Palin and high-stakes hand-holding

I couldn't watch more than 30 seconds - too painful...

She made an /age/ joke about Biden? With McCain sitting right beside her?

I mean, McCain is six years older than Biden..

Andrew Sullivan nails it - "Until Sarah Palin agrees to a full and open press conference, she should not even be considered as a possible vice-president of the United States. What has been going on with her and access to her is an outrage to democratic discourse and the entire electoral system."

The McCain campaign is making a mockery of our political process. Any journalist who continues to ignore this fact for appearance of "balance" is complicit in this crime against our country.

It's difficult to comment here since neither you nor Kathryn Jean Lopez made clear what exactly you found objectionable. And it is certainly not clear that you and Ms. Lopez even agree on what you thought was right and/or wrong with this interview. Both of you made comments that were vague and imprecise and hardly worth bothering with.

I saw the clip and didn't think it was particularly unusual ... and in the context of the problems we're facing as a nation hardly worth talking about.

Reaganite, it's the visual of it all. She (and the campaign) got embarrassed by her original interview, so in the follow-up she brings Dad to defend her. Can you imagine if Poppa Bush had shown at Dan Quayle's side for an interview to defend Dan? It just wouldn't be done.

Now, there are serious people suggesting Palin is over her head and not ready for prime time. So, instead of standing on her own two feet and appearing competent, she drags along dad. This is a woman who barely speaks out of the earshot of McCain and hasn't taken a question from the regular press or a regular person in the audience since she was nominated.

Some of you are confused. McCain wouldn't have appeared in this interview with Palin if Katie Couric hadn't requested this arrangement. In other words, it wasn't Palin who invited along McCain, it was Couric.

In 1992, when Clinton and Gore campaigned together on those bus tours, the media thought it was "cute." McCain and Palin appear together in an interview with Couric, and the a lot of Crunchies on this blog make snide remarks.

Paul, as for your comment "that McCain wouldn't allow Palin to speak for herself" I watched the clip and it is pretty clear that Sarah Palin is quite capable and eager to speak for herself and even, when necessary, to show some independence from the guy at the top of the ticket.

Yeah, I agree with Reaganite. Couric invited the two of them so that she could confront Palin with McCain's words (to Obama) while he was sitting right there.

I also agree with Sullivan (though I wouldn't make it a habit), I think we all do, that she needs to do an open press conference.

Reminds me of the "20 questions" interview when Bush was running for office in 2000. The Boston reporter started asking him if he knew the leader's name for such-and-such country. As if that is an indicator of leadership ability.

Fundamentally I think the Palin candidacy is codifying what we already knew to be true...image is what ultimately matters. Reagan has virtually no foreign policy knowledge or experience and I think things worked out ok with the whole collapse of the Soviet Union and all.

I am disappointed in Rod and the other conservative columnists that are assailing her for not knowing Senate Bill specifics and the definition of the Bush Doctrine (which is actually quite subjective). The CEO of my company doesn't know the day to day specifics of the business but is responsible for leading the organization and making good decisions (i.e. surrounding himself with the right people). Shame on everyone playing into the media's attack dog tactics. I hope people get the chance to get to know the real Sarah Palin before the vote...it will help us all make a more informed judgement.

As for those saying he should drop her from the ticket, my reponse is the same as the Mcain spokesperson..."Are you kidding?"

McCain didn't have to go. Reporters make requests that are turned down all the time; heck, Palin turns down 100s of media requests a day, apparently. His decision to go--instead of making the decision to allow her to stand on her own two feet--was a sign of fear. This isn't about Couric's request--which they could have rejected--but instead about the McCain campaigns' fear of Palin

brjosh: You make some good points.

Image is indeed what wins elections. But that is a sad thing; competence is what will ultimately matter. Encyclopedic knowledge is not a good indicator of competence, but some minimum level of intelligence is required. Many folks have studied the interviews and concluded, with darn good reason, that Palin may not be very smart enough and is not worth the risk.

Reaganite, brjosh, and others: I understand that you study the same interviews and come to a different conclusion. Hey, we all have to make a decision with less-than-certain knowledge.

