Joel Connelly's latest places him in the "let Sarah be Sarah" camp - at least in a way.
Without a doubt there is once again a huge amount of pressure on Sarah Palin to perform on a big stage, this time in tomorrow night's VP debate. At this point, legitimate questions remain whether her disastrous CBS interview was a function of the McCain campaign's peculiar isolation of her and probable over-coaching, or whether it was a function of Palin simply being over her head.
I'm inclined toward the former, but the interview was so bad that one has to keep an open mind intellectually until Palin proves herself in the debate and in other media interviews.
For the life of me, I don't understand why the McCain campaign hasn't earlier had Palin doing the rounds of talk radio, bloggers, and local print press on the campaign trail. That's a natural task for a VP candidate anyway, and would have provided quick experience to establish her comfort zone for the much higher pressure settings of sit-downs with network anchors and the debate.
Had the campaign done so, there probably would have been more reviews like this floating around rather than the gnashing of teeth that has going on in a silo about the never-ending CBS muffed punt (which had the press not been consumed with current events would have been a very ugly story line).
No pressure Thursday, Mrs. Palin.
Posted by Eric Earling at October 01, 2008 07:24 AM | Email ThisWhy is it necessary, Eric, that you, George Will, Kathleen Park, et al, feel it necessary to eat your own? Do you see any of the Democratic bloggers or press going after the ONE? Or the #2- the senile Biden?
At least wait till after the election. At least Bill Kristol was offering advice that it appears the McCamp is following.
This has become very disturbing and then your (being the whole et als) become the poster child against your side.
And as Michele from this site has said, just let McCain do his plug and chugging and he will get there. But, he needs help from the minority media.
Palin will do just fine. The more bashing the ONE's side does creates a big backlash.
Posted by: swatter on October 1, 2008 07:26 AMThere is ann other possibility here .. Palin may be as unqulaified as she appears to be. That would be disatrous for McCain but more importantly it raises serious issues abut what is wrong with our system?
It may seem strange, coming from an Obamite, but I hope for all or our sakes that Palin shows skill that we can all respect.
Posted by: SeattleJew on October 1, 2008 07:35 AM[Of course I'll likely be reminded: I predicted a Mrs Clingon win and a Husky win over Stanford...so go figure..ha] :)
Posted by: Duffman on October 1, 2008 08:16 AMFreudian slip there, Duffer? ;)
Posted by: Palouse on October 1, 2008 08:20 AMI'm young, only 27, but it seems like every few years the parties run someone to intentionally fail and transition power. Bob Dole, John Kerry, John McCain, Al Gore... You get the idea. It may end up being close but that's only because the media gets everyone all wrapped up in fallacious argument after fallacious argument.
My tinfoil hat conspiracy theory is that the Republicans have done enough damage to the rights that they don't care that much (4A, 10A - not that anyone cares about the 10A, lol) about and now it's time to get Dems in power to tear down some more 2A progress that we've made during this time.
Posted by: Andrew Brown on October 1, 2008 08:36 AMYou know, what can Palin do? These men interviewers and wannabes (Couric) are out to destroy her. If she says boo, they can come off with a screed against her that you just can't believe.
Russia in sight of the US is significant. Also, the Japanese occupied part of Alaska during WWII. Alaskans have to be and are aware they are in the frontline of defense against an attack.
Posted by: swatter on October 1, 2008 08:43 AMYeah, maybe we should just skip the election and appoint Obama the King. Jeebus.
even theModerator of the debate has a 'cause'....INfrickenCREDIBLE!!!
Who 'vetted' the moderator Duffer? No one, apparently.
Posted by: Palouse on October 1, 2008 08:54 AMSorry man, just calling it like I see it.
Posted by: Andrew Brown on October 1, 2008 09:11 AMConservatives have to battle not just the Democrat Party, but the entire liberal media,educational,entertainment complex which they entirely control.
We've got pea-shooters. They've got machine guns.
Biden made one of the dumbest gaffes of all time last week showing that he didn't even know who was President in 1929, and claiming FDR went on yet to be invented television.
Had that been McCain the media would have been screaming from the rooftops that he was senile and unfit to be President.
It is what we are up against and it is both sickening and maddening.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on October 1, 2008 10:13 AMI'm just going to enjoy the debate tomorrow with Biden and Ifill debating Palin. How hilarious is it that the moderator for the single VP debate would be an Obama lover, writing a book about the Mesiah, due to be released on inauguration day?
