Palin debacle on CBS Evening News

I'm not going to defend Palin's bumbling here, but I will say that "I don't have the answer right now off the top of my head, but let me go check and get back to you" is one of the stock training answers any good PR practitioner will recommend to a CEO for a TV interview. Rather than wing it and pretend to know the answer, you're supposed to candidly admit when you don't and then say "And I'll get back to you." Then of course you do get back to the reporter with specifics.

Palin was terrible. Most of the time, I couldn't understand what she was talking about (maybe because she was blathering on and not really saying anything). I noticed she has a hard time making complete sentences.

Nice try, pentamom. The questions were straightforward. Couric asked for some specific examples from a 26 year career. Palin could not provide any other than the recent example cited by Couric.

Face it...she blew it. Period. End of sentence. This is not Couric's fault. It is not media bias. It is an unprepared and inexperienced person placed into a position that she is not qualified for.

Palin did not know what she should have. And, unlike Obama and Biden, cannot cover up her ignorance with evasive and meaningless blathering because she's doesn't have that political "skill."

I'm not sure that's a bad thing. Would you rather have an ignorant person who can weasel out of it, or an ignorant person who can't?

I'm not sure that's a bad thing. Would you rather have an ignorant person who can weasel out of it, or an ignorant person who can't?
Posted by: Albert | September 25, 2008 1:02 PM

I'd rather not have an ignorant person as VP in the first place.

Look for the video of the interview. The transcript does not do justice to how strongly Palin comes across as being unprepared for the job of VP.

Maybe Palin should have known some concrete details...

I call bullshit on Couric.

Let's see her drill Obama to give examples of his own concrete action. Would she hit him the same question 4 times in a row? No freaking way. She would have accepted his meaningless blather and moved on to the next question.

What a load of biased coverage!

"Marge, don't discourage the boy! Weaseling out of things is important to learn. It's what separates us from the animals! Except the weasel."
-- Homer Simpson

We *have* seen Obama drilled. How many primary debates were there? Not all of those debates were led by the suck-up left wing media. And we've seen Obama go head to head with Hillary, and come out a winner.

Those who love Palin, will love her, and some of those will be willfully blind. But like Rod and Douthat, those who take a good hard look will see someone who is seriously out of her depth.

McCain isn't a maverick; he's a reckless hack.

I think this interview is a good, piping-hot serving of crow, especially for those who most vigorously defended Palin in the first days after announcement of her candidacy. Enjoy!

Yes, Couric is obviously biased, but guess what? That's the lay of the land. The press in this country leans left, so the VP pick ought to be able to deal with that. That she wasn't again shows the depths of McCain's recklessness.

In Obama's defense, he did show up for a long interview with Bill O'Reilly, so he hasn't been ducking out entirely .

Yeah one bad night totally justifies the faulknerian caricatures and personal attacks on Palin's family.

The point of this interview seems to be to come up with as many "gotcha" moments as possible. Is there any reason to think that any other candidate with limited experience in Congress would be able to recite legislative history on demand like that? Honestly, I don't think I've ever seen anyone else interviewed in quite this way before.

Nice try, what? I said it wasn't a good performance. That doesn't make it any less true that Couric's buried premise that addressing the problem could ONLY be defined as proposing more regulatory legislation was fallacious.

But Palin should have been able to address it.

It was pretty bad. Fortunately for Sarah, it was on the CBS Evening News, so nobody saw it. 8-)

Elmo, I understand how upsetting and unfair those attacks on Palin and her family are, however, it seems to me that you are lumping everyone who criticizes Palin, for any reason, with those who totally "disrespect" her and her family. Equally unfair.

Patrick T. says he "calls B.S. on Couric." Is the only "fair" attitude towards Palin by a journalist an attitude of fawning servility? Or is it fair to hold her to the standards we ought hold our Vice Presidents to?

Katie asked her the same question four times because Palin didn't /answer/ the question the first three times.

Now, if you can find an example of an unanswered question that is caught as not being answered, where they dropped it after, say, not answering it again, then you might have a point.

If she answered it, they didn't like the answer, and continued to ask, there might be a point.

But asking a question over again because the interviewee repeatedly doesn't ANSWER the question, that's hardly 'BS'. That's not accepting an unrelated platitude (repeating the very assertion that they wanted an example to verify, or repeating the very example Katie gave in the first place) as an answer.

Which is what journalism is supposed to do.

I thought she was a pitbull? I thought Palin was the attack dog?

Or is she just a lapdog?

I told you Palin was an idiot. But Biden is certainly no better.

This may be the first election in US history where the contest for VP is a race to find out who has the lowest IQ.

Joe Biden recently discussed an item of economic history. He reminded us of how after the 1929 market meltdown, FDR came on TV and explained it to us.

Please describe to me anything Sarah Palin has said that is close to being as stupid as that. The guy is a total moron. If Sarah Palin said anything that stupid, it would be the headline of the NYT and Obama followers here would be writing endlessly about it. But instead we hear about what a responsible choice he was. Yeah right.

If, Larry, Biden MADE the claim (nobody asked her to, nobody made her do it, and they certainly didn't make her say it over and over) that Obama had been or done something.. Then he had better have examples ready to back his claim.

What free pass? This was PALIN'S interview. Not Obama's, not Biden's. If you want to see if they have had this 'free pass', I'd recommend going back into the apparently forgotten in the mists of time dark ages of, well, you know, the Primary.

I seem to recall entire months of questions about his birth certificate, commentary about his Pastor, snide remarks about being a 'Messiah', being called a 'gaffe machine', etc and so forth.

The reason that it seems they are hard on Palin and aren't asking these things of Obama is.. they already ASKED these things of Obama.

He hasn't hidden from the press.

Palin has given three interviews. Two that (and Rod agreed in the OP) lobbed mostly softballs at her (and, no, it isn't a 'fastball' to ask her for an example to demonstrate her OWN POINT), and one with, well, a commentator from FOX.

This wasn't a grilling. There was ONE question. It was just asked four times because she wouldn't ANSWER the question. It was a question she should've expected, one that she led into with her own claim. She was only asked to back up her own talking point. Something she should've, heck, volunteered without even having to ask. In a sort of 'I say McCain is this.. and here's why I say that' (insert example of how McCain conforms to the description here...)

When she shows up to talk to the liberal version of Bill O'Reilly, by her own choice, we'll start talking about journalists with their puppy dog eyes.

If Palin needs "protection and political correctness" from little ole Katie Couric, what -- what -- and who is going to do the hand holding when she's 2nd in command (or possibly the "Jefa") and with the likes of -- well, let's start with a Putin?????

Alicia: You misunderstand. I was writing in response to Tumarion's gloat that Palin's bungled interview (which didn't seem any worse than Joe Biden's recent performances at campaign rallies), amounted to a plate of crow for "those who most vigorously defended Palin in the first days after announcement of her candidacy." This was when the faulknerian caricactures were coming at us the heaviest. The conflation of one element (her qualifications) with another (her private life) was Tumarion's not mine.

"Specifically how and in what ways did the fact that Obama "taught U.S. Constitution" prepare him for the Presidency? ..."

For starters knowing what the constitution says, once one is sworn to uphold it ...

Or is that not important anymore since the current Prez certainly destroyed that precedent notion. Hmm, upholding that constitution ...

Well, I would say that sufficient knowledge to be able to teach classes on what is, after all, the foundation of our legal system, the document that actually defines the various powers and limitations of our system of government, including the branch both of them want to work in, and is supposed to guide the decisions of the judges they will be appointing..

Its just my opinion, but I just think that is a little more applicable to the job than, say... being able to field dress a moose.

I think we'll have to repeat it, again, Larry.

Obama voluntarily went to an interview with BILL O'REILLY.

So, anonymous, Barack Obama memorized or was very familiar with the U.S. Constitution. (That, however, is an assumption you are making. You have not demonstrated or proved that Obama knows what the Constitution says. Anyone can read or read from a textbook, teachers included.)

How does that demonstrate the kinds of knowledge, skills, and abilities a President is required to have?

Still waiting....

I think we'll have to repeat it, again, Larry.

Obama voluntarily went to an interview with BILL O'REILLY.

So? Are you trying to pass that buffoon off as either a journalist or a conservative? Now, I would rather claw out my own eyes and puncture my ear drums than have to watch or listen to O'Reilly so I don't know how Obama did or what questions O'Reilly shrieked at him, but to hold O'Reilly up as either a responsible journalist or a conservative (check out his stand on the issues) is laughable.

I've just added new video from the Palin interview. This time, she's explaining how Alaska's being close to Russia gives her relevant foreign policy experience. It's a freaking train wreck. -
Posted by: Rod Dreher | September 25, 2008 3:48 PM

Train wreck? Did you see the recent movie WANTED (2008)? The train wreck in that movie was mild compared to this video clip.

OMG.

While McCain and the Right may not have put lipstick on a pig, they may have bought a pig in a poke:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pig_in_a_poke

E-M-B-A-R-R-A-S-S-I-N-G, assuming it wasn't edited to enhance or distort the full Q&A.

I think I may need that bottle in front of me.

I've just added new video from the Palin interview. This time, she's explaining how Alaska's being close to Russia gives her relevant foreign policy experience. It's a freaking train wreck. -
Posted by: Rod Dreher | September 25, 2008 3:48 PM

Train wreck? Did you see the recent movie WANTED (2008)? The train wreck in that movie was mild compared to this video clip.

OMG.

While McCain and the Right may not have put lipstick on a pig, they may have bought a pig in a poke.

E-M-B-A-R-R-A-S-S-I-N-G, assuming it wasn't edited to enhance or distort the full Q&A.

I think I may need that bottle in front of me.

"Sarah Palin made it clear that she is a superstar. The Republicans have found their Obama." - Rod Dreher, September 3, 2008

Pray that John McCain wins, that he stays healthy, and that Sarah Palin goes back to Alaska after 4 years to take care of her family.

As much as I dislike Obama's stand on abortion, I think that this latest clip from the Palin/Couric interview, will lead me to hold my nose and vote for him. I just can't allow myself to support putting this woman within a heartbeat of the presidency, especially when he is in his seventies.

It's too bad Katie Couric doesn't know what she's talking about either.

So what. Last time I checked, Katie Couric isn't running for office.

Besides, a candidate who knows what she is talking about should be able to run circles around a reporter/interviewer who doesn't.

***

I call bullshit on Couric.

Let's see her drill Obama to give examples of his own concrete action. Would she hit him the same question 4 times in a row? No freaking way. She would have accepted his meaningless blather and moved on to the next question.

She "would have"?!? Where is your evidence for what she "would have" done? You're simply making your own assumptions about what she likely "would have" done and trying to pass it off as an argument.

Can you cite a specific incident in which Katie Couric interviewed Obama and behaved this way? Or at least a previous interview of hers in which she behaved this way? If you can, fine. I am no defender of Katie Couric. But your assertion here is simply illogical. You're assuming as fact the point you're trying to prove.

Again, I have no particular reason to defend Katie Couric. But making assumptions about what she "would do" is not an argument.

But you raise an interesting point: It would be worthwhile to see her actually interview Obama or Biden and see whether she conducts the interview in the same way.

***

While McCain and the Right may not have put lipstick on a pig, they may have bought a pig in a poke.

Oooh, that's sexist! (/sarcasm)

He's written a book on policy versus she looks like a deer in the headlights when asked simple policy questions - Posted by: Ben | September 25, 2008 4:32 PM

Agreed. But when he is questioned about things, his responses and stuttered all-over-the-map-what-did-he-say? answers don't appear much better.

*sigh*

Thanks for the train movie, Rod.

And here's the extent of what The Corner has to say about Palin/Couric:

"Everytime there's not a post on something — from a presidential hiccup to the Emmys — I will inevitably get an e-mail about the "deafening silence" of "The Corner." I watched Katie with Sarah last night. And I found the whole thing jarring (and not because it was a "train wreck" on Palin's part — it wasn't). The CBS Evening News is sitting on an interview through Monday? At a moment like this? When everyone's complaining Palin isn't talking about the press? All substance of the part of the interview she deemed to show us last night was trumped by what a bad programming decision I thought not showing it all is. I think the whole interview may be online — I think Couric said it is. I haven't made it there to find yet. If I, who live on the Internet, did not watch it yet, I don't think most Americans will be.": K.Lo.

Oh yes, all substance was trumped by the issue of CBS's scheduling plans. Obviously, I've got my priorities out of place.

Doug

Most of these comments are missing the point, I think, about Palin. As a fellow member of the female gender, a business-owner, voter, here's my take: all of this really shouldn't be about Sarah Palin. Yes, she's obviously in over her head. She's certainly got balls to take on this fight and put herself before the public scrutiny she most deservedly will get. But, this is really about John McCain. He's getting himself prepared to be chief executive officer of the US of A. He needs to select one of his first advisors, his first valued team member. Someone who will have expertise in areas he may not. Someone who will speak truth to power, when necessary. I don't think he's done a good job on this test. To me, that is the most important thing here.

