ABC's Palin-Gibson interview was everything people hoped for - no matter which side you're on.
For the we're moving-to-Canada-if-she-wins crowd, the fears that Uncle Charlie would play softball with the new political celeb were unfounded. The man stepped up to the plate. He dealt with all the current front-burner issues. He was tenacious, sometimes asking the same question three times. And when he told her he was "lost in a blizzard of words," you could hear the cheers from Obamanians across the land.
And if you hoped Mrs. Palin's "American Idol" status would be shaken, you got it. The Bush Doctrine - what's that? Invade Russia - possibly? Many of her answers sounded rote and spin-based. At times, the annoyingly confident candidate looked nervous, unsure and not ready for prime-time. YES!
However, for the 'Palin-as-Super-Hero' crowd, her first national news interview was a re-affirmation of McCain's prescient casting of his presidential understudy, ready to go on if the old warrior can't show up. She confidently answered the questions she knew were coming and evaded the nasty ones, effectively pivoting back to her talking points. The lady's got spunk. If there's any criticism, it should be directed at the pompous, impatient professor Gibson, looking condescendingly over his glasses like the 'girl' was failing this important exam. But what do you expect from the eastern media elites who are trying to tear her down?
See, everybody walks away from this media event well satisfied. Except, perhaps, for those much sought-after independants who would prefer tenacious questioning minus any haughty overlay that tends to color and skew the outcome. Oh, Tim Russert, you are missed now, more than ever.
THAT THE INTERVIEWER (Gibson/ABC)
HAD TO CONTINUOUSLY EXPLAIN
TO THE INTERVIEWEE ( "Sarah The Barracuda")
WHAT THE QUESTION WAS.
We have here a prospective Vice President being interviewed by a journalist (i.e., someone with the same "scientific" background).
The interviewer seems to be better prepared than the interviewee.
Question from the European onlookers - why is the interviewer not a contender for Vice Presidency ?
I agree with this assessment, because I am a professor myself. And the way she tried to vamp over things like the Bush Doctrine sounded and looked to me like every other student who has unsuccessfully tried to bullshit me about things they don't understand on material they have not bothered to read. It wasn't "like" the "girl was failing this important exam." It was that this fully grown woman WAS failing a critically important exam. I saw that and thought, "OK. You just failed. Go back and take the course again and pay attention this time."
She doesn't get a free pass because she's a woman. I AM a woman and I earned my degree honestly.
then maybe Charr leee, was just annoyed she kept saying his name, Charr leee.
Molly Ivans was a legend in her own time who had a following world wide among those who relish an acerbic wit & unflinching honesty. She was bigger than Texas or this planet, Say Molly Ivans & you define wit. She ranks with Ambrose Bierce, H L Mencken, Dorothy Parker & Mark Twain among America's wits.
So the question is whether Georgia should be a member of NATO in the circumstances.
This is the question that should have been asked as a competent answer would necessarily involve a consideration of realistic global politics as well as subtle national stance on where the US and NATO should and shouldn't be getting involved - and Palin's incompetence in this area would have been glaringly revealed.
Pity it wasn't.
However Palin's assertion that the Russian invasion of Georgia was 'unprovoked' does demonstrate either an embarrassing ignorance of the underlying events, or was a deliberate and dangerous lie.