Today's WSJ has a very relevant op-ed from Admiral Stockdale's son that provides some pretty good perspective on this whole affair. In a nutshell, Stockdale was an admirable, highly educated, honorable man who came into a hostile foreign environment and was out of his element. As a result he looked like a bufoon, but the reality was quite different. I have a feeling we are seeing the same thing here.

These types of interviews should be one data point in our assessment of a candidate. The fact that Governor Palin is hesitant and unsure of herself in this new environment is something to consider, but I don't understand why it would trump all of the things that caused Rod and others to be so enthusiastic about her. Her history of having the courage to challenge corruption in her own party, her family background and demonstrated belief in the dignity of each human being, and her frontier woman style independance are not suddenly negated because an edited Katie Couric interview (complete with bad camera angles and a refusal to address her as "Governor Palin" while Sen. Biden is addressed by his proper title) shows her stumble.

If you are willing to toss out all the good things about Sarah Palin because she gave two bad interview performances, then how can you not do the same for Senator Biden? Barack is "clean". "We are getting rid of coal". The plagiarism. The claim that Trig Palin would be cured by embryonic stem cell research. The buffoonery displayed during the Supreme Court appointment hearings. Telling a man in a wheelchair to "stand up". Claiming repeatedly that his helicopter was forced down in enemy fire when it was actually a snow storm. And it goes on and on.

I am a bit dismayed by her performances, but I can't understand the 180 degree reversals by Rod and others.

Rod is hardly the only conservative to have turned against Palin in recent days. George Will, David Brooks, David Frum, Charles Krauthammer, Fareed Zakaria, Ross Douthat, and even Byron York (yes, editor of the National Review) have all expressed grave reservations about Palin's presence on the ticket.

The Intrade market on Palin withdrawing from the ticket has spiked. It's still low at 12.6, but last week it was 2.

Marc, Admiral Stockdale may have looked like a buffoon, but anyone who wanted to find it could see substantial evidence that he wasn't: he excelled as a student at the Naval Academy and at Stanford, won the Medal of Honor and various other military honors, had a POW experience similar to McCain's, was promoted to vice admiral, and enjoyed a successful career in academia after retiring from the military. His debate performance was a result of his age and hearing loss; and the Perot campaign's decision to not help him prepare at all. In other words, Stockdale's record reveals that he was a remarkable man despite his debate performance.

As for Palin...well, where's the beef? She went from indifferent student to mediocre sportscaster to small town mayor to two year governor of a state with a population smaller than Fort Worth. Her reputation as a reformer, an opponent to the bridge to nowhere, is based on objective falsehoods. Yes, the interviews (for which, unlike Stockdale, she has been heavily prepped) are only one data point. But where are the data points that would allow us to infer her excellence? Is there any evidence of her ever speaking extemporanously and intelligently about any major national or international issue?

A review of James Stockdale's life would suggest that he was extremely knowledgeable about many things, and that the debate performance didn't accurately reflect his knowledge. What are the facts about Sarah Palin that suggests that her interview performances don't accurately reflect her knowledge? Some people who look like idiots aren't. It doesn't follow that all people who look like idiots aren't. To paraphrase Jerry Seinfeld: sometimes there isn't more than meets the eye. Sometimes, there's less.

Sorry to see this has turned into a Lumpy Lib blog as I did enjoy it for awhile. I think you should take some of your own advice: "Ad hominem attacks are a fallacious form of argumentation." I'm tired of your nit picking. I'll be going elsewhere..I'm sure I'm not the only one. You've blatantly chosen to ignore the fact that in the Palin interviews CBS and NBC blatantly edited out key parts of her interview....and then appear on their shows whining about her. I'm not impressed.

At least she wore a different dress!

JDG,
I can't help but agree with your whole post except that I trust Obama/Biden less than McCain/Palin. Sure, Palin might be a huge risk, but I have no doubt that Biden and Obama are riskier than she is since even their lucent statements are bonkers. Invading Pakistan, telling Georgia and Russia to just hold hands and say sorry, partitioning Iraq, proposing summit level meetings with Iran, and so on.

For the first time in my life, I think both party's candidates are inept. Is that merely a sign of the increasing wisdom of middle age, increasing cynicism, or is it a true reflection of the times and the candidates?