Doug C., you're starting to troll. I took down your long comment in which you did nothing but quote yourself at great length from previous posts. You've made your point already.

Rod:

"I took down your long comment in which you did nothing but quote yourself at great length from previous posts."

Actually, I quoted you, mostly, plus one from Frum. Thanks though, I spent about 20 minutes digging up those quotes and didn't save them, but I'll go back and pull them out one at a time.

I apologize for not realizing that one of your policies is that once someone has made their point, they should refrain from posting further on the topic. It seems a little odd, though. Perhaps you could clarify what you mean?

Is it rude to repeat a journalist's words back to them, a few short weeks later? I suppose it would also be rude to mention what McCain was saying about the economy 2 weeks ago.

BTW, I think you're being overly defensive here. Your early comments on Palin actually show the seeds of your ongoing change of heart.

Doug

On the other hand, she does look damn good for a dame with five kids.

It's sad she doesn't seem to interview well. She is however NOT an ultra liberal. Perhaps Obama and Biden will win...at which point I fear America will basically be no more. So yeah, let's keep pounding on a couple of bad interviews with liberal reporters...Get Hussein elected....that'll be better, cuz Lord knows he gives a good interview with Charlie and Katie and apparently that's what it's all about.

K-Lo is NRO's Sarah Palin. A diversity hire who is nice but clearly over her head.

I agree that they are both diversity hires in over their head. So is Obama, a diversity hire by liberal Dem voters, in over his head.

Rod:

BTW, please do just drop me an email if you ban me as a troll. IMO, I've posted vastly less frequently, and much less antagonistically, then many of your regular commenters, and am surprised by the categorization.

I put up some quotes from you because posts like this don't happen in a vaccuum. I'm sorry, but here's my substantive comment:

I have serious doubts about your judgment, for probably the first time, after reading at least 90% of everything you have published online for more than 5 years, since I started reading you at The Corner and wrote you after the granola conservatism piece. I've questioned your conclusions, plenty of times. But I've never really questioned the fundamental quality of your judgment.

That's why I've promoted your work widely. Just for the record, let's make it clear that as editor for the leading pan-Orthodox Christian magazine in America, I approached you about re-publishing a Crunchy Con blog post as a print article, and I happily brought your wise writing to a new audience. (AGAIN Fall 2007, Vol 29 #3, "Orthodox Christian Leadership in a Brave New World") I also advocated to Orthodox Christian Network that they add you to their short list of analysts and podcasters for their national broadcast and online ministries. Heck, I'm the one who convinced Fr. Chris to first bring you on the program after the Va. Tech. tragedy.

I hate to write all this out; that's why I haven't done so over all the months and years I've been reading and posting here. But I want to be clear: I'm not some casual "Obamaton" or "troll", as I've been accused of being on this site many times. I am a professional religious journalist and editor, and I am trying to point out what - in my eyes, knowing I could be wrong - seems to be a very grave flaw in your work over the past month. I think some other good professionals - like Fallows, Larison and Frum - have seen the same thing in you and others and we're all trying, and failing, to do something that we think will help.

Shorter rant:

I am increasingly dizzy and disillusioned by your stylistic mood swings. One week, you're frakkin' Patrick Henry, unapologetic rhetorician for a new political philosophy with Sarah Palin as its champion, in full-throated advocate mode, as the quotes I provided support. The next week, with this post and others, you shift rhetorically back to "impartial analyst" mode, the cool-headed rational journalist providing perspective instead of a rallying cry.

Yes, a writer can, and perhaps should be, both. But you need more transparency. You need to much more frequently quote yourself, and preface your latest thoughts with more self-reflection, leading with comments akin to, "Now, you'll probably roll your eyes because how much this contrasts with how ga-ga I was over Palin in August, but I think this was a debacle. In fact, I'm embarrassed to read some of my early support for you."

IOW, I want to see your thinking process in action; that's what so fascinating about reading Sullivan. Even when he is incredibly wrong, you can't doubt that he's giving you a genuine glimpse of his own inner arguments with himself.

Do you have any arguments with yourself? You were so certain 3 weeks ago about Palin. You seem so centered in your jadedness now. Do you even recognize any tension or dissonance to those two states? Do you have any sympathy for a reader who reads you every day, gets to this page in the 500K word novel called "Crunchy Con Blog" for years, and says, "Hey! What the heck? How can the protagonist of this book I'm reading, Rod D, not see the conflict between these two moods? These two chapters totally don't work together!" Maybe you want this blog to be about the stories you cover. But the fact of the medium is that it will always be just as much about you, Rod Dreher. Yes, I'm interested in the election. But that's not why I post here. I post here in particular because I'm interesting in what ROD DREHER THINKS about the election. Aren't you interested in reflecting on your own thinking? Or at least on the collective impact of your writing from the campaign? Do you even go back and read your earlier stuff?

Shortest rant: Why should I, or anyone, continue to accept your analysis when you've been staggeringly wrong, very recently, and don't seem interested in really acknowledging it, yet alone understanding it?

Bless,
Doug

"as editor for the leading pan-Orthodox Christian magazine in America"

Wow, can I just say how incredibly arrogant that sounds without more context? It is true. It is also true that the magazine had a very small circulation, a quarterly with only a 5000 print run per issue. It was very much a big fish in a small pond kind of thing, sort of like heading up the leading Wiccans for McCain office in western Nebraska. ;-)

I also believe the quality of the magazine is very high. It has been in publication for 30 years and within the Orthodox Church is well-respected. The piece by Rod, "Why Are Eugenics Wrong?", that we published was stunningly good, and a fine example of the great gifts which God has graced Rod.

Here's the pull quote I chose for the spread: "Today, the idea that it is morally acceptable to 'improve' upon human life through genetic manipulation paves the way for a time when it will be morally compulsory to do so." Strong words; Rod at his best.

bless,
doug

Uh...she might be a lovely person and all that but how can anyone possibly think she could step in as president? It is truly frightening. And, yes, she makes George Bush sound like one great orator.

What she has said (actually, not said) in the few interviews she's done shows her woeful lack of ability to be president.

Doug,
You've made some good points. I already stopped reading this blog on a daily basis because of the 'mood swings' you mentioned and the excitement over Palin.

I might add that as a conservative Orthodox Christian I'm disappointed with the McCain-Palin ticket. And I can't really vote for the other side either.

Keep up the good work you started with the "AGAIN" magazine (that's one publication I can't wait for!)

Rod: "What on earth are you talking about? What have I been doing lately but saying that Sarah Palin has been a huge disappointment, and has not lived up to the early hopes I'd invested in her. If that's not admitting that I was wrong, what is it?"

Rod, I'm sorry, but just pull up the September Archives page for this blog, and skim the 230+ post titles for this month. Yes, you've had a couple of grudging critiques of Palin over the past couple of weeks. You've also done a 180 since your post of 9/8 titled "Why we have to talk about Sarah Palin."

Take a look at the archive (which at some point in your configuration is spelled "achive"; you should get that fixed) and you'll see that any posts referencing Palin became quite rare after that declaration. Yes, the economy has taken center stage. But, you wrote in the first weeks of her selection that you expected her to be strong on domestic policy. Is that no longer the case?

Last Monday, 9/15, you posted this: "How would Palin change conservatism?"

http://blog.beliefnet.com/crunchycon/2008/09/how-would-palin-change-conserv.html

You wrote, "Might Sarah Palin steal the conservative movement out from under the noses of the old guard? Now that would be a reason to vote for her! Let me put the question to conservatives in the room: How do you think an ascendant Palin would change the conservative movement?"

That's a week ago; OK, to be fair, 8 business days. Today, we've pretty much reached a consensus among informed observers of the election of all political persuasions that she's looking like a joke, and that the story isn't how she will change conservatism but whether or not there will be any possibility of a comeback on the national stage for her if, as seems most likely, McCain loses.

It's hard to square this with you claiming now that "What have I been doing lately but saying that Sarah Palin has been a huge disappointment..." What else have you been saying? You've been saying "might Sarah Palin steal the conservative movement out from under the noses of the old guard?" If that's not "something else", I don't know what is.

That's what on earth I'm talking about. Maybe I'm totally off-base here, but it seems to be evidence of stunningly bad judgment on your part as to what makes Palin, and the McCain campaign, tick. Lay that alongside your seemingly uncritical praise for McCain's "here I come to save the day" stunt yesterday, and it really does sound like you're in the tank for these criminals. (And yes, I use that word carefully.)

Bless,
Doug

Hey Karen! (And other folks who recognize the name!)

I feel a little sheepish that some of you know the magazine. I was managing editor for about 5 years, until I left last year to run the website for one of the Orthodox Christian archdioceses. It's a great magazine that played a key part in my own conversion about 15 years ago. It was started as a mom-and-pop newsletter for the Evangelical Orthodox, a group of former Campus Crusade for Christ leaders who in the 70's made their way in to the Orthodox Church. It's a great story, and the book about it - Becoming Orthodox, by Fr. Peter Gillquist (still AGAIN's publisher) - is one of the few Orthodox Christian books over the past 30 years to break out with something of a wider audience.

An excellent priest from the Antiochian Archdiocese, Fr. Michael Gillis (he did the "Ask Father" column for years) is now editing AGAIN. Thank God, because of my new work, I'm heavily involved in trying to develop a wider audience for the magazine's content via the Web.

The magazine's had some ups and downs over the years, but thank God we were able to significantly improve the consistency of the quality over my run. It's one of the only venues, really, for some of the great working Orthodox writers today - folks like Patrick Reardon, Frederica Mathewes-Green, Fr. Thomas Hopko, Fr. Luke Veronis - to write at length about how we can apply the ancient Christian faith to the challenges we face today.

(Cool bit of insider skinny: One of the Conciliar Press board members is Michael Hyatt, who is also CEO of Thomas Nelson, Inc.; thank God, there's some very savvy publishing industry expertise in the Orthodox Church.)

Bless,
Doug

Wow. Wonder just how bad Palin is? Even her "I know and care about Russian relations because I'm Alaskan" spiel doesn't hold up.

This, from the Seattle Times:

"Opportunities abound for Alaska governors to engage in Russian diplomacy, with the state host to several organizations focusing on Arctic issues. Anchorage is the seat of the Northern Forum, an 18-year-old organization that represents the leaders of regional governments in Russia, as well as Finland, Iceland and Canada, Japan, China and South Korea. Yet under Palin, the state government — without consultation — reduced its annual financial support to the Northern Forum to $15,000 from $75,000, according to Priscilla Wohl, the group's executive director. That forced the forum's Anchorage office to go without pay for two months.

"Palin — unlike the previous administrations of Gov. Frank Murkowski and Gov. Tony Knowles — also stopped sending representatives to Northern Forum's annual meetings, including one last year for regional governors held in the heart of Russia's oil territory.

"It was an opportunity for the Alaska governor to take a delegation of business leaders to the largest oil-producing region in Russia, and she would have been shaking hands with major leaders in Russia," Wohl said."

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2008174647_palinrussia12m0.html

Egad.

Doug

As I watch the "Being able to see Alaska = Foreign Policy experience" video clip, it cringingly reminds me of a similar video from about a year ago - the infamous Miss South Caroline Miss Teen USA 2007 response to the "maps" question:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lj3iNxZ8Dww

Of all the things I do well, being right is the most fun.

A couple of weeks ago on the Dallas Morning News blog in a conversation about Palin's isolation from the media I said, "either her handlers are really stupid, or they know something we don't."

elmo: The conflation of one element ([Palin's] qualifications) with another (her private life) was Tumarion's not mine.

No, the conflation wasn't mine; it was of those who were hailing her as the Republican Lightworker while knowing zero about her qualifications or abilities. The coflation was made by those arguing for her based on biography, not on merit. Moreover, I was not making "Faulknerian charicatures" of her at that time--I was pointing out that her supporters were acting out of emotion rather than substance, which is exactly how the GOP was intending to manipulate them all along.

I might note that "Faulknerian caricatures" were being used quite as much to argue for her as against her. Remember the stuff like, "Wow! She hunts moose! What a real woman!" or "She's down-to-earth and the elites are just picking on her" or "She's folks like us!" I would refer everyone here for the third time for an example of what I'm talking about, plus a nice rebuttal.

And when Democrats began to question her qualifications and lifestyle choices, Rod loyally mounted his Crunchy steed and set off to the jousts. "Culture war". "Game on". "Lock and Load".

Oh, please, spare me the revisionist history. I didn't criticize any liberal for questioning her qualifications. I criticized people for saying she was white trash, a hick, a bad mother who should have aborted her Down syndrome baby, a crazy Christian whose daughter is a slut. That sort of thing. I absolutely stand by those posts. The one thing we didn't know was how good a candidate she'd be. Just because she was governor of a small state was no reason to count her out (cf. Bill Clinton). But in the end, she's not been so great.

