Palin's Blame Game
Sarah Palin did not write Going Rogue. And neither did her ghost writer, evangelical author Lynn Vincent. They may have put the words on the page, but they did not control the message of the book.
It's obvious to anyone who has been following Palin since before her VP pick that what she has done in this book is to methodically collect every criticism and accusation that has been leveled against her, and then attempted through the book to explain it away either by blaming others or by flat out denial. This book was really written by those that Palin calls the "opposition research." It's a strange peek into Palin's brain that leaves one wondering whether she is a consummate psychological manipulator, or whether she is simply a reactionary who portrays the world she inhabits in her own mind.
In either case, the book spends a lot of time attempting to establish her as a caring mom, a good Christian and a passionate believer in the power of one person, destined by God, to change the world. These moments of Palin's life, described by her as "Little House on the Tundra" are punctuated with long stretches of name-calling, blame, and attempts to humiliate those she feels have been her opponents. Critics are called "the Wasilla town crank," "the falafel lady," "rotund," "effete." A former staffer is mocked for having his shirt tail sticking out of his fly. Well-documented stories are twisted to paint her in the role of the victim seemingly with the confidence that those who adore her and buy the book, won't actually be looking anything up. Martyrdom suits her well, and her fans love it. The more she is persecuted, the more justified they feel, and the more vehemently they run to her defense.
Preparing for her book tour, which conveniently insulates her from any big cities that might be a little too liberal for her comfort, she's already got a new incident with which to paint herself the victim. The timing is perfect.
In Palin's latest Facebook post she accuses Newsweek magazine of being "sexist" for featuring on its cover a photo of Sarah Palin holding two Blackberries, dressed in a tight-fitting top, running shorts, full-makeup, a bumpit on her head, leaning on an American flag which is draped over a barstool. She posed for the picture a few months ago as part of a photo shoot for Runner's World magazine. "It's a wee bit degrading," she says now.
The headline on the cover is "How Do You Solve a Problem Like Sarah?" The cover image illustrates exactly part of the point. Palin's sexualizing of herself is part of the problem, and also part of the reason she has been so successful. The high heels, the winks, the commentators "sitting up a little straighter in their chairs," and the Runner's World photo shoot which includes posed photos of Palin stretching her legs as she looks at the camera lens, are all part of the phenomenon that is Sarah Palin. Had she been a frumpy overweight homely woman, McCain's Vice Presidential pick would not have been her "destiny."
Not that this is fair. The allure of the shiny packaging, and our willingness to allow it to influence us speaks to a societal fault and a human frailty. In an ideal world, we should love people for their insides and we know that. But Palin's insides are utterly unelectable without her outsides.
So, why hasn't Hillary Clinton or Condoleeza Rice (or Barack Obama for that matter) showed up on the cover of a national magazine in short shorts, leaning on a flag? It's because no such photo exists. They understand that this is not a wise thing to do if one wants to be taken seriously and not end up with an embarrassing photo that makes them look like they belong on a calendar page in someone's garage.
Palin will sexualize herself but we are bad if we notice. She puts her children in front of the camera, but we are bad if we talk about them. She's a good Christian, so we should believe all the mean things she says about people. She wants to sell lots of books but doesn't want to go to big cities. She wanted to help Alaska so she resigned as its governor. She wants to be in the media spotlight, but she criticizes the media. It's an endless and self-sustaining loop of blame and victimhood.
And all of this is what gives us lots of things to talk about, and what keeps her in the spotlight, and what fuels her continued presence as part of the national dialog.
Jeanne Devon is the founder of The Mudflats blog, contributing writer at The Huffington Post, and contributing writer to the book Going Rouge - An American Nightmare, available exclusively at ORBooks.com.


















Well written. Conservatives love to warn against the blame game when liberals refer to Bush's disastrous legacy. And yet Palin's career consists of little but blame, first and foremost blame of those who gave her her big opportunity.
November 18, 2009 3:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Welcome to the redneck cult of victimology. Somebody is to blame for all my failures and f-ups, but it sure as hell ain't me. I saw a lot of this growing up in Oklahoma and this is a textbook example of how it works.
November 18, 2009 3:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe it seems to obvious to mention, but isn't this hypersensitivity to victimization FOX and CO's 'critique' of black people?