The reality facing Republicans couldn't be clearer. I guess it could be worse, though. Michelle Obama could be the moderator, but not even she has written a book focused on making the argument that Obama is the leader of a new age.
Where's my barf-bag?
Posted by: Reality on October 1, 2008 10:18 AMSo much for that long-lost belief of integrity in the old media.
Hey Gwen, you should immediately step down. You should have declined this position the day you were asked to do it.
Posted by: Reality on October 1, 2008 10:23 AMDon't hold your breath.
This looks bad. Can you imagine the teeth gnashing on the left if a conservative like Stanley Kurtz or Bill Kristol were a moderator for one of these debates?
Posted by: Palouse on October 1, 2008 10:51 AMDouble standard, anyone?
Posted by: Michele on October 1, 2008 10:56 AMThe idea that Palin brought on media scrutiny herself is beyond goofy.
The media hates Palin because she is a Republican conservative pro-life woman. It isn't any more complicated than that.
And what exactly do you mean when you say she should have been willing to "play ball"?
The only way she could have "played ball" was to stand up and say "I love abortion, hate guns, and think Barack Obama should be the next President".
My head hurts.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on October 1, 2008 11:57 AMJust thought I'd mention it.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on October 1, 2008 12:27 PMThe libs have their witty SNL skit of Palin's interview with Couric. But none of it tops this.
Posted by: Palouse on October 1, 2008 12:34 PMDid you not notice that she never calls Palin- Governor Palin? All references by Couric were bleeped out.
It's nearly impossible to deal with the left, which looks at government as the ultimate savior.
My wife and I are starting a business and beginning to negotiate the labyrinth of governmental regulations we must abide by in order to do so.
This struck me in particular: The City of Seattle on its website says we need a license for "the privilege of doing business" in the city.
"Privilege"? In the name of sanity do these people not understand that there wouldn't even be a City of Seattle were it not for people engaging in business?
Anyhow, I think it's illustrative of the kind of mindset that opposes us.
We've listened to one of the presidential candidates talk since 2004, when he gave the keynote address at the Democrat Convention. While an inspiring speaker, we know he's an empty suit. We also know that if 100% of Americans really understood his views, he'd have no more than 30% support across the electorate, and only the most liberal and socialist of Americans.
The right argues he's nothing but talk. We downplay talk, coaching, and teleprompters and say we want someone of substance. Sarah Palin is 100% substance. If her world view is not fully developed, don't you think it's simply because she's had other priorities before this challenge? And as for her "performance" with Katie Couric, how hard do you think CBS worked to edit that interview so she'd look good? Are you kidding? This is the Dan Rather network that used forged documents, even though they knew they were forged, to try to impact the 2004 election and defeat Bush.
I know more than enough about Sarah Palin to know that I trust her, and that she's not met a challenge she hasn't surpassed. I also know that her views align with a majority of Americans, and even if Republicans could do it, she'd have no part in covering up parts of her rise to power like Obama has been dependent on.
Remember that talk is just... talk. When Obama says, for example, that he advised the Bush administration years ago of the coming financial crisis, we know he's full of bull. We know those words don't mean anything. But when we read about how Palin cleaned up corruption in Alaska, do we care about words, or do we care that she actually did something?
Gotcha interviews and debates moderated by liberals with questions from the "leftist" viewpoint only really matter to the uninformed who haven't learned that words mean nothing compared to experience or actions. Palin has leadership experience and a portfolio or actions. Obama has neither. If Americans aren't smart enough to see behind the curtain of words to the integrity, philosophy, and actions of a candidate, then we deserve what we get.
Posted by: Reality on October 1, 2008 01:29 PMBy "play ball", her personal story is very compelling and the MSM would have been falling all over themselves to tell it sympathetically. It's the pioneering self-reliance story with a beautiful heroine and spectacular scenery through the lens. Especially with the economy tanking J.S. McCain III Inc. could have knocked inspirational narrative home runs out of the park one after the other. They completely blew it and are now on permanent defense. The only thing they can do now is sulk and say the media are a bunch of a-holes. Not a very effective media strategy.
