What the Palin Emails Really Show - Mother Jones

[BridgeTheGap]

There's a simple way to enrage the attack hounds of the right: Engage in journalism.

Right-wing bloggers and commentators have been huffing about the Sarah Palin email chase, which I kicked off in September 2008, when I asked the state of Alaska to release all her gubernatorial emails under its open records law. Last week, the state, after nearly three years of delay, handed out boxed sets containing 24,199 pages of Palin's electronic correspondence, and journalists immediately began combing through the documents looking for newsworthy information. Given the initial absence of any bombshells—no emails, say, in which Palin calls McCain a dimwit or reveals shocking secrets about herself—conservatives have gleefully dismissed this exercise as a futile endeavor. Glenn Beck derisively claimed that the email request "produced exactly zero interesting material." In the Wall Street Journal, John Fund wrote, "Call it the stalking of Sarah Palin...he left-wing magazine Mother Jones requested Ms. Palin's gubernatorial emails during the 2008 election. After lengthy delays they were released last Friday in Juneau. The fact that you heard almost nothing about them is because there is almost nothing salacious or scandalous in them."

The release of the records was all over the news. Maybe Fund missed that. Nevertheless, Fund groused that reporters have not been as interested in Barack Obama's "paper trail," meaning the president's "college records and papers; his application to the Illinois bar to become a lawyer; his complete list of clients while he was in private practice; and his records from his service in the Illinois State Senate."

Where to begin? Let's start with process. Fund skated past a basic point: Palin's emails were public documents that could be requested by journalists or citizens. The Obama records he mentions are mostly private and cannot be obtained under open-records laws. (Regarding Obama's state Senate papers, most legislatures are not subject to freedom of information laws. Ditto Congress.) Had any of these Obama documents been available to the public, there's no doubt they would have been requested during the 2008 campaign by journalists—perhaps even by Fund. There's also this difference: While college records from decades earlier might be interesting, they do not reveal as much about a candidate's current capabilities and character as more recent emails showing how he or she conducted official business. If Obama's or Hillary Clinton's senatorial emails had been subject to the Freedom of Information Act, I'm confident reporters from a variety of outlets would have sought access to them.

http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/06/what-palin-emails-really-show

[Scuba]

1. ...

After the Alaska legislature hired Stephen Branchflower to investigate possible ethics violations by Palin in the Troopergate case, Team Palin considered spreading rumors about Branchflower's wife to undermine his credibility. As MSNBC.com reported, "In a series of emails on Aug. 1, 2008, the governor and her aides discussed how to respond to the inquiry. The conversation is heavily censored." But at one point, press aide Sharon Leighow noted, "I dropped all sorts of questions about linda," referring to Branchflower's wife. Palin replied, "Thank u."





Classy, very classy.