With Palin, the personal is the political

As an Obama supporter, what I found most revealing, and most damaging to Palin, is how similar many of the parody answers given by Fey were to the actual answers Palin provided. I mean, the "parody" answer she gave about the bailout (starting with about 3:00 left) lifted some parts of the Palin answer almost verbatim until the last part of it. Rod, I appreciate your intellectual honesty about this whole situation despite your appreciation for Palin herself. She just isn't ready, and McCain should have taken the time to realize that.

Don't panic yet. A lot depends on the moderator and whether they do follow-ups. There is not generally enough time for detailed answers. Behaving as though you know details is generally seen as a negative by most voters. All she really needs to do to energize the base (her purpose) is find something in the debate over which she can develop some mock outrage. Now, if they threaten to put her in a room with some real foreign policy pros like Bacevich, Kagan and Zachariah or an economics group like Mankiw, Cowen and Krugman, you had better worry.

Steve

To repeat Zoe - some of Fey's answers WERE lifted from the Katie Couric interview.

As an Obama supporter, what I found most revealing, and most damaging to Palin, is how similar many of the parody answers given by Fey were to the actual answers Palin provided. I mean, the "parody" answer she gave about the bailout (starting with about 3:00 left) lifted some parts of the Palin answer almost verbatim until the last part of it. Rod, I appreciate your intellectual honesty about this whole situation despite your appreciation for Palin herself. She just isn't ready, and McCain should have taken the time to realize that.

Everyone seems to think that Biden will be able to walk all over Palin, but I'm not so sure. Debates seem to be won or lost according to the emotional connection a candidate is able to establish with the audience. Perhaps one of the reasons Palin's interviews went so badly is that she had no audience; no way of gauging her success as she went. There is a reason stand-up comedians film their records in front of a live audience instead of a studio (please don't take this to mean I am trying to diminish Palin's gravitas to that of a comedian, it is not my intention). My suspicion is that she will be much, much stronger with an audience there, and a closer match to Biden that many are expecting. All of this is to say, I think the fellow you quote above has a point. None of this means she will make a good VP, I obviously don't think she will. But I do think she will be a formidable debater, and would be a formidable campaigner if the McCain campaign let her off the leash a bit more and tried to boost her confidence instead of cooping her up and making her feel marginalized. Give the woman an audience, let's see what she can do.

How utterly depressing... Palin seemed like such a breath of fresh air when first announced, but if the meeting that Halcro recalls is accurate, she is more of the same. And if she is truly filled with such apathy for policy and willful ignorance about governance, then any political defeat she may suffer wlll be well deserved.

I want to emphasize this more. W has always appeared to me to be the exact same kind of "empty pantsuit". He took the same kind of evangelical, populist, gee-I'd-realy-like-to-have-a-beer-with-this-person and manuevered it into record breaking deficit spending and an ill-conceived war (tell that to all the widows and orphans, "But he seemed like such a great guy, and a Christian too.").

She doesn't speak their language, she speaks ours. And to put her in the situation where she's supposed to talk in that language? Please. You get what you get.

As much as I may like the waitress at the local diner or the check-out person at Wal-Mart, I don't want them negotiating an arms deal or sitting in on National Security meetings. And I don't want them a cold season away from being president of the United States.

I'm sure if she were the president of the PTA or my governor--if I lived in the 47th largest state in the country--I'd like her to and want to spend time with her and the First Dude and even attend the shotgun marriage of her pregnant teen daughter. But she's not running for president of the PTA or my neighbor, she'd running to be in-line to be president of the United States.

Cranky, for the second time today I've unpublished one of your posts, because you engage in personal insults and name-calling. Keep it up and you'll get banned.

The problem is not that Palin doesn't speak the language of the Beltway. The problem is that she doesn't know much about what someone seeking her office should know about. I'm not an Obama fan.

Cranky, Rod has made it very plain that we are not to insult each other. Please be more charitable.

