If we had more of a body of work to judge Palin on aside from that garbled, nonsensical interview we might be able to pass it along as nerves, or lack of preparedness, but as it stands we don't have that broad body of work or public statements to look at so it looks pretty fucking awful. I'm willing to withhold final judgment until the conclusion of tonight's debate ... not that a break-out performance will sway me to vote for McCain Palin, but maybe if she shows a facility to actually understand national and international issues, I won't be completely terrified if McCain and she are elected into office. I have serious reservations about Obama's level of experience, but at least the man has shown an ability to articulate his views on complex issues, and his insurance plan (Biden) is easily one of the most experienced men in foreign affairs this country currently possesses. Let's not kid ourselves though, no matter who is president, the next four years are probably going to be dominated by issues larger than an individual; in the economy and world affairs, we've got some real messes to face in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Russia, North Korea, trade policy, energy policy, the national debt, etc. and we're not going to be able to fix them all. It wouldn't hurt to start learning to grow your own food.
I have yet to see one member of Congress fully understand this issue. Her idiotic and rambling answer isn't much far off of theirs.
He was an idiotic blowhard with Chuck Scarborough in the 1980s and two decades hasn't given him much additional wisdon.
The VP has two responsibilities: 1. Inquire as to the health of the President 2. Break any ties as President of the Senate. That's it.
I'm pretty sure that was her point when she answered the question as to why she wouldn't consider being VP.
<!--[if IE]><object type="application/x-shockwave-flash" id=W4727a250e66f972348e4f74fbd2b63a6" width="384" height="283"><param name="movie" value="http://widgets.nbc.com/o/4727a250e66f9723/48e4f74fbd2b63a6/4741e3c5156499a7/9c94c5b9/-cpid/99c40a5820955d91" /><![endif]--><!--[if !IE]>--><object type="application/x-shockwave-flash" data="http://widgets.nbc.com/o/4727a250e66f9723/48e4f74fbd2b63a6/4741e3c5156499a7/9c94c5b9/-cpid/99c40a5820955d91" id="W4727a250e66f972348e4f74fbd2b63a6" width="384" height="283"><!--<![endif]--><param name="wmode" value="transparent" /><param name="allowNetworking" value="all" /><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always" /></object>
You forgot running into the bunker in South Dakota (under Mt. Rushmore) if the President is ever attacked. Seriously I think it won't really matter. Whomever is the next Pres/VP is going to be guiding the country through a whole lotta lovin' in the next four years. And I don't mean good lovin', I mean like hillbilly Jim after three-fifths of Whiskey and an epsiode of Nascar's greatest hits lovin'.
In a way, I feel for Palin. That response comes across to me as someone who has been cramming for a test. Just throw everything you have learned out there and hope some of it sticks. Truth is she has very little understanding of national issues. Can you blame her. She is is 44 years old, has been governor of Alaska for about two years and prior to that a mayor to a town of 7,000-9,000 people. Really this is almost hockey mom turns into VP candidate . . . and when you do that, this is what you get. Such a poor decision by McCain . . . really an act of desperation where he had to take a gamble. And unless Palin can change it around tonight, McCain's gamble won't pay off and be the demise of his campaign (which might have been on the demise without Palin anyways).
I should have said "Jack Cafferty is entertaining". Any media member that isn't afraid to say exactly what's on their mind is. I'm a fan of O'Reilly because of that, too.
My issue isn't so much that she's not saying much (or just saying gibberish), because all politicians say that kind of stuff. My issue is that she's not only saying gibberish, but isn't actually giving any examples that are even remotely close to what needs to be said. You can talk gibberish and give some generic examples (even naming stuff) and people buy it. I realize that all candidates will say certain phrases, or words to grab the attention of the citizens in the US. One of the best phrases is "taxes". It's the most common, and easiest to throw out there without much information supporting your words. People need to hear certain things to feel comfortable about a candidate (taxes, terrorism, "god", country, patriotism, creating jobs, etc), but usually when they're said by a candidate, they're in context of what they're saying. All she does is inject some of those phrases into her answers, and being vague thinking that's all she has to do. There's no context to them, there's no intelligent design in her answers, and she's void of giving anything of substance as a response. It's like doing a book report you did in grade school, where you read the first chapter and the last chapter and guessed at what the rest of the story is based on what you read in the first and last chapters. So you employ double speak, and a lot of fancy words to inflate your paper. As I've said before, they all do it but she's doing that in spades. When as a politician, make the average political answer sound like a well thought out response, where they use facts, figures and examples to back it up, you really did a poor job. That's what she's presently doing. Now onto the debate: Kind of like my earlier post about the Presidential debate, I think she might do really good in the debate tonight. I don't know if she'll "win" (nor do I think Biden will "win"). It wouldn't surprise me. It'd anger me because I don't think her or McCain are good for the country in the long run..although I'm not sure Obama/Biden are good for the country in the long run, they're just better in the long run imho. The choice is kind of like being told you have 6 months to live and being told you have 6 years to live where there might be a cure later on. Both suck, but one is better. I do have issues with how the VP debate will be received. Much like the Presidential one was "won" by each side (but notice how hardly anything from that debate is being talked about), I think that this one will be spun as a positive for Palin if she gets a couple soundbites out of it, and spun positive if the same is true of Biden. But in the long run, it won't really make a huge difference. In a way, there's a paradox happening here. People who think she'll do bad, are setting her up for a successful debate. Those who think she's a "barracuda" because of how she handled herself in the Gubernatorial debates in Alaska and therefore will do good here, are setting her up for a poor showing. Gubernatorial debates in Alaska aren't the same as debating Biden (or anyone in the national picture). The issues, and manner in which you can debate as a Governor are completely different than that of the VP debate. Several millions of people are watching this. Maybe even hundreds of millions. It potentially has the course of history at stake. I don't know about you, but if I was in front of camera/audience where all this was at stake, I'd probably freeze and anything I do know would slowly start to drain from my brain.
