Don't Hate On Palin

While looking through some editorials on the Chicago Tribune website, I came across an article,written by Mary Schmich, that grasped my attention with the headline "Tracing Source of Women's Hate for Palin." The first question I ask is, how can you say you "hate" someone when you have only seen them on T.V. and heard about them on the radio? Schmich goes on to say "the hatred many profess for Palin is rooted in the feeling that she has ascended to power she hasn't earned". This leads to Schmich's main claim: Palin is not ready to be vice president. This article begins by explaining that Schmich is confronted by many women saying that they hate Palin and then Schmich receives "mystified" looks when she says "I don't". Even though Schmich doesn't hate Palin, she critiques her political views and "credentials for this job." Later, Schmich goes on to infer that the one to hate is Mccain, because he picked an unqualified running mate. Although critizing Palin, Schmich says "there's a lot to admire."

While looking at the article, I came across a biography for Schmich which said she went Stanford and Harvard to study Journalism. Also, she has been with the Tribune since 1985. Sounds like a credible source to me. I would have to say that going to Stanford and Harvard might give you some ethos points, and did I forget that shes been doing this for 23 years? Her writing shows that she went to two of the top schools in the country. She uses logos by stating the political beliefs of Palin and reminding the reader of how she "stumble[d]" through the interview with Katie Couric. Not only does Schmich clearly articulate the facts about Palin, but she makes the reader feel like she cares about her. Schmich says, "it hurt to watch her fumble through her interview," which shows that she is using pathos to urge the reader sympathize for Palin. Schmich also says, "the real bad guys were the folks who seduced her for their political gain into thinking she was ready." The writer obviously believes Palin is not ready, but more importantly says that McCain "seduced" her into think she could take on the task of being the vice president. I was shocked to see the word "seduced" since it has such a negative connotation, and I think Schmich specifically placed that word in there to have the reader feel badly for Palin.

This article was extremely well written and changed my views about Palin. I agree with Schmich and felt like she used logos, ethos, and pathos to make her editorial very powerful. Also, I felt like I was in conversation with the author, which allowed me to really understand and believe what the article was trying to convey. This was a fantastic article and I enjoyed analyzing every word of it.