You may be right that DC is the problem, and you may be right that Obama is an empty suit, but that does not make Palin any smarter. The problem is not that she does not speak beltway. The problem is that she is incoherent. She can barely piece together complete sentence.

You are doing what I see so many of the raving right doing: "The mainstream media is run by idiotic liberals, therefore Rush Limbaugh is great."

Daniel says it well.

EricW, you have a point, albeit a snarky one. One could make a good argument that Palin's weaknesses are not as bad as Obama's, but it would be dishonest to deny that Palin has weaknesses (apparent ignorance) or to deny that Obama has strengths (apparent intelligence). You haven't made that dishonest argument, but others have.

Wow before seeing both this and the actual interview my wife and I had pretty much decided that we weren't going to vote at all. Now we are seriously thinking about voting for Obama. This woman makes W. look like Einstein. Do we really want this person to be in charge of our country during a national crisis? Yikes!

I've seen some of her OLD (pre-veep candidate) interviews. I can see how she was able to turn the questions around, or, get away with just not answering the question at all. But, that was then. She was/is a big fish in a small Alaskan pond. That won't fly anymore. And, the problem is, that with all the digging that's been done, it will be hard for her when she returns to Alaska. She just wasn't ready.

Hmmm... I'm not exactly sure we're understanding each other... but... let me try again...

Of all I have seen of Palin, I get absolutely NO impression she is dumb, ignorant, or stupid. I DO get the impression she's having a hard time synthesizing "beltway-speak" on TV - that's what everyone seems to expect from politicians. It's a learned skill, perhaps. Mostly, it's just a dumbing-down of both one's intelligence and communication level.

The very notion that she's an empty head is nonsense. That is also abundantly clear.

But I'm not nearly so much defending Palin (as I don't see she particularly needs any defending), as I am addressing the common repetition that she's failing to Beltway-speak - miss-stated as "incoherent" - and therefore unable to govern or ignorant or anything else.

And the contrast is Obama... Brilliantly fluent in Beltway-speak, but utterly and hopelessly incapable at making a decision, period. Absolutely NOTHING about his campaign, debate, speeches, or antyhing else contradicts that obvious fact. Yet, here we are, with people saying they think Obama woudl do well negotiating, etc. Really?

What ever makes people think this?

Rod, I have not said you want Obama, but others have. The fact is, you're going to have one of a couple of people as president, and possibly one of the other two. Yet, the biggest thing people are concerned about is whether Palin can policy-wonk in Beltway-ese and apparenlty, the answer is no.

And that's perfectly fine with me.

Wicked, but funny:

Sarah Palin Exclusive Interview with Charles Gibson on ABC!!

youtube.com/watch?v=Rfz6QGmuvp4

Just as I was excited to talk with my 10-year-old son about the history-making nature of Sen. Obama winning the nomination for the Democrats, I was equally excited to talk with him about the history made in the Republican Party with Gov. Palin's selection. I admit that I had tears in my eyes when McCain made his VP announcement and Palin walked onto the stage. As a veteran who was against the invasion of Iraq, I was never going to vote for Sen. McCain and Palin was not going to change that--but nevertheless, as a female, pro-life Democrat, I was very interested in her candidacy.

Liberal feminists needed to learn the lesson that the gains of the women's rights movement weren't achieved solely to benefit left-leaning, pro-choice-only women, and conservative pols and pundits needed to learn that women, particularly mothers, are free to choose their professional paths and it's no one's business but their own to determine what works best for their families. In the span of a few short weeks, Gov. Palin's candidacy forced both sides to face their cultural prejudices and at least acknowledge these issues head-on.

That said, I'm disappointed. I'm disappointed with the way the campaign has kept her largely sequestered from the media and I'm disapointed with the substance (or lack thereof) that has been revealed to date. Does she have knowledge of, and opinions on, important issues that are beyond the scope of the campaign's talking points? Can she coherently discuss them? Thus far, the answers seem to be "no," "no," and "no," and Halcro's essay doesn't lead me to believe that I'll be dazzled anytime soon.

