How much is too much information?

Public figures pay a tremendous price these days. Scrutiny comes from all angles, and the blinding glare of the spotlight has to be difficult at times.

The term 'public figure' can apply to a wide spectrum of people. It can apply to people in politics, entertainment, sports, and many other areas. Just about anybody with any notoriety can be considered a public figure, and there are plenty of people who want to either build them up or knock them down.

For public figures, the scrutiny they are under also applies to their private lives. An indiscretion made 20 years ago can become a front page story because finding dirty laundry on people is big business.

This type of spotlight likely prevents many good and qualified people from stepping forward and serving others. After all, who wants that type of scrutiny? We have all made big mistakes. Isn't providing for the public enough?

Recently, the impact of this scrutiny was made even more apparent with the release of the book Sweetness: The Enigmatic Life of Walter Payton. Payton played running back for the Chicago Bears for many years and is considered by most to be one of the greatest players in professional football history.

Payton earned the nickname 'Sweetness' for his unique personality in a rough and tumble sport. He died in 1999, and the book takes an in-depth look at his life. The book includes personal problems Payton had, including abuse of prescription drugs, martial infidelity, and other issues.

The release of the book sparked a renewed debate about how much is too much when studying the life of a public figure. Additionally, since Payton has been dead for 12 years, many stated that it was not fair to air his problems without him being able to defend himself.

The defenders of Payton have a point. He was just a football player. Didn't he give enough by having his body beaten to a pulp while entertaining us as a player? Is his personal life relevant to how we interpret his contribution to his profession?

On the other hand, isn't the personal life of a person whose reputation was partially built on his personal conduct important?

It is a tough issue. When is enough, enough?

In politics, this issue came to light in a biography recently released about Sarah Palin. Palin is a possible presidential candidate and was the Republican vice-presidential nominee in 2008. In the biography, there was information included about her sex life 20 years ago.

Again, where does the line need to be drawn? Palin is obviously a public figure, and the political arena is a totally different situation compared to Payton’s life as an athlete. Politicians deserve intense scrutiny especially if there is a possibility they may hold office.

Still, did the digging into Palin's life go too far? What can an alleged liaison that took place 20 years ago tell us about the qualifications of somebody for office now? If the behavior had been recent, then that might be more relevant. Though personal conduct is important, this type of dirt digging may not be a positive contribution to the political process.

The bottom line is this type of scrutiny is not going anywhere. As long as people have an appetite for it, authors will continue to serve it up. People love scandal, and the selling of it often attracts people.

However, the final conclusion we should draw from this is that nobody is perfect. It does matter how exalted a person is. We all have skeletons in our personal closets. If we try to claim otherwise, then we are either lying or living in denial.

Remember that when reading about somebody else.

Being Sarah Palin

There were many intriguing results from last year's presidential election. Of course, the biggest was the election of Barack Obama as the nation's first African-American president.

After that, ranking number two on that list might be the emergence of Gov. Sarah Palin (R-Alaska) as a possible presidential candidate in 2012. Her position as the Republican's vice presidential nominee last year certainly had its ups and downs, but she will have support if she runs in 2012.

At this point, Palin is a polarizing figure. People seem to either love her or loathe her. She is not a person that generates wishy-washy opinions.

The big question is: Why?

For those doubting she is a lightning rod, her recent skirmish with comedian and talk show host David Letterman provides ample evidence.

As the host of a late night talk show, Letterman often skewers political leaders that are in the news. In this case, Palin and her family were making an appearance in New York where Letterman tapes his program.

On each night of her visit, Letterman poked relentless fun at her, but he went over the line when he made a joke about her daughter attending a New York Yankees' baseball game.

Palin has several children, but the daughter who attended the game was her 14-year-old, Willow. In the joke, Letterman made a wisecrack about one of the Yankees' players getting her pregnant.

Even though our society is incredibly jaded, most Americans showed that some limits still remain when it comes to humor. Letterman was roundly criticized by the Palins and the public. The next night he made a half-hearted apology on his program.

