Palin’s losing the National Review

When you’re the Republican candidate, and the National Review isn’t on your side, then you’re in some SERIOUS trouble. Big quote coming.

Palin’s recent interviews with Charles Gibson, Sean Hannity, and now Katie Couric have all revealed an attractive, earnest, confident candidate. Who Is Clearly Out Of Her League.

No one hates saying that more than I do. Like so many women, I’ve been pulling for Palin, wishing her the best, hoping she will perform brilliantly. I’ve also noticed that I watch her interviews with the held breath of an anxious parent, my finger poised over the mute button in case it gets too painful. Unfortunately, it often does. My cringe reflex is exhausted.

Palin filibusters. She repeats words, filling space with deadwood. Cut the verbiage and there’s not much content there. Here’s but one example of many from her interview with Hannity: “Well, there is a danger in allowing some obsessive partisanship to get into the issue that we’re talking about today. And that’s something that John McCain, too, his track record, proving that he can work both sides of the aisle, he can surpass the partisanship that must be surpassed to deal with an issue like this.”

When Couric pointed to polls showing that the financial crisis had boosted Obama’s numbers, Palin blustered wordily: “I’m not looking at poll numbers. What I think Americans at the end of the day are going to be able to go back and look at track records and see who’s more apt to be talking about solutions and wishing for and hoping for solutions for some opportunity to change, and who’s actually done it?”

If BS were currency, Palin could bail out Wall Street herself.

If this came from a liberal columnist it would immediately be met with massive derision from the McCain campaign, but we’re talking the NRO here.

On some level, you have to sympathize. When you break a glass ceiling, the pressure is immense. Not only are you expected to excel simply by virtue of your station, but you have to do incredibly well in order to prove that you deserve to be there, as do those who will follow behind.

A stupid white guy running for president just comes across like a dumb politician, nothing more. But when the first woman running for the VP slot in the Republican party sounds like she’s horrendously out of her league, there’s the implied message of “women finally got someone that far, and she’s the best they had?” She’s not, not by a long shot, but that’s how it can seem. Imagine if in Jackie Robinson’s first year in the MLB he had a batting average of .100 and raped a white woman.

To an extent, Palin was undoubtedly buoyed by people who supported her because she was a woman despite knowing full well she was flawed, hoping that if they stuck it out, she’d do them proud. She hasn’t, though, and is instead coming across like the worst stereotype the gender has to offer. She’s snippy, she talks with a “mother knows best” attitude, she seems to think that “because I said so” is a good enough reason, she defers to McCain in all matters (his people are even working for her in the governor’s office now), she hides behind her femininity when it suits her.

It’s times like these I think the reason the right hated Clinton was because she wasn’t a “woman” the way they expect women to be. She was truly tough, uncompromising, just as smart as the men and when she thought you were being sexist she seemed more likely to tell you off instead of crying and hiding behind her husband. The Republicans picked a beauty pageant queen.

To the women of the country, I apologize on behalf of the ignorant men who will no doubt be even less likely to support a female candidate after the disastrous run Palin has had. I won’t do so myself (I’m able to realize that Palin’s just an airhead), but I’ve a feeling it’ll happen and so I’m apologizing because I know they won’t.