K, very thoughtful post. I completely agree with you in all respects, and especially appreciated the thoughts and far-minded reminders of the true post feminist realities, et al.

Let me try another way to get my point accross..

Can anyone here provide me with ANY evidence at all, that the processes in Washington DC, "experience" in politics, in ANY way produces great decisions and good results? I have yet to observe any in 20 years, except for a brief period when Newt got the GOP to at least temporarily remember something intelligent.

I submit to you that a few hundred people randomly chosen, and specifically and completely disconnected from the political system and parties, and not well versed in any of the current "issues" would so dramatically outperform, in terms of success and quality of decisionmaking, what is currently happening in DC, that the results would be shocking to the rest of us, and an embarrassment beyond belief to the displaced.

This is why I have no fear at all of Palin. I recognize the fact that life has equipped her to not be paralyzed by fear, to recognize she doesn't know everything, and to teach what is and is not important. These qualities in a person make them better than decent at serving the needs of governing. Can she policy-wonk with the best of them? No. Nor could I. But I submit that my, or Rods, or any one of the people here who are not wildly partisan, could and would perform vastly better than the best in DC right now.

Now I hope you understand my somewhat out of bounds reaction? I'm not trying to be insulting to anyone and if I am, I apologize, my point is that the premise of what's passing as "smart" or "good" in a politician is so wrong it is absurd.

Cliff Clavin could natter, but he couldn't debate.

The expectations for Palin are low, for Biden are high. She'll beat hers.

OK, everyone has offered their opinions of Palin ... but, honestly, shouldn't we all wait until after the debate and a few network interviews before making any conclusive judgments about Palin?

Whatever her intellectual wattage may be, we should remember that temperament is more important than IQ in the Oval Office. The 20th century Presidents with the hiqhest IQs were Jimmy Carter, Richard Nixon, Woodrow Wilson and Bill Clinton. All of them were more intellectually gifted than Teddy Roosevelt, FDR, Harry Truman, Dwight Eisenhower and Ronald Reagan. On balance, which group of Presidents was more successful?

When FDR was elected in 1932, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. said of FDR: "A second class intellect but a first class temperament." When Reagan was elected in 1980, that great sage of establishment Washington, Clark Clifford, dismissed the Gipper as an "amiable dunce."

Hmmm, FDR and RR didn't turn out too bad, did they :-)

It is still too early to say how Palin will turn out. BTW, wasn't the source which Rod quoted (Andrew Halcro) an erstwhile opponent of Sarah Palin? Hardly an unimpeachable source.

Some people have failed to understand that there is a lot to learn about national and international politics, which Palin can't learn in one to four months. Even McCain,Biden and Obama have spent years mastering these things.
For Obama he knew he was going to stand for the Presidency and started learning about four years ago. if she had interest in national and international politics it would be easy for her to learn. But she shows no interest in the interviews and she just recites every thing like she going through the motions. Alaska politics is different from national politics. You have to have a broad understanding of the issues. Those talking about past U.S Vice-presidents and Presidents are living in the past. The world has changed now, so has the standing of the U.S. The challenges are much greater than in the past.
http://nanfukab.blogspot.com

Daniel: Interesting post. Let me comment on a few of your thoughts.

"We can watch the Couric interview, we can watch the Gibson interview.."

I saw the Gibson interview and read the analysis afterward. What struck me is that Gibson completely misquoted her comments about God and the troops (to Palin's credit, she gently but firmly challenged his phony version of her actual quote). Gibson also tried (unsuccessfully) to get her to buy-in to his definition of this amorphous entity described as the "Bush Doctrine." Charles Krauthammer, who actually coined the phrase in 2001, said that Gibson was way off base.

The media is in a "hunt and bag" frenzy regarding Palin, compared with their kid gloves approach to Obama.

