The New York Times has broken the story that FOX News has made a deal with Sarah Palin to become a fairly regular commentator or host or something:Former Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska has signed on as a contributor to the Fox News Channel.
The network confirmed that Ms. Palin will appear on the network’s programming on a regular basis as part of a multi-year deal. Financial terms were not disclosed.
Ms. Palin will not have her own regular program, one person familiar with the deal said, though she will host an occasional series that will run on the network from time to time. This person would not elaborate, but the network does have a precedent for such a series. Oliver L. North is the host of an occasionally running documentary series on the military called “War Stories.”
Many suspected that when Ms. Palin retired as the governor of Alaska last summer she was doing so to pursue some sort of career in television. The Fox News deal, however, would not seem to be all encompassing, and would appear to give her room for other pursuits, as well.
The deal could be formally announced as early as this afternoon. Robert Barnett, Ms. Palin’s attorney, did not respond to a call for comment.
Any guesses as to what kinds of programs they'll be having the Crazy Woman create or host?
A commenter at Andrew Sullivan's blog, The Daily Dish, teaches a class in which "The subject matter includes lots of critical thinking. Politics is a common topic. We have frequent opinionated political discussion which usually feeds rich, committed writing."
The teacher writes that witnessing student reactions to Sarah Palin has been baffling:
They succeed and come off as smart, articulate, mature, and balanced.
Except when it comes to Sarah Palin.
My conservative students can't discuss or write about Palin to my satisfaction. These conservative kids can be intelligently critical of Obama and his policies; of the wars; of Bush and torture and the Constitution, and so on. They can make arguments that touch on religion and social issues they care strongly about without sliding into emotion or fallacy. They can dispute with the other students in a thoughtful and orderly way over most issues.
But when Palin enters the conversation, they become adamant, unthinking partisans. The eyes go blank. They seem starstruck and smile a lot (girls and boys.) They do not dispute evidence that she was unqualified or ill informed; they just ignore it. When they returned from an appearance Palin made nearby, four of my students behaved like they'd seen Miley Cyrus, not a potential leader of the free world. When it comes to Palin 2012, they tend to nod knowingly with a little secret smile and say "You'll see."
The information on Palin, as portrayed in Sunday's 60 Minutes episode, would be devastating to most American politicians. Or commentators, for that matter. Why does anyone want to have anything at all to do with such a proven, untrustworthy, pathological liar?
As of next month, I will have been observing Palin's rise in politics for 19 years. As much as I've gotten to know her, the roots of this unseemly national fascination with Palin remain a mystery to me. I'm as baffled as the teacher quoted above.
image - Zina Saunders