The one thing that I can see for sure on these clips is that Couric intensely dislikes Palin--she's not hiding it at all well

I don't see this at all either. I understand the desire to project liberal media bias on anyone who hasn't gotten a paycheck from Fox or the National Review, but I think this is more projection than substantive.

but that's beside the point, which is that Palin's brief experience as a sportswriter for a local paper (published three times a week, I think) and her on-camera work, again in sports reporting, for a local TV station does not automatically make her the kind of seasoned journalistic professional who knows how to play the interview game.

My point is that Palin understands television. She knows how to look poised on television, come off as endearing and likeable, and how to prepare yourself for television. And that shows. She's clearly comfortable in front of the camera or in front of a crowd.

What she's not, however, is good at answering basic questions that one can expect when you want to be next-in-line to be president. She just doesn't have it. She can't formulate ideas, she can't shape answers, she can't sort out big topics on her feet.

Erin: In the interest of full disclosure, I was glad that McCain chose a woman, a pro-lifer, and a Christian. I am glad that Palin is supporting her daughter and giving secularists a lesson on forgiveness (even though that lesson lacks one or two vital points). I think it's way cool that she's from Alaska, talks funny, and is a hunter. Funny that so many right-wingers stop right there, because *everything else* I've learned about her scares me to death.

Obama was light on experience too, but he has gone toe-to-toe with Hillary dozens of times. Hilary's baraccuda makes Palin's look like a goldfish, while Palin's lightweight makes Obama look like an elder statesman (and W "sound like Cicero" btw).

I probably would not have voted for McCain, but I was giving it serious thought. I'll be watching that debate, and unless Palin shows us something we haven't seen before, there's no way I'm voting for her.

If Palin needs protection and political correctness in her interviews with Katie, what will she need when confronted with the Putins, Ayatollahs, Chavezes, et al., in the real world?

And nobody here ever had any problems with Palin lying from day one of her introduction as VP candidate?
The "bridge to nowhere" lie, repreated every single day, is just the crassest example.

I've been pretty disappointed with how Palin done in her interviews. But something tells me that there is a decent possibility that she is smarter than this. I think she is being intimidated BY THE McCAIN CAMPAIGN, and her handlers. I think they have decided she is unprepared and nervous, and tried to overcompensate and "over-stuff" her with talking points, when she may actually do better if they would stop being so worried for her, and showing they don't believe in her by trying to emblazon every single talking point into her brain, in a worried manner, all the while. communicating, "you're going to screw this one up. I just know it" to her in the process. Anyway, I don't say this as for sure, but I am pretty confident this is at least part of the dynamic going on here. The nervousness becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. I'm wondering if Palin, won't at some point, tell them to just back off, and "find her voice" but alas I fear it is a likely possibility this is just wishful thinking on my part.

McAmnesty: I introduce my VP nominee, Katie Couric!!!
Yes, Couric and Palin are mirror images of each other.
Note the reading glasses that Couric donned for THIS interview.
She's saying ''Hey, I can look smart by wearing reading glasses too!''.
Just like Obama, it's all image.
God help us all!

brjosh: "Reminds me of the '20 questions' interview when Bush was running for office in 2000. The Boston reporter started asking him if he knew the leader's name for such-and-such country. As if that is an indicator of leadership ability."

Not to be snide, but how did George W. Bush turn out for us?

Meanwhile, regarding the claim that Gov. Palin has been listening to Joe Biden speeches since "Second Grade": Sarah Palin (nee Heath) was born in February 1964. I expect she entered Second Grade at the age of 7, so she was probably in Second Grade from Fall 1971 through Spring 1972. Biden was not elected to the US Senate until November 1972, so was Sarah Heath listening to his speeches when he was a world-reknowned member of the New Castle County Council?

I have to say, her proclivity to dissemble, exaggerate and outright lie in response to questions reminds me of, uh, Bill Clinton.

Luc: You are quite right. She has lied about that bridge and continues to lie about that and others things too - ok maybe not "lie" - but cetainly be dishonest.

I suspect that the problem here is that the Christian Right is quite used to saying, "Well, abortion is by far the most important thing, so shut the h*ll up about all your petty concerns about honesty, death penalty, waterboarding, starting foolish wars, trampling on the constitution, holding prisoners forever without process, spying on our citizens without judicial oversight, firing prosecutors, outing spies, ... Nothing matters except abortion, you filthy liberal!" No wonder Palin's dishonesty is easy for them to swallow.