There is a new article by Todd Purdum in Vanity Fair concerning Sarah Palin and the 2008 Presidential Election. This article is an interesting text as it reveals very little that we did not know before and takes a few, deep and dark swipes against Sarah Palin that seem to be unfair against her and that come from a source (Purdum) who is unqualified to make these claims.
With so little new information, and what new information in the article does not seem too relevant, I have too questions: first, why should anyone other than political junkies read the piece? Second, even after reading the piece and reading the terrible slams on Palin (postpartum? seriously? what are your qualifications to diagnose this?) why cannot I not, even in good conscience, defend Palin? After everything she said and did during the campaign, I feel as if I should not even mention that the postpartum claim is outlandish because Palin deserves almost every unsubstantiated claim against her for ever unsubstantiated claim she delivered.
Update: Watch this video.
It is discourse like this, with not so subtle references to Obama as a terrorist and Obama as King Kong (no racial implications here, none whatsoever), and Palin as a national, and erotic, savior (notice the kinky, right-wing military and sex fethish with the erect missiles in relation to Palin in a military uniform-- starbursts indeed) that makes me believe everyday the network news should run the Thanksgiving footage of Palin being interviewed as turkeys were slaughtered. That is the correct metaphor for discussing what would happen to the US if Palin ever achieved national office.