"She will probably do okay at the debate. The expectations are so low that as long as she can pick out Alaska on a U.S. map,"

What about Biden? He's so confused that the other day he claimed that FDR went on TV in 1929 in an attempt to calm fears after the stock market crash. Too bad that TV wasn't in use in 1929 and that it was another 4 years before FDR would be inaugurated. If you're looking for some hearty laughs, I invite anyone on this blog to do a little research on YouTube and check out some of Blowhard Biden's more notable outbursts, lame comments and documented instances of plagiarism over the many years of his Washington career.

"The damage has already been done and its doubtful she will be able to rehabilitate her image, even if she suddenly seems competent and informed."

Indeed, much damage has been done, thanks to an absolutely unfair media that dares not ask any tough, probing questions of Barack Obama or his past. Some of them treat Obama tenderly because of their own ideological preferences. Others out of fear, no doubt, of reprisal and thuggish attacks (ask Stanley Kurtz).

I think she is deeply uninformed and incurious about the world outside her narrow range of experience.

What's your evidence for this?

And please don't cite interviews or "incoherency", that's a non-starter. I mean, real evidence.

"And please don't cite interviews or "incoherency", that's a non-starter. I mean, real evidence. "

I think you have it backwards. As a candidate, the burden of proof is upon her: SHE must demonstrate whatever it is she wishes for voters to understand about her. If Rod, who has been looking as hard as anyone, does not feel she has demonstrated substantial understanding of and curiosity about issues not directly related to Alaska*, than the problem lies with her, not us. Saying "you have no positive proof that she is incurious" is akin to saying someone cannot positively prove God does not exist.

*forgive me, Rod, if I am misstating what you mean by "narrow range of experience"

Zoe: please don't worry, I understood your question...

Certainly a fair one, and perhaps I should explain a bit more..

I don't presume that people are "incurious" about the world around them. Nor that they are ignorant, nor uneducated, nor anything else when I meet them. For me to form that judgement, I have to observe something at least pretty concrete before I will make that judgement call, and then I require some evidence to the contrary, strong evidence, before I will reverse that opinion.

I also presume that at least most people behave this way. Most of us do operate, at least outside the realm of partisan bickering, by giving people the benefit of the doubt. We tend to project our own thoughts and notions and behavior upon the blank space of those we do not know.

Thus, I asked Rod, "what evidence"? The presumption is that he requires, you require, everyone requires, some pretty solid evidence to make that judgement. If he hasn't or doesn't, it will be apparent. If he uses different criteria than I, that, too, will be apparent.

Again, this is not a debate, requiring the rules regarding proving the negative, it is a communication based upon common sense assumptions about both the character and behavior of reasonable people.

However, I would like to move the goalposts a bit to continue my argument: even if we assume intelligence, curiosity, and depth of understanding on her part, I would still argue that upon her lies a burden of proof. She must demonstrate how she has applied these abilities of hers towards issues pertinent to running the country. I don't care if her boundless curiosity keeps her up at night poring over information about the possibly imminent collapse of our financial system if she is not able to discuss what she understands the situation to be, and pass judgment on what our nation should do about it. Of course, this goes for any issue.

I think what we've seen is a bit of over-handling on the part of the campaign. That can can do serious damage to anyone's image in people's minds.

Regardless, I have yet to see what I regard as her real self, except in some random candid video clips and parts of her acceptance speech.

Sadly, that seems to be acceptable campaigning these days. Does anyone remember the laments all through the Clinton years about how "Clinton needs to find his voice" and "maybe he's found his voice" repeated endlessly?

Sadly, we were seeing who Bill really was... shallow, narcissistic, without courage or will.

My wife is not particularly political. It doesn't do much but bore her, but while the debate was on, I happened to read a paragraph about his voting "present" so much and her reaction was "That sounds like Bill Clinton", very disgustedly. Admittedly, I'm slow, but that cued me into listening and reading a bunch of stuff and I've come to the same conclusion - he's very little different from Clinton - except he's a really radical ideologue, whereas Clinton was just a panderer.

