Editore"s Note
Tilting at Windmills

Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

September 24, 2008

SLAMMING MCCAIN FOR 'SEXIST' PALIN TREATMENT.... For a while, the McCain campaign, its allies, and its surrogates hoped to characterize any legitimate questions about Sarah Palin's readiness for national office by equating inquiries with misogyny. Last night, CNN's Campbell Brown decided to turn the tables, arguing that if anyone is demonstrating sexism in the presidential race, it's the McCain campaign. (via the Jed Report)

For those of you who can't watch clips from your work computers, Brown told viewers, "[F]rankly, I have had it, and I know a lot of other women out there are with me on this. I have had enough of the sexist treatment of Sarah Palin. It has to end. She was here in New York City today, meeting with world leaders at the U.N. And what did the McCain campaign do? They tried to ban reporters from covering those meetings. And they did ban reporters from asking Gov. Palin any questions.

"Tonight I call on the McCain campaign to stop treating Sarah Palin like she is a delicate flower that will wilt at any moment. This woman is from Alaska for crying out loud. She is strong. She is tough. She is confident. And you claim she is ready to be one heartbeat away from the presidency. If that is the case, then end this chauvinistic treatment of her now. Allow her to show her stuff. Allow her to face down those pesky reporters.... Let her have a real news conference with real questions. By treating Sarah Palin different from the other candidates in this race, you are not showing her the respect she deserves. Free Sarah Palin. Free her from the chauvinistic chains you are binding her with. Sexism in this campaign must come to an end. Sarah Palin has just as much a right to be a real candidate in this race as the men do. So let her act like one."

There are a couple of interesting angles to this. First, it's fair to say news outlets are growing increasingly outraged over the absurd efforts to shield Sarah Palin from media scrutiny. Yesterday's stunt at the U.N. seemed to push some journalists over the edge.

And second, Brown's point is a compelling one -- the McCain campaign is necessarily showing disrespect for Palin, by treating her as if she's less capable than other male candidates in the same position. McCain and his team are making it clear that they don't respect Palin, don't trust her, and don't believe she's capable enough for the rigors of, say, a press conference.

Sam Stein concluded, "Critical articles the campaign can handle.... But charges that the campaign is insulting women voters by shielding its vice presidential nominee from the press are powerful and persuasive, especially when they come from a well-known female news anchor."

I don't expect Brown's commentary to affect the McCain campaign's thinking -- they'll take the hit rather than take the risk -- but it's encouraging to see the backlash anyway.

Steve Benen 9:25 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (53)

Bookmark and Share
 
Comments

Very enjoyable. I hope the entire MSM picks up on this idea. Despite it all, today might just be a fun day to watch the circus, especially the elephants.

Posted by: ohcomeon on September 24, 2008 at 9:25 AM | PERMALINK

"by treating her as if she's less capable than other male candidates in the same position."

oh, she's less capable alright. but it has nothing to do with being a female. it has everything to being an uninformed, uniquisitive twit.

orange

Posted by: on September 24, 2008 at 9:28 AM | PERMALINK

I think it's obvious that the old media has its knickers in a twist because they're being stiffed, not because they give a shit about sexism. Faux outrage du jour.

But anyhoo, if Palin can't stand up to frickin' Campbell Brown, how can she stand up to Putin when she starts that war with Russia she wants?

Posted by: Racer X on September 24, 2008 at 9:29 AM | PERMALINK

I heard that when she was in New York Governor Palin accidentally walked too close to Times Square and learned how to sell crack cocaine by osmosis.

Posted by: pj in jesusland on September 24, 2008 at 9:30 AM | PERMALINK

Go girl!

Posted by: Alpha Female on September 24, 2008 at 9:31 AM | PERMALINK

I don't expect Brown's commentary to affect the McCain campaign's thinking -- they'll take the hit rather than take the risk -- but it's encouraging to see the backlash anyway.

Which, of course, proves that they know Palin is a liability as anything other than a dog whistle to the fundies.

On to November!

