The Gibson Interview
(updated below several times)
Though I'm not particularly impressed by Charlie Gibson's interview style or his choice of questions, I will give him this much: by focusing on issues of war and peace, he is at least forcing viewers to try to picture Palin making the most consequential decisions imaginable. And there have to be a lot of voters out there who--like me--find that prospect completely terrifying.
As for Palin herself, she did okay, but she definitely came across like someone who had crammed for a test and was regurgitating recently memorized talking points.
I hope Gibson is saving the probing questions about Palin's background for tomorrow. I'm not optimistic, but who knows, maybe he's building to a Frost/Nixon style climax.
UPDATE: A friend writes in:
UPDATE III: Not surprisingly, the right wing blogs are all incensed that the media is making such a big deal out of the Gibson interview. What do they expect, though? Until now, this woman--who could be president in two months--has refused to answer any questions from reporters. The McCain campaign made this a much bigger deal than it had to be by refusing to do it for so long. They hyped it up themselves. And by doing so, they almost forced Gibson to be a little bit tough on her. As the one person who has been allowed the opportunity to ask questions, he would have lost any reputation he had as a serious journalist if he only lobbed softballs at her (and, for the record, he didn't ask any particularly hard questions).
Though I'm not particularly impressed by Charlie Gibson's interview style or his choice of questions, I will give him this much: by focusing on issues of war and peace, he is at least forcing viewers to try to picture Palin making the most consequential decisions imaginable. And there have to be a lot of voters out there who--like me--find that prospect completely terrifying.
As for Palin herself, she did okay, but she definitely came across like someone who had crammed for a test and was regurgitating recently memorized talking points.
I hope Gibson is saving the probing questions about Palin's background for tomorrow. I'm not optimistic, but who knows, maybe he's building to a Frost/Nixon style climax.
UPDATE: A friend writes in:
Although I only saw the first segment, your lukewarm reaction is much more generous than I had. Although I know she has no experience in foreign policy, I expected her to be better. Any person with a passing fancy for reading the news should be able to answer with ease the questions that Gibson asked.UPDATE II: This morning I listened to part of the Gibson/Palin interview on the radio, and it struck me that however telegenic she is, it really doesn't translate at all on radio. When I watched the interview last night, I thought there were some cringe-inducing moments, but that it wasn't the trainwreck it could have been. But listening to her on the radio this morning was just flat-out painful. Has anyone else had that experience with her? I wonder how many independent and swing voters get their news primarily through the radio.
The ones that got me were:
The Russia neighbor as foreign policy experience ("We can see Russia from Alaska!"). I wish he would have asked her how many territorial disputes (or other important foreign-policy issues) she undertook with high-level Russian diplomats. Although doubtful, maybe she did have those contacts but that question should make or break that argument.
The Bush Doctrine question was cringe inducing. She obviously had no idea what he was talking about, even though it has been the defining issue of our foreign policy since 2003 (i.e. war in Iraq).
I was a little disappointed in her performance but the thing that got me were the other two frat boys who were in the restaurant where I was watching. I expected them to be fawning over the attractive woman or ignoring it but they were merciless with their criticism. I've seen a lot of political theater with other random people over the last few years and I've never seen someone get so hammered by the peanut gallery. Granted, I don't think the partisans will be embarrassed or the press critical but it was surprising.
UPDATE III: Not surprisingly, the right wing blogs are all incensed that the media is making such a big deal out of the Gibson interview. What do they expect, though? Until now, this woman--who could be president in two months--has refused to answer any questions from reporters. The McCain campaign made this a much bigger deal than it had to be by refusing to do it for so long. They hyped it up themselves. And by doing so, they almost forced Gibson to be a little bit tough on her. As the one person who has been allowed the opportunity to ask questions, he would have lost any reputation he had as a serious journalist if he only lobbed softballs at her (and, for the record, he didn't ask any particularly hard questions).
posted by A.L. at 7:32 PM
17 Comments:
Honestly she sounded ditsy. (A guy can sound ditsy too, I'm not slurring her gender). It was very shallow, very pleading. Obvious to me she was in way over her head. I hope swing voters saw it the same way.