Honestly, I can't find any of this in anything I can find about Palin. Well, you can find critics saying everything from her being a retard to the devil incarnate to an empty headed bimbo ( much of it then echoed by a few gutless republicans, who haven't the courage to actually believe in someone if there's even a slight chance it might embarass them later), or some wild-eyed radical, but that's not evidence of anything but animosity.

It seems we conservatives fall into two camps... the "I hate all politicians" types and the "I love until I get cold feet" types. So, while I detest politicians, and really abhor the creepy liberal ones, Palin's not one of either of them, and until or unless some serious evidence comes up that she's actually any of these things the wavering types like Rod and some commentators suddenly started blabbing, I just don't believe it. It contradicts my gut. It took me over three decades to learn to trust my gut, and I give it high credence when making decisions - and putting off making ill informed ones.

It's funny, it's the small things that are the most telling about people. I saw some of them in Bush after 9-11, and my gut has told me to stick to what I know. Some stories about Bush and his loyalty to the people under him confirmed what I had been impressed to think.

I've seen a little from Palin, and it's all positive. But not much.

You see, I don't give a rip about the means by which most of the posters here judge a candidate. To me, character is the top priority. I'd rather have a brutally honest liberal with integrity governing, than someone who merely claims conservatism. An honest liberal won't be a liberal for long. But someone without integrity repeating all the right stuff will not DO the right stuff, they suddenly abandon their beliefs when the going gets a little rough. That's not who I want as president. I want the guy who will shrug off any kind of heat to do the right thing. I saw Bush do that. We don't apparently agree on a lot ideologically, but that's the full measure of a man's character, just what he does when nobody's looking.

I want someone who claims they believe in small government and free markets... and will still do so NO MATTER WHAT HAPPENS. Why? Because those things are true and proven, and when things get rough is when we need that the most. I want someone who has no ulterior motives, or who has reasons to be less than perfectly responsible to cover up their lack of integrity. I want someone who has the courage of what he believes, no matter what. No fair weather friends for me.

So you say, Bush wasn't much of a conservative. NOpe. But he does have character, and not only were his opponents flaming radical leftists, they had no character. And so it is. Obama has no character. None. I can find mountains of evidence to suggest that, and nothing at all to refute it. it's all over his words, voting record, actions, positions, and even arguments.

I think we'll see Palin get away from her handlers and be her. And if that confirms what I think I see... I'm no fair weather friend. I'm there, NO MATTER WHAT.

The only way Palin can avert a disaster on Thursday is to morph into a culture warrior and make Obama's "unacceptable liberalism" the theme of the night. This does not require a mastery of policy details, just effective rhetoric. By making Obama the object of attention, she takes the spotlight off of herself. She has to keep coming back to the issue of who would be the true reformer and whose reforms would be palatable (i.e., not too liberal) for the American people. If she is allowed to introduce the main culture war themes of the McCain/Palin campaign in the closing month (Wright, Ayers, radical leftwing voting record), that too would get people talking about something other than her.

She should try a little self-deprecating humor, too.

She will do fine. Look at how GWB underperformed so laughably at his debates with Kerry, and he still got elected. IF we are actually so shamefully stupid and careless as to elect someone now even worse, we deserve exactly what happens to this country. That there are many people defending Palin (well beyond this blog) shows that many no longer are interested in leaders who are something better, smarter, stronger than us. Did it start with Carter this wanting to see someone "down home" and "like us" in power or had it begun before that? I would so rather see someone far out of my league with their intelligence, positive personality traits, accomplishments and potential than character after character who could have been selected from the dimmest and dullest, nastiest and most ignorant of my neighborhood folks.

Rod, the end of your post is unfair. If this debate were on energy, would you really be putting your money on Sen. Biden? If you say, Gov. Palin was rushed to the top you may have a point, but an empty suit is too far. Out of her league is a fair take, empty suit is not fair.

If she is allowed to introduce the main culture war themes of the McCain/Palin campaign in the closing month (Wright, Ayers, radical leftwing voting record), that too would get people talking about something other than her.

