Reading Sarah Palin

For now, let's set aside the question of whether she's qualified to be president. What I'm concerned about is whether any candidate for public office ought to be allowed to get away with such atrocious grammar and syntax.

There was once a time in American life, both public and private, when the ability to speak clearly and coherently was considered a valuable asset, even a necessity. But in today's parlance of "OMG!" "BFF!" and the blood-curdling ":)," anything goes. It doesn't matter how you express yourself, it seems, as long as you, well, you know, kind of get across the sort of general idea of what you're trying to say, you know what I mean. Don't you?

But as George Orwell argued so persuasively in his essay "Politics and the English Language," how you say what you say is inextricably with what you mean. If you can't express your thoughts clearly, it's a sign that either A) you're not thinking or B) you don't want your listener to know what you're thinking.

In Sarah Palin's case, both interpretations are true simultaneously. Any human being with even the most rudimentary sensitivity to language who listens to her addle-headed patter ought to be able to detect the complete vacuity behind her words. Yes, I know, that big ole meanie Katie Couric made cute little Sarah all confused with all that grown-up talk. How spectacularly unfair. And John McCain's macho Washington insider handlers just wouldn't "let Sarah be Sarah." Yes, that's why in response to a question about which newspapers specifically Sarah reads, the good governor replied that she read any of them.

Last night in her vice-presidential debate, commentators commended Ms. Palin on her ability to form sentences. Nice work. I'm happy for her. But the question we need to ask is not whether she can form sentences, but what are the quality of those sentences, in terms of language used, the arrangement of that language, and finally the meaning behind that language. Yes, language was present last night, but what that language means in terms of specific policy, is anyone's guess. Which was exactly the point.

But goshdarnit, wasn't she a cutie-patootie!