Blacks are supposed to drop all of the baggage of Jim Crow and be Pollyanna positive, while whites can plumb the depths of bias, hoping to come up with pearls of victimhood.
November 20, 2009 6:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Who cares what this bimbo says? Life is so short and there some many better ways to waste time.
November 18, 2009 4:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
You obviously have no idea who Jeanne Devon is.
I think this is the blog entry that started it all: What is McCain Thinking? One Alaskan’s Perspective.
November 19, 2009 12:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
Nice article, AKM.
The pejorative sense of the word "opportunist" continues to raise its ugly head in my mind when applied to Palin and/or Bush/Cheney. I can't label them "idiots" or "pathological" or "deluded" because of this tendency, just as, well, opportunists.
As far as I can see she has yet to utter anything of substance as a contribution to the current political dialogue and she deserves a Mama Bear's share of the criticism she receives. The hand-puppet analogy still rings true for me; I doubt her ego is as bullet-proof as she protests. In Biblical terms, I suspect she's sold her soul.
November 18, 2009 4:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
AKM..I left a link on your Open Thread before you set up the post on Mudflats. As always you impress with style wit and intellect!
November 18, 2009 4:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think you've nailed it. After reading her response to the Newsweek photo I had no doubt in my mind that she has a scrapbook of all her media appearances, good and bad. Kind of like a serial killer keeps all their news clippings as little trophies. She keeps track of it all and it is kind of creepy.
November 18, 2009 4:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Great writing as usual. I just read her description of her once close friend, John Bitney. What a nasty piece of work she is. She should be so ashamed of herself.
November 18, 2009 4:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Please make her go away. Really, I mean it. She has to go. (Not AKM, the crazy lady in the shorts).
November 18, 2009 5:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Muddy:
Glad to see you over here as well !! As usual, great piece.
I'm glad you took a break from your other writing at the Flats because it was obvious that having to go thru palins' pile-o-swill was taking it's toll....it is/has on everyone....
It's interesting to watch this episode in the destruction of a non-candidate unfold. She seems to want to take a shot at everyone and then her statements about Israeli settlements today probably tore the sheets beyond repair. One can certainly hope so.
Do you or Shannyn know if Lynn Vincent has left the country yet??
November 18, 2009 5:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, I find Palin inspiring. In fact, I’m going to go slip into my nylons, put on my man-make-up, wrap myself in the ‘Merikin flag, and go for a little run.
November 18, 2009 5:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
AKM you nailed it. Well done analysis. Sarah Palin's inside is not electable.
November 18, 2009 6:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Odd that Sarah is the only person who ever claims she is a great mother.
By objective criteria she is a poor parent who engages in exploitation of her children for purely personal political purposes.
November 18, 2009 6:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
You blog is a typical bunch of left wing garbage and just plain stupidity. You write:
Palin will sexualize herself but we are bad if we notice.
--> And how did she sexualize herself? Because she is attractive? To be taken seriously must a woman look like Hilary Clinton or Madie Allbright? That's a very progressive position for you to take.
She puts her children in front of the camera, but we are bad if we talk about them.
--> Again idiot, how did she put her children in front of the camera? Did they do press conferences, hit the campaign trail and give speeches? Did they do anything that Obama's kids didn't do? So we should talk about them as well right? Speculate on who their 'real' parents are? If they are sexually active? Are they pregnant? I guess we should talk about them getting knocked up like Lettermen did about Sarah's 14 yr old, wouldn't that be classy?
She wants to be in the media spotlight, but she criticizes the media.
--> The classic statement of idiocy. She ran for and held political office. Before the national media discovered her and attacked her, she was the most popular governor in the country. The media attacked her from day one, instantly speculating whether she was the mother of her child, digging for dirt and spreading lies and rumors. Of course she would criticize the media, they deserve it. They behave like jackals, out to destroy anyone they view as an enemy of their liberal agenda. You talk about the photo of Palin in Newsweek. They searched for the most degrading picture they could find. How many pictures of Obama smoking have you seen? Damn few if any, yet he is a heavy smoker. But just as FDR was never seen in a wheelchair, Obama is never seen smoking. Palin is shown in super close up, unretouched, and Obama is shown with key lighting and perfect retouching. The MSM deserves the scorn she has shown them for being no less biased and just as ignorant as you.
