Former Romney supporter K-Lo makes the argument; Read the full article.
But Time shouldn’t diss the not insignificant portion of the country that voted for Republican John McCain. And, specifically, they shouldn’t ignore the people who were energized by the addition of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin to his ticket. She offered something new on the right, something new from a woman and something new for Republicans. Mind you, Palin was far from the first pro-life conservative woman to appear in the Republican party — there are plenty of them in the House of Representatives. (With the defeat of Elizabeth Dole in North Carolina, though, there are no pro-life women in the Senate.)
Whatever you thought of her, it seemed everyone in the country had an opinion of Palin — at the very start, throughout, and after the Republicans’ failed national campaign. And like Obama, all you had to do was look at her to see that she offered something different on a national ticket. In neither case did I think that novelty alone was a sufficient qualification for executive office, but the sheer innovative force of each was blindingly obvious, and the first things you noticed.
Here at National Review’s post-election cruise, a group gathered for a weeklong post-mortem on the high seas has Palin on the brain. Palin’s not on ship, but neither her absence nor the McCain loss has dampened enthusiasm for her here.
—–
Like the “change” from the Obama campaign slogan embraced by so many, Palin offered something different. For some it was an anti-Washington feel. Many consider her a refreshing citizen-politician in the old mold, one that Thomas Jefferson would be proud to meet. Does that make her just like Obama? I do wonder what the campaign would have been like had they both been at the helm: He wouldn’t have had a monopoly on change, and she would have had her own staff and freedom to follow her instincts, and perhaps better advice than she was given as she ran for vice president.
We’ll never know what could have been in a straight-on Obama vs. Palin contest. But what we do know is this: Palin, like Obama, energized people. And she did it in a heckuva lot less time than he had to do it, only coming onto the national scene and the GOP ticket Labor Day weekend. It’s still a free country. Media outlets still can do as they please (save for those who choose to hand over their editorial direction to one party or another). But Time would make a mistake if it ignored the Palin phenom this year just because the ticket didn’t win in the end.
Obama would be wise to agree.
Update: Others are making the case-
Jon Friedman, MarketWatch with video.
November 17th, 2008 at 10:55 am
I would not mind her being declared person of the year. She excites friend and foe alike.
November 17th, 2008 at 11:04 am
First of all, I seriously doubt this is going to happen.
Second: I’d love to see their justification for the pick, if it were to actually happen.
Third: Why not Joe the Plumber?
November 17th, 2008 at 11:10 am
#2, the criteria for the selection is not just about ‘fame’ or ‘success’. Palin qualifieds for both positive and negative reasons.
Obama has been on the cover of time 7-8 times in the last 12 months, so I expect to see Obama.
Based on Time’s criteria, in 2001 Bin Laden should have been the ‘person of the year’, but Time caved in to pressure and selected Rudy.
November 17th, 2008 at 11:19 am
There’s no way Palinmania compares to the enormity of what Obama just accomplished. Although, I do believe she was a bigger celeb/identity pick than the O.
November 17th, 2008 at 11:28 am
Alright, now this is absurd. Barack Obama is quite obviously deserving of Person of the Year, love him or hate him. K-Lo (Kathryn Jean Lopez, not Kristofer Lorelli!) is a very poor writer and analyst. I have no idea how she rose to prominence.
November 17th, 2008 at 11:34 am
Please pardon the aside.
In other recent posts, many of us have been accused of trashing Palin, but I would like to know exactly what constitutes trashing?
I’ve only said what I believe is true. I’ve treated her exactly the same as every other candidate I oppose. I really do believe that the criticism of her is met with such stiff condemnation because she is a good-looking woman. She is being protected from scrutiny because of her gender.
I believe Palin is a tough, interesting, ambitous woman with some accomplishments under her belt. I just don’t think she’s demonstrated the qualifications to be POTUS, or that she is capable of becoming qualified enough in 4 years. I don’t buy the “she-can-learn” or “she’ll-have-good-advisors” baloney. I also believe she has enough ethical red flags to disqualify her. She had one chance to make a first impression, and she failed.