Harvey: "Of all the things I do well, being right is the most fun."

Oh God, thanks for that. I needed it. You too, JPL. Yes, I think everyone does know it.

Doug

Mark: "I think it's pretty clear that he knows he overdid it with the Palin euphoria. (And yes, he really did overdo it.) But the scales have fallen from his eyes. Let it go and be happy that they have."

Thanks very much for this; wise words. I think you're absolutely right.

Can I continue to rip on Palin, though? ;-)

Doug

I want to echo a few posters above in noting that I don't agree with you on much (other than Wall-E being a great movie), but I absolutely respect your honesty in giving your reactions.

It was painful for me to watch these interviews, simply because I felt bad for Palin.

It's hardly necessary for my voice to be heard in the giant cricket-chorus of Palin chirping pro and con. I just want to say that it's unfair to chide Rod for being "self-absorbed," while reading his blog. Come on! That's like blaming the magician at your kid's birthday party for drawing too much attention. That's what you hired him for. Performance is the name of the game. Bloggers offer you their individual take on the world, their thoughts and the shiny bits that come to their attention and get carried off to their dens, to be displayed for your entertainment. Like a jackdaw, the blogger gathers bright fragments to shore against our ruin. And like the pelican, he feeds our curiosity, boredom, or spleen from his own bosom. There's no such thing as a neutral, humble, self-effacing blog. If you think there should be, go ahead and create one! And good luck to you.

The "bad judgment," I grant you. But given how much fun everyone seems to be having with that, I don't begrudge it to him. Anyway, few of us could blog our every thought without occasionally being shown up in a disastrous gaffe or two.

I never thought that any official running for national office could
make Bush sound like Cicero, but I think you are both witty and right on this one.

I now think that the three most frightening words in the English language are President Sarah Palin

So much about Palin is unknown, even extreme conservatives may be shocked to discover who she really is. We know she smoked pot. What's her medical history? What prescription drugs is she on? What are her real views on the Middle East? On trade with India? On eminent domain? Who knows? How can we know? How would she hold up in a 5-hour meeting at the G8 summit? I don't believe we have ever had such a total unknown so close to the presidency.

I don't know guys. Comparing Palin to Obama, only makes Palin look worse. I don't agree with him on many things, but Obama can formulate cogent paragraphs on the fly about basically anything. Even if you disagree with him, he's not dumb, he is extremely articulate, and he thinks deeply about policy matters. Smart isn't everything. But, I feel truly sorry for this woman. She is not only uncomfortable and babbling, she is incoherent and illogical. Apart from anything else, any reasonable person would question McCain's judgment in picking her. This country deserves better.

When I see something like this, I'm not angry at Sarah Palin, instead I want to kick McCain in his old ass. HE KNOWS how relentless this race is. He's had first hand experience in the previous race how relentless this situation can be.

HOW DARE HE do this to a person that has "no idea", is not ready for such a position and the crazy crap that comes along with it. He has taken this poor woman and allowed people to drag her home life through the mud. Put her in positions that she is not ready for and made her look questionable.

John McCain is a user and poison in her life and I feel like kicking his wrinkly butt for putting her through this without CLEARLY cautioning her and preparing her for this! This is just wrong.

And believe me, I'm NOT a Sarah Palin supporter. But this is just WRONG.

The original op-ed you posted at dallasnews.com is exactly the sort of far-right reactionary cheer-leading that turned me away from that newspaper some years ago. (Too bad too, great sports page.)

What I wonder is whether you have contacted them to offer another, more measured editorial expressing your new concerns about Palin and, by proxy, the state of your preferred party? (I am speaking for you here, I know, but you did previously claim that, without Palin, "...the Republicans deserve to lose this year".)

I would be curious to see whether A) the DMN would publish it, and B) whether you would write it.

Rod,

I knew you'd change your mind on Palin -- just like you did with George Bush and the Catholic Church.

Turmarion: By your logic, saying something positive about somebody's hobbies and lifestyle is reason enough for others (many people in this case) to say that the subject cheats on her husband, claims her grandchild is her child, attempted to miscarry, charged rape victims for rape kits, along with a host of other smears, lies, and caricactures.

Wow, you must be a lot of fun to be around.

With what blinkers do you look at the world when you say "she is a good woman". What does that mean? Good to whom? Herself and her family? Not good to the librarian who she apparently hounded out of a job (yes I know the librarian quit- but I am sure being pestered by the town mayor had some role in it). She is not good for the town where she left a massive debt. Not good for women who, if she had her way, would be forced to carry unwanted pregnancies resulting from rape or incest. Certainly not good to the cop whom she fired because he would not do her bidding. Everything I have read about her from different sources indicate that she is ignorant, arrogant, petty, mean and vindictive. Even if half the stuff written about her is true, she is totally unfit to be the vice president.
The greatest evil in this world comes from people who look at the truth and then refuse to see it. Good woman indeed!

Wow. That was really painful to watch. Worse than I would have imagined. Palin is really, really in over her head. Reminds me of when I used to teach and I had a student who was unprepared but I tried to give them the benefit of the doubt, asking slow and deliberate questions in an effort to "nurture" them into comprehension.

I am just visiting this site from a link. I don't know what the position is on abortion, if that is the deal breaker for you with regards to Obama. Or maybe it is Homosexuality/Gay Marriage. But there has got to be some kind of common ground that you can find with him and not let this woman anywhere near the White House. Please, please!! He has been trying to reach out to the persons of faith which not many Dems do. I think he would like to end abortions from the front end with education and counseling. If that is the only reason that you will put Sarah Palin in office, then I just don't know. My 2 cents.

Rod: thanks for being honest.

Oh, EricW, this isn't the same anon you were talking to before. However, seeing as apparently you're still "waiting," I'd be happy to fill in for him/her:

So, anonymous, Barack Obama memorized or was very familiar with the U.S. Constitution. (That, however, is an assumption you are making. You have not demonstrated or proved that Obama knows what the Constitution says. Anyone can read or read from a textbook, teachers included.)

How does that demonstrate the kinds of knowledge, skills, and abilities a President is required to have?

Still waiting....

Posted by: EricW | September 25, 2008 3:51 PM

Here's the President's oath of office:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Emphasis mine. Given that fully half of the oath is talking about the Constitution and the President's duty to preserve, protect, and defend it, it makes sense that Presidents should, y'know, be somewhat conversant on the document and its contents.

I don't know the details of any classes Senator Obama may or may not have taught on the Constitution, so I can't speak to his familiarity with it. I am kind of disappointed that you didn't appear to grasp the obvious point that the Constitution is supposed to be a central focus of the Presidency, though.

I'm cringing! I'd be even more embarrassed if I were a Republican.

How could she possible have a decent shot at number 2? It's such a shame so many Americans aren't bothered by leaders who know nothing about the world and have never voluntarily engaged in serious political questions. We are not electing a homecoming queen!

I found this via a link from Sullivan.

I am not a conservative, and I have disliked the Palin pick from the start...largely because I saw it as a cynical pick based on politics first. But I assumed that she was a canny, if provincial, politician, and a potentially formidable running mate.

However, after seeing this clip, it is clear that she is barely able to string a sentence together without a script, and that many college freshmen have a better grasp of world affairs. How this mediocrity can get this close to being President of the United States is baffling, and if McCain wins we will be an international laughing stock.

Obama taught Constitutional Law, so one would presume he's familiar with it.

Everyone who has brought up something along the lines of the "obvious liberal bias of Katie Couric" really makes me laugh. I guess none of you saw the interview with John McCain a couple of months ago. She asked him a question about the surge, and he completely bungled the timeline, attributing the surge to creating the Shia Awakening (the awakening happened long before the surge). He also held up a tribal chieftain as a shining example of the success of the surge (he was assassinated shortly after the surge started). It was, truly, a trainwreck, on what is supposed to be his area of expertise. But Katie or her editors removed his bungled answer, and inserted the correct answer, which he stated later, in a completely different context, from a completely different question. So they saved him from a major league gaffe. I just have to laugh (or cry) when I hear people talk about the "liberal media." Did anyone hear a report in the MSM about that little coverup? Didn't think so.

she looked like a deer in the headlights. good thing katie didn't have a gun.

Doug Cramer asks me: Can I continue to rip on Palin, though? ;-)

Yes. Carry on.

Rod, I truly appreciate thinking people who are justly critical of "their own". If only more Republicans had taken the Bush team to task from the beginning instead of cheerleading his blunders defensively, the U.S would be better off AND the Republican party would be much stronger than it is now. Thanks.

Rod,

I don't agree w/you on much, but I'll read you, b/c I respect your integrity. The change in your opinion between September and now demonstrates humility, honesty, and the willingness to critically examine past positions. It also demonstrates that you attempt to evaluate your preferences against reality.

Whatever you are, you're not a partisan hack, but a human being. I respect that.

Sen. Obama is significantly smarter, better informed, more thoughtful, and more decent than any of his detractors here. My dog is smarter than the person who claimed Sen. Obama can't speak intelligently or intelligibly. - Posted by: Mike | September 25, 2008 11:00 PM

As the person who made that claim, may I ask: what breed is your dog, and when can I debate him or her?

Yes, I was using a bit of hyperbole, but as others have also noted, Barack Obama can speak while really saying nothing, and when he does not have a prepared speech in front of him, his uh-ing and and-ing and hesitating and stammering result in a level of unintelligibility not unlike Ms. Palin's response to Ms. Couric about Alaska and Russia.

I've skimmed through both of his books, I've seen and heard him speak in person as well as numerous times on TV - the campaign debates, interviews, Bill O'Reilly, etc. I wanted to like him, but as time has gone on, I have been less and less impressed, and consider him to be unqualified and unsuitable for the nation's highest office.

Here is what I think the glaring difference between Barack Obama and Sarah Palin for those that try to make the comparison (personally I believe we should be comparing the top of the ticket). For those who do not like and or agree with Obama even when you believe that he did not have a strong performance you can still at least follow what he is saying. You might be totally opposed to what he is saying but still it makes some kind of sense. For all the hell he caught for saying "Above my pay grade" people still knew what he was talking about even though they thought it was disingenuous. With Sarah Palin however you get a headache just trying to follow her logic half the time and I am not being facetious. Before anybody tries to complain about what I said I just have one question. What or who is the "those" Sarah Palin was referring to when she said and I quote "it is from Alaska that we send those out to make sure that an eye is being kept on this very powerful nation Russia" I will give my dwindling 401k to anyone who can decifer the "those" in that statement. How weird is it to cringe and feel sorry for a woman who might in the near future every time she is interviewed by the likes of Charlie Gibson and Katie Couric. Neither of them are exactly Tim Russert you know. Honestly if she just gave shorter answers she would maybe be at least ok. But she seems intent in trying to show off all the stuff she is learning in her National Politics for Dummies class. Joe Lieberman has to be feeling like a total failure as a teacher!

elmo: By your logic, saying something positive about somebody's hobbies and lifestyle is reason enough for others (many people in this case) to say that the subject cheats on her husband, claims her grandchild is her child, attempted to miscarry, charged rape victims for rape kits, along with a host of other smears, lies, and caricactures.

First of all, anyone reading my post would see that this is a clear distortion of what I said.

Second: Any time a political campaign or politically motivated commentators, bloggers, and such say anything, positive or negative about a candidate's "hobbies and lifestyle", it is spin, directed at supporting or attacking that person. Both sides have used Sarah Palin's biography, as it were, to promote their agendas. Typical politics, but that's what's wrong with typical politics. I don't really care that Sarah Palin hunts moose, or that Obama was raised by a single mother or any such stuff. I want to know if they're prepared to lead this country.

Certainly, there is nothing in any of my posts on this thread or elsewhere (and there are a lot of them) in which I even remotely imply that there is "reason enough for others (many people in this case) to say that the subject cheats on her husband, claims her grandchild is her child, attempted to miscarry" and so on. Personal attacks should be out of bounds for both sides, as I've said many times. I would point out that the rape-kit thing is not a personal "smear", as it pertains to policy, and I would refer you here, among many, many other places you could google, and which would demonstrate that this issue is also not a "lie".

In any case, as the concluding personal insult in your post indicates, you obviously have no desire to conduct civil conversation here, and so I invoke my policy of leaving it alone from this point.

I wonder what other prominent Republican women (e.g., Elizabeth Dole, Olympia Snow, Kay Bailey-Hutchinson) are thinking when they watched the three (3!) interviews that Palin has been allowed to give in the last 28 days.

Sarah Palin is an interesting person and has a interesting, albeit largely fictional, story. But she is not qualified to be president. I ask those people who fervently support her, Would you want her to be running the business/school/agency you work for? Her penchant for promoting her friends to positions of power, her stoppage of the Troopergate investigation, her penchant for repeating untruths- she is simply not qualified.