November 18, 2009 6:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
"You talk about the photo of Palin in Newsweek. They searched for the most degrading picture they could find."
Umm... dude, she chose to pose for those pics in a national magazine. It isn't as if they were candids or private family photos.
So, it's nice to hear that you consider them degrading. Ironically, she degraded herself by consenting to their publication.
November 18, 2009 7:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Update for zipperupus:
Toothless Chihuahua is a guy who voted twice for Bush and still thinks he was smart to do so. You may have some difficulty in puncturing his ideological bubble.
November 18, 2009 7:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
The pic was fine for a sports magazine, in a story about running. They chose it for the front page because they thought it would demean her in that context. See, context is important, as is setting. At the beach a swimsuit is appropriate, in a business meeting not so much. Photos in a sports mag are different from those in a news mag. Can you comprehend that? Are you so blind that you refuse to see that Newsweek was consistently trying to portray her in unflattering ways?
November 18, 2009 8:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dude, I'm a runner. I saw those photos in Runners World. I thought they were *weird*. And I thought "Did she understand how "cheesecake" these images were?" With the flag, and the preening and the bending over (see the actual magazine for the full spread). Most women runners want to be seen as *strong*. RUNNING. Determined. She displayed herself as total cheesecake. Like I said...weird.
November 18, 2009 8:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Does everyone remember when Sarah Palin was called by a couple of Canadian comedy guys and for 10 minutes or so she thought she was talking to Nicholas Sarkozy, even when he told her he saw Larry Flynt's 'Nailin' Palin' and admired her and then told her he wanted to 'unt with her and kill animals'.
Palin laughed and giggled and then they finally had to tell her they were not Sarkozy, and she flipped.
The audio is at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JV_IphAIGPg
November 18, 2009 10:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Would I be correct for saying then that the pictures found in Playboy and Hustler are intended for pre-med students?
November 19, 2009 5:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
How is the photo degrading? She's in shorts and a long sleeved t-shirt. Compared to what's on magazine covers these days, Palin looked like a nun. She took the picture and Newsweek used it to make their point. Read their explanation and read the article. Notice how no one is talking about the actual article? That cry of sexism was pretty clever, wasn't it? In addition the picture was chosen by two women at Newsweek.
Sexist my ass! THIS from a woman who winked into the damn camera during the VP debate. And no one took a photo of the president smoking, but they surely took an inappropriate photo of him and plastered it on a magazine cover. A photo he DID NOT pose for:
http://www.washingtonian.com/blogarticles/people/capitalcomment/12153.html
Now when THAT happens to Palin, then she can get pissy. And as a woman, I would bet that she didn't like the picture because they didn't make her thighs look thin enough.
I will say this, John McCain, who tried to convince us that he would make a better president than all the other contenders, should take a lot of the heat for his decision to bring this pox upon America. Why should anyone trust and respect what this man says?
November 18, 2009 8:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
The fact the picture was chosen by 2 women means nothing. It was chosen because they thought it would harm her. Period. The phot of Obama was not on a national news magazine, and it was not designed to harm his image.
November 18, 2009 8:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
The person who brought both Willow and rape into the spat with Letterman was Sarah.
No body had mentioned Willow by name, but had mentioned Bristol by name, and nobody had mentioned rape until she did.
How would you like your Mommy Dearest putting you, by name, in front of a national audience, into the middle of one of her endless arguments and implying that you willing had sex as a minor.
(If it's statutatory it's with concent, if it's rape is without concent.)
November 18, 2009 10:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Clever Bulldog: Before the national media discovered her and attacked her, she was the most popular governor in the country.
Actually, you could say all the media did was "out" her by showing that what lurked underneath the clothes and smile was really just a dimwit.
For once the media got it right.
Sorry.
November 18, 2009 10:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
I used to work for a narcissist. She was a force, alright. I initially had great admiration for her. Unlike Palin, she was actually quite academically intelligent and accomplished. But she was also paranoid and had an uncanny way of viewing people, situations and events through the lens of her twisted need for grandiosity. She had crazy fantasies about other colleagues (one was out to get her, one was secretly in love with her, etc. All deranged.) She couldn't stand being wrong or being perceived unfavorably. She couldn't stand having someone else seem more important, or accomplished, or having more access to anything (wealth, notoriety etc). She consistently saw herself as the center of A Very Important Life. She surrounded herself with people who gave the impression to others that they were Very Important too. In a word, she was nuts. And very mean when she felt threatened (real or otherwise).