By the time she got done with the Holy War segment, she had pattently contradicted herself - "I don't know if it's a task from God." Her quote had been, "It is a task from God." Well which is it Palin? Pretty pathetic.
Her "Lincoln said" business was a transparent dodge. That is not what she said in the church.
Wasilla Assembly of God
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Wasilla Assembly of God
Information
Denomination Assemblies of God (Pentecostal)
Founded 1951
Founder(s) Paul Riley
Senior Pastor(s) Ed Kalnins
Pastor(s) Scott Phillips (Assistant)
Todd Stafford (Assistant)
Nathan Lopez (Youth)
Contact particulars
Address 125 West Riley Ave
Wasilla, Alaska 99654
Country United States
Website http://www.wasillaag.org/
According to the Wall Street Journal, congregants "speak in tongues and are part of a faith that believes humanity is in its 'end times' -- the days preceding a world-ending cataclysm bringing Christian redemption and the second coming of Jesus."[2]
Oh my GOD... she WANTS a war to bring back Jesus.
God help us all.
Abraham Lincoln was not a God-monger.
Early in the Civil War, when he was trying to stop the Border States (Missouri, Kentucky, Maryland, Delaware) from seceding, he said:
"Whatever about having God on my side, I must have Kentucky."
Can you imagine George W. Bush or Sarah Pal saying that?
I can't imagine him going to war for Georgia either. What exactly are the USA's vital interests there?
Sarah Palin is in a bit of a "no-win" situation. Inevitably, the more she engages with the media, the more her "feminine mystique" will erode. The McCain campaign will try as much as possible to keep her away from interviews.
I hope the Obama campaign is sensitive to that. When will she start doing daily press conferences like Joe Biden? What sort of "pit bull with lipstick" fights shy of engaging with the media? Its already caused a rift between the McCain camp and the press, many of whom adopted a sharply critical tone on the pig-gate farce. We'll see how that develops.
Conservative will probably give her 9 out 10 for her interview, Liberals a 5 or a 6.
From an Obama campaign point of view, it was target-rich:
- War in Georgia. What vital American interest is being served in Georgia? Basically a gas pipeline goes through it to Europe, and the European allies have no stomach for an eastern war; Georgia has zero strategic value to the US.
- She flunked the Bush Doctine question.
- Global warming. Palin only offered platitudes... she hedged on whether global warming was man-made. Clearly, she's all at sea (pardon the pun!) there.
- She has a poor record on the environment... her attempt to get polar bears off the endangered species list (though she may not have noticed the shrinking ice that forms their habitat), her legalization of shooting wolves from the air (there's some get-wrenching footage of that going around - the yelps of dying wolves won't endear her to dog-lovers).
With Troopergate, the Bridge to Nowhere, and a poor record on women's issues this lady has problems.
At this point, I think we much admit that McCain's pick has worked for him brilliantly so far. Looking at the state-wide polling and the various models, Obama has been pegged back from an apparent 70-vote electoral college lead to a tie. Most of that can be explained by the energization of the evangelical base.
I think most of us thought Palin was best ignored. But she is actually John McCain's best prop; her appeal to moderates and undecideds has to be eroded. Dual attacks on McCain-Palin should be the norm for Obama.
It goes back to the old Rove play about attacking your opponent's strongest point (e.g. Kerry's war record). By launching a pre-emptive strike on Obama for "attacking" Palin (when he wasn't), the McCain camp are telegraphing their own greatest weakness.
There is a price to be paid by McCain for shackling himself to Palin, and Obama has to make sure he pays it. Palin will struggle to maintain her high popularity if she is subjected to the right form of attack. Her impact will inevitably soften ... at least the Obama campaign have to make sure it does.
BARACK OBAMA: "In a conference call with reporters, Obama said Clinton would continue the "Bush doctrine" of only speaking to leaders of rogue nations if they first meet conditions laid out by the United States."
