In a recent New York Times article, Jay Roach, director of the movie adaptation of "Game Change" defended that the movie covers only the Republican half of the '08 ticket this way:
"To Mr. Roach, at least, it makes perfect sense. 'No one,' he said, 'changed the game more than Sarah Palin'."
No one?
Not even the first African-American President?
I think Palin changed the game in a more fundamental way. If you had a male Sarah Palin, he would've been a huge deal. Catastrophically unfit for office from among the most minor of states, saying, thinking and believing the most awful things. That she was a woman compounded all of that.
ReplyDeleteCompared to Obama, who, had he been a white man, would not have been nearly as notable, as far as presidential candidates go. I don't think a white Obama would have been nearly as interesting a specimen as Clinton, GW Bush, or Palin.
Obama's race may be an extremely important facet of the 2008 election, but it's one of the few historically noteworthy parts of the Democratic ticket. I think Palin signifies something much more historically significant in the Republican Party than Obama does within the Democrats.
I don't think incompetence "changes" politics. She was just another example of someone elevated into a position for which she wasn't prepared.
ReplyDeleteYou just said "Obama, if he'd been a white man, would not have been nearly as notable." True, but that's...the point, right? He wasn't/isn't a white man. There is no "white Obama." Just like there's no male Palin.
I think Obama signifies something far more significant to America (party aside) than Palin ever did or will.