Originally Posted by Jenson71
After Tucson, there was an easy comparison to be made. On one hand was Palin's video defense. On the other hand was Obama's speech. A week after, Obama's approval rating shot up to a height that he hadn't enjoyed for a long while. The difference is profound. The country saw what made Obama different, what made people flock to him in the waning days of the Bush era. Palin's offering is stale, unsophisticated, flat.
She wouldn't go away if the left and the press ignored her. That's really just a stupid comment divorced from reality. She has a huge fanbase. She tours the country, signing books and speaking for causes. She puts up videos of herself, she tweets and has a lot of followers that want her to tweet. She had a very successful tv show. Her daughter was on a hugely succesful tv show.
Don't give me this bullshit about how she doesn't want the spotlight. She does want the spotlight. That's exactly why she abandoned her position as Governor of Alaska -- it was precisely because she wanted to raise awareness and rally the troops. She played a large part in the November elections. She craved that part.
You're either lying or being ignorant.
How do you think Obama would have fared if the primary target of the assassination had been a Republican and if a hostile media had run with the theory that Barack Obama's rhetoric had somehow caused the violence? I don't think he would have fared too well because he's extremely thin skinned. He had the advantage in this case that he wasn't forced to speak from the defensive like Palin. All in all though, I thought Palin's commentary was superior to Obama's hollow words.
"Well, it is one thing for Bill Clinton to say, I feel your pain. It is another thing for Barack Obama to say I feel your pain that I have caused." - George Will