Then they started to defend her and attack the author. The New York Times, the Washington Post and even Keith Olbermann deplored the nature of the explosive contents that have been made public so far. They find the whole thing irrelevant and not connected to politics. I think they would have a stronger point if Sarah Palin had not written about her younger years in Going Rogue.
Personally, I couldn't care less how many sexual partners of any race she had before she was married, after she was married or right now. What makes it relevant to me is her hypocrisy and the fact that she lies at any given opportunity.
In her own book she painted her relationship with Todd in very different tones. He was the one, he has always been the only one. Always. She painted herself as little miss perfect, utterly dedicated to Todd and then to her brood. The devoted girlfriend became a devoted wife and mother, her motivation to do anything, including her involvement in politics, always noble and selfless, was based on the values she learned from her dad, her family, basketball, fishing, hunting, all the things that gave her a faultless work ethic.
We had already found many inconsistencies in her account of many events, so when we look at McGinniss's version (from the excerpts so far) side-by-side with hers, her version becomes even harder to swallow. I expect the author and his publishers took all the necessary steps to avoid litigation and should be able to back up any revelations with some kind of proof.
Sarah Palin wrote about her whole life in saccharine tones, with the added twist of "little Sarah against the world" as the running theme of her political career. Why should the world be so against a person who, according to herself, had only the noblest of motives?
Joe McGinniss interviewed a great number of people who know Sarah Palin well and many of them felt they had been wronged by the Palins. People who had once admired Sarah Palin were deeply disillusioned. And they talked.
If The Rogue is being branded a hatchet job, what is Going Rogue? Yes, a hatchet job. The difference is that one book is well written and the other is very badly ghostwritten. Sarah Palin set out to settle scores and consolidate the myths about a persona she created for public consumption. The Rogue simply debunks it.
Now the contents of The Rogue are deemed to be politically irrelevant... but wait a minute! Sarah Palin made them relevant by writing Going Rogue and working the whole of personal life into the narrative of her political career. Sarah Palin provided the context herself.
She wrote her story and somebody went behind the scenes to have a closer look at it. If the picture that emerges is not a pretty one, is shooting the messenger the best anybody can do?
