cross-posted at Huffington Post
Playing it safe is so pre-web, elitist, establishment-ese.
No doubt Mark Zuckerberg is an amazing technical genius, but TIME making him “Person of the Year” in 2010 is a bit tardy, even given their reasoning, as it’s not like Zuckerberg’s Facebook didn’t mark its mark long ago. Or maybe it’s because he gave $100 million to New Jersey to shake up education and the teachers’ unions?
One has to wonder why Sarah Palin wasn’t considered, because she’s really the only logical choice.
Yes, I’m serious. Unfortunately for Sarah Palin, even as she reaches out to the “lamestream” press, they won’t deign to do the same to her. TIME simply didn’t have the courage to own up to the obvious.
Love her or hate her, no one shook 2010 more than Sarah, including now having the entire Republican establishment poised against her, while the Left continues to hold her in disdain. She’s yet to prove she can come close to winning a general election, but there is a contagious case of flop sweat developing among Republicans that she can win the nomination. Meanwhile, try as they might, the White House keeps getting beat by her, which began with her “death panels” squeal back in ’09, but escalated in 2010 when she backed the likes of Nikki Haley who came out of the blue to become governor, while the Tea Party rose on Sarah’s press tails to take over the political landscape pushing the entire American political reality to the Right.
Not even Julian Assange shook 2010 more than Sarah. Not to mention that TIME couldn’t have chosen him because their advertisers would have bolted, with a full scale web war breaking out on what it meant. Some people think Assange a villain, though I agree with Arianna, but people should remember that villains can be “Person of the Year,” too.
Sarah Palin is the woman who must not be named. She’s that dangerous, but also equally reviled. No person anywhere else in the cosmos of politics, culture or celebrity has caused such a stir.
When Karl Rove came out to question Sarah Palin’s gravitas, it wasn’t long before Bush’s legendary brain did a rhetorical version of Michael Jackson’s moonwalking,moving politically backwards from his own remarks.
If the “Person of the Year” Award had gone to Palin it would have been a case damning her for her divisiveness, her continued inability to change the subject to issues instead of her continual whining about the media, as well as her ideological foreign policy platform that isn’t informed by experience gained through studying or traveling to the countries over which she opines. (Oh, but all that will change in 2011 when she makes her splash overseas.) And since Republicans have convinced themselves Sarah cost them the Senate, which is laughable because it never was in play, that could be added to the list of horribles for TIME to have mentioned, which would bring into the mix the wacky Sarah candidates Christine O’Donnell and Sharron Angle. Her TLC reality show another point of entry, with her ridiculous fake hunting yet another way for the media establishment to take out after a woman who caused more irritation, Republican ranting and ruminating, not to mention Democratic angst and embarrassment, as she helped lead the Tea Party to take the House and turn the Republican Party establishment on its head.
The fact remains that Sarah Palin put the Tea Party on the map and pushed their presence and validated them through victory after victory. Never mind there is no one else on planet earth who could get 10,000 fans to Searchlight, NV, a tiny spot in the desert that is hours away from anything. Considering the Tea Party will own the House come January, bringing into Washington the most conservative body we’ve seen in decades, which has also changed the behavior of establishment Republicans because of the Tea Party rise, Sarah Palin would not have been simply a raucously interesting selection, but an honest selection.
However, choosing Sarah Palin as “Person of the Year” is more a Newsweek – Jon Meacham thing to do, for marketing purposes, if nothing else. It’s something that simply wouldn’t happen with Tina Brown now in charge, with TIME magazine too stuffy to admit that in 2010 it was Sarah Palin who rocked everyone’s world.
This essay has been updated.
…
Sarah Palin bores Tina Brown to death. I think Tina is very engaged right now in figuring how to make Newsweek relevent and how to drag it into the 21st century. Maybe she sees the recognition of Zuckerberg as a pathway.
Personally, I see these tech geniuses as a little bit dangerous with so much wealth and power so early in life.They have not had time to have acquired much wisdom.Maybe I am just being cynical maybe their ‘out of the box’ minds are just what we need.