Posted by: Gregory on September 24, 2008 at 9:31 AM | PERMALINK

Excuse me, but I don't think that's a strong argument: "We think Sarah Palin's a stronger candidate than John McCain does." I would prefer that Democrats stick with the truth: "Sarah Palin's a big bucket of fluff, and the McCain Campaign is trying to hide that from the voters."

Posted by: chasmrich on September 24, 2008 at 9:32 AM | PERMALINK

Looks like there's a barbecue coming up, this time Palin will be cooking, using a variation on McCain's rib recipe modified for moose.

Posted by: Capt Kirk on September 24, 2008 at 9:32 AM | PERMALINK

I said at the time that the Palin choice was a disaster. Sure, they fired up the base for a few weeks, but Palin is out of her league. They can't afford to put her in front of the press, but hiding her just feeds the perception that she's not ready. Too, bad, they're stuck.

The Palin pick is an example of why McCain is unfit for the presidency. And this becomes more obvious by the day.

Posted by: jimBOB on September 24, 2008 at 9:35 AM | PERMALINK

I'm really starting to like Ms. Brown. This was almost as fun to watch as when she tried to get Tucker Bounds talk about the governor's national sercurity experience. I seem to remember McCain cancelling his vist with Larry King over that.

I wonder what type of retaliation they'll be planning for this one?

Posted by: stlouisguy on September 24, 2008 at 9:36 AM | PERMALINK

This is where Das Base has a head on wreck with reality. The base will cheer that McSame is protecting the lady from the mean liberal press, who are obviously out to destroy her.
For the rest of the cuntry, it's more evidence that she's nowhere near equal to the job.

Posted by: JoeW on September 24, 2008 at 9:37 AM | PERMALINK

"Sarah Palin has just as much a right to be a real candidate in this race as the men do. So let her act like one."

That's what they're afraid of. Palin's woefully unprepared to do anything but get handouts from the federal government, and they know it.

The McCain campaign's got a serious dilemma here: do they keep her under the Cone of Silence so that the public begins to wonder about her abilities, or do they let her talk and remove all doubt?

Since the problem's of their own making, I'm laying in an extra supply of popcorn.

Posted by: azportsider on September 24, 2008 at 9:40 AM | PERMALINK

Don't be too surprised if Cambell gets to do a "tough" interview with Palin shortly. Dan Senor will write the questions, and Palin did not get any help from CNN.

Posted by: Danp on September 24, 2008 at 9:42 AM | PERMALINK

Did Brown say Palin is "confident" [transcript] or "competent"? Unclear to me even a second time.

Posted by: mmiddle on September 24, 2008 at 9:46 AM | PERMALINK

I don't expect Brown's commentary to affect the McCain campaign's thinking -- they'll take the hit rather than take the risk -- but it's encouraging to see the backlash anyway.

Yeah..I'm in "I will take what I can get" mode myself.

Even more encouraging though is then perception I am getting that some in the press are looking for opportunities to redeem themselves.

And I think the rich corporate fucks that ring the editorial boards are starting to think Obama might be better for their bottom line.

Seems like a trend, lets hope it continues.

Posted by: on September 24, 2008 at 9:47 AM | PERMALINK

Yesterday's stunt at the U.N. seemed to push some journalists over the edge.

Reporters over the edge?
Crikey. What about us voter-taxpayers?

Some of us hope to see our families prosper for at least a few more generations. Don't we have to a right to know if Sarah thinks Armageddon is nigh?

Posted by: koreyel on September 24, 2008 at 9:48 AM | PERMALINK

Steve,

There's an unwritten rule in politics that I don't subscribe to, which says you should never mention who people are married to because it's not relevant to the discussion.

Ever since I found out, long ago, that James Carville and Mary Matalin were producing offspring (wait a minute.......almost had to puke there.....) I've found this to be not simply a farce, but antithetical to a full discussion of what's wrong with this country politically.

