Congratulations to the Media, the Political Class, and the Obots!

You hounded another female politician out.

Palin, the quitter — that is what they say. Convenient, isn’t it when they are the ones who chased her out? Yes, I do mean chased, hounded her out. For all womankind, I hope it is a temporary retreat and she comes back to give them hell. I have my doubts but my gut tells me that she has a card up her sleeve. I hope that she gets her day in the court of public opinion absent the vitriol of the haters.

Let us not forget that she was a duly elected and popular governor of a state when she was brought on the national scene. Though I think she was prematurely thrust into it, she exhibited raw talent and good potential. We will not know for sure how she would have grown as a politician given a fair chance. It is a mystery to me why they could not let her fizzle out on her own flaws if that was their case. Did they fear that if they could successfully sell the unqualified and inexperienced Obama, someone else could perhaps do the same with Palin then and in the future, possibly as a credible threat to Obama’s second term? Would that explain why they hounded her, went after her family, even the little child? Viciousness seems to be the hallmark of the golden age of Obama.

As Stanley Fish put it, “The accusations had been coming from all sides, from investigators of her ethics, from Alaska Democrats and fellow Republicans, from officials in the McCain campaign, from scathing magazine articles, from what she termed the mockery and humiliation directed at her son Trig, from late-night comedians taking potshots at her daughters” and if they wanted to know why she resigned, they only had to listen to her:

Palin had barely finished speaking when MSNBC paraded analysts from both sides of the aisle (Matt Lewis and Chris Kofinis) who agreed that (1) it was a disastrous performance and (2) they couldn’t for the life of them figure out why she had delivered it. Kofinis: “It’s hard to understand why she’s resigning.” Lewis: “What she’s essentially done is guarantee that no pundit could make any intellectual defense of her.”

Later, Joe Scarborough pronounced in the same vein: “It’s hard to find a compelling reason.” The former majority leader of her own party, Ralph Samuels, chimed in, “I’ve had a million calls today from friends, all political junkies, and everyone is asking the same questions. Is it national ambition, or does she want time to write the book, or is she just tired of it. Don’t have a clue.”

Maybe he should look at the video and pay attention this time to the reasons she gives. It is true that her statement was not constructed in a straightforward, logical manner, but the main theme was sounded often and plainly: This is not what I signed up for. I’m spending all my time and the state’s money responding to attack after attack and they aren’t going to let up because, “It doesn’t cost the people who make these silly accusations a dime.” [emphasis added]

[snip]

She dated the beginning of her trials and tribulations from the moment in August, 2008, when “political operatives descended on Alaska digging for dirt.” She complained that “millions of dollars go down the drain in this new political environment.” She signaled repeatedly her weariness with the “superficial political blood–sport” politics has become. She returned to her own sport, basketball, to explain that because she had become a distraction she was going to do what a good point guard always does, pass the ball to someone (her lieutenant governor) in a better position to make the shot. [emphasis added] And in the end she earned the declaration that “I have given my reasons plainly and candidly.”

But the pundits didn’t want to hear them or, rather, they were committed to believing that the real reasons lay elsewhere, and were strategic. They couldn’t fathom the possibility that she was just giving voice to her feelings. It must, they assumed, be a calculation, and having decided that, they happily went on to describe how bad a calculation it was.

Just to keep the perspective, contrast how the gaffe-prone VP, Biden got treated all through the campaign and after the election. James Taranto at the WSJ calls it The Biden Curve, pointing out the disparate treatment of Biden versus Palin by the Leftist media, as one gets cloaked in subtlety the other gets accused of stupidity for saying pretty much the same thing.

Over the weekend, as we noted yesterday, Vice President Biden said that if Israel decides it needs to take military action against the Iranian nuclear-weapons program, the U.S. will not “dictate” otherwise. A reader points out that Sarah Palin, who ran against Biden in last year’s election, said much the same thing in a September interview with ABC’s Charlie Gibson:

Gibson: What if Israel decided it felt threatened and needed to take out the Iranian nuclear facilities?

Palin: Well, first, we are friends with Israel and I don’t think that we should second-guess the measures that Israel has to take to defend themselves and for their security.

Gibson asked the same question again two more times and Palin repeated that we should not second-guess what Israel does to defend itself. (Go on to Taranto’s article for a comparison of what Matthew Yglesias said about Palin then and what he said about Biden now about that statement on Israel.)

Hillary first, then Palin. If Palin was unqualified and inexperienced to the haters (a la Obama, let us remind them), what was their reason to go after Hillary? I know, I know. She was just not likable enough. Last two years have been rough on all of us. Where do we, women (and some egalitarian men) go from here? Will we ever see another female politician on a national ticket anytime soon? I fear the answer to that question will be — “yes, when the good old boys network decides when it is convenient for them.”