Media's full court press against Palin

By Ed Lasky

The political flamethrowers have been unleashed on Governor Sarah Palin.

The media is not just trying to attack her on experience grounds (she has a far more successful record of accomplishment than either Joe Biden or Barack Obama) but now are trying to besmirch her character and image-two of her most appealing qualities.

How?

Two quick examples of the media's desire to characterize here as a traitor to her political patrons.

A decade later, the nickname [Sarah Barracuda] resurfaced when she was a 28-year-old political novice on the Wasilla City Council. She turned on a veteran council member who had coaxed her to run for office, blocking a bill that would have steered business to his garbage-hauling firm.

The moniker was revived once again in 2003, when Alaska's governor, whom she would later unseat, appointed her to a state oil-and-gas commission. As a brand-new member, she challenged the ethics of the panel's leader, the chairman of state's Republican Party, forcing him ultimately to resign.

Another example from the same Washington Post article (just to hammer the point):

Her swift ascent to the governorship, and now to a vice presidential nomination, is regarded by some in Alaska as a case of fortunate timing, for someone who possesses the right outsider's tactics at the right political moment. Others cite driving ambition and instinctive opportunism -- a willingness to turn on political patrons to get ahead.

This sentence denigrates her own political triumph (first woman Governor of Alaska and one who assumed office at a young age) by describing her victory as the result of fortunate timing. To compound the insult the writers depict her "instinctive opportunism-a willingness to turn on political patrons to get ahead".

Of course, the other interpretation would be more truthful and accurate.

She took on a notoriously corrupt political establishment and took great risks in battling her own party to ensure miscreants were identified and corrupt practices ended..

Now contrast that with Barack Obama who has run on the issue of ethics reform. In fact, he ran on the same issue in Chicago-both at the state level and when he ran for the role of a US Senator. As David Freddoso points out in his superlative new book " The case Against Barack Obama" (and as others have also pointed out), Obama's claim to be a reformer was a fraud. He helped defeat reformers in Illinois-despite his campaign promises (props) that he would reform the corrupt political machine of Chicago.. He solidified the control of corrupt politicians such as State Senate President Emil Jones (who returned the favor by tacking Obama's name on pieces of legislation Barack Obama had very little-if anything-to do with) and the father and son team of John and Todd Stroger.

Obama, of course, had as his political patron and chief fundraiser, Tony Rezko-a man who was just convicted in a case involving political corruption ("pay to play").

Palin saw corruption and fought the establishment to end it; Barack Obama was a creature of corruption and sought to strengthen it.

Did he "turn on" his political patrons? No, despite their corruption that robbed and weakened the citizens of Illinois? No..he bolstered them.

How about that perspective?