The interesting thing about her persona was not who she was, necessarily, or who she wasn't. It was--and still is, frankly--that when I get together with my old colleagues we still talk about her. It's *our* fascination with her craziness that I find so compelling. And we all left that job situation about 12 years ago. Many, many people can't stand this woman. But we rehash her obviously outrageous behavior (from then and now--because she is always angling to get her name in the paper) over and over again. We dissect it. We say "can you believe it?" And I think, in the end, we are looking for the final, last straw that will expose her for who she really is so that everyone else (the university executives, other admirable colleagues, her husband, etc) anyone who has the power to *do* something about her outrageous behavior, will finally see the light and do it. Or stop believing her. Or stop letting her get away with abusing people. Or maybe, somehow, she will change. That someone powerful enough will reject her, and it will matter to her and she will change.
So, this national dialogue is really not about Palin. It's about us. We talk about her because she's so outrageous. We want her next stunt to be the final, crazy event that will knock some sense into her supporters, and they will see her for what she is: simply a narcissist feeding off the American audience.
It's a shame she found the national stage. She an Octomom both.
November 18, 2009 6:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bingo. You nailed it! Many narcissists don't get this far, but when they do, they get a huge following, and conversely a huge bunch of people trying to explain the pathology -- it is difficult because it is mesmerizing for a certain susceptible mind-set.
November 18, 2009 7:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are correct in saying that this book is a reactionary book based on any real or imagined slight that has occurred during her political career.
As Dan Fagan pointed out today, it says more about a personality than anything else and not a very nice one at that.
She wants to play a part in our countries politics, so where are her solutions? A talking point put out by Bill Kristol, Beck, Limbaugh, those are not solutions, they are just garbage to score a point. Nothing so far either in the book or interviews portrays Ms. Palin as a real political player. It's more the famous because I'm famous thing, and those are a dime a dozen.
November 18, 2009 7:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Palin needs to be overlooked by the broadcast networks with more attention directed at her financial supporters and powerful constituency. Many of whom own and control the conglomerate media monoliths who pay the salaries of her supposed detractors.
November 18, 2009 7:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is a very well done and thoughtful review, by someone who knows her stuff. My hope is that those who have not given much thought to why they admire the shallowness of the pageant girl will truly read her book.....seeking policy, solutions, integrity, compassion, and intelligence. I see nothing but trouble in her narcissistic 'victim' role...... As a liberal and patriotic American, I see so much negativity in the far right and their narrow view.......and when I read the comments written by PalinLovers, I don't understand where the love is, as Christians.
November 18, 2009 9:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
If "Victim Palin" wonders why so many people think she is petty, vindictive, and small-spirited, she need look no further than her own book. Consider just one of the many examples of the "subliminal text" in her book:
Palin: “Halcro was a wealthy, effete young chap who had taken over his father’s local Avis Rent A Car, and he starred in his own car commercials. He would go on to host a short-lived local radio show while blogging throughout the day, all of which were major steps up from a previous job as our limo driver at Todd’s cousin’s wedding.”
——————————————————————-
Palin exposes her OWN character traits in the subliminal text, all while ostensibly exposing fellow Alaskan, Halcro:
1) “wealthy, effete young chap”…..portrays Halcro as the "snob" (but she appears judgmental, resentful, sneering)
2) “all were major steps up from a previous job as our limo driver”…..portrays Halcro as social climber of low status serving her family (but now SHE appears the "snob," and, yes, sneering again)
Frankly, I'm surprised that any ghostwriter or editor wouldn't have pointed out this subliminal text to Palin. The purpose of an autobiography should at least be somewhat flattering to the author.
Excellent post, Jeanne. You touch on one of the many Achilles heels which Palin has: she's never learned to control the underlying message appropriately about herself.
November 18, 2009 9:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
When Gov. Palin first was reported to be the VP choice during the last election, CNN's Wolf Blitzer put her picture in "split screen" with another female reporter. This poor lady reporter was speechless and started crying.
I big thing you her over and over is, "why do they hate her so mush"?
It really does not matter, if you carry hate, you are killing yourself from the inside out.
November 18, 2009 9:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
I seriously doubt that incident ever happened. Would you care to provide a link? If not, run off and do your homework, please.
