John on July 11, 2011 at 12:53 pm
“I believe that I can win a national election,” Sarah Palin declared one recent evening, sitting in the private dining room of a hotel in rural Iowa. The occasion for her visit to quintessential small-town America was a gathering of the faithful that would have instantaneously erupted into a fervent campaign rally had she but given the word. Instead, it had been another day on the non–campaign trail, this one capped by a sweet victory: she had just attended the premiere of a glowingly positive documentary about her titled The Undefeated.
“The people of America are desperate for positive change, and deserving of positive change, to get us off of this wrong track,” she told me during a conversation that lasted late into the night and, inevitably, kept returning to the subject that has titillated the media and spooked Republican presidential contenders for months: her political intentions. “I’m not so egotistical as to believe that it has to be me, or it can only be me, to turn things around,” she said. “But I do believe that I can win.”
I’m not sure she can win given the hysterical level of character assassination that prevails on the left, but it’s certainly possible that she could overcome that.
Why do I think so? For the same reasons Hillary could win a Senate seat in New York. A lot of voters don’t believe the negatives and even those who do don’t necessarily care. They recognize Hillary as one of their own. From their point of view, she had the right enemies. They connected with her on an emotional, almost spiritual level. The same it true for Palin. A lot of people, and I might include myself in this, would love to see her win just to give the finger to Charlie Gibson and Katie Couric and the rest of the media wrecking crew that tried to destroy a good woman for not being a liberal.
If she is gearing up for an announcement, I have to say this is one of the most disciplined roll outs I’ve ever seen. No leaks. No definite hints either way. She’s just stringing everyone along, making us wonder. If this is part of a campaign strategy, I’m already impressed.
Addendum: Jonathan Capehart says the cover photo is not presidential:
Folks want to be able to envision someone sitting in the Oval Office. They don’t necessarily want to envision them in the pages of Esquire magazine’s “Sexiest Woman Alive 2011” or Maxim. She can’t possibly be taken seriously as a presidential contender dressed like that, especially since this is the second time she has graced Newsweek in a less-than-presidential pose.
First of all, Capehart had to update his post to note that the previous instance of Palin in gym shorts was not a shot given to Newsweek by Palin. That was taken for a running magazine and they bought it without her knowledge. Second, Maxim? You mean like this?
Seriously, what does Maxim have to do with this? Yes, Palin looks healthy and downright sexy in that photo. Guess what? She’s healthy and sexy in real life. I’ve taken my own photos of her from 20-25 feet away. She’s a very attractive woman. You can’t not notice it and it does show up in photos.
But as I’ve been saying since literally the day after she was announced, her looks are both a blessing and a curse. Comparing that photo above to the Maxim cover is absurd, but liberals can’t seem to get used to the idea of a presidential (or vice presidential) candidate who looks like a woman who could sell magazines. (Capehart is gay so I’m not sure he’s Maxim’s target audience anyway.)
It sort of makes you wonder just how much liberals really respect women. They seem to have pretty clear categories, i.e. dowdy and serious or sexy and unserious. They’ve been working that attack on Palin from day one. Some of those attacks are downright disgusting.
Yes, Sarah is sexy, it’s just not all she is. Deal with it.
Update 2: To his credit, Capehart agrees the Maxim reference was over the line.
Category: Politics |