What is the Difference Between Sarah Palin, Hillary Clinton, and Barack Obama?
I have made my feelings known about Sarah Palin, they can be read here, so this post is not designed to be a defense of Sarah Palin but rather a look at the difference in media coverage between Sarah Palin, Hillary Clinton, and Barack Obama.
Since Sarah Palin’s announcement that she was resigning as governor of Alaska she has been labeled a quitter and weak. She has been called someone who does not honor the commitment that she made to her state. I agree with most of the criticism, I think that when she announced that she was not running for re-election she should have made the decision to stay on as governor. But that is not the point here, the point is how the media has been portraying her this way and how I can site two examples of the media not covering other politicians in the same light.
The first example is Hillary Clinton. She was a sitting senator in New York who left her state to campaign for president. While it is true that she did not resign her position to run for president the fact is that she was absent for the final two years of her commitment. Once Barack Obama named her the Secretary of State (unconstitutionally) she quit on her state to join the administration. She did not honor her commitment to her state, she left her state for personal political goals. The media did not call her a quitter, and they did not call her weak, they did not say that she failed to honor her commitments. Just the opposite was the case.
But an even more glaring case of a politician quiting on his state before his commitment was complete is Barack Obama. This man served less than two years of his commitment as senator to Illinois. When he was being pressured to run for president he initially declined saying that he wasn’t ready to be president. Suddenly he changed his mind and began campaigning for president, leaving his state behind less than a third of the way through his FIRST term. Yet the media did not call him a quitter and they did not call him weak, they did not say that he was not honoring the commitment that he made to his state.
With Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama the media coverage was generally positive, there were no negative attacks as there are with Sarah Palin. In Hillary’s case she has been running for president since she won election in New York, that is the sole reason that she ran for senator in the first place. In Obama’s case he fulfilled less of his commitment to his state than did Sarah Palin to her’s.
What is the difference here? We all know that Sarah Palin is running for president so the motives between the three are identical, yet there is quite a difference in the media coverage. The only difference that I can see is that while Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama were still collecting a paycheck for the duties that they were no longer providing to their states, Sarah Palin will be giving up her pay as a lame duck governor.
We all know the reason why the coverage has been so different between Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and Sarah Palin. I don’t even need to say it but I will any way. Political affiliation.
This is just the latest example of the bias that is in the media. It isn’t surprising, it is expected. But considering the role the media plays in politics today it is a little disconcerting.
America's Watchtower 
I think that there are a couple additional things going on in regards to the difference in treatment. First, Palin and the media never became friends. I remember when she was first nominated that she came out swinging at the liberal media. The denial of access to her by the McCain campaign did not help this in any way because the media had to start digging because people wanted to know more about her. On the other hand, Obama and Clinton had a relationship and they were able to use that relationship to their advantage.
Second, Palin’s resignation was completely out of the blue. Politicians do not make an abrupt resignation like this unless there is a scandal involved. Again, people were wanting to know more about this. When she did not give a “reasonable” explanation (she’s staying mum on her presidential aspirations), the media was forced to theorize and speculate. Given the accusation in respects to troopergate, it was only a matter of time before negative theories would be explored. With Obama and Clinton, it was rather obvious why they left their respective offices.
LikeLike
I am not defending Palin, I find it very odd that she would step down without giving a good reason other than the media was treating her badly also. I think that there is more to this story but she does seem to get much more attention than she deserves, nobody had ever heard of her one year ago.
LikeLike
The majority of the problem is as Mr. Pinkeyes has stated – she belongs to the wrong political party. Because of that one thing, the media would never become friends with Palin (unless they could use her to their advantage, which she would not do). Everything else is speculation, BS, and lies – the truth will eventually come out despite the mudslinging from the pundits.
While running for a national office does provide an “excuse,” it does nothing to excuse them from not representing the citizens of the state that elected them. As I understand it, they did a poor job of that too.
LikeLike
While I vote republican, I must disagree with this post. Did John McCain not do the same thing as Clinton and Obama and also not receive ridicule for it?
LikeLike
John McCain did, but John McCain was a media darling. The media loved the “maverick senator deom Arizona” because of the times that he opposed Bush, so he also got a free ride. The media took it out on Sarah {alin at the time and they continue to do so.
LikeLike
Actually, it depends on what segment of the media you basing your views. If you are looking at the liberal media, then she is the wrong party. However, if you look at the conservative media, then she is not. Fox News and talk radio swoon over her in much the same way the liberal media swoons over Obama. To look at it from another view, the treatment that she receives from the liberal media is rather similar to the treatment that Obama receives from the conservative media. All media is biased; this is the world we live in.
I’m curious, in the absence of a “why” for her decision, what should the media have done (especially when similar situations are associated with a scandal)?
LikeLike
When I talk about the media I am not talking about talk radio. I don’t consider talk radio shows news but more as entertainment and opinion. Just as I do not look at blogs as news either.
LikeLike
I agree with you on that. I’ve ran into people who do consider talk radio as news.
LikeLike
I guess it takes all types, I can’t imagine people not knowing the difference but I am sure they are out there.
LikeLike
So what is “news” ? the AP? they lean pretty far to the left. Newspapers? They also lean one way or the other. What news?
LikeLike