The biggest mistake Letterman made was ridiculing a child of a politician. These children should never be served up as cannon fodder when it comes to political humor.

These kids did not ask to be put in the position they find themselves. It was wrong when conservative broadcaster Rush Limbaugh made fun of Chelsea Clinton during President Bill Clinton’s time in office. It was wrong when Letterman made his jokes.

Let's hope the media will leave the children of President Obama alone. Think about the pressures we all went through when we were growing up. Now, think about those pressures if we had gone through them with the whole world watching.

In my case, it would not have been a pretty sight. The bottom line is the children should be left alone.

As for Palin, I believe there is a simple reason why she is such a lightning rod. She is an attractive woman who is charismatic, and she can deliver a strong performance when reading a prepared speech.

She still has to improve her chops when it comes to interviews and other events that are not well scripted.

Charisma can carry politicians a long way. It was certainly an important aspect of President Obama’s victory last year. We’ve seen it with other politicians in recent years, most notably President Clinton and President Ronald Reagan.

However, the primary reason some hate her is because she is pro-life when it comes to abortion, and she is a supporter of gun rights.

For many feminists, these positions (especially the one on abortion) scare them. Therefore, they feel they have to neutralize her as quickly as possible.

This is why we see many trying to portray her as a dumbbell. Letterman even referred to her personal appearance and her make up as 'slutty.' I have not heard many male politicians attacked for their personal appearance.

Sexism is alive and well in 2009. Get ready for more as Palin advances her career.

Vice presidential nominees' impact overrated

When it comes to presidential elections, one of the most interesting aspects of the race is the role the vice presidential nominees play.

After all, depending on who wins in November, Joe Biden or Sarah Palin will only be one heartbeat away from being president if something unfortunate should happen to the president.

However, the ironic aspect of this is that I believe very few of us take their qualifications into consideration when casting our votes.

Think about it: Will the choice of Joe Biden as Barack Obama's running mate make anybody more or less inclined to vote for Obama? Probably not.

I believe the same applies to John McCain. While Palin has brought some much needed sizzle to his campaign, I believe she will be a minor factor as voters consider voting for McCain.

While it's true Palin may help McCain attract some disenchanted voters who voted for Hillary Clinton during the primaries, this impact will likely be minimal.

However, Palin's emergence during the campaign has been fascinating. After an electrifying speech at the Republican convention, she regressed somewhat as was documented in her lackluster interview with CBS's Katie Couric.

Even some conservatives were debating whether she was the right choice and whether she was experienced enough for the big stage of a presidential election.

She put those fears to rest during her debate with Biden in which she clearly gained confidence as the event unfolded. The same snap, crackle, and pop she displayed at the convention were on display again.

Palin is a lot like Obama in that they both possess a tremendous amount of charisma that plays well on television. Both have been blessed with great communication skills that touch the hearts of people.

While the substance of what a candidate says should be most important, the style in which they present it is quite important.

During my lifetime, the two best communicators involved in politics on the national level have been Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton.

Setting aside their political ideologies, their personal charisma was a big reason for their success. Both not only understood issues, but knew how to present them to citizens.

However, letting personal charisma impact how a person may vote for a president can be a tricky thing. Let's face it; it is easy to be mesmerized by the messenger while losing track of what he or she is actually saying.

As we enter the campaign's final weeks, it is important that voters demand specifics from the candidates regarding how they will tackle the important issues of the day.

When listening to Obama, McCain, Biden, and Palin, it often seems they are satisfied to say they will be an agent of change in Washington without elaborating on what that change will be.

The debates that have been held so far have allowed more specifics to be discussed, but the majority of voters don't tune in to these events. I fear most voters will take the easy way out and form their opinions through the tightly-controlled ways candidates prefer to present themselves.

From here to Election Day, carefully crafted commercials and personal appearances in front of friendly crowds will be how the candidates want to present themselves. Of course, this makes sense because both sides are deathly afraid of making any kind of mistake so close to the end of the campaign.

So, my challenge to you all is to not be satisfied with sound bites from the candidates that are designed to be the quote of the day.

Do your own work and study the issues.