Mary Matalin, the arch-Republican operative who helped sell the war in Iraq, enable Dick Cheney's despotic vice presidency, and who recently published Corsi's book of known lies about Obama, is as vile a person as there is in Washington. Yet somehow people still take her husband, James Carville, seriously as a Democratic analyst, when in fact he and his wife are powerbrokers serving -- collectively -- the interests of the Clinton/Bush cartel which has controlled politics in America for the past five elections. Yet we're never supposed to talk about that, or what those two talk about with each other when they're not breeding. (Gaaaak.....damn -- lost it.)

Anyway, I mention all this becuase this is twice now that Campbell Brown seems to have 'gone on the offensive' as a reporter in this election cycle, yet neither you nor anyone else is reporting who she's married to, and how that might 'color' her crusade.

So: why don't you add an update and remind your readers who Ms. Brown recently married?

Posted by: The Phantom on September 24, 2008 at 9:54 AM | PERMALINK

McCain isn't committing sexism. He's exercising prudence, caution and informed judgment. He and his team know Sarah Palin better than the news anchors and press clamoring for access. Everyone should assume it's for rational, good reasons Palin isn't exposed to the media. And it's for that very reason she's unfit for the office McCain has nominated her for. Sexism isn't the prevailing issue here, it is Palin's self evident (by virtue of McCain's press strategy) lack of ability and knowledge for the VP position. Campbell Brown's editorial missed the mark by not carrying her contentions to their logical conclusion.

Posted by: steve duncan on September 24, 2008 at 9:55 AM | PERMALINK

Palin's got nothing and the McCain campaign knows it. Unfortunately, it's really difficult to hide that fact in a presidential election.

They know, after the lies leading to the invasion of Iraq, that there are those watching closely, noticing spin, subterfuge, lies, and outright bullshit. We see the cocoon and know exactly what's going on.

Schmidt and Fannie/Freddie Davis will claim CNN is "in the tank." Rush will say that because CNN has a middle east office, "they're A-rabs! Folks, I don't know how else to say it! They're A-rabs!"

Maybe Todd Palin can dress up in drag and field reporters' questions.

Posted by: gang green on September 24, 2008 at 9:56 AM | PERMALINK

I would prefer that Democrats stick with the truth: "Sarah Palin's a big bucket of fluff, and the McCain Campaign is trying to hide that from the voters."

This is undoubtedly true and Democrats can certainly stick with it, but it would clearly be the wrong line for a media commentator who wants to call the campaign on not allowing them access. It would come across as "hey, we all know she's a fraud, why won't you let us expose her?", and that's not the journalistic image they're aiming for. Campbell's line is exactly the way for the media to play it.

Posted by: jibeaux on September 24, 2008 at 9:57 AM | PERMALINK

It's not disrespect for Palin, it's fear for the campaign.

Gender's got nothing to do with it -- a male candidate chosen for his bright-shiny-thing quotient, and nothing else, would also have been done up in bubble wrap and hidden away.

They wouldn't take such extraordinary efforts to postpone first press contact unless they've decided she's likely to shatter their carefully constructed image of her.

Posted by: Davis X. Machina on September 24, 2008 at 9:58 AM | PERMALINK

... Armageddon is nigh?

I'm sure if McCain and Palin are elected they'll try their darndest.

Posted by: ckelly on September 24, 2008 at 9:58 AM | PERMALINK

It's not disrespect for Palin, it's fear for the campaign.

Gender's got nothing to do with it -- a male candidate chosen for his bright-shiny-thing quotient, and nothing else, would also have been done up in bubble wrap and hidden away.

They wouldn't take such extraordinary efforts to postpone first press contact unless they've decided she's likely to shatter their carefully constructed image of her.

Posted by: Davis X. Machina on September 24, 2008 at 9:59 AM | PERMALINK

There's only one way to describe the political antics of the McCain campaign:

Self-inflicted rapture.

If Campbell's assault on Fortress Palin gains traction---and Campbell's shot isn't just across McCain's bow; it's a direct hit whereby she bitch-slaps McCain and calls Palin out simultaneously---then the GOP better start thinking about cashing this one in and planning for 2012.

That is, if there's anything left of the GOP to start planning for 2012 with....

