cognitive dissident

Todd Purdum's piece on Sarah Palin in Vanity Fair, "It Came from Wasilla," has stirred up some controversy on the Right. Purdum called Palin "the sexiest brand in Republican politics" and stated that "Whatever her political future, the emergence of Sarah Palin raises questions that will not soon go away:"

What does it say about the nature of modern American politics that a public official who often seems proud of what she does not know is not only accepted but applauded? What does her prominence say about the importance of having (or lacking) a record of achievement in public life? Why did so many skilled veterans of the Republican Party--long regarded as the more adroit team in presidential politics--keep loyally working for her election even after they privately realized she was casual about the truth and totally unfit for the vice-presidency? Perhaps most painful, how could John McCain, one of the cagiest survivors in contemporary politics [...] ever have picked a person whose utter shortage of qualification for her proposed job all but disqualified him for his?

He nails Palin for her rampant dishonesty ("When she chooses to reveal herself, what she reveals is not always the same thing as the truth"), but the real damage comes from his analysis of the GOP's internecine infighting:

As Palin has piled misstep on top of misstep, the senior members of McCain's campaign team have undergone a painful odyssey of their own. In recent rounds of long conversations, most made it clear that they suffer a kind of survivor's guilt: they can't quite believe that for two frantic months last fall, caught in a Bermuda Triangle of a campaign, they worked their tails off to try to elect as vice president of the United States someone who, by mid-October, they believed for certain was nowhere near ready for the job, and might never be.

[...]

They all know that if their candidate--a 72-year-old cancer survivor--had won the presidency, the vice-presidency would be in the hands of a woman who lacked the knowledge, the preparation, the aptitude, and the temperament for the job.

Jonathan Martin at Politico wrote about conservatives' reaction to the article, much of it between pundit Bill Kristol and McCain's campaign manager Steve Schmidt, indicated that the vitriol "suggests the degree to which Palin remains a Rorschach test" for the Right:

Was Palin a fresh talent whose debut was mishandled by self-serving campaign insiders, or an eccentric "diva" who had no business on the national stage? Going forward, does she offer a conservative and charismatic face for a demoralized and star-less party? Or is she a loose cannon who should be consigned to the tabloids where she can reside in perpetuity with other flash-in-the-pan sensations?

Martin continues:

Loyalists to Palin, including Kristol, were outraged at Purdum's piece, believing it to be another example of what they see as elite media contempt for the Wasilla native.

The Vanity Fair article is neither uniformly conservative nor anti-intellectual, which I suspect underlies their complaints about elitism; this fluff piece at Runner's World is probably more to their liking because it lets Palin spout all her talking points without ever being in danger of a pointed follow-up question. (By the way, I give full props to Palin for being a 45-year-old who can run a sub-four-hour marathon--which is about an hour under the average woman's finishing time. I hope that her running schedule isn't so demanding that it interferes with her political ambitions. I'd love to see Palin on the GOP's 2012 ticket!) The RW article focused on running, but there was enough political content to catch some bloggers' attention. Palin discussed falling while running at McCain's ranch and claims, "I made those [Secret Service] guys swear to secrecy:"

And I probably should have gotten a couple stitches. But I was insisting with these guys, "Absolutely not, let's just wash it out." I appreciated how much care they took to help me out. So anyway, I have a little scar on my hand, and I've seen a couple of pictures from the debate or of me waving to someone on the campaign trail with that Band-Aid and I think, nobody else knows about it.

In the thirtieth episode of his "Odd Lies of Sarah Palin" series, Andrew Sullivan reproduces a campaign photo with the bandage prominently displayed on the heel of her (waving to the crowd) hand, along with a caption that noted the injury's cause as "falling while jogging." Sullivan observes that, far from being a secret, "the story was everywhere - a humanizing touch:"

So why did she just make up some strange story about it? The point is not that this is a grave sin. It isn't. Most of her lies aren't (with a few exceptions). They are just a function of someone who makes stories up all the time, who says things that may momentarily impress but that are inconsistent with past statements and with, you know, reality. That's why I'm such a skeptic about everything she does. And why I've come to believe that you need documentation to verify every strange story she tells.

Over at wingnut haven PowerLineBlog--where I doubt that any assertion of Palin's has ever been fact-checked--John Hinderaker and the other GOP GILF-lovers out there practically creamed their jeans over the Palin slideshow from the RW article. Writing that she "brings a unique dimension to our often ugly political scene," Hinderaker continues:

Say what you will about Governor Palin, no one else in politics brightens your day in quite the same way. The interview reflects her generous, good-humored personality, as well.

If I could do a passable imitation of Robin Wright, I'd be yelling "Run, Sarah, run!"