Except she doesn't need to appeal to culture war hawks. She needs to appeal to Indepedents, who are not as interested in culture war issues. Her problem is that she's already polarized the electorate, attracting the far right but repelling liberals and Independents. To win over Independents, she needs to appear competent and on top of issues. Screaching about Obama being too liberal only opens her up for questions about how extremist she and McCain are on the right.

She needs to appeal to Indepedents, who are not as interested in culture war issues.

In McCain's defense, he desperately needed to shore up his base, which was not going to walk door-to-door for him. He calculated that he could throw the right a bone in Palin, get them motivated, and then campaign in the center. He might have gotten away with it if it weren't for two things: Palin's utter, laughable inexperience and the credit collapse.

Worse, as Rod notes, we're starting to see a Bushian obtuseness from her. While I was disgusted by the shameless empty-gesture nature of the pick, I thought Palin might have made for a good candidate down the road. Now that's beginning to look less and less likely.

Admittedly, I'm a Democrat, but there are so many intelligent women on the GOP side that I'd like to see in a debate, and I feel really bad for them right now. I can't imagine how Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins, and our own Kay Bailey Hutchison must be feeling right now, seeing this "central casting" pick as the stand-in for all the accomplished women of the GOP. I'll bet they all wish it was them preparing to take a piece out of Joe Biden!

As a Democrat, I'm glad McCain picked Palin; as an American, though, it makes me wonder what's happening to my country, that the GOP only wants to satisfy "the base" instead of finding out what people really want, and how their party is best suited to serve. I'd feel better about the country if McCain had picked someone else, even if his pick made it harder to win. (My Democratic Party friends keep telling me to shut up about that, but with me it's--y'know--country first).

"Did it start with Carter this wanting to see someone "down home" and "like us" in power or had it begun before that?"

I think it probably goes back to Andrew Jackson. Although Jackson was a wealthy planter by the time he got elected he seemed more "frontier" and common. This is in large part because common people started being allowed to vote. By the 1850s voters didn't even have to have enough wealth to be taxed. This allowed Abraham Lincoln to get elected, which is bad from the "down home people should stay down home" perspective you mention.

Basically if you allow "commoners" to vote many of them are going to be drawn to commoners or people who seem like commoners. Although Bush doesn't fit that as he was certainly not a commoner. He is close to what the Founders had in mind. He was a white Protestant male child of privilege. His ancestors had been in the colonies since before the Revolution and he attended Yale. He was a member of "Skull and Bones", which I don't think existed in the age of the Founders, but still many of them belonged to elite clubs. That people can actually lament him as a sign the voters just want "John Q. Public" is bordering on hilarious. In 2000 everyone knew he was a wealthy child of a President from old New England stock. However he was running against a more annoying wealthy child of privilege of Tennessee stock. Then in 2004 he was running against another child of privileged New England stock. He only seemed common in comparison, if that. I voted for him in 2000 because he was Pro-Life, but seemed more concerned for the poor than his Dad. I didn't think he was "like me." Although I'll grant some people might have felt he was "like them" on some level.

Anyway the upshot of allowing commoners to vote for commoners is that sometimes ordinary people do extraordinary things. Like Lincoln or Truman. Also sometimes elite people underperform. Franklin Pierce was practically a child prodigy and by his era's standards he was physically fit and attractive. He was also something of a drunk and considered to be one of our worst Presidents.

Thomas R: That is an interesting analysis and I agree that W is nothing like a commoner. Even so, I have the strong sense that millions believed him to be "like me" and voted for him because of it. In a similar way, Clinton is from the elite, but he could pass himself off as a regular guy, while typical Democrats come off exactly as the stuffed-shirt elites that they really are.

I think it is interesting, BTW, that many months before the '00 and '04 elections most bumpers in the parking lot at my children's Catholic high school proudly displayed Bush stickers. This year I've only seen 2 McCain stickers, and we're only weeks away from the election. The bumper sticker pattern is the same elsewhere in Ohio except that many more stickers showed up when Palin was added to them.