Posted by: Steve on September 24, 2008 at 10:04 AM | PERMALINK

This is an argument I thought someone from the Obama camp should have made already, at least in response to any questions on Palin--if she is so damn tough and able to take on the "old boys" network, why can't she take questions from some sissy liberal reporters?
I would think an Alaskan badass could take any questions from them.

Posted by: Allan Snyder on September 24, 2008 at 10:04 AM | PERMALINK

Campbell is doing a twofer -- she's calling out the McCain campaign for sequestering Sarah, and she's parodying the ludicrous "sexism" charges the McCain camp went nuts with after she was nominated.

Posted by: Upper West on September 24, 2008 at 10:08 AM | PERMALINK

I think some of you are missing the point of Brown's argument. This is a very clever bit of jiujitsu -- she's turning the campaign's argument that scrutiny of Palin is sexist on its head. Obviously the campaign is shielding her because they're being prudent, and I'm sure Brown knows that, but this argument might push them back on their heels by forcing them to explain why shielding her isn't sexist. Brown's approach could eventually force them to expose Palin to the press.

Posted by: RP on September 24, 2008 at 10:08 AM | PERMALINK

Anyway, I mention all this becuase this is twice now that Campbell Brown seems to have 'gone on the offensive' as a reporter in this election cycle, yet neither you nor anyone else is reporting who she's married to, and how that might 'color' her crusade.

So: why don't you add an update and remind your readers who Ms. Brown recently married?
Posted by: The Phantom on September 24, 2008 at 9:54 AM | PERMALINKOn April 2, 2006,
*************************
Brown married her second husband Daniel Samuel Senor (born 1971), a Republican consultant who regularly appears on Fox News. So, what is Brown's angle here?

Posted by: on September 24, 2008 at 10:18 AM | PERMALINK

So: why don't you add an update and remind your readers who Ms. Brown recently married?

Thanks, Phantom for pointing out Brown is married to Dan Senor, a Bushie team hack.

Posted by: on September 24, 2008 at 10:18 AM | PERMALINK

Phantom -

I mention all this becuase this is twice now that Campbell Brown seems to have 'gone on the offensive' as a reporter in this election cycle, yet neither you nor anyone else is reporting who she's married to, and how that might 'color' her crusade.

So: why don't you add an update and remind your readers who Ms. Brown recently married?

I don't get your point at all. I had to look it up because I didn't remember, but she's married to Daniel Senor, a Republican who used to be part of the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq. I'm not exactly sure how this is supposed to "color" things at all - so if you can do more than hint at things I'd like to know what the hell you're talking about.

Posted by: NonyNony on September 24, 2008 at 10:21 AM | PERMALINK

If Palin were really so tough and strong, she wouldn't let McCain's people micromanage her every move.

Posted by: kc on September 24, 2008 at 10:25 AM | PERMALINK

This is a beautiful piece of Op-Ed work! A rhetorical bombshell that cannot be picked apart by Palin/McCain without exploding. We all know the real reasons Palin is MIA. But, calling it sexism is the perfect way to disarm the fantasy that the Republican Party is somehow "for women" and defeat the utter cynicism and posturing that McCain showed in selecting Caribou Barbie in the first place.

Brilliant!

Posted by: chrenson on September 24, 2008 at 10:25 AM | PERMALINK

Actually, though, it's not sexist.

They don't let John McCain talk to the press either. His "press availability" yesterday was the first in what, over a month?

It's not just that they are hiding Sarah, they are trying to hide how bad both of their candidates are. How can you sell substandard product if you let the customer actually see it and touch it?

Posted by: biggerbox on September 24, 2008 at 10:29 AM | PERMALINK

To be more specific, I don't know why Obama's female surrogates don't make the exact same point--Sebelius, Napolitano, Granholm--they all give press conferences and answer questions and appear on the pundit shows and they're not even running to be the next VP. Doesn't the public deserve to know more about the woman who could actually become president?

Posted by: Allan Snyder on September 24, 2008 at 10:30 AM | PERMALINK

Fantastic-- Thank you Campbell Brown!

