You probably think this headline is a typo if you follow politics at all, because it was all over the news last week and even the subject of Saturday Night Live’s cold open. But no, I assure you this headline is not a typo, nor is it a non- indicative title meant to intentionally misdirect. At this point you may be wondering if after her initial endorsement she had a change of heart or an intellectual awakening.
I myself was unware of this additional endorsement because it was obscured by the incoherent ramblings of Sarah Palin in her approximately 20-minute speech in honor of the Republican front-runner. But once I finally decided to sit down and watch this train wreck in its entirety I was shocked to find out just how deep the rabbit hole went. Because while she attributed positions to this candidate that he himself has not claimed to endorse, while she injected humor into her speech that instead of inspiring laughter with her sparked laughter at her she paused in her punctuationless soliloquy to endorse by name another politician running for the same nomination of the same party as the man standing on stage not even three feet away nodding his head in agreement and smiling the entire time!
As I write this entry I am suddenly struck by an epiphany! I am starting to wonder if Sarah Palin demonstrated a level of savvy and strategy many of us did not think her capable of. Because there did seem to be a definite change in her tone, delivery, and cadence when she interrupted her endorsement of the man next to her on stage to single Rand Paul out by name and praise his wisdom and insight into foreign policy as a non-interventionist. Interestingly enough which is a position that the other candidates at the debates, including her host had ostracized Rand Paul for having.
Did Sarah Palin intentionally mangle a speech prepared for her by the speechwriters of the very person who it was about? Did she then interrupt this farcical monologue to provide a lucid and coherent endorsement of someone who better represented the Tea Party values of her core supporters? Did she agree to this public and live endorsement of someone far too liberal for her tastes so that she could publicly undermine him? And why has the media not covered this aspect of the story in more depth? This current line of speculation leads me to consider an alternate title for this entry:
SARAH PALIN: HIDDEN GENIUS?