Douchebag of the Week

Just when I thought there wasn't a quality candidate for the DotW Award this week, along comes Sarah Palin. Politico.com posted an article today on Sarah Palin where she claims that the media is handling Caroline Kennedy with "kid gloves," as opposed to the harsh scrutiny that she received. The possibilites here are almost endless. I hardly know where to begin.

Let's start with the obvious question: is the media treating Kennedy more gently than they treated Palin? Of course. Is it because, as Palin suggests, she's a Kennedy? We can't completely rule that out, of course. She's the daughter of a popular President who was assassinated while in office. Naturally, that creates a soft spot for a lot of people. That being said, the real reason that Palin was treated with greater scrutiny than Kennedy is that Palin was on the ticket to be elected to the office of Vice President of the United States. Kennedy is among the people who could be appointed to be the junior Senator from the State of New York. Big difference, Sarah. Big difference.

The current presidential line of succession, as spelled out in the Presidential Succession Act of 1947 (and in amenedments thereto) spells out the next 18 people who would succeed the President, starting with the VP and concluding with the Secretary of Homeland Security. No where on the list does "Junior Senator from the State of New York" appear. Does that mean that a Senate seat is unimportant? Absolutely not. The men and women who comprise the United States Senate are the real meat and potatos of the Legislative branch, so to speak. Every seat is of vital importance, as can be seen by the vigor with which the Minnesota seat held by Norm Coleman was contested. So does this mean that Kennedy should get the seat simply because she's JFK's daughter? Again, of course not. Anyone who suggests such a thing is either a fool or simply doesn't understand the importance of the seat. Should Kennedy be scrutinized? Yes. Should she be subjected to the same rigor as a person seeking to hold the office of Vice President of the United States? Certainly not, and as I said previously, anyone who would ask such a question is either a fool or doesn't understand the question.

So let's move on to the next point. Another major reason that Sarah Palin was treated with greater scrutiny is that she brought it on herself with her behavior and, more importantly, her speech. Much of what she said during the campaign was breathtakingly uninformed or, let's be honest, stupid. When asked what magainzes or newspapers she reads to keep up on world events, you reply "Oh, all of 'em," and you don't expect people to take you to task for it? Here is a woman who seemed to be more concerned with a quality sound byte (how about "I sold it on eBay," as an example) than with actually contributing anything substantial to the discussion. McCain, at least, brought some serious tools to the table. Palin, by contrast, brought a pair of plastic safety scissors and a piece of string. And now she's talking about how Katie Couric and Tina Fey have been "exploiting" and "capitalizing on" her? Wow. As I see it, if you're going to pitch nice and slow, right across the plate, you better expect the other person to swing. If she hadn't so flagrantly made a buffoon out of herself, then Tina Fey wouldn't have had anything to work with on SNL. As far as CBS splicing the Couric interview together in such a way as to make her look foolish, I don't know. I'm no video expert, so I can't attest one way or the other. What I can say, though, is that based on the sheer volume of the cataclysmically ignorant things she said in many of her speeches, the odds are that no such splicing was necessary. Was Katie Couric trying to make her look foolish. No. She didn't need Katie's help to do that.

Congratulations Sarah Palin! You are the first female recipient of the coveted Douchebag of the Week Award!