That Vanity Fair article
Todd Purdom’s long article on Sarah Palin in Vanity Fair.was recommneded to me, so I went to see it. It begins like this: “Despite her disastrous performance in the 2008 election…”
Please, that’s a flagrantly biased statement. Yes, Palin had problems, particularly in the Katie Courie interview, but to say that her overall performance in the campaign was “disastrous” exemplifies the prejudicial approach to her from the left that makes even strong critics of her like me come to her defense. Take one example: she was better than Biden in their debate. And I also thought she did a good job in the Charles Gibson interview in the face his vicious attempt to set her up by confusing her with false quotes. (By the way, I have never liked Gibson, but since that interview I regard him as malign and have never watched him again.)
So right from the start it is clear that Vanity Fair and Purdom are not going to show minimal fairness to Palin, but are simply out to damage her.
Also, it seems that most of Purdom’s negative material on Palin comes from McCain staffers, the same crew of despicable losers and backstabbers who after the election claimed that Palin didn’t know that Africa is a continent. Now, think of the character, intelligence, and politics of people who have devoted themselves to the service of John McCain, and who have already put out stories about Palin that have made them look like character assassins. Then put those data together with the anti-conservative hate factor of Vanity Fair. Is this an article I’m going to credit? No.
I repeat that I don’t think that Sarah Palin is presidential material or a true conservative. But that does not justify people’s attempts to destroy her.