Looks like Barack doesn't know what the Bush Doctrine is either!
http://cesspoolofhumanity.blogspot.
com/
"Looks like Barack doesn't know what the Bush Doctrine is ....!"
At this point, George Bush probably does not know what it is (was?) either :)
But his presumptive heiress, or the presumptive heiress to his heir (whatever), should know.
I will be away for a few days ... have really enjoyed commenting here.
Marc Ambinder has a really interesting post for anyone who has been taken by the swings in the polls and what Obama is doing. I would have loved to be a fly on the wall in that discussion:
http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/09/every_few_weeks_former_sen.php
Not to be too cynical, AL, but to your friend's comments, re: peanut gallery.
For every 2 of these frat boys, I've got 2 of my mother's friends who "just love Palin's 'story'" etc.
You watch the interview (so far) and you cringe. But for those who choose to live in the Bizzarro World, she's "got a great story," and that's that. I think Matthews, et al, call them "low-information voters" or something. Low information, of course, being the understatement of the century.
I could not bring myself to listen to Palin's interview. I hear her whiny voice, platitudes, and lies, then think of the possibility of her in the White House with her finger on the Armageddon trigger joyously ushering in the "rapture." All I saw was a replay of the portion where she obviously did not know what the Bush Doctrine was and thought surely that has to convey to people how totally unqualified she is for high office.
One of my friends categorizes the Republican selections of Bush, McCain, and Palin as "the glorification of ignorance." All three were terrible students, are inarticulate, and have only the most simplistic and superficial grasp of things. They know just enough to be dangerous, in other words. They all also have absolute faith that they are right and God is guiding them.
Why would America want such people running the country instead of bright, qualified, mentally balanced people? Is it because they have faith-based mentalities and are not rooted in reality? That's what most of the rest of the world would say. I honestly do not get the fascination with bozos and the gleeful acceptance of their lies and the consequences thereof.
Obama's celebrity star is fading, and now all the angry left can do is lash out at Sarah Palin.
With real movement in Washington state towards McCain (Obama ONLY +2!) care Oregon and a red Pacific Northwest be far behind?
Obama's political career is going down the toilet. If I were him, I'd be worried about my Senate seat in 2010.
*glug glug glug*
After reading Paul Krugman's latest piece ("Blizzard of Lies") I am coming back to my point about lying itself being the tie that binds McCain-Palin to Bush-Cheney. Krugman closes with this:
"I’m talking, instead, about the relationship between the character of a campaign and that of the administration that follows. Thus, the deceptive and dishonest 2000 Bush-Cheney campaign provided an all-too-revealing preview of things to come. In fact, my early suspicion that we were being misled about the threat from Iraq came from the way the political tactics being used to sell the war resembled the tactics that had earlier been used to sell the Bush tax cuts.
And now the team that hopes to form the next administration is running a campaign that makes Bush-Cheney 2000 look like something out of a civics class. What does that say about how that team would run the country?
What it says, I’d argue, is that the Obama campaign is wrong to suggest that a McCain-Palin administration would just be a continuation of Bush-Cheney. If the way John McCain and Sarah Palin are campaigning is any indication, it would be much, much worse."
In other words, lying, deceiving and distorting in a campaign presage a lying, deceiving, distorting Administration. McCain-Palin are signalling how much worse they would be even worse for America than Bush-Cheney. It is their lies that bind them together and signal their incredible danger.
I only read transcripts of political speeches, and her lack of depth came across loud and clear that way.
So where do "low-information voters" get the little information they get? I know two people who fit this category, and one gets it from talk radio (scary) and one gets it from fellow church-members (Baptist, natch, and truly frightening.)
The talk radio person can be reasoned with, but the religious person is completely encased in a hermetically sealed environment-of-belief. When you talk to this person you can clearly perceive that every statement you make is being held up against belief -- and any inconsistencies are rejected without thinking.
