On Lawrence O'Donnell (a political insider himself and one of the people behind West Wing), he as well as Nicolle Wallace (strongly anti-Palin McCain insider who later wrote two books on a Republican woman President that Rachel Maddow liked a lot) noted their admiration for the upcoming HBO film Game Change. I probably will take a look at it, but Andrew Sullivan previewed it by suggesting it provides a much too positive look at Palin herself (who is going around, shocker, denouncing the film).
Anyone with even the faintest grasp of Palin's reality - including former close aides like Frank Bailey - understands that she is emotionally unstable, paranoid, vindictive, self-destructive, religiously fanatical and clinically deluded. Her "wonderful mothering" led her to take a tiny child with Down Syndrome and parade him in front of the cameras as a political prop, and later hauling him out half-naked at night to show off to fans on her book tour. None of her children has made it to college; one was a teenage vandal, another a teen mom. A man who lived in her house, says her children had to raise themselves. She quit office in mid-term because her vanity and rapacity were more important to her than public service. The victims of her vicious career lie strewn all over Alaska. Anyone faintly aware of reality also knows that John McCain was as cynical, brutal and expedient a figure as anyone to run for president - and that Palin's selection was an act of such grotesque vanity and cynicism that it instantly disqualified him from the presidency.Don't sugar coat it, Andrew. I think the analysis is overall fair. [Second thought there is that he is a bit too one-sided there and a bit over the top. "Victims of vicious career strewn all over Alaska" is a bit much.] It is striking how visceral my distaste of Republican candidates have been since 2000. I didn't support but in no way find it distasteful that people might vote for Bush41 or Bob Dole. On the other hand, finding Bush43 or McCain/Palin as credible candidates was on some basic level (to repeat myself) risible. There are those who now were just shocked at how Bush turned out after they saw him as a sane choice in 2000. Molly Ivins and others told us then that was wrong. By 2004, as seen even by Meghan McCain, we knew it. More so in '08 and now in '12. It is not polite to say so, but we should sometimes be blunt about it.
Also, I don't agree exactly with everything Andrew Sullivan says here in response to the Derrick Bell video controversy (see my embedded video below), but it is a reasonable analysis of the sort I appreciate.
[Update: The movie was decent -- I think the leads worked well overall and we got some of the behind the scenes stuff, but it wasn't special or anything. I think it got weaker as it went on with the second half pretty dull at times. The negatives of Palin as unprepared, above her pay grade, overwhelmed and having some delusions of grandeur was touched upon. I don't really think Sullivan is totally fair in thinking her character was too soft here and besides that would not be dramatically useful.
I think it could be sharper over all. Mixed vote. This is from a certain type of viewer of the political scene, of course, others might get more from this sort of thing. Also, moments like people in the film explaining their connection to Palin or the ugliness of the campaign in certain respects. So many like me see that talked about so much already but the average person who is not so bloggy etc. might very well get more out of that.]