Sarah Palin Denial Syndrome?

[Skeptic]

Isaac Asimov, who had a stratospheric IQ, was a MENSA member for some years and even (I think) held some important offices in the organization before he quit, noting that the organization is essentially for social misfits who want to feel important.

 

[MikeMangum]

I hope we can agree this is the usual partisan hackery that is a complication to the process. That it would be nice if we could find a reasonable measure by which to expunge this type of attack. Obviously any valid candidate needs to be able to withstand this as a matter of course. Such attacks are here for the long haul as far as we can tell.

I have no qualms about disavowing this article as mean spirited character assassination.

I really think the response to Palin is different than the usual partisan mudslinging. It was (still is) such a strong response that seemed completely over the top compared to any percieved need to tarnish her reputation. Hell, people didn't go that crazy about Cheney, and he actually served 2 terms as VP. People didn't respond with as much vitriol to Edwards when he was the VP candidate, or really any recent candidate for high office.

Secondly, the substance of the attacks against Palin (and much of the support for her as well) has been very different. They have not primarily been attacks on her policy positions or claims of dishonesty or venality, which are the usual partisan attacks. A significant part of it was simply derision of her for being a "hick" some synonym.

Maybe I'm wrong, but the reaction to Palin seems to me to be the exception to the rule.

 

[varwoche]

I really think the response to Palin is different than the usual partisan mudslinging.

It's her phenomonal ignorance that makes Palin a wonder to behold. That and her popularity ... Sarah Palin Denial Syndrome if you will.

The response to Palin is different than usual. To a large extent, that's because she's different than usual. Especially now that she's an A list celeb.

Hell, people didn't go that crazy about Cheney

Cheney is the most inapropos parallel I can imagine. He had vast experience. He was highly intelligent. He oozed gravitas.

People didn't respond with as much vitriol to Edwards when he was the VP candidate, or really any recent candidate for high office.

A much better example, but still not parallel because Edwards was a smart guy* who presented himself as a smart guy. Whereas Palin was a joke who presented herself as a joke.

Also as we know, Edwards ran for pres in 2004 and for a while it even looked like he had a chance. He didn't come out of right field.

* And a huge idiot at the same time, as we've later come to know. I never liked the guy much myself.

Secondly, the substance of the attacks against Palin (and much of the support for her as well) has been very different. They have not primarily been attacks on her policy positions

Policy positions? Her output is more or less limited to vacuous buzzwords.

Maybe I'm wrong, but the reaction to Palin seems to me to be the exception to the rule.

But again, she's an exception to the rule.