Sarah Palin in Runner's World!?

I know politicians love soft news coverage, but the strategy of seeking out non-political outlets works better for wonky politicians who need to be humanized. That's why I don't understand the decision for Sarah Palin to do a story with Runner's World in their August issue (presumably completed before her bizarre resignation). It's the opposite of the serious, policy-focused coverage she so desperately needs. If you haven't seen it, the interview isn't so bad, but the posed pictures are pretty embarrassing. That's why politicians have communications staff around -- to prevent pictures like that from being taken. At this point, the Runner's World story is obviously the least of her problems, but it does further illustrate the misguided approach she and her advisers have taken to managing her career.

Comments

[David]

I think Brendan nailed the problem when he mentioned the failure or lack of Palin's communications staff. Similarly, her resignation speech would have been drastically improved with good staff work. If she seriously intends to run for President, she'd better get some professional staff people right away and learn how to make use of them.

[Howard Craft]

Here is an interesting take of her decision to resign...

http://alaskadispatch.com/palin-watch/1283-palin-how-she-gained-control-and-then-lost-it?start=4

Certainly he has his biases (and admits them) but he also gives her credit in certain areas as well.

His view of her resignation from the Alaska state energy commission does seem accurate, at least to a point. It was more an act of grandstanding than anything else. It worked for her political career once - who's to say that she doesn't think it will work again.

[David]

Howard, unless Alaska has a standard of ethics far beyond what I'm used to, the items laid out by Mitchell are small beer. A friend of the governor got hired. Two people had different memories of why someone got fired. Give me a break.

BTW from what I've read, that person deserved to be fired. Whoever it was that made the decision to fire him did something good for the state of Alaska. It's not as if these two people have different memories of some scandalous activity.

Furthermore, Mitchell even concedes that a number of the complaints were frivolous.

I am not a Palin supporter. IMHO she's not remotely qualified to be President. However, I do buy her assertion that trivial or spurious complaints can be abused so as to undermine a selected politican.

For me, Exhibit A was when Newt Gingrich was charged and convicted by the House of some strange "offence" -- something like failing to consult a lawyer in deciding on the tax status of a particular PAC. Ironically the IRS eventually concluded that Gingrich was using the proper tax status for the PAC. By then Gingrich's political career was over. And, technically, that IRS decision wouldn't let Gingrich off the hook. He wasn't convicted of using the wrong tax status, but of failing to consult a lawyer.

[HowardCraft]

I think the article was more focused on "competency" than on "ethics".

I found it interesting as a perspective on how Gov Palin is "wired" (to use one of her favorite terms), at least from his perspective.