Palin “boring” Tina Brown reveals the latter’s elitism, because Palin has been one of the biggest political stories since she came on the scene.
As a new media person that began at the very start of the phenomenon, 1996, when the web blew out to the public at large, I don’t think the tech geniuses are dangerous in the least. Their very craft is part of wisdom, with life experiences only adding more to what they already have to offer.
Thank the gods for the techies.
Brown was elitist about Palin well before this, but there is a Palin fatigue factor that’s set in… at least I’ve noticed it. She’s got lots of moxie but nothing yet to hold people who need the least bit more to keep their attention.
Sarah Palin is banality personified.
Off topic comment, but Valerie Jarrett was just on CNBC crowing about how the White House meeting with business leaders “brought Washington and Corporate America together.” So badly done on so many levels I can’t begin to unpack it. Sheesh.
I agree Zuckerberg being named now is tardy.
I do wonder how much Palin probably was considered for how much copy it would have sold alone. The elites hate Palin something a fierce to deny themselves that kind of media bonanaza and endless opportunities for every pundit to give their opinion on it and on and on. I highly doubt they are like me and just bored of Palin already because she’s a train that chug-a-chugs, but it’s all steam, nothing really guiding it anywhere substantive. Judging by their media darlings (Bush, then Obama), substance really isn’t their magic ingredient.
Substance, it seems, is actually scary. Or maybe just boring.
The beltway did after all complain that Hillary was boring all while they claimed to be terrified of her.
Okay, so boring and scary actually go together, at least when it comes to substance.
Off topic: the House is now debating DADT.
Billionaires with no experience in education shouldn’t be “shaking up” a damn thing. He’s very rightwing on education. He wants schools to run like corporations, which is ridiculous. And the teachers unions are not the problem in education. Sad that Democrats have now even made this loyal constituency the enemy by embracing people like Zuckerberg. I can not stand this guy. But I guess his pr campaign is really paying off.
Sarah Palin as TIME’s Person of the Year? I’m sorry, but I can’t go there. She’ll set back women’s rights by a half-century, and the rest of us will find our economy squarely back in the robber baron age of the 1890s, if she’s ever rewarded by voters with the keys to the White House.
You can take me to task for using a sexist term if you like, but Ms. Palin is nothing more than a celebrity bimbo and a corporate tool, and I believe that in your assessment of her, you are confusing cleverness with actual intelligence. Further, most polls show that a clear majority of women reject her, and rightly so. Palin’s political base is primarily with white Republican males. The more ignorant they are, the higher her approval rating amongst them.
Person of the Year is NOT an endorsement. It is supposed to be the person who was most influential in a given year.
Donald from Hawaii, Sarah Palin didn’t have to set womens rights back, the democratic party did it for her when the heathcare bill came up with Stupak amendment. I have always believed that no matter what political party or views you hold sexist and racists slurs should be unacceptable, but sadly there are some people on both sides that just don’t care as long as they get their hateful political point across and its really sad and its going to hurt this country in the long run. People should never look down on someone because of intelligence and for someone to question someones intelligence is just plain snobby and as far as I am concerned. Most of my views are liberal, but I respect that Sarah Palin comes from a rural background like myself. She is tough and alot smarter than you think, or she would never been a councilwoman to mayor to governor to VP candidate. Conserative women also seem to like her as well as conserative men, but I do agree she needs to expand her base.
Most women (especially strong ones)also hate strong women, I will never understand this. One day I would like someone to explain this to me. I see it in the work place…I see outside of work. I am not sure of the psychology of it. Taylor, do you know why this seems to exist?
Donald– You haven’t been watching the Palin book signings and speeches. The people there are mostly women. Women are who democrats are afraid of losing to Palin. Most white men vote Republican anyway. Palin is either loved or hated by women. She represents someone who has everything. Health and fitness, beauty, a career of accomplishment in her field which has led to money and power, a good looking husband who sees himself as her partner rather than her master, a great Mom and Dad (apparent to all watching Sarah Palin’s Alaska), and she has a talent of succeeding at what she attempts.
