Last week, Parker became, overnight, liberals' favorite non-liberal pundit for her column calling on Sarah Palin to step down from the GOP ticket. She described Palin's interview performances as painful, cringe-inducing, and filled with "BS." Concluding that Palin is "clearly out of her league," Parker suggested Palin announce she was quitting to spend more time with her newborn.
Parker is back with her post-debate column in today's Washington Post. The very headline, "Sarah Palin's Bridge to Somewhere," is a tacit admission that Palin has a political future. "What did they do with the other Sarah Palin?" is Parker's opening line. It sounds almost like a complaint, as if Parker is dismayed to have the Palin that made the author famous pulled out from under her.
Parker goes on to describe the Palin of the debate as the "affable, tough, determined pit-bull-hockey mom" first seen at the GOP convention. While claiming to be "relieved" by Palin's performance, there's something begrudging in her conclusion [emphasis added]: "The governor of Alaska had an excellent night, there's no question about it," and Parker is quick to add that Biden won the post-debate polls "by a healthy margin."
But what about the bottom line of Parker's previous column? Does Parker still believe, after witnessing Palin ably take on Biden, that she was right to call for Sarah to step down? Parker doesn't say. The closest she comes is in her final paragraph: "Does that mean she's ready to lead the free world should circumstances warrant? That question remains."
But wait, that's followed by this final line: "Right next to same question about Barack Obama."
Oh, so now Sarah might not be qualified, but she's in the same league as Barack Obama. That sounds like a significant step up in Parker's eyes. Come on, Kathleen. It's not hard. Three little words: I was wrong.