Palin looked like the clueless dolt that she patently is, although one worry I have is that it might actually *endear* her to the public, very much the same way Bush's complete and utter ignorance of foreign affairs ended up making him look "folksy" and common (or, rather, it was spun that way and people bought it whole). I'm thinking back to his inability to name General Musharraf ("The general...?", "General") and how people's reaction wasn't one of "Wow, do we want this guy to have the nuclear codes?", but rather one of "Aw, bless him".
Mind you, these days are slightly different to the hazy and cozy existence of pre-9/11 (which was also reflected in Bush portraying himself as more of a statesman and a "war President" by the time the 2004 election came rolling), and I should hope that most people will realize that it was primarily *because* we had a President who doesn't know jack about the outside world that we're currently stuck in a quagmire in Iraq and most of the world has come to pretty much hate our guts.
So I'm thinking that, unlike in 2000, such cluelessness will not play particularly well with the public. I think people *want* a President who at least has some knowledge of foreign affairs, who knows what the Bush doctrine is, and who won't say idiotic things like they'll attack Russia.
With regards to your first update, it's very curious, because I've heard many people say similar things and I have read similar things online. I know anectodes should never be treated as reliable evidence, but if the views and accounts I've read are anything to go by, then Palin hasn't done her campaign a lot of favors in this interview.
And I must admit, I find listening to her a chore as well. I immediately noticed this when she held her first acceptance speech a few days prior to the convention. Comparing her shrill hollering to Obama's baritone elegance - well, it's not even fair. It's a bit like holding a howling cat up to Luciano Pavarotti. Seriously. Nails on a chalkboard, my friends, nails on a chalkboard.
She's definitely better on TV. When I first heard her I was annoyed by her shrill voice. Something about the way she talks too just oozes fake. I'm not being sexist either because Hillary Clinton's voice has never bothered me and Lieberman's drives me nuts.
Greg said, "Obama's celebrity star is fading, and now all the angry left can do is lash out at Sarah Palin."
Do you guys ever think about this stuff? And I don't mean 'think' as in "I got this from hate radio"
For instance, "celebrity". Maybe there's a *reason* he gets that label. He's articulate, smart, good-looking, connects with people. How is that bad, actually? Ronald Reagan was a true celebrity - how much did you sneer when he was running (or would have, if you're younger)?
And, "angry left". OK, I admit it. I'm on the left, and I'm angry. Very angry. Rather than simply dismiss that with a sneering phrase with no actual meaning to you, can think about why I - a sensible, caring and somewhat intelligent person - would be angry? Any thoughts about that? No?
Here's the frustrating thing about this: *YOU* SHOULD BE ANGRY. Your government has lied to you, trashed your economy and environment, started a war for hoped-for profit on behalf of a very few wealthy friends and caused the deaths of *thousands* of young Americans, all while trashing our moral standing in the world - and that's just a start. And you're not angry?? What's WRONG with you??!
Finally, "Sarah Palin". This is WORST possible pick ever, with the sole purpose of pandering to people like you and nothing to do with position she's running for. Pointing that out is not "lashing out". Whatever we on the "angry left" say doesn't change any facts. She's terrible all on her own, based on her actions, her record, her opinions. She doesn't need us to sink her.
A.L. - sorry - can't resist yelling into the wind sometimes.
I'll add to Luke's comment and say that most wingnuts (including individuals here) calling anyone "angry" is a classic case of the pot calling the kettle black. These people are so hate-filled and vitriolic they would make a certain German dictator from the 1930s blush, and yet *they* have the gaul to call the left "angry".
But then that's a tactic to be expected from them - repeat a random accusation of your opponents, repeat it over and over again until you think it's true, and hopefully it'll stick.
Mind you, with wingnuts like Greg, we're looking at people who buy the line whole without questioning like the mindless, accepting lapdogs that they are; not the ones who actually do the fabricating. I would pity them if they didn't have the power to destroy this country and the world through their sheer ignorance.
Do we really expect anything more from someone who names her kids after weapons, hunting, and industrial parts? Where does she come up with those things, anyway? Wouldn't it be funny if it turned out that she was actually using the Sarah Palin Baby Name Wizard?
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home