Quote:
Originally Posted by TheGame
Lambasting is a strong term to use for what the media does. I wouldn't even call what O'reily or Katie did to Palin lambasting. So I'm going to assume you're talking about the reaction from people.
Witht that said, I think that people got on Biden's case as much as he deserved. He was invited on many shows and did plenty of interviews where he didn't make a fool of himself. Unfortunately Palin is not capible of doing this, so she gets a lot more negative attention. And she deserved every bit of it.
|
Well, here is how I see it. Palin was not the most qualified vice-presidential candidate ever, but I'm not so sure if Joe Biden was either. To be honest, I would be saddened if either ever attained the office of the Presidency. Palin received so much more flak because she is an average person, perhaps even a simpleton (which doesn't necessarily need to carry a negative connotation). What do elitists who write for The New Yorker and other such publications fear the most? The likable Republican. Hard to beat in an election. That being said, I like a lot of the elitists at The New Yorker, but it is important to look at the issue both ways.
Biden ranked near the bottom of his class when he studied at Delaware for his BA. He also attended a third-rate law school that any serious student should be able to gain admission to... he's not a mental giant by any stretch of the imagination. Neither is Palin, as I said, but one did receive quite the more negative coverage.
Clinton would have been a far more experienced and qualified choice over Biden, but she likely wasn't nominated because of Obama's ego and / or fear of her internally challenging him for the 2012 nomination. I actually wouldn't be surprised if Hillary replaces Joe for the 2012 run, provided she does not challenge him for the nomination.