Finally, time to call a spade a spade.

Of course this is sexist. And it's also unbelievably petty and passive-aggressive. Which is demeaning to all of us--men and women alike.

This behavior is the farthest thing from feminism, from "breaking that glass ceiling".

She essentially came out chiding and mocking Obama in her acceptance speech and created an artificial rift/ war between she and the big/ bad media "I'm not here to win your good favor"

And for all intents and purposes, she declared war by calling herself a Pit-Bull.

Her message was: "I'm not afraid, bring it on, I can take on any of you". After all, I had REAL responsibilities, I wasn't just a community organizer.

And then she went into virtual hiding and whining and lying--all the while allowing McCain's campaign to 'protect' her from all the evil questions and probing into her life.

How dare we ask legitimate and critical questions of a virtual unknown sprung at us at the last minute? Show some deference, or else...

Posted by: on September 24, 2008 at 10:42 AM | PERMALINK

I don't get your point at all. I had to look it up because I didn't remember, but she's married to Daniel Senor, a Republican who used to be part of the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq. I'm not exactly sure how this is supposed to "color" things at all - so if you can do more than hint at things I'd like to know what the hell you're talking about.
Posted by: NonyNony on September 24, 2008 at 10:21 AM | PERMALIN

What Phantom is probably saying is that you are being misled if you think that somehow Ms. Brown is holding the Repigs accountable. He states, "Yet somehow people still take her husband, James Carville, seriously as a Democratic analyst, when in fact he and his wife are powerbrokers serving -- collectively -- the interests of the Clinton/Bush cartel which has controlled politics in America for the past five elections." In other words, if you think Brown's a straight shooter who has just had enough of the republican sexist bob and weave, double-talk express, think again. The repigs, and the furthering of their agenda, is her family's bread and butter. This is likely one reason why she did not take the issue to it's logical conclusion, that Palin is a vacuous, extreme, vitriolic fundie with almost no exposure to life outside Wasilla and high-school. She's not even ready to handle answering a few questions, much less to be the vice president of the United States. McLame and Co. are sequestering her for a reason, wh/ is their knowledge of her incompetence and inexperience. Brown won't say it, but she knows it. She can't say it, for obvious reasons, not the least of which is her spouse and what the repercussions might do to his financial future and political relationships.

Posted by: Final Notice on September 24, 2008 at 10:43 AM | PERMALINK

Remember that when Obama talked about "lipstick on a pig", it was McCain's campaign itself that immediately thought of Sarah Palin.

Posted by: AJB on September 24, 2008 at 11:05 AM | PERMALINK

I don't anticipate blatant incompetence from Palin. I think McCain doesn't want to be upstaged by his VP. She is visibly alive and he isn't. Even if she is wrong about the facts, she will engage the audience with her lies and misinformation much more effectively than he ever could. His ego could not withstand being upstaged by a woman.

But I think Obama might want to use the same silent strategy with Biden. Whenever he talks, gaffes rain down. Love him to death, but does he ever think before he speaks?

Posted by: jen f on September 24, 2008 at 11:08 AM | PERMALINK

NonyNony:

Apologie for being elusive on the point I raised. It was also an attempt to point out that Steve -- who I respect as much as anyone blogging today, without exception -- participates in this charade.

Final Notice is correct: Campbell Brown should not be seen as a courageous journalist. She should be seen, rather, as a factional Republican journalist whose family ties either obligate her or predispose her to bias.

Simply put, while she is advocating a postion that you and I might find helpful in the current political context, she has no love for or interest in the Democratic Party. Rather, her goal is to further the designs of people like her husband, who represents a factional view within the Republican Party. If she's acting like Mitt Romney in shredding John McCain's staff, you have to ask why. And in asking, the question answers itself.

Posted by: The Phantom on September 24, 2008 at 11:09 AM | PERMALINK

Does the perennially clueless Campbell Brown honestly think this is sexism, or does she realize she's hitting the McCain campaign with a charge they'll have no idea how to answer?

