folksy phrases like "betcha" and "doggone it". Poor Senator Biden forced a smile, looking as if he could scarcely believe what he was hearing, and doggedly attacked the Republicans' presidential candidate, John McCain, instead of turning his fire directly on Ms Palin.
As I watched this unequal contest, I was reminded of the late Andrea Dworkin's description of right-wing women as "ludicrous, terrifying [and] bizarre". On Thursday night, Ms Palin got all sorts of things wrong, including the name of the top American commander in Afghanistan; she repeatedly failed to answer questions, diverting into areas she had been prepped to handle when she was being coached for the televised debate. It didn't matter. Widely predicted to fall flat on her face, all Ms Palin had to do was what she does best: presenting herself as the antithesis of the suave intellectual on the other side of the stage.
Mr McCain did not pick her as his running mate in order to appeal to sophisticated, liberal, educated Americans. He chose her to fill the gaps in his own CV (not least the God-shaped one); to stun the Democrats after their rejection of Hillary Clinton; and to bring on board millions of Americans who feel excluded from traditional political discourse. I don't suppose they could name General David McKiernan either, but they love it when she lines up with them as an outsider who's perplexed and offended by the elitism of America's governing class. Her target audience lapped it up last week, blogging that she had wiped the floor with Mr Biden; she didn't, but the reaction says a great deal about the kind of visceral, vengeful, anti-intellectual fantasies her rhetoric stirs up.
It's true that Mr McCain took a big risk when he chose her, but I fear that people on the centre-left have been too quick to write her off. Something similar happened in this country in the 1970s, when traditional Tories scoffed at Margaret Thatcher's challenge to Ted Heath, and look where that got us. Mr McCain is still trailing Barack Obama, and the conventional wisdom is that he's handled the current financial turmoil less deftly than his rival. But for every American who assumes people won't vote for Mr McCain in case they end up with President Palin, I suspect there's another who loves the idea. This is a woman who is ruthless in her pursuit of power, but she disguises it with displays of femininity and a kind of studied ordinariness. Hockey mums are nothing to be afraid of, after all, and Mr Biden has nothing worse to complain about than being smothered in blancmange.
Ms Palin might have had a trickier time if her opponent had been Hillary Clinton. To feminists, she is a familiar type, a right-wing woman who flatters men by reflecting their views back in even more extreme form. She's not going to upset the status quo and she's even mildly sexy, which gives her a unique selling point. The Democrats should be worried: Sarah Palin is at once the most ridiculous and the scariest woman on the planet.
-
Print Article
-
Email Article
-
Click here for copyright permissions
Copyright 2008 Independent News and Media Limited




Comments
117 Comments
"They see Obama as a Harvard educated Lawyer juxtaposed ..."
No he's the Reverend Jim Jones with a law degree.
Harvard education? He was editor of the Harvard Law Review without ever publishing? He taught at college without publishing so remained a lecturer. Do check up his record rather than reading what he writes on his cv or have you drunk too much Kool-aid?
Posted by Tyke | 08.10.08, 20:02 GMT
Bob T, you've hot the nail right on the head there! That's why many people aren't too sure of specifically why they are defending her. Could also be why some posters on here bring it down to class.
They see Obama as a Harvard educated Lawyer juxtaposed with Palin self-proclaimed Hockey mom, uses the folksey phrases, winks etc. and any critique of her character and 'folkeyness' becomes a critique of theirs...
Tod - if you're still around? Having an open mind means that I didn't just automatically like or dislike her because of my personal political preference like some commentators have. When the individual policies come up then you can weigh them against your own political preferences, but basing on the two VP candidates overall performance, I still feel I had an open mind.
Posted by Sara | 07.10.08, 09:55 GMT
And if you don't know what "NOW" is...well, look it up. Seemingly, many of you and yours need to learn not only history, but present as well....
Posted by TripleRLtd | 07.10.08, 09:53 GMT
Cont'd:
Well, it's becoming increasingly obvious that you can NOT get real news from pubs such as the "Independent". Frankly, I can not get over the irony of the name: "Independent"! That is the ultimate proof of the "indie's" lack of independence, and how they've caved in to partisan politics: I suppose the radical/new/feminist/gay/labour party makes up ALL the Indies sponsors...no less writers?