Vern, your argument is wonderfully put. Trouble is, I doubt very much that Palin can even think all of that, let alone express it clearly.

I don't mean as much the personal family backgrounds of our national leaders, because as GWB alone shows so well one can be a bumbling doofus come from privilege. I'm as common and humble as it comes in my background--and I want someone better educated than me or my friends and neighbors, someone VASTLY more informed, more interested and passionate about the country and world, someone to look up to, not someone to look across over at. Leaders should earn their positions through something more than personality contests and media granted celebrity. Sarah Palin "is" me, my sister or mother, my friends--and bless her pro-life, outdoorsy, attractive and Alaskan heart but I don't want her in such a critical position of power and influence or to possibly be our president.

I don't really get this whole elite thing. In what sense is Clinton from the elite? Is getting a good education via scholarships enough to make one so?

My personal opinion is that Governor Palin is exactly what we need right now. As far as her qualififcations go; Big game hunter in grizzly country, being an executive at the state and local level, Mother of 5, Pro-life who walks the walk, tells ME every I need to know about her. She is tough and posseses charactor. All the stuff you all are obsessing about can be learned in a month. True Grit is aquired over a lifetime (or not) the ability to do the right thing, no matter what is the primary requirement for President or Vice President.

Is not the possibility of Palin's presidency scaring you? This is the best comment I have ever read about the election:

"As a person with conservative views I disagree with almost everything Obama says. However, unlike McCain Obama is not going to make gravely dangerous decisions".

But McCain would rather lose the country than election.

Rod, I am asking you to reconsider your position. Please put the country first.

"As a person with conservative views I disagree with almost everything Obama says. However, unlike McCain Obama is not going to make gravely dangerous decisions".

You're right. Obama will risk nothing. Ever. He has a track record on that. No matter how minor the risk, he's prepared to vote "present", to avoid having to take a stand.

If to you, this is "wisdom" and 'good decisionmaking', you and I have absolutely no point of reality in common.

Obama ran as fast as he could from even being in the conversation about the bailout, rather than attempt to lead. "If you want me, you can call me.." Which is a complete and utter abdication of leadership.

No, Obama will not make "dangerous decisions", he will take the easy way out of everything. His entire elected history in federal service a vast repetition of that notion. And that, sadly, is so incomprehensibly more dangerous to the nation, it would be treason, in my estimation.

Renee: Beltway-speak has nothing to do with being articulate or not. It is a manner of speaking where you learn to use a lot of emotionally reactive words, use profound sounding phrases, but avoid trapping yourself by saying anything in concrete or solid terms.

Obama is a master of this, he says nothing of substance... ever.

It's calculating your words to be tuned to the emotions of the listner, NOT his intellect. It is deliberate vagueness, yet using specific words.

Whether one is articulate or not has nothing to do with this, though people who are articulate are better at it.

I have yet to see a single person here who can justify one iota of their comments about Palin's "unfitness" or "unpreparedness" for Washington. In every case, they address various aspects of whether or not she can or does "policy wonk" her way through questions, and whether or not she glibly spills out all the "beltway phrases" they rely on to judge her knowledge.

Some are actually going so far as to say that until you've been in government longer, you're not well educated enough to serve.

All these nabobs running around yammering about Palin being ignorant... Can they point to anyone they consider NOT ignorant in Washington DC and hold them up as an example of wisdom?

Hell no! There is no evidence WHATSOEVER that life in DC does anything but REDUCE your abilities as far as judgement, thought, and wisdom are concerned.

More on this in the lead entry on this blog in a few...

Vice presidential candidates should be seriously, and thoroughly vetted by their running mates for the sake of offering the country a viable leader in the case of a president's unexpected death or removal from office. Who can sincerely say that Palin was properly vetted with our country's well being in mind? Not McCain. Not anybody. McCain's insincere recklessness alone is worth voting against.