Sarah Palin has released a statement (you can watch her deliver the statement here, too) on the tragic events this past weekend in Tucson. Given the amount of time that has elapsed since the shooting, I am more than a bit surprised at the extent to which the statement misses the mark.
It takes Palin nine paragraphs to condemn the violence. By contrast, Palin begins striking a defensive tone in just the fifth paragraph.
The assassination attempt on Gabrielle Giffords that took the lives of six Americans was not about Sarah Palin. The debate that has ensued since has also not been about Palin, except for the extent to which the rhetoric she has used has been used to exemplify the type of over-the-top language Americans would like to see less of in the future. That Palin believes this makes her the center of the story, and moreover that she should release a defensive statement rather than one that calls on Americans to come together only reinforces the sense in many that she does not have what it takes to be a serious leader in this country.
What could or should Palin have said differently? To begin, Palin should not have made this about her. More broadly, she should not have used the statement to advance her agenda of attacking "journalists and pundits" for perceived wrongs. Instead, Palin should have released the type of address that President Obama will likely today -- and that Bill Clinton did after Oklahoma City, Ronald Reagan did after Challenger -- one that eschews a political message but rather seeks a way to heal and a way to move forward. She didn't. And perhaps she couldn't. But that's why, unlike Obama, Clinton and Reagan, she will not become the leader of this nation.
0 comments:
Post a Comment