Bot T: your arogance speaks volumes! This is an example of why the NOW types never "connected" with the majority of women. This (YOU and the op-ed writers of the Irrelevant) is also an example of why radical liberal so called Democrats continue to turn away "wannabe" (REAL) liberal democrats who are tired of the conservative party. Frankly sir, you are your worst enemies. No wonder you lose more often than win. And with a perpetual majority in the voting populace, THIS, in fact, speaks volumes....
Posted by TripleRLtd | 07.10.08, 09:49 GMT
Novelty?
Well "golly geesh" Bot T, you've reaveled yourself now as a typical Irrelevant ultra liberal for everyone here on this blog to "see" and read. But then again, HERE you do have "voice"... on The Irrelevant such as it is.
"Complicated"?
You have no idea. The various conspiracy theories are your own "humiliation". In other words, they reveal nothing more than your own bias, and your own frustration, and, if I may say so, your own humiliation. Frankly, I have no idea where, when, or by whom that humiliation occurred to you and yours, but the first step out of indoctrination is to admit your malady. Then it's on you to actually read up on ALL the news. BUT, don't stop there!
Why?
ps: "Bot" was not a typo. ;)
Posted by TripleRLtd | 07.10.08, 09:48 GMT
I think this not so complicated - the novelty and cleverness of Palins appointment is in the way that ordinary people and not so ordinary women can regard her as one of them so an attack on her becomes an attack on them, her humiliation becomes their humiliation; her humiliator becomes their humiliator. Of course while this is fine and dandy for winning the election the problem comes when she has to take over from McCain
Posted by Bob T | 07.10.08, 08:50 GMT
This, for instance is only ONE unbiased view of the Independent:
>"While The Independent claims to represent contrasting political opinions, hosting right-wing columnists such as Bruce Anderson and Dominic Lawson, its politics are probably the most left-wing of any national British daily."
Enough said?
....
Posted by TripleRLtd | 07.10.08, 06:11 GMT
First.. there was that Brit "trader" in con games.
Then there was the French one.
And these were the only two who were actually caught.
NOW?
Now, we've ALL been caught "out there"...running with, AND condoning, the proverbial "pack". All the while trying to get our own slice of the pie.
But now the left and right are trying to place blame????
We ALL stand accused.
But what is worse, IMHO, is this conservative woman, from that "same small town in each of us", is now being tarred and feathered as some sort of future Saddam/Hitler/Napoleon/Stalin sort.
And all for political gain!!!!????
Frankly, there are many liberals right now who should be ashamed of themselves. And "The Independent" seems to be leading the way, along with many of their op-ed writers, be it radical feminists and/or radical socialist gay, or, the editorial staff, or the ownership. After all, someone actually approves of this hyperbole. And some really believe it.
We are ALL in trouble...
Posted by TripleRLtd | 07.10.08, 05:57 GMT
These are some sage words written a while back, by an ultra-serious Democratic Liberal no less. I'll quote them now (a bit out of order, but sage nonetheless):
"... who knows how long this will last?
Now we've come so far, so fast.
BUT, somewhere back there in the dust:
THAT SAME SMALL TOWN IN EACH OF US.
...Armchair warriors often fail
And we've been poisoned by these fairy tales
(But) The lawyers clean up all details..."
>Or the bankers....
That said, you can ALL offer up your best defense, but the truth is that we ALL screwed up. Yes, ALL of us. EVERY nation!
It's called avarice:
"...: excessive or insatiable desire for wealth or gain."
Frankly, that is NOT an attribute solely associated with Americans, and/or some sort of "Anglo/American" model (as stated by Mary Dejevsky).
...continued.
Posted by TripleRLtd | 07.10.08, 05:42 GMT
@:
"Whatever the Media dupes you with, you swallow! Why?"
Posted by Errol Flynn | 06.10.08, 09:24 GMT
>Umm, you do realize that this is the Irrelevant, right? You know: leftist, feminist, socialist writing and opinions to the freaking hilt. No?
And then YOU post something like that?
Who are you, really? John Smith herself?
Get a grip man, and actually read the op-ed's in this rag, AND the comments directed at their comrades. THEN come back with a realistic comment with your concomitant ridicule....
Posted by TripleRLtd | 07.10.08, 02:53 GMT
117 Comments