"Those" as referenced in the previous post either refers to reconnaissance jets that SHE DOESN"T SEND OUT from her Governor's desk, or spaceships that go after Putin when he crosses over Alaska airspace. The part of Russia that is 50 miles from the coast of Alaska is practically uninhabited. Moscow is almost equidistant from Juneau, Alaska and New York City! Look, I can see the moon from my balcony, but that doesn't qualify me to be an astro-physicist!

What a joke she is. I feel sorry for her. I feel sorry for McCain. As a result, I feel sorry for the rest of us.

I think that getting competent, qualified and intelligent people is MORE important, or should be, for people who espouse a smaller government. (Assuming they aren't trying to get people to think government is so monumentally terrible they don't want one at ALL.)

After all, if I run a staff of several thousand, with multiple people for each position who can check, and double check the work being done.. then one or two idiots can slip through the cracks and only do so much damage before one of the co-workers catches it.

If I only have the bare bones minimum to run things, those few had better know what they're doing. Because there's nobody around to check their work.

As a lawyer who has actually taken a constitutional law class, I have to respond to the commenter who thinks teaching constitutional law involves "memorizing the Constitution" or simply reading from a textbook. This is a completely simple-minded notion. Constitutional law class in a law school involves reading the important Supreme Court cases interpreting the Constitution (usually beginning with Marbury v. Madison), analyzing the arguments made in the majority and dissenting opinions of those cases, analyzing trends in the decisions of the Court over the years and different philosophies of jurisprudence (e.g., "strict construction"), and more. In short, it is a class about *thinking*, using one's analytical skills to examine how the Supreme Court has interpreted the Constitution (and usually, since most law schools still use the infamous "Socratic method", being grilled by the teacher on the soundness of one's reasoning. Which, in case it's not obvious, is something that requires the teacher to be able to reason logically, because you can't attack a student's reasoning if you don't see the flaws in it (if you can't reason yourself, in other words).

this is the peter principle writ large; someone who has been promoted to her level of incompetency.

Peet: Indeed. Here, for me, is probably the final piece of the Palin puzzle. Everyone with an interest in her should check this out:

http://deepbackground.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/09/25/1448411.aspx

NBC News got their hands on all the correspondence Palin wrote as mayor of Wasilla. God bless her, she sounds sweet. But 5 years ago she was, well:

"As the city files make clear, Palin wrote endless recommendations for local students, seemed to honor every Eagle Scout in a 200-mile radius and, as might be expected, obsessed over all things snow related. There are warnings about snow blowing and snowmachine safety, earnest letters regarding avalanche awareness and proclamations honoring sled-dog racing."

"In a note to a Wasilla landscape firm thanking the owners for donating a tree, she writes, “You’re the best!” in pen and scribbles a smiley face, too. In a letter to a businessman in Wasilla, she hand writes, “Thanks for all you do, Dude!” The trove of old letters also makes clear how small Wasilla truly is. “Under City of Wasilla Account 100-0074, please disconnect cell phone number 354-7676,” she wrote in 2002. It was Mayor Palin, and not a low-level office worker, who was responsible for making sure the local phone company disconnected cell-phone service for some city workers."

This is 2002. Obama is already in the US Senate at that point, taking an unpopular stand on the Iraq invasion. She's simply out of her league on the national stage. There's nothing at all wrong with doing well the kind of city administration she did. But it's not a qualification for national office.

Doug

Palin is "a lot smarter" than Obama? I think DB is living in the bizarro world.

Being smart isn't everything, but it's silly to deny that Obama is exceptionally smart. It's hard to tell how smart Palin is, but the signs aren't encouraging.

"I wonder what other prominent Republican women (e.g., Elizabeth Dole, Olympia Snow, Kay Bailey-Hutchinson) are thinking when they watched the three (3!) interviews that Palin has been allowed to give in the last 28 days."

I don't know about the other two, but I suspect Olympia's wondering what happened to her party.

Most of all, it points to a cynical choice by McCain. Either he did not vet/interview her properly, or the choice was only ment to throw a bone to conservatives. Her choice is definitely not an instance of choosing country first.

As a European with a huge interest in American politics; what America does affects us all, it is jaw dropping to look at Palin's perfomance since her annointment. 'Pathetic' does not come near to describing her! I thought the worst was the panic of her handlers at the UN when she was asked a question but this is truly embarrasing.

In my country if a person was running for an office of any responsibility at all and performed like this the electorate would be like Simon Cowell at an American Idol audition "NEXT"!!

Please please America, wake up and save us all!! The world truly needs America to find itself again after the last eight years. I would be genuinely depressed for humanity if this 'currently' incapable person becomes VP!!

I can only LOL at the people that are still defending Palin. Are you blind, deaf, dumb, or just plain stubborn? Some are saying that Couric is biased in her questioning and that she would have never asked Obama the same question 4 times. Obama went up against the most obnoxious imbecile in the biz (O'Reilly) on the most right leaning network (FOX, duh) and handled it wonderfully. Not only that, even O'Reilly didn't bother to ask Obama the same question 4 times because it simply wasn't necessary. Obama had an answer for every question, addressed in full.

Regardless, I can't wait for the debate on Friday night, not to mention the VP debate. THAT will be one to record and replay for further laughs!!

As an Alaskan, I can assure you that what you're seeing with Palin is something we have endured since the gubernatorial "debates" in 2006 when Palin was elected. I say "debates", but she adamantly refused to respond to direct, pointed questions, even when her opponents literally demanded clear answers. Despite the lies and hypocrisy - especially in connection with the "troopergate" investigation - until very recently her favorable ratings were sky high. Among moderates and progressives within Alaska, her swing in the past three weeks ranges from -17 to -28.5. Only among registered Republicans does she still pull high positives. Despite her persistent ignorance of foreign or domestic policy, for some reason she resonates with many people. Although fewer of us want her back after Nov. 4, for the good of the country I hope she ends up here in Alaska rather than in D.C. Come January I hope the legislature's memories are fresh and she faces impeachment. The country has only the vaguest idea what the McCain campaign has done to the executive branch in Alaska, with the full concurrence of this hypocrite who McCain somehow believes is qualified for something much more lofty than the local PTA. Be happy you don't live here; be hopeful you don't have to live with her for four years.

Holy moly, what a disaster. I am starting to feel embarassed for her. She is simply out of her league.

Can anyone say with a straight face that she is truly prepared to be President? (God forbid something should happen to McCain should he become President, but look at the actuarial tables, and one has to at least stop to think...) It would be an unmitigated disaster -- the United States of America would be the laughing stock of the world.

I am sorry, but she is so bad that rational people of the Republican variety need to start factoring this into their voting decision.

I'm truly flabbergasted. not at Palin, she is (and isn't) what she is and there is little (if anything) she can do about it at this point, other than trying to discover that there is a wider world and to learn something about it.

I'm flabbergasted at McCain. He promised someone who could back him up in economics, and someone who would be strong on foreign policy, and delivered this closeted, backwards, fundamentally reclusive neophyte.

I'm disgusted. Well and truly disgusted. this is political pandering of the worst sort and playing games with the leader of the free world.

Obama will now get my vote, if for no other reason than to dispel this charade McCain is perpetrating on the nation.

With the way McCain has attempted to 'play' us, I wouldn't vote for him if he were the only candidate on the ticket.

"Actually:

"...and I'll bring 'em to ya."

I don't understand the lackof support for Palin and McCain. We say God sends us our leaders, and God has sent us these two. We should support them. It doesn't matter how they answer a question badly or perfectly, Jesus will lead them to make the right answers once they're in the whitehouse. Or do you not believe that??? Come on people. Pray for McCain and Palin, don't critisize their answers to the liberal press. God sent us Reagan, Bush 1, and Bush 2. Now he sends us McCain. And Palin!!!

Yes, it was an uncomfortable moment, but to be fair Biden, or Obama for that matter, has not be pressed on ANY issues. Katie's follow-up questions always seem to get lost when she interviews Democrats.

Palin seems inexperienced, yet she's more experienced than Obama.

People who say Couric was at fault should look at this interview:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J1yWTvfBR8M

where she interviewed Obama. She uses the same interview technique. Look, I don't care if you support Palin despite her blaringly obvious lack of knowledge, skill, intelligence, whatever. But don't pin this one on the media. This is the fault of John McCain. Period.

Shame on you. Our children deserve better from the American voting public.

For many years I was part of the religious segment of the population; I even studied to become a minister in a "fundamentalist" church of this country. I used to pray for our leaders.

How is it possible that Christians would suggest that "God sent us Reagan, Bush 1, and Bush 2. Now he sends us McCain. And Palin!!!"? How is that possible? If that were so, then certainly God sent us Clinton, and perhaps Obama. And Biden!!! That's what the Bible suggests.

God is not a Republican. Really. Please turn off your television sets or least switch channels. Leave your church or at least go less often. With the time you've saved, kneel, pray and seek wisdom in the book you think you believe in.

Re: Tactical

Did you watch obama's interview with BILL O'REILLY?!??!? This is a total joke. You can't deny reality. Obama has answered tough questions over the course of an 18 month campaign. At what point will you admit this, or do you plan to deny truth for the rest of your life?

God sent Bush and company? By that logic, God sent ALL of our presidents. Clinton too!

The mention of Tim Russert reminded me of Barack Obama's last appearance (I think) with the late anchor of Meet the Press, when Obama was grilled for about 13 minutes about his relationship with his former pastor - what defending him, then repudiating him said about Obama's judgment. I thought Obama did well.
I'm sorry Russert's gone, but I cringe at just the THOUGHT of a Russert-Palin interview.

If these two knuckleheads get elected it will be because America truly desires to revel in its know-nothing, reality TV driven stupor.
Yep, I'm an educated, East Coast liberal elitist whose taxes prop up the boondock, hillbilly run states like Alaska. I don't mind if conservatives run this country but why can't they at least nominate someone who can construct a complete thought and present it in complete sentences? 8 years of GWB's mangling the language and endless non-sequitors is enough. The Republicans had Powell and Romney available. Why this adoration of folksy downhome ignorance?

I was very suprised to see Governor Palin fumble so badly after being
chosen by Sen. McCain and the Republican Party as the VP Candidate.
This must of been a bad day for her...or, just tired after long hours
of campaigning(?).

Knuckleheads is the perfect description...this campaign has one misstep after another. McCain is now "saving Americans" by using all his focus on the economic crisis and ending his campaign. (what a coincidence he's ending the campaign in time to avoid a debate with Obama) I wasn't aware that Americans are in harms way from this (yet, another) industry getting their comeuppance. It does happen every so often. It's called change. Americans are in no danger of being killed, they're just in danger of having to pull up their bootstraps like they've done time and time again. It's just another Republican running to save the big corporations and their CEO contributions.

I'm all in favor of women in charge, but Palin is less and less likeable (believeable) as time goes on - not the woman I will choose. I'd like to see some real leaders on the ticket. Unfortunately, politics isn't the realm for leaders anymore.

@ EricW | September 26, 2008 10:33 AM

"I can't tell if you're talking about McCain and Palin or Obama and Biden."

Funny!
but just in case that was a serious observation -

A knucklehead would sing "Bomb, bomb, bomb! Bomb, bomb Iran" and think himself clever. A knucklehead would cling to the myth of "abstinence only" sex education in the face of such a glaring example of its failure!

If clamflats is going to revel in Governor Palin's "non sequiturs" he should at least learn how to spell the word, since he's supposedly "elitist" (thinks he's smart and everything). There's a "u" at the end, not an "o". Look it up, Mr. Elitist.

And yet...here we are, Sarah Palin is the governor of Alaska and a candidate for vice president of the United States and everyone here is well...posting on this blog.

She doesn't need to know every detail, but she should be able to provide more than one example on this issue, since it is the burning issue of the day.

Why? She never claimed that McCain was "pro-regulation". It was Couric who phrased the question in such a way making "pro-regulation" = "maverick". Her answer should have been: McCain supported more regulation on Wall Street, he didn't support more government interference in every other aspect of citizen's lives (a position supported by the Democrats).

You fools just don't get it. The press did the same thing to Reagan. They belittled him, berated him, called him stupid and unprepared, over his head and inexperienced. And in the beginning he was over-coached and green.

You people act as if every Palin interview is sudden death, and if she isn't absolutely perfect then its the end of the world. 60,000 people came out to see Sarah Palin just last week. Like Reagan, she is connecting with average americans without the help of the press.

Palin has done everything McCain needed in a running mate: energize the base, bring in money and volunteers, and change the conversation. Anything good she does from here on out is gravy. She is playing with house money. Geez, Bush was campaigning for over a year and couldn't answer a single question about leaders of foreign countries. She is more then capable, but there is a learning curve for dealing with elite media. She will be fine.

