Palin – The Opportunity to School The Press (1984-2008)

Had anyone watched the debates from Alaska and checked Palins overall approval rating in the state (which is based on performance, not a popularity contest) at 80%; one has to understand that she is a formidable opponent. Palin may not appeal to the majority of journalists and of course, NARAL (Pro-Abortion), rather to the average working woman with children, regardless of party, and the mighty Republican base. The problem that she has faced has been a reaction to her womanhood. Historically, there have been two women who have made it to the bottom of the ticket, Geraldine Ferraro and Sarah Palin and one woman who has undertaken the task of running as a Presidential candidate, Hillary Clinton – all three have come under the microscope and have faced a very sexist media. The phrase, “History repeats itself”, is apparent in the way the press and specific groups have gone after Palin; much in the same way they went after Ferraro in 1984. From the July 24, 1984 Pittsburgh Post Article ”Mondale is Planning to Keep Ferraro on a Short Leash” to attacks on family members ”FERRARO'S FATHER, IN '41, HAD LIQUOR LICENSE REVOKED” it is evident that a woman running in a traditional male bastion faces the task of getting past not only those who truly believe that a woman’s place is in the “home”, but also women who are more tied to a political party than any true sense of feminism – and continue to call themselves feminists – who attack a candidate based on issues ranging from family to personal choices made when putting themselves through college. Clinton suffered attacks from within her own party – stunningly from a media, specifically women commentators and journalists, who represent more ‘fluff’ in the industry than actual hard news. Male to female ratio in journalism is dismal, as it is in government. One would think that given the credentials of all three of these women, those who were capable of supporting them would not have taken cheap shots at everything from what they choose to wear to the occasional gaffe that all politicians make.

What remains to be seen is how the debate will play out tomorrow night. One has to understand that although Biden may have experience, his tone is rather boring and he is prone to gaffes, while Palin has a track record of being more formidable in the debate forum. Should she exceed expectations, which have become dismally low given the media’s constant drumbeat of “inadequate” the past three to four weeks, and impale Biden in this debate, the press will then face a daunting task and the attacks will become more vicious than to date. How important is the press in all of this? The more the press can keep the focus on Palin through attacks and “scandals’ yet to be created, the more they can keep the heat off their chosen candidate – Obama. Unlike Ferraro, both Clinton and Palin have been crucified in the press, not only because they are women (which does play a large factor), but more so because the press has an obvious agenda and that is to place their candidate in the White House. This perception of the press is what has killed rankings and driven subscriptions into the tank – the general public is suspicious of and generally scrutinizing each and every article and broadcast for hints of partisanship and sexism.

Palin has the base, McCain can count on those moderate conservatives as well as right-leaning independents and Clinton Democrats who are concerned with the overly Progressive tone of the party, while Obama has the dedicated Progressive Democrats and those independents that are looking for a change in party and would lean left in any case. This will bring the 2008 presidential race to the same conclusion as the 2004 race; where one must recall that polls were extremely kind to John Kerry, up to the exit polls that had most conservatives in the doldrums through the noon hour on Election Day, only to find that Bush had succeeded handily. The difference in 2008 is Palin; she will continue to draw on the working mom and most importantly the large Republican base, despite all the criticism from the press. A point she had made still is bandied about by those who the media targets: Palin did not get into this to please the press; she did it for the American People.

Addendum: Will Palin get a "fair shake" from the moderator? Gwenn Ifall, from PBS, (network funded and paid for by the taxpayer), will be releasing her new book on Inauguration Day - the Book, Pro-Obama. From past debates, Ms. Ifall has been obviously partisan towards the more Left leaning party. Gwen, most likely oblivious through arrogance and a sense of media self-import, should be true to style. Why not have Ophra moderate the debate - with intermissions featuring the Obama Children's Youth Choir (See Hitler) (Update: that particular YouTube video has suddenly been set to private, and all traces taken from public view). Fortunately, the average American has more common sense than most of these so-called "journalists" and pundits who are so blinded by the propaganda that they espouse, they can no longer see the forest through the trees. Suggest a double bag of popcorn for this debate.

As John McCain Leads in the Polls – Obereman and Matthews downgraded by NBC

There is an interesting piece of data in the USA Today/Gallop poll that gives John McCain a decent bounce from the RNC Convention – who was polled. The article notes the following: “In the new poll, taken Friday through Sunday, McCain leads Obama by 54%-44% among those seen as most likely to vote. The survey of 1,022 adults, including 959 registered voters, has a margin of error of +/— 3 points for both samples.” One has to wonder, why those 63 unregistered voters were included in the poll in the first place and how it might affect the results – it begs the question: How then can this particular poll have an error of margin of plus/minus 3 points? One has no doubt that McCain received a considerable jump in the polls and that Palin has served to stimulate that fact, however, any data and or “news” article coming from a media that is so clearly biased, has to be viewed with a bit of skepticism.

The news that MSNBC is reigning in Oberman and Matthews after their antics during both conventions, should come as no surprise. The article appearing in the New York Times, noted that the “experiment” of placing two “incendiary” hosts in an anchor position appears to have failed. The fact that the experiment was allowed to continue while the ratings for this network tanked, not the fact that the two became an “embarrassment” (also true), may have had more to do with NBC’s decision. Additionally, the article notes that this move came after Sarah Palin harpooned the media for bias, chants of "NBC” were heard coming from the RNC Delegates. Considering that anyone with minimal knowledge of the electoral makeup knows that 50% of the country leans right and 50% leans left (based on the last two elections), ramming a progressive, inexperienced democrat (Obama) down the throats of Middle American night and night can only lead to one thing: losing that half of their ratings. Apparently, NBS understands that it has to appear to be a bit more fair in it’s coverage – note: remove Michael Moore from your speakers list, and/or add someone to the extreme right (if there is someone as extreme right as Moore is extreme left), but what about the rest of the media?

Sarah Palin: from the LA Times another sexist hit piece.
Sarah Palin: from the NY Times another hit piece on Palins motherhood (containing a few discrepancies if one has read or seen other stories from the Alaskan Press regarding Palin’s pregnancy - as if it is an issue at all).

As John McCain and Palin’s numbers continue to climb in the polls, regardless of the fact that unregistered voters are used to bump numbers up for some candidate (considering USA today may also be biased – which candidate received the benefit of 63 additional votes?) , The Times show their true colors through antiquated sexist attacks on Palin, and even local newspapers reports are on the verge of incredulous reporting (Berkshire Eagle) viewers flee and subscriptions are lost – will they never learn? (The list could fill pages, from local ABC, NBC and CBS affiliates to the smallest daily newspaper.)

The elite media stopped reporting long ago and began to “guide” and “pontificate” so that the masses (us) would be swayed to their point of view. Talk radio has taken a bit of wind out of their sails, as well as the blogs, but that said, instead of blaming the Internet for their woes, or like MSNBC, throwing two anchors under the bus hoping that will suffice, it would behoove those who claim to be news sources to consider taking the op-ed out of reporting. The facts may not favor one candidate more than the other – but the results may improve readership and viewership overall. If one is losing half of its market due to bias, even if it is perceived bias (which would be a stretch), then it makes for a sound business decision.