As for being a corporate tool, you need to look at “Sarah Takes on Big Oil”. In Alaska she took on not only the oil companies but also the Republican politicians they were in bed with. She will be a friend of business but not the big corporations. Her funding has been grassroots and not from big business. If she will have a problem as a presidential candidate, it will be that the big corporations are going to be supporting other candidates.
It was Sarah Palins year no doubt. If you like her or not, she helped the Tea Party candidates especially in the house, gain seats thats has not happened in years, as well as women republican governors some which made history by being the first woman governor in that state. But Taylor, sadly women are not given as much credit as they should be given if they do good or have had a impact on this year or any other year. Sarah Palin was on the front cover of TIME magazine maybe a week or two weeks ago I think, but yeah I agree she should have been Person of the Year, Hillary would proberly have been done the sameway.
Sam Donaldson agrees with Taylor.Just said so on CNN.
Taylor, thank for the entry. I was thinking the same thing today when just now I see this. Kudos to you again for your courage to even say this.
Have you *seen* what has happened to her book sales in the last two weeks?
Have you *seen* what has happened to her “Sarah Palin visits Alaska” TV ratings lately ?
Sarah Palin is yesterday’s news.
… and her 15 minutes are done.
My favorite line; “Maybe we should drill a little hole in the fence so I can watch him.”
No wait! The special little play! I forgot in the first episode: “See this fence. Boys aren’t allowed upstairs.”
Funny stuff.
The Quitter on Twitter goes away like Tiny Tim.
I think thats wishful thinking on your part pmicheal. She has the highest rated show on TLC with her last episode at 3.1 million viewers which is pretty damm good. Her book is still on the New York Times best seller list at number 5. I think her being out there since 2008 is way more than just 15 minutes.
Okay – first – that 3 million was a 40% dropoff from the 1st show (though give her credit – few people watched TLC before then) and I understand the 3rd show fell off even further. My Mother – who is (was?) a HUGE Sarah fan said she absolutely *hated* it and would never watch again – all the needless killing just to somehow prove how ‘macho’ she is.
Palin’s new memoir, has logged disappointing receipts since it officially went on sale late last month, publishing sources say. Although the book is second on the New York Times bestseller list this week (behind former president George W. Bush’s memoir, “Decision Points”), its publisher, HarperCollins, hasn’t ordered a second printing – a sign that sales haven’t been overly brisk.
By contrast, Palin’s first book, “Going Rogue,” became thesecond-fastest-selling political book in history upon its release last year, according to Nielsen BookScan, which tracks industry sales. It went into a second printing three days after its release and went on to sell 2.2 million copies in hardcover, according to the publisher.
“America by Heart” (subtitle: “Reflections on Family, Faith and Flag”) got a more modest launch. HarperCollins’s initial press run was 1 million copies, suggesting that the publisher recognized that “Heart” was not likely to repeat the success of “Rogue.”
If 9th on the New York Times bestseller list is disappointing, I think that Harper Collins will take that.
ABH was more of a policy-oriented book. Going Rogue was always going to sell much more and be much more of a monster hit because it was a biography and it was Palin dishing her side of the 2008 campaign. HC knew this going in.
SPAK has been a success for TLC. It has been far and away their most noteworthy program and their second biggest hit. Were Palin not running in 2012, TLC would sign her up for a second season.
Instead of complaining about the liberals who run Hollywood, Palin was shrewd enough to figure that if you make money for them, they will treat you better than they treat other Republicans.
Remember, Hollywood liberals have no principles other than those which make them a percentage of the gross. Palin understood that, which is why she’s doing better in Hollywood than other Republicans.
The notion that Palin is somehow “going away” is belied by the relentless media and GOP assault against her. They aren’t stupid. They know otherwise. You should, too.
I proposed Sarah Palin as person of the year a few days ago on a Chicago Tribune blog. It’s not whether you agree with someone, it’s SUPPOSED to be about who affects the news the most. But TIme sold out, I think, when it refused to make bin Laden person of the year in 2001, when he clearly was.
But FB founder? Please… How lame.
I’m certainly not the only one to note this, but Time hasn’t been particularly big on recognizing women in general. Especially one single woman. I see three who apparently reached the “stand alone” level of importance.