But please stop the 'sky is falling' routine every time she flubs a question. Relax. In the end, its Obama vs McCain.

Get off your high horse chief!

It is a great debate to have: Does the Democrat Presidential nominee have more executive experience than the Republicans VICE-Presidential nominee?

What has Obama ever run, other than a corrupt street hustling organization that runs with the likes of ACORN, and also is guilty of much proven and documented voter fraud.

I am still waiting, not so patiently, for anyone, and I mean ANYONE, in the so-called mainstream media (code for liberal media) to ask obama any serious questions like Palin has been asked in the 3 weeks since she has been the VP nominee.

Maybe you can get a sit down with obama and ask him some tough, serious and necessary questions?

I ddidn't see anyone complaining about John Edwards back in 2004. Hhe had only 2 years in the Senate before trying to run for President and then Vice President. She has vastly more experience with Government than he ever did.

Everyone worries about her foreign policy experience based upon a "what if" scenario. It seems to me these people are saying "I down't want to worry about maybe having someone inexperienced in the white house, I want Obama so I can have it for sure!"

I don't disagree about her interviews, she could have done better. I think she feels she has to parse her views through the McCain platform - she's clearly unused to being number 2 on a ticket. Then again, she also doesn't get the kid gloves treatment Obama and Biden have gotten from the same interviewers.

OK - fine - she *didn't* do a great job outwitting Katie Couric.

But it's not like a President or Vice President of the U.S. ever has to outwit anyone with more power than a former co-host of the Today show.

Oh. Wait . . . we might have a problem here.

I can’t believe that any of you people criticizing her actually watched the interview with an open mind - she was perfect in the way she answered Couric’s ignorance about Alaska. Of course living next to a country will give you insight into the relations between your country and it, and insight into what type of regime runs that country. Her scornful tone was perfect.

And shedoes have qalifications:
Executive experience as a change agent as a Governor, fighting corruption and gov’t waste. Executive experience with budgeting and running a government. Experience with energy issues – we have an energy crisis that is threatening our national security. Life experience that has taught her the core values that have made America a great nation: Free Market/Pro-growth economic policies, Strong national defense to stand up to evil regimes rather than appease them, A gov’t that promotes traditional Judeo/Christian values, in a non-coercive way.

As for the neo-evangelicals, like Rod, that oppose her, why not admit that you do so because you're afraid of losing your credibility on the PC Bos-Wash, Hollywood cocktail pary circuit?

Thanks Rod. I respect you your honesty and judgment. I must ask the next question though: what do you say about the people who continue to defend her, or who try to change the subject and attack couric, or biden, or whomever? Do you see how far gone they are? They usually respect you. Can you try to bring them back around?

I've asked this before and still there is silence.

Now seriously Democrats, why should I vote for your guy? Come on, you make me laugh when you tell me that Palin shouldn't be VP because of lack of experience. Yet, inexperience isn't an issue for Obama? And he's going for POTUS! So I'm supposed to vote for an inexperienced person who will be guarnteed POTUS as opposed to an inexperienced person for VPOTUS. At least the VPOTUS can learn something before becoming POTUS. Your answer please.

Its interesting to read the opinions of people (commenters) who are utterly committed to the Republican ticket. Out of academic curiousity, to you folks who think that the media is being "unfair" and asking her "harder questions", what academic incompetence would disqualify her from office? Is there no such thing as being objectively, academically, unqualified for office when a pol is able to "connect with regular people"? Is the only criteria you folks are using to judge this woman a gut-check? Not to be insulting, but is it pure unbridled, irrational feeling?

Just curious.

For 8 years, we've been spoon fed the old line that Bush is dumb and can't speak and all this nonsense. However true that may or may not be, I look at what he has done in his administration and I am happy to have lived during it. My small business and my own personal finances and life have benefited from his Presidency. I think that would also be true of a Palin Presidency. Next time I'm in a position to vote for "Interviewee In Chief", I'll give a second thought to voting for her. Otherwise, I really couldn't care less how well she does with the MSM.

I don't think that her limited knowledge of John McCain's legislative record disqualifies her as Vice President. Why don't the media ask her questions about who she is and what she and done and would do? I think she is being very limited by the McCain campaign b/c they don't want her to make a mistake. I think she should come out swinging and start turning the tables on her questioners. Why don't you stop asking me questions that come from Bob Eubanks on the Newlywed game!

I suggest that those basing their opinion of Palin's skills take a look at teh CSPAN footage of her debates in the Alaska Republican Primary for Governor with Murkowski and the other republican challenger. Keep in mind she is debating a sitting Governor with 22 years experience in the Senate as well. She did pretty well. She won the primary and then debated and defeated the former Democratic Gov in the general election. I agree with the other poster here, a big part of the prpblem Palin is having is feeling the need to mirror McCains message. Lets see what she does with smokin Joe Biden.

Just to add to my namesake's question, why Rod, do you infer that she is a good woman and may make a great governor of Alaska. There is now a bunch of data on the record that shows (a) she has a real truth-telling problem, (b) that she's not nearly as quick a study as she was made out to be (or else the Couric interview, with its completely unsurprising non-gotcha questions would not have been such a train wreck), (c) that her governance record in Wasilla and, briefly in Alaska is littered with suspect moments, from a 25 percent highly regressive sales tax hike and a mountain of debt accumulated in Wasilla to exceptionally poor appointments and a seemingly significant personnel/personal scandal in the public safety area, (and more besides). And so on.

What's so good about that? I'm not snarking -- I'm serious. What kind of evidence would you need to conclude that she is what she appears to be, a Potemkin candidate who displays the right and the Right superficial qualities, but on examaination does not actually posess them?

For 8 years, we've been spoon fed the old line that Bush is dumb and can't speak and all this nonsense. However true that may or may not be, I look at what he has done in his administration and I am happy to have lived during it. My small business and my own personal finances and life have benefited from his Presidency. I think that would also be true of a Palin Presidency. Next time I'm in a position to vote for "Interviewee In Chief", I'll give a second thought to voting for her. Otherwise, I really couldn't care less how well she does with the MSM.

Easy for Couric to be condescending. She has the questions and doesn't need to know any answers. Palin is expected to know the answer to any question over any topic presented by anyone in the world.

I don't believe any VP nominee has ever been the focus of so much scrutiny in our history. Remember Governors Carter, Dukakis, and Clinton? Just imagine if she had said something about FDR going on television to address the nation?

No one person can be expected to have all the answers. I would more highly value the ability to pick a sound group of advisors.

Don't ignore that we hear empty responses from Obama on a daily basis.
No scrutiny there.
sarahpalinrocks.us

Sarah Palin cannot be expected to know all these national economic issues with foreign policy like a Henry Kissinger.

I read a bunch of comments about her interview with Couric. I then watched it, and thought she did fine for someone of that experience. She definitely knows where McCain stands on Iran: Don't let them have nukes, simple. Israel has a right to protect themselves.

She is not as articulate as many, but talk is cheap. She's on the ticket cause she is a maverick like McCain who would not be afraid to Veto wasteful discretionary spending. She took on the old boys network in Alaska and won. She has Guts. The MSM is desparately trying to destroy her because she is basically a good person and epitomizes all that is wrong with Washington.

She is Mrs. Smith going to Washington, and if she needs technical experience, she'll hire it for a cabinet like EVERY other President we've had.

However, I do believe McCain needs to let her be Sarah. Biden makes a gaffe just about every day, but the leftist MSM protects him. Sarah is being attacked like no other person in recent politics except for maybe Clarence Thomas. The attacks on her are disgusting and make me ashamed to be an American.

"I don't believe any VP nominee has ever been the focus of so much scrutiny in our history."

You're joking, right?

Or is this just another to-be-often-repeated lie that we hope is said often enough to become myth in the hope of fabricating a social reality?

I agree with the commentators who say that maybe education and brains have been underestimated in this country for a while. Why are we so incensed that one man (Obama) can teach Constitutional Law and has degrees from Columbia and Harvard (I am not fan of Harvard, but it is tougher to get in than the University of Idaho)? Is that so bad? I mean, when I read that McCain was in the last 10 of his US Naval Academy class, that Sarah Palin had to traipse through 4 schools before getting her degree, that GWB has a Yale degree with average C taking shit classes (and yes a Harvard MBA, but obviously, they didn't ask him to speak or defend his opinions there), and then I watch the results, I am made to think: Obama can string together sentences and, even if he does not say something of substance, at least appears intelligent; the three (McCain, Palin, GWB) are an embarrassment for all their teachers, and us Americans... When has ignorance become a prerequisite for running a country like the US? Maybe Foucault was wrong: knowledge does not equal power, it just provokes the contempt of those who never had it.

I agree that she doesn't give the best interviews ever,(she is not as gaffe filled as Biden is atleast) but how long has she been on the national scene?...like 4 weeks? The ability to speak on your feet, well, is usually a skill that is developed over time, with practice. Give her a bit of a break.

Not being a wiz at an interview doesn't prove that she isn't capable of leading or in making the tough, important decisions. I think that you had such high expectations of her, that you are now disappointed that she isn't the perfect candidate. This is the flip side of being "the fresh face." This is what Obama has been running on for the last 2 years, "I am the new guy!" And like it or not, America is ready for "new." Which new would you rather have?

Sarah Palin has proven that she is a capable and popular governor. I might mention that she has had the highest approval ratings of any governor in this country. I would have more of a problem if she was the top of the ticket rather than the bottom.

I have always believed that the VP should be the future of the party and will be learning and preparing for the position of President at the side of the current Pres. A governor going to VP and then to Pres should be the natural progression.

I think given time, Palin will become more well rounded in dealing with the press and her natural gifts will come to the fore front. The excitement and enthusiasm that she has generated in this country shows that she is what our country wants and needs. She is what the Republican party needs.

I liked her and feel absolutely comfortable with Sarah Palin's judgement abilities as VP and as POTUS if should something awful happen to McCain.

Her answer to Katie Couric regarding not second guessing Israel was very good.

Couric: But you said never second guess them.

Palin: We don’t have to second-guess what their efforts would be if they believe … that it is in their country and their allies, including us, all of our best interests to fight against a regime, especially Iran, who would seek to wipe them off the face of the earth. It is obvious to me who the good guys are in this one and who the bad guys are. The bad guys are the ones who say Israel is a stinking corpse and should be wiped off the face of the earth. That’s not a good guy who is saying that. Now, one who would seek to protect the good guys in this, the leaders of Israel and her friends, her allies, including the United States, in my world, those are the good guys.

Plus I liked her answer to Katie Couric’s first question (paraphrasing) “it seems you don’t care about the world because you don’t have a passport”. Sarah’s response is very real and I think a lot of people can relate:

“I’m not one of those who maybe came from a background of, you know, kids who perhaps graduate college and their parents give them a passport and give them a backpack and say go off and travel the world.

No, I’ve worked all my life. In fact, I usually had two jobs all my life until I had kids. I was not a part of, I guess, that culture. The way that I have understood the world is through education, through books, through mediums that have provided me a lot of perspective on the world.”

I can't, of course, argue with Mr. Dreher's assertion that the interview was a "debacle," because both his opinion and his overheated word choices are his own to freely make. What he will cite as evidence for his beliefs is obviously open to interpretation -- a number of commenters have shown they believe Gov. Palin's performance wasn't as bad as he believes, and they watched the same interview.

I can and will argue that cheap shots like this: "She makes George W. Bush sound like Cicero" are unseemly and not very characteristic of the charity advocated by a number of adherents of the religion I understand Mr. Dreher to claim.

In any event, I can't say the end effect of such a shot is totally negative -- because of it, my web-surfing is one site less complicated beginning today.

I am very sympathetic to Palin, but this type of interview has got to stop. She is embarrassing herself and is doing great damage to the ticket. I've seen her in other interviews and she is not really this bad. Her confidence is destroyed and it really shows. She is asking the country to trust her to potentially be president. Based upon these interviews I wouldn't trust her to run a classroom. I believe the McCain campaign has not done an ample job of building her up to meet the challenges of the media. They need to get her a coach to get her up to speed. Unfortunately, the damage has been done. She has to come out with a GREAT debate to be reassuring and she then needs to interact with the media more, a lot more. In a time of great difficulty, the country follows those who they perceive can lead. She sandbags the ticket on this front. She needs to reconstruct her narrative and be more bold in an artful way in less than 40 days. Good luck to her.

After reading this post, I had to check out your previous posts to see if you were really a conservative, or just pretending to be one.

I guess I conceed you are a conservative. So what is the point in writing such a slam article on Palin? I don't see many articles by you focusing on the other candidates. Matter of fact, the main theme of your articles seems to be complaining about one thing or another.

Methinks you have been infected with the mindset of the mainstream media. Complaining and pointing out defects in others is the easiest path to take. Standing up for someone or something that is imperfect, and defending that support takes guts.

