Thus revealed, the creature buried its nose in the tire-tilled soil...
September 12, 2008
Also, about Sarah Palin...
Category: Linkage … Serious I the only person who thinks she sounds dumb as all hell in this interview with Charlie Gibson? Maybe that's just how she talks, but she sounds like she's reciting these answers from memory rather than actually thinking about and responding to Gibson's specific questions. And then there's this exchange, where she clearly has no idea what Gibson's talking about. I'm totally not impressed, but I wonder how the general public (particularly the people who didn't roll their eyes and groan when she started spewing that lameness about God's plan and quoting the Declaration of Independence) will react. In any case, Sarah, you'd better do some more Wikipedia cramming before that next interview!

For like the sixteenth time this week, I am reminded of these Sinfest strips:

2008-09-06: Imperil The World 6
2008-09-07: Imperil The World 7

I like Roger Ebert's take on Palin as well.

-posted by Wes | 7:12 am | Comments (5)
  • dave says:

    I read a transcript and at one point he rephrases his question three times, and she repeats the same line three times - the opposite of what you do when you're trying to clarify something. She doesn't know what the Bush Doctrine is, she equates seeing the Russian shoreline with having an educated opinion about Russian politics - and without stating what that opinion might be. She stumbles and then remembers that NATO requires us to "be expected to be called upon" to defend fellow members - what does that passive statement mean? Who's doing the expecting and calling, and what is the U.S .going to do?
    She sounded like someone being grilled by a lawyer with the purpose of being found innocent, rather than someone being interviewed with the purpose of letting the audience get a better understanding of her.
    I use the term "being grilled" passively because it is from her point of view that I get the grilling. (otherwise I would have said Charles Gibson grilled her) but really, I think he interviewed her, and she turned it into a grilling by blatantly avoiding any candid answers.
    America Idol is a great analogy. I was thinking of some sort of high school debate or creativity competition where everyone gets supportive of the kid who obviously gave a great effort and put in the time and thought - but it's obvious he worked hard, and it's obvious he's a kid playing a role, not an adult naturally doing what he does best.

  • Ro says:

    Her responses are very beauty pageant -esque, sorasher's and robotic.

    Ugh! who wants a beauty pageant contestant for VP? Just like we wouldn't want a class clown for President...oh wait.

  • Ro says:

    I meant rehearsed. I don't know what, "sorasher's" is. 🙂

  • Dave says:

    Wes, have you see this:

    It's Charles Krauthammer - who is credited for coining the term Bush Doctrine. I don't 100% buy his defense because Charles Gibson initially gave Sarah the chance to answer the question, and sitting there herself, she had the opportunity to call bullshit on his definition.

    I remember kinda liking how Hillary hit back at Tim Russert after he asked her bullshit questoins, until I saw Mitt Romney handle those kind of questions live without complaining, and then realized that it is possible to handle him, and she couldn't do it (and subsequently Mike Huckabee, Barack Obama and others handled them without looking bad or complaining.... Ron Paul sat there and whined for the whole half hour that asking him to account for his actions was unfair) Next time Hillary was on Russert, he let her squirm out of some important questions, obviously there must have been some pre-agreement.

    But Sarah Palin is doing neither! Not even the lame Hillary post game. If she can't handle tough talk from the press, what is she going to do with world leaders? The thing is, Charles Krauthammer isn't going to be there when she's talking to Vladimir Putin (you know, about his beachfront real estate)

    I remember a conversation I had over the past year that Hillary seems to fight back when nobody is even attacking her - that she's trying to look tough when nobody is even accusing her of not. I said I got the impression that she would be the most aggressive of all the candidates in international matters, because she'd want to prove that she's tough, and that the moment someone was perceived to disrespect her, she'd send in troops. I also pointed out that some leaders might be dismissive of her because she's female, so she wouldn't be 100% out of line, since being dismissive of diplomacy might rationally require action.

    My friend's response was that any woman president would be in that position because diplomacy only works when backed up by force, and if they think she'll be a pushover because she's a woman (not to mention a Democrat) she might have to prove otherwise - and Hillary happens to be an extreme version of someone who is known to prove she's not to be ignored.

    But watching Sarah Palin! How could a world leader of any sort treat her with respect when she can't handle an interview!!! She was so vague on who's being called upon to do what and what kind of action is best for the US. that she'd have to attack "somebody" to prove she's serious.
    She didn't answer clearly the question about Pakistan. In fact, I think Gibson dropped the ball more than once - journalists often do because the time limit on TV interviews is limited so they have to move on. But his question wasn't whether the US should do "whatever is needed to keep us safe" but rather what was needed. He was asking about invading Pakistan, not some generic question. if it were generic, it would equally apply to invading Tahiti because Davros is hiding out there building his Dalek army. (and of course in that case the army should keep out and let the Doctor handle it)
    If we should be invading Pakistan, why aren't we? Would she dare criticize George Bush?

  • Wes says:

    Dave: Having read that -- and having previously read some of Krauthammer's other columns -- I'm inclined to discount his defense as well. It's even more unconvincing because, after Palin initially didn't know what Gibson was talking about, he clarified by saying that he meant the Bush Doctrine as enunciated in September 2002. And then she gave a muddled and rambling answer even after he defined it for her!

    Palin's failure in that exchange didn't stem from her not knowing which definition of the term Gibson was referring to, but rather that she wasn't familiar with any of them. His worldview? Ridiculous.

Leave a Reply...