I wouldn't have thought she was quite bright enough for the latter, but I don't much care. With the McCain campaign screaming "Sexism!" every time someone dares to examine Palin's qualifications and record, this is kind of an amusing shot for Brown to take.

Posted by: shortstop on September 24, 2008 at 11:19 AM | PERMALINK

Rather, her goal is to further the designs of people like her husband... -The Phantom

I'm going to assume the irony of posting that statement on this story is lost on you.

Whatever her motives, this was brilliant. John McCain nor any of his male lackeys can defend this accusation without supporting it.

Does John have any female surrogates now that Carly is 'on vacation?' Only Palin herself could stand against this, and that's so very unlikely.

Posted by: doubtful on September 24, 2008 at 11:25 AM | PERMALINK

while she is advocating a postion that you and I might find helpful in the current political context, she has no love for or interest in the Democratic Party. Rather, her goal is to further the designs of people like her husband, who represents a factional view within the Republican Party.

Ah, I see what you're saying. I thought you were trying to tie Brown to the Democrats somehow to make her reporting seem biased and I wasn't exactly sure how that was supposed to work.

However, I don't think you need to go as far as "factional infighting" to explain why Brown may be fed up with Palin. There are all sorts of reasons - starting with the fact that the elites in the DC press are always upset when someone who "isn't their type of person" intrudes on their space. They went insane over Clinton not because he was a Democrat, really, but because he was a "Bubba" - he wasn't "their kind of person". And Clinton was a Rhodes scholar, successful lawyer and world traveler before he got to DC. So Palin has to be much, much worse for the elitist bastards in the DC media - she's definitely not their kind of person.

I'm also willing to give Brown the benefit of believing that she might just be angry as a woman that the McCain campaign is using tokenism with their choice of Palin - that Palin isn't really able to do the job, everyone knows it, but McCain is using her as a gimmick. That pisses off a lot of women I know - even some of the more conservative ones - so I could see Brown getting mad about that.

I will admit that I don't see any incentive for the Bush faction to tank McCain at this point, though. Having McCain in office gives them a better chance of keeping their crimes under wraps than having a Democrat in office. Unless you know something on that score I haven't heard...

Posted by: NonyNony on September 24, 2008 at 11:25 AM | PERMALINK

I find this conspiracy-theory nonsense tiresome and offensive. Campbell Brown is by no means perfect, but she seems to be a reasonably solid TV journalist who's trying to do her job. Did her takedown of Tucker Bounds, and now this latest commentary, really reflect the sinister hand of Dan Senor in working some kind of double-secret reverse-reverse-reverse-psychology mojo? Or is Brown, whatever her personal politics may be, just a TV personality who's increasingly fed up with a galling level of obfuscation and mendacity?

Posted by: Vineyarder on September 24, 2008 at 11:52 AM | PERMALINK

NonyNony:

All good points. And yes, I'll take the assist from Brown.

Still, don't you find it odd that Campbell Brown -- who was charged with covering George Bush for CNN during the 2004 campaign -- is suddenly breaking out with two very tough interviews of Republicans?

Is this something you ever remember her doing before? So why now? Why is she going on the attack against McCain's campaign?

My answer is that she and her husband have loyalties elsewhere. The obvious loyalties would be to the Bush family/aristocracy, which will very much try to regain its hold on the party IF ONLY JOHN MCCAIN AND THE FAR-RIGHT/EVANGELICAL COALITION HE'S PUT TOGETHER CAN BE SHOWN TO BE LOSERS.

The Democrats aren't the only ones who turn on their losers. Republicans just do it behind closed doors. Like everything else.

More reading, from a quick Google search:

http://clarkstreetblog.blogspot.com/2007/02/campbell-brown-exposed.html

Posted by: The Phantom on September 24, 2008 at 11:52 AM | PERMALINK

There are elements within the Republican party that look at the current situation and see an opportunity in an Obama victory. Romney is a perfect example. A successful outing even as a VP candidate for Palin is bad for Romney, even if McCain doesn't win. She needs to fail, and fail hard- rather than just escaping attention until she can build some real national experience. Romney needs Palin to be seen as having dragged down McCain's chances, instead of the other way around.