Which path are you taking? I suggest you consider it.

oh, please. If Mr. Dreher would've been blindly praising the V.P candidate blindly like the rest of you all, you would have thanked him profusely for being an honest member of the media, one who is able to see through all the bull. But becuase he puts his country first by realizing that his candidate is not suited to hold the presidential office, you attack him and blame the media for everything going wrong with Sarah Palin.

Why don't you just open your eyes, and see the truth. See her for what she actually is; A very smart, charasmatic, confident woman who is not yet ready for the highest office in the U.S don't be blinded by religion, and the fact that she agrees with your anti-abortion and anti-homosexual stance.

She is simply wrong for this country on many levels, and I applaud Mr. Dreher for being able to go against his party's popular opinion, and think for himself, which you all should do. Think for yourself. Don't just vote for her because she shares your religion.

Honestly, take a look at that video, and really take a moment to determine if she is honestly ready to be PUSA much less the vice president.

Using Palin logic, since I live near a hospital and can see a hospital, I'm qualified as a brain surgeon.

Personally, I'm thankful that so many Republicans refuse to acknowledge any problems with their ticket. If they understood the obvious flaws with McCain/Palin, they might be able to fix them in time to win the election: maybe by replacing her on the ticket, or by hiring some smart political people instead of Rove-team benchwarmers. But this "everything is fine, full speed ahead" attitude will hand the election to Obama. Thanks, guys!

I think some of the commenters are missing the point. It's not the evil media or the liberals doing this. This is directly from John McCain deciding he would rather win an election and destroy an intelligent woman who could have been a major star in the Republican Party.

She's being ground down into hamburger just so McCain could shake the race up.

Sure you can game the system by trying to keep her from doing interviews or by trying to delay the debate, but you'll lose the independents. and that'll be the death of the McCain Campaign.

I don't know where all the new pro-Palin readers are coming from, but it's jarring for someone who went as all out as I did for Palin in the beginning to read people who have no idea who I am or what I stand for to come in and accuse me of being part of the Snotty-Tot Liberal Media.

I've noticed that the Palin attacks are always personal. ...Never about how she governed. George Bush didn't need to become a Teleprompter King in order to thwart the MANY terrorist attacks since 9-11 that have failed. Palin has impressive accomplishments and is in the VP slot. Obama has only words, and he wants to be President.

The media has very artfully created the Obama persona. His bloopers never reach the front pages. His poor elocution and incoherent ramblings have only been caught on home video. When we do have unscripted moments, his ignorance is easily discernible. In addition, his education, much like Kerry's heroism, is never analyzed by the media. For instance, his undergraduate transcript hasn't been publicly available and his scholarship at the Harvard law review was less than stellar. As for Biden, his educational record is scandalous.

However, education is not an end in itself. Rather, it is how people apply that education. Obama's record of achievement is slight. He has been a dilettante at best. As a lawyer, he wrote his biography. As a community organizer (aka ward heeler) he failed his supposed constituents. As a Illinois assemblyman, his record was unremarkable. As US senator, he was undistinguished.

On the other hand, Palin is the model of American success. She rose from the ranks of the populace to become Governor of Alaska. She took her opportunities and made them count. She didn't have the opportunities that McCain and Obama have had. She didn't go to the elite prep school that feed the ivy league machine. She was truly grassroots. She challenge the entrenched powers and won. Her and McCain's record of achievement in the real world far out weighs the woeful inadequate accomplishments of the highly educated Obama and his lackey Biden.

Get a clue, SAT scores aren't the end of the story

With all due deference to Val, I'm not so sure we want to compare GPA's here. While GWB got C's at Yale, he got better grades and had a higher entrance exam score than either opponent he met in his two elections.

Obama has yet to release his school records. While it is usually wrong to assume, lets do so anyway, because the reason for the lack of disclosure appears obvious. Harvard has a program to recruit African American and other minority students that awards them extra credit just for being a minority. This is common knowledge reported on by CBS, WSJ, Newsweek, Time and just about every major news organization out there. While I won't comment on the overall ramification of the program, the likely reason Obama won't release his scores is he was a beneficiary of that program. Which means he scored lower on the SAT/ACT and probably lower in the classroom than many of his non-minority contemporaries. He still completed the degree, which is a mark in his favor, but what WERE the grades he recieved? If he benefited from this program of inflating grades and test scores, his actual grades in all likelihood show his intelligence and education level to be near, or perhaps less, than McCain's.

What the previous writer stated: "When has ignorance become a prerequisite for running a country like the US?" comes across as arrogant and elitist (although I will grant that the writer probably didn't mean it to sound as such); it begs the question "where does it say in the Constitution that attendance at Harvard or Princeton is a pre-requisite for running for office?" Likewise, why is it that those who are critical of McCain or Palin make such a big deal out of the fact their education wasn't at one of the "accepted" schools? I'll stack my Clemson University Philosophy/Religious Studies degree against just about any Ivy league school graduate out there. It is this notion of elitism that makes McCain and Palin attractive in this campaign. (Palin more so than McCain, whom I as a registered Republican am NOT happy with as the Party's candidate.) I don't feel they are trying to talk down to me, or tell me they are smarter and better than me, so I should just do as they say. Mr. Obama is NOT very articulate when not presented with a prepared text, Mr. Biden has his foot perpetually in his mouth - as his recent gaffe about Roosevelt appearing on TV during the Great Depression highlights - and neither of them, nor the MSM, seem to understand the basic fact that it is OVERregulation that caused our economic crisis, not underregulation. (And giving the very people responsible - most of whom went to Harvard, Yale, etc. - money to recapitalize so they can continue their government-mandated preditory lending practices on poor people, is nothing more than strong-arm robbery by the government, with BOTH parties driving the get-a-way car.) In short, while McCain and Palin offer solutions to our country's ills that are not much better than Obama and Biden's, at least the GOP will acknowledge my complaints about their stealling from me, even if they won't stop the theft. The Democrats won't even acknowledge its my wallet, because I didn't go to the right school.

"Further, in less than two years Gov Palin has gained more experience with actual Reform than all the other candidates combined."

prove it.

"I've noticed that the Palin attacks are always personal. ...Never about how she governed. "

that's because no one knows HOW she governed. They know her talking points about her governing, which were either lies, or stretches of the truth.

I fully understand Palin's background, and I am absolutely in support of that background in the position of VP (and, as necessary, POTUS.) However, the ability to communicate effectively is an important component to success, as is the ability to quickly learn and internalize complex information. So far, I have not been impressed by Sarah Palin's ability to communicate in the context of an interview, and I haven't heard any pearls of wisdom that would indicate her ability to synthesize information and communicate it effectively.

Ronald Reagan's great ability was to communicate information effectively, and he not only understood the issues, but he was able to frame all such issues in the larger contexts of the constitution, as well as the history of the United States. I think that it's possible that the McCain campaign is attempting to turn Sarah into a "world-class politician" - which quite frankly, I don't want, and the United States doesn't need. We need someone in power who could have looked at the mortgage mess and said "Enough - this is madness and it has to stop." I think Sarah has that ability.

I also think we all need to move past this idea that somehow, a newly elected governor of Alaska is going to become an expert on all national and international economic and foreign affairs issues in a matter of weeks, and this is going to happen while she's campaigning! My hope is that Sarah does what her heart is telling her to do - be honest, not try to be someone she's not, and speak from her heart about the issues of the day. And if she doesn't know specifics, SO BE IT! No-one out there (except rabid Obama supporters) expects or wants her to be the consummate insider politician. Yes, she is going to have to learn on the job as VP - like ALL VP's do, and yes, quite frankly, as ALL president's do. This may sound trite, but I think it's applicable: let Sarah be Sarah, and the rest will take care of itself.

Dear Tom,

Your comment is just ignorant. I graduated from Harvard Law School. While some affirmative action may or may not (no evidence either way) have played a hand in Barack getting to HLS - once you're at HLS, you don't make Law Review or become editor if you are a simpleton.

I am fairly certain Obama's academic acheivements, and their reflection on his intelligence, far exceed McCain (graduating at bottom of his class) or Palin (6 colleges?)

you're an ass dreher. did you get booted from NRO? i emailed them daily for a year pleading for your ouster.

the press features the rare coherent statements Obama makes, and you feature the less coherent comments from Palin.

memo: 1] McCain is at the top of the ticket. 2] there is much at stake. try to stay focused. the only thing McCain/Palin has to worry about now to election day is backbiting from the conservative base. grab some loyalty.

ps your derision of Bush is shameful. you have bought the left wing talking points RE Bush. other than prescription drugs, state a case where Bush has not been true to his word. if you didn't like what he was saying before 2000, you shouldn't have voted for him. ass.

No comments on how Palin governed? Are you kidding? Are you reading? There have been repeated reports on the secrecy and mismanagement both as mayor and as governor. Anyone who doesn't know, probably doesn't want to know. This woman as VP--or, God forbid, President, would be a disaster.

Hmmm, not a great response, certainly nervous but I didn't hear her talking about the 57 states, the Beretta Rifle, FDR going on TV to calm the masses in 1929, etc. I didn't hear her lying about McCain and middle class tax cuts, didn't hear her advocating for ACORN, didn't hear her claiming to merely be a neighbor of Ayers. Did someone hear Palin say something that's outright wrong or a lie?

I only read the transcript and didn't watch the interview, but she obviously didn't do that well. Considering she has only been at this for a few weeks, though, and the fact that she also has to deal with interviewers who are out to get her, I think she is doing fine, so not sure where all the hysteria is coming from...

Obama, on the other hand, has been at it for 19 months, and still isn't any more coherent, though I must admit, he is better at making it SEEM like he answered the question than Palin. Maybe that's the advantage of being a lawyer; they are very experienced at BS'ing.

Biden's been at it for 20+ years, and almost daily says things that are stupider than anything Palin ever said.

Don't you just love it when liberals like Dreber and Andrew Sullivan try to pass themselves off as conservatives.

By the way, Sullivan has the hots for Palin (Todd Palin that is) and he's hacked off at Sarah because she doesn't share.

Aren't the Bush Clan close personal friends with the Bin Laden Clan?

so, who, really is the friend of terrorists?

Now seriously Democrats, why should I vote for your guy? Come on, you make me laugh when you tell me that Palin shouldn't be VP because of lack of experience. Yet, inexperience isn't an issue for Obama? And he's going for POTUS! So I'm supposed to vote for an inexperienced person who will be guarnteed POTUS as opposed to an inexperienced person for VPOTUS. At least the VPOTUS can learn something before becoming POTUS. Your answer please.

Inexperience. Hmmm. He ran a community organization, he taught law at Chicago Law School, he was in the Illinois Senate, and he was a U.S. Senator. Now, he's run a presidential campaign that defeated Hillary Clinton for the nomination and has raised more money than any presidential campaign in history. Dont' give me your crap about "lack of experience."

BTW, look up Abraham Lincoln and see about "experience" sometime. Of course, the racism in many voters is coming to the forefront here (as witnessed by the commenter above who noted Harvard's "affirmative action" policy).

It is galling that people would throw out the elitist tag about a candidate who grew up with a single mother who at one time was on food stamps while John McCain, the son of an Admiral, graduated 5th from last in his class at Annapolis, divorced his first wife to take up with a millionaire heiress, and has more than eight houses.

And as to Palin's Alaska credentials, those are proving to be lacking as well. She has power issues, and she LIES about her opposition to the Bridge to Nowhere.

Honesty, how can you people ignore so many obvious truths and call yourselves Christians?

I'm glad somebody else is saying it.

Look, I think Gov. Palin has done an impressive job in Alaska. Her handling of the natural gas pipeline indicates that she's an administrator with free-market impulses who's genuinely looking out for the public good and genuinely forceful enough to get things done. Other projects bear the same mark.

However, she's remarkably unimpressive in an interview. Frighteningly so. I think the lady basically learns what she needs to learn in order to do what she needs to do, and doesn't really waste much brain power thinking about stuff beyond that. That's not a bad feature in a chief administrator, but it's pretty alarming in a politician. They're all about words and appearances.

There's a reason the McCain campaign has kept her away from interviews, and I think this is it. I don't think she's unqualified to hold high office, but my God, the woman had better spend some time thinking about general political topics, and quick.

RodDreher, I couldn't agree with you more. I was appalled at the choice of Palin for Republican VP candidate as soon as she opened her mouth. The idea that this woman could be a heartbeat away from the presidency of the United States is frightening. This woman could stare down North Korea, China, and Russia during a crisis? If China invaded Taiwan? I have a sinking feeling that someone might have to point out Taiwan on a map to Ms. Palin. I don't get the same feeling from Obama, who at least seems educated and well spoken.

Stephen Colbert told a joke last night about Ms. Palin being the perfect version of a feminist, one who's pretty, sits quietly and listens to men. The scary thing is, he's not that far off in terms of how the Republicans feel about her brand of "feminism." Of course they're big fans. She doesn't get in their faces like big, bad, not so pretty Hillary. At least Hillary was qualified.

