2010 Pulitzer winner for commentary? Kathleen Parker, of course
posted at 6:36 pm on April 12, 2010 by Allahpundit
This year it’s KP, next year it’s Frum, 2011 it’ll be Christo Buckley, and the year after that — well, let’s just say I wouldn’t bet against Meggie Mac.
Commentary Citation | Awarded to Kathleen Parker of The Washington Post for her perceptive, often witty columns on an array of political and moral issues, gracefully sharing the experiences and values that lead her to unpredictable conclusions.
Says Matt Welch:
[This] once again proves the axioms that A) noisily changing teams is almost always good short-term career advice in the commentariat, especially if B) you change from Team Red to Team Blue (or at least from Team Red to criticizing Team Red), and if C) that change just so happens to coincide with a shift in the overall political zietgeist. As or more imporantly, however, there’s D): turncoats are often at their most interesting and energetic early on during the Change.
Yeah. I link practically every column Parker writes in Headlines, partly because I know the Palinistas will enjoy throwing tomatoes at it but also because it’s something different from the usual fare. Same with why CK MacLeod’s posts get promoted from the Greenroom even though I know most of you disagree with them. A change of pace keeps the blog from getting boring; witness the length of the comment thread to CK’s last one. None of this should be taken as an omnibus apologia for Parker, mind you: Her habit of emulating the worst elements of Dowd’s style is endlessly irritating and the depths to which she’s willing to sink to cast aspersions on Palin fans are appalling. But if you can put the Sarahcuda stuff aside — which is a big if — then, yes, the Pulitzer board could have done worse. Dowd has a Pulitzer, for cripes sake.