November 17th, 2008 at 11:37 am
BTW – K-Lo is not a former Romney, now Palin supporter. If you think she’ll choose Palin over Romney in the primary, you might need your head examined.
November 17th, 2008 at 11:39 am
#7, Martha M, be careful what you predict.
It must be painful to know that K-Lo spent the week with Mitt (her primary candidate) on a boat, she arrives back and all she wants to discuss is Sarah.
November 17th, 2008 at 11:41 am
Time also just reviewed Huckabee’s book:
http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1859539,00.html?iid=tsmodule
I’m glad to see that Huck has proven once again he cares far more about himself than anything else. Certainly not the party.
Mitt Romney, Huckabee’s principal rival in Iowa, comes in for the roughest treatment. Huckabee writes that the former Massachusetts governor’s record was “anything but conservative until he changed the light bulbs in his chandelier in time to run for president.”
I hope Huck enjoys cashing his royalty checks.
November 17th, 2008 at 11:45 am
#8
It actually gives me great comfort that Kathryn Jean Lopez is excited about Sarah Palin. K-Lo’s political instincts are almost always wrong. She’s like an abortion-obsessive Dick Morris.
November 17th, 2008 at 11:47 am
#10, I am just upset that her fame allowed her to take my 10 year old call sign “K-Lo”.
November 17th, 2008 at 11:47 am
#9, G thank you for the link. I am going to post.
November 17th, 2008 at 11:52 am
K-Lo loves Romney. Her columns on Palin have been measured and confined to basically sticking up for her against the MSM onslaught. She’s never indicated that she believes Palin is qualified, only acknowledged her popularity with the base.
November 17th, 2008 at 11:58 am
The money quote in Huck’s tell-all is this about his belief that he had a right from God to every religious leader’s endorsement:
Huckabee speaks to Hagee by phone before the McCain endorsement, while the former Arkansas governor is preparing for a spot on Saturday Night Live. “I asked if he had prayed about this and believed this was what the Lord wanted him to do,” Huckabee writes of his conversation with Hagee. “I didn’t get a straight answer.”
It doesn’t get any clearer than that. And some of you guys said he wasn’t using religion. LOL
November 17th, 2008 at 12:12 pm
[...] H/T: “G” [...]
November 17th, 2008 at 12:32 pm
Sorry, I don’t think you could argue that anyone but Obama was the Person of the Year. If McCain pulled off the upset with Palin, then you’d have an argument.
November 17th, 2008 at 12:42 pm
[...] I could not agree more. Spread The [...]
November 17th, 2008 at 12:53 pm
?!?
*sigh*
Kristofer, how do you expect us to take you seriously when you continue to use antics like this on the front page?
November 17th, 2008 at 12:55 pm
#18, K-Lo supported Romney during the campaign. That is a fact.
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YzA5YjM2ZTAxOGRjY2UwODBkYjQxNjc1N2VlMTk2OWM=
November 17th, 2008 at 1:15 pm
Kristofer,
I am perfectly aware that K-Lo was a huge supporter of Romney during the campaign.
Now can you think of another reason why your “Former Romney supporter…” is problematical for a front page post?
November 17th, 2008 at 1:29 pm
#20, No, I do not understand, K-Lo supported Romney in his bid for President. I myself am a former McCain supporter.
Why is that “problematic”? I am confused?
November 17th, 2008 at 2:03 pm
Kristofer, K-Lo wasn’t just any supporter of Romney. She was his biggest fan. She is not a former supporter. She has been very Palin-friendly, but never said she thinks she’s qualified, other than against Obama. She’s just being a a fair, good soldier. Her heart belongs to Romney. Just look over her past comments.
November 17th, 2008 at 2:06 pm
Rush needs an intervention on Palin. Someone needs to lock him in a room, tie him up and force him to look at the facts. Force him to watch every convoluted answer. Force him to face Troopergate, emailgate, fashiongate, etc.
Seriously. He’s off the deep end.
November 17th, 2008 at 2:10 pm
Martha M, Romney is not running anymore, so how could she still be a supporter of his candidacy?