Posted by: Acid Brain on October 1, 2008 01:29 PMThe best I can come up with is the definiton of a 'zombie' (mindless, blindly following, etc) as narrated by someone in the 40s or 50s and then Bob Hope pops in, "Oh, you mean a Democrat".
Unlike a lot of blog commenters, some of the people I am referring to are good folks and people I respect in their private lives.
Posted by: swatter on October 1, 2008 01:46 PMIt's simple, they are in the tank for him. If it wasn't for blogs, no one would ever get the real story. Power Line did a good analysis of how Palin's every word is scrutinized, but outright lies by Obama don't get a sniff.
Posted by: Palouse on October 1, 2008 01:53 PMTwo reasons: He's a Democrat, and he's African American.
Any further questions?
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on October 1, 2008 02:13 PMWhatever McCain is doing now, I say keep right on doin' it.
Posted by: Love Those R's on October 1, 2008 02:33 PMI got through on the phone to a message center. I left the following message which I also emailed:
I am calling to complain about Gwen Ifill and the Vice Presidential debate. She has a vested monetary interest in one candidate. That she has not removed herself is at once breath taking and appalling in the scope of its dishonesty and hubris. She must be replaced. At best she WILL be replaced, at the very least a 2nd moderator must be added to balance her clear bias.
GET BUSY!
Janet H. Brown, Executive Director Commission on Presidential Debates, 1200 New Hampshire Ave NW, Suite 445, Washington, D.C. 2003, 202-872-1020. jb@debates.org
I've sent the info (and my opinion!) to everyone in my address book.
GET BUSY!
Greta Van Sustern has confirmed McCain campaign did NOT know about this Ifill book.
oh - oh !!
by Greta Van Susteren
I confirmed for us here on GretaWire: the McCain campaign did NOT know about Gwen Ifill�s book (I think I told them when I made my efforts - emails about midnight - to find out!) I am stunned�.the campaign (actually both) should have been told before the campaign agreed to have her moderate. It simply is not fair - in law, this would create a mistrial.
Unfortunately, it would be suicide for the campaign to withdraw. WE at the grassroots have to change this game.
GET BUSY!
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on October 1, 2008 02:36 PMThat said, the answer to the bailout/healthcare question was a disaster... and it was her disaster, no one else's.
That doesn't mean she's a stupid woman, or that she's evil, or that I have a problem with her - I'm pretty neutral in my opinion of her actually, with great hopes - but she needs to take responsibility for her own failure.
That answer defined failure in my opinion.
Posted by: Andrew Brown on October 1, 2008 03:06 PMNot everyone just believes what comes out of the mouths of the left automatically. Unless they are the media, that is.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on October 1, 2008 03:25 PMI didn't read everyone's comments, but for the original post, let me give you third choice: it IS "gotcha journalism" at it's finest.
I was disgusted by the exposure of the rather nasty selective editing from the Gibson "interview". Then, you have Couric grilling her...asking the same question three times over to see if Palin could be shaken. You compare this with the puffball interview of Stephanopolous (sorry if I botched the name) and Obama, where ol' George is practically coaching Obama along. Oh, did you misspeak about your religion? Let me fix that for you. What's the opposite of "gotcha"? "Give ya journalism"?
Since the MSM has dropped all pretense of being unbiased this election round, maybe we could be a little more understanding if McCain's crew wants to control the "confrontations".
Posted by: Zarro on October 1, 2008 07:25 PMIf you watch the now infamous CBS interview, it is very obvious that Katie Cuoric and the CBS team of media elite sat in a boardroom for days coming up with questions that they thought would snag a governor from the state of Alaska. Like, "what Supreme Court decisions do you not like." How much time has Palin had in her important job as Gov of Alaska to deeply analyze US Supreme Court cases? Once these interviewers snag her on something they start pounding. It's really gross to watch; it's so deliberate and full of mal-intent. And, of course, it's not something that is ever done to Obama.
She is not a lawyer and especially not a constitutional lawyer. So what? She is not a foreign policy experts. So what? She brings a lot of other things to table. She knows who she is and what her principals are. She is not full of anger and hate like, say, Hillary or the other left wing "anti-male" angry gender feminists. She is an executive that has actually gotten a tremendous amount done in 2 years. She understands average Americans. She can relate to them. Obviously, none of the media elite are going to design an interview that brings out the best in Palin. She is not the right sort of "woman" that they want to see succeed to the highest level in politics because she does not carry the mantra of contemporary victim obsessed gender feminism.