It's essentially the same as the Clintons' situation on the Dem side. There's a mess a'comin', and they would really like to have the other party deal with it so they can swoop in in 2012. They're not going to intervene in a way that can be traced to them, but as can be seen in Clinton's dancing around the Obama question ie: "I'm not going to say I want him to win, but I think he *will* win".

Posted by: stolichnaya on September 24, 2008 at 11:55 AM | PERMALINK

I have figured it out.
Campbell's husband is a double agent. Or a mole.
Shhhhh!

Posted by: GeorgiaGirl on September 24, 2008 at 11:56 AM | PERMALINK

Why is it so unfathomable that Campbell Brown has a mind of her own and maybe, just maybe, a little integrity?

Posted by: Geese Whalebone Palin on September 24, 2008 at 12:19 PM | PERMALINK

The Republicans miscalculated at least two glaring things, the length of the VP selection bump (Eye Candy) and the timing of the market meltdown (last Republican gouging of the taxpayer). This just isn't their cycle.

Posted by: Kevin on September 24, 2008 at 12:26 PM | PERMALINK

I second chrenson's comment... this is a beautiful example of political jujitsu. Team Obama should take note!

Posted by: MarkC on September 24, 2008 at 12:26 PM | PERMALINK

Why is it so unfathomable that Campbell Brown has a mind of her own and maybe, just maybe, a little integrity?

Can you cite any previous evidence of the latter?

Posted by: Sport Grunt Palin on September 24, 2008 at 12:38 PM | PERMALINK

Still, don't you find it odd that Campbell Brown -- who was charged with covering George Bush for CNN during the 2004 campaign -- is suddenly breaking out with two very tough interviews of Republicans?

Not really, given the sheer level of contempt that the McCain campaign has been displaying for the media in the last few weeks. Another item that I didn't cover above is the "High School mentality" of the highly paid TV press figures. McCain and his campaign have been giving the middle finger to Brown and her buddies. The obvious lies, the cutting off of access, the shrill cries that anyone who says anything remotely negative about McCain is "in the tank" for Obama. So there's a lot of incentive to make some snarky commentary there - I'll bet that commentary scored Brown a lot of points with her buddies in the press because they're ticked at the McCain camp right now.

Heck, if anyone seems to be out to sabotage McCain's campaign, I think it might be Steve Schmidt and his campaign staff. I never like to attribute to malice what can be just as easily ascribed to incompetence, but Schmidt and his crew are starting to reach levels of "so incompetent I just can't believe they aren't doing it on purpose anymore". And Schmidt has ties to Rove, who has long standing ties to the Bush faction of the GOP, so there's your conspiracy angle.

Posted by: NonyNony on September 24, 2008 at 12:43 PM | PERMALINK

I am sorry--Campbell Brown? She was one of the loudest anti-Palin voices to begin with...and I watched her through the primaries treat Clinton badly...
I don't take her seriously.

Posted by: Kara on September 24, 2008 at 8:18 PM | PERMALINK

How moronic one must be to believe Sara Palin was ever qualified to take the serious position of VP and possible Presidential should McCain fall ill. I didn't need Brown to tell me what I already know. I have no ill wishes for McCain, he had my support in 2000 when he was credible. As for Ms. Palin, she has never proven to me to be fit for any job outside of the small remote and densely populated town in Alaska. And even that is now being questioned by her own press coverage of the hiring of a managerial team to do the work for her. She proven to be nothing more than a tenacious opportunist who indulges in petty Republican politics herself and whose surroundings are crooked to the core as her Alaskan Senator is too. It is the rot of NeoCon movement that hijacked what credibility Republicans once had. It made me register Independent.

Posted by: Conservative Not NeoCon on September 29, 2008 at 1:09 PM | PERMALINK




 

 

Read Jonathan Rowe remembrance and articles
Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

Advertise in WM



buy from Amazon and
support the Monthly