Martha M, why do you hate those who do not love Mitt?
November 17th, 2008 at 2:16 pm
Kristofer – If he runs, she’s on his team.
Rush has fallen for Palin based on her sex appeal. He doesn’t care about the facts. He can’t see how she will kill our chances, because he’s in love. Someone does need to get to him, and I guarantee, somebody will try.
November 17th, 2008 at 2:18 pm
Martha M, Do you want me to ask K-Lo and post it?
btw, the only person why has fallen for sex appeal, is you my friend.
November 17th, 2008 at 2:20 pm
:rolls eyes:
They are complaining that you are referencing her as a former supporter of Romney – thus implying that she does not currently support him for 2012.
November 17th, 2008 at 2:21 pm
Obama will be Man of the Year. As he should.
November 17th, 2008 at 2:22 pm
#27, I know……
November 17th, 2008 at 2:22 pm
#28, Man or person?
November 17th, 2008 at 2:29 pm
What if he’s not? What if he is purposely puffing Palin now so that when it comes time for his endorsement toto actually make a difference he goes with the candidate that has the most support from all wings of the party?
Rush is a faker. He talks about “one nation under GOD” and he talks about how liberals condescend to religious people. But how religious is Rush? Don’t misunderstand – I really don’t care how religious he is. But it’s just an act. Rush Limbaugh has been married and divorced how many times? He makes innunendos how often? He wants to keep the so-cons happy so the Republican Party can keep winning elections. That’s it.
He’s no so-con and never was. I think Rush knows that in order to win you need to have the so-cons come out and vote. He was ecstatic that Palin accomplished this in this cycle because everyone knew McCain couldn’t do it on his own. Now that it’s become obvious that Palin repels the other wings of the party, he’s going to shift his support to someone else when the time comes. He’s just waiting for now and biding his time so he can claim that he supported her all along and can later use that to keep “street cred” with the so-cons when he jettisons her.
Mark my words.
November 17th, 2008 at 2:30 pm
Sorry, #31 was meant to reply to Martha M
November 17th, 2008 at 2:32 pm
For the record, I believe Limbuagh’s hawkishness and economic conservative credentials are absolutely genuine. I think he’s just faking it with the so-con stuff.
November 17th, 2008 at 2:42 pm
Rush ain’t turning his back on Palin.
November 17th, 2008 at 2:44 pm
30:
I ignore PC tripe.
November 17th, 2008 at 2:45 pm
#35, thanks.
November 17th, 2008 at 2:57 pm
i dont see how palin beats obama for this award. under any definition.
November 17th, 2008 at 3:36 pm
Adam, I hope you’re right about Rush, but I heard him the day she was announced, and he went nuts for her. Today he said she owned the gov conference, which wasn’t the case at all.
November 17th, 2008 at 3:41 pm
#38, actually Rush was telling us the truth (and his 20 million listners) as he always did.
November 17th, 2008 at 3:45 pm
Kristofer, As you know, K-Lo isn’t going to start talking about Romney or anyone yet. Just wait, you’ll see.
Tell me why you support Palin again? I know you invested a lot in her early on. But has none of her failures made a dent yet? Don’t tell me she’s cute and dynamic. I already know that.
I knew a long time ago that Palin would be a mistake. My first thought was that she would reject a VP offer out of hand due to her new special baby, and Troopergate. I also thought her tax on oil companies and her positive comments about Obama’s stimulus plan were red flags. When she accepted, and then said she didn’t even blink, I learned a lot about her character, and it wasn’t good. Political ambitions can wait, but babies don’t.
After that, when she continued to embarrass the campaign, it was just confirmation for me. I know all I need to know about Palin, and I could never support her.
November 17th, 2008 at 3:51 pm
#40,
I remember you saying, women with children belong in the home……
Looks, I would require a novel to explain to you why I support Palin. It has nothing to do with her looks.
You see, I live in 2008, where women are modern, with careers and family, they die in wars, lead fortune 500 companies, become secretary of state and accomplish everything a man can accomplish.
That is my world.