These are scary times. Very scary.

RodDreher, I couldn't agree with you more. I was appalled at the choice of Palin for Republican VP candidate as soon as she opened her mouth. The idea that this woman could be a heartbeat away from the presidency of the United States is frightening. This woman could stare down North Korea, China, and Russia during a crisis? If China invaded Taiwan? I have a sinking feeling that someone might have to point out Taiwan on a map to Ms. Palin. I don't get the same feeling from Obama, who at least seems educated and well spoken.

Stephen Colbert told a joke last night about Ms. Palin being the perfect version of a feminist, one who's pretty, sits quietly and listens to men. The scary thing is, he's not that far off in terms of how the Republicans feel about her brand of "feminism." Of course they're big fans. She doesn't get in their faces like big, bad, not so pretty Hillary. At least Hillary was qualified.

These are scary times. Very scary.

Inexperience. Hmmm. He ran a community organization, he taught law at Chicago Law School, he was in the Illinois Senate, and he was a U.S. Senator. Now, he's run a presidential campaign that defeated Hillary Clinton for the nomination and has raised more money than any presidential campaign in history. Dont' give me your crap about "lack of experience."

What's so remarkable about Obama's career is that it's not clear he's ever done particularly well at anything he's done.

The only plausible exception is his elevation to the Harvard Law Review. He had to have earned some respect from fellow students to get there.

Beyond that, we have a bunch of lies, hidden connections, and just plain mediocre performance. He lied about his performance as a community worker; residents where he worked don't recall that he did much of anything to help them. His students at Chicago only remember that they never figured out what he really believes himself. He didn't have to run against anybody substantial in either of his political campaigns, so we don't even know how well he campaigns (and his current campaign really is not all that impressive). He wrote no major legislation of any kind. His tenure heading the Chicago Annenberg Challenge was a failure; he had to be reprimanded from outside in order to assert even rudimentary controls overseeing where the money went, and the project produced no measurable improvement in student achievement. He's basically offered a few "everybody agrees" amendments in the US Senate.

In other words, we have no record indicating that he's good at ANYTHING other than giving a speech off a teleprompter.

I've written a fair amount on my own blog regarding Obama's radical roots (he's not really a Democrat, he's a neo-Marxist.) However, that's not my greatest concern about him anymore. My concern at this point is that he's entirely the creation of a media machine, something like Chance, the Gardener in "Being There." From what I can tell from his career, it's questionable whether he's competent to lead a medium-sized school district, let alone the most powerful nation on earth. He'd be much better suited, and a lot happier personally, teaching law in a college, where he appears to have some talent.

about the being next to russia: did anyone care to read the FULL transcript from the gibson interview? you do know that interview was heavily edited...right? her comment about being able to see russia was a summation of an etire paragraph about foreign policy...but...that was edited out. she said a little more than just being able to see russia...before and after. perhaps you should read the entirity of what was said before judgements are made. and also...did anyone have any problem with kerry's selection of john edwards. no experience. but i'm sure gibson asked similar questions to him as he asked to palin. maybe you should compare those two interviews and then google the term 'bias'. palin does look rehearsed and way out of her leauge. but hell...since when has any other vp candidate come under so much scutiny?

about the being next to russia: did anyone care to read the FULL transcript from the gibson interview? you do know that interview was heavily edited...right? her comment about being able to see russia was a summation of an etire paragraph about foreign policy...but...that was edited out. she said a little more than just being able to see russia...before and after. perhaps you should read the entirity of what was said before judgements are made. and also...did anyone have any problem with kerry's selection of john edwards? no experience. but i'm sure gibson asked similar questions to him as he asked to palin. maybe you should compare those two interviews and then google the term 'bias'. palin does look rehearsed and way out of her leauge. but hell...since when has any other vp candidate come under so much scutiny?

I have to agree.

Governor Palin is a terrific mother and apparently a good governor too, but these interviews glaringly show her lack of knowledge of American politics.

I will not pretend that Mrs. Palin is ready to lead our country.

Posters trying to rationalize her experience agaisnt Sen. Obama's, well, it doesn't work. Look at their entire life experiences. We cannot deny that Mrs. Palin's education and life experience are very limited. I'm NOT being elitist. Doesn't anyone remember Dan Quayle? He wasn't qualifed either. Now, years later he is still remembered for his lack of qualities only.

Senator McCain chose the wrong person and I think he caved into pressure for politics only. He had MANY good choices for VP and he opted for the truly least qualifed. And he did it as a stunt.

This election is too important- there will be Supreme Court judges appointed, and now I beleive (and polls confirm) that Senator McCain may have blown our chance at retaining the Presidency.

Palin has to either stop doing these interviews or start becoming much more adversarial with these so-called "journalists". These people are so obviously in the tank for the "magic negro" that to believe Palin will get a fair interview is to believe in the tooth fairy. Wake up people! The fix is in.

"I will not pretend that Mrs. Palin is ready to lead our country."

That's understandable. With so many people pretending that Obama's fit to be POTUS, the pretension cupboard is completely bare.

"I will not pretend that Mrs. Palin is ready to lead our country."

That's understandable. With so many people pretending that Obama's fit to be POTUS, the pretension cupboard is completely bare.

Rod, you FAILED Sarkars Logic class? LOL!

I assume that was his 2010 class - I sure as hell hope it wasn't 1000, I think I finished that one with a 105% overall average. He told me I didn't have to take his final, but I did just for kicks.

I'll admit, the 2010 was a bit harder, I think I finished with 88%.

...Just had to get that dig in.

I hope you're doing well.

John S.
Pentagon D-4-9
Class of '90.

Prominent conservative columnist Kathleen Parker, an early supporter of Republican VP candidate Sarah Palin, said Friday recent interviews have shown the Alaska governor is "out of her league" and should leave the GOP presidential ticket for the good of the party.

Why do the Democrates keep talking about Sen. McCain's age. He is in better health then most of them. I think McCain and Palin make a great team. They need someone like them in office. Democrates like taxes, to make more money for them to spend. They promise this and that, but who will pay for all of this. We the unfortunate tax payers.

@ bb: Mr. Dreher expresses a valid concern. She did not do well answering the questions. They were not questions that were to be unexpected.

Your (triple) response consists totally of bashing Couric. Completely. How about Palin's answers? They were poor, and she looked at note cards in her lap during the interview. I'm all for pointing out bias in the media, but she does have to answer questions like that to get the job.

Is the head of Russia, or Iran, or China going to go easier on her than Katie Couric?

I would like someone to ask Mc Cain in the debate tonight; "If the US economy was doing great as he thought: Would he share the credit for a good economy with Obama? If not he should leave Obama out of this republican (MESS) he and George Bush created.

WillRain: I have no doubt that Palin was much more relaxed and listenable back in the day when she was talking about the things she knew. And it's commendable that you're trying to be sympathetic with a woman who is clearly being publically humiliated. But I blame John McCain and his campaign advisors for putting her into this position of having to talk about things she clearly knows nothing about and run for an office she clearly should never be in.

Whether or not you like Obama, he knew what he was doing when he chose Biden. The guy was part of a tough primary campaign, has a long and distinguished record, and is completely ready to campaign and serve. Whether or not you always agree with him, and I don't, he is a veritable symbol of confidence and experience.

So why did McCain do this?

"By comparison, Palin was pulled out of her governorship less than a month ago and cast into the national race WITHOUT all that time to prep on the issues and come up with well thought out answers that she can deliver naturally. This means that out of the four, she is the one most likely to have to reason out her answers "cold" on the spot in an interview and therefore needs to garner every second she can to consider the answer lest she make a gaff."

This is my point exactly. If she is THIS inexperienced and needs this much more time and experience on the national stage to appear at least competent on the many issues that will confront her as Vice President then she has no business as the VP nominee. She should never have been chosen. She appears completely out-of her depth and is starting to become an embarrassment.

Maybe she is just tired of the ridiculous bias. I think I would have walked off of the set. I have noticed nothing but a modern day lynching of Palin. I am sure she will do just fine during the debates. Too bad the questions are given ahead of time so that Obama and Biden can have their political machine tell them what to say. They are rehearsed. We have seen how bad Obama is without his notes. Also, when he is interviewed, I have yet to see him even answer a question without leaning on boh sides of the issue. Some president he will make!!!

JB, are you for real? The bias is that Palin is being treated with the softest gloves I have ever seen. She could make a fine VP if not for the fact that it could lead to being President. A position for which she is *supremely* unqualified. This is really beyond argument.

All those that keep defending Palin with a "bias" argument.

You can't have it both ways. She is either a strong intelligent capable woman that should be VP or a wallflower that needs to be protected from the mean press that dares to "attack" her with questions on policy.

Its real simple, if Palin isn't able to handle questions from the press then she is clearly unqualified to handle the issues that a President or Vice President will have to do with.

When I see people defend her so mindlessly as some of the above, it really tells me that even they know she is unfit for the title of Vice President of the United States or even worse President.

Thanks, Julia. I could not have said it better, so I'm applauding you for your good sense, grace, and style -- something we aren't seeing much of by Americans, at least not in these blogs. Tupelotulip

omg i was wondering why her team was keeps her tucked away from the media.Now i see why

"She would be another "Cheney" if she is elected VP."

Darth Vader is a lot of things, namely evil, but he's a helluva lot more schooled than Palin. He actually knows stuff about the world, he just doesn't care about it. Palin, meanwhile, knows little. She is all backwoods provincialism. There's nothing to her beyond her extremely limited life experience. She's not thoughtful, curious, layered, or highly-educated--I mean, journalism??

Americans should be OUTRAGED by the very appointment. It's an insult. It says a great deal about voters that so many are willing to put a flippin' HOCKEY MOM--and that's all she is at the core--in such a high office. And she's ruled by endtimes theology. Watch those nuke codes, everyone.

Bless her heart. I feel so bad for her, although I'd feel much much worse if she wound up President.

BTW, when I clicked on your site, the lead-in add was for Bill Maher's new movie. Y'know, "Religiousity". I am indeed queasily amused.

She is an embarrassment and should be removed from the ticket.

Watching Couric's interviews reminds one of nothing so much as the interview of Ann Elk: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cAYDiPizDIs
No doubt Governor Palin has more interesting, if not more informed things to say about dinosaurs than about McCain's specific plans for banking regulatory reform or her own foreign policy experience. And if one dropped all pretense of taking her seriously, it might be entertaining.

That McCain would pick this person for VP who he didn't know well at all and did not even bother to vet her adequately - his first executive decision - speaks volumes about how McCain will make decisions as POTUS. Scary!

And she's so clueless that she accepted!

Shrimplate.....maybe we just have finally awakened from our spin induced delerium!

Even though Bush will never be known as a great orator....his public speaking is so vastly superior to Palin's that it boggles the mind as to why she was picked.

I believe the only sexist slant to the story is that if it was a man instead of Mrs. Palin that was picked and they had the same credentials and knowledge, the pick would have been shredded by both the masses and the media immediately.

There is a huge fear in the media about coming off sexist with how they treat her...as we had seen with Hilary during the primaries.

She clearly in way over her head. I can't see it getting any better. She must have been briefed, but couldn't remember or understand so much. She is evidently not bright or she would have been able to do better even without talking points and briefings.

Someone on another post said:
"What is Palin referring to when she is discussing National security with Russia? She states ..."it''s from Alaska we send THOSE out" What in blazes is she talking about? Send WHAT out?....spy planes...polar bears...airial wolf hunting expedition? What?
Alaskans have to be embarrassed by this woman."

Revenge is a dish best served cold. In 2000, religious conservatives torpedoed John McCain. In fact, he called them "agents of intolerance." He now exacts revenge on them by selecting one of them as his running mate, a choice that made them ecstatic. Selecting Sarah Palin changed religious conservatives from indifferent to enthusiastic McCain supporters overnight. His choice gave them the opportunity to display their shallow grasp of reality. He was unlikely to win this election anyway, so he chose to lose in a way that will make it harder for religious conservatives to be taken very seriously for a long time.

I think I once took that same Formal Logic test! D is for Debacle. P is for President Palin.

http://www.PisforPalin.com/

I beilieve Palin was chosen by senator Mccain as a gimmick. He never intended for her to be his VP. Her job was to resuscitate the campaign and then call it a day. The scheme is for her to resign, and we all know she has a lot of legitimate reasons to do so, then comes to the stage to the rescue: the real VP who has been the real chosen one all along. Brilliant but yet risky. After all the Mccain campaign is full of surprises. Remember you have read it first here on my blog: http://mercy4usa.blogspot.com/

Palin was a dreadful choice for vp and obviously shows McCain's lack of judgement. The real problem though is McCain himself. He is a mean spirited man who believes in grandstanding stunts (the Bagdad market photo op comes to mind, not to mention his parachuting in the rescue the wall street bailout which just made him look like a fool.) Evangelicals (not Christians by my calculations need to get off the Nationalist, zionist, abortion is murder bandwagon before the country goes to hell. Or is that what they really want., so they can hurry up the rapture? Give me a break.