November 18, 2009 10:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sarah is the center of her universe, well so are we all, but most of us have some sense of our limitations. Sarah is totally lacking in the kind of introspection.
She tries to sell herself with sexual come hitherness but preaches purity.
She supports abstinence but does not teach it to her own children.
She wants smaller government, but she is a control freak who would most probably, like Bush and Reagan make government more powerful and intrusive.
She wants Americans to worship God, but only her version if God.
She wants political power, but hates political correctness.
She loves American but hates that its freedom allows others to disagree with her.
She preaches God but disrespects God’s creations.
Like many Christians she translates God’s gift of “dominion” over the earth to mean not stewardship and care but utter destruction, use and abuse.
She wants attention, but not the kind that the press gives her.
She wanted the power of the Governorship, but not the responsibility.
She wants a book but doesn’t write it.
And on and on and on.
She is a total failure in every aspect of her career, and spectacularly so.
November 18, 2009 9:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
When Palin was first nominated, I spent about an hour researching her, and stumbled into mudflats. The excellent research all linked and attributed put me weeks ahead of the MSM, which was quite taken with her at first.
I read mudflats infrequently, and must say, that if anyone has been a victim of Alaska politics, it would be the author of this OP.
Here is a truly admirable human. Thanks for posting here, Ms. Devon. You are the crowning jewel in the mudflat that is our last real frontier.
=D
November 18, 2009 11:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yez. That is how I stumbled on Mudflats, too. And I remember when the guy in the Alaska legislature broke her blogger anonymity.
I'm with Bwak. Thanks so much for joining us. I hope some of the other mudflatters speak up, also.
November 19, 2009 12:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
The best thing about you HATERS is you never see what is going on around you.
Like the 640,329 Obama jobs on the recovery.gov site which tell you how great we are doing in America. But if you really want to know see Biggoverment.com and find out that millions are going to fictional districts in States. Millions and Millions down the Obama rathole.
Just keep that hate going, you will be easyer to control at the funnyfarm.
November 18, 2009 11:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not that any of what you wrote deserves comment on its lack of merits but what does it have to do with Palin being a complete phony?
November 18, 2009 11:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sarah is a phony
Sarah is a fake
Sarah is the evil spawn
Of John McCain's mistake
Sarah is the fountainhead
Sarah is the source
Sarah is the wake-up call
To a country gone off course
And if Sarah is looking for a great campaign song for 2012, I recommend http://www.youtube.com/rantcaster
November 18, 2009 11:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sarah's a gem
Sarah's a jewel
You all are so jealous
and then act the fool.
She's real and accomplished
unlike your Dear Leader
don't like her, who cares,
You can't defeat her.
Heh.
November 19, 2009 10:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
Palin once again proves that denial is not a river in Egypt or dyslexic spelling of Alaska's highest mountain. Part of her heritage is Irish Catholic and her practice of don't get mad get even triumphs over religious conversion and may be blessed with a self perceived divine blessing on evildoers who stand in the way of her self perceived mission from God.
November 19, 2009 1:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
I wonder what she is going to do when she come to washington state for thanksgiving,, I hope when she does come out here, she looks and see how many jobs were created by Obama's stimulus package here.I beleive it is in the neighbor hood of 4K or more,, which also translates into 12K,
November 19, 2009 2:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
I heard over 2 BILLION jobs were created in your state alone. I'm sure that number is about as accurate as yours.
November 19, 2009 7:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm with PTroub on this.
I think we can all appreciate the thorough analysis of Palin's book. After all, it's been well-documented that the Associated Press dedicated something like 11 of its journalists to fact-checking every page of the work.
But in the end, who really cares? Democrats seem to be inexplicably intimidated by Sarah Palin. Her name on McCain's ticket made waves for a couple of days following her speech at the RNC; but in the end her presence was a non-factor in the election.
Why would anyone be worried about Palin running for president? Are there people who actually think she would get the GOP nomination?
November 19, 2009 2:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Are there people who actually think she would get the GOP nomination?"
Yes, the little Chihuahua over your post for one, and millions of Real Americans just as dumb.
November 19, 2009 9:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
I suggest, since she is a consummate bushie, that she be nicknamed Miss Katrina Rogue.
November 19, 2009 12:48 PM | Reply | Permalink