There are some very educated and smart people who admire Palin, in spite of her weaknesses. Often they are the same ones who accuse the Left of being "duped" somehow by Obama. Best I can figure is that she represents a position very close to their own, and somehow this enables them to deny or interpret differently the facts about Palin that we find so fascinatingly and obviously negative. They seem to avoid addressing her very real lack of education- but then they are unimpressed by degrees overall.
Our book discussion group is doing Timeline by Crichton. It's mostly an adventure story, but being Crichton, it's well-researched and occasionally thoughtful. At one point, he talks about the past, and how, like a coral reef, the present sits atop the accumulation of tiny occurrences and facts from the past. We are the product of all that has gone before, and the past IS the future. When you have a Bush or a Palin, who seem to spurn in-depth knowledge and academics, you run the risk of having a leader incapable of understanding this, and of making decisions based only on the superficial reality they see-with little comprehension of what formed it. (Iraq springs to mind)
What the right sees in Obama as inconsistent or as someone said earlier, having no core principles, I see as having the ability to assess in a deeper and more nuanced analysis, which may lead to a response that seems inconsistent but is actually far more consistent with broader principles.
When Green says O. has no foreign policy experience, I do wonder how anyone on the right can really believe Sarah will bring either experience OR education to the table.
(I did read she is making a trip to the Alaskan troops again, though)
|