So, you know what? I don't care if they manage to snag her again tomorrow in the debates. If they do, it will be because it was set up to show-case the pompous Biden and set up landmines for Palin.
But, here is one thing I hope everyone is watching for. Biden is the creator of VAWA. His politically expedient ideology is that of the gender feminists (like those from NOW) - e.g., women are victims be virtue of simply being women. There is a lot of talk about how Biden needs to tread carefully here. But I do hope that Palin can pin him down into showing his hypocrisy in this area.
I think she should flat out ask him: If you are so for advancing women, and protecting women, let me ask you 2 questions:
1) Why do you consider me to be the "wrong type" of women to advance in politics? Isn't this about creating opportunity for all women, ideology aside?
2) Do you consider me to be a victim just because I am a woman? If not, please explain VAWA. If so, allow me to explain how I differ from your view that all women are victims. Then, she should, of course, go forth and show that she doesn't not buy into all of the victim oriented feminists crap that Biden loves so much, explain why, and say that her career has done just fine without affirmative action, without playing the victim, without claiming sexism at every turn, and without pandering to victimhood.
Palin - GO AFTER THAT A-HOLE BIDEN IN HIS WEAK UNDERBELLY. BE RUTHLESS ABOUT IT!
Posted by: BananaLand on October 1, 2008 08:26 PMDo you honestly believe Sarah Palin is qualified to be the next vice president of the United States? If so, was she the best choice of the McCain campaign as a running mate? Better than all the other potential candidates? Seriously?
You don't have to be a constitutional scholar or even a lawyer to be aware of other Supreme Court decisions that are significant. She couldn't even name one.
But more telling is she couldn't even name another newspaper she reads for her daily info. It's hard to imagine someone more intellectually vapid than her current public persona.
Maybe you think that's a plus, but most of us don't feel that meets the necessary requirements to become next in line to be the President of the United States.
To even things out, I'd propose having either a panel or more than one moderator - such as Brit Hume along side Gwen Ifill. Can you handle that ?
Posted by: KS on October 1, 2008 09:52 PMI can't resist commenting, though:
@53: Since the MSM has dropped all pretense of being unbiased this election round, maybe we could be a little more understanding if McCain's crew wants to control the "confrontations".
I think that's true, especially with Fox News (which *does* count as mainstream media)... as far as I can tell, they might as well just come out and say that they're the official propaganda arm of the Republican Party at this point.
@54: Wow. So should I ask you when you stopped beating your wife? Any moron that would make light of the fact that someone was trying to take action against domestic violence is pretty low in my book.
Posted by: demo kid on October 1, 2008 10:24 PMShe has my vote, regardless.
Posted by: Mom on October 1, 2008 10:57 PMLeave off all the care about the games the media play. Fromk EVERYTHING that hss been said, right or left, Sarah Palin's only quality that makes here the Republican VP candidate is her appeal to the radical religious element in the GOP. ALL other qualities being equal, she should not be there.
She should especially bother true conservatives.
She believes in a from of government that ties huge corporations and the government together ... the Alaskan Oilopoly.
Is that really a model anyone wants for the lower 48?
She flirts, FLIRTS with her audiences.
Is she going to improve our image ion the world?
She holds exremist religious views.
Comparing the religion of Sarah Palin to the religion of Adams, Jefferson, Lincoln, TR, Roosevelt, Carter, Reagan ... do we really want someone who "talks in tongues" and might invite a witch hunter to prayer beakfast represwenting the rest of America?
She PROMOTES foreign military involvement in the name of vague victory.
Hasn't the Republican Party been the party of staying OUT of fopreign adventures?
She PROMOTES government spending.
Alaska has the HIGHEST government spending of any State.
And where does this money Alaska spends come from?
AlaskaState taxes each and every American by collecting a fee from the very oil producers Palin brags about having forced to be fair. AreWhat happened to Taxation without Representation?
I have no interest in demeaning Sarah Palin. As far as I can tell she is as competent or incompetent as Gregoire and obviously has far greater political skills. Those skills, while they do not appeal to me, would be fine IF she stood for core American values and had the experience and skill to promote those values. She does not do any of these.
So .. if Republicans want to choose their government because she is a tennis show mom, that is sad.
john McCain has made a shameful choice.