Palin is showing her true colors. Have you ever seen a black leopard? Even with the black colt, the spots still show through. Hence the saying "a leopard cannot change his spots". Palin is a misfit for this job. Anyone except the die hard republicans know that. Even some moderate republicans are coming to that conclusion. Fine, keep her in the race, and when it all unravels, don't say we didn't tell you so.

I respect the article here as honest and daring. I would add that there is some talk in DC political circles that McCain is actually very upset and disappointed an has lost tremendous respect for Palin because he chose her to help him in his quest for the Presidency and she is proving to be unfit for that assistance. And since he is someone who often gambles high stakes at Indian Reservation and Nevada casinos, he took a big gamble and bet that she would assist him in his path to the Presidency. And now that she has proven to be more complicated and seriously flawed than he had expected, he is privately blaming her instead of putting the blame on himself.
This, even though basically he did not do his job by vetting her before picking her. Not her decision but his. Thus we are faced with a situation where she is offered an unimaginable prize and of course accepts. The person offering has placed a high risk bet that the chips will be golden. They turn out to be very unlucky and detrimental. Instead of blaming himself for not being responsible and Presidential in going through the painstaking process of actually vetting the chips, McCain threw a wild hand, blind sided his staff, and hoped it would come up aces. It has not and both he and the chips he played are in trouble.
Palin is not appealing to most Independant women right now and her numbers for qualifed/unqualified are dismal. 41-49. In fact they are unprecidented as even Quayle did not hit those numbers so quickly. The GOP has to make a choice here whether the GOP base will hitch to the McCain wagon in 2008 with a decent risk of defeat in a difficult year for the GOP base or look for better and more reliable alternatives in the coming years. Palin is a political disaster and may make any chance McCain had of winning over Clinton voters obsolete.
If McCain had really shown an understanding of female swing voters he would have picked a Sen. Hutchison or Ms. Fiorina. Instead we are left with a Palin who is totally unready to answer even basic questions put by the MSM. We can complain about the MSM but regardless, Palin has to be able to take on thier questions just as Biden has to be able to handle CBN questions and both have to be able to take on the quesitons fo our advisaries in a meeting.
Let's be honest with ourselves here, ask yourself if you would really trust your hard earned $1000s to Palin to invest or protect if she became President in 2009? Would any of us really trust that the markets would be reassured and not lose our money the minute she became President in 2009? Not many can honestly say they would be willing to take that risk with their hard earned money. And that is a serious problem that is not gettng any better and only worse.
And right now, McCain has proven to be an unsteady, risky, and erratic candidate who is unpreditable to both the Left AND the Right. None of us know what he will do or decide next and that is not a good quality for a potential President regardless of party or ideology.

What a bunch of chauvanists you are! Why don't you take all your cheap shots and aim them where they belong. Palin is new to National "elitist, members only" politics but she is smart and has succeeded on her own merits.

Give it a rest all you 'smarter than thou' bigots!

For her sake, I really hope she does well during her debate on Thursday. And I'm an Obama supporter. I just feel really bad for her.

I have a question I would like answered and I pray this is the source of honesty. Is it true Obama is planning on having his present VP choice resign because of health reasons and then have Hillery join him to draw the women vote? This is planned to take place after the VP debate.

If being elitist means I can speak cogently in complete sentences and have more than a passing understanding of history, government, financial markets and punctuation then elite me up, baby!

The first day of Elitism Training School taught me not to care about how others judge me – their opinions are beyond my control – but that our elected officials should be superior in every way to me, embarassingly superior.

Come to think of it, I think the better question is: why *aren't* you an elitist? Don't you love your country?

People have talked about how McCain may have shown poor judgment in choosing the inexperienced Palin for VP, and I agree with them. But more significant is the blatant cynicism and hypocrisy revealed by his choice. In years past, McCain has blasted religious extremists such as Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell. But now he is pandering to the religious right by choosing a woman who accepts special prayers from evangelists for protection from "witchcraft", who is against letting even a rape victim get an abortion, who stood by and did nothing while those rape victims were required to pay for their own rape evidence kits, and who wants to get books that offend her removed from public libraries. McCain lacks integrity. Statistics show that a man his age has a one in six chance of dying in office, same odds as Russian Roulette. This man's ambition is so great he would rather risk putting a completely unqualified, empty-headed dilettante in the oval office who makes Dan Quayle look like a genius and Jerry Falwell look like an Episcopal, than risk losing the election. He wants to play Russian Roulette with this nation's future. The question is, will you pull the trigger on November 6?

Let's not forget - Sarah claims she holds a degree in journalism from University of Idaho and worked as a TV reporter in Alaska. Someone should check her credentials and if true, question what is being taught at that university. Very sad. As a holder of the same degree from a different university, I'd say Sarah's former profs should hold their heads in shame. Withdraw the degree and send her back to grade school to learn proper grammar. ("He did awesome" ??) Her ignorance is only exceeded by her arrogance. We've had enough of that for 8 years.

Here in Alaska, we knew she wasn't prepared. She really isn't prepared to be Governor either and those chickens are starting to come home to roost now too. Senator McCain made an extrodinarily poor choice. Given our track record of electing politicians here why would people trust us to choose wisely? Ted Stevens is on trial, Don Young under FBI investigation, Lisa Murkowski was named by her father to replace himself and then we re-elected her. We have three Legislators convicted with more trials to come. My favorite is state Senator Ben Stevens, Ted's son, who was paid to lobby the legislature while serving as senate president.

By the way the feds are the ones investigating not our "reformer" Governor who ran on being "open and transparent" (see troopergate and other "problems"). Until recently I worked in Alaskan state government reporting directly to a Palin appointee. He had no respect for her and trust me if the media were really doing their jobs there would be more.

It would have taken one person three days here in Alaska to determine her lack of qualifications for this position just by asking fellow Republicans. The question is why wasn't she vetted?

Mr. Dreher,

I feel for you with that exam experience. You may be a good egg, you were, you are now a responsible writer I guess. I had that experience often enough, though I very seldom flopped. Good gab skills, good memory.

I am afraid that Sarah Palin is not such a great egg. She is a vindictive, ill-tempered, ignorant person by and large. She is also a deep hypocrite with multiple standards. I do not like saying this about a fellow human being, really. I was taught not to judge.

At the end of the second interview,, I believe, she revealed her character very clearly with a hissy remark about not being given a backpack and a passport. No one has called her on it. I would like to do that: I have known many, many people who worked hard, hard, hard for a year and then bought a backpack and traveled to discover the world. Others did the Peace Corps. Others worked with NGOs in Africa. I have known Vietnam vets, guys who were thrown against their will into the jungle, and when they got their heads repaired and their bodies, too, they became very compassionate if quiet individuals.
I worked in a sweatshop/restaurant in NY for 9 months, I worked as a "guinea pig" at a university, and did a three month stint at 72 hours a week in order to get the money together to travel (even though I had been raised abroad). I worked from 3.30 a.m. to 9 a.m. every day to get my MA.

That stupid remark to explain away her incurious mind said it all. Is that the Christian mind?

But all elections are or should be about character as well. And as much as it pains a lot of GOP voters, McCain does not have what it takes. He should never have chosen such a weak and ill-equipped candidate. He put her in a terrible position. And she should have refused. We have to have the maturity to refuse even tempting choices in life. It's not a question of blinking or not. It is a question of closing one's eyes and carefully deliberating. But she said yes, because the power tasted so good. And now this odd couple are paired up and could win the election and sink this country through complete incompetence.

You know, in 1984, the Democrats decided to give Reagan a chance to finish his task. Enough people gave the current POTUS a chance in 2004.

Maybe, just maybe, a few GOPers and independents could put country first this time and tell their party to clean up its act and start concentrating on real issues that affect real Americans, not on getting elected or stuffing the pockets of their corporate masters. I think Obama is a very good alternative. He has a lot of competence and good judgment, at least that is the record of the past 20 months or so.

You may not be able to fool all of the people all of the time, but from the comment of the folks in Georgia, it seems that you can fool a lot of them way too much of the time. If that percentage is too high, McCain and Palin may yet win this election. At this point, I wouldn't give 2 cents for the combined character of the two of them. They've both been caught in too many lies and questionable choices.

C'mon people, especially men with wives running their households. Wives that doesn't even have half the credentials of their husbands, run their housefolds to perfection. Palin can do the same job, she is more than qualified to do the job. Leave her alone, she'll do fine. Alot of us endecided, have switch to McCain because of Palin, so alot of these smear campaign will not work, we've already decided.

I am aghast! I don't understand how people can watch Palin's interviews and call it a smear campaign when the words are coming out of her mouth... repeatedly.

These interview process is how voters get to know their candidates.

Yes she's just like you and me. Yes she is nice and relatable. But we are in a war crisis, the economy is in a meltdown, the s*** is hitting the fan. And I want someone smarter than me, male or female in the White House who knows what to do at 3 a.m.

And she clearly is NOT.

Thank you, Lauren for making exactly the right point. All those people who vote for someone like George W or Palin because he/she is "just like them" or who they'd want to "have a beer with"! That's not what I'm looking for as a leader of my country.

I want somebody smarter, more articulate, better educated, able and yes, *Intellectual*. I could care less how well my President bowls, whether he/she wears some kind of pin or can give birth to five kids and disembowel a moose. Handling a household is a worthy and necessary chore, but it is NOT the same as running a company, let alone a country.

As a woman I don't find Palin remotely relatable. I suspect she may be more a creation of The First Dude than anybody is letting on. But even if I did relate to her, that is so low on my list of voting criteria. I'm not voting for a BFFL or the head of the PTA, I'm voting for someone who can elevate the Presidency of the US back into position as the leader of the free world. And the VP spot should be someone who can take over if the Pres (fates forbid) has a stroke while he's in office, not somebody who can be feisty and wear lipstick.

My god, haven't we had enough of babbling, ill-educated, faith-based, decision-making that passed for leadership during the past eight years?!

This Palin pick is a gut-check for the neo-conservative base. The economy is failing, there are 2 wars running, tensions between the United States and 2 nuclear powers are intensifying (Russia & North Korea), and the list could go on, and the pick McCain makes for his running mate is Marge from "Fargo." This was as cynical a political choice as any politician has made in my lifetime. Although I think it is an illegitimate crticism to say she is not experienced enough to run for this office (every bit as much as I think that an illegitimate concern in regards to Obama's candidacy), the Constitution lays out what qualficiations are encessary for both offices, and both candidates meet them for the offices they are seeking, respectively. It is, however, a completely legitimate concern, given the limited number of times the public has been allowed to ask this person questions, that she seems to have no thoughts on some of the issues mentioned above of her own. If John McCain's yardstick for the highest office in this land is that he is ready for the job of president on day one, and that the country cannot afford any "on the job training", then look his constituents in the eye and, with a straight face, explain that Palin is his running mate. Watch the Gibson and Couric interviews, then watch the debate this Thursday and ask yourselves if your country can handle 4 to 8 years of her type of leadership. If the answer is "no." Then spare a thought to the judgement displayed by the Republican candidate for President in making Palin his choice for Vice President.

McCain was thinking that Hillary supporters would push him over the winning line. He gambled with PUMA, and he made a bad choice. He showed he is more interested in winning the election by grabbing other party's angry supporters rather than looking at what will happen to USA if something happens to him and this complate naive takes over the presidenchip. He put his own political interest over country's interest. Thats why he deserves to loose the election. Period.

David

How refreshing to read comments on a conservative board that are thoughtful and articulate instead of angry rants. I'm not conservative myself, but I always appreciate specific, civil arguments. My complimentst to you and many of these readers.

Dreher just got owned on Hewitt. Wow, he made Palin's Couric interview look smooth.

I heard McCain picked her out of spite. He could have picked another woman in the party that worked their way up the ladder and deserved the pick. He could have picked someone that is professional, ladylike, respectful and intelligent. Someone that would have treated Senator Biden with respect by calling him Senator as he called her Gov. Even if you don't agree with somebody's policies, in any walk of life, you respect the position they hold. Somebody that wouldn't have winked and had a more pleasant speaking voice. Somebody that would have acted like a Vice President of the United States Candidate at a debate instead of a giddy teenager at a party.

She calls herself a "MOM". I feel sorry for the poor baby that she prances around the stage. She holds him for about 2 minutes, and acts like she can't wait to get rid of him and gives him to somebody else.
God bless us if she gets in the White House.

It's really unfortunate that any "JERK" can put anything they want on the web nowadays. Despicable human beings You and COURIC