I sent K-Lo an email, and I will let you know what she says.
November 17th, 2008 at 4:16 pm
NO WAY IN THE WORLD PALIN GETS THIS OVER OBAMA. Should Edwards have it in 2004? What a joke of a thread. Actually is this a joke?
November 17th, 2008 at 4:19 pm
#42,
You decide. I was re-posting K-Lo.
November 17th, 2008 at 5:18 pm
#23, Martha…first you have an aside where you cannot understand how anyone could possibly think you are being unfair about Palin and then you talk out of the other side of your mouth and list “troopergate,” “emailgate,” and “fashiongate.” If these are the reasons you do not like Palin then you’re in luck because they have proven to be full of hype but lack any real substance.
November 17th, 2008 at 5:20 pm
I have heard about this but I cannot imagine how it would be possible. Obama is the first African American POTUS…he definitely wins…unless they name the American People, as a whole, for electing the first African American President.
November 17th, 2008 at 6:01 pm
November 17th, 2008 at 6:17 pm
This won’t happen, but Governor Palin has plenty of time to attain this distinction. I think that Gen. Petraeus is pretty deserving of this honor.
November 17th, 2008 at 7:27 pm
I do not much care for Obama, but he IS the President elect, correct? Palin is the losing Vice Presidential candidate, hardly Person-of-the-year material.
November 17th, 2008 at 8:48 pm
Kristofer, babies in 2008 still need their moms, especially special babies. I don’t recall saying the phrase, “women with children belong in the home” specifically, and I don’t have an issue with women working. But I do believe that being VP or president is a lot to take on with a new baby with special needs. Yet, Palin didn’t blink. What does that tell you Kris?
As the mom of a child like Trig, I know better than most what these children require, and that mom is needed more than ever to be that kid’s friend, protector and champion. Palin doesn’t mind handing that role over to someone else. She has many years in which to pursue her political ambitions, but she is choosing the first 8 years of Trig’s life to be somewhere else.
In a sane world, that is simply insane. And it says exactly all you need to know about Palin. Supermom is a sick myth.
November 17th, 2008 at 8:53 pm
Jersey, her actions in Troopergate were unethical. She did have private email accounts to get around open records laws. She did not reject the outrageously priced clothing even though she was running as Suzie Sixpack. McCain’s highest paid staffer was Palin’s make-up artist. Please.
These are facts, Jersey! But even these things are not major reasons to reject her. She has proven she does not possess the knowledge or intellect to be POTUS. It’s very simple.
November 18th, 2008 at 1:30 am
Martha, how come most reasonable people can understand that troopergate was a partisan hack of a report? How can one, unethically abuse her power but at the same time not break any laws? As far as the email accounts…it’s conjecture…it wouldn’t hold up in a court of law. Do you think it’s possible that she didn’t know the cost of the clothes and that she just assumed that’s the way it was done? Is there any verifiable person who has come forward to say otherwise?
And like Alex, you criticize Palin for something the McCain campaign did. She didn’t hire the make-up artist…even though this is the first I have ever heard that tid-bit, but if it is true…how is it her fault…she didn’t run the McCain campaign.
I just find it funny that you try to argue that you don’t hate Sarah, but every time you write about her, you can’t help but despise her…which is fine…you don’t have to like her…but why can’t I…why can’t Kristofer…why can’t other males like Palin, as a politician, without your constant assertion it is due to her looks…yes, I find her attractive but am I so intellectually bankrupt that I would merely support a woman, for President of the United States, because I think she’s attractive…I’m not!!!
November 18th, 2008 at 10:09 am
Jersey, I don’t know Palin, and don’t hate her. I find her a very appealing personality. I just point out what I see as dealbreakers.
I believe Palin’s gender and looks make it much easier for people to give her a pass on things like her poor performance, her record, troopergate, private emails, etc. I honestly think she is being protected and coddled because she’s a woman. If she were a man, it would be a whole different story. I do not think for one minute, you guys would be rushing to defend her.
Yes, I wholeheartedly believe that her appealing looks make you more inclined to look at everything about her more favorably.