2005 – Melinda Gates, along with Bill and Bono
2002 – three women who are “whistleblowers”
1987 – Corazon Aquino
1976 – Women of the Year (12 of them)
1970 – Men & Women of the Year (middleclass)
1953 – Woman of the Year, Queen Elizabeth II
1938 – Couple of the Year, General & Mme Chiang
1937 – Wallis Warfield Simpson
Really appreciate the comments on this one, which were very interesting to read, emails as well.
There is simply no one who comes close to having the impact Sarah Palin has had this year regardless of what happens going forward.
“There is simply no one who comes close to having the impact Sarah Palin has had this year regardless of what happens going forward.”
Palin and Danika Patrick _ America kneels at the feet of bimbos. You would think intelligent women would complain. *sigh*
Taylor has consistently pointed out her differences with Palin (I consider Taylor quite intelligent). Time’s POTY isn’t supposed to be who we like or agree with the most, it’s about impact and how visual a person was throughout the year.
I don’t agree with Sarah Palin on much of anything, but to deny her power and it’s base would be foolish.
You can either acknowledge that she is an intelligent and shrewd opponent, or you can tilt and the Windmills of Trigdom like Andrew Sullivan. Nobody is holding a gun to your head to agree with her.
Good God, stupid people don’t get elected Governor of Alaska, except I guess in the alternate universe where Spock has a beard and liberals insist they live in the Reality Based Community.
Now I understand how Reagan kicked your asses in 1980. You didn’t know how much he moked you until it was too late.
The majority of women are democrats. Gov Palin is a republican. A majority of men are republican. Ergo, Gov Palin polls better with men than women. Simple logic. And as far as women’s rights go, she supports protection of the unborn. That is a single issue. But it is one that makes feminists rabid. Never mind she strongly advocates for Title IX, equal pay, working moms, and just about every other “women’s issue” there is. She violates the holy grail of murdering the unborn. And therefore, women on the left hate her. Pretty simple. And I wish someone on the left would explain to me why it is immoral to own, buy and sell human beings (slaves) but not immoral to rip one out of your body and throw it out as medical waste. Seems like cognitive dissonance to me if ever there was one.
Watching Palin move through each layer of government she has worked in is almost entertaining.
I am constantly amazed at how repetitious her opponents response is to her. On both the left and the right they denigrate her with remarks about her lack of intelligence.
She doesn’t always win, but no one ever out works her in a campaign. That combined with opponents either not seeing it at all or not worthy of contemplation miss the threat she poses to them.
She cant do it anymore but she used to go to all sorts of meetings, rotary, small business admin, farmer marketing strategy sessions, school board, city Assembly meetings (not just her Wasilla town home meetings but other cities as well) and sit in the back just observing. She would normally show up late and bale before the glad handing would start. She gained a lot of knowledge about the issues folks cared about and what side of those issues people where on. That gave her great leg up on who to rely on when it came time for her to govern.
I know she cant duplicate that at the national level but those that think her last 8 months or so of endorsements and campaigning resulted in failure are whistling past the grave yard.
Recently I saw Obama say in an interview that he doesn’t think about Palin. Its was pretty eerie, I have heard those exact same words come out of a lot of pie holes that no longer are in public office.
That is another interesting thing that seems universal, those that get beat by Palin disappear from the landscape. I don’t know if its because they often are at the end of their careers anyway or its the embarrassment off having to face the fact that someone they deem an idiot has bested them. Usually in a rout.
I agree. She has been THE primary story for over a year now. Even progressive blogs can’t change the narrative. Publish 6 stories on her, and I can guarantee those 6 stories will be the ones that draw the most comments and are the most avidly read. I’ve never seen anything like this. Every tweet is analyzed. Every Facebook page is scoured for information about her opinions. We know her travel schedule better than we know the president’s schedule on some days.
Although loads of people love to pretend that she’s irrelevant, EVERYONE seems to know how she shoots now, even. And the FCC’s major event of the year? Apparently, it was fielding complaints that Bristol Palin was still making it on Dancing with the Stars.
True phenomena.
This Article got one thing right.. “palin is dangerous”