The Times has so little self-knowledge that it apparently doesn't understand that the "colorful personal narrative" that most "overshadow[ed] policy arguments and actual knowledge" in the 2008 campaign was that of Barack Obama, not Sarah Palin. Obama had less experience than Palin, and he was the Democrats' Presidential candidate, unlike Palin, who was running for Vice-President with John McCain, one of the most experienced Presidential candidates of recent memory. We are now living through the debacle that results from electing a President based on a "personal narrative" rather than "policy arguments and actual knowledge," but it will be a while before the New York Times, always a lagging indicator at best, figures this out.Despite the fact that the McCain campaign limited media access to her, in the handful of interviews she gave -- without a single press conference -- Palin couldn't define her party's foreign policy, she couldn't name a single newspaper she read, she couldn't name a Supreme Court decision that wasn't Roe v. Wade, and she lost her only debate with Joe Biden.
Over the course of the campaign, Obama granted hundreds of interviews, subjected himself to dozens of pressers, swept McCain in the presidential debates, and again and again, demonstrated a nimble facility -- indeed, a virtuosity -- with a wide range of complex issues